text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We perform evolutionary calculations of binary stars to find progenitors of systems with parameters similar to the recurrent novae U Sco. We show that a U Sco type–system may be formed starting with an initial binary system which has a low–mass carbon-oxygen white dwarf as an accretor. Since the evolutionary stage of the secondary is not well known, we calculate sequences with hydrogen rich and helium rich secondaries. The evolution of the binary may be devided into several observable stages as: classical nova, supersoft X–ray source with hydrogen stable burning and strong wind phases, ending up with the formation of a massive white dwarf near the Chandrasekhar mass limit. We follow the chemical evolution of the secondary as well as of the matter lost from the system, and we show that observed $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C and N/C ratios may give some information about the nature of the binary.'
author:
- |
Ene Ergma$\rm ^{1}$, Jelena Gerškevitš$\rm
^{1,2}$ and Marek J. Sarna$\rm ^{2}$\
$\rm ^1~$ Physics Department, Tartu University, Ülikooli 18, 50510 Tartu, Estonia\
e–mail: ene$@$physic.ut.ee; jelen\[email protected]\
$\rm ^2~$ N. Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Bartycka 18, 00–716 Warsaw, Poland\
e–mail: sarna$@$camk.edu.pl; [email protected]\
date: 'Received; accepted'
title: An evolutionary scenario for the U Scorpii
---
epsf
-0.5in
binaries: close — binaries: general — stars: mass loss evolution — stars: recurrent novae — star: individual: U Sco
Introduction
============
Recurrent novae are a small class of objects which bear many similarities to other cataclysmic variable systems. They experience recurrent outbursts at intervals of 20–80 yrs.
Webbink et al. (1987) lengthily discussed the nature of the recurrent novae, and they concluded that according to outburst mechanisms there are two subclasses of these systems: (a) powered by thermonuclear runaway on the surface of the white dwarf (e.g. U Sco), and (b) powered by the transfer of a burst of matter from the red giant to the main–sequence companion.
U Sco is one of the best observed recurrent novae. Historically, its outbursts were observed in 1863, 1906, 1936, 1979, 1987 and in 1999. Determinations of the system visual luminosity at maximum and minimum, indicate a range $\Delta m_V \sim $9. We also note that the mean recurrent interval implied by known outbursts is $P_{rec} = 23 ~$yrs. Schaefer (1990) and Schaefer & Ringwald (1995) observed eclipses of U Sco in the quiescent phase, and determined the orbital period $P_{orb}$=1.23056 d.
Ejecta abundances have been estimated (from 1979 outburst) from optical and UV studies by Williams et al. (1981) and Barlow et al. (1981). They derived extremely helium rich ejecta He/H$\sim$ 2 (by number), while the CNO abundance was solar with an enhanced N/C ratio. From the analysis of the 1999 outburst Anupama & Dewangan (2000) obtained an average helium abundance of He/H$\sim$0.4$\pm$0.06. The estimated mass of the ejected shell for 1979 and 1999 outbursts is $\rm \sim 10^{-7} ~M_\odot$ (Williams et al. 1981; Anupama & Dewangan 2000). Spectroscopically, U Sco shows very high ejection velocities of (7.5–11)$\rm \times 10^3 ~km ~s^{-1}$ (Williams et al. 1981; Munari et al. 2000). Latest determinations of the spectral type of the secondary indicate a K2 subgiant (Anupama & Dewangan 2000; Kahabka et al. 1999). Following to Kahabka et al. (1999) the distance to U Sco is about 14 kpc.
According to Kato model (1996), supersoft X–ray emission is predicted to be observed about 10–60 days after the optical outburst. BeppoSAX detected supersoft X-ray emission from U Sco in range 0.2–20 keV just 19–20 days after the peak of its optical outburst in February 1999 (Kahabka et al. 1999). The fact that U Sco was detected as a supersoft X–ray source (SSS) is consistent with steady hydrogen burning on the surface of its white dwarf component.
In this paper we construct several evolutionary sequences which may lead to formation of systems like U Sco. In Section 2 the evolutionary code is briefly described. In Section 3 we discuss the effect of mass transfer on binary evolution. Section 4 contains the results of the calculations. A general discussion and conclusion follow.
The evolutionary code
=====================
The models of secondary stars filling their Roche lobes were computed using a standard stellar evolution code based on the Henyey–type code of Paczyński (1970), which has been adapted to low–mass stars (Marks & Sarna 1998, hereafter MS98).
Our nuclear reaction network is based on that of Kudryashov & Ergma (1980), who included the reactions of the CNO tri–cycle in their calculations of hydrogen and helium burning in the envelope of an accreting neutron star. We have included the reactions of the proton–proton (PP) chain. Hence we are able to follow the evolution of the elements: $^{1}$H, $^{3}$He, $^{4}$He, $^{7}$Be, $^{12}$C, $^{13}$C, $^{13}$N, $^{14}$N, $^{15}$N, $^{14}$O, $^{15}$O, $^{16}$O, $^{17}$O and $^{17}$F. We assume that the abundances of $^{18}$O and $^{20}$Ne stay constant throughout the evolution. We use the reaction rates of: Fowler, Caughlan & Zimmerman (1967, 1975), Harris at al. (1983), Caughlan et al. (1985), Caughlan & Fowler (1988), Bahcall & Ulrich (1988), Bahcall & Pinsonneault (1992), Bahcall, Pinsonneault & Wesserburg (1995) and Pols et al. (1995). We use the Eggleton (1983) formula to calculate the size of the secondary’s Roche lobe.
For radiative transport, we use the opacity tables of Iglesias & Rogers (1996). Where they are incomplete, we fill the gaps using opacity tables of Huebner et al. (1977). For temperatures lower than 6000 K we use the opacities given by Alexander & Ferguston (1994) and Alexander (private communication). For a more detailed description of the code see MS98.
The effects of mass transfer
============================
While calculating evolutionary models of binary stars, we must take into account mass transfer and associated physical mechanisms which lead to mass and angular momentum loss. Apart from angular momentum loss due to gravitational wave radiation and magnetic braking, there is additional loss due to the non–conservative nature of semidetached evolution, such as novae outbursts and strong optically thin/thick wind from white dwarf occuring during stable hydrogen shell burning phase.
We can express the change in the total orbital angular momentum ($J$) of a binary system as
$$\frac{\dot{J}}{J} = \left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm GWR} +
\left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm MSW} + \left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J}
\right|_{\rm NOAML} + \left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm FAML}
+ \left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm FWIND}$$
where the terms on the right hand side are due to: gravitational wave radiation, magnetic stellar wind braking, novae outbursts angular momentum loss (which describe the loss of angular momentum from the system due to non–conservative evolution), frictional angular momentum loss (which occurs during a novae outburst as the secondary orbits within the expanding novae shell and during strong optically thin/thick wind) and optically thin/thick wind from white dwarf (during stable hydrogen shell burning). The role of the first two terms have been discussed in many papers (see, for example, review paper by Verbunt 1993). In our paper we discuss the last three terms.
### Angular momentum loss associated with novae outbursts
To take account of the angular momentum loss that accompanies mass loss due to novae outbursts that occur on the surface of the white dwarf during the semidetached phase, we use a formula based on that used to calculate angular momentum loss via a stellar wind (Paczyński (1967); Ziółkowski (1985) and De Greve (1993)),
$$\left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{NOAML} = f_{1} \: f_{2} \:
\frac{M_{wd} \: {\dot{M}}_{sg}}{M_{sg} \: M_{tot}}, \:\:\:\:\: {\rm where}
\:\:\:\:\: \dot{M} = f_{1} \: {\dot{M}}_{sg}.$$
$f_{1}$ is the ratio of the mass ejected by the white dwarf to that accreted by the white dwarf; $f_{2}$ is defined as the effectiveness of angular momentum loss during mass transfer (Sarna & De Greve 1994, 1996); $ M_{wd} $ and $ M_{sg} $ denote mass of white dwarf primary and subgiant secondary, respectively; $M_{tot} $ (=$\rm M_{wd} + M_{sg} $) is the total mass of the system; $\dot{M}$ and ${\dot{M}}_{sg}$ are, respectively, the rate of mass loss from the system and the rate of mass loss from the secondary ($-$ ${\dot{M}}_{sg}$ is equivalent to the mass transfer rate). We take $f_{2} = 1.0$ which is typical for a stellar wind. Recently, Livio & Pringle (1998) proposed a model in which the accreted angular momentum is removed from the system during novae outbursts, which agrees with our earlier suggestions (Marks, Sarna & Prialnik 1997, MS98). Equation (2) is in quantitative agreement with estimations made by Livio & Pringle (1998).
Frictional angular momentum loss
--------------------------------
During nova outburst or optically thin/thick wind phase the secondary star effectively orbits within the expanding nova shell or dense wind matter. Due to the frictional deposition of orbital energy into expanding nova shell or strong wind, the separation of the components will be decreased.
Livio, Govarie & Ritter (1991) estimated the change in the orbital angular momentum brought about by frictional angular momentum loss over a complete novae cycle,
$$\left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm FAML} = \frac{1}{4}
\left( 1 + q \right) \: \frac{\left( 1 + U^{2}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{U}
\left( \frac{R_{sg}}{a}\right)^{2} \: \frac{{\dot{M}}_{\rm wind}}{M_{sg}} ,$$
where $U$ is the ratio of the expansion velocity of the envelope at the position of the secondary to the orbital velocity of the secondary in the primary’s frame of reference ($v_{\rm exp}$/$v_{\rm orb}$), ($q=M_{wd}/M_{sg}$) is the mass ratio and ${\dot{M}}_{\rm wind}$ is the rate of mass flow past the secondary Warner (1995). For strong winds from white dwarf during stable hydrogen shell burning Hachisu, Kato & Nomoto (1996) estimated $v_{\rm exp} / v_{\rm orb} \sim 10$. Since we have no information concerning the expansion velocity of the ejecta from theoretical novae models of Prialnik & Kovetz (1995) and Kovetz & Prialnik (1997) (hereafter PK95 and KP97), we do not include the effect of frictional angular momentum loss during nova phase. We include this effect during strong wind phase.
Optically thin/thick wind angular momentum loss
-----------------------------------------------
If we consider a carbon–oxygen (C–O) white dwarf accreting matter from a companion with solar composition, there exists a critical accretion rate above which the excess material is blown off by strong wind. Hachisu et al. (1996) show that because wind velocity is about 10 times higher than orbital velocity, the wind has the same specific angular momentum as that of the white dwarf, which is estimated as
$$\left. \frac{\dot{J}}{J} \right|_{\rm FWIND} = {q \over {1 +q}}
{{{\dot M}_{wind}} \over M_{sg}} .$$
As argued by MS98, for typical binary parameters, angular momentum loss due to nova outbursts and magnetic stellar wind braking are the dominant angular momentum loss mechanisms, with gravitational wave radiation two orders of magnitude less effective (when the orbital period decreases sufficiently, gravitational wave radiation will be more effective). Frictional angular momentum loss is the least effective at eight orders of magnitude less than novae outbursts angular momentum loss and magnetic stellar wind braking. However this mechanism will be very effective during strong optically thin/thick wind (SSS phase). Note also, that during the wind phase the wind carries off the specific angular momentum of the white dwarf, which stabilizes the mass transfer (Hachisu et al. 1996; Li & van den Heuvel 1997).
Accretion of material ejected during novae outbursts
----------------------------------------------------
We employ the code developed by MS98, which utilises the results of the theoretical novae calculations made by PK95 and KP97. By interpolation from the data sets of PK95 and KP97, at each time–step, we use the white dwarf mass and the mass transfer rate to determine the novae characteristics: $f_1$, amplitude of the outburst, recurrence period, chemical composition of the ejected material.
To calculate the re–accretion by the secondary of material ejected during novae outbursts, we assume that the mass of the material re–accreted ($M_{\rm re-acc}$) is proportional to the mass of the material ejected by the white dwarf such that,
$$M_{\rm re-acc} = \left( \frac{{R_{sg}}^{2}}{4 a^{2}} \right) M_{\rm ej}
\:\:\:\:\:\: ,$$
where $M_{ej}$ is the amount of matter ejected in the nova outburst, $R_{sg}$ and $a$ are the radius of the secondary star and the separation of the system, respectively. The constant of proportionality is the ratio of the cross–sectional area of the secondary star to the area of a sphere at radius $a$ from the white dwarf. We base this formula on the assumption that novae ejections are spherically symmetric and instantaneous.
Accretion of material from strong wind
--------------------------------------
We define two critical mass accretion rate onto white dwarf. First (Warner 1995):
$${\dot M}_{cr,1} = 2.3 \times (M_{wd} - 0.19)^{3/2} ,$$
describing critical accretion rate above which hydrogen rich material is burning in a stable shell; and below which novae outbursts occur. Second (Nomoto, Nariai & Sugimoto 1979; Hachisu et al. 1996):
$${\dot M}_{cr,2} = 9.0 \times (M_{wd} - 0.5) ,$$
describing the critical accretion rate above which strong wind solution by Hachisu et al. (1996) is working. It allows burning of the hydrogen into helium at a rate close to ${\dot M}_{cr,2} $, with the excess material being blown off by the wind at the rate:
$${\dot M}_{wind} = {\dot M}_{sg} - {\dot M}_{cr,2} .$$
To calculate re-accretion of material from the wind by the secondary, we assume that, similarly to eq. 5, the mass of re-accreted material is proportional to the mass of material loss by the white dwarf due to strong wind (${\dot M}_{wind} $).
Results of calculations
=======================
Since the evolutionary stage of the secondary (hydrogen or helium rich) is not observationally determined (more details in section 5), we computed four different sequences with hydrogen and helium rich secondaries. Initial parameters of the sequences are presented in Table 1.
[lccccc]{}\
model & $\rm M_{sg} $ & $\rm M_{wd}$ & $\rm P_{i}$(RLOF) & X & Z\
& \[$\rm M_\odot$\] & \[$\rm M_\odot$\] & \[d\] & &\
A & 1.4 & 0.70 & 1.34 & 0.7 & 0.02\
B & 1.7 & 0.85 & 1.61 & 0.7 & 0.02\
C & 1.4 & 0.70 & 1.26 & 0.5 & 0.02\
D & 1.7 & 0.85 & 1.24 & 0.5 & 0.02\
The sequences C and D present a helium rich SSS channel proposed by Hachisu et al. (1999). In Table 2 we present results for computed sequences. The orbital parameters are given at the moment when orbital period is equal to 1.23 d. The effective temperature and luminosity are for subgiant star.
According to our calculations, all models go through the short time first nova phase (n1). We have used the grid of models calculated by PK95, KP97 and their classification scheme to relate theoretical models to observations of nova outburst (for more details see MS98). After that, systems enter into the first stable hydrogen burning phase (s1), which is followed by the wind phase (w). The sequences B, C and D have wind phase and second stable hydrogen burning phase (s2). The sequence A does not exhibit wind phase, and after stable burning phase this system evolves into second nova phase (n2). After second stable hydrogen burning phase sequences B and C evolve through recurrent novae phase. In Table 3 we give the duration of each phase. The duration of the SSS stage (stable hydrogen burning and wind phases) is ranging from several hundred thousand to several million years. During the second nova phase, sequence A shows behaviour characteristic for slow novae. Sequence D avoids second novae phase, and for this system the white dwarf mass will exceed Chandrasekhar limit during stable hydrogen burning, and a supernova explosion may occur.
U Sco progenitors can be found with the help of evolutionary sequences B (hydrogen rich) and C (helium rich). After stable hydrogen burning stage both sequences enter into recurrent nova phase (Fig.1). In Fig. 2 the evolution of the mass accretion rate versus orbital period is shown for two sequences B and C. From Fig. 2 we see that both systems evolve through the orbital period $P_{orb}$ =1.23 d twice. During the first crossing of $P_{orb}=1.23 d $ line the luminosity of the secondary is too high (log L/$\rm L_\odot$$\sim$0.9 and 1.35 for sequences B and C, respectively) and it does not fit the observed absolute magnitude $M_{V}$=+3.8 of U Sco.
For the same two evolutionary sequences, in Fig. 3 we present evolution of the orbital period $P_{orb}$ versus mass of subgiant $M_{sg}$ (Fig. 3a) and mass of the white dwarf $M_{wd}$ (Fig. 3b). From grid of models (PK95 and KP97) we find $\it A$=7.6 mag, and $\rm P_{rec} $= 23 and 54 yrs for sequences B and C, respectively. Therefore, we can conclude that sequence B gives the best fit to observing parameters of U Sco.
[lccccc]{}\
model & $\rm M_{sg} $ & $\rm M_{wd}$ & $\rm \log T_{eff} $ & log $\rm L/L\odot $ & $\dot{M}_{sg}$\
& \[$\rm M_\odot $\] & \[$\rm M_\odot $\] & \[K\] & & \[$\rm M_\odot ~yr^{-1} $\]\
A &0.545 &0.983 &3.669 &0.153 &2.02$\times 10^{-8}$\
B &0.936 &1.304 &3.693 &0.416 &3.58$\times 10^{-8}$\
C &0.603 &1.255 &3.721 &0.388 &4.09$\times 10^{-8}$\
D &1.696 &0.852 &3.957 &1.707 &1.14$\times 10^{-8}$\
[lccccc]{}\
model & $\rm \Delta t^1_{novae}$ & $\rm \Delta t^1_{stat} $ & $\rm \Delta
t_{wind} $ & $\rm \Delta t^2_{stat} $ & $\rm \Delta t^2_{novae} $\
\
A &4.00 &6.57 &– &– &8.17\
B &5.97 &5.53 &3.70 &6.40 &7.05\
C &4.76 &5.41 &5.39 &6.17 &7.30\
D &4.89 &5.02 &5.60 &5.58 &–\
Chemical composition of the subgiant and ejected matter
-------------------------------------------------------
Our program is able to follow in detail the evolution of the chemical composition of the subgiant and the ejected matter. In Table 4 we show isotopic composition in the envelope of the subgiant and the ejected matter for two sequences B and C, for a moment when the binary system has orbital period $P_{orb}$=1.23 d.
[lcrrrcrcr]{}\
model & $^{12}$C & $^{13}$C & $^{14}$N & $^{15}$N & $^{16} $O & $^{17}$O & $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C & $\rm N/C $\
& \[$\rm \times 10^{-3} $\] & \[$\rm \times 10^{-4} $\] & \[$\rm \times 10^{-3} $\] & \[$\rm \times 10^{-7} $\] & \[$\rm \times 10^{-3} $\] & \[$\rm \times 10^{-5} $\] & &\
B subgiant & 1.41 & 3.05 & 3.16 & 5.64 & 9.77 & 0.58 & 4.6 & 1.8\
B ejecta & 2.81 & 11.51 & 42.06 & 251.60 & 1.77 & 200.00 & 2.4 & 10.6\
C subgiant & 0.41 & 1.40 & 4.53 & 2.71 & 9.79 & 1.17 & 2.9 & 8.2\
C ejecta & 1.94 & 6.97 & 37.10 & 83.78 & 4.94 & 68.48 & 2.8 & 14.0\
If we compare the helium rich model C with the hydrogen rich model B we can see that N/C ratio in the envelope of the subgiant is higher for helium rich model than hydrogen rich one, but the isotopic ratio $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C is higher for the hydrogen rich model. In the ejected matter both ratios are similar.
Our theoretical calculations show that He/H ratio for the matter lost from the system changes during evolution from 0.56 to 1.26. For evolutionary sequences B and C and for the orbital period of U Sco, this ratio is about 0.7. Our He/H determination is well inside observational determination which vary between 0.4 and 2 (Anupama & Dewangan 2000, Williams et al. 1981).
Figs. 4 and 5 show the evolution of the abundances of helium, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen of the subgiant envelope and ejected matter. The vertical thin dashed lines show the place where the orbital period is equal to 1.23 d. In Fig.5 we also identify the phases of the binary system evolution: n1 – first short time nova episode, s1 – first stable hydrogen burning phase, w – strong wind phase, s2 – second stable hydrogen burning phase and n2 – second nova phase.
Chemical composition and isotopic analysis may give more information about the evolutionary stage of U Sco. Possible observational tests are discused in detail by MS98. Unfortunately, the subgiant component in U Sco is too faint for infrared spectroscopic observations of CO bands in order to determine the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio. However, we think that blue domain spectra of U Sco could show some absorption structure in the region of 4216Å in the CN sequence like one observed for DQ Her (Chanan, Nelson & Margon 1978, Schneider & Greenstein 1979, Willimas 1983). Analysis of this region of the spectra is more complicated because the structure of the CH and CN violet system can be affected by some absorption features from the disc. However, we suggest that since the matter in the accretion disc reflects the chemical composition of the subgiant star, analysis of the disc will give us the information we need if we use observations made during the quiescent phase. The chemical analysis of the expanding envelope (Anupama & Dewangan 2000) also will give useful information allowing comparison with theoretical models (see Table 4).
Discussion
==========
Hachisu et al. (1999) proposed a new evolutionary path to SNe Ia, in which the companion star is helium–rich. In their model, typical orbital parameters of SNe Ia progenitors are: $M_{wd}$ =1.37$\rm ~M_\odot$, $M_{sg}$$\sim$ 1.3$\rm ~M\odot$, and $\dot{M}_{sg}\sim$ 2$\times
10^{-7}$$\rm ~M_\odot ~yr^{-1}$. Based on light–curve analysis, Hachisu et al. (2000) also constructed a detailed theoretical model for U Sco. They found that the best fit parameters are: $M_{wd}$$\sim$ 1.37$\rm ~M_\odot$, and $M_{sg} \sim$ 1.5$\rm ~M_\odot$ (a range from 0.8 to 2.0$\rm ~M_\odot$ is acceptable).
However, the helium enriched model poses a serious problem. Truran et al. (1988) discussed the composition dependence of thermonuclear runaway models for the recurrent novae of U Sco–type. They showed that for $\rm M_{wd} = 1.38 ~M_\odot$, $\dot{M}_{sg}$ =$\rm 1.5 \times 10^{-8} ~M_\odot ~yr^{-1} $, L=0.1$\rm ~L_\odot$ optically bright outbursts are obtained only for matter with He/H$<$1–2. Above results are consistent with our sequences B and C where He/H are equal 0.48 and 0.96, respectively.
There is an alternative explanation of helium enrichment as observed in U Sco which may also occur due to helium enriched winds from the white dwarf (Prialnik & Livio 1995).
According to Kato (1996), the supersoft component in UV spectrum is predicted to be observable about 10 days after the outburst. For hydrogen–rich model (He/H=0.1) the supersoft X–ray component is expected to rise till $\sim$ 50 days after the outburst to a maximum luminosity of $\sim$ 3$\times 10^{36}$erg$s^{-1}$ $(d/kpc)^2$. For helium–rich model (He/H = 2), the maximum luminosity is reached about 20 days after the optical outburst. Unfortunately, Kahabka et al. (1999) could follow the X–ray outburst of U Sco for only 19–20 days after outburst. According to Kato (1996), the X–ray luminosity behaviour depends on the chemical composition. Therefore, the evolution of the X–ray luminosity may give the important evidence about the chemical composition of the accreted matter.
Conclusion
==========
We calculated several evolutionary sequences to reproduce orbital and physical parameters of the recurrent novae of U Sco–type. We showed that U Sco systems possibly form from binaries with a low–mass C–O white dwarf as accretor. Such a system evolves through several observable stages: recurrent nova, SSS with stable hydrogen burning and SSS with strong wind phases. In final phase of evolution a massive white dwarf near the Chandrasekar limit is formed. We propose that the evolutionary sequence B is able to produce binary system with parameters similar to U Sco. Our best fitting model has initial parameters: $M_{sg,i} = 1.7 ~M_\odot $, $M_{wd,i} = 0.85 ~M_\odot $ and $P_i (RLOF) = 1.61 $d. Based on evolutionary model we constracted a detailed theoretical model for U Sco. We found that the best fit parameters are: $M_{sg} = 0.94 ~M_\odot $, $M_{wd} = 1.31
~M_\odot $, $\log L_{sg}/L_\odot = 0.42 $, $\dot M_{sg} = 3.58 \times 10^{-8}
M_\odot ~yr^{-1} $ for $P_{orb} = 1.23056 ~d$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is partly supported through grant 2–P03D–005–16 of the Polish National Committee for Scientific Research. JG and EE acknowledge support through Estonian SF grant 4338. EE acknowledges warm hospitality of the Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek” where part of this work has been conducted. While in Netherlands, EE was supported by NWO Spinoza grant 08–0 to E. P. J. van den Heuvel.
[100]{}
Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 1994, ApJ, 437, 879
Anupama G. C., Dewangan G. C., 2000, AJ, 119, 1359
Bahcall J. N., Pinsonneault M. H., 1992, Rev. Mod. Phys., 64, 885
Bahcall J. N., Ulrich R. K., 1988, Rev. Mod. Phys., 60, 297
Bahcall J. N., Pinsonneault M. H., Wasserburg G. J., 1995, Rev. Mod. Phys., 67, 781
Barlow M. J. et al., 1981, MNRAS, 195, 61
Caughlan G. R., Fowler W. A., Harris M. J., Zimmerman B. A., 1985, Atom. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 32, 197
Caughlan G. R., Fowler W. A., 1988, Atom. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 40, 283
Chanan G. A., Nelson J. E., Margon B., 1978, ApJ, 226, 963
De Greve J.–P., 1993, A&ASS, 97, 527
Eggleton P. P., 1983, ApJ, 268, 368
Fowler W. A., Caughlan G. R., Zimmerman B. A., 1967, ARA&A, 5, 525
Fowler W. A., Caughlan G. R., Zimmerman B. A., 1975, ARA&A, 13, 69
Hachisu I., Kato M., Nomoto K., 1996, ApJ, 470, L97
Hachisu I., Kato M., Nomoto K., Umeda H., 1999, ApJ, 519,314
Hachisu I., Kato M., Kato T., Matsumoto K., 2000, ApJ, 528, L97
Harris M. J., Fowler W. A., Caughlan G. R., Zimmerman B. A., 1983, ARA&A, 21, 165
Huebner W. F., Merts A. L., Magee N. H. Jr., Argo M. F., 1977, Astrophys. Opacity Library, Los Alamos Scientific Lab. Report No. LA–6760–M
Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, ApJ, 464, 943
Kahabka P., Hartmann H. W., Parmar A. N., Negueruela I., 1999, A&A, 347, L43
Kato M., 1996, in:“Supersoft X-ray sources”, ed. J. Greiner, Lecture notes in physics, vol. 472, Springer, p.15
Kovetz A., Prialnik D., 1997, ApJ, 477, 356 (KP97
Kudryashov A. D., Ergma E. V., 1980, Sov. Astron. Lett., 6, 375
Li X.–D., van den Heuvel E. P. L., 1997, A&A, 322, L9
Livio M., Pringle J. E., 1998, ApJ, 505, 339
Livio M., Govarie A., Ritter H., 1991, A&A, 246, 84
Marks P. B., Sarna M. J., Prialnik D., 1997, MNRAS, 290, 283
Marks P. B., Sarna M. J., 1998, MNRAS, 301,699 (MS98)
Nomoto K., Nariai K., Sugimoto D., 1979, PASP, 31, 287
Munari U., Zwitter T., Tomov T., Bonifacio P., Selvelli P., Tomasella L., Niedzielski A., Pearce A., 1999, A&A, 347, L39
Paczyński B., 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 287
Paczyński B., 1970, Acta Astron., 20, 47
Pols O. R., Tout C. A., Eggleton P. P., Han Z., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 964 Prialnik D., Livio M., 1995, PASP, 107, 1201
Prialnik D., Kovetz A., 1995, ApJ, 445, 789 (PK95)
Sarna M. J., De Greve J.–P., 1994, A&A, 281, 433
Sarna M. J., De Greve J.–P., 1996, QJRAS, 37, 11
Schaefer B.E., 1990, ApJ.,335,L39
Schaefer B. E., Ringwald F. A., 1995, ApJ, 447, L45
Schneider D. P., Greenstein J. L., 1979, ApJ, 233, 935
Truran J. W., Livio M., Hayes J., Starrfield S., Sparks W. M., 1988, ApJ, 324, 345
Verbunt F., 1993, ARA&A, 31, 93
Warner B., 1995, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, No. 28, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
Webbink R. F., Livio M., Truran J. W., Orio M., 1987, ApJ, 314, 653
Williams G., 1983, ApJS, 53, 523
Williams R. E., Sparks W. M., Gallagher J. S., Ney E. P., Starrfield S. G., Truran J. W., 1981, ApJ, 251, 221
Ziółkowski J., 1985, Acta Astron., 35, 199
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The deuteron spectrum in $n+p \rightarrow d+ \pi\pi$ at $k_n = 1.88$ GeV/c and $\theta_d = 0^o$ is explained by considering a $\Delta \Delta$ excitation as the reaction mechanism for the $2\pi$ production. We study the influence of intermediate $\DD$ and $\DN$ interactions on the spectrum. The angular distribution of the pions is predicted.'
author:
- |
C. A. Mosbacher and F. Osterfeld$^\dagger$\
Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH,\
D–52425 Jülich, Germany
date: 'Baryons ’98, Bonn, Sept. 22–26, 1998'
title: ' Study of $\DD$ excitations in the reaction $n + p \rightarrow d + \pi\pi$ '
---
Introduction
============
Experimental measurements of the reaction $n+p \to d+ \pi\pi$ at neutron momenta of 1.88 GeV/c [@plouin78] show a typical cross section structure known as the ABC–effect [@abashian63]. The main features of this effect can be explained by assuming a double $\Delta(1232)$ excitation to be the dominant reaction mechanism for the $2\pi$ production [@risser73; @barnir75]. Therefore the $n+p \to d+ \pi\pi$ reaction allows us to study the influence of direct $\DD$ and $\DN$ interaction potentials. The Feynman diagram corresponding to the $\DD$ mechanism is shown in fig. \[fig1\].
Theoretical Framework
=====================
In order to incorporate the interaction dynamics of the $\DD$ system in a proper and efficient way, we apply a coupled channel approach [@mosbacher97] deduced from $\Delta$–hole models. The matrix element is calculated using the so–called source function formalism [@udagawa94]. We set up a system of coupled integro–differential equations for the correlated $\DD$ wavefunction, which can be solved in configuration space with the Lanczos method [@udagawa94]. The $\Delta$ resonance is treated thereby as a quasi–particle with a given mass and an intrinsic, energy–dependent width. We construct the interaction potentials $V_{\DD}$ and $V_{\DN}$ within a meson exchange model [@machleidt87]. The exchanged mesons taken into account are the pion ($\pi$), the rho ($\rho$), the omega ($\omega$), and the sigma ($\sigma$). All the parameters of the potentials, such as the coupling constants, cutoffs and meson masses, are determined from other reaction studies, like single pion production and charge exchange reactions on the deuteron [@mosbacher97].
Results and Discussion
======================
Fig. \[fig2\] shows the result of our full model calculation compared to the experimental deuteron spectrum for $\theta_d = 0^o$. The overall agreement is very good. The cross section exhibits characteristic enhancements at missing masses close to $2m_\pi$ (corresponding to maximal and minimal deuteron recoil momentum in the laboratory frame) and at the largest missing masses possible (the central peak). This structure can be easily understood as follows [@risser73]. Let us define $$K= k_1 + k_2 \, , \qquad
k= k_1 - k_2 \, ,$$ where $k_1, k_2$ denote the four–momenta of the two pions. The $\DD$ mechanism is most efficient if both $\Delta$’s are on–mass shell, which requires $$s_{\Delta_1} = \frac{1}{4} \: (k_d + K + k)^2 =
\frac{1}{4} \: (k_d + K - k)^2 = s_{\Delta_2} \, .$$ This condition is equivalent to $k_d \cdot k = 0$ and can be satisfied in two ways:
1. $k = 0$ and hence $\sqrt{K^2} = M_{\pi\pi} = 2m_\pi$, or
2. $\vec k_d = 0$ in the rest frame of the two pions.
In the latter case, the $2\pi$ CMS is identical to the rest frame of the deuteron and hence the overall CMS. The two pions pick up the whole kinetic energy which means $M_{\pi\pi} =$ max. This leads to the high mass enhancement which corresponds to the anti–parallel decay of the two $\Delta$’s, while the low mass enhancement ($k = 0$) corresponds to the parallel decay.
These two different kinematical situations are also manifest in the angular distributions shown in fig. \[fig3\]. For $k_d = 1.5$ GeV/c (in the lab frame), the pions are emitted back to back and any angle between $\vec k$ and the beam axis is kinematically possible. The shape of the cross section reflects the spin–structure of the $\Delta \Delta$ excitation [@mosbacher97]. For $k_d =$ 1.1 and 1.9 GeV/c, the pions are emitted nearly parallel and have identical energies, hence $\vec k$ is dominantly perpendicular to the beam axis.
Fig. \[fig4\] demonstrates the influence of the $\DN$ and $\DD$ interaction potentials in our model calculation. The result for $V=0$ (dashed–dotted line) clearly shows the three peak structure as discussed above. The potential $V_\DN$ is attractive and thus results in even more pronounced peaks (dashed line) since it simply lowers the overall excitation energy. Inclusion of $V_\DD$, however, leads to a redistribution of strength from the peaks towards the kinematical less favored situations between (solid line). This is the case because the optimal configuration with both $\Delta$’s on mass-shell can now also be reached if the initial momentum distribution was asymmetric.
To summarize we have shown that 1. the $\Delta \Delta$ excitation is the dominant reaction mechanism in the $np \to d + \pi\pi$ two pion production at $k_n = 1.88$ GeV/c, and 2. the intermediate $\DD$ and $\DN$ interactions play an important role in this reaction which therefore may serve as a tool for closer examination of the interaction potentials.
This work was supported in part by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. We are very grateful to C. Hanhart and J. Speth for many helpful discussions.
[99]{}
F. Plouin [*et al.*]{},
A. Abashian, N. E. Booth, K. M. Crowe, R. E. Hill, and E. H. Rogers
T. Risser and M. D. Shuster,
I. Bar-Nir, T. Risser, and M. D. Shuster,
C. A. Mosbacher and F. Osterfeld,
T. Udagawa, P. Oltmanns, F. Osterfeld, and S. W. Hong,
R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster,
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Inflationary theory predicts that the observable Universe should be very close to flat, with a spatial-curvature parameter $|\Omega_K| \lesssim 10^{-4}$. The WMAP satellite currently constrains $|\Omega_K| \lesssim 0.01$, and the Planck satellite will be sensitive to values near $10^{-3}$. Suppose that Planck were to find $\Omega_K \!\neq 0$ at this level. Would this necessarily be a serious problem for inflation? We argue that an apparent departure from flatness could be due either to a local (wavelength comparable to the observable horizon) inhomogeneity, or a truly superhorizon departure from flatness. If there is a local inhomogeneity, then secondary CMB anisotropies distort the CMB frequency spectrum at a level potentially detectable by a next-generation experiment. We discuss how these spectral distortions would complement constraints on the Grishchuk-Zel’dovich effect from the low-$\ell$ CMB power spectrum in discovering the source of the departure from flatness.'
author:
- Philip Bull
- Marc Kamionkowski
title: 'What if Planck’s Universe isn’t flat?'
---
Inflation predicts that the observable Universe should be very nearly flat, with a spatial-curvature parameter $|\Omega_K| < 10^{-4}$ in most models [@Linde2007]. WMAP data currently constrain $|\Omega_K| \lesssim 10^{-2}$ (95% CL) [@arXiv:1212.5226], and Planck should be sensitive to $\Omega_K$ at around the $10^{-3}$ level [@Knox:2005hx], improving to $\sim \!\! 10^{-4}$ when combined with 21-cm intensity maps [@Mao:2008ug] (which represents the limit of detectability [@Vardanyan]).
Suppose that Planck were to find a nonzero value for $\Omega_K$. What might this mean for inflation? Such an observation would nominally be evidence for a genuine departure from flatness on superhorizon scales, with wide-ranging implications for a broad class of inflationary models; for example, a measurement of $\Omega_K < -10^{-4}$ is sufficient to rule out the majority of eternal inflation scenarios with high confidence [@Kleban:2012ph].
Before jumping to such conclusions, though, one might wonder whether the deviation could be explained simply by a local inhomogeneity that biases our determinations of cosmological parameters. This would allow us to preserve flatness (and thus some relatively natural sort of inflation) by explaining the discrepancy as the result of systematic distortions of, e.g., the distance-redshift relation due to lensing by the inhomogeneity [@Valkenburg:2012ds]. Although a local density fluctuation of a large enough amplitude ($\Phi \gtrsim10^{-3}$) would be inconsistent with the simplest inflationary models, it might conceivably arise if there is some strongly scale-dependent non-Gaussianity, or perhaps if some sort of semi-classical fluctuation arises at the beginning or end of inflation [@Aslanyan:2013zs].
For a sufficiently large and smooth local inhomogeneity, it would be difficult to definitively distinguish these two situations using standard cosmological tests. Purely geometric observables such as distance measures would be inhibited by degeneracies with evolving-dark-energy models [@Valkenburg:2011ty], and the deviation from flatness would be too small to significantly affect the growth of structure.
In this Letter, we show that a class of observables based on spectral distortions of the CMB offer the prospect to disentangle the two scenarios. These observables exploit the strong relationship between spatial homogeneity and the isotropy of spacetime; by using them to measure the dipole anisotropy of the CMB about distant points, it is possible to place stringent constraints on the possible size of a local inhomogeneity [@Goodman:1995dt]. Furthermore, these observables unambiguously distinguish between subhorizon and superhorizon effects, owing to a cancellation of the dipole induced by superhorizon perturbations [@Grishchuk; @Erickcek:2008jp].
We begin by calculating the bias in $\Omega_K$ due to a local inhomogeneity. We take the form of this local inhomogeneity throughout to be a spherically symmetric potential perturbation $\Phi(r,t)= D(t) \, a^{-1}(t) \Phi_0 \exp[-(r/r_0)^2]$, where the linear-theory growth factor is normalized to $D\!\!=\!\!1$ today. The presence of a large, local inhomogeneity modifies the apparent distance to last scattering through a combination of lensing, integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, gravitational redshift, and Doppler shift. Ref. [@Bonvin:2005ps] derived a full expression for the (subhorizon) luminosity-distance perturbation $\delta d_L$ up to linear order in perturbations. (The observed distance $d_L(z) = \bar{d}_L (1 + \delta d_L)$, where the overbar denotes a background quantity.) When considering the CMB, it is useful to rewrite this as a perturbation $\delta d_A = \delta d_L - {2
\delta z}/(1+z)$ to the angular-diameter distance.
An observer sitting at the center of a spherically-symmetric inhomogeneity will measure a distance to last scattering which deviates from the background quantity by a uniform amount over the whole sky. This introduces a shift in angular scale of the entire CMB power spectrum. The value of $\Omega_K$ inferred from observations depends primarily on the angular scale of the first few CMB acoustic peaks [@Kamionkowski:1993aw], and will therefore be biased away from its background value. Fig. \[fig-shift\] shows the distance perturbation as a function of the depth and width of a local inhomogeneity, compared with the change in (background) distance between a flat model, and one with $|\Omega_K|=10^{-3}$. (For numerical work we take $[h,
\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda,\sigma_8] = [0.71,0.266,0.734,0.8]$ and redshifts of reionization and last scattering to be $z_\mathrm{re}=10$ and $z_*=1090.79$ respectively.) Based on the distance to last scattering alone, an inhomogeneity with $\Phi_0 \sim 10^{-3}$ would induce an apparent shift in $\Omega_K$ of order $10^{-3}$ for a wide range of widths.
The inhomogeneity will also cause the observed redshift $z_*$ of the surface of last scattering, to differ from its background value, $\bar{z}_* = z_* - \delta z_*$, where [@Bonvin:2005ps] \[eqn-perturbed-z\] z = (1 + z\_s) , and $\mathbf{n}$ is a unit vector along the line of sight. For the central observer, the effect of the redshift perturbation is to change the inferred conformal time (and thus expansion rate) of last scattering, which will bias the estimation of parameters such as $\Omega_m$. For an observer who is [*off-center*]{} in the inhomogeneity, however, an additional anisotropy will also be induced in the CMB. This is because the redshift perturbation, Eq. (\[eqn-perturbed-z\]), depends on direction; a line of sight looking towards the center of the inhomogeneity will experience a different change in redshift to one looking away from it, and thus there will be a direction-dependent change in temperature.
In general, anisotropies will be induced over a range of angular scales, but at least for observers close to the center of a large (wide) inhomogeneity, the dipole, $\beta$, will dominate. While there is also a dipole contribution due to the peculiar velocity of the observer, velocity perturbations due to the matter distribution on smaller scales are expected to be Gaussian random distributed with mean zero, whereas the dipole due to a large inhomogeneity will generally present a [*systematic*]{} trend in redshift and angle on the sky. This allows us to distinguish between the two contributions. For a spherical inhomogeneity, axial symmetry dictates that the dipole will be aligned in the radial direction, and that all spherical-harmonic modes of the induced anisotropy with $m \neq
0$ on the sky of the observer will be zero, so that $\beta
\propto \int \delta z_*(\theta) \cos\theta\sin\theta d\theta$.
![The change $\delta d_A$ in the distance to last scattering as a function of the width and depth of the inhomogeneity. Black lines denote $\delta d_A$. The thick blue line plots the difference in distance (in background) between models with $|\Omega_K|=10^{-3}$ and $\Omega_K=0$ (with identical $h$ and $\Omega_m$), equivalent to $\delta d_A = 2.7\times 10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig-shift"}](shift.png){width="1.15\columnwidth"}
We now discuss spectral distortions due to a local inhomogeneity. There is a close relationship between homogeneity and the isotropy of spacetime. A number of observational tests that are sensitive to CMB anisotropies about distant points can be used to exploit this link and detect local inhomogeneities of the kind that would cause a systematic bias in measurements of $\Omega_K$.
The strength of the connection between homogeneity and isotropy is most clearly demonstrated by the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs (EGS) theorem [@Ehlers:1966ad]. According to EGS, if all comoving observers in a patch of spacetime see an isotropic CMB radiation field, then that patch is uniquely FLRW (i.e., it is necessarily homogeneous and isotropic). Generalizations of this result show that it is perturbatively stable, in the sense that small departures from perfect isotropy imply only small departures from homogeneity (up to some assumptions; see [@Rasanen] for a critique). A corollary to the EGS theorem is that observers in an inhomogeneous region of spacetime will in general see an anisotropic CMB sky. We can therefore use measurements of the anisotropy of the CMB about a collection of spacetime points to constrain the degree of inhomogeneity inside our Hubble volume [@Clifton:2011sn].
Compton scattering of CMB radiation by ionized gas provides a way to detect anisotropy about remote points. The scattered radiation spectrum consists of a weighted superposition of spectra from all directions on the scatterer’s sky, $I^\prime_\nu \sim \int \tau (1 + \cos^2\theta) I_\nu(\theta, \phi) d\Omega$. If the scatterer’s sky is a perfectly isotropic blackbody of uniform temperature, the scattered spectrum is simply a blackbody of the same temperature, plus spectral distortions due to the random thermal motions of the electrons in the scattering medium (the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, TSZ [@Sunyaev:1970eu]). If its sky is anisotropic, however, the resulting spectrum is a combination of blackbodies of different temperatures. This induces additional blackbody spectral distortions, and shifts the temperature of the ‘base’ blackbody spectrum as seen by an observer [@Goodman:1995dt; @Chluba:2004cn]. If the dipole anisotropy dominates, we call these the Compton-$y$ distortion and the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (KSZ) effect [@Sunyaev:1980nv], respectively.
By measuring the Compton-$y$ distortion and KSZ effects for many scattering regions on our own sky, we can build up a picture of the degree of anisotropy, and thus inhomogeneity, within our past lightcone. We will now outline three observational tests based on these effects, and estimate their sensitivities to a local inhomogeneity.
We begin with the KSZ effect from galaxy clusters. Galaxy clusters contain a significant amount of ionized gas. Since they are effectively individual collapsed objects, they can be used to sample the dipole anisotropy induced by a local inhomogeneity at discrete points in space. This is useful to reconstruct the systematic trend in dipole anisotropy as a function of redshift that a local inhomogeneity produces. Each cluster has a characteristic integrated optical depth of $\tau \sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$. The KSZ signal due to a single galaxy cluster at redshift $z$ is $\Delta T/T = - \beta(z) \tau$, and can be extracted from CMB sky maps given a sufficiently accurate component separation method and low-noise data.
The KSZ effect from individual clusters is difficult to measure owing to the smallness of the signal, confusion with primary CMB anisotropies, and other dominant systematic errors. Currently, only upper limits are available, but this is likely to change as data from Planck and small-scale CMB experiments such as ACT and SPT become available. Current data have nevertheless been used to constrain inhomogeneous relativistic cosmological models for dark energy [@GarciaBellido:2008gd].
![The KSZ power $D_\ell = \ell(\ell+1)C_\ell T_0^2/2\pi$ at $\ell=3000$, in $\mu$K$^2$. The thick red line is the SPT upper limit of $D_{3000} < 6.7 \mu$K$^2$ (95% CL).[]{data-label="fig-ksz-power"}](ksz_D3000_nonlin.png){width="1.15\columnwidth"}
We now consider the KSZ angular power spectrum from gas in the intergalactic medium. This angular power spectrum is easier to measure than the KSZ effect from individual clusters because it is an integrated quantity and has additional contributions from the diffuse intergalactic medium that is not associated with clusters (sometimes called the Ostriker-Vishniac effect [@OstrikerVishniac]). The KSZ power spectrum from a large inhomogeneity is [@Moss:2011ze] C\_ \_0\^[r\_]{} dr r\^[-3]{} \^2 P(k(r),z(r)). The Limber approximation has been used, giving $k(r) = (2\ell+1)/2 r(z)$. We model the distribution of scatterers in the late Universe with $d\tau/dz \propto \sigma_T
f_b \rho(z)/H(z)$ [@Moss:2011ze], and take reionization to be an abrupt transition at $z_{\mathrm{re}}$. At high $\ell$, the KSZ signal is strongly dependent on the non-linear matter power spectrum, $P(k, z)$, which we model using HaloFit/CLASS [@Blas:2011rf]. Results for our toy model are shown in Fig. \[fig-ksz-power\].
At a characteristic angular scale of $\ell \sim 3000$ (where the primary CMB signal becomes subdominant), the signal is dominated by contributions from small-scale matter inhomogeneities at lower redshifts, where the induced anisotropy is mostly dipolar. These scales are accessible to CMB experiments such as ACT and SPT, which have recently put stringent upper limits on the combined TSZ+KSZ power [@Sievers:2013wk]. Accessing the bare KSZ signal is complicated by difficulties in modeling the distribution of extragalactic point sources [@Addison:2012my], and contains a theoretical uncertainty due to the unknown ‘patchiness’ of reionization, which also contributes a KSZ effect [@Santos:2003jb].
We now turn to the Compton-$y$ distortion induced by the inhomogeneity. Spectral distortions arising from the Compton scattering of an anisotropic CMB can be parametrized as a Compton-$y$ blackbody distortion. When the dipole dominates, the observed Compton-$y$ distortion is a monopole [@Moss:2011ze], y = (7/10) \_0\^[r\_]{} dr (d/dr) \^2(r). Results for our model are shown in Fig. \[fig-y-distortion\].
Measurement of the Compton-$y$ distortion requires an instrument for which an absolute calibration of the spectral response can be obtained. This excludes most recent CMB experiments, and so the best current constraints come from COBE/FIRAS [@COBE]. The planned PIXIE mission [@Kogut:2011xw] could improve the determination of $y$ by some four orders of magnitude.
![The Compton-$y$ distortion induced by the inhomogeneity. Also plotted is the projected upper limit from PIXIE (thick blue line).[]{data-label="fig-y-distortion"}](ydistortion.png){width="1.15\columnwidth"}
Our toy-model calculations give some sense of the effectiveness of the different spectral-distortion tests in constraining the size of a local inhomogeneity. A depth of $\Phi_0 \sim 2 \times 10^{-4}$ is sufficient to induce a bias in the inferred spatial curvature of $\Delta \Omega_K \approx 10^{-3}$ for a wide range of $r_0$ (Fig. \[fig-shift\]). Existing upper limits on the KSZ power at $\ell=3000$ from SPT are sufficient to rule out an inhomogeneity of this depth with a width less than around 5 Gpc, although larger $r_0$ are still allowed (Fig. \[fig-ksz-power\]). The Compton-$y$ distortion, on the other hand, provides much weaker constraints even with the great increase in precision that would be possible with PIXIE (Fig. \[fig-y-distortion\]). Part of the reason for the relative effectiveness of the KSZ power spectrum is its density weighting, which enhances the signal at the high $\ell$ probed by precision CMB experiments.
The above calculations are only intended to be illustrative, and more detailed modeling would be required to produce firmer constraints. For example, the KSZ angular power spectrum is sensitive to the non-linear contributions to $P(k)$ [@Moss:2011ze], and the form of $\beta(z)$ to the shape of the potential, $\Phi(r)$, so uncertainties in these functions should be treated carefully. For wider inhomogeneities, there is also a (relatively minor) dependence on the details of reionization. Finally, the assumption that the inhomogeneity is perfectly spherically symmetric, and that we are exactly at its center, should also be relaxed. A realistic inhomogeneity cannot be too asymmetric, or place us too far from the center, however, without violating limits on isotropy, moderating a CMB dipole that is observed locally [@Foreman:2010uj], or inducing a CMB statistical anisotropy [@Aslanyan:2013zs].
Why should we expect to find ourselves near to the center of a large inhomogeneity in the first place? Although such a situation may seem unlikely [@Foreman:2010uj], there are inflationary mechanisms known in the literature which preferentially place observers near the center of large underdensities [@Linde:1996hg]. Furthermore, Ellis [@Ellis] has argued that it would be inconsistent to rule out such inhomogeneities on strictly [*a priori*]{} probabilistic grounds, since we currently accept features in our cosmological models that are substantially less probable anyway. As such, observations should be the final arbiter in deciding whether a large inhomogeneity exists or not.
Wouldn’t its presence have already been discovered through other observational probes? Inhomogeneities of the kind considered here modify the low-$\ell$ CMB, causing alignment of low-$\ell$ multipoles [@Alnes:2006pf], and changes in the ISW signal, temperature-polarization cross-spectrum, and associated modifications to the reionization history [@Moss:2010jx]. Unfortunately, the induced effects tend either to be smaller than cosmic variance at the relevant scales, or strongly dependent on the details of the model, rendering these tests inconclusive.
Superhorizon perturbations also produce fluctuations in the low-$\ell$ CMB through the Grishchuk-Zel’dovich effect [@Grishchuk]. In a number of cosmological models (including $\Lambda$CDM), it has been shown that there is a cancellation between the anisotropy and peculiar velocity induced by such perturbations, resulting in no net dipole to first order [@Erickcek:2008jp]. Constraints from the low-$\ell$ CMB are therefore complementary to spectral-distortion tests of the sort outlined above: A deviation from spatial flatness caused by a local inhomogeneity results in a net dipole about many locations within our horizon, which can be measured using, e.g., the KSZ effect, whereas a superhorizon deviation from flatness will produce no such signal, instead causing an enhancement of the quadrupole and higher moments of our local CMB.
In conclusion, an observation of $|\Omega_K| \gtrsim 10^{-4}$ would have considerable implications for inflation but would not, on its own, be sufficient to rule out eternal inflation. It would also have to be shown that the inferred deviation from flatness was not caused by the effects of a local inhomogeneity instead. Observations of CMB spectral distortions such as the KSZ effect and Compton-$y$ distortion, taken with constraints on the size of the Grishchuk-Zel’dovich effect from the low-$\ell$ CMB power spectrum, present a viable method to constrain the source of a seeming departure from flatness.
We thank P. G. Ferreira for useful discussions. PB acknowledges the support of the STFC. MK was supported by DoE SC-0008108 and NASA NNX12AE86G. The computer code used in this paper is available online at [www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/bullp](www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/bullp), and makes use of the CosmoloPy package (<http://roban.github.com/CosmoloPy>).
[**Note added:**]{} An error affecting the figures in the original article was discovered after publication. An erratum has been published in Phys. Rev. D, and the corresponding corrections have been applied here. We are grateful to R. Durrer for pointing out an issue which led to the discovery of this error.
[100]{}
A. Linde, Lect. Notes Phys. [**738**]{}, 1 (2008) \[arXiv:0705.0164\].
G. Hinshaw [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1212.5226 \[astro-ph.CO\]. L. Knox, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 023503 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0503405\]. Y. Mao, M. Tegmark, M. McQuinn, M. Zaldarriaga and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 023529 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.1710 \[astro-ph\]\]. M. Vardanyan, R. Trotta and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**397**]{}, 431 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.3354\].
M. Kleban and M. Schillo, JCAP [**1206**]{}, 029 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.5037\]; A. H. Guth and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 023534 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.6876\]. W. Valkenburg and O. E. Bjaelde, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**424**]{}, 495 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.4567\]. G. Aslanyan, A. V. Manohar and A. P. S. Yadav, arXiv:1301.5641\]. W. Valkenburg, JCAP [**1201**]{}, 047 (2012) \[arXiv:1106.6042\]. J. Goodman, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1821 (1995) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9506068\]; R. R. Caldwell and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 191302 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.3459\]. L. P. Grishchuk and Ya. B. Zel’dovich, [*Soviet Astronomy*]{} [**22**]{}, 125 (1978).
A. L. Erickcek, S. M. Carroll and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 083012 (2008) \[arXiv:0808.1570\]. C. Bonvin, R. Durrer and M. A. Gasparini, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 023523 (2006) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**85**]{}, 029901 (2012)\] \[arXiv:astro-ph/0511183\]. M. Kamionkowski, D. N. Spergel and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. [**426**]{}, L57 (1994) \[astro-ph/9401003\].
J. Ehlers, P. Geren and R. K. Sachs, J. Math. Phys. [**9**]{}, 1344 (1968). S. Räsänen, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 123522 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.3013\].
T. Clifton, C. Clarkson and P. Bull, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 051303 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.3794\]. R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophys. Space Sci. [**7**]{}, 3 (1970). J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. [**424**]{}, 389 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0404067\]; A. Stebbins, arXiv:astro-ph/0703541. R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**190**]{}, 413 (1980). J. García-Bellido and T. Haugb[ø]{}lle, JCAP [**0809**]{}, 016 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.1326\]; C.-M. Yoo, K.-i. Nakao and M. Sasaki, JCAP [**1010**]{}, 011 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.0469\]; P. Bull, T. Clifton and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 024002 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.2222\].
J. A. Ostriker and E. T. Vishniac, Astrophys. J. Lett. [**306**]{}, L51 (1986); E. T. Vishniac, Astrophys. J. [ **322**]{}, 597 (1987); A. H. Jaffe and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 043001 (1998) \[astro-ph/9801022\]. J. P. Zibin and A. Moss, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 164005 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.0909\]. D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP [**1107**]{}, 034 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.2933\]. C. L. Reichardt [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**755**]{}, 70 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.0932\]; J. L. Sievers, R. A. Hlozek, M. R. Nolta, V. Acquaviva, G. E. Addison, P. A. R. Ade, P. Aguirre and M. Amiri [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.0824\].
G. E. Addison, J. Dunkley and D. N. Spergel, arXiv:1204.5927. M. G. Santos, A. Cooray, Z. Haiman, L. Knox and C. P. Ma, Astrophys. J. [**598**]{}, 756 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0305471\]. D. J. Fixsen [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**473**]{}, 576 (1996).
A. Kogut [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1107**]{}, 025 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.2044\]. S. Foreman, A. Moss, J. P. Zibin and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 103532 (2010) \[arXiv:1009.0273\]. A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 2504 (1996) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9601005\]. G. F. R. Ellis, Class. Quantum Grav. [**28**]{}, 164001 (2011).
H. Alnes and M. Amarzguioui, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 103520 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0607334\]. A. Moss, J. P. Zibin and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 103515 (2011) \[arXiv:1007.3725\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Institut des Sciences Nucléaires,\
53 Av. des Martyrs, 38026 Grenoble, France
author:
- 'J. Carbonell'
title: 'The Continuum Spectrum of the 4N System. Results and Challenges'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The theoretical description of the A=4 scattering states constitutes a serious challenge for the existing NN interaction models. The reason for that is not purely technical, but lies rather in the richness of the continuum spectrum itself. Though far from the heavy nuclei imbroglio, it is the simplest system which presents the main characteristics – thresholds and resonances – of the nuclear complexity. Furthermore, they appear already in the low energy region which can be unlikely affected by the three nucleon forces, a keystone in the success encountered when describing the A=3 states and A=4 bound state [@GK_NPA_93; @VKR_FBS_95; @GWHKG_96; @PPCPW_97].
Solutions of the 4N scattering states have been recently obtained by different groups [@VRK_PRL_98; @CCG_PLB_99; @F_PRL_99], solving Schrödinger, Faddeev-Yakubovsky or AGS equations, with realistic NN potentials.
The aim of this contribution is to give an overview of the main theoretical results existing for the A=4 scattering, specially those obtained since the last Groningen Few-Body Conference. A more detailed review including references can be found in [@CS_98].
n-$^3$H
=======
The first topic concerns n+$^3$H, the simplest A=4 system after the $\alpha$ particle. It is a pure T=1 isospin state free from the Coulomb problems. A simple look into its cross section and its comparison with the n-d case (Figures \[nt\_S\] and \[nd\]) illustrate well the qualitative difference with respect the A=3 case.
The n-$^3$H scattering lengths with realistic potentials (AV14 [@AV14_PRC_84], AV18 [@AV18_PRC_95], Nijm II [@NIJ_PRC_93]) were presented in the last Few-Body Groningen Conference [@CCG_NPA_98; @V_NPA_98]. The singlet $a_0$ and triplet $a_1$ values (in fm) are summarized in the upper half part of Table \[A\_nt\] together with the deduced coherent scattering length $a_c={1\over4}a_0+{3\over4}a_1$ and the zero energy cross section $\sigma(0)=\pi(a_0^2+3a_1^2)$ in fm$^2$.
[@ll ll cc l]{}NN &NNN & $a_0$ & $a_1$ & $a_c$ & $\sigma(0)$ & Ref.\
AV14 & — & 4.31 & 3.79 & 3.92 & 194 & [@CCG_NPA_98; @CCG_PLB_99]\
& & 4.32 & 3.80 & 3.93 & 195 & [@V_NPA_98; @VRK_PRL_98]\
AV18 & — & 4.32 & 3.76 & 3.90 & 192 & [@V_NPA_98; @VRK_PRL_98]\
Nijm II & — & 4.31 & 3.76 & 3.90 & 192 & [@CCG_NPA_98; @CCG_PLB_99] AV14 & Hyperadial & 4.00 & 3.53 & 3.65 & 168 & [@CCG_NPA_98; @CCG_PLB_99]\
AV14 & Urbana VIII & 4.08 & 3.59 & 3.71 & 174 & [@V_NPA_98; @VRK_PRL_98]\
AV18 & Urbana IX & 4.05 & 3.58 & 3.71 & 172 & [@V_NPA_98; @VRK_PRL_98]\
MT I-III& — & 4.10 & 3.63 & 3.75 & 177 & [@CC_PRC_98]\
Exp & & & & & 170$\pm$3 & [@PBS_PRC_80]\
One can see on one hand similar ($<1\%$) values for different realistic potentials and on another hand a very good agreement using different methods. In [@CCG_PLB_99; @CCG_NPA_98; @CC_PRC_98] the Faddeev-Yakubovsky (FY) equations in configuration space were solved whereas authors of [@V_NPA_98; @VRK_PRL_98] used the Correlated Hyperspherical Method (CHH). The comparison with the experimental cross section – $\sigma(0)=170\pm3$ mb from [@PBS_PRC_80] – shows that NN realistic potentials fail in describing the zero energy cross section as they fail in reproducing the three- ($B_3$) and four-nucleon ($B_4$) binding energies. Unlike the n-d case, the 4N scattering states call for three nucleon interaction (TNI) from the very beginning. Indeed in the n-$^3$H case the singlet and triplet contribution are of the same size (Figure \[nt\_S\]) whereas the doublet n-d value - directly correlated to $B_3$ and so affected by TNI - turns to be one order of magnitude smaller than the quartet and has no visible effect in the total cross section (Figure \[nd\]). This smartness of nature made the inclusion of TNI unnecessary to reproduce the low energy n-d cross section, thought they play an important role at higher energies and could explain some anomalies in polarization observables ($A_y$) [@GWHKG_96; @WGHGK_PRL_98].
=7.7cm=7.5cm
=7.7cm=7.5cm
The failure in the zero energy region can be corrected by including TNI. In [@CCG_NPA_98; @CCG_PLB_99] an hyperadial TNI was added with parameters adjusted to ensure B$_3$=8.48 and B$_4$=29.0 MeV, a value which takes into account the Coulomb correction in $^4$He. In [@VRK_PRL_98] the much more elaborate Urbana VIII and IX forces were included leading to $B_3=8.48$, $B_4=28.3$ MeV. The scattering length obtained in this way are displayed in lower part of Table \[A\_nt\]. The small differences come essentially from the slighlty different $B_4$ values to which they were adjusted. The values for the MT I-III model potential [@MT_NPA_69] are also given and found to be very close to the realistic NN+NNN interactions. In view of that it seems – at least in what concerns bound and zero energy states – that the only role of TNI is to ensure the physical values for $B_3$ and $B_4$. If they lead to very close results despite their severe analytical differences one can hardly pretend to learn something about them in such kind of calculations alone. In practice they provide enough parameters to fit one number.
Figure \[nt\_S\] shows the n-$^3$H cross section calculated including only the $J^{\pi}=0^+$ and $1^+$ sates. Experimental values are taken from [@PBS_PRC_80; @SKS_60]. Results obtained with the NN forces alone are in dot-dashed curve. Those including TNI are in solid line (separate contributions in long- and short-dashed lines) and provide an accurate cross section until $T_{lab}\approx 0.5$ MeV.
$a_c$ $a_0$ $a_1$ Ref.
----------------- ---------------- ----------------- -------------------
$3.68\pm0.05 $ $3.91\pm0.12 $ $3.6\pm0.1 $ [@SBP_PLB_80]
$3.82\pm0.07 $ $3.70\pm0.62 $ $3.70\pm0.21 $ [@HRCK_ZPA_81]
$3.59\pm0.02 $ $4.98\pm0.29 $ $3.13\pm0.11 $ [@RTWW_PLB_85] I
$3.59\pm0.02 $ $2.10\pm0.31 $ $4.05\pm0.09 $ [@RTWW_PLB_85] II
$3.607\pm0.017$ $4.453\pm0.10$ $3.325\pm0.016$ [@HDSBP_PRC_90]
: Experimental results on n-$^3$H scattering length.[]{data-label="A_exp"}
If the very low energy cross section is accurately measured and reproduced, the situation with scattering lengths – summarized in Table \[A\_exp\] – looks more precarious. These values are displayed in Figure \[A\_exp\_fig\] together with the theoretical ones previously discussed (horizontal lines).
=6.5cm
The best agreement is found with the results of [@SBP_PLB_80]; in fact they contain a theoretical input, the ratio $a_1/a_0$, which turns to be very close to the one given by the realistic potentials from Table \[A\_nt\]. The other compatible results are those of [@HRCK_ZPA_81]. However, apart from the quite comfortable error bars in $a_0$, they have been obtained using a value of $a_c=3.82$ which is not compatible with the more recent and precise values of [@RTWW_PLB_85; @HDSBP_PRC_90]. The values given in [@HDSBP_PRC_90] are quite close to the theoretical ones but they are extracted from a p-$^3$He R-matrix analysis in which the Coulomb interaction has been removed. Finally, as it was pointed out in [@VRK_PRL_98], the experimental values did not lie on the theoretical curves relying $a_i$ to $B_3$.
The usual way to get $a_i$ is by reversing the relations giving $\sigma(0)$ and $a_c$. This procedure is numerically quite unstable. Indeed by assuming an exact value $a_c=3.60$, the small existing error in $\sigma(0)$ leads to a range of values $a_0=4.60-5.16$ and $a_1=3.08-3.27$. A more precise measurement of $\sigma(0)$ could be helpful to improve the present situation and in this respect the CERN TOF [@CERN_TOF] neutron facility could offer interesting possibilities.
The preceding results show that the resonance peak requires the inclusion of negative parity $J^{\pi}=0^-,1^-,2^-$ n-$^3$H states, which become dominante already at $T_{cm}\approx 2.5$ MeV.
A first attempt was done in [@CCG_NPA_98] using FY equations in configuration space. The interation was limited to $V_{NN}^{j\le1}$+$^3$PF$_2$ and the partial wave expansion of FY amplitudes to $l_{y,z}\le2$. Results obtained with AV14 interaction are shown in Figure \[nt\_tni\_sp\]. It was found that the peak region was poorly described by the NN forces alone and that the inclusion of hyperadial TNI still lowered the cross section. The calculations show a high sensitivity to the inclusion of P-waves in $V_{NN}$, a fact also pointed out by Fonseca in dd-dd and dd-p$^3$H polarization observables [@AF_NPA_98; @AF_FBS_99]. Their effect is shown in Figure \[zoom\_nt\_tni\_sp\] with a zoom at $T_{cm}$=3.5 MeV: including $V_{^1P_1,^3P_0,^3P_1}$ still reduces the cross section and the $V_{^3PF_2}$ rises substantially the value to compensate this reduction but not enough to fit the experimental points. This failure was attributed either to a lack of convergence in the partial wave expansion of FY amplitudes or to a failure in NN current models [@CCG_PLB_99].
=7.5cm=7.cm
=7.5cm=7.cm
A more recent calculation was done by Fonseca using AGS equations in momentum space [@F_PRL_99]. This calculation is restricted to 1-rank separable expansion in the T$^{NN}$-matrix but the partial wave expansion of AGS amplitudes was pushed until $l_{y,z}\le3$, what represent a sizeable increase in the number of FY amplitudes, specially those describing the internal structure of triton. Using AV14 and Bonn-B $V_{NN}$ models, this author found a reasonable description of the total and differential cross section data. The $V_{NN}$ P-waves – essentially $^3$PF$_2$ – make all the difference.
This interesting result deserves some comments. First to remark the unusually high sensitivity to NN P-waves in the low energy cross section. Whereas it has almost no effect in the Nd scattering and triton binding energy, the only contribution of the $V_{NN}^{^3P_2}$ accounts at $T_{cm}$=3.5 MeV for half of the n-$^3$H P-waves cross section, which in its turn represents half of the total cross section . Second to notice that the analyzing power $A_y$ shows the same kind of discrepancy than for n-d but not solved by small changes in the $^3P_j$ NN phaseshifts, as done in [@TWK_PRC_98]. Similar disagreements are also found in the dd-p$^3$H reaction.
It is worth noticing that – despite its a priori crude approximation – the 1-rank T-matrix expansion provides very close results to those obtained by solving FY equations for the same number of amplitudes [@CCGF_FBS_99]. If the result concerning the n-$^3$H resonant cross section is confirmed by independent methods or by increasing the number of terms in the T-matrix, it would speak very much in favour of low rank separable expansions.
It could have some interest to notice the ability of a trivial NN model like MT I-III in describing such a non trivial thing. This potential acts only in $V_{NN}^{L=0}$ waves, has no tensor, nor spin-orbit forces, even not pion tail and triton wavefunction contains only S-wave Faddeev components. It provides however a very good agreement with experimental results, specially in the resonance peak [@CC_PRC_98] and even for differential cross sections, as can be seen in Figure \[dcs\_nt\_mt13\]. Only the zero energy is slightly overestimated due to small differences in binding energies: $B_3=8.53$ MeV instead of $8.48$ and $B_4=30.3$ MeV instead of $29.0$, once removed Coulomb corrections. In this model the n-$^3$H resonant cross section has nothing to do with NN P-waves: it is created by the exchange mechanism between the incoming and target nucleons, what results into an effective 1+3 potential generated only by S-wave NN interactions. This shows that nothing is trivial beyond A=2 and the difficulty to disentangle the NN from the N-A interaction.
NN NNN Method $a_0$ $a_1$ Ref.
---------- ------------- -------- -------------- -------------- ----------------
MT I-III — CHH 10.0 [@VKR_FB94]
CR 8.2 7.7 [@YF_FBS_99]
AV18 — CHH 12.9 10.0 [@VRK_PRL_98]
AV14 Urbana VII VMC 10.1$\pm$0.5 [@CRSW_PRC_91]
AV14 Urbana VIII CHH 10.3 9.13 [@VKR_FBS_95]
AV18 Urbana IX CHH 11.5 [@VRK_PRL_98]
Exp. 10.8$\pm$2.6 8.1$\pm$0.5 [@AK_PRC_93]
10.2$\pm$1.5 [@TB_AJ_83]
: Experimental and theoretical values for p-$^3$He scattering length.[]{data-label="a_p3He"}
From the strong interaction point of view, the natural partner of n-$^3$H is p-$^3$He which differs only by Coulomb force. The p-$^3$He reactions are however much more accessible experimentally though the resonant behaviour is somehow hidden due to the absence of total cross section. The situation concerning the low energy parameters is summarized in Table \[a\_p3He\]. One can remark a much bigger theoretical “dispersion” than for the n-$^3$H case and a need for precise experimental values of $a_0$ and $a_1$. Triplet scattering length is a relevant quantity in calculating the weak proton capture p+$^3$He$\rightarrow^4$He+e$^+$+$\bar\nu$ cross section. A firmly established $a_1$ value is needed but here – as in many other radiative processes – the main uncertainties come from the transition operators. The MEC contribution can modify the result by a factor 5 [@CRSW_PRC_91]. There exists also some preliminary calculations at non zero energy [@V_FBS_99]. The differential cross sections at $E_{cm}=3$ MeV shows some lack at backward scattering angles and a rather large underprediction in the analyzing power $A_y$.
The $^4$He continuum
====================
Next in complexity is the continuum spectrum of the $^4$He represented in Figure \[He\_Chart\]. Calculations of p-$^3$H scattering are complicated by the existence of the first $J^{\pi}=0^+$ excitation of $^4$He in its threshold vicinity. This resonance located at $E_R$=0.40 MeV above p-$^3$H covers with its $\Gamma$=0.5 MeV width the scattering region below n-$^3$He.
=6.cm=6.2cm
=8.8cm=6.5cm
It turns out that most of the calculations performed until now find this state below the p-$^3$H threshold, that is as a second $^4$He bound state, probably because they did not include Coulomb corrections. Due to that, the sign of the strong p-$^3$H scattering length is wrong and the interference with the Coulomb amplitude leads to senseless results in the interthreshold region.
S T $a$ $r_0$ $v_0$ $q_0$
--- --- ------- ------- ------------ -------
0 0 14.75 6.75 0.308 0.505
0 1 4.13 2.01 0.462 -
1 0 3.25 1.82 $\simeq$ 0 -
1 1 3.73 1.87 0.231 -
: Low energy N+3N parameters (fm)[]{data-label="tab_lep"}
Among the few data existing in this energy range, we found the differential cross section at $\theta_{cm}=120^{\circ}$ as a function of the energy in [@JSSL_PR_63]. An attempt to describe this cross section can be done using the low energy scattering parameters given in [@CC_PRC_98] and summarized in Table \[tab\_lep\]. One infers from them, in the isospin approximation, the strong p-$^3$H scattering lengths $a^{S=0}=9.44$ and $a^{S=1}=3.49$ fm. The p-$^3$H amplitude reads $f(\theta)=f_c(\theta)+f_{sc}(\theta)$ where $f_c$ is the pure Coulomb term and $f_{sc}$ the strong amplitude in a Coulomb field [@GW]. Limiting $f_{sc}$ to S-wave and using the Coulomb corrected effective range approximation, one can estimate the low energy p-$^3$H differential cross section. The results obtained with the values of Table \[tab\_lep\] and an effective range $r_0=2$ fm for both spin states are displayed in Figure \[pt\_MT13\] (dashed line) and fail to reproduce the observed structure. A good fit (solid lines) is obtained with large and negative values $a^{S=0}\approx-20$ fm. indicating the above threshold position of the first $^4$He excitation. In terms of isospin components, this corresponds to a value $a^{S=0}_{T=0}\approx-40$. The precise location of this state is a very strong requirement for the NN models. Without it, there is no hope to have a good description of the low energy p-$^3$H and also n-$^3$He reaction. We remark that a direct CRM calculation was presented in [@YF_FBS_99]. These authors found $a^{S=0}=-22.6$ fm, $a^{S=1}=4.6$ fm and extracted from the p-$^3$H phaseshifts the position $E_R=0.15$ MeV and width $\Gamma=0.23$ MeV of the resonance.
There exists some calculation for the n-$^3$He scattering length. Using MT I-III and CRM, [@YF_FBS_99] found $a_0=7.5+4.2i$ and $a_1=3.0+0.0i$. Using AV14 and Urbana VII TNI, [@CRSW_PRC_90] found $a_1=3.5\pm0.25$, in agreement with the experimental value although the coupling to p-$^3$H was neglected. The zero energy wavefunction was used to obtain the n+$^3$He$\rightarrow^4$He+$\gamma$ cross section which was found overpredicted by a factor 2 and 1.5 in [@SWPC_PRC_92] where the $\Delta$ degree of freedom was included. Results for the n-$^3$He elastic cross section at higher energy have been presented in this conference [@Uzu_FB16]. None of these calculations have been performed taking into account the full complexity required.
Several d-d calculations have been performed at different levels of approximation. Using VMC authors of [@APS_PRC_91] calculate the d+d$\rightarrow^4$He+$\gamma$ cross section with a dd wavefunction decoupled from n-$^3$He and p-$^3$H channels and conclude that the optimal variational wavefunction does not explain the data. FY equations in momentum space and separable potential were used in [@UOT_93; @UOT_FBS_95; @UKOT_97] to calculate total and differential $\vec{d}+\vec{d}\rightarrow$p+$^3$H cross sections at 20-120 keV and found very good agreement with data. Also at threshold energies, FY equation in configuration space have been solved using simple MT I-III model and isospin approximation for the N+NNN thresholds. A strong J=$0^+$ T=0 dd scattering length $a_0=4.91-0.011i$ fm was found. Using CRM with the same interaction and Coulomb taken into account authors of [@YF_FBS_99] found $a_0=10.2-0.2i$ and $a_2=7.5$ fm. At higher dd energies, there exists AGS calculations of polarization observables indicating large disagreement with data [@F_PRL_99]. Finally we would like to mention the extensive RGM calculations of $^4$He bound and scattering states done by [@HH_NPA_97] in which the phase shifts of different two-fragment channels were obtained.
SUMMARY
=======
The continuum of A=4 is an open door to a higher degree in the nuclear complexity and offers an enormous field of work for a generation of motivated researchers.
The n-$^3$H resonant peak acts as a zoom for the internal structure of triton as well as for the NN P-waves. A first task is to clarify with independent calculations the ability of NN models in describing the elastic total and differential cross section in the resonance region. The position and width of the underlying resonances could be then calculated. The results obtained using the complex rotation method in A=3 system seems very promising [@KMH_FB16_00].
A major point is the description of the p-$^3$H and n-$^3$He thresholds, dominated by the first excitation of $^4$He. This calculations imply coupled channel four-body equations with Coulomb interaction taken into account. This structure completed with the d-d channel constitutes the formal skeleton to be acquainted with in order to access the A=4 continuum.
The calculation of the numerous weak and electromagnetic capture processes is a redoubtable challenge. The access to a high quality of nuclear wavefunction would allow to test and fix the many ambiguities in the transition operators.
The last remark concerns relativity. The increasing complexity of the three nucleon forces requires a numerical investment which becomes comparable to a relativistic description. An effort, conceptual and numerical, in this direction should be of highest interest. The pioneering result using Gross equation [@GS] shows the possibility to reach a consistent description of the three nucleons system using only NN forces. The description of a nuclear system will probably remain always phenomenological – nucleons are already very complicated objects – but the relativistic approach could provide a simpler framework.
: The author is deeply grateful to A. Fonseca, H. Hofmman, A. Kievsky, S. Oryu, E. Uzu, B. Pfitzinger and M. Viviani for helpful discussions and remarks during the preparation of this contribution and to M. Mangin-Brinet for a carefull reading of the manuscript.
[9]{} W. Glockle, H. Kamada, Nucl. A560 (1993) 541 M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, Few-Body Systems 18 (1995) 25 W. Glockle, H. Witala, D. Huber, H. Kamada, J. Golak, Phys. Rep. 274 (1996) 107 B.S. Pudliner et al., Phys. Rev. C56 (1997) 1720
M. Viviani, S. Rosati, A. Kievsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1580 F. Ciesielski, J. Carbonell, C. Gignoux, Phys. Lett. B447 (1999) 199 A.C. Fonseca: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4021
J. Carlson, R. Schiavilla, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998) 743
R.B. Wiringa, R. A. Smith and T. L. Ainsworth, Phys. Rev. C29 (1984) 1207 R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51 (1995) 38 V.G. Stoks, R.A. Klomp, C.P. Terheggen, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C49 (1994) 2950
F. Ciesielski, J. Carbonell, C. Gignoux, Nucl. Phys. A631 (1998) 653c M. Viviani, Nucl. Phys. A631 (1998) 111c
F. Ciesielski, J. Carbonell, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 58 \[We notice a misprint in Tab. VIII: $a$ and $r_0$ for a given S-line must be inverted, in agreement with Tab. VII\]
T.W. Phillips, B.L. Berman, J.D. Seagrave, Phys. Rev. C22 (1980) 384
H. Witala et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1183
R.A. Malfliet, J. Tjon, Nucl. Phys. A127 (1969) 161
J.D. Seagrave, L. Cranberg and J.E. Simmons, Phys. Rev. 119 (1960) 1981
J.D. Seagrave, B.L. Berman, T.W. Phillips, Phys. Lett. 91B (1980) 200 S. Hammerschmied, H. Rauch, H. Clerc, U. Kischko, Z. Phys. A302 (1981) 323 H. Rauch, D. Tuppinger, H. Wolwitsch, T. Wroblewski, Phys. Lett. 165B (1985) 39 G.M. Hale et al., Phys. Rev. C42 (1990) 438
http://www.cern.ch/CERN/Divisions/SL/EET/tof/
A.C. Fonseca, Nucl. Phys. A631 (1998) 675 A.C. Fonseca, Few-Body Systems, Suppl. 10 (1999) 367 W. Tornow, H. Witala, A. Kievsky, Phys. Rev. C57 (1998) 555 F. Ciesielski, J. Carbonell, C. Gignoux, A. Fonseca, Few-Body Syst. 10 (1999) 359
M. Viviani, A. Kievsky, and S. Rosati, AIP Conf. Proc. 334, Ed. F. Gross (1995) 844 S. Yakovlev, I.N. Filikhin, Few-Body Syst. Suppl. 10 (1999) 37 J. Carlson, D.O. Riska, R. Schiavilla, R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C44 (1991) 619
P.E. Tegner, C. Bargholtz, Astrophys. J. 272 (1983) 311 M.T. Alley, L.D. Knutson, Phys. Rev. C48 (1993) 1901
M. Viviani, Few-Body Systems Suppl. 10 (1999) 363
N. Jarmie, M.G. Silbert, D.B. Smith, J.S. Loos, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963) 1987 M.L. Goldberger and K.M. Watson, Collision Theory, John Willey New York 1964
J. Carlson, D.O. Riska, R. Schiavilla, R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C42 (1990) 830 R. Schiavilla, R. Wiringa, V. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C45 (1992) 2628 E. Uzu, contribution to this conference
A. Arriage, V.R. Pandharipande, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C43 (1991) 983
E. Uzu, S. Oryu, M. Tanifuji, Prog. of Theor. Phys. 90 (1993) 937 E. Uzu, S. Oryu, M. Tanifuji: Few-Body Syst. Suppl. 8 (1995) 97 E. Uzu, H. Kameyama, S. Oryu, M. Tanifuji, Few-Body Systems 22 (1997) 65
H.M. Hofmann, G.M. Hale, Nucl. Phys. A613 (1997) 69
E.A. Kolganova, A.K. Motovilov, Y.K. Ho, contribution to this conference A. Stadler, F. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 26
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The appearance of stripe ordering in materials related to the high-temperature superconducting oxides[@htsc_cdw] and of charge and orbital ordering in the colossal magnetoresistance materials[@colossal_cdw], has provided a renewed interest in the physics that drives charge-density-wave order. This phenomenon has been seen in a wide variety of materials ranging from quasi-one-dimensional systems (where Peierls distortion physics is important) such as the organic conductors[@organic_cdw], to the di- and trichalcogenides[@selenides_cdw] like 2H-TaSe$_2$ or NbSe$_3$, so-called A15 materials[@a15_cdw] such as V$_3$Si, blue bronzes[@bbronze_cdw] like KMoO$_3$, cubic oxides[@bkbo_cdw] like Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$BiO$_3$, and Verwey transition materials[@verwey_cdw] such as Fe$_3$O$_4$.
There has been much theoretical work on this problem as well. The dynamical mean field theory was employed to solve for the charge-density-wave phase in the ordered state[@italians] and the puzzle of the large gap ratio was resolved for harmonic systems[@millis_cdwratio]. The resolution involves properly accounting for phonon renormalizations, for nonvanishing effects from vertex corrections, and from effects due to nonconstant electronic density of states (since conventional Migdal-Elisahberg approaches cannot produce gap ratios $2\Delta/T_c$ larger than about 8). The anharmonic problem was also examined with dynamical mean-field theory[@freericks_universal] and it was found that the transition temperature satisfied a scaling law with the wavefunction renormalization parameter for a wide range of parameter space (including systems that were not Fermi liquids at low temperatures).
Here we concentrate on the issue of whether or not the gap ratio can remain large when anharmonic effects are present. The scaling law for the transition temperature shows that anharmonicity does not have a dramatic effect on $T_c$, but as the system is cooled down to $T=0$, the lattice distortion becomes larger and larger generating the full charge-density-wave gap. Naively, we would expect anharmonicity to reduce the lattice distortion (relative to a harmonic system) because the higher powers in the phonon potential do not allow the phonon coordinate to move as far away from the origin. Hence, one expects that anharmonicity will generically reduce the gap ratio, since $T_c$ will be unaffected, but $\Delta$ will be reduced relative to the results of a harmonic system with the same value of the wavefunction renormalization parameter. We need to verify whether this effect occurs and determine how large it can be to see whether one can still explain the large gap ratios of charge-density-wave systems in the presence of anharmonic potentials.
In Section II we introduce the model and the techniques used to solve for the gap ratio. Section III contains our results and discussion, and Section IV contains our conclusions.
Formalism
=========
We will be investigating the static anharmonic Holstein model, whose Hamiltonian is[@holstein; @freericks_universal] $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-\sum_{i,j,\sigma}t_{ij}c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}+\sum_i
(g\bar x_i-\bar \mu)(n_{i\uparrow}+n_{i\downarrow})
\cr
&+&\frac{1}{2}\bar\kappa
\sum_i\bar x_i^2+\alpha_{an}\sum_i\bar x_i^4.
\label{holstein_ham1}\end{aligned}$$ Standard notations are used here: $c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$ ($c_{i\sigma}$) creates (destroys) an electron at lattice site $i$ with spin $\sigma$, $n_{i\sigma}=c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}c_{i\sigma}$ is the electron number operator, $\bar\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $\bar x_i$ is the phonon coordinate at lattice site $i$. We examine the static (or classical) phonon case here, so there is no kinetic energy of the phonon. The hopping of the electrons is restricted to nearest neighbors on a hybercubic lattice in $d$-dimensions. We take the limit $d\rightarrow\infty$ and scale $t_{ij}=
t^*/(2\sqrt{d})$ in order to have nontrivial results[@metzner_vollhardt]. The rescaled hopping integral $t^*$ determines our energy scale ($t^*=1$). The bare density of states becomes a Gaussian $\exp(-\epsilon^2)/\sqrt\pi$, with $\epsilon$ the band energy. The local phonon is taken as a classical variable, so it only has a spring constant $\kappa$ associated with it. The anharmonic potential is chosen to be of the simplest form, a quartic term with a strength $\alpha_{an}$. The deformation potential (or electron-phonon interaction strength) is denoted by $g$ and measures an energy per unit length.
It is useful to shift the phonon coordinate, in order to see explicitly the particle-hole symmetry present in the harmonic model. We shift $\bar x_i\rightarrow
x_i+x^\prime$ with $g\langle n\rangle
+\bar\kappa x^{\prime}+3\alpha_{an}x^{\prime 3}=0$ (with $\langle n\rangle$ the average total electron filling), to transform the Hamiltonian into $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-\sum_{i,j,\sigma}t_{ij}c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}+\sum_i
(g x_i- \mu)(n_{i\uparrow}+n_{i\downarrow}-\langle n\rangle)\cr
&+& \frac{1}{2}\kappa \sum_i x_i^2+\beta_{an}\sum_ix_i^3+
\alpha_{an}\sum_i x_i^4,
\label{holstein_ham2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\kappa=\bar\kappa+12\alpha_{an}x^{\prime 2}$, $\beta_{an}=
4\alpha_{an}x^{\prime}$, and $\mu=\bar\mu-gx^{\prime}$. It is the presence of the cubic term, when $\alpha_{an}\ne 0$ that removes the particle hole symmetry[@hirsch] from the problem when $\mu=0$ and $\langle n\rangle=1$, since the Hamiltonian is no longer unchanged under the transformation $n_{i\sigma}\rightarrow 1-n_{i\sigma}$ and $x_i\rightarrow -x_i$. Note that the system still will possess charge-density-wave order at half filling and weak coupling (for all small $g>0$) because the band structure is still nested at half filling, even though the Hamiltonian is not particle-hole symmetric.
Our calculations are performed using standard techniques of dynamical mean-field theory[@italians; @millis_cdwratio]: we iterate a series of equations to self-consistency that involve (i) determining the local Green’s function from the self energy (by integrating over the noninteracting density of states), (ii) extracting the effective medium (by removing the self energy from the local Green’s function), (iii) calculating the probability distribution of the phonon coordinate (by solving the atomic path integral in a time-dependent field), (iv) extracting the electronic self energy (after determining the local Green’s function from an integral over the phonon coordinate distribution). This procedure is standard (even for the case of the ordered phase), and we do not describe any further details here. Our calculations are performed at half filling $\langle n\rangle =1 $. In the harmonic case, we have $\mu=0$, but the anharmonic problem must have the chemical potential adjusted as a function of temperature to yield the right filling.
When the system is in an ordered charge-density-wave state, there are two probability distributions for the phonon coordinate—one for the $A$ sublattice $w_A(x)$ and one for the $B$ sublattice $w_B(x)$. The order parameter for the charge-density-wave phase is defined to be $$\Delta(T)=g\int dx [w_A(x)-w_B(x)]x,
\label{delta_def}$$ which measures the average difference in the phonon coordinate between the $A$ and $B$ sublattices multiplied by the deformation potential.
=3.0in
In Figure 1 we show a plot of this charge-density-wave order parameter as a function of temperature. The plots include three cases, all at the maximum value of $T_c$ for a given value of $g$ and arbitrary $\alpha_{an}$. The parameters chosen are $g=2$, $\alpha_{an}=0.16$ which has $T_c=0.1277$; $g=1.5$, $\alpha_{an}=0.03$ which has $T_c=0.1326$; and $g=1.19$, $\alpha_{an}=0$ which has $T_c=0.1340$. The curves are normalized by the maximal gap value calculated at $T\approx T_c/8$ which is very close to the $T=0$ value, and by $T_c$. Note that rather than approaching 1, there is a small decrease in $\Delta(T)/\Delta_{max}$ at the lowest temperatures. This is an accuracy issue with our calculations (which are performed with a fixed number of 5000 Matsubara frequencies for the energy cutoff). We estimate that our error in the $T=0$ gap is no larger than about 1%. These curves have the correct generic behavior that we expect for mean-field systems: the order parameter increases like $\sqrt{T_c-T}$ away from the transition temperature and then rapidly saturates. We see no significant difference in the shape of these curves for different values of the anharmonicity. Inset into this figure is a plot of $\langle x_A\rangle$ upper curves and $\langle x_B\rangle$ lower curves. Note how the anharmonic systems are both shifted upwards and have narrower spreads in the average phonon coordinate, but that the curves are symmetric between the $A$ and $B$ sublattices, so the particle-hole asymmetry only affects the midline of the phonon coordinate, not its distortion in the ordered phase!
In summary, we can accurately estimate the value of the $T=0$ gap by performing calculations at $T=T_c/10$ and the shape of the order parameter (as a function of $T$) is not too strongly dependent on the strength of the anharmonicity. In addition, we find that the main effect of the anharmonic interaction is to change the average of the phonon coordinate values on each sublattice $(\langle x_A\rangle
+\langle x_B\rangle)/2$ and shrink the magnitude of the distortion. This does not mean that the gap is reduced by as much, though, because systems that share the same approximate value of $T_c$ will have different values of both $g$ and $\alpha_{an}$. The reduction in the distortion of the phonon coordinate can be compensated by a correspondingly larger value of $g$.
Results and Discussion
======================
We now present results for the charge-density-wave gap as a function of the anharmonicity. The most reasonable way to present these results is to plot the gap versus a measure of the anharmonic potential energy in equilibrium. We can determine what the equilibrium phonon coordinate $\bar x =x^*$ is for the atomic problem \[determined by Eq. (\[holstein\_ham1\]) with $t_{ij}=0$ and $\langle n\rangle=1$\] and then plot results versus $\alpha_{an}x^{*4}$. These results are summarized in Fig. 2. Note that this measure of the anharmonic potential energy is double valued when $g$ is large, since it approaches 0 in both the small and large $\alpha_{an}$ limits. The general shapes of these curves are quite similar, but the scales change with the coupling strength and the stronger coupled cases show more curvature (and eventually a double-valuedness).
=3.0in
We can examine the static Holstein model in both a strong-coupling[@freericks_strong] and a weak-coupling[@millis_weak] limit. In the strong coupling limit, the transition temperature approaches zero as $1/(2g[x_0-x_2])$, while the zero temperature gap becomes large as $g(x_0-x_2)/2$ and hence the ratio can diverge \[$2\Delta/(k_BT_c)=2g^2(x_0-x_2)^2$\]. Here $x_i$ satisfies $$g(i-1)+\kappa x_i + 3 \beta_{an}x_i^2+4\alpha_{an}x_i^3=0.
\label{xdef}$$ This ratio becomes infinite as the coupling strength increases, hence there is no limit to the magnitude of the gap ratio. Note that this result is also true for the superconducting order, when one includes the effect of a nonconstant density of states, since the strong-coupled $T_c$ will approach zero there as well. This result comes entirely from the fact that the phonon-coordinate distortion grows linearly with $g$ in strong coupling, but the transition temperature decreases as $1/g^2$ due to the strong-coupling physics.
We can also investigate the possibility of universal behavior in strong coupling. Since the system consists of empty sites and preformed pairs, the self energy has a low-energy pole and takes the form $\Sigma(\omega)=\alpha
/(\omega+i\delta)+O(\omega^0)$ for small $|\omega|$ with $\alpha>0$. Plugging this form into the self-consistent equations for the Green’s function yields $\alpha=-1/2+g^2|x_0||x_2|$ (which is larger than zero for $g$ large enough). Defining the wavefunction renormalization parameter by a scaling along the imaginary axis[@freericks_universal] $$Z=1-\left \{ \frac{3}{2}\frac{{\rm Im}\Sigma(i\omega_0)}{\omega_0}-
\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\rm Im}\Sigma(i\omega_1)}{\omega_1}\right \},
\label{zdef}$$ with $i\omega_j=i\pi T(2j+1)$, yields $$Z=1-\frac{13}{18}\frac{1}{\pi^2T^2}+\frac{13}{9}\frac{g^2|x_0||x_2|}{\pi^2T^2}.
\label{zstrong}$$ Since $Z$ is a function of $x_0$ and $x_2$ and $2\Delta/(k_BT_c)$ is a function of $x_0-x_2$, we don’t expect universal behavior at extremely strong coupling for the anharmonic case. But, in the harmonic case we have $|x_0|=|x_2|$, so we expect deviations from universality only when $|x_0|/|x_2|$ deviates far from unity.
The weak-coupling limit is much more complicated. There are many approaches that can be taken[@millis_weak; @freericks_weak], but none produce good agreement with the transition temperature over a wide range of coupling strengths (but the zero-temperature gap is approximated well). Here we will concentrate on just two different strategies (for the harmonic case only): (i) the renormalized phonon method[@millis_weak] where a certain class of vertex correction terms can be neglected from the analysis, but one needs to work with renormalized phonons (renormalized by the electron-hole bubble diagrams) and (ii) a similar approximation[@freericks_weak] that employs the identical set of diagrams, but does not renormalize the phonons.
=3.0in
In Fig. 3 we show the results for the gap ratio in the harmonic case, five different anharmonic cases, and the two approximation schemes described above. In order to check for universal behavior, we plot the results as a function of the wavefunction renormalization parameter[@freericks_universal] $Z$ \[which is evaluated as in Eq. (\[zdef\])\]. One can see some striking behavior in this plot. First, we find that the gap ratio can become as large as one would like as the coupling strength gets bigger and bigger. Furthermore, the gap ratio rises very rapidly above the weak-coupling limit of 3.52, so even $Z$ factors of 1.25 (which would correspond to very weak electron-phonon coupling) would have a gap ratio larger than 6. We find that the calculated results lie in between the two different weak coupling schemes indicating that phonon renormalization is important, but the summation of the bubble diagrams renormalizes the phonons too strongly in the general case. Finally, we notice that except for the case of very strong coupling ($g=2$), the gap ratio is modified by at most about 20% from the harmonic case. This finding is most surprising, but can be explained in relatively simple terms. As the anharmonic potential increases, the system becomes weaker and weaker coupled, because the anharmonic potential prevents the phonon coordinate from deviating far from the origin. In the limit of very weak coupling, the transition is dominated by a nesting instability and can be described within a BCS-like format. Hence all results must agree in this limit (if one properly identifies the net strength of the attractive interaction). Furthermore, when the system has small anharmonicity, the anharmonic effects can be treated perturbatively, and the system remains close to the harmonic limit there as well. Since the curves are pinned to be close to the harmonic limit for small anharmonicity and for large anharmonicity, we find that they generically do not stray far from the harmonic curve in the intermediate regime. As the coupling strength increases so this intermediate regime becomes larger, the deviations can also become significant, as we see for the $g=2.0$ case. But we find it surprising that there is such a wide range of parameter space where the results for the anharmonic system remain so close to the harmonic system!
Conclusions
===========
Contrary to the simple arguments about anharmonicity, we find that generically anharmonic phonons are described well by an equivalent harmonic limit, even in the ordered phase, where one would expect the effects of the anharmonicity to be felt more strongly. Hence, we find that the analysis given for the large gap ratio in the harmonic electron-phonon problem remains essentially unchanged as anharmonicity is introduced except in the limit of extremely strong electron-phonon coupling (which may be so unphysically large that is is not attained in any real material). The reason why this holds is essentially a continuity argument: for small and large anharmonicity, the system must be close to the harmonic results—hence it remains close for intermediate values as well.
These results imply, once again[@freericks_universal], that the quasiharmonic approximation should be quite accurate in real materials, since the anharmonic system can be mapped onto an effective harmonic system that shares both the single-particle and two-particle properties. Deviations are expected only in the strong coupling and strong anharmonic limit. The deviation of the gap ratio from the BCS value can be understood from the harmonic analysis[@millis_cdwratio]. We don’t expect these results to be changed much for small phonon frequencies, because we know that $T_c$ follows a universal form for low frequency, and we expect the gap value will not change much if the phonon frequency is small.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to acknowledge stimulating discussions with Andy Millis. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMR-9973225.
J. Tranquada, B. Sternlieb, J. Axe, Y. Nakamura, and S. Vahida, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995).
S. Mori, C. Chen, and S. Cheong, Nature [**392**]{}, 473 (1998).
G. Gruner, [*Density Waves in Solids*]{} (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1994).
D. McWhan, R. Fleming, D. Moncton, and F. DiSalvo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{}, 269 (1980); R. V. Coleman, B. Giambattista, P. K. Hansma, A. Johnson, W. W. McNairy, C. G. Slough, Adv. Phys. [**37**]{}, 559 (1988); J. Wilson, F. DiSalvo, and F. Mahajan, Adv. Phys. [**24**]{}, 117 (1995).
L. Testardi, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**47**]{}, 637 (1975).
G. Travaglini, P. Wachter, J. Marcus, C.Schlenker, Solid State Commun. [**37**]{}, 599 (1981).
R. J. Cava, B. J. Batlogg, J. J. Krajewski, R. Farrow, L. W. Rupp, Jr., A. E. White, K. Short, W. F. Peck, and D. Kometani, Nature [**322**]{}, 814 (1988).
J. Coey, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A [**356**]{}, 1519 (1998).
S. Ciuchi and F. de Pasquale, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 5431 (1999).
S. Blawid and A. Millis, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 2428 (2000).
J. K. Freericks, V. Zlatić, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, R838 (2000).
T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**8**]{}, 325 (1959).
W. Metzner and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 324 (1989).
J. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 5351 (1993).
J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 3881 (1993); J. K. Freericks and G. D. Mahan, [*ibid.*]{} [**54**]{}, 9372 (1996); [**56**]{}, 11321 (1997).
S. Blawid and A. J. Millis, [*preprint cond-mat/0008282*]{} (2000).
J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 403 (1994); J. K. Freericks and M. Jarrell, [*ibid.*]{} [**50**]{}, 6939 (1994); J. K. Freericks, V. Zlatić, W. Chung, and M. Jarrell, [*ibid.*]{} [**58**]{}, 11613 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Paul Springer Jeff R. Hammond Paolo Bientinesi'
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'TTC: A high-performance Compiler for Tensor Transpositions'
---
Author’s address: P. Springer ([email protected]) and P. Bientinesi ([email protected]), AICES, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstr. 2, 52062 Aachen, Germany.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Tensors appear in a wide range of applications, including electronic structure theory [@Bartlett:2007:RMP:CC], multiresolution analysis [@Harrison:2015:arXiv:MADNESS], quantum many-body theory [@pfeifer2014faster], quantum computing simulation [@markov2008simulating], machine learning [@NVIDIA:2014:arXiv:CUDNN; @abaditensorflow; @vasilache2014fast], and data analysis [@kolda2009tensor]. While a range of software tools exist for computations involving one- and two-dimensional arrays, i.e. vectors and matrices, the availability of high-performance software tools for tensors is much more limited. In part, this is due to the combinatorial explosion of different operations that need to be supported: There are only four ways to multiply two matrices, but $\binom{m}{k}\binom{n}{k}$ ways to contract an $m$- and an $n$-dimensional tensor over $k$ indices. Furthermore, the different dimensions and data layouts that are relevant to applications are much larger in the case of tensors, and these issues lead to memory access patterns that are particularly difficult to execute efficiently on modern computing platforms.
Efficient computation of tensor operations, particularly contractions, exposes a tension between generality and mathematical expression on one hand, and performance and software reuse on the other. If one implements tensor contractions in a naive way—using perfectly-nested loops—the connection with the mathematical formulae is obvious, but the performance will be suboptimal in all nontrivial cases. High performance can be obtained by using the *Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms* (BLAS) [@blas3], but mapping from tensors to matrices efficiently is nontrivial [@DiNapoli:2014:AMC:tensors; @Li:2015:IIA:2807591.2807671] and optimal strategies are unlikely to be performance portable, due to the ways that multidimensional array striding taxes the memory hierarchy of modern microprocessors. A well-known approach for optimizing tensor computations is to use the level-3 BLAS for contracting matrices at high efficiency, and to always permute tensor objects into a compatible matrix format. This approach has been used successfully in the NWChem Tensor Contraction Engine module [@Hirata:2003:JPCA:TCE; @KarolBookChapter], the Cyclops Tensor Framework [@Solomonik:2014:JPDC:CTF], and numerous other coupled-cluster codes dating back more than 25 years [@Gauss:1991:JChP:ACES]. The critical issue for this approach is the existence of a high-performance tensor permutation, or tensor transpositions.
While tensor contractions appear in a range of scientific domains (e.g., climate simulation [@drake1995design] and multidimensional Fourier transforms [@FFTW; @pekurovsky2012p3dfft]), they are perhaps of greatest importance in quantum chemistry [@baumgartner2005synthesis; @Hirata:2003:JPCA:TCE], where the most expensive widely used methods—coupled-cluster methods—consist almost entirely of contractions which deal with 4-, 6-, and even 8-dimensional tensors. Such computations consume millions of processor-hours of supercomputing time at facilities around the world, so any improvement in their performance is of significant value.
To this end, we developed *Tensor Transpose Compiler* (TTC), an open source code generator for high-performance multidimensional transpositions that also supports multithreading and vectorization.[^1] Together with TTC, we provide a transpose benchmark that can be used to compare different algorithms and implementations on a range of multidimensional transpositions. Let $A_{i_1,i_2,...,i_N}$ be an $N$-dimensional tensor, and let $\Pi(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)$ denote an arbitrary permutation of the indices $i_1, i_2, ..., i_N$. The transposition of $A$ into $B_{\Pi(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)}$ is expressed as $B_{\Pi(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)} \gets \alpha \times A_{i_1,i_2,...,i_N}$. To make TTC flexible and applicable to a wide range of applications, we designed it to support the class of transpositions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:transpose}
B_{\Pi(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)} \gets \alpha \times A_{i_1,i_2,...,i_N} + \beta \times B_{\Pi(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$; that is, the output tensor $B$ can be updated (as opposed to overwritten), and both $A$ and $B$ can be scaled.[^2] As an example, let $A_{i_1,i_2}$ be a two-dimensional tensor, $\Pi(i_1,i_2) = (i_2,i_1)$, and $\alpha = 1, \beta = 0$; then Eqn. \[eq:transpose\] reduces to an ordinary out-of-place 2D matrix transposition of the form $B_{i_2,i_1} \gets
A_{i_1,i_2}$.
Throughout this article, we adopt a Fortran storage scheme, that is, the tensors are assumed to be stored following the indices from left to right (i.e., the leftmost index has stride 1). Additionally, we use the notation $\pi(i_a) = i_b$ to denote that the $a$^th^ index of the input operand will become the $b$^th^ index of the output operand.
For each input transposition, TCC explores a number of optimizations (e.g., blocking, vectorization, parallelization, prefetching, loop-reordering, non-temporal stores), each of which exposes one or more parameters; to achieve high-performance, these parameters have be tuned for the specific hardware on which the transposition will be executed. Since the effects of such parameters are non-independent, the optimal configuration is a point (or a region) of an often large parameter space; indeed, as the size of the space grows as $N!$, an exhaustive search is feasible only for tensors of low dimensionality. In general, it is widely believed that the parameter space is too complex to design a *perfect* transpose from first principles [@mccalpin1995automatic; @lu2006combining]. For all these reasons, whenever an exhaustive search is not applicable, TTC’s generation relies on heuristics.
[0.45]{} ![Single-threaded bandwidth for all the 120 possible loop orders of two different 5D transpositions. *explicit-vec* and *hw-pre* respectively denote whether explicit vectorization and hardware prefetching are enabled (Y) or disabled (N).[]{data-label="fig:autotuning"}](./plots/v1t4.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Single-threaded bandwidth for all the 120 possible loop orders of two different 5D transpositions. *explicit-vec* and *hw-pre* respectively denote whether explicit vectorization and hardware prefetching are enabled (Y) or disabled (N).[]{data-label="fig:autotuning"}](./plots/v2t4.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:autotuning\], we use two exemplary 5D transpositions (involving tensors of equal volume), as compelling evidence in favor of a search-based approach.[^3] The figures show the bandwidth attained by each of the possible $5! = 120$ loop orders[^4]—sorted in descending order, from left to right—with and without hardware prefetching (*hw-pre:N*, *hw-pre:Y*), and with and without explicit vectorization (*explicit-vec:Y*, *explicit-vec:N*).[^5] The compiler-vectorized code consists of perfectly nested loops including `#pragma ivdep`, to assist the compiler. The horizontal line labeled “*fixed size*” denotes the performance of the compiler-vectorized versions (with hardware prefetching enabled), where the size of the tensor was known at compile time; this enabled the compiler to reorder the loops.
Several observations can be made. (1) Despite the fact that the two transpositions move exactly the same amount of data, the resulting top bandwidth is clearly different. (2) The difference between the leftmost and the rightmost datapoints—of any color—provides clear evidence that the loop order has a huge impact on performance: $9.2\times$ and $4.3\times$ in Fig. \[fig:autotuning\_a\] and Fig. \[fig:autotuning\_b\], respectively. This is in line with the findings of Jeff Hammond [@hammond2009automatically], who pointed out that the best loop order for a multidimensional transpose can have a huge impact on performance. (3) By comparing the leftmost data point of the beige ({height="0.8\baselineskip"}) and blue lines ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}), one concludes that the explicit vectorization improves the performance over the fastest compiler-vectorized version by at least $20\%$. (4) Since the cyan ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}) lines in Fig. \[fig:autotuning\_a\] and \[fig:autotuning\_b\] are practically the same, one can conclude that the difference in performance between the two transpositions is due to hardware prefetching. (5) The difference between the blue line ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}) and the horizontal black line in Fig. \[fig:autotuning\_a\] indicates that when it is possible for the compiler to reorder the loops, the code generated is much better than most loop orders, but still about 40% away from the best one; similarly for Fig. \[fig:autotuning\_b\], the compiler fails to identify the best loop order.
While observation (5) suggests that modern compilers struggle to find the best loop order at compile time, an even bigger incentive to adopt a search-based approach is provided by observation (4), since detailed information about the mechanism of hardware prefetchers is not well-documented. Moreover, the implementations of hardware prefetchers can vary between architectures and manufactures. Hence, designing a generic analytical model for different architectures seems infeasible at this point. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows.
- We introduce TTC, a high-performance transpose generator that supports single, double, single-complex, double-complex and mixed precision data types, generates multithreaded C++ code with explicit vectorization for AVX-enabled processors, and exploits spatial locality.
- We also introduce a comprehensive multidimensional transpose benchmark, to provide the means of comparing different implementations. By means of this benchmark, we perform a thorough performance comparison on two architectures.
- We analyze both the effects of four different optimizations in isolation, and quantify the impact of a dramatic reduction of the search space.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:related\] summarizes the related work on tensor transpositions. In Section \[sec:ttc\] we introduce TTC with a special focus on its optimizations. In Section \[sec:perf\] we present a thorough performance analysis of TTC’s generated implementations—showing both the attained peak bandwidth as well as the speedups over a realistic baseline implementation. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes our findings and outlines future work.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
McCalpin et al. [@mccalpin1995automatic] realized that search is necessary for high-performance 2D transpositions as early as 1995. Their code-generator explored the optimization space in an exhaustive fashion.
Mateescu et al. [@mateescu2012optimizing] developed a cache model for IBM’s Power7 processor. Their optimizations include blocking, prefetching and data alignment to avoid conflict-misses. They also illustrate the effect of large TLB[^6] page sizes on performance.
Lu et al. [@lu2006combining] developed a code-generator for 2D transpositions using both an analytical model and search. They carried out an extensive work covering vectorization, blocking for both L1 cache and TLB, while parallelization was not explored.
Andre Vladimirov’s [@vladimirov2013multithreaded] presented his research on in-place, square transpositions on Intel Xeon and Intel Xeon Phi processors.
Chatterjee et al. [@Chatterjee:2000ui] investigated the effect of cache and TLB misses on performance for square, in-place, 2D transpositions. Among other things, they concluded that “the limited number of TLB entries can easily lead to thrashing” and that “hierarchical non-linear layouts are inherently superior to the standard canonical layouts”.
While there has been a lot of research targeted on 2D transpositions [@mccalpin1995automatic; @mateescu2012optimizing; @goldbogen1981prim; @vladimirov2013multithreaded; @Chatterjee:2000ui; @lu2006combining] and 3D transpositions [@jodra2015efficient; @ding2001optimal; @van1991fast], higher dimensional transpositions have not yet experienced the same level of attention.
Ding et al. [@ding2001optimal; @he2002mpi] present an algorithm dedicated to multidimensional in-place transpositions. Their approach is optimal with respect to the number of bytes moved. However, their results suggest that this approach does not yield good performance if the position of the stride-1 index changes (i.e., $\pi(i_1) \neq i_1$).
The work of Wei et al. [@wei2014autotuning] is probably the most complete study of multidimensional transpositions so far. Their code-generator, which “uses exhaustive global search”, explores blocking, in-cache buffers to avoid conflict misses [@gatlin1999memory], loop unrolling, software prefetching and vectorization. The generated code achieves a significant percentage of the system’s `memcpy` bandwidth on an Intel Xeon and an IBM Power7 node for cache-aligned transpositions. However, a parallelization approach is not described, and different loop orders are not considered.
Lyakh et al. [@lyakh2015efficient] designed a generic multidimensional transpose algorithm and evaluated it across different architectures (e.g., Intel Xeon, Intel Xeon Phi, AMD and NVIDIA K20X). In contrast to our approach, theirs does not rely on search. Their results suggest that on both the Xeon Phi as well as the NVIDIA architectures, there still is a significant performance gap between their transposition algorithm and a direct copy.
Tensor Transpose Compiler {#sec:ttc}
=========================
TTC is a domain-specific compiler for tensor transpositions of arbitrary dimension. It is written in Python and generates high-performance C++ code[^7]. For a given permutation[^8] and tensor-size, TTC explores a search space of possible implementations. These implementations differ in some properties which have direct effects on performance e.g., loop order, prefetch distance, blocking; each of such properties will be discussed in the following sections. Henceforth, we use the term ‘candidate’ for all these implementations; similarly, we use the term ‘solution’ to denote the fastest (i.e., best performing) candidate.
To reduce the compilation time, TTC allows the user to limit the number of candidates to explore; by default, TTC explores up to 200 candidates. Unless the user specifically wants to explore the entire search space exhaustively, TTC applies heuristics to prune the search space and to identify promising candidates that are expected to yield high performance. A good heuristic should be generic enough to be applicable on different architectures, and it should prune the search space to a degree so that the remaining implementations can be evaluated exhaustively. Once the search space has been pruned, TTC generates the C++ routines for all the remaining candidates, which are compiled and timed.
Argument Description
------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------
`–perm=<index1>,<index2>,\dots` permutation$^*$
`–size=<size1>,<size2>,\dots` size of each index$^*$
`–dataType=<s,d,c,z,sd,ds,cz,zc>` data type of $A$ and $B$ (default: `s`)
`–alpha=<value>` alpha (default: 1.0)
`–beta=<value>` beta (default: 0.0)
`–lda=<size1>,<size2>,\dots` leading dimension of each index of $A$
`–ldb=<size1>,<size2>,\dots` leading dimension of each index of $B$
`–prefetchDistances=<value>,\dots` allowed prefetch distances
`–no-streaming-stores` disable non-temporal stores (default: off)
`–blockings=<H\timesW>,\dots` block sizes to be explored
`–maxImplementations=<value>` max \#implementations (default: 200)
: TTC’s command-line arguments. Required arguments are marked with a $^*$.[]{data-label="tbl:arguments"}
The minimum required input to the compiler is the actual permutation and the size of each index; several additional arguments to pass extra information and to guide the code generation process can be supplied by command-line arguments; a subset of the input arguments is listed in Table \[tbl:arguments\]. For instance, by using the `–lda` and `–ldb` arguments, it is possible to transpose tensors that are a portion of larger tensors. This feature is particularly interesting because it enables TTC to generate efficient packing routines of scattered data elements into contiguous buffers; such routines are frequently used in dense linear algebra algorithms such as a matrix-matrix multiplication [@BLIS4]. Moreover, TTC supports single-, double-, single-complex- and double-complex data types for both the input $A$ and the output $B$—via `–dataType`. TTC is also able to generate mixed-precision transpositions—where $A$ and $B$ are of different data type (e.g., `–dataType=sd` denotes that $A$ uses single-precision while $B$ uses double-precision). This feature is again especially interesting in the context of linear algebra libraries since it allows to implement mixed-precision routines effortlessly. Furthermore, the user can guide the search by choosing certain blockings, prefetch distances or loop orders—and thereby reduce the search space. With the argument `–maxImplementations`, the user influences the compile time by imposing a maximum size to the search space; in the extreme case in which this flag is set to one, the solution is returned without performing any search. On the other hand, setting `–maxImplementations=-1` effectively disables the heuristics and instructs TTC to explore the search space exhaustively.
A flowchart outlining the stages (1) - (9) of TTC is shown in Fig. \[fig:overview\]. (1) To reduce complexity, TTC starts off by merging indices, whenever possible, in the input and output tensor. For instance, given the permutation $\Pi(i_1,i_2,i_3)
= (i_2,i_3,i_1)$, the indices $i_2$ and $i_3$ are merged into a new ‘super index’ $\tilde{i_2}:= (i_2,i_3)$ of the same size as the combined indices (i.e., size($\tilde{i_2}$) $=$ size($i_2$)$\times$size($i_3$)); as a consequence, the permutation becomes $\Pi(i_1,\tilde{i_2}) = (\tilde{i_2},i_1)$.[^9] Next, TTC queries a local SQL database of known/previous solutions, to check whether a solution for the input transposition already exists; if so, no generation takes place, and the previous solution is returned. Otherwise, the code-generation proceeds as follows: (2) one of the possible blockings is chosen, (3) a loop order is selected, and (4) other optimizations (e.g., software prefetching, streaming-stores) are set. The combination of the chosen blocking, the loop order and the optimizations uniquely identify a candidate. After these steps, (5) an estimated cost for the current candidate is calculated. This cost is used to determine whether the current candidate should be added to a queue of candidates or if it should be neglected. The aforementioned input argument `–maxImplementations` determines the capacity of this queue.
The loop starting and ending at (2) is repeated, if different combinations of blockings, loop orders and optimizations are still possible. Once all candidates have been generated, they are (7) compiled by an external C++ compiler, and (8) timed. Finally, (9) the best candidate (i.e., the solution) is selected and stored to a *.cpp/h* file and its timing information as well as its properties (e.g., blocking, loop order) are saved in the SQL database for future references.
(in) \[io, text width=3.0cm\] [Permutation, sizes]{}; (merge) \[process, right of=in, xshift=5cm\] [(1) Merge indices]{}; (schedule) \[process, below of=merge, yshift=-1.0cm\] [(3) Choose Loop order]{}; (add) \[process, below of=schedule, yshift=-1.8cm\] [(6) Add to queue]{}; (dec1) \[decision, right of=merge, xshift=3.8cm,font=,scale=1.1\] [Solution already known?]{}; (out) \[io, right of=dec1, xshift=4.8cm, text width=3.0cm\] [transpose.\[cpp/h\]]{}; (blocking) \[process, below of=dec1, yshift=-1.0cm\] [(2) Choose blocking]{}; (dec3) \[decision, below of=blocking,font=,scale=1.1, yshift=-0.9cm\] [More combinations?]{}; (optimizations) \[process, below of=in, yshift=-1.0cm\] [(4) Choose optimizations]{}; (dec2) \[decision, below of=optimizations,font=,scale=1.1, yshift=-0.9cm\] [(5) apply heuristics]{}; (save) \[process, below of=out, yshift=-1.0cm\] [(9) Store fastest candidate]{}; (time) \[process, below of=save\] [(8) Time candidates]{}; (compile) \[process, below of=time\] [(7) Compile candidate]{};
(in) – (merge); (merge) – (dec1); (dec1) – node\[anchor=south\] [Yes]{} (out); (dec1) – node\[anchor=east\] [No]{} (blocking); (blocking) – (schedule); (schedule) – (optimizations); (optimizations) – (dec2); (dec2.east) – node\[anchor=south\] [cost okay]{} ($(add.west)-(0,0.15)$); ($(add.east)-(0,0.15)$) – (dec3); (dec2.south) – node\[anchor=south\] [cost too high]{} (dec3.south); (dec3) – node\[anchor=east\] [Yes]{} (blocking); (dec3) – node\[anchor=south\] [No]{} (compile); (compile) – (time); (time) – (save); (save) – (out);
For each and every transposition, TTC explores the following tuning opportunities:
- Explicit vectorization (Section \[sec:vectorization\])
- Blocking (Section \[sec:blocking\])
- Loop-reordering (Section \[sec:loop-order\])
- Software prefetching (Section \[sec:prefetch\])
- Parallelization (Section \[sec:parallel\])
- Non-temporal stores, if applicable
The following sections discuss these optimizations in greater detail. For the remainder of this article, let $w$ denote the vector-width, in elements, for any given precision and architecture (e.g., $w=8$ for single-precision calculations on an AVX-enabled architecture).
Vectorization {#sec:vectorization}
-------------
With respect to vectorization, we distinguish two different cases: the stride-1 index (i.e., the leftmost index) of the input and output tensors is constant (see Fig. \[fig:case1\]) or not (see Fig. \[fig:case2\]). To achieve optimal performance, these cases require significantly different implementations.
[0.45]{}
(0,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – node\[left,inner sep = 0\] [$i_1$]{} ++(0,-,0) – node\[below,inner sep = 0\] [$i_3$]{}++(,0,0) – cycle; (0,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(0,-,0) – node\[anchor=north west,inner sep = 0\] [$i_2$]{} ++(0,0,) – cycle; (0,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) – cycle;
(1.45,-0.45,0) to (0.7,-0.45,0);
(,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – node\[left,inner sep = 0\] [$i_1$]{} ++(0,-,0) – node\[below,inner sep = 0\] [$i_2$]{} ++(,0,0) – cycle; (,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(0,-,0) – node\[anchor=north west,inner sep = 0\] [$i_3$]{} ++(0,0,) – cycle; (,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) – cycle;
[0.45]{}
(0,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – node\[left,inner sep = 0\] [$i_3$]{} ++(0,-,0) – node\[below,inner sep = 0\] [$i_2$]{}++(,0,0) – cycle; (0,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(0,-,0) – node\[anchor=north west,inner sep = 0\] [$i_1$]{} ++(0,0,) – cycle; (0,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) – cycle;
(1.45,-0.45,0) to (0.7,-0.45,0);
(,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – node\[left,inner sep = 0\] [$i_1$]{} ++(0,-,0) – node\[below,inner sep = 0\] [$i_2$]{} ++(,0,0) – cycle; (,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(0,-,0) – node\[anchor=north west,inner sep = 0\] [$i_3$]{} ++(0,0,) – cycle; (,0,0) – ++(-,0,0) – ++(0,0,-) – ++(,0,0) – cycle;
### Case 1: $\pi(i_1) = i_1$
When the stride-1 index does not change, vectorization is straightforward. In this case, the transposition moves a contiguous chunk of memory (i.e., the first column) of the input/output tensor at once as opposed to a single element. Hence, the operation is essentially a series of nested loops around a `memcopy` of the size of the first column. In terms of the memory access pattern, this scenario is especially favorable, because of the available spatial data locality. Since the vectorization in this case does not require any in-register transpositions and merely boils down to a couple of vectorized loads and stores, we leave the vectorization to the compiler, which in this specific scenario is expected to yield good performance.
### Case 2: $\pi(i_1) \neq i_1$
In order to take full advantage of the SIMD capabilities of modern processors, this second case requires a more sophisticated approach. Without loss of generality, let us assume that the index $i_b$, with $i_b \neq
i_1$, will become the stride-1 index in $B$ (e.g., $i_b = i_3$ in Fig. \[fig:case2\]). Accesses to $B$ are contiguous in memory for successive values of $i_b$, while accesses to $A$ are contiguous for successive values of $i_1$. Full vectorization is achieved by unrolling the $i_1$ and $i_b$ loops by multiples of $w$ elements, giving raise to an $w\times w$ transpose. Henceforth, we refer to such a $w\times w$ tile as a *micro-tile*. The transposition of a micro-tile is fully vectorized by using an in-register transposition.[^10] Using this scheme, an arbitrarily dimensional out-of-place tensor transposition is reduced to a series of independent two-dimensional $w\times w$ transpositions, each of which accesses $w$ many $w$-wide consecutive elements of both $A$ and $B$.
Blocking {#sec:blocking}
--------
In addition to the $w\times w$ micro-tiles, we introduce a second level of blocking to further increase locality. The idea is to combine multiple micro-tiles into a so-called *macro-tile* of size $b_A\times b_B$, where $b_A$ and $b_B$ correspond to the blocking in the stride-1 index of $A$ and $B$, respectively.[^11] This approach is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:blockingOverview\].
![Overview of the blocking mechanism for the permutation $\Pi(i_1,i_2,i_3) = (i_2,i_1,i_3)$, with $b_A = b_B = 2w$.[]{data-label="fig:blockingOverview"}](./plots/blockingOverview-crop.pdf){height="4cm"}
By default, TTC explores the search space of all macro-tiles of size $b_A\times
b_B$ with $b_A, b_B \in \{w,2w,3w,4w\}$. The flexibility of supporting multiple sizes of macro-tiles has several desirable advantages: first, it enables TTC to adapt to different memory systems, which might favor contiguous writes (e.g., $16\times32$) over contiguous reads (e.g., $32\times16$) and vice versa; second, it implicitly exploits architectural features such as *adjacent cacheline prefetching*, and cacheline-size (e.g., $16$ elements for single precision for modern x86 CPUs); finally, it reduces false-sharing of cache lines between different threads in a parallel setting.
If desired by the user, TTC can effectively prune the search space and only evaluate the performance of a subset of the available tiles. We designed a heuristic which ranks the blockings for a given transposition and size. Specifically, the blocking is chosen such that (1) $b_A$ and $b_B$ are both multiples of the cacheline-size (in elements), and that (2) the remainder $r^i = S^i_1
\text{(mod) } b_i, i \in \{A,B\}$, with $S^i_1$ being the size of the stride-1 index of tensor $i \in \{A,B\}$, is minimized. The quality of this heuristic is demonstrated in Section \[sec:heuristics\].
Loop order {#sec:loop-order}
----------
As Fig. \[fig:autotuning\] already suggested, the choice of the proper loop order has a significant influence on performance. Since the number of available orderings for a tensor with $d$ dimensions is $d!$, determining the best loop order is by exhaustive search is expensive even for modest values of $d$.
Our heuristic to choose the loop order is designed to increase data locality in both $A$ and $B$. This strategy fulfills multiple purposes: (1) it reduces cache- and TLB-misses, and (2) it reduces the stride within the innermost loop. The latter is especially important because large strides can prevent modern hardware prefetchers from learning the memory access patterns. For instance, the maximal stride supported by hardware prefetchers of Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs is limited to $\SI{2}{\kibi\byte}$ [@intelOpt]. Other aspects of the hardware implementation affect the cost of different loop orders; for example, the write-through cache policy of the IBM Blue Gene/Q architecture makes it extremely important to exploit write locality, since writing to a cache line evicts it from cache [@bgqOpt]. The reader interested in further details on this heuristic is referred to the available source-code at [[www.github.com/HPAC/TTC](www.github.com/HPAC/TTC)]{}.
Software Prefetching {#sec:prefetch}
--------------------
Software prefetching is only enabled for the case of $\pi(i_1)\neq i_1$; indeed, the memory access pattern for $\pi(i_1) = i_1$ is so regular that it should be easily caught by the hardware prefetcher.
We designed the software prefetching to operate on micro-tiles; hence, a given prefetch distance $d$ has the same meaning irrespective of the chosen macro-blocking. The prefetching mechanism is depicted in Fig. \[fig:prefetchOverview\]. TTC always prefetches entire $w\times w$ micro-tiles. Before transposing the current micro-tile $j$, TTC prefetches the micro-tile which is at distance $d$ ahead of the current tile. This is illustrated by the colors in Fig. \[fig:prefetchOverview\], where the macro-tile contains $n = 4$ micro-tiles: before processing the orange $w\times w$ block of the current macro-tile $A_i$, TTC already prefetches the orange micro-tile of the corresponding macro-tile $A_p$, with $p = i +
\lfloor(j+d)/n\rfloor$ (i.e., $A_{i+1}$ in Fig. \[fig:prefetchOverview\]).
![Overview of the software prefetching mechanism for a distance $d=5$. Arrows denote the order in which the micro-tiles are being processed.[]{data-label="fig:prefetchOverview"}](./plots/prefetchDistance-crop.pdf){height="4.0cm"}
Parallelization {#sec:parallel}
---------------
//variable declaration
...
//main loops
#pragma omp parallel
#pragma omp for collapse(3) schedule(static)
for(int i3 = 0; i3 < size2 - 15; i3+= 16)
for(int i1 = 0; i1 < size0 - 31; i1+= 32)
for(int i2 = 0; i2 < size1; i2+= 1)
transpose32x16(&A[i1 + i2*lda1 + i3*lda2], lda2,
&B[i1*ldb2 + i2*ldb1 + i3], ldb2, alpha, beta);
//remainder loops
...
Listing \[lst:parallel\] contains the generated parallel code[^12] for a given tensor transposition with software prefetching disabled. The `collapse` clause increases the available parallelism and improves load balancing among the threads. Each thread has to process roughly the same amount of $b_A\times b_B$ tiles.
A detailed description of the parallelization of the prefetching algorithm is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the overall idea of prefetching the blocks remains identical to the scalar version (see previous section). The only difference is that each thread has to keep track of the tiles it will access in the near future in a local data structure; for this task, we use a queue of tiles. The interested reader is again referred to the source-code for further details.
Performance Evaluation {#sec:perf}
======================
We evaluate the performance of TTC on two different systems, *Intel* and *AMD*. The *Intel* system consists of two *Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3* CPUs (with 12 cores each) based on the *Haswell* microarchitecture. For all measurements, ECC is enabled, and both *Intel Speedstep* and *Intel TurboBoost* are disabled. The compiler of choice is the *Intel icpc 15.0.4* with flags `-O3 -openmp -xhost`. Unless otherwise mentioned, this is the default configuration and system for the experiments. The *AMD* system consists of a single *AMD A10-7850K* APU with 4 cores based on the *steamroller* microarchitecture. The compiler for this system is *gcc 5.3* with flags `-O3 -fopenmp -march=native`. All measurements are based on 24 threads and 4 threads for the Intel and AMD system, respectively (i.e., one thread per physical core).
Experimental results suggest that optimal performance is attained with one thread per physical core. We also experimented with thread affinity on both systems.[^13]
The reported bandwidth $\text{BW}(x)$ for solution $x$ is computed as $$\text{BW}(x) = \frac{3 \times S}{2^{30} \times \text{Time}(x)}\text{ } \SI{}{\gibi\byte}/s,$$ where $S$ is the size in bytes of the tensor; the prefactor $3$ is due to the fact that since in all our measurements $B$ is updated (i.e., $\beta \neq 0$, see Eqn. \[eq:transpose\]), one has to account for reading $B$ as well.
The reported memory bandwidth by the STREAM benchmark [@McCalpin1995] for the *Intel* (*AMD*) system is 105.6 (12.2), 105.9 (12.2), 111.6 (13.1) and 112.2 (13.0) GiB/s for the *copy* ($\mathbf{b} \gets \mathbf{a}$), *scale* ($\mathbf{b} \gets \alpha
\mathbf{a}$), *add* ($\mathbf{c} \gets \mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}$) and *triad* ($\mathbf{c} \gets \alpha
\mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}$) test-cases, respectively.
Transposition Benchmark
-----------------------
To evaluate the performance of multidimensional transpositions across a range of possible use-cases, we designed a synthetic benchmark. The benchmark comprises 19 different transpositions,[^14] chosen so that no indices can be merged. For each tensor dimension (2D–6D), we included the inverse permutation (e.g., $B_{i_3,i_2,i_1} \gets
A_{i_1,i_2,i_3}$, $B_{i_4,i_3,i_2,i_1} \gets A_{i_1,i_2,i_3,i_4}$, …), and exactly one permutation for which the stride-1 index does not change. These two scenarios typically cover both ends of the spectrum, yielding the worst and the best performance, respectively.
In the benchmark, each transposition is evaluated in three different configurations—for a total of 57 test cases: one where all indices are of roughly the same size, and two where the tensors have a ratio of $6$ between the largest and smallest index. The desired volume of the tensors across all dimensions are roughly the same and can be chosen by the user; in our experiments, we fixed it to $\SI{200}{\mebi\byte}$, which is bigger than any L3 cache in use today.
The benchmark is publicly available at [[www.github.com/HPAC/TTC/benchmark](www.github.com/HPAC/TTC/benchmark)]{}.
TTC-generated code
------------------
We now present the performance of the fastest implementations—generated by TTC—for all transpositions in the benchmark. Furthermore, we analyze the influence of the individual optimizations (blocking, loop-reordering, software prefetching, and explicit vectorization) on the performance.
Fig. \[fig:performanceBenchmark\] illustrates the attained bandwidth and speedup across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD systems. The speedups are measured over a reference routine consisting of $N$ perfectly nested loops annotated with both `#pragma omp parallel for collapse(N-1)` on the outermost loop, and `#pragma omp simd` on the innermost loop. Moreover, the loop order for the reference version is chosen such that the output tensor $B$ is accessed in a perfectly linear fashion; this loop order reduces false sharing of cache lines between the threads. With this setup, the compiler is assisted as much as possible to yield a competitive routine.
[0.45]{} ![TTC. Bandwidth and speedup of TTC’s fastest solution across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD system. The vertical lines identify the dimensionality of the tensors.[]{data-label="fig:performanceBenchmark"}](./plots/benchmark_bandwidth_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="5cm"}
[0.45]{} ![TTC. Bandwidth and speedup of TTC’s fastest solution across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD system. The vertical lines identify the dimensionality of the tensors.[]{data-label="fig:performanceBenchmark"}](./plots/benchmark_speedup_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="5cm"}
\
[0.45]{} ![TTC. Bandwidth and speedup of TTC’s fastest solution across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD system. The vertical lines identify the dimensionality of the tensors.[]{data-label="fig:performanceBenchmark"}](./plots/benchmark_bandwidth_iamdee.pdf "fig:"){height="5cm"}
[0.45]{} ![TTC. Bandwidth and speedup of TTC’s fastest solution across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD system. The vertical lines identify the dimensionality of the tensors.[]{data-label="fig:performanceBenchmark"}](./plots/benchmark_speedup_iamdee.pdf "fig:"){height="5cm"}
Figs. \[fig:benchmarkBandwidthIntel\] and \[fig:benchmarkBandwidthAMD\] show the attained bandwidth of the TTC-generated solutions across the benchmark for the Intel and AMD system, respectively. The transpositions are classified in three categories: *stride-1* ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}), *inverse* ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}), and *general* ({height="0.8\baselineskip"}), respectively denoting those permutations in which the first index does not change, the inverse permutations, and those transpositions which do not fall into either of the previous two categories. In addition to the bandwidth, these figures also report the STREAM-triad bandwidth (solid green line), as well as the bandwidth of a SAXPY (i.e., single-precision vector-vector addition of the form $\mathbf{y} \gets \alpha
\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{y}$, $\alpha
\in \mathbb{R}, \mathbf{x,y} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, see solid black line). The figures illustrate that TTC achieves a significant fraction of the SAXPY-bandwidth on both architectures (the average across the entire benchmark is $91.68\%$ and $78.30\%$ for the Intel and AMD systems, respectively). With the exception of some performance-outliers on the AMD system, the performance of TTC is stable across the entire benchmark.
It is interesting to note that on the AMD system, TTC attains much higher bandwidth than the STREAM-triad benchmark. This phenomenon is due the fact that the STREAM benchmark does not account for the write-allocate traffic .
In terms of speedups over the reference implementation, TTC achieves considerable results on both systems (see Fig. \[fig:benchmarkSpeedupIntel\] and \[fig:benchmarkSpeedupAMD\]). When looking closely at the plots, it becomes apparent that the inverse permutations benefit the most from TTC, attaining speedups of up to $8.84\times$ and $18.15\times$ on the Intel and AMD system, respectively. While the speedups for the stride-1 transpositions are much smaller, they can still be as high as $1.66\times$. For general transpositions, the speedups range from $1.02\times$ to $8.71\times$, and from $1.28\times$ to $19.44\times$, for the Intel and AMD system, respectively.
[0.45]{} ![Breakdown of the speedups for the *Intel* system.[]{data-label="fig:optSpeedup"}](./plots/blockingSpeedup_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
[0.45]{} ![Breakdown of the speedups for the *Intel* system.[]{data-label="fig:optSpeedup"}](./plots/prefetchDistanceSpeedup_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
\
[0.45]{} ![Breakdown of the speedups for the *Intel* system.[]{data-label="fig:optSpeedup"}](./plots/loopSpeedup_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
[0.45]{} ![Breakdown of the speedups for the *Intel* system.[]{data-label="fig:optSpeedup"}](./plots/vecSpeedup_linuxihdc077.pdf "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
To gain insights on where the performance gains come from, in Fig. \[fig:optSpeedup\] we report the speedup due to each of TTC’s optimizations separately. For each test-case from the benchmark, the speedup is measured as the bandwidth of the fastest candidate without the particular optimization over the fastest candidate with the particular optimization enabled, while all other optimizations are still enabled.[^15]
Fig. \[fig:blockingSpeedup\] presents the speedup that can be gained over a fixed $8\times8$ blocking. The optimal blocking results in up to $35\%$ performance increase and motivates our search in this search dimension. Software prefetching (Fig. \[fig:prefetchSpeedup\]) also yields a noticeable speedup of up to $11\%$. In contrast to the high speedups gained by loop-reordering shown in Section \[sec:intro\], TTC only exhibits much smaller ones (see Fig. \[fig:loopSpeedup\]). The reason for this behaviour is twofold: first, we chose a good loop order for the reference implementation (i.e., the loop order for which the output tensor $B$ is accessed in a linear fashion); second, some of the drawbacks of a suboptimal loop order might be mitigated by the other optimizations—especially blocking. Even then, an additional search yields speedups of up to $22\%$ over the reference loop order. Despite the fact that transpositions are memory bound, we see an appreciable speedup by implementing an in-register transpose via AVX intrinsics (see Fig. \[fig:vecSpeedup\]). The speedup for vectorization is obtained by replacing our explicitly vectorized $8\times8$ micro kernel with a scalar implementation (i.e., two perfectly nested loops with the loop-trip-counts being fixed to $8$). While the reference implementation is also vectorized by the compiler, the compiler fails to find an in-register transpose implementation.
All in all we see that each optimization has a positive effect on the attained bandwidth; the combination of all these optimizations results in significant speedups over modern compilers.
Reduction of the search space
-----------------------------
We discuss the possibility of lowering the compilation time by reducing the search space by identifying “universal” settings that yield nearly optimal performance.
Intuitively, the optimal prefetch distance (for software prefetching) should only depend on the memory latency to the main memory and thus be independent of the actual transposition (see [@lee2012prefetching] for details). This observation motivates us to seek a “universal” prefetch distance which would reduce TTC’s search space.
To evaluate the performance of TTC for a fixed prefetch distance $d$, we introduce the concept of *efficiency*. Let $C_t$ be the set of all candidates for the tensor transposition $t$, $x$ a particular candidate implementation, and $d_x$ the prefetch distance used by candidate $x$; furthermore, let $\text{BW}(x)$ be the bandwidth attained by candidate $x$, and $\text{BW}^{\text{max}}_t$ the maximum bandwidth among all candidates for transposition $t$. Then the *efficiency* $E(d,t)$—which quantifies the loss in performance one would experience if the prefetch distance were fixed to $d$—is defined as $$E(d,t) = \max_{\substack{x \in C_t, \\ d_x = d}}\left( \frac{\text{BW}(x)}{\text{BW}^{\text{max}}_t} \right).$$ The efficiency is bounded from above and below by 1.0 and 0.0, respectively—with 1.0 being the optimum.
Fig. \[fig:slowdownPrefetch\] presents the maximum ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}), minimum ({height="0.65\baselineskip"}) and average ({height="0.8\baselineskip"}) efficiency across all the transpositions of the benchmark as a function of the prefetch distance. We notice that (1) there is at least one transposition within the benchmark for which the influence of software-prefetching is negligible (see the leftmost, blue triangle {height="0.65\baselineskip"}), (2) for each fixed prefetch distance $d$, there is at least one transposition for which $d$ is suboptimal (see cyan line {height="0.65\baselineskip"}), (3) both the minimum and average efficiency increase with $d$ (cyan {height="0.65\baselineskip"} and beige {height="0.8\baselineskip"} lines), and (4) once $d$ is “large enough”, the efficiency does not improve much. Quantitatively, a prefetch distance greater or equal to five increases the average and the minimum efficiency across the benchmark to more than $99\%$ and roughly $98\%$, respectively. Hence, fixing $d$ to any value between 5 and 8 is a good choice for the given system, effectively reducing the search space by a factor of 9, without introducing a performance penalty.
![Minimum, average and maximum efficiency for a fixed prefetch distance across the benchmark.[]{data-label="fig:slowdownPrefetch"}](./plots/bestPrefetchDistance_linuxihdc077.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Quality of Heuristics {#sec:heuristics}
---------------------
On our Intel system, TTC evaluated roughly $8$ candidates per second across the whole benchmark (for tensors of size $\SI{200}{\mega\byte}$); this includes all the necessary steps from code-generation to compilation and measurement. If a solution has to be generated in a short period of time (i.e., the search space needs to be pruned efficiently), the quality of the heuristics to choose a proper loop order and blocking becomes especially important. Fig. \[fig:limitedTTC\] presents the speedups that TTC achieves if the user limits the number of generated candidates to $1, 10$ and $100$, and when no limit is given (i.e., $\infty$ reflects the same results as in Fig. \[fig:benchmarkSpeedupIntel\] and \[fig:benchmarkSpeedupAMD\]). When the number of generated candidates is limited to one, no search takes place, i.e., the loop order and the blocking for the generated implementation are determined solely by our heuristics. Even in this extreme case, TTC still exhibits remarkable speedups over modern compilers.
Specifically, with a search space of $1, 10$ and $100$ candidates, TTC achieves $94.58\%, 97.35\%$ and $99.10\%$ of the performance of the unlimited search (averaged across the whole benchmark). In other words, one can rely on the heuristics for the most part and resort to search only in scenarios in which even the last few bits of performance are critical. In those cases, we observe that a search space of $100$ candidates already yields results within $1$% from those obtained with an exhaustive search.
![Speedup over the reference implementation with the number of TTC-generated candidates limited to $1, 10, 100$ and $\infty$ (i.e., no limit).[]{data-label="fig:limitedTTC"}](./plots/evaluateLimit.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
We presented TTC, a compiler for multidimensional tensor transpositions. By deploying various optimization techniques, TTC significantly outperforms modern compilers, and achieves nearly optimal memory bandwidth. We investigated the source of the performance gain and illustrated the individual impact of blocking, software prefetching, explicit vectorization and loop-reordering. Furthermore, we showed that the heuristics used by TTC efficiently prune the search space, so that the remaining candidates are easily ranked via exhaustive search.
For the future, should compilation time become a concern, iterative compilation techniques should be considered [@kisuki2000iterative; @knijnenburg2002iterative]. While this current work focused on architectures using the AVX instruction set, TTC is designed to accommodate other instruction sets; in general, the effort to port TTC to a new architecture is related to optimizations such as explicit vectorization and software prefetching. As a next step, we plan to support the AVX512 instruction set (e.g., used by Intel’s upcoming Knights Landing microarchitecture), ARM and IBM Power CPUs as well as NVIDIA GPUs. Finally, we will be using TTC as a building block for our upcoming Tensor Contraction Compiler.
[^1]: TTC is available at [[www.github.com/HPAC/TTC](www.github.com/HPAC/TTC)]{}.
[^2]: An alternative representation for Eqn. \[eq:transpose\] is $B_{i_1,i_2,...,i_N} \gets \alpha \times A_{\widetilde{\Pi}(i_1,i_2,...,i_N)} + \beta \times B_{i_1,i_2,...,i_N}$, where $\widetilde{\Pi}$ is a suitable permutation.
[^3]: The experiments were performed on an Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 CPU, using one thread.
[^4]: A $d$ dimensional transposition can be implemented as $d$ perfectly nested loops around an update statement. These loops can be ordered in $d!$ different ways.
[^5]: We refer to *explicit* vectorization to denote code which is written with AVX intrinsics; the vectorized versions use a blocking of $8\times 8$ (see Section \[sec:vectorization\]).
[^6]: The translation lookaside buffer, or TLB, serves as a cache for the expensive virtual-to-physical memory address translation required to convert software memory addresses to hardware memory addresses.
[^7]: Changing TTC to generate C code instead of C++ is trivial.
[^8]: We use the terms *permutation* and *transposition* interchangeably.
[^9]: Notice that merging of two indices $i_m$ and $i_{m+1}$ is only possible if $ld(i_{m+1}) =
size(i_{m})ld(i_{m})$ holds, with $size(i)$ and $ld(i)$ respectively denoting the size and leading-dimension of a given index $i$.
[^10]: This in-register transposition—written in AVX intrinsics—is automatically generated by another code-generator of ours and will be the topic of a later publication.
[^11]: In the case of $\pi(i_1) = i_1$, such a blocking would not make sense; hence, the blocking takes place along the second index of $A$ and $B$. For instance, for $B_{i_1,i_3,i_2}
\gets A_{i_1,i_2,i_3}$, the blocking involves $i_2$ and $i_3$.
[^12]: We do not present the code that handles the remainder generated when $b_A$ or $b_B$ do not evenly divide the leading dimension of $A$ or $B$.
[^13]: On the Intel systems setting the affinity to `KMP_AFFINITY=granularity=fine,compact,1,0` (i.e., hyper-threading will not be used) yields optimal results. The performance on the AMD system, on the other hand, was not sensitive to the thread affinity as long as the threads were not pinned to the same physical core.
[^14]: One 2D transposition, three 3D, and five each for 4D, 5D and 6D.
[^15]: Note that the remaining parameters of the optimal solutions are allowed to change (e.g., the fastest solution without software prefetching might require a blocking of $8\times8$ while a blocking of $16\times16$ is optimal for solutions with software prefetching enabled).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider suspensions of deformable particles in a Newtonian fluid by means of fully Eulerian numerical simulations with a one-continuum formulation. We study the rheology of the visco-elastic suspension in plane Couette flow in the limit of vanishing inertia and examine the dependency of the effective viscosity $\mu$ on the solid volume-fraction $\Phi$, the capillary number $\Ca$, and the solid to fluid viscosity ratio $\Key$. The suspension viscosity decreases with deformation and applied shear (shear-thinning) while still increasing with volume fraction. We show that $\mu$ collapses to an universal function, $\mu \left( \Phie \right)$, with an effective volume fraction $\Phie$, lower than the nominal one owing to the particle deformation. This universal function is well described by the Eilers fit, which well approximate the rheology of suspension of rigid spheres at all $\Phi$. We provide a closure for the effective volume fraction $\Phie$ as function of volume fraction $\Phi$ and capillary number $\Ca$ and demonstrate it also applies to data in literature for suspensions of capsules and red-blood cells. In addition, we show that the normal stress differences exhibit a non-linear behavior, with a similar trend as in polymer and filament suspensions. The total stress budgets reveals that the particle-induced stress contribution increases with the volume fraction $\Phi$ and decreases with deformability.'
address: |
Linné Flow Centre and SeRC (Swedish e-Science Research Centre),\
KTH Mechanics, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
author:
- 'Marco E. Rosti and Luca Brandt'
bibliography:
- './bibliography.bib'
title: Suspensions of deformable particles in a Couette flow
---
Rheology ,Deformable particles ,Hyper-elasticity
Introduction
============
Particles suspended in a carrier fluid can be found in many biological, geophysical and industrial flows. Some examples are the blood flow in the human body, pyroclastic flows from volcanoes, sedimentation in sea beds, fluidized beds and slurry flows. Despite the numerous applications, it is still difficult to estimate the force needed to drive suspensions, while in a single phase flow the pressure drop can be accurately predicted as a function of the Reynolds number [@pope_2001a] and the properties of the wall surface (e.g. roughness [@orlandi_leonardi_2008a], porosity [@breugem_boersma_uittenbogaard_2006a; @rosti_cortelezzi_quadrio_2015a], elasticity [@rosti_brandt_2017a]). This is due to the complexity of multiphase flows where additional parameters become relevant, such as the size and shape of particles, the density difference with the carrier fluid, their elasticity and the solid volume fraction, denoted here $\Phi$; each of these parameters may be important and affect the overall dynamics of the suspension in different and sometimes surprising ways [@mewis_wagner_2012a]. Here, we focus on suspensions where particles are deformable, the solid volume fraction is finite and we use numerical simulations to fully resolve the fluid-structure interactions and the stresses in the solid and liquid. Indeed, there has been growing interest in the study of particles whose shape can modify and adapt to the kind of flow. Examples range from a single liquid droplet with constant surface tension to red blood cells enclosed by a biological membrane or cells with stiff nuclei [@freund_2014a; @takeishi_imai_ishida_omori_kamm_ishikawa_2016a; @alizad-banaei_loiseau_lashgari_brandt_2017a]. Such studies are motivated by the practical need to analyse the behaviour of droplets with contaminated interfaces, cells enclosed by biological membranes, and various synthetic capsules encountered in chemical and biochemical industries, with specific applications in chemical and biomedical engineering.
From a theoretical point of view, Einstein [@einstein_1956a] showed in his pioneering work that in the limit of vanishing inertia and for dilute suspensions (i.e. $\Phi \rightarrow 0$) the relative increase in effective viscosity of a suspension of rigid particles in a Newtonian fluid, [i.e., ]{}the suspension viscosity, is a linear function of the particle volume fraction $\Phi$ . Batchelor [@batchelor_1977a] and Batchelor and Green [@batchelor_green_1972a] added a second order correction in $\Phi$; for higher volume fractions, the viscosity starts to increase faster than a second order polynomial [@stickel_powell_2005a], existing analytical relations are not valid and one needs to resort to empirical fits. One of the available empirical relations for the effective viscosity of rigid particle suspension that provide a good description of the rheology at zero Reynolds number both for the high and low concentration limits is the Eilers fit [@ferrini_ercolani_de-cindio_nicodemo_nicolais_ranaudo_1979a; @zarraga_hill_leighton-jr_2000a; @singh_nott_2003a; @kulkarni_morris_2008a]. Inertia has been shown to introduce deviations from the behavior predicted by the different empirical fits, an effect that can be related to an increase of the effective volume fraction at intermediate values of $\Phi$[@picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a]. Interesting phenomena are also observed at high volume fractions once friction forces become important.
In this context, understanding the rheology of deformable objects has been a challenge for many years. Deformability is here characterised in terms of the Capillary number $\Ca$, which is the ratio between viscous and elastic forces, so that low $\Ca$’s correspond to configurations dominated by elastic forces where particles easily recover the equilibrium shape and deformations are small. The first efforts to predict the rheological properties of such suspensions is the work by Taylor [@taylor_1932a] who assumed small deformations and showed that for small $\Phi$ the coefficient of the linear term in Einstein’s relation is a function of the ratio between the particle and fluid viscosities. Later analytical calculations [@cox_1969a; @frankel_acrivos_1970a; @choi_schowalter_1975a; @pal_2003a] attempted to extend the result to higher order in $\Phi$ and $\Ca$, similarly to what done by Batchelor for rigid particles, using perturbative expansions. Only recently high-fidelity numerical simulations have been used to study such problem [@ii_gong_sugiyama_wu_huang_takagi_2012a; @kruger_kaoui_harting_2014a; @oliveira_cunha_2015a; @srivastava_malipeddi_sarkar_2016a; @matsunaga_imai_yamaguchi_ishikawa_2016a].
In the present work, we will focus on deformable particles with a viscous hyper-elastic behavior. These are a special class of elastic materials (the constitutive behavior is only a function of the current state of deformation) where the work done by the stresses during a deformation process is dependent only on the initial and final configurations, the behaviour of the material is path independent and a stored strain energy function or elastic potential can be defined [@bonet_wood_1997a]; these can show nonlinear stress-strain curves and are generally used to describe rubber-like substances. Also, many researchers used materials with similar constitutive relations to simulate particles, capsules, vesicles and even red blood cells [@sugiyama_ii_takeuchi_takagi_matsumoto_2011a; @ii_sugiyama_takeuchi_takagi_matsumoto_2011a; @ii_gong_sugiyama_wu_huang_takagi_2012a; @villone_hulsen_anderson_maffettone_2014a; @villone_greco_hulsen_maffettone_2016a].
Outline
-------
In this work, we present Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) of a suspension of hyper elastic deformable spheres in a Couette flow at low Reynolds number. The fluid is Newtonian and satisfies the full incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, while momentum conservation and the incompressibility constraint are enforced inside the solid objects. In , we first discuss the flow configuration and governing equations, and then present the numerical methodology used. The rheological study of the suspension is presented in , where we also discuss the role of the different parameters defining the elastic particles. We will present a new closure for the shear stress of suspensions of deformable objects, based on an estimate of their deformation, obtained using available numerical and experimental data and the Eilers fit. Finally, a summary of the main findings and some conclusions are drawn in .
Formulation {#sec:formulation}
===========
![Sketch of the channel geometry and coordinate system adopted in this syudy.[]{data-label="fig:sketch"}](fig01){width="35.00000%"}
We consider the flow of a suspension of deformable viscous hyperelastic particles in an incompressible Newtonian viscous fluid in a channel with moving walls, plane Couette geometry. The solid suspension have the same density $\rho$ as the fluid. The unstressed reference shape of the particle is a sphere of radius $r$. shows a sketch of the geometry and the Cartesian coordinate system, where $x$, $y$ and $z$ ($x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$) denote the streamwise, wall-normal and spanwise coordinates, while $u$, $v$ and $w$ ($u_1$, $u_2$, and $u_3$) denote the corresponding components of the velocity vector field. The lower and upper impermeable moving walls are located at $y=-h$ and $y=h$, and move in opposite direction with constant streamwise velocity $\pm V_w$.
The fluid and solid phase motion is governed by conservation of momentum and the incompressibility constraint:
\[eq:NS\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u_i^{\rm f}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial u_i^{\rm f} u_j^{\rm f}}{\partial x_j} &= \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \sigma_{ij}^{\rm f}}{\partial x_j}, \\
\frac{\partial u_i^{\rm f}}{\partial x_i} &= 0, \\
\frac{\partial u_i^{\rm s}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial u_i^{\rm s} u_j^{\rm s}}{\partial x_j} &= \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \sigma_{ij}^{\rm s}}{\partial x_j}, \\
\frac{\partial u_i^{\rm s}}{\partial x_i} &= 0,\end{aligned}$$
where the suffixes $^{\rm f}$ and $^{\rm s}$ are used to indicate the fluid and solid phase. In the previous set of equations, $\rho$ is the density (assumed to be the same for the solid and fluid), and $\sigma_{ij}$ the Cauchy stress tensor. The kinematic and dynamic interactions between the fluid and solid phases are determined by enforcing the continuity of the velocity and traction force at the interface between the two phases
\[eq:bc\] $$\begin{aligned}
u_i^{\rm f} &= u_i^{\rm s}, \label{bc-v}\\
\sigmaf_{ij} n_j &= \sigmas_{ij} n_j \label{bc-sigma},\end{aligned}$$
where $n_i$ denotes the normal vector at the interface. The fluid is assumed to be Newtonian $$\label{eq:stress-f}
\sigmaf_{ij} = -p \delta_{ij} + 2 \muf D_{ij},$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta, $p$ is the pressure, $\muf$ the fluid dynamic viscosity, and $D_{ij}$ the strain rate tensor $(\partial u_i/\partial x_j + \partial u_j/\partial x_i)/2$. The solid is an incompressible viscous hyper-elastic material undergoing only the isochoric motion with constitutive equation $$\label{eq:stress-s}
\sigmas_{ij} = -p \delta_{ij} + 2 \mus D_{ij} + G B_{ij},$$ where $\mus$ is the solid dynamic viscosity, and the last term the hyper-elastic contribution modeled as a neo-Hookean material, thus satisfying the incompressible Mooney-Rivlin law, where $G$ is the modulus of transverse elasticity and $B_{ij}$ the left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor ($B_{ij} = F_{ik} F_{jk}$ where $F_{ij} = \partial x_i / \partial X_j$ is the deformation gradient, being $x$ and $X$ the current and reference coordinates [@bonet_wood_1997a]).
-------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------------
Case $\color{brown}{+}$ $\color{brown}{\times}$ $\color{brown}{\ast}$ $\color{brown}{\boxdot}$ $\color{brown}{\bigtriangleup}$ $\color{blue}{+}$ $\color{blue}{\times}$ $\color{blue}{\ast}$ $\color{blue}{\boxdot}$ $\color{blue}{\bigtriangleup}$
$\Phi$ $0.0016$ $0.0016$ $0.0016$ $0.0016$ $0.0016$ $0.11$ $0.11$ $0.11$ $0.11$ $0.11$
$\Key$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$\Ca$ $0.02$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.4$ $2$ $0.02$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.4$ $2$
Case $\color{orange}{+}$ $\color{orange}{\times}$ $\color{orange}{\ast}$ $\color{orange}{\boxdot}$ $\color{orange}{\bigtriangleup}$ $\color{red}{+}$ $\color{red}{\times}$ $\color{red}{\ast}$ $\color{red}{\boxdot}$ $\color{red}{\bigtriangleup}$
$\Phi$ $0.22$ $0.22$ $0.22$ $0.22$ $0.22$ $0.33$ $0.33$ $0.33$ $0.33$ $0.33$
$\Key$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$\Ca$ $0.02$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.4$ $2$ $0.02$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.4$ $2$
Case $\color{blue}{\Diamond}$ $\color{blue}{\bigcirc}$ $\color{blue}{\bigtriangledown}$
$\Phi$ $0.11$ $0.11$ $0.11$
$\Key$ $0.01$ $0.1$ $10$
$\Ca$ $0.2$ $0.2$ $0.2$
-------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------------
To numerically solve the fluid-structure interaction problem at hand, we adopt the so called one-continuum formulation [@tryggvason_sussman_hussaini_2007a], where only one set of equations is solved over the whole domain. This is obtained by introducing a monolithic velocity vector field valid everywhere, found by applying the volume averaging procedure [@takeuchi_yuki_ueyama_kajishima_2010a; @quintard_whitaker_1994b]. Thus, we can write the Cauchy stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}$ in a mixture form, similarly to the Volume of Fluid [@hirt_nichols_1981a] and Level Set [@sussman_smereka_osher_1994a; @chang_hou_merriman_osher_1996a] methods commonly used to simulate multiphase flows: $$\label{eq:phi-stress}
\sigma_{ij} = \left( 1 - \phis \right) \sigmaf_{ij} + \phis \sigmas_{ij},$$ where $\phis$ is a local phase indicator based on the local solid volume fraction. Thus, at each point of the domain the fluid and solid phases are distinguished by $\phis$, which is equal to $0$ in the fluid, $1$ in the solid, and between $0$ and $1$ in the interface cells. The set of equations can be closed in a purely Eulerian manner by introducing a transport equation for the volume fraction $\phis$ $$\label{eq:PHI-adv}
\frac{\partial \phis}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial u_k \phis}{\partial x_k} = 0,$$ and updating the left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor components with the following transport equation: $$\label{eq:B-adv}
\frac{\partial B_{ij}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial u_k B_{ij}}{\partial x_k} = B_{kj}\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_k} + B_{ik}\frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_k},$$ expressing the fact that the upper convected derivative of the left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor is identically zero [@bonet_wood_1997a].
The equations are solved numerically: the time integration is based on an explicit fractional-step method [@kim_moin_1985a], where all the terms are advanced with the third order Runge-Kutta scheme, except the solid hyper-elastic contribution which is advanced with the Crank-Nicolson scheme [@min_yoo_choi_2001a]. The governing differential equations are solved on a staggered grid using a second order central finite-difference scheme, except for the advection terms in and where the fifth-order WENO scheme is applied. The code has been extensively validated, and more details on the numerical scheme and validation campaign are reported in Ref. [@rosti_brandt_2017a]. Note that, no special artifact is used to avoid or model the particle-wall and particle-particle interaction, because the hydrodynamic repulsion is brought by the soft lubrication effect due to the geometry change via the particle deformation [@skotheim_mahadevan_2005a]. More details on the numerical method can be found in Ref. [@sugiyama_ii_takeuchi_takagi_matsumoto_2011a].
Numerical setup
---------------
We consider the Couette flow of a Newtonian fluid laden with hyper-elastic deformable spheres. The Reynolds number of the simulation is fixed to $\Rey = \rho \dot{\gamma} r^2/\muf = 0.1$, where $\dot{\gamma}$ is the reference shear rate, so that we can consider inertial effects negligible. The total solid volume fraction of the suspension $\Phi$ is defined as the volume average of the local volume fraction $\phi$, [i.e., ]{}$\Phi={\langle {\langle \phi\rangle}\rangle}$. Hereafter, the double ${\langle {\langle \cdot\rangle}\rangle}$ indicates the time and volume average while the single ${\langle \cdot\rangle}$ the average in time and in the homogeneous $x$ and $z$ directions. Four values of total volume fraction $\Phi \approx 0.0016$, $0.11$, $0.22$, and $0.33$ are considered, together with five values of elastic moduli $G$, resulting in the capillary numbers $\Ca = \muf \dot{\gamma}/G = 0.02$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.4$, and $2$. For all the previous cases the solid viscosity is set equal to the fluid viscosity, [i.e., ]{}$\Key=\mus/\muf=1$. To study the effect of the solid viscosity, we run three additional simulations for the case with $\Phi=0.11$ and $\Ca=0.2$ with the following solid/fluid viscosity ratio $\Key=\mus/\muf=0.01$, $0.1$, and $10$. The full set of simulations analysed is reported in , together with the color scheme and symbols used in the figures throughout the manuscript. Note that, the range of the viscoelsatic parameters ($\Ca$ and $\Key$), as well as the volume fraction $\Phi$, are similar to that of many previous works that can be found in the literature [@davino_greco_hulsen_maffettone_2013a; @picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a; @villone_hulsen_anderson_maffettone_2014a; @matsunaga_imai_yamaguchi_ishikawa_2016a; @villone_greco_hulsen_maffettone_2016a]. The numerical domain is a rectangular box of size $16r \times 10r \times 16r$ in the $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions, discretised on a Cartesian uniform mesh with $16$ grid points per sphere radius $r$. No-slip boundary conditions are imposed on the solid walls, while periodic boundary conditions are enforced in the homogeneous $x$ and $z$ directions. All the simulations are started from a stationary flow with a random distribution of the particles across the domain. The grid independence of the results has been verified by simulating the case with $\Phi=0.22$ and $\Ca=0.2$ with double grid points in each direction, resulting in a difference in the effective viscosity lower than $0.5\%$. The effect of the size of the domain on the results ([e.g., ]{}confinement effects) has not been studied in the present work, and the domain size was chosen the same as in a previous study [@picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a]; the interested reader is referred to Ref. [@fornari_brandt_chaudhuri_lopez_mitra_picano_2016a] for more details on confined suspensions in a similar geometry. Note that, similarly to the box size, also the general set-up and most of parameters used in this study are chosen as in Ref. [@picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a] where suspensions of rigid spheres are examined to ease comparisons.
\
\
\
\
Results {#sec:result}
=======
{width="32.20000%"} {width="32.20000%"} {width="32.20000%"}\
{width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"}
We start the analysis of the suspension of deformable particles by showing the mean streamwise velocity profile $\vf$ and the solid concentration $\phis$ in , where the shaded area represents the spread of the data due to the different Capillary numbers. The mean streamwise velocity equals $V_w$ at the wall due to the no-slip condition with the moving wall, and is null at the center line for symmetry. The velocity profile, a straight line for a Newtonian fluid, is clearly different due to the presence of the suspended particles. In particular, the velocity decreases faster than the Newtonian case close to wall, [i.e., ]{}the wall-normal derivative of the velocity profile at the wall increases, it shows a local minimum around $y\approx0.75h$ and then goes smoothly to zero; these differences are enhanced for high values of volume fractions and Capillary numbers, especially in the near wall region and around the local minimum. The shape of the velocity profile is strongly related to the mean distribution of the particles across the channel, as shown by the wall-normal profiles of the local solid volume fraction in the bottom panel of the same figure. The particles have a non uniform distribution in the $y$ direction, with a clear layer close to the wall as shown by the peak in the concentration around $y\approx0.75h$. This is due to the excluded volume effects at the wall [@yeo_maxey_2010a; @picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a], and corresponds to the position of the local minimum of velocity. Also, we note that the location of maximum particle concentration moves towards the wall for increasing volume fractions.
The wall-normal derivative of the streamwise velocity at the wall can be used to estimate the effective viscosity of the non-Newtonian fluid made by the suspension of particles in the Newtonian fluid. Indeed, we define the effective suspension viscosity $\mu$, normalized by the fluid one $\muf$, as follows $$\label{eq:visc}
\frac{\mu}{\muf}=\frac{{\langle \sigma_{12}^{\rm w}\rangle}}{\muf \dot{\gamma}}.$$ The effective viscosity as a function of the total volume fraction $\Phi$ and of the Capillary number $\Ca$ is shown in . Here, the solid colour circles represent the limiting case of completely rigid particles ($\Ca=0$), taken from the simulations in Ref. [@picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a], while the black circles are the results for drops with $Ca=0.15$ from Ref. [@srivastava_malipeddi_sarkar_2016a] and the dashed line Pal’s empirical relation [@pal_2003a]. We observe that the effective viscosity is a monotonic non-linear function of both variables, and in particular, it increases with the volume fraction $\Phi$ and decreases with the Capillary number $\Ca$. All the deformable cases have lower effective viscosity then the rigid ones at the same volume fraction, and the difference is enhanced for the higher values of the Capillary number. Note also that the growth rate of the effective viscosity is reducing for increasing Capillary numbers, and that it appears to be almost linear for the highest $Ca$ under consideration, something usually associated to suspensions of monodisperse particles ($\Phi \rightarrow 0$) [@einstein_1956a]. As clearly shown in the figure, the limit for $\Ca \rightarrow 0$ is the rigid particle behavior, while for $\Ca \rightarrow \infty$ the suspension viscosity approaches that of the fluid, [i.e., ]{}$\mu/\muf \rightarrow 1$. In the top panel of , we display with grey lines a fit to our data. The data for rigid spheres collapse well onto the Eilers fit; this is an experimental fit for non-Brownian particles at zero Reynolds number, valid also for high volume fractions [@zarraga_hill_leighton-jr_2000a; @singh_nott_2003a; @kulkarni_morris_2008a], reading $$\label{eq:Eilers}
\dfrac{\mu}{\mu^f} = \left[ 1 + B_E \dfrac{\Phi}{1-\Phi/\Phi_m}\right]^2,$$ where $\Phi_m=0.58 - 0.63$ is the geometrical maximum packing, and $B_E =1.25 - 1.7$ a coefficient. Here we use $\Phi_m=0.6$ and $B_E=1.7$. The simulations pertaining suspensions of deformable particles are fitted with by an expression formally similar to the Batchelor and Green relation [@batchelor_green_1972a] , [i.e., ]{}a second order extension of the Einstein’s formula [@einstein_1956a], $$\label{eq:batchelor}
\dfrac{\mu}{\muf}=1+\left[\mu\right]\Phi+B_B \Phi^2,$$ where $\left[\mu\right]$ is the intrinsic viscosity equal to $5/2$ for rigid dilute particles and $B_B$ is a coefficient equal to $7.6$ for non-Brownian spheres. For the cases of deformable particles studied here, we use the intrinsic viscosity computed from simulations with a single sphere ($\Phi \approx 0.0016$ for the domain considered here), while $B_B$ is kept as a fitting parameter. This second-order relation is usually inaccurate for $\Phi \gtrsim 0.15$, when the viscosity starts increasing faster than a second order polynomial [@stickel_powell_2005a]. However, we show here that it remains valid for values of the volume fraction up to $\Phi=0.33$ in the case of deformable particles, provided the intrinsic viscosity $\left[\mu\right]$ is modified to take into account the change of shape. In other words, in the case of deformable particles, both $\left[\mu\right]$ and $\Phi$ are function of the Capillary number $\Ca$. The fitting coefficients obtained by the method of least squares are reported in , together with the intrinsic viscosity extracted from our simulations. This is computed as $\left[\mu\right] \approx \left( \mu - \muf \right)/ \left( \muf \Phi \right)$.
$\Ca$ $\left[ \mu \right]$ $B_B$
-------- ---------------------- ---------
$0.02$ $2.988$ $16.15$
$0.1$ $2.633$ $4.998$
$0.2$ $2.274$ $2.988$
$0.4$ $1.779$ $2.069$
$2$ $0.641$ $1.677$
: The fitting parameter $B_B$ in used for the curves in and the intrinsic viscosity $\left[\mu\right]$ computed from our simulations.[]{data-label="tab:fit"}
\
\
\
Next, we study the particle deformation. shows instantaneous particle configurations: the top row represents the cases at $\Ca=0.2$ and increasing $\Phi$, [i.e., ]{}$0.11$, $0.22$ and $0.33$, while the bottom row is for the dilute suspension $\Phi=0.0016$ and increasing $\Ca$, [i.e., ]{}$0.02$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.4$ and $2$. We observe that the shape is strongly affected by $\Ca$ and weakly by $\Phi$. In particular, the particles, originally spheres, progressively become elongated ellipsoids as $\Ca$ increases. To quantify this effect, we therefore evaluate the deformation by means of the so-called Taylor parameter $$\label{eq:Taylor}
\mathcal{T}=\frac{a-b}{a+b},$$ where $a$ and $b$ are the semi-major and semi-minor axis of the inscribed ellipse passing through the particle center in the $x$-$y$ plane, and report its dependency on $Ca$ in . Note that, the parameter $\mathcal{T}$ is averaged over all the particles and in time. In the figure results from the literature, obtained in the limit of $\Phi \rightarrow 0$, are also reported as comparison. We note that the Taylor parameter increases with both the Capillary number and the volume fraction, the former being more effective than the latter. The trend is the same as obtained for dilute systems, as shown by the brown curve in , pertaining our results for a single particle, and by the symbols indicating results in the literature [@pozrikidis_1995a; @eggleton_popel_1998a; @ii_sugiyama_takeuchi_takagi_matsumoto_2011a].
To fully characterize the non-Newtonian suspension behavior, we report in the first and second normal stress difference, $\NSI$ and $\NSII$, as a function of the Capillary number $\Ca$ for all the volume fractions under investigations. These are a measure of the viscoelasticity of the flow and are defined as
\[eq:normStress\] $$\begin{aligned}
\NSI &={\langle {\langle \sigma_{11}-\sigma_{22}\rangle}\rangle}, \\
\NSII &={\langle {\langle \sigma_{22}-\sigma_{33}\rangle}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$
In the Eulerian framework adopted here, they can be easily computed from . The first normal stress difference $\NSI$ is positive whereas the second one $\NSII$ is negative, with $\vert \NSI/\NSII \vert>1$. This behaviour is typical of most viscoelastic fluids, and corresponds to the fluid forcing the walls apart [@mewis_wagner_2012a]; it is similar to the one observed for suspensions of capsules [@matsunaga_imai_yamaguchi_ishikawa_2016a], filaments [@wu_aidun_2010b] and polymers. We observe that an increase in volume fraction leads to an increase of the first normal stress difference $\NSI$ and a decrease of the second one $\NSII$ (increase in the absolute value). Both the normal stress differences are non-monotonic with $\Ca$, showing a maximum and minimum which moves at lower $\Ca$ for increasing volume fractions, which is similar to what discussed in Ref. [@wu_aidun_2010b] for a filament suspension. Our results are in agreement with the data from the simulations of elastic capsules in Ref. [@matsunaga_imai_yamaguchi_ishikawa_2016a], where, however, the non-monotonic behavior of the normal stress difference is not appearing owing to a more limited range of Capillary number considered.
\
\
\
\
\
\
The total shear stress, $\sigma_{12}$, can be decomposed into the sum of the fluid $\sigmaf_{12}$ and particle stress $\sigmas_{12}$, see . The mean fluid stress is the sum of the viscous and Reynolds stresses, while the solid one is the some of the viscous, Reynolds and hyper-elastic stresses: $$\begin{gathered}
{\langle \sigma_{12}\rangle} = \underbrace{{\langle \left( 1 - \phi \right) \left( \muf \frac{du}{dy} - \rho u'v' \right)\rangle}}_{\rm fluid~stress} + \\
+ \underbrace{ {\langle \phi \left( \mus \frac{du}{dy} - \rho u'v' + G B_{12} \right)\rangle}}_{\rm solid~stress}.\end{gathered}$$ Each of these contribution have been averaged in time and in the homogeneous directions and displayed in as function of the wall-normal distance $y$ for the cases with $\Ca=0.2$ and volume fractions $\Phi=0.11$, $0.22$ and $0.33$ (top, middle and bottom panel). The stresses are normalized by the total wall value. In the figure, the solid, dashed and dash-dotted lines represent the fluid viscous stress, the particle viscous and hyper-elastic stresses, respectively. The Reynolds stress contributions are negligible in all the cases considered here, thus not shown in the graphs. The circles and triangles are the fluid viscous stress and particle stress in the rigid case ($\Ca=0$) obtained from a complementary simulation.
We observe that the fluid viscous stress is the only not null component at the wall. At the lowest volume fraction shown here the fluid viscous stress is the dominant contribution, being responsible for more than $50\%$ of the total stress at each wall-normal location. It has a minimum value around $y\approx0.75h$ corresponding to the location of maximum particle stress and to the maximum particle concentration as previously discussed (see ). As the volume fraction is increased, the fluid viscous stress becomes smaller and smaller; this is compensated by an increase in the particle stress contribution which eventually becomes the dominant one. This behavior is observed for both rigid and deformable particles, with the main difference being a lower particle stress contribution across the all channel in the deformable case than the rigid one, especially close to the center line. Moreover, in the deformable particle suspension, we can further separate the particle stress in its viscous and hyper-elastic contributions. The hyper-elastic contribution is the dominant one, being responsible for almost the totality of the total stress and for its distribution across the domain. On the other hand, the viscous stress in the solid is almost null at low volume fractions, and progressively grows with it. Also, its profile is almost uniform across the whole domain, except close to the wall where it is always negligible as the solid volume fraction vanishes.
In we summarize the stress balance by showing the volume-averaged percentage contribution of all the non-zero components of the total shear stress, [i.e., ]{}fluid viscous stress (green), particle viscous stress (blue), and particle hyper-elastic stress (grey). Each panel shows how the stress balance change with Capillary number, and each panel corresponds to a different volume fraction ($\Phi=0.11$: top panel; $0.22$: middle panel; $0.33$: bottom panel). For every volume fraction, both the fluid and particle viscous stresses decrease with the Capillary number, while the particle elastic contribution increases (in the range of $\Ca$ considered here). Interestingly, notwithstanding the fact that the solid viscosity and volume fraction are constant, the normalized particle elastic stress decreases as $\Ca \rightarrow 0$, and the viscous contribution becomes relevant; conversely, as $\Ca \rightarrow \infty$ the percentage contribution of the particle viscous stress vanishes and the total particle stress reduces to its elastic contribution. Comparing the budget for varying volume fraction $\Phi$, we observe that as the volume fraction increases, the fluid stress progressively decreases due to the reduced volume of fluid, while the particle stress increases due to the increase of the solid fraction. The latter increase in the particle stress holds for both the viscous and elastic part of the particle stress, and is related to the increase of the number of particles in the domain.
Universal scaling of the effective viscosity {#universal-scaling-of-the-effective-viscosity .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
Next, we propose a scaling for the suspension viscosity. As already discussed, the effective viscosity of rigid particle suspensions with negligible inertial effect is well described by the Eilers fit (), valid for a wide range of volume fractions. In the deformable case we can evaluate an effective volume fraction $\Phie$, a concept successfully used in the past for suspensions with different properties, such as charged colloidal particles, fiber and platelets suspensions, polyelectrolyte solutions [@mewis_frith_strivens_russel_1989a; @frith_dhaene_buscall_mewis_1996a; @quemada_1998a; @mewis_wagner_2012a]. Here, we evaluate it based on spheres of radius equal to the semi-minor axis of the ellipsoid $a$, the same used to compute the Taylor parameter, [i.e., ]{}$\Phie={\rm N} \times 4/3 \pi a^3/\mathcal{V}^{\rm tot}$ where ${\rm N}$ is the number of particles in the computational box of volume $\mathcal{V}^{\rm tot}$. Obviously, the effective volume fraction $\Phie$ is less than the nominal one $\Phi$, and thus represents a reduced volume fraction due to the particle deformations. We propose to define the effective volume fraction using the minor axis, differently from what done in previous works for fiber or rigid non-spherical suspensions [@batchelor_1971a; @kerekes_2006a; @lundell_soderberg_alfredsson_2011a]; the choice is motivated by the fact that the deformable particles are not rotating, thus, the excluded volume effect is less than the one based on the major axis; moreover, since the particles are approximately aligned with the mean shear direction, what affects the effective viscosity is the dimension in the direction normal to the mean shear, [i.e., ]{}the minor axis. As shown in the top panel of , $\Phie$ increases with the volume fraction $\Phi$ and decreases with the Capillary number $\Ca$, similarly to the effective viscosity $\mu$; in particular, $\Phie$ is an almost linear and monotonic function of $\Phi$ and their ratio, independent of $\Phi$, decreases with $\Ca$ (see the inset figure). A fit to the data yields $$\label{eq:phie}
\Phie = \Phi e^{-1.25\sqrt{\Ca}}.$$ Note that the form of is chosen to satisfy the following conditions: *i)* $\Phie$ is a linear function of $\Phi$ for a fixed $\Ca$; this implies that deformability is weakly influenced by particle-pair interactions, typically proportional to $\Phi^2$. *ii)* for $\Ca \rightarrow 0$ we expect to recover the rigid case with the effect of the deformability disappearing, [i.e., ]{}$\Phie = \Phi$. *iii)* for $\Ca \rightarrow \infty$ the particles deform more and more, eventually giving no resistance to the fluid, [i.e., ]{}$\Phie = 0$. This simple relation is reported in the inset of the top panel in to show the quality of the fitting. Note that, has been derived for the case with $K=1$, thus no explicit dependency on the viscosity ratio has been included.
\
Next, we plot the effective viscosity $\mu$, already shown in , now as a function of $\Phie$, see the bottom panel of . As clearly seen, all the data collapse on an universal curve, which is well described by the Eilers fit used for the rigid-particle suspensions. Note that, this scaling applies to all the volume fractions $\Phi$ and Capillary numbers $\Ca$ considered (the fit works also for all the cases with different solid to fluid viscosity ratio $\Key$ considered in the present work which will be discussed later). Moreover, we also include in the figure the data taken from Ref. [@matsunaga_imai_yamaguchi_ishikawa_2016a] pertaining a suspension of capsules (black symbols) as a proof of the universality of the scaling. This is further proved in the inset figure, where the red blood cell measurement of Ref. [@dintenfass_1968a] for different $\Ca$ and $\Key$ are collapsed on the Eilers formula; note that, in order to apply our result to these data, we first fit the Eilers formula to the case of the rigid RBCs, obtaining $B = 1.25$ and a maximum packing fraction $\Phi_m = 0.88$, as the undeformed shape of the RBCs is not spherical but disk-like [@mueller_llewellin_mader_2009a].
Therefore, we have shown that the effect of the particles deformation can be included into the suspension shear stress as follow $$\sigma_{12}=\muf \dot{\gamma} \mathcal{F} \left( \Phie \left( \Phi, \Ca, \Key \right) \right),$$ where $\Phie$ is the measure of the reduction in the nominal volume fraction due to the deformation, (which we have estimated with for the case of $\Key=1$), and $\mathcal{F}$ is the Eilers formula in or any other approximation of the effective suspension viscosity as function of the solid volume fraction. In summary, this closure provides the shear stress for non-Newtonian suspensions made of deformable elastic particles, with microstructure effects coded into the analytical function $\mathcal{F}$. This closure is valid for suspension flows with negligible inertia.
\
\
Effect of the solid to fluid viscosity ratio $\Key$ {#effect-of-the-solid-to-fluid-viscosity-ratio-key .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------
\
Finally, in this last section, we briefly assess the effect of the parameter $\Key$, [i.e., ]{}the ratio of the solid viscosity $\mus$ and the fluid one $\muf$. Here, we focus our analysis on a single volume fraction $\Phi=0.11$ and Capillary number $\Ca=0.2$, and we consider four different values for $\Key$: $0.01$, $0.1$, $1$ (also discussed previously) and $10$.
The two panels in shows the effect of $\Key$ on the effective viscosity $\mu/\muf$ (top) and on the Taylor parameter $\Tay$ (bottom). The effective viscosity monotonically increases with $K$, changing approximately from $1.24$ to $1.5$ due to the increase of $\Key$ by a factor of $1000$. This suggest a weak dependence of the suspension viscosity on this parameter (compared to the one with $\Ca$), at least for the considered volume fraction. Differently, the Taylor parameter $\Tay$ decreases for an increase of $\Key$. These results suggest that high values of $\Key$ make the particle effectively more rigid, thus reducing the overall deformation ($\Tay$), resulting in higher suspension viscosities; on the other hand, low values of $\Key$ increase the particles deformation ($\Tay$), thus reducing the suspension viscosity. The limit behavior for $\Key \rightarrow \infty$ is the rigid particle case, while for $\Key \rightarrow 0$ the particle is more deformable, but the particle contribution to the suspension viscosity does not vanish completely due to the finite Capillary number $\Ca$, [i.e., ]{}$\mu/\muf \nrightarrow 1$ for $\Key\rightarrow0$; this is different from what observed for the Capillary number $\Ca$ where $\mu/\muf \rightarrow 1$ for $\Ca\rightarrow \infty$. Finally, shows the total shear budget, similarly to . We note that the fluid stress slightly decreases with $\Key$, thus the total particle stress slightly increases. This is obtained by a strong increase of the viscous particle stress, and contrasted by a small reduction of the elastic counterpart. Similarly to the discussion above, we observe that low values of $\Key$ only slightly modify the suspension rheology, while changes can be noticed for high values of $\Key$ when the particle become more rigid and less deformable, thus approaching the behaviour of rigid spheres.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have studied the rheology of a suspension of deformable viscous hyper-elastic particles in a Newtonian fluid in a wall-bounded shear flow, [i.e., ]{}Couette flow, at low Reynolds number such that inertial effects are negligible. The deformable particles are made of a neo-Hookean material, satisfying the Mooney-Rivlin law. The multiphase flow is solved with the use of a one-continuum formulation by introducing an indicator function to distinguish the fluid and solid phases, [i.e., ]{}the solid volume fraction $\phis$. The results are numerically obtained by solving the conservation of momentum and the incompressibility constraint in a fully Eulerian fashion.
The rheology of the suspension is analyzed by discussing how the suspension effective viscosity $\mu$ is affected by variations of the particle volume fraction $\Phi$, the Capillary number $\Ca$ and the solid to fluid viscosity ratio $\Key$. We observed that $\mu$ is a non-linear function of all this parameters $\mu=\mu \left( \Phi, \Ca, \Key \right)$, being $\Phi$ and $\Ca$ the most effective. The suspension of deformable particles has a viscosity lower than the one for rigid particles; this is due to the deformation, quantified here by the Taylor parameter $\Tay$, which grows with both $\Phi$ and $\Ca$, but decreases with $\Key$. As the Capillary number is proportional to the shear, suspensions of deformable particles are shear-thinning, as known for blood. The non-linear dependency on the different parameters is further exemplified by the first and second normal stress differences, $\NSI$ and $\NSII$. These are not null, indicating the visco-elasticity nature of the suspension, and show a non-monotonic dependence with $\Ca$. $\NSI$ is positive while $\NSII$ negative, with $\vert \NSI \vert > \vert \NSII \vert$, similarly to what found for suspension of flexible filaments and polymers. With a stress budget study, we have shown that the particle stress grows with both the volume fraction $\Phi$ and the Capillary number $\Ca$, and that the particle stress is determined by its elastic part, with only a weak viscous contribution, which exhibits an opposite trend with $\Ca$.
Finally, we propose an universal scaling for the effective viscosity of suspensions of deformable particles, which is able to collapse all the data onto the Eilers fit, usually valid for rigid particles. To this end, we introduce a reduced effective volume fraction, function of the capillary number and of the nominal volume fraction, accounting for the effect of deformability. Based on our and others’ data, we provide an estimate of this effective volume fraction and hence an analytical closure for the shear stress valid for suspension of deformable particles (and capsules) with negligible inertia.
This work proposes a new approach to suspensions of deformable objects and can be extended in a number of ways. Additional simulations and experiments may improve the estimate given here of the effective volume fraction by quantifying particle deformation for [e.g., ]{}particles of different shapes, such as oblate or biconcave red-blood cells. Alternatively, one may consider inertial effects as in Ref. [@picano_breugem_mitra_brandt_2013a], and the effect of a time-dependent shear rate to relate the particle average deformation to the history of the applied stresses. For slow variations of shear rates, however, we expect to retrieve the rheological properties described here, [i.e., ]{}shear thinning, while memory effect may appear for fast enough deformations.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The work of MER and LB was supported by the European Research Council grant no. ERC-2013-CoG-616186, TRITOS and by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. VR 2014-5001). DM is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 638-2013-9243 and 2016-05225). The authors acknowledge computer time provided by SNIC (Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing), and fruitful discussions with Prof. Dhrubaditya Mitra (NORDITA), Dr. Sarah Hormozi (Ohio University) and Dhiya Abdulhussain Jassim Alghalibi (KTH) for the data pertaining rigid particle suspensions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. Usero, S. García-Burillo, J. Martín-Pintado, A. Fuente and R. Neri'
date: 'Received 12 August 2005; Accepted 6 October 2005'
title: 'Large-scale molecular shocks in galaxies: the SiO interferometer map of [^1]'
---
Introduction {#secint}
============
There is mounting evidence that the properties of molecular gas in starbursts (SBs) and Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) differ from that of quiescent star forming galaxies (e.g., Genzel et al. [@genz98]). The spectacular energies injected into the gas reservoirs of [*active*]{} galaxies can create a particularly harsh environment for the neutral ISM. Although thus far restricted to a handful of objects, multiline millimeter wave studies have allowed to study the onset of large-scale shocks, the propagation of chemistry of Photon Dominated Regions (PDRs) or the prevalence of X-ray Dominated Regions (XDRs) in the molecular disks of SBs and AGNs (e.g., Mauersberger & Henkel [@maue93]; Tacconi et al. [@tacc94]; García-Burillo et al. [@buri00; @buri01b; @buri02]; Martín et al. [@mart03; @mart05]; Usero et al. [@user04]; Fuente et al. [@fuen05a]; Meier & Turner [@meie05]).
The first SiO($v=0$, $J=2-1$) maps made with the Plateau de Bure Interferometer (PdBI) in the nuclei of the prototypical starbursts and have revealed the existence of large-scale molecular shocks in galaxy disks (García-Burillo et al. [@buri00; @buri01b]). Different scenarios have been proposed to account for the emission of SiO in our own Galaxy and in the nuclei of external galaxies. On small $\sim$pc–scales, studies in the Galaxy disk show that the enhancement of SiO in gas phase can be produced in the bipolar outflows of young stellar objects (YSOs), due to the sputtering of dust grains by shocks (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart92]; Schilke et al. [@schi97]; Cesaroni et al. [@cesa99]). On larger scales, Martín-Pintado et al. ([@mart97]) reported the detection of a SiO $\sim$150 pc circumnuclear disk (CND) in the Galactic Center region. In this CND high fractional abundances of SiO are found in molecular clouds which are not actively forming stars, but where bar models for our Galaxy predict a high likelihood for cloud collisions (Hüttemeister et al. [@huet98]). In , virtually all of the SiO emission traces the disk-halo interface where episodes of mass injection are building up the gaseous halo (García-Burillo et al. [@buri01b]). García-Burillo et al. ([@buri00]) have discussed the role of bar resonances at inducing shocks in the $\sim$600 pc CND of . However, the high-inclination of and the limited perspective of the Galactic Center region make the determination of bar resonance positions mostly dependent on kinematical models.
In this paper we study at high-resolution ($\sim$5) the SiO($v=0,~J=2-1$) emission in the inner $r\sim30\arcsec$ of , using the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer (PdBI). is a nearby [ (D$\simeq$3.3 Mpc, i.e., 1$\simeq$16 pc; Saha, Claver & Hoessel [@saha02])]{} weakly barred spiral galaxy which hosts a moderate starburst episode in the central [ ${r\sim80}$ pc]{} nuclear region (Böker et al. [@boke97; @boke99]). Thanks to its nearly face-on orientation and close distance, is an optimal testbed where the underlying mechanisms of large-scale molecular shocks can be probed using the PdBI. At this distance, the PdBI can trace and spatially resolve the SiO emission of shocked molecular gas on scales of individual GMCs [ (${\sim80}$ pc)]{} in the disk of . Several works have underlined the similarities between the nucleus of our Galaxy and that of in terms of the measured gas mass fractions, stellar masses and star formation (Downes et al. [@down92]). This study can thus help to shed light on the origin of molecular shocks in the nucleus of our own Galaxy.
The distribution of molecular gas in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} of , revealed by the published interferometer CO maps of the galaxy, is reminiscent of the typical response of gas to a bar potential (Lo et al. [@lo84]; Ishizuki et al. [@ishi90]; Levine et al. [@levi94]; Meier & Turner [@meie01; @meie05]; Schinnerer et al. [@schi03]). Two gas lanes are shifted with respect to the major axis of the [ ${\sim9}$ kpc]{} bar oriented with a position angle $\sim20\degr$ (Buta & McCall [@buta99]). The gas lanes delineate a two-arm [*spiral*]{} pattern that ends at a nuclear [ ${r\sim80}$ pc]{} [*ring*]{}. This pattern would correspond to the transition from x$_1$ orbits (outer disk) down to x$_2$ orbits (inner disk) of the bar, assuming that an Inner Lindbland Resonance (ILR) exists near [ ${r\sim80-160}$ pc.]{}
Previous interferometer maps have probed the dense gas content of the nucleus of (Ho et al. [@ho90]: NH$_3$; Downes et al. [@down92]: HCN; Nguyen-Q-Rieu et al. [@nguy92]: HCO$^+$; Meier & Turner [@meie05]: HNC, HC$_3$N, C$_2$H, C$^{34}$S, HNCO, CH$_3$OH and N$_2$H$^+$). Five major GMCs, labelled originally as A–to–E in the HCN map of Downes et al. ([@down92]) and later redefined by Meier & Turner ([@meie01]), are identified in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc disk]{}. Meier & Turner ([@meie05]) find remarkable differences in morphology between the various molecular emission maps of . This is interpreted as an evidence of strong chemical differentiation in the nucleus of . While some molecules trace the Photon Dominated Regions close to the nuclear starburst [ (${r\sim80-180}$ pc)]{}, the emission of molecular species such as methanol (CH$_3$OH) is considered to be stemming from shocks (Meier & Turner [@meie05]).
In the scenario of shock chemistry there is evidence that CH$_3$OH and SiO trace distinctly different velocity regimes in shocks. SiO is seen to be associated with more energetic events, i.e., those potentially more efficient at processing dust grains (Garay et al. [@gara00]). In this paper we take advantage of the complementarity of SiO and CH$_3$OH as tracers of shock chemistry and use the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH ratio in to discuss the origin of large-scale shocks in this galaxy. With this aim we make a quantitative comparison of our results with those obtained in other well-known references for shock chemistry in our Galaxy and in external galaxies.
We describe in [ Sect. \[secobs\]]{} the PdBI observations used in this paper. [ Sect. \[secres\]]{} presents the main results issued from the analysis of the continuum image and the SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) line maps of . We derive in [ Sect. \[secabu\]]{} the fractional abundances of SiO in the disk of the galaxy and interpret their relation with the published CH$_3$OH map in [ Sect. \[seceff\]]{}. [ Sect. \[secori\]]{} discusses the possible mechanisms driving large-scale shocks in . In [ Sect. \[secwav\]]{} we analyze the potential role of density waves as drivers of the large-scale shock chemistry in . The main conclusions are summarized in [ Sect. \[seccon\]]{}.
Observations {#secobs}
============
Observations of were carried out with the PdBI from July to August 2001. We observed simultaneously the J=2–1 line of SiO (86.847 GHz) and the J=1–0 line of H$^{13}$CO$^+$ (86.754 GHz) using the CD set of configurations. The primary beam of the PdBI at 87 GHz is 55. Two positions shifted $(0\arcsec,-12\arcsec)$ and $(0\arcsec,+12\arcsec)$ from the phase center, $\alpha_\mathrm{J2000.0}$=03$^{\mathrm{h}}$46$^{\mathrm{m}}$4801, $\delta_\mathrm{J2000.0}$=6805460, were observed in mosaic mode. We adjusted the spectral correlator to give a contiguous bandwidth of 1500 km s$^{-1}$. The frequency resolution was set to 1.25 MHz (4.3 km s$^{-1}$) during the observations; channels were resampled to a velocity resolution of 5 km s$^{-1}$ in the final maps. We calibrated visibilities using as amplitude and phase reference. The absolute flux scale was derived on , and receiver passband was calibrated on and .
Mosaics were CLEANed using the MAPPING procedure of the GILDAS software package, which includes primary beam correction. The synthesized clean beam is 56$\times$51 size (PA=321) for the line maps. Images are 300 $\times$ 300 pixels in extent, with a pixel size of 035. The rms noise level in 5 km s$^{-1}$ wide channels, derived after subtraction of the continuum emission, is 1.5 mJy beam$^{-1}$ at the center of the maps.
A 3.5 mm continuum map was generated averaging channels free of line emission. Uniform weighting was applied to the measured visibilities, producing a clean beam of $4\farcs1\times3\farcs8$ (PA = $111\degr$). The rms at the center is 0.45 mJy beam$^{-1}$.
Results {#secres}
=======
The 3.5 mm continuum map {#subcon}
------------------------
The 3.5 mm continuum emission contours are displayed in Fig. \[figcon\]. The total flux integrated within the inner [ ${r\sim180}$ pc]{} of the galaxy is $\sim$17 mJy. The flux recovered is of $\sim$22 mJy when derived from a lower 9$\arcsec$ resolution version of the PdBI map; the latter is obtained assuming a Gaussian UV taper on the visibilities (with a FWHM=70 m). These values are roughly in agreement with the previous estimates obtained by Downes et al. ([@down92]) and Meier & Turner ([@meie01]) at similar frequencies. The bulk of the continuum emission comes from the inner [ ${r\sim80}$ pc]{} of and it is closely linked to the nuclear star forming region identified in the H$\alpha$+continuum HST image of the galaxy (Fig. \[figcon\]). As illustrated in Fig. \[figint\], the continuum emission is mostly anticorrelated with the emission coming from the dense molecular gas traced by SiO or H$^{13}$CO$^+$.
Despite its compactness, the continuum source is spatially resolved by the PdBI beam. The morphology of the emission follows closely the distribution of star forming complexes in the nucleus of : two 5 Myr-old H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> complexes (Böker et al. [@boke97]) which are close to GMCs B and C (notation of Meier & Turner [@meie01]), and an older (6-60 Myr) star cluster close to the center of the galaxy (Böker et al. [@boke97; @boke99]). As shown in Fig. \[figcon\], two peaks of emission shape the morphology of an elongated disk oriented along PA$\simeq64\degr$. The principal peak is related to the western H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> complex, which is identified in the HST map to be close to GMC B. The secondary maximum is close to the dynamical center where the old star cluster is detected. Lower-level emission extends East from the central disk towards GMCs A and C. The latter extension is close to the eastern H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> complex.
Accounting for the differences in spatial resolution and sensitivity, the morphology of the 3.5 mm continuum PdBI map agrees with that of previous radiocontinuum maps obtained at other wavelengths (Condon et al. [@cond82]: 21 cm; Turner & Ho [@turn83]: 2 and 6 cm; Ho et al. [@ho90]: 1.3 cm; Downes et al. [@down92]: 3.4 mm). At higher frequencies, however, the contribution from dust to the thermal emission may not be negligible. This would explain the differences between the continuum map of Fig. \[figcon\] and the 1.3 mm continuum image obtained by Meier & Turner ([@meie01]).
Based on measurements at various frequencies, previous works have concluded that thermal free-free bremsstrahlung should dominate the emission budget at 3.5 mm (Downes et al. [@down92]; Turner & Ho [@turn83]; Turner & Hurt [@turn92]). The good spatial coincidence between the 3.5 mm and the H$\alpha$ emissions supports the conclusion that the 3.5 mm emission traces the location of ongoing star formation in the inner **${r\sim80}$ pc** of .
The line maps: SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$
-------------------------------------
### Integrated intensity maps and line ratios {#ratios}
Fig. \[figint\] shows the velocity-integrated intensity maps of SiO(2–1) and H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} of . The spatial resolution of the PdBI map allows to resolve the overall emission which, for both tracers, is elongated along the N-S direction. Though with significant differences between SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$, the basic morphology of the maps is roughly in agreement with that emerging from the HCN map of Downes et al. ([@down92]). In the case of SiO, we detect strong emission in the spiral arm located North (GMCs C and D in Fig. \[figint\]). Weaker SiO emission delineates the southern ridge of the nuclear ring (GMCs A and E in Fig. \[figint\]). Finally, SiO emission is not detected over the southern spiral arm. This result agrees with the overall picture derived from other dense gas tracers in which are hardly detected over the southern spiral. Compared to SiO, the emission of H$^{13}$CO$^+$ is weaker along the northern spiral arm, while the peak of emission is found on the southern ridge of the nuclear ring.
As it is shown in Fig. \[figrat\], the different distributions of SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ in translate into an order of magnitude difference in the SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$ intensity ratio, $R_I$, which goes from $\sim$ 3.3 on the northern spiral arm down to $\sim$0.3 on the nuclear ring. The average value of $R_I$ inside the image field of view is $\sim$1.6. If we assume that the emission of both lines is optically thin, the value of $R_I$ provides an estimate of the beam-averaged fractional abundance of SiO relative to H$^{13}$CO$^+$, which is accurate within a factor of 4 (see Sect. \[secabu\] for discussion). The reference studies of galactic clouds (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart92]; Bachiller & Pérez-Gutiérrez [@bach97]; Fuente et al. [@fuen05b]) and external galaxies (García-Burillo et al. [@buri00; @buri01b]; Usero et al. [@user04]) indicate that a value of $R_I>$0.1 is a strong indication that shock chemistry is at work in molecular gas. The reported values of $R_I$ for are similar to those found on similar spatial scales in the circumnuclear disk of ($\sim$1-3; García-Burillo et al. [@buri00]) and, also, in the chimney and the supershell of ($\sim$0.4-3.5; García-Burillo et al. [@buri01b]).
Of particular note, $R_I$ reaches the largest values along the northern spiral arm, i.e., in a region of the disk of where the evidence of active star formation is scarce. Regardless of its origin, the order of magnitude variation of $R_I$ measured over the disk of reveals that shocks are processing molecular gas with a highly changing [ *efficiency* (in terms of the total mass of grain material processed by shocks relative to the total gas mass; see discussion in Sects. \[secabu\] and \[seceff\]).]{}
![ SiO(2–1)–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) integrated intensity ratio in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} disk of . The ratio is derived from the two maps of Fig. \[figint\], assuming a 2.5$\sigma$-clipping on the integrated intensities of both lines. The measured ratios (color scale) range from 0.3 to 3.3. []{data-label="figrat"}](usero-ic342-arxiv-fig03cols.eps){width="\hsize"}
### Gas kinematics and line profiles {#subkin}
Fig. \[figcha\] shows the velocity-channel maps of SiO(2–1) and H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) in the nucleus of . For both tracers we see the expected velocity gradient due to the rotation of the disk, which according to the fit of Crosthwaite et al. ([@cros01]) should be maximal along the kinematic major axis at PA=37$^{\circ}$. The channel maps show that the gas kinematics are similar for SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ on the nuclear ring: the velocity centroids and linewidths measured in SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ are roughly in agreement in this region (GMCs A, B, and E). However, the gas kinematics show significant differences between the two species over the northern spiral arm (GMCs C and D): the emission of SiO is detected from $v=16$ km s$^{-1}$ to $v=66$ km s$^{-1}$ near GMC D, i.e., roughly twice the corresponding velocity interval for H$^{13}$CO$^+$.
The different kinematics of the SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ lines over the northern spiral arm are illustrated by the position–velocity plots shown in Fig. \[figsli\]. SiO lines become significantly wider than H$^{13}$CO$^+$ lines at the passage of the northern spiral arm GMCs (C and D), in contrast with the nuclear ring GMCs (B and E) where linewidths are the same within the errors. While the velocity centroids derived in the two lines are similar in the spiral arm region, the measured linewidths for SiO are, on average, a factor of 2 larger than the linewidths of H$^{13}$CO$^+$. The estimated velocity dispersion of the GMCs ($\sigma_v$) is $\sim20-25$ km s$^{-1}$, in the northern spiral arm, and $\sim10$ km s$^{-1}$, in the nuclear ring. This suggests that the degree of [*apparent*]{} turbulence measured on GMC-like scales in the SiO emitting gas is enhanced compared to that of the more quiescent dense gas component traced by H$^{13}$CO$^+$ in this region. The latter implies that the SiO(2–1)–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) ratio measured at the wings of the SiO lines should be even larger than the velocity-integrated ratio $R_I$ derived above for the northern spiral arm. This would only reinforce the case of an enhanced SiO chemistry in gas phase in this region.
{width="17cm"}
Fig. \[figspe\] shows the SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ spectra observed towards the positions of GMCs A–to–E (the corresponding gaussian fits are listed in Tab. \[tabgau\]). As sketched in Fig. \[figspe\], we report on the tentative detection of two out of the four hyperfine line components of the $N_{K^-K^+}=1-0$ group of transitions of HCO towards the position of GMC C. These correspond to the rest frequencies 86.671 GHz ($J=3/2-1/2, F=2-1$) and 86.777 GHz ($J=1/2-1/2, F=1-1$). [ The HCO($F=2-1$)–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$(1–0) intensity ratio inferred at GMC C is $\sim0.51\pm0.16$; comparable ratios ($\sim0.15-0.5$) were derived by García-Burillo et al. ([@buri02]) for the $\sim$650 pc nuclear disk of , where the large HCO abundances ($X$(HCO)$\sim4\times10^{-10}$) indicate that the whole inner disk can be viewed as a giant PDR.]{} The tentative detection of HCO towards C would be well accounted if UV fields are partly driving the chemistry of the molecular clouds closest to the embedded star forming complex identified in the NIR by Böker et al. ([@boke97]) (see García-Burillo et al. [@buri02] for a discussion on the chemistry of the HCO molecule).
{width="\hsize"}
SiO fractional abundances {#secabu}
=========================
We have estimated the column densities [ (${N}$)]{} of SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ from the PdBI map of using a Large Velocity Gradient (LVG) code. Our aim is to estimate the abundance of SiO relative to H$_2$ (X(SiO)) inferred here from the SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$ column density ratio ($R_N$). Values of $N$(SiO) and $N$(H$^{13}$CO$^+$) are derived from measured integrated intensities, assuming a plausible range of physical conditions for the gas. Given that the emission of both species is optically thin, $R_N$ is proportional to the SiO/H$^{13}$CO$^+$ intensity ratio ($R_I$). Since SiO and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ have similar dipole moments and the observed transitions have comparable upper state energies, it is reasonable to assume the same physical conditions for both species. We have run five LVG models covering a range of gas densities ($n$(H$_2$)) from $10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ to 10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$. The explored interval encompasses the total range of molecular gas densities determined in the GMCs of from multitransition studies of CO and HCN (e.g., see Schulz et al. [@schu01]). As gas kinetic temperature, we adopt a value $T_\mathrm{K}=50$ K (Downes et al. [@down92]). The value of $T_\mathrm{K}$ is not critical in the estimate of $R_N$ within the range of $n$(H$_2$) explored in these calculations: the inferred column density ratios are similar within the temperature interval 20 K$\leq T_\mathrm{K}\leq$80 K and $R_N$ increases, at most, by 40$\%$ if $T_\mathrm{K}$ is lowered to 10 K.
We show in Fig. \[figabu\] the values estimated for $R_N$ towards GMCs A–to–E for $T_\mathrm{K}$=50 K particularized for the different $n$(H$_2$) values. On average, $R_N$ is seen to increase by a factor of $\sim4$ when $n$(H$_2$) is lowered from 10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$ to 10$^4$ cm$^{-3}$. The fractional abundance of SiO is inferred from $R_N$ assuming a [*standard*]{} abundance for H$^{13}$CO$^+$. The assumption of a standard value for X(H$^{13}$CO$^+$) is supported by observations of molecular clouds in our Galaxy. Contrary to SiO, for which measured abundances are seen to differ by several orders of magnitude between quiescent clouds and shocked regions, H$^{13}$CO$^+$ shows a fairly stable abundance in a large variety of physical and chemical environments (see discussion in García-Burillo et al. [@buri00]). Here we adopt X(H$^{13}$CO$^+$)=2.5$\times$10$^{-10}$; this corresponds to a typical abundance of the main isotope X(H$^{12}$CO$^+$)=$10^{-8}$ and to an isotopic ratio \[$^{12}$C\]/\[$^{13}$C\]$\simeq$40 (Henkel et al. [@henk98]).
The estimated abundance of SiO is $>2\times10^{-10}$ for all GMCs, i.e., at least two orders of magnitude larger than the typical SiO abundances of Galactic quiescent clouds (Martín-Pintado, Bachiller & Fuente [@mart92]). This lower limit on the beam-averaged value of X(SiO) measured here on GMC-like scales [ (${\sim80}$ pc)]{} indicates that shock chemistry is at work in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} disk of . Most remarkably, we see an overall N-S gradient in the value estimated for X(SiO). On average, the abundance of SiO is nearly one order of magnitude larger in the northern spiral arm (e.g., $\sim$1–4$\times$10$^{-9}$ at GMC D) than in the nuclear ring (e.g., $\sim$2–7$\times$10$^{-10}$ at GMC B) within the explored range of densities. Schulz et al. ([@schu01]) have estimated the average densities of GMCs A–to–E based on a multitransition study of HCN and their isotopes. The results of this study indicate that average densities are a factor 2 larger in the nuclear ring GMCs compared to that measured in the northern spiral arm. This would imply that the N-S gradient on the value of X(SiO) may be even larger than estimated above. Moreover, the overall mass budget of is seen to be heavily weighted by molecular gas with typical densities $\sim10^3-10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ (Downes et al. [@down92]; Israel & Baas [@isra03]). Should this diffuse gas partly contribute to the emission of both species this would imply that the SiO abundances may have to be boosted for all the GMCs (see Fig. \[figabu\]) compared to the values reported above, thus reinforcing the case for shock chemistry.
The beam-averaged values of X(SiO) derived above are necessarily lower limits to the real abundance attained by SiO in the fraction of dense molecular gas which is being processed by shocks in (hereafter X(SiO)$|_{shock}$). If we denote by $f_{shock}$ the [*a priori*]{} unknown fraction of shocked dense gas, X(SiO) can be formally factorized as:
$$X\mathrm{(SiO)}=f_{shock}\times X\mathrm{(SiO)|_{shock}}
\label{equsio}$$
The notable N–S gradient found in the derived value of X(SiO) between the nuclear ring and the northern spiral arm could be accounted by two extreme scenarios: first, an order of magnitude change in $f_{shock}$ between the two regions, or alternatively, a similar change in X(SiO)$|_{shock}$. While the first scenario would imply that the typical column densities of shocked gas in the northern spiral arm are $\sim6-7$ times larger than in the nuclear ring, the second scenario would call for a notably different shock velocity regime ($v_{shock}$) in the two regions. In this case $v_{shock}$ should be significantly larger in the northern spiral arm. As is discussed in Sect. \[secwav\], finding the right scenario between the two proposed above is key to shed light on the nature of the driving mechanism of shocks in . In Sect. \[seceff\] we compare the emission of SiO in with that of CH$_3$OH, another molecular shock tracer. In particular, we use the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH ratio derived for to explore the origin of shocks in this galaxy.
Molecular shock chemistry in {#seceff}
=============================
Tracers of shocks in molecular gas {#subche}
----------------------------------
The significant enhancement of SiO in gas phase is considered to be an indication that shock chemistry is at work in molecular gas (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart92]). The injection of Si-bearing material from dust grains into the gas phase, either through sputtering or grain–grain collisions, can explain the measured abundances of this molecule in shocked regions (Schilke et al. [@schi97]; Caselli et al. [@case97]). Shocks are often invoked to account for the large abundances of other molecular species measured in bipolar outflows. This is the case of CH$_3$OH (Bachiller et al. [@bach95]). Although qualitatively similar, shocks characterized by different velocity regimes are expected to process to a different extent dust grains in molecular gas. [*Fast*]{} shocks ($v_{shock}>$15–20 km s$^{-1}$) can destroy the grain cores, liberating refractory elements to the gas phase (Schilke et al. [@schi97]; Caselli et al. [@case97]). In contrast, while [*slow*]{} shocks ($v_{shock}<$10–15 km s$^{-1}$) are not able to destroy the grain cores, they can heavily process the icy grain mantles. The assumed different location of Si-bearing material (cores) and solid-phase CH$_3$OH (mantles) in dust grains makes of SiO and CH$_3$OH good tracers of [*fast*]{} and [*slow*]{} shocks, respectively. Furthermore, for velocities above $\sim$10–15 km s$^{-1}$ shocks could destroy the molecules in gas-phase of volatile species such as CH$_3$OH (Garay et al. [@gara00]; J[ø]{}rgensen et al. [@jorg04]). The dissociation of SiO by shocks would require velocities $\gtrsim$50-60 km s$^{-1}$ (i.e. J shocks), however.
If we consider both processes, i.e., the injection of grain material and the disruption of molecules in gas phase, we can conclude that an increase in the typical velocity regime of shocks ($v_{shock}$) will certainly favour an enhancement of the abundance of SiO in the shocked gas (X(SiO)$|_{shock}$). This will be at the expense of increasing the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH abundance ratio in molecular gas. Therefore, a variation in the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH intensity ratio can be taken as a evidence for a change in $v_{shock}$. A quantitative comparison of the SiO and CH$_3$OH maps of could thus help to discern if the typical shock velocity regime changes across the galaxy disk.
Tracers of shocks in : SiO and CH$_3$OH {#submet}
---------------------------------------
![ We represent the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH integrated intensity ratio as a function of the SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^{+}$ ratio (R$_I$) in GMCs A–to–E. CH$_3$OH data have been taken from Meier & Turner ([@meie05]). []{data-label="figpar"}](usero-ic342-arxiv-fig08.eps){width="\hsize"}
Meier & Turner ([@meie05]) used the OVRO interferometer to map the emission of the 2$_\mathrm{k}$–1$_\mathrm{k}$ line of CH$_3$OH in with a resolution similar to that of the SiO map. This spatial resolution is comparable to the typical GMC-scales [ (${\sim80}$ pc)]{}. We have compared the emission of SiO(2–1) to that of CH$_3$OH(2$_\mathrm{k}$–1$_\mathrm{k}$) in order to derive the SiO–to–CH$_3$OH intensity ratio in GMCs A–to–E. Fig. \[figpar\] represents these ratios as a function of $R_I$ for the nuclear ring and northern spiral arm GMCs. As is shown in Fig. \[figpar\], the reported nearly order of magnitude change in $R_I$ is not corresponded with a similar change in the I(SiO)/I(CH$_3$OH) ratio between the northern spiral arm and the nuclear ring. The I(SiO)/I(CH$_3$OH) ratio is fairly constant and close to $\sim$0.14[^2] for all GMCs, though we find tentative evidence for a larger value in GMC D ($\sim$0.24$\pm$0.07). Taken together these results indicate that, at first order, the N-S gradient measured in $R_I$ between the northern spiral arm and the nuclear ring can be mostly attributed to a variation of $f_{shock}$.
The line ratios above are derived from velocity-integrated intensities and are beam-averaged on scales which are typical of GMC-like units at the distance of . However, the analysis of the line profiles of SiO, CH$_3$OH and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ can provide information on the shock velocity regime on scales smaller than the beam. Fig. \[figdvr\] displays the SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$ and SiO–to–CH$_3$OH velocity–width ratios derived for GMCs A–to–E. These ratios show a different behaviour in the nuclear ring and in the northern spiral arm. In the ring, linewidths and velocity centroids for SiO, H$^{13}$CO$^+$ and CH$_3$OH are virtually identical. In contrast, SiO lines are a factor of $\sim$2 wider than that of H$^{13}$CO$^+$ in the northern spiral arm, as reported in Sect. \[subkin\]. CH$_3$OH lines represent a case intermediate between these two extremes: SiO lines are a factor of $\sim$1.4 wider than that of CH$_3$OH in the spiral arm. The differences between SiO, CH$_3$OH and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ are evident in the linewidths, but velocity centroids are the same within the errors. [ As discussed in Sect. \[secwav\], this suggests that the *apparent turbulence* of shocked molecular gas is enhanced compared to the more quiescent gas.]{}
![ SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$ and SiO–to–CH$_3$OH velocity width ratios measured for GMCs A–to–E. These ratios are represented as a function of the SiO–to–H$^{13}$CO$^+$ integrated intensity ratio, $R_I$. []{data-label="figdvr"}](usero-ic342-arxiv-fig09.eps){width="\hsize"}
While it seems that the enhancement of $f_{shock}$ in the northern spiral arm explains the bulk of the reported increase of X(SiO) in this region, the observed differences in the line profiles of SiO and CH$_3$OH suggest that a fraction of the shocked gas in the arm presents a higher X(SiO)$|_{shock}$. This implies that $v_{shock}$ would be a factor of $\sim$2 larger in the spiral arm region.
SiO emission in Galaxies {#secori}
========================
There is ample observational evidence that SiO thermal emission can be locally enhanced in star forming molecular clouds of our Galaxy (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart92]; Bachiller et al. [@bach01]). More recently, SiO has been revealed to be a tracer of shock chemistry also in galaxy nuclei, including our own Galaxy (Sage & Ziurys [@sage95]; Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart97]; García-Burillo et al. [@buri00; @buri01b]; Usero et al. [@user04]). We revise below the various driving mechanisms which have been proposed to explain the onset of shock chemistry in the Galaxy and in galaxies in general, and study their applicability to the nucleus of .
SiO emission in the disk of our Galaxy {#subgdi}
--------------------------------------
SiO thermal emission is observed towards star-forming clouds in the disk of our Galaxy. In particular, the strongest SiO emitters are the bipolar outflows located around protostellar objects (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart92]; Bachiller et al. [@bach01]). In the first stages of the star formation process, bipolar outflows interact with the ambient molecular gas, inducing molecular shocks which are able to increase the abundances of some molecular species (like SiO and CH$_3$OH) by several orders of magnitude with respect to quiescent gas (Bachiller et al. [@bach95; @bach97]).
The abundance of SiO in reaches the largest value in the northern spiral arm (Sect. \[secabu\]), where the evidence of ongoing star formation is scarce (Sect. \[subcon\]). However, it could be argued that SiO emission in is probing the deeply embedded phase of a young star formation episode. The episode would be spread on scales of $\sim$a few 100 pc and would not visible in H$\alpha$ or thermal radio-continuum. Although with these tight constraints this explanation is unlikely, we can discard it on more quantitative grounds comparing the SiO emission in with a subset of bipolar outflows of the Galaxy (Tab. \[tabyso\]). For the reasons explained below, we have purposely selected outflows for which there are maps of both SiO(2–1) and CH$_3$OH(2$_\mathrm{k}$–1$_\mathrm{k}$) available in the literature. Furthermore, since SiO luminosities are larger for more massive and younger objects, the outflows have been chosen to cover a wide range in mass and age of the protostars. It is assumed that the largest SiO–to–CH$_3$OH luminosity ratios correspond to the less evolved objects (Bergin et al.[@berg98]).
The mean SiO intensity of the northern spiral arm and the nuclear ring of , derived inside the region defined by the lowest contour of Fig. \[figint\], is $\sim$0.93 K km s$^{-1}$. We have then inferred the surface density of outflows which would be required to reproduce the observed SiO intensity in . As is shown in Tab. \[tabyso\], this number density of outflows range from $\sim$0.4 to $\sim$12 outflows pc$^{-2}$. Though in star-forming regions of our Galaxy like OMC2/3 or , surface densities of a few outflows pc$^{-2}$ have been reported on scales of 1–2 pc$^2$ (Reipurth et al. [@reip99]; Mitchell et al. [@mitc01]), it is very unlikely that these average surface densities can be attained in the SiO disk of , which is several hundred pc$^2$ in extent.
Furthermore the star forming rate (SFR) of poses tight constraints on the upper limit to the expected density of outflows. The SFR in a galaxy can be easily estimated from the FIR luminosity (Kennicutt [@kenn98]). In the case of , [ L${_\mathrm{FIR}=1.5\times10^9}$ L$_{\sun}$ in the central $r\sim15\arcsec$ (Becklin et al. [@beck80]; scaled to D=3.3 Mpc)]{}. Assuming that the northern spiral arm and nuclear ring are the main contributors to the SFR of , we estimate for this region a SFR density of $3\times10^{-6}$ M$_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ pc$^{-2}$. From the SFR density above, we can then derive an upper limit to the surface density of outflows, assuming a Salpeter law for the IMF ($\mathrm{d}\log(N)/\mathrm{d}\log(m)=-2.35$ over $m=0.1-100$ M$_{\sun}$) and a timescale for the pre-stellar phase of $\sim10^4$ yr. The derived upper limit to the total density of outflows provided by the SFR in is $\sim9\times10^{-2}$ outflows pc$^{-2}$. Even for outflows like (or any other SiO luminous YSO), the required density would be $\sim$5 times larger than that provided by the SFR of . Moreover, massive young bipolar outflows like should be the minority among YSOs: for a standard Salpeter IMF, only 4% of the objects would have masses above 1 M$_ {\sun}$. In addition, the observed SiO–to-CH$_3$OH average ratio of ($\sim0.14$; see Fig. \[figpar\]) is similar to YSOs which are much more evolved than .
In summary, we can discard the interpretation of the large-scale shocks in in terms of a collection of YSOs associated with an embedded star formation episode in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} disk of the galaxy.
SiO emission in galactic nuclei
-------------------------------
### The center of our Galaxy {#subgce}
The nucleus of our Galaxy shows widespread SiO emission that, in contrast to that observed in the Galactic Disk, is not related to recent star formation. The first large-scale SiO observations of the Galactic Center (GC) of Martín-Pintado et al. ([@mart97]) detected the emission of the SiO(1–0) line in a $\sim150$ pc–diameter circumnuclear disk. In a later paper, Hüttemeister et al. ([@huet98]) detected the SiO(2–1) emission in 32 GC molecular clouds located inside a $\sim$300 pc–diameter disk which extends from to a position at slightly higher positive longitudes than . High SiO abundances are derived for these clouds ($\sim$ several $10^{-10}$ - several $10^{-9}$), indicative of shock chemistry. This scenario has received further support from recent observations revealing the complex alcohol chemistry of GC clouds (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart01]; Requena-Torres et al. 2005, in prep.). In these clouds the large abundances of ethanol (C$_2$H$_5$OH) and CH$_3$OH evidence the erosion of dust grain mantles on large scales.
Besides the long reported similarities between our Galaxy and (e.g., Downes et al. [@down92]), the inner [ few hundred pc]{} in the two galaxies seem to be the scenario of large-scale molecular shocks leading to dust grain processing. Furthermore, the efficiency of shocks appear to be comparable in both galaxies. Despite the different spatial resolution of SiO observations in and in our Galaxy ($\sim$2 pc), the derived SiO abundances are similar in the two objects. Moreover, the SiO-to-CH$_3$OH abundance ratios are also similar in the GC clouds ($\sim0.01-0.03$)[^3] and in ($\sim0.01-0.04$; see Sect. \[submet\]).
These similarities taken together, we can hypothesize that the mechanism explaining the onset of large-scale molecular shocks in the GC and in is likely to be the same. Shocks identified in GC clouds, also unrelated to ongoing star formation, have been attributed different causes, however: the interaction with GC non-thermal filaments, with supernovae remnants or with the expansion bubbles created by Wolf-Rayet stars have been discussed by Martín-Pintado et al. ([@mart97]). Hüttemeister et al. ([@huet98]), using observations that extended over a wider region in the GC, found the largest SiO abundances where the likelihood of cloud-cloud collisions, induced by the Galactic bar potential, is the highest. As discussed in Sects. \[subexg\] and \[secwav\], the latter scenario is the preferred one in .
### The nuclei of external galaxies {#subexg}
Mauersberger & Henkel ([@maue91]) detected the emission of SiO(2–1) in the starburst galaxy , using the 30 m IRAM telescope with a resolution of $\sim$28$\arcsec$. This detection, the first reported for SiO outside the Milky Way, was followed by a 9-galaxy survey made with the NRAO 12 m antenna by Sage & Ziurys ([@sage95]) with $\sim$67$\arcsec$ spatial resolution (equivalent to $\sim$0.5–2 kpc). In this survey, where 5 galaxies were detected in SiO, Sage & Ziurys ([@sage95]) found no correlation between the abundance of SiO, characterized in their work by the SiO/N$_2$H$^+$ ratio, and the efficiency of star formation (given by the SFR per unit dynamical mass, i.e., SFR/M$_{dyn}$). This surprising result was at odds with the classical framework where shock chemistry is driven by YSOs in star forming regions of the Galactic disk. The global SiO abundance measured on 0.5–1 kpc–scales is seen to vary significantly among starburst galaxies: it can reach $\sim$10$^{-9}$ in , whereas it is 1/20 of this value in (see Table \[tabgal\] and Martín-Pintado et al. 2005, in prep.).
The occurrence of large-scale molecular shocks may arise at different stages during the typical lifetime of a starburst episode (Rieke et al. [@riek88]; García-Burillo & Martín-Pintado [@buri01a]). In the pre-starburst phase ([**I**]{}), density wave instabilities induce gravitational torques and drive the infall of large amounts of gas towards the nucleus. [*Large-scale*]{} shocks may be at work related to an enhanced compression of gas and an increased rate of cloud-cloud collisions in the potential wells of spiral arms and/or bars. Once the first massive stars are formed in a second phase ([**II**]{}), bipolar outflows can produce [*locally*]{} molecular shocks in YSOs. In a later stage, corresponding to an evolved starburst, the elevated rate of SN explosions may lead to the disruption of the disk during the expansion of the so-called [*hot bubble*]{}. Episodes of mass injection from the disk into the halo could be accompanied by molecular shocks.
The advent of high-resolution SiO images has been key to help discern the different sources of shock chemistry in external galaxies and thus identify an evolutionary path along the starburst sequence depicted above (see Table \[tabgal\] and references therein). In particular, the puzzling result issued from first single-dish SiO surveys starts to be understood when observations allow us to zoom in on molecular galaxy disks on scales $\lesssim$100 pc:
- Large-scale shocks near the outer Inner Lindbland Resonance (oILR) of the stellar bar can account for the outer SiO disk of this galaxy, which extends well beyond the nuclear starburst. The outer disk SiO emission gives away the [*pre-starburst phase*]{} ([**I**]{}) in (García-Burillo et al. [@buri00]). More recently, the detection of SO$_2$, NS and NO emission and the analysis of the sulfur chemistry in have confirmed that shocks are at work in the nucleus of this galaxy (Martín et al. [@mart03; @mart05]).
- Outflows driven by YSOs during phase [**II**]{} can partly explain the measured average abundances of SiO in the inner disk of (García-Burillo et al. [@buri00]). However, the bulk of the SiO emission likely stems from molecular cloud shocks in the inner Inner Lindbland Resonance (iILR) of the stellar bar.
- The emission of SiO extends noticeably out of the galaxy plane in , tracing the disk-halo interface where episodes of mass injection from the disk are building up the gaseous halo (phase [**III**]{}) (García-Burillo et al. [@buri01b]). The PdBI maps of made in SiO and HCO illustrate how two different gas chemistry scenarios can be simultaneously at play in the same galaxy though at different locations: shocks in the disk-halo interface and PDR chemistry in the galaxy disk which hosts an evolved starburst (García-Burillo et al. [@buri02]; Fuente et al. [@fuen05a]).
The case of the Seyfert 2 galaxy has been studied by Usero et al. ([@user04]) who estimate a large abundance of SiO in the $r\sim$ 200 pc CND of the galaxy (X(SiO)$\sim$a few 10$^{-9}$). The enhancement of SiO is attributed by Usero et al. ([@user04]) to the evaporation of very small ($10~\AA$) silicate grains (VSG) by X-rays. Alternatively, silicon chemistry could be also driven by pre-starburst shocks related with the density wave-resonances of the CND (García-Burillo et al. 2005, in prep.)
As extensively argued in Sect. \[subgce\], the SiO emission in cannot be explained by ongoing star forming activity (phase [**II**]{}). The scenario (phase [**III**]{}) can be also ruled out in . SiO emission in the disk of extends well beyond the distribution of supernovae remnants (SNRs) (Condon et al. [@cond82]; Bregman et al. [@breg93]). Furthermore, the low supernovae rate of ([ ${<0.04}$ yr$^{-1}$ for D=3.3 Mpc]{}; Condon et al. [@cond82]) yields a [ ${\sim 70}$ times]{} smaller energy deposition by the SN of compared to . Finally, X-rays are not expected to be a dominating agent in the chemistry of molecular gas in either. Nearly $\sim$35% of the observed hard X-ray emission in (2 keV$\leq$ E $\leq$10 keV) comes from a circumnuclear disk of $r\sim8\arcsec$ (Bauer, Brandt & Lehmer [@baue03]). The hard X-ray luminosity of this source is three orders of magnitude lower than that of (Ogle et al. [@ogle03]), however. Furthermore, the 6.4 keV Fe K$\alpha$ line, which probes the processing of neutral gas by X-rays, is absent from the spectrum of .
The exclusion of all the alternative explanations leads us to conclude that the large-scale shocks identified in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} of arise in the pre-starburst phase ([**I**]{}) [ (see Sect. \[seccon\])]{}. The following Section discusses the efficiency of density–waves at producing shocks in molecular gas in .
Density waves and shocks in {#secwav}
============================
The bar shapes the distribution and kinematics of molecular gas in the central [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} of the galaxy (Turner & Hurt [@turn92]; Schinnerer et al. [@schi03]; Meier & Turner [@meie05]; this work). The spiral-like morphology of the molecular disk and the detection of non-circular motions ($\gtrsim 50-60$ km s$^{-1}$ in the northern spiral arm, deprojected onto the galaxy plane) are reminiscent of the typical bar-driven dynamics. The SiO abundances measured in the inner molecular disk of proves unambiguously that the bar is producing large-scale molecular shocks. However, the detection of SiO emission constrains the velocity regime of shocks to lie between $\gtrsim15-20$ km s$^{-1}$ (for grain cores to be significantly disrupted) and $\lesssim50-60$ km s$^{-1}$ (to prevent dissociation of SiO molecules), i.e., a velocity range which lies significantly below the lower limit set to the non-circular motions measured across the bar. Furthermore, the detection of CH$_3$OH emission across the bar suggests that the shocked molecular gas emitting in CH$_3$OH cannot be characterized by $v_{shock}\gtrsim 50-60$ km s$^{-1}$. These observational constraints imply that the input kinetic energy provided by streaming motions must be first dissipated making room for a lower velocity regime that corresponds to the emission of the molecular shock tracers observed across the bar.
Large-scale shocks driven by density waves have been long predicted by numerical simulations of spiral/barred galaxies, made following either hydrodynamical schemes (Roberts [@robe69]; Athanassoula [@atha92]) or ballistic ones (Casoli & Combes [@caso82]; Combes & Gerin [@comb85]). In ballistic models, which likely provide a more realistic representation of the clumpy dense ISM in galaxies, molecular shocks should arise subsequently after cloud-cloud collisions. The number of collision events is enhanced by an increase of orbit crowding along the potential well of the bar. As noted in Sects. \[subkin\] and \[submet\], SiO, H$^{13}$CO$^+$ and CH$_3$OH lines have all similar velocity centroids, but different linewidths over the spiral arm region. The largest widths correspond to SiO (whose lines are a factor of 2 larger than that of H$^{13}$CO$^+$), with CH$_3$OH representing an intermediate case. This suggests that the [*apparent turbulence*]{} of shocked molecular gas, traced by SiO and CH$_3$OH, is enhanced compared to the state of the more quiescent dense gas medium (traced by H$^{13}$CO$^+$). This effect, especially relevant in the northern spiral arm region (see Fig. \[figsli\]), [ suggests]{} that the molecular shocks arise at a stage of turbulent dissipation and not during the early phase of the encounter, when cloud-cloud relative velocities may lead to the dissociation of SiO and CH$_3$OH.
Assuming that the internal structure of the colliding molecular clouds is highly clumpy (e.g., Falgarone & Puget [@falg85]), it is plausible to assume that a fraction of the kinetic energy dissipated during a cloud-cloud collision can cascade down to smaller scales. This would increase the [*turbulent*]{} motions of clumps composing the end product of any cloud-cloud collision. On the simulations front, Kimura & Tosa ([@kimu96]) have indeed found indications that the internal turbulence of clumpy colliding molecular clouds can increase after an encounter [ (see also Bonnell et al. [@bonn05]).]{} The input kinetic energy typically involved in a cloud-cloud collision should be much larger in the northern spiral arm than in the nuclear ring. Once dissipated, this different input energies would end up producing a higher turbulence in the shocked molecular gas of the spiral arm ($\sigma_v\sim20-25$ km s$^{-1}$; see Sect. \[subkin\]) compared to the nuclear ring ($\sigma_v\sim10$ km s$^{-1}$; see Sect. \[subkin\]). As observed, in this scenario the largest difference between these two regions would be the amount of shocked molecular gas mass ($f_{shock}^{arm}\sim$5–7$\times f_{shock}^{ring}$; see Sect. \[submet\]) and not the shock velocity regime which is here equal to $\sigma_v$ ($\sigma_v^{arm}\sim2\times\sigma_v^{ring}$; see Sect. \[submet\]).
The fraction of molecular gas actually involved in the pre-starburst shocks produced by the bar defines the relevance of this process. We can estimate this fraction in making use of Eq. \[equsio\]. Given the similar properties of shocks in the GC and ([ Sect. \[subgce\]]{}), we can reasonably adopt a value of X(SiO)$|_{shock}$ in similar to that estimated in the GC clouds on $\sim$1–2 pc-scales by Hüttemeister et al. ([@huet98]): X(SiO)$|_{shock}\gtrsim10^{-8}$. From the values derived for X(SiO) in on [ ${\sim80}$ pc]{} scales, we conclude that $f_{shock}\lesssim 0.1$ in the northern spiral arm and $\lesssim 0.02$ in the nuclear ring. In Appendix \[appene\], we estimate the rate of energy dissipated by shocks in the gas over the spiral arm region of this galaxy. While this estimate is rather approximate, the outcoming picture underlines the potential role of large-scale shocks at draining energy from the gas inflowing towards galactic nuclei.
Conclusions and perspectives {#seccon}
============================
The high-resolution images showing the emission of SiO in the inner [ ${r\sim320}$ pc]{} disk of reveal the onset of large-scale molecular shocks driven by the bar potential of this galaxy. The variation of the estimated SiO abundance inside the mapped region (from $\sim$10$^{-10}$ to $\sim$10$^{-9}$) and the comparison with other molecular tracers (CH$_3$OH and H$^{13}$CO$^{+}$) indicate that shocks process with uneven [ *efficiency* (see Sects. \[secabu\] and \[seceff\])]{} the molecular gas reservoir of . The shocks seem to arise during cloud-cloud collisions at the stage when kinetic energy has partly dissipated in turbulent motions. The mass of molecular gas locally involved in shocks over the spiral arm region of could amount to 10$\%$ of the dense gas reservoir. Taken together, these results underline the relevant role that large-scale molecular shocks can play at shaping the evolution of gas disks.
These observations illustrate the occurrence of molecular shocks in galaxies which are not related with ongoing star formation. SiO emission in traces a pre-starburst phase in molecular gas. Pre-starburst shocks have also been identified to be responsible of the intense ro-vibrational H$_2$ lines detected at 2 $\mu$m in 2 prototypical mergers: and (Rieke et al. [@riek85]). More recently, Haas et al. ([@haas05]) have reported the detection of widespread emission of the v=0–0 S(3) line of H$_2$ at 9.66 $\mu$m in the overlap region of galaxy pair. Haas et al. ([@haas05]) interpret this emission as a tracer of shocks that will give rise to the first generation of stars in the region. In the case of , Haas et al. ([@haas05]) hypothesize that shocks may not be the result of direct collisions of molecular clouds but arise instead from an overpressured medium that remains of the collisions between H[i]{} clouds (Jog & Solomon [@jog92]).
In contrast to , the bulk of the shocked gas in is not expected to produce on-site star formation due to the inhibiting action of strong shear over the spiral arms. SiO emission in traces the sites where molecular clouds dissipate a fraction of their energy through collisions; the energy lost helps the gas to fall to the nuclear ring where it will feed the starburst. The SiO map of provides a snapshot view of the pre-starburst phase during the fueling process driven by density waves. Higher-resolution observations are required to provide new constraints on the details of how density waves operate to produce molecular shocks. In particular, we expect that the efficiency of shocks changes transversally to the spiral arms, as cloud orbits are re-oriented by the bar potential. Because of its closeness, favourable orientation and well defined spiral pattern, is a good target for follow-up studies.
High-resolution SiO imaging is key to discern the different sources of shock chemistry which are activated at different locations and at different moments in galaxy disks during a starburst event. Being more than a mere tracer of [*exotic*]{} chemistry, SiO allows to probe unambiguously the regions where dust grains are being destroyed in galaxies due to the action of density waves, star formation, galactic outflows or X-rays (García-Burillo et al. [@buri00; @buri01b]; Usero et al. [@user04]). The study of the feedback influence of these phenomena in nearby galactic disks is paramount to constrain models of evolution and formation of galaxies at higher redshifts.
We acknowledge the IRAM staff for help provided during the observations and for data reduction. This paper has been partially funded by the Spanish MCyT under projects DGES/AYA2000-0927, ESP2001-4519-PE, ESP2002-01693, PB1998-0684, AYA2002-01241, ESP2002-01627 and AYA2002-10113E. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System and NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED).
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, , 53, 197
Athanassoula, E. 1992, , 259, 345
Bachiller, R., Liechti, S., Walmsley, C. M., & Colomer, F. 1995, , 295, L51
Bachiller, R., & Pérez Gutiérrez, M. 1997, , 487, L93
Bachiller, R., P[é]{}rez Guti[' e]{}rrez, M., Kumar, M. S. N., & Tafalla, M. 2001, , 372, 899
Bauer, F. E., Brandt, W. N., & Lehmer, B. 2003, , 126, 2797
Becklin, E. E., Gatley, I., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., Sellgren, K., Werner, M. W., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1980, , 236, 441
Bergin, E. A., Melnick, G. J. & Neufeld, D. A. 1998, , 499, 777
Böker, T., Forster-Schreiber, N. M., & Genzel, R. 1997, , 114, 1883
B[" o]{}ker, T., van der Marel, R. P., & Vacca, W.D. 1999, , 118, 831
[ Bonnell, A., Dobbs, C. L., Robitaille, T. P., & Pringle, J. E. 2005, , in press, astro-ph/0509809 ]{} Bregman, J. N., Cox, C. V., & Tomisaka, K. 1993, , 415, L79
Buta, R. J., & McCall, M. L. 1999, , 124, 33
Caselli, P., Hartquist, T. W., & Havnes, O. 1997, , 322, 296
Casoli, F., & Combes, F. 1982, , 110, 287
Cesaroni, R., Felli, M., Jenness, T., Neri, R., Olmi, L., Robberto, M., Testi, L., & Walmsley, C. M. 1999, , 345, 949
Codella, C., & Bachiller, R. 1999, , 350, 659
Combes, F., & Gerin, M. 1985, , 150, 327
Condon, J. J., Condon, M. A., Gisler, G., & Puschell, J. J. 1982, , 252, 102
Crosthwaite, L. P., Turner, J. L., Hurt, R. L., Levine, D. A., Martin, R. N., & Ho, P. T. P. 2001, , 122, 797
Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., Guilloteau, S., et al. 1992, , 262, 424
Draine, B. T., & McKee, C. F. 1993, , 31, 373
Falgarone, E., & Puget, J. L. 1985, , 142, 157
Fuente, A., Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Gerin, M., et al. 2005a, , 619, L155
Fuente, A., Rizzo, J. R., Caselli, P., Bachiller, R., & Henkel, C. 2005b, , 433, 535
Garay, G., Mardones, D., & Rodríguez, L. F. 2000, , 545, 861
Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Fuente, A., & Neri, R. 2000, , 355, 499
Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., & Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J. 2001a, ESA SP-460: The Promise of the Herschel Space Observatory, 163
Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Fuente, A., & Neri, R. 2001b, , 563, L27
Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Fuente, A., Usero, A., & Neri, R. 2002, , 575, L55
Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Schinnerer, E., Boone, F., & Hunt, L. K. 2005, , [ 441, 1011]{}
Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Sturm, E., et al. 1998, , 498, 579
Gueth, F., Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A., & Bachiller, R. 1997, , 323, 943
Haas, M., Chini, R., & Klaas, U. 2005, , 433, L17
Henkel, C., Chin, Y.-N., Mauersberger, R., & Whiteoak, J. B. 1998, , 329, 443
Ho, P. T. P., Martin, R. N., Turner, J. L., & Jackson, J. M. 1990, , 355, L19
Hüttemeister, S., Dahmen, G., Mauersberger, R., Henkel, C., Wilson, T. L., & Martin-Pintado, J. 1998, , 334, 646
Ishizuki, S., Kawabe, R., Ishiguro, M., Okumura, S. K., & Morita, K. 1990, , 344, 224
Israel, F. P., & Baas, F. 2003, , 404, 495
Jog, C. J., & Solomon, P. M. 1992, , 387, 152
J[ø]{}rgensen, J. K., Hogerheijde, M. R., Blake, G. A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Mundy, L. G., & Sch[" o]{}ier, F. L. 2004, , 415, 1021
Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, , 498, 541
Kimura, T., & Tosa, M. 1996, , 308, 979
Levine, D. A., Turner, J. L., & Hurt, R. L. 1994, ASP Conf. Ser. 59: IAU Colloq. 140: Astronomy with Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Interferometry, 339
Lo, K. Y., Berge, G. L., Claussen, M. J., et al. 1984, , 282, L59
Mart[í]{}n, S., Mauersberger, R., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., & Henkel, C. 2003, , 411, L465
Mart[í]{}n, S., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., Mauersberger, R., Henkel, C., & Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S. 2005, , 620, 210
Martín-Pintado, J., Bachiller, R., & Fuente, A. 1992, , 254, 315
Martín-Pintado, J., de Vicente, P., Fuente, A., & Planesas, P. 1997, , 482, L45
Martín-Pintado, J., Rizzo, J. R., de Vicente, P., Rodr[í]{}guez-Fern[' a]{}ndez, N. J, & Fuente, A. 2001, , 548, L65
Mauersberger, R., & Henkel, C. 1991, , 245, 457
Mauersberger, R., & Henkel, C. 1993, Reviews of Modern Astronomy, 6, 69
Meier, D. S., Turner, J. L., & Hurt, R. L. 2000, , 531, 200
Meier, D. S. & Turner, J. L. 2001, , 551, 687
Meier, D. S., & Turner, J. L. 2005, , 618, 259
Mitchell, G. F., Johnstone, D., Moriarty-Schieven, G., Fich, M., & Tothill, N. F. H. 2001, , 556, 215
Nguyen-Q-Rieu, Jackson, J. M., Henkel, C., Truong, B., & Mauersberger, R. 1992, , 399, 521
Ogle, P. M., Brookings, T., Canizares, C. R., Lee, J. C., & Marshall, H. L. 2003, , 402, 849
Reipurth, B., Rodr[í]{}guez, L. F., & Chini, R. 1999, , 118, 983
Rieke, G. H., Cutri, R. M., Black, J. H., et al. 1985, , 290, 116
Rieke, G. H., Lebofsky, M. J., & Walker, C. E. 1988, , 325, 679
Roberts, W. W. 1969, , 158, 123
Sage, L. J., & Ziurys, L. M. 1995, , 447, 625
[ Saha, A., Claver, J., & Hoessel, J. G. 2002, , 124, 839 ]{}
Schilke, P., Walmsley, C. M., Pineau des Forets, G., & Flower, D. R. 1997, , 321, 293
Schinnerer, E., B[" o]{}ker, T., & Meier, D. S. 2003, , 591, L115
Schulz, A., G[" u]{}sten, R., K[" o]{}ster, B., & Krause, D. 2001, , 371, 25
Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Blietz, M., Cameron, M., Harris, A. I., & Madden, S. 1994, , 426, L77
Turner, J. L., & Ho, P. T. P. 1983, , 268, L79
Turner, J. L., & Hurt, R. L. 1992, , 384, 72
Usero, A., Garc[í]{}a-Burillo, S., Fuente, A., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., & Rodr[í]{}guez-Fern[' a]{}ndez, N. J. 2004, , 419, 897
Energy dissipation by large-scale molecular shocks in {#appene}
======================================================
Stellar bars can remove energy and angular momentum from the gas through gravitational torques and shocks. Gravity torques from the stellar potential on the gas are expected to be the most relevant drivers of gas inflow in galaxies. Torques created by large-scale stellar bars alone or helped in due time by other secondary mechanisms, such as nested stellar bars, dynamical friction or viscosity, can drive gas inflow and feed the central [*activity*]{} of the inner 1 kpc playground in galactic nuclei (e.g., García-Burillo et al. [@buri05]). Large-scale shocks may also contribute significantly to the loss of energy. In this appendix, we make a rough estimate of the rate of energy losses produced locally by the onset of large-scale shocks in the gas over the spiral arm region of .
A shock-front propagating in a gas medium dissipates *ordered* kinetic energy into heat. For large Mach numbers ($v_{shock}>>$ sound speed), the kinetic energy lost per unit *shocked* mass is $\sim
v^2_{shock}/2$, both in radiative and non-radiative shocks. (e.g. Draine & McKee [@drai93]). The rate of energy dissipated per unit *total* mass due to shocks would be:
$$\label{equesh}
\dot{e}_s=-\frac{f}{\tau_\mathrm{SiO}}\frac{v^2_{shock}}{2}$$
$f$ is the total fraction of shocked gas (including the dense molecular component traced by SiO and the more diffuse gas), while $\tau_\mathrm{SiO}$ is the depletion timescale of SiO onto grains ($\sim10^4$ yr; Bergin et al. [@berg98]). Since gas-phase SiO depletes quickly onto grains, the shocked gas traced by SiO must have been shocked within a time $\tau_\mathrm{SiO}$. The expected values of $f$ range between $f_{shock}$ (if dense and diffuse gas are assumed to be shocked to the same extent) and $\sim0.1\times f_{shock}$ (if we assume that only the dense gas is preferentially shocked; in this case we take a fraction of dense gas of $\sim10\%$ in from Schulz et al. [@schu01]). Assuming a typical $v_{shock}$ of 25 km s$^{-1}$, $\dot{e}_s=
-(0.3-3)\times10^3$ km$^2$ s$^{-2}$ Myr$^{-1}$ for a corresponding range in $f=0.01-0.1$.
Assuming quasi-circular motions, we can estimate a dissipation timescale, $\tau_s$, for the shocks to drain the specific energy of the gas, $e$ ($e\simeq v^2_\varphi/2+\phi$, where $v_\varphi$ is the azimuthal velocity and $\phi(r)$ is the mean gravitational potential):
$$\tau_s=-\frac{e}{\dot{e}_s}\times\frac{2\pi}{\theta_{arm}}$$
The factor $(2\pi)/(\theta_{arm})$ (where $\theta_{arm}$ is the angular width of the spiral arms at a given radius) accounts for the fact that, along an orbit, shocks dissipate energy only during the time spent by the gas in the spiral arm. Using $^{13}$CO data, Turner & Hurt ([@turn92]) fitted a rotation curve in the inner [ 320 pc]{} of of the form $v_\varphi(r)=a(\sqrt{1+br}-1)$ (with $a,b$ constants); from the equation of motion, $v^2_\varphi/r=\mathrm{d}\phi(r)/\mathrm{d}r$, we can estimate $\phi(r)$ and $e$. The value of $e$ results to be $\simeq(2-3)\times v^2_\varphi/2$. At the radius of GMC D [ (${r\sim220}$ pc)]{} $v_\varphi\sim60$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\theta_{arm}/(2\pi)\sim0.1$, so we obtain $e\simeq 5\times10^3$ km$^2$ s$^{-2}$. The corresponding $\tau_s$ is $\sim16-160$ Myr, i.e. [ ${\sim0.7-7}$ rotations]{} at the location of GMC D.
Our estimates suggest that the energy could be drained efficiently from the gas by large-scale shocks along the spiral arms. While it is true that the inflow of gas is mostly constrained by the angular momentum transfer, rather than by the energy dissipation rate (draining angular momentum is more difficult), large-scale shocks could have indeed a non-negligible influence in the dissipation of energy of the gas on its way to the nucleus.
[^1]: Based on observations carried out with the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain).
[^2]: Assuming the CH$_3$OH column densities given by Meier et al. ([@meie05]) these intensity ratios translate into SiO–CH$_3$OH column density ratios of $\sim0.01-0.04$ for $n\gtrsim5\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ ($\sim3$ times larger if $n\sim10^4$ cm$^{-3}$).
[^3]: Calculated from SiO and C$_2$H$_5$OH column densities measured in GC clouds (Martín-Pintado et al. [@mart97; @mart01]), assuming a constant C$_2$H$_5$OH–to–CH$_3$OH abundance ratio of $\sim$0.05 (Requena-Torres et al. 2005, in prep.).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Xavier Bekaert[^1]\
Centre Émile Borel, Institut Henri Poincaré\
11, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France, and\
Physique Théorique et Mathématique, Université Libre de Bruxelles\
Campus Plaine C.P. 231, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium\
E-mail:
- |
Sorin Cucu[^2]\
Centre Émile Borel, Institut Henri Poincaré\
11, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France, and\
Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven\
Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium\
E-mail:
title: 'Antifield BRST quantization of duality-symmetric Maxwell theory'
---
Introduction
============
In the past few years the concept of duality played a central role in field and string theory. Dualities became systematically studied in the literature once their importance in connecting apparently different string theories was realized. For instance S-duality establishes a correspondence between weak and strong coupled models and a special case of S-duality is represented by the electric-magnetic duality. Thus, the necessity of studying such a duality required a dual-symmetric action for the Maxwell theory. This manifest duality symmetry can be elegantly reformulated in terms of a self-duality condition on a complex field strength. Abelian $p$-forms, with $(p+1)$-field strengths satisfying a self-duality condition (Hodge duality), are only defined in $2(p+1)$ dimensions. Because of the minkowskian signature, the square of the Hodge dual $*$ is the identity in twice odd dimensions and minus the identity in twice even dimensions Thus, the condition: $F=*F$ allows non-trivial solutions ($F\neq 0$) for real fields only in twice odd dimensions: the chiral $p$-forms. In twice even dimensions, we have to take $F$ to be a complex field and redefine the dual operator to be imaginary by $*\rightarrow {\rm i}*$. The complexification of the fields is also equivalent to the dualization of a pair of real $p$-forms gauge fields, like duality-symmetric Maxwell theory ($p=1$).
The connection of chiral $p$-forms to supergravity [@sw-hw] or branes and M-theory [@bb-ckvp] was one of the motivations for a methodical approach of the subject. Several non-covariant actions [@fj; @Henneaux:1988; @ms] were proposed for the description of chiral $p$-forms. The main obstacle encountered in the construction of an action with manifest Lorentz-invariance was the presence of the self-duality requirement. Nevertheless, the problem was solved either by introduction of an infinite set of auxiliary fields entering the lagrangian in a polynomial way [@wy; @dh] or using one auxiliary field in a non-polynomial way [@pst1; @mps]. Efforts for implementing the duality symmetry in Maxwell theory at the level of its action have been undertaken since the seventies [@z:71; @dt]. The topic has been addressed again over the last decade in a series of papers [@ss; @pst]. This led to non-covariant versions [@dt; @ss] or to lagrangians with manifest space-time symmetry [@pst; @mb].
The quantization of theories containing chiral $p$-forms has been already performed for several values of $p$ and different formulations of the systems. The covariant hamiltonian BRST (Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin) quantization of one chiral boson was realized in [@wy] and generalized to chiral $p$-forms in [@dh], applying the formulation of infinitely many ghosts. On the other hand, chiral $2$–forms in $6$ dimensions have been recently quantized [@kor] within the covariant BV (Batalin-Vilkovisky) treatment making use of various gauge-fixing conditions. The BV method has been also adopted [@ggrs] in proving the quantum equivalence of Schwarz-Sen [@ss] and Maxwell [@dt] theories. Nevertheless, the generating functionals derived in [@ggrs] do not exhibit a manifest Lorentz covariance. The aim of the present work is to obtain a correct path-integral for the covariant duality-symmetric Maxwell theory. As, in the first instance, we want to get a generating functional with manifest Lorentz symmetry we will base our considerations on the action proposed by Pasti, Sorokin and Tonin (PST) in [@pst]. The presence of the auxiliary field coupling (non-polynomially) to the two gauge potentials makes the gauge algebra non-Abelian, with field-dependent structure *functions*. As a consequence, we must choose a suitable quantization procedure. We will consider here the antifield-BRST method [@bv] because it proved, in the last twenty years, to be a very powerful quantization technique applicable also for models with open and/or non-Abelian (field-dependent) algebras, as it will be the case for us.
The paper is structured as follows. In section \[s:action\] we present the action and its gauge symmetries together with the gauge algebra. We compute then, in section \[s:BRST\], the minimal solution of the master equation and we infer also the BRST symmetry. By a well chosen non-minimal sector and an adequate gauge-fixing fermion the remaining gauge invariances will be fixed in section \[s:g-fixing\]. The non-covariant gauge is the starting point in proving the quantum equivalence between the PST and the Maxwell theories as explained in section \[s:qmequiv\]. It is afterwards used to explicitly determine the Feynman rules for the interaction of PST with gravity in section \[s:gravity\]. In the last part, section \[s:concl\], we collect and discuss our results.
Gauge symmetries of the classical action {#s:action}
========================================
We start our discussion by considering the PST action proposed to manifestly implement two symmetries in the description of free Maxwell theory: Lorentz invariance and electric-magnetic duality.
After fixing the notation, we emphasize the physical content of this model. Next, we briefly present its gauge algebra.
The PST action [@pst] constructed for the description of self-dual vector field is $$S_0=\int d^4x \left(-{1\over 8}F^\alpha_{mn}F^{\alpha mn}
+{1\over{4(-u_lu^l)}}u^m{\cal F}^\alpha_{mn}{\cal F}^{\alpha np}u_p
\right),
\label{e:pst}$$ where the $m,n,\dots\,$ stand for Lorentz indices in $4$ dimensional space-time with a flat metric $(-,+,+,+)$. As explained in the introduction the Lagrangian contains two gauge potentials $(A_m^\a)_{\a=1,2}$ and one auxiliary field $a$, appearing here only as the gradient $u_m=\partial_m a$. The notation used throughout this paper is $$\begin{array}[b]{rclcrcl}
u^2&=&u^mu_m \,,
&\qquad&
v_m&=&\displaystyle {{\frac{u_m}{\su}}}\,,
\\[8pt]
F^\a_{mn}&=&2\partial_{[m}A^\a_{n]}\,,
&\qquad&
F^{*\a}_{mn}&=&\displaystyle \half\e_{mnpq}F^{\a pq} \,,
\\
\cF^\a_{mn}&=&\cL^{\a\b}F^\b_{mn}-F^{*\a}_{mn}\,,
&\qquad&
{H^{(-)\a}_{m}}&=&\cF^\a_{mn}v^n
\end{array}
\label{e:not}$$ with $\cL^{\a\b}$ being the antisymmetric unit matrix of ${\mathop{\rm SO}}(2)$. The equations of motion associated to (\[e:pst\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\d A_m^\a &:\qquad & \e^{mnqp}\partial_n(v_pH^{(-)\a}_q)=0\,,
\label{e:eomA}\\
\d u_m & :\qquad & {{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-u^2}}}}\left(H^{(-)\a}_n
\cF^{\a mn}-H^{(-)\a}_nH^{(-)\a n}v^m\right)=0\,.
\label{e:eomu}\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to check the following gauge invariances of (\[e:pst\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\d_IA_m^\a&=&\partial_m\varphi^\a\,, \qquad \d_I a=0 \,,
\label{e:ginv1}\\
\d_{II}A_m^\a&=&-\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\b}_{m}}{{\frac{\f}{\sqrt{-u^2}}}}\,, \qquad \d_{II}a=\f \,,
\label{e:ginv2}\\
\d_{III}A_m^\a&=&u_m\ve^\a\,, \qquad \d_{III}a=0 \,,
\label{e:ginv3}\end{aligned}$$
that are irreducible. Pasti-Sorokin-Tonin have shown [@pst] that this model is in fact classically equivalent with Schwarz-Sen action [@ss] describing the dynamics of a single Maxwell field. Indeed, using the equations of motion (\[e:eomA\]) one can fix the gauge degrees of freedom of (\[e:ginv3\]) in such a way that the self-duality condition $$\cF^{\a}_{mn}=0\label{e:duality}$$ is satisfied. Such a consequence of the equations of motion allows us to express one of the gauge fields $A_m^\a$ as function of the other one yielding the usual Maxwell Lagrangian (with remaining symmetry (\[e:ginv1\])) plus a contribution of $u_m$ field. Further, one remarks from the second invariance (\[e:ginv2\]) that $a$ is pure gauge. Another way to see that is by expressing the field equation for $a$ as a consequence of the equation of motion for $A_m^\a$. That is why $a$ can be easily fixed away using a clever gauge condition (avoiding the singularity $u^2=0$). So, the field $u_m$ as well as one of the two $A_m^\a$ are auxiliary in the sence that one needs them only to lift self-duality and Lorentz invariance at the rank of manifest symmetries of the action. But, they can be removed on the mass-shell taking into account the gauge invariances of the new system. Nevertheless, the way we gauge fix the last invariance (\[e:ginv3\]) can be applied only at the classical level since we make explicit use of the field equations, which cannot be done in a BRST path integral approach. The manner of fixing the unphysical degrees of freedom in the BRST formalism will be clarified in section \[s:g-fixing\].
Computing the gauge algebra we get $$\begin{aligned}
[\d_{II}(\f_1),\d_{II}(\f_2)]&=&\d_{III}\left({{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\b}_{p}}}{(-u^2)^{3/2}}}}(\f_1\partial^p\f_2-\f_2\partial^p\f_1)\right)\,,
\label{e:galg1}\\
\left[\d_{II}(\f),\d_{III}(\ve^\a)\right]&=&\d_I(\f\ve^\a)+\d_{III}
\left({{\frac{u^p\f}{(-u^2)}}} \partial_p\ve^\a\right)\,.
\label{e:galg2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, our system describes a non-Abelian theory with the structure constants replaced by non-polynomial structure *functions*.
Minimal solution of the master equation {#s:BRST}
=======================================
Having made the classical analysis of the model, we can start now the standard BRST procedure.[^3] The first step is to construct the minimal solution of the master equation with the help of the gauge algebra. In order to reach that end we will introduce some new fields called ghosts and their antibracket conjugates known as antifields.
The minimal sector of fields and antifields dictated by the gauge invariances (\[e:ginv1\]) –(\[e:ginv3\]) as well as their ghost numbers and statistics are listed in table \[t:mingh\].
[Ghost number, antighost number and statistics of the minimal fields and their antifields.\[t:mingh\]]{}
The transformations (\[e:ginv1\])–(\[e:ginv3\]) determine directly the antigh number one piece of the extended action, i.e. $$S_1=\int d^4\,x\left[A_m^{\a *}\left(\partial^mc^\a- \cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\b}_{m}}
{{\frac{c}{\sqrt{-u^2}}}}+u^mc'^\a\right)+ a^* c\right].
\label{e:ext1}$$ In order to take into account the structure functions one has to insert in the solution of the master equation a contribution with antigh number two of the form $$\label{e:ext2}
S_2 = \int d^4\,x \left[c'^{\a *}\left( {{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\b}_{p}}}{(-u^2)^{3/2}}}}c\,\partial^pc +{{\frac{v_p}{\su}}}c\partial^p c'^{\a}\right) +c^{\a *}c\,c'^\a \right].$$ Due to the field dependence of the structure functions one should expect that $S_1$ and $S_2$ are not enough to completely determine the extended action and one will need an extra piece of antigh number three to do the job. Indeed, that was already the case for chiral 2–forms in 6 dimensions discussed in [@kor]. Nevertheless, one can readily check that in the present situation $S_{\rm
min}=S_0+S_1+S_2$ is the minimal solution of the classical master equation $(S_{\rm min},S_{\rm min})=0$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
(S_1,S_1)_1 + 2(S_1,S_1)_1 &=&0\,,
\nonumber \\
(S_2,S_2)_2 + 2(S_1,S_2)_2 &=&0\,.\end{aligned}$$ This follows also as a consequence of the irreducibility of our model. The way we constructed $S_{\rm min}$ will ensure also a properness condition which says that the rank of the hessian $$S_{\tilde C}{}^{\tilde A} = \o^{{\tilde A}{\tilde B}}
\frac{\d^L\d^R S_{\rm min}}{\d \Phi^{\tilde B}\d \Phi^{\tilde C}}$$ at the stationary surface corresponds to precisely to half its dimension (where $(\Phi^{\tilde A})_{{\tilde A}=1,\dots
,2N}$ labels all the fields and antifields in the minimal sector, while $\o^{{\tilde A}{\tilde B}}$ denotes the symplectic matrix in $2N$ dimensions). Such a condition expresses that $S_{\rm min}$ has only a number of gauge invariances equal to $N$, not $2N$ as one could superficially think.
Once $S_{\rm min}$ has been derived, we can infer the BRST operator $s$, which is the sum of three operator of different antigh number $$s=\delta+\gamma+\rho\,.$$ For instance, the non-trivial action of the Koszul-Tate differential, of antigh number $-1$, is in our case given by $$\begin{aligned}
\d A_m^{\a *} &=& \e^{mnqp}\partial_n(v_pH^{(-)\a}_q)\,,\\
\d a^* &=& \partial_m\left({{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-u^2}}}}\left(H^{(-)\a}_n\cF^{\a mn}
-H^{(-)\a}_nH^{(-)\a n}v^m\right)\right)\,,\\
\d c^{\a *}&=&-\partial^m A^{\a *}_m\,,
\label{e:KT1} \\
\d c^* &=&-{{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\bp}}}{\su}}} A^{\a *}_p +a^*\,,
\label{e:KT2} \\
\d c'^{\a *}&=&u^m A^{\a *}_m\,.
\label{e:KT3}\end{aligned}$$ The third piece, $\rho$, of antigh number $+1$ is present also because the structure functions determined by (\[e:ginv1\])-(\[e:ginv3\]) depend explicitly on the fields.
In this way the goal of this section, i.e. the construction of the minimal solution for the master equation, was achieved.
The gauge-fixed action {#s:g-fixing}
======================
The minimal solution $S_{\rm min}$ will not suffice in fixing all the gauge invariances of the system and, before fixing the gauge, one needs a non-minimal solution for $(S,S)=0$ in order to take into account the trivial gauge transformations. In this section we first construct such a non-minimal solution and, afterwards, we propose two possible gauge-fixing conditions which will yield two versions for the gauged-fixed action: a covariant and a non-covariant one.
Non-minimal sector
------------------
Inspired by the gauge transformations (\[e:ginv1\])-(\[e:ginv3\]) and their irreducibility we propose a non-minimal sector given in table \[t:non-minsect\].
[Ghost number and statistics of the non-minimal fields and their antifields.\[t:non-minsect\]]{}
They satisfy the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
s{\bar C}^{\cdots} &=& B^{\cdots}\,,
\nonumber\\
\qquad sB^{\cdots}&=&0\,,
\nonumber\\
sB^{\cdots *}&=&{\bar C}^{\cdots *}\,,
\nonumber\\
s{\bar C}^{\cdots *} &=&0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The dots are there to express that these relations are valid for the correspondingly three kinds of non-minimal fields. We immediately see that $\bar{C}^{\cdots}$’s and $B^{\cdots}$’s constitute trivial pairs, as well as their respective antifields, in such a way that they do not enter in the cohomology of $s$. Hence, they are called non-minimal. A satisfactory explanation of the necessity of the presence of a non-minimal sector is provided by BRST-anti-BRST formalism. Their contribution to the solution of the master equation is $$\label{e:non-min}
S_{\rm non-min}=S_{\rm min} +\int d^4\,x \left({\bar C}^{\a *}B^\a +
{\bar C}^* B +{\bar C}'^{\a *}B'^\a \right).$$
Covariant gauge fixing
----------------------
We will first try a covariant gauge fixing that in principle should yield a covariant gauge-fixed action and we will see what is the main problem that occurs. One can consider the following *covariant* gauge choices $$\begin{aligned}
\d_{I} &\ra & \partial^m A^\a _m =0\,,
\label{e:gc1} \\
\d_{II} &\ra & u^2 +1=0\,,
\label{e:gc2} \\
\d_{III} &\ra & u^m A^\a _m =0\,.
\label{e:gc3} \end{aligned}$$ The gauge choice (\[e:gc1\]) is analogous to the Lorentz gauge. In its turn (\[e:gc2\]) allows to take a particular Lorentz frame in which $u^m(x)$ is the unit time vector at the point $x$. In such a case, at the point $x$, (\[e:gc3\]) is the temporal gauge condition for the two potentials.
A gauge-fixing fermion corresponding to the gauge choices (\[e:gc1\])-(\[e:gc3\]) is $$\label{e:gaugeferm}
\P[\F^A]=-\int d^4\,x \left[{\bar C}^\a \partial^m A^\a _m
+{\bar C} (u^2 +1) +{\bar C}'^\a u^m A^\a _m \right].$$ One expresses now all the antifields with the help of $\P[\F]$, i.e. $$\label{e:antifields}
\F^*_A ={{\frac{\d\P[\F^A]}{\d\Phi^A}}}$$ getting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:antifield1}
A_m^{\a *} &=& \partial_m {\bar C}^\a -u_m {\bar C}'^\a\,,
\qquad a^*= 2\partial_m (u^m {\bar C}) +\partial^m(A_m^\a {\bar C}'^\a) \,,
\nonumber\\
\label{antifield2}
c^{\cdots *}&=& 0\,, \qquad B^{\cdots *}= 0\,,
\nonumber\\
{\bar C}^{\a *} &=& -\partial^m A^\a _m \,, \qquad
{\bar C}^* = -(u^2 +1) \qquad {\bar C}'^{\a *} = -u^m A^\a _m \,.\label{e:antifield3}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using the last relations one can find the gauge fixed action as in (\[e:GAUGEFIXED\]) which in our case reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:fixedaction}
S_\P &=& S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[-{\bar C}^\a \square c^\a -
{{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\bm}}}{\sqrt{-u^2}}}}\partial_m {\bar C}^\a \cdot c
+u^m \partial_m {\bar C}^\a \cdot c'^\a -
\nonumber\\&&
\hphantom{S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[}\!
-u_m {\bar C}'^\a \partial^m c^\a - u^2{\bar C}'^\a c'^\a -(2 u_m
{\bar C} + A_m^\a {\bar C}'^\a)\partial^m c -
\nonumber\\ &&
\hphantom{S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[}\!
-\,(\partial^m
A^\a _m )B^\a -(u^2+1)B -(u^m A^\a _m )B'^\a \Biggr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Writing down the path integral (\[e:PATHINT\]), one can integrate directly the fields $B^{\cdots}$ producing the gauge conditions (\[e:gc1\])-(\[e:gc3\]). A further integration of ${\bar C}$, ${\bar C}'^\a$ and $c'^\a$ (in this order) leads to $$\label{e:fixed1}
Z = \int\left[\cD A\cD a\cD c^\a \cD c\cD {\bar C}^\a \right] \,\d
(\partial^m A_m^\a) \,\d (u^2+1) \,\d (u^mA_m^\a) \,\d (u^m \partial_m
c) \exp iS'_\Psi\,,$$ where $$\label{e:covgfa}
S'_\Psi =\int d^4x\left[ -{\bar C}^\a \square c^\a +\left(
{{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\bm}}}{\sqrt{-u^2}}}} c +{{\frac{u^m}{u^2}}} (u^p\partial_p
c^\a +A_p^\a\partial^p c )\right)\partial_m {\bar C}^\a\right].$$ Of course, the next step in getting a covariant generating functional from which we should read out the *covariant* propagator for the fields $A_m^\a$ would be the elimination of $c$ and $a$ in (\[e:fixed1\]). Due to the “gauge condition" for the ghost $c$ (i.e. $u^m \partial_m c =0$) and the way it enters the gauge-fixed action $S'_\Psi$, this integration is technically difficult. What one could try is to integrate both $c$ and $a$ at the same time. This is also not straightforwardly possible as a consequence of the gauge condition (\[e:gc2\]). This requirement was necessary to *covariantly* fix the symmetry (\[e:ginv2\]). Nevertheless, one can attempt to find the general solution to this equation (\[e:gc2\]), which reduces to the integration of $\partial^m a=\L^m{}_p(x)n^p $ (with $\L^m{}_p(x)$ a point-dependent Lorentz boost and $n_p$ a constant time-like vector, i.e. $n_p n^p
=-1$). Such a solution is still unconvenient due to $x$-dependence of the Lorentz transformation matrix $\L^m{}_p(x)$.
A way to overcome this sort of complication is to choose a particular form for this matrix, breaking Lorentz symmetry. It is precisely this price that we have to pay in order to explicitly derive the propagator of $A_m^\a$ fields. As it will be explained in the next subsection, by taking a particular solution for (\[e:gc2\]), i.e. by giving up Lorentz invariance, we will be able to express the gauged-fixed action in a more convenient form for our purposes.
Non-covariant gauge fixing
--------------------------
As it was remarked in the previous subsection in order to explicitly derive the Feynman rules for the PST model one has to break up its Lorentz symmetry by taking a specific solution of the equation (\[e:gc2\]). In this subsection we present a non-covariant gauge of the theory and the advantages for such a choice will become clear in the next sections. A possible *non-covariant* gauge fixing is $$\begin{aligned}
\d_{I} &\ra & \partial^m A^\a _m =0\,,
\label{e:gnc1} \\
\d_{II} &\ra & a-n_m x^m=0\,,\qquad n_m n^m =-1 \,,
\label{e:gnc2} \\
\d_{III} &\ra & n^m A^\a _m =0\,.
\label{e:gnc3} \end{aligned}$$ By (\[e:gnc2\]), the gradient $\partial^m a$ becomes equal to the vector $n^m$ introduced above. In a Lorentz frame where $n^m=(1,0,0,0)$ the requirement (\[e:gnc3\]) is the temporal gauge condition and (\[e:gnc1\]) the Coulomb gauge condition for the two potentials $A^\a_m$.
Then, the gauge-fixing fermion will be $$\label{e:gaugeferm-non}
\P[\F^A]=-\int d^4\,x \left[{\bar C}^\a \partial^m A^\a _m +{\bar C}
(a-n_m x^m) +{\bar C}'^\a n^m A^\a _m \right].$$
Using the same non-minimal contribution $S_{non-min}$ as before, the non-covariant gauge-fixed action is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:gauge-fixedaction}
S_\P &=& S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[\left(\partial_m {\bar C}^\a -u_m {\bar
C}'^\a \right)\left(\partial^mc^\a-
\cL^{\a\b}{H^{(-)\b}_{m}}{{\frac{c}{\sqrt{-u^2}}}}+u^mc'^\a\right) +
\nonumber\\ &&
\hphantom{S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[}\!
+\left(-{\bar C}+\partial^m(A_m^\a {\bar C}'^\a)\right) c-\partial^m
A^\a _mB^\a - (a-n_m x^m)B -\,
\nonumber\\ &&
\hphantom{S_0 + \int d^4\,x \Biggl[}\!
-u^m A^\a _mB'^\a \Biggr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ This action is by far more convenient in deriving the propagator of the gauge fields than its covariant expression (\[e:covgfa\]) because one can completely integrate the ghost sector. Also, the bosonic part takes a more familiar form. The quantum equivalence of the PST model with ordinary Maxwell theory will be based also on this non-covariant action.
Path integral, quantum equivalence of PST action with Maxwell theory {#s:qmequiv}
====================================================================
The gauge-fixed action corresponding to the non-covariant gauge choice can be used to recover the Schwarz-Sen theory, which is itself equivalent to the Maxwell theory. The generating functional is taken to be (see appendix \[a:BRST\] and \[a:Max\]) $$Z= \int {\cal D} A^\a_m \,\cD a \,\cD c^{\cdots} \,\cD B^{\cdots}
\,\cD \bar{C}^{\cdots} \, {\rm det}(\square)\,{\rm det} ^{-1}({\rm
curl})\, \exp iS_\P\,,$$ where $S_\P$ is given by (\[e:gauge-fixedaction\]).
After integrating out some fields, in the following order ($B^{\cdots},$ $\bar{C},$ $c,$ $\bar{C}'^\a,$ $c'^\a ,$ $a$), we obtain the path integral $$Z= \int {\cal D} A^\a_m \,\cD {\bar C}^\a\,\cD c^\a \,{\rm
det}(\square)\, \,{\rm det} ^{-1}({\rm curl})\,\delta(\partial^m
A^\a_m)\,\delta(n^m A^\a_m)\, \exp iS'_\P\,,$$ where the gauge-fixed action reduces now to $$\label{e:non-fixedaction1}
S'_\P =\int d^4\,x \left[ -{{\frac{1}{2}}} n^mF^{*\a}_{mn}\cF^{\a np}n_p -{\bar
C}^\a \square c^\a -{\bar C}^\a n^pn^q\partial_p\partial_q c^\a \right].$$ If we place ourselves in a Lorentz frame where $n^m=(1,0,0,0)$, the functional $S'_\P$ assumes the form of the sum of Schwarz-Sen gauge-fixed action (\[e:ScSe\]) and a ghost term $$\label{e:ghosts}
-\int d^4 x\, {\bar C}^\a \bigtriangleup c^\a \,.$$ At this point we can integrate the ghosts $\bar{C}^\a$ and $c^\a$, and the two fields $A^\a_0$, obtaining exactly the generating functional (\[e:genfunc\]) of the Maxwell theory in the non-covariant formulation (The quantum equivalence of Maxwell and Schwarz-Sen actions is briefly reviewed in appendix \[a:Max\]).
This proves the (quantum) equivalence of the PST action (\[e:pst\]) with the Maxwell theory, which was already known at the classical level. The quantum equivalence was not obvious because the PST action of the free Maxwell theory is not quadratic (and so the path integral is not gaussian) and the pure gauge field $a$ is not, strictly speaking, an auxiliary field (its equation of motion is not an *algebraic* relation which allows its elimination from the action).
As a last remark, we notice that the bosonic part of the action (\[e:non-fixedaction1\]) produces two poles in the propagator of the gauge fields $A_i^\a$ : one physical, the usual ${1}/{\square}$, the other is an *apparent* unphysical pole of type $-{1}/({\partial^2_N +\square})$ (i.e. the inverse of laplacian operator in an appropriate Lorentz frame, as $\partial_N \equiv
n^p\partial_p$), also present for the Schwarz-Sen theory. This is not a physical pole because it corresponds to modes that do not propagate. This pole appears also in another non-covariant gauge choice: the Coulomb gauge in Maxwell theory. We will try to clarify this point in the next section using the example of PST model coupled to gravity. In that case, we can see explicitly that the unphysical mode do not contribute at all to scattering amplitudes.
Coupling to gravity {#s:gravity}
===================
The goal of this section is to show that the massless propagator ${1}/{\square}$, rather than $-{1}/({\partial^2_N +\square})$, contributes to the Feynman diagrams of the vector fields $A_m^\a$ for the particular case of PST theory coupled to gravity.
We consider now the same PST action (\[e:pst\]) but in a gravitational background characterized by a metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, i.e. we take[^4] $$\label{e:pstgrav}
S^g_0=-\frac{1}{2}\int \sqrt{-g} \, v_\mu
{H^{(-)\a}_{\nu}}g^{\m\r}g^{\n\sigma}F^{*\a}_{\r\sigma}\,,$$ where $g=\det{g_{\m\n}}$.
Next, we apply the same BRST formalism as before, following precisely the same steps (just replacing the flat indices by curved ones). Moreover, using the same non-covariant gauge, one infers for the ghost sector a similar contribution of type (\[e:ghosts\]), which becomes here $$-\int d^4\,x \sqrt{-g}\,{\bar C}^\a (\square_{cov}
+\nabla^{cov}_N\nabla^{cov}_N )c^\a \,.$$ The only difference resides in replacing the ordinary derivatives by covariant quantities. In any case, the fermionic ghosts decouple from the bosonic fields and can be handled as explained after (\[e:ghosts\]) (by integrating over them in the path integral). This is the reason way we focus our attention on the bosonic part of the gauge-fixed action arising from the original action $S^g_0$.
As we are looking only for the first-order interaction of the model with the background $g_{\m\n}$ it is natural to try to expand this metric around the flat one. In other words, we consider $$g^{\m\n}=\eta^{\m\n} + h^{\m\n}$$ and, for further convenience, we assume that the fluctuation $h^{\m\n}$ can be parametrized in terms of inverse $e_m^\m$ of the orthogonal vectors $e_\m^m$, i.e. $$h^{\m\n} = e_m^\m e_n^\n \eta^{mn}$$ (for simplicity the label $m$ will be suppressed in the future considerations).
Our next move consists in developing the bosonic part of the gauge-fixed action to the first-order in the perturbation $h^{\m\n}\,$. [^5] After some computation one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:order0}
S^g_\P &=& \int d^4\,x \Biggl\{-\frac{1}{2}
A_\m^\a[\d^{\a\b}\eta^{\m\n}(-\square-\partial^2_N)
+\cL^{\a\b}T^{\m\n}\partial_N ]A_\n^\b +
\\&&
\hphantom{\int d^4\,x \Biggl\{}\!
+ \frac{1}{2} (T^{\m\n}A^\a_\n)\Biggl[\d^{\a\b}\eta_{\m\s}(\frac{1}{2}{\tilde
h}-(n^\tau e_\tau)^2) +\d^{\a\b}e_\m e_\s -
\label{e:1order1}\\&&
\hphantom{+ \frac{1}{2} (T^{\m\n}A^\a_\n)\Biggl[}\!
-\frac{1}{2} \cL^{\a\b}(n^\zeta e_\zeta)\e_{\m\kappa\tau\s}e^\kappa
n^\tau\Biggr](T^{\s\r}A^\b_\r)\Biggr\} \,,
\label{e:2order1}\end{aligned}$$ where we neglected the second order in $h^{\m\n}$ or higher. In the meantime we have employed the notation ${\tilde h} =
h^{\m\n}\eta_{\m\n}$ and $$\label{e:T}
T^{\m\n}A_\n^\a = \e^{\m\n\r\s}n_\r \partial_\s A_\n^\a \,.$$ The object $T^{\m\n}$, defined in this way, is a differential operator transforming one-forms into one-forms. It is antisymmetric under the interchange of its indices and it is characterized by a very important feature, namely $$\label{e:propT}
T^{\m\r}T_{\r\s}T^{\s\n} = - (\square +\partial_N^2) T^{\m\n}\,.$$ This property allows one to transform any series expansion in $T^{\m\n}$ into a polynomial containing only $1$, $T$ and $T^2$.
Let us return to the interpretation of the expansion (\[e:order0\])-(\[e:2order1\]). The first remark is that the zeroth-order, (\[e:order0\]), coincides with the one from the flat space discussion.
This term delivers the gauge-fixed kinetic operator $$K_{\m\n}{}^{\a\b} = \d^{\a\b}\eta_{\m\n}(-\square-\partial^2_N)
+\cL^{\a\b}T_{\m\n}\partial_N\,,$$ whose inverse is nothing but the propagator $P_{\m\n}{}^{\a\b}$ of the vector fields $A_\m^\a$. Then a simple computation based on the property (\[e:propT\]) of $T^{\m\n}$ gives the explicit form of the propagator $$\label{e:propag}
P_{\m\n}{}^{\a\b} = -{{\frac{1}{\square +\partial_N^2}}}\left[
\d_{\m\n}\d^{\a\b} + {{\frac{\cL^{\a\b}T_{\m\n}\partial_N}{\square}}}
-{{\frac{\d^{\a\b} T_{\m\r}T^\r{}_\n \partial_N^2}{\square(\square
+\partial_N^2)}}}\right].$$
If we consider also the first-order interaction (\[e:1order1\])-(\[e:2order1\]) with a gravitational background we notice that in such an interaction the gauge fields $A_\m^\a$ couple to the perturbation $h^{\m\n}$ only as $T^{\m\n}A_\n^\a$. Therefore, we conclude that the effective propagator in the presence of gravity must be $$\label{e:effpropag}
T^{\m\r}P_{\r\s}{}^{\a\b}T^{\s\n} = [\cL^{\a\b}\d^\m{}_\s \partial_N
-\d^{\a\b} T^\m{}_\s ]T^{\s\n}{{\frac{1}{\square}}}\,,$$ where we see that the apparent pole $-{1}/({\partial^2_N +\square})$ has been replaced by an expected massless propagator ${ 1/\square}$. This should not be understood as a result of the specific gravitational coupling, but as a characteristic of Feynman computations for the PST model.
The expression of the effective propagator together with the interaction terms in $S^g_\P$ can further be used to determine the building blocks of the one-loop Feynman diagrams for the coupling of the PST model to a gravitational background. A similar method was carried out in [@lech] in computing the gravitational anomalies in $4n+2$ dimensions.
Conclusions {#s:concl}
===========
In the present paper we demonstrated the equivalence of the PST and Schwarz-Sen formulations of duality-symmetric Maxwell theory at the quantum level. The latter, Schwarz-Sen, is quantum mechanically also equivalent to the ordinary Maxwell theory [@ggrs] such that all these models are physically related (on-shell) at the classical and quantum level, even if their off-shell descriptions are different.
To this end (to prove the equivalence) we have adopted the antifield-BRST quantization method. This approach resides in compensating all the gauge symmetries of the original system by some fermionic ghosts and their antibracket conjugates - called antifields. After extending the action to a suitable chosen non-minimal sector, we had to fix the gauge. We were able to perform two different gauge-fixings. The covariant one preserves Lorentz invariance but it has the disadvantage of an intricate form in the ghost sector which makes its integration difficult. On the other hand, giving up Lorentz symmetry we presented also a non-covariant gauge which has a simple structure in its fermionic part leading us to favourable results. Firstly, it was the cornerstone in proving the quantum equivalence of the studied PST model and the Schwarz-Sen action. Secondly, the correct Feynman rules have been infered. We used the example of gravitational interaction of the PST system in the same gauge condition to show explicitly that the unphysical pole of the propagator is a gauge artifact, of the same kind that the one appearing for usual Maxwell theory in Coulomb gauge. Such a first-order expansion in the perturbed metric was performed also by Lechner [@lech] in studying the gravitational anomalies of the self-dual tensors in $4n+2$ dimensions. However, as discussed in [@agw], the self-dual vector field in $4$ dimensions should be anomaly free.
We thank K. Van Hoof and M. Henneaux for their encouragements and support in this project. We are also grateful to G. Barnich, C. Bizdadea, N. Boulanger, F. Roose, S.O. Saliu, C. Schomblond, W. Troost and A. Van Proeyen for useful discussions. We acknowledge the organizers of the school “Supergravity, Superstring and M-Theory" (september 18th 2000–february 9th 2001) held at the “Centre Émile Borel" (UMS 839 - CNRS/UPMC), for their hospitality during the last part of this paper.
Basic ingredients of antifield-BRST formalism {#a:BRST}
=============================================
Here we give only some of the main ideas underlying the lagrangian BRST method. For more details we refer the reader to [@bv; @ht].
Let $S_0[\phi^i]$ be an action with the following bosonic gauge transformations[^6] $$\label{e:GT}
\delta_\varepsilon \phi^i = R^i_\alpha\epsilon^\alpha$$ which are irreducible. Then, one has to enlarge the “field” content to $$\{\Phi^A\}=\{\phi^i,C^{\alpha}\}\,.$$ The fermionic ghosts $C^{\alpha}$ correspond to the parameters $\varepsilon^\a$ of the gauge transformations (\[e:GT\]). To each field $\Phi^A$ we associate an antifield $\Phi_A^*$ of opposite parity. The set of associated antifields is then $$\{\Phi_A^*\}=\{\phi^{*}_i,C^*_\alpha\}\,.$$ The fields possess a vanishing antighost number (antigh) and a nonvanishing pureghost number (pgh) $$\hbox{pgh}(\phi^i)=0,\qquad \hbox{pgh}(C^\alpha)=1.$$ The pgh number of the antifields vanish but their respective antigh number is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{antigh}(\Phi_A^*)=1+\hbox{pgh}(\Phi^A).\end{aligned}$$ The total ghost number (gh) equals the difference between the pgh number and the antigh number. The antibracket of two functionals $X[\Phi^A,\Phi_A^*]$ and $Y[\Phi^A,\Phi_A^*]$ is defined as $$(X,Y)=\int d^nx\left( \frac{\delta^RX}{\delta\Phi^A(x)}
\frac{\delta^LY}{\delta\Phi_A^*(x)}
-\frac{\delta^RX}{\delta\Phi_A^*(x)}\frac{\delta^LY}{\delta\Phi^A(x)}\right)\,,$$ where $\delta^R/\delta Z(x)$ and $\delta^L/\delta Z(x)$ denote functional right- and left-derivatives.
The *extended action* $S$ is defined by adding to the classical action $S_0$ terms containing the antifields in such a way that the classical *master equation*, $$(S,S)=0\,,
\label{e:master}$$ is satisfied, with the following boundary condition: $$S=S_0+\phi^*_iR^i_\alpha C^{\alpha}+\dots$$ This imposes the value of terms quadratic in ghosts and antifields. The extended action has also to be of vanishing gh number. If the algebra is non-abelian, we know that we have to add other pieces of antigh number two in the extended action with the general form (due to structure functions) $$S_2^{2a}=\frac{1}{2}C_\alpha^* f_{\beta \gamma}^\alpha C^\beta
C^\gamma\,.$$ If the algebra is open, other terms in antigh number must be added, quadratic in $\phi^*_i$’s. Furthermore, other terms in higher antigh number could be necessary, e.g. when the structure functions depend on the fields $\phi^i$.
The extended action captures all the information about the gauge structure of the theory: the Nöether identities, the (on-shell) closure of the gauge transformations and the higher order gauge identities are contained in the master equation.
The BRST transformation $s$ in the antifield formalism is a canonical transformation, i.e. $sA=(A,S)$. It is a differential: $s^2=0$, its nilpotency being equivalent to the master equation (\[e:master\]). The BRST differential decomposes according to the antigh number as $$s=\d + \gamma + \hbox{"more"}$$ and provides the gauge invariant functions on the stationary surface, through its cohomology group at gh number zero $H_0(s)$. The Koszul-Tate differential $\delta$ $$\label {e:KT}
\d \F^*_i=(\F^*_i,S)\vert_{\F_A^*=0}$$ implements the restriction on the stationary surface, and the exterior derivative along the gauge orbits $\gamma$ $$\gamma\F^i=(\F^i,S)\vert_{\F^*_A=0}$$ picks out the gauge-invariant functions.
The solution $S$ of the master equation possesses gauge invariance, and thus, cannot be used directly in a path integral. There is one gauge symmetry for each field-antifield pair. The standard procedure to get rid of these gauge degrees of freedom is to use the *gauged-fixed action* $S_\P$ defined by $$S_\P=S_{\rm non-min}\left[ \F^A,\F^*_A={{\frac{\d\P[\F^A]}{\d\F^A}}}\right].
\label{e:GAUGEFIXED}$$ The functional $\P[\F^A]$ is known as the *gauge-fixing fermion* and must be such that $S_\P[\Phi]$ is non-degenerate, i.e. the equations of motion derived from the gauge-fixed action $\d
S_\P[\F^A]/\d\F^A=0$ have unique solution for arbitrary initial conditions, which means that all gauge degrees of freedom have been eliminated. It also has to be local in order that the antifields are given by local functions of the fields.
The generating functional of the theory is $$\label{e:PATHINT}
Z=\int[\cD\F^A] \exp iS_\P \,.$$ The value of the path integral is independent of the choice of the gauge-fixing fermion $\P$. The notation $[\cD\Phi]$ stands for $\cD\Phi\,\mu [\Phi]$, where $\mu[\F]$ is the measure of the path integral. It is important to notice that the expression of the measure $\mu[\Phi]$ in this path integral is not completely determined by the Lagrangian approach. A correct way to determine it, would be to start from the Hamiltonian approach for which the choice of measure is trivial, indeed it is known to be $\cD\F\cD\Pi$, that is the product over time of the Liouville measure $d\Phi^Ad\Pi_A$.
It can be proved that, if correctly handled, the two approaches are equivalent (see [@ht] and references therein). This justifies a posteriori the choice of the measure $\mu [\Phi]$ in (\[e:PATHINT\]).
Gauge-fixing of Maxwell theory {#a:Max}
==============================
The generating functional for the Maxwell theory in the Hamiltonian approach is well known (see e.g. [@ggrs; @ht]) $$Z= \int {\cal D} A_m \,{\cal D}\pi_m \,{\cal D}c \,{\cal D}
\bar {\cal P}\,{\cal D}\bar c\, {\cal D}{\cal P} \, \exp iS^M_\P\,.$$ As usual, $\pi_m$ is the conjugate momentum of $A_m$, $c$ and $\bar c$ are ghosts, and $\bar {\cal P}$ and ${\cal P}$ are their respective conjugate momenta. The Hamiltonian gauge-fixed action in the Coulomb gauge is given by $$S^M_\Psi= \int d^4 x(\pi_m\dot A^m + \dot c \bar {\cal P} - {\cal H}_0
+ A_0 \partial_i \pi^i + \pi_0\partial^i A_i + i \bar {\cal P}{\cal P}
- i\bar c \square c)\,,$$ where $i$, $j$, $\dots$ stand for spatial indices in the 3 dimensional hyperplane $x^0$ constant. The Hamiltonian density is equal to $${\cal H}_0 = \frac{1}{2} (\pi^i\pi_i + B^i B_i)\,.$$ The magnetic field is $B^i=F^*_{0i}$. We can easily integrate the fields $A^0$, $\pi_0$, the ghosts $c$, $\bar c$ as well as their conjugate momenta ${\cal P}$, $\bar {\cal P}$. Then, we obtain that $$Z= \int {\cal D} A_i \,{\cal D}\pi_i \,{\rm
det}(\square)\,\delta(\partial_i \pi^i)\,\delta(\partial^i A_i) \, \exp
i{\tilde S}^M_\P$$ with $${\tilde S}^M_\Psi= \int d^4 x(\pi_i\dot A^i - {\cal H}_0)\,.$$ The determinant of $\square$ comes from the integration on the fermionic ghosts. The integration on $A^0$ and $\pi_0$ gives the delta-functions enforcing, respectively, the Gauss law and the Coulomb gauge.
In order to make the connection with the gauge-fixed Schwarz-Sen action, we have to move to a two-potential formulation, that is we have to solve the Gauss constraint $\partial_i \pi^i=0$ by introducing a potential $Z^i$ such that $$\pi^i=\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_jZ_k\,.
\label{e:pi}$$ The potential $Z_i$ can be decomposed into a sum of a longitudinal and a transverse part: $Z_i=Z_i^L+Z_i^T$. When $Z_i$ is transverse ($Z_i=Z^T_i$), the equation (\[e:pi\]) is invertible (with appropriate boundary conditions). More precisely, in that case one expresses $Z_i$ as $$Z_i=-\bigtriangleup^{-1}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial^j \pi^k\,.
\label{e:zed}$$ We can introduce the field $Z^i$ in the path integral in the following way $$Z= \int {\cal D} A_i \,{\cal D}\pi_i \,{\cal D}Z_i\, {\rm
det}(\square)\,\delta(\partial_i \pi^i)\,\delta(\partial^i
A_i)\,\delta(Z^i+\bigtriangleup^{-1}\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j \pi_k) \,
\exp i{\tilde S}^M_\P\,.$$ In order to make the comparison with the Schwarz-Sen approach we will use the relation $$\delta(Z^i+\bigtriangleup^{-1}\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j \pi_k) =
\delta(Z^{L\,i})\delta(Z^{T\,i}+\bigtriangleup^{-1}\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j
\pi_k)$$ with $\delta(Z^{L\,i})=\delta(\partial_iZ^i)$. We also notice that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta(Z^{T\,i}+\bigtriangleup^{-1}\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j
\pi^T_k)\,=\,\underbrace{{\rm det}^{-1}\,(\bigtriangleup^{-1}{\rm
curl})}_{={\rm det}({\rm
curl})}\,\delta(\pi^{T\,i}-\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_jZ^T_k)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where “${\rm curl}$" stands for the operator $\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j\,,$ and $\partial_i\pi^{T\,i}=0$. We finally identify the two potentials as follows $$A^{1}_{i} = A_i \,, \qquad A^{2}_{i} = Z_i\,.$$ Putting all these remarks together we can integrate out the $\pi_i$ to obtain $$\label{e:genfunc}
Z= \int {\cal D} A^\a_i \, {\rm det}(\square)\,{\rm det}({\rm
curl})\,\delta(\partial^i A^\a_i) \, \exp iS^{S-S}_\P\,,$$ where $S^{S-S}_\P$ is the Schwarz-Sen gauge-fixed action $$\label{e:ScSe}
S^{S-S}_\Psi= \int d^4 x\,{{\frac{1}{2}}} (\cL^{\a\b}\dot{A}^\a_i
-\delta^{\a\b}B^\a_i)B^{\b\, i}\,.$$
[99]{}
J.H. Schwarz and P.C. West, *Symmetries and transformations of chiral $N=2$ $D=10$ supergravity*, ;\
P.S. Howe and P.C. West, *The complete $N=2$, $D=10$ supergravity*, .
K. Becker and M. Becker, *Boundaries in M-theory*, \[\];\
P. Claus, R. Kallosh and A.V. Proeyen, *M 5-brane and superconformal (0,2) tensor multiplet in 6 dimensions*, \[\].
R. Floreanini and R. Jackiw, *Self-dual fields as charge density solitons*, .
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, *Dynamics of chiral (selfdual) $p$ forms*, .
N. Marcus and J.H. Schwarz, *Field theories that have no manifestly Lorentz-invariant formulation*, .
B. McClain, F. Yu and Y.S. Wu, *Covariant quantization of chiral bosons and $osp(1,1|2)$ symmetry*, .
F.P. Devecchi and M. Henneaux, *Covariant path integral for chiral p-forms*, \[\].
P. Pasti, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, *On lorentz invariant actions for chiral $p$-forms*, \[\].
A. Maznytsia, C.R. Preitschopf and D. Sorokin, *Duality of self-dual actions*, \[\].
D. Zwanziger, *Local lagrangian quantum field theory of electric and magnetic charges*, .
S. Deser and C. Teitelboim, *Duality transformations of abelian and non-abelian gauge fields*, .
J.H. Schwarz and A. Sen, *Duality symmetric actions*, \[\].
P. Pasti, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, *Space-time symmetries in duality symmetric models*, contributed to *Gauge theories, applied supersymmetry and quantum gravity*, Leuven, Belgium 1995 \[\]; *Duality symmetric actions with manifest space-time symmetries*, \[\]; *Note on manifest lorentz and general coordinate invariance in duality symmetric models*, \[\].
R. Medina and N. Berkovits, *Pasti-Sorokin-Tonin actions in the presence of sources*, \[\].
C.V. D. Broeck and K.V. Hoof, *Batalin-Vilkovisky gauge-fixing of a chiral two-form in six dimensions*, \[\].
H.O. Girotti, M. Gomes, V.O. Rivelles and A.J. da Silva, *On duality symmetry in the Schwarz-Sen model*, \[\].
K. Lechner, *Self-dual-tensors and gravitational anomalies in $4n+2$ dimensions*, \[\].
L. Alvarez-Gaumée and E. Witten, *Gravitational anomalies*, .
I.A. Batalin and G.A. Vilkovisky, *Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators*, .
M. Henneaux, *Lectures on the antifield - BRST formalism for gauge theories*, ULB-TH2-89-07, Lectures given at CECS, Santiago, Chile, June/July 1989;\
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, *Quantization of gauge systems*, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1992);\
J. Gomis, J. Paris and S. Samuel, *Antibracket, antifields and gauge theory quantization* ,\[\]; *Antibracket, antifields and gauge theory quantization*, \[\].
[^1]: Work supported in part by the “Actions de Recherche Concert[é]{}es" of the “Direction de la Recherche Scientifique - Communaut[é]{} Fran[ç]{}aise de Belgique", by IISN - Belgium (convention 4.4505.86).
[^2]: Work supported by the European Commission TMR programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which X.B. is associated to Leuven.
[^3]: For a short review of antifield BRST method see appendix \[a:BRST\].
[^4]: The greek letters $\m$, $\n$, $\r$ etc. label curved indices, while $\a$ and $\b$ denote ${\mathop{\rm SO}}(2)$ indices.
[^5]: The indices are from now on raised and lowered with the flat metric $\eta^{\m\n}$.
[^6]: We use the DeWitt notation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give conditions for determining the extremal behavior for the (graded) Betti numbers of squarefree monomial ideals. For the case of non-unique minima, we give several conditions which we use to produce infinite families, exponentially growing with dimension, of Hilbert functions which have no smallest (graded) Betti numbers among squarefree monomial ideals and all ideals. For the case of unique minima, we give two families of Hilbert functions, one with exponential and one with linear growth as dimension grows, that have unique minimal Betti numbers among squarefree monomial ideals.'
address:
- |
Christopher Dodd\
2814 Rittenhouse St., NW\
Washington, D.C. 20015
- |
Andrew Marks\
540 Linda Falls Terrace\
Angwin, CA 94508
- |
Victor Meyerson\
19520 Cohasset Street\
Reseda, CA 91335
- |
Ben Richert\
Mathematics Department\
Cal Poly\
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
author:
- Christopher Dodd
- Andrew Marks
- Victor Meyerson
- Ben Richert$^1$
title: Minimal Betti Numbers
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Let $R$ be a polynomial ring over a field $K$. Then given a Hilbert function $H$ it is easy to see that there can be more than one ideal $I\subset R$ such that the Hilbert function of $R/I$ is $H$. One can further distinguish such ideals by passing to a finer invariant, the graded Betti numbers, which gives rise to the question: given a particular Hilbert function $H$, what sets of graded Betti numbers actually occur? That this problem is bounded above, and hence finite, is due to an important result by Bigatti and Hulett [@Bigatti; @Hulett] (independently in characteristic zero), and Pardue [@Pardue] (in characteristic $p$) which says that, given a Hilbert function $H$, the lexicographic ideal attaining $H$ has everywhere largest graded Betti numbers. In fact, this says that the partial order on the set of sets of graded Betti numbers of ideals attaining a given Hilbert function has a unique maximum element. Shortly thereafter, it was shown by Charalambous and Evans [@CharalambousEvans] that this order need not have a unique minimal element. Examples of infinite families of Hilbert functions which did not support unique minimal elements were given by Richert [@Richert].
The structure of the partial order on graded Betti numbers has also been considered on interesting subsets of the set of all ideals attaining a given Hilbert function. For instance, Geramita, Harima, and Shin [@GeramitaHarimaShin] showed that if one restricts to the graded Betti numbers arising from a certain (dense) set of Gorenstein ideals, then the associated partial order has a unique maximal element which is constructed using a lexicographic ideal (Migliore and Nagel [@MiglioreNagel] were later able to extend this result to an even larger set of Gorenstein ideals attaining a given Hilbert function) while Richert [@Richert] showed that a unique minimal element need not exist. For stable ideals in dimension at most three, Francisco [@Francisco] showed that, unlike the general and Gorenstein cases, there is always a unique smallest element.
It is a result of Aramova, Herzog, and Hibi [@AramovaHerzogHibi1; @AramovaHerzogHibi2] that if one restricts to the graded Betti numbers arising from squarefree monomial ideals attaining a given Hilbert function, then the associated partial order has a unique maximal element (which arises, not surprisingly, from the squarefree lexicographic ideal). Squarefree monomial ideals are particularly interesting (to algebraists, topologists, and combinatorists alike) because to each squarefree monomial ideal $I$ in $n$ variables can be associated a simplicial complex $\Delta_I$ on $n$ vertices, while the Hilbert function of $R/I$ is related to the face counts of $\Delta_I$ and the graded Betti numbers of $R/I$ can be computed by considering sums of the ranks of the reduced homologies of subsets of $\Delta_I$. It was known that (Gelvin, LaVictore, Reed, Richert [@GelvinLaVictoreReedRichert]) for $n\le 5$ variables (and after fixing a finite field), the partial orders arising from fixing a Hilbert function were totally ordered, but that this failed in six variables where, in fact, there is an example of a partial order which does not have a unique smallest element. In the current paper, we continue this line of inquiry. First, we generate an infinite family (the size of which grows exponentially with dimension) of Hilbert functions for which the partial order on the graded Betti numbers corresponding to squarefree monomial ideals fails to have a unique minimal element. We are able to show that this same family of Hilbert functions gives rise to partially ordered sets corresponding to all ideals (not only squarefree monomial ideals) which fail to have a unique minimal element. We then find an infinite family (again, growing exponentially) of Hilbert functions for which the partial order on the Betti numbers (not graded Betti numbers) of squarefree monomial ideals fails to have a unique smallest element (and are again able to show that this family gives posets without unique minimal elements in the case of all ideals). Next, we find an infinite family (growing exponentially) of Hilbert functions for which the partial order associated to the graded Betti numbers of squarefree monomial ideals has a single element, and thus a unique smallest element. We note an analogous family in the general case. Finally, we find a infinite family (growing linearly) of Hilbert functions for which the partial order associated to the graded Betti numbers of squarefree monomial ideals has a unique smallest element, and a nontrivial poset tree.
Background
==========
Let $R = K[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ where $K$ is a field. In what follows, all ideals will be homogeneous. In this paper, we will be studying the graded Betti numbers of ideals with a fixed Hilbert function. Recall that given a homogeneous ideal $I \subset R$, the *Hilbert function* of $R/I$ in degree $d$, denoted as $H(R/I,d)$ is given by $$H(R/I,t) = \dim_K(R/I)_t.$$ Furthermore, we will write $$0 \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{j \in \mathbb{Z}}R(-j)^{\beta^I_{h,j}}
\longrightarrow \cdots \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{j \in
\mathbb{Z}}R(-j)^{\beta^I_{1,j}} \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow
R/I \longrightarrow 0$$ to be a minimal free resolution of $R/I$, and $\beta^I=\{\beta^I_{i,j}\}$ to be the set of graded Betti numbers of $R/I$. It is useful to display graded Betti numbers in the following table known as a Betti Diagram (using the notation of Macaulay 2 [@M2]). $$\begin{array}{c|cccccc}
& s_0 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & \ldots \\ \hline
0 & \beta_{0,0} & \beta_{1,1} & \beta_{2,2} & \beta_{3,3} & \dots \\
1 & \beta_{0,1} & \beta_{1,2} & \beta_{2,3} & \beta_{3,4} & \dots \\
2 & \beta_{0,2} & \beta_{1,3} & \beta_{2,4} & \beta_{3,5} & \dots \\
3 & \beta_{0,3} & \beta_{1,4} & \beta_{2,5} & \beta_{3,6} & \dots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\
\end{array}$$ where $s_i$ is the sum of the entries in the $i^{\text{th}}$ column. Then $S = \{s_i\}$ is the set of Betti numbers. There is an obvious partial order on the Betti diagrams which arise for ideals with a given Hilbert function. If $\beta^I$ and $\beta^J$ are the graded Betti numbers of the ideals $I$ and $J$, then we say that $\beta^I \ge \beta^J$ if $\beta^I_{i,j} \ge \beta^J_{i,j}$ for all $i$ and $j$. Furthermore, $\beta^I > \beta^J$ if $\beta^I \ge \beta^J$ and there is a pair $(i,j)$ such that $\beta^I_{i,j} > \beta^J_{i,j}$. We are interested in the extremal properties of this ordering. A useful definition in this regard is that of $q$-linearity: A minimal free resolution of an ideal $I$ is called $q$-linear if $I$ is minimally generated by $q$-forms and $\beta_{i,j}= 0$ for each $j\neq
q+i-1$ and $j\neq 0$.
It turns out that the graded Betti numbers are a finer invariant than Hilbert functions. They are related by the following useful equation.
[@Stanley] Given an ideal $I \subset R = K[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ with graded Betti numbers $\beta^I$, $$\sum_{d=0}^\infty H(R/I,d)t^d = \frac{\sum_{j=0}^\infty \sum_{i=0}^n
(-1)^i \beta^I_{i,j} t^j}{(1-t)^n}$$
It follows from this formula that the diagonal alternating sums of a Betti diagram are invariant for all Betti diagrams of ideals attaining a given Hilbert function. We define this alternating sum as follows:
Given an ideal $I$, the $j^{\text{th}}$ diagonal alternating sum of the Betti diagram of $I$ is: $$d_{j}={\displaystyle
\sum_{i=0}^{j}}(-1)^{i}\beta_{i,j}$$ where the $\beta_{i,j}$ are the graded Betti numbers of $I$.
The partial ordering on Betti diagrams has a unique maximal Betti diagram [@Bigatti; @Hulett; @Pardue]. In order to identify an ideal attaining the maximal graded Betti numbers, we need the following notation: Let $x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\cdots x_n^{a_n}$ and $x_1^{b_1}x_2^{b_2}\cdots x_n^{b_n}$ be monomials such that $\sum a_i
= \sum b_i$ (i.e. they are of the same degree). We say $x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\cdots x_n^{a_n} >_{lex} x_1^{b_1}x_2^{b_2}\cdots
x_n^{b_n}$ if and only if the first nonzero entry of $(a_1 - b_1, a_2
- b_2, \ldots, a_n - b_n)$ is positive. This is known as the *lexicographic* or *lex* ordering on monomials. An ideal $L$ is a *lex ideal* if for all monomials $m \in L_d$ and $n \in
R_d$, then $n \ge_{lex} m$ implies $n \in L_d$. A lex ideal achieves the maximal graded Betti numbers among all ideals attaining its Hilbert function.
In this paper we are mainly concerned with squarefree monomial ideals. A *squarefree monomial ideal* is an ideal in $R =
K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ minimally generated by elements of the form $x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2} \cdots x_n^{a_n}$, where $a_i \in \{0,1\}$.
We will make use of the fact that the squarefree monomial ideals are in one-to-one correspondence with simplicial complexes. Recall the definition of a simplicial complex: A *simplicial complex* $\Delta$ on the vertex set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ is a collection of subsets called faces or simplices, closed under taking subsets; that is if $\sigma \in \Delta$ is a face and $\tau \subseteq \sigma$, then $\tau \in \Delta$. A simplex $\sigma \in \Delta$ of cardinality $|\sigma| = i+1$ has dimension $i$ and is called an $i$-face.
The (well known, see for instance [@Stanley]) procedure to pass from a simplicial complex $\Delta$ to a squarefree monomial ideal is to form the ideal generated by monomials corresponding to the minimal non-faces of $\Delta$, after renaming the vertex set of $\Delta$ to be $\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$.
The simplicial complex $\Delta=\big\{\{1,4\},\{2,3\},\{2,4\},\{3,4\}\big\}$ corresponds to the ideal $I=(x_1x_2, x_1x_3, x_2x_3x_4)$. We use dashed lines in the picture to indicate minimal non-faces.
This correspondence gives a bijection between simplicial complexes and squarefree monomial ideals with no linear terms. In general, we will conflate simplicial complexes and ideals due to this correspondence, and so we are free to talk about the Betti numbers of a simplicial complex or the homology of an ideal.
Given a simplicial complex with $f_i$ $i$-faces, its corresponding *$f$-vector* is the $n$-tuple $(f_0, f_1, \ldots, f_{n-1})$. For example, consider the simplicial complex
which has $f$-vector $(4,4,1,0)$. Here the $f$-vector counts the 4 0-faces (or points), 4 1-faces (or edges), 1 2-face, and 0 3-faces (or volume).
The $f$-vector is an important invariant of a simplicial complex because of the following:
[@Stanley] Let $I$ be the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a simplicial complex with $f$-vector $(f_0, f_1, \ldots, f_{n-1})$. Then $$H(R/I,m) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{$m = 0$,} \\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}f_i \binom{m-1}{i} & \text{$m > 0.$}
\end{cases}$$
From the theorem, it follows that $f$-vectors and Hilbert functions are in one-to-one correspondence.
Given a Hilbert function which arises for squarefree monomial ideals, we will be particularly interested in the corresponding squarefree lex ideal (because it always exists and is known to exhibit the maximal Betti diagram [@AramovaHerzogHibi1; @AramovaHerzogHibi2]). An ideal $L$ is a *squarefree lex ideal* if for squarefree monomials $m
\in L_d$ and $n \in R_d$, $n \ge_{\text{lex}} m$ implies $n \in L_d$.
A useful tool in studying simplicial complexes (and therefore their associated ideals) is simplicial homology. If $\Delta$ is a simplicial complex, we let $\Delta^{l}$ be the set of all $l$-faces in $\Delta$, and let $C_{l}(\Delta)$ denote the $K$ vector space whose basis consists of $\Delta^{l}$. We define the boundary map $\partial_{l}:$$C_{l}(\Delta)\rightarrow C_{l-1}(\Delta)$to be $$\partial_{l}(\{ i_{1},\ldots,i_{l+1}\})=\sum_{j=1}^{l+1}(-1)^{j+1}\{
i_{1},\ldots,\hat{i_{j}},\ldots,i_{l+1}\}$$ where the hat indicates omission. We define the $\Delta^{l}$ subspaces $Z_{l}(\Delta)=\ker($$\partial_{l})$ and $B_{l}(\Delta)=\textrm{image}(\partial_{l+1})$. By standard algebraic topology, we have $B_{l}(\Delta)\subseteq Z_{l}(\Delta)$, and so we can define the $l-homology$ of $\Delta$, $H_{l}(\Delta)$, to be the $K$ vector space $Z_{l}(\Delta)/B_{l}(\Delta)$. In addition, the $reduced$ $l-homology$ $\tilde{H_{l}}(\Delta)$ is given by $H_{0}(\Delta)\cong\tilde{H_{0}}(\Delta)\oplus K$, and $H_{l}(\Delta)$ when $l>0$ . We now present the connection between the simplicial homology of certain subsets of $\Delta$ and graded Betti numbers, in the form of Hochster’s formula. To properly express this formula, we need a new notation. If $W\subseteq\{1,\ldots n\}$, then given a simplicial complex $\Delta$, let $\Delta_{W}$ be the simplicial complex defined by $\Delta_{W}=\Delta\cap P(W)$ where $P$ denotes power set. Then we have
[@Hochster] Let $I\subseteq R$ be a squarefree monomial ideal, with $\Delta$ the associated simplicial complex. Then we have$$\beta_{i,j}^{I}=\sum_{W\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\},|W|=j}
\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{j-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K)$$ for all i and j.
Non-unique Minimal Graded and Nongraded Betti Numbers
=====================================================
Graded Betti Numbers
--------------------
In this section we construct a fast-growing family of Hilbert functions which fail to have unique minimal graded Betti numbers among both squarefree monomial ideals, and all ideals. We proceed using simplicial complexes, giving a method for preserving parts of the Betti diagrams which guarantee incomparability. Our methods allow us to double the number of $f$-vectors in each dimension with this property, and so our family of $f$-vectors grows exponentially with the dimension of the polynomial ring.
Let $\Delta$ be a simplicial complex on $n$ vertices. We define the $j$-cone of $\Delta$ on the vertex $\{ n+1\}$, denoted $C_{(j)}\Delta$, to be the simplicial complex on $n+1$ vertices such that $\{ i_{1},\dots,i_{k}\}\in C_{(j)}\Delta$ if and only if either $\{ i_{1},\dots,i_{k}\}\in\Delta$ or $i_{k}=n+1$, $\{
i_{1},\dots,i_{k-1}\}\in\Delta$ and $k-1\leq j$. As suggested by the definition, we define $C_{(\infty)}\Delta$ to be the $n$-cone of $\Delta$, $C\Delta$.
Let $\Delta$ be the simplicial complex $$\Delta=\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\},\{4\},\{1,2\}, \{1,4\}, \{2,4\},
\{3,4\}, \{1,2,4\}\}\}\subset \{1,2,3,4\},$$ with $f$-vector $(4,4,1,0)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
C_{(0)}(\Delta)&=&\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\},\{4\}, \{5\}, \{1,2\},
\{1,4\}, \{2,4\}, \{3,4\}, \{1,2,4\}\}, \\
C_{(1)}(\Delta)&=&\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\},\{4\}, \{5\}, \{1,2\},
\{1,4\}, \{1,5\}, \{2,4\}, \{2,5\}, \{3,4\},\\&&\{3,5\}, \{4,5\},
\{1,2,4\}\},\\
C_{(2)}(\Delta)&=&\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\},\{4\}, \{5\}, \{1,2\},
\{1,4\}, \{1,5\}, \{2,4\}, \{2,5\}, \{3,4\},\\ &&\{3,5\}, \{4,5\},
\{1,2,4\}, \{1,2,5\}, \{1,4,5\}, \{2,4,5\}, \{3,4,5\}\}, \\
C_{(3)}(\Delta)&=&\{\{1\}, \{2\},
\{3\},\{4\}, \{5\}, \{1,2\}, \{1,4\}, \{1,5\}, \{2,4\}, \{2,5\},
\{3,4\},\\ &&\{3,5\}, \{4,5\}, \{1,2,4\}, \{1,2,5\}, \{1,4,5\},
\{2,4,5\}, \{3,4,5\},\\& & \{1,2,4,5\}\},\end{aligned}$$ and, of course, $C_{(3)}(\Delta)=C_{(\infty)}(\Delta)$. Here $C_{(0)}$ has $f$-vector $(5,4,1,0,0)$, $C_{(1)}$ has $f$-vector $(5,8,1,0,0)$, $C_{(2)}$ has $f$-vector $(5,8,5,0,0)$, and $C_{(3)}$ has $f$-vector $(5,8,5,1,0)$.
On of the nice things about coning a simplicial complex is that the graded Betti numbers do not change. We show below that we can similarly preserve certain of the graded Betti numbers of a simplicial complex after $j$-coning.
\[lem:diagonalsPreserved\]Given a simplicial complex $\Delta$, the Betti diagram of the simplicial complex $C_{(j)}\Delta$ will be identical to the Betti diagram of $\Delta$ for the first $j+1$ diagonals.
We employ Hochster’s formula. Let $k\leq j+1$. Then we have $$\beta_{i,k}^{C_{(j)}(\Delta)}=
\sum_{W\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n+1\},|W|=k}
\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{k-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K)$$ $$=\sum_{W\subseteq\{1,\ldots
n\},|W|=k}\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{k-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K)+\sum_{\{
n+1\}\in W,|W|=k}\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{k-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K)$$ However, from the definition of $j$-coning and the complex $\Delta_{W}$, we have that for any $W$ with $\{ n+1\}\in W$ and at most $j$ vertices in $\{1,\ldots n\}$, $\Delta_{W}$ is a cone. By standard algebraic topology, a cone is contractible and so all of its reduced homology spaces are zero. Therefore, the second term in the above sum vanishes, and as the first term is $\beta_{i,k}^{\Delta}$ by Hochster’s formula, the lemma is proved.
\[def:coningdefs\]Given $j$, and an $f$-vector $(f_{0},f_{1},\dots,f_{n-1})$ of a simplicial complex $\Delta$, define $f_{m}^{[k]}$ to be the $m^{\text{th}}$ entry of the $f$-vector $(C_{(j)})^{k}\Delta$. Also, for $m>j$, define$$f_{m}^{(k)}=\begin{cases}
f_{m} & \text{for }m=j+1\text{ or }k=0\text{,}\\
f_{m-1}^{(k-1)}+f_{m}^{(k-1)} & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$
If the $f$-vector of $\Delta$ is $(f_{0},f_{1},\dots,f_{n-1})$, then it is easy to show that the $f$-vector of $C_{(j)}\Delta$ is: $$\begin{cases}
(1+f_{0},f_{0}+f_{1},f_{1}+f_{2},\dots,f_{j-1}+f_{j},f_{j+1},
\dots,f_{n-1},0) & j<n\\
(1+f_{0},f_{0}+f_{1},f_{1}+f_{2},\dots,f_{n-2}+f_{n-1},f_{n-1}) &
j\geq n\end{cases}$$ or, in the notation of Definition \[def:coningdefs\], $$\begin{cases}
(f^{[1]}_{0},f^{[1]}_{1},\dots,f^{[1]}_{j},f_{j+1},\dots,f_{n-1},0) & j<n\\
(f^{[1]}_{0},f^{[1]}_{1},\dots,f^{[1]}_{n-1},f_{n-1}) & j\geq
n\end{cases}$$ We speak of this $f$-vector as the one generated by $j$-coning the initial $f$-vector. Consider the family of $f$-vectors derived by starting with an initial $f$-vector and at each stage, both $j$-coning and $\infty$-coning it. The first iteration of such a tree is shown below, assuming $j<n$: $${\tiny \xymatrix{
& (f_{0},\dots,f_{n-1})\ar[dl]_{j\text{-cone}}\ar[dr]^{\infty\text{-cone}} & \\
(f_{0}^{[1]},\dots,f_{j}^{[1]},f_{j+1},\dots,f_{n-1})\ar@{.}[d] & & (f_{0}^{[1]},\dots,f_{j}^{[1]},f_{j}^{[0]}+f_{j+1}^{(1)},\dots,f_{n-1}^{(1)})\ar@{.}[d]\\
& &}}$$ We will use this technique to generate families of $f$-vectors which grow exponentially with dimension.
Given a simplicial complex $\Delta$ and a $k$-tuple $(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})$ where each $m$ is either a nonnegative integer or $\infty$, define $C_{(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})}\Delta$ to be the simplicial complex generated by $m_{0}$-coning, then $m_{1}$-coning, and so on. Similarly, if $I$ is the associated ideal of $\Delta$, define $C_{(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})}I$ to be the ideal associated to $C_{(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})}\Delta$.
\[lem:distinctTree\]Given an $f$-vector $(f_{0},f_{1},\dots,f_{j},\dots,f_{c},\dots)$ of a simplicial complex $\Delta$ where $f_{c}$ is the last nonzero element of the $f$-vector and $j\leq c$, the $f$-vectors of the simplicial complexes in the tree generated by repeatedly $j$-coning and $\infty$-coning $\Delta$ are distinct.
We can index each $f$-vector in the tree with the $k$-tuple $(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})$ where each $m$ is either $j$ or $\infty$ and $C_{(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})}\Delta$ is the corresponding simplicial complex. Let $\{ t_{i}\}$, $0\leq i<r$ be the $t$ such that $m_{t_{i}}=\infty$ so that $r$ is the number of times we $\infty$-cone. Then the $f$-vector of $C_{(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})}\Delta$ is: $$(f_{0}^{[k]},f_{1}^{[k]},\dots,f_{j}^{[k]},{\displaystyle
\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}}f_{j}^{[t_{i}]}+f_{j+1}^{(r)},{\displaystyle
\sum_{i=0}^{r-2}}f_{j}^{[t_{i}]}+f_{j+2}^{(r)},$$ $$\dots,f_{j}^{[t_{0}]}+f_{j+r}^{(r)},f_{j+r+1}^{(r)},\dots,f_{c+r}^{(r)},\dots)\text{.}$$ From this $f$-vector we can read $r$ from the index of the last nonzero entry minus $c$. Further, as the $f_{j}^{p}$ are monotonically increasing and thus distinct, the elements at position $j+1$ through $j+r$ determine the $\{ t_{i}\}$, and as the $j^{\text{th}}$ element gives $k$, the $f$-vector uniquely determines $(m_{0},m_{1},\dots,m_{k})$.
This Lemma ensures that $j$-coning and $\infty$-coning a suitable $f$-vector gives a family of Hilbert functions which grows as $2^{n}$ with dimension. It can be shown that this growth is not necessarily achieved if we $j$-cone and $l$-cone for arbitrary $j$ and $l$.
\[theorem:firstfamily\] Given a set of squarefree monomial ideals $I_{k}$ corresponding to an $f$-vector ${ \mathpalette{\overarrow@\rightharpoonupfill@}}{v}$, if for some $j$ their Betti diagrams have $j^{\text{th}}$ diagonal such that the alternating sum $d_{j}$ is nonzero and, for each $i$, ${\displaystyle
\min_k \beta_{i,j}^{I_{k}}=0}$, then each $f$-vector in the tree created by $(j-1)$-coning and $\infty$-coning ${ \mathpalette{\overarrow@\rightharpoonupfill@}}{v}$ has an associated Hilbert function such that the poset tree of graded Betti numbers of all ideals attaining this Hilbert function will fail to have a unique minimum. The poset tree of each Hilbert function also fails to have a unique minimum if we restrict to the graded Betti numbers of all squarefree monomial ideals.
We show that this condition on the $j^{\text{th}}$ diagonal guarantees that a unique minimum cannot exist among the graded Betti numbers. As this diagonal is preserved under both $(j-1)$-coning and $\infty$-coning and the $C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I_{k}$ are squarefree monomial ideals, the theorem follows. As ${\displaystyle
\min}\beta_{i,j}^{I_{k}}=0$ for all i, any diagram that is less than all $\beta^{I_{k}}$ in the partial order has all zeros on its $j^{\text{th}}$ diagonal. However, as $d_{j}$ is nonzero, no Betti diagram can have all zeros along the $j^{\text{th}}$ diagonal and attain $d_{j}$. Thus, no ideal can be less than all $\beta^{I_{k}}$ and attain this Hilbert function, and as the conditions on the $I_k$ imply that at least two of the $I_k$ are incomparable, a unique minimum cannot exist.
The number of (not necessarily distinct) $f$-vectors in the tree constructed in Theorem \[theorem:firstfamily\] grows as $2^{c}$ where $c$ is the number of times the initial $f$-vector has been coned. If the initial $f$-vector satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:distinctTree\], then we are guaranteed that these $f$-vectors will be distinct, and so this family grows exponentially with the dimension of the polynomial ring. We can enlarge this family by $(j-1),\dots,(j+c-1)$-coning as well as $\infty$-coning where $c$ is the number of times we have coned already, however, our computational evidence suggests that this family still grows exponentially.
\[e:ideals\] From an exhaustive computational search, several examples were found that satisfy the hypothesis of the above theorem. The programs written to find these examples are available from the authors on request. The first example occurring in lex order was with the $f$-vector $(6,8,4,0,0,0)$, and had previously been noted by Gelvin, LaVictore, Reed, Richert [@GelvinLaVictoreReedRichert]. Two ideals attaining this $f$-vector are: $$I=(x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{3},x_{2}x_{3},x_{3}x_{4},x_{3}x_{5},
x_{3}x_{6},x_{4}x_{5})$$ $$J=(x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{4},x_{2}x_{3},x_{2}x_{5},
x_{3}x_{4},x_{4}x_{5},x_{4}x_{6}, x_{1}x_{3}x_{5}x_{6})$$ with graded Betti numbers (calculated over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{101}$ with Macaulay 2):
$\beta^{I}=$
1 7 13 11 5 1
--- --- --- ---- ---- --- ---
0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 7 12 10 5 1
2 0 0 1 1 0 0
$\beta^{J}=$
1 8 14 9 2
--- --- --- ---- --- ---
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 7 12 8 2
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 2 1 0
The $6^{\text{th}}$ diagonal of these Betti diagrams satisfies the condition that their alternating sums are not zero, but the minimum in each position on the diagonal is zero. Furthermore, $(C_{(\infty)})^{3}(6,8,4,0,0,0)$ has a nonzero entry in the $5^{\text{th}}$ position of its $f$-vector. Thus, the family of $f$-vectors created by $5$-coning and $\infty$-coning $(C_{(\infty)})^{3}(6,8,4,0,0,0)$ has associated Hilbert functions with non-unique minimal graded Betti numbers for both the squarefree and general case and grows exponentially with dimension.
Betti Numbers
-------------
In this section we provide a method for constructing families of Hilbert functions without unique minimal Betti numbers among both squarefree monomial ideals, and all ideals. Again, we use methods for preserving the properties of the Betti diagrams which guarantee incomparability. Our family of $f$-vectors grows exponentially with the dimension of the polynomial ring.
\[lem:diagonalLemma\]If an ideal $I$ has the Betti diagram:
$\beta^{I}=$
$s_{0}$ $s_{1}$ $s_{2}$ $\dots$
---------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------
$0$ $\beta_{0,0}$ $\beta_{1,1}$ $\beta_{2,2}$ $\dots$
$1$ $\beta_{0,1}$ $\beta_{1,2}$ $\beta_{2,3}$ $\dots$
$2$ $\beta_{0,2}$ $\beta_{1,3}$ $\beta_{2,4}$ $\dots$
$\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\ddots$
such that ${\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{j}}\beta_{i,j}=\mid{\displaystyle d_{j}}\mid$ for all $j$, then if L is an ideal with the same Hilbert function, ${\displaystyle \sum_{i}}s_{i}^{L}\geq{\displaystyle \sum_{i}}s_{i}$ .
Given an ideal $L$ with the same Hilbert function as $I$, ${\displaystyle \sum_{j}s_{j}^{L}}={\displaystyle
\sum_{i,j}}\beta_{i,j}^{L}\geq{\displaystyle \sum_{j}\mid
d_{j}|}$. As ${\displaystyle \sum_{j}s_{j}}={\displaystyle
\sum_{j}\mid d_{j}|}$ for $I$, if $L$ had Betti numbers $s_{i}^{L}$ such that ${\displaystyle
\sum_{i}}s_{i}^{L}<{\displaystyle \sum_{i}}s_{i}$, then ${\displaystyle \sum_{i}}s_{i}^{L}<\sum_{j}\mid d_{j}|$, a contradiction.
\[lem:addPoint\] Let $\Delta$ be a simplicial complex, and let $I$ be its associated ideal. The graded Betti numbers of $C_{(0)}\Delta$ can be computed as: $$\beta_{i,j}^{C_{(0)}\Delta}=\begin{cases}
\beta_{i,j}^{I} & \text{for }i=0\text{,}\\
\beta_{i-1,j-1}^{I}+\beta_{i,j}^{I}+\binom{n}{i} & \text{for }i=j-1\text{,}\\
\beta_{i-1,j-1}^{I}+\beta_{i,j}^{I} & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ where $n$ is the number of vertices of $\Delta$.
Recall that $C_{(0)}\Delta$ is the simplicial complex obtained by adding a point to $\Delta$. By definition, we have that $\tilde{H}_{l}(C_{(0)}\Delta)=\tilde{H}_{l}(\Delta)$ if $l>0$ and $\tilde{H}_{0}(C_{(0)}\Delta)=\tilde{H}_{0}(\Delta)+1$. By Hochster’s formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{i,j}^{C_{(0)}\Delta}&=&\sum_{W\subseteq\{1,\ldots
n\},|W|=j}\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{j-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K) \\ & &+\sum_{\{
n+1\}\in W,|W|=j}\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{j-i-1}(\Delta_{W};K)\\
&=&\beta_{i,j}^{I}+\sum_{\{ n+1\}\in
W,|W|=j}\dim_{K}\tilde{H}_{(j-1)-i}(\Delta_{W};K)\end{aligned}$$
However, subsets of size $j$ containing $\{ n+1\}$ are in bijective correspondence with subsets of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ of size $j-1$. If $j>i+1$, then by the above formula for adding a point we have that each of the vector spaces in the last term above are isomorphic to the corresponding spaces $\tilde{H}_{(j-1)-i}(\Delta_{W'};K)$ where $W'=W\setminus\{ n+1\}$, and so the last sum is just $\beta_{i-1,j-1}^{I}$. Finally, if $j=i+1$, then in addition to $\beta_{i-1,j-1}^{I}$, we add $1$ for each subset of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ of size $j-1=i$, so this gives the second line of the formula.
\[l:betti\] Suppose that two squarefree monomial ideals $I$ and $J$ have the same $f$-vector ${ \mathpalette{\overarrow@\rightharpoonupfill@}}{v}$ and have Betti numbers $s^{I}$ and $s^{J}$ such that for some $k$, $s_{0}^{I}=s_{0}^{J}$, $s_{1}^{I}>s_{1}^{J}$, $s_{k}^{I}<s_{k}^{J}$, $s_{k+i}^{I}\leq
s_{k+i}^{J}$ for all positive $i$, and $\beta_{i,j}^{I}=0$ when $j-i$ is even and $j>0$. Then each $f$-vector in the tree created by $0$-coning and $\infty$-coning ${ \mathpalette{\overarrow@\rightharpoonupfill@}}{v}$ has a Hilbert function such that the poset tree of all Betti numbers of ideals with this Hilbert function will not have a unique minimum. This will remain true if we restrict to the Betti numbers of squarefree monomial ideals.
We first observe that the conditions of the theorem still hold under $0$-coning and $\infty$-coning. Graded Betti numbers are unchanged under $\infty$-coning, and using Lemma \[lem:addPoint\], it is easy to show that the conditions still hold under $0$-coning. Thus, for all choices $m_{i}\in\{0,\infty\}$, the Betti numbers of $C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I$ and $C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}J$ will be incomparable and $C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I$ will always satisfy ${\displaystyle
\sum_{j}s_{j}^{C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I}}={\displaystyle
\sum_{j}\mid d_{j}^{C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I}|}$. As Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\] proves that no ideal can have smaller Betti numbers than $C_{(m_{0},\dots,m_{k})}I$, unique minimal Betti numbers cannot exist for the family of $f$-vectors created by $0$-coning and $\infty$-coning ${ \mathpalette{\overarrow@\rightharpoonupfill@}}{v}$.
The theorem remains true with a nearly identical proof if we replace the clause $\beta_{i,j}^{I}=0$ if $j-i$ is an even number and $j>0$ with $\beta_{i,j}^{J}=0$ if $j-i$ is an even number and $j>0$.
Recall from example \[e:ideals\] that the ideals $$I=(x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{3},x_{2}x_{3},x_{3}x_{4},x_{3}x_{5},
x_{3}x_{6},x_{4}x_{5}),\ {\rm and}$$ $$J=(x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{4},x_{2}x_{3},x_{2}x_{5},
x_{3}x_{4},x_{4}x_{5},x_{4}x_{6}, x_{1}x_{3}x_{5}x_{6}),$$ corresponded to the $f$-vector $(6,8,4,0,0,0)$ and have graded Betti numbers (over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{101}$)
$\beta^{I}=$
1 7 13 11 5 1
--- --- --- ---- ---- --- ---
0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 7 12 10 5 1
2 0 0 1 1 0 0
$\beta^{J}=$
1 8 14 9 2
--- --- --- ---- --- ---
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 7 12 8 2
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 2 1 0
These Betti numbers satisfying the conditions laid out in Lemma \[l:betti\] (with the roles of $I$ and $J$ reversed). Thus, the family generated by $0$-coning and $\infty$-coning $(6,8,4,0,0,0)$ consists of $f$-vectors corresponding to Hilbert functions whose poset trees of Betti numbers fail to have unique minimums. This family grows exponentially with dimension by Lemma \[lem:distinctTree\].
The infinite family given above is also an infinite family of Hilbert functions with non-unique minimal *graded* Betti numbers, as incomparable Betti numbers implies incomparable graded Betti numbers.
Unique Minimal Betti Numbers
============================
Squarefree Monomial Ideals
--------------------------
One of the simplest ways to construct Hilbert functions for squarefree monomial ideals with unique minimal graded Betti numbers is to find those for which the graded Betti numbers of the squarefree lex ideal are minimal. As the squarefree lex ideal always gives maximal graded Betti numbers (among squarefree monomial ideals), uniqueness follows immediately.
To proceed, we observe that a minimal free resolution of a squarefree lex ideal generated in a single degree $d$ is $d$-linear (this was proved by Aramova, Hibi, and Herzog [@AramovaHerzogHibi1]). In fact, it is true (see Herzog, Reiner, and Welker in [@HerzogReinerWelker]) that squarefree lex ideals are componentwise linear (an ideal $I$ is componentwise linear if $I_d$ is $d$-linear for all $d$). In particular, this implies that if $L$ is a squarefree lex ideal with no minimal generators in degree $t$, then $\beta^L_{i,j}=0$ for $j=t+i-1$—or in words, the Betti diagram of a squarefree lex ideal $L$ may contain a nonzero entry in row $i$ only if $i=0$ or $L$ has a minimal generator in degree $i+1$.
We now give a family, growing exponentially with dimension, of $f$-vectors for which the corresponding poset tree of graded Betti numbers (for squarefree monomial ideals) has a unique (and hence a unique minimal) element.
Suppose that $L$ is a squarefree lex ideal generated in a single degree. Then the poset tree of graded Betti numbers of squarefree monomial ideals with the same Hilbert function as $R/L$ consists of a unique element (which is thus uniquely minimal). The family of $f$-vectors which give rise to such $L$ grows exponentially with dimension.
We know that a squarefree monomial lex ideal, $L$, generated in a single degree has a $d$-linear resolution. Thus, by Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\], no other ideal with the same $f$-vector can have smaller Betti numbers than $L$ and so it is the unique minimum. For a polynomial ring with $n$ variables, there are $\binom{n}{i}$ squarefree monomials of degree $i$ and thus $2^{n}-n-1$ distinct squarefree monomial lex ideals generated in a single degree. This gives the exponential growth with dimension.
The same techniques can be used to show that Hilbert functions containing lex ideals generated in a single degree will have unique minimal graded Betti numbers among all ideals.
Unique Mins via Hochster’s formula {#s:hochster}
----------------------------------
We now present a new method for finding unique minima among squarefree ideals using Hochster’s formula.
\[lem:tworow\] Suppose that $L$ is a squarefree lex ideal with $\beta^L_{i,j}\neq 0$ iff $i,j=0$ or $j-i=1\text{ or }2$. Then if an ideal exists that attains the same $f$-vector as $L$, and satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\], it will have the unique minimal graded Betti numbers among all squarefree monomial ideals with this $f$-vector.
The conditions on $L$ imply that any ideal with the same $f$-vector will have at most two nonzero Betti numbers in each of its diagonal alternating sums, and these will have opposite signs in the summation. Thus, if an ideal $I$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\], it will have at most one nonzero graded Betti number on each diagonal and so no other ideal can have a smaller graded Betti number than $I$ while preserving the $d_{j}$.
\[theorem:hochstermin\] In the polynomial ring of dimension n, the Hilbert function corresponding to the $f$-vector $(n,k,0,\ldots,0)$ for $0\leq k\leq n$ has an ideal which attains minimal graded Betti numbers among all squarefree monomial ideals with the same Hilbert function.
If $k=0$ we have that the given simplicial complex is the only one with the corresponding $f$-vector, and hence is minimal. For $k>0$, we note that the squarefree lex ideal for this $f$-vector can only be generated in degree 2 and 3, as a generator in degree 4 would correspond to a minimal non-3-face, which would certainly imply that this simplicial complex has 2-faces; but the above $f$-vector has none. By Lemma \[lem:tworow\], it remains to show that there exist ideals attaining $(n,k,0,\ldots,0)$ for each $1\le k \le n$ which satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\]. We do this in the following two results.
In this first lemma, we show that for each $1\leq k \leq n-1$, there is an ideal attaining $(n,k,0,\ldots,0)$ which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\].
Let $1\leq k \leq n-1$. Then the simplicial complex $$\Delta=
\{\{1\},\ldots,\{ n\},\{1,2\},\{2,3\},\ldots,\{ k,k+1\}\}$$ has a $2$-linear resolution.
By Hochster’s formula, a resolution will be 2-linear if there is no reduced $l$-homology for $l\geq 1$, for any sub-complex $\Delta_{W}$ (because in that case $\beta_{i,j}=0$ for $i=j$ and $\beta_{i,j}$, which for $j>i+1$ depends only on the spaces $\tilde{H}_{j-i-1}$, are all zero). But note that for any $W\subseteq\{1,\ldots n\}$ the simplicial complex $\Delta_{W}$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite set of points. Since a finite set of points never has reduced $l$-homology for $l\geq 1$, the lemma is proved.
We now demonstrate that there is an ideal attaining $(n,n,0,\ldots ,
0)$ which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:diagonalLemma\].
The only graded Betti numbers of the simplicial complex $$\{\{1\},\ldots,\{ n\},\{1,2\},\{2,3\},\ldots,\{ n,1\}\}$$ which can be nonzero are $\beta_{0,0}$, $\beta_{i,i+1}$ for $1\leq
i\leq n-2$ and $\beta_{n-2,n}$.
The case $\beta_{i,j}$ for $j<n$ is done above as if $W\subset\{1,\ldots,n\}$ (strict containment) then $\Delta_{W}$ is a simplicial complex in the form of the above lemma. If $j=n$, then $\beta_{i,n}$ depends only the space $\tilde{H}_{n-i-1}(\Delta,K)$. However, this simplicial complex is homotopy equivalent to a circle, so its only nonzero reduced homology space is $\tilde{H}_{1}$, which occurs in Hochster’s formula when $i=n-2$.
This family of Hilbert functions with unique minimal graded Betti numbers grows linearly with dimension; from Theorem \[theorem:hochstermin\], we have $n+1$ Hilbert functions in each dimension.
[10]{}
Aramova, A., Herzog, J., Hibi, T., Squarefree lexsegment ideals, *Mathematische Zeitschrift*, **228** (1998), 353–378.
Aramova, A., Herzog, J., Hibi, T., Shifting operations and graded Betti numbers, *Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics*, **12** (2000), 207–222.
A. M. Bigatti, Upper bounds for the Betti numbers of a given Hilbert function, *Comm. in Alg.*, **21** (1993), no. 7, 2317–2334.
H. Charalambous and E. G. Evans, Jr., Resolutions with a given [H]{}ilbert function, in *Commutative algebra: syzygies, multiplicities, and birational algebra (South Hadley, MA, 1992)*, in *Contemp. Math.* **159**, pp. 19–26 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994).
C. Francisco, Minimal graded Betti numbers and stable ideals, *Comm. Algebra*, **31** (2003), no. 10, 4971–4987.
M. Gelvin; P. LaVictore; J. Reed; B. Richert, Betti numbers and simplicial complexes, preprint.
A.V. Geramita, T. Harima, and Y.S. Shin, Extremal point sets and Gorenstein ideals, *Adv. Math.*, **152** (2000), no. 1, 78–119.
D. R. Grayson and M. E. Stillman, *Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry*. `http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/`.
J. Herzog, V. Reiner, and V. Welker, Componentwise linear ideals and Golod rings, *Michigan Math. J.*, **46** (1999), no. 2, 211–223.
H. A. Hulett, Maximal Betti Numbers with a Given Hilbert Function, *Comm. in Alg.*, **21** (1993), no. 7, 2335–2350.
M. Hochster, Cohen-Macaulay rings, combinatorics, and simplicial complexes, in *Ring theory, II (Proc. Second Conf., Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1975)*, 171–223, in *Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.*, **26**, Dekker, New York, 1977.
J. Migliore; U. Nagel, Reduced arithmetically Gorenstein schemes and simplicial polytopes with maximal Betti numbers, *Adv. Math.* **180** (2003), no. 1, 1–63.
K. Pardue, Deformation classes of graded modules and maximal Betti numbers, *Illinois J. of Math.*, **40** (1996), 564–585.
M. Rodriguez, Ideals that attain a given Hilbert function, *Illinois J. Math.*, **44** (2000), no. 4, 821–827.
B. P. Richert, Smallest graded [B]{}etti numbers, *J. Algebra* **244** (2001), no. 1, 236–259.
R. Stanley, , Burkhäuser, Boston, 1983.
[^1]: This material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-0353622
[^2]: $^1$Corresponding author: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally observe the two-photon interference of multimode photon pairs produced by an optical parametric oscillator far below threshold via a michelson interferometer, which shows a multipeaked structure. We find that the correlation function when the interferometer is unbalanced is clearly dependent on the path difference and phase between two interfering beams, but the shape of correlation function in balanced case is independent on the small path difference and phase beside the height. All experimental results are well agreed with the theoretical prediction.'
author:
- 'Fu-Yuan Wang'
- 'Bao-Sen Shi'
- 'Guang-Can Guo'
title: 'Quantum interference of multimode two-photon pairs with a Michelson interferometer'
---
Entangled photon pair source, as an essential tool, plays an important role in quantum information processing and quantum optics field[@PhysRevLett.67.661; @PhysRevLett.70.1895; @PhysRevLett.76.4656; @Bouwmeester575; @deutsch1992]. By far, the common way to generate an entangled photon pair is the process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion(SPDC) in a nonlinear crystal[@PhysRevLett.25.84], for it is most accessible and controllable in present technique. One drawback of the photon generated via SPDC is its wide spectrum, which makes its interaction with atoms very difficult. In order to solve this problem, several groups generate a narrow-band photon pair via an optical parametric oscillator(OPO) far below threshold[@PhysRevLett.83.2556; @PhysRevA.68.015803; @scholz:191104; @kuklewicz:223601; @PhysRevA.69.035801; @wangmultimode]. The property of the two photons produced by this way enable us to directly observe their correlation function by coincident counting, and an interferometer can be used to realize this goal. Goto *et.al.* recently reported the two-photon interference of multimode two-photon pairs with an unbalanced Mach-Zehnder interferometer[@PhysRevA.69.035801]. The time correlation between the multimode two photons has a multipeaked structure. In their experiment, the propagation time difference T between the short and long paths in the interferometer is $\tau_r/2$, where $\tau_r$ is the round-trip time of the OPO cavity. Their results show that the property of the multimode two-photon state induces two-photon interference depending on the delay. In this paper, we report on an observation of quantum interference of multimode two-photon pairs generated via an OPO far below threshold with a Michelson interferometer. In the experiment, we not only discuss the case in which the interferometer is in highly unbalanced, but also consider the case when the interferometer is balanced. In highly unbalanced case, the path propagation difference between the short and long paths is nearly equal to $\tau_r/3$. In this situation, only two-photon interference occurs, there is no single photon interference because of quite short coherence length($<$100 $\mu$m) measured in our experiment[@shicolength]. The time correlation between the multimode two photons still has a multipeaked structure. We find that the shape of correlation fringe is different from that reported in Ref.[@PhysRevA.69.035801]. Therefore we conclude that the shape of correlation is dependent on the path difference between two interfering beams. In balanced case, we consider two different situations: one is that the interferometer is perfectly balanced, which means that the path difference is almost zero. In this situation, both two-photon interference and single- photon interference exist simultaneously. The time correlation has multipeaked structure, but is very different from that in highly unbalanced case. The shape of the fringe is independent on the phase between two interfering beams beside height. We also consider another situation: the interferometer is almost balanced, the path difference is slightly larger than the coherent length of the single photon. In this situation, there is only two-photon interference. The time correlation observed still has the multipeaked structure, is similar to that in perfectly balanced situation, and the shape of fringe is also independent on the phase between two interfering beams beside the height. All experimental results are well agreed with the theoretical prediction.\
A schematic drawing of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:setup\]. A cw grating-stabilized external diode laser (Toptical DL100) of wavelength 780 nm is used to generate UV light at 390 nm via a frequency douber, which consists of a symmetric bow-tie cavity with a 10 mm long type-I phase-matched periodically poled KTiOPO$_4$(PPKTP) inside. The frequency of the laser is precisely locked to Rb atom transition frequency using the saturated absorption technique. The frequency of the doubling cavity is locked to frequency by PDH method[@PDHmethod]. About 50 $\mu$W UV light at 390 nm is input to an OPO far below threshold, which consists of a 10 mm long type-I phase-matched PPKTP and a symmetric bow-tie cavity. The triangle cavity C is used to get mode-matched between SHG cavity and OPO cavity. A chopper is used to cut the photons of locking light reflected from the surface of the crystal to avoid possible background noise. The photon generated is multimode photon because of no mode-selected cavity used, and has the comb-like shape of the spectrum[@shicolength]. The outputs from OPO are input into a Michelson interferometer. A red filter id used to cut the remaining UV light. The path difference between two interfering beams can be adjusted by moving the mirror M1, which is mounted a piezoelectric transducer(PZT). Both PZT and mirror are fixed on a translation stage. The relative phase between two interfering beams can be actively controlled. The one output of the interferometer is connected to a 50/50 fiber beam splitter(NEWPORT P22s780BB50). Each out port of the fiber BS is connected to an avalanche photon detector(PerkinElmer SPCM-AQR-14-FC). The outputs from detectors are sent to a coincidence circuit for coincidence counting which mainly consists of a picosecond time analyzer(ORTEC, pTA9308) and a computer.
![Schematic of the experimental setup. DL100\_780, diode laser; PBS, polarization beam splitter; PD1 and PD2, photodetectors for locking; PD3 and PD4, avalanche photodetectors; fiber BS, fiber beam splitter; C, triangle cavity; pTA, picosecond time analyzer[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](expsetup){width="50.00000%"}
\
First, we show our experimental result in unbalanced case. In this case, the path difference between two interfering beams $\Delta L$ is about 170 mm. Before discussing the experimental results, we give the theory about the time correlation function in the unbalanced case which mainly comes from Ref.[@PhysRevA.69.035801] . The output operator $a(t)$ of the interferometer can be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
a(t)=\frac{a_{out}(t-T_S)+ia_{vac}(t-T_S)}{2}+\frac{a_{out}(t-T_L)-ia_{vac}(t-T_L)}{2}\end{aligned}$$ Here T$_L$, T$_S$ are the propagation time of the photons along the short and long paths, respectively. $a_{vac}(t)$ is an annihilation operator of the vacuum entering the interferometer. $a_{out}(t)$ is the output operator of the OPO which can be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
a(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\omega a(\omega)e^{-i(\omega_0+\omega)}\end{aligned}$$ Where $\omega_0$ is the degenerate frequency of the OPO. The time correlation function is defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(2)}(\tau)=\langle
a^+(t)a^+(t+\tau)a(t+\tau)a(t)\rangle\label{corfunc}\end{aligned}$$ And after dropping the single photon interference terms and considering the probability distribution of timing jitter of detectors, Eq.(\[corfunc\]) is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{unbal}^{(2)}(\tau)=C_1\left[4\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)\cos^2\theta+\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau-T)+\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau+T)\right]+C_2\label{expeq}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)=&
e^{-\Delta\omega_{opo}|\tau-\tau_0|}\sum_n\left(1+\frac{2|\tau-n\tau_r-\tau_0|\ln2}{T_D}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\exp\left(-\frac{2|\tau-n\tau_r-\tau_0|\ln2}{T_D}\right)\end{aligned}$$
![Experimental results. The phase $\theta$ increases stepwise by $\arccos$ j/4 from (a) to (i) (j=-4,-3,$\cdots$,4). The dots represent the measured data. The lines are fits by Eq. (\[expeq\]).[]{data-label="fig:unbal"}](mich){width="50.00000%"}
Here C$_1$ is a constant; C$_2$$\propto$$|\epsilon|^2\Gamma^{(2)}(0)/\Delta\omega_{opo}^2$, $\epsilon$ is single-pass parametric amplitude gain; $\Delta\omega_{opo}$ is the bandwidth of the OPO; T$_D$ is the resolving time of the detectors which is about 220 ps in our experiment; $\tau_0$ is an electric delay, T=T$_L$-T$_S$. We measure the coincidence counts at $\cos\theta$=$j/4\;(j=-4,-3,\cdots,4)$, where $\theta$ is the phase difference between the two arms of the interferometer. The experimental results are shown in Fig. \[fig:unbal\]. We set $\Delta L$ as 170 mm which is about $\tau_rc/3$ long. The constant parameters are set as follows: $\tau_0$=55 ns, $\tau_r$=1.63 ns and $\Delta\omega/2\pi$=7.8 MHz. The time correlation has a multipeaked structure, the shape of the fringe is different from that shown in Ref. [@PhysRevA.69.035801], this concludes that time correlation is dependent on the path difference. In Fig. \[fig:unbal\], the deviation of the points from the fitted lines is probably due to the small $\tau_r$ which determines the distance between peaks. If $\tau_r$ is larger, every peak could be more distinguished from each other under the condition of the big resolving time of the detectors, which could achieve better visibility. The fluctuation of phase difference may lead to the deviation as well. Fig. \[fig:phase\] shows the deviation between the locking points of the interference and the fitting points. We find that points (g) and (h) have a little large deviation. This may also come from the fluctuation of phase difference and misalignment of the interferometer, etc.
![ Phase (fitting) determined by the fitting is plotted against phase (locking) which is the phase locked experimentally. Triangles represent the experimental date and points represent the fitting one. The letter at horizontal axis(a,b,$\cdots$,i) represents the picture of the same letter in Fig. \[fig:unbal\][]{data-label="fig:phase"}](phase){width="50.00000%"}
\
Next, we discuss the case in which the two interfering beams in the interferometer are almost balanced. According to our measurement on the coherence length of the single photon , which is about 90 $\mu$m[@shicolength], we divide this case into two different situations: in situation 1, two interfering beams are perfectly balanced, which means there is a single-photon interference besides two-photon interference in the interferometer. In this situation, the time correlation function can be expressed as follow $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{a}^{(2)}=&\frac{1}{4}\left[\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)(1+\delta)+\delta\Gamma^{(2)}(0)\right](\cos\theta+1)^2\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\left[C_1\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)+C_2\right](\cos\theta+1)^2\nonumber\\
\simeq&\frac{1}{4}\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)(\cos\theta+1)^2\qquad(\delta\ll1)\end{aligned}$$ In situation 2, two interfering beam are roughly balanced, which means the path difference between two interfering beams is slightly larger than coherence length of the single photon. Therefore, there is no single-photon interference besides two-photon interference. In this situation, the time correlation function is follow $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{b}^{(2)}=&\frac{1}{4}\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\cos^2\theta+\frac{1+3\delta}{2})+\frac{1}{4}\delta\Gamma^{(2)}(0)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)(\cos^2\theta+C_1')+C_2'\nonumber\\
\simeq&\frac{1}{4}\Gamma_{ave}^{(2)}(\tau)(\frac{1}{2}\cos2\theta+1)\qquad(\delta\ll1)\end{aligned}$$ where C$_1$, C$_2$, C$_1'$ and C$_2'$ are constants; $\delta$=$4|\epsilon|^2/\Delta\omega_{opo}^2$. The period of $\Gamma_{b}^{(2)}$ is as twice as that of $\Gamma_{a}^{(2)}$.\
![The time correlation functions of two-photon interference at balanced case are measured at $\theta$=0, $\pi/2$, $\pi$ from (a) to (c). (d) is the function at two-photon interference at an arbitrary phase with $\Delta L$=0.74 mm for compare.[]{data-label="fig:timebal"}](corfunc){width="50.00000%"}
![(a) and (b) are the coincidence counts of two-photon interference in $\Delta L$$\approx$0 and $\Delta L$=0.74 mm, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ccbal"}](pcc){width="50.00000%"}
The experiment results are shown in Fig. \[fig:timebal\] and Fig. \[fig:ccbal\]. Fig. \[fig:timebal\](a)-\[fig:timebal\](c) indicate the time correlation functions at $\theta$=0, $\pi/2$ and $\pi$ with $\Delta
L$$\simeq$0, respectively. The shapes of three pictures are almost same except the height. The height of the figure in Fig. \[fig:timebal\](c) is not exactly zero, because of the phase fluctuation as well as the imperfect 50/50 BS in the interferometer. The experimental results clearly show that time correlation still has the multipeaked structure, but it is very different from that in unbalanced situation. Fig. \[fig:timebal\](d) shows the result when $\Delta L$=0.74 mm. From the expression of $\Gamma_b^{(2)}$, we know the shape of time correlation function is not dependent on phase. We measure it at an arbitrary phase and find it is true. Therefore, we conclude that the shape of the correlation function is independent on the phase and small difference between two interfering beams.\
In addition, we measure the coincident counts against the phase between two interfering beams. Fig. \[fig:ccbal\](a) and Fig. \[fig:ccbal\](b) shows the results in situation 1 and 2, respectively. The visibility of the Fig. \[fig:ccbal\](a) is about 88% against the perfect case of 100% and that of Fig. \[fig:ccbal\](b) is about 29% against the perfect case of 50%. The possible reason are follow: the shifting of light from ECDL during the experiment; the small shift of mirror positions; the phase fluctuation and so on. Comparing Fig. \[fig:ccbal\](a) and \[fig:ccbal\](b), we can see clearly that the period of oscillator in situation 2 is as twice as that in situation 1.\
In summary, in this work we observe the quantum interference of multimode two-photon pairs produced by an OPO with an Michelson interferometer which shows a multipeaked structure. We find that the correlation function is dependent on the path difference and phase between two interfering beams in unbalanced case, which is agree with the Ref. [@PhysRevA.69.035801]. Furthermore, we find that the time correlation shape in balanced case is independent on the small path difference and phase, beside the height, compared with that in unbalanced case. All experimental results are well agreed with theoretical prediction.
We thank Mr. J. S. Xu and Dr. C. F. Li for their kindly lending of pTA. This work is supported by National Natural Foundation of Science, (Grant No. 10674126), National Fundamental Research Program (Grant No. 2006CB921900), the Innovation fund from CAS, Program for NCET.
[14]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (pages ) ().
, , , (????).
, , , (????).
, , , , , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Extensive numerical simulations were performed to investigate all stages of modulation instability development from the initial pulse of pico-second duration in photonic crystal fiber: quasi-solitons and dispersive waves formation, their interaction stage and the further propagation. Comparison between 4 different NLS-like systems was made: the classical NLS equation, NLS system plus higher dispersion terms, NLS plus higher dispersion and self-steepening and also fully generalized NLS equation with Raman scattering taken into account. For the latter case a mechanism of energy transfer from smaller quasi-solitons to the bigger ones is proposed to explain the dramatical increase of rogue waves appearance frequency in comparison to the systems when the Raman scattering is not taken into account.'
author:
- 'D.S. Agafontsev'
title: On the modulation instability development in optical fiber systems
---
Although the considerable progress was made toward the understanding of the physical nature of rogue waves in open ocean [@Dyachenko1; @Dyachenko2; @Kharif_review; @Dysthe_review], the theory for them is far from been complete especially in the sense of prediction of their appearance frequency. Therefore, the recent observations of similar structures in optical fibers [@Solli] called optical rogue waves instantly attracted much scientific interest not only because such extreme events had not been observed before in other physical systems except oceanic waves, but also because optical fibers grant almost ideal experimental conditions for their further investigation. By their origin, optical rogue waves are quasi-solitons raised during the modulation instability (MI) development which propagate with almost constant speed and shape after they exit region of interactions with other quasi-solitons. The term “extreme event” refers here to the process of their appearance: since MI development is very sensitive to noise, extremely large waves rise as rare outcomes from an almost identically prepared initial population of waves. In this sense optical rogue waves strongly differ from their oceanic counterparts, which are usually described as large waves suddenly appear from nowhere and disappear without a trace ([@Kharif_review; @Dysthe_review; @Akhmediev]). Nevertheless, recent numerical experiments revealed existence of more or less stable hydrodynamical rogue waves (see [@Ruban]), that gives hope that the relationship between optical and oceanic rogue waves may be more explicit as was thought hitherto.
In this work the process of MI development from initial pulse of pico-second duration in anomalous group velocity regime in photonic crystal fiber (PCF) is considered when the different linear and nonlinear terms beyond the classical NLSE are taken into account. With the help of numerical simulations it is shown that MI development in general consists of three stages: initial quasi-solitons and dispersive waves formation, their interactions and the further noninteracting propagation. The applicability of this scenario is verified for initial pulses with peak power from 50W to more than 10kW. The main attention is paid to quasi-solitons because of their direct connection to the optical rogue waves. The start of quasi-solitons formation process is shown to be very well predicted by the classical NLSE. Concerning the further propagation lengths, it is demonstrated that while the additional higher order dispersion and self-steepening terms affect MI process only through the symmetry breaking and the generation of small dispersive waves, the Raman scattering dramatically changes it’s every stage. By consideration of quasi-soliton to quasi-soliton collisions it is shown that among other effects, Raman scattering include an effective mechanism of nonlinear energy transfer from smaller quasi-solitons to the bigger ones. Comparison of rogue waves appearance frequency depending on the different linear and nonlinear terms beyond the classical NLSE taken into account is also made. It is shown that in presence of Raman scattering the probability distribution function for waves heights has long non-exponential tail, while in the other cases large waves appearance frequency exponentially decays with the wave amplitude. It is supposed that the latter circumstances can be explained by the mechanism of the energy transfer from smaller quasi-solitons to the bigger ones which is provided by the Raman scattering.
To investigate the process of MI developed in PCF from initial pico-second pulse of sech-shape type there were made 3 groups of numerical experiments. Evolution of a pulse in PCF was described by the following equation (see [@Agrawal; @DGC]): $$i\frac{\partial A}{\partial z}-\hat\beta A + \gamma\bigg(1+i\tau_{shock}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bigg)\bigg(A\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}R(t-t')|A(z,t')|^{2}dt'\bigg)=0, \label{1_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution}$$ with the same parameters for all 3 sets of experiments: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat\beta = \frac{\beta_{2}}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} + \hat\beta_{HD}, \quad \hat\beta_{HD} = \sum_{n=3}^{n=7}\frac{\beta_{n}}{n!}\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial t^{n}}, \label{1_OpticsEnvelopeEvolutionCoeff} \\
&&\beta_2 = -12.76\times 10^{-27}s^2/m, \quad \beta_3 = 8.119\times 10^{-41}s^3/m, \quad \beta_4 = -13.22\times 10^{-56}s^4/m, \nonumber\\
&&\beta_5 = 3.032\times 10^{-70}s^5/m, \quad \beta_6 = -4.196\times 10^{-85}s^6/m, \quad \beta_7 = 2.570\times 10^{-100}s^7/m, \nonumber\\
&&\gamma = 0.125W^{-1}m^{-1}, \quad \tau_{shock}=1/\omega_{0}=0.43fs, \quad R(t)=(1-f_{R})\delta(t)+f_{R}h_{R}(t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $A(z,t)$ is the pulse envelope, $\beta_2<0$ is the group velocity dispersion in anomalous regime, $\gamma$ is the nonlinear coefficient (Kerr nonlinearity), $\omega_{0}=2\pi c/\lambda_{0}$ where $\lambda_{0}=806nm$ is the initial pulse carrier wavelength; linear operator $\hat\beta_{HD}$ designates higher order dispersion, while self-steepening and Raman scattering are included through operators $i\tau_{shock}\partial/\partial x$ and $h_{R}(t)$ respectively. Specific values of $f_{R}=0.18$ and $h_{R}(t)$ were determined from the experimental fused silica Raman cross-section [@DGC].
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
Numerical schema used for integration of Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution\]) was split-step method in which linear and nonlinear parts of the equation were calculated separately. Linear part of Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution\]) was solved in frequency domain. From the other hand, in order to implement Raman scattering correctly, Runge-Kutta schema of the second order was used to calculate the nonlinear part of Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution\]) (see [@DGC; @Cristiani]). As was shown by numerous publications (see [@DGC; @Dudley1; @Dudley3] for instance), such numerical schema give results in very good agreement with that from laboratory experiments for initial pulses in femto-seconds range. Propagation distance inside PCF was chosen to prevent significant interaction between the left and the right ends of the computational domain which occurs due to FFT usage in the numerical schema. Such choice of propagation distance corresponds to the limit of zeroth repetition rate of a real laser. The latter assumption is necessary even despite the fact that real lasers always have nonzeroth repetition rate, because MI development considered in this work is in highly incoherent regime (see [@DGC]), i.e. MI developed from the following laser pulse significantly differs from MI developed from the preceding one. Therefore if the interaction between the left and the right ends of the computational domain is strong, the additional coherence which has no physical meaning is brought to the system.
The first group of numerical experiments was made to analyze single NLS solitons behavior for 3 different situations: a) in presence of higher order dispersion only (NLS+HD system, $\tau_{shock}$ and $h_{R}(t)$ were equal to zero); b) in presence of self-steepening and higher order dispersion (NLS+HD+SS system, $h_{R}(t)$ was equal to zero); c) in presence of self-steepening, Raman scattering and higher order dispersion (NLS+HD+SS+RS system, full Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution\]) with coefficients Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolutionCoeff\])). Initial pulse was taken as an exact soliton solution of the classical NLSE: $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial A}{\partial z}-\frac{\beta_{2}}{2} A_{tt} + \gamma(1-f_{R})|A|^{2}A = 0.
\label{1_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution2}\end{aligned}$$ As shown on Fig.1, additional terms beyond Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution2\]) modified the group velocity of the initial pulse. While this modification was comparatively small for NLS+HD and NLS+HD+SS systems, in presence of Raman scattering the group velocity changed much more significantly both in it’s absolute value and with the propagation distance. Another very important influence of Raman scattering was the Raman continuous self-frequency shift to the lower frequencies (see [@DGC]) which was experienced by the moving pulse as shown on the corresponding frequency evolution plot on Fig.1.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
It turned out also that during the propagation inside the PCF solitons did not change their sech-like shape significantly in all cases a), b) and c). To analyze whether output peaks were still close to solitons of the classical NLSE or not, corresponding spectrograms were plotted. Field spectrogram allows one to completely characterize output function in both intensity and phase domains simultaneously [@DGC; @Treacy; @Dudley2]. For the given $A(t)$ field to be characterized, the spectrogram function is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(\omega,\tau) = \bigg|\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}A(t)g(t-\tau)e^{-i\omega t}dt \bigg|^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $g(t-\tau)$ is a variable-delay gate function. Spectrograms of output fields turned out to be very close to rhombus structures that means that such peaks were indeed very close to exact classical NLS solitons. In other words, if a pulse in the form of classical NLS soliton is launched inside the PCF, it evolves in such a way to stay every time very close to the family of exact soliton solutions of integrable NLS equation.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
The second group of experiments was made to analyze solitons interactions and especially of their collisions. Initial field was taken as a superposition of two exact NLS solitons with the same group speeds but with slightly different amplitudes. In case of the classical NLSE such a combination oscillates near it’s initial state (see Fig.2). When higher order dispersion or additional nonlinearity is added, the two-soliton state is no longer stable and decomposes for individual peaks moving with slightly different group speeds. Difference in peak speeds may lead to their collision. As for the previous group of experiments, for all 3 systems a), b) and c) solitons after the collision turned out to be very close to the family of exact NLS solitons. Nevertheless, here arises qualitative difference between the considered systems: for NLS+HD and NLS+HD+SS systems collisions were almost elastic even when the additional nonlinearity beyond the classical NLSE was added (see Fig.3). Elasticity broke only after addition of Raman scattering. In this case smaller solitons were loosing their energy while the bigger ones - were acquiring. Very similar phenomena are observed for very different physical systems from nonintegrable NLS-like equations to MMT-model (see for example [@Zakharov2; @Jordan; @Zakharov]). Besides, in the presence of Raman scattering both quasi-solitons experienced Raman self-frequency shift as shown on Fig.3.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
Solitons behavior discussed above allows one to make the conclusion that despite the fact that Eq. (\[1\_OpticsEnvelopeEvolution\]) does not possess exact soliton solutions, it allows quasi-soliton states which are very close to classical NLS solitons and have common features with them: almost steady movement, stability with respect to class of quasi-soliton solutions against collisions. From the over hand, elasticity of collisions depends on additional nonlinearity added to the system.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
The third group of experiments was devoted to MI development. Initial wave field was taken in the form $A(t)=\sqrt{P_{0}}sech(t/T_{0})$, where $P_{0}=200W$ and $T_{0}=1.6ps$ were peak power and pulse duration respectively. In case of the classical NLSE such peak decomposes for several peaks condensed near the center of the initial pulse (see Fig.4). During the decomposition of the pulse it’s spectra broadens from few angstroms to several nanometers. When the symmetry $t\to -t$ is broken due to higher order dispersion or additional nonlinearity, the condensation breaks: peaks start to move with slightly different group speeds. In the literature (see [@DGC] for example) such process is referred as soliton fission. From the other hand, integrated effects of higher order dispersion and additional nonlinearity dramatically increase the pulse spectra broadening from several nanometers to hundreds of nanometers, which is often called as supercontinuum generation. As was shown before [@DGC], the solitonic components are located in the red-shifted area of the pulse spectra, while the dispersive waves components - in the blue-shifted area.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
Let us consider the process of quasi-solitons formation and their further fission from it’s beginning. As shown on Fig.5, the start of such decomposition for all nonlinear systems considered in this work was well described by the classical NLS equation. Higher order dispersion as well as the self-steepening were found to have no influence on the speed of quasi-solitons formation. Thus, the role of these terms in soliton fission process was reduced to the symmetry breaking, i.e. bringing different group velocity additions to different quasi-solitons, and also to small dispersive waves generation. From the other hand, Raman scattering drastically amplified appearance of quasi-solitons from the very beginning of their formation, though the start of quasi-solitons formation itself was well described by the classical NLS equation as before.
As the quasi-solitons are emerged, we are coming to the next stage of MI development - quasi-solitons interaction (see Fig.6). During this stage quasi-solitons chaotically interact with each over and with dispersive waves. We think that soliton-to-soliton interactions are governed by the same general rules as were found for the soliton-to-soliton collisions: quasi-solitons interactions are almost elastic for NLS+HD and NLS+HD+SS systems, and inelastic for fully generalized NLS equation with Raman scattering taken into account. In the latter case smaller quasi-solitons loose their energy while the bigger ones - acquire. Therefore, Raman scattering not only affects the speed of quasi-soliton formation, but also brings to the system additional and effective mechanism of the energy exchange between them. The other important conclusion that could be made from this consideration is that the predictions of the output spectra based on application of the kinetic theory to conservative generalized NLS equation with higher order dispersion or self-steepening taken into account (see [@Picozzi; @Picozzi2] for more information) should be only a rough approximations to the real optical fibers.
It is necessary to pay attention here to the generation of dispersive waves during MI development which is clearly seen on Fig.6. In fact, such generation occurs even for a single quasi-soliton moving along the PCF in the presence of higher order dispersion (see [@DGC] for details). The absence of such effect on Fig.1 take place because the generated dispersive waves turned out to be too small to give contribution to spectrogram or frequency evolution pictures. This situation changes for soliton-to-soliton collisions (see Fig.3) where the dispersive waves are clearly seen on the far right parts of frequency evolution plots but are not visible on the corresponding spectrograms. Interesting, that for the both sets of simulations with soliton-to-soliton collisions and MI development the additional nonlinearity played the role of dumping for the dispersive waves generation, from only a slight influence in case of self-steepening to almost complete dumping in case of Raman scattering.
In the last stage of MI development noninteracting quasi-solitons and dispersive waves are moving with different velocities along the fiber. While in case of higher dispersion and self-steepening terms taken into account the quasi-solitons move almost without change in their shape and speed, the Raman scattering also affects this stage through the Raman self-frequency shift as shown on Fig.6. It is noteworthy to point out that in complete correspondence with [@DGC], earlier emerged quasi-solitons have greater self-frequency shift from the initial wave carrier frequency (see spectrogram plots on Fig.6).
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
In our numerical simulations the applicability of this scenario of MI development was verified for all considered nonlinear systems NLS+HD, NLS+HD+SS and NLS+HD+SS+RS for initial pulses with peak power from 50W to 13kW. No qualitative changes were noticed. Enlarged at center parts output spectrograms for NLS+HD, NLS+HD+SS and NLS+HD+SS+RS systems for initial pulse with peak power of 13kW with clear sings of quasi-solitons are shown on Fig.7. Thereby, the hypothesis that the MI development qualitatively changes from the situation when quasi-solitons affect MI deeply at the initial pulse peak power less than 100W to the situation when no sings of quasi-solitons are present at the initial pulse peak power more than 1kW (compare with [@Picozzi]) is shown to be incorrect.
{width="130pt"} {width="130pt"} {width="130pt"}
To check whether Raman scattering affects the frequency of rogue waves appearance, for each of the 3 systems NLS+HD, NLS+HD+SS and NLS+HD+SS+RS there were made ensembles of 1000 simulations with different noise seeds. The initial pulse was chosen to be the same as it was for the third group of experiments devoted to MI development with peak power $P_{0}=200W$. Input pulse noise was included in the frequency domain through one photon per mode spectral density $h\nu/\Delta\nu$ on each spectral discretization bin $\Delta\nu$. The thermal Raman noise was not included because, as was shown before, it doesn’t have significant influence on the statistical properties of rogue waves (see [@Dudley1; @Chang]). Individual peaks of each output realization were isolated using the similar technique as was developed in [@Solli]. As shown on Fig.8, the frequency distribution of the pulse peak power exponentially decays with the wave amplitude for NLS+HD and NLS+HD+SS systems, while in presence of Raman scattering the existence of long non-exponential tail in the region of extra-high peak powers was found. In other words, the addition of Raman scattering yielded in great increase of rogue waves appearance frequency. We suppose that the mechanism of the rogue waves appearance in the presence of Raman scattering lies in the nonlinear energy transfer from smaller quasi-solitons to the bigger ones, as was shown in the soliton-to-soliton collisions experiments.
The author thanks J.Dudley for usage of part of the code concerning Raman scattering and also F.Dias for valuable discussions concerning the numerical simulations. The work of the author was supported by the MANUREVA project, the Program of Presidium of RAS “Fundamental problems of nonlinear dynamics”, program of support for leading scientific schools of Russian Federation, and also RFBR Grants 07-01-92165-NTsNI\_a and 09-01-00631-a.
[99]{}
A.I.Dyachenko, A.O.Prokofiev, V.E.Zakharov, Eur. J. Mech. B - Fluids [**25**]{} (5), 677-692 (2006).
A.I.Dyachenko, V.E.Zakharov, JETP Lett. [**88**]{} (5), 307-311 (2008).
C.Kharif, E.Pelinovsky, Eur. J. Mech. B - Fluids [**22**]{}, 603-634 (2003).
K.Dysthe, H.E.Krogstad, P.Muller, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**40**]{}, 287-310 (2008).
D.R.Solli, et al., Nature [**450**]{}, 1054-1057 (2007).
N.Akhmediev, A.Ankiewicz, M.Taki, Physics Letters A [**373**]{}, 675-678 (2009).
V.P.Ruban, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 036305 (2006).
G.P.Agrawal, et al., [*Nonlinear Fiber Optics*]{}, 3rd ed. Academic, San Diego (2001).
J.M.Dudley, G.Genty, S.Coen, Reviews of modern physics [**78**]{}, 1135-1184 (2006).
I.Cristiani, R.Tediosi, L.Tartara, et al., Opt. Express [**12**]{}, 124-135 (2004).
J.M.Dudley, G.Genty, B.J.Eggleton, Opt. Express [**16**]{}, iss. 6, 3644-3651 (2008).
B.Kibler, J.M.Dudley, S.Coen, Appl. Phys. B [**81**]{}, 337-342 (2005).
E.B.Treacy, J. Appl. Phys. [**42**]{}, 3848-3858 (1971).
J.M.Dudley, et al., Opt. Express [**10**]{}, 1215-1221 (2002).
V.E.Zakharov, A.N.Pushkarev, V.F.Shvets, et al., Pis’ma Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. [**48**]{}, No.2, 79-82 (1988).
R.Jordan, C.Josserand, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 1527-1539 (2000).
V.Zakharov, F.Dias, A.Pushkarev, Physics Reports [**398**]{}, 1-65, (2004).
A.Picozzi, et al., Optics Letters [**33**]{}, No. 23, 2833 (2008).
A.Picozzi, et al., Opt. Express [**17**]{}, iss. 9, 7392-7406 (2009).
G.Chang, T.B.Norris, H.G.Winful, Optics Letters [**28**]{}, 546-548 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a notion of quantum control in a quantum programming language which permits the superposition of finitely many quantum operations without performing a measurement. This notion takes the form of a conditional construct similar to the `if` statement in classical programming languages. We show that adding such a quantum `if` statement to the QPL programming language [@Selinger04] simplifies the presentation of several quantum algorithms. This motivates the possibility of extending the denotational semantics of QPL to include this form of quantum alternation. We give a denotational semantics for this extension of QPL based on Kraus decompositions rather than on superoperators. Finally, we clarify the relation between quantum alternation and recursion, and discuss the possibility of lifting the semantics defined by Kraus operators to the superoperator semantics defined by Selinger [@Selinger04].'
author:
- Costin Bădescu
- Prakash Panangaden
bibliography:
- '../main.bib'
title: 'Quantum Alternation: Prospects and Problems'
---
Introduction
============
The field of quantum programming languages emerged in the early 2000s as a result of researchers’ interest in understanding quantum algorithms structurally. This interest is backed by the belief that a structural study of quantum algorithms may have the same positive effect on our understanding of quantum computing as the introduction of structured programming had on classical computation. This endeavor has two clear objectives: understanding how fundamental quantum resources such as quantum parallelism and entanglement fit into the theory of computation, and exploiting these resources to aid in designing new quantum algorithms which can outperform the existing classical ones.
Conforming to this structural approach, the present work casts quantum parallelism as a resource which can be used to determine the control flow of a program. This flow is usually built up by composing three primitive operations: sequencing, branching, and recursion. Of these three, branching is the only operation which depends on data supplied to the program. In quantum computing, this data can be a qubit whose state is unknown. In this case, a measurement is normally used to extract a Boolean value from the qubit and the transition to the next state depends on the measurement outcome. This procedure is similar to sampling a Bernoulli random variable where the distribution is determined by the state of the qubit. Hence, the form of quantum control implemented by measurements is of a probabilistic nature. A natural question to ask is whether there is a sensible notion of branching in a quantum programming language which operates at the quantum level, that is, without interference from the environment. This speculative type of branching is henceforth referred to as *quantum alternation* or *quantum control*. Investigating the viability of this concept is the main theme of this paper.
The idea of quantum control is not new. Indeed, in a quantum Turing machine [@Deutsch85] – the first formalism of quantum computation – the flow of execution is described by a constant unitary operator. Thus, both data and control may be “quantum.” Nevertheless, the passage from the quantum control mechanism present in a quantum Turing machine to a structural notion of quantum branching in a programming language is not clear. The first programming language designed to support quantum control was defined by Altenkirch and Grattage in [@Altenkirch05]. The language, called QML, provides a `case` statement which allows superposing several quantum operations without performing a measurement. However, the `case` statement can only be used in certain situations specified by the introduction rules of the type system which use an “orthogonality” judgement. A more recent work on quantum alternation is [@Ying14] where the authors propose a language called QGCL (after Dijkstra’s Guarded Command Language) to support the paradigm of “superposition of programs.” QGCL bases the definition of quantum control on the analogy with quantum random walks and introduces an auxiliary system of “quantum coins” which is used to perform branching. A more detailed discussion of both of these works and their relation to the work presented in this paper is deferred to the section on related work. For the moment, we note that there are many similarities and a few differences between our work and the work reported in [@Ying14].
We proceed to outline the basic properties that quantum alternation should possess. The notation used in the sequel follows the usual mathematical framework for open quantum systems: states are represented by density operators on some Hilbert space, and quantum operations are given by superoperators, i.e. completely positive (CP) trace-nonincreasing maps. All Hilbert spaces are assumed to be finite-dimensional, unless otherwise stated. If $\cH$ is a Hilbert space, we denote by $S(\cH)$ the set of states on $\cH$. Thus, a superoperator is a linear map $T : S(\cH) \to S(\cK)$. The dynamics defined by a superoperator $T : S(\cH) \to S(\cH)$ is said to be *reversible* if $T$ can be represented as a pure unitary operation, viz. $T(\rho) = U \rho U^\dagger$ for some unitary operator $U : \cH \to \cH$. $\qbit$ is defined to be the $2$-dimensional Hilbert space $\CC^2$ with the computational basis $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$. A qubit is a term $q$ of type $\qbit$, denoted $q \tp \qbit$. We define the classical states $\Pi_0 = \ketbra{0}{0}$ and $\Pi_1 = \ketbra{1}{1}$ corresponding to the elements of the computational basis.
We posit the following typing judgement for quantum alternation. Given a qubit $q \tp \qbit$ and two superoperators $T_0, T_1 : S(\cH) \to S(\cK)$, the alternation of $T_0$ and $T_1$ with respect to $q$ should be a superoperator $\Alt_q(T_0, T_1) : S(\qbit \tensor \cH) \to S(\qbit \tensor
\cK)$. Thus,
1. Quantum alternation has the following typing judgement, where $\Pi$ is a procedure context and $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are typing contexts:
[c]{}
Note that, according to the typing judgement, the branches $P$ and $Q$ cannot access the qubit $q$. There are at least two reasons for this particular choice. Firstly, we will require that the alternation of $P$ and $Q$ with respect to $q$ is a reversible operation if $P$ and $Q$ are reversible, which is not necessarily the case if $P$ and $Q$ are allowed access to $q$. Secondly, $q$ is a resource used to superpose different statements and, as with any type of resource, it should be in some sense consumed. This situation is not unlike the case of measurement where the state of the qubit collapses to the classical state observed. The difference here is that quantum branching does not extract any classical information from $q$, so the qubit does not collapse to a classical state.
The second fundamental property required of quantum alternation is that it should use the information encoded in the classical states of $q$. That is, the alternation should depend on a specific choice of basis for $q$ and each branch must correspond to a distinct basis vector. The state of $q$ should affect the superposition of quantum operations:
1. If the qubit $q$ is in a classical state $\Pi_i$ with $i \in \Bin$, then $\Alt_q(T_0, T_1) = I \tensor T_i$, i.e. the alternation reduces to a local operation $T_i$ on $S(\cH)$.
The second condition formalizes the intuition of classical alternation in this context. Since $\Alt_q(T_0, T_1)$ is a linear map, it follows that if $\rho$ is a state on $\qbit \tensor \cH$ then $$\Alt_q(T_0, T_1) :: \rho =
\begin{bmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{bmatrix}
\mapsto
\begin{bmatrix}
T_0 A & \ast \\
\ast & T_1 D
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The off-diagonal asterisks represent entries which are not yet determined by anything other than the blocks on the diagonal and the condition that the result must be a positive operator. If these entries are null, then $\Alt_q(T_0, T_1)$ can be implemented by a measurement followed by merging. Hence, it is necessary to impose additional constraints to obtain a notion of branching which may be called “quantum.” The final condition we impose, concerning the reversibility of alternation, addresses this issue:
1. If $T_0$ and $T_1$ are reversible, then $\Alt_q(T_0, T_1)$ is reversible.
The dynamics of a closed quantum-mechanical system is reversible, so this requirement is natural, if not compulsory, for any definition of quantum alternation. The reversibility condition also ensures that the implementation of alternation cannot be based on measurement.
Following the conditions introduced above, we can suggest a definition of quantum alternation in a *closed* quantum system:
Let $\cH$ be a Hilbert space and let $U_0, U_1 : \cH \to \cH$ be unitary operators. Given a qubit $q \tp \qbit$, define the alternation $\Alt_q(U_0, U_1)$ with respect to $q$ by $$\label{eq:unitaryif}
\Alt_q(U_0, U_1) = \Pi_0 \tensor U_0 + \Pi_1 \tensor U_1.$$ This definition of $\Alt$ meets all three conditions and generalizes immediately to a definition of quantum alternation controlled by a system of multiple qubits. Let $\qbit^n$ be the $n$fold tensor product of $\qbit$ with itself and set $\ell = 2^n - 1$. Let $\Pi_0, \ldots, \Pi_\ell$ be the classical states of $\qbit^n$. Given $\bar{q} \tp \qbit^n$, the alternation of unitary operators $U_0, \ldots, U_\ell : \cH \to \cH$ with respect to $\bar{q}$ is defined by $$\label{eq:unitarycase}
\Alt_{\bar{q}}(U_0, \ldots, U_\ell)
= \sum_{k=0}^\ell \Pi_k \tensor U_k.$$ This form of alternation corresponds to a quantum `case` statement. As we will see, the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm can be obtained from Deutsch’s algorithm essentially by replacing an `if` statement with a `case` statement.
(\[eq:unitarycase\]) is a special case of a *measuring operator* [@Kitaev02]. In the definition of a measuring operator, the classical states $\Pi_k$ can be replaced by projections onto pairwise orthogonal subspaces. Thus, it is possible to consider a slightly more general notion of quantum alternation where the superposition is controlled by a set of pairwise orthogonal projections rather than by a system of qubits; this idea is also introduced in [@Ying14].
The problem of defining quantum alternation in QPL amounts to finding an appropriate extension of the definition given above to open quantum systems which is structural, compositional, and satisfies the three aforementioned criteria.
Examples
========
Prior to defining a semantics for quantum control in open quantum systems, we present a few examples of QPL programs which make use of quantum alternation in a closed system. Thus, all quantum operations considered in this section are pure operations associated with a specific *unitary* operator defined within the program.
We briefly review the fragment of QPL which will be used in this paper. The state of a QPL program is a density matrix and a statement is interpreted as a superoperator. The primitives we will use are as follows: $\qplskip$ is the identity superoperator; $\bar{q} \unitary U$ applies the unitary transformation $U$ to the tuple of qubits $\bar{q}$; $\newqbit{q}$ allocates a new qubit register named $q$ initialized to $\ket{0}$; $\measurethenelse{q}{P}{Q}$ measures the qubit register $q$ and evaluates $P$ or $Q$ accordingly; $\discard{q}$ represents the partial trace over the component of the state space represented by $q$.
We will make use of two additional constructs to illustrate quantum alternation: an $\ifthenelse{q}{P}{Q}$ statement interpreted as the superoperator defined by (\[eq:unitaryif\]), and a $\caseof{\bar{q}}{\Pi_k \to P_k}$ statement interpreted as the superoperator defined by (\[eq:unitarycase\]). Note that all branches of an alternation (e.g. $P$, $Q$, etc.) are assumed to be pure unitary operations.
The simplest example using quantum alternation is the construction of controlled unitary operators. If $U$ is a unitary operator and $q_0, q_1 \tp \qbit$ are two qubits, then $$\ifthenelse{q_0}{\qplskip}{q_1 \unitary U}$$ implements a controlled-$U$ operation. Thus, if $N$ is the $\mathsf{NOT}$ gate, two nested `if` statements can be used to implement the Toffoli gate: $$\begin{aligned}
\ifthenelse{q_0}{\qplskip}{\ifthenelse{q_1}{\qplskip}{q_2 \unitary N}}\end{aligned}$$
Implementing a controlled gate using an `if` statement allows for a more succint presentation of quantum circuits in QPL. For instance, given qubits $q_1, \ldots, q_n \tp \qbit$, the following program implements an efficient circuit for the quantum Fourier transform (cf. [@Nielsen00 p. 219]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\fortodo{i = 1}{n} \\
&\quad q_i \unitary H \\
&\quad \fortodo{k = 2}{n - i + 1} \\
&\quad \quad \ifthenelse{q_{k+i-1}}{\qplskip}{q_i \unitary R_k}\end{aligned}$$ Here $R_k$ is the phase shift gate defined by $R_k = \Pi_0 + e^{i \theta} \Pi_1$ with $\theta = 2 \pi / 2^k$.
A more important example, exhibiting the relation between quantum parallelism and quantum alternation, is an implementation of *Deutsch’s algorithm* [@Deutsch85]. The problem is to determine whether a given Boolean function $f: \Bin \to \Bin$ is constant.
For each $x \in \Bin$, let $U_x : \qbit \to \qbit$ be the permutation operator transposing $\ket{0}$ with $\ket{f(x)}$ and fixing the rest of the basis. Let $x \xor y$ denote the *exclusive or* of bits $x$ and $y$. Note that $0 \xor x = x$ and $1 \xor x = \lnot x$ for all $x \in \Bin$. Thus, $U_x \ket{y} = \ket{y \xor f(x)}$ for $x, y \in \Bin$. Given qubits $q_0, q_1 \tp \qbit$, consider the statement: $$\ifthenelse{q_0}{q_1 \unitary U_0}{q_1 \unitary U_1}$$ Using definition (\[eq:unitaryif\]), this statement is interpreted as the pure operation defined by the unitary: $$U_f \dblcolon
\ket{0} \tensor \psi_0 + \ket{1} \tensor \psi_1
\;\mapsto\; \ket{0} \tensor U_0\psi_0 + \ket{1} \tensor U_1\psi_1.$$ A simple calculation shows that $U_f$ can also be defined by the map $\ket{x, y} \mapsto \ket{x, y \xor f(x)}$. Therefore, Deutsch’s algorithm can be implemented as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
&\newqbit{q_0, q_1} \\
&q_0 \unitary H \\
&q_1 \unitary H \circ N \\
&\ifthenelse{q_0}{q_1 \unitary U_0}{q_1 \unitary U_1} \\
&q_0 \unitary H\end{aligned}$$
The algorithm above can be modified to take as input a general Boolean function $f : \Bin[n] \to \Bin$. A map such as $f$ is said to be *balanced* if $\Pr [f(x) = 1] = \frac{1}{2}$ for a uniformly random $x \in \Bin[n]$. The *Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm* [@Deutsch92], a generalization of Deutsch’s algorithm, determines whether a given Boolean function $f : \Bin[n] \to \Bin$ is constant or not contingent upon the assumption that $f$ either constant or balanced. An implementation of this algorithm is obtained essentially by replacing the `if` statement above with a `case` statement. Indeed, for each $x \in \Bin[n]$, let $U_x$ be the permutation operator transposing $\ket{0}$ with $\ket{f(x)}$ and fixing the rest of the basis. Suppose $\bar{q}_0 \tp \qbit^n$ and $q_1 \tp \qbit$ are given. The statement $$\label{eq:parallelcase}
\caseof{\bar{q}_0}{\ket{x} \to q_1 \unitary U_x}$$ implements the unitary $\tilde{U}_f \dblcolon \ket{x, y} \mapsto \ket{x, y \xor f(x)}$ with $x \in \Bin[n]$. Hence, the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\newqbitn{\bar{q}_0} \\
&\newqbit{q_1} \\
&\bar{q}_0 \unitary H^{\tensor n} \\
&q_1 \unitary H \circ N \\
&\caseof{\bar{q}_0}{\ket{x} \to q_1 \unitary U_x} \\
&\bar{q}_0 \unitary H^{\tensor n}\end{aligned}$$
The map which assigns the unitary operator $\tilde{U}_f$ to a Boolean function $f$ appears in a number of quantum algorithms. For instance, if $f(x_0) = 1$ for some $x_0 \in \Bin[n]$ and $f(x) = 0$ otherwise, then $\tilde{U}_f$ is the “black box oracle” $O$ used to implement Grover’s search algorithm (see e.g. [@Nielsen00 p. 254]). Similarly, $\tilde{U}_f$ is used in the period-finding algorithm if $f$ is a periodic function.
The ability of quantum computation to superpose multiple evaluations of a function $f$ in a single application of a unitary operator is often referred to as quantum parallelism. Considering the permutation matrix $U_x$ as an evaluation of $f$ at $x$, the definition of $\tilde{U}_f$ as the `case` statement in (\[eq:parallelcase\]) shows that quantum alternation embodies a form of quantum parallelism. Furthermore, the fact that an application of $\tilde{U}_f$ is considered a $O(1)$ operation is reflected in the syntactic representation of alternation as a conditional construct.
Finally, an elementary but important observation is that the conditional statement $$\ifthenelse{q_0}{\qplskip}{q_1 \unitary e^{i \theta}}$$ implements a controlled phase. Since $\qplskip$ and $q_1 \unitary e^{i \theta}$ are physically indistinguishable as quantum operations, it follows that quantum alternation is not directly physically realizable. Rather, it represents a conceptual semantic construct in a quantum programming language. Furthermore, this example shows that there is no structural semantics for quantum alternation which is based on superoperators with extensional equality.
Semantics
=========
In this section, we give a definition of quantum alternation for open quantum systems and present a formal semantics for QPL with quantum control. We only define alternation with respect to a single qubit $q \tp \qbit$ and two branches. A formula for the general case can be easily obtained using the same techniques.
Let $\cH$, $\cK$, and $\cL$ be Hilbert spaces. A finite set $\cS$ of nonzero bounded operators from $\cH$ to $\cK$ defines a superoperator $T : S(\cH) \to S(\cK)$ by $$\label{eq:krauscondition}
T(\rho)
= \sum_{E \in \cS} E \rho E^\dagger
\qquad \text{if} \qquad \sum_{E \in \cS} E^\dagger E \le I.$$ We will refer to $\cS$ as a *decomposition of $T$* or, when the superoperator is implicit, as a *Kraus decomposition*. A well-known theorem of Kraus [@Kraus83] states that every superoperator has a decomposition, but this decomposition is never unique. Thus, two Kraus decompositions $\cS$ and $\cT$ are said to be *extensionally equal*, denoted $\cS \simeq \cT$, if the corresponding superoperators are equal. The empty set $\nil$ corresponds to the $0$ superoperator.
If $\cS \subset B(\cK, \cL)$ and $\cT \subset B(\cH, \cK)$ are Kraus decompositions, their *composition* $\cS \circ \cT$ is defined to be the set obtained from the multiset $\set{ E \circ F \mid E \in \cS, F \in \cT }$ by replacing $\ell$ occurences of a bounded operator $K$ with $\sqrt{\ell}K$ and removing any occurrence of the zero operator. Each Hilbert space $\cH$ with identity operator $I : \cH \to \cH$ determines a unique Kraus decomposition $\id_\cH = \set{I}$ which acts as the identity for composition. Thus, we can define a category $\mathbf{C}$ with Hilbert spaces $\cH, \cK$ as objects and Kraus decompositions $\cS \subset B(\cH, \cK)$ as morphisms $\cS : \cH \to \cK$. A statement in QPL will be interpreted as a morphism in $\mathbf{C}$.
We define the *quantum alternation* of two morphisms[^1] $\cS, \cT : \cH \to \cK$ to be the morphism $\cS \bullet \cT : \qbit \tensor \cH \to \qbit \tensor \cK$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\cS \bullet \cT
&= \set*{\Pi_0 \tensor \frac{E}{\sqrt{|\cT|}}
+ \Pi_1 \tensor \frac{F}{\sqrt{|\cS|}} \mid E \in \cS, F \in \cT}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the projections $\Pi_0$ and $\Pi_1$ are determined by the qubit $q \tp \qbit$ which is used in the alternation. It is easy to see that $\cS \bullet \cT$ satisfies condition (\[eq:krauscondition\]). Moreover, if $\cS = \set{U_0}$ and $\cT = \set{U_1}$ where $U_0$ and $U_1$ are unitary operators, then $\cS \bullet \cT$ defines the same superoperator as $\Alt_q(U_0, U_1)$. Indeed, the elements of $\cS \bullet \cT$ are of the form $\Alt_q(\hat{E}, \hat{F})$ where $$\hat{E}
= \frac{E}{\sqrt{|\cT|}}, \quad
\hat{F}
= \frac{F}{\sqrt{|\cS|}}, \quad \text{for $E \in \cS$ and $F \in \cT$}.$$ Thus, $\cS \bullet \cT$ can be understood operationally as randomly replacing a state $\rho$ with $K \rho K^\dagger/\tr(K \rho K^\dagger)$ with probability $\tr(K \rho K^\dagger)$ where $K$ is the “pure” quantum alternation $\Alt_q(\hat{E}, \hat{F})$.
We briefly recall the definition of the category $\mathbf{Q}$ associated to the superoperator semantics of QPL. A *signature* $\sigma$ is defined to be a tuple of positive integers $\sigma = (n_1, \ldots, n_s)$. If $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are signatures, then their concatenation $\sigma \oplus \tau$ and tensor product $\sigma \tensor \tau$ are also signatures. To each such $\sigma$, we associate a complex vector space $$V_\sigma = M(\CC, n_1) \times \ldots \times M(\CC, n_s),$$ where $M(\CC, k)$ denotes the vector space of $k \by k$ complex matrices. Clearly, $M(\CC, k) = B(\CC^k)$, so the elements of $V_\sigma$ are tuples of bounded operators. We define the trace of an element in $V_\sigma$ to be the sum of the traces of its components and say that an element of $V_\sigma$ is positive if all of its components are positive operators. Thus, a density operator in $V_\sigma$ is a positive element with trace at most $1$. The semantics of QPL, as defined in [@Selinger04], is given by the category $\mathbf{Q}$ whose objects are signatures $\sigma, \tau$ and whose morphisms are superoperators $T : V_\sigma \to V_\tau$.
A semantics for QPL with quantum control is obtained by replacing the morphisms of $\mathbf{Q}$ with Kraus decompositions. The resulting category is the category $\mathbf{C}$ defined above. We assign to each QPL primitive a Kraus decomposition and define the semantics of an arbitrary program by structural induction. Although the choice of Kraus decomposition for a primitive may be arbitrary, we will rely on the fact that the computational basis for $\qbit$ is the “preferred” basis and give Kraus decompositions which are particularly simple to express using $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$. For instance, let $\inj_0, \inj_1 : \sigma \to \sigma \oplus \sigma$ be the injections $\inj_0(\rho) = (\rho, 0)$ and $\inj_1(\rho) = (0, \rho)$. We can then define the semantics as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
&\semantics{P ; Q}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \tau
&&\quad= \semantics{Q} \circ \semantics{P} \\
&\semantics{\qplskip}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\id} \\
&\semantics{\newbit{b \define 0}}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \sigma \oplus \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\inj_0} \\
&\semantics{\newqbit{q \define 0}}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \qbit \tensor \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\ket{0} \tensor -} \\
&\semantics{\discard{q}}
&&\quad: \qbit \tensor \sigma \to \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\bra{0} \tensor \id,\, \bra{1} \tensor \id} \\
&\semantics{\qplmerge}
&&\quad: \sigma \oplus \sigma \to \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\inj_0^\dagger, \inj_1^\dagger} \\
&\semantics{\measure{q}}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \sigma \oplus \sigma
&&\quad= \set{\inj_0 \circ \Pi_0,\, \inj_1 \circ \Pi_1} \\
&\semantics{q \unitary U}
&&\quad: \sigma \to \sigma
&&\quad= \set{U} \\
&\semantics{\ifthenelse{q}{P}{Q}}
&&\quad: \qbit \tensor \sigma \to \qbit \tensor \tau
&&\quad= \semantics{P} \bullet \semantics{Q}\end{aligned}$$ The semantics defined above cannot be lifted to a semantics of superoperators, because quantum alternation does not preserve extensional equality. Indeed, the Kraus decompositions $\set{U_0} \bullet \set{V_0}$ and $\set{U_1} \bullet \set{V_1}$ are extensionally equal if and only if there exists a phase $\theta$ such that $U_0 = e^{i \theta} U_1$ and $V_0 = e^{i \theta} V_1$, so $\set{U_0} \bullet \set{V_0} \simeq \set{U_1} \bullet \set{V_1}$ may not hold even if $\set{U_0} \simeq \set{U_1}$ and $\set{V_0} \simeq \set{V_1}$. The failure of quantum alternation to preserve extensional equality shows that there is no compositional superoperator semantics which satisfies the definition of alternation given in the introduction. However, as the examples above and previous work [@Altenkirch05] [@Ying14] show, that particular definition of quantum alternation for closed quantum systems is the most intuitive and practical.
An important part of the superoperator semantics for QPL is the ability to define recursion. The category $\mathbf{Q}$ is CPO-enriched [@Selinger04], a fact which together with the $\oplus$ operation makes $\mathbf{Q}$ a *traced monoidal category*. Since each Kraus decomposition determines a unique superoperator, we can define an order on the Hom-sets of $\mathbf{C}$ using the order on the Hom-sets of $\mathbf{Q}$, viz. $\cS \sqsubseteq \cT$ if the relation holds for the corresponding superoperators. We can then try to adapt the situation to quantum alternation. But we have the following proposition.
Quantum alternation is not monotone with respect to the $\sqsubseteq$ order.
Let $\cH$ be the Hilbert space associated to a signature $\sigma$. Let $U$ and $V$ be two unitary operators on $\cH$ defining Kraus decompositions $\cS = \set{U}$ and $\cT = \set{V}$. Let $\rho$ be a state on $\qbit \tensor \cH$ defined by $$\rho =
\begin{bmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $B \not= 0$. Then $\cS \sqsubseteq \cS$ and $\nil \sqsubseteq \cT$, but $$(\cS \bullet \cT - \cS \bullet \nil)(\rho) =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & UBV^\dagger \\
VCU^\dagger & VDV^\dagger
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Recall that if a diagonal entry of a positive matrix is zero, then the corresponding row and column must be all zero. Since $UBV^\dagger \not= 0$, it follows that $(\cS \bullet \cT - \cS \bullet \nil)(\rho)$ is not positive. Therefore, $\cS \bullet \nil \not\sqsubseteq \cS \bullet \cT$, but $\cS \sqsubseteq \cS$ and $\nil \sqsubseteq \cT$.
This counter-example shows that quantum alternation is not compatible with the semantics for recursion defined in [@Selinger04]. Since a CP map $T$ is a pure operation $\rho \mapsto E \rho E^\dagger$ if and only if all operations completely dominated by it are its nonnegative multiples [@Raginsky03], it appears that the reversibility condition (III) makes quantum alternation fundamentally incompatible with the standard order on CP maps.
Quantum operations admit several equivalent representations based on the structure theory of CP maps [@Raginsky03]. Each representation illustrates a different aspect of the quantum operation. The rest of this section defines quantum alternation in terms of Stinespring representations. This alternative perspective will clarify the relation between our definition of alternation and that of [@Altenkirch05].
Let $T : S(\cH) \to S(\cK)$ be a superoperator. By Stinespring’s theorem, $T$ can be written as $T(\rho) = V^\dagger(\rho \tensor I_\cA)V$, where $\cA$ is a Hilbert space called the *ancilla* and $V : \cK \to \cH \tensor \cA$ is a bounded operator. The ancilla models the environment of the operation $T$. The pair $(\cA, V)$ is called a *Stinespring representation* of $T$. Stinespring’s theorem can be interpreted as saying that any quantum operation $T$ can be implemented as a pure operation on a larger Hilbert space. Given a Kraus decomposition $\cS$ defining a superoperator $T : S(\cH) \to S(\cK)$, a Stinespring representation of $T$ can be obtained from $\cS$ as follows. Let $\cA$ be a Hilbert space with basis $\set{\ket{E}}_{E \in \cS}$ and define $V : \cK \to \cH \tensor \cA$ by $$V \psi = \sum_{E \in \cS} E^\dagger \psi \tensor \ket{E}.$$ Then $(\cA, V)$ is a Stinespring representation of $T$. Conversely, a representation $(\cA, V)$ of $T$ with a fixed basis for $\cA$ determines a Kraus decomposition of $T$.
If $\cS$ and $\cT$ are Kraus decompositions, then there is a natural Stinespring representation for the superoperator determined by $\cS \bullet \cT$, viz. the pair $(\cE, W)$ defined by $\cE = \cA' \tensor \cA$ and $$W \psi
= \sum_{E \in \cS, F \in \cT} \Alt_q(\hat{E}, \hat{F})^\dagger \psi \tensor \ket{F} \tensor \ket{E},$$ where $\cA$ and $\cA'$ are the ancillas of the Stinespring representations determined by $\cS$ and $\cT$, respectively. Thus, the environment of the quantum alternation is the tensor product of the environments of the quantum operations involved.
Related Work
============
Altenkirch and Grattage [@Altenkirch05] defined QML, a quantum programming language with quantum control based on a new type of judgement called “orthogonality.” The denotational semantics for QML is based on expressing superoperators $T : S(\cA) \to S(\cB)$ in the form $T(\rho) = \Tr_\cG U (\rho \tensor \ketbra{\xi}{\xi}) U^\dagger$, where $\cH$ and $\cG$ are Hilbert spaces, $\xi \in \cH$ is a fixed unit vector, and $U : \cA \tensor \cH \to \cB \tensor \cG$ is an isometry. Defining the bounded operator $V : \cB \to \cA \tensor \cG$ by $V \psi = U(\psi \tensor \xi)$, we obtain an equivalent Stinespring representation $(\cG, V)$ of $T$. In QML, a *strict* morphism corresponds to a superoperator with $\dim \cG = 1$. Thus, strict morphisms correspond to singleton Kraus decompositions in our semantics, i.e. pure operations $\rho \mapsto E \rho E^\dagger$ with $E^\dagger E \le I$. Only strict morphisms may be alternated in QML. The alternation is further restricted by the orthogonality judgement, which is implemented by an incomplete set of introduction rules.
The work of Mingsheng Ying et al. [@Ying14] is very recent and closely related to ours, though their attitude is quite different. They also note that the superoperator semantics is not compositional, but they are content with this. They do not define a Kraus semantics as we do. However, our construction is essentially embedded inside their definition of their superoperator semantics. Perhaps, the right way to look at it is that we have both defined a Kraus semantics but they have gone on to give a superoperator semantics as an abstract interpretation of the Kraus semantics. In such a case it often happens that the resulting semantics is not compositional. The fact that quantum alternation is not monotone using the Löwer order is not noted by them. Ying has a different approach to recursion based on second quantization [@Ying14a] which seems to avoid the difficulties noted here but we do not understand it well enough to comment on it here. Certainly, combining recursion with quantum alternation will require some radically new idea.
Conclusion
==========
Superficially this may strike the reader as a very negative, or perhaps schizophrenic, paper. Certainly, we feel that quantum alternation as often casually discussed, is quite problematic and some fix based on type theory or syntactic control will not serve to make it meaningful. On the other hand we see this as the start of some new directions.
Quantum alternation is not really physically meaningful. Even if it is, it seems incompatible with recursion. Is there some crisp no-go theorem here? If so, what *is* meaningful? Ideally one should start from physical systems and develop a structural understanding from which linguistic entities should emerge. It seems to us that quantum alternation is a fantasy arising from programming language semantics rather than from physics. What we propose is that one should look closely at, say, quantum optics where devices like Mach-Zehnder interferometers [@Garrison08] provide physical situations that are reasonably viewed as alternation. Note that in MZ interferometers the system being split is the system on which the two alternate operations are applied; there is not a distinct control qubit.
On a more mathematical note one can question the arbitrariness of the Kraus semantics; different Kraus semantics correspond to the same operator so doesn’t that mean that the semantics is making unobservable distinctions? However, this is not the case. Different Kraus decompostions correspond to different choices of measurement that an experimenter may choose to make. In the standard paradigm, with classical control, the contexts provided by the language do not make these differences visible but in the enriched language they do.
One can still ask whether there is a canonical decomposition one can associate to a superoperator which can be used to define alternation. Indeed there is and it involves more sophisticated mathematics; we choose not to include it in this note. There is an operator-algebra analogue of the Radon-Nikodym theorem due to Belavkin [@Belavkin86] and, independently, Arverson [@Arveson69]. Given two CP maps $S$ and $T$ with $S \sqsubseteq T$, it gives a representation of $S$ in terms of a chosen minimal Stinespring representation of $T$ and a positive operator $\mathsf{D}_T(S)$, the Radon-Nykodim derivative of $S$ with respect to $T$. Now there is a map, the tracial map, which can be proven to dominate any CP map from $\cB(\cH)$ to $\cB(\cK)$. This gives a canonical decomposition of an arbitrary CP map; we have worked out a denotational semantics of the language with quantum alternation based on this approach. The trouble, and the reason we have not included it here, is that the physical significance of this semantics is unclear to us.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Panangaden would like to thank Mingsheng Ying for discussions allowing us to understand the relationship between our semantics for quantum alternation. He would also like to thank Vincent Danos who was present at the discussion and made several insightful remarks sprinkled with some interesting non sequiturs. We thank the referees for their comments. We have both been supported by NSERC. Bădescu has also been supported by a scholarship by FQRNT. Panangaden acknowledges the generous support of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics, during his stay in Beijing.
[^1]: This equation also appears in [@Ying14].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R.A. Laing, J.R. Canvin, W.D.Cotton, A.H. Bridle'
- 'P. Parma'
date: 'Received; accepted; published online'
title: 'Faraday rotation variations along radio jets: the magnetic field in galaxy and group halos'
---
Introduction
============
In our models of FRI radio jets as relativistic flows (Laing, Canvin & Bridle 2006), the observed differences in brightness and linear polarization between the jets close to the nucleus are produced by relativistic aberration and Doppler beaming and we can determine the inclination, $\theta$. Given that we know the geometry and the external density profile (from X-ray observations), imaging of Faraday rotation measure (RM) can determine the distribution of magnetic-field irregularities in the surrounding hot plasma. In this paper, we summarize our RM imaging for two sources: 3C31 (Laing & Bridle 2002) and NGC315 (Canvin et al. 2005).
3C31
====
3C31 is an FRI radio galaxy at a redshift of 0.0169 (0.344 kpc/arcsec for H$_0$ = 70 kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$). Our models of the inner jets give an inclination of $\theta = 52^\circ$. Our RM image, derived from 6-frequency observations between 1.365 and 8.4GHz, is shown in Fig. \[fig:3c31\](a), with an $I$ image at the same resolution for comparison in Fig. \[fig:3c31\](b). The ${\bf E}$-vector position angle is accurately proportional to $\lambda^2$ everywhere, indicating foreground rotation. There is structure in the RM image on a range of spatial scales from 5 to $>$50arcsec and the RM fluctuations are higher by a factor of 2 – 3 on the counter-jet side (Fig. \[fig:3c31\]c and d). There is a small amount of depolarization on the counter-jet side. We estimate this by making a first-order linear approximation to the variation of degree of polarization, $p$, with $\lambda^2$: $p(\lambda^2)/p(0) \approx 1 + [p^\prime(0)/p(0)]\lambda^2$ (Fig. \[fig:3c31\]e). We model the thermal X-ray emission as the sum of two components: one associated with the galaxy (core radius $r_c =$ 3.6arcsec), the second with the surrounding group, with $r_c =$ 154arcsec (Hardcastle et al. 2002). The Faraday rotation variations are therefore plausibly associated with the group component. Applying the model described by Laing et al. (2006), we can estimate the central magnetic field strength: $B_0$/nT $\approx$ 0.9(l/kpc)$^{-1/2}$, where $l$ is the correlation length of the field.
NGC315
======
The giant FRI radio galaxy NGC315 is at a redshift of 0.01648 (0.335 kpc/arcsec). We infer an angle to the line of sight of 38$^\circ$ (Canvin et al. 2005). Our RM images, derived from 5-frequency observations in the range 1.365 - 5GHz, are shown in Fig. \[fig:ngc315\], together with profiles along the jet axis. The mean RM and a linear gradient along the jet are almost certainly Galactic. After removing these components, we detect RM fluctuations on scales of 10 – 100arcsec, but the typical amplitudes are only $\approx$2radm$^{-2}$ (Fig. \[fig:ngc315\]e and f). The thermal X-ray emission from NGC315 has a very small core radius, $r_c = 1.55$arcsec (Worrall, Birkinshaw & Hardcastle 2003). No X-ray emission has yet been detected from the galaxy group associated with NGC315 (Miller et al. 2002), but the small amplitude of the RM fluctuations and the fact that they are larger for the receding jet are both consistent with an origin in a tenuous group gas component with a scale size $\approx$200arcsec. As we do not know the density of this component, we can only constrain the product $(n_0/{\rm m}^{-3})^2
(B_0/{\rm nT})^2 (l/{\rm kpc}) \approx 700$, where $n_0$ is the central density of the group component and $B_0$ and $l$ are again the central field strength and correlation length, respectively (Laing et al. 2006).
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We thank Corina Vogt, Klaus Dolag and Greg Taylor for the use of their RM software.
Canvin, J.R., Laing, R.A., Bridle, A.H., Cotton, W.D.: 2005, MNRAS 363, 1223 Dolag, K., Vogt, C., Enßlin, T.A.: 2005, MNRAS 358, 726 Fanaroff, B.L., Riley, J.M.: 1974: MNRAS 161, 31P Hardcastle, M.J., Worrall, D.M., Birkinshaw, M., Laing, R.A., Bridle, A.H.: 2002, MNRAS 334, 182 Laing, R.A., Bridle, A.H.: 2002, MNRAS 336, 328 Laing, R.A., Canvin, J.R., Bridle, A.H.: 2006, AN (these proceedings) Laing, R.A., Canvin, J.R., Cotton, W.D., Bridle, A.H.: 2006, MNRAS, in press Miller, N.A., Ledlow, M.J., Owen, F.N., Hill, J.M.: 2002, AJ, 123, 3018 Worrall, D.M., Hardcastle, M.J., Birkinshaw, M.: 2003, MNRAS 343, L73
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dvali and Shifman have proposed a field-theoretic mechanism for localizing gauge fields to “branes" in higher dimensional spaces using confinement in a bulk gauge theory. The resulting objects have a number of qualitative features in common with string theory D-branes; they support a gauge field and flux strings can end on them. In this letter, we explore this analogy further, by considering what happens when $N$ of these “branes" approach each other. Unlike in the case of D-branes, we find a [*reduction*]{} of the gauge symmetry as the “branes" overlap. This can be attributed to a tachyonic instability of the flux string stretching between the branes.'
---
epsf.tex \#1\#2
December 1, 1998 SLAC-PUB-8020\
hep-th/9812010\
.6in
[**Field Theoretic Branes and Tachyons of the QCD String**]{} 0.4in
Nima Arkani-Hamed and Martin Schmaltz
.2in [*SLAC, Stanford University,\
Stanford, California 94309, USA*]{}
.6in
Recently, Dvali and Shifman have considered the possibility of trapping gauge fields on $p$-branes with $p<3$ using confining dynamics in a bulk 3+1-dimensional gauge theory [@Gia]. These field theoretic branes are very interesting as their higher dimensional generalizations can be used to construct extensions of the standard model with extra dimensions. In such models gravity and possibly some other fields propagate in higher dimensional space-time whereas the standard model matter and gauge forces are confined to (3+1) dimensional branes [@ADD; @extraD]. Apart from these potential phenomenological applications field theoretic $p$-branes also provide a very interesting background for studying the interplay of dynamics in various dimensions. We are particularly intrigued by some obvious similarities between these branes and D-branes [@joe] in string theory: apart from supporting a gauge field in their world-volume, field theoretic branes also allow color flux-strings to end on them [@schif]. The aim of this letter is to further explore the analogy between these branes in field theory and in string theory. More concretely, after reviewing the construction of Dvali and Shifman and giving some simple generalizations, we consider what happens when $N$ of these walls are brought on top of each other. From the analogy with D-branes one expects that modes of the QCD flux-string become light and contribute to the effective $p$ dimensional world-volume field theory. In the case of D-branes the lightest modes are spin-1 fields (and their superpartners), and the $U(1)^N$ gauge symmetry of $N$ widely separated D-branes gets enhanced to $U(N)$. In the case of the QCD string the masses of low-lying vibrational modes decrease as \[mass\] m L \^2 when the length $L$ of a long flux tube is reduced. However which modes of the QCD string become light for small $L$ turns out to be different. We will argue from consistency of the $(2+1)$ dimensional low energy field theory on the branes that the lightest such mode is not a spin-1 field. Instead we find a scalar whose mass squared is positive for long stretched strings but becomes negative for very small $L \sim \Lambda^{-1}$ where eq.\[mass\] breaks down. Thus for very small separation the scalar condenses and [*reduces*]{} the gauge symmetry of the effective field theory on the branes. This understanding of the reduction of gauge symmetry as branes are brought in contact with each other from both a macroscopic effective (2+1)-d theory as well as from a microscopic (3+1)-d picture with QCD strings is our central result. As a bonus we also find that field theoretic branes can be connected by multi-pronged flux tubes corresponding to “baryonic” QCD strings.
To get started we first review the argument of Dvali and Shifman [@Gia] and give a simple generalization before moving on to consider what happens when $N$ of these walls are brought on top of each other.
In the construction of our walls we will frequently assume that a gauge group is broken in some region of space but not in others. We will also have use for matter fields which are very massive in the bulk but light on the walls. In the discussion we will assume that these effects have been arranged by coupling the theory to a “black box” containing appropriate very massive neutral and charged scalars with space dependent vacuum expectation values[^1].
For simplicity, we first attempt to localize a $U(1)$ gauge field to a region ${\cal W}$ in 3+1 dimensional space between $0<z<l$, which on distances much larger than $l$ would look like a 2+1 dimensional wall supporting a $U(1)$ gauge field.
The most obvious idea is to arrange for the $U(1)$ to be broken outside ${\cal W}$ giving the photon a mass $M >>l^{-1}$, but unbroken inside ${\cal W}$. Then, since the photon is massive outside ${\cal W}$ but massless inside, one may think that there is a massless electric photon in the $(2+1)$-d theory at long distances. This is not the case. To understand this, note that the region outside ${\cal W}$ is superconducting while the region inside is normal vacuum. Now place an electric test charge inside ${\cal W}$ and examine the field strength at another point in ${\cal W}$ a distance $r >> l$ away; if there is a massless photon in the long-distance theory, we should have a $(2+1)$-d Coulomb field in this regime.
=1.9in
Since the region outside is a conductor, however, the electric field lines emanating from the test charge must end on and be perpendicular to the boundary of ${\cal W}$, whereas in order to obtain a $2+1$ dimensional force law these field lines would have to be repelled from the boundary. We can solve for the electric field using the method of images, with an infinite number of image charges of alternating signs. Clearly all the multipole moments vanish for such a configuration, and we are left with an exponentially small field for $r >>l$. Therefore, we conclude that there are no fields lighter than the ultraviolet cutoff $l^{-1}$ of the (2+1)-d theory, coupling to electric charge. It is very easy to see (as we show in detail in the appendix) that instead, there is a tower of [*massive*]{} gauge fields with masses quantized in units of $l^{-1}$.
This failure suggests the correct way to proceed, however. Suppose that we instead place a magnetic charge $g$ inside ${\cal W}$. Now, because of the Meissner effect in the superconducting region, all the magnetic flux lines are repelled from the boundaries and we recover the $(2+1)$-d magnetic Coulomb law. A trivial application of Gauss’ law yields the relationship between the effective $(2+1)$-d magnetic charge $g_3$ and $g$: = l
Of course, we actually want to localize electric photons on the wall, this can be accomplished by the ‘t Hooft-Mandelstam dual of this superconducting picture. Suppose that we begin with a $(3+1)-d$ $SU(2)$ gauge theory, which is broken to a $U(1)$ inside ${\cal
W}$ by a very massive scalar in the adjoint representation of $SU(2)$. The bulk theory is confining at the scale $\Lambda$ which we take to be $>> l^{-1}$, whereas the the $U(1)$ inside ${\cal W}$ is free. If we now place an electric test charge inside ${\cal
W}$, confinement expels the electric field lines from the bulk due to the dual Meissner effect, and we recover the $(2+1)$-d Coulomb law for the electric field. This successfully localizes a $U(1)$ gauge field to a $(2+1)$-d wall in a $(3+1)$-d bulk.
There are obvious generalizations of this idea. Suppose we have an $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory with $N_F >> N_C$ flavors, which are given a very large mass outside ${\cal W}$ but are massless inside. Then the outside theory is asymptotically free and confines. The theory inside the region $\cal W$ is infrared free at distances short compared to the wall thickness $l$ where the coupling evolves according to the $(3+1)$-d renormalization group equation. But at length scales long compared to $l$ the theory on the wall is $(2+1)$-dimensional and the coupling evolves according to the $(2+1)$-d renormalization group equation. At the UV cutoff $l^{-1}$ of the low energy theory the (2+1)-d gauge coupling is matched to the higher dimensional coupling as g\^2\_3(= l\^[-1]{}) = By the same argument as for the $U(1)$ case above, this localizes an $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory on the $(2+1)$ dimensional wall. Notice that unlike the $U(1)$ case, this (2+1)-d theory also confines; however the confinement scale is $\sim g^2_3$ which can be much smaller than the cutoff $l^{-1}$ if $g^2_4$ is small. This is easy to arrange since the 3+1-d theory inside ${\cal W}$ can have a small gauge coupling at its UV cutoff and gets (logarithmically) weaker as it is scaled into the IR towards $\mu =
l^{-1}$. Therefore, there is a range of energies $g^2_4/l < E
<1/l$ where we can have an unconfined (2+1)-d $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory. In this manner it is possible to engineer a large variety of field theoretic branes with different gauge theories living on them.
What happens if we move an electric charge from the wall into the confining bulk [@schif]? The confinement tries to expel the electric field lines, but since a net flux of electric field must be present at large distances by Gauss’ law, a string of electric flux forms between the charge in the bulk and the wall as in figure 2. Thus, these walls have a second qualitative feature in common with D-branes: strings can end on them [^2].
=2.in
We now explore this analogy with D-branes further by considering what happens when we bring two or more of these walls close together. For concreteness, let us take a case with $SU(2)$ Higgsed to a $U(1)$ in two regions ${\cal W}_1 = -l_1 < z < 0$ and ${\cal W}_2 = d < z < d + l_2$. Let us first consider the case where the walls are very well separated $d >> l_1,l_2$. Then at distances longer than $l_{1,2}$ we have two $(2+1)$-d walls with two separate $U(1)'s$ localized on them. To see that there are really two $U(1)'s$, simply note that the electric field lines emanating from a charge on ${\cal W}_1$ can never end on a charge in ${\cal W}_2$ because of the confining region separating them. Let us further simplify our description by working in the effective theory at distances $>> d$, where the separation between the walls cannot be discerned. This is then a $(2+1)-$d theory with a $U(1) \times U(1)$ gauge group. For the case of $N$ well-separated walls, this very long distance theory has a $U(1)^N$ gauge symmetry.
Next consider the opposite extreme when two walls are sitting very close to each other $d << 1/\Lambda < l_{1,2}$. At long distances this case is indistinguishable from having just one wall with thickness $(l_1 + l_2)$, and we only localize a single $U(1)$ gauge field in the very long distance theory. Therefore, as the walls are brought close together, the long-distance theory sees a ${\it reduction}$ of the gauge symmetry from $U(1) \times U(1)$ to $U(1)$. This is opposite to the D-brane case, where the gauge symmetry gets enhanced from $U(1) \times U(1) \to U(2)$. Nevertheless, as we will see below, the physics of the two situations is very similar.
Let us first try to understand what is going on purely in the long-distance theory. As the parameter $d$ in the theory is varied, we go from having a $U(1) \times U(1)$ symmetry for $d >> l_{1,2}$ to just a $U(1)$ symmetry for $d=0$. The most plausible interpretation is that the $U(1) \times U(1)$ symmetry is Higgsed somewhere in the transition where $d \sim \Lambda$. Since neither of the walls is special, we expect that $U(1) \times U(1)$ must be broken to the diagonal $U(1)$. This satisfies an interesting consistency check. From the microscopic viewpoint, when the walls merge to give a new wall of thickness $(l_1 + l_2)$, the (2+1)-d coupling of the single $U(1)$ should be = On the other hand, the gauge coupling determined by Higgsing $U(1) \times
U(1)$ to the diagonal subgroup is = + = + as required.
Therefore, purely from considerations of the very low-energy theory, we conclude that some new state becomes light when $d \sim \Lambda$, and acquires a condensate to spontaneously break $U(1)_1 \times U(1)_2 \to U(1)_{diag}$. The condensate must of course be a Lorentz scalar, and must be charged under both $U(1)'s$ to break to the diagonal subgroup. The simplest possibility is that as $d$ is reduced and becomes smaller than $\sim \Lambda$ a scalar field $\phi^{+,-}$ of charge $(+,-)$ under $U(1)_1 \times U(1)_2$ becomes light and then tachyonic, triggering the non-zero condensate $\langle \phi^{+,-}
\rangle$.
We stress that the existence of such a condensate was deduced by the requirement of a consistent low-energy effective theory. But we can easily identify a natural candidate for $\phi^{+,-}$ in the microscopic theory. For $d >> l$, there is a stable configuration corresponding to the QCD string stretching between the walls as shown in figure 3.
=3.in
One can imagine forming this string as follows. Place very heavy test quarks $q,\bar{q}$ inside the confining medium between the walls; a QCD string of confined color electric flux will stretch between them. Now, move $q (\bar{q})$ until it is just inside region ${\cal W}_{1(2)}$. This will cost a great deal of energy $\sim \Lambda^2 d$, but the resulting string is stable: it can not break since there are no dynamical quark states to pop out of the vacuum. Once $q,\bar{q}$ are inside their respective walls, they are no longer in a confining medium and can be moved off to large distances [^3]. The resulting configuration is just a flux tube with field lines coming in from infinity on ${\cal W}_1$, through the tube and back out to infinity on ${\cal W}_2$ (see figure 3). Note that an observer on ${\cal W}_1$ sees this as a state of charge $+1$ under $U(1)_1$, while his friend on ${\cal W}_2$ measures this same state to have charge $-1$ under $U(1)_2$.
Thus at least for $ d >> \Lambda$, we have identified a stable state $\phi^{+,-}$, the lowest scalar vibrational mode of the QCD string stretching between the walls, with the quantum numbers we are after. Furthermore, it is clear that for large $d$ the mass of this mode decreases as $\Lambda^2 d$ as the walls are brought closer. It is now tempting to speculate that as the walls come very close together, this state gets lighter and lighter until it becomes tachyonic somewhere around $d \sim \Lambda$ and condenses. In other words, we imagine that the mass for $\phi$ as a function of $d$ has the form m\^2\_(d) = - c\_0 \^2 + c\_1 (\^2 d)\^2 where $c_0,c_1$ are $O(1)$ constants. The contribution proportional to $c_1$ has a classical origin and dominates when the string is long, while the first term reflects a (presumably quantum-mechanical) tachyonic instability of the unstretched QCD string. Of course, since the flux tube has a thickness $O(\Lambda)$, in the interesting region it is as long as it is thick so a “string" picture is necessarily heuristic. In terms of the microscopic $(3+1)$-d description the condensate of the tachyonic scalar can be understood as a spontaneous deconfinement transition of the QCD vacuum between the two walls due to a condensate of flux tubes.
It is amusing that while the end result of bringing these “branes" together is very different from the case of bringing D-branes together, the physics has a similar interpretation: the strings stretching between the branes become light and donate their lowest excitations to the effective theory. In the case of D-branes, the lowest-lying excitations of open strings contain gauge fields which enhance the gauge symmetry. On the other hand, our flux-strings have no massless gauge fields so there is no enhancement of gauge symmetry. Instead, the lightest excitation that is donated is tachyonic and further breaks the gauge group! It is also interesting that the tachyonic instability of the QCD string here does not imply that the theory is sick and should be discarded; it simply means that the correct vacuum, where the strings have condensed, must be chosen.
Before we move on note that we can obtain some information about the dynamics of flux tubes by simply translating $(2+1)$ dimensional results into our microscopic description. For example, the fact that the $(2+1)$-d $U(1) \times U(1)$ theory confines tells us that flux tubes in our picture are confined. A stable finite energy configuration is a spinning bound state of two flux tubes of opposite flux. In the case of large wall separation when the flux tubes are long and heavy, this is a non-relativistic bound state but as we tune the distance between the two walls such that the scalar mode $\phi^{+,-}$ becomes light the bound state becomes non-relativistic. It is amusing that these “bound states” of flux are spinning closed flux-strings which overlap both walls.
We will not discuss at length an obvious generalization to $N$ walls with flux tubes stretching between any pair of neighboring walls. These strings are charged under neighboring $U(1)$ and donate the necessary scalar fields to break $U(1)^N \rightarrow U(1)_{diag}$ as all $N$ walls are merged.
Instead, we cannot resist the temptation to describe an interesting generalization with strings corresponding to baryons of the confined gauge theory in the bulk. First note that the above construction of domain walls with trapped gauge fields generalizes to branes of dimension $(1+1)$. To construct such a “string” or “1-brane” consider a patch $\cal W$ in the $y-z$ plane where the bulk non-abelian gauge group is broken to $U(1)$ as depicted in figure 4.
=2.in
Again, the bulk non-abelian gauge theory is chosen to confine at distances $\Lambda^{-1}$ taken to be much shorter than the square root of the area $A$ of $\cal W$. This traps a $(1+1)$ dimensional $U(1)$ gauge theory with gauge coupling $g_2^2\sim g_4^2/A$ on the string. Given two such 1-branes with areas $A_{1,2}$ and associated $U(1)$ gauge theories one can consider bringing the two 1-branes in contact. Again, the low energy theory sees a reduction of the gauge group from $U(1)\times U(1)$ to $U(1)_{diag}$ with the interpretation of Higgsing of the gauge group via a scalar which becomes light and tachyonic as the two regions are brought within distances of order $\Lambda^{-1}$. Evidence for this interpretation is the matching of $U(1)$ couplings which in this case reads = = + = + . Just as in the case of domain walls a QCD string connecting $A_1$ with $A_2$ has the correct quantum numbers to supply this scalar.
Consider now a situation with a confining gauge group $SU(N)$ in the bulk and $N$ patches with roughly equal areas $A_i$ for ${i=1,..,N}$ on which the running of the $SU(N)$ coupling has been slowed down. (For example, this could be arranged by adding matter fields in the adjoint representation of $SU(N)$ which have very large masses in the bulk but are light on the 1-branes.) Then the four dimensional gauge coupling remains small on the $N$ patches, and below the matching scale $\mu \sim A_i^{-1/2}$ the long distance physics is described by a $(1+1)$ dimensional $SU(N)^N$ gauge theory. As before we can create flux tubes connecting any pair of the various 1-branes by placing a pair of heavy test quarks $q$ and $\bar{q}$ in the confined bulk, pulling them apart to form a flux string and then moving the two quarks in two separate regions $A_i$ and $A_j$. After removal of the test quarks we are left with a flux tube which transforms in the fundamental representation of $SU(N)_i$ and an antifundamental of $SU(N)_j$.
What happens if we start with $N$ test quarks in a color singlet state corresponding to a baryon of the $SU(N)$ bulk gauge group? We can now move each of the test quarks into a different one of the patches $A_i$; the flux tubes from each of these quarks meet at a common junction in the bulk where $N$ units of flux combine into a color singlet. After removal of the test quarks we are left with a baryonic $N$-pronged flux tube connecting the $N$ regions as in figure 5.
=2.in
This baryonic string is stable and has a mass of order $N \Lambda^2$ times the characteristic distance between the various patches. In the low energy effective $SU(N)^N$ theory its lowest vibrational mode would be described by a massive field which transforms in the fundamental representation of each of the $SU(N)$’s. As we bring all of the $N$ patches close together, the baryonic string as well as all the “mesonic” strings become light. As we bring the 1-branes very close to each other we expect a condensate of strings which deconfines the vacuum in the region between the 1-branes, causing them to merge. In the long distance theory this is described by a condensate of scalars which breaks $SU(N)^N \rightarrow SU(N)$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Michael Peskin and Eva Silverstein for discussions. Our work is supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix we formalize the conclusions regarding the trapping massless electric or magnetic photons in the theory where a $U(1)$ gauge field is higgsed away from ${\cal W}$ but is unbroken inside ${\cal W}$. Let us consider formally the limit where $M l \to \infty$, so that the photon outside is really infinitely heavy. The $U(1)$ then really only exists inside ${\cal W}$; with a Lagrangian given by = d\^3 x \_[-l/2]{}\^[l/2]{} dz F\^ F\_. This just looks like the compactification of a $U(1)$ gauge theory from $4 \to 3$ dimensions on an interval of length $l$. However, the spectrum of the theory at energies beneath the compactification scale $l^{-1}$ depends crucially on the boundary conditions imposed on $F^{\mu \nu}$ at $z=+l/2,-l/2$. This is because massless states in the low energy theory must be zero modes in the $z$ direction, and are therefore sensitive to the boundary conditions, which may or may not eliminate them. In the present case, the region outside the wall is superconducting, so the appropriate boundary conditions are that the electric field is perpendicular to the wall (true for any conductor) and that the magnetic field is parallel to the wall (which is only true for a superconductor); that is E\_x=E\_y=0,B\_z=0 which can be written more covariantly as F\^[ab]{} = 0, a,b=t,x,y. This makes it clear that a massless photon coupling to electric charge is not present in the low energy theory, it is projected out of the usual Kaluza-Klein spectrum by the boundary conditions. The usual KK scalar, corresponding to $F^{a3}$, remains in the massless spectrum, but does not couple to electric charge. Rather, a massless magnetic photon has been trapped. Indeed, the boundary conditions can also be written as \^[a3]{} = 0 which leaves the zero mode of $\tilde{F}^{ab}$ in the massless spectrum. This of course works because in $(2+1)$ dimensions, a scalar is dual to a vector field.
Of course in both cases, we also have a tower of massive states. This follows from the standard Kaluza-Klein analysis with the boundary conditions appropriately imposed. But we can also see it in another way. Let us generalize to the case of an $n$ dimensional wall of thickness $l$ in an $n+1$ dimensional space. Let $\vec x$ be the $n$-dimensional coordinates, and $y$ the $n+1$’th coordinate. Placing an electric charge at the origin, let us compute the electric potential at the point $\vec x,y=0$ on the wall. We can enforce the boundary conditions by placing an infinite sequence of image charges of charge $(-1)^q$ at $\vec x=0,y=q l$. The potential is then V(x) = \_[q = -]{}\^[+]{} \[pot\] where we have used the expression for the $(n+1)$ dimensional Coulomb potential in terms of its Fourier transform. If we now use the familiar Poisson resummation identity \_[q=-]{}\^ e\^[i q ]{} = 2 \_[s = -]{}\^ (- 2 s) we can perform the integral over $k'$, leaving V(x) = \_[s = -]{}\^ . Note that the integrand is just the $n$-dimensional Yukawa potential for a field of mass $2 \pi/l \times (s+1/2)$. Therefore, we have shown that the potential can be expressed in terms of a sum over a tower of $n$ dimensional massive states. If we instead place a magnetic charge at the origin, an infinite sequence of magnetic image charges of the [*same*]{} sign enforce the boundary condition, and the $\pi q$ term in eqn.(\[pot\]) disappears. Therefore, the potential is due to a sum over $n$ dimensional massive fields of mass $2 \pi /l \times s$, which for $s=0$ includes the massless magnetic photon we expect in this case.
[Phys. Lett. B ]{}\#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**B\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Z. Phys.* ]{}[**C\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}\#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Rev. Mod. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rep.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} [Phys. Rev. D ]{}\#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**D\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} [Nucl. Phys. B ]{}\#1\#2\#3[[*Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**B\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Mod. Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*JETP Lett.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Acta Phys. Polon.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Riv. Nuovo Cim.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Ann. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Prog. Theor. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{}
[99]{}
G. Dvali and M. Shifman, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[396]{}[97]{}[64]{}, Erratum [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[407]{}[97]{}[452]{}, hep-th/9612128.
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[429]{}[98]{}[263]{} and hep-ph/9807344; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[436]{}[98]{}[257]{}.
I. Antoniadis, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[246]{}[90]{}[377]{}; P. Horava and E. Witten, [Nucl. Phys. B ]{}[460]{}[96]{}[506]{}; J.D. Lykken, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}[54]{}[96]{}[3693]{}; Keith R. Dienes, Emilian Dudas, Tony Gherghetta, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[436]{}[98]{}[55]{}; R. Sundrum, hep-ph/9805471 and hep-ph/9807348; A. Pomarol and M. Quiros, [Phys. Lett. B ]{}[438]{}[98]{}[255]{}.
J. Polchinski, “TASI Lectures on D-branes”, hep-th/9611050.
I.I. Kogan, A. Kovner and M. Shifman, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}[57]{}[98]{}[5195]{}, hep-th/9712046.
S. Carroll and M. Trodden, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}[57]{}[98]{}[5189]{}, hep-th/9711099.
E. Witten, [Nucl. Phys. B ]{}[507]{}[97]{}[658]{}, hep-th/9706109.
G. Dvali and Z. Kakushadze, hep-th/9807140.
V. S. Kaplunovsky, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, hep-th/9811195.
[^1]: An example of such a black box can be found in [@Gia].
[^2]: Note that our electric flux strings ending on a wall of unconfined gauge field are the electric-magnetic dual to cosmic strings (with their associated magnetic flux) ending on a domain wall of unbroken gauge field as described for example in [@sean]. The microscopic physics allowing strings to end on domain walls here is different from the physics allowing strings to end on domain walls in $N=1$ supersymmetric QCD [@MQCD; @Gia2]. For a recent discussion of domain walls in softly broken $N=2$ SUSY gauge theories, see [@Kapl].
[^3]: Of course since the $(2+1)$-dimensional theory is itself confining at much longer distances, the energy to move $q,\bar{q}$ to infinity diverges logarithmically in the IR.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Chicherin'
- 'and E. Sokatchev'
title: 'A note on four-point correlators of half-BPS operators in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM'
---
0
Introduction
============
In the paper [@Vieira:2013wya], which generalizes the results of [@Escobedo:2010xs; @Gromov:2012vu] to the non-compact case, the three-point correlators of two half-BPS operators and one unprotected operator in the $SL(2)$ sector were studied in the one-loop approximation. A conjecture was made, based on integrability, for the values of the corresponding structure constants. It was successfully confronted with the available perturbative results on the structure constants. In the absence of direct calculations of the relevant three-point correlators with unprotected operators, use was made of the OPE of the two-loop four-point correlators of half-BPS operators, which produces sum rules for the structure constants. At the time when the paper [@Vieira:2013wya] was written, only results on four-point correlators of equal weights were available [@Arutyunov:2003ad]. They allow one to test only sum rules that contain the squares of the structure constants. In order to perform a more detailed test of the integrability conjecture it is preferable to study more general sum rules where products of two different structure constants appear. These can be obtained from two-loop four-point correlators of half-BPS operators of [*different*]{} weights. Here we present the calculation of one such correlator whose OPE gives rise to non-symmetric sum rules. Our result has already been communicated to the authors of [@Vieira:2013wya] who used it and found perfect agreement with their integrability prediction.
Our aim is to find the two-loop approximation to the correlator \_[ = 4]{} = \^[(2)]{}(x\_1,Y\_1) \^[(3)]{}(x\_2,Y\_2) \^[(3)]{}(x\_3,Y\_3) \^[(4)]{}(x\_4,Y\_4) of four half-BPS operators of weight $k$ defined by $$\mathcal{O}^{(k)} = Y_{I_1} \cdots Y_{I_k} \mathrm{Tr}\left( \Phi^{I_1} \cdots \Phi^{I_k} \right).$$ Here $\Phi^{I}, I = 1, \cdots, 6$ are the six real scalars of $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM and $Y_{I}$ denotes an $SO(6)\sim SU(4)$ null vector, $(Y_i \cdot Y_i) = 0$ with $(Y_i \cdot Y_j) = (Y_j \cdot Y_i) = Y_i^{I} Y^{I}_{j}$. These auxiliary variables help us to keep track of the R symmetry indices. For our purposes it is more convenient to parametrize them by unconstrained complex $2\times 2$ matrices $y_{a'}^{\;a}$ (with $a = 1,2$, $a' = 1',2'$) transforming under the subgroup $SU(2)\times SU(2)' \subset SU(4)$. In these terms $(Y_i \cdot Y_j)= (y_i-y_j)^2 \equiv y_{ij}^2$ with $y^2 = - \half y_{a'}^{\;a} y^{a'}_{\;a}$. $\mathcal{N} = 4$ superconformal symmetry imposes restrictions on the form of the quantum corrections to the four-point correlators of half-BPS operators [@Eden:2000bk; @Arutyunov:2003ae]. For example, in the best known case of operators of weight $k=2$, which are the lowest components of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ stress-tensor multiplet, the correlator takes the general form \^[(2)]{}(x\_1,Y\_1) \^[(2)]{}(x\_2,Y\_2) \^[(2)]{}(x\_3,Y\_3) \^[(2)]{}(x\_4,Y\_4) = () + R\_[=4]{} G(u,v). The loop corrections are encoded in the single function $G(u,v)=\sum_{n \geq 1}
\lambda^{n} G_{n} (u,v)$ of the two conformal cross-ratios $$u = \frac{x_{12}^2 x_{34}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2} \;\; , \;\;
v = \frac{x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2}\,.$$ This function is expanded in powers of the gauge coupling constant $g$ (or the ‘t Hooft coupling $\lambda = \frac{N g^2}{16 \pi^2}$). The quantum correction part of [(\[stm4\])]{} is characterized by the universal prefactor $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R}
R_{\mathcal{N}=4} = u \frac{y_{12}^4 y_{34}^4}{x_{12}^4 x_{34}^4} + \frac{y_{13}^4 y_{24}^4}{x_{13}^4 x_{24}^4}
+ v \frac{y_{14}^4 y_{23}^4}{x_{14}^4 x_{23}^4} + (v - u - 1) \frac{y_{12}^2 y_{13}^2 y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2} + \notag\\
+ (1-u-v) \frac{y_{12}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{34}^2}
+ (u - v - 1) \frac{y_{13}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{24}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{24}^2}\end{aligned}$$ which supplies the necessary R symmetry and conformal weights at the four points. The non-trivial part of the correlator that cannot be fixed by symmetry alone is encoded in the functions $G_{n}$. In a generic correlator of four half-BPS operators of different weights $\langle \mathcal{O}^{(k_1)} \,\mathcal{O}^{(k_2)}\, \mathcal{O}^{(k_3)}\, \mathcal{O}^{(k_4)} \rangle$ (with $k_i \geq2$), one needs an additional product of propagators behind the universal prefactor [(\[R\])]{} to supply the missing weights at each point. Due to the specific weight configuration in [(\[corN4\])]{} there exists only one such propagator structure with additional weights $(0,1,1,2)$. Consequently, the correlator [(\[corN4\])]{} involves a single function of the cross-ratios in full analogy with [(\[stm4\])]{}, \_[=4]{} = () + R\_[=4]{} \_[n 1]{} \^[n]{} G\_[n]{} (u,v).
The result of this paper is the evaluation of the one- and two-loop contributions to [(\[GN4qc\])]{}. Together with the Born approximation, they take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mbox{Born level}) & = \frac{9\,\mathcal{C}_N}{4(2\pi)^{12}}\frac{y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2}
\left[ \frac{1}{2}\frac{y_{14}^4 y_{23}^4}{x_{14}^4 x_{23}^4} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{y_{12}^2 y_{13}^2 y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2} + \frac{y_{12}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{34}^2}
+ \frac{y_{13}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{24}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{24}^2} \right] \notag\\
G_{1} & = -\frac{9\, \mathcal{C}_N}{4(2\pi)^{12}} \,\Phi^{(1)}(u,v) \label{answer1}\\
G_{2} & = \frac{9\, \mathcal{C}_N}{4(2\pi)^{12}}
\biggl[ \frac{v}{2} \bigl[\Phi^{(1)}(u,v)\bigr]^2 + \Phi^{(2)}(u,v) + \frac{1}{u} \Phi^{(2)}(1/u,v/u) +
\frac{2}{v} \Phi^{(2)}(u/v,1/v)\biggr] \label{answer2}\end{aligned}$$ with the color factor $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CN}
\mathcal{C}_N = (N^2-1)(N^2-4)(N^2-6)/N^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ The functions $\Phi^{(1)}$, $\Phi^{(2)}$ correspond to the so-called one- and two-loop ladder integrals. Their explicit expressions in terms of polylogarithms can be found in [@Usyukina:1992jd; @Usyukina:1993ch]. One can easily see that the crossing symmetry $2 \rightleftarrows 3$ is respected. In order to check the correctness of our two-loop calculation we performed its OPE and compared it with known data on the anomalous dimensions. The lowest dimension representation of $SU(4)$ in the overlap of the OPEs of the operators $\mathcal{O}^{(2)} \mathcal{O}^{(4)}$ and $\mathcal{O}^{(3)} \mathcal{O}^{(3)}$ is $[0,2,0]$. The twist $2$ operators in this channel are protected. Thus we have to consider the contribution of the twist $4$ scalar unprotected operators $\Theta_{\pm}$ whose anomalous dimensions were calculated in [@Bianchi:2002rw]. Their values are in full agreement with the OPE of [(\[corN4\])]{}. Another powerful check, as already mentioned, is the confirmation of the integrability prediction in [@Vieira:2013wya].
We find a similar result for the single-parameter family of correlators with $k \geq 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N} = 4} = \langle \mathcal{O}^{(2)}(x_1,Y_1) \,\mathcal{O}^{(k+2)}(x_2,Y_2)\,
\mathcal{O}^{(k+2)}(x_3,Y_3)\, \mathcal{O}^{(2k+2)}(x_4,Y_4) \rangle\,, \notag\end{aligned}$$ which is slight generalization of [(\[corN4\])]{}. This is a subset of the two-parameter family of correlators satisfying the next-next-to-extremality condition which has been considered in [@Uruchurtu:2011wh] at strong coupling[^1]. Like in [(\[corN4\])]{}, its quantum corrections are encoded by a single function of the cross-ratios, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N}=4} =
(\mbox{Born level}) + R_{\mathcal{N}=4} \left(\frac{y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2}\right)^k
\sum_{n \geq 1}
\lambda^{n} G_{n} (u,v)\,. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Setting $k=1$ we get back to [(\[corN4\])]{} and [(\[GN4qc\])]{}. The calculation of this correlator essentially repeats that of [(\[corN4\])]{}, so here we just quote the two-loop result in the leading color limit $N \to \infty$. In the Born approximation we have for $k \geq 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\mbox{Born level}) = \frac{4 N^{n+k}}{(8\pi^2)^{(n+k+2)}} (k+1)(k+2)^2
\left(\frac{y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2}\right)^k \left[ 2k \frac{y_{14}^4 y_{23}^4}{x_{14}^4 x_{23}^4} +
\frac{y_{12}^2 y_{13}^2 y_{24}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2 x_{34}^2} + \right. \notag\\
\left. +
(k+1) \frac{y_{12}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{34}^2}{x_{12}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{34}^2}
+ (k+1) \frac{y_{13}^2 y_{14}^2 y_{23}^2 y_{24}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{24}^2} + k\frac{y_{13}^4 y_{24}^4}{x_{13}^4 x_{24}^4}
+ k\frac{y_{12}^4 y_{34}^4}{x_{12}^4 x_{34}^4} \right]\,, \notag
\notag\end{aligned}$$ while for $k = 1$ the last two terms should be omitted. The functional forms of the one- and two-loop corrections $G_1$ [(\[answer1\])]{} and $G_2$ [(\[answer2\])]{} are unchanged, only the normalization factor is different, $$\begin{aligned}
G_1, G_2:\ \ \frac{9\, \mathcal{C}_N}{4(2\pi)^{12}}\ \to\ \frac{8 (k+1) (k+2)^2 N^{2k+2}}{(8\pi^2)^{2k+4}} \,. \notag\end{aligned}$$ The case $k = 0$ is special since the weights at all four points are equal and the correlator has full crossing symmetry. The answer for $k = 0$ can be found for example in [@Arutyunov:2003ad].
In the rest of this note we sketch some details of our perturbative calculation based on harmonic superspace Feynman rules.
Calculation in $\mathcal{N} = 2$ harmonic superspace
====================================================
Reduction $\mathcal{N}= 4 \to \mathcal{N} = 2$
----------------------------------------------
The $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM theory can be formulated in terms of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ SYM multiplet and $\mathcal{N}=2$ hypermultiplet matter, S\_[=4 ]{} = S\_[=2 ]{} + S\_ . The formulation in $\mathcal{N}=2$ harmonic superspace (HSS) [@Galperin:1984av; @Galperin:2001uw] is completely off shell. This fact considerably facilitates the Feynman graph calculation using HSS supergraph techniques in combination with the Lagrangian insertion procedure [@Howe:1999hz; @Eden:2000mv] and the superconformal symmetry restrictions on the quantum corrections. For a recent review of the method the reader is referred to Appendix A in [@Eden:2010zz].
The evaluation of the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ correlator [(\[corN4\])]{} is reduced to the calculation of the quantum corrections to the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ correlator \_[ = 2]{} = \^[(2)]{}(x\_1,u\_1) \^[(3)]{}(x\_2,u\_2) \^[(3)]{}(x\_3,u\_3) \^[(4)]{}(x\_4,u\_4) , \^[(k)]{} = (q\^[+]{})\^k , \^[(k)]{} = (\^[+]{})\^k where the half-BPS composite operators are constructed out of hypermultiplet matter. The $\mathcal{N}=2$ hypermultiplet is described by a Grassmann analytic superfield on HSS with coordinates $x^{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}_A,\theta^{+\alpha},\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\alpha}},u^{\pm i}$, where the harmonic variables $u^{\pm i}$ form a matrix of $SU(2)$, $$|| u || \in SU(2) \;\;,\;\; u^{+i}u_{i}^{-} = 1 \;\;,\;\; \overline{u^{+i}} = u_{i}^{-} = \epsilon_{ij} u^{-j}$$ and $x_A^{\alpha\dot{\alpha}} = x^{\alpha\dot{\alpha}} - 4 i \theta^{\alpha (i} \bar{\theta}^{\dot{\alpha}j)} u^{+}_i u^{-}_j$. The harmonics transform under global $SU(2)$ (index $i=1,2$) and local $U(1)$ (weight $\pm 1$), thus they parametrize the harmonic coset $SU(2)/U(1) \sim S^2$. Grassmann analyticity means that only half of the Grassmann variables $\theta^{i \alpha}$, $\bar{\theta}^{i \dot{\alpha}}$ are involved, namely the harmonic projections $\theta^{+\alpha}=u^{+}_i \theta^{i\alpha}$, $\bar{\theta}^{+\dot{\alpha}}=u^{+}_i \bar{\theta}^{i\dot{\alpha}}$. The on-shell hypermultiplet consists of an $SU(2)$ doublet of scalars $\phi^{i}(x)$ and singlet fermions $\psi_{\alpha},\bar{\kappa}^{\dot{\alpha}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HM}
q^{+}(x_A,\theta^{+},\bar{\theta}^{+},u) = \phi^{i}(x_A) u_{i}^{+} + \theta^{+\alpha}\psi_{\alpha}(x_A)
+ \bar{\theta}^{+}_{\dot{\alpha}}\bar{\kappa}^{\dot\alpha}(x_A)
+ 4 i \theta^{+} \sigma^{\mu} \bar{\theta}^{+} \dd_{\mu} \phi^{i}(x_A) u^{-}_{i}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the physical fields $\phi^i,\psi, \bar\kappa$ satisfy their free equations of motion. The HM can be lifted off shell by allowing it to depend on the harmonics in an arbitrary way, after which it becomes possible to write down an off-shell action [@Galperin:1984av; @Galperin:2001uw]. The HM $q^{+}$ in [(\[HM\])]{} is complex and $\widetilde{q}^{+}(x_A,\theta^{+},\bar{\theta}^{+},u)$ is its conjugate with the same analyticity.
The composite gauge-invariant operators in [(\[corN2\])]{} are half-BPS in the sense that they depend on half of the Grassmann variables, $\mathcal{Q}^{(k)}(x_A, \theta^{+},\bar{\theta}^{+}, u)$ and $\mathcal{\tilde Q}^{(k)}(x_A, \theta^{+},\bar{\theta}^{+}, u)$, just like their constituents $q^{+}$ and $\widetilde{q}^{+}$. In this paper we are interested in the four-point correlator [(\[corN2\])]{} of their lowest components at $\theta= \bar{\theta}= 0$. Nevertheless, as we explain below, the supersymmetric Feynman graph formalism that we use requires keeping track of the dependence on the chiral $\theta^+_\alpha$.
The other ingredient in the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ formulation of ${\mathcal{N}}=4$ SYM is the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ gauge multiplet. It is described by a chiral superfield (together with its antichiral conjugate) with the on-shell content $$\begin{aligned}
\label{211}
W(x,\theta) = \varphi(x) + \theta^\alpha_i \lambda^i_\alpha(x) + \epsilon^{ij}\theta^\alpha_i \theta^\beta_j F_{\alpha\beta}(x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ including a complex scalar $\varphi$, an $SU(2)$ doublet of chiral fermions $\lambda$ and the chiral (self-dual) half of the gauge field strength $F$.
Like in the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ case, the quantum corrections to the correlator in [(\[corN2\])]{} have the following partially non-renormalized form [@Eden:2000bk] \[29\] \_[ = 2]{} = () + R\_[=2]{} G(u,v) with the universal prefactor R\_[=2]{} = u + + (v-u-1) . We denote the contractions of a pair of $SU(2)$ harmonics [(both having weight $+1$)]{} referring to points $1$ and $2$ as follows $$(12) = - (21) = u^{+i}_{1} \epsilon_{ij} u^{+j}_2\,.$$ Note that each term in [(\[R2\])]{} has uniform harmonic and conformal weights $+2$ at each point. The prefactor in the quantum correction part in [(\[29\])]{} supplies the additional weights needed for the correlator [(\[corN2\])]{}.
It is important to realize that the loop correction function $G(u,v)$ in the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ correlator [(\[29\])]{} is exactly the same as in the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ one [(\[GN4qc\])]{}. This can be shown by a reduction $\mathcal{N}= 4 \to \mathcal{N} = 2$, as explained in [@Arutyunov:2002fh; @Arutyunov:2003ae] in terms of harmonics and in [@Eden:2011ku] using $y$-variables. Here we resort to the latter formalism. The field strength multiplet $\mathcal{W}_{\mathcal{N} = 4}$ is reduced to its $\mathcal{N} = 2$ projections, the chiral field strength multiplet $W(x,\theta)$ and the analytic HMs $q^+, \tilde q^+$, by means of the $SU(4)$ raising operators $D_{a}^{a'}$: $D_{a}^{a'} y_{b'}^{\;b} = \delta^{b}_{a} \delta^{a'}_{b'}$. After acting with it on $\mathcal{W}_{\mathcal{N} = 4}$, we set $y^{\;1}_{1'},y^{\;1}_{2'},y^{\;2}_{2'} \to 0$, $y^{\;2}_{1'} \to \mathbf{y}$, thus reducing the $SU(4)$ harmonics to $SU(2)$ harmonics $(1,\mathbf{y}) = u^{+}_i$. The HMs are identified with the following projections: $\mathcal{W}_{\mathcal{N} = 4} \ \to \ q^+$, $D_{1}^{2'}\mathcal{W}_{\mathcal{N} = 4} \ \to \ \tilde q^+$ while the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ field strength is given by $D_{1}^{1'}\mathcal{W}_{\mathcal{N} = 4} \ \to \ W$. In this way we obtain [(\[29\])]{} as a particular projection of [(\[GN4qc\])]{}, $$\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N} = 2} = \frac{1}{48}\bigl( D_{1}^{2'} |_1 \bigr)^2 \bigl( D_{1}^{2'} |_4 \bigr)^4 \; \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N} = 4} \,.$$ One can easily check that this differential operator reduces the prefactor $ R_{\mathcal{N}=4}$ to $ R_{\mathcal{N}=2}$.
We chose the particular projection [(\[corN2\])]{} since it is related in a very simple way to the full $\mathcal{N} = 4$ correlator [(\[corN4\])]{} we are interested in. Indeed, in order to reconstruct $\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N} = 4}$ in [(\[corN4\])]{} from $\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{N} = 2}$ in [(\[corN2\])]{}, we simply replace $R_{\mathcal{N} = 2}$ by $R_{\mathcal{N} = 4}$ and substitute the contractions of $SU(2)$ harmonics by $SO(6)$ harmonics, keeping the same loop correction function $G(u,v)$. Moreover, as we show below, due to the particular choice of $\mathcal{N} = 2$ half-BPS operators in [(\[corN2\])]{} the number of relevant topologies of the contributing Feynman diagrams is rather small, so this projection can be calculated quite easily.
Lagrangian insertion and Feynman rules
--------------------------------------
We calculate the quantum corrections to the correlator by means of the Lagrangian insertion procedure [@Howe:1999hz; @Eden:2000mv]. Here we give a brief outline. Consider the four-point correlator of some operators $\mathcal{O}(x,u)$ (not necessarily the same) = (1) (2) (3) (4) = () + g\^2\_[1-loop]{} + g\^4\_[2-loop]{} + . The first quantum correction $\mathcal{G}_{\rm 1-loop}$ is given by the derivative ${\dd\,\mathcal{G}}/{\dd \,g^2}|_{g=0}$. After rescaling the gauge and matter superfields in the $\mathcal{N} = 4$ action by the gauge coupling constant $g$, the latter appears only in front of the chiral gauge filed strength $W(x,\theta^{i\alpha})$ in the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SYM Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{N}=2 \;\mathrm{SYM}} = \frac{1}{4g^2} \mathrm{Tr} \,W^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ The differentiation with respect to $g^2$ in the path integral brings down an insertion of the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SYM action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{216}
S_{\mathcal{N}=2 \;\mathrm{SYM}} =
\int d^4 x d^4\theta \,\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{N}=2 \;\mathrm{SYM}}(x,\theta) \,,\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain = - d\^4 x\_5 d\^4 \_5 (1) (2) (3) (4) \_[=2 ]{}(x\_5,\_5). This means that the one-loop correction in [(\[corr\])]{} is given by the five-point correlator in [(\[insert\])]{} calculated at Born level and integrated over the insertion point $x_5, \theta_5$. This correlator is itself $\sim g^2$, therefore we can safely set $g=0$ in [(\[insert\])]{} to obtain $\mathcal{G}_{\rm 1-loop}$. In the same way the double differentiation of [(\[corr\])]{} results in a double Lagrangian insertion, still calculated at Born level and integrated over the two insertion points. This gives the second quantum correction $\mathcal{G}_{\rm 2-loop}$.
We remark that the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SYM filed strength $W$ carries R charge[^2] $+2$ in units in which the R charge of the chiral Grassmann variable $\theta_\alpha$ equals $+1$, so that the action [(\[216\])]{} is chargeless. On the other hand, the HM has no R charge, therefore the five-point correlator with the Lagrangian insertion in [(\[insert\])]{} has R charge $+4$. We conclude that the five-point correlator in [(\[insert\])]{} must be nilpotent, $\sim \theta^4_5$. So, although we are interested in the bosonic four-point correlator [(\[corr\])]{} (i.e. the lowest component of a super-correlator), the insertion formula requires a nontrivial dependence on the chiral Grassmann variables. At the same time, we can set all antichiral $\bar\theta=0$.
As we explain below, in our perturbative calculation up to order $g^4$ the gauge part of the action [(\[action\])]{} manifest itself solely as insertion points in the Feynman diagrams. The gauge self-interaction is not relevant at this order. The HM action $S_{\mathrm{HM}}$ in [(\[action\])]{} gives rise to the matter propagator and the gauge-matter interaction vertex.
The hypermultiplet propagator in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $SU(N)$,[^3] evaluated at $\bar\theta=0$, takes the following very simple form:
[c]{}
= \^[+]{}\_a( x\_1 , \^[+]{}\_1,0,u\_1) q\^[+]{}\_b ( x\_2 , \^[+]{}\_2,0,u\_2) = \_[ab]{}. It consists of an ordinary scalar propagator $1/x^2_{12}$ and a harmonic factor $(12)$ which keeps track of the isodoublet indices of the scalar fields. Another basic building block in the Feynman graphs is the Born level three-point function of two analytic hypermultiplet superfields and one chiral superfield strength, the so-called $\mathrm{T}$-block. It is a rational function of the superspace coordinates calculated in [@Eden:2000mv]. For our purposes we will need it only at $\bar{\theta}^{+}_{1,2} = 0$ and $u_1^{\pm} = u_2^{\pm}$, which simplifies it significantly, \^[abc]{}\_[152]{} = \^[+]{}\_a(1) W\_b(5) q\^[+]{}\_c(2) \_[u\_1=u\_2]{} =
[c]{}
= - where $\rho^{\dot\alpha}_r = \bigl(\theta^i_{5} (u_r)^{+}_i - \theta^{+}_r \bigr)_{\alpha} \left(x_{5r}^{-1}\right)^{\alpha \dot\alpha}$. As remarked above, this object carries the R charge $+2$ of the chiral field strength $W$, therefore it is nilpotent, $\sim \theta^2$.
One loop
--------
In order to obtain the one-loop correction to the four-point correlator we apply the insertion formula once, so we need to calculate the Born level five-point correlator \^\_[g\^2]{} = \^[(2)]{}\_1 \^[(3)]{}\_2 \^[(3)]{}\_3 \^[(4)]{}\_4 W\_5\^2 \_ = (42)(43) \_[5]{} G\_[g\^2]{}(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3,x\_4,x\_5) at $\bar{\theta}_5 = 0$. The presence of the nilpotent invariant \_[5]{} = \_5\^4 x\_[12]{}\^2 x\_[34]{}\^2 x\_[13]{}\^4 x\_[24]{}\^4 + is a corollary of ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ superconformal symmetry [@Eden:2000mv]. It carries harmonic weights $+2$ at each point and R charge $+4$. The harmonic prefactor $(42)(43)$ completes the harmonic weights to $+2,+3,+3,+4$ at points $1,2,3,4$, respectively.
We point out an important property of the correlator [(\[Gg2\])]{}: it involves only harmonics $u^+_i$ with positive harmonic weight. This follows from one of the defining properties of the half-BPS operators $\mathcal{Q}^{(k)}(x,u)$, namely, they must be polynomials in $u^+_i$ of degree $k$. This property is called H-analyticity and reflects the fact that the operators are described by finite-dimensional representations of the R symmetry group.
The relevant Feynman diagrams can be obtained from three types of free matter line frames depicted in figure \[Fig1\] by inserting an additional chiral vertex $1/g^2 \,\mathrm{Tr} W^2(5)$ and connecting it with the frame lines by gauge/matter interactions [(\[Tblock\])]{}. An example is shown in eq. [(\[fig\])]{} below.
------ ------ ------
(F1) (F2) (F3)
------ ------ ------
We wish to simplify the Feynman graph calculation as much as possible. The general form of the correlator [(\[Gg2\])]{} with a single Lagrangian insertion suggests to partially identify the harmonics, u\^\_1 = u\^\_2 , u\^\_3 = u\^\_4. As a result, the nilpotent invariant [(\[theta5\])]{} simplifies significantly, $$\Theta_{5}|_{u^{\pm}_1 = u^{\pm}_2 , u^{\pm}_3 = u^{\pm}_4} = (13)^2 (\rho_1 - \rho_2)^2 (\rho_3 - \rho_4)^2\,.$$ However, such an identification would also make the harmonic prefactor in [(\[Gg2\])]{} vanish. Indeed, the diagram in [(\[fig\])]{} has an extra free matter line $\sim (34) \to 0$ (see [(\[hmp\])]{}). We have to be more cautious. Following [@Arutyunov:2003ad], we first pull the harmonic prefactor $(42)(43)$ out of the diagrams and only afterwards perform the identification [(\[hequal\])]{}. In [(\[Gg2\])]{} this corresponds to factoring out the free matter lines 2-4 and 3-4 prior to the identification. Note that we cannot impose further restrictions on the harmonics, otherwise either $\Theta_{5}$ or the harmonic prefactor in [(\[Gg2\])]{} will vanish. After the separation of the harmonic prefactor $(42)(43)$ coming from the free hypermultiplet lines [(\[hmp\])]{}, we have to insert the gauge/matter interaction vertices into the remaining lines connecting the pairs of outer points 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. This prevents the diagram with the topology (F1) from vanishing upon the identification [(\[hequal\])]{}. The second topology (F2) involves an extra free line 3-4, so it does not contribute. The last topology (F3), after the insertion of the gauge/matter vertices, vanishes for color reasons.
So, the unique contribution, coming from the diagram with topology (F1), takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fig}
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[width =3 cm]{p6.eps}
\end{array} \sim (42)(43) \times (13)(42) \mathrm{T}_{453} \mathrm{T}_{152} \,.\end{aligned}$$ It contains the required harmonic prefactor from [(\[Gg2\])]{}. The identification [(\[hequal\])]{} in the rest of the diagram immediately reproduces the nilpotent invariant $\Theta_5$, $(13)(42) \mathrm{T}_{453} \mathrm{T}_{152} \to - (13)^2 (\rho_1 -\rho_2)^2 (\rho_3 -\rho_4)^2 = -\Theta_5$. Thus the calculation is almost trivial. We just need to take into account the color and symmetric factors to obtain $$G_{g^2} = \frac{9g^2\mathcal{C}_N N}{(2\pi)^{16}}\frac{1}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^4 x_{34}^4}$$ with $\mathcal{C}_N$ defined in [(\[CN\])]{}.
Finally, we apply the insertion formula \_[g\^2]{}= - \^4 x\_5 \^4 \_5 \^\_[g\^2]{}. The Grassmann integration in [(\[5ins\])]{} picks out the first term of the nilpotent invariant [(\[theta5\])]{}, and the $x$-space integration produces the standard one-loop ladder integral $\Phi^{(1)}(u,v)$, as stated in [(\[answer1\])]{}.
In the calculation above we retained only the Feynman diagrams that contribute to the correlator after the identification of harmonics. However, the calculation can also be performed without this identification. In that case one has to deal with a number of auxiliary Feynman diagrams which involve harmonics $u^{-}$ as well. According to the general form [(\[Gg2\])]{} of the five-point nilpotent correlator and the underlying property of H-analyticity, the harmonics $u^{-}$ must drop out after summing up all diagrams. As a check, one can carry out the complete calculation and track the cancellation of the harmonics $u^{-}$ in the sum.
Two loops
---------
According to the insertion procedure, the two-loop correction to the four-point correlator is expressed through the Born-level six-point correlator with two $\mathcal{N} = 2$ SYM Lagrangian insertions, \^\_[g\^4]{} = \^[(2)]{}\_1 \^[(3)]{}\_2 \^[(3)]{}\_3 \^[(4)]{}\_4 W\_5\^2 W\_6\^2 \_ = (42)(43) \_[5,6]{} G\_[g\^4]{}(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3,x\_4,x\_5,x\_6) at $\bar{\theta}_5 = \bar{\theta}_6 = 0$. The new nilpotent invariant $\Theta_{5,6}$ is again a corollary of ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ conformal supersymmetry [@Eden:2000mv]. It has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Theta56}
\Theta_{5,6} = \Big[ \theta_5^4 \theta^4_6 \, x_{12}^2 x_{34}^2 x_{13}^4 x_{24}^4 R_{\mathcal{N}=2}
+\ldots + \left(\theta^{+}_1\right)^2 \left(\theta^{+}_2\right)^2
\left(\theta^{+}_3\right)^2 \left(\theta^{+}_4\right)^2 x_{56}^4 \Big] \frac{x_{56}^4}{\prod_{i=1}^4 x_{i5}^2 x_{i6}^2} \end{aligned}$$ and carries harmonic weights $+2$ at each point and R charge $+8$. The harmonic prefactor $(42)(43)$ completes the harmonic weights to $+2,+3,+3,+4$ at points $1,2,3,4$, respectively. The dynamical information is contained in the conformally covariant function of the six $x$-space coordinates $G_{g^4}$.
We are interested in the first component of $\Theta_{5,6}\sim \theta^4_5 \theta^4_6 + \ldots $ needed for the integration over the insertion points. However, in order to simplify the Feynman graph calculation it proves convenient to first choose the frame $\theta_5 = \theta_6=0$ in which the invariant [(\[Theta56\])]{} is reduced to its last component. The advantage of this frame is that the analytic $\theta^+$ in the last term carry harmonic weight $+2$ at each point. The remaining weights are supplied by the explicit harmonics prefactor $(42)(43)$ in [(\[Gg4\])]{}. Then it becomes possible to identify three pairs of harmonics, $u^{\pm}_1 = u^{\pm}_2 = u^{\pm}_3$. We can do even better, as we did in the one-loop case, by first pulling the residual prefactor $(42)^2$ out of each Feynman diagram. After that we are allowed to set all the harmonics equal, u\^\_1 = u\^\_2 = u\^\_3 = u\^\_4. Indeed, neither the harmonic-independent function $G_{g^2}$ nor the invariant $\Theta_{5,6}$ vanish after this identification. This enables us to considerably reduce the number of diagrams we need to deal with. Indeed, each free HM line (i.e. a propagator without an insertion of the gauge interaction vertex) connecting a pair of external points $i$ and $j$ is proportional to $(ij)$, see [(\[hmp\])]{}. Thus all diagrams with three or more free HM lines left vanish after the identification of all harmonics [(\[allhequal\])]{}, so we discard them and consider only diagrams with no more than two free lines, which give rise to the harmonic prefactor $(42)^2$. Then we note that the diagrams with subgrahps like $$\begin{array}{c}\includegraphics[width =3.5 cm]{TT.eps}\end{array} = \mathrm{T}_{453} \mathrm{T}_{453} \sim (\rho_3 -\rho_4)^4 = 0$$ vanish due to the odd nature of $\rho^{\dot\alpha}$. We arrive at the set of relevant Feynman diagrams with non-vanishing color factors depicted in figure \[Fig2\].
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
They are constructed out of $\mathrm{T}$-blocks [(\[Tblock\])]{} inserted in the mater line frames (F1), (F2), (F3) and their nontrivial contributions are equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&(A) = \rho_2^2\sigma_3^2 \tau_{14} \;\; , \;\; (B) = \rho_1^2 \sigma_3^2 \tau_{24} \;\;,\;\;
(C) = \rho_1^2 \sigma_2^2 \sigma_3^2 \rho_4^2 + \sigma_1^2 \rho_2^2 \rho_3^2 \sigma_4^2
+ 16 (\sigma_1 \sigma_2)(\rho_1 \rho_3) (\rho_2 \rho_4) (\sigma_3 \sigma_4) \;\;,\\
&(D) = \rho_1^2 \sigma_4^2 \tau_{23} \;\;,\;\; (E) = \tau_{12} \tau_{34}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ denotes the analog of $\rho$ for the second insertion point $6$, $\sigma^{\dot\alpha}_r = \bigl(\theta^{i}_{6} (u_r)^{+}_{i} - \theta^{+}_r \bigr)_{\alpha} \left(x_{6r}^{-1}\right)^{\alpha \dot\alpha} $, and the shorthand notation $
\tau_{rs} = \rho_r^2 \sigma_s^2 + \rho_s^2 \sigma_r^2 + 4 (\rho_r \rho_s) (\sigma_r \sigma_s)$ is used. Here we do not display the overall factor ${(2g)^4}/{(2\pi)^{20}}$ coming from the $\mathrm{T}$-blocks [(\[Tblock\])]{} and the HM propagators, as well as the propagator factors $\frac{1}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^4 x_{34}^4}$ in diagrams (A), (B), (C), (D) and $\frac{1}{x_{12}^4 x_{24}^2 x_{34}^6}$ in diagram (E). Let us also recall that we omit the harmonic prefactor $(42)^2$ which we singled out before the identification [(\[allhequal\])]{}.
The symmetry and color factors for the above diagrams are as follows: $$\mathcal{C}_A = \mathcal{C}_D = \frac{9}{2}\mathcal{C}_N N^2 \;\;,\;\;
- \mathcal{C}_B = \mathcal{C}_C = \mathcal{C}_E = \frac{9}{4}\mathcal{C}_N N^2 $$ with $\mathcal{C}_N$ defined in [(\[CN\])]{}. The color factors come from contractions of the color tensors $$\mathrm{Tr} ( t_{(a} \,t_{b)}) \;\; ,\;\; \mathrm{Tr} ( t_{(a} \,t_{b\vphantom{b)}} \,t_{c)}) \;\;,\;\;
\mathrm{Tr} ( t_{(a} \,t_{b\vphantom{b)}} \,t_{c\vphantom{c)}} \, t_{d)})$$ appearing in the external vertices, with each other and with the antisymmetric structure constants $f_{abc}$ from the $\mathrm{T}$-blocks [(\[Tblock\])]{}.
We also need to take into account the crossing symmetry of the correlator under the permutation of the external points $2 \rightleftarrows 3$ and of the insertion points $5 \rightleftarrows 6$. The latter corresponds to the exchange $\rho \rightleftarrows \sigma$. Thus we add to the list of diagrams $\text{(E)}_{2 \rightleftarrows 3}$, and $\rho \rightleftarrows \sigma$ for (A),(B),$\text{(B)}_{2 \rightleftarrows 3}$,(C) and (D). It is evident that the permutations do not alter the color and symmetry factors.
Then we sum up the contributions of all diagrams and make use of the identities (in the frame $\theta_5=\theta_6=0$) $$\rho_r^2 = \frac{(\theta^{+}_r)^2}{x_{r5}^2} \;\;,\;\; \sigma_r^2 = \frac{(\theta^{+}_r)^2}{x_{r6}^2} \;\; ,\;\;
\tau_{rs} = \frac{x_{rs}^2 x_{56}^2 (\theta^{+}_r)^2 (\theta^{+}_s)^2 }{x_{r5}^2 x_{r6}^2 x_{s5}^2 x_{s6}^2}$$ that enable us to explicitly identify the invariant $\Theta_{5,6}$ [(\[Theta56\])]{} in the expression for the two-loop correction to the correlator [(\[Gg4\])]{}. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
G_{g^4} = \frac{36 g^4 \mathcal{C}_N N^2}{(2 \pi)^{20}}\frac{1}{x_{12}^2 x_{13}^2 x_{24}^4 x_{34}^4}\frac{1}{x_{56}^6}
\Bigl[ x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2 x_{56}^2 + x_{12}^2 (x_{35}^2 x_{46}^2 + x_{36}^2 x_{45}^2) + x_{13}^2 (x_{25}^2 x_{46}^2 + x_{26}^2 x_{45}^2) + \\ +
x_{14}^2 (x_{25}^2 x_{36}^2 + x_{26}^2 x_{35}^2) + x_{23}^2 (x_{15}^2 x_{46}^2 + x_{16}^2 x_{45}^2) \Bigr]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, in order to apply the double insertion formula $$\mathcal{G}_{g^4}= - \frac{1}{32} \int \mathrm{d}^4 x_5 \mathrm{d}^4 \theta_5 \int \mathrm{d}^4 x_6 \mathrm{d}^4 \theta_6\
\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{ins}}_{g^4}$$ we switch the invariant $\Theta_{5,6}$ [(\[Theta56\])]{} back to the frame $\theta^{+}_{1,2,3,4} = 0$. The $x$-space integrations give rise to the square of the one-loop ladder integral the and the two-loop ladder integrals from [@Usyukina:1992jd], as announced in [(\[answer2\])]{}.
Let us note that we applied the tricks of identification of the harmonics just in order to perform the calculation in a concise way. We could have kept all the harmonics different but this results in a proliferation of Feynman diagrams. Some of them are constructed not only out of simple $\mathrm{T}$-blocks [(\[Tblock\])]{} but also of the so-called double $\mathrm{T}$-blocks. Moreover, each individual Feynman diagram depends on a number of harmonics $u^{-}$ that cancel out in the sum of all diagrams since the correlator has to respect H-analyticity at each perturbative order. The cancellation of the harmonics $u^{-}$ is a rather nontrivial property that partially fixes the relative numerical factors of the various diagrams and serves as a reliable check of the calculation.
E.S. acknowledges a discussion with Pedro Vieira which stimulated this work. We are grateful to the authors of Ref. [@Vieira:2013wya] for exchanging with us prior to publication. The work of D.C. has been supported by the “Investissements d’avenir, Labex ENIGMASS”. He was partially supported by the RFBR grant 14-01-00341.
[99]{}
P. Vieira and T. Wang, “Tailoring Non-Compact Spin Chains,” arXiv:1311.6404 \[hep-th\].
J. Escobedo, N. Gromov, A. Sever and P. Vieira, JHEP [**1109**]{} (2011) 028 \[arXiv:1012.2475 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Gromov and P. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{} (2013) 21, 211601 \[arXiv:1202.4103 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Arutyunov, S. Penati, A. Santambrogio and E. Sokatchev, “Four point correlators of BPS operators in N=4 SYM at order g\*\*4,” Nucl. Phys. B [**670**]{} (2003) 103 \[hep-th/0305060\].
B. Eden, A. C. Petkou, C. Schubert and E. Sokatchev, “Partial nonrenormalization of the stress tensor four point function in N=4 SYM and AdS / CFT,” Nucl. Phys. B [**607**]{} (2001) 191 \[hep-th/0009106\].
G. Arutyunov and E. Sokatchev, “On a large N degeneracy in N=4 SYM and the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B [**663**]{} (2003) 163 \[hep-th/0301058\].
N. I. Usyukina and A. I. Davydychev, “An Approach to the evaluation of three and four point ladder diagrams,” Phys. Lett. B [**298**]{} (1993) 363. N. I. Usyukina and A. I. Davydychev, “Exact results for three and four point ladder diagrams with an arbitrary number of rungs,” Phys. Lett. B [**305**]{} (1993) 136.
M. Bianchi, B. Eden, G. Rossi and Y. S. Stanev, “On operator mixing in N=4 SYM,” Nucl. Phys. B [**646**]{} (2002) 69 \[hep-th/0205321\].
L. I. Uruchurtu, “Next-next-to-extremal Four Point Functions of N=4 1/2 BPS Operators in the AdS/CFT Correspondence,” JHEP [**1108**]{} (2011) 133 \[arXiv:1106.0630 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Galperin, E. Ivanov, S. Kalitsyn, V. Ogievetsky and E. Sokatchev, “Unconstrained N=2 Matter, Yang-Mills and Supergravity Theories in Harmonic Superspace,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**1**]{} (1984) 469 \[Corrigendum ibid. [**2**]{} (1985) 127\]. A. S. Galperin, E. A. Ivanov, V. I. Ogievetsky and E. S. Sokatchev, “Harmonic superspace,” Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2001) 306 p P. S. Howe, C. Schubert, E. Sokatchev and P. C. West, “Explicit construction of nilpotent covariants in N=4 SYM,” Nucl. Phys. B [**571**]{} (2000) 71 \[hep-th/9910011\]. B. Eden, C. Schubert and E. Sokatchev, “Three loop four point correlator in N=4 SYM,” Phys. Lett. B [**482**]{} (2000) 309 \[hep-th/0003096\]; B. Eden, C. Schubert and E. Sokatchev, unpublished (2000).
B. Eden, G. P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev, “From correlation functions to scattering amplitudes,” JHEP [**1112**]{} (2011) 002 \[arXiv:1007.3246 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Arutyunov, F. A. Dolan, H. Osborn and E. Sokatchev, “Correlation functions and massive Kaluza-Klein modes in the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B [**665**]{} (2003) 273 \[hep-th/0212116\].
B. Eden, P. Heslop, G. P. Korchemsky and E. Sokatchev, “The super-correlator/super-amplitude duality: Part II,” Nucl. Phys. B [**869**]{} (2013) 378 \[arXiv:1103.4353 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: We are grateful to Hugh Osborn for drawing our attention to the paper [@Uruchurtu:2011wh].
[^2]: The ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ R charge is the $U(1)$ factor in $U(1)\times SU(2) \subset SU(4)$, obtained by reduction from ${\mathcal{N}}=4$.
[^3]: The generators of the fundamental irrep of the color group $SU(N)$ are normalized as ${\rm Tr} (t_a t_b) = \half \delta_{ab} $.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Maybe not. String theory approaches to both beyond the Standard Model and Inflationary model building generically predict the existence of scalars (moduli) that are light compared to the scale of quantum gravity. These moduli become displaced from their low energy minima in the early universe and lead to a prolonged matter-dominated epoch prior to BBN. In this paper, we examine whether non-perturbative effects such as parametric resonance or tachyonic instabilities can shorten, or even eliminate, the moduli condensate and matter-dominated epoch. Such effects depend crucially on the strength of the couplings, and we find that unless the moduli become strongly coupled the matter-dominated epoch is unavoidable. In particular, we find that in string and M-theory compactifications where the lightest moduli are near the TeV-scale that a matter-dominated epoch will persist until the time of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.'
author:
- 'John T. Giblin, Jr.$^{1,2}$'
- 'Gordon Kane$^{3}$'
- 'Eva Nesbit$^{4}$'
- 'Scott Watson$^{4}$'
- 'Yue Zhao$^{3}$'
title: 'Was the Universe Actually Radiation Dominated Prior to Nucleosynthesis?'
---
Moduli are a generic prediction in string theoretic approaches to beyond the Standard Model [@Kane:2015jia] and inflationary model building [@Baumann:2014nda]. It was noted long ago that these moduli could be displaced from their low-energy minima in the early universe, and their coherent oscillations lead to a period of matter domination [@Banks:1993en; @deCarlos:1993wie; @Coughlan:1983ci; @Banks:1995dt; @Banks:1995dp]. This matter phase has important differences from a strictly thermal universe and is a rich source of dark matter phenomenology – for a review see [@Kane:2015jia]. The matter phase can also lead to enhanced growth of structure [@Erickcek:2011us; @Fan:2014zua; @Erickcek:2015bda], changes in inflationary predictions for the cosmic microwave background [@Easther:2013nga], and also the formation of primordial black holes [@Georg:2016yxa; @Georg:2017mqk]. These cosmological and phenomenological predictions depend on the duration of the matter phase, which is determined by the moduli mass and couplings to other fields.
It is expected that moduli couple gravitationally, and the matter phase will persist until the perturbative decay of the modulus completes which, for $50$ TeV moduli, will be around the time of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) [@Kane:2015jia]. In this paper, we want to revisit these assumptions and determine if effects such as parametric enhancement [@Kofman:1997yn; @Traschen:1990sw] or tachyonic instabilities [@Felder:2000hj] can lead to an enhanced decay of the moduli. In the former case, as the field oscillates, particles are produced, and Bose-Einstein statistics can lead to a significant enhancement of the decay compared to the perturbative decay rate [@Traschen:1990sw; @Kofman:1997yn] (for a review see [@Allahverdi:2010xz; @Amin:2014eta]). Whereas, in tachyonic resonance, if the mass squared of the field becomes negative due to the time and/or field dependence of the couplings this can lead to the efficient decay of the field in less than a single oscillation [@Felder:2000hj]. It has also been argued that the dynamics and backreaction of the produced particles could be used to ‘trap’ moduli [@Kofman:2004yc; @Watson:2004aq; @Greene:2007sa; @Cremonini:2006sx]. If these types of instabilities are present they can significantly enhance the moduli decay rate resulting in less of a matter phase or even prevent the formation of the moduli condensate all together. For very light moduli – that would decay after BBN – this enhanced decay may lead to a new way to address the cosmological moduli problem [@Banks:1993en; @deCarlos:1993wie; @Coughlan:1983ci; @Banks:1995dt; @Banks:1995dp].
Moduli Decay through Parametric and Tachyonic Resonance
=======================================================
The moduli will typically couple to other fields with gravitationally suppressed couplings. This is the case in examples like KKLT [@Kachru:2003aw], as well as the cases of Large Volume Compactifications in Type IIB [@Conlon:2005ki] and G2 compactifications of M-theory [@Acharya:2008zi]. The perturbative decay rate of the modulus is then $\Gamma \sim m_\sigma^3/\Lambda^2$, where $m_\sigma$ is the mass of the modulus and $\Lambda$ the suppression scale. Taking[^1] $\Lambda \sim m_p$ the corresponding reheat temperature for a $m_\sigma = 50$ TeV scalar is around $5$ MeV [@Kane:2015jia]. Here we would like to determine whether parametric or tachyonic instabilities in the moduli can result in a faster decay and so higher reheat temperature.
We are motivated by recent work on preheating and the production of gauge fields at the end of inflation [@Deskins:2013lfx; @Adshead:2015pva; @Adshead:2016iae]. In these papers it was found that a tachyonic instability to production of massless gauge fields from inflaton couplings $\sigma F_{\mu \nu} \tilde{F}^{\mu \nu} / \Lambda$ [@Adshead:2015pva; @Adshead:2016iae] or $\sigma F_{\mu \nu} {F}^{\mu \nu} / \Lambda$ [@Deskins:2013lfx] can lead to explosive particle production and drain energy completely before the inflaton can complete a full oscillation. If this result were also true for moduli, then this could prevent the formation of the condensate and the matter-dominated phase.
Moduli Coupling to Gauge Fields
-------------------------------
In all of the string constructions mentioned above there are moduli with masses generated by gravitationally mediated Supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking. The corresponding moduli mass is determined by the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ as $m_\sigma = c \, m_{3/2}$ where $c$ is a constant determined by the particular string theory realization, e.g. in the G2 MSSM $c \simeq 2$.
We now consider the coupling of the moduli to a hidden sector gauge field S=d\^4x ( - F\_ F\^ - F\_ F\^ ), \[action\] where $c$ is an order one constant (computable in a given string model) and consistency of the effective theory requires $\sigma < \Lambda$. The corresponding equations of motion are \[eqns\] \_F\^ + \_( F\^ )=0,\
= + F\_F\^.
Working in Coulomb gauge $A^0=0, \; \; \partial_i A^i=0$, neglecting the expansion of the background, and introducing the field redefinition $\tilde{A}_k=\left[ a(t) \left( 1+ c \, \sigma/\Lambda
\right) \right]^{1/2} A_k$ the resulting equations of motion are
\[phi\_eom\] &+&3H +m\_\^2\
&=& \[Aeqn\] \_k &+& \_k =0, The moduli will remain frozen in their false minimum until $H \simeq m_{\sigma}$ at which time the moduli begin oscillations and $\sigma(t)=\sigma_0 \cos(mt)$ where the initial amplitude is typically $\sigma_0 \sim m_p$.
The gauge field equation can be put in the form of a Mathieu equation by introducing the time variable $z=mt/2$. Noting that consistency of the effective theory requires $\sigma_0 < \Lambda$ and keeping only the leading terms we have \[Azeqn\] +A\_k =0 where we have dropped terms further suppressed by powers of $\sigma_0/\Lambda$ and we note that the leading time-dependent mass term corresponds to the term $\sim \ddot{\sigma}/\Lambda$ in .
Comparing to the usual Mathieu equation \[m\_eqn\] +u=0, suggests the identifications \[us\] [A]{}\_k4 ( )\^2, qc (). Tachyonic instability corresponds to the condition ${\cal A}_k < 2q$, broad resonance occurs for $q\gg1$ and narrow resonance occurs for $q\lesssim 1$. We can immediately see that broad resonance is forbidden, since validity of the effective theory requires $\sigma_0<\Lambda$ or $q<1$. Moreover, although narrow resonance could play a role, it may not lead to significant enhancement of the production [@Kofman:1997yn]. Thus, we focus on the case of tachyonic resonance.
Tachyonic Resonance – Analytic Treatment
----------------------------------------
The modes that will undergo tachyonic resonance correspond to ${\cal A}_k < 2q$ in , which for the identification implies \[cond1\] k< ( )\^[1/2]{} m\_. However, for post-inflation we are interested in sub-Hubble modes[^2] so we also require $k/H>1$ implying the modes of interest lie in a band 1<< ( )\^[1/2]{} ( ). Thus, for tachyonic production of modes we require \[estimate\] ( )\^[1/2]{} ( ) 1, so at the onset of the moduli phase, when $H \simeq m_\sigma$ perturbativity of the effective theory again seems to limit the level of enhancement in gauge field production, since we require $\sigma_0 < \Lambda$. However, although the initial moduli displacement is typically expected to be an order of magnitude or so below the cutoff, as the moduli oscillations continue the Hubble parameter will continue to decrease $H<m_\sigma$, and tachyonic resonance becomes possible. There is a competing effect that the amplitude of the moduli oscillations also decreases compared to its initial value $\sigma_0$. It is a quantitative question of how important tachyonic resonance is for moduli decay and the duration of the epoch. Moreover, during oscillations, creation of moduli (moduli particles, meaning $k\neq 0$ modes), particle scattering, and backreaction of both moduli and gauge fields can play an important role, as well as the expansion of the universe. To account for these complexities and non-linearities we perform a lattice treatment and present those results in the next section.
Tachyonic Resonance – Lattice Results
-------------------------------------
To determine whether tachyonic (or parametric) instabilities occur in the system and we perform fully non-linear lattice simulations. We build our simulations using the software [GABE]{} [@Child:2013ria], which has been used previously to study the interactions of scalar fields and U(1) Abelian gauge fields [@Deskins:2013lfx; @Adshead:2015pva; @Adshead:2016iae]. Our simulations allow us to account not only for gauge field production, but also the effects of scalar particle production, rescattering, backreaction, and the expansion of the universe.
There are several restrictions on the allowed values of the fields and parameters of our model. For example, although we perform a lattice simulation, validity of the effective Supergravity description requires that the non-renormalizable operator in remain subdominant to the leading kinetic term. Since $c$ is a dimensionless ${\cal{O}}(1)$ Wilson coefficient this requires that $\sigma$ not exceed the UV cutoff $\Lambda$ (which is typically order the Planck or string scale).
We note that our simulations are similar to those of [@Deskins:2013lfx], where the role of the inflaton there, is instead given by the moduli here. As we will see, a key difference in our results compared to those of [@Deskins:2013lfx] is that there the authors considered a toy model with a dilatonic type coupling that could enter a “strong coupling" regime. In this paper, we are limited by the validity of the effective theory $\sigma < \Lambda$ and we’ll see this limits our ability to establish a strong resonance behavior[^3].
In order to establish as large a resonance as possible we will take the initial amplitude of the moduli to be near the Planck scale $\sigma_0 \simeq m_p$ (we take $\sigma_0 = 0.2\,m_{\rm pl}$ as a fiducial value). Then, given our discussion of the validity of the effective theory requires that we take $\Lambda \sim m_p$, and as the field can change sign this also ensures that the kinetic term of retains the correct sign. This limits us to a maximum coupling $c/4\Lambda \approx 6.9\,m_{\rm pl}^{-1}$. Throughout this section we will use this maximum value as to make the potential tachyonic window as large as possible (we have checked that for lower values of the cutoff the resonance is even weaker than the results we present here). We are left with only one free parameter, $m_\sigma$, which also sets the Hubble scale at the beginning of coherent oscillations.
Using [GABE]{} we discretize space onto a grid of $128^3$ points that are on a homogeneously expanding box. The box has initial size, $L = 4 m_\sigma^{-1} \approx 2 H_0^{-1}$. The simulations solve and along with the Friedmann equations. For numerical simplicity, we employ the standard [*unit-less conformal*]{} time, $d\tau = a(t) \,m\,dt$. We use an adaptive time step, $\Delta \tau = 0.005/a(\tau)$ so that we resolve the co-moving modes throughout the simulation. We initialize the modulus field consistent with the expectations of a field that carries the “freeze out” power as modes re-enter the horizon[^4], =( ) ( k-k\^), assuming that most modes have not grown much since horizon re-entry[^5] and have recently re-entered ($k\approx H_0$). For the gauge fields we set the initial conditions consistent with the Bunch Davies vacuum [@Deskins:2013lfx], = , with zero homogenous mode (we comment on the robustness of this assumption shortly). We take the initial surface in Coulomb gauge, but the rest of the simulation is carried out in Lorenz gauge, $\partial^\mu A_\mu = 0$, where Gauss’ constraint is treated as a dynamical degree of freedom (as the equation of motion for $A_0$) and we check that the gauge constraint is maintained throughout our simulations. As we increase the mass of the modulus field, we shrink the physical size of the Hubble patch at the beginning of the simulation. This is the best approach to resolving shorter wavelength modes of the gauge fields, and hence, a larger fraction of energy in the gauge sector. As we set the initial conditions, we impose a window function (as in [@Deskins:2013lfx]) that cuts off power to modes $k \gtrsim 90\,m_\sigma$ for numerical stability. However, this scale is above the scale at which we would expect to see tachyonic instabilities.
Following [@Deskins:2013lfx], we take the ratio of the gauge field energy density ($\rho_{\rm EM}$) to the total energy ($\rho_{\rm tot}$) as a figure of merit of the amplification of the gauge field and the effectiveness of the tachyonic (and parametric) instabilities. Figure \[fig:moneyplot1\] shows the evolution of this parameter as a function of time for a large range of moduli masses. We find the robust result that [*regardless*]{} of the (relative) amplitude of the initial fluctuations of the gauge fields, tachyonic (and parametric) instabilities are absent and do not lead to significant amplification of the gauge fields. The variation in the initial value of $\rho_{\rm EM}$ reflects that we allow for different values of the moduli mass as discussed above. Considering a pre-existing density of gauge modes ([*e.g.*]{} non-Bunch Davies initial conditions with modes that were classically or quantum mechanically excited during inflation[^6]) would have a similar effect, amplifying the initial spectrum of the gauge field, and hence, raising $\rho_{\rm EM}/\rho_{\rm tot}$ on the initial surface.
![Plot of $\rho_{\rm EM}/\rho_{tot}$ vs. unit-less conformal time (see text) for a set of maximally coupled simulations, $c/\Lambda = 6.7\,m_{p}$. The top panel shows a simulation of the fiducial value of $m_\sigma = 50\,{\rm TeV}$ and the bottom panel shows a range of masses, from $m_{\sigma}=50\,{\rm TeV}$ (bottom) to $m_{\sigma}=5\times 10^{11} \,{\rm TeV}$, the $50\,{\rm TeV}$ case is labeled in blue in both plots. For each simulation $\rho_{tot}(t)$ is approximately the same, since the energy of the modulus is dominated by its homogeneous mode and is always the dominant component.[]{data-label="fig:moneyplot1"}](rhovt_50TeV "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Plot of $\rho_{\rm EM}/\rho_{tot}$ vs. unit-less conformal time (see text) for a set of maximally coupled simulations, $c/\Lambda = 6.7\,m_{p}$. The top panel shows a simulation of the fiducial value of $m_\sigma = 50\,{\rm TeV}$ and the bottom panel shows a range of masses, from $m_{\sigma}=50\,{\rm TeV}$ (bottom) to $m_{\sigma}=5\times 10^{11} \,{\rm TeV}$, the $50\,{\rm TeV}$ case is labeled in blue in both plots. For each simulation $\rho_{tot}(t)$ is approximately the same, since the energy of the modulus is dominated by its homogeneous mode and is always the dominant component.[]{data-label="fig:moneyplot1"}](rhovt_manymass "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
An additional measure at which to look for instabilities is in the spectra of the coupled fields. In Figure \[fig:specz\], we see that there is very little change to the power spectra of the fields. In cases where instabilities exist, we can generally see these instabilities in the power spectra of the fields. In none of the cases we studied did we see any indication of tachyonic or parametric instabilities.
![The power spectra of one component of the gauge field, $A_1$ at the beginning of the simulation (black), at the first zero crossing (red) and at the second zero crossing (blue) in a simulation where $m_\sigma = 50\,{\rm TeV}$. At higher frequencies, the power is suppressed due to the window function imposed on the initial slice, the slight increases in these frequencies is not a physical response, but an accumulation of numerical truncation errors (and is still many orders of magnitude below the scales of interest). The increase in the zero-momentum bin is a consequence of the initial value being set to zero to machine-precision, with truncation errors making it drift away. The spectra undergo negligible amplification over the course of the simulation. The other spatial components of the field have identical behaviors, and similar results are seen in all simulations. We find no indication of tachyonic or parametric instabilities.[]{data-label="fig:specz"}](spectra_a1){width="\columnwidth"}
Although we have not found significant evidence for an increased decay of the moduli, this does not necessarily imply a matter-dominated epoch. Indeed, it was recently shown that the non-linear dynamics of the fields can have an important influence on the equation of state [@Lozanov:2016hid]. Thus, we must lastly ensure that the expansion mimics that of a matter-dominated single-component universe. To do this, we track the equation of state parameter, $w=p/\rho$, which is the usual ratio of the isotropic pressure to the energy density. Figure \[fig:eos\] shows this for the fiducial case, $m_\sigma = 50\,{\rm TeV}$, and shows that $w$ oscillates, as expected, between $\pm1$ as is the case of a massive scalar field dominated by its homogeneous value.
![The equation of state for a simulation where $m_\sigma = 50\,{\rm TeV}$ vs. unit-less conformal time (see text). We see that the average of the equation of state is that of a matter-dominated universe. []{data-label="fig:eos"}](EOS){width="\columnwidth"}
Comments and Conclusions
========================
In this paper, we have considered the coupling of moduli to hidden sector gauge fields for a range of masses and initial values of the gauge fields. We found that even as we approach modestly strong coupling, tachyonic and parametric instabilities have no effect on the moduli decay rate. Moreover, we have seen that the equation of state during the moduli oscillations averages to the previously anticipated result of a matter-dominated universe. As gauge field production relies on the moduli dynamics breaking the conformal invariance of the gauge field sector [@Demozzi:2009fu], and in these string motivated models the source of this breaking comes from non-renormalizable operators, it may not be that surprising that this effect turned out to be negligible. One reason for considering these operators was that such couplings generically appear in string theories, and are model independent in the sense that they arise strictly in the moduli sector and are typically independent of how one embeds the visible sector. This is indeed the case in examples like KKLT [@Kachru:2003aw], as well as the cases of Large Volume Compactifications in Type IIB [@Conlon:2005ki] and G2 compactifications of M-theory [@Acharya:2008zi].
One may wonder if more model dependent couplings (arising from embedding the visible sector in a particular string construction) may alter our conclusions. For example, moduli couplings to the Higgs ($\sim\sigma H^\dagger H$) are relevant operators and the moduli might undergo enhanced decay to Higgs bosons. However, such couplings were already considered some time ago by Brandenberger and Shuhmaher in [@Shuhmaher:2007pv; @Shuhmaher:2005mf]. They considered relevant operators arising from SUSY breaking for a range of moduli masses. Their results are similar to our findings for non-renormalizable operators. That is, if one requires a perturbative theory and consistency of the effective field theory then both parametric and tachyonic resonance does not significantly alter the moduli decay rate.
Our results, as well as those of [@Shuhmaher:2005mf], suggest that if one is to eliminate the moduli dominated epoch one is going to have to consider moduli that are strongly coupled. There is some motivation for this in string theory [@Banks:1994sg] (for more recent work see [@DelZotto:2016fju]), however there must typically be at least one light modulus if we are to realize the perturbative Standard Model in a string construction [@Cremonini:2006sx]. For this reason, we take our results as a robust prediction that string theories lead to the expectation for a prolonged, matter-dominated epoch prior to BBN.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Peter Adshead, Bhaskar Dutta, Adrienne Erickcek and Matt Reece for useful discussions. J.T.G. is supported by the National Science Foundation, PHY-1414479. S.W. thanks the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics for hospitality. S.W. is supported in part by NASA Astrophysics Theory Grant NNH12ZDA001N and DOE grant DE-FG02-85ER40237. Y.Z. is supported by DOE grant DE- SC0007859. This work was completed at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293.
[37]{}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 10.1142/S0218271815300220), [**](http://inspirehep.net/record/1289899/files/arXiv:1404.2601.pdf) (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.779), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91538-X), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/0370-2693(83)91091-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.705), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.3548), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083503), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043536), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063502), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023522), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123523), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.2491) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3258), R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F. Y. Cyr-Racine and A. Mazumdar, “Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**60**]{}, 27 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104511 \[arXiv:1001.2600 \[hep-th\]\]. M. A. Amin, M. P. Hertzberg, D. I. Kaiser and J. Karouby, “Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1530003 (2014) doi:10.1142/S0218271815300037 \[arXiv:1410.3808 \[hep-ph\]\]. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.011601), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/030), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.066005), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/060), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.086007), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.046005), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/007), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.78.065038), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063530), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/034), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/039), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/010), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.051301), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103513), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/025), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/094), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043519), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7454), @noop [ ()]{},
[^1]: We work with sign convention $(-,+,+,+)$ and with the reduced Planck mass $m_p=1/(8\pi G)^{1/2}=2.4 \times 10^{18}$ GeV. We use Greek indices to denote space-time $\mu=0,1,2,3$ whereas latin indices imply spatial directions only $k=1,2,3$.
[^2]: This is required by causality if the gauge modes begin in their vacuum state following inflation.
[^3]: The result that validity of an effective field theory approach can limit the importance of parametric resonance was noted recently in [@Giblin:2017qjp].
[^4]: We start our simulations at the beginning of moduli oscillations and we take adiabatic initial conditions so that the inflaton fluctuations will have been transferred to the moduli that come to dominate the energy density (we assume no isocurvature, however see [@Iliesiu:2013rqa]) and assume that $\Delta_s^2\approx 10^{-10}$.
[^5]: Prior to moduli domination we take the universe to be radiation dominated following inflationary reheating and sub-Hubble modes of the moduli will undergo very little growth (their perturbations grow logarithmically with the scale factor $\sim \log(a)$.
[^6]: Model independent bounds on the level of gauge field production during inflation was recently established in [@Green:2015fss]. There it was shown that requiring successful inflation limits the amplification of gauge fields which here limits the size of the initial amplitude taken for the gauge fields, [*i.e.*]{} one can not take the initial amplitude to be arbitrarily large.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In recent years, the rapid growth in technology has increased the opportunity for longitudinal human behavioral studies. Rich multimodal data, from wearables like Fitbit, online social networks, mobile phones etc. can be collected in natural environments. Uncovering the underlying low-dimensional structure of noisy multi-way data in an unsupervised setting is a challenging problem. Tensor factorization has been successful in extracting the interconnected low-dimensional descriptions of multi-way data. In this paper, we apply non-negative tensor factorization on a real-word wearable sensor data, *StudentLife*, to find latent temporal factors and group of similar individuals. Meta data is available for the semester schedule, as well as the individuals’ performance and personality. We demonstrate that non-negative tensor factorization can successfully discover clusters of individuals who exhibit higher academic performance, as well as those who frequently engage in leisure activities. The recovered latent temporal patterns associated with these groups are validated against ground truth data to demonstrate the accuracy of our framework.'
author:
- Homa Hosseinmardi
- 'Hsien-Te Kao'
- Kristina Lerman
- Emilio Ferrara
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Discovering Hidden Structure in High Dimensional Human\
Behavioral Data via Tensor Factorization
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010553.10010562</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Embedded systems</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010575.10010755</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Redundancy</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010553.10010554</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Robotics</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>100</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003033.10003083.10003095</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Networks Network reliability</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>100</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The research is based upon work supported by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via IARPA Contract No 2017-17042800005, and by DARPA (grant no. D16AP00115). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The deterministic membership problem for timed automata asks whether the timed language recognised by a nondeterministic timed automaton can be recognised by a deterministic timed automaton. We show that the problem is decidable when the input automaton is a one-clock nondeterministic timed automaton without epsilon transitions and the number of clocks of the deterministic timed automaton is fixed. We show that the problem in all the other cases is undecidable, i.e., when either 1) the input nondeterministic timed automaton has two clocks or more, or 2) it uses epsilon transitions, or 3) the number of clocks of the output deterministic automaton is not fixed.'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Determinisability of one-clock timed automata'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[****]{}
ABSTRACT. We study the statistics of backward clusters in a gas of hard spheres at low density. A backward cluster is defined as the group of particles involved directly or indirectly in the backwards–in–time dynamics of a given tagged sphere. We derive upper and lower bounds on the average size of clusters by using the theory of the homogeneous Boltzmann equation combined with suitable hierarchical expansions. These representations are known in the easier context of Maxwellian molecules (Wild sums). We test our results with a numerical experiment based on molecular dynamics simulations.
KEYWORDS. Low–density gas, homogeneous Boltzmann equation, backward cluster, Boltzmann hierarchy.
[**]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Consider a system of $N$ identical hard spheres of diameter ${\varepsilon}$ moving in the whole space $\RRR^3$ or in a bounded box with reflecting boundary conditions. The collisions between spheres are governed by the usual laws of elastic reflection. We order the particles with an index $i=1,2,\cdots,N$. A configuration of the system is $\bz_N=( z_1, \cdots, z_N )$, where $z_i=(x_i,v_i)$ are the position and the velocity of particle $i$ respectively. Let us assign a probability density $W_0^N$ on the $N-$particle phase space, assuming it symmetric in the exchange of the particles, and let $W^N(t)$ be its time evolution according to the hard sphere dynamics. Finally, for $j=1,2,\cdots,N$, denote by $f^N_{0,j}$ and $f^N_{j} (t) $ the $j-$particle marginals of $ W_0^N$ and $W^N(t)$ respectively.
Given a tagged particle, say particle $1$, consider $z_1 (t, \bz_N)$ its state (position and velocity) at time $t$ for the initial configuration $\bz_N$. We define the [*backward cluster*]{} of particle $1$ (at time $t$ and for the initial configuration $\bz_N$) as the set of particles with indices $J \subset I_N$, where $I_N=\{ 1,2, \cdots , N\}$, constructed in the following way. Going back in time starting from $z_1 (t, \bz_N)$, let $i_1$ be the (index of the) first particle colliding with $1$. Next, considering the two particles $1$ and $i_1$, let us go back in time up to the first collision of one particle of the pair with a new particle $i_2$ and so on up to time $0$. Then $J=\{ i_1,i_2, \cdots , i_n\}$ with $i_r \neq i_s$ for $r \neq s$. We denote by $K$ the cardinality of $J$, i.e., $K=|J|$.
In this paper we are interested in studying the quantity $\langle K \rangle_t$ that is the average (with respect to the initial distribution) of the cardinality of the backward cluster of a tagged particle at time $t$. In a general context this is a hard task, however we limit ourselves in considering $\langle K \rangle_t$ in a low–density situation, namely in the [*Boltzmann–Grad limit*]{} [@Gr49; @Gr58] N , 0 N\^2 \^[-1]{} >0, where ${\lambda}$ is a constant proportional to the mean free path. We fix $\lambda = 1$ in the rest of the paper.
Moreover, we shall assume that the initial distribution is approximately factorized, namely the marginals of the initial distributions do factorize in the Boltzmann–Grad limit, and that the one particle distribution is independent of $x$.
In this situation it is believed (and in fact proved for short times and under suitable uniform estimates on the $f^N_{0,j}$) that the system is ruled by the homogeneous Boltzmann equation, which we remind here for the unknown $f=f(v,t)$: \_t f(v,t) = \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{} dv\_1 dø (v-v\_1)ø{f(v\_1’,t)f(v’,t)- f(v\_1,t)f(v,t)} \[BE\] where $S_+^2=\{{\omega}\in S^2 |\ (v-v_1)\cdot\o \geq 0\},$ $S^2$ is the unit sphere in $\RRR^3$ (with surface measure $d\o$), $(v,v_1)$ is a pair of velocities in incoming collision configuration and $(v',v_1')$ is the corresponding pair of outgoing velocities defined by the elastic reflection rules
v’=v-\[(v-v\_1)\]\
v\_1’=v\_1+\[(v-v\_1)\]
.\[eq:coll\] The Cauchy theory of equation is well known, see [@V02] and references quoted therein. The solution $f = f(v,t)$ is usually interpreted as the one–particle distribution of the system in the low–density regime.
In the next section we will give a precise definition for the quantity $\langle K \rangle_t$ associated to the Boltzmann equation . In order to describe the long time behaviour of $\langle K \rangle_t$, it will be convenient to focus on: r=\_[t ]{} 1 t K \_t. \[rate\] In Section \[sec:Max\] we shall compute exactly $\langle K \rangle_t$ and $r$ for a simplified model of Maxwellian molecules. In this case $r$ is an absolute constant. In Sect. \[sec:estimate\] we come back to the hard sphere system and prove an exponential estimate of the growth in time of $\langle K \rangle_t $. However the rate is not constant anymore, but depends on the initial datum. A comparison of $\langle K \rangle_t $, $r$ with the corresponding quantities at the level of the particle system (${\varepsilon}>0$) will be performed numerically in Section \[sec:Numsim\].
The cluster dynamics outside the low–density regime has been studied previously, both analytically [@S73; @S74] as regards the equilibrium dynamics of infinite particle systems, and numerically [@GKBSZ08]. In the latter reference, recent applications to several domains are mentioned and discussed, such as plasma physics, geophysics or economics.
We stress however that the notion of cluster introduced in these papers (see e.g. [@GKBSZ08], Section 2) differs from that of “backward cluster” considered in the present work . This refers exclusively to the backward dynamics of one single tagged particle. In particular, note that the particles join a backward cluster [*one by one*]{}. In other words, when particle $i$ joins the backward cluster of particle $1$, the particles belonging to the backward cluster of $i$, not involved in the backward cluster of $1$, are ignored.
This concept emerges naturally from the perturbative description of the Boltzmann–Grad limit, as enlightened in the following section, and is related to the Markovian character of the dynamics.
We conclude this introduction by observing that the interest on the control of the backward cluster is also related to the problem of “mathematical validity of the Boltzmann equation”. It is known that the validity of the Boltzmann equation is crucially dependent on the factorization of the marginals of the $N-$particle system $f^N_j(\bv_j,t)$, where $\bv_j= (v_1, \cdots, v_j )$, at any positive time $t$. In order that this property is fulfilled, it is necessary that the backward clusters of any couple of particles (say $1$ and $2$) are disjoint. When such two clusters are finite, the probability that the two particles are dynamically correlated is $O\left( \frac {\langle K \rangle_t^2} {N}\right)$. We estimate in Sect. \[sec:estimate\] $\langle K \rangle_t$ assuming that the Boltzmann–Grad limit has been achieved. Therefore this result can be interpreted as a compatibility argument.
Another connected problem is the following. Even though the convergence $f^N_j (\bv_j,t) \to f(v_1,t)f(v_2,t)\cdots f(v_j,t)$ in the Boltzmann–Grad limit has been proven at least for short times [@La75], one can wonder for which $j$ the asymptotic equivalence holds. If the $j$ particles have finite backward clusters, we can argue that the probability of correlations between any pair in the group of $j$ particles is $O(\frac {j^2} N)$. Therefore we expect that the factorization property of marginals holds when $\lim_N \frac {j^2}{N}=0$. Actually in [@PS14] it has been proven that the propagation of chaos holds for short times if $j\leq N^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha$ small enough.
Finally it may be worth noting that the notion of backward cluster could be of interest in problems of population dynamics where one is interested in the mean growth of a group of individuals which contacted, directly or indirectly, a given one.
Preliminaries: the Boltzmann-Grad limit {#sec:pre}
=======================================
In what follows we expand the solution of , i.e. $f(v,t)$, in terms of a sum f=\_[n=0]{}\^f\^[(n)]{}, \[exp\] where $f^{(n)}$ is interpreted as the contribution to the probability density $f$ due to the event: [*the backward cluster of $1$ has cardinality $n$*]{}. Let $f_0 = f_0(v)$ be the initial datum for the Boltzmann equation. By it follows naturally that f\^[(0)]{}(v,t) = e\^[-\_0\^t ds R (v,s) ]{} f\_0(v), \[0\] where R (v,t)= \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{} dv\_1 dø (v-v\_1)øf(v\_1,t)=\_[\^3]{} dv\_1 |v-v\_1| f(v\_1,t). \[nu\]
Before giving the other terms of the expansion we introduce a useful tool, namely the Boltzmann hierarchy.
Suppose that $f$ is a solution to the Boltzmann equation and consider the products f\_j(\_j,t)=f(t)\^[j]{}(\_j) = f(v\_1,t)f(v\_2,t)f(v\_j,t) \[eq:fjtdef\], where $\bv_j= (v_1, \cdots, v_j )$. The family of $f_j$ solves then the hierarchy of equations \_t f\_j (\_j,t) = \_[j+1]{}f\_[j+1]{}(\_j,t)-R\_j (\_j,t) f\_j(\_j,t) , \[hie\] where && \_[j+1]{} =\_[k=1]{}\^j \_[k,j+1]{} \[eq:defBco\]\
&& \_[k,j+1]{}f\_[j+1]{}(\_j,t) = \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{}dv\_[j+1]{}dø (v\_k-v\_[j+1]{})ø f\_[j+1]{}(v\_1,,v’\_k,,v\_j ,v’\_[j+1]{},t), &&
v’\_k=v\_[k]{}-\[(v\_k-v\_[j+1]{})\]\
v’\_[j+1]{}=v\_[j+1]{}+\[(v\_k-v\_[j+1]{})\]
,\
&&\
&& S\^2\_+ = {ø | (v\_k - v\_[j+1]{})ø0}, and R\_j (\_j,t) = \_[k=1]{}\^j R(v\_k,t). By using a formal solution of iteratively, we can express $f_j(t)$ via the following series && f\_j(t)= \_[n0]{}\_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_1]{} dt\_2 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n\
&& \_j(t\_1,t)\_[j+1]{}\_[j+1]{}(t\_2,t\_1)\_[j+n]{}\_[j+n]{}(0,t\_n) f\_[0]{}\^[(j+n)]{}, \[eq:fjexp\] where we use the conventions $t_0 = t, t_{n+1}=0$, and the term $n=0$ should be interpreted as $\SS_{j}(0,t) f_{0}^{\otimes j}$. Here $\SS_j(t_1,t_2) $ is the multiplicative operator defined as \_j(t\_1,t\_2)f\_j(\_j,) = e\^[-\_[t\_1]{}\^[t\_2]{} ds R\_j (\_j,s) ]{}f\_j(\_j,). \[eq:ffodef\] Note that in , and in the formulas below, the dependence on $\bv_j$ is not shown explicitly.
In more detail, && f\_j(t)= \_[n0]{}\_[k\_1, , k\_n]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_1]{} dt\_2 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n\
&& \_j(t\_1,t)\_[k\_1,j+1]{}\_[j+1]{}(t\_2,t\_1)\_[k\_n, j+n]{}\_[j+n]{}(0,t\_n) f\_[0]{}\^[(j+n)]{}, \[eq:fjexp1\] where $k_1\in \{1, \cdots, j \} , k_2\in \{1,\cdots, j+1\}, \cdots, k_n \in \{1,2, \cdots, j+n-1\}$. We call any sequence $\{ k_1, \cdots, k_n\}$ of this type a “$j-$particle tree with $n$ creations”. Indeed any new created particle in formula , say $j+r$, can be attached to any of the previous $j+r-1$ particles (for more details on this representation, see e.g. [@PS14]). We denote a $j-$particle tree with $n$ creations by $\G_n(j)$.
Fixed $\Gamma_n(j) $, $\o_1, \cdots, \o_n$, $\bv_j$ and the velocities of the new particles $v_{j+1}, \cdots, v_{j+n}$, we introduce a sequence of vector velocities $\bv^s$, $s=0, \cdots, n$, by setting: $$\bv^0=\bv_j, \quad \bv^s=( v_1^{s-1},\cdots, v_{k_s}', \cdots,v_{j+s-1}^{s-1}, v_{j+s}' ) \quad s\geq 1$$ where, at step $s$, the pair $v_{k_s}' , v_{j+s}'$ are the pre–collisional velocities (in the collision with impact vector $\o_s$) of the pair $v_{k_s}^{s-1}, v_{j+s}^{s-1}$ (which are, by construction, post–collisional). This allows to write more explicitly as \[eq:fjexp2\] && f\_j(t)= \_[n0]{}\_[\_n (j)]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n \_[\^[3n]{}]{} dv\_[j+1]{} dv\_[j+n]{} e\^[-\_[t\_[1]{}]{}\^[t]{} ds R\_[j]{}(\_[j]{},s)]{}\
&& (\_[r=1]{}\^n \_[(v\^[r-1]{}\_[k\_r]{} -v\_[j+r]{})ø\_r 0]{} dø\_r (v\^[r-1]{}\_[k\_r]{} -v\_[j+r]{})ø\_r e\^[-\_[t\_[r+1]{}]{}\^[t\_[r]{}]{} ds R\_[j+r]{}(\^[r]{},s)]{}) f\_[0]{}\^[(j+n)]{} (\^[n]{}),\
where we are using the convention $t_{n+1}=0$.
Formula expresses the solution to the Boltzmann equation in terms of an expansion on the number of collisions. Each term of the series is the contribution to $f_j$ due to the event in which the first $j$ particles and the collided particles in the backward dynamics deliver exactly $n$ collisions. Setting $f_j=\sum_n f^{(n)}_j$, we identify && f\_j\^[(n)]{}(t) = \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n \[jn\]\
&& e\^[-\_[t\_1]{} \^t ds R\_j (s) ]{} \_[j+1]{} e\^[-\_[t\_2]{} \^[t\_1]{} ds R\_[j+1]{}(s) ]{} \_[j+2]{} \_[j+n]{} e\^[-\_0\^[t\_n]{} ds R\_[j+n]{}(s) ]{} f\_0\^[(j+n)]{}.In particular holds with && f\^[(n)]{}(t) = \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n \[n\]\
&& e\^[-\_[t\_1]{} \^t ds R\_1 (s) ]{} \_[2]{} e\^[-\_[t\_2]{} \^[t\_1]{} ds R\_[2]{}(s) ]{} \_3 \_[1+n]{}e\^[-\_0\^[t\_n]{} ds R\_[1+n]{}(s) ]{} f\_0\^[(1+n)]{}.As a consequence, we define K \_t=\_[n=0]{}\^ n dv f\^[(n)]{} (v,t). \[meancl\] A remarkable property which will be used later on is the following: f\_2\^[(n)]{}=\_ f\^[(n\_1)]{} f\^[(n\_2)]{}. \[prod\] This is consequence of the rather obvious identity \[prod1\] \_[\_n (2)]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n=\_ \_ \_0\^t dt\_1\^1 \_0\^[t\^1\_[n\_1-1]{}]{}dt\^1\_[n\_1]{} \_0\^t dt\^2\_1 \_0\^[t\^2\_[n\_2-1]{}]{}dt\_[n\_2]{}.
As we shall discuss in the next section, the expansion is a version of the Wild sums in the context of the hard sphere dynamics.
We expect $\langle K \rangle_t $ to be bounded for a fixed $t$ and exponentially growing in $t$, so that it is natural to introduce the quantities r\_+=\_[t ]{} 1 t K \_t \[rate+\] and r\_-=\_[t ]{} 1 t K \_t. \[rate-\]
Note that $r_{\pm}$ are computed by using the macroscopic scale of times, in which the mean flight time is $O(1)$. We stress that the introduced quantities refer only to the kinetic reduced description, given by the homogeneous Boltzmann equation. The corresponding quantities at the level of the particle system (${\varepsilon}> 0$) are very difficult to handle with. In particular we have no results stating that such quantities are equivalent to , in the Boltzmann–Grad limit. In the last section, we shall present related numerical simulations.
As we shall discuss later on, generally speaking we expect that $r_+=r_-=r$ defined as in .
The quantities we have introduced make sense also at equilibrium, namely when $f_0=M_\b$ is a uniform Maxwellian with inverse temperature $\b>0$. Presently we are not able to show, even in this case, that $r_-=r_+=r$. If this is true, observe that $r = r_\b$ depends only on the temperature (or the energy) of the Maxwellian $M_\b$. On the other hand, by virtue of the $H$ Theorem, any (non equilibrium) distribution $f_0$ with the same energy should have the same value of $r$. In the last section we will show some numerical evidence of this behaviour for the hard sphere system.
We observe further that the dependence on the temperature should be given by r\_= . \[eq:rescrb\] This follows from $M_\b(v) = \b^{3/2}M_1(\sqrt\b v)$ which implies, by and , $R^\b(v) = (1/\sqrt\b) R^1(\sqrt\b v)$ and $$f^{(n),\b}(v,t) = \b^{3/2} f^{(n),1}\left(\sqrt\b v,\frac{t}{\sqrt\b}\right)\;.$$ Here we have used an upper index to indicate the dependence on the temperature of the corresponding quantities. The last equation can be obtained easily from by a rescaling of all the integration variables (times and velocities). It follows that $\langle K \rangle^\b_t = \langle K \rangle^1_{t / \sqrt\b}$, so that holds if $r_\b$ exists.
A simple model {#sec:Max}
==============
In this section we briefly analyze a simplified model of the Boltzmann equation for Maxwellian molecules with angular cut–off [@Bob88], for which the computations of the mean cluster size $\langle K \rangle_t$ can be made explicitly.
We consider the Boltzmann equation \_t f= J(f,f)-f \[BEM\] where J(f,f)(v)= \_[\^3S\^2]{} dv\_1 dø g() f(v\_1’)f(v’) for some nonnegative function $g$ satisfying $g=0$ for $\cos\theta < 0$, and $$\cos\theta = \frac{(v-v_1)}{|v-v_1|}\cdot\o\;.$$ Note that we have fixed the time scale in such a way that \_[ S\^2]{} d ø g()=1. \[norm\] Proceeding as in the previous section, we write the associated hierarchy \_t f\_j = J\_[j+1]{}f\_[j+1]{}- j f\_j, \[hie2\] where $J_{j+1}$ is defined as $\CC_{j+1}$ (see ) with the function $(v_k-v_{j+1})\cdot\o$ replaced by $g\left(\frac{(v_k-v_{j+1})}{|v_k-v_{j+1}|}\cdot\o\right)$. Again $f_j=f^{\otimes j}$ where $f=f(v,t)$ solves . The initial condition for is $f_0^{\otimes j}$.
From one deduces (the analogous of for $j=1$) && f(v,t) = \_[n0]{} \_[\_n(1)]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n \_[\^[3n]{}]{} dv\_[2]{} dv\_[1+n]{} \_[S\^[2n]{}]{} dø\_1 dø\_n\
&& g(\_1)g(\_n) e\^[-(t-t\_1)]{} e\^[-2(t\_1-t\_2)]{}e\^[-(n+1)t\_n]{} f\_[0]{}\^[(1+n)]{} (\^[n]{})\
\[exp2\] where $\cos\theta_i = \frac{(v_{k_i} - v_{1+i})}{|v_{k_i} - v_{1+i}|}\cdot\o_i$. Note that this coincides with the Wild sums introduced in [@Wi51], see also [@Mc66; @CCG00]. The integral of the $n-$th term in is && dv f\^[(n)]{}(v,t)\
&& = e\^[-t]{} \_[\_n(1)]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 e\^[-t\_1]{} \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n e\^[-t\_n]{} \_[S\^[2n]{}]{} dø\_1 dø\_n \_[\^[3(n+1)]{}]{} d\_[1+n]{}\
&& g(\_1)g(\_n) f\_[0]{}\^[(1+n)]{} (\^[n]{})\
&&= e\^[-t]{} \_[\_n(1)]{} \_0\^t dt\_1 e\^[-t\_1]{} \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n e\^[-t\_n]{} \_[S\^[2n]{}]{} dø\_1 dø\_n \_[\^[3(n+1)]{}]{} d\^[n]{}\
&& g(\_1)g(\_n) f\_[0]{}\^[(1+n)]{} (\^[n]{})\
where we applied repeatedly $dv_i'dv_k'=dv_idv_k$ in the collision between particles $i$ and $k$ for a fixed impact vector $\o$. Using the normalization of $f_0$ and , and computing the time integrations, we easily arrive to dv f\^[(n)]{} (v,t)=e\^[-t]{} ( \_0 \^t e\^[-s]{} ds ) \^n. Therefore we conclude that K \_t =\_[n0]{} n dv f\^[(n)]{} (v,t)= e\^t-1. \[meanM\] In particular, $$r=1\;.$$
Estimate of the mean cluster size for hard spheres {#sec:estimate}
==================================================
We observe preliminarily that there is an important difference between the expansion for hard spheres and the corresponding expansion for Maxwell molecules. The first is an equation in the unknown $f$. Indeed in the expression of $R$, the $f$ [*itself*]{} appears. Conversely, the Maxwellian expansion yields the explicit solution in terms of the initial datum $f_0$. In particular, the control of cannot work simply by direct computation as in the previous section. Furthermore the proof that the series defining $\langle K \rangle_t$ for the hard sphere system is absolutely and uniformly convergent, works for a sufficiently small time only [@La75].
In what follows we shall obtain information on $\langle K \rangle_t$ by computing the time derivative of $f^{(n)}$ given in . In this way we manage to exploit conservation laws, exact compensations and the known properties of the solution to the homogeneous Boltzmann equation.
Let us take the derivative of $f^{(n)}(t)$ defined by : && \_t f\^[(n)]{} (t)=-R f\^[(n)]{} (t)\
&& + \_2 ( \_0\^t dt\_2 \_0\^[t\_[n-1]{}]{}dt\_n e\^[-\_[t\_2]{} \^[t]{} ds R\_[2]{}(s) ]{} \_3 \_[1+n]{}e\^[-\_0\^[t\_n]{} ds R\_[1+n]{}(s) ]{} f\_0\^[(1+n)]{})\
&& = -R f\^[(n)]{} (t) + \_2 f\^[(n-1)]{}\_2 (t), having used . Applying and writing explicitly the collision operator, one obtains the following differential hierarchy: \_t f\^[(n)]{} (v,t)=-R f\^[(n)]{} (v,t) + \_[n\_1=0]{}\^[n-1]{} \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{} dv\_1 dø (v-v\_1)ø{f\^[(n\_1)]{} (v\_1’,t)f \^[(n-1-n\_1)]{}(v’,t)}. \[diff\] Setting (v,t)=\_[n=0]{}\^ n f\^[(n)]{} (v,t), \[got\] it follows formally \[eqgot\] && \_t [K]{} (v,t)= -R[K]{} (v,t)+\
&& \_[n\_1=0]{}\^ \_[n\_2=0]{}\^ (n\_1 +n\_2 +1) \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{} dv\_1 dø (v-v\_1)ø{f\^[(n\_1)]{} (v\_1’,t)f \^[(n\_2)]{}(v’,t)}\
&& = -R[K]{} (v,t)+ \_[\^3S\^2\_+]{} dv\_1 dø (v-v\_1)ø\
&& {[K]{} (v’,t)f (v\_1’,t) +f(v’,t) [K]{} (v\_1’,t) +f(v’,t)f (v\_1’,t) }. Note that the above integral includes a positive collision operator linearized around $f$, plus an inhomogeneous term given by a positive collision operator acting on $f^{\otimes 2}$. Now we define K\_0=dv [K]{} (v, t)=K \_t , K\_2=dv [K]{} (v, t) v\^2. \[mom\] Using and , \[der\] d[dt]{} K\_2=&&-dv dv\_1 v\^2 |v-v\_1| f(v\_1) [K]{} (v)\
&&+dv dv\_1 \_[S\^2\_+]{} dø ø(v-v\_1) v’\^2 ( [K]{} (v) f(v\_1) +[K]{} (v\_1) f(v) )\
&&+ dv dv\_1 \_[S\^2\_+]{} dø ø(v-v\_1) v’\^2 f(v\_1)f(v) . Moreover, symmetrizing and using the energy conservation, \[A\] A\_2 :=&&dv dv\_1 \_[S\^2\_+]{} dø ø(v-v\_1) v’\^2 f(v\_1)f(v)\
&& = dv dv\_1 |v-v\_1| (v\^2+v\_1\^2) f(v\_1) f(v)\
&& f \_3\^2, where $$\| f\|_s :=\int dv f(v) (1+v^2)^{\frac s 2}\;.$$ Similarly, the second term in the right hand side of can be written as && dv dv\_1 \_[S\^2\_+]{} dø ø(v-v\_1) v’\^2 ( [K]{} (v) f(v\_1) +[K]{} (v\_1) f(v) )\
&& = dv dv\_1 \_[S\^2\_+]{} dø ø(v-v\_1) ( v\^2+v\_1\^2 ) [K]{} (v) f(v\_1)\
&& = dv dv\_1 |v-v\_1| ( v\^2+v\_1\^2 ) [K]{} (v) f(v\_1). Notice that the first term above cancels exactly the first term in the r.h.s. of . In conclusion: d[dt]{} K\_2=dv dv\_1 v\_1\^2 |v-v\_1| f(v\_1) [K]{} (v)+A\_2. With a similar computation we obtain \[deriv0\] d[dt]{} K\_0&&=dv dv\_1 |v-v\_1| f(v\_1) [K]{} (v)+A\_0\
&& =dv R(v) [K]{} (v)+A\_0, where \[A0\] A\_0 := && dv dv\_1 |v-v\_1| f(v\_1) f(v)\
&&=dv R(v) f(v) .
We observe now that, if the initial datum has finite norm $\| f_0 \|_3$, then $\| f(t) \|_3$ remains bounded at any positive time. This is shown for instance in Theorem 1.1 of [@MW99] (and proved already in [@Des93]). In the same assumptions, putting $C_1 = \pi \sup_{t\geq 0}\| f(t) \|_3$ and $C_2 = 2\pi \sup_{t\geq 0}\| f(t) \|_3^2$, we get \[dis\] d[dt]{} K\_2C\_1( +K\_0)+C\_2 and \[dis\] d[dt]{} K\_0C\_1 ( +K\_0)+C\_2. Indeed, &&d[dt]{} K\_2 dv dv\_1 v\_1\^2( |v|+|v\_1| )f(v\_1) [K]{} (v)+A\_2\
&& = ( dv |v| [K]{} (v) ) ( dv v\^2 f(v) ) + K\_0 ( dv |v|\^3 f(v) ) + A\_2\
&& ( dv |v| [K]{} (v) ) f \_3+ K\_0 f \_3 + f \_3\^2. By Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, $\int dv |v| {\cal K} (v) \leq \sqrt{\int dv |v|^2 {\cal K} (v)}
\sqrt{\int dv {\cal K} (v)} = \sqrt{K_2K_0}$, hence &&d[dt]{} K\_2 f(t) \_3( +K\_0) + f(t) \_3\^2 which implies (3.12). To obtain the estimate (3.13) we follow the same path, but $A_0 \leq 2\p\left(\int
|v| f \right) \leq 2\p\| f(t) \|_3 \leq 2\p\| f(t) \|_3^2$.
Finally, to obtain a lower bound, we use that, if the initial datum $f_0$ has finite mass, energy and entropy, then $f(t)$ is bounded from below by a Maxwellian for any $t>0$ (see e.g. [@PW97]). In particular \[low\] R(v,t)C for some $\tilde C>0$ (depending on $f_0$). Therefore from – we obtain d[dt]{} K\_0C ( K\_0 + 1). Summarizing, we established the following:
\[thm:CL\] Let $f(t)$ be the solution of with initial datum $f_0$ such that $\| f_0 \|_3 < + \infty$ and $\int dv \, f_0(v)\log f_0 (v) < \infty$. Then there exist positive constants $\ol C_1, \ol C_2, \tilde C$ such that (e\^[C t]{}-1) K \_t C\_2 (e\^[C\_1 t]{}-1) for any $t\geq 0$. In particular, $r_+ \leq \ol C_1$ and $r_- \geq \tilde C$.
Note that the constant $\ol C_1$ is proportional to $\sup_{t\geq 0}\| f(t) \|_3$. (for instance using $\sqrt {K_0K_2} \leq (K_0+K_2)/\sqrt{2}$, one finds $\ol C_1 = C_1(2+\sqrt{2})$).
Numerical simulation {#sec:Numsim}
====================
The average size of backward clusters of a real hard sphere system is difficult to investigate mathematically and the agreement of its behaviour with the predictions of Theorem \[thm:CL\] is not obvious a priori. In this section we carry out the molecular dynamics simulation for hard spheres and compare it with the above results. It turns out that $\langle K \rangle_t$ grows indeed exponentially. The present simulations have to be considered as preliminary. A more detailed analysis will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
Let us explain the setting of our simulation. We consider $N$ particles of diameter ${\varepsilon}$ confined in a cube of side $L$. The position and velocity of the $i-$th particle at time $t$ are denoted here by $x_i(t)$, $v_i(t)$, $i\in I_N=\{ 1,2, \cdots , N\}$. At initial time $t=0$, the particles are uniformly distributed in the cube in such a way that they do not overlap each other. The initial velocities are independently distributed according to a function $f_0$, which will be specified later. We let the particles evolve freely until either following two events occur: (i) two of them collide with each other or (ii) one of them undergoes elastic collision with the wall of the cube. The velocity of particle(s) involved in the event is changed according to the collision law. The above procedure is iterated until a given time $t$ is achieved.
The sequence of times $0<t_1<\cdots<t_m<\cdots<t_{m_c}<t$, $(m=1,2,\cdots,m_c)$ is defined here as the instants at which the collision between two particles occurs. During the simulation, we retain the pair of particles \[say, a pair $(p_m,q_m)$\] which undergoes a collision at time $t_m$. Therefore, at the end of simulation, we have $\{t_m\}$ and $\{(p_m,q_m)\}$ for $m = 1,\cdots,m_c$. Based on these quantities, we can obtain the backward cluster $J_i$ of a particle with index $i$, according to the definition given in Section \[sec:intro\]. Note that $J_i$ does not include $i$ itself, i.e., if the $i-$th particle does not collide with any particle, then $J_i$ is empty. Let us denote by $K_i$ the cardinality of the backward cluster $J_i$. Then, we define by $g_N(K,t)$ the distribution of $K_i$ at time $t$: $$\begin{aligned}
g_N(K,t) = N^{-1} \#
\{
i\in I_N \,|\, K_i(t) = K
\}, \quad\quad {\left[}\sum_{K=0}^{N-1} g_N(K,t) =1 {\right]}.
\label{fN}\end{aligned}$$ The average of the cardinality is thus defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle K \rangle}_t= \sum_{K=0}^{N-1} K g_N(K,t).
\label{Kt}\end{aligned}$$
It may be worth showing that the quantity $g_N(k,t)$ is actually expected to be close to the quantity $ \int f^{(k)} dv$ which we have studied at the level of the Boltzmann equation. Indeed for a typical configuration $\bz_N$ and a fixed $t$ $$g_N(k,t)=\frac 1 N \sum_i \chi_{ \{K_i(t)=k\} } ( \bz_N) \approx \frac 1 N \sum_i \langle \chi_{\{K_i(t)=k\} } \rangle\;,$$ by virtue of the law of large numbers ($N$ large). Here $\chi\{...\}$ is an indicator function and $ \langle \cdot \rangle $ is the expectation with respect to the (almost factorized) initial distribution of the initial datum $\bz_N$. Moreover the Boltzmann–Grad limit yields $$\frac 1 N \sum_i \langle \chi_{\{K_i(t)=k\} } \rangle=\langle \chi_{\{K_1(t)=k\} }\rangle\approx
\int f^{(k)}(v,t) dv.$$
In accordance with the analysis, we fix $N\epsilon^2 = \lambda^{-1} =1$. Moreover, $L=1$. The initial velocities $v_i(0)$ $(i\in I_N)$ are generated according to the distribution $f_0$, which is, in the present simulation,
\[initial\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Case 1:}\quad f_0(v) = f_{\infty}(v) \equiv
\frac{1}{(2\pi/3 )^{3/2}}\exp{\left(}-\frac{|v|^2}{2/3}{\right)}, \quad
{\left(}E =\frac{1}{2}{\right)}, \label{case1}\\
&\text{Case 2:}\quad f_0(v) = \frac{1}{8}
\prod_{p=1,2,3}\chi\left\{\left|v^{(p)}\right|<1\right\}, \quad
{\left(}E =\frac{1}{2}{\right)}, \\
&\text{Case 3:}\quad f_0(v) = \frac{1}{(8\pi/3 )^{3/2}}\exp{\left(}-\frac{|v|^2}{8/3}{\right)}, \quad
{\left(}E =2{\right)}, \label{case3}\end{aligned}$$
where $E=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^3}\frac{1}{2}|v|^2 f_0(v) dv$ is the energy (we let the mass of particles be unity) and $v^{(p)}$ is the $p-$th component of $v$. Cases 1 and 3 are equilibrium states with different energy, while Case 2 is a nonequilibrium state having same energy as Case 1. The velocity distribution of particles in Case 2 approaches the equilibrium $f_{\infty}$ as time goes on. In the actual simulation, due to noise, the energy $E$ is not exactly identical to the assigned one.
![ The average cardinality versus time in logarithmic scale for (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3 \[cf. Eq. \]. Note that the range of $t$ in panel (c) is different from those in panels (a) and (b). For each curve, the ensemble average over $M$ different simulations is taken in order to decrease noise. We set $N\epsilon^2 = 1$ and $L=1$, while $(N,M)=(1802,72)$, $(2402,54)$, $(3203,40)$, $(4271,30)$, $(5695,23)$, $(7593,17)$, $(10125,13$, $(13500,10)$, $(18000,8)$, $(24000,6)$, $(32000,4)$, $(42666,3)$, $(56888,3)$, $(75851,2)$, and $(101135,2)$. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig_result_ver3.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Before stating the numerical results, it is necessary to mention the mean free time $\tau$ of the system. The mean free time $\tau$ at an equilibrium state (with energy $E$) can be easily computed as $\tau = [4 (2\pi E/3 )^{1/2} N\epsilon^2]^{-1}$, see [@So07]. Therefore, we obtain $\tau =(4\sqrt{\pi/3})^{-1}\approx 0.244$ for Cases 1 and 2, and $\tau = (8\sqrt{\pi/3})^{-1}\approx 0.122$ for Case 3. On the other hand, $\tau$ can be also computed from the numerical simulation. At the end of the simulation, we know $m_c$, which is the total number of collisions between particles. Since a single collision involves two particles, the total number of particles involved in $m_c$ collisions is $2 m_c$. The time–averaged free time is then $t/(2 m_c)$, during which one of the $N$ particles experiences a collision with one of the others. Thus, for a tagged particle, it takes $N t/(2 m_c)$ (on average) to experience a collision with one of the others. In the simulation, we have obtained $N t/(2 m_c)=0.242$ for Case 1, $N t/(2 m_c)=0.241$ for Case 2 and $N t/(2 m_c)=0.121$ for Case 3 when $N=101135$ and $t=2$.
---------------------- -------- --------- ---------- -------- --------- ---------- -------- --------- ----------
$t$ $\backslash$ $N$ $1802$ $10125$ $101135$ $1802$ $10125$ $101135$ $1802$ $10125$ $101135$
0.4 4.288 4.201 4.199 4.290 4.244 4.190 8.576 8.403 8.399
0.8 4.227 4.221 4.223 4.222 4.253 4.211 8.455 8.442 8.446
1.2 4.090 4.199 4.233 4.088 4.216 4.223 8.180 8.399 8.467
1.6 3.840 4.116 4.230 3.841 4.118 4.218 7.680 8.233 8.461
2.0 3.462 3.916 4.191 3.467 3.925 4.180 6.924 7.833 8.382
---------------------- -------- --------- ---------- -------- --------- ---------- -------- --------- ----------
: The value of $\frac{1}{t}\log({\langle K \rangle}_t+1)$
\[table1\]
The plot in Fig. \[fig1\] and values in Table \[table1\] show that the exponential behavior $\langle K \rangle_t \approx e^{rt} - 1$ is approached as $N$ increases (${\varepsilon}$ decreases), in a range of times including several mean free flights. The value of $\frac{1}{t}\log({\langle K \rangle}_t+1)$, which should converge to $r$ as $N \to \infty$ and $t \to \infty$, in Case 1 and that in Case 2 are almost coincident, as expected from the discussion before Eq. . Observe that no transient is even visible in the case of a non–equilibrium, uniform distribution of velocities (Case 2). It is seen from Table \[table1\] that the value of $\frac{1}{t}\log({\langle K \rangle}_t+1)$ in Case 3 is almost twice larger than that of Case 1. This verifies (here $\beta=3$ in Case 1 and $\beta = 3/4$ in Case 3).
![The value of $\frac{1}{t}\log({\langle K \rangle}_t+1)$ for Cases 1 (*square*) and 2 (*circle*) in the range of time less than one mean free time; $(N,M)=(1802,720)$. []{data-label="fig02"}](fig_id101_102.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Finally, we have checked whether $r$ is different between Cases 1 and 2, especially for small time $t\in[0,0.2]$. Note that $t\in[0,0.2]$ is within one mean free time at equilibrium $(\tau\approx 0.244)$. Figure \[fig02\] shows that the values of $\frac{1}{t}\log({\langle K \rangle}_t+1)$ for both cases differ, but the discrepancy is small.
The authors would like to thank Chiara Saffirio and Herbert Spohn for stimulating discussions. S. Simonella has been partially supported by PRIN 2009 ÒTeorie cinetiche e applicazioniÓ and by IndamÐCOFUND Marie Curie fellowship 2012, call 10. T. Tsuji has been supported by the JSPS Institutional Program for Young Researcher Overseas Visits.
[77777]{} \[sec:bib\]
A. V. Bobylev. The theory of the nonlinear spatially uniform Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules. [*Soviet Sci. Rev. Sect. C Math. Phys. Rev.*]{} [**7**]{}, Harwood Academic Publ., Chur, 1988.
E. A. Carlen, M. C. Carvalho and E. Gabetta. Central limit theorem for Maxwellian molecules and truncation of the Wild expansion. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**53**]{}, 3, 370–397, 2000.
L. Desvillettes. Some applications of the method of moments for the homogeneous Boltzmann equation. [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**123**]{}, 4, 387–395, 1993.
A. Gabrielov, V. Keilis-Borok, Ya. Sinai and I. Zaliapin. Statistical Properties of the Cluster Dynamics of the Systems of Statistical Mechanics. In: [*Boltzmann’s Legacy*]{}, ESI Lectures in Mathematics and Physics, EMS Publishing House, 203–216, 2008.
H. Grad. On the kinetic theory of rarefied gases. *Comm. on Pure and App. Math.* [**2**]{}, 4, 331–407, 1949.
H. Grad. Principles of the kinetic theory of gases. S. Flügge ed. *Handbuch der Physik* [**12**]{}, 205–294, 1958.
O. E. Lanford. Time evolution of large classical systems. In “Dynamical systems, theory and applications”, *Lecture Notes in Physics*, ed. J. Moser, **38**, 1–111, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1975.
H. J. McKean. Speed of approach to equilibrium for KacÕs caricature of a Maxwellian gas. [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**21**]{}, 343–367, 1966.
S. Mischler and B. Wennberg. On the spatially homogeneous Boltzmann equation. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire*]{} [**16**]{}, 4, 467–501, 1999.
M. Pulvirenti and S. Simonella. The Boltzmann–Grad limit of a hard sphere system: analysis of the correlation error. Preprint, [*arXiv:1405.4676*]{}, 2014.
A. Pulvirenti and B. Wennberg. A Maxwellian lower bound for solutions to the Boltzmann equation. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**183**]{}, 145–160, 1997.
Y. Sone. Molecular Gas Dynamics: Theory, Techniques, and Applications. [*Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology*]{}, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
Ya.G. Sinai. Construction of Dynamics in Infinite Systems of Particles. [*Theoretical and Mathematical Physics*]{}, [**12**]{}, 487, 1973.
Ya.G. Sinai. Construction of Cluster Dynamics for Dynamical Systems of Statistical Mechanics. [*Proc. of Moscow State University*]{}, N1, 152, 1974.
C. Villani. A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory. *Handbook of mathematical fluid dynamics*, Vol. I, 71–305, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
E. Wild. On Boltzmann equation in the kinetic theory of gases. [*Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{} [**47**]{}, 602–609, 1951.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the gravity water waves system in the case of a one dimensional interface, for sufficiently smooth and localized initial data, and prove global existence of small solutions. This improves the almost global existence result of Wu [@WuAG]. We also prove that the asymptotic behavior of solutions as time goes to infinity is different from linear, unlike the three dimensional case [@GMS2; @Wu3DWW]. In particular, we identify a suitable nonlinear logarithmic correction and show modified scattering. The solutions we construct in this paper appear to be the first global smooth nontrivial solutions of the gravity water waves system in 2d.'
address:
- Princeton University
- Princeton University
author:
- 'Alexandru D. Ionescu'
- Fabio Pusateri
title: Global solutions for the gravity water waves system in 2d
---
\[section\] \[theo\][Proposition]{} \[theo\][Lemma]{} \[theo\][Definition]{} \[theo\][Remark]{} \[theo\][Corollary]{}
[^1]
Introduction
============
The problem
-----------
The evolution of an inviscid perfect fluid that occupies a domain $\Omega_t$ in $\R^n$ ($n \geq 2$) at time $t$, is described by the free boundary incompressible Euler equations. If $v$ and $p$ denote respectively the velocity and the pressure of the fluid (which is assumed here to have constant density equal to $1$), these equations are: $$\tag{E}
\label{E}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(v_t + v \cdot \nabla v) = - \nabla p - g e_n & x \in \Omega_t
\\
\nabla \cdot v = 0 & x \in \Omega_t
\\
v (0,x) = v_0 (x) & x \in \Omega_0 \, ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $g$ is the gravitational constant, which we will assume to be $1$ from now on. The free surface $S_t := \partial \Omega_t$ moves with the normal component of the velocity, and, in absence of surface tension, the pressure vanishes on the boundary: $$\tag{BC}
\label{BC}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t + v \cdot \nabla \,\, \mbox{is tangent to} \,\, \bigcup_t S_t \subset \R^{n+1}
\\
p (t,x) = 0 \,\, , \,\,\, x \in S_t \, .
\end{array}
\right.$$
In the case of irrotational flows, i.e. $$\label{irro}
\curl v = 0 \, ,$$ one can reduce - to a system on the boundary. Although this reduction can be performed identically regardless of the number of spatial dimensions, we only focus on the two dimensional case which is the one we are interested in. Assume that $\Omega_t \subset \R^2$ is the region below the graph of a function $h : \R_t \times \R_x \rightarrow \R$, that is $\Omega_t = \{ (x,y) \in \R^2 \, : y \leq h(t,x) \}$ and $S_t = \{ (x,y) : y = h(t,x) \}$. Let us denote by $\Phi$ the velocity potential: $\nabla \Phi(t,x,y) = v (t,x,y)$, for $(x,y) \in \Omega_t$. If $\phi(t,x) := \Phi (t, x, h(x,t))$ is the restriction of $\Phi$ to the boundary $S_t$, the equations of motion reduce to the following system for the unknowns $h, \phi : \R_t \times \R_x \rightarrow \R$: $$%\tag{WW$_E$}
\label{WWE}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t h = G(h) \phi
\\
\\
\partial_t \phi = -h - \frac{1}{2} {|\phi_x|}^2 + \frac{1}{2(1+{|h_x|}^2)} {\left( G(h)\phi + h_x \phi_x \right)}^2
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $$\label{defG0}
G(h) := \sqrt{1+{|h_x|}^2} \N(h)$$ where $\N(h)$ is the Dirichlet-Neumann operator associated to the domain $\Omega_t$. Expanding the Dirichlet-Neumann operator for small perturbations of a flat surface one arrives at $$\label{Euler}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\partial_t h = & {|\partial_x|} \phi - \partial_x( h \partial_x \phi) - {|\partial_x|} (h {|\partial_x|} \phi)
\\
& - \frac{1}{2} {|\partial_x|} \left[ h^2 {|\partial_x|}^2 \phi + {|\partial_x|} (h^2 {|\partial_x|} \phi)
- 2 (h {|\partial_x|} (h {|\partial_x|} \phi ) ) \right]
+ R_1
\\
\\
\partial_t \phi = & - h - \frac{1}{2} {|\phi_x|}^2 + \frac{1}{2} {|{|\partial_x|} \phi|}^2 +
{|\partial_x|} \phi \left[ h {|\partial_x|}^2 \phi - {|\partial_x|} (h {|\partial_x|} \phi) \right]
+ R_2
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are terms of order $4$ and higher in $h$ and $\phi$. We refer to [@SulemBook chap. 11] or [@CraSul] for the derivation of the water wave equations and .
Another possible description for - can be given in Lagrangian coordinates again by deriving, in the case of irrotational flows , a system of equations on the boundary $S_t$. More precisely, following [@WuAG], let $z(t,\a)$, for $\a \in \R$, be the equation of the free interface $S_t$ at time $t$ in Lagrangian coordinates, i.e. $z_t(t,\a) = v (t, z(t,\a))$. Identifying $\R^2$ with the complex plane we use the same notation for a point $z=(x,y)$ and its complex from $z = x + i y$. We will then denote $\bar{z} = x - i y \sim (x,-y)$. The divergence and curl free condition on the velocity $v$ imply that $\bar{v}$ is holomorphic in $\Omega_t$. Therefore $\bar{z}_t = \H_z \bar{z}_t$, where $\H_\g$ denotes the Hilbert transform along a curve $\g$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HT}
(\H_\g f )(t,\a) := \frac{1}{i \pi} \int_\R \frac{ f(t,\b) }{\g(t,\a) - \g(t,\b)} \, \g_\b (t,\b) \, d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ The vanishing of the pressure in implies that $\nabla p$ is perpendicular to $S_t$ and therefore $- \nabla p = i {\bf a} z_\a$, with ${\bf a} := - \frac{\partial P}{\partial n} \frac{1}{|z_\a|}$. Since $z_{tt}(t,\a) = \left(v_t + v\cdot \nabla v \right) (t,z(t,\a))$, one see that -- in two dimensions are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
%\tag{WW$_L$}
\label{WWL}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
z_{tt} + i = i {\bf a} z_\a
\\
\bar{z}_t = \H_z \bar{z}_t \, .
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ In [@Wu1] Wu was able to reduce this fully nonlinear system to a quasilinear one, and to exploit the weakly hyperbolic structure of the new system to obtain local-in-time existence of solutions in Sobolev spaces by energy methods. Earlier results for small initial data in two dimensions were proven by Nalimov [@Nalimov] and Yosihara [@Yosi]. In [@Wu2] Wu was also able to prove local existence for the three dimensional problem (two dimensional interface). Following the breakthrough of [@Wu1; @Wu2], there has been considerable amount of work on the local well-posedness of -, also including other effects on the wave motion, such as surface tension on the interface or a finite bottom. We refer the reader to [@ABZ1; @AM; @BG; @CL; @Lindblad; @Lannes; @ShZ3] for some of the works on the local well-posedness of . Recently, blow-up “splash” solutions have been constructed, see [@CCFGG] and references therein.
The question of existence of global-in-time solutions for small, smooth, and suitably localized data, has also received attention in recent years. In the case of one dimensional interfaces, the only work investigating the long time behavior of small gravity waves is that of Wu [@WuAG], who was able to show almost global existence of solutions for . To do this, the author proposed some new unknowns, which we denote by $F$, and a fully nonlinear change of coordinates, reducing to a system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubicintro}
\partial_t^2 F + i\partial_\a F = G \end{aligned}$$ where $G$ are quasilinear nonlinearities of cubic and higher order with suitable structure. Thanks to the cubic nature of this new system Wu was then able to perform (almost optimal) energy estimates and obtain existence of solutions up to times of order $e^{c/\e}$, where $\e$ is the size of the initial data. For two dimensional interfaces, Germain, Masmoudi and Shatah [@GMS2] and Wu [@Wu3DWW] obtained instead global solutions. The result of [@GMS2] relied on the energy method of [@ShZ1; @ShZ3] and on the space-time resonance method introduced in [@GMS1]. In [@Wu3DWW] the author used instead a three dimensional version of the arguments of [@WuAG] to derive a set of equations similar to , perform weighted energy estimates on them, and obtain decay via $L^2-L^\infty$ type estimates. Recently, Germain, Masmoudi and Shatah [@GMSC] obtained global solutions in three dimensions for capillary waves, i.e. with surface tension on the interface and no gravitational force.
Here we are interested in the gravity water waves system -- in the case of one dimensional interfaces which are a perturbation of the flat one, and initial velocity potentials which are suitably small in an appropriate norm. We aim to prove the existence of global-in-time and pointwise decaying solutions, and determine their asymptotic behavior as $t \rightarrow \infty$. We will use the same cubic equations and the same energy functional derived in [@WuAG] to obtain energy estimate on solutions expressed in Lagrangian coordinates. In particular, we will improve the estimates of [@WuAG] to ensure control of high order Sobolev norms and weighted norms for all times, provided that solutions decay at the linear rate of $t^{-1/2}$. We instead use the Eulerian formulation to prove the necessary decay. In order to do so, we follow in part the strategy of [@GMS2] and refine some of the analysis performed there. We then apply the strategy used in our previous paper [@FNLS], where a simpler model for a fractional Schrödinger equation with cubic nonlinearities was analyzed. This allows us to identify a suitable nonlinear asymptotic correction to the solution expressed in Eulerian coordinates, and obtain modified scattering as a consequence. We refer to section \[secintro2\] for a more detailed discussion about these aspects, and to section \[secproof\] for a description of the strategy of our proof.
Statement of results
--------------------
### Spaces
Fix[^2] $N_0 = 10^4$ and define $N_1 := \frac{N_0}{2} + 4$. Let $S=\frac{1}{2} t \partial_t + \a \partial_\a$ be the scaling vector field and define the space: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defX_k}
X_k &:= \left\{ f : {\| f \|}_{X_k} := {\| f \|}_{H^k} + {\| S f \|}_{H^\frac{k}{2}} < \infty \right\} \, .\end{aligned}$$ $X_{N_0}$ will be the weighted Energy-space for the solution, expressed in some appropriate modified Lagrangian coordinates, as well as in Eulerian coordinates. Given the height function $h$ and the velocity potential $\phi$ in Eulerian coordinates, we define the space $Z^\p$ by the norm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defZp}
{\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} := {\| h(t) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} + {\| \Lambda \phi(t) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \, ,
\quad \mbox{with} \quad \Lambda := {|\partial_x|}^{\frac{1}{2}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This is the decaying norm the we will estimate. Decay of this norm at the rate of $t^{-1/2}$ will give us a small global solution to the water wave problem. We also defined the space $Z$ given by the norm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defZ}
{\| f(t) \|}_{Z} := \sup_{\xi\in\R} \left| \left( {|\xi|}^\b + |\xi|^{N_1 + 15} \right) \what{f}(\xi,t) \right| %\, .\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = 1/100$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\what{f}(\xi,t) := \int_\R e^{-i x\xi} f(x,t) \, dx\end{aligned}$$ is the partial Fourier transform in the spatial variable. This space plays a key role in obtaining decay and scattering for the solution expressed in Eulerian coordinates.
### Main Theorem
We aim to prove the following Theorem:
\[maintheo\] Let $h_0(x) = h(0,x)$ be the initial height of the surface $S_0$, and let $\phi_0 (x) = \phi(0,x)$ be the restriction to $S_0$ of the initial velocity potential. Assume that at the initial time one has
\[initdata\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{initdataa}
& {\| (h_0, \Lambda \phi_0) \|}_{H^{N_0+2}} + {\left\| x \partial_x \left( h_0, \Lambda \phi_0 \right) \right\|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}}
+ {\| h_0 + i \Lambda \phi_0 \|}_{Z} \leq \e_0 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is defined in . Moreover, for $x \in \Omega_0$ let $v_0(x) = v(0,x)$, where $v$ is the irrotational and divergence free velocity field of the fluid, and assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{initdatab}
{\| |x|\nabla v_0 \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2} (\Omega_0)}
%+ {\| x\partial_x g_0 \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}(\R)}
\leq \e_0 \, .\end{aligned}$$
Then there exists $\bar{\e}_0$ small enough, such that for any $\e_0 \leq \bar{\e}_0$, the initial value problem associated to admits a unique global solution with $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| (h(t), \Lambda \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \e_0 (1+t)^{p_0}
\\
& {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} %{W^{\frac{N_0}{2},\infty}}
\lesssim \frac{\e_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ where $p_0$ is a small positive number. Furthermore, this solution scatters in a nonlinear fashion as described in Proposition \[proscatt\] below.
### Conditions on the initial data
The first norm in ensures that our initial data is small and smooth in Sobolev spaces of high regularity. Notice that we are assuming that the interface, given by the graph of $h$, as well as half derivative of the velocity potential are small. This is consistent with the conserved energy (and Hamiltonian) $$E_0(h,\phi) := \frac{1}{2} \int \phi G(h) \phi \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int h^2 \, dx$$ for solutions of . In three dimensions, global solutions have been constructed in [@Wu3DWW] only under assumptions about the smallness of $h_x$ and $\phi_x$, but the almost global solutions of [@WuAG] in two dimensions have small energy $E_0$. The second norm in , properly evolved in time, gives some control of certain weighted norms of the solution. However, due to the (super) critical nature of the problem, and to the long range nonlinear effects, this control is not uniform in time, and does not suffice to ensure the necessary decay. We will comment more on this aspect in section \[secintro2\] below. The third condition in is the smallness of $h$ and $\Lambda \phi$ in the $Z$-norm defined in . It essentially reduces to assuming that the Fourier transform of $h+i\Lambda\phi$ is in $L^\infty({|\xi|}^\b d\xi)$, for $\b>0$. Controlling the $Z$-norm of the evolution uniformly in time is crucial to obtain decay by applying a phase correction to the solution. Furthermore, modified scattering follows as a consequence of the uniform estimates on the $Z$-norm. Finally, is similar to a condition imposed by Wu in [@WuAG]. We use it as in the cited paper to guarantee that the energy functional on which energy estimates are based is small at time $t=0$.
Main ideas in the proof {#secintro2}
-----------------------
If one is interested in the long-time existence of small smooth solutions to quasilinear dispersive and wave equations, such as or , there are two main aspects one needs to consider: controlling high frequencies and proving dispersion. The first aspect is generally connected to the construction of high order energies which control the Sobolev norm of a solution. The second aspect is related to $L^p$ decay estimates, and to estimates of weighted norms. When dealing with the water waves system both of these aspects are extremely delicate.
### Supercriticality, energy estimates and normal forms
The general strategy for obtaining a global small solution usually starts with local-in-time energy estimates. The aim of the energy method is to construct an energy functional $E(t)$ such that $$\label{Ein}
E(t) \sim {\| u(t) \|}_{H^N}^2 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt} E(t) \lesssim E(t)^{3/2} \, .$$ Here, the power $3/2$ is dictated by the quadratic nature of the nonlinearities in or . The estimates are often the key ingredient in obtaining local solutions, and for initial data of size $\e$ they give existence for times of order $1/\e$. We remark here that the construction of an energy satisfying for the water waves system is particularly challenging. Nevertheless it has been done in several works, such as the already cited [@ABZ1; @BG; @CL; @Lindblad; @Lannes; @ShZ3; @Wu1; @Wu2], thanks to considerable insight into the structure of the equations.
To extend a local solution for longer times one needs to engage the dispersive effects of the equation. One possibility is to try to upgrade to $$\label{Ein2}
{\| u(t) \|}^2_{H^N} + {\| u (t) \|}^2_W \lesssim E(t) \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt} E(t) \lesssim \frac{\e}{t^a} \, E(t) \, ,$$ provided the solution decays like $t^{-a}$ in some $L^\infty$-based space. The W-norm in is supposed to encode some information about the localization of the flow. In the best case scenario a bound of the form ${\| u (t) \|}_W \lesssim 1$ implies the desired $t^{-a}$ decay. Thus, if one can prove with $a > 1$ small solutions will exist globally and scatter to a linear solution. If $a = 1$ solutions will automatically exist almost globally and further analysis[^3] is needed in this critical case to show global existence and determine the asymptotic behavior. If $a < 1$ the problem of global existence and scattering is much more difficult. This case is referred to as scattering supercritical and it is the case of the $2d$ water waves problem, since solutions of the linear equation $i \partial_t u - \Lambda u = 0$, $\Lambda = {|\partial_x|}^{1/2}$, decay at the rate $t^{-1/2}$.
One possibility to compensate for the weak linear decay - or the strength of the quadratic nonlinearity - consists in trying to convert the quadratic equations into cubic ones. To explain one possible way of doing this, let us look at the system expressed in Eulerian coordinates . Defining $u := h + i \Lambda \phi$, can be reduced to a scalar equation of the form $$\label{WWmodel}
i \partial_t u - \Lambda u = Q (u,\bar{u}) + C (u,\bar{u}) + R (u,\bar{u}) ,$$ where $Q$ is a quadratic expression in $u$ and $\bar{u}$, $C$ denotes cubic terms and $R$ denotes quartic and higher order terms. $Q,C$ and $R$ in are determined by the nonlinearities in . It is well known, see for example [@CraigBirk; @CW; @GMS2], that the gravity water waves equations present no quadratic resonances, in the classical sense of dynamical systems or, equivalently, they are time non-resonant in the sense of [@GMS1; @GMS2]. One can then find a bilinear change of unknowns $u \rightarrow v := u + B(u,u)$, called normal form transformation [@shatahKGE], such that the new unknown $v$ satisfies an equation of the form $$\label{WWcubicmodel}
i \partial_t v - \Lambda v = \wt{C} (v,\bar{v}) \, + \, \mbox{higher order terms} \, , %\wt{R} (u,\bar{u}) \, ,$$ where $\wt{C}$ is a cubic nonlinearity. One would then hope to exploit the cubic nature of the nonlinearity to construct an energy $\wt{E}(t)$ such that can improved to $$\label{Ein3}
{\| v (t) \|}^2_{H^N} + {\| v (t) \|}^2_{W} \lesssim \wt{E}(t) \qquad
\mbox{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt} \wt{E}(t) \lesssim \frac{\e^2}{t^{2a}} \, \wt{E}(t) \, . %{\| v(t) \|}^2_{\wt{Z}}$$ Since $a=1/2$ in our problem, we would then have reduced matters to a critical, rather than supercritical, situation. However, given the quasilinear nature of , the standard bilinear transformation of [@CraigBirk] and [@GMS2] seems to destroy the structure that allows energy estimates like . In the case of a two dimensional interface, this difficulty was overcome by Germain, Masmoudi and Shatah in [@GMS2] by exploiting the stronger $t^{-1}$ linear decay, and the fact that energy estimates can be proven separately via a different formulation of the equations [@ShZ1; @ShZ3]. Thus, in [@GMS2] the normal form was needed only to prove decay, but not to control high Sobolev norms.
In the work of Wu [@Wu3DWW] global existence of small gravity water waves in $3$d was obtained by a different approach. In the cited work, as well as in her earlier work [@WuAG] on the two dimensional problem, the author relied on a nonlinear version of a normal form transformation. Starting from the Lagrangian formulation , Wu proposed some new quantities, and a diffeomorphism depending fully nonlinearly on the solution, such that the set of equations obtained in the new coordinates admit a certain type of energy estimates. These latter, combined with $L^2-L^\infty$ estimates à la Klainerman [@K0], gave the almost global existence result in $2$d [@WuAG] and the global existence result in $3$d [@Wu3DWW].
It is important to point out that in the two dimensional case the energy estimates in [@WuAG] are not sufficient to control the increment of high Sobolev norms for all times. To be more precise, let us denote by $F$ the new transformed unknowns satisfying cubic nonlinear equations like . In [@WuAG] the author proves the following type of energy estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EinWu}
{\| F(t) \|}^2_{H^N} + {\| F(t) \|}^2_{W} \lesssim E (t) \qquad
\mbox{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt} E (t) \lesssim {\| F(t) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{N}{2} ,\infty}} \, E(t) \log t + \frac{1}{t} E^2 (t)\, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $F(t)$ can decay at most like $t^{-1/2}$, one sees that can at best guarantee that $E(t) \lesssim \e^2$ as long as $\log t \lesssim \e^{-2}$. One of our goals will then be to improve by eliminating logarithmic losses. We will use the same approach of [@WuAG], and the same equations derived there, to show an estimate of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EinWuimp}
{\| F(t) \|}^2_{H^N} + {\| F(t) \|}^2_{W} \lesssim E (t) \qquad
\mbox{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt} E (t) \lesssim {\| F (t) \|}^2_{Z_\infty} \, E(t) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some $L^\infty$ based space $Z_\infty$ which is stronger than $W^{\frac{N}{2},\infty}$. Such an estimate is achieved by carefully analyzing the singular integrals (Calderon commutators) appearing in the cubic nonlinearities, and exploiting special structures present in some of them. Another crucial point is that in order to justify the existence of the new unknowns $F$, and hence of the energy $E$, for all times $t$, we need an appropriate a priori control on Wu’s change of coordinates. This is obtained by taking advantage a certain null structure present in the transformation.
### Dispersion and asymptotic behavior
Thanks to one can guarantee $E(t) \sim \e^2 t^{2p_0}$, for any fixed $p_0>0$, and for all $t \in [0,\infty)$, provided ${\| F(t) \|}_{Z_\infty} \lesssim \e t^{-1/2}$. However, since $E(t)$ is forced to grow in time, although just slightly, one cannot obtain the desired a decay through $L^2-L^\infty$ estimates like those in [@WuAG]. Our idea is then to use the Eulerian formulation of the equations for the purpose of proving decay and scattering.
If $h$ and $\phi$ are the Eulerian unknowns appearing in , we show that the energy satisfying controls $h$ and $\phi_x$ in $H^{N^\p}$ and in $S^{-1}H^{N^\p/2}$ for some $N^\p$ sufficiently large. Here $S=\frac{1}{2}t\partial_t + x\partial_x$ is the scaling vector field. Moreover, we show that decay for $h$ and $\Lambda \phi$ implies the decay of the $Z_\infty$ norm in . We then aim to obtain decay of $u = h + i\Lambda \phi$.
Starting from the equation for $u$ we transform it into the equation through a bilinear normal form, as already described above. Disregarding higher order terms for the sake of exposition, we are then reduced to study an equation of the form $$\label{eqvintro}
i \partial_t v -\Lambda v = C(v,\bar{v}) \, ,$$ where $C$ is a nonlocal cubic nonlinearity depending on all possible combination of $v$ and $\bar{v}$ and some of their derivatives. Using the special structure of the quadratic transformation and of the equation , we first improve some of the bounds provided by the energy estimates. We then notice that since decay is only needed for a much lower number of derivatives of the solution than those controlled by the energy, proving decay for a solution of is essentially equivalent to proving decay for $$\label{modeleq}
i \partial_t w -\Lambda w = c_0{|w|}^2 w + c_1 w^3 + c_2 w \bar{w}^2 + c_3 \bar{w}^3 \, ,$$ where $c_0\in\mathbb{R}$ and $c_1,c_2,c_3\in\mathbb{C}$. This simpler model was already studied by the authors in [@FNLS]. In this latter work we developed a simple idea, already employed by second author and Kato [@KP] in the context of NLS equations, and used Fourier analytical tools to show global existence and modified scattering for solutions of . More precisely, we identified the leading order term in the nonlinearity of via a stationary phase argument, and removed it by applying a phase correction to $\what{w}$. This allowed us to bound uniformly $\what{w}$ and obtain a $t^{-1/2}$ decay for $w$, as well as modified scattering[^4]. By properly adapting the arguments and the slightly different norms used in [@FNLS], using again some additional structure of the cubic nonlinearities, we are able to show decay for solutions of . This in turn gives decay for $u$ and closes the argument.
### Plan of the paper
In section \[secproof\] we give the strategy of our proof through Propositions \[prolocal2\]-\[prodecay\]. In section \[secproofmain\] we prove the main Theorem \[maintheo\] assuming these Propositions. In section \[secEuler\] we state Propositions \[proE1\]-\[proE4\] and show how they imply the decay and the control of lower Sobolev norms stated in Proposition \[prodecay\]. Propositions \[proE1\]-\[proE4\] are then proved in sections \[secproE1\] and \[secproE4\]. In \[secL\] we start by describing the change of coordinates used by Wu in [@WuAG], the cubic equations obtained there, and the associated energy functional. We then proceed to show Proposition \[prok\]. i.e. that the change of coordinates used is a diffeomorphism, on any time interval where one has a small solution satisfying certain a priori bounds. In section \[secproenergy\] we prove the energy estimates contained in Proposition \[proenergy\] via Propositions \[proenergy1\]-\[proenergy3\]. These are later proved in the appendix, in sections \[secproenergy1\]-\[secproenergy3\]. The transition of energy norms to Eulerian coordinates is done in section \[secproLE\], where we prove Proposition \[proLE\]. In appendix \[appWu\] we first give some variants of the estimates used in [@WuAG] that are compatible with our energy estimates. Section \[secop\] contains some estimates for singular integral operators of “Calderon commutators” type that are used in the course of the energy estimates. The full energy argument is then performed in the appendix \[secEE\]. In \[secsym\] we calculate the resonant contribution of the cubic nonlinearities in Eulerian coordinates, after the application of the normal form. This is needed to relate the water waves equation in the form , to the model . Finally, in appendix \[appR\], we give some estimates on the Dirichlet-Neumann operator and treat the higher order remainders in .
Strategy of the proof {#secproof}
=====================
The proof of Theorem \[maintheo\] relies on a set of different Propositions. In each subsection below we state one of these key Propositions and make some comments.
Local Existence
---------------
Our strategy for controlling high Sobolev norm of solutions relies on the energy method of Wu [@WuAG], which is developed starting from the Lagrangian formulation of the problem. Therefore we begin by describing the local existence theory in Lagrangian coordinates. Assume that at the initial time the interface $S_0$ is given by the graph of a function $h_0:\R \rightarrow \R$, with $h_0(\a) \rightarrow 0$ as $|\a| \rightarrow \infty$. Let $z_0(\a) = \a + i h_0(\a)$ be a parametrization of $S_0 \subset \C$. Assume that for some $\mu > 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
|z_0(\a) - z_0(\b)| \geq \mu |\a-\b| \qquad \forall \, \a, \, \b \in \R \, .\end{aligned}$$ Let $z = z(t,\a)$ be the equation of the free surface $S_t$ at time $t$, in the Lagrangian coordinate $\a$, with $z(0,\a) = z_0(\a)$. The following local existence result holds:
\[prolocal2\]
Let $N \geq 4$ be an integer. Assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{localinitdataz}
\sum_{ 0 \leq j \leq N} {\left\| \partial_\a^j
\left( z_\a(0) - 1, z_t(0), \partial_\a z_t(0) \right) \right\|}_{H^{1/2}} +
{\left\| \left( \partial_\a^j (z_{tt}(0), \partial_\a z_{tt}(0) \right) \right\|}_{L^2} \leq \e_0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists a time $T>0$, depending only on the norm of the initial data, such that the initial value problem for has unique solution $z = z(t,\a)$ for $t \in [0,T]$, satisfying for all $j \leq N$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \partial_\a^j \left( z_\a - 1, z_t, \partial_\a z_t \right) \in C \left( [0,T],H^{1/2}(\R) \right)
\\
& \partial_\a^j \left( z_{tt}, \partial_\a z_{tt} \right) \in C \left( [0,T],L^2(\R) \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ and $|z(t,\a) - z(t,\b)| \geq \nu |\a-\b|$, for all $\a,\b \in \R$, $t \in [0,T]$, and some $\nu > 0$.
Moreover, one has the following continuation criterion: if $T^\ast$ is the supremum of all such times $T$, then either $T^\ast = \infty$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contcrit}
\sup_{t\in[0,T^\ast]} \Big( \sum_{ 0 \leq j \leq \left[\frac{N+1}{2}\right] + 2}
{\| \partial^j_\a z_{tt}(t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \partial^j_\a z_t(t) \|}_{H^{1/2}}
+ \sup_{\a \neq \b} \Big| \frac{\a-\b}{z(t,\a) - z(t,\b)} \Big| \Big) = \infty\, .\end{aligned}$$
Given $N = N_0$, and a local solution on $[0,T]$, we aim to extend it to a global one. The starting point is the following a priori hypothesis: there exists $\e_1 \ll 1$, to be later determined depending on $\e_0$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apriori0L}
\tag{L0}
\sup_{[0,T]} \Big( \sum_{ 0 \leq j \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2}
{\| \partial^j_\a z_{tt} (t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \partial^j_\a z_t (t) \|}_{H^{1/2}}
+ {\| z_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} \Big) \leq \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ If the above hypothesis can be verified a priori, it will follow that is violated and therefore the solution is global.
Under the a priori assumption , we have that $\Re z$ is a diffeomorphism on $[0,T]$. We can then relate the graph of the water wave $h(t,x)$ in Eulerian coordinates $x$, to the imaginary part of the Lagrangian map $z(t,\a)$ via the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h00}
h (t, \Re z(t,\a) ) = \Im z(t,\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we have the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi00}
\phi (t, \Re z(t,\a) ) = \psi (t,\a) \, \end{aligned}$$ between the trace of the velocity potential $\Phi$ in Eulerian coordinates, i.e. $\phi$, and in Lagrangian coordinates, i.e. $\psi$. As explained below, we will work with the Eulerian unknowns $h$ and $\phi$ to show decay and scattering of solutions. In order to do this we make the following a priori assumptions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apriori0}
\tag{E0}
\sup_{[0,T]} \left[ (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| (h(t), \phi_x (t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \right] \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $X_{N_0}$ is defined by and $Z^\p$ is defined in .
The good Lagrangian coordinates and the transformation $k$
----------------------------------------------------------
Given a local solution $z$ on $[0,T]$ one can define a change of coordinates $k$ as in [@WuAG], to obtain cubic equations amenable to energy estimates. The explicit form for $k$ is given in , and is the same used by Totz and Wu in [@WuNLS]. As long as this transformation $k$ is a well-defined diffeomorphism, one can associate to the Lagrangian map $z$ a modified Lagrangian map $\z = z \circ k^{-1}$, and the following vector associated to the new coordinates: $$\label{defwtL}
\wt{L}(t,\a) := \left( \z_\a(t,\a) - 1, u(t,\a), w(t,\a), \Im \z(t,\a) \right) \, ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\z := z \circ k^{-1}
\quad , \quad
u := z_t \circ k^{-1}
\quad , \quad
w := z_{tt} \circ k^{-1} \, .
\label{w_0}\end{aligned}$$ We then want to perform energy estimates to control the $X_{N_0}$-norm of $\wt{L}$. However, to ensure that these new unknowns are always well-defined, we first need to show that the change of variables $k$ is a diffeomorphism for all times $t \in [0,T]$. Therefore, in section \[secprok\] we prove the following:
\[prok\] Let $k$ be defined by , and assume $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kinit}
{\| k_\a(0) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \leq C \e_0 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C$. Assume a priori that $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{B1}
\label{apriorik}
\sup_{[0,T]} {\| k_\a (t) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \leq \frac{1}{2} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ Then, under the assumption above and - below, one has $$\begin{aligned}
%\tag{C1}
\label{apriorikconc}
\sup_{[0,T]} {\| k_\a (t) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_1^2 \, . %\frac{1}{4} \, .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $k$ is a diffeomorphism for all times $t \in [0,T]$.
The proof of the above Proposition relies crucially on the exploitation of a special null structure present in the transformation $k$.
Energy Estimates in the modified Lagrangian coordinates
-------------------------------------------------------
Given the modified Lagrangian coordinates $\wt{L}$ we proceed as done by Wu in [@WuAG] and write a set of equations for some “good unknowns” related to $\wt{L}$. These “good unknowns” are defined in , and , and they satisfy equations with cubic nonlinearities, see -. One can then associate to these equations an energy functional $E(t)$, see section \[secE\]. Using several estimates for some classes of singular integral operators (section \[secop\]) and exploiting some special structure of these equations, we are able to control in an optimal fashion the evolution of $E(t)$. In particular we prove the following energy estimates:
\[proenergy\] Let $\wt{L} \in C([0,T], H^{N_0})$ be defined by . Assume a priori that holds and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriL1}
\tag{L1}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \leq \e_1 \, ,
\\
\label{aprioriL2}
\tag{L2}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \left[ {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + \sqrt{1+t} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right] \leq \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then, if $$\begin{aligned}
%\tag{D}
\label{decayenergy}
\sqrt{1+t} {\| ( h(t), \phi(t) ) \|}_{Z^\p} %+ {\| h(t) + i \Lambda \phi(t) \|}_Z
\leq \e_1\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in[0,T]$, the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{concproenergy}
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_1^3 (1+t)^{p_0}\end{aligned}$$ whenever is satisfied with $\e_0$ sufficiently small.
The proof of the above Proposition is divided into three main steps given by Propositions \[proenergy1\], \[proenergy2\] and \[proenergy3\]. These are stated and used to prove Proposition \[proenergy\] in section \[secproenergy\]. Propositions \[proenergy1\], \[proenergy2\] and \[proenergy3\] are then proved in sections \[secproenergy1\], \[secproenergy2\] and \[secproenergy3\] respectively.
Energy bounds in Eulerian coordinates
-------------------------------------
The next step consists in translating the bounds given by the energy estimates in terms of the modified Lagrangian coordinates, to bounds the norms of the Eulerian variables $h$ and $\partial_x \phi$.
\[proLE\] Assume again that , and hold. Then, the Eulerian unknowns $(h,\phi)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conc1proLE}
& {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} %\lesssim \e_1 (1+t)^{p_0} \, . %maybe X^{N-1}
%Probably don't need equivalence below
%& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}} \sim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N-1}}\end{aligned}$$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{conc2proLE}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} + \e_1^2
\\
\label{conc3proLE}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Proposition \[proLE\] is given in section \[secproLE\].
Decay in Eulerian coordinates
-----------------------------
Assuming control of high Sobolev norms and of the weighted norm of the Eulerian unknowns - which is guaranteed a priori by and - we use the Eulerian formulation of the equations to show the decay of the $Z^\p$-norm and bound lower Sobolev norms:
\[prodecay\] Assume that holds for some $\e_1 \ll 1$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conc1prodecay}
\sup_{[0,T]} \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conc3prodecay}
{\| h(t) + i\Lambda \phi(t) \|}_{H^{N_1 + 10}} \leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_1^2\end{aligned}$$ for $\e_1$ sufficiently small.
In order to prove the decay of the $Z^\p$-norm we will perform a normal form transformation in . A crucial step then consists in applying a phase correction to the transformed solution, and estimating it in the auxiliary $Z$-norm defined in . The detailed strategy for the proof of Proposition \[prodecay\] can be found in section \[secEuler\], and relies on Propositions \[proE1\]-\[proE4\], which are proven in sections \[secproE1\] through \[secproE4\].
Scattering in Eulerian coordinates
----------------------------------
As a consequence of the proof of Proposition \[prodecay\], and in particular of the arguments in the proof of Proposition \[proE4\], we will obtain the following modified scattering for solutions of the water waves system in Eulerian coordinates:
\[proscatt\] Let $u(t) := h(t) + i \Lambda \phi(t)$, with $\Lambda := |\partial_x|^\frac{1}{2}$, and $f(t) := e^{i\Lambda t} u(t)$. Define $$H(\xi,t):= \frac{{|\xi|}^{4}}{\pi} \int_0^t|\widehat{f}(\xi,s)|^2 \frac{ds}{s+1} \, , \qquad t\in[0,T] \, .$$ Then there is $p_1>0$ such that $$\label{Zbound}
(1+t_1)^{p_1}\Big\|(1+|\xi|)^{N_1} \big[e^{iH(\xi,t_2)}\widehat{f}(\xi,t_2)-e^{iH(\xi,t_1)}\widehat{f}(\xi,t_1)\big]\Big\|_{L^2_\xi}
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^2.$$ for any $t_1\leq t_2\in [0,T]$. In particular, it follows that the global solution possesses the following modified scattering behavior: there is $p_1>0$ and $w_\infty\in L^2$ with the property that $$\label{scatt}
\sup_{t\in[0,\infty)}(1+t)^{p_1}{ \left\|
\exp \left( i\frac{{|\xi|}^{4}}{\pi}\int_0^t {\left| \what{f}(s,\xi) \right|}^2 \frac{ds}{s+1} \right)
(1+|\xi|)^{N_1} \what{f}(\xi,t) - w_\infty(\xi) \right\|}_{L^2_\xi}\lesssim \varepsilon_0.$$
Proof of the main Theorem {#secproofmain}
=========================
Under the assumptions on the initial data we can use Proposition \[prolocal2\] to obtain a local solution $z (t,\a)$, for $t\in[0,T]$. We assume a priori that holds for $\e_1 = \e_0^{3/4}$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apr1}
\sup_{[0,T]}\Big( \sum_{ 0 \leq j \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2}
{\| \partial_\a^j z_{tt} (t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \partial_\a^j z_t (t) \|}_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
+ {\| z_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} \Big) \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then consider $h$ and $\phi$ given by and , and assume with the same choice of $\e_1$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apr21}
& \sup_{[0,T]} (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| (h(t), \phi_x (t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, ,
\\
\label{apr22}
& \sup_{[0,T]} \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Given $k$ as defined in , one can easily verify that holds true under the assumption on the initial data . Thus, owing to Proposition \[prok\], we know that $k(t,\cdot)$ is a well defined diffeomorphism for all $t\in[0,T]$. We can the define then modified Lagrangian coordinates $\wt{L}(t)$ as in - for all $t\in[0,T]$, and assume a priori - with the same choice of $\e_1$ as above, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apr31}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, ,
\\
\label{apr32}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, ,
\\
\label{apr33}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \sqrt{1+t} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \leq \e_0^{3/4} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Under the assumptions - and we can use Proposition \[proenergy\] to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_0^2 (1+t)^{p_0} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t \in [0,T]} (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \e_0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ which is a stronger bound than the a priori assumption , for $\e_0$ small enough. Combing this bound with the conclusion in Proposition \[proLE\] we see that a bound stronger than also holds true.
Applying successively in Proposition \[proLE\] and in Proposition \[prodecay\], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} + \e_0^{3/2} \lesssim \e_0 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that is also a priori verified. Similarly, combining in Proposition \[proLE\] and in Proposition \[prodecay\] we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \lesssim \frac{\e_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which gives stronger estimates than and . All the a priori bounds - have then been shown to hold true.
We eventually need to verify a priori . Let us look at the third term on the left-hand side of . From the definition of $\z = z \circ k^{-1}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
z_\a - 1 = \z_\a \circ k \, k_\a - 1 = (\z_\a - 1) \circ k \, k_\a + k_\a - 1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using we immediately see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| z_\a - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| k_\a - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from the definition of $u = z_t \circ k^{-1}$ and $w = z_{tt} \circ k^{-1}$, and the bounds on $k$ given by , one sees that for any $0 \leq j \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a^j z_t \|}_{H^\frac{1}{2}} + {\| \partial_\a^j z_{tt} \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim \Big( {\| u \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+4}} + {\| w \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+4}} \Big) %\big( 1 + {\| k_\a - 1\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \big)
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{H^{N_1}} \lesssim \e_0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows that a local solution $z$ satisfying the weaker bound in fact satisfies the stronger bound $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{[0,T]} \Big( \sum_{ 0 \leq j \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2}
{\| \partial_\a^j z_{tt} (t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \partial_\a^j z_t (t) \|}_{H^\frac{1}{2}}
+ {\| z_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{L^\infty} \Big) \lesssim \e_0 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ violating the blow-up criterion . Such a solution can then be extended globally on $[0,\infty)$. In particular we also have that for all times $t \in [0,\infty)$ the solution expressed in Eulerian coordinates satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \lesssim \frac{\e_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and scatters as described in Proposition \[proscatt\]. $\hfill \Box$
Eulerian formulation and proof of Proposition \[prodecay\] {#secEuler}
==========================================================
In this section we first recall the water waves equations in Eulerian coordinates. We then explain our strategy for the proof of Proposition \[prodecay\]. This will be obtained as a consequence of Propositions \[proE1\], \[proE2\], \[proE3\] and \[proE4\] below.
The equations in Eulerian coordinates
-------------------------------------
The system of equations in Eulerian coordinates is $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t h = G(h) \phi
\\
\\
\partial_t \phi = -h - \frac{1}{2} {|\phi_x|}^2 + \frac{1}{2(1+{|h_x|}^2)} {\left( G(h)\phi + h_x \phi_x \right)}^2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$G(h) := \sqrt{1+{|h_x|}^2} \N(h)$$ and $\N$ denotes the Dirichlet-Neumann operator associated to $\Omega_t$.
Given a multilinear expression of $h$ and $\phi$ $$\begin{aligned}
F = F(h,\phi) = \sum_{j\geq 1} F_j(h,\phi),\end{aligned}$$ where $F_j$ is an homogeneous polynomial of order $j$ in its arguments, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kterm}
{[F]}_k := F_k (h,\phi) %(f_1,f_2, \dots, f_n)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k+term}
{[F]}_{\geq k} := \sum_{j \geq k} {[F]}_j, \qquad {[F]}_{\leq k} := \sum_{1 \leq j \leq k} {[F]}_j \, .\end{aligned}$$
After expanding $\N$ for small displacements of the moving surface, see [@SulemBook; @GMS2], one obtains the equations $$\label{Eeq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\partial_t h & = |\partial_x| \phi - \partial_x( h \partial_x \phi) - |\partial_x| (h |\partial_x| \phi)
\\ & - \frac{1}{2} |\partial_x| \left[ h^2 |\partial_x|^2 \phi + |\partial_x| (h^2 |\partial_x| \phi)
- 2 (h |\partial_x| (h |\partial_x| \phi ) ) \right] + R_1(h,\phi),
\\
\\
\partial_t \phi & = - h - \frac{1}{2} {|\phi_x|}^2 + \frac{1}{2} {||\partial_x|\phi|}^2 +
|\partial_x|\phi \left[ h |\partial_x|^2 \phi - |\partial_x| (h |\partial_x| \phi) \right] + R_2(h,\phi),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defR_1}
R_1 (h,\phi) & := {[G(h)\phi]}_{\geq 4}
\\
\label{defR_2}
R_2 (h,\phi) & := {\left[ \frac{(G(h)\phi + h_x\phi_x)^2}{2 \sqrt{1+{|h_x|}^2}} \right]}_{\geq 4} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p_2}
M_2(h,\phi) & := -\partial_x( h \partial_x \phi) - \La (h \La \phi),
\\
\label{p_3}
M_3(h,h,\phi) & := - \frac{1}{2} \La \left[ h^2 \La^2 \phi + \La (h^2 \La \phi)
- 2 h \La (h \La \phi ) \right],
\\
\label{q_2}
Q_2(\phi,\phi) & := - \frac{1}{2} {|\phi_x|}^2 + \frac{1}{2} {|\La \phi|}^2,
\\
\label{q_3}
Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) & := \La \phi \left[ h \La^2 \phi - \La (h \La \phi) \right],\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\label{Eeq1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t h = \La \phi + M_2(h,\phi) + M_3(h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi),
\\
\\
\partial_t \phi = - h + Q_2(\phi,\phi) + Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + R_2(h,\phi).
\end{array}
\right.$$
Strategy for the proof of Proposition \[prodecay\]
--------------------------------------------------
Recall that in Proposition \[prodecay\] we are making the following a priori assumptions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eapriori}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left[ (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} +\sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t) , \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}\right] \leq \e_1 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eapriori0}
\|h_0+i\Lambda\phi_0\|_{H^{N_0+1}}+\|x\partial_x(h_0+i\Lambda\phi_0)\|_{H^{N_0/2}}+\|h_0+i\Lambda\phi_0\|_{Z}\leq \e_0,\end{aligned}$$ for some $\e_1\in [\e_0,1]$. We then aim to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Zpconc}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t), \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \lesssim \e_0 +\e_1^2 \, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H^Nconc}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}{\| h(t) + i\Lambda \phi(t) \|}_{H^{N_1 + 10}} \lesssim \e_0 + \e_1^2.\end{aligned}$$ To prove and the idea to transform the quadratic equations into cubic ones, and then applying the strategy of our previous paper [@FNLS] to the cubic equations. We will proceed through several steps. We first perform a bilinear normal form transformation:
\[proE1\] There exist bilinear operators $A$ and $B$ such that if $$\label{HPsi0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
H \stackrel{def}{=} h + A (h,h),
\\
\\
\Psi \stackrel{def}{=} \phi + B(h,\phi),
\end{array}
\right.$$ then the function $V$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V}
V \stackrel{def}{=} H + i \Lambda \Psi \end{aligned}$$ satisfies $$\label{eqV}
\partial_t V + i \Lambda V = C \left(h, |\partial_x| \phi \right)$$ where $C$ is a nonlinearity consisting of cubic and higher order terms.
A more precise statement of this Proposition, with the explicit form of $A,B$, and $C$ is given in section \[secproE1\], followed by its proof. In section \[secproE2\] we show the following bounds on the transformation:
\[proE2\] Under the apriori assumptions on $h = h(t)$ and $\phi = \phi(t)$, we have for any $t \in [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proE2conc1}
& {\|A(h,h) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}}
+ {\| \Lambda B(h,\phi) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{-1/2},
\\
\label{proE2conc2}
& {\|A(h,h) \|}_{H^{N_0-5}} + {\| \Lambda B(h,\phi)\|}_{H^{N_0-5}} \lesssim \e_1^2,
\\
\label{proE2conc3}
& {\| SA(h,h) ) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-5}}
+ {\| S \Lambda B(h,\phi)\|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-5}} \lesssim \e_1^2.\end{aligned}$$
In particular we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hphivZp}
& {\| (h, \phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \lesssim {\| V \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} + \e_1^2(1+t)^{-1/2} \, ,
\\
\label{hphivH^N}
& {\| h+i\Lambda\phi \|}_{H^{N_1+10}} \lesssim {\| V \|}_{H^{N_1+11}} + \e_1^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vhphiZp}
& {\| V \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1(1+t)^{-1/2}\, ,
\\
\label{vhphiSobolev}
& {\| H+i\partial_x\Psi\|}_{H^{N_0 -6}} \lesssim \varepsilon_1(1+t)^{p_0},
\\
\label{vhphiS}
& {\| S H \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-6}} + {\| S \partial_x \Psi \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-6}} \lesssim \e_1(1+t)^{p_0}.\end{aligned}$$
The above Proposition shows that the apriori smallness assumption can be suitably transferred to $V$. The next step is to improve by using the equation and the specific properties of the nonlinearity:
\[proE3\] Let $V$ be the function defined by and satisfying . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vhphiSimp}
& \sup_{t\in[0,T]} {(1+t)}^{-5p_0} \big[{\| S V(t) \|}_{H^{N_2/2-20}}+{\| V(t) \|}_{H^{N_0/2-20}}\big]\lesssim \e_0+\e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if we define the profile of $V$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FV}
f(t,x) := \left( e^{it\Lambda} V(t) \right) (x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xd_xF}
& \sup_{t\in[0,T]} {(1+t)}^{-5p_0} \big[{\| x\partial_x f(t) \|}_{H^{N_0/2-20}}+{\| f(t) \|}_{H^{N_0/2-20}}\big]\lesssim \e_0+\e_1^2\, .\end{aligned}$$
This is proved in section \[secproE3\]. The bound improves the bound by gaining half derivative for low frequencies on the estimate for $\Psi$, at the expense of losing a small amount of decay and some derivatives. This gives us and allows us to exploit the bounds obtained in our previous paper [@FNLS].
Using the bounds given by Proposition \[proE2\] we will work on the scalar cubic equation with the aim of showing:
\[proE4\] Let $V$ be defined as above, and satisfying the bounds , , . Assume further that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VZapriori}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} {\| V(t) \|}_{Z} \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is the norm defined in . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VZ}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} {\| V(t) \|}_{Z} \lesssim\e_0 + \e_1^3 \, .\end{aligned}$$
As a consequence, using also Lemma \[dispersive\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VZp}
& \sup_{t\in[0,T]} \sqrt{1+t} {\| V(t) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \lesssim \e_0 + \e_1^2,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VHN_1}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} {\| V(t)\|}_{H^{N_1 + 11}} \lesssim \e_0 + \e_1^3\, .\end{aligned}$$
The proof of constitutes the heart of the proof for the decay in Eulerian coordinates, and is performed in section \[secproE4\], using a construction similar to our paper [@FNLS].
Using and an estimate similar to , we can also obtain the following
\[corproE4\] Under the apriori assumptions and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcorproE4}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} {(1+t)}^{1/8} {\| \phi(t) \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_0 + \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows in particular the validity of the assumption in Lemma \[lemenergy32\].
For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we estimate, using $$\|P_k\phi(t)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim (\e_0 + \e_1^2)2^{-k/2}(1+t)^{-1/2}.$$ At the same time, using and , $$\|P_k\phi(t)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \|P_k\Psi(t)\|_{L^\infty}+\|P_kB(h(t),\phi(t))\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim 2^{k/3}(\e_0 + \e_1^2)+2^{k/4}(1+t)^{-1/5}\e_1^2.$$ The desired conclusion follows from these two estimates.
Observe that together with imply . The bound together with implies , thereby conluding the proof of Proposition \[prodecay\].
Proof of Propositions \[proE1\], \[proE2\], and \[proE3\]: normal forms {#secproE1}
=======================================================================
In this section we aim to transform the quadratic equations into cubic ones. The possibility of doing this relies on the vanishing of the symbol of the quadratic interaction on the time resonant set. Using this fact a normal form transformation was already performed in [@GMS2]. In this latter paper, the authors first write a scalar equation for $h + i \Lambda \phi$ and then integrate by parts in time in Duhamel’s formulation. Here we want to perform the same normal form but in a different way, so to explicitely show the dependence of the transformation, and of the resulting cubic terms, on the functions $\La \phi$ and $\partial_x \phi$ and not on $\Lambda \phi$ alone. We remark that the structure of transformation here is very important because we only have information on $\partial_x \phi$ and not on $\phi$ or $\Lambda \phi$. Therefore we want to find $H$ and $\Psi$ as in , with $A$ and $B$ depending nicely on $h$ and $\partial_x \phi$, and such that $H+i\Lambda\Psi$ satisfies a cubic equation. It is important to notice that the quadratic and cubic nonlinearities in already depend only on $\partial_x \phi$ or $\La \phi$. If one just proceeds as in [@GMS2] however, it is not clear if the transformation satisfies the property we desire.
Solving the homological equation
--------------------------------
Given a suitable symbol $m:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ we define the associated bilinear operator $M(f,g)$ by the formula $$\label{al0}
\mathcal{F}\big[M(f,g)\big](\xi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}m(\xi,\eta)\widehat{f}(\xi-\eta)\widehat{g}(\eta)\,d\eta.$$ The following lemma gives the explicit form for the transformation in Proposition \[proE1\]:
\[proE1+\] Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_10}
a(\xi,\eta) &:=-\frac{|\xi|}{2}\frac{\eta}{|\eta|}\frac{\xi-\eta}{|\xi-\eta|},\\
\label{b_10}
b(\xi,\eta) &:=-|\eta|\frac{\xi-\eta}{|\xi-\eta|}\frac{\xi}{|\xi|},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p_20}
m_2(\xi,\eta) &= \xi\eta - |\xi||\eta| \, ,
\\
\label{q_20}
q_2(\xi,\eta) &= \frac{1}{2}(\xi-\eta) \eta + \frac{1}{2}|\xi-\eta||\eta|.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the function $V$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V0}
V \stackrel{def}{=} H + i \Lambda \Psi=[h+A(h,h)]+i\Lambda[\phi+B(h,\phi)]\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqV0}
\partial_t V & + i \Lambda V = \N_3 + \N_4 \end{aligned}$$ where $\N_3$, respectively $\N_4$, are cubic, respectively quartic and higher, order terms explicitly given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defN_3}
\N_3 &\stackrel{def}{=} M_3(h,h,\phi)+2A(M_2(h,\phi),h)+ i \Lambda \left[ Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + B(M_2(h,\phi),\phi) + B(h, Q_2(\phi,\phi))\right],
\\
\label{defN_4}
\N_4 &\stackrel{def}{=} R_1(h,\phi) +2A(M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi),h)
\\
\nn
& + i \Lambda \left[R_2(h,\phi)+B(h,Q_3(\phi,h,\phi)+R_2(h,\phi))+B(M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi),\phi)\right].\end{aligned}$$
Given equation \[Eeq1\] we look for a transformation of the form $(h, \phi) \rightarrow (H, \Psi)$, with $$\label{HPsi}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
H = h + A_1 (\phi,\phi) + A_2 (h,h),
\\
\\
\Psi = \phi + B(h,\phi),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $A_1,A_2$ are symmetric bilinear forms and $B$ is a bilinear form. Our goal is to eliminate the quadratic nonlinear expressions, i. e. $$\label{d_tHPsi}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t H = \La \Psi + \mbox{cubic terms}
\\
\\
\partial_t \Psi = - H + \mbox{cubic terms}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Indeed, using and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t H-|\partial_x|\Psi =& -|\partial_x|\phi-|\partial_x|B(h,\phi)+\partial_t h+2A_1(\partial_t\phi,\phi)+2A_2(\partial_th,h)\\
=&-|\partial_x|B(h,\phi)+M_2(h,\phi)+M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi)\\
&-2A_1(h,\phi)+2A_1(Q_2(\phi,\phi),\phi) + 2A_1(Q_3(\phi,h,\phi),\phi) + 2A_1(R_2(h,\phi),\phi)\\
&+2A_2(\La \phi,h) + 2A_2(M_2(h,\phi),h) + 2A_2(M_3(h,h,\phi),h) + 2A_2(R_1(h,\phi),h),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Psi+H =& h + A_1 (\phi,\phi) + A_2 (h,h)+\partial_t\phi+B(h,\partial_t\phi)+B(\partial_th,\phi)\\
=&+A_1 (\phi,\phi) + A_2 (h,h)+Q_2(\phi,\phi) + Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + R_2(h,\phi)\\
&-B(h,h)+B(h,Q_2(\phi,\phi)) + B(h,Q_3(\phi,h,\phi)) + B(h,R_2(h,\phi))\\
&+B(\La \phi,\phi) + B(M_2(h,\phi),\phi) + B(M_3(h,h,\phi),\phi) + B(R_1(h,\phi),\phi).\end{aligned}$$ The condition is equivalent to $$\label{al0.1}
\begin{split}
-|\partial_x|B(h,\phi)+M_2(h,\phi)-2A_1(h,\phi)+2A_2(\La \phi,h)&=0,\\
A_1 (\phi,\phi)+Q_2(\phi,\phi)+B(\La \phi,\phi)&=0,\\
A_2 (h,h)-B(h,h)&=0.
\end{split}$$ Therefore one can define $$\label{al0.2}
\begin{split}
&a_2(\xi,\eta)=\frac{b(\xi,\eta)+b(\xi,\xi-\eta)}{2},\qquad a_1(\xi,\eta)=-q_2(\xi,\eta)-\frac{b(\xi,\eta)|\xi-\eta|+b(\xi,\xi-\eta)|\eta|}{2},\\
&b(\xi,\eta)=\frac{-2(|\xi|+|\eta|-|\xi-\eta|)q_2(\xi,\eta)+(|\eta|+|\xi-\eta|-|\xi|)m_2(\xi,\eta)-2|\eta|m_2(\xi,\xi-\eta)}{D(\xi,\eta)},
\end{split}$$ where $$D(\xi,\eta) = -{|\xi|}^2 - {|\xi-\eta|}^2 - {|\eta|}^2 +2|\xi||\xi-\eta| +2|\xi||\eta| +2|\eta||\xi-\eta|\,$$ and the identities are easily seen to be verified.
The formulas can be simplified in the one-dimensional situation. Indeed, we notice first that $m(\xi,\eta)=m(-\xi,-\eta)$ for all $m\in\{q_2,m_2,a_1,a_2,b\}$. Moreover, for $\xi\geq 0$, we calculate explicitly:
if $\eta\leq 0$ then $$\begin{split}
&q_2(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad m_2(\xi,\eta)=-2|\xi||\eta|,\quad m_2(\xi,\xi-\eta)=0,\quad D(\xi,\eta)=4|\xi||\eta|,\quad b(\xi,\eta)=-|\eta|;
\end{split}$$
if $\eta\in[0,\xi]$ then $$\begin{split}
&q_2(\xi,\eta)=|\xi-\eta||\eta|,\quad m_2(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad m_2(\xi,\xi-\eta)=0,\quad D(\xi,\eta)=4|\xi-\eta||\eta|,\quad b(\xi,\eta)=-|\eta|;
\end{split}$$
if $\eta\geq\xi$ then $$\begin{split}
&q_2(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad m_2(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad m_2(\xi,\xi-\eta)=-2|\xi||\xi-\eta|,\quad D(\xi,\eta)=4|\xi||\xi-\eta|,\quad b(\xi,\eta)=|\eta|.
\end{split}$$
Using also the formulas in the first line of , we calculate, for $\xi\geq 0$, $$\begin{split}
\text{ if }\quad\eta\leq 0\quad&\text{ then }\quad a_1(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad a_2(\xi,\eta)=\xi/2;\\
\text{ if }\quad\eta\in[0,\xi]\quad&\text{ then }\quad a_1(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad a_2(\xi,\eta)=-\xi/2;\\
\text{ if }\quad\eta\geq \xi\quad&\text{ then }\quad a_1(\xi,\eta)=0,\quad a_2(\xi,\eta)=\xi/2.
\end{split}$$
In particular $A_1=0$ and the desired formulas in the lemma follow.
Analysis of the symbols
-----------------------
We now want to study the behavior of the symbols that appear in Lemma \[proE1+\]. We will describe our multipliers in terms of a simple class of symbols $\mathcal{S}^{\infty}$, which is defined by $$\label{Al4}
\mathcal{S}^\infty\stackrel{def}{=}\{m:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{C}:\,m\text{ continuous and }\|m\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}:=\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}(m)\|_{L^1}<\infty\}.$$ Clearly, $\mathcal{S}^\infty\hookrightarrow L^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R})$. Our first lemma summarizes some simple properties of the $\mathcal{S}^{\infty}$ symbols.
\[touse\] (i) If $m,m'\in \mathcal{S}^\infty$ then $m\cdot m'\in\mathcal{S}^\infty$ and $$\label{al8}
\|m\cdot m'\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim \|m\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\|m'\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}.$$ Moreover, if $m\in \mathcal{S}^\infty$, $A:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ is a linear transformation, $v\in \mathbb{R}^2$, and $m_{A,v}(\xi,\eta):=m(A(\xi,\eta)+v)$ then $$\label{al9}
\|m_{A,v}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}=\|m\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}.$$
\(ii) Assume $p,q,r\in[1,\infty]$ satisfy $1/p+1/q=1/r$, and $m\in \mathcal{S}^\infty$. Then, for any $f,g\in L^2(\mathbb{R})$, $$\label{mk6}
\|M(f,g)\|_{L^r}\lesssim \|m\|_{S^\infty}\|f\|_{L^p}\|g\|_{L^q},$$ where $M$ is defined as in .
Part (i) follows directly from the definition. To prove (ii) let $$K(x,y):=(\mathcal{F}^{-1}m)(x,y)=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}m(\xi,\eta)e^{ix\cdot\xi}e^{iy\cdot\eta}\,d\xi d\eta.$$ Then $$\begin{split}
M(f,g)(x)=C\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{ix\xi}m(\xi,\eta)\widehat{f}(\xi-\eta)\widehat{g}(\eta)\,d\eta d\xi=C\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}K(u,v)f(x-u)g(x-u-v)\,dudv,
\end{split}$$ and the desired bound follows.
We fix $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ an even smooth function supported in $[-8/5,8/5]$ and equal to $1$ in $[-5/4,5/4]$. Let $$\label{phi_k}
\varphi_k(x):=\varphi(x/2^k)-\varphi(x/2^{k-1}),\qquad k\in\mathbb{Z},\,x\in\mathbb{R}.$$ Let $P_k$ denote the operator defined by the Fourier multiplier $\xi\to\varphi_k(\xi)$. Given any multiplier $m:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{C}$ and any $k,k_1,k_2\in\mathbb{Z}$ we define $$\label{al11}
m^{k,k_1,k_2}(\xi,\eta):=m(\xi,\eta)\cdot\varphi_k(\xi)\varphi_{k_1}(\xi-\eta)\varphi_{k_2}(\eta).$$ Our next lemma, which is an easy consequence of the explicit formulas –, describes our main multipliers $m_2,q_2,a,b$ in terms of $\mathcal{S}^\infty$ symbols.
\[description\] For any $k,k_1,k_2\in\mathbb{Z}$ we have $$\label{descpq}
\|m_2^{k,k_1,k_2}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}+\|q_2^{k,k_1,k_2}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^k2^{\min(k_1,k_2)},$$ $$\label{desca1}
\|a^{k,k_1,k_2}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^k,$$ and $$\label{descb}
\|b^{k,k_1,k_2}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^{k_2}.$$
Proof of Proposition \[proE2\]: bounds on the normal form {#secproE2}
---------------------------------------------------------
Recall that we are assuming and we want to show the three estimates , and for the bilinear operators $A,B$ defined through their symbols $a,b$ in Lemma \[proE1+\].
As a consequence of , we have the following bounds on $h=h(t)$ and $\phi=\phi(t)$, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$: $$\label{Al32}
\begin{split}
&\|P_k h\|_{L^2}+2^k\|P_k\phi\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1(1+t)^{p_0}2^{-N_0k_+},\\
&\|P_k h\|_{L^\infty}+2^{k/2}\|P_k\phi\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \e_1(1+t)^{-1/2}2^{-(N_1+4)k_+},\\
&\|P_k Sh\|_{L^2}+2^k\|P_k S\phi\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1(1+t)^{p_0}2^{-N_0k_+/2}.
\end{split}$$
For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ let $$\label{Al31}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{X}_k:=\mathcal{X}_k^1\cup \mathcal{X}_k^2,\\
&\mathcal{X}_k^1:=\{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}:\min(k_1,k_2)\leq k+4,\,|\max(k_1,k_2)-k|\leq 4\},\\
&\mathcal{X}_k^2:=\{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}:\min(k_1,k_2)\geq k-4,\,|k_1-k_2|\leq 4\}.
\end{split}$$ Also let $$\label{Al31.5}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{X}_{k,s}:=\{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k:2^{\min(k_1,k_2)}\leq\min(2^{k-10},(1+t)^{-10})\},\\
&\mathcal{X}_{k,l}:=\{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k:2^{\min(k_1,k_2)}\geq\min(2^{k-10},(1+t)^{-10})\}.
\end{split}$$
To prove – we estimate for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, using , –, and Lemma \[touse\] (ii), $$\begin{split}
\|P_kA(h,h)\|_{L^2}&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}\|P_kA(P_{k_1}h,P_{k_2}h)\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{k_1\leq k+4,\,|k_2-k|\leq 4}2^k\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}+\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k^2}2^k\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-3)k_+}
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\|P_k\Lambda B&(h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}2^{k/2}\|P_kB(P_{k_1}h,P_{k_2}\phi)\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{k_1\leq k+4,\,|k_2-k|\leq 4}2^{k/2}2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^2}+\sum_{k_2\leq k+4,\,|k_1-k|\leq 4}2^{k/2}2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^\infty}\\
&+\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k^2}2^k2^{k_1}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-3)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al1000}
\|P_kA(h,h)\|_{L^2}+\|P_k\Lambda B(h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-3)k_+},$$ and the desired bound follows.
Similarly, we also have the $L^\infty$ bounds, $$\begin{split}
\|P_kA(h,h)\|_{L^\infty}&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}\|P_kA(P_{k_1}h,P_{k_2}h)\|_{L^\infty}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}2^k\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^\infty}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-N_0k_+/2}
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\|P_k\Lambda B(h,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}2^{k/2}\|P_kB(P_{k_1}h,P_{k_2}\phi)\|_{L^\infty}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}2^{k/2}2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^\infty}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-N_0k_+/2}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al1001}
\|P_kA(h,h)\|_{L^\infty}+\|P_k\Lambda B(h,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-N_0k_+/2},$$ and the desired bound follows.
To prove we notice first that the symbol $a$ is homogeneous of degree $1$, i. e. $$a(\lambda\xi,\lambda\eta)=\lambda a(\xi,\eta)\qquad\text{ for any }\xi,\eta\in\mathbb{R},\lambda\in(0,\infty).$$ Differentiating this identity with respect to $\lambda$ and then setting $\lambda=1$, we have $$(\xi\partial_\xi a)(\xi,\eta)+(\eta\partial_\eta a)(\xi,\eta)=a(\xi,\eta).$$ The symbol to $(\xi,\eta)\to b(\xi,\eta)$ is homogeneous of degree $1$. As a consequence, we have the identities $$\label{Al25}
\begin{split}
&(\xi\partial_\xi a)(\xi,\eta)+(\eta\partial_\eta a)(\xi,\eta)=a(\xi,\eta),\\
&(\xi\partial_\xi b)(\xi,\eta)+(\eta\partial_\eta b)(\xi,\eta)=b(\xi,\eta).
\end{split}$$
Using the first formula in we calculate $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}&\big[SA(h,h)\big](\xi)=\Big[\frac{1}{2}t\partial_t-\xi\partial_\xi-I\Big]\Big[\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta\Big]\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\Big[\frac{1}{2}t(\partial_t\widehat{h})-\widehat{h}\Big](\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta+\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)\frac{1}{2}t(\partial_t\widehat{h})(\eta,t)\,d\eta\\
&-\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\xi\partial_\xi a)(\xi,\eta)\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta-\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\xi(\partial\widehat{h})(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{Sh}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta-\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\eta(\partial\widehat{h})(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta\\
&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{Sh}(\eta,t)\,d\eta+\int_{\mathbb{R}}a(\xi,\eta)\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)[\eta(\partial\widehat{h})(\eta,t)+\widehat{h}(\eta,t)]\,d\eta\\
&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}[(\eta\partial_\eta a)(\xi,\eta)-a(\xi,\eta)]\widehat{h}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{h}(\eta,t)\,d\eta\\
&=\mathcal{F}\big[A(Sh,h)\big](\xi)+\mathcal{F}\big[A(h,Sh)\big](\xi)-\mathcal{F}\big[A(h,h)\big](\xi).
\end{split}$$ A similar calculation can be applied to the operator $B$, using also . Therefore $$\label{Al26}
\begin{split}
SA(h,h)&=A(Sh,h)+A(h,Sh)-A(h,h),\\
SB(h,\phi)&=B(Sh,\phi)+B(h,S\phi)-B(h,\phi).
\end{split}$$
For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we estimate, using , Lemma \[touse\] (ii), and –, and recalling , $$\begin{split}
\|P_kA&(Sh,h)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}\|P_kA_2(P_{k_1}Sh,P_{k_2}h)\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,l}}2^k\|P_{k_1}Sh\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^\infty}+\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,s}}2^k2^{\min(k_1,k_2)/2}\|P_{k_1}Sh\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+},
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\|P_k\Lambda &B(Sh,\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_k\Lambda B(h,S\phi)\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim 2^{k/2}\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k}\big[\|P_kB(P_{k_1}Sh,P_{k_2}\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kB(P_{k_1}h,P_{k_2}S\phi)\|_{L^2}\big]\\
&\lesssim 2^{k/2}\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,l}}\big[2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}Sh\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^\infty}+2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}S\phi\|_{L^2}\big]\\
&+2^{k/2}\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,s}}2^{\min(k_1,k_2)/2}\big[2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}Sh\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}\phi\|_{L^2}+2^{k_2}\|P_{k_1}h\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}S\phi\|_{L^2}\big]\\
&\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, using also and , for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al1002}
\|P_kSA(h,h)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kS\Lambda B(h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+},$$ and the desired bound follows.
Proof of Proposition \[proE3\] {#secproE3}
------------------------------
We start from the formula , $$\partial_tV+i\Lambda V=\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4,$$ where $\mathcal{N}_3$ and $\mathcal{N}_4$ are given in and . Applying $S$ and commuting we derive the equation $$(\partial_t+i\Lambda) SV=S\mathcal{N}_3+S\mathcal{N}_4+(1/2)(\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4).$$ Moreover, with $f(t)=e^{it\Lambda}V(t)$, we have $$(x\partial_xf)(t)=e^{it\Lambda}\big[SV-(t/2)(\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4)].$$
It follows from the assumption and Proposition \[proE2\] that $$\|V(0)\|_{H^{N_0/2-5}}+\|SV(0)\|_{H^{N_0/2-5}}\lesssim \e_0+\e_1^2.$$ Therefore, it suffices to prove the following:
\[Al30\] For any $t$, $$\label{SN_3}
\|\mathcal{N}_3\|_{H^{N_0-20}}+\|S\mathcal{N}_3\|_{H^{N_0/2-20}}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1},$$ and $$\label{SN_4}
\|\mathcal{N}_4\|_{H^{N_0-20}}+\|S\mathcal{N}_4\|_{H^{N_0/2-20}}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1}.$$
As in the proof of Proposition \[proE2\], see , , and , for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we have $$\label{Al40}
\begin{split}
&\|P_kQ_2(\phi,\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kM_2(h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-3)k_+},\\
&\|P_kSQ_2(\phi,\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kSM_2(h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+},\\
&\|P_kQ_2(\phi,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}+\|P_kM_2(h,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+}.
\end{split}$$
We examine now the trilinear expressions $M_3(h,h,\phi)$ and $Q_3(\phi,h,\phi)$ in and . These expressions appear in both nonlinearities $\mathcal{N}_3$ and $\mathcal{N}_4$. To estimate them we start by estimating $h|\partial_x|\phi$ and $h|\partial_x|^2\phi$: using , for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, we obtain as before $$\label{Al42}
\begin{split}
&\|P_k(h|\partial_x|\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_k(h|\partial_x|^2\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{-(N_0-3)k_+},\\
&\|P_kS(h|\partial_x|\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kS(h|\partial_x|^2\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{2p_0-1/2}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+},\\
&\|P_k(h|\partial_x|\phi)\|_{L^\infty}+\|P_k(h|\partial_x|^2\phi)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \e_1^2(1+t)^{p_0-1}2^{-(N_0/2-3)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ We examine the formulas and . For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we use and and estimate as before, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al45}
\begin{split}
&2^{-k/4}\|P_kM_3(h,h,\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kQ_3(\phi,h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{3p_0-1}2^{-(N_0-6)k_+},\\
&2^{-k/4}\|P_kSM_3(h,h,\phi)\|_{L^2}+\|P_kSQ_3(\phi,h,\phi)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{3p_0-1}2^{-(N_0/2-6)k_+},\\
&2^{-k/4}\|P_kM_3(h,h,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}+\|P_kQ_3(\phi,h,\phi)\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{3p_0-3/2}2^{-(N_0/2-6)k_+}.
\end{split}$$
Recall the formulas and , $$\begin{split}
\N_3 &= M_3(h,h,\phi)+2A(M_2(h,\phi),h)+ i \Lambda \left[ Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + B(M_2(h,\phi),\phi) + B(h, Q_2(\phi,\phi))\right],\\
\N_4 &= R_1(h,\phi) +2A(M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi),h)\\
&+ i \Lambda \left[R_2(h,\phi)+B(h,Q_3(\phi,h,\phi)+R_2(h,\phi))+B(M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi),\phi)\right],
\end{split}$$ and the bounds $$\|R_1(h,\phi)+i\Lambda R_2(h,\phi)\|_{H^{N_0-10}}+\|S\big(R_1(h,\phi)+i\Lambda R_2(h,\phi)\big)\|_{H^{N_0/2-10}}\lesssim \e_1^4(1+t)^{-5/4}.$$ The desired bounds and follow using , , and Lemma \[Al60\] below, with $G=R_2(h,\phi)$ and $$F\in\{Q_2(\phi,\phi),M_2(h,\phi),M_3(h,h,\phi),Q_3(\phi,h,\phi),R_1(h,\phi)\}.$$
\[Al60\] Assume $F$ and $G$ satisfy the bounds, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al61}
\begin{split}
&\|P_kF\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kG\|_{L^2}\lesssim\e_1^2(1+t)^{3p_0-1/2}2^{-(N_0-12)k_+},\\
&\|P_kSF\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kSG\|_{L^2}\lesssim\e_1^2(1+t)^{3p_0-1/2}2^{-(N_0/2-12)k_+},\\
&\|P_kF\|_{L^\infty}+2^{k/2}\|P_kG\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim\e_1^2(1+t)^{3p_0-1}2^{-(N_0/2-12)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ Then, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\label{Al62}
\begin{split}
&\|P_kA(F,h)\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kB(F,\phi)\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kB(h,G)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-16)k_+},\\
&\|P_kSA(F,h)\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kSB(F,\phi)\|_{L^2}+2^{k/2}\|P_kSB(h,G)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-16)k_+}.
\end{split}$$
We estimate, using , , Lemma \[description\], and Lemma \[touse\] (ii), $$\begin{split}
\|P_kA(F,h)\|_{L^2}&\lesssim \sum_{k_1\leq k+4,\,|k_2-k|\leq 4}2^k\|P_{k_1}F\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}+\sum_{k_2\leq k+4,\,|k_1-k|\leq 4}2^k\|P_{k_1}F\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^\infty}\\
&+\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_k^2}2^k\|P_{k_1}F\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0-16)k_+}
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\|P_kA(F,Sh)\|_{L^2}+&\|P_kA(SF,h)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,l}}2^k\big[\|P_{k_1}F\|_{L^\infty}\|P_{k_2}Sh\|_{L^2}+\|P_{k_1}SF\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^\infty}\big]\\
&+\sum_{(k_1,k_2)\in\mathcal{X}_{k,s}}2^k2^{\min(k_1,k_2)/2}\big[\|P_{k_1}F\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}Sh\|_{L^2}+\|P_{k_1}SF\|_{L^2}\|P_{k_2}h\|_{L^2}\big]\\
&\lesssim \e_1^3(1+t)^{5p_0-1}2^{k/4}2^{-(N_0/2-16)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ This proves the desired bounds for $\|P_kA(F,h)\|_{L^2}$ and $\|P_kSA(F,h)\|_{L^2}$. The other bounds in are similar.
Proof of Proposition \[proE4\] {#secproE4}
==============================
In this section we prove Proposition \[proE4\], which is our main bootstrap estimate. We start by rewriting the equation in the form $$\label{fd1}
\partial_tV+i\Lambda V=\widetilde{\N}_3+R,$$ where $$\label{fd2}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\N}_3:= &M_3(H,H,\Psi) + 2A_2(M_2(H,\Psi),H)\\
&+ i \Lambda \left[ Q_3(\Psi,H,\Psi) + B(M_2(H,\Psi),\Psi) + B(H, Q_2(\Psi,\Psi))\right],
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{fd3}
R:=\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_3.$$ Letting $f(t)=e^{it\Lambda}V(t)$ as in , we have $$\label{fd3.5}
\partial_tf=e^{it\Lambda}(\widetilde{\N}_3(t)+R(t)).$$
Notice that $$\label{fd4}
\begin{split}
&H(t)=\frac{V(t)+\overline{V}(t)}{2}=\frac{e^{-it\Lambda}f(t)+e^{it\Lambda}\overline{f}(t)}{2},\\
&\Psi(t)=\frac{i\Lambda^{-1}(\overline{V}(t)-V(t))}{2}=i\frac{e^{it\Lambda}(\Lambda^{-1}\overline{f})(t)-e^{-it\Lambda}(\Lambda^{-1}f)(t)}{2}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, the trilinear expression $\widetilde{\N}_3$ can be written in terms of $f(t)$ and $\overline{f}(t)$, in the form $$\label{fd5}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{F}(e^{it\Lambda}\widetilde{\N}_3(t))(\xi)=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^2}\big[I^{++-}(\xi,t)+I^{--+}(\xi,t)+I^{+++}(\xi,t)+I^{---}(\xi,t)\big],\\
&I^{++-}(\xi,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{it[\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi-\eta)-\Lambda(\eta-\sigma)+\Lambda(\sigma)]}c^{++-}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{f}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{f}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&I^{--+}(\xi,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{it[\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi-\eta)+\Lambda(\eta-\sigma)+\Lambda(\sigma)]}c^{--+}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{f}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&I^{+++}(\xi,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{it[\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi-\eta)-\Lambda(\eta-\sigma)-\Lambda(\sigma)]}c^{+++}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{f}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{f}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{f}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&I^{---}(\xi,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{it[\Lambda(\xi)+\Lambda(\xi-\eta)+\Lambda(\eta-\sigma)+\Lambda(\sigma)]}c^{---}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{\overline{f}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma.
\end{split}$$ The symbols $c^{++-}, c^{--+}, c^{+++}, c^{---}$ can be calculated explicitly, using the formulas , , and –, see Appendix \[secsym\]. For us it is important to notice that these symbols are real-valued, and satisfy the uniform bounds $$\label{csymbols0}
\big\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}[c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\cdot\varphi_l(\xi)\varphi_{k_1}(\xi-\eta)\varphi_{k_2}(\eta-\sigma)\varphi_{k_3}(\sigma)]\big\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)}\lesssim 2^{l/2}2^{2\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)},$$ for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$ and $l,k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}$. As a consequence, $$\label{csymbols}
\big\|c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\cdot\varphi_l(\xi)\varphi_{k_1}(\xi-\eta)\varphi_{k_2}(\eta-\sigma)\varphi_{k_3}(\sigma) \big\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty_{\eta,\sigma}} \lesssim 2^{l/2}2^{2\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)},$$ for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, and $l,k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}$. Moreover, for any $\mathbf{k}=(k_1,k_2,k_3),\mathbf{l}=(l_1,l_2,l_3)\in\mathbb{Z}^3$ let $$\begin{split}
&c^\ast_\xi(x,y):=c^{++-}(\xi,-x,-\xi-x-y),\\
&(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}(x,y):=(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)(x,y)\cdot \varphi_{k_1}(\xi+x)\varphi_{k_2}(\xi+y)\varphi_{k_3}(\xi+x+y)\varphi_{l_1}(x)\varphi_{l_2}(y)\varphi_{l_3}(2\xi+x+y),\\
&(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}(x,y):=(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)(x,y)\cdot \varphi_{k_1}(\xi+x)\varphi_{k_2}(\xi+y)\varphi_{k_3}(\xi+x+y)\varphi_{l_1}(x)\varphi_{l_2}(y)\varphi_{l_3}(2\xi+x+y).
\end{split}$$ Then, for any $\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^3$, and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, $$\label{csymbols2}
\begin{split}
&\|(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)}2^{5\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2},\\
&\|(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^{-\min(k_2,k_3)}2^{5\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2}.
\end{split}$$ These bounds are proved in Lemma \[cprop\].
Let (compare with ), $$\label{bn2}
\begin{split}
&\widetilde{c}(\xi):=-8\pi|\xi|^{3/2}c^\ast_\xi(0,0)=4\pi|\xi|^4,\\
&H(\xi,t):=\frac{\widetilde{c}(\xi)}{4\pi^2}\int_0^t|\widehat{f}(\xi,s)|^2 \frac{ds}{s+1},\\
&g(\xi,t):=e^{iH(\xi,t)}\widehat{f}(\xi,t).
\end{split}$$ It follows from that $$\label{bn3}
\begin{split}
(\partial_tg)(\xi,t)&=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^2}e^{iH(\xi,t)}\Big[I^{++-}(\xi,t)+\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{|\widehat{f}(\xi,t)|^2}{t+1}\widehat{f}(\xi,t)\Big]\\
&+\frac{i}{(2\pi)^2}e^{iH(\xi,t)}[I^{--+}(\xi,t)+I^{+++}(\xi,t)+I^{---}(\xi,t)]+e^{iH(\xi,t)}e^{it\Lambda(\xi)}\widehat{R}(\xi,t).
\end{split}$$ Proposition \[proE4\] clearly follows from Lemma \[bigbound2\] below.
\[bigbound2\] With the same notation as before, recall that $f$ satisfies the bounds $$\label{bn7}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\big[(1+t)^{-p_0}\|f(t)\|_{H^{N_0-10}}+(1+t)^{-5p_0}\|(x\partial_xf)(t)\|_{H^{N_0/2-20}}+\|f(t)\|_{Z}\big]\leq\varepsilon_1.$$ Then there is $p_1>0$ such that, for any $m\in\{1,2,\ldots\}$ and any $t_1\leq t_2\in[2^{m}-2,2^{m+1}]$, $$\label{bn8}
\|(|\xi|^\beta+|\xi|^{N_1+15})(g(\xi,t_2)-g(\xi,t_1))\|_{L^\infty_\xi}\lesssim\varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}.$$
The rest of the section is concerned with the proof of Lemma \[bigbound2\]. We will use the following dispersive linear estimate from [@FNLS Lemma 2.3]:
\[dispersive\] For any $t\in\mathbb{R}$ we have $$\label{disperse}
\|e^{i t\Lambda}h\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim (1+|t|)^{-1/2}\|\,|\xi|^{3/4}\widehat{h}(\xi)\|_{L^\infty_\xi}+(1+|t|)^{-5/8}\big[\|x\cdot\partial_x h\|_{L^2}+\|h\|_{H^2}\big].$$
For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ let $f_k^+:=P_kf$, $f_k^-:=P_k\overline{f}$, and decompose, $$I^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}=\sum_{k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}}I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3},$$ for $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, where $$\label{bn9}
\begin{split}
I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}&e^{it[\Lambda(\xi)-\iota_1\Lambda(\xi-\eta)-\iota_2\Lambda(\eta-\sigma)-\iota_3\Lambda(\sigma)]}\\
&\times c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)
\widehat{f_{k_1}^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{f_{k_2}^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{f_{k_3}^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma.
\end{split}$$
Using , for it suffices to prove that if $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $m\in\{1,2,\ldots\}$, $|\xi|\in[2^k,2^{k+1}]$, and $t_1\leq t_2\in[2^m-2,2^{m+1}]\cap[0,T]$ then $$\label{bn11}
\begin{split}
\sum_{k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}\Big[I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)+\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{
\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)}{s+1}\Big]\,ds\Big|\\
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1},
\end{split}$$ $$\label{bn12}
\sum_{k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big|
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}$$ for any $(\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3)\in\{(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{bn12.5}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Lambda(\xi)}\widehat{R}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big|
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$
In view of and Lemma \[disperse\], we have $$\label{bn13}
\begin{split}
\|\widehat{f_l^{\pm}}(s)\|_{L^2}&\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{p_0 m}2^{-(N_0-10) l_+},\\
\|(\partial\widehat{f_l^{\pm}})(s)\|_{L^2}&\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{5p_0 m}2^{-l}2^{-(N_0/2-20) l_+},\\
\|\widehat{f_l^{\pm}}(s)\|_{L^\infty}&\lesssim \varepsilon_1(2^{\beta l}+2^{(N_1+15)l})^{-1},\\
\|e^{\mp is\Lambda}f_l^{\pm}(s)\|_{L^\infty}&\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{-m/2}2^{-(N_0/2-20) l_+},
\end{split}$$ for any $l\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $s\in[2^m-2,2^{m+1}]\cap[0,T]$. Using only the $L^2$ bounds in the first line of it is easy to see that $$\label{bn14}
|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{3p_0 m}2^{\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2}(1+2^{\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)})^{-(N_0-20)},$$ for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, $k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}$. Moreover , using the $L^\infty$ bounds in , $$\Big|\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(\xi,s)}{s+1}\Big|
\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{k}2^{-3N_1k_+}\mathbf{1}_{[0,4]}(\max(|k_1-k|,|k_2-k|,|k_3-k|)).$$ Using these two bounds it is easy to see that the sums in and over those $(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ for which $\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)\geq 3m/N_0-1000$ or $\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\leq -4m$ are bounded by $C\varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+}$, as desired. The remaining sums have only $Cm^3$ terms. Therefore it suffices to prove the desired estimates for each $(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ fixed satisfying $k_1,k_2,k_3\in[-4m,3m/N_0-1000]$.
At the same time, using , together with the symbol estimates , it follows that $$\label{bn14.5}
|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3|\xi|^{1/2}2^{\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)(1-\beta)}2^{\mathrm{med}(k_1,k_2,k_3)(1-\beta)}2^{-(N_1+10)\max(k_1,k_2,k_3,0)},$$ for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, $k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}$, and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.
After these reductions, it suffices to prove the following lemma:
\[bb1\] Assume that $m\in\{1,2,\ldots\}$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $|\xi|\in[2^k,2^{k+1}]$ and $t_1\leq t_2\in[2^{m}-2,2^{m+1}]\cap[0,T]$. Then, for any $k_1,k_2,k_3$ satisfying $$\label{ksassump}
k_1,k_2,k_3\in[-4m,3m/N_0-1000]\cap\mathbb{Z},\,\,\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)+\mathrm{med}(k_1,k_2,k_3)\geq -m(1+3\beta),$$ we have $$\label{bn20}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}\Big[I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)+\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{
\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)}{s+1}\Big]\,ds\Big|\\
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1},$$ and, for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, $$\label{bn21}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big|
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$ Moreover $$\label{bn22}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Lambda(\xi)}\widehat{R}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big|
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$
We will prove this main lemma in several steps. The main ingredients are the bounds . We will also use the following consequence of Lemma \[touse\] (ii): if $(p,q,r)\in\{(2,2,\infty),(2,\infty,2),(\infty,2,2)\}$ then $$\label{touse2}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}\widehat{f}(\eta)\widehat{g}(\sigma)\widehat{h}(-\eta-\sigma)m(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|
\lesssim \|m\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\|f\|_{L^p}\|g\|_{L^q}\|h\|_{L^r}.$$ We also need suitable $L^2$ bounds on the derivatives $(\partial_sf^{\pm}_l)$, in order to be able to integrate by parts in time. More precisely, we have $$\label{touse4}
\|(\partial_s\widehat{f^{\pm}_l})(s)\|_{L^2}\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{5p_0m-m}2^{-(N_0-20)l_+},$$ which is a consequence of the – and the formula $\partial_t f=e^{it\Lambda}[\mathcal{N}_3(t)+\mathcal{N}_4(t)]$, see .
Proof of
---------
We divide the proof in several cases.
\[bb2\] The bounds hold provided that holds and, in addition, $$\label{bn25}
k_1,k_2,k_3\in[k-20,k+20]\cap\mathbb{Z}.$$
This is the main case, when the specific correction in the left-hand side of is important. We will prove that $$\label{bn28}
\Big|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)+\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)}{s+1}\Big|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1},$$ for any $s\in [t_1,t_2]$, which is clearly stronger than the desired bound .
The bound follows easily from the bound if $k\leq-3m/5$. Therefore, in the rest of the proof of we may assume that $$\label{bn28.5}
k\geq -m/2.$$
After changes of variables we rewrite[^5] $$I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}
\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where $$\label{bn26}
\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma):=\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi+\eta)-\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)+\Lambda(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ Let $\overline{l}$ denote the smallest integer with the property that $2^{\overline{l}}\geq 2^{3k/4}2^{-49m/100}$ (in view of $\overline{l}\leq k-10$). For any $m,k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $m\leq k$, we define $$\label{disp0}
\varphi^{(m)}_k(x):=
\begin{cases}
\varphi(x/2^k)-\varphi(x/2^{k-1}),\qquad &\text{ if }k\geq m+1,\\
\varphi(x/2^k),\qquad &\text{ if }k=m.
\end{cases}$$ We decompose $$\label{bn27}
I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)=\sum_{l_1,l_2=\overline{l}}^{k+20}J_{l_1,l_2}(\xi,s),$$ where, for any $l_1,l_2\geq \overline{l}$, $$\label{bn29}
J_{l_1,l_2}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)\varphi^{(\overline{l})}_{l_1}(\eta)\varphi^{(\overline{l})}_{l_2}(\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma.$$
[**[Step 1.]{}**]{} We show first that $$\label{bn30}
|J_{l_1,l_2}(\xi,s)|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-3p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1},\qquad\text{ if }l_2\geq\max(l_1,\overline{l}+1).$$ For this we integrate by parts in $\eta$ in the formula . Recalling that $\Lambda(\theta)=\sqrt{|\theta|}$, we observe that $$\label{bn30.5}
\big|(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\big|=\big|\Lambda'(\xi+\eta+\sigma)-\Lambda'(\xi+\eta)\big|\gtrsim 2^{l_2}2^{-3k/2},$$ provided that $|\xi+\eta|\approx 2^k, |\xi+\eta+\sigma|\approx 2^k, |\sigma|\approx 2^{l_2}$. After integration by parts in $\eta$ we see that $$|J_{l_1,l_2}(\xi,s)|\leq |J^1_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|+|J^2_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|+|F_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|+|G_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|,$$ where $$\label{bn31}
\begin{split}
&J^1_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)(\partial_\eta r_1)(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&J^2_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s) r_1(\eta,\sigma)(\partial_\eta c^\ast_\xi)(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&F_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_1(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&G_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
(\partial\widehat{f_{k_3}^-})(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_1(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,
\end{split}$$ and $$r_1(\eta,\sigma):=\frac{\varphi^{(\overline{l})}_{l_1}(\eta)\varphi_{l_2}(\sigma)}{s(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\cdot
\varphi_{[k_1-2,k_1+2]}(\xi+\eta)\varphi_{[k_3-2,k_3+2]}(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$
To estimate $|F_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|$ we recall that $\xi$ and $s$ are fixed and use with $$\begin{split}
&\widehat{f}(\eta):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\eta)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s),\\
&\widehat{g}(\sigma):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)\cdot \varphi(\sigma/2^{l_2+4}),\\
&\widehat{h}(\theta):=e^{is\Lambda(\xi-\theta)}\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi+\theta,s)\cdot \varphi(\theta/2^{l_2+4}).
\end{split}$$ It is easy to see, compare with , that $r_1$ satisfies the symbol-type estimates $$\label{bn32}
|(\partial_\eta^a\partial_\sigma^br_1)(\eta,\sigma)|\lesssim (2^{-m}2^{-l_2}2^{3k/2})(2^{-al_1}2^{-bl_2})\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{[0,2^{l_1+4}]}(|\eta|)\mathbf{1}_{[2^{l_2-4},2^{l_2+4}]}(|\sigma|),$$ for any $a,b\in[0,20]\cap\mathbb{Z}$. It follows from that $$\|f\|_{L^2}\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{-k}2^{5p_0m}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+},\quad \|g\|_{L^\infty}\lesssim\varepsilon_12^{-m/2}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+},\quad \|h\|_{L^2}\lesssim \varepsilon_12^{l_2/2}2^{-\beta k}.$$ It follows from , , and that $$\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}(r_1\cdot c^\ast_\xi)\|_{L^1}\lesssim 2^{-m}2^{-l_2}2^{4k}.$$ Therefore, using and recalling that $2^{-l_2/2}\lesssim 2^{m/4}2^{-3k/8}$ and that $k\leq m/10$, $$\begin{split}
|F_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-k}2^{5p_0m}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}\cdot 2^{-m/2}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}\cdot 2^{l_2/2}2^{-\beta k}\cdot 2^{-m}2^{-l_2}2^{4k}\\
&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(N_0/2+40)k_+}2^{-m}\cdot 2^{-m/8}.
\end{split}$$ Similar arguments show that $|G_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(N_0/2+40)k_+}2^{-9m/8}$ and, using also the bound [^6], $|J^2_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(N_0/2+40)k_+}2^{-9m/8}$. Therefore, for it suffices to prove that $$\label{bn35}
|J^1_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-3p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$
For this we integrate by parts again in $\eta$ and estimate $$|J^1_{l_1,l_2,1}(\xi,s)|\leq |J^1_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|+|J^2_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|+|F_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|+|G_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|,$$ where $$\begin{split}
&J^1_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)(\partial_\eta r_2)(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&J^2_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_2(\eta,\sigma)(\partial_\eta c^\ast_\xi)(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&F_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_2(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&G_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
(\partial\widehat{f_{k_3}^-})(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_2(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma.
\end{split}$$ and $$r_2(\eta,\sigma):=\frac{(\partial_\eta r_1)(\eta,\sigma)}{s(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)} .$$ It follows from that $r_2$ satisfies the stronger symbol-type bounds $$\label{bn44}
|(\partial_\eta^a\partial_\sigma^br_2)(\eta,\sigma)|\lesssim (2^{-m}2^{-l_1-l_2}2^{3k/2})(2^{-m}2^{-l_2}2^{3k/2})(2^{-al_1}2^{-bl_2})\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{[0,2^{l_1+4}]}(|\eta|)\mathbf{1}_{[2^{l_2-4},2^{l_2+4}]}(|\sigma|),$$ for $a,b\in[0,19]\cap\mathbb{Z}$. Therefore, using Lemma \[touse\] as before, $$|F_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|+|G_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|+|J^2_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(N_0/2+40)k_+}2^{-m}\cdot 2^{-m/8}.$$ Moreover, we can now estimate $|J^1_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|$ using only and the $L^\infty$ bounds in , $$\begin{split}
|J_{l_1,l_2,2}(\xi,s)|&\lesssim 2^{l_1+l_2}\cdot\varepsilon_1^3(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-3}\cdot (2^{-m}2^{-l_1-l_2}2^{3k/2})^22^{5k/2}\\
&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(N_0/2+40)k_+}2^{-m}\cdot 2^{-m/50}.
\end{split}$$ This completes the proof of and .
A similar argument shows that $$|J_{l_1,l_2}(\xi,s)|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-3p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1},\qquad\text{ if }l_1\geq\max(l_2,\overline{l}+1).$$
[**[Step 2.]{}**]{} Using the decomposition , for it suffices to prove that $$\label{bn50}
\Big|J_{\overline{l},\overline{l}}(\xi,s)+\widetilde{c}(\xi)\frac{\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)}{s+1}\Big|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$
To prove we notice that $$\Big|\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)+\frac{\eta\sigma}{4|\xi|^{3/2}}\Big|\lesssim 2^{-5k/2}(|\eta|+|\sigma|)^3,$$ as long as $|\eta|+|\sigma|\leq 2^{k-5}$. Therefore, using the $L^\infty$ bounds in $$\label{bn51}
\Big|J_{\overline{l},\overline{l}}(\xi,s)-J'_{\overline{l},\overline{l}}(\xi,s)\Big|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-3}\cdot 2^m2^{-5k/2}2^{5\overline{l}}\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}2^{-5m/4},$$ where $$\label{bn52}
\begin{split}
J'_{\overline{l},\overline{l}}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{-is\eta\sigma/(4|\xi|^{3/2})}&\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)\\
&\times
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\eta)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, using two of the bounds in , $$\begin{split}
|\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)&-
\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)|\\
&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{\overline{l}/2}\cdot 2^{-N_0k_+}2^{5p_0m}2^{-k(1+2\beta)},
\end{split}$$ whenever $|\eta|+|\sigma|\leq 2^{\overline{l}+4}$. In addition, using , $$|c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)-c^\ast_\xi(0,0)|\lesssim 2^{3k/2}2^{\overline{l}},$$ provided that $|\eta|+|\sigma|\leq 2^{\overline{l}+4}$. Therefore $$\label{bn53}
\begin{split}
\Big|J'_{\overline{l},\overline{l}}(\xi,s)-&\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{-is\eta\sigma/(4|\xi|^{3/2})}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\eta)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(0,0)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|\\
&\lesssim 2^{2\overline{l}}2^{3k/2}\cdot \varepsilon_1^32^{\overline{l}/2}2^{-N_0k_+}2^{5p_0m}2^{-k(1+2\beta)}\\
&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}2^{-9m/8}.
\end{split}$$
Starting from the general formula $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-ax^2-bx}\,dx=e^{b^2/(4a)}\sqrt{\pi}/\sqrt{a},\qquad a,b\in\mathbb{C},\,\,\Re\,a>0,$$ we calculate, for any $N\geq 1$, $$\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{-ixy}e^{-x^2/N^2}e^{-y^2/N^2}\,dxdy=\sqrt{\pi}N\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-y^2/N^2}e^{-N^2y^2/4}\,dy=2\pi+O(N^{-1}).$$ Therefore, for $N\geq 1$, $$\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}e^{-ixy}\varphi(x/N)\varphi(y/N)\,dxdy=2\pi+O(N^{-1/2}).$$ Recalling also that $2^{\overline{l}}\approx |\xi|^{3/4}2^{-49m/100}$, it follows that $$\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{-is\eta\sigma/(4|\xi|^{3/2})}\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\eta)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma-\frac{4|\xi|^{3/2}}{s}(2\pi)\Big|\lesssim 2^{3k/2}2^{-(1+4p_1)m}.$$ Therefore, using also , $$\label{bn54}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{-is\eta\sigma/(4|\xi|^{3/2})}&\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\eta)\varphi(2^{-\overline{l}}\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(0,0)\,d\eta d\sigma\\
&-\frac{8\pi|\xi|^{3/2}c^\ast_\xi(0,0)\cdot \widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi,s)}{s}\Big|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-(1+4p_1)m}2^{-N_0k_+}.
\end{split}$$ and the bound follows from , , and . This completes the proof of the lemma.
\[bb11\] The bounds hold provided that holds and, in addition, $$\label{bn70}
\begin{split}
&\max(|k_1-k|,|k_2-k|,|k_3-k|)\geq 21,\\
&\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\geq -19m/20,\qquad\max(|k_1-k_3|,|k_2-k_3|)\geq 5.
\end{split}$$
Recall the definition $$\label{bn71}
I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where $$\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi+\eta)-\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)+\Lambda(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ It suffices to prove that, for any $s\in[t_1,t_2]$, $$\label{bn72}
\big|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)\big|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+}.$$
By symmetry, we may assume that $|k_1-k_3|\geq 5$ and notice that $$\label{bn73}
|(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)|=|-\Lambda'(\xi+\eta)+\Lambda'(\xi+\eta+\sigma)|\gtrsim 2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)/2},$$ provided that $|\xi+\eta|\in[2^{k_1-2},2^{k_1+2}]$, $|\xi+\eta+\sigma|\in[2^{k_3-2},2^{k_3+2}]$. As in the proof of Lemma \[bb2\], we integrate by parts in $\eta$ to estimate $$|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)|\leq |J^1_{1}(\xi,s)|+|J^2_{1}(\xi,s)|+|F_{1}(\xi,s)|+|G_{1}(\xi,s)|,$$ where $$\begin{split}
&J_{1}^1(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)(\partial_\eta r_3)(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&J_{1}^2(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s) r_3(\eta,\sigma)(\partial_\eta c^\ast_\xi)(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&F_{1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_3(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,\\
&G_{1}(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
(\partial\widehat{f_{k_3}^-})(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)r_3(\eta,\sigma)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,
\end{split}$$ and $$r_3(\eta,\sigma):=\frac{1}{s(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\cdot
\varphi_{[k_1-1,k_1+1]}(\xi+\eta)\varphi_{[k_3-1,k_3+1]}(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ Using also , it follows easily that $$\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}(r_3)\|_{L^1}\lesssim 2^{-m}2^{\min(k_1,k_3)/2}, \qquad \|\mathcal{F}^{-1}(\partial_\eta r_3)\|_{L^1}\lesssim 2^{-m}2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)/2}.$$
We apply first with $$\widehat{f}(\eta):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\eta)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s),\,
\widehat{g}(\sigma):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s),\,
\widehat{h}(\theta):=e^{is\Lambda(\xi-\theta)}\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi+\theta,s).$$ Using also , , and , we conclude that $$|J^1_{1}(\xi,s)| +|J^2_{1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-m/2}2^{3p_0m}2^{-(N_0-20)\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)_+}\cdot 2^{-m}2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)/2}.$$ Similarly, we apply with $$\widehat{f}(\eta):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\eta)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s),\,
\widehat{g}(\sigma):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s),\,
\widehat{h}(\theta):=e^{is\Lambda(\xi-\theta)}\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi+\theta,s),$$ and use to conclude that $$|F_{1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-m/2}2^{8p_0m}2^{-k_1}2^{-(N_0/2-30)\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)_+}\cdot 2^{-m}2^{\min(k_1,k_3)/2}.$$ Finally, we apply with $$\widehat{f}(\eta):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\eta)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s),\,
\widehat{g}(\sigma):=e^{-is\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s),\,
\widehat{h}(\theta):=e^{is\Lambda(\xi-\theta)}(\partial\widehat{f_{k_3}^-})(-\xi+\theta,s),$$ and use to conclude that $$|G_{1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-m/2}2^{8p_0m}2^{-k_3}2^{-(N_0/2-30)\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)_+}\cdot 2^{-m}2^{\min(k_1,k_3)/2}.$$ Therefore $$|J_{1}(\xi,s)|+|F_{1}(\xi,s)|+|G_{1}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-m}2^{-(N_0/2-30)k_+}2^{-m/2+8p_0m}2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)/2},$$ and the desired bound follows from the assumptions $-\min(k_1,k_3)/2\leq 19m/40$, see , and $\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)_+\leq 3m/N_0$ (see the hypothesis of Lemma \[bb1\]).
\[bb12\] The bounds hold provided that holds and, in addition, $$\label{bn80}
\begin{split}
&\max(|k_1-k|,|k_2-k|,|k_3-k|)\geq 21,\\
&\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\geq -19m/20,\qquad\max(|k_1-k_3|,|k_2-k_3|)\leq 4.
\end{split}$$
We may assume that $$\label{bn81}
\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\geq k+10,$$ and rewrite $$\label{bn82}
\begin{split}
I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}&\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)\\
&\times
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)\varphi_{[k_2-4,k_2+4]}(\sigma)c_\xi^\ast(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma,
\end{split}$$ where, as before, $$\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi+\eta)-\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)+\Lambda(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ It suffices to prove that, for any $s\in[t_1,t_2]$, $$\label{bn83}
\big|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)\big|\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+}.$$
Notice that $$\label{bn84}
|(\partial_\eta\Phi)(\xi,\eta,\sigma)|=|-\Lambda'(\xi+\eta)+\Lambda'(\xi+\eta+\sigma)|\gtrsim 2^{-k_2/2},$$ provided that $|\xi+\eta|\in[2^{k_1-2},2^{k_1+2}]$, $|\xi+\eta+\sigma|\in[2^{k_3-2},2^{k_3+2}]$, and $|\sigma|\approx 2^{k_2}$ (recall also that $2^{k_1}\approx 2^{k_2}\approx 2^{k_3}$). The bound follows by integration by parts in $\eta$, as in the proof of Lemma \[bb11\].
\[bb12.5\] The bounds hold provided that holds and, in addition, $$\label{bn88}
\begin{split}
&\max(|k_1-k|,|k_2-k|,|k_3-k|)\geq 21,\\
&\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\leq -19m/20,\qquad k\leq -m/5.
\end{split}$$
It follows from the definition and the bounds and that, for any $s\in[t_1,t_2]$, $$\begin{split}
I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{++-}(\xi,s)&\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3|\xi|^{1/2}2^{(1-\beta)\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)}2^{2p_0m}2^{-(N_0-20)\max(k_1,k_2,k_3,0)}\\
&\lesssim 2^{-m}\varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ The desired estimate follows in this case.
\[bb13\] The bounds hold provided that holds and, in addition, $$\label{bn90}
\begin{split}
&\max(|k_1-k|,|k_2-k|,|k_3-k|)\geq 21,\\
&\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)\leq -19m/20,\qquad k\geq -m/5.
\end{split}$$
In this case we cannot prove pointwise bounds on $\big|I_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{+,+,-}(\xi,s)|$ and we need to integrate by parts in $s$. For it suffices to prove that $$\label{bn91}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2\times[t_1,t_2]}e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma ds\Big|\\
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+},
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
&\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\Lambda(\xi)-\Lambda(\xi+\eta)-\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)+\Lambda(\xi+\eta+\sigma),\\
&H(\xi,s)=\frac{\widetilde{c}(\xi)}{4\pi^2}\int_0^s|\widehat{f}(\xi,r)|^2 \frac{dr}{r+1}.
\end{split}$$ The assumptions and show that $$\label{bn91.1}
\widetilde{k}:=\min(k,\mathrm{med}(k_1,k_2,k_3))\geq -m/5.$$ Then we make the simple observation that $$\Lambda(a)+\Lambda(b)-\Lambda(a+b)\geq \Lambda(a)/2\qquad\text{ if }\qquad 0\leq a\leq b$$ to conclude that $\Phi$ satisfies the weakly elliptic bound $$\label{bn91.2}
|\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)|\geq 2^{\widetilde{k}/2-10}$$ provided that $|\xi+\eta|\in[2^{k_1-2},2^{k_1+2}]$, $|\xi+\sigma|\in[2^{k_2-2},2^{k_2+2}]$, $|\xi+\eta+\sigma|\in[2^{k_3-2},2^{k_3+2}]$. Letting $\dot{H}(\xi,s):=(\partial_sH)(\xi,s)$, we notice that, for any $s\in[t_1,t_2]$, $$\label{bn93.5}
|\dot{H}(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^22^{2k}2^{-N_0k_+}2^{-m}.$$
We integrate by parts in $s$ to conclude that the integral in the left-hand side of is dominated by $$B^0(\xi)+\sum_{j=1}^2B_j(\xi),$$ where $$\begin{split}
B^0(\xi):=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} & e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)} \frac{1}{\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}
\frac{d}{ds} \Big[ e^{i H(\xi,s)}
\\
&\times\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\Big]\,d\eta d\sigma\Big| ds
\end{split}$$ and, for $j=1,2$, $$\begin{split}
B_j(\xi):=\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}&e^{it_j\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\frac{1}{\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}
\\
&\times\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,t_j)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,t_j)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,t_j)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|
\end{split}$$
Let $$r_4(\eta,\sigma):=\frac{1}{\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\cdot
\varphi_{[k_1-1,k_1+1]}(\xi+\eta)\varphi_{[k_2-1,k_2+1]}(\xi+\sigma)\varphi_{[k_3-1,k_3+1]}(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ Using – and integration by parts it is easy to see that, for any $s\in[t_1,t_2]$, $$\label{bn95}
\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}(r_4)\|_{L^1}\lesssim 2^{-\widetilde{k}/2}.$$ Using the $L^\infty$ bound in we estimate, for $j\in\{1,2\}$, $$\label{bn96}
B_j(\xi)\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{(1-\beta)\min(k_1,k_2,k_3)}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-3m/4}2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}.$$
Expanding the $d/ds$ derivative we estimate $$\begin{split}
& B^0(\xi)\lesssim 2^m\sup_{s\in[t_1,t_2]}[B^0_0(\xi,s)+B^0_1(\xi,s)+B^0_2(\xi,s)+B^0_3(\xi,s)],
\\
& B^0_0(\xi,s):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
\Big|\frac{\partial_s H(\xi,s)}{\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\Big|\,d\eta d\sigma,
\\
& B^0_1(\xi,s):=\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}r_4(\eta,\sigma)(\partial_s\widehat{f_{k_1}^+})(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|,
\\
& B^0_2(\xi,s):=\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}r_4(\eta,\sigma)\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)(\partial_s\widehat{f_{k_2}^+})(\xi+\sigma,s)
\widehat{f_{k_3}^-}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|,
\\
& B^0_3(\xi,s):=\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{is\Phi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}r_4(\eta,\sigma)\widehat{f_{k_1}^+}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^+}(\xi+\sigma,s)
(\partial_s\widehat{f_{k_3}^-})(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^\ast_\xi(\eta,\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma\Big|.
\end{split}$$
As before, we combine , , and the bounds and to conclude that $$\label{bn97.1}
\begin{split}
\sup_{s\in[t_1,t_2]}[B^0_1(\xi,s)+B^0_2(\xi,s)+B^0_3(\xi,s)]\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3 2^{-5m/4} 2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}.
\end{split}$$ In addition, using the definition of the function $H$, we have $$\label{bn97.15}
\sup_{s\in[t_1,t_2]}|\partial_s H(\xi,s)|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^2 2^{-m}.$$ Therefore $$\label{bn97.2}
\sup_{s\in[t_1,t_2]}B^0_0(\xi,s)\lesssim \varepsilon_1^3 2^{-5m/4} 2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}.$$6 The desired bound follows from , , and .
Proof of
---------
After changes of variables, it suffices to prove that $$\label{bn141}
\begin{split}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^2\times[t_1,t_2]}&e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Phi^{\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)}\widehat{f_{k_1}^{\iota_1}}(\xi+\eta,s)\widehat{f_{k_2}^{\iota_2}}(\xi+\sigma,s)\\
&\times\widehat{f_{k_3}^{\iota_3}}(-\xi-\eta-\sigma,s)c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,-\eta,-\xi-\eta-\sigma)\,d\eta d\sigma ds\Big|\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-2p_1m}2^{-(N_1+15)k_+},
\end{split}$$ where $(\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3)\in\{(+,+,+),(-,-,+),(-,-,-)\}$ and $$\Phi^{\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\Lambda(\xi)-\iota_1\Lambda(\xi+\eta)-\iota_2\Lambda(\xi+\sigma)-\iota_3\Lambda(\xi+\eta+\sigma).$$ The main observation is that the phases $\Phi^{\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3}$ are weakly elliptic, i.e. $$|\Phi^{\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)|\geq 2^{\mathrm{med}(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2-100},$$ provided that $|\xi+\eta|\in[2^{k_1-2},2^{k_1+2}]$, $|\xi+\sigma|\in[2^{k_2-2},2^{k_2+2}]$, $|\xi+\eta+\sigma|\in[2^{k_3-2},2^{k_3+2}]$, and $(\iota_1,\iota_2,\iota_3)\in\{(+,+,+),(-,-,+),(-,-,-)\}$. The proof then proceeds as in the proof of Lemma \[bb13\], using integration by parts in $s$.
Lagrangian formulation and “Wu’s good coordinates” {#secL}
==================================================
Let $v$ be the fluid’s velocity field, recall that we denote by $z: (t,\a) \in [0,T] \times \R \rightarrow \C$ the Lagrangian map (restricted to the surface parametrized by $\alpha$), that is the solutions of $$z_t (t, \a) = v (t, z(\a,t)) \quad , \quad z(0,\a) = \a + i y_0 (\a) \, .$$ $z(t,\a) = x(t,\a) + i y(t,\a)$ is the equation of the free interface. The imaginary part of $z$, $\Im z$, measures the height of the interface.
The transformation $k$ and modified Lagrangian coordinates
----------------------------------------------------------
Define the change of coordinates $k$ $$\label{defk}
k (t,\a) := \bar{z} (t,\a) + \frac{1}{2} (I + \H_z) {(I + \K_z)}^{-1} (z (t,\a) - \bar{z} (t,\a) )
%\quad , \quad k(0,\a) \sim \a \, ,$$ where $\H_\g$ denotes the Hilbert transform along the curve $\g$, see , and $\K_z = \Re \H_z$. $k$ will be shown to be a diffeomorphism on $\R$. Given the change of coordinates $k$ we can define the transformed Lagrangian unknowns as in [@WuAG] $$\wt{L} (t,\a) := ( \z_\a(t,\a) - 1, u(t,\a) , w(t,\a), \Im \z(t,\a) )$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defzeta}
\z (t,\a) &:= z (t,k^{-1}(t,\a))
\\ \label{defu}
u(t,\a) &:= z_t (t,k^{-1}(t,\a))
\\ \label{defw}
w(t,\a) &:= z_{tt} (t,k^{-1}(t,\a)) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
w(t,\a) &:= z_{tt} (t,k^{-1}(t,\a)) = (\partial_t + b (t,\a) \partial_\a) u(t,\a) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$b (t,\a) = k_t (t, k^{-1}(t,\a)) \, .$$ Also, following [@WuAG] we define the “good quantities” in terms of the transformed Lagrangian unknowns $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defchi}
\chi & := 2i(I-\H_\z) \Im \z = (I-\H_z)(z-\bar{z}) \circ k^{-1}
\\
\label{defl}
\l & := (I-\H_\z) ( \psi \circ k^{-1} ) = (I-\H_z)\psi \circ k^{-1}
\\
\label{defv}
v & := \partial_t (I-\H_z)(z-\bar{z}) \circ k^{-1} = (\partial_t + b \partial_\a )\chi \quad , \quad v_1 := (I-\H_\z) v \, .\end{aligned}$$ We recall that $\psi$ is the trace of the velocity potential in Lagrangian coordinates: $\psi(t,\a) = \Phi(t , z(t,\a))$. The quantities $\chi,\l$ and $v$ are those for which cubic equations are derived and the Energy argument is performed. The relation between the Eulerian trace of the velocity potential $\phi$ and the surface elevation $h$ with the Lagrangian quantities is given by the identities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hEL}
h(t, \Re z(t,\a)) & = \Im z (t,\a)
\\
\label{phiEL}
\phi(t, \Re z(t,\a)) & = \psi (t,\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Composing with $k^{-1}$ these become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hEwtL}
h(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) & = \Im \z (t,\a)
\\
\label{phiEwtL}
\phi(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) & = \psi (t, k^{-1}(t,\a)) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Proposition \[prok\] {#secprok}
-----------------------------
The proof of Proposition \[prok\] requires a substantial amount of material and some bounds that can be found only later in the paper, for example in section \[secproenergy3\]. However, since the existence of the diffemorphism $k$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ justifies the existence of the modified Lagrangian coordinates, and the construction of the energy, we give the proof of this Proposition below. We will refer to the necessary tools whenever needed.
We start by assuming a priori that $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{B1}
\label{apriorik1}
\sup_{[0,T]} {\| k_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \leq \frac{1}{2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we assume , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apriori01}
%\tag{B0}
\sup_{[0,T]} \left[(1+t)^{-p_0} {\| (h(t), \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t), \Lambda\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}\right] \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and and , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriL11}
& \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \left[ (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + \sqrt{1+t} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right] \leq \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then aim to conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apriorikcon1}
\sup_{[0,T]} {\| k_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_0 + \e_1^2\end{aligned}$$ as a consequence of the following Lemmas:
\[lemk\_t\] Let $k$ be defined as in then the following formula holds: $$\label{formulak_t}
(I-\H_z) k_t = - [z_t,\H_z] \frac{\bar{z}_\a - k_\a}{z_\a} \, .$$ Under the assumptions and there exists $\g>0$, such that for any $t\in[0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k_t1}
{\left\| \partial_\a [u,\H_\z] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} - T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
& \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k_t2}
{\left\| \partial_\a [u,\H_\z] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} - T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} & \lesssim
\e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $T_0$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_0}
T_0 (f,g) := \partial_x [(I-H_0) g_x, H_0] (I-H_0) f_x \, .\end{aligned}$$
\[lemT\_0\] Under the a priori assumptions , there exists $\g>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundT_01}
& {\left\| T_0 (h,\phi) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{boundT_02}
& {\left\| T_0 (h,\phi) \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The proofs of Lemma \[lemk\_t\] and \[lemT\_0\] are in section \[seclemk\_t\] and \[seclemT\_0\] respectively. We now show how Proposition \[prok\] follows from them.
Since we know by our priori assumption that $k$ is diffeomorphism, we can define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defKk_t}
K(t,\a) := [z_t,\H_z] \frac{\bar{z}_\a - k_\a}{z_\a} \circ k^{-1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the properties of the Hilbert transform and the definition of $\z$ and $u$ in and , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{idK}
K(t,\a) = [u,\H_\z] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} \, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k_t10}
(I-\H_\z) (k_t \circ k^{-1}) = K(t,\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying the estimate for the inversion of $I-\H$, with $f = k_t \circ k^{-1}$ and $g = K$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a (k_t \circ k^{-1}) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim
{\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} + {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the a priori assumption and it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estk_t1}
{\| \partial_\a k_t \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim
{\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} + \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2} {\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Applying successively and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estk_t2}
{\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} + {\| T_0 (h,\phi) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estk_t3}
{\| \partial_\a K(t,\a) \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim
\e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} + {\| T_0 (h,\phi) \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Plugging and into gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a k_t (t) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}\end{aligned}$$ whence $$\begin{aligned}
{\| k_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| k_\a(0) - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
+ \int_0^t {\| \partial_s k_\a(s) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \, ds \lesssim \e_0 + C_\g \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lemk\_t\] {#seclemk_t}
--------------------------
The identity is proven by Wu in Proposition 2.4 of [@WuAG]. Let $K$ be given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KQ_0}
K(t,\a) = [u,\H_\z] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} = Q_0 (u, \bar{\z}_\a - 1) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_0$ is the bilinear operator defined in . We aim to approximate $\partial_\a K$ by $T_0(h,\phi)$ showing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k_t11}
& {\left\| \partial_\a K - T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}
\\
\label{k_t21}
& {\left\| \partial_\a K - T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### *[Step 1: Approximation of $u$]{}.*
Let $H_0$ denote the flat Hilbert transform, $H_0 = \H_{\mbox{\tiny id}}$ according . We start by showing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appu1}
{\left\| u - (I-H_0) \phi_x \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the identity as in the proof of Lemma \[lemenergy31\], we can schematically write $$\begin{aligned}
u - \partial_\a \l = \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L} + \bQ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that using to estimate $\bQ$, and the a priori decay assumptions, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| u - \partial_\a \l \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To obtain it then suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appu2}
{\left\| \partial_\a \l - (I-H_0) \phi_x \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Looking at and in the proof of Lemma \[lemenergy32\] one can see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \partial_\a \l - \partial_\a \left[ (I-H_0) \phi \circ \Re \z \right] \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} &
\lesssim {\left\| \phi \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}}
{\left\| h \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+6,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-5/8} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ having used also in the last inequality. Since we also have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\| \partial_\a \left[ (I-H_0) \phi \circ \Re \z \right] - (I-H_0) \phi_x \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\\
& = {\left\| (I-H_0) \phi_x \circ \Re \z \, (\Re \z_\a - 1) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left\| \Lambda \phi \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ we have verified , hence with $\b = 1/8$.
#### *[Step 2: Approximation of $\z_\a - 1$]{}.*
We want to show that $\z_\a -1$ can be approximated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-1a}
& {\left\| \z_\a - 1 - i(I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g}
\\
\label{appz_a-1b}
& {\left\| \H_\z \left( \z_\a - 1 - i(I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z \right) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some $\g>0$. Putting together the identities and , as in the the proof of Lemma \[lemenergy31\], we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-12}
\z_\a - 1 - \frac{1}{2} \partial_\a \chi = \H(\wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}) + \wt{L} \cdot \H \wt{L}_\a + \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}_\a
+ \bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) + A-1 + \cdots \,\end{aligned}$$ where operators of the type $\bQ$ are defined by -, $A$ is defined in , and “$\cdots$” denotes cubic or higher order terms which are more easily estimated, and we will therefore disregard. Notice that interpolating between the bounds provided by the a priori assumptions one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-13}
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,p}} \lesssim \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2+1/p} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\geq 2$. Combining this with the estimates and for $\H$ in $W^{k,\infty}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-14a}
\begin{split}
& {\left\| \H(\wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}) + \wt{L} \cdot \H \wt{L}_\a + \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}_\a \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim \left( {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,p}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} \right) {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-14b}
\begin{split}
& {\left\| \H \left( \H(\wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}) + \wt{L} \cdot \H \wt{L}_\a + \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}_\a \right) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim \left( {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,p}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \right) {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for an arbitrarily large $p \neq \infty$.
We then want to obtain similar bounds for $\bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} )$ and $A-1$, and more precisely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-15a}
& {\big\| \bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1}
\\
\label{appz_a-15b}
& {\big\| \H \bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-16a}
& {\left\| A-1 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p}
\\
\label{appz_a-16b}
& {\left\| \H (A-1) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The first bound follows directly from and the a priori decay assumptions. To obtain first notice that the inequality in , which is an application of the $L^2$ estimates in \[theoCCL\^2\], gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\| \bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) \big\|}_{H^{N_0/2+3}} & \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{H^{N_0/2+4}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Interpolating this and the $L^\infty$ bound gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\| \bQ ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} ) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,p}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+1/p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ then follows by applying .
Both and rely on the identity , which we can schematically write as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-1A}
(I - \H)(A-1) = [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L}_\a + [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L} + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ where once again “$\cdots$”stands for cubic order terms which we are going to disregard. Applying we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| A-1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim {\big\| [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L}_\a + [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L} \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
+ \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2} {\big\| [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L}_\a + [\wt{L}, \H] \wt{L} \big\|}_{H^{N_0/2+4}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then bound the above right-hand side by using , , the a priori decay estimates, and the boundedness of $\H$ in : $$\begin{aligned}
{\| A-1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim {\big( {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,p}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}} \big)}^2
%{\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}}
+ \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1+2/p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We have therefore obtained . Since holds true also for $\H (A-1)$, up to a sign, the estimate follows as above.
Putting together - we have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\Big\| \z_\a - 1 - \frac{1}{2} \partial_\a \chi \Big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g}
\\
& {\Big\| \H_\z \Big( \z_\a - 1 - \frac{1}{2} \partial_\a \chi \Big) \Big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some $\g >0$.To obtain and it is then enough to show $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{appz_a-120a}
& {\left\| \partial_\a \chi - 2 i (I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g}
\\
%\label{appz_a-120b}
& {\left\| \H_\z \left( \partial_\a \chi - 2 i (I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z \right) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In light of both bounds would follow from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appz_a-17}
& {\left\| \chi - 2 i (I-H_0) h \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\chi$ in and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi = 2i(I-\H) (h \circ \Re \z) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying the inequality with $f= 2i h$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\| \chi - 2i (I-H_0) h \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}} {\| h \|}_{W^{N_0/2+6,\infty}} + {\| (I-H_0) (h h^\p) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+6,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| h \|}^2_{W^{N_0/2+7,\infty}} + {\| \partial_x H_0 h^2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+6,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| h \|}^2_{W^{N_0/2+8,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives us and concludes the proof of -.
#### *[Step 3: First approximation of $\partial_\a K$]{}.*
We now want to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kapp1a}
& {\left\| \partial_\a K - \partial_\a Q_0 \left( (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z, (I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right)
\right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}
\\
\label{Kapp1b}
& {\left\| \partial_\a K - \partial_\a Q_0 \left( (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z, (I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right)
\right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 & := u - (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z
\\
A_2 & := \z_\a - 1 - i(I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z\end{aligned}$$ Using we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a K - \partial_\a Q_0 \left( (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z, (I-H_0) h_x \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z \right)
= K_1 + K_2\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K_1 & := \partial_\a Q_0 \left( A_1, \z_\a -1 \right)
\\
K_2 & := \partial_\a Q_0 \left( (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z, A_2 \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From , and we know that there exists $\g>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estA1}
& {\left\| A_1 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{estA2a}
& {\left\| A_2 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{estA2b}
& {\left\| \H A_2 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the $L^\infty$ type bound for operators of the type $\partial_\a Q_0$, above, and the bound in Proposition \[proenergy3\] together with the a priori decay assumption in , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| K_1 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} &
\lesssim {\left\| A_1 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \left( {\| \H(\z_\a - 1) \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right) \lesssim \e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, in view of and above, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| K_2 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
& \lesssim {\left\| (I-H_0)\phi_x \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \left( {\| \H A_2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
+ {\| A_2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)
\\ &\lesssim \e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We have therefore obtained . The $H^{N_0/2+2}$ estimate can be obtained similarly, estimating $K_1$ and $K_2$ in $H^{N_0/2+2}$, by using the bounds on $A_1$ and $A_2$ given by , , , and , and boundedness properties of the Cauchy integral on Sobolev spaces, see .
#### *[Step 4: Approximation by $T_0$]{}.*
Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi_0}
\phi_0 & := \partial_x (I-H_0) \phi
\\
\label{h_0}
h_0 & := \partial_x (I-H_0) h\end{aligned}$$ To eventually obtain - it suffices to combine - with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kapp2a}
{\left\| \partial_\a Q_0 \left( \phi_0 \circ \Re \z, h_0 \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right)
- T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}
\\
\label{Kapp2b}
{\left\| \partial_\a Q_0 \left( \phi_0 \circ \Re \z, h_0 \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right)
- T_0 (h,\phi) \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ With the notation - we can write $T_0(h,\phi)$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_01}
T_0(h,\phi) \circ \Re \z (\a) = \partial_x [ \phi_0, H_0 ] h_0 \circ \Re \z (\a)
= \frac{1}{i\pi} \partial_x \int \frac{ \phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y) }{ x - y} h_0(y) \, dy \circ \Re \z (\a) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ whereas writing explicitely $Q_0$ and changing variables we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
\partial_\a Q_0 \left( \phi_0 \circ \Re \z, h_0 \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right)
& = \frac{1}{i\pi} \partial_\a \int \frac{ \phi_0 \circ \Re \z(\a) - \phi_0 \circ \Re \z(\b) }{\z(\a) - \z(\b)}
h_0 \circ \Re \z(\b) \, \Re \z_\b(\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{T_02}
& = \frac{1}{i\pi} \partial_\a \left( \int \frac{ \phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y) }{ x+ih(x) - (y+ih(y))} h_0(y) \, dy \circ \Re \z(\a) \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then the difference we are interested in is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a Q_0 \left( \phi_0 \circ \Re \z, h_0 \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \right) - T_0(h,\phi) \circ \Re \z (\a)
= T_1 \circ \Re \z \, (\Re \z_\a-1) + T_2 \circ \Re \z \, \Re \z_\a \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_1}
T_1 & := \frac{1}{i\pi} \partial_x \int \frac{ \phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y) }{x - y} h_0(y) \, dy
\\
\label{T_2}
T_2 & := \frac{1}{i\pi} \partial_x \int H \left( \frac{ h(x)-h(y) }{x-y} \right)
\frac{ (h(x)-h(y))(\phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y)) }{ {(x - y)}^2 } h_0(y) \, dy \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some smooth function $H$. We have expanded the denominator in to obtain the above identity. Then, since $\Re \z_\a-1$ decays like ${(1+t)}^{-1/2}$ in $L^\infty$, in order to get it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estT_1}
{\| T_1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g}
\\
\label{estT_2}
{\| T_2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} & \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying $\partial_x$ to the integrand in , and using , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| T_1 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} & \lesssim {\left\| \int \frac{ \phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y) }{{(x - y)}^2} h_0(y) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
+ {\left\| \partial_x \phi_0 \, H_0 h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| \phi_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\left( {\left\| h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\left\| H_0 h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| \Lambda \phi \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} {\left\| h \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, again using , it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| T_2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} &
\lesssim {\left\| h \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}} {\left\| \phi_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
{\left\| h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}
%\lesssim {\left\| \Lambda \phi \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} {\left\| h \right\|}^2_{W^{N_0/2+3,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-3/2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives us and concludes the proof of .
The remaining estimate can be obtained similarly, using the $L^2$ bounds of Theorem \[theoCMM\] instead of the $L^\infty$ bound . In particular it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
{\| T_1 \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-\g}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
{\| T_2 \|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2+\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We only detail the bound for $T_1$ as the one for $T_2$ can proved similarly (notice that $T_2$ is a cubic term and therefore its bounds are ${(1+t)}^{-1/2}$ better than those of $T_1$). Applying $\partial_x$ to the integrand in , commuting derivatives via , and using the estimates in Theorem \[theoCMM\], one sees that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| T_1 \|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} &
\lesssim {\left\| \int \frac{ \phi_0 (x) - \phi_0 (y) }{{(x - y)}^2} h_0(y) \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}}
+ {\left\| \partial_x \phi_0 \, H_0 h_0 \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}}
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| \phi_0 \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+3}}
\left( {\left\| h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\left\| H_0 h_0 \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)
%\lesssim {\left\| \phi_x \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+3}} {\left\| h \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}}
\lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ which is more than sufficient. $\hfill \Box$
Proof of Lemma \[lemT\_0\] {#seclemT_0}
--------------------------
The proof proceeds in several steps.
### Step 1: The operator in Fourier space
Introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{phi^0}
\wt{\phi} & := (I-H_0) \phi
\quad \, , \quad
%\label{h^0}
\wt{h} := (I-H_0) h\end{aligned}$$ so that from we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x T_0(h,\phi) = \partial_x [ \wt{\phi}_x ,H_0] \wt{h}_x \, .\end{aligned}$$ By taking Fourier transform, and using the notation , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_0T_m}
\partial_x T_0(h,\phi) = M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) %= c \int_{\R} m(\xi,\eta) \what{h^0}(\xi-\eta) \what{\phi^0}(\eta) \, d\eta\end{aligned}$$ where the symbol of the operator $M$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symT_0}
m(\xi,\eta) = \xi\eta|\xi-\eta| -|\xi| \eta (\xi-\eta) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then want to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundT_m1}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g}
\\
\label{boundT_m2}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) \big\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g}\end{aligned}$$ under the a priori assumptions and .
### Step 2: Approximation
Let $H$ and $\Psi$ be the functions defined in in Proposition \[proE1\]. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\wt{\Psi} := (I-H_0) \Psi
\quad \, , \quad
\wt{H} := (I-H_0) H \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then claim that the following hold true: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_mHPsi1}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) - M \big( \wt{H}, \wt{\Psi} \big) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{T_mHPsi2}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) - M \big( \wt{H}, \wt{\Psi} \big) \big\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using we see that $$\begin{aligned}
M \big( \wt{h}, \wt{\phi} \big) - M \big( \wt{H}, \wt{\Psi} \big)&
\label{T_mHPsi4}
= M \big( (I-H_0)A, \wt{\phi} \big) - M \big( \wt{H}, (I-H_0) B \big) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $m$ in , the definitions and , and in Lemma \[touse\], we see that $$\label{descm}
{\|m^{k,k_1,k_2}\|}_{\mathcal{S}^\infty} \lesssim 2^k 2^{k_1} 2^{k_2} \, .$$ Combining this with the $L^\infty$ bounds an $A$ and $B$ in , and the a priori bounds , one can immediately verify that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\big\| M \big( (I-H_0)A, \wt{\phi} \big) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim
%\lesssim {\| A \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}} {\| \Lambda \phi \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} \lesssim
\e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-5/4}
\\
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{H}, (I-H_0) B \big) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim
%{\| h \|}_{W^{N_0/2+5,\infty}} {\| \Lambda B \|}_{W^{N_0/2+4,\infty}} \lesssim
\e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-5/4} \, .\end{aligned}$$ These and give us . Similarly one can show again by using , Lemma \[touse\], and the bounds on the Sobolev norms of $A$ and $B$ provided by .
### Step 3: Reduction to bilinear estimates
We are left with proving $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_mHPsi10}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{H}, \wt{\Psi} \big) \big\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{T_mHPsi11}
& {\big\| M \big( \wt{H}, \wt{\Psi} \big) \big\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Denote $f_+ = f$, $f_- = \bar{f}$ and define $2 \wt{V} = \wt{H} + i\Lambda \wt{\Psi}$, so that $\wt{H} = \wt{V}_+ + \wt{V}_-$ and $\wt{\Psi} = -i\Lambda^{-1} (\wt{V}_+ + \wt{V}_-)$. We then have $$\begin{aligned}
M \big( \wt{H},\wt{\Psi} \big) = \sum_{\e_1,\e_2 \in \{+,-\}} c_{\e_1,\e_2} Q \big( \wt{V}_{\e_1}, \wt{V}_{\e_2} \big) \end{aligned}$$ where, again according to the notation , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symq}
q (\xi,\eta) = {|\eta|}^{-1/2} \left[ \xi\eta|\xi-\eta| -|\xi| \eta (\xi-\eta) \right] \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $c_{\e_1,\e_2}$ are some constants. With the notation and we have $$\label{descq}
{\|q^{k,k_1,k_2}\|}_{\mathcal{S}^\infty} \lesssim 2^k 2^{k_1} 2^{k_2/2} \, .$$
From the definition of $V_0$ and the bounds provided by , and on $V = H + i \Lambda \Psi$, we see that the desired bounds - reduce to showing the following bilinear estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_mHPsi20}
& {\left\| Q (v_\pm(t), v_\pm(t)) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1-\g} \, ,
\\
\label{T_mHPsi21}
& {\left\| Q (v_\pm(t), v_\pm(t)) \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1/2-\g} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is as in , and $v = e^{-it\Lambda}f$ satisfies for all $k \in \Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundf1}
& {\| P_k v(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2} \, ,
\\
\label{boundf2}
& {\| P_k f(t) \|}_{H^{N_0-10}} \lesssim \e_1 {(1+t)}^{p_0} \, ,
\\
\label{boundf3}
& {\| x \partial_x P_k f(t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-20}} \lesssim \e_1 {(1+t)}^{p_0} % \quad , \quad \forall \quad k \in \Z
\, .\end{aligned}$$
### Step 4: Proof of the bilinear estimates -
#### [*Step 1: Frequency decomposition*]{}
It suffices to show that for all $t \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$ and $m \in \{1,2,\dots\}$, there exists a constant $\g>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T_mHPsi100}
& \sum_{k,k_1,k_2} {\left\| P_k Q (P_{k_1} v_\pm(t), P_{k_2} v_\pm(t)) \right\|}_{W^{N_0/2+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-(1+\g)m} \, ,
\\
\label{T_mHPsi101}
& \sum_{k,k_1,k_2} {\left\| P_k Q (P_{k_1} v_\pm(t), P_{k_2} v_\pm(t)) \right\|}_{H^{N_0/2+2}} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-(1/2+\g)m} \, .\end{aligned}$$ By symmetry and conjugation it is clear that we can reduce matters to proving the estimates - for the two bilinear operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B_+}
T_+(f,f)(t) & := \F^{-1} \int_{\R} e^{it\Phi_+} q(\xi,\eta) \what{f}_+(t,\xi-\eta) \what{f}_+(t,\eta) \, d\eta
\\
\label{B_-}
T_-(f,f)(t) & := \F^{-1} \int_{\R} e^{it\Phi_-} q(\xi,\eta) \what{f}_+(t,\xi-\eta) \what{f}_-(t,\eta) \, d\eta \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phiq}
\Phi_\pm (\xi,\eta) = {|\eta|}^{1/2} \pm {|\xi - \eta|}^{1/2}
\quad , \quad q (\xi,\eta) = {|\eta|}^{-1/2} \left[ \xi\eta|\xi-\eta| -|\xi| \eta (\xi-\eta) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that under the a priori assumptions these bilinear terms have decay rates which barely fail to give and . The key to obtaining the extra necessary decay is the vanishing of the symbol on the space-resonant sets, i.e. when $\nabla_\eta \Phi_\pm = 0$. One can then use integration by parts in frequency, and the weighted bound , to derive the desired estimate.
First let us observe that using , Lemma \[touse\], and -, one can bound as desired the sums in and , for all those frequencies $(k,k_1,k_2)$ such that $\min(k,k_1,k_2) \leq -m/N_0$ and $\max(k,k_1,k_2) \geq 3m/N_0$. The remaining sums have only $C m^3$ terms. Therefore it suffices to show the estimates for each $(k,k_1,k_2)$ fixed satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{freqQ}
k,k_1,k_2 \in [-m/N_0,3m/N_0] \cap \Z \quad , \quad \max(k_1, k_2) \geq k - 10 \, . \end{aligned}$$
#### [*Step 2: Spatial decomposition*]{}
Let us define $\rho:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ to be an even compactly supported function which equals $1$ on $[0,1]$ and vanishes on $[2,\infty)$. Let $R := 2^{3m/4}$. We decompose the profiles $f_{\pm}$ into two pieces: $f = f_{\geq R} + f_{\leq R}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\leq R}(x) = f(x) \rho \left( \frac{x}{R} \right) \quad , \quad f_{\geq R}(x) = f(x) - f_{\leq R}(x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then want to show that for all $t \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$, $m \in \{1,2,\dots\}$, and $k,k_1,k_2 \in [-m/N_0,3m/N_0] \cap \Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tpm1}
&
%\sum_{-m/100 \leq k,k_1,k_2 \leq m/100}
{\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f_{\geq R}(t), P_{k_2} f(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} +
%\sum_{-m/100 \leq k,k_1,k_2 \leq m/100}
{\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\geq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-(1+\g)m} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+}
\, ,
\\
\label{Tpm2}
%\sum_{-m/100 \leq k,k_1,k_2 \leq m/100}
& {\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-(1+\g)m} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We also need to prove the $H^{N_0/2+2}$ versions of the above estimates corresponding to , but since those can be obtained analogously we will skip them.
#### [*Step 3: Proof of* ]{}
First notice that both terms in have (at least) one profile supproted at a distance $R$ from the origin. Since this is the only important aspect that we will use to gain the necessary decay, we only show how the estimate for one of the terms, the other being analogous. We then want to prove $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f(t), P_{k_2} f_{\geq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-9m/8} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+}\end{aligned}$$ for any $k,k_1,k_2 \in [-m/N_0, 3m/N_0] \cap \mathbb{Z}$, and any $t \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$. Using , Sobolev’s embedding, and the bounds and , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f(t), P_{k_2} f_{\geq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty}
\lesssim 2^k 2^{k_1} 2^{k_2/2} {\left\| P_{k_1} v_\pm(t) \right\|}_{L^\infty}
{\left\| e^{\pm it\Lambda} P_{k_2} f_{\geq R}(t) \right\|}_{L^\infty}
\\
& \lesssim 2^k 2^{k_1} \e_1 2^{-m/2} 2^{-N_1 \max(k_1,0)} {\left\| \partial_x f_{\geq R}(t) \right\|}_{L^2}
\lesssim \e_1^2 2^k 2^{k_1} 2^{-m/2} R^{-1} 2^{-(N_0/2-20) \max(k_1,k_2,0)} 2^{mp_0}
\\
& \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-9m/8} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ in view of the frequency constraints , $p_0 \leq 1/1000$ and $R = 2^{3m/4}$.
It suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| P_k T_\pm (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-9m/8} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for any $k,k_1,k_2$ as in and $t \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$. We distinguish the two cases of $T_+$ and $T_-$. In the first case we introduce and extra cutoff in $\xi - 2\eta$ by writing $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{T+l}
& P_k T_+ ( P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t) )
= \sum_{l \in \Z} P_k T^l_+ ( P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t) )
%\end{align*}
%with
%\begin{align}
\\
& := \sum_{l \in \Z} \F^{-1} \int_{\R} e^{it\Phi_+(\xi,\eta)} \varphi_{l}(\xi-2\eta)
\varphi_{k}(\xi) \varphi_{k_1}(\xi-\eta) \varphi_{k_2}(\eta) q(\xi,\eta) \what{f_{\leq R}}(t,\xi-\eta) \what{f_{\leq R}}(t,\eta) \, d\eta
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_+$ is as in . First notice that the contribution in the summation over $l$ in is zero if $l \geq 3m/N_0 + 100$. also vanishes if $l \leq -m/N_0 - 100$, because in this case $|\xi - 2\eta| \leq |\eta|/10$, which implies that $\xi - \eta$ and $\xi$ have the same sign, and therefore $q(\xi,\eta) = 0$, see . The summation over $l$ can then be disregarded and it is enough to show $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| P_k T_+^l (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-5m/4} 2^{-(N_0/2+1)k_+}\end{aligned}$$ for any $l,k,k_1,k_2 \in [-m/N_0 - 100, 3m/N_0 + 100] \cap \mathbb{Z}$ and $t \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$. For any integer $j$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\big| \partial_\eta^j \partial_\eta \Phi_+(\xi,\eta) \big|} %\gtrsim \min \left\{2^{-k_1/2},2^{-k_2/2}, 2^{-3k_1/2} 2^l \right\}
\gtrsim 2^{- j m/10}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\|\partial_\eta^j \varphi_{k_i}(\cdot) \what{f_{\leq R}}(t,\cdot) \big\|}_{L^1} \lesssim R^j 2^{k_i/2} 2^{mp_0}
\quad , \quad \left|\partial_\eta^j ( q(\xi,\eta) \varphi_{l}(\xi-2\eta) )\right| \lesssim 2^{(j + 5/2)m/N_0} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Integrating by parts $L$ times in $\eta$ in the integral in we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\big\| P_k T_+^l (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t)) \big\|}_{L^\infty}
& \lesssim {\left( \frac{1}{2^m 2^{-m/10}} \right)}^{L} R^{L} \, 2^{k_1/2} 2^{k_2/2} 2^{2mp_0} 2^{- (N_0 - 10)\max(k_1,k_2,0)} \e_1^2
\\
& \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-3m/2} 2^{- (N_0/2 + 1)k_+} \, .\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds provided $L$ is large enough.
In the case of the operator $T_-$ it is enough to observe that $\partial_\eta \Phi_-$ vanishes (linearly) only when $\xi = 0$, and, also in this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{|\partial_\eta^j \partial_\eta \Phi_-|} % \gtrsim \min \left\{2^{-k_1/2},2^{-k_2/2}, 2^{-3k_1/2} 2^k \right\} \gtrsim 2^{-m/40}
\gtrsim 2^{- j m/10} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ under the frequency constraints . One can then use the same integration by parts argument as above (without the need to resort to a further splitting) and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| P_k T_- (P_{k_1} f_{\leq R}(t), P_{k_2} f_{\leq R}(t)) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 2^{-3m/2} 2^{- (N_0/2 + 1)k_+} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of and therefore of Lemma \[lemT\_0\].
The cubic equations {#seccubiceq}
-------------------
In [@WuAG] cubic equations are derived for the “good quantities” $\chi, \l$ and $v$ given by -. We will not discuss the derivation of these equations here, but refer the reader to section 2 in [@WuAG] for the details. In the cited work it is shown that for $F = \chi, \l$ or $v$ $$\label{cubiceq0}
{(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 F + i A \partial_\a F = G(\wt{L})$$ where the right-hand side $G(\wt{L})$ can be thought of as a cubic expression in the variables $$\label{vectorwtL}
\wt{L} = (u,w, \Im \z, \z_\a - 1) \, ,$$ which involves singular integrals related to the Cauchy integral and to Calderon commutators. The functions $b$ and $A$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defb}
b (t,\a) & = k_t \left( t , k^{-1}(t,\a) \right)
\\
\label{defA}
A (t, \a) & = ({\bf a}(t, \cdot) k_\a(t, \cdot) ) \circ k^{-1}(t,\a)\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf a}(t,\a)$ is the Raileigh-Taylor coefficient appearing in . As shown in [@WuAG Proposition 2.1], both $b$ and $A-1$ are real valued and quadratically small if $\wt{L}$ is small. See also Lemma \[lemenergy10c\]. More precisely the cubic equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubiceqchi}
& {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 \chi + i A \partial_\alpha \chi = G^\chi (u,\Im \z)
\\
\label{cubiceqv}
& {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 v + i A \partial_\alpha v = G^v (u,w,\z_\a - 1,\Im\z,\chi_\a)
\\
\label{cubiceql}
& {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 \l + i A \partial_\alpha \l = G^\l (u,w,\z_\a - 1)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gchi}
\begin{split}
G^\chi (u,\Im \z) & := \frac{4}{\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
& + \frac{2}{\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 \Im \z_\b (\b) \, d\b \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gv}
\begin{split}
G^v (u,w,\z_\a - 1,\Im\z, \chi_\a) & := %- 2 \left[ w, \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{ \bar{\z}_\a} \right] u_\a
\frac{4}{\pi} \int \frac{ (w(\a) - w(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
%- 2 \left[ u, \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{ \bar{\z}_\a} \right] w_\a
& + \frac{4}{\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } w_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
& + \frac{2}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 u_\b (\b) \, d\b
- \frac{2}{i\pi} \int \frac{ {|u(\a) - u(\b)|}^2 }{ {(\bar{\z}(\a)- \bar{\z}(\b))}^2 } u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
& + \frac{2}{i\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (w(\a) - w(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } (\z_\b - \bar{\z}_\b) \, d\b
\\
& + \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 (u_\b - \bar{u}_\b) \, d\b
\\
& - \frac{2}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^3 (\z_\b - \bar{\z}_\b) \, d\b
+ i \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} A \partial_\a \chi \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gl}
\begin{split}
G^\l (u,w,\z_\a - 1) & := %- \left[u, \H\frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H}\frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right] (\bar{\z}_\a w )
\frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } \z_\b(\b) w(\b) \, d\b
\\
& + [u,\bar{\H}] \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) + u [u,\H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a}
- 2 [u,\H] \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a}
\\
& + \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 u (\b) \z_\b(\b) \, d\b \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ A fourth additional equation is also derived in [@WuAG] for the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defv_1}
v_1 := (I-\H_\z) v\end{aligned}$$ and has the same form as above $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubiceqv_1}
& {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 v_1 + i A \partial_\alpha v_1 = G^{v_1} (u,w,\z_a - 1, \Im \z, v, \chi)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gv_1}
\begin{split}
G^{v_1} \left( u, w, \z_\a - 1, \Im \z, v, \chi \right)
& : = (I-\H) \P v - 2 [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \P \chi
- 2[u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \left( w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right)
\\
& -i [(\H + \bar{\H})u, \H] {\left( \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \right)}^2 \chi
+ \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 v_\b (\b) \, d\b \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
In order to simplify our presentation and the estimates performed on the above equations, we define the following types of trilinear operators:
\[opC\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C^1}
T^1 (f,g,h) & := \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b)) (g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } h (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{C^2}
T^2 (f,g,h) & := \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b)) (g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } h (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{C^3}
T^3 (f,g,h) & := \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b)) (g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\bar{\z}(\a)-\bar{\z}(\b))}^2 } h (\b) \, d\b \, ,\end{aligned}$$
and denote by $\bC$ any scalar multiple of them: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C}
\bC (f,g,h) = c_i T_i (f,g,h) \, \end{aligned}$$ for some constant $c_i \in \C$, $i=1,2,3$. We can then write the nonlinearity appearing in the equation as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gchi0}
G^\chi (u,w,\z_\a - 1,\Im \z) = \bC (u,\Im \z, u_\a) + \bC (u,u,\Im \z_\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{Gv0}
G^v (u,w,\z_\a - 1,\Im \z) & = \bC (w,\Im \z, u_\a) + \bC (u,\Im \z, w_\a) + \bC (u,u, u_\a) + \bC (u,w,\Im \z_\a)
\\
& + \bC (u,u, \bar{u}_\a) + u \bC (u,u, \Im \z_\a) + \bC (u,u, u \Im \z_\a) + i \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} A \partial_\a \chi \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{Gl0}
G^\l (u,w,\z_\a - 1,\Im\z) & = \bC (u,\Im \z, \bar{\z}_\a w) + \bC (u,u, u \bar{\z}_\a)
\\
& + [u,\bar{\H}] \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) + u [u,\H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a}
- 2 [u,\H] \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a} \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{Gv_10}
G^{v_1} \left( u, w, \z_\a - 1, \Im \z, v, \chi \right)
& : = (I-\H) \P v - 2 [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \P \chi
- 2[u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \left( w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right)
\\
& -i [(\H + \bar{\H})u, \H] {\left( \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \right)}^2 \chi
+ \bC (u,u, v_\a) \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ By writing the nonlinearities ,, and in terms of operators of the type above, we will be able to efficiently estimate them by making use of a general Proposition giving $L^2$-type bounds of such operators. These estimates are given in Proposition \[proCCmain\], and are obtained by improving two statements contained in [@WuAG] (which in turn rely in part on the work of Coifman, McIntosh and Meyer [@CMM]). All the terms that cannot be written as a trilinear operators of the form , acting on the components of $\wt{L}$, need to be treated in separately. To bound these remaining nonlinear terms, namely $$\begin{aligned}
& i \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} A \partial_\a \chi
\quad , \quad
[u,\bar{\H}] \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) + u [u,\H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a}
\quad , \quad
[u,\H] \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a}
\\
& [(\H + \bar{\H})u, \H] {\left( \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \right)}^2 \chi
\quad , \quad
[u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \left( w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right)\end{aligned}$$ we will make use of some additional special structure present in them.
The Energy {#secE}
----------
The total energy for the system is given by the sum of three energies naturally associated to the equations , and . Let us define $$\label{S_k}
S_k := D^{k} S \, .% \G^k \in \{ D^k, S \} \, .$$ The first term in the energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$E^\chi$}
\label{energychi}
\begin{split}
E^\chi(t) & = %\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} E_k^\chi (t) =
\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(D^k \chi \right)}^h {\left( D^k \overline{\chi} \right)}^h \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(S_k \chi \right)}^h {\left( S_k \overline{\chi} \right)}^h \, d\a \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $f^h$ denotes the anti-holomorphic part of a function $f$: $$\label{f^h}
f^h := \frac{I - \H}{2} f \, .$$ By considering only the anti-holomorphic parts of $D^k \chi$ and $S_k \chi$ in , one obtains that all summands in $E^\chi$ are non-negative, see Lemma . Similarly one constructs the energy associated to : $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$E^\l$}
\label{energyl}
\begin{split}
E^\l(t) & = %\sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} E_k^\l (t) =
\sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \l \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(D^k \l \right)}^h {\left( D^k \overline{\l} \right)}^h \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(S_k \l \right)}^h {\left( S_k \overline{\l} \right)}^h \, d\a \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The energy controlling $v$ instead is given in terms of $v_1$, and based on the equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energyv_1}
\tag{$E^v$}
\begin{split}
E^{v} (t) & % = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} E_k^{v}(t)
= \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha D^k v_1 D^k \overline{v}_1 \, d\a \, .
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha S_k v_1 S_k \overline{v}_1 \, d\a \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here in the second summand there is no restriction to $(D^k v_1)^h$ or $(S v_1)^h$. Therefore the Energy $E^v$ has no definite sign. Nevertheless, it can be shown that this Energy controls the norms of $v$ and $v_1$ up to cubic lower order contributions. The total energy is then given by $$%\tag{$E(t)$}
\label{Etot}
%\tag{$E_\mbox{tot}$}
E(t) = E^{\chi}(t) + E^{v}(t) + E^{\l}(t) \, .$$
Proof of Proposition \[proenergy\]: Energy Estimates {#secproenergy}
====================================================
Once the Energy $E(t)$ has been defined, we can proceed with the proof of Proposition \[proenergy\]. Recall that we denoted $\wt{L} = (u,w, \Im \z, \z_\a - 1)$, and define the vectors $$L^- := (\z_\a - 1, u, w, \partial_\a \chi, v) \quad , \quad L := (L^-, \Im\z) \, .$$ We separate the proof of \[proenergy\] into three main steps. We first show how $E(t)$ controls the $X_{N_0}$-norm of $\wt{L}(t)$:
\[proenergy1\] Under the a priori assumptions and , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriL12}
\sup_{t \in [0,T]} \left( (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}}
+ {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}\sqrt{1+t} \right) \leq \e_1 \ll 1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\label{estproenergy1}
{\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} \, ,$$ for any $t\in[0,T]$ and $\e_1$ sufficiently small.
This Proposition is proven in section \[secproenergy1\]. To obtain Proposition \[proenergy\] we will combine Proposition \[proenergy1\] with:
\[proenergy2\] Assume again that holds for $\e_1$ small enough. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estproenergy2}
\frac{d}{dt} \sqrt{E(t)} \lesssim
\left( {\| L (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)^2 {\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for any $t\in[0,T]$.
The above Proposition will be proven in section \[secproenergy2\]. We eventually need to bound the $L^\infty$-norms on the right hand side of in terms of the $Z^\p$-norm of $h$ and $\phi$:
\[proenergy3\] Under the a priori assumption and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estproenergy3}
{\| L (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} = {\| (h, \Lambda \phi) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this Proposition is in \[secproenergy3\]. Let us now show how Propositions \[proenergy1\]-\[proenergy3\] imply Proposition \[proenergy\].
Using the a priori decay estimate in and Proposition \[proenergy3\] we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| L (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Using this in gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \sqrt{E(t)} \lesssim \e_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1} {\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Integrating in time one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{E(t)} - \sqrt{E(0)} \lesssim \int_0^t \e_1^2 {(1+s)}^{-1} {\| \wt{L} (s) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, ds \, .\end{aligned}$$ In view of the initial assumptions - and the discussion in [@WuAG sec 5.1], one has $E(0) \lesssim \e_0^2$. Then, using Proposition \[proenergy1\] and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \leq C \e_0 + C \int_0^t \e_1^2 {(1+s)}^{-1} {\| \wt{L} (s) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, ds
\\
& \leq C \e_0 + C \int_0^t \e_1^2 {(1+s)}^{-1} \e_1 {(1+s)}^{p_0} \, ds
\leq C \e_0 + C_{p_0} \e_1^3 {(1+t)}^{p_0} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives us the desired conlusion .
Proof of Proposition \[proLE\]: Transition to Eulerian coordinates {#secproLE}
==================================================================
Here we want to transfer the a priori bounds from the modified Lagrangian coordinates to Eulerian coordinates. Recall that $$\wt{L}(t,\a) = ( \z_\a(t,\a) - 1, u(t,\a), w(t,\a), \Im \z(t,\a) ) \, .$$ Also, recall the a priori assumptions - and , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriLE1}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left( (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} +
\sqrt{1+t} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty} } \right) \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriLE2}
\sup_{[0,T]} \left( (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| (h(t), \phi_x(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \sqrt{1+t} {\| (h(t), \Lambda \phi(t)) \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \right)
\leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\| f \|}_{X_{N_0}} := {\| f \|}_{H^{N_0}} + {\| Sf \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}}$. To prove Proposition \[proLE\] we need to show, under the above a priori assumptions, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LE3}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}
\\
\label{LE2}
& {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} + \e_1^2
\\
\label{LE1}
& {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Proof of
---------
From Proposition \[proenergy3\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{LLinfty}
{\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t),\partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ which is stronger than .
Proof of
---------
Using $h (\Re \z) = \Im \z$ it is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \Im \z \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} & \lesssim {\| h \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Also, from - in Lemma \[lemenergy31\], and the a priori assumptions , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
%L^-(t)
{\| (\z_\a(t)-1,u(t),w(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} & \lesssim {\| (\partial_\a \chi(t), \partial_\a \l(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}}
+ {\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} {\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_1+5}{2}}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| (\partial_\a \chi(t), \partial_\a \l(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + \e_1 {(1+t)}^{p_0} \e_1 {(1+t)}^{-1/2}
\\
& \lesssim {\| (\partial_\a \chi(t), \partial_\a \l(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + \e_1^2\end{aligned}$$ Thus, to obtain it is enough to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LE2chil}
{\| (\partial_\a \chi(t), \partial_\a \l(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} & \lesssim {\| (h(t) , \partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} + \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
From the definition of $\chi$ in , and $\Im \z = h \circ \Re \z$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi = (I-\H) (\z-\bar{\z}) = 2i (I-\H) \Im \z = 2i (I-\H) (h \circ \Re\z) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the bounds on the Hilbert transform with the a priori assumptions -, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \chi(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} &
\lesssim {\| h \circ \Re \z(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} + \e_1^2 \lesssim {\| h(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} + \e_1^2 \,\end{aligned}$$ which gives the bound for the component $\chi_\a$.
From and in the proof of Lemma \[lemenergy32\], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim {\| \partial_x [\phi(1+h^\p)] \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + {\| R_\phi \|}_{H^{N_1+6}}
\lesssim {\| \partial_x \phi \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} + {\| \phi h^\p \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} + {\| R_\phi \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we recall $$\begin{aligned}
R_\phi (t,x) := \frac{1}{i\pi} \int H\left( \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{x-y} \right) \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } \phi(t,y) \, dy \end{aligned}$$ Applying $N_1 + 6$ derivatives to the above expression, commuting them via , and using Theorem \[theoCMM\], one can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| R_\phi \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} \lesssim {\| h \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} {\| \phi \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}}
+ {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} {\| \phi_x \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the a priori assumptions and the bound in Corollary \[corproE4\]. A similiar estimate can be easily obtained for ${\| \phi h^\p \|}_{H^{N_1+6}}$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1+6}} \lesssim {\| (h, \phi _x) \|}_{H^{N_1+7}} + \e_1^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which gives , completing the proof of .
Proof of
---------
To show we will exploit the identities $$\begin{aligned}
h(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) = \Im \z (t,\a)
\qquad \mbox{and}
\qquad (I-\H_\z) \phi(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) = \l (t,\a)\end{aligned}$$ to prove the following:
\[lemLE1\] Let $S$ be the scaling vector field. Then, for $0\leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LE10}
& {\| h(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \Im\z(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LE20}
& {\| \partial_x \phi(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \l_\a(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a(t) - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The estimates in the above Lemma, together with , imply . To prove the estimates involving $S$ we will need the two auxiliary Lemmas below:
\[lemcomp\] Let $S$ be the scaling vector field $\a \partial_\a + \frac{1}{2} t \partial_t$, then for any two functions $f,g: \R_x \times \R_t \rightarrow \R$, the following formula holds: $$\label{Sformula}
S f \circ g = S (f \circ g) - (f^\p \circ g) (S g - g) \, .$$
The proof of the above statement is by direct computation.
\[lemRez\] Let $\z$ be the Lagrangian map in the modified Lagrangian coordinates, then $$\label{Rez-a}
(I-\H)(\Re \z - \a ) = i (I-\H) \Im \z \, .$$ Under the a priori assumptions -, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{Rez-aL^2}
%{\| \Re \z - \a \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} & \lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}}
%\\
%\label{SRez-aL^2}
%{\| S \Re \z - \a \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} & \lesssim {\| S (\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} + {\| S \Im \z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} \, .
\label{Rez-aX}
{\| \Re \z - \a \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SRez-RezL^2}
{\| S \Re \z - \Re \z \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} & \lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The identity follows form the fact that $(I-\H_\z)(\bar{\z}-\a) = 0$, which comes from the identity $(I-\H_z)(k-\bar{z}) = 0$ upon composition with $k^{-1}$.
The estimate follows from an application of Lemma \[lemI-Hf\] with $f = \Re\z -\a$ and $g = i (I-\H) \Im \z$, Sobolev’s embedding, and from the boundedness properties of $\H$ in Lemma \[lemHf\]: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \Re \z - \a \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| (I-\H) \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| (I-\H) \Im \z \|}_{H^{N_1}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} ( {\|\Im \z \|}_{H^{N_1}} + {\| (I-\H) \Im \z \|}_{H^{N_1}} )
\lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ immediately follows since $S\Re\z - \Re \z = S(\Re\z - \a) + (\a -\Re\z)$.
Recall that $h(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) = \Im \z (t,\a)$. Since ${\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \leq \e_1$, in particular we see that for $\e_1 \leq 1/2$, the map $\Re \z$ is a diffeomorphism with $$1/2 \leq \big| \partial_\a^k \Re \z \big| \leq 3/2 \,$$ for $1 \leq k \leq N_1$. It immediately follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| h \|}_{H^{N_0}} = {\| \Im \z \circ \Re \z^{-1} \|}_{H^{N_0}}
& \lesssim {\| \Im \z(t) \|}_{H^{N_0}} + {\| \Re \z_{\a\a}(t) \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} %{\| \Im \z \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| \Re \z_{\a}(t) \|}_{H^{N_0}}
\lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{H^{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a (t) - 1\|}_{H^{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This takes care of the Sobolev component of the norm to bound in . To estimate the weighted component we apply Lemma \[lemcomp\] to get $$S h \circ \Re \z = S \Im \z - (h^\p \circ \Re\z) (S \Re\z - \Re\z) \, .$$ Using we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| S h \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} &
\lesssim {\| S \Im \z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} + {\| h^\p \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} {\| S \Re\z - \Re\z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}}
%\\
%& \lesssim {\| S \Im \z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} + {\| h^\p \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives us .
Recall the relation between the trace of the velocity potential in Eulerian variables and in modified Lagrangian variables $\l$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phiEL1}
(I-\H_\z) \phi(t, \Re \z(t,\a)) & = \l (t,\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
[\partial_\a, \H] f = [\z_\a,\H] \frac{f_\a}{\z_\a} = \frac{1}{i\pi} Q_0 (\z_\a -1, f_\a) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_0$ is defined in , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi_xEL1}
(I-\H) \partial_\a (\phi \circ \Re \z) & = \partial_\a \l + Q_0 \left(\z_\a-1, \partial_\a (\phi \circ \Re \z) \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Denoting $f = \phi \circ \Re \z$ and $g = \partial_\a \l + \frac{1}{i\pi} Q_0 \left(\z_\a-1, \partial_\a (\phi \circ \Re \z) \right)$ we have $(I-\H) \partial_\a f = g$, so that gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemLE2est1}
{\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^{N_1}} & \lesssim {\| g \|}_{H^{N_1}}
\lesssim {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1}} + {\| Q_0 (\z_\a-1, \partial_\a f) \|}_{H^{N_1}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ while gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemLE2est2}
\begin{split}
{\| \partial_\a f \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| g \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| g \|}_{H^{N_1}}
\lesssim {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| Q_0 (\z_\a-1, \partial_\a f) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& + {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \left( {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1}} + {\| Q_0 (\z_\a-1, \partial_\a f) \|}_{H^{N_1}} \right) \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ From - we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{H^{N_1}} \lesssim \e_1
\quad , \quad
{\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From estimate we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| Q_0 (\z_\a-1, \partial_\a f) \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\| (\partial_\a f, \H \partial_\a f) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& \lesssim \e_1 {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| (\partial_\a f, \H \partial_\a f) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}}
{\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Next we claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemLE2est10}
{\| (\partial_\a f, \H \partial_\a f) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Assuming this estimate for now, and using the fact that ${\| Q_0 (\z_\a-1, \partial_\a f) \|}_{H^{N_1}}$ can be bounded uniformly in time in a straightforward fashion, we can use the last four bounds in to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemLE2est20}
& {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L}\|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Them, since $\phi_x = (\partial_\a f/\Re \z_\a) \circ \Re \z^{-1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \phi_x \|}_{H^{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^{N_0}} + {\| \Re \z_{\a\a} \|}_{H^{N_0-1}}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L}\|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This takes care of the Sobolev component of the $X_{N_0}$-norm. To bound the weighted component we use $\phi_x \circ \Re \z = \partial_\a f / \Re \z_\a$ in combination with , estimate , and , to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| S \phi_x \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} & \lesssim {\| (S \phi_x) \circ \Re \z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}}
\lesssim {\left\| S (f_\a /\Re \z_\a) \right\|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}}
+ {\| \phi_x \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2}} {\| S \Re\z - \Re\z \|}_{H^\frac{N_0}{2}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows provided we verify . Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \partial_x \phi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ directly from the a priori assumptions. To bound $\H \partial_\a f$ instead, we use Lemma \[lemHinfty\], the a priori assumptions and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \H \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} %+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| \phi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows and conlcudes the proof of , hence of Proposition \[proLE\].
Supporting material {#appWu}
===================
In this first appendix we gather some useful Lemmas that are used several times in sections \[secprok\] and \[secproLE\] and in the course of the energy estimates in section \[secEE\] below. First, in \[appWu1\] we give some variants of estimates proven in [@WuAG] related to the Hilbert transform on curves. In the second section \[secop\] we first recall some Theorems about multilinear operators of “Calderon’s commutators”-type, and then prove some additional bounds on them to be used for the energy estimates.
Estimates for the Cauchy integral {#appWu1}
---------------------------------
Most of the estimates we present below can be essentially found in Wu’s paper [@WuAG]. The only difference is that all of our estimates have implicit constants depending only on lower norms of the Lagrangian quantities controlled by the energy, whereas all constants in the inequalities found in [@WuAG] depend on the highest order norms. This is of course crucial, as in our arguments the highest order norms are growing, although just slightly, with time. Notice that this growth cannot be avoided because of the logarithmic correction to scattering.
In what follows we will always be under the assumption that - hold, and all implicit constants will depend on $\e_1$.
\[lemHf\] Let $\H = \H_\z$, and assume ${\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^{N_1}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$. Then, for any $f$ in $X_k$ with $0 \leq k \leq N_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estH}
{\| \H f \|}_{H^k} + {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} f \right\|}_{H^k} &
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{H^k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^k} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} \, ,
\\
\label{estHb}
{\| \H f \|}_{X_k} + {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} f \right\|}_{X_k} &
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{X_k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $k \leq N_1$ one has $$\label{estHlow}
{\| \H f \|}_{H^k} + {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} f \right\|}_{H^k} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{H^k} \, .$$ Furthermore, for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estH+barH}
{\| (\H + \bar{\H}) f \|}_{X_k} & \lesssim {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} {\| f \|}_{X_k}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and for $0 \leq k \leq N_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estH+barHlow}
{\| (\H + \bar{\H}) f \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{H^k} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The $L^2$ case in follows directly from Theorem \[theoCMM\]. The $H^k$, respectively $X_k$, estimates can be proven by induction using the commutation identities to distribute derivatives, respectively to distribute the vector field $S$, and the bounds given in Theorem \[theoCMM\] for operators of the type $C_1$, as defined in . To prove one notices that $$\label{H+barH}
(\H + \bar{\H}) f = \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{\Im(\z(\a) - \z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a) - \z(\b)|}^2 } \, f(\b) d\b \, ,$$ which is an operator of the form $C_1(H, \Im \z, f)$ for some smooth $H$. Applying the commutation identities and , followed by the $L^2$-estimates of Theorem \[theoCMM\], it is not hard to verify the validity of and . $\hfill \Box$
The next two Lemmas are variants of Lemma 3.8 and 3.15 in [@WuAG]. They give estimates of real valued functions $f$ in terms of the norms of $(I-\H)f$ or $(I - \H) (fA\bar{\z_\a})$.
\[lemI-Hf\] Let $f \in X_k$, $0 \leq k \leq N_0$, be real-valued with $$\begin{aligned}
(I - \H) f = g \, . \end{aligned}$$ Then for $0 \leq k \leq N_1$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-Hflow}
{\| f \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\| g \|}_{H^k} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for $0 \leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-Hf0}
{\| f \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\| g \|}_{H^k}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^k} \left( {\| g \|}_{ W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} + {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}}
{\| g \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} \right)
\\
\label{est1-Hf}
{\| f \|}_{X_k} & \lesssim {\| g \|}_{X_k}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} \left( {\| g \|}_{ W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} + {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}}
{\| g \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-Hfinfty}
{\| f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \Re \, g \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & + {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{H^{k + 1}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and a similar estimate for $\partial_\a f$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-Hfinfty2}
{\| \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \Re \, \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
+ {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{H^{k + 1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Since $f$ is real-valued we have $(I - \K) f = \Re g$, where $\K = \Re \H$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(I - \K) \partial_\a^j f = \Re \partial_\a^j g - \left[ \K, \partial_\a^j \right] f
= \Re \partial_\a^j g - \sum_{k=1}^j \partial_\a^{j-k} \left[ \K, \partial_\a \right] \partial_\a^{k-1} f \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{[D,H]}
[\partial_\a,\H] f = [\z_\a, \H] \frac{f_\a}{\z_\a} = C_2(H, \z_\a-1, f) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some smooth $H$, and where $C_2$ is defined in . We can then use the fact that the inverse of $I - \K$ is bounded on $L^2$ with an operator norm depending only on $\e_1$, , and Theorem \[theoCMM\], to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a^j f \|}_{L^2} & \lesssim {\left\| \partial_\a^j g \right\|}_{L^2}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{ H^{\frac{j}{2} + 1} } {\| f \|}_{H^j}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^j} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{j}{2},\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| \partial_\a^j g \right\|}_{L^2} + \e_1 {\| f \|}_{H^j} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^j} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{j}{2},\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ After summing over $j$, the second term in the right-hand side above can be absorbed to the left hand-side for $\e_1$ small enough. We have therefore obtained that for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1}
{\| f \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\left\| g \right\|}_{H^k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^k} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ If $k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$ the last term above can be also absorbed to the left hand-side thus yielding .
In order to prove let us focus on the term ${\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}}$. Using the identity $f = \K f + \Re g$, Sobolev’s embedding, the estimate , and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}} \leq {\| \K f \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2} + 1}} + {\| \Re g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}}
& \lesssim {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2} + 1}} + {\| \Re g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2} + 1}} + {\| \Re g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}, \infty}} \end{aligned}$$ Plugging this last inequality into gives . Substituting $k$ with $2k$ we obtain . can be obtained similarly.
From above we see that would follow if we show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A2}
{\| S f \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\left\| S g \right\|}_{H^k} + {\| S(\z_\a - 1) \|}_{H^k} {\| f \|}_{W^{k, \infty}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$. Starting from $(I-\H)f = g$ one can commute derivatives using and commute $S$ by using $$\begin{aligned}
\label{[S,H]}
[S,\H] f = [S\z - \z, \H] \frac{f_\a}{\z_\a} = C_2(H, S\z - \z, f) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Theorem \[theoCMM\] one can then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a^j S f \|}_{L^2} & \lesssim {\left\| \partial_\a^j S g \right\|}_{L^2}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^j} {\| S f \|}_{H^j} + {\| S(\z_\a - 1) \|}_{H^j} {\| f \|}_{W^{j,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| S g \right\|}_{H^j} + \e_1 {\| S f \|}_{H^j} + {\| S(\z_\a - 1) \|}_{H^j} {\| f \|}_{W^{j,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Summing over $j$ and absorbing the second summand above in the left-hand side, we obtain and hence .$\hfill \Box$
\[lemI-HfA\] Let $f \in X_k$, $0 \leq k \leq N_0$, let $A$ be as in , and $w$ as defined in . Assume that $$\begin{aligned}
(I - \H) (f A \bar{\z_\a}) = g \, ,\end{aligned}$$ then, for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-HfA}
{\| f \|}_{X_k} \lesssim {\| g \|}_{X_k} + \left( {\| w \|}_{X_k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} \right)
\left( {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} + {\| (g,w) \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}} \right)
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1-HfAinfty}
{\| f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \Re \, g \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{H^{k + 1}}
+ {\| g \|}_{H^{k+1}} {\| w \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
From the identity we see that $A \bar{\z_\a} = 1 - i w$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
(I -\H )f = g + (I-\H) (i f w) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying to the above identity, using and the a priori bounds on $w$, it is then not hard to derive . The estimate follows similarly from , together with and . $\hfill \Box$
The next Lemma shows that $b$ and $A-1$ defined in and are quadratically small if $\wt{L}$ is small.
\[lemenergy10c\] Let $b$ and $A$ be given by and . Under the usual a priori assumptions we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A-1=Q}
& (I - \H) (A-1) = Q
\\
\label{b=Q}
& (I - \H) b = Q\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is a quadratic term satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estQA-1b}
{\| Q(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
{\| Q(t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3}} \lesssim \e_1^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundA-1}
{\| A(t)-1 \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3}} + {\| b(t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3}} & \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and for $0\leq k\leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundA-11}
& {\| A(t)-1 \|}_{X_k} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_k} \, ,
\\
\label{boundbX_k}
& {\| b(t) \|}_{X_k} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_k} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The identities in (2.30) of [@WuAG] (see Proposition 2.4 in [@WuAG] for their derivation) read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{formulaA}
& (I-\H)(A-1) = i [u,\H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} + i [w,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a}
\\
\label{formulab}
& (I-\H)b = - [u,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The above right-hand sides are all of the form $Q_0(\wt{L}, \wt{L})$ or $Q_0(\wt{L}, \partial_\a \wt{L})$, where $Q_0$ is defined in . and then follow from the bounds for operators of the type $Q_0$ given in , Sobolev’s embedding, the estimate for $\H$, and the apriori smallness assumptions on $\wt{L}$. The bounds and follow by combining - with $\hfill \Box$
Estimates for Multilinear Operators {#secop}
-----------------------------------
In this section we study some singular integrals that appear when performing the energy estimates. These integral operators are well known objects, which are usually referred to as Calderon’s commutators. We first state some $L^2$-bounds like the ones already given in [@WuAG]. Let $H \in C^1$, $A_i \in C^1$ for $i=1,\dots,m$, and $F \in C^\infty$. Using the same notation in [@WuAG] we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C_11}
C_1 (H,A,f) & := \mbox{p.v.} \int F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right)
\frac{ \prod_{i=1}^m ( A_i(x) - A_i(y) ) }{ {(x-y)}^{m+1} } f(y) \, dy
\\
\label{C_21}
C_2 (H,A,f) & := \mbox{p.v.} \int F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right)
\frac{ \prod_{i=1}^m ( A_i(x) - A_i(y) ) }{ {(x-y)}^{m} } \partial_y f(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ We also define the quadratic bilinear operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q_0}
& Q_0 (f,g) := \int \frac{ f(\a) - f(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } g(\b) \, d\b \, ,
\\
\label{Q_1}
& Q_1 (f,g) := \int \frac{ f(\a) - f(\b) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } g(\b) \, d\b \, ,
\\
\label{Q_2}
& Q_2 (f,g) := \int \frac{ f(\a) - f(\b) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } g(\b) \, d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $\bQ$ indistictly any scalar multiple of the operators $Q_1$ or $Q_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{opQ}
\bQ (f,g) := c_i Q_i(f,g)\end{aligned}$$ for $c_i \in \C$, $i=1,2$. $Q_0$ causes some difficulties because it does not admit standard $L^2 \times L^\infty \rightarrow L^2$ estimates. Moreover, it does not admit $L^\infty$ type estimates like those in Lemma \[lemCCL\^infty\] below for $Q_1$ and $Q_2$; in order to bound it we need to resort to a stronger space than $L^\infty$.
We recall the following:
\[theoCMM\] There exist a constant $c = c(F, {\| H^\p \|}_{L^\infty})$ such that the operators $C_j$, for $j=1,2$, satisfy the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
{\| C_j (H,A,f) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c \prod_{i=1}^m {\| \partial A_i \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{L^2}
\\
{\| C_j (H,A,f) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| \partial A_1 \|}_{L^2} \prod_{i=2}^m {\| \partial A_i \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$
From the above Theorem we can infer the following bounds on the operators of the type $\bC$ defined in and $\bQ$ in :
\[theoCCL\^2\] There exists a constant $c = c({\| \partial_\a \z \|}_{L^\infty})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bQ (f, g) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| g \|}_{L^2}
\\
{\| \bQ (f, g) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^2} {\| g \|}_{L^\infty}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{L^\infty} {\| h \|}_{L^2}
\\
{\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^2} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{L^\infty} {\| h \|}_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$
In \[prlemCCL\^infty\] we will prove the following simple Lemma:
\[lemCCL\^infty\] There exists a constant $c = c({\| \partial_\a \z \|}_{L^\infty})$ such that the operators $\bQ$ satisfy the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estlemCCL^infty}
{\| \bQ (f, g) \|}_{L^\infty} & \leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
We will also need to bound operators of the type $Q_0$ in $L^\infty$. However, they will only appear with a derivative in front, so that we can use the following Lemma:
\[lemCCL\^infty2\] There exists a constant $c = c({\| \partial_\a \z \|}_{L^\infty})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estlemL^infty2}
{\| \partial_\a Q_0 (f, g) \|}_{L^\infty} & \leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} \left( {\| \H g \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| g \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
The above results, together with some commutation identities, will give us the following Proposition:
\[proCCmain\] Recall the definitions $$\label{vectorL}
L := (\z_\a - 1, u, w, \Im\z, \partial_\a \chi, v) \in \R^6$$ and $$\label{vectorL-}
L^- := (\z_\a - 1, u, w, \partial_\a \chi, v) \in \R^5 \, .$$ Let $\bQ$ and $\bC$ be given by and . Then
1. There exists a constant $c = c({\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{H^{N_1}})$ such that for any integer $k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estbQL^inftyfg}
& {\| \bQ (f, g) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{estQL^2}
%& {\| \bQ (L_i, L_j) \|}_{X_m} \leq c {\| L \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+1,\infty}} {\| L \|}_{X_m}
%\\
\label{estQL^infty}
& {\| \bQ (L_i, L_j) \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+1,\infty}} \leq c {\| L \|}^2_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+3,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ for any $i,j \in \{ 1, \dots, 6 \}$ and $0 \leq m \leq N_0$.
2. There exists a constant $c = c({\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{H^{N_1}})$ such that for any integer $0 \leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
{\| Q_0 (f, g) \|}_{X_k} & \lesssim_c {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{X_k}
+ {\| (g, \H g) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{X_k}
\\
\label{estQ_0L^2}
& + {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_k}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
{\| Q_0 (f, \partial_\a g) \|}_{X_k} & \lesssim_c {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{X_k}
+ {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{X_k}
\\
\label{estQ_0L^2b}
& + {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_k} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, for $k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estpartialQ_00}
{\| \partial_\a Q_0 (f, g) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}
\left( {\| \H g \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\| g \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estpartialQ_0}
{\| \partial_\a Q_0 (L_i, L_j^-) \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+1,\infty}} & \leq c {\| L \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+3,\infty}}
\left( {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+2,\infty}} + {\| L^- \|}_{W^{[\frac{m}{2}]+2,\infty}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $i \in \{ 1, \dots, 6 \}$, $j \in \{ 1, \dots, 5 \}$ and $0 \leq m \leq N_0$.
3. There exists a constant $c$ as above such that for any triple $(f,g,h)$ with ${\| (f,g,h) \|}_{H^{N_1-2}} \leq 1$, and any integer $m$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estCCmain00}
{\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{X_m} + {\| \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{X_m} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{X_m}
{\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estCCmain0}
{\| \bC (L_i, L_j, L_k) \|}_{X_m} + {\| \bC (L_i, L_j, \partial_\a L_k) \|}_{X_m}
& \leq c {\| L \|}_{X_m} {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for any $i,j,k \in \{ 1, \dots, 6 \}$ and $0 \leq m \leq N_0$.
The proof of the above Proposition is given in \[secproCCmain\]. We will also need the following simple Lemma:
\[lemHinfty\] Let $\H = \H_\z$ denote the Hilbert transform along a curve $\z$ satisfying ${\| \z_\a - 1\|}_{H^{N_1}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$. Then for any $f$ with ${\| f \|}_{H^{k+2}} \leq 1$, and $k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estHdfL^infty}
& {\| \H \partial_\a f(t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \partial_\a f(t) \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| f(t) \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, %+ {\| \z_\a (t)-1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ and for any $2 \leq p < \infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estHL^infty}
& {\| \H f(t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} f(t) \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| f(t) \|}_{W^{k+1,p}} + {\| f(t) \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
### Commutator identities
Let $\bK$ be an integral operator of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defK}
\bK f (\a,t) = \mbox{p.v.} \int K(\a,\b;t) f(\b,t) \, d\b\end{aligned}$$ with kernel $K(\a,\b;t)$ or $(\a-\b)K(\a,\b;t)$ continuous and bounded, and $K$ smooth away from the diagonal $\a=\b$. One can easily verify that
\[commK\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commK1}
[\partial_t, \bK] f(\a,t) &= \int \partial_t K(\a,\b;t) f(\b,t) \, d\b \, ,
\\
\label{commK2}
[\partial_\a, \bK] f(\a,t) &= \int (\partial_\a + \partial_\b) K(\a,\b;t) f(\b,t) \, d\b \, ,
\\
\label{commK3}
[S, \bK] f(\a,t) &= \int \left( \a \partial_\a + \b \partial_\b + \frac{1}{2}t \partial_t \right) K(\a,\b;t) f(\b,t) \, d\b + \bK f (\a,t) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
for any sufficiently smooth and decaying $f$.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemCCL\^infty\] {#prlemCCL^infty}
It is enough to just look at the case of $Q_1$, as the treatment of $Q_2$ is identical. Expanding out the denominator in we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{{(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2} = F \left( \frac{ \z(\a) - \a - (\z(\b) - \b) }{\a-\b} \right) \frac{1}{ {(\a-\b)}^2 }\end{aligned}$$ where $F(x) = \sum_{k\geq0} {(-1)}^k (k+1) x^k$. Then one can see that proving can be reduced to proving the following estimate for operators of the type $C_1$ as in : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estinfty1}
{\left\| \mbox{p.v.} \int F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right) \frac{ A(x) - A(y) }{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy \right\|}_{L^\infty}
& \lesssim \prod_{i=1}^m {\| A \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the implicit constant depends on ${\| H^\p \|}_{L^\infty}$. To show this we split the integral into two pieces: $$\begin{aligned}
& \int F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right) \frac{ A(x) - A(y) }{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy = I_1(x) + I_2(x)
\\
& I_1(x) = \int_{|x-y| \leq 1} F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right) \frac{ A(x) - A(y) }{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy
\\
& I_2(x) = \int_{|x-y| \geq 1} F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right) \frac{ A(x) - A(y) }{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ We write $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(x) & = \int_{|x-y| \leq 1} \left[ F \left( \frac{ H(x) - H(y) }{x-y} \right) - F(H^\p(x)) \right] \frac{ A(x) - A(y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy
\\
& + F(H^\p(x)) \int_{|x-y| \leq 1} \frac{ A(x) - A(y) - A^\p(x) (x-y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } f(y) \, dy
\\
& + F(H^\p(x)) \int_{|x-y| \leq 1} \frac{A^\p(x)}{x-y} ( f(y) - f(x) )\, dy
=: I_{1,1}(x) + I_{1,2}(x) + I_{1,3}(x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ It is then easy to see that we can then estimate $$\begin{aligned}
| I_{1,1}(x) | & \lesssim {\| F^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| H^{\p\p} \|}_{L^\infty} {\| A^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
| I_{1,2}(x) | & \lesssim {\| F \|}_{L^\infty} {\| A^{\p\p} \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
| I_{1,3}(x) | & \lesssim {\| F^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| H^{\p\p} \|}_{L^\infty} {\| A^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f^\p \|}_{L^\infty}\end{aligned}$$ so that ${\| I_1 \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim c\left( {\| F \|}_{W^{1,\infty}}, {\| H^{\p\p} \|}_{L^\infty} \right)
{\| A^\p \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{W^{1,\infty}}$. Since $|x-y|^{-2}$ is integrable for $|x-y| \geq 1$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\| I_2 \|}_{L^\infty} & \lesssim c\left( {\| F \|}_{L^\infty} \right) {\| A \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The bound follows. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Lemma \[lemCCL\^infty2\]
We start by calculating $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a Q_0 (f,g) & = \partial_\a \int \frac{ f(\a) - f(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } g(\b) \, d\b
\\
& = - \partial_\a \z(\a) \int \frac{ f(\a) - f(\b) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } g(\b) \, d\b
+ \int \frac{ \partial_\a f(\a) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } g(\b) \, d\b
=: Q_0^1(\a) + Q_0^2(\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since the integral operators in $Q^0_1$ is of the type $\bQ$, we can use Lemma \[lemCCL\^infty\] to bound $$\begin{aligned}
{\| Q_0^1 \|}_{L^\infty} & \lesssim {\| \z_\a \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The second contribution to $\partial_\a Q_0 (f,g)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
Q_0^2 = \partial_\a f \left( \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right) = \partial_\a f \H g + \partial_\a f \H \left(\frac{1}{\z_\a} - 1\right) g\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using also , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| Q_0^2 \|}_{L^\infty} & \lesssim {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \H g \|}_{L^\infty}
+ {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\left\| \H \left(\frac{1}{\z_\a} - 1\right) g \right\|}_{H^1}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \H g \|}_{L^\infty}
+ {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} c( {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^3}) {\| g \|}_{W^{1,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $Q_0^2$ satisfies the desired bound and so does $\partial_\a Q_0 (f,g)$. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Proposition \[proCCmain\] {#secproCCmain}
#### [*Proof of* ]{}
We want to show that for any two functions $f$ and $g$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estQL^infty2}
{\| \bQ (f, g) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This can be shown by induction, using as the base of the induction. Again, it is enough to just look at the case of $Q_1$. Let us assume that holds true for some $1 \leq k\leq \frac{N_0}{2}+1$. We want to show the estimate for $k+1$. Notice that we can write $\bQ$ as an operator of the form $\bK$, see , with Kernel $$\begin{aligned}
K(\a,\b;t) = \frac{f(\a) - f(\b) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the commutation identity we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a \bQ (f,g) & = \bQ (f, \partial_\a g) + \bQ (\partial_\a f,g) + I(\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I(\a) = - \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))( \partial_\a \z(\a) - \partial_\b \z(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } g(\b) \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the inductive hypothesis we have $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{estQL^infty2a}
{\| \bQ (\partial_\a f, g) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\| \bQ (f, \partial_\a g) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
& \leq c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}
+ c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}\, .\end{aligned}$$ By expanding the denominator in the integral defining $I$, we see that $I$ is an operator of the form $C_1(H , A, g )$, see , with $A = (f, \z_\a-1)$ and $H = \z - \id$. Letting $k+1 = k_1 + k_2 + k_3$, and using , we see that $D^{k+1} I $ is a sum of operators of the form $$\begin{aligned}
C_1 \left(\z - \a, A_{k_2,k_3}, D^{k_1} g) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{k_2,k_3} = (\wt{A}_{k_3}, D^{k_2} f)$, and $\wt{A}_{k_3}$ is a vector with at most $k_3$ components satisfying $${\| A_{k_3}^\p \|}_{L^p} \lesssim {\| D^{k_3 + 1} \z_\a \|}_{L^p}$$ for $p=2,\infty$. Applying Theorem \[theoCMM\] we see that: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| I \|}_{H^{k+2,\infty}} & \leq
c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| \z_\a -1\|}_{H^{k+2}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}
\leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+3,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $c$ depends only on ${\| \z_\a \|}_{H^{N_1}}$. We can then deduce $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bQ (f,g) \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}}
& \leq {\| \bQ (\partial_\a f,g) \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} + {\| \bQ (f, \partial_\a g) \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} + {\| I \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}}
\leq c {\| f \|}_{W^{k+3,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{k+3,\infty}} \end{aligned}$$ which is exactly with $k+1$ replacing $k$.
#### *[Proof of ]{}*
Let us first look at the $H^k$ component of the $X_k$ norm. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q_0form}
Q_0(f,g) = \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (fg) - f \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g\end{aligned}$$ we can use product Sobolev estimates and the $H^k$ bounds on the Hilbert transform to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| Q_0(f,g) \|}_{H^k} %& \leq {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (f g) \right\|}_{H^k} + {\left\| f \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{H^k}
%\\
& \lesssim {\| f g \|}_{H^k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^k} {\| f g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}}
+ {\| f \|}_{H^k} {\| \H g \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \H g \|}_{H^k}
\\
& \lesssim {\| f \|}_{H^k} {\| (\H g, g) \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| g \|}_{H^k}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^k} {\| f \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ where the implicit constants depend only on ${\| \z_\a -1\|}_{H^{N_1}}$.
A similar argument can be used to bound the $S^{-1} H^k$ norm of $Q_0(f,g)$ for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$. First we observe that for any $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
{\| S Q_0(f,g) \|}_{H^k} & \leq {\left\| S \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (f g) \right\|}_{H^k} + {\left\| S f \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{H^k}
+ {\left\| f S \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{H^k}
\\
\label{estQ_0L^210}
& \leq {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (f g) \right\|}_{X_k} + {\| f \|}_{X_k} {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
+ {\| f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{X_k} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then use to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (f g) \right\|}_{X_k} & \leq c {\| f g \|}_{X_k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} {\| f g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}}
\\
{\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} g \right\|}_{X_k} & \leq c {\| g \|}_{X_k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ Since we also have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| f g \|}_{X_k} & \leq c {\| f \|}_{X_k} {\| g \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} + {\| f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| g \|}_{X_k} \end{aligned}$$ we can plug the above bounds in and get the desired conclusion.
#### *[Proof of ]{}*
Let us start again with the $H^k$ component of the $X_k$ norm. First of all observe that $Q_0 (f, \partial_\a g)$ is an operator of the form $C_2(\z-\a, f ,g)$, see . Distributing derivatives on $Q_0(f, \partial_\a g)$ by using , we see that for any integer $k = k_1 + k_2 + k_3$, we have that $D^k Q_0(f, \partial_\a g)$ is a sum of operators of the form $$\begin{aligned}
%D^{k_1} f D^{k_2} \H \z_\a^{-1} g \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad C_1 (\z - \a, A, D^{k_1} (f g_\a) )
C_2 \left(\z - \a, A_{k_2,k_3}, D^{k_1} g) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{k_2,k_3} = (\wt{A}_{k_3}, D^{k_2} f)$, and $\wt{A}_{k_3}$ is a vector with at most $k_3$ components satisfying $${\| A_{k_3}^\p \|}_{L^p} \lesssim {\| D^{k_3 + 1} \z_\a \|}_{L^p}$$ for $p=2,\infty$. One can then apply Theorem \[theoCMM\] to deduce that the $H^k$-norm of $Q_0(f, \partial_\a g)$ is bounded by the right-hand side of for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$.
The estimate for ${\| S Q_0(f, \partial_\a g) \|}_{H^k}$ for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$ follows similarly by using the commutation identity . Indeed, applying $S$ to $Q_0(f, \partial_\a g) \sim C_2 (\z-\a, f, g)$, and commuting $S$ and $\partial_\a$ when $S$ falls on $\partial_\a g$, one obtains operators of the form $C_2 (\z-\a, S f, g)$, $C_2 (\z-\a, (f, S \z_\a), g)$, $C_2 (\z-\a, f, S g)$ or $C_2 (\z-\a, f, g)$ itself. Applying and distributing $k$ derivatives as above, one can then estimate the resulting expressions in $L^2$ via Theorem \[theoCMM\], eventually obtaining the desired bound.
#### *[Proof of ]{}*
This estimate follows from the same proof of Lemma \[lemCCL\^infty2\], which is the case $l=0$, after applying and commuting $k$ derivatives similarly to what has been already done before. Since the proof is straightforward, we skip it.
#### *[Proof of ]{}*
Let us start by showing the $H^m$ estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estCCmain01}
{\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{H^m} + {\| \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^m} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^m}
{\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for all integers $0 \leq m \leq N_0$. Again we will us induction and commutation identities. The base for the induction is given by the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{L^2} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, ,
\\
\label{estCCmain012}
{\| \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h)\|}_{L^2} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ To verify these we cannot use directly Theorem \[theoCMM\]. We instead write $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (f, g, h) & = f \bQ (g, h) - \bQ (g, f h)
\\
\bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) & = f \bQ (g, \partial_\a h) - \bQ (g, f \partial_\a h) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From Theorem \[theoCCL\^2\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bQ (a, b) \|}_{L^2} \leq c {\| \partial_\a a \|}_{L^\infty} {\| b \|}_{L^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (f,g,h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq {\| f \bQ (g, h) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \bQ (g, f h) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {\| f \|}_{L^2} {\| \bQ (g, h) \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f h \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{L^2} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (f,g,\partial_\a h) \|}_{L^2} & \leq {\| f \bQ (g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{L^2} + {\| \bQ (g, f \partial_\a h) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {\| f \|}_{L^2} {\| \bQ (g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{L^\infty} + {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f \partial_\a h \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{L^2} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{3,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Now let us assume that holds true for some integer $0 \leq l \leq m-1$. Using the commutation identity we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a \bC (f,g,h) & = \bC (\partial_\a f,g,h) + \bC (f, \partial_\a g, h) + \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) + J_1(\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_1(\a) = - \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) ( \partial_\a \z(\a) - \partial_\b \z(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } h(\b) \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (\partial_\a f,g,h) = \partial_\a f \bQ (g, h) - \bQ (g, \partial_\a f h)\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proCCmain10}
{\| \bC (\partial_\a f,g,h) \|}_{H^l} & \leq {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^l} {\| \bQ (g, h) \|}_{L^\infty}
+ {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \bQ (g, h) \|}_{H^l} + {\| \bQ (g, \partial_\a f h) \|}_{H^l} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From Theorem \[theoCCL\^2\], and commutation identities, it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proCCmain11}
{\| \bQ (a, b) \|}_{H^l} \leq c {\| a \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| b \|}_{H^l}
+ c {\| \partial_\a a \|}_{H^l} {\| b \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}}
+ {\| a \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| b \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^l} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then use the above estimate and to bound the right-hand side of and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \bC (\partial_\a f, g, h) \|}_{H^l} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty} {\| (g,h) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}}
\\
& + {\| (\partial_\a f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^l}
+ {\| g \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a f h \|}_{H^l}
+ {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_\a f h \|}_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+3,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ An identical bound clearly holds for $\bC (f, \partial_\a g, h)$. Since $l \leq N_0$ we have then obtained $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \bC (f, g, h) - \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) - J_1 \|}_{H^l}
& \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
To estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) = \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^2 } \partial_\b h(\b) \,d\b\end{aligned}$$ we need to get rid of the extra derivative falling on $h$. Integrating by parts in $\b$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) & = \bQ (g, h \partial_\a f) + \bQ (f, h \partial_\a g) + J_2(\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_2(\a) & = - 2 \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } \z_\b(\b) h(\b) \,d\b\end{aligned}$$ Using we can bound $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bQ (g, h\partial_\a f) \|}_{H^l} + {\| \bQ (f, h\partial_\a g) \|}_{H^l}
\leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2\end{aligned}$$ as desired. To bound $J_2$, which is an operator of the form $C_1(\z-\id, (f,g), \z_\a h)$, we can again commute derivatives via and apply Theorem \[theoCMM\] to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| J_2 \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1)\|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ We have then shown $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \bC (f, g, h) - J_1 \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
To eventually estimate $J_1$ we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
J_1(\a) = - \z_\a \bC (f, g, h) + \bC (f, g, \z_\a h) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| J_1 \|}_{H^l} \leq c {\| \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{H^l} + {\| \bC (f, g, \z_\a h) \|}_{H^l} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the inductive hypotheses we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| J_1 \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2
%+ c {\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{H^1} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \\ &
+ c {\| (f,g, \z_\a h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g, \z_\a h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2
\\
& \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h)\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $c$ depends only on lower Sobolev norms of $(f,g,h,\z_\a-1)$, which are unifromly bounded by assumption. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ which gives the bound on the first term on the left-hand side of .
To complete the proof of we need to show $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^m} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^m} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{N}{2}+3,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Again we proceed by induction, the base being given by which has already been verified. The argument is similar to those above. Applying a derivative to $\bC (f, g, \partial_\a h)$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\a \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) & = \bC (\partial_\a f, g, \partial_\a h)
+ \bC (f, \partial_\a g, \partial_\a h) + \bC (f, g, \partial^2_\a h) + J_3(\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_3(\a) = - 2 \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) ( \partial_\a \z(\a) - \partial_\b \z(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 }
\partial_\b h(\b) \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (\partial_\a f, g, \partial_\a h) = \partial_\a f \bQ (g, \partial_\a h) - \bQ (g, \partial_\a f \partial_\a h)\end{aligned}$$ this term can be directly estimated using and . One can bound similarly $\bC (f, \partial_\a g, \partial_\a h)$.
To control $\bC (f, g, \partial^2_\a h)$ we need to resort again to an integration by parts to remove the presence of the extra derivative. More precisely we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (f, g, \partial_\a^2 h) & = \bQ (g, \partial_\a h \partial_\a f) + \bQ (f, \partial_\a h \partial_\a g) + J_4(\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_4(\a) & = - 2 \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } \z_\b(\b) \partial_\b h(\b) \,d\b\end{aligned}$$ The terms $\bQ (g, \partial_\a h \partial_\a f)$ and $\bQ (f, \partial_\a h \partial_\a g)$ can be estimated via : $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bQ (g, \partial_\a h \partial_\a f) \|}_{H^l} + {\| \bQ (f, \partial_\a h \partial_\a g) \|}_{H^l}
& \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to what has been done before, we can expand the factor ${(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^{-3}$, and write $J_4$ as an operator of the type $C_1$ as in . By using the commutation identity we can then bound it by $$\begin{aligned}
{\| J_4 \|}_{H^l} \leq c {\| \partial_\a (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_\a (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{l}{2}+2,\infty}}
\leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}^2_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) - J_3 \|}_{H^l}
& \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ To eventually bound $J_3$ in $H^l$ notice that it can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
J_3 = - 2 \partial_\a \z \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) - J_4 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the inductive hypothesis for the first summand above, and the bound we have already obtained for $J_4$, one can easily see how the desired bound for $J_3$ follows. This eventually yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ thereby completing the proof of .
We now prove the estimate in the space $S^{-1} H^k$ with $k := [\frac{m}{2}]$, $0 \leq m \leq N_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estCCmain02}
{\| S \bC (f, g, h) \|}_{H^k} + {\| S \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^k}
& \leq c {\| S L \|}_{H^k} {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity we just show the proof of the bound for the second term in the above right-hand side. The first term can be bounded similarly, and it is actually easier to estimate, since there is one less derivative on $h$ to worry about. Let us start by computing $S \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h)$ in $L^2$. By using the commutation identity , and $[S, \partial_\a] = - \partial_\a$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
S \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) & = \bC (S f, g, \partial_\a h)
+ \bC (f, S g, \partial_\a h) + \bC (f, g, \partial_\a S h) + K_1(\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K_1 (\a) & = - 2 \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) (S\z(\a) - S\z(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } \partial_\b h(\b) \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (S f, g, \partial_\a h) = S f \bQ (g,\partial_\a h) - \bQ (g, S f \partial_\a h) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then, using the $W^{l,\infty}$ estimate and the $H^l$ estimate for $\bQ$, we see that for any $l \leq k$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \bC (S f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^l} & \leq {\| S f \|}_{H^l} {\| \bQ (g,\partial_\a h) \|}_{W^{l,\infty}}
+ {\| \bQ (g, S f \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^l}
\\
& \leq c {\| S f \|}_{H^l} {\| (g ,\partial_\a h) \| }_{W^{l+2,\infty}}^2 +
{\| \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{l,\infty}} {\| S f \partial_\a h \|}_{H^l}
\lesssim {\| S f \|}_{H^l} {\| (g,h) \| }_{W^{l+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ An analogous bound holds for $\bC (f, S g, \partial_\a h)$.
To control $\bC (f, g, \partial_\a S h)$ we need to integrate by parts in order to remove the derivative from $S h$. This integration by parts gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\bC (f, g, \partial_\a S h) = \bQ (g, \partial_\a f S h) + \bQ (f, \partial_\a g S h) + K_2(\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K_2 (\a) & = - 2 \int \frac{ (f(\a) - f(\b))(g(\a) - g(\b)) }{ {(\z(\a)-\z(\b))}^3 } \partial_\b \z(\b) h(\b) \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ The $\bQ$ terms can be treated as before, and therefore satisfy the desired bound. Thus, so far we have obtained $$\begin{aligned}
{\| S \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) - K_1 - K_2 \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| S (f,g,h) \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{l+2,\infty}}^2\end{aligned}$$ for any $l \leq k$.
To conclude we notice that $K_1$, respectively $K_2$, are operators of the form $C_1(H,A,f)$ as in , for some smooth $F$, $H = \z - \id$, and $(A,f) = (f,g,S\z , \partial_\a h)$, respectively $(A,f)=(f,g, \z_\a h)$. Commuting derivatives, using Theorem \[theoCMM\] and the assumptions, we can deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| K_1 \|}_{H^l} + {\| K_2 \|}_{H^l} & \leq
c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{l,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a S \z \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_\a h \|}_{W^{l,\infty}}
+ c {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{l,\infty}} {\| \z_\a h \|}_{W^{l,\infty}}
\\
& %\leq c {\| L \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| L \|}_{W^{l+1,\infty}}^2 {\| S L \|}_{H^l}
%+ c {\| L \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| L \|}_{W^{l+1,\infty}}^2
\leq c {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{l+1,\infty}}^2 {\| (\partial_\a f, S(\z_\a-1)) \|}_{H^l}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ depends only on the $H^{l+2}$-norm of $(f,g,h, \z_\a-1)$, which is uniformly bounded by assumptions. Here we have used $\partial_\a S \z = S (\z_\a - 1) + \partial_\a \z$ for the second inequality. We can then conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| S \bC (f, g, \partial_\a h) \|}_{H^l} & \leq c {\| S (f,g,h,\z_\a-1) \|}_{H^l} {\| (f,g,h) \|}_{W^{l+3,\infty}}^2\end{aligned}$$ for any $l \leq k$. This shows the validity of and finishes the proof of . $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Lemma \[lemHinfty\]
We want to show that for any $f$ with ${\| f \|}_{H^{k+2}} \leq 1$, $0\leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} + 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemHinfty1}
{\| \H \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, . %+ {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\H$ we can write $\H \partial_\a f = I_1 + I_2$ with $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 (\a) & = \int \frac{ \partial_\b f(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \,d\b
\\
I_2 (\a) & = \int \frac{ \partial_\b f(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } (\partial_\b \z(\b) - 1) \,d\b = \H \frac{\partial_\a f (\z_\a -1)}{\z_\a} \, .\end{aligned}$$ $I_2$ is a quadratic term and can be directly estimated using Sobolev’s embedding and the boundedness of $\H$ on Sobolev spaces : $$\begin{aligned}
{\| I_2 \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| I_2 \|}_{H^{k+1}} \lesssim
{\| \partial_\a f (\z_\a -1) \|}_{H^{k+1}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^{k+1}} {\| \partial_\a f (\z_\a -1) \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{H^{k+1}} {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}
%+ {\| f \|}_{H^{k+2}} {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ having used ${\| f \|}_{H^{k+2}} \leq 1$ and the assumption on the Sobolev norm of $\z_\a -1$.
To estimate $I_1$ we expand the expression $ (\z(\a)-\z(\b))^{-1}$ in a geometric sum as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } & = \frac{1}{\a-\b} \sum_{k \geq 0} {\left( \frac{\z(\a) - \a - (\z(\b) - \b)}{\a-\b} \right)}^k
\\
& = \frac{1}{\a-\b} + \frac{H(\a)- H(\b)}{\a-\b} F \left( \frac{H(\a)- H(\b)}{\a-\b} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $H := \z - \id$ and $F$ is a smooth function. We can then write $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 (\a) & = I_0(\a) + C_2 (F,H,f) (\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $C_2$ is as in , and $$\begin{aligned}
I_0 (\a) & = \int \frac{ \partial_\b f(\b) }{ \a-\b } \,d\b = (H_0 \partial_\a f) (\a) \, ,
%\\ & = \int \frac{ \partial_\b f(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \,d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ is a constant multiple of the (flat) Hilbert transform. To estimate the contribution from $C_2(F,H,\partial_\a f)$ we can use Sobolev’s embedding, the commutation identity , and the bounds provided by Theorem \[theoCMM\] to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| C_2(F,H,\partial_\a f) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| C_2(F,H,\partial_\a f) \|}_{H^{k+1}} \lesssim
{\| f \|}_{H^{k+1}} {\| H_\a \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} % + {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} {\| H_\a \|}_{H^{k+1}}
%\\
%&
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, . %+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In the last inequality above we have used again the assumptions ${\| f \|}_{H^{k+1}} \leq 1$ and ${\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{H^{k+1}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$. So far we have shown $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \H \partial_\a f - H_0 \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, . %+ {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Littlewood-Paley decomposition to $f$, and using the boundedness of $H_0 P_l$ on $L^\infty$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| H_0 \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim \sum_l {\| H_0 P_l \partial_\a f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim \sum_l 2^l {\| f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of . The bound for the second summand in the left-hand side of can be obtain simlarly.
To prove one can use an argument similar to the one just showed, replacing $\partial_\a f$ with $f$. The same estimates as above will show: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \H f - H_0 f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To conclude it is then enough to observe that for any $ 2 \leq p < \infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\| H_0 f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| H_0 f \|}_{W^{k+1,p}} \lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,p}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The second summand in the left-hand side of can be estimated analogously. $\hfill \Box$
Energy Estimates {#secEE}
================
The main ideas in the proof of Proposition \[proenergy\] are essentially the same as those used in Wu’s paper [@WuAG]. In fact, we use a similar procedure and borrow several identities and estimates from the above mentioned paper. However, a substantial number of the arguments there needs to be adjusted in order to make the energy estimates valid for all times, and compatibile with the growth of the highest Sobolev and weighted norms. To be more specific, we recall that if $E$ denotes the energy , in [@WuAG Proposition 4.4] it is proven that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{secEE0}
\frac{d}{dt} E(t) \leq c(M) E(t) {\left( {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 2, \infty} }
+ {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 2, \infty} } \right)}^2 \log t + c(M) E^2(t) \frac{1}{t+1}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a polynomial with positive coefficients, and $M \ll 1$ is an a-priori bound on the highest Sobolev norms and weighted norm of the quantities controlled by the energy. In order to obtain the conclusion in Proposition \[proenergy\] we need to take care of two main issues. The first one is the sole dependence on lower order Sobolev norms[^7] of the solution of all constants involved in the energy estimates. For this purpose we use the estimates given in \[appWu1\]. The second, and most delicate issue concerns the logarithmic loss present in . To avoid this loss we allow a stronger $L^\infty$-based norm in the right-hand side of - see - and use the estimates in section \[secop\] to bound most of the nonlinear terms in the equations. We pay special attention to a few other dangeorus nonlinear terms that can potentially create logarithmic losses, and show how these latter can be avoided. Eventually, we control the stronger $L^\infty$ norm in terms of the decaying norm of the Eulerian unknowns.
Proof of Proposition \[proenergy1\]: Energy bounds {#secproenergy1}
--------------------------------------------------
Recall that $\wt{L} = ( u, w, \z_\a -1, \Im \z)$ and we aim to show $$\label{EnergyControl}
{\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)}$$ under the a priori assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aprioriL13}
\sup_{t \in [0,T]} \left( (1+t)^{-p_0} {\| \wt{L} (t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{N_1+5}}
+ \sqrt{1+t} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right) \leq \e_1 \ll 1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ The estimate will be achieved through a sequence of Lemmas which we state below and prove in the remaining of this section. We start by using some formulae derived in [@WuAG] to bound ${\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}$ by the $X_{N_0}$-norms of $(\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi$ and $(\partial_t + b \partial_\a) v$:
\[lemenergy11\] Under the assumption it is possible to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{utochi}
& 2 u = (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi + Q
\\
\label{wtov}
& 2 w = (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) v + Q
\\
\label{z_a-1tov}
& 2 (\z_\a - 1) = -i (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) v + Q
\\
\label{Imztol}
& (I-\H) \Im\z = - (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \l + Q\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ denotes a generic term which is at least quadratic in $\wt{L}$ and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estQ}
& {\| Q(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
\label{estQinfty}
& {\| Q(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ for $\e_1$ small enough. In particular we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estuwz_a-1}
{\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \sim {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v \|}_{X_{N_0}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estuwz_a-1infty}
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \sim
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this Lemma is given in section \[prlemenergy11\]. We then establish the following commutators estimates:
\[lemenergy12\] Assume again holds for $\e_1$ small enough. Then, for $Q$ as in above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chi_atoz_a}
& \partial_\a \chi = (I-\H) (\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a) + Q
\\
\label{vtou}
& v = 2u + Q
\\
\label{l_atou}
& \partial_\a \l = u + Q \, .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, denoting $D$ for $\partial_\a$, we have for all $0\leq k \leq N_0$ and $f = \chi,v$ or $\l$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commD}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k f - D^k (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, ,
%\label{commchi}
%& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k \chi - D^k (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}}
%\\
%\label{comv}
%& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k v - D^k (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ and for all $0\leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commS}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k S f - D^k S (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) f \|}_{H^k} \, .
%\label{commchiS}
%& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) S \chi - S (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}}
% + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{L^2}
%\\
%\label{comvS}
%& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) S v - S (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}}
% + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v \|}_{L^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The above Lemma is proven in section \[prlemenergy12\]. Eventually we show how $E(t)$ controls $\chi$ and $v$:
\[lemenergy13\] Under the assumption , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_tchi}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k \chi \|}_{L^2}^2 \lesssim E(t) \, ,
\\
\label{D_tv}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k v \|}_{L^2}^2 \lesssim E(t) + \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{H^{N_0}}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $0 \leq k \leq N_0$. Also $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_tl}
& {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \l \|}^2_{L^2} \lesssim E(t) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for all $0 \leq k \leq N_0-2$. Moreover, for $0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_tSchi}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k S \chi \|}_{L^2}^2 \lesssim E(t) \, ,
\\
\label{D_tSv}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k S v \|}_{L^2}^2 \lesssim E(t) + \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2 \, ,
\\
\label{D_tSl}
& {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k S \l \|}^2_{L^2} \lesssim E(t) \, .\end{aligned}$$
This Lemma is proven in \[prlemenergy13\], where we will actually prove the stronger bound $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G v \|}_{L^2}^2 + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G v_1 \|}_{L^2}^2
\lesssim E(t) + \e_1 {\| \wt L(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\G = D^k$, $0 \leq k \leq N_0$, or $\G= D^k S$ for $0\leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$.
The bound , and hence Proposition \[proenergy1\], follow from the above three Lemmas in a straightforward fashion: Owing to - and one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi\|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) v\|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then, using and with $f = \chi$ and $v$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim
\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k \chi\|}_{L^2} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k v \|}_{L^2}
\\
& + \sum_{k=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k S \chi\|}_{L^2} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k S v \|}_{L^2}
+ \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Eventually using - we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} + \e_1 {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}}\end{aligned}$$ which gives the desired conclusion.
### Proof of lemma \[lemenergy11\] {#prlemenergy11}
Equations (2.35), (2.43), (3.38) and (2.51) in [@WuAG] respectively read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u=}
& 2 u = (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi + (\H + \bar{\H}) u + [u,\H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a}
\\
\nn
& 2 w = (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) v + [\bar{u}, \bar{\H}] \frac{u_\a}{\bar{\z}_\a} +
[u, \H] \frac{2 u_\a - \bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} + (\H + \bar{\H}) w
\\
\label{w=}
& \qquad + [w,\H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a}
- \frac{1}{i \pi} \int {\left( \frac{u(\a) - u(\b)}{\z(\a) - \z(b)} \right)}^2 (\z_\b - \bar{\z}_\b) \, d\b \,
\\
\label{z_a-1=}
& \z_\a - 1 = \frac{w}{i A} - \frac{A - 1}{A}
\\
\label{I-HImz=}
& (I-\H) \Im \z = - (\partial_t + b \partial_\a ) \l -\frac{1}{2} [u,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a u}{\z_\a} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### [*Proof of* ]{}
To show it is enough to prove that $(\H + \bar{\H}) u$ and $[u,\H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a}$ are quadratic terms satisfying . Estimate and the priori assumption give $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 1}} {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| u \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 1}}
% \lesssim \e_1 \left( {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \right)
\lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, under the a priori assumptions , estimate implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| [u,\H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}}
\leq \e_1 {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \e_1 {\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \e_1 {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### [*Proof of* ]{}
We need to estimate all of the terms in the difference $2w - (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) v$ from . The terms $$\begin{aligned}
[w, \H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad (\H + \bar{\H} )w\end{aligned}$$ can be estimated as above, the only difference being the appearance of $w$ instead of $u$. The last term in is of the form $\bC (u,u, \Im \z_\a)$, where $\bC$ is defined in . This can be directly estimated using . The remaining terms are $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 := [\bar{u}, \bar{\H}] \frac{u_\a}{\bar{\z}_\a} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad I_2 := [u, \H] \frac{2 u_\a - \bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} \, .
%= \frac{1}{i \pi} \int \frac{ \bar{u}(\a) - \bar{u}(\b)}{\bar{\z}(\a) - \bar{\z}(\b)} u_\b(\b) \, d\b \,
%\\
%I_2 & := [u, \H] \frac{2 u_\a - \bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a}
% = \frac{2}{i \pi} \int \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b)}{\z(\a) - \z(\b)} u_\b(\b) \, d\b \, - \bar{I}_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ These are terms of the form $Q_0 (\wt{L}, \partial_\a \wt{L})$ and can be bounded by making use of : $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| I_1 \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\left\| I_2 \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\left\| Q_0 (u,\partial_\a u) \right\|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### [*Proof of* ]{}
We start from and rewrite as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{z_a-1=1}
\z_\a - 1 & = -iw + i w \left(1 - \frac{1}{A} \right) - \frac{A - 1}{A} \, . %= -iw + (A-1) \frac{iw-1}{A}\end{aligned}$$ Since $w$ satisfies , in order to show is suffices to verify that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| w \left(1 - \frac{1}{A} \right) \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\left\| \frac{A - 1}{A} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This follows from the bounds on $A-1$ and , and the a priori assumptions .
#### [*Proof of* ]{}
This follows directly from and arguments similar to the ones above.
#### [*Proof of and* ]{}
Using in combination with one can deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \Im \z \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_a) \l \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In view of - we have then obtained
From the a priori bound on the $H^{N_1 + 5}$-norm of $\wt{L}$ it is not hard to see that holds true by using similar arguments as above. immediately follows, concluding the proof of Lemma \[lemenergy11\]. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of lemma \[lemenergy12\] {#prlemenergy12}
Identities (2.50), (2.35) and (2.36) in [@WuAG] respectively read: $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
\frac{i}{2} \partial_\a \chi & = w \z_\a - \frac{1}{2} \H \left( u_\a \frac{u \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a} \right) +
\frac{1}{2} [u,\H] \left( \frac{\partial_\a (u \bar{\z}_\a)}{\z_\a} \right)
\\
\nn
& - \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\z_\a - \z_\b) }{ {(\z(\a) - \z(\b))}^2 } u \bar{\z}_\b \, d\b + \frac{1}{2}(\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a) w
+\frac{1}{2} \bar{u}_\a u
\\
\label{chi_a=}
& -\frac{1}{2} \z_\a \left( \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{z}_\a} \right) (w\bar{\z}_\a + u\bar{u}_\a)
+ \frac{\z_\a}{\pi} \int \Im \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ {(\z(\a) - \z(\b))}^2 } \right) u \bar{\z}_\b \, d\b \, ,
\\
\label{v=}
v & = 2u - (\H + \bar{\H}) u - [u, \H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a} \, ,
\\
\label{l_a=}
\partial_\a \l & = u \bar{\z}_\a + \left( \z_\a \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\z}_\a \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) (u \bar{\z}_\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From these, Proposition \[proCCmain\] and the a priori assumption , it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chivl1}
& {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{H^{N_1}} + {\| v \|}_{H^{N_1}} + {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{H^{N_1}}
\lesssim \e_1 \, ,
\\
\label{chivl2}
& {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| v \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We are now going to use these bounds to control the commutators $[\partial_t + b\partial_\a, D^k] f$ and $[\partial_t + b\partial_\a, S] f$ for $f = \chi,v,\l $. By direct computation one sees that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commD_tD^k}
& [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] = [ D^k, b\partial_\a] = \sum_{j=1}^k \partial^j b \partial^{k-j} \partial_\a
\\
\label{commD_tS}
& [S, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] = \left( Sb -\frac{1}{2}b \right) \partial_\a - \frac{1}{2}(\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \, . \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $S_k = D^k S$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commD_tS_k}
& [S_k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f = D^k [S, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f + [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] S f \, . \end{aligned}$$ From it follows that for any $0\leq k \leq N_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| D^k (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) f - (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k f \right\|}_{L^2} & \lesssim
\sum_{j=1}^{N_0/2} {\| \partial^j b \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^{k-1}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{k-1}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_0/2} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^{k-2}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{k-1}} {\| \partial_\a f \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using and we see that for $f = \chi,v$ and $0\leq k \leq N_0$, or $f=\l$ and $0\leq k \leq N_0 - 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| D^k (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) f - (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) D^k f \right\|}_{L^2}
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \e_1 {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This would conclude the proof of provided one has $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} \lesssim \e_1
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ These two estimates follow from Lemma \[lemenergy10c\].
To show the commutator estimate we start by using : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S_kD_t1}
& {\| [S_k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim
{\| [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] S f \|}_{L^2} + {\| [S, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f \|}_{H^k} \, . \end{aligned}$$ From , and for $0\leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] S f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} {\| \partial_\a S f \|}_{H^{k-1}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{k-1}} {\| \partial_\a S f \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} \, . \end{aligned}$$ Using we can bound the above right-hand side to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_kD_tS}
& {\| [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] S f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, . \end{aligned}$$ for $f = \chi$, $v$ or $\l$. Moreover, from we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| [S, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f \|}_{H^k} \lesssim
{\| S b \partial_\a f \|}_{H^k} + {\| b \partial_\a f \|}_{H^k} + {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a)f \|}_{H^k}
\, . \end{aligned}$$ With $f = \chi$, $v$ or $\l$, and using and we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D^kSD_t}
{\| [S, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f \|}_{H^k} \lesssim \e_1 \left( {\| S b \|}_{H^k} + {\| b \|}_{H^k} \right)
+ {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a)f \|}_{H^k} \, . \end{aligned}$$
Putting together with and we get $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| [S_k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a] f \|}_{L^2} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ \e_1 \left( {\| S b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} + {\| b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} \right) + {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a)f \|}_{H^k} \, . \end{aligned}$$ To obtain it then suffices to have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| S b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad {\| b \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} \lesssim \e_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ These two estimates are again direct consequence of Lemma \[lemenergy10c\]. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of lemma \[lemenergy13\] {#prlemenergy13}
Recall the definition of $E^\chi$ given in : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energychi1a}
E^\chi(t) & = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(D^k \chi \right)}^h {\left( D^k \overline{\chi} \right)}^h \, d\a
\\
\label{energychi1b}
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left(S_k \chi \right)}^h {\left( S_k \overline{\chi} \right)}^h \, d\a \, \,\end{aligned}$$ where $ f^h := (I-\H)f/2$. As in Lemma 4.1 of [@WuAG] (see Lemma \[proevolEf\] below) we know that if $\Theta$ is the boundary value of an holomorphic function in $\Omega(t)^c$, such as $f^h$, then $$\begin{aligned}
i \int \Theta \partial_\a \bar{\Theta} \, d\a \geq 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore both summands in and are nonnegative. In particular $$\begin{aligned}
E^\chi(t) \gtrsim \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \right|}^2
+ \, \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ From this, and since $| A-1 | \leq 1/2$, see , we get the desired bounds and . The exact same argument can be used to show and .
To prove and the argument is more complicated since $E^v$ is not nonnegative, but we just need to adapt the proof of Lemma 4.2 in [@WuAG pp. 89-92]. First, recall the definition of $E^v$ $$\begin{aligned}
E^{v} (t) & % = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} E_k^{v}(t)
= \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha D^k v_1 D^k \overline{v}_1 \, d\a
\\
\nn
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha S_k v_1 S_k \overline{v}_1 \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then, with a slight abuse of notation, we set $$\begin{aligned}
E^v(t) = \sum_{j=0}^{N_0} E^v_k(t) \quad , \quad E^v_k(t) = \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha \G^k v_1 \G^k \overline{v}_1 \, d\a\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\G^k = D^k \quad \mbox{for any} \quad 0 \leq k \leq N_0 \quad \mbox{or} \quad \G^k = S_k \quad \mbox{for}\quad 0 \leq k \leq \frac{N_0}{2} \, . \end{aligned}$$
Let us define the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts of $\G^k v_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_k^v := \frac{I-\H}{2} \G^k v_1 \quad ,\quad R_k^v := \frac{I+\H}{2} \G^k v_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
E_k^v(t) = \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \eta_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v +
i (\eta_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since the second summand in the above integral is nonnegative we have $$\begin{aligned}
E_k^v(t) & \geq \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \right|}^2 \, d\a
- \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \right| \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $$\label{v_1=2v}
v_1 = 2 v + [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi =: 2 v + Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \, ,$$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
E_k^v(t) & \geq \int \frac{2}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v \right|}^2 \, d\a
- \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
& - \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v + R_k^v \partial \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v) \right| \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Averaging the last two inequalities above one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
E_k^v(t) & \geq \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v \right|}^2
+ \frac{1}{2A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
\nn
& - \int \frac{1}{2A} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \right|}^2 \, d\a
- \frac{1}{2} \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \, d\a \right|
\\
\nn
& \geq
\int \frac{1}{2} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v \right|}^2
+ \frac{1}{4} {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
& - \int {\left| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \right|}^2 \, d\a
- \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \, d\a \right| \, .
\label{cubicrem}\end{aligned}$$ having used $1/2 \leq | A | \leq 2$. We then need to bound the last two contributions in .
#### [*Estimate of the first term in* ]{}
By commuting $\partial_t + b \partial_\a$ and $\G$ as already done before, and using the $L^2$ bounds in Proposition \[proCCmain\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \right\|}_{L^2}
%& \lesssim c(\e_1) \e_1 {\| Q \|}_{H^k} + {\| b \|}_{H^k} {\| \partial_\a Q \|}_{H^\frac{N}{2}} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) Q \|}_{H^k}
%\\
& \lesssim c(\e_1) \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \|}_{X_k} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Following the computations on page 91 of [@WuAG] one has $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t + b\partial_\a) Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) =
[w,\H] \frac{\partial_\a \chi}{\z_\a} + [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi
+ \frac{1}{i\pi} \int {\left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b)}{ \z(\a) - \z(\b) } \right)}^2 \partial_\b \chi \, d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using again Proposition \[proCCmain\], it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \|}_{X_k} & \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_k}
+ \e_1 {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .
% + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_k} {\| \partial_\a (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi \|}_{H^\frac{N}{2}}\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lemenergy12\] we already know that ${\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} + \sqrt{E^{\chi}}$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubicrem1}
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a)Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \|}^2_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2 + \e_1 E^\chi \, ,\end{aligned}$$ from which we infer $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \G^k Q_0 (u,\partial_\a \chi) \|}^2_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2 + \e_1 E^\chi\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$.
#### *Estimate of the second term in*
Recalling that $v_1 = (I - \H) v$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \eta_k^v = (I-\H) \G^k v - \frac{I-\H}{2} [\G^k, \H] v \, ,
\\
& R_k^v = - \frac{I+\H}{2} [\G^k, \H] v \, ,
\\
& \partial_\a R_k^v = - \frac{I-\H^\ast}{2} \partial_\a [\G^k, \H] v \, .\end{aligned}$$ From , the estimates in Proposition \[proCCmain\], and Lemma \[lemHf\], it is not hard to verify that $$\begin{aligned}
\int \left| \eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v \right| \, d\a \lesssim {\| v \|}_{X_k}
{\left( {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} {\| v \|}_{X_k} + {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_k} {\| v \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} \right)} \, .\end{aligned}$$ A similar bound also holds for $\int \left| R_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v \right| \, d\a $. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \, d\a \right|
= \left| \int (\eta_k^v \partial_\a R_k^v - \partial_\a R_k^v \bar{\eta}_k^v + R_k^v \partial_\a \bar{R}_k^v) \, d\a \right|
\\
\label{cubicrem2}
& \lesssim \left( \e_1 {\| v \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2 + \e_1 {\| v \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \right) %+ \e_1 {\| \z_\a - 1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}^2
\lesssim \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}^2_{X_{N_0}} \, , % + E^\chi\end{aligned}$$ having used for the last inequality.
#### *Conclusion*
Combining with and , and provided $\e_1$ is small enough, we get $$\begin{aligned}
E^v (t) \geq \frac{1}{4} {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \G^k v \|}^2_{L^2} + \frac{1}{8} {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \G^k v_1 \|}^2_{L^2}
- \e_1 E^\chi - \e_1 {\| \wt{L} \|}^2_{X_{N_0}}\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$. $\hfill \Box$
Proof of Proposition \[proenergy2\]: Evolution of the Energy {#secproenergy2}
------------------------------------------------------------
We want to show, under the a priori assumptions , the following bound for the evolution of the Energy $$\label{EE}
\frac{d}{dt} \sqrt{E(t)} \lesssim
{\left( {\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^-(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N_0}} \,$$ for any $t\in[0,T]$. From the definition of $E$ in we see that it suffices to prove $$\label{EEf}
\frac{d}{dt} E^f(t) \lesssim %{\| (h(t),\partial_x \phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}^2
{\left( {\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^-(t)\|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2
{\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{X_{N-1}} \sqrt{E(t)} \,$$ for any $t\in[0,T]$ and $f = \chi,l$ and $v$.
### Basic energy equality {#secproenergy2pre}
Assume that $F$ is a smooth function vanishing sufficiently fast at infinity and satisfying the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PF=}
\P F := {(\partial_t + b(t,\a) \partial_\a)}^2 F(t,\a) - i A(t,\a) \partial_\a F(t,\a) = G(t,\a) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Define the zero-th energy associated to by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_0^F}
E_0^F (t) & = \int_\R \frac{1}{A(t,\a)} {\left| (\partial_t + b(t,\a) \partial_\a) F(t,\a) \right|}^2
+ i F(t,\a) \partial_\alpha \bar{F}(t,\a) \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Also define higher order energies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_j^F}
E_j^F (t) & = \int_\R \frac{1}{A(t,\a)} {\left| (\partial_t + b(t,\a) \partial_\a) \G^j F(t,\a) \right|}^2
+ i {(\G^j F)}^h (t,\a) \partial_\alpha {(\G^j \bar{F})}^h (t,\a) \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ where $j\geq 1$, $\G^j=D^j$ for $j \leq N_0$, or $\G^j=S_j$ for $j \leq N_0/2$, and $f^h$ is defined in . Then the following holds:
\[proevolEf\] Assume that $F$ and $E_0$ are as above, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d_tE_0^F}
\frac{d}{dt} E_0^F (t) & = \int_\R \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) F \, \bar{G} \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) F \right|}^2 \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, if $\Theta$ is the boundary value of an holomorphic function in $\Omega_t^c$, that is $\Theta=\Theta^h$, then $$\begin{aligned}
i \int_\R \Theta(t,\a) \partial_\alpha \bar{\Theta}(t,\a) \, d\a \geq 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$
Let $E_j^F (t)$ be as in , then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d_tE_j^F1}
\frac{d}{dt} E_j^F (t) & = \int_\R \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \G^j F \bar{G_j} \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \G^j F \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
& - 2\Re \int_\R i\partial_t {(\G^j F)}^h \partial_\a {(\G^j \bar{F})}^r + i \partial_t {(\G^j F)}^r \partial_\a {(\G^j \bar{F})}^h
+ \partial_t {(\G^j F)}^r \partial_\a {(\G^j \bar{F})}^r \, d\a \, .
\label{d_tE_j^F2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_j := \G^j G + [\P,\G^j]F\end{aligned}$$ and $f^r$ is defined by $f^r := (1/2)(I+\H)f$.
The proof of the above Lemma can be found in [@WuAG pp. 83-85].
### Evolution of $E^\chi$ {#secevolchi}
We want to show $$\label{evolchi}
\frac{d}{dt} E^\chi(t) \lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 E(t) \, .$$ We recall that the energy $E^\chi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E^\chi (t) & = % \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} E_k^\chi (t) =
\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left( D^k \chi \right)}^h {\left(D^k \overline{\chi} \right)}^h \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int_\R \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left( S_k \chi \right)}^h {\left( S_k \chi \right)}^h \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ From and we know that $\chi$ satisfies an equation of the form $P \chi = G^\chi$ with a cubic nonlinearity $G^\chi = \bC (u,\Im \z, u_\a) + \bC (u,u,\Im \z_\a)$, where $\bC$ are operators of the type defined in . This nonlinearity can be schematically rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gchi01}
G^\chi = \bC (\wt{L}, \wt{L}, \wt{L}_\a) \, .
%:= {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 \chi + i A \partial_\alpha \chi = G^\chi \left( u, w, \z_\a - 1, \Im \z \right)\end{aligned}$$
By using Lemma \[proevolEf\] one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtEchi1}
\frac{d}{dt} E^\chi(t) & = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \, \P D^k \chi \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \chi \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
\label{dtEchi2}
& - 2 \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \Re \int i\partial_t (D^k \chi)^h \partial_\a (D^k \chi)^r
+ i\partial_t (D^k \chi)^r \partial_\a \bar{(D^k \chi)^h}
+ i \partial_t (D^k \chi)^r \partial_\a \bar{(D^k \chi)^r} \, d\a
\\
\label{dtEchi3}
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \, \P S_k \chi \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \chi \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\ \label{dtEchi4}
& - 2 \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \Re \int i\partial_t (S_k \chi)^h \partial_\a (S_k \chi)^r
+ i\partial_t (S_k \chi)^r \partial_\a \bar{(S_k \chi)^h}
+ i \partial_t (S_k \chi)^r \partial_\a \bar{(S_k \chi)^r} \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\| A -1 \|}_{L^\infty} \leq \frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{dtEchi1} + \eqref{dtEchi3} & \lesssim
\sqrt{E^\chi (t)} \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \left( {\| D^k G^\chi \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P, D^k] \chi \|}_{L^2} \right)
\\
& + \sqrt{E^\chi (t)} \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \left( {\| S_k G^\chi \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P, S_k] \chi \|}_{L^2} \right)
+ E^\chi (t) { \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The terms in and are remainder terms. Since there is no logarithmic loss in the estimates for those terms in [@WuAG p. 94-98], they can be estimated exactly as in the cited paper, and therefore we skip them. Thus, to obtain the desired bound on the evolution of $E^\chi$ it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevolchi1}
& {\| G^\chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| L \|}^2_{W^{N_1+3,\infty}} \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi2}
& \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} {\| [\P, D^k] \chi \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi3}
& \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} {\| [\P, S_k] \chi \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi4}
& {\left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}^2_{W^{N_1,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ These estimates are performed in the next four subsections.
#### *[Proof of ]{}*
The bound follows directly from and Proposition \[proCCmain\]. Indeed applying we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| G^\chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} = {\| \bC (\wt{L}, \wt{L}, \wt{L}_\a) \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}^2_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| L \|}^2_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \sqrt{E} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ having used in the last inequality.
#### *[Proof of ]{}* {#secevolchi2}
Recall the definition $\P = {(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 - i A \partial_\a$. By direct computation we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
[D^k, \P ] f & = [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a ] (\partial_t + b\partial_\a )f +
(\partial_t + b\partial_\a ) [D^k, \partial_t + b\partial_\a ] f - i [D^k, A \partial_\a] f
\\
\nn
& = [D^k, b\partial_\a ] (\partial_t + b\partial_\a )f +
(\partial_t + b\partial_\a ) [D^k, b\partial_\a ] f - i [D^k, A \partial_\a] f
\\
\label{commD^kP}
& = \sum_{j=1}^k \partial^j b \partial^{k-j} \partial_\a (\partial_t + b\partial_\a )f
+ (\partial_t + b\partial_\a ) \sum_{j=1}^k \partial^j b \partial^{k-j} \partial_\a f
- i \sum_{j=1}^k \partial^j A \partial^{k-j} \partial_\a f \, .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& {\| [\P, D^k] \chi \|}_{L^2} \lesssim
\\
\nn
\\
\label{CE1}
& \lesssim {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{H^{N_0}} {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
\\
\label{CE2}
& + \sum_{j=0}^{N_0-1} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^2} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} \sum_{j=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a \chi \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
\label{CE3}
& + \sum_{j=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{H^{N_0-1}}
+ {\| \partial b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} \sum_{j=0}^{N_0-1} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a \chi \|}_{L^2}
\\
\label{CE4}
& + {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{H^{N_0}} {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{H^{N_0}} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Combining , commutator estimates for $[\partial_t + b\partial_\a, D^j]$, and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CEL2}
{\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi \|}_{H^{N_0}} +
\sum_{j=1}^{N_0-1} {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \partial^{j} \partial_\a \chi \|}_{L^2} +
{\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{H^{N_0}} \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} \, . %{\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N-1}} \end{aligned}$$ From in Lemma \[lemenergy11\], in Lemma \[lemenergy12\], Lemma \[lemHinfty\], and commutation estimates for $[\partial_t + b\partial_\a, D^j]$, we also control the following $L^\infty$ norms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CELinfty}
{\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \chi \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} + {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} +
\sum_{j=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a \chi \|}_{L^\infty}
\lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### [*Estimate of* ]{}
Using and we can bound $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{CE1} \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the desired bound in then suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbLinfty}
& {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} \lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2
\\
\label{dbL2}
& {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} \lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \sqrt{E} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From formula we see that $(I-\H)b = g$ with $$\label{I-Hb=}
g = - [u,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a} \, .$$ Using in Lemma \[lemI-Hf\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{H^{N_0/2+1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $g$ above is an operator of the form $Q_0(\wt{L} ,\wt{L})$, with $Q_0$ defined in , we can use the $L^\infty$ bound provided by to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbLinfty1}
{\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}
{\left( {\| \H \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)} \, .
%+ {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here we have also used the $L^2$-bounds from \[theoCCL\^2\] to estimate ${\| \partial_\a g \|}_{H^{N_0/2+1}}$, and the a priori assumption ${\| \wt{L} \|}_{H^{N_1+5}} \lesssim \e_1$. is proven. Using again Lemma \[lemI-Hf\] we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbL21}
& {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a g \|}_{H^{N_0-1}}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{H^{N_0}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which in light of suffices to obtain .
#### [*Estimate of* ]{}
Using and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{CE2} \lesssim \sum_{j=0}^{N_0-1} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^2} {\| L \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}} {\| L \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since we already have the bound for ${\| \partial_\a b \|}_{H^{N_0-1}}$, in order to estimate it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_tdbL2}
\sum_{j=0}^{N_0-1} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To establish this estimate we use the following formula derived by Wu: $$\label{formulaD_tb}
\begin{split}
& (I - \H) (\partial_t + b\partial_\a )b = B_3
\\
& B_3 := [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a( 2b - \bar{u}) }{\z_\a} - [w,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a - 1}{\z_\a}
+ \frac{1}{i\pi} \int {\left( \frac{u(\a) - u(\b)}{\z(\a) - \z(\b)} \right)}^2 (\bar{\z}_\b - 1) \, d\b \, .
\end{split}$$ Using this formula, in Lemma \[lemI-Hf\], and the fact that $[\partial_\a, \partial_t + b\partial_\a]b$ gives higher order quartic terms, it is not hard to see that holds
#### [*Estimate of* ]{}
Using again and we can bound $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{CE3} \lesssim \sum_{j=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^\infty} \sqrt{E(t)}
+ {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} \sqrt{E(t)} \, .\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of it suffices to establish the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_tdbLinfty}
\sum_{j=0}^{N_0/2} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^\infty}
\lesssim {\left( {\| \H \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Commuting $\partial_t + b\partial_\a$ and $\partial_\a^j$, using and in Lemma \[lemI-Hf\] one can see that for any $0 \leq j \leq N_0/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j \partial_\a b \|}_{L^\infty}
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) b \|}_{W^{j,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}^2
\\
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a B_3 \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a B_3 \|}_{H^{N_0/2+1}}
+ {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}^2\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\| \partial_\a B_3 \|}_{H^{N_0/2+1}}$ can be easily estimated by means of \[theoCCL\^2\], we only need bound ${\| \partial_\a B_3 \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}$. $B_3$ contains potentially dangerous terms of the form $Q_0(\wt{L}, \wt{L})$ but we only have to estimate their derivatives in $L^\infty$. We can then use again in Proposition \[proCCmain\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a B_3 \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}} & \lesssim
{\left( {\| \H \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives , which in turn majorizes by the right-hand side of as desired.
#### [*Estimate of* ]{}
From and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{CE4} & \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
+ {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{H^{N_0}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the desired bound it is sufficient to show the following two estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dAL2}
& {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{H^{N_0}} \lesssim \sqrt{E(t)} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}}
\\
\label{dALinfty}
& {\| \partial_\a (A-1) \|}_{W^{N_0/2,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left( {\| \H \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_0/2+2,\infty}} \right)}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Recalling the identity for $(I-\H)(A-1)$ we see that the two terms in the right hand side of that formula are of the same type of the one appearing in the formula for $(I-\H)b$. Therefore, in order to show and , one can proceed in the exact same fashion as was done before to obtain and . Also in this case the presence of a derivative acting on $A-1$ in plays a crucial role, allowing us to use the bound on operators of the type $\partial_\a Q_0$.
#### *[Proof of ]{}* {#secevolchi3}
Since $S_k = D^k S$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
[\P, S_k] f = [\P, D^k] S + D^k [\P, S] \, .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, to prove it is enough to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevolchi31}
{\| [\P, D^k] S \chi\|}_{L^2} &
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi32}
{\| [\P, S] \chi \|}_{H^k} &
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 \sqrt{E}\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$. Recall that the commutation $[\P, D^k]$ is explicitely given in , whereas a direct computation shows that $$\label{commS2}
\begin{split}
[\P,S] & = \P + \left\{ \left( S b - \frac{1}{2}b \right) b_\a - S(\partial_t+b\partial_\a)b \right\} \partial_\a
\\
& - \left( S b - \frac{1}{2}b \right) \left\{ (\partial_t+b\partial_\a)\partial_\a + \partial_\a (\partial_t+b\partial_\a) \right\}
+ i S A \partial_\a \, .
\end{split}$$
#### *Proof of* {#proof-of-15}
For $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$, we first use to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
{\| [\P, D^k] S \chi \|}_{L^2}
& \lesssim {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) S \chi \|}_{H^{k-1}}
%\label{estevolchi312}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{k} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j b \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \partial_\a S \chi \|}_{H^{k-1}}
\\
%\label{estevolchi313}
& + {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}} \sum_{j=1}^{k} {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial^j S \chi \|}_{L^2}
%\label{estevolchi314}
+ {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}} {\| \partial_\a S \chi \|}_{H^{k-1}} \, .
\end{split}
\label{estevolchi311}\end{aligned}$$ Commuting $\partial_t + b\partial_\a$ with $\partial_\a$ and $S$ in the appropriate fashion, using to control the $L^2$ norm of $\partial_\a (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) S_k \chi$, and to control ${\| \partial_\a S \chi \|}_{H^{k-1}}$, we see that all of the $L^2$-based norms in are controlled by $\sqrt{E}$. To obtain We are then left with proving that for $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevolchi321}
& {\| \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2
\\
\label{estevolchi322}
& {\| (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial_\a b \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2
\\
\label{estevolchi323}
& {\| \partial_\a A \|}_{W^{k-1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ The bound is implied by which has been already proven. Up to commuting $\partial_t + b\partial_\a$ and $\partial_\a^j$, for $0\leq j \leq k-1$, we see that would follow from obtaining the same bound for $(\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \partial_\a^j \partial_\a b$. Such an estimate has been already obtained in . Since also has been shown to hold true before, see , we have completed the proof of .
#### *Proof of* {#proof-of-16}
Using , for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$, we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\| [\P,S] \chi \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\| \P \chi \|}_{H^k}
+ \left( {\left\| S b - \frac{1}{2}b \right\|}_{H^k} {\|b_\a\|}_{H^k} + {\| S(\partial_t+b\partial_\a)b \|}_{H^k} \right)
{\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}}
\\
& + {\left\| S b - \frac{1}{2}b \right\|}_{H^k} {\| \partial_\a (\partial_t + b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}}
+ {\| S (A-1) \|}_{H^k} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From we know that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}} + {\| \partial_\a (\partial_t+b\partial_\a) \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}}
\lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}, \infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Also, it is easy to see that ${\| b \|}_{H^k} \lesssim 1$, under the a priori assumptions . To conclude the desired bound it then suffices to show the following $L^2$-estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevolchi32a}
& {\| S b \|}_{H^k} \lesssim \left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right) \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi32b}
& {\| S(\partial_t+b\partial_\a) b \|}_{H^k} \lesssim
\left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right) \sqrt{E}
\\
\label{estevolchi32c}
& {\| S (A-1) \|}_{H^k} \lesssim \left( {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right) \sqrt{E}\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_0/2$.
The above three estimates can all be proven in the same fashion, so we just detail the first one. As before, from we know that $(I-\H) b = Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L})$, where $Q_0$ is as in. From we then have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| S b \|}_{H^k} & \lesssim {\| Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \|}_{X_k}
+ {\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{X_k} \left( {\| Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2},\infty}}
+ {\| \Im \z_\a \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} {\| Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the estimate , and the energy bounds , we see that ${\| Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \|}_{X_k}$ is bounded by the right-hand side of . Moreover, since $Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \sim \H (\wt{L} \wt{L}) + \wt{L} \H \wt{L}$ we can use , and the a priori assumptions, to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| Q_0(\wt{L},\wt{L}) \|}_{H^{\frac{k}{2}+1}} \lesssim
{\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 2,\infty}} {\| L \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 3}} \lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2} + 2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This and ${\| \z_\a -1 \|}_{X_k} \lesssim \sqrt{E}$ suffice to obtain . One can easily see that and follow analogously, by using respectively the identities and .
#### *[Proof of ]{}* {#secevolchi4}
In order to complete the Energy estimate for $E^\chi$ we want to prove the $L^\infty$ bound $$\begin{aligned}
{ \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{L^\infty} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 \, .
%{\left( {\| \H \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N/2+2,\infty}} + {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N/2+2,\infty}} \right)}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we are going to establish the stronger bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_t1}
{ \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2},\infty}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2\end{aligned}$$ and the additional estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_t2}
{ \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The above bounds will also be useful later on. To prove - we will use Lemma \[lemI-HfA\] in combination with the formula (2.32) from [@WuAG], which is $$\begin{aligned}
(I - \H) & \left( \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} A \bar{\z}_\a \right) = I_1 + I_2
\\
\mbox{with} \quad I_1 & := 2i [w, \H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} + 2i [u,\H] \frac{\bar{w}_\a}{\z_\a}
\\
I_2 & := - \frac{1}{\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 \bar{u}_\b (\b) \, d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ $I_2$ is a cubic term, therefore easier to estimate, so that we can skip its treatment and focus on $I_1$. From Lemma \[lemI-HfA\] we see that in order to prove it suffices to obtain the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_t11}
& {\| \Re I_1 \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2
\\
\label{a_t12}
& {\| I_1 \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To prove instead it is enough to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_t13}
{\| I_1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| \wt{L} \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
To prove we write explicitely $\Re I_1$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_t20}
\begin{split}
\Re I_1 & = \Re \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{ w(\a) - w(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \bar{u}_\b (\b) \, d\b
+ \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \bar{w}_\b (\b) \, d\b \right)
\\
& = \Re \left( w 2i \H \frac{\bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} + u 2i \H \frac{\bar{w}_\a}{\z_\a} \right)
- \Re \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{w(\b) \bar{u}_\b (\b) + u(\b) \bar{w}_\b (\b)}{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \, d\b \right) \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The first contribution above is estimated using : $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| w 2i \H \frac{\bar{u}_\a}{\z_\a} + u 2i \H \frac{\bar{w}_\a}{\z_\a} \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| w \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| u \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To bound the second summand in we use the identity $$\begin{aligned}
2 \Re \int \frac{f(\b)}{\z(\a) - \z(\b) }\, d\b = \int \frac{2 \Re f(\b)}{\z(\a) - \z(\b) }\, d\b
+ 2i \int \frac{\bar{f}(\b) (\Im \z(\a) - \Im \z(\b)) }{{|\z(\a) - \z(\b)|}^2}\, d\b\end{aligned}$$ and notice that $$\begin{aligned}
2 \Re \left( w \bar{u}_\b + u \bar{w}_\b \right) = \partial_\b (w \bar{u} + u \bar{w} ) \, .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Re \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{w(\b) \bar{u}_\b (\b) + u(\b) \bar{w}_\b (\b)}{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \, d\b \right)
= 2 i \H \frac{ \partial_\a (w \bar{u} + u \bar{w} ) }{\z_\a} + I_r\end{aligned}$$ where $I_r$ is cubic remainder which can be easily estimated. Since $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \H \frac{ \partial_\a (w \bar{u} + \bar{u} w ) }{\z_\a} \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| w \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} {\| u \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}\end{aligned}$$ we have concluded the proof of . The estimates and follow respectively from , and the bound provided by Proposition \[proCCmain\].
### Evolution of $E^\l$ {#secevoll}
The energy associated with $\l$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E^{\l} (t) %= \sum_{k=0}^{N-3} E_k^{\l}(t)
& = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \l \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left( D^k \l \right)}^h {\left( D^k \overline{\l} \right)}^h \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \l \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha {\left( S_k \l \right)}^h {\left( S_k \overline{\l} \right)}^h \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ From and we have ${(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 \l + i A \partial_\alpha \l \sum_{j=1}^4 G^{\l}_j$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubicl1}
G^{\l}_1 & = - \left[u, \H\frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H}\frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right] (\bar{\z}_\a w )
\\
\label{cubicl2}
G^{\l}_2 & = [u,\bar{\H}] \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) + u [u,\H] \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a}
\\
\label{cubicl3}
G^{\l}_3 & = - 2 [u,\H] \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a}
\\
\label{cubicl4}
G^{\l}_4 & = \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 u (\b) \z_\b(\b) \, d\b \, .\end{aligned}$$ As already done for $\chi$ before, we use Proposition \[proevolEf\] to compute $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtEl1}
\frac{d}{dt} E^\l (t) & = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \l \, \P D^k \l \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k \l \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
\label{dtEl2}
& - 2 \sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} \Re \int i\partial_t (D^k \l)^h \partial_\a (D^k \l)^r
+ i\partial_t (D^k \l)^r \partial_\a \bar{(D^k \l)^h}
+ i \partial_t (D^k \l)^r \partial_\a \bar{(D^k \l)^r} \, d\a
\\
\label{dtEl3}
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \l \, \P S_k \l \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k \l \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\ \label{dtEl4}
& - 2 \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \Re \int i\partial_t (S_k \l)^h \partial_\a (S_k \l)^r
+ i\partial_t (S_k \l)^r \partial_\a \bar{(S_k \l)^h}
+ i \partial_t (S_k \l)^r \partial_\a \bar{(S_k \l)^r} \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\| A-1 \|}_{L^\infty} \leq \frac{1}{2}$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{dtEl1} + \eqref{dtEl3} & \lesssim
\sqrt{E^\l} (t) \sum_{k=0}^{N_0-2} \left( {\| D^k G^{\l} \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P,D^k] \l \|}_{L^2} \right)
\\
& + \sqrt{E^\l} (t) \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \left( {\| S_k G^{\l} \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P,S_k] \l \|}_{L^2} \right)
\\
& + E^\l (t) { \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$ As before, the terms in and are remainder terms: there is no logarithmic loss in estimating them already in [@WuAG], so we can disregad them. Moreover ${ \| a_t/a \circ k^{-1} \| }_{L^\infty}$ has been already estimated in section \[secevolchi4\], see . Also, the terms ${\| [\P,D^k] \l \|}_{L^2}$ and ${\| [\P,S_k] \l \|}_{L^2}$ can be treated exactly as done in sections \[secevolchi2\] and \[secevolchi3\]. Therefore, to control the time evolution of $E^\l$ by the right-hand side of it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estG^l}
{\| G^\l \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim %{\left(
{\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 %+ {\| \H L(t) \|}_{W^{\frac{N}{2}+3,\infty}} \right)}
{\| \wt{L} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This is done in the following sections by estimating each of the terms in -.
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
G_1^\l = - \frac{2}{\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } w(\b) \bar{\z}_\b (\b) \, d\b \end{aligned}$$ and therefore it is an operator of the form $\bC(u,\Im \z, w \z_\a)$ which can be estimated by means of Proposition \[proCCmain\].
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
The term $G_2^\l$ is more delicate. In order to estimate it we need to exploit its special structure, which allows the appearence of the Hilbert transform acting on products only when the arguments are perfect derivative of functions that we can control. Let us start by explicitely rewriting $G_2^\l$ as $$\begin{aligned}
G_2^\l & = u \bar{\H} \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) - \bar{\H} \left(u \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right)
+ u^2 \H \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} - u \H \left( u \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then apply $D^k$ for $k=1,\dots,N_0$, and $S_k$, for $k=0,\dots,N_0/2$, to the above expression and use the commutation identities to distribute them. This procedure will give many terms, most of which can be estimated directly using the $L^2$-bounds given by Proposition \[proCCmain\]. There will only two types of dangerous terms:
1\. Terms for which $D^{N_0}$ or $S_{N_0/2}$ fall on $u_\a$;
2\. Terms that require the estimate in $L^\infty$ of an Hilbert transform of a product, such as $\H \frac{1}{\z_\a} u \bar{u}_\a$.
More precisely, denoting by $\G^{N_0}$ either $D^{N_0}$ or $S_{N_0/2}$, all the dangerous terms are: $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 & = \G^{N_0} u \bar{\H} \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right)
\,\, , \,\,
A_2 = u \bar{\H} \left( \bar{u} \frac{\G^{N_0} u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right)
\,\, , \,\,
A_3 = - \bar{\H} \left( u \bar{u} \frac{\G^{N_0} u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right)
\\
A_4 & = 2 u \G^{N_0} u \bar{\H} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a}
\,\, ,\,\,
A_5 = u^2 \H \frac{\G^{N_0} \bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a}
\,\, , \,\,
A_6 = - \G^{N_0} u \H \left( u \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right)
\,\, , \,\,
A_7 = - u \H \left( u \frac{\G^{N_0} \bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, using Propositions \[proCCmain\] and \[theoCCL\^2\], one can verify that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\| \G^{N_0} \left( u \bar{\H} \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) \right) - (A_1 + A_2) \right\|}_{L^2}
+ {\left\| - \G^{N_0} \bar{\H} \left(u \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) - A_3 \right\|}_{L^2}
\\
& + {\left\| \G^{N_0} \left( u^2 \H \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right) - (A_4 + A_5) \right\|}_{L^2}
+ {\left\| - \G^{N_0} \left( u \H \left( u \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right) \right) - (A_6 + A_7) \right\|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {\| u \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\Big\| \G^{N_0} G_2^\l \Big\|} \lesssim {\Big\| \sum_{j=1}^7 A_j \Big\|} + {\| u \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the terms $A_j$ we need to combine them appropriately. More precisely we look at the combinations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{El21}
A_2 + A_3 & = -\frac{1}{i\pi} \int \frac{(u(\a) - u(\b)) \bar{u}(\b)}{ \bar{\z}(\a)-\bar{\z}(\b) } \G^{N_0} u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{El22}
A_5 + A_7 & = \frac{1}{i\pi} u(\a) \int \frac{u(\a) - u(\b)}{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \G^{N_0} \bar{u}_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{El23}
A_1 + A_6 & = \G^{N_0} u \left(\bar{\H} \left( \bar{u} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right)
- \H \left( u \frac{\bar{u}_\a }{\z_\a} \right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ The remaining term $A_4$ can be directly bounded using Lemma \[lemHinfty\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| A_4 \right\|}_{L^2} \lesssim {\left\| u \G^{N_0} u \bar{\H} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right\|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\| u \|}_{L^\infty} {\| \G^{N_0} u \|}_{L^2} {\left\| \bar{\H} \frac{u_\a }{\bar{\z}_\a} \right\|}_{L^\infty}
\lesssim {\| u \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The terms and can be estimated by means of (case $k=0$) in Proposition \[proCCmain\] since, upon commuting $\G^{N_0}$ and $\partial_\a$, they are linear combinations of terms of the form $$\begin{aligned}
Q_0 (u, \partial_\a \bar{u}\G^{N_0} u) \quad , \quad Q_0 \left(u, \partial_\a(\bar{u}\G^{N_0}u) \right) \quad , \quad Q_0 (u,\bar{u} \G^{N_0} u)
\quad \mbox{or} \quad u Q_0 (u, \partial_\a \G^{N_0} u) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that there are no singular integrals that need to be estimated in $L^\infty$ here.
To bound we rewrite it as: $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
\eqref{El23} & = \G^{N_0} u\left( \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} (\bar{u} u_\a) + \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} ( \bar{u} u_\a ) \right)
- \G^{N_0} u\left( \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} (\bar{u} u_\a) + \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} ( u \bar{u}_\a ) \right)
\\
\label{El31}
& = \G^{N_0} u \left( \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} + \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \right) ( \bar{u} u_\a )
- \G^{N_0} u \, \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \partial_\a ( \bar{u} u ) =: B_1 + B_2\end{aligned}$$ The first term $B_1$ in is quartic and can therefore be easily estimated. The second term $B_2$ can instead be bounded by means of Lemma \[lemHinfty\] using the fact that the argument of the Hilbert transform is a perfect derivative: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| B_2 \|} & \lesssim {\| \G^{N_0} u \|}_{L^2} {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \partial_\a ( \bar{u} u ) \right\|}_{L^\infty}
\lesssim {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| u^2 \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
The term $G_3^\l$ can be treated similarly to $G_2^\l$. Using the same notation as above, and indicating with “$+ \cdots$” harmless terms that can be controlled directly by means of Propositions \[proCCmain\] or \[theoCCL\^2\], we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{El41}
& \G^{N_0} G_3^\l = - 2 \G^{N_0} \left( [u,\H] \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a} \right) =
- 2 \G^{N_0} u \H \frac{u \, u_\a}{\z_\a} - 2 [u,\H] \frac{u \, \G^{N_0} u_\a}{\z_\a} + \cdots \, .\end{aligned}$$ The first summand in is like $B_2$ above. The second summand in is of the same form as above, and therefore can be estimated similarly.
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
The term $G_4^\l$ is of the type $\bC(\wt{L},\wt{L},\wt{L})$ and can therefore be treated directly using in Proposition \[proCCmain\]. This concludes the proof of , hence of for $f = \l$.
### Evolution of $E^v$ {#secevolv}
The energy associated with $v$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E^{v} (t) & = %\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} E_k^{v}(t) =
\sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k v_1 \right|}^2 + i \partial_\alpha D^k v_1 D^k \overline{v_1} \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int \frac{1}{A} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k v_1 \right|}^2
+ i \partial_\alpha \left( S_k v_1 \right) \left( S_k \overline{v_1} \right) \, d\a \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here $v_1 = (I-\H) v$ and from , , we have ${(\partial_t + b \partial_\a)}^2 v_1 + i A \partial_\alpha v_1 = \sum_{j=1}^5 G^{v_1}_j$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cubicv1}
G^{v_1}_1 & = (I-\H) \P v = (I-\H) \sum_{j=1}^8 G^{v}_j
\\
\label{cubicv2}
G^{v_1}_2 & = - 2 [u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \P \chi
\\
\label{cubicv3}
G^{v_1}_3 & = - 2[u,\H] \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \left( w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right)
\\
\label{cubicv4}
G^{v_1}_4 & = -i [(\H + \bar{\H})u, \H] {\left( \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \right)}^2 \chi
\\
\label{cubicv5}
G^{v_1}_5 & = \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 v_\b (\b) \, d\b \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pv1}
G^v_1 & % = - 2 \left[ w, \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{ \bar{\z}_\a} \right] u_\a
= - \frac{4}{\pi} \int \frac{ (w(\a) - w(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv2}
G^v_2 & % = - 2 \left[ u, \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{ \bar{\z}_\a} \right] w_\a
= - \frac{4}{\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (\Im\z(\a) - \Im\z(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } w_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv3}
G^v_3 & = \frac{2}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 u_\b (\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv4}
G^v_4 & = - \frac{2}{i\pi} \int \frac{ {|u(\a) - u(\b)|}^2 }{ {(\bar{\z}(\a)- \bar{\z}(\b))}^2 } u_\b (\b) \, d\b\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pv5}
G^v_5 & = \frac{2}{i\pi} \int \frac{ (u(\a) - u(\b)) (w(\a) - w(\b)) }{ {|\z(\a)-\z(\b)|}^2 } (\z_\b - \bar{\z}_\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv6}
G^v_6 & = \frac{1}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^2 (u_\b - \bar{u}_\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv7}
G^v_7 & = - \frac{2}{i\pi} \int { \left( \frac{ u(\a) - u(\b) }{ \z(\a)-\z(\b) } \right) }^3 (\z_\b - \bar{\z}_\b) \, d\b
\\
\label{Pv8}
G^v_8 & = i \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} A \partial_\a \chi \, .\end{aligned}$$
Using we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} E^v (t) & = \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k v_1 \, \P D^k v_1 \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) D^k v_1 \right|}^2 \, d\a
\\
& + \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \int \frac{2}{A} \Re \left( (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k v_1 \, \P S_k v_1 \right)
- \frac{1}{A} \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} {\left| (\partial_t + b \partial_\a) S_k v_1 \right|}^2 \, d\a \end{aligned}$$ Since ${\| A-1 \|}_{L^\infty} \leq \frac{1}{2}$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
%\eqref{dtEv} + \eqref{dtEv3}
\frac{d}{dt} E^v (t) & \lesssim
\sqrt{E^{v_1}} (t) \sum_{k=0}^{N_0} \left( {\| D^k G^{v_1} \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P,D^k] v_1 \|}_{L^2} \right)
\\
& + \sqrt{E^{v_1}} (t) \sum_{k=1}^{N_0/2} \left( {\| S_k G^{v_1} \|}_{L^2} + {\| [\P,S_k] v_1 \|}_{L^2} \right)
+ E^{v_1} (t) { \left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\| }_{L^\infty} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since ${ \| a_t/a \circ k^{-1} \| }_{L^\infty}$ has been already estimated in , and ${\| [\P,D^k] v_1 \|}_{L^2}$ and ${\| [\P,S] {v_1} \|}_{L^2}$ can be bounded as in sections \[secevolchi2\] and \[secevolchi3\], we only need to suitably control ${\| G^{v_1} \|}_{X_{N_0}}$ by showing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estG^v}
{\| G^{v_1} \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\left( {\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^-(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \right)}^2
{\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This bound is proven below by separately estimating each of the terms -.
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
From we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| G^{v_1}_1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim \sum_{j=1}^8 {\| G^v_j \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\sum_{j=1}^8 {\| G^v_j \|}_{H^{{N_0/2}+1}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the second summand above is easier to estimate (it is a quartic expression) we just show how to control the $X_{N_0}$-norm of the terms $G^v_j$ in -. With the exception of , these are all terms of the form $\bC(L,L,L_\a)$ for which applies directly. To estimate we first notice that we can essentially replace $A$ with $1$ in view of , and deduce $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \, \partial_\a \chi \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim
{\left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2},\infty}}
+ {\left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2},\infty}} {\| \partial_\a \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using - to bound the norms of $a_t/a \circ k^{-1}$, and - to control the norms of $\partial_\a \chi$ we see $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \frac{a_t}{a} \circ k^{-1} \, A \partial_\a \chi \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim
{\| L(t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 {\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}}\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
Since $P \chi$ is a cubic term, is a quartic term. Moreover it is of the form $Q_0(u, \partial_\a \P \chi)$. Thus we can use to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \eqref{cubicv2} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim
{\| u \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| \P \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \P \chi \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& \lesssim \e_1 {\| \P \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}} + {\| \P \chi \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ One can then use bounds obtained previously on ${\| \P \chi \|}_{X_{N_0}}$ and the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \P \chi \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}} \lesssim \e_1 {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2},\infty}}^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is easy to derive, to deduce the desired bound for .
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
This term is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{cubicv3} = Q_0 \left(u, \partial_\a \left( w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right) \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying , followed by product estimates, -, and the use of , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \eqref{cubicv3} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim
{\| u \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}} {\left\| w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\left\| w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+2,\infty}} {\| u \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& + {\left\| u \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\left\| w \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}}
{\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\lesssim {\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| L \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
This contribution can also be written in terms of the operator $Q_0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{cubicv4} = Q_0 \left( (\H + \bar{\H}) u, \partial_\a \left( \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right) \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We can then use again to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \eqref{cubicv4} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim
{\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\left\| \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{X_{N_0}}
+ {\left\| \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \|}_{X_{N_0}}
\\
& + {\left\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\left\| \frac{\partial_\a}{\z_\a} \chi \right\|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}}
{\| \z_\a-1 \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| L \|}^2_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}
\\
& {\| (\H + \bar{\H}) u \|}_{X_{N_0}} \lesssim {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+1,\infty}} {\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using these bounds we eventually see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \eqref{cubicv4} \right\|}_{X_{N_0}} & \lesssim {\| L \|}_{X_{N_0}} {\| L \|}_{W^{\frac{N_0}{2}+3,\infty}}^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### *[Estimate of ]{}*
This term is of the form $\bC(L,L,L_\a)$ and therefore can be applied directly.
Proof of Proposition \[proenergy3\]: Control in terms of the $Z^\p$ norm {#secproenergy3}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall the definitions $$\label{vectorL2}
\wt{L} := (\z_\a - 1, u, w) \quad , \quad
L := (\z_\a - 1, u, w, \Im\z, \partial_\a \chi, v)$$ and $$\label{vectorL-2}
L^- := (\z_\a - 1, u, w, \partial_\a \chi, v) \, .$$ We want to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proenergy31}
{\| L (t) \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proenergy32}
{\left\| \H L^- (t) \right\|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} %\H \frac{1}{\z_\a} ...\end{aligned}$$ where the $Z^\p$ norm is defined in . These estimates rely on the following Lemmas.
\[lemenergy31\] Assume holds. Then there exists constants $c_i,d_i$, for $i=1,\dots,5$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appL-}
L_i^-(t,\a) - c_i \partial_\a \chi (t,\a) - d_i \partial_\a \l (t,\a) = Q (t,\a)\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ denotes a quadratic expression in $\wt{L}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Qlemenergy31}
{\| Q(t) \|}_{H^{k}} \lesssim {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{H^{k+1}} {\| \wt{L}(t) \|}_{W^{\frac{k}{2}+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
\[lemenergy32\] Assume that the a priori estimates and - hold, and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemenergy32hyp}
\sup_{[0,T]} {(1+t)}^\frac{1}{8} {\| \phi(t) \|}_{L^\infty} \leq \e_1 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as guranteed by . Then for any $0 \leq k \leq N_1$ and any $t \in [0,T]$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1lemenergy3}
{\| \partial_\a \chi (t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}
\\
\label{est2lemenergy3}
{\| \partial_\a \l (t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est3lemenergy3}
{\| \H \partial_\a \chi (t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p}
\\
\label{est4lemenergy3}
{\| \H \partial_\a \l (t) \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| (h(t),\phi(t)) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\| L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \H L^- \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ clearly follows by combining the above Lemmas. To obtain we need to use in addition the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\Im \z (t,\a)= h(t ,\Re \z(t,\a))\end{aligned}$$ to estimate $\Im \z$ in $W^{N_1,\infty}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\| \Im \z \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| \Re \z_\a \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \left( 1 + {\| \Re \z_\a - 1\|}_{H^{N_1+1}} \right)
\lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
### Proof of Lemma \[lemenergy31\]
To prove Lemma \[lemenergy31\] we use the identities (2.44), (2.50), (3.38) and (2.35) derived by Wu [@WuAG], which relate the components of $L^-$, $\z_\a-1,u,w$ and $v$, to $\partial_\a \chi$ and $\partial_\a \l$. These are given resepctively by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{id10}
\bar{u} & = \partial_\a \bar{\l} + \bar{u} (1 - \z_\a) + \frac{1}{2} (\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a) \bar{u}
+ \frac{1}{2} \bar{\z}_\a \left( \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) (\bar{u} \z_\a)
\\
\nn
\bar{w} \z_\a & = -\frac{i}{2} \partial_\a \bar{\chi} + \frac{1}{2} \bar{\H} \left( \bar{u}_\a \frac{\bar{u}\z_\a}{\bar{\z_\a}} \right)
- \frac{1}{2} [\bar{u}, \bar{\H}] \frac{\partial_\a ( \bar{u}\z_\a )}{\bar{\z_\a}}
-\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int \frac{ (\bar{u}(\a) - \bar{u}(\b) ) (\z_\a - \z_\b) } { { (\bar{\z}(\a) - \bar{\z}(\b) )}^2} \bar{u} \z_\b \, d\b
\\
\nn
& + \frac{1}{2} (\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a) \bar{w} - \frac{1}{2} u_\a \bar{u}
+ \frac{1}{2} \bar{\z}_\a \left( \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} + \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) (\bar{w} \z_\a + \bar{u} u_\a)
\\
& -\frac{\bar{\z}_\a}{\pi} \int \Im {\left( \frac{u(\a) - u(\b)} { \bar{\z}(\a) - \bar{\z}(\b) } \right)}^2 \bar{u} \z_\b \, d\b
\label{id20}
\\
\label{id30}
\z_\a - 1 & = \frac{w}{i A} - \frac{A-1}{A}
\\
\label{id40}
v & = 2u - (\H + \bar{\H}) u - [u,\H] \frac{\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a}{\z_\a} \, .
%\\
%\label{id50}
%& (I-\H) \Im \z = - (\partial_t + b \partial_\a ) \l -\frac{1}{2} [u,\H] \frac{\bar{\z}_\a u}{\z_\a}
%\\
%\label{id3}
%& \Im \z_\a = i \Im {\partial_\a \chi} + \frac{1}{2} \left( \z_\a \H \frac{1}{\z_\a}
% + \bar{\z}_\a \bar{\H} \frac{1}{\bar{\z}_\a} \right) (\z_\a - \bar{\z}_\a ) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From we can schematically write $$\begin{aligned}
u - \partial_\a \l = \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L} + \bQ( \wt{L}, \wt{L} )\end{aligned}$$ up to cubic and higher order terms whose arguments have the same regularity of $\wt{L}$. Commuting derivatives via and using , it is then easy to verify that $u - \partial_\a \l = Q$, where $Q$ is a quadratic term satisfying the estimate in the statement. Similarly, from we deduce that up to cubic terms $$\begin{aligned}
w - \frac{i}{2} \partial_\a \chi = \H( \wt{L} \cdot \wt{L}_\a ) + Q_0 (\wt{L}, \wt{L}_\a ) + \bQ (\wt{L}, \wt{L}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Arguing as above using the bounds , and , it follows that $w - \frac{i}{2} \partial_\a \chi = Q$, for some $Q$ satisfying . Using , the last equality above, and the quadratic bounds on $A-1$ given by , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\z_\a - 1 & = \frac{w}{i A} - \frac{A-1}{A} = - i w + i w \frac{A-1}{A} - \frac{A-1}{A} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_\a \chi + Q \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that is verified also for the component $\z_\a - 1$. Combining with the identity $u - \partial_\a \l = Q$, and the quadratic bounds on $\H + \bar{\H}$ given in , we see that $v - 2 \partial_\a \l = Q$, for $Q$ as above. Thus we have checked that holds true for all $i=1,\dots,5$. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Lemma \[lemenergy32\] {#seclemenergy32}
Let $\H = \H_\z$ and let $H_0$ be the flat Hilbert transform. We start by establishing the following estimate: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est0lemenergy32}
{\left\| (I-\H) (f \circ \Re \z) - \left[ (I-H_0) f(1+h^\p) \right] \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} {\| h \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_1 + 4$. Notice that since $\Im \z(t,\a) = h (t, \Re \z (t,\a))$ we have $\z = ( x + i h(x) ) \circ \Re \z$. Thus by a change of variables one has $$\begin{aligned}
(I-\H) (f \circ \Re \z) = (I-\H_{x+ih(x)}) f \circ \Re \z \, .\end{aligned}$$ Expanding out the denominator in the expression for $\H_{x+ih(x)} f$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& (I-\H_{x+ih(t,x)}) f = (I-H_0) \left[ f(t,\cdot) (1+ h^\p(t,\cdot)) \right] (x) + R_f (t,x) \,
\\
\label{R_f}
& \mbox{with} \qquad
R_f (t,x) := \frac{1}{i\pi} \int H\left( \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{x-y} \right) \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } f (y)(1+ h^\p(y)) \, dy\end{aligned}$$ for some smooth function $H$. To prove it then suffices to show that $R_f$ in $W^{k,\infty}$ is bounded by the right-hand side of . Applying the commutation identity in order to distribute derivatives, and the $L^\infty$ estimate , it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\| R_f \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} & \lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} {\| f(1+h^\p) \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| f \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} {\| h \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
We will now show the estimates and . The estimates and can be proven in a similar fashion, so we will not detail the proof here.
#### *[Proof of ]{}* {#proof-of-17}
Recall the definition of $\l$ $$\begin{aligned}
% \l(t,\a) = (I - \H)( \psi(t,\cdot) ) (\a) = (I - \H) \left( \phi(t, \Re \z(t,\cdot)) \right) (\a)\, .
\l = (I - \H)\psi = (I - \H) ( \phi \circ \Re \z) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Applying with $f = \phi$, and using the assumption , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est01lemenergy32}
{\left\| \partial_\a \l - \partial_\a \left[ (I-H_0) \phi (1+h^\p) \circ \Re \z \right] \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| \phi \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} {\| h \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_1 + 2$. Moreover, using ${\| \partial_x H_0 f \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim {\| \Lambda f \|}_{W^{1,\infty}}$, standard product estimates, and the hypothesis , one can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est02lemenergy32}
\begin{split}
& {\left\| \partial_\a \left[ (I-H_0) \phi(1+h^\p) \right] \circ \Re \z \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\lesssim {\left\| \partial_x \left[ (I-H_0) \phi(1+h^\p) \right] \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\| \partial_x (I-H_0) \phi \|}_{W^{k+1,\infty}} + {\| \phi h^\p \|}_{W^{k+2,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This and give us for all $0 \leq k \leq N_1 + 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est03lemenergy32}
{\left\| \partial_\a \l \right\|}_{W^{k,\infty}}
& \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which in particular implies .
#### *[Proof of ]{}* {#proof-of-18}
Let us write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Flemenergy32}
\l = F \circ \Re \z
\qquad & \mbox{with} \qquad
F(t,x) = \left( I - \H_{x+ih(t,x)} \right) \phi(t,\cdot) \, . %\frac{1}{1+ih^\p(x)}\end{aligned}$$ Then $\partial_\a \l = \partial_x F \circ \Re \z \, \partial_\a \Re \z$, and since we know that $\z_\a -1$ has uniformly bounded $H^{N_1+5}$ norm, using also , we can easily deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est10lemenergy32}
{\| \partial_x F\|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{W^{k,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq k \leq N_1 + 2$. Using the definition of $\H$, and making a change of variables, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \partial_\a \l(t,\a)
& = \frac{1}{i\pi} \int \frac{\partial_x F(t, \Re \z(t,\b))}{\z(\a)-\z(\b)} \partial_\b \Re \z(t,\b) \, d\b
\\
& = \frac{1}{i\pi} \left. \int \frac{\partial_y F(t,y)}{ x + ih(x) -(y + ih(y)) } \, dy \right|_{x = \Re \z(t,\a)} \, .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| \H \partial_\a \l(t,\a) \right\|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}
& \lesssim {\left\| \H \frac{1}{\z_\a} \partial_\a \l(t,\a) \right\|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} + {\| \partial_\a \l \|}_{W^{N_1+1,\infty}}
\\
& \lesssim {\left\| \int \frac{\partial_y F(t,y)}{ x + ih(x) -(y + ih(y)) } \, dy \right\|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} +
{\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p}\, . % {\| \partial_x F \|}_{W^{N_1+1,\infty}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Glemenergy32}
G(t,x) = \int \frac{\partial_y F(t,y)}{ x + ih(x) -(y + ih(y)) } \, dy \, ,\end{aligned}$$ we see that in order to obtain it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est30lemenergy32}
{\| G \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the denominator in , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& G(t,x) = (I - H_0) \partial_x F (t,\cdot) (x) + G_1 (t,x) \,
\\
\label{Gexp}
& \mbox{with} \qquad
G_1(t,x) := \frac{1}{i\pi} \int H\left( \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{x-y} \right) \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } \partial_y F (t,y) \, dy\end{aligned}$$ for some smooth function $H$. Expanding the denominator in the expression for $F$ we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& F(t,x) = (I - H_0) [(1+h^\p(t,\cdot))\phi(t,\cdot)] (x) + R_\phi (t,x) \,
%\\
%\label{Fexp}
%& \mbox{with} \qquad
%F_1(t,x) := \frac{1}{i\pi} \int H_1 \left( \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{x-y} \right) \frac{h(x) - h(y)}{ {(x-y)}^2 } (1+h^\p(y)) \phi(t,y) \, dy\end{aligned}$$ where $R_\phi$ is given by . It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
G & = (I - H_0) \partial_x (I-H_0) [\phi (1+h^\p)] + (I - H_0) \partial_x R_\phi + G_1 \, \end{aligned}$$ To obtain is then enough to have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est31lemenergy32}
& {\| H_0 \partial_x [ \phi (1+h^\p) ] \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, ,
\\
\label{est32lemenergy32}
& {\| (I-H_0) \partial_x R_\phi \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, ,
\\
\label{est33lemenergy32}
& {\| G_1 \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The bound has been already shown to hold true in the above paragraph, see . We also have $$\begin{aligned}
{\| R_\phi \|}_{W^{N_1+2,\infty}} \lesssim {\| \phi \|}_{W^{N_1+3,\infty}} {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1+4,\infty}} \lesssim {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ which is stronger than . Using again commutation identities and , together with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\| G_1 \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} \lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1+2,\infty}} {\| \partial_x F \|}_{W^{N_1+1,\infty}}
\lesssim {\| h \|}_{W^{N_1+2}} {\| (h,\phi) \|}_{Z^\p}\end{aligned}$$ which is enough for . $\hfill \Box$
The symbols $c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}$ {#secsym}
=======================================
In this section we calculate explicitly the symbols $c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}$ defined in and prove the bounds and .
With $V^+(t)=V(t)$ and $V^-(t)=\overline{V}(t)$, recall that $$H(t)=\frac{V^+(t)+V^-(t)}{2},\qquad \Psi(t)=\frac{i[\Lambda^{-1}V^-(t)-\Lambda^{-1}V^+(t)]}{2}.$$ Starting from the formula , $$M_3(H,H,\Psi)=- (1/2) \La \left[ H^2 \La^2 \Psi + \La (H^2 \La \Psi)
- 2 H \La (H \La \Psi ) \right],$$ we calculate easily $$\mathcal{F}[M_3(H,H,\Psi)](\xi)=\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\sum_{(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}c_1^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{V^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where the sum is taken over $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{sy1}
\begin{split}
c^{++-}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=\frac{2|\xi||\eta-\sigma|^{3/2}-|\xi||\sigma|^{3/2}+2|\xi|^2|\eta-\sigma|^{1/2}-|\xi|^2|\sigma|^{1/2}}{16}\\
&+\frac{-|\xi||\xi-\sigma||\eta-\sigma|^{1/2}-|\xi||\eta||\eta-\sigma|^{1/2}+|\xi||\eta||\sigma|^{1/2}}{8},\\
c^{+++}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=\frac{|\xi||\sigma|^{3/2}+|\xi|^2|\sigma|^{1/2}-2|\xi||\eta||\sigma|^{1/2}}{16},\\
c^{--+}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=-c^{++-}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma),\\
c^{---}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=-c^{+++}_1(\xi,\eta,\sigma).
\end{split}$$
Using now the formula , $$Q_3(\Psi,H,\Psi)=|\partial_x|\Psi\big[H|\partial_x|^2\Psi-|\partial_x|(H|\partial_x|\Psi)\big]$$ we calculate easily $$\mathcal{F}[i\Lambda Q_3(\Psi,H,\Psi)](\xi)=\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\sum_{(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}c_2^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{V^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where the sum is taken over $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{sy2}
\begin{split}
c^{++-}_2&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{3/2}|\sigma|^{1/2}+|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\sigma|^{3/2}-|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\eta-\sigma|^{3/2}}{8}\\
&+\frac{-|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\sigma||\eta-\sigma|^{1/2}|\sigma|^{1/2}-|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\eta||\sigma|^{1/2}+|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\eta||\eta-\sigma|^{1/2}}{8},\\
c^{+++}_2&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{-|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\eta-\sigma|^{3/2}+|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi-\eta|^{1/2}|\eta||\sigma|^{1/2}}{8},\\
c^{--+}_2&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=c^{++-}_2(\xi,\eta,\sigma),\\
c^{---}_2&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=c^{+++}_2(\xi,\eta,\sigma).
\end{split}$$
Let $$\label{sy3}
\widetilde{q}_2(\xi,\eta)=\Lambda^{-1}(\xi-\eta)\Lambda^{-1}(\eta)q_2(\xi,\eta),\qquad \widetilde{m}_2(\xi,\eta)=\Lambda^{-1}(\eta)m_2(\xi,\eta).$$ Using the fact that $A,Q_2$ are symmetric we calculate $$\mathcal{F}[2A(M_2(H,\Psi),H)](\xi)=\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\sum_{(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}c_3^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{V^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where the sum is taken over $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{sy5}
\begin{split}
c^{++-}_3&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{a(\xi,\eta)\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\sigma)-a(\xi,\eta)\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\eta-\sigma)-a(\xi,\xi-\sigma)\widetilde{m}_2(\xi-\sigma,\xi-\eta)}{4},\\
c^{+++}_3&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{-a(\xi,\eta)\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\sigma)}{4},\\
c^{--+}_3&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=-c^{++-}_3(\xi,\eta,\sigma),\\
c^{---}_3&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=-c^{+++}_3(\xi,\eta,\sigma).
\end{split}$$
Similarly we calculate $$\mathcal{F}[i\Lambda B(M_2(H,\Psi),\Psi)](\xi)=\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\sum_{(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}c_4^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{V^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where the sum is taken over $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{sy6}
\begin{split}
c^{++-}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\xi-\eta)|\xi-\eta|^{-1/2}\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\sigma)-|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\xi-\eta)|\xi-\eta|^{-1/2}\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\eta-\sigma)}{8}\\
&+\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\sigma)|\sigma|^{-1/2}\widetilde{m}_2(\xi-\sigma,\xi-\eta)}{8},\\
c^{+++}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=\frac{-|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\xi-\eta)|\xi-\eta|^{-1/2}\widetilde{m}_2(\eta,\sigma)}{8},\\
c^{--+}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=c^{++-}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma),\\
c^{---}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma)&=c^{+++}_4(\xi,\eta,\sigma).
\end{split}$$
Finally we calculate $$\mathcal{F}[i\Lambda B(H,Q_2(\Psi,\Psi))](\xi)=\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\sum_{(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}c_5^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\widehat{V^{\iota_1}}(\xi-\eta,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_2}}(\eta-\sigma,t)\widehat{V^{\iota_3}}(\sigma,t)\,d\eta d\sigma,$$ where the sum is taken over $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$, and $$\label{sy7}
\begin{split}
c^{++-}_5&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{2|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\eta)\widetilde{q}_2(\eta,\sigma)-|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\xi-\sigma)\widetilde{q}_2(\xi-\sigma,\xi-\eta)}{8},\\
c^{+++}_5&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=\frac{-|\xi|^{1/2}b(\xi,\eta)\widetilde{q}_2(\eta,\sigma)}{8},\\
c^{--+}_5&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=c^{++-}_5(\xi,\eta,\sigma),\\
c^{---}_5&(\xi,\eta,\sigma)=c^{+++}_5(\xi,\eta,\sigma).
\end{split}$$
The following lemma gives the desired bounds and .
\[cprop\] The symbols $c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}$ satisfy the uniform bounds $$\label{sy10}
\big\|\mathcal{F}^{-1}[c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}(\xi,\eta,\sigma)\cdot\varphi_l(\xi)\varphi_{k_1}(\xi-\eta)\varphi_{k_2}(\eta-\sigma)\varphi_{k_3}(\sigma)]\big\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)}\lesssim 2^{l/2}2^{2\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)},$$ for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$ and $l,k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}$. Moreover, for any $\mathbf{k}=(k_1,k_2,k_3),\mathbf{l}=(l_1,l_2,l_3)\in\mathbb{Z}^3$ let $$\begin{split}
&c^\ast_\xi(x,y)=c^{++-}(\xi,-x,-\xi-x-y),\\
&(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}(x,y)=(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)(x,y)\cdot \varphi_{k_1}(\xi+x)\varphi_{k_2}(\xi+y)\varphi_{k_3}(\xi+x+y)\varphi_{l_1}(x)\varphi_{l_2}(y)\varphi_{l_3}(2\xi+x+y),\\
&(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}(x,y)=(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)(x,y)\cdot \varphi_{k_1}(\xi+x)\varphi_{k_2}(\xi+y)\varphi_{k_3}(\xi+x+y)\varphi_{l_1}(x)\varphi_{l_2}(y)\varphi_{l_3}(2\xi+x+y).
\end{split}$$ Then, for any $\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^3$, and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$ $$\label{sy11}
\begin{split}
&\|(\partial_xc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^{-\min(k_1,k_3)}2^{5\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2},\\
&\|(\partial_yc^\ast_\xi)_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{l}}\|_{\mathcal{S}^\infty}\lesssim 2^{-\min(k_2,k_3)}2^{5\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)/2}.
\end{split}$$
Clearly, for any $(\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3)\in\{(++-),(--+),(+++),(---)\}$ $$c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}=\sum_{l=1}^5c^{\iota_1\iota_2\iota_3}_l.$$ The bound follows from the explicit formulas –, the symbol bounds in Lemma \[description\], and the algebra properties in Lemma \[touse\] (ii).
Let $\iota:\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}\to\{-1,1\}$, $\iota(x):=x/|x|$. Recalling the formulas in Lemma \[proE1+\] and using – we calculate $$c^\ast_\xi(x,y)=c^\ast_{\xi,1}(x,y)+c^\ast_{\xi,2}(x,y)+c^\ast_{\xi,3}(x,y)+c^\ast_{\xi,4}(x,y)+c^\ast_{\xi,5}(x,y),$$ where $$\begin{split}
c^\ast_{\xi,1}(x,y)&=\frac{|\xi||\xi+y|^{3/2}}{8}-\frac{|\xi||\xi+x+y|^{3/2}}{16}+\frac{|\xi|^2|\xi+y|^{1/2}}{8}-\frac{|\xi|^2|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}}{16}\\
&-\frac{|\xi||2\xi+x+y||\xi+y|^{1/2}}{8}-\frac{|\xi||x||\xi+y|^{1/2}}{8}+\frac{|\xi||x||\xi+x+y|^{1/2}}{8},
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
c^\ast_{\xi,2}(x,y)&=\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{3/2}|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}}{8}+\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|\xi+x+y|^{3/2}}{8}-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|\xi+y|^{3/2}}{8}\\
&-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|2\xi+x+y||\xi+y|^{1/2}|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}}{8}\\
&-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|x||\xi+x+y|^{1/2}}{8}+\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|x||\xi+y|^{1/2}}{8},
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
c^\ast_{\xi,3}(x,y)&=\frac{|\xi||\xi+x+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi+x)[|x|\iota(\xi+x+y)-x]}{8}+\frac{|\xi||\xi+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi+x)[|x|\iota(\xi+y)+x]}{8}\\
&-\frac{|\xi||\xi+x|^{1/2}\iota(\xi+x+y)[|2\xi+x+y|\iota(\xi+x)-(2\xi+x+y)]}{8},
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
c^\ast_{\xi,4}(x,y)&=\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi)[|x|\iota(\xi+x+y)-x]}{8}\\
&+\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|\xi+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi)[|x|\iota(\xi+y)+x]}{8}\\
&-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi)[|2\xi+x+y|\iota(\xi+x)-(2\xi+x+y)]}{8},
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
c^\ast_{\xi,5}(x,y)&=-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+y|^{1/2}|\xi+x+y|^{1/2}\iota(\xi)\iota(\xi+x)|x|[1-\iota(\xi+y)\iota(\xi+x+y)]}{8}\\
&-\frac{|\xi|^{1/2}|\xi+y|^{1/2}|\xi+x|^{1/2}\iota(\xi)\iota(\xi+x+y)|2\xi+x+y|[1+\iota(\xi+y)\iota(\xi+x)]}{16}.
\end{split}$$ The desired bounds are verified easily for every term in these formulas.
Using these formulas, we also calculate $$\label{c0}
c^\ast_{\xi}(0,0)=-|\xi|^{5/2}/2.$$
Estimate of remainder terms {#appR}
===========================
In the first section below we give estimates for the Dirichlet-Neumann operator $\N$ in $L^2$, weighted $L^2$, and $L^1$-based Sobolev spaces. We will the use these to establish several bounds for $R_1$ and $R_2$. We then proceed to estimate all quartic and higher order remainder terms, and in particular prove .
Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator: multilinear estimates {#secDN}
----------------------------------------------------
Here we recall that if $N$ denotes the outward normal vector of the interface $S_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN}
\N(h) \phi := N \cdot \nabla \Phi = N \cdot \nabla \phi_\H \qquad , \qquad G(h) \phi = \sqrt{1 + {|h^\p|}^2} \N(h) \phi \, .\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in particular in estimating quartic and higher order terms in the expansion of the Dirichlet-Neumann operator. The $L^2$ and weighted $L^2$ estimates are needed to obtain the improved weighted bounds on $V$ in Proposition \[proE3\]. The $L^1$ estimates are used to bound these higher order terms in the $Z$-norm.
The first Proposition below gives estimates in $L^2$-based spaces and its proven in \[prproDNL\^2\]:
\[proDNL\^2\] The Dirichlet-Neumann operator $G$ can be expanded in a series $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN0}
G(h) f = \sum_{n\geq 0} M_{n+1}(h,\dots, h, f) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{n+1}$ is an $n+1$-linear operator satisfying the following $L^2$ bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN1}
{\| M_{n+1} (h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \|}_{L^2} \leq C_0^n \min \left\{ \prod_{i=1}^n {\| h_i^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| f^\p \|}_{L^2},
\min_{j\in\{1,\dots,n\}} \prod_{i\neq j} {\| h_i^\p \|}_{L^\infty} {\| h_j^\p \|}_{L^2} {\| f^\p \|}_{L^\infty} \right\} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ for some absolute constant $C_0$. Moreover, $G$ is invariant under translation and scaling symmetries, and the following identities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN2}
\partial_x M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, f) & = \sum_{i=1}^n M_{n+1}(h_1, \dots, \partial_x h_i, \dots, h_n, f) + M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, \partial_x f)
\\
\label{DN3}
\begin{split}
S M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, f) & = \sum_{i=1}^n M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, S h_i, \dots, h_n, f) + M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, S f)
\\
& - \sum_{i=1}^n M_{n+1} ( h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ denotes the scaling vector field. As a consequence, for any integer $l \geq 0$ one has: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN4}
{\| M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, f) \|}_{H^l} & \lesssim
\sum_{i=1}^n {\| h_i^\p \|}_{H^l} \prod_{j \neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| f_x \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}
+ \prod_{i=1}^n {\| h_i \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| f_x \|}_{H^l} \, ,
\\
\nn
{\| S M_{n+1}(h_1,\dots, h_n, f) \|}_{H^l} & \lesssim \sum_{i,j = 1, i\neq j}^n {\| (S h_i)^\p \|}_{H^l} {\| h_j^\p \|}_{W^{l,\infty}}
\prod_{k\neq i,j} {\| h_k \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| f_x \|}_{W^{l,\infty}}
\\
\label{DN5}
& + \sum_{i=1}^n {\| h_i^\p \|}_{H^l} \prod_{j \neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}}
\left( {\| {(Sf)}^\p \|}_{H^l} + {\| f^\p \|}_{H^l} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the implicit constants are bounded by $C_0^n$ for some absolute constant $C_0$.
Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN10}
{[ G (h) \phi ]}_{\geq 4}(t) := \sum_{n\geq 3} M_{n+1}(h(t),\dots, h(t), \phi(t))\end{aligned}$$ to be the quartic and higher order terms (in $h$ and $\phi$) in the expansion of $G$. A corollary of this expansion and Proposition \[proDNL\^2\] is the following:
\[corDN1\] Under the a priori assumptions on $h$ and $\phi$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN11}
{\| {[ G (h) \phi ]}_{\geq 4}(t) \|}_{H^{N_0 - 2}} + {\| S {[ G (h) \phi ]}_{\geq 4} (t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2} - 2}}
& \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{3p_0 -3/2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $R_1$ and $R_2$ defined in - we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estRL^2}
{\| (R_1 + i\Lambda R_2) (t) \|}_{H^{N_0-5}} + {\| S (R_1 + i\Lambda R_2)(t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-5}}
& \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{3p_0 -3/2} \, .\end{aligned}$$
The next Proposition establishes $L^1$-type estimates:
\[proDNL\^1\] With the same notations of Proposition \[proDNL\^2\], and for any $n \geq 3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN13}
{\left\| {|\partial_x|}^\frac{\b}{4} M_{n+1} (h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \right\|}_{W^{1,l}}
\lesssim \sum_{i=1}^{n} {\| h_i\|}_{H^{l+3}} \prod_{j\neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{N_1,\infty}} {\| f_x \|}_{H^l} \, .\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, under the apriori assumption on $h$ and $\phi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN13.1}
{\left\| {|\partial_x|}^\frac{\b}{4} {[ G (h) \phi ]}_{\geq 4}(t) \right\|}_{W^{1,N_0-10}}
\lesssim {(1+t)}^{3p_0 - 1} \, .\end{aligned}$$
### Proof of Proposition \[proDNL\^2\] {#prproDNL^2}
This Proposition follows from some standard potential theory, arguments similar to those in [@GMSC sec. 7.2], and Theorem \[theoCMM\]. We sketch the proof below.
#### [*Expansion of the Dirichlet-Neuman operator*]{}
In order to find an explicit formula for the Dirichlet-Neumann operator we start with an ansatz for the harmonic extension of a function $f$ to the domain $\{ (x,z) \, : \, z \leq h(x) \}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
\Phi (x,z) = \int \frac{1}{2} \log \left( {|x-y|}^2 + {|z-h(y)|}^2 \right) \rho(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ By standard potential theory one has $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
\N(h) f(x) & = \lim_{z \rightarrow h(x)} \nabla \Phi (x,z) \cdot N(x)
\\
\label{N1}
& = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho(x) }{\sqrt{1+{|h^\p(x) |}^2}} + \int \frac{ h(x) - h(y) + h^\p(x) (y-x) }{ {|x-y|}^2 + {|h(x)-h(y)|}^2} \rho(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then aim at determining $\rho$ in terms of $h$ and $f$. Using and $f(x) = \Phi (x,h(x))$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) = \int \frac{1}{2} \log \left( {|x-y|}^2 + {|h(x)-h(y)|}^2 \right) \rho(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ If follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|\partial_x| f(x) & = iH_0 \int \frac{x-y + (h(x) - h(y))h^\p(x)}{{|x-y|}^2 + {|h(x)-h(y)|}^2} \rho(y) \, dy
\\
& = \rho(x) + \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} i H_0 \int \left( \frac{h(x)-h(y)}{x-y} \right)^{2n}
\frac{x-y + (h(x) - h(y))h^\p(x)}{{(x-y)}^2} \rho(y) \, dy
\\
& =: \rho(x) + \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} P_{n}(h) \rho (x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ One can then invert the above series expansion and write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exprho}
\rho = \sum_{k \geq 0} {\left[ \sum_{n=1}^\infty P_{n}(h) \right]}^k |\partial_x| f \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_n}
P_{n}(h)g(x) & := iH_0 \int \frac{ {\left( h(x) - h(y) \right)}^{2n} h^\p(x) }{ {(x-y)}^{2n+1} } g(y) \, dy
+ iH_0 h^\p(x) \int \frac{ {\left( h(x) - h(y) \right)}^{2n+1} }{ {(x-y)}^{2n+2} } g(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the second summand in one can write $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
\N(h) f(x) & = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho(x) }{\sqrt{1+{|h^\p(x) |}^2}} + \sum_{n=0}^\infty Q_{n}(h) \rho
\\
\label{expN}
Q_{n}(h) & := \int \left( \frac{ h(x) - h(y) }{x-y}\right)^{2n} \frac{h(x) - h(y) + h^\p(x) (y-x)}{{(x-y)}^2} \rho(y) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ Putting together , and we eventually obtain .
#### [*Symmetries and $L^2$-bounds*]{}
The basic $L^2$-type bounds follow directly from the expansion - and Theorem \[theoCMM\]. The formulas and follow from the space translation and scaling invariances of the basic operators $P_n$ and $Q_n$ in and . More precisely, for any $\d \in \R$ and $\l>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
& [G( h (\cdot+\d) ) f(\cdot+\d)] (x) = [G(h) f] (x+\d) \, ,
\\
& G \left( \frac{1}{\l} h (\l \cdot) \right) f(\l \cdot) (x) = \l [G(h) f] (\l x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ These identities hold true for each operator $M_n$ in the expansion , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DNt}
& M_n ( h_1 (\cdot+\d), \dots, h_n (\cdot+\d) , f(\cdot+\d) ) (x) = M_n ( h_1,\dots, h_n, f) (x+\d) \, ,
\\
\label{DNs}
& M_n \left( \frac{1}{\l} h_1 (\l \cdot), \dots, \frac{1}{\l} h_n (\l \cdot), f(\l \cdot) \right) (x) = M_n (h_1,\dots, h_n, f) (\l x) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and can be verified directly on the operators $P_n$ and $Q_n$ defined above. Differentiating with respect to the parameters in and , one sees that $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{DNt1}
\partial_x M_n ( h_1,\dots, h_n, f ) & = \sum_{i=1}^n M_n ( h_1, \dots, \partial_x h_i, \dots, h_n, f)
+ M_n (h_1, \dots, h_n, \partial_x f) \, ,
\\
%\label{DNs1}
x \partial_x M_n (h,\dots, h, f) (x) & = \sum_{i=1}^n M_n ( h_1, \dots, x \partial_x h_i, \dots, h_n, f)
+ M_n \left( h_1, \dots, h_n, x \partial_x f \right)
\\ & - \sum_{i=1}^n M_n ( h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The first identity is . If $h$ and $f$ depend on time, one can similarly derive from the last identity above. The estimates and follow by repeated applications of and and the $L^2$ estimate . $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Corollary \[corDN1\] {#prcorDN1}
The estimate is an immediate consequence of the bounds and . To prove it then suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estRL^2pr}
{\| \Lambda R_2 (t) \|}_{H^{N_0-5}} + {\| S \Lambda R_2(t) \|}_{H^{\frac{N_0}{2}-5}} & \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{3p_0 -3/2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $R_2$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expR_2}
\begin{split}
R_2 & = {\left[ {(|\partial_x|\phi + M_2(h,\phi) + M_3 (h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi)+ h_x\phi_x)}^2 \right]}_{\geq 4}
\\
& + {\left[ 2 {(1+{|h_x|}^2)}^{-1/2} \right] }_{\geq 2} {(|\partial_x| \phi + M_2(h,\phi) + M_3 (h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi)+ h_x\phi_x)}^2
\\
& = {(M_2(h,\phi) + M_3 (h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi)+ h_x\phi_x)}^2
+ 2 |\partial_x| \phi (M_3 (h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi))
\\
& + {\left[ 2 {(1+{|h_x|}^2)}^{-1/2} \right] }_{\geq 2} {\left(|\partial_x| \phi + M_2(h,\phi) + M_3 (h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi)+ h_x\phi_x\right)}^2 \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the desired bound it suffices to apply appropriately Hölder’s inequality in combination with the a priori estimates , the $L^2$ estimates for $M_2$, and for $M_3$, and the following $L^\infty$ estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\|P_k M_2(h,\phi)\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 (1+t)^{-1} 2^k 2^{-N_0 k_+/2 },
\\
& {\|P_k M_3(h,h,\phi)\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \e_1^2 (1+t)^{-3/2} 2^k 2^{-N_0 k_+/2 } \, .\end{aligned}$$ The last two estimates above can be obtained by inspection of and using the a priori bounds .
### Proof of Proposition \[proDNL\^1\] {#prproDNL^1}
Given the expansion of $\N$ in -, the already established $L^2$-based estimates, and the commutation property , it is not hard to see that would follow if one can show that operators of the form $$\begin{aligned}
C_1 \left( h_1, \dots, h_n, f \right)
& := \mbox{p.v.} \int \frac{ \prod_{i=1}^n ( h_i(x) - h_i(y) ) }{ {(x-y)}^{n+1} } f(y) \, dy\end{aligned}$$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN100}
{\left\| {|\partial_x|}^\frac{\b}{4} H_0 C_1 (h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \right\|}_{L^1} \lesssim \min_{i=1,\dots, n}
{\| h_i\|}_{H^3} \prod_{j\neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{H^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The above estimate is in turn implied by $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| C_1 (h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \right\|}_{W^{1,1}} \lesssim \min_{i=1,\dots, n}
{\| h_i\|}_{H^3} \prod_{j\neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{2,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{H^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since the action of derivatives on operators of the type $C_1$ produces operators of the same type (acting on derivatives of the arguments), it is enough to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\| C_1 (h_1, \dots, h_n, f) \right\|}_{L^1} \lesssim \min_{i=1,\dots, n}
{\| h_i\|}_{H^2} \prod_{j\neq i} {\| h_j \|}_{W^{1,\infty}} {\| f \|}_{H^1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ We only provide details of the proof of the above estimate in the case $n=1$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DN105}
{\left\| \mbox{p.v.} \int \frac{ h(y) - h(x) }{ {(y-x)}^{2} } f(y) \, dy \right\|}_{L^1}
\lesssim {\| h \|}_{H^2} {\| f \|}_{H^1} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as the case $n \geq 2$ can be treated similarly. Let us write $$\begin{aligned}
\nn
& \int \frac{ h(x) - h(y) }{ {(x-y)}^{2} } f(y) \, dy = I_1 + I_2 + I_3
\\
\label{DN106}
& I_1(x) := \int_{|y-x| \geq 1} \frac{ h(y) - h(x) }{ {(y-x)}^{2} } f(y) \, dy
\\
\label{DN107}
& I_2(x) := \int_{|y-x| \leq 1} \frac{ h(y) - h(x) - h^\p(x) (y-x)}{ {(y-x)}^{2} } f(y) \, dy
\\
\label{DN108}
& I_3(x) := h^\p(x) \int_{|y-x| \leq 1} \frac{f(y)}{ y-x } \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $I_1$ can be written as $I_1 = K \ast (hf) - h K \ast f$, where $K(x) := {|x|}^{-2} \chi_{|x| \geq 1}$ is an $L^1$ kernel. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| I_1 \|}_{L^1} \lesssim {\| K \ast (hf) \|}_{L^1} + {\|h\|}_{L^2} {\|K \ast f\|}_{L^2} \lesssim {\|h\|}_{L^2} {\|f\|}_{L^2} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ Using Taylor’s formula and a change of variables we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& I_2 = - \int_{|y| \leq 1} \int_0^1 t h^{\p\p}(x + ty) \, dt f(y+x) \, dy \, .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| I_2 \|}_{L^1} \lesssim \int_0^1 \int_{|y| \leq 1} \int |h^{\p\p}(x + ty)| |f(y+x)| \, dx \, dy \, dt \lesssim {\|h^{\p\p} \|}_{L^2} {\|f\|}_{L^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ For the last term we first write $$\begin{aligned}
& I_3 = h^\p(x) \int_{|y-x| \leq 1} \frac{f(y)-f(x)}{ y-x } \, dy = h^\p(x) \int_{|y| \leq 1} \int_0^1 t f^{\p}(x + ty) \, dt \, dy\end{aligned}$$ and then estimate $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| I_3 \|}_{L^1} \lesssim \int_0^1 \int_{|y| \leq 1} \int |h^\p(x)| |f^{\p}(x + ty)| \, dx \, dy \, dt \lesssim {\|h^\p\|}_{L^2} {\|f^\p\|}_{L^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ This shows that holds and completes the proof of Proposition \[proDNL\^1\]. $\hfill \Box$
Proof of {#proof-of-19}
---------
For $m\in\mathbb{Z}\cap[20,\infty)$, $k \in \Z \cap\in[-m/2,m/50-1000]$, $|\xi|\in[2^k,2^{k+1}]$, $t_1\leq t_2\in[2^{m-1},2^{m+1}]\cap[0,T]$, we want to show $$\label{bn22app}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Lambda(\xi)}\widehat{R}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big|
\lesssim \varepsilon_1^32^{-p_1m}(2^{\beta k}+2^{(N_1+15)k})^{-1}.$$ where $$\label{fd3app}
R:=\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_3.$$ with $\N_3$, $\N_4$ and $\widetilde{\N}_3$ defined respectively in , and . To prove we will use Lemma \[lemR\] and \[lemrem\] below.
\[lemR\] Let $R$ be defined as in . Under the a priori assumptions on $h$ and $\phi$, we have for $k\in\Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemR1}
\big| \what{P_k R}(\xi,t) \big| \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{10p_0 - 1} 2^{-(N_0-20)k_+} 2^{-\b k/4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemR2}
{\| P_k R(t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| P_k S R(t) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{20p_0 - 3/2} 2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+} \, .\end{aligned}$$
\[lemrem\] Assume that a function $D = D(\xi,t)$ satisfies for all $t \in [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asslemrem}
\begin{split}
& {\| D (t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| S D(t) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \d {(1+t)}^{-11/8 } \, ,
\\
&
{\| \what{D} (t) \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim \d {(1+t)}^{20 p_0 -1} \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that for $k\in\Z$, $|\xi| \in [2^k,2^{k+1}]$, $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $t_1\leq t_2 \in [2^m-2,2^{m+1}] \cap [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conclemrem}
\left| \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{D}(\xi,s) \, ds \right| &
\lesssim \d (1 + 2^{-k}) 2^{-m/16} \, . %{\left(2^{\b k} + 2^{(N_1 +15) k} \right)}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
We now show how follows from Lemma \[lemR\] and \[lemrem\].
From we see that for $|\xi| \in [2^k,2^{k+1}]$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{iH(\xi,s)}e^{is\Lambda(\xi)}\what{R}(\xi,s)\,ds\Big| \lesssim
2^m \sup_{s \in [2^m-2,2^{m+1}]} \big| \what{R}(\xi,s) \big| \lesssim
\e_1^4 2^{10p_0 m} 2^{-(N_0-20)k_+} 2^{-\b k/4} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Given our choice of $N_0$ and $N_1$, the desired bound follows for $k \geq 22p_0/(N_0-80)$ and $ k \leq - 44p_0/3\b$, with any $p_1 \leq p_0$. For the remaining frequencies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{freq1}
k \in [-44p_0/3\b, 22p_0/(N_0-80)] \end{aligned}$$ we want to apply Lemma \[lemrem\] with $$D(\xi,t) = \left( 2^{\b k} + 2^{(N_1+15)k} \right) P_k R (\xi,t)$$ and $\d = \e_1^4$. From and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& \big| \what{D} (\xi,t) \big| \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{10p_0 - 1} 2^{-(N_0/2-50)k_+} 2^{3\b k/4} \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{10p_0 - 1} \, ,
\\
& {\| D (t) \|}_{L^2} + {\| S D(t) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{20p_0 - 3/2} 2^{40 k_+} \lesssim {(1+t)}^{21p_0 - 3/2} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ under the restriction . The hypothesis of Lemma \[lemrem\] are then satisfied, and the conlcusion implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{R}(\xi,s) \, ds \right| &
\lesssim \e_1^4 {\left(2^{\b k} + 2^{(N_1 +15) k} \right)}^{-1} \left( 1 + 2^{-k} \right) 2^{-m/16} \, . \end{aligned}$$ This gives in the considered frequency range , by choosing $p_1 \leq 1/16 - 44p_0/3\b$.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemR\]
Since $R =\mathcal{N}_3+\mathcal{N}_4-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_3$, from , and we can write $$\begin{aligned}
R = \mathcal{N}_4 + \sum_{j=1}^5 \wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,j}\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N_4app}
\N_4 & = R_1(h,\phi) +2A(M_3(h,h,\phi)+R_1(h,\phi),h)
\\
\nn
& + i \Lambda \left[R_2(h,\phi) + B(h,Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + R_2(h,\phi))+ B(M_3(h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi),\phi) \right],\end{aligned}$$ and we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N31}
\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,1} & := M_3(h,h,\phi) - M_3(H,H,\Psi) \, ,
\\
\label{N32}
\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,2} & := 2A(M_2(h,\phi),h) - 2A(M_2(H,\Psi),H) \, ,
\\
\label{N33}
\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,3} & := i \Lambda \left[ Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) - Q_3(\Psi,H,\Psi) \right] \, ,
\\
\label{N34}
\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,4} & := i \Lambda \left[ B(M_2(h,\phi),\phi) - B(M_2(H,\Psi),\Psi) \right] \, ,
\\
\label{N35}
\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,5} & := i \Lambda \left[ B(h, Q_2(\phi,\phi)) - B(H, Q_2(\Psi,\Psi)) \right] \, .\end{aligned}$$
#### [*Proof of* ]{} {#proof-of-20}
We start by proving that each term in $\N_4$ is bounded by the right hand side of . The bound for $R_1 = {[ G (h) \phi ]}_{\geq 4}(t)$ is an immediate consequence of the $L^1$ estimate . The bound for $\Lambda R_2$ can be obtained from using Cauchy’s inequality and the $L^2$ bounds for $M_2$, $M_3$ and $R_1$ given respectively in , and . From the definition of $A$ in - we see that for any integer $l$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PkwhatA}
\Big| \what{P_k A}(F,G) \Big| \lesssim 2^{-l k_+} {\| F \|}_{H^{l+1}} {\| G \|}_{H^{l+1}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the $L^2$ bounds on $M_3$, on $R_1$, and the a priori assumptions, it immediately follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big| \what{P_k A}(M_3(h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi),h) \Big| & \lesssim 2^{-(N_0-10) k_+} {\| M_3 + R_1 \|}_{H^{N_0-9}} {\| h \|}_{H^{N_0-9}}
\\
& \lesssim \e_1^4 2^{-(N_0-10) k_+} {(1+t)}^{4p_0 -1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from the definition of $B$ in - we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PkwhatB}
\Big| \what{P_k B}(F,G) \Big| \lesssim 2^{-l k_+} {\| F \|}_{H^l} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^l} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using again and we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| \F \left[ P_k \Lambda B(h,Q_3(\phi,h,\phi) + R_2(h,\phi))+ P_k \Lambda B(M_3(h,h,\phi) + R_1(h,\phi),\phi) \right] \Big|
\\
& \lesssim 2^{-(N_0-15) k_+} \left[ {\| h \|}_{H^{N_0-10}} {\| \partial_x (Q_3 + R_2) \|}_{H^{N_0-10}}
+ {\| M_3 + R_1 \|}_{H^{N_0-10}} {\| \partial_x \phi \|}_{H^{N_0-10}} \right]
\\
& \lesssim \e_1^4 2^{-(N_0-15) k_+} {(1+t)}^{4p_0 -1} \, .\end{aligned}$$
We now estimate the terms -. From we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N311}
-\wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,1} & = M_3(A,h,\phi) + M_3(H,A,\phi) + M_3(H,H,B) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $M_3$ in we see that for any integer $0\leq l\leq N_0-10$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whatP_kM_3}
\begin{split}
\Big| \what{P_k M_3}(E,F,G) \Big| & \lesssim 2^{-l k_+} 2^k \Big[ {\| E \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}} {\| F \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^{l+2}}
\\
& + {\| E \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^{l+2}}
+ {\| E \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| F \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| |\partial_x| G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}} \Big] \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Applying this together with the $L^\infty$ bounds on $A$ and $\Lambda B$, the apriori bounds , and , one can obtain the desired bound for each of the three terms in .
To estimate we write $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{N321}
-\frac{1}{2} \wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,2} & = A(M_2(A,\phi),h) + A(M_2(H,B),h) + A(M_2(H,\Psi),A) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that for any integer $0\leq l\leq N_0-10$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PkM_2FG}
{\| P_k M_2(F,G) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim 2^{-l k_+} 2^k \Big[ {\| F \|}_{H^l} {\| |\partial_x| G \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}}
+ {\| F \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^l} \Big] \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using , , the estimates for $A$ in and , and Proposition \[proE2\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| \F [ P_k A (M_2(A,\phi),h) ] \Big| \lesssim 2^{-(N_0-15) k_+} {\| M_2(A,\phi) \|}_{H^{N_0-10}} {\| h \|}_{H^{N_0-10}}
\\
& \lesssim 2^{-(N_0-15) k_+} {(1+t)}^{p_0} \Big[ {\| A \|}_{H^{N_0-8}} {\| |\partial_x| \phi \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}}
+ {\| A \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} {\| \partial_x \phi \|}_{H^{N_0-8}} \Big]
\\
& \lesssim \e_1^4 2^{-(N_0-15) k_+} {(1+t)}^{3p_0 -1} \, .\end{aligned}$$
To bound $\wt{N}_{3,3}$ in we first write it as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N331}
- \wt{\N}_{3,3} & = \Lambda \Big[ Q_3(B,h,\phi) + Q_3(\Psi,A,\phi) + Q_3(\Psi,H,B) \Big] \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then notice that for any integer $0\leq l\leq N_0-10$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whatP_kQ_3}
\begin{split}
\Big| \what{P_k Q_3}(E,F,G) \Big| & \lesssim 2^{-l k_+}
\Big[ {\| |\partial_x| E \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}} {\| F \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^{l+3}}
\\
& + {\| \partial_x E \|}_{H^l} {\| F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}} {\| \partial_x G \|}_{H^{l+2}} \Big] \, .
%+ {\| \partial_x E \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| F \|}_{H^{l+2}} {\| |\partial_x| G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 - 5,\infty}}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ One can that then bound each one of the three summands in by using the above estimate together with Proposition \[proE2\], , and .
can be estimated in a similar fashion to what we have done above by writing out the difference as sums of quartic terms, and using together with , , and Proposition \[proE2\]. The term can also be estimated similarly by using in addition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PkQ_2FG}
\begin{split}
{\| P_k Q_2(F,G) \|}_{L^2} & \lesssim 2^{-l k_+}
\Big[ {\| \partial_x F \|}_{H^l} ( {\| \partial_x G \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} + {\| |\partial_x| G \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} )
\\
& + ( {\| \partial_x F \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} + {\| |\partial_x| F \|}_{W^{N_0/2-5,\infty}} ) {\| |\partial_x| G \|}_{H^l} \Big] \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for any $0 \leq l \leq N_0 -10$.
#### [*Proof of* ]{} {#proof-of-21}
First observe that from we already have the desired bound for $R_1$ and $\Lambda R_2$. To bound the three remaining contributions from $\wt{N}_4$ in and the five terms - we first observe that for $\G = 1$ or $S$ we have the following $L^2$ estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SAFG}
\begin{split}
& {\| \G P_k A(P_{k_1}F, P_{k_2}G) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim 2^k 2^{-(N_0/2 - 10)k_+}
\Big[ \left( {\| \G P_{k_1}F \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} + {\| P_{k_1}F \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} \right) {\|P_{k_2} G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}}
\\
& + {\|P_{k_1} F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} {\| \G P_{k_2}G \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} \Big] \, ,
\end{split}
\\
\label{SBFG}
\begin{split}
& {\| \G P_k B(P_{k_1}F, P_{k_2}G) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim 2^{-(N_0/2 - 10)k_+}
\Big[ \left( {\| \G P_{k_1}F \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} + {\| P_{k_1}F \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} \right) 2^{k_2} {\|P_{k_2} G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}}
\\
& + {\|P_{k_1} F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} 2^{k_2} \left( {\| \G P_{k_2}G \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} + {\| P_{k_2}G \|}_{H^{N_0/2-10}} \right) \Big] \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We also have the following $L^\infty$ estimates for $M_3$ and $Q_3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_3EFG}
\begin{split}
& {\| P_k M_3(P_{k_1}E, P_{k_2}F, P_{k_3}G) \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
& \lesssim 2^{-(N_0/2 - 15)k_+} 2^k 2^{k_2} 2^{\max(k_1,k_2,k_3)}
{\| P_{k_1}E \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} {\| P_{k_2}F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} {\| P_{k_3}G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} \, ,
\end{split}
\\
\label{Q_3EFG}
\begin{split}
& {\| P_k Q_3(P_{k_1}E, P_{k_2}F, P_{k_3}G) \|}_{L^\infty}
\\
& \lesssim 2^{-(N_0/2 - 15)k_+} 2^{k_1} 2^{k_3} 2^{\max(k_2,k_3)}
{\| P_{k_1}E \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} {\| P_{k_2}F \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} {\| P_{k_3}G \|}_{W^{N_0/2 -10,\infty}} \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ From the homogeneity of degree $2$ of $M_2$ and $Q_2$, and of degree $3$ of $M_3$ and $Q_3$, one can obtain identities similar to for the symbols of these operators, and deduce the following analogues of the commutation identities : $$\label{commapp}
\begin{split}
& S M_2(F,G) = M_2(SF,G) + M_2(F,SG) - 2M_2(F,G) \, ,
\\
& S Q_2(F,G) = Q_2(SF,G) + Q_2(F,SG) - 2Q_2(F,G) \, ,
\\
& S M_3(E,F,G) = M_3(SE,F,G) + M_3(E,SF,G) + M_3(E,F,SG) - 3M_2(E,F,G) \, ,
\\
& S Q_3(E,F,G) = Q_3(SE,F,G) + Q_3(E,SF,G) + Q_3(E,F,SG) - 3Q_2(E,F,G) \, .
\end{split}$$ One can then use - together with the commutation identities and , the estimates , and , , and argumets similar to those used above and in section \[secproE3\], in particular in the proof of Lemma \[Al60\], to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| P_k \mathcal{N}_4 \|}_{L^2} + {\| P_k S \mathcal{N}_4 \|}_{L^2}
+ \sum_{j=1}^5 {\| P_k \wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,j} \|}_{L^2} + {\| P_k S \wt{\mathcal{N}}_{3,j} \|}_{L^2}
\lesssim \e_1^4 {(1+t)}^{20p_0 - 3/2} 2^{-(N_0/2-20)k_+}\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired conclusion. $\hfill \Box$
### Proof of Lemma \[lemrem\]
For $t_1 \leq t_2 \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$ and $|\xi| \in [2^k, 2^{k+1}]$ let us define $$\begin{aligned}
F(\xi) = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{D} (\xi,s) \, ds \, .\end{aligned}$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
| F(\xi) | \lesssim {\| \F^{-1} F \|}_{L^1(|x| \leq 2^{m/2} )} + {\| \F^{-1} F \|}_{L^1(|x| \geq 2^{m/2} )}
\lesssim 2^{m/4} {\| F \|}_{L^2} + 2^{-m/4} 2^{-k} {\| \xi \partial_\xi F \|}_{L^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, to obtain it suffices to show the following two estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemrem10}
& {\| F \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \d 2^{-3m/8}
\\
\label{lemrem20}
& {\| \xi \partial_\xi F \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \d 2^{21 m p_0} \, . \end{aligned}$$ can be easily verified using the $L^2$ bound in . To prove we write: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\xi \partial_\xi F(\xi) & = F_1(\xi) + F_2(\xi) + F_3(\xi)
\\
F_1(\xi) & = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} \left( i \xi \partial_\xi H(\xi,s) \right) e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{D}(\xi,s) \, ds \, ,
\\
F_2(\xi) & = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} S(\xi) e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{D}(\xi,s) \, ds \, ,
\\
F_3(\xi) & = \frac{1}{2} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{i H(\xi,s)} s\partial_s \left( e^{is\Lambda(\xi)} \what{D}(\xi,s) \right) \, ds \, ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ having denoted $S(\xi) := \xi \partial_\xi - \frac{1}{2} s \partial_s$; notice that $S(\xi) \what{f}(\xi) = - \what{S f}(\xi) -\what{f}(\xi)$, where $S$ is the scaling vector field. Using the definition of $H$ in and the apriori assumptions, it is easy to see that for $s \in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}]$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemrem30}
\begin{split}
& {\| \xi \partial_\xi H(\xi,s) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim 2^{m p_0} \, ,
\\
& {\| \partial_s H(\xi,s) \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim 2^{-m} \, .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Using the first bound above and the $L^\infty$ bound in we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| F_1 \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \int_{t_1}^{t_2} {\| \xi \partial_\xi H(s) \|}_{L^2} {\| \what{D}(s) \|}_{L^\infty} \, ds
\lesssim \d 2^m 2^{m p_0} 2^{m(20 p_0 - 1)} \lesssim \d 2^{21 m p_0} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Since $[\left( \xi \partial_\xi - \frac{1}{2} s \partial_s \right), e^{is\Lambda(\xi)}] = 0$, we can use the $L^2$ bounds in to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| F_2 \|}_{L^2} \lesssim \int_{t_1}^{t_2} {\| D(s) \|}_{L^2} + {\| S D(s) \|}_{L^2} \, ds \lesssim \d \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is more than sufficient. To estimate $F_3$ we integrate by parts in $s$, use the second bound in and to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\| F_3 \|}_{L^2} \lesssim 2^m \sup_{s\in [2^m-2, 2^{m+1}] } {\| D(s) \|}_{L^2} +
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} s {\| \partial_s H(\xi,s) \|}_{L^\infty} {\| D(s) \|}_{L^2} \, ds \lesssim \d \, .\end{aligned}$$ This proves and concludes the proof of the Lemma. $\hfill \Box$
[10]{}
Alazard, T., Burq, N. and Zuily, C. On the water waves equations with surface tension. , 158 (2011), no. 3, 413-499.
Ambrose, D.M. and Masmoudi, N. The zero surface tension limit of two-dimensional water waves. , 58 (2005), no. 10, 1287-1315.
Beyer, K. and Günther, M. On the Cauchy problem for a capillary drop. I. Irrotational motion. 21 (1998), no. 12, 1149-1183.
Christodoulou, D. and Lindblad, H. On the motion of the free surface of a liquid. , 53 (2000), no. 12, 1536-1602.
Coifman R., McIntosh, A. and Meyer Y. L’intégrale de Cauchy définit un opérateur borné sur $L^2$ pour les courbes lipschitziennes \[The Cauchy integral defines a bounded operator on $L^2$ for Lipschitz curves\]. , 116 (1982), no. 2, 361-387.
Castro, A., Cordoba, D., Fefferman, C., Gancedo, F. and Gómez-Serrano, J. Finite time singularities for the free boundary incompressible Euler equations. , to appear. arXiv:1106.2120.
Craig, W. and Sulem, C. Numerical simulation of gravity waves. 108 (1993), 73-83.
Craig, W. and Worfolk, P. An integrable normal form for water waves in infinite depth. 84 (1995), no. 3-4, 513-531.
Craig, W. Birkhoff normal forms for water waves. [*Mathematical problems in the theory of water waves (Luminy, 1995)*]{}, 57-74. , 200, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996.
Delort, J.M. Existence globale et comportement asymptotique pour l’ équation de Klein-Gordon quasi-linéaire à données petites en dimension 1. 34 (2001) 1-61. Erratum: “Global existence and asymptotic behavior for the quasilinear Klein-Gordon equation with small data in dimension 1” (4) 39 (2006), no. 2, 335-345
Germain, P., Masmoudi, N. and Shatah, J. Global solutions for 3-d quadratic Schrödinger equations. , (2009), no. 3, 414-432.
Germain P., Masmoudi N. and Shatah, J. . , 175 (2012), no. 2, 691-754.
Germain P., Masmoudi N. and Shatah, J. . (2012).
Gustafson, S., Nakanishi, K. and Tsai, T. Scattering for the Gross-Pitaevsky equation in 3 dimensions. 11 (2009), no. 4, 657-707.
Hani, Z., Pusateri, F. and Shatah, J. Scattering for the Zakharov system in three dimensions. , to appear. arXiv:1206.3473.
Hayashi, N. and Naumkin, P. Asymptotics for large time of solutions to the nonlinear Schrödinger and Hartree equations. , 120 (1998), 369-389.
Ionescu, A. and Pausader, B. The Euler-Poisson system in 2D: global stability of the constant equilibrium solution. , to appear. arXiv:1110.0798.
Ionescu, A. and Pausader, B. Global solutions of quasilinear systems of Klein-Gordon equations in 3D. , to appear. arXiv:1208.2661.
Ionescu, A. and Pusateri, F. Nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equations in one dimension. (2012).
Kato, J. and Pusateri, F. A new proof of long range scattering for critical nonlinear Schrödinger equations. , 24 (2011), no. 9-10, 923-940.
Klainerman, S. Uniform decay estimates and the Lorentz invariance of the classical wave equation. , 38 (1985), no. 3, 321-332.
Klainerman, S. The null condition and global existence for systems of wave equations. , 293-326. Lectures in Appl. Math., 23, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1986.
Lannes, D. Well-posedness of the water waves equations. 18 (2005), no. 3, 605-654.
Lindblad, H. Well-posedness for the motion of an incompressible liquid with free surface boundary. , 162 (2005), no. 1, 109-194.
Nalimov, V. I. The Cauchy-Poisson problem. 18 Dinamika Zidkost. so Svobod. Granicami (1974), 10-210, 254.
Ozawa, T. . , 139 (1991), no.3, 479-493.
Shatah, J. Normal forms and quadratic nonlinear Klein-Gordon equations. , 38 (1985), no. 5, 685-696.
Shatah, J. and Zeng, C. Geometry and a priori estimates for free boundary problems of the Euler equation. , 61 (2008), no. 5, 698-744.
Shatah, J. and Zeng, C. Local well-posedness for the fluid interface problem. 199 (2011), no. 2, 653-705.
Sulem, C. and Sulem, P.L. The nonlinear Schrödinger equation. Self-focussing and wave collapse. , 139. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.
Yosihara, H. Gravity waves on the free surface of an incompressible perfect fluid of finite depth. 18 (1982), no. 1, 49-96.
Wu, S. Well-posedness in Sobolev spaces of the full water wave problem in 2-d. , 12 (1997), no. 2, 445-495.
Wu, S. Well-posedness in [S]{}obolev spaces of the full water wave problem in 3-d. , 12 (1999), no. 2, 445-495.
Wu, S. Almost global wellposedness of the 2-D full water wave problem. , 177 (2009), no. 1, 45-135.
Wu, S. Global wellposedness of the 3-D full water wave problem. , 184 (2011), no. 1, 125-220.
Totz, N and Wu, S. A rigorous justification of the modulation approximation to the 2D full water wave problem. , 310 (2012), no. 3, 817-883.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by a Packard Fellowship and NSF grant DMS-1065710.\
The second author was supported by a Simons Postdoctoral Fellowship.
[^2]: We assume a large number of derivatives mostly to simplify the exposition. However one can likely reduce this number to, say, $N_0$ between $10$ and $100$ by a slightly more careful analysis.
[^3]: Examples of such analysis are the classical vectorfields method of Klainerman [@K0; @K1], or the more recent space-time resonance method [@GMS1; @GMS2]. See also [@GNT1; @zakharov; @IP1; @IP2] for recent global regularity results for other physical systems.
[^4]: There are several examples in the literature of dispersive equations whose solutions do not behave linearly at infinity and in particular require phase corrections to scattering. See for instance [@ozawa; @HN; @DelortKG1d] and references therein.
[^5]: The point of this change of variables is to be able to identify $\eta=\sigma=0$ as the unique critical point of the phase $\Phi$ in .
[^6]: The use of requires additional dyadic decompositions in the variables $\eta$, $\sigma$, and $2\xi+\eta+\sigma$. This leads to an additional polynomial loss $\approx m^3$, which does not change the estimates.
[^7]: Notice that lower order Sobolev norms are the only $L^2$ norms that we can guarantee to be bounded uniformly for all times, as a consequence of Propositions \[proLE\] and \[prodecay\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Iskander A. TAIMANOV [^1]'
title: 'Surfaces in three-dimensional Lie groups in terms of spinors'
---
Recently surfaces in three-dimensional homogeneous spaces which differ from the space forms attract a lot of attention. Mainly for ambient spaces there are taken three-dimensional spaces with the Thurston geometries [^2] or simply-connected spaces with a four-dimensional isometry group. [^3]
We consider the case when the ambient space is a Lie group because it is straightforward (see [@BT1]) to generalize the Weierstrass representation of surfaces in $\R^3$ to this case. This representation involves the Dirac operator which plays an important role in many integrable soliton equations and has a rich and far-developed spectral theory [@T1; @T2].
In particular, we have been interested from the beginning in the following questions:
1\) it is known that certain classes of surfaces in the space forms are described by some integrable systems (for instance, constant mean curvature tori).
[*How such surfaces are described in new geometries?*]{}
[*If these surfaces are described by some integrable systems how these systems obtained from the old ones and how the curvature of the ambient space contribute to the deformation of an integrable system?*]{}
2\) it is known that some spectral data of the Dirac operator coming in the Weierstrass representation of a surface in $\R^3$ have geometrical meanings and, in particular, the Willmore functional serves as an example [@T1; @T2].
[*What mean these spectral data for surfaces in other ambient spaces (Lie groups)?*]{}
We discuss some partial answers to these questions in §§4 and 5.
We also would like to mention that the choice of Lie groups as the ambient spaces is not very restrictive since it covers all spaces $E(\kappa,\tau)$ but $S^2 \times \R$ and the Thurston geometries again except $S^2 \times \R$ (see remarks on page ).
[**1. The Weierstrass representation of surfaces in $\R^3$ and the Willmore functional**]{}
The original Weierstrass representation of minimal surfaces in $\R^3$ may be considered as an integrable system in geometry because it gives an explicit formula for a general solution to the minimal surface equation in $\R^3$ in terms of a pair of arbitrary holomorphic functions. It is as follows. Let $z \in D \subset \C$ and, for simplicity, assume that a domain $D$ is simply connected. Let $f$ and $g$ be holomorphic functions on $D$. Then the Weierstrass (–Enneper) formulas $$x^1(z,\bar{z})
= x^1_0 +
\frac{i}{2} \int \left[(f^2+g^2)dz - (\bar{f}^2+\bar{g}^2)d\bar{z})\right],$$ \[weierstrass\] x\^2 = x\^2\_0 + , $$x^3 = x^3_0 + \int (fg dz + \bar{f}\bar{g} d\bar{z})$$ define a minimal surface in $\R^3$. Here the integrals defining $x(P)$, the image of $P \in D$, are taken along a path $\gamma
\subset D$ from the point $P_0$ such that $x(P_0)=x_0$ to $P$. Since the integrands are closed forms this is independent on the choice of $\gamma$. The induced metric takes the form $(|f|^2+|g|^2)^2 dz
d\bar{z}$ and therefore $z$ is a conformal parameter on the surface
In fact, the condition that $z$ is a conformal parameter is written as $$\left(\frac{\partial x^1}{\partial z}\right)^2 +
\left(\frac{\partial x^2}{\partial z}\right)^2 +
\left(\frac{\partial x^3}{\partial z}\right)^2 = 0,$$ i.e., $(r_u,r_u)=(r_v,r_v), (r_u,r_v)=0$ where $u$ and $v$ are the isothermic coordinates such that $z = u+iv$, and $r_u = 2 \mathrm{Re} \frac{\partial x}{\partial z}$ and $r_v = -2 \mathrm{Im} \frac{\partial x}{\partial z}$ are the corresponding tangent vectors to the surface. The quadric $$Q = \{y_1^2 + y_2^2 + y_3^2 = 0\} \subset \C P^2$$ gives a one-to-one parametrization of oriented two-planes in $\R^3$ by corresponding to every plane its homogeneous coordinates $((\xi^1
- i \eta^1): (\xi^2 - i \eta^2) : (\xi^3 - i \eta^3))$ where $(\xi,
\eta)$ is a positively oriented basis for the plane such that $|\xi|
= |\eta|$ and $\xi$ is orthogonal to $\eta$. Due to the homogeneity of coordinates in $\C P^2$ this mapping is correctly defined, i.e., is independent on the choice of a basis $(\xi,\eta)$. Hence the mapping $$P \to \left(\frac{\partial x^1(P)}{\partial z} :
\frac{\partial x^2(P)}{\partial z} :
\frac{\partial x^3(P)}{\partial z}\right) \in Q$$ is the Gauss map of the surface. The quadric $Q$, the Grassmannian of oriented two-planes in $\R^3$, admits a natural rational parametrization: \[factorization\] (f:g) ((f\^2+g\^2): (g\^2-f\^2):fg).
From this interpretation of the Gauss map it is clear that
- any surface, not only minimal, is defined by the Weierstrass formulas for the factorization $(f,g)$ of the Gauss map.
The Gauss–Codazzi equations written in terms of $(f,g)$ distinguish mappings $D \stackrel{(f:g)}{\longrightarrow} Q$ which are the Gauss maps of surfaces. It is straightforward to compute that these equations take the form $$\D \psi = 0$$ where $\D$ is the Dirac operator \[dirac\] = (
[cc]{} 0 &\
-| & 0
) + (
[cc]{} U & 0\
0 & V
) and $$\psi = \left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} f \\ \bar{g} \end{array}\right).$$ For surfaces in $\R^3$ the potentials $U$ and $V$ and the induced metric are \[data\] U = V = , e\^[2]{} dzd|[z]{} = (|\_1|\^2+|\_2|\^2)\^2dzd|[z]{}. We conclude that
- a general surface in $\R^3$ is represented by the Weierstrass formulas (\[weierstrass\]) for some solution to the Dirac equation with the potentials (\[data\]) and the inverse is also true: any solution to the Dirac equation with real-valued potentials $U=V$ defines via (\[weierstrass\]) a surface in $\R^3$ with the mean curvature and the induced metric given by (\[data\]).
This representation has some prehistory for which we refer to [@T2] however for $U \neq 0$ the formulas in terms of the Dirac operator first appeared in [@Kon] where they were introduced for inducing surfaces admitting certain soliton deformations. This operator has a rich spectral theory and, in particular, we started in [@T1] to study possible relations between the spectral properties of $\D$ and the geometry of the corresponding surfaces. In particular, it appears that for a closed oriented surface $M
\subset \R^3$ the integral \[energy\] E(M) = \_M UV dx dy is one-fourth of the Willmore functional \[willmore\] [W]{}(M) = \_M H\^2 dwhere $d\mu$ is the induced measure on $M$. The Willmore functional is the basic functional in the conformal surface geometry, and the integral (\[energy\]) is an important spectral quantity of the Dirac operator $\D$.
The Willmore conjecture states that ${\cal W}$ attains its minima for tori which is equal to $2\pi^2$ on the Clifford torus and its images under conformal transformations of $\bar{\R^3}$. The existence of the lower bounds for ${\cal W}$ on closed surfaces is explained by the Weierstrass representation as follows:
- there are no compact minimal surfaces without boundary in $\R^3$. We have to perturb the potential $U$ from the zero level to achieve compact surfaces and the threshold for the $L_2$-norm of $U$ at which compact surfaces appear gives this minimum level. For surfaces in $\R^3$ we have $U=\bar{U}=V$, the energy (\[energy\]) is the squared $L_2$-norm of $U$ and it is also one-fourth of ${\cal W}$.
We propose an approach to the Willmore conjecture based on the spectral properties of the corresponding double-periodic (for tori) Dirac operator. Several attempts to realize this approach led to interesting results however the conjecture stays open until recently. We refer for the survey of the Willmore conjecture and the spectral approach to its study to [@T2].
The classical Weierstrass representation for minimal surfaces corresponds to the case $U = 0$ and it enables us to consider the minimal surface equation in $\R^3$ as an integrable system. The integrability property resolves the local theory and does not help straightforwardly in answering questions on the global behavior of surfaces. The global theory needs an additional technique concerning global solutions to the integrable system (in the case of minimal surfaces, holomorphic functions).
[**2. The Weierstrass representation of surfaces in three-dimensional Lie groups [@BT1]**]{}
To generalize the Weierstrass representation for the case when the ambient space is a three-dimensional Lie group $G$ with a left-invariant metric [@BT1] we have to replace $\frac{\partial x}{\partial z} \in \C^3$ by the element of the complexified Lie algebra: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \in \C^3 \longrightarrow
\Psi = f^{-1} \frac{\partial f}{\partial z} \in \g \otimes \C$$ where $$f: M \to G$$ is an immersion of a surface and $z$ is a conformal parameter on $M$. In terms of $\Psi$ and $\Psi^\ast = f^{-1} f_{\bar{z}} \bar{\Psi}$ the derivational equations take the form $$\partial\Psi^\ast - \bar{\partial}\Psi + \nabla_{\Psi}\Psi^\ast -
\nabla_{\Psi^\ast}\Psi = 0,$$ $$\partial\Psi^\ast + \bar{\partial}\Psi + \nabla_{\Psi}\Psi^\ast +
\nabla_{\Psi^\ast}\Psi = e^{2\alpha} H f^{-1}(N)$$ where the Levi-Civita connection on $G$ is linearly expanded onto complex-valued vectors $\Psi$ and $\Psi^\ast$, $N$ is the unit normal vector field to $M$ and $e^{2\alpha} dzd\bar{z}$ is the induced metric. Originally these equations were first derived for minimal surfaces in [@Hitchin].
Given an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for $\g$, we expand $\Psi$ in this basis $$\Psi = Z_1 e_1 + Z_2 e_2 + Z_3 e_3.$$ The conformality condition again takes the form $$Z_1^2 + Z_2^2 + Z_3^2 = 0.$$ Let us use the same factorization of $Z: M \to Q$ as in the Euclidean case: $$Z_1 = \frac{i}{2} ( \bar{\psi}_2^2 + \psi_1^2), \ \ \
Z_2 = \frac{1}{2} ( \bar{\psi}_2^2 - \psi_1^2), \ \ \
Z_3 = \psi_1 \bar{\psi}_2.$$ The derivational equations take the form of the Dirac equation $$\D \psi = 0$$ and the induced metric is again equal to $$e^{2\alpha} d zd\bar{z} = (|\psi_1|^2+|\psi_2|^2)^2 d zd\bar{z}.$$ Therewith we call $\psi$ a generating spinor of a surface.
In difference with the Euclidean case, the potentials $U$ and $V$ are not always real-valued and do not always coincide.
\[[@BT1]\] \[theorem1\] The potentials of the Weierstrass representation of surfaces in the Lie groups $SU(2), \nil, \sll$, and $\sol$, endowed with the Thurston geometries, are as follows:
1. $G = SU(2)$: $$U = \bar{V} = \frac{1}{2}(H-i)e^\alpha;$$
2. $G = \nil$: $$U=V = \frac{He^\alpha}{2} +
\frac{i}{4} (|\psi_2|^2 - |\psi_1|^2);$$
3. $G= \sll$: $$U = \frac{He^\alpha}{2} + i\left(\frac{1}{2}|\psi_1|^2 -
\frac{3}{4}|\psi_2|^2\right),\ \
V = \frac{He^\alpha}{2} + i\left(\frac{3}{4}|\psi_1|^2 -
\frac{1}{2}|\psi_2|^2\right);$$
4. $G=\sol$: [^4] $$U = \frac{He^\alpha}{2} -
\frac{1}{2}\bar{\psi}_2^2 \frac{\bar{\psi}_1}{\psi_1}, \ \ \
V = \frac{1}{2}He^\alpha +
\frac{1}{2}\bar{\psi}_1^2 \frac{\bar{\psi}_2}{\psi_2}.$$
These potentials are written with respect to certain choices of orthogonal bases for $\g$ which are as follows:
a\) $\sol$ admits a natural splitting $$1 \to \R^2 \to \sol \to \R$$ which induces the submersion $\sol \to \R = \sol/\R^2$ whose leaves are minimal surfaces. We put $e_3$ to be the pullback of the unit vector on $\R$. Hence, $Z_3 = \psi_1 \bar{\psi}_2 =0$ if the tangent plane to a surface is tangent to a minimal leave. For a surface in $\sol$ the Dirac equation is correctly defined only in domain $D=\{Z_3 \neq 0\}$. It is natural to assume that $U=V=0$ outside $D$. Then the Dirac equations hold everywhere outside $\partial D$, the boundary of $D$, at which $\frac{\bar{\psi}_1}{\psi_1}$ and $\frac{\bar{\psi}_2}{\psi_2}$ may have indeterminancies;
b\) for $\nil$ and $\sll$ we assume that $e_3$ is directed along the axis of isometry rotation. Both these groups admit four-dimensional isometry groups and such an axis is uniquely defined everywhere.
These Dirac equations differ from their Euclidean analog in several aspects:
a\) there are constraints which relate solutions $\psi$ corresponding to surfaces with potentials. In the Euclidean case any solution corresponds to a surface. This demonstrates the absence of dilations in these Lie groups;
b\) the reconstruction of the surface $f: M \to G$ from $\psi$ needs solving the linear equation $$f_z = f \Psi.$$ In the Euclidean case a solution to this equation is given by (\[weierstrass\]);
c\) solutions to these Dirac equation does not admit the quaternion symmetry, i.e., if $\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array}\right)$ satisfies $\D\psi=0$ then in general $\psi^\ast = \left(\begin{array}{c} -\bar{\psi}_2 \\
\bar{\psi}_1 \end{array}\right)$ does not meet this equation. This hinders to use the Dirac equation for interpretting surfaces as holomorphic sections of certain line bundles and applying some ideas of algebraic geometry as it is done for surfaces in $\R^3$ and $\R^4$ in [@FLPP].
[^5] The generating spinors of minimal surfaces in the Lie groups $\nil, \sll$, and $\sol$ are given by the following equations:
1. $G= \nil$: $$\bar{\partial} \psi_1 = \frac{i}{4}(|\psi_2|^2 - |\psi_1|^2)\psi_1, \ \ \
\partial \psi_2 = -\frac{i}{4}(|\psi_2|^2 - |\psi_1|^2)\psi_2;$$
2. $G=\sll$: $$\bar{\partial} \psi_1 i\left(\frac{3}{4}|\psi_1|^2-\frac{1}{2}|\psi_2|^2\right)
\psi_2,
\ \ \
\partial \psi_2 -i\left(\frac{1}{2}|\psi_1|^2-\frac{3}{4}|\psi_2|^2\right)\psi_1;$$
3. $G=\sol$: $$\bar{\partial}\psi_1 = \frac{1}{2} \bar{\psi}_1^2 \bar{\psi}_2, \ \ \
\partial \psi_2 = \frac{1}{2} \bar{\psi}_1 \bar{\psi}_2^2.$$
In other terms the Weierstrass type representations for minimal surfaces in $\nil$ and $\sol$ were derived in [@I1; @I2].
We remark that Friedrich showed that the $\psi$-spinor for surfaces in $\R^3$ may be interpreted as the restriction of the parallel spinor field in $\R^3$ onto the surface [@Friedrich]. Later a similar description of such representations for surfaces in $S^3$ and $\H^3$ was derived in [@Morel] and very recently the same was done for surfaces in the spaces with a four-dimensional isometry group [@Roth] (this paper uses description of immersions in other terms obtained in [@Daniel]). In the first case the parallel spinor field is replaced by real and imaginary Killing fields and and in the second case it is replaced by certain generalized Killing spinor fields.
[**3. Surfaces in general Lie groups and families of Lie groups.**]{}
The Weierstrass representation method admits us to write such representations straightforwardly for a general Lie group and even to consider surfaces in families of Lie groups. We demonstrate that for a certain family which includes some well-known spaces.
Let us remind [the Bianci classification]{} of real three-dimensional Lie algebras.
For such an algebra $\g$ there is a basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ such that the commutation relations takes the form $$[e_1,e_2]
= ae_2 + b^{(3)}e_3, \ \ [e_1,e_3] = ae_3 - b^{(2)}e_2, \ \
[e_2,e_3] = b^{(1)}e_1$$ with $ab^{(1)} = 0$, hence the Lie algebra is included in the following table $$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\mathrm{Type} & a & b^{(1)} & b^{(2)} & b^{(3)} & \mathrm{Type} & a & b^{(1)}
& b^{(2)} & b^{(3)} \\
\mathrm{I} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathrm{VI}_0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\
\mathrm{II} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \mathrm{VI}_a, 0<a<\infty, a \neq 1 & a & 0 & 1
& -1 \\
\mathrm{III} & 1 & 0 & 1 & -1 &\mathrm{VII}_0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
\mathrm{IV} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \mathrm{VII}_a, a>0 & a & 0 & 1 & 1\\
\mathrm{V} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathrm{VIII} & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
& & & & & \mathrm{IX} & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1
\end{array}$$ and algebras corresponding to different entries of this table are pairwise nonisomorphic.
The simply-connected Lie groups with Lie algebras of types $\mathrm{I}$–$\mathrm{VII}$ have the form \[ext\] 1 \^2 = H G G/H = 1 and such an extension is uniquely defined by the action $$\mathrm{Ad}_z X = zXz^{-1} = e^{Az} X, \ \ z \in G/H,
\ X = \left(\begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array}\right) \in H,
\ A \in gl(2,\R).$$ In terms of Lie algebras we have $$\mathrm{ad}_\eta \xi = [\eta,\xi] = A\xi$$ where $\eta$ and the Lie algebra $\h$ of $H$ span $\g$ and $\xi
\in \h$. The matrices $A$ and $\lambda BAB^{-1}$, $\lambda =
\mathrm{const}\neq 0$, define isomorphic extensions.
We have
$\mathrm{I}$: $G = \R^3, A=0$.
$\mathrm{II}$: $G = \nil$, the nilpotent group, $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 \end{array}\right)$.
$\mathrm{III}$: $G = \R \times A(1)$, where $A(1)$ is the group of all affine transformations of $\R^1$; $A =\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 \end{array}\right)$.
$\mathrm{IV}$: $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1\\
0 & 1 \end{array}\right)$.
$\mathrm{V}$: $G=A(2)$, the group formed by three-dimensional affine transformations of the form \[hyperbolic\] (
[cc]{} e\^t I\_2 & s\
0 & 1
), t , s \^2; $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 \end{array}\right)$, $I_2$ is the unit $(2 \times
2)$-matrix.
$\mathrm{VI}_0$: $G = \sol$, the solvable group; $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{array}\right)$.
$\mathrm{VI}_a, a \neq 0$: $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} a & -1 \\ -1 & a \end{array}\right)$, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ of $A$ are $\lambda_{1,2} = a \pm 1$.
$\mathrm{VII}_0$: $G = E(2)$, the group of all isometries of $\R^2$; $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right)$.
$\mathrm{VII}_a, a \neq 0$: $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} a & 1 \\ -1 & a \end{array}\right)$, the eigenvalues of $A$ are $\lambda_{1,2} = a \pm i$.
The algebras of types $\mathrm{VIII}$ and $\mathrm{IX}$ do not contain two-dimensional commutative subalgebras and hence does not admit the representation (\[ext\]). We have
$\mathrm{VIII}$: $G = \widetilde{SL(2,\R)}$, the universal cover of $SL(2,\R)$, which is also locally isomorphic to $SO(1,2)$ and $SU(1,1)$.
$\mathrm{IX}$: $G=SU(2) = \widetilde{SO(3)}$.
A left-invariant metric on a Lie group $G$ is uniquely defined by its value at the unit of $G$, i.e. by an inner product on the Lie algebra $\g$. Given an orthonormal basis $e_1,\dots,e_n$ for $\g$: $\langle e_i,e_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}, \ \ \ i,j =1, \dots,n$, we denote by the same symbols the corresponding left-invariant vector fields. The Levi-Civita connection is given by the following formulas: $$\nabla_{e_k} e_j = \Gamma^i_{jk} e_i, \ \
\Gamma^i_{jk} = \frac{1}{2} \left(c^i_{kj} + c^j_{ik} +
c^k_{ij}\right), \ \ \
[e_i, e_j] = c^k_{ij} e_k.$$
Let us denote by $H_n$ the group of all $n$-dimensional affine transformations of the form (\[hyperbolic\]) with $s \in
\R^{n-1}$. By simple computations we obtain
[^6] Let us endow the group $H_n$ by the left-invariant metric for which $e_1 = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}, e_2 =
\frac{\partial}{\partial s^1}, \dots, e_n =
\frac{\partial}{\partial s^{n-1}}$ for the orthonormal basis in $\g$. Then $H_n$ is isometric to the $n$-dimensional hyperbolic space $\H^n$.
The group of type $\mathrm{III}$ with a certain left-invariant metric is isometric to $\H^2 \times \R$.
There is a left-invariant metric on the group of type $\mathrm{V}$ such that such a Riemannian manifold is isometric to $\H^n$.
$H_n$ acts isometrically by left translations on $\H^n = \{(x,y), x \in \R^{n-1}, y \in \R, y >0\}$ with the metric $ \frac{dx^2 + dy^2}{y^2}$ as follows: $(x,y) \to (e^tx+s,e^ty).$
We see that
- \[lieiso\] all simply-connected homogeneous three-spaces with a four-dimensional isometry group except $S^2 \times \R$ are isometric to Lie groups with left-invariant metrics
- all Thurston geometries except $S^2 \times \R$ are modeled by Lie groups with left-invariant metrics.
Let us consider the $\mu$-parameter family $G_\mu$ of Lie groups of type (\[ext\]) for which $$A_\mu = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mu & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right).$$ For $-1 \leq \mu \leq 1$ these groups are pairwise nonisomorphic and as follows:
$\mu = -1$: $\sol$, i.e. of the type $\mathrm{VI}_0$;
$-1 < \mu < 0$: $\mathrm{VI}_a, \ 0 < a <1, \ \mu = \frac{a-1}{a+1}$;
$\mu = 0$: $\mathrm{III}$;
$0 < \mu < 1$: $\mathrm{VI}_a, \ 1 < a < \infty, \ \mu = \frac{a-1}{a+1}$;
$\mu =1$: $\mathrm{V}$.
Let us take the orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ such that $$[e_1,e_2] = 0, \ \ [e_3,e_1] = \mu e_1, \ \ [e_3,e_2] = e_2.$$ For the corresponding left-invariant metrics we have $$G_{-1} = \sol, \ \ G_0 = \H^2 \times \R,\ \ G_1 = \H^3.$$
The potentials of the Weierstrass representation for surfaces in $G_\mu$ are as follows: $$U_\mu = \frac{H}{2} e^{\alpha} + \frac{\mu +1}{4} |\psi_1|^2 +
\frac{\mu -1}{4} \frac{\bar{\psi}_2 ^2
\bar{\psi}_1}{\psi_1},$$ $$V_\mu = \frac{H}{2} e^{\alpha} -
\frac{\mu +1}{4} |\psi_2|^2 - \frac{\mu -1}{4}
\frac{\bar{\psi}_1 ^2 \bar{\psi}_2}{\psi_2}.$$
The generating spinor $\psi$ of a minimal surface in $G_\mu$ meets the equations $$\bar{\partial}\psi_1 = -\frac{\mu + 1}{4}\psi_2 ^2 \bar{\psi}_2 -
\frac{\mu -1}{4}\bar{\psi}_1 ^2 \bar{\psi} _2,$$ $$\partial \psi_2 = -\frac{\mu + 1}{4}\psi_1 ^2 \bar{\psi}_1 -
\frac{\mu-1}{4}\bar{\psi}_2 ^2 \bar{\psi} _1.$$
In early 1900s for proving the existence of three closed nonselfintersecting geodesics on a two-sphere with a general metric, Poincare proposed to take an analytical $\mu$-parameter family of metrics which joins the metric on the ellipsoid with three different axes and the given metric and then to consider the analytical continuation in $\mu$ of the plane sections of the ellipsoid. This program was not realized however it led to some interesting results on perturbations of closed geodesics under deformations of metrics.
It also would be interesting to study the $\mu$-deformations of integrable surfaces in $G_\mu$. Probably that could help to
[*extend some global results on well-studied minimal or, more general, constant mean curvature surfaces in $G_1 = \H^3$ to such surfaces in $\sol$.*]{}
[**4. Constant mean curvature (CMC) surfaces in Lie groups**]{}
The second fundamental form of a surface in $\R^3$ is uniquely determined by the mean curvature $H$ and the Hopf quadratic differential $$A dz^2 = (x_{zz},N)dz^2,$$ where $x_{zz} = \frac{\partial^2 x}{\partial z^2}$ and $N$ is the unit normal vector field. We have $$|A|^2 = \frac{(\kappa_1 - \kappa_2)^2e^{4\alpha}}{16}$$ where $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ are the principal curvatures. In terms of $\psi$ this differential takes the form $$A = \bar{\psi}_2 \partial \psi_1 - \psi_2 \partial \bar{\psi}_2.$$ The Gauss–Codazzi equations are \[gauss\] \_[z|[z]{}]{} + U\^2 - |A|\^2 e\^[-2]{} = 0 which is the Gauss formula for the curvature in terms of the metric and $$A_{\bar{z}} = (U_z - \alpha_z U)e^\alpha$$ which implies that $A$ is holomorphic if and only if $H = \mathrm{const}$. [^7]
Since the only holomorphic quadratic differential on a sphere vanishes everywhere, any CMC sphere in $\R^3$ is umbilic, i.e., $\kappa_1=\kappa_2$ everywhere, and it is easily to derive that any closed umbilic surface is a round sphere. For tori the holomorphic quadratic differentials are constant and, since there are no umbilic tori, the Hopf differential of a CMC torus equals $\mathrm{const}\cdot
dz^2 \neq 0$. By a dilation any CMC torus is transformed into the torus with $H=1$ and then by rescaling a conformal parameter we may achieve $A = \frac{1}{2}$. Then (\[gauss\]) takes the form \[sinhgordon\] u\_[z|[z]{}]{} + u =0, u=2, which is the integrable elliptic $\sinh$-Gordon equation (see the classification of such tori based on this integrable system in [@PinkallSterling]).
Recently such an approach was extended for studying CMC surfaces in other ambient spaces. The breakthrough point was a result of Abresch and Rosenberg who proved that
- [*there is a generalized Hopf differential $A_{\mathrm{AR}}dz^2$ which is defined on any surface in $S^2 \times \R$ or $\H^2 \times
\R$ such that for CMC surfaces $A_{\mathrm{AR}}$ is holomorphic*]{}
by deriving the explicit formula for this differential [@AR1]. This differential vanishes identically on a CMC sphere and they are shown that if the equations $H = \mathrm{const}$ and $A_{\mathrm{AR}} = 0$ are satisfied on a closed surface $M$ then $M$ is a sphere of revolution which implies that
- [*every CMC sphere in $S^2 \times \R$ or $\H^2 \times \R$ is a sphere of revolution.*]{}
Later they extended that for surfaces in other homogeneous manifolds with a four-dimensional isometry group [@AR2]. Moreover Abresch announced that
- [*only the spaces $E(\kappa,\tau)$ admit generalized Hopf differentials which are holomorphic on CMC surfaces.*]{}
The mashinery of the Weierstrass representation admits us to derive very easily such differentials for surfaces in $\nil$ and $\sll$ and moreover to study (the first time) the following problem:
[*When the holomorphicity of the generalized Hopf differential implies that the surface has constant mean curvature?*]{}
It appeared that although for $\nil$ the answer is positive as for space forms in general, there are non-CMC surfaces with holomorphic generalized Hopf differential (see [@FM] and below).
We have
\[[@BT1]\] Let us denote by $Adz^2 = (\nabla_{f_z}f_z,N)dz^2$ the Hopf differential of a surface $f: M \to G$. Then
1. for $G= \nil$ the quadratic differential \[tildea\] dz\^2 = (A + )dz\^2 is holomorphic on a surface if and only if the surface has constant mean curvature;
2. for $G= \sll$ the quadratic differential $$\widetilde{A} dz^2 = \left(A + \frac{5}{2(H-i)}Z^2_3\right) dz^2$$ is holomorphic on constant mean curvature surfaces.
The original Abresch–Rosenberg differential $A_{\mathrm{AR}}$ derived in [@AR1; @AR2] is slightly different from ours: $$A_{\mathrm{AR}} = (H+i\tau) \widetilde{A}$$ where $\tau$ is the bundle curvature (see footnote on page ). These differentials behave differently for non-CMC surfaces. Fernandez and Mira [@FM] showed how the definition of $\widetilde{A}$ is extended for other spaces $E(\kappa,\tau)$ and proved that
- [*a compact surface $M \subset E(\kappa,\tau)$ with holomorphic differential $\widetilde{A}$ (if $\tau \neq 0$ we assume that $M$ is not a torus) is a CMC surface;*]{}
- [*in $\H^2 \times \R$ and $\sll$ all surfaces with holomorphic differential $\widetilde{A}$ are CMC-surfaces or some non-compact surfaces whose complete description is given in [@FM];*]{}
- [*there are non-compact rotationally-invariant non-CMC surfaces with holomorphic differential $A_{\mathrm{AR}}$ in $S^2 \times \R$ and $\H^2 \times \R$ however it is still unclear are there non-CMC surfaces with holomorphic differential $\widetilde{A}$ in such ambient spaces.*]{}
As we see above CMC-tori in $\R^3$ are described by the elliptic $\sinh$-Gordon equation. By [@BT1; @FM], in the spaces $E(\kappa,\tau)$ except probably some Berger spheres CMC tori are exactly the tori with holomorphic differential $\widetilde{A}$. It appeared that for surfaces in $\nil$ the holomorphicity of $\widetilde{A}$ again leads to the elliptic $\sinh$-Gordon equation but for other quantities.
\[Berdinsky\] For a certain choice of a conformal parameter the potential $U=V$ of the Weierstrass representation of a CMC torus has to meet the equation \[berdinsky\] v\_[z|[z]{}]{} + 22v = 0 where $v = \log U$.
First we prove the following
\[Berdinsky\] In terms of $\psi$ and of the differential $$B = \frac{1}{4} (2H+i) \widetilde{A}$$ the derivational equations for surfaces in $\nil$ are written as follows \[dernil1\] (
[c]{} \_1\
\_2
) (
[cc]{} v\_z - H\_z e\^[-v]{} e\^ & Be\^[-v]{}\
-e\^v & 0
) (
[c]{} \_1\
\_2
), \[dernil2\] | (
[c]{} \_1\
\_2
) (
[cc]{} 0 & e\^v\
-|[B]{}e\^[-v]{} & v\_[|[z]{}]{} - H\_[|[z]{}]{} e\^[-v]{} e\^
) (
[c]{} \_1\
\_2
)
[*Proof of Lemma.*]{} We have $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial z} = v_z e^v = \frac{2H+i}{4}
\psi_2 \partial \bar{\psi}_2
+ \frac {2H-i}{4} \bar{\psi}_1
\partial \psi_1 - \frac{iH}{2} \psi_1 \bar{\psi}_2 |\psi_2|^2
+ \frac{H_z e^\alpha}{2}$$ and combining that with (\[tildea\]) we yield $$\partial \psi_1 = (v_z - \frac{1}{2} H_z e^{-v} e^{\alpha}) \psi_1
+ \frac{1}{4} (2H+i) \widetilde{A} e^{-v} \psi_2,$$ where $e^{\alpha} = |\psi_1|^2 + |\psi_2|^2 $. Analogous calculations gives us $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial \bar{z}} = v_{\bar{z}} e^v =\frac{2H+i}{4}
\bar{\psi}_2 \bar{\partial} {\psi_2} +
\frac {2H-i}{4} \psi_1
\bar{\partial} \bar{\psi}_1 -
\frac{iH}{2} \psi_2 \bar{\psi}_1 |\psi_1|^2
+ \frac{H_{\bar{z}} e^\alpha}{2}$$ and $$\bar{\partial} \psi_2 = -\frac{1}{4} (2H-i) e^{-v} \bar{\widetilde{A}}
\psi_1 + (v_{\bar {z}} - \frac{1}{2} H_{\bar{z}} e^{-v}
e^{\alpha}) \psi_2.$$ Together with the Dirac equation $\D\psi=0$ these equations constitute (\[dernil1\]) and (\[dernil2\]). Lemma is proved.
Now let us prove the theorem. We again recall that holomorphic differentials on tori are constant: $\mathrm{const} \cdot dz^2$. CMC surfaces in $\nil$ with $\widetilde{A}=0$ are spheres of revolution [@AR2; @BT2]. Hence $H$ and $\widetilde{A}$ are nonvanishing constants and the equations (\[dernil1\]) and (\[dernil2\]) are simplified as follows $$\bar{\partial} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & e^v \\
-\bar{B}e^{-v} & v_{\bar{z}} - \frac{1}{2} H_{\bar{z}} e^{-v}
e^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2
\end{array}
\right)$$ which implies $$v_{z \bar{z}} + e^{2v} - |B|^2 e^{-2v} = 0.$$ By rescaling the conformal parameter we achieve that $|B|=1$. This proves Theorem.
In this case the appearance of the same integrable system as the Gauss–Codazzi equations for different classes of surfaces (CMC tori in $\R^3$ and in $\nil$) does not mean any Lawson type correspondence because for tori in $\nil$ this equation is written not on the metric but on the potential $U$ of the Weierstrass representation. [^8] Moreover this coincidence does imply the local isometry of corresponding surfaces.
We would like also to mention that until recently there are no known examples of CMC tori in $\nil$ and this theorem is just a step to proving their existence. One of the main difficulties is that the systems (\[sinhgordon\]) and (\[berdinsky\]) are very different from the physical point of view: they describe different fields, i.e., the function $u$ in (\[sinhgordon\]) is real-valued and the function $v$ in (\[berdinsky\]) in general has nontrivial real and imaginary parts. Hence the reality conditions for these systems are drastically different. However it sounds possible to use soliton technique kind of the Lamb ansatz to construct some analogs of the Abresch tori in $\R^3$ [@Abresch].
[**5. The spinor energy and the isoperimetric problem [@T2]**]{}
Although in general for surfaces in $\nil$ and $\sll$ the potentials $U$ and $V$ are complex-valued, the (spinor) energy functional (\[energy\]) is real-valued for compact oriented surfaces without boundary. Moreover as in the Euclidean case it is written in geometrical terms:
\[[@BT1]\] For a closed oriented surface $M$ in $G$ its (spinor) energy $$E(M) = \int_M UV dx dy$$ equals $$\frac{1}{4} \int_M \left( H^2 + \frac{\widehat{K}}{4} -
\frac{1}{16} \right)
d \mu \ \ \ \ \mbox{for $G = \nil$};$$ $$\frac{1}{4} \int_M \left( H^2 +
\frac{5}{16} \widehat{K} - \frac{1}{4} \right) d \mu \ \ \ \
\mbox{for $G = \sll$,}$$ where $\widehat{K}$ is the sectional curvature of the ambient space along the tangent plane to the surface and $d\mu$ is the induced measure.
These expressions for $E$ are different from the Willmore functional which for surfaces in a general ambient space is defined as $${\cal W} = \int_M (|H|^2 + \widehat{K}) d\mu.$$ For surfaces in $\R^3$ we have $$E = \frac{1}{4} {\cal W} = \frac{1}{4} \int_M
\left(\frac{\kappa_1+\kappa_2}{2}\right)^2 d\mu = \frac{1}{4}
\int_M \left(\frac{\kappa_1-\kappa_2}{2}\right)^2 d\mu +
\frac{1}{4} \int_M \kappa_1\kappa_2 d\mu.$$ The Gauss–Bonnet theorem implies that for a compact oriented surface $M$ without boundary we have \[willmore0\] E(M) = \_M ()\^2 d+ where $\chi(M)$ is the Euler characteristic of $M$. In particular this implies that for spheres $$E \geq \pi$$ and the equality is achieved exactly on the round spheres for which $\kappa_1=\kappa_2$ everywhere.
We note that the round spheres are exactly the isoperimetric profiles in $\R^3$, i.e. these are closed surfaces of minimal area among all surfaces bounding domains of some fixed volume. It follows from the variational principle that an isoperimetric profile is always a CMC hypersurface at regular points and it is known that if the dimension of the ambient space is not greater than seven then an isoperimetric profile is smooth.
The isoperimetric problem is not solved until recently for surfaces in $\nil$. However it is known that in general for a compact Riemannian manifold for small volumes the isoperimetric profiles are homeomorphic to a sphere [@Morgan]. Hence for small volumes the isoperimetric profiles in $\nil$ are CMC spheres. By [@AR1] all CMC spheres are rotationally invariant, and by [@FMP], CMC spheres of revolution form a family parameterized by the mean curvature $H, 0 < H < \infty$. We compute that
For CMC spheres in $\nil$
1. the energy functional is constant and equals $E = \pi$;
2. the Willmore functional varies as follows: $${\cal W}(H) = 10\pi + \frac{\pi}{2H^2} -$$ $$- \pi\frac
{(1+4H^2)(3H^2-\frac{1}{4})H^3}{2} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}
-\arctan\left [\frac{4H^2 -1}{4H}\right] \right).$$
Let us consider general surfaces of revolution in $\nil$. There is the natural submersion $$\nil \to \nil/SO(2)$$ onto the half-plane $u \geq 0$ with the metric $$du^2 + \frac{4dv^2}{4+u^2}.$$ Let $\gamma(s) = (u(s),v(s))$ be a path-length parameterized smooth curve in this halfplane which generates by revolution a surface in $\nil$. Let us denote by $\sigma$ the angle between $\gamma$ and the vector $\frac{\partial}{\partial u}$. We have
\[[@BT2]\] For a closed oriented surface $M$ in $\nil$ obtained by revolving a curve $\gamma \subset B$ around the $z$-axis, the spinor energy of $M$ equals $$\begin{split}
\label{willmore1} E(M) = \frac 1 4 \int_{\gamma} \left( H^2 -
\frac 1 4 {n_3}^2 \right)
d\mu = \\
\frac{\pi}{8} \int_{\gamma} \left(\dot {\sigma} -
\frac{\sin \sigma}{ u}\right)^2 \sqrt{4u^2 + u^4} ds - \frac{\pi}{4}
\int_{\gamma} \frac{\partial{[\dot{u}
\sqrt{4+u^2}]}}{\partial s} ds = \\
\\
\frac{\pi}{8} \int_{\gamma} \left(\dot {\sigma} -
\frac{\sin \sigma}{ u}\right)^2 \sqrt{4u^2 + u^4} ds + \frac{\pi \chi(M)}{2}
\end{split}$$ where $\chi(M)$ is the Euler characteristic of $M$.
If $\dot{\sigma} = \frac{\sin \sigma}{u}$ everywhere then the surface is a CMC sphere.
It implies
For spheres of revolution in $\nil$ we have $$E(M) \geq \pi$$ and the equality is attained exactly at CMC spheres.
For tori of revolution in $\nil$ the spinor energy is positive: $$E(M) > 0.$$
It is also straightforward to prove
\[[@BT2]\] The CMC spheres in $\nil$ are the critical points of the spinor energy functional $E$.
We see now that except the spectral theory of the Dirac operator there are other reasons to treat the spinor energy as the right analog of the Willmore functional for surfaces in $\nil$. Indeed,
- it takes the constant value on the CMC spheres which are the critical points of this functional;
- there is a strong similarity of formulas (\[willmore0\]) and (\[willmore1\]). However the quantities $\dot{\sigma}$ and $\frac{\sin \sigma}{u}$ are not the principal curvatures of a surface of revolution and two poles are the only umbilic points on a CMC sphere in $\nil$;
- the conditions $A=0$ and $\widetilde{A}=0$ distinguish in $\R^3$ and $\nil$ the minima of $E$ for spheres of revolution (in the Euclidean case even for spheres).
Of course, this study has to be completed and the following questions are worth to be answered:
1. [*is $E$ bounded from below for each topological type of closed oriented surfaces?*]{}
2. [*is $E$ positive?*]{}
3. [*are the CMC spheres in $\nil$ are the global minima of $E$ for spheres?*]{}
4. [*how to generalize for general surfaces?*]{}
5. [*what are the minima of $E$ for surfaces of fixed topological type and, in particular, what is the substitution of the Willmore conjecture?*]{}
It is also interesting to study the analogous questions for surfaces in $\sll$ for which the spinor energy functional also has a geometrical form.
For $S^2 \times \R$ we have the following computational observation:
\[[@BT2]\] For isoperimetric profiles $M$ in $S^2 \times \R$ we have $$\int_M (H^2 + \widehat{K} +1)d\mu = 16\pi.$$
The isoperimetric problem for $S^2 \times \R$ was solved by Pedrosa [@Pedrosa] who proved that for volumes $d \leq d_0$ the isoperimetric profiles are CMC spheres, for $d>d_0$ the isoperimetric profiles bound the product cylinders $S^2 \times \left[0,\frac{d}{4\pi}\right]$ where $d_0$ is some transition point from one topological class of solutions to another. The functional mentioned in Proposition takes the same value on all CMC spheres (not only isoperimetric) and on all isopermetric profiles (connected and disconnected).
We would like to guess that
[*the right analog of the Willmore theory (at least for spheres) has to be related to the isoperimetric problem and the isoperimetric profiles in three-dimensional homogeneous spaces have to be distinguished as (at least local) minima of the Willmore type functional which is constant on them.*]{}
[MMM]{}
Abresch, U.: Constant mean curvature tori in terms of elliptic functions. J. Reine Angew. Math. [**374**]{} (1987), 169–192.
Abresch, U., and Rosenberg, H.: Generalized Hopf differentials. Mat. Contemp. [**28**]{} (2005), 1–28.
Abresch, U., and Rosenberg, H.: A Hopf differential for constant mean curvature surfaces in $S\sp 2\times \R$ and $H\sp 2\times \R$. Acta Math. [**193**]{} (2004), no. 2, 141–174.
Berdinsky, D.A., and Taimanov, I.A.: Surfaces in three-dimensional Lie groups. Siberian Math. J. [**46**]{} (2005), 1005–1019.
Berdinsky D.A., and Taimanov, I.A.: Surfaces of revolution in the Heisenberg group and a spectral generalization of the Willmore functional. Siberian Math. J. [**48**]{} (2007), 395–407.
Daniel, B.: Isometric immersions into $3$-dimensional homogeneous manifolds. Comment. Math. Helv. [**82**]{} (2007), 87–131.
Fernández, I., and Mira, P.: A characterization of constant mean curvature surfaces in homogeneous $3$-manifolds. Differential Geom. Appl. [**25**]{} (2007), 281–289.
Ferus, D., Leschke, K., Pedit, F., and Pinkall, U.: Quaternionic holomorphic geometry: Plücker formula, Dirac eigenvalue estimates and energy estimates of harmonic $2$-tori. Invent. Math. [**146**]{}:3 (2001), 507–593.
Figueroa, C., Mercuri, F., Pedrosa, R.: Invariant surfaces of the Heisenberg groups. Ann. Math. Pura Appl. [**177**]{} (1999), 173–194.
Friedrich, T.: On the spinor representation of surfaces in Euclidean $3$-space. J. Geom. Phys. [**28**]{}:1–2 (1998), 143–157.
Hitchin, N.J.: Harmonic maps from a $2$-torus to the $3$-sphere. J. Differential Geom. [**31**]{} (1990), 627–710.
Inoguchi, J., Kumamoto, T., Ohsugi, N., and Suyama, Y.: Differential geometry of curves and surfaces in $3$-dimensional homogeneous spaces.II. Fukuoka University Science Reports [**30**]{} (2000), 17–47.
Inoguchi, J.: Minimal surfaces in $3$-dimensional solvable Lie groups. Chin. Ann. Math. [**24B**]{}:1 (2003), 73–84.
Kokubu, M.: Weierstrass representation for minimal surfaces in hyperbolic space. Tohoku Math. J. (2) [**49**]{} (1997), no. 3, 367–377.
Konopelchenko, B.G.: Induced surfaces and their integrable dynamics. Stud. Appl. Math. [**96**]{} (1996), 9–51.
Morel, B.: Surfaces in $\mathbb S\sp 3$ and $\mathbb H\sp 3$ via spinors. Actes de Séminaire de Théorie Spectrale et Géométrie. Vol. 23. Année 2004–2005, 131–144, Sémin. Théor. Spectr. Géom., [**23**]{}, Univ. Grenoble I, Saint-Martin-d’Hères, 2005.
Morgan, F., Johnson, D.: Some sharp isoperimetric theorems for Riemannian manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**49**]{} (2000), 1017–1041.
Pedrosa, R.: The isoperimetric problem in spherical cylinders. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. [**26**]{} (2004), no. 4, 333–354.
Pinkall, U., and Sterling, I.: On the classification of constant mean curvature tori. Ann. of Math. (2) [**130**]{}:2 (1989), 407–451.
Roth, J.: Spinorial characterizations of surfaces in $3$-dimensional homogeneous manifolds. arxiv:0706.3107 in http://www.arxiv.org.
Taimanov, I.A.: Modified Novikov-Veselov equation and differential geometry of surfaces. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) [**179**]{} (1997), 133–151.
Taimanov, I.A.: Two-dimensional Dirac operator and the theory of surfaces. Russian Math. Surveys [**61**]{} (2006), no. 1, 79–159.
[^1]: Institute of Mathematics, 630090 Novosirbisk, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: These are the space forms $\R^3, S^3$, and $\H^3$; the product geometries $S^2 \times \R$ and $\H^2 \times
\R$; and three geometries modeled on the Lie groups $\nil$, $\sol$, and $\sll$ with certain left-invariant metrics.
[^3]: \[4isoclass\] All such spaces are locally isometric to line bundles (with the bundle curvature $\tau$) over space forms (with the curvature $\kappa$): for $\kappa \neq 4\tau^2$ we have the spaces $E(\kappa,\tau)$ from the table below $$\begin{array}{cccc}
& \kappa < 0 & \kappa = 0 & \kappa > 0 \\
\tau = 0 & \H^2 \times \R & \R^3 & S^2 \times \R \\
\tau \neq 0 & \sll & \nil & \mbox{Berger spheres}
\end{array}$$ and for $\kappa = 4\tau^2$ we have spaces of constant curvature.
[^4]: Here we correct the sign of the second term in the expression for $U$ miscalculated in [@BT1].
[^5]: We skip here the well-studied case of minimal surfaces in the unit three-sphere $SU(2)$.
[^6]: Recently we have known that such a representation of the hyperbolic three-space was used by Kokubu for deriving the Weierstrass representation of minimal surfaces in $\H^3$ [@Kokubu].
[^7]: The analogous results were established by Hopf also for surfaces in other space forms, $S^3$ and $\H^3$.
[^8]: From the traditional point of view which we do not follow, $U$ is not considered as a geometrical quantity.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
\
We analyse global aspects of 7-brane backgrounds with a non-commuting profile for their worldvolume scalars, also known as T-branes. In particular, we consider configurations with no poles and globally well-defined over a compact Kähler surface. We find that such T-branes cannot be constructed on surfaces of positive or vanishing Ricci curvature. For the existing T-branes, we discuss their stability as we move in Kähler moduli space at large volume and provide examples of T-branes splitting into non-mutually-supersymmetric constituents as they cross a stability wall.
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
One important feature of type II string compactifications is the amount of information on the effective, lower-dimensional theory that one obtains by analysing BPS D-branes. In fact, knowledge on the spectrum of BPS D-branes is a requirement to build interesting type II string vacua, since they typically host the non-trivial gauge sector of the compactification [@thebook]. The more precise this knowledge is, the better the picture on the set of vacua on a certain region of the string landscape.
While D-brane BPS conditions have been thoroughly analysed for different classes of vacua, solving them explicitly can oftentimes be challenging. In that sense, a particularly tractable set of vacua is given by type IIB Calabi-Yau orientifolds with O3/O7-planes. Indeed, in this case the set of space-time-filling BPS D-branes at large volume is given by D3-branes and D7-branes. On the one hand, the embedding of a single D3-brane is simply a point in the internal six-manifold $B$, which trivially satisfies the BPS conditions. On the other hand, the BPS conditions for a single D7-brane demand that it wraps a holomorphic four-cycle $S \subset B$, threaded by an anti-self-dual worldvolume flux. Thanks to the machinery of Kähler geometry, finding the full set of such four-cycles and fluxes for a compact Calabi-Yau is a relatively easy task. A similar statement applies to stacks of D7-branes on $S$ endowed with non-Abelian, anti-self-dual gauge bundles, which allows to have a good grasp on the spectrum of space-time-filling BPS D-branes in this setting. Overall, the capability to construct such D-branes explicitly explains to great extent why type IIB orientifold compactifications and their F-theory generalisation has flourished so much in the past few years [@Denef:2008wq; @Heckman:2010bq; @Weigand:2010wm; @Wijnholt:2012fx; @Leontaris:2012mh; @Maharana:2012tu; @Quevedo:2014xia].
Nevertheless, it is precisely in this context where it has been realised that such BPS solutions may not be sufficient to realise certain phenomenological features. In addition to the above configurations, one may consider stacks of 7-branes whose complex worldvolume scalar (a.k.a. Higgs field) has a non-Abelian profile. These new objects are typically known as Higgs bundles in the mathematics and T-branes in the string theory literature [@Donagi:2003hh; @Hayashi:2009bt; @Cecotti:2010bp; @Donagi:2011jy], and can be seen as generalisations of the original construction of Hitchin [@Hitchin:1986vp]. As pointed out in [@Hayashi:2009bt; @Cecotti:2010bp], such T-brane backgrounds are crucial to engineer and compute realistic Yukawas in F-theory GUTs [@Donagi:2008ca; @Beasley:2008dc; @Beasley:2008kw; @Donagi:2008kj], as checked in explicit models in [@Chiou:2011js; @Font:2013ida; @Marchesano:2015dfa; @Carta:2015eoh]. Since then there has been a lot of effort in understanding this class of backgrounds [@Donagi:2011dv; @Anderson:2013rka; @DelZotto:2014hpa; @Collinucci:2014taa; @Collinucci:2014qfa; @Cicoli:2015ylx; @Collinucci:2016hpz; @Bena:2016oqr; @Marchesano:2016cqg; @Mekareeya:2016yal; @Ashfaque:2017iog; @Anderson:2017rpr; @Bena:2017jhm; @Collinucci:2017bwv; @Cicoli:2017shd].
Unlike their Abelian counterparts, configurations of 7-branes with a non-Abelian Higgs-field profile are poorly understood, in the sense that it is not known when they can be accommodated in type IIB/F-theory compactifications. Needless to say, this knowledge is necessary to realise the full model building potential of this class of vacua. This paper aims to make progress in this direction by analysing the conditions to construct T-branes with a compact embedding. That is, we analyse D7-branes with a non-Abelian profile for its worldvolume scalar $\Phi$, globally well-defined over a compact Kähler four-cycle $S$ and without any poles. We dub such configurations as [*compact T-branes*]{}, and analyse them by inspecting the related Hitchin system of equations over $S$. We therefore extend previous analysis of this sort, which so far have been essentially performed only at a local level.[^1]
As usual, obstructions may be found when trying to extend a local solution globally. In our case we find that constructing compact T-brane solutions crucially depends on the Ricci curvature of the surface $S$, and more precisely on its cohomology class. Indeed, we find obstructions to the existence of compact T-branes over complex four-cycles of vanishing or positive-definite curvature, like K3 or del Pezzo surfaces. On surfaces of negative-definite curvature, instead, solutions can always be constructed, generalising the result of Hitchin for Riemann surfaces of genus $g >1$ [@Hitchin:1986vp]. Finally, for surfaces of indefinite curvature the construction will depend on the particular region of the Kähler moduli space where we sit.[^2] This latter case raises the question of the fate of T-branes when we move in Kähler moduli space and, in particular, when we pass from one region to another by crossing stability walls. In this respect, we find that a T-brane is either converted into a different BPS object as it crosses the wall, or it splits into non-mutually-BPS constituents. As could be expected, the T-brane’s fate will ultimately depend on its topological data, and we analyse several interesting cases in terms of them.
The paper is organised as follows. In section \[sec:compact\] we specify the class of T-branes that we will be studying, with special emphasis on their global description in terms of a compact four-cycle. We then turn to discuss solutions to the BPS equations, first the analogous of the original Hitchin solution and then generalisations thereof. In section \[sec:nogo\] we prove a topological obstruction to building compact T-brane solutions: they cannot be hosted by four-cycles of vanishing or positive-definite Ricci curvature class. Finally, in section \[sec:stability\] we analyse the stability of the allowed T-brane constructions as we move in large volume Kähler moduli space, and in particular their fate after crossing a stability wall. We draw our conclusions in section \[sec:conclu\].
Some technical details are relegated to the appendices. In appendix \[ap:alpha\] we give a four-dimensional interpretation of the non-harmonicity of the worldvolume flux in T-brane solutions. In appendix \[ap:examples\] we construct several explicit examples of the stability-wall transitions discussed in section \[sec:stability\].
Global aspects of T-branes {#sec:compact}
==========================
Consider a stack of 7-branes wrapping a compact Kähler surface $S$. Following [@Donagi:2008ca; @Beasley:2008dc; @Beasley:2008kw; @Donagi:2008kj], the 7-brane configuration and degrees of freedom can be characterised in terms of an eight-dimensional action on $\IR^{1,3} \times S$ with a non-Abelian symmetry group $G$. In particular, such data are encoded in terms of two two-forms on $S$: the field strength $\mathbb{F} = d\mathbb{A} - i\mathbb{A} \wedge \mathbb{A}$ of the 7-branes gauge boson $\mathbb{A}$, and the (2,0)-form Higgs field $\Phi$, whose eigenvalues describe the 7-brane transverse geometrical deformations. Both $\mathbb{A}$ and $\Phi$ transform in the adjoint of the initial gauge group $G$, which is nevertheless broken to a subgroup due to their non-trivial profile. Finally, such profiles need to satisfy certain equations of motion, which in the case of supersymmetric configurations are given by
\[susy7\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fterm1}
\bar \partial_{\mathbb{A}} \Phi = &\, 0\\
\label{Fterm2}
\mathbb{F}^{(0,2)} =&\, 0\\
\label{Dterm}
J \wedge \mathbb{F} +\frac{1}{2} [\Phi, \Phi^\dagger] =&\,0\,,\end{aligned}$$
where $J$ is the Kähler two-form of $S$. These equations are a generalisation of the celebrated Hitchin system [@Hitchin:1986vp] to a four-manifold. Upon dimensional reduction to four dimensions, the first two equations ensure the vanishing of the F-terms, while the third equation ensures the vanishing of the D-terms.
In this paper we will analyse 7-brane backgrounds with non-commuting expectation values for the worldvolume scalar $\Phi$, namely such that $[\Phi, \Phi^\dagger] \neq 0$, also known as T-branes in the string theory literature. We will restrict to those T-brane configurations that are globally well-defined over a compact Kähler surface $S$ and such that the Higgs field profile is absent of poles.[^3] We dub such T-brane configurations as [*compact T-branes*]{}, in the sense that the spectral equation for $\Phi$ describes a compact surface. Notice that poles are naturally associated to field-theory defects originating from additional 7-branes intersecting the stack, so we may interpret a compact T-brane as a stack of 7-branes in isolation from the others. In other words, we may see them as basic building blocks of BPS 7-brane configurations in type IIB/F-theory compactifications. We will moreover focus on solutions of equations involving an Abelian profile for the gauge field. Said differently, in our backgrounds the source of non-commutativity of the 7-brane system will come entirely from $\Phi$.
In order to describe the essential features of compact T-branes, in this section we will focus on the simplest possible example, namely a stack of two D7-branes. This case allows to generalise the original example of Hitchin on a Riemann surface [@Hitchin:1986vp] to a compact complex four-cycle. From there one may generalise the T-brane Ansatz in a number of ways, finding backgrounds with a non-harmonic worldvolume flux. As we will see, the departure from harmonicity is governed by certain non-linear differential equations, and this will allow to connect our constructions with the literature of T-brane solutions in flat space.
T-branes and non-harmonic fluxes {#ss:global}
--------------------------------
Let us focus on a stack of two 7-branes wrapping $S$, and therefore on a super-Yang-Mills theory on $\IR^{1,3} \times S$ with symmetry group $G = SU(2)$. We will always assume that $S$ is simply-connected, i.e. $\pi_1(S)=0$. This will simplify our analysis considerably because it implies, in particular, that holomorphic line bundles on $S$ have their topology completely specified by the first Chern class. As mentioned, we will also restrict attention to a rank-two gauge bundle $\mathbb{V}$ on $S$ of split type, i.e. =\^[-1]{}, \[SplitV\] where $\mathcal{L}$ is a line bundle whose curvature we denote by $F$. The F-term (\[Fterm2\]) of the eight-dimensional super-Yang-Mills theory forces $F$ to be a differential form of Hodge-type $(1,1)$, which gives $\mathcal{L}$ a holomorphic structure. Moreover, since $F$ is closed, using the Hodge decomposition, we can uniquely write it as \[Alpha\] F=F\^+, where the superscript $^{\h}$ denotes the harmonic representative and $\alpha$ is a globally well-defined one-form. Note that the absence of non-trivial first-cohomology classes on $S$, following from its simply-connectedness, forbids harmonic representatives for $\alpha$. We can thus always choose (globally) a gauge that kills the exact part of $\alpha$, such that we can write \[generalalpha\] =-, where $g({\bf x},{\bf \bar{x}})$ is a globally well-defined real function on $S$ (with local complex coordinates collectively denoted by ${\bf x}$) such that $\int_S g\, \d {\rm vol}_S = 0$, and $\d^c=i(\delbar-\del)$. Using that $S$ is Kähler, it is easy to see that the co-differential operator $\delta=-*\d*$ annihilates the expression , and hence $\alpha$ is co-closed. In this way, the gauge field strength becomes \[Fsplit\] F=F\^-ig. The function $g$, or equivalently $\alpha$, will play a key rôle in the sequel. It will be the unknown of the non-linear partial differential equation governing T-brane backgrounds, which arises from the equation of the eight-dimensional super-Yang-Mills theory. In an ordinary intersecting-brane background, where $\Phi$ is diagonalisable, this equation forces $F$ to be primitive. By a standard result in Kähler geometry (see e.g. [@Ballmann]), every primitive (1,1)-form on a Kähler two-fold is anti-self-dual with respect to the Hodge-star operator. Since $F$ is closed, this implies then that $F$ is also co-closed, and hence harmonic. Now, reversing the argument, a T-brane supersymmetric configuration will involve a gauge field strength which is closed but not anti-self-dual, and therefore $F$ will not necessarily be given by the harmonic representative of a certain cohomology class. This departure from harmonicity is described by $g$.
As we will see, the information that $g$ encodes is lost in the four-dimensional effective theory. It can only be recovered when we include the D7-brane Kaluza-Klein modes into the four-dimensional description, as we discuss in appendix \[ap:alpha\]. In other words, $g$ determines the microscopic details of the T-brane background, which only the eight-dimensional theory is sensitive to.
In order to determine $g$ let us for convenience define the global real function \[varphi\] ([**x**]{},[**|[x]{}**]{})\_3, where, compatibly with our choice of gauge bundle $\mathbb{V}$, we restrict our attention to commutators proportional to the third Pauli matrix $\sigma_3$. Then one can see that $\varphi \geq 0$ all over $S$ and that equation reads \[8dDterm\] FJ=- J\^2. Using the Lefschetz decomposition of harmonic forms, we can write \[SplitPrim\] F\^= J + F\^\_, where $c$ is a constant, $F^{\h}_{\p}$ is primitive and the numerical factor is for later convenience. Of course this splitting depends on the Kähler moduli of our string compactification, and the periods of the two summands are generally real (moduli-dependent) numbers which must add up to (half-)integer numbers to satisfy the quantization condition for $F$.[^4]
Using that $S$ is Kähler, one can show that $2i\del\delbar g\wedge J=*\Delta g$, where $\Delta$ is the Laplace operator in real coordinates. This leads us to an elegant rewriting of equation : \[DiffD\] g([**x**]{},[**|[x]{}**]{}) = c + ([**x**]{},[**|[x]{}**]{}).
At this point, one fixes an hermitian metric on $S$, and solves equation for $g$, or equivalently for the unitary connection $A$ on $\mathcal{L}$. Notice that a necessary requirement to solve this equation is that its r.h.s. integrates to zero, i.e. \[4dDterm\] c=-[Tr]{}\_S\[,\^\]\_3, which is nothing but the condition for vanishing D-term potential in the four-dimensional low-energy effective theory.
Practically, equation can only be solved analytically in few situations, because in general $\varphi$ will depend non-linearly on $g$. Nevertheless this equation is always of elliptic type [@Hitchin:1986vp] and, as such, on a compact manifold it admits a unique smooth solution if the input function $\varphi$ is smooth and provided that is satisfied [@Vafa:1994tf].
The most convenient and adopted [@Cecotti:2010bp; @Donagi:2011jy] approach to formulate the problem is to fix the holomorphic structure of $\L$ such that $A^{0,1} = 0$, which turns the anti-holomorphic covariant derivative of equation into the simple Dolbeault operator $\delbar$. In this frame, equation (or else ), becomes an equation for the hermitian metric $h$ on $\L$, which appears in the gauge field strength. The latter is indeed the curvature of the associated Chern connection $A^{1,0}\sim h^{-1}\del h$, i.e. locally $F=-i\del\delbar \log h$. Given that we can locally write $F^\h=-i\del\delbar \log h_0$ and that $F$ and $F^\h$ are in the same cohomology class, we see that the unknown function $g$ is globally-well defined and enters the metric $h$ as a conformal factor, i.e. $h=h_0\, e^g$.
For concreteness, let us consider a nilpotent Higgs field profile \[NilpPhi\] =(
[cc]{} 0&m\
0 &0
) where $m \in H^{2,0}(S,\CL^{2})$. Equivalently, we can also see $m$ as a scalar holomorphic section of the line bundle $\CM \equiv \mathcal{L}^2\otimes K_S$, with $K_S$ the canonical bundle of $S$. By a slight abuse of notation, in the following we will describe both kinds of object with the same symbol, being clear from the context which one we are referring to. As it stands, this profile is a solution of equation (\[Fterm1\]) in the holomorphic gauge. However, equation contains the adjoint $\Phi^\dagger$, which depends on the metric as \^=H\^[-1]{}\^[+]{}H, where the superscript $^+$ indicates complex conjugation and matrix transposition, and $H={\rm diag}(h,h^{-1})$. This brings a non-linearity in the partial differential equation , which can now be written as \[UnitaryDterm\] g = c + e\^[2g]{} , where $h^S$, the determinant of the fixed hermitian metric on $S$, appears because of applying the Hodge-star operator on a four-form. This is a rather non-trivial equation that reduces to a Liouville-like equation when $m$ is constant and $h^S$ is the flat metric [@Cecotti:2010bp]. Nevertheless, there is a particularly nice setup in which simplifies even further, as we discuss explicitly in the next subsection.
As a side remark, note that, for the split-type configurations we consider in this paper, the stability-based algebro-geometric criterion [@Simpson] for existence and unicity of solutions of the non-Abelian BPS equations is trivially satisfied. For instance, it is immediate to see that the only sub-bundle of $\mathbb{V}$ preserved by the Higgs field (i.e. $\L$) has negative $J$-slope, as enforced by the D-term equation .
The Hitchin Ansatz
------------------
The most emblematic class of Higgs-bundle configurations is probably the one originally studied by Hitchin in the case of Riemann surfaces [@Hitchin:1986vp]. One can straightforwardly extend this Ansatz to the present context of complex surfaces, as first suggested in [@Vafa:1994tf]. This would correspond to taking the nilpotent Higgs field (\[NilpPhi\]) such that the line bundle $\M$ is the trivial one, which amounts to demanding that[^5] \[TopHitchin\] K\_S\^[-1/2]{}. Since $S$ is compact, this choice implies that the quantity $m$ in can only be a constant. Notice also that equation only fixes the cohomology class of the gauge curvature in terms of that of $S$, but not its actual representative. Therefore, let us write the Ricci form of $S$ as \[Sigma\] =\^-2is([**x**]{},[**|[x]{}**]{}), where $s$ is another globally well-defined smooth real function on $S$ such that $\int_S s\, \d {\rm vol}_S = 0$, and the factor of $2$ is for later convenience. Then, eq. states that $F^{\h}=\rho^{\h}/2$, or equivalently, using , that[^6] F=-i(g-s).
Loosely speaking, $e^{g-s}$ is the conformal factor needed to rescale the hermitian metric on the surface $S$ to get the hermitian metric on the line bundle $\mathcal{L}$. More precisely we have \[ConfResc\] h\_0=e\^[-s]{}. Using the above relation, our partial differential equation becomes \[HitchinVarphiU\] g = c +|m|\^2e\^[2(g-s)]{}, where, as said, in this Hitchin set of solutions $m$ is a complex number. Let us now analyse two possible sub-cases of this setup.
### Kähler-Einstein metric {#kähler-einstein-metric .unnumbered}
The easiest possible situation is analogous to the one originally considered by Hitchin in the case of Riemann surfaces [@Hitchin:1986vp]. This arises when $g=s$. Taking into account the D-term condition , which now simply says that $c=-|m|^2$, equation reads g([**x**]{},[**|[x]{}**]{}) = 0, whose unique solution on $S$ is $g({\bf x},{\bf \bar{x}})=0$. This, in turn, means that also $s=0$, and thus that both the gauge flux $F$ and the Ricci form $\rho$ are harmonic. If in particular $h^{1,1}(S) =1$, then $F_{\p}^{\h}=0$ in equation and therefore we have =-J. Thus the metric on our surface $S$ is Kähler-Einstein with Einstein constant $-|m|^2/2$, that is it has constant negative Ricci curvature.
We can reverse the above argument and get a more useful statement. If we fix the metric on $S$ to be Kähler-Einstein, then $\rho=kJ$ with $k$ a real constant, which in particular means that $s=0$ in equation . Equation now reads g = |m|\^2(e\^[2g]{}-\_Se\^[2g]{} \_S), where we substituted the value of $c$ fixed by the D-term . The above equation automatically implies that $g({\bf x},{\bf \bar{x}})=0$, because it admits a unique smooth solution. Therefore we conclude that, if we fix a (negatively curved) Kähler-Einstein metric on $S$, the vacuum solution for a constant nilpotent Higgs field involves a non-primitive, but still harmonic gauge flux.
### Beyond Kähler-Einstein {#beyond-kähler-einstein .unnumbered}
If instead we consider a non-Kähler-Einstein metric on $S$, the vacuum profile of the gauge flux will necessarily depart from the harmonic representative, and will be uniquely fixed by the equation g = |m|\^2(e\^[2g-2s]{}-\_Se\^[2g-2s]{} \_S). As before, there will be a unique smooth solution for $g$. Note that this extension beyond Kähler-Einstein is also possible in the case of Riemann surfaces, thus directly generalising the type of solution discussed in [@Hitchin:1986vp].
Generalising the Ansatz
-----------------------
There are a few ways of generalising the above simple set of solutions, namely by considering Higgs field profiles that are non-nilpotent and by considering line bundles $\CL$ that do not meet the topological condition (\[TopHitchin\]). In the following we will consider and combine both generalisations, comparing the resulting equations for the function $g$ with the local T-brane solutions in the literature.
### Non-nilpotent Higgs field {#non-nilpotent-higgs-field .unnumbered}
Let us first consider the case of four-cycles where the condition (\[TopHitchin\]) is met, but now we have a non-nilpotent profile for the Higgs field. Namely we consider it to be of the form \[nNilpPhi\] =(
[cc]{} 0&m\
p &0
) where $p \in H^{2,0}(S,\CL^{-2})$, or equivalently a scalar holomorphic section of the line bundle $\P \equiv \mathcal{L}^{-2}\otimes K_S$. Notice that due to (\[TopHitchin\]) we have that $\P \simeq K_S^2$. Such a bundle will have sections in many four-cycles of negative curvature, like for instance in those where $K_S$ also does. In this case eq. (\[UnitaryDterm\]) generalises to g = c + h\_S\^[-1]{} (|m|\^2 h\_0\^2 e\^[2g]{} - |p|\^2 h\_0\^[-2]{} e\^[-2g]{}), and so, using eq. (\[ConfResc\]), we arrive to \[HitchinPainleve\] g = c + ( |m|\^2e\^[2g]{} - h\_0\^[-4]{} |p|\^2 e\^[-2g]{} ) e\^[-2s]{} . As before, $|m|^2$ is a constant, while $h_0^{-4} |p|^2$ is a globally well-defined smooth function on $S$. Finally, enforcing the 4d D-term condition implies that $c$ is given by c = - \_S ( |m|\^2e\^[2g]{} - h\_0\^[-4]{} |p|\^2 e\^[-2g]{} )e\^[-2s]{} \_S , so that eq. (\[HitchinPainleve\]) has a (unique) solution.
Notice that now $g$ will not vanish in the Kähler-Einstein case $s=0$. Instead, eq. (\[HitchinPainleve\]) will become a complicated non-linear equation for $g$. Near the locus where $p=0$ we can Taylor expand the function $h_0^{-4} |p|^2$, and recover an equation very similar to that obtained in the local T-brane $\mathbb{Z}_2$ background of [@Cecotti:2010bp]. As pointed out in there, such an equation can be rewritten as a Painlevé III differential equation. Hence one would expect that, at least in a local patch near $p=0$, the profile for $g$ can be expressed in terms of solutions to that equation. Finally, one may depart from a Kähler-Einstein metric by considering $s \neq 0$. This will modify the (unique) solution for $g$, which will depend on the profiles of the functions $|m|e^{-s}$ and $h_0^{-2} |p|e^{-s}$.
### Non-trivial bundle $\CM$ {#non-trivial-bundle-cm .unnumbered}
Let us now consider relaxing the topological condition , or in other words assume that $\CM \equiv \mathcal{L}^2\otimes K_S$ is a non-trivial bundle with sections. Given its definition, we can express the hermitian metric on $\CM$ as h\_= h\_S\^[-1]{} h\_0\^2 e\^[2g]{} = h\_[,0]{} e\^[2(g-s)]{} , where $h_{\CM,0}$ corresponds to the metric with curvature $2F^{\h} - \rho^{\h}$ and $s$ is again defined by (\[Sigma\]). We can then express (\[UnitaryDterm\]) as \[NewUnitaryDterm\] g = c + m \_\^2 e\^[2(g-s)]{} , m \_\^2 h\_[,0]{} |m|\^2, with $\lVert m \rVert_\CM$ a globally well-defined, smooth function on $S$ that vanishes over the same locus as $m$. This corresponds to an obvious generalisation of eq. (\[HitchinVarphiU\]), where now the input function that determines $g$ is given by $e^{-s}\lVert m \rVert_\CM$. Since $\lVert m \rVert_\CM$ is non-constant, $g$ will be non-trivial even in the Kähler-Einstein case $s=0$, and so the gauge flux $F$ will depart from harmonicity.
Finally, one may combine a non-trivial bundle $\CM$ with a non-nilpotent Higgs field (\[nNilpPhi\]), again assuming that $\P \equiv \mathcal{L}^{-2}\otimes K_S$ has sections. In that case, we may express the metric for this bundle as h\_¶= h\_S\^[-1]{} h\_0\^[-2]{} e\^[-2g]{} = h\_[¶,0]{} e\^[-2(g+s)]{} , with $h_{\P,0}$ the metric of curvature $-2F^{\h} - \rho^{\h}$. We then consider the globally well-defined, vanishing smooth function on $S$ given by $\lVert p \rVert_\P^2 \equiv h_{\P,0} |p|^2$. Together with the above definition for $\lVert m \rVert_\CM^2$, we obtain an equation for $g$ of the form \[BHitchinPainleve\] g = c + ( m \_\^2 e\^[2g]{} - p \_¶\^2 e\^[-2g]{} ) e\^[-2s]{} . While arising from a more general setup, this new differential equation is in fact very similar to (\[HitchinPainleve\]), with the new functions that determine $g$ now given by $e^{-s} \lVert m \rVert_\CM$ and $e^{-s} \lVert p \rVert_\P$.
A no-go theorem {#sec:nogo}
===============
The simple examples discussed in the previous section suggest that it is relatively easy to construct global T-brane configurations on four-manifolds with negative Ricci curvature. While it may seem that this preference comes from imposing the Hitchin Ansatz or generalisations thereof, there is in fact a deeper reason behind. Indeed, in the following we will see that compact T-brane configurations with Abelian gauge bundles cannot be implemented on four-manifolds of vanishing or positive Ricci curvature. We will first show this no-go result for the configuration with symmetry group $G = SU(2)$ and split gauge bundle of the type (\[SplitV\]), and then generalise it to groups of higher rank.
### The case of SU(2) {#the-case-of-su2 .unnumbered}
In order to investigate the possible obstructions to the construction of compact T-branes, let us first consider the stack of two D7-branes wrapping a simply-connected Kähler surface $S$, and with split gauge bundle $\mathbb{V}=\L\oplus\L^{-1}$. As before, we may start considering the T-brane background given by the nilpotent Higgs vev \[NilpotentPhiStack\] =(
[cc]{} 0&m\
0 &0
), where $m\in H^0(S,\M)$. Now, the very fact that an holomorphic section $m$ exists implies that the divisor associated to $\CM \equiv \mathcal{L}^2\otimes K_S$ is effective. That is, for $J$ in the Kähler cone we have \[ExistenceOfM\] \_SJc\_1()=\_SJ(2c\_1(Ł)+c\_1(K\_S))0 with the equality holding if and only if $\M$ is trivial.[^7] Moreover, the 4d D-term condition (\[4dDterm\]), or equivalently \[IntegratedDterm\] \_S\[,\^\]=-2\_SJF\_3, for a Higgs field of the form implies that \[NegFI\] 2\_SJc\_1(Ł)<0 , where we just used that $F/2\pi$ represents $c_1(\L)$ in cohomology. Subtracting the l.h.s. of to the middle expression in , we get the statement that we can construct such a T-brane in a region of Kähler moduli space where \[NonPosCurv\] \_SJc\_1(K\_S)>0. This conditions forbids $S$ to be K3 or a manifold with positive-definite Ricci curvature. Indeed, if it were positive definite, the canonical class, which is represented by minus the Ricci form, would necessarily have a negative volume everywhere in Kähler moduli space. Kähler surfaces with negative-definite Ricci curvature certainly satisfy the necessary requirement , but surfaces with indefinite curvature may also do so. The second inequality we get from and is \_SJc\_1()<\_SJc\_1(K\_S), \[ineqnil\] which simply states that the volume of the holomorphic curve $\{m=0\}$ must be strictly smaller than the one of the self-intersection curve of $S$.[^8] As a result, given a surface of non-positive curvature and a point in Kähler moduli space, selects a subset of the lattice of bundles $[\CL]$ that one can use to build a T-brane background.
As an example, take the case where $S$ has only one Kähler modulus, i.e. $h^{1,1}(S)=1$. Together with the fact that $S$ is simply-connected, this implies that every gauge “line bundle” $\L$ on $S$ is of the form $\L\simeq K^{-n/2}$, for some non-zero integer $n$. Then, the two conditions and boil down to $n\leq1$ and $n>0$ respectively, which are both solved only by the choice $n=1$. This is nothing but the generalisation of Hitchin’s class of solutions to a four-manifold, as already analysed in [@Vafa:1994tf] .
Let us now consider the most general Higgs vev compatible with a split rank-two gauge bundle, namely \[NonNilpotentPhiStack\] =(
[cc]{} 0&m\
p &0
), where now $m\in H^0(S,\M)$ and $p\in H^0(S,\P)$, with $\P \equiv \mathcal{L}^{-2}\otimes K_S$. Suppose now, without loss of generality, that the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term in is positive, namely condition is satisfied. Then we obtain the following inequalities among the areas of the various curves involved \[OrderOfVolumes\] 0\_SJc\_1()<\_SJc\_1(K\_S)<\_SJc\_1(¶), where again the first inequality (with equality if and only if $\M$ is trivial) comes from requiring that $\M$ admits at least one holomorphic section, as otherwise equation with positive FI term would be violated. Conversely, if the FI is negative, we get the same statement with $\M$ and $\P$ swapped. In other words, the modes determining the sign of the D-term define the curve with the smallest volume. In any of these cases we have that (\[NonPosCurv\]) must be satisfied, which again obstructs the construction of compact T-brane configurations on four-manifolds of vanishing or positive-definite Ricci curvature.
Incidentally, notice that the product $mp$ transforms as a section of $H^0(S,K_S^2)$, and it appears in the spectral equation for the Higgs field. Therefore for the background one could have guessed the obstruction to realise it on del Pezzo surfaces from a more standard, spectral-surface-based reasoning, see e.g. [@Hayashi:2010zp]. Nevertheless, our analysis provides more detailed information about the obstruction, like for instance the inequalities that select a subset of possible line bundles $[\CL]$.
### Higher rank groups {#higher-rank-groups .unnumbered}
Let us now consider a general simple Lie group $G$, of Lie algebra $\mathcal{G}$ specified by a Cartan subalgebra $H_i$ and the set of roots $E_{\rho}$. In the canonical basis, they satisfy the following set of relations
[ccc]{} \[H\_i, E\_\] & = & \^i E\_\
\[E\_,E\^\_\] &=& \_i \^[i]{} H\_i
i =1,…, [rank]{}() . \[canonical\] For our purposes it is more convenient to instead consider the algebra in the so-called Chevalley basis. The latter is specified with respect to a chosen set of simple roots: \[Chevalley\]
[ccc]{} \[h\_i,e\_j\]&=&C\_[ji]{}e\_j\
\[e\_i,e\^\_j\]&=&\_[ij]{} h\_j
i,j=1,…, [rank]{}(), where $h_i$ are the Cartan generators and $e_i$ the generators associated to the simple roots in this basis. Finally, $C_{ij}$ the Cartan matrix, that can always be decomposed as C = D S , D\_[ij]{} = , S\_[ij]{} = \_i \_j , where $\a_i$ stand for the simple-root vectors in the canonical basis . There, a general root vector can be decomposed as = \_i v\_\^i \_i v\_\^i , and then for its corresponding generator in the Chevalley basis we have that = q\_\^i e\_ , q\_\^i = \_j v\_\^j C\_[ji]{} .
In this setup, let us take the following Ansatz for our T-brane background = \_i \_i h\_i = \_i c\_1(\_i)h\_i and = \_[R’]{} m\^e\_ , where $m^\g \in H^{2,0}(\otimes_i (\CL_i)^{q_{\g}^i})$ and $\g$ runs over a root subset $R'$ such that = \_ \_i \^i h\_i , , R’ . As a result we have = \_[, i]{} m\^|[m]{}\^ \_\^i h\_i , with \_\^i = \_j D\_[ij]{} v\_\^j . Given this background, the fact that $m^\g$ are holomorphic sections implies \_S ( \_i q\_\^i c\_1(\_i) + c\_1(K\_S) ) J 0 R’ . \[effective\] In addition, the D-term condition implies that \_S c\_1(\_i) J = - \_\_\^i m\^\^2 where we have defined m\^\^2 \_S m\^ |[m]{}\^ .
Therefore \_i q\_\^i \_S c\_1(\_i) J = - \_[i, ]{} q\_\^i \_\^i m\^\^2 = - \_[R’]{} v\_\^t D S D v\_ m\^\^2 R’. Now, notice that the matrix A\_ = v\_\^t D S D v\_ = \_\^t S \_is semi-definite positive, and definite positive when the set of vectors $\{v_\g\}$, $\{\sig_\g\}$ or $\{q_\g\}$, $\g \in R'$ are linearly independent. Therefore, when $\{v_\g\}$ are not linearly independent there are zero modes of $A_{\a\b}$ that correspond to D-flat directions.[^9] Going along them one can switch off the necessary number of vevs in the subset of roots $R'$ such that it gets reduced to $R''$, that corresponds to a set of linearly independent vectors. For this new subset $R''$ we have that $A_{\g\b}$ is positive definite, and then we have that \_[, i]{} m\^\^2 \_S q\_\^i c\_1(\_i) J = - \_[, ]{} A\_ m\^\^2 m\^\^2 < 0 where now $\g, \b \in R''$. As a result \_S c\_1(K\_S) J > \_S ( + c\_1(K\_S) ) J 0 . where in the second inequality we have made use of . Notice that when we have only one $\g$ this equation reduces to \_S c\_1(K\_S) J > \_S ( \_i q\_\^[i]{} c\_1(\_i) + c\_1(K\_S) ) J > 0 familiar from the $SU(2)$ case.
T-branes and stability walls {#sec:stability}
============================
Starting from a T-brane configuration, we now want to study its stability when we move in the moduli space of Kähler structures. Changes are expected to arise simply because the r.h.s. of the D-term equation depends on the Kähler form. In particular, if $S$ has more than one Kähler modulus, there will generically be real codimension-one loci in the Kähler moduli space where the r.h.s vanishes, possibly resulting in a decay of the T-brane, or in its transmutation into a different type of supersymmetric vacuum. In this section, we would like to make a systematic study of what may happen to the T-brane background as we cross such stability walls. We will first consider the sort of T-brane configurations considered in section \[sec:compact\], and then extend our analysis to a system of two D7-branes intersecting at a curve.
Coincident branes {#coincbranes}
-----------------
Let us consider two D7-branes wrapping a simply-connected Kähler surface $S$, holomorphically embedded in a Calabi-Yau threefold. As in section \[sec:compact\] we consider a split rank-two gauge bundle of the form (\[SplitV\]), specified by a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ of curvature $F$. We moreover consider a Kähler structure compatible with a T-brane of the nilpotent type . Because of the D-term , the size of the vev $\langle m\rangle$ is controlled by the FI term $\int F\wedge J$, and thus it is proportional to the distance from the wall, which is defined by the condition $\int F\wedge J =0$. There we get a vanishing vacuum expectation value for $\Phi$ and therefore a standard system of two coincident D7-branes with a worldvolume flux along the Cartan. We are now interested in studying the open-string moduli space in a region around the origin =0, and to see how the D7-brane system evolves when the FI term is switched back on, at the other side of the wall.
To carry such an analysis one may first consider the spectrum of light open-string modes at the wall, where the effective theory has a $U(1)\times U(1)$ gauge group and a set of bifundamental chiral fields charged under the relative $U(1)$, associated to the Cartan. By standard results [@Katz:2002gh] (see also [@Blumenhagen:2008zz]), the full spectrum of charged massless fields is provided by the appropriate sheaf extension groups. More precisely, as in section \[sec:compact\], let us define the two line bundles $\M\equiv\L^2\otimes K_S$ and $\P\equiv\L^{-2}\otimes K_S$, with $K_S$ the canonical bundle of $S$. Then one has \[SpecCoinc\] (+)&&[Ext]{}\^1(i\_\*Ł\^[-1]{},i\_\*Ł)\_[m]{}\_[a\_+]{},\
\
(-)&&[Ext]{}\^1(i\_\*Ł,i\_\*Ł\^[-1]{})\_[p]{}\_[a\_-]{},where the signs on the left indicate the relative-$U(1)$ charge and $i$ is the embedding map of $S$ in the Calabi-Yau threefold. Here the $H^0$ parts correspond to massless off-diagonal fluctuations of the Higgs field, whereas the $H^1$ parts correspond to off-diagonal components of the non-Abelian gauge field living on $S$. Notice that a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value for the latter would correspond to a non-Abelian gauge bundle, and so the vevs for such fields $a_\pm$ were assumed to vanish in the T-brane configurations of section \[sec:compact\]. We must however take them into account in the following, to study how the D-brane configuration may react as we cross a stability wall.
On top of the charged modes there are also uncharged zero modes, which however only appear as fluctuations of $\Phi$ and not of the gauge field, because we are taking $S$ to be simply-connected. Such fields originate from open strings with endpoints on the same D7-brane and thus corresponding to its normal deformations inside the ambient Calabi-Yau manifold. Here we only focus on relative deformations of the two branes wrapping $S$, and ignore the movements of their center of mass. Therefore, these deformations appear in the Higgs-field fluctuation as \[neutral\] |\_[neutral]{}=(
[cc]{} v&0\
0 &-v
),vH\^0(S,K\_S). Note that these vevs were also set to vanish in the T-brane configurations of section \[sec:compact\].
Finally, the absence of modes with negative norm (ghosts) for the strings connecting the two branes [@Donagi:2008ca] leads to the following important requirements \[NoGhosts\] H\^0(S,Ł\^2)=H\^0(S,Ł\^[-2]{})=0. These conditions are automatically satisfied if the FI term vanishes and we are inside the Kähler cone.
Given the above spectrum one may analyse how the system behaves at both sides of the wall. For simplicity, we will first consider the case where the modes (\[neutral\]) are absent. Then, in a sufficiently small region in Kähler moduli space around the wall, and upon dimensional reduction to 4d, the D-term condition (\[Dterm\]) becomes[^10] \[OtherSide\] \_m|m|\^2+\_[a\_+]{}|a\_+|\^2-\_p|p|\^2-\_[a\_-]{}|a\_-|\^2=, which is nothing but the vanishing of the 4d D-term scalar potential. By assumption, on one side of the wall we have a supersymmetric configuration where only $m$-type zero modes have a non-vanishing vev, and so there $\xi >0$. Then we reach the wall by moving in the Kähler-structure moduli space. After crossing the wall the FI term flips sign, so -2\_S Jc\_1(Ł)<0. Therefore from equation it is manifest that if $H^0(S,\P)=H^1(S,\M)=0$, there is no solution for the D-term equation as we cross the wall. Microscopically, this means that the T-brane we started with disappears as we cross the wall, by decaying into its D7-brane constituents, which are not mutually supersymmetric.[^11]
Interestingly, by using the index theorem we are able to formulate a practical *necessary* criterion for such a decay to occur. In particular, applying the index theorem to the line bundle $\P$, we get \[IndexP\] h\^0(S,¶)-h\^1(S,¶)=\_S [ch]{}(¶)(S), where the symbol $h^i$ indicates the dimension of the corresponding group $H^i$, “${\rm ch}$” is the total Chern character and “${\rm Td}$” is the Todd class.[^12] In we have used that $h^2(S,\P)=h^0(S,\L^2)=0$, where the first equality comes from Serre duality, and the second from equation . Likewise, the index theorem for the line bundle $\M$ means that \[IndexM\] h\^0(S,)-h\^1(S,)=\_S [ch]{}()(S), where again we used that $h^2(S,\M)=h^0(S,\L^{-2})=0$, because of Serre duality and equation respectively. By subtracting equation to equation , with some trivial algebra we get to the chiral index of the theory: \[Index\] I = \#(+)-\#(-)=2\_S c\_1(Ł)c\_1(K\_S), where the symbol $\#(\pm)$ denotes the number of zero modes with $U(1)$-charge $\pm$. Finally, from equation we obtain the following implication I = 2\_S c\_1(Ł)c\_1(K\_S) 0,\[TbraneNecCond\] because if there were no negatively-charged modes available to turn the T-brane into another supersymmetric system, the integral on the l.h.s. would necessarily be positive.
On the contrary, if conditions are met for some negatively-charged modes to exist, the T-brane simply turns into a different supersymmetric state on the other side of the wall.[^13] The latter could be another T-brane, if just the $p$-type modes get a vev, a non-Abelian bundle configuration (T-bundle) if just the $a_-$-type modes get a vev, or a more complicated mixed object. The indices of the individual bundles, quoted in equations and , can turn useful to guess what type of object the T-brane may turn into, although most of the times they cannot give definite answers. In practice, one may compute the cohomology groups in case by case, as illustrated in appendix \[ap:examples\], to find out the fate of the T-brane at the other side of the wall. There are however a few classes of constructions where a more general statement can be made, as we discuss in the following.
### The Hitchin Ansatz {#the-hitchin-ansatz-1 .unnumbered}
An interesting case of T-branes is the one constructed using what we have dubbed the Hitchin Ansatz, namely when $\CM$ is trivial, or equivalently $\L\simeq K_S^{-1/2}$. One important remark regarding this case is that, if the Ricci curvature of $S$ is negative definite, then there will be no stability walls. Indeed, for $\L\simeq K_S^{-1/2}$ we have that the FI term becomes =\_S Jc\_1(K\_S), which for negative curvature cannot be taken to zero while moving inside the Kähler cone.
Let us then consider the case where the Ricci curvature of $S$ is indefinite. This in particular implies absence of holomorphic sections for the canonical bundle (thus $S$ is rigid) and for any power thereof (positive and negative). Therefore no $p$-type modes are available and, since by assumption $S$ is simply-connected, no $a_-$-type modes are available either. Hence, in this class of configurations, our T-brane is forced to decay into a non-supersymmetric vacuum when the wall is crossed.
A simple instance of a Kähler surface with the above properties can be obtained as follows. Consider $\mathbb{P}^4$ with homogeneous coordinates $x_1,\ldots,x_5$, blown up along a four-cycle, e.g. $\{x_1=x_2=0\}$. The toric weights of this manifold are
[cccccc]{} x\_1 & x\_2 & x\_3 & x\_4 & x\_5 & w\
1 & 1 & 0 &0 &0 & -1\
0 & 0 & 1 &1 &1 & 1
where $E:\{w=0\}$ corresponds to the exceptional divisor, homeomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^2\times\mathbb{P}^1$. In this ambient manifold, we consider the Calabi-Yau threefold CY$_3$ given by the zero-locus of a smooth polynomial of bi-degree $(1,4)$, and the D7-brane stack wrapped on $S:E\cap{\rm CY}_3$. It is easy to show that this surface is rigid (as a consequence of the rigidity of the exceptional divisor), and moreover has indefinite Ricci curvature, because e.g. \_[S{x\_1=0}]{} c\_1(K\_S)=4,\_[S{x\_3=0}]{} c\_1(K\_S)=-3. By using the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem, we can also easily show that this surface has no cohomologically non-trivial one-forms h\^[0,1]{}(S)=1-\_Sc\_1\^2(K\_S)+c\_2(S)=0, where we used that $h^{0,2}(S)=0$. If we label $H:\{ x_1 = 0 \}$ and expand the Kähler form in this basis, $J \equiv v_H \, H + v_E \, E$, we may compute the Fayet-Iliopoulos term as $\xi = 5 ( 4 v_H - 7 v_E )$, which can indeed acquire both positive and negative values within the Kähler cone.
### Negative curvature {#negative-curvature .unnumbered}
Let us now consider the case where the Ricci curvature of the surface $S$ is negative definite. Note that this does not necessarily imply that $S$ can be holomorphically deformed, a subcase to be considered momentarily. By the observation made above, in the negative curvature case we must consider a T-brane whose $m$-type mode transforms under a non-trivial bundle $\CM$. The fact that $\CM$ is effective and non-trivial, together with the ampleness of $K_S$ due to the negative curvature, implies that \[yesmmode\] I > -\_S c\_1\^2(K\_S), where the r.h.s. is a negative integer number. Applying the same reasoning to the bundle $\P$, we have that the existence of $p$-type modes implies that $I \leq \int_S c_1^2(K_S)$, and so whenever \[nopmode\] I > \_S c\_1\^2(K\_S) > 0 there will be no such $p$-modes. Notice that imposing (\[nopmode\]) implies (\[yesmmode\]). Therefore, if we consider a case where (\[nopmode\]) is satisfied and $h^1(S,\M)=0$ (see appendix \[ap:examples\] for an example), then there will be a T-brane decay. Alternatively, if $h^1(S,\M)>0$ then the T-brane will turn into a supersymmetric non-Abelian bundle configuration on the other side of the wall.
One particular case of a negative curvature four-cycle is when $S$ can be holomorphically deformed, namely when the modes (\[neutral\]) exist. Then there is a self-intersection curve defined by $\C \equiv \{v = 0\}$ and with a genus $g$ such that \_S c\_1\^2(K\_S) = g - 1 . Note that by the adjunction formula one finds that $g=1+[S]^3$, where $[S]$ stands for the divisor class of $S$ in the Calabi-Yau. Since $\int_S c_1^2(K_S)>0$, we have that $[S]^3$ is a positive number and so $g \geq 2$.
In this particular case there is the open-string field $v$ defined in (\[neutral\]), which is a modulus along the wall. One may then wonder what happens when the wall is crossed with a non-vanishing Higgs-field vev, namely at \[vevPhi\] =(
[cc]{} v&0\
0 &-v
). In this case, by dimensionally reducing the D7-brane superpotential W = \_S ( ), one obtains Yukawa couplings of the form W d\_[ijk]{} v\^i a\_-\^j a\_+\^k, which generically give an F-term mass to the negative-chirality modes $a_-$. Now, if we impose (\[nopmode\]) and cross the wall at (\[vevPhi\]), for $h^1(S,\M)>0$ there will be an F-term potential that will make (\[vevPhi\]) vanish and take the system to the supersymmetric configuration of coincident D7-branes with a non-Abelian bundle created by the vev of $a_-$.
Notice that at (\[vevPhi\]) we have a system of two homotopic D7-branes intersecting at a curve $\C$, with opposite worldvolume fluxes. This is nothing but a particular case of a more general configuration, made of two intersecting D7-branes with arbitrary worldvolume fluxes. As we will now see, one can formulate the T-brane wall-crossing conditions for this more interesting case as well.
Intersecting branes
-------------------
Let us consider two D7-branes wrapping different simply-connected Kähler surfaces $S_1,S_2$, holomorphically embedded in a Calabi-Yau threefold. Let $\L_1,\L_2$ be the holomorphic gauge line bundles on each of the two branes, with fluxes $F_1,F_2$ respectively. As in the coincident case, the four-dimensional effective theory has a $U(1)\times U(1)$ gauge group and bifundamental chiral fields charged under the relative combination. The 4d D-term condition that controls the vacuum expectation values of their scalar components is now given by \[GeneralD\] \_[m(+,-)]{}|m|\^2-\_[p(-,+)]{}|p|\^2 &=& \_[S\_2]{}JF\_2-\_[S\_1]{}JF\_1 = , where the two sums extend over zero modes with $U(1)\times U(1)$-charges $(+,-)$ and $(-,+)$ respectively. They correspond to open strings stretching from brane $2$ to brane $1$ and to strings going the opposite way respectively. Assuming that the intersection curve $\C\equiv S_1\cap S_2$ is connected, such zero modes are counted by the following sheaf extension groups [@Katz:2002gh] (see also [@Blumenhagen:2008zz]): \[SpecInters\] (+,-)&&[Ext]{}\^1(i\_[2\*]{}Ł\_2,i\_[1\*]{}Ł\_1)H\^0(,Ł\_2\^[-1]{}|\_Ł\_1|\_K\_\^[1/2]{}),\
\
(-,+)&&[Ext]{}\^1(i\_[1\*]{}Ł\_1,i\_[2\*]{}Ł\_2)H\^0(,Ł\_2|\_Ł\_1\^[-1]{}|\_K\_\^[1/2]{}),with $K_{\C}$ its canonical bundle, and $i_1,i_2$ the embedding maps of branes $1,2$ respectively.
In this case the wall is defined by the Kähler structure slice where $\int F_1\wedge J=\int F_2\wedge J$. There we have a system of two intersecting D7-branes, and thus the spectrum of massless fluctuations is given by equation . Notice that, unlike in the coincident case, now the spectrum of zero modes is only counted by modes of the Higgs field. We now assume that there is at least one of these two types of modes, say a $m$-type mode with charge $(+,-)$, so that, at one side of the wall ($\xi > 0$), there is a supersymmetric bound state with a T-brane profile localised at $\C$. As we cross the wall to the other side, either this T-brane turns into a different kind of T-brane or, if no $p$-type mode is available, the T-brane decays into the two mutually non-supersymmetric constituents.[^14]
Since in this case the spectrum of charged zero modes is simpler, we are able to formulate a *sufficient* criterion for our T-brane to decay across the wall. First, notice that the chiral index of the theory is given by I Ł\_1|\_-[deg]{}Ł\_2|\_ = \_ F\_1 - F\_2 . Let us for now assume that the surfaces $S_1$, $S_2$ do not have holomorphic deformations or, if they do, that none of them will split the intersection curve into multiple connected components. Then, calling $g$ the genus of $\C$ and using the Riemann-Roch theorem, the existence of the $m$-type mode we began with implies that \[ExistenceOfmInters\] I 1 - g, with the equality holding if and only if $m$ is constant, which is the analogue of the Hitchin Ansatz for a system of intersecting D7-branes. This relation comes from the fact that the degree of a line bundle on a curve coincides with the number of zeros minus the number of poles of any of its rational sections. Moreover, we have the analogue of , with the index theorem adapted to this case I 0.\[TbraneNecCondInt\] Finally, by the same reasoning, if the condition \[Kodaira-Intersecting\] I >g - 1 is satisfied, there are no $p$-type modes to form a T-brane on the side of the wall where the FI term is negative. Therefore, we readily see that, if the two D7-branes intersect on a sphere, the fate of our T-brane is to decay when we cross the wall. The same statement holds true when $\C$ is a two-torus and $\int_\C F_1 \neq \int_\C F_2$. We therefore obtain a simple picture for the decay possibilities of intersecting D7-branes, summarised in figure \[decay\].
![Different possibilities of decay into non-BPS constituents as a T-brane constructed from two intersecting D7-branes crosses a stability wall.[]{data-label="decay"}](IntBranes.jpg){width="100mm"}
If on the other hand the surfaces $S_1$, $S_2$ contain holomorphic deformations such that $\C$ splits into multiple components, the wall-crossing picture just described may change. Indeed, when the matter curve $\C= \cup_a \C_a$ is disconnected, one needs to apply separately to each individual component $\C_a$ to obtain the massless spectrum. While then the relations and continue to hold,[^15] the sufficient condition for decay gets replaced by a significantly weaker one. This is because it is enough to find at least a $p$-mode localised on any of the connected components of $\C$, in order for the two branes to bind back again into a supersymmetric system across the wall. In other words, decay will only occur when all the available holomorphic deformations of $S_1$ and $S_2$ split $\C$ in such a way that on every component $\C_a$ one has $I_a>g_a-1$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclu}
===========
In this paper we have analysed global aspects of T-branes in type IIB/F-theory compactifications. In this context T-branes were first presented as interesting configurations that allow for hierarchical Yukawas in F-theory GUTs. Since the computation of Yukawas can be essentially done within a local patch of the four-cycle $S_{\rm GUT}$, only a local description of the T-brane background is needed to realise this property. Nevertheless, this local picture inevitably misses some crucial features of T-branes, including possible obstructions to their existence, that can only be revealed by a global analysis.
In this spirit we have given a global description of such T-brane configurations from the viewpoint of the Kähler four-cycle $S$ where they are defined. We have focused on T-branes with a pole-free holomorphic Higgs field $\Phi$, and an Abelian gauge flux $F$, which we have dubbed compact T-branes. We have observed several general features that mainly depend on the topology of $S$ and the pull-back of the threefold Kähler form $J$. Namely we have found that:
- In general, the worldvolume flux $F$ lies in a non-harmonic representative of its cohomology class. The departure from harmonicity is codified in a globally well-defined function $g$ on $S$ satisfying certain non-linear PDEs. In local patches, such equations reproduce the ones already found in the T-brane literature.
- There is an obstruction to building these T-brane backgrounds on surfaces where the Ricci curvature class vanishes or is positive definite. In the remaining surfaces the existence of T-branes depends on the classes $[\rho], [F] \in H^2(S)$ of the Ricci form and the worldvolume flux, respectively, as well as on the point in Kähler moduli space. For instance, in the simplest case, the following condition needs to be satisfied: \[ConcuVol\] 0\_SJ(2F-) < - \_SJ . Hence, given a four-cycle $S$ and a point in Kähler moduli space, only the subset of quantised fluxes $F$ satisfying will be suitable to construct a compact T-brane. Notice that whenever the Ricci form has a negative sign when projected into the Kähler form, one may choose $[F] = [\rho]/2$ (i.e. the Hitchin Ansatz) to satisfy .
- In those regions of Kähler moduli space where $0 < \xi \alpha' = -\tfrac{1}{\pi\alpha'} \int_S F\wedge J \ll 1$, we may interpret our T-brane background as a 7-brane bound state obtained after switching on a Fayet-Ilioupoulos term $\xi$, and see the slice $\xi=0$ as a T-brane stability wall. The fate of the system as the wall is crossed to the region $\xi <0$ again depends on the T-brane topological data, and in particular on the two classes $[\rho]$ and $[F]$. A similar statement holds for a T-brane built at the intersection of two 7-branes.
These general results already suggest many avenues for further investigation. The two most pressing questions are perhaps [*i)*]{} how everything generalises when we allow for T-brane systems with poles, and [*ii)*]{} what are the implications of our findings for concrete F-theory GUT models. We may for instance consider a model where $S_{\rm GUT}$ hosts an exceptional symmetry group like $G=E_{6,7,8}$ and a T-brane sector within a subalgebra of $G$, as it is the case for local models of Yukawas [@Cecotti:2010bp; @Chiou:2011js; @Font:2013ida; @Marchesano:2015dfa; @Carta:2015eoh]. Then our no-go result implies that either [*a)*]{} $S_{\rm GUT}$ cannot be del Pezzo or [*b)*]{} the T-brane sector contains some poles. In the latter case, one might interpret such poles as being sourced by further 7-branes intersecting $S_{\rm GUT}$ on matter curves, and it would be interesting to engineer compactifications that reproduce such a setup.
An additional generalisation would be to look at T-brane backgrounds where the gauge bundle is not of the split form . One simple way of obtaining non-split bundles is by switching on any of the bundle moduli $a_+, a_-$ in on top of a T-brane background near the stability wall. Obviously, the no-go result of section \[sec:nogo\] still holds for these more complicated configurations. In general, for any non-split bundle that can be taken to the split form by moving in open-string moduli space the no-go result will apply, and equation should be satisfied. It would be therefore very interesting to analyse the structure of the open-string moduli space around general T-brane backgrounds.
Another direction would be to examine how $\alpha'$ corrections modify the T-brane constructions considered in this paper. At moderate volumes of the compactification one may in principle apply the same strategy as in [@Marchesano:2016cqg] to see how such corrections affect the differential equations of section \[sec:compact\], that govern the 7-brane background. However, as these corrections do not affect the holomorphic T-brane data and are sufficiently mild not to flip the FI-term sign, the no-go theorem of section \[sec:nogo\] should still hold.
Finally, as the necessary conditions for the existence of compact T-branes depend on the point in the Kähler moduli space of the compactification, it would be interesting to see if our results could have any implications for Kähler moduli stabilisation.
In summary, as argued in the introduction, our findings can be seen as one further step in the classification of the full set of BPS branes in type IIB/F-theory compactifications. As such, they should have direct consequences for the model-building applications that triggered the recent study of T-branes in this context, and it would be interesting to fully explore such implications. In any event, we expect that having a good understanding of global T-brane configurations will give rise to new insights in the comprehension of string theory vacua.
**Acknowledgments**
We would like to thank Luis Álvarez-Cónsul, Mario García-Fernández, Cumrun Vafa, Taizan Watari and Timo Weigand for useful discussions. R.S. wants to thank Andrés Collinucci for collaboration on related topic and many useful conversations. This work is supported by the Spanish Research Agency (Agencia Estatal de Investigación) through the grant IFT Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa SEV-2016-0597, by the grant FPA2015-65480-P from MINECO/FEDER EU, and the ERC Advanced Grant SPLE under contract ERC-2012-ADG-20120216-320421. S.S. is supported by the FPI grant SVP-2014-068525.
4d interpretation of flux non-harmonicity {#ap:alpha}
=========================================
In section \[ss:global\] we defined $\d\a = - i\partial\bar{\partial}g$ to be the exact part of the worldvolume flux that typically appears in T-brane solutions. For intersecting branes, a non-harmonic exact flux profile would break supersymmetry, and it would be seen as turning a non-vanishing vev for a Kaluza-Klein mode for the gauge vector field. If we consider a T-brane in the vicinity of a stability wall of the sort analysed in section \[coincbranes\], this correspondence between non-harmonic fluxes and Kaluza-Klein modes remains to a good extent accurate. Therefore, it is natural to interpret $\a$ as a set of KK modes that got a vacuum expectation value when the 4d Fayet-Iliopoulos term was switched on and the system evolved to a T-brane background. In the following we would like to give a more precise description of this intuition, in terms of the 4d effective gauge theory.
Let us begin with the D-term part of the 8d action, which is given by [@Beasley:2008dc] $$\begin{aligned}
S &\supset \int_{\mathbb{R}^{1,3} \times S} \, \rm{Tr} \left( \mathcal{D} \wedge * \mathcal{D} \right) \label{Daction}\\
\mathcal{D} &= - * \left( J \wedge F + \frac{1}{2} [ \Phi, \Phi^\dagger ] \right) \\
&= * \left( - \frac{c}{4} J \wedge J - J \wedge \rm{d} \alpha - \frac{1}{2} * \varphi \right) \, \sigma_3 \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the general Ansatz of section \[coincbranes\] and in particular made use of eqs. and . To convert this to a 4d action, we need to expand the relevant fields in eigenbasis of the Laplacian, and then perform dimensional reduction. More precisely, we denote by $\psi_n$ a real 0-form basis of the Laplacian, normalised as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_0 \psi_n &\equiv -c_n^2 \psi_n \\
\frac{1}{V_S} \int_S \psi_n \wedge * \psi_m &\equiv \delta_{nm}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_S$ stands for the volume of the four-cycle $S$. As said before, $\a$ should contain the eigenmodes of the gauge vector field $A$. Now, given the relation and the fact that $[\Delta, \d^c] =0$, if the function $g$ is an eigenmode of the Laplacian so will be $\alpha$. Therefore, one naturally expands $\a$ as = \_[n0]{} a\_n(x) \^c , where $a_n(x)$ are interpreted as canonically-normalised 4d fields, which are eventually going to acquire a vev. Additionally, we can interpret the function $\varphi$ defined in in terms of the internal profile of the Higgs-field zero mode. More precisely, near the wall of stability we have that = |(x)|\^2 \_n m\_n \_n, \[ap:varphi\] where $m_n \in \IR$ and $\phi(x)$ is the 4d charged field whose vev generates a T-brane profile of the form (\[NilpPhi\]). On the one hand, the fact that $\phi$ is canonically normalised translates into $m_0 =1$. On the other hand, the fact that we obtain a finite quartic coupling for this field when we plug into translates to the fact that the sum $\sum_n m_n^2$ must converge. Finally, one may easily extend this decomposition to a more general non-nilpotent-Higgs-field profile. Here for simplicity we will focus on the nilpotent case.
Plugging both expansions in the above action we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S &\supset \frac{1}{2V_S} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{1,3}} {\rm{d}}^4x \; \bigg( \big( c V_S + |\phi|^2
\big)^2 + \sum_{n \neq 0} \left(4 c_n a_n - m_n |\phi|^2 \right)^2 \bigg) \label{4daction}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is nothing but eq. expanded in a basis of eigenmodes of the Laplacian. In other words, we have that at the wall there are cubic couplings of the form $a_n|\phi|^2$. If now $c\neq 0$ and $\phi$ develops a vev to cancel the first term, that is the usual 4d D-term, the Kaluza-Klein modes of the gauge vector field must also do so. In particular we have that $$\begin{aligned}
<a_n> & = \frac{m_n}{4c_n} |\phi|^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ As the $m_n$ are bounded from above, these vev’s for the KK modes will typically decrease as their mass $c_n$ increases.
Examples of wall crossing for coincident branes {#ap:examples}
===============================================
As a proof of existence, we will construct different examples of 4-cycles inside a compact Calabi-Yau showing the properties discussed in section \[coincbranes\]. Consider the toric ambient space $\mathbb{P}_1 \times \mathbb{P}_1 \times \mathbb{P}_2$, where we label coordinates and divisor classes as given in table \[P1P1P2\].
$x_1$ $x_2$ $x_3$ $x_4$ $x_5$ $x_6$ $x_7$
------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- -------
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
$\uparrow$ $\uparrow$ $\uparrow$
$H_1$ $H_2$ $H_3$
: Ambient space ${\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_2$.[]{data-label="P1P1P2"}
Using the Stanley-Reisner ideal, we can read off that the only non-vanishing intersection product in the ambient space is given by $H_1 \cdot H_2 \cdot H_3^2 = 1$. We define a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $X$ inside this ambient space by the zero locus of the most general polynomial in the class $[X] = 2 H_1 + 2 H_2 + 3 H_3$. One may check that $X$ is non-singular. Using Lefshetz hyperplane theorem we know that $H^{1,1} ({\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_2) \cong H^{1,1}(X)$, such that $X$ inherits the Kähler form $$\begin{aligned}
J = v_1 \, H_1 + v_2 \, H_2 + v_3 \, H_3\, , \qquad \qquad v_i \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ from the ambient space. Similarly, we have $H^{0,1}(X) = H^{0,1} ({\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_2) = 0$. In the following we will show different wall-crossing phenomena present on three 4-cycles inside the Calabi-Yau.
Decay {#decay .unnumbered}
-----
First, consider the 4-cycle $S$ defined by the vanishing locus $S= \{x_5 + x_6 + x_7 = 0\}$. Using the adjunction formula, we compute its total Chern class as $$\begin{aligned}
c(S) &= \frac{c(X)}{[S]} = \frac{c({\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_1 \times {\mathbb}{P}_2)}{[X] \, [S]} \\
&= 1 - H_3 + \cdots \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ from which we can read off in particular that $S$ is negatively curved, ${\mathcal}{R} = - c_1(K_S)= c_1(S) = -H_3$. In the notation of section \[coincbranes\], we take $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal}{M} &= H_1 \\
\Rightarrow {\mathcal}{P} &= {\mathcal}{M}^{-1} \otimes {\mathcal}{K_S}^2 = 2 H_3 - H_1\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we can identify line bundles and their Chern classes, because $h^{0,1}=0$ and therefore ${\mathrm}{Pic} (S) \cong H^{1,1}(S) \cap H^2 (S, \mathbb{Z})$. To determine the physical spectrum of the coincident branes we need to compute the zeroth and first cohomologies of ${\mathcal}{M}$ and ${\mathcal}{P}$. We can simply read off the zeroth cohomologies from the toric data, where wee see, in particular, that ${\mathcal}{M}$ is effective whereas ${\mathcal}{P}$ is not. To determine the first cohomology groups we use *cohomCalg* [@cohomCalg:Implementation; @Blumenhagen:2010pv], and in summary we have $$\begin{aligned}
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{M}) &= \big(2, 0, 0 \big) \\
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{P}) &= \big(0, 0, 0 \big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ From here we see that T-branes can only be stable on one side of the wall. Moreover, from $$\begin{aligned}
\xi &= -2 \int_S c_1({\mathcal}{L}) \w J = - \frac{1}{2} \int_S \Big( c_1({\mathcal}{M}) - c_1({\mathcal}{P}) \Big) \w J \nonumber\\
&= 2 v_1 - v_2 - 2 v_3\,,\end{aligned}$$ we see that the Fayet-Ilioupoulos term can indeed acquire both signs depending on the position in Kähler moduli space. Notice that $\int_S c_1^2(K_S) = 0$ and $I = 2$, in agreement with the necessary condition of section \[coincbranes\] for a decay.
T-brane to T-brane crossing {#t-brane-to-t-brane-crossing .unnumbered}
---------------------------
Let us repeat the analysis of the last subsection for the different combination of 4-cycle $S$ and line bundle ${\mathcal}{M}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
[S] &= 2 H_1 + 3 H_3 \\
{\mathcal}{M} &= H_1 + 4 H_3 \\
\Rightarrow {\mathcal}{P} &= 3 H_1 + 2 H_3\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ should be defined for instance by the most general polynomial in the given class in order to be non-singular. The line bundle cohomologies are given by $$\begin{aligned}
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{M}) &= \big(30, 0, 0 \big) \\
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{P}) &= \big(24, 0, 0 \big)\end{aligned}$$ and the Fayet-Ilioupoulos $$\begin{aligned}
\xi &= -6 v_1 - 3 v_2 + 2 v_3\,.\end{aligned}$$ From the above we read off that the Fayet-Ilioupoulos term can acquire both signs, and T-branes are stable on both sides, due to the condensation of either the modes of ${\mathcal}{M}$ or of ${\mathcal}{P}$.
T-brane to T-brane or bound state of gauge field {#t-brane-to-t-brane-or-bound-state-of-gauge-field .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
Last, consider $$\begin{aligned}
[S] &= 2 H_1 + 2 H_3 \\
{\mathcal}{M} &= 3 H_3 \\
\Rightarrow {\mathcal}{P} &= 2 H_1 + H_3\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the bundle cohomologies are given by $$\begin{aligned}
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{M}) &= \big(10,1, 0 \big) \\
h^\bullet ({\mathcal}{P}) &= \big(9, 0, 0 \big)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the Fayet-Ilioupoulos is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\xi &= -4 v_1 - v_2 + 2 v_3\,,\end{aligned}$$ which can acquire both signs depending on the position in Kähler moduli space. We read off that on one side of the wall T-branes are stable, whereas at the other side we may either have T-brane bound states, non-Abelian gauge profiles or a combination of the two.
[10]{}
L. E. Ibáñez and A. M. Uranga, [*String Theory and Particle Physics. An Introduction to String Phenomenology*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2012).
F. Denef, [*“Les Houches Lectures on Constructing String Vacua,”*]{} arXiv:0803.1194 \[hep-th\]. J. J. Heckman, [*“Particle Physics Implications of F-theory,”*]{} Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**60**]{}, 237 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.0577 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Weigand, [*“Lectures on F-theory compactifications and model building,”*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{}, 214004 (2010) \[arXiv:1009.3497 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Wijnholt, [*“Higgs Bundles and String Phenomenology,”*]{} Proc. Symp. Pure Math. [**85**]{}, 275 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.2520 \[math.AG\]\]. G. K. Leontaris, [*“Aspects of F-Theory GUTs,”*]{} PoS CORFU [**2011**]{} (2011) 095 \[arXiv:1203.6277 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Maharana and E. Palti, [*“Models of Particle Physics from Type IIB String Theory and F-theory: A Review,”*]{} Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 1330005 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.0555 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Quevedo, [*“Local String Models and Moduli Stabilisation,”*]{} arXiv:1404.5151 \[hep-th\].
R. Donagi, S. Katz and E. Sharpe, [*[Spectra of D-branes with higgs vevs]{}*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2004), no. 5, 813–859 \[[[hep-th/0309270]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309270)\]. H. Hayashi, T. Kawano, Y. Tsuchiya and T. Watari, [*“Flavor Structure in F-theory Compactifications,”*]{} JHEP [**1008**]{}, 036 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.2762 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Cecotti, C. Cordova, J. J. Heckman and C. Vafa, [*“T-Branes and Monodromy,”*]{} JHEP [**1107**]{} (2011) 030 \[arXiv:1010.5780 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, [*“Gluing Branes, I,”*]{} JHEP [**1305**]{}, 068 (2013) \[arXiv:1104.2610 \[hep-th\]\]. N. J. Hitchin, [*“The Selfduality equations on a Riemann surface,”*]{} Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. [**55**]{}, 59 (1987). doi:10.1112/plms/s3-55.1.59 R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, [*“Model Building with F-Theory,”*]{} Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**15**]{}, no. 5, 1237 (2011) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2011.v15.n5.a2 \[arXiv:0802.2969 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Beasley, J. J. Heckman and C. Vafa, [*“GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - I,”*]{} JHEP [**0901**]{}, 058 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/058 \[arXiv:0802.3391 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Beasley, J. J. Heckman and C. Vafa, [*“GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - II: Experimental Predictions,”*]{} JHEP [**0901**]{}, 059 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/059 \[arXiv:0806.0102 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, [*“Breaking GUT Groups in F-Theory,”*]{} Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**15**]{}, no. 6, 1523 (2011) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2011.v15.n6.a1 \[arXiv:0808.2223 \[hep-th\]\].
C.-C. Chiou, A. E. Faraggi, R. Tatar and W. Walters, [*[T-branes and Yukawa Couplings]{}*]{}, JHEP [**05**]{} (2011) 023 \[[[1101.2455]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1101.2455)\]. A. Font, F. Marchesano, D. Regalado and G. Zoccarato, [*“Up-type quark masses in SU(5) F-theory models,”*]{} JHEP [**1311**]{} (2013) 125 \[arXiv:1307.8089 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Marchesano, D. Regalado and G. Zoccarato, “Yukawa hierarchies at the point of E$_{8}$ in F-theory,” JHEP [**1504**]{} (2015) 179 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)179 \[arXiv:1503.02683 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Carta, F. Marchesano and G. Zoccarato, [*[Fitting fermion masses and mixings in F-theory GUTs]{}*]{}, JHEP [**03**]{} (2016) 126 \[[[1512.04846]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1512.04846)\].
R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, [*[Gluing Branes II: Flavour Physics and String Duality]{}*]{}, JHEP [**05**]{} (2013) 092 \[[[1112.4854]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1112.4854)\]. L. B. Anderson, J. J. Heckman and S. Katz, [*[T-Branes and Geometry]{}*]{}, JHEP [**05**]{} (2014) 080 \[[[1310.1931]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1310.1931)\]. M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, A. Tomasiello and C. Vafa, [*[6d Conformal Matter]{}*]{}, JHEP [**02**]{} (2015) 054 \[[[1407.6359]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1407.6359)\]. A. Collinucci and R. Savelli, [*“T-branes as branes within branes,”*]{} JHEP [**1509**]{} (2015) 161 \[arXiv:1410.4178 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Collinucci and R. Savelli, [*[F-theory on singular spaces]{}*]{}, JHEP [**09**]{} (2015) 100 \[[[1410.4867]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1410.4867)\].
M. Cicoli, F. Quevedo and R. Valandro, [*[De Sitter from T-branes]{}*]{}, JHEP [**03**]{} (2016) 141 \[[[1512.04558]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1512.04558)\].
A. Collinucci, S. Giacomelli, R. Savelli and R. Valandro, [*[T-branes through 3d mirror symmetry]{}*]{}, JHEP [**1607**]{}, 093 (2016) \[arXiv:1603.00062 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Bena, J. BlŒabaŠck, R. Minasian and R. Savelli, [*“There and back again: A T-brane’s tale,”*]{} JHEP [**1611**]{} (2016) 179 \[arXiv:1608.01221 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Marchesano and S. Schwieger, [*“T-branes and $\alpha'$-corrections,”*]{} JHEP [**1611**]{} (2016) 123 \[arXiv:1609.02799 \[hep-th\]\]. N. Mekareeya, T. Rudelius and A. Tomasiello, [*“T-branes, Anomalies and Moduli Spaces in 6D SCFTs,”*]{} arXiv:1612.06399 \[hep-th\]. J. M. Ashfaque, [*“Monodromic T-Branes And The $SO(10)_{GUT}$,”*]{} arXiv:1701.05896 \[hep-th\]. L. B. Anderson, J. J. Heckman, S. Katz and L. Schaposnik, [*“T-Branes at the Limits of Geometry,”*]{} arXiv:1702.06137 \[hep-th\].
I. Bena, J. BlŒabaŠck and R. Savelli, [*“T-branes and Matrix Models,”*]{} JHEP [**1706**]{} (2017) 009 \[arXiv:1703.06106 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Collinucci, S. Giacomelli and R. Valandro, [*“T-branes, monopoles and S-duality,”*]{} arXiv:1703.09238 \[hep-th\]. M. Cicoli, I. Garc“ia-Etxebarria, C. Mayrhofer, F. Quevedo, P. Shukla and R. Valandro, [*“Global Orientifolded Quivers with Inflation,”*]{} arXiv:1706.06128 \[hep-th\].
W. Ballmann, [*“Lectures on Kähler manifolds,”*]{} ESI Lectures in Mathematics and Physics.
C. Vafa and E. Witten, [*“A Strong coupling test of S duality,”*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**431**]{}, 3 (1994) \[hep-th/9408074\]. C. T. Simpson, [*“Higgs bundles and local systems,”*]{} Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 75 (1992), 5-95.
H. Hayashi, T. Kawano, Y. Tsuchiya and T. Watari, [*“More on Dimension-4 Proton Decay Problem in F-theory – Spectral Surface, Discriminant Locus and Monodromy,”*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**840**]{}, 304 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.3870 \[hep-th\]\]. S. H. Katz and E. Sharpe, [*“D-branes, open string vertex operators, and Ext groups,”*]{} Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**6**]{} (2003) 979 \[hep-th/0208104\]. R. Blumenhagen, V. Braun, T. W. Grimm and T. Weigand, [*“GUTs in Type IIB Orientifold Compactifications,”*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**815**]{} (2009) 1 \[arXiv:0811.2936 \[hep-th\]\]. J. de Boer, F. Denef, S. El-Showk, I. Messamah and D. Van den Bleeken, [*“Black hole bound states in AdS(3) x S\*\*2,”*]{} JHEP [**0811**]{}, 050 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.2257 \[hep-th\]\].
http://wwwth.mppmu.mpg.de/members/blumenha/cohomcalg/ High-performance line bundle cohomology computation based on [@Blumenhagen:2010pv]
R. Blumenhagen, B. Jurke, T. Rahn and H. Roschy, [*“Cohomology of Line Bundles: A Computational Algorithm,”*]{} J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{} (2010) 103525 \[arXiv:1003.5217 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: An alternative treatment is via tachyon condensation techniques, particularly suitable for T-branes defined over 7-brane intersections. In this case a global analysis can also be carried out, as shown in [@Collinucci:2014qfa].
[^2]: More precisely, we find that, if $\rho$ is the Ricci form of $S$ and $J$ its Kähler form, then compact T-branes can be constructed when $\int_S \rho \wedge J < 0$.
[^3]: See [@Anderson:2017rpr] for a recent account of Hitchin systems with poles.
[^4]: Recall that, in cohomology, $\tfrac{1}{2\pi}[F]=c_1(\mathcal{L})$.
[^5]: At weak coupling this is made compatible with cancellation of the Freed-Witten anomalies of the individual branes by considering a suitably-quantised primitive flux associated to the center-of-mass $U(1)$.
[^6]: Recall that, in cohomology, $\tfrac{1}{2\pi}[\rho]=c_1(K_S^{-1})$.
[^7]: We will always be at large volume, so in particular well away from boundaries of the Kähler cone.
[^8]: Note that such a curve needs not be holomorphic.
[^9]: Moreover, in this case one is able to form a product of sections of the form m\^[\_1]{}m\^[\_2]{}…m\^[\_n]{} H\^0(K\_S\^n) which cannot exists in a positive curvature four-cycle. Therefore, in positive curvature four-cycles one can consider the $\{\rho_\a\}$ to be linearly independent
[^10]: We use the same symbol for the eight-dimensional fields and the corresponding four-dimensional zero modes, and suppress the symbol $\langle\cdot\rangle$ to indicate the vev. We moreover work in units of $\alpha'$.
[^11]: Note that we are considering the D7-brane stack in isolation, neglecting other D-branes that may yield further chiral zero modes charged under the Cartan $U(1)$. One clearly needs to take into account the full brane content of the compactification to see if crossing the wall really breaks supersymmetry.
[^12]: For a line bundle $\mathcal{F}$, ${\rm ch}(\mathcal{F})=1+c_1(\mathcal{F})+c_1^2(\mathcal{F})/2$, and for a surface $S$ one has ${\rm Td}(S)=1-c_1(K_S)/2+(c_1(K_S)^2+c_2(S))/12$.
[^13]: One particular case is when $I=0$, which in the literature corresponds to a wall of threshold stability. Indeed, by looking at the definition (\[Index\]) one realises that $-I$ corresponds to the intersection product used in [@deBoer:2008fk] to classify stability walls.
[^14]: This decay process has been discussed in [@Collinucci:2014qfa].
[^15]: More precisely, should be written in terms of topological invariants as $I\geq h^{0,0}(\C)-h^{0,1}(\C)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Hamilton-Jacobi analysis of three dimensional gravity defined in terms of Ashtekar-like variables is performed. We report a detailed analysis where the complete set of Hamilton-Jacobi constraints, the characteristic equations and the gauge transformations of the theory are found. We find from integrability conditions on the Hamilton-Jacobi Hamiltonians that the theory is reduced to a $BF$ field theory defined only in terms of self-dual (or anti-self-dual) variables; we identify the dynamical variables and the counting of physical degrees of freedom is performed. In addition, we compare our results with those reported by using the canonical formalism.'
author:
- Alberto Escalante
- 'M. Eduardo Hernández-Garc[í]{}a'
title: 'The Hamilton-Jacobi characteristic equations for three dimensional Ashtekar gravity'
---
Introduction
============
The study of gauge systems is the cornerstone for understand the fundamental interactions of nature. Gauge systems are characterized since there exist equivalent clases among physical states and they are connected via gauge transformations. In fact, the gauge transformations are an important part of the symmetries of the system because they characterize the core of a gauge theory. The identification of the gauge symmetries can be carry out by means different and powerful approaches such as the canonical framework developed by Dirac and Bergmann [@1; @2], the symplectic method of Faddeev-Jackiw [@3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17; @18] and the Hamilton-Jacobi \[HJ\] procedure [@19; @20; @21; @22]. The $HJ$ approach is an economical and elegant scheme for study gauge systems; it is based on the construction of a fundamental differential which has as principal components the $HJ$ constraints called Hamiltonians, which can be involutives and noninvolutives. The former are characterized by considering that their Poisson brackets with all Hamiltonians, including themselves vanish, in otherwise they are noninvolutives. The identification of noninvolutive Hamiltonians allows us to construct the so-called generalized brackets which are a generalization of the Poisson brackets, at the end of the procedure the fundamental differential will be expressed in terms of involutive Hamiltonians and the generalized brackets. The $HJ$ method has been applied for studying several gauge systems, in particular systems with general covariance just like $BF$ theories [@23; @24], topological invariants [@25] and field theories [@26; @27]. In this respect, it has been showed that the development of the $HJ$ scheme is more economical with respect either Dirac or the FJ approaches. Furthermore, in the $HJ$ scheme the identification of the symmetries is made in direct form and we avoid the large procedure of classification of constraints just like in Dirac’s method is done. In this manner, the $HJ$ framework is an interesting alternative for analyzing gauge systems and their symmetries.\
With the ideas exposed above, in this paper we will apply the $HJ$ approach to 3D gravity. The model under study is reported in [@28] and represents the 3D equivalent version of real gravity theory reported by Holst [@29]. In fact, the 3D gravity action is expressed in terms of triads, connexions, a vector field defined on $R^4$ and a Barbero-Immirzi-like parameter ($\gamma$). The analysis reported in [@28] was developed by using the canonical scheme and it was showed that the action is reduced to a $BF$ field theory without the presence of the Barbero parameter. In this paper, we will perform a different analysis by introducing a set of Ashtekar-like variables, then the $HJ$ formalism will be developed. We show that the action is reduced to a $BF$ field theory, however the dynamical variables will be identified with the anti-self-dual Ashtekar-like variables such as it is presented in the Holst paper. On the other hand, the $\gamma$ parameter will be present through the Lagrange multipliers; the parameter will not contribute to the constraints because the Lagrange multipliers are not dynamical, this result represent a difference with respect to the Holst action.\
The paper is organized as follows. In the Sect. II we will introduce the Ashtekar-like variables, then the $HJ$ is performed. The characteristic equations and the symmetries of the theory will be found. In addition, we will observe that the system is reduced to a $BF$ theory and the Barbero-like parameter will be present at Lagrange multipliers level. Finally in Sect. III some remarks and conclusions are exposed.
Hamilton-Jacobi analysis
========================
We shall analyze the following action [@28] $$\displaystyle{S= \int d^{3}x \epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho} \left( \frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{IJKL}x^{I}e^{\,\,\, J}_{\mu}F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, KL}_{\nu \rho} + \gamma ^{-1}x_{I}e_{\mu J}F^{\,\,\,\,\,\,IJ}_{\nu \rho} \right)},
\label{eqn:accion-propuesta}$$ where $\epsilon _{IJKL}$ is the volume element of $SO(4)$, $x^{I}$ is a vector of $R^{4}$, $F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, IJ}_{\mu \nu} = \partial _{\mu} A _{\nu}^{\,\,\, IJ} - \partial _{\nu} A _{\mu}^{\,\,\, IJ} + A_{\mu \,\,\, L}^{\,\,\, I}A_{\nu}^{\,\,\, LJ} - A_{\nu \,\,\, L}^{\,\,\, I}A_{\mu}^{\,\,\, LJ}$ is the strength curvature of $SO(4)$, $e^{\,\,\, J}_{\mu}$ is the triad and $ \gamma $ the Barbero-Immirzi-like parameter. It is straightforward to prove that the action (\[eqn:accion-propuesta\]) describes 3D Euclidean gravity and we can observe that there is a closed relation with the Holst action in the sense that there is a coupling $\gamma$ parameter.\
Furthermore, in this paper, we will work with the temporal gauge, by fixing $x^{I}=(1,0,0,0)$. Although there are other gauge fixing options, we are interested to report the closer relation with the Holst action, and the temporal gauge provides us that aim.\
In this manner, by performing the 2+1 decomposition the action takes the following form $$S = \int d^{3}x \frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ab}e_{0i} \left[ \epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}F_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,\,\, jk} + \frac{2}{\gamma} F_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,\,\, 0i} \right] - \int d^{3}x \epsilon ^{ab}e_{ai} \left[ \epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}F_{0b}^{\,\,\,\,\,\, jk} + \frac{2}{\gamma} F_{0b}^{\,\,\,\,\,\, 0i} \right],
\label{eqn:accion-propuesta-en-la-norma-temporal}$$ where the strength curvature components are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, jk}_{a b} &= \partial _{a} A_{b}^{\,\,\, jk} - \partial _{b} A_{a}^{\,\,\, jk} + A_{a \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, j}A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0k} - A_{b \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, j}A_{a}^{\,\,\, 0k}
+ A_{a \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, j}A_{b}^{\,\,\, lk} - A_{b \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, j}A_{a}^{\,\,\, lk}, \\
\nonumber F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, 0i}_{a b} &= \partial _{a} A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0i} - \partial _{b} A_{a}^{\,\,\, 0i} + A_{a \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0i} - A_{b \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{a}^{\,\,\, 0i}
+ A_{a \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{b}^{\,\,\, li} - A_{b \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{a}^{\,\,\, li}, \\
F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, jk}_{0 b} &= \partial _{0} A_{b}^{\,\,\, jk} - \partial _{b} A_{0}^{\,\,\, jk} + A_{0 \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, j}A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0k} - A_{b \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, j}A_{0}^{\,\,\, 0k}
+ A_{0 \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, j}A_{b}^{\,\,\, lk} - A_{b \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, j}A_{0}^{\,\,\, lk} , \label{eqn:componentes-de-la-curvatura} \\
\nonumber \\ F^{\,\,\,\,\,\, 0i}_{0 b} &= \partial _{0} A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0i} - \partial _{b} A_{0}^{\,\,\, 0i} + A_{0 \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{b}^{\,\,\, 0i} - A_{b \,\,\, 0}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{0}^{\,\,\, 0i}
+ A_{0 \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{b}^{\,\,\, li} - A_{b \,\,\, l}^{\,\,\, 0}A_{0}^{\,\,\, li}. \end{aligned}$$ Now we introduce the following Ashtekar-like variables $${}^{{}^{\pm}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} = \epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}A_{b}^{\,\,\, jk} \pm \frac{2}{\gamma}A_{b}^{\,\,\, i0}.
\label{eqn:variables-tipo-ashtekar}$$ and thus we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A_{b}^{\,\,\, i0} &= \frac{\gamma}{4} \left[ {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} - {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} \right], \\
A_{b}^{\,\,\, jk} &= \frac{1 }{4} \epsilon ^{jk}_{\,\,\,\,\,\, i} \left[ {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} + {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} \right].
\label{eqn:inversa-de-las-variables-tipo-ashtekar} \end{aligned}$$ Then, by using these variables, the action reads we can observe that if $\gamma=1$, then the self-dual-conexion disapears. Because of the action is under a variational principle, we will not fix the value of $\gamma$ until the end of the calculations. In this manner, according the $HJ$ method, from the definition of the momenta $(p^0_i, p^a_i, \pi_i, \pi_{ij}, {{}^{+}}\pi^a_i, {{}^{-}}\pi^a_i)$ canonically conjugated to $(e_0 ^i, e_a^i, A_{0}^{\,\,\, i0}, A_{0}^{\,\,\, ij}, {^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i}, {^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i})$, and from the action (\[eqn:accion-con-variables-tipo-ashtekar\]) we identify the following Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
H'&\equiv&\pi + H_0=0, \nonumber \\
\phi_i&\equiv& p^0_i=0, \nonumber \\
\phi^a_i&\equiv&p^a_i =0, \nonumber \\
\tilde{\phi}_i &\equiv& \pi_i=0, \nonumber \\
\phi_{ij} &\equiv& \pi_{ij}=0, \nonumber \\
{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i &\equiv& {{}^{+}}\pi^a_i =0, \nonumber \\
{{}^{-}} \phi^a_i&\equiv& {{}^{-}}\pi^a_i - \epsilon^{ab} e_{bi}=0, \end{aligned}$$ with $\pi= \partial_0S$ where $S$ is the action and the canonical Hamiltonian $H_0$ reads Now with the Hamiltonians we construct the following fundamental $HJ$ differential [@19; @20; @21; @22; @23; @24; @25] $$\begin{aligned}
df(x) &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{f(x), H'\}dt + \{f(x), \phi_i \}d\xi{^i} + \{f(x), \phi^a_i \}d\xi_a{^i} + \{f(x), \tilde{\phi}_i \}d\tilde{\xi}^{i} + \{f(x), \phi_{ij} \}d\xi{^{ij}} \nonumber \\
&+& \{f(x), {{}^{+}}\phi^a_i \}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^i} +\{f(x), {{}^{-}} \phi^a_i \}d{^{-}}\xi_a{^i}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\xi{^i}, \xi_a{^i}, \tilde{\xi}^{i}, \xi{^{ij}}, {^{+}}\xi_a{^i}, {^{-}}\xi_a{^i} )$ are parameters related to the Hamiltonians. It is worth to mention that these parameters play a fundamental roll; for involutives Hamiltonians they correspond to parameters related with the gauge transformations, this fact will be discussed bellow.\
On the other hand, the fundamental Poisson brackets between the canonical variables are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{ e_\mu ^i(x), p^\alpha_j(y) \}&=&\delta^\alpha_\mu \delta^i_ j\delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ A_{0}^{\,\,\, i0}(x) , \pi_j(y)\}&=& \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ A_{0}^{\,\,\, ij} (x), \pi_{kl}(y) \}&=& \frac{1}{2}\delta^{ij}_{kj} \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ {^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i} (x), {{}^{+}}\pi^b_j (y) \}&=& \delta{^b}_a \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ {^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i} (x), {{}^{-}}\pi^b_i (y)\}&=& \delta{^b}_a \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y).
\label{bra}\end{aligned}$$ Once defined the Poisson brackets, all Hamiltonians having vanishing Poisson brackets to each other are called involutives, otherwise, they are non-involutive Hamiltonians. Thus, by using the fundamental brackets we observe that the Hamiltonians $(\phi_i, \tilde{\phi}_i , \phi_{ij}, {{}^{+}}\phi^a_i )$ are involutives and $ (\phi^a_i, {{}^{-}} \phi^a_i )$ are noninvolutives. Furthermore, due to there are noninvolutives Hamiltonians, we introduce the generalized brackets by constructing the matrix whose entries are the Poisson brackets between all noninvolutives Hamiltonians, this is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq}
C_{\alpha\beta}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &\quad -\epsilon^{ab}\eta_{ij}\\
\epsilon^{ba}\eta_{ij} &\quad 0\\
\end{array}
\right) \delta^{2}(x-y),\end{aligned}$$
and its inverse reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq}
(C{_{\alpha\beta}})^{-1}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &\quad \epsilon_{ad}\eta^{ij}\\
-\epsilon_{bd}\eta^{ij} &\quad 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \delta^{2}(x-y),\end{aligned}$$
thus, by using $(C{_{\alpha\beta}})^{-1}$ we can introduce the generalized brackets given by [@21; @22; @23; @24] $$\begin{aligned}
\{A, B\}^{*} &=\{A, B\} - \{A, H'_{\bar{a}}\}(C{_{\bar{a}\bar{b}}})^{-1}\{H'_{\bar{b}}, B\},
\label{10}\end{aligned}$$ where $H'_{\bar{a}}$ are the non-involutive Hamiltonians. In this manner, by using (\[10\]) the generalized brackets are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{ e_0 ^i(x), p^0_j(y) \}^{*}&=& \delta^i_ j\delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ e_a ^i(x), p^b_j(y) \}^{*}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\{ A_{0}^{\,\,\, i0}(x) , \pi_j(y)\}^{*}&=& \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ A_{0}^{\,\,\, ij} (x), \pi_{kl}(y) \}^{*}&=& \frac{1}{2}\delta^{ij}_{kj} \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ {^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i} (x), {{}^{+}}\pi^b_j (y) \}^{*}&=& \delta{^b}_a \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ {^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, i} (x), {{}^{-}}\pi^a_i (y)\}^{*}&=& \delta{^b}_a \delta{^i}_j \delta^2(x-y).
\label{bra}\end{aligned}$$ The introduction of the generalized brackets redefine the dynamics. In fact, the non-involutive constraints are removed from the fundamental differential and it can be expressed in terms of the generalized brackets and involutive Hamiltonians.\
In this manner, the fundamental differential written in terms of the generalized brackets and involutive Hamiltonians takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
df(x) &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{f(x), H'\}^{*}dt + \{f(x), \phi_i \}^{*}d\xi{^i} + \{f(x), \tilde{\phi}_i \}^{*}d\tilde{\xi}^{i} + \{f(x), \phi_{ij} \}^{*}d\xi{^{ij}} \nonumber \\
&+& \{f(x), {{}^{+}}\phi^a_i \}^{*}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^i} \Big),\end{aligned}$$ thus, the *Frobenius integrability* conditions for the Hamiltonians [@19; @20], say $(\phi_i, \tilde{\phi}_i , \phi_{ij}, {{}^{+}}\phi^a_i )$, introduce new Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
d\phi_i, &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{\phi_i, H'\}^{}dt + \{\phi_i, \phi_j \}^{}d\xi{^j} + \{\phi_i, \tilde{\phi}_j \}^{}d\tilde{\xi}^{j} + \{\phi_i, \phi_{kl} \}^{}d\xi{^{kl}} + \{\phi_i, {{}^{+}}\phi^a_j \}^{}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^j} \Big) \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon^{ab}\left[ \partial _{a}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} - \epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}
\nonumber \left[ \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{16} \right){}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} + \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}+3}{16} \right){}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} - \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{8}\right){}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} \right] \right] =0, \nonumber \\
d\tilde{\phi}_i , &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{\tilde{\phi}_i , H'\}^{}dt + \{\tilde{\phi}_i , \phi_j \}^{}d\xi{^j} + \{\tilde{\phi}_i \tilde{\phi}_j \}^{}d\tilde{\xi}^{j} + \{\tilde{\phi}_i , \phi_{kl} \}^{}d\xi{^{kl}} + \{\tilde{\phi}_i , {{}^{+}}\phi^a_j \}^{}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^j} \Big)\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2}{\gamma}\partial _{a}{{}^{-}} \pi^a_i+ \epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik} {{}^{-}} \pi^a_j\left[ \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{2 \gamma} \right) {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, k} - \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}+1}{2 \gamma} \right) {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, k} \right] = 0, \nonumber \\
d\phi_{ij}, &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{\phi_{ij}, H'\}^{}dt + \{\phi_{ij}, \phi_k \}^{}d\xi{^k} + \{\phi_{ij}, \tilde{\phi}_k \}^{}d\tilde{\xi}^{k} + \{\phi_{ij}, \phi_{kl} \}^{*}d\xi{^{kl}} + \{\phi_{ij}, {{}^{+}}\phi^a_k\}^{}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^k} \Big) \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon ^{k \,\,\,\,\, }_{\,\,\, ij}\partial _{a}{{}^{-}} \pi^a_k + \frac{1}{2}({{}^{-}} \pi^a_i{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{aj}- {{}^{-}} \pi^a_j{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{ai})=0 \rightarrow \epsilon{_{ij}}^lD_a{{}^{-}}\pi^a_l=0, \nonumber \\
d{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , H'\}^{}dt + \{{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , \phi_j \}^{}d\xi{^j} + \{{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , \tilde{\phi}_j \}^{}d\tilde{\xi}^{j} + \{{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , \phi_{kl} \}^{}d\xi{^{kl}} + \{{{}^{+}}\phi^a_i , {{}^{+}}\phi^a_j \}^{}d{^{+}}\xi_a{^j} \Big) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{4} \epsilon ^{ab}\epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik}e_{0j} \left( {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} - {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} \right) - \frac{1}{\gamma} \epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik} {{}^{-}} \pi^a_jA_{0}^{\,\,\, k0} = 0, \end{aligned}$$ where we identify the following Hamiltonians, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{i} &\equiv& \epsilon^{ab}\left[ \partial _{a}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i} - \epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}
\nonumber \left[ \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{16} \right){}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} + \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}+3}{16} \right){}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} - \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{8}\right){}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} \right] \right] =0, \nonumber \\
\tilde{\chi}_i &\equiv& \frac{2}{\gamma}\partial _{a}{{}^{-}} \pi^a_i+ \epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik} {{}^{-}} \pi^a_j\left[ \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}-1}{2 \gamma} \right) {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, k} - \left(\frac{\gamma ^{2}+1}{2 \gamma} \right) {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, k} \right] = 0, \nonumber \\
\tilde{\psi}_{ij} &\equiv& \epsilon{_{ij}}^l D_a{{}^{-}}\pi^a_l=0, \nonumber \\
{{}^{+}}\chi^a_i &\equiv& \frac{1}{4} \epsilon ^{ab}\epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik}e_{0j} \left( {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} - {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} \right) - \frac{1}{\gamma} \epsilon ^{j}_{\,\,\, ik} {{}^{-}} \pi^a_jA_{0}^{\,\,\, k0} = 0,
\label{16}\end{aligned}$$ here $D_a{{}^{-}}\pi^a_i= \partial_a {{}^{-}}\pi^a_i -\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ij}{^k} {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, j}{{}^{-}}\pi^a_k$. On the other hand, from the Hamiltonian ${{}^{+}}\chi^a_i$ we observe that ${{}^{+}}\chi^a_i {{}^{-}} \pi^{ci}+ {{}^{+}}\chi^c_i {{}^{-}} \pi^{ai}=0$, and thus $ {}^{{}^{+}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} - {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k}=0$; this result implies that in three dimensional Ashtekar gravity the dynamical variables are given by the adjoint representation of $SO(3)$. In order to follow the Holst work [@29] we choose $A_{b}^{\,\,\, jk} = \frac{1 }{4} \epsilon^{jk}_{\,\,\,\,\,\, i} {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, i}$. In this manner, with these results at hand the Hamiltonians (\[16\]) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \mathcal{H}^i:= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ab} \mathcal{F}^{\,\,\,\,\,\, i} _{ab} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ab} \left[ \partial _{a} {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\,i} - \partial _{b} {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\,i} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\, j}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} \right] = 0, \\
\nonumber \mathcal{G}_{j} := \frac{2}{\gamma}\partial _{b} {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{b}_{\,\,\, j} - \frac{1}{\gamma}\epsilon ^{i}_{\,\,\, jk} {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{b}_{\,\,\, i}{}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{b}^{\,\,\, k} = 0, \\
\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{ij} := \epsilon{_{ij}}^lD_a{{}^{-}}\pi^a_l=0,
\label{17} \end{aligned}$$ and the Hamiltonian $H_0$ is reduced to $$H_0= -\frac{\epsilon^{ab}}{2} e_{0i} F^i_{ab}-\Lambda^iD_b {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{b}_{\,\,\, i},$$ where $\Lambda^i= \epsilon^i{_{jk}} A_0{^{jk}} - \frac{2}{\gamma} A_0{^{i0}}$. We can observe that the contribution of the $\gamma$ parameter is only present in $\Lambda^i$ that will be identified as Lagrange multipliers, this result is a difference respect to that reported in [@28], where the Barbero-like parameter is eliminated completely. Furthermore, from Eq. (\[17\]) we observe that the variables $\pi_{ij}$ and $\pi_i$ generate the same involutive Hamiltonian $\mathcal{G}_{i}$, however we will not remove that Hamiltonian until the end of the analysis. The Hamiltonians (\[17\]) are involutives; their generalized algebra is closed $$\begin{aligned}
\{\mathcal{H}^i (x), \mathcal{H}^j(y)\}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\{ \mathcal{H}^i (x), \mathcal{G}_{j} (y) \} &=& - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{i}{_{jk}} \mathcal{H}^k, \nonumber \\
\{ \mathcal{G}_{i}(x), \mathcal{G}_{j}(y) \}&=& - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ij} {^{k}} \mathcal{G}_k, \end{aligned}$$ because the algebra is closed, then there are not more Hamiltonians.\
Thus, by using all involutive Hamiltonians we construct a new fundamental differential $$\begin{aligned}
df(x) &=&\int d^{3}y\Big(\{f(x), H_0(y)\}^{*}dt + \{f(x), \phi_i (y)\}^{*}d\xi{^i} + \{f(x), \tilde{\phi}_i (y)\}^{*}d\tilde{\xi}^{i} + \{f(x), \phi_{ij}(y) \}^{*}d\xi{^{ij}} \nonumber \\
&+& \{f(x), \mathcal{H}(y) \}^* d\xi + \{f(x), \mathcal{G}_{i} (y) \}^* d\omega^i + \{f(x), \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{i}{^k} (y) \}^* d\omega^i{_{k}} \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where all noninvolutive Hamiltonians have been removed. Now, from the fundamental differential we can identify the characteristics equations, then the symmetries. The characteristic equations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
d {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\,i} &=& D_a \Lambda^i dt +D_a d\tilde{\omega}^i\nonumber\\
d {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, i}&=& \big[ \epsilon^{ab} D_b e_{oi}- \frac{\Lambda^k}{2} \epsilon_{ki}{^{j}}{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, j} \big]dt + \frac{\epsilon_{ki}{^{j}}}{2} {{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, j}d\tilde{\omega}^k , \nonumber\\
d p^0_i&=& \frac{\epsilon^{ab}}{2} F_{iab} dt =0, \nonumber\\
d\pi_i&=& \mathcal{G}_{i} dt=0, \nonumber\\
d\pi_{ij} &=& \epsilon_{ij}{^k \mathcal{G}_{k} }dt= 0,
\label{21}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d e_0^i&=& d\xi{^i}, \nonumber \\
d A_0{^{ij}}&=& d\xi{^{ij}}, \nonumber \\
d A_0{^{i0}} &=& d\tilde{\xi}^{i},
\label{22}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $d\tilde{\omega}^i\equiv d\omega^i + \epsilon^i{_{jk}}d\omega^{jk} $. From (\[21\]) we can identify the equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 {{}^{-}}{\mathcal{A}}_{a}^{\,\,\,i} &=& D_a \Lambda^i, \nonumber \\
\partial_0 {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, i}&=& \big[ \epsilon^{ab} D_b e_{0i}- \frac{\Lambda^k}{2} \epsilon_{ki}{^{j}}{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, j} \big],
\label{mot}\end{aligned}$$ and we observe that the evolution of $p^0_i, \pi_i, \pi_{ij}$ due to the noninvolutive Hamltonians vanishes. Furthermore, Eq. (\[22\]), implies that $e_0^i, A_0{^{ij}}, A_0{^{i0}} $ are identified as Lagrange multipliers, thus, $\Lambda^i$ is also identified as Lagrange multiplier. Moreover, by taking $dt=0$ in (\[21\]) we can also identify the gauge transformations of the theory $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {}^{{}^{-}}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{\,\,\,i} &=&D_a \varepsilon^i, \nonumber \\
\delta {}^{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, i} &=& \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ki}{^{j}} {{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, j}\varepsilon^k, \end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon^i \equiv d\tilde{\omega}^i$. On the other hand, we commented above that the variables $A_0{^{jk}}$ and $A_0{^{i0}}$ generate the same Hamiltonian $\mathcal{G}_{i}$ and this fact will be taken into account to perform the counting of physical degrees of freedom. In fact, the counting of physical degrees of freedom is performed as follows: there are 12 dynamical variables $ ({{}^{-}}{\mathcal{A}}_{a}^{\,\,\,i} ,{{}^{-}}\pi ^{a}_{\,\,\, i})$, and 18 involutive Hamiltonians $(\mathcal{H}^i, \mathcal{G}_{i}, \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{ij}, p^0_i, \pi_i, \pi_{ij})$, however, $ \pi_i$ and $ \pi_{ij}$ generate the same hamiltonian $\mathcal{G}_{i}$; therefore there are 18-6=12 independent involutive Hamiltonians, hence the system is laking of physical degrees of freedom as expected; in the counting of degrees of freedom only independent involutive Hamiltonians must be involved. Moreover, if we fix $A_0{^{jk}}=0$, we still have the presence of the $\gamma$ parameter in the Lagrange multiplier $\Lambda^i$; the theory will take a $BF$ form with $\gamma$ present only at the level of Lagrange multipliers and there will be a contribution in the equation of motion (\[mot\]). On the other hand, if we remove $\pi_i$ by taking $A_0{^{i0}}=0$, then there is not any contribution from $\gamma$ because $\Lambda^i= \epsilon^i{_{jk}} A_0{^{jk}} $; the theory will be a $BF$ theory just like that reported in [@28], and hence our results extend the results reported in the literature.\
Conclussions
============
In this paper, the HJ analysis of 3D gravity written in terms of Ashtekar-Like variables was performed. We obtained an action with a close relation to the Holst Lagrangian where self-dual and anti-self-dual connexions are present. We identified all $HJ$ Hamiltonians of the theory, then a fundamental differential was constructed. From the fundamental differential the characteristic equations were found; we reported the gauge transformations and we identified the dynamical variables corresponding to the adjoint representation of the $SO(3)$ conexion. We observed that the theory is reduced to a $BF$ theory where the presence of the Barbero-like parameter is present at level of the Lagrange multipliers, in particular, under a fixing gauge on the multipliers the results reported in the literature were reproduced. It is worth to mention that the coupling of 3D gravity with degrees of freedom as for instance matter degrees of freedom, will be an interesting scenario to analize. In fact, the coupling with matter degrees of freedom could provide us an understanding of the rol of the $\gamma$ parameter in 3D gravity just like it is present in the 4D case [@30]. In this sense, it is well-known that in 4D gravity with the coupling of fermions, there is a contribution of the $\gamma$ parameter; it does not vanish and it determines the coupling constant of a four-fermion interaction. In this manner, the $HJ$ framework will be a good alternative for analyzing these problems and we expect to find in the future advantages in relation with other approaches.\
**Acknowledgements**\
We would like to thank R. Cartas-Fuentevilla for reading the manuscript.
[99]{} A. Hanson, T. Regge, C. Teitelboim, Constrained Hamiltonian Systems (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1978) D.M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints, in: Springer Series in Nuclear and Particle Physics, Springer, (1990). L.D. Faddeev, R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1692, (1988) . E. M. C. Abreu, A.C.R. Mendes, C. Neves, W. Oliveira, F.I. Takakura, L.M.V. Xavier, Modern Phys. Lett. A 23, 829, (2008) . E.M.C. Abreu, A.C.R. Mendes, C. Neves, W. Oliveira, F.I. Takakura, Inter. J. Modern Phys. A 22, 3605, (2007). E.M.C. Abreu, C. Neves, W. Oliveira, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 21, 5329, (2008). C. Neves, W. Oliveira, D.C. Rodrigues, C. Wotzasek, Phys. Rev. D 69, 045016, (2004). C. Neves, C. Wotzasek, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 17, 4025, (2002). C. Neves, W. Oliveira, Phys. Lett. A 32, 267, (2004). J.A. Garcia, J.M. Pons, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 12, 451, (1997) . E.M.C. Abreu, A.C.R. Mendes, C. Neves, W. Oliveira, R.C.N. Silva, C. Wotzasek, Phys. Lett. A 37, 3603-3607, (2010). L. Liao, Y.C. Huang, Ann. Phys. 322, 2469-2484, (2007). A. Escalante, J. Manuel-Cabrera, Ann. Physics. 343, 27-39, (2014). A. Escalante, M. Zárate, Annals. Phys. 353, 163-178, (2015) A. Escalante, J. Manuel-Cabrera, Annals. Phys. 36, 1585-604, (2015). A. Escalante, O. Rodr[í]{}guez-Tzompantzi, Annals. Phys. 364, 136 (2016). J. Barcelos-Neto, C. Wotzasek, Modern Phys. Lett. A 7 (19) (1992) 1737-1747; J. Barcelos-Neto, C. Wotzasek, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 7 (20) (1992) 4981-5003. A. Escalante and C. Medel-Portugal, Annals Phys. 39, 27-46, (2018). Y. Güler, On the dynamics of singular continuous systems, J. Math. Phys. 30 785 (1989). C. Caratheodory, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diferential equations of the First Order, 3rd edn (American Mathematical Society) (1999). M.C. Bertin, B.M. Pimentel, C.E. Valcárcel, J. Math. Phys. 55 112901 (2014). M.C. Bertin, B.M. Pimentel, C.E. Valcárcel, Ann. Phys. 323 3137 (2008). G. B. de Gracia, B. M: Pimentel, C.E. Valcárcel, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132: 438, (2017). N. T. Maia, B.M. Pimentel, C.E. Valcárcel, Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 185013, (2015). A. Escalante, A. Pantoja, arXiv:1911.08422, To be published. M.C. Bertin, B.M. Pimentel, C.E. Valcárcel, J. Math. Phys. 55, 042902 (2014). A. Escalante, A. Pantoja, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134: 437, (2019). M. Geiller, K. Nouil, Gen. Rel. Grav. 45:1733-1760, (2013). S. Holts, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5966 (1996). A. Perez, C. Rovelli, Phys.Rev. D73, 044013, (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show theoretically and experimentally the existence of a new quantum interference(QI) effect between the electron-hole interactions and the scattering by a single Mn impurity. Theoretical model, including electron-valence hole correlations, the short and long range exchange interaction of Mn ion with the heavy hole and with electron and anisotropy of the quantum dot, is compared with photoluminescence spectroscopy of CdTe dots with single magnetic ions. We show how design of the electronic levels of a quantum dot enable the design of an exciton, control of the quantum interference and hence engineering of light-Mn interaction.'
author:
- 'A. Trojnar'
- 'M. Korkusiński'
- 'E. Kadantsev'
- 'P. Hawrylak\*'
- 'M. Goryca'
- 'T. Kazimierczuk'
- 'P. Kossacki'
- 'P. Wojnar'
- 'M. Potemski'
title: 'Quantum interference in exciton-Mn spin interactions in a CdTe semiconductor quantum dot'
---
Isolating and controlling states of a single quantum spin either on a surface of a metal [@heinrich_gupta_science2004; @loth_bergman_nat2010] or in a semiconductor quantum dot [@erwin_zu_nat2005; @ochsebein_feng_NatNan2009; @bussian_crooker_NatMat2009; @Hundt_puls_prb2004; @besomber_leger_prl2004; @gall_kolodka_prb2010; @goryca_kazimierczuk_prl2009; @kudelski_lamaitre_prl2007] is at an early stage. The spin of a single Manganese (Mn) ion is an atomic limit of magnetic memory, realized recently in semiconductor quantum dots [@Hundt_puls_prb2004; @besomber_leger_prl2004; @gall_kolodka_prb2010; @goryca_kazimierczuk_prl2009; @kudelski_lamaitre_prl2007]. The Mn ion with magnetic moment M=5/2 has been detected by observation of a characteristic excitonic emission spectrum consisting of six emission lines related to the 2M+1=6 possible Mn quantum states. The emission spectrum has been understood based on a spin model where exciton spin interacts with the spin of the Mn ion [@Hundt_puls_prb2004; @besomber_leger_prl2004; @gall_kolodka_prb2010; @goryca_kazimierczuk_prl2009; @kudelski_lamaitre_prl2007; @rossier_prb2006; @cheng_hawrylak_prl2008; @govorov_kalameitsev_prb2005; @reiter_kuhn_prl2009]. However, only a microscopic treatment of an exciton as a correlated excited state of the interacting quantum dot and the Mn as an impurity allows for full control of exciton-Mn coupling. This problem is related to the nontrivial enhancement of the electron-electron interactions by impurities [@richardella_roushan_science2010] as well as the Kondo effect [@gordon_shtrikman_nat1998].
Here we show theoretically and experimentally how one can manipulate the spin of Mn ion with light in a semiconductor quantum dot by engineering Mn-exciton interactions through design of a quantum-dot exciton [@bayer_stern_nat2000; @hawrylak_narvaez_prl2000]. A new quantum interference (QI) effect between the electron-hole Coulomb scattering and the scattering by Mn ion is shown to significantly reduce the exciton-Mn coupling revealed by a characteristic pattern in the emission spectrum. Engineering light-Mn spin interaction opens up new applications in quantum memory and information processing.
An exciton [@bayer_stern_nat2000; @hawrylak_narvaez_prl2000] is composed of an electron with spin $\sigma=1/2$ and a valence heavy hole with spin $\tau=3/2$ occupying single-particle levels $|i\rangle=|n,m\rangle$ of two harmonic oscillators with quantum numbers $n$ and $m$ and energy $E_i$ [@raymond_studenikin_prl2004; @hawrylak_prl1993]. The electron and hole
shell structure $E_{n,m}$ is shown in Fig.\[fig\_1\](a). The state of an electron-hole pair $|i,j\rangle| \sigma, \tau\rangle$ is a product of the orbital part and the spin part. The lowest energy state, labeled $|a\rangle$ in Fig.\[fig\_1\](a), corresponds to the electron and the hole on the s shell ($n=0$, $m=0$) while excited states $|b\rangle$ and $|c\rangle$ correspond to both the electron and the hole excited from the $s$ shell to the $p$ shell ($n=0$,$m=1$; $n=1$,$m=0$).
If the $d$ shell is present in the quantum dot, another pair of excited states (labeled $|g\rangle$ and $|h\rangle$ in Fig.\[fig\_1\](a)) at a similar energy is possible where either the hole or the electron is excited from the $s$ shell to the zero angular momentum state ($n=1$,$m=1$) of the $d$ shell. The $s$, $p$, and $d$ shells of a single CdTe quantum dot studied here appear as emission maxima with an increasing excitation power, as shown in Fig.\[fig\_1\](b). By rotating the electron-hole configurations to Jacobi coordinates [@hawrylak_narvaez_prl2000] one finds that there are only three low-energy electron-hole configurations: $|A\rangle=|a\rangle$,$|B\rangle=1/\sqrt{2}\left(|b\rangle+|c\rangle\right)$ and $|H\rangle=1/\sqrt{2}\left(|h\rangle+|g\rangle\right)$coupled by Coulomb interactions. We will also refer to these configurations as $|SS\rangle$, $|PP\rangle$ and $|SD\rangle$. Only configurations $|SS\rangle$ and $|PP\rangle$ are optically active but Coulomb scattering couples all three exciton configurations, and in particular the degenerate configurations $|PP\rangle$ and $|SD\rangle$ [@hawrylak_narvaez_prl2000]. By diagonalizing the electron-hole Hamiltonian $H_{EH}=\sum_{i\tau}\varepsilon_{i\tau}^hh^+_{i\tau}h_{i\tau}+
\sum_{i\sigma}\varepsilon_{i\sigma}^ec^+_{i\sigma}c_{i\sigma}+
\sum_{ijkl\sigma\tau}\langle i,j|V_{eh}|k,l\rangle c^+_{i\sigma}h^+_{j\tau}h_{k\tau}c_{l\sigma}$ (where $h^+_{i\tau}$ ($c^+_{i\sigma}$) and $h_{i\tau}$ ($c_{i\sigma}$) are create and anihiliate hole (electron) on the orbital $i$ with spin $\tau$($\sigma$)) in the space of all configurations we obtain the ground and excited states as well as the absorption spectrum, shown in Fig.\[fig\_1\](c). We see that for a quantum dot with $s$-$d$ shells the $p$-shell splits into two lines due to the $|SD\rangle$ configuration resonant with the $|PP\rangle$ configuration [@hawrylak_narvaez_prl2000], and correspondingly, contributes to the ground state $|GS\rangle$ of the exciton: $|GS\rangle=A_{ss}|SS\rangle+A_{pp}|PP\rangle-A_{sd}|SD\rangle$. We note that the $|PP\rangle$ and $|SD\rangle$ configurations contribute to the $|GS\rangle$ with opposite signs, a result of different signs of Coulomb matrix elements $\langle SS|V|PP\rangle=-\langle SS|V|SD\rangle$ connecting the $|PP\rangle$ and $|SD\rangle$ configurations with the $|SS\rangle$ configuration.
The interacting electron-hole-Mn system is described by the Hamiltonian [@cheng_hawrylak_prl2008]: $H_X=H_{EH}+H_{EHX}+H_{anis}+H_{Zeeman}+H_{h-Mn}+H_{e-Mn}$. The first term is the electron-hole Hamiltonian $H_{EH}$, the second term is the electron-hole exchange term [@kadantsev_hawrylak_prb2010; @kadantsev_hawrylak_jp2010]$H_{EHX}=\sum_{ijkl\sigma\sigma '\tau \tau '}\langle i\sigma,j\tau|V_{eh}^X|k\tau ', l\sigma '\rangle c^+_{i\sigma}h^+_{j\tau}h_{k\tau '}c_{l\sigma '}$, third - the anisotropic potential term $H_{anis}=\sum_{ij\tau}t_{ij}^hh^+_{i\tau}h_{j\tau}+
\sum_{ij\sigma}t_{ij}^ec^+_{i\sigma}c_{i\sigma}$ which breaks the cylindrical symmetry of the quantum dot and mixes the single particle states with different angular momenta. The fourth term is the Zeeman energy of the magnetic ion, the spin of the hole and of the electron $H_{Zeeman}=g_{Mn}\mu_BBM_Z+g_e\mu_B B S_Z+g_h\mu_B B J_Z$, where$g_e$($g_h$) are electron(hole) Lande g-factors and $\mu_B$ the Bohr magneton. The hole-Mn ion Hamiltonian $H_{h-Mn}=\sum_{i,j}\frac{3J_{ij}^h\left(0\right)}{2}\left[\left(h^+_{i,\Uparrow}h_{j,\Uparrow} -h^+_{i,\Downarrow}h_{j,\Downarrow}\right)M_Z\right]$ describes the scattering of the hole by the Mn ion while conserving the hole spin. $J_{ij}^h\left(0\right)$ is the effective exchange matrix element leading to the scattering of a hole from state $i$ to state $j$ by the Mn ion at position $R=0$ [@cheng_hawrylak_prl2008; @qu_hawrylak_prl2005]. This scattering process does depend on the state of the Mn-ion. The electron-Mn interaction term is similar to the hole-Mn scattering term except for the additional spin flipping term $H_{e-Mn}=-\sum_{i,j}\frac{J_{ij}^e\left(0\right)}{2}\left[\left(c^+_{i,\uparrow}c_{j,\uparrow} -c^+_{i,\downarrow}c_{j,\downarrow}\right)M_Z+c^+_{i,\downarrow}c_{j,\uparrow}M^+ \right.
\left.+c^+_{i,\uparrow}c_{j,\downarrow}M^-\right]$.
We now turn to evaluate the exchange interaction of the exciton with the Mn spin, dominated by the valence hole-Mn Ising-like interaction [@cheng_hawrylak_prl2008; @sheng_hawrylak_prb2006]. The spin of the hole plays the role of the effective magnetic field, leading to the “exchange” splitting of different $M_Z$ states: $\langle H_{h-Mn}\rangle=\langle M_Z|\langle \downarrow \Uparrow|\langle GS|H_{h-Mn}|GS\rangle|\Uparrow\downarrow\rangle|M_Z\rangle=\alpha M_Z$. With $p$ orbitals not coupled to the Mn in the center of the dot [@qu_hawrylak_prl2005]: $$\langle H_{h-Mn}\rangle=\frac{3}{2}\left[{A_{ss}^*}^2J_{ss}-\sqrt{2}A_{ss}A_{ds}J_{sd}\right]M_Z,$$ We see that the exchange splitting $\alpha=3/2\left[{A_{ss}^*}^2J_{ss}-\sqrt{2}A_{ss}A_{ds}J_{sd}\right]$ of Mn levels is a difference of two terms. The first term ${A_{ss}^*}^2J_{ss}$ is proportional to the product of the sum of probability amplitudes of the hole occupying $s$ and $d$ orbitals ${A_{ss}^*}^2=A_{ss}^2+A_{ds}^2$ in the exciton GS weighted by the exchange matrix element $J_{dd}=J_{ss}$. The second term, $-\sqrt{2}A_{ss}A_{ds}J_{sd}$, reduces the magnitude of the exchange. This term is proportional to the product $A_{ds}J_{sd}$, i.e., the amplitude $A_{ds}$ of the $|SD\rangle$ configuration in the exciton GS, present only due to the electron-hole Coulomb interaction, and scattering matrix element $J_{sd}$ of the hole by the Mn ion acting as an impurity. Hence both the electron-hole Coulomb interactions and the scattering by the Mn impurity must be simultaneously present to reduce the hole exchange field. This is the quantum interference (QI) effect, the central result of this work. The QI is absent in shallow quantum dots with $s$-$p$ shells but takes place in quantum dots with at least three confined shells.
We now turn to the second signature of QI, coupling of excited exciton states with the ground state by Mn as a scattering center. The first excited state $|ES\rangle=B_{sd}|SD\rangle+B_{pp}|PP\rangle+B_{ss}|SS\rangle+\ldots$ is a linear combination of configurations $|SD>$ and $|PP>$ with a small admixture of the $|SS>$ configuration. The coupling of $|GS>$ and $|ES>$ by the hole-Mn exchange interaction $\langle M_Z|\langle \downarrow \Uparrow|\langle GS|H_{h-Mn}|ES\rangle|\Uparrow\downarrow\rangle|M_Z\rangle=\gamma M_Z$ turns out to be proportional to the state of the Mn spin $M_Z$. The excited state renormalizes the energies of the ground state exciton-Mn spin complex $E_{GS}^{M_Z}=E_{GS}+\alpha M_Z-\left(\frac{\gamma^2M_Z^2}{\left(\Delta E-\left(\beta-\alpha\right)M_Z\right)}\right)$, where is the exchange splitting of the Mn levels in the first excited exciton state $|ES>$ with energy $E_{ES}$ and $\delta E = E_{ES} - E_{GS}$. The main result is the nonuniform and renormalized spacing of Mn energy levels in the $s$ shell: $$\Delta_{M_Z}=E_{GS}^{M_Z+1}-E_{GS}^{M_Z}=\left(\alpha-\frac{\gamma^2}{\Delta E}\right)-\frac{2\gamma^2M_Z}{\Delta E}.$$
Figure\[fig\_2\](a) shows the results of numerical calculations, of the average spacing of Mn energy levels in the $s$ shell as a function of the number of shells, for parameters typical for a CdTe quantum dot. Indeed, we see that the spacing is reduced by a factor of 2 when the quantum dot admits the $d$ shell. The renormalization of $s$-shell Mn energy levels by the excited exciton state is shown schematically in Fig.\[fig\_2\](b). We see that the ground and excited levels corresponding to the same $M_Z$ are coupled by Mn, the coupling strength is different for each $M_Z$ leading to energy shift, with states with higher $|M_Z|$ shifting more, which in-turn leads to a nonuniform spacing of levels. The differences in the magnitude of this shift are visualized in Fig.\[fig\_2\](b) in the form of different lengths of arrows, with the solid (dashed) vertical lines representing the exciton-Mn energy levels with (without) the ground state-excited state coupling.
The experimental spectra of the emission from quantum dots were obtained for CdTe based heterostructures. The samples were grown using molecular beam epitaxy. Each of them contains a single layer of self-assembled CdTe QDs with a low concentration of $Mn^{2+}$ ions, embedded in a ZnTe matrix. The density of quantum dots was about $5x10^9cm^2$. The $Mn^{2+}$ concentration was adjusted to obtain a significant number of QDs containing exactly one $Mn^{2+}$ ion [@wojnar_suffczynski_prb2007]. For the measurements, the sample was placed in a micro-photoluminescence setup composed of piezo-electric $x-y-z$ stages and a microscope objective. The system was kept at the temperature of $4.2K$ in a helium exchange gas. The PL of the QDs was excited either above the gap of the ZnTe barrier (at $532nm$) or using a tunable dye laser in the range $570-610nm$. Both the exciting and the collected light were transmitted though a monomode fiber coupled directly to the microscope objective. The overall spatial resolution of the set-up was better then $1 \mu m$ which assured possibility to select different single quantum dots containing a single $Mn^{2+}$ ion. The dots without $Mn^{2+}$ ion were observed in the same samples. The PL analysis was done for the dots having emission lines in the low energy tail of the broad PL emission band which assured good separation from the lines related to the other dots. The characteristic PL spectra contain a neutral exciton line split into sextuplets. Lower in energy, the lines related to charged excitons ($X^+$ and $X^-$) and biexciton were observed. Higher in energy, the emission from higher shells ($s$, $p$, $d \ldots$) appear with an increasing excitation power, as is shown in Fig.\[fig\_1\](b).
Figure \[fig\_3\](a) shows the measured and numerically calculated emission spectrum, including a small anisotropy of the quantum dot and the electron-hole exchange interaction [@kadantsev_hawrylak_prb2010; @kadantsev_hawrylak_jp2010]. There are six emission peaks associated with $M_Z$. The predicted peak spacing $\Delta_{M_Z}$, plotted in Fig.\[fig\_3\](b) with the green line, decreases linearly with increasing $M_Z$. This decrease is reproduced by numerical calculations and experiment (black line). Deviations from linear dependence of $\Delta_{M_Z}$ are due to the electron-hole exchange interaction and anisotropy. The inset of Fig.\[fig\_3\](b) verifies the characteristic pattern of distances between X-Mn emission peaks for ten more different quantum dot samples.
Finally, Fig.\[fig\_4\] shows the calculated absorption spectra. We see the $s$ shell, the two excited exciton states associated with $|PP>$ and $|SD>$ configurations in the energy range of the $p$ shell, and the $d$ shell. The shells are split into a fine structure by the presence of Mn. Different colors of the peaks correspond to the degree of linear polarization of absorbed photons, with black (red) denoting the $p_y$ ($p_x$) polarization. In this spectrum we identify the two consequences of the existence of the $d$ shell: the complex emission pattern in the $p$-shell range of energies and the QI in the $s$ shell. Also, the $p$ shell experiences a much larger electron-hole exchange splitting than the $s$-shell and $d$-shell emission lines, and, in consequence, a much stronger linear polarization of the emission lines. This is due to the larger sensitivity of the $p$-shell orbitals to the shape anisotropy of the quantum dot. Experiments are on the way to verify the predicted absorption spectra.
In summary, we formulated a microscopic description of the exciton-Mn interaction which includes correlations in the electron-valence hole complex, the short range exchange of Mn ion with the hole and the electron, the long range electron-hole exchange and the quantum dot anisotropy. A new quantum interference (QI) effect between the electron-hole Coulomb scattering and the scattering by Mn ion has been predicted and observed in the emission spectra as the decrease of emission peak spacing with increasing state of the Mn. This opens the possibility of engineering exciton-Mn spin interaction in quantum dots via quantum interference for quantum memory and information processing applications.
Acknowledgement The authors thank NRC-CNRS CRP, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and QuantumWorks for support.
[99]{} A.J. Heinrich, J. A. Gupta, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler, Science [**306**]{}, 466 (2004) S. Loth, K. von Bergmann, M. Ternes, A.F. Otte, C.P. Lutz, and A.J. Heinrich, Nature Phys. [**6**]{}, 340 (2010). S.C. Erwin, L. Zu, M.I. Haftel, A.L. Efros, T.A. Kennedy, and D.J. Norris, Nature 436, [**91**]{} (2005). S.T. Ochsenbein, Y. Feng, K.M. Whitaker, E. Badaeva, W.K. Liu, X. Li, and D.R. Gamelin, Nature Nanotechnol. [**4**]{}, 681 (2009). D.A. Bussian, S.A. Crooker, M. Yin, M. Brynda, A.L. Efro, and V.I. Klimov, Nature Materials 8, [**35**]{} (2009). A. Hundt, J. Puls, and F. Henneberger, Phys. Rev. B 69, [**121309(R)**]{} (2004). L. Besombes, Y. Leger, L. Maingault, D. Ferrand, and H. Mariette, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207403 (2004). C.Le Gall, R.S. Kolodka, C.L. Cao, H. Boukari, H. Mariette, J. Fernandez-Rossier, and L. Besombes, Phys. Rev. B 81, [**245315**]{} (2010). M. Goryca, T. Kazimierczuk, M. Nawrocki, A. Golnik, J.A. Gaj, and P. Kossacki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 087401 (2009). A. Kudelski, A. Lemaitre, A. Miard, P. Voisin, T.C.M. Graham, R.J. Warburton, and O. Krebs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 247209 (2007). M. Bayer, O. Stern, P. Hawrylak, S. Fafard, and A. Forchel, Nature 405, [**923**]{} (2000). P. Hawrylak, G.A. Narvaez, M. Bayer, and A. Forchel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 389 (2000). J. Fernandez-Rossier, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 045301 (2006). S.-J. Cheng, and P. Hawrylak, Eur. Phys. Lett. [**81**]{}, 37005 (2008). A.O. Govorov, and A.V. Kalameitsev,Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 035338 (2005). D.E. Reiter, T. Kuhn, and V.M. Axt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 177403 (2009). A. Richardella, P. Roushan, S. Mack, B. Zhou, D.A. Huse, D.D. Awschalom, and A. Yazdani, Science 327, [**665**]{} (2010). D. Goldhaber-Gordon, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, D. Abusch-Mahder, U. Meirav, and M.A. Kastner, Nature 391, [**156**]{} (1998) S. Raymond, S. Studenikin, A. Sachrajda, Z. Wasilewski, S.-J. Cheng, W. Sheng, P. Hawrylak, A. Babinski, M. Potemski, G. Ortner, and M. Bayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 187402 (2004). P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3347 (1993). E. S. Kadantsev, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 045311 (2010). E. S. Kadantsev, and P. Hawrylak, J. of Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**248**]{}, 012018 (2010) F. Qu, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 217206 (2005). W. Sheng, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 125331 (2006). P. Wojnar, J. Suffczynski, K. Kowalik, A. Golnik, G. Karczewski, and J. Kossut, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 155301 (2007)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present here the first results of UVES observations of RR Tel. The exceptional performances of the instrument have allowed the detection of new spectral features and have led to an improvement in the identifications of several emission lines. A direct comparison with the IUE observations in the range 3045-3300 Å has revealed the appearance of many weak and shallow lines, most of them lacking a convincing identification. The Balmer lines are visible up to H$_{38}$ and are accompanied by the He II lines of the Pickering series. Also, all of the He II emissions of the Pfund series, from 5858 Å to 6408 Å have been detected. We made definite identifications of additional TiO bands at 4955 Å ($\alpha ~R_2 ~ 1-0$), 5167 Å ($\alpha~ R_2~
0-0$), 5445 Å ($\alpha~ R_2~ 0-1$), 5598 Å ($\beta~ R_1~ 0-0$), 5847 Å ($\gamma '~R_1~ 1-0$),and 6148 Å (${\gamma '} {^S}~R_{21}~
0-0$). The H$\alpha$ line has very wide wings, extending to at least 5000 km s$^{-1}$, which are similar to those reported for the planetary nebula IC 4997 and attributed to Raman scattering by Ly$\beta$ photons. A selective pumping mechanism via the HeII 237 Å emission is proposed to explain the intensity of the high-lying lines of O IV mult. 1 and 2.
author:
- Pier Luigi Selvelli
- Piercarlo Bonifacio
date: 'received .../Accepted...'
title: 'First results of UVES at VLT: revisiting RR Tel [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The symbiotic nova RR Tel is an extraordinary laboratory for spectroscopic studies of low-density astrophysical plasmas on account of the richness of its emission line spectrum that covers a wide range in ionization and excitation stages. Since the fundamental study by Thackeray (1977), new optical observations with higher spectral resolution and S/N ratio have have gradually improved the quality of the data and have allowed the identification of weaker and blended spectral features (see Mc Kenna et al 1997, and Crawford et al. 1999). Also, the presence of a strict correlation between the FWHM and the ionization level of the emission lines, as pointed out by Thackeray (1977) and confirmed by Penston et al. (1983), has provided a simple but powerful tool for the identification of spectral lines that has not yet been fully exploited. With this in mind, we have taken advantage of very recent high resolution VLT–UVES observations of RR Tel to revisit the spectral features of the nova and to perform an [*ab initio*]{} identification of its emission features. We present here some highlights of these recent observations, deferring to a next paper a detailed description of the spectral identifications and measurements.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Details on the UVES spectrograph and its performances may be found in D’Odorico et al (2000) as well as in the UVES User Manual (D’Odorico & Kaper, 2000). The data we used consists of a spectrum obtained on October 16th 1999 with the dichroic \# 1 and the standard setting centered at 3460 Å in the blue arm and 5800 Å in the red arm, the exposure time was of 1200 s for both arms. The detector in the blue arm is an EEV CCD, while in the red it is a mosaic of one EEV (identical to that used in the blue arm) and one MIT CCD. All CCDs are composed of $4096\times 2048$ square pixels of 15 $\rm\mu m $ side. The slit width was 0 in the blue and 0 in the red. The data was reduced using the [ECHELLE]{} context of [MIDAS]{} and each CCD was treated independently; reduction included background subtraction, cosmic ray filtering, flat fielding, extraction, wavelength calibration and order merging. Since no arc spectra for wavelength calibration with this setting are available for the date of observation, we used calibration spectra acquired on different days. From our previous experience with UVES (Bonifacio et al 2000), we expect the wavelength scale to be reproducible to within a shift of a few tenths of a pixel; since we are not interested in accurate radial velocities such a shift is of no consequence for our analysis. The resolution, as measured from the Th lines of the calibration lamp is $\approx 65000$ for the whole blue arm spectrum. For the red arm spectrum we could not find an arc taken with a slit of 0 and used one taken with a slit of 0 instead, whose measured resolution is $\approx 65000$, we therefore expect the resolution of the red spectra to be slightly lower, i.e. about $60000$, as predicted by the UVES manual (D’Odorico & Kaper 2000). To give an idea of the dynamic range offered by the instrument we mention that at the peak of the He II 3203.104 Å line the spectrum detects 7831 $e^-$, while only 88 $e^-$ in the adjacent continuum. An estimate of the S/N ratio in this range, assuming Poisson noise, gives S/N $\sim$ 88 in the He II line and S/N $\sim$ 9 in the continuum. We also made use of a short exposure spectrum taken on October 10th, with the same setting and a slit of 0 in the blue arm and 0 in the red arm, the exposure times were 120 s and 60 s respectively. This spectrum was reduced in the same way as the long exposure and was used only to check the profiles of very strong lines.
The measured wavelength of the sharp, unblended Fe II lines is shifted by $-39.8\pm 1.1$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the laboratory (air) wavelength. After correction for the earth motion ($\rm -24.6 ~km~s^{-1}$) the heliocentric radial velocity derived from the Fe II lines is $\rm -64.4 ~km~s^{-1}$, consistent with the heliocentric radial velocity reported in previous works ($\rm -59.7 \pm 1.7$ km s$^{-1}$, Thackeray (1977)). Hereafter, we consider the system of the FeII lines as the rest frame of RR Tel and the observed wavelengths refer to a frame that is at rest with respect to the Fe II lines.
Results
=======
------------------ -------------- ----------------- ------ ---------------
$\lambda_{obs}$ ident. $\lambda_{lab}$ FWHM FWHM
(Å) (km s$^{-1}$)
3067.18 OVI 3066.75 0.88 86.10
3138.70 \[NiVII\] 3138.3 0.65 62.10
3159.14 unid. 0.77 73.10
3221.14 \[NiVII\] 3221.5 0.53 49.40
3403.51 OIV (2) 3403.52 0.44 38.80
3409.65 OIV (3) 3409.66 0.44 38.80
3411.70 OIV (2) 3411.69 0.44 38.70
3413.61 OIV (2) 3413.64 0.64 56.20
3425.93 NeV 1F 3425.5 0.98 85.80
3428.66 OIII 3428.63 0.36 31.50
3433.69 unid. 3433.00 0.88 76.90
3487.12 MgVI 3486.7 0.87 74.80
3488.90 MgVI 3488.72 0.82 70.10
3502.21 MgVI 3501.97 1.05 90.00
3586.58 FeVII 3586.32 0.72 60.20
+ FeVI 3587.66
3634.24 HeI 3634.23 0.33 27.20
3725.30 CaVI 1F 3725.4 0.76 61.20
+ OIV (6) 3725.81
3759.22 FeVII 3758.92 0.84 67.10
4930.55 OV (25) 4930.27 0.89 54.10
+ OIII 4930.87
5290.54 OVI (16) 5290.60 1.33 75.40
+ OIV (11) 5290.1
5424.52 FeVI 1F 5424.22 1.05 58.10
5460.68 \[CaVI\] 5460.69 0.87 47.80
5495.05 ArIV\] ? 5494.39 1.59 86.80
+ \[CoVIII\] 5494.8
+ FeII 17F 5495.82
5586.24 CaVI 5586.26 0.90 48.30
+ OIV 5585.6
5618.60 CaVII 5618.75 1.33 71.00
5631.42 CaVI 5631.74 1.09 58.10
+ FeVI 5631.07 0.00 0.00
5677.22 FeVI 1F 5676.95 1.12 59.20
+ NII (3) 5676.00
6086.96 FeVII 6087.00 1.49 73.40
+ CaV 1F 6086.37
6228.43 KVI 6228.6 1.18 56.80
6500.31 OV 6500.24 0.98 45.20
------------------ -------------- ----------------- ------ ---------------
: A selected list of new or newly identified lines in RR Tel
The region of overlap with IUE , 3045-3345 Å
---------------------------------------------
The UVES capability of reaching the region down to 3045 Å has permitted a direct comparison with the high resolution IUE observations. Since the IUE sensitivity declines strongly above 3000 Å , we have chosen for comparison the two IUE spectra with the longest exposure times, \[ LWR16187 ($t_{exp}= 31440$ s, June 18,1983 ) and LWP25954 ($t_{exp}=5700$ s, July 20,1993)\]. Fig. 1 is a comparison between UVES and IUE data ( obtained from the INES archive system (see Cassatella et al.(2000) and Wamsteker et al.(2000)) in the range 3045–3080 Å which includes some identifications. We point out the presence in the UVES spectrum of the wide line (FWHM 86.1 km s$^{-1}$) at 3066.77 Å, (identified as OVI 66.75 ) that was marginally present in LWR16187 and absent in LWP25954, and the lack in the UVES spectrum of the wide feature near 3061 Å in LWR16187, which is probably due to noise. Fig. 2 is a similar plot for the range 3150–3180 Å but the UVES data are on a separate intensity scale to fully emphasize their remarkable S/N ratio. Several new and wide features are evident at 3154.19 Å (unidentified, blended with the sharp line of FeII (66) 3154.20 Å), 3155.99 Å (OV(19) 3156.11) , 3159.12 Å (a strong line with FWHM =73.1 km s$^{-1}$ that has defied a convincing identification) 3165.71 Å ( SiIV 3165.7 + MnIV // 3165.57 + NiVII 3165.4), 3167.91 Å (OV (19) 3168.10 + NiVII 3168.0), 3170.97 Å (unid.), 3176.85 Å (OV (20) 3176.87). The two sharp lines which are present also in IUE are lines of FeII mult. 7. Figure 2 is also a representative illustration of the variety of emission profiles that are present in the spectrum of RR Tel: we point out the appearance (or maybe the new detection thanks to UVES) of many weak and shallow lines whose central intensity is of the order of 50% – 100% of the continuum. These wide and shallow features are quite common in the UV part of the spectrum up to $\lambda 3500$ Å. Some of these features have been identified as lines of high ionization species such as OIV-VI and NiIV-VII, but many of them lack proper identification. We recall that Penston et al (1983) listed 20 lines in all in the range 3047–3345 Å , including five lines of OIII produced in the Bowen mechanism. In the UVES spectrum we have detected in the same range about 90 emission lines including a dozen of OIII Bowen lines. All lines and identifications of Penston et al (1983) are confirmed with two exceptions : the 3063.30 NII (2F) feature is missing and TiII 3078.66 Å is instead FeII (181) 3078.69 (see also Fig. 1); no TiII line has been positively detected in our spectra. Among other new features in the IUE range we mention also the lines at 3131.21 Å ( NiVI 3131.4), 3138.66 Å ( NiVII 3138.3), on the wings of the strong OIII(12) 3132.86 Å line , and 3221.12 Å ( NiVII 3221.5 ). In the context of the application of new laboratory analysis of the spectrum of highly ionized nickel to the identification of unclassified lines in the spectra of $\eta$ Car and RR Tel, the NiVII 3221.5 Å line was mentioned by Raassen and Hansen (ApJ 243,217, 1981) as a forbidden line falling in a region difficult to observe.
The 3350–3870 Å region
-----------------------
An obvious comparison here is with the recent study by Crawford et al.(1999) on AAT–UCLES data of slightly lower resolution than the VLT-UVES data. We are aware that the identification of emission lines is a somewhat arbitrary procedure but, on the basis of the FWHM criterion and of common astrophysical sense, we disagree with Crawford et al. on the identifications of low ionization species such as TiI, VII, MnI, MnII etc. We have found alternative identifications generally associated with higher ionization species. We postpone a detailed discussion on line identifications to the follow-up paper and we just give here, in Table 1, a short list of strong lines either not reported or incorrectly identified by Crawford et al., together with our proposed identifications. Thanks to the very high spectral resolution of the UVES spectrograph we have been able to detect emission lines of the Balmer series down to H38 at 3656.13 Å (see Fig 3). Also, starting from approximately H18, where the separation between successive lines becomes large enough, it is clearly seen that ALL Balmer emissions are accompanied by a shortward displaced, much weaker emission that we associate with HeII lines of the Pickering (4-n) series. This is confirmed by the presence of the other HeII lines of the same series that fall in between the Balmer lines. Crawford et al discarded a possible contribution of \[SIII\] 3721.70 Å to the H14 Balmer line at 3721.94 Å, as in Mc Kenna et al (1997), on the basis of the FWHM of the feature, which agreed well with that of other H lines. As a matter of fact, the feature we observe at 3721.89 Å (see also Fig. 3) has the same FWHM (55 km s$^{-1}$) as the other H lines, but clearly shows an intensity excess with respect to the adjacent H lines that requires an additional contribution at a wavelength necessarily very close to that of the H14 line. The presence of the two OII 1F lines at 3726.03 Å and 3728.81 Å is questionable: we recall that Contini and Formiggini (1999) from the presence of \[OII\]3727 Å inferred an electron density in the emitting gas not much higher than $3\times 10^3\rm cm^{-3}$, a disturbingly low value that is in contrast with the densities derived by other diagnostic methods. The observed features (see Fig. 3) fall at 3725.27 Å and at 3729.17 Å with FWHM of 63 km s$^{-1}$ and 42.6 km s$^{-1}$ , not compatible with OII since the OIII lines have FWHM close to 30 km s$^{-1}$. We identify the former line as \[CaVI\] 1F 3725.4 Å + OIV (6)3725.81 Å (already in Thackeray (1977)), while the latter line is OIV 3729.03 Å; its FWHM (42.6 km s$^{-1}$) is in good agreement with the FWHM of other OIV lines ( 41 km s$^{-1}$ ). Finally, the 3710 Å SIII line reported in Table 5 of Contini and Formiggini, is, more likely, HeII 3710.44 Å (4-30), the shortward $\lambda$ companion to the H15 emission line.
The 4780 - 6820 A Region
------------------------
Some strong emission lines either not listed or incorrectly identified by Crawford et al.(1999) are reported in Table 1. The same considerations given in the previous Section apply here to rule out identifications based on low ionization species such as Ca I, TiI, MnI, Mn II, VII, etc. We have identified ALL of the HeII emission of the Pfund (5-n) series, from 5858.88 Å (5-30) to 6408.15 Å (5-15). Some of the higher members of this series have been identified as lines of low ionization species in previous works.
If one looks only to the details of the individual emission lines there is the risk of missing the forest for the trees; instead, from a general view of the entire spectrum at a proper scale, two interesting features come out:
1\. The H$\alpha$ line has very wide wings that extend from about 6300 Å to about 6700 Å. (see Fig 4). While a crowding of emission lines can partially contribute to the violet wing, the red wing is relatively free of contamination and indicates a velocity on the order of at least 5000 km s$^{-1}$ . Similar broad wings have been reported for the planetary nebula IC 4997 by Lee and Hyung (2000) who attributed them to Rayleigh-Raman scattering by which Ly$\beta$ photons with a velocity width of a few $10^2$ km s$^{-1}$ are converted to optical photons and fill the H$\alpha$ broad wing region. We recall that Schmid (1989) and Schmid and Schild (1990) interpreted two broad features at 6825 and 7082 Å in RR Tel and other symbiotic stars as the Raman scattered UV OVI 1032 Å and 1038 Å resonance lines. Van Groningen (1993) detected Raman scatttered HeII(2-8) and (2-10) at 4333 Å and 4851 Å; this latter line is also present in our spectrum as a wide and shallow feature.
2\. Webster (1974) reported some evidence of the presence of TiO absorption bands in the red spectrum of RR Tel. This might testify the contribution to the spectrum by the Mira variable. Mc Kenna et al (1997) found no sign of these TiO absorption bands, but Crawford et al (1999) made definite identifications of the TiO absorption bands near 6651 Å($\gamma ~R_3~ 1-0$),7052 Å($\gamma ~R_3 ~ 0-0$9, 7666 Å($\gamma ~ R_3 ~1-2$) and 8206 Å($\delta ~R_1 ~ 1-0$). Figures 4 and 5 clearly show the presence of additional TiO bands at 4955 Å($\alpha ~R_2 ~ 1-0$), 5167 Å($\alpha~ R_2~ 0-0$), 5445 Å($\alpha~ R_2~ 0-1$), 5598 Å($\beta~ R_1~ 0-0$), 5847 Å($\gamma '~R_1~ 1-0$),and 6148 Å(${\gamma '} {^S}~R_{21}~
0-0$). For the band classification we used the list of bandheads provided in the Appendix of Valenti et al (1998). There is also evidence for weaker absorption bands (including that at 6651 Å) in the region longward of H$\alpha$.
A selective pumping of the optical OIV lines ?
----------------------------------------------
The optical OIV lines come from levels with energies above 48.3 eV and therefore, in contrast with the UV lines near 1400 Å, collisional excitation is unlikely. The lines of OIV mult. 1, 2, 3, and 6 are present as a clearly evident features in the UVES spectrum of RR Tel, while the lines of mult. 4,5,7, 8, which have comparable excitation and intensities are nearly absent. Thus, a mechanism of selective excitation seems at work. The lines of mult. 2 near 3400 Å (which decays into the lines of mult. 1 near 3070 Å ) have the upper term ( at 52.02 eV.) in common with the two lines at 238.57 and 238.36 Å of mult. UV5. This wavelength is rather close to that of a HeII Lyman transition at 237.33 Å, (arising from a level at 52.24 eV) and we suggest that the HeII 237 Å line pumps the upper term of OIV mult. UV5 which in turn decays into mult. opt. 2 and opt. 1 and other lines. Apparently a similar mechanism should work for the upper level of mult. 6 at 61.40 eV (which in turn decays into mult. opt 3) but we have found no candidates for the pumping line.
We are grateful to S. D’Odorico, H. Dekker and the whole UVES team for conceiving and building such a terrific instrument as UVES. We are indebted with M. Tarenghi for suggesting RR Tel as a target for the commissioning observations. We made large use of the excellent Atomic Line List v.2.04 maintained by Peter van Hoof at the WEB site http://www.pa.uky.edu/$\sim$peter/atomic .
Bonifacio P., Hill V., Molaro P., Pasquini P., Di Marcantonio P., Santin P., 2000, A&A 359,663 Cassatella A., Altamore A., Gonzalez-Riestra R., Schartel N., Wamsteker W.,2000, A&AS,141,331 Contini M. and Formiggini L.,1999 Ap.J 517,925 Crawford F.L., McKenna F,C., Keeenan F.P., Aller L.H., Feibelman W.A., Ryan S.G.,1999, A&AS,139,135 D’Odorico S., Kaper L. “UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph User Manual” 2000, Doc. No. VLT-MAN-ESO-13200-1825, http://www.eso.org/instruments/uves/userman/ D’Odorico S., Cristiani S., Dekker H., Hill V., Kaufer A., Kim T., Primas F.,2000, SPIE Proceedings 4005, in press Lee H., Hyung S.,2000, ApJ530,L49 McKenna F.C., Keenan F.P., Hambly N.C., Allende Prieto C., Rolleston W.R.J., 1997,ApJS,109,225 Penston M.V., Benvenuti P., Cassatella A., Heck A., Selvelli P.L., Macchetto F., Ponz D., Jordan C., Cramer N., Rufener F., Manfroid J.,1983, MNRAS 202,833 Raassen A.J.J. and Hansen, J.E.,1981, ApJ243,217 Schmid H.M.,1989, A&A,211,L31 Schmid H.M., Schild,H.,1990, A&A,236,L13 Thackeray A.D.,1977, Mem.RAS,83,1 Van Groningen E.,1993, MNRAS,264,975 Valenti J.A., Piskunov N., Johns-Krull C.M., 1998, ApJ 498, 851 Wamsteker W., Skillen I., Ponz J.D., de la Fuente A., Barylak M.,and Yurrita I.,2000, Ap&SS,in press Webster B.L.,1974, IAU Symp.59,123
[^1]: Based on public data released from the UVES commissioning at the VLT Kueyen telescope, European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The concept of extended Hamiltonian systems allows the geometrical interpretation of several integrable and superintegrable systems with polynomial first integrals of degree depending on a rational parameter. Until now, the procedure of extension has been applied only in the case of natural Hamiltonians. In this article, we give several examples of application to non-natural Hamiltonians, such as the two point-vortices, the Lotka-Volterra and some quartic in the momenta Hamiltonians, obtaining effectively extended Hamiltonians in some cases and failing in others. We briefly discuss the reasons of these results.'
author:
- |
Claudia Maria Chanu, Giovanni Rastelli\
\
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino,\
via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123, Torino, Italia\
email: [email protected]; [email protected]
title: 'Extensions of non-natural Hamiltonians'
---
Introduction
============
Given a Hamiltonian $L$ with $N$-degrees of freedom, the procedure of extension allows the construction of Hamiltonians $H$ with $(N+1)$ degrees of freedom admitting as first integrals $L$ itself, with all its possible constants of motion, and a characteristic first integral dependent on a rational parameter $k$. We gave several examples of extension of natural Hamiltonians on Riemannian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in [@CDRPol; @CDRfi; @CDRgen; @CDRsuext; @CDRraz; @TTWcdr; @CDRpw], including anisotropic, Harmonic oscillators, three-body Calogero and Tremblay-Turbiner-Winternitz systems. In all these examples, $L$ and $H$ are natural Hamiltonians and the characteristic first integral is polynomial in the momenta of some degree depending on $k$.
However, the procedure of extension do not make any assumption on $L$ other than it is a regular function on some cotangent bundle $T^*M$. Until now, we always considered $L$ as a natural Hamiltonian, in such a way that the extended Hamiltonian is itself natural. In this work, we apply the Extension Procedure on functions $L$ which are no longer quadratic in the momenta and, consequently, the extended Hamiltonian is not a natural one. The construction of an extended Hamiltonian requires the determination of a certain function $G$ well defined on all $T^*M$, up to some lower-dimensional subset of singular points. The extended Hamiltonian is a polynomial in $p_u$, $L$, while its characteristic first integral is a polynomial in $p_u$, $L$, $G$ and $X_LG$, the derivative of $G$ with respect to the Hamiltonian vector field of $L$, so that its global definition depends ultimately on $G$ and $X_LG$. Therefore, our analysis is focused on the determination of the function $G$ in the different cases, and on the study of its global behaviour on $T^*M$.
Since this work is intended as a preliminary study of the possible applications of the extension procedure to non-natural Hamiltonians, we do not pretend here to obtain complete and general results, but we focus on some meaningful examples only.
In Sec. 2 we recall the fundamentals of the theory of extended Hamiltonians. In Sec. 3 we consider extensions of functions quartic in the momenta and we find examples of extended Hamiltonians in analogy with the quadratic Hamiltonian case. The analysis becomes more subtle in Sec. 4, when we try to extend functions which are not polynomial in the momenta, as the case of the two point-vortices Hamiltonian. Here the global definition of the extended Hamiltonian and its characteristic first integral becomes an issue in some cases, so that the extension is possible only for some values of the constant of motion $L$, while in other cases the extension is always possible.
We conclude in Sec. 5 with some examples where we are unable to find any properly globally defined extended Hamiltonian.
Extensions of Hamiltonian systems {#ex}
=================================
Let $L(q^i,p_i)$ be a Hamiltonian with $N$ degrees of freedom, that is defined on the cotangent bundle $T^*M$ of an $N$-dimensional manifold $M$.
We say that $L$ [*admits extensions*]{}, if there exists $(c,c_0)\in \mathbb R^2
- \{(0,0)\}$ such that there exists a non null solution $G(q^i,p_i)$ of $$\label{e1}
X_L^2(G)=-2(cL+c_0)G,$$ where $X_L$ is the Hamiltonian vector field of $L$.
If $L$ admits extensions, then, for any $\gamma(u)$ solution of the ODE $$\label{eqgam}
\gamma'+c\gamma^2+C=0,$$ depending on the arbitrary constant parameter $C$, we say that any Hamiltonian $H(u,q^i,p_u,p_i)$ with $N+1$ degrees of freedom of the form $$\label{Hest}
H=\frac{1}{2} p_u^2-k^2\gamma'L+ k^2c_0\gamma^2
+\frac{\Omega}{\gamma^2},
\qquad k=\frac mn,\, m,n\in \mathbb{N}-\{0\}, \ \Omega\in\mathbb{R}$$ is an [*extension of $L$*]{}.
Extensions of Hamiltonians where introduced in [@CDRfi] and studied because they admit polynomial in the momenta first integrals generated via a recursive algorithm. Moreover, the degree of the first integrals is related with the choice of $m,n$. Indeed, for any $m,n\in \mathbb N-\{0\}$, let us consider the operator $$\label{Umn}
U_{m,n}=p_u+\frac m{n^2}\gamma X_L.$$
[@CDRraz] For $\Omega=0$, the Hamiltonian (\[Hest\]) is in involution with the function $$\label{mn_int}
K_{m,n}=U_{m,n}^m(G_n)=\left(p_u+\frac{m}{n^2} \gamma(u) X_L\right)^m(G_n),$$ where $G_n$ is the $n$-th term of the recursion $$\label{rec}
G_1=G, \qquad G_{n+1}=X_L(G)\,G_n+\frac{1}{n}G\,X_L(G_n),$$ starting from any solution $G$ of (\[e1\]).
For $\Omega\neq 0$, the recursive construction of a first integral is more complicated: we construct the following function, depending on two strictly positive integers $s,r$ $$\label{ee2}
\bar K_{2s,r}=\left(U_{2s,r}^2+2\Omega \gamma^{-2}\right)^s(G_r),$$ where the operator $U^2_{2s,r}$ is defined [according to (\[Umn\])]{} as $$U^2_{2s,r}=\left( p_u+\frac{2s}{r^2} \gamma(u) X_L
\right)^2,$$ and $G_r$ is, as in (\[mn\_int\]), the $r$-th term of the recursion (\[rec\]), with $G_1=G$ solution of (\[e1\]). For $\Omega=0$ the functions (\[ee2\]) reduce to (\[mn\_int\]) and thus can be computed also when the first of the indices is odd.
[@TTWcdr] \[t2\] For any $\Omega\in \mathbb{R}$, the Hamiltonian (\[Hest\]) satisfies, for $m=2s$, $$\label{cp}
\{H,\bar K_{m,n}\}=0,$$ for $m=2s+1$, $$\label{cd}
\{H ,\bar K_{2m,2n}\}=0.$$
We call $K$ and $\bar{K}$, of the form (\[mn\_int\]) and (\[ee2\]) respectively, *characteristic first integrals* of the corresponding extensions. It is proved in [@CDRfi; @TTWcdr] that the characteristic first integrals $K$ or $\bar K$ are functionally independent from $H$, $L$, and from any first integral $I(p_i,q^i)$ of $L$. This means that the extensions of (maximally) superintegrable Hamiltonians are (maximally) superintegrable Hamiltonians with one additional degree of freedom (see also [@CDRsuext]). In particular, any extension of a one-dimensional Hamiltonian is maximally superintegrable.
The explicit expression of the characteristic first integrals is given as follows [@CDRraz; @TTWcdr]. For $r\leq m$, we have $$\label{EEcal}
U_{m,n}^r(G_n)= P_{m,n,r}G_n+D_{m,n,r}X_{L}(G_n),$$ with $$P_{m,n,r}=\sum_{ j=0}^{[r/2]}\binom{r}{2 j}\, \left(\frac mn \gamma \right)^{2 j}p_u^{r-2 j}(-2)^j(cL+c_0)^ j,$$ $$D_{m,n,r}=\frac 1{n}\sum_{ j=0}^{[(r-1)/2]}\binom{r}{2 j+1}\, \left(\frac mn \gamma \right)^{2 j+1}p_u^{r-2 j-1}(-2)^j(cL+c_0)^ j, \quad m>1,$$ where $[\cdot]$ denotes the integer part and $D_{1,n,1}=\frac 1{n^2} \gamma$.
The expansion of the first integral (\[ee2\]) is $$\bar K_{2m,n}=\sum_{j=0} ^{m}\binom{m}{j}\left(\frac {2\Omega}{\gamma^2}\right)^jU_{2m,n}^{2(m-j)}(G_n),$$ with $U^0_{2m,n}(G_n)=G_n$, and
$$\label{Gn_alt}
G_n=\sum_{k=0}^{\left[\frac{n-1}{2}\right]}
\binom{n}{2k+1}(-2(cL+c_0))^k G^{2k+1}(X_L G)^{n-2k-1}.$$
In [@CDRgen] it is proven that the ODE (\[eqgam\]) defining $\gamma$ is a necessary condition in order to get a characteristic first integral of the form (\[mn\_int\]) or (\[ee2\]). According to the value of $c$ and $C$, the explicit form of $\gamma(u)$ is given (up to constant translations of $u$) by $$\label{fgam}
\gamma= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
-C u & c=0 \\
\frac{1}{T_\kappa (cu)}=\frac{C_\kappa (cu) }{S_\kappa (cu)}
& c\neq 0
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\kappa=C/c$ is the ratio of the constant parameters appearing in (\[eqgam\]) and $T_\kappa$, $S_\kappa$ and $C_\kappa$ are the trigonometric tagged functions (see also [@CDRraz] for a summary of their properties) $$S_\kappa(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\sin\sqrt{\kappa}x}{\sqrt{\kappa}} & \kappa>0 \\
x & \kappa=0 \\
\frac{\sinh\sqrt{|\kappa|}x}{\sqrt{|\kappa|}} & \kappa<0
\end{array}\right.
\qquad
C_\kappa(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\cos\sqrt{\kappa}x & \kappa>0 \\
1 & \kappa=0 \\
\cosh\sqrt{|\kappa|}x & \kappa<0
\end{array}\right.$$ $$T_\kappa(x)=\frac {S_\kappa(x)}{C_\kappa(x)}.$$ Therefore, we have $$\label{fgamp}
\gamma'= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
-C & c=0 \\
\frac{-c}{S_\kappa ^2 (cu)}
& c\neq 0 .
\end{array}
\right.$$
The global definition of the characteristic first integral of the extended Hamiltonian is ultimately determined by the definition of $G$ and its derivative $X_L G$. When these objects are globally defined, then also the characteristic first integral is.
From the brief exposition given above it is clear that the extensions of a function $L$ on $T^*M$ are completely determined once a solution $G$ of (\[e1\]) is known, provided it is regular and well defined on $T^*M$. The fundamental step for the application of the extension procedure is therefore the determination of $G$. In all existing examples of extended Hamiltonians the function $L$ is always a quadratic polynomial in the momenta. The examples include the anisotropic harmonic oscillators, the Tremblay-Turbiner-Winternitz and the Post-Winternitz systems. For several of these systems there exist a quantization theory, based on the Kuru-Negro factorization in shift and ladder operators, adapted to Hamiltonians which are extended Hamiltonians [@CRsl]. In order to generalise the extension procedure to non-natural Hamiltonians, we focus our research here on the determination of functions $G$ solution of (\[e1\]), leaving for other works a deeper analysis of the resulting extended systems. We consider below some examples of non-natural Hamiltonians, or natural Hamiltonians in a non-canonical symplectic or Poisson structure. Since the forms of the extended Hamiltonian and of the characteristic first integral are completely determined once known $L$ and $G$, we are solely concerned with the determination and analysis of $G$ and $X_LG$.
Extensions of Quartic Hamiltonians
==================================
Hamiltonians of degree four in the momenta are considered in [@FC]. These Hamiltonians are written in Andoyer projective variables and allow a unified representation of several mechanical systems, such as harmonic oscillator, Kepler system and rigid body dynamics, corresponding to different choices of parameters. We consider here some toy model of Hamiltonians of degree up to four in the momenta.
1. Let us assume $$L=p^4+f_1(q)p^3+f_2(q)p^2+f_3(q)p+V(q).$$ The exension of $L$ is possible if global solutions $G$ of $$\label{LE1}
X_L^2 G=-2(cL+c_0)G,$$ are known. If we assume $G(q)$, then the function $$G=C_1q+C_2,$$ is a solution of (\[LE1\]) if $L$ is in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sq}
L=\frac {\left(16C_1 p^2+8C_1fp+2cC_1q^2+4cC_2q+C_1f^2+8C_1C_3\right)^2}{256\,C_1^2}-\frac {c_0}c,
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i$ are real constants and $f(q)$ is an arbitrary function.
Hence, we have that this system admits the most general extension, with $c$ positive or negative.
2. We consider now
$$L=p^4+f(q)p^2+V(q),$$
If we assume $G=g(q)p$ and solve the coefficients of the monomials in $p$ in (\[e1\]) equal to zero, we obtain two solutions, one $$\begin{aligned}
V&=& \frac 1{4}(\frac 1{16}q^2c+\frac 1{8C_1}cC_2q-\frac 12\frac{C_3}{C_1(C_1q+C_2)^2}+C_4)^2-\frac {c_0}c,\cr
g&=& C_1q+C_2, \cr
f&=& \frac 1{16}q^2c+\frac 1{8C_1}cC_2q-\frac 12\frac{C_3}{C_1(C_1q+C_2)^2}+C_4,
\end{aligned}$$ that, substituted in $L$, gives, by assuming $c\neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psq}
L&=&\frac 1{1024C_1^2(C_1q+C_2)^4}\left(32p^2(C_1^3q^2+2C_1^2C_2q +C_1C_2^2)+C_1^3cq^4\right.\cr &+&\left.4C_1^2C_2cq^3+16C_1^3C_4q^2+5C_1C_2^2cq^2+(32C_1^2C_2C_4+2C_2^3c)q\right.\cr
&+&\left.16C_1C_2^2C_4-8C_3\right)^2-\frac {c_0}c,
\end{aligned}$$
and the other, holding for $c\neq 0$ also
$$\begin{aligned}
V &=& \frac 1{(C_1q+C_2)^4}\left(C_4-\frac 1{1024cC_1^3}q(-C_1^7c^3q^7-8C_1^6C_2c^3q^6\right.\cr
&-& 28C_1^5C_2^2c^3q^5-56C_1^4C_2^3c^3q^4+(-70C_1^3C_2^4c^3+1024c_0C_1^7\cr
&-& 32C_1^5C_3c^2)q^3+(4096c_0C_1^6C_2-128C_1^4C_2C_3c^2-56C_1^2C_2^5c^3)q^2\cr
&+&(-28C_1C_2^6c^3+6144c_0C_1^5C_2^2-192C_1^3C_2^2C_3c^2)q-8C_2^7c^3\cr
&+&\left.4096c_0C_1^4C_2^3-128C_1^2C_2^3C_3c^2)\right),\cr
g&=& C_1q+C_2,\cr
f&=& \frac 1{16C_1^2}(C_1q+C_2)^2c+\frac {C_3}{(C_1q+C_2)^2},
\end{aligned}$$
where the $C_i$ are constants. It is interesting to remark that in the last case $L$ is not in general a perfect square plus a constant, as in (\[sq\]) and (\[psq\]).
3. We assume now $$L=\left(p_1^2+\frac 1{(q^1)^2}p_2^2+V(q^1,q^2) \right)^2,$$ that is the square of a natural Hamiltonian on $\mathbb E^2$, and search for functions $V$ allowing the existence of non-trivial solutions $G$ of (\[e1\]). Again, by assuming $G(q^1,q^2)$ and collecting the terms in $(p_1,p_2)$ in (\[e1\]), the requirement that the coefficients of the momenta are identically zero, after assuming $c_0=0$, gives the following solution $$\begin{aligned}
G&=& \left(\sin(q^2)C_2+\cos(q^2)C_3\right)q^1+C_1,\cr
V&=&-\frac c8 \frac{(C_3\sin(q^2)-C_2\cos(q^2))^2(2\tan(q^2)C_2C_3-C_2^2+C_3^2)}{C_3^2(\tan(q^2)C_3-C_2)^2} (q^1)^2\cr
&+&\frac c4\frac{(C_3\sin(q^2)-C_2\cos(q^2))C_1}{C_3(\tan(q^2)C_3-C_2)}q^1\cr
&+&F\left((\sin(q^2)C_3-\cos(q^2)C_2)q^1\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ is an arbitrary function.
In all the examples above all the elements of the extension procedure are polynomial in the momenta, therefore, the extended Hamiltonian and its characteristic first integral are globally defined in the same way as for the natural Hamiltonian case.
Extensions of the Two Point-Vortices Hamiltonian
================================================
The dynamics of two point-vortices $z_j=x_j+iy_j$ of intensity $k_j$, $j=1, 2$, in a plane $(x,y)$ is described, in canonical coordinates $(Y_i=k_iy_i,X_i=x_i)$, by the Hamiltonian $$L=-\alpha k_1k_2\ln \left((X_1-X_2)^2+\left(\frac{Y_1}{k_1}-\frac{Y_2}{k_2}\right)^2\right),$$ where $\alpha=\frac 1{8\pi}$ and $k_i$ are real numbers [@TT].
If $k_2\neq -k_1$, the functions $( k_1z_1+k_2z_2, L)$ are independent first integrals of the system (three real functions). If $k_2=-k_1$, the functions above give only two real independent first integrals.
The coordinate transformation $$\tilde X_1=(X_1-X_2)/2,\quad \tilde X_2=(X_1+X_2)/2,\quad \tilde Y_1=Y_1-Y_2, \quad \tilde Y_2=Y_1+Y_2,$$ is canonical and transforms $L$ into $$L=-\alpha k_1k_2\ln \left(4\tilde X_1^2+\left(\frac {\tilde Y_1 +\tilde Y_2}{2k_1} +\frac {\tilde Y_1 -\tilde Y_2}{2k_2} \right)^2\right).$$
The exension of $L$ is possible if global solutions $G$ of (\[e1\]) are known. We consider below two cases
1. If $k_1=k_2=k>0$ the Hamiltonian becomes $$L=-\alpha k^2 \ln \left(4\tilde X_1^2+\frac {\tilde Y_1^2}{k^2}\right).$$
For $c=0$, $G$ in this case can be computed by using Maple, obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
G= \left(\frac {\tilde Y_1+2ik\tilde X_1}{\sqrt{Q_1}}\right)^{\frac{Q_1\sqrt{2c_0}}{4\alpha k^3} } F_1 + \left(\frac {\tilde Y_1+2ik\tilde X_1}{\sqrt{Q_1}}\right)^{-\frac{Q_1\sqrt{2c_0}}{4\alpha k^3} } F_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_1=k^2e^{-\frac{L}{\alpha k^2}}=4\tilde X_1^2+\frac {\tilde Y_1^2}{k^2}$ and $F_i$ are arbitrary functions of $L$.
The function $G$ is not single-valued in general, but it is, for example, when $\frac{Q_1\sqrt{2c_0}}{4\alpha k^3}$ is an integer.
Let us consider now $X_LG$, since $Q_1$ depends on the canonical coordinates through $L$ only, $Q_1$ and the exponents in $G$ behave as constants under the differential operator $X_L$, hence, the exponents in it remain integer if they are integer in $G$ and $X_LG$ is well defined on $T^*M$. Therefore, both $H$ and its characteristic first integral are globally well defined for integer values of $\frac{Q_1\sqrt{2c_0}}{4\alpha k^3} $.
We have in this case an example in which the possibility of finding an extension depends on the parameters of the system and, in particular, on the values of the constant of motion $L$.
2. If $k_2=-k_1=-k$, $k>0$ the Hamiltonian is $$L=\alpha k^2 \ln \left(4\tilde X_1^2+ \frac{\tilde Y_2^2}{k^2}\right).$$ For $c=0$, the solution $G$ is obtained by Maple as $$\begin{aligned}
G= F_1\sin \left(\frac{\sqrt{2c_0}Q_2 \tilde X_2}{2\alpha k^2 \tilde Y_2}\right) + F_2 \cos \left(\frac{\sqrt{2c_0}Q_2 \tilde X_2}{2\alpha k^2 \tilde Y_2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_2=k^2e^{\frac{L}{\alpha k^2}}$ and $F_i$ are arbitrary first integrals of $L$.
It is evident that the function $G$ above, real or complex, is always globally defined, as well as $X_LG$, up to lower-dimensional sets, and this makes possible the effective extension of the Hamiltonian $L$.
We observe that in this case the extended Hamiltonian has four independent constants of motion.
Hamiltonians with no known extension
====================================
The procedure of extension can be applied in any Poisson manifold, not only in symplectic manifolds with canonical symplectic structure, as in the examples above. Indeed, if $\pi$ is the symplectic form or the Poisson bivector determining the Hamiltonian structure of the system of Hamiltonian $L$ in coordinates $(x^1, \ldots,x^n)$, then the symplectic or Poisson structure of the extended manifold in coordinates $(u,p_u,x^1, \ldots,x^n)$ is given by $$\Pi=\left(\begin{array}{cc|c}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & \\
\hline
0 & & \pi
\end{array}
\right).$$
We recall that the Hamiltonian vector field of $L$ on Poisson manifolds with Poisson vector $\pi$ is $\pi dL$.
We consider below two cases of Hamiltonian systems for which we are unable to find extended Hamiltonians. The obstruction to the extension lies in both cases in the non-global definition of the known solutions of (\[e1\]).
The Lotka-Volterra system
-------------------------
It is well known that the Lotka-Volterra prey-predator system $$\begin{aligned}
\dot x=a x-b x y\\
\dot y=d xy -gy,\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b,d,g$ are real constants, can be put in Hamiltonian form (see [@Nu]), for example with Poisson bivector $$\pi=\left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & A \cr -A & 0 \end{matrix} \right),\quad A=-x^{1+g}y^{1+a}e^{-by-dx},$$ and Hamiltonian $$L=x^{-g}y^{-a}e^{dx+by}.$$ Since the manifold is symplectic, there is only one degree of freedom, and the existence of the Hamiltonian itself makes the system superintegrable. The equation (\[e1\]) with $c=0$ admits solution $G$ of the form $$G=F_1(L) e^{-B} +F_2(L) e^B,$$ where $$B=-\frac{\sqrt{-2c_0}}a\int{\left[t\left(W \left( -\frac ba t^{-\frac ga}x^{\frac ga}ye^{\frac{d(t-x)-by}a}\right)+1\right)\right]^{-1}dt},$$ and $W$ is the Lambert W function, defined by $$z=W(z)e^{W(z)}, \quad z\in \mathbb C.$$ If we put $F_1=\frac 12 \left(\alpha+\frac \beta i\right)$, $F_2=\frac 12 \left(\alpha-\frac \beta i\right)$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta $ are real constants, then $$G=\alpha \cos B - \beta \sin B.$$ However, the Lambert W function is multi-valued in $\mathbb C-\{0\}$, even if its variable is real (in this case, it is defined only for $z\geq-1/e $ and double-valued for $-1/e<z<0$). Therefore, such a $G$ cannot provide a globally defined first integral and does not determine an extension of $L$.
By comparison, the Hamiltonian of the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator admits iterated extensions with $c=0$ and $c_0$ always equal to the elastic parameter of the first oscillator. One obtains in this way the $n$-dimensional, $n\in \mathbb N$, anisotropic oscillator with parameters having rational ratios, and therefore always superintegrable [@CDRraz]. This is not the case for the Lotka-Volterra system, where the periods of the closed trajectories in $x,y$ are not all equal, as happens for the harmonic oscillators.
The Euler system
----------------
It is well known that the Euler rigid-body system is described by the Hamiltonian $$L=\frac 12\left(\frac {m_1^2}{I_1}+\frac {m_2^2}{I_2}+\frac {m_3^2}{I_3}\right),$$ on the Poisson manifold of coordinates $(m_1,m_2,m_3)$ and Poisson bivector $$\pi=\left(\begin{matrix}0 & -m_3 & m_2 \cr m_3 & 0 &-m_1 \cr -m_2 & m_1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right).$$ The $(m_i)$ are the components of the angular momentum in the moving frame and they are conjugate momenta of the three components of the principal axes along one fixed direction.
A Casimir of $\pi$ is $$M=m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2.$$ The system has two functionally independent constants of the motion: $L$ and one of the components of the angular momentum in the fixed frame.
A solution of equation (\[e1\]) can be found by using the Kuru-Negro [@CRsl] ansatz $$\label{KN}
X_L G=\pm \sqrt{-2(cL+c_0)}G,$$ whose solutions are solutions of the equation (\[e1\]) too. A solution of (\[KN\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
G=f e^{\left[\mp \frac{I_1I_2I_3}{\sqrt{I_2(I_1-I_3)}}\sqrt{\frac{-2(cL+c_0)}{X_2}}F\left(m_1\sqrt{\frac{I_2(I_1-I_3)}{X_1}},\sqrt{\frac{I_3(I_1-I_2)X_1}{I_2(I_1-I_3)X_2} }\right)\right]},\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is an arbitrary function of the first integrals $L$ and $M$, $$\begin{aligned}
X_1=I_1I_2(M-2I_3L),\\
X_2=I_1I_3(2I_2L-M),\end{aligned}$$ and $F(\phi,k)$ is the incomplete elliptic integral of first kind $$F(\phi,k)=\int_0^\phi \frac {d\theta}{\sqrt{1-k^2\sin ^2 \theta}},$$ which is a multiple valued function, being the inverse of Jacobi’s sinus amplitudinis $sn$ function. The function $G$, possibly complex valued and with singular sets of lower dimension, depends essentially on $m_1$, since all other arguments in it are either constants or first integrals.
Since our function $G$ is not single-valued, we cannot in this case build an extended Hamiltonian from $L$.
Conclusions
===========
By the examples discussed in this article we see that extended Hamiltonians can be obtained also from non-natural Hamiltonians $L$ and not only from the natural ones. The case when $L$ is quartic in the momenta is very much similar to the quadratic cases studied elsewhere, and the extension procedure does not encounter new problems. For the two point-vortices Hamiltonian, we have that global solutions of (\[e1\]) can be obtained in correspondence of particular choices of parameters in $L$. In the remaining examples, we are unable to obtain globally defined solutions of (\[e1\]) and we cannot build extensions in these cases. In future works, the extended Hamiltonians obtained here could be studied in more details, while the search for global solutions for the cases of Lotka-Volterra and of the rigid body, or for the reasons of their non-existence, could be undertaken.
[**Conflict of Interest**]{}: the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[widestlabel]{}
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“Polynomial constants of motion for Calogero-type systems in three dimensions”*]{}, *J. Math. Phys.* **52**, 032903 (2011)
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“First integrals of extended Hamiltonians in $(n+1)$-dimensions generated by powers of an operator”*]{}, [*SIGMA*]{} [**7**]{} 038, 12 pp. (2011)
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“Generalizations of a method for constructing first integrals of a class of natural Hamiltonians and some remarks about quantization”*]{}, *J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.* **343** 012101 arXiv:1111.0030 (2012)
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“Superintegrable extensions of superintegrable systems”*]{}, [*SIGMA*]{} [**8**]{} 070, 12 pp. (2012)
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“Extensions of Hamiltonian systems dependent on a rational parameter”*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**55**]{} (2014) 122703
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“The Tremblay-Turbiner-Winternitz system as extended Hamiltonian”*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**55**]{} (2014) 122701
C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and G. Rastelli, [*“Extended Hamiltonians, coupling-constant metamorphosis and the Post-Winternitz system”*]{}, [*SIGMA*]{} [**11**]{} 094, 9 pp. (2015)
C. M. Chanu and G. Rastelli, [*“Extended Hamiltonians and shift, ladder functions and operators”*]{}, Annals of Physics 386, 254-274 (2017)
S. Ferrer and F. Crespo, [*“Parametric quartic Hamiltonian model. A unified treatment of classic integrable systems”*]{}. Journal of Geometric Mechanics , 7(1), (2015)
T. Kambe, [*“Elementary Fluid Mechanics”*]{}, World Scientific, (2007)
Y. Nutku, [*“Hamiltonian Structure of the Lotka-Volterra Equations”*]{}, Phys. Lett. A, 145 , pp. 27-28, (1990)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent developments in the field of automatic computation of Feynman diagrams using asymptotic expansions are reviewed. The hadronic decay rate of the $Z$–boson is taken as an example for their physical application.'
author:
- |
[Robert Harlander]{}\
[ Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik, Universität Karlsruhe,]{}\
[ D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany ]{}
title: |
-3cm
TTP98–25
hep-ph/9806524
June 1998
1.5cm Higher order corrections to $Z$–decay[^1]
---
\[sec::intro\]Introduction
==========================
The final round of the analysis of data taken at LEP in the runs between 1990 and 1995 at energies around the $Z$–peak is going to be completed [@clare]. About 16 millions of $Z$–bosons have been produced and the resulting accuracy of, e.g., the $Z$–boson mass and its decay width is impressive (for the latest experimental values of these quantities see [@clare]). In view of this precision there have been huge efforts in calculating higher order corrections to these observables. This talk is supposed to be not so much a review of theoretical and experimental results but is rather concerned with some of the available tools to perform such calculations.
\[sec::asym\]QCD corrections and asymptotic expansions
======================================================
The decay rate of the $Z$–boson into quarks constitutes an illuminating example of how to use asymptotic expansions of Feynman diagrams to simplify calculations. In what follows we will only be concerned with the vertex corrections and it will always be assumed that they are computed via the optical theorem by calculating the $Z$–boson self energy and taking the imaginary part. If one considers, e.g., only QCD-corrections, it certainly is a reasonable lowest order approximation to neglect all quark masses. Only one dimensional quantity is left, the $Z$–boson mass, and one arrives at massless propagator diagrams for which the so-called [*integration-by-parts*]{} algorithm is available and has been explicitely worked out [@CheTka81] and implemented in a [FORM]{} [@form] package called [MINCER]{} [@mincer] up to three loops. This immediately gives the answer for the $Z$–boson decay rate into massless quarks up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ [@CheKatTka79DinSap79CelGon80]. Making additionally use of infrared re-arrangement, it is even possible to extend the result to ${\cal
O}(\alpha_s^3)$ [@GorKatLar91SurSam91; @Che972].
As a second step one may want to take effects induced by the quark masses into acccount. Then, however, one is faced with two-scale Feynman integrals. Although the full ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$–result is known [@KalSab55; @BarRem73; @JerLaeZer82] — the vector part even for a very long time —, at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ only certain subclasses of diagrams have been computed analytically (e.g. [@dubbub]).
For the remaining part one is forced to consider some approximation procedure to obtain, e.g., an expansion in $m_q^2/M_Z^2$, with $m_q$ the mass of the quark in the final state. The recipe for the efficient computation of such asymptotic expansions has been worked out in a series of publications and shall not be repeated here (for a review see [@Smirnov]). The essence is to expand the integrands of certain subgraphs of the initial diagrams, leading to a complete factorization of “small” and “large” quantities. Two special cases may be distinguished: When only masses appear as large quantities, the technique is called the [*[Hard Mass Procedure]{}*]{}. In contrast, the [*[Large Momentum Procedure]{}*]{} deals with the case of only large momenta.
Concerning the quark mass effects in the QCD-corrections to the $Z$–boson decay rate, it is clear that here the appropriate procedure is the second one. There is only one large ($q^2=M_Z^2$) and one small ($m_q^2$) mass scale in this problem, so the factorization mentioned above means that products of only single scale diagrams are produced: massless propagator diagrams ($m=0$ and $q\neq 0$) and massive tadpoles ($m\neq
0$ and $q=0$). We already mentioned the integration-by-parts algorithm to compute the former ones. The underlying principle may also be applied to the latter ones, as has been done in [@Bro92], again up to three loops. The implementation of this procedure has been performed, for example, in a [FORM]{} package named [MATAD]{} [@matad].
There are, of course, certain limitations of this approach both from the technical and the analytical point of view. The former one is connected with the realization of the prescriptions provided by the asymptotic expansions. To three-loop order it becomes a non-trivial task to find and properly expand the contributing subdiagrams. For one particular diagram, all subgraphs contributing to the [Large Momentum Procedure]{} are shown in Fig. \[O2.ps\].
=6.cm
The solution of this problem is to use the algorithmic nature of the prescriptions and to pass their evaluation to a computer. As far as the [Large Momentum Procedure]{} for two-point functions is concerned this has been performed in a [PERL]{} program called [LMP]{} [@diss]. Another program, doing also the [Hard Mass Procedure]{}, will be mentioned in Section \[sec::mixed\]. Therefore, in this sense this technical limitation no longer exists.
The second limitation of asymptotic expansions is more severe. It is clear that a cut series in general contains less information than the full result. In our case of the $Z$–boson decay, let us, for example, consider the hypothetical case $2m_q<M_Z<4m_q$. The production of four fermions is then kinematically forbidden. A small $m_q$–expansion, however, is uncapable of discriminating among any of the cases $M_Z>m_q$, $M_Z>2m_q$ or $M_Z>4m_q$, which is why at first sight one cannot expect to obtain reasonable results below the four-quark threshold. However, the situation is not so bad as it seems. The reason is that in general the four-particle channel has a very smooth threshold behaviour due to phase space suppression. In a small-$m_q$ expansion this smoothness is carried over to energies below the four-particle threshold preserving its validity in this region [@CheHarKueSte97].
=6.cm
As an example the contribution to the hadronic $R$–ratio proportional to the color factor $C_{\rm A}C_{\rm F}$ as a function of $x=2m_q/\sqrt{s}$, where $s$ is the cms-energy, is shown in Fig. \[rnavx.ps\]. The first threshold is at $\sqrt{s} = 2m_q$ ($x=1$), the second one at $\sqrt{s} = 4m_q$ ($x=1/2$). Convergence, however, seems to be warranted at least up to $x=0.8$.
Anyway, for the $Z$–boson decay one is above any possible four-quark threshold such that convergence of the expansion to the correct answer is guaranteed. Not only this: The quadratic and quartic mass corrections, which already provide a very good approximation in this case, can also be obtained without really using asymptotic expansions, even up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ [@CheKuem2; @diss]. As far as the [Large Momentum Procedure]{} is concerned, there certainly are more important fields of application for it (see, e.g., [@CheHarKueSte97; @HarSte9712; @HarSte9740]). On the other hand, for the [Hard Mass Procedure]{}, important contributions to $Z$–decay have recently been computed where it really proves to be a very useful tool, as we will see in Section \[sec::mixed\].
\[sec::EW\]Electroweak and mixed QED/QCD-corrections
====================================================
Let us turn to the electroweak radiative corrections to the $Z$–boson decay. As far as one only considers QED, the similarity to QCD allows not only to evaluate all pure QED-corrections, but also QED/QCD-corrections of order $\alpha\alpha_s$, $\alpha^2\alpha_s$ and $\alpha\alpha_s^2$ [@KatSur] from the knowledge of the diagram-wise results to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ resp. ${\cal
O}(\alpha_s^3)$ by altering the color factors.
The situation is different when allowing also for $Z$– and $W$–boson exchange between the produced quarks, because of their non-negligible masses. As far as the $W$–boson is concerned, another phenomenon occurs, namely the appearence of the isospin partners of the produced quarks as virtual particles in the loops. In contrast to the decay into $u$–, $d$–, $s$– or $c$–quarks, where this does not really produce a difference in comparison to virtual $Z$–exchange because all of them may be considered as massless, the decay into $b$–quarks is somewhat exceptional because the $b$–quark is the isospin partner of the $t$–quark. Neglecting the $t$–quark mass certainly is not a good approximation, nor can it be set infinite as one knows, for example, from the radiative corrections to the $\rho$–parameter that appear to be proportional to $m_t^2$ [@rhoparam]. Nevertheless, a full result for $\Gamma(Z\to q\bar q)$ to ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ for the decay into $q=u,d,s,c$ [@GrzKueKraStu87; @BeeHol88] as well as for the one into $b$ [@refzbbl1; @BeeHol88] is available. The leading $m_t$–behavior for the latter is quadratic like for the $\rho$–parameter. To ${\cal
O}(\alpha^2)$ the $t$–quark enters also the calculation for the decay into $u,d,s,c$. The leading $m_t^4$– and the subleading $m_t^2$–terms to this order are known [@FleTarJeg93; @DegGam97]. For the decay into $b$–quarks only the leading $m_t^4$–terms are available [@FleTarJeg93].
\[sec::mixed\]Mixed electroweak/QCD-corrections
===============================================
A part of the mixed $\alpha\alpha_s$–corrections, namely those induced by virtual gluon and photon exchange, has already been mentioned in Section \[sec::EW\]. The present section will be concerned with the case of $W$– or $Z$–, accompanied by an additional gluon-exchange, i.e., in a sense, QCD-corrections to the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$–results described in Section \[sec::EW\]. Again it is natural to distinguish between the decay into $u,d,s,c$ and into $b$. The former case was evaluated in [@CzaKue96], and it is instructive to dwell a bit on the technique which was used in this work.
Again the rate was determined by computing the $Z$–boson self energy up to the order considered and taking the imaginary part of the result. In the case of virtual $Z$–boson exchange, one arrives at three-loop on-shell integrals, for $W$–exchange one gets two-scale diagrams. The idea in [@CzaKue96] was to use the [Hard Mass Procedure]{} described in Section \[sec::asym\] to expand the diagrams in $M_Z^2/M^2$, where $M$ is the mass of the virtual gauge boson, and take the limit $M\to M_Z$ resp. $M\to M_W$ in the final result. Since convergence at these points turned out to be quite slow, a part of the diagrams was also expanded in $M^2/M_Z^2$. In this way it was possible to obtain a reasonable approximation to the full result.
In the case of $Z\to b\bar b$ one faces the problem of an additional mass scale, the $t$-quark mass. Using the [Hard Mass Procedure]{} for $m_t^2\gg
M_Z^2,M_W^2$, one may factor out the $m_t$–dependence. However, for a part of the diagrams one still is left with two-scale and even three-scale integrals involving $M_Z^2$ and $M_W^2$ and $\xi_W M_W^2$, where $\xi_W$ is the electroweak gauge parameter which we want to keep. Although they appear to be only one-loop integrals, their exact evaluation up to ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ produces inconvenient results. Instead, the results of [@HarSeiSte97] were obtained by applying the [Hard Mass Procedure]{} to these kinds of diagrams once more, this time using $\xi_W
M_W^2, M_W^2\gg
M_Z^2$. This seemingly unrealistic choice of scales becomes justified by recalling the discussion of Section \[sec::asym\]: It is not possible for an expansion to distinguish the inequality $M_W^2\gg M_Z^2$ from $4M_W^2\gg M_Z^2$ or $(m_t+M_W)^2\gg M_Z^2$, the latter ones being perfectly alright. The only matter is to perform the expansion on the appropriate side of all thresholds, and here one is concerned with thresholds at $2M_W$ and at $m_t+M_W$. Therefore, the choice $M_W^2\gg
M_Z^2$ is to be understood purely in this technical sense. Graphically this continued expansion looks as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \epsfxsize=5em
\raisebox{-1.3em}{\epsffile[120 260 460 450]{T1hmp.ps}}
\stackrel{m_t^2\to \infty}{\longrightarrow}
\,\,\,\,\,
\epsfxsize=6em \raisebox{-1.3em}{\epsffile[120 260 560 450]{T3czbb.ps}}
\star
\epsfxsize=.7em
\raisebox{-1.3em}{\epsffile[260 260 310 450]{T11hmp.ps}}
\,\,+ \,\,\cdots \\[.5em]&&\hspace{6em}
\stackrel{\xi M_W^2\to \infty}{\longrightarrow}
\bigg(\!\!\!\!
\epsfxsize=5em
\raisebox{-1.3em}{\epsffile[120 260 460 450]{T31cczbb.ps}}
\star
\epsfxsize=4em \raisebox{-1.em}{\epsffile[120 260 460
450]{T31czbb.ps}} \hspace{-2em}\bigg)
\star
\epsfxsize=.7em
\raisebox{-1.3em}{\epsffile[260 260 310 450]{T11hmp.ps}} + \cdots\,,\end{aligned}$$ where only those terms are displayed which are relevant in the discussion above and all others contributing to the [Hard Mass Procedure]{} are merged into the ellipse. The thick plain line is the top quark, the thick wavy one a Goldstone boson with mass squared $\xi_W M_W^2$, for example. The thin plain lines are $b$–quarks, the inner thin wavy lines are $W$–bosons, the outer ones $Z$-bosons. The spring-line is a gluon. The mass hierarchy is assumed to be $m_t^2\gg \xi_W M_W^2 \gg M_W^2 \gg
M_Z^2$. The freedom in choosing the magnitude of $\xi_W$ provides a welcome check of the routines and the results.
The outcome of this procedure is a nested series: The coefficients of the $M_W/m_t$–expansion are in turn series in $M_Z/M_W$. Note that in contrast to the decay into $u,d,s,c$ there is no threshold at $M_W$ which makes an additional expansion in $M_W/M_Z$ unnecessary.
In view of this calculation the procedure of successive application of the [Hard Mass Procedure]{} resp. the [Large Momentum Procedure]{} has been implemented in a Fortran 90 program named [EXP]{} [@SeiDiplom]. Therefore, the computation of a three-loop two-point function can now be done fully automatically given some arbitrary hierarchy of mass scales. Even more, the link to the Feynman diagram generator [QGRAF]{} [@qgraf] in a common environment called [GEFICOM]{} [@geficom] allows to obtain the result of a whole physical process without any human interference except for specification of the process and final renormalization.
Finally, let us present the result for the $W$–induced corrections to the $Z$–decay rate $\delta\Gamma^W(Z\to b\bar b)$ in the form of the renormalization scheme independent difference to the decay rate into $d\bar d$. Inserting the on-shell top mass $m_t = 175$ GeV, the $Z$–mass $M_Z=91.91$ GeV and $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.223$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta\Gamma^W(Z\to b\bar b) - \delta\Gamma^W(Z\to d\bar d) =
\Gamma^0 {1\over \sin^2\theta_W}
{\alpha\over \pi}
\bigg\{ - 0.50
\nonumber\\[.5em]&&\hbox{\hspace{1em}}
+ (0.71 -0.48)+ (0.08 - 0.29) + (-0.01 - 0.07) + (-0.007 - 0.006)
\nonumber\\[.5em]&&\mbox{}
+ {\alpha_s\over \pi} \bigg[ 1.16 + (1.21 - 0.49) + (0.30 - 0.65) +
(0.02 - 0.21 + 0.01)
\nonumber\\&&\mbox{\hspace{1em}}
+ (-0.01 - 0.04
+ 0.004) \bigg] \bigg\} =
\nonumber\\&&\mbox{\hspace{0em}}
=\Gamma^0 {1\over \sin^2\theta_W} {\alpha\over \pi} \bigg\{- 0.50 - 0.07 +
{\alpha_s\over \pi} \bigg[ 1.16 + 0.13 \bigg]\bigg\}\,,
\label{eqgamnum}\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $\Gamma^0\alpha/(\pi\sin^2\theta_W)$ with $\Gamma^0 =
M_Z \alpha/(4 \sin^2\theta_W \cos^2\theta_W)$ has been pulled out for convenience. The numbers after the first equality sign correspond to successively increasing orders in $1/m_t^2$, where the brackets collect the corresponding constant, $\log m_t$ and, if present, $\log^2
m_t$–terms. The numbers after the second equality sign represent the leading $m_t^2$–term and the sum of the subleading ones. The ${\cal
O}(\alpha)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$–results are displayed separately. Comparison of this expansion of the one-loop terms to the exact result of [@BeeHol88] shows agreement up to $0.01\%$ which gives quite some confidence in the $\alpha\alpha_s$–contribution. One can see that although the $m_t^2$–, $m_t^0$– and $m_t^0\log
m_t$–terms are of the same order of magnitude, the final result is surprisingly well represented by the $m_t^2$–term, since the subleading terms largely cancel among each other.\
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} I would like to thank K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kühn, M. Steinhauser and T. Seidensticker for fruitful collaboration, and the organizers and participants at the workshop for the enjoyable atmosphere. This work was supported by the “Landesgraduiertenförderung” and the “Graduiertenkolleg Elementarteilchenphysik” at the University of Karlsruhe.
\#1\#2\#3[[*Act. Phys. Pol. *]{}[**B \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Act. Phys. Austr. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Fortschr. Phys. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Nucl. Phys. *]{}[**B \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Lett. *]{}[**B \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**D \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Reports* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Comp. Phys. Commun. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Nucl. Inst. Meth. *]{}[**A \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Reports* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Yad. Fiz. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*JETP Lett. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Z. Phys. *]{}[**C \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Eur. Phys. J. *]{}[**C \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Prog. Theor. Phys. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Nuovo Cim. *]{}[**\#1A**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Mod. Phys. Lett. *]{}[**A \#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Teor. Mat. Fiz. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ibid. ]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Comm. Math. Phys. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*J. Comp. Phys. *]{}[**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{}
[99]{} R. Clare, [*LEP Physics Results*]{}, these proceedings. F.V. Tkachov, ;\
K.G. Chetyrkin and F.V. Tkachov, . J.A.M. Vermaseren, [*Symbolic Manipulation with FORM*]{} (Computer Algebra Netherlands, Amsterdam, 1991). S.A. Larin, F.V. Tkachov and J.A.M. Vermaseren, Rep. No. NIKHEF-H/91-18 (Amsterdam, 1991). K.G. Chetyrkin, A.L. Kataev and F.V. Tkachov, ;\
M. Dine and J. Sapirstein, ;\
W. Celmaster and R.J. Gonsalves, . S.G. Gorishny, A.L. Kataev and S.A. Larin, ;\
L.R. Surguladze and M.A. Samuel, ; (E) ibid., 2416. K.G. Chetyrkin, . G. Källen and A. Sabry, [ *K. Dan. Videnk. Selsk. Mat.-Fys. Medd.*]{} [**29**]{} (1955) No. 17. R. Barbieri and E. Remiddi, . J. Jersák, E. Laermann and P. Zerwas, ; (E) . A.H. Hoang, M. Jeżabek, J.H. Kühn and T. Teubner, ;\
A.H. Hoang, J.H. Kühn and T. Teubner, ;\
A.H. Hoang and T. Teubner, Rep. Nos. DTP/97/68, UCSD/PHT 97-16 (Durham, San Diego, 1997), hep-ph/9707496. V.A. Smirnov, [*Renormalization and Asymptotic Expansion*]{} (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1991); . D.J. Broadhurst, . M. Steinhauser, Dissertation (Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 1996). R. Harlander, Dissertation at the University of Karlsruhe, 1998, to be published. K.G. Chetyrkin, R. Harlander, J.H. Kühn and M. Steinhauser, . K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kühn and M. Steinhauser, ; . K.G. Chetyrkin and J.H. Kühn, ; ; . R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, . R. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, . A.L. Kataev, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 287**]{} (1992) 209;\
L.R. Surguladze, Rep. No. UAHEP-969 (Alabama, 1998), hep-ph/9803211. D.A. Ross and M. Veltman, ;\
M. Veltman, . B. Grzadkowski, J.H. Kühn, P. Krawczyk and R.G. Stuart, . W. Beenakker and W. Hollik, . A. Akhundov, D. Bardin and T. Riemann, ;\
J. Bernabeu, A. Pich and A. Santamaria, ;\
B.W. Lynn and R.G. Stuart, . R. Barbieri, M. Beccaria, P. Ciafaloni, G. Curci and A. Vicere, ; (E) ; ;\
J. Fleischer, O.V. Tarasov and F. Jegerlehner, . G. Degrassi, S. Fanchiotti and A. Sirlin, ;\
G. Degrassi and A. Sirlin, ;\
G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Sirlin, ;\
G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and A. Vicini, . A. Czarnecki and J.H. Kühn, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{} (1996) 3955; hep-ph/9608366(v2). R. Harlander, T. Seidensticker and M. Steinhauser, . T. Seidensticker, Diploma Thesis (Karlsruhe, 1998), unpublished. P. Nogueira, . K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, unpublished.
[^1]: Presented at the Zeuthen Workshop on Elementary Particle Theory “Loops and Legs in Gauge Theories”, Rheinsberg, Germany, April 19–24, 1998.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate optical nonlinearities due to the interaction of weak optical fields with the collective motion of a strongly dispersive ultracold gas. The combination of a recoil-induced resonance (RIR) in the high gain regime and optical waveguiding within the dispersive medium enables us to achieve a collective atomic cooperativity of $275 \pm 50$ even in the absence of a cavity. As a result, we observe optical bistability at input powers as low as 20 pW. The present scheme allows for dynamic optical control of the dispersive properties of the ultracold gas using very weak pulses of light. The experimental observations are in good agreement with a theoretical model.'
author:
- 'M. Vengalattore'
- 'M. Hafezi'
- 'M. D. Lukin'
- 'M. Prentiss'
title: Optical bistability at low light level due to collective atomic recoil
---
Motivated by potential applications to quantum information science [@imam1; @lukin1; @duan1; @fleisch1], there have been intense experimental efforts to realize strong nonlinear interactions between dilute atomic ensembles and weak optical fields. Methods to achieve such quantum nonlinear couplings in dissipation-free media have relied mainly on two approaches. First, the interaction time and the coupling between the atoms and the photons can be enhanced by placing the atoms within a high finesse cavity [@raimond], an approach that comes at the expense of considerable experimental complexity and low bandwidth. Alternatively, near-resonant light propagating through optically dense media can also result in strong nonlinear interactions. In order to limit the dominant linear absorption, this latter approach requires the use of a coherent multiphoton process such as EIT [@lukin2]. An added benefit of such a multiphoton process is the enhancement of the interaction time due to slow group velocities. However, since EIT relies on quantum interference between the internal states of an atom, it is fairly sensitive to inhomogenous optical and magnetic fields.
In this Letter, we demonstrate nonlinear optical effects due to the interaction between weak pulses of light and the collective motion of an ultracold slow-light medium. Using the motional degrees of freedom to create a highly dispersive gas alleviates the sensitivity to external fields. As shown in recent studies [@veng2; @veng1], the implementation of a recoil-induced resonance (RIR) in an optically dense anisotropic gas allows for strong atom-light interaction due to the combination of slow group velocities and transverse confinement of the optical fields within the atomic medium. Due to this strong coupling, we observe optical bistability at input powers as low as 20 pW, an upper bound limited mainly by the photodetector efficiency.
![(a) Schematic indicating the pump and probe beams used for the RIR. (b) The energy levels relevent to the RIR. (c) Absorption spectrum of a probe beam around the RIR for longitudinal optical densities of $\sim10$ (i) and $\sim40$ (ii).[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](arX1b){width="40.00000%"}
The motion of delocalized atoms under the influence of two or more light fields can mediate the conversion of atomic kinetic energy into radiation [@courtois1]. These processes, termed ‘recoil-induced resonances’, can be described in terms of stimulated Raman transitions between different momentum classes of the atomic ensemble [@guo1]. For an optically thin medium, the atom-light interaction has little effect on the momentum distribution of the gas and a perturbative analysis reveals that the probe field experiences weak absorption (gain) for positive (negative) detuning relative to the pump field.
In contrast, as the optical density of the atomic gas increases, the strong atom-light coupling leads to large optical gain [@veng2] and significant effects on the momentum distribution of the atomic gas. The strong amplification of the probe field and its subsequent back-action on the collective motional states of the gain medium results in a nonlinear optical response even for weak incident beams. In this work, this back-action is evidenced by the observation of optical bistability in the probe transmission.
![(a) Absorption bistability due to the interaction between the probe and the collective motion of the atomic gas. Depending on the sign of the detuning chirp ($d\delta/dt$), the transmission indicates a shift in both the resonance and the peak amplification ($g_+, g_-$). (b) Peak probe amplification indicates a bistable response down to the detection limit of the input probe power.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](arX2b){width="40.00000%"}
The experimental scheme to create a strongly dispersive ultracold gas using the RIR is described in previous work [@veng2]. About $5
\times 10^8$ $^{87}$Rb atoms are confined in a highly anisotropic magneto-optic trap at typical temperatures of $\sim$ 20 $\mu$K. In this trap, the atom cloud assumes the shape of a cylinder with approximate radial (longitudinal) extent of 200 $\mu$m (3 cm). The pump and probe beams for the RIR share the same linear polarization and are directed along the long axis of this cylinder to take advantage of the large optical depth (OD) along this axis. The Rabi frequency of the pump beam was typically $\Omega_1/\Gamma = 1.5$ where $\Gamma$ is the natural linewidth of this transition. At low OD, the transmission spectrum of the RIR exhibits a characteristic dispersion-shaped spectrum with gain (absorption) for detuning $\delta < 0$ ($\delta > 0$). At higher OD, the probe is almost completely extinguished on the absorption side of the resonance leaving the gain peak as the only distinguishable feature (Fig.1).
For an atomic gas with high OD, Fig.2(a) shows the probe transmission as the pump-probe detuning is scanned across the RIR. Depending on the sign of this detuning chirp, there a shift in the resonance as well as in the maximum gain. This hysteretic nature of the transmission diminishes as the OD is lowered to less than $\sim
10$. At larger cooperativity, the atomic ensemble and the light fields form a strongly coupled system and the probe interacts with an atomic ensemble whose motional coherences and momentum distribution is the cumulative result of prior interactions with the light fields. As seen in Fig.2(b), the bistable response ($g_-/g_+
> 1$) persists down to the detection limit ($\sim 20$ pW) of the input probe power.
In order to understand this behavior, we first note that the amplification of the probe is accompanied by the transfer of atoms from a momentum $p$ to a momentum $p + 2 \hbar k$ (Fig.1(b)). Thus, as the detuning is scanned across the gain side of the RIR, atoms at various momenta are brought into resonance with the light fields and transferred to higher momentum states. Crucially, in the case of a negative chirp ($d \delta/dt < 0$), these transferred atoms are brought [*closer*]{} to resonance with the light fields as the detuning is scanned. Thus, in this process, atoms are progressively swept up the momentum ladder due to the time-varying detuning, resulting in both an enhanced amplification and a shift in the location of the RIR. In contrast, for a positive chirp ($d
\delta/dt > 0$), the atoms are transferred to states that are [*farther*]{} from resonance and the probe transmission resembles that obtained for a static thermal distribution.
To quantitatively explain these observations, we use a theoretical model that describes two classical light fields that are coupled to the motional degrees of freedom of an elongated ensemble of two-level atoms. To mimic the experiment, the atoms are assumed to be tightly confined in the radial dimension. Accordingly, only the atomic momentum along the long axis is relevent and the Hamiltonian can be written as [@moore98] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} &=& \sum_k [ \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2 m}c_{g}(k)^{\dagger}c_{g}(k) + (\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2 m}
+ \hbar \omega_0) c_{e}(k)^\dagger c_{e}(k) \nonumber \\
&& + i \hbar \sum_{j=1,2} (g_j a_j^\ast e^{i \omega_j t} c_{g}(k-k_j)^\dagger c_{e}(k) - h.c.) ]\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{g}(k) (c_{e}(k))$ are the annihilation operators of ground (excited) state atoms with momentum $\hbar k$, $\omega_0$ is the transition frequency of the two-level atoms, $g_ 1(g_2)$ is the atom-light coupling coefficient and $a_{1} (a_2)$ is the normalized electric field of the pump (probe) beams. In the far-detuned limit, the excited states can be adiabatically eliminated and the equation for the coherences and populations of the different momentum classes in the ground state are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}\rho(p,p') = 4 i \omega_r (p'^2 - p^2)\rho(p,p') \nonumber \\
&+& i \frac{g_1 g_2 a_1^\ast}{\Delta}a_2 e^{-i\delta t}(\rho(p+1,p') - \rho(p,p'-1))\nonumber \\
&+& i \frac{g_1 g_2 a_1}{\Delta} a_2^\ast e^{+i \delta
t}(-\rho(p,p'+1) + \rho(p-1,p'))\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(p,p') \equiv \langle c^{\dagger}_g(k') c_g(k) \rangle$, $\omega_r$ is the recoil frequency and $\delta = \omega_2 - \omega_1$ is the detuning. Also, using the slowly-varying envelope and single-mode approximations, the evolution of the probe amplitude can be written as $$\frac{d}{dt}a_2 = i N \frac{g_1 g_2}{\Delta} a_1 e^{i \delta t}
\sum_p \rho(p-1,p) - \frac{\kappa}{2} (a_2 - a_{in}).$$
Retaining only first-order coherence terms between momentum classes, the above equations can be written as a set of coupled equations for the population $\Pi_p=\rho(p,p)$, the first-order coherence $\eta_p \equiv \rho(p+1,p)
e^{i \delta t}$ and the probe amplitude $a_2$. $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\Pi}_p &=& \left[-i \beta^\ast a_2 ( -\eta_p+\eta_{p-1} ) + c.c.\right] - \gamma_{pop} (\Pi_p-\Pi_{th, p}) \nonumber \\
\dot{\eta}_p &=& i(4 \omega_r (p^2 - (p+1)^2) - \delta(t) + i\gamma_{coh})\eta_p \nonumber \\
&-& i \beta a_2^\ast (\Pi_{p+1}-\Pi_p) \nonumber \\
\dot{a}_2 &=& i \beta N \sum_p \eta^\ast_{p-1} - \frac{\kappa}{2} (a_2 - a_{in})\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{pop} (\gamma_{coh})$ are the population (coherence) relaxation rates respectively and $\beta = g_1 g_2 a_1/\Delta$. The thermal population distribution $\Pi_{th, p}$ is given by Maxwell-Boltzman distribution. The decay rate of photons is approximated by the free-space rate $\kappa = c/L$ with $L$ the longitudinal extent of the atomic gas. These coupled equations describe the rich dynamics that ensue as a consequence of the collective atom-light interaction and a time-dependent pump-probe detuning.
Numerical simulations of the bistability based on this model show excellent agreement with the experimental results over a wide range of parameters of pump detuning and chirp rate (Fig. 3). In these simulations, parameters such as the pump detuning, OD of the atomic gas and scan rate of the two-photon detuning were held fixed at the experimental values.
![Numerical simulations based on the theoretical model match the experimental results over a wide range of parameters. Panels on the left show the numerical simulations for the gain coefficient given by $exp(-2 Re[\alpha]L)$ where $\alpha$ is the absorption coefficient and panels on the right show the observed experimental gain of the probe transmission across the RIR, both versus two-photon detuning.(a), (b) and (c) correspond to transmission spectra obtained by chirping the two-photon detuning at scan rates of 0.1, 0.5 and 2.5 MHz/ms, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:match"}](arX3){width="50.00000%"}
The observation of a bistable transmission requires that the momentum coherences established as a result of the atom-light interaction persist as the detuning is scanned across the RIR. In practice, off-resonant light scattering causes the thermalization of the momentum distribution thereby suppressing the bistability. This competing process leads to a limiting rate for the scan rate ($d \delta /dt$) below which the atomic momentum distribution is quasi-static and the transmission becomes non-hysteretic (Fig.4(a)). A bistable transmission was observed for scan rates as low as 500 kHz/ms, corresponding to moving across the RIR in $100 \, \mu$s, much longer than the mean photon scattering time of $<\, 1\, \mu$s. This observation of long-lived momentum coherences is consistent with previous studies of the RIR [@kozuma; @courtois1].
![(a) The ratio of peak gain ($g_-/g_+$) indicates a limiting scan rate $d \delta/dt \approx 0.5$ MHz/ms below which decoherence and thermalization of the momentum distribution suppress optical bistability. This data was obtained at a pump detuning $\Delta \sim -4 \, \Gamma$. (b) Thermalization time ($\gamma_{pop}^{-1}$) [*vs*]{} the pump detuning. A fit to the data (dashed line) indicates a power-law dependence $\gamma_{pop}^{-1} \propto \Delta^\alpha$ with $\alpha = 1.57
\pm 0.09$.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](arX4){width="48.00000%"}
An independent measure of the influence of off-resonant scattering on the probe transmission was obtained by determining the thermalization time ($\gamma_{pop}^{-1}$) of the atomic momentum distribution. For this, the probe was switched on for 100 ms at an intensity of 0.1 mW/cm$^2$ and at a two-photon detuning that corresponded to the peak gain of the RIR. The probe intensity was then reduced to $\sim 10^{-3}$ mW/cm$^2$ within a few microseconds. Following this reduction in intensity, the probe transmission indicated a gain that was initially very small but gradually relaxed to a higher equilibrium value. This relaxation was interpreted as being due to the thermalization of the momentum distribution to repopulate those states that were depleted due to the initially intense probe. Under the assumption that the final probe intensity was too small to significantly modify the atomic distribution, the time scale over which the probe transmission reaches a steady state should reflect the thermalization time. Consistent with the observation of bistability at relatively slow scan rates, we measure thermalization times on the order of a few hundred microseconds (Fig.4(b)).
The numerical simulations used the measured value of $\gamma_{pop}$ (Fig.4(b)) while allowing the value of $\gamma_{coh}$ to vary. In order to obtain the best match with the experimental results, we typically found that $\gamma_{coh}$ was required to be greater than $\gamma_{pop}$. However, both quantities were much smaller than the photon scattering rate. This suppression is in agreement with earlier observations [@verkerk92; @courtois1; @kozuma; @courtois2]. A possible explanation lies in the fact that in the presence of an optical potential ($U \propto 1/\Delta$), in the limit of large detuning, both $\gamma_{coh}$ and $\gamma_{pop}$ can be suppressed due to Lamb-Dicke confinement. The estimated scaling of the suppressed decay rate with the detuning should be $\gamma_{eff}\propto
\gamma_{scatt}/\sqrt{U} \propto \Delta^{-3/2}$ where $\gamma_{scatt}$ is the photon scattering rate. The experimental data (Fig.4(b)) also suggests a similar scaling($1.57\pm0.09$).
The observation of optical bistability at low input powers suggests prospects of all-optical control using weak pulses of light. For instance, this scheme lends itself rather easily to a low light level all-optical switch wherein the detuning of a few-photon probe is controlled in order to switch a more intense output beam. The largest scan rates, $d \delta/dt = 30$ MHz/ms at which bistability was observed and typical values of the momentum coherence time $\gamma^{-1}_{coh} \sim 100 \, \mu$s together yield an estimate of the switching time $\tau = \gamma_{coh}/(d \delta/dt) =$ 0.3 $\mu$s. This is commensurate with previous measurements of all-optical switching using a RIR [@veng2]. Combining this with the lowest probe powers ($P \sim 20$ pW) and typical beam waists (100 $\mu$m) used in this work, we obtain a typical photon number $\tau P/(h c/\lambda) \sim 25$ and a remarkably low switching energy density [@gauthier1; @zhang07] of $7\times 10^{-5}$ photons/($\lambda^2/2 \pi$) to operate this all-optical switch.
In conclusion, we demonstrate optical nonlinearities due to a coherent interaction between weak light fields and the collective motion of a strongly dispersive atomic gas. Since the atomic momentum is relatively insensitive to external magnetic or electric fields, such systems may be promising candidates for applications in low-light level nonlinear optics.
This work was funded by the NSF, the Center for Ultracold Atoms, DARPA and Packard foundation.
A. Imamoglu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods and M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1467 (1997). M. D. Lukin, A. B. Matsko, M. Fleischhauer and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1847 (1999). L. M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature [**414**]{}, 413 (2001). M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu and J. P. Marangos, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 633 (2005). J. M. Raimond, M. Brune and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 565 (2001). M. D. Lukin, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 457 (2003). M. Vengalattore and M. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 021401 (2005). M. Vengalattore and M. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 243601 (2005). J. Y. Courtois, G. Grynberg, B. Lounis and P. Verkerk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} 3017 (1994). J. Guo, P. R. Berman, B. Dubetsky and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{}, 1426 (1992). M. G. Moore and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 3248 (1998). M. Kozuma, Y. Imai, K. Nakagawa and M. Ohtsu, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, R3421 (1995). P. Verkerk, B. Lounis, C. Salomon, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Y. Courtois and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3861 (1992). J. Y. Courtois and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{}, 7060 (1992). A. M. C. Dawes, L. Illing, S. M. Clark and D. J. Gauthier, Science [**308**]{}, 672 (2005). J. Zhang, G. Hernandez and Y. Zhu, Opt. Lett. [**32**]{}, 1317 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The generalized Young inequality on the Lorentz spaces for commutative hypergroups is introdused and an application of it is given to the theory of fractional integrals. The boundedness on the Lorentz space and the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev theorem for the fractional integrals on the commutative hypergroups is proved.'
---
**Inequalities for convolutions of functions**
**on commutative hypergroups**
by
**Mubariz G. Hajibayov**
*National Aviation Academy, Baku, Azerbaijan*
*and*
*Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics, Baku, Azerbaijan*
*([email protected])*
[*Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: 43A62, 44A35, 26A33, 26D15, 28C10.
[*Key words and phrases*]{}: hypergroup, the Young inequality, fractional integral, the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev theorem.
Introduction and preliminaries
==============================
It is known that a convolution of two functions on $R^n$ is defined by $$f\ast_{R^n} g(x)=\int \limits_{R^n}f(x-y)g(y)dy.$$
Classical Young’s inequality on the $L^p(R^n)$ spaces the convolution of two functions on $R^n$ states that if $f \in L^p(R^n)$ and $g \in L^q(R^n)$, then $$\|f\ast_{R^n} g\|_r\leq C\|f\|_p\| g\|_q,$$ where $p,q \in [1,\infty]$ and $\frac 1p + \frac 1q=\frac 1r+1$.
The generalized Young inequality give us the boundedness on the Lorentz spaces for the convolution of two functions on $R^n$.
( [@Z] Theorem 2.10.1 ) If $f\in L^{p_1,q_1} \left( R^n \right)$, $\varphi \in L^{p_2,q_2} \left( R^n \right)$ and $\dfrac{1}{p_1}+\dfrac{1}{p_2}>1$, then $(f\ast\varphi)\in L^{p_0,q_0} \left( R^n \right)$ where $\dfrac{1}{p_1}+\dfrac{1}{p_2}-1=\dfrac{1}{p_0}$ and $q_0\geq 1$ is any number such that $\dfrac{1}{q_1}+\dfrac{1}{q_2}\geq \dfrac{1}{q_0}$.\
Moreover, $$\|(f\ast\varphi)\|_{K,p_0,q_0}\leq 3p_0\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_1}\|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_2}.$$
An extension of the Young inequality to the convolution $$f\ast_G g(x)=\int _{G}f(xy)g(y^{-1})d\mu(y),$$ where $\mu$ is the Haar measure on local compact group $G$, was given in [@HR](see Theorem 20.18 in [@HR] ).
In the theory of locally compact groups there arise certain spaces which, though not groups, have some of the structure of groups. Often, the structure can be expressed in terms of an abstract convolution of measures on the space. A hypergroup $(K,\ast_K)$ consists of a locally compact Hausdorff space K together with a bilinear, associative, weakly continuous convolution on the Banach space of all bounded regular Borel measures on $K$ with the following properties:
- For all $x,y \in K$, the convolution of the point measures $\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y$ is a probability measure with compact support.
- The mapping: $K\times K\rightarrow \mathcal{C}(K)$, $(x,y)\mapsto\, \text{supp}\,(\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y)$ is continuous with respect to the Michael topology on the space $\mathcal{C}(K)$ of all nonvoid compact subsets of $K$, where this topology is generated by the sets $$U_{V,W}=\{L\in\mathcal{C}(K): L\cap V\neq \varnothing, L\subset W \}$$ with $V,W$ open in $K$.
- There is an identity $e \in K$ with $\delta _e\ast_K \delta _x=\delta _x\ast_K \delta _e=\delta _x$ for all $x \in K$.
- There is a continuous involution $\thicksim$ on $K$ such that $$\left(\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y\right)^\thicksim =\delta _{y^\thicksim }\ast_K \delta _{x^\thicksim}$$ and $e \in supp(\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y) \Leftrightarrow x=y^\thicksim$ for $x,y \in K$ (see [@J], [@Sp], [@BH]).
A hypergroup $K$ is called commutative if $\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y=\delta _y\ast_K \delta _x$ for all $x, y\in K$. It is well known that every commutative hypergroup $K$ possesses a Haar measure which will be denoted by $\lambda$ (see [@Sp]). That is, for every Borel measurable function $f$ on $K$, $$\int \limits_K f(\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y)d\lambda (y)=\int \limits_K f(y)d\lambda (y) \,\,\, (x \in K).$$ Define the generalized translation operators $T^x$, $x\in K$, by $$T^xf(y) =\int \limits_Kfd(\delta _x\ast_K \delta _y)$$ for all $y \in K$. If $K$ is a commutative hypergroup, then $T^xf(y)=T^yf(x)$ and the convolution of two functions is defined by $$f\ast_K \varphi(x)=\int \limits_KT^xf(y)\varphi(y^\thicksim)d\lambda (y).$$ Note that $f\ast_K \varphi=\varphi\ast_K f $.\
For $1\leq p\leq \infty$, the Lebesgue space $L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right) $ is defined as $$L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right)=\{f: f \,\text{is} \,\lambda \, \text{-measurable on}\, K, \|f\|_{K,p}<\infty \}$$ where $\|f\|_{K,p}$ is defined by $$\|f\|_{K,p}=\begin{cases}
\left(
\int\limits_{K}\left| f\left( x\right) \right| ^{p} d\lambda \left(
x\right) \right) ^{\frac{1}{p} },&\text{if}\,\, 1\leq p<\infty\\
\text{ess}\sup \limits _{x\in K}f(x), & \text{if}\,\, p= \infty.
\end{cases}$$ Let $1\leq p\leq \infty$. If $f$ is in $L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right) $ and $\varphi$ is in $L^{1} \left( K,\lambda \right) $, then the function $f\ast_K \varphi$ belongs to $L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right) $ and $$\|f\ast_K \varphi\|_{K,p}\leq \|f\|_{K,p}\| \varphi\|_{K,1}$$ Let $f$ be a $\lambda$-measurable function defined on the hypergroup $K$. The distribution function $\lambda _f$ of the function $f$ is given by $$\lambda _f(s)=\lambda \{x:x \in K, |f(x)|>s\}, \,\,\text{for} \,\,s\geq 0.$$ The distribution function $\lambda _f$ is non-negative, non-increasing and continuous from the right. With the distribution function we associate the non-increasing rearrangement of $f$ on $[0,\infty )$ defined by $$f^{\ast_K}(t)=\inf \{s>0:\lambda _f(s) \leq t\}.$$ Some elementary properties of $\lambda _f$ and $f^{\ast_K}$ are listed below. The proofs of them can be found in [@BSh].
- If $\lambda _f$ is continuous and strictly decreasing, then $f^{\ast_K}$ is the inverse of $\lambda _f$, that is $f^{\ast_K}=\left(\lambda _f\right)^{-1}$.
- $f^{\ast_K}$ is continuous from the right.
- $$m _{f^{\ast_K}}(s)=\lambda _f(s),\,\,\text{ for all}\, \, s>0,$$ where $m _{f^{\ast_K}}$ is a distribution function of the function $f^{\ast_K}$ with respect to Lebesgue measure $m$ on $(0,\infty)$.
- $$\label{fstar}
\int\limits_0^t f^{\ast_K}(s)ds=tf^{\ast_K}(t)+\int\limits_{f^{\ast_K}(t)}^\infty \lambda _f(s)ds$$
- If $f \in L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, $1\leq p< \infty$, then $$\left(\int\limits_{K}\left| f\left( x\right) \right| ^{p} d\lambda \left(
x\right) \right) ^{\frac{1}{p} }=\left(p\int \limits _0^\infty s^{p-1}\lambda _f(s)ds\right)^{\frac 1p}=\left(\int \limits _0^\infty \left(f^{\ast_K}(t)\right)^pdt\right)^{\frac 1p}.$$ Furthermore, in the case $p=\infty$, $$\text{ess}\sup \limits_{x\in K}f(x)=\inf \{s: \lambda_f (s)=0\}=f^{\ast_K} (0)$$
$f^{\ast \ast_K}$ will denote the maximal function of $f^{\ast_K }$ defined by $$f^{\ast \ast_K}(t)=\frac 1t \int \limits _0^t f^{\ast_K}(u)du, \,\,\text{for}\,\,t>0.$$ Note the following properties of $f^{\ast \ast_K}$:
- $f^{\ast \ast_K}$ is nonnegative, non-increasing and continuous on $(0,\infty)$ and $f^{\ast_K} \leq f^{\ast \ast_K}$.
- $$(f+g)^{\ast \ast_K}\leq f^{\ast \ast_K}+g^{\ast \ast_K}$$
- If $|f_n|\uparrow |f|$ $\lambda$-a.e., then $f^{\ast \ast_K}_n\uparrow f^{\ast \ast_K}$.
For $1\leq p< \infty$ and $1\leq q\leq \infty$, the Lorentz space $L^{p,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ is defined as $$L^{p,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)=\{f: f \,\text{is} \,\lambda \, \text{-measurable on}\, K, \|f\|_{K,p,q}<\infty \}$$ where $\|f\|_{K,p,q}$ is defined by $$\|f\|_{K,p,q}=\begin{cases}
\left(\int \limits _0^\infty \left(t^{\frac 1p}f^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\right)^q\frac {dt}{t}\right)^{\frac 1q},&1\leq p<\infty, 1\leq q<\infty\\
\sup \limits _{t>0}t^{\frac 1p}f^{\ast \ast_K}(t), & 1\leq p\leq \infty, q=\infty.
\end{cases}$$ Note that if for $1<p\leq\infty$ then $L^{p,p} \left( K,\lambda \right)=L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right)$. Moreover, $$\label{LpLpp}
\|f\|_{K,p}\leq \|f\|_{K,p,p}\leq p'\|f\|_{K,p},$$ where $p'=\begin{cases}
\dfrac{p}{p-1},&1< p<\infty, \\
1, & p= \infty.
\end{cases} $\
For $p>1$, the space $L^{p,\infty} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ is known as the Marcinkiewicz space or as Weak $L^p\left( K,\lambda \right)$. Also note that $L^{1,\infty} \left( K,\lambda \right)=L^{1} \left( K,\lambda \right)$.\
If $1<p<\infty$ and $1<q<r<\infty$, then $$L^{p,q} \left( K,\lambda \right) \subset L^{p,r} \left( K,\lambda \right).$$ Moreover $$\label{emb}
\|f\|_{K,p,r}\leq \left(\dfrac{q}{p}\right)^{\frac 1q-\frac 1p}\|f\|_{K,p,q}$$
The Young inequality on Lebesgue spaces for compact commutative hypergroups was given in [@V]. The generalized Young inequality on the Lorentz spaces for Bessel and Dunkl convolution operators were introduced in [@GH] and [@HM] correspondingly.
In this paper we establish the generalized Young inequality on the Lorentz spaces for commutative hypergroups and give an application of it to the theory of fractional integrals. The boundedness on the Lorentz spaces of the fractional integrals on the commutative hypergroups is proved. We also prove the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev theorem for the fractional integrals on the commutative hypergroups.
Lemmas
======
Let $f$ and $\varphi$ be $\lambda$-measurable functions on the hypergroup $K$ where $\sup \limits_{x\in K}|f(x)|\leq \beta$ and $f$ vanishes outside of a measurable set $E$ with $\lambda (E)=r$. Then, for $t>0$, $$\label{lemoneil1}
(f\ast_K \varphi)^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq \beta r\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(r)$$ and $$\label{lemoneil2}
(f\ast_K \varphi)^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq \beta r\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t).$$
Without loss of generality we can assume that the functions $f$ and $\varphi$ are nonnegative. Let $h=f\ast_K\varphi$. For $a>0$, define $$\varphi_{a}(x)=\begin{cases}
\varphi (x),&\text{if}\,\,\varphi (x) \leq a\\
a , & \text{if}\,\,\varphi (x) > a,
\end{cases}$$ $$\varphi^{a}(x)=\varphi(x)-\varphi_{a}(x)$$ Also define functions $h_1$ and $h_2$ by $$h=f\ast_K\varphi _a+f\ast_K\varphi ^a=h_1+h_2.$$ Then we have the following three estimates. $$\label{h2}
\sup \limits_{x\in K}h_2(x)\leq \sup \limits_{x\in K}f(x)\|\varphi ^a\|_{K,1}\leq \beta \int\limits_0^\infty \lambda _{\varphi ^a} (s)ds =\beta \int\limits_a^\infty \lambda _\varphi (s)ds,$$ $$\label{h1}
\sup \limits_{x\in K}h_{1}(x)\leq \|f\|_{K,1}\sup \limits_{x\in K}\varphi _a(x)\leq \beta ra,$$ and $$\label{h11}
\sup \limits_{x\in K}h_2(x)\leq \|f\|_{K,1}\|\varphi ^a\|_{K,1}\leq \beta r \int\limits_a^\infty \lambda _\varphi (s)ds$$ Now set $a=\varphi ^\ast_K (r)$ in and and obtain $$h^{\ast \ast_K}(t)=\frac 1t \int \limits _0^t h^{\ast_K}(s)ds\leq \|h\|_{K,\infty}\leq \|h_1\|_{K,\infty}+\|h_2\|_{K,\infty}$$ $$\leq \beta r\varphi ^\ast_K(r)+\beta \int\limits_{\varphi ^\ast_K(r)}^\infty \lambda _\varphi (s)ds,$$ and using we have the inequality . Let us prove the inequality . For this purpose set $a=\varphi ^\ast_K (t)$ and use and . Then $$th^{\ast \ast_K}(t)=\int \limits _0^t h^{\ast_K}(s)ds\leq\int \limits _0^t h_1^{\ast_K}(s)ds+\int \limits _0^t h_2^{\ast_K}(s)ds$$ $$\leq t\|h_1\|_{K,\infty}+\int \limits _0^t h_2^{\ast_K}(s)ds=t\|h_1\|_{K,\infty}+t\|h_2\|_{K,1}$$ $$\leq t\beta r\varphi^\ast_K (t)+\beta rt \int\limits_{\varphi ^\ast_K(t)}^\infty \lambda _\varphi (s)ds$$ $$=\beta rt\left(\varphi ^\ast_K(t)+ \int\limits_{\varphi ^{\ast_K}(t)}^\infty \lambda _\varphi (s)ds\right)=\beta rt \varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t).$$
\[teoroneil\] Let $f$ and $\varphi$ be $\lambda$-measurable functions on hypergroup $K$, then for all $t>0$ the following inequality holds: $$\label{Oneil}
\left(f\ast_K \varphi\right)^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^\ast_K(s)\varphi^\ast_K(s)ds$$
Without loss of generality we can assume that the functions $f$ and $\varphi$ are nonnegative. Let $h=f\ast_K \varphi$ and fix $t>0$. Select a nondecreasing sequence $\{s_n\}_{-\infty}^{+\infty}$ such that $s_0=f^\ast_K(t)$, $\lim \limits_{n\rightarrow +\infty}s_n=+\infty$, $\lim \limits_{n\rightarrow -\infty}s_n=0$.\
Also let $$f(x)=\sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}f_n(x)$$ where $$f_n(x)=\begin{cases}
0,&\text{if}\,\, f(x)\leq s_{n-1} \\
f(x)-s_{n-1} & \text{if}\,\,s_{n-1}<f (x) \leq s_n\\
s_n-s_{n-1} & \text{if}\,\,s_{n}<f (x).
\end{cases}$$ Since the series $\{s_n\}_{-\infty}^{+\infty}$ converges absolutely we have $$h= \int \limits_KT^x\varphi(y)\left(\sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}f_n(y^\thicksim)\right)d\lambda (y)$$ $$=\sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\int \limits_KT^x\varphi(y)f_n(y^\thicksim)d\lambda (y)=\sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\left(f_n\ast_K\varphi\right)$$ Define functions $h_1$ and $h_2$ by $$h=\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\left(f_n\ast_K\varphi\right)+\sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{0}\left(f_n\ast_K\varphi\right)=h_1+h_2.$$ Estimate $h_1^{\ast \ast_K}(t)$. For this purpose use the inequality with $E=\{x:f(x)>s_{n-1}\} $ and $\beta=s_n-s_{n-1}$. We have $$h_1^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq \sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\left(\left(f_n\ast_K\varphi\right)^{\ast \ast_K}\right)$$ $$\leq \sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}(s_n-s_{n-1})\lambda _f(s_{n-1})\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)$$ $$=\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\lambda _f(s_{n-1})(s_n-s_{n-1}).$$ Hence $$\label{Oneil1}
h_1^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \leq \varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\int \limits_{f^\ast_K(t)}^\infty \lambda_f(s)ds.$$ To estimate $h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t)$ we use the inequality $$h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \leq \sum \limits_{n=-\infty}^{0}\left(\left(f_n\ast_K\varphi\right)^{\ast \ast_K}\right)$$ $$\leq \sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}(s_n-s_{n-1})\lambda _f(s_{n-1})\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s_{n-1}))$$ $$=\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\lambda _f(s_{n-1})\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s_{n-1}))(s_n-s_{n-1}).$$ This implies that $$\label{Oneil2}
h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \leq \int \limits_0^{f^\ast_K(t)} \lambda_f(s)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s))ds.$$ We will estimate the integral on the right-hand side of by making the substitution $s=f^\ast_K (\xi)$ and then integrating by parts. In order to justify the change of variable in the integral, consider a Riemann sum $$\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\lambda _f(s_{n-1})\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s_{n-1}))(s_n-s_{n-1}).$$ that provides a close approximation to $$\int \limits_0^{f^\ast_K(t)} \lambda_f(s)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s))ds.$$ By adding more points to the Riemann sum if necessary, we may assume that the left-hand end point of each interval on which $\lambda _f$ is constant is included among the $s_n$. then the Riemann sum is not chanched if each $s_n$ that is contained in the interior of an interval on which $\lambda_f$ is constant, is deleted. It is now an easy matter to verify that for each of the remaining $s_n$ there is precisely one element, $\xi_n$, such that $s_n=f^{\ast_K} (\xi_n)$ and that $\lambda \left(f^{\ast_K }(\xi_n)\right)=\xi_n$. Therefore $$\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\lambda _f(s_{n-1})\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s_{n-1}))(s_n-s_{n-1}).$$ $$=\sum \limits_{n=1}^{+\infty}\xi_{n-1}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n-1})(f^{\ast_K} (\xi_n)-f^{\ast_K} (\xi_{n-1}))$$ which, by adding more points if necessary, provides a close approximation to $$-\int \limits_t^\infty
\xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)df^{\ast_K} (\xi).$$ If we recall we get $$\label{Oneil3}
h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \leq \int \limits_0^{f^{\ast_K}(t)} \lambda_f(s)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s))ds=-\int \limits_t^\infty \xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)df^{\ast_K} (\xi).$$ Now let $\delta$ be an arbitrarily large number and choose $\xi_j$ such that $t=\xi_1\leq \xi_2\leq \ldots \leq \xi_{j+1}=\delta$. Then $$\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) -t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)$$ $$=\sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n+1}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\left(f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\left(\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\xi_{n+1}-\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n})\xi_{n}\right)$$ $$=\sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n+1}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\left(f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^\ast_K(\xi_{n})\int \limits_{\xi_{n}}^{\xi_{n+1}} \varphi ^{\ast_K}(\tau)d\tau$$ $$\leq \sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n+1}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\left(f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\left(\xi_{n+1}-\xi_{n}\right).$$ This means that $$\label{Oneil4}
\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) -t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)\leq \int \limits_t^\delta \xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)df^{\ast_K} (\xi)+\int \limits_t^\delta f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}\xi)d\xi .$$ Now we estimate the expression $\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) -t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)$ below. $$\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) -t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)$$ $$=\sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n})\left(f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\left(\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\xi_{n+1}-\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n})\xi_{n}\right)$$ $$=\sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n})\left(f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\int \limits_{\xi_{n}}^{\xi_{n+1}} \varphi ^{\ast_K}(\tau)d\tau$$ $$\geq \sum \limits _{n=1}^j \xi_{n}\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi_{n})\left(f^{\ast_K(}\xi_{n+1})-f^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n})\right)$$ $$+\sum \limits _{n=1}^j f^\ast_K(\xi_{n+1})\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi_{n+1})\left(\xi_{n+1}-\xi_{n}\right).$$ In other words $$\label{Oneil5}
\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) -t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)\geq \int \limits_t^\delta \xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)d f^{\ast_K }(\xi)+\int \limits_t^\delta f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi .$$ From and we obtain $$-\int \limits_t^\delta \xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)df^{\ast_K} (\xi)=t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)-\delta\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\delta)f^{\ast_K}(\delta) +\int \limits_t^\delta f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi .$$ $$\leq t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\delta f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi.$$ Thus $$-\int \limits_t^\infty \xi\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\xi)df^{\ast_K }(\xi)
\leq t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi.$$ By using this inequality and we have $$\label{Oneil6}
h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \leq \int \limits_0^{f^{{\ast_K}}(t)} \lambda_f(s)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(\lambda _f(s))ds\leq t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi.$$ Finally, from , and we get $$h^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq h_1^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+ h_2^{\ast \ast_K}(t)$$ $$\leq \varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\int \limits_{f^{\ast_K}(t)}^\infty \lambda_f(s)ds+t\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)f^{\ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi$$ $$= f^{\ast_K}(t)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi$$ $$= tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\varphi ^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(\xi)\varphi ^{\ast_K}(\xi)d\xi.$$
Let $f$ and $\varphi$ be $\lambda$-measurable functions on hypergroup $K$, then for all $t>0$ the following inequality holds: $$\label{2Oneil}
\left(f\ast_K \varphi\right)^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq \int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)ds$$
Assume that the integral on the right of is finite. Then it is easy to see $$\label{2Oneil1}
sf^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\rightarrow 0, \,\text{as}\, s\rightarrow \infty .$$ Let $h=f\ast_K\varphi$.\
By Lemma \[teoroneil\] we have $$h^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast_K}(s)\varphi^{\ast_K}(s)ds$$ $$\label{2Oneil2}
\leq tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t) \varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\varphi^\ast_K(s)ds.$$ Since $f^{\ast \ast_K}$ and $g^{\ast \ast_K}$ are non-increasing, $$\label{2Oneil3}
\frac{df^{\ast \ast_K}(s)}{ds}=-\frac{1}{s^2}\int \limits _0^sf^{\ast_K}(\tau)d\tau+\frac{1}{s}f^{\ast_K}(s)=\frac{1}{s}\left(f^{\ast_K}(s)-f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right),$$ $$\label{2Oneil4}
\frac{d(s\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s))}{ds}=\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)+s\left(\frac{1}{s}\left(\varphi^{\ast_K}(s)
-\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right)\right)=\varphi^{\ast_K}(s)$$ for $m$-almost all $s$. Since $f^{\ast \ast_K}$ and $g^{\ast \ast_K}$ are absolutely continuous, we may use the integration by parts for $\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)d\left(s\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right)$. Using , and we obtain $$\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\varphi^{\ast_K}(s)ds
=\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)d\left(s\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right)$$ $$=\left.f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)s\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right|_t^\infty-\int \limits_t^\infty s\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)df^{\ast \ast_K}(s)$$ $$=-tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty \varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)(f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)-f^{\ast_K}(s))ds$$ $$\label{2Oneil5}
\leq -tf^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(t)+\int \limits_t^\infty \varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)ds$$ By and we have $$h^{\ast \ast_K}(t)\leq
\int \limits_t^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(s)ds.$$
The next lemma is a classical estimate, known as Hardy’s inequality.
$\left(\cite{BSh}, \cite{Z}\right)$ If $1\leq p<\infty$, $q>0$ and $f$ be a nonnegative $m$-measurable function on $(0,\infty)$, then $$\label{hardy}
\int \limits_0^\infty \left(\frac 1s \int \limits_0^s f(\tau)d\tau\right)^ps^{p-q-1}ds\leq \left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^q\int \limits_0^\infty f(t)^pt^{p-q-1}dt.$$
Generalization of Young’s inequality
====================================
\[young\] If $f\in L^{p_1,q_1} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, $\varphi \in L^{p_2,q_2} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $\dfrac{1}{p_1}+\dfrac{1}{p_2}>1$, then $(f\ast_K\varphi)\in L^{p_0,q_0} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ where $\dfrac{1}{p_1}+\dfrac{1}{p_2}-1=\dfrac{1}{p_0}$ and $q_0\geq 1$ is any number such that $\dfrac{1}{q_1}+\dfrac{1}{q_2}\geq \dfrac{1}{q_0}$.\
Moreover, $$\label{lorentz}
\|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,p_0,q_0}\leq 3p_0\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_1}\|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_2}.$$
Let $h=f\ast_K\varphi$.\
Suppose that $q_1$, $q_2$, $q_0$ are all different from $\infty$. Then, by , we have $$(\|h\|_{K,p_0,q_0})^{q_0}=\int \limits _0^\infty \left(s^{\frac{1}{p_0}}h^{\ast \ast_K}(s)\right)^q \frac{ds}{s}$$ $$\leq\int \limits _0^\infty \left(s^{\frac{1}{p_0}}\int \limits _s^\infty f^{\ast \ast_K}(\tau)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}(\tau)d\tau\right)^q \frac{ds}{s}$$ $$=\int \limits _0^\infty \left(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{p_0}}}\int \limits _0^t f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{\eta}\right)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{\eta}\right)\frac{d\eta}{\eta ^2}\right)^q \frac{dt}{t}.$$ The last equality was obtained by the change of variables $s=\dfrac{1}{t}$ and $\tau=\dfrac{1}{\eta}$. Using we get $$\int \limits _0^\infty \left(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{p_0}}}\int \limits _0^t f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{\eta}\right)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{\eta}\right)\frac{d\eta}{\eta ^2}\right)^q \frac{dt}{t}$$ $$\leq p_{0}^{q_0}\int \limits _0^\infty \left(t^{1-\frac {1}{p_0}} \frac {f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)}{t^2}\right)^{q_0}\frac{dt}{t }$$ $$=p_{0}^{q_0}\int \limits _0^\infty \left(s^{1+\frac {1}{p_0}} f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\right)^{q_0}\frac{ds}{s}$$ The last equality was obtained by the change of the variable $t=\dfrac{1}{s}$. Since $\dfrac{q_0}{q_1}+\dfrac{q_0}{q_2}\geq 1$, one can find positive numbers $n_1$ and $n_2$ such that $$\frac{1}{n_1}+\frac{1}{n_2}=1 \,\, \text{and}\,\, \frac{1}{n_1}\leq \frac{q_0}{q_1},\,\, \frac{1}{n_2}\leq \frac{q_0}{q_2}.$$ By H$\ddot{\text{o}}$lder’s inequality we obtain $$(\|h\|_{K,p_0,q_0})^{q_0} \leq p_{0}^{q_0}\int \limits _0^\infty \frac {\left(s^{\frac {1}{p_1}}f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\right)^{q_0}}{s^{\frac{1}{n_2}}}\frac {\left(s^{\frac {1}{p_2}}\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\right)^{q_0}}{s^{\frac{1}{n_1}}}ds$$ $$\leq p_{0}^{q_0}\left[\int \limits _0^\infty \left(s^{\frac {1}{p_1}}f^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\right)^{q_0n_1}\frac {ds}{s}\right]^{\frac {1}{n_1}}\left[\int \limits _0^\infty \left(s^{\frac {1}{p_2}}\varphi^{\ast \ast_K}\left(s\right)\right)^{q_0n_2}\frac {ds}{s}\right]^{\frac {1}{n_2}}$$ $$=p_{0}^{q_0}\left(\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_0n_1}\right)^{q_0}\left(\|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_0n_2}\right)^{q_0}.$$ Finally, by we have $$\|h\|_{K,p_0,q_0} \leq p_{0}\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_0n_1} \|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_0n_2}\leq p_0e^{\frac 1e}e^{\frac 1e}\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_1} \|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_2}\leq 3p_0\|f\|_{K,p_1,q_1} \|\varphi\|_{K,p_2,q_2}.$$ Similar reasoning leads to the desired result in case one or more of $q_1$, $q_2$, $q_0$ are $\infty$.
Applications to the theory of fractional integrals
===================================================
Consider the following particular case of Theorem \[young\]. If we take $p_1=\dfrac{N}{N-\alpha}$, with $o<\alpha<N$, $q_1=\infty$ in Theorem \[young\], then the condition $\dfrac {1}{p_1}+\dfrac {1}{p_2}>1$ is equivalent to $\alpha<\dfrac{N}{p_2}$, and the condition $\dfrac {1}{p_1}+\dfrac {1}{p_2}-1=\dfrac{1}{p_0}$ is equivalent to $\dfrac{1}{p_0}=\dfrac{1}{p_2}-\dfrac{\alpha}{N}$. Thus we have the following result.
\[fraclorentz\] Let $(K,\ast_K)$ be a commutative hypergroup, with Haar measure $\lambda$. If $f\in L^{\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, $\varphi \in L^{p,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, where $0<\alpha<\dfrac{N}{p}$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$ then $(f\ast_K\varphi)\in L^{r,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $$\label{kalfaineq}
\|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,r,q}\leq 3r\|f\|_{K,\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\|\varphi\|_{K,p,q}.
\overline{}$$ where $\dfrac{1}{r}=\dfrac{1}{p}-\dfrac{\alpha}{N}$.
Let $K$ be a set. A function $\rho
:K\times K\rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ is called quasi-metric if:
1. $\rho \left( x,y\right) =0\,\Leftrightarrow \;x=y ;$
2. $\rho \left( x,y\right) =\rho \left( y,x\right) ;$
3. there is a constant $c\geq 1$ such that for every $x,y,z\in X$ $$\rho \left( x,y\right) \leq c\left( \rho \left( x,z\right) +\rho
\left( z,y\right) \right) .$$
Define the fractional integral (or Riesz potential) $$I_\alpha f(x)=\int \limits_KT^x\rho(e,y)^{\alpha -N}f(y^\thicksim)d\lambda(y), \,\,0<\alpha<N$$ on commutative hypergroup $(K,\ast_K)$ equipped with the pseudo-metric $\rho$.\
Also define a ball $B(e,r)=\{y\in K: \, \rho(e,y)<r\}$ with a center $e$ and a radius $r$.
Let $(K,\ast_K)$ be a commutative hypergroup, with quasi-metric $\rho$ and Haar measure $\lambda$ satisfying $\lambda B(e,r)= Ar^N$, where $A$ is a positive constant. Assume that $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $1\leq p< \infty$, $0<\alpha<\dfrac{N}{p}$. If $f \in L^{p,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, then $I_\alpha f\in L^{r,q} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $$\label{kalfaineq}
\|I_\alpha f\|_{K,r,q}\leq C\|f\|_{K,p,q},$$ where $\dfrac{1}{r}=\dfrac{1}{p}-\dfrac{\alpha}{N}$ and $C=\dfrac {3rN}\alpha A^{\frac{N-\alpha}{N}}$.
Let us show that $\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N} \in L^{\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\left( K,\lambda \right)$. For the distribution of $\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}$ we can write $$\lambda_{\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}}(t)= \lambda\{x: x\in K, \rho(e,x)^{\alpha -N}>t\}$$ $$= \lambda\{x: x\in K, \rho(e,x)<t^{\frac{1}{\alpha-N}}\}=At^{\frac{N}{\alpha-N}}.$$ Since $\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}$ is continuous and strictly decreasing we have $\left(\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}\right)^{\ast_K}$ is the inverse of the distribution function. That is $\left(\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}\right)^{\ast_K}(t)=\left(\dfrac{t}{A}\right)^{\frac{\alpha-N}{N}}$. Then $$\left(\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N}\right)^{\ast \ast_K}(t)=\frac 1t \int \limits_{0}^{t}\left(\dfrac{s}{A}\right)^{\frac{\alpha-N}{N}}ds=\dfrac N\alpha \left(\dfrac tA\right)^{\frac{\alpha-N}{N}}.$$ Therefore $\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N} \in L^{\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $$\label{ialfa}
\|\rho(e,\cdot)^{\alpha -N} \|_{K,\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}=\dfrac N\alpha A^{\frac{N-\alpha}{N}}.$$ Thus, from Theorem \[fraclorentz\] and \[ialfa\] we have the required result.
\[fraclebeq\] Let $(K,\ast_K)$ be a commutative hypergroup, with Haar measure $\lambda$. If $f\in L^{\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, $\varphi \in L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, where $1<p< \infty$, $0<\alpha<\dfrac{N}{p}$, then $(f\ast_K\varphi)\in L^{r} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $$\label{kalfaineq2}
\|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,r}\leq 3r\dfrac{p}{p-1}\left(\dfrac{p}{r}\right)^{\frac 1p-\frac 1r}\|f\|_{K,\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\|\varphi\|_{K,p}.
\overline{}$$ where $\dfrac{1}{r}=\dfrac{1}{p}-\dfrac{\alpha}{N}$.
From , and we have $$\|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,r}\leq \|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,r,r}\leq \left(\dfrac{p}{r}\right)^{\frac 1p-\frac 1r}\|(f\ast_K\varphi)\|_{K,r,p}$$ $$\leq 3r\left(\dfrac{p}{r}\right)^{\frac 1p-\frac 1r}\|f\|_{K,\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\|\varphi\|_{K,p,p}\leq 3r\dfrac{p}{p-1}\left(\dfrac{p}{r}\right)^{\frac 1p-\frac 1r}\|f\|_{K,\frac{N}{N-\alpha},\infty}\|\varphi\|_{K,p}$$
The following result give us the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev theorem for the fractional integrals on the commutative hypergroups.
Let $(K,\ast_K)$ be a commutative hypergroup, with quasi-metric $\rho$ and Haar measure $\lambda$ satisfying $\lambda B(e,r)= Ar^N$, where $A$ is a positive constant. Assume that $1 <p< \infty$, $0<\alpha<\dfrac{N}{p}$. If $f \in L^{p} \left( K,\lambda \right)$, then $I_\alpha f\in L^{r} \left( K,\lambda \right)$ and $$\label{kalfaineq}
\|I_\alpha f\|_{K,r}\leq C\|f\|_{K,p},$$ where $\dfrac{1}{r}=\dfrac{1}{p}-\dfrac{\alpha}{N}$ and $C=\dfrac{3pr}{p-1}\left(\dfrac{p}{r}\right)^{\frac 1p-\frac 1r}\dfrac {N}\alpha A^{\frac{N-\alpha}{N}}$.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[fraclebeq\] and .
**Acknowledgement.** This work was supported by the Science Development Foundation under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Grant EIF-2012-2(6)-39/10/1. The author would like to express his thanks to Academician Akif Gadjiev for valuable remarks.
[99]{}
C. Bennett and R. Sharpley, Interpolation of operators, *Pure and Applied Math.,* vol.129, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, 1988
W. R. Bloom and H. Heyer, Harmonic analysis of probability measures on hypergroups, *de Gruyter Stud. Math.,* vol. 20, Walter de Gruyter $\&$ Co., Berlin, 1995.
A. D. Gadjiev, M. G. Hajibayov, Inequalities for $B$-convolution operators, *TWMS J. Pure Appl. Math.,* **1(1)** (2010), 41-52.
G. Gigante, Transference for hypergroups, *Collect. Math.,* **52(2)** [2001]{}, 127-155.
M.G.Hajibayov, Boundedness of the Dunkl convolution operators, *An. Univ. Vest Timis,. Ser. Mat.-Inform.* **49 (1)** (2011), 49-67.
E. Hewitt and K. A. Ross, Abstract harmonic analysis , vol I, *Springer-Verlag,* (1979).
R. L. Jewett, Spaces with an abstract convolution of measures. *Adv. in Math.,* **18(1)** (1975), 1-101.
R. Spector, Measures invariantes sur les hypergroupes(French), *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,* **239** (1978), 147-165.
R. C. Vrem, $L^ p$-improving measures on hypergroups, Probability measures on groups, IX (Oberwolfach, 1988), 389-397, Lecture Notes in Math., 1379, Springer, Berlin, 1989
W. P. Ziemer, Weakly differentiable functions, *Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 120. Springer-Verlag, New York,* 1989
Mubariz G. Hajibayov
National Aviation Academy. Bine gesebesi, 25-ci km, AZ1104, Baku, Azerbaijan
and
Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics of NAS of Azerbaijan. 9, B. Vahavzade str., AZ1141, Baku, Azerbaijan.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using Furuta’s idea of finite dimensional approximation in Seiberg–Witten theory, we refine Seiberg–Witten Floer homology to obtain an invariant of homology 3–spheres which lives in the $S^1$–equivariant graded suspension category. In particular, this gives a construction of Seiberg–Witten Floer homology that avoids the delicate transversality problems in the standard approach. We also define a relative invariant of four-manifolds with boundary which generalizes the Bauer–Furuta stable homotopy invariant of closed four-manifolds.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, Harvard University\
1 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
author:
- Ciprian Manolescu
title: |
Seiberg–Witten–Floer stable homotopy type\
of three-manifolds with $b_1=0$
---
Introduction
============
Given a metric and a $spin^c$ structure $\spc$ on a closed, oriented three-manifold $Y$ with $b_1(Y) =0,$ it is part of the mathematical folklore that the Seiberg–Witten equations on $\rr \times Y$ should produce a version of Floer homology. Unfortunately, a large amount of work is necessary to take care of all the technical obstacles and to this day there are few accounts of this construction available in the literature. One difficulty is to find appropriate perturbations in order to guarantee Morse–Smale transversality. Another obstacle is the existence of a reducible solution. There are two ways of taking care of the latter problem: one could either ignore the reducible and obtain a metric dependent Floer homology, or one could do a more involved construction, taking into account the $S^1$–equivariance of the equations, and get a metric independent equivariant Floer homology (see [@KM2], [@MW]).
In this paper we construct a pointed $S^1$–space $\swf(Y, \spc)$ well-defined up to stable $S^1$–homotopy equivalence whose reduced equivariant homology agrees with the equivariant Seiberg–Witten–Floer homology. For example, $\swf(S^3, \spc) \cong S^0.$ This provides a construction of a “Floer homotopy type” (as imagined by Cohen, Jones, and Segal in [@CJS]) in the context of Seiberg–Witten theory. It turns out that this new invariant is metric independent and its definition does not require taking particular care of the reducible solution. Moreover, many of the other complications associated with defining Floer homology, such as finding appropriate generic perturbations, are avoided.
To be more precise, $\swf(Y, \spc)$ will be an object of a category $\spe,$ the $S^1$–equivariant analogue of the Spanier–Whitehead graded suspension category. We denote an object of $\spe$ by $(X, m, n),$ where $X$ is a pointed topological space with an $S^1$–action, $m \in \zz$ and $n\in
\qq.$ The interpretation is that $X$ has index $(m, n)$ in terms of suspensions by the representations $\rr$ and $\cc$ of $S^1.$ For example, $(X, m, n), (\rr^+ \wedge X, m+1, n),$ and $(\cc^+ \wedge X, m, n+1)$ are all isomorphic in $\spe.$ We extend the notation $(X,m,n)$ to denote the shift of any $X \in \text{Ob }\spe.$ We need to allow $n$ to be a rational number rather than an integer because the natural choice of $n$ in the definition of our invariant will not always turn out to be an integer. This small twist causes no problems in the theory. We also use the notation $\Sigma^{-E}X$ to denote the formal desuspension of $X$ by a vector space $E$ with semifree $S^1$ action.
The main ingredient in the construction is the idea of finite dimensional approximation, as developed by M Furuta and S Bauer in [@Fu1], [@BF], [@B]. The Seiberg–Witten map can be written as a sum $l+c: V \to V,$ where $V=i \ker d^*
\oplus \Gamma(W_0) \subset i\Omega^1(Y) \oplus \Gamma(W_0),$ $l =
*d \oplus \dir$ is a linear Fredholm, self-adjoint operator, and $c$ is compact as a map between suitable Sobolev completions of $V.$ Here $V$ is an infinite-dimensional space, but we can restrict to $V_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ the span of all eigenspaces of $l$ with eigenvalues in the interval $(\lambda, \mu].$ Note that $\lambda$ is usually taken to be negative and $\mu$ positive. If $p_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ denotes the projection to the finite dimensional space $V_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ the map $l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu} c$ generates an $S^1$–equivariant flow on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ with trajectories $$x: \rr \to V, \hspace{5pt} \delt x(t) = -(l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu} c)x(t).$$ If we restrict to a sufficiently large ball, we can use a well-known invariant associated with such flows, the Conley index $I_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$ In our case this is an element in $S^1$–equivariant pointed homotopy type, but we will often identify it with the $S^1$–space that is used to define it.
In section 6 we will introduce an invariant $n(Y, \spc, g) \in \qq$ which encodes the spectral flow of the Dirac operator. For now it suffices to know that $n(Y, \spc, g)$ depends on the Riemannian metric $g$ on $Y,$ but not on $\lambda$ and $\mu.$ Our main result is the following:
\[jlambda\] For $-\lambda$ and $\mu$ sufficiently large, the object $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu},
0,n(Y, \spc, g))$ depends only on $Y$ and $\spc,$ up to canonical isomorphism in the category $\spe.$
We call the isomorphism class of $\swf(Y, \spc) = (\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}
I_{\lambda}^{\mu}, 0, n(Y, \spc, g))$ the *equivariant Seiberg–Witten–Floer stable homotopy type* of $(Y,
\spc).$
It will follow from the construction that the equivariant homology of $\swf$ equals the Morse–Bott homology computed from the (suitably perturbed) gradient flow of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional on a ball in $V^{\mu}_{\lambda}.$ We call this the *Seiberg–Witten Floer homology* of $(Y, \spc).$
Note that one can think of this finite dimensional flow as a perturbation of the Seiberg–Witten flow on $V.$ In [@MW], Marcolli and Wang used more standard perturbations to define equivariant Seiberg–Witten Floer homology of rational homology 3–spheres. A similar construction for all 3–manifolds is the object of forthcoming work of Kronheimer and Mrowka [@KM2]. It might be possible to prove that our definition is equivalent to these by using a homotopy argument as $-\lambda, \mu \to \infty.$ However, such an argument would have to deal with both types of perturbations at the same time. In particular, it would have to involve the whole technical machinery of [@MW] or [@KM2] in order to achieve a version of Morse–Smale transversality, and this is not the goal of the present paper. We prefer to work with $\swf$ as it is defined here.
In section \[sec:bdry\] we construct a relative Seiberg–Witten invariant of four-manifolds with boundary. Suppose that the boundary $Y$ of a compact, oriented four-manifold $X$ is a (possibly empty) disjoint union of rational homology 3–spheres, and that $X$ has a $spin^c$ structure $\sps$ which restricts to $\spc$ on $Y.$ For any version of Floer homology, one expects that the solutions of the Seiberg–Witten (or instanton) equations on $X$ induce by restriction to the boundary an element in the Floer homology of $Y.$ In our case, let $Ind$ be the virtual index bundle over the Picard torus $H^1(X; \rr)/H^1(X;\zz)$ corresponding to the Dirac operators on $X.$ If we write $Ind$ as the difference between a vector bundle $E$ with Thom space $T(E)$ and a trivial bundle $\rr^{\alpha} \oplus \cc^{\beta},$ then let us denote $T(Ind) = (T(E), \alpha, \beta+n(Y, \spc, g)) \in \mbox{Ob }\spe.$ The correction term $n(Y, \spc, g)$ is included to make $T(Ind)$ metric independent. We will prove the following:
\[bd\] Finite dimensional approximation of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $X$ gives an equivariant stable homotopy class of maps: $$\Psi(X, \sps) \in \{(T(Ind), b_2^+(X),0), \swf(Y, \spc) \}_{S^1}.$$ The invariant $\Psi$ depends only on $X$ and $\sps,$ up to canonical isomorphism.
In particular, when $X$ is closed we recover the Bauer–Furuta invariant $\Psi$ from [@BF]. Also, in the general case by composing $\Psi$ with the Hurewicz map we obtain a relative invariant of $X$ with values in the Seiberg–Witten–Floer homology of $Y.$
When $X$ is a cobordism between two 3–manifolds $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ with $b_1=0,$ we will see that the invariant $\Psi$ can be interpreted as a morphism $\mathcal{D}_{X}$ between $\swf(Y_1)$ and $\swf(Y_2),$ with a possible shift in degree. (We omit the $spin^c$ structures from notation for simplicity.)
We expect the following gluing result to be true:
If $X_1$ is a cobordism between $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ and $X_2$ is a cobordism between $Y_2$ and $Y_3,$ then $$\mathcal{D}_{X_1 \cup X_2} \cong \mathcal{D}_{X_2}
\circ \mathcal{D}_{X_1}.$$
A particular case of this conjecture (for connected sums of closed four-manifolds) was proved in [@B]. Note that if Conjecture 1 were true, this would give a construction of a “spectrum-valued topological quantum field theory” in 3+1 dimensions, at least for manifolds with boundary rational homology 3–spheres.
In section \[sec:fro\] we present an application of Theorem 2. We specialize to the case of four-manifolds with boundary that have negative definite intersection form. For every integer $r\geq 0$ we construct an element $\gamma_r \in
H^{2r+1}(\swfnir(Y, \spc, g, \nu);\zz),$ where $\swfnir$ is a metric dependent invariant to be defined in section 8 (roughly, it equals half of the irreducible part of $\swf.$) We show the following bound, which parallels the one obtained by Frøyshov in [@Fr]:
\[fro\] Let $X$ be a smooth, compact, oriented 4–manifold such that $b_2^+(X) = 0$ and $\del X = Y$ has $b_1(Y) =0.$ Then every characteristic element $c \in H_2(X, \del X)/$Torsion satisfies: $$\frac{b_2(X) + c^2}{8} \leq \max_{\spc} \hskip2pt \inf_{g, \nu}
\bigl(-n(Y, \spc, g) + \min \{r | \gamma_r =0\} \bigr).$$
[**Acknowledgements**]{}This paper was part of the author’s senior thesis. I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Peter Kronheimer, for entrusting this project to me, and for all his invaluable support. I would also like to thank Lars Hesselholt, Michael Hopkins, and Michael Mandell for having taken the time to answer my questions on equivariant stable homotopy theory. I am grateful to Tom Mrowka, Octavian Cornea, Dragos Oprea and Jake Rasmussen for helpful conversations, and to Ming Xu for pointing out a mistake in a previous version. Finally, I would like to thank the Harvard College Research Program for partially funding this work.
Seiberg–Witten trajectories {#sec:sw}
===========================
We start by reviewing a few basic facts about the Seiberg–Witten equations on three-manifolds and cylinders. Part of our exposition is inspired from [@K], [@KM1], and [@KM2].
Let $Y$ be an oriented 3–manifold endowed with a metric $g$ and a $spin^c$ structure $\spc$ with spinor bundle $W_0.$ Our orientation convention for the Clifford multiplication $\rho: TY \to \End (W_0)$ is that $\rho (e_1) \rho (e_2) \rho (e_3) = 1$ for an oriented frame $e_i.$ Let $L=\det (W_0),$ and assume that $b_1(Y) =0.$ The fact that $b_1(Y)=0$ implies the existence of a flat $spin^c$ connection $A_0.$ This allows us to identify the affine space of $spin^c$ connections $A$ on $W_0$ with $\mi\Omega^1(Y)$ by the correspondence which sends $a\in \mi\Omega^1(Y)$ to $A_0 + a.$
Let us denote by $\dir_a = \rho (a) + \dir :\Gamma(W_0) \to \Gamma(W_0) $ the Dirac operator associated to the connection $A_0 + a.$ In particular, $\dir =
\dir_0$ corresponds to the flat connection.
The gauge group $\gau = \text{Map}(Y, S^1)$ acts on the space $\mi\Omega^1(Y) \oplus \Gamma(W_0)$ by $$u(a, \phi) = (a - u^{-1}du, u\phi).$$ It is convenient to work with the completions of $\spa$ and $\gau$ in the $L^2_{k+1}$ and $L^2_{k+2}$ norms, respectively, where $k\geq 4$ is a fixed integer. In general, we denote the $L^2_k$ completion of a space $E$ by $L^2_k(E).$
The Chern–Simons–Dirac functional is defined on $L^2_{k+1}(\spa)$ by $$CSD(a, \phi) = \frac{1}{2} \bigl(-\int_Y a \wedge da + \int_Y
\langle \phi, \dir_a \phi \rangle \dif \text{vol} \bigr).$$ We have $CSD (u\cdot (a, \phi)) - CSD(a, \phi) = \frac{1}{2}\int_Y u^{-1}du
\wedge da = 0$ because $H^1(Y; \zz) =0,$ so the $CSD$ functional is gauge invariant. A simple computation shows that its gradient (for the $L^2$ metric) is the vector field $$\nabla CSD (a, \phi) = (*da + \tau(\phi, \phi), \dir_a \phi),$$ where $\tau$ is the bilinear form defined by $\tau(\phi, \psi) = \rho^{-1}(\phi
\psi^*)_0$ and the subscript $0$ denotes the trace-free part.
The *Seiberg–Witten equations* on $Y$ are given by $$*da + \tau(\phi, \phi)=0, \hskip 6pt \dir_a \phi =0,$$ so their solutions are the critical points of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional. A solution is called *reducible* if $\theta=0$ and irreducible otherwise.
The following result is well-known (see [@KM1] for the analogue in four dimensions, or see [@K]):
\[km\] Let $(a, \phi)$ be a $C^2$ solution to the Seiberg–Witten equations on $Y.$ Then there exists a gauge transformation $u$ such that $u(a, \phi)$ is smooth. Moreover, there are upper bounds on all the $C^m$ norms of $u(a, \phi)$ which depend only on the metric on $Y.$
Let us look at trajectories of the downward gradient flow of the $CSD$ functional: $$\label{csdi}
x = (a, \phi): \rr \to L^2_{k+1}(\spa), \delt x(t) = -\nabla CSD (x(t)).$$ Seiberg–Witten trajectories $x(t)$ as above can be interpreted in a standard way as solutions of the four-dimensional monopole equations on the cylinder $\rr \times Y.$ A $spin^c$ structure on $Y$ induces one on $\rr \times Y$ with spinor bundles $W^{\pm},$ and a path of spinors $\phi(t)$ on $Y$ can be viewed as a positive spinor $\Phi \in
\Gamma(W^+).$ Similarly, a path of connections $A_0 + a(t)$ on $Y$ produces a $spin^c$ connection $A$ on $\rr
\times Y$ by adding a $d/dt$ component to the covariant derivative. There is a corresponding Dirac operator $D_A^+: \Gamma(W^+) \to \Gamma(W^-).$ Let us denote by $F_A^+$ the self-dual part of half the curvature of the connection induced by $A$ on det$(W^{\pm})$ and let us extend Clifford multiplication $\hat \rho$ to 2–forms in the usual way. Set $\sigma(\Phi, \Phi) = \hat\rho^{-1}(\Phi \Phi^*)_0.$ The fact that $x(t) = (a(t), \phi(t))$ satisfies (\[csdi\]) can be written as $$D_A^+ \Phi = 0, \hspace{6pt} F^+_{A} = \sigma(\Phi, \Phi).$$ These are exactly the four-dimensional Seiberg–Witten equations.
[A Seiberg–Witten trajectory $x(t)$ is said to be *of finite type* if both $CSD(x(t))$ and $\|\phi(t)\|_{C^0}$ are bounded functions of $t.$]{}
Before proving a compactness result for trajectories of finite type analogous to Lemma \[km\], we need to define a useful concept. If $(A, \Phi)$ are a $spin^c$ connection and a positive spinor on a comapct 4–manifold $X,$ we say that the *energy* of $(A, \Phi)$ is the quantity: $$E(A, \Phi) = \frac{1}{2} \int_X \Bigl(|F_A|^2 + |\nabla_A \Phi|^2 +
\frac{1}{4} |\Phi|^4 + \frac{s}{4}|\Phi|^2 \Bigr),$$ where $s$ denotes the scalar curvature. It is easy to see that $E$ is gauge invariant.
In the case when $X = [\alpha, \beta] \times Y$ and $(A, \Phi)$ is a Seiberg–Witten trajectory $x(t) = (a(t), \phi(t)), t\in [\alpha, \beta],$ the energy can be written as the change in the $CSD$ functional. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{csd}
CSD (x(\alpha)) - CSD(x(\beta))
&= \int_{\alpha}^{\beta} \Bigl( \|\delp a(t)\|^2_{L^2} + \|\delp
\phi(t)\|^2_{L^2}\Bigr) \dif t \\
&= \int_X \bigl({\lvert\ast da + \tau(\phi, \phi)\rvert}^2 + |\dir_a \phi|^2
\bigr) \notag \\
&= \int_X \bigl({\lvert\ast da\rvert}^2 + |\nabla_a \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{4}
|\phi|^4 + \frac{s}{4}|\phi|^2 \bigr).\notag\end{aligned}$$ It is now easy to see that the last expression equals $E(A, \Phi).$ In the last step of the derivation we have used the Weitzenböck formula.
We have the following important result for finite type trajectories:
\[trajectories\] There exist $C_m > 0$ such that for any $(a,\phi)\in L^2_{k+1}(i
\Omega^1(Y) \oplus$ $\Gamma(W_0))$ which is equal to $x(t_0)$ for some $t_0\in \rr$ and some Seiberg–Witten trajectory of finite type $x:\rr\to
L^2_{k+1}(\spa)$, there exists $(a', \phi')$ smooth and gauge equivalent to $(a, \phi)$ such that $\|(a', \phi')\|_{C^{m}} \leq C_m$ for all $m > 0.$
First we must prove:
\[harmonic\] Let $X$ be a four-dimensional Riemannian manifold with boundary such that $H^1(X; \rr) =0.$ Denote by $\nu$ the unit normal vector to $\partial X.$ Then there is a constant $K > 0$ such that for any $A\in
\Omega^1(X)$ continuously differentiable, with $A(\nu) =0$ on $\partial
X,$ we have: $$\int_X |A|^2 < K \int_X (|dA|^2 + |d^*A|^2).$$
Assume there is no such $K$. Then we can find a sequence of normalized $A_n \in \Omega^1$ with $$\int_X |A_n|^2 =1, \int_X (|dA_n|^2 + |d^*A_n|^2) \to 0.$$ The additional condition $A_n(\nu)=0$ allows us to integrate by parts in the Weitzenböck formula to obtain: $$\int_X \bigl(|\nabla A_n|^2 + \langle Ric(A_n),A_n\rangle\bigr) = \int_X
\bigl(|dA_n|^2 +
|d^*A_n|^2 \bigr).$$ Since $Ric$ is a bounded tensor of $A_n$ we obtain a uniform bound on $\|
\nabla A_n\|_{L^2}.$ By replacing $A_n$ with a subsequence we can assume that $A_n$ converge weakly in $L^2_1$ norm to some $A$ such that $dA = d^* A =0.$ Furthermore, since the restriction map from $L^2_1(X)$ to $L^2(\partial X)$ is compact, we can also assume that $A_n|_{\partial X} \to A|_{\partial X}$ in $L^2(\partial X).$ Hence $A(\nu)=0$ on $\del X$ (Neumann boundary value condition) and $A$ is harmonic on $X,$ so $A=0.$ This contradicts the strong $L^2$ convergence $A_n \to A$ and the fact that $\|A_n\|_{L^2}
=1.$
\[Proof of Proposition \[trajectories\]\] We start by deriving a pointwise bound on the spinorial part. Consider a trajectory of finite type $x = (a, \phi): \rr \to L^2_{k+1}(\mi\Omega^1(Y) \oplus$ $\Gamma(W_0)).$ Let $S$ be the supremum of the pointwise norm of $\phi(t)$ over $\rr \times Y.$ If $|\phi(t)(y)| = S$ for some $(y, t) \in \rr \times
Y,$ since $\phi(t) \in L^2_5 \subset C^2,$ we have $\Delta|\phi|^2 \geq 0$ at that point. Here $\Delta$ is the four-dimensional Laplacian on $\rr
\times Y.$ By the standard compactness argument for the Seiberg–Witten equations [@KM1], we obtain an upper bound for $|\phi|$ which depends only on the metric on $Y.$
If the supremum is not attained, we can find a sequence $(y_n, t_n) \in
\rr \times Y$ with $|\phi(t_n) (y_n)| \to S.$ Without loss of generality, by passing to a subsequence we can assume that $y_n
\to y \in Y$ and $t_{n+1} > t_n + 2$ (hence $t_n \to \infty$). Via a reparametrization, the restriction of $x$ to each interval $[t_n - 1, t_n +1]$ can be interpreted as a solution $(A_n, \Phi_n)$ of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $X = [-1, 1] \times Y.$ The finite type hypothesis and formula (\[csd\]) give uniform bounds on $|\Phi_n|$ and $\|dA_n \|_{L^2}.$ Here we identify connections with 1–forms by comparing them to the standard product flat connection.
We can modify $(A_n, \Phi_n)$ by a gauge transformation on $X$ so that we obtain $d^* A_n = 0$ on $X$ and $A_n(\del /\del t) = 0$ on $\partial X.$ Using Lemma \[harmonic\] we get a uniform bound on $\|A_n\|_{L^2}.$ After this point the Seiberg–Witten equations $$D_{A_n}^+ \Phi_n = 0, \hspace{7pt} d^+ A_n = \sigma(\Phi_n, \Phi_n)$$ provide bounds on all the Sobolev norms of $A_n|_{X'}$ and $\Phi_n|_{X'}$ by elliptic bootstrapping. Here $X'$ could be any compact subset in the interior of $X,$ for example $[-1/2, 1/2] \times Y.$
Thus, after to passing to a subsequence we can assume that $(A_n, \Phi_n)|_{X'}$ converges in $C^{\infty}$ to some $(A, \Phi),$ up to some gauge transformations. Note that the energies on $X'$ $$E'(A_n, \Phi_n) = \bigl(CSD(x(t_n -\frac{1}{2})) - CSD(x(t_n +
\frac{1}{2}))\bigr) =
\int_{t_n - 1/2}^{t_n +1/2} \|\delp x(t)\|^2_{L^2} \dif t$$ are positive, while the series $\sum_n E'(A_n, \Phi_n)$ is convergent because $CSD$ is bounded. It follows that $E'(A_n, \Phi_n) \to 0$ as $n
\to \infty,$ so $E'(A, \Phi)=0.$ In temporal gauge on $X'$, $(A, \Phi)$ must be of the form $(a(t), \phi(t)),$ where $a(t)$ and $\phi(t)$ are constant in $t,$ giving a solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $Y.$ By Lemma \[km\], there is an upper bound for $|\phi(0)(y)|$ which depends only on $Y.$ Now $\phi(t_n)(y_n)$ converges to $\phi(0)(y)$ up to some gauge transformation, hence the upper bound also applies to $\lim_{n}
|\phi(t_n)(y_n)| = S.$
Therefore, in all cases we have a uniform bound $\|\phi(t)\|_{C^0} \leq
C$ for all $t$ and for all trajectories.
The next step is to deduce a similar bound for the absolute value of $CSD(x(t)).$ Observe that $CSD (x(t)) > CSD (x(n))$ for all $n$ sufficiently large. As before, we interpret the restriction of $x$ to each interval $[n-1, n+1]$ as a solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $[-1, 1] \times Y.$ Then we find that a subsequence of these solutions restricted to $X'$ converges to some $(A, \Phi)$ in $C^{\infty}.$ Also, $(A, \Phi)$ must be constant in temporal gauge. We deduce that a subsequence of $CSD (x(n))$ converges to $CSD(a, \phi)$, where $(a, \phi)$ is a solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $Y.$ Using Lemma \[km\], we get a lower bound for $CSD(x(t)).$ An upper bound can be obtained similarly.
Now let us concentrate on a specific $x(t_0).$ By a linear reparametrization, we can assume $t_0=0.$ Let $X =[-1,1] \times Y.$ Then $(A, \Phi) = (a(t), \phi(t))$ satisfies the 4–dimensional Seiberg–Witten equations. The formula (\[csd\]) and the bounds on $|\phi|$ and $|CSD|$ imply a uniform bound on $\|dA\|_{L^2}.$ Via a gauge transformation on $X$ we can assume that $d^*A = 0$ on $X$ and $A_n(\nu) = 0$ on $\partial X.$ By Lemma \[harmonic\] we obtain a bound on $\|A\|_{L^2}$ and then, by elliptic bootstrapping, on all Sobolev norms of $A$ and $\Phi.$ The desired $C^{m}$ bounds follow.
The same proof works in the setting of a half-trajectory of finite type glued to a four-manifold with boundary. We state here the relevant result, which will prove useful to us in section \[sec:bdry\].
\[trajectoriesb\] Let $X$ be a Riemannian four-manifold with a cylindrical end $U$ isometric to $(0, \infty) \times \rr,$ and such that $X \setminus U$ is compact. Let $t>0$ and $X_t = X \setminus ([t, \infty) \times \rr).$ Then there exist $C_{m,t} > 0$ such that any monopole on $X$ which is gauge equivalent to a half-trajectory of finite type over $U$ is in fact gauge equivalent over $X_t$ to a smooth monopole $(A, \Phi)$ such that $\|(A, \Phi)\|_{C^m} \leq C_{m,t}$ for all $m >0.$
Projection to the Coulomb gauge slice {#sec:coulomb}
=====================================
Let $\go$ be the group of “normalized” gauge transformations, ie, $u:Y\to S^1, u=\me^{\mi\xi}$ with $\int_{Y_j} \xi =0$ for any connected component $Y_j$ of $Y.$ It will be helpful to work on the space $$V = i\ker d^* \oplus \Gamma(W_0).$$ For $(a, \phi) \in \spa,$ there is a unique element of $V$ which is equivalent to $(a, \phi)$ by a transformation in $\go.$ We call this element the *Coulomb projection* of $(a, \phi).$
Denote by $\pi$ the orthogonal projection from $\Omega^1(Y)$ to $\ker d^*.$ The space $V$ inherits a metric $\tilde g$ from the $L^2$ inner product on $\spa$ in the following way: given $(b, \psi)$ a tangent vector at $(a,
\phi)\in V,$ we set $$\|(b, \psi)\|_{\tilde g} = \|(b, \psi) + (-id\xi, i\xi\phi)\|_{L^2}$$ where $\xi \in \go$ is such that $(b-id\xi, \psi + i\xi\phi)$ is in Coulomb gauge, ie, $$d^*(b-id\xi) + 2i\text{Re}\langle i\phi, \psi + i\xi\phi\rangle
=0.$$ The trajectories of the $CSD$ functional restricted to $V$ in this metric are the same as the Coulomb projections of the trajectories of the $CSD$ functional on $\spa.$
For $\phi \in \Gamma(W_0),$ note that $(1-\pi)\circ \tau(\phi, \phi) \in (\ker
d^*)^{\perp} = \text{ Im }d.$ Define $\xi(\phi):Y \to \rr$ by $d\xi(\phi) = i(1-\pi)\circ \tau(\phi, \phi)$ and $\int_{Y_j} \xi(\phi) =
0$ for all connected components $Y_j \subset Y.$
Then the gradient of $CSD|_V$ in the $\tilde g$ metric can be written as $l+c,$ where $l, c: V \to V$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
l(a, \phi) = (*da, \dir \phi)\\
c(a, \phi) =\bigl (\pi \circ \tau(\phi, \phi), \rho(a)\phi -
i\xi(\phi)\phi\bigr).\end{gathered}$$ Thus from now on we can concentrate on trajectories $x: \rr \to V, \delp
x(t) = -(l+c)x(t).$ More generally, we can look at such trajectories with values in the $L^2_{k+1}$ completion of $V.$ Note that $l+c: L^2_{k+1}(V) \to L^2_k(V)$ is a continuous map. We construct all Sobolev norms on $V$ using $l$ as the differentiation operator: $$\|v\|^2_{L^2_m(V)} = \sum_{j=0}^m \int_Y |l^j(v)|^2 \dif \text{vol}.$$ Consider such trajectories $x: \rr \to L^2_{k+1}(V), k \geq 4.$ Assuming they are of finite type, from Proposition \[trajectories\] we know that they are locally the projections of smooth trajectories living in the ball of of radius $C_m$ in the $C^m$ norm, for each $m.$ We deduce that $x(t) \in V$ for all $t,$ $x$ is smooth in $t$ and there is a uniform bound on $\|x(t)\|_{C^{m}}$ for each $m.$
Finite dimensional approximation {#sec:fda3}
================================
In this section we use Furuta’s technique to prove an essential compactness result for *approximate* Seiberg–Witten trajectories.
Note that the operator $l$ defined in the previous section is self-adjoint, so has only real eigenvalues. In the standard $L^2$ metric, let $\tilde p_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ be the orthogonal projection from $V$ to the finite dimensional subspace $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ spanned by the eigenvectors of $l$ with eigenvalues in the interval $(\lambda, \mu].$
It is useful to consider a modification of the projections so that we have a continuous family of maps, as in [@Fu2]. Thus let $\beta: \rr \to [0,\infty)$ be a smooth function so that $\beta(x) > 0 \iff x\in (0, 1)$ and the integral of $\beta$ is $1.$ For each $-\lambda, \mu > 1,$ set $$p_{\lambda}^{\mu} = \int_0^1
\beta(\tau) \tilde p_{\lambda+\tau}^{\mu-\tau} \dif \tau.$$ Now $p_{\lambda}^{\mu}: V \to V$ varies continuously in $\lambda$ and $\mu.$ Also $V_{\lambda}^{\mu} = \text{Im}(p_{\lambda}^{\mu}),$ except when $\mu$ is an eigenvalue. Let us modify the definition of $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ slightly so that it is always the image of $p_{\lambda}^{\mu}).$ (However, we only do that for $\mu > 1;$ later on, when we talk about $V^{\lambda}_{\lambda'}$ for $\lambda' <
\lambda \leq 0,$ for technical reasons we still want it to be the span of eigenspaces with eigenvalues in $(\lambda', \lambda].$)
Let $k\geq 4.$ Then $c: L^2_{k+1}(V) \to L^2_k(V)$ is a compact map. This follows from the following facts: $\xi$ maps $L^2_{k+1}$ to $L^2_{k+1};$ the Sobolev multiplication $L^2_{k+1} \times L^2_{k+1} \to
L^2_{k+1}$ is continuous; and the inclusion $L^2_{k+1} \to L^2_k$ is compact.
A useful consequence of the compactness of $c$ is that we have $$\|(1- p_{\lambda}^{\mu}) c(x)\|_{L^2_k} \to 0$$ when $-\lambda, \mu \to \infty,$ uniformly in $x$ when $x$ is bounded in $L^2_{k+1}(V).$
Let us now denote by $B(R)$ the open ball of radius $R$ in $L^2_{k+1}(V).$ We know that there exists $R > 0$ such that all the finite type trajectories of $l+c$ are inside $B(R)$.
\[main\] For any $-\lambda$ and $\mu$ sufficiently large, if a trajectory $x: \rr
\to L^2_{k+1}(V_{\lambda}^{\mu}),$ $$(l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu} c)(x(t)) = -\delt x(t)$$ satisfies $x(t) \in \overline{B(2R)}$ for all $t,$ then in fact $x(t) \in
B(R)$ for all $t.$
We organize the proof in three steps.
**Step 1**Assume that the conclusion is false, so there exist sequences $-\lambda_n, \mu_n \to \infty$ and corresponding trajectories $x_n : \rr \to \overline{B(2R)}$ satisfying $$(l+p_{\lambda_n}^{\mu_n} c)(x_n(t)) = -\delt x_n(t),$$ and (after a linear reparametrization) $x_n(0) \not\in B(R).$ Let us denote for simplicity $\pi_n = p_{\lambda_n}^{\mu_n}$ and $\pi^n =
1-\pi_n.$ Since $l$ and $c$ are bounded maps from $L^2_{k+1}(V)$ to $L^2_k(V),$ there is a uniform bound $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delt x_n(t)\|_{L^2_k} &\leq& \|l(x_n(t))\|_{L^2_k} +
\|\pln c(x_n(t))\|_{L^2_k} \\
&\leq& \|l(x_n(t))\|_{L^2_k} +
\| c(x_n(t))\|_{L^2_k} \\
&\leq& C \|x_n(t)\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \leq 2CR\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C,$ independent of $n$ and $t.$ Therefore $x_n$ are equicontinuous in $L^2_k$ norm. They also sit inside a compact subset $B'$ of $L^2_k(V),$ the closure of $B(2R)$ in this norm. After extracting a subsequence we can assume by the Arzela–Ascoli theorem that $x_n$ converge to some $x: \rr \to B',$ uniformly in $L^2_k$ norm over compact sets of $t\in \rr.$ Letting $n$ go to infinity we obtain $$-\delt x_n(t) = (l+ c)x_n(t) - \pLn c(x_n(t)) \to (l+c)x(t)$$ in $L^2_{k-1}(V),$ uniformly on compact sets of $t.$ From here we get that $$x_n(t) = \int_0^t \delt x_n(s) \dif s \to -\int_0^t (l+c)(x(s))\dif s.$$ On the other hand, we also know that $x_n(t)$ converges to $x(t),$ so $$(l+c) x(t) = -\delt x(t).$$ The Chern–Simons–Dirac functional and the pointwise norm of the spinorial part are bounded on the compact set $B'$. We conclude that $x(t)$ is the Coulomb projection of a finite type trajectory for the usual Seiberg–Witten equations on $Y.$ In particular, $x(t)$ is smooth, both on $Y$ and in the $t$ direction. Also $x(0) \in B(R).$ Thus $$\label{un}
\|x(0)\|_{L^2_{k+1}} < R.$$ We seek to obtain a contradiction between (\[un\]) and the fact that $x_n(0) \not\in B(R)$ for any $n.$
**Step 2**Let $W$ be the vector space of trajectories $x : [-1,1] \to V, x(t) = (a(t), \phi(t)).$ We can introduce Sobolev norms $L^2_m$ on this space by looking at $a(t), \phi(t)$ as sections of bundles over $[-1,1] \times Y.$
We will prove that $x_n(t) \to x(t)$ in $L^2_k(W).$
To do this, it suffices to prove that for every $j (0\leq j \leq k)$ we have $$\pdel^j x_n(t) \to \pdel^j x(t)$$ in $L^2_{k-j}(V),$ uniformly in $t,$ for $t\in [-1,1].$ We already know this statement to be true for $j=0,$ so we proceed by induction on $j.$
Assume that $$\pdel^s x_n(t) \to \pdel^s x(t) \text{ in } L^2_{k-s}(V),$$ uniformly in $t,$ for all $s\leq j.$ Then $$\noindent -\pdel^{j+1} (x_n(t) - x(t)) = \pdel^j \bigl( (l+\pln
c)(x_n(t)) - (l+c)(x(t))\bigr)$$ $$= l\Bigl( \pdel^j (x_n(t) -
x(t))\Bigr) + \pln\Bigl(\pdel^j(c(x_n(t)) - c(x(t)))\Bigr) - \pLn
\Bigl(\pdel^j c(x(t))\Bigr).$$ Here we have used the linearity of $l,
\pln$ and $\pLn.$ We discuss each of the three terms in the sum above separately and prove that each of them converges to $0$ in $L^2_{k-j-1}$ uniformly in $t.$ For the first term this is clear, because $l$ is a bounded linear map from $L^2_{k-j}$ to $L^2_{k-j-1}.$
For the third term, $y(t) = \delp^j c(x(t))$ is smooth over $[-1,1] \times Y$ by what we showed in Step 1, and $\|\pLn y(t) \| \to 0$ for each $t \in [-1,1]$ by the spectral theorem. Here the norm can be any Sobolev norm, in particular $L^2_{k-j-1}.$ The convergence is uniform in $t$ because of smoothness in the $t$ direction. Indeed, assume that we can find $\epsilon > 0$ and $t_n \in [-1,1]$ so that $\| \pLn y(t_n)\| \geq \epsilon$ for all $n.$ By going to a subsequence we can assume $t_n \to t \in [-1,1].$ Then $$\epsilon \leq \| \pLn y(t_n)\| \leq
\|\pLn (y(t_n) -y(t))\| + \|\pLn y(t)\|$$ This is a contradiction. The last expression converges to zero because the first term is less or equal to $\|y(t_n)
-y(t)\|.$
All that remains is to deal with the second term. Since $\|\pln y\| \leq
\|y\|$ for every Sobolev norm, it suffices to show that $$\pdel^j c(x_n(t)) \to \pdel^j c(x(t)) \text{ in } L^2_{k-j-1} (V)$$ uniformly in $t.$ In fact we will prove a stronger $L^2_{k-j}$ convergence. Note that $c(x_n)$ is quadratic in $x_n =
(a_n, \phi_n)$ except for the term $-i\xi(\phi_n)\phi_n.$ Expanding $\delp^j c(x_n(t))$ by the Leibniz rule, we get expressions of the form $$\pdel^s z_n(t) \cdot \pdel^{j-s} w_n(t),$$ where $z_n, w_n$ are either $\xi(\phi_n)$ or local coordinates of $x_n.$ Assume they are both local coordinates of $x_n.$ By the inductive hypothesis, we have $\delp^s z_n(t) \to \delp^s z(t)$ in $L^2_{k-s}$ and $\delp^{j-s} w_n(t) \to \delp^{j-s} w(t)$ in $L^2_{k-j+s},$ both uniformly in $t.$ Note that max $(k-s, k-j+s) \geq
(k-s + k-j+s)/2 =
k-(j/2) \geq k/2 \geq 2.$ Therefore there is a Sobolev multiplication $$L^2_{k-s} \times L^2_{k-j+s} \to L^2_{\min (k-s, k-j+s)}$$ and the last space is contained in $L^2_{k-j}.$ It follows that $$\pdel^s z_n(t) \cdot \pdel^{j-s} w_n(t) \to \pdel^s z(t) \cdot
\pdel^{j-s} w(t)$$ in $L^2_{k-j},$ uniformly in $t.$
The same is true when one or both of $z_n, w_n$ are $\xi(\phi_n).$ Clearly it is enough to show that $\delp^s\xi(\phi_n(t)) \to \delp^s
\xi(\phi(t))$ in $L^2_{k-s},$ uniformly in $t,$ for $s\leq j.$ But from the discussion above we know that this is true if instead of $\xi$ we had $d\xi,$ because this is quadratic in $\phi_n.$ Hence the convergence is also true for $\xi.$ This concludes the inductive step.
**Step 3**The argument in this part is based on elliptic bootstrapping for the equations on $X = [-1,1] \times Y.$ Namely, the operator $D = -\del/\del t - l$ acting on $W$ is Fredholm (being the restriction of an elliptic operator). We know that $$D x_n(t) = \pln c(x_n(t)),$$ where $x_n(t) \to x(t)$ in $L^2_k(W).$ We prove by induction on $m\geq k$ that $x_n(t) \to x(t)$ in $L^2_m(W_m),$ where $W_m$ is the restriction of $W$ to $X_m = I_m \times Y$ and $I_m =[-1/2 - 1/m, 1/2+1/m].$ Assume this is true for $m$ and we prove it for $m+1.$ The elliptic estimate gives $$\| x_n(t) - x(t)\|_{L^2_{m+1}(W_{m+1})} \leq C \bigl(\|
D(x_n(t)-x(t))\|_{L^2_m(W_m)} + \| x_n(t) - x(t)\|_{L^2_{m}(W_m)}
\bigr)$$ $$\label{tri}
\leq C\bigl(\|\pln c(x_n(t)) - \pln c(x(t))\| + \|\pLn c(x(t))\| + \|
x_n(t) - x(t)\|\bigr).$$ In the last expression all norms are taken in the $L^2_m(W_m)$ norm. We prove that each of the three terms converges to zero when $n\to\infty.$ This is clear for the third term from the inductive hypothesis.
For the first term, note that $\pln c$ is quadratic in $x_n(t),$ apart from the term involving $\xi(\phi_n(t)).$ Looking at $x_n(t)$ as $L^2_m$ sections of a bundle over $X_m,$ the Sobolev multiplication $L^2_m
\times L^2_m \to L^2_m$ tells us that the quadratic terms are continuous maps from $L^2_m(W_m)$ to itself. From here we also deduce that $d\xi(\phi_n(t)),$ which is quadratic in its argument, converges to $d\xi(\phi(t)).$ By integrating over $I_m$ we get: $$\int_{I_m} \| \xi(\phi_n(t)) - \xi(\phi(t))\|_{L^2_{m+1}(V)} \leq
\int_{I_m} C \cdot \| d\xi(\phi_n(t)) - d\xi(\phi(t))\|_{L^2_m(V)}$$ The right hand side of this inequality converges to zero as $n\to \infty,$ hence so does the left hand side. Furthermore, the same is true if we replace $\xi$ by $\delp^s \xi$ and $m$ by $m-s.$ Therefore, $\xi_n(\phi_n(t)) \to \xi(\phi(t))$ in $L^2_m(W_m),$ so by the Sobolev multiplication the first term in (\[tri\]) converges to zero.
Finally, for the second term in (\[tri\]), recall from Step 1 that $c(x(t))$ is smooth. Hence $\pLn \delp^s c(x(t))$ converges to zero in $L^2_m(V),$ for each $t$ and for all $s\geq 0.$ The convergence is uniform in $t$ because of smoothness in the $t$ direction, by an argument similar to the one in Step 2. We deduce that $$\|\pLn \delp^s c(x(t))\|_{L^2_m(W_m)}\to 0$$ as well.
Now we can conclude that the inductive step works, so $x_n(t) \to x(t)$ in $L^2_m(W')$ for all $m$ if we take $W'$ to be the restriction of $W$ to $ [-1/2, 1/2] \times Y.$ Convergence in all Sobolev norms means $C^{\infty}$ convergence, so in particular $x_n(0) \in
C^{\infty}(V)$ and $x_n(0) \to x(0)$ in $C^{\infty}.$ Hence $$\|x_n(0)\|_{L^2_{k+1}(V)} \to \|x(0)\|_{L^2_{k+1}(V)}.$$ We obtain a contradiction with the fact that $x_n(0)\not\in
B(R),$ so $\|x_n(0)\|_{L^2_{k+1}(V)} \geq R,$ while $\|x(0)\|_{L^2_{k+1}(V)} < R.$
The Conley index {#sec:index}
================
The Conley index is a well-known invariant in dynamics, developed by C. Conley in the 70’s. Here we summarize its construction and basic properties, as presented in [@C] and [@Sa].
Let $M$ be a finite dimensional manifold and $\varphi$ a flow on $M,$ ie, a continuous map $\varphi: M \times \rr \to M, (x,t) \to
\varphi_t(x),$ satisfying $\vp_0 = $ id and $\vp_s \circ \vp_t =
\vp_{s+t}.$ For a subset $A \subset M$ we define $$\begin{aligned}
A^+ &=& \{ x\in A: \forall t > 0, \vp_t(x) \in A\};\\
A^- &=& \{ x\in A: \forall t < 0, \vp_t(x) \in A\};\\
\text{ Inv }A &=& A^+ \cap A^-.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that all of these are compact subsets of $A,$ provided that $A$ itself is compact.
A compact subset $S \subset M$ is called an *isolated invariant set* if there exists a compact neighborhood $A$ such that $S = $ Inv $A\subset \inte(A).$ Such an $A$ is called an *isolating neighborhood* of $S.$ It follows from here that Inv $S = S.$
A pair $(N, L)$ of compact subsets $L \subset N \subset M$ is said to be an *index pair* for $S$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. Inv $(N \setminus L) = S \subset \inte (N \setminus L);$
2. $L$ is an exit set for $N,$ ie, for any $x\in N$ and $t>0$ such that $\vp_t(x) \not\in N,$ there exists $\tau \in [0,t)$ with $\vp_{\tau}(x) \in L.$
3. $L$ is positively invariant in $N,$ ie, if for $x\in L$ and $t>0$ we have $\vp_{[0,t]}(x) \subset N,$ then in fact $\vp_{[0,t]}(x) \subset
L.$
Consider an isolated invariant set $S \subset M$ with an isolating neighborhood $A.$ The fundamental result in Conley index theory is that there exists an index pair $(N, L)$ for $S$ such that $N
\subset A.$ We prove this theorem in a slightly stronger form which will be useful to us in section \[sec:bdry\]; the proof is relegated to Appendix A:
\[indexpairs\] Let $S \subset M$ be an isolated invariant set with a compact isolating neighborhood $A,$ and let $K_1, K_2 \subset A$ be compact sets which satisfy the following conditions:
[(i)]{}If $x \in K_1 \cap A^+,$ then $\vp_t(x) \not\in \del A$ for any $t
\geq 0;$
[(ii)]{}$K_2 \cap A^+ = \emptyset.$
Then there exists an index pair $(N, L)$ for $S$ such that $K_1 \subset N
\subset A$ and $K_2 \subset L.$
Given an isolated invariant set $S$ with index pair $(N, L),$ one defines the *Conley index* of $S$ to be the pointed homotopy type $$I(\vp, S) = (N/L, [L]).$$ The Conley index has the following properties:
1. It depends only on $S.$ In fact, there are natural pointed homotopy equivalences between the spaces $N/L$ for different choices of the index pair.
2. If $\vp_i$ is a flow on $M_i, i=1,2,$ then $I(\vp_1 \times \vp_2,
S_1 \times S_2) \cong I(\vp_1, S_1) \wedge I(\vp_2, S_2).$
3. If $A$ is an isolating neighborhood for $S_t = $ Inv $A$ for a continuous family of flows $\vp_t, t\in [0,1],$ then $I(\vp_0, S_0) \cong
I(\vp_1, S_1).$ Again, there are canonical homotopy equivalences between the respective spaces.
By abuse of notation, we will often use $I$ to denote the pointed space $N/L,$ and say that $N/L$ “is” the Conley index.
To give a few examples of Conley indices, for any flow $I(\vp, \emptyset)$ is the homotopy type of a point. If $p$ is a nondegenerate critical point of a gradient flow $\vp$ on $M,$ then $I(\vp, \{p\}) \cong
S^k,$ where $k$ is the Morse index of $p.$ More generally, when $\vp$ is a gradient flow and $S$ is an isolated invariant set composed of critical points and trajectories between them satisfying the Morse-Smale condition, then one can compute a Morse homology in the usual way (as in [@S]), and it turns out that it equals $\tilde H_*(I(\vp, S)).$
Another useful property of the Conley index is its behavior in the presence of attractor-repeller pairs. Given a subset $A \subset M,$ we define its $\alpha$–limit set and its $\omega$–limit set as: $$\alpha (A) = \bigcap_{t < 0} \overline{ \vp_{(-\infty, t]}(A)}; \hspace
{8pt}
\omega (A) = \bigcap_{t > 0} \overline{ \vp_{[t, \infty)}(A)}.$$ If $S$ is an isolated invariant set, a subset $T \subset S$ is called a *repeller* (resp. *attractor*) relative to $S$ is there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $T$ in $S$ such that $\alpha(U)=T$ (resp. $\omega(U) = T$). If $T \subset S$ is an attractor, then the set $T^*$ of $x \in S$ such that $\omega(x) \cap T = \emptyset$ is a repeller in $S,$ and $(T, T^*)$ is called an *attractor-repeller pair* in $S.$ To give an example, let $S$ be a set of critical points and the trajectories between them in a gradient flow $\vp$ generated by a Morse function $f$ on $M.$ Then, for some $a\in \rr,$ we could let $T\subset S$ be the set of critical points $x$ for which $f(x) \leq a,$ together with the trajectories connecting them. In this case $T^*$ is the set of critical points $x\in S$ for which $f(x) > a,$ together with the trajectories between them.
In general, for an attractor-repeller pair $(T, T^*)$ in $S,$ we have the following:
\[at-rep\] Let $A$ be an isolating neighborhood for $S.$ Then there exist compact sets $N_3 \subset N_2 \subset N_1 \subset A$ such that $(N_1, N_2), (N_1, N_3),$ and $(N_2, N_3)$ are index pairs for $T^*, S,$ and $T,$ respectively. Hence there is a coexact sequence: $$I(\vp, T) \to I(\vp, S) \to I(\vp, T^*) \to \Sigma I(\vp, T) \to \Sigma
I(\vp, S) \to \ldots$$
Finally, we must note that an equivariant version of the Conley index was constructed by A. Floer in [@Fl] and extended by A. M. Pruszko in [@P]. Let $G$ be a compact Lie group; in this paper we will be concerned only with $G=S^1.$ If the flow $\vp$ preserves a $G$–symmetry on $M$ and $S$ is an isolated invariant set which is also invariant under the action of $G,$ then one can generalize Theorem \[indexpairs\] to prove the existence of an $G$–invariant index pair with the required properties. The resulting Conley index $I_{G}(\vp, S)$ is an element of $G$–equivariant pointed homotopy type. It has the same three basic properties described above, as well as a similar behavior in the presence of attractor-repeller pairs.
Construction of the invariant {#sec:swf}
=============================
Let us start by defining the equivariant graded suspension category $\spe.$ Our construction is inspired from [@A], [@D], and [@LMS]. However, for the sake of simplicity we do not work with a universe, but we follow a more classical approach. There are several potential dangers in doing this in an equivariant setting (see [@A], [@LMS]). However, in our case the Burnside ring $A(S^1) = \zz$ is particularly simple, and it turns out that our construction does not involve additional complications compared to its non-equivariant analogue in [@W] and [@Ma].
We are only interested in suspensions by the representations $\rr$ and $\cc$ of $S^1.$ Thus, the objects of $\spe$ are triplets $(X, m, n),$ where $X$ is a pointed topological space with an $S^1$–action, $m \in \zz$ and $n\in \qq.$ We require that $X$ has the $S^1$–homotopy type of a $S^1$–CW complex (this is always true for Conley indices on manifolds). The set $\{(X, m, n), (X', m',
n')\}_{S^1}$ of morphisms between two objects is nonempty only for $n-n'
\in \zz$ and in this case it equals $$\{(X, m, n), (X', m', n')\}_{S^1}\! = \text{colim }\! [(\rr^k \oplus
\cc^l)^+\wedge X, (\rr^{k+m-m'}\! \oplus \cc^{l+n-n'})^+ \wedge X']_{S^1}$$ The colimit is taken over $k, l\in \zz.$ The maps that define the colimit are given by suspensions, ie, smashing on the left at each step with either $\text{id}_{(\rr^+ \wedge * \wedge *)}$ or $\text{id}_{(* \wedge
\cc^+ \wedge *)}.$
Inside of $\spe$ we have a subcategory $\spe_0$ consisting of the objects $(X,0,0).$ We usually denote such an object by $X.$ Also, in general, if $X'=(X,m,n)$ is any object of $\spe,$ we write $(X', m',n')$ for $(X, m+m', n+n').$
Given a finite dimensional vector space $E$ with trivial $S^1$ action, we can define the desuspension of $X \in \text{Ob }\spe_0$ by $E$ to be $\Sigma^{-E} X
= (E^+ \wedge X, 2 \dim E, 0).$ Alternatively, we can set $\Sigma^{-E} X
= \Omega^{E} X,$ the set of pointed maps from $E^+$ to $X.$ It is easy to check that these two definitions give the same object in $\spe,$ up to canonical isomorphism. Similarly, when $E$ has free $S^1$ action apart from the origin, one can define $\Sigma^{-E} X = \Omega^{E} X.$ This is naturally isomorphic to $(X, 0, \dim_{\cc} E),$ because $E$ has a canonical orientation coming from its complex structure.
Now recall the notations from section \[sec:fda3\]. We would like to consider the downward gradient flow of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ in the metric $\tilde g.$ However, there could be trajectories that go to infinity in finite time, so this is not well-defined. We need to take a compactly supported, smooth cut-off function $u_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ which is identically $1$ on $B(3R),$ where $R$ is the constant from Proposition \[main\]. For consistency purposes we require $u_{\lambda}^{\mu} = u_{\lambda'}^{\mu'}|_{V_{\lambda}^{\mu}}$ for $\lambda' \leq\lambda$ and $\mu' \geq \mu.$ Now for each $\lambda$ and $\mu$ the vector field $u_{\lambda}^{\mu}
\cdot (l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu} c)$ is compactly supported, so it generates a well-defined flow $\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$
From Proposition \[main\] we know that there exist $-\lambda^*,
\mu^*>1$ such that for all $\lambda \leq\lambda^*, \mu \geq \mu^*,$ all trajectories of $\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ inside $\overline{B(2R)}$ are in fact contained in $B(R).$ It follows that Inv $\bigl(V_{\lambda}^{\mu} \cap
\overline{B(2R)}\bigr) = S_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ the compact union of all such trajectories, and $S_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ is an isolated invariant set.
There is an $S^1$ symmetry in our case as a result of the division by $\go$ rather than the full gauge group. We have the following $S^1$ action on $V:$ $\me^{\mi\theta} \in S^1$ sends $(a, \phi)$ to $(a, \me^{\mi\theta}\phi).$ The maps $l$ and $c$ are equivariant, and there is an induced $S^1$–action on the spaces $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$ Since both $\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ and $S_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ are invariant under the $S^1$ action, using the notion of equivariant Conley index from the previous section we can set $$I_{\lambda}^{\mu} = I_{S^1}(\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu},
S_{\lambda}^{\mu}).$$ It is now the time to explain why we desuspended by $V^0_{\lambda}$ in the definition of $\swf(Y, \spc)$ from the introduction. We also have to figure out what the value of $n(Y, \spc, g)$ should be.
One solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $Y$ is the reducible $\theta = (0,0).$ Let $X$ be a simply-connected oriented Riemannian four-manifold with boundary $Y.$ Suppose that a neighborhood of the boundary is isometric to $[0,1] \times Y$ such that $\del X =
\{1\} \times Y.$ Choose a $spin^c$ structure on $X$ which extends the one on $Y$ and let $\hat L$ be its determinant line bundle. Let $\hat A$ be a smooth connection on $\hat L$ such that on the end it equals the pullback of the flat connection $A_0$ on $Y.$ Then we can define $c_1(\hat L)^2 \in \qq$ in the following way. Let $N$ be the cardinality of $H_1(Y; \zz).$ Then the exact sequence $$\begin {CD}
H^2_c(X) @>{j^*}>> H^2(X) @>{}>> H^2(Y) \cong H_1(Y)
\end {CD}$$ tells us that $Nc_1(\hat L) = j^*(\alpha)$ for some $\alpha \in
H^2_c(X).$ Using the intersection form induced by Poincaré duality $$H^2_c(X) \times H^2(X) \to \zz$$ we set $$c_1(\hat L)^2 = (\alpha \cdot c_1(\hat L))/N \in \frac{1}{N} \zz.$$ Denote by $D^{\pm}_{\hat A}$ the Dirac operators on $X$ coupled with the connection $\hat A,$ with spectral boundary conditions as in [@APS1]. One can look at solutions of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $X$ which restrict to $\theta$ on the boundary. The space $\mathcal M(X, \theta)$ of such solutions has a “virtual dimension” $$\label {vdim}
\text{v.dim } \mathcal M(X, \theta) = 2\text{ind}_{\cc}(D^+_{\hat A})
- \frac{\chi(X) + \sigma(X)+1}{2}.$$ Here $\chi(X)$ and $\sigma(X)$ are the Euler characteristic and the signature of $X,$ respectively.
In Seiberg–Witten theory, when one tries to define a version of Floer homology it is customary to assign to the reducible a real index equal to $$\frac{c_1(\hat L)^2 - (2\chi(X) +
3\sigma(X)+2)}{4} - \text {v.dim }\mathcal M(X, \theta)$$ On the other hand, if one were to compute the homology of the Conley index $I_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ by a Morse homology recipe (counting moduli spaces of gradient flow lines), the Morse index of $(0,0)$ would be different. In fact we can approximate $l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu}c$ near $(0,0)$ by its linear part $l.$ The Morse index is then the number of negative eigenvalues of $l$ on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ which is the dimension of $V^0_{\lambda}.$ (Our convention is to also count the zero eigenvalues.) To account for this discrepancy in what the index of $\theta$ should be, we need to desuspend by $V^0_{\lambda} \oplus \cc^{n(Y,
\spc, g)}$ where it is natural to set $$n(Y, \spc, g) = \frac{1}{2}\Bigl( \text {v.dim }\mathcal M(X,
\theta) - \frac{c_1(\hat L)^2 - (2\chi(X) + 3\sigma(X)+2)}{4} \Bigr).$$ We can simplify this expression using (\[vdim\]): $$\label {index}
n(Y, \spc, g) = \text{ind}_{\cc}(D^+_A) - \frac{c_1(\hat L)^2 -
\sigma(X)}{8}.$$ We have $n(Y, \spc, g) \in \frac{1}{8N} \zz,$ where $N$ is the cardinality of $H_1(Y; \zz).$
Moreover, if $Y$ is an integral homology sphere the intersection form on $H_2(X)$ is unimodular and this implies that $c_1(\hat L)^2 \equiv
\sigma(X)$ mod $8$ (see for example [@GS]). Therefore in this case $n(Y, \spc,g)$ is an integer.
In general, we need to see that $n(Y, \spc, g)$ does not depend on $X.$ We follow [@N] and express it in terms of two eta invariants of $Y.$ First, the index theorem of Atiyah, Patodi and Singer for four-manifolds with boundary [@APS1] gives $$\label{dirac}
\text{ind}_{\cc}(D_{\hat A}^+) = \frac{1}{8} \int_{X} \Bigl(
-\frac{1}{3} p_1 + c_1(\hat A)^2\Bigr) + \frac{\eta_{dir} - k(\dir)}{2}.$$ Here $p_1$ and $c_1(\hat A) = \frac{i}{2\pi} F_{\hat A}$ are the Pontryagin and Chern forms on $X,$ while $k(\dir) = \dim \ker \dir = \dim
\ker l$ as $H_1(Y; \rr) =0.$ The eta invariant of a self-adjoint elliptic operator $D$ on $Y$ is defined to be the value at $0$ of the analytic continuation of the function $$\eta_D(s) = \sum_{\lambda \neq 0} \text{sign}(\lambda)
|\lambda|^{-s},$$ where $\lambda$ runs over the eigenvalues of $D.$ In our case $\eta_{dir} = \eta_{\not\partial}(0).$
Let us also introduce the odd signature operator on $\Omega^1(Y) \oplus \Omega^0(Y)$ by $$sign = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} *d & -d \\
-d^* & 0 \end{array} \right].$$ Then the signature theorem for manifolds with boundary [@APS1] gives $$\label{sign}
\sigma (X) = \frac{1}{3}\int_X p_1 - \eta_{sign}.$$ Putting (\[index\]), (\[dirac\]), and (\[sign\]) together we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
n(Y, \spc, g) &=& \frac{1}{8} \Bigl(\int_X -\frac{1}{3} p_1 + c_1(\hat A)^2
\Bigr) + \frac{\eta_{dir}-k(\dir)}{2} - \frac{c_1(\hat L)^2 -
\sigma(X)}{8}\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \bigl( \eta_{dir}-k(\dir) - \frac{\eta_{sign}}{4}
\bigr).\end{aligned}$$
[**Warning**]{}Our sign conventions are somewhat different from those in [@APS1]. In our setting the manifold $X$ has its boundary “on the right,” so that $\del/\del t$ on $[0,1] \times Y$ is the outward normal. Atiyah, Patodi, and Singer formulated their theorem using the inward normal, so in order to be consistent we have applied their theorem with $-\dir$ as the operator on the 3–manifold.
Proof of the main theorem {#sec:proofs}
=========================
It is now the time to use the tools that we have developed so far to prove Theorem \[jlambda\] announced in the introduction. Recall that we are interested in comparing the spectra $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu},
0,n(Y, \spc, g)).$ We will denote by $m_{\lambda}$ the dimension of the real part of $V^0_{\lambda}$ (coming from eigenspaces of $*d$), and by $n_{\lambda}$ the complex dimension of the spinorial part of $V^0_{\lambda}.$
\[Proof of Theorem \[jlambda\]\] First let us keep the metric on $Y$ fixed and prove that $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ $0,n(Y, \spc, g))$ are naturally isomorphic for different $\lambda \leq
\lambda^*, \mu \geq \mu^*.$ In fact we just need to do this for $\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu},$ because $n(Y, \spc, g)$ does not depend on $\lambda$ and $\mu.$
It is not hard to see that for any $\lambda$ and $\mu,$ the finite energy trajectories of $l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu}cp^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ are contained in $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$ Let $\lambda' \leq \lambda \leq \lambda^*, \mu' \geq \mu \geq \mu^*.$ Then $\overline {B(2R)} \cap V_{\lambda'}^{\mu'}$ is an isolating neighborhood for all $S_{a}^b,a\in [\lambda',
\lambda], b \in [\mu, \mu'].$ By Property 3 of the Conley index, for $\tilde\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ the flow of $u_{\lambda'}^{\mu'} \cdot
(l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu}c)$ on $V_{\lambda'}^{\mu'},$ $$I_{\lambda'}^{\mu'} \cong I_{S^1}(\tilde\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu},
S_{\lambda}^{\mu}).$$ Let $V_{\lambda'}^{\mu'} = V_{\lambda}^{\mu} \oplus \bar V$ so that $\bar V$ is the orthogonal complement of $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ in the $L^2$ metric, a span of eigenspaces of $l.$ Another isolating neighborhood of $S_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ is then $(\overline{B(3R/2)} \cap V_{\lambda}^{\mu}) \times D,$ where $D$ is a small closed ball in $\bar V$ centered at the origin. The flow $\tilde\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ is then homotopic to the product of $\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ and a flow $\psi$ on $\bar
V$ which is generated by a vector field that is identical to $l$ on $D.$ From the definition of the Conley index it is easy to see that $I_{S^1}(\psi,\{0\}) \cong I_{S^1}(\psi_0, \{0\}).$ Here $\psi_0$ is the linear flow generated by $l$ on $\bar V,$ and the corresponding equivariant Conley index can be computed using Property 2 of the Conley index: it equals $(V_{\lambda'}^{\lambda})^+.$
By the same Property 2 we obtain $$I_{\lambda'}^{\mu'} \cong I_{S^1}(\tilde\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu},
S_{\lambda}^{\mu}) \cong (V_{\lambda'}^{\lambda})^+ \wedge I_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$$ This implies that $\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ and $\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda'}}I_{\lambda'}^{\mu'}$ are canonically isomorphic.
Next we study what happens when we vary the metric on $Y.$ We start by exhibiting an isomorphism between the objects $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu}, 0, n(Y,\spc,
g))$ constructed for two metrics $g_0, g_1$ on $Y$ sufficiently close to each other. Consider a smooth homotopy $(g_t)_{0\leq t \leq 1}$ between the two metrics, which is constant near $t=0.$ We will use the subscript $t$ to describe that the metric in which each object is constructed is $g_t.$ Assuming all the $g_t$ are very close to each other, we can arrange so that:
- there exist $R, -\lambda^*, \mu^*$ large enough and independent of $t$ so that Proposition \[main\] is true for all metrics $g_t$ and for all values $\lambda \leq \lambda^*, \mu \geq \mu^*;$
- there exist some $\lambda < \lambda^*$ and $\mu > \mu^*$ such that neither $\lambda$ nor $\mu$ is an eigenvalue for any $l_t.$ Hence the spaces $(V_{\lambda}^{\mu})_t$ have the same dimension for all $t,$ so they make up a vector bundle over $[0,1].$ Via a linear isomorphism that varies continuously in $t$ we can identify all $(V_{\lambda}^{\mu})_t$ as being the same space $V_{\lambda}^{\mu};$
- for any $t_1, t_2 \in [0,1]$ we have $ B(R)_{t_1} \subset B(2R)_{t_2}.$ Here we already think of the balls as subsets of the same space $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$
Then $$\bigcap_{t\in [0,1]} \overline{B(2R)}_t$$ is a compact isolating neighborhood for $S_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ in any metric $g_t$ with the flow $(\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu})_t$ on $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$ Note that $(\vp_{\lambda}^{\mu})_t$ varies continuously in $t.$ By Property 3 of the Conley index, $$(I_{\lambda}^{\mu})_0 \cong (I_{\lambda}^{\mu})_1.$$ The difference $n_{\lambda, 0} - n_{\lambda, 1}$ is the number of eigenvalue lines of $-\dir_t, t\in [0,1]$ that cross the $-\epsilon$ line, counted with sign, ie, the spectral flow $SF(-\dir_t)$ as defined in [@APS3]. Atiyah, Patodi and Singer prove that it equals the index of the operator $\del/\del t + \dir_t$ on $\hat Y = [0,1] \times Y$ with the metric $g_t$ on the slice $t\times Y$ and with the vector $\del/\del t$ always of unit length.
Choose a 4–manifold $X_0$ as in the previous section, with a neighborhood of the boundary isometric to $\rr_+
\times Y.$ We can glue $\hat Y$ to the end of $X_0$ to obtain a manifold $X_1$ diffeomorphic to $X_0.$ Then $$\text{ind}_{\cc}(D_{\hat A,1}^+) = \text{ind}_{\cc}(D_{\hat A,
0}^+) + SF(-\dir_t)$$ by excision. From the formula (\[index\]) and using the fact that $c_1(L), \chi$ and $\sigma$ do not depend on the metric we get $$n(Y, \spc, g_1) - n(Y, \spc, g_0) = SF(-\dir_t) = n_{\lambda,0} -
n_{\lambda,1}.$$ It follows that $(V^0_{\lambda})_0 \oplus \cc^{n(Y, \spc, g_0)} \cong
(V^0_{\lambda})_1 \oplus \cc^{n(Y, \spc, g_1)}$ because the $*d$ operator has no spectral flow (for any metric its kernel is zero since $H_1(Y; \rr)
=0$). The orientation class of this isomorphism is canonical, because complex vector spaces carry canonical orientations.
Thus we have constructed an isomorphism between the objects $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu}, 0, n(Y,$ $\spc,g))$ for two different metrics close to each other. Since the space of metrics $Met$ is path connected (in fact contractible), we can compose such isomorphisms and reach any metric from any other one.
In order to have an object in $\spe$ well-defined up to [*canonical*]{} isomorphism, we need to make sure that the isomorphisms obtained by going from one metric to another along different paths are identical. Because $Met$ is contractible, this reduces to proving that when we go around a small loop in $Met$ the construction above induces the identity morphism on $(\Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}I_{\lambda}^{\mu}, 0, n(Y, \spc,g))$. Such a small loop bounds a disc $D$ in $Met,$ and we can find $\mu$ and $\lambda$ so that they are not in the spectrum of $*d \oplus \dir$ for any metric in $D.$ Then the vector spaces $V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ form a vector bundle over $D,$ which implies that they can all be identified with one vector space, on which the Conley indices for different metrics are the same up to canonical isomorphism. The vector spaces $V^0_{\lambda} \oplus \cc^{n(Y,
\spc, g)}$ are also related to each other by canonical isomorphisms in the homotopy category. Hence going around the loop must give back the identity morphism in $\spe.$
A similar homotopy argument proves independence of the choice of $R$ in Proposition \[main\]. Thus $\swf(Y, \spc)$ must depend only on $Y$ and on its $spin^c$ structure, up to canonical isomorphism in the category $\spe.$
The irreducible Seiberg–Witten–Floer invariants {#sec:irr}
===============================================
In this section we construct a decomposition of the Seiberg–Witten–Floer invariant into its reducible and irreducible parts. This decomposition only exists provided that the reducible $\theta$ is an isolated critical point of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional. To make sure that this condition is satisfied, we need to depart here from our nonperturbative approach to Seiberg–Witten theory. We introduce the *perturbed Seiberg–Witten equations* on $Y:$ $$\label{swp}
*(da-d\nu) + \tau(\phi, \phi)=0, \hskip6pt \dir_a \phi=0,$$ where $\nu$ is a fixed $L^2_{k+1}$ imaginary 1-form on $Y$ such that $d^*
\nu =0.$
In general, the solutions to (\[swp\]) are the critical points of the perturbed Chern–Simons–Dirac functional: $$CSD_{\nu} (a, \phi) = CSD(a, \phi) + \frac{1}{2}\int_Y a \wedge d\nu.$$ Our compactness results (Proposition \[trajectories\] and Proposition \[main\]) are still true for the perturbed Seiberg–Witten trajectories and their approximations in the finite dimensional subspaces. The only difference consists in replacing the compact map $c$ with $c_{\nu} = c - *d\nu.$ There is still a unique reducible solution to the equation $(l+c_{\nu})(a,
\phi) =0,$ namely $\theta_{\nu} = (\nu, 0).$ Homotopy arguments similar to those in the proof of Theorem \[jlambda\] show that the $\swf$ invariant obtained from the perturbed Seiberg–Witten trajectories (in the same way as before) is isomorphic to $\swf(Y, \spc).$
The advantage of working with the perturbed equations is that we can assume any nice properties which are satisfied for generic $\nu.$ The conditions that are needed for our discussion are pretty mild:
\[defi\] [A perturbation $\nu \in L^2_{k+1}(\mi\Omega^1(Y))$ is called *good* if $\ker \dir_{\nu} = 0$ and there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that there are no critical points $x$ of $CSD_{\nu}$ with $CSD_{\nu}(x) \in (0,
\epsilon).$]{}
\[generic\] There is a Baire set of perturbations $\nu$ which are good.
Proposition 3 in [@Fr] states that there is a Baire set of forms $\nu$ for which all the critical points of $CSD_{\nu}$ are nondegenerate. Nondegenerate critical points are isolated. Since their moduli space is compact, we deduce that it is finite, so there exists $\epsilon$ as required in Definition \[defi\]. Furthermore, the condition $\ker \dir_{\nu} = 0$ is equivalent to the fact that the reducible $\theta_{\nu}$ is nondegenerate.
Let us choose a good perturbation $\nu,$ and let us look at the finite dimensional approximation in the space $V_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$ For large $\mu$ and $-\lambda,$ it is easy to see that we must have $\ker
(\dir_{p^{\mu}_{\lambda} \nu}) =0.$ This implies that $\theta_{p^{\mu}_{\lambda} \nu},$ the reducible solution to $l +
p^{\mu}_{\lambda} c_{\nu} =0,$ is an isolated critical point of $CSD_{\nu}|_{V^{\mu}_{\lambda}}.$ Note that $CSD_{\nu}
(\theta_{p^{\mu}_{\lambda} \nu}) = 0,$ and there are no critical points $x$ of $CSD_{\nu}|_{V^{\mu}_{\lambda}}$ with $CSD_{\nu}(x) \in (0,
\epsilon/2).$ Thus, in addition to $S = S^{\mu}_{\lambda},$ we can construct four other interesting isolated invariant sets for the flow $\vp^{\mu}_{\lambda}:$
- $\sir = $the set of critical points $x$ of $CSD_{\nu}|_{V^{\mu}_{\lambda}}$ with $CSD_{\nu}(x) > 0,$ together with all the trajectories between them; when it becomes necessary to indicate the dependence on cutoffs, we will write $(\sir)^{\mu}_{\lambda}$;
- $\sirl =$ same as above, but with $CSD_{\nu} (x) \leq 0$ and requiring $x$ to be irreducible;
- $\slo =$ same as above, with $CSD_{\nu} (x) \leq 0$ but allowing $x$ to be the reducible;
- finally, $\Theta = \{ \theta_{p^{\mu}_{\lambda} \nu} \}.$
Since every trajectory contained in $S$ must end up in a critical point and $CSD_{\nu}$ is decreasing along trajectories, $\slo$ must be an attractor in $S.$ Its dual repeller is $\sir,$ so by Proposition \[at-rep\] we have a coexact sequence (omitting the flow $\vp^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ and the group $S^1$ from the notation): $$\label{1coex}
I(\slo
) \to I(S) \to I(\sir) \to \Sigma I(\slo) \to \cdots$$ Similarly, $(\sirl, \Theta)$ is an attractor-repeller pair in $S_{\leq
0},$ so there is another coexact sequence: $$\label{2coex}
I(\sirl) \to I(\slo) \to I(\Theta) \to \Sigma I(\sirl) \to
\cdots$$ These two sequences give a decomposition of $I(S)$ into several pieces which are easier to understand. Indeed, $I(\Theta) \cong
(V^0_{\lambda})^+.$ Also, the intersection of $S$ with the fixed point set of $V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ is simply $\Theta.$ This implies that $\sir$ and $\sirl$ have neighborhoods in which the action of $S^1$ is free, so $I(\sir)$ and $I(\sirl)$ are $S^1$–free as well (apart from the basepoint). Denote by $\isir$ the quotient of $I(\sir) \setminus \{*\}$ by the action of $S^1.$
Let us now rewrite these constructions to get something independent of the cutoffs. Just like we did in the construction of $\swf,$ we can consider the following object of $\spe:$ $$\swfir(Y, \spc,g, \nu) = \Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}
I(\sir)^{\mu}_{\lambda}$$ and prove that it is independent of $\mu$ and $\lambda$ (but not on the metric!) up to canonical isomorphism. Similarly we get invariants $\swfirl$ and $\swfl.$ The coexact sequences (\[1coex\]) and (\[2coex\]) give rise to exact triangles in the category $\spe$ (in the terminology of [@Ma]): $$\begin{gathered}
\swfl \to (\swf, 0, n(Y,\spc,g)) \to \swfir \to \Sigma (\swfl) \to
\cdots \\
\swfirl \to \swfl \to S^0 \to \Sigma (\swfirl) \to \cdots \end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, we could also consider the object $$\swfnir(Y, \spc,g, \nu) = \Sigma^{-V_{\lambda}^0} \isir$$ which lives in the nonequivariant graded suspension category (see [@Ma]). This is basically the “quotient” of $\swfir$ under the $S^1$ action. It is independent of $\lambda$ and $\mu,$ but not of the metric and perturbation. We could call it the (nonequivariant) *positive irreducible Seiberg–Witten–Floer stable homotopy type* of $(Y, \spc, g, \nu).$ Similarly we can define another metric-dependent invariant $\swfnirl.$\
[**Remark**]{}If the flows $\vp^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ satisfy the Morse-Smale condition, then the homology of $\swfnir$ (resp. $\swfnirl$) coincides with the Morse homology computed from the irreducible critical points with $CSD_{\nu}
> 0$ (resp. $CSD_{\nu} \leq 0$) and the trajectories between them. But we could also consider all the irreducible critical points and compute a Morse homology $SWHF (Y, \spc, g, \nu)$, which is the usual irreducible Seiberg–Witten–Floer homology (see [@K], [@MW]). We expect a long exact sequence: $$\label {exact}
\cdots \to H_*(\swfnirl) \to SWHF_* \to H_*(\swfnir) \to H_{*-1}(\swfnirl) \to
\cdots$$ However, it is important to note that (\[exact\]) does not come from an exact triangle and, in fact, there is no natural stable homotopy invariant whose homology is $SWHF.$ The reason is that the interaction of the reducible with the trajectories between irreducibles can be ignored in homology (it is a substratum of higher codimension than the relevant one), but it cannot be ignored in homotopy.
Four-manifolds with boundary {#sec:bdry}
============================
In this section we prove Theorem \[bd\]. Let $X$ be a compact oriented 4–manifold with boundary $Y.$ As in section \[sec:swf\], we let $X$ have a metric such that a neighborhood of its boundary is isometric to $[0,1] \times Y,$ with $\del X = \{1\} \times Y.$ Assume that $X$ has a $spin^c$ structure $\sps$ which extends $\spc.$ Let $W^+, W^-$ be the two spinor bundles, $W = W^+ \oplus W^-,$ and $\hat L$ the determinant line bundle. (We shall often put a hat over the four-dimensional objects.) We also suppose that $X$ is *homology oriented*, which means that we are given orientations on $H^1(X; \rr)$ and $H^2_+(X; \rr).$
Our goal is to obtain a morphism $\Psi$ between the Thom space of a bundle over the Picard torus $Pic^0(X)$ and the stable homotopy invariant $\swf(Y, \spc),$ with a possible shift in degree. We construct a representative for this morphism as the finite dimensional approximation of the Seiberg–Witten map for $X.$
Let $\hat A_0$ be a fixed $spin^c$ connection on $W.$ Then every other $spin^c$ connection on $W$ can be written $\hat A_0 + \hat a, \hat a \in \mi\Omega^1(X).$ There is a corresponding Dirac operator $$D_{\hat A_0 + \hat a} = D_{\hat A_0} + \hat \rho (\hat a),$$ where $\hat \rho$ denotes Clifford multiplication on the four-dimensional spinors. Let $\mathcal {C}$ be the space of $spin^c$ connections of the form $\hat A_0 + \ker \hat d.$ An appropriate Coulomb gauge condition for the forms on $X$ is $\hat a \in \im (\hat
d^*),
\hat a|_{\del X} (\nu) =0,$ where $\nu$ is the unit normal to the boundary and $\hat d^*$ is the four-dimensional $d^*$ operator. Denote by $\Omega^1_g(X)$ the space of such forms. Then, for each $\mu
\geq 0$ we have a *Seiberg–Witten map* $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde {SW}^{\mu} : \mathcal{C} \times (\mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^+)) & \to & \mathcal{C} \times (\mi\Omega^2_+(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^-) \oplus V^{\mu})\\
(\hat A, \hat a, \hat \phi) &\to & (\hat A, F^+_{\hat A + \hat a} -
\sigma (\hat \phi, \hat \phi), D_{\hat A + \hat a} (\hat \phi),
p^{\mu} \Pi i^*(\hat a, \hat \phi)) \end{aligned}$$ Here $i^*$ is the restriction to $Y$, $\Pi$ denotes Coulomb projection (the nonlinear map defined in section \[sec:coulomb\]), and $p^{\mu}$ is the orthogonal projection to $V^{\mu} =
V^{\mu}_{-\infty}.$ Note that $\widetilde {SW}^{\mu}$ is equivariant under the action of the based gauge group $\hat \go = \text{Map}_0(X, S^1);$ this acts on connections in the usual way, on spinors by multiplication, and on forms trivially. The quotient $\widetilde {SW}^{\mu} / \hat \go$ is an $S^1$–equivariant, fiber preserving map over the Picard torus $$Pic^0(X) = H^1(X; \rr) / H^1(X; \zz) = \mathcal{C}/\hat \go.$$ Let us study the restriction of this map to a fiber (corresponding to a fixed $\hat A \in \mathcal{C}$): $$SW^{\mu} : \mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^+) \to \mi\Omega^2_+(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^-) \oplus V^{\mu}.$$ Note that $SW^{\mu}$ depends on $\mu$ only through its $V^{\mu}$–valued direct summand $i^{\mu}$; we write $SW^{\mu} = sw \oplus i^{\mu}.$ The reason for introducing the cut-off $\mu$ is that we want the linearization of the Seiberg–Witten map to be Fredholm.
Let us decompose $SW^{\mu}$ into its linear and nonlinear parts: $$L^{\mu} = \bigr (d^+ , D_{\hat A}, p^{\mu} (\pr_{\ker d^*} i^*)
\bigl); \hskip5pt C^{\mu} = SW^{\mu} - L^{\mu}.$$ Here $\pr_{\ker d^*}$ is a shorthand for $(\pr_{\ker d^*}, \text{id})$ acting on the 1-forms and spinors on $Y,$ respectively.
As in [@T], we need to introduce fractionary Sobolev norms. For the following result we refer to [@APS1] and [@T]:
\[taubes\] The linear map $$L^{\mu} : \sobf \bigl(\mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^+)\bigr) \to \sobs \bigl(\mi\Omega^2_+(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^-)\bigr) \oplus L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu})$$ is Fredholm and has index $$2\ind_{\cc} (D^+_{\hat A}) - b_2^+(X) - \dim V_0^{\mu}.$$ Here $\ind_{\cc} (D^+_{\hat A})$ is the index of the operator $D^+_{\hat
A}$ acting on the positive spinors $\hat \phi$ with spectral boundary condition $p^0 i^*(\hat \phi) = 0.$
Equivalently, there is a uniform bound for all $\hat x \in
\mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus \Gamma(W^+)$: $$\| \hat x \|_{\sobf} \leq C(\mu) \cdot \bigr(\|(d^+ \oplus D_{\hat A}
) \hat x \|_{\sobs} + \|p^{\mu} \pr_{\ker d^*} i^*
(\hat x)\|_{L^2_{k+1}} + \| \hat x\|_{L^2} \bigl),$$ for some constant $C(\mu) > 0.$
The nonlinear part is: $$\begin{gathered}
C^{\mu} : \sobf \bigl(\mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^+)\bigr) \to\hbox to 2.5in {\hss}\\
\hbox to 1in {\hss} \sobs \bigl(\mi\Omega^2_+(X) \oplus
\Gamma(W^-) \oplus H^1(X;\rr)\bigr) \oplus L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu})\\
C^{\mu}(\hat a, \hat \phi) = \bigl(F^+_{\hat A} - \sigma(\hat \phi,
\hat \phi), \hat \rho(\hat a) \hat \phi, 0, p^{\mu} (\Pi - (\pr_{\ker
d^*}, \text{id})) i^*(\hat a, \hat \phi)\bigr).\end{gathered}$$ Just like in three dimensions, the first three terms are either constant or quadratic in the variables so they define compact maps between the respective Sobolev spaces $\sobf$ and $\sobs.$ The last term is not compact. However, as will be seen in the proof, it does not pose problems to doing finite dimensional approximation. The use of this technique will lead us to the definition of $\Psi,$ the invariant of 4–manifolds with boundary mentioned in the introduction.
Let $U_n$ be any sequence of finite dimensional subspaces of $\sobs
(\mi\Omega^2_+(X) \oplus \Gamma(W^-))$ such that $\pr_{U_n} \to 1$ pointwise. For each $\lambda < 0,$ let $U_n' = (L^{\mu})^{-1}
(U_n \times V^{\mu}_{\lambda})$ and consider the map $$\pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu}_{\lambda}} SW^{\mu}= L^{\mu} + \pr_{U_n
\times V^{\mu}_{\lambda}} C^{\mu} : U_n' \to U_n \times
V^{\mu}_{\lambda}.$$ It is easy to see that for all $n$ sufficiently large, $L^{\mu}$ restricted to $U_n'$ (with values in $U_n\times
V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$) has the same index as $L^{\mu}.$ Indeed, the kernel is the same, while the cokernel has the same dimension provided that $U_n \times
V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ is transversal to the image of $L^{\mu}.$ Since $\pr_{U_n} \to 1$ pointwise when $n \to \infty,$ it suffices to show that $V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ is transversal to the image of $p^{\mu} (\pr_{\ker
d^*} i^*)$ in $V^{\mu}.$ But it is easy to see that $p^{\mu}
(\pr_{\ker d^*} i^*)$ is surjective.
We have obtained a map between finite dimensional spaces, and we seek to get from it an element in a stable homotopy group of $I_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ in the form of a map between $(U_n')^+$ and $(U_n)^+
\wedge I_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$
This can be done as follows. Choose a sequence $\epsilon_n \to 0,$ and denote by $B(U_n, \epsilon_n)$ and $S(U_n,
\epsilon_n)$ the closed ball and the sphere of radius $\epsilon_n$ in $U_n$ (with the $\sobs$ norm), respectively. Let $\tilde K$ be the preimage of $B(U_n,
\epsilon_n) \times
V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ under the map $L^{\mu},$ and let $\tilde K_1$ and $\tilde K_2$ be the intersections of $\tilde K$ with $B(U_n', R_0)$ and $S(U_n', R_0),$ respectively. Here $R_0$ is a constant to be defined later, and $U_n'$ has the $\sobf$ norm. Finally, let $K_1, K_2$ be the images of $\tilde K_1$ and $\tilde
K_2$ under the composition of $SW^{\mu}$ with projection to the factor $V^{\mu}_{\lambda}.$ Assume that there exists an index pair $(N,
L)$ for $S^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ such that $K_1 \subset N$ and $K_2 \subset L.$ Then we could define the pointed map we were looking for: $$B(U_n', R_0)/ S(U_n', R_0) \to (B(U_n, \epsilon_n) \times N)/ (B(U_n,
\epsilon_n) \times L \cup S(U_n, \epsilon_n) \times N),$$ by applying $\pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu}_{\lambda}} \circ SW^{\mu}$ to the elements of $\tilde K$ and sending everything else to the basepoint. Equivalently, via a homotopy equivalence we would get a map: $$\Psi_{n, \mu, \lambda, \hat A} :(U_n')^+ \to (U_n)^+ \wedge
I_{\lambda}^{\mu}.$$ Of course, for this to be true we need to prove:
\[g0\] For $\mu, -\lambda$ sufficiently large and $n$ sufficiently large compared to $\mu$ and $-\lambda,$ there exists an index pair $(N, L)$ for $S^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ such that $K_1 \subset N$ and $K_2
\subset L.$
Let us first state an auxiliary result that will be needed. The proof follows from the same argument as the proof of Proposition \[main\], so we omit it.
\[g1\] Let $t_0 \in \rr.$ Suppose $\mu_n, -\lambda_n \to
\infty,$ and we have approximate Seiberg–Witten half-trajectories $x_n : [t_0,
\infty) \to L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})$ such that $x_n(t) \in
\overline{B(2R)}$ for all $t \in [t_0, \infty).$ Then $x_n (t) \in B(R)$ for any $t > t_0$ and for any $n$ sufficiently large. Also, for any $s > t_0,$ a subsequence of $x_n(t)$ converges to some $x(t)$ in $C^m$ norm, uniformly in $t$ for $t \in [s, \infty)$ and for any $m >0.$
\[Proof of Proposition \[g0\]\] We choose an isolating neighborhood for $S^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ to be $\overline{B(2R)} \cap V^{\mu}_{\lambda}.$ Here $R,$ the constant in Proposition \[main\], is chosen to be large enough so that $B(R)$ contains the image under $i^{\mu}$ of the ball of radius $R_0$ in $\sobf (\mi\Omega^1_g(X) \oplus \Gamma(W^+)).$ By virtue of Theorem \[indexpairs\], all we need to show is that $K_1$ and $K_2$ satisfy conditions (i) and (ii) in its hypothesis.
**Step 1**Assume that there exist sequences $\mu_n,
-\lambda_n \to \infty$ and a subsequence of $U_n$ (denoted still $U_n$ for simplicity) such that the corresponding $K_1$ do not satisfy (i) for any $n.$ Then we can find $(\hat a_n, \hat \phi_n) \in B(U_n', R_0)$ and $t_n \geq 0$ such that $$\pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}} \circ SW^{\mu_n}(\hat a_n, \hat
\phi_n) = (u_n, x_n)$$ with $$\|u_n \|_{\sobs} \leq \epsilon_n; \hskip4pt
(\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})_{[0, \infty)}(x_n) \subset
\overline{B(2R)}; \hskip4pt (\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})_
{t_n}(x_n) \in \del \overline{B(2R)}.$$ We distinguish two cases: when $t_n \to \infty$ and when $t_n$ has a convergent subsequence. In the first case, let $$y_n : \rr \to L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})$$ be the trajectory of $\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}$ such that $y_n (-t_n) =
x_n.$ Then, because of our hypotheses, $\| y_n (0) \|_{L^2_{k+1}}$ $= 2R$ and $y_n (t) \in \overline {B(2R)}$ for all $t \in [-t_n, \infty).$ Since $t_n \to \infty,$ by Lemma \[g1\] we have that $y_n(0) \in B(R)$ for $n$ sufficiently large. This is a contradiction.
In the second case, by passing to a subsequence we can assume that $t_n
\to t^* \geq 0.$ We use a different normalization: $$y_n : [0, \infty) \to L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})$$ is the trajectory of $\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}$ such that $y_n (0) = x_n.$ Then $\| y_n (t_n) \|_{L^2_{k+1}} = 2R$ and $y_n (t) \in \overline
{B(2R)}$ for all $t \geq 0.$ By the Arzela–Ascoli Theorem we know that $y_n$ converges to some $y : [0, \infty) \to V$ in $L^2_k$ norm, uniformly on compact sets of $t\in [0, \infty).$ This $y$ must be the Coulomb projection of a Seiberg–Witten trajectory.
Let $z_n = y_n -y.$ From Lemma \[g1\] we know that the convergence $z_n \to 0$ can be taken to be in $C^{\infty},$ but only over compact subsets of $t \in (0, \infty).$ However, we can get something stronger than $L^2_k$ for $t=0$ as well. Since $l$ is self-adjoint, there is a well-defined compact operator $\me^l : L^2_{k+1} (V^0) \to L^2_{k+1}(V^0).$ We have the estimate: $$\begin{aligned}
\| p^0 z_n(0) - \me^l p^0 z_n(1) \|_{L^2_{k+1}} &=& \| \int_0^1
\delt(\me^{tl}
p^0 z_n(t)) \dif t \|_{L^2_{k+1}} \\
&\leq& \int_0^1 \| \me^{tl} p^0 \bigl(\delt z_n(t) +
lz_n(t)\bigr )\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t\end{aligned}$$ But since $y_n$ and $y$ are trajectories of the respective flows, if we denote $\pi_n = p^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}, \pi^n = 1-\pi_n$ we have $$\delt z_n(t) + lz_n(t) = c(y(t)) - \pi_n c(y_n(t)),$$ so that $$\label {bigest}
\| p^0 z_n(0) - \me^l p^0 z_n(1) \|_{L^2_{k+1}} \leq \int_0^1 \|
\me^{tl} p^0 \pi_n \bigl (c(y(t)) - c(y_n(t))\bigr )\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t
+$$ $$\hspace {120pt} + \int_0^1 \| \me^{tl} p^0 (\pi^n
c(y(t)))\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t.$$ Fix $\epsilon > 0.$ We break each of the two integrals on the right hand side of (\[bigest\]) into $\int_0^{\epsilon} + \int_{\epsilon}^1.$ Recall that $y_n(t)$ live in $\overline{B(2R)}.$ This must also be true for $y(t)$ because of the weak convergence $y_n(t) \to y(t)$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ Since $\me^{tl} p^0$ and $c$ are continuous maps from $L^2_{k+1}$ to $L^2_{k+1},$ there is a bound: $$\label {est1}
\int_0^{\epsilon} \| \me^{tl}
p^0 \pi_n \bigl (c(y(t)) - c(y_n(t))\bigr )\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t +
\int_0^{\epsilon} \| \me^{tl} p^0 (\pi^n c(y(t)))\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t
\leq C_1 \cdot \epsilon,$$ where $C_1$ is a constant independent of $\epsilon.$
On the other hand, on the interval $[\epsilon, 1]$ we have $\| \me^{tl}
p^0\| \leq \| \me^{\epsilon l} p^0 \|$ and $\me^{\epsilon l} p^0$ is a compact map from $L^2_{k+1}$ to $L^2_{k+1}.$ We get $$\int_{\epsilon}^1 \| \me^{tl} p^0 (\pi^n c(y(t)))\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t
\leq \int_{\epsilon}^1 \| \pi^n \me^{\epsilon l} p^0
c(y(t))\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t.$$ In addition, $\me^{\epsilon l} p^0 c(y(t))$ live inside a compact set of $L^2_{k+1}(V)$ and we know that $\pi^n \to 0$ uniformly on such sets. Therefore, $$\label {est2}
\int_{\epsilon}^1 \| \me^{tl} p^0 (\pi^n c(y(t)))\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t
\to 0.$$ Similarly, using the fact that $y_n(t) \to y(t)$ in $L^2_{k+1}(V)$ uniformly in $t$ for $t \in [\epsilon, 1],$ we get: $$\label {est3}
\int_{\epsilon}^1 \| \me^{tl}
p^0 \pi_n \bigl (c(y(t)) - c(y_n(t))\bigr )\|_{L^2_{k+1}} \dif t \to 0.$$ Putting (\[bigest\]), (\[est1\]), (\[est2\]), and (\[est3\]) together and letting $\epsilon \to 0$ we obtain: $$\| p^0 z_n(0) - \me^l p^0 z_n(1) \|_{L^2_{k+1}} \to 0.$$ Since $z_n (1) \to 0$ in $L^2_{k+1},$ the same must be true for $p^0 z_n
(0).$ Recall that $z_n (0) = x_n$ is the boundary value of an approximate Seiberg–Witten solution on $X:$ $$\pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}} \circ SW^{\mu_n}(\hat a_n,
\hat \phi_n) = (u_n, x_n),$$ with $\|u_n\|_{\sobs} \leq \epsilon_n.$ Equivalently, $$\bigl(L^{\mu_n} + \pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}} \circ
C^{\mu_n}\bigr ) (\hat a_n, \hat \phi_n) = (u_n, x_n).$$ Since $\hat x_n = (\hat a_n, \hat \phi_n)$ are uniformly bounded in $\sobf$ norm, after passing to a subsequence we can assume that they converge to some $\hat x = (\hat a, \hat \phi)$ weakly in $\sobf.$ Changing everything by a gauge, we can assume without loss of generality that $i^*(\hat a) \in \ker d^*.$ Now Proposition \[taubes\] says that: $$\begin{gathered}
\label {something}
\| \hat x_n - \hat x \|_{\sobf} \leq C(0) \cdot \bigr(\|(d^+
\oplus D_{\hat A} ) (\hat x_n - \hat
x) \|_{\sobs}\\
+ \|p^0 \pr_{\ker d^*} i^* (\hat x_n - \hat x)\|_{L^2_{k+1}} + \|
\hat x_n - \hat x\|_{L^2} \bigl).\end{gathered}$$
We already know that the last term on the right hand side goes to $0$ as $n \to \infty.$ Let us discuss the first term. First, it is worth seeing that $sw(\hat x)=0.$ Let $sw = \hat l + \hat c$ be the decomposition of $sw$ into its linear and compact parts; $\hat l$ and $\hat c$ are direct summands of $L^{\mu}$ and $C^{\mu},$ respectively. We have $\pr_{U_n} sw(\hat x_n) =u_n \to 0$ in $\sobs$ (because $\epsilon_n \to 0$ by construction), and $$sw(\hat x) - \pr_{U_n} sw(\hat x_n) = \hat l(\hat x - \hat x_n) +
\pr_{U_n} (\hat c (\hat x) - \hat c (\hat x_n)) + (1-\pr_{U_n})\hat c(\hat
x).$$ Using the fact that $\hat x_n \to \hat x$ weakly in $\sobf$ we get that each term on the right hand side converges to $0$ weakly in $\sobs.$ Hence $sw(\hat x) = 0.$ Now the first term on the right hand side of (\[something\]) is $$\hat l(\hat x_n - \hat x) = u_n + \pr_{U_n}(\hat c(\hat x) - \hat
c(\hat x_n)) + (1-\pr_{U_n}) \hat c(\hat x).$$ It is easy to see that this converges to $0$ in $\sobs$ norm. We are using here the fact that $\pr_{U_n} \to 1$ uniformly on compact sets.
Similarly one can show that the second term in (\[something\]) converges to $0.$ We already know that $p^0 p^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n} \Pi i^* (\hat
x_n) = p^0 x_n$ converges to $p^0 x.$ This was proved starting from the boundedness of the $y_n$ on the cylinder on the right. In the same way, using the boundedness of the $\hat x_n$ on the manifold $X$ on the left (which has a cylindrical end), it follows that $p_0 x_n \to p_0 x$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ Thus, $x_n \to x$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ Let $i^*(\hat x_n) = (a_n + db_n, \phi_n)$ with $a_n \in
\ker d^*.$ We know that $x_n = p^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n} (a_n,
e^{ib_n}\phi_n)$ converges. Also, $\hat x_n \to \hat x$ weakly in $\sobf,$ hence strongly in $\sobs.$ This implies that $db_n \to 0$ in $L^2_k$ and $b_n \to 0$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ Since $p^0 \pr_{ker d^*}
i^* \hat x_n = p^0 (a_n, \phi_n) \in V^0_{\lambda_n},$ they must converge in $L^2_{k+1}$ just like the $x_n.$ We are using the Sobolev multiplication $L^2_{k+1} \times L^2_{k+1} \to L^2_{k+1}.$
Putting all of these together, we conclude that the expression in (\[something\]) converges to $0.$ Thus $\hat x_n \to \hat x$ in $\sobf.$ We also know that $sw(\hat x) =0.$ In addition, since $i^*(\hat x_n) \to
i^*(\hat x)$ in $L^2_{k+1}$ and using $p^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n} \Pi i^*(\hat
x_n) = x_n$ we get that $x_n = y_n(0) \to y(0)$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ This implies that $\Pi i^* (\hat x) = y(0).$
Now it is easy to reach a contradiction: by a gauge transformation $\hat u$ of $\hat x$ on $X$ we can obtain a solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $X$ with $\Pi i^*(\hat u \cdot \hat x) = y(0).$ Recall that $y(0)$ was the starting point of $y : [0, \infty) \to \overline{B(2R)},$ the Coulomb projection of a Seiberg–Witten half-trajectory of finite type. By gluing this half-trajectory to $\hat u \cdot \hat x$ we get a $C^0$ monopole on the complete manifold $X \cup
(\rr_+ \times Y).$ From Proposition \[trajectoriesb\] we know that there are “universal” bounds on the $C^m$ norms of the monopole (in some gauge) restricted to any compact set, for any $m.$ These bounds are “universal” in the sense that they depend only on the metric on $X.$ In particular, since Coulomb projection is continuous, we obtain such a bound $B$ on the $L^2_{k+1}$ norm of $y(t)$ for all $t.$ Recall that $y_n (t_n) \to y(t^*)$ because $t_n \to t^*,$ and that $\| y_n (t_n) \|_{L^2_{k+1}} = 2R.$ When we chose the constant $R,$ we were free to choose it as large as we wanted. Provided that $2R > B,$ we get the desired contradiction.
**Step 2**The proof is somewhat similar to that in Step 1.
Assume that there exist sequences $\mu_n, -\lambda_n \to \infty$ and a subsequence of $U_n$ (denoted still $U_n$ for simplicity) such that the corresponding $K_2$ do not satisfy condition (ii) in Theorem \[indexpairs\] for any $n.$ Then we can find $\hat x_n \in S(U_n', R_0)$ such that $$\pr_{U_n \times V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}} \circ SW^{\mu_n}(\hat x_n) =
(u_n, x_n),$$ with $$\|u_n \|_{\sobs} \leq \epsilon_n; \hskip5pt
(\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})_{[0,\infty)}(x_n) \subset \overline{B(2R)}.$$ Let $y_n : [0, \infty) \to L^2_{k+1}(V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n})$ be the half-trajectory of $\vp^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}$ starting at $y_n (0) = x_n.$ Repeating the argument in Step 1, after passing to a subsequence we can assume that $y_n(t)$ converges to some $y(t)$ in $L^2_k(V^{\mu_n}_{\lambda_n}),$ uniformly over compact sets of $t.$ Also, this convergence can be taken to be in $C^{\infty}$ for $t >0,$ while for $t=0$ we get that $p^0 (y_n(0) - y(0)) \to 0$ in $L^2_{k+1}.$ Observe that $y$ is the Coulomb projection of a Seiberg–Witten half-trajectory of finite type, which we denote by $y'.$ We can assume that $y'(0) = y(0).$
Then, just as in Step 1, we deduce that $\hat x_n$ converges in $\sobf$ to $\hat
x,$ a solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $X$ with $\Pi i^* (\hat x) =
y(0).$ By gluing $\hat x$ to $y'$ we obtain a $C^0$ monopole on $X \cup (\rr_+
\times Y).$ By Proposition \[trajectoriesb\], this monopole must be smooth in some gauge, and when restricted to compact sets its $C^m$ norms must be bounded above by some constant which depend only on the metric on $X.$ Since the four-dimensional Coulomb projection from $\mi\Omega^1(X) \oplus \Gamma (W^+)$ to $\mi\Omega^1_g (X) \oplus \Gamma (W^+)$ is continuous, we get a bound $B'$ on the $\sobf$ norm of $\hat x.$ But $\hat x_n \to \hat x$ in $\sobf$ and $\| \hat
x_n\|_{\sobf} = R_0.$ Provided that we have chosen the constant $R_0$ to be larger than $B',$ we obtain a contradiction.
Thus we have constructed some maps $$\Psi_{n, \mu, \lambda, \hat A} :(U_n')^+ \to (U_n)^+ \wedge
I_{\lambda}^{\mu}$$ for any $\mu, -\lambda$ sufficiently large and for all $n$ sufficiently large compared to $\mu$ and $-\lambda.$ In other words, we get such maps from $(U')^+$ to $U^+ \wedge I^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ for any $\mu$ and $\lambda$ sufficiently large and for any finite dimensional subspace $U
\subset \sobs(\mi\Omega_2^+(X) \oplus \Gamma(W^-))$ which contains a fixed subspace $U_0$ (depending on $\mu$ and $\lambda$).
For $\mu \gg 0,$ the linear map $L^{\mu}$ is injective, because in the limit $\mu \to \infty$ there are no nonzero solutions to an elliptic equation on $X$ which vanish on the boundary. For $U \times
V^{\mu}_{\lambda}$ transversal to coker $L^{\mu}$ and for $U' =
(L^{\mu})^{-1} (U \times V^{\mu}_{\lambda}),$ we get a natural identification: $$U \oplus V^{\mu}_{\lambda} \cong U' \oplus \coker L^{\mu}.$$ It is not hard to see that there is another natural identification: $$\coker L^{\mu} \cong \coker L^0 \oplus \coker (p^{\mu}_0 (\pr_{\ker
d^*} i^*) : \ker L^0 \to V_0^{\mu}).$$ Using the fact that $p^{\mu}_0 (\pr_{\ker d^*} i^*) : \ker L^0 \to
V_0^{\mu}$ is injective, we get: $$\ker L^0 \oplus \coker L^{\mu} \cong \coker L^0 \oplus V_0^{\mu}.$$ Consequently, the map $$(U')^+ \to U^+ \wedge I_{\lambda}^{\mu} \cong U^+ \wedge
(V^0_{\lambda})^+ \wedge \Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}} I^{\mu}_{\lambda}$$ is stably the same as a map: $$\label {viva}
(\ker L^0)^+ \to (\coker L^0)^+ \wedge \Sigma^{-V^0_{\lambda}}
I^{\mu}_{\lambda}.$$ The real part of $L^0$ is the $(d^+, p^0 i^*)$ operator restricted to $\im (d^*).$ This has zero kernel, and cokernel isomorphic to $H^2_+(X;
\rr).$ Using our homology orientation, we can identify the latter with $\rr^{b_2^+(X)}.$ The complex part of $L^0$ is $D^+_{\hat A}$, which may have nontrivial kernel and cokernel. Assuming that all our constructions have been done $S^1$–equivariantly, ($\ref{viva}$) produces a stable equivariant morphism: $$\label {viv}
(\ker D^+_{\hat A})^+ \to (\coker D^+_{\hat A} \oplus \cc^{n(Y,
\spc, g)} \oplus \rr^{b_2^+(X)})^+ \wedge \swf(Y, \spc).$$ We can put these maps together for all classes $[\hat A] \in Pic^0(X)$ as follows. We started our construction from a bundle map between two Hilbert bundles over the Picard torus $Pic^0(X).$ Such bundles are trivial by Kuiper’s theorem, so we can choose subbundles of the form $U \times Pic^0(X)$ when doing the finite dimensional approximation. The maps $(U')^+ \to U^+ \wedge I_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ can be grouped into an $S^1$–map from the Thom space of the vector bundle over $Pic^0(X)$ with fibers $U'.$ In the process of stabilization, these $U'$–bundles differ from each other only by taking direct sums with trivial bundles. In the end the collection of maps (\[viv\]) produces an $S^1$–stable equivariant homotopy class: $$\Psi \in \{ (T(Ind), b_2^+(X), 0), \swf(Y, \spc)\}_{S^1},$$ where $T(Ind)$ is the Thom space of the virtual index bundle over $Pic^0(X)$ of the Dirac operator $D^+$, with a shift in complex degree by $n(Y, \spc,
g).$
The class $\Psi$ is independent of $\mu, \lambda, U$ and the other choices made in the construction, such as $\epsilon_n$ and $R_0.$ This can be seen using standard homotopy arguments analogous to those in the proof of Theorem \[jlambda\]. To interpolate between different $U, U' \supset
U_0,$ it suffices to consider the case $U \subset U'$ and use a linear homotopy $t\pr_{U} + (1-t)\pr_{U'}.$ Similar arguments show that $\Psi$ does not depend on the metric on $X$ either, up to composition with canonical isomorphisms. Therefore we have constructed an invariant of $X$ and its $spin^c$ structure, which we denote $\Psi(X, \sps).$ This ends the proof of Theorem \[bd\].
[**Remark 1**]{}If we restrict $\Psi$ to a single fiber of $Ind$ we get an element in an equivariant stable homotopy group: $$\psi(X, \sps) \in \tilde\pi^{S^1}_{-b,d}(\swf(Y, \spc)),$$ where $b = b_2^+(X)$ and $$d = \ind_{\cc}( D_{\hat A}^+) - n(Y, \spc, g) = \frac {c_1(\hat L)^2 -
\sigma(X)}{8}.$$ (This is in fact given by the morphism (\[viv\]) above.)
Since $\tilde \pi^{S^1}_*$ is the universal equivariant homology theory, by composing with the canonical map we obtain an invariant of $X$ in $\tilde h_{-b, d} (\swf(Y, \spc))$ for every reduced equivariant homology theory $\tilde h.$
[**Remark 2**]{}We can reinterpret the invariant $\psi$ in terms of cobordisms. If $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are 3–manifolds with $b_1=0,$ a *cobordism* between $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ is a 4–manifold $X$ with $\del X =
\bar Y_1 \cup Y_2.$ Let us omit the $spin^c$ structures from notation for simplicity. We have an invariant $$\psi(X) \in \tilde\pi^{S^1}_{-b,d} \bigl( \swf(\bar Y_1) \wedge
\swf(Y_2) \bigr) = \{ (S^0, b, -d), (\swf(\bar Y_1) \wedge
\swf(Y_2) \}_{S^1}.$$ In [@Co], Cornea proves a duality theorem for the Conley indices of the forward and reverse flows in a stably parallelizable manifold. This result (adapted to the equivariant setting) shows that the spectra $\swf(Y_1)$ and $\swf(\bar Y_1)$ are equivariantly Spanier-Whitehead dual to each other. According to [@LMS], this implies the equivalence: $$\{ (S^0, b, -d), (\swf(\bar Y_1) \wedge
\swf(Y_2) \}_{S^1} \cong \{\swf(Y_1), (\swf(Y_2), -b, d) \}_{S^1}.$$ Therefore, a cobordism between $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ induces an equivariant stable homotopy class of $S^1-$maps between $\swf(Y_1)$ and $\swf(Y_2),$ with a possible shift in degree: $$\mathcal{D}_X \in \{ \swf(Y_1), (\swf(Y_2), -b, d) \}_{S^1}.$$
Four-manifolds with negative definite intersection form {#sec:fro}
=======================================================
In [@BF], Bauer and Furuta give a proof of Donaldson’s theorem using the invariant $\Psi(X, \sps)$ for closed 4–manifolds. Along the same lines we can use our invariant to study 4–manifolds with boundary with negative definite intersection form. The bound that we get is parallel to that obtained by Frøyshov in [@Fr].
If $Y$ is our 3–manifold with $b_1(Y) =0$ and $spin^c$ structure $\spc,$ we denote by $s(Y, \spc)$ the largest $s$ such that there exists an element $$[f] \in \{ (S^0, 0, -s), \swf(Y, \spc) \}_{S^1}$$ which is represented by a pointed $S^1$–map $f$ whose restriction to the fixed point set has degree 1. Then we set $$s(Y) = \max_{\spc} s(Y, \spc).$$ The first step in making the invariant $s(Y)$ more explicit is the following lemma (which also appears in [@B]):
\[d2\] Let $f: (\rr^m \oplus \cc^{n+d})^+ \to (\rr^m \oplus \cc^n)^+$ be an $S^1$–equivariant map such that the induced map on the fixed point sets has degree $1.$ Then $d \leq 0.$
Let $f_c$ be the complexification of the map $f.$ Note that $\cc \otimes_{\rr} \cc = V(1) \oplus V(-1),$ where $V(j)$ is the representation $S^1 \times \cc \to \cc, (q, z) \to q^j
z.$ Using the equivariant K-theory mapping degree, tom Dieck proves in [@D II.5.15] the formula: $$\dif (f_c) = \lim_{q\to 1} \dif (f_c^{S^1}) \cdot \tr
\hskip3pt \lambda_{-1} ([nV(1) \oplus
nV(-1)] - [(n+d)V(1) \oplus (n+d)V(-1)])(q),$$ where $q \in S^1,$ $\dif$ is the usual mapping degree, and $\lambda_{-1} ([nV(1) \oplus nV(-1)] - [(n+d)V(1) \oplus
(n+d)V(-1)])$ is the $K_{S^1}$–theoretic Euler class of $f_c;$ in our case its character evaluated at $q$ equals $(1-q)^{-d}(1-q^{-1})^{-d}.$ Since $\dif (f_c^{S^1}) =1,$ the limit only exists in the case $d \leq
0.$
[**Example**]{}Let us consider the case when $Y$ is the Poincaré homology sphere $P,$ oriented as the link of the $E_8$ singularity. There is a unique $spin^c$ structure $\spc$ on $P,$ and $P$ admits a metric $g$ of positive scalar curvature. The only solution of the Seiberg–Witten equations on $P$ with the metric $g$ is the reducible $\theta =(0,0).$ In addition, the Weitzenböck formula tells us that the operator $\dir$ is injective, hence so is $l.$ We can choose $R$ as small as we want in Proposition \[main\]. Taking the $L^2_{k+1}$ norms, we get a bound $$\| p_{\lambda}^{\mu}c(v) \| \leq \|c(v)\| \leq \alpha \|v\|^2$$ for all $v \in V$ sufficiently close to $0.$ Also, if $\lambda_0$ is the eigenvalue of $l$ of smallest absolute value, then $$\| l(v)\| \geq |\lambda_0| \cdot \|v\|.$$ Putting the two inequalities together, we get that for $R
> 0$ sufficiently small and $-\lambda, \mu$ sufficiently large, the only zero of the map $l+p_{\lambda}^{\mu}c$ in $\overline{B(2R)}$ is $0.$ It follows that $S_{\lambda}^{\mu} = $ Inv $\bigl(\overline{B(2R)} \cap
V_{\lambda}^{\mu}\bigr) = \{0\}.$ Its Conley index is $(\rr^{m'_{\lambda}})^+
\wedge (\cc^{n'_{\lambda}})^+.$ In [@Fr], K. Frøyshov computed $ n(P, \spc, g) =-1,$ so that we can conclude: $$\swf(P, \spc) = \cc^+$$ up to isomorphism. We get that $s(P) = 1$ as a simple consequence of Lemma \[d2\].
Let us come back to the general case and try to obtain a bound on $s(Y).$ Recall the notations from section \[sec:irr\]. Choose a metric $g$ and a good perturbation $\nu.$ We seek to find $s$ so that there is no element in $\{(S^0, 0, -s-1), \swf(Y, \spc)\}$ representable by a map which has degree 1 on the fixed point sets. Equivalently, for $\mu$ and $-\lambda$ sufficiently large, there should not be any $S^1$–map $\tilde
f$ of that kind between $(\rr^{m'_{\lambda}} \oplus \cc^{n'_{\lambda}+r
+1})^+$ and $I(S),$ where $r=s+n(Y, \spc, g).$ Assume that $r \geq 0.$
Suppose that there exists $\tilde f$ as above and denote $N = m'_{\lambda}
+ 2n'_{\lambda}.$ Consider $S^1$–equivariant cell decompositions of $I(S), I(\sir), I(\sirl), I(\slo), I(\Theta)$ compatible with the coexact sequences (\[1coex\]) and (\[2coex\]) from section \[sec:irr\] in the sense that all maps are cellular. We can assume that all the $S^1$–cells of $I(S)$ of cellular dimension $\geq N$ and all the $S^1$–cells of $I(\sir)$ and $I(\sirl)$ are free. Also note that $(\rr^{m'_{\lambda}}
\oplus \cc^{n'_{\lambda}+r+1})^+$ has an $S^1$–cell structure with no equivariant cells of cellular dimension greater than $N + 2r +1.$ Thus we can homotope $\tilde f$ equivariantly relative to the fixed point set so that its image is contained in the $(N+2r+1)$–skeleton of $I(S).$ Assuming that there exists an $S^1$–map $$f: I(S)_{N+2r+1} \to (\rr^{m'_{\lambda}} \oplus
\cc^{n'_{\lambda}+r})^+$$ whose restriction to the fixed point set has degree 1, by composing $\tilde f$ with $f$ we would get a contradiction with Lemma \[d2\].
Therefore, our job is to construct the map $f.$ Start with the inclusion: $$I(\Theta) \cong (\rr^{m'_{\lambda}} \oplus \cc^{n'_{\lambda}})^+
\hookrightarrow (\rr^{m'_{\lambda}} \oplus
\cc^{n'_{\lambda}+r})^+$$ By composing with the second map in (\[2coex\]) and by restricting to the $(N+2r+1)$–skeleton we obtain a map $f_0$ defined on $I(\slo)_{N+2r+1}.$ Let us look at the sequence (\[1coex\]). Since $I(\sir)$ is $S^1$–free, we could obtain the desired $f$ once we are able to extend $f_0$ from $I(\slo)_{N+2r+1}$ to $I(S)_{N+2r+1}.$ This is an exercise in equivariant obstruction theory. First, it is easy to see that we can always extend $f_0$ up to the $(N+2r)$–skeleton. Proposition II.3.15 in [@D] tells us that the extension to the $(N+2r+1)$–skeleton is possible if and only if the corresponding obstruction $$\tilde\gamma_r \in \mathfrak{H}_{S^1}^{N+2r+1} \Bigl(I(S), I(\slo);
\pi_{N+2r} ((\rr^{m'_{\lambda}} \oplus \cc^{n'_{\lambda}+r})^+) \Bigr)
\cong H^{N+2r+1}(\isir; \zz)$$ vanishes. Here $\mathfrak{H}$ denotes the Bredon cohomology theory from [@D Section II.3].
After stabilization, the obstruction $\tilde\gamma_r$ becomes an element $$\gamma_r \in H^{2r+1}(\swfnir(Y, \spc, g, \nu)).$$ Thus, we have obtained the following bound: $$\label {sy}
s(Y) \leq \max_{\spc} \hskip2pt \inf_{g, \nu} \bigl(-n(Y, \spc, g) +
\min \{r\in \zz_+ | \gamma_r =0\}\bigr).$$ We have now developed the tools necessary to study four-manifolds with negative definite intersection forms.
\[Proof of Theorem \[fro\]\] A characteristic element $c$ is one that satisfies $c \cdot x \equiv x\cdot x$ mod 2 for all $x \in
H_2(X)/$Torsion. Given such a $c,$ there is a $spin^c$ structure $\sps$ on $X$ with $c_1(\hat L) =c.$
Let $d= (c^2-\sigma(X))/8.$ In section \[sec:bdry\] we constructed an element: $$\psi(X, \sps) \in \{(S^0,0,-d), \swf(Y, \spc)\}_{S^1}.$$ The restriction to the fixed point set of one of the maps $\Psi_{n, \mu,
\lambda, \hat A}$ which represents $\psi(X, \sps)$ is linear near $0$ and has degree $\pm 1$ because $b_2^+(X) =0.$ Hence $$d \leq s(Y, \spc)\leq s(Y).$$ Together with the inequality (\[sy\]), this completes the proof.
\[Donaldson\] Let $X$ be a closed, oriented, smooth four-manifold with negative definite intersection form. Then its intersection form is diagonalizable.
If we apply Theorem \[fro\] for $Y = \emptyset,$ we get $b_2(X) + c^2 \leq 0$ for all characteristic vectors $c.$ By a theorem of Elkies from [@E], the only unimodular forms with this property are the diagonal ones.
\[Frøyshov\] Let $X$ be a smooth, compact, oriented 4–manifold with boundary the Poincaré sphere $P.$ If the intersection form of $X$ is of the form $m\langle -1 \rangle \oplus J$ with $J$ even and negative definite, then $J=0$ or $J = -E_8.$
Since $J$ is even, the vector $c$ whose first $m$ coordinates are $1$ and the rest are $0$ is characteristic. We have $c^2 = -m$ and we have shown that $s(P) = 1.$ Rather than applying Theorem \[fro\], we use the bound $d=b_2(X) + c^2 \leq 8s(P)$ directly. This gives that $\text{rank}(J) \leq 8.$ But the only even, negative definite form of rank at most 8 is $-E_8.$
Existence of index pairs
========================
This appendix contains the proof of Theorem \[indexpairs\], which is an adaptation of the argument given in [@C], pages 46-48.
The proof is rather technical, so let us first provide the reader with some intuition. As a first guess for the index pair, we could take $N$ to be the complement in $A$ of a small open neighborhood of $\del A \cap A^+$ and $L$ to be the complement in $N$ of a very small neighborhood of $A^+.$ (This choice explains condition (ii) in the statement of Theorem 3.) At this stage $(N, L)$ satisfies conditions 1 and 2 in the definition of the index pair, but it may not satisy the relative positive invariance condition. We try to correct this by enlarging $N$ and $L$ with the help of the positive flow. More precisely, if $B \subset A,$ we denote $$P(B) = \{ x \in A: \exists y\in B, t\geq 0 \text{ such that }
\vp_{[0,t]}(y) \subset A, x= \vp_t(y) \}.$$ We could replace $N$ and $L$ by $P(N)$ and $P(L),$ respectively. (This explains the condition (i) in the satement of Theorem 3, which can be rewritten $P(K_1) \cap \del A \cap A^+ = \emptyset.$) We have taken care of positive invariance, but a new problem appears: $P(N)$ and $P(L)$ may no longer be compact. Therefore, we need to find conditions which guarantee their compactness:
\[conlemma\] Let $B$ be a compact subset of $A$ which either contains $A^-$ or is disjoint from $A^+.$ Then $P(B)$ is compact.
Since $P(B) \subset A$ and $A$ is compact, it suffices to show that for any $x_n \in P(B)$ with $x_n \to x\in A,$ we have $x \in P(B).$ Let $x_n$ be such a sequence, $x_n = \vp_{t_n}(y_n),
y_n \in B$ so that $\vp_{[0, t_n]}(y_n) \subset A.$ Since $B$ is compact, by passing to a subsequence we can assume that $y_n \to y \in B.$ If $t_n$ have a convergent subsequence as well, say $t_{n_k} \to t\geq0,$ then by continuity $\vp_{t_{n_k}} (y_{n_k}) \to \vp_t(y) = x$ and $\vp_{[0,t]}(y) \subset A.$ Thus $x \in P(B),$ as desired.
If $t_n$ has no convergent subsequences, then $t_n \to \infty.$ Given any $m > 0,$ for $n$ sufficiently large $t_n > m,$ so $\vp_{[0,m]}(y_n) \subset A.$ Letting $n\to \infty$ and using the comapctness of $A$ we obtain $\vp_{[0,m]}(y) \subset A.$ Since this is true for all $m >0,$ we have $y\in A^+.$ This takes care of the case $A^+
\cap B = \emptyset,$ since we obtain a contradiction. If $A^- \subset B,$ we reason differently: $\vp_{[0, t_n]}(y_n) \subset A$ is equivalent to $\vp_{[-t_n, 0]}(x_n) \subset A;$ letting $n\to \infty,$ we get $\vp_{(-\infty, 0]}(x) \subset A,$ so $x \in A^-.$ Thus $x \in B
\subset P(B),$ as desired.
\[Proof of Theorem \[indexpairs\] \] Choose $C$ a small compact neighborhood of $A^+ \cap \del A$ such that $A^- \cap C =
\emptyset.$ We claim that if we choose $C$ sufficiently small, we have $P(K_1) \cap C =
\emptyset.$ Indeed, if there were no such $C,$ we could find $x_n \in
P(K_1)$ with $x_n \to x\in A^+ \cap \del A.$ Let $x_n = \vp_{t_n}(y_n)$ for some $y_n \in K_1$ such that $\vp_{[0, t_n]}(y_n) \subset A.$ By passing to a subsequence we can assume $y_n \to y\in K_1.$ If $t_n$ has a subsequence converging to some $t \in [0, \infty),$ then by taking the limit $\vp_{[0,t]}(y) \subset A$ and $\vp_t(y) = x,$ which contradicts $P(K_1) \cap A^+ \cap \del A = \emptyset.$ If $t_n$ has no such subsequence, then $t_n \to \infty.$ Since $\vp_{[-t_n, 0]}(x_n) \subset
A,$ by taking the limit we get $\vp_{(-\infty, 0]}(x) \subset A.$ Thus $x
\in A^-.$ On the other hand $x \in A^+ \cap \del A,$ which contradicts the fact that $A^+ \cap A^- = \text{ Inv }A \subset \inte (A).$
Let $C$ be as above and let $V$ be an open neighborhood of $A^+$ such that cl$(V \setminus C) \subset
\inte(A).$ Since $K_2 \cap A^+ =\emptyset$ and $K_2$ is compact, by making $V$ sufficiently small we can assume that $K_2 \cap V = \emptyset.$
Let us show that there exists $t^* \geq 0$ such that $ \vp_{[-t^*,
0]}(y) \not\subset A$ for any $y \in C.$ If not, we could find $y_n \in C$ with $ \vp_{[- n, 0]}(y_n) \subset A.$ Since $C$ is compact, there is a subsequence of $y_n$ which converges to some $y\in C$ such that $\vp_{(-\infty, 0]}(y) \subset A$ or, equivalently, $y \in
A^-.$ This contradicts the fact that $A^-$ and $C$ are disjoint.
Let $ t^*$ be as above. For each $x \in A^-,$ either $\vp_{[0,t^*]}(x) \subset A^-$ or there is $t(x) \in [0, t^*]$ so that $\vp_{[0, t(x)]}(x) \cap C =\emptyset$ and $\vp_{t(x)}(x) \not\in A.$ In the first case we choose $K(x)$ a compact neighborhood of $x$ such that $\vp_{[0, t^*]}(K(x)) \cap C =\emptyset.$ In the second case we choose $K(x)$ to be a compact neighborhood of $x$ with $\vp_{[0,t(x)]}(K(x)) \cap C
=\emptyset$ and $\vp_{t(x)}(K(x)) \cap A =\emptyset.$ Since $A^-$ is compact, it is covered by a finite collection of the sets $K(x).$ Let $B'$ be their union and let $B = B' \cup K_1.$ Then $B$ is compact, and we can assume that it contains a neighborhood of $A^-.$
We choose the index pair to be $$L = P(A \setminus V); \hspace{8pt}N = P(B) \cup L.$$ Clearly $K_1 \subset B \subset N$ and $K_2 \subset A\setminus V
\subset L.$ It remains to show that $(N, L)$ is an index pair. First, since $A\setminus V$ is compact and disjoint from $A^+,$ by Lemma $\ref{conlemma}$ above $L$ is compact. Since $A^- \subset B, N = P(B \cup
(A\setminus V))$ is compact as well.
We need to check the three conditions in the definition of an index pair. Condition 1 is equivalent to $S \subset \inte(N \setminus L) =
\inte(N) \setminus L.$ We have $S \subset \inte (N)$ because $S \subset
A^-$ and $B \subset N$ contains a neighborhood of $A^-.$ We have $S \cap L
=\emptyset$ because if $x \in S \subset A^+$ is of the form $x =
\vp_t(y)$ for $y\in A\setminus V, t\geq 0$ such that $\vp_{[0,t]}
(y) \subset A,$ then $y \in A^+,$ which contradicts $A^+ \subset V.$
Condition 3 can be easily checked from the definitions: $L$ is positively invariant in $A$ by construction, and this implies that it is positively invariant in $N$ as well.
Condition 2 requires more work. Let us first prove that $P(B) \cap C =
\emptyset.$ We have $P(B) = P(B') \cup P(K_1)$ and we already know that $P(K_1) \cap C = \emptyset.$ For $y'\in P(B'),$ there exists $y\in B'$ such that $\vp_{[0,t]}(y) \subset A$ and $\vp_t(y)=y'.$ Recall that we chose $t^* \geq 0$ so that $ \vp_{[- t^*, 0]}(x) \not\subset A$ for any $x \in C.$If $t \geq t^*,$ this implies $y' \not\in C.$ If $t <
t^*$ then, because $y$ is in some $K(x)$ for $x \in A^-,$ the fact that $\vp_{[0,t]}(y) \subset A$ implies again $y' = \vp_t(y) \not \in
C.$ Therefore $P(B') \cap C = \emptyset,$ so $P(B) \cap C =\emptyset.$
To prove that $L$ is an exit set for $N,$ pick $x \in N\setminus L$ and let $\tau = \sup \{t| \vp_{[0,t]}(x) \subset N\setminus L\}.$ It suffices to show that $\vp_{\tau}(x) \in L.$ Assume this is false; then $\vp_{\tau}(x) \subset N \setminus L.$ Note that $$N \setminus L \subset (A \setminus P(A\setminus V)) \subset V.$$ Also $N \setminus L \subset P(B) \subset (A \setminus C),$ so $N \setminus
L$ is contained in $V \setminus C \subset \inte (A).$ It follows that for $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small, $\vp_{[\tau, \tau +
\epsilon]}(x) \subset A\setminus L.$ Since $N$ is positively invariant in $A$ and $\vp_{\tau}(x) \in N,$ we get $\vp_{[\tau, \tau +
\epsilon]}(x) \subset N\setminus L.$ This contradicts the definition of $\tau.$ Therefore, $\vp_{\tau}(x) \in L.$
We conclude that $(N, L)$ is a genuine index pair, with $K_1 \subset N$ and $K_2 \subset L.$
, [*Prerequisites (on equivariant stable homotopy) for Carlsson’s lecture*]{}, from: “Algebraic topology, Aarhus 1982”, Springer–Verlag (1984) 483–532
[**MF Atiyah**]{}, [**VK Patodi**]{}, [**IM Singer**]{}, [*Spectral assymetry and Riemannian geometry: I*]{}, [Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.]{} [77 (1975) 43–69]{}
, [**VK Patodi**]{}, [**IM Singer**]{}, [*Spectral assymetry and Riemannian geometry: III*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 79 (1976) 71–99
, [**M Furuta**]{}, [*A stable cohomotopy refinement of Seiberg–Witten invariants: I*]{}, [arXiv:math.DG/0204340]{}
, [*A stable cohomotopy refinement of Seiberg–Witten invariants: II*]{}, [arXiv:math.DG/0204267]{}
, [**JDS Jones**]{}, [**GB Segal**]{}, [*Floer’s infinite-dimensional Morse theory and homotopy theory*]{}, from: “The Floer memorial volume”, Birkhäuser, Basel (1995) 297–325
, [*Isolated invariant sets and the Morse index*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1978)
, [*Homotopical dynamics: suspension and duality*]{}, [Erg. Th. and Dyn. Syst.]{} 20 (2000) 379–391
, [*Transformation groups*]{}, de Gruyter studies in mathematics, 8; de Gruyter (1987)
, [*A characterization of the $\zz^n$ lattice*]{}, Math. Res.Lett. 2 (1995) 321–326
, [*A refinement of the Conley index and an application to the stability of hyperbolic invariant sets*]{}, Ergod. Th. and Dynam. Syst. 7 (1987) 93–103
, [*The Seiberg–Witten equations and four-manifolds with boundary*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996) 373–390
, [*Monopole equation and the 11/8-conjecture*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001) 279–291
, [*Stable homotopy version of Seiberg–Witten invariant*]{}, preprint, now incorporated in [@BF]
, [**AI Stipsicz**]{}, [*4–manifolds and Kirby calculus*]{}, Graduate studies in mathematics, vol.20, Amer. Math. Soc. 1999
, [*Embedded surfaces and gauge theory in three and four dimensions*]{}, in Surveys in differential geometry, Vol. III (Cambridge, MA, 1996) Int. Press (1998)
, [**TS Mrowka**]{}, [*The genus of embedded surfaces in the projective plane*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994) 797–808
, [**TS Mrowka**]{}, [*Floer homology for Seiberg–Witten monopoles*]{}, in preparation
, [**JP May**]{}, [**M Steinberger**]{}, [*Equivariant stable homotopy theory*]{}, Lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 1213, Springer–Verlag (1986)
, [**BL Wang**]{}, [*Equivariant Seiberg–Witten Floer homology*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. 9 (2001) 450–640
, [*Spectra and the Steenrod algebra*]{}, North–Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 29, North–Holland (1993)
, [*Notes on Seiberg–Witten theory*]{}, Graduate studies in mathematics, vol.28, Amer. Math. Soc. (2000)
, [*The Conley index for flows preserving generalized symmetries*]{}, from: “Conley index theory”, Banach Center Publ. 47, Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw (1999) 193–217
, [*Connected simple systems and the Conley index of isolated invariant sets*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 291 (1985) 1–41
, [*Morse homology*]{}, Birkhäuser Verlag (1993)
, [*$L^2$ moduli spaces on 4–manifolds with cylindrical ends*]{}, Monographs in geometry and topology, vol.1, International Press (1993)
, [*Elements of homotopy theory*]{}, Springer–Verlag (1978)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent article, Arendt and ter Elst have shown that every sectorial form is in a natural way associated with the generator of an analytic strongly continuous semigroup, even if the form fails to be closable. As an intermediate step they have introduced so-called *$j$-elliptic* forms, which generalises the concept of elliptic forms in the sense of Lions. We push their analysis forward in that we discuss some perturbation and convergence results for semigroups associated with $j$-elliptic forms. In particular, we study convergence with respect to the trace norm or other Schatten norms. We apply our results to Laplace operators and Dirichlet-to-Neumann-type operators.'
address:
- |
Delio Mugnolo\
Institut für Analysis\
Universität Ulm\
89069 Ulm\
Germany
- |
Robin Nittka\
Institut für Angewandte Analysis\
Universität Ulm\
89069 Ulm\
Germany
author:
- Delio Mugnolo
- Robin Nittka
bibliography:
- '../referenzen/literatur.bib'
title: Convergence of operator semigroups associated with generalised elliptic forms
---
Introduction
============
The use of sesquilinear form in semigroup theory dates back to the works of Tosio Kato and Jacques-Louis Lions. A generalisation of Kato’s and Lions’ approach has been recently proposed by Wolfgang Arendt and Tom ter Elst [@AreEls09]. Their method permits to treat differential operators on rough domains, strongly degenerate equations, Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators and Stokes-type equations with ease, cf. [@AreEls09; @AreEls11]. In this article we consider only what they call the *complete case*, which corresponds to Lions’ forms, not their *incomplete case*, which corresponds to Kato’s approach. These two notions are different descriptions of the same ideas. In Section 2 we introduce $j$-elliptic forms and recall some basic facts which we need. We also prove that $j$-ellipticity is preserved under small perturbations and we also present a generalisation of the Courant’s minimax formula.
The study of convergence of sequences of $C_0$-semigroups goes back to the pioneering works on semigroup theory in the 1950s. In particular, convenient convergence criteria for semigroups associated with closed forms can be found in Kato’s book [@Kat95]. In Section 3 we establish criteria for $j$-elliptic forms that imply strong convergence of the associated semigroups. Such convergence results will in turn allow us to deduce convergence in stronger norms, for example Schatten norms. Our first result in this section is a Mosco-like convergence criterion for symmetric forms (Theorem \[thm:strongconv\]).
The Schatten classes $\mathcal L_p$ have been introduced in [@SchNeu46] by Robert Schatten and John von Neumann. For $p=1$, one obtains the well-studied trace class. It became clear soon after the publication of [@SchNeu46] that trace class operators play an important rôle in spectral theory, perturbation theory and mathematical physics. An interesting account on the history of the development of the Schatten theory can be found in the introduction of [@Sim05]. Criteria for convergence of a sequence of operators with respect to Schatten norms have been investigated for a long time, see e.g. [@Zag80] and references therein. We translate a result due to Valentin A. Zagrebnov into the framework of $j$-elliptic forms, which gives a sufficient condition for convergence in Schatten norm. We then combine this with an interpolation result for Schatten class operators in order to prove convergence of semigroups as Schatten class operators into spaces of higher regularity, e.g. from $L^2(\Omega)$ into $H^k(\Omega)$ for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Summarizing our main results, on $L^2(X)$, $X$ a finite measure space, the following holds:
> Strong convergence implies trace norm (hence uniform) convergence of a family of self-adjoint contraction semigroups, provided that their generators all dominate the generator of an ultra-contractive semigroup; and this even as operators from $L^2(X)$ into a space of more regular functions.
This is made precise in Corollary \[cor:summarize\] and the subsequent remark.
In Section 4 we present several applications for our theorems and ideas. More precisely, we study Schatten norm convergence of semigroups generated by Laplacians with varying Robin boundary conditions as well as trace norm convergence of semigroups generated by Dirichlet-to-Neumann-like operators with varying coefficients. We also compare the spectra of several self-adjoint operators based on our general version of the minimax formula.
Generalised elliptic forms {#j-f:sec}
==========================
In this section we study *$j$-elliptic forms*. We start with some basic facts. For a broader introduction and proofs of the fundamental theorems we refer to [@AreEls09].
\[def:complete\] Let $V$ and $H$ be Hilbert spaces and $j\colon V \to H$ a bounded linear map with dense range. A sesquilinear form $a\colon V \times V \to \mathbb{C}$ is called a $j$-elliptic form on $H$ with form domain $V$ if it is continuous as a function from $V \times V$ to $\mathbb{C}$ and there exist $\omega \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mu > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:elliptic}
\operatorname{Re}a(u,u) - \omega\|j(u)\|^2_H \ge \mu \|u\|_V^2\qquad \hbox{ for all }u \in V.$$ The unique, densely defined, m-sectorial operator $A$ on $H$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
D(A) & \coloneqq \{ x \in H : \exists u \in V, \; j(u) = x,\; \exists f\in H\hbox{ s.t. } \; a(u,v) = {\left(f\midj(v)\right)_{H}} \; \forall v \in V \} \\
Ax & \coloneqq f\end{aligned}$$ is called the operator associated with $(a,j)$. We say that $(a,j)$ is associated to $A$ and also that $(a,j)$ is associated with the analytic $C_0$-semigroup $(e^{-tA})_{t \ge 0}$ on $H$.
We say that $a$ is symmetric if $a(u,v) = \overline{a(v,u)}$ for all $u,v\in V$. In this case the associated operator $A$ and the semigroup $(e^{-tA})_{t \ge 0}$ are self-adjoint.
We say that $a$ is positive if $a(u,u) \ge 0$ for all $u\in V$. By the polarisation identity every positive (or, more generally, every real-valued) sesquilinear form is symmetric.
If $j$ is injective, we can regard $V$ as a subspace of $H$, regarding $j$ as the embedding of $V$ into $H$. In this case the notion of a $j$-elliptic form $a$ introduced in Definition \[def:complete\] coincides with Lions’ definition of elliptic forms. Thus we refer to this situation as *classical*, i.e., we say that $(a,j)$ is a *classical form* if $j$ is injective.
\[jclass\] Let $a$ be a $j$-elliptic form. Then $$\label{eq:Va}
V(a) \coloneqq \{ u \in V : a(u,v) = 0 \; \forall v \in \operatorname{ker}j \}$$ is a closed subspace of $V$, $j_{|V(a)}$ is injective and $V = V(a) \oplus
\operatorname{ker}j$. In particular, $j(V(a)) = j(V)$ is a dense subspace of $H$ and $j_{|V(a)}$ is injective. The classical form $(a_{|V(a)\times V(a)},j_{|V(a)})$ is associated to the same operator as $(a,j)$. This relation allows us to carry over many results about classical forms to $j$-elliptic forms, which is the basis of this section.
\[rem:remelliptic\] Remark \[jclass\] suggests that $a$ is associated with an m-sectorial operator if merely $$\operatorname{Re}a(u,u) - \omega\|j(u)\|^2_H \ge \mu \|u\|_V^2\qquad \hbox{ for all }u \in V(a).$$ This is indeed true provided that we require $V = V(a) + \operatorname{ker}j$ in addition, cf. [@AreEls09 Cor. 2.2].
We want to extend several classical results to $j$-elliptic forms. We begin with a generation result which is a translation of a celebrated by Michel Crouzeix on cosine function generators.
\[lemma:crouz\] Let $a$ be a $j$-elliptic form and denote by $A$ the associated operator. Assume that there exists $M \ge 0$ such that $$\label{crouzj}
|\operatorname{Im}a(u,u)|\le M\|u\|_V \|j(u)\|_H\qquad \hbox{for all }u\in V(a).$$ Then $-A$ generates a cosine operator function and hence a semigroup with analyticity angle of $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
For all $x\in D(A)$ with $\|x\|_H=1$ there exists $u\in V(a)$ such that $j(u) = x$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\operatorname{Im}(Ax|x)_H|^2 &=|\operatorname{Im}a(u,u)|^2
\le M^2\|u\|_{V}^2 \|j(u)\|_H^2\\
&\le \frac{M^2}{\mu} \left(\operatorname{Re}a(u,u) - \omega \|j(u)\|^2_H \right) \|j(u)\|^2_H\\
&= \frac{M^2}{\mu} \left(\operatorname{Re}(Ax|x)_H - \omega \right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the numerical range of $A$ is contained in a parabola and therefore $-A$ generates a cosine operator function by Crouzeix’ celebrated result [@Cro04]. Finally, every generator of a cosine function family generates a holomorphic semigroup of angle $\frac{\pi}{2}$ [@AreBatHie01 Thm. 3.14.17].
The following perturbation results are analogous to two classical perturbation theorems for operators [@DesSch84; @DesSch88], one relying on interpolation estimates, the other one on compactness.
\[lemma:perturb\] Let $a:V\times V\to \mathbb C$ be a $j$-elliptic form and let $H'$ be a subspace of $H$ containing $j(V)$. Let $H'$ carry its own norm $\|\cdot\|_{H'}$, for which it is a Banach space and is continuously embedded into $H$. Assume that there exist $\alpha \in [0,1)$ and $M \ge 0$ such that $$\|j(u)\|_{H'}\le M \|u\|_V^\alpha \|j(u)\|_H^{1-\alpha}\qquad \text{for all } u\in V.$$ Let $b:V\times V\to \mathbb C$ be a continuous sesquilinear form such that $$\operatorname{Re}b(u,u)\ge -c\|u\|_V \|j(u)\|_{H'}\qquad\hbox{for all } u\in V$$ for some $c \ge 0$. Then $a+b:V\times V\to \mathbb C$ is $j$-elliptic.
We apply Young’s inequality $\alpha \beta \le {\varepsilon}\alpha^p + c_{{\varepsilon},p}
\beta^{p/(p-1)}$, which is valid for every $p \in (1,\infty)$, every $\alpha,\beta\ge 0$, and every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ with some constant $c_{{\varepsilon},p} \ge 0$. For $p \coloneqq \frac{2}{1+\alpha}$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Re}b(u,u) & \ge -c \|u\|_V \|j(u)\|_H
\ge -c M \|u\|_V^{1+\alpha} \|j(u)\|_H^{1-\alpha} \\
& \ge -c M {\varepsilon}\|u\|_V^2 - c M c_{{\varepsilon},p} \|j(u)\|_H^2\end{aligned}$$ for all $u \in V$. For ${\varepsilon}\coloneqq \frac{\mu}{2cM}$ we thus obtain that $$\operatorname{Re}a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) - (\omega - c M c_{{\varepsilon},p}) \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge \frac{\mu}{2} \|u\|_V^2$$ for all $u \in V$, which is the claim.
In the classical case Proposition \[lemma:perturb\] coincides with [@Mug08 Lemma 2.1].
For the second perturbation theorem we need the following simple lemma.
\[lem:eberlein\] Let $V$ be a reflexive Banach space, $T\colon V \to H$ an injective bounded linear operator into a Banach space $H$ and $S\colon V \to Z$ a compact linear operator into a Banach space $Z$. Then for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ there exists $c_{\varepsilon}\ge 0$ such that $$\|Su\|_Z \le {\varepsilon}\|u\|_V + c_{\varepsilon}\|Tu\|_H\qquad \hbox{for all }u \in V.$$
Assume to the contrary that there exist ${\varepsilon}_0 > 0$ and a sequence $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb N} \subset V$ such that $$\|Su_n\|_Z \ge {\varepsilon}_0 \|u_n\|_V + n \|Tu_n\|_H\qquad \hbox{for all }n\in\mathbb N.$$ We can assume that $\|Su_n\|_Z = 1$ after rescaling. Passing to a subsequence we have $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $V$, hence $Tu_n \rightharpoonup Tu$ in $H$. Now $\|Tu_n\|_H \le \frac{1}{n}$ implies that $Tu = 0$ and thus $u = 0$. Hence by compactness $\lim_{n\to \infty}Su_n= Su = 0$ in $Z$, contradicting $\|Su_n\|_Z = 1$.
The conclusion of the following perturbation result should be compared with Remark \[rem:remelliptic\].
\[prop:perturb\] Let $a$ be a $j$-elliptic form on $V$. Let $S$ be a compact operator from $V$ into a Banach space $Z$ and let $b_0\colon V \times Z \to \mathbb{C}$ be a bounded sesquilinear form. Define $b(u,v) \coloneqq b_0(u,Sv)$ on $V
\times V$. If $j$ is injective on $V(a+b)$, where $V(a+b)$ is defined as in , then there exist $\omega' \in
\mathbb{R}$ and $\mu' > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:jremark}
\operatorname{Re}a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) - \omega' \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge \mu' \|u\|_V^2 \quad\text{for all } u \in V(a+b).$$
Regarding $j$ as an injective operator on $V(a+b)$, from Lemma \[lem:eberlein\] we obtain that $$\|Su\|_Z \le {\varepsilon}\|u\|_V + c_{\varepsilon}\|j(u)\|_H$$ for all $u \in V(a+b)$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
|b(u,u)|
& = |b_0(u,Su)|
\le c \|u\|_V \|Su\|_Z \\
& \le {\varepsilon}c \|u\|_V^2 + c_{\varepsilon}c \|u\|_V \|j(u)\|_H
\le {\varepsilon}c \|u\|_V^2 + \delta c_{\varepsilon}c \|u\|_V^2 + \frac{c_{\varepsilon}c}{4\delta} \|j(u)\|_H^2
\end{aligned}$$ for $u \in V(a+b)$ by Young’s inequality. If we first pick ${\varepsilon}> 0$ small enough and then $\delta > 0$, we easily obtain the claimed estimate from the $j$-ellipticity of $a$.
Strictly speaking, the preceding result is not quite a perturbation result because we leave the class of $j$-elliptic forms. It is, however, quite useful in situations where one cannot expect that a lower order perturbation preserves $j$-ellipticity, see [@AreEls09 §4.4] for such an example.
We continue our investigation of $j$-elliptic forms with results about domination and convergence. It is well-known that domination of self-adjoint operators in terms of their resolvents can be expressed via their quadratic forms. One implication of this characterisation remains true for symmetric $j$-elliptic forms. The following proposition is a direct consequence of Remark \[jclass\] and [@Kat95 Thm. VI.2.21].
\[prop:dom\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, let $a_1$ be a symmetric $j_1$-elliptic form and let $a_2$ be a symmetric $j_2$-elliptic form, where $j_1\colon V_1 \to H$ and $j_2\colon V_2 \to H$. Let $A_i$ be the self-adjoint operator on $H$ which is associated with $a_i$, $i=1,2$. We say that $a_1$ *lies above* $a_2$ (and write $(a_1,j_1) \ge (a_2,j_2)$) if
(1) $j_1(V_1) \subset j_2(V_2)$ and
(2) $a_1(u_1,u_1) \ge a_2(u_2,u_2)$ whenever $j_1(u_1) = j_2(u_2)$.
In this case $(\gamma + A_1)^{-1} \le (\gamma + A_2)^{-1}$ in the sense of positive definite operators for all sufficiently large $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$.
We also give a result concerning the domination of the spectra in the case where reference spaces $H$ differ. The following is an easy consequence of the Courant–Fischer theorem for self-adjoint operators (or, rather, their quadratic forms) and Remark \[jclass\].
\[lem:minimax\] Let $a$ be a symmetric $j$-elliptic form on a Hilbert space $H$ with form domain $V$ and associated operator $A$. If $j$ is compact, then the self-adjoint operator $A$ has compact resolvent, and we can order the eigenvalues of $A$ in increasing order, i.e., $$\lambda_1(A) \le \lambda_2(A) \le \lambda_3(A) \le \dots \le \lambda_n(A) \to \infty,$$ taking into account multiplicities. In this case, the eigenvalues are given by the min-max principle $$\lambda_k(A) = \min_{\substack{E \subset V(a) \\ \dim E = k}} \max_{\substack{u \in E \\ u \neq 0}} \frac{a(u,u)}{\|j(u)\|_H^2},$$ i.e., $E$ runs over the $k$-dimensional subspaces of $V(a)$.
The following theorem allows the comparison of operators on different spaces that have comparable $j$-elliptic forms.
\[thm:compspec\] Let $V_1$, $V_2$, $H_1$ and $H_2$ be Hilbert spaces such that $V_2$ is a closed subspace of $V_1$, which is equipped with the norm of $V_1$. Let $a_1$ be a symmetric $j_1$-elliptic form, where $j_1 \colon V_1 \to H_1$ is compact, and let $a_2$ be a symmetric $j_2$-elliptic form, where $j_2 \colon V_2 \to H_2$ is bounded. Assume that $\operatorname{ker}j_1 \subset V_2$ and that $$\label{eq:courantgeneral}
\|j_1(u)\|_{H_1} \ge \|j_2(u)\|_{H_2}\qquad \hbox{and}\qquad a_1(u,u) \le a_2(u,u)\qquad \hbox{for all }u \in V_2.$$ Then $j_2$ is compact and $\lambda_k(A_1) \le \lambda_k(A_2)$ for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, where $A_1$ and $A_2$ are the operators associated with $a_1$ and $a_2$ on $H_1$ and $H_2$, respectively.
Let $(u_n)$ be a bounded sequence in $V_2$. Then $(u_n)$ is a bounded sequence in $V_1$. Passing to a subsequence we can assume that $(j_1(u_n))$ converges in $H_1$. Since $$\|j_2(u_n) - j_2(u_m)\|_{H_2} \le \|j_1(u_n) - j_1(u_m)\|_{H_1}$$ by this implies that $(j_2(u_n))$ is a Cauchy sequence in $H_2$, hence convergent. We have proved compactness of $j_2$.
For the spectral domination it suffices to consider the following three special cases:
(i) $a_2 = a_1|_{V_2 \times V_2}$ and $j_2 = j_1|_{V_2}$; or
(ii) $V_1 = V_2$ and $j_1 = j_2$; or
(iii) $V_1 = V_2$ and $a_1 = a_2$.
In fact, once we have established the result in these situations, we obtain that $$\lambda_k(a_1,j_1)
\le \lambda_k(a_1|_{V_2 \times V_2},j_1|_{V_2})
\le \lambda_k(a_2, j_1|_{V_2})
\le \lambda_k(a_2,j_2)
\quad (k \in \mathbb{N}).$$ Here we have defined $\lambda_k(a,j) \coloneqq \lambda_k(A)$ with $A$ associated to $(a,j)$ to keep the notation simple. It should be noted that $a_1|_{V_2 \times V_2}$ is $j_1|_{V_2}$-elliptic since $V_2 \subset V_1$ and $a_2$ is $j_1|_{V_2}$-elliptic since $a_2(u,u) \ge a_1(u,u)$ on $V_2$.
So let us prove the theorem in those three cases.
(i) Assume that $a_2 = a_1|_{V_2 \times V_2}$ and $j_2 = j_1|_{V_2}$. Since $\operatorname{ker}j_1 \subset V_2$, this implies that $\operatorname{ker}j_1 = \operatorname{ker}j_2$. Thus trivially $V(a_2) \subset V(a_1)$, see , implying that every subspace of $V(a_2)$ is a subspace of $V(a_1)$. Hence $\lambda_k(A_1) \le \lambda_k(A_2)$ for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ by Lemma \[lem:minimax\].
(ii) Assume that $V_1 = V_2 \eqqcolon V$ and $j_1 = j_2 \eqqcolon j$. Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ be arbitrary and fix a subspace $E_2$ of $V(a_2)$ with $\dim E_2 = k$ such that $$\lambda_k(A_2) = \max_{\substack{u \in E_2 \\ u \neq 0}} \frac{a_2(u,u)}{\|j(u)\|^2}$$ Then in particular $$\label{eq:lkA2}
\lambda_k(A_2) \ge \max_{\substack{u \in E_2 \\ u \neq 0}} \frac{a_1(u,u)}{\|j(u)\|^2}$$ by . Define $$E_1 \coloneqq \{ u \in V(a_1) : j(u) \in j(E_2) \}.$$ Since $j$ is bijective from $V(a_1)$ and $V(a_2)$ to $j(V)$, respectively, see Remark \[jclass\], we have $\dim E_1 = k$, thus $$\label{eq:lkA1}
\lambda_k(A_1) \le \max_{\substack{u \in E_1 \\ u \neq 0}} \frac{a_1(u,u)}{\|j(u)\|^2}$$ by Lemma \[lem:minimax\]. In view of and the theorem is proved once we show that for every $u \in E_1$ there exists $\tilde{u} \in E_2$ such that $a_1(u,u) \le a_1(\tilde{u},\tilde{u})$ and $j(u) = j(\tilde{u})$.
Thus fix $u \in E_1 \subset V(a_1)$. By definition of $E_1$ there exists $\tilde{u} \in E_2$ such that $j(u) = j(\tilde{u})$. By Remark \[jclass\] there exist $\tilde{u}_1 \in V(a_1)$ and $\tilde{u}_2 \in \operatorname{ker}j$ such that $\tilde{u} = \tilde{u}_1 + \tilde{u}_2$, so in particular $j(u) = j(\tilde{u}) = j(\tilde{u}_1)$. Since $j$ is injective on $V(a_1)$, this implies that $u = \tilde{u}_1$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
a_1(\tilde{u},\tilde{u})
& = a_1(u + \tilde{u}_2, u + \tilde{u}_2) \\
& = a_1(u,u) + 2 \operatorname{Re}a_1(u, \tilde{u}_2) + a_1(\tilde{u}_2,\tilde{u}_2)
\ge a_1(u,u)
\end{aligned}$$ since $a_1(u,\tilde{u}_2) = 0$ by definition of $V(a_1)$ and $a_1(\tilde{u}_2,\tilde{u}_2) \ge 0$ by .
(iii) Assume that $V_1 = V_2$ and $a_1 = a_2 \eqqcolon a$. From we obtain that $\operatorname{ker}j_1 \subset \operatorname{ker}j_2$, which implies $V(a_2) \subset V(a_1)$. Now we can proceed as in the first case.
For semigroups on $L^2(\Omega)$ associated with classical forms, ultra-contractivity is well-known to be equivalent to an embedding of the form domain into $L^q(\Omega)$ for $q > 2$, provided that the semigroup extends to a contractive semigroup on $L^\infty(\Omega)$. We translate this result into the language of $j$-elliptic forms, which will be useful in the subsequent sections when we study Gibbs semigroups.
\[prop:ultra\] Let $\Omega$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space. Let $a$ be a $j$-elliptic form on $H \coloneqq L^2(\Omega)$ with form domain $V$ and associated operator $A$. Assume that there exists $M \ge 0$ such that $\|e^{-tA} f\|_\infty \le M \|f\|_\infty$ for all $f \in L^\infty(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$ and all $t \in [0,1]$. Assume moreover that $j(V)\subset L^\frac{2d}{d-2}(\Omega)$ for some $d > 2$. Then $(e^{ta})_{t\ge 0}$ is ultra-contractive, i.e., $e^{-tA}L^2(\Omega) \subset L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $$\|e^{-tA}\|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2 ,L^\infty)} \le ct^{-\frac{d}{4}},\qquad t \in (0,1],$$ for some constant $c>0$.
By the closed graph theorem $j$ is bounded from $V$ to $L^{\frac{2d}{d-2}}(\Omega)$. Thus the result follows from Remark \[jclass\] and [@Ouh05 Thm. 6.4].
Convergence results {#schatten:sec}
===================
Several results in [@AreEls09] are based on a convergence result [@AreEls09 Thm. 3.9]. We extend this criterion in the case of symmetric forms. It is well-known that for symmetric classical forms the convergence in the sense of Mosco, see [@Mos67], is equivalent to strong convergence of the resolvents. In fact, this holds even in the nonlinear case and is typically stated only in that situation. We show how this criterion translates to $j$-elliptic forms.
\[thm:strongconv\] Let $(a_n,j_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $(a,j)$ be positive forms on a Hilbert space $H$ with form domains $(V_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $V$, respectively. We assume that $a_n$ is $j_n$-elliptic for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $a$ is $j$-elliptic. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) The sequence of operators $(-A_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ associated with $(a_n,j_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converges to the operator $-A$ associated with $(a,j)$ in the strong resolvent sense.
(b) The following conditions are satisfied:
(i) If $u_n \in V_n$, $j_n(u_n) \rightharpoonup x$ for some $x \in H$ and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} a_n(u_n,u_n) < \infty$, then there exists $u \in V$ such that $j(u) = x$ and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} a_n(u_n,u_n) \ge a(u,u)$;
(ii) For all $u \in V$ there exists a sequence $(u_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}$ with $u_n\in V_n$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty}j_n(u_n) = j(u)\qquad \hbox{and}\qquad \liminf_{n\to \infty}a_n(u_n,u_n) \le a(u,u).$$
If these equivalent conditions are satisfied, we say that *$(a_n,j_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converges to $(a,j)$ in the sense of Mosco*.
Define $\phi_n(j_n(u)) \coloneqq a_n(u,u)$ for $u \in V_n(a_n)$, and $\phi_n(x) \coloneqq \infty$ for $x \in H \setminus j_n(V_n)$. Then $\phi_n\colon H \to (-\infty,\infty]$ is well-defined, convex and lower semicontinuous, and $-A_n$ is the subdifferential of $\phi_n$. This follows from [@AreEls09 Thm. 2.5] and the well-known correspondence between the linear and the non-linear theory of forms. Moreover, $$\label{eq:minrep}
\phi_n(x) = \min\{ a(u,u) : u \in V_n, \; j_n(u) = x \}$$ by Remark \[jclass\]. A similar statement holds for the functional $\phi$, which we define analogously for $(a,j)$.
The two conditions in (b) are equivalent to
(I) $x_n \rightharpoonup x$ implies that $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \phi_n(x_n) \ge \phi(x)$;
(II) for all $x \in H$ there exists $(x_n) \subset H$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty}x_n = x\qquad \hbox{and}\qquad \lim_{n\to \infty}\phi_n(x_n) = \phi(x).$$
In fact, assume (i) and (ii). If $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \phi_n(x_n) = \infty$ in (I), then there is nothing to show. Otherwise, (I) follows from (i) and . In (II), if $x \not\in j(V)$, i.e., $\phi(x) = \infty$, then by (I) any sequence $(x_n)$ in $H$ such that $\lim_{n\to \infty}x_n = x$ does the job. On the other hand, if $x = j(u)$ for some $u \in V(a)$, then (II) follows from (ii) and (I). On the contrary, if (I) and (II) are satisfied, then (i) and (ii) follow easily using .
We have shown that condition (b) is equivalent to Mosco-convergence of $\phi_n$ to $\phi$, which by [@Att84 Prop. 3.19 and Thm. 3.26] is equivalent to strong resolvent convergence of the subdifferentials, i.e., to (a).
\[rem:moscosym\] The implication from (b) to (a) in Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] remains valid for symmetric, but not necessarily positive forms provided that there exists $\omega \le 0$ such that $a_n(u,u) - \omega \|j_n(u)\|_H^2 \ge 0$ for all $u \in V_n$ and $a(u,u) - \omega \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge 0$ for all $u \in V$. In fact, assume that the conditions in (b) are fulfilled. Lower semicontinuity of the norm in $H$ yields that then also the positive forms $\tilde{a}_n$ and $\tilde{a}$ given by $\tilde{a}_n(u,v) \coloneqq a_n(u,v) - \omega {{\left(j_n(u)\midj_n(v)\right)_{}}}_H$ and $\tilde{a}(u,v) \coloneqq a(u,v) - \omega {{\left(j(u)\midj(v)\right)_{}}}_H$ satisfy the conditions in (b). Now the theorem implies that the associated operators $(-A_n - \omega)$ converge to $(-A - \omega)$ in the strong resolvent sense, which trivially implies (a).
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be separable Hilbert spaces. For $p\in [1,\infty)$ the $p$-Schatten class is defined by $${\mathcal L}_p(H_1,H_2):=\{T\in{\mathcal K}(H_1,H_2):\|T\|_{{\mathcal L}_p}:=\|(s_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}\|_{\ell^p}<\infty\},$$ where $(s_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is the sequence of *singular values* of $T$, i.e., the sequence of eigenvalues of $|T| \coloneqq (T^*T)^\frac12$. Then $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathcal L}_p}$ is a complete norm on $\mathcal{L}_p(H_1,H_2)$, called the $p$-Schatten norm. The operators in $\mathcal{L}_1(H_1,H_2)$ are also calls *trace class operators* with the *trace norm*, and the operators in $\mathcal{L}_2(H_1,H_2)$ are called *Hilbert–Schmidt operators*. If $H_1 = H_2 = H$ we frequently write $\mathcal{L}_p(H)$ instead of $\mathcal{L}_p(H,H)$. For more information about the Schatten classes we refer to [@GohKre69; @Sim05].
We are mainly interested in semigroups consisting of Schatten class operators. The following definition goes back to Dietrich A. Uhlenbrock [@Uhl71] and first appeared in applications in statistical mechanics. Nowadays, Gibbs semigroups are popular objects in mathematical physics.
Let $H$ be a Hilbert space. A *Gibbs semigroups* is a $C_0$-semigroup $(T(t))_{t\ge 0}$ on $H$ such that each operator $T(t)$, $t>0$, is of trace class.
\[versch\]
(1) Since $\mathcal{L}_p(H) \cdot \mathcal{L}_{q}(H) \subset \mathcal{L}_r(H) \subset \mathcal{L}_{r'}(H)$ for $\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q}$ and $r < r'$, every semigroup $(T(t))_{t \ge 0}$ for which there exists $p \in [1,\infty)$ such that $T(t) \in \mathcal{L}_p(H)$ for all $t > 0$ is a Gibbs semigroup.
(2) Let $X$ be a finite measure space. It is known that each bounded linear operator $T$ from $L^2(X)$ to $L^\infty(X)$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator [@Are06 Thm. 1.6.2]. In particular every ultra-contractive semigroup on $L^2(X)$ is a Gibbs semigroup. Hence Proposition \[prop:ultra\] provides a sufficient condition for the Gibbs property, which is sometimes easy to check.
(3) It seems to be difficult to characterise the Gibbs property in terms of the resolvent. If $-A$ generates an analytic semigroup $(T(t))_{t \ge 0}$ on $H$ and $(\lambda + A)^{-k} \in \mathcal{L}_p(H)$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$, some $\lambda$ in the resolvent set and some $p \in [1,\infty)$, then $(T(t))_{t \ge 0}$ is a Gibbs semigroup. In fact, since in that case the embedding $D(A^k) \hookrightarrow H$ is of Schatten class and $T(t)\colon H \to D(A^k)$ is bounded for $t > 0$, the ideal property implies that $T(t) \in \mathcal{L}_p(H)$ for all $t > 0$.
But the converse fails. In fact, consider the diagonal operator $A = D_\lambda$ on $\ell^2$ and $(T(t))_{t \ge 0} = (e^{-tA})_{t \ge 0}$, where $\lambda_n
\coloneqq \log^2 n$. Then the eigenvalues $e^{-t \log^2n} = n^{-t \log n}$ of $T(t)$ are summable for every $t > 0$, i.e., $(T(t))_{t \ge 0}$ is a Gibbs semigroup, but the eigenvalues $(\lambda+\log^2n)^{-k}$ of $(\lambda+A)^{-k}$ are not $p$-summable for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $p \in [1,\infty)$ and $\lambda$ in the resolvent set.
(4) The square root of the above operator $D_\lambda$ yields also another interesting counterexample. It is known that for an analytic semigroup immediate compactness and eventual compactness are equivalent. However, the square root of $D_\lambda$ generates a semigroup whose eigenvalues $e^{-t \log
n} = n^{-t}$ are $p$-summable if and only if $t > 1/p$. In particular, this self-adjoint semigroup is eventually Gibbs, but not immediately Gibbs.
(5) It is known that for a bounded domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^d$ with the cone property the embedding of $H^k(\Omega)$ into $L^2(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator whenever $2k > d$, see [@Mau61], and in fact a $p$-Schatten class operator if $pk>d$, see [@Gra68]. Under certain assumptions on the geometry, Maurin’s and Gramsch’s result have been extended to unbounded domains [@Cla66; @Koe77]. In such situations, if $A$ generates an analytic semigroup and $D(A) \subset H^1(\Omega)$, then $A$ generates a Gibbs semigroup. Observe that by [@Ada75 Thm. 6.54 and Rem. 6.55] there exist domains with infinite measure such that the embedding of $H^1(\Omega)$ into $L^2(\Omega)$ is in $\mathcal{L}_p(H^1(\Omega),L^2(\Omega))$ for some $p
\in [1,\infty)$. In this situation criterion (2) does not apply.
(6) The preceding criterion can also be useful for semigroups on Sobolev spaces $H^s$ with index $s\not=0$. For example, it allows us to prove that the semigroup generated by the Wentzell–Robin Laplacian on a smooth domain (see Section \[sec:wro\] for details) on $H^1(\Omega)$ considered in [@AreMetPal03 §2.9] and [@FavGolGol03] is Gibbs. To be more precise, recall that the domain of the Wentzell–Robin-Laplacian is a subspace of $H^\frac{3}{2}(\Omega)\times
L^2(\partial \Omega)$. Thus, the semigroup generated by its part in $V \coloneqq \{ (u, u_{|\partial\Omega}) : u \in H^1(\Omega) \}$ maps $V$ to $\{ (u,u_{|\partial\Omega}) : u \in H^\frac{3}{2}(\Omega) \}$ for all $t > 0$. By [@Gra68 Satz 1] the embedding $H^\frac{3}{2}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow
H^1(\Omega)$ is a $p$-Schatten class operator for all $p>2d$, hence so is any operator of the semigroup for $t>0$, and by part (1) this semigroup is Gibbs. The same argument applies to general (also non-selfadjoint) elliptic operators with Wentzell-Robin or similar boundary conditions. On the other hand, part (2) does not yield the result in this case since the semigroup is not defined on an $L^2$-space.
We apply known result about convergence in Schatten norms, cf. [@Sim05 Chapter 2], to semigroups arising from $j$-elliptic forms. The following proposition is a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:dom\] together with [@Zag80 Lemma, p.271]. Its conditions are often easy to check; we will give some examples later on.
\[thm:semiconv\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and let $(a_n,j_n)$, $(a,j)$ and $(b,j)$ be symmetric, sesquilinear forms that satisfy the conditions in Definition \[def:complete\]. We denote by $A_n$, $A$ and $B$ the associated self-adjoint operators. Assume that
(i) $(b,j) \le (a_n,j_n)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ in the sense of Proposition \[prop:dom\],
(ii) $-B$ generates a Gibbs semigroup, and
(iii) $(A_n)$ converges to $A$ in the strong resolvent sense.
Then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{-tA_n}= e^{-tA}\qquad \hbox{in }{\mathcal L}_1(H)$$ for every $t>0$.
Theorem \[thm:semiconv\] tells us that the existence of a dominating form implies trace norm convergence of the semigroup. This is remarkable because, even though form domination implies domination for the resolvents, it does in general not imply domination for the semigroups. In fact, for $A \coloneqq
\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 & 2 \\ 2 & 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $B
\coloneqq \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 3 & 0 \\ 0 & 6 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ we have $0 \le A \le B$, but $e^{-B} \not\le e^{-A}$ in the sense of positive definiteness. The authors are grateful to Ulrich Groh (Tübingen) for pointing out this example.
Finally, we also consider convergence of semigroups in Schatten norms as operators between different Hilbert spaces. We obtain our main result as a consequence of an interpolation theorem for Schatten class operators. A criterion which enables us to check the trace norm convergence required in the following theorem was given in Theorem \[thm:semiconv\].
\[thm:sobschatt\] Let $p\in [1,\infty)$. Let $(A_n),A$ be uniformly m-sectorial operators on $H$, i.e., m-sectorial operators with uniform constants, which generate Gibbs semigroups. Assume that there exists a subspace $\tilde{H}$ of $H$ such that
- $\tilde{H}$ is a Hilbert space,
- $\tilde{H}$ is compactly embedded in $H$, and
- there exists some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $D(A_n^k) \subset \tilde{H}$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ with uniform embedding constants.
If $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{-tA_n}= e^{-tA}\qquad \hbox{in }\mathcal{L}_p(H)$$ for every $t>0$, then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{-tA_n} = e^{-tA}\qquad \hbox{in }\mathcal{L}_q(H,H_\theta)$$ for every $t>0$ and every $\theta\in (0,1)$, where $q \in [1,\infty)$ is given by $$\frac{1}{q} = \frac{\theta}{p} + (1-\theta)$$ and where $H_\theta$ denotes the complex interpolation space $[\tilde{H},H]_\theta$.
We first show that $D(A^k)$ is continuously embedded into $\tilde{H}$. Fix $\lambda > 0$ so large that $\lambda + A_n$ is invertible with uniformly bounded inverse with respect to $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Take $u\in H$. Then the uniform constants in the m-sectoriality and the embeddings ensure that the sequence $((\lambda+A_n)^{-k} u)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded in $\tilde{H}$. Hence there exists a weakly convergent subsequence in $\tilde{H}$, which necessarily converges to $(\lambda+A)^{-k} u$ since the semigroups and hence the resolvents converge strongly by assumption. This proves that $D(A^k)\subset \tilde{H}$. Now the closed graph theorem yields $D(A^k)\hookrightarrow \tilde{H}$.
For every $t>0$ and every $n\in\mathbb N$ the operator $e^{-tA_n}=e^{-\frac{t}{2} A_n}e^{-\frac{t}{2} A_n}$ is a composition of an operator in $\mathcal{L}_1(H)$ and an operator in $\mathcal{L}(H,\tilde{H})$, both with uniformly estimable norms, compare (1) in Remarks \[versch\]. Hence $\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \|e^{-tA_n}\|_{\mathcal{L}_1(H,\tilde{H})} < \infty$ by the ideal property of the norm, and by a similar argument $e^{-tA}$ is in $\mathcal{L}_1(H,\tilde{H})$ as well.
Now we obtain from an interpolation result for Schatten class operators [@Gap74] that $$\|e^{-tA_n}- e^{-tA}\|_{{\mathcal L}_q(H,H_\theta)}\le C\|e^{-tA_n}- e^{-tA}\|^\theta_{{\mathcal L}_1(H,\tilde{H})}\|e^{-tA_n}- e^{-tA}\|^{1-\theta}_{{\mathcal L}_p(H)},$$ for some constant $C \ge 1$ since the fractional domain space considered in [@Gap74] coincides with $H_\theta$ up to equivalent norms. The first factor is bounded by the above considerations whereas the second factor converges to zero by assumption.
Let us combine several of our observations into a final result.
\[cor:summarize\] Let $X$ be a finite measure space. Let $(a_n,j_n)$, $(a,j)$ and $(b,j')$ be positive elltiptic forms on $L^2(X)$ in the sense of Definition \[def:complete\] with form domain $V$, and denote the associated self-adjoint operators by $A_n$, $A$ and $B$, respectively. Let $\tilde{H}$ be a dense subspace of $H$, which is a Hilbert space in its own right. Assume that
- $(a_n,j_n)$ converges to $(a,j)$ in the sense of Mosco;
- $(b,j') \le (a_n,j_n)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$;
- there exists $q > 2$ such that $j'(V) \subset L^q(X)$;
- for all $u\in V$ there exists $w\in V$ such that $(|j(u)| \wedge 1)\operatorname{sign}j(u)=j(w) $ and $\operatorname{Re}b(w, u-w) \ge 0$;
- $\tilde{H}$ is compactly embedded into $H$;
- $D(A_n^k) \subset \tilde{H}$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ with an embedding constant that is uniform in $n \in \mathbb{N}$;
For arbitrary $\theta \in (0,1)$ let $H_\theta$ denote the complex interpolation space $H_\theta = [\tilde{H},H]_\theta$. Then $e^{-tA_n} \to e^{-tA}$ in the trace norm $\mathcal{L}_1(H,H_\theta)$ and hence in particular in the operator norm $\mathcal{L}(H,H_\theta)$.
By the invariance criterion for $j$-elliptic forms [@AreEls09 Prop 2.9] the semigroup is $L^\infty(X)$-contractive, analogously to the situation in [@Ouh05 Thm. 2.13]. Hence by Proposition \[prop:ultra\] it is ultra-contractive and thus Gibbs by Remark \[versch\]. Since in addition $(-A_n)$ converges to $-A$ in the strong resolvent sense by Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] we obtain from Theorem \[thm:semiconv\] that $e^{-tA_n} \to e^{-tA}$ in $\mathcal{L}_1(H)$. Now the assertion follows from Theorem \[thm:sobschatt\].
The assumption of Corollary \[cor:summarize\] that $D(A_n^k) \subset \tilde{H}$ with uniform embeddings is in particular satisfied for $\tilde{H} = V$ if the constants in the ellipticity estimate of $(a_n,j_n)$ are uniform in $n$, for the semigroups $(e^{tA_n})$ are bounded as operators from $H$ to $V$, uniformly in $n$.
We emphasise that in this special case Corollary \[cor:summarize\] yields a convergence result for semigroups under assumptions solely on the associated forms, with no reference to the associated operators.
Let us finally remark on the Gibbs property for other kinds of operator families.
(1) Let $-A$ be a self-adjoint operator, hence the generator of a sine operator function $(S(t))_{t \in \mathbb{R}}$, cf. [@AreBatHie01 § 3.15]. It is known that $S(t)$ maps $H$ into $V$ for all $t\in\mathbb R$, where $V$ is the domain of the form associated with $A$. If the embedding of $V$ into $H$ is of $p$-Schatten class (e.g., $V$ a closed subspace of $H^1(0,1)$, $H = L^2(0,1)$ and $p > 1$, cf. Remark \[versch\].(5)), then $S(t)$ is of $p$-Schatten class for all $t\in\mathbb R$.
(2) Unlike in the semigroup case, however, there exist sine operator functions $(S(t))_{t \in \mathbb{R}}$ on a Hilbert space $H$ such that $S(t) \in \mathcal{L}_p(H)$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ for some $p > 1$, but $S(t) \not\in \mathcal{L}_{p-{\varepsilon}}(H)$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ and all ${\varepsilon}> 0$. In fact, fix $\alpha\ge 1$ and consider the multiplication operator $M_\lambda$ on $\ell^2$, where the sequence $\lambda$ is given by $$\lambda_n:=-\left(\frac{\pi}{2}+2\pi \lfloor n^\alpha\rfloor
\right)^2,\qquad n\in\mathbb N$$ and $\lfloor x\rfloor$ denotes the greatest integer below $x$. Then the corresponding sine operator function is given by $$S(t)x:=\bigl(\tfrac{\sinh(\sqrt{\lambda_n} t)}{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}x_n\bigr)_{n\in\mathbb N}
=\bigl(\tfrac{\sin((\frac{\pi}{2} + 2\pi\lfloor n^\alpha \rfloor)t)}{\frac{\pi}{2} + 2\pi \lfloor n^\alpha \rfloor} x_n\bigr)_{n \in \mathbb{N}},\quad t\in\mathbb R,\;x\in \ell^2,$$ so $S(t) \in \mathcal{L}_p(\ell^2)$ for all $p>\alpha^{-1}$ and all $t\in\mathbb R$, but $S(1)$ is not in ${\mathcal L}_{\alpha^{-1}}(\ell^2)$.
(3) On an infinite dimensional Hilbert space a cosine operator function with unbounded generator never consists of Schatten class operators on a non-void open interval. In fact, a cosine operator function can only be compact on an interval of positive length if its generator is a bounded operator, cf. [@TraWeb77 Lemma 2.1].
Applications {#application:sec}
============
Convergence of Laplacians with respect to higher regularity Schatten norms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin with an application of our result about Schatten convergence, which shows how our convergence results can be combined to treat semigroups generated by elliptic operators: starting with convergence in the strong resolvent sense we are able to obtain trace norm convergence with respect to Sobolev spaces of arbitrarily high order.
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open domain in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with $C^\infty$-boundary. Consider a sequence of Laplacians $\Delta_{k_n}$ with Robin boundary conditions $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}+k_n u=0\qquad \hbox{on }\partial \Omega.$$ for constants $(k_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}\subset [0,\infty)$. If $(k_n)$ is a monotonically decreasing null sequence, then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{t \Delta_{k_n}} = e^{t \Delta_N}\qquad \hbox{in }\mathcal{L}_1(L^2(\Omega),H^\ell(\Omega))$$ for every $t > 0$ and every $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$, where $\Delta_N$ denotes the Laplace operator on $\Omega$ with Neumann boundary conditions.
By [@Kat95 Thm. 8.3.11] the sequence $(\Delta_{k_n})$ converges to $\Delta_N$ in the strong resolvent sense. Let $(a_n)$ and $a_N$ be the elliptic classical forms associated with $-\Delta_{k_n}$ and $-\Delta_N$, respectively. Then $a_n \ge a_N$ in the sense of Proposition \[prop:dom\]. Moreover, $\Delta_N$ generates a Gibbs semigroup, see (2) in Remarks \[versch\] and use [@Ouh05 Corollary 2.17 and Theorem 6.4]. Hence $e^{-t\Delta_{k_n}} \to e^{-t\Delta_N}$ in $\mathcal{L}_1(L^2(\Omega))$ by Theorem \[thm:semiconv\]. Moreover, following the proofs of elliptic regularity, cf. [@Gri85 §2.5.1], one can see that $D(\Delta_{k_n}^\ell)$ is uniformly embedded into $H^{2\ell}(\Omega)$ for every $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$. Applying Theorem \[thm:sobschatt\] with $\theta = \frac12$ we conclude that $e^{t \Delta_{k_n}} \to e^{t \Delta_N}$ in $\mathcal{L}_1(L^2(\Omega),H^\ell(\Omega))$ for every $t > 0$ and every $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$.
Analogous arguments work for heat equations with the dynamic boundary conditions $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}-k_n u\qquad \hbox{on }\partial \Omega,$$ which arise from forms as seen in [@AreMetPal03]. This complements the results of [@CocGolGol08], where the emphasis lies in obtaining sharp estimates for the rate of convergence with respect to the $H^1$-operator norm.
Convergence of Laplacians with variable boundary conditions on exterior domains {#sec:birapp}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result in this section is somewhat special, since we prove Schatten norm convergence of diffusion semigroups $(T_n(t))_{t \ge 0}$ to a semigroup $(T(t))_{t \ge 0}$, all acting on spaces of functions on exterior domains with varying boundary conditions. As we will see, in this situation it is sometimes possible to obtain that $T_n(t) - T(t) \to 0$ in $\mathcal{L}_p$ (for sufficiently large values of $p$) as $n\to \infty$ even though the operators $T_n(t)$ and $T(t)$ are not individually in $\mathcal{L}_p$ and in fact not even compact. In particular, Theorem \[thm:semiconv\] does not apply here. Instead, our argument relies upon classical results on differences of differential operators first due to Mikhail Š. Birman [@Bir08 Thm. 3.8] and recently improved in [@BehLanLob10]; only Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] is additionally needed. Such situations indeed appear frequently in mathematical physics, see for example [@Sto94; @DemStoSto95; @CheExnTur10].
\[thm:birm1\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^d$, $d \ge 3$, be an exterior domain with smooth boundary and $\Delta_\beta$ the Laplace operator on $\Omega$ with Robin boundary condition $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}+\beta u = 0\qquad \hbox{on }\partial \Omega.$$ If $(\beta_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is a bounded sequence in $L^\infty(\partial\Omega)$ and converges to a function $\beta_0$ almost everywhere, then $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \bigl( e^{t\Delta_{\beta_n}} - e^{t\Delta_{\beta_0}} \bigr) = 0 \qquad \hbox{in }{\mathcal L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$$ for every $t>0$ and all $p>\frac{d-1}{3}$.
Let us first show that the operators are uniformly m-sectorial. Since the trace operator $u \mapsto u|_{\partial\Omega}$ is compact from $H^1(\Omega)$ to $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, by Lemma \[lem:eberlein\] there exists $c > 0$ such that $$\|u\|_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}^2 \le \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + c \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2$$ for all $u \in H^1(\Omega)$. This shows that the quadratic form $q_\beta$ associated with $-\Delta_\beta$, i.e. $$q_\beta(u) \coloneqq \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2 + \int_{\partial\Omega} \beta_n |u|^2$$ for $u \in H^1(\Omega)$, is semi-bounded for every essentially bounded function $\beta$ and hence that $\Delta_\beta$ generates a $\mathrm{C}_0$-semigroup on $L^2(\Omega)$. More precisely, $$q_{\beta_n}(u) \ge \frac{1}{2} \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2 - c m \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2$$ with $m \coloneqq \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \|\beta_n\|_\infty$. This proves uniform m-sectoriality.
Next we show convergence in the strong resolvent sense. We write $\tilde{q}_\beta(u) \coloneqq q_\beta(u) + (c m + 1) \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2$ for simplicity and show that $\tilde{q}_{\beta_n}$ converges to $\tilde{q}_{\beta_0} + c m + 1$ in the sense of Mosco. To this end, let $(u_n)$ be a sequence in $H^1(\Omega)$ such that $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \tilde{q}_{\beta_n}(u_n) < \infty$. Then $(u_n)$ is bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, hence passing to a subsequence we can assume that $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $H^1(\Omega)$. Thus in particular $u \in H^1(\Omega)$. Now by compactness $u_n|_{\partial\Omega} \to u|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, so in particular $$\int_{\partial\Omega} \beta_n |u_n|^2 \to \int_{\partial\Omega} \beta_0 |u|^2.$$ By weak lower semicontinuity of the norm of $H^1(\Omega)$ this proves $$\tilde{q}_{\beta_0}(u) \le \liminf_{n \to \infty} \tilde{q}_{\beta_n}(u_n).$$ Moreover, for given $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ we clearly have $\tilde{q}_{\beta_n}(u) \to \tilde{q}_{\beta_0}(u)$ by Lebesgue’s theorem. We thus have shown that $\Delta_{\beta_n} \to \Delta_{\beta_0}$ in the strong resolvent sense, see Theorem \[thm:strongconv\].
We now proves the convergence in Schatten norm. Since $-\Delta_{-m} \le -\Delta_{\beta_n} \le -\Delta_m$ in the form sense we have $$(c m + 1 - \Delta_m)^{-1} \ge (c m + 1 - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} \ge (c m + 1 - \Delta_{-m})^{-1}$$ as self-adjoint operators [@Kat95 Thm. 2.21]. A similar assertion holds for $\Delta_{\beta_0}$. Consequently, $$|(c m + 1 - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} - (c m + 1 - \Delta_{\beta_0})^{-1}|
\le (c m + 1 - \Delta_m)^{-1} - (c m + 1 - \Delta_{-m})^{-1},$$ where the right hand side is in $\mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$ for every $p > \frac{d-1}{3}$ by [@BehLanLob10 Cor. 3.6]. This implies that $(c m + 1 - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1}$ converges to $(c m + 1 - \Delta_{\beta_0})^{-1}$ in $\mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$ as $n \to \infty$, see [@NeiZag90b Prop. 2.1].
Moreover, as in the proof of [@BehLanLob10 Thm. 3.5], for all $\lambda$ and $\mu$ in the sector $\Sigma \coloneqq \mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R}_{\le cm}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& (\mu - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} - (\mu - \Delta_{\beta_0})^{-1} \\
& = \bigl( I + (\lambda - \mu) (\mu - \Delta_{\beta_0})^{-1} \bigr) \bigl( (\lambda - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} - (\lambda - \Delta_{\beta_0})^{-1} \bigr) \bigl( I + (\lambda - \mu) (\mu - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ In fact, this identity is certainly satisfied on $V=H^1(\Omega)$ since $\kappa - \Delta_{\beta_n}$ and $\kappa - \Delta_{\beta_0}$ are isomorphisms from $V$ to the dual space $V'$. Thus the identity extends to $L^2(\Omega)$ by denseness.
Picking $\lambda = cm+1$ we obtain from the ideal property that $$(\mu - \Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} - (\mu - \Delta_\beta)^{-1} \in \mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$$ for all $\mu \in \Sigma$. More precisely we even obtain that on every sector smaller than $\Sigma$ this sequence of differences is bounded and convergent in $\mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$ on compact subsets of $\Sigma$, uniformly with respect to $n$. Here we have used that the operators $\Delta_{\beta_n}$ are uniformly m-sectorial. Hence the integral representation [@AreBatHie01 (3.46)] $$e^{t\Delta_{\beta_n}}-e^{t\Delta_\beta} =
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma e^{-t\lambda} \left((\lambda-\Delta_{\beta_n})^{-1} -(\lambda-\Delta_\beta)^{-1}\right) d\lambda,$$ shows that $e^{t\Delta_{\beta_n}}$ converges to $e^{t\Delta_\beta}$ in $\mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$ for every $t > 0$.
Coupled boundary conditions
---------------------------
In this subsection we consider convergence for systems of Laplacians with a certain coupled boundary conditions, which are motivated by quantum graphs. It seems that [@Kat95 Thm. VI.3.6] cannot be used to obtain strong convergence of the resolvents in this example, so we employ an approach developed by Olaf Post [@Pos06] instead, where we use the notation of [@MugNitPos10].
\[olafrev\] Let $(Y_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a sequence of closed subspaces of $\mathbb C^k$, $k\in\mathbb N$. Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^d$ be an exterior domain with smooth compact boundary and $(\Delta_{Y_n})_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a sequence of Laplacians on $L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k)$ with boundary conditions $$u|_{\partial \Omega}\in Y_n\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad \frac{\partial u}{\partial
\nu}\in Y_n^\perp\quad a.e.,\;n\in\mathbb N.$$ Assume that there exist a subspace $Y$ of ${\mathbb C}^k$ and a family $({J}^{\downarrow n})_{n\in\mathbb
N}$ of unitary operators on $H$ converging to the identity $I$ such that ${J}^{\downarrow n}Y_n=Y$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$. Denote by $\Delta_Y$ the Laplacian with corresponding boundary conditions. Then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{t\Delta_{Y_n}}=e^{t\Delta_Y}\qquad \hbox{ in }\mathcal L_p(L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k))$$ for every $t>0$ and all $p>\frac{d-1}{2}$.
We introduce elliptic forms $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $a_0$ with form domains $$\begin{aligned}
V_n & :=\{f\in H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k):f|_{\partial\Omega}\in Y_n\} \qquad n\in\mathbb N, \\
V & :=\{f\in H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k):f|_{\partial\Omega}\in Y\}\end{aligned}$$ as in [@CarMug09 §2]. These forms are symmetric, and accordingly the associated Laplacians $\Delta_{Y_n}$ and $\Delta_Y$ are self-adjoint operators on $H:=L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k)$.
We set $${\mathcal J}^{\downarrow n}
f:={\mathcal J}^{\downarrow n}_{1} f:={J^{\downarrow n}}\circ f\qquad \hbox{and}\qquad
{\mathcal J}^{\uparrow n} f:={\mathcal J}^{\uparrow_ n}_1 f:={J^{\uparrow n}}\circ
f,\qquad n\in\mathbb N.$$ Since these operators are unitary on $H=L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb C}^k)$ as well as from $V_n$ to $V$, it is easy to see that the assumptions in [@MugNitPos10 Def. 2.3] are satisfied, and we deduce from [@MugNitPos10 Prop. 3.4] that $\Delta_{Y_n}$ converges to $\Delta_Y$ in the norm resolvent sense.
Moreover, $-\Delta_{\mathbb{C}^k} \le -\Delta_{Y_n} \le -\Delta_{\lbrace 0 \rbrace}$ in the form sense and hence $$| (\lambda - \Delta_{Y_n})^{-1} - (\lambda - \Delta_{Y_0})^{-1} | \le (\lambda - \Delta_{\lbrace0\rbrace})^{-1} - (\lambda - \Delta_{\mathbb{C}^k})^{-1}$$ by [@Kat95 Thm. 2.21]. Using that $\Delta_{\lbrace0\rbrace}$ and $\Delta_{\mathbb{C}^k}$ act as uncoupled copies of $k$ Dirichlet and Neumann Laplace operators, respectively, we obtain from Birman’s result [@Bir08 Thm. 3.8] that the operator on the right hand side is in $\mathcal{L}_p(L^2(\Omega))$ for every $p > \frac{d-1}{2}$. The conclusion now follows as in Theorem \[thm:birm1\].
We have formulated Theorems \[thm:birm1\] and \[olafrev\] in the case of Laplacians only for the sake of simplicity: in fact, both results can be extended to strongly elliptic operators with coefficients in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$. Also, rougher and even non-compact boundaries can be allowed, leading to convergence only for larger $p$, cf. [@Bir08 Rem. 3.4, Thm. 3.8 and Thm. 5.2].
Dirichlet-to-Neumann-type operators {#sec:dir-to-neu}
-----------------------------------
By showing that the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator is associated with a $j$-elliptic form, Arendt and ter Elst have delivered a most interesting application of their theory. This is an instance where a non-injective $j$ appears in a natural way.
Consider an open bounded domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^d$ with Lipschitz boundary, where $d \ge 2$, and let $V \coloneqq H^1(\Omega)$ and $H \coloneqq L^2(\partial\Omega)$. We consider the sesquilinear form $a$ defined by $$a(u,v):= \int_\Omega \alpha \nabla u\cdot \overline{\nabla v},\qquad u,v\in V,$$ where the matrix-valued coefficient $\alpha\in L^\infty(\Omega;\mathbb C^{d \times d})$ is uniformly positive definite, i.e., for a.e. $x\in \Omega$ the matrix $\alpha(x)$ is Hermitian and satisfies $$(\alpha(x)\xi|\xi)\ge k_0 |\xi|^2\qquad \hbox{ for all }\xi\in\mathbb C^d$$ for some $k_0>0$. Let $j$ be the trace operator from $V$ to $H$. It can be checked as in [@AreEls09 §4.4] that $a$ is a $j$-elliptic symmetric form, and more precisely $$a(u,u) - \omega \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge \mu \|u\|_V^2\qquad \hbox{for all }u\in V$$ for some $\omega \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mu > 0$.
Let $\lambda_1^D(a)$ denote the smallest eigenvalue of the operator associated with the restriction of $a$ to to $H^1_0(\Omega)$, i.e., $$\lambda_1^D(a) \coloneqq \inf_{u \in H^1_0(\Omega)} \frac{a(u,u)}{\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}.$$ Let $\gamma_0 < \lambda_1^D(a)$ and fix a complex-valued function $\gamma \in L^q(\Omega)$, $q > \frac{d}{2}$, satisfying $\operatorname{Re}\gamma \ge -\gamma_0$. Then $$b(u,v):= \int_{\Omega} \gamma u \overline{v},\qquad u,v\in V,$$ defines a bounded sesquilinear form on $V$ by the Hölder inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem.
Under the above assumptions, $a+b$ is $j$-elliptic.
By the variational characterisation of $\lambda_1^D$ we have for all $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ that $$\operatorname{Re}b(u,u) \ge -\gamma_0 \int_\Omega |u|^2 \ge -\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda_1^D(a)} a(u,u)$$ and hence $$\label{eq:DtNfirstpart}
a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) \ge \tilde{\eta} a(u,u) \ge \tilde{\eta} k_0 \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2
\ge \eta \|u\|_V^2$$ for all $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$, where $\tilde{\eta} \coloneqq 1 - \frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda_1^D(a)} > 0$ and $\eta > 0$ depends on the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $\Omega$. Moreover, $H^1(\Omega)$ is compactly embedded into $L^2(\Omega)$ and $j$ is injective on $V(a)$, hence for all $u \in V(a)$ we have $$\operatorname{Re}b(u,u) \ge -\gamma_0 \int_\Omega |u|^2
\ge \frac{\mu}{2} \|u\|_V^2 - c_\mu \|j(u)\|_H^2$$ for some $c_\mu \ge 0$ by Lemma \[lem:eberlein\] and hence $$\label{eq:DtNsecondpart}
a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) - (\omega - c_\mu) \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge \frac{\mu}{2} \|u\|_V^2$$ for all $u \in V(a)$.
For $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $v \in V(a)$ we have $a(v,u) = a(u,v) = 0$ by definition of $V(a)$. Moreover, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ we have $$\label{eq:DtNmixed}
\begin{aligned}
|b(u,v)| + |b(v,u)| & \le c \|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)} \|v\|_{L^p(\Omega)}
\le \frac{c {\varepsilon}}{2} \|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^2 + \frac{c}{2 {\varepsilon}} \|v\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^2 \\
& \le \frac{c {\varepsilon}}{2} \|u\|_V^2 + c_{\varepsilon}\|j(v)\|_H^2 + {\varepsilon}\|v\|_V^2
\end{aligned}$$ for some $p \in [2,\frac{2(d-1)}{d-2})$ and some $c, c_{\varepsilon}\ge 0$ by the integrability assumptions on $\gamma$, the Sobolev embeddings theorems and Lemma \[lem:eberlein\].
Since every $u \in V$ has a representation of the form $u = u_1 + u_2$ with $u_1 \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $u_2 \in V(a)$ by Remark \[jclass\], combining , and , where in the latter we pick ${\varepsilon}> 0$ such that $\frac{c {\varepsilon}}{2} < \frac{\eta}{2}$ and ${\varepsilon}< \frac{\mu}{4}$, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
& a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) \\
& \quad = a(u_1,u_1) + \operatorname{Re}b(u_1,u_1) + a(u_2,u_2) + \operatorname{Re}b(u_2,u_2) + \operatorname{Re}b(u_1,u_2) + \operatorname{Re}b(u_2,u_1)\\
& \quad \ge \eta \|u_1\|_V^2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|u_2\|_V^2 + (\omega - c_\mu) \|j(u_2)\|_H^2 - \frac{\eta}{2} \|u_1\|_V^2 - \frac{\mu}{4} \|u_2\|_V^2 - c_{\varepsilon}\|j(u_2)\|_H^2 \\
& \quad = \frac{\eta}{2} \|u_1\|_V^2 + \frac{\mu}{4} \|u_2\|_V^2 + \omega' \|j(u_2)\|_H^2\end{aligned}$$ for some $\omega' \in \mathbb{R}$. Finally, since $V = H^1_0(\Omega) \oplus V(a)$ by Remark \[jclass\], the expression $|||u|||^2 \coloneqq \|u_1\|_V^2 + \|u_2\|_V^2$ defines an equivalent norm on $V$, which allows us to write the previous estimate as $$a(u,u) + \operatorname{Re}b(u,u) - \omega' \|j(u)\|_H^2 \ge \mu' \|u\|_V^2\qquad \hbox{for all } u\in V,$$ for some $\mu' > 0$. This is the $j$-ellipticity of $a+b$.
Following [@AreEls09 §4.4] one can check that the operator $-D^\gamma_{\alpha}$ associated with $a+b$ is some *Dirichlet-to-Neumann* operator. More precisely, $\varphi \in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ is in $D(D^\gamma_{\alpha})$ if and only if there exists a (necessarily unique) weak solution of the inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem $$\tag{IDP}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\gamma u - \operatorname{div}(\alpha\nabla u)&=0,\qquad &&x\in\Omega,\\
u(z)&=\varphi(z),\qquad &&z\in\partial\Omega,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ and the weak conormal derivative $\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu_\alpha}$ exists as an element of $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. In this case, $-D_\alpha^\gamma u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu_\alpha}$. The above considerations show that $D_\alpha^\gamma$ generates an analytic semigroup. We formulate this as a theorem.
\[theo:d-zu-n-gen\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^d$ be an open bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary, where $d \ge 2$. Let $\alpha\in L^\infty(\Omega;\mathbb C^{d \times d})$ be uniformly positive definite, and let $\gamma \in L^q(\Omega;{\mathbb C})$, $q > \frac{d}{2}$, be such that $\operatorname{Re}\gamma \ge -\gamma_0$ for some $\gamma_0 < \lambda_1^D$. Then the operator $D^\gamma_{\alpha}$ generates an analytic semigroup on $H = L^2(\partial\Omega)$, which is Gibbs if additionally $\gamma\ge 0$.
If $\Omega$, $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are smooth, then the analyticity angle of this semigroup is $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
Let us prove the assertion on the analyticity angle. Let everything be smooth, so that in particular $\gamma$ is bounded. By Proposition \[lemma:crouz\] it suffices to check that $$M \|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)} \|u\|_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}\ge \left|\operatorname{Im}\int_\Omega \gamma |u|^2 \right|\qquad\hbox{for all }u\in V(a+b)$$ holds for some $M \ge 0$, where $V(a+b)$ consists by definition of all $H^1$-functions that are weak solutions of $\rm(IDP)$ for some $\gamma$. Since $\operatorname{Re}\gamma \ge -\gamma_0$ the only function $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ satisfying $\gamma u - \operatorname{div}(\alpha \nabla u) = 0$ is $u=0$. Hence by [@LioMag72 Thm. 2.7.4] the trace operator is an isomorphism from $$\{ u\in H^\frac{1}{2}(\Omega): \gamma u - \operatorname{div}(\alpha \nabla u) = 0 \}$$ onto $L^2(\partial \Omega)$. Accordingly, the estimate in Proposition \[lemma:crouz\] can be equivalently formulated as $$M \|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)} \|u\|_{H^{\frac12}(\Omega)}\ge \left|\operatorname{Im}\int_\Omega \gamma|u|^2 \right|\qquad\hbox{for all }u\in V(a+b)$$ for some possibly larger constant $M$. This is satisfied whenever $\gamma$ is bounded.
Assume now that $\gamma \ge 0$. Then by [@AreEls09 Prop. 2.9] the Dirichlet-to-Neumann semigroup of Theorem \[theo:d-zu-n-gen\] submarkovian, i.e., positive and $L^\infty(\partial\Omega)$-contractive, which is easily checked by a version of an invariance criterion due to Ouhabaz for $j$-elliptic forms [@AreEls09 Prop. 2.9], see also [@AreEls10 Prop. 3.7]. In this case Proposition \[prop:ultra\] and the Sobolev embedding theorems for $\partial\Omega$ (see e.g. [@Aub82 Thm. 2.20]) yield in particular that the Dirichlet-to-Neumann semigroup is a Gibbs semigroup.
For the last step of the preceding proof we only need that $\gamma \in L^{\frac{2d}{3}}(\Omega)$. Hence one could suspect that for all such $\gamma$ the operator $D^\gamma_\alpha$ generates a cosine operator function without any additional conditions on the smoothness of $\alpha$, $\Omega$ and $\gamma$. However, to extend the result to this situation we would need a generalisation of [@LioMag72 Thm. 2.7.4] to rough domains and rough coefficients. A partial result into this direction is [@GesMit09 Lemma. 3.1], where for the Laplace operator [@LioMag72 Thm. 2.7.4] is extended to Lipschitz domains.
We regard the perturbation we are considering as interesting mainly because it cannot be expressed as a perturbation by an operator. In comparison, if for smooth $\Omega$ we consider the vaguely related sesquilinear form $b':V\times V\to \mathbb C$ defined by $b'(u,v):= \int_{\partial\Omega} \beta u \overline{v}$ with $\beta \in L^{d-1}(\partial\Omega)$, then $a + b'$ is associated with $-D^\gamma_\alpha - B$, where $B$ is a bounded operator from $D(D^\gamma_\alpha)$ to $L^2(\Omega)$, and we can deal with it using perturbation theorems for generators.
\[rem:dtnSM\] The Gibbs property of the semigroup in Theorem \[theo:d-zu-n-gen\] has been observed before by Zagrebnov [@Zag08 Lemma 2.14]. His sketch of the proof is based on a Weyl-type asymptotic result for the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator [@Zag08 Prop 2.5], which seems to require smoothness of the boundary. A complete proof is announced for a forthcoming (but not yet accessible) joint paper with Hassan Emamirad.
In the self-adjoint case we can also prove the following convergence result.
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^d$ be an open bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary, where $d \ge 2$. Let $(\alpha_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}\subset
L^\infty(\Omega;\mathbb C^{d \times d})$ be such that $\alpha_n(x)$ is uniformly positive definite uniformly with respect to $n$, i.e., $$(\alpha_n(x)\xi|\xi)\ge k_0 |\xi|^2\qquad \hbox{for a.e. }x\in \Omega,\; \hbox{all }n\in \mathbb N\hbox{ and all }\xi\in\mathbb C^d$$ for some $k_0>0$. Let finally $(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}\subset L^q(\Omega;{\mathbb C})$, $q > \frac{d}{2}$, be such that $\operatorname{Re}\gamma_n \ge -\gamma_0$ a.e. for some $$\gamma_0 < \inf_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \inf_{u \in H^1_0(\Omega)} \frac{\int_\Omega \alpha_n \nabla u \cdot \overline{\nabla u}}{\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}.$$ If $\lim_{n\to \infty}\gamma_n = \gamma$ and $\lim_{n\to \infty}\alpha_n= \alpha$ almost everywhere, then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{-tD^{\gamma_n}_{\alpha_n}} = e^{-tD^\gamma_\alpha} \qquad \hbox{in }\mathcal{L}_1(L^2(\partial\Omega))$$ for every $t > 0$.
Define $$b(u,v) \coloneqq k_0 \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot \overline{\nabla v} - \gamma_0 \int_\Omega u \overline{v}$$ for $u, v \in H^1(\Omega)$, and let $j$ be the trace operator from $H^1(\Omega)$ to $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. Then $(b,j) \le (a_n,j)$ in the sense of Proposition \[prop:dom\] for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, where $a_n$ denotes the form associated with $-D^{\gamma_n}_{\alpha_n}$. Moreover, the semigroup associated with $(b,j)$ is a Gibbs semigroup by Remark \[rem:dtnSM\]. So in view of Theorem \[thm:semiconv\] it only remains to show that $D^{\gamma_n}_{\alpha_n} \to D^\gamma_\alpha$ in the strong resolvent sense, for which we employ Remark \[rem:moscosym\].
Let $(u_n)$ be a sequence in $H^1(\Omega)$ such that $u_n|_{\partial\Omega} \rightharpoonup \varphi$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $s \coloneqq \liminf a_n(u_n,u_n) < \infty$. Since the constants in the $j_n$-ellipticity of $a_n$ are uniform with respect to $n$, the sequence $(u_n)$ is bounded in $V = H^1(\Omega)$, and thus we may assume that $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $H^1(\Omega)$ for some $u \in H^1(\Omega)$. Then by compactness $\lim_{n\to \infty}u_n = u$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and moreover $u_n|_{\partial\Omega} \to u|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$. From this and weak lower semicontinuity of the norm in $H^1(\Omega)$ it follows immediately that $a(u,u) \le s$, where $a$ denotes the form associated with $-D^\gamma_\alpha$. Moreover, if $u \in H^1(\Omega)$, then clearly $a_n(u_n,u_n) \to a(u,u)$. Now the convergence follows from Remark \[rem:moscosym\].
Multiplicative perturbations of Laplacians
------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be an open, bounded set. Let $V = H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $H = L^2(\Omega)$. Define $a(u,v) \coloneqq \int_\Omega \nabla u \overline{\nabla v}$ and $j(u) \coloneqq \frac{u}{m}$, where the real-valued function $m$ on $\Omega$ satisfies $0 < {\varepsilon}\le m \le M < \infty$ for some constants $\epsilon$ and $M$. Then for the operator $-A_m$ associated with $(a,j)$ we have $u \in D(A_m)$ with $-A_mu = f$ if and only if $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $\Delta u = \frac{f}{m}$ distributionally, i.e., at least symbolically, $A_m = -m\Delta$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions.
Let $(m_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}$ be a sequence of measurable functions from $\Omega$ to $\mathbb R$ such that $0 < {\varepsilon}\le m_n \le M < \infty$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$. If this sequence converges a.e. to a measurable function $m:\Omega \to \mathbb R$, then $$\lim_{n\to \infty}e^{tm_n\Delta} = e^{tm\Delta}\qquad \hbox{in }\mathcal{L}_1(L^2(\Omega))$$ for every $t > 0$.
Comparing with the Gibbs semigroup generated by $-{\varepsilon}\Delta$, we see as in the previous section that it suffices to prove convergence of $-m_n \Delta$ to $-m\Delta$ in the strong resolvent sense. So take a sequence $(u_n)$ in $H^1(\Omega)$ such that $m_n u_n \rightharpoonup m u$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $s \coloneqq \liminf_{n \to \infty} a(u_n,u_n) < \infty$. Then $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $H^1(\Omega)$ after passing to a subsequence, and hence $\lim_{n\to \infty}u_n = u$ by compact embedding, which shows in particular that $u \in H^1(\Omega)$. The relation $a(u,u) \le s$ is obvious from weak lower semicontinuity of the norm in $H^1(\Omega)$. On the contrary, if $u \in H^1(\Omega)$, then $m_n u \to m u$ in $L^2(\Omega)$. Hence we obtain convergence in the strong resolvent sense from Theorem \[thm:strongconv\].
For every $k \in \mathbb{N}$, the $k$^th^ eigenvalue $\lambda_k(A_m)$ of $A_m$ is an increasing function of $m$. More precisely, if $m_1 \le m_2$ almost everywhere, then $\|\frac{u}{m_1}\|_2 \ge \|\frac{u}{m_2}\|_2$ for all $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and hence $\lambda_k(A_{m_1}) \le \lambda_k(A_{m_2})$ by Theorem \[thm:compspec\]. By the way, the operators can in general not be compared in the sense of positive definiteness, as they are not self-adjoint on the same reference space, so the expression $A_{m_1} \le A_{m_2}$ is not defined and we have to resort to the eigenvalues if we wish to compare the operators in some way.
Comparison of self-adjoint elliptic operators
---------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R^d}$ be a bounded open domain with Lipschitz boundary. Let $V:=H^1(\Omega)$ and define $$a(u,v):=\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \overline{\nabla v}+\int_{\partial \Omega} \beta u \overline{v} d\sigma$$ for a given real-valued function $\beta \in L^\infty(\partial \Omega)$. We consider the operators $j_1 \colon V \to L^2(\Omega)$, $j_2 \colon V \to L^2(\Omega) \times L^2(\partial\Omega)$ and $j_3\colon V \to L^2(\partial\Omega)$ given by $j_1(u) \coloneqq u$, $j_2(u) \coloneqq (u, u_{|\partial\Omega})$ and $j_3(u) \coloneqq u_{|\partial\Omega}$, respectively. Then $a$ is a $j_k$-elliptic form and we denote the operator associated with $(a,j_k)$ by $A_k$, $k=1,2,3$. These operators are given by $$\begin{aligned}
u \in D(A_1), \; A_1u = f
& \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
-\Delta u & = f \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} + \beta u & = 0
\end{aligned} \right. \\
(u,u_{|\partial\Omega}) \in D(A_2), \; A_2(u,u_{|\partial\Omega}) = (f,g)
& \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
-\Delta u & = f \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} + \beta u & = g
\end{aligned} \right. \\
\varphi \in D(A_3), \; A_3\varphi = g
& \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad
\exists u \in H^1(\Omega) : \left\{ \begin{aligned}
-\Delta u & = 0 \\
u_{|\partial\Omega} & = \varphi \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} + \beta u & = g
\end{aligned} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where the Laplace operator and the normal derivative are understood in a weak sense, see [@AreEls09 §4.4] for $A_3$.
Now Theorem \[thm:compspec\] yields that $$\lambda_k(A_2) \le \lambda_k(A_1) \quad\text{and}\quad \lambda_k(A_2) \le \lambda_k(A_3)\qquad \hbox{for all }k \in \mathbb{N}.$$ These results have also been obtained in [@BelFra05 Thm. 4.2 and Thm. 4.3] by the same argument.
Convergence and non-convergence of Wentzell–Robin operators {#sec:wro}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain and define $V \coloneqq \{ (u,u|_{\partial\Omega}) : u \in H^1(\Omega) \}$ and $H \coloneqq L^2(\Omega) \times L^2(\partial\Omega)$. Then $$a( (u,u|_{\partial\Omega}), (v,v|_{\partial\Omega}) ) := \int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \overline{\nabla v}$$ defines a bounded sesquilinear form on $V$. We consider the embeddings $$j_{\rho,\sigma}( (u,u|_{\partial\Omega}) ) \coloneqq (\rho u, \sigma u|_{\partial\Omega})$$ of $V$ into $H$, where $\sigma > 0$ and $\rho > 0$ are constants. Then clearly $a$ is a positive $j_{\rho,\sigma}$-elliptic form, and the associated operator $A_{\rho,\sigma}$ is (at least on a formal level) given by $$A_{\rho,\sigma} (u, u|_{\partial\Omega}) = \Bigl( -\frac{1}{\rho} \Delta u, \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} \Bigr).$$
\[theo:moscoappl\] The operator $A_{1,\sigma}$ converges to $-\Delta_D \oplus 0$ in the strong resolvent sense as $\sigma \to \infty$, where $\Delta_D$ denotes the Dirichlet Laplacian on $L^2(\Omega)$.
The operator $-\Delta_D \oplus 0$ is associated with the $j_D$-elliptic form $a_D$ given by $a_D( (u,g), (v,h) ) := \int_\Omega \nabla u \overline{\nabla v}$, where $j_D\colon H^1_0(\Omega) \times L^2(\partial\Omega) \to H$ is given by $j_D( (u,g) ) := (u, g)$.
Let $\sigma_n \to \infty$ and let $(u_n)$ be a sequence in $V$ such that $$j_n(u_n) \coloneqq (u_n, \sigma_n u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) \rightharpoonup (u,g)$$ in $H$ and $s \coloneqq \liminf \int_\Omega |\nabla u_n|^2 < \infty$. Passing to a subsequence we can assume that $\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n|^2 \to s$. Then $(u_n)$ is bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, and passing to further subsequence we can assume that $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $H^1(\Omega)$. Then in particular $u_n|_{\partial\Omega} \to u|_{\partial\Omega}$ and $\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2 \le s$. Moreover, $$u_n|_{\partial\Omega} = \frac{\sigma_n u_n|_{\partial\Omega}}{\sigma_n} \to 0$$ since $(\sigma_n u_n|_{\partial\Omega})$ is bounded and $\sigma_n \to \infty$, hence $u|_{\partial\Omega} = 0$. Thus $(u,g) \in H^1_0(\Omega) \times L^2(\partial\Omega)$, $j_D( (u,g) ) = (u,g)$ and $\liminf \int_\Omega |\nabla u_n|^2 \ge \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2$. We have checked the first part of the characterisation in Theorem \[thm:strongconv\].
For the second part, let $(u,g) \in H^1_0(\Omega) \times L^2(\partial\Omega)$ be fixed. Since $\sigma_n \to \infty$, there exist $v_n \in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $v_n|_{\partial\Omega} \to g$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ and $\frac{v_n}{\sigma_n} \to 0$ in $H^1(\Omega)$. Define $u_n \coloneqq u + \frac{v_n}{\sigma_n}$. Then $(u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) \in V$ and $$j_n( (u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) ) = (u_n, v_n|_{\partial\Omega}) \to (u, g) = f_D( (u,g) )$$ in $H$. Moreover, $\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n|^2 \to \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2$ since $u_n \to u$ in $H^1(\Omega)$.
As already emphasised, one advantage of our Mosco-type result is that it *characterises* convergence, meaning that it paves the road to *non-convergence* results as well. Given that the eigenvalue problem associated with the operator $A_{\rho,\sigma}$ is $$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
\lambda\rho u&=\Delta u\qquad &\hbox{in }\Omega,\\
\lambda \sigma u_{|\partial\Omega} & =-\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}\qquad &\hbox{on }\partial \Omega,
\end{aligned} \right.$$ while the eigenvalue problem associated with the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator is $$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
0&=\Delta u\qquad &\hbox{in }\Omega,\\
\lambda u_{|\partial\Omega} & =-\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}\qquad &\hbox{on }\partial \Omega,
\end{aligned} \right.$$ the following may look surprising.
The following assertions hold in the space $L^2(\Omega)\times L^2(\partial \Omega)$.
(1) $A_{1,\sigma}$ does not converge to any closed operator in the weak resolvent sense as $\sigma \to 0$.
(2) $A_{\rho,1}$ does not converge to any closed operator in the weak resolvent sense as $\rho \to 0$.
In both cases, we follow the same strategy. Assume that the family of operators converges to a densely defined (necessarily self-adjoint) operator $B$ on $H:=L^2(\Omega)\times L^2(\partial \Omega)$ in the weak resolvent sense. Then the operators converge even in the strong resolvent sense [@ReeSim80 §VIII.7], and hence the quadratic forms converge in the sense of Mosco by Theorem \[thm:strongconv\]. But for both situations we will show that the set of $u$ such that the second condition of part (b) of Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] can be satisfied is non-dense in $H$. Hence there cannot be a limiting quadratic form, thus proving the claim.
\(1) Take a null sequence $(\sigma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$. Let $(u_n)$ be a sequence in $H^1(\Omega)$ such that $j_n( (u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) ) = (u_n, \sigma_n u_n|_{\partial\Omega})$ converges to $(u,g)$ in $H$. Assume moreover that $a( (u_n,u_n|_{\partial\Omega}), (u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) )$ is bounded. Then $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$. Hence $(u_n|_{\partial\Omega})_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, implying that $\sigma_n u_n|_{\partial\Omega} \to 0$, i.e., $g = 0$. Hence the set of possible limits in (b.ii) of Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] is contained in the non-dense set $L^2(\Omega) \times \{0\}$.
\(2) Let $(\rho_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a null sequence. Let $(u_n)$ be a sequence in $H^1(\Omega)$ such that $j_n( (u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) ) = (\rho_n u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega})$ converges to $(u,g)$ in $H$. Assume moreover that $a( (u_n,u_n|_{\partial\Omega}), (u_n, u_n|_{\partial\Omega}) )$ is bounded. Then $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$ since for some $c > 0$ we have $$\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 \le c \|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega; \mathbb{R}^N)}^2 + c \|u|_{\partial\Omega}\|_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}^2$$ by [@Maz85 §1.1.15]. Hence $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded in $L^2(\Omega)$, implying that $\rho_n u_n \to 0$, i.e., $u = 0$. Hence the set of possible limits in (b.ii) of Theorem \[thm:strongconv\] is contained in the non-dense set $\{0\} \times L^2(\partial\Omega)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a mass-type invariant for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds with a non-compact boundary which are modelled at infinity on the hyperbolic half-space and prove a sharp positive mass inequality in the spin case under suitable dominant energy conditions. As an application we show that any such manifold which is Einstein and either has a totally geodesic boundary or is conformally compact and has a mean convex boundary is isometric to the hyperbolic half-space.'
address:
- |
Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Instituto de Matemática, Campus do Gragoatá\
Rua Prof. Marcos Waldemar de Freitas, s/n, bloco H, 24210-201, Niterói, RJ, Brazil.
- 'Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Departamento de Matemática, Campus do Pici, Av. Humberto Monte, s/n, Bloco 914, 60455-760, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.'
author:
- Sérgio Almaraz
- Levi Lopes de Lima
title: 'The mass of an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold with a non-compact boundary'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Given a non-compact Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ of dimension $n\geq 3$ arising as the (time-symmetric) initial data set for a solution $(\overline M,\overline g)$ of Einstein field equations in dimension $n+1$, standard physical reasoning suggests the existence of a geometric invariant defined in terms of the asymptotic behavior of the underlying metric at spatial infinity. Roughly speaking, it is assumed that in the asymptotic region $(M, g)$ converges to some reference space $(N,b)$, which by its turn is required to propagate to a [*static*]{} solution (i.e a solution displaying a time-like vector field whose orthogonal distribution is integrable), and the mass invariant, which is denoted by $\mathfrak m_{(g,b)}$ and should be interpreted as the total energy of the isolated gravitational system modelled by $(\overline M,\overline g)$, is designed so as to capture the coefficient of the leading term in the asymptotic expansion of $g$ around $b$. In particular, the important question arises as to whether, under a suitable dominant energy condition, the invariant in question satisfies the positive mass inequality $$\label{massineq}
\mathfrak m_{(g,b)}\geq 0,$$ with equality taking place if and only if $(M, g) = (N, b)$ isometrically.
The classical example is the asymptotically flat case, where the reference space is $(\mathbb R^n,\delta)$, the Euclidean space endowed with the standard flat metric $\delta$. Here, $\mathfrak m_{(g,\delta)}$ is the so-called ADM mass and it has been conjectured that the corresponding positive mass inequality holds true whenever the scalar curvature $R_g$ of $g$ is non-negative. After previous contributions by Schoen-Yau [@SY1] if $n \leq 7$ and by Witten and Bartnik [@Wi; @Bar] in the spin case, the conjecture has at last been settled in independent contributions by Schoen-Yau [@SY2] and Lohkamp [@Lo].
Partly motivated by the so-called AdS/CFT correspondence, which in the Euclidean semi-classical limit highlights Einstein metrics with negative scalar curvature, recently there has been much interest in studying similar invariants for non-compact Riemannian manifolds whose geometry at infinity approaches some reference space with constant negative sectional curvature [@An; @He1]. A notable example occurs in case the model geometry is hyperbolic space $(\mathbb H^n,b)$. The novelty here is that the asymptotic invariant is [*not*]{} a number but instead a linear functional on the space $\mathcal N_b$ of static potentials $V:\mathbb H^n\to\mathbb R$ satisfying $$\label{stateq}
\nabla^2_bV=Vb;$$ see [@CH; @CN; @Mi; @He1]. However, symmetry considerations allow us to extract a mass-like invariant (i.e. a real number) out of the given functional, so it makes sense to ask whether the inequality similar to (\[massineq\]) holds, with the corresponding rigidity statement characterizing the reference space. After preliminary contributions by Min-Oo [@M-O], Anderson-Dahl [@AD] and Wang [@Wa], the conjecture has been confirmed in case the underlying manifold is spin by Chruściel-Herzlich [@CH]. Elementary proofs of this result in special cases are available in [@DGS; @dLG] (graphical manifolds) and [@BCN] (small perturbations of the standard hyperbolic metric). We also refer to [@Ma] for a treatment of the non-time-symmetric case. Regarding the not necessarily spin case, we should mention the work by Andersson-Cai-Galloway [@ACG].
At least in the asymptotically flat case, the positive mass inequality (\[massineq\]) has applications that transcend its physical motivation. In particular, it has been crucially used in Schoen’s solution of the Yamabe problem [@Sc; @LP] and in the investigation of multiplicity and compactness issues for solutions to this same problem [@BM; @dLPZ]. The need to examine these questions for compact manifolds with boundary suggested the consideration of a mass-type invariant for asymptotically flat manifold with a [*non-compact*]{} boundary $\Sigma$ modelled on the Euclidean half-space $\mathbb R^n_+$. In [@ABdL] a positive mass inequality has been established for this invariant under the assumptions that the scalar curvature $R_g$ and the mean curvature $H_g$ along the boundary are both nonnegative and that the double of the underlying manifold satisfies the standard (i.e. boundaryless) mass inequality. In view of the recent progress due to Schoen-Yau and Lohkamp mentioned above, the positive mass theorem in [@ABdL] actually holds in full generality.
The purpose of this article is to devise a mass-type invariant which at the same time extends those considered in [@ABdL] and [@CH]. More precisely, here we take as reference space the hyperbolic half-space $(\mathbb H^n_+,b)$, which is obtained by cutting the standard hyperbolic space $(\mathbb H^n,b)$ along a totally geodesic hypersurface $\partial \mathbb H^n_+$. We make use of Witten’s spinorial approach to establish, for asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifolds $(M,g)$ with a non-compact boundary $\Sigma$ and which are modeled at infinity on $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$, a sharp positive mass inequality under suitable lower bounds on the scalar curvature $R_g$ and the mean curvature $H_g$ of $\Sigma$; see Definition \[def:as:hyp\] and Theorems \[maintheo\] and \[conjmptheo\] below. The following rigidity statements are then consequences of our main results.
\[maintheocor\] Let $(M,g,\Sigma)$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifold with $R_g\geq -n(n-1)$ and $H_g\geq 0$. Assume further that $g$ agrees with the reference hyperbolic metric $b$ in a neighborhood of infinity. Then $(M,g,\Sigma)=(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$ isometrically.
\[riggen\] Let $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is an asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifold. Assume further that $g$ is Einstein and that $\Sigma$ is totally geodesic. Then $(M,g,\Sigma)=(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$ isometrically.
The proof of Theorem \[riggen\] also makes use of an alternate definition of the mass in terms of the Einstein tensor on the interior and the Newton tensor of the boundary as described in Theorem \[asymhypl\] below. This has recently beed established in [@dLGM] by adapting an argument first put forward by Herzlich [@He2] in the boundaryless case. It should be pointed out that the boundaryless version of Theorem \[riggen\] may be obtained by a similar argument. Here we use the boundaryless version of the alternate definition (\[asymhypl2\]), which already appears in [@He2], and the positive mass theorem in [@CH]. This actually provides a noteworthy extension of a celebrated rigidity result by Anderson and Dahl [@AD] originally proved in the more restrictive setting of conformal compactness; see also [@He1 Theorem 4.5]. More precisely, the following result, which may be thought of as a corollary of our proof of Theorem \[riggen\], holds.
\[riggennbd\] Let $(M,g)$ be a complete, boundaryless spin manifold which is asymptotically hyperbolic (in the sense of [@CH]) and assume further that $g$ is Einstein. Then $(M,g)=(\mathbb H^n,b)$ isometrically.
We now discuss another rigidity result stemming from our main theorems which is more directly related to the AdS/CFT correspondence mentioned above. Compared with Theorem \[riggen\], it allows us to substantially relax the assumption on the geometry of the non-compact boundary at the expense of requiring a more restrictive behavior at infinity, namely, conformal compactness.
Let $\overline M$ be a compact $n$-manifold carrying a $(n-2)$-dimensional corner which can be written as $S\cap\Sigma$, where $S$ and $\Sigma$ are smooth hypersurfaces of $M$ such that $\partial \overline M=S\cup\Sigma$, with $S$ being connected. Let $g$ be a Riemannian metric on $M:={\rm int}\,\overline M\cup\Sigma$. We say that $(M,g)$ is [*conformally compact*]{} if there exists a collar neighborhood $\mathcal U\subset \overline M$ of $S$ such that on ${\rm int}\,\,\mathcal U$ we may write $g=s^{-2}\overline g$ with $\overline g$ extending to a sufficiently regular metric on $\mathcal U$ so that $S$ and $\Sigma$ meet orthogonally (with respect to $\overline g$) along their common boundary $S\cap \Sigma$, where $s:\mathcal U\to \mathbb R$ is a [*defining function*]{} for $S$ in the sense that $s\geq 0$, $s^{-1}(0)=S$, $ds|_S\neq 0$ and $\nabla_{\overline g}s$ is tangent to $\Sigma$ along $\mathcal U\cap\Sigma$. The restriction $\overline g|_S$ defines a metric which changes by a conformal factor if the defining function is changed. Thus, the conformal class $[\overline g|_S]$ of $\overline g|_S$ is well defined. We then say that the pair $(S,[\overline g|_S])$ is the [*conformal infinity*]{} of $(M,g)$,
If $|ds|_{\overline g}=1$ along $S$ then $(M,g)$ is [*weakly*]{} asymptotically hyperbolic in the sense that its sectional curvature converges to $-1$ as one approaches $S$. In this case, if $h_0$ is a metric on $S$ representing the given conformal infinity then there exists a unique defining function $t$ in $\mathcal U$ so that $$\label{expan}
g=\sinh^{-2}t\left(dt^2+h_{t}\right),$$ where $h_{t}$ is a $t$-dependent family of metrics on $S$ with $h_{t}|_{t=0}=h_0$.
\[remians\][ Recall that (\[expan\]) is established by means of a conformal deformation of the type $\widetilde g=e^{2f}\overline g$. Thus, if $\widetilde s=e^fs$ then $t$ defined by $\widetilde s=\sinh t$ is required to be the distance function to $S$ with respect to $\widetilde g$. The condition $|dt|_{\widetilde g}=1$ turns out to be a first order PDE for $f$, namely, $$\label{nonchar}
\partial_sf=\frac{s}{2}\left(e^{2f}-|\nabla_{\overline g}f|^2_{\overline g}\right)+\frac{1-|\nabla_{\overline g}s|_{\overline g}^2}{2s},$$ for which $S$ is a non-characteristic hypersurface. Thus, (\[nonchar\]) can be solved in $\mathcal U$ with initial data $f=0$ on $S$, so that (\[expan\]) is retrieved by setting $\widetilde g=dt^2+h_t$, where $h_t$ is the restriction of $\widetilde g$ to the level hypersurfaces of $t$; see [@AD; @MP] for further details. If $\xi$ is a normal unit vector field with respect to $\overline g$ along $\mathcal U\cap \Sigma$ then using that $\partial s/\partial\xi=\langle\nabla_{\overline g}s,\xi\rangle_{\overline g}=0$ we easily check from (\[nonchar\]) that $p=\partial f/\partial \xi$ satisfies $$\partial_sp=s\left(e^{2f}p-(\nabla_{\overline g}f)(p)\right),$$ and since $p=0$ for $s=0$ we see that $\partial f/\partial\xi=0$ along $\mathcal U\cap\Sigma$. Since $$\nabla_{\widetilde g}\widetilde s=e^{-f}(s\nabla_{\overline g}f+\nabla_{\overline g}s),$$ this means that $\nabla_{\widetilde g}t=\cosh^{-1} t\nabla_{\widetilde g}\widetilde s$ remains tangent to $\Sigma$ along $\mathcal U\cap\Sigma$. ]{}
\[defasym2\] Let $(M,g)$ be a weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifold as above. We say that $(M,g)$ is [*asymptotically hyperbolic*]{} (in the conformally compact sense and with a non-compact boundary $\Sigma$) if its conformal infinity is $(\mathbb S_{+}^{n-1},[h_0])$, where $h_0$ is a round metric on $\mathbb S_{+}^{n-1}$, the unit upper $(n-1)$-hemisphere, and the following asymptotic expansion holds as $t\to 0$: $$\label{asymexpcoll}
h_{t}=h_0+\frac{t^n}{n!}h+k,$$ where $h$ and $k$ are symmetric $2$-tensors on $\mathbb S^{n-1}_{+}$ and the remainder term $k$ satisfies $$\label{remainder}
|k|+|\nabla_{h_0} k|+|\nabla_{h_0}^2k|=o(t^{n+1}).$$
It turns out that a manifold which is asymptotically hyperbolic in this sense is also asymptotically hyperbolic in the sense of Definition \[def:as:hyp\] below, so we may assign to it a mass-type invariant which extends Wang’s construction in the boundaryless case [@Wa]. Thus, the rigidity statement of Theorem \[conjmptheo\] yields another natural extension to our setting of the result by Andersson-Dahl [@AD; @He1] mentioned above in connection with Theorems \[riggen\] and \[riggennbd\].
\[rigconfcom\] Let $(M,g,\Sigma)$ be a conformally compact, asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifold as above. Assume further that $g$ is Einstein and that the mean curvature of $\Sigma$ is everywhere nonnegative. Then $(M,g,\Sigma)=(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial \mathbb H^n_+)$ isometrically.
\[remove\] [In recent years there have been considerable efforts by several authors in the direction of removing the spin assumption in the seminal rigidity result appearing in [@AD], the difficulty here coming from the fact that no suitable positive mass theorem has been proved in this generality; see for instance [@CLW; @LQS; @Ra] and the references therein. In any case, one might ask whether analogous developments hold in the presence of a boundary as in Theorem \[rigconfcom\] above. On the other hand, Theorems \[riggen\] and \[riggennbd\] show that conformal compactness is not really needed in order to obtain a rigidity statement as long as we remain in the spin category, where the pertinent positive mass inequality is available. This suggests a more ambitious goal, namely, to investigate whether the corresponding rigidity persists for Einstein metrics (and totally geodesic boundaries) in the general asymptotically hyperbolic setup of Definition \[def:as:hyp\].]{}
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[prelim\] we define the relevant class of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds with a non-compact boundary and in Section \[geomass\] we attach to each manifold in this class a mass functional whose geometric invariance is established. The proofs of the positive mass inequality for spin manifolds and its geometric consequences, including the rigidity statements above, are presented in Section \[mainsec\]. This uses some preparatory material regarding spinors on manifolds with boundary which is discussed in Section \[spinorsbd\].
Asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds {#prelim}
===================================
Recall that the [hyperboloid model]{} for hyperbolic space in dimension $n$ is given by $$\mathbb H^n=\{x\in\R^{1,n}; x_0>0, \langle x,x\rangle_L=-1\},$$ where $\R^{1,n}$ is the Minkowski space with the standard flat metric $$\langle x,x\rangle_L=-x_0^2+x_1^2+\cdots+x_n^2.$$ The reference space we are interested in is $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$, where $\mathbb H_+^n=\{x\in\mathbb H^n;x_n\geq 0\}$ is the [*hyperbolic half-space*]{} endowed with the induced metric $$b=\frac{dr^2}{1+r^2}+r^2h_0,$$ where $h_0$ stands for the canonical metric on the unit hemisphere $\mathbb S^{n-1}_+$, and $$r=\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots +x_n^2}.$$ Note that $\mathbb H^n_+$ carries a non-compact, totally geodesic boundary, namely, $\partial \mathbb H^n_+=\{x\in\mathbb H^n_+;x_n=0\}$. Recall that the space of static potentials $\mathcal N_b$ on $\mathbb H^n$ is spanned by $V_{(0)},V_{(1)},\cdots,V_{(n)}$, where $V_{(i)}=x_i|_{\mathbb H^n}$. It is easy to check that $$\label{statpotbd}
\frac{\partial V_{(i)}}{\partial\eta}=0, \quad i\neq n,$$ where $\eta$ is the outward unit normal to $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$. Thus, we are led to consider $$\mathcal N_b^+=\left\{V\in \mathcal N_b;\frac{\partial V}{\partial\eta}=0\right\},$$ which is spanned by $V_{(0)},V_{(1)},\cdots,V_{(n-1)}$. In particular, $V=O(r)$ as $r\to +\infty$ for any $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$.
\[ballmodel\][ The construction above can alternatively be carried out in the context of the so-called [ Poincaré model]{} of hyperbolic geometry. Hence, we may consider the half $n$-disk $\mathbb B^n_+=\{x'=(x_1,\cdots,x_n)\in\mathbb R^n\:|\:|x'|\leq 1, x_n\geq 0\}$ endowed with the metric $$\label{confrep}
\widehat b=\omega(x')^{-2} \delta,\quad \omega(x')=\frac{1-|x'|^2}{2},$$ where $\delta$ is the standard Euclidean metric. The space $\mathcal N_{\widehat b}^+$ now is spanned by the functions $$\widehat V_{(0)}(x')=\frac{1+|x'|^2}{1-|x'|^2}, \:\widehat V_{(1)}(x')=\frac{2x_1}{1-|x'|^2},\: \cdots\:, \:\widehat V_{(n-1)}(x')=\frac{2x_{n-1}}{1-|x'|^2}.$$ Under the isometry between $(\mathbb H^n_+,b)$ and $(\mathbb B^n_+,\widehat b)$ given by stereographic projection “centered” at $(-1,0,\cdots,0)$, $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$ is mapped onto the unit $(n-1)$-disk $\partial \mathbb B_+^n$ defined by $x_n=0$. Whenever convenience demands we will interchange freely between these models without further notice. ]{}
\[staticsp\][ The linear space $\mathcal N_b^+$ can actually be thought of as a space of static potentials on $\mathbb H^n_+$ as follows. It is well known that a vacuum solution $(\overline M^{n+1},\overline g)$ of the Einstein field equations can be characterized as an extremizer of the Einstein-Hilbert functional $$\overline g\mapsto\int_{\overline M} (R_{\overline g}-2\Lambda)dv_{\overline g},$$ with $\Lambda\in \mathbb R$. In the case $\d {\overline M}\neq \emptyset$, it is natural to consider instead the Gibbons-Hawking-York action $$\overline g\mapsto \int_{\overline M} (R_{\overline g}-2\Lambda)\,dv_{\overline g}+\int_{\d {\overline M}} 2(H_{\overline g}-\lambda)\,d\sigma_{\overline g}$$ whose critical metrics satisfy the system $$\label{eq:spacetime}
\begin{cases}
{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}-\frac{1}{2}R_{\overline g}\overline{g}+\Lambda\overline g=0, &\text{in}\:{\overline M},
\\
\Pi_{\overline g}-H_{\overline g} \overline g|_{\d\overline M}+\lambda \overline g|_{\d\overline M}=0,&\text{on}\:\d {\overline M},
\end{cases}$$ where $\Pi$ is the boundary second fundamental form and $\lambda\in\mathbb R$. The first equation of (\[eq:spacetime\]) is the Einstein field equation for a vacuum spacetime with cosmological constant $\Lambda$, while the second one introduces the constant $\lambda$ which is related to the geometry of $\partial\overline M$. Recall that the spacetime $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is said to be [*static*]{} if it carries a time-like Killing vector field $\xi$ whose orthogonal distribution is integrable or, equivalently, $\overline g$ can be written as a warped product ${\overline g}=-V^2dt^2+g$, where $g$ is a Riemannian metric on the spacelike slice $M^n$ and $V^2=-\overline g(\xi,\xi)$. The leaves of this foliation are totally geodesic and isometric to each other. If $\d M\neq \emptyset$, those leaves are orthogonal to $\partial\overline M$ which corresponds to $\xi$ being tangent to $\partial\overline M$. In this case, the system (\[eq:spacetime\]) is equivalent to requiring that $g$ and $V$ satisfy $$\label{eq:static:1}
\begin{cases}
-V {\rm Ric}_g+\nabla_g^2V+\widetilde\Lambda Vg=0,&\text{in}\:M,
\\
\Pi_g-\widetilde\lambda g|_{\partial M}=0,&\text{on}\:\d M,
\\
\Delta_g V=-\widetilde\Lambda V, &\text{in}\:M,
\\
\displaystyle\frac{\d V}{\d\eta}=\widetilde\lambda V, &\text{on}\:\d M,
\end{cases}$$ where $\widetilde \Lambda=\frac{2}{n-1}\Lambda$ and $\widetilde\lambda=\frac{1}{n-1}\lambda$. Thus, by setting $\widetilde\Lambda=-n$ and $\widetilde\lambda=0$, the elements $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$ are solutions of (\[eq:static:1\]) when $(M,g)=(\mathbb H_+^n, b)$. ]{}
We now define the notion of an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold with a non-compact boundary having $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$ as a model; this should be compared with the related boundaryless concept in [@CH]. Recall that $\mathbb H^n_+$ can be parameterized by polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$, where $r=\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots+x_{n}^2}$ and $\theta=(\theta_2,\cdots,\theta_{n})\in \mathbb S^{n-1}_+$. For all $r_0>0$ large enough let us set $\mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}=\{x\in\mathbb H_+^n;r(x)\geq r_0\}$.
\[def:as:hyp\] We say that $(M^n,g,\Sigma)$ is [*[asymptotically hyperbolic]{}*]{} (with a non-compact boundary $\Sigma$) if there exist $r_0>0$, a region $M_{{\rm ext}}\subset M$ and a diffeomorphism $
F:\mathbb H_{+,r_0}^n\to M_{{\rm ext}}
$ such that:
1. As $r\to+\infty$, $e:=F^*g-b$ satisfies $$\label{asympthyp}
|e|_b+|\nabla_b e|_b+|\nabla^2_be|_b=O(r^{-\tau}), \quad \tau>\frac{n}{2};$$
2. both $\int_M r(R_g+n(n-1))dM$ and $\int_\Sigma rH_gd\Sigma$ are finite, where the asymptotical radial coordinate $r$ has been smoothly extended to $M$.
\[rmk:bd\] [Although $\Sigma$ may be disconnected, it follows from Definition \[def:as:hyp\] that $\Sigma$ has exactly one non-compact component.]{}
The mass functional and its geometric invariance {#geomass}
================================================
Here we define the mass functional for an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold and establish its geometric invariance. Given a chart at infinity $F: \mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}\to M_{\rm ext}$ as in Definition \[def:as:hyp\] we set, for $r_0<r<r'$, $
A_{r,r'}=\{x\in \mathbb H^n_{+,r_0};r\leq |x| \leq r'\}$, $\Sigma_{r,r'}=\{x\in \partial \mathbb H_{+,r_0}^n;r\leq |x| \leq r'\}
$ and $S^{n-1}_{r,+}=\{x\in \mathbb H_{+,r_0}^n|;|x|=r\}$, so that $$\d A_{r,r'}=S^{n-1}_{r,+}\cup \Sigma_{r,r'}\cup S^{n-1}_{r',+}.$$ We represent by $\mu$ the outward unit normal vector field to $S^{n-1}_{r,+}$ or $S^{n-1}_{r',+}$, computed with respect to the reference metric $b$. Also, we consider $S^{n-2}_r=\partial S_{r,+}^{n-1}\subset \partial \mathbb H^n_{+,r}$, endowed with its outward unit conormal field $\vartheta$, again with respect to $b$. We set $e=g-b$, where we have written $g=F^*g$ for simplicity of notation, and we define the $1$-form $$\label{charge}
\mathbb U(V,e)=V({\rm div}_be-d{\rm tr}_be)-{\nabla_bV}\righthalfcup e+{\rm tr}_be\, dV,$$ for a static potential $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$.
\[finitemass\] If $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold then the quantity $$\label{massdef}
\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}(V)=\lim_{r\to +\infty}\left[\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}Ve(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}\right]$$ exists and is finite.
The argument is based on the Taylor expansion, as $r\to +\infty$, of the scalar curvature $R_g$ around the reference metric $b$; see [@Mi; @He1] for nice descriptions of the underlying strategy. We have $$R_g=-n(n-1)+\dot R_be+\rho_b(e),$$ where $$\dot R_be={\rm div}_b({\rm div}_be-d{\rm tr}_be)+(n-1){\rm tr}_be$$ is the linearization of the scalar curvature at $b$ and $\rho_b(e)=O(r^{-2\tau})$ denotes terms which are at least quadratic in $e=g-b$. The key point is to properly handle the linear term. Indeed, a well-known computation gives the fundamental identity $$V\dot R_be= \langle \dot R_b^*V,e\rangle +{\rm div}_b\mathbb U(V,e),$$ where $$\dot R_b^*V=\nabla^2_bV-Vb$$ is the formal $L^2$ adjoint of $\dot R_b$. Since $V\in \mathcal N_b^+$ we thus get from (\[stateq\]), $$\label{key2}
V(R_g+n(n-1))={\rm div}_b\mathbb U(V,e)+\rho_b(V,e),$$ where $\rho_b(V,e)=V\rho_b(e)=O(r^{-2\tau+1})$ since $V=O(r)$.
We now perform the integration of (\[key2\]) over the half-annular region $A:=A_{r,r'}\subset \mathbb H^n_+$ and eventually explore the imposed boundary conditions, namely, $$\label{Vbd}
\Pi_b=0,\quad \frac{\partial V}{\partial\eta}=0,$$ where $\Pi_b$ is the second fundamental form of $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$ and $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$; see (\[statpotbd\]). Integration yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{A}V(R_g-R_b)dA_b
& = & \int_{S^{n-1}_{r',+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}\\
& & +\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}V({\rm div}_be-d{\rm tr}_be)(\eta)d\Sigma_\beta\\
& & -\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}({\nabla_bV}\righthalfcup e)(\eta)d\Sigma_\beta
+ \int_{A}\rho_b(V,e)dA_b, \end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=b|_{\Sigma}$ and we used that $dV(\eta)=0$ by (\[Vbd\]). We now observe that the mean curvature varies as $$2\dot H_be=[d{\rm tr}_be-{\rm div}_be](\eta)-{\rm div}_\beta X-\langle \Pi_b,e\rangle_\beta,$$ where $X$ is the vector field dual to the $1$-form $e(\eta,\cdot)|_{T\Sigma}$ and we still denote $e=e|_\Sigma$. Hence, upon expansion around the reference metric $\beta$ and taking into account that $\Pi_b=0$ by (\[Vbd\]), $$\begin{aligned}
2\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}VH_gd\Sigma_{\beta}
& = & \int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}V(d{\rm tr}_be-{\rm div}_be)(\eta)d\Sigma_\beta-\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}V{\rm div}_{\beta}Xd\Sigma_\beta\\
& & \quad +\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}\rho_\beta(V,e)d\Sigma_{\beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_\beta(V,e)=O(r^{-2\tau+1})$. Thus, if $$\mathcal A_{r,r'}(g):=\int_{A}V(R_g+n(n-1))dA_b+2\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}VH_gd\Sigma_{\beta},$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal A_{r,r'}(g)
& = & \int_{S^{n-1}_{r',+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}\\
& & -\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}({\nabla_bV}\righthalfcup e)(\eta)d\Sigma_\beta-\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}V{\rm div}_{\beta}Xd\Sigma_\beta\\
& & +\int_{A}\rho_b(V,e)dA_b+ \int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}\rho_\beta(V,e)d\Sigma_{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ But notice that $$\begin{aligned}
-V{\rm div}_\beta X
& = & -{\rm div}_\beta(VX)+\langle\nabla_bV,X\rangle_\beta\\
& = & -{\rm div}_\beta(VX)+e(\nabla_bV,\eta)\\
& = & -{\rm div}_\beta(VX)+({\nabla_bV}\righthalfcup e)(\eta),\end{aligned}$$ and we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal A_{r,r'}(g)
& = & \int_{S^{n-1}_{r',+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}\\
& & -\int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}{\rm div}_\beta(VX)d\Sigma_{\beta}\\
& & +\int_{A}\rho_b(V,e)dA_b+ \int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}\mathcal \rho_\beta(V,e)d\Sigma_{\beta}\\
& = & \left(\int_{S^{n-1}_{r',+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-2}_{r'}}Ve(\eta,\vartheta) dS^{n-2}_{r}\right)\\
& & -\left(\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb U(V,e),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-
\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}Ve(\eta,\vartheta) dS^{n-2}_{r}\right)\\
& & +\int_{A_{r,r'}}\rho_b(V,e)dA_b+ \int_{\Sigma_{r,r'}}\rho_\beta(V,e)d\Sigma_{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, the assumption $\tau>n/2$ in (\[asympthyp\]) implies that the last two integrals vanish as $r\to +\infty$. Also, since $V=O(r)$ the integrability assumptions in Definiton \[def:as:hyp\], (2), imply that $\mathcal A_{r,r'}(g)\to 0$ as $r\to +\infty$ and the result follows.
We should think of (\[massdef\]) as defining a linear functional $$\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}:\mathcal N_b^+\to\mathbb R.$$ We note however that the decomposition $g=b+e$ used above depends on the choice of an admissible chart at infinity (the diffeomorphism $F$), so we need to check that $\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}$ behaves properly as we pass from one such chart to another. For this we need some preliminary results.
\[exact\] If $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$ and $X$ is a vector field then $$\label{exact1}
\mathbb U(V,\mathcal L_Xb)={\rm div}_b\mathbb V(V,X,b),$$ with the $2$-form $\mathbb V$ being explicitly given by $$\label{exact2}
\mathbb V_{ik}=V(X_{i;k}-X_{k;i})+2(X_kV_i-X_iV_k),$$ where the semi-colon denotes covariant derivation with respect to $b$.
Using $(\mathcal L_Xb)_{ij}=X_{i;j}+X_{j;i}$ and (\[charge\]) we see that $$\mathbb U_i=I_i^{(1)}+I_i^{(2)}+I_i^{(3)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_i^{(1)} &= & V(X_{i;k}^{\:\:\:k}+X^k_{\:\:;ik}-2X^k_{\:\:;ki})\\
& = & V(X_{i;k}^{\:\:\:k}+X^k_{\:\:;ik}-2X^k_{\:\:;ik}+2{\rm Ric}^b_{ik}X^k)
\\
& = & V(X_{i;}^{\:\:\:k}-X^k_{\:\:;i})_{;k}-2(n-1)VX_i,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I_i^{(2)} &= & -(X_{i;k}+X_{k;i})V^k\\
& = & (X_{i;k}-X_{k;i})V^k-2X_{i;k}V^k\\
&= & (X_{i;k}-X_{k;i})V^k-2(X_{i}V^k)_{;k}+2X_i\Delta_b V,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
I_i^{(3)}&=& 2X^k_{\:\:\:;k}V_ i\\
& = & 2(X^kV_i)_{;k}-2X^k(\nabla^2_bV)_{ik}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb U_i
& = &
\left(V(X_{i;}^{\:\:k}-X^k_{\:\:;i})-2X_iV^k+2X^kV_ i\right)_{;k}\\
& & \quad +2(-(n-1)VX_i-(\nabla^2_bV)_{ik}X^k+\Delta_bVX_i)\\
& = &
\left(V(X_{i;}^{\:\:k}-X^k_{\:\:;i})-2X_iV^k+2X^kV_ i\right)_{;k}\\
& & \quad +2(Vb-\nabla^2_bV)_{ik}X^k,\end{aligned}$$ and the last term drops out since $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$. Hence, $\mathbb U_i=b^{jk}\mathbb V_{ij;k}$.
The next result shows that the reference space $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^N_+)$ is rigid at infinity in the appropriate sense.
\[rigid\] If $F:\mathbb H^n_+\to \mathbb H^n_+$ is a diffeomorphism such that $F^*b=b+O(r^{-\tau})$ as $r\to +\infty$ then there exists an isometry $\mathcal I$ of $(\mathbb H^n_+,b)$ which preserves $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$ and satisfies $$F=\mathcal I+O(r^{-\tau}),$$ with a similar estimate holding for the first order derivatives.
This is established by straightforwardly adapting the reasoning in the proofs of the corresponding results in [@CH; @CN]. Therefore, the argument is omitted.
Suppose now that we have two diffeomorphisms, say $F_{1},F_2:\mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}\to M_{\rm ext}$, definining charts at infinity as above and consider $F=F^{-1}_1\circ F_2:\mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}\to \mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}$. It is clear that $F^*b=b+O(r^{-\tau})$, $\tau>n/2$, so by the previous lemma, $F=\mathcal I+O(r^{-\tau})$ for some isometry $\mathcal I$ preserving $\partial \mathbb H^n_+$. The next result establishes the geometric invariance of the mass functional appearing in Theorem \[finitemass\].
\[geoinv\] Under the conditions above, $$\label{geoinv2}
\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F_1)}(V\circ\mathcal I)=\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F_2)}(V), \quad V\in\mathcal N_b^+.$$
Again we proceed as in [@Mi]. We may assume that $\mathcal I$ is the identity, so that $F={\rm exp}\circ \zeta$, where $\zeta=O(r^{-\tau})$ is a vector field everywhere tangent to $\Sigma$. Also, since the mass is defined asymptotically, we may assume that $M$ is diffeomorphic to $\mathbb H^n_+$, so that $M_{\rm ext}$ can be identified to $\mathbb H_{+,r_0}^n$. For $r>r_0$, let $\mathcal S^{n-1}_r=\{x\in\partial\mathbb H^n_{+};|x|\leq r\}$, so that $\mathcal S^{n-1}_{r}\cup S_{r,+}^{n-1}$ is the boundary of the compact region on $\mathbb H^n_+$ defined by $|x|\leq r$. Now set $$e_1=g_1-b,\quad g_1=F_1^*g,$$ and $$e_2=F^*_2g-b=F^*g_1-b,$$ so that $$E:=e_2-e_1=F^*g_1-g_1=F^*(b+e_1)-(b+e_1)=\Lc_\zeta b+R_1,$$ where $R_1=O(r^{-2\tau})$ is a remainder term. It follows that $$\mathbb U(V,E)=\mathbb U(V,\Lc_\zeta b)+R_2,$$ where $R_2=\mathbb U(V,R_1)=O(r^{-2\tau+1})$ vanishes after integration over $S^{n-1}_{r,+}$ as $r\to +\infty$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{r\to+\infty}\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,E),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}
& = &\lim_{r\to+\infty}\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,\Lc_\zeta b),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}\\
& = &
-\lim_{r+\infty}\int_{\mathcal S^{n-1}_r}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,\Lc_\zeta b),\eta\rangle d\Sigma_s,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used (\[exact1\]) to transfer the integral to $\mathcal S^{n-1}_r$. We shall compute the limit above by means of (\[exact2\]). Using an orthonormal $b$-frame $\{\mathfrak f_i\}_{i=1}^n$ so that $\eta=-\mathfrak f_n=(0, 0,\cdots,-1)$ along the boundary, $$\langle\mathbb{U}(V,\Lc_\zeta b),\eta\rangle=b^{jk}\mathbb V_{ij;k}\eta^i=-\mathbb V_{nk;k}=-\mathbb V_{n\alpha;\alpha}, \quad ({\rm sum}\,\,{\rm over}\,\,1\leq\alpha\leq n-1),$$ which shows that $$\langle\mathbb{U}(V,\Lc_\zeta b),\eta\rangle|_{\Sigma_r}={\rm div}_\beta (\eta\righthalfcup\mathbb V).$$ Thus, $$\int_{\mathcal S^{n-1}_r}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,\Lc_\zeta b),\eta\rangle d\Sigma_r=\int_{ S^{n-2}_r}\mathbb V(\eta,\vartheta)d\Sigma_s=-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}\mathbb V_{n\alpha}\vartheta^\alpha dS^{n-2}_s.$$ But $$\mathbb V_{n\alpha}=V(\zeta_{n;\alpha}-\zeta_{\alpha;n})+2(\zeta_\alpha V_n-\zeta_nV_\alpha)=-V\zeta_{\alpha;n},$$ where we used that $\zeta_{n;\alpha}=0$ and $V_n=0$ (due to (\[Vbd\])) and $\zeta_n=0$ (since $\zeta$ is tangent to $\Sigma$). It follows that $$\label{lasti}
\lim_{r\to +\infty}\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,E),\,\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}=\lim_{r\to +\infty}\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}V\zeta_{\alpha;n}\vartheta^\alpha dS^{n-2}_r.$$ To complete the argument, notice that $$\left(-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}Ve_2(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}\right)-\left(-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}Ve_1(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}\right)=-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}VE(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r},$$ and this equals $$-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}V(\Lc_\zeta b)(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}VR_1(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r},$$ where the last integral vanishes at infinity. Finally, the remaining integral may be evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}V(\Lc_\zeta b)(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}
& = & -\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}V(\zeta_{\alpha;n}+\zeta_{n;\alpha})\vartheta^\alpha dS^{n-2}_{r}\\
& = & -\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}V\zeta_{\alpha;n}\vartheta^\alpha dS^{n-2}_r,\end{aligned}$$ which clearly cancels out the contribution coming from the right-hand side of (\[lasti\]). We have thus shown that $$\lim_{r\to +\infty}\left[\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\langle\mathbb{U}(V,E),\mu\rangle dS^{n-1}_{r,+}-\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}VE(\eta,\vartheta)dS^{n-2}_{r}\right]=0,$$ which finishes the proof.
\[massbterm\] [Recalling that $\eta=-\mathfrak f_n$ we have $e(\eta,\vartheta)=-e(\mathfrak f_n,\vartheta^\alpha\mathfrak f_\alpha)=-e_{\alpha n}\vartheta^\alpha$. Thus, the mass functional in (\[massdef\]) may be expressed in terms of $e_{ik}=e(\mathfrak f_i,\mathfrak f_k)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{massdef2}
\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}(V) & = & \lim_{r\to +\infty}\int_{S^{n-1}_{r,+}}
\left(V\left(e^k_{i;k}-e^k_{k;i}\right)-e_{ik}V^k+e^k_kV_i\right)\mu^i\, dS^{n-1}_{r,+}\nonumber\\
& & \quad +\lim_{r\to+\infty}
\int_{S^{n-2}_{r}}Ve_{\alpha n}\vartheta^\alpha dS^{n-2}_{r}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if we express the metrics in Fermi coordinates around the boundary we get $e_{\alpha n}=0$, so in these new coordinates the last integral in the righthand side of (\[massdef2\]) does not contribute to the mass. We will use this choice of asymptotic coordinates and the ensuing simplified expression for the mass in the proof of Theorem \[maintheo\] below. It is not hard to check that under this change of coordinates (\[geoinv2\]) holds true with $\mathcal I$ being the identity isometry, so the mass functional remains the same. ]{}
To properly appreciate the relevance of Theorem \[geoinv\], we note that the isometry group $O^+(n-1,1)$ of the reference space $(\mathbb H^n_{+},b,\partial \mathbb H^n_{+})$, which is formed by those isometries of $\mathbb H^n$ preserving $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$, acts naturally on $\mathcal N_b^+$, which is generated by $\{V_{(0)}, V_{(1)},\cdots,V_{(n-1)}\}$, in such a way that the Lorentzian metric $$\langle\langle z,w\rangle\rangle=z_0w_0-z_1w_1-\cdots- z_{n-1}w_{n-1}$$ is preserved. Here, we regard $\{V_{(a)}\}_{a=0}^{n-1}$ as an orthonormal basis and endow $\mathcal N_b^+$ with a time orientation by declaring that $V_{(0)}$ is future directed. Thus, if for any admissible chart at infinity $F$ we set $$\mathcal P^{[F]}_a=\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}(V_{(a)}), \quad 0\leq a\leq n-1,$$ then Theorem \[geoinv\] guarantees that $\langle\langle\mathcal P^{[F]},\mathcal P^{[F]}\rangle\rangle$, the past/future pointing nature and the causal character of $\mathcal P^{[F]}$ are [*chart independent*]{} indeed. Combined with the standard physical reasoning, this suggests the following conjecture.
\[conjmp\](Positive mass) Let $(M,g,\Sigma)$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold with $R_g\geq -n(n-1)$ and $H_g\geq 0$. Then for any admissible chart $F$ the vector $\mathcal P^{[F]}$ is time-like future directed, unless it vanishes and $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^n_{+},b,\partial \mathbb H^n_+)$.
The “positive mass” terminology is justified by the fact that whenever the conjecture holds true we may define the numerical invariant $$\mathfrak m_{(g,b)}=\sqrt{\langle\langle \mathcal P^{[F]},\mathcal P^{[F]}\rangle\rangle},$$ which happens to be independent of the chosen chart. This may be regarded as the total mass of the isolated gravitational system whose (time-symmetric) initial data set is $(M,g)$. Notice that in this case we always have $\mathfrak m_{(g,b)}>0$ unless $(M,b,\Sigma)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial \mathbb H_+^n)$. As remarked in the Introduction, our main results (Theorems \[maintheo\] and \[conjmptheo\] below) confirm the conjecture in case $M$ is spin.
For further reference we observe the existence of an alternate version of the asymptotic definition for the mass functional (\[massdef\]) in terms of the Einstein tensor $$G_g={\rm Ric}_g-\frac{R_g}{2}g$$ in the interior and the Newton tensor $$J_g=\Pi_g-H_gg,$$ where $\Pi_g$ is the second fundamental form along the boundary, which has been recently established in [@dLGM]. More precisely, in terms of the modified Einstein tensor $$\widehat G_g=G_g-\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}g$$ we have the following result.
[@dLGM Theorem 4.2]\[asymhypl\] For each $a=0,1,\cdots,n-1$ there exists a conformal vector field $X_a$ on $\mathbb H^n_+$ which is everywhere tangent to $\partial\mathbb H^n_+$ and which for any asymptotically hyperbolic manifold $(M,g,\Sigma)$ and admissble chart $F$ satisfies $$\label{asymhypl2}
\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}(V_{(a)})=d_n\lim_{r\to+\infty}\left[\int_{\breve S^{n-1}_{r,+}}\widehat G_g(F_*X_a,\mu_g)d{\breve S^{n-1}_{r,+}}+\int_{\breve S^{n-2}_r}J_g(F_*X_a,\vartheta_g)d{\breve S^{n-2}_r} \right],$$ where $d_n>0$ is a dimensional constant, $\mu_g$ the outward unit normal to $\breve S^{n-1}_{r,+}:= F(S^{n-1}_{r,+})\subset M$ and similarly for $\vartheta_g$.
\[remeins\] [In general we may write $$\widehat G_g=\widetilde G_g+\frac{2-n}{2n}(R_g+n(n-1))g,$$ where $$\widetilde G_g={\rm Ric}_g-\frac{R_g}{n}g$$ is the traceless Ricci tensor. In particular, if $g$ is Einstein with ${\rm Ric}_g=-(n-1)g$, so that $R_g=-n(n-1)$, then $\widetilde G_g=0$ and hence $\widehat G_g=0$ as well. ]{}
Spinors on manifolds with boundary {#spinorsbd}
==================================
In this section we review the results in the theory of spinors on $n$-manifolds carrying a (possibly non-compact) boundary $\Sigma$ which are needed in the rest of the paper. Our presentation uses the setup introduced in [@HM; @HMR] and we refer to these works for further details on the material presented here.
The integral Lichnerowicz formula on spin manifolds with boundary {#lichbd}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We assume that the given manifold $(M,g)$ is spin and fix once and for all a spin structure on $TM$. We denote by $\mathbb SM$ the associated spin bundle and by $\nabla$ both the Levi-Civita connection of $TM$ and its lift to $\mathbb SM$. Also, $c:TM\times\mathbb SM\to\mathbb SM$ is the associated Clifford product, so that the corresponding Dirac operator is $$D=\sum_{i=1}^nc(e_i)\nabla_{e_i},$$ where $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is any orthonormal frame. Sometimes, when we wish to emphasize the dependence of $c$ on $g$ we append a superscript and write $c=c^g$ instead (and similarly for the other geometric invariants associated to the given spin structure).
The need to consider chirality boundary conditions for spinors along the boundary leads us to implement a procedure introduced in [@HMR] which allows us to treat the even and odd dimensional cases simultaneously. Given a spin manifold $M$ as above we set $\mathcal EM =\mathbb SM$ if $n$ is even and $\mathcal EM=\mathbb SM\oplus \mathbb SM$ if $n$ is odd. In this latter case, $\mathcal EM$ becomes a Dirac bundle if we define, for a section $$\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_1\\
\psi_2
\end{array}
\right)\in \Gamma(\mathcal EM),\quad \psi_i\in \Gamma(\mathbb SM),$$ the Clifford product and connection by $$c^{\mathcal E}(X)\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c(X)\psi_1\\
-c(X)\psi_2
\end{array}
\right),\quad \nabla_X^{\mathcal E}\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\nabla_X\psi_1\\
\nabla_X\psi_2
\end{array}
\right), \quad X\in\Gamma(TM).$$ As usual, the corresponding Dirac operator is $$D^{\mathcal E}\Psi=\sum_{i=1}^nc^{\mathcal E}(e_i)\nabla^{\mathcal E}_{e_i}\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D\psi_1\\
-D\psi_2
\end{array}
\right).$$ Finally, in order to unify the notation we set $c^{\mathcal E}=c$, $\nabla^{\mathcal E}=\nabla$ and $D^{\mathcal E}=D$ if $n$ is even whenever convenient.
We now define the [*Killing connections*]{} on $\mathcal EM$ by $$\widetilde\nabla_X^{\mathcal E,\pm}=\nabla^{\mathcal E}_X\pm\frac{\bf i}{2}c^{\mathcal E}(X).$$ The corresponding [*Killing-Dirac operators*]{} are defined in the usual way, namely, $$\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}=\sum_{i=1}^nc^{\mathcal E}(e_i)\widetilde\nabla_{e_i}^{\mathcal E,\pm},$$ so that $$\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}=D^{\mathcal E}\mp\frac{n{\bf i}}{2}.$$ We remind that $\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}$ satisfies the fundamental Lichnerowicz formula: $$\label{lichnefund}
({\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}})^2=({{{\widetilde\nabla}^{\mathcal E,\pm}}})^*
\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm}+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}.$$
Given $\Psi\in\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ we set $$\widetilde\Theta^{\pm}_\Psi(X)=-\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,\pm}(X)\Psi,\Psi\rangle, \quad X\in \Gamma(TM),$$ where $$\label{bdterm}
\widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,\pm}(X)=-(\widetilde\nabla_X^{\mathcal E,\pm}+c^{\mathcal E}(X) \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}).$$ Using (\[lichnefund\]) we easily compute that $${\rm div}_g\widetilde\Theta^\pm_\Psi=|\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm} \Psi|^2-|\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}\Psi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi|^2,$$ so if $\Omega\subset M$ is a compact domain with a nonempty boundary $\partial\Omega$, which we assume endowed with its inward pointing unit normal $\nu$, then integration by parts yields the integral version of the fundamental Lichnerowicz formula, namely, $$\label{partshyp}
\int_\Omega\left(|\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm} \Psi|^2-|\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}\Psi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi|^2\right)dM={\rm Re}\int_{\partial\Omega}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\mathcal W}}^{\mathcal E,\pm}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\right\rangle d\Sigma.$$
A key step in our argument is to rewrite the right-hand side of (\[partshyp\]) along the portion of $\partial \Omega$ lying on $\Sigma$ in terms of the corresponding shape operator. Indeed, notice that $\Sigma$ carries the bundle $\mathcal EM|_\Sigma$, obtained by restricting $\mathcal EM$ to $\Sigma$. This becomes a Dirac bundle if endowed with the Clifford product $$c^{\mathcal E,\intercal}(X)\Psi=c^{\mathcal E}(X)c^{\mathcal E}(\nu) \Psi,$$ and the connection $$\label{conn0}
\nabla^{\mathcal E,\intercal}_X\Psi = \nabla^{\mathcal E}_X\Psi-\frac{1}{2}c^{\mathcal E,\intercal}(AX)\Psi,$$ where $A=-\nabla\nu$ is the shape operator of $\Sigma$, so the corresponding Dirac operator $D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}:\Gamma(\mathcal EM|_\Sigma)\to\Gamma(\mathcal EM|_\Sigma)$ is $$D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\Psi=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}c^{\mathcal E,\intercal}(f_j)\nabla^{\mathcal E,\intercal}_{f_j}\Psi,$$ where $\{f_j\}_{j=1}^{n-1}$ is a local orthonormal tangent frame along $\Sigma$. Choosing the frame so that $Af_j=\kappa_jf_j$, where $\kappa_j$ are the principal curvatures of $\Sigma$, we have $$D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\Psi=-c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Dc\Psi+\frac{H}{2}\Psi,$$ where $H=\kappa_1+\cdots+\kappa_{n-1}$ is the mean curvature and $$\Dc\Psi=
\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}c^{\mathcal E}(f_j)\nabla^{\mathcal E}_{f_j}\Psi=c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\left(D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\Psi-\frac{H}{2}\Psi\right).$$ Since $\Dc=D^{\mathcal E}-c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\nabla^{\mathcal E}_{\nu}$, we obtain $$D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\Psi=\frac{H}{2}\Psi-(\nabla^{\mathcal E}_\nu+c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)D^{\mathcal E})\Psi,$$ which combined with (\[partshyp\]) yields the following important result.
\[intpartf\] Under the conditions above, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{parts3}
\int_\Omega\left(|\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm} \Psi|^2-|\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}\Psi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi|^2\right)d\Omega
& = &\int_{\partial\Omega\cap\Sigma}
\left(\langle \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\intercal,\pm}\Psi,\Psi\rangle-\frac{H}{2}|\Psi|^2\right) d\Sigma\nonumber \\
& & \quad + {\rm Re}\int_{\partial\Omega\cap {\rm int}\,M}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\mathcal W}}^{\mathcal E,\pm}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\right\rangle d\partial \Omega,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{newdirac}
\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\intercal,\pm}=D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\pm \frac{n-1}{2}{\bf i}c^{\mathcal E}(\nu):\Gamma(\mathbb S{\Sigma})\to
\Gamma(\mathbb S{\Sigma}).$$
\[intrin\] [It turns out that the extrinsic Dirac bundle $(\mathcal EM|_{\Sigma},c^{\mathcal E,\intercal}, \nabla^{\mathcal E,\intercal})$ can be naturally identified with certain Dirac bundles constructed out of the [*intrinsic*]{} induced spin bundle $(\mathbb S\Sigma,c^\gamma,\nabla^\gamma)$, where $\gamma=g|_\Sigma$ is the induced metric along $\Sigma$. Thus, $$(\mathcal EM|_{\Sigma},c^{\mathcal E,\intercal}, \nabla^{\mathcal E,\intercal})\cong
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(\mathbb S\Sigma\oplus\mathbb S\Sigma,c^\gamma\oplus -c^\gamma,\nabla^\gamma\oplus\nabla^\gamma) & n\,\,{\rm even}\\
(\mathbb S\Sigma\oplus\mathbb S\Sigma,c^\gamma\oplus c^\gamma,\nabla^\gamma\oplus\nabla^\gamma) & n\,\,{\rm odd}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Similar remarks hold for the corresponding Dirac operators. We refer to [@HMR Subsection 2.2] for a detailed discussion of these issues. ]{}
Chirality boundary conditions {#chirbd}
-----------------------------
To further simplify (\[parts3\]) we must impose suitable boundary conditions on $\Psi$.
\[chiralop\] A [chirality operator]{} on a spin manifold $(M,g)$ is a (pointwise) selfadjoint involution $Q:\Gamma(\mathcal EM)\to\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ which is parallel and anti-commutes with Clifford multiplication by tangent vectors.
If $n$ is even it is well-known that Clifford multiplication by the complex volume element provides a chirality operator. Using the formalism above, we easily see that in case $n$ is odd $Q:\Gamma(\mathcal EM)\to \Gamma(\mathcal EM)$, $$Q\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_1\\
\psi_2
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_2\\
\psi_1
\end{array}
\right)$$ also defines a chirality operator. Thus, in either case we define the corresponding [*boundary chirality operator*]{} $\mathcal Q=Qc^{\mathcal E}(\nu):\Gamma(\mathcal EM|_{\Sigma})\to\Gamma(\mathcal EM|_{\Sigma})$. Clearly, $\mathcal Q$ is a self-adjoint involution as well, so we may consider the projections $$P^{(\pm)}_{\mathcal Q}=\frac{1}{2}\left({\rm Id}_{\mathcal EM|_{\Sigma}}\pm\mathcal Q\right):\Gamma(\mathcal EM|_\Sigma)\to\Gamma(V^{\mathcal E,(\pm)})$$ onto the $\pm 1$-eigenbundles $V^{\mathcal E,(\pm)}$ of $\mathcal Q$. Thus, $\Psi\in\Gamma(V^{\mathcal E,(\pm)})$ if and only if $\mathcal Q\Psi=\pm\Psi$. In the following we use the qualification [*standard*]{} to refer to any of these chilarity structures on a spin manifold $M$.
\[remodd\] [If $n$ is odd then $\Psi\in \Gamma(V^{\mathcal E,(\pm)})$ if and only if $$\label{rep1}
\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi\\
\pm c (\nu)\psi
\end{array}
\right),\quad \psi\in \Gamma(\mathbb SM|_\Sigma).$$]{}
For any $\Psi\in\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ we set $\Psi^{(\pm)}=P^{(\pm)}_{\mathcal Q}\Psi\in\Gamma(V^{\mathcal E,(\pm)})$, so that $$\Psi=\Psi^{(+)}+\Psi^{(-)},$$ an orthogonal decomposition. Since $D^{\mathcal E,\intercal} c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)=-c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}$ we have $D^{\mathcal E,\intercal} P^{(\pm)}_{\mathcal Q}=P^{(\mp)}_{\mathcal Q}D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}$, and hence $$\label{idpm}
\langle D^{\mathcal E,\intercal} \Psi,\Psi\rangle=\langle D^{\mathcal E,\intercal} \Psi^{(+)},\Psi^{(-)}\rangle+\langle D^{\mathcal E,\intercal} \Psi^{(-)},\Psi^{(+)}\rangle.$$
\[chirality\] If $\mathcal EM$ is endowed with the standard chirality operator $Q$ as above then we say that $\Psi\in\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ satisfies a [chirality boundary condition]{} if any of the identities $\Psi^{(\pm)}=0$ holds along $\Sigma$.
\[streg\] If $\Psi$ satisfies a chirality boundary condition then $$\label{vanishing0}
\langle c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\rangle=0,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{parts4}
{\rm Re}\int_{\partial\Omega\cap {\rm int}\,M}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\mathcal W}}^{\mathcal E,\pm}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\right\rangle d\partial\Omega
& = &
\int_\Omega\left(|\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm} \Psi|^2-|\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}\Psi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi|^2\right)d\Omega\nonumber\\
& &\quad +\int_{\partial\Omega\cap\Sigma}
\frac{H}{2}|\Psi|^2 d\Sigma.
\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathcal Q\Psi=\pm\Psi$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\rangle
& = & \pm \langle c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)Qc^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\rangle\\
& = & \mp \langle Qc^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi\rangle\\
& = & \mp\langle c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,Qc^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi\rangle\\
& = & - \langle c^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\Psi,\Psi\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ which proves (\[vanishing0\]). On the other hand, from (\[idpm\]) we have $\langle D^{\mathcal E,\intercal}\Psi,\Psi\rangle=0$. Thus, from (\[newdirac\]) we get $\langle \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\intercal,\pm}\Psi,\Psi\rangle=0$, which together with (\[parts3\]) proves (\[parts4\]).
Finally, we remark that the projections $P_{\mathcal Q}^{(\pm)}$ define nice elliptic boundary conditions for the Dirac operador $\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}$ considered above, as the following result shows.
\[existspin\] If $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is asymptotically hyperbolic as above with $R_g\geq -n(n-1)$ and $H_g\geq 0$ then for any $\Phi\in \Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ such that $\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi\in L^2(\mathcal EM)$ there exists a unique $\Xi\in L_1^2(\mathcal EM)$ solving the boundary value problem $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
{\widetilde D}^{\mathcal E,+}\Xi=-\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi & {\rm in} & M \\
\Xi^{(\pm)}=0 & {\rm on} & \Sigma
\end{array}
\right.$$
The assumption $\widetilde \nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi\in L^2(\mathcal EM)$ clearly implies that $\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi\in L^2(\mathcal EM)$ as well. The result is then an easy consequence of the methods leading to [@GN Corollary 4.19].
Killing spinors {#killing}
---------------
We start by adapting a well-known definition.
\[defkill\] We say that $\Phi\in\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ is an [imaginary Killing section to the number]{} $\pm {\bf i}/2$ if it is parallel with respect to $\widetilde \nabla^{\mathcal E,\pm}$, that is, $$\nabla^{\mathcal E}_X\Phi\pm\frac{\bf i}{2}c^{\mathcal E}(X)\Phi=0,\quad X\in\Gamma(TM).$$ The space of all such sections is denoted by $\mathcal K^{g,\pm}(\mathcal EM)$. More generally, $\Phi$ is [Killing-harmonic]{} if it satisfies any of the equations $\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,\pm}\Phi=0$.
\[killimp\] [If $n$ is odd then $$\Phi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_+\\
\phi_-
\end{array}
\right)$$ is imaginary Killing to the number ${\bf i}/2$ if and only if $\phi_{\pm}\in\Gamma(\mathbb SM)$ is imaginary Killing to the number $\pm {\bf i}/2$. Thus, $$\mathcal K^{g,+}(\mathcal EM)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\mathcal K^{g,+}(\mathbb SM) & n\,\,{\rm even}\\
\mathcal K^{g,+}(\mathbb SM)\oplus\mathcal K^{g,-}(\mathbb SM) & n\,\,{\rm odd}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mathcal K^{g,\pm}(\mathbb SM)$ is the space of [imaginary Killing spinors]{} to the number $\pm {\bf i}/2$. ]{}
\[killhyp\] [The conformal relationship between $(\mathbb B_+^n,\hat b)$ and $(\mathbb B^n_+,\delta)$ described in (\[confrep\]) allows us to canonically identify the corresponding spinor bundles $\mathbb S\mathbb B_{+,\hat b}^n$ and $\mathbb S\mathbb B^n_{+,\delta}$, so that $\phi\in\Gamma(\mathbb S\mathbb B^n_{+,\delta})$ corresponds to a certain $\overline{\phi}\in\Gamma(\mathbb S\mathbb B_{+,\hat b}^n)$. Under this identification, if $u\in\Gamma(\mathbb S\mathbb B^n_{+,\delta})$ is a [*constant*]{} (i.e. $\nabla^\delta$-parallel) spinor then the prescription $$\label{presc}
\phi_{u,\pm}(x)=\omega(x)^{-1/2}\overline{\left(1\pm {\bf{i}} c^{\delta}(x)\right)u}\in\Gamma(\mathbb S\mathbb B_{+,\hat b}^n)$$ exhausts the space $\mathcal K^{\hat b,\pm}(\mathbb S\mathbb B^n_+)$ [@Bau]. Here, $\delta$ refers to the Euclidean metric. In particular, if $n$ is odd then by Remark \[killimp\], $$\label{rep2}
\Phi_{u,v}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_{u,+}\\
\phi_{v,-}
\end{array}
\right)\in\mathcal K^{\hat b,+}(\mathcal E\mathbb B^n_+).$$ ]{}
In general, if $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is asymptotically hyperbolic we may consider the space $$\mathcal K^{g,\pm,(\pm)}(\mathcal EM)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal K^{g,\pm}(\mathcal EM);\mathcal Q^g\Phi=\pm\Phi\}$$ of all imaginary Killing sections to the number $\pm{\bf i}/2$ satisfying the corresponding chirality boundary conditon. This space can be explicitly described for $\mathbb H^n_+$. In view of Example \[killhyp\] above, it is convenient here to consider the half-disk model $\mathbb B^n_+$ in Remark \[ballmodel\]. If $Q^{\hat b}$ is the standard chirality operator on $(\mathbb B^n_+,\hat b)$ and $\mathcal Q^{\hat b}$ is the corresponding boundary chirality operator, then these data naturally induce corresponding operators $Q^{\delta}$ and $\mathcal Q^\delta$ on $(\mathbb B^n_+,\delta)$. Now let $
\mathcal K^{\delta,(\pm)}
$ be the space of all constant spinors $u\in\Gamma(\mathbb S\mathbb B_+^n,\delta)$ which satisfy $\mathcal Q^{\delta}u=\pm u$.
\[isopresc\] If $n$ is even the prescription $u\mapsto \phi_{u,\pm}$ in (\[presc\]) defines isomorphisms $\mathcal K^{\delta,(+)}\cong\mathcal K^{\hat b,\pm,(+)}(\mathbb S\mathbb B_n^+)$ and $\mathcal K^{\delta,(-)}\cong\mathcal K^{\hat b,\pm,(-)}(\mathbb S\mathbb B_n^+)$.
Let $\nu_{\hat b}=\omega^{-1}\nu_\delta$ be the hyperbolic unit normal along $\partial \mathbb B^n_+$, where $\nu_\delta=\partial_n$ is the Euclidean inward unit normal. Notice that $c^\delta(\nu^{\delta})c^\delta(x)=-c^\delta(x)c^\delta(\nu^\delta)$ if $x\in \partial\mathbb B^n_+$. Thus, if $u\in \mathcal K^{\delta,(+)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal Q^{\hat b}\phi_{u,\pm})(x)
& = & (Q^{\hat b}c^{\hat b}(\nu^{\hat b})\phi_{u,\pm})(x)\\
& = & \omega(x)^{-1/2}Q^{\hat b}c^{\hat b}(\nu^{\hat b}){(\overline{u}\pm\overline{c^\delta(x)u}})\\
& = & \omega(x)^{-1/2}\left(\overline{Q^\delta c^\delta(\nu^\delta)u}\pm
\overline{Q^\delta c^\delta(\nu^\delta)c^\delta(x)u}\right)\\
& = & \omega(x)^{-1/2}\left(\overline{u}\mp
\overline{Q^\delta c^\delta(x)c^\delta(\nu^\delta)u}\right)\\
& = & \omega(x)^{-1/2}\left(\overline{u}\pm
\overline{c^\delta(x)Q^\delta c^\delta(\nu^\delta)u}\right)\\
& = & \omega(x)^{-1/2}\left(\overline{u}\pm
\overline{c^\delta(x)u}\right)\\
& = & \phi_{u,\pm}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, if $u\in \mathcal K^{\delta,(-)}$ we compute that $(\mathcal Q^{\hat b}\phi_{u,\pm})(x) =-\phi_{u,\pm}(x)$.
This leads to the following result, which confirms that $\mathbb H^n_+$ carries the maximal number of linearly independent such sections.
\[dimkill\] We have $$\dim_{\mathbb C}\mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)=2^{k-1},$$ if $n=2k$ or $n=2k+1$. As a consequence, $$\dim_{\mathbb C}\mathcal K^{b,+}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)=2^k={\rm rank}\,\mathbb S\mathbb H^n_+.$$
The even case is obvious since ${\rm rank}\,\mathbb S\mathbb B_+^n=2^k$ equals the dimension of the space of constant spinors. If $n$ is odd note that if $\Psi_{u,v}$ in (\[rep2\]) is of the form (\[rep1\]) then $$v-c^\delta(x)v=\pm c^\delta(\nu^\delta)(u+c^\delta(x)u),\quad x\in\partial\mathbb B^n_+.$$ By taking $x=0$ yields $v=\pm c^{\delta}(\nu^{\delta})u$, so the entries in (\[rep2\]) depend on the [*same*]{} constant spinor.
The positive mass theorem and its consequences {#mainsec}
==============================================
In this section we present the proofs of our main results, namely, Theorems \[maintheo\] and \[conjmptheo\] below. We then explain how they imply Theorems \[maintheocor\], \[riggen\] and \[rigconfcom\] in the Introduction.
We consider an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold $(M,g,\Sigma)$ in the sense of Definition \[def:as:hyp\]. We fix a chart at infinity $F:(\mathbb H^n_{+,r_0},b)\to (M_{\rm ext},g)$. In fact, since $\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}$ is an asymptotic invariant, we may assume that $F$ is a [*global*]{} diffeomorphism between $\mathbb H^n_+$ and $M$. In any case this allows us to construct a gauge map $\mathcal G$ acting on tangent vectors so that $$\label{impogau}
\langle \mathcal GX,\mathcal GY\rangle_g=\langle X,Y\rangle_b, \quad \langle\mathcal GX,Y\rangle_g=\langle X,\mathcal GY\rangle_g.$$ and such that, in the asymptotic region, $$\label{asymfr0}
\mathcal G=I-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal H+\mathcal R, \quad \mathcal H= O(r^{-\tau}), \quad \mathcal R=O(r^{-2\tau}).$$ In terms of an orthonormal $b$-frame $\{\mathfrak f_i\}_{i=1}^n$ in Definition \[def:as:hyp\], this last requirement means that $\mathfrak e_i=\mathcal G\mathfrak f_i$ given by $$\label{asymfr}
\mathfrak e_i=\mathfrak f_i-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal H\mathfrak f_i+\mathcal R\mathfrak f_i$$ is an orthonormal $g$-frame. Notice that $\mathcal H=I-\mathcal G^2+O(r^{-2\tau})$, so that $$\label{normrad2}
e(X,Y)=\langle \mathcal HX,Y\rangle_g +O(r^{-2\tau}),$$ whenever $X$ and $Y$ are uniformly bounded vector fields.
The gauge map $\mathcal G$ induces an identification between the bundles $\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_{+,r_0}$ and $\mathcal E M_{\rm ext}$ endowed with the metric structures coming from $b$ and $g$, respectively. Thus, if $\varphi$ is a cut-off function on $M$ with $\varphi=1$ on $M_{\rm ext}$ and $\Phi\in\Gamma(\mathcal E\mathbb H_{+}^n)$ then $\Phi_*:=\varphi\mathcal G\Phi\in\Gamma(\mathcal EM)$ and the map $\Phi\mapsto\Phi_*$ is a (fiberwise) isometry in a neighborhood of infinity. We apply this construction to $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$ an imaginary Killing section satisfying a chirality boundary condition; see Example \[killhyp\] and Corollary \[dimkill\]. We set $$\mathcal C_b^+=\{V\in\mathcal N_b^+;\langle\langle V,V\rangle\rangle=0, \langle\langle V,V_{(0)}\rangle\rangle\geq 0\}$$ to be the future-pointing null cone.
\[prelimlem\] For any $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+) $ we have that $V_\Phi:=\langle\Phi,\Phi\rangle\in\mathcal N_b^+$, and it satisfies $\langle\langle V_{\Phi},V_{\Phi}\rangle\rangle\geq 0$ and $\langle\langle V_{\Phi},V_{(0)}\rangle\rangle\geq 0$. Moreover, every $V\in \mathcal C_b^+$ can be written as $V=V_{\Phi}$ for some $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+) $. In particular, $|\Phi|_b=O(r^{1/2})$.
If $n$ is even so that $\Phi={\phi_{u,+}}$, direct computations starting from (\[presc\]) show that for $x'\in\mathbb B^n_+$, $$V_\Phi(x')=|u|^2V_{(0)}(x')+{\bf i}\sum_{i=1}^n\langle c^\delta(\partial_{x_i'})u,u\rangle V_{(i)}(x')$$ and $\langle\langle V_{\Phi},V_{\Phi}\rangle\rangle= |u|^4+\sum_{i=1}^n\langle c^\delta(\partial_{x_i'})u,u\rangle^2$. However, the same calculation as that leading to (\[vanishing0\]) shows that $\langle c^\delta(\partial_{x_n'})u,u\rangle=0$. As shown in [@Bau Theorem 1], $\langle\langle V_{\Phi},V_{\Phi}\rangle\rangle$ is a nonnegative constant and of course the case $\langle\langle V_{\Phi},V_{\Phi}\rangle\rangle=0$ corresponds to $V_{\Phi}\in\mathcal C_b^+$. Notice that the same conclusion holds if we had taken $\Phi=\phi_{u,-}$ instead. If $n$ is odd, (\[rep2\]) gives $$\langle\Phi,\Phi\rangle=\langle \phi_{u,+},\phi_{u,+}\rangle +\langle \phi_{v,-},\phi_{v,-}\rangle,$$ which also proves the first assertions in those dimensions. Finally, the last assertion follows from the fact that $V=O(r)$.
We now take a Killing section $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$ so that $V_\Phi\in\mathcal N_b^+$ as in Proposition \[prelimlem\]. We may then extend the transplanted section $\Phi_*$ to the whole of $M$ so that the given chilarity boundary condition is satisfied along $\Sigma$. Also, a well-known computation shows that $$|\widetilde \nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*|_g\leq C\left(|\mathcal G-I|_b+|\nabla^b\mathcal G|_b\right)|\Phi|_b=O(r^{-\tau+1/2}),$$ so that $\widetilde \nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*\in L^2$ and we may apply Proposition \[existspin\] to obtain $\Xi\in L^2_1(\mathcal EM)$ such that $\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Xi=-\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*$ and $\Xi^{(\pm)}=0$ along $\Sigma$. Thus, $\Psi_{\Phi}:=\Phi_*+\Xi$ is Killing harmonic ($\widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi_{\Phi}=0$) and $\Psi_{\Phi}^{(\pm)}=0$ along $\Sigma$. Moreover, by taking into account the identification between $M$ and $\mathbb H^n_+$ given by $F$, we see that $\Psi_\Phi$ asymptotes $\Phi$ at infinity in the sense that $\Psi_\Phi-\Phi\in L^2_1(M)$. We now state our first main result, which provides a Herzlich-Chruściel-Witten-type formula for the mass functional.
\[maintheo\] With the notation above, $$\label{maintheo2}
\frac{1}{4}\mathfrak m_{(g,b,F)}(V_\Phi)=\int_M\left(|\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi_\Phi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi_\Phi|^2\right)dM+\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma H_g|\Psi_\Phi|^2d\Sigma,$$ for any $\Phi\in\mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$.
For the proof we may assume that the chart at infinity is chosen as in Remark \[massbterm\]. After using (\[parts4\]) with $\Omega=M_r$, the region in $M$ bounded by $\Sigma_r\cup S_{r,+}^{n-1}$, and $\Psi=\Psi_{\Phi}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\nabla}}_\mu^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi_\Phi,\Psi_\Phi\right\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1}
& = &
\int_{M_r}\left(|\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+} \Psi_\Phi|^2+\frac{R_g+n(n-1)}{4}|\Psi_\Phi|^2\right)dM_r\nonumber\\
& &\quad +\int_{\Sigma_r}
\frac{H}{2}|\Psi_\Phi|^2 d\Sigma,\end{aligned}$$ and using that the second term in the right-hand of (\[massdef2\]) does not contribute to the mass, we need to check that $$\label{checkf}
\lim_{r\to +\infty}{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\nabla}}_\mu^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi_\Phi,\Psi_\Phi\right\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1}=\lim_{r\to+\infty}\frac{1}{4}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\langle\mathbb U(V_{\Phi},e),\mu\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1}.$$ In fact, after splitting the integrand on the left-hand side by means of the decomposition $\Psi_\Phi=\Phi_*+\Xi$, we see that algebraic cancellations and the decaying properties of $\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*$ and $\Xi$ imply that $$\lim_{r\to +\infty}{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\nabla}}_\mu^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi_\Phi,\Psi_\Phi\right\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1}=
\lim_{r\to +\infty}{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}
\left\langle {\widetilde{\nabla}}_\mu^{\mathcal E,+}\Xi,\Phi_*\right\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1},$$ so we shall focus on the last integrand.
To proceed we follow [@LP] and introduce the $(n-2)$-form $$\varepsilon=\left\langle[\mathfrak e_l\cdot,\mathfrak e_m\cdot]\Phi_*,\Xi\right\rangle \mathfrak e_l\righthalfcup\mathfrak e_m\righthalfcup dM,$$ where for simplicity we denote the Clifford multiplication by a dot.
\[prelimlem2\] We have $$\lim_{r\to +\infty}\int_{S^{n-2}_r}\varepsilon=0.$$
It follows from (\[asymfr\]) that $\mathfrak e_i \righthalfcup\mathfrak e_j=\mathfrak f_i\righthalfcup\mathfrak f_j+O(r^{-\tau})$, so if we again take $\mathfrak f$ as in Remark \[massbterm\] and use that $\mathfrak f_n \righthalfcup\mathfrak f_\alpha\righthalfcup dM=dS^{n-2}_r$ we have that, restricted to the boundary, $$\varepsilon=-4\langle\mathfrak e_\alpha \cdot\mathfrak e_n\cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle dS^{n-2}_r+\langle O(r^{-\tau})\cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle dS^{n-2}_r.$$ Using that $dS^{n-2}_r=O(r^{n-2})$, $|\Phi_*|=O(r^{1/2})$ and the decaying properties of $\Xi$, we see that the last term integrates to zero at infinity. On the other hand, recalling that $\mathfrak e_n=-\nu$ and both $\Phi_*$ and $\Xi$ satisfy the chirality boundary conditions along $\Sigma$, the remaining integrand equals $$\begin{aligned}
4\langle \mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\nu \cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle & = & 4\langle\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\nu\cdot(\pm Q\nu\cdot\Phi_*),\pm Q\nu\cdot\Xi\rangle\\
& = & -4\langle Q\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\Phi_*,Q\nu\cdot\Xi\rangle\\
& = & -4\langle\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\Phi_*,\nu\cdot\Xi\rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\label{compeq}
\langle \mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\nu\cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle=
\langle \nu\cdot\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle.$$ From this and Clifford relations we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\nu \cdot\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle & = &
\frac{1}{2}\langle (\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot\nu \cdot+\nu\cdot\mathfrak e_\alpha\cdot)\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle\\
& = & -\langle\mathfrak e_\alpha,\nu\rangle_g\langle\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle\\
& = & 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
A straightforward computation gives $$d\varepsilon=4\left(\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle-\langle \Phi_*, \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Xi\rangle\right){\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM,$$ where by (\[bdterm\]), $$\label{decayc}
\widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)=-(\delta_{lm}+\mathfrak e_l\cdot\mathfrak e_m\cdot)\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}_{\mathfrak e_m}=-\frac{1}{2}[\mathfrak e_l\cdot,\mathfrak e_m\cdot]\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}_{\mathfrak e_m}.$$ Hence, $$\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Phi_*,\Xi\rangle {\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM-\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Xi,\Phi_*\rangle {\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM = \frac{1}{4}\int_{S_{r}^{n-2}}\varepsilon,$$ where we used that $S_r^{n-2}=\partial S_{r,+}^{n-1}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}_{\mathfrak e_l}\Xi,\Phi_*\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM
& = & - {\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle (\widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)-\mathfrak e_l\cdot \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+})\Xi,\Phi_*\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM\\
& = & - {\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Phi_*,\Xi\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM + \frac{1}{4}{\rm Re}\int_{S_r^{n-2}}\varepsilon \\
& & \quad + {\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \mathfrak e_l\cdot \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Xi,\Phi_*\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM\\
& = &
-{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \widetilde{\mathcal W}^{\mathcal E,+}(\mathfrak e_l)\Phi_*,\Xi\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM + \frac{1}{4}{\rm Re}\int_{S_r^{n-2}}\varepsilon \\
& & \quad - {\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \mathfrak e_l\cdot \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*,\Phi_*\right\rangle{\mathfrak e_l}\righthalfcup dM,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\Psi_\Phi$ is Killing harmonic in the last step. Again due to the decay properties and (\[decayc\]), the first integral in the right-hand side above vanishes at infinity, so recalling that $\mathfrak e_i=\mathfrak f_i+O(r^{-\tau})$ we finally obtain $$\lim_{r\to+\infty} {\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\langle\widetilde{\nabla}_\mu^{\mathcal E,+}\Xi,\Phi_*\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1} =
-\lim_{r\to +\infty}{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \mu\cdot \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*,\Phi_*\right\rangle d{S_{r,+}^{n-1}},$$ where we used Lemma \[prelimlem2\] to get rid of the integral involving $\varepsilon$. Now, a standard computation as in [@CH Section 4] shows that $$\lim_{r\to +\infty}{\rm Re}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\left\langle \mu\cdot \widetilde D^{\mathcal E,+}\Phi_*,\Phi_*\right\rangle d{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}=-
\lim_{r\to +\infty}\frac{1}{4}\int_{S_{r,+}^{n-1}}\langle \mathbb U(V_\Phi,e),\mu\rangle dS_{r,+}^{n-1},$$ which proves (\[checkf\]) and completes the proof of Theorem \[maintheo\].
We now explain how the mass formula (\[maintheo2\]) implies Conjecture \[conjmp\] in case $M$ is spin. More precisely, we have the following result.
\[conjmptheo\] Let $(M,g,\Sigma)$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifold with $R_g\geq -n(n-1)$ and $H_g\geq 0$. Then for any admissible chart $F$ the mass vector $\mathcal P^{[F]}$ is time-like future directed, unless it vanishes and $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^n_{+},b,\partial \mathbb H^n_+)$.
From (\[maintheo2\]) and the assumptions $R_g\geq -n(n-1)$ and $H_g\geq 0$ we see that $$\label{forany}
\langle\langle\mathcal P^{[F]},V\rangle\rangle\geq 0$$ for any $V=V_{\Phi}$ with $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$. In particular, (\[forany\]) holds for any $V\in\mathcal C_b^+$ since, by Proposition \[prelimlem\], any such $V$ can be written as $V=V_{\Phi}$ for some $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$. Hence, $\mathcal P^{[F]}$ is time-like and future directed unless there exists some $V=V_\Phi\neq 0$ so that the equality holds in (\[forany\]). This last possibility implies by (\[maintheo2\]) that there exists a non-trivial Killing section $\Psi=\Psi_\Phi$ on $M$ satisfying the corresponding chirality boundary condition along $\Sigma$. In particular, $g$ is Einstein with ${\rm Ric}_g=-(n-1)g$ so that $\widehat E_g=0$ as in Remark \[remeins\]. On the other hand, for any $X\in\Gamma(T\Sigma)$ we have, upon derivation of $\mathcal Q\Psi=\pm\Psi$, $$Q c^{\mathcal E}(\nabla_X\nu)\Psi
= -Qc^{\mathcal E}(\nu)\widetilde\nabla_X^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi\pm\widetilde\nabla_X^{\mathcal E,+}\Psi=0,$$ and since $\Psi$ never vanishes we see that $\nabla_X\nu=0$, that is, $\Sigma$ is totally geodesic. Thus, by our alternate definition (\[asymhypl2\]) of the mass functional we see that $\mathcal P^{[F]}$ vanishes and hence the equality in (\[forany\]) holds for [*any*]{} $V=V_{\Phi}$ with $\Phi\in \mathcal K^{b,+,(\pm)}(\mathcal E\mathbb H^n_+)$. By Corollary \[dimkill\] and (\[maintheo2\]), this means that $(M,g)$ carries as many Killing sections to the number ${\bf i}/2$ (i.e. parallel sections for the connection $\widetilde\nabla^{\mathcal E,+}$) as the reference space $(\mathbb H^n_+,b,\partial\mathbb H^n_+)$, which implies that $g$ is locally hyperbolic. Moreover, by (\[conn0\]), Remark \[intrin\] and Corollary \[dimkill\], the restrictions of these Killing sections to $\Sigma$ generate a space of imaginary Killing spinors on $\mathbb S \Sigma$ with maximal dimension. In particular, this implies that $\Sigma$ has no compact components and so it is connected by Remark \[rmk:bd\]. Also, a direct application of Gauss formula shows that $R_\gamma+(n-1)(n-2)=0$ so $(\Sigma,\gamma)$ is asymptotically hyperbolic as a boundaryless manifold (in the sense of [@CH]). A well-known result by H. Baum [@Bau] implies that $(\Sigma,\gamma)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^{n-1},\beta)$. Now, we double the manifold $(M, g, \Sigma)$ along $\Sigma$ obtaining a locally hyperbolic manifold $(\widehat M, \widehat g)$ which is asymptotically hyperbolic as a boundaryless manifold. Standard topological arguments show that $(\widehat M, \widehat g)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^n, b)$ and finally $(M,g,\Sigma)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb H^n_+, b, \partial\mathbb H^n_+)$.
Clearly, Theorem \[maintheocor\] is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[conjmptheo\]. Also, Theorem \[riggen\] follows promptly from (\[asymhypl2\]), Remark \[remeins\] and Theorem \[conjmptheo\], and similarly for Theorem \[riggennbd\], which follows from the corresponding boundaryless statements. We next present the proof of Theorem \[rigconfcom\]. Since $g$ is Einstein, if $n=3$ the result follows from Theorem \[maintheocor\]. If $n\geq 4$ the well-known computation in [@AD] shows that the contribution for the mass functional coming from integration over the asymptotic hemisphere $S^{n-1}_+$ vanishes. Thus, by (\[massdef2\]) and the fact that $t
\approx r^{-1}$, it remains to check that the asymptotic integral over $S^{n-2}=\partial S^{n-1}_+$ vanishes as well, that is, $$\lim_{t\to 0}\int_{S^{n-2}_t}Ve_{1 n}dS^{n-2}_t= 0,$$ where $V\in\mathcal N_b^+$ and we have chosen the frame $\mathfrak f$ so that $\mathfrak f_1=\sinh t\,\partial_t=\vartheta$ and $\mathfrak f_n=-\eta$. Now recall that we can set up a gauge map $\mathcal G$ in the asymptotic region so that $$\mathcal G\mathfrak f_i=\mathfrak f_i-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal H\mathfrak f_i+\mathcal R\mathfrak f_i,$$ is an orthonormal $g$-frame, where $\mathcal H=O(t^{n-2})$ and $\mathcal R=o(t^{n-1})$ by (\[remainder\]). But notice that (\[expan\]) clearly leads to $\mathcal G\mathfrak f_1=\mathfrak f_1$ so we actually have $\mathcal H\mathfrak f_1=o(t^{n-1})$. Thus, by the analogue of (\[normrad2\]), $$e_{1n} = \langle\mathcal H\mathfrak f_1,\mathfrak f_n\rangle_g +o(t^{n-1})=o(t^{n-1}).$$ Since $V=O(t^{-1})$ and $dS^{n-2}_t=O(t^{2-n})$, $$\int_{S^{n-2}_t}Ve_{1 n}dS^{n-2}_t= o(1),$$ which proves the claim and finishes the proof of Theorem \[rigconfcom\].
[999999]{}
S. Almaraz, E. Barbosa, and L. L. de Lima, A positive mass theorem for asymptotically flat manifolds with a non-compact boundary. [*Commun. Anal. Geom.*]{} [**24**]{}(4) (2016), 673-715.
M. T. Anderson, Geometric aspects of the AdS/CFT correspondence. [*AdS/CFT correspondence: Einstein metrics and their conformal boundaries*]{}, 1-31, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., 8, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2005.
L. Andersson, M. Cai, and G. J. Galloway. Rigidity and positivity of mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. , 9(1):1–33, 2008.
L. Andersson and M. Dahl. Scalar curvature rigidity for asymptotically locally hyperbolic manifolds. , 16(1):1–27, 1998.
R. Bartnik, The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold. [*Commun. Pure and Appl. Math.*]{} [**39**]{} (1986), 661-693.
H. Baum, Complete Riemannian manifolds with imaginary Killing spinors, [*Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom.*]{} [**7**]{} (1989), 205–226.
H. Barzegar, P. T. Chruściel, L. Nguyen. On the total mass of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, [*arXiv:1812.03924*]{}.
S. Brendle, F. C. Marques, Recent progress on the Yamabe problem. [*Surveys in geometric analysis and relativity*]{}, 29–47, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 20, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2011.
P. T. Chruściel and M. Herzlich, The mass of asymptotically hyperbolic Riemannian manifolds. [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**[212]{}**]{} (2003), 231-264.
X. Chen, M. Lai, F. Wang, Escobar-Yamabe compactifications for Poincaré-Einstein manifolds and rigidity theorems, [*arXiv:1712.02540*]{}.
P. T. Chru[ś]{}ciel and G. Nagy. The mass of spacelike hypersurfaces in asymptotically anti-de [S]{}itter space-times. , 5(4):697–754, 2001.
M. Dahl, R. Gicquaud, and A. Sakovich. Penrose type inequalities for asymptotically hyperbolic graphs. [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{}, 14(5):1135-1168, 2013.
L.L. de Lima, F. Girão, An Alexandrov–Fenchel-type inequality in hyperbolic space with an application to a Penrose inequality, Ann. Henri Poincaré 17 (2016) 979–1002.
L. L. de Lima, F. Girão, A. Montalbán, The mass in terms of Einstein and Newton, [*arXiv:1811.06924*]{}.
L. L. de Lima, P. Piccione, M. Zedda, On bifurcation of solutions of the Yamabe problem in product manifolds. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Lináire*]{} 29 (2012), no. 2, 261-277.
N. Grosse, R. Nakad, Boundary value problems for noncompact boundaries of Spin$^c$ manifolds and spectral estimates, [*Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{} (3) 109 (2014), no. 4, 946-974.
O. Hijazi, S. Montiel, A holographic principle for the existence of parallel spinor fields and an inequality of Shi-Tam type, [*Asian J. Math.*]{} 18 (2014) 489-506.
O. Hijazi, S. Montiel, S. Raulot, A holographic principle for the existence of imaginary Killing spinors, [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} 91 (2015) 12-28.
M. Herzlich. Mass formulae for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. In [*Ad[S]{}/[CFT]{} correspondence: [E]{}instein metrics and their conformal boundaries*]{}, volume 8 of [*IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys.*]{}, pages 103–121. Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2005.
M. Herzlich, Computing asymptotic invariants with the Ricci tensor on asymptotically flat and asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{} 17 (2016), no. 12, 3605-3617.
J. M. Lee, T. H. Parker, The Yamabe problem. [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)*]{} 17 (1987), no. 1, 37-91.
G. Li, J. Qing, Y. Shi, Gap phenomena and curvature estimates for conformally compact Einstein manifolds, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 369 (2017), no. 6, 4385-4413.
J. Lohkamp, The higher dimensional positive mass theorem II, [*arXiv:1612.07505*]{}.
D. Maerten, Positive energy-momentum theorem for AdS-asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{} 7 (2006), no. 5, 975-1011.
R. Mazzeo, F. Pacard, Constant curvature foliations in asymptotically hyperbolic spaces. [*Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*]{} 27 (2011), no. 1, 303-333.
B. Michel. Geometric invariance of mass-like asymptotic invariants. , 52(5):052504, 14, 2011.
M. Min-Oo. Scalar curvature rigidity of asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifolds. , 285(4):527–539, 1989.
S. Raulot, A remark on the rigidity of conformally compact Poincaré-Einstein manifolds, [*arXiv arXiv:1803.03162*]{}.
R. Schoen, Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to constant scalar curvature. [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} 20 (1984), no. 2, 479-495.
R. Schoen, S.-T. Yau, On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in General Relativity. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**[65]{}**]{} (1979), 45-76.
R. Schoen, S.-T. Yau, Positive Scalar curvature and minimal hypersurface singularities, [*arXiv:1704.05490*]{}.
X. Wang, Mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. [*J. Diff. Geom*]{}. [**57**]{} (2001), 273-299.
E. Witten, A new proof of the positive energy theorem. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**[80]{}**]{} (1981), 381-402.
[^1]: S. Almaraz has been partially suported by CNPq/Brazil grant 309007/2016-0 and CAPES/Brazil grant 88881.169802/2018-01, and L. de Lima has been partially supported by CNPq/Brazil grant 311258/2014-0. Both authors have been partially suported by FUNCAP/CNPq/PRONEX grant 00068.01.00/15.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Jean-Luc Starck'
- Yassir Moudden
- Pierrick Abrial
- Mai Nguyen
title: 'Wavelets, ridgelets and curvelets on the sphere'
---
Introduction
============
Wavelets in Astronomy {#wavelets-in-astronomy .unnumbered}
---------------------
Wavelets are very popular tools in astronomy [@starck:book02] which have led to very impressive results in denoising and detection applications. For instance, both the Chandra and the XMM data centers use wavelets for the detection of extended sources in X-ray images. For denoising and deconvolution, wavelets have also demonstrated how powerful they are for discriminating signal from noise [@starck:sta02_2]. [ In cosmology, wavelets have been used in many studies such as for analyzing the spatial distribution of galaxies [@astro:slezak93; @astro:escalera95; @starck:sta05; @starck:martinez05], determining the topology of the universe [@astro:rocha04], detecting non-Gaussianity in the CMB maps [@gauss:aghanim99; @gauss:barreiro01_1; @wave:vielva04; @starck:sta03_1], reconstructing the primordial power spectrum [@astro:pia03], measuring the galaxy power spectrum [@astro:fang00] or reconstructing weak lensing mass maps [@starck:sta05b]. It has also been shown that noise is a problem of major concern for N-body simulations of structure formation in the early Universe and that using wavelets to remove noise from N-body simulations is equivalent to simulations with two orders of magnitude more particles [@rest:romeo03; @rest:romeo04]. ]{}
The most popular wavelet algorithm in astrophysical applications is the so-called “*à trous* algorithm”. It is an isotropic undecimated wavelet transform in which the scaling function used is a Box-Spline of order three. The isotropy of the wavelet function makes this decomposition optimal for the detection of isotropic objects. The non decimation makes the decomposition redundant (the number of coefficients in the decomposition is equal to the number of samples in the data multiplied by the number of scales) and allows us to avoid Gibbs aliasing after reconstruction in image restoration applications, as generally occurs with orthogonal or bi-orthogonal wavelet transforms. The choice of a $B_3$-spline is motivated by the fact that we want an analyzing function close to a Gaussian, but verifying the dilation equation, which is required in order to have a fast transformation. One last property of this algorithm is to provide a very straightforward reconstruction. Indeed, the sum of all the wavelet scales and of the coarsest resolution image reproduces exactly the original image.
When analyzing data that contains anisotropic features, wavelets are no longer optimal and this has motivated the development of new multiscale decompositions such as the ridgelet and the curvelet transforms [@cur:donoho99; @starck:sta01_3]. In Starck et al. [@starck:sta03_1], it has been shown that the curvelet transform could be useful for the detection and the discrimination of non Gaussianity in CMB data. In this area, further insight will come from the analysis of full-sky data mapped to the sphere thus requiring the development of a curvelet transform on the sphere.
Wavelets on the sphere {#wavelets-on-the-sphere .unnumbered}
----------------------
Several wavelet transforms on the sphere have been proposed in recent years. Schröder and Sweldens [@wave:sweldens95a] have developed an orthogonal wavelet transform on the sphere based on the Haar wavelet function. Its interest is however relatively limited because of the poor properties of the Haar function and the problems inherent to the orthogonal decomposition. Many papers describe new continuous wavelet transforms [@wave:antoine99; @wave:tenerio99; @wave:cayon01; @wave:holschneider96] and the recent detection of non-Gaussianity in CMB was obtained by Vielva et al. [@wave:vielva04] using the continuous Mexican Hat wavelet transform [@wave:cayon01]. These works have been extended to directional wavelet transforms [@wave:antoine01; @wave:hobson04; @wave:wiaux]. All these new continuous wavelet decompositions are interesting for data analysis, but cannot be used for restoration purposes because of the lack of an inverse transform. Only the algorithm proposed by Freeden and Maier [@freeden97; @freeden98], based on the Spherical Harmonic Decomposition, has an inverse transform.
The goal of this paper is to extend existing 2D multiscale decompositions, namely the ridgelet transform, the curvelet transform and the isotropic wavelet transform, which work on flat images to multiscale methods on the sphere. In section \[sect\_wts\], we present a new isotropic wavelet transform on the sphere which has similar properties to the *à trous* algorithm and therefore should be very useful for data denoising and deconvolution. This algorithm is directly derived from the FFT-based wavelet transform proposed in @starck:sta94_3 for aperture synthesis image restoration, and is relatively close to the Freeden and Maier [@freeden98] method, except that it features the same straightforward reconstruction as the *à trous* algorithm (i.e. the sum of the scales reproduces the original data). This new wavelet transform also can be easily extended to a pyramidal wavelet transform, hence with reduced redundancy, a possibility which may be very important for larger data sets such as expected from the future Planck-Surveyor experiment. In section \[sect\_cur\], we show how this new decomposition can be used to derive a curvelet transform on the sphere. Section \[sect\_exp\] describes how these new transforms can be used in denoising applications and introduces the Combined Filtering Method, which allows us to filter data on the sphere using both the Wavelet and the Curvelet transforms. In section \[sect\_ica\], we show that the independent component analysis method wSMICA [@starck:yassir05], which was designed for 2D data, can be extended to data on the sphere.
Wavelet transform on the sphere {#sect_wts}
===============================
Isotropic Undecimated Wavelet Transform on the Sphere (UWTS)
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are clearly many different possible implementations of a wavelet transform on the sphere and their performance depends on the application. We describe here an undecimated isotropic transform which has many properties in common with the *à trous* algorithm, and is therefore a good candidate for restoration applications. Its isotropy is a favorable property when analyzing a statistically isotropic Gaussian field such as the CMB or data sets such as maps of galaxy clusters, which contain only isotropic features [@starck:book98]. Our isotropic transform is obtained using a scaling function $\phi_{l_c}(\vartheta, \varphi)$ with cut-off frequency $l_c$ and azimuthal symmetry, meaning that $\phi_{l_c}$ does not depend on the azimuth $\varphi$. Hence the spherical harmonic coefficients $\hat \phi_{l_c} (l,m)$ of $\phi_{l_c}$ vanish when $m \ne 0$ so that : $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{l_c}(\vartheta, \varphi)= \phi_{l_c}(\vartheta) = \sum_{l = 0}^{l = l_c} \hat \phi_{l_c} (l,0) Y_{l,0}(\vartheta, \varphi)\end{aligned}$$ where the $Y_{l,m}$ are the spherical harmonic basis functions. Then, convolving a map $f(\vartheta, \varphi)$ with $\phi_{l_c}$ is greatly simplified and the spherical harmonic coefficients $\hat c_{0}(l,m)$ of the resulting map $c_0(\vartheta, \varphi)$ are readily given by [@bogdanova]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat c_{0}(l,m) = \widehat{\phi_{l_c} * f} (l,m) = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } \hat \phi_{l_c} (l,0) \hat f(l,m) \end{aligned}$$ where $*$ stands for convolution.
### Multiresolution decompostion {#multiresolution-decompostion .unnumbered}
A sequence of smoother approximations of $f$ on a dyadic resolution scale can be obtained using the scaling function $\phi_{l_c}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
c_0 & = & \phi_{ l_{c} } * f \nonumber \\
c_1 & = & \phi_{2^{-1} l_{c} } * f \nonumber \\
&\ldots&\nonumber\\
c_j &=& \phi_{2^{-j} l_{c} } * f \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{2^{-j} l_{c} }$ is a rescaled version of $\phi_{l_{c}}$ with cut-off frequency $2^{-j} l_{c}$. The above multi-resolution sequence can also be obtained recursively. Define a low pass filter $h_{j}$ for each scale $j$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{j}(l,m) = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } \hat h_{j}(l,m) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac { \hat \phi_{\frac{l_{c}}{2^{j+1}} }(l,m) } { \hat \phi_{ \frac{l_{c}}{2^{j}} }(l,m) } & \mbox{if } l < \frac{ l_{c}} {2^{j+1}} \quad \textrm{and}\quad m = 0\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise } \
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ It is then easily shown that $c_{j+1}$ derives from $c_j$ by convolution with $h_j$: $c_{j+1} = c_{j} * h_j$.
### The wavelet coefficients {#the-wavelet-coefficients .unnumbered}
Given an axisymmetric wavelet function $\psi_{l_c}$, we can derive in the same way a high pass filter $g_j$ on each scale $j$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}_{j}(l,m) = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } \hat{g}_{j}(l,m) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac { \hat \psi_{\frac{l_{c}}{2^{j+1}} }(l,m) } { \hat \phi_{ \frac{l_{c}}{2^{j}} }(l,m) } & \mbox{if } l < \frac{ l_{c}} {2^{j+1}} \quad \textrm{and}\quad m = 0\\
1 &\mbox{if } l \ge \frac{ l_{c}} {2^{j+1}} \quad \textrm{and}\quad m = 0\\
0& \mbox{otherwise }\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Using these, the wavelet coefficients $w_{j+1} $ at scale $j+1$ are obtained from the previous resolution by a simple convolution: $w_{j+1} = c_{j} * g_j$.\
Just as with the *à trous* algorithm, the wavelet coefficients can be defined as the difference between two consecutive resolutions, $w_{j+1}(\vartheta, \varphi) = c_{j}(\vartheta, \varphi) - c_{j+1}(\vartheta, \varphi)$, which in fact corresponds to making the following specific choice for the wavelet function $\psi_{l_c}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \psi_{\frac{l_c}{2^{j}}}(l,m) = \hat \phi_{\frac{l_c}{2^{j-1}}} (l,m) - \hat \phi_{\frac{l_c}{2^{j}}}(l,m)\end{aligned}$$ The high pass filters $g_j$ defined above are, in this particular case, expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}_{j}(l,m) = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } \hat{g}_{j}(l,m) = 1 - \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } \hat{h}_j(l,m) = 1 - \hat{H}_j(l,m) \end{aligned}$$ Obviously, other wavelet functions could be used as well.
### Choice of the scaling function {#choice-of-the-scaling-function .unnumbered}
Any function with a cut-off frequency is a possible candidate. We retained here a B-spline function of order 3. It is very close to a Gaussian function and converges rapidly to $0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \phi_{l_c} (l,m = 0) =\frac{3}{2} B_{3}( \frac{2 l}{l_{c} }) $$ where $B(x) = \frac{1}{12}({\mid{x-2}\mid}^3 - 4 {\mid{x-1}\mid}^3 + 6 {\mid{x}\mid}^3 - 4 {\mid{x+1}\mid}^3 + {\mid{x+2}\mid}^3)$.
In Fig. \[fig\_diff\_uv\_phi\_psi\] the chosen scaling function derived from a $B$-spline of degree 3, and its resulting wavelet function, are plotted in frequency space.
[|c|]{}
\
\
The numerical algorithm for the undecimated wavelet transform on the sphere.
### Reconstruction {#reconstruction .unnumbered}
If the wavelet is the difference between two resolutions, Step 5 in the above UWTS algorithm can be replaced by the following simple subtraction $w_{j+1} = c_{j} - c_{j+1}$. In this case, the reconstruction of an image from its wavelet coefficients ${\cal W} = \{w_1,\dots, w_{J}, c_{J}\}$ is straightforward: $$\begin{aligned}
c_{0}(\theta, \phi) = c_{J}(\theta, \phi) + \sum_{j=1}^J w_j(\theta, \phi)\end{aligned}$$ This is the same reconstruction formula as in the *à trous* algorithm: the simple sum of all scales reproduces the original data. However, since the present decomposition is redundant, the procedure for reconstructing an image from its coefficients is not unique and this can profitably be used to impose additional constraints on the synthesis functions (*e.g.* smoothness, positivity) used in the reconstruction. Here for instance, using the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat c_{j+1}(l,m) = \widehat H_{j} (l,m) \hat c_{j} (l,m) \nonumber \\
\hat w_{j+1}(l,m) = \widehat G_{j} (l,m) \hat c_{j} (l,m) \end{aligned}$$ a least squares estimate of $c_j$ from $c_{j+1}$ and $w_{j+1}$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{c}_{j} = \hat{c}_{j+1} {\widehat {\tilde H}}_{j} + \hat{w}_{j+1} {\widehat {\tilde G}}_{j} \end{aligned}$$ where the conjugate filters $ {\widehat {\tilde H}}_j $ and $ {\widehat {\tilde G}}_j$ have the expression: $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat {\tilde H}}_j = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } {\hat {\tilde h}}_j & = {\widehat H}_{j}^* /
(\mid {\widehat H}_{j}\mid^2 + \mid {\widehat G}_j\mid^2) \label{eqnht} \\
{\widehat {\tilde G}}_j = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} } {\hat {\tilde g}}_j & = {\widehat G}_{j}^* /
(\mid {\widehat H}_j \mid^2 + \mid {\widehat G}_j \mid^2)
\label{eqngt}\end{aligned}$$ and the reconstruction algorithm is:
[|c|]{}
\
\
The synthesis low pass and high pass filters $\hat{\tilde h}$ and $\hat{\tilde g}$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig\_diff\_uv\_ht\_gt\].
[ Figure \[Figure:UWTS\] shows the WMAP data (top left) and its undecimated wavelet decomposition on the sphere using five resolution levels. Figures \[Figure:UWTS\] middle left, middle right and bottom left show respectively the four wavelet scales. Figure \[Figure:UWTS\] bottom right shows the last smoothed array. Figure \[Figure:back\_wt\] shows the backprojection of a wavelet coefficient at different scales and positions.]{}
Isotropic Pyramidal Wavelet Transform on the Sphere (PWTS)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the previous algorithm, no downsampling is performed and each scale of the wavelet decomposition has the same number of pixels as the original data set. Therefore, the number of pixels in the decomposition is equal to the number of pixels in the data multiplied by the number of scales. For applications such as PLANCK data restoration, we may prefer to introduce some decimation in the decomposition so as to reduce the required memory size and the computation time. This can be done easily by using a specific property of the chosen scaling function. Indeed, since we are considering here a scaling function with an initial cut-off $l_c$ in spherical harmonic multipole number $l$, and since the actual cut-off is reduced by a factor of two at each step, the number of significant spherical harmonic coefficients is then reduced by a factor of four after each convolution with the low pass filter $h$. Therefore, we need fewer pixels in the direct space when we compute the inverse spherical harmonic transform. Using the Healpix pixelization scheme [@healpix], this can be done easily by dividing by 2 the [*nside*]{} parameter when resorting to the inverse spherical harmonic transform routine.
[ Figure \[Figure:PWTS\] shows WMAP data (top left) and its pyramidal wavelet transform using five scales. As the scale number increases (i.e. the resolution decreases), the pixel size becomes larger. Figures \[Figure:PWTS\] top right, middle left, middle right and bottom left show respectively the four wavelet scales. Figure \[Figure:PWTS\] bottom right shows the last smoothed array.]{}
Curvelet Transform on the Sphere (CTS) {#sect_cur}
=======================================
Introduction.
-------------
The 2D curvelet transform, proposed in @cur:donoho99, @starck:sta01_3 and @starck:sta02_3 enables the directional analysis of an image in different scales. The fundamental property of the curvelet transform is to analyze the data with functions of length of about $2^{-j/2}$ for the $j^{\textrm{th}}$ sub-band $[2^j, 2^{j+1}]$ of the two dimensional wavelet transform. Following the implementation described in @starck:sta01_3 and @starck:sta02_3, the data first undergoes an Isotropic Undecimated Wavelet Transform (i.e. *à trous* algorithm). Each scale $j$ is then decomposed into smoothly overlapping blocks of side-length $B_j$ pixels in such a way that the overlap between two vertically adjacent blocks is a rectangular array of size $B_j \times B_j/2$. Finally, the ridgelet transform [@cur:candes99_1] is applied on each individual block which amounts to applying a 1-dimensional wavelet transform to the slices of its Radon transform. More details on the implementation of the digital curvelet transform can be found in Starck et al[@starck:sta01_3; @starck:sta02_3]. It has been shown that the curvelet transform could be very useful for the detection and the discrimination of sources of non-Gaussianity in CMB [@starck:sta02_4]. The curvelet transform is also redundant, with a redundancy factor of $16J+1$ whenever $J$ scales are employed. Its complexity scales like that of the ridgelet transform that is as $O(n^2 \log_2n)$. This method is best for the detection of anisotropic structures and smooth curves and edges of different lengths.
Curvelets on the Sphere.
------------------------
The Curvelet transform on the sphere (CTS) can be similar to the 2D digital curvelet transform, but replacing the à trous algorithm by the Isotropic Wavelet Transform on the Sphere previously described. The CTS algorithm consists of the following three steps :
- [*Isotropic Wavelet Transform on the Sphere.*]{}
- [*Partitioning.*]{} Each scale is decomposed into blocks of an appropriate scale (of side-length $\sim2^{-s}$), using the Healpix pixelization.
- [*Ridgelet Analysis.*]{} Each square is analyzed via the discrete ridgelet transform.
### Partitioning using the Healpix representation. {#partitioning-using-the-healpix-representation. .unnumbered}
The Healpix representation is a curvilinear partition of the sphere into quadrilateral pixels of exactly equal area but with varying shape. The base resolution divides the sphere into 12 quadrilateral faces of equal area placed on three rings around the poles and equator. Each face is subsequently divided into $nside^{2}$ pixels following a hierarchical quadrilateral tree structure. The geometry of the Healpix sampling grid makes it easy to partition a spherical map into blocks of a specified size $2^n$. We first extract the twelve base-resolution faces, and each face is then decomposed into overlapping blocks as in the 2D digital curvelet transform. With this scheme however, there is no overlapping between blocks belonging to different base-resolution faces. This may result in blocking effects for example in denoising experiments *via* non linear filtering. A simple way around this difficulty is to work with various rotations of the data with respect to the sampling grid.
### Ridgelet transform {#ridgelet-transform .unnumbered}
Once the partitioning is performed, the standard 2D ridgelet transform described in @starck:sta02_3 is applied in each individual block :
1. Compute the 2D Fourier transform.
2. Extract lines going through the origin in the frequency plane.
3. Compute the 1D inverse Fourier transform of each line. This achieves the Radon transform of the current block.
4. Compute the 1D wavelet transform of the lines of the Radon transform.
The first three steps correspond to a Radon transform method called the [*linogram*]{}. Other implementations of the Radon transform, such as the [*Slant Stack Radon Transform*]{} [@cur:donoho_02], can be used as well, as long as they offer an exact reconstruction.
Figure \[Figure:rid\_sphere\] shows the flowgraph of the ridgelet transform on the sphere and Figure \[Figure:back\_rid\] shows the backprojection of a ridgelet coefficient at different scales and orientations.
Algorithm
---------
The curvelet transform algorithm on the sphere is as follows:
1. Apply the isotropic wavelet transform on the sphere with $J$ scales,
2. Set the block size $B_1 = B_{min}$,
3. For $j = 1, \ldots, J$ do,
- partition the subband $w_j$ with a block size $B_j$ and apply the digital ridgelet transform to each block,
- if $j \mbox{ modulo } 2 = 1$ then $B_{j+1} = 2 B_{j}$,
- else $B_{j+1} = B_{j}$.
The sidelength of the localizing windows is doubled [*at every other*]{} dyadic subband, hence maintaining the fundamental property of the curvelet transform which says that elements of length about $2^{-j/2}$ serve for the analysis and synthesis of the $j$-th subband $[2^j, 2^{j+1}]$. We used the default value $B_{min} = 16$ pixels in our implementation. Figure \[Figure:cur\_sphere\] gives an overview of the organization of the algorithm.
Figure \[Figure:back\_cur\] shows the backprojection of curvelet coefficients at different scales and orientations.
Pyramidal Curvelet Transform on the Sphere (PCTS)
-------------------------------------------------
The CTS is very redundant, which may be a problem in handling huge data sets such as the future PLANCK data. The redundancy can be reduced by substituting, in the curvelet transform algorithm, the pyramidal wavelet transform to the undecimated wavelet transform. The second step which consists in applying the ridgelet transform on the wavelet scale is unchanged. The pyramidal curvelet transform algorithm is:
1. Apply the pyramidal wavelet transform on the sphere with $J$ scales,
2. Set the block size $B_1 = B_{min}$,
3. For $j = 1, \ldots, J$ do,
- partition the subband $w_j$ with a block size $B_j$ and apply the digital ridgelet transform to each block,
- if $j \mbox{ modulo } 2 = 2$ then $B_{j+1} = B_{j} / 2$,
- else $B_{j+1} = B_{j}$.
In the next section, we show how the pyramidal curvelet transform can be used for image filtering.
Filtering {#sect_exp}
=========
Hard thresholding
-----------------
Wavelets and Curvelets have been used successfully in image denoising *via* non-linear filtering or thresholding methods [@starck:book02; @starck:sta01_3]. Hard thresholding, for instance, consists in setting all insignificant coefficients (*i.e.* coefficients with an absolute value below a given threshold) to zero. In practice, we need to estimate the noise standard deviation $\sigma_j$ in each band $j$ and a wavelet (or curvelet) coefficient $w_j$ is significant if $\mid w_j \mid > k \sigma_j$, where $k$ is a user-defined parameter, typically chosen between 3 and 5. The $\sigma_j$ estimation in band $j$ can be derived from simulations [@starck:book02]. Denoting as $D$ the noisy data and $\delta$ the thresholding operator, the filtered data $\tilde D$ are obtained by : $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde D} = {\cal R} \delta( {\cal T} D)\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal T}$ is the wavelet (resp. curvelet) transform operator and ${\cal R}$ is the wavelet (resp. curvelet) reconstruction operator.
Figure \[Figure:sync\_filter\] describes the setting and the results of a simulated denoising experiment : upper left, the original simulated map of the synchrotron emission (renormalized between 0 and 255); upper right, the same image plus additive Gaussian noise ($\sigma=5$); middle, the pyramidal wavelet filtered image and the residual (i.e. noisy data minus filtered data); bottom, the pyramidal curvelet transform filtered image and the residual. A $5 \sigma_j$ detection threshold was used in both cases. On such data, displaying very anisotropic features, using curvelets produces better results than the wavelets.
The Combined Filtering Method on the Sphere
-------------------------------------------
=0.4cm
Method Error Standard Deviation SNR (dB)
----------- -------------------------- ---------- -- -- --
Noisy map 5. 13.65
Wavelet 1.30 25.29
Curvelet 1.01 27.60
CFM 0.86 28.99
The residual images for both the wavelet and curvelet transforms shown in Figure \[Figure:sync\_filter\] show that wavelets do not restore long features with high fidelity while curvelets are seriously challenged by isotropic or small features. Each transform has its own area of expertise and this complementarity is of great potential. The Combined Filtering Method (CFM) [@starck:spie01a] allows us to benefit from the advantages of both transforms. This iterative method detects the significant coefficients in both the wavelet domain and the curvelet domain and guarantees that the reconstructed map will take into account any pattern detected as significant by either of the transforms. A full description of the algorithm is given in Appendix 1. Figure \[Figure:sync\_cbf\_filter\] shows the CFM denoised image and its residual. [ Figure \[Figure:sync\_face\_cbf\_filter\] shows one face (face 6) of the following Healpix images: upper left, original image; upper right, noisy image; middle left, restored image after denoising by the combined transform; middle right, the residual; bottom left and right, the residual using respectively the curvelet and the wavelet denoising method. ]{} The results are reported in Table \[comptab\_sync\]. The residual is much better when the combined filtering is applied, and no feature can be detected any longer by eye in the residual. Neither with the wavelet filtering nor with the curvelet filtering could such a clean residual be obtained.
Wavelets on the Sphere and Independent Component Analysis {#sect_ica}
=========================================================
Introduction
------------
Blind Source Separation (BSS) is a problem that occurs in multi-dimensional data processing. The goal is to recover unobserved signals, images or *sources* $S$ from mixtures $X$ of these sources observed typically at the output of an array of $m$ sensors. A simple mixture model would be linear and instantaneous with additive noise as in: $$\label{model0}
X = A S + N$$ where $X$, $S$ and $N$ are random vectors of respective sizes $m \times 1$, $n\times 1$ and $m \times 1$, and $A$ is an $m\times n$ matrix. Multiplying $S$ by $A$ linearly mixes the $n$ sources resulting in $m$ observed mixture processes corrupted by additive instrumental Gaussian noise $N$. Independent Component Analysis methods were developed to solve the BSS problem, *i.e.* given a batch of $T$ observed samples of $X$, estimate $A$ and $S$, relying mostly on the statistical independence of the source processes.
Algorithms for blind component separation and mixing matrix estimation depend on the *a priori* model used for the probability distributions of the sources [@ica:3easy] although rather coarse assumptions can be made [@ica:tutorial; @ica:icabook]. In a first set of techniques, source separation is achieved in a noise-less setting, based on the non-Gaussianity of all but possibly one of the components. Most mainstream ICA techniques belong to this category : JADE [@ica:JADE], FastICA, Infomax [@ica:icabook]. In a second set of blind techniques, the components are modeled as Gaussian processes and, in a given representation (Fourier, wavelet, etc.), separation requires that the sources have diverse, *i.e.* non proportional, variance profiles. The Spectral Matching ICA method (SMICA) [@ica:Del2003; @starck:yassir05] considers in this sense the case of mixed stationary Gaussian components in a noisy context : moving to a Fourier representation, the point is that colored components can be separated based on the diversity of their power spectra.
SMICA: from Fourier to Wavelets
-------------------------------
SMICA, which was designed to address some of the general problems raised by Cosmic Microwave Background data analysis, has already shown significant success for CMB spectral estimation in multidetector experiments [@ica:Del2003; @ica:patanchon]. However, SMICA suffers from the non locality of the Fourier transform which has undesired effects when dealing with non-stationary components or noise, or with incomplete data maps. The latter is a common issue in astrophysical data analysis: either the instrument scanned only a fraction of the sky or some regions of the sky were masked due to localized strong astrophysical sources of contamination ( compact radio-sources or galaxies, strong emitting regions in the galactic plane). A simple way to overcome these effects is to move instead to a wavelet representation so as to benefit from the localization property of wavelet filters, which leads to wSMICA [@starck:yassir05]. The wSMICA method uses an undecimated *à trous* algorithm with the cubic box-spline [@starck:book02] as the scaling function. This transform has several favorable properties for astrophysical data analysis. In particular, it is a shift invariant transform, the wavelet coefficient maps on each scale are the same size as the initial image, and the wavelet and scaling functions have small compact supports in the initial representation. All of these allow missing patches in the data maps to be handled easily.
Using this wavelet transform algorithm, the multichannel data $X$ is decomposed into $J$ detail maps $X_{j}^w$ and a smooth approximation map $X_{J+1}^w$ over a dyadic resolution scale. Since applying a wavelet transform on (\[model0\]) does not affect the mixing matrix $A$, the covariance matrix of the observations at scale $j$ is still structured as $$\label{structure_w}
R_w^X(j) = A R_w^S(j) A^{\dagger} + R_w^N(j)$$ where $R_w^S(j)$ and $R_w^N(j)$ are the diagonal spectral covariance matrices in the wavelet representation of $S$ and $N$ respectively. It was shown [@starck:yassir05] that replacing in the SMICA method the covariance matrices derived from the Fourier coefficients by the covariance matrices derived from wavelet coefficients leads to much better results when the data are incomplete. This is due to the fact that the wavelet filter response on scale $j$ is short enough compared to data size and gap widths and most of the samples in the filtered signal then remain unaffected by the presence of gaps. Using these samples exclusively yields an estimated covariance matrix $\widehat{R}_w^X(j)$ which is not biased by the missing data.
SMICA on the Sphere: from spherical harmonics to wavelets on the sphere (wSMICA-S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending SMICA to deal with multichannel data mapped to the sphere is straightforward [@ica:Del2003]. The idea is simply to substitute the spherical harmonics transform for the Fourier transform used in the SMICA method. Then, data covariance matrices are estimated in this representation over intervals in multipole number $l$. However SMICA on spherical maps still suffers from the non locality of the spherical harmonics transform whenever the data to be processed is non stationary, incomplete, or partly masked.
Moving to a wavelet representation allows one to overcome these effects : wSMICA can be easily implemented for data mapped to the sphere by substituting the UWTS described in section \[sect\_wts\] to the undecimated *à trous* algorithm used in the previous section. In the linear mixture model (\[model0\]), $X$ now stands for an array of observed spherical maps, $S$ is now an array of spherical source maps to be recovered and $N$ is an array of spherical noise maps. The mixing matrix $A$ achieves a pixelwise linear mixing of the source maps. Applying the above UWTS on both sides of (\[model0\]) does not affect the mixing matrix $A$ so that, assuming independent source and noise processes, the covariance matrix of the observations at scale $j$ is again structured as in (\[structure\_w\]). Source separation follows from minimizing the covariance matching criterion (\[Cost\_wavelet\]) in this *spherical wavelet* representation. A full description is given in Appendix 2.
Experiments {#sec:NUMEXP}
-----------
As an application of wSMICA on the sphere, we consider here the problem of CMB data analysis but in the special case where the use of a galactic mask is a cause of non-stationarity which impairs the use of the spherical harmonics transform.
The simulated CMB, galactic dust and Sunyaev Zel’dovich (SZ) maps used, shown on the left-hand side of Figure \[components\], were obtained as described in @ica:Del2003. The problem of instrumental point spread functions is not addressed here, and all maps are assumed to have the same resolution. The high level foreground emission from the galactic plane region was removed using the $Kp2$ mask from the WMAP team website[^1]. These three *incomplete* maps were mixed using the matrix in Table \[MatrixA\], in order to simulate observations in the six channels of the Planck high frequency instrument (HFI).
Gaussian *instrumental* noise was added in each channel according to model (\[model0\]). The relative noise standard deviations between channels were set according to the nominal values of the Planck HFI given in Table \[NoiseScale\].
The synthetic observations were decomposed into six scales using the isotropic UWTS and wSMICA was used to obtain estimates of the mixing matrix and of the initial source templates. The resulting component maps estimated using wSMICA, for nominal noise levels, are shown on the right-hand side of Figure \[components\] where the quality of the reconstruction can be visually assessed by comparison to the initial components. The component separation was also performed with SMICA based on Fourier statistics computed in the same six dyadic bands imposed by our choice of wavelet transform, and with JADE. In Figure \[resultats\], the performances of SMICA, wSMICA and JADE are compared in the particular case of CMB map estimation, in terms of the relative standard deviation of the reconstruction error, $MQE$, defined by $$MQE = \frac{\mathbf{std} ( CMB(\vartheta, \varphi) - \alpha \times \widehat{CMB}(\vartheta, \varphi) )}{\mathbf{std} ( CMB(\vartheta, \varphi) ) }
\label{MQE}$$ where $\mathbf{std}$ stands for empirical standard deviation ( obviously computed outside the masked regions), and $\alpha$ is a linear regression coefficient estimated in the least squares sense. As expected, since it is meant to be used in a noiseless setting, JADE performs well when the noise is very low. However, as the noise level increases, its performance degrades quite rapidly compared to the covariance matching methods. Further, these results clearly show that using wavelet-based covariance matrices provides a simple and efficient way to treat the effects of gaps on the performance of source separation using statistics based on the non local Fourier representation.
Conclusion
==========
We have introduced new multiscale decompositions on the sphere, the wavelet transform, the ridgelet transform and the curvelet transform. It was shown in @starck:sta03_1 that combining the statistics of wavelet coefficients and curvelet coefficients of flat maps leads to a powerful analysis of the non-Gaussianity in the CMB. Using the new decompositions proposed here, it is now possible to perform such a study on data mapped to the sphere such as from the WMAP or PLANCK experiments. For the denoising application, we have shown that the Combined Filtering Method allows us to significantly improve the result compared to a standard hard thresholding in a given transformation. Using the isotropic UWTS and statistics in this representation also allows us to properly treat incomplete or non-stationary data on the sphere which cannot be done in the non-local Fourier representation. This is clearly illustrated by the results obtained with wSMICA which achieves component separation in the wavelet domain thus reducing the negative impact that gaps have on the performance of source separation using the initial SMICA algorithm in the spherical harmonics representation. Further results are available at
http://jstarck.free.fr/mrs.hmtl
as well as information about the IDL code for the described transformations based on the Healpix package [@healpix].
We wish to thank David Donoho, Jacques Delabrouille, Jean-François Cardoso and Vicent Martinez for useful discussions.
, N. and [Forni]{}, O.: 1999, , 409
Antoine, J., Demanet, L., Jacques, L., and Vandergheynst, P.: 2002, , 177
, J.-P.: 1999, in [*Wavelets in Physics*]{}, pp 23–+
, R. B., [Mart[' i]{}nez-Gonz[' a]{}lez]{}, E., and [Sanz]{}, J. L.: 2001, , 411
Bogdanova, I., Vandergheynst, P., Antoine, J.-P., Jacques, L., and Mrovidone, M.: 2005, , in press
Candès, E. and Donoho, D.: 1999, , 2495
Cardoso, J.-F.: 1998, , 2009
Cardoso, J.-F.: 1999, , 157
Cardoso, J.-F.: 2001, in [*Proc. ICA 2001, San Diego*]{}
, L., [Sanz]{}, J. L., [Mart[í]{}nez-Gonz[' a]{}lez]{}, E., [Banday]{}, A. J., [Arg[" u]{}eso]{}, F., [Gallegos]{}, J. E., [G[' o]{}rski]{}, K. M., and [Hinshaw]{}, G.: 2001, , 1243
Delabrouille, J., Cardoso, J.-F., and Patanchon, G.: 2003, , 1089, to appear, also available as http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211504
Donoho, D. and Duncan, M.: 2000, in H. Szu, M. Vetterli, W. Campbell, and J. Buss (eds.), [*Proc. Aerosense 2000, Wavelet Applications VII*]{}, Vol. 4056, pp 12–29, SPIE
Donoho, D. and Flesia, A.: 2002, in J. Schmeidler and G. Welland (eds.), [*Beyond Wavelets*]{}, Academic Press
, E. and [MacGillivray]{}, H. T.: 1995, , 1
, L.-Z. and [Feng]{}, L.-l.: 2000, , 5
Freeden, W. and Schneider, F.: 1998, , 225
Freeden, W. and Windheuser, U.: 1997, , 1
, K. M., [Banday]{}, A. J., [Hivon]{}, E., and [Wandelt]{}, B. D.: 2002, in [*Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series*]{}, pp 107–+
Holschneider, M.: 1996, , 4156
Hyvärinen, A., Karhunen, J., and Oja, E.: 2001, , John Wiley, New York, 481+xxii pages
Martinez, V., Starck, J.-L., Donoho, E. S. D., de la Cruz, P., Paredes, S., and Reynolds, S.: 2005, , submitted
McEwen, J. D., Hobson, M. P., Lasenby, A. N., and Mortlock, D. J.: 2004
Moudden, Y., Cardoso, J.-F., Starck, J.-L., and Delabrouille, J.: 2005, , to appear
, P. and [Wang]{}, Y.: 2003, , 1
Patanchon, G., Cardoso, J. F., Delabrouille, J., and Vielva, P.: 2004
, G., [Cay[' o]{}n]{}, L., [Bowen]{}, R., [Canavezes]{}, A., [Silk]{}, J., [Banday]{}, A. J., and [G[' o]{}rski]{}, K. M.: 2004, , 769
, A. B., [Horellou]{}, C., and [Bergh]{}, J.: 2003, , 337
, A. B., [Horellou]{}, C., and [Bergh]{}, J.: 2004, , 1208
Schr[ö]{}der, P. and Sweldens, W.: 1995, pp 161–172
Slezak, E., de Lapparent, V., and Bijaoui, A.: 1993, , 517
Starck, J.-L., Aghanim, N., and Forni, O.: 2004, , 9
Starck, J.-L., Bijaoui, A., Lopez, B., and Perrier, C.: 1994, , 349
Starck, J.-L., Candès, E., and Donoho, D.: 2002a, , 131
Starck, J.-L., Candes, E., and Donoho, D.: 2003a, , 785
, J.-L., [Donoho]{}, D. L., and [Candes]{}, E. J.: 2001, in [*Proc. SPIE Vol. 4478, p. 9-19, Wavelets: Applications in Signal and Image Processing IX, Andrew F. Laine; Michael A. Unser; Akram Aldroubi; Eds.*]{}, pp 9–19
Starck, J.-L., Martinez, V., Donoho, D., Levi, O., Querre, P., and Saar, E.: 2005a, , to appear
Starck, J.-L. and Murtagh, F.: 2002, , Springer-Verlag
Starck, J.-L., Murtagh, F., and Bijaoui, A.: 1998, , Cambridge University Press
Starck, J.-L., Murtagh, F., Candes, E., and Donoho, D.: 2003b, , 706
Starck, J.-L., Pantin, E., and Murtagh, F.: 2002b, , 1051
Starck, J.-L., Pires, S., , and Refrégier, A.: 2005b, , submitted
, L., [Jaffe]{}, A. H., [Hanany]{}, S., and [Lineweaver]{}, C. H.: 1999, , 823
, P., [Mart[í]{}nez-Gonz[' a]{}lez]{}, E., [Barreiro]{}, R. B., [Sanz]{}, J. L., and [Cay[' o]{}n]{}, L.: 2004, , 22
Wiaux, Y., Jacques, L., and Vandergheynst, P.: 2005, , in press, also available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502486
Yamada, I.: 2001, in D. Butnariu, Y. Censor, and S. Reich (eds.), [*Inherently Parallel Algorithms in Feasibility and Optimization and Their Applications*]{}, Elsevier
Appendix 1: The Combined Filtering Method {#appendix-1-the-combined-filtering-method .unnumbered}
=========================================
In general, suppose that we are given $K$ linear transforms $T_1,
\ldots, T_K$ and let $\alpha_k$ be the coefficient sequence of an object $x$ after applying the transform $T_k$, i.e. $\alpha_k = T_k
x$. We will assume that for each transform $T_k$, a reconstruction rule is available that we will denote by $T^{-1}_k$, although this is clearly an abuse of notation. $T$ will denote the block diagonal matrix with $T_k$ as building blocks and $\alpha$ the amalgamation of the $\alpha_k$.
A hard thresholding rule associated with the transform $T_k$ synthesizes an estimate $\tilde{s}_k$ via the formula $$\label{eq:ht}
\tilde{s}_k = T_k^{-1} \delta(\alpha_k)$$ where $\delta$ is a rule that sets to zero all the coordinates of $\alpha_k$ whose absolute value falls below a given sequence of thresholds (such coordinates are said to be non-significant).
Given data $y$ of the form $y = s + \sigma z$, where $s$ is the image we wish to recover and $z$ is standard white noise, we propose to solve the following optimization problem [@starck:spie01a]: $$\label{eq:l1-min}
\min \|T\tilde{s}\|_{\ell_1}, \quad \mbox{subject to} \quad s \in C,$$ where $C$ is the set of vectors $\tilde{s}$ that obey the linear constraints $$\label{eq:constraints}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{s} \ge 0, \\
|T\tilde{s} - Ty| \le e;
\end{array}
\right.$$ here, the second inequality constraint only concerns the set of significant coefficients, i.e. those indices $\mu$ such that $\alpha_\mu =
(Ty)_\mu$ exceeds (in absolute value) a threshold $t_\mu$. Given a vector of tolerance $(e_\mu)$, we seek a solution whose coefficients $(T\tilde{s})_\mu$ are within $e_\mu$ of the noisy empirical $\alpha_\mu$. Think of $\alpha_\mu$ as being given by $$y = \langle y, \varphi_\mu \rangle,$$ so that $\alpha_\mu$ is normally distributed with mean $\langle f,
\varphi_\mu \rangle$ and variance $\sigma^2_\mu = \sigma^2
\|\varphi_\mu\|^2_2$. In practice, the threshold values range typically between three and four times the noise level $\sigma_\mu$ and in our experiments we will put $e_\mu = \sigma_\mu/2$. In short, our constraints guarantee that the reconstruction will take into account any pattern detected as significant by any of the $K$ transforms.
### The Minimization Method {#the-minimization-method .unnumbered}
We propose to solve (\[eq:l1-min\]) using the method of hybrid steepest descent (HSD) [@wave:yamada01]. HSD consists of building the sequence $$\begin{aligned}
s^{n+1} = P(s^{n}) - \lambda_{n+1} \nabla_J(P(s^{n})); \end{aligned}$$ Here, $P$ is the $\ell_2$ projection operator onto the feasible set $C$, $\nabla_J$ is the gradient of equation \[eq:l1-min\], and $(\lambda_{n})_{n \ge 1}$ is a sequence obeying $(\lambda_{n})_{n\ge
1} \in [0,1] $ and $\lim_{ n \rightarrow + \infty } \lambda_{n} = 0$.
The combined filtering algorithm is:
1. Initialize $L_{\max} = 1$, the number of iterations $N_i$, and $\delta_{\lambda} = \frac{L_{\max}}{N_i}$.
2. Estimate the noise standard deviation $\sigma$, and set $e_k =
\frac{\sigma}{2}$.
3. For k = 1, .., $K$ calculate the transform: $\alpha^{(s)}_k
= T_k s$.
4. Set $\lambda = L_{\max}$, $n = 0$, and $\tilde s^{n}$ to 0.
5. While $\lambda >= 0$ do
- $u = \tilde s^{n}$.
- For k = 1, .., $K$ do
- Calculate the transform $\alpha_{k} = T_k u$.
- For all coefficients $\alpha_{k,l}$ do
- Calculate the residual $r_{k,l} = \alpha^{(s)}_{k,l} -
\alpha_{k,l}$
- if $\alpha^{(s)}_{k,l}$ is significant and $ \mid r_{k,l}
\mid > e_{k,l}$ then $\alpha_{k,l} = \alpha^{(s)}_{k,l}$
- $\alpha_{k,l} = sgn(\alpha_{k,l}) ( \mid \alpha_{k,l} \mid - \lambda)_{+}$.
- $u = T_k^{-1} \alpha_{k}$
- Threshold negative values in $u$ and $\tilde s^{n+1} = u$.
- $n = n + 1$, $\lambda = \lambda - \delta_{\lambda} $, and goto 5.
Appendix 2: SMICA in the Spherical Wavelet Representation (wSMICA-S) {#appendix-2-smica-in-the-spherical-wavelet-representation-wsmica-s .unnumbered}
====================================================================
A detailed derivation of SMICA and wSMICA can be found in @ica:Del2003 and @starck:yassir05. Details are given here showing how the Isotropic Undecimated Wavelet Transform on the Sphere described in Section \[sect\_wts\] above can be used to extend SMICA to work in the wavelet domain on spherical data maps. We will refer to this extension as wSMICA-S.
### wSMICA-S objective function {#wsmica-s-objective-function .unnumbered}
In the linear mixture model (\[model0\]), $X$ stands for an array of observed spherical maps, $S$ is an array of spherical source maps to be recovered and $N$ is an array of spherical noise maps. The mixing matrix $A$ achieves a pixelwise linear mixing of the source maps. The observations are assumed to have zero mean. Applying the above UWTS on both sides of (\[model0\]) does not affect the mixing matrix $A$ so that, assuming independent source and noise processes, the covariance matrix of the observations at scale $j$ is still structured as $$\label{structure}
R_w^X(j) = A R_w^S(j) A^{\dagger} + R_w^N(j)$$ where $R_w^S(j)$ and $R_w^N(j)$ are the model diagonal spectral covariance matrices in the wavelet representation of $S$ and $N$ respectively. Provided estimates $\widehat{R}_w^X(j)$ of $R_w^X(j)$ can be obtained from the data, our wavelet-based version of SMICA consists in minimizing the wSMICA-S criterion: $$\label{Cost_wavelet}
\Phi (\theta) = \sum _{j=1}^{J+1} \alpha_j \mathcal{D} \left( \widehat{R}_w^X(j), \,
A R_w^S(j) A^{\dagger} + R_w^N(j) \right)$$ for some reasonable choice of the weights $\alpha_j$ and of the matrix mismatch measure $\mathcal{D}$, with respect to the full set of parameters $\theta = (A,R_w^S(j), R_w^N(j) )$ or a subset thereof. As discussed in @ica:Del2003 and @starck:yassir05, a good choice for $\mathcal{D}$ is $$\mathcal{D}_{KL} (R_1, R_2 )
=
\frac{1}{2} \Big( \mathrm{tr} (R_1R_2^{-1}) - \log\det (R_1R_2^{-1}) - m \Big)$$ which is the Kullback-Leibler divergence between two $m$-variate zero-mean Gaussian distributions with covariance matrices $R_1$ and $R_2$. With this mismatch measure, the wSMICA-S criterion is shown to be related to the likelihood of the data in a Gaussian model. We can resort to the EM algorithm to minimize (\[Cost\_wavelet\]).
In dealing with non stationary data or incomplete data, an attractive feature of wavelet filters over the spherical harmonic transform is that they are well localized in the initial representation. Provided the wavelet filter response on scale $j$ is short enough compared to data size and gap widths, most of the samples in the filtered signal will then be unaffected by the presence of gaps. Using exclusively these samples yields an estimated covariance matrix $\widehat{R}_w^X(j)$ which is not biased by the missing data. Writing the wavelet decomposition on $J$ scales of $X$ as $$X(\vartheta, \varphi) = X_{J+1}^w (\vartheta, \varphi) + \sum_{j=1}^{J} X_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi)$$ and denoting $l_j$ the size of the set $\mathcal{M}_j$ of wavelet coefficients unaffected by the gaps at scale $j$, the wavelet covariances are simply estimated using $$\widehat{R}_w^X (j) = \frac{1}{l_j } \sum_{t \in \mathcal{M}_j } X_j^w( \vartheta_t, \varphi_t )X_j^w( \vartheta_t, \varphi_t ) ^\dagger$$
The weights in the spectral mismatch (\[Cost\_wavelet\]) should be chosen to reflect the variability of the estimate of the corresponding covariance matrix. Since wSMICA-S uses wavelet filters with only limited overlap, in the case of complete data maps we follow the derivation in @ica:Del2003 and take $\alpha_j$ to be proportional to the number of spherical harmonic modes in the spectral domain covered at scale $j$. In the case of data with gaps, we must further take into account that only a fraction $\beta_j$ of the wavelet coefficients are unaffected so that the $\alpha_j$ should be modified in the same ratio.
### Source map estimation {#source-map-estimation .unnumbered}
As a result of applying wSMICA-S, power densities in each scale are estimated for the sources and detector noise along with the estimated mixing matrix. These are used in reconstructing the source maps *via* Wiener filtering in each scale: a coefficient $X_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi)$ is used to reconstruct the maps according to $$\label{Wiener}
\widehat{S}_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi) = \big(\widehat{A} \adj \widehat{R}_w^N( j) ^{-1} \widehat{A} + \widehat{R}_w^S(j) ^{-1} \big)\inv \times \widehat{A} \adj \widehat{R}_w^N( j) ^{-1} X_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi)$$ In the limiting case where noise is small compared to signal components, this filter reduces to $$\widehat{S}_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi)
= (\widehat{A} \adj \widehat{R}_w^N( j) ^{-1} \widehat{A} )\inv \widehat{A} \adj \widehat{R}_w^N( j) ^{-1} X_{j}^w(\vartheta, \varphi) \label{Wiener1}$$ Clearly, the above Wiener filter is optimal only for stationary Gaussian processes. For non Gaussian maps, such as given by the Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect, better reconstruction can be expected from non linear methods.
[^1]: *http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/intensity\_mask.cfm*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $I$ be the defining ideal of a smooth complete intersection space curve $C$ with defining equations of degrees $a$ and $b$. We use the partial elimination ideals introduced by Mark Green to show that the lexicographic generic initial ideal of $I$ has Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity $1+ab(a-1)(b-1)/2$ with the exception of the case $a=b=2,$ where the regularity is $4$. Note that $ab(a-1)(b-1)/2$ is exactly the number of singular points of a general projection of $C$ to the plane. Additionally, we show that for any term ordering $\tau$, the generic initial ideal of a generic set of points in $\PP^r$ is a $\tau$-segment ideal.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Universitá di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 35, I-16146 Genova, Italia'
- '415a Clapp Lab, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075.'
author:
- Aldo Conca
- Jessica Sidman
title: Generic initial ideals of points and curves
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
Let $S = k[x_0, \ldots, x_r]$ where $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and let $\tau$ be a term ordering on $S$. Let $I \subset S$ be a homogeneous ideal. There is a monomial ideal canonically associated with $I$, its generic initial ideal with respect to $\tau$ denoted by $\operatorname{gin}_\tau(I)$ or simply $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau} I.$ In this paper we study lexicographic generic initial ideals of curves and points via Green’s partial elimination ideals.
For a smooth complete intersection curve $C$ in $\PP^3,$ we show that the complexity of its lexicographic generic initial ideal, as measured by Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, is governed by the geometry of a generic projection of $C$ to $\PP^2$.
\[thm: curves\] Let $C$ be a smooth complete intersection of hypersurfaces of degrees $a,b > 1$ in $\PP^3$. The regularity of the lexicographic generic initial ideal of $C$ is equal to $$\left \{
\begin{array}{ll} 1+\frac{a(a-1)b(b-1)}{2} & \mbox{ if } (a,b)\neq (2,2)\\ \\ 4
& \mbox{ if } (a,b) = (2,2)
\end{array}
\right.$$
Note that, apart for the exceptional case $a=b=2$, the regularity of the lexicographic generic initial ideal is $1+$ the number of nodes of the generic projection of $C$ to $\PP^2.$ The statement of Theorem \[thm: curves\] generalizes Example 6.10 in [@green] which treats the special case where $a = b = 3.$
Macaulay’s characterization of Hilbert functions, see for instance Theorem 4.2.10 in [@bruns-herzog], implies that any ideal $J$ is generated in degrees bounded by the largest degree of a generator of the corresponding lex-segment $\operatorname{Lex}(J)$. Much more is true – Bigatti [@bigatti], Hullett [@hulett] and Pardue [@pardue] showed the Betti numbers of $J$ are bounded by those of $\operatorname{Lex}(J)$. Let $I$ be the ideal of $C$ in Theorem \[thm: curves\]. For such an ideal $I$ one can compute the largest degree of a generator of $\operatorname{Lex}(I)$. This has been done, for instance, by D. Bayer in his Ph.D. thesis (Proposition in II.10.4, [@bayer]) and by Chardin and Moreno -Socias [@CM], and it turns out to be $\frac{a(a-1)b(b-1)}{2}+ab$. So the lexicographic generic initial ideal in Theorem \[thm: curves\] is not equal to the lex-segment ideal but nearly achieves the worst-case regularity for its Hilbert function. Moreover, as Bermejo and Lejeune-Jalabert have shown in [@bermejo-lejeune], the extremal bound can only be achieved if $C$ lies in a plane.
We also study the generic initial ideals of finite sets of points. Surprisingly, when $X$ is a set of generic points its generic initial ideal is an *initial segment*.
\[thm:points\] Let $I$ be the ideal of $s$ generic points of $\PP^n.$ Then $\operatorname{gin}_\tau I$ is equal to the $\tau$-segment ideal $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ for all term orders $\tau$. In particular, $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$ is a lex-segment ideal.
The genericity required in Theorem \[thm:points\] is quite explicit: the conclusion holds for a set $X$ of $s$ points if there is a system of coordinates such that the defining ideal of $X$ does not contain non-zero forms supported on $\leq s$ monomials. A special case of the result when $\tau = \operatorname{revlex}$ is proved by Marinari and Ramella in [@marinari-ramella].
For an introduction to generic initial ideals see §15.9 in [@eisenbud]. Here we just recall:
Given a homogeneous ideal $I$ and a term ordering $\tau$ on the monomials of $S,$ there exists a dense open subset $U \subseteq \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k)$ such that $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau} I := \operatorname{in_{\tau}}(g\cdot I)$ is constant over all $g \in U$ and $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau}I$ is Borel-fixed.
Recall also that, in characteristic $0$, an ideal $J$ is Borel-fixed if it is monomial and satisfies:
$$\mathrm{if \ }m \ \mathrm{is \ a \ monomial, \ } x_im \in J \implies x_jm \in J, \ \forall j \leq i.$$
From this property one easily shows that the regularity of a Borel-fixed ideal $J$ is the maximum degree of a minimal generators. A minimal resolution of such an ideal was constructed by Eliahou and Kervaire in [@eliahou-kervaire].
As $\tau$ varies over all term orderings, both the regularity and the minimal number of generators of $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau} I$ may vary greatly. The generic initial ideals with respect to the reverse lexicographic (revlex) term ordering have the minimum level of complexity possible.
If $I$ is a homogeneous ideal of $S,$ and $J= \operatorname{gin_{revlex}}I$ then $$\operatorname{reg}I = \operatorname{reg}J=\mbox{ max degree of a minimal generator of } J.$$
The paper is organized as follows. In §2, we setup notation and review terminology. We introduce partial elimination ideals, their basic properties, and algorithms for their computation in §3. We focus on the case of complete intersection curves in §4 and on the case of points in §5.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} We are deeply indebted to D. Speyer as much of this work originated jointly with him. We thank B. Sturmfels for his support and encouragement. We would also like to thank D. Eisenbud, R. Thomas, and M. Stillman for helpful discussions regarding partial elimination ideals and their computation and A. Dickenstein, L. Busé, and C. D’Andrea for many stimulating conversations about subresultants. We have benefitted substantially from experimentation with the computer algebra packages *Macaulay 2* [@grayson-stillman] and *CoCoA* [@cocoa]. We would like to thank R. Lazarsfeld and anonymous referees for helpful comments. We are also grateful for the support of MSRI, and the second author thanks the Clare Boothe Luce Program.
Notation and terminology
========================
Let $S = k[x_0, \ldots, x_r]$ where $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Denote by $\mathfrak{m}$ the irrelevant maximal ideal of $S$. For an element $\alpha = (\alpha_0, \ldots, \alpha_r) \in \NN^{r+1}$ we let $x^{\alpha}$ denote $x_0^{\alpha_0}\cdots x_r^{\alpha_r}.$ In this section we briefly recall notions related to term orderings and Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity. For a comprehensive introduction to general notions related to Gröbner bases see [@cox-little-oshea] and [@kreuzer-robbiano].
\[defn: orders\] We say that a total ordering $\tau$ on the monomials of $S$ is a *term ordering* if it is a well-ordering satisfying $$x^{\alpha} >_{\tau} x^{\beta} \ \Rightarrow \
x^{\gamma} \cdot x^{\alpha} >_{\tau} x^{\gamma} \cdot x^{\beta} \ \ \forall \alpha, \beta, \gamma \in
\NN^{r+1}.$$
A term ordering $\tau$ on $S$ allows us to assign to each non-zero element $f \in S$ an *initial term* $\operatorname{in}_\tau(f)$ and to any ideal $I$ an initial ideal $\operatorname{in}_\tau(I)$.
In what follows we will work exclusively with homogneous ideals and we will always require that the term ordering is degree compatible: $m>n$ if $\deg(m)>\deg(n)$.
The *lexicographic* and (degree) *reverse lexicographic* term orderings feature prominently in the literature. If $x^{\alpha}$ and $x^{\beta}$ are two monomials of the same degree, then $x^{\alpha}
>_{\operatorname{lex}} x^{\beta}$ if the left-most non-zero entry of $\alpha-\beta$ is positive and $x^{\alpha}
>_{\operatorname{revlex}} x^{\beta}$ if the right-most non-zero entry of $\alpha-\beta$ is negative.
Although our primary motivation for studying partial elimination ideals is to understand lexicographic initial ideals, partial elimination ideals also provide a mechanism for studying initial ideals with respect to any *elimination* order.
An *elimination order* for the first $t$ variables of $S$ is a term order $\tau$ such that if $f$ is a polynomial whose initial term $\operatorname{in_{\tau}}(f)$ does not involve variables $x_0,
\ldots,x_{t-1},$ then $f$ itself does not involve variables $x_0, \ldots,x_{t-1}.$
As we shall see in Proposition \[prop: gb calculation of K\_p\], one may use an elimination order for the variable $x_0$ to compute partial elimination ideals. If $\tau$ is an elimination order for $x_0,$ then it is equivalent to a $(1,r)$ *product order* which first sorts monomials by powers of $x_0$ and then sorts the remaining variables by an arbitrary term ordering $\tau_0.$
We will use the notion of *Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity* as a rough measure of the complexity of our computations.
\[defn: reg\] Let $M$ be a finitely generated graded $S$-module, and let $$0 \to \oplus_j S(-a_{lj}) \to \cdots \oplus_j S(-a_{1j}) \to \oplus_j S(-a_{0j})
\to M \to 0$$ be a minimal graded free resolution of $M.$ We say that $M$ is *$d$-regular* if $a_{ij} \leq d+i$ for all $i$ and $j,$ and that the *regularity* of $M,$ denoted $\operatorname{reg}M,$ is the least $d$ such that $M$ is $d$-regular.
One may also formulate the definition of regularity in terms of vanishings of local cohomology with respect to $\mathfrak{m}.$ The vanishing of the zero-th local cohomology group is related to the notion of *saturation* which plays an important role in the study of regularity.
\[defn: sat\] Let $I \subseteq S$ be a homogeneous ideal. The *saturation* of $I,$ denoted $I^{\operatorname{sat}}$ is defined to be $I:_S \mathfrak{m}^{\infty}.$ Note that $I_d = I^{\operatorname{sat}}_d$ for all $d \gg 0.$ We say that $I$ is $d$-saturated if $I$ agrees with its saturation in degrees $d$ and higher. The minimum degree for which $I$ is $d$-saturated is the *saturation degree* (also the *satiety index* in [@green]) of $I.$
Partial elimination ideals {#sec: partial elimination ideals}
==========================
Let $S = k[x_0, \ldots, x_r],$ and let $\overline{S} = k[x_1,
\ldots, x_r].$ Let $\tau$ be an arbitrary elimination order on $S$ that eliminates the variable $x_0$ and hence induces a term order, denoted by $\tau_0$, on $\overline{S}.$ In this section we set up the theory of partial elimination ideals over a polynomial ring in $r+1$ variables as introduced in [@green]. Much of the material in §\[sec: basics\] and §\[sec: computation\] appears either explicitly or implicitly in [@green], but we give proofs here both to keep the presentation self-contained and to present a more algebraic point of view.
We represent any non-zero polynomial $f$ in $S$ as $$f=f_0x_0^p+f_1x_0^{p-1}+\dots+f_p$$ with $f_i\in \overline{S}$ and $f_0\neq 0$. The polynomial $f_0$ is called the initial coefficient of $f$ with respect to $x_0$ and is denoted by $\operatorname{incoef}_{x_0}(f).$ The integer $p$ is called the $x_0$-degree of $f$ and is denoted by $\deg_{x_0}(f)$.
Definitions and basic facts {#sec: basics}
---------------------------
In this section we define the partial elimination ideals and describe their basic algebraic and geometric properties. We begin with the definition:
Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal in $S.$ The *$p$-th partial elimination ideal* of $I$ is defined to be the ideal
$$K_p(I) := \{ \operatorname{incoef}(f)\ | \ f \in I \mbox{ and } \deg_{x_0} f=p \}\cup \{0\}$$ in the polynomial ring $\overline{S} = k[x_1, \ldots, x_r].$
It is easy to see that if $I$ is homogeneous then $K_p(I)$ is also homogeneous.
In Lemma \[partialfacts\] we gather together some elementary algebraic facts about the partial elimination ideals. We leave the proof to the reader. The decomposition of $\operatorname{in_{\tau}}I$ given in part (1) is one of the motivations for the definition.
\[partialfacts\] Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal.
1. $ \operatorname{in_{\tau}}I = \sum_p x_0^p \operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I).$
2. Taking $K_p$ commutes with taking initial ideals: $K_p(\operatorname{in}_\tau I)=\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I)$
3. The partial elimination ideals are an ascending chain of ideals, i.e., $K_i(I) \subseteq K_{i+1}(I)$ for all $i$.
One expects that if $I$ is in generic coordinates, then the partial elimination ideals $K_p(I)$ are already in generic coordinates. Proposition \[prop: gin of partial\] shows that this is indeed the case.
\[prop: gin of partial\] Let $I \subset S$ be a homogeneous ideal. If $I$ is in generic coordinates then $\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I) = \operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0} K_p(I).$
Let $\operatorname{GL}_{r}(k)$ act on $\overline{S}$ in the usual way and extend this to an action on $S$ in the trivial fashion by letting elements of $\operatorname{GL}_{r}(k)$ fix $x_0.$
We know that the ideal $I$ determines a dense open subset $U
\subset \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k)$ with the property that $g \in U$ implies that $\operatorname{in_{\tau}}(g I) = \operatorname{gin}_{\tau}I.$ We show that for each $g \in U$ there is a dense open subet $U' \subset \operatorname{GL}_{r}(k)$ so that for all $h \in U'$
1. $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0}(K_p(g I))= \operatorname{in}_{\tau_0}(h K_p(g I))$
2. $hg$ is again a generic change of coordinates for $I.$
Consider the space $\operatorname{GL}_r(k) \times \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k)$ with projection maps $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ onto the first and second factors, respectively. The map $$\phi: \operatorname{GL}_r(k) \times \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k) \to
\operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k)$$ given by $\phi(h,g) = hg$ is regular. The inverse image of $U$ under the map $\phi$ is a dense open subset of $\operatorname{GL}_r(k) \times \operatorname{GL}_{r+1}(k).$ For each $g \in U$ the set $W := \pi_1 ( \pi_2^{-1}(g) \cap \phi^{-1}(U))$ is a dense open subset of $\operatorname{GL}_r(k).$ The element $g$ determines a dense open set $V \subset \operatorname{GL}_r(k)$ such that $h \in V$ satisfies (2), i.e., each $h \in V$ is a set of generic coordinates for $K_p(g I).$ Then any $h \in U' := W
\cap V$ has the property that $hg$ is a set of generic coordinates for $I.$
For $h$ and $g$ chosen as above, we have $h K_p(g I)=K_p(hgI).$ Thus, $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0}(K_p(g I))= \operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(hg I).$ By Lemma \[partialfacts\] (2), $\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I)= K_p(\operatorname{in_{\tau}}I),$ which implies that $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0}(K_p(gI))=K_p \operatorname{in}_{\tau}(hgI).$
Since $hg$ is again generic, $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau} I=
\operatorname{in}_{\tau} gI= \operatorname{in}_{\tau} hgI$. So we have $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0}(K_p(gI))=K_p (\operatorname{in}_{\tau}gI)$. Using Lemma \[partialfacts\] (2) again, we obtain $\operatorname{gin}_{\tau_0}(K_p(gI))=\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(gI)$ and this proves the assertion.
The partial elimination ideals of an arbitrary homogeneous ideal $I$ can be recovered in an easy way from a Gröbner basis for $I.$ In practice one may want to take a $(1,r)$ product order with the reverse lexicographic ordering on the last $r$ variables in order to minimize computations.
\[prop: gb calculation of K\_p\] Let $G$ be a Gröbner basis for $I$ with respect to an elimination ordering $\tau$. Then the set $$G_p=\{ \operatorname{incoef}_{x_0}(g) \mid g \in G \mbox{ and } \deg_{x_0}(g)\leq p\}$$ is a Gröbner basis for $K_p(I)$.
Note that if $g\in I$ and $\deg_{x_0}(g)=p$ then $\operatorname{incoef}_{x_0}(g)\in K_p(I)$ by definition. By Lemma \[partialfacts\] (3) we have that the elements of $G_p$ are in $K_p(I)$. We will show that their initial terms generate $\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I)$. Suppose that $m$ is a monomial in the ideal $\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} K_p(I)$. This implies that there exists $f\in I$ such that $\operatorname{in}_\tau(f)=mx_0^p$ and hence there exists $g\in G$ such that $\operatorname{in}_\tau(g)| \operatorname{in}_\tau(f)$. Set $h=\operatorname{incoef}_{x_0} (g)$. It follows that $\deg_{x_0} g\leq p$, so that $h\in G_p$, and $\operatorname{in}_{\tau_0} h
|m$.
By part (3) of Lemma \[partialfacts\] we know that the subscheme cut out by the $p$-th partial elimination ideal is contained in the subscheme defined by the $(p-1)$-st partial elimination ideal. The following result gives the precise relationship between the partial elimination ideals and the geometry of the projection map from $\PP^r$ to $\PP^{r-1}$.
\[thm: green1\] Let $Z$ be a reduced subscheme of $\PP^r$ not containing $[1:0: \cdots : 0]$ and let $I = I(Z)$ be the homogeneous ideal of $Z.$ Let $$\pi: \PP^r \to \PP^{r-1}$$ be the projection from the point $[1:0: \cdots :0].$ Set-theoretically, $K_p(I)$ is the ideal of $$\{z \in \pi(Z) \mid | \pi^{-1}(z)| > p\},$$ where $|\pi^{-1}(z)|$ denotes the length of the scheme-theoretic fiber above $p.$
We prove the theorem by reducing to the affine case. We begin by introducing some notation. If $J \subseteq S$ is a homogeneous ideal, let $J_{(x_i)}$ denote its dehomogenization in $k[ \frac{x_0}{x_i}, \frac{x_1}{x_i}, \ldots, \frac{x_r}{x_i}].$
To show that $K_p(I)$ cuts out the $(p+1)-$fold points set-theoretically it suffices to show that $K_p(I)_{(x_i)}$ cuts out the $(p+1)-$fold points in each of the standard affine open patches of $\PP^{r-1}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, r.$ If we consider the ideal $I_{(x_i)} \subseteq k[ \frac{x_0}{x_i}, \frac{x_1}{x_i}, \ldots,
\frac{x_r}{x_i}]$ with the term ordering induced by $\tau$ in the natural way on the monomials in $\frac{x_0}{x_i},
\frac{x_1}{x_i}, \ldots, \frac{x_r}{x_i},$ then by Lemma 4.8.3 in [@haiman], $K_p(I_{(x_i)})$ is set-theoretically the ideal of the $(p+1)-$fold points lying in this affine patch.
It remains for us to show that for any $i = 1,\ldots, r,$ $$K_p(I)_{(x_i)} = K_p(I_{(x_i)}).$$
It is clear that $K_p(I)_{(x_i)} \subseteq K_p(I_{(x_i)}).$ For the opposite inclusion, note that $\frac{x_0}{x_i}$ appears in the dehomogenization of a monomial $m$ precisely as many times as $x_0$ appears in $m,$ and apply the definitions.
In the situation of Theorem \[thm: green1\], we can see that $K_0(I)$ is in fact radical. The ideal $K_0(I)$ is just equal to $I \cap \overline{S}$. On the other hand, the higher $K_p(I)$ need not be radical even if $I$ is a prime complete intersection of codimension $2$ in generic coordinates; see Example \[nonsmooth\].
Partial elimination ideals for codimension $2$ complete intersection. {#sec: computation}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $$f = x_0^a + f_1x_0^{a-1}+\cdots +f_{a-1}x_0 +f_a$$ and $$g = x_0^b + g_1x_0^{b-1}+ \cdots +
g_{b-1}x_0 +g_b$$ where $f_1, \ldots, f_a$ and $g_1, \ldots, g_a$ are indeterminates.
We wish to describe the partial elimination ideals of the ideal $I_{a,b}$ generated by $f$ and $g$ in $S = k[x_0, \ldots, x_r]$ after specializing the $f_i$ and the $g_i$ to homogeneous elements of $\overline{S} = k[x_1, \ldots, x_r]$ of degree $i.$
As we saw in §\[sec: basics\], the partial elimination ideals of an arbitrary homogeneous ideal $I$ can be recovered from a Gröbner basis for $I$ and, vice versa, give information on that Gröbner basis. In this section we discuss a result of Eisenbud and Green showing that $K_p(I_{a,b})$ is generated by the minors of a truncation of the Sylvester matrix as long as the forms $f$ and $g$ are generic enough. Both Theorem \[greensyl\] and Lemma \[rank\] are well-known to experts, but we give proofs for completeness.
\[Proposition 6.8 (3) in [@green]\] \[greensyl\] Assume that the $f_i$ and the $g_j$ are independent indeterminates and that $p< a\leq b.$ Let $$R =
k[f_1, \ldots, f_a, g_1, \ldots, g_b, x_0],$$ where $k$ is an arbitrary field. Define $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ to be the matrix consisting of the first $a+b-p$ rows of the Sylvester matrix of $f$ and $g$, i.e.
$$\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 0\\ f_1
& 1 & & 0 & g_1 & 1 & & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\ f_a & f_{a-1} & \ddots &
1 & & & \ddots & 1 \\ 0 & f_a & \ddots & \vdots & 0 & g_b &
\ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & f_{a-p-1} & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & g_{b-p-1} \\ 0 & 0
& & f_{a-p} & 0 & 0 & & g_{b-p}
\end{pmatrix}$$
Then the ideal $K_p(f,g) \subset R$ is generated by the maximal minors of the matrix $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$.
Let $R_{\leq t}$ denote the vector space of polynomials in $R$ with $\operatorname{deg_{x_0}}\leq t.$ To compute $K_p(f,g)$ we want to find all $A,B \in R$ such that $$Af+Bg = c_0x_0^p +c_1x_0^{p-1} + \cdots + c_{p-1}x_0 + c_p.
\label{eq: p}$$ with $c_i \in k[f_1, \ldots, f_a, g_1, \ldots, g_b].$ Note that it suffices to find all $A,B$ satisfying the equation (\[eq: p\]) where $\operatorname{deg_{x_0}}A \leq b-1$ and $\operatorname{deg_{x_0}}B \leq a-1.$
The matrix $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ gives a linear map $$R_{\leq b-1} \oplus R_{\leq a-1} \to R_{\leq a+b-1}/( 1, x_0, \ldots, x_0^{p-1}).$$ The kernel of $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ consists of the set of all $(A,B) \in R_{\leq b-1} \oplus R_{\leq a-1}$ that satisfy equation (\[eq: p\]). The image of $\ker \operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ under $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ is exactly the set $$\{ c_0x_0^p \ | \ c_0x_0^p +c_1x_0^{p-1} + \cdots + c_{p-1}x_0 + c_p \in (f,g)\}.$$
We will show that the maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ generate the image of $\ker \operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ under the map $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ as long as $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ drops rank in the expected codimension. The proof that $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ does indeed drop rank in codimension $p+2$ will be given in Lemma \[rank\].
If $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ drops rank in the expected codimension, then since $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay we conclude that the Buchsbaum-Rim complex resolves the cokernel of $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g).$ (See Eisenbud [@eisenbud] A2.6 for details.)
Using the Buchsbaum-Rim complex we can give explicit formulas for elements of $\ker \operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ indexed by $T \subseteq \{1, \ldots, a+b \}$ with $|T| = a+b-p.$ Define $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)^T$ to be the $(a+b-p-1)\times(a+b-p)$ matrix consisting of all of the columns of $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)$ indexed by elements of $T.$ Define $W_T$ to be the vector of length $a+b$ whose $i$-th entry is 0 if $i \notin T$ and $\operatorname{sign}(i) \det \operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g)^{T - \{ i\}}$ if $i \in T$ where $\operatorname{sign}(i) = 1$ if the number of elements of $T$ less than $i$ is even, and -1 if the number of elements of $T$ less than $i$ is odd. The Buchsbaum-Rim complex is a resolution precisely when the vectors $W_T$ generate the kernel of $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g).$
Finally, we apply $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ to the elements $W_T$ constructed above. The dot product of $W_T$ with each of the first $a+b-p-1$ rows of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ is zero since $W_T$ is in the kernel of $\operatorname{Syl}_{p+1}(f,g).$ The dot product of $W_T$ with the last row is just the expansion of the maximal minor of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ corresponding to the columns indexed by $T$ by this final row. Therefore, $$\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g) \cdot W_T = \det \operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)^Tx_0^p.$$
\[rank\] If $f_i$ and $g_j$ are independent indeterminates and $p< a\leq b$ the matrix $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ drops rank in the expected codimension $p+1$.
We will show that the set where $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ fails to have maximal rank, that is, where $\dim_k \ker \operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g) \ge p+1,$ has codimension $p+1$ in the space of all $f$ and $g$ where the $f_i$ and $g_i$ take values in $k.$ The result follows if we can show that for any specialization of the indeterminates $f_i$ and $g_j$ to values in $k,$ $\dim_k \ker \operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g) \ge p+1$ if and only if $f$ and $g$ have a common factor of degree $p+1.$
It is clear that if $f$ and $g$ have a common factor of degree $p+1$ then $\dim_k \ker \operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g) \ge p+1,$ since we can use the $(p+1)$ common factors to construct $(p+1)$ syzygies on $f$ and $g$ with distinct degrees.
To prove the other direction, we will use induction on $p.$ Suppose that $p = 0.$ Then $$\dim_k \ker \operatorname{Syl}_0(f,g) > 0$$ if and only if $\operatorname{Res}(f,g) = 0.$ It is well-known (see [@cox-little-oshea]) that $\operatorname{Res}(f,g)=0$ if and only if $f$ and $g$ have a common factor of degree at least one.
We treat the case where $p>0.$ Our assumption implies that we can find $p+1$ linearly independent elements $(A_0, B_0), \ldots, (A_p, B_p)$ of the kernel of $\operatorname{Syl}_p (f,g).$ Since $$A_0f+B_0g, \ldots, A_pf+B_pg \in \operatorname{span}(1, \ldots, x_0^{p-1}),$$ there is a nontrivial linear relation $\sum \lambda_i(A_if +B_ig) = 0.$ Hence, $f$ and $g$ must have a common factor so that $f = (x-\alpha)f'$ and $g = (x-\alpha)g'.$ By induction, we will be done if we can show that the dimension of $$\{(A,B) \in k[x_0]_{\leq b-2}\oplus k[x_0]_{\leq a-2} \mid Af'+Bg' \in \operatorname{span}(1, x_0, \ldots, x_0^{p-2})\}$$ is $\ge p.$ But, we can assume (after reordering and cancelling leading terms) that for $i\ge 1,$ $\deg A_i \leq b-2$ and $\deg B_i \leq a-2.$ Consequently, for $i \ge 1,$ $$A_if'+B_ig' \in \operatorname{span}(1, x_0, \ldots, x_0^{p-2}).$$
Note that the first $b$ rows of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ contain constants. Recall the following fact:
\[lem: minors\] Suppose that $M = (m_{i,j})$ is a $p
\times q$ matrix with entries in a commutative ring. If $m_{p,q}$ is a unit, then the ideal generated by the maximal minors of $M$ is the same as the ideal generated by the maximal minors of the $(p-1)
\times (q-1)$ matrix $N$ with entries $$n_{i,j} = m_{i,j} - m_{p,j}m_{i,q}m_{p,q}^{-1} \qquad 1\leq i\leq p-1, \ \ 1\leq j\leq q-1 .$$
We have the following:
\[See the remark following Proposition 6.9 in [@green].\] \[smaller\]
Let $a\leq b$ and assume that the $f_i$ and $g_i$ are sufficently general homogeneous polynomials of degree $i$ in variables $x_1,\dots, x_r$. Assume also that $p<a$.
- The ideal of maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ is always contained in $K_p(f,g)$. It has the expected codimension, $p+1,$ if $p\leq r-1$.
- Assume $p\leq r-2$. Then we have:
- $K_p(f,g)$ is equal to the ideal of maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$.
- $K_p(f,g)$ is also the ideal generated by the maximal minors of a matrix of size $(a-p)
\times a$ whose $(i,j)-$th entry is either $0$ or has degree $b+i-j$.
- $\operatorname{reg}K_p(f,g)=ab+{a-p+1 \choose 2}- {a+1 \choose 2} + p (a-p-1)$.
Let $R = k[f_1, \ldots, f_a, g_1, \ldots, g_b, x_0]$ where the $f_i$ and $g_j$ are indeterminates as in Theorem \[greensyl\]. Generators for $K_p(f,g)$ as an ideal in $R$ also generate the $p$-th partial elimination ideal of the ideal generated by $f$ and $g$ in the ring $R \otimes_k
k[x_1, \ldots, x_r],$ which we will denote by $K_p(f,g) \otimes k[x_1, \ldots, x_r].$ An elementary argument shows that if $p+1 \leq r,$ then for sufficiently general forms $f_i, g_j \in k[x_1, \ldots,
x_r],$ the specialization of the matrix $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f,g)$ still drops rank in the expected codimension.
Thus, (1) and (2,a) follows from the proof of Theorem \[greensyl\] and from Lemma \[rank\]. Part (b) of (2) follows from (2, a) and from iterated use of Lemma \[lem: minors\]. Finally (2, c) follows from (2, b) and from Lemma \[EN-reg\].
The above corollary is sharp in the sense that, in general, $K_{r-1}(f,g)$ strictly contains the ideal of maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_{r-1}(f,g)$. For instance, one can check with CoCoA that this happens if $r=3$ and $a=b=4$.
\[EN-reg\] Let $X=(h_{ij})$ be an $m\times n$ matrix of forms with $m\leq n$. Assume $a_1,\dots, a_m$ and $b_1,\dots, b_n$ are integers such that $\deg(h_{ij})=a_i+b_j>0$ whenever $h_{ij}\neq 0$. Assume that the ideal $I_m$ of maximal minors of $X$ has the expected codimension $n-m+1$. Then $$\operatorname{reg}I_m=\sum_i a_i +\sum_j b_j +(\max(a_i)-1)(n-m)$$
The Eagon-Northcott complex gives a resolution of $I_m$ which is minimal since the entries of the matrices in the resolution are (up to sign) the entries of $X$ and $0$. Keeping track of the shifts one obtains the formula above. The same formula can be derived from the result [@bruns-herzog1 Cor.1.5] of Bruns and Herzog. Another formula for the regularity appears in [@BudCasGor].
In particular we have:
\[finalcor\] Let $I$ be the ideal of a smooth complete intersection $C$ in $\PP^3$ defined by two forms $f$ and $g$ of degrees $a,b>1.$ Assume that $I$ is in generic coordinates. We have:
- $K_1(f,g)$ is equal to the ideal of maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_1(f,g)$ and has codimension $2$ in $k[x_1,x_2,x_3].$
- $K_2(f,g)$ contains the ideal of maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_2(f,g)$ and both ideals have codimension $3$ in $k[x_1,x_2,x_3].$
We will use a geometric argument to show that if $f$ and $g$ are in sufficiently general coordinates, then $\operatorname{Syl}_1(f,g)$ has codimension $2$ and $\operatorname{Syl}_2(f,g)$ has codimension $3$ in $k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$. Since these codimensions are the expected values for those determinantal ideals, the conclusion will follow by Corollary \[smaller\].
Recall the classical fact that a generic projection of a smooth irreducible curve in $\PP^3$ has only nodes as singularities. (See Theorem IV.3.10 in [@hartshorne].) It follows that after a generic change of coordinates, the image of the projection from the point $[1:0:0:0]$ will have only nodes as singularities. As a consequence, we see that for each point $q \in \PP^2,$ the fiber of the projection of the curve $C$ will contain at most two points, and the set of $q$ with $\pi^{-1}(q) = 2$ is finite. In other words, $\deg \gcd( f(x_0, q), g(x_0,q)) \leq 2$ and equality holds for only finitely many $q.$ From the proof of Lemma \[rank\], we can see $\operatorname{Syl}_p(f, g)$ drops rank at $q$ if and only if $f(x_0, q)$ and $g(x_0,q)$ have a common factor of degree $\ge p+1.$ Therefore, we see that $\operatorname{Syl}_1$(f,g) drops rank at a finite set of points and and $\operatorname{Syl}_2(f, g)$ does not drop rank at any point in $\PP^2.$
The lexicographic gin of a complete intersection curve in $\PP^3$
=================================================================
Let $I_{a,b}$ be a codimension $2$ complete intersection ideal in the polynomial ring $S = k[x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3]$ defined by two forms of degrees $a,b>1.$ Let $C = V(I_{a,b})$ be the curve in $\PP^3$ defined by $I_{a,b}$. We will assume that $C$ is smooth and in generic coordinates. In other words, we assume that $I_{a,b}$ is prime, that the singular locus of $S/I_{a,b}$ consists solely of the homogeneus maximal ideal and that $I_{a,b}$ is in generic coordinates. We have that $C$ has degree $ab$ and genus $ab(a+b-4)/2 +1.$ From Theorem \[thm: green1\] we know that $K_0(I_{a,b})$ is the radical ideal of the projection $\pi: C
\to \PP^2$ from the point $[1:0:0:0]$. Since $C$ is in generic coordinates by assumption, the projection $\pi$ is generic. Proposition \[prop: res\] describes additional numerical data associated to $\pi(C).$
\[prop: res\] The ideal $K_0(I_{a,b})$ is generated by a single polynomial of degree $ab$. It cuts out a degree $ab$ curve with $ab(a-1)(b-1)/2$ nodes.
We already know that $K_0(I_{a,b})$ is the radical ideal of $\pi(C)$ which has degree $ab.$ So it remains to show that $\pi(C)$ has $ab(a-1)(b-1)/2$ nodes.
Since a general projection of any space curve has only nodes as singularities, we have that $\pi (C)$ is a plane curve with only nodes as singularities. Since $C$ is the normalization of $\pi(C)$ and $C$ has genus $ab(a+b-4)/2+1,$ $\pi(C)$ has $$\frac{(ab-1)(ab-2)}{2} - \left( \frac{ab(a+b-4)}{2}+1
\right)=\frac{a(a-1)b(b-1)}{2}$$ nodes (see Remark 3.11.1 in [@hartshorne]).
Already, we can begin to describe the generators of $\operatorname{gin_{lex}}I_{a,b}:$
The ideal $\operatorname{gin_{lex}}I_{a,b}$ contains $x_1^{ab}$ and this is the only generator that is not divisible by $x_0.$
The generators of $\operatorname{gin_{lex}}I_{a,b}$ are elements of $x_0^p \operatorname{gin_{lex}}K_p(I_{a,b})$ for various $p$. So clearly, the generators of $\operatorname{gin_{lex}}K_0(I_{a,b})$ are the only generators of $\operatorname{gin_{lex}}I_{a,b}$ not containing a factor of $x_0.$ But $K_0(I_{a,b})$ is principal, generated by a form of degree $ab$ in generic coordinates. The leading term of such a form is $x_1^{ab}.$
We are ready to prove the main result of the paper:
\[Theorem \[thm: curves\]\] Set $I=I_{a,b}$, $K_p=K_p(I)$. By virtue of Lemma \[partialfacts\] and since $x_0^a\in
\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$ we have $$\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I=\sum_{p=0}^a x_0^p \operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_p$$ From Proposition \[prop: res\] we know that $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_0=(x_1^{ab})$. The proof consists of three steps. First, we compute the regularity of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_1$ explicitly. Then we show that the regularity of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_p -p \leq 1 +
\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_1$ for $2\leq p\leq a-1$. Finally, we will show that $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$ actually requires a generator of degree $\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)+1,$ which will complete the proof.
By Corollary \[finalcor\] we have that $K_1$ is the ideal of maximal minors of a matrix of size $(a-1)\times a$ whose $ij$ entry has degree $b+i-j$. The resolution of $K_1$ is given by the Hilbert-Burch complex. It is then easy to determine the degree of $K_1$ from the numerical data of the resolution. We obtain that $K_1$ is unmixed and of degree $\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)$. We also know that the radical of $K_1$ is the ideal of definition of $\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)$ points. It follows that $K_1$ itself is the radical ideal defining $\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)$ points. We can conclude from Corollary \[ginlexpoints\] that $\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}}(K_1)=\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)$.
We now prove that for $p >1,$ the degrees of the generators of $x_0^p \operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_p$ are bounded above by $1+\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_1$, that is, by $1+\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)$. This will imply that $\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$ is $\max( ab, 1+\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)).$
From Corollary \[finalcor\] (2) we have that the ideal, say $J$, of the maximal minors of $\operatorname{Syl}_2(f,g)$ is Artinian (i.e. $K[x_1,x_2,x_3]/J$ is Artinian) and is contained in $K_2$ and that $J$ is contained in $K_p$ for $p>1$. The regularity of an Artinian ideal $D$ is given by the smallest $k$ such that the $k$-th power of the maximal ideal is contained in the ideal $D$ and hence does not change when passing to the initial ideal. It follows that $\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_p \leq \operatorname{reg}J$ for every $p>1$. So the generators of $x_0^p \operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_p$ are in degrees $\leq p+\operatorname{reg}J$. Taking into consideration that $K_a=(1)$, it is enough to show that $\operatorname{reg}J\leq
\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)+1-p$ for all $p=2,\dots,a-1$. So we may assume $a>2$ and we have to show that $\operatorname{reg}J\leq \frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)+2-a$. To compute the regularity of $J$ we first use Lemma \[lem: minors\] to get rid of the units in the matrix defining $J$ and then we use Lemma \[EN-reg\]. We get $\operatorname{reg}(J)=ab+{a-1 \choose 2}- {a+1 \choose 2} + 2 (a-3)$.
So it remains to show that
$$ab+{a-1 \choose 2}- {a+1 \choose 2} + 2 (a-3) \leq \frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1)+2-a$$
that is
$$1/2a^2b^2 - 1/2a^2b - 1/2ab^2 - 1/2ab - a + 7\geq 0$$
for all $3\leq a\leq b$. This is a simple calculus exercise.
To finish the proof, we will show that if $m$ is a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}}K_1,$ of degree $\frac{1}{2}a(a-1)b(b-1),$ then $x_0m$ is a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I.$ If $x_0m$ is not a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I,$ then it must be divisible by some monomial $n$ that is a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I.$ This implies that $n \mid x_0m$ and that $n$ must be in $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_0.$ However, this means that $n \mid m$ and $n \in \operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} K_1$ since $K_0 \subseteq K_1.$ This contradicts our choice of $m$ as a minimal generator. We conclude that $x_0m$ must be a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I.$
\[nonsmooth\] One can check (using CoCoA, for instance) that $I=(x^3-yz^2, y^3-z^2t)$ defines an irreducible complete intersection curve $C$ with just one singular point and that $K_1(gI)$ with $g$ a generic change of coordinates is not radical. Indeed, $K_1(gI)$ has degree $18$ and it defines only $11$ points, namely the $11$ singular points of the generic projection of $C$ to $\PP^2$. In this case, the regularity of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}}(I)$ is $16$ and not $19$ as in the smooth case.
The regularity of gins of points
=================================
Set $S = k[x_0, \ldots, x_r]$. We start with the following well-known lemma:
\[1-dim\] Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal of $S$ such that $S/I$ has Krull dimension $1$ and $\deg(S/I)=e$. Set $c=\min \{ j | \dim [S/I]_i=e \mbox{ for all } i\geq j\}$. Then $\operatorname{reg}(I)\leq
\max\{e , c\}$.
Let $J$ be the saturation of $I$. Then $S/J$ is a $1$-dimensional CM (Cohen-Macaulay) algebra. It is well-known and easy to see that $\operatorname{reg}(J)\leq
\deg(S/J)=e$ and $\dim [S/J]_i=e$ for all $i\geq e-1$. Let $p$ denote the saturation degree (satiety index) of $I$, i.e. the least $j$ such that $I_i=J_i$ for all $i\geq j$. From the characterization of regularity in terms of local cohomology it follows immediately that $\operatorname{reg}(I)=\max\{\operatorname{reg}(J), p\}$. To conclude, it is enough to show that $p\leq \max\{e , c\}$. If $p>e$ then $I_i=J_i$ for all $i\geq p$ and $I_{p-1}\subsetneq J_{p-1}$. Thus, $\dim [S/I]_i=e$ for all $i\geq p$ and $\dim [S/I]_{p-1}>e$. Hence $p=c$ and we are done.
\[1-dimCM\] Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal of $S$ such that $S/I$ has Krull dimension $1$. Assume that the Hilbert function of $I$ is equal to the Hilbert function of a $1$-dimensional CM ideal. (e.g. $I$ is an initial ideal of a $1$-dimensional CM ideal). Then $\operatorname{reg}(I)\leq \deg(S/I)$.
This follows from Lemma \[1-dim\] since the assumption implies that $\dim
[S/I]_i=\deg(S/I)$ for all $i\geq \deg(S/I)-1.$
\[ginlexpoints\] Let $I$ be the ideal of a set $X$ of $s$ points of $\PP^r$. Then $$\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I=s.$$
By Corollary \[1-dimCM\] we have $\operatorname{reg}\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I\leq s$. A general projection of $X$ to $\PP^1$ will give $s$ distinct points. This implies that $x_{r-1}^s$ is in $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$. Since we work with the lex order, $x_{r-1}^s$ is a minimal generator of $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$.
We want to show now that for a set of generic points the gin lex and indeed any gin has a very special form: it is a segment ideal. Consider the polynomial ring $S=k[x_0,\dots,x_r]$ equipped with a term order $\tau$. Assume that $x_0>_\tau x_1>_\tau \dots >_\tau x_r$.
\[defn: seg\] A vector space $V$ of forms of degree $d$ is said to be a $\tau$-segment if it is generated by monomials and for every monomial $m$ in $V$ and every monomial $n$ of degree $d$ with $n>_\tau m$ one has $n\in V$.
Given a non-negative integer $u\leq { r+d \choose r} $ there exists exactly one $\tau$-segment of forms of degree $d$ and of dimension $u$: it is the space generated by the $u$ largest monomials of degree $d$ with respect to $\tau$ and it will be denoted by $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(d,u)$. Given a homogeneous ideal $I$ for every $d$ we consider the $\tau$-segment $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(d, \dim I_d)$ and define
$$\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)=\oplus_d \operatorname{Seg}_\tau(d, \dim I_d).$$
By the very definition, $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ is a graded monomial vector space and simple examples show that $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ is not an ideal in general. But there are important exceptions: Macaulay’s numerical characterization of Hilbert functions [@bruns-herzog Thm.4.2.10] can be rephrased by saying that for every homogeneous ideal $I$ the space $\operatorname{Seg}_{\operatorname{lex}}(I)$ is an ideal. In the following lemma we collect a few simple facts about segments that will be used in the proof of that result.
\[segments\] Let $\tau$ be a term order and let $V\subset S_a$ be a $\tau$-segment with $\dim S_a/V \leq a$. Then $S_1V$ is a $\tau$-segment with $\dim S_{a+1}/VS_1=\dim S_a/V$.
First observe that since $x_{r-1}^a> x_{r-1}^{a-j}x_r^j$ for $j=1,\dots, a$ we have that $x_{r-1}^a\in V$ and hence $(x_0,\dots, x_{r-1})^a \subseteq V$. To prove that $VS_1$ is a $\tau$-segment assume that $n$ is a monomial of degree $a+1$ such that $x_im<n$ with $m$ in $V$; we have to show that $n\in VS_1$. Let $k$ be the largest index such that $x_k$ divides $n$, so that $n=x_kn_1$. If $k\geq i$ then $x_in_1\geq x_k n_1>x_i m$. It follows that $n_1> m$ and hence $n_1\in V$ so that $n\in VS_1$. If, instead, $k<i$ then $n\in (x_0,\dots,x_{r-1})^{a+1}$ which is contained in $VS_1$ since we have seen already that $(x_0,\dots,x_{r-1})^{a}$ is contained in $V$.
To conclude, it is enough to show that the map $\phi$ induced by multiplication by $x_r$ is an isomorphism from $ S_a/V$ to $S_{a+1}/VS_1$. We show first that $\phi$ is injective. If $m$ is a monomial in $S_a\setminus V,$ then $mx_r\not\in VS_1.$ Otherwise, $mx_r=nx_i$ for some $n\in V$ and some $i,$ and then $m>n$, a contradiction. To prove that $\phi$ is surjective, consider a monomial $m$ in $S_{a+1}\setminus VS_1$. Then $m=x_rn$ since $(x_0,\dots,
x_{r-1})^{a+1}\subset VS_1$. Obviously, $n\not\in V$. So $\phi$ is surjective.
\[ginpoints\] Let $I$ be the ideal defining $s$ points, say $P_1,\dots,
P_s$, of ${\bf P}^r$. Assume that there exists a coordinate system $x_0,x_1,\dots, x_r$ such that $I$ does not contain forms of degree $\leq s$ supported on $\leq s$ monomials. Then $\operatorname{gin}_\tau
I=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ for all term orders $\tau$. In particular $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I=\operatorname{Seg}_{\operatorname{lex}}(I)$.
It is easy to see that the assumption implies that the Hilbert function of $S/I$ is the expected one, namely $\dim [S/I]_d= \min\{ s, {r+d \choose r}\}$ for all $d$. Fix a term order $\tau$. For a given $d\leq s$ consider the set $M_d$ of the smallest (with respect to $\tau$) $\min\{ s, {r+d \choose
r}\}$ monomials of degree $d$. By assumption these monomials are a basis of $S/I$ in degree $d$. It follows immediately that $\operatorname{in}_\tau I_d=\operatorname{Seg}_{\tau}(I)_d$ for every $d\leq s$. From Lemma \[1-dim\] we know that $\operatorname{in}_\tau I$ does not have generators in degree $\geq s$. Then $\operatorname{in}_\tau I_d=\operatorname{in}_\tau
I_sS_{d-s}$ for all $d\geq s$. On the other hand, it follows from Lemma \[segments\] that $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)_d=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)_sS_{d-s}$ for all $d\geq s$. We have seen already that $\operatorname{in}_\tau I_s=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)_s$. Therefore we may conclude that $\operatorname{in}_\tau I_d=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)_d$ also for all $d\geq s$. We have shown that $\operatorname{in}_\tau I=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$. From this it follows that $\operatorname{gin}_\tau I=\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ (see the construction/definition of gin given in [@eisenbud Theorem 15.18].)
We can now prove the main result of this section:
\[Theorem \[thm:points\]\] Let $P_1, \ldots, P_s$ be generic points in $\PP^r.$ Fix a coordinate system on $\PP^r$ and let $(a_{i0},a_{i1}, \dots, a_{ir})$ be the coordinates of $P_i$. It is enough to show that the assumption of Proposition \[ginpoints\] holds (in the given coordinates) for a generic choice of the $a_{ij}$. For any $d\leq s$ consider the $s\times {r+d \choose r}$ matrix $X_d$ whose rows are indexed by the points, the columns by the monomials of degree $d$ and whose $ij$-th entry is obtained by evaluating the $j$-th monomial at the $i$-th point. The assumption of Proposition \[ginpoints\] is equivalent to the fact that any maximal minor of $X_d$ is non-zero for $d\leq s$. If we consider the $a_{ij}$ as variables over some base field then every minor of $X_d$ is a non-zero polynomial in the $a_{ij}$ since no cancellation can occur in the expansion. So these are finitely many non-trivial polynomial conditions on the coordinates of the points.
As we have already said, the genericity condition required in Theorem \[thm:points\] implies that the Hilbert function of the ideal $I$ of $s$ points of $\PP^r$ is given is the expected one:
$$\dim [S/I]_j=\min( s, {r+j \choose r}).$$
One may wonder whether it is enough to assume that the Hilbert function is generic to conclude that $\operatorname{gin}_\tau I$ is $\operatorname{Seg}_\tau(I)$ for an ideal of points. The next example answer this question.
\(a) Consider the ideal $I$ of $7$ points of ${\bf P}^3$ with generic Hilbert function. The ideal $I$ contains $3$ quadrics. If the $3$ quadrics have a common linear factor, then $\operatorname{gin}(I_2)$ is $x_0(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ no matter what the term order is. So in particular, $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{revlex}} I$ is not $\operatorname{Seg}_{\operatorname{revlex}}(I)$ in degree $2$. Explicitely, one can take the $7$ points with coordinates $(0,0,0,1), (0,0,1,1), Ê(0,0,2,1), (0,1,0,1), (0,1,1,1), (0,2,0,1), (1,0,0,1)$.
\(b) Consider the $10$ points of ${\bf P}^3$ with coordinates $(a,b,c,1)$ where $a,b,c$ are non negative integers with $a+b+c\leq 2$ and let $I$ the corresponding ideal. One can check with (and even without) the help of a computer algebra system that the $10$ points have the generic Hilbert function and that any generic projection to ${\bf P}^2$ gives $10$ points on a cubic. This, in turn, implies that $\operatorname{gin}_{\operatorname{lex}} I$ contains $x_2^3$ while $\operatorname{Seg}_{\operatorname{lex}}(I)$ does not contain it.
The next example shows that, even for Hilbert functions of generic points in $\PP^2$, the segment ideals are special among the Borel-fixed ideals.
Consider the ideal $I$ of $7$ generic points in $\PP^2$. The Hilbert function of $S/I$ is $(1,3,6,7,7,7,\dots)$. There are exactly $8$ Borel-fixed ideals with this Hilbert function, they are:
$$\begin{array}{lll} (1) & (x^3, x^2y, x^2z, xy^3, xy^2z, xyz^3, xz^5, y^7), & \operatorname{lex}\\ (2) & (x^3, x^2y,
x^2z, xy^3, xy^2z, xyz^3, y^6), & (6, 2, 1) \\ (3) &(x^3, x^2y, x^2z, xy^3, xy^2z, y^5), & (4, 2, 1) \\
(4) & (x^3, x^2y, x^2z, xy^3, y^4), \\ (5) &(x^3, x^2y, xy^2, x^2z^2, xyz^3, xz^5, y^7), \\ (6) &(x^3,
x^2y, xy^2, x^2z^2, xyz^3, y^6), \\ (7) &(x^3, x^2y, xy^2, x^2z^2, y^5), \\ (8) & (x^3, x^2y, xy^2,
y^4) & \operatorname{revlex}\end{array}$$
The ideals (1),(2),(3) and (8) are segments (with respect to the term order or weight indicated on the right) while the remaining four are non-segments. Let us check, for instance, that (4) is not a segment. Suppose, by contradiction, it is a segment with respect to a term order $\tau.$ Then since $x^2z$ is in and $xy^2$ is out, we have $x^2z>_\tau xy^2$ and hence $xz>_\tau y^2.$ We deduce that $xy^2z>_\tau y^4.$ But since $y^4$ is in then also $xy^2z$ must be in and this is a contradiction. Summing up, among the $8$ Borel-fixed ideals only (1),(2),(3) and (8) are gins of $I.$
[10]{}
D. Bayer, *The Division Algorithm and the Hilbert Scheme*, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1982.
D.Bayer and M.Stillman, *A criterion for detecting m-regularity*, Invent.Math. **87** (1987), 1–11.
I. Bermejo and M. Lejeune-Jalabert, *Sur la complexité du calcul des projections d’une courbe projective*, Comm. Alg. **27** (1999), no. 7, 3211–3220.
A. Bigatti, *Upper bounds for the Betti numbers of a given Hilbert function*, Comm. Algebra **21** (1993), no. 7, 2317–2334.
W.Bruns and J.Herzog, *Cohen Macaulay Rings*, Cambridge University Press, Cabridge (1993).
W.Bruns and J.Herzog, *On the computation of $a$-invariants*, Manuscripta Math.**77** (1992), no.2-3, 201–213.
W.Bruns and U.Vetter, *Determinantal Rings*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, **1327**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.
M. Chardin and G. Moreno-Socías, *Regularity of lex-segment ideals:some closed formulas and applications*, Proc.Amer.Math.Soc. **131** (2002), no. 4, 1093–1102.
A.Capani, G.Niesi, L.Robbiano, *CoCoA, a system for doing Computations in Commutative Algebra*, Available via anonymous ftp from: cocoa.dima.unige.it.
N.Budur, M.Casanellas and E.Gorla *Hilbert functions of irreducible arithmetically Gorenstein schemes*, to appear in J.Algebra.
D.Cox, J.Little, and D.O’Shea, *Ideals, varieties, and algorithms*, Springer-Verlag, New York (1997).
D.Eisenbud, *An Introduction to Commutative Algebra with a View Towards Algebraic Geometry*, Springer-Verlag, New York (1995).
S.Eliahou and M.Kervaire, *Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals*, J.Algebra **129** (1990), 1–25
D.Grayson and M.Stillman, *Macaulay 2 – a system for computation in algebraic geometry and commutative algebra*, http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2, 1997.
M.Green, *Generic initial ideals*, Six lectures on commutative algebra (Bellaterra, 1996), Progr.Math., **166**, Birkhäuser, Basel, (1998), 119–186.
M.Haiman, *Hilbert schemes, polygraphs and the [M]{}acdonald positivity conjecture*, J.Amer.Math.Soc., **14**, 2001, 941-1006.
R.Hartshorne, *Algebraic [G]{}eometry*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.
H. Hulett, *Maximum Betti numbers of homogeneous ideals with a given Hilbert function*, Comm. Algebra **21** (1993), no. 7. 2335–2350.
M. Kreuzer and L. Robbiano, *Computational commutative algebra*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
M.G. Marinari and L. Ramella, *Some properties of Borel ideals*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, **139** (1999), no. 1-3, 183–2000.
K. Pardue, *Deformation classes of graded modules and maximal Betti numbers*, Illinois J. Math., **40** (1996), no. 4, 564–585.
[^1]: The second author was supported by an NSF postdoctoral fellowship during 2002-2003.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The discovery of neutrino masses through the observation of oscillations boosted the importance of neutrinoless double beta decay ([$0\nu \beta \beta$]{}). In this paper, we review the main features of this process, underlining its key role both from the experimental and theoretical point of view. In particular, we contextualize the [$0\nu \beta \beta$]{} in the panorama of lepton-number violating processes, also assessing some possible particle physics mechanisms mediating the process. Since the [$0\nu \beta \beta$]{} existence is correlated with neutrino masses, we also review the state-of-art of the theoretical understanding of neutrino masses. In the final part, the status of current [$0\nu \beta \beta$]{} experiments is presented and the prospects for the future hunt for [$0\nu \beta \beta$]{} are discussed. Also, experimental data coming from cosmological surveys are considered and their impact on [$0\nu \beta \beta$]{} expectations is examined.'
author:
- 'Stefano Dell’Oro'
- Simone Marcocci
- Matteo Viel
- Francesco Vissani
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Neutrinoless double beta decay: 2015 review'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a video compressive sensing framework, termed kt-CSLDS, to accelerate the image acquisition process of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We are inspired by a state-of-the-art model for video compressive sensing that utilizes a linear dynamical system (LDS) to model the motion. Given compressive measurements, the state sequence of an LDS can be first estimated using system identification techniques. We then reconstruct the observation matrix using a joint structured sparsity assumption. In particular, we minimize an objective function with a mixture of wavelet sparsity and joint sparsity within the observation matrix. We derive an efficient convex optimization algorithm through alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), and provide a theoretical guarantee for global convergence. We demonstrate the performance of our approach for video compressive sensing, in terms of reconstruction accuracy. We also investigate the impact of various sampling strategies. We apply this framework to accelerate the acquisition process of dynamic MRI and show it achieves the best reconstruction accuracy with the least computational time compared with existing algorithms in the literature.'
author:
- |
Jianing V. Shi$^{1,2}$[^1], Wotao Yin$^{2}$, Aswin C. Sankaranarayanan$^{3}$, and Richard G. Baraniuk$^{1}$\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'VideoCSLDSMRIRef.bib'
title: '**Video Compressive Sensing for Dynamic MRI**'
---
Introduction
============
Our fascination with detail has lead to sensors of ever increasing capabilities. In many modalities, the traditional sampling theory associated with Nyquist sampling theorem fails to deliver high spatio-temporal resolution or at best, delivers this at prohibitive costs. Compressive sensing [@candes2006a; @candes2006b; @donoho2006] has recently arisen as a paradigm to revolutionize the design of sensors and signal processing [@baraniuk2011], and is promised to deliver better sensors. The key insight of compressive sensing is that one can design a sensing system that only acquires a few linear measurements and recover the signals via convex optimization or greedy pursuit. Two assumptions are essential to the success of compressive sensing: a) the signal can be approximated using sparse representation under a suitable basis or dictionary; b) linear measurements are suitably incoherent with the basis or dictionary in which the signal is represented. Compressive sensing enables one to acquire highly undersampled data during the acquisition process, with the sampling rate way below the Nyquist sampling frequency.
A prominent application of compressive sensing is to accelerate the acquisition process of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In fact, the discovery of compressive sensing was largely motivated by the MRI problem [@candes2006a], where one wishes to reconstruct an object based on incomplete Fourier samples. The physical mechanism of MRI [@damadian1971; @lauterbur1973; @mansfield1977] requires scanning in the Fourier space in order to reconstruct an object. The speed of imaging is fundamentally limited by physical constraints such as gradient amplitude and slew rate, as well as physiological constraints [@lustig2007]. Compressive sensing has proven to be very successful in accelerating the acquisition process of MRI and has opened up many possibilities for new clinical applications [@lustig2007; @lustig2008]. Dynamic MRI reconstructs a dynamic sequence of images based on measurements in spatial frequency versus time (k-t) domain, roughly speaking, video acquired in the Fourier space. As pointed out in [@lustig2008], dynamic MRI is challenging due to the time-varying nature of the imaging object and the spatio-temporal tradeoff. Moreover, the discrepancy between the dynamic nature of the moving object and a static scene assumption for sensing creates a spatio-temporal recovery error [@sankaranarayanan2012; @park2013]. To tackle such a challenge, we leverage ideas from state-of-the-art video compressive sensing frameworks.
Video compressive sensing is nontrivial due to its high-dimensional representation and the ephemeral nature of videos. In order to achieve recovery using as few samples as possible, it requires one to exploit the redundancy in the ambient space and go beyond a frame-by-frame reconstruction [@wakin2006]. The general philosophy is to identify a model in which signal can be represented parsimoniously, and identify the basis or dictionary to sparsify the signal under the signal model. Several signal models have been employed to perform video compressive sensing. One early approach considered sparse representation in both spatial and temporal domains by treating video as a three-dimensional matrix, and employed 3D wavelet transform to sparsify the video [@wakin2006]. A later approach took advantage of the small inter-frame differences together with spatial 2D wavelet transform within each frame, which was implemented in the compressive coded aperture video camera [@marcia2008]. Further work along the video coding ideas sought to reconstruct individual frames based on wavelet sparsity in the spatial domain, while modeling temporal dependencies between frames using motion compensation methods, such as lifting based wavelet sparsity [@secker2003] and optical flow [@reddy2011]. Multi-scale recovery algorithms along with various motion compensation mechanisms were investigated in [@park2009; @sankaranarayanan2012; @park2013]. Work based on the separation of background and moving objects were investigated in [@cevher2008]. Video compressive sensing models based on the entire image typically involve a dense measurement matrix, which is computationally expensive, therefore block-based video compressive sensing [@fowler2012] divided each frame into small blocks in order to accelerate computation. Dictionary learning-based methods were proposed to identify task specific basis for compressive sensing reconstruction [@prades2009; @chen2010; @rajwade2012]. Another approach of exploiting the redundancy was to consider motion manifold and build a global model for the video cube. The key idea is to project the original video cube onto a motion manifold, and perform reconstruction within a low-dimensional space. Motion manifold models arise in many computer vision and machine learning problems, such as dynamical textures modeling [@doretto2003; @chan2008], human activity tracking [@bissacco2001; @veeraraghavan2005], video-based face recognition [@aggarwal2004], data-driven motion synthesis [@lee2006], video compressive sensing [@sankaranarayanan2010], coded strobing photography [@veeraraghavan2011]. A key promise of the motion manifold model is to obtain a compact representation of high-dimensional data by exploring the spatio-temporal structures, hence enabling computation on the low-dimensional manifold.
Prior work on compressively sensed dynamic MRI include k-t SPARSE [@lustig2006], k-t FOCUSS [@jung2009], Modified CS [@lu2009], MASTeR [@asif2012], Subtraction Sparsity [@rapacchi2013], and L$+$S reconstruction [@otazo2013]. k-t SPARSE and k-t FOCUSS both use the wavelet transform to model sparsity in the temporal domain. Modified CS identifies signal support in the first frame to facilitate reconstruction of the rest video frames using compressive sensing. MASTeR uses motion adaptive spatio-temporal regularization to perform reconstruction based on compressive k-t data. Subtraction Sparsity is designed for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, which subtracts a pre-contrast mask from all post-contrast frames to promote sparsity in the resulting difference images. L$+$S reconstruction uses a low rank and sparse matrix decomposition to separate background and dynamic components.
In this paper, we have chosen to build upon CS-LDS [@sankaranarayanan2010], a video compressive sensing approach for time varying signals modeled as a linear dynamical system (LDS). Encouraged by its high-fidelity reconstruction quality for a wide arrange of videos and its ability to achieve high compression rates, we extend the CS-LDS model to the k-t domain. We propose a novel and efficient algorithm, which we call kt-CSLDS. Our proposed algorithm takes advantage of the orthonormal property of the Fourier operator and uses a number of numerical techniques to achieve high computational efficiency. We provide theoretical guarantee for its global convergence. We use the kt-CSLDS model to accelerate the image acquisition process of dynamic MRI. Finally, we investigate the impact of sampling strategies on the reconstruction quality of dynamic MRI.
Compressive Sensing Dynamic MRI Model
=====================================
Learning a low-dimensional signal model based on video data is an important topic in computer vision, signal processing and machine learning. Linear dynamical systems (LDSs) are a particularly useful model which builds a compact representation of the spatial and temporal variations in image sequences. This arises in a range of applications including object recognition, video segmentation, and video synthesis. We are primarily motivated by video synthesis, since it aligns perfectly with goal of compressive sensing. Our video compressive sensing model is largely inspired by CS-LDS [@sankaranarayanan2010], which couples compressive sensing with linear dynamical systems to perform video compressive sensing. Since we are interested in accelerating the image acquisition process of MRI, we extend the CS-LDS model from the spatial domain to the Fourier domain.
Notations
---------
We clarify the notations in this section. A video can be denoted by a 3D tensor $Y^3 \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x \times n_y \times l}$. For ease of notation, we vectorize each frame of the video and represent it using 2D matrices; hence, for the rest of the paper, we represent videos as $Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times l}$, where $n = n_x n_y$. We use $X \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times l}$ to denote the state sequence over time, where at each time $t$ the state vector is $\mathbf{x}_t$. We denote the compressive sensed k-t video cube as $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times l}$, where $m$ is the number of measurements.
We use different notations for row space and column space of matrices. In particular, for the observation matrix $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, we define the row vector and column vector as follows. We denote each row of $C$ using a row vector $\mathbf{c}_{(i)} := \mathbf{e}_{(i)} C$, where $\mathbf{e}_{(i)} = (0,\hdots,1\hdots,0)^{\top}$ is a row selector with the $i$th element being 1, $i = 1,2,\hdots,n$. Similarly, we denote each column of $C$ using a column vector $\mathbf{c}_j := C \mathbf{e}_j$, where $\mathbf{e}_j = (0,\hdots,1,\hdots,0)$ is a column selector with the $j$th element being 1, $j = 1,2,\hdots,d$.
We use $\psi_2$ to denote the 2D wavelet transform. We define the following operator to denote frame-by-frame wavelet transform for each frame of the video cube $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ as $$\Psi \mathbf{c}_j = \Psi (\mathbf{c}_j) := \mathrm{vec}(\psi_2 \mathbf{c}^2_j),
\label{eq:waveletopt}$$ where $\mathbf{c}^2_j$ denotes matricization of the 3D tensor $\mathbf{c}_j$ by collapsing the first two dimension, resulting in a 2D matrix, $$\mathbf{c}^2_j = \mathrm{mat}(\mathbf{c}_j),$$ for $j = 1,2, \hdots,d$.
With such a notation, the frame-by-frame wavelet transform for the entire video cube can be represented by $$\Psi(C) =
\begin{pmatrix}
| & | & & | \\
\mathrm{vec}(\psi_2 \mathbf{c}^2_1) & \mathrm{vec}(\psi_2 \mathbf{c}^2_2) & \hdots & \mathrm{vec}(\psi_2 \mathbf{c}^2_d) \\
| & | & & | \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:waveletoptvideo}$$
Compressive Sensed Dynamic MRI
------------------------------
We first introduce the signal model for compressive sensing dynamic MRI. Dynamic MRI imaging typically takes measurements of a moving object $\mathbf{y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ in the Fourier space, which result in a sequence of Fourier measurements $\mathbf{z}_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $$\mathbf{{z}}_t = \mathcal{F} \mathbf{y}_t + \xi_t,$$ where $\xi_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the measurement noise. Traditional imaging system takes the full Fourier space samples and reconstructs a video using inverse Fourier transform, $$\mathbf{\hat{y}}_t = \mathcal{F}^{-1} \mathbf{z}_t.$$ With the traditional imaging sequence, the sampling rate needs to satisfy the Nyquist sampling theorem, which fundamentally limits the temporal resolution of the dynamic MRI imaging.
Now with compressive sensing, we take partial measurements in the k-t space and increase the temporal resolution of the imaging acquisition process, $$\mathbf{z}_t = \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{y}_t + \xi_t,$$ where $\Phi_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ is the measurement matrix, and $\mathbf{z}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ represents partial Fourier measurements. Note $\Phi_t$ is a row selector in the Fourier space, and takes the form of a subsampled identity matrix. Our goal is recover $\mathbf{y}_t$ based on measurement matrix and partial Fourier measurements.
Linear Dynamical Systems
------------------------
Linear time-invariant dynamical systems (LDS) can be expressed using three components: 1) an observation model that defines the state space and the observation matrix linking observations to state space, 2) state transition model that captures dynamics on the state space, and 3) an initial condition.
More specifically, the discrete form of LDS can be expressed as
\[eq:lds\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{t} & = C \mathbf{x}_{t} + \mathbf{\omega}_{t} & \hspace{5mm} & \mathbf{\omega}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,Q) \\
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} & = A \mathbf{x}_{t} + \mathbf{\nu}_{t} & \hspace{5mm} & \mathbf{\nu}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R)\end{aligned}$$
at each time instant ($t = 1,2,\cdots,l$), together with the initial condition $x_0$. In the above, $\mathbf{y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ represents the observation (in our case, the original video frames), $\mathbf{x}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ are the hidden states, $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ is the observation matrix, $A \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is the transition matrix. $\mathbf{\omega}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the process noise, which include excitation driving the stochastic process and error in the Markov model. $\mathbf{\nu}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the observation noise, modeling inaccuracies in the LDS model.
We first illustrate the concept of LDS model using a sample video, see Figure \[fig:heartlds\](A). With such a model, observations $\mathbf{y}_t$ can be represented as linear transformation of the state $\mathbf{x}_t$, corrupted by observation noise, whereas the states $\mathbf{x}_t$ evolve according to a first-order Markov process corrupted by process noise. The noise terms $\mathbf{\omega}_t$ and $\mathbf{\nu}_t$ are assumed to be temporally white, independent of each other, the states and the observations. If the noises are assumed to be zero-mean Gaussian spatially, then the LDS model corresponds to a first-order Gaussian Markov random process. We focus on the Gaussian noise case throughout this paper, with $\mathbf{\omega}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,Q)$ and $\mathbf{\nu}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R)$.
In the case where $d \ll n$, the motion manifold is a good model to reduce the high-dimensional video cube into a low-dimensional representation. We illustrate such a concept in Figure \[fig:heartlds\](B). The key promise of using LDS relies on the assumption that high-dimensional signal $\mathbf{y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ can be faithfully represented using low-dimensional state sequence $\mathbf{x}_t \in \mathbb{R}^d$, with $d \ll n$.
Given $Y = (y_1,y_2,\hdots,y_l)$, we can obtain a $d$-dimensional LDS approximation of the original video cube $Y$ through SVD, and measure the accuracy of such an approximation. When we have an estimate of $Y$, $\hat{Y} = C(d)X(d)$, the reconstruction SNR of $\hat{Y}$ is given as $$\textrm{SNR} = 10 \log_{10} \frac{\| Y \|^2_{F}}{\| \hat{Y} -Y \|^2_{F}},$$ which is a function of $d$. We obtain reasonably good SNR even at low $d$, as shown in Figure \[fig:heartlds\](B).
Compressive Measurement Model
-----------------------------
Now with compressive measurements in the Fourier space, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{z}_t &= \Phi_t \mathcal{F} C \mathbf{x}_{t} + \mathbf{\omega}_{t} & \hspace{5mm} & \mathbf{\omega}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,Q) \\
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} &= A \mathbf{x}_{t} + \mathbf{\nu}_{t} & \hspace{5mm} & \mathbf{\nu}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R),\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{F}$ is the multi-dimensional Fourier transform in the image domain $\Omega$. $\Phi_t \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ is the measurement matrix, essentially the row selector which stipulates where we sample in the $k$ space during the image acquisition process, $$\Phi_t = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Our measurement model is comprised of two components, a time-invariant component and a time-variant component, as proposed in [@sankaranarayanan2010; @sankaranarayanan2013], $$\mathbf{z}_t =
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{\mathbf{z}}_t \\
\tilde{\mathbf{z}}_t \\
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{\Phi} \mathcal{F} \\
\tilde{\Phi}_t \mathcal{F} \\
\end{pmatrix} \mathbf{y}_t.$$ Note that $\bar{\Phi}$ is the time-invariant component, which is designed to facilitate estimation for the state sequence. $\tilde{\Phi}_t$ is the time-variant component to allow innovation during the acquisition process, due to the ephemeral nature of videos.
The overall architecture of kt-CSLDS is shown in Figure \[fig:manifoldlds\], where we take compressive measurements of the original video signal. Each frame of the video is a high-dimensional signal is projected to a low-dimensional representation that follows a Markov process.
The design of the measurement model is critical to the success of video compressive sensing. The time-invariant component needs to satisfy the observability condition for LDS. In the Fourier domain, the low-frequency content of a video changes marginally, while the high-frequency content changes more drastically from frame to frame. We therefore sample the low-frequency content more densely. Note in both kt-FOCUSS and MASTeR, low-frequency domain is sampled in a similar fashion. The time-variant component is designed to satisfy the incoherence assumptions for compressive sensing, promoting randomness of the Fourier samples in the temporal domain. Within each frame, we sample the Fourier space according to the theoretical results obtained by [@krahmer2012].
Compressive Sensing Reconstruction Algorithm
============================================
Algorithm Flow
--------------
The overall architecture of imaging acquisition and video reconstruction process is summarized in Figure \[fig:heartarchitect\]. Upon acquiring Fourier samples using the aforementioned sampling strategy, we reconstruct the video frames for dynamic MRI via a two-step procedure.
We first estimate the state sequence $\hat{X}$ based on the time-invariant samples using system identification. We then reconstruct the observation matrix $\hat{C}$ based on both time-invariant and time-variant measurements by exploring certain sparsity assumptions. The final video reconstruction can be obtained by $$\hat{Y} = \hat{C} \hat{X}.$$
Here we set up the general framework for algorithm flow, whose details will be discussed in the following two sections. In Section \[stateseq\] we discuss two different methods for state sequence estimation. In Section \[obsrecon\], we derive an efficient numerical algorithm for observation matrix reconstruction and prove its theoretical convergence.
State Sequence Estimation {#stateseq}
-------------------------
State sequence $\mathbf{x}_t$ can be estimated based on the time-invariant component,
\[eq:ldsti\] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathbf{z}}_t &= \bar{\Phi} \mathcal{F} C \mathbf{x}_t + \mathbf{\omega}_t & \mathbf{\omega}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,Q) \\
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} &= A \mathbf{x}_t + \mathbf{\nu}_t & \mathbf{\nu}_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R).\end{aligned}$$
Since that Fourier transform is a linear operator, this sub-system is a linear time-invariant system. Given that there is no input data, the system is driven purely by stochastic noise.
Given compressive measurements of video data $\bar{Z} = (\bar{z}_1, \bar{z}_2, \hdots, \bar{z}_t, \hdots, \bar{z}_{l})$, we assume they are generated by the time-invariant LDS described in Eq. . Our goal is to determine the order of the unknown system $d$, and the forward Kalman filter state sequence $\hat{X} = (x_1, x_2, \hdots, x_t, \hdots, x_{l})$ up to a similarity transformation. There exist many ways to perform state inference and system identification for the LDS model. State inference refers to the process of estimating hidden states over time $\hat{X} := (x_1,\hdots,x_t,\hdots,x_{l})$ given the observations $\bar{Z} := (\bar{z}_1,\hdots,\bar{z}_t,\hdots,\bar{z}_l)$ and parameters $\theta := \{A,C,Q,R\}$. On the other hand, system identification involves finding the parameters $\theta$ and the distribution over hidden states $p(X|\bar{Z},\theta)$ that maximizes the likelihood of the observed data $\bar{Z}$.
When one uses the recursive formulation as stated in , it has a connection to the Kalman filter. The stochastic LDS models the distribution of outputs $p(\bar{z}_{1:l})$, and the inference problem for LDS aims to estimate the distribution over hidden states $p(x_t | \bar{z}_{1:l})$. The inference can be carried out recursively, by combining a forward pass and a backward pass. The forward pass takes the initial state $x_0$ together with a collection of observation states $y_{1:t}$, and computes $x_t$ recursively, resulting in the Kalman filter. The backward pass takes the observations from $\bar{z}_{l}$ to $\bar{z}_{t+1}$, and corrects the results from the forward pass by evaluating the influence of future observations, which is also known as the Rauch-Tung-Striebel (RTS) equation.
### Review of System Identification
Generally speaking, there are two types of methods for system identification. One approach is to obtain parameters $\theta$ and distribution $p(X|\bar{Z},\theta)$ using maximum likelihood solution through iterative techniques such as expectation maximization (EM). The EM approach utilizes the Kalman filter and Kalman smoother, which requires the entire observation sequences. EM guarantees convergence to a local maximum in the likelihood surface, and is sensitive to initial condition. Another approach for system identification is to use subspace methods to obtain solutions, which is known as subspace identification.
In subspace identification, it is desirable to find the minimal model order for the state space representation under the constraint that the reduced model approximates the output data. It is well-known that the minimal order is equal to the rank of the block Hankel matrix, defined as $$\label{eq:hankel}
\mathcal{H}_{d}(z) =
\begin{pmatrix}
z_{1} & z_{2} & \cdots & z_{l-d+1} \\
z_{2} & z_{3} & \cdots & z_{l-d+2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
z_{d} & z_{d+1} & \cdots & z_{l}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Therefore, subspace identification methods typically exploit the rank of block Hankel matrix, and relies on matrix decomposition to obtain state sequence estimates $\hat{X}$ as well as the realization of the state space model parameterized by $\{A,C,Q,R\}$. Algorithm details vary among different subspace identification methods: a) construction of the block Hankel matrices differ depending on whether it is covariance driven or data driven, b) the matrix decomposition methods vary using different user defined weighting matrices in the projection methods. In several classical subspace identification algorithms, oblique projection is employed when there exist both output data and input data, which reduces to orthogonal projection in the case of stochastic identification. These algorithms include principle component analysis (PCA), unweighted principle component analysis (UPCA) [@arun1990], canonical variate analysis (CVA) [@larimore1990], numerical algorithms for subspace identification (N4SID) [@overschee1994], and multivariate output error state space (MOESP) [@verhaegen1994]. These methods can determine the order of the system for the state space model, and estimate system matrices $\{A,C\}$ up to a similarity transformation. Note that subspace identification methods mentioned above use orthogonal projections and can be computationally expensive. It is noteworthy that N4SID provides asymptotically optimal solution for the forward Kalman filter state sequence $\hat{X}$, in the sense of maximum likelihood. However, the memory storage and computation requirement of N4SID and other subspace methods are prohibitively expensive for video data. As pointed out in [@doretto2003], under mild conditions, one can obtain a closed-form solution for a canonical model realization. We adopt such a strategy in this paper in favor of its algebraic simplicity and computational efficiency.
### Canonical Model Realization
In stochastic identification, the goal is typically to determine the system matrices $\theta = \{A,C,Q,R\}$ up to a similarity transformation. Obtaining $\{A,C,Q,R\}$ is also called a *realization* of the system. The ambiguity of the system identification is well-known, in a sense that there is no unique choice of system matrices which can generate the same sample path given suitable initial condition. As long as $T \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is invertible, one can generate the same dynamics by substituting $A$ with $TAT^{-1}$, $C$ with $CT^{-1}$, $Q$ with $TQT^{-1}$, and initial condition $x_0$ with $Tx_0$. Given the bilinear product between $C$ and $x_t$, it immediately follows that any estimate of the forward Kalman filter state sequence $\hat{X}$ is accurate only up to a similarity transformation.
In order to obtain a unique realization for the LDS, one chooses a representative from these equivalent solutions, which results in the so-called *canonical model realization* [@doretto2003]. This can be achieved by imposing additional constraints or imposing regularization on the solution.
### Canonical Model Realization with Truncated SVD
Fourier measurements $\bar{Z}$ acquired by time-invariant measurement matrix $\bar{\Phi}$ and system order $d$ **1**$^{\circ}$ Formulate block Hankel matrix $\mathcal{H}_d (\bar{z})$ **2**$^{\circ}$ Perform SVD $\mathcal{H}_{d}(z) = U \Sigma V^{\top}$ **3**$^{\circ}$ Keep the first $d$ eigensystems $U_d$, $\Sigma_d$, $V_d$ **4**$^{\circ}$ Calculate state sequence estimate $\hat{X} = \Sigma_d V_d^{\top}$
\[co:cmr\] Suppose one has access to the full video data in the spatial domain $Y = (y_1, y_2, \hdots, y_t, \hdots, y_l)$. Assuming the observation matrix $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ of the canonical model has orthonormal columns, i.e., $C^{\top}C = I$, then one can obtain a closed-form solution for the forward Kalman filter state sequence $\hat{X}$ and canonical model realization $\hat{C}$ based on the simplest form of Hankel matrix $\mathcal{H}_{1,l}$.
Once formulating the simplest form of block Hankel matrix $\mathcal{H}_{1}(y)$, we note the following relationship with state sequence $X = (x_1,x_2,\hdots,x_t,\hdots,x_l)$ and noise term $W = (\omega_1,\omega_2,\hdots,\omega_t,\hdots,\omega_l)$, $$\mathcal{H}_{1}(y) = C X + W. \nonumber$$ The estimation for observation matrix $C$ and state sequence $X$ can be formulated as $$\hat{C}, \hat{X} = \arg \min_{C,X} \| \mathcal{H}_{1,l}(y) - C X \|_{F}^{2}. \nonumber$$ Given the bilinear product between $C$ and $X$, one can immediately inspect that the solution is not unique. Since we have imposed additional constraint $C^{\top}C = I$, one can obtain a canonical model realization. It follows from the fixed rank property of SVD [@golub1989] that a unique closed-form solution can be obtained through the SVD: $$\mathcal{H}_{1}(y) = U \Sigma V^{\top} \hspace{4mm} \text{where} \hspace{4mm} U^{\top}U = I \hspace{4mm}V^{\top}V = I. \nonumber$$ Note the system order $d$ can be determined from the rank of the block Hankel matrix, which leads to the following $$\hat{C} = U \hspace{4mm} \hat{X} = \Sigma V^{\top},$$ where both estimates are closed-form solutions.
The above result sheds light on a simpler path of estimating state sequence $\hat{X}$, without the computational burden of system identification methods. We remark that canonical model realization based on the simplest form of Hankel matrix [@doretto2003] essentially does not exploit the structure of LDS. Once we consider a higher degree Hankel matrix, the structure and observability of LDS comes into consideration.
Formally, an LDS is said to be observable if, for any possible state sequence, the current state can be determined in finite time using only the outputs. Less formally, observability refers to the idea that it is possible to determine the behavior of the entire system based on merely the system’s outputs. Conversely, an LDS is said to be unobservable if the current values of some states cannot be determined through output sensors. There exists a convenient test for observability.
For an LDS, equipped with system matrices $(C,A)$ and state space dimension $d$, the system is observable if the observability matrix $$\mathcal{O}(C,A) =
\begin{pmatrix}
C \\
CA \\
CA^2 \\
\vdots \\
CA^{d-1} \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ is full rank.
The rationale for this test is that if $\mathcal{O}(C,A)$ is rank $d$, then each of the $d$ states is viewable through linear combinations of the system output $Y = (y_1,y_2,\hdots,y_t,\hdots,y_l)$.
\[th:cmr\] Given time-invariant compressive measurements $\bar{\Phi}$ and Fourier video data $\bar{Z} = (\bar{z}_1,\bar{z}_2,\hdots,\bar{z}_t,\hdots,\bar{z}_l)$, suppose the observability matrix $\mathcal{O}(\bar{\Phi} \mathcal{F} C, A)$ is full rank, then there exists a closed-form solution for the forward filter state sequence $\hat{X}$.
Given the video compressive sensing model, we use the time-invariant component to estimate the state sequence. We formulate the block Hankel matrix based on the Fourier measurements $\mathcal{H}_{d}$, and by denoting $\bar{C} = \bar{\Phi} \mathcal{F} C$, $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{H}_d(\bar{z}) & =:
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{z}_1 & \bar{z}_2 & \hdots & \bar{z}_{l-d+1} \\
\bar{z}_2 & \bar{z}_3 & \hdots & \bar{z}_{l-d+2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\bar{z}_d & \bar{z}_{d+1} & \hdots & \bar{z}_l \\
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
& =
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{C} x_1 & \bar{C} x_2 & \hdots & \bar{C} x_{l-d+1} \\
\bar{C}A x_1 & \bar{C}A x_2 & \hdots & \bar{C}A x_{l-d+1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\bar{C}A^{d-1} x_1 & \bar{C}A^{d-1} x_{2} & \hdots & \bar{C}A^{d-1} x_{l-d+1} \\
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
& =
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{C} \\
\bar{C}A \\
\vdots \\
\bar{C}A^{d-1} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & x_2 & \hdots & x_{l-d+1} \\
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
& =
\mathcal{O}(\bar{\Phi} \mathcal{F} C, A)
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & x_2 & \hdots & x_{l-d+1} \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}
$$ Under the assumption that $\mathcal{O}(\bar{\Phi}\mathcal{F}C,A)$ is full-rank, the LDS is observable, according to Lemma 3.4. Therefore, one can obtain a canonical model realization through the SVD $$\mathcal{H}_d(\bar{z}) = \mathcal{O}(\bar{\Phi}\mathcal{F}C,A)
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & x_2 & \hdots & x_{l-d+1}
\end{pmatrix}
= \tilde{U} \tilde{\Sigma} \tilde{V}^{\top}.$$ This leads to the estimate for the state sequence: $$\hat{X} = \tilde{\Sigma} \tilde{V}^{\top},$$ as a modified closed-form solution.
The above result leads to Algorithm \[alg:frx\], where one can estimate the state sequence based on a very simple procedure using SVD.
### Canonical Model Realization without SVD
Algorithm \[alg:frx\] exploits the full rank of the block Hankel matrix, which represents the model complexity. It is well-known the rank of block Hankel matrix can be corrupted when there is noise in the data. Moreover, it is often desirable in system identification to reduce the model complexity. In the view of video compressive sensing, it is favorable to obtain a most compact representation of the video data and perform computation on the corresponding low-dimensional manifold. We thus extend Algorithm \[alg:frx\] to the low rank case.
We formulate the system identification problem as follows: $$\label{eq:lr}
\hat{C}, \hat{X} = \arg \min_{C,X} \| C X - M \|_{F}^2 \hspace{3mm} \text{s.t.} \hspace{3mm} M = \mathcal{H}_{1,1,l}(z) \hspace{3mm} \text{rank}(CX) = d$$ where a low-rank factorization is sought, resulting in spatial factor $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ and temporal factor $X \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times l}$. Such an approach is designed to alleviate possible corruption of noise, which can increase the rank of block Hankel matrix. We adopt a low-rank factorization algorithm based on nonlinear successive over-relaxation (SOR) [@wen2010]. This results in Algorithm \[alg:lrx\], which avoids the computation burden of SVD and obtains estimation for both the observation matrix $\hat{C}$ and state sequence $\hat{X}$.
**Input:** video data $\bar{Z}$, system order $d$ **1**$^{\circ}$ Formulate simplest block Hankel matrix $\mathcal{H}_{1,1,l}(z) = [\bar{z}_1, \bar{z}_2, \hdots, \bar{z}_t, \hdots, \bar{z}_{l}]$ **2**$^{\circ}$ Initialize $k=0$, $C^0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $X^0 \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times l}$, $\omega = 1$, $\tilde{\omega} > 1$, $\delta > 0$, $\gamma_1 \in (0,1)$ **3**$^{\circ}$ Set $(C, X, M) = (C^k, X^k, M^k)$ **4**$^{\circ}$ Compute $M_{\omega} \leftarrow \omega M^k + (1-\omega) C^k X^k$ **5**$^{\circ}$ Compute $C_{+}(\omega) \leftarrow M_{\omega} X^{\top} (X X^{\top})^{\dag}$ **6**$^{\circ}$ Compute $X_{+}(\omega) \leftarrow (C_{+}(\omega)^{\top} C_{+}(\omega))^{\dag}( C_{+}(\omega)^{\top} M_{\omega})$ **7**$^{\circ}$ Compute $M_{+}(\omega) \leftarrow \mathcal{H}_{1,1,l}(z)$ **8**$^{\circ}$ Compute residual ratio $\gamma(\omega) \leftarrow {\|M-C_{+}(\omega) X_{+}(\omega)\|_F}/{\|M-CX\|_F}$ Set $\omega = 1$ and go to **4**$^{\circ}$ **9**$^{\circ}$ Update $(C^{k+1}, X^{k+1}, M^{k+1}) = (C_{+}(\omega), X_{+}(\omega), M_{+}(\omega))$ Update $k \leftarrow k+1$ Set $\delta = \max(\delta, 0.25(\omega-1))$ and $\omega = \min(\omega+\delta,\tilde{\omega})$
\[co:lr\] There exists at least a subsequence $\{(C^k,X^k,M^k)\}$ generated by Algorithm \[alg:lrx\] that satisfies the first-order optimality conditions of in the limit.
We omit the proof here, since it is an immediate result of Theorem 3.5 in [@wen2010].
The estimated state sequence by factorizing the Hankel matrix is only accurate up to a linear transformation. In other words, there is no unique solution for the state sequence estimation. Such an ambiguity poses difficulty for reconstruction of the observation matrix. This difficulty is resolved by a joint sparsity assumption, as we will describe in the next session.
Observation Matrix Reconstruction {#obsrecon}
---------------------------------
Once we have estimated the state sequence $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_t$, the next component of the algorithm is to reconstruct the observation matrix $C$.
### Joint Structured Sparsity
Denoting observation matrix as $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, we formulate the reconstruction model as follows: $$\label{eq:jss}
\min_{C} \hspace{2mm} \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2,$$ where $\Psi$ denotes the frame-by-frame wavelet transform operator, defined in . The first two regularization terms concern structured sparsity for the observation matrix. The first term is the joint sparsity regularization, $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) \|_2$, which encourages all the columns $\Psi(C)$ to share a common yet small support. The second term, $\sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1$, demands $ \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_j$ to be sparse under wavelet transform, based on the assumption that each frame of the observation matrix is image-like. The joint sparsity is critical to the success of reconstruction, due to the ambiguity introduced by the non-uniqueness within the state sequence estimation.
Computationally one immediately notices the first two terms are non-smooth and both involve $C$. Moreover, the first term operates on the row space of matrix $C$ while the second term operates on the column space of matrix $C$. In addition, the amount of data and the number of variables are large in our application. For these reasons, it is difficult to solve the optimization problem by off-the-shell algorithms for $\ell_1$ minimization. We propose to apply the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) [@gabay1876] in such a way that all subproblems are easy to solve and can handle a large amount of data in a short time.
### Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers
ADMM combines variable splitting techniques with the augmented Lagrangian method for solving constrained optimization with separable objective functions. It is also referred to as the alternating direction augmented Lagrangian method by several groups in the community. Alternating direction methods originated from solving PDEs [@douglas1956; @peaceman1955] and were later extended to solving variational problems associated with PDEs [@gabay1876]. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in fast optimization algorithms using ADMM methodology for solving $\ell_1$ and TV regularized problems [@goldstein2008; @afonso2010; @goldfarb2010; @yang2011]. A state-of-art algorithm solved for group sparsity problems, which include joint sparsity [@deng2011]. Our new algorithm is based on ADMM and is optimized for the best computational efficiency.
We first introduce additional variables to split the energy between different regularization terms, which results in the following constrained optimization, $$\label{prob17}
\begin{split}
\min_{U, V, C} & \hspace{2mm} \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j} \|_1
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2 \\
\text{s.t.\hspace{2mm}} & \hspace{2mm} \mathbf{u}_{(i)} = \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) \hspace{6mm} \mathbf{v}_{j} = \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j},
\end{split}$$ where we have introduced variables $U$ and $V$. The rows of $U \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ are $\mathbf{u}_{(i)}$, $i = 1,2,\cdots,n$, and the columns of $V \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ are $\mathbf{v}_{j}$, $j = 1,2,\cdots,d$.
To apply ADMM, we introduce the augmented Lagrangian of problem , $$\label{prob18}
\begin{split}
\min_{U, V, C} \hspace{2mm} & \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j} \|_1
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2 \\
& + \frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)} \|_2^2
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j} - \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j} \|_2^2,
\end{split}$$ where we use $\mathcal{L}(U,V,C)$ to denote the augmented Lagrangian, and use $\mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{\lambda}_{j}$ to denote the scaled Lagrange multipliers. When $C$ is fixed, minimizing over $U$ and $V$ are independent. Therefore, we apply ADMM to in which we alternate between minimizing its objective function over $U,V$ with fixed $C$ and minimizing it over $C$ with fixed $U,V$, along with the updates to $\mathbf{\lambda}_{j}$, $\mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}$. We summarize the algorithm flow in Algorithm \[alg3\] and explain in the next few subsections how to efficiently solve each of its subproblems.
Initialize $U \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $V \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $k = 0$.
**$U$-subproblem:**\
$ U^{k+1} = \arg \underset{U} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} \sum_{j=1}^{n} \alpha \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} \|_2 + \frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C^k) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2$
**$V$-subproblem:**\
$ V^{k+1} = \arg \underset{V} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \beta \| \mathbf{v}_{j} \|_1 + \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \| \mathbf{v}_{j} - \Psi(C^k) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2$
**$C$-subproblem:**\
$ C^{k+1} = \arg \underset{C} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm}
\frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2$
**Multipliers update:**\
$ \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^{k+1} = \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^{k} - \gamma (\mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} - \Psi \mathbf{c}_{(i)}^{k+1} )$ $ \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^{k+1} = \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^{k} - \gamma (\mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi \mathbf{c}_{j}^{k+1} )$
$k = k+1$
### Joint Sparsity
The $U$-subproblem models the joint sparsity between the different spatial factors within the observation matrix. Noticing the optimization is independent with respect to each row $\mathbf{u}_{(i)}$ of $U$, we therefore solve for $i = 1, 2, \hdots, n$, $$\label{eq:uprob}
\mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} = \arg \min_{\mathbf{u}_{(i)}} \hspace{1mm} \alpha \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} \|_2 + \frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C^k) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2.$$
For any $\lambda, \mu >0$ and $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n$, the minimizer to $$\min_{y} \lambda \|y\|_2 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|y-x\|_2^2$$ is given by $$y = \mathcal{S}_2 \big(x,\frac{\lambda}{\mu} \big) := \max \big\{\|x\|_2-\frac{\lambda}{\mu},0 \big\} \odot \frac{x}{\|x\|_2},$$ where $\odot$ denotes component-wise product and $\mathcal{S}_2$ stands for $\ell_2$-shrinkage.
One can derive closed-form solution to the U-subproblem , $$\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_{(i)} = \mathcal{S}_2 \big( \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C^k) + \mathbf{\kappa}^k_{(i)}, \frac{1}{\mu} \big),\quad i = 1, 2, \hdots, n.$$
### Wavelet Sparsity
The $V$-subproblem concerns the wavelet sparsity, and is reduced to a sequence of the same $\ell_1$ minimization problems with different data. Since computation on each column of $V$ matrix $\mathbf{v}_{j}$ is completely decoupled, we solve for each column independently. For $j = 1, 2, \hdots, d$, $$\label{eq:vprob}
\mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} = \arg \min_{ \mathbf{v}_{j} } \hspace{1mm} \beta \| \mathbf{v}_{j} \|_1 + \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \| \mathbf{v}_{j} - \Psi(C^k) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2.$$
For any $\lambda, \mu >0$ and $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n$, the minimizer to $$\min_{y} \lambda \|y\|_1 + \frac{\mu}{2} \|y-x\|_2^2$$ is given by $$y = \mathcal{S}_1 \big(x,\frac{\lambda}{\mu}\big) := \max \big\{|x|-\frac{\lambda}{\mu},0\big\} \odot \mathrm{sgn}(x).$$ where $\odot$ denotes component-wise product and $\mathcal{S}_1$ stands for $\ell_1$-shrinkage. The closed-form solution to the $V$-subproblem is $$\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_{j} = \mathcal{S}_1 \big( \Psi(C^k) \mathbf{e}_{j} + \mathbf{\lambda}^k_{j}, \frac{1}{\mu} \big),\quad j = 1, 2, \hdots, d.$$
### Reconstruction Fidelity
The $C$-subproblem, as it involves multiple terms and all the input data, is the most time consuming to solve. Specifically, it is $$\begin{split}
{C}^{k+1} = \arg \underset{C} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} &
\frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2 \nonumber \\
& + \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2.
\end{split}$$ Once we further write out the fidelity term, and utilizing the linearity property of the discrete Fourier transform, we have $$\begin{split}
H(C) & := \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2 \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \mathbf{c}_{j} \hat{x}_{t,j} \|_2^2 \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \sum_{j=1}^{d} \hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_{j} \|_2^2.
\end{split}$$ This leads to the following equivalent problem: $$\begin{split}
{C}^{k+1} = \arg \underset{C} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} &
\frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2 \\
& + \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \sum_{j=1}^{d} \hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_{j} \|_2^2.
\end{split}$$ In the $C$-subproblem, the first term operates in the row space while the second and third terms operate in the column space of the observation matrix $C$; this is undesirable computationally. However, it is easy to see $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{u}_{(i)}^{k+1} - \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) - \mathbf{\kappa}_{(i)}^k \|_2^2
= \| U^{k+1} - \Psi(C) - \Upsilon^{k} \|_F^2
= \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{u}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_{j} - \mathbf{\kappa}_{j}^k \|_2^2, \nonumber$$ which allows us to rewrite the $C$-subproblem as follows: $$\label{eq:cprob}
\begin{split}
C^{k+1} = \arg \underset{C} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} &
\frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{u}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi \mathbf{c}_{j} - \mathbf{\kappa}_{j}^k \|_2^2
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \mathbf{v}_{j}^{k+1} - \Psi \mathbf{c}_{j} - \mathbf{\lambda}_{j}^k \|_2^2 \\
& + \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \sum_{j=1}^{d} \hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_{j} \|_2^2.
\end{split}$$ We rewrite the above objective function as $$\begin{split}
& \frac{\alpha \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} (\Psi \mathbf{c}_j)^{\top} (\Psi \mathbf{c}_j) - 2 (\Psi \mathbf{c}_j)^{\top} (\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_j) + (\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_j)^{\top}(\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_j) \\
+ & \frac{\beta \mu}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{d} (\Psi \mathbf{c}_{j})^{\top}(\Psi \mathbf{c}_{j}) - 2 (\Psi \mathbf{c}_{j})^{\top} (\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_j) + (\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_j)^{\top}(\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_j-\mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_j) \\
+ & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{t=1}^{l} \sum_{j=1}^{d} (\hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_j)^{\top}(\hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_j)
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{t=1}^{l} \sum_{j \neq j'} (\hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_j)^{\top}(\hat{x}_{t,j'} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_{j'}) \\
- & \sum_{t=1}^{l} \sum_{i=1}^{d} (\hat{x}_{t,j} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_j)^{\top} \mathbf{z}_t + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{t=1}^{l} \mathbf{z}_t^{\top} \mathbf{z}_t.
\end{split}$$ By taking the first derivative of the objective function and setting it to zero, we derive the normal equation to problem . Note we use $\Psi$ to denote the wavelet operator, and $\Psi^{\dagger}$ to denote its adjoint operator. We use $\Phi_t$ to denote the row selector operator, and $\Phi_t^{\dagger}$ to denote its adjoint operator. Similarly, we use $\mathcal{F}$ to denote the Fourier operator, and $\mathcal{F}^{\dagger}$ to denote its adjoint operator. The normal equation is as follows: $$\label{eq:normal}
\begin{split}
& \frac{\alpha \mu}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & {\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & {\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{c}_1 \\
\mathbf{c}_2 \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{c}_d
\end{pmatrix}
+ \frac{\beta \mu}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & {\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & {\Psi}^{\dagger} {\Psi}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{c}_1 \\
\mathbf{c}_2 \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{c}_d
\end{pmatrix}
\\
+ & \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,1}^2 (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger}\Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,1} \hat{x}_{t,2} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \cdots & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,1} \hat{x}_{t,d} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \\
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,2} \hat{x}_{t,1} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,2}^2 (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \cdots & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,2} \hat{x}_{t,d} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,d} \hat{x}_{t,1} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,d} \hat{x}_{t,2} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F} & \cdots & \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,d}^2 (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \Phi_t \mathcal{F}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{c}_1 \\
\mathbf{c}_2 \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{c}_d
\end{pmatrix}
\\
= &
\alpha \mu
\begin{pmatrix}
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_1 - \mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_1) \\
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_2 - \mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_2) \\
\vdots \\
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{u}^{k+1}_d - \mathbf{\kappa}^{k}_d)
\end{pmatrix}
+
\beta \mu
\begin{pmatrix}
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_1 - \mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_1) \\
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_2 - \mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_2) \\
\vdots \\
\Psi^{\dagger} (\mathbf{v}^{k+1}_d - \mathbf{\lambda}^{k}_d)
\end{pmatrix}
+
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,1} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \mathbf{z}_t \\
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,2} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \mathbf{z}_t \\
\vdots \\
\sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,d} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \mathbf{z}_t \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}$$ We simplify the notation of the normal equation as $$\mathcal{LHS}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{c}_1 \\
\mathbf{c}_2 \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{c}_d
\end{pmatrix}
= \mathcal{RHS},$$ and one can immediately notice that the normal equation is not a diagonal system. In other words, $\mathbf{c}_j$’s are coupled. Solving for linear system directly can be computationally expensive.
We use the prox-linear method [@chen1994] to decouple the system. In stead of solving for Eqn. directly, we solve for the following problem using the prox-linear method that decouples all the $\mathbf{c}_j$’s: $$\mathbf{c}_j^{k+1} = \arg \min_{\mathbf{c}_j} q(\mathbf{c}_j^k)^{\top} (\mathbf{c}_j-\mathbf{c}_j^k) + \frac{1}{2\delta} \| \mathbf{c}_j-\mathbf{c}_j^k \|_2^2,$$ where $q(\mathbf{c}_j^k) = \nabla_C \mathcal{L}(U,V,C)$. This allows us to solve for each $\mathbf{c}_j$ using block coordinate descent in the Jacobian fashion, $$\label{eq:c-update}
\mathbf{c}_j^{k+1} = \mathbf{c}_j^{k} - \delta q(\mathbf{c}_j^k).$$ More careful inspection on $q(\mathbf{c}_j^k)$ reveals $$\begin{split}
q(\mathbf{c}_j^k) =
& \hspace{1mm} 2 \alpha \mu {\Psi}^{\dagger} \big({\Psi} \mathbf{c}_j^k - (\mathbf{u}_j^{k+1}-\kappa_j^k)\big) + 2 \beta \mu {\Psi}^{\dagger} \big({\Psi} \mathbf{c}_j^k -(\mathbf{v}_j^{k+1}-\lambda_j^k) \big) \\
& + \sum_t \hat{x}_{t,j}^2 ({\Phi}_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} {\Phi}_t \mathcal{F} \mathbf{c}_j^k - \sum_{t} \hat{x}_{t,j} (\Phi_t \mathcal{F})^{\dagger} \mathbf{z}_t.
\end{split}$$
### Theoretical Convergence
We now establish the convergence of Algorithm 2. We first rewrite the objective function of joint structured sparsity, in the unconstrained optimization form $$\min_{C} \hspace{2mm} \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(C) \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(C) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2,$$ as the constrained optimization
\[eq:copt\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{B,C} \hspace{2mm} & \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(B) \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(B) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2 \nonumber \\
\text{s.t.\hspace{2mm}} & B - C = 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We can further group the first two terms in the above constrained optimization together,
$$\begin{aligned}
\min_{B,C} \hspace{2mm} & f(B) + g(C) \nonumber \\
\text{s.t.\hspace{2mm}} & B - C = \mathbf{0}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
with $f(B) = \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(B) \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(B) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1$ and $g(C) = \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2$.
Consider the augmented Lagrangian function, $$\mathcal{L}(B,C,\lambda) = f(B) + g(C) + \frac{\mu}{2} \| B-C-\Lambda \|^2_F,$$ where $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ is the scaled Lagrangian multiplier and $\mu > 0$ is a penalty parameter. With the above reformulation, we can consolidate Algorithm 2 into a simplified version, see Algorithm 4. Global and linear convergence for generalized ADMM was analyzed in [@deng2012] for constrained convex optimization problems. We extend those theoretical results from vector case to matrix case below.
Initialize $B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, $k = 0$.
**B-subproblem:**\
$B^{k+1} \leftarrow \underset{B} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} \mathcal{L}(B, C^k, \lambda^k)$
**C-subproblem:**\
$C^{k+1} \leftarrow \underset{C} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} \mathcal{L}(B^{k+1}, C, \lambda^k)$
**Multiplier update:**\
$\Lambda^{k+1} \leftarrow \underset{\Lambda} {\text{min}} \hspace{2mm} \Lambda^{k} - \gamma (B^{k+1}-C^{k+1})$
$k = k+1$
The sequence $\{W^k\} := \{B^k, C^k, \Lambda^k\}$ generated by Algorithm \[alg4\] is guaranteed to be bounded. Moreover, if we assume there exists a saddle point $W^* := (B^*, C^*, \Lambda^*)$ to problem , and Hessian $H_g = \nabla^2 g$ satisfies the following condition, $$\frac{\max(\alpha \mu, \beta \mu)}{\frac{1}{\mu} - \| H_g \|} + \gamma < 2,$$ then the sequence $\{W^{k}\}$ generated by Algorithm 3 converges to a KKT point of $W^*$, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \| W^k - W^* \|_{F}^2 = 0.$$
First, we assume there exists a saddle point $W^*$, which means $(B^*,C^*,\Lambda^*)$ satisfies the KKT conditions of problem : $$\Lambda^* \in \partial f(B^*), \hspace{5mm} \Lambda^* \in \partial g(C^*), \hspace{5mm} B^*-C^*=\mathbf{0}.$$
Second, we verify that both functions $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are convex. We have $f(B) = \alpha \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| \mathbf{e}_{(i)} \Psi(B) \|_2 + \beta \sum_{j=1}^{d} \| \Psi(B) \mathbf{e}_j \|_1$ and $g(C) = \sum_{t=1}^{l} \frac{1}{2} \| \mathbf{z}_t - \Phi_t \mathcal{F} (C \hat{\mathbf{x}}_t) \|_2^2$. Since $\| \cdot \|_p$ is convex when $p \ge 1$, and the fact sum of convex functions is also convex, we can easily verify that both functions are convex.
Third, based on Theorem 2.3 remark 3 condition (i) in [@deng2012], we know that the sequence $\{W^k\}$ is bounded.
Having obtained these assumptions, it follows from Theorem 2.3 in [@deng2012] that $\{W^k\}$ has a converging subsequence $\{W^{k'}\}$, whose limit is $W^{*} := \lim_{k' \rightarrow \infty} W^{k'}$. Hence we have global convergence.
Dynamic MRI Reconstruction Quality
==================================
Impact of Sampling Strategies
-----------------------------
We now apply our algorithm to accelerate the acquisition process of dynamic MRI. Since the sampling strategy in the k-space has an impact on the reconstruction quality, we test three types of sampling strategies following the work of [@krahmer2012].
We first illustrate the impact of measurement matrix on the state sequence estimate. Figure \[fig:heartstate\] shows three measurement matrices that cover all range of frequencies, however follow different probability distributions:
- [*distance*:]{}\
probability of sampling falls over as inverse of squared distance to the k-space center.
- [*hyperbolic*:]{}\
probability of sampling falls over as a hyperbolic function in the k-space.
- [*uniform*:]{}\
probability of sampling is uniform in the k-space.
Sampling Strategy = *distance* SNR = 19.1 dB\
Our numerical results indicate the best measurement matrix design is to sample k-space according to the *distance* strategy, where one samples the k-space in a density that falls off as 1 over the squared distance to the center of k-space.
We show the reconstruction quality of dynamic MRI using different sampling strategies. The cardiac MRI dataset used in this experiment was described in [@zhang2010]. We obtained the reconstructed video for real-time MRI of a human heart, whose spatial resolution is subsampled at 128$\times$128 and temporal resolution is 33 ms, with 300 frames in total.
Note we only simulated a single coil with a homogeneous coil sensitivity map. We simulated k-t data by taking the Fourier transform and performing subsampling. Define the samples in Fourier space as $$\Omega = \{(\omega_1^k, \omega_2^k)\}_{k=1}^{m} \subset \{-\frac{n_x}{2}+1,\hdots,\frac{n_x}{2}, -\frac{n_y}{2}+1,\hdots,\frac{n_y}{2}\}$$ assuming a uniform Cartesian grid.
Sampling Strategy = *hyperbolic* SNR = 15.3 dB\
We show the reconstruction result for dynamic MRI with $10\%$ k-t data, using the *distance* sampling strategy in Figure \[fig:heartdistance\]. We construct $\Omega$ by subsampling the Fourier space i.i.d. according to density $$\eta(\omega_1,\omega_2) \propto (\omega_1^2 + \omega_2^2+1)^{-1}.$$ We attain a SNR of 19.1 dB in the reconstruction using the *distance* sampling strategy.
We show the reconstruction result for the dynamic MRI with $10\%$ k-t data, using the *hyperbolic* sampling strategy in Figure \[fig:hearthyperbolic\]. We construct $\Omega$ by subsampling the Fourier space i.i.d. according to density $$\eta(\omega_1,\omega_2) \propto (\omega_1^2 + \omega_2^2+1)^{-3/2}.$$ We attain a SNR of 15.3 dB in the reconstruction using the *hyperbolic* sampling strategy.
Sampling Strategy = *uniform* SNR = 7.1 dB\
We show the reconstruction result for the dynamic MRI with $10\%$ k-t data, using the *uniform* sampling strategy in Figure \[fig:heartuniform\]. We construct $\Omega$ by subsampling the Fourier space i.i.d. according to density $$\eta(\omega_1,\omega_2) \propto 1.$$ We attain a SNR of 7.1 dB in the reconstruction using the *uniform* sampling strategy.
Comparison with Prior Art
-------------------------
We compare kt-CSLDS with prior art in the literature, which includes kt-SPARSE, MASTeR, and L+S. Figure \[fig:heart1comp\] and Figure \[fig:heart2comp\] show the numerical results on two datasets described in [@zhang2010]. Both datasets can be downloaded from the paper website provided by the authors. Our numerical results show that kt-CSLDS achieves excellent reconstruction quality.
Table \[tab:snr\] compares the reconstruction SNR of different video compressive sensing models under various compression rate. Table \[tab:time\] shows their respective computation time. In comparison, kt-CSLDS achieves the best reconstruction quality while consuming the least computational time.
Model 10$\times$ 20$\times$ 30$\times$ 40$\times$ 50$\times$
----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
kt-SPARSE 13.0 dB 11.3 dB 10.5 dB 9.9 dB 9.5 dB
MASTeR 18.8 dB 14.6 dB 12.7 dB 11.6 dB 11.0 dB
L+S 15.8 dB 12.4 dB 10.7 dB 9.7 dB 9.3 dB
kt-CSLDS 19.1 dB 16.3 dB 15.0 dB 13.3 dB 12.8 dB
: Comparison of reconstruction SNR
\[tab:snr\]
Model 10$\times$ 20$\times$ 30$\times$ 40$\times$ 50$\times$
----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
kt-SPARSE 371.7 s 401.9 s 455.0 s 491.1 s 585.2 s
MASTeR 422.6 s 430.9 s 425.7 s 423.6 s 433.9 s
L+S 1390.2 s 1403.6 s 1402.8 s 1406.4 s 1406.4 s
kt-CSLDS 7.6 s 5.0 s 4.9 s 4.5 s 4.4 s
: Comparison of computation time
\[tab:time\]
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we built upon video compressive sensing ideas to accelerate the imaging acquisition process of dynamic MRI. We extended CS-LDS model to the Fourier-time space, resulting in so-called kt-CSLDS. Efficient numerical algorithm was derived based on ADMM. Theoretical analysis was carried out to ensure global convergence. Numerical results show that kt-CSLDS achieves favorable reconstruction quality while being computationally efficient, in comparison with state-of-the-art dynamic MRI compressive sensing literature.
LDS provides a compact model for video sequences, which approximates high-dimensional signal using low-dimensional representation. Therefore, kt-CSLDS benefits from such a compact representation, since the number of unknowns are much smaller compared with the original video cube. This explains why our model achieves high-fidelity reconstruction results given compressive measurements. The computational speed we gain is a result of both smaller dimensionality of the optimization problem and customized algorithm based on ADMM.
There are many ways to build upon the current kt-CSLDS framework. Our current methodology takes all the video data and performs batch process. Future work seeks online version of the current reconstruction algorithm. Regarding the measurement strategy, we have shown empirically that the best strategy is to sample the k-space according to the *distance* strategy. Such a result is consistent with theory for Fourier compressive sensing for static MR imaging [@krahmer2012]. It remains an open theoretical question why such a strategy is optimal for video compressive sensing.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Rachel Ward for generously providing the code to generate the sampling patterns in the k-space.
[^1]: Corresponding author’s email address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In loop quantum gravity, the area element of embedded spatial surfaces is given by a well-defined operator. We further characterize the quantized geometry of such surfaces by proposing definitions for operators quantizing scalar curvature and mean curvature. By investigating their properties, we shed light on the nature of the geometry of surfaces in loop quantum gravity.
We also investigate the entanglement entropy across surfaces in the case where spin network edges are running within the surface. We observe that, on a certain class of states, the entropy gradient across a surface is proportional to the mean curvature. In particular, the entanglement entropy is constant for small deformations of a minimal surface in this case.
author:
- David Grüber
- Hanno Sahlmann
- Thomas Zilker
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: The geometry and entanglement entropy of surfaces in loop quantum gravity
---
Introduction {#se_intro}
============
The quantization of spatial geometry is a cornerstone of loop quantum gravity (LQG) [@Thiemann:2007zz; @Ashtekar:2004eh]. Operators for the volume of spatial regions and the area of spatial surfaces had been defined early on [@Rovelli:1994ge; @Ashtekar:1996eg; @Ashtekar:1997fb] and became important for the further development of the field. The quantization of the Hamiltonian constraint [@Thiemann:1996aw; @Thiemann:1996av] and the quantum theory of isolated horizons [@Smolin:1995vq; @Rovelli:1996dv; @Ashtekar:1997yu; @Engle:2010kt] are examples of this.
The eigenstates for the spatial geometry are the spin network states. The picture that emerges is, broadly speaking, that the vertices of the spin networks of valence four and higher contribute volume and that the edges can be considered as flux-tubes of area. But the finer details of this picture remain unclear. This is partially because the theory of spatial geometry in LQG is a genuine quantum theory. For example, area operators for intersecting surfaces do not commute, and thus they cannot be simultaneously diagonalized. Hence, any classical picture of the geometry will have to be lacking in important aspects. A notable refinement of the picture came in the form of the proposal that vertices correspond to polyhedra in flat space [@Bianchi:2010gc]. Indeed, there is a close correspondence between SU(2) intertwiner spaces and the quantization of a certain phase space corresponding to such flat polyhedra. However, although the quantum theory based on the polyhedra picture is closely related to that in LQG [@Bianchi:2011ub], they are not the same. How they are related in detail is currently an open question.
Another important aspect of the quantum theory of spatial geometry is the following: Since LQG is a quantum theory, the standard notions of quantum information theory apply (see for example [@Girelli:2005ii]). In particular, there is entanglement across surfaces, and one can define the corresponding entanglement entropy [@Donnelly:2008vx]. It was conjectured already in [@Donnelly:2008vx] that there should be a correspondence between entanglement entropy and geometric quantities. However, it remains unclear which geometric aspect of a surface or the bulk spaces that it divides is related to the entropy.
In the present work, we want to investigate the kinematic quantum geometry of surfaces. We consider scalar curvature $$\label{eq_R}
R={{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}R_{abcd} \,{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g^{bd}\,{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g^{ac}$$ and mean curvature $$\label{eq_K}
H=\frac{1}{2}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}K_{ab}\,{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g^{ab},$$ and their counterparts in the quantum theory. Here, ${{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}R$ and ${{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g$ denote Riemann curvature tensor and metric of a two dimensional surface, and ${{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}K$ is the extrinsic curvature of its embedding into space.\
Our motivation is threefold:
1. The geometric quantities and are interesting in their own right. For example, they can shed light on the question whether surfaces have symmetries, which is relevant to the calculation of black hole entropy.
2. Whether the curvature of surfaces is a meaningful concept in the quantum theory can inform the broad picture of geometry in LQG. One also gains intuition for the quantization of more complicated geometric quantities, and guidance for the choice of semiclassical states.
3. For surfaces that divide space into disconnected parts, one can define the corresponding entanglement entropy. This begs the question if, and if so, how, this entropy is related to the geometry of the surface.
In order to define operators for various curvature invariants, we will express them in terms of simpler geometric quantities for which operators are available in LQG. Similar ideas have been used before to propose operators for the scalar curvature in three dimensions [@Alesci:2014aza; @Nemoul:2018vtt].\
Some cautious remarks are in order: Often, the spatial geometry is not an observable in the sense of Dirac. Therefore, the properties of kinematical states and operators acting on them are not necessarily indicative of the situation after the constraints have been taken into account. This point has been discussed in a controversial fashion [@Dittrich:2007th; @Rovelli:2007ep]. At least in loop quantum cosmology, the kinematical quantum geometry also describes the dynamical sector [@Kaminski:2007ew]. In addition, there are situations in which the geometry of a surface is a Dirac observable, for example, the area of an isolated horizon. Finally, one can deparametrize the theory classically using matter fields as reference systems [@Brown:1994py]. In LQG, this can lead to a theory in which the kinematical Hilbert space, as well as the geometric operators thereon, can become physical [@Giesel:2007wn; @Giesel:2012rb]. In view of all this, it is fair to say, however, that a general statement about the physical validity of our results cannot be made. We will consider gauge invariant states, and the surfaces we consider could conceivably be defined by matter fields. We thus see no obstacle to extending our results to the space of diffeomorphism invariant states. But the Hamilton constraint is not taken into account. Alternatively, one can deparametize the theory [@Giesel:2007wn], whereupon the results would become physical.
Background
==========
In the following, we will briefly review some aspects of the geometry of surfaces, as well as the relevant properties of geometric operators in LQG.
Intrinsic geometry via small circles
------------------------------------
### Smooth geometries {#ssec:Circ_and_curv}
In [@gray1974], the formulas for the volume and the surface area of a small, n-dimensional geodesic ball have been given as a power series in its radius $\epsilon$. Specializing to $n=2$, we obtain $$U(S_{\epsilon}) = 2 \pi \epsilon \left ( 1 - \frac{R}{12} \epsilon^{2} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{4}) \right)
\label{eqn:CircOfGeoBallOnManifold}$$ for the circumference and $$A(S_{\epsilon}) = \pi \epsilon^{2} \left( 1 - \frac{R}{24} \epsilon^{2} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{4}) \right)
\label{eqn:AreaOfGeoBallOnManifold}$$ for the area of a small disc in an arbitrary manifold. Here, $R$ denotes the Ricci scalar (or scalar curvature) at the center of the circle. Note that, in the flat (zero curvature) case, these formulas reduce to the standard expressions for circumference and area of a circle in Euclidean geometry. Consider now the combination $$\begin{aligned}
4 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - U(S_{\epsilon})^{2} &= 4 \pi^{2} \epsilon^{4} R \left( \frac{1}{6} - \frac{1}{24} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{2}) \right)\\
&= \frac{\pi^{2}}{2} \epsilon^{4} R + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{6}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Solving this expression for the Ricci scalar, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R &= \frac{ 8 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - 2\, U(S_{\epsilon})^{2} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{6})}{\pi^{2} \epsilon^{4}}\\
&= \frac{ 8 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - 2\, U(S_{\epsilon})^{2}}{\pi^{2} \epsilon^{4}} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{2}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in the limit of small radii, we are left with $$\label{eq:Rclass}
R = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{ 8 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - 2\, U(S_{\epsilon})^{2}}{\pi^{2} \epsilon^{4}} \, .$$ At this point, there is an ambiguity in whether to express the fourth power of $\epsilon$ in the denominator in terms of the area or the circumference. In full generality, we can even write $$\pi^{2} \, \epsilon^{4} = \frac{1}{\left( 4 \pi \right)^{2-2\alpha}} A^{2\alpha} U^{4 - 4\alpha} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{5}) \, ,$$ which holds for arbitrary (real) values of the parameter $\alpha$. Since we evaluate the right hand side of equation in the limit of vanishing $\epsilon$, we are going to neglect the higher order corrections in the previous expression for $\pi^{2} \epsilon^{4}$. Substituting this back into equation then leads to $$R = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \left(4\pi\right)^{2-2\alpha} \, \frac{ 8 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - 2\, U(S_{\epsilon})^{2}}{A^{2\alpha} U^{4 - 4\alpha}}$$ for the scalar curvature. Using this formula to calculate the scalar curvature of a sphere, i.e., inserting $$\label{eq:Usphere}
U = 2 \pi r \sin{\theta}$$ and $$\label{eq:Asphere}
A = 2 \pi r^{2} \left( 1 - \cos{\theta} \right)$$ into the previous equation (where $\theta = \frac{\epsilon}{r}$, with $r$ the radius of the sphere and $\epsilon$ the radius of the circle around the point at which we want to determine the curvature), we obtain $$R = \frac{8}{4^{\alpha} r^{2} \left( 1 + \cos{\theta} \right)^{2-2\alpha}} \, .
\label{eqn:ScalarCurvatureOfSphereWithAlpha}$$ If we assume $\theta$ to be small (i.e., $\epsilon << r$), this formula approximates the curvature of a sphere of radius $r$ correctly for arbitrary choices of the parameter $\alpha$, as can be seen from the Taylor expansion $$R \approx \frac{2}{r^{2}} \left[ 1 + \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \frac{\theta^{2}}{2} + \mathcal{O}(\theta^{4}) \right] \, .$$ However, if we choose $\alpha = 1$, the dependence on $\theta$ drops out completely (which can also easily be seen from equation ) and the formula then gives the exact expression for the curvature of a sphere irrespective of the radius of the circle we use to measure it. In the following, we will therefore set $\alpha = 1$ and work with $$R = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{ 8 \pi A(S_{\epsilon}) - 2\, U(S_{\epsilon})^{2}}{A(S_{\epsilon})^{2}} \, .
\label{eqn:ScalarCurvViaAreaAndCirc}$$ Note that there is also another possibility to extract an expression for the scalar curvature in terms of $A$ and $U$ from equations and . We can simply negelect the terms of order $\epsilon^{4}$ (and higher) in both equations and solve the truncated equations for the scalar curvature $R$ by eliminating the radius $\epsilon$. This approach leads to $$R = \frac{6 \pi}{A} \left[ 1 - \frac{U^{2}}{8 \pi A} - \frac{U^{4}}{128 \pi^{2} A^{2}} - \frac{U^{3}}{16 \pi A^{2}} \, \sqrt{\frac{U^{2}}{64 \pi^{2}} + \frac{A}{2 \pi}} \right] .
\label{eqn:ScalarCurvComplicatedExpr}$$ Just as equation , this formula correctly yields vanishing curvature when inserting the expressions for area and circumference of a circle in flat geometry. Also, when inserting the relations on a sphere, the correct result of $R = \sfrac{2}{r^{2}}$ is obtained if the radius of the circle tends to zero. However, equation has the benefit of exactly reproducing the curvature for the spherical case without the need of taking a limit. This advantage, together with the fact that it is also a considerably simpler expression, convinced us to use equation rather than for the purpose of constructing a corresponding quantum operator.\
Classically, our formula for the scalar curvature always yields an exact result. In the quantum theory, however, where geometry becomes discrete, we cannot guarantee the existence of a sufficiently small circle. Therefore, the quality of our approximation strongly relies on whether $\epsilon^2R$ (together with similar terms containing other curvature scalars, which appear at higher orders in and ) are small compared to unity. This means that the radius of curvature must be large compared to the radius of the circle. In order to evaluate this condition we introduce a quantity which we call the coverage and which is motivated from the positive curvature case as follows: At points with positive curvature, the radius of curvature describes the radius of the sphere that gives the best approximation of the surface under consideration at the given point. The condition for our approximation means that the circles we consider can only cover a small portion of that sphere. If we center the circles at the north pole of the sphere, the inclination angle $\alpha$ of any point on the circle gives a measure for how much of the sphere is covered by the circle.
Similar considerations can be applied to the hyperbolic case ($R < 0$), where we approximate the local geometry by that of a hyperboloid embedded in Minkowski space. With $r$ being the radius of curvature of the hyperboloid in its standard parametrization and $\epsilon$ being the intrinsic radius of a circle around the hyperboloid’s pole, we define $\alpha=-\frac{\epsilon}{r}$. The net result is then the occurrence of the hyperbolic cosine instead of the trigonometric cosine in the formula for $\alpha$, which leads to the coverage no longer having the interpretation of an angle. Altogether, we obtain $${\alpha {\left(}U, \, A {\right)}}=
\begin{cases}
\quad\arccos\left(\frac{U^2}{2\pi A}-1\right)& \text{ for } R>0\\
- \operatorname{arcosh}\left(\frac{U^2}{2\pi A}-1\right)& \text{ for } R\leq0
\end{cases} \, .
\label{eq:AUA}$$ The minus sign in the case $R\leq0$ is an arbitrary choice that will later help to distinguish more clearly between surfaces that are positively or negatively curved, respectively. For the purposes for which we use $\alpha$, this sign has no direct mathematical relevance and hence, if we speak of $\alpha$ getting large or small in the following, we always refer to the modulus of $\alpha$, unless stated otherwise. In summary, the approximation we use to define the curvature is better, the smaller the value of $\alpha$ is.\
Instead of starting from the expression for the area of a circle on a sphere/hyperboloid, we could have equally used the formula for its circumference (for the sphere see ) as a starting point. Pursuing this strategy leads to the same overall results. However, the details of the calculation differ and are a little more involved because of domain issues and the occurrence of a square root. We therefore decided to work with the expression obtained from the approach using the area formula.\
Note that this is not the only significance of $\alpha$. Recall that there is a close relationship between curvature and topology for surfaces. For a closed surface $S$, we have the Gauss-Bonnet theorem $$\int_S R\, \text{d}A = 4\pi\chi ( S )
\label{eq:GaussBonnet}$$ with $\chi ( S )$ being the Euler characteristic of $S$. For later use, we note that the contribution of a small geodesic disc $S_\epsilon$ to this integral is, according to , given by $$\label{eq:chiC}
8 \pi - 2\, \frac{U(S_{\epsilon})^{2}}{A(S_{\epsilon})}.$$ This contribution can also be expressed in terms of the coverage $\alpha$. For the case $R>0$, e.g., it is given by $$AR=4\pi(1-\cos\alpha) \, .$$
### Cone-like geometries
So far, we have considered surfaces that are globally smooth. As it is unclear if this is an appropriate description for quantum surfaces, we will now briefly discuss surfaces with a cone-like singularity. Lacking a suitable definition of general conical geometries, we will investigate circles on cones with a flat metric away from the tip. We will assume that the formulas we obtain will - in the limit of small circles - also hold true in case of the metric not being flat. Since, also in the case of arbitrary smooth surfaces, circumference and area of a circle take approximately the same form as on maximally symmetric surfaces if they are sufficiently small, this assumption seems to be justified.
A cone can be parametrized in terms of its defect angle $\lambda\in [0,\, 2\pi)$. We can also extend this definition to arbitrary negative $\lambda$, in case of which the underlying geometry will turn hyperbolic. In terms of circumference and area of a circle around the apex, the defect angle is in both cases given as $$\lambda=2\pi - \frac{U^2}{2A} \, .
\label{eq:lambdaofUandA}$$ In contrast to the surfaces we have studied so far, the cones have distributional curvature, i.e., they are flat away from their apex, while at the apex itself the curvature diverges. As a consequence, the integral on the left hand side of the theorem of Gauss-Bonnet is not well-defined a priori. However, we can circumvent this problem by replacing the conical surface within a small circle of radius $\epsilon_0$ around the singularity by a spherical/hyperbolical hat (for $\lambda$ positive/negative) while demanding a smooth transition between both manifolds[^1]. One can show that this requirement fixes the surface area of the smooth hat to $$A_{\text{hat}} = \pm r^2 \lambda \, ,$$ where $r$ is the curvature parameter of the spherical/hyperbolical hat, and therefore it does not depend explicitly on the position $\epsilon_0$ of the cutoff. As we replaced the singularity by a smooth surface of constant curvature $\pm 2 r^{-2}$, the Gauss-Bonnet surface integral is now well-defined and only collects a contribution from the smooth hat. Hence, the Euler characteristic of the cone-like surface is - neglecting the boundary term - purely determined by $\lambda$.
Mean curvature and area change {#ssec:meancurvclassical}
------------------------------
It is well known that one can obtain the mean curvature $H$, which is proportional to the trace of the extrinsic curvature of an embedded surface, by determining variations in the surface area due to displacements along a geodesic field [@Wald:1984rg]. Let us sketch the setup for the convenience of the reader.
We consider a two-surface $S$ embedded in a spatial three-manifold $\Sigma$, the latter of which being equipped with a metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$. Use Gaussian normal coordinates in a neighborhood of $S$, i.e., the set $\lbrace e^1(p), \, e^2(p), \, \ell \rbrace$, where $e^a$ are coordinates on $S$ and $\ell$ is an affine parameter of geodesics orthogonal to $S$. $\ell$ can be used to define a family of surfaces $S_\ell$ by displacing $S$ along the geodesic field. Furthermore, let $\xi^\alpha(p)$ denote the tangent of the geodesic through $p$. Then the reduced metric is $h_{\alpha \beta}=g_{\alpha \beta}-\xi_\alpha \xi_\beta$, and the intrinsic metric on $S$ is ${{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}=h_{\alpha \beta}e^\alpha_a e^\beta_b$, where the $e$ are the tangent vectors given by the coordinates on $S$. By definition, the extrinsic curvature $K_{\alpha \beta}$ measures the normal component of the covariant derivative of tangent vectors of a surface. In the adapted coordinates we use, it can also be expressed as a partial derivative of $h_{\alpha \beta}$ along the geodesic field, i.e., $K_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\ell h_{\alpha \beta}$, and the mean curvature then equals half of its trace: $H=\frac{1}{2}h^{\alpha\beta}K_{\alpha\beta}$. We can relate $H$ to the change of the area element $\sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}}$ as we displace $S$ along the geodesic field$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\ell \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}} &= \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}} \, {{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g^{ab} \frac{1}{2} \partial_\ell {{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab} \\
&= \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}} \, {{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g^{ab} K_{\alpha \beta}e^\alpha_a e^\beta_b \\
&= 2 \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}} \, H \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The calculation shows that the mean curvature is proportional to the relative change of the area element on the surfaces $S_\ell$: $$H=\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}}} \frac{\partial \sqrt{\text{det}{{}^{(2)} \hspace{-0.5ex}}g_{ab}}}{\partial \ell} \, .
\label{eq:extrinsicAreaDeri}$$
Area and length in loop quantum gravity
---------------------------------------
As we have seen in section \[ssec:Circ\_and\_curv\], the Ricci curvature at a point can be calculated using an expression that depends only on the area and the circumference of a small circle around that point. If we want to use this formula to promote the curvature to an operator in the quantum theory, we will therefore need quantum operators representing area and length observables. Fortunately, there exist proposals for both of them in the loop quantum gravity literature.\
An area operator for loop quantum gravity has already been introduced in the early years of the theory [@Rovelli:1994ge], with the full details worked out in [@Ashtekar:1996eg]. Its action on a general cylindrical function $\Psi_\gamma$ is given by [^2] $$A_S \Psi_\gamma = 4 \pi \beta \, l_\text{P}^2 \sum_\alpha \left[ \sum_{I_\alpha, J_\alpha} \kappa_{I_\alpha}\kappa_{J_\alpha} X^i_{I_\alpha}X^i_{J_\alpha} \right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \Psi_\gamma \, ,
\label{eq:areaOperator}$$ where the first sum is over intersections $\alpha$ of the spin network graph $\gamma$ with the surface $S$ and the second sum runs over all pairs of edges $I_{\alpha}$, $J_{\alpha}$ incident at $\alpha$. $l_\text{P}=\sqrt{\hbar G}$ denotes the Planck length, with $G$ being Newton’s constant. The numerical factor $\kappa_{I}$ associated to the edge $I$ is $+1$ if the edge $I$ lies above the surface $S$, $-1$ if it is below $S$ and $0$ if it lies entirely within $S$ (or does not intersect $S$ at all, but since we only sum over edges incident at punctures, this case does not occur in the expression for the area operator). Lastly, assuming all the edges are outgoing at the vertices in the surface, the $X^{i}_{I_{\alpha}}$ denote the $i$-th component of the left-invariant vector field acting in the representation space associated to the edge $I_{\alpha}$. At a single puncture (possibly with multiple incident edges), the eigenvalues of the area operator are of the form $$\begin{split}
\lambda_{\alpha} &=4\pi \beta \, l_\text{P}^2 \times \\
&\quad \sqrt{2j^u\left (j^u+1\right)+2j^d (j^d+1 )-j^{u+d}(j^{u+d}+1 )} \, ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:areaSpectrum}$$ where $j^{u}$, $j^{d}$ and $j^{u+d}$ denote the spins obtained from coupling the spins of all incident edges lying above, below or within $S$, respectively. The eigenvalues of the area operator on the full surface are then given by the sum of the individual contributions of the punctures. Note that the coupled spins $j^{u}$, $j^{d}$ and $j^{u+d}$ depend on the intertwiner at the puncture.\
A length operator for LQG was defined in [@Thiemann:1996at]. Acting on a function cylindrical on a graph $\gamma$, it takes the form $$L(s)=\frac{1}{8\pi l_\text{P}^2}\sum_{\nu \in V ( \gamma )} \sum_{\nu \in s_i} \sqrt{-8 \, \text{tr} ( [ h_{s_i},\, V_\nu ] [ h_{s_i}^{-1},\, V_\nu ] ) } \, .
\label{eq:defLengthOp}$$ Here, the curve $s$, along which the length is taken, is broken up into pieces $s_i$ that intersect $\gamma$ only in one of their endpoints, and, if not already present, a vertex is added to $\gamma$ at the intersection point. $V_\nu$ denotes the volume operator acting at the vertex $\nu$. [@Thiemann:1996at] employs the Ashtekar-Lewandowski version [@Ashtekar:1997fb] of this operator.
The length operator is important for the current work as it can be used to determine radius or circumference of small circles. Let us consider a circle around a vertex, as sketched in figure \[fig:circrad\].
The radius $\epsilon$ receives a single contribution from the central vertex (marked 3 in the figure). The problem with the radius is that the action of the corresponding operator involves the action of the volume operator on a vertex of high valence (5-valent in the example in figure \[fig:circrad\]), for which there is no known closed formula.
The circumference, on the other hand, receives potential contributions from the edges running out of the vertex, but inside the surface (marked 1,2 in figure \[fig:circrad\]). However, these contributions vanish because of the properties of the AL volume operator, specifically, because of the fact that three linearly independent tangent vectors to edges are necessary to give a non-zero contribution. This can never be the case for vertices at which only edges running within the surface meet. A possible way out is to use the volume operator of Rovelli and Smolin [@Rovelli:1994ge] (RS volume – see [@Ashtekar:2004eh] for a definition in modern terms). However, there are two potential problems. One is that it is not clear whether the definition for the length operator [@Thiemann:1996at] goes through also with the RS volume, because of its different properties. The other problem is that the RS volume might be inconsistent with the semiclassical limit [@Giesel:2005bk; @Giesel:2005bm].
In the present work, we will make the choice to work with the length operator expressed in terms of the RS volume. We have checked that, for the circle in figure \[fig:jujdjud\], the length operator is well-defined and has the spectrum $$l=2\sqrt{8\pi\beta}\, l_P\sqrt[4]{{j^{u+d}}({j^{u+d}}+1)} \, .
\label{eq:lengthSpectrum2valent}$$ The more general case of a three-valent vertex, in which the length is evaluated along one of the edges, is also needed later. Again we have checked that the RS volume works in this case, and that the spectrum is unchanged from the original definition. It is given by [@Thiemann:1996at]
$$\begin{aligned}
l = & \frac{\sqrt{8\pi\beta}\, l_P}{2\sqrt{j_3+\tfrac{1}{2}}}\sqrt{(j_3+1)\sqrt{(j_1+j_2+j_3+2)(j_1+j_2-j_3)(j_2+j_3-j_1+1)(j_3+j_1-j_2+1)}} \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \overline{ +j_3\sqrt{(j_1+j_2+j_3+1)(j_1+j_2-j_3+1)(j_2+j_3-j_1)(j_3+j_2-j_1)} } \, ,
\label{eq:lengthSpectrum3valent}
\end{aligned}$$
where the representation $j_3$ is on the edge along which the length is measured.
Entanglement entropy in loop quantum gravity
--------------------------------------------
In the previous sections, we have focused on the geometric properties of surfaces in their own right. We have seen that their extrinsic geometry comprises information that cannot be obtained purely by measurements within the surfaces themselves. Instead, quantities requiring knowledge about the metric of the ambient space - at least in a vicinity of these surfaces - are inevitable. However, focusing on their embedding in space, their geometry is not the only aspect worth investigating. Consider a surface $S$ that separates the higher-dimensional bulk space into two disjoint regions. Then, according to information theory, these regions are possibly subjected to quantum entanglement and, in fact, this entanglement can be measured in LQG [@Donnelly:2008vx]. Let $\Sigma$ be a spatial slice that is in a particular (pure) spin network state $\ket{\Psi_\gamma}$. The slice is divided into two regions $\Omega$ and $\bar{\Omega}$ by an arbitrary surface $S$ which has no internal degrees of freedom (i.e., there are only trivial intertwiners sitting on the boundary). The spin network state can then be decomposed as a direct product of extended spin network states, defined on the subspaces $\Omega$ and $\bar{\Omega}$: $$\ket{\Psi_\gamma}={\left(}\prod_{p=1}^P \frac{1}{\sqrt{2j_p+1}} {\right)}\sum_{\vec{a}} \ket{\Psi_\Omega,\, \vec{a}} \otimes \ket{\Psi_{\bar{\Omega}},\, \vec{a}} \, .
\label{eq:SN_SchmidtDeco}$$ The sum is understood to be running over all punctures $p$ at which $S$ is penetrated by edges of $\gamma$, and each vector $\vec{a}$ represents the expansion of the intertwiner at such a puncture in its $2j_p+1$ dimensional representation space. One can show that the states $\ket{\Psi_\Omega,\, \vec{a}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\bar{\Omega}},\, \vec{a}}$ are orthonormal and therefore can be interpreted as a Schmidt decomposition of the pure state $\ket{\Psi_\gamma}$. It is straightforward to calculate the entanglement in this case, and it turns out to be a logarithmic function of the edge spins penetrating $S$: $$\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(\Omega ) = \sum_{p=1}^P \ln{( 2j_p+1 )} \, .
\label{eq:SN_entropy}$$ This entanglement entropy is symmetric, i.e., $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(\Omega)=\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(\bar{\Omega)}$. Furthermore, as calculations are performed in the basis of spin network states that are also eigenstates of the known geometric operators, we are able to measure the entanglement between the subspaces as well as the geometric properties of the surface $S$ separating them at the same time. For our later purposes, we will extend the method presented here in section \[sec:entropymeancurvature\], allowing for $S$ to carry internal degrees of freedom.
Quantum geometry of surfaces {#sec_quantgeo}
============================
Scalar curvature
----------------
### Scalar curvature operator
Now, after all the classical considerations about intrinsic and extrinsic curvature of surfaces, and after having introduced the basic geometric operators of loop quantum gravity, we are finally ready to define quantum operators corresponding to these classical quantities. Let us start with the scalar curvature operator. A classical formula for this quantity was given in equation . As already stated there, this formula expresses the scalar curvature at a point as a limit over shrinking circles centered at that point and it only depends on the area and the circumference of these small circles. Having introduced quantum operators corresponding to length and area in the previous section, we could simply replace these quantities in the classical expression by their corresponding quantum operators, leading to $$\widehat{R}_{p} \coloneqq \lim_{r_{c_{p}} \rightarrow 0} \frac{8\pi}{\widehat{A}(c_{p})}-\frac{2\, \widehat{U}^2(c_{p})}{\widehat{A}^2(c_{p})} \, ,
\label{eq:KOperator}$$ where $c_{p}$ represents a circle centered around $p$ and $r_{c_{p}}$ denotes its radius. Unfortunately, however, the fact that the kernel of the area operator is non-empty forces us to be a little more careful with the definition of this operator. For the purpose of this discussion, as well as throughout the rest of the paper, we will always work with eigenstates of both, the area operator and the length operator measuring the circumference of a circle around the point under consideration. This is possible since the area operator and the circumference operator act at different points of the spin network and therefore commute with each other. Given a specific circle in our manifold and an arbitrary eigenstate of the circle’s area and circumference operators, we can have either of the following three situations:
1. The eigenvalues of both area and circumference operator in this state are zero.
2. The area eigenvalue equals zero but the circumference operator has non-zero eigenvalue.
3. The area operator has non-vanishing eigenvalue.
These are schematically depicted in figure \[fig:conf\].
![Three possible configurations for circles on a surface in a given spin network state[]{data-label="fig:conf"}](./figures/cases.eps){width=".9\columnwidth"}
The third case is the simplest, since it allows us to directly use equation to obtain a finite value for the curvature. Note that, in this case, curvature is always concentrated at punctures since the definition of the curvature is given as a limit of shrinking circles (keeping their center fixed) and thus they only have non-vanishing area if there is a puncture in the center of the circle.\
The second case describes a degenerate circle and occurs if the only spin network edges that touch the circle are lying entirely within the surface. Obviously, the expression for the curvature diverges in this case. One way to resolve this issue is to define a constant $c_1$ and use it to associate a finite curvature to points where this situation occurs. Another option would be to leave the scalar curvature operator undefined on states for which this situation occurs at the point under consideration. However, for a given point $p$, this would make it necessary to pay close attention to what states the operator $\widehat{R}_{p}$ is defined on and expressions containing the action of $R_{p}$ on a spin network state would never be well-defined without fixing the point $p$. We will therefore stick to the first option.\
The first case is the most generic since most circles in the spatial manifold will not touch the spin network at all. In this case, the circumference and the area are both equal to zero. This again leads to a divergent expression for the curvature and we will deal with this divergence in the same way as for the second case, but using a different constant $c_{2}$.\
Note that, in the first and second case, we are considering circles that have no area. Classically, such degenerate circles are not capable of detecting curvature. However, in classical geometry we can find arbitrarily small circles around every point that have non-vanishing area. This is not the case in the quantum geometry described by loop quantum gravity. Therefore, it seems natural to choose $c_1 = c_2 = 0$ and ascribe curvature only to such points, where a spin network edge punctures the surface. With this choice, the full scalar curvature operator is then given by $$\widehat{R}_{p} \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
\lim_{r_{c_{p}} \rightarrow 0} \frac{4\pi}{\widehat{A}(c_{p})}-\frac{\widehat{U}^2(c_{p})}{\widehat{A}^2(c_{p})} &\quad \text{if $p$ is a puncture} \\
0 &\quad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases} \, .$$
Finally, we consider the quantization of the coverage angle . Its quantum version can be obtained by substituting $U$ and $A$ with their respective quantum operators. The same divergences as in the case of the scalar curvature operator also show up here, and, in analogy to the scalar curvature operator, we choose the coverage angle operator to be non-zero only at punctures. At a puncture, the general coverage operator is therefore defined as $$\widehat{\alpha}_{p} \coloneqq \lim_{r_{c_{p}} \rightarrow 0} \begin{cases}
\quad\arccos\left(\frac{\widehat{U}(c_{p})^2}{2\pi \widehat{A}(c_{p})}-1\right)& \text{ for } R_{p}>0\\
-\operatorname{arcosh}\left(\frac{\widehat{U}(c_{p})^2}{2\pi \widehat{A}(c_{p})}-1\right)& \text{ for } R_{p}\leq0
\end{cases} \, .
\label{eq:alphoperator}$$ In the section on curvature, we also mentioned the possibility of conical curvature singularities. In this case, curvature is quantified by the defect angle which can be quantized analogously to the scalar curvature, i.e., by replacing area and circumference with their corresponding quantum operators and treating the kernel of the area operator in the same way as before. This leads to $$\widehat{\lambda}_{p} \coloneqq \begin{cases} \lim_{r_{c_{p}} \rightarrow 0} \left( 2\pi - \frac{\widehat{U}(c_{p})^2}{2\widehat{A}(c_{p})} \right) & \quad \text{if p is a puncture}\\
0 & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:lamboperator}$$ as an expression for the defect angle operator in the quantum theory.
Finally, we can also give an expression for the Gauss-Bonnet integral in the quantum theory: $$\label{eq:quantumgb}
\int_S \widehat{R}\, \text{d}\widehat{A} =
\sum_p \lim_{r_{c_p}\rightarrow 0} \left[8 \pi - 2\, \frac{\widehat{U}(c_p)^{2}}{\widehat{A}(c_p)}\right]\, ,$$ where the sum over $p$ denotes a sum over punctures.
### Spectrum and physical implications
In the following, we will discuss the spectrum of the intrinsic geometry for special spin network configurations. We will consider a puncture that has at most one holonomy running tangentially, but is otherwise generic, like the one depicted in figure \[fig:vertex\].
![\[fig:vertex\]Vertex type for the discussion of intrinsic curvature](./figures/generic.eps){width=".9\columnwidth"}
We can then choose a recoupling scheme that makes the vertex effectively three valent, as in figure \[fig:jujdjud\]. In the following, we will consider a basis element from this recoupling scheme. We will denote the spins as in figure \[fig:jujdjud\]: ${j^u},\,{j^d}$ and ${j^{u+d}}$. These spins have to fulfill the coupling rules for angular momenta.
The first case we consider is ${j^{u+d}}=0$. Then ${j^u}={j^d}$ and the curvature eigenvalues scale with $j^{-1}$. In this case, however, $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ take values of $\pi$ and $2\pi$, respectively, which corresponds to full coverage.
Next, we discuss vertices with one transversal edge and no edge below the surface, i.e., ${j^d}= 0$ and ${j^u}= {j^{u+d}}$. These might be associated with black hole horizons, as the latter are often modeled as a boundary of space-time so that all spin networks in the interior have to vanish. Figure \[fig:intrinsic40-0\] shows the behavior of the curvature operator applied to these two-valent vertices. The curvature eigenvalue tends to zero for large spins. On the other hand, it turns out that these vertices have a constant coverage and defect angle, independent of the corresponding edge spins. One obtains $$\alpha=\arccos\left( \sfrac{4}{\pi}-1 \right)\qquad \lambda=2\pi-4.$$
![This plot shows the Ricci scalar $R$ in units of $l_P^{-2}$ in the case where ${j^d}=0$. In this case, we necessarily have ${j^u}={j^{u+d}}$, which allowed us to reduce the plot by one dimension.[]{data-label="fig:intrinsic40-0"}](./figures/RicciScalar40-0.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally, let us look at the case where all three spins are non-vanishing. For ${j^{u+d}}$ taking the maximal value allowed by coupling, while still having ${j^u}={j^d}$, the circumference becomes large with growing spin, implying that the underlying geometry turns hyperbolic. While the curvature tends to a constant negative value, coverage and defect angle grow to negative infinity. Their absolute value is small only in a narrow regime of spins.
For the cases of low spins ($j\lesssim 10$), numerical calculations show that the curvature of a single puncture is quite large, i.e., of the order of several inverse Planck lengths squared. However, the surface becomes flatter if at least one of the spins ${j^u},{j^d}$ grows. This is shown in figure \[fig:intrinsic70-9\]. One can also observe that, as long as ${j^{u+d}}$ takes moderate values, the tangential spin does not have a big influence on the curvature. When ${j^{u+d}}$ grows large, however, the surfaces become strongly hyperbolic.
Figures \[fig:coverage80-60\] and \[fig:Cone80-60\] show the coverage and defect angle in a slightly different range of quantum numbers. Both quantities behave qualitatively similar. They show a stronger dependence on the tangential spin than the curvature.
![The Ricci scalar $R$ was plotted for a fixed value of ${j^d}=9$ as a function of ${j^u}$ and ${j^{u+d}}$. It shows the behavior for ${j^u}$ growing large compared to ${j^d}$.[]{data-label="fig:intrinsic70-9"}](./figures/RicciScalar70-9.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In the case of the coverage, there is a gap around zero which means that, considering the smooth geometries, there are even fewer states for which the ratio $\sfrac{\epsilon}{r}$ is small.
![The coverage angle $\alpha$ was plotted for a fixed value of ${j^d}=60$ as a function of ${j^u}$ and ${j^{u+d}}$. The range was chosen such that the maximal ${j^u}$ is still of the same order of magnitude as ${j^d}$.[]{data-label="fig:coverage80-60"}](./figures/Coverage80-60.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Defect angle $\lambda$ plotted for a fixed value of ${j^d}=60$ as a function of ${j^u}$ and ${j^{u+d}}$. The range was chosen such that the maximal ${j^u}$ is still of the same order of magnitude as ${j^d}$.[]{data-label="fig:Cone80-60"}](./figures/ConeAngle80-60.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Our results suggest that single punctures on a two-surface possess an intrinsic curvature that is often large. The generically large curvatures are worrisome as it is unclear how the strongly curved patches can connect to form a macroscopic surface that is – if at all – curved only on much larger scales. There are regimes of low curvature, however, most prominently in the limit of high spins carried by the transversal edges.
Nevertheless, we have to question the extent to which the approximations we used to obtain the presented geometric operators are valid. As discussed in section \[ssec:Circ\_and\_curv\], the classical formulas for the scalar curvature require the limit in which the radius $\epsilon$ of the circles becomes small compared to the radius of curvature $r$. This ratio is measured by the coverage parameter $\alpha=\pm\sfrac{\epsilon}{r}$. Unfortunately, most of the states of the three valent vertex yield large coverages that even exceed unity. Hence, $\widehat{R}_p$ can probably not be considered meaningful in those regimes. On the other hand, there are states (for transversal spins of same order and with intermediate $j^{u+d}$) for which the coverage $\alpha$ becomes small.
In the picture of a conical geometry, we have used the defect angle $\lambda$ to characterize the geometry of the vertex. $\lambda$ is similar to the coverage $\alpha$. Qualitatively, both quantities show a similar dependence on the quantum numbers. From our results, it is not clear whether the conical picture or the smooth picture is more appropriate to describe the quantized geometry.
$\alpha$ and $\lambda$ also represent a direct measure of the contribution of a small disc to the left hand side of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem . We can investigate the quantized version , for example, by asking how many punctures are needed to form a closed topological sphere, i.e., to obtain $\chi(S)=2$ in the quantum theory. Assuming, for simplicity, that all punctures are in the same configuration, we obtain, depending on the concrete state, a required number of punctures in the order of $10^1$ with the result not necessarily being an integer. This is again not quite what one would expect from physical intuition. It also contradicts results on black holes [@Domagala:2004jt] which show that macroscopic black holes have high numbers of punctures.
One can also examine the contributions of higher valent vertices to the Gauss-Bonnet integral. Adding more *transversal* edges does not change the picture, as only the recoupled spins ${j^u}$, ${j^d}$ are relevant. On the other hand, the operator for the circumference $U$ is sensitive to the number of *tangential* edges within the surface. However, it turns out that, already for few tangential edges, the geometry becomes strongly hyperbolic. Hence, these states do not seem to have properties, that are physically more appealing. In summary, our results suggest that macroscopic surfaces are rather formed by few spin network edges carrying a large spin than the other way round. On the other hand, the regime with large coverages of single punctures is not a valid domain for the approximations we have made. Therefore, the quantum geometry in these domains remains to be studied in a different way.
Mean curvature
--------------
In this section, we want to present an approach to quantize the mean curvature that we introduced in chapter \[ssec:meancurvclassical\]. The main difficulty in this task will be to formulate the continuous partial derivatives of the classical theory in a fashion suitable to discrete quantum geometry. We will follow the obvious ansatz and express them in terms of difference quotients. The goal is to define an operator for the mean curvature at the point $p$ on a surface $S$, embedded in three-space $\Sigma$. To this end, we choose a family of surfaces $\{S_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ that foliates a neighborhood of $S$ in $\Sigma$. We ask that $S_0=S$ and that the family is continuous in $t$ and each member $S_t$ of the family is homeomorphic to $S$ via a map $$\varphi_t: S \longrightarrow S_t \, .$$ Let $D(\epsilon)$ be a family of topological discs in $S$ around $p$ that shrink to $p$ for $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. We can also define the image $$D(\epsilon,t)= \varphi_t(D(\epsilon))$$ of the disc in the surfaces of the foliation. Finally, let $l(t)$ denote a suitably defined geometric length from $p$ to its image $\varphi_t(p)$. Then we can define the mean curvature operator as $$\widehat{H}(p)\coloneqq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \, \lim_{t \text{\tiny{$\searrow$}} 0} \, \frac{1}{2\widehat{A} ( D(\epsilon) )} \frac{\widehat{A} (D(\epsilon,t )) - \widehat{A} ( D(\epsilon,-t ))}{\widehat{l} ( t )+\widehat{l} ( -t )} \, . \label{eq:defMeanCurvOp}$$ Obviously, we again face the problem of the area operator in the denominator, which leads to $\widehat{H}(p)$ only being defined on spin network states having at least one transversely intersecting spin network edge through $p$. In the following, instead of carefully introducing constants to obtain a well-defined operator on the whole Hilbert space, we want to focus on states where $H$ yields meaningful results, i.e., we will only discuss its action on vertices with at least one edge transversely intersecting $S$.\
Because of the properties of the operators involved, this definition is independent of the details of $\varphi_t$ and $D(\epsilon)$. However, we still need to define the distance operators $\widehat{l}(\pm t)$ in a suitable fashion and examine their kernel and their commutation relations with the area operator. In , we summarized a few possible definitions for $l(\pm t)$: $$l(\pm t) \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
\min{{\left(}l(e \in \mathcal{E}_{b/a}) {\right)}} & \text{case (a)} \\
\frac{1}{N_{b/a}}\sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}_{b/a}} l(e) & \text{case (b)} \\
l{\left(}\gamma_{b/a}(p){\right)}& \text{case (c)}
\end{cases} \, .
\label{eq:shiftdistances}$$ Here, $\mathcal{E}_{b/a}$ denote the sets containing the transversal edges through $p$ below/above $S$ and $N_{b/a}$ their cardinalities. Furthermore, $\gamma_{b/a}$ is a transversal path through $p$ below/above $S$ which is not contained in and does not intersect any of the edges in $\mathcal{E}_{b/a}$. Now, having proposed multiple definitions of the shift distance, we need to figure out whether, and if so, how, they behave differently in the situations we consider. In case they do, we have to decide which definition we are going to work with.\
In the first two of the above cases, the shift distance is measured along holonomies coinciding with the transversal edges through $p$. In the classical case, we have to displace the surface along a geodesic path. Thus, case (a) seems to provide a reasonable definition, as it highlights the properties of geodesics to extremize the length functional. However, for vertices with higher valence, we do not see any reason why two different length operators acting at the same vertex should commute with each other, and therefore case (a) does not yield a well-defined expression. Case (b) circumvents this problem since it does not require simultaneous diagonalization of multiple length operators. Therefore (b), which determines the average length measured along all transversal edges, is a well-defined expression. If both, $\mathcal{E}_{b}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{a}$, contain at most one element, then the definitions (a) and (b) agree. In case (c), the shift distance is measured along a path that does not coincide with any of the edges through $p$. In this case, $l(t)$ is necessarily symmetric, i.e., $l(t)=l(-t)$. Just like (b), (c) also yields a well-defined expression. However, we want to apply the mean curvature operator to the three-leg spin network configuration (cf. figure \[fig:jujdjud\]) in the following. Here, measuring $l(\pm t)$ in the manner of (c) would yield an effectively four-valent problem for which we cannot determine the spectrum of the length operator explicitly. For the reasons summarized here, we will proceed using definition (b) to measure $l(\pm t)$ in the case of non-empty sets $\mathcal{E}_{b/a}$. On the other hand, if one of the $\mathcal{E}_{b/a}$ does not contain any edges, we choose to measure the shift distance on the corresponding side along an arbitrary path, as in case (c). Provided there is at least one edge intersecting the point $p$ transversely, $p$ is at least divalent as a vertex, and therefore this definition ensures that there is a non-vanishing contribution to the total shift distance in the low-valent case. Additionally, we know that, for valences less or equal to three, the spin network functions are eigenstates of the length operator, and therefore $A(c)$ and $l(\pm t)$ commute. Hence, in this case, the expression in remains well-defined and finite.\
Instead of further dealing with the domains in Hilbert space that are critical to our operator, we want to move ahead at this point and apply it to states where we get meaningful results, in order to analyze its spectrum. In order to allow for comparison with the intrinsic properties of quantum surfaces, we will work in the ${j^u},\, {j^d},\, {j^{u+d}}$ representation of three-valent vertices we introduced before, and which is depicted in figure \[fig:jujdjud\]. In contrast to the intrinsic operators, $H$ is sensitive to the orientation of the surface of interest in space (namely, $H$ is antisymmetric with respect to reversing it). In the following, we will, without loss of generality, restrict ourselves to the case where ${j^u}\geq {j^d}$, which corresponds to choosing the orientation of the surface such that its mean curvature is positive (or zero). A surface with vanishing mean curvature is also called a minimal surface. One trivial feature of our extrinsic curvature operator is to have vanishing eigenvalues on the $2{j^u}+1$ times degenerate states where the transversal spins coincide, i.e., ${j^u}={j^d}$. Apart from these generic minimal surfaces, flat embedding in ambient space can also be achieved asymptotically for large quantum numbers. An important example is again the black-hole vertex with ${j^d}=0$. Here, we necessarily measure a constant ratio of two between the areas of the shifted and the actual surface, whereas the distance they are shifted by scales linearly with the quantum number ${j^u}={j^{u+d}}$. The effectively hyperbolic decrease of $H$ with growing spins on these black hole horizons is shown in figure \[fig:extrinsic40-0\].
![This plot shows the scalar extrinsic curvature in units of $l_P^{-1}$ for the case where ${j^d}=0$. Here, we necessarily have ${j^u}={j^{u+d}}$ which allowed us to reduce the plot by one dimension.[]{data-label="fig:extrinsic40-0"}](./figures/Extrinsic40-0.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
On the other hand, if the spin network below the surface does not vanish, the behavior of the mean curvature becomes more complicated. Figure \[fig:extrinsic70-9\] shows a plot where we fixed the spin of the edge below the surface to ${j^d}=9$. As expected, we observe that, at first, $H$ grows rapidly as the difference between the transversal spins starts to increase. Also, the extrinsic curvature grows large when ${j^{u+d}}$, i.e., the spin of the tangential edge, takes values near its minimum and maximum (as allowed by recoupling theory), whereas it takes its smallest values for intermediate tangential spins. If we look at the regime where ${j^u}$ grows even larger when compared to ${j^d}$, the shifted area below the surface becomes more and more negligible and we asymptotically recover the black hole case. Hence, as already for the intrinsic case, we can state that it is sufficient to have one of the transversal spins grow large in order to have mean curvature tend to zero.
![This plot shows the scalar extrinsic curvature in units of $l_P^{-1}$ for fixed ${j^d}=9$.[]{data-label="fig:extrinsic70-9"}](./figures/Extrinsic70-9.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Entropy and mean curvature {#sec:entropymeancurvature}
==========================
In our picture of surfaces in the quantum theory, the surfaces themselves can carry two kinds of geometrical excitations: the punctures on the one hand, and spin network edges running within the surfaces on the other. Because of the latter, the picture of entanglement entropy has to be slightly refined from the one in [@Donnelly:2008vx].
We consider a surface $S$ dividing $\Sigma$ into two disjoint parts $\Omega$ and $\bar{\Omega}$, i.e., $$\Sigma=\Omega\, \dot{\cup}\, S \, \dot{\cup}\,\bar{\Omega} \, , \qquad \partial \Omega=\partial\bar{\Omega} =S.$$ Thus, we have a tripartite division of the system where each of $S$, $\Omega$, $\bar{\Omega}$ is entangled with the other two. The corresponding entanglement entropies will be denoted $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{S}$, $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega$, and $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}$, respectively. In particular, $$\label{eq_nonunique}
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega\neq \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}$$ in general, i.e., there is no unique notion of entanglement entropy across the surface $S$.
In the following, we will exclusively consider pure spin network states, no linear combinations of spin networks. Then, if we additionally choose the recoupling scheme that diagonalizes the area operator for $S$ as the basis for the intertwiners at the punctures of $S$, the entanglement entropy becomes very simple. At a puncture $p$, with the intertwiner characterized by the quantum numbers $j^u$, $j^d$, $j^{u+d}$, the contribution to the entanglement entropies is $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega(p)&=\ln(2j^d+1),\\
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p)&=\ln(2j^u+1),\\
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{S}(p)&= \ln(2j^{u+d}+1)\end{aligned}$$ This result confirms . However, there is a distinguished case where $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega = \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}$: $$\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega(p)=\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad j^u=j^d.$$ In this case, we can meaningfully speak of *the* entanglement entropy *across* the surface $S$. Interestingly, in the case of the the three-leg vertex, comparison with the mean curvature operator of section \[sec\_quantgeo\] shows that these are precisely states for which the mean curvature of the boundary surface vanishes. In other words, the entanglement entropy across the surface $S$ is symmetric precisely when the surface is a minimal surface, $$\label{eq:minmal}
\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_\Omega(p)=\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \widehat{H}(p)\Psi =0.$$ On the other hand, if the mean curvature of the boundary does not vanish, there will always be a jump $\triangle \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(p) = \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\Omega}(p)-\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p)$ in entanglement as one passes from one side of the surface $S$ to the other.
We want to examine the relation between $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}$ and $H$ in the quantum theory in more detail. In particular, we want to argue that, for the three-leg vertex, there is a linear relationship between the gradient of $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}$ across the surface and $H$. The classical expression for the mean curvature can be written as $$H =\frac{1}{2A}{\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}} = \frac{1}{2} {\frac{\partial \ln{A}}{\partial t}} \,.$$ The derivative is performed along an affinely parametrized geodesic in adapted coordinates. For large spins, the contribution to the area of the boundary surface from the vertex under investigation is proportional to the largest transversal spin: $A=a_0\cdot j$, where $a_0=4\pi\beta l_P^2$ and $j=\max{\{ {j^u},{j^d}\}}$. The behavior is slightly different if ${j^{u+d}}$ becomes large compared to $j$. Hence, we obtain a proportionality between the mean curvature and the derivative of the entropy along a geodesic: $$H\approx \frac{1}{2}{\frac{\partial \ln{\left( a_0\cdot j \right)}}{\partial t}} \sim {\frac{\partial \ln{\left( 2 j +1 \right) }}{\partial t}}= {\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}} \, .$$ Note that the expressions contain continuous partial derivatives which a priori have no meaning in the quantum theory. Therefore, to be more precise, we will use a difference quotient below. But, for the moment, we want to imagine a semiclassical regime in which $j$ depends on a parameter $t$ that measures geodesic distance from $S$. Then, with $\kappa(t)\coloneqq 2j(t)+1$ and $\sigma\coloneqq j(t)(j(t)+1)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H &= \frac{1}{2}{\frac{\partial \ln{\left( a_0\sqrt{\sigma} \right)}}{\partial t}} = \frac{1}{2}{\frac{\partial \ln{\left( \sqrt{ \sigma } \right)}}{\partial t}} \\
&= \frac{1}{4\sigma}{\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial t}} = \frac{\kappa}{4\sigma}{\frac{\partial j}{\partial t}} \, ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:HvonJderi}$$ and, on the other hand, $${\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}} = \frac{1}{\kappa} {\frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial t}} = \frac{2}{\kappa}{\frac{\partial j}{\partial t}} \, .
\label{eq:dsdt}$$ Comparison of and yields $$H=\frac{\kappa^2}{8\sigma} {\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}} \coloneqq c_j {\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}}.
\label{eq:HasSderi}$$ $c_j(t)$ depends only mildly on the spins involved, and $$\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} c_{j} =\frac{1}{2}.$$ But, as we remarked before, in the quantum theory there is no smooth $j(t)$. Let us rather consider a single puncture on $S$. We use a recoupling scheme such that $j^u$, $j^d$ and $j^{u+d}$ are well-defined. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle \ln a(p) &= \ln(a_0 \sqrt{j^u(j^u+1)})-\ln(a_0 \sqrt{j^d(j^d+1)})\\
&\approx \ln\left(\frac{j^u}{j^d}\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\triangle$ denotes the change that occurs when deforming $S$ slightly such that the vertex can lie above or below of $S$. The approximation is good for $j >> 1$. Similarly, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle S(p)&=\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p) - \operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\Omega}(p)=\ln(2j^u+1)-\ln(2j^d+1)\\
&\approx \ln\left(\frac{j^u}{j^d}\right)\approx \triangle \ln a \, . \end{aligned}$$ Hence, at the puncture, the relation $$\label{eq:discrete}
H(p)=\frac{1}{2} \frac{\triangle \ln a(p)}{\triangle t}\approx \frac{1}{2} \frac{\triangle S(p)}{\triangle t}$$ holds. We have not yet specified $\triangle t$, but we can do so by using the length operator across the vertex. In figure \[fig:EntrvsMC\], we plotted the difference quotient$$\frac{\triangle S(p)}{\triangle t}=\frac{\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\bar{\Omega}}(p)-\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}_{\Omega}(p)}{l^u(p)+l^d(p)}$$ as a function of the mean curvature of the three-leg vertex. Here, the shift distances $l^u$ and $l^d$ where defined as in the case of the mean curvature operator: The lengths were measured along the holonomies transversal to the puncture $p$.
Additionally, we plotted a line with a slope of 2 for comparison with equation . The plots in figure \[fig:EntrvsMC\] show that, for small mean curvatures, the entropy gradient in fact shows a linear behavior. Small mean curvatures are obtained mainly if the transversal spins grow large while ${j^{u+d}}$ takes moderate values, away from its maximum and minimum. Moreover, we observe that there are many branches arising. They correspond to different values of the spin ${j^{u+d}}$. For larger mean curvatures, the branches leave the linear regime and bend towards larger entropy gradients, with slopes depending on ${j^{u+d}}$.
and are generalizations of . The asymmetry in entanglement entropy $\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(\Omega)-\operatorname{\mathcal{S}}(\bar{\Omega})$, as measured from above and below $S$ at a point $p$, is proportional to the mean curvature of the surface at $p$, at least in the three-leg case. This implies that, for minimal surfaces $S$ as boundaries, the entanglement entropy of the bulk spaces is conserved under variations of $S$.
The results we presented in this section are only valid for the three-leg puncture because the limit involved in the definition of the mean curvature operator implies that the areas in the formula are not simply determined by the coupled total upper/lower spin quantum numbers; the individual contributions of the edges above/below the surface directly influence the results. Thus, for example, we have $$\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \, \lim_{t \text{\tiny{$\searrow$}} 0} \, \widehat{A}(D(\epsilon,t))\neq 8\pi\beta l_{\text{P}}^2\sqrt{j^u(j^u+1)}\text{ id}$$ in general. One could argue that a natural definition of this limit would be given by the right hand side of the previous equation. Using this definition – and an analogous one for $j^d$ – one would obtain a mean curvature operator for which the results of this section hold for arbitrary spin networks.
Outlook
=======
With the present work, we have explored the question whether we can assign intrinsic and extrinsic curvature to a surface $S$ in LQG. The results are mixed.
One rather generic finding is that the scale characterizing the curvature spectra is the Planck scale. This means that the modulus of the curvatures assigned to the punctures by our method is typically extremely large. That makes it hard to assign any kind of classical picture to the surface at small scales. One notable class of states where the curvature can be small are the punctures where one transversal spin is large compared to the tangential spin. In this case, the scalar curvature $R$ tends to $0$. A particular example of this is shown in figure \[fig:intrinsic40-0\].
Moreover, we also generically obtain large coverage angles , see for example figure \[fig:coverage80-60\]. This is problematic regarding the entire definition of the intrinsic curvature operator which relies on formulas for circles that are small compared to the curvature radius.\
We also found that the results are qualitatively the same if one bases the quantization on a picture in which the geometry near the punctures is cone-like.\
As a result of the generically large curvatures, it does not seem that the integral over the scalar curvature in the quantum theory has much to do with the Euler characteristic of $S$. It is also a problematic sign that the curvature is not straightforwardly defined on generic points of $S$, i.e., in locations without punctures (see the discussion below for details).\
On the positive side, the limit in the classical formulas for intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is well-defined, at least at vertices, also in the quantum theory, with the exception of some non-generic cases. Furthermore, we discovered, at least for a certain class of punctures, an intriguing connection between extrinsic curvature and entanglement entropy. Among other things, it implies that minimal surfaces enjoy a special property: the entropy gradient across them vanishes. This is interesting since many black hole horizons have slices that are spatial minimal surfaces. At least superficially, there also seems to be some hint of a connection to the results by Ryu and Takayanagi [@Ryu:2006bv] and, more generally, to ER=EPR [@Maldacena:2013xja], although in the former case, the entanglement entropy is that of a lower-dimensional theory, and it is given by the area of the minimal surface.\
Our analysis is, among other things, limited by
- the use of kinematical states,
- the ambiguities in the definition of the operators we defined,
- and the use of pure spin networks with three-leg punctures, as opposed to linear combinations of general spin networks like, for example, coherent states.
Changing any of these might change the overall picture. Furthermore, there are different ways to approach the definition of curvature in the quantum theory. [@Alesci:2014aza] presents an example that can be adapted to lower-dimensional surfaces. Preliminary investigation indicates a better behavior in generic points of $S$, but more work would need to be done.
TZ thanks the Elite Network of the State of Bavaria for financial support during the early stages of this work. The authors would like to thank the members of the Institute for Quantum Gravity at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg for helpful discussions.
[^1]: More precisely, we demand the circumference of a circle, as a function of its radius $\epsilon$, and its first derivative to equate on both sides of the cutoff $\epsilon=\epsilon_0$.
[^2]: The numerical factors in [@Ashtekar:1996eg] differ from those used here, since the definition of $l_\text{P}$ is different.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Real-world graphs often manifest as a massive temporal “stream" of edges. The need for real-time analysis of such large graph streams has led to progress on low memory, one-pass streaming graph algorithms. These algorithms were designed for simple graphs, assuming an edge is not repeated in the stream. Real graph streams however, are almost always multigraphs i.e., they contain many duplicate edges. The assumption of no repeated edges requires an extra pass *storing all the edges* just for deduplication, which defeats the purpose of small memory algorithms. We describe an algorithm, [[MG-Triangle]{}]{}, for estimating the triangle count of a multigraph stream of edges. We show that all previous streaming algorithms for triangle counting fail for multigraph streams, despite their impressive accuracies for simple graphs. The bias created by duplicate edges is a major problem, and leads these algorithms astray. [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} avoids these biases through careful debiasing strategies and has provable theoretical guarantees and excellent empirical performance. [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} builds on the previously introduced wedge sampling methodology. Another challenge in analyzing temporal graphs is finding the right temporal window size. [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} seamlessly handles multiple time windows, and does not require committing to any window size(s) a priori. We apply [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} to discover fascinating transitivity and triangle trends in real-world graph streams.'
author:
- 'Madhav Jha C. Seshadhri Ali Pinar [^1]'
title: |
\
Counting Triangles in Real-World Graph Streams: Dealing with Repeated Edges and Time Windows [^2]
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Many massive graphs appear in practice as a temporal *stream of edges*. People call each other on the phone, exchange emails, or co-author a paper; computers exchange messages; animals come in the vicinity of each other; companies trade with each other. Each such interaction is modeled as an edge in the graph, and has a natural timestamp.
Due to the need for real-time awareness despite the volume of such transactions, there is much interest in processing temporal graphs using fast, limited-memory algorithms. Formally, think of the input as a sequence of edges $e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_m$. Some of the edges may be repeated, meaning that (say) $e_1\! =\! e_{100}\! =\! e_{125}\! =\! (u,v)$. We are interested in small space streaming algorithms that make a *single pass* over the stream $e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_m$. Such an algorithm maintains data structures that are many orders of magnitude smaller than the stream itself. At every timestep $t$, these data structures are updated rapidly (possible randomly). The algorithm computes an accurate estimate for the property of interest on the graph seen so far. Because of the single pass and small space, the algorithm cannot revisit edges that it has forgotten. Furthermore, it cannot always determine if the new edge, $e_t$, has appeared before. This work focuses on triangle counting in this setting.
**Graph vs multigraph:** Previous results assume that the edge stream forms a simple graph, and no edge is repeated in the stream. This is a useful assumption for algorithmic progress; yet, often false in practice. Real-world graph streams are multigraphs, in that same edges can occur repeatedly in the data stream. The simple graph representation is obtained by removing duplicate edges. For example, the classic [[Enron]{}]{} email dataset is really a multigraph with 1.14M edges, while the underlying simple graph has only 297K edges. Similarly, a [[DBLP]{}]{} co-authorship graph recently collected is a multigraph with 3.63M edges, but the underlying simple graph has only 2.54M edges. Close to 10 million edges in a popular dynamic [[Flickr]{}]{} network dataset (see [@graphrepository2013; @mislove-2008-flickr]) are repeated.
The assumption of simplicity is implemented in practice with an extra pass to remove duplicate edges. *This pass requires storage of the entire simple graph, which is completely ignored in all previous work.* Indeed, if one can store the entire simple graph, there exist much better algorithms for triangle counting [@ScWa05-2; @TsKaMiFa09; @SePiKo13]. We posit that for streaming algorithms to be actually useful in practice, multiple edges must be dealt with small space. There is much work on streaming graph algorithms (see surveys [@NeAhKo13; @McG14]). Yet this algorithmic work ignores important issues such as repeated edges and temporal aggregation that arise when looking at a real-world graph stream, as demonstrated in .
**Aggregation over time:** Given a stream of edges, what is the actual graph? The most common answer is to simply aggregate all edges ever seen. Again, this is a useful assumption for algorithmic progress, but ignores the temporal aspect of the edges. Time is a complex issue and there are no clear solutions. One may consider sliding windows in time or have some decay of edges. For simplicity, we focus on sliding time windows (like edges seen in the past month, or past year). Even for sliding windows, it is not clear what the width should be. Observations can often be an artifact of the window size [@Mac12]. Therefore, it is essential to observe multiple time windows at the same time, instead of committing to a single one.
shows how our algorithm [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} can analyze different time windows with a single run. Our algorithm estimates the triangle counts for any time window without altering its data structures, as the time window is only used in calculating the estimate.
Triangle counting
-----------------
The abundance of triangles has been observed in networks arising in numerous scenarios, such as social sciences [@Co88; @Po98; @Burt04; @FoDeCo10], spam detection [@EcMo02], community detection [@GS12], finding common topics on the web [@BeBoCaGi08], bioinformatics [@Milo2002], and modeling and characterizing real-world networks [@SeKoPi11; @DuPiKo12]. Subsequently, there has been a lot of work on triangle counting in graph streams [@JoGh05; @BuFrLeMaSo06; @AhGuMc12; @KaMeSaSu12; @TaPaTi13; @PaTaTi+13; @JhSePi13; @AhDuNe+14], and in various other settings (see e.g., [@SPK14] and references therein). The result of Ahmed et al. [@AhDuNe+14] is arguably the state-of-the-art, with a storage significantly smaller than previous algorithms. None of these results explicitly deal with multigraphs.
Formally, we are processing a multigraph stream $e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_m$. At every time $t$, consider the underlying *simple* graph $G_t$ formed by edges $e_{t-\Delta t},\ldots,e_t$. So take all these edges, and remove duplicates. We wish to output the triangle count (alternately, the transitivity) of $G_t$ for all times $t$. The window length $\Delta t$ may be defined in different ways. It could either be in terms of number of edges (say, the past 10K edges), or in terms of the semantics of timestamps (say, edges seen in the past month). Most importantly, we want a single-pass small space algorithm to handle multiple windows lengths and do not want different passes for each window length.
A reader may wonder why we only output estimates for the underlying simple graph. Ideally, we would like to compute measures that involve the multigraph structure. We agree that this is an interesting problem, and duplicates have their own significance. Currently, it is standard to focus on simple graphs, and there is no consensus on how to define triadic measures on multigraphs. This is an exciting avenue for future work.
**Why is this a difficult problem?** Multigraphs are a major challenge for triangle counting algorithms. Edges appears with varying frequencies, and (in our setting) we do not wish to be biased by this. Furthermore, triangles can be formed in different ways. Consider edges $a, b$, and $c$ that form a triangle. These edges may appear in the multigraph stream in many different ways. For example, these edges could come as $a,a,\ldots, b,b,\ldots, c,c,\ldots$, or as $a,b,c,a,b,c,a,b,c,\ldots$. (Observe how this is *not* an issue for simple graphs.) These patterns create biases for existing triangle counting algorithms, which we explain in more detail later.
For now, it suffices to say that existing algorithms [@BuFrLeMaSo06; @JhSePi13; @PaTaTi+13; @TaPaTi13; @AhDuNe+14] will give different estimates for triangle counts of different multigraphs streams that contain the same simple graph. This is demonstrated in , where we run previous streaming triangle counting algorithms on the raw [[DBLP]{}]{} multigraph stream. Previous algorithms converge to an incorrect value as their storage increases. They all perform extremely well if all duplicates were removed from the stream (). Previous work on multigraph mining explicitly states triangle counting of streaming multigraphs as an open problem [@CormodeM05].
Preliminaries
-------------
The edge stream is denoted by $e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_m$. We focus on undirected graphs, so each edge is an unordered pair of vertex ids. The simple graph formed by edges $e_{t'},\ldots,e_t$ is denoted by $G[t',t]$. A *wedge* is a path of length $2$. The set of wedges in a simple graph $G$ is denoted ${W}(G)$, and the set of triangles by ${T}(G)$. A wedge in ${W}(G)$ is *closed* if it participates in a triangle and *open* otherwise. The *transitivity* is the fraction of closed wedges, ${\tau}(G) = 3|{T}(G)|/|{W}(G)|$. Our aim is to maintain the transitivity and triangle count (for all $t$) of the graph $G[t-\Delta t,t]$, where $\Delta t$ is the desired window of aggregation. The window is usually specified as a fixed number of edges or a fixed interval of time (like month, year, etc.), though the algorithm works for windows lengths that change with time. For convenience, we denote $G_t = G[t-\Delta t,t]$, $E_t = E(G_t)$, $W_t = {W}(G_t)$, $T_t = {T}(G_t)$, and ${\tau}_t = {\tau}(G_t)$.
Our Contributions
-----------------
We design a small space streaming algorithm, [[MG-Triangle]{}]{}, to estimate transitivity and triangle counts for multiple time windows on multigraphs. As mentioned earlier, the main technical contribution is in handling repeated edges without a separate storage-intensive deduplication process. We consider this work as a first step towards small space streaming analytics for real-world graph streams.
[**The multiedge problem:**]{} We applied previous streaming triangle algorithms [@PaTaTi+13; @JhSePi13; @AhDuNe+14] on multigraph streams, and showed that they fail to give correct answers. shows how all these algorithms converge as their storage increases to an incorrect estimate on a [[DBLP]{}]{} multigraph stream. Of course, these algorithms were designed with the assumption of simple graph streams, and have excellent convergence properties (). These results show how repeated edges are a problem and why we need new algorithms for multigraph streams.
[**Theoretical and empirical proofs of convergence:**]{} We give proofs of convergence for [[MG-Triangle]{}]{}. Our algorithm is based on wedge sampling [@ScWa05-2; @SePiKo13] and borrows ideas from [@JhSePi13; @AhDuNe+14]. It is provably correct on expectation. We also prove variance bounds, but [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} shows much better performance in practice than such bounds would indicate. We perform detailed experiments to prove that our algorithm gives accurate estimates with little storage (less than 5% of the stream in all instances). In , we observe how [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} converges to the correct value storing at most 60K edges (the stream size is 3M).
[**Low storage required on real-world graphs:**]{} Our algorithm stores less than 5% of the stream in all instances, and gives accurate estimates for transitivity and triangles counts. For example, we converted a 223M edge [orkut]{} graph [@Snap] to a 500M edge multigraph, where our algorithm produced triangles estimates within $1\%$ relative error. The storage required was just 1.2M edges, less than $0.5\%$ of the stream. Our algorithm’s worst performance (on a livejournal social network) only led to $0.04$ additive error in transitivity, and 8.7% relative error in triangle count.
[**Multiple time window estimates in real-world graph streams:**]{} presents an example output of [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} on a [[DBLP]{}]{} coauthorship graph stream. [[MG-Triangle]{}]{} makes a single pass and stores less than 100K edges ($<\!3\%$ of total stream). It gives estimates for transitivity and triangles count at every year for window sizes of 5, 10, 15, 20 years, and all of time. In other words, at year (say) 2013, it gives triangle estimates for the simple graphs that aggregates edges in the following intervals: 2009–2013, 2004–2013, 1999–2013, 1994–2013, and 1938–2013. We immediately detect specific trends for different windows, like increasing window size decreases transitivity (even though triangle count naturally goes up). Also note the overall decrease of transitivity over time. We also perform such analyses on an email network and a social network, and observe differences between these graphs.
Effects of repeated edges on triangle counting {#sec:effect}
==============================================
We describe previous practical streaming triangle algorithms and explain why repeated edges is a challenge. We hope that this provides better context for our work and explains how important the assumption of simple graphs is for previous work. Our focus is on the neighborhood sampler of Pavan et al. [@PaTaTi+13], the wedge sampler of Jha et al. [@JhSePi13], and the sample-and-hold algorithm of Ahmed et al. [@AhDuNe+14]. To the best of our knowledge, these are the algorithms with established practical performance and good theoretical guarantees. (We omit the algorithm of Buriol et al. [@BuFrLeMaSo06], since its practical performance is not good even for million edge streams [@JhSePi13].) For the sake of exposition, we formulate and describe the algorithms in slightly different terms from the original papers.
**Reservoir sampling vs hashing:** All algorithms sample uniform random edges from the stream, either by reservoir sampling or sampling an edge with fixed probability, which poses a problem in multigraph streams, since frequent edges have a higher probability of being sampled. This problem can be mitigated by using random hash functions. Suppose we wish to store each edge of the underlying simple graph from the stream with probability $\alpha$. Each edge should be equally likely to be selected, independent of its frequency. Let $hash$ be a uniform random function into the range $(0,1)$. When the algorithm sees an edge $e$ in the stream, it stores the edge if $hash(e) < \alpha$. Observe that the probability that an edge is selected only depends on its hash value and *is independent of its frequency*. We also stress that, for simple graph streams, hash based sampling is essentially equivalent to any other uniform random method.
Hashing provides an easy fix for the basic sampling problem, and is actually a convenient implementation method even for simple graphs. (We implemented all previous algorithm using hashing.) But the real challenge is debiasing, which comes next.
**Neighborhood sampling [@PaTaTi+13]:** Let edge $f$ be a neighbor of $e$, if $e$ and $f$ intersect. The main idea of [@PaTaTi+13] is to pick a uniform random edge $e$, and then pick a uniform random neighbor $f$ of $e$ from the subsequent edges. This provides a wedge $\{e,f\}$, which is then checked for closure to provide a triangle. This process samples triangles non-uniformly. Pavan et al. cleverly debias by counting the number of following edges adjacent to $e$. (Equivalently, keeping track of the degree of vertices after storing $e$.) The algorithm takes a number of independent samples to get a low-error estimate. The method is provably correct and has excellent behavior in practice.
But multigraphs affect this debiasing. Tracking (simple) degrees of a vertex $v$ is a non-trivial task, and requires counting the number of distinct edges incident to $v$. This itself requires a space overhead and it is not clear how to get a complete small-space extension of this approach for multigraphs.
**Sample-and-hold [@AhDuNe+14] and wedge sampling [@JhSePi13]:** Ahmed et al. give an elegant algorithm for triangle counting. Simply store every edge with some fixed (small) probability. For every edge $e$ in the stream, count the number of triangles formed by $e$ and a wedge among the stored edges. The sum of these counts can be used to estimate the total number of triangles. The final algorithm is simple, converges extremely rapidly, and is space efficient (To date, it is arguably the best streaming triangle counting algorithm). The wedge sampling algorithm of Jha et al [@JhSePi13] can also be thought of in this framework, except that it tracks a subset of the wedges created by stored edges. Without getting into details, it suffices to say that the correctness of these algorithms hinges on a critical fact. Every triangle (in a simple graph) stream has a unique wedge that closes in the future. Suppose edges $\{e,f,g\}$ form a triangle, and edges appear in order $e,\ldots,f,\ldots,g$. Then the wedge $\{e,f\}$ is closed subsequently by edge $g$. It can be shown that both algorithms sample triangles uniformly, leading to unbiased estimates. This is not true for multigraph streams. If they appear in the stream as $e,f,g,e,f,g,e,f,g,\ldots$, there is no unique wedge closed in the future. (Indeed, all wedges are closed in the future.) This is a significant problem and increasing storage does not mitigate this problem. As demonstrated in , these algorithms converge to an incorrect estimate as storage increases.
Proposed algorithm
==================
Our algorithm [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} takes as input sampling rates $\alpha, \beta \in (0,1)$ and a window $\Delta t$. The window is specified as a fixed number of edges or a fixed interval of time (like month, year, etc.). We describe the data structures used by [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{}.
Lists [[*e-list*]{}]{}, [[*w-list*]{}]{}: These are lists consisting of random edges and wedges, respectively. The sizes of these lists are controlled by $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Flags $X_w$: For each wedge $w \in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{}, we have a boolean flag $X_w$ supposed to denote whether it is open or closed.
As mentioned earlier, it is convenient to think of $hash$ as a uniform random function into the range $(0,1)$. Abusing notation, we will use $hash$ to map various different objects[^3] such as edges, wedges, etc.
High level description
----------------------
The first step on encountering edge $e_t$ is to update the lists [[*e-list*]{}]{} and [[*w-list*]{}]{}. This is done in procedure [[update]{}]{}. The idea is based on standard hash-based sampling. We add $e_t$ to [[*e-list*]{}]{} if $hash(e_t) \leq \alpha$ and $e_t$ is not already in [[*e-list*]{}]{}. Then, we look at all the wedges that $e_t$ creates with existing edges in [[*e-list*]{}]{}. We apply another round of hash-based sampling to put these wedges in [[*w-list*]{}]{}.
Critically, if an edge $e$ enters [[*e-list*]{}]{}, it never leaves. If $e$ enters [[*e-list*]{}]{}, it does so the first time it appears in the stream. The probability of an edge entering [[*e-list*]{}]{} is independent of its frequency in the stream. This is vital to get unbiased samples of edges in the underlying simple graph $G_t$. Similar statements hold for wedges.
**Checking for closures and debiasing:** We encounter edge $e_t$ and have updated [[*e-list*]{}]{} and [[*w-list*]{}]{}. For each wedge $w \in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{}, we have a boolean variable $X_w$. If $e_t$ closes $w$ (so $w$ and $e_t$ form a triangle), we set $X_w \!=\! 1$. This is the standard wedge-sampling approach [@ScWa05-2; @SePiKo13; @JhSePi13]. At this point, the algorithm would basically be that of [@JhSePi13], implemented with hash-based sampling. As argued earlier and shown in , this algorithm does not work.
To fix the biasing, we perform a somewhat mysterious step. We have wedge $w \in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{} and encounter $e_t$. If $e_t$ is already part of $w$, we simply reset $X_w$ to $0$. So even though $w$ may be closed, we just assume it is open. This completely resolves the biasing, and we give a formal proof in .
**Outputting the estimate:** Finally, we need to output estimates,$|\widehat{T}_t|, |\widehat{W}_t|, \widehat{{\tau}}_t$ for $|T_t|, |W_t|, {\tau}_t$, respectively. This is the only step where the time window $\Delta t$ is used. We look at all wedges in [[*w-list*]{}]{} that formed in the time $[t-\Delta t,t]$. The total number of these wedges can be scaled to estimate $|W_t|$. The number of these wedges, where $X_w = 1$ is scaled to estimate $|T_t|$, and the appropriate ratio estimates ${\tau}_t$.
Theoretical analysis {#sec:theory}
--------------------
We prove that the [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} is correct on expectation and prove weak concentration results bounding the variance. We also show some basic bounds on the storage of [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{}. Throughout this section, we focus at some time $t$ and the simple graph $G_t$. We stress that there is no distributional assumption on the graph or the stream. All the probabilities are over the internal randomness of the algorithm (which is encapsulated in the random behavior of $hash$).
[lem]{}[problemma]{} \[lem:prob\] Consider time $t$. For any edge $e \in G_t$, the probability that $e \in$ [[*e-list*]{}]{} is $\alpha$. For any wedge $w \in W_t$, the probability that $w \in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{} is $\alpha^2\beta$.
Consider edge $e$. We first argue that $e\! \in$ [[*e-list*]{}]{} iff $hash(e) \!\leq\! \alpha$ (Note that this is independent of the frequency of $e$). Suppose $hash(e) \!\leq \!\alpha$. At its first occurrence, $e$ enters [[*e-list*]{}]{} and remains in [[*e-list*]{}]{}. Suppose $hash(e) \! >\! \alpha$. At no timestep will $e$ be added to [[*e-list*]{}]{}, regardless of how many times it appears. From the randomness of $hash$, $hash(e) \!\leq\! \alpha$ with probability $\alpha$. Hence, $e \in$ [[*e-list*]{}]{} with probability $\alpha$.
For wedge $w\! =\! \{e,e'\}$ to be in [[*w-list*]{}]{}, both its edges must be in [[*e-list*]{}]{}. That means both $hash(e)$ and $hash(e')$ are at most $\alpha$. Suppose the first occurrence of $e$ is before that of $e'$. At the first time $e'$ occurs, procedure [[update]{}]{} will add $w$ to [[*w-list*]{}]{} iff $hash(w) \leq \beta$. At any subsequent occurrence of $e$ or $e'$, the wedge $w$ is not considered for adding to [[*w-list*]{}]{} (simply because $e$ and $e'$ are already in [[*e-list*]{}]{}). The total probability (by the randomness of $hash$) is $\alpha^2\beta$. [$\Box$]{}
The following hold just by linearity of expectation. We move proofs to the [=1[supplementary file attached with the submission]{}]{}.
[thm]{}[spacethm]{} \[thm:space\] The expected size of [[*e-list*]{}]{} is $\alpha E(G[1,t])$ and the expected size of [[*w-list*]{}]{} is $\alpha^2\beta W(G[1,t])$.
[thm]{}[wedgethm]{} \[thm:wedge\] ${\mathbf{E}}[\widehat{W}_t] = |W_t|$.
Now we come to a key theorem that shows that $\widehat{T}_t$ is correct on expectation. This is where we prove that our proposed debiasing technique works.
[thm]{}[mainthm]{} \[thm:main\] ${\mathbf{E}}[\widehat{T}_t] = |T_t|$.
We extend the definition of Boolean flag $X_w$ to every wedge $w$ in $W_t$. Let $X_w\!=\!0$ if $w$ is not present in [[*w-list*]{}]{} (at time $t$). Note that $\widehat{T_t} = (\alpha^2\beta)^{-1}\sum_{w \in W_t} X_w$. For every edge $e$ in $E_t$, let $t_{max}(e)$ be the maximum time $s \!\leq \!t$ such that $e_s \!= \!e$. Fix a triangle $A \!= \!{\{a,b,c\}} \!\in \!T_t$ formed by edges $a, b,$ and $c$, and assume (by relabeling if required) that $c$ is the last edge to appear in the stream among $a, b$, and $c$. In other words, $t_{max}(c) > \max{\{t_{max}(a), t_{max}(b)\}}$. Since $\{a,b\}, \{b,c\}, \{c,a\}$ are wedges, it makes sense to talk about $X_{\{a,b\}}$, etc. The following is the debiasing argument, showing that exactly one wedge in $A$ has $X_w = 1$.
\[lem:debias\] $X_{\{b,c\}} = X_{\{c,a\}} = 0$. Moreover, $X_{\{a,b\}} = 1$ iff $\{a,b\}$ is in [[*w-list*]{}]{}.
Consider the moment $s = t_{max}(c)$ when $e_s = c$. If wedge $\{b,c\} \not \in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{}, then by definition, $X_{{\{b,c\}}}$ is $0$. If $\{b,c\}\in$ [[*w-list*]{}]{}, then by Step \[step:reset\] of Algorithm \[algo:estimate\], the value of $X_{\{b,c\}}$ is reset to $0$. No subsequent change is made to this value. An identical argument shows the same for $X_{\{c,a\}}$. Finally, $X_{\{a,b\}}$ is set to 1 at this moment iff if wedge $\{a,b\}$ is in [[*e-list*]{}]{}, and once again, this value is not changed subsequently. [$\Box$]{}
By Lemma \[lem:debias\], ${\mathbf{E}}[X_{\{b,c\}}] = {\mathbf{E}}[X_{\{c,a\}}] = 0$, while ${\mathbf{E}}[X_{\{a,b\}}]$ is the probability that this wedge is in [[*w-list*]{}]{}. This is exactly $\alpha^2\beta$. Therefore, the sum of expectations of $X_w$ over all three wedges $w$ of the triangle $A = {\{a,b,c\}}$ is $\sum_{w \in A} {\mathbf{E}}[X_w] = \alpha^2\beta$. Observe this is true for any fixed triangle in $T_t$. For any wedge $w$ that does not participate in a triangle, $X_w$ is obviously zero. By linearity of expectation, ${\mathbf{E}}[\widehat{T}_t] = (\alpha^2\beta)^{-1} {\mathbf{E}}[\sum_{w \in W_t} X_w] $ $= (\alpha^2\beta)^{-1} \sum_{A \in T_t} \sum_{w \in A} {\mathbf{E}}[X_w]$. Plugging in the value of ${\mathbf{E}}[X_w]$, this is $(\alpha^2\beta)^{-1} \cdot \alpha^2\beta |T_t| = |T_t|$. [$\Box$]{}
Using methods from [@JhSePi13], we can prove weak concentration bounds for $\widehat{T}_t$ and $\widehat{W}_t$ (by bounding their variance). We need to assume that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are large enough to ensure that enough wedges of $W_t$ are in [[*w-list*]{}]{}, and there are at least as many wedges in $G_t$ as edges. The latter is needed to rule out extreme cases like $G_t$ being a path or a matching. This assumption is reasonable for real-world networks, as can be seen in . Proof is in the [=1[supplementary file attached with the submission]{}]{}.
[thm]{}[concthm]{} \[thm:conc\] Fix some sufficiently small $\gamma > 0$. Suppose that $(\alpha^2\beta)|W_t|$ (the expected number of wedges in $W_t$ that are in [[*w-list*]{}]{}) is at least $1/\gamma^6$. Furthermore $|W_t| \geq |E_t|$ (there are at least as many wedges in $G_t$ as edges). Then, $\Pr[|\widehat{W}_t - |W_t|| > \gamma|W_t|] < \gamma$, $\Pr[|\widehat{T}_t - |T_t|| > \gamma|W_t|] < \gamma$, and $Pr[|\widehat{{\tau}}_t - {\tau}_t| > 8\gamma] < 4\gamma$.
Empirical evaluation of [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{}
===============================================
We implemented our algorithm in C++ and ran it on a MacBook Air laptop with 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 processor and 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM. We applied [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} on a variety of real-world datasets. Refer to for details about these datasets.\
[**[[DBLP]{}]{}:**]{} This is a co-authorship network for papers on the DBLP website. From the raw data at DBLP [@DBLP] we extracted 786,719 papers by ignoring papers with (i) a single author, (ii) more than 100 authors, and (iii) missing “year” metadata. For each paper we put an edge corresponding to every distinct pair of co-authors resulting in a total of 3,630,374 (multi)edges.\
[ **[[Enron]{}]{}:**]{} This network is derived from emails between Enron employees between 1999 and 2003 [@graphrepository2013]. Nodes correspond to employees while edges represent their email correspondence. Multiple emails between the same pair of individuals result in a multigraph.\
[**[[Flickr]{}]{}:**]{} This dataset consists of friendship connections of users of Flickr, obtained from [@graphrepository2013]. Originally, the data was collected in [@mislove-2008-flickr]. (Results on [[Flickr]{}]{} given in the [=1[supplementary file attached with the submission]{}]{}.)\
[**SNAP:**]{} We extended our data set to include networks from SNAP [@Snap]. We synthetically replicate edges of these datasets to get a multigraph.
---------------- ------- ---------- -------- ------- ------ ------- ---------- ------- ------------
(simple) simple multi exact estimate exact Rel. error
[[DBLP]{}]{} 755K 61M 2.54M 3.63M 31K 0.269 0.282 5.50M 3.09%
[[Enron]{}]{} 86K 49M 297K 1.15M 8K 0.069 0.071 1.18M 3.38%
[[Flickr]{}]{} 2302K 22B 22M 33.1M 251K 0.110 0.108 837M 1.24%
as-skitter 1.6M 16B 11M 53M 160K 0.005 0.005 28M 6.50%
cit-Patents 3.7M 0.3B 16M 79M 199K 0.067 0.066 7.51M 0.33%
web-Google 0.8M 0.7B 4M 20M 79K 0.055 0.057 13.3M 3.79%
web-NotreDame 0.3M 0.3B 1M 5M 42K 0.088 0.088 8.91M 3.93%
youtube 1.1M 1.4B 2M 14M 64K 0.006 0.006 3.05M 1.86%
livejournal 5.2M 7.5B 48M 205M 473K 0.124 0.118 310M 8.65%
orkut 3.0M 45B 223M 562M 1.2M 0.041 0.041 627M 0.09%
---------------- ------- ---------- -------- ------- ------ ------- ---------- ------- ------------
**Convergence of estimate:** and demonstrate convergence of the [*final estimates*]{} (i.e. for $G_m$) for increasing space. We define storage as the number of edges stored by our algorithm: $|\mbox{{{\it e-list}}{}}| + 2\cdot |\mbox{{{\it w-list}}}|$. We first choose $\beta$ in ${\{0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0\}}$ and then vary $\alpha$ in increments of $0.0005$ up to $0.02$. For each setting of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we plot 5 runs of the algorithm. One can see that both the transitivity and triangles estimates converge rapidly to true values as we increase the space.
Our estimates for various time windows also converge rapidly, as we demonstrate in . For these experiments, we picked specific time windows on [[DBLP]{}]{}, namely, 1989–2008, 1999–2008, and 1938–2008. This is mostly for demonstrating the convergence of differing window sizes. We chose $\beta$ from ${\{0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0\}}$ and varied $\alpha$ in increments of $0.1\%$ up to $3.0\%$. For each value of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we give 5 runs of the algorithm. In the plots $x$-axis gives increasing space (i.e., increasing $\alpha$) and the $y$-axis is the estimate.
Across the board, we see rapid convergence as storage increases. For [[DBLP]{}]{}, storage of 60K is enough to guarantee extremely accurate results (relative errors within 5%), for all the time windows. This is even true for the 10 year window, which is quite small compared to the entire stream of data ([[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} will not work for window sizes of a year, since there are not enough samples from such a window. But the number of edges in a year is small enough to store explicitly).
**Space usage:** shows the space used by our algorithm in terms of parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We measure both [[*e-list*]{}]{} and [[*w-list*]{}]{} for varying values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and plot the predictions of . We see almost perfect alignment of the predictions with .
**Comparison with previous work:** We run the algorithms of [@PaTaTi+13], [@JhSePi13], and [@AhDuNe+14], using hash based sampling to recreate uniform edge sampling in a multigraph. We first note that our implementations work correctly on the simple graph version of [[DBLP]{}]{}, shown in . All algorithms converge extremely rapidly. When these algorithms are applied to the multigraph version of [[DBLP]{}]{}, then they all converge to incorrect triangle estimates ().
**Tests on a broader data set:** For more validation of [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{}, we run it on a large set of real-world graphs. Most of these graphs are neither temporal nor multigraphs. We construct a multigraph stream from each graph as follows: every edge $e$ of the graph is independently replicated with probability $1/3$ (specifically $r$ times where $r$ is uniform in $\{2, 4, 8, 16, 32\}$). The stream is obtained by randomly permuting these multiedges. For each graph, we only use [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} record to transitivity and triangle count of the entire stream (the graph $G[1,m]$). The results are presented in . For these runs, we set $\alpha = 0.01$ and capped the size of wedge reservoir to $50K$ (by choosing $\beta$ appropriately). We observe that transitivity estimates are very sharp (matching the true values up to the third decimal point in many cases). The relative error in triangles estimates is less than $3\%$ for most cases and never exceeds $8.7\%$. The overall space used by the algorithm is at most $4\%$ of the number of edges of the underlying [*simple*]{} graph. We point out that for [orkut]{} which has nearly half a billion edges (after injecting duplicate edges), the transitivity estimate closely matches with the true value and the relative error in triangles is less than $1\%$. The total storage used is less than $0.5\%$ of the edge stream.
Experiments with time windows {#sec:implement}
=============================
[[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} takes as input a single time window length $\Delta t$. But observe that the primary data structures [[*e-list*]{}]{}, [[*w-list*]{}]{}, and $X_w$ are independent of this window. As a result, [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} can handle multiple time windows with the *same* data structure. We only maintain the latest timestamp for each edge, and do not store any history. If the time window $[t-\Delta t,t]$ is too small, it is unlikely that [[*e-list*]{}]{} will have any edges from this window. On the other hand, small time windows can be stored explicitly to get exact answers.
**Triangle trends in [[DBLP]{}]{}:** In our opinion, the following results are the real achievement of [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{}. We wish to understand transitivity and triangle trends for [[DBLP]{}]{} in various time windows. We focus on 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, 20-year, and entire history windows. So think of a (say) 5-year sliding time window in [[DBLP]{}]{}, and the aim is to report the transitivity in each such window. Refer to (“All" refers to the window that contains the entire history). *The algorithm [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} makes a single pass over [[DBLP]{}]{} without preprocessing and provides results for all these windows at every year.*
The transitivity reveals intriguing trends. Firstly, smaller windows have higher transitivity. It shows that network clustering tends to happen in shorter time intervals. This is probably because of the affiliation structure of coauthorship networks. The increase of triangle counts over time (for the same window size) may not be too surprising, given that the volume of research increasing. But juxtapose this with the *decreasing* of transitivity over time. This means that (say) the transitivity in 2004–2008 is higher than 2009–2013, even though there are more papers (and more triangles) in the latter interval. Why is this the case? Is it because of increasing of interdisciplinary work, which might create more open wedges? Or is it simply some issue with the recording of [[DBLP]{}]{} data? Will the decreasing transitivity converge in the future, or do we expect it to simply go to zero? Can we give a reasonable model of this behavior? We believe that the output of [[[MG-Triangle]{}]{}]{} will lead to many data science questions, and this is the real significance of the algorithm.
**Triangle trends in [[Enron]{}]{}:** In and , we present triangles and transitivity estimates for [[Enron]{}]{} for various windows. For this dataset, we think of a window as being defined by a specified number of past edges. In particular, apart from considering the entire past, we look at windows formed by past 200K, 400K, and 800K edges. Observe that in the beginning of the stream all these windows coincide, since the windows are equivalent. Focusing on the triangles estimate, it is clear that the estimate corresponding to the larger window size dominates that of a smaller window size. What is interesting for [[Enron]{}]{} dataset is that the same ordering is observed even for transitivity estimates. That is, in general, a transitivity estimate curve corresponding to the larger size window dominates the one corresponding to the smaller size. We observe a completely opposite behavior with [[DBLP]{}]{} transitivity curves, see .
Another interesting observation is that in case of [[Enron]{}]{}, the curves for triangles estimates for smaller window lengths flattens out whereas that in [[DBLP]{}]{} the curves for triangle estimates continue to rise even for smaller time windows. This indicates that the growth of [*total number of triangles*]{} is superlinear in [[DBLP]{}]{} (with respect to the number of years) whereas it is nearly linear (with respect to the number of edges seen so far) in case of [[Enron]{}]{}. Indeed the final estimate for the number of triangles in [[Enron]{}]{} is almost the same as the number of edges in the stream.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Ashish Goel for suggesting the use of hash-function based reservoir sampling. This was a key step towards the development of the final algorithm.
=1
[^1]: Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA. Email: {mjha, scomand, apinar}@sandia.gov;
[^2]: This work was funded by the DARPA GRAPHS and DOE ASCR applied math programs. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
[^3]: This is implemented by appropriately concatenating vertex ids.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the transmission strategy adaptation problem in an RF-powered cognitive radio network, in which hybrid secondary users are able to switch between the harvest-then-transmit mode and the ambient backscatter mode for their communication with the secondary gateway. In the network, a monetary incentive is introduced for managing the interference caused by the secondary transmission with imperfect channel sensing. The sensing-pricing-transmitting process of the secondary gateway and the transmitters is modeled as a single-leader-multi-follower Stackelberg game. Furthermore, the follower sub-game among the secondary transmitters is modeled as a generalized Nash equilibrium problem with shared constraints. Based on our theoretical discoveries regarding the properties of equilibria in the follower sub-game and the Stackelberg game, we propose a distributed, iterative strategy searching scheme that guarantees the convergence to the Stackelberg equilibrium. The numerical simulations show that the proposed hybrid transmission scheme always outperforms the schemes with fixed transmission modes. Furthermore, the simulations reveal that the adopted hybrid scheme is able to achieve a higher throughput than the sum of the throughput obtained from the schemes with fixed transmission modes.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'Reference.bib'
title: 'Stackelberg Game for Distributed Time Scheduling in RF-Powered Backscatter Cognitive Radio Networks'
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Thanks to the development in Cognitive Radio (CR) technologies, recently Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) has seen tremendous advancements in improving the efficiency of Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum management [@6365154]. With the emphasis on policy and spectrum agility, DSA is also envisaged to provide more flexible business models for spectrum sharing with the non-legitimated (secondary) spectrum users. Meanwhile, with the proliferation of low-power networks such as Internet of Things (IoT), green powered CR networks with the capabilities of energy harvesting have also drawn the focus of research in addition to the studies on RF efficiency [@6365154]. By enabling RF energy harvesting on the CR devices, the green powered CR network is able to opportunistically harness the free energy from primary signals as well as exploiting the underutilized spectrum. However, in a typical RF-powered CR network, the transmission is usually organized in a harvest-then-transmit manner [@7353134; @6678102]. As a result, the performance of the secondary transmission is mainly dependent on the activity of the Primary Transmitters (PTs). In particular, to guarantee a satisfying performance of the RF-powered Secondary Transmitters (STs), the activity of the PTs is expected to be kept at a mild level. Otherwise, a PT with high frequent data transmission will leave the STs little time for transmitting over the idle channel, while a PT with low frequent data transmission will result in shortage of the harvested energy. In both situations, the total transmitted bits by the STs may be significantly reduced.
To overcome the performance degradation due to the uncontrollable PT activities, ambient backscattering [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015] has recently been introduced into the RF-powered CR networks [@7937935]. With ambient backscattering, an ST uses modulated backscattering of the ambient signals (i.e., the primary signals), such as UHF TV or Wi-Fi signals, to communicate with the Secondary Receiver (SR). A backscattering ST can transmit passively by switching between reflecting and non-reflecting states at a much lower rate than that of the ambient signals. The target SR decodes the information from the received signal using a simple averaging mechanism [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015]. However, although the circuit power consumption of backscattering is negligible, to maintain the power level of the backscattered signal, it is impractical for an ST to harvest the RF energy while operating in the backscattering mode. Therefore, when integrating the ambient backscattering module into the existing RF-powered CR devices, a natural question arises on how to properly allocate the time resource between the two modes of backscattering and harvesting, such that the total transmitted bits of the STs are maximized.
In this paper, we consider a multi-user CR network, where the STs are able to transmit data by using the overlaid, harvest-then-transmit mode and the ambient backscatter mode in a hybrid scheme. To answer the above question on optimal resource allocation, we formulate the joint transmit-mode selection and time resource allocation problem as a constrained non-cooperative game among the STs. In addition, to cope with the interference caused by STs due to imperfect channel sensing, we introduce a pricing mechanism for the primary network to control the STs’ transmit behaviors indirectly with monetary incentives. Furthermore, the resource allocation based on dynamic interference pricing is formulated as a two-stage Stackelberg game. Based on the analysis of the game properties, we propose a distributed, iterative allocation strategy searching mechanism which is guaranteed to converge to the Stackelberg Equilibrium (SE).
Related Work {#sec_review}
------------
### Resource Allocation in RF-Powered CR Networks {#sub_sec_RF}
In the past few years, a great amount of effort has been put in the study of the techniques for RF-powered CR networks (see [@6951347] and the references therein). In an RF-powered CR network, energy harvesting and spectrum access are performed opportunistically following a “sensing-harvesting-transmission” paradigm. In particular, in the scenario where the PT randomly occupies and evacuates the channel, an ST is subject to the constraints on the interference probability with the PTs as well as the constraint on the total consumable energy for transmission. Therefore, for an ST, a balance is expected to be stroke between the time allocated for sensing and the time allocated for energy harvesting. In [@6783667; @6661321], the problems of optimal pairing for the sensing duration and detection threshold in an RF-powered network are addressed through the formulation of constrained (stochastic) nonlinear programming problems. In [@7009968], the study is further extended to the scenario of cooperative sensing with data/decision, where a single ST uses the imperfect detection results from multiple mini-sensing slots to determine its operation mode. Furthermore, by extending the degree of freedom in the decision or resource variable space, the trade-off problems between sensing, harvesting and throughput have also been incorporated into the scenarios of Time-Division Multiplexing Access (TDMA) in multi-user CR networks [@7866871], multi-channel selection [@6985740] and cognitive relay networks [@7342973].
### Ambient Backscatter and its Application in CR Networks
Compared with the traditional backscatter devices which rely on a dedicated carrier emitter, ambient backscattering devices leverages the uncontrollable, pre-existing (i.e., ambient) RF signals for its own transmission [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015]. Since the introduction of ambient backscattering technique [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015], considerable effort has been devoted to improving its performance in terms of transmit range, throughput and Bit Error Rate (BER) [@Bharadia:2015:BHT:2785956.2787490; @7551180; @7873313]. In [@Bharadia:2015:BHT:2785956.2787490], the backscatter devices use a Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) as the ambient RF source as well as the receiver. Since the AP works as both the RF source and the receiver, and therefore knows the original signal, it is possible for the backscattering transmitter to adopt phase modulation and for the AP to implement self-interference cancellation based on standard channel estimation in the system. With the improved backscatter coding/decoding mechanism, the proposed mechanism in [@Bharadia:2015:BHT:2785956.2787490] achieves a throughput of $1$Mbps at the transmit range of $5$m. Alternatively, when unknown ambient signals are used for backscattering, differential encoding and on-off keying is usually adopted at the transmitter [@7551180]. Correspondingly, energy detection based on hypothesis test is usually used by the receiver/reader for decoding without the need of knowing the channel state information. In [@7873313], by allowing the transmitter’s antenna to change its impedance and backscatter with 3 states, the constellation density is expanded to a ternary code from on-off keying. Thereby, a significant increase in the transmit bitrate can be achieved with the same energy detection-based decoding mechanism at the receiver.
With the convenience of requiring no dedicated infrastructure to generate carrier signals and utilizing existing ambient signals for transmission, ambient backscattering is considered especially appropriate to be incorporated into RF-powered CR networks. In addition, the functionalities required by ambient backscatter such as carrier sensing and distributed Multiple Access Control (MAC) protocol [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015] are ready-to-access in CR networks [@6365154]. Meanwhile, since backscatter only creates additional paths from the backscattering transmitter to the primary receiver of the ambient signals, it can be effectively removed by the existing techniques such as multi-path distortion equalizer at the primary receiver or precoding at the PT. Also, a backscatter transmitter can offset the carrier phase by a certain frequency to avoid the interference [@Kellogg:2017:PWB:3036699.3036711]. Therefore, backscatter-induced interference to the primary transmission is generally negligible [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015]. Recently, emerging applications of ambient backscatter in RF-powered CR networks have been proposed in [@7937935; @7997476; @7869352]. In these works, the research focus is mostly placed on optimal operation scheduling for a single ST [@7937935; @7997476], or centralized scheduling for multiple STs [@7869352].
Contributions and Paper Organization
------------------------------------
In this paper, we study a CR network with multiple, hybrid STs that are jointly powered by RF-energy harvesting and backscattering techniques. Compared with the existing studies, we consider the practical situation for the CR network to have imperfect channel sensing capabilities, and emphasize the distributed nature of the CR network. To compensate the potential interference caused by RF-powered ST transmission, we introduce a pricing mechanism for the primary network to guide the time resource allocation among the STs. We model the interaction between the primary network and the secondary network as a single-leader-multi-follower hierarchical game. By providing a series of theoretical analyses on the properties of the equilibria in the game, we propose an iterative, distributed strategy searching mechanism that guarantees the convergence to the Stackelberg Equilibria (SE) as well as the social optimality among the STs.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec\_system\_model\] describes TDMA-based sensing and transmission mechanism with joint energy-harvesting and ambient backscattering. Section \[sec\_stackelberg\] introduces the pricing mechanism for interference compensation and proposes the Stackelberg game-based formulation of the interaction between the primary and secondary networks. Section \[sec\_SE\_searching\_method\] proposes the distributed equilibrium searching method based on the game analysis presented in Section \[sec\_stackelberg\]. Section \[sec\_simulation\] provides the numerical simulations for performance evaluation of the proposed algorithm and Section \[sec\_conclusion\] concludes the paper with a summary of the contribution.
System Model {#sec_system_model}
============
We consider a multi-transmitter CR network where $K$ STs are equipped with both an energy harvesting module and a backscatter circuit (see Figure \[fig\_network\_model\]). We assume that the PT’s channel occupancy process can be modeled as a discrete-time 0-1 renewal process, where “0” represents the state *Idle* and “1” represents the state *Busy*. The minimum waiting time between two successive state renewal is $T$, which is also the time length of the STs’ time slot. We assume that during one time slot the probabilities for the channel to be at the two states, i.e., *Idle* and *Busy* are known a-priori as $p_0$ and $p_1=1-p_0$, respectively. For the discrete-time renewal process, they are also the steady-state probabilities. The STs operate in TDMA mode and transmit to the same Secondary Gateway (SG). An ST switches between the harvest-then-transmit mode and the backscattering mode for its own data transmission. When operating as an active transmitter, the ST is expected to transmit in an overlaying mode. When the channel is occupied by the primary transmission, the ST cannot transmit but is able to either harvest energy from the PT’s signal or backscatter the PT’s signal for its own data transmission with a relatively lower bitrate. We consider that the SG deploys an energy detector and is responsible for notifying the STs about the state of the primary channel. We assume that the secondary transmission is executed in time slots, and each time slot can be further divided into three sub-phases for channel sensing, energy-harvesting/backscattering and active transmission, respectively (see Figure \[fig\_sensing\_slots\]).
Spectrum Sensing
----------------
Since both the harvest-then-transmit mode and the backscattering mode are of low energy, we assume that the STs are placed not too far from the SG. Therefore, the PT activities can be considered identical across the CR network. We consider that the SG is able to dynamically set up the length of the sensing phase and the detection threshold. Based on the standard detection theoretic formulation [@4489760; @6253200], for the received primary signal $y(t)$ at the SG, a binary hypothesis testing can be formulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hypothesis_testing}
y(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w(t) & : \mathcal{H}_0,\\
\sqrt{h^{\textrm{PT}}}x(t) + w(t) & : \mathcal{H}_1,
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $w(t)$ is the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) with the variance $\xi^2$, and $\sqrt{h^{\textrm{PT}}}x(t)$ is the received primary signal with the average power gain $h^{\textrm{PT}}$. $\mathcal{H}_0$ denotes the hypothesis that the primary channel is in state *Idle*, and $\mathcal{H}_1$ denotes the hypothesis that the primary signal is in state *Busy*. The performance of energy detection is measured using the sample statistics $Y=\sum_{i=1}^{N}y^2(i)$ in terms of the probabilities of false alarm $p^f=\Pr(Y>\epsilon|\mathcal{H}_0)$ and detection $p^d=\Pr(Y>\epsilon|\mathcal{H}_1)$ with the detection threshold $\epsilon$. Under the standard assumptions in the literature of channel sensing techniques in cognitive radio networks [@4489760; @6253200], $Y$ can be approximated as a Gaussian random variable, the mean and variance of which under $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$ are $E(Y|\mathcal{H}_0)=\xi^2$, $E(Y|\mathcal{H}_1)=(\gamma+1)\xi^2$, $Var(Y|\mathcal{H}_0)=\frac{2}{N}\xi^4$ and $Var(Y|\mathcal{H}_1)=\frac{2}{N}(\gamma+1)\xi^4$, respectively. Here, $\gamma$ is the received Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) from the PT at the SG, and we have $\gamma=h^{\textrm{PT}}P_{\textrm{PT}}/\xi^2$ with the primary transmit power $P_{\textrm{PT}}$. Given the channel bandwidth $W$, sensing time $\tau^s$ and detection threshold $\epsilon$, we have $N=W\tau^s$ and according to [@4489760; @6253200], $$\label{eq:detection}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^f(\tau^s, \epsilon) = Q\left(\displaystyle\frac{\epsilon-\xi^2}{\sqrt{2}\xi^2}\sqrt{W\tau^s}\right),\\
p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon) = Q\left(\displaystyle\frac{\epsilon-(1+\gamma)\xi^2}{\sqrt{2}(1+\gamma)\xi^2}\sqrt{W\tau^s}\right),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $Q(x)=(1/\sqrt{2\pi})\int_{x}^{\infty}e^{-t^2/2}dt$ is known as the Q-function.
Transmission Based on Energy Harvesting and Backscattering
----------------------------------------------------------
The STs select their operation mode according to the channel detection result provided by the SG. When the channel is detected to be busy, an ST chooses to either harvest energy from the PT signals or backscatter for its own transmission. Otherwise, the ST can choose to transmit data using the energy harvested during the energy-harvesting phase. To address the conflict over channel usage among the STs, the TDMA mechanism is adopted by the CR network in its MAC layer, and the SG is responsible for synchronizing the phases of sensing, harvesting/backscattering and transmission among the STs. Since the performance of the STs depends on the accuracy of the channel sensing result, we also need to explicitly consider the impact of the sensing error on the ST operation in the three phases. Let $\tau^h_k$ denote the time length that is allocated to ST $k$ for energy harvesting when the channel is detected as busy. Then, the expected RF energy that is harvested from the PT by ST $k$ during the energy-harvesting phase $\tau^h_k$ is $$\label{eq:energy_harvested}
E^H_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k)=p_1p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\tau^h_k\delta h^{\textrm{PT}}_kP_{\textrm{PT}},$$ where $p_1$ is the probability for the channel to be busy (i.e., hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_1$), $\delta$ is the energy harvesting efficiency ratio ($0\le\delta\le1$) and $h^{\textrm{PT}}_k$ is the channel power gain from the PT to ST $k$. Note that in (\[eq:energy\_harvested\]) we omit the case of hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_0$, since no energy can be sufficiently harvested when a false alarm happens and the channel is actually idle.
Let $\tau^b_k$ denote the length of time allocated to ST $k$ for backscattering. Since the backscattering bitrate is determined by the built-in backscatter circuit [@Liu:2013:ABW:2486001.2486015], we consider that the backscattering bitrate of ST $k$ is fixed as $\overline{r}^b_k$ during the backscattering phase $\tau^b_k$. Note that when a false alarm happens, ST $k$ cannot effectively backscatter due to the absence of the primary signals. Therefore, we can express the expected backscattering rate for ST $k$ during $\tau^b_k$ as follows: $$\label{eq:tx_backscatter}
r^b_k(\tau^s, \epsilon)=p_1p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\overline{r}^b_k.$$
Alternatively, when the channel is detected as idle and ST $k$ decides to perform active data transmission, its transmission rate in the opportunistic transmission phase depends on the available energy that is harvested during the energy harvesting phase. Since the circuit power consumption is not negligible for active transmission, we consider that each ST has to provide a fixed power $P^c$ for powering the circuit [@7876867; @7937935]. Let $\tau^t_k$ denote the length of time allocated to ST $k$ for active data transmission. Consider that the STs adopt an opportunistic transmission policy by sustaining the active transmission during $T$ with the expected level of harvested energy during the same length of period. From (\[eq:energy\_harvested\]), the expected power that ST $k$ achieves during $\tau^t_k$ is $$\label{eq:tx_power}
P_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k) = \frac{E^H_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k)-P^c\tau_k^t}{\tau_k^t}=\frac{p_1p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\tau^h_k\delta h^{\textrm{PT}}_{k}P_{\textrm{PT}}}{\tau^t_k}-P^c,$$ which is naturally accompanied by the supply-power constraint $P_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k)\ge 0$.
Let $\sigma^2_k$ denote the AWGN power over the link from ST $k$ to the SG, and $h_k$ denote the corresponding channel power gain. Then, by taking into consideration the impact of false alarm and miss detection of the PT signals, the expected active transmission rate during $\tau^t_k$ is $$\label{eq:tx_rate_idle}
\begin{array}{ll}
r^t_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k)\!=&\!p_0(1\!-\!p^f(\tau^s, \epsilon))\kappa_kW\log_2\left(1\!-\!P^c\!+\!\displaystyle\frac{h_kP_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k)}{\sigma^2_k}\right)\\
&+p_1(1\!-\!p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon))\kappa_kW\log_2\left(1\!-\!P^c\!+\!
\displaystyle\frac{h_kP_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k)}{h^{\textrm{PT}}P_{\textrm{PT}}\!+\!\sigma^2_k}\right),
\end{array}$$ where $p_0$ is the probability for the channel to be idle, $p_1$ is the probability for the channel to be busy, $\kappa_k$ is the transmission efficiency ratio ($0\le\kappa_k\le1$), $h^{\textrm{PT}}$ is the channel power gain from the PT to the SG, $h_k$ is the power gain for the secondary link $k$ and $P_k(\tau^s, \epsilon, \tau^h_k, \tau^t_k)$ is the expected transmit power given in (\[eq:tx\_power\]). On the right-hand-side of (\[eq:tx\_rate\_idle\]), the first term represents the bitrate achieved by ST $k$ when the channel is correctly detected as idle, and the second term represents the bitrate achieved by ST $k$ when miss detection happens.
Let $T$ denote the total length of one time slot for the secondary network. After the length of the sensing phase $\tau^s$ is determined by the SG, the STs jointly determine the allocation of the sub-time slots, $\tau^h_k$, $\tau^b_k$ and $\tau^t_k$, within the accessible time range $[0, T-\tau^s]$ in the corresponding channel state. Following the TDMA mechanism, in either the transmitting mode or the backscattering mode, only one ST is allowed to operate over the channel at any time instance. Then, the sub-time slot allocation for ST $k$ ($1\!\le\!k\!\le\!K$) has to satisfy the feasibility constraints $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau^t_k\le(T-\tau^s)$, $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau^b_k\le(T-\tau^s)$ and $\tau^h_k+\tau^b_k\le(T-\tau^s)$. Let ${s}_k\!=\!(\tau^h_k, \tau^t_k, \tau^b_k)$ denote ST $k$’s individual choice for sub-time slot allocation. Then, given a pair of the sensing parameters $(\tau^s, \epsilon)$ set by the SG, the transmission time scheduling problem for ST $k$ ($1\!\le\!k\!\le\!K$) can be formulated as follows:
**ST $k$’s utility optimization problem** is to find a strategy vector $s^*_k=(\tau^{h,*}_k, \tau^{t,*}_k,\tau^{b,*}_k)$ such that
\[eq:opt:local\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:opt:local}}
s^*_k=\arg\max\limits_{s_k} & \Big(u_k(s_k; \tau^s, \epsilon)=\tau^b_k r^b_k(\tau^s, \epsilon) + \tau^t_k r^t_k(\tau^h_k,\tau^t_k; \tau^s, \epsilon)\Big),\\
\label{eq_opt:a}
\textrm{s.t. } & \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^b_i\le(T-\tau^s), \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^t_i\le(T-\tau^s),\\
\label{eq_opt:b}
&\tau^b_k + \tau^h_k\le(T-\tau^s), \tau^h_k\ge0, \tau^t_k\ge0, \tau^b_k\ge0,\\
\label{eq_opt:c}
& p_1p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{{\textrm{PT}}}\tau_k^h-P^c\tau_k^t\ge0,\end{aligned}$$
where $r^b_k(\tau^s, \epsilon)$ and $r^t_k(\tau^h_k,\tau^t_k; \tau^s, \epsilon)$ are given in (\[eq:tx\_backscatter\]) and (\[eq:tx\_rate\_idle\]), respectively. (\[eq\_opt:a\]) defines a set of common constraints that are shared by all the STs. It is worth noting that the two inequalities in (\[eq\_opt:a\]), namely, $\sum_{i=1}^{K}\tau^b_i\le(T-\tau^s)$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{K}\tau^t_i\le(T-\tau^s)$, represent the constraints at state *Busy* and state *Idle*, respectively. Let $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\![s_1,\ldots,s_K]^{\top}$ denote the joint strategy vector for time resource allocation, and $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}$ denote the joint strategies chosen by the adversaries of ST $k$. Then, from (\[eq\_opt:a\]), we note that the local strategy searching space of ST $k$ is determined by the adversaries’ strategy $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}$. (\[eq\_opt:b\]) provides the feasibility constraints. (\[eq\_opt:c\]) is the linear supply-power constraint derived based on the discussion about (\[eq:tx\_power\]).
Stackelberg Game for Time Resource Allocation {#sec_stackelberg}
=============================================
Based on the system model given in Section \[sec\_system\_model\], now we are ready to introduce an interference pricing mechanism for the SG to control the time resource allocation process among the STs. In this section, we will first provide the Stackelberg game-based mathematical model of the interaction between the SG and the STs. Then, with the backward induction-based analysis, we will present a series of discoveries regarding the properties of the game.
Stackelberg Game Formulation
----------------------------
From the perspective of the PT, a low interference level, hence a low miss detection probability $1\!-\!p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon)$ is expected for the secondary network. By (\[eq:detection\]), the PT naturally prefers a long sensing phase and a small detection threshold. In contrast, given the constraint on the harvested energy, the STs prefer to extend their transmit phase as long as possible. Since with imperfect channel detection, the interference from the STs cannot be completely eliminated, we consider that the PT is able to tolerate a certain level of interference, provided that the STs pay compensation, i.e., price, for the interference that they cause in the harvest-then-transmit mode. Thereby, we consider that the SG works on behalf of the primary network and is able to collect the payments from the STs for the interference that they cause to the PT. For each ST, the interference is measured in the time fraction of colliding with the PT. To properly encourage or curb the primary channel usage by the STs, the gateway is allowed to adaptively choose the sensing time $\tau^s$, detection testing threshold $\epsilon$ and uniform interference price. Let $\alpha$ denote the unit price of the interference time, then, the SG’s expected revenue optimization problem can be formulated as follows:
**The SG’s revenue optimization problem** is to find a strategy vector $s^*_0\!=\!(\alpha^*, \tau^{s,*}, \epsilon^*)$ such that
\[eq:time:revenue\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:time:revenue}}
s^*_0=\arg\max\limits_{s_0=(\alpha, \tau^s, \epsilon)} & \left( \theta_0(s_0; \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}) = \alpha p_1\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}(1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon))\tau^t_k.\right)\\
\label{eq:time_revenue_a}
\textrm{s.t.}\quad & 1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\le\overline{p}^m, \\
\label{eq:time_revenue_b}
& T\ge\tau^s\ge 0,\alpha\ge0, \overline{\epsilon}\ge\epsilon\ge\underline{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$
where (\[eq:time\_revenue\_a\]) sets the constraint on the probability of miss detection allowed by the PT.
Meanwhile, after accounting for the payment made to the SG for interference (cf., (\[eq:time:revenue\])), the individual goal of ST $k$ now becomes maximizing the net payoff for its transmission. From (\[eq:time\_revenue\_a\]), we obtain $p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\ge1-\overline{p}^m$ and thus are able to relax the constraint in (\[eq\_opt:c\]) by replacing $p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon)$ therein with $1-\overline{p}^m$. Let $\nu$ denote the STs’ valuation per unit transmission rate. Then, based on the local optimization problem of ST $k$ defined in (\[eq:opt:local\]), we formulate the following expected payoff optimization problem for the STs:
**ST $k$’s payoff optimization problem** is to find a strategy vector $s^*_k\!=\!(\tau^{h,*}_k, \tau^{t,*}_k,\tau^{b,*}_k)$ such that
\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:o_modifiedpt:local}}
s^*_k=\arg\max\limits_{s_k=(\tau^h_k,\tau^t_k,\tau^b_k)}& \Big(\theta_k(s_k;s_0)=\nu\left(\tau^b_k r^b_k(\tau^s, \epsilon) + \tau^t_k r^t_k(\tau^h_k,\tau^t_k; \tau^s, \epsilon)\right)-\alpha p_1(1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon))\tau^t_k\Big),\\
\label{eq_opt_modifiedpt_a}
\textrm{s.t.\;\;\quad} & \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^b_i\le(T-\tau^s), \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^t_i\le(T-\tau^s),\\
\label{eq_opt_modifiedpt_b}
& \tau^b_k + \tau^h_k\le(T-\tau^s), \tau^h_k\ge0, \tau^t_k\ge0, \tau^b_k\ge0,\\
\label{eq_opt_modifiedpt_c}
& p_1(1-\overline{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{{\textrm{PT}}}\tau_k^h-P^c\tau_k^t\ge0.\end{aligned}$$
The time scheduling problem described by (\[eq:time:revenue\]) and (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) can be naturally interpreted as a two-level decision making process. In the first level, the SG declares its selected values of the interference price, the sensing duration and the detection threshold. Then, following the SG’s strategy, the STs negotiate among themselves about the allocation of the harvesting/backscattering and transmission sub-time slots. With such an allocation scheme, the problem of distributed time resource allocation can be formulated as a single-leader-multi-follower Stackelberg game.
\[def:Stackelberg\_game\] The two-level time scheduling game $\mathcal{G}$ is defined by a 3-tuple: $\langle \mathcal{K}=\{0, 1, \ldots, K\}, \mathcal{S}\!=\!\times\mathcal{S}_{k\in{\mathcal{K}}},
\{\theta_k\}_{k\in{\mathcal{K}}}\rangle$, where player $k\!=\!0$ is the single leader (i.e., the SG), whose strategy space is $\mathcal{S}_0\!=\!\{s_0=(\alpha, \tau^s,\epsilon) : \overline{\epsilon}\!\ge\!\epsilon\!\ge\!\underline{\epsilon},\alpha\!\ge\!0, T\!\ge\!\tau^s\!\ge\!0, 1\!-\!p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\!\le\!\overline{p}^m\}$, and player $k$ ($k\!=\!1,\ldots,K$) is one follower player (i.e., an ST), whose strategy space is $\mathcal{S}_k\!=\!\{s_k\!=\!(\tau^h_k, \tau^t_k, \tau^b_k): \tau^h_k\!\ge\!0, \tau^t_k\!\ge\!0, \tau^b_k\!\ge\!0, \tau^h_k\!+\!\tau^b_k\!\le\!(T\!-\!\tau^s), p_1(1\!-\!\overline{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{{\textrm{PT}}}\tau_k^h\!-\!P^c\tau_k^t\!\ge\!0\}\!\cap\!\{s_k\!=\!(\tau^h_k, \tau^t_k, \tau^b_k):\sum_{j=1}^{K}\tau^t_j\!+\!\tau^s\le T, \sum_{j=1}^{K}\tau^b_j\!+\!\tau^s\!\le\!T\}$. Player $k$’s individual payoff $\theta_k$ is given by the objective function in (\[eq:time:revenue\]) and (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) for $k\!=\!0$ and $k\!\ne\!0$, respectively.
Based on Definition \[def:Stackelberg\_game\], we have the multi-follower sub-game among the STs in $\mathcal{G}$ as a 3-tuple: $\mathcal{G}^f\!=\!\langle \mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\{1, \ldots,K\}, \mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\times\mathcal{S}_k, \{\theta_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\rangle$. Then, we can define the Nash Equilibrium (NE) of $\mathcal{G}^f$ in the form of simultaneous best response as follows:
\[def:Nash\_equilibrium\] Given the SG’s strategy $s_0$, the parametric joint follower strategy $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}, *}(s_0)$ is an NE of $\mathcal{G}^f$ if $\forall k\!\in\!{\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}}$, the following condition holds $\forall s_k\!\in\!\mathcal{S}_k\left(s^{\textrm{ST}, *}_{-k}(s_0)\right)$: $$\label{eq_equilibrium}
\theta_k\left(s^*_k(s_0), s^{\textrm{ST}, *}_{-k}(s_0)\right)\ge\theta_k\left(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}, *}_{-k}(s_0)\right).$$
Based on the follower sub-game NE given in Definition \[def:Nash\_equilibrium\], we can further define the SE of game $\mathcal{G}$ as the following sub-game perfect NE:
\[def:Stackelberg\_equilibrium\] $\mathbf{s}^*=({s^*_k})_{k=0}^{K}$ is the SE of game $\mathcal{G}$ if the following inequality is satisfied: $$\label{eq_SE}
\theta_0\left(s^*_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}(s^*_0)\right)\ge\theta_0\left(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}(s_0)\right),$$ where $\forall s_0\in \mathcal{S}_0$, $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}(s_0)$ is one of the rational reactions of the followers satisfying (\[eq\_equilibrium\]).
From Definition \[def:Nash\_equilibrium\], we note that for any player $k\!\ne\!0$ in the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$, its strategy space $\mathcal{S}_k$ depends on the joint adversaries’ strategy, $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}=(s_i)_{i\in{\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}},i\ne k}$. Namely, $s_k\in\mathcal{S}_k(s_{-k})$ is a set-valued map which depends on the shared, rival-strategy dependent constraints given in (\[eq\_opt\_modifiedpt\_a\]). Therefore, the problem of NE seeking for game $\mathcal{G}^f$ becomes a Generalized NE (GNE) problem [@Facchinei2010]. Furthermore, to obtain the joint SE strategy $\mathbf{s}^*$, the followers’ rational reaction mapping, $\mathbf{s}^{f,*}(s_0)$, is required to be established for the follower sub-game given any leader strategy $s_0$. Then, the problem of SE seeking in $\mathcal{G}$ becomes a bilevel programming problem with multiple lower-level local optimization problems and a single upper-level optimization problem [@dempe2002foundations]. Thereby, we analyze the properties of the SE in game $\mathcal{G}$ through backward induction by first investigating the properties of the NE in the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$.
Analysis of the Follower Sub-game {#sub_sec_follower_analysis}
---------------------------------
Assume that the leader’s strategy is fixed as $s_0\!=\!(\alpha, \tau^s, \epsilon)$. For conciseness, from now on we omit $s_0$ in ST $k$’s strategy space $\mathcal{S}_k(s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, s_0)$ and payoff function $\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, s_0)$ in the analysis of the follower sub-game. Then, we have the following properties in regard to $\mathcal{G}^f$:
\[thm\_convex\_game\] The following properties hold with respect to the objective and constraint functions in ST $k$’s payoff optimization problem defined by (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]):
- $\mathcal{S}_k$ is convex and compact $\forall k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, and for any feasible $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}$, $\mathcal{S}_k(s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$ is nonempty.
- $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, the objective function $\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$ given by (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) is a twice continuously differentiable ($C^2$) concave function with respect to $s_k$.
See Appendix \[Proof\_thm\_convex\_game\].
Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\] indicates that for each ST, the local optimization problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) is a concave programming problem. Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\] paves the way of resorting to the mathematical tool of Quasi-Variational Inequalities (QVI) [@Facchinei2010] for showing the existence of the GNE in the follower sub-game. Before proceeding, we first provide the definition of the QVI problem as follows:
\[def\_VI\] Given a closed and convex set $\mathcal{S}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and a gradient-based mapping $F:\mathcal{S}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$, the VI problem denoted as $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}
(\mathcal{S},F)$, consists of finding a vector $\mathbf{s}^*\in\mathcal{S}$, called a solution of the VI, such that: $$\label{eq_vi_definition}
(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{s}^*)^TF(\mathbf{s}^*)\ge 0, \forall\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{S}.$$ If the defining set $\mathcal{S}$ depends on the variable $\mathbf{s}$, i.e., $\mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{S}( \mathbf{s})$, then, $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S},F)$ is a QVI problem.
From Definition \[def:Stackelberg\_game\], we define $F^f\!=\!(-\nabla_{{s}_k}\theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}))_{k=1}^{K}$ and obtain a corresponding QVI problem $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},F^f)$, where $\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}$ is given by the definition of the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$. Then, we have the following property that guarantees the equivalence between the solution to the reformulated QVI problem $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},F^f)$ and the GNE of the original follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$:
\[lemma\_equivalence\] A joint follower strategy $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}$ is a GNE of the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$ if and only if it is a solution of the QVI problem $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},F^f)$.
With [**[P1]{}**]{} and [**[P2]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\], Lemma \[lemma\_equivalence\] immediately follows Theorem 3.3 in [@Facchinei2010].
By Lemma \[lemma\_equivalence\], to show the existence of the NE of sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$, it suffices to show that the solution set to the QVI problem $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},F^f)$ is non-empty. Through inspecting the convexity and compactness of the strategy set and the monotonicity property of $F^f$, we obtain Theorem \[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\].
\[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\] For any feasible $s_0$, the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$ admits at least one GNE. Furthermore, let the GNE be denoted by $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}\!=\![s^*_1,\ldots,s^*_K]^{\top}$, then for ST $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\tau^{h,*}_k\!=\!T\!-\!\tau^s\!-\!\tau^{b,*}_k$.
See Appendix \[app\_unique\_sub\_game\_GNE\].
Theorem \[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\] shows that the STs tend to fully utilize the time fraction for channel state *Busy* to backscatter or harvest energy. Then, we can remove one of the inter-dependent strategy variables $\tau_k^h$ and $\tau_k^b$ and obtain $s_k=(\tau^h_k=\!T\!-\!\tau^s\!-\!\tau^{b}_k, \tau^t_k,\tau^b_k)$ without affecting the sub-game NE as the joint solution to (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]). Since for each ST, the local optimization problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) is a concave programming problem, we can derive the GNE of the follower sub-game through solving the concatenated Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of the local problems $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^\textrm{ST}$. Let $G(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})$ denote the vector of constraints that are jointly determined by $\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}$, and $Z_k(s_k)$ denote the vector of constraints that depend only on the local strategy $s_k$. Then, from (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) we have $$\label{eq_joint_constraint}
G(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})=\begin{bmatrix}
G^1(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\\
G^2(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})
\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}\tau_k^t-(T-\tau^s)\\
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}\tau_k^b-(T-\tau^s)
\end{bmatrix},$$ and $$\label{eq_local_constraint}
Z_k(s_k)=\begin{bmatrix}
Z_k^1(s_k)\\
Z_k^2(s_k)\\
Z_k^3(s_k)
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}
=\begin{bmatrix}
-\tau_k^t\\
-\tau_k^b\\
P^c\tau_k^t-p_1(1-\overline{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{{\textrm{PT}}}(T-\tau^s-\tau_k^b)
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}.$$ Let $\pmb\lambda_k$ and $\pmb\mu_k$ denote the KKT multiplier vector for $G$ and $Z_k$ in the local optimization problem of ST $k$, respectively. Then, for ST $k$ the KKT conditions are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_kkt_1}
&\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k(s_k)-\left(\nabla_{s_k}G(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\right)^{\top}\pmb\lambda_k-\left(\nabla_{s_k}Z_k(s_k)\right)^{\top}\pmb\mu_k=0,\\
\label{eq_kkt_2}
&\mathbf{0}\le\pmb\lambda_k\perp -G(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\ge 0,\\
\label{eq_kkt_3}
&\mathbf{0}\le\pmb\mu_k\perp -Z_k({s}_k)\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ where (\[eq\_kkt\_2\]) and (\[eq\_kkt\_3\]) provide the complementary conditions and the operator $\perp$ represents component-wise orthogonality. Namely, for two vectors $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$, $\mathbf{x}\perp\mathbf{y}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{x}_i\mathbf{y}_i\!=\!0, \forall i$. Observing $G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $Z_k({s}_k)$, we note that all the constraint functions are affine. Thereby, we can immediately find a feasible strategy $\tilde{s}_k=\left(\tau_k^t=\frac{(T-\tau^s)}{2K}, \tau^b_k=\min\left(\frac{(T-\tau^s)}{2K},T-\tau^s-\frac{P^c\tau_k^t}{p_1(1-\overline{p}^m)\delta h^{\textrm{PT}}_kP_{\textrm{PT}}}\right)\right)$ that guarantees $\forall k\ge1$, $G^i\le0$ and $Z^j_{k}\le0$ for all the constraint indices $i$ and $j$ at $\tilde{s}_k$. Then, according to the Slater’s theorem (cf. Chapter 5.2.3 of [@boyd2004convex]), $\tilde{s}_k$ is in the relative interior of the strategy domain and satisfies the Slater’s condition. Therefore, strong duality holds for the Lagrangian of the local optimization problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) and the KKT conditions given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]) provide both the necessary and sufficient condition for an optimal solution to (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]). Then, we have Lemma \[lemma\_kkt\_solution\].
\[lemma\_kkt\_solution\] If $\left(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}, (\pmb\lambda^*_k)_{k=1}^K, (\pmb\mu^*_k)_{k=1}^K\right)$ solves the concatenated KKT system given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]), then $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}$ is a GNE point of the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$.
With [**[P1]{}**]{} and [**[P2]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\] and the strong duality of the Lagrangian function corresponding to (\[eq\_kkt\_1\]) shown above, Lemma \[lemma\_kkt\_solution\] immediately follows Theorem 4.6 of [@Facchinei2010].
Lemma \[lemma\_kkt\_solution\] naturally leads to the idea of deriving the follower sub-game equilibria through identifying the solution of the concatenated local KKT systems given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]) for all $k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Further inspection into the structure of $\mathcal{G}^f$ reveals that a simplified form of the solution to the concatenated KKT system can be obtained. This relies on showing that the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$ is an exact potential game [@MONDERER1996124]:
\[lemma\_potential\] The follower game $\mathcal{G}^f$ is an exact potential game with the following potential function $$\label{eq_potential_func}
\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\theta_k(s_k,s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}).$$
From (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) we note that $\theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ only depends on the local strategy $s_k$. Then, from (\[eq\_potential\_func\]), $\forall s_k, s'_k\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$ the following holds with any given $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}$: $$\label{eq_potential_equiv}
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi(s_k,s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})\!-\!\phi(s'_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})\!=\!\left(\theta_k(s_k)\!+\!\sum_{j\ne k}\theta_j(s_j)\right)\!-\!\left(\theta_k(s'_k)\!+\!\sum_{j\ne k}\theta_j(s_j)\right)
\!=\!\theta_k(s_k)-\theta_k(s'_k).
\end{array}\nonumber$$ By the definition of the potential game [@MONDERER1996124], $\mathcal{G}^f$ is an exact potential game.
Based on Lemma \[lemma\_potential\], we are able to convert the multi-player, non-cooperative sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$ into a single optimization problem and obtain Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\].
\[lemma\_socail\_optimal\] The solution to the concatenated local KKT systems given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]), $\left({s}^*_k, \pmb\lambda^*_k, \pmb\mu^*_k\right)$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, is also the socially optimal NE in $\mathcal{G}^f$. Furthermore, $\pmb\lambda^*_k\!=\!\pmb\lambda^*$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$.
See Appendix \[app\_socail\_optimal\].
Lemmas \[lemma\_kkt\_solution\]-\[lemma\_socail\_optimal\] make it possible to introduce the Lagrangian-based analysis of the NE in $\mathcal{G}^f$. Based on Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\], we can further verify the uniqueness of the NE in $\mathcal{G}^f$ and obtain Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\]:
\[thm\_social\_optimal\] The follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$ admits a unique NE. Namely, the concatenated KKT system given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]) has a unique solution in the form of $(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*},\pmb\lambda^*, \pmb\mu^*_1,\ldots, \pmb\mu^*_K)$.
See Appendix \[app\_socail\_optimal\].
Analysis of Stackelberg Equilibria in Game $\mathcal{G}$ {#sec_existence_ne}
--------------------------------------------------------
By Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\], $\mathcal{G}^f$ admits a unique GNE given any $s_0$. Let $\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ denote such a GNE mapping from $s_0$ and $\mathop{\textrm{gph}}{\mathcal{E}(s_0)}\!=\!\{(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}):\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)\}$ denote the graph of $\mathcal{E}(s_0)$. Then, by Definition \[def:Stackelberg\_game\], the feasible region of the SE in $\mathcal{G}$ is $\Omega(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\mathcal{S}_0\cap\mathop{\textrm{gph}}{\mathcal{E}(s_0)}$. After including the potential function-based KKT system given by (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) into the leader’s optimization problem in (\[eq:time:revenue\]), the SE in game $\mathcal{G}$ is equivalent to the global solution of the following Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints (MPEC) problem [@dempe2002foundations]:
\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq_time_revenue_reformulated}}
s^*_0=\arg\max\limits_{s_0=(\alpha, \tau^s, \epsilon)} & \left( \theta_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}) = \alpha p_1\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}(1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon))\tau^t_k.\right)\\
\label{eq_time_revenue_reformulated_1}
\textrm{s.t.}\quad & 1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\le\overline{p}^m, \\
\label{eq_time_revenue_reformulated_2}
& T\ge\tau^s\ge 0,\alpha\ge0, \overline{\epsilon}\ge\epsilon\ge\underline{\epsilon},\\
\label{eq_kkt_num_reform_1}
& \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}=\mathcal{E}(s_0),\end{aligned}$$
where (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\_1\])-(\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\_2\]) defines $\mathcal{S}_0$, and $\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_reform\_1\]) is the parametric solution to the KKT system given by (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]). Since the objective function in (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) is continuous in $s_0$ and coercive in $\alpha$, namely, $\theta_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!\rightarrow\!\infty$ if $\alpha\!\rightarrow\!\infty$, by the well-known Weierstrass Theorem [@sundaram1996first], at least one global optimal solution in (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) exists if $\Omega(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is non-empty and closed, and the objective function $\theta_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(s_0))$ is continuous in $s_0$. Therefore, we are able to develop the following theorem (cf. Theorems 5.1 in [@dempe2002foundations]) regarding the SE in game $\mathcal{G}$.
\[thm\_existence\_GNE\] Game $\mathcal{G}$ admits at least one global SE as defined by (\[eq\_SE\]).
See Appendix \[app\_proof\_SE\_existence\].
By replacing the implicit function $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_reform\_1\]) with the KKT system given in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]), (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) reduces the bilevel programming problem for SE searching into a single-level problem. However, we note from (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) that $\theta_k(s_k,s_0)$ is a transcendental function of $\tau^t_k$. Then, a closed-form solution to the KKT system in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) does not exists. Moreover, due to the complementary conditions in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_2\]) and (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]), standard qualification conditions are violated everywhere in (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) (see also Theorem 5.11 in [@dempe2002foundations]). Therefore, (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) is a non-convex problem to which the classical KKT-based analysis does not apply. Fortunately, from the proof of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_GNE\], we know that the followers’ parametric NE $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ is piecewise continuously differentiable ($PC^1$), hence directionally differentiable (cf. Corollary 4.1 in [@dempe2002foundations]). Thereby, instead of relying on heuristic method for SE searching (cf. [@7942105]), in what follows, we are able to implement a directional ascent-based method for the SE computation, which allows the follower sub-game NE to be solved as a nested problem in a distributed manner.
Distributed Approach for Computing Stackelberg Equilibrium {#sec_SE_searching_method}
==========================================================
Directional Ascent Method for SE Searching {#sub_directional_SE_search}
------------------------------------------
Select a feasible $s_0(t=0)$, choose updating coefficient $\rho\in(0,1)$. Compute a direction vector $\mathbf{r}(t)$, $\Vert \mathbf{r}(t)\Vert\!\le\!1$ such that, $\exists d(t)<0, d(t)\in\mathbb{R}$ $$\label{eq_update_condition}
\theta'_0(s_0(t),\mathcal{E}(s_0(t)); \mathbf{r}(t))\ge-d(t), \; \nabla_{s_0}Z_0(s_0(t))\le-Z_0(s_0(t))+d(t),\nonumber$$ where $\theta'_0(s_0(t),\mathcal{E}(s_0(t)); \mathbf{r}(t))$ is the directional derivative with respect to $\mathbf{r}(t)$. For vector $\mathbf{r}$ at strategy $s_0$, we have $$\label{eq_direction_derivative}
\theta'_0(s_0,\mathcal{E}(s_0); \mathbf{r})\!=\!\nabla_{s_0}\theta_0(s_0,\mathcal{E}(s_0))\mathbf{r}+\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\theta_0(s_0,\mathcal{E}(s_0))\mathcal{E}'(s_0; \mathbf{r}).$$ Choose a step size $\beta(t)$ such that $s_0(t+1)=s_0(t)+\beta(t)\mathbf{r}(t)$ and $$\label{eq_update_leader}
\theta_0(s_0(t+1),\mathcal{E}(s_0(t+1))\ge \theta_0(s_0(t),\mathcal{E}(s_0(t)))-\rho\beta(t)d(t),\; Z_0(s_0(t+1))\le0.\nonumber$$ Set $t\leftarrow t+1$ and compute $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)=\mathcal{E}(s_0(t))$.
\[alg\_SE\]
Now, with the directional differentiability of the implicit function $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$, we apply the directional ascent algorithm (i.e. the prototypical algorithm proposed in [@Dempe1996]) to solve the MPEC problem defined by (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]). Let $Z_0(s_0)\!=\!1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\!-\!\overline{p}^m$ denote the constraint function given in (\[eq:time\_revenue\_a\]). Then, the directional ascent algorithm can be described in Algorithm \[alg\_SE\]. Here, we note that prototypical method given by Algorithm \[alg\_SE\] in itself does not designate a way of either finding the direction vector $\mathbf{r}(t)$ or finding the sub-game NE $\mathcal{E}(s_0(t))$ at $s_0(t)$. For the convenience of discussion, we temporarily assume that the value of $\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ and its corresponding set of Lagrange multipliers $(\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu)$ in the solution to (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) are accessible for every $s_0$. Let $\tilde{G}(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ be the vector of all the lower-level constraints given by (\[eq\_opt\_modifiedpt\_a\])-(\[eq\_opt\_modifiedpt\_c\]), which is formed through concatenating $G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ in (\[eq\_joint\_constraint\]) and $Z_k({s}_k)$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$ in (\[eq\_local\_constraint\]). Let $I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\{i: \tilde{G}_i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!0\}$ be the set of active lower-level constraints (see also Definition \[def\_CRCQ\]). Then, according to Theorem 3.4 in [@Dempe1996] (cf. Theorem 5.4 in [@dempe2002foundations]), finding the directional vector $\mathbf{r}(t)$, the intermediate scalar parameter $d(t)$ and the directional derivative of $\theta'_0(s_0,\mathcal{E}(s_0); \mathbf{r}(t))$ in Algorithm \[alg\_SE\] is equivalent to solving the following linear programming problem with $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}=\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ and $I_0$:
\[eq\_directional\_gradient\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq_directional_gradient}}
(d^*, \mathbf{r}^*, \pmb\nu^*, \pmb\zeta_i^*)=& \arg\min\limits_{(d, \mathbf{r}, \pmb\nu, \pmb\zeta)} d\\
\label{eq_constraint_lagragian_a}
\textrm{s.t.}\quad & -\nabla^{\top}_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\theta_0(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\pmb\nu-\nabla^{\top}_{s_0}\theta_0(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\mathbf{r}\le d\\
\label{eq_constraint_lagragian_b}
& \nabla^{\top}_{{s}_0}Z_0(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\mathbf{r}\le -Z_0(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})+ d,\\
\label{eq_constraint_lagragian}
& -\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}L(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\pmb\lambda,\pmb\mu)\pmb\nu
-\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}s_0}L(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\pmb\lambda,\pmb\mu)\mathbf{r}+
\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\pmb\zeta=\mathbf{0},\\
&\nabla^{\top}_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_i(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\pmb\nu={0}, \quad \forall i\in I_0,\\
&\nabla^{\top}_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_j(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\pmb\nu\le -\tilde{G}_j(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})+d, \quad \forall j\notin I_0,\\
&\zeta_i\ge0, i\in I_0, \quad \zeta_i=0, i\notin I_0, \quad \Vert \mathbf{r}\Vert\le1.\end{aligned}$$
For conciseness, we omit the iteration index $t$ in (\[eq\_directional\_gradient\]). In (\[eq\_constraint\_lagragian\]), $L(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu)$ is the Lagrangian function for the lower-level problem as defined in (\[eq\_Lagragian\]), and $\pmb\zeta$ is a $(2\!+\!3K)$-dimentional vector. From (\[eq\_joint\_constraint\]), (\[eq\_local\_constraint\]) and (\[eq\_Lagragian\]), we note that $\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, $\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}s_0}G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, $\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}Z_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\mathbf{0}$ and $\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}s_0}Z_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Then, we obtain $\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}L(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu)\!=\!\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}\phi(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}s_0}L(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu)\!=\!\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}s_0}\phi(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ in (\[eq\_constraint\_lagragian\]). As a result, the solution to (\[eq\_directional\_gradient\]) does not require discovering the Lagrange multipliers $(\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu)$ for a pair of strategies $(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ in advance. Therefore, the problem given in (\[eq\_directional\_gradient\]) can be effectively solved as long as the lower-level payoffs are available to the SG for strategy pair $(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$.
Following the proof of Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\], we know that $\nabla_{s_k}\tilde{G}_i(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is constant. Also, given $(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, as long as $\exists i, j\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$ such that $Z_i^1(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!\ne\!0$, $Z_j^2(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!\ne\!0$ and $Z_i^3(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!\ne\!0$, the gradients in the set $\{\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_i(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}): i\!\in\!I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\}$ are linearly independent. When a feasible solution to (\[eq\_directional\_gradient\]), $(d^*, \mathbf{r}^*, \pmb\nu^*, \pmb\zeta_i^*)$, is found with $d^*<0$, by Theorem 3.4 in [@Dempe1996], $\pmb\nu^*$ will be the directional derivative of the implicit function $\mathcal{E}'(s_0;\mathbf{r})$. Meanwhile, we can construct the following matrix: $$\label{eq_FRR}
M=
\begin{bmatrix}
\nabla^2_{(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})^2}\phi(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}) & \nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_{i\in I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})}
(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}) & \nabla^2_{s_0\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\phi(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\\
\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_{i\in I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})}(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}) & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It is tedious but easy to check that $\nabla^2_{s_0\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\phi(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is of full row rank. Then, following our discussion on the linear independency of the row vectors in $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\tilde{G}_{i\in I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})}(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, $M$ is of full row rank. By Theorem 6.1 in [@dempe2002foundations], since the conditions of SSOC, CRCQ (see Definitons \[def\_SSOC\] and \[def\_CRCQ\]) and full row rank of $M$ are satisfied, Algorithm \[alg\_SE\] is guaranteed to converge to a local optimum solution to (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]). Therefore, the convergence to the local SE is guaranteed for Algorithm \[alg\_SE\].
Distributed Method for NE Searching in the Follower Sub-game {#sub_sec_alg}
------------------------------------------------------------
Algorithm \[alg\_SE\] relies on the computation of the lower-level rational reactions $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ at $s_0$ to determine the ascent direction. For the purpose of distributively finding the GNE of the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$, we introduce the regularized best-response algorithm (also known as proximal-response map) from [@Facchinei2010] in Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\]. Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] is a Gauss-Seidel-style algorithm based on a regularized objective function of the sub-problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) for iterative GNE searching. The convergence property of Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] is proved in Theorem \[thm\_follower\_convergence\].
Select an initial strategy $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t=0)=(s_1(0),\ldots, s_K(0))\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Set the adversary joint strategies as $$\label{eq_set_adversary}
s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t)=(s_1(t+1),\ldots, s_{k-1}(t+1),s_{k+1}(t), \ldots, s_{K}(t)).$$
Given $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t)$, compute a local optimal solution $s_{k}(t+1)$: $$\label{eq_best_response_update}
\begin{array}{ll}
s_{k}(t+1)=\arg\max\limits_{s_k}& \theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))-\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\Vert s_k-s_k(t)\Vert^2,\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\textrm{s.t.} & G(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))\le 0, \quad Z_k(s_k)\le 0.
\end{array}$$ Set $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\[alg\_heuristic\]
\[thm\_follower\_convergence\] Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] converges to a GNE from any feasible $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t=0)$.
The proof consists of two parts. In the first part, we employ the potential-game property of $\mathcal{G}^f$ and prove by contradiction that if Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] converges, it converges to a GNE of $\mathcal{G}^f$. In the second part, we exploit the monotonicity of $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},F)$ and show that Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] is a contractive mapping and therefore always converges. See Appendix \[app\_proof\_uniqueness\] for the details.
In Corollary \[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\], we can further show that the proximal response also converges when the STs adopt a synchronous local strategy updating scheme.
\[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\] The synchronous updating mechanism given by Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\] (i.e., Jacobian best-response updating) converges to a GNE from any initial strategies $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t=0)$.
See Appendix \[app\_proof\_uniqueness\].
The convergence of Algorithms \[alg\_heuristic\] and \[alg\_jacobian\] relies on the special structure of the utility function $\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Namely, $\theta_k$ depends only on $s_k$ thus $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} F(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is a block diagonal matrix (see Appendix \[app\_unique\_sub\_game\_GNE\]). For a general case, it requires that $F(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ in (\[eq\_jacobian\]) is a P(P$_0$)-property mapping [@Facchinei2003]. Otherwise, the convergence conditions of Algorithms \[alg\_heuristic\] and \[alg\_jacobian\] are typically not known, and Algorithms \[alg\_heuristic\] and \[alg\_jacobian\] can be considered at most good heuristic [@Facchinei2010].
Select an initial strategy $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t=0)=(s_1(0),\ldots, s_K(0))\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Given $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)$, compute a local optimal solution $s'_{k}$ according to (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]). $t\leftarrow t+1$, $s_{k}(t+1)=s'_{k}$.
\[alg\_jacobian\]
It is well known that a generic bilevel programming problem is strongly NP-hard, even when checking the local optimality of a strategy with both levels’ objective functions being quadratic [@7942105]. As a result, it is difficult to precisely determine the computational complexity of the proposed SE searching scheme described by Algorithms \[alg\_SE\]-\[alg\_jacobian\]. Fortunately, we note that the upper-level directional ascent algorithm described by Algorithm \[alg\_SE\] is executed at the SG. Since the SG possesses sufficient computational power for performing the directional vector search in (\[eq\_directional\_gradient\]) as well as the iterative gradient ascent, we only need to focus on the complexity of the distributed NE searching schemes for the follower subgame. For conciseness, we analyze the time complexity of Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\], from which the similar result can be derived for Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\]. Following (\[eq\_proof\_1\_14\]) in Appendix \[subsec\_proof\_jacobian\_convergence\], let $\mathbf{s}(\cdot)$ denote the joint best response obtained from solving (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]). Then, for any two feasible joint strategies of the STs, $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}$, there exists a constant $c\!\in\!(0,1)$ such that $$\label{eq_convergence_rate}
\Vert \mathbf{s}(\mathbf{y})\!-\!\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{z})\Vert\!\le\!c\left\Vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{z}\right\Vert,$$ where $\left\Vert\mathop{\textrm{Diag}}\left({\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert}^{-1}\right)_{k=1}^K\right\Vert\!\le\!c\!<\!1$, and according to the discussion about (\[eq\_proof\_1\_11\]), we have $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}, \exists \eta_k\!\in\!(0,1)$ such that $\tilde{x}_k=\eta_ks_k(\mathbf{z}) + (1-\eta_k)s_k(\mathbf{y})$.
With an initial strategy $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(0)$, we set the termination criterion in Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\] as $\Vert \mathbf{s}(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t))- \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}\Vert/\Vert \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(0)- \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}\Vert\le\chi^{\textrm{ST}}$, where $\chi^{\textrm{ST}}>0$ is the relative accuracy and $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}$ represents the follower subgame NE. Given a proper estimation of $c$ and an accuracy level $\chi^{\textrm{ST}}$ for algorithm termination, we can iteratively apply (\[eq\_convergence\_rate\]) to the solution of (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]) in Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\]. Then, we obtain the lower bound on the number of iterations $t$ in order for Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\] to converge as follows: $$\label{eq_time_complexity}
t\ge\frac{\ln(1/\chi^{\textrm{ST}})}{\vert\ln c\vert}.$$
Simulation Results {#sec_simulation}
==================
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
----------- ------- ----------- -------- ------------------- ------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------- ----------- --------
$p_0$ $0.6$ $W$ $1$MHz $T$ 1s AWGN power $-40$dBm $\delta$ $0.6$ $\nu$ $1$
$p_1$ $0.4$ $\gamma$ $3$dB $P_{\textrm{PT}}$ 10W $\xi^2$ $0.01$ $\kappa_k$ $0.6$ $P^c$ -35dBm
: Main Parameters Used in the Simulation
\[table\_parameter\]
For the ease of exposition, we assume that the backscattering rates for the STs are the same, and the STs are randomly placed near the SG within a distance of $D\!\le\!30$m. We adopt a lognormal shadowing path loss model for the channel gains as $h_k=D_k^{-l}$, where $l$ is the path loss factor, $l=3.5$. We employ the Monte Carlo simulations to approximate the node performance of the nodes, and the major parameters used in the simulation are listed in Table \[table\_parameter\]. In our simulations, we first consider a secondary network with $5$ STs. Since the ST’s throughput and payoff are a function of the SG’s strategy $s_0=(\alpha, \tau^s,\epsilon)$, in Figure \[fig\_optimal\_exposition\], we provide the graphical insight into the impact of the SG’s sensing strategy and pricing strategy on the performance of the STs, respectively. From Figure \[fig\_optimal\_exposition\_a\], we observe that the STs’ performance is more sensitive to the detection threshold $\epsilon$, since a small $\epsilon$ will result in the probability of false alarm $p^f$ sharply rising to 1, while a large $\epsilon$ will result in the probability of detection $p^d$ quickly falling to 0. On the other hand, as we expect, Figure \[fig\_optimal\_exposition\_b\] shows that by adjusting the interference price, the SG can efficiently control the STs’ usage of the idle time fraction in a time slot for direct transmission. An extremely high price will drive all the STs to completely evacuate from using the idle state for their transmission and operate only in the backscattering mode. Furthermore, by comparing Figures \[fig\_optimal\_exposition\_b\] and \[fig\_optimal\_exposition\_c\], we note that the maximum revenue of the SG will be reached at the loss of the ST’s payoff, but before any ST refuses using any of the idle sub-time slot.
In Figure \[fig\_performance\_comparison\], we compare the performance of the proposed algorithm with the performance of harvest-then-transmit-only and backscatter-only schemes in difference network scales. From Figures \[fig\_performance\_comparison\_a\] and \[fig\_performance\_comparison\_b\] we observe that the difference between the average payoff/throughput achieved by the proposed method and the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme is larger than the average throughput achieved by the backscatter-only scheme. This indicates that by adopting the hybrid transmit scheme, the STs have more advantage in negotiating the price with the SGs than with the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme. This phenomenon can also be observed in Figure \[fig\_performance\_comparison\_c\], since the equilibrium price asked by the SG in the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme is always slightly higher than that with the proposed method, although the performance of the former is significantly lower than that of the latter. This indicates that by adopting the hybrid transmission scheme, the STs’ performance gain is larger than the sum of the performance of both the harvest-then-transmit-only and backscatter-only schemes. Theoretically, with the proposed scheme, the STs are able to switch to the backscattering mode whenever the interference price exceeds the critical level. For the STs, in this situation operating in harvest-then-transmit mode will incur more payment due to interference. Therefore, completely staying in the backscattering mode will provide a better payoff. As a result, if the interference price is too high, the STs are always able to “threaten” to completely abstain from active transmission such that the SG receives zero payment. In return, this will discourage the SG from continuously increasing the interference price. By contrast, with the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme, the STs have no choice but continue their transmission when the interference price keeps rising, until some of the STs are forced out of play (i.e., stop transmitting) due to negative payoffs.
In Figure \[fig\_probability\_comparison\], we investigate the impact of the probability of the busy state on the performance of the proposed transmission scheme. For the simulation, the number of the STs is fixed at 5. We note from Figures \[fig\_probability\_comparison\_a\] and \[fig\_probability\_comparison\_b\] that the performance of the backscatter-only scheme improves as the probability of the channel staying busy increases, while the performance of the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme becomes worse at the same time. We can further observe from Figure \[fig\_probability\_comparison\_b\] that as the chance of direct transmission reduces with the increasing probability of the channel staying busy, with the proposed hybrid transmission policy, the STs are able to achieve a significantly higher throughput than that of using either of the two fixed-scheme transmission policies. Especially, the proposed hybrid scheme suffers from less severe performance deterioration than that of the harvest-then-transmit scheme. Again, as can be interpreted from Figures \[fig\_probability\_comparison\_c\] and \[fig\_probability\_comparison\_d\], by adopting the proposed transmission scheme, the STs have an advantage in interference price negotiation with the SG over the harvest-then-transmit-only scheme. When the chance of transmission becomes smaller as the channel becomes busier, such an advantage will lead to a significant performance improvement at the SE.
Conclusion {#sec_conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have studied the sensing-pricing-transmitting strategy adaptation problem in the RF-powered backscatter cognitive radio network. In the considered network, the secondary transmitters operate in a non-cooperative manner to compete for the time resource for their own transmission. The secondary gateway considers the condition of imperfect channel detection and employs a pricing mechanism to manage the interference from the secondary network to the primary users. Mathematically, we have modeled the strategy adaptation process between the secondary gateway and the secondary transmitters as a single-leader-multi-follower Stackelberg game, where the follower sub-game among the secondary transmitters is further modeled as a generalized Nash equilibrium problem with shared constraints. Based on our discoveries on the uniqueness of the generalized Nash equilibrium in the follower sub-game and the continuity of the leader’s strategy-payoff mapping, we have proposed a directional ascent-based algorithm for the leader’s strategy searching, where a distributed Nash equilibrium searching algorithm for the lower-level sub-game is nested therein. Both of the theoretical and numerical analysis have shown the convergence and efficiency of the proposed scheme.
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\] {#Proof_thm_convex_game}
======================================
The property in [**[P1]{}**]{} of Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\] is straightforward from the formulation of (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]). To prove [**[P2]{}**]{}, we analyze the Hessian matrix $H_k = \nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ for each player $k$ given a feasible adversaries’ strategy $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}$. Note that the value of $\theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is determined only by $s_k$, then, we have $$\label{eq_hessian}
H_k=
\begin{bmatrix}
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial(\tau^h_k})^2} & \displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial\tau^h_k\partial\tau^t_k} &
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial\tau^h_k\partial\tau^b_k}\\
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial\tau^t_k}{\partial\tau^h_k}} & \displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial(\tau^t_k)^2} &
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial\tau^t_k\partial\tau^b_k}\\
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial\tau^b_k}{\partial\tau^h_k}} & \displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial\tau^b_k\partial\tau^t_k} &
\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial(\tau^b_k)^2}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We note that $H_k$ is symmetric. Given a fixed pair of $(\tau^s,\epsilon)$, let us define $$\label{eq_params_As}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
A^1_k = \nu p_0(1-p^f(\tau^s,\epsilon))\kappa_k W,\\
A^2_k = \nu p_1(1-p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon))\kappa_k W,
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\label{eq_params_Gammas}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\gamma^1_k = \displaystyle\frac{p_1p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon)\delta h_{k}h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{\textrm{PT}}}{\sigma^2_k},\\
\gamma^2_k = \displaystyle\frac{p_1p^d(\tau^s,\epsilon)\delta h_{k}h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{\textrm{PT}}}{\sigma^2_k+h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{\textrm{PT}}}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_hessian_1}
&\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial(\tau^b_k)^2}=\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial\tau^b_k}{\partial\tau^h_k}}=\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{\partial\tau^b_k\partial\tau^t_k}=0,\\
\label{eq_hessian_2}
&\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial(\tau^t_k})^2}=-\frac{A_k^1 (\gamma_k^1)^2(\tau_k^h)^2}{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^1\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2(\tau_k^t)^3\ln2}-
\frac{A_k^2 (\gamma_k^2)^2(\tau_k^h)^2}{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^2\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2(\tau_k^t)^3\ln2},\\
\label{eq_hessian_3}
&\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial\tau^h_k}{\partial\tau^t_k}}=\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial\tau^t_k}{\partial\tau^h_k}}=\frac{A_k^1(\gamma_k^1)^2\tau_k^h}
{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^1\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2\tau_k^t\ln2}+\frac{A_k^2(\gamma_k^2)^2\tau_k^h}{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^2\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2\tau_k^t\ln2},\\
\label{eq_hessian_4}
&\frac{\partial^2\theta_k}{{\partial(\tau^h_k})^2}=-\frac{A_k^1(\gamma_k^1)^2}{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^1\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2\tau_k^t\ln2}-
\frac{A_k^2(\gamma_k^2)^2}{(1-P^c+\gamma_k^2\tau_k^h/\tau_k^t)^2\tau_k^t\ln2}.\end{aligned}$$ For any arbitrary real-valued non-zero vector $v_k=[v_k^1, v_k^2, v_k^3]^{\top}$, after substituting (\[eq\_hessian\_1\])-(\[eq\_hessian\_4\]) into (\[eq\_hessian\]), we obtain $$\label{eq_vector_product}
v^{\top}_kH_kv_k\!=\!-\frac{\left(A_k^1(\gamma_k^1)^2(\gamma_k^2\tau_k^h\!+\!(1\!-\!P^c)\tau_k^t)^2+A_k^2(\gamma_k^2)^2(\gamma_k^1\tau_k^h\!+\!(1\!-\!P^c)\tau_k^t)^2\right)\left(\tau_k^tv_k^2\!-\!\tau_k^hv_k^1\right)^2}
{\tau_k^t\left(\gamma_k^1\tau_k^h+(1\!-\!P^c)\tau_k^t\right)^2\left(\gamma_k^2\tau_k^h+(1\!-\!P^c)\tau_k^t\right)^2\ln2}\le0.$$ Therefore, $H_k$ is negative semidefinite and $\theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is a concave function in $s_k$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\] {#app_unique_sub_game_GNE}
================================================
From Definition \[def:Stackelberg\_game\], we note that $\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}$ is a closed convex polytope and is therefore continuous. By [**[P2]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\], $\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$ is a $C^2$ concave function in $s_k$. We also note from (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) that $\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$ depends only on $s_k$. Therefore, we can construct the Jacobian of $F^f(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} F^f(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!-\left[\nabla^2_{s_k,s'_k}\theta_k(\mathbf{s})\right]_{k,k'=1}^{K}$ and obtain the following block diagonal matrix: $$\label{eq_jacobian}
-\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} F^f(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\!=\!
\begin{bmatrix}
\nabla^2_{s^2_1}\theta_1(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \nabla^2_{s_1,s_2}\theta_1(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \cdots \!&\! \nabla^2_{s_1,s_K}\theta_1(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\\
\nabla^2_{s_2,s_1}\theta_2(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \nabla^2_{s^2_2}\theta_2(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \cdots \!&\! \nabla^2_{s_2,s_K}\theta_2(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\\
\vdots \!&\! \vdots \!&\! \ddots \!&\! \vdots\\
\nabla^2_{s_K,s_1}\theta_K(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \nabla^2_{s_K,s_2}\theta_K(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}) \!&\! \cdots \!&\! \nabla^2_{s^2_K}\theta_K(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})\\
\end{bmatrix}
\!=\!
\begin{bmatrix}
H_1 & \mathbf{0} & \cdots & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & H_2 & \cdots & \mathbf{0}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \cdots & H_K
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $H_k$ is given by (\[eq\_hessian\]) in Appendix \[Proof\_thm\_convex\_game\]. With the same technique used in Appendix \[Proof\_thm\_convex\_game\], we can immediately verify that $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST}}F^f(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})$ is positive semidefinite on $\mathcal{S}^\textrm{ST}$. Therefore, $F^f(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})$ is a continuous monotone mapping on $\mathcal{S}^\textrm{ST}$. Then, according to (8) and (13) in [@5447064] (cf. Theorem 4.1 in [@Facchinei2010]), the set of solutions to $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^\textrm{ST},F^f)$ is nonempty, closed and convex. By Lemma \[lemma\_equivalence\], such a set of solution is at the same time the set of GNE for game $\mathcal{G}^f$. Then, a nonempty, closed and convex set of GNE exists in the follower sub-game $\mathcal{G}^f$.
Furthermore, we note from (\[eq:tx\_rate\_idle\]) that $r^t_k(s_k,s_0)$ in the objective function of (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]) is a monotonic increasing function of $\tau^h_k$. Then, we can show by contradiction that for ST $k$’s local optimization problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:local\]), the equality in the constraint $\tau^b_k\!+\!\tau^h_k\!\le\!(T\!-\!\tau^s)$ is always reached at the sub-game NE strategy $s^*_k\!=\!(\tau^{h,*}_k,\tau^{t,*}_k,\tau^{b,*}_k)$, $\forall k\in{\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}}$. Otherwise, we can find a different strategy $s_k\!=\!(\tau^{h}_k,\tau^{t,*}_k,\tau^{b,*}_k)$, where $\tau^h\!=\!(T\!-\!\tau^s)\!-\!\tau^{b,*}_k\!>\!\tau^{h,*}_k$ such that $\theta_k(s_k;s_0)\!>\!\theta_k(s^*_k;s_0)$, which contradicts with (\[eq\_equilibrium\]) in Definition \[def:Nash\_equilibrium\]. Thereby, the proof to Theorem \[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\] is completed.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\] and Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\] {#app_socail_optimal}
==============================================================================
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\]
Following Lemma \[lemma\_potential\], by the definition of the potential game, we have $\nabla_{s_k} \phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\nabla_{s_k} \theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ (cf. [@MONDERER1996124]). Then, with the extra condition $\tau^h_k\!=\!T\!-\!\tau^s\!-\!\tau^b_k$ given in Theorem \[thm\_existence\_NE\_subgame\], consider the following network payoff maximization problem based on the potential function given in (\[eq\_potential\_func\]): $$\label{eq:o_modifiedpt:num}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}=\arg\max\limits_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}=(s_k)_{k=1}^K} \!&\left(\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\sum\limits_{k=1}^K \Big(\nu\left(\tau^b_k r^b_k(\tau^s, \epsilon)\!+\!\tau^t_k r^t_k(s_k;\tau^s, \epsilon)\right)\!-\!\alpha p_1\left(1-p^d(\tau^s, \epsilon)\right)\tau^t_k\Big)\right),\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\textrm{s.t.} & \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^b_i\le(T-\tau^s), \sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}\tau^t_i\le(T-\tau^s),\\
&\forall k\in{\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}}: \; \tau^t_k\ge0, \tau^b_k\ge0,\\
&\forall k\in{\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}}: \; p_1(1-\overline{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P_{{\textrm{PT}}}(T-\tau^s-\tau^b_k)-P^c\tau_k^t\ge0.
\end{array}$$ By Theorem 2.2 in [@MONDERER1996124], the set of solutions to (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]) coincides with the set of NE in $\mathcal{G}^f$. By (\[eq\_jacobian\]), $\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is concave with respect to $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}$ and (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]) is a concave programming problem. From (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]), we can obtain the following Lagrangian function: $$\label{eq_Lagragian}
L(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}, \pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu_k) =\phi(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})-G(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})^{\top}\pmb\lambda-\sum_{k=1}^{K}Z(s_k)^{\top}\pmb\mu_k.$$ Since $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\nabla_{s_{j:j\ne k}} Z_k(s_k)\!=\!0$, from (\[eq\_Lagragian\]), the KKT condition to (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_kkt_num_1}
&\forall k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}:\;\nabla_{s_k}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})-\left(\nabla_{s_k}G(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})\right)^{\top}\pmb\lambda-\left(\nabla_{s_k}Z(s_k)\right)^{\top}\pmb\mu_k=0,\\
\label{eq_kkt_num_2}
&\mathbf{0}\le\pmb\lambda\perp -G(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})\ge 0,\\
\label{eq_kkt_num_3}
&\forall k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}:\;\mathbf{0}\le\pmb\mu_k\perp -Z_k({s}_k)\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $Z_k(s_k)$ are given by (\[eq\_joint\_constraint\]) and (\[eq\_local\_constraint\]), respectively. By Theorem 2.2 in [@MONDERER1996124], from the solutions to (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]), i.e., $\left(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}, \pmb\lambda^*, \pmb\mu^*_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu^*_k\right)$, $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}$ forms a set of solutions which is equivalent to the set of NE in $\mathcal{G}^f$. Meanwhile, by Lemma \[lemma\_kkt\_solution\], for each $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}$ there exists a set of multipliers $(\tilde{\pmb\lambda}_k, \tilde{\pmb\mu}_k)$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^\textrm{ST}$, that forms a solution to the concatenated KKT conditions given by (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]). If we set $\tilde{\pmb\lambda}_k\!=\!\pmb\lambda^*$ and $\tilde{\pmb\mu}_k\!=\!\pmb\mu_k^*$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, by comparing (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) and (\[eq\_kkt\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_3\]), we note that $\nabla_{s_k}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\nabla_{s_k} \theta_k(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, then, $\left(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST},*}, \pmb\lambda^*_1=\cdots=\pmb\lambda^*_k=\pmb\lambda^*, \pmb\mu^*_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu^*_k\right)$ is exactly the solution to the concatenated KKT system given by (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]). Therefore, Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\] is proved.
### Proof of Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\]
Due to the negative semi-definiteness of $-\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} F^f(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})$, which happens to be the Hessian matrix of $\phi(\mathbf{s}^{{\textrm{ST}}})$, we examine the Strong Sufficient Optimality Condition (SSOC) of second order for the Lagrangian given by (\[eq\_Lagragian\]) instead. For the specific convex optimization problem described by (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]), the SSOC is mathematically defined as follows:
\[def\_SSOC\] The SSOC is said to be satisfied at $\mathbf{s}=(s_0,\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, if for each set of multiplies $(\pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu_K)$ that solves (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) with $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}$, for every non-zero vector $\mathbf{d}$ satisfying $$\label{eq_ssoc_inequal}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{d}^{\top}\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0, \textrm{ if } \lambda^i>0, \forall i\in\{1,2\},\\
\mathbf{d}^{\top}\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} Z^i_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0, \textrm{ if } \mu^i_k>0, \forall k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}, \forall i\in\{1,2, 3\}, \\
\end{array}\right.$$ we have $\mathbf{d}^{\top}\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}L(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}, \pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu_k)\mathbf{d}<0$, where $L(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}, \pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu_k)$ is defined in (\[eq\_Lagragian\]).
From the complementary conditions in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_2\]) and (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]), we know that the conditions $\lambda^i\!>\!0$ and $\mu_k^i\!>\!0$ hold only when $G^i\!=\!0$ and $Z^i_k\!=\!0$, respectively. Noting that $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} Z^i_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ are all constant vectors, we have $\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}L(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}, \pmb\lambda, \pmb\mu_1,\ldots,\pmb\mu_k)\!=\!\nabla^2_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}},\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!-\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}F^f(\mathbf{s}^\textrm{ST})$. Since (\[eq\_jacobian\]) defines a block diagonal matrix, by Definition \[def\_SSOC\] and Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\], it suffices to verify that $\forall k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\tilde{\mathbf{d}}<0$, $\forall\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\ne0$ satisfying the following conditions: $$\label{eq_ssoc_inequal_local}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla_{{s}_k} G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0, \textrm{ if } \lambda^i>0,\forall i\in\{1,2\},\\
\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla_{{s}_k} Z^i_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0, \textrm{ if } \mu^i_k>0, \forall i\in\{1,2,3\}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
We note from (\[eq\_joint\_constraint\]) and (\[eq\_local\_constraint\]) that for ST $k$ with strategy $s_k\!=\!(\tau^t_k, \tau^b_k)$, $\nabla_{s_k} G^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\![1, 0]^{\top}$, $\nabla_{s_k} G^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\![0, 1]^{\top}$, $\nabla_{s_k} Z_k^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\![-1, 0]^{\top}$, $\nabla_{s_k} Z_k^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\![0, -1]^{\top}$ and $\nabla_{s_k} Z_k^3(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\![P^c, p_1(1-\overline{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P^{\textrm{PT}}]^{\top}$. By (\[eq\_vector\_product\]), we have $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\tilde{\mathbf{d}}=\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(s_k)\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\le0$ for any $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}$. From (\[eq\_ssoc\_inequal\_local\]), we note that to ensure $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\ne0$, we are able to enumerate the following cases of non-zero multiplier combination without the need of knowing the set of $(s_k^*,\pmb\lambda^*,\pmb\mu^*_k)$:
- If $G^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0$ or $Z^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0$, and at the same time $G^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, $Z^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$ and $Z^3(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, we have $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\!\in\!\{{\mathbf{d}}\!=\![d_1,0]^{\top}\!:\!d_1\!\in\!\mathbb{R},d_1\!\ne\!0\}$.
- if $G^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0$ or $Z^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0$, and at the same time $G^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, $Z^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$ and $Z^3(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, we have $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\!\in\!\{{\mathbf{d}}\!=\![0, d_1]^{\top}\!:\!d_1\!\in\!\mathbb{R},d_1\!\ne\!0\}$.
- If $Z^3(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0$, and at the same time $G^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, $G^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, $Z^1(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$ and $Z^2(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})<0$, we have $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}\!\in\!\{{\mathbf{d}}\!=\![d_1, -\frac{P^c}{p_1(1-\tilde{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P^{\textrm{PT}}}d_1]^{\top}\!:\!d_1\!\in\!\mathbb{R},d_1\!\ne\!0\}$.
From (\[eq\_vector\_product\]), we can derive the condition of $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^{\top}\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(s_k)\tilde{\mathbf{d}}=0$ for ST $k$ in cases (i), (ii) and (iii) as $\tau^t_k=0$, $\tau^b_k=T-\tau^s$ and $\tau^b_k-\frac{p_1(1-\tilde{p}^m)\delta h_k^{\textrm{PT}}P^{\textrm{PT}}}{P^c}\tau^t_k=T-\tau^s$, respectively. Obviously, the equality condition for case (i) is satisfied only in the extreme scenario of $\tau^t_k=0, \forall k\in\mathcal{K}$, i.e., when no ST transmits at all. The equality conditions for cases (ii) and (iii) cannot be satisfied for every $k\in\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$ at the same time. Therefore, the SSOC is satisfied by the convex optimization problem described in (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]). This indicates that the optimal solution to (\[eq\_kkt\_num\_1\])-(\[eq\_kkt\_num\_3\]) is strongly stable (cf. Theorem 4.4 in [@dempe2002foundations]), and the uniqueness of the solution is guaranteed. Then, Theorem \[thm\_social\_optimal\] immediately follows Lemma \[lemma\_socail\_optimal\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_GNE\] {#app_proof_SE_existence}
========================================
It is straightforward that $\theta_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ in (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) is continuous in $s_0$ and $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}$, respectively, and coercive in the interference price $\alpha$. Meanwhile, $\mathcal{S}_0$ defined by (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\_1\])-(\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\_2\]) is closed and continuous. Then, by the Weierstrass Theorem [@sundaram1996first], it is sufficient to prove that (a) $\Omega(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=\mathcal{S}_0\cap\mathop{\textrm{gph}}{\mathcal{E}(s_0)}$ is non-empty and closed, and (b) with the implicit function $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$, $\theta_0(s_0, \mathcal{E}(s_0))$ is continuous in $s_0$. Since the Slater’s condition is satisfied for the constraints given by $G(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $Z_k(s_k)$, $\forall k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, by Proposition 3.2.7 in [@Facchinei2003], the Mangasarian-Fromovitz Constraint Qualification (MFCQ) (see [@Facchinei2003; @dempe2002foundations] for the definition) is satisfied at all feasible points $(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ for the potential function-based lower-level optimization problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]). Moreover, according to Appendix \[app\_socail\_optimal\], the SSOC is also satisfied by the problem in (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]). Therefore, by Theorem 4.10 in [@dempe2002foundations], it is sufficient to prove that the following Constant Rank Constraint Qualification (CRCQ) is satisfied at any feasible point $\theta_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$.
\[def\_CRCQ\] The CRCQ is satisfied for problem (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]) at a point $(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, if there exists an open neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\!=\!\{(x,y): \Vert (x, y)-(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})\Vert\!<\!\rho\}$ such that, for each subset of the active constraints defined as follows: $$\label{eq_active}
I\subseteq I_0(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=\left\{i\!\in\!\{1,2\}, k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}, k_j\!\in\!\{1,2,3\}: G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0, Z_k^{k_j}(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})=0\right\}\nonumber,$$ the family of gradient vectors $\{\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}), \nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}Z^{k_j}_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}):(i,k,k_j)\!\in\!I\}$ has the same rank $\forall (x,y)\in\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$.
According to our discussion in Appendix \[app\_socail\_optimal\], $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ and $\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}} Z^j_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ are all constant vectors $\forall i\!=\!1,2, j\!=\!1,2,3, k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Therefore, as long as the subset of active constraints $I$ is determined for $(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, the family of gradient vectors $\{\nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}G^i(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}), \nabla_{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}}Z^{k_j}_k(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}):(i,k,k_j)\!\in\!I\}$ are identical for all $\forall (x,y)\!\in\!\mathcal{N}_{\rho}(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$. Therefore, the CRCQ is satisfied everywhere in the problem given by (\[eq:o\_modifiedpt:num\]). By Theorem 4.10 in [@dempe2002foundations], $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}\!=\!\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ is a piecewise continuously differentiable ($PC^1$) function and $\theta_0(s_0, \mathcal{E}(s_0))$ is therefore continuous in $s_0$. Furthermore, with the closed set $\mathcal{S}_0$, by the well-known Closed Graph Theorem, $\mathcal{E}(s_0)$ being continuous implies that $\mathop{\textrm{gph}}{\mathcal{E}(s_0)}$ is closed. Therefore, $\Omega(s_0, \mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$ is non-empty and closed, and the optimization problem in (\[eq\_time\_revenue\_reformulated\]) admits a globally optimal solution, namely an SE.
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_follower\_convergence\] and Corollary \[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\] {#app_proof_uniqueness}
============================================================================================
### Proof of Theorem \[thm\_follower\_convergence\]
We first prove that if a sequence $\{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ generated by Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] converges, then, that sequence converges to a GNE of $\mathcal{G}^f$. By Lemma \[lemma\_potential\] and from (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]), $\forall t, k$, $$\label{proof_1_1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))-\phi(s_k(t), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))\\
=\theta_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))-\theta_k(s_k(t), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))\ge\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\Vert s_k(t+1)-s_k(t)\Vert^2\ge0.
\end{array}$$ By [**[P1]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\], given $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\forall s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t)$, we can always obtain a solution $s_k(t+1)$ to (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]). From (\[eq\_set\_adversary\]), we have $s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-(k+1)}(t)\!=\!(s_1(t\!+\!1),\ldots, s_k(t\!+\!1), s_{k+2}(t),\ldots, s_K(t))$, therefore, $(s_{k+1}(t), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-(k+1)}(t))\!=\!(s_k(t\!+\!1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))$. Let $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t)$ denote the joint strategy updated in the inner iteration of Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\], $\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t)\!=\!(s_1(t\!+\!1),\ldots, s_k(t\!+\!1), s_{k+1}(t),\ldots, s_K(t))$. By (\[proof\_1\_1\]) we have $$\label{proof_1_2}
\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t+1))=\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_K(t))\ge\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{K-1}(t))\ge\cdots\ge \phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t))\ge\cdots\ge\phi(\mathbf{s}_0^{\textrm{ST}}(t))=\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)).$$
Assume that $\{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is an infinite joint strategy sequence generated by Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] such that $\exists\overline{\mathbf{s}}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)\!=\!\overline{\mathbf{s}}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Then, by the continuity of the potential function $\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}})$, we know that the corresponding sequence $\{\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t))\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ also converges, namely, $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t))\!=\!\overline\phi$. Therefore, for the sequence $\{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t)\}$ generated by Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\], based on (\[proof\_1\_2\]) we have $$\label{eq_proof_1_3}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\phi(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t))=\overline{\phi}, \quad\forall k.$$ Consider the sequence $\{s_k(t)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ extracted from $\{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$, by (\[proof\_1\_1\]) and (\[eq\_proof\_1\_3\]), $$\label{eq_proof_1_4}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left(\theta_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))-\theta_k(s_k(t), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))\right) = 0.$$ Then, together with (\[proof\_1\_1\]), we deduce that the following holds $$\label{eq_proof_1_5}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\Vert s_k(t+1)-s_k(t)\Vert=0, \quad\forall k,$$ or equivalently, $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(t)=\overline{\mathbf{s}}^{\textrm{ST}}$, $\forall k$.
In order to prove that $\overline{\mathbf{s}}^{\textrm{ST}}$ is a GNE, we assume that there exists at least one local strategy vector for some ST $k$, $x_k\in\mathcal{S}(\overline{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$, such that $\theta_k(x_k, \overline{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})>\theta_k(\overline{s}_k, \overline{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})$. Then, by the elementary properties of a concave function, we have $$\label{eq_proof_1_6}
0<\theta_k(x_k, \overline{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}) - \theta_k(\overline{s}_k, \overline{s}^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})\le \nabla^T_{s_k}\theta_k(\overline{\mathbf{s}})(x_k-\overline{s}_k).$$ Let $\Theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, z)=\theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k})-\frac{1}{2}\Vert s_k-z \Vert^2$. It is straightforward to check the Hessian matrix of $\Theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, z)$ based on (\[eq\_jacobian\]) and show that the regularization term turns $\Theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, z)$ into a strongly concave function of $s_k$. Therefore, the uniqueness of the maximum solution to $s_k$ is guaranteed. Then, consider the directional derivative of $\Theta_k(s_k, s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}, z)$ in the direction $v=(x_k-\overline{s}_k)$ at a snapshot of the updating process in Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\]: $$\label{eq_proof_1_7}
\begin{array}{ll}
\Theta'_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t), s_k(t); (x_k-{s}_k(t+1)))\\
=\theta'_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t); (x_k-{s}_k(t+1))) + (s_k(t+1)-s_k(t))^{\top}(x_k-s_k(t+1))\\
=\nabla^{\top}_{s_k}\theta_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t))(x_k-{s}_k(t+1)) + (s_k(t+1)-s_k(t))^{\top}(x_k-s_k(t+1)).
\end{array}$$ By (\[eq\_proof\_1\_5\]) and the compactness of $\mathcal{S}_k$ (i.e., [**[P1]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\]), we have $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}(s_k(t+1)-s_k(t))^{\top}
(x_k-s_k(t+1))=0$. According to the optimality condition for concave problems, from (\[eq\_proof\_1\_7\]) we obtain $$\label{eq_proof_1_8}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\Theta'_k(s_k(t+1), s^{\textrm{ST}}_{-k}(t), s_k(t); (x_k-{s}_k(t+1)))
=\nabla^{\top}_{s_k}\theta_k(\overline{\mathbf{s}}^{\textrm{ST}}_k)(x_k-\overline{s}_k)\le 0,$$ if $s_k(t\!+\!1)$ is the solution to (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]). Since (\[eq\_proof\_1\_8\]) contradicts with (\[eq\_proof\_1\_6\]), by the definition of an NE, we are ready to conclude that, if the sequence $\{\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}(t)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ converges, it converges to a GNE.
Now, it suffices to prove that the iteration given by Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] is a contractive mapping [@Facchinei2003] in order to show that Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] converges to a GNE. From $\Theta(\mathbf{s}^{\textrm{ST}}, z)$ and (\[eq\_best\_response\_update\]), we can construct for each iteration an equivalent QVI problem $\mathop{\textrm{VI}}(\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}},\tilde{F}^f(\mathbf{s};\mathbf{z}))$ with $\tilde{F}^f(\mathbf{s};\mathbf{z})=-(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{z}), z_{-k})-(s_k-z_k))_{k=1}^{K}$. In order to construct the contraction map, we consider two strategy vectors $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}$, $\forall \mathbf{y}\ne\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{y},\mathbf{z}\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}$. Assume that $\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{y})$ and $\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{z})$ are the unique solutions to the strongly monotone QVI problems, $\tilde{F}^f(\mathbf{s};\mathbf{y})$ and $\tilde{F}^f(\mathbf{s};\mathbf{z})$, respectively. Then, by Definition \[def\_VI\] we have, $\forall k$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_proof_1_9}
(x_k-s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}\left(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{y}), y_{-k})-(s_k(\mathbf{y})-y_k)\right)\le0, \forall x_k\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(y_{-k}),\\
\label{eq_proof_1_9_1}
(x_k-s_k(\mathbf{z}))^{\top}\left(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{z}), z_{-k})-(s_k(\mathbf{z})-z_k)\right)\le0, \forall x_k\in\mathcal{S}^{\textrm{ST}}_k(z_{-k}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $x_k\!=\!s_k(\mathbf{z})$ in (\[eq\_proof\_1\_9\]) and $x_k\!=\!s_k(\mathbf{y})$ in (\[eq\_proof\_1\_9\_1\]). By adding (\[eq\_proof\_1\_9\]) and (\[eq\_proof\_1\_9\_1\]) together we obtain $$\label{eq_proof_1_10}
\begin{array}{ll}
(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}\left(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{y}), y_{-k})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y})\!+\!y_k\right)
\!+\!(s_k(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{z}))^{\top}\left(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{z}), z_{-k})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{z})\!+\!z_k\right)\\
=(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}\left(\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{y}), y_{-k})\!-\!\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{z}), z_{-k})\right)\!+\!
(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))\\
-(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}(z_k-y_k)\le 0.
\end{array}$$ By the mean-value theorem, there exists a $0<\eta_k<1$ with $\tilde{x}_k=\eta_ks_k(\mathbf{z}) + (1-\eta_k)s_k(\mathbf{y})$, such that $\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{y}), y_{-k})\!-\!\nabla_{s_k}\theta_k({s}_k(\mathbf{z}), z_{-k})=\sum_{j\in\mathcal{K}^f}\nabla^2_{s_ks_j}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})(s_j(\mathbf{y})-s_j(\mathbf{z}))$. We note from (\[eq\_jacobian\]) that for any $j\ne k$, $\nabla^2_{s_ks_j}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})$ is a zero matrix. Then, from (\[eq\_proof\_1\_10\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_proof_1_11}
\begin{array}{ll}
(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})(s_k(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{z}))\!+\!\Vert s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y})\Vert^2
\!-\!(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}(z_k-y_k)\\
=(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}\left(-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right)(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))
\!-\!(s_k(\mathbf{z})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{y}))^{\top}(z_k-y_k)\!\le\!0.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq\_proof\_1\_11\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_proof_1_12}
\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert\left\Vert s_k(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_k(\mathbf{z})\right\Vert\le\left\Vert z_k-y_k\right\Vert,\end{aligned}$$ By [**[P2]{}**]{} in Theorem \[thm\_convex\_game\], $-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})$ is positive semidefinite, and all the eigenvalues of $-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})$ are non-negative. Furthermore, all the eigenvalues of matrix $\left(-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right)$ are no less than 1. By the elementary property of the eigenvalues and the spectral norm of a symmetric matrix, we have $\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert\ge1$, where the equality only happens when $\tilde{x}_{k,1}=\tilde{x}_{k,2}=0$. Therefore, the asynchronous proximal-response given by Algorithm \[alg\_heuristic\] is a contractive mapping, which completes the proof of Theorem \[thm\_follower\_convergence\].
### Proof of Corollary \[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\] {#subsec_proof_jacobian_convergence}
The proof of Corollary \[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\] immediately follows our discussion on (\[eq\_proof\_1\_12\]). From (\[eq\_proof\_1\_12\]), we can construct the following vector inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_proof_1_13}
\left(\begin{matrix}
\left\Vert s_1(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_1(\mathbf{z})\right\Vert\\
\vdots\\
\left\Vert s_K(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_K(\mathbf{z})\right\Vert
\end{matrix}\right)
\le
\left(\begin{matrix}
{\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_1}\theta_1(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert}^{-1} & \ldots & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & \ldots & {\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_K}\theta_K(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert}^{-1}
\end{matrix}\right)
\left(\begin{matrix}
\left\Vert z_1-y_1\right\Vert\\
\vdots\\
\left\Vert z_K-y_K\right\Vert
\end{matrix}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that for the matrix norm if the component-wise inequality $A\ge B\ge0$ holds for two non-negative matrices $A$ and $B$, then $\Vert A\Vert\ge\Vert B\Vert$. Then, from (\[eq\_proof\_1\_13\]) the following holds $$\label{eq_proof_1_14}
\begin{array}{ll}
\Vert \mathbf{s}(\mathbf{y})\!-\!\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{z})\Vert\!=\!
\left\Vert\left(\begin{matrix}
\left\Vert s_1(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_1(\mathbf{z})\right\Vert\\
\vdots\\
\left\Vert s_K(\mathbf{y})\!-\!s_K(\mathbf{z})\right\Vert
\end{matrix}\right)\right\Vert
\!\le\!
\left\Vert\mathop{\textrm{Diag}}\left({\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})\!+\!I\right\Vert}^{-1}\right)_{k=1}^K\right\Vert
\left\Vert\left(\begin{matrix}
\left\Vert z_1\!-\!y_1\right\Vert\\
\vdots\\
\left\Vert z_K\!-\!y_K\right\Vert
\end{matrix}\right)\right\Vert\\
=\left\Vert\mathop{\textrm{Diag}}\left({\left\Vert-\nabla^2_{s^2_k}\theta_k(\tilde{\mathbf{x}})+I\right\Vert}^{-1}\right)_{k=1}^K\right\Vert
\left\Vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{z}\right\Vert.
\end{array}$$ Since $\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{y})$ and $\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{z})$ are obtained based on simultaneous best-response updating from the strategies $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}$, we know that Algorithm \[alg\_jacobian\] is a contraction of best response and correspondingly with any initialization it converges to an NE. This completes the proof of Corollary \[cor\_jacobian\_convergence\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The results of the public opinion poll performed in January 2015, just after the terrorist attack on the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in Paris, when 17 people were killed, showed that a significant number of French citizens held conspiratorial beliefs about it $(17 \%)$. This gave reason to an alternative analysis of public opinion, presented in this paper. We collected 990 on-line articles mentioning Charlie Hebdo from Le Monde web site (one of the leading French news agencies), and looked at the ones that contained words related with conspiracy (in French: ‘complot’, ‘conspiration’ or ‘conjuration’). Then we analyzed the readers response, performing a semantic analysis of the 16490 comments posted on-line as reaction to the above articles. We identified 2 attempts to launch a conspiratorial rumour. A more recent Le Monde article, which reflects on those early conspiratorial attempts from a rational perspective, and the commentary thereon, showed that the readers have more interest in understanding the possible causes for the onset of conspiratorial beliefs then to delve into the arguments that the conspiracists previously brought up to the public. We discuss the results of the above semantic analysis and give interpretation of the opinion dynamics measured in the data.'
author:
- |
Nataša Golo\
Cevipof, Center for political research, SciencesPo, Paris, France\
Email: [email protected]
title: |
A case study of conspiracy theories\
about Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Since the 9/11 attack, the intensity of counter-terrorism measures, as well as research, has significantly increased. Nevertheless, fear management as a way of counter-terrorism is still a discipline to be developed [@Bakker2014]. According to Bakker et al. [@Bakker2014], fear management has to do with all the efforts of governmental institutions, prior, during and after a terrorist attack or treat, to manipulate the human capital in society in order to improve the resilience of that society. They define fear as a sentiment of anxiety caused by the perception of danger and tie them to the analytical category of coping mechanisms, as developed in psychological and social scientist research.
On another hand, crisis communication after terrorist attacks and strengthening public resilience against terrorism are among the fifty un- and under researched topics in the field of (counter-) terrorism studies, as identified by Schmid [@Schmidt2011]. One example on that list, No. 18, relates to the link between the media, the internet and terrorism, questioning whether they impact each other, and what can be done to control them while upholding the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression.
One way to sense the level of anxiety in the society could be to monitor the level of penetration of conspiratorial beliefs. In the past, conspiracy theories used to be defined and implemented by a small number of Machiavellian individuals. However, with the current speed of communication they might get much larger dimension and activate complex and unpredictable social dynamics. Mechanisms extending the so called “wisdom of the crowd” emergence, may work backwards and transform a poorly informed, half-wit, relatively inert, disconnected population into a well integrated, deadly efficient machine of misinformation, physical and cultural destruction. In the context of terrorism, conspiracy theories might become an additional tool to build up gradually the arguments serving to the terrorists goals. In the sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy, a conspiracy theory can recruit the agents that will serve to the goals of the conspiracists in the future. In fact it can lead to some of the acolytes taking or supporting actions which in themselves are real conspiracies.
In terms of minority opinion spreading, conspiratorial beliefs were previously analysed in [@bib1], [@bib2]. A model of rumours of a 9/11 related hoax is proposed in [@bib3]. It is however very difficult to provide the empirical support for the dynamics / propagation of conspiratorial beliefs. It was argued that the eventual percolation of the groups of acolytes into a macroscopic network is a crucial factor in allowing terrorist operatives to move and act in otherwise “foreign territory”. Thus the identification and characterization of the overt activity involved in generating, propagating and supporting conspiracy theories is part of the wider goal of understanding, modelling and influencing the dynamics of subversive groups, organizations and their mass social groups support.
Studies indicate that this chain reaction might onset at any time after the terrorist attack, and the dynamics after the onset might span over a period of several years [@Golo2015]. Bessi et al. [@Bessi2015] measured how information related to a conspiracy news is consumed on Facebook. They tested potential biases induced by the continued exposure to unsubstantiated rumours on users’ content selection, and concluded that 77.92 % of likes and 80.86 % of comments are from users usually interacting with conspiracy stories. This is congenial with the previous finding of the authors [@Golo2015], who found that the probability to have a strong opinion for or against a conspiracy theory grows with the users activity.
Background information about the terrorist attack
-------------------------------------------------
The 2015 attack to Charlie Hebdo office in Paris roots in the conflict of beliefs between the religious radicalists who objected to the use of the caricature of the prophet Mohamed and the journalists who defended the freedom of speech in terms of religion, which is guaranteed by the French law (“La[i]{}cité”, French term for secularism, is currently a core concept in the French constitution).
Here is a short description of the events. On the $7^{th}$ January 2015, two Islamist gunmen forced their way into and opened fire in the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve. Simultaneously a second attach happened in a kosher grocery store in Paris, killing 5. As a result, the French government organized an event when several million people marched across France, lead by 50 world leaders in Paris in tribute for the terror victims (’We are here to support freedom. We will not be beaten.’). The media coverage in France was of the similar dimensions as the one of the march. A series of measures, including the prosecution of citizens who propagate terrorism on the internet and the authorization of intelligence services to gather on-line, phone and traveller data has been introduced for people suspected of threat.
In the days after, some number of people started questioning the real conspiracy behind the 2015 attack, carried out by the perpetrators, two French Muslim brothers of Algerian descent, who were killed in the manhunt after the attack, presuming that they have evidences that the current French government is behind it.
Background information about conspiratorial rumors and mass opinion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conspiracy theories as political explanations have long been a part of French political culture, as well as of many others throughout the history. They are becoming particularly powerful when they are widely accepted. An empirical analysis has been reported in [@Wood2015], which concerns the nature of their support in the mass public, confirms that the chance that a person will endorse conspiracy theory can be predicted by an attraction to believes that political events are the consequence of a contest between good people and malevolent people, rather than between self-interested actors with different perspectives and priorities. They also define conspiracism as a particular form of public opinion which is distinguished from conventional opinion by its nature of animating political narratives and the latent predispositions that it activates. Of course, the question remains about what type of predispositions these conspiracy narratives will activate. Most studies of mass opinion focus on conventional sources of opinion difference, such as ideology or racial identity; some argue that conspiracism is defining the nature of the political right [@Sunstein2009], and some argue that conspiracism originate in psychological predispositions [@Oliver2014].
Accordingly, it could have been expected that the supporters of terrorism would use mass media after the attack to continue the spread of confusion and fear incited by the attack in order to achieve its goals. One of the tools in this order is indeed spreading of false information with regard to the attack. So in the days after the attack the titles appeared on the internet such as, for example “Could the January 7 Charlie Hebdo attack have been a secret service operation, or perhaps an anti-Muslim plot?”, some of them even suggesting that the French president was involved in the preparation of the attack, with the intention to create negativity of the public towards Muslim population. These scenarios went so wild that to a rational person it might seem impossible that anyone could endorse them. However, the results of the public opinion poll \[9\] have shown that in the weeks after the attack a significant number of French citizens held conspiratorial beliefs about it (17 %). This report gave us the motivation for the further analysis, presented in this paper.
We have checked how often ’Charlie Hebdo complot’ appeared as a search query in the period of our interest (that is, the first 3 months after the attack), using Google Trends. The results of the check-up are shown in Figure 1. This quick check-up already indicated that the interest quickly faded away. The histogram shows that the number of the searches was high only in the first and second week after the attack. In the second week the interest was highest and therefore the histogram is normalized such that this week searches correspond to 100 % or the maximal interest. Immediately after the peak interest, during the third week shown in the histogram, the poll [@bib4] was performed (January 20-22). Since then, the interest for this conspiracy on Google diminished.
![The histogram shows Web Search interest for the phrase ’Charlie Hebdo complot’. Data Source: Google Trends (www.google.com/trends). []{data-label="fig:GoogleTrends"}](GoogleTrends.jpg)
Outline of the paper
--------------------
The results of the public opinion poll [@bib4] have shown that in the weeks after the attack a significant number of French citizens held conspiratorial beliefs about it $(17 \%)$. This report has been a motivation for the further analysis, presented in this paper. In Section \[sec:2\] we discuss the data that is used for the analysis, in Section \[sec:3\] we discuss the observations and the measurements that we have performed on the data. Our viewpoint on the presented observations is elaborated in Section \[sec:4\].
Le Monde articles about Charlie Hebdo and on-line reactions {#sec:2}
===========================================================
We collected 990 on-line articles mentioning Charlie Hebdo from Le Monde (one of the leading French news agencies) web site. Those articles are associated with 16490 comments posted on-line, as a reaction of the readers to the above articles. The comments are often forming short discussion threads between the readers. We identified 4825 different pseudo-names of the commentators, which means that each of the commentators reacted on average $ \sim 3.4 $ times. The average number of comments per article is $16.66$.
A network representation of all the comments and all the commentators is shown in Figure \[fig:Fig1\]. The on-line articles are presented as 990 black nodes in the middle layer of the network, while the commentators are presented as 4825 nodes in the top and the bottom layers. The density of links between the commentators and the articles are showing that the various response of the readers to different Le Monde articles about Charlie Hebdo.
![The on-line articles published on www.LeMonde.fr web site containing the term ‘Charlie Hebdo’ are presented as nodes in the middle layer, while the commentators/individuals are presented as nodes in the top and the bottom layers. The links between the commentators and the articles are showing a relatively high response of the readers to the Le Monde articles about Charlie Hebdo. []{data-label="fig:Fig1"}](Cup3.jpg)
![(a) The left panel shows how many comments were posted per article. The distribution is random; most of the articles have only a very few comments, a few of them have many comments and there is an unsuual peak around 30 comments. (b) The right panel shows the activity of the commentators, fitted by a power law line. []{data-label="fig:degree"}](INOUTdegree.jpg)
In order to better understand the level and the mode of the commentators activity, we made a statistical distribution, which is based on their identities as given by the pseudo-names they use (in reality, it might happen that the same person is behind 2 or more pseudo-names, which we cannot detect). This is shown in Figure \[fig:degree\]. The left panel shows how many comments were posted per article. The IN-degree count is irregular. The frequency of the articles with an IN-degree smaller than the average ($\sim 17$) has an decaying trend, but the statistics of the articles with a larger IN-degree is very noisy. It shows a peak at IN-degree$\sim 30$ and then it decays sharply. There is no regular statistics here. Figure \[fig:degree\] shows the OUT-degree of the commentators (number of comments per pseudo-name). Their activity is distributed according to a power law. The red fitting line follows a power law $y \sim a x^{-b}$ with the slope $b=1.865$, and a correlation coefficient of $0.99$.
Selection of articles and comments mentioning Charlie Hebdo conspiracy {#subsec:21}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above dataset containing 990 articles, we looked at the ones that contained words related with conspiracy (in French: ‘complot’, ‘conspiration’ or ‘ conjuration’). We found that there was only 9 such articles, which are listed in Appendix, in French. The bare fact that less then 1 % of the articles mentions Charlie Hebdo in the context of conspiracy is already quite informative and shows that there is no viral contagion of conspiracy theory among Le Monde readers during this period. The number of comments per article is given in the last column of Table 1.
We list here briefly the main subjects of the 9 articles.
The first three articles are illustrating the conspiratorial outings of ‘negationists’. The main goal of negationists is denial of the historically established crimes [@Negationists], and they would use conspiracy theories to support their goal.
The first conspiracy related article that appeared after the terrorist attack was on January 15 reports an incident in Lille, when a person has been sanctioned for refusing to participate in the minute of silence and explaining that the Charlie Hebdo attack did not really happen but is a result of a conspiracy theory. The second article writes about protective measures against conspiratorial and hateful remarks allegedly made by a young woman. This article produced a lot of reactions (56) and therefore will be analyzed in the following section. The third articles about a their group friends who felt offended by the cartoons about the prophet, but who could not accept that the Muslims would kill and therefore thought that there was another conspiracy behind the Charlie Hebdo attack. The claimed that killers were mercenaries hired by the secret services such as Mossad, who did it.
The second ‘wave’ of conspiratorial beliefs comes from Jean-Marie Le Pen, the honorary president of the ultra right winged party Front National. Therefore, in the fourth article, Friday, January 16, in an interview with the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, Jean-Marie Le Pen gave controversial and undefined statements mentioning a conspiracy theory with regards to the Charlie Hebdo attack. Then, in the fifth article, he reacted to the criticism of the Vice President of his party, who suggested that Jean-Marie Le Pen had been drinking before mentioning a conspiracy theory in the attack at “Charlie Hebdo”, in the earlier mentioned article. In the sixth article the same case is being discussed. All three of those articles had more then an average number of responses and they will be analyzed too in the following section.
Finally, the third ‘wave’ of discussions about Charlie Hebdo conspiracy has a very different view point, analyzing the causes, the possible control and the prevention of those. In the seventh article (or the first one of the last set) the following question is asked: ‘How to distinguish right from wrong?’, and a plan of the government to give more resources to the national education system to better train the youth is announced. In the following article the case of two teachers who decided to dissect in class conspiracy theories is reported. Finally in the ninth article, a summary of the earlier discussed conspiratorial ideas is made (an example: during the mobilizations for Charlie Hebdo march of January 11, the route would thus, according to conspiracists, have taken the shape of the map of Israel! etc.). These are then rationally discussed and compared. The article has a lot of reactions and they will be discussed in the following section too.
Figure \[fig:Fig2\] shows these nine articles that are mentioning conspiracy (black circles), but also, it shows a selection of comments that are mentioning conspiracy to any of the previously selected 990 ‘Charlie Hebdo’ articles (white articles). In this way we can see the spontaneous discussions about Charlie Hebdo conspiracy. We see from the figure that that spontaneous activity is very low and the most of the comments have been posted as reaction to one of the articles about conspiracy.
![Number of articles containing one of the words related with conspiracy (‘complot’, ‘conspiration’, ‘conjuration’) per day (black/filled circles) and the number of comments (not necessarily to those articles) containing one of the key-words. []{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](NoPerDay.jpg)
Interpretation of the empirical observations {#sec:3}
============================================
In the previous section, we described the media coverage by Le Monde, and the readers response, during the first 3 months after the attack. We identified some very minor attempts to launch conspiratorial rumors, being unsuccessful to ’go viral’ on Le Monde website and during the period of observation.
Our observations need to be compared with the results of the poll [@bib4], which was performed on January 20 and 22, 2015 by the Institute CSA, which is a French enterprise specialized in the studies of public opinion (these dates are also noted in Figure 4 with the ’x’ symbol). Questioning was performed through the internet and the selected sample of 1000 persons was composed following the method of quote on the criteria of age, gender, profession and geographical location. The poll has been performed for the French news agency Atlantico, which published the poll results on January 25, 2015 [@Atlantico]. The title of their news article “17 % des Français pensent que les attentats de Charlie Hebdo et de la porte de Vincennes relèveraient d’un complot: un thermomètre de l’état de la société” reveals that that the population of 17 % of the French believes that there was a conspiracy with regard to the Charlie Hebdo attack. They further also explain that this number is actually composed out of two sub-populations: 4% of respondents are convinced that there was a conspiracy, while 13 % lean towards this hypothesis without any conviction. The breakage of the poll results across different categories shows further details.
Our observations can also be compared with Google Trend results shown in Figure \[fig:GoogleTrends\]. Similar to the Google Trend measurement, our measurement in Figure \[fig:Fig2\] showed a decay in the readers’ interest (please note that our data is aggregated per day and Google Trend data per week, which explains why their peak in the second week is significantly higher). It is remarkable that both Google Trend data and the data from Le Monde commentaries show an increased interest from the readers / public in the end of February 2015, which is not caused by any of Le Monde articles about conspiracy.
The great majority of the persons over 50 years (88%) do not have any conspiratorial doubts. The situation is similar with the professionals with a higher level of education and professional responsibilities, as 90% of them do not have any doubts, only 1 % of is convinced about conspiracy, while 9 % lean towards this hypothesis without any conviction. The responses collected from youth and lower level ’workers’ prove to be more extreme. For example, 8% of interviewed 18-24 year aged and workers are convinced that this is a “conspiracy” (which is double of the average).
Such interpretation of the results indeed corresponds well with our findings. Namely, the readers of Le Monde indeed are often perceived as educated professionals thus, it is not surprising that Le Monde published only very sporadically the conspiratorial rumours. However, the more-then-averaged interest of the readers for the majority of those articles shows that even though the beliefs are not present, there is certain interest for the subject.
Obviously, the situation that we observed is very different then the situation that happened after the September 11 attack, when Thierry Meyssan’s book [@Meyssan] about 9/11 conspiracies incited an avalanche of discussions and held attention of the French citizens for quite a while. It is also true that some time is needed to publish such books (for example, a book entitled “We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo!: Free Thinkers Question the French” [@Berrett] appeared in April 2015 and it is theoretically possible that other similar books will yet appear).
Semantic analysis of the articles about conspiracies and the commentary {#subsec:semantics}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we will compare the semantic content of the articles introduced in Section \[subsec:21\] and their commentaries. We will analyse them in three groups: the first three articles about the disobedience and the spreading of conspiratorial beliefs in schools and public institutions, then the three articles about Jean-Marie Le Pen and his conspiracy theory and finally we will analyse the ninth article, which is more general and speak about different aspects of conspiratorial beliefs.
The first group of articles is shown in Figure \[fig:Obeissance\]. The semantic clouds are constructed based on the co-occurrences of the words in different parts of the text corpus (shown by the links between words) and they reveal the context in which the most frequent subjects (larger words) are used. They have been constructed using the software Iramuteq [@bib14]. Comparing Figures \[fig:ObeissanceMain\] and \[fig:ObeissanceComments\], we see that the contant is very similar.
![(a) The left panel shows semantic similarity analysis of three articles about some early conspirational statements and disrecpect for the vicitms of the attack in schools and public institutions. (b) The comments to the articles from the left panel. []{data-label="fig:Obeissance"}](Obeissance.jpg)
![(a) The left panel shows semantic similarity analysis of the main text about Jean-Marie Le Pen conspirational statements. (b) The readers’ commentary to the articles (a), showing that the discussion developed rather in criticizing him then developing the conspiratorial ideas. []{data-label="fig:LePen"}](LePen.jpg)
![(a) The left panel shows semantic similarity analysis of the main text of the article “’La conjuration des crédules”. (b) The comments to the article bring new content, more abstract, discussing the spreading of information through the internet, the articles, etc. []{data-label="fig:120"}](120.jpg)
The second group of articles, about Jean-Marie Le Pen, is shown in Figure \[fig:LePen\]. Along with the conspiratorial version of the attack (bringing out the fact that the identity papers of the perpetrator being left in the car in support of conspiratorists), Le Pen has also made statements on the issue of immigration. In spite of the fact that only 8 % of the French population declares as Muslims, he spoke of Muslims in terms of “flooding”, “the invasion of our country.” Such statements can not be found back in the commentary. The comments rather bring his statements in the context of the party (FN) where was at the time an honorary president.
Figure \[fig:120\] illustrates the newest of the nine selected Le Monde articles, which reflects on those early conspiratorial attempts from a rational perspective, showed that the readers have more interest in understanding the possible causes for the onset of conspiratorial beliefs then to delve into the arguments that the conspiracists previously brought up to the public. The left panel shows semantic similarity analysis of the main text. The main link is between the words related to the ‘arguments’ of conpisracists, such as detail, photo, C3 (type of the car used in the Charlie Hebdo attack). In the right panel, the commentary is shown. It brings out a new content, far more abstract then the evidences of the terroristic event, discussing the spreading of information through the internet, the articles, etc.
Conclusion {#sec:4}
==========
Among other goals of violent attacks in the context of political conflict, one is to affect a broader audience beyond the physically targeted victims. In fact the wide number of people leaving Europe to join the Islamic State acts in the Middle East show that these methods work. In order to understand why and how they work, we have to be able to stage a research program that will cover this dynamics from its very incipience in the people’s minds to the actual support and participation in acts of terror. Technologically speaking this is not a totally impossible task since for business reasons the technology to follow a person activity based on its public domain presence exists and is even legal in many aspects. Thus a systematic study of the arguments but also vocabulary and affective elements in people’s interventions in internet debates might help construct the profile of the groups likely to join the trajectory between ideological sympathies to actual crimes. The present paper is one of the emergent efforts by interdisciplinary scientists to put the basis of such a scientific program that surely will have to benefit from a very wide range of disciplines starting from psychology and linguistics and ending with computer science, statistical mechanics and percolation phase transitions. Academically this challenge is not less compelling as it connects to deep human mechanisms that can be better understood when acting in extreme and passionate contexts [@Vasilis].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
================
This work has been performed under the grant DGA-2012 60 0013 00470 75 0. Serge Galam helped by giving many fruitful comments. The data analysed in the article is publicly available, and it has been kindly provided in the format appropriate for a further analysis to the author by MediaLab at SciencesPo, Paris, France.
[9]{}
Bakker, Edwin and Beatrice de Graaf. *Towards a Theory of Fear Management in the Counter-Terrorism Domain*. ICCT Research Paper, January 2014. Schmid, A. P. *50 Un- and Under-researched Topics in the Field of (Counter-)Terrorism Studies*. Perspectives on Terrorism 5, No. 1 (2011), pp.76-78. <http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-under-researched-topics/html>. Galam, S; Mauger, A. *On reducing terrorism power: a hint from physics*. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 2003, 323: 695-704. Galam, S. *The September 11 attack: A percolation of individual passive support*. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 2002, 26, No. 3: 269-272. Galam, S. *Modelling rumors: the no plane Pentagon French hoax case*. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2003, 320: 571-580. Golo, Natasa, and Serge Galam. *Conspiratorial beliefs observed through entropy principles*. Entropy 17, no. 8 (2015): 5611-5634. Bessi, Alessandro, Mauro Coletto, George Alexandru Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. *Science vs Conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation*. PloSone 10, no. 2 (2015): 02. Wood, Michael J., and Karen Douglas. *Online communication as a window to conspiracist worldviews*. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015): 836. Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. *Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures*. Journal of Political Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2009): 202-227. Oliver, J. Eric, and Thomas J. Wood. *Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style (s) of mass opinion*. American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 4 (2014): 952-966. <http://www.csa.eu/multimedia/data/sondages/data2015/opi20150126-csa-pour-atlantico-les-francais-et-lhypothese-dun-complot.pdf> (accessed on 11/06/2015). Wikipedia. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical\_revisionism\_%28negationism%29]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29), accessed on June 12, 2015. [http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/17-francais-pensent-que-attentats \\-charlie-hebdo-et-porte-vincenne-releveraient-complot-thermometre-etat \\-societe-yves-marie-cann-1971963.html\#qUpR3wPYUewlHi3b.99](http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/17-francais-pensent-que-attentats \-charlie-hebdo-et-porte-vincenne-releveraient-complot-thermometre-etat \-societe-yves-marie-cann-1971963.html#qUpR3wPYUewlHi3b.99), accessed on June 12, 2015. Meyssan T. *L’Effroyable imposture*. 2002. ISBN 2-912362-44-X Kevin J Barrett. *We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo!: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11*. Paperback, April 2, 2015. Ratinaud, Pierre. *IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires.* Téléchargeable á l’adresse: http://www. iramuteq. org (2009). P. Vasilopoulos, G.E. Marcus and M. Foucault. *Emotional Responses to the Charlie Hebdo Attacks: Between Ideology and Political Judgment*. Journée d’études SciencesPo quanti, Paris, France, May 2015.
Appendix A {#sec:appendixA .unnumbered}
==========
In Table 1 the selection of the Le Monde on-line articles which have been analyzed and discussed in the paper is listed. The list is a result of searching by the criterion ‘Charlie Hebdo’ in combination with one of the following words: ‘complot’, ‘conspiration’ and ‘conjuration’, which are French words for conspiracy through all the comments posted on the Le Monde articles. In the second column the date of the publication of the article is given (only day and month, as all articles were published in 2015). In the last column of the table is the number of the readers comments to the given article.
Title Date Abstract \#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
La conjuration des crédules 13/3 [Pendant les mobilisations pour Charlie Hebdo, le parcours de la marche du 11 janvier aurait ainsi pris la forme de la carte d’Israe̋l! “ Pour beaucoup de ces ‘chercheurs’ du Net, il s’agit de montrer qu”’ on ne se fait pas avoir “par les médias.” Ils s’imaginent plus intelligents...]{} 40
Au lycée, un cours pour démonter les théories du complot 11/2 [Confrontés aux doutes de leurs élèves sur la réalité des attentats du 7 janvier contre l’hebdomadaire Charlie Hebdo, deux enseignants de région parisienne ont décidé de décortiquer en classe les théories du complot."On a eu des confusions á cause d’Internet qui transmettait de...]{} 2
Attentats de janvier : les lycéens en proie aux théories du complot 9/2 [Depuis les attentats contre “Charlie Hebdo” et l’HyperCasher de la porte de Vincennes, á Paris, les thëses complotistes circulent sur Internet. Comment distinguer le vrai du faux ?... Le gouvernement a annoncé vouloir donner davantage de moyens á l’éducation nationale pour mieux former...]{} 0
Attentats de Paris: Jean-Marie le Pen défend la thèse du complot 26/1 [Le Pen avait “peut-être pris un peu de vodka” avant de donner un entretien au tablo'’[i]{}d russe Komsomolska'’[i]{}a Pravda, dans lequel il laissait entendre ses doutes á propos de l’attentat á Charlie Hebdo.. “Outrecuidance”, avait répondu M. Le Pen. Mais á l’occasion de cette galette des...]{} 25
Le ton monte au FN entre Jean-Marie Le Pen et Florian Philippot 24/1 [Le président d’honneur du parti a fustigé samedi l’“outrecuidance” du vice-président, qui a suggéré que Jean-Marie Le Pen avait bu avant d’évoquer une thèse conspirationniste lors de l’attentat á “Charlie Hebdo”... L’attentat de Charlie Hebdo ? "Cela ressemble á une...]{} 27
Charlie Hebdo: la petite musique conspirationniste de Jean-Marie Le Pen 16/1 [Après la parution, vendredi 16 janvier, dans le tablo'’[i]{}d russe Komsomolska'’[i]{}a Pravda d’une interview choc, Jean-Marie Le Pen maintient auprès du Monde la quasi-totalité de ses propos publiés concernant la tuerie de Charlie Hebdo. Dans cet entretien, le président d’honneur du Front...]{} 30
Les attentats vus par des jeunes marseillais : “C’est un complot pour salir les musulmans” 16/1 [Byllal, 24 ans, Mohammed, 22 ans, et leurs deux amis, á peine plus jeunes, ne défilent pas pour Charlie Hebdo. Ils sont venus faire du shopping. "On pense que toute cette histoire est une manipulation, attaque Byllal. Ces tueurs étaient des mercenaires engagés par les services secrets...]{} 17
Bobigny: une enseignante mise á pied pour avoir tenu des propos complotistes 16/1 [Une mesure conservatoire, “en accord avec la préfecture de la Seine-Saint-Denis”, a précisé au Monde son président, Patrick Toulmet, et qui fait suite á des propos complotistes et haineux qu’aurait tenus la jeune femme á des élèves de baccalauréat professionnel, lundi 12 janvier, au sujet des deux... ]{} 56
A Lille, un agent municipal sanctionné pour apologie du terrorisme 15/1 [Ce dernier a refusé de participer á la minute de silence jeudi dernier et aurait expliqué que l’attentat contre la rédaction de Charlie Hebdo n’avait pas eu lieu et que tout cela n’était que complot. "Le procureur a reçu une plainte de la mairie de Lille, confirme le parquet. Il a... ]{} 5
: Le Monde articles used in this paper.[]{data-label="table"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Locally-gated single-layer graphene sheets have unusual discrete energy states inside the potential barrier induced by a finite-width gate. These states are localized outside the Dirac cone of continuum states and are responsible for novel quantum transport phenomena. Specifically, the longitudinal (along the barrier) conductance exhibits oscillations as a function of barrier height and/or width, which are both controlled by a nearby gate. The origin of these oscillations can be traced back to singularities in the density of localized states. These graphene conductance-oscillations resemble the Shubnikov-de-Haas (SdH) magneto-oscillations; however, here these are driven by an electric field instead of a magnetic field.'
author:
- 'V. A. Yampol’skii$^{1,2}$, S. S. Apostolov$^{1,2}$, Z. A. Maizelis$^{1,2}$, Alex Levchenko$^{1,3}$, and Franco Nori$^{1,4}$'
title: 'Voltage-driven quantum oscillations of conductance in graphene'
---
Introduction
============
The unusual and rather remarkable transport properties of graphene continue to attract considerable attention. Soon after its experimental discovery [@Novoselov-graphene], studies found: unconventional quantum Hall effect [@IQHE]; the possibility of testing the Klein paradox [@Klein-paradox]; specular Andreev reflection and Josephson effect [@Andreev-Josephson]; new electric field effects [@Electric-field; @Voltage-driven-Dos]; intriguing electron lensing [@Lensing]; and other fascinating phenomena (see, e.g., recent papers [@Review-1; @Review-2; @Review-3; @Gusynin; @williams; @dicarlo; @fogler; @bliokh; @rozhkov] and references therein). Studies of graphene are also inspired by their potential application in nano-electronic devices, since an applied electric field can vary considerably the electron concentration and have both electrons and holes as charge carriers with high mobility.
The subject of the present study, which is a logical continuation of recent work [@Voltage-driven-Dos], is an unusual novel transport effect, namely, *voltage-driven* quantum oscillations in the conductance of a single-layer gated graphene. These oscillations originate from a new type of electron states in graphene. When a graphene sheet is subject to nearby gates, these create an energy barrier for propagating electrons. Here we explicitly demonstrate that, in contrast to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, where localized states can exist only inside quantum wells, Dirac-like *relativistic* electrons in graphene allow energy states localized *within the barrier*. We show that the energy $\varepsilon(q_{y})$ of the localized states (versus the wave vector component $q_y$ along the barrier) becomes *non-monotonic* if $$V_{0}D>\pi\hbar v_{F},$$ where $V_{0}$ and $D$ are the barrier height and width correspondingly, and $v_{F}$ is the Fermi velocity. This produces singularities in the density of localized states for energies where $$\d\varepsilon/\d q_{y}=0.$$ When the magnitude and/or width of the barrier changes, the locations of the singularities move and periodically cross the Fermi level, generating quantum oscillations in the *longitudinal* (along the barrier) conductance as well as in the thermodynamic properties of graphene. This situation resembles the well known physical mechanism for Shubnikov-de-Haas (SdH) magneto-oscillations (see, e.g., Ref. [@Shoenberg; @gus]). Indeed, electrons in the conduction band of a 3D metal subject to a strong magnetic field have an equidistant discrete energy levels (Landau levels) separated by the cyclotron energy. The corresponding density of states has singularities at the Landau levels. When the magnetic field is changed, the positions of the Landau levels move and pass periodically through the Fermi energy. As a result of this, the population of electrons at the Fermi level also changes periodically, giving rise to the quantum oscillations of both the transport and thermodynamic properties of a metal. One should notice, however, a few important differences. First, in the context of gated graphene, oscillations are induced by the *electric* field, while the corresponding SdH oscillations are driven by a *magnetic* field. Second, localized energy states in graphene are non-equidistant and the resulting density of states has a rather complicated energy dependence. Thus, the corresponding oscillations in the conductance inherit all these unusual peculiarities.
Localized energy states in a barrier
====================================
The tunneling of relativistic particles in graphene *across* a finite-width potential barrier, and its corresponding conductance, has been recently studied (see, e.g., Refs. [@Klein-paradox; @Tunnel-1; @Tunnel-2; @Tunnel-3; @Lensing]). Here we consider another conduction problem, namely, electron waves that propagate *strictly along* the barrier and *damp away from it*. More specifically, we consider electron states in graphene with a potential barrier located in a single-layer graphene occupying the $xy$-plane (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). For simplicity, we assume that the barrier $V(x)$ has sharp edges, $$\label{V-potential}
V(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cr} 0, &\quad |x|>D/2\,, \\
V_{0}, &\quad |x|<D/2\,.
\end{array}\right.$$ Electrons in monolayer graphene obey the Dirac-like equation (hereafter $\hbar=1$), $$\label{Dirac-Eq}
i\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}=\hat{H}\psi, \quad
\hat{H}=-iv_{F}\hat{\bm{\sigma}}\cdot\bm{\nabla}+V(x)\,,$$ where $\hat{\bm{\sigma}}=(\hat{\sigma}_{x},\hat{\sigma}_{y})$ are the Pauli matrices. We then seek stationary spinor solutions of the form, $$\label{Trial-wave}
\psi(x,y)=\psi(x)\exp(-i\varepsilon t+iq_{y}y)\,,$$ with energy $\varepsilon$ and momentum $q_{y}$ along the barrier. We focus on states with $|q_y|>|\kappa|\equiv
|\varepsilon|/v_{F}$. In this case, the electron waves satisfying Eq. damp away from the barrier, and the components $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ of the Dirac spinor can be written in the from $$\label{Psi-1}
\hskip-1.2cm \psi_{1}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a\,\exp\!{\big[k_{x}(x+D/2)\big]}, &\, x<-D/2\,, \\
b\,\exp{(iq_{x}x)}\\\quad+\;c\,\exp{(-iq_{x}x)}\,, & |x|\leq D/2\,,\\
d\, \exp\!{\big[-k_{x}(x-D/2)\big]}\,, & \,\, x>D/2\,,
\end{array}\right.$$ $$\label{Psi-2}
\psi_{2}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a\,\frac{i\kappa}{k_{x}+q_{y}}\,\exp\!{\big[k_{x}(x+D/2)\big]}\,, &\, x<-D/2\,, \\
-b\,\exp\!{(iq_{x}x+i\theta)}\\\quad+\;c\,\exp\!{(-iq_{x}x-i\theta)}\,, & |x|\leq D/2\,,\\
-d\,\frac{i\kappa}{k_{x}-q_{y}}\,
\exp\!{\big[-k_{x}(x-D/2)\big]}\,, & \,\, x>D/2\,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ with real $k_{x}=\big({q^{2}_{y}-\kappa^2}\big)^{1/2}$ and $q_{x}=\big((\kappa-\mathcal{V}/D)^2-q^{2}_{y}\big)^{1/2}$. Here $\mathcal{V}=V_{0}D/v_{F}$ is the effective barrier strength and $\tan\theta=q_{y}/q_{x}$.
![(Color online) Schematic top view of a graphene sheet (yellow rectangle) placed under voltage gates indicated by the grey block rectangles. Bottom: gate-induced potential energy barrier $V(x)$ in graphene. \[Fig1\]](scheme.EPS){width="8cm"}
Matching the functions $\psi_{1}(x)$ and $\psi_{2}(x)$ at the points $x=\pm D/2$, we obtain a set of four linear homogeneous algebraic equations for the constants $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$. Equating the determinant of this set to zero, we obtain a dispersion relation for the localized electron energy states, $$\label{Spectrum}
F(\varepsilon,q_y)\equiv\tan(q_{x}D)+\frac{k_{x}q_{x}}
{\kappa(\mathcal{V}/D-\kappa)+q^{2}_{y}}=0\,.$$
The spectrum of localized states in graphene \[Eq. \] is shown by the solid black curves in Fig. \[Fig2\], for dimensionless variables $$Q=q_{y}D,\qquad \mathcal{E}=\varepsilon D/v_F.$$ This spectrum consists of an infinite number of branches $\mathcal{E}_{n}(Q)$. Each of these branches starts from the lines $\mathcal{E}=\pm|Q|$ (red solid straight lines in Fig. \[Fig2\]) at $$\label{en}
\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{V}/2-\pi^2n^2/2\mathcal{V}$$ and tends asymptotically to the line $$\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{V}- Q$$ with increasing $Q$ (dashed red line in Fig. \[Fig2\]). Furthermore, a particular branch of the spectrum starts at the point ($Q=0,\, \mathcal{E}=0$) and also tends to the line $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{V}-Q$.
The behavior of different branches of the spectrum depends on the barrier strength $\mathcal{V}$. If $\mathcal{V}<\pi/2$, then all branches satisfy $\mathcal{E}<0$. Localized states with positive energies appear only for $\mathcal{V}>\pi/2$. When $\mathcal{V}$ increases, new branches in the spectrum with positive energies appear. When $\mathcal{V}$ is within the interval $$(n+1/2)\pi<\mathcal{V}<(n+3/2)\pi,$$ the number of branches with $\mathcal{E}>0$ is $n+1$, for $n=1,2,3,\ldots$. It is worth emphasizing that each of the branches with positive energy has a maximum $\mathcal{E}^{\mathrm{max}}_{n}$ at a certain wave number $Q=Q^{\mathrm{max}}_{n}$. Near these points the group velocity of localized electron waves tends to zero, which resembles the stop-light phenomena found in various media [@Stop-light]. The localized states can also be observed in graphene when a voltage is applied to produce a potential well [@gr].
Note that defect-induced localized electron states in graphene and the enhancement of conductivity due to an increase of the electron density of states localized near the graphene edges were recently reported [@LDOS]. In contrast to these examples, the electron states studied here are localized within the barrier and also these *are tunable*, i.e., the energy levels can be shifted by charging the barrier strength (e.g., via tuning a gate voltage).
![(Color online) Electron energy spectrum in graphene obtained for positive $Q$ and $\mathcal{V}=16$. The Dirac sea of delocalized states (continuum spectrum) is marked by the grey regions. The branches of the spectrum for *localized* states are shown by solid black curves between the straight solid and dashed red lines. There are no states in the forbidden (white) regions. The increase or decrease (schematically indicated by the upward and downward vertical blue arrows) of the Fermi level $\mathcal{E}_F$ (marked by the horizontal dashed blue line) results in a periodic change in both the density of states at $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}_F$, and also in the conductance. \[Fig2\]](fig1_EQ.EPS){width="8cm"}
Density of localized states
===========================
To calculate the density of electron states $\rho(\varepsilon)$, we use the general formula $\rho(\varepsilon)=\sum_{\alpha}\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{\alpha})$, where the index $\alpha$ labels the quantum state and $\delta(x)$ is Dirac’s delta-function. Using $$\sum_{\alpha}(\ldots)=4L_{x}L_{y}(2\pi)^{-2}\int
dk_{x}dk_{y}(\ldots)$$ for a continuum spectrum one finds the already familiar expression $$\label{Dos-cont}
\rho_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}(\mathcal{E})=\rho_{_0}|\mathcal{E}|, \quad
\rho_{_0}=\frac{2L_{x}L_{y}}{\pi v_{F}D}\,,$$ where $L_x$ and $L_y$ are the lengths of the graphene sheet in the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively. For localized energy states, we obtain: $$\label{Dos-loc}
\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{E})=2\rho_{_0}\frac{D}{L_x}\sum_{n}
\left|\frac{d\mathcal{E}_{n}(Q)}{dQ}\right|^{-1}_{\mathcal{E}_{n}(Q)=\mathcal{E}}\,,$$ where $n$ runs over the positive roots of the equation $\mathcal{E}(Q)=\mathcal{E}$. The function $\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{E})$ exhibits two types of peculiarities. First, increasing $\mathcal{E}$, the jumps or steps (each of magnitude $2D/L_x$) in $\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{E})/\rho_{_0}$ occur at the points, given by Eq. (\[en\]), where new branches of the spectrum arise or disappear. More importantly, *singularities* are observed when $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}^{\mathrm{max}}_{n}$, where $|\d\mathcal{E}/\d Q|^{-1}$ in Eq. diverges.
The locations of the singularities *shift* when changing the barrier strength $\mathcal{V}$. Therefore, they periodically cross the Fermi level $\mathcal{E}_{F}$. This produces quantum oscillations in the density of states at the Fermi energy, which are seen in the upper panel of Fig. \[Fig3\], showing $\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{E})/\rho_{_0}$ versus the effective barrier strength $\mathcal{V}$.
![Dimensionless oscillating parts of the density of states $\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}/\rho_{_0}$ at the Fermi level (upper panel) and conductance $ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}/g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}$ (lower panel) versus the strength $\mathcal{V}$ of the potential barrier for $D/L_x=0.1$, $\mathcal{E}_{F}=1$ (main panels) and $\mathcal{E}_{F}=5$ (insets). The total conductance is $g=g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}+ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}$. \[Fig3\]](gv_2.EPS){width="8cm"}
Kubo formula and conductance
============================
Kubo expression for the conductance in graphene
-----------------------------------------------
When studying transport, within linear response theory, one usually starts from the current-response function, $$\label{K}
K_{\mu\nu}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')=-i\vartheta(t-t')\Tr\left\{\hat{\varrho}
\big[\hat{\mathbf{j}}^{H}_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}),
\hat{\mathbf{j}}^{H}_{\nu}(\mathbf{x}')\big]\right\}\,,$$ where $\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{r},t)$, $\vartheta(t)$ is the Heaviside step-function, $\hat{\varrho}$ is the equilibrium density matrix, and $$\hat{\mathbf{j}}^{H}_{\mu}(\mathbf{r},t)=
\exp{(i\hat{H}t)}\hat{\mathbf{j}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{r})\exp{(-i\hat{H}t)}$$ is the current operator in the Heisenberg representation with the Hamiltonian taken from Eq. , and where $[\ldots,
\ldots]$ stands for the commutator. For electrons with a linear Dirac spectrum, one finds $$\hat{\mathbf{j}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{r})=ev_{F}\hat{\psi}^{\dag}(\mathbf{r})
\hat{\sigma}_{\mu}\hat{\psi}(\mathbf{r}).$$ Equation is used to define the frequency-dependent linear conductance as $$\label{g-def}
g_{\mu\nu}(\omega)=\Re\frac{i}{\omega L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\iint
\d\mathbf{r}\;\d\mathbf{r}'\,
K_{\mu\nu}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}';\omega)\,.$$ Here $\Re$ stands for the real part of a complex number.
We expand the fermionic field operator $\hat{\psi}(\mathbf{r},t)$ in terms of exact eigenfunctions \[Eq. \], namely, $$\hat{\psi}(\mathbf{r},t)=\sum_{\alpha}\psi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})
\exp{(-i\epsilon_{\alpha}t\hat{a}_{\alpha})},$$ and then perform quantum averaging in Eq. with the help of Wick’s theorem and the relation $\Tr\big\{\hat{\varrho}\,\hat{a}^{\dag}_{\alpha}\hat{a}_{\beta}\big\}=
\delta_{\alpha\beta}f(\epsilon_{\alpha})$, where $$f(\varepsilon)=1/[\exp[(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{F})/T]+1]$$ is the Fermi occupation function. Performing a Fourier transform and using $$\Re[i/(\varepsilon-\varepsilon'+\omega+i0)]=\pi\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon'+\omega)$$ Eq. , reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu}(\omega)=\frac{\pi(ev_{F})^2}{L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
\d\varepsilon\,
\frac{f(\varepsilon_{+})-f(\varepsilon_{-})}{\omega}\nonumber\\\times
\Tr\left\{\hat{\sigma}_{\mu}
\delta(\epsilon_{+}-\hat{H})_{\mathbf{rr}'}\hat{\sigma}_{\nu}
\delta(\varepsilon_{-}-\hat{H})_{\mathbf{r}'\mathbf{r}}\right\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_{\pm}=\varepsilon\pm\omega/2$ and the trace incorporates spatial integrations. The operator delta-functions can be directly related to the single-particle Green’s functions $$\hat{G}_{\varepsilon}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')=
\langle\mathbf{r}|(\varepsilon-\hat{H})^{-1}|\mathbf{r}'\rangle$$ according to $$\delta(\varepsilon-\hat{H})_{\mathbf{rr}'}=\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\big[\hat{G}^{a}_{\varepsilon}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')-
\hat{G}^{r}_{\varepsilon}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')\big]\,,$$ where the superscript $a/r$ stands for the advanced/retarded component, respectively. As a result, one finds for the conductance $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hskip-0.5cm g_{\mu\nu}(\omega)=\frac{(ev_{F})^2}{4\pi
L_{\mu}L_{\nu}}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty} \d\varepsilon\,
\frac{f(\varepsilon_{+})-f(\varepsilon_{-})}{\omega} \\\times\,
&&\hskip-0.5cm \Tr\!\left\{\!\hat{\sigma}_{\mu}
\big[\hat{G}^{a}_{\varepsilon_{+}}\!(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')\!-\!
\hat{G}^{r}_{\varepsilon_{+}}\!(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')\big]
\hat\sigma_{\nu}
\big[\hat{G}^{r}_{\varepsilon_{\!-}}\!(\mathbf{r}',\mathbf{r})\!-\!
\hat{G}^{a}_{\varepsilon_{\!-}}\!(\mathbf{r}',\mathbf{r})\big]
\!\right\}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Next we incorporate disorder by introducing the one-particle scattering time $\tau$, for Dirac fermions, into the Green’s function, $$\label{G-average}
\langle\hat{G}^{r/a}_{\varepsilon}\rangle_{\mathrm{dis}}\approx(\varepsilon-\hat{H}\pm
i/\tau)^{-1}\,,$$ which enters through the imaginary-part of the corresponding self-energy. The subindex “dis” refers to disorder. Furthermore, we factorize the average of the product of two Green’s functions by the product of their averages, $$\langle\hat{G}^{r}_{\varepsilon_{+}}\hat{G}^{a}_{\varepsilon_{-}}\rangle_{\mathrm{dis}}\approx
\langle\hat{G}^{r}_{\varepsilon_{+}}\rangle_{\mathrm{dis}}
\langle\hat{G}^{a}_{\varepsilon_{-}}\rangle_{\mathrm{dis}}\,.$$ This assumption should be valid for weak disorder and together with Eq. is equivalent to the self-consistent Born approximation.
Conductance along the barrier
-----------------------------
We now focus on the *along-the-barrier* ($\mu=\nu=y$) conductance for the geometry shown in Fig. \[Fig1\]. At zero temperature, $T\to 0$, when $f(\varepsilon)=\vartheta(\varepsilon_{F}-\varepsilon)$ and the $\varepsilon$ integration is bounded by the frequency $\omega$, for the average dc-conductance $g\equiv\langle
g_{yy}(\omega\to0)\rangle_{\mathrm{dis}}$ we find (per spin and per valley): $$g=g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}+ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}\,.$$ The first contribution $g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}$ here comes from the extended electron energy states with corresponding density of states taken from Eq. , and reads explicitly (now keeping $\hbar$) as $$\label{g-cont}
g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}=\frac{\pi e^2}{16\hbar}\frac{L_x}{L_y}\left[
\varepsilon_{F}\tau+\frac{1}{\pi}
\left(1-\varepsilon_{F}\tau\arctan\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{F}\tau}\right)\right]\,.$$ At the neutrality point, $\varepsilon_{F}=0$, from Eq. one recovers a universal (i.e., scattering time $\tau$-independent) result $g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}=\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(L_{x}/L_{y})$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}=(\pi/8)(e^2/h)$ is the minimal conductivity, which received considerable attention in a number of recent studies (e.g., Refs. [@Tunnel-2; @Minimal]). Away from the neutrality point, the conductance growths linearly with the Fermi energy, $$g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}=(\pi
e^2/16\hbar)(L_x/L_y)\varepsilon_{F}\tau.$$
The novel result of the present study is the *oscillatory* part $ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}$, which originates from the electron states localized within the barrier. It can be expressed, with the help of Eq. , as follows: $$\label{g-loc}
g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}=\frac{2 e^2}{\hbar}\frac{D}{L_{y}}\sum_{n}\int^{\infty}_{0}\!\!
\d\mathcal{E}\, \left|\frac{\d
Q}{\d\mathcal{E}_{n}}\right|_{\mathcal{E}_{n}=\mathcal{E}}
\frac{M(\mathcal{E})\eta^2}{\big[(\mathcal{E}-\mathcal{E}_{F})^2+\eta^2\big]^2},$$ where $$M(\mathcal{E})=\left|\int\frac{\d
x}{D}\psi^{*}_{\alpha}(x)\hat{\sigma}_{y}\psi_{\alpha}(x)\right|^2$$ is the matrix element constructed from the wave-functions of localized states, Eq. -, and $\eta=D/v_{F}\tau$. The remaining integration in Eq. is simplified realizing that everywhere away from the integrable square-root singularities of $|\d Q/\d\mathcal{E}_{n}|$, the $\eta$-dependent function is peaked at the Fermi energy, whereas $M(\mathcal{E})$ is smooth. Thus, one finally finds, $$\label{g-over-g}
\frac{ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}_{F})}
{g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}}=\frac{16}{\mathcal{E}_{F}}\frac{D}{L_{x}}M(\mathcal{E}_{F})
\sum_{n}\left|\frac{\d Q}{\d
\mathcal{E}_{n}}\right|_{\mathcal{E}_{n}=\mathcal{E}_{F}}\,,$$ where the conductance $ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}$ is normalized to its continuous part taken away from the neutrality point, namely, where $g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}\propto\tau\varepsilon_{F}$. Note that $$\mathcal{E}_{F}=\varepsilon_{F}\frac{D}{v_F}.$$ The derivative entering Eq. can be calculated with the help of the dispersion equation as $(\d Q/\d\mathcal{E})=-(\d
F/\d\mathcal{E})/(\d F/\d Q)$, and reads $$\frac{\d
Q}{\d\mathcal{E}}=Q\frac{\mathcal{V}-2\mathcal{E}+(\mathcal{V}-\mathcal{E})\sqrt{Q^2-\mathcal{E}^2}}
{(\mathcal{V}-\mathcal{E})\mathcal{E}-Q^2-Q^2\sqrt{Q^2-\mathcal{E}^2}}\,.$$ The oscillatory nature of $g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}_{F})$ is illustrated in the lower panel of Fig. \[Fig3\]. The essential observation, which follows from Eq. , is that the longitudinal conductance traces the peculiarities in the density of localized states and opens a direct way for their experimental observation. It is also worth mentioning that close to the singularity of $\d
Q/\d \mathcal{E}$, meaning $|\mathcal{E}_{n}-\mathcal{E}_{F}|\lesssim\eta$, the conductance correction is regularized by the finite width of the $\eta$-Lorenzian under the integral of Eq. .
Varying the concentration of free particles with constant barrier strength, one can again observe oscillations in the density of states (see the inset of Fig. \[Fig4\]). Thus, the part of the conductance originated from the localized states, also oscillates with the change of the Fermi energy (see main panel of Fig. \[Fig4\]).
![Dimensionless oscillating parts of the density of states $\rho_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}/\rho_{_0}$ at the Fermi level (inset) and conductance $ g_{{_\mathrm{loc}}}/g_{{_\mathrm{cont}}}$ (main panel) versus the Fermi energy $\mathcal{E}_{F}$, for $D/L_x=0.1$, and $\mathcal{V}=16$. \[Fig4\]](ge.EPS){width="8cm"}
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we predict a novel type of conductance oscillations in locally-gated single-layer graphene, which are related to the unusual electron states localized within a potential barrier. When the barrier height and/or width is varied, localized levels periodically cross the Fermi energy, inducing modulations in the density of states. The latter translates into unusual quantum oscillations of the conductance. These electric-field-driven quantum oscillations are similar to the Shubnikov-de-Haas oscillations which are produced in metals and semiconductors when changing the external magnetic field.
We gratefully acknowledge partial support from the National Security Agency (NSA), Laboratory of Physical Sciences (LPS), Army Research Office (ARO), National Science Foundation (NSF) grant No. EIA-0130383, JSPS-RFBR 06-02-91200, and Core-to-Core (CTC) program supported by Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS). A.L. acknowledges partial support from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY05-51164.
[99]{}
K. S. Novoselov, *et. al.*, Science **306**, 666 (2004).
K. S. Novoselov, *et. al.*, Nature **438**, 197 (2005); Y. Zhang, *et. al.*, Nature **438**, 201 (2005).
M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. **2**, 620 (2006).
C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 067007 (2006); M. Titov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 041401(R) (2006).
V. Lukose, R. Shankar, and G. Baskaran, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 116802 (2007).
V. A. Yampol’skii, S. Savel’ev, F. Nori, New J. of Phys. **10**, 053024 (2008).
V. V. Cheianov, V. Fal’ko, and B. L. Altshuler, Science **315**, 1252 (2007).
V. P. Gusynin, S. G. Sharapov, J. P. Carbotte, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **21**, 4611-4658 (2007).
A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials **6**, 183 (2007).
C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 1337 (2008).
A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 109 (2009).
J. R. Williams, L. DiCarlo, C. M. Marcus, Science **317**, 638 (2007).
L. DiCarlo, J. R. Williams, Y. Zhang, D. T. McClure, C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 156801 (2008).
M. M. Fogler, D. S. Novikov, L. I. Glazman, and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 075420 (2008).
Yu. P. Bliokh, V. Freilikher, S. Savel’ev, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 075123 (2009).
A. V. Rozhkov, S. Savel’ev, and F. Nori, arXiv:0808.1636, Phys. Rev. B (to be published).
D. Shoenberg, *Magnetic Oscillations in Metals* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984).
V. P. Gusynin, S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 146801 (2005).
H. G. Winful, M. Ngom, and N. M. Litchinitser, Phys. Rev. A **70**, 052112 (2004).
J. Tworzydlo, *et. al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 246802 (2006).
P. G. Silvestrov, K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 016802 (2007).
L. V. Hau, *et. al.*, Nature **397**, 594 (2004); S. Savel’ev, *et. al.*, Nature **2**, 521 (2006).
J. M. Pereira, V. Mlinar, F. M. Peeters, and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 045424 (2006).
S. Y. Zhou, *et. al.*, Nature **2**, 595 (2006); S. Banerjee, *et. al.*, Appl. Phys. Lett. **88**, 602111 (2006); A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 205408 (2006).
M. I. Katsnelson, Eur. Phys. J. B **51**, 157 (2006); J. Cserti, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 033405 (2007); K. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 233407 (2007); K. Nomura, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 076602 (2007)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In interdependent networks, it is usually assumed, based on percolation theory, that nodes become nonfunctional if they lose connection to the network giant component. However, in reality, some nodes, equipped with alternative resources, together with their connected neighbors can still be functioning once disconnected from the giant component. Here we propose and study a generalized percolation model that introduces a fraction of reinforced nodes in the interdependent networks that can function and support their neighborhood. We analyze, both analytically and via simulations, the order parameter$-$the functioning component$-$comprising both the giant component and smaller components that include at least one reinforced node. Remarkably, we find that for interdependent networks, we need to reinforce only a small fraction of nodes to prevent abrupt catastrophic collapses. Moreover, we find that the universal upper bound of this fraction is 0.1756 for two interdependent Erdős-Rényi (ER) networks, regular-random (RR) networks and scale-free (SF) networks with large average degrees. We also generalize our theory to interdependent networks of networks (NON). Our findings might yield insight for designing resilient interdependent infrastructure networks.'
author:
- 'Xin Yuan,$^2$ Yanqing Hu,$^{1,3,4}$ H. Eugene Stanley, $^2$ and Shlomo Havlin,$^5$'
date:
- 12 May 2016
-
title: Eradicating Catastrophic Collapse in Interdependent Networks via Reinforced Nodes
---
Complex networks often interact and depend on each other to function properly [@rinaldi2001identifying; @little2002controlling; @rosato2008modelling; @buldyrev2010catastrophic; @bashan2012network; @gao2012networks; @helbing2013globally; @jp2007structure]. Due to interdependencies, these interacting networks may easily suffer abrupt failures and face catastrophic consequences, such as the blackouts of Italy in 2003 and North America in 2008 [@rosato2008modelling; @buldyrev2010catastrophic; @gao2012networks]. Thus, a major open challenge arises as how to tackle the vulnerability of interdependent networks. Virtually many existing theories on the resilience of interacting networks have centered on the formation of the largest cluster (called the giant component) [@buldyrev2010catastrophic; @gao2012networks; @coniglio1982cluster; @Radicchi2015NP; @Hu2014NP; @boccaletti2014structure; @cohen2000resilience; @newman2002spread; @cohen2010complex], and consider only the nodes in the giant component as functional, since all the small clusters do not have a connection to the majority of nodes, which are in the giant component.
However, in many realistic networks, in case of network component failures, some nodes (which we call here reinforced nodes), and even clusters containing reinforced nodes outside of the giant component, can resort to contingency mechanisms or back-up facilities to keep themselves functioning normally [@jenkins1995embedded; @pepermans2005distributed; @alanne2006distributed]. For example, small neighborhoods in a city when facing a sudden power outage could employ alternative facilities to sustain themselves. Consider also the case where some important internet ports, after their fiber links are cut off from the giant component, could use satellites [@henderson1999transport] or high-altitude platforms [@mohammed2011role] to exchange vital information. These possibilities strongly motivate us to generalize the percolation theory [@coniglio1982cluster; @vicsek1994fractals] to include a fraction of reinforced nodes that are capable of securing the functioning of the finite clusters in which they are located. We apply this framework to study a system of interdependent networks and find that a small fraction of reinforced nodes can avoid the catastrophic abrupt collapse.
In this paper we develop a mathematical framework based on percolation [@buldyrev2010catastrophic; @gao2012networks; @boccaletti2014structure; @cohen2000resilience; @brown2013monte] for studying interdependent networks with reinforced nodes and find exact solutions to the minimal fraction of reinforced nodes needed to eradicate catastrophic collapses. In particular we apply our framework to study and compare three types of random networks, (i) ER networks with a Poisson degree distribution ($P(k)=e^{-\left\langle k
\right\rangle}{\left\langle k \right\rangle}^k/k!$) [@bollobas2001random], (ii) SF networks with a power law degree distribution ($P(k) \sim k^{-\lambda}$) [@albert2002statistical], and (iii) RR networks with a Kronecker delta degree distribution ($P(k)=\delta_{k,k_0}$). We find the universal upper bound for this minimal fraction to be 0.1756 for two interdependent ER networks with any average degree and SF and RR networks with a large average degree.
Model
=====
Formally, for simplicity and without loss of generality, our model consists of two networks $A$ and $B$ with $N$ nodes in each network (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). Within network $A$ the nodes are randomly connected by $A$ links with degree distribution $P_A(k)$, while in network $B$ the nodes are randomly connected by $B$ links with degree distribution $P_B(k)$. In addition, a fraction $q_A$ of nodes in $A$ are randomly dependent (through dependency links) on nodes in network $B$ and a fraction $q_B$ of nodes in network $B$ are randomly dependent on nodes in network $A$ [@parshani2010interdependent]. We also assume that a node from one network depends on no more than one node from the other network and if a node $i$ in network $A$ is dependent on a node $j$ in network $B$ and $j$ depends on a node $l$ in network $A$, then $l=i$ (a no-feedback condition [@buldyrev2010catastrophic; @gao2012networks; @Hu2011PRE; @hu2013PRE]). We denote $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ as the fractions of nodes that are randomly chosen as reinforced nodes in network $A$ and network $B$, respectively. In each network, together with the giant component, those smaller clusters containing at least one reinforced node make up the functioning component, as shown in Fig. $\ref{Fig1}$. The failure process is initiated by removing randomly a fraction $1-p$ of nodes from each network. Therefore when nodes from one network fail their dependent counterparts from the other network must also fail. In this case, an autonomous node (a node that does not need support from the other network) [@parshani2010interdependent] survives if it is connected to a functioning component of its own network; a dependent node $n_0$ survives if both $n_0$ and the node it depends on are connected to their own networks’ functioning components.
We introduce the generating function of the degree distribution $G_{A0}(x)=\sum_k P_A(k)x^k$ and the associated branching processes $G_{A1}(x)=G^{'}_{A0}(x)/G^{'}_{A0}(1)$ [@newman2002spread]; similar equations exist to describe network $B$. At the steady state, using the probabilistic framework [@son2012percolation; @baxter2010bootstrap; @baxter2014weak; @min2014multiple; @feng2015simplified; @min2015link; @Bianconi2014PRE], we denote $x$ ($y$) as the probability that a randomly chosen link in network $A$ ($B$) reaches the functioning component of network $A$ ($B$) at one of its nodes. Thus $x$ and $y$ satisfy the following self-consistent equations (see *SI Appendix*, section 2), $$\label{system1x}
x=p\left[1-(1-\rho_A)G_{A1}(1-x)\right] \times
\left\lbrace1-q_A+pq_A\left[1-(1-\rho_B)G_{B0}(1-y)\right]\right\rbrace,$$ and $$\label{system1y}
y=p\left[1-(1-\rho_B)G_{B1}(1-y)\right]\times
\left\lbrace1-q_B+pq_B\left[1-(1-\rho_A)G_{A0}(1-x)\right]\right\rbrace.$$ These two equations can be transformed into $x=F_1(p,y)$ and $y=F_2(p,x)$, which can be solved numerically by iteration with the proper initial values of $x$ and $y$.
Accordingly, the sizes of the functioning components are determined by (see *SI Appendix*, section 2) $$\label{system1mu}
P^{A}_{\infty}=p[1-(1-\rho_A)G_{A0}(1-x)]\times
\left\lbrace1-q_A+pq_A[1-(1-\rho_B)G_{B0}(1-y)]\right\rbrace,$$ and $$\label{system2mu}
P^B_{\infty}=p[1-(1-\rho_B)G_{B0}(1-y)]\times
\left\lbrace1-q_B+pq_B[1-(1-\rho_A)G_{A0}(1-x)]\right\rbrace.$$ If the system has an abrupt phase transition at $p=p_c^I$, the functions $x=F_1(p,y)$ and $y=F_2(p,x)$ satisfy the condition $$\label{1storder}
\frac{\partial F_1(p_c^I,y^I)}{\partial y^I} \cdot\frac{\partial F_2(p_c^I,x^I)}{\partial x^I}=1,$$ namely, the curves $x=F_1(p_c^I,y)$ and $y=F_2(p_c^I,x)$ touch each other tangentially at $(x^I,y^I)$ [@feng2015simplified; @gao2013percolation].
Results
=======
For a general system of interdependent networks $A$ and $B$, $P^A_{\infty}$, $P^B_{\infty}$ and the existence of $p_c^I$ can be easily determined numerically, using Eqs. \[system1x\]-\[1storder\]. As an example, Fig. \[Fig2\] shows the excellent agreement between simulation and theory.
However it is important to find analytic expressions for $P^A_{\infty}$, $P^B_{\infty}$ and $p_c^I$, at least for simpler cases, that can serve as a benchmark to better understand simulated solutions of more realistic cases. Thus here, for simplicity, we consider the symmetric case where $P_A(k)=P_B(k)$, $\rho_A=\rho_B=\rho$ and $q_A=q_B=q$. This symmetry readily implies that $x=y \equiv F(p,x)$, reducing Eqs. \[system1x\] and \[system1y\] to a single equation. Similarly, it renders $P^A_{\infty}=P^B_{\infty}\equiv
P_{\infty}$ and transforms Eq. \[1storder\] to $\frac{\partial
F(p_c^I,x^I)}{\partial x^I} \cdot\frac{dx^I}{dx^I}=1$, i.e., $\frac{\partial F(p_c^I,x^I)}{\partial x^I}=1$. Using Eqs. \[system1x\]-\[1storder\], we derive $p_c^I$ and $P_{\infty}$ rigorously (see *SI Appendix*, section 3).
Surprisingly, we find that even for a system built with a relatively high dependency coupling there exists a specific value $\rho^{\ast}$ that divides the phase diagram into two regimes. Specifically, if $\rho
\leq \rho^{\ast}$, the system is subject to abrupt transitions; however, if $\rho >\rho^{\ast}$, the abrupt percolation transition is absent in the system because the giant component changes from a first-order phase transition behavior to a second-order phase transition behavior (see *SI Appendix*, section 3). Therefore $\rho^{\ast}$ is the minimum fraction of nodes in each network that need to be reinforced in order to make the interdependent system less risky and free from abrupt transitions. Moreover, $\rho^{\ast}$ satisfies the condition (see *SI Appendix*, section 3) $$\frac{dp_c^{I}}{dx^I}\vert_{\rho=\rho^{\ast}}=0.$$ Figure \[Fig3\] shows the existence of $\rho^{\ast}$ for systems of fully interdependent ER networks ($\rho^{\ast}\approx0.1756$) and scale-free (SF) networks ($\rho^{\ast}\approx0.0863$), respectively; Figs. \[Fig3\]*A* and \[Fig3\]*B* depict the dramatic behavior change of the functioning components as $\rho$ increases slightly from under $\rho^{\ast}$ to above $\rho^{\ast}$.
We next solve this critical value $\rho^{\ast}$ as a function of $q$ and $\left\langle k \right\rangle$ for two interdependent ER networks as (see *SI Appendix*, section 3.1), $$\label{u_Arho}
\rho^{\ast}=1-\frac{exp\left\lbrace\frac{1}{2}\left[1-{\left\langle k \right\rangle (1-q)^2}/{2q}\right]\right\rbrace}{2-\sqrt{{\left\langle k \right\rangle (1-q)^2}/{2q}}} ,$$ where $q_0\leq q \leq 1 $ and $q_0$ is the minimum strength of interdependence required to abruptly collapse the system [@gao2011robustness]. If we set $\rho^{\ast}=0$ in Eq. \[u\_Arho\], $q_0$ can be obtained from ${\left\langle k
\right\rangle (1-q_0)^2}/{2q_0}=1$ as $ q_0=\left(1+{\left\langle k
\right\rangle }-\sqrt{2\left\langle k \right\rangle
+1}\right)/{\left\langle k \right\rangle}$, as found in Refs. [@gao2013percolation; @parshani2011critical]. Applying Taylor expansion to Eq. \[u\_Arho\] for $q\rightarrow q_0$, we get the critical exponent $\beta_1$, defined via $\rho^{\ast}\thicksim
(q-q_0)^{\beta_1}$ with $\beta_1=3$.
Hence for any $q \in [q_0,1]$ we first calculate $\rho^{\ast}$ using Eq. \[u\_Arho\] then $p_c^I$ corresponding to this $q$ and $\rho^{\ast}$ can be computed as (see *SI Appendix*, section 3.1) $$p_c^{I}(q, \rho^{\ast})=\left[2-(1-q)\sqrt{{\left\langle k
\right\rangle }/{2q}}\right]/{\sqrt{2\left\langle k \right\rangle
q}},\label{p_c}$$ and the size of the functioning component at this $p_c^{I}$ is $$P_{\infty}(p_c^I)=[1-{\left\langle k \right\rangle
(1-q)^2}/{2q}]/{2\left\langle k \right\rangle }.\label{mu}$$ The behavior of the order parameter $P_{\infty}(p)$ near the critical point is defined by the critical exponent $\beta_2$, where $P_{\infty}(p\rightarrow p_c^I) \thicksim (p-p_c^I)^{\beta_2}$ with $\beta_2=1/3$ if $\rho=\rho^{\ast}$ and $\beta_2=1/2$ otherwise (see *SI, Appendix*, section 3.1.1 and Ref. [@parshani2010interdependent]). Similar scaling behaviors have been reported in a bootstrap percolation problem [@baxter2010bootstrap].
In Fig. \[Fig4\]*A* we plot $\rho^{\ast}$ from Eq. \[u\_Arho\] as a function $q$ for several different values of $\left\langle k
\right\rangle$. Interestingly, at $q=1$, namely, for two fully interdependent ER networks, we find, for all mean degrees, the maximum of $\rho^{\ast}$ to be $$\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}=1-e^{{1}/{2}}/2\approx0.1756,$$ which is independent of $\left\langle k \right\rangle$. In Fig. \[Fig4\]*B* we plot $\rho^{\ast}$ as a function of $q$ for several degree exponents $\lambda$ of SF networks. Here $\rho^{\ast}$ increases as $\lambda$ increases and takes its maximum $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ at $q=1$, corresponding to the fully interdependent case, which is the most vulnerable. Thus if the dependency strength $q$ is unknown, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ is the minimal fraction of reinforced nodes, that can prevent catastrophic collapse.
Similarly, we obtain $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ as a function of the degree exponent $\lambda$ for two fully interdependent SF networks (see Fig. \[Fig5\]*A*) and $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ as a function of $k_0$ for two fully interdependent RR networks (see Fig. \[Fig5\]*B*). Note that as $\lambda$ increases, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ initially increases but later stabilizes at a value determined by $k_{\rm min}$ as the degree distribution becomes more homogeneous and its network structure becomes the same as that in an RR network with $k_0=k_{\rm min}$ (see *SI, Appendix*, section 3.2). For RR networks, as $k_0$ increases, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ initially decreases but later stabilizes at a value close to 0.1756, since at very large $k_0$ the structure of these RR networks resembles that of ER networks with $\left\langle k\right\rangle=k_0$ (see *SI Appendix*, section 3.2).
Next we solve $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ of two fully interdependent networks as a function of $\alpha$, where $\alpha={\left\langle k
\right\rangle_A}/{\left\langle k \right\rangle_B}$ (see Fig. S10 in *SI Appendix*, section 4.1). We find that in two ER networks, as $\alpha$ increases, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ increases and has a maximum at $\alpha = 1$, corresponding to the symmetric case studied above. In the case of RR networks with large $k_0$, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ behaves similarly to its counterpart in ER networks, peaking around $\alpha=1$ at 0.1756 (see Fig. \[Fig5\]*B*). Moreover, in the case of SF networks when $\lambda \in (2,3]$, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max} \leq 0.11$; whereas when $\lambda$ and $k_{\rm min}$ are relatively large, $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ will also peak around $\alpha=1$ with a value close to that obtained in RR networks. Therefore in the extreme case where $\lambda$ and $k_{\rm min}$ are large, SF networks converge to RR networks with $k_0=k_{\rm min}$, which further converge to ER networks with $\left\langle k \right\rangle=k_0$. Thus in these extreme cases there exists a universal $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ equal to 0.1756 (see *SI Appendix*, section 4.2).
Our approach can be generalized to solve the case of tree-like networks of networks (NON) [@gao2012networks; @Bianconi2014PRE]. For example, we study the symmetric case of an ER NON with $n$ fully interdependent member networks and obtain $$\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}=1-e^{1-1/n}/n,$$ which is independent of the average degree $\left\langle k
\right\rangle$ (see *SI Appendix*, section 3.1.2). This relationship indicates that the bigger $n$ is, the larger $\rho^{\ast}_{\rm max}$ should be, which is consistent with the previous finding that the more networks an NON has, the more vulnerable it will be [@gao2012networks].
Test on Empirical Data
======================
We next test our mathematical framework on an empirical network, the US power grid (PG) [@watts1998collective], with the introduction of a small fraction of reinforced nodes. It is difficult to establish the exact structure of the network, that PG interacts with, and their interdependencies due to lack of data. However, to get qualitative insight into the problem we couple the PG with either ER or SF networks which can be regarded as approximations to many real-world networks. Our motivation is to test how our model performs in the interdependent networks system with some real-world network features. Note that here, our results present cascading failures due to structural failures and do not represent failures due to real dynamics, such as cascading failures due to overloads, that appear in power grid network system. Figure \[Fig6\] compares the mutual percolation of two systems of interdependent networks with the same interdependence strength: PG coupled to a same sized ER network (Fig. \[Fig6\]*A*) and PG coupled to a same sized SF network (Fig. \[Fig6\]*B*). As discussed above, for $\rho$ below a certain critical value $\rho^{\ast}$ the systems will undergo abrupt transitions, whereas for $\rho$ above $\rho^{\ast}$ the systems do not undergo any transition at all. We also find that, for the interdependence strength $q=0.65$ shown here, the $\rho^{\ast}$ value of the latter case is very small and close to 0.02 (Fig. \[Fig6\]*B*).
Summary
=======
In summary, we have developed a general percolation framework for studying interdependent networks by introducing a fraction of reinforced nodes at random. We show that the introduction of a relatively small fraction of reinforced nodes, $\rho^{\ast}$, can avoid abrupt collapse and thus enhance its robustness. By comparing $\rho^{\ast}$ in ER, SF and RR networks, we reveal the close relationship between these snetwork structures of these networks in extreme cases and find the universal upper bound for $\rho^{\ast}$ to be 0.1756. We also observe improved robustness in systems with some real-world network structure features. The framework presented here might offer some useful suggestions on how to design robust interdependent networks.
We wish to thank ONR (Grant N00014-09-1-0380, Grant N00014-12-1-0548, Grant N62909-14-1-N019), DTRA (Grant HDTRA-1-10-1-0014, Grant HDTRA-1-09-1-0035), NSF (Grant CMMI 1125290), the European MULTIPLEX, CONGAS and LINC projects, the Next Generation Infrastructure (Bsik), and the Israel Science Foundation for financial support. We also thank the FOC program of the European Union for support. YH is supported by the NSFC grant NO. 61203156.
[99]{}
S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom & T. K. Kelly, Control Systems, IEEE, [**21**]{}:11–25 (2001). R. G. Little, J. Urban. Technol., [**9**]{}:109–123 (2002). V. Rosato, L. Issacharoff, F. Tiriticco, S. Meloni, S. Porcellinis & R. Setola, Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct, [**4**]{}:63–79 (2008). S. V. Buldyrev, R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley & S. Havlin, Nature, [**464**]{}:1025–1028 (2010). A. Bashan, R.P. Bartsch, J. W. Kantelhardt, S. Havlin & P. C. Ivanov, Nat. Commun. [**3**]{}:702 (2012). J. Gao, S.V. Buldyrev, H. E. Stanley & S. Havlin, Nat. Phys., [**8**]{}:40–48 (2012). D. Helbing, Nature, [**497**]{}:51–59 (2013). J-P. Onnela, J. Saram[ä]{}ki, J. Hyv[ö]{}nen, G. Szab[ó]{}, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kert[é]{}sz, A-L. Barab[á]{}si, PNAS, [**104**]{}:7332–7336 (2007). A. Coniglio, J. Phys. A Math. Gen, [**15**]{}, 3829 (1982). T. Vicsek, M. F. Shlesinger & M. Matsushita, [*Fractals in Natural Sciences* ]{}(World Scientific, 1994). F. Radicchi, Nat. Phys., [**11**]{}:597-602 (2015). S. D.S. Reis, Y. Hu, A. Babino, J.S. Andrade Jr, S. Canals, M. Sigman & H. A. Makse, Nat. Phys., [**10**]{}:762–767 (2014). S. Boccaletti, G. Bianconi, R. Criado, C.I.D. Genio, J. Garde[ñ]{}es, M. Romance, I.Sendi[ñ]{}a-Nadal, Z. Wang & M. Zanin, Phys. Rep, [**544**]{}:1-122 (2014). R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. Ben-Avraham & S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**85**]{}, 4626 (2000). M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E, [**66**]{}, 016128, (2002).
R. Cohen & S. Havlin, [*Complex networks: structure, robustness and function* ]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2010.) N. Jenkins, Power Engineering Journal, [**9**]{}:145-150 (1995). G. Pepermans, J. Driesen, D. Haeseldonckx, R. Belmans & W. D’haeseleer, Energy Policy, [**33**]{}:787-798 (2005). K. Alanne & A. Sarri, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, [**10**]{}:539-558 (2006). T.R. Henderson & R. H. Katz, Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on, [**17**]{}:326-344 (1999). A. Mohammed, A. Mehmood, F-N Pavlidou & M. Mohorcic, Proceedings of the IEEE, [**99**]{} (2011). A.Brown, A. Edelman, J. Rocks, A. Coniglio & R.H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. E, [**88**]{}, 043307 (2013). B. Bollob[á]{}s, [*Random graphs* ]{}(Academic, London, 2001). R. Albert & A.L. Barab[á]{}si, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 47 (2002). R. Parshani, S.V. Buldyrev & S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**105**]{}, 048701 (2010). Y. Hu, B.Ksherim, R.Cohen & S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. E, [**84**]{}, 066116 (2011). Y. Hu, D. Zhou, R. Zhang, Z. Han, C.Rozenblat & S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. E, [**88**]{}, 052805 (2013). S-W. Son et al, EPL, [**97**]{}, 16006 (2012). G.J. Baxter, S.N. Dorogovtsev, A.V.Goltsev & J.F.F. Mendes, Phys. Rev. E [**82**]{}, 011103 (2010). G.J. Baxter, S. N. Dorogovtsev, J.F.F. Mendes & D. Cellai, Phys. Rev. E [**89**]{}, 042801 (2014). B. Min & K-I Goh, Phys. Rev. E, [**89**]{}, 040802 (2014). L. Feng, C.P.Monterola & Y. Hu, New J. Phys. [**17**]{}, 063025 (2015). B. Min, S. Lee, K-M. Lee & K-I Goh, Chaos, Solitions & Fractals, [**72**]{}:49–58 (2015). G. Bianconi & S. N. Dorogovtsev, Phys. Rev. E [**89**]{} (2014). J. Gao et al, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 062816 (2013). J. Gao et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 195701 (2011). R. Parshani,S.V. Buldyrev & S. Havlin, PNAS [**108**]{}, 1007 (2011). D. J. Watts & S. H. Strogatz , Nature [**393**]{}, 440 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally investigate dissipation in mechanical resonators made of a disordered superconducting thin film of Molybdenum-Rhenium(MoRe) alloy. By electrostatically driving the drum with a resonant AC voltage, we detect its motion using a superconducting microwave cavity. From the temperature dependence of mechanical resonance frequencies and quality factors, we find evidence for non-resonant, mechanically active two-level systems (TLSs) limiting its quality factor at low temperature. In addition, we observe a strong suppression of mechanical dissipation at large mechanical driving amplitudes, suggesting an unconventional saturation of the non-resonant TLSs. These new observations shed light on the mechanism of mechanical damping in superconducting drums and routes towards understanding dissipation in such mechanical systems.'
author:
- 'S. Yanai'
- 'V. Singh'
- 'M. Yuan'
- 'M. Gely'
- 'S. J., Bosman'
- 'G. A., Steele'
title: Mechanical dissipation in MoRe superconducting metal drums
---
Nanoelectromechanical systems have evolved into an important platform in modern information technology. They are extensively used for applications in sensing, filtering and timing[@ekinci_nanoelectromechanical_2005]. One remarkable example is cavity opto/electro-mechanics[@aspelmeyer_cavity_2014; @metcalfe_applications_2014]. The demonstrations of the quantum ground state of mechanical resonators have opened new applications of NEMS devices in quantum information technology[@teufel_sideband_2011; @chan_laser_2011]. To this end, the approach of cavity optomechanics which uses the interaction between light and mechanical motion, has been very successful and enabled the applications of NEMS towards the near-quantum limited frequency conversion[@andrews_bidirectional_2014; @bochmann_nanomechanical_2013], temporal and spectrum shaping of signals[@andrews_quantum-enabled_2015], and a nearly quantum limited frequency-mixer [@lecocq_mechanically_2015].
A successful implementation of an optomechanical system is realized by coupling a superconducting drumhead resonator to a microwave cavity. For quantum-limited performance of such a coupled system, both the drumhead resonator and the superconducting cavity should have low dissipation rates. In recent years, superconducting metal drums[@teufel_circuit_2011] have emerged as a popular platform for microwave optomechanics. While such drums can exhibit very low dissipation, there is also a large spread in reported mechanical Q-factors [@teufel_circuit_2011; @suh_thermally_2012; @wollman_quantum_2015; @pirkkalainen_squeezing_2015] and not many reports studying the dissipation mechanisms in such devices.
Here, we explore mechanical dissipation mechanisms in such superconducting drum resonators as a function of temperature and driving amplitude. The variation of dissipation rate and resonant frequency with temperature suggest that mechanically active two-level systems (TLSs)[@anderson_anomalous_1972; @phillips_two-level_1987] play an important role, setting the dissipation in these disordered superconductors akin to acoustic studies performed earlier on superconducting glasses [@raychaudhuri_low_1984]. By varying the acoustic excitation strength, we further observe an amplitude dependent damping rate supporting the role of TLSs, similar to the observations made in superconducting microwave resonators in response to the electromagnetic field[@gao_experimental_2008; @pappas_two_2011] with electrical TLSs, but with an unconventional saturation of the non-resonant mechanical TLSs by the mechanical drive.
The drums studied in this letter were made using films of a superconducting alloy of Molybdenum and Rhenium (MoRe 60-40). The compatibility of MoRe with HF, oxygen plasma, and an elastic modulus of $\approx$1 GPa makes it an attractive candidate for making hybrid electromechanical devices[@leonhardt_investigation_1999]. The electrical properties of MoRe are well studied establishing its disordered nature with a residual resistance ratio of approximately unity and a superconducting transition temperature of 9.2 K[@lerner_magnetic_1967; @seleznev_deposition_2008; @sundar_electrical_2013; @aziz_molybdenum-rhenium_2014]. The electrical dissipation of such films in microwave frequency domain has been characterized in earlier studies[@yasaitis_microwave_1975], as well as recent reports in coplanar waveguides [@singh_molybdenum-rhenium_2014].
Fig. 1(a) shows an optical microscope image of our complete optomechanical device. It consists of a superconducting drumhead resonator and a high-impedance microwave cavity both made of MoRe. The mechanically compliant drumhead resonator is galvanically shorted to the high-impedance microwave cavity, enabling electrostatic actuation of its motion. The microwave cavity is coupled through the drumhead to the feedline, such that its response can accessed in a reflection measurement. Fig. 1(b) shows a scanning electron microscope of the drumhead resonator. We apply microwave signals to the cavity via mechanically compliant capacitor. Detection of the motion of the drum occurs through its modulation of the cavity frequency, $\omega_{c}$, as well as the external cavity decay rate, $\kappa_{e}$ as schematically shown in Fig. 1(c).
To actuate the drumhead resonator, we apply a DC signal $V_{dc} $ and a small RF signal $V_{ac}$ near the mechanical resonance frequency $\omega_m$ simultaneously to the input port. Due to capacitive attraction, this signal exerts a force $C_g^{'}V_{dc}V_{ac}$ on the drumhead resonator, where $C_g^{'} = dC_g / dx$ is the derivative of the capacitance between the resonator and the feedline with respect to distance. In order to read out the mechanical motion, we drive the system with a microwave tone at the cavity resonance frequency $\omega_{c}$. Due to electro-mechanical coupling, mechanical motion modulates the intra-cavity power, creating sideband signals in the reflected signal. The sideband signals are amplified and then mixed down with a local oscillator tone at the cavity resonance frequency. The signal is further amplified and sent to a spectrum analyzer. Using the mechanical resonator as the coupling capacitor to the cavity enables both direct electrostatic actuation of the motion and tuning of the mechanical resonance frequency using voltages applied to the feedline.
The fabricated samples are placed in a radiation-tight box and cooled down to 20 mK in a dilution refrigerator with sufficient attenuation at each temperature stages to thermalize the microwave signals (see Supplementary Materials for measurement chain schematic (SM)). We first begin by characterizing the microwave cavity. The microwave cavity has has a resonance frequency of $\omega_c=2\pi\times$6.30 GHz, external coupling rate $\kappa_e=2\pi\times$31.0 MHz, and internal dissipation rate of $\kappa_i=2\pi\times$25.8 MHz (see SM for detailed measurements). The red curve in Fig. 2(a) shows the measured mechanical response of the resonator along with a skewed-Lorentzian fit ( light-blue line). The slight asymmetry in the measured homodyne signal arises from the finite electrical isolation and is discussed in the supplementary material. From the fit, we find a mechanical resonance frequency of $\omega_m$ = 7.2885 MHz with a quality-factor $Q_m$ of $50 \times 10^3$ at $V_{dc}=10$ V. Fig. 2(b) shows a colorscale plot of mechanical response as a function of frequency of the RF signal and DC voltage applied to the feedline using a bias tee. The sharp change in color reflects the mechanical resonance frequency. As the DC voltage is tuned away from zero, the mechanical resonance frequency decreases quadratically, showing the well-studied capacitive softening effect[@kozinsky_tuning_2006]. The mechanical frequency is pulled by 200 kHz for gate voltages of 20 V. The mechanical signal is no longer visible around zero gate voltage due to the vanishing electrostatic force.
In Fig. 3, we investigate the temperature dependence of the mechanical response from 23 mK to 1.5 K. We measured the mechanical resonance frequencies and the quality-factors at different temperatures and at different applied dc voltages, $V_g=$ 7, 14, and 28 V. Fig 3(a) shows the normalized shift in the resonance frequency for various temperature points. As the temperature is increased the resonance frequency increases logarithmically up to a cross-over temperature of $\approx$ 900 mK. At higher temperatures, we see a slight drop in the resonance frequency. Fig. 3(b) shows the quality-factor $Q_m$ change as a function of temperature. As the temperature is increased from 23 mK, $Q_m$ shows a sharp decrease for all gate voltages. Above the approximate cross-over temperature observed in the mechanical frequency, $Q_m$ stops decreasing and saturates at a value around 10,000.
The logarithmic increase in the frequency shift suggests the presence of two-level systems[@raychaudhuri_low_1984; @hoehne_damping_2010; @venkatesan_dissipation_2010; @imboden_dissipation_2014]. TLSs can have a very broad spectral distribution[@esquinazi_tunneling_1998]. At temperatures $k_BT >> \hbar\omega_m$, the resonant TLSs are expected to be saturated, and not able to contribute to mechanical dissipation. However, coupling of the mechanical motion to higher energy, off-resonant TLSs can still have a significant contribution to the frequency shift. Comparing results at three different voltages, the normalized shifts are independent of mechanical resonant frequency below the cross over temperature. Such a temperature dependence can also be interpreted in the context of a TLSs model: at high temperatures, part of the mechanical restoring force arises from the dispersive shift of the thermal population of the high frequency TLSs. Beyond the cross-over temperature, these TLSs decouple from the mechanics due to either changes of their thermal populations or the relaxation rate. As the TLSs are decoupled the mechanical spring constant reduces, giving a lower mechanical frequency. For an off-resonant dispersive interaction, the normalized frequency shift is expected to scale as $\delta f/f_0 = C_s
\log(T/T_0)$, where $C_s$ is a constant proportional to the filling factor and TLSs loss tangent[@esquinazi_tunneling_1998]. For data shown in Fig 3(a), we find $C_s\approx4\times10^4$, similar to previously reported values for mechanical TLSs in disordered superconducting films[@raychaudhuri_low_1984; @esquinazi_acoustic_1986].
To compare the behavior of dissipation with the frequency shift, we plot $Q_m^{-1}$ in the subpanel of Fig. 3(b). In lower temperature ranges, we observe an increase in the mechanical dissipation rate with temperature, which slows down as the temperature approaches $\approx$ 700 mK. As discussed above, the interaction with resonant TLSs can be neglected due the low frequency of the drum ($k_BT >> \hbar\omega_m$). Non-resonant TLSs, however, can also result in dissipation due to the lag between the dispersive shift of their energies due to the mechanical coupling and their equilibration time with the bath. The contribution of the off-resonant interaction to the damping scale as $Q_m^{-1}=C_s\frac{\Gamma(T)}{\omega_m}$ for $\omega_m>\Gamma(T)$, where $\Gamma$ is the TLSs relaxation rate[@esquinazi_tunneling_1998]. The behavior observed here of mechanical dissipation suggest that TLSs relaxation rate increases linearly with the temperature.
In Fig. 4, we explore saturation effects of the TLSs in these drums by applying a large mechanical driving force. To increase the acoustic excitation strength, we varied the $AC$ driving voltage for mechanical actuation. Fig. 4(a) shows mechanical responsivity (amplitude/ driving force) at different driving voltages in the linear and non-linear limits. Within the linear limit we see an increase in the responsivity as the drive signal is increased, suggesting an increase in the mechanical quality factor $Q_m$. The extracted quality factor is shown in Fig. 4(b). In the nonlinear limit (orange trace), we can also qualitatively deduce increase in $Q_m$ from the increase in amplitude of the responsivity. Similar negative nonlinear damping characteristics were also observed in a similar second device.
While a decrease in the mechanical damping shown in figure 4 is similar to the case of the saturation of resonant TLSs in superconducting microwave cavities, such saturation effects are not typically observed when the interaction with the TLSs is non-resonant, as the non-resonant drive is not able to excite the TLSs directly. The observation presented here of decreased damping at large mechanical excitation, also recently reported for the case of graphene resonators [@singh_negative_2015], suggests that a strongly non-equilibrium population of high frequency TLSs is induced by the low frequency driving forces, for example, by either strong higher-order excitation processes, or by a decoupling of the non-resonant TLSs from their bath.
In conclusion, we have studied dissipation in the mechanical drumhead resonators made of superconducting alloy of MoRe. The temperature dependence of the dissipation and resonant frequency strongly suggest the presence of mechanically active TLSs in these disordered superconducting thin film mechanical resonators. At low temperatures the main contribution to dissipation and frequency shift stems from the dispersive interaction with TLSs, with slow relaxation rates $<$ 7 MHz. We further explored at the mechanical dissipation while varying the strength of acoustic field and observe an amplitude dependent damping, suggesting a non-equilibrium population of non-resonant TLSs induced by mechanical drive.
[**Supplementary material**]{} See supplementary material for device fabrication steps, cavity characterization, measurement setup and estimation of the mechanical amplitude.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} The work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO/FOM).
[10]{}
Ekinci, K. L. and Roukes, M. L. (6), 061101 June (2005).
Aspelmeyer, M., Kippenberg, T. J., and Marquardt, F. (4), 1391–1452 December (2014).
Metcalfe, M. (3), 031105 September (2014).
Teufel, J. D., Donner, T., Li, D., Harlow, J. W., Allman, M. S., Cicak, K., Sirois, A. J., Whittaker, J. D., Lehnert, K. W., and Simmonds, R. W. (7356), 359–363 July (2011).
Chan, J., Alegre, T. P. M., Safavi-Naeini, A. H., Hill, J. T., Krause, A., Gröblacher, S., Aspelmeyer, M., and Painter, O. (7367), 89–92 October (2011).
Andrews, R. W., Peterson, R. W., Purdy, T. P., Cicak, K., Simmonds, R. W., Regal, C. A., and Lehnert, K. W. (4), 321–326 April (2014).
Bochmann, J., Vainsencher, A., Awschalom, D. D., and Cleland, A. N. (11), 712–716 November (2013).
Andrews, R. W., Reed, A. P., Cicak, K., Teufel, J. D., and Lehnert, K. W. , 10021 November (2015).
Lecocq, F., Clark, J. B., Simmonds, R. W., Aumentado, J., and Teufel, J. D. November (2015). arXiv: 1512.00078.
Teufel, J. D., Li, D., Allman, M. S., Cicak, K., Sirois, A. J., Whittaker, J. D., and Simmonds, R. W. (7337), 204–208 March (2011).
Suh, J., Shaw, M. D., LeDuc, H. G., Weinstein, A. J., and Schwab, K. C. (12), 6260–6265 December (2012).
Wollman, E. E., Lei, C. U., Weinstein, A. J., Suh, J., Kronwald, A., Marquardt, F., Clerk, A. A., and Schwab, K. C. (6251), 952–955 August (2015).
Pirkkalainen, J.-M., Damskagg, E., Brandt, M., Massel, F., and Sillanpaa, M. (24), 243601 December (2015).
Anderson, P. w., Halperin, B. I., and Varma, c. M. (1), 1–9 January (1972).
Phillips, W. A. (12), 1657 December (1987).
Raychaudhuri, A. K. and Hunklinger, S. (2), 113–125 October (1984).
Gao, J., Daal, M., Vayonakis, A., Kumar, S., Zmuidzinas, J., Sadoulet, B., Mazin, B. A., Day, P. K., and Leduc, H. G. (15), 152505 April (2008).
Pappas, D. P., Vissers, M. R., Wisbey, D. S., Kline, J. S., and Gao, J. (3), 871–874 June (2011).
Leonhardt, T., Carlén, J.-C., Buck, M., Brinkman, C. R., Ren, W., and Stevens, C. O. In [*[AIP]{} [Conference]{} [Proceedings]{}*]{}, volume 458, 685–690. AIP Publishing, January (1999).
Lerner, E., Daunt, J. G., and Maxwell, E. (2), 487–492 January (1967).
Seleznev, V. A., Tarkhov, M. A., Voronov, B. M., Milostnaya, I. I., Lyakhno, V. Y., Garbuz, A. S., Mikhailov, M. Y., Zhigalina, O. M., and Gol’tsman, G. N. (11), 115006 November (2008).
Sundar, S., Sharath Chandra, L. S., Sharma, V. K., Chattopadhyay, M. K., and Roy, S. B. (1), 1092–1093 February (2013).
Aziz, M., Hudson, D. C., and Russo, S. (23), 233102 June (2014).
Yasaitis, J. and Rose, R. (2), 434–436 March (1975).
Singh, V., Schneider, B. H., Bosman, S. J., Merkx, E. P. J., and Steele, G. A. (22), 222601 December (2014).
Kozinsky, I., Postma, H. W. C., Bargatin, I., and Roukes, M. L. (25), 253101 June (2006).
Hoehne, F., Pashkin, Y. A., Astafiev, O., Faoro, L., Ioffe, L. B., Nakamura, Y., and Tsai, J. S. (18), 184112 May (2010).
Venkatesan, A., Lulla, K. J., Patton, M. J., Armour, A. D., Mellor, C. J., and Owers-Bradley, J. R. (7), 073410 February (2010).
Imboden, M. and Mohanty, P. (3), 89–146 January (2014).
Esquinazi, P., editor. . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, (1998).
Esquinazi, P., Ritter, H. M., Neckel, H., Weiss, G., and Hunklinger, S. (1), 81–93 March (1986).
Singh, V., Shevchuk, O., Blanter, Y. M., and Steele, G. A. August (2015). arXiv: 1508.04298.
![Microwave cavity readout of a superconducting drum with electrostatic driving. a) Optical microscope image of the device. A drumhead mechanical oscillator is capacitively coupled to the microwave input port of a high impedance microwave cavity on a sapphire substrate. b) Scanning electron microscope image of MoRe drumhead resonator. The drum is 30 $\mu$m in diameter and is suspended approximately 290 nm above the gate bottom electrode. c) Device schematic diagram: the mechanical drum is capacitively coupled to the microwave input port. Motion of the drum modulates both the resonance frequency $\omega_{c}$ and the external coupling rate $\kappa_{e}$ of the cavity. []{data-label="fig 1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="120mm"}
{width="120mm"}
{width="80mm"}
{width="80mm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a Monte Carlo study of Kinetic Growth Walk on square as well as triangular lattice to show that it is not equivalent to canonical Self Avoiding Walk.'
author:
- |
M. Ponmurugan$^1$, S. L. Narasimhan$^{2*}$ and K. P. N. Murthy$^1$\
$^1$Materials Science Division, Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam - 603 102, Tamil Nadu, India.\
$^2$Solid State Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Mumbai - 400 085, India.
title: 'Is Kinetic Growth Walk equivalent to canonical Self Avoiding Walk?'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Growth is a natural process by which a system, for example, a tree acquires a history-dependent (or a [*causal*]{}) structure. Since a growing tree is never ungrown, its growth is an irreversible process. A generic but informal description of its structural features evolves from repeated observations of a variety of structural forms that these systems acquire during their natural growth. Whether it is also a meaningful statistical description depends on whether the collection of such irreversibly grown structures is amenable to a statistical mechanical study. In the case of causal and homogeneous networks \[1\], it has been shown that growing (non-equilibrium) networks can be assigned appropriate growth probabilities and studied within the framework of equilibrium statistical mechanics.
A trivial special case of a causal network is a Kinetic Growth Walk (KGW) \[3-8\] which may be considered as an ordered collection of ’nodes’ (linear chain of monomers) such that two of them are of ’degree’ one (end monomers) while the others are of ’degree’ two each. It generates a Self Avoiding Walk (SAW) \[2\] configuration, step-by-step, by choosing one of the allowed steps at random with equal probability. Since the number of allowed steps at the growing end of the walk is a variable that depends on the configuration grown already, such a step-by-step growth is locally biassed. Averages taken over a collection of KGWs, uncorrected for the cumulative bias acquired during its growth, clearly establish the fact that KGW belongs to the same universality class as SAW \[3-8\]. In other words, like in the case of causal networks, the distinction between equilibrium (SAW) and non-equilibrium (KGW) configurations does not affect the scaling behaviour of the walk. This prompts us to take a closer view of how a collection of KGW configurations might be related to an (equilibrium) ensemble of SAWs.
In fact, the bias-uncorrected KGW on a honeycomb lattice has been shown \[9\] to be exactly equivalent to a canonical ensemble of Interacting SAWs (ISAWs) \[10\] at the bath temperature proportional to $(ln2)^{-1}$. These facts, put together, could be misconstrued to imply a general equivalence of KGW with ISAW at some bath temperature. Except for a hint \[11\] that kinetic walks may not be equivalent to canonical walks, no definitive study of this equivalence relation is available in the literature. In this paper, we present Monte Carlo evidence to show that such an equivalence does not exist on a square as well as on a triangular lattice. This is an explicit demonstration of the fact that the KGW is not, in general, equivalent to ISAW at any bath temperature.
Definitions
-----------
Starting from some arbitrarily chosen site on a regular lattice of coordination number $z$, there are $z$ possibilities for making the first step. For all subsequent non-reversal steps, we have a maximum of $z-1$ possibilities to choose from. If, at any stage, we choose a step that takes us to a site already visited, we discard the process and start afresh from the beginning. This ensures that every site in the walk is visited once, and once only. It is clear that the probability of generating a successful $N$-step walk configuration can be written as $$P(N) = \frac{1}{z}\left( \prod _{k=2}^{N}\frac{1}{z_k}\right)$$ where $z_k$ ($= 1, 2, 3,\cdots ,z-1$) is the number possibilities available for the $k^{th}$ step. If $z_k$ is taken to be $z-1$ for all the steps, then all the walk configurations are gernerated with equal probability, say $P_{SAW}(N)$, and are said to form an ensemble of Self Avoiding Walks (SAWs) \[2\].
On the other hand, if $z_k$ is the actual number of possibilities available for the $k^{th}$ step, then different configurations of the walk, called Kinetic Growth Walk (KGW) \[3-8\], are generated with different probabilities. $$\begin{aligned}
P_{KGW}(N) & = & \left( \prod _{k=2}^{N}\frac{z-1}{z_k}\right)\left[\frac{1}{z}\left( \prod _{k=2}^{N}\frac{1}
{z-1}\right) \right] \\
& = & \exp \left(\sum _{k=2}^{N}ln\left[\frac{z-1}{z_k}\right]\right) P_{SAW}(N)\end{aligned}$$ Whenever $z_k < z-1$, we encounter non-bonded nearest neighbors, called [*contacts*]{}; the number of such [*contacts*]{} encountered at the $k^{th}$ step is given by $m_k = (z-1)-z_k$, which when added up give the total number of contacts, $n$, in the walk.
KGW on a honey-comb lattice
---------------------------
The probability of generating an $N$-step KGW configuration with $n$ contacts is given by \[9\], $$P_{KGW}(N) = e^{nln2}P_{SAW}(N)$$ which follows from the fact that the walk has no choice but to take the only available step after making a contact. Since the total number of $N$-step SAWs, $\aleph _{SAW}(N)$, can be written as $$\aleph _{SAW}(N) = \sum _{n=0}^N g(n)$$ where $g(n)$ is the number of SAWs with $n$ [*contacts*]{}, the total number of KGWs on a honey-comb lattice is given by $$\aleph _{KGWhc}(N) = \sum _{n=0}^N g(n)e^{-n(-\epsilon)ln2}$$ Thus, the KGW corresponds to the canonical ensemble of ISAWs \[10\] realized at an inverse temperature, $\beta _{hc} = ln2$ if the magnitude of the energy per contact, $\epsilon$, is taken to be unity. At any other ’bath’ temperature, $\beta$, KGW is identical to an ISAW at a lower temperature , $(\beta + \beta _{hc})^{-1}$. Algorithmically, we [*first*]{} choose an available site at random (KGW rule) and [*then*]{} assign the Boltzmann factor $e^{\beta}$ if a contact was made.
KGW on a square lattice
-----------------------
The number of sites available for the current step is either one or two or three depending on whether, in the previous step, the walk had made a double contact or a single contact or no contact respectively. The probability of generating an $N$-step KGW configuration that has made $n_1$ single contacts and $n_2$ double contacts during its growth is therefore given by $$P_{KGW}(N) = e^{n_1ln(3/2)+n_2ln(3)}P_{SAW}(N)$$ Note that contacts made by the $N^{th}$ step, if any, is not accounted for by the growth probability $P_{KGW}(N)$. So, the total number of contacts made by the walk configuration is $$n = \left\{ \begin{array}{r@{\quad: \quad}c}
n_1 + 2n_2 & \mbox{no contact at last step}\\
(n_1+1)+ 2n_2 & \mbox{single contact at last step}\\
n_1 + 2(n_2+1) & \mbox{double contact at last step}
\end{array}\right.$$ It is not necessary that all the configurations with the same total number of contacts will be grown with the same probability because, growth being a history-dependent process, they could realize different pairs of values $\{ n_1,n_2\}$ for the same value of $n$.
For example, consider an $8$-step configuration encoded as $00323212$ \[12\] that has a total of three contacts ($n_1 = 1; n_2 = 1$). The same configuration when grown in the reverse direction, encoded $03010122$, has only encountered single contacts ($n_1 = 3; n_2 = 0$).
The fact that the total number of SAW configurations with $n$ contacts, $g(n)$, may be written as a double sum, $$g(n) \equiv \sum _{n_1,n_2} \delta ([n_1+2n_2]-n),$$ suggests that the total number of KGW configurations with $n$ contacts, $h(n)$, may also be given a similar expression - namely, $$h(n) \equiv \sum _{n_1,n_2} e^{-[n_1(-\epsilon)\beta _1 + n_2(-2\epsilon)\beta _2]}\delta ([n_1+2n_2]-n)$$ where $\beta _1 \equiv ln(3/2)$ and $\beta _2 \equiv (1/2)ln(3)$. They may be interpreted as the inverse ’temperatures’ associated with the single and the double contacts respectively if $\epsilon \ (=1)$ is taken to be the (additive) energy per contact. Since ($\beta _2 > \beta _1$), a double contact is ’colder’ than a single contact!
Configurations that are identical but grown in opposite directions are also counted into the expression for $h(n)$ by virtue of the fact that they correspond to different pairs $\{n_1,n_2\}$. It is therefore clear that we have a distribution of $\{n_1,n_2\}$’s (or equivalently, a distribution of dimensionless contact-energy, ${\cal E}(n_1,n_2) \equiv n_1\beta _1 + 2n_2\beta _2$ arising due to the history-dependence of the growth process.
A canonical relation between $h(n)$ and $g(n)$ can be defined only if an average inverse ’temperature’ $\beta (n)$ for a configuration with $n$ contacts can be defined: $$h(n) = e^{-n(-\epsilon)\beta (n)}g(n) \quad \mbox{where} \quad \beta (n) \equiv \frac{<n_1>}{n}\beta _1 + \frac{2<n_2>}{n}\beta _2$$ where $<n_1>$ and $<n_2>$ denote the average number of single and double contacts respectively for a configuration with $n$ contacts and may, in general, depend on $n$. Averaging out the history-dependence this way leads to the following expression for the total number of KGW configurations on a square lattice: $$\aleph _{KGWsq}(N) = \sum _{n=0}^N g(n)e^{-n(-\epsilon)\beta (n)}$$ It is still not in the canonical form, in contrast to that for a honey-comb lattice (Eq.(6)), because $\beta (n)$ is an intrinsic geometric parameter that characterizes a configuration with a given number of contacts. and not the inverse canonical (or ’bath’) temperature.
{width="3.5in" height="2.75in"}
{width="3.5in" height="2.75in"}
{width="3.5in" height="2.75in"}
A further averaging of the $\beta (n)$ values leads to the canonical expression $$\aleph _{KGWsq}(N) = \sum _{n=0}^N g(n)e^{-n(-\epsilon)\beta _{sq}}$$ Identifying $\beta _{sq}$ as the inverse ’bath’ temperature is, however, not justifiable because a canonical sampling of SAWs with $\beta_{sq}$ may not lead to KGWs. Such an interpretation is unique to honey-comb lattice only.
The Monte Carlo estimates of $\beta _{sq}$, plotted in Fig.1 for various walk-lengths, $N$, extrapolate to the asymptotic value $\sim 0.448$. The distribution of $\beta _{sq}$ values for a given walk-length, $N = 300$ in Fig.2, is [*a priori*]{} expected to be a truncated one because $\beta _{sq}$ is bounded between $\beta _1$ and $\beta _2$. However, a Gaussian (width $\sim 0.0203$, peak position $\sim 0.446$) could be fitted to the distribution.
The question remains whether $\beta _1^{-1}$ or $\beta _2^{-1}$ could be identified as the ’bath’ temperature. The fact that KGW belongs to the same universality class as SAW does not provide a reason to a choose between the two, though they are both above the expected $\theta$-temperature ($\simeq 1.54$). Moreover, such an arbitrary choice also leads to non-additive contact energy.
KGW on a Triangular lattice
---------------------------
A KGW on a triangular lattice is, in general, characterized by four inverse ’temperatures’ ($\beta _1 = ln(5/4), \beta _2 = (1/2)ln(5/3), \beta _3 = (1/3)ln(5/2)$ and $\beta _4 = (1/4)ln(5)$) associated respectively with a single, double, triple and quadruple contacts. It is interesting to note that $\beta _4$ is greater than the expected $\theta$-point value ($\sim 0.375$), whereas the others are less.
The total number of KGWs on a triangular lattice may be given an approximate canonical form, similar to the one for KGWs on a square lattice (Eq.13): $$\aleph _{KGWtr}(N) = \sum _{n=0}^N g(n)e^{-n(-\epsilon)\beta _{tr}}$$ where the asymptotic value of $\beta _{tr}$ ($\sim 0.267$) could be obtained by extrapolating the data presented in Fig.1. The truncated distribution of $\beta _{tr}$ values, plotted in Fig.2 for walk-length $N = 300$, is again fitted to a Gaussian, which peaks at $\sim 0.265$ and whose width is $\sim 0.0155$.
Summary
-------
In general, a KGW on a two dimensional lattice of coordination number $z$ is characterized by a set of $(z-2)$ inverse ’temperatures’, $\beta _m$ ($m = 1, 2,\cdots ,z-2$), defined by $$\beta _m \equiv \frac{1}{m}ln \left( \frac{z-1}{z-[m+1]}\right) \quad ; \quad m = 1, 2,\cdots , z-2$$ whose weighted average gives the canonical value $\beta _z$: $$\beta _z = \sum _{n=1}^N \sum _{m=1}^{z-2} \left( \frac{<n_m>}{n}\right) \beta _m$$ where $<n_m>$ denotes the average number of $m$-contacts made. Note that $\beta _m = 0$ for walks without contacts ($m=0$). The dimensionality dependence comes through the realizable values of $n_m$s. As pointed out earlier, it is more appropriate to interpret $\beta _z$ as an intrinsic geometric parameter that characterizes the KGW than to interpret it as an inverse ’bath’ temperature. However, it may serve as a simple scale-shift parameter for the inverse ’bath’ temperature if all the KGW configurations are reweighted so as to correspond to $\beta _z$. The reason why KGW turns out to be equivalent to SAW could be that the entire truncated distribution of $\beta _z$s lies below the corresponding $\theta$-point value.
One of the authors (M.P) acknowledges the research grant from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR No:9/532(19)/2003-EMR-I) India.
$^*$ Author for correspondence ([*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]).
1. P. Bialas, Z. Burda, J. Jurkiewicz, A. Krzywicki, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E[**67**]{}, 66106 (2003); P. Bialas, preprint arXiv:cond-mat/0403669 (2004), and references therein.
2. P. G. deGennes, [*Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics*]{} (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1979); C. Vanderzande, [*Lattice Models of Polymers*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
3. I. Majid, N. Jan, A. Coniglio and H. E. Stanley, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}, [**52**]{}, 1257 (1084)
4. S. Hemmer and P. C. Hemmer, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{}, 584 (1984); [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, A[**34**]{}, 3304 (1986)
5. L. Pietronero, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 2025 (1985)
6. J. W. Lyklema and K. Kremer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 2091 (1985)
7. L. Peliti, [*J. Phys.(Paris) Lett.*]{} [**45**]{} L925 (1984)
8. A. Coniglio, N. Jan, I. Majid and H. E. Stanley, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B[**35**]{}, 3617 (1987)
9. P. H. Poole, A. Coniglio, N. Jan and H. E. Stanley, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B[**39**]{}, 495 (1989)
10. A SAW configuration is an athermal object because it is not assigned an [*energy*]{} value. On the other hand, if it is assigned an [*energy*]{} value, it may be considered as an object sampled at infinite temperature. A SAW that is assigned an energy value and sampled at a given bath temperature is called an Interacting Self Avoiding Walk (ISAW). See, H. Saleur, J. Stat. Phys. [**45**]{}, 419 (1986); B. Duplantier and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 539 (1987).
11. A. L. Owczarek and T. Prellberg, Physica A[**260**]{}, 20 (1998)
12. The codes $0, 1, 2$ and $3$ stand for steps in the $+x, +y, -x$ and $-y$ directions respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Sensitivity-based Finite Element Model Updating (FEMU) is one of the widely accepted techniques used for damage identification in structures. FEMU can be formulated as a numerical optimization problem and solved iteratively making automatic updating of the uncertain model parameters by minimizing the difference between measured and analytical structural properties. However, in the presence of noise in the measurements, the updating results are usually prone to errors. This is mathematically described as instability of the damage identification as an inverse problem. One way to resolve this problem is by using regularization. In this paper we investigate regularization methods based on the minimization of the total variation of the uncertain model parameters and compare this solution with a rather frequently used regularization based on an interpolation technique. For well-localized damages the results show a clear advantage of the proposed solution in terms of the identified location and severity of damage compared with the interpolation based solution.
For a practical test of the proposed method we use a reinforced concrete plate. Measurements and analysis were repeated first on an undamaged plate, and then after applying four different degrees of damage.\
**Keywords:** Finite element model updating, damage identification, total variation regularization, (pseudo) Huber function, interpolation, reinforced concrete plate
author:
- |
Niklas Grip$^1$ [^1] , Natalia Sabourova$^{1*,}$ [^2] and Yongming Tu$^2$ [^3]\
[ $^1$ Lule[å]{} University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lule[å]{}, Sweden, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>. ]{}\
[ $^2$ School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>. ]{}
bibliography:
- 'AbbrJournalNames.bib'
- 'TimeFreq.bib'
- |
%
StructuralHealthMonitoring.bib
- 'MathBooks.bib'
title: |
Sensitivity-Based Model Updating\
for Structural Damage Identification\
Using Total Variation Regularization
---
[^1]: The authors were supported by the [Swedish Research Council Formas](http://www.formas.se/default____529.aspx) grants (registration numbers 2007–1430 and 2012–1037) as well as by the Swedish Construction Industry’s Organisation for Research and Development (SBUF) grant 13010.
[^2]: The author was supported by Elsa and Sven Thysells Foundation for Structural Engineering Studies at Lule[å]{} University of Technology.
[^3]: The author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project number 51378104).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the Cauchy problem of general relativity one considers initial data that satisfies certain constraints. The evolution equations guarantee that the evolved variables will satisfy the constraints at later instants of time. This is only true within the domain of dependence of the initial data. If one wishes to consider situations where the evolutions are studied for longer intervals than the size of the domain of dependence, as is usually the case in three dimensional numerical relativity, one needs to give boundary data. The boundary data should be specified in such a way that the constraints are satisfied everywhere, at all times. In this paper we address this problem for the case of general relativity linearized around Minkowski space using the generalized Einstein-Christoffel symmetric hyperbolic system of evolution equations. We study the evolution equations for the constraints, specify boundary conditions for them that make them well posed and further choose these boundary conditions in such a way that the evolution equations for the metric variables are also well posed. We also consider the case of a manifold with a non-smooth boundary, as is the usual case of the cubic boxes commonly used in numerical relativity. The techniques discussed should be applicable to more general cases, as linearizations around more complicated backgrounds, and may be used to establish well posedness in the full non-linear case.'
author:
- 'Gioel Calabrese, Jorge Pullin, Olivier Sarbach, Manuel Tiglio'
- Oscar Reula
title: |
Well posed constraint-preserving boundary conditions\
for the linearized Einstein equations
---
Introduction
============
In the Cauchy problem of general relativity, Einstein’s equations split into a set of evolution equations and a set of constraint equations. Given initial data that satisfies the constraints one can show that the evolution equations imply that the constraints continue to hold in the domain of dependence of the initial slice. However, in numerical relativity, due to finite computer resources, one usually solves the field equations in a domain of the form $(t,x^i) \in {\cal
R}\times\Omega$, with $\Omega$ a bounded space-like surface with boundary $\partial \Omega$. In this case the domain of dependence of the initial slice is “too small” and one wants to evolve beyond it. Then the question that arises is what boundary conditions to give at the artificial boundary ${\cal R}\times \partial\Omega$ . This problem has two aspects to it. First, one wishes to prescribe boundary conditions that make the problem a well posed one which preserves the constraints. In addition to that, one might desire to embed in the boundary conditions some physically appealing property (for instance that no gravitational radiation enters the domain). These two aspects are in principle separate. In this paper we will concentrate on the first one, namely, how to prescribe consistent boundary conditions. The construction we propose ends up giving “Dirichlet or Neumann-like” boundary conditions on some components of the metric, with some free sources. The latter allow freedom to consider boundary conditions for any spacetime in any slicing.
If the field equations are cast into a first order symmetric hyperbolic form there is a known prescription for achieving well posedness for an initial-boundary value problem (this is discussed in detail in section II), namely maximal dissipative boundary conditions [@laxfr]. Well posedness is a necessary condition for implementing a stable numerical code in the sense of Lax’s theorem [@convergence]. However, additional work is needed if one wishes to have a code that is not only stable but that preserves the constraints throughout the domain of evolution. As we stated above, this implies giving initial and boundary data that guarantees that the constraints are satisfied. Traditionally, most numerical relativity treatments have been careful to impose initial data that satisfies the constraints. However, very rarely boundary conditions that lead to well posedness are used, and much less frequently are they consistent with the constraints. Only recently, following Friedrich and Nagy [@fn], has work with numerical relativity in mind started along these lines [@stewart],[@iriondo],[@szilagyi1],[@bardeen], [@calabrese]. Of particular interest is the recent paper of Szilagyi and Winicour [@szilagyi2], which outlines a construction with several points in common with the one we describe here.
In this article we derive well posed, constraint-preserving boundary conditions for the generalized [@kst] Einstein-Christoffel (EC) [@ay] symmetric hyperbolic formulations of Einstein’s equations, when linearized around flat spacetime. The procedure consists in studying the evolution system for the constraints and making sure that the corresponding initial-boundary value problem is well-posed through appropriate boundary conditions. There is some freedom in the specification of the latter. Next, we translate them into boundary conditions for the variables of the main evolution system. The main difficulty consists in making use of the freedom that one has in the boundary conditions for the evolution system of the constraints in such a way that the resulting boundary conditions for the main evolution system ensure well-posedness. We consider the case of a non-smooth cubic boundary as is of interest in numerical relativity. This involves the additional complication of being careful about ensuring compatibility at the edges joining the faces. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed analysis of the initial-boundary value problem with a non-smooth boundary in the gravitational context.
The organization of this paper is as follows: in section \[energy\] we review the basic technique of energy estimates used to prove well posedness. In section \[kst\] we review the generalized EC symmetric hyperbolic formulation, write down the evolution system for the constraints and analyze under what conditions the latter is symmetric hyperbolic. In section \[cpbc\] we compute the characteristic variables for the main evolution system and for the system that evolves the constraints. These characteristic variables are a key element for prescribing the boundary conditions that lead to well-posedness. In section \[cpbcs\] we write down the constraint preserving boundary conditions in terms of the variables of the main evolution system. In section \[well\_posedness\] we derive the necessary energy estimates to show that all the systems involved in our constraint-preserving treatment are well posed. In section \[summary\] we summarize the constraint-preserving construction of this paper. We end with a discussion of possible future improvements to and applications of the boundary conditions introduced in this paper.
Basic energy estimates {#energy}
======================
In this section we review some basic notions of energy estimates for systems of partial differential equations, as discussed, for instance, in [@kreiss1]. Consider a first order in time and space linear evolution system of the form $$\partial_t u = A^j\partial_j u,
\label{Eq:MainEqs}$$ where $u = u(t,x^i)$ is a vector valued function, $t\geq 0$, $x^i \in
\Omega$, and where the matrices $A^1$, $A^2$ and $A^3$ are constant. The symbol $P(\vec{n})$ is defined as $P:= A^i n_i$. The system is symmetric (or symmetrizable) hyperbolic if there is a symmetrizer for $P$. That is, a positive definite, Hermitian matrix $H$ [*independent of $n^i$*]{} such that $H P = P^{\dagger }H$ for all $n_i$ with $\sum _{i=1\ldots 3} n_i^2=1$.
In order to show well-posedness of the initial value problem for such a system, one usually derives a bound for the energy $$E(t) = \int_\Omega (u,Hu)\, d^3 x\; ,
\label{Eq:Energy}$$ where $(.,.)$ denotes the standard scalar product. Taking a time derivative of (\[Eq:Energy\]), using equation (\[Eq:MainEqs\]), the fact that $H A^j$ are symmetric matrices, and Gauss’ theorem, one obtains $$\frac{d}{dt}\, E(t) = \int_\Omega 2(u, H A^j\partial_j u)\, d^3 x
= \int_\Omega \partial_j (u, H A^j u)\, d^3 x
= \int_{\partial\Omega} (u, H P(\vec{n}) u)\, d\sigma,$$ where $\vec{n}$ is now the unit outward normal to the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of the domain. For simplicity let’s assume that $P(\vec{n})$ has only the eigenvalues $\pm 1$ and $0$. Let $u^{(+)}$, $u^{(-)}$, and $u^{(0)}$ denote the projections of $u$ onto the eigenspaces corresponding to the eigenvalues $1$, $-1$ and $0$, respectively. That is, $u=u^{(+)}+u^{(-)}+u^{(0)}$ and $P(\vec{n})u = u^{(+)} - u^{(-)}$. Then $$(u, HP(\vec{n})u) = (u^{(+)},Hu^{(+)}) - (u^{(-)}, Hu^{(-)}).$$ If we impose boundary conditions of the form $u^{(+)} = R u^{(-)}$ with $R$ “small enough” so that $R^TH R \leq H$ [^1], it follows that $E(t) \leq E(0)$ for all $t\geq 0$. These kind of energy estimates are a key ingredient in well-posedness proofs. One can generalize this result to boundary conditions of the form $$u^{(+)} = R u^{(-)} + g,
\label{Eq:MaxDiss}$$ where $g = g(t,x^A)$ is a prescribed function at the boundary and $R^T H R \leq H$, as before. In this case, an energy estimate can be obtained as follows: We first choose a function $\psi$ that satisfies $\psi^{(+)} = R \psi^{(-)} + g$ at the boundary. Then, we consider the variable $\tilde{u} \equiv u - \psi$ instead of $u$ which now satisfies the homogeneous boundary condition $\tilde{u}^{(+)} = R \tilde{u}^{(-)}$ and the modified evolution equation $$\partial_t\tilde{u} = A^j\partial_j \tilde{u} + F,$$ where $F = A^j\partial_j\psi - \partial_t\psi$ is a forcing term. One now repeats the estimate for the energy defined in (\[Eq:Energy\]), with $u$ replaced by $\tilde{u}$, and obtains $$\frac{d}{dt}\, E(t) \leq 2\int_\Omega (\tilde{u},H F) d^3 x
\leq 2\| \tilde{u} \| \cdot \| F \|,$$ where $\| \tilde{u} \| \equiv E^{1/2}$, $\| F \| \equiv (\int (F,H F)d^3 x)^{1/2}$ and where we have used Schwarz’s inequality. Therefore, we obtain the estimate $$\| \tilde{u}(t,.) \| \leq \| \tilde{u}(0,.) \| + \int_0^t \| F(s,.) \| ds.$$
Similar estimates can be obtained for systems with non-constant coefficients, as is the case, for instance, of linearizations around a given non-Minkowski metric, as in black hole perturbations. In the non-linear case the proofs of bounds are only for finite amounts of time, since solutions can blow up in a finite time starting from initial data with finite energy.
The existence of an energy estimate implies that the initial-boundary value problem is well posed. By this we mean that there exists a unique smooth solution to the problem for which the energy estimate holds [@secchi; @rauch]. It should be noted that these results are in principle only valid for smooth boundaries. Later in this paper we will discuss boundaries that are non-smooth. It should be understood that in those cases the energy estimates we derive do not necessarily imply the existence and uniqueness of smooth solutions.
The field equations and their constraint propagation {#kst}
====================================================
In this section we present the field equations that we will use through this paper, and analyze the constraints propagation. In the first subsection we present the evolution equations for the main variables within the generalized Einstein-Christoffel symmetric hyperbolic formulation of Einstein’s equations. In the second subsection we analyze, in the fully non-linear case, the evolution equations for the constraints within this formulation and derive necessary conditions for the latter to be symmetrizable. We will need this system to be symmetric hyperbolic in order to derive an energy estimate in the way we sketched in Section \[energy\]. Rather surprisingly, it turns out that in the original EC system the constraints’ propagation does not seem to be symmetrizable. Imposing the symmetric hyperbolicity condition naturally restricts the free parameter of the system to an open interval. As a side note, there seems to be some correlation between the stability properties of the system found in numerical experiments and this natural choice.
The formulation
---------------
In [@kst] the following symmetric hyperbolic system [^2] of evolution equations for the three-metric ($g_{ij}$), the extrinsic curvature ($K_{ij}$), and some extra variables $f_{kij}$ that are introduced in order to make the system first order in space is derived: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 g_{ij} &=& -2 K_{ij} \, ,
\label{Eq:gij}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial _0 K_{ij} &=& -\partial^k f_{kij} + l.o. \, ,
\label{Eq:Kij}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial _0 f_{kij} &=& -\partial _k K_{ij} + l.o. \, ,
\label{Eq:fkij}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial^k \equiv g^{kl}\partial_l$ and where $\partial_0 = (\partial_t - \pounds_{\beta})/N$ is the derivative operator along the normal to the spatial $t=const.$ slices. The shift $\beta^i$ is an a priori prescribed function on spacetime while the lapse $N$ is determined by $N = g^{1/2}\, e^Q$, with $Q$ a priori prescribed. Here and in the following $l.o.$ stands for “lower order terms”. These terms depend on $g_{ij}$, $K_{ij}$, $f_{kij}$, $Q$ and $\beta^i$ but not on the derivatives of $g_{ij}$, $K_{ij}$ or $f_{kij}$. Provided that the constraints (see equation (\[Eq:Constraints\]) below) are satisfied, the spatial derivatives, $d_{kij} \equiv \partial_k g_{ij}$, of the three-metric are obtained from $$d_{kij} = 2\, f_{kij} + \eta\, g_{k(i} \left( f_{j)s}^{\;\;\;\;\; s} -
f^s_{\; j)s} \right) + \frac{\eta-4}{4}\, g_{ij} \left(
f_{ks}^{\;\;\; s} - f^s_{\; ks} \right),
\label{Eq:dkij}$$ where $\eta$ is a free parameter with the only restriction $\eta\neq 0$.
The evolution system (\[Eq:gij\],\[Eq:Kij\],\[Eq:fkij\]), besides being symmetric hyperbolic, has the additional feature that all characteristic speeds (with respect to the normal derivative operator $\partial_0$) are either $0$ or $\pm 1$, so that all characteristic modes lie either along the light cone or along the orthogonal to the hypersurfaces $t = const.$ direction.
The particular case with $\eta = 4$ corresponds to the system derived in [@ay]. As we will show shortly, the latter does, however, not seem to admit a symmetric hyperbolic formulation for the evolution of the constraints.
The evolution of the constraints
--------------------------------
In order to solve Einstein’s vacuum equations, one has to supplement the evolution equations (\[Eq:gij\],\[Eq:Kij\],\[Eq:fkij\]) with the following constraints: $$\begin{array}{rll}
0 =& C \equiv \frac{1}{2} g^{ab}\partial^k (d_{abk} - d_{kab}) + l.o.\, , &
\nonumber\\
0 =& C_j \equiv \partial^a K_{aj} - g^{ab}\partial_j K_{ab} + l.o.\, , &
\nonumber\\
0 =& C_{kij} \equiv d_{kij} - \partial_k g_{ij}\, , &
\nonumber\\
0 =& C_{lkij} \equiv \partial_{[l} d_{k]ij}\, . & \
\nonumber
\end{array}
\label{Eq:Constraints}$$ where $C,C_i$ are the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints, respectively.
Using the evolution system (\[Eq:gij\],\[Eq:Kij\],\[Eq:fkij\]) for the main variables, one obtains the following principal part for the evolution system for the constraint variables [@kst]: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 C &=& \frac{\eta}{4}\, \partial^k C_k + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:C}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 C_i &=& \frac{4-2\eta}{\eta}\, \partial_i C
- \partial^k C^s_{\; kis} - \partial^k C_{kis}^{\;\;\;\; s} + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Ci}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 C_{kij} &=& l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Ckij}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 C_{lkij} &=& \eta\, \partial_{[l} g_{k](i} C_{j)}
+ \frac{\eta-4}{4}\, g_{ij} \partial_{[l} C_{k]} + l.o. \, .
\label{Eq:Clkij}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{aligned}$$ A system is symmetrizable if we can find a transformation that brings the principal part into symmetric form. In order to investigate under which conditions this system is symmetrizable hyperbolic, we split $C_{lkij}$ in its trace and trace-less parts: $$C_{lkij} = E_{lkij} + \frac{1}{2} \left( g_{l(i} B_{j)k} - g_{k(i} B_{j)l} \right)
+ \frac{1}{3}\, g_{ij} W_{lk}\, ,$$ where $E_{lkij}$ is trace-less with respect to all pair of indices and where in terms of the traces $S_{ki} \equiv C^s_{\; (ki)s}$, $A_{ki} \equiv C^s_{\; [ki]s}$ and $V_{lk} \equiv C_{lks}^{\;\;\;\; s}$, $$B_{ki} = \frac{4}{3}\, S_{ki} - \frac{12}{5}\, A_{ki} - \frac{4}{5}\, V_{ki}\, ,\qquad
W_{lk} = \frac{9}{5}\, V_{lk} + \frac{12}{5}\, A_{lk}\, .$$ Rewriting the principal part in terms of these variables, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 C &=& \frac{\eta}{4}\, \partial^k C_k + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Ct}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 C_i &=& \frac{4-2\eta}{\eta}\, \partial_i C
- \partial^k S_{ki} - \partial^k A_{ki} - \partial^k V_{ki} + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Cti}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 S_{ki} &=& -\frac{3\eta}{4}\, \left( \partial_{(k} C_{i)} -
\frac{1}{3}\, g_{ki} \partial^s C_s \right) + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Ski}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 A_{ki} &=& (1-\eta)\, \partial_{[k} C_{i]} + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Aki}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 V_{ki} &=& \left( \frac{7\eta}{4} - 3 \right) \partial_{[k} C_{i]} + l.o.\, ,
\label{Eq:Vki}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 C_{kij} &=& l.o. \, .
\label{Eq:Ctkij}\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\partial_0 E_{lkij} &=& l.o. \, .
\label{Eq:Elkij}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{aligned}$$ Having split all the variables into their trace and trace-less parts the only natural transformations that remain are rescaling of the variables or linear combinations of the antisymmetric symbols $A_{ki}$ and $V_{ki}$. First, looking at the terms depending on $C_i$ in the evolution equation for $C$ and vice-versa, we see that $\eta < 2$ is needed in order to make the corresponding block in the principal part symmetric by a rescaling of $C$. Next, looking at the terms involving $S_{ki}$ in the evolution equation for $C_i$ and vice-versa, through a similar reasoning, we obtain the condition $\eta > 0$. Finally, if $0
< \eta < 2$, it is easy to see that the transformation $$\tilde{A}_{ki} = A_{ki} + V_{ki}\; ,\qquad
\tilde{V}_{ki} = (7\eta/4 - 3) A_{ki} + (\eta-1) V_{ki}\; ,$$ brings the corresponding block into manifestly symmetric form.
We can summarize the result as follows: If $0< \eta < 2$, the principal part of the system (\[Eq:Ct\]-\[Eq:Elkij\]) is symmetric with respect to the inner product associated with $$\left( U, U \right) \equiv
\frac{16-8\eta}{\eta^2}\, C C + C^i C_i +
\frac{4}{3\eta}\, S^{ki} S_{ki}
+ \frac{4}{8 - 3\eta}\, \tilde{A}^{ki} \tilde{A}_{ki} +
\tilde{V}^{ki} \tilde{V}_{ki}
+ C^{kij} C_{kij} + E^{lkij} E_{lkij}\, ,
\label{Eq:CIP}$$ where $U = (C,C_i, S_{ki}, \tilde{A}_{ki}, \tilde{V}_{ki}, E_{lkij})^T$. It is interesting to notice that in a numerical empirical search for a value of $\eta$ that improves the stability of a single black hole evolution, Kidder, Scheel and Teukolsky found the value $\eta = 4/33$, which lies inside the interval $0 < \eta < 2$ [@kst]. On the other hand, the evolution of the original EC ($\eta =4$), for which we were not able to find a symmetrizer, according to [@kst] does not perform very well in 3D black hole evolutions. Also of interest is that in the recent work of Lindblom and Scheel [@LiSch] they note that the previously mentioned range of $\eta$ is also preferred. (See figure 5 of their paper; the range $0<\eta<2$ translates to $-\infty <\gamma<-0.5$). In that work they also study the dependence on another parameter $\hat{z}$, which corresponds to a rescaling of a variable and therefore its effects do not influence the principal part of the equations, which is what determines the level of hyperbolicity of the system.
Characteristic variables {#cpbc}
========================
Here we discuss the characteristic variables of the main evolution system (\[Eq:gij\],\[Eq:Kij\],\[Eq:fkij\]) and of the evolution system (\[Eq:Ct\]-\[Eq:Elkij\]) for the constraints. The characteristic variables are needed in order to give the boundary conditions of type (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]), which yield a well-posed initial-boundary value problem.
From now on we will concentrate on linearized (around Minkowski spacetime in Cartesian coordinates) gravity for simplicity. That is, the background metric is $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + \delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j\, ,$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the flat space metric. We also assume that our perturbations have vanishing shift and vanishing linearized densitized lapse. In these cases, all lower order terms vanish (with the obvious exception of the right hand side (RHS) of (\[Eq:gij\])) and the evolution equations simplify considerably.
We also choose our spatial domain to be a box $\Omega = [x_{min},x_{max}] \times [y_{min},y_{max}] \times
[z_{min},z_{max}]$, though the analysis below could be generalized to other domains.
Characteristic variables for the main system
--------------------------------------------
When linearized around flat spacetime, the main evolution system reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t g_{ij} &=& -2 K_{ij} \; ,\nonumber\\
\partial_t K_{ij} &=& -\partial^k f_{kij}\; ,\label{kdot}\\
\partial_t f_{kij} &=& -\partial_k K_{ij}\; .\label{ddot}\end{aligned}$$ Since $g_{ij}$ does not appear in the evolution equations for $K_{ij}$ and $f_{kij}$, we do not consider its evolution equation in the following. Therefore, the system we consider has the simple form $\partial_t u = A^j\partial_j u$, with $u = (K_{ij}, f_{kij})^T$.
The characteristic variables with respect to a direction $n^i$ are variables with respect to which the symbol $P(\vec{n}) = A^j n_j$ is diagonal. They can be obtained by first finding a complete set, $e_1,...,e_{24}$, of eigenvectors of the symbol (the $e_j$’s are called characteristic modes) and then expanding $u$ with respect to these vectors. The coefficients in this expansion are called the characteristic variables.
For the above system there are six characteristic variables with speed $1$, six with speed $-1$ and twelve with zero speed. They are given by $$\begin{array}{rll}
v_{ij}^{(+)} & = K_{ij} - f_{nij}\; , &\hbox{(speed $+1$)}\\
v_{ij}^{(-)} & = K_{ij} + f_{nij}\; , &\hbox{(speed $-1$)}\\
v_{kij}^{(0)} & = f_{kij} - n_k f_{nij}\; ,&\hbox{(speed $0$)}
\end{array}
\label{Eq:DefCVMain}$$ where $f_{nij} \equiv f_{kij} n^k$. In terms of these variables, the evolution system becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t v_{ij}^{(\pm)} &=& \pm \partial_n v_{ij}^{(\pm)} -
\delta^{kl}\partial_k^T v_{lij}^{(0)}\; ,
\label{Eq:vij}\\
\partial_t v_{kij}^{(0)} &=& -\frac{1}{2}\partial_k^T
\left( v_{ij}^{(+)} + v_{ij}^{(-)} \right),
\label{Eq:vkij}\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_n$ denotes the derivative in the direction of $n$ and $\partial_k^T \equiv \partial_k - n_k\partial_n$ are the derivatives with respect to the directions that are orthogonal to $n$.
### Gauge, physical, and constraint-violating modes
Before we proceed, it is interesting to give the following interpretation to the characteristic variables of the main system with respect to a fixed direction $n^k$: Consider a Fourier mode of $u$ with wave-vector along $n^k$, i.e. assume that the spatial dependence of $u$ has the form $e^{i n_j x^j}$. In this case, the linearized constraints assume the form $L(n^i)u = 0$, where $L(n^i)$ is a constant matrix. Also, since in the case we are considering the non principal terms vanish, characteristic modes of this form solve the evolution equations.
Now we can check which characteristic modes (or combination thereof) satisfy the constraint equations and which do not. It turns out that all modes violate the constraints, except for the ones corresponding to the characteristic variables $v_{nn}^{(\pm)}$ and $\hat{v}_{AB}^{(\pm)} \equiv v_{AB}^{(\pm)} - \delta_{AB} v_{\; C}^{C\, (\pm)}/2$, where $A,B$ denote directions which are orthogonal to $n$.
Next, consider an infinitesimal coordinate transformation $x^\mu \mapsto x^\mu + X^\mu$. With respect to it, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij} &\mapsto& K_{ij} - \partial_i\partial_j X^t\; ,\nonumber\\
g_{ij} &\mapsto& g_{ij} + 2\partial_{(i} X_{j)}\; .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $X^t$ and $X_j$ are proportional to $e^{i n_j x^j}$ and using (\[Eq:dkij\]) we find that $$v_{nn}^{(\pm)} \mapsto v_{nn}^{(\pm)} + X^t \pm X_n\; ,\qquad
v_{Aij}^{(0)} \mapsto v_{Aij}^{(0)} - \delta_{A(i}\left( n_{j)} X_n - X_{j)} \right)
+ \frac{\eta-4}{4\eta}\, \delta_{ij} X_A\; ,$$ while the remaining variables are invariant. In particular, we can gauge away the variables $v_{nn}^{(+)}$ and $v_{nn}^{(-)}$. The characteristic variables $\hat{v}_{AB}^{(\pm)}$ are gauge-invariant and satisfy the constraints.
This suggests the following classification: We call
- the variables $v_{nn}^{(\pm)}$ [*gauge variables.*]{}
- the variables $\hat{v}_{AB}^{(\pm)}$ [*physical variables.*]{}
- and the remaining variables $v_{\; B}^{B\, (\pm)}$ and $v_{nB}^{(\pm)}$ [*constraint violating variables.*]{}
We stress that this classification is exact only if all the fields depend on the variable $n_k x^k$ and the time coordinate $t$ only. (In particular, it is exact in $1+1$ dimensions since then there is only one space dimension.) Nevertheless, this classification sheds light on the boundary treatment below: For example, we will see that giving boundary data that is consistent with the constraints will fix a combination of the in- and outgoing constraint violating variables while we will be free to choose any data for some combination of the in- and outgoing gauge and physical variables (see equation (\[Eq:MaxDissCPBC\]) below).
Characteristic variables for the constraints
--------------------------------------------
For our purpose, it is sufficient to find the constraint characteristic variables that have non-zero speed, since these are the ones that enter the boundary condition (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]). In the system considered here there are three characteristic variables with speed $1$ and three with speed $-1$, $$V_i^{(\pm)} = -C_i \pm \frac{2\eta - 4}{\eta}\, C n_i \pm (S_{ni} + \tilde{A}_{ni}),
\label{Eq:DefCVCons}$$ while the remaining variables have zero speed.
Constraint-preserving boundary conditions {#cpbcs}
=========================================
Here we start with boundary conditions for the constraints that ensure that they are preserved though evolution and then translate them into the boundary conditions for the main system. In order to do so we write the in- and outgoing characteristic variables of the constraints in terms of (derivatives of) the characteristic variables of the main system. Well-posedness of the resulting constraint system is shown in the Section \[well\_posedness\].
In order to preserve the constraints we impose boundary conditions for their evolution of the form (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]) with $g=0$ ($g\neq 0$ would not preserve the constraints). That is, $$V_i^{(+)} = L_i^{\; j} V_j^{(-)},
\label{Eq:CPBC1}$$ where the matrix $L$ is constant. As discussed in Sect. \[energy\], the coupling matrix $L$ must be “small enough” if we want to obtain a useful energy estimate. We will analyze this question in the Section \[well\_posedness\]
Next, our task is to translate the conditions (\[Eq:CPBC1\]) into conditions on the main variables. Using the definition of the constraints, Eqs. (\[Eq:Constraints\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
C &=& \frac{\eta}{4}\; \partial^k v_k\; ,\label{cons1}\\
C_i &=& \partial^j K_{ij} - \partial_i K\; ,\label{cons2}\\
S_{ni} + \tilde{A}_{ni} &=&
\partial^l f_{nil} - \partial_if^s_{\;\; sn} + \frac{\eta}{4}\,
\left[ n_i\partial^l v_l - 3\partial_i v_n \right], \label{cons3}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_k = f_{ks}^{\;\;\;\; s} - f^s_{\;\; sk}$. Using Eqs. (\[cons1\],\[cons2\],\[cons3\]) and the definition of the characteristic variables, Eqs. (\[Eq:DefCVMain\],\[Eq:DefCVCons\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
V_n^{(\pm)} &=& \partial_n v_{BB}^{(\pm)} - \partial^B v_{Bn}^{(\pm)}
\pm\frac{1}{2}\left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4} \right)\partial^B\left( 2v_{kkB}^{(0)} - 2v_{Bkk}^{(0)}
- v_{nB}^{(+)} + v_{nB}^{(-)} \right),
\label{normal1}\\
V_A^{(\pm)} &=& -\partial_n v_{nA}^{(\pm)} - \partial^B v_{AB}^{(\pm)} + \partial_A v_{kk}^{(\pm)}
\mp\frac{1}{2}\left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4} \right)\partial_A
\left( 2v_{kkn}^{(0)} + v_{BB}^{(+)} - v_{BB}^{(-)} \right)
\label{normal2} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the capital indices $A,B=1,2$ refer to transverse directions (i.e. directions orthogonal to $n$), and where we sum over equal indices.
A first problem that arises in the above expressions is that with maximally dissipative boundary conditions one does not control normal derivatives $\partial_n$ of the incoming characteristic variables at the boundary and, therefore, cannot impose the above conditions, Eqs. (\[normal1\],\[normal2\]). However, since in Eqs. (\[normal1\],\[normal2\]) the normal derivatives are present only on variables with speed $\pm 1$, we can use the equations (\[Eq:vij\]) to trade normal derivatives by time and transverse derivatives. Doing so one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
V_n^{(\pm)} &=& \pm\partial_t v_{BB}^{(\pm)} -
\partial^B v_{Bn}^{(\pm)} \pm \partial^C v_{CBB}^{(0)}
\pm\frac{1}{2}\left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4} \right)\partial^B\left(
2v_{kkB}^{(0)} - 2v_{Bkk}^{(0)}
- v_{nB}^{(+)} + v_{nB}^{(-)} \right),
\label{Eq:Vn}\\
V_A^{(\pm)} &=& \mp\partial_t v_{nA}^{(\pm)} - \partial^B
v_{AB}^{(\pm)} +
\partial_A v_{kk}^{(\pm)}
\mp \partial^C v_{CnA}^{(0)}
\mp\frac{1}{2}\left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4}
\right)\partial_A\left( 2v_{kkn}^{(0)} + v_{BB}^{(+)} - v_{BB}^{(-)} \right)
\label{Eq:VA} \; .\end{aligned}$$
The second problem is to show well-posedness for the evolution system of the main variables. Conditions (\[Eq:CPBC1\]) together with Eqs. (\[Eq:Vn\],\[Eq:VA\]) do not directly translate into conditions of the form (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]) for the main variables since transverse derivatives appear in the expressions (\[Eq:Vn\],\[Eq:VA\]) [^3]. In order to get a well-posed initial-boundary problem we look for appropriate linear combinations $g = u^{(+)} - R u^{(-)}$ of in- and outgoing main variables and an appropriate coupling matrix $L$ such that the conditions (\[Eq:CPBC1\]) with (\[Eq:Vn\],\[Eq:VA\]) can be incorporated in a closed set of evolution system at the boundary for the variables $g$ and some variables with zero speed. This is discussed next.
Neumann boundary conditions: evolution system on each face {#neumann_bc}
----------------------------------------------------------
Consider the combinations $d_{ij} = v_{ij}^{(+)} - v_{ij}^{(-)}$ and $s_{ij} = v_{ij}^{(+)} +
v_{ij}^{(-)}$ ($d_{ij}$ stands for [**d**]{}ifference [^4], and $s_{ij}$ for [**s**]{}um).
Noticing that $$\begin{aligned}
V_n^{(+)} + V_n^{(-)} &=& \partial_t d_{BB} - \partial^A s_{An}\; ,
\\
-V_A^{(+)} + V_A^{(-)} &=& \partial_t s_{An} + \partial^B d_{AB} -
\partial_A d_{BB} - \partial_A d_{nn} + 2\partial^C v_{CnA}^{(0)} +
\left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4} \right)\partial_A\left( 2v_{BBn}^{(0)} +
d_{BB} \right),\end{aligned}$$ we see that one way of imposing boundary conditions such that the constraints are satisfied is through $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & V_n^{(+)} + V_n^{(-)} \label{Eq:bondy1} \; , \\
0 & = & -V_A^{(+)} + V_A^{(-)} \label{Eq:bondy2} \; .\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\]) amount to giving as boundary conditions for the constraints’ propagation a coupling between the incoming and outgoing characteristic constraint variables as in Eq. (\[Eq:CPBC1\]) with $(L_i^{\; j}) = diag(-1,1,1)$. These equations can also be seen as equations for $d_{BB}$ and $s_{nA}$ at the $n$-face, where $\hat{d}_{AB}$ and $d_{nn}$ are a priori prescribed functions (i.e. they are not fixed by the constraints’ treatment). Here $\hat{d}_{AB}$ is defined as the traceless part of $d_{AB}$. That is, $$\hat{d}_{AB} = d_{AB} - \frac{1}{2}\delta _{AB} d_C^{\;\;C}$$ where $\delta _{AB}=1$ if $A=B$ and zero otherwise.
In fact, Eqs. (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\]) do not not contain as dynamical variables only $d_{BB}$ and $s_{nA}$, but also some zero speed variables. Therefore, in order to get a closed system, we need evolution equations for the zero speed variables $v_{ABn}^{(0)}$. These equations can be obtained from the evolution system of the main variables, equation (\[Eq:vkij\]): $$0 = \partial_t v_{ABn}^{(0)} + \frac{1}{2}\,\partial_A s_{nB}\; .
\label{Eq:bondy3}$$ Below we will show that equations (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\],\[Eq:bondy3\]) constitute a symmetrizable hyperbolic system of evolution equations at the face orthogonal to $n$ for the variables $(d_{BB}, s_{An}, v_{ABn}^{(0)})$, where $\hat{d}_{AB} = d_{AB} - 1/2\, \delta_{AB} d_{CC}$ and $d_{nn}$ can be freely prescribed. Since the domain we are interested in is a box, Eqs. (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\],\[Eq:bondy3\]) need to be evolved at each face. In order to do so one needs boundary conditions at each edge (intersection of two faces). Below we will also explain how these boundary conditions are naturally fixed by compatibility conditions.
Assuming one already has the solution to Eqs. (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\],\[Eq:bondy3\]) at each face, the boundary conditions for the main variables, which are of the required form (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]), are the following: $$v_{BB}^{(+)} = v_{BB}^{(-)} + d_{BB}\; ,\qquad
v_{nA}^{(+)} = -v_{nA}^{(-)} + s_{nA}\; ,\qquad
v_{nn}^{(+)} = v_{nn}^{(-)} + d_{nn}\; ,\qquad
\hat{v}_{AB}^{(+)} = \hat{v}_{AB}^{(-)} + \hat{d}_{AB}\; ,
\label{Eq:MaxDissCPBC}$$ where $d_{BB}$ and $s_{nA}$ are obtained from the evolution system (\[Eq:bondy1\]-\[Eq:bondy3\]) at the $n$-face and where we can specify the gauge variable $d_{nn}$ and the physical variable $\hat{d}_{AB}$ freely. Note that $$d_{nn} = -2f_{nnn}\; ,\qquad
\hat{d}_{AB} = -2f_{nAB} + \delta_{AB} f_{nCC}\; . \label{neumann_data}$$ In view of equation (\[Eq:dkij\]) and the fact that if the constraints are satisfied we have $d_{kij} = \partial_k g_{ij}$, we see that these are Neumann conditions on some components of the three-metric.
Now we go back to the evolution system (\[Eq:bondy1\]-\[Eq:bondy3\]) at the face and look at it in detail. In order to make the notation more compact we write $d^{(n)} =
d_{BB}$, $s_A^{(n)} = s_{An}$, $h_{AB}^{(n)} = v_{ABn}^{(0)}$ for the variables associated with the face orthogonal to $n$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t d^{(n)} &=& \partial^A s_A^{(n)}\; ,\label{neumann1}\\
\partial_t s_A ^{(n)} &=& -2\partial^B h_{BA}^{(n)} - \frac{4-3\eta}{2}\,
\partial_A h^{(n)} - \frac{2-3\eta}{4}\, \partial_A d^{(n)}
- \partial^B \hat{d}_{AB}^{(n)} + \partial_A d_{nn}^{(n)}, \label{neumann2}\\
\partial_t h_{AB}^{(n)} &=& -\frac{1}{2}\, \partial_A s_B^{(n)}\; , \label{neumann3}\end{aligned}$$ where $h^{(n)}$ denotes the trace of $h_{AB}^{(n)}$. One can check that as long as $\eta\neq 2$ this system is symmetric hyperbolic with respect to the inner product associated with $$(B,B) \equiv \left(d^{(n)}\right)^2 + 2 s_A^{(n)} s_B^{(n)} \delta ^{AB} +
\left[ (6-3\eta)\, h^{(n)}_{AB}\delta^{AB} +
\frac{4 - 3\eta}{2}\, d^{(n)} \right]^2
+ 8\hat{h}^{(n)}_{AB} \hat{h}^{(n)}_{CD} \delta ^{AC} \delta ^{BD}\; ,
\label{B,B}$$ where $B = (d,s_A,h_{AB})$ and $\hat{h}_{AB}$ denotes the trace-less part of $h_{AB}$, $\hat{h}_{AB} = h_{AB} - (\delta _{AB} h_C^{\;\;C})/2$.
Neumann boundary conditions: Compatibility conditions at the edges of the faces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system we just introduced is defined on each of the six $n$-faces. The faces themselves have boundaries: the edges that join them. We need to ensure that the system on each face is well posed taking into account the boundary conditions at the edges. Since each edge is shared by two faces, this will translate into compatibility conditions among the various systems.
The system of interest has, at each edge, two ingoing modes with speeds $\sqrt{3/2}$ and $1$ and two outgoing modes with speeds $-\sqrt{3/2}$ and $-1$. At face $n$, the corresponding characteristic variables with respect to a direction $m^A$, are $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\pm\sqrt{3/2}} &=& \pm\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\, s^{(n)}_m
- \frac{1}{3}\left[ 2h^{(n)}_{mm} + \frac{4-3\eta}{2}\, h^{(n)} +
\frac{2-3\eta}{4}\, d^{(n)} \right],
\nonumber\\
w_{\pm 1} &=& \pm s_p^{(n)} - 2h^{(n)}_{mp}\; ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is a transverse direction orthogonal to $m$ (and $n$).
In terms of the original variables, the variables $d^{(n)}, s_A^{(n)},
h_{AB}^{(n)}, d_{nn}^{(n)}, \hat{d}_{AB}^{(n)}$ on the $n$-face are $$d^{(n)} = -2f_{nBB}\; ,\qquad
s_A^{(n)} = 2K_{nA}\; ,\qquad
h_{AB}^{(n)} = f_{ABn}\; ,\qquad
d_{nn}^{(n)} = -2f_{nnn}\; ,\qquad
\hat{d}^{(n)}_{AB} = -2f_{nAB} + \delta_{AB} f_{nCC}\; .$$ Now let $\{n,m,p\}$ be orthogonal directions naturally associated with the box (say, the standard Cartesian coordinates $\{x,y,z\}$). If we compare these variables in two different directions $n$ and $m$, say, we obtain the following compatibility conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
s_m^{(n)} &=& s_n^{(m)}\; ,\label{comp1}\\
-2h_{mp}^{(n)} &=& \hat{d}_{pn}^{(m)}\; ,\label{comp2}\\
h_{pm}^{(n)} &=& h_{pn}^{(m)}\; . \label{comp3}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we have, by definition of the characteristic variables, $$w_{+\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} - w_{-\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\, s_m^{(n)}\; ,\qquad
w_{+1}^{(n)} + w_{-1}^{(n)} = -4h_{mp}^{(n)}\; .$$ Therefore, the correct boundary conditions at the edges are $$\begin{aligned}
w_{+\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} &=& w_{-\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,
s_n^{(m)}\; ,
\label{boundary_neumann1}\\
w_{+1}^{(n)} &=& -w_{-1}^{(n)} + 2\hat{d}_{np}^{(m)}\; . \label{boundary_neumann2}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that up to now the quantities that were freely specified were $d_{nn}$ and $\hat{d}_{AB}$ one each of the $n$-faces. Therefore, in order to fix the boundary data for the systems that are defined on these faces we also have to a priori specify the quantities $s_n^{(m)}=2K_{nm}=s_m^{(n)}$ at the edges defined by the intersection of faces $n$ and $m$.
Imposing these boundary conditions automatically implies that the compatibility conditions (\[comp1\]) and (\[comp2\]) are satisfied. On the other hand, we have at the edge joining the faces $n$ and $m$, $$\partial_t \left( h_{pm}^{(n)} - h_{pn}^{(m)}\right) = -\frac{1}{2}\partial_p
\left(s_m^{(n)}- s_n^{(m)} \right) = 0$$ where the last equality follows from imposing the boundary conditions at the edges. Therefore, these boundary conditions also imply that the compatibility condition (\[comp3\]) is satisfied through evolution provided it does so initially.
Dirichlet boundary conditions {#dirichlet_bc}
-----------------------------
In a similar way to the Neumann case, one can obtain a closed system at the boundary for the variables $(s_{BB}, d_{An}, v_{Ann}^{(0)}, v_{ABB}^{(0)},
v_{BBA}^{(0)})$ by requiring $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=& V_n^{(+)} - V_n^{(-)} \; , \label{Eq:bondy4} \\
0 &=& V_A^{(+)} + V_A^{(-)} \; , \label{Eq:bondy5}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V_n^{(+)} - V_n^{(-)} &=& \partial_t s_{BB} - \partial^A d_{An} +
2\partial^A v_{ABB}^{(0)} + \left( 1 - \frac{3\eta}{4}
\right)\partial_A\left( 2v_{BBA}^{(0)} - 2v_{Akk}^{(0)} - d_{nA}
\right) \; ,\\
-V_A^{(+)} - V_A^{(-)} &=& \partial_t d_{An} + \partial^B s_{AB} -
\partial_A s_{BB} - \partial_A s_{nn}\;. \end{aligned}$$ One also has to take into account the evolution equations for the zero speed variables: $$0 = \partial_t v_{Aij}^{(0)} + \frac{1}{2}\, \partial_A s_{ij}\; .
\label{Eq:bondy6}$$ In this case, one can freely specify $s_{nn}$ and $\hat{s}_{AB}$, which corresponds to Dirichlet conditions on some components of the extrinsic curvature: $$s_{nn} = 2K_{nn} \;\;\; , \;\;\;
\hat{s}_{AB} = 2K_{AB} - \delta_{AB} K_{CC}\; . \label{dirichlet_cond}$$
Assuming one already has the solution to Eqs. (\[Eq:bondy4\],\[Eq:bondy5\]) at each face, the boundary conditions for the main variables, which are of the required form (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]), are the following: $$v_{BB}^{(+)} = -v_{BB}^{(-)} + s_{BB}\; ,\qquad
v_{An}^{(+)} = v_{An}^{(-)} + d_{An}\; ,\qquad
v_{nn}^{(+)} = -v_{nn}^{(-)} + s_{nn}\; ,\qquad
\hat{v}_{AB}^{(+)} = -\hat{v}_{AB}^{(-)} + \hat{s}_{AB}\; .
\label{Eq:MaxDissCPBC_dir}$$
In terms of the variables $s = s_{BB}$, $d_A = d_{An}$, $h_A = 3\eta\, v_{ABB}^{(0)} + (4-3\eta)(v_{BBA}^{(0)} - v_{Ann}^{(0)})$, we can rewrite the boundary system (\[Eq:bondy4\]-\[Eq:bondy6\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t s &=& \frac{8-3\eta}{4}\,\partial^A d_A -
\frac{1}{2}\,\partial^A h_A\; ,\label{dir1}
\\ \partial_t d_A &=&
\frac{1}{2}\,\partial_A s + \partial_A s_{nn} -
\partial^B\hat{s}_{BA}\; , \label{dir2}
\\ \partial_t h_A &=&
-\frac{4+3\eta}{4}\, \partial_A s +
\frac{4-3\eta}{2}\,\left(\partial_A s_{nn} - \partial^B
\hat{s}_{BA}\right). \label{dir3}\end{aligned}$$ This system is symmetrizable hyperbolic with respect to the inner product associated with $$(B,B) = 4s^2 + 8d^A d_A + \left(
h^A - \frac{4-3\eta}{2}\, d^A \right)\left( h_A - \frac{4-3\eta}{2}\,
d_A \right) \label{energy_dir}$$ where $B = (s,d_A,h_A)$.
There is one ingoing and one outgoing mode, with speeds $\pm\sqrt{3/2}$, respectively. The corresponding variables in a direction $m^A$ are $$w_{\pm\sqrt{3/2}} = \sqrt{3/2}\, s \pm \frac{1}{2}\left(
\frac{8-3\eta}{2}\, d_m - h_m \right).$$ We now turn to the compatibility at the edges of the faces. In terms of the original variables one has $$\begin{aligned}
&& s^{(n)} = 2K_{BB}\; ,\qquad
d_A^{(n)} = -2f_{nnA}\; ,\qquad
h_{A}^{(n)} = 3\eta\, f_{ABB} + (4-3\eta)(f_{BBA} - f_{Ann}) ,
\nonumber\\
&& s_{nn}^{(n)} = 2K_{nn}\; ,\qquad
\hat{s}^{(n)}_{AB} = 2K_{AB} - \delta_{AB} K_{CC}\; .\end{aligned}$$ From these expressions one can see that the only compatibility conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
s^{(n)} & = & 2\left( s_{mm}^{(m)} - \hat{s}^{(n)}_{mm} \right) \; ,
\label{compatibility_dir1} \\
s^{(m)}_{mm} + 2 \hat{s}^{(m)}_{nn} & = & s^{(n)}_{nn} + 2
\hat{s}^{(n)}_{mm} \; . \label{compatibility_dir2}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[compatibility\_dir1\]) fixes the boundary data for the ingoing variable: $$w_{+\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} = -w_{-\sqrt{3/2}}^{(n)} + 4\sqrt{3/2}(
s_{nn}^{(m)} - \hat{s}_{mm}^{(n)}). \label{boundary_dirichlet}$$ This condition will be used in the energy estimate (\[Eq:estimate3\]) in order to prove well-posedness for the system at each face in the Dirichlet case. On the other hand, Eq. (\[compatibility\_dir2\]) is a compatibility condition at the intersection of faces $n$ and $m$ for the free boundary data.
Well posedness {#well_posedness}
==============
We start by showing that the conditions (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\]) and (\[Eq:bondy4\],\[Eq:bondy5\]), for the Neumann and Dirichlet case, respectively, imply that the evolution system for the constraints is well-posed. Then we derive energy estimates for the closed system of evolution equations at each face, and using these estimates we show that the evolution of the main system is well-posed as well.
Since we have already shown that all the evolution equations involved in our constraint-preserving treatment are symmetric hyperbolic, and since we have already cast all boundary conditions in maximally dissipative form, the main purpose of this section is to explicitly show that the different couplings are “small enough” with respect to the corresponding symmetrizers, in the sense discussed in Section \[energy\].
Constraint propagation
----------------------
Here we derive an estimate for the growth of the energy $$E_{constraints} = \int_\Omega (U,U)\, d^3 x,$$ where $(U,U)$ is defined in (\[Eq:CIP\]). Taking a time derivative and using equations (\[Eq:Ct\]-\[Eq:Elkij\]) we obtain, after integrations by parts, $$\frac{d}{dt}\, E_{constraints} = 2\int_{\partial\Omega} \left[
\frac{4-2\eta}{\eta}\, C C_n - C^i S_{ni} - C^i\tilde{A}_{ni} \right] d\sigma,$$ where $n^k$ is the unit outward normal to the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of the domain. Expressing the integrand in terms of characteristic variables defined in (\[Eq:DefCVCons\]), we obtain $$\frac{d}{dt}\, E _{constraints} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega}
\delta^{ij}\left( V_i^{(+)} V_j^{(+)} - V_i^{(-)} V_j^{(-)} \right) d\sigma = 0,$$ where the last equation follows from the conditions (\[Eq:bondy1\],\[Eq:bondy2\]) and (\[Eq:bondy4\],\[Eq:bondy5\]) in the Neumann and Dirichlet cases, respectively. Therefore, the initial-boundary value problem for the constraints is well-posed. In particular, this implies that zero initial data for the constraints implies that the constraints are zero at later times as well.
Face systems
------------
### Neumann conditions
In order to show well-posedness for each system defined on the $n$-face $\Gamma _n $ we consider the corresponding energy norm for the Neumann case, $$E _{(\Gamma _n,N)} = \int_{\Gamma _n} (B,B)\, d\sigma,$$ where $(B,B)$ is defined in (\[B,B\]). Taking a time derivative and using the above evolution equations we obtain $$\frac{d}{dt} E _{(\Gamma _n,N)} = \int_{\partial\Gamma _n} \left[
6\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\left( w_{+\sqrt{3/2}}^2 - w_{-\sqrt{3/2}}^2 \right)
+ 4\left( w_{+1}^2 - w_{-1}^2 \right) \right]\, ds
+ 4\int_{\Gamma _n } s^A\left( \partial_A d_{nn} - \partial^B\hat{d}_{AB} \right)\, d\sigma.
\label{Eq:estimate1}$$ We use the boundary conditions (\[boundary\_neumann1\],\[boundary\_neumann2\]), with $s_n^{(m)}=0$ and $\hat{d}_{np}^{(m)}=0$ for the moment, to get rid of the first term on the RHS of Eq. (\[Eq:estimate1\]). Using Schwarz’s inequality, the second term is estimated as follows: $$4\int_{\Gamma _n } s^A\left( \partial_A d_{nn} - \partial^B\hat{d}_{AB} \right)\, d\sigma
\leq 4\, f\, E _{(\Gamma _n,N)}^{1/2}\; ,$$ where $$f^2 = \int_{\Gamma _n} \left( \partial_A d_{nn} - \partial^B\hat{d}_{AB} \right)
\left( \partial^A d_{nn} - \partial_C\hat{d}^{AC} \right)\, d\sigma.$$ Therefore, we end up with the estimate $$E _{(\Gamma _n,N)}(t)^{1/2} \leq E _{(\Gamma _n,N)}(0)^{1/2} + 2\int_0^t f(s)\, ds
\label{Eq:estimate2}$$ and see that the energy is bounded and the bound is determined by the norm $f$ of the free data on the boundary.
The assumptions $s_n^{(m)}=0=\hat{d}_{np}^{(m)}$ can be easily relaxed with an argument similar to the one we presented in the paragraph following equation (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]). That is, one defines a new variable that incorporates the inhomogeneity in the energy generated by the term that appears in the case of a non-smooth boundary and obtains an energy estimate for the new variable, since the variable redefinition is finite and well defined. Well posedness follows immediately.
### Dirichlet conditions
The Dirichlet case is similar to the Neumann one. The energy is now given by $$E _{(\Gamma _n,D)} = \int_{\Gamma _n} (B,B)\, d\sigma,$$ with $(B,B)$ given by Eq. (\[energy\_dir\]). We obtain the estimate $$\frac{d}{dt} E_{(\Gamma _n, D)} \leq
\sqrt{8/3}\,\int_{\partial\Gamma _n} \left( w_{+\sqrt{3/2}}^2 -
w_{-\sqrt{3/2}}^2 \right) ds + 2\, \tilde{f} E^{1/2}_{(\Gamma _n,D)},
\label{Eq:estimate3}$$ where $$\tilde{f}^2 = \int_{\Gamma _n} \left( \partial_A s_{nn} - \partial^B\hat{s}_{AB} \right)
\left( \partial^A s_{nn} - \partial_C\hat{s}^{AC} \right)\, d\sigma,$$ and we can proceed as in the Neumann case, using in this case the boundary condition (\[boundary\_dirichlet\]).
Main system
-----------
Having obtained a bound for each closed system defined on a face we can obtain a bound for the main evolution variables by the standard techniques described in section II where we now have the boundary conditions (\[Eq:MaxDissCPBC\]) and (\[Eq:MaxDissCPBC\_dir\]) for the Neumann and Dirichlet cases, respectively, which are of the required form (\[Eq:MaxDiss\]).
Summary
=======
The well posed, constraint preserving boundary conditions presented in this paper can be summarized as follows.
Neumann case
------------
- Free data:
At each face (say, the $n$-one), the three quantities $d_{nn}$ and $\hat{d}_{AB}$ must be a priori defined (subject to standard compatibility conditions with the initial data). These quantities correspond to the normal (that is, in the $n$ direction) derivative of the normal and the transverse, traceless parts of the three metric, see Eq. (\[neumann\_data\]). One of these variables is gauge and the other two are physical, in the sense discussed in Section \[cpbc\]. In addition, the quantities $s_m^{(n)}=2K_{nm}$ should be prescribed at each edge defined by the intersection of faces $n$ and $m$. These quantities must satisfy the compatibility conditions $s_n^{(m)}=s_m^{(n)}$.
- Evolution systems on faces:
The $2D$ symmetric hyperbolic $7\times 7$ system (\[neumann1\],\[neumann2\],\[neumann3\]) is evolved on each face. This system needs boundary conditions at the edges of the corresponding face. They are given by equations (\[boundary\_neumann1\], \[boundary\_neumann2\]).
The solution to each of these systems provides the three quantities $d^{(n)}_{BB}$ and $s^{(n)}_{nA}$ at each of the six $n$-faces.
- Main evolution system:
The main system (\[kdot\],\[ddot\]) is evolved in the $3D$ domain. This system needs boundary conditions, at each face, for the six incoming characteristic modes. These boundary conditions at, say face $n$, are given by Eq. (\[Eq:MaxDissCPBC\]), where the needed information for three of these boundary conditions is provided by the a priori specified $d_{nn}$ and $\hat{d}_{AB}$, while the other three are given by $d^{(n)}_{BB}$ and $s^{(n)}_{nA}$.
Dirichlet case
--------------
- Free data:
At each face (say, the $n$ one), now the three quantities $s_{nn}$ and $\hat{s}_{AB}$ must be a priori given. They correspond to the time derivative of the normal and transversal, traceless part of the three metric, see Eq. (\[dirichlet\_cond\]). These three quantities have to satisfy the standard compatibility conditions with the initial data, but also some compatibility conditions at edges, Eqs. (\[compatibility\_dir1\],\[compatibility\_dir2\]). They are also gauge and physical variables, in the sense discussed in Section \[cpbc\].
- Evolution systems on faces:
The $2D$ symmetric hyperbolic $5\times 5$ system (\[dir1\],\[dir2\],\[dir3\]) is evolved on each face. This system needs boundary conditions at each edge. They are given by Eq. (\[boundary\_dirichlet\]).
The solution to each of these systems provides the three quantities $s^{(n)}_{BB}$ and $d^{(n)}_{An}$ at each of the six $n$-faces.
- Main evolution system:
The main system (\[kdot\],\[ddot\]) is evolved in the $3D$ domain. This system needs boundary conditions, at each face, for the six incoming characteristic modes. These boundary conditions are given by (\[Eq:MaxDissCPBC\_dir\]), where the needed information in three of these boundary conditions is provided by the a priori specified $s_{nn}$ and $\hat{s}_{AB}$, while the other three are given by $s^{(n)}_{BB}$ and $d^{(n)}_{An}$.
Conclusions:
============
We have studied the system of evolution equations for the constraints for a subfamily of the generalized Einstein-Christoffel symmetric hyperbolic system. We have shown how to give boundary data for the constraints in such a way that it translates into boundary data for the main system that yields a well posed problem, both for the main system and the system of evolution equations for the constraints. We have studied the case of a boundary that is not smooth, as is the case of the usual cubic boxes used in numerical relativity. This required additional care at the boundaries of each face, with the ensuing compatibility conditions. It should be noted that the energy estimates derived do not necessarily guarantee the existence of a smooth solution in the presence of corners even with the compatibility conditions we presented. Further work is needed to establish smoothness of the solution.
Our analysis was carried out for the case of linearized gravity around Minkowski space-time. It is expected that similar techniques will be useful in the case of other background space-times and also in the non-linear case. We will discuss these generalizations in future papers. Also, since we have followed a systematic approach and have not taken any advantage of the gauge choice, in principle it should be possible to apply the same procedure to symmetric hyperbolic formulations with live gauges [@st].
We have also found that, at least with the formulation of Einstein’s equations here used (the generalized EC), the Neumann and Dirichlet cases are in fact the [*only*]{} ones for which well posedness can be established through the techniques used in this paper (see the appendix). More specifically, we have found that these two cases are the only ones in which closed systems at the faces can be obtained. However, this does not mean that these are the only well posed cases, since in the initial-boundary value problem an energy estimate is a sufficient but not necessary condition for well posedness. Also, giving the appropriate $(d_{nn},\hat{d^{(n)}}_{AB},s_{nm})$ data in the Neumann case, or the appropriate $(s_{nn},\hat{s}_{AB})$ in the Dirichlet case, one should be able to recover any spacetime in any slicing. This is because our constraint-preserving treatment makes sure that one is solving not only Einstein’s evolution equations but also the constraints. But it does not make any restriction on the space of solutions to the Einstein equations. However, it is not clear how to choose these “appropriate” boundary conditions, without any a priori knowledge of the solutions, in order to model an isolated source, given that the boundaries are at a finite distance. This same problem appears in similar approaches [@szilagyi1; @szilagyi2]. One possible solution is to provide these functions through Cauchy-characteristic [@c_match; @szilagyi2] or Cauchy-perturbative matching [@p_match], or to resort arguments using the peeling property. Another possibility would be to impose a “no incoming radiation” condition. However, it is not clear how to do this within formulations that have as extra variables first but not second spatial derivatives of the three metric. This might be remedied by repeating this construction for other systems of evolution equations where the variables that represent gravitational radiation at the boundary play a more central role, as in [@fn]. For instance, a system of evolution equations of higher order where the Weyl tensor is the fundamental variable, would be suitable for this purpose.
With the results of this paper one can now assure that both the evolution equation for the main variables of the problem and the evolution equations for the constraints are well posed on a manifold with (non smooth) boundary. This allows to evolve initial data that satisfy the constraints beyond their domain of dependence, as is of interest in numerical simulations of the binary black hole problem. Moreover, well posedness opens the possibility of constructing numerical schemes for which numerical stability can be rigorously proved.
Acknowledgments
===============
We wish to thank Gabriel Nagy for useful discussions and Alan Rendall for reading the manuscript. This work was supported in part by grants NSF-PHY-9800973, NSF-INT-0204937, the Swiss National Science Foundation, by Fundación Antorchas and the Horace C. Hearne Jr. Institute of Theoretical Physics.
Closing the boundary system
===========================
In Section \[cpbcs\] we showed how to construct a closed system at the boundary by taking appropriate linear combinations of characteristic variables. We also chose a particular combination of ingoing and outgoing constraints and showed that it gives rise to a system of partial differential equations that lives on the boundary. To close this system we had to include the evolution of some zero speed modes. A question that arises is whether there other ways of closing the boundary system, apart from the Neumann (\[neumann1\]-\[neumann3\]) and the Dirichlet (\[dir1\]-\[dir3\]) case.
To answer this question we will make no assumptions on the coupling matrices $R$ and $L$. The boundary condition for the system of the constraints is assumed to be $$V^{(+)}_i = L_i{}^j V^{(-)}_j\,, \label{coupling_constr}$$ where $L_i{}^j$ is a $3\times 3$ coupling matrix and $V_i^{(\pm)}$ is given in (\[Eq:Vn\]) and (\[Eq:VA\]). At the boundary data must be given to the ingoing modes. We will assume that they satisfy $$v^{(+)}_{ij} = R_{ij}{}^{kl} v^{(-)}_{kl} + b_{ij}\,, \label{coupling_vars}$$ where $ R_{ij}{}^{kl}$ is a $6 \times 6$ coupling matrix and $b_{ij}$ is the boundary data. If we insert (\[coupling\_vars\]) into (\[coupling\_constr\]) we obtain a system which contains derivatives of the boundary data $b_{ij}$, of the outgoing modes $v^{(-)}_{ij}$, and of the zero speed modes $v^{(0)}_{Tij}$. This system can be solved for the time derivatives of three of the $b_{ij}$, namely $b_{BB}$ and $b_{nA}$. To the remaing $b_{ij}$ one can give arbitrary data and consider them as source terms. In order to close the system the coefficients that multiply terms containing outgoing modes $v^{(-)}_{ij}$ must vanish. After imposing this condition the coupling matrices $R$ and $L$, which in general depend on $45$ parameters, depend on one parameter only (apart from $\eta$). The zero speed modes that appear in the rhs of this system cannot be eliminated by any choice of this parameter. Therefore in order to close the system one has to enlarge it by including the evolution of at least the zero speed modes that appear in the rhs. The requirement that the evolution of these zero speed modes do not contain any spatial derivatives of outgoing modes, forces the couplings $R$ and $L$ to be the ones the we used in subsections (\[neumann\_bc\]) and (\[dirichlet\_bc\]).
Summarizing, the Neumann and the Dirichlet cases are the only ways that one can obtain a closed system at the boundary. Furthermore, as we have shown in this paper, the boundary system is symmetric hyperbolic and the coupling matrices $R$ and $L$ are “not too large”. Any other choice of coupling matrices would lead to a system for which the techniques used in this paper to prove well-posedness cannot be applied.
[10]{} P. D. Lax, R. S. Phillips, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. [**13**]{}, 427 (1960).
G. Calabrese, J. Pullin, O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 041501 (2002)
H. Friedrich and G. Nagy, Comm. Math. Phys. [**201**]{}, 619 (1999).
J. M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{}, 2865 (1998).
M. S. Iriondo and O.A. Reula, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044024 (2002).
B.Szilagyi, B. Schmidt, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 064015 (2002).
J. M. Bardeen and L. T. Buchman, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 064037 (2002).
G. Calabrese, L. Lehner, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 104031 (2002).
B. Szilagyi and J. Winicour, [*“Well-Posed Initial-Boundary Evolution in General Relativity,”*]{} arXiv:gr-qc/0205044.
L.E. Kidder, M.A. Scheel, and S.A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 064017 (2001).
A. Anderson and J.W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4384 (1999).
H.O. Kreiss, J. Lorenz, [*“Initial-Boundary Value Problems and the Navier-Stokes Equations,”*]{} Academic Press, (1989).
P. Secchi, Diff. Int. Eq. [**9**]{}, 671 (1996); Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. [**134**]{}, 595 (1996).
J. Rauch, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. [**291**]{}, 167 (1985).
L. Lindblom, M. Scheel, [*“Energy Norms and the Stability of the Einstein Evolution Equations,”*]{} arXiv:gr-qc/0206035
O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, [*“Exploiting gauge and constraint freedom in hyperbolic formulations of Einstein’s equations,* ]{} to appear in Phys. Rev. [**D**]{}, arXiv:gr-qc/0205086.
J. Winicour, [*Characteristic evolution and matching*]{}, Living Reviews in Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/0102085.
L. Rezzolla [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 064001 (1999); M. E. Rupright [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 044005 (1998); A. Abrahams [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1812 (1998).
[^1]: In the sense that precisely $(u,R^TH R u) \leq (u,H u)$ $\forall u$.
[^2]: This system corresponds to System 3 of [@kst] with their parameter $\hat{z}$ set to zero.
[^3]: Note that this difficulty does not arise in $1+1$ dimensions since then there are no transverse derivatives. In that case one can simply set the ingoing constraint violating variables $v_{BB}^{(+)}$ and $v_{nA}^{(+)}$ to zero.
[^4]: Notice that $d$ is used for this quantity as well as for $d_{kij}=\partial _k
g_{ij}$, equation (\[Eq:dkij\]). There does not seem to be risk of confusion since both objects have different number of indexes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use our lattice QCD computation of the $B_c\rightarrow J/\psi$ form factors to determine the differential decay rate for the semitauonic decay channel and construct the ratio of branching fractions $R(J/\psi) = \mathcal{B}(B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \tau^-\overline{\nu}_\tau)/\mathcal{B}(B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \mu^-\overline{\nu}_\mu)$. We find $R(J/\psi) = {0.2601(36)}$ and give an error budget. We also extend the relevant angular observables, which were recently suggested for the study of lepton flavor universality violating effects in $B\rightarrow D^*\ell\nu$, to $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi\ell\nu$ and make predictions for their values under different new physics scenarios.'
author:
- Judd
- 'Christine T. H. '
- Andrew
bibliography:
- 'BcJpsi.bib'
title: '$R(J/\psi)$ and $B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \ell^-\overline{\nu}_\ell$ Lepton Flavor Universality Violating Observables from Lattice QCD'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
$B$-meson exclusive semileptonic decay processes are powerful tests of the Standard model (SM) in cases where both experimental and theoerical uncertainties can be brought under control. They allow the determination of elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and tests of its unitarity but are also more detailed probes for new physics scenarios. An exciting possibility is that of non-universality of the couplings of charged leptons in electroweak interactions, hinted at in measurements of the ratio, $\mathcal{R}$, of the branching fraction to $\tau$ in the final state to that of $\mu/e$ for $B \rightarrow D^{(*)}$ [@PhysRevLett.109.101802; @PhysRevD.88.072012; @Huschle:2015rga; @Sato:2016svk; @Hirose:2016wfn; @Hirose:2017dxl; @Aaij:2015yra; @Aaij:2017uff; @Aaij:2017deq; @Abdesselam:2019dgh]. The combination of experimental results for $\mathcal{R}(D)$ and $\mathcal{R}(D^*)$ is in tension with the SM at 3.1$\sigma$ [@HFLAV; @Amhis:2019ckw]. This includes a recent result from Belle [@Abdesselam:2019dgh] using semileptonic tagging which by itself agrees with the SM within 1.6$\sigma$. Most of the pull comes from $\mathcal{R}(D^*)$ for which the SM results being used [@Bernlochner:2017jka; @Bigi:2017jbd; @Jaiswal:2017rve] rely on arguments from sum rules and heavy quark effective theory because lattice QCD results, which provide the best [*ab initio*]{} determination of the form factors, are as yet only available for the $A_1$ form factor at zero recoil [@Bailey:2014tva; @Harrison:2017fmw]. Extending the lattice QCD calculation to cover more of the $q^2$ range is underway [@Vaquero:2019ary; @Lytle:2020tbe].
This motivates a study of $\mathcal{R}$ for other $b \rightarrow c$ semileptonic decay modes and LHCb recently gave first results for $\mathcal{R}(J/\psi)$ from $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ decay [@PhysRevLett.120.121801]. They found $R(J/\psi)=0.71\pm0.17_\text{stat}\pm0.18_\text{sys}$ and compared to SM results from a variety of model calculations. Since it is difficult to quantify uncertainties from individual models, the spread of results between models must be taken as a measure of this. LHCb quote a range of SM values from 0.25 and 0.28 from [@Anisimov:1998uk; @Kiselev:2002vz; @Ivanov:2006ni; @Hernandez:2006gt], giving a 10% spread. Since this is the same level as the discrepancy seen in $\mathcal{R}(D^*)$ currently, it is unlikely that this accuracy would be good enough to distinguish experiment (given improved uncertainties there) and the SM. In addition the dominant systematic error for the experiment comes from the uncertainty in input form factors for $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ from these models.
In [@longpaper] we have given results for the $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ form factors from lattice QCD for the first time. We work on gluon field configurations that include $u$, $d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks in the sea and use a discretisation of the Dirac equation which was developed by the HPQCD collaboration to have particularly small discretisation errors [@PhysRevD.75.054502]. This makes it suitable for handling heavy $b$ and $c$ quarks where discretisation errors are relatively large. It also enables us to use a relativistic formalism in which the quark currents that couple to the $W$ boson can be normalised in a fully nonperturbative way. We use HPQCD’s ‘heavy-HISQ’ technique which has been successful in determining the decay constants of heavy-light mesons [@Davies:2010ip; @McNeile:2011ng; @McNeile:2012qf; @Bazavov:2017lyh] and is now being applied to $B$ semileptonic form factors [@EuanBsDsstar; @EuanBsDs] where it enables the full $q^2$ range of the decay to be covered. Further details can be found in [@longpaper] where we give the form factors and derive the total rate and branching fraction for the decay with $\mu\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$ in the final state. Here we focus on the $\tau \overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ mode and determine $\mathcal{R}(J/\psi)$ in the SM with quantified uncertainties. We also give values for asymmetries which show sensitivity to new physics.
![\[angles\]Conventions for the angular variables entering the differential decay rate.](bcjpsi-angles)
Theoretical Background {#sec:theory}
======================
$i$ $\mathcal{H}_i$ $k_i(\theta_W,\theta_{J/\psi},\chi)$
----- --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 $|H_+(q^2)|^2$ $\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos(\theta_W))^2(1+\cos^2(\theta_{J/\psi}))$
2 $|H_-(q^2)|^2$ $\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos(\theta_W))^2(1+\cos^2(\theta_{J/\psi}))$
3 $|H_0|^2$ $2\sin^2(\theta_W)\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})$
4 $\mathrm{Re}(H_+H_0^*)$ $\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)(1-\cos(\theta_W))$
5 $\mathrm{Re}(H_-H_0^*)$ $-\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)(1+\cos(\theta_W))$
6 $\mathrm{Re}(H_+H_-^*)$ $\sin^2(\theta_W)\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(2\chi)$
7 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}|H_+(q^2)|^2$ $\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos^2(\theta_W))(1+\cos^2(\theta_{J/\psi}))$
8 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}|H_-(q^2)|^2$ $\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos^2(\theta_W))(1+\cos^2(\theta_{J/\psi}))$
9 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}|H_0|^2$ $2\cos^2(\theta_W)\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})$
10 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}|H_t(q^2)|^2$ $2\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})$
11 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_+H_0^*)$ $\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)\cos(\theta_W)$
12 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_-H_0^*)$ $\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)\cos(\theta_W)$
13 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_+H_-^*)$ $-\sin^2(\theta_W)\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(2\chi)$
14 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_tH_0^*)$ $-4\sin^2(\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\theta_W)$
15 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_+H_t^*)$ $-\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)$
16 $\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\mathrm{Re}(H_-H_t^*)$ $-\sin(\theta_W)\sin(2\theta_{J/\psi})\cos(\chi)$
: The helicity amplitude combinations and coefficients for them that appear in the differential rate, Eq. (\[eq:diffrate\]).\[tab:diffterms\]
We give below the full differential rate [@Cohen:2018vhw] for $B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \ell^- \overline{\nu}$, where $\ell$ is a lepton with mass $m_\ell$, with respect to squared 4-momentum transfer, $q^2$, and angles defined in Figure \[angles\]. We assume that the $J/\psi$ is identified through its (purely electromagnetic) decay to $\mu^+\mu^-$, defining the angle $\theta_{J/\psi}$, and we sum over the $\mu^+\mu^-$ helicities. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diffrate}
\frac{d^4\Gamma(B_c^-\rightarrow J/\psi(\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)\ell^-\overline{\nu})}{d\cos(\theta_{J/\psi})d\cos(\theta_{W})d\chi dq^2}&=\nonumber\\
\mathcal{B}(J/\psi\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)\mathcal{N}\sum_ik_i&(\theta_W,\theta_{J/\psi},\chi)\mathcal{H}_i(q^2) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{N}=\frac{G_F^2}{(4\pi)^4}|\eta_{EW}|^2|V_{cb}|^2\frac{ 3(q^2-m_\ell^2)^2|\vec{p^\prime}| }{8M_{B_c}^2 q^2}$$ Here $|\vec{p'}|$ is the magnitude of the $J/\psi$ spatial momentum in the $B_c$ rest frame and $\eta_\mathrm{EW}$ is the same structure-independent electroweak correction as in [@longpaper], 1.0062(16) [@Sirlin:1981ie]. The $k_i$ and $\mathcal{H}_i$ are given in Table \[tab:diffterms\]. We include in the expressions terms with factors of $m_\ell^2/q^2$ that were dropped in [@longpaper]. These are significant for the case when $\ell=\tau$ and include the helicity amplitude $H_t$ which does not otherwise appear. Integrating over angles, the differential rate in $q^2$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2} = \mathcal{N}\times\frac{64\pi}{9}\Big[\left({H_-}^2+{H_0}^2+{H_+}^2\right) \nonumber\\
+&\frac{{m_\ell^2}}{2q^2}{ \left({H_-}^2+{H_0}^2+{H_+}^2+3 {H_t}^2\right)}\Big],\end{aligned}$$
The helicity amplitudes are defined in terms of standard Lorentz-invariant form factors [@RevModPhys.67.893] as $$\begin{aligned}
H_\pm(q^2) =& (M_{B_c}+M_{J/\psi})A_1(q^2) \mp \frac{2M_{B_c}|\vec{p'}|}{M_{B_c}+M_{J/\psi}}V(q^2),\nonumber\\
H_0(q^2) =& \frac{1}{2M_{J/\psi} \sqrt{q^2}} \Big(-4\frac{M_{B_c}^2{|\vec{p'}|}^2}{M_{B_c}+M_{J/\psi}}A_2(q^2)\nonumber\\
& + (M_{B_c}+M_{J/\psi})(M_{B_c}^2 - M_{J/\psi}^2 - q^2)A_1(q^2) \Big),\nonumber\\
H_t(q^2) =& \frac{2M_{B_c}|\vec{p'}|}{\sqrt{q^2}}A_0(q^2).\label{helicityamplitudes}\end{aligned}$$
![\[helicityamplitudesplot\] Helicity amplitudes (Eq. (\[helicityamplitudes\])) plotted as a function of $q^2$.](H_x)
$\Gamma$ and $R(J/\psi)$ {#sec:helicityamplitudes}
========================
The form factors were computed across the full physical $q^2$ range in [@longpaper] using Lattice QCD. They are given in terms of a polynomial in $z$, with coefficients $a^F_n$, and a pole term corresponding to $B_c$ states with the quantum numbers of each current: $$F(q^2) = \frac{1}{P(q^2)}\sum_{n=0}^3 a^F_n z(t_+,t_-,q^2)^n$$ for $F=A_0,A_1,A_2,V$ and where $$z(t_+,t_0,q^2) = \frac{\sqrt{t_+-q^2} - \sqrt{t_+-t_0}}{\sqrt{t_+-q^2} + \sqrt{t_+-t_0}}.$$ $t_-$ is the maximum value of $q^2$, $t_- = (M_{B_c}- M_{J/\psi})^2$, $t_+$ is the pair production threshold, $t_+ = (M_{B} + M_{D^*})^2$ and $P(q^2) = \prod_{M_\text{pole}} z(t_+,M_\mathrm{pole},q^2)$. The meson and subthreshold resonance masses, $M_\text{pole}$, that need to be used in reconstructing the form factors are given in [@longpaper]. We assemble the helicity amplitudes using Eq. (\[helicityamplitudes\]); these are plotted as a function of $q^2$ in Figure \[helicityamplitudesplot\] (Figure 10 of [@longpaper]). Differential and total decay rates are then calculated. Where an integration over $q^2$ is necessary we use a simple trapezoidal interpolation in order to ensure covariances are carried through correctly, taking sufficiently many points that the results are insensitive to the addition of any further points.
![\[dgammadqsq\] $d\Gamma/dq^2$ in the SM for the $\ell=\mu$ and $\ell=\tau$ cases, normalised to the total rate for $\ell=\mu$, $\Gamma_{\mu}$.](dgammadqsq)
The differential rate $d\Gamma/dq^2$ is plotted in Figure \[dgammadqsq\], comparing SM rates for $l=\mu$ and $l=\tau$. We also compute the total decay rates, and from these $R(J/\psi) = \mathcal{B}(B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \tau^-\overline{\nu}_\tau)/\mathcal{B}(B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \mu^-\overline{\nu}_\mu)$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(B^-_c\rightarrow J/\psi \mu^-\overline{\nu}_\mu)/|\eta_\mathrm{EW}V_{cb}|^2 &= {1.74(12)\times 10^{13} \,s^{-1}}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{-3.0em}={11.45(79)\times 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{GeV}}\nonumber\\
\Gamma(B^-_c\rightarrow J/\psi \tau^-\overline{\nu}_\tau)/|\eta_\mathrm{EW}V_{cb}|^2 &= {4.54(29)\times 10^{12} \,s^{-1}}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{-3.0em}={2.99(19)\times 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{GeV}},\end{aligned}$$ and their ratio $$\label{RJPSISM}
R(J/\psi) = {0.2601(36)}.$$ The error budget for these results is given in Table \[errbudget\]. The largest contributions for both $\Gamma(\ell=\tau)$ and $\Gamma(\ell=\mu)$ are the discretisation effects from the heavy quark mass, the statistical uncertainty in the lattice data and the quark mass mistunings effects. These errors and their potential improvement are discussed in [@longpaper]. There is significant cancellation of these correlated errors in $\mathcal{R}$, resulting in a factor of $\approx 5$ reduction in uncertainty compared to $\Gamma$, and leaving the dominant error that from lattice statistics. The value for $R(J/\psi)$ is very close to that expected in the SM for $R(D^*)$ [@Amhis:2019ckw]. $R(J/\psi)$ is given here as the ratio of the rates to $\tau$ and $\mu$; we showed in [@longpaper] that the decay rates to $\mu$ and $e$ differ by 0.4%.
$\Gamma/|\eta_\mathrm{EW}V_{cb}|^2$
------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Source $\ell=\mu$ $\ell=\tau$ $R(J/\psi)$
$m_{_h}$ dependence 2.4 2.2 0.6
continuum limit 3.9 3.6 0.8
sea-quark mass effects 3.5 3.3 0.3
lattice spacing determination 1.2 1.2 0.1
Statistics 3.5 3.1 1.0
Other 1.4 1.3 0.0
Total(%) 6.9 6.4 1.4
: Error budget for $\Gamma$ for the cases $\ell=\tau$ and $\ell=\mu$ and their ratio, $\mathcal{R}(J/\psi)$. Errors are given as a percentage of the final answer. See [@longpaper] for more details.\[errbudget\]
$R^{NP}(J/\psi)$, Angular Observables and tests of Lepton Flavor Universality {#angobslfu}
=============================================================================
The effects of new physics (NP) may be considered through the inclusion of complex-valued NP couplings, $g_i$, $i\in{S,P,V,A,T,T5}$, in the effective Hamiltonian describing $b\rightarrow c\ell\nu$ decays [@Bifani:2018zmi]. Ref. [@Becirevic:2019tpx] takes new physics to appear in the $\ell=\tau$ channel only and fits the $g_i$ individually against the experimental average values of $R(D)$ and $R(D^*)$. Angular observables sensitive to the different NP scenarios are then constructed. Here we use the values of $g$ for left-handed and right-handed vector couplings given in [@Becirevic:2019tpx], which we reproduce here in Eq. (\[NPRJPSI\]), and examine their impact on $R(J/\psi)$ and the angular observables for $B_c\rightarrow J/\psi$.
  
In Figure \[Aplot\] (left-hand plot) we see that the semitauonic differential rate increases very markedly for the best fit value of $g_{V_L}$ or $g_{V_R}$ inferred from $R(D^{(*)})$ [@Becirevic:2019tpx]. This results in a corresponding 10$\sigma$ increase of $R(J/\psi)$, to give the values below. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NPRJPSI}
g_{V_R} &=& -0.01 - i\,0.39;\,\,\,\,\, R^{g_{V_R}}(J/\psi)&=0.3045(42),\\
g_{V_L} &=& 0.07 - i\,0.16;\,\,\,\,\, R^{g_{V_L}}(J/\psi)&=0.3045(42), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These increased values of $R(J/\psi)$ are then in agreement with the current experimental average value of $R(D^*)$ that $g_{V_L}$ and $g_{V_R}$ were designed to reproduce.
We also compute the angular observables defined in [@Becirevic:2019tpx] which are relevant for $B_c^-\rightarrow J/\psi\ell^-\bar{\nu}_\ell$. These are the forward-backward asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_{FB}$ for the lepton $\ell$ (note that the forward direction is that of the $J/\psi$ in Figure \[angles\]), the lepton polarisation asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_{\lambda_\ell}$ and the longitudinal polarisation fraction for the $J/\psi$, $F_{L}^{J/\psi}$. Writing $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dq^2d\cos(\theta_W)} =& a_{\theta_W}(q^2)+b_{\theta_W}(q^2) \cos(\theta_W) \nonumber\\
&+c_{\theta_W}(q^2)\cos^2(\theta_W)\end{aligned}$$ the observables are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:obs}
\mathcal{A}_{FB}(q^2) =& -\frac{b_{\theta_W}(q^2)}{d\Gamma/dq^2},\nonumber\\
\mathcal{A}_{\lambda_\ell}(q^2) =& \frac{d\Gamma^{\lambda_\ell=-1/2}/dq^2-d\Gamma^{\lambda_\ell=+1/2}/dq^2}{d\Gamma/dq^2},\nonumber\\
F_{L}^{J/\psi}(q^2) =& \frac{d\Gamma^{\lambda_{J/\psi}=0}/dq^2}{d\Gamma/dq^2}.\end{aligned}$$ $A_{FB}$ and $A_{\lambda_{\tau}}$ are plotted as a function of $q^2$ in Figure \[Aplot\], showing both the behaviour in the SM and the impact of the possible NP couplings $g_{V_R}$ and $g_{V_L}$. Note the very different shape of the SM curves for $A_{FB}$ and $A_{\lambda_{\tau}}$ in the SM compared to those for $\ell=e$ or $\mu$ given in [@longpaper]. The helicity -1 virtual $W$ will throw a helicity -1/2 lepton predominantly in the $W$ direction (i.e. backwards) but the mass of the $\tau$ changes the lepton helicity mixture. $g_{V_R}$ accentuates this effect by boosting the contribution of $|H_+|^2$ but without changing the $\tau$ helicity mixture.
For an observable $O_i^\ell(q^2)=N_i^\ell(q^2)/D_i^\ell(q^2)$, the integrated quantities are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int}
\langle O_i^\ell \rangle = \int_{m_\ell^2}^{q^2_\text{max}} N_i^\ell(q^2) dq^2 \Big/\int_{m_\ell^2}^{q^2_\text{max}} D_i^\ell(q^2) dq^2.\end{aligned}$$ We give results for $\langle \mathcal{A}_{\lambda_\tau}\rangle $, $\langle \mathcal{A}_{FB}\rangle$ and $\langle F_{L}^{J/\psi}\rangle$ in Table \[intangvar\] for $B_c^- \rightarrow J/\psi \tau^- \overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ in the SM and for the NP couplings $g_{V_R}$ and $g_{V_L}$ from Eq. (\[NPRJPSI\]). Our SM results agree within 2$\sigma$ with those from a covariant light-front quark model that included information from our preliminary lattice QCD results [@Huang:2018nnq].
SM $g_{V_R}$ $g_{V_L}$
---------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------
$\langle \mathcal{A}_{FB}\rangle$ -0.064(12) -0.0153(92) -0.064(12)
$\langle \mathcal{A}_{\lambda_\tau}\rangle $ 0.5296(59) 0.5295(59) 0.5296(59)
$\langle F_{L}^{J/\psi}\rangle $ 0.4337(82) 0.4343(82) 0.4337(82)
: \[intangvar\]Integrated angular observables for $B_c^-\rightarrow J/\psi \tau^- \overline{\nu}_{\tau}$ in the SM and for possible NP left-handed and right-handed vector couplings from Eq. (\[NPRJPSI\]).
SM $g_{V_R}$ $g_{V_L}$
--------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
$R(\mathcal{A}_{FB})$ 0.281(35) 0.067(36) 0.281(35)
$R(\mathcal{A}_{\lambda_\ell})$ 0.5325(58) 0.5324(58) 0.5325(58)
$R(F_{L}^{J/\psi})$ 0.891(10) 0.892(10) 0.891(10)
: \[lfuvtab\] LFUV variables for $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ defined in Eqs (\[eq:obs\]), (\[eq:int\]) and (\[eq:rat\]) [@Becirevic:2019tpx]. The second column gives results in the SM and then the further two columns give results for NP couplings, in the $\tau$ channel only, of $g_{V_R}$ and $g_{V_L}$ (Eq. (\[NPRJPSI\])).
We also construct the lepton flavor universality violating (LFUV) ratios $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rat}
R(O_i) = \frac{\langle O_i^\tau \rangle}{\frac{1}{2}(\langle O_i^\mu \rangle+ \langle O_i^e \rangle)}.\end{aligned}$$ These are given in Table \[lfuvtab\] where we see that $R(\mathcal{A}_{FB})$ can distinguish between a NP right-handed vector coupling, and a left-handed one. None of the other LFUV ratios change significantly from their SM values under the addition of either $g_{V_R}$ or $g_{V_L}$. This is consistent with what was seen for $B\rightarrow D^{*}\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell$ in [@Becirevic:2019tpx].
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We give the first computation in lattice QCD of the branching fraction ratio $R(J/\psi)$ that tests for lepton flavour universality in $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ semileptonic decay. Our value in the SM is $R(J/\psi) = {0.2601(36)}$, with error budget in Table \[errbudget\]. The $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ form factors that we have calculated [@longpaper] to do this should enable the dominant systematic error in the experimental determination of $R(J/\psi)$ to be reduced, allowing progress towards an accurate test of the SM.
We illustrate how NP might show up in $B_c \rightarrow J/\psi$ decay with predictions for a variety of angular observables and $\tau$ to $e/\mu$ ratios both in the SM and with additional NP couplings consistent with the current average of experimental measurements of $B\rightarrow D^{(*)}$ decay.
**[Acknowledgements]{}** {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
------------------------
We are grateful to the MILC collaboration for the use of their configurations and code. We thank C. Bouchard, B. Colquhoun, J. Koponen, P. Lepage, E. McLean and C. McNeile for useful discussions. Computing was done on the Cambridge service for Data Driven Discovery (CSD3), part of which is operated by the University of Cambridge Research Computing on behalf of the DIRAC HPC Facility of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The DIRAC component of CSD3 was funded by BEIS capital funding via STFC capital grants ST/P002307/1 and ST/R002452/1 and STFC operations grant ST/R00689X/1. DiRAC is part of the national e-infrastructure. We are grateful to the CSD3 support staff for assistance. Funding for this work came from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council grants ST/L000466/1 and ST/P000746/1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[ Yunus Sarikaya and Ozgur Ercetin]{}[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'd2dcom.bib'
- 'macros\_abbrev.bib'
- 'macros.bib'
title: '[ Self-sufficient Receiver with Wireless Energy Transfer in a Multi-access Network]{}'
---
[^1]: Y. Sarikaya ([email protected]) is with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia
[^2]: O. Ercetin ([email protected]) is with the Department of Electronics Engineering, Sabanci University, Turkey.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The frequency-dependent shot noise in long and narrow mesoscopic diffusive contacts is numerically calculated. The case of arbitrarily strong electron-electron scattering and zero temperature of electrodes is considered. For all voltages, the noise increases with frequency and tends to finite values. These limiting values are larger than the Poissonian noise and increase with voltage nearly as $V^{4/3}$. This allows one to experimentally determine the parameters of electron-electron interaction.'
address: 'Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Mokhovaya ulica 11, 103907 Moscow, Russia [^1] '
author:
- 'K. E. Nagaev'
title: ' Frequency-Dependent Shot Noise as a Probe of Electron-Electron Interaction in Mesoscopic Diffusive Contacts '
---
[2]{}
Basically, electron-electron scattering appears in two different forms. First, this is the decay of quasiparticle states (phase-breaking) and second, this is relaxation of nonequlibrium distribution function of electrons. In last two decades, the equilibrium phase-breaking processes were extensively investigated in relation with weak-localization corrections to conductivity [@AA85] and universal conductance fluctuations.[@AKh85; @Lee87] In particular, it was found [@AA85] that in dirty metals the disorder strongly enhances electron-electron (e-e) interactions at low temperatures, which even makes questionable the validity of Landau concept of quasiparticles [@Abrikosov] in low-dimensional systems (for a recent review of e-e scattering in mesoscopic systems see paper by Blanter [@Blanter]). Generally, the theoretical results are in a reasonable agreement with the experimental data, and this allows determining the phase-breaking time from weak-localization experiments [@Gershenson].
By far less is known about the kinetics of electron systems in the presence of e-e scattering, which results in relaxation of nonequilibrium distribution of electrons to the Fermian one. While conserving the total energy of electron system, it smooths down the peculiarities of distribution function of electrons. For example, it affects the shape of electron distribution function in a wire placed between two different reservoir electrodes with a finite voltage drop between them. Recently, Pothier [*et al.*]{} [@Pothier] performed direct measurements of electron distribution function using tunnel superconducting probes and determined the parameters of e-e interaction from their data. However their results appeared to be inconsistent with any of existing theories of e-e scattering.
Although the shape of electron distribution function does not affect the conductivity of metals (except for small quantum corrections), it is crucial in the semiclassical theory of nonequilibrium noise in solids.[@book] In particular, it enters into the semiclassical expression for the shot noise in diffusive mesoscopic contacts.[@Nag92] Hence this noise may be used for determining the parameters of e-e scattering.
The effects of strong electron-electron scattering on the zero-frequency shot noise were studied within the electron effective temperature approximation [@Nag95; @Kozub95] and were shown to increase the ratio $S_I/2eI$ from $1/3$ to $\sqrt{3}/4$. Though this increase was experimentally observed by Steinbach [*et al.*]{},[@Steinbach] it is difficult to quantitatively estimate the parameters of e-e scattering from it. The reason is that the zero-frequency noise is determined by the shape of distribution function near the middle of the contact, which becomes Fermian at relatively weak e-e scattering and does not change with its further increase.
The situation is different for the finite-frequency noise in long and narrow contacts with strong external screening, i. e., with a close ground plane [@Y97] or coaxial grounded shielding.[@Nag98] It was shown that for noninteracting electrons, the high-frequency shot noise tends to $eI$ if pile-up of charge in the contact is forbidden [@Y97] and to $2eI$ if it is allowed.[@Nag98] More recently, Naveh [*et al.*]{}[@Y98] obtained that for strong e-e scattering and zero temperature of electrodes, the noise infinitely grows with frequency while remaining linear in current. Below we show that this is not the case: instead of diverging, the actual high-frequency noise tends to a finite value nonlinearly depending on voltage. We also propose a method for quantitative determination of the parameters of e-e scattering from measurements of zero-temperature high-frequency shot noise.
In what follows we use the coaxial model,[@Nag98] although all the results also apply to the ground-plane one. Assume that the contact of length $L$ is a cylinder of circular section with a diameter $2r_0 \ll L$ consisting of a dirty metal with conductivity $\sigma$ (see Fig. \[temperature\], the inset) and connects two massive electrodes. The contact is screened from the ambient space by the third perfectly conducting coaxial grounded electrode, which is separated from its surface by a thin insulating film of thickness $\delta_0$ and the dielectric constant $\varepsilon_d$. The external circuit is assumed to have a large grounding capacity, which lifts the condition of zero net charge of the contact at finite frequencies.
The spectral density of current noise, e.g., at the left edge of the contact is given by the formula [@Nag98]
$$S_I( \omega )
=
\frac{ 4 }{ RL }
\int\limits_0^L dx\,
K( x, \omega ) T_N( x ),
\label{general}$$
where $R$ is the resistance of the contact, $x$ is the longitudinal coordinate, and $T_N(x)$ is the local “noise temperature” determined in terms of the electron distribution function $f( \epsilon, x )$ as follows: $$T_N(x)
=
\int d\epsilon\,
f( \epsilon, x )
[ 1 - f( \epsilon, x ) ]
\label{noise temperature}$$ The kernel of the integral (\[general\]) is given by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
K( x, \omega )
&
=
&
2 ( \gamma_{\omega} L )^2
\nonumber\\
&
\times
&
\frac{
\cosh [ 2\gamma_{\omega} ( L - x ) ]
+
\cos [ 2\gamma_{\omega} ( L - x ) ]
}{
\cosh ( 2\gamma_{\omega} L )
-
\cos ( 2\gamma_{\omega} L )
},
\label{noise-kernel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{\omega} = (\omega\varepsilon_d
/ 4\pi\sigma\delta_0 r_0)^{1/2}$. At sufficiently high frequencies, the kernel $K$ exponentially decreases with $x$. This decrease has a simple physical explanation. At contact dimensions much larger than the Debye screening length, the local current fluctuations inside the contact, which result from the randomness of impurity scattering, induce the current fluctuations at the contact edges through the long-range fluctuations of electrical field. However at finite frequencies, the electric lines of force emerging from the middle points of the contact are intercepted by the screening electrode and do not reach the contact edges. Hence it is only the portions of the contact adjacent to its edges that contribute to the measurable noise. Therefore for calculating the high-frequency noise in such contacts, it is very important to know the exact distribution function of electrons near their edges.
In our semiclassical approach, the distribution function $f$ obeys the diffusion equation $$D
\frac{ d^2 }{ dx^2 }
f( \epsilon, x )
+
I_{ee}( \epsilon, x )
=
0,
\label{diffusion}$$ where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. At zero temperature, the boundary conditions for this equation at the left and the right ends of the contact are $$f( \epsilon, 0 ) = \theta( - \epsilon ),
\quad
f(\epsilon, L ) = \theta( eV - \epsilon),
\label{boundaries}$$ where $\theta$ is the step function and $V$ is the voltage drop across the contact.
Recently, Eq. (\[diffusion\]) was solved using the phenomenological approximation of effective electron temperature, [@Nag95; @Kozub95] i.e. the distribution function was saught in the form $$f_T( \epsilon, x )
=
\left[
1
+
\exp\left(
\frac{ \epsilon - eVx/L }{ T_e(x) }
\right)
\right]^{ -1 },
\label{effective}$$ where $T_e$ was the coordinate-dependent temperature of electron gas. As the collision integral is zero for arbitrary $f_T$ chosen in form (\[effective\]), Eq. (\[diffusion\]) reduces to an energy-balance equation, whose solution at zero temperature of electrodes is $$T_e
=
eV
\sqrt{ 3x ( L - x ) }
/
\pi L.
\label{root}$$ As $T_e$ exhibits squire-root singularities at the edges of the contact, substitution of Eq. (\[root\]) into (\[general\]) results in high-frequency noise diverging [@Y98] as $\omega^{1/4}$. This unphysical divergency is due to the inadequate description of the distribution function near the contact edges by the effective temperature model. Indeed, for $f = f_T$ with $T_e$ given by Eq. (\[root\]), the first term of Eq. (\[diffusion\]) diverges as $x^{-3/2}$, while the second term remains is zero throughout the length of the contact. Hence $f$ deviates from $f_T$ near the contact edges and the squire-root singularity is smoothed out no matter how strong the e-e scattering.
In this paper, we numerically calculate the high-frequency shot noise for the simplest collision integral with energy-independent transition probabilities: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ee} (\epsilon)
=
-\frac{ \lambda_{ee} }{ \epsilon_{F} }
\int d\epsilon'
\int d\omega \,
& &
\nonumber\\
\times
\{
f(\epsilon)
f(\epsilon' - \omega)
\lbrack
1
-
& &
f(\epsilon - \omega)
\rbrack
\lbrack
1 - f(\epsilon')
\rbrack
\nonumber\\
-
f(\epsilon - \omega)
f(\epsilon')
\lbrack 1 -
f(\epsilon)
\rbrack
& &
\lbrack
1 - f(\epsilon' - \omega)
\rbrack
\}.
\label{3}\end{aligned}$$ By doing so, we restrict ourselves to the Landau concept of quasiparticle scattering and disregard the interference between e-e and impurity scattering.[@AA85] This implies that the relevant electron energies are sufficiently high: $\epsilon \gg \tau^{-1}
(p_F/k) (p_F l)^{-2}$, where $\tau$ is the elastic scattering time, $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum, $k$ is the inverse Debye screening length, and $l$ is the elastic mean free path of electrons.[@AA79] In the gas approximation, where $k \ll p_F$, the dimensionless scattering amplitude equals $\lambda_{ee} = \pi^2 k/64p_F$. However in realistic metals $k/p_F
\sim 1$, and $\lambda_{ee}$ should be renormalized by corrections of higher order in interaction.
The actual behavior of $f$ near the contact edges may be understood from the following semiquantitative reasoning. Select a point $x_0
\ll L$ near the left edge of the contact. Suppose that $f(x_0) = f_T$ with $T_e(x_0)$ given by Eq. (\[root\]) and solve Eq. (\[diffusion\]) with boundary conditions $f(\epsilon, 0) =
\theta(-\epsilon)$ and $f(\epsilon, x_0) = f_T(\epsilon, x_0)$ in the range $0 < x < x_0$. Because of the divergence of $\partial^2 f_T /
\partial x^2$ at $x = 0$ it is reasonable to expect that the diffusion term in Eq. (\[diffusion\]) will dominate over $I_{ee}$ at sufficiently small $x_0$ and the latter may be omitted. Then the resulting diffusion equation is easily solved and retaining only terms linear in $x$, one obtains for the noise temperature $T_N(x) =
(2\ln 2)\,T_e(x_0)x/x_0$. The crossover point $x_0$ is determined from the condition that the diffusion term in Eq. (\[diffusion\]) be of the order of the collision integral, i.e. $D/x_0^2 \sim
\lambda_{ee} T_e^2(x_0)/\epsilon_F$. This results in an estimate $x_0 \sim L \alpha^{-1/3}$, where $\alpha = \lambda_{ee} (eVL)^2 /
\epsilon_F D$ is the dimensionless parameter characterizing the relative strength of e-e interaction in the contact. From Eq. (\[general\]), it follows that the limiting value of high-frequency noise is $$S_I(\infty)
=
\frac{ 2L }{ R }
\left.
\frac{ dT_N }{ dx }
\right|_{ x = 0 }
\sim
eI
\alpha^{1/6}.
\label{limiting}$$ The saturation frequency may be determined from the condition $\gamma_{\omega} \sim x_0^{-1}$, which gives $$\omega_s
\sim
\frac{ \sigma }{ \varepsilon_d }
\frac{ \delta_0 r_0 }{ L^2 }
\alpha^{2/3}.$$ To test these semiqualitative conclusions, Eq. (\[diffusion\]) was numerically solved for different values of the dimensionless parameter $\alpha$ using the finite-difference method on a lattice of $100 \times 100$ sites. Figure \[temperature\] shows the coordinate dependence of the noise temperature $T_N$ calculated for $\alpha =
10$. It is clearly seen that in the middle of the contact, $T_N$ is close to $T_e$, while it remains almost unperturbed by the e-e interaction near the edges.
Figure \[frequency\] shows the frequency dependences of noise for five different values of $\alpha$ ranging from 0 to $10^4$. At zero frequency, all the values of noise are located in a narrow range $0.33 < S_I/2eI < 0.43$. As the frequency increases, the lower bound for the noise and (especially) the spacing between the curves also increase. In particular, this implies that at finite frequencies the ratio $S_I/2eI$ is essentially voltage-dependent. The noise reaches saturation for all $\alpha$ considered, but the saturation frequency increases with $\alpha$. The saturation noise is $2eI$ for $\alpha =
0$ and also increases with $\alpha$. Note that for the maximum of considered values $\alpha = 10^4$, the zero-frequency shot noise coincides with the result of effective-temperature model to the third decimal place, whereas the high-frequency noise is only nearly three times the Poissonian one. The limiting values of high-frequency noise are plotted versus $\alpha$ in Fig. \[log-log\]. On a log-log scale, this dependence presents almost a straight line except for the lowest value $\alpha = 10$. At large $\alpha$, its slope corresponds to $S_I(\infty)/2eI \propto \alpha^{0.1683}$. This exponent is very close to the value 1/6 that results from the above semiquantitative reasoning. Possibly, the discrepancy could be made even smaller by increasing the number of sites in the lattice and/or $\alpha$. In any event, the above qualitative consideration provides a reasonably good understanding of the behavior of high-frequency noise.
Naveh [*et al.*]{}[@Y98] proposed that the increase of nonequilibrium noise at high frequencies may be used for distinguishing between the cases of strong and weak e-e scattering. Our calculations provide a basis for quantitative estimates of the parameters of e-e scattering. By measuring the voltage dependence of saturated high-frequency noise and determining the corresponding exponent, one may test the validity of Landau theory for this case. Knowing the diffusion coefficient and $\epsilon_F$, it is also possible to determine the parameter of e-e interaction $\lambda_{ee}$ from these data. In these measurements, the voltage must be sufficiently high to exclude the effects of interference between e-e and impurity scattering and to avoid quantum noise dominating over the shot one.[@high-freq] Because of slow growth of the noise-to-current ratio with voltage, proper care should be taken to eliminate heating effects.
In summary, we have shown that in the presence of e-e scattering, the shot noise in long diffusive contacts increases with frequency and tends to a finite value. This value is larger than $2eI$ and increases with voltage nearly according to the law $S_I(\infty)/2eI
\propto V^{1/3}$.
This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 96-02-16663-a).
[99]{} B. L. Altshuler and A. G. Aronov, in [*Electron-electron Interactions in Disordered Systems,*]{} edited by A. L. Efros and M. Pollak (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 1. B. L. Al’tshuler and and D. E. Khmelnitskii, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**42**]{}, 291 (1985) \[JETP Lett. [**42**]{}, 359 (1985)\]. P. A. Lee, A. D. Stone, and H. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 1039 (1987). A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gor’kov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, [*Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics*]{} (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963). Ya. M. Blanter, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 12807 (1996). P. M. Echternach, M. E. Gershenson, H. M. Bozler, A. L. Bogdanov, and B. Nilsson, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 11516 (1993). H. Pothier, S. Guéron, Norman O. Birge, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3490 (1997); Z. Phys. B [**104**]{}, 178 (1997). Sh. Kogan, [*Electronic Noise and Fluctuations in Solids*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1996. K. E. Nagaev, Phys. Lett. A [**169**]{}, 103 (1992). K. E. Nagaev, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 4740 (1995). V. I. Kozub and A. M. Rudin, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 7853 (1995). A. H. Steinbach, J. M. Martinis, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3806 (1996). Y. Naveh, D. V. Averin, and K. K. Likharev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3482 (1997). K. E. Nagaev, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 4628 (1998). Y. Naveh, D. V. Averin, and K. K. Likharev, cond-mat/9801188. B. L. Al’tshuler and and A. G. Aronov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**30**]{}, 514 (1979) \[JETP Lett. [**30**]{}, 482 (1979)\]. R. J. Schoelkopf, P. J. Burke, A. A. Kozhevnikov, D. E. Prober, and M. J. Rooks, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3370 (1997).
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
H. W. Braden\
*Department of Mathematics and Statistics,\
*The University of Edinburgh,\
*Edinburgh, UK\
e-mail: [email protected]\
***
title: ' A Conjectured R-Matrix'
---
-9.5cm 10.4cm MS-97-013 .2cm 10.4cm solv-int/9710011 8.8cm
A new spectral parameter independent R-matrix (that depends on all of the dynamical variables) is proposed for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models. Necessary and sufficient conditions for this R-matrix to exist reduce to an equality between determinants of matrices involving elliptic functions. The needed identity appears new and is still unproven in full generality: we present it as a conjecture.
Introduction
============
This paper is directed towards the construction of an R-matrix for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models. Together with a Lax pair, the R-matrix is a key ingredient of the modern approach to completely integrable systems. In this approach the Lax equation $\dot L =\left[ L,M\right] $ enables us to construct conserved quantities such as the traces $\Tr{L\sp k}$, while the R-matrix shows these quantities Poisson commute. A system is said to be completely integrable when we have enough independent, mutually Poisson commuting, conserved quantities and for such systems R-matrices must exist [@BV]. For completely integrable systems Liouville’s theorem [@Liouv; @Arnold] tells us that we may integrate the equations of motion by quadratures; with certain completeness assumptions[^1] on the flows, Arnold’s extension of Liouville’s theorem ensures the existence of global action-angle variables. The R-matrix is also an essential ingredient when examining the separation of variables of such integrable systems [@Sk2; @KNS].
Recent work has yielded necessary and sufficient conditions for an R-matrix to exist, together with an explicit construction, and we shall now apply this to the elliptic Calogero-Moser models. For the rational and trigonometric degenerations of these models Avan and Talon [@AT] have constructed R-matrices under an assumption of momentum independence; R-matrices can in principle be functions of the dynamical variables. For the elliptic models however, the work of [@BS] shows that no momentum independent R-matrices can be constructed for more than 3 particles. This restriction can be circumvented by considering R-matrices depending on a spectral parameter and such momentum independent R-matrices were found for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models by Sklyanin [@Sk1] and Braden and Suzuki [@BS]. A question however remains unanswered: [ are there spectral parameter independent R-matrices for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models?]{} Here we propose such R-matrices. The necessary and sufficient conditions for the R-matrix to exist reduce to a single identity involving matrices with elliptic function entries. This identity appears new and we have been unable to prove it in generality: it is given here as a conjecture.
An outline of the paper is as follows. In sections two and three we briefly review the construction of R-matrices and the Calogero-Moser models respectively. In section four we combine this material to obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for a spectral parameter independent R-matrix for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models to exist, specifying the R-matrix when such holds true. The necessary and sufficient conditions may be expressed as an equality between two determinants involving elliptic functions: this is presented in section five. The final section is devoted to a brief discussion.
The Construction
================
The recent advances in the construction and understanding of R-matrices are consequences of the study [@Br1] of a more general matrix equation AX-XA=B. \[matrixeqn\] As we shall review, the R-matrix equation is a particular example of this. Because $A$ is in general singular the general solution to (\[matrixeqn\]) is in terms of a generalized inverse $G$ satisfying AGA=AGAG=G. \[geninverse1\] Such a generalized inverse[^2] always exists. Given a $G$ satisfying (\[geninverse1\]) we have at hand projection operators $P_1=GA$ and $P_2=AG$ which satisfy AP\_1=P\_2A=A,P\_1G=GP\_2=G. \[proj\] The matrix equation (\[matrixeqn\]) then has solutions if and only if $$\displaylines{
(C1)\quad\quad\phantom{xxxx} B\sp{T}=-B,\hfill \cr
(C2)\quad\quad (1-P_1\sp{T})B(1-P_1)=0,\hfill\cr}$$ in which case the general solution is X=[12]{} G B P\_1+G B(1-P\_1) +(1-P\_2)Y+ (P\_2ZP\_2)A \[gensoln\] where $Y$ is arbitrary and $Z$ is only constrained by the requirement that $P_2\sp{T}ZP_2$ be symmetric. Although the general solution appears to depend on the generalized inverse $G$ any other choice of generalized inverse will only change the solution within the ambiguities given by (\[gensoln\]).
The classical R-matrix construction [@STS] arises as a particular case of (\[gensoln\]) as follows. Suppose the Lax matrix $L$ is in a representation $E$ of a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (here taken to be semi-simple). The classical R-matrix is a $E{\otimes }E$ valued matrix such that -\[[R]{},1L\] ={LL}. \[rmatrix\] Let $T_\mu$ denote a basis for the (finite dimensional) Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with $[T_\mu,T_\nu]=c_{\mu \nu}\sp\lambda\ T_\lambda$ defining the structure constants of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Set $\phi(T_\mu)=X_\mu$, where $\phi$ yields the representation $E$ of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$; we may take this to be a faithful representation. With $L= \sum_{\mu}L\sp\mu X_\mu $ the left-hand side of (\[rmatrix\]) becomes $$\{L\x L\}=\sum_{\mu,\nu} \{ L\sp\mu, L\sp\nu \} X_\mu\otimes X_\nu$$ while upon setting $R=R\sp{\mu\nu}X_\mu\otimes X_\nu$ and ${R\sp{T}}=R\sp{\nu\mu}X_\mu\otimes X_\nu$ the right-hand side yields $$\begin{aligned}
[R, L\otimes 1]-[{R\sp{T}},1\otimes L]&=&
R\sp{\mu\nu}([X_\mu,L]\otimes X_\nu-X_\nu\otimes[X_\mu,L])\cr
&=& R\sp{\mu\nu}L\sp\lambda
([X_\mu,X_\lambda]\otimes X_\nu-X_\nu\otimes[X_\mu,X_\lambda])\cr
&=&( R\sp{\tau\nu}c_{\tau\lambda}\sp\mu L\sp\lambda -
R\sp{\tau\mu}c_{\tau\lambda}\sp\nu L\sp\lambda) X_\mu\otimes X_\nu.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By identifying $ A\sp{\mu\nu}= c_{\mu\lambda}\sp\nu L\sp\lambda \equiv-ad(L)\sp\nu _\mu$, $ B\sp{\mu\nu}=\{ L\sp\mu, L\sp\nu \}$ and $ X\sp{\mu\nu}=R\sp{\mu\nu}$ we see that (\[rmatrix\]) is an example of (\[matrixeqn\]).
In the R-matrix context the matrix $B$ is manifestly antisymmetric because of the antisymmetry of the Poisson bracket and so $(C1)$ is clearly satisfied. We have thus reduced the existence of an R-matrix to the single consistency equation $(C2)$ and the construction of a generalized inverse to $ad(L)$.
The construction of a generalized inverse for (a generic) $ad(L)$ was given in [@Br2]. Let $X_\mu$ denote a Cartan-Weyl basis for the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. That is $\{X_\mu\}=\{H_i,E_\alpha\}$, where $\{H_i\}$ is a basis for the Cartan subalgebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ and $\{E_\alpha\}$ is the set of step operators (labelled by the root system $\Phi$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}$). The structure constants are found from $$[H_i,E_\alpha ]=\alpha_i E_\alpha,\quad
[E_\alpha,E_{-\alpha}]= \alpha\sp\vee\cdot H\quad
{\rm and}\quad
[E_\alpha,E_\beta ]=N_{\alpha,\beta}E_{\alpha+\beta}
\quad{\rm if}\ \alpha+\beta\in\Phi .$$ Here $N_{\alpha,\beta}=c_{\alpha\, \beta }^{\alpha+ \beta }$. With these definitions we then have that
[rrl]{} & j&\
&&\
\
( adL) =&
[c]{} i\
(
[cc]{} 0 & -\_[i]{}\^L\^[-]{}\
-\_[j]{}L\^ & \_\^
) &=(
[cc]{} 0 & u\^[T]{}\
v &
)
where we index the rows and columns first by the Cartan subalgebra basis $\{i,j:1\ldots \rank\mathfrak{g}\}$ then the root system $\{\alpha,\beta \in \Phi\}$. We will use this block decomposition of matrices throughout. Here $u$ and $v$ are $|\Phi|\times \rank\mathfrak{g}$ matrices and we have introduced the $|\Phi|\times|\Phi|$ matrix \_\^= L \_\^+ c\_[-]{}\^ L\^[-]{}, \[Lambdadef\] where $\alpha \cdot L=\sum_{i=1}\sp{\rank\mathfrak{g}}\alpha_i L\sp{i}$. With these definitions we have [@Br2] that for generic $L$ the matrix $\Lambda $ is invertible and a generalised inverse of $ad(L)$ is given by (
[cc]{} 1 & 0\
-\^[-1]{}v & 1
) (
[cc]{} 0 & 0\
0 & \^[-1]{}
) (
[cc]{} 1 & -u\^[T]{}\^[-1]{}\
0 & 1
) =(
[cc]{} 0&0\
0 & \^[-1]{}
). \[geninvadL\]
We may now assemble these results to yield the R-matrix. It is convenient to express the Poisson brackets of the entries of $L$ in the same block form in the Cartan-Weyl basis: B=(
[cc]{} & -\
&
)= -B \^[T]{} \[bdef\] where $B\sp{\alpha j }=\{L\sp\alpha,L\sp{j}\}=\mu_{\alpha j }$ and so on. From the fact that $A=-ad(L)\sp{T}$, a generalized inverse of $A$ is given by minus the transpose of the generalized inverse (\[geninvadL\]) and consequently we obtain the projectors $$P_{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
\Lambda ^{-1T}u & 1
\end{array}
\right)
,\quad\quad
P_{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & v ^{T}\Lambda ^{-1T} \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right).$$ The constraint $(C2)$ is now (the $\rank\mathfrak{g}\times\rank\mathfrak{g}$ matrix equation) (C2)0= ( 1-P\_[1]{}\^[T]{}) B( 1-P\_[1]{}) + \^[-1T]{} u - u\^[-1]{} + u\^[-1]{} \^[-1T]{} u. \[consgen\]
Supposing the constraint $(C2)$ is satisfied we then find from (\[gensoln\]) the general R-matrix takes the form R=(
[cc]{} 0 & 0\
- \^[-1]{}+ \^[-1]{} \^[-1T]{} u & - \^[-1]{}
) +(
[cc]{} p & q\
-\^[-1]{}v p-Fu & -\^[-1]{}v q-F\^[T]{}
). \[rmat\]
The second term characterises the ambiguity in R where we have parameterised the matrices $Y,Z$ in (\[gensoln\]) by $Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p&q\\ r&s \end{array} \right)$ and $Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a&b\\ c&d \end{array} \right)$. Here the matrices $p,q$ are arbitrary while the entries of $Z$ are such that F=\^[-1]{}v a v \^[T]{}\^[-1T]{}+d+\^[-1]{}v b+c v \^[T]{}\^[-1T]{} \[Fdef\] is symmetric.
The Calogero-Moser Models
=========================
We now recall the salient features of the Calogero-Moser models and in particular those associated with $gl_n$. For any root system [@OPa; @OPc] the Calogero-Moser models are the natural Hamiltonian systems H=\_[i]{} p\_i2 +\_ U( x); \[cmham\] where (up to a constant) the potential $U(z)$ is the Weierstrass $\wp$-function or a degeneration that will be specified below. For the root systems of the classical algebras a Lax pair may be associated with the models; in the exceptional setting the existence of a Lax pair is still an open problem. In fact we do not have a direct proof of the complete integrability of the Calogero-Moser model associated with any of the exceptional simple Lie algebras. Let us consider Lax pairs of the following form [@Ca2]: L=pH+\_ f\^E\_ ,M=bH+\_ w\^E\_, and where the functions $f^{\alpha }$, $w^{\alpha }$ ($\alpha\in\Phi$) are such that f\^=f\^( x) ,w\^=w\^( x). Then L =p H+\_ xf\^ E\_ \[ldot\] and =\_( ( p w\^ - b f\^) E\_- f\^[-]{}w\^H ) +\_[ ]{} c\_ fwE\_ . \[lmcomm\] We further assume that $b$ is momentum independent. Upon utilising $\dot x_i=p_i$ and comparing (\[ldot\]) and (\[lmcomm\]) we find that the Lax equation $\dot L=[L,M]$ yields the equations of motion for (\[cmham\]) provided the following consistency conditions (for each $\alpha\in\Phi$) are satisfied: $$\displaylines{
a)\quad w^{\alpha }=f^{\alpha\,\prime},\hfill\cr
b)\quad
\dot p=-\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi} f^{-\alpha }w^{\alpha}\alpha\sp\vee
=-\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi} f^{-\alpha }f^{\alpha\,\prime}\alpha\sp\vee
=-\frac{d}{dx} \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi}
{\textstyle\frac{2}{\alpha\cdot\alpha}}f^{-\alpha }
f^{\alpha }\hfill\cr
\quad\phantom{a)\dot p}=-\frac{d}{dx}\sum_{\alpha\in\Phi}
\, U( \alpha \cdot x). \hfill\cr
c)\quad\alpha\cdot b=\sum_{\scriptstyle {\beta,\gamma\in\Phi}\atop
\scriptstyle{\beta+\gamma=\alpha} }
c\sp{\alpha}_{\beta\,\gamma}\frac{f\sp{\beta}w^{\gamma}}
{f^{\alpha }}
=\sum_{\scriptstyle {\beta,\gamma\in\Phi}\atop
\scriptstyle{\beta+\gamma=\alpha} }
c\sp{\alpha}_{\beta\,\gamma}\frac{f\sp{\beta}f^{\gamma\,\prime}}
{f^{\alpha }},\hfill
}$$ The second of the equations determines the potential in terms of the unknown functions $f\sp\alpha$. It is the final constraint that is the most difficult to satisfy.
Let us now focus on the Lie algebra $gl_n$. Here $\Phi=\{e_i-e_j,\ 1\leq i\not= j\leq n\}$, where the $e_i$ form an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb R}\sp n$. If $e_{rs}$ denotes the elementary matrix with $(r,s)$-th entry one and zero elsewhere, then the $n\times n$ matrix representation $H_i=e_{ii}$ and $E_\alpha=e_{ij}$ when $\alpha=e_i-e_j$ gives the usual representation of $L$. Working with the simple algebra $a_n$ corresponds to the center of mass frame. Here the Calogero-Moser models are built from the functions f\^=. \[eq:w\] These functions satisfy the addition formula ff -ff= ( z\_-z\_)f, \[eq:addition\] where z\_=[f]{}= (x) +[2]{}(u) . Here $\sigma(x)$ and $\zeta(x)=\sigma\sp\prime(x)/ \sigma(x)$ are the Weierstrass sigma and zeta functions [@WW]. The quantity $u$ in (\[eq:w\]) is known as the spectral parameter. We find U(x)=-( (x)-(u)) and that $$b=\frac{1}{2(n+1)}
\sum_{\scriptstyle {\beta,\gamma\in\Phi}\atop
\scriptstyle{\beta+\gamma=\alpha} }
c\sp{\alpha}_{\beta\,\gamma}
z_\beta\, \alpha,$$ which in components becomes b\_i=\_[ji]{} (x\_i-x\_j). The Weierstrass $\wp$-function includes as degenerations the potentials U(z)=,,. The first of these is the original (rational) Calogero-Moser model while the second is the Sutherland model [@Su2].
The $gl_n$ Calogero-Moser R-Matrix
===================================
We shall now apply the construction of section two to the $gl_n$ Calogero-Moser models. Upon examination of (\[consgen\]) and (\[rmat\]) we see that the relevant quantities to calculate are the matrices $B\sp{\mu\nu}=\{ L\sp\mu, L\sp\nu \}$ and the components $\Lambda$ and $u$ of $ad(L)$. Using $\{p_j,f\sp\alpha\}=
\{p_j,\alpha\cdot q\}f\sp{\alpha\, \prime}=\alpha_j f\sp{\alpha\, \prime}$ we find that $$\{L\x L\}=\sum_{\mu,\nu} \{ L\sp\mu, L\sp\nu \} X_\mu\otimes X_\nu
=\sum_{j,\alpha}\alpha_j f\sp{\alpha\, \prime} (H_j\otimes E_\alpha-
E_\alpha\otimes H_j) .
$$ This means that we have $$B=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \beta _{i}f^{\beta \,\prime} \\
-\alpha _{j}f^{\alpha \,\prime} & 0
\end{array}
\right)= -B ^{T}$$ and upon comparison with (\[bdef\]) we see that $\zeta=\phi=0$. For the case at hand u\_[ k]{}=- f\_k , \_\^= p \_\^+ c\_[-]{}\^ f\^[-]{}, and it will be convenient to introduce the ($|\Phi|\times\rank\mathfrak{g}$) matrix w\_[ k]{}=- f\_k . Thus $
B=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 &- w\sp{T} \\
w & 0
\end{array}
\right)$. Being quite explicit, if $\alpha=e_i-e_j$ and $\beta=e_r-e_s$ then
[rl]{} :& \_[ (rs)]{} = (p\_i-p\_j)\_[r]{}\_s+ f(x\_i-x\_r) \_s - f(x\_s-x\_j) \_r ,\
u:& u\_[(ij), k]{} = -(\_[ik]{} - \_[jk]{}) f(x\_j -x\_i) ,\
w:& w\_[(ij), k]{} = -(\_[ik]{} - \_[jk]{}) f(x\_i -x\_j) ,
\[explicit\] where we adopt the obvious notational shorthand of replacing the matrix indices for $\alpha=e_i-e_j$ by $(ij)$ and so on.
With these quantities at hand the necessary and sufficient condition $(C2)$ given by (\[consgen\]) takes the form (C2)0=u\^[-1]{}w -w u, \[newc2nocom\] which in components becomes (C2)0= \_[,]{}( \_i f\^[-]{}( \^[-1]{}) \_\^f\^\_[j]{}-\_[i]{}f\^( \^[-1]{}) \_f\^[-]{}\_[j]{}). \[newc2\] When this is satisfied we have from (\[rmat\]) that the general R-matrix is given by R=(
[cc]{} 0 & 0\
( \^[-1]{}) \_\^f\^[ ]{}\_[j]{} & 0
) +(
[cc]{} p & q\
-\^[-1]{}v p-Fu & -\^[-1]{}v q-F\^[T]{}
). \[cmrmat\] The second term, which characterises the possible ambiguity in the R-matrix, was described in section two.
It is instructive to consider how the minimal solution given by the first term of (\[cmrmat\]) satisfies (\[rmatrix\]). We have R\^[j]{}=( \^[-1]{}) \_\^ f\^\_[j]{} ,R\^[ij]{}=0 ,R\^[i]{}=0 ,R\^=0. \[rmatsol\] This is to be compared with the previously known R-matrix [@AT] $$R^{\alpha j}=0
,\quad\quad
R^{ij}=0
,\quad\quad
R^{i\alpha }=-\frac{|\alpha_i|}{2}{f\sp\alpha }
,\quad\quad
R^{\alpha \beta }=\delta_{\alpha+\beta, 0}
{ {f\sp{\alpha \,\prime }}\over f\sp{\alpha }}$$ which exists only [@BS] for the potentials $U(z)={\lambda\sp2}/{z\sp2}$, ${\lambda\sp2}/{\sin z\sp2}$, ${\lambda\sp2}/{\sinh z\sp2}$. Examination of the general R-matrix equation (\[rmatrix\]) yields three different equations depending on the range of indices $\{\mu,\nu\}$. For $(\mu,\nu)= (i,j),(i,\alpha)$ and $(\alpha,\beta)$ respectively, these are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ij}
0&=&\sum_{\alpha}(R\sp{\alpha j}\alpha_i-R\sp{\alpha i}\alpha_j)f\sp{-\alpha},
\\
\label{eq:ia}
\alpha_i f\sp{\alpha\,\prime} &=&
\alpha\cdot p\ R\sp{\alpha i} -\sum_j\alpha_j R\sp{ji}f\sp\alpha +
\sum_{\beta}(\beta_i f\sp\beta R\sp{-\beta\alpha } +
f\sp{\alpha -\beta} R\sp{\beta i}c_{\alpha -\beta\,\beta}\sp\alpha) ,
\nonumber \\
\noalign{\hbox{and}}\cr
\label{eq:ab}
0&=& \sum_{i}(\alpha_i R\sp{i\beta}f\sp\alpha -\beta_i R\sp{i\alpha}f\sp\beta )
- ( \alpha\cdot p\ R\sp{\alpha\beta}-\beta\cdot p\ R\sp{\beta\alpha})
\nonumber\\
&& +\sum_{\gamma}(
R\sp{\gamma\beta} c_{\gamma\, \alpha-\gamma}\sp\alpha f\sp{\alpha-\gamma}
-R\sp{\gamma\alpha} c_{\gamma\, \beta-\gamma}\sp\beta f\sp{\beta-\gamma}
).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Employing (\[rmatsol\]) we see that the final two equations are automatically satisfied. The first equation (\[eq:ij\]) is less obvious until we realise that it just expresses the remaining constraint $(C2)$ necessary for a solution to exist. This identification follows upon using $R^{\alpha j}=\left( \Lambda ^{-1}\right) _{\beta }^{\alpha }
f^{\beta\,\prime }\beta _{j}$.
At this stage we have reduced the existence of an R-matrix for Calogero-Moser systems to that of a constraint equation:
The elliptic Calogero-Moser system has R-matrix (\[rmatsol\]) if and only if (\[newc2\]) –or equivalently (\[newc2nocom\])– is satisfied.
We remark that (\[newc2nocom\]) is again of the form (\[matrixeqn\]) for the (nonsquare) matrix $\tilde A=\Lambda ^{-1\,T} u$ and $\tilde B=0$, where now we wish to show that $\tilde X=w$ is a solution. The general theory applies and as $\tilde B=0$ the constraints are automatically satisfied. One discovers in this situation that the requirement $P_2\sp{T}ZP_2$ be symmetric is equivalent to the symmetry of the matrix $w\sp{T} \Lambda ^{-1\,T} u$.
The Constraint
==============
It remains to analyse the constraint equation (\[newc2\]). Although the inverse matrices here look somewhat daunting we may use the cofactor expansion of an inverse to give $$\left\vert\begin{array}{cc} 0&k\\ l &\Lambda \end{array}\right\vert
=-|\Lambda |\ k\sp{T}\Lambda ^{-1}l.$$ Thus (\[newc2\]) is equivalent to showing that (for each $i,j$) the $(|\Phi|+1)\times(|\Phi|+1)$ determinants satisfy
[cc]{} 0&\_[i]{}f\^[-]{}\
\_[j]{}f\^&
=
[cc]{} 0&\_[j]{}f\^[-]{}\
\_[i]{}f\^&
, \[c2prov\] where[^3] $\Lambda=\left(\Lambda_{\beta\alpha}\right)$. To be quite explicit we wish to show that (for each $i,j$)
[cc]{} 0&u\_[(rs),i]{}\
w\_[(kl),j]{}&\_[ (rs)]{}\
=
[cc]{} 0&u\_[(rs),j]{}\
w\_[(kl),i]{}&\_[ (rs)]{}\
, \[c2explicitprov\] where $\Lambda$ (to be invertible), $u$ and $w$ are given by (\[explicit\]), the indices $(kl)$, $(rs)$ run over ordered distinct pairs and the functions being considered are given by $ f(x) =
{\sigma(u- x)\over{\sigma(u)\sigma( x)}}
{e\sp{\zeta(u) x}}.
$ Actually, because of the symmetry of the problem, it suffices to show that (\[c2prov\]) holds for any two indices $i\ne j$ (it clearly holding for $i=j$) and we may take these for example to be $i=1$, $j=2$.
We are unable to prove (\[c2prov\]) in generality. Symbolic manipulation has verified it true for small numbers of particles and it has satisfied extensive numerical checks. At present we can only present it as a conjecture. The conjectured identity appears new.
We remark that in the present setting one can show that for arbitrary functions $f\sp{\alpha}$ (for which $\Lambda$ is invertible) 0= ( u\^[T]{}\^[-1]{}v ) \_[ij]{}=\_[,]{}\_[i]{}L\^[-]{}( \^[-1]{}) \_\^L\^\_[j]{} =
[cc]{} 0&\_[i]{}f\^[-]{}\
\_[j]{}f\^&
. \[rankprov\] Whereas (\[rankprov\]) is true for any functions $f\sp{\alpha}$ equation (\[c2prov\]) will only hold for a more restricted class of functions. The constraint requires that functions of the form (\[eq:w\]) satisfy (\[c2prov\]).
Discussion
==========
This paper has been devoted to the construction of a spectral parameter independent R-matrix for the elliptic Calogero-Moser models. Previous work has shown that no momentum independent and spectral parameter independent R-matrix exists for the models for more than three particles. By viewing the R-matrix equation as a particular case of the general matrix equation (\[matrixeqn\]) we are able to give necessary and sufficient conditions for a (generally momentum dependent) R-matrix to exist. No recourse to special ansätze is needed and the general form of the R-matrix can be specified. The elliptic Calogero-Moser model has R-matrix (\[rmatsol\]) if and only if (\[newc2\]) –or equivalently (\[newc2nocom\])– is satisfied. The desired R-matrices existence has thus been reduced to the validity of a single constraint. This constraint may equally be cast as the equality betwen two determinants (\[c2prov\]) involving elliptic functions. (We have unpacked most of the Lie algebra notation in the explicit form (\[c2explicitprov\]).) Such an identity appears new. Unfortunately we have been unable to prove (\[c2prov\]) in generality and we present it here as a conjecture.
Acknowledgements
================
This material was presented at the CRM Workshop on Calogero-Moser- Sutherland Models (Montreal, March 1997) and ICMP’97 (Brisbane, July 1997). I have benefited from comments by J. Avan, J. Harnad, A.N.W. Hone, I. Krichever, V. Kuznetsov, M. Olshanetsky and E. Sklyanin.
[99]{}
V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, New York 1978.
J. Avan and M. Talon, [*Classical R-matrix structure for the Calogero model*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B303**]{}, 33-37 (1993).
0\. Babelon and C.M. Viallet, [*Hamiltonian Structures and Lax Equations*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B237**]{}, 411-416 (1990).
Adi Ben-Israel and Thomas N.E. Greville, [ Generalized inverses : theory and applications]{}, Krieger, Huntington N.Y. 1974.
H.W. Braden and Takashi Suzuki, [*$R$-matrices for Elliptic Calogero-Moser Models*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**30**]{}, 147-158 (1994).
H.W. Braden, [*The Equation $A\sp{T}X-X\sp{T}A=B$*]{}, Edinburgh Preprint MS-97-007.
H.W. Braden, [*R-matrices and Generalized Inverses*]{}, J. Phys. [**A 30**]{}, L485-L493 (1997) [solv-int/9706001]{}.
F. Calogero, [*On a functional equation connected with integrable many-body problems*]{}, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 16, 77-80 (1976).
S.R. Caradus, [*Generalized inverses and operator theory*]{}, Queen’s papers in pure and applied mathematics No. 50, Queen’s University, Kingston Ont. 1978.
H. Flaschka, [*A Remark on Integrable Hamiltonian Systems*]{}, Phys Lett [**A 131**]{}, 505-508 (1988).
V.B. Kuznetsov., F.W. Nijhoff and E.K. Sklyanin, [*Separation of variables for the Ruijsenaars system*]{}, March 1997, accepted in [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{}; [solv-int/9701004]{}.
J. Liouville, [*Note sur les équations de la dynamique*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. [**14**]{} 137-138 (1855).
M.A. Olshanetsky and A.M. Perelomov, [*Classical Integrable finite-dimensional systems related to Lie Algebras*]{}, Phys. Reps. 71, 313-400 (1981).
M.A. Olshanetsky and A.M. Perelomov, [*Completely integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with semisimple Lie algebras*]{}, Invent. Math. 37, 93-108 (1976).
R.M. Pringle and A.A. Rayner, [ Generalized inverse matrices with applications to statistics]{}, Griffins statistical monographs and courses No. 28, Charles Griffin, London 1971.
C. Radhakrishna Rao and Sujit Kumar Mitra, [ Generalized Inverse of Matrices and its Applications]{} John Wiley and Sons, New York 1971.
M.A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, [*What is a classical r-matrix?*]{}, Funct. Anal. Appl. [**17**]{} 17-33 (1983).
E.K. Sklyanin, [*Dynamical r-matrices for the elliptic Calogero-Moser Model*]{}, St Petersburg Math. J. [6]{}, 397-406 (1995).
E.K. Sklyanin, [*Separation of Variables: New trends*]{}, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**118**]{} 35-60 (1995).
B. Sutherland, [*Exact results for a quantum many-body problem in one dimension*]{}, Phys. Rev. A4, 2019-2021 (1971); II Phys. Rev. A5, 1372-1376 (1972).
E.T. Whittaker and G.N. Watson, [ A Course of Modern Analysis]{}, Cambridge University Press 1927.
[^1]: Flaschka [@flaschka] gives several simple examples where these assumptions fail.
[^2]: Accounts of generalized inverses may be found in [@AG; @Ca; @Pr; @RM]. Indeed the Moore-Penrose inverse -which is unique and always exists- further satisfies $(AG)\sp\dagger=AG$, $(GA)\sp\dagger=GA$.
[^3]: Note the adjugate matrix of $\Lambda$ involves the transpose of the cofactors and hence the perhaps puzzling interchange of rows and columns here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Boumediene Hamzi
- Houman Owhadi
bibliography:
- 'kernel\_flows\_for\_koopman.bib'
title: |
Learning dynamical systems from data:\
a simple cross-validation perspective
---
Introduction
============
Linear stochastic models (autoregressive (AR), moving average (MA), ARMA models) and chaotic dynamical systems are natural predictive models for time series [@boxjen76; @abarbanel2012analysis; @kantz97; @nielsen2019practical; @shumway2010time].
The prediction of chaotic systems from time-series (initially investigated in [@CASDAGLI1989]) has been investigated from the regression perspectives of support vector machines [@muller_svm; @sayan_svm], reservoir computing [@jaideep1; @ott], deep feed-forward artificial neural networks (ANN), and recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory (RNN- LSTM) [@Sindy; @bookmezic; @havok; @NIPS2003_2516]. Reservoir computing was observed to be efficient for predictions but not very accurate for estimating Lyapunov exponents. On the other hand, RNN-LSTM were observed to be accurate for estimating Lyapunov exponents but not as good as reservoir computing for predictions (see [@survey_kf_ann] for a survey). Although Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS) [@CuckerandSmale] have provided strong mathematical foundations for analyzing dynamical systems [@BH4; @BH3; @BH6; @BH10; @BHSIAM2017; @lyap_bh; @bh2020a; @bh2020b; @klus2020data; @KNPNCS20; @ALEXANDER2020132520], the accuracy of these emulators depends on the kernel and the problem of selecting a good kernel has received less attention.
We investigate Kernel Flows [@Owhadi19] (KF) as a generic tool for selecting the kernel used to learn chaotic dynamical systems. The KF strategy is to induce an ordering (quantifying the quality of a kernel) in a space of kernels and use gradient descent to identify a good kernel. KF is an efficient method of learning kernels with predictive capabilities using random projections that guarantees good performance while reducing computational cost. KF is also a variant of cross-validation (see discussion in [@kfscvs]) in the sense that it operates under the premise that a kernel must be good if the number of points used to interpolate the data can be halved without significant loss in accuracy, i.e., the method presented in [@Owhadi19] uses the regression relative error between two interpolants (measured in the RKHS norm of the kernel) as the quantity to minimize.
In this paper, we use this metric along two new ones to learn the parameters of the kernel. The first one is the difference between two estimations of the maximal Lyapunov exponent (the second estimator using a random half of the data points of the first). The second metric is the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) [@JMLR:v13:gretton12a] computed from two different samples of a time series or between a sample and a subsample of half length. Our paper is numerical in nature and we refer to [@kfscvs] for a rigorous analysis of KF (and comparisons with Empirical Bayes for learning PDEs) and to [@yoo2020deep] for its applications to training neural networks.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
- We show that combining KF with the kriging of the vector field significantly improves the accuracy of (1) the prediction of chaotic time series (2) the reconstruction of attractors (3) the reconstruction of the dynamics from lower dimensional projections of the state space.
- We show that Kernel Mode Decomposition can recover time delays in the reconstruction of the dynamics.
- We introduce Lyapunov exponents and MMD as two new cross validation metrics for kriging vector fields.
The remainder of the manuscript is structured as follows. We describe the problem in Section 2 and propose three cross-validation metrics to learn the parameters of the kernel used for approximating the vector field of the dynamical system. In section 3, we investigate the performance of these methods for the Bernoulli map, the logistic map, the Hénon map and the Lorenz system. In the appendix, we recall optimal recovery theoretical foundations of KF.
The problem and its proposed cross-validation solutions
=======================================================
Let $x_1,\ldots,x_k,\ldots$ be a time series in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Our goal is to forecast $x_{n+1}$ given the observation of $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. We work under the assumption that this time series can be approximated by a solution of a dynamical system of the form $$\label{eqjhdbdjehbd}
z_{k+1}=f^\dagger(z_k,\ldots,z_{k-\tau^\dagger+1}),$$ where $\tau^\dagger \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$ and $f^\dagger$ may be unknown. Given $\tau \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$, the approximation of the dynamical can then be recast as that of interpolating $f^\dagger$ from pointwise measurements $$\label{eqn:fdagger}
f^\dagger(X_k)=Y_k\text{ for }k=1,\ldots,N$$ with $X_k:=(x_{k+\tau-1},\ldots,x_k)$, $Y_k:=x_{k+\tau}$ and $N=n-\tau$. Given a reproducing kernel Hilbert space[^1] of candidates ${\mathcal{H}}$ for $f^\dagger$, and using the relative error in the RKHS norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{H}}$ as a loss, the regression of the data $(X_k,Y_k)$ with the kernel $K$ associated with ${\mathcal{H}}$ provides a minimax optimal approximation [@owhadi_scovel_2019] of $f^\dagger$ in $ {\mathcal{H}}$. This interpolant (in the absence of measurement noise) is $$\label{mean_gp}
f(x)=K(x,X) (K(X,X))^{-1} Y$$ where $X=(X_{1},\ldots, X_{N})$, $Y=(Y_{1},\ldots, Y_{N})$, $k(X,X)$ for the $N\times N $ matrix with entries $k(X_i,X_i)$, and $k(x,X)$ is the $N$ vector with entries $k(x,X_i)$. This interpolation has also a natural interpretation in the setting of Gaussian process (GP) regression: (1) is the conditional mean of the centered GP $\xi\sim \mathcal{N}(0,K)$ with covariance function $K$ conditioned on $\xi(X_k)=Y_k$, and (2) the interpolation error between $f^\dagger$ and $f$ is bounded by the conditional standard deviation of the GP $\xi$, i.e. $$\label{eqkejbdkddbs}
|f^\dagger(x)-f(x)|\leq \sigma(x) \|f^\dagger\|_{\mathcal{H}}$$ with $$\label{variance_gp}
\sigma^2(x)=K(x,x)-K(x,X) (K(X,X))^{-1} K(x,X)^T\,.$$
Evidently the accuracy of the proposed approach depends on the kernel $K$ and one of our goals is to also learn that kernel from the data $(X_k,Y_k)$ with Kernel Flows (KF) [@Owhadi19].
Given a family of kernels $K_\theta(x,x')$ parameterized by $\theta$, the KF algorithm can then be described as follows [@Owhadi19; @yoo2020deep]:
1. Select random subvectors $X^b$ and $Y^b$ of $X$ and $Y$ (through uniform sampling without replacement in the index set $\{1,\ldots,N\}$)
2. Select random subvectors $X^c$ and $Y^c$ of $X^b$ and $Y^b$ (by selecting, at random, uniformly and without replacement, half of the indices defining $X^b$)
3. Let[^2] $$\label{eqjehdhebdhdhj}
\rho(\theta,X^b,Y^b,X^c,Y^c):=1-\frac{Y^{c,T} K_\theta(X^c,X^c)^{-1} Y_c}{Y^{f,T} K_\theta(X^b,X^b)^{-1} Y^b}\,,$$ be the squared relative error (in the RKHS norm $\|\cdot\|_{K_\theta}$ defined by $K_\theta$) between the interpolants $u^b$ and $u^c$ obtained from the two nested subsets of the dataset and the kernel $K_\theta$
4. Evolve $\theta$ in the gradient descent direction of $\rho$, i.e. $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \delta \nabla_\theta \rho$
5. Repeat.
We also consider different metrics in step 3 of the algorithm described above. The first new metric is by considering, in the case of chaotic systems, that a kernel is good if the estimate of the Lyapunov exponent obtained from the kernel approximation of the dynamics does not change if half of the data is used. So we will minimize $$\label{rho_l}\rho_{L}=|\lambda_{\mbox{max},N}- \lambda_{\mbox{max},N/2}|,$$ instead of with $\lambda_{\mbox{max},N}$ is the estimate of the maximal Lyapunov exponent from the kernel approximation of the dynamics with $N$ sample points and $\lambda_{\mbox{max},N/2}$ is the estimate of the maximal Lyapunov exponent from the kernel approximation of the dynamics with $N/2$ sample points. We use the algorithm of Eckmann et al. [@eckmann] to estimate the Lyapunov exponents from data by considering the kernel approximation of the dynamics. We use the Python implementation in [@nolds] to estimate the Lyapunov exponents from data.
The second new metric is based on the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) [@JMLR:v13:gretton12a] that is a distance on the space of probability measures with a representer theorem for empirical distributions which we recall in the appendix. Our strategy for learning the kernel $K$ will then simply be to minimize the MMD $$\label{rho_mmd}
\rho_{\tiny \mbox{MMD}}=\mbox{MMD}(S_1,S_2)$$ between two different samples[^3], $S_1=x_{\sigma_1},\cdots, x_{\sigma_m}$ and $S_2=x_{\mu_1},\cdots, x_{\mu_m}$, of the time series.
Numerical experiments
=====================
We now numerically investigate the efficacy of the cross-validation approaches described in the previous section in learning chaotic dynamical systems.
Bernoulli map
-------------
We first use the Bernoulli map $$\label{eqkjhdkjehdkjdhgb}
x(k+1)=2x(k) \mbox{ mod } 1\,,$$ which is a prototypical chaotic dynamical system [@sebastian]. We initialize from an (irrational) initial condition $x(0)= \pi/3$ and use $200$ points to train the kernel and for interpolation. We use a parameterized family of kernels of the form $$k(x,y)= \alpha_0\, \mbox{max}\{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2|}{\sigma_0}\}+\alpha_1\, e^{\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_1^2}}\,$$ We set the initial kernel to be the Gaussian kernel and initialize the parameters with $(\alpha_0,\sigma_0,\alpha_1,\sigma_1)=(0,1,1,1)$. The parameters of the kernel after training with $\rho$ and $\rho_{\mbox{MMD}}$ and the Root Mean Square Errors[^4] (RMSEs) with 5,000 points are summarized in the following table with $R_1$ being the RMSE for $x(0)=\pi/10$ and $R_2$ the RMSE for $x(0)=0.1$.
[ |g |c| c |c| c|]{} & $ [\alpha_0,\sigma_0,\alpha_1,\sigma_1]$ & No. of iterations & $R_1$ & $R_2$\
$\rho$ & $[1.31,1.01, 0.99,0.99]$ & 100 & $0.019$ & 0.015\
$\rho_{\mbox{\tiny MMD}}$ & $[0.830, 2.780, 0.562,2.926]$ & 1000 & 0.027 & 0.011\
& $[0,1,1,1]$ & 0 & 0.182 & 0.118\
Figure \[bernoulli\] shows results for an irrational initial condition $x(0)= \pi/10$ and 5000 points and a rational initial condition $x(0)= 0.1$. We also consider a parameterized family of kernels of the form $$k(x,y)=
\alpha_0\, \mbox{max}\{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2|}{\sigma_0}\}+
\alpha_1\, e^{\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_1^2}}+\alpha_2 e^{-\frac{||x-y||_2}{\sigma_2^2}}
+\alpha_3
e^{- \sigma_3 \sin^2(\sigma_4 \pi ||x-y||_2)}e^{- \frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_5^2}}
+\alpha_4 ||x-y||_2^2$$ Results are summarized in the following table
[ |g |c| c |c| c|]{} & $ [\alpha_0,\sigma_0,\alpha_1,\sigma_1,\alpha_2,\sigma_2,\alpha_3,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5, \alpha_5]$ & No. of it. & $R_1$ & $R_2$\
$\rho$ & $[23.98, 1.13,1.13, 0.83, 32.73,0.72, 32.09,0.29,4.47,0.20,
0.10]$ & 500 & $0.016$ & 0.014\
& $[0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0]$ & 0 & 0.182 & 0.118\
Example 2 (Logistic map):
-------------------------
Consider the logistic map $x(k+1)=4 x(k)(1-x(k))$. To approximate this map, we use an initial condition $x(0)= 0.1$ and use 200 points to train the kernel and for interpolation. We use a kernel of the form $$k(x,y)=\alpha_0 e^{-\sigma_1\sin^2(\pi \sigma_2 ||x-y||_2^2)} e^{-||x-y||_2^2/\sigma_3^2}$$ and initialize with the set of parameters $(\alpha_0,\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3)=(1,1,1,1)$. Let $R_1$ be the RMSE for an initial condition $x(0)=0.4$, $R_2$ for $x(0)=0.97$ with 5000 points.
[ |g |c| c |c| c|]{} & $ [\alpha_0,\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3]$ & No. of it. & $R_1$ & $R_2$\
$\rho$ & $[0.95, 0.98,1.20,0.62]$ & 100 & 0.0004 & 0.002\
$\rho_L$ & $[0.6, 1.8,2.3,1.4]$ & 1000 & 0.001 & 0.001\
& $[1,1,1,1]$ & 0 & 0.004 & 0.0004\
Figure \[logistic\].a shows the results for an initial condition $x(0)= 0.3$ and 5000 points. Figure \[logistic\].b shows the prediction errors for the case of an approximation with a learned kernel using $\rho$, $\rho_L$ and a kernel without learning. Figure \[variance\_logistic\] shows the plot of error interval for $f^\dagger(x)$ given by $\Delta(f(x))$ in (\[delta\]).
We also consider a parameterized family of kernels of the form $$k(x,y)=
\alpha_0^2\, \mbox{max}\{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2|}{\sigma_0}\}+
\alpha_1^2\, e^{\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_1^2}}+\alpha_2^2 e^{-\frac{||x-y||_2}{\sigma_2^2}}
+\alpha_3^2
e^{- \sigma_3 \sin^2(\sigma_4 \pi ||x-y||_2^2)}e^{- \frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_5^2}}
+\alpha_4^2 ||x-y||_2^2$$ We initialize with a gaussian kernel. The results are summarized in the following table where $R_1$ corresponds to the RMSE with $x(0)=0.4$ and $R_2$ corresponds to the RMSE with $x(0)=0.97$.
[ |g |c| c |c| c|]{} & $ [\alpha_0,\sigma_0,\alpha_1,\sigma_1,\alpha_2,\sigma_2,\alpha_3,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\alpha_4]$ & No. of it. & $R_1$ & $R_2$\
$\rho$ & $[ 0.15,
0.96,
0.99,
1.02,
0.08,
0.98,
-3.96\, 10^{-05},
0.99,
0.99,
0.99,
0.98]$ & 500 & 0.0003 & 0.0004\
& $[0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0]$ & 0 & 0.004 & 0.004\
![Uncertainty $\Delta(f(x))$ in formula (\[error\_estimate\]) for an initial condition $x_0=\pi/4$[]{data-label="variance_logistic"}](var_logistique.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Example 3 (Hénon map)
---------------------
Consider the Hénon map $$\begin{aligned}
x(k+1) &=& 1-ax(k)^2+y(k) \\
y(k+1) &= & b x(k)\end{aligned}$$ with $a = 1.4$ and $b = 0.3$. To learn this map, we generate 100 points with initial conditions $(x(0), y(0))=(0.9, -0.9)$ to learn two kernels $$k_i(x,y)=\alpha_{i}+(\beta_{i}+||x-y||^{\kappa_i}_2)^{\sigma_i}+\delta_i e^{-||x-y||_2^2/{\mu_i^2}}$$ ($i=1,2$) corresponding to the two maps $\left[\begin{array}{c}x(k)\\y(k) \end{array} \right] \mapsto x(k+1)$ and $\left[\begin{array}{c}x(k)\\y(k) \end{array} \right] \mapsto y(k+1)$. We initialize with a gaussian kernel and after 1000 iterations, we get[^5]
[ |g |c| c |c| ]{} & $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha_{1} & \beta_{1}& \kappa_1 & \sigma_1 & \delta_1 & \mu_1\\
\alpha_{2} & \beta_{2} & \kappa_2 & \sigma_2 & \delta_2& \mu_2 \end{array}\right]$ & No. of it. & $R_1$\
$\rho$ & $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}0.99 & 1.12 & 0.74 & 2.21 & 0.98 & 0.89\\
1.00 & 1.01 & 3.35 & 0.008 & 0.95 & 1.35
\end{array}\right]$ & 1000 & $\left[\begin{array}{c} 0.04 \\
0.01 \end{array}\right]$\
& $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \end{array}\right]$ & 0 & $\left[\begin{array}{c} 0.07 \\
0.01 \end{array}\right]$\
We generate a time series for the initial conditions $(x(0),y(0))=(-0.1,0.1)$ and simulate for 5000 points. Figure \[henon1\] shows the true and approximated dynamics as well as the difference between the true and approximated dynamics using the learned kernel and without learning the kernel.\
We also consider a parameterized family of kernels of the form $$k(x,y)=
\alpha_{0,i}^2\, \mbox{max}\{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2|}{\sigma_{0,i}}\}+
\alpha_{1,i}^2\, e^{\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_{1,i}^2}}+\alpha_{2,i}^2 e^{-\frac{||x-y||_2}{\sigma_{2,i}^2}}
+\alpha_{3,i}^2
e^{- \sigma_{3,i} \sin^2(\sigma_{4,i} \pi ||x-y||_2^2)}e^{- \frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_{5,i}^2}}
+\alpha_{4,i}^2 ||x-y||_2^2$$ We initialize with a gaussian kernel. The results are summarized in the following table where $R_1$ corresponds to the RMSE with $x(0)=0.4$ and $R_2$ corresponds to the RMSE with $x(0)=0.97$ and 5000 points.
[ |g |c| c |c| ]{} & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
\alpha_{0,1}&\sigma_{0,1}&\alpha_{1,1}&\sigma_{1,1}&\alpha_{2,1}&\sigma_{2,1}&\alpha_{3,1} & \sigma_{3,1} & \sigma_{4,1} & \sigma_{5,1} & \alpha_{4,1}\\
\alpha_{0,2}&\sigma_{0,2}&\alpha_{1,2}&\sigma_{1,2}&\alpha_{2,2}&\sigma_{2,2}&\alpha_{3,2} & \sigma_{3,2} & \sigma_{4,2} & \sigma_{5,2} & \alpha_{4,2} \end{array}\right]$ & N & $R_1$\
$\rho$ & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc} 4.48\, 10^{-08} & 1.00 & 2.25 & 2.41 & 0.0& 1.01& 0.17& 1.07& 1.17 & 1.21 & 0.60 \\
0.18 & 0.96 & 1.09 & 2.30 & 0.20 & 1.00 & 0.26 & 1.03 & 1.11 & 0.84 & 1.65 \, 10^{-14} \end{array}\right]$ & 5000 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}0.05\\
0.008 \end{array}\right]$\
& $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \\
0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \end{array}\right]$ & 0 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}0.08\\
0.01 \end{array}\right]$\
### Finding $\tau$
Now, we consider the scalar dimensional version of the Hénon map as $x(k+1)=1-ax(k)^2+bx(k-1)$. We aim at learning the kernel and finding the optimal time delay $\tau$. We start with an initial condition $(x(0), y(0))= (0.8, -0.9)$ and generate 100 points for learning. We use a kernel of the form $$k(x,y)=\alpha_0+(\beta_0+||x-y||_2^{\gamma_0})^{\sigma_0}.$$ We generate 100 points for different values of $\tau$ from 0 to 6. Figure \[henon\_energies\_kmd\] shows the root mean square error (RMSE) for prediction with 5000 points and initial condition $(x(0), y(0))= (0.1, -0.1)$. It shows that $\tau=1$ is where the RMSE starts stabilizing and can be viewed as an optimal embedding delay.
Another method for finding the embedding delay is the Kernel Mode Decomposition (KMD) [@kmd_owhadi] of the time series. We consider a representation of the time series as $$v(t+1)=\sum_{j=0}^{N}\alpha_j K(V_{\tau^{\dagger}}(t),V_{\tau^{\dagger}}(j)),$$ with $V_{\tau^{\dagger}}(t)=[v(t)\cdots v(t-\tau^{\dagger})]$. Following [@kmd_owhadi], we define the model alignment energy ${\cal E}_i$ associated to the time-shift $\tau=i$, $i=0,\cdots,\tau_{\scriptsize \mbox{max}}$ as $${\cal E}_i=v^T K^{-1} K_i K^{-1} v$$ with $$K(x,y)=\sum_{i=0}^{\tau_{\scriptsize \mbox{\tiny max}}} K_i(x,y)$$ and $K_i(x,y)=K({\cal S}_i x,{\cal S}_i y)$ with ${\cal S}_i$ the time-truncation operator that truncates time-series at the $i-$th element: given a time series $Y = \{Y_t: t \in \mathbb{T}\}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is the index set, ${\cal S}_iY=\{[y(t-i)\cdots y(t)]: t \in \mathbb{T}\}$.
We use the embedding delay $\tau^{\dagger}$ that maximizes ${\cal E}_i$. We apply this method to $x(k+1)=1-ax(k)^2+bx(k-1)$. We use $K(x,y)=1+e^{-||x-y||_2^2}$ to compute the energies of the embedding delays and get that ${\cal E}_1$ is the maximal value and we deduce that the optimal embedding delay is $1$ which agrees with the model. Considering the Hénon map in the $y-$variable, we get $y(k+2)=b-\frac{a}{b} \, y^2(k+1)+by(k)$. We compute the energy ${\cal E}_i$ of the embedding delay $i$, observe that ${\cal E}_1$ is the maximal value and deduce that the optimal embedding delay is $1$ which agrees with the model.
Figure \[henon\_energies\_kmd\] shows the values of the energies of the time-delays for both the $x-$ dynamics and $y-$dynamics.
### Using partial information to approximate the dynamics
In order to learn the dynamics with partial information using measurements from $x$ only, we use the kernel $$k_i(x,y)= \alpha_{1,i}^2\max(0,1-\frac{||x-y||^2}{\sigma_{1,i}})
+\alpha_{2,i}^2e^{-\frac{||x-y||^2}{\sigma_{2,i}^2}}
+\alpha_{3,i}^2||x-y||^2+\alpha_{4,i}^2e^{-\frac{||x-y||}{\sigma_{4,i}}},$$ and $\tau=1$, i.e. we learn kernels for the mappings $\left(\begin{array}{c}x(k)\\x(k-1) \end{array}\right) \mapsto x(k+1)$ and $\left(\begin{array}{c}x(k)\\x(k-1) \end{array}\right) \mapsto y(k+1)$. We use 50 points with initial condition $x(0),x(1)=(0.9, -0.9)$ for training and the parameters of the learned kernel are summarized in the following table. Figure \[henon1p\] shows the results for initial conditions $(x(0),x(1))=(-0.83,0.57)$ with RMSE $R_1$.
[ |g |c| c |c| ]{} & $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha_{1,1}&\sigma_{1,1}&\alpha_{2,1}&\sigma_{2,1}&\alpha_{3,1}&\sigma_{3,1}&\alpha_{4,1}\\
\alpha_{1,2}&\sigma_{1,2}&\alpha_{2,2}&\sigma_{2,2}&\alpha_{3,2}&\sigma_{3,2}&\alpha_{4,2} \end{array}\right]$ & No. of it. & $R_1$\
$\rho$ & $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}1.5\,10^{-15} & 1.0 & 7.02 & -2.94 & -6.75 & 4.9\, 10^{-47} & 0.07\\
0.21 & 0.75 & 1.70 & 3.54 & 3.7\, 10^{-27} & 0.13 & 0.91 \end{array}\right]$ & 5000 & $\left[\begin{array}{c}0.019\\
0.005 \end{array}\right]$\
& $\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \end{array}\right]$ & 0 & $\left[\begin{array}{c}0.87\\
0.14 \end{array}\right]$\
Example 4 (The Lorenz system):
------------------------------
Consider the Lorenz system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dx}{dt} &=& s (y - x) \\
\frac{dy}{dt} &=& r x - y - x z \\
\frac{dz}{dt} &=& x y - bz\end{aligned}$$ with $s=10$, $r=28$, $b=10/3$. We use the initial condition $(x(0),y(0),z(0))= (0., 1., 1.05)$ and generate 10,000 (training) points with a time step $h=0.01$.
We randomly pick $N=100$ points out of the original 10,000 points to train the kernel at each iteration (i.e. at each iteration we use 100 randomly selected points to compute the gradient of $\rho$ and move the parameters in the gradient descent direction by one small step) and use the last random selection of $N=100$ points for interpolation (prediction). We use a kernel of the form $$K_i(x,y)=\alpha_{0,i}+(\alpha_{1,i}+||x-y||_2)^{\beta_i}+\alpha_{2,i} e^{(-||x-y||_2^2/{\sigma_i^2})}$$ for $i=1,2,3$. The table below summarizes the results for training using $\rho$ and $\rho_L$ as well as the RMSE for an initial condition $(x(0),y(0),z(0))= (0.5, 1.5, 2.5)$ and 50,000 points
[ |g |c| c |c| ]{} & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
\alpha_{0,1}&\alpha_{1,1}&\beta_1&\alpha_{2,1}&\sigma_{1}\\ \alpha_{0,2}&\alpha_{1,2}&\beta_2&\alpha_{2,2}&\sigma_{2}\\\alpha_{0,3}&\alpha_{1,3}&\beta_3 &\alpha_{2,3}&\sigma_{3} \end{array}\right]$ & & $R_1$\
$\rho$ & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 1.00 & 0.95 & 2.02 & 0.94 & 1.08 \\
1.00 & 1.02 & 1.79 & 0.98 & 1.00 \\
1.00 & 0.99 & 1.90 & 0.99 & 1.00 \end{array}\right]$ & 1000 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}0.0003 \\ 0.04 \\ 0.01 \end{array}\right]$\
$\rho_L$ & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.55 & 2.5 & 0.6 & 0.55 &
0.95 \\
0.55 & 2.5 & 0.6 & 0.55 &
0.95 \\
0.55 & 2.5 & 0.6 & 0.55 &
0.95 \end{array}\right]$ & 10,000 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}0.39 \\ 0.31 \\ 0.43 \end{array}\right]$\
& $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \\
0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 \end{array}\right]$ & 0 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c} 55.55 \\ 68.42 \\ 50.19 \end{array}\right]$\
Figure \[lorentz1\] shows the results for an initial condition $(x(0),y(0),z(0))= (0.5, 1.5, 2.5)$ and 10,000 points. Figure \[lorentz2\] shows the prediction errors for the case of an approximation with a learned kernel and a kernel without learning. Figure \[lorentz3\] shows the projection of the attractor and its approximation with a learned kernel and a kernel without learning. Figure \[lorentz4\] shows the attractor with a learned kernel and a kernel without learning.
![Time series generated by the true dynamics (red) and the approximation with the learned kernel (blue) - x component in the left figure, y component in the middle figure, z component in the right figure.[]{data-label="lorentz1"}](lorentz_timeseries1.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Time series generated by the true dynamics (red) and the approximation with the learned kernel (blue) - x component in the left figure, y component in the middle figure, z component in the right figure.[]{data-label="lorentz1"}](lorentz_timeseries2.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Time series generated by the true dynamics (red) and the approximation with the learned kernel (blue) - x component in the left figure, y component in the middle figure, z component in the right figure.[]{data-label="lorentz1"}](lorentz_timeseries3.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"}
![Difference between the true and the approximated dynamics with the learned kernel using $\rho$ (red (first, third and fifth from the left)), with the initial kernel (green (second, fourth and sixth from the left)). x-component in the two figures at the left, y-component in the middle two figures, z-component in the right two figures.[]{data-label="lorentz2"}](lorentz_errors1.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Difference between the true and the approximated dynamics with the learned kernel using $\rho$ (red (first, third and fifth from the left)), with the initial kernel (green (second, fourth and sixth from the left)). x-component in the two figures at the left, y-component in the middle two figures, z-component in the right two figures.[]{data-label="lorentz2"}](lorentz_errors2.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Difference between the true and the approximated dynamics with the learned kernel using $\rho$ (red (first, third and fifth from the left)), with the initial kernel (green (second, fourth and sixth from the left)). x-component in the two figures at the left, y-component in the middle two figures, z-component in the right two figures.[]{data-label="lorentz2"}](lorentz_errors3.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"}
![Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using a learned kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (first, third and fifth from the left), Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using with initial kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (second, fourth and sixth from the left)[]{data-label="lorentz3"}](lorentz_attractorsxy1.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using a learned kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (first, third and fifth from the left), Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using with initial kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (second, fourth and sixth from the left)[]{data-label="lorentz3"}](lorentz_attractorsxz1.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using a learned kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (first, third and fifth from the left), Projection of the true attractor and approximation of the attractor using with initial kernel on the XY,XZ and YZ axes (second, fourth and sixth from the left)[]{data-label="lorentz3"}](lorentz_attractorsyz1.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"}
![True attractor (blue) and approximation of the attractor using a learned kernel (red) \[left\], True attractor (blue) and approximation of the attractor using initial kernel (red) \[right\][]{data-label="lorentz4"}](lorentz_attractor_3d_trained.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![True attractor (blue) and approximation of the attractor using a learned kernel (red) \[left\], True attractor (blue) and approximation of the attractor using initial kernel (red) \[right\][]{data-label="lorentz4"}](lorentz_attractor_3d_untrained.pdf "fig:"){width="50mm"}
We also consider a parameterized family of kernels of the form $$K_i(x,y)=
\alpha_{0,i}^2\, \mbox{max}\{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2|}{\sigma_{0,i}}\}+
\alpha_{1,i}^2\, e^{\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_{1,i}^2}}+\alpha_2^2 e^{-\frac{||x-y||_2}{\sigma_{2,i}^2}}
+\alpha_{3,i}^2
e^{- \sigma_{3,i} \sin^2(\sigma_{4,i} \pi ||x-y||_2^2)}e^{- \frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma_{5,i}^2}}
+\alpha_{4,i}^2 ||x-y||_2^2$$ The training and prediction results are shown in the following table with $R_1$ the RMSE corresponding to 50,000 points with initial conditions $(0.5, 1.5, 2.5)$.
[ |g |c| c |c| ]{} & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
\alpha_{0,1}&\sigma_{0,1}&\alpha_{1,1}&\sigma_{1,1}&\alpha_{2,1}&\sigma_{2,1}&\alpha_{3,1} & \sigma_{3,1} & \sigma_{4,1} & \sigma_{5,1} & \alpha_{4,1}\\
\alpha_{0,2}&\sigma_{0,2}&\alpha_{1,2}&\sigma_{1,2}&\alpha_{2,2}&\sigma_{2,2}&\alpha_{3,2} & \sigma_{3,2} & \sigma_{4,2} & \sigma_{5,2} & \alpha_{4,2}\\
\alpha_{0,3}&\sigma_{0,3}&\alpha_{1,3}&\sigma_{1,3}&\alpha_{2,3}&\sigma_{2,3}&\alpha_{3,3} & \sigma_{3,3} & \sigma_{4,3} & \sigma_{5,3} & \alpha_{4,3} \end{array}\right]$ & n & $R_1$\
$\rho$ & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc} 0.16 & 0.99 & 1.59 & 0.98 & 0.15 &
0.99 & 0.16 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.99&
-31.28 \\
-1.03 & 0.99 & -10.96 & 0.10 & -1.18 &
0.97 & -1.07 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.99 &
60.87 \\
0.07 & 0.99& 0.68 & 0.89 & 0.07 & 1.00 &
0.07 & 1.00 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.79 \end{array}\right]$ & 1000 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}1.0\, 10^{-11} \\ 0.24 \\ 0.17 \end{array}\right]$\
& $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \\
0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \\
0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \end{array}\right]$ & 0 & $\scriptsize \left[\begin{array}{c}54.25 \\ 70.21 \\ 674.92 \end{array}\right]$\
#### Remarks
1. Convergence results that characterize the error estimates of the difference between a dynamical system and its approximation from data using kernel methods can be found in [@BHSIAM2017; @lyap_bh].
2. In the case of very large datasets, it is possible to reduce the number of points during training by considering greedy techniques as in [@gabriel; @Sparse_Cholesky].
3. It is possible to include new measurements when approximating the dynamics from data without repeating the learning process. This can be done by working in Newton basis as in [@PAZOUKI2011575].
Conclusion
==========
Our experiments suggest that using cross-validation (with KF and variants) to learn the kernel used to approximate the vector field of a dynamical system, and thereby its dynamics, significantly improves the accuracy of such approximations. Although our paper is entirely numerical, the simplicity of the proposed approach and the diversity of the experiments raise the question of the existence of a general and fundamental convergence theorem for cross-validation.
Acknowledgment
==============
B. H. thanks the European Commission for funding through the Marie Curie fellowship STALDYS-792919 (Statistical Learning for Dynamical Systems). H. O. gratefully acknowledges support by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-18-1-0271 (Games for Computation and Learning). We thank Deniz Eroğlu, Yoshito Hirata, Jeroen Lamb, Edmilson Roque, Gabriele Santin and Yuzuru Sato for useful comments.
Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces
=================================
We give a brief overview of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces as used in statistical learning theory [@CuckerandSmale]. Early work developing the theory of RKHS was undertaken by N. Aronszajn [@aronszajn50reproducing].
Let ${\mathcal H}$ be a Hilbert space of functions on a set ${\mathcal X}$. Denote by $\langle f, g \rangle$ the inner product on ${\mathcal H}$ and let $\|f\|= \langle f, f \rangle^{1/2}$ be the norm in ${\mathcal H}$, for $f$ and $g \in {\mathcal H}$. We say that ${\mathcal H}$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) if there exists a function $K:{\mathcal X} \times {\mathcal X} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that\
i. $K_x:=K(x,\cdot)\in {\cal H}$ for all $x\in {\cal X}$.\
ii. $K$ spans ${\mathcal H}$: ${\mathcal H}=\overline{\mbox{span}\{K_x~|~x \in {\mathcal X}\}}$.\
iii. $K$ has the [*reproducing property*]{}: $\forall f \in {\mathcal H}$, $f(x)=\langle f,K_x \rangle$.\
$K$ will be called a reproducing kernel of ${\mathcal H}$. ${\mathcal H}_K$ will denote the RKHS ${\mathcal H}$ with reproducing kernel $K$ where it is convenient to explicitly note this dependence.
The important properties of reproducing kernels are summarized in the following proposition.
\[prop1\] If $K$ is a reproducing kernel of a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$, then\
i. $K(x,y)$ is unique.\
ii. $\forall x,y \in {\mathcal X}$, $K(x,y)=K(y,x)$ (symmetry).\
iii. $\sum_{i,j=1}^q\alpha_i\alpha_jK(x_i,x_j) \ge 0$ for $\alpha_i \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $x_i \in {\mathcal X}$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}_+$ (positive definiteness).\
iv. $\langle K(x,\cdot),K(y,\cdot) \rangle=K(x,y)$.
Common examples of reproducing kernels defined on a compact domain $\cal{X} \subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ are the (1) constant kernel: $K(x,y)= k > 0$ (2) linear kernel: $K(x,y)=x\cdot y$ (3) polynomial kernel: $K(x,y)=(1+x\cdot y)^d$ for $d \in {\mathbb{N}}_+$ (4) Laplace kernel: $K(x,y)=e^{-||x-y||_2/\sigma^2}$, with $\sigma >0$ (5) Gaussian kernel: $K(x,y)=e^{-||x-y||^2_2/\sigma^2}$, with $\sigma >0$ (6) triangular kernel: $K(x,y)=\max \{0,1-\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{\sigma} \}$, with $\sigma >0$. (7) locally periodic kernel: $K(x,y)=\sigma^2 e^{-2 \frac{ \sin^2(\pi ||x-y||_2/p)}{\ell^2}}e^{-\frac{||x-y||_2^2}{2 \ell^2}}$, with $\sigma, \ell, p >0$.
\[thm1\] Let $K:{\mathcal X} \times {\mathcal X} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a symmetric and positive definite function. Then there exists a Hilbert space of functions ${\mathcal H}$ defined on ${\mathcal X}$ admitting $K$ as a reproducing Kernel. Conversely, let ${\mathcal H}$ be a Hilbert space of functions $f: {\mathcal X} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $\forall x \in {\mathcal X}, \exists \kappa_x>0,$ such that $|f(x)| \le \kappa_x \|f\|_{\mathcal H},
\quad \forall f \in {\mathcal H}. $ Then ${\mathcal H}$ has a reproducing kernel $K$.
\[thm4\] Let $K(x,y)$ be a positive definite kernel on a compact domain or a manifold $X$. Then there exists a Hilbert space $\mathcal{F}$ and a function $\Phi: X \rightarrow \mathcal{F}$ such that $$K(x,y)= \langle \Phi(x), \Phi(y) \rangle_{\cal F} \quad \mbox{for} \quad x,y \in X.$$ $\Phi$ is called a feature map, and $\mathcal{F}$ a feature space[^6].
Function Approximation in RKHSs: An Optimal Recovery Viewpoint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we review function approximation in RKHSs from the point of view of optimal recovery as discussed in [@owhadi_scovel_2019].
#### Problem [**P**]{}:
Given input/output data $(x_1, y_1),\cdots , (x_N , y_N ) \in \mathcal{X} \times \mathbb{R}$, recover an unknown function $u^{\ast}$ mapping $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ such that $u^{\ast}(x_i)=y_i$ for $i \in \{1,...,N\}$.
In the setting of optimal recovery [@owhadi_scovel_2019] Problem [**P**]{} can be turned into a well posed problem by restricting candidates for $u$ to belong to a Banach space of functions $\mathcal{B}$ endowed with a norm $||\cdot||$ and identifying the optimal recovery as the minimizer of the relative error
$$\label{game}
\mbox{min}_v\mbox{max}_u \frac{||u-v||^2}{||u||^2},$$
where the max is taken over $u \in \mathcal{B}$ and the min is taken over candidates in $v \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $v(x_i)=u(x_i)=y_i$. For the validity of the constraints $u(x_i) = y_i$, $\mathcal{B}^{\ast}$, the dual space of $\mathcal{B}$, must contain delta Dirac functions $\phi_i(\cdot)=\delta(\cdot-x_i)$. This problem can be stated as a game between Players I and II and can then be represented as $$\label{eqdkjdhkjhffORgameban}
\text{\xymatrixcolsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\text{(Player I)} & u\ar[dr]_{\max}\in \mathcal{B} & &v\ar[ld]^{\min}\in L(\Phi,\mathcal{B}) &\text{(Player II)}\\
&&\frac{\|u-v(u)\|}{\|u\|}\,.& &
}}\,$$
If $||\cdot||$ is quadratic, i.e. $||u||^2=[Q^{-1}u,u] $ where $[\phi, u]$ stands for the duality product between $\phi \in \mathcal{B}^{\ast}$ and $u \in \mathcal{B}$ and $Q : \mathcal{B}^{\ast}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a positive symmetric linear bijection (i.e. such that $[\phi, Q \phi] \ge 0$ and $[\psi, Q \phi ] = [\phi, Q \psi]$ for $\phi,\psi \in \mathcal{B}^{\ast} $). In that case the optimal solution of (\[game\]) has the explicit form $$\label{sol_rep}v^{\ast}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}u(x_i) A_{i,j} Q \phi_j,$$ where $A=\Theta^{-1}$ and $\Theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N}$ is a Gram matrix with entries $\Theta_{i,j}=[\phi_i,Q\phi_j]$.
To recover the classical representer theorem, one defines the reproducing kernel $K$ as $$K(x,y)=[\delta(\cdot-x),Q\delta(\cdot-y)]$$ In this case, $(\mathcal{B},||\cdot ||)$ can be seen as an RKHS endowed with the norm $$||u||^2=\mbox{sup}_{\phi \in \mathcal{B}^\ast}\frac{(\int \phi(x) u(x) dx)^2}{(\int \phi(x) K(x,y) \phi(y) dx dy)}$$ and (\[sol\_rep\]) corresponds to the classical representer theorem $$\label{eqkjelkjefffhb}
v^{\ast}(\cdot) = y^T AK(x,\cdot),$$ using the vectorial notation $y^T AK(x,\cdot)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}y_iA_{i,j}K(x_j,\cdot)$ with $y_i=u(x_i)$, $A=\Theta^{-1}$ and $\Theta_{i,j} =K(x_i,x_j)$.
Now, let us consider the problem of learning the kernel from data. As introduced in [@Owhadi19], the method of KFs is based on the premise that *a kernel is good if there is no significant loss in accuracy in the prediction error if the number of data points is halved*. This led to the introduction of $$\rho=\frac{||v^{\ast}-v^{s} ||^2}{||v^{\ast} ||^2}$$ which is the relative error between $v^\ast$, the optimal recovery of $u^\ast$ based on the full dataset $X=\{(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_N,y_N)\}$, and $v^s$ the optimal recovery of both $u^\ast$ and $v^\ast$ based on half of the dataset $ X^s=\{(x_i,y_i)\mid i \in \mathcal{S}\}$ ($\operatorname{Card}(\mathcal{S})=N/2$) which admits the representation $$v^s=(y^s)^T A^s K(x^s,\cdot)$$ with $y^s=\{y_i\mid i \in \mathcal{S}\}$, $x^s=\{x_i\mid i \in \mathcal{S}\}$, $A^s=(\Theta^s)^{-1}$, $\Theta^s_{i,j}=K(x_i^s,x_j^s)$. This quantity $\rho$ is directly related to the game in (\[eqdkjdhkjhffORgameban\]) where one is minimizing the relative error of $v^{\ast}$ versus $v^s$. Instead of using the entire the dataset $X$ one may use random subsets $X^{s_1}$ (of $X$) for $v^{\ast}$ and random subsets $ X^{s_2}$ (of $X^{s_1}$) for $v^s$.
Replacing $\|u^\ast \|_{\mathcal{H}}$ by the RKHS norm of the interpolant of $v^\ast$ (with both testing and training points) in gives an error interval for $v^\ast(x)$ in (\[eqkjelkjefffhb\]) as $$\label{error_estimate} v^\ast(x) \pm \Delta(v^\ast(x)),$$ with $$\label{delta} \Delta(v^\ast(x))=\sigma(x) \sqrt{Y^{f,T} K(X^f,X^f)^{-1} Y^f} ,$$ and where $(X^f,Y^f)$ corresponds to the concatenation of the training and testing points. Local error estimates such as (\[error\_estimate\]) are classical in Kriging [@Wu92localerror] (see also [@owhadi2015bayesian]\[Thm. 5.1\] for applications to PDEs). .
The Maximum Mean Discrepancy
----------------------------
Let ${\cal P}$ be the set of Borel probability measures on ${\cal X}$. Given a probability distribution $P$ we define its kernel mean embedding (with respect to a kernel $k$ with RKHS ${\mathcal{H}}$) as $$\begin{array}{rcl} \mu_P: {\cal P}& \rightarrow & {\cal H} \\
P & \mapsto& \int_{\cal X} k(x,y) dP(y) =: \mu_k(P)
\end{array}$$ The maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) between two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ is then defined as the distance between two such embeddings and can be expressed as $$\begin{array}{rcl} \mbox{MMD}(P,Q) &:=& ||\mu_P-\mu_Q||_{\cal H}, \\
&=& \big(\mathbb{E} _{x,{x}^{\prime}}(k(x,x^{\prime}))+\mathbb{E} _{y,{y}^{\prime}}(k(y,y^{\prime}))-2 \mathbb{E} _{x,y}(k(x,y)\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{array}$$ where $x$ and $x^{\prime}$ are independent random variables drawn according to $P$, $y$ and $y^{\prime}$ are independent random variables drawn according to $Q$, and $x$ is independent of $y$.
Given i.i.d. samples from $X:=\{x_1,...,x_m\}$ and $Y:=\{y_1,...,y_n\}$, from $P$ and $Q$ respectively, recall that the MMD in RKHSs is defined as the difference between the kernel mean embeddings defined as as follows. Given i.i.d samples $(x_1,\cdots,x_m)$ from $P$ and $(y_1,\cdots,y_n)$ from $Q$, the MMD between the empirical distributions $(\delta_{x_1}+\cdots+\delta_{x_m})/m$ and $(\delta_{y_1}+\cdots+\delta_{y_n})/n$ is an unbiased estimate of $\mbox{MMD}(P,Q)$ with the representation $$\label{eqlkedkejd}
\mbox{MMD}_u^2 := \frac{1}{m^2}\sum_{i, j=1}^m k(x_i,x_j)+\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i, j=1}^n k(y_i,y_j)-\frac{2}{n m}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^n k(x_i,y_j)$$
[^1]: A brief overview of RKHSs is given in the appendix.
[^2]: $\rho:=\|u^b-u^c\|^2_{K_\theta}/\|u^b\|^2_{K_\theta}$, with $u^b(x)=K_\theta(x,X^b) K_\theta(X^b,X^b)^{-1} Y^b$ and $u^c(x)=K_\theta(x,X^c) K_\theta(X^c,X^c)^{-1} Y^c$, and $\rho$ admits the representation enabling its computation
[^3]: One could also consider the MMD between a sample $S_1$ of size $m$ and a subsample of $S_1$ of size $m/2$.
[^4]: The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a standard way to measure the error of a model in predicting quantitative data. Formally it is defined as $\mbox{RMSE}=\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(\hat{y}_i-y_i)^2}{n}}$ with $\hat{y}_1,\cdots,\hat{y}_n$ are predicted values, $y_1,\cdots,y_n$ are observed values and $n$ is the number of observations.
[^5]: We notice that the algorithm converges to non-integer powers. Terms of the form $||x-y||_2^{\alpha}$ can be represented as $e^{\alpha \log||x-y||_2}$ which could be a reproducing kernel.
[^6]: The dimension of the feature space can be infinite, for example in the case of the Gaussian kernel.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the classical Rosenbluth method for sampling self-avoiding walks [@hammersley1954; @rosenbluth1955] can be extended to a general algorithm for sampling many families of objects, including self-avoiding polygons. The implementation relies on an elementary move which is a generalisation of kinetic growth; rather than only appending edges to the endpoint, edges may be inserted at any vertex providing the resulting objects still lie within the same family. We implement this method using pruning and enrichment [@grassberger1997] to sample self-avoiding walks and polygons. The algorithm can be further extended by mixing it with length-preserving moves, such pivots and crank-shaft moves.'
author:
- 'A. Rechnitzer'
- 'E. J. Janse van Rensburg'
bibliography:
- 'garmbib.bib'
title: 'Generalised Atmospheric Rosenbluth Methods (GARM)'
---
Monte Carlo simulations of self-avoiding walks (SAWs) and self-avoiding polygons (SAPs) on regular lattices are a major tool for the study of polymer statistics [@degennes1979]. While kinetic growth algorithms [@hammersley1954; @rosenbluth1955] have been used to sample SAWs to great success, it is unclear how they might be applied to SAPs. SAPs are models of ring polymers, plasmids (mitochondrial DNA) [@rybenkov1993; @gee1997; @marcone2007] and appear in the zero-component limit of the $N$-vector model [@symanzik1969]. In this paper, we generalise a growth algorithm for SAWs and show how it may be used to sample SAPs and other objects.
The Rosenbluth method for sampling self-avoiding walks (SAWs) is a classical algorithm dating back to the 1950s [@hammersley1954; @rosenbluth1955]. This method found new application with the development of a pruned and enriched implementation, called PERM, due to Grassberger [@grassberger1997]. This was in turn further extended using flat-histogram and multicanonical methods [@bachmann2003; @prellberg2004]. These new algorithms have found many applications in the modelling of polymers (eg.[@causo2000; @krawczyk2007; @hsu2007]).
The Rosenbluth method samples SAWs by growing conformations from a single vertex and iteratively adding edges from the final vertex to its unoccupied nearest neighbours. Let $\omega$ be a SAW of $n$ edges and let $m_k$ be the number of unoccupied nearest neighbour vertices of its endpoint when it is truncated after $k$ edges (after the $k^\mathrm{th}$ iteration). The probability of sampling $\omega$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\omega) &= \prod_{k=1}^{n} m_{k-1}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ If $m_k=0$ the conformation is trapped and a new conformation is started. This attrition makes it difficult to sample long SAWs and sampling by this method is not uniform. The sample bias can be removed by weighting each SAW by $W(\omega)
= \Pr(\omega)^{-1}$. The mean weight of all SAWs of length $n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{|\omega|=n} W(\omega) \Pr(\omega) &= c_n\end{aligned}$$ where $c_n$ is the number of SAWs of length $n$. Thus one can estimate the number of conformations by computing the average weight of sampled SAWs. Sample averages of observables are computed by taking weighted averages.
The original Rosenbluth algorithm converges very slowly because of attrition and the large variance in weights of longer SAWs. Grassberger’s pruned and enriched implementation [@grassberger1997] constituted a major advance that allows the algorithm to reduce these effects. This significantly improves its efficiency and applicability.
In this paper we demonstrate how the Rosenbluth algorithm can be generalised; SAWs can be sampled by inserting edges at any vertex rather than only at the endpoint. This idea may be extended to a growth algorithm for SAPs and other lattice objects. We also show how to combine it with length preserving moves such as pivots.
Atmospheres {#atmospheres .unnumbered}
===========
Let $\omega$ be a SAW on the square lattice, starting from the origin. A *positive endpoint atmospheric edge* of $\omega$ is an edge on the lattice that can be appended to the last vertex of $\omega$ to extend its length by one while respecting self-avoidance (see Figure \[fig endpoint\]).
![A SAW and its two positive endpoint atmospheric edges.[]{data-label="fig endpoint"}](endpoint_atm){height="3.5cm"}
The size of the positive atmosphere of $\omega$, $a_+(\omega)$, is the number of positive atmospheric edges. We abuse our notation and use $a_+$ to denote both the set of positive atmospheric edges and its size. Adding positive endpoint atmospheric edges increases the length of the SAW.
Appending a positive atmospheric edge to $\omega$ to obtain $\omega'$ creates a linkage $(\omega,\omega')$ (see Figure \[fig linkage\]). Deleting the last edge from $\omega'$ gives $\omega$; we define the *negative endpoint atmosphere* of $\omega'$ to be this edge. We denote the size of the negative atmosphere of $\omega'$ by $a_-(\omega')$ and we again abuse notation by also using this symbol to denote the set of such edges. In the present context $a_-(\omega') \equiv 1$, but below we consider more general positive and negative atmospheres.
![A schematic picture of the linkages between $c_n$ and $c_{n+1}$. There is one conformation with empty positive atmosphere.[]{data-label="fig linkage"}](linkages){height="3.5cm"}
By counting the number of linkages, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\# \mbox{linkages} &= \sum_{\omega} a_+(\omega) = \sum_{\omega'} a_-(\omega')
= c_{n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn atm ratio}
\frac{\langle a_+ \rangle_n }{\langle a_- \rangle_{n+1} } &=
\frac{c_{n+1}}{c_n}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_-(\omega') \equiv 1$ and the averages are taken over the uniform distribution.
This observation can be used to estimate growth constants and free-energies of SAWs and bond trees [@rechnitzer2002; @vanrensburg2003; @vanrensburg2004]. We extend these definitions and show how they lead to a significant generalisation of the Rosenbluth algorithm.
Define the positive atmosphere, $a_+(\omega)$, to be the number of ways that an edge can be inserted into $\omega$ at any of its vertices so that a SAW is obtained (see Figure \[fig genatm\]). Note that there are SAWs with empty positive atmosphere.
![The SAW on the right is obtained from the SAW on the left by inserting a north edge at the black vertex. This is one of its eleven positive atmospheric edges. It has three negative atmospheric edges.[]{data-label="fig genatm"}](gen_saw_atm){height="3.0cm"}
Inserting a positive atmospheric edge into $\omega$ results in a new SAW, $\omega'$. The negative atmosphere, $a_-(\omega')$, is the number of ways that an edge can be deleted to obtain a SAW. Linkages are created as above and equation holds by the same arguments. Simulations show that the distribution of atmospheres are narrowly peaked (see Figure \[fig saw seq\]).
Generalised atmospheric Rosenbluth method {#generalised-atmospheric-rosenbluth-method .unnumbered}
=========================================
The generalised atmospheres, $a_\pm$, can be used to define a generalised Rosenbluth method for sampling SAWs. The algorithm starts with a single vertex, $\varphi_0$, and grows a sequence of SAWs, $\varphi = \varphi_0, \dots,
\varphi_n$, by inserting a positive atmospheric edge at each iteration. The conformation $\varphi_{k+1}$ is obtained from $\varphi_k$ by inserting an edge chosen uniformly from the available positive atmospheric edges, $a_+(\varphi_k)$. We call this the Generalised Atmospheric Rosenbluth Method (GARM). This method generalises the percolation based algorithms for trees in [@care2000; @hsu2005].
A *sequence* of $n+1$ SAWs, $\varphi = \varphi_0,\dots, \varphi_n$, is obtained after $n$ iterations with probability $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\varphi\,|\,\varphi_0) &= \prod_{k=1}^{n} a_+(\varphi_{k-1})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since a given conformation can be obtained in several different ways, this is *not* the probability of obtaining the last SAW in the sequence. As such we give a weight to the sequence of SAWS, not only to compensate for the non-uniform sampling probability, but also to take into account this degeneracy. The weight of a sequence of SAWs, $\varphi = \varphi_0, \dots,
\varphi_n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
W(\varphi)
&= \prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{a_+(\varphi_{k-1})}{a_-(\varphi_{k})}\end{aligned}$$ if $n \geq 1$ and $W(\varphi)=1$ if $n=0$.
The mean weight of sequences of length $n+1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle W \rangle_n &= \sum_{\varphi} W(\varphi) \Pr(\varphi \,|\, \varphi_0)
= c_n.\end{aligned}$$ To see this, consider all the sequences that end in a particular SAW $\tau$ of length $n$. It suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn phi sum}
1 &= \sum_{\varphi \to \tau} W(\varphi) \Pr(\varphi \,|\,\varphi_0)
= \sum_{\varphi \to \tau} \prod_{k=1}^{n} a_-(\varphi_{k})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where the sums are over all sequences that end in $\tau$. Note that one must consider all the possible choices of atmospheric edges, so that there are $n!$ sequences that end in the SAW made up of $n$ east edges.
We reinterpret the product of negative atmospheres as the probability of returning to the single vertex under the following process. Starting at $\varphi_n$, we delete negative atmospheric edges from $\varphi_k$ to obtain $\varphi_{k-1}$ iteratively. The probability of realising $\varphi_0$ along the sequence $\varphi$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\varphi_0 | \varphi)
&= \prod_{k=1}^{n} \Pr(\varphi_{k-1} \,|\, \varphi_k)
= \prod_{k=1}^{n} a_-(\varphi_k)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since all sequences that end at $\tau$ must return to $\varphi_0$ by this process, summing over $\varphi$ gives equation as required.
![Typical evolution of $W(\varphi)^{1/n}$ for both Rosenbluth and GARM sampling. Shown are 20 samples from each. While GARM does suffer from attrition, SAWs sampled by Rosenbluth have larger variance and a higher rate of attrition. The insets show the distributions of positive and negative atmospheres per vertex (top) and endpoint atmospheres (bottom); the peak heights have been normalised to 1.[]{data-label="fig saw seq"}](trajectories2){height="5.5cm"}
The above proof becomes trivial in the case of the endpoint atmosphere since $a_- \equiv 1$ and each SAW is obtained in exactly one way. The proof breaks down in models in which a given conformation cannot be reached by inserting positive atmospheric edges.
![A plot of $c_n^{1/n}$ as estimated from GARM data up to length 200. Exact enumeration data up to length 71 taken from [@jensen2004] is shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig saw2d data"}](saw2d_plot){height="4.0cm"}
In Figure \[fig saw2d data\] we show that data obtained by a pruned and enriched implementation of GARM for SAWs agrees with exact enumeration data from [@jensen2004]. We generated SAWs of a maximum of 200 edges with approximately $10^6$ trajectories consisting of a total of $2.5 \times 10^8$ samples. This took about an hour on a laptop computer. This algorithm for the square-lattice generalises to SAWs on any graph with finite maximal degree.
Extensions to polygons, trees and animals {#extensions-to-polygons-trees-and-animals .unnumbered}
=========================================
We now extend this algorithm to SAPs on the square lattice. In a previous paper, we defined the positive atmosphere to be the locations in which a single edge can be replaced by a $\sqcap$ conformation of three edges and the negative atmosphere was defined by the inverse of this process [@vanrensburg2008]. This definition is insufficient for GARM since there are many conformations that are not obtainable from the unit square; for example the $2 \times 2$ square.
We generalise the notion of positive atmospheres of SAPs by considering all the pairs of vertices at which anti-parallel edges may be inserted to obtain a longer SAP. The negative atmosphere is defined by finding all pairs of edges that may be removed to obtain a SAP. See Figure \[fig sap atm\]. All SAPs have non-zero positive atmosphere. Since the atmospheres now consist of pairs of edges we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn sap atm ratio}
\frac{\langle a_+ \rangle_{2n} }{\langle a_- \rangle_{2n+2} } &=
\frac{p_{2n+2}}{p_{2n}}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{2n}$ is the number of SAPs of length $2n$.
![A SAP and the insertion of a pair of anti-parallel edges. This SAP has positive atmosphere of 21 and negative atmosphere of 4.[]{data-label="fig sap atm"}](gen_sap_atm){height="3.0cm"}
![A plot of $p_{n}^{1/n}$ as estimated from GARM data up to length 200 for even $n$. Exact enumeration data up to length 110 taken from [@jensen2003] is shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig sap2d data"}](sap2d_plot){height="4.0cm"}
In Figure \[fig sap2d data\] we show that data obtained by a PERM-like implementation of GARM for SAPs agrees with exact enumeration data from [@jensen2003]. We generated SAPs of a maximum of 200 edges with approximately $4 \times 10^5$ trajectories consisting of a total of $5 \times
10^7$ samples. This took a few hours on a laptop computer.
This algorithm does not simply generalise to three dimensions with this definition of atmospheres. If $\varphi_0$ is chosen to be a unit square, then knotted conformations cannot be reached since inserting atmospheric edges does not allow strand passages.
GARM can be applied to lattice bond trees. The algorithm is then closely related to the algorithm in [@care2000; @hsu2005]. In this case we define the positive atmosphere by looking at all the vertices at which an edge can be inserted to obtain a valid tree. When inserting an edge at a given vertex, one must be careful to consider all the possible ways of distributing the incident branches between both ends of the new edge. One may similarly define positive and negative atmospheres for animals. The positive atmosphere is defined by all the ways in which an edge may be inserted at vertices; unlike the tree case, some inserted edges will create cycles and so are double counted as they can be inserted from either vertex. The negative atmosphere is defined by the inverse of this process and atmospheric edges that are not cut-edges will be double counted. This algorithm works for site-trees; this may be easily implemented by defining positive and negative atmospheres in terms of leaves, but more general atmospheres are possible.
The implementation of the GARM algorithm requires rapid calculation of the positive and negative atmospheres. For SAWs the positive and negative atmospheres are $O(n)$ while for SAPs they are $O(n^2)$. At present we are able to compute the atmospheres in $O(n)$ time for SAWs and $O(n^2)$ for SAPs. Since the atmospheres must be computed at each iteration, the time to produce a conformation of length $n$ is $O(n^2)$ and $O(n^3)$ for SAWs and SAPs respectively.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
The definitions of atmospheres above were limited to positive and negative since they either increase or decrease the number of edges. We can generalise this further by including the notion of neutral atmospheric moves, $a_0$, which change the conformation without changing its size — for example a pivot move. At each iteration the algorithm chooses uniformly to add an edge from the positive atmosphere or to apply a neutral atmospheric move. The probability of obtaining a sequence $\varphi$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\varphi\,|\,\varphi_0)
&= \prod_{k=1}^{|\varphi|-1} \left( a_+(\varphi_{k-1}) + a_0(\varphi_{k-1})
\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding weight is $$\begin{aligned}
W(\varphi)
&= \prod_{k=1}^{|\varphi|-1} \frac{a_+(\varphi_{k-1})+a_0(\varphi_{k-1})}
{a_-(\varphi_k) + a_0(\varphi_k) }.\end{aligned}$$ where $|\varphi|$ is the number of conformations in the sequence $\varphi$. The average weight of all sequences ending in a conformation of size $n$ is $c_n$; the proof is as above. This addition makes it possible to sample SAPs in three dimensions and higher since the pivot algorithm is ergodic [@madras1990].
The algorithm can also be adapted to include Boltzmann factors (as per [@seno1988; @grassberger1997]) so as to compute free energies. Further extensions such as multicanonical or flat histogram methods, such as those developed in [@bachmann2003; @prellberg2004] are possible. We are currently investigating techniques to compute atmospheres more efficiently as this will improve the convergence of the GARM algorithm.
This paper was written while visiting the Erwin Schrödinger Institute in Vienna and thank them for their support. We acknowledge support from NSERC Canada in the form of Discovery Grants. We thank Juan Alvarez, Enzo Orlandini, Aleks Owczarek, Thomas Prellberg and Stu Whittington for discussions and comments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Humans connect language and vision to perceive the world. How to build a similar connection for computers? One possible way is via visual concepts, which are text terms that relate to visually discriminative entities. We propose an automatic visual concept discovery algorithm using parallel text and visual corpora; it filters text terms based on the visual discriminative power of the associated images, and groups them into concepts using visual and semantic similarities. We illustrate the applications of the discovered concepts using bidirectional image and sentence retrieval task and image tagging task, and show that the discovered concepts not only outperform several large sets of manually selected concepts significantly, but also achieves the state-of-the-art performance in the retrieval task.'
author:
- |
Chen Sun\
Univ. of Southern California\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Chuang Gan[^1]\
Tsinghua University\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Ram Nevatia\
Univ. of Southern California\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Automatic Concept Discovery from Parallel Text and Visual Corpora
---
Introduction
============
Language and vision are both important for us to understand the world. Humans are good at connecting the two modalities. Consider the sentence “A fluffy dog leaps to catch a ball”: we can all relate *fluffy dog*, *dog leap* and *catch ball* to the visual world and describe them in our own words easily. However, to enable a computer to do something similar, we need to first understand what to learn from the visual world, and how to relate them to the text world.
*Visual concepts* are a natural choice to serve as the basic unit to connect language and vision. A visual concept is a subset of human vocabulary which specifies a group of visual entities (e.g. *fluffy dog, curly dog*). We name the collection of visual concepts as a visual vocabulary. Computer vision researchers have long collected image examples of manually selected visual concepts, and used them to train concept detectors. For example, ImageNet [@imagenet_cvpr09] selects 21,841 synsets in WordNet as the visual concepts, and has by far collected 14,197,122 images in total. One limitation of the manually selected concepts is that their visual detectors often fail to capture the complexity of the visual world, and cannot adapt to different domains. For example, people may be interested in detecting *birthday cakes* when they try to identify a *birthday party*, but this concept is not present in ImageNet.
To address this problem, we propose to discover the visual concepts automatically by joint use of parallel text and visual corpora. The text data in parallel corpora offers a rich set of terms humans use to describe visual entities, while visual data has the potential to help computer organize the terms into visual concepts. To be useful, we argue that the visual concepts should have the following properties:
**Discriminative**: a visual concept must refer to visually discriminative entities that can be learned by available computer vision algorithms.
**Compact**: different terms describing the same set of visual entities should be merged into a single concept.
-----------------------------------------------
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
-----------------------------------------------
Our proposed visual concept discovery (VCD) framework first extracts unigrams and dependencies from the text data. It then computes the visual discriminative power of these terms using their associated images and filters out the terms with low cross-validated average precision. The remaining terms may be merged together if they correspond to very similar visual entities. To achieve this, we use semantic similarity and visual similarity scores, and cluster terms based on these similarities. The final output of VCD is a concept vocabulary, where each concept consists a set of terms and has a set of associated images. The pipeline of our approach is illustrated in Figure \[fig:teaser\].
We work with the Flickr 8k data set to discover visual concepts; it consists of 8,000 images downloaded from the Flickr website. Each image was annotated by 5 Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) workers to describe its content. We design a concept based pipeline for bidirectional image and sentence retrieval task [@DBLP:journals/jair/HodoshYH13] to automatically evaluate the quality of the discovered concepts. We also conduct a human evaluation on a free-form image tagging task using visual concepts. Evaluation results show that the discovered concepts outperform manually selected concepts significantly.
Our key contributions include:
- We show that manually selected concepts often fail to capture the complexity of and to evolve with the visual world;
- We propose the VCD framework, which automatically generates discriminative and compact visual vocabularies from parallel corpora;
- We demonstrate qualitatively and quantitatively that the discovered concepts outperform several large sets of manually selected concepts significantly. They also perform competitively in the image sentence retrieval task against state-of-the-art embedding based approaches.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
**Applications of visual concepts.** Visual concepts have been widely used in visual recognition tasks [@LiSXL10OB; @Sadanand12AB; @zhou2014places]. For example, [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/FarhadiEHF09] addresses the problem of describing objects with pre-defined attributes. Sadeghi et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/SadeghiF11] propose to recognize complex visual composites by defining visual phrases. For video analysis, people commonly use predefined pools of concepts (e.g. *blowing candle*, *cutting cake*) to help classify and describe high-level activities or events (e.g. *birthday party*) [@sun_nevatia_cvpr14]. However, their concept vocabularies are usually manually selected. **Concept naming and accuracy-specificity trade-off.** Visual concepts can be categorized [@rosch1978] and organized as a hierarchy where the leaves are the most specific and the root is the most general. For example, ImageNet concepts [@imagenet_cvpr09] are organized following the rule-based WordNet [@Miller95wordnet:a] hierarchy. Similar structure also exists for actions [@caba2015activitynet]. Since concept classification is not always reliable, Deng et al. [@DengKrauseBergFei-Fei_CVPR2012] propose a method to allow accuracy-specificity trade-off of object concepts on WordNet. As WordNet synsets do not always correspond to how people name the concepts, Ordonez et al. [@DBLP:conf/iccv/OrdonezDCBB13] study the problem of entry-level category prediction by collecting *natural categories* from humans.
**Concept learning from web data.** Our research is closely related to the recent work on visual data collection from web images [@wu2015webconcept; @chen2013neil; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/DivvalaFG14; @DBLP:conf/eccv/GolgeD14] or weakly annotated videos [@chen2013watching]. Their goal is to collect training images from the Internet with minimum human supervision, but for pre-defined concepts. In particular, NEIL [@chen2013neil] starts with a few exemplar images per concept, and iteratively refines its concept detectors using image search results. LEVAN [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/DivvalaFG14] explores the sub-categories of a given concept by mining bigrams from large text corpus and using the bigrams to retrieve training images from image search engines. Recently, Zhou et al. [@zhou2015conceptlearner] use noisily tagged Flickr images to train concept detectors, but do not consider the semantic similarity among different tags. Our VCD framework is able to generate the concept vocabulary for them to learn detectors.
**Sentence generation and retrieval for images.** Image descriptions can be generated by detection or retrieval. The detection based approach usually defines a set of visual concepts (e.g. *objects, actions* and *scenes*), learns concept detectors and use the top detected concepts to generate sentences. The sentences can be generated using templates [@guadarrama:ICCV13; @SunECCV; @Kulkarni11babytalk] or language models [@rohrbachtranslating; @DBLP:conf/acl/KuznetsovaOBBC13]. The performance of detection is often limited by missing concepts and inaccurate concept detectors. Retrieval-based sentence generation [@ordonez2011im2text; @kuznetsova2012collective; @DBLP:journals/tacl/YoungLHH14] works by retrieving sentences or sentence components from an existing pool of sentence and image pairs, and use them for description. The retrieval criteria is usually based on the visual similarity of image features. To allow bidirectional retrieval of sentences and images, several work [@DBLP:journals/jair/HodoshYH13; @DBLP:conf/eccv/GongWHHL14; @devise] embed image and text raw features into a common latent space using methods like Kernel Canonical Component Analysis [@DBLP:dblp_journals/jmlr/BachJ02]. There is also a trend to embed sentences with recurrent neural networks (RNN) [@DBLP:journals/tacl/SocherKLMN14; @DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyF14; @DBLP:journals/corr/MaoXYWY14; @DBLP:journals/corr/ChenZ14a; @DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14], which achieves the state-of-the-art performance in sentence retrieval and generation tasks.
Visual Concept Discovery Pipeline {#sec:pipeline}
=================================
This section describes the VCD pipeline. Given a parallel corpus with images and their text descriptions, we first mine the text data to select candidate concepts. Due to the diversity of both visual world and human language, the pool of candidate concepts is large. We use visual data to filter the terms which are not visually discriminative, and then group the remaining terms into compact concept clusters.
Concept Mining From Sentences
-----------------------------
To collect the candidate concepts, we use unigrams as well as the grammatical relations called *dependencies* [@Marneffe06generatingtyped]. Unlike the syntax tree based representation of sentences, dependencies operate directly on pairs of words. Consider a simple sentence *“a little boy is riding a white horse”*, *white horse* and *little boy* belong to the adjective modifier (*amod*) dependency, and *ride horse* belongs to the direct object (*dobj*) dependency. As the number of dependency types is large, we manually select a subset of 9 types which are likely to correspond to visual concepts. The selected dependency types are: *acomp, agent, amod, dobj, iobj, nsubj, nsubjpass, prt* and *vmod*.
The concept mining process proceeds as follows: we first parse the sentences in the parallel corpus with the Stanford CoreNLP parser [@Marneffe06generatingtyped], and collect the terms with the interesting dependency types. We also select unigrams which are annotated as *noun, verb, adjective* and *adverb* by a part-of-speech tagger. We use the *lemmatized* form of the selected unigrams and phrases such that nouns in singular and plural forms and verbs in different tenses are grouped together. After parsing the whole corpus, we remove the terms which occur fewer than $k$ times.
Preserved terms Filtered terms
------------------------------ -----------------------
play tennis, play basketball play
bench, kayak red bench, blue kayak
sheer, tri-colored real, Mexican
biker, dog cigar, chess
: Preserved and filtered terms from Flickr 8k data set. A term might be filtered if it’s *abstract* (first row), *too detailed* (second row) or not *visually discriminative* (third row). Sometimes our algorithm may filter out visual entities which are difficult to recognize (final row).[]{data-label="tab:filter_example"}
Concept Filtering and Clustering {#sec:cluster}
--------------------------------
The unigrams and dependencies selected from text data contain terms which may not have concrete visual patterns or may not be easy to learn with visual features. The images in the parallel corpora are helpful to filter out these terms. We represent images using feature activations from pre-trained deep convolutional neural networks (CNN), they are image-level holistic features.
Since the number of terms mined from text data is large, the concept filtering algorithm needs to be efficient. For the images associated with a certain term, we do a 2-fold cross validation with a linear SVM, using randomly sampled negative training data. We compute average precision (AP) on cross-validated results, and remove the terms with AP lower than a threshold. Some of the preserved and filtered terms are listed in Table \[tab:filter\_example\].
Many of the remaining terms are synonyms (e.g. *ride bicycle* and *ride bike*). These terms are likely to confuse the concept classifier training algorithm. It is important to merge them together to make the concept set more compact. Besides, although some terms refer to different visual entities, they are similar visually and semantically (e.g. a *red jersey* and a *orange jersey*); it is often beneficial to group them together to have more image examples for training. This motivates us to cluster the concepts based on both visual similarity and semantic similarity.
**Visual similarity:** We use the holistic image features to measure visual similarity between different candidate concept terms. We learn two classifiers $f_{t_1}$ and $f_{t_2}$ for terms $t_1$ and $t_2$ using their associated image sets $I_{t_1}$ and $I_{t_2}$; negative data is randomly sampled from those not associated with $t_1$ and $t_2$. To measure the similarity from $t_1$ to $t_2$, we compute the median of classifier $f_{t_1}$’s response on the positive samples of $t_2$.
$$\widehat{S}_v(t_1, t_2) = \textrm{median}_{I \in I_{t_2}}(f_{t_1}(I))$$
$$S_v(t_1, t_2) = \textrm{min}\left(\widehat{S}_v(t_1, t_2), \widehat{S}_v(t_2, t_1)\right)$$
Here the outputs of $f_{t_1}$ are normalized to $[0,1]$ by a Sigmoid function. We take the minimum of $\widehat{S}_v(t_1, t_2)$ and $\widehat{S}_v(t_2, t_1)$ to make it a symmetric similarity measurement.
The intuition behind this similarity measurement is that visual instances associated with a term are more likely to get high scores from the classifiers of other visually similar terms.
**Semantic similarity:** We also measure the similarity of two terms in the semantic space, which are computed by data-driven word embeddings. In particular, we train a skip-gram model [@word2vec] using the English dump of Wikipedia. The basic idea of skip-gram model is to fit the word embeddings such that the words in corpus can predict their context with high probability. Semantically similar words lie close to each other in the embedded space.
Word embedding algorithm assigns a $D$-dimension vector for each word in the vocabulary. For dependencies, we take the average of the word vectors from each word of the dependency, and $L2$-normalize the averaged vector. The semantic similarity $S_w(t_1,t_2)$ of two candidate concept terms $t_1$ and $t_2$ is defined as the cosine similarity of their word embeddings.
**Concept clustering:** Denote the visual similarity matrix as $\mathcal{S}_v$ and the semantic similarity matrix as $\mathcal{S}_w$, we compute the overall similarity matrix by $$\mathcal{S} = \mathcal{S}_v^\lambda \cdot \mathcal{S}_w^{1-\lambda}$$ where $\cdot$ is element-wise matrix multiplication and $\lambda \in [0,1]$ is a parameter controlling the weight assigned to visual similarity.
We then use spectral clustering to cluster the candidate concept terms into $K$ concept groups. It is a natural choice when similarity matrix is available. We use the algorithm implemented in the Python SKLearn toolkit, fix the eigen solver to *arpack* and assign the labels with K-means.
After the clustering stage, each concept is represented as a set of terms, as well as their associated visual instances. One can use the associated visual instances to train concept detectors with SVM or neural networks.
Type Concept terms
----------- -----------------------------------------
Object {jersey, red jersey, orange jersey}
Activity {dribble, player dribble, dribble ball}
Attribute {mountainous, hilly}
Scene {blue water, clear water, green water}
Mixed {swimming, diving, pool, blue pool}
Mixed {ride bull, rodeo, buck, bull}
: Concepts discovered by our framework from Flickr 8k data set.[]{data-label="tab:cluster_example"}
Discussion
----------
Table \[tab:cluster\_example\] shows some of the concepts discovered by our framework. It can automatically generate concepts related to objects, attributes, scenes and activities, and identify the different terms associated with each concept. We observe that sometimes a more general term (*jersey*) is merged with a more specific term (*red jersey*) due to high visual similarity.
We also find that there are some mixed type concepts of objects, activities and scenes. For example, *swimming* and *pool* belongs to the same concept, possibly due to their high co-occurrence rate. One extreme case is that *German* and *German Shepherd* are grouped together as the two words always occur together in the training data. We believe the problem can be mitigated by using a larger parallel corpus.
$\lambda$ Concept terms
----------- -------------------------------------------------
0 {wedding, church}, {skyscraper, tall building}
1 {skyscraper, church}, {wedding, birthday}
0.3 {wedding, bridal party}, {church}, {skyscraper}
: Different $\lambda$ affects the term groupings in the discovered concepts. Total concept number is fixed to 1,200.[]{data-label="tab:cluster_lambda"}
Table \[tab:cluster\_lambda\] shows different concept clusters when semantic similarity is ignored ($\lambda=0$), dominant ($\lambda=1$) and combined with visual similarity. As expected, when $\lambda$ is small, terms that look similar or often co-occur in images tend to be grouped together. As our semantic similarity is based on word co-occurrence, ignoring visual similarity may lead to sub-optimal concept clusters such as *wedding* and *birthday*.
Concept Based Image and Sentence Retrieval
==========================================
Consider a set of images, each of which has a few ground truth sentence annotations, the goal of bidirectional retrieval is to learn a ranking function from image to sentence and vice versa, such that the ground truth entries rank at the top of the retrieved list. Many previous methods approach the task by learning embeddings from raw feature space [@DBLP:journals/jair/HodoshYH13; @DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyJF14; @DBLP:conf/eccv/GongWHHL14].
We propose an alternative approach to the embedding based methods which uses concept space directly. Let’s start with the sentence to image direction. With the discovered concepts, this problem can be approached by two steps: first, identify the concepts from the sentences; second, select the images with highest responses for those concepts. Suppose we take the sum of the concept responses, this is equivalent to projecting the sentence into the same concept-based space as images, and measuring the image sentence similarity by an inner product. This formulation allows us to use the same similarity function for image to sentence and sentence to image retrieval.
**Sentence mapping:** Mapping a sentence to the concept space is straightforward. We run the same parser as used in concept mining to collect terms. Remember that each concept is represented as a set of terms: denote the term set for the incoming sentence as $\mathcal{T}=\{t_1,t_2,...,t_N\}$, and the term set for concept $i$ as $\mathcal{C}_i = \{c^i_1,c^i_2,...,c^i_M\}$, we have the sentence’s response for $\mathcal{C}_i$ as $$\phi_i(\mathcal{T}) = \max_{t\in \mathcal{T}, c\in \mathcal{C}_i}\delta(t,c)$$ Here $\delta(t,c)$ is a function that measures the similarity between $t$ and $c$. We set $\delta(t,c)=1$ if the cosine similarity of $t$ and $c$’s word embedding is greater than a certain threshold, and $0$ otherwise. In practice we set the threshold to $0.95$.
There are some common concepts which occur in most of the sentences (e.g. a *person*); to down-weight these common concepts, we normalize the scores with term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf), learned from the training text corpus.
**Image mapping:** To measure the response of an image to a certain concept, we need to collect its positive and negative examples. For concepts discovered from parallel corpora, we have their associated images. The set of training images can be augmented with existing image data sets or by manual annotation.
Assume that training images are ready and concept classifiers have been trained, we then compute the continuous classifier scores for an image over all concepts, and normalize each of them to be $[-1,1]$. The normalization step is important as using non-negative confidence scores biases the system towards longer sentences.
Since image and text data are mapped into a common concept space, the performance of bidirectional retrieval depends on: (1) whether the concept vocabulary covers the terms and visual entities used in query data; (2) whether concept detectors are powerful enough to extract useful information from visual data. It is thus useful to evaluate the quality of discovered concepts against existing concept vocabularies and their concept detectors.
Evaluation {#sec:exp}
==========
In this section, we first evaluate our proposed concept discovery pipeline based on the bidirectional sentence image retrieval task. We use the discovered concepts to generate concept-based image descriptions, and report human evaluation results.
Bidirectional Sentence Image Retrieval {#sec:flickr}
--------------------------------------
**Data:** We use 6,000 images from the Flickr 8k [@DBLP:journals/jair/HodoshYH13] data set for training, 1,000 images for validation and another 1,000 for testing. We use all 5 sentences per image for both training and testing. Flickr 30k [@DBLP:journals/tacl/YoungLHH14] is an extended version of Flickr 8k. We select 29,000 images (no overlap to the testing images) to study whether more training data yields better concept detectors. We also report results when the visual concept discovery, concept detector training and evaluation are all conducted on Flickr 30k. For this purpose, we use the standard setting [@DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyF14; @DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14] where 29,000 images are used for training, 1,000 images for validation and 1,000 images for testing. Again, each image comes with 5 sentences. Finally, we randomly select 1,000 images from the lately released Microsoft COCO [@DBLP:conf/eccv/LinMBHPRDZ14] data set to study if the discovered concept vocabulary and associated classifiers generalize to another data set.
**Evaluation metric:** Recall$@k$ is used for evaluation. It computes the percentage of ground truth entries ranked in the top $k$ retrieved results, over all queries. We also report median rank of the first retrieved ground truth entries.
**Image representation and classifier training:** Similar to [@DBLP:conf/eccv/GongWHHL14; @DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14], we extracted CNN activations as image-level features; such features have shown state-of-the-art performance in recent object recognition results [@AlexNet; @girshick14CVPR]. We adapted the CNN implementation provided by Caffe [@jia2014caffe], and used the 19-layer network architecture and parameters from Oxford [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a]. The feature activations from the network’s first fully-connected layer fc6 were used as image representations, each of which has 4,096 dimensions.
To train concept classifiers, we normalized the feature activations with $L2$-norm. We randomly sampled 1,000 images as negative data. We used the linear SVM [@REF08a] in the concept discovery stage for its faster running time, and $\chi^2$ kernel SVM to train final concept classifiers as it is a natural choice for histogram-like features and provides higher performance than linear SVM.
**Comparison against embedding-based approaches:** We first compare the performance of our concept-based pipeline against embedding based approaches. We set the parameters of our system using the validation set. For concept discovery, we kept all terms with at least 5 occurrences in the training sentences, this gave us an initial list of 5,309 terms. We filtered all terms with average precision lower than 0.15, which preserved 2,877 terms. We set $\lambda$ to be 0.6 and number of concepts to be 1,200.
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Method R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank
Karpathy et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyF14] 16.5 40.6 54.2 **7.6** 11.8 32.1 44.7 12.4
Mao et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/MaoXYWY14] 14.5 37.2 48.5 11 11.5 31.0 42.4 14
Kiros et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14] 18.0 40.9 **55.0** 8 12.5 37.0 51.5 10
Concepts (trained on Flickr 8k) **18.7** **41.9** 54.7 8 **16.7** **40.7** **54.0** **9**
Concepts (trained on Flickr 30k) **21.1** **45.9** **59.0** **7** **17.9** **42.8** **55.8** **8**
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Method R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank
Karpathy et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyF14] 22.2 48.2 61.4 **4.8** 15.2 37.7 50.5 9.2
Mao et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/MaoXYWY14] 18.4 40.2 50.9 10 12.6 31.2 41.5 16
Kiros et al. [@DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14] 23.0 50.7 62.9 5 16.8 42.0 **56.5** 8
Concepts (trained on Flickr 30k) **26.6** **52.0** **63.7** 5 **18.3** **42.2** 56.0 8
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Several recent embedding based approaches [@DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyJF14; @DBLP:journals/tacl/SocherKLMN14; @DBLP:journals/corr/KarpathyF14; @DBLP:journals/corr/MaoXYWY14; @DBLP:journals/corr/ChenZ14a; @DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14] are included for comparison. Most of these approaches use CNN-based image representations (in particular, [@DBLP:journals/corr/KirosSZ14] uses the same Oxford architecture), and embed sentences with recurrent neural network (RNN) or its variations. We make sure that the experiment setup and data partitioning for all systems are the same, and report numbers in the original papers if available.
Table \[tab:8k\_results\] lists the evaluation performance for all systems. We can see that the concept based framework achieves similar or better performance against the state-of-the-art embedding based systems. This confirms the framework is a valid pipeline for bidirectional image and sentence retrieval task.
**Enhancing concept classifiers with more data:** The concept classifiers we trained for previous experiment only used training images from Flickr 8k data set. To check if the discovered concepts can benefit from additional training data, we collect the images associated with the discovered concepts from Flickr 30k data set. Since Flickr 30k contains images which overlap with the validation and testing partitions of Flickr 8k data set, we removed those images and used around 29,000 images for training.
In the last row of Table \[tab:8k\_results\], we list the results of the concept based approach using Flickr 30k training data. We can see that there is a significant improvement in every metric. Since the only difference is the use of additional training data, the results indicate that **the individual concept classifiers benefit from extra training data**. It is worth noting that while additional data may also be helpful for embedding based approaches, it has to be in the form of image and sentence pairs. Such annotation tends to be more expensive and time consuming to obtain than concept annotation.
**Evaluation on Flickr 30k dataset:** Evaluation on Flickr 30k follows the same strategy as on Flickr 8k, where parameters were set using validation data. We kept 9,742 terms which have at least 5 occurrences in the training sentences. We then filtered all terms with average precision lower than 0.15, which preserved 4,158 terms. We set $\lambda$ to be 0.4 and number of concepts to be 1,600. Table \[tab:30k\_results\] shows that our method achieves comparable or better performance than other embedding based approaches.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Vocabulary R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank R@1 R@5 R@10 Median rank
ImageNet 1k [@ILSVRCarxiv14] 2.5 6.7 9.7 714 1.6 5.0 8.5 315
LEVAN [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/DivvalaFG14] 0.0 0.4 1.2 1348 0.2 1.1 1.7 443
NEIL [@chen2013neil] 0.1 0.7 1.1 1103 0.2 0.9 2.0 446
LEVAN [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/DivvalaFG14] (trained on Flickr 8k) 1.2 5.7 9.5 360 2.6 9.1 14.7 113
NEIL [@chen2013neil] (trained on Flickr 8k) 1.4 5.7 8.9 278 3.7 11.3 18.3 92
Flickr 8k Concepts (ours) **10.4** **29.3** **40.0** **17** **9.8** **27.5** **39.0** **17**
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------- -------------
**Concept transfer to other data sets:** It is important to investigate whether the discovered concepts are generalizable. For this purpose, we randomly selected 1,000 images and their associated 5,000 text descriptions from the validation partition of Microsoft COCO data set [@DBLP:conf/eccv/LinMBHPRDZ14].
We used the concepts discovered and trained from Flickr 8k data set, and compared with several existing concept vocabularies:
**ImageNet 1k** [@ILSVRCarxiv14] is a subset of ImageNet data set, with 1,000 categories used in ILSVRC 2014 evaluation. The classifiers were trained using the same Oxford CNN architecture used for feature extraction.
**LEVAN** [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/DivvalaFG14] selected 305 concepts manually, and explored Google Ngram data to collect 113,983 sub-concepts. They collected Internet images and trained detectors with Deformable Part Model (DPM). We used the learned models provided by the authors.
**NEIL** [@chen2013neil] has 2,702 manually selected concepts, each of which was trained with DPM using weakly supervised images from search engines. We also used the models released by the authors.
Among the three baselines above, ImageNet 1k relies on the same set of CNN-based features as our discovered concepts. To further investigate the effect of concept selection, we took the concept lists provided by the authors of LEVAN and NEIL, and re-trained their concept detectors using our proposed pipeline. To achieve this, we selected training images associated with the concepts from Flickr 8k dataset, and learned concept detectors using the same CNN feature extractors and classifier training strategies as our proposed pipeline.
Table \[tab:coco\_results\] lists the performance of using different vocabularies. We can see that **the discovered concepts clearly outperform manually selected vocabularies**, but **the cross-dataset performance is lower than same-dataset performance**. We found that COCO uses many visual concepts discovered in Flickr 8k, though some are missing (e.g. *giraffes*). Compared with the concepts discovered by Flickr 8k, the three manually selected vocabularies lack many terms used in the COCO data set to describe the visual entities. This inevitably hurts their performance in the retrieval task. The performance of NEIL and LEVAN is worse than ImageNet 1k, which might be explained by the weakly Internet images they used to train concept detectors. Although re-training from Flickr 8k using deep features helps improve retrieval performance of NEIL and LEVAN, our system still outperforms the two by large margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Impact of $\lambda$ when testing on Flickr 8k data set (blue) and COCO data set (red). Recall$@5$ for sentence retrieval is used.[]{data-label="fig:lambda"}](image/lambda_compare "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Impact of total number of concepts when testing on Flickr 8k data set (blue) and COCO data set (red). Recall$@5$ for sentence retrieval is used.[]{data-label="fig:num_cluster"}](image/num_concept_compare "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Impact of concept discovery parameters:** Figure \[fig:lambda\] and Figure \[fig:num\_cluster\] shows the impact of visual similarity weight $\lambda$ and the total number of concepts on the retrieval performance. To save space, we only display results of recall$@5$ for the sentence retrieval direction.
We can see from the figures that both visual and semantic similarities are important for concept clustering, this is particular true when the concepts trained from Flickr 8k were applied to COCO. Increasing the number of concepts helps at the beginning, as many visually discriminative concepts are grouped together when the number of concepts is small. However, as the number increases, the improvement becomes flat, and even hurts the concepts’ ability to generalize.
Human Evaluation of Image Tagging
---------------------------------
We also evaluated the quality of the discovered concepts on the image tagging task whose goal is to generate tags to describe the content of images. Compared with sentence retrieval, the image tagging task has a higher degree of freedom as the combination of tags is not limited by the existing sentences in the pool.
**Evaluation setup:** We used the concept classifiers to generate image tags. For each image, we selected the top three concepts with highest classifier scores. Since a concept may have more than one text terms, we picked up to two text terms randomly for display.
For evaluation, we asked 15 human evaluators to compare two sets of tags generated by different concept vocabularies. The evaluators were asked to select which set of tags better describes the image based on the accuracy of the generated tags and the coverage of visual entities in the image, or whether the two sets of tags are equally good or bad. The final label per image was combined using majority vote. On average, 85% of the evaluators agreed on their votes for specific images.
We compared the concepts discovered from Flickr 8k and the manually selected ImageNet 1k concept vocabulary. The classifiers for the discovered concepts were trained using the 6,000 images from Flickr 8k. We did not compare the discovered concepts against NEIL and LEVAN as they performed very poorly in the retrieval task. To test how the concepts generalize to a different data set, we used the same 1,000 images from the COCO data set as used in retrieval task for evaluation.
Better Worse Same
----------- ------- -------
**64.1**% 22.9% 12.9%
: Percentage of images where tags generated by the discovered concepts are better, worse or the same compared with ImageNet 1k.[]{data-label="tab:human_eval"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Tags generated using ImageNet 1k concepts (blue) and the discovered concepts (green). Tags preferred by evaluators are marked in red blocks.[]{data-label="fig:human_eval"}](image/human_eval.png "fig:"){width="0.95\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Result analysis:** Table \[tab:human\_eval\] shows the evaluators’ preference on the image tags generated by the discovered concepts and ImageNet 1k. We can see that the discovered concepts generated better tags for 64.1% of the images. This agrees with the trend observed in the bidirectional retrieval task.
As shown in Figure \[fig:human\_eval\], tags generated by ImageNet 1k has the following problems which might cause evaluators to label them as worse: first, many of the visual entities do not have corresponding concepts in the vocabulary; second, ImageNet 1k has many fine-grained concepts (e.g. different species of dogs), while more general terms might be preferred by evaluators. On the other hand, the discovered concepts are able to reflect how human name the visual entities, and have a higher concept coverage. However, due to the number of training examples is relatively limited, sometimes the response of different concept classifiers are correlated (e.g. *bed* and *sit down*).
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper studies the problem of automatic concept discovery from parallel corpora. We propose a concept filtering and clustering algorithm using both text and visual information. Automatic evaluation using bidirectional image and text retrieval and human evaluation of image tagging task show that the discovered concepts achieve state-of-the-art performance, and outperform several large manually selected concept vocabularies significantly. A natural future direction is to train concept detectors for the discovered concepts using web images.
[**Acknowledgement:** We thank Kevin Knight for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center contract number D11PC20066. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA, DoI/NBC, or the U.S. Government. ]{}
[^1]: This work was done when Chuang Gan was a visiting researcher at University of Southern California.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The variance of the number of levels in an energy interval around a level with large quantum numbers (semiclassical quantization) is studied for a particle in a rectangular box. Sampling involves changing the ratio of the rectangle’s sides while keeping the area constant. For sufficiently narrow intervals, one finds the usual linear growth with the width of the interval. For wider intervals, the variance undergoes large, non-decaying oscillations around what is expected to be the saturation value. These oscillations can be explained as a superposition of just a few harmonics that correspond to the shortest periodic orbits in the rectangle. The analytical and numerical results are in excellent agreement.'
address: |
Department of Physics\
University of Cincinnati\
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0011
author:
- 'J. M. A. S. P. Wickramasinghe and R. A. Serota'
title: The Absence Of Saturation Of The Level Number Variance In A Rectangular Box
---
Introduction
============
Two decades ago, Casati, Chirikov and Guarneri[@CCG] and Berry[@B] have undertaken numerical and analytical studies of the level statistics in rectangular billiards for large quantum numbers (semiclassical quantization). Casati [*et al*]{}[@CCG] demonstrated numerically that the distribution function of the nearest-neighbor energy level spacings is exponential (obeys Poisson law[@BFFMPW]), which is generally the case for classically integrable systems and is well understood theoretically[@G]. Further, they studied the behavior of the level rigidity[@BFFMPW] in the spectral staircase and showed that, following the initial linear growth with the width of the interval, the rigidity saturates to a constant value. This behavior was explained by Berry[@B] who argued that the width of the interval at which the saturation occurs corresponds to the shortest periodic orbit in the billiard and that the saturation value of the rigidity can be obtained as a sum over the periodic orbits. Subsequently, the results of[@CCG] have been reproduced with high numerical precision in Refs.[@Gr] and[@RV].
In the previous work[@SW], we set out to interpret this result in terms of the global level rigidity and, in particular, proposed an ansatz for the level density correlation function that successfully describes the transition from linear to saturation behavior and that is also similar, aside from the energy scale, to its counterparts in the Gaussian ensembles (classically chaotic systems)[@BFFMPW],[@G]. Furthermore, our correlation function led us to believe that the variance should exhibit interesting, albeit decaying, oscillations on approach to its saturation value (by the integral relationship[@BFFMPW] between the rigidity and the variance - see below - it should be twice that of the rigidity).
Surprisingly, our numerical calculation indicated that the size of the oscillations of the variance does not decay with the increase of the width of the interval. Further investigation of the level correlation function revealed that a more accurate treatment of large energy scales gives an analytical explanation which is in excellent agreement with the numerical results.
It should be emphasized that the key difference of our numerical procedure relative to[@Gr] and[@RV] is that we averaged over the ratio of the rectangle’s sides, as opposed to averaging over the spectrum keeping a fixed ratio of the sides. Indeed, both the onset of saturation and the saturation value scale as a square root of energy, that is depend critically on the position in the spectrum[@B]. Consequently, averaging over the spectrum averages over these quantities. Notice, for instance, that the plot of variance in[@Gr] does show oscillations. However, because of the averaging procedure, they appear to be decaying and of irregular pattern and did not receive due acknowledgment.[^1]
Notations and Known Results
===========================
We will consider intervals $\left[ \varepsilon -E/2,\varepsilon +E/2\right] $ , $E\ll \varepsilon $, where the states with energies near $\varepsilon $ have large quantum numbers and can be described semiclassically. We will denote ${\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) $ the spectral staircase[@G] $${\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) =\sum_{k}\theta \left( \varepsilon
-\varepsilon _{k}\right) \label{cN}$$ where $\theta $ is unit step function and $k$ are energy eigenstates. More precisely, we will consider the 2D-reduced[@G] spectrum where the systematic energy dependence of ${\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) $ has been eliminated[^2]. Towards this end, we make the substitution $$\varepsilon \rightarrow \left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right)
\right\rangle \label{epsilon_reduced}$$ and, in particular, $\varepsilon _{k}\rightarrow \left\langle {\cal N}\left(
\varepsilon _{k}\right) \right\rangle $, where $\left\langle {\cal N}\left(
\varepsilon \right) \right\rangle $ is the ensemble average of ${\cal N}%
\left( \varepsilon \right) $ (in the limit of an infinitely large ensemble). With such definition of energy ([*reduced*]{} spectrum), we have $$\left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle \rightarrow
\left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle =\varepsilon
=\left\langle \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle \varepsilon
\label{cNav_reduced}$$ that is $\left\langle \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle =1$, where $$\rho \left( \varepsilon \right) =\frac{d{\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) }{%
d\varepsilon }=\sum_{k}\delta \left( \varepsilon -\varepsilon _{k}\right)
\label{rho}$$ is the density of states. In dimensional units, (\[cNav\_reduced\]) can be written as
$$\left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle =\left\langle
\rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle \varepsilon \label{cNav}$$
where $$\left\langle \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle =\frac{mA}{2\pi
\hbar ^{2}} \label{rhoav}$$ $m/2\pi \hbar ^{2}\ $being the 2D density of states in the thermodynamic limit and $A$ the system area.
For a rectangle, the energy eigenvalues are $$\varepsilon _{nm}=\frac{\pi ^{2}\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\left( \frac{n^{2}}{a^{2}}+%
\frac{m^{2}}{b^{2}}\right) \label{enm}$$ and averaging is performed over the ”$\alpha $-ensemble,” that is by sampling the values of $$\alpha =\frac{a^{2}}{b^{2}} \label{alpha}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are the rectangle’s sides, while keeping $A=ab$, and consequently $\left\langle \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle $, constant. Numerically, we use algebraic numbers for $\alpha $ to avoid accidental level degeneracies (we don’t use transcendental numbers because they are too close to rational[@G]).
In this work we will not discuss the distribution of the nearest-neighbor energy level spacings, except to state that our computations[@WSG] are congruent with those of[@CCG],[@Gr] and[@RV]. Here, we will study the correlations and fluctuations in the energy spectrum and, towards this end, the following measures will be used. First, it is the ”level rigidity” $\Delta _{3}$, defined[@B],[@BFFMPW] as the best linear fit of the spectral staircase on the interval $\left[ \varepsilon
-E/2,\varepsilon +E/2\right] $ $$\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) =\left\langle
%TCIMACRO{\QATOP{\min }{\left( A,B\right) } }
%BeginExpansion
{\min \atop \left( A,B\right) }%
%EndExpansion
\frac{1}{E}\int_{\varepsilon -E/2}^{\varepsilon +E/2}d\varepsilon \left[
{\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) -A-B\varepsilon \right] ^{2}\right\rangle
\label{Delta3}$$ Fig. 1 shows an example of such a fit.
For the number of levels $N$ on the interval $\left[ \varepsilon
-E/2,\varepsilon +E/2\right] $ $$N\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) ={\cal N}\left( \varepsilon +\frac{E}{2}%
\right) -{\cal N}\left( \varepsilon -\frac{E}{2}\right) \label{N}$$ the variance $$\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) =\left\langle \left( N-\left\langle
N\right\rangle \right) ^{2}\right\rangle \label{Sigma}$$ is another measure of the fluctuations. Clearly, $$\left\langle N\right\rangle =\left\langle \rho \right\rangle E \label{Nav}$$ for an infinitely large ensemble.
Introducing the mean level spacing $\left\langle \Delta \right\rangle $ as $$\left\langle \Delta \right\rangle =E\left\langle \frac{1}{N}\right\rangle
\label{Delta}$$ we find that, due to the $N$-fluctuations $\Sigma \propto E$ over the intervals $E$ narrower than a certain energy scale, the following relationship holds[@WSG] $$\left\langle \rho \right\rangle \left\langle \Delta \right\rangle =1+\frac{1%
}{\left\langle N\right\rangle }+O\left( \frac{1}{\left\langle N\right\rangle
^{2}}\right) \label{rhoav_vs_Delta}$$ For classically integrable billiards the latter holds for $E\ll \sqrt{%
\varepsilon \left\langle \rho \right\rangle ^{-1}}$ (see below), so that we can neglect the difference between $\left\langle \Delta \right\rangle $ and $%
\left\langle \rho \right\rangle ^{-1}$ only for sufficiently large intervals $\left\langle N\right\rangle \gg 1$, in which case we can introduce the limiting value of mean level spacing (”global mean”) as $$\Delta =\frac{1}{\left\langle \rho \right\rangle }=\frac{2\pi \hbar ^{2}}{mA}
\label{Delta_vs_rhoav}$$ In what follows we will, unless mentioned otherwise, measure energies in units of $\Delta $ (wherein $\Delta =\left\langle \rho \right\rangle ^{-1}=1$, as in eq. (\[cNav\_reduced\])).
General relationships can be established between the fluctuations measures and the correlation function of the level density[@BFFMPW], $$\begin{aligned}
K\left( \varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) &=&\left\langle \delta \rho
\left( \varepsilon _{1}\right) \delta \rho \left( \varepsilon _{2}\right)
\right\rangle \label{rho_corr} \\
\delta \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) &=&\rho \left( \varepsilon \right)
-\left\langle \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle \label{deltarho}\end{aligned}$$ regardless of the specific form of $K\left( \varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon
_{2}\right) $, for instance, $$\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) =\int_{\varepsilon -E/2}^{\varepsilon
+E/2}\int_{\varepsilon -E/2}^{\varepsilon +E/2}K\left( \varepsilon
_{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) d\varepsilon _{1}d\varepsilon _{2}
\label{Sigma_integral}$$ Using these relationships one can further show that $\Sigma $ supersedes $%
\Delta _{3}$ via an integral relationship[@BFFMPW] $$\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) =\frac{2}{E^{4}}\int dx\left(
E^{3}-2xE^{2}+x^{2}\right) \Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,x\right)
\label{Delta3_vs_Sigma}$$ which, again, does not depend on the particulars of the level statistics and level correlations in the semiclassical energy spectrum.
For Gaussian ensembles, corresponding to classically chaotic ergodic systems, the functional form of the level correlation function $K\left(
\varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) $ is well understood[@BFFMPW]. Denoting $$\varepsilon =\frac{\varepsilon _{1}+\varepsilon _{2}}{2}\text{, }\omega
=\varepsilon _{2}-\varepsilon _{1} \label{epsilon_omega}$$ we find that it can be written, in most general terms, as $$K\left( \varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) =K\left( \omega \right)
=\Delta ^{-2}\left[ \delta \left( \frac{\omega }{\Delta }\right) -{\cal K}%
\left( \frac{\omega }{\Delta }\right) \right] \label{K_Gauss}$$ where $$\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }{\cal K}\left( x\right) dx=1 \label{Int_cK}$$ and $$\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }K\left( \omega \right) d\omega =0 \label{Int_K}$$ The interpretation of these formulas are as follows. The $\delta $-function term in (\[K\_Gauss\]) describes uncorrelated levels. The ${\cal K}$-function describes ”level repulsion” and has a scale of $\Delta $. The integrals (\[Int\_cK\]) and (\[Int\_K\]) converge to their values on the scale of $\omega \sim \Delta $ and reflect the fact that an overall ”level rigidity” develops on the scale of $\Delta $.
Indeed, by definition of $\delta \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) $, $$\int \delta \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) d\varepsilon =0
\label{level-rigidity}$$ and thus $$\int K\left( \varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) d\varepsilon _{1}=\int
K\left( \varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2}\right) d\varepsilon _{2}=0
\label{Int_K-epsilon}$$ where integration is over the entire energy spectrum. The integral can be converted to the form (\[Int\_K\]) when, given a position in the spectrum $%
\varepsilon $, the scale on which the level rigidity (\[level-rigidity\]) develops is much smaller than $\varepsilon $. Eqs. (\[K\_Gauss\])-(\[Int\_K\]) show that Gaussian ensembles become rigid on the scale of $\Delta $. This fact can be also observed from the behavior of $\Sigma $ $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\frac{E}{\Delta }\text{, }E\lesssim
\Delta \label{Sigma_Gauss-1} \\
\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&C\ln \left( \frac{E}{\Delta }\right)
\text{, }E\gg \Delta \label{Sigma_Gauss-2}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ depends on the specifics of a Gaussian ensemble[@BFFMPW]. The behavior of $\Delta _{3}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\frac{1}{15}\frac{E}{\Delta }%
\text{, }E\lesssim \Delta \label{Delta3_Gauss-1} \\
\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\frac{C}{2}\ln \left( \frac{E}{%
\Delta }\right) \text{, }E\gg \Delta \label{Delta3_Gauss-2}\end{aligned}$$ is then easily recovered from that of $\Sigma $ using (\[Delta3\_vs\_Sigma\]). Notice that the linear terms in eqs. (\[Sigma\_Gauss-1\]) and (\[Delta3\_Gauss-1\]) originate in the $\delta $-function term in (\[K\_Gauss\]) (uncorrelated levels).
In the semiclassical approach, $\delta \rho \left( \varepsilon \right) $ is an oscillatory term that can be written as a sum over all periodic orbits[@G]. Berry[@B] used this approach to obtain the following limiting behaviors of $\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ for the rectangular box: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\frac{1}{15}\frac{E}{\Delta }%
\text{, }E\lesssim E_{\max }=\left( \pi \alpha ^{1/2}\varepsilon \Delta
\right) ^{1/2} \label{Delta3_rectangle-1} \\
\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\frac{1}{\pi ^{5/2}}\left( \frac{%
\varepsilon }{\Delta }\right) ^{1/2}\sum_{M_{1}=0}^{\infty
}\sum_{M_{2}=0}^{\infty }\frac{\delta _{M}}{\left( M_{1}^{2}\alpha
^{1/2}+M_{2}^{2}\alpha ^{-1/2}\right) ^{3/2}}\text{, }E\gg E_{\max }
\label{Delta3_rectangle-2} \\
&\rightarrow &0.0947\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon }{\Delta }}\text{, }\alpha \sim 1
\label{Delta3_rectangle-3}\end{aligned}$$ where the second term gives the ”saturation rigidity” $\Delta _{3}^{\infty
}$ and $$\delta _{M}=
\begin{array}{l}
0 \\
1/4 \\
1
\end{array}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{if }M_{1}=M_{2}=0 \\
\text{if one of }M_{1}\text{ and }M_{2}\text{ is zero} \\
\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\label{deltaM}$$ Here $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ are the ”winding numbers” of the classical periodic orbits[@B] and the factor $\delta _{M}$ differentiates between the self-retracing and non-self-retracing orbits. Notice that both $\Delta
_{3}^{\infty }$ and $E_{\max }$ are the functions of the position $%
\varepsilon $ in the spectrum ($\propto \sqrt{\varepsilon }$), which is in stark contrast with Gaussian ensembles. The quantum scale $E_{\max }$ for the onset of saturation corresponds to the time of traversal of the shortest classical periodic orbit [@B], $$E_{\max }=\frac{h}{T_{\min }} \label{Emax}$$ whose length is just twice the length of the rectangle’s smaller side and the winding numbers are $M_{1}=0$, $M_{2}=1$.
Notice that saturation of $\Delta _{3}$ to $\Delta _{3}^{\infty }$ in a rectangle, eqs.(\[Delta3\_rectangle-1\]) and (\[Delta3\_rectangle-2\]), is analogous to ”saturation” of $\Delta _{3}$ to the weak logarithmic dependence for a Gaussian ensemble, eqs. (\[Delta3\_Gauss-1\]) and (\[Delta3\_Gauss-2\]). Consequently, one should expect the level density correlation function for a rectangular box to have the form similar to (\[K\_Gauss\]), except that the scale of ${\cal K}$ is set by $\sim \sqrt{%
\varepsilon \Delta }$. Indeed, in our previous work[@SW] we introduced a simple ansatz that resulted in the following expression for $K$: $$K\left( \varepsilon ,\omega \right) =\Delta ^{-2}\left[ \delta \left( \frac{%
\omega }{\Delta }\right) -\frac{\Delta }{\pi \omega }\sin \left( \frac{2\pi
\omega }{E_{\max }}\right) \right] \label{K_rectangle-ansatz}$$ In this form, $K\left( \varepsilon ,\omega \right) $ satisfies eq. (\[Int\_K\]) and is, thus, consistent with the level rigidity developing on the scale of $E_{\max }$. Evaluation of $\Delta _{3}$ using eq. (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) successfully reproduces saturation to $\Delta
_{3}^{\infty }$ on this scale also. For $\Sigma $, eq. (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) predicts[@SW] eventual saturation to $\Sigma
^{\infty }=2\Delta _{3}^{\infty }$, but in an oscillatory fashion $$\frac{\Sigma -\Sigma ^{\infty }}{\Sigma ^{\infty }}=\frac{\sin \left(
E/E_{\max }\right) }{E/E_{\max }} \label{Sigma_vs_Sigmainf}$$ (The oscillatory term does not contribute to $\Delta _{3}^{\infty }$ in eq. (\[Delta3\_vs\_Sigma\])).
While successfully describing the onset of the level rigidity and the oscillations of $\Sigma $ on the scales $\sim E_{\max }$, the ansatz (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) does not capture the correct behavior of $\Sigma $ on scales $>E_{\max }$. The central result of this work is that the magnitude of the oscillations around $\Sigma ^{\infty }$ is not decaying and that the onset of the level rigidity on the scale of $E_{\max }$ is not, in fact, precise. This will be shown both numerically and analytically, the latter being based on a more careful analysis of the level correlation function obtained, alternatively, either semiclassically or by the direct use of the explicit form of the level spectrum in the rectangular box.
Correlation function of the level density
=========================================
The analytical expression for the level density correlation function, in the form of the infinite sum, can be obtained in two ways. First, it can be recovered from the semiclassical derivation of Berry in Ref.[@B], as per eqs. (23), (38), (58), and (60) there. Indeed, taking the inverse Fourier transform in the last of these equations, we find $$\begin{aligned}
K\left( \varepsilon ,\omega \right) &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left( \pi \Delta
\right) ^{3}\varepsilon }}\sum_{M_{1}=0}^{\infty }\sum_{M_{2}=0}^{\infty
}4\delta _{M}\frac{\cos \left( \sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }\left(
M_{1}^{2}\alpha ^{1/2}+M_{2}^{2}\alpha ^{-1/2}\right) }\omega \right) }{%
\sqrt{M_{1}^{2}\alpha ^{1/2}+M_{2}^{2}\alpha ^{-1/2}}} \label{K_rectangle}
\\
&\rightarrow &\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left( \pi \Delta \right) ^{3}\varepsilon }}%
\left[ 4\sum_{M_{1}>0}^{\infty }\sum_{M_{2}>0}^{\infty }\frac{\cos \left(
\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }\left( M_{1}^{2}+M_{2}^{2}\right) }%
\omega \right) }{\sqrt{M_{1}^{2}+M_{2}^{2}}}+2\sum_{M>0}^{\infty }\frac{\cos
\left( \sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }}M\omega \right) }{M}\right]
_{\alpha \sim 1} \label{K_rect-apha_1}\end{aligned}$$ The paragraph following eq. (38) in[@B] explains the nature of the factor $4\delta _{M}$ in the above equation; our interpretation is that the factor of $4$ is the intensity factor due to constructive interference between the closed orbit and its time-reversed for non-self-retracing orbits (both $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ are non-zero). The latter is crucial for understanding of the change in level correlations due to time-reversal symmetry breaking (for instance, by a magnetic field).
Alternatively, one can obtain (\[K\_rectangle\]) starting directly from eqs. (\[rho\]) and (\[enm\]). In Ref.[@vO], such a formalism was developed for $\delta \rho $ and was generalized to $K\left( \varepsilon
,\omega \right) $ in Ref.[@SW]. It is based on the use of the Poisson summation formula, whose net effect is to convert the sum over actual levels to the sum over classical periodic orbits. Formally, it is accomplished[@vO],[@SW] by converting the sum on $\left( n,m\right) $ to the sum on $%
\left( M_{1},M_{2}\right) $ of the Fourier transforms and by neglecting the rapidly oscillating terms, that is harmonic terms whose arguments depend on $%
\varepsilon $ and change by $\sim \sqrt{\varepsilon /\Delta }\gg 1$ when $%
M_{1,2}$ change by $1$. As a result one recovers[^3][@SW] eq. (\[K\_rectangle\]).
Notice that in the limit of $\omega \ll \sqrt{\varepsilon \Delta }$, the summation over $\left( M_{1},M_{2}\right) $ can be replaced by integration over $\left( x,y\right) $ in the entire plane, where $$x=M_{1}\alpha ^{1/4}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \Delta }{\varepsilon }}\text{, }%
y=M_{2}\alpha ^{-1/4}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \Delta }{\varepsilon }}
\label{xy_variables}$$ Converting to polar coordinates, we find $$K\left( \varepsilon ,\omega \right) \rightarrow \frac{1}{2\pi ^{2}\Delta ^{2}%
}\int_{0}^{2\pi }d\phi \int_{0}^{\infty }d\rho \cos \left( \frac{\omega }{%
\Delta }\rho \right) =\Delta ^{-2}\delta \left( \frac{\omega }{\Delta }%
\right) \label{K_rectangle-limit}$$ that is the first term in eq. (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]). Notice, however, that in reality the lower limit of $\rho $-integration should not extend to zero since $M_{1,2}$ are not simultaneously zero. The second (repulsion) term in eq. (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) is then obtained using the ansatz[@SW] in which the lower cut-off in $\int_{\rho _{\min }}^{\infty }$ is chosen at $\rho _{\min }=y_{\min }=\alpha ^{-1/4}\sqrt{4\pi \Delta
/\varepsilon }$.
In the opposite limit $\omega \ll \sqrt{\varepsilon \Delta }$, the terms in the series (\[K\_rectangle\]) become rapidly oscillating with the amplitude rapidly decreasing with the increase of the winding numbers. Consequently, the sum will be dominated by a just few terms with the smallest $M_{1,2}$. The latter is the reason behind the non-decaying oscillations of $\Sigma $ that will be discussed below.
Level number variance
=====================
Combining eqs. (\[Sigma\_integral\]) and (\[K\_rectangle\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) &=&\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon }{\pi
^{5}\Delta }}\sum_{M_{1}=0}^{\infty }\sum_{M_{2}=0}^{\infty }4\delta _{M}%
\frac{\sin ^{2}\left( E\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }\left(
M_{1}^{2}\alpha ^{1/2}+M_{2}^{2}\alpha ^{-1/2}\right) }\right) }{\left(
M_{1}^{2}\alpha ^{1/2}+M_{2}^{2}\alpha ^{-1/2}\right) ^{3/2}}
\label{Sigma_rectangle} \\
&\rightarrow &\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon }{\pi ^{5}\Delta }}\left[
4\sum_{M_{1}>0}^{\infty }\sum_{M_{2}>0}^{\infty }\frac{\sin ^{2}\left( E%
\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }\left( M_{1}^{2}+M_{2}^{2}\right) }%
\right) }{\left( M_{1}^{2}+M_{2}^{2}\right) ^{3/2}}+2\sum_{M>0}^{\infty }%
\frac{\sin ^{2}\left( E\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\varepsilon \Delta }}M\right) }{%
M^{3}}\right] _{\alpha \sim 1} \label{Sigma_rect-alpha_1}\end{aligned}$$ For narrow intervals, eq. (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]) reduces to $$\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) =\frac{E}{\Delta }\text{, }E\ll E_{\max }
\label{Sigma_rectangle-1}$$ which follows either from eqs. (\[Sigma\_integral\]) and (\[K\_rectangle-limit\]) or directly from (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]) if summation is replaced with integration using variables (\[xy\_variables\]). It is also consistent with eqs. (\[Delta3\_vs\_Sigma\]) and (\[Delta3\_rectangle-1\]).
Fig. 2 shows the result of evaluation of $\Sigma $ using eq. (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]) (with the upper limit of summation on $M_{1,2}$ limited to $100$) versus the numerical evaluation of $\Sigma $ for the ensemble of $%
200$ algebraic $\alpha \in \left[ 1,2\right] $. We also show $\Sigma $ obtained using the ansatz (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) of Ref.[@SW]$.$ Clearly, the latter adequately describes the transition from the small-scale $E\ll E_{\max }$ linear behavior (\[Sigma\_rectangle-1\]) to scales of $%
E\sim E_{\max }$, but fails to describe the large-scale behavior,$%
E\gg E_{\max }$. On the other hand, the agreement of numerical evaluation with the theoretical result (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]) for all $E$ is quite remarkable.
Two comments are in order. First, it was necessary to have a sufficient spread of $\alpha $-values (between $1$ and $2$ here) to obtain reliable statistics for large quantum numbers with relatively small $\alpha $-ensembles ($200$ values here). However, the dependence on $\alpha $ of the relevant parameters is quite weak, through $\alpha ^{\pm 1/4}$, so for $%
\alpha \in \left[ 1,2\right] $ the difference from an ensemble whose $\alpha
$-values would be close to a fixed value ($1$ in this particular case) is not significant. Second, for $E\gg E_{\max }$ it is sufficient to limit summation on $M_{1,2}$ to $2$ and $3$ in the double and single sum respectively to obtain a curve which is very close to the full theoretical curve; as was already explained above this is because the amplitudes of the quickly oscillating terms in the sum rapidly fall off with the increase of $%
M_{1,2}$.
We now turn to the theoretical curve in Fig. 3 that represents the level number variance given by (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]). It is intended to describe the $\alpha $-ensemble such that $\alpha \simeq 1$ and it can be effectively reproduced by the superposition of only $6$ harmonics: $3$ from the double some and $3\ ($with commensurate frequencies) from the single sum. These are non-decaying oscillations whose amplitude is given by $$\frac{\Sigma ^{\pm }}{\Sigma ^{\infty }}\approx \frac{2}{3}
\label{SigmaA_vs_Sigmainf}$$ where $\Sigma ^{+}=\max \left\{ \Sigma \right\} -\Sigma ^{\infty }$, $\Sigma
^{-}=\Sigma ^{\infty }-\min \left\{ \Sigma \right\} $ and $\Sigma ^{\infty }$ is the mean value of oscillating $\Sigma $ which is obtained by substituting $\sin ^{2}\rightarrow 1/2$ in eq. (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]). The small asymmetry of the positive and negative swings of $\Sigma $-oscillations, $%
\Sigma ^{+}\neq \Sigma ^{-}$, is due to the asymmetry of the Clausen function[@LW] $Cl_{3}(x)$, $$Cl_{3}(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{\cos kx}{k^{3}}$$ for which $\max \left\{ Cl_{3}(x)\right\} /\min \left\{ Cl_{3}(x)\right\}
\approx 1.3$. This function originates in the single sum in eq. (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]), which corresponds to self-retracing orbits.
It is important to point out that if one averages over the range of $\alpha $-values, or over the range of $\varepsilon $-values[@Gr], the beats that result from a superposition of a continuous range of harmonics will present themselves, over relevant interval widths, as decaying oscillations. This is due to the corresponding continuous range of the beat frequencies represented by their envelopes.
We now turn to breaking of time reversal symmetry for charged particles due to a magnetic field. Clearly, the condition for the latter is given by $$BA\sim \phi _{0} \label{Tbreak}$$ where $\phi _{0}=hc/e$ is the flux quantum. For such fields, the Larmor radius is much greater than either side of the rectangle $$R=\frac{mcv}{eB}\sim \sqrt{A}\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon }{\Delta }}
\label{Larmor}$$ where $mv^{2}/2=\varepsilon $. Therefore, the deviation from the free specular scattering will be small and we can find both the level correlation function and the level number variance via simple substitution $$\delta _{M}\rightarrow \delta _{M}^{\prime }=
\begin{array}{l}
0 \\
1/4 \\
1/2
\end{array}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{if }M_{1}=M_{2}=0 \\
\text{if one of }M_{1}\text{ and }M_{2}\text{ is zero} \\
\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\label{deltaMp}$$ in eqs. (\[K\_rectangle\]) and (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]). For the $\alpha
\simeq 1$-ensemble considered above, $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ is shown in Fig. 4. In this case $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Sigma ^{\prime \infty }}{\Sigma ^{\infty }} &\approx &0.7
\label{Sigmainfp_vs_Sigmainf} \\
\frac{\Sigma ^{\prime +}}{\Sigma ^{\prime \infty }} &\approx &0.77\text{, }%
\frac{\Sigma ^{\prime -}}{\Sigma ^{\prime \infty }}\approx 0.64
\label{SigmainfAp_vs_Sigmainfp}\end{aligned}$$ The increased asymmetry of $\Sigma $-oscillations underscores the increased relative contribution of the single sum to $\Sigma $ in eq. (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]) (self-retracing orbits).
Discussion
==========
The central results of this work are summarized by Figs. 2-4. The first of these graphs shows that the numerical evaluation of the level number variance for a particle in a rectangular box is in excellent agreement with the theoretical result given by eq. (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]). The second indicates a non-decaying oscillatory behavior of $\Sigma $. The third shows $%
\Sigma $ when the time-reversal symmetry is broken. Figs. 3 and 4 can be successfully reproduced with just a small number of lowest harmonics in (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]).
It is remarkable that, given the center of the interval $\varepsilon $, $%
\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ exhibits large, reproducible oscillations as a function of the interval width $E$. The main implication of this result is that while the level rigidity indeed develops on the scale set by $\sim \sqrt{\varepsilon \Delta }\ll \varepsilon $, it is accurate only in an approximation where a harmonic is replaced by its average - zero. In other words, (\[Int\_K\]) converges to zero on the scale of $\omega \sim
\sqrt{\varepsilon \Delta }$ only up to a sum of harmonic terms, as implied by eq. (\[K\_rectangle\]).
We point out that $\Sigma $-oscillations are entirely consistent with the near straight line saturation of $\Delta _{3}$. In fact, $\Delta _{3}$ also exhibit oscillatory behavior around $\Delta _{3}^{\infty }$, but it is both parametrically small in $\Delta /\varepsilon $ and decays as a function of $E
$. This reduction of $\Delta _{3}$ can be traced, for instance, to integration in eq. (\[Delta3\_vs\_Sigma\]).
In the future, we will investigate the level number variance in a variety of finite-domain and potential problems. We will also address the explicit dependence of the level correlation function on the magnetic field for a detailed description of the time-reversal breaking transition and to address the orbital magnetism of non-resonant integrable systems.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful to Bernie Goodman for numerous discussions and insightful comments.
Figure captions
===============
### Figure 1
Level rigidity $\Delta _{3}\left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ vs. the interval width $E$ for $\varepsilon /\Delta =10^{4}$ and $200$ algebraic $\alpha \in
\left[ 1,2\right] $. The straight line is $\left( E/15\Delta \right) $ and the two horizontal lines correspond to Berry’s saturation rigidity $\Delta
_{3}^{\infty }$ for $\alpha =1$ (lower line) and $\alpha =2$. Notice that our saturation rigidity is slightly below the former, while expected to be between the two, and that the difference from $\Delta _{3}^{\infty }$ is amplified by the factor of $\sqrt{\varepsilon /\Delta }$.
### Figure 2
Numerical evaluation of $\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ (red line), theoretical evaluation per eq. (\[Sigma\_rectangle\]) (green line), and theoretical evaluation based on ansatz (\[K\_rectangle-ansatz\]) (blue line) for $\varepsilon /\Delta =10^{4}$ and $200$ algebraic $\alpha \in
\left[ 1,2\right] $.
### Figure 3
$\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ per eq. (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]) for $\varepsilon /\Delta =10^{5}$.
### Figure 4
$\Sigma \left( \varepsilon ,E\right) $ per eqs. (\[Sigma\_rect-alpha\_1\]) and (\[deltaMp\]) for $\varepsilon /\Delta =10^{5}$ for the case of broken time reversal symmetry.
G. Casati, B. V. Chirikov and I. Guarneri, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1350 (1985).
M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. [**A400**]{}, 229 (1985).
T. A. Brody, J. Flores, J. B. French, P. A. Mello, A. Pandey, and S. S. M. Wong, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 385 (1981).
Martin C. Gutzwiller ”[*Chaos in classical and quantum mechanics*]{}” (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990).
C. Grosche, in ”[*Emerging Applications of Number Theory*]{}” (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999).
M. Robnik and G. Veble, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. (Kyoto) [**139**]{}, 544-549 (2000).
R. A. Serota and J. M. A. S. P. Wickramasinghe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**16**]{}, 4649 (2002).
R. B. Balian and C. Bloch, Ann. Phys. [**60**]{}, 401 (1970).
H. P. Baltes and E. R.. Hilf, ”[*Spectra of finite systems*]{}” (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1976).
J. M. A. S. P. Wickramasinghe, R. A. Serota, and B. Goodman, unpublished.
Felix von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B50, 17151 (1994).
L. Lewin ”Dilogarithms and Associated Functions” (Macdonald, London, 1958); E. W. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ClausenFunction.html”[*Clausen Function*]{}” (© 1999 CRC Press LLC, © 1999-2003 Wolfram Research, Inc.).
[^1]: We learned about Ref.[@Gr] after completion of this work.
[^2]: For a finite domain, in particular, we must eliminate the systematic energy dependence of $\left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle
$ due to boundary corrections [@G],[@BB],[@BH]; for a rectangle this dependence can be obtained directly[@BH],[@WSG] from the energy levels of a particle in a box, eq. (\[enm\]) below, and is given by $%
\left\langle {\cal N}\left( \varepsilon \right) \right\rangle =\varepsilon
-2\beta \sqrt{\varepsilon /\pi }+1/4$, where $\beta =\left( \alpha
^{1/4}+\alpha ^{-1/4}\right) /2$, $\alpha $ is defined in eq. (\[alpha\]) below and $\varepsilon $ is measured in units of$\ \Delta =2\pi \hbar
^{2}/mA $, eq. (\[Delta\_vs\_rhoav\]) below.
[^3]: Notice that the correct power in the denominator of eq. (20) in Ref.[@SW] is $1,$ not $1/2$. Also, we are presently investigating if the coefficient $%
\delta _{M}$ is properly recovered with this technique.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We determine new bounds on the entries of Gorenstein Hilbert functions, both in any fixed codimension and asymptotically.
Our first main theorem is a lower bound for the degree $i+1$ entry of a Gorenstein $h$-vector, in terms of its entry in degree $i$. This result carries interesting applications concerning unimodality: indeed, an important consequence is that, given $r$ and $i$, all Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension $r$ and socle degree $e\geq e_0=e_0(r,i)$ (this function being explicitly computed) are unimodal up to degree $i+1$. This immediately gives a new proof of a theorem of Stanley that all Gorenstein $h$-vectors in codimension three are unimodal.
Our second main theorem is an asymptotic formula for the least value that the $i$-th entry of a Gorenstein $h$-vector may assume, in terms of codimension, $r$, and socle degree, $e$. This theorem broadly generalizes a recent result of ours, where we proved a conjecture of Stanley predicting that asymptotic value in the specific case $e=4$ and $i=2$, as well as a result of Kleinschmidt which concerned the logarithmic asymptotic behavior in degree $i=\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor $.
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, 715 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506-0027, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA'
author:
- 'Juan Migliore${}^*$'
- 'Uwe Nagel${}^{+\,\#}$'
- 'Fabrizio Zanello${}^\#$'
title: |
Bounds and asymptotic minimal growth\
for Gorenstein Hilbert functions
---
[ ]{}\
Introduction
============
It has been observed by Bass [@bass] that Gorenstein algebras are ubiquitous throughout mathematics. Despite this, it is often distressingly difficult to find ones with specific desired properties (e.g. in liaison theory, to find “small” Gorenstein subschemes containing a given subscheme of projective space). A first step is to have some understanding of which Hilbert functions can occur. These are completely classified in codimension $r\leq 3$ [@St] (see also the third author’s [@Za3]; Macaulay first proved the result in the simpler case $r=2$ in [@Ma]), but a complete description is unknown if the codimension is at least $4$, in spite of a remarkable amount of work performed by several authors (see, e.g., [@BI; @BL; @Bo; @IS; @MNZ1; @MNZ2; @St]).
A first step is to have some idea of the extremal general “shape” of the Hilbert function as the codimension gets arbitrarily large. The upper bound is, of course, the case of compressed Gorenstein algebras (see Emsalem-Iarrobino’s [@EI], which was the seminal work on compressed algebras, and also [@Ia1; @FL; @Za1; @Za2], which further developed and extended this theory), so the interesting question is to ask for a lower bound. This has first been done by Stanley [@St2]. In particular, he considered the special case where the socle degree is 4, and gave a precise conjecture for the asymptotic growth of the least value, $f(r)$, of the Hilbert function in degree 2, in terms of the codimension, $r$. Specifically, he conjectured that $$\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(r)}{r^{2/3}} = 6^{2/3}.$$
This conjecture appeared in the first edition of [@St2], in 1983. Bounds were given by Stanley and by Kleinschmidt [@kleinschmidt], but the precise limit was only proved (verifying Stanley’s conjecture) in 2006 by the current authors.
The purpose of this paper is to give a very broad generalization of this result. There are at least two initial questions that one can ask concerning the general shape of the Hilbert function of a Gorenstein algebra, and those will be answered in this paper. First, if we know the entry of a Hilbert function in any given degree, what is a “good” lower bound for the value it can assume in the next degree?
Our answer to this question, Theorem \[lower bd\], carries very interesting applications concerning unimodality: indeed, an important consequence of our result is that, given $r$ and $i$, all Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension $r$ and socle degree $e\geq
e_0=e_0(r,i)$ (this constant being explicitly computed) are unimodal up to degree $i+1$.
In codimension $r\leq 3$, this result is powerful enough to supply a new proof of a celebrated theorem of Stanley that all Gorenstein $h$-vectors are unimodal.
Second, one can ask for asymptotic bounds given only in terms of the codimension and the socle degree, as in Stanley’s situation. In Theorem \[main result\], we will supply the least asymptotic value that the $i$-th entry of a Gorenstein $h$-vector may assume, in terms of codimension $r$ and socle degree $e$. This generalizes the recent result of ours mentioned above, where we solved a conjecture of Stanley predicting that asymptotic value in the specific case $e=4$ and $i=2$, as well as a result of Kleinschmidt ([@kleinschmidt], Theorem 1) for $i=\left \lfloor
\frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor $.
Our asymptotic result follows by combining our lower bounds and a construction of suitable Gorenstein algebras. We illustrate this with a specific example.
[**Example.**]{} Consider the Gorenstein $h$-vectors of the form $$(1, 125, h_2, h_3,\ldots, 125, h_8 = 1).$$ The proof of Theorem \[main result\] guarantees the existence of a Gorenstein $h$-vector $(1, 125, 95, 77, 71, \dots)$. On the other hand, with this value of $h_1$, Theorem \[lower bd\] provides $h_2 \geq 95$, which is thus sharp. Taking $h_2 = 95$, it provides $h_3 \geq 77$, again sharp thanks to our explicit construction. Then taking $h_3 = 77$, we obtain $h_4 \geq 70$, but now our example does not achieve the bound; indeed, we do not know if this bound is sharp or not. See also Example \[relate results\] for a broad generalization of this example.
On the other hand, it is not surprising that our bound in Theorem \[lower bd\] is not always sharp, since a sharp bound would probably make it easy to decide if non-unimodal Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension four do exist. See also Example \[ex-sharpness\]. What we do find surprising is that Theorem \[lower bd\] is strong enough to give a sharp asymptotic bound (Theorem \[main result\]), as described above.
A general lower bound and its applications
==========================================
Throughout this paper, $k$ will denote an infinite field, and $R = k[x_1,\dots,x_r]$ a graded polynomial ring in $r$ variables. Each standard graded $k$-algebra $A$ can be written as $A = R/I$, where $I \subset R$ is a homogeneous ideal.
We begin by recalling results of Macaulay, Green, and Stanley that we will need in this paper.
Let $n$ and $i$ be positive integers. The [*i-binomial expansion of n*]{} is $$n_{(i)} = \binom{n_i}{ i}+\binom{n_{i-1}}{i-1}+...+\binom{n_j}{j},$$ where $n_i>n_{i-1}>...>n_j \geq j \geq 1$. We remark that such an expansion always exists and it is unique (see, e.g., [@BH] Lemma 4.2.6).
Following [@BG], we define, for any integers $a$ and $b$, $$\left(n_{(i)}\right)_{a}^{b}=\binom{n_i+b}{i+a}+\binom{n_{i-1}+b}{i-1+a}+...+\binom{n_j+b}{j+a},$$ where we set $\binom{m}{q}=0$ whenever $m<q$ or $q<0$.
\[gr\] Let $L \in A$ be a general linear form. Denote by $h_d$ the degree $d$ entry of the Hilbert function of $A$ and by $h_d^{'}$ the degree $d$ entry of the Hilbert function of $A/L A$. Then:
- (Macaulay) $\displaystyle h_{d+1}\leq \left ( \left(h_d\right)_{(d)} \right )_{1}^{1}.$
- (Green) $\displaystyle h_d^{'}\leq \left ( \left(h_d\right )_{(d)} \right )_{0}^{-1}.$
i\) See [@BH], Theorem 4.2.10.
ii\) See [@Gr], Theorem 1.
The following simple observation is not new (see for instance [@St2], bottom of p. 67):
(Stanley)\[stle\]. Let $A$ be an artinian Gorenstein algebra, and let $L\in A$ be any linear form. Then the Hilbert function of $A$ can be written as $$h := (1,h_1,...,h_e) = (1, b_1+c_1,..., b_e+c_e = 1),$$ where $$b=(b_1=1,b_2,...,b_{e-1},b_e=1)$$ is the $h$-vector of $A/(0:L)$ (with the indices shifted by 1), which is a Gorenstein algebra, and $$c=(c_0=1,c_1,...,c_{e-1},c_e=0)$$ is the $h$-vector of $A/L A$.
Perhaps the most important, and definitely the most consequential, result of this section is a lower bound for the value of a Gorenstein Hilbert function in terms of the value in the previous degree. This result generalizes [@MNZ1], Theorem 4, which treated the case $i=1$. Specifically, we have that:
\[lower bd\] Suppose that ${h} = (1,h_1 = r ,h_2,\dots,h_{e-2}, h_{e-1} = r, h_e = 1)$ is the $h$-vector of an artinian Gorenstein algebra over $R = k[x_1,\dots,x_r]$. Assume that $i$ is an integer satisfying $1 \leq i \leq \frac{e}{2} -1$. Then $$h_{i+1} \geq \left ( \left(h_i\right )_{(e-i)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} + \left ( \left ( h_i\right )_{(e-i)} \right )^{-(e-2i)}_{-(e-2i-1)}.$$
As in Stanley’s Lemma \[stle\], let us write $h=(1,h_1,...,h_e)$ as $b+c=(1, b_1+c_1,..., b_e+c_e = 1)$, where we have picked the form $L$ to be general inside $R$. Notice that $b$ is a Gorenstein $h$-vector of socle degree $e-1$. Therefore, by symmetry and our choice of the indices, $b_j=b_{e+1-j}$ for all $j$.
Hence, by Green’s Theorem \[gr\], ii), we have that $$c_{e-i}\leq \left( \left(h_{e-i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_0^{-1}=\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{0}^{-1}.$$
Thus (using the Pascal’s Triangle inequality) $$b_{i+1}=b_{e-i}\geq h_i-\left(\left(h_i\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{0}^{-1}=\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1},$$ which implies $$c_{i+1}\leq h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}.$$
By iterating Macaulay’s Theorem \[gr\], i), we obtain another upper bound on $c_{e-i}$, namely: $$c_{e-i}\leq \left(\left(h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}.$$
Now, since by Green’s theorem, $c_{e-i}\leq ((h_{i})_{(e-i)})_0^{-1}$, we write $c_{e-i}=((h_{i})_{(e-i)})_0^{-1}-a$, for some integer $a\geq 0$. Therefore, $$c_{i+1}=h_{i+1}-b_{i+1}=h_{i+1}-b_{e-i}=h_{i+1}-h_i+\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_0^{-1}-a=h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}-a,$$ from which we get, again by iterating Macaulay’s theorem: $$\left(\left(h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}-a\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}=\left(\left(c_{i+1}\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}\geq c_{e-i}=\left(\left(h_i\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_0^{-1}-a.$$ Therefore, since $(m_{(d)})^1_1$ is a strictly increasing function of $m$, we have $$\left(\left(h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}\geq$$$$\left(\left(h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}-a\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}+a\geq \left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_0^{-1}.$$ In particular, we have proved that $$\left(\left(h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}\right)_{(i+1)}\right)^{e-2i-1}_{e-2i-1}\geq \left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_0^{-1}.$$
From the last inequality, we again use monotonicity. Notice first that $((h_{i})_{(e-i)})_0^{-1}$ already presents itself in its $(e-i)$ binomial expansion (possibly after eliminating those binomial coefficients that are equal to 0). Similarly, the left-hand side of the last inequality is also already written as an $(e-i)$ binomial expansion, since $(i+1)+(e-2i-1)=e-i$. Hence we easily get $$h_{i+1}-\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-1}^{-1}\geq \left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-(e-2i-1)}^{-1-(e-2i-1)}=\left(\left(h_{i}\right)_{(e-i)}\right)_{-(e-2i-1)}^{-(e-2i)},$$ as we wanted to show.
Let us now present some interesting applications of the above theorem.
In [@BI], D. Bernstein and A. Iarrobino gave the first known example of a non-unimodal Gorenstein Hilbert function in codimension 5, namely $$1 \ \ 5 \ \ 12 \ \ 22 \ \ 35 \ \ 51 \ \ 70 \ \ 91 \ \ 90 \ \ 91 \ \ 70 \ \ 51 \ \ 35 \ \ 22 \ \ 12 \ \ 5 \ \ 1.$$ One can check, using Theorem \[lower bd\], that with a value of 91 in degree 7, the 90 in degree 8 is optimal. Notice that, for $i
\leq 6$, the value of $h_{i+1}$ is not optimal with respect to our bound, but in any case Theorem \[lower bd\] guarantees that the Hilbert function is unimodal in those degrees; only in degrees 7 and 8 it might be possible to violate unimodality.
This motivates Proposition \[unimodal\] below.
\[unimodal\] Let ${h} = (1,h_1,\dots , h_{e-1}, h_e)$ be a Gorenstein $h$-vector, and fix an index $i \leq \frac{e}{2} -1$. If $$h_i<\binom{e-i+2}{2}-\binom{e-2i-1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}(i+3)(2e-3i),$$ then $h_{i+1} \geq h_i$.
Since $\binom{e-i+2}{2}=\binom{e-i+2}{e-i}$, the $(e-i)$-binomial expansion of $h_i$ clearly begins with $\binom{e-i+1}{e-i} + \dots$ or $\binom{e-i}{e-i} + \dots$. In particular, since $h_i<\binom{e-i+2}{2}-\binom{e-2i-1}{2}$, there exists an integer $\ell ,$ $ e-2i-1 \leq \ell \leq e-i+1$, such that $$h_i = \binom{e-i+1}{e-i} + \dots + \binom{\ell +1}{\ell} + (*) = (e-i+1) + \dots + (\ell +1) + (*),$$ where $(*)$ is a sum of at most $\ell -1$ binomial coefficients of the form $\binom{j}{j}$. (Of course, $h_i:=(*)$ if $\ell = e-i+1$.) Theorem \[lower bd\] then gives $$\begin{array}{rcl}
h_{i+1} & \geq & ((e-i) + \dots + \ell + (*)) + (e-i -\ell +1) \\
& = & (e-i+1) + (e-i) + \dots + (\ell +1) + (*) \\
& = & h_i,
\end{array}$$ as desired.
A simple, but very important, application of the previous result is the following:
\[ccc\] Fix $r$ and $i$. Then all Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension $r$ and socle degree $$e> \frac{(i+1)(i+2)\cdot \cdot \cdot (i+r-1)}{(i+3)(r-1)!}+\frac{3}{2}i$$ are unimodal up to degree $i+1$.
One can show that, for any $r\geq 2$, $$\frac{(i+1)(i+2)\cdot \cdot \cdot (i+r-1)}{(i+3)(r-1)!}+\frac{3}{2}i\geq \frac{i(i+1)\cdot \cdot \cdot (i+r-2)}{(i+2)(r-1)!}+\frac{3}{2}(i-1).$$
Hence it suffices to prove unimodality only in degree $i+1$.
Since $\frac{1}{2}(i+3)(2e-3i)$ is an increasing function of $e$, and $h_i$ clearly cannot exceed $\binom{i+r-1}{i}$, by Proposition \[unimodal\] it is enough to show that $\frac{1}{2}(i+3)(2e-3i)>\binom{i+r-1}{i},$ and a standard computation shows that this is equivalent to the inequality on $e$ of the statement.
In particular, our result is strong enough to reprove the well-known theorem of Stanley that all codimension $r\leq 3$ Gorenstein $h$-vectors are unimodal (see also [@Za3]):
\[corst\] All Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension $r\leq 3$ are unimodal.
Notice that, a fortiori, it suffices to show that the inequality of the statement of Corollary \[ccc\] is satisfied for $i=\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor -1$ and $r=3$. Therefore, we want to prove that $$e>\frac{\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor \left(\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor +1\right)}{2\left(\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor +2\right)}+\frac{3}{2}\left(\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor -1\right).$$ But the right hand side is equal to $$2\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor -\frac {2\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor +3}{\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor +2 },$$ and the desired inequality immediately follows, since $e\geq 2\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor $.
For $r=4$ the estimate we obtain is still a very interesting one. Namely, from Corollary \[ccc\], we immediately have:
\[cor4\] All Gorenstein $h$-vectors of codimension $4$ and socle degree $e>\frac{1}{6}(i^2+12i+2)$ are unimodal up to degree $i+1$.
This complements the main result of [@MNZ2], which focused on the initial degree of $I$ rather than on the socle degree of $R/I$. There it was shown that, whenever $r=4$ and $h_4\leq 33$, then the possible $h$-vectors for Gorenstein algebras are [*precisely*]{} the SI-sequences.
We conclude this section with an example showing that the bound given in Theorem \[lower bd\] is not always sharp. However, in the next section we will prove that this bound is asymptotically sharp.
\[ex-sharpness\] Consider Gorenstein $h$-vectors of the form $$(1, 4, 10, 20, h_4, h_5, h_6 = h_4, 20, 10, 4, 1).$$ Assume $h_4 = 33$. Then Theorem \[lower bd\] gives $h_5 \geq 30$, whereas Theorem 3.1 in [@MNZ2] says that $h_5 \geq h_4 = 33$. In fact, using the methods of [@MNZ2], Theorem 3.1, one can show that all the above Gorenstein $h$-vectors are unimodal.
Notice that the methods in [@MNZ2] work nicely for algebras with low initial degree whose codimension is at most four. The methods developed in this paper work in general. This is the big advantage of the current paper.
Asymptotic minimal growth
=========================
The following definition generalizes one introduced in [@St2] and extended in [@MNZ1].
Fix integers $e$ and $i$. Then $f_{e,i}(r)$ is the least possible value in degree $i$ of the Hilbert function of a Gorenstein algebra with socle degree $e$ and codimension $r$.
\[BG Lemma\] Let $A,d$ be positive integers. Then
1. Assume that $d > 1$ and $s := \left (A_{(d)} \right )^{-1}_{-1}$. Then $s$ is the smallest integer such that $A \leq \left ( s_{(d-1)} \right )^{+1}_{+1}$.
2. Assume that $d > i$. Then $$\left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-i-1}_{-i-1} = \left ( \left ( \left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-i}_{-i} \right )_{(d-i)} \right )^{-1}_{-1}.$$
We note the following two immediate consequences of Lemma \[BG Lemma\].
\[minus\] With the notation of Lemma \[BG Lemma\] we have
1. $\displaystyle \left ( \left ( \left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \right )_{(d-1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} = \left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-2}_{-2}. $
2. $\displaystyle \left ( \left ( \dots\left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \right )_{(d-1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \right ) \dots \right )_{(d-i)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} = \left ( A_{(d)} \right )^{-(i+1)}_{-(i+1)}.$
We need two more preliminary results before proving our main theorem. Remember that, given two functions $f$ and $g$, we say that $f(m)\in O(g(m))$ if, for $m$ large, there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $\vert f(m)\vert \leq C\cdot g(m)$.
\[r\] Given $e\geq 1$, every positive integer $r$ can be written in the form $$r=m+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}+\binom{a_{e-2}}{e-2}+\binom{a_{e-3}}{e-3}+...+\binom{a_1}{1},$$ where $m$ is the largest integer such that $m+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}\leq r$, $a_{e-2}\geq a_{e-1}\geq ... \geq a_1\geq 0$ (the inequalities being strict if the $a_i$’s are positive), and each $a_i\in O(m)$.
The $a_i$’s are simply obtained from the $(e-2)$-binomial expansion of $r-m-\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$ (we can consider them to be all 0’s if $r=m-\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$).
The following result is due to Stanley, even if its idea was already contained in a paper of Reiten ([@Re]).
\[tri\] Given a level algebra with $h$-vector $(1,h_1,...,h_j)$, there exists a Gorenstein algebra (called its [*trivial extension*]{}) having $h$-vector $H=(1,H_1,...,H_j,H_{j+1})$, where, for each $i=1,2,...j$, we have $$H_i=h_i+h_{j+1-i}.$$
See [@St], Example 4.3.
The following is the main result of this paper. Notice that once we have fixed the socle degree $e$, by symmetry it is enough to determine the behavior of the Hilbert function in degrees $i \leq \frac{e}{2}$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$. Notice also that the following result generalizes Stanley’s conjecture when $i = 2$ and $e = 4$, which we proved in [@MNZ1]. Also, it greatly generalizes a theorem of Kleinschmidt ([@kleinschmidt], Theorem 1), which supplied a logarithmic estimate for the middle entry, namely: $$\log f_{e,\left \lfloor \frac{e}{2}\right \rfloor }(r)\sim_r \frac{\left\lfloor \frac{e+1}{2}\right \rfloor }{e-1}\log r.$$ (Recall that two arithmetic functions $f$ and $g$ are asymptotic, i.e., $f(r)\sim_r g(r)$, when $\lim_{r\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{f(r)}{g(r)}=1$. One often simply writes $f(r)\sim_r g(r)$ in place of $f(r)\sim_{r \rightarrow +\infty }g(r)$, since $+\infty $ is the only accumulation point for the natural numbers with respect to the discrete topology they naturally inherit from the reals.)
A surprising fact is that the asymptotic formula we will show for $f_{e,i}(r)$ suddenly increases by a factor of 2 exactly in the middle (i.e., when $i=\frac{e}{2}$; therefore this pathology occurs only when the socle degree $e$ is even).
\[main result\] Fix $e$ and $i$. Then $$\displaystyle \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f_{e,i}(r)}{r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}} =
\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(e-1\right)!\right) ^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}}{(e-i)!} & \hbox{\hskip 1cm if $i < \frac{e}{2}$} \\ \\
\displaystyle 2 \cdot \frac{\left(\left(e-1\right)!\right) ^{\frac{e/2}{e-1}}}{(e/2)!} & \hbox{\hskip 1cm if $i = \frac{e}{2},$}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $f_{e,i}(r)$, as in the above definition, denotes the least possible value that the Hilbert function of a Gorenstein algebra of codimension $r$ and socle degree $e$ may assume in degree $i$. (Notice that, if $i = \frac{e}{2}$, the left-hand side of the displayed equation has denominator equal to $r^{\frac{e/2}{e-1}}$.)
Let $F(r) := f_{e,i}(r)/r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}$. We have to show that the limit exists and is equal to the asserted value. This was done for $e=4$ and $i=2$ in [@MNZ1], so we will assume that $e \geq 5$. We will exhibit functions $G$ and $H$ such that, for all $r$, $G(r) \leq F(r) \leq H(r)$ and both $G$ and $H$ converge to the limit asserted in the theorem. We begin by producing $G(r)$.
We first assume that $i < \frac{e}{2}$. Observe that by Theorem \[lower bd\] (or by Theorem 4 of [@MNZ1]) and the fact that $h_1 = r$, we have $$\label{exp of h2}
h_2 \geq \left (r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} + \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-(e-2)}_{-(e-3)} \geq \left (r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} .$$ Consider the $(e-2)$-binomial expansion of $h_2$: $$(h_2)_{(e-2)} = \binom{\alpha_{e-2}}{e-2} + \binom{\alpha_{e-3}}{e-3} + \dots + \binom{\alpha_1}{1}.$$ Then again by Theorem \[lower bd\] we have for $h_3$ that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
h_3 & \geq & \displaystyle \left ( \left(h_2\right )_{(e-2)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} + \left ( \left(h_2\right )_{(e-2)} \right )^{-(e-4)}_{-(e-5)} \\ \\
& \geq & \left ( \left(h_2\right )_{(e-2)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \\ \\
& \geq & \left ( \left ( \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \right )_{(e-2)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} \hfill \hbox{\hskip 6cm (by (\ref{exp of h2}))} \\ \\
& = & \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-2}_{-2} \hfill \hbox{\hskip 6cm (by Corollary \ref{minus}).}
\end{array}$$ Proceeding inductively in the same way, we obtain for $i < \frac{e}{2}$, using Corollary \[minus\], $$\label{first ineq}
f_{e,i}(r) \geq \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-(i-1)}_{-(i-1)}.$$
Consider the $(e-1)$-binomial expansion of $r$: $$r_{(e-1)} = \binom{k}{e-1} + \binom{k_{e-2}}{e-2} + \dots + \binom{k_1}{1}.$$
Note that $k$ is obtained as a function of $r$. Thus, invoking (\[first ineq\]), we obtain $$f_{e,i}(r) \geq \binom{k-i+1}{e-i} .$$
Since $k$ is a function of $r$, and $e$ and $i$ are fixed in advance, $\binom{k-i+1}{e-i}$ is also a function of $r$, which we denote by $G_1(r)$.
Since asymptotically $r \sim_r k^{e-1}/(e-1)!$, we have $$k \sim_r r^{\frac{1}{e-1}} \cdot \left(\left(e-1\right)!\right)^{\frac{1}{e-1}},$$ and so $$G_1(r) \sim_r \frac{k^{e-i}}{(e-i)!} \sim_r \frac{r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}} \cdot ((e-1)!)^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}}{(e-i)!}.$$ Denoting $G(r) := G_1(r)/r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}$, we see that $G(r) \leq F(r)$ and $G(r)$ has the desired limit when $i < \frac{e}{2}$.
The argument is similar when $i = \frac{e}{2}$, with essentially one difference. We now have, using Theorem \[lower bd\], that $$h_{\frac{e}{2}} \geq \left ( \left(h_{\frac{e}{2}-1} \right)_{(e-\frac{e}{2}+1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} +
\left ( \left(h_{\frac{e}{2}-1}\right )_{(e - \frac{e}{2}+1)} \right )^{-2}_{-1} =
\left ( \left(h_{\frac{e}{2}-1} \right)_{(\frac{e}{2}+1)} \right )^{-1}_{-1} +
\left ( \left(h_{\frac{e}{2}-1} \right)_{( \frac{e}{2}+1)} \right )^{-2}_{-1} .$$
Arguing as before, we now obtain $$f_{e,\frac{e}{2}} \geq \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-\frac{e}{2} +1}_{-\frac{e}{2} +1} + \left ( r_{(e-1)} \right )^{-\frac{e}{2} }_{-\frac{e}{2} +1} .$$
Since asymptotically both terms carry equal weight, we proceed as before with a factor of two, as asserted.
We now want to show the upper bound, by exhibiting a function $H(r)\geq F(r)$ which converges to the limit of the statement.
Let us write $r$ as in Lemma \[r\], and consider the integer $r-m=\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}+\binom{a_{e-2}}{e-2}+\binom{a_{e-3}}{e-3}+...+\binom{a_1}{1}.$ First suppose that $r>m+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$, i.e. that $a_{e-2}\geq e-2$.
We construct an $h$-vector $h$ of socle degree $e$ and type $h_{e-1}=r-m$ as follows. For all indices $i$, let $$h_i=\left(\left(h_{e-1}\right)_{(e-1)}\right)^{-(e-1-i)}_{-(e-1-i)}=\binom{m-2+i}{i}+\binom{a_{e-2}-e+i+1}{i-1}+...+\binom{a_{e-i-1}-e+i+1}{0}.$$ In particular, $$h_1=\binom{m-1}{1}+\binom{a_{e-2}-e+2}{0}=(m-1)+1=m.$$
It is easy to see, by the fact that all $a_i$’s are $O(m)$, that $h_{i}\sim_m \frac{m^i}{i!}$.
Furthermore, by Lemma \[BG Lemma\] and Corollary \[minus\], we have that $h_i$ is the minimum possible value of $h$ in degree $i$, given $h_{e-1}$. It is easy to show that this construction guarantees that $h$ be level, since the lex-segment ideal corresponding to $h$ is a level ideal (see, e.g., [@BG] or [@Za4]).
Hence, by trivial extension (Lemma \[tri\]), we can construct a Gorenstein $h$-vector $(1,H_1,...,H_e)$ of socle degree $e$, where $H_i=h_i+h_{e-i}$.
In particular, $H_1=h_1+h_{e-1}=m+(r-m)=r$. Also, for all indices $i\leq \frac{e}{2}$, we have $$H_i\sim_m \frac{m^i}{i!}+\frac{m^{e-i}}{(e-i)!},$$ which is asymptotic to $\frac{m^{e-i}}{(e-i)!}$ if $i< \frac{e}{2}$, and to $2\frac{m^{e/2}}{(e/2)!}$ if $i=\frac{e}{2}$.
Since $m$ is a function of $r$, $H_i$ is also a function of $r$. Also, notice that, asymptotically, $r\sim_r \frac{m^{e-1}}{(e-1)!}$, whence $m\sim_r ((e-1)!)^{\frac{1}{e-1}}r^{\frac{1}{e-1}}$.
Thus, since by definition, $f_{e,i}(r)\leq H_i(r)$, we have $$\frac{f_{e,i}(r)}{r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}}\leq \frac{H_i(r)}{r^{\frac{e-i}{e-1}}},$$ and it is easy to check that the right hand side converges to the desired value for all $i\leq \frac{e}{2}$.
It remains to prove the upper bound when $r$ is of the form $r=m+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$.
We proceed exactly as before, by starting with a level $h$-vector of type $h_{e-1}=r-m=\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$, and obtaining, by trivial extensions, a Gorenstein $h$-vector $(1,H_1,...,H_e)$, where $H_i=
\binom{m+i-2}{i}+\binom{m+e-i-2}{e-i}$ if $0 \leq i \leq e-1$. The only difference is that now $H_1=\binom{m-1}{1}+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}=(m-1)+(r-m)=r-1$.
But it is easy to show that if $(1,H_1,H_2,...,H_{e-1},1)$ is a Gorenstein $h$-vector, then also $(1,H_1+1,H_2+1,...,H_{e-1}+1,1)$ is always a Gorenstein $h$-vector (for instance using Macaulay’s inverse systems; see, e.g., the proof of Proposition 8 in [@MNZ1]).
Hence, we have constructed a Gorenstein $h$-vector of codimension $r$ also when $r=m+\binom{m+e-3}{e-1}$, and, employing the same argument as above, we obtain that asymptotically its entries again satisfy the estimate of the statement, since adding 1 clearly does not change their asymptotic value.
The proof of the theorem is complete.
We illustrate the quality of our bounds by an example in which we focus on degrees two and three.
\[relate results\] Consider the degrees 2 and 3 entries of a Gorenstein $h$-vector $(1, h_1,
h_2,h_3,\ldots,h_e)$, where $r = h_1 = \binom{m+e-3}{e-1} + m$ for some integer $m$ satisfying $1 \leq m \leq e-2$. Assume that $e \geq 6$. Note that the construction given in the last part of the proof of Theorem \[main result\] gives a Gorenstein algebra with $h$-vector [ $$\label{hvtr}
\left ( 1 , \binom{m+e-3}{e-1} +m, \binom{m+e-4}{e-2} + \binom{m}{2} + 1, \binom{m+e-5}{e-3} + \binom{m+1}{3} + 1, \dots \right )$$ ]{} One quickly checks that $$h_1 = r = \binom{m+e-3}{e-1} + m = \binom{m+e-3}{e-1} + \binom{e-2}{e-2} + \dots + \binom{e-m-1}{e-m-1}$$ so applying Theorem \[lower bd\] to get a bound for $h_2$, we obtain $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle h_2 & \displaystyle \geq & \displaystyle \left [ \binom{m+e-4}{e-2} + \binom{e-3}{e-3} + \dots + \binom{e-m-2}{e-m-2} \right ] + \left [ \binom{m+e-3-e+2}{e-1-e+3} + 0 \right ] \\
\displaystyle & = &\displaystyle \binom{m+e-4}{e-2} + m + \binom{m-1}{2}
\end{array}$$ Since $\binom{m-1}{2} + m = \binom{m}{2} + 1$, we see that for this class of examples the bound for $h_2$ given in Theorem \[lower bd\] is sharp!
Similarly, let us consider the bound that we obtain for $h_3$. We have already computed in (\[hvtr\]) the value of $h_3$ obtained in the construction of Theorem \[main result\]. To apply Theorem \[lower bd\], we need to write the $(e-2)$-binomial expansion of $h_2$. To that end, suppose that $a \geq 1$ and $k \leq e-2$ are integers satisfying $$(e-2) + (e-3) + \dots + (e-k) + a = \binom{m}{2} + 1.$$ Notice that, since $m\leq e-2$ and $e\geq 6$, such integers $a$ and $k$ always exist. Hence $$h_2 \geq \binom{m+e-4}{e-2} + \binom{e-2}{e-3} + \binom{e-3}{e-4} + \dots + \binom{e-k}{e-k-1} + a$$ where here we are thinking of $a$ as a sum of binomial coefficients of the form $\binom{e-j}{e-j}$. Then Theorem \[lower bd\] gives $$\begin{array}{rcl}
h_3 & \geq & \left [ \binom{m+e-5}{e-3} + \binom{e-3}{e-4} + \dots + \binom{e-k-1}{e-k-2} + a \right ] + \left [ \binom{m+e-4 - (e-4)}{(e-2)-(e-5)} + (k-1) \right ] \\
& = & \left [ \binom{m+e-5}{e-3} + (e-3) + \dots + (e-k-1) + a \right ] + \left [ \binom{m}{3} + (k-1) \right ] \\
& = & \binom{m+e-5}{e-3} + \binom{m}{2} + 1 + \binom{m}{3} \\
& = & \binom{m+e-5}{e-3} + \binom{m+1}{3} + 1.
\end{array}$$ Hence the bound of Theorem \[lower bd\] is attained. Choosing $e = 8$ and $m = 5$ we obtain the example given in the introduction.
[ ]{}\
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We thank the anonymous referee for very helpful comments.
[ll]{}
H. Bass, [*On the ubiquity of Gorenstein rings*]{}, Math. Z. [**82**]{} (1963), 8–28.
D. Bernstein and A. Iarrobino: [*A non-unimodal graded Gorenstein Artin algebra in codimension five*]{}, Comm. in Algebra [**20**]{} (1992), No. 8, 2323-2336.
A.M. Bigatti and A.V. Geramita: [*Level Algebras, Lex Segments and Minimal Hilbert Functions*]{}, Comm. in Algebra [**31**]{} (2003), 1427-1451.
M. Boij: [*Graded Gorenstein Artin algebras whose Hilbert functions have a large number of valleys*]{}, Comm. in Algebra [**23**]{} (1995), No. 1, 97-103.
M. Boij and D. Laksov: [*Nonunimodality of graded Gorenstein Artin algebras*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**120**]{} (1994), 1083-1092.
W. Bruns and J. Herzog: [*Cohen-Macaulay rings*]{}, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, No. 39, Revised edition (1998), Cambridge, U.K..
J. Emsalem and A. Iarrobino: [*Some zero-dimensional generic singularities; finite algebras having small tangent space*]{}, Compositio Math. [**36**]{} (1978), 145-188.
R. Fröberg and D. Laksov: [*Compressed Algebras*]{}, Conference on Complete Intersections in Acireale, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 1092 (1984), 121-151, Springer-Verlag.
M. Green: [*Restrictions of linear series to hyperplanes, and some results of Macaulay and Gotzmann*]{}, Algebraic curves and projective geometry (1988), 76-86, Trento; Lecture Notes in Math. [**1389**]{} (1989), Springer, Berlin.
A. Iarrobino: [*Compressed Algebras: Artin algebras having given socle degrees and maximal length*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**285**]{} (1984), 337-378.
A. Iarrobino and H. Srinivasan: [*Some Gorenstein Artin algebras of embedding dimension four, I: components of $PGOR(H)$ for $H=(1,4,7,...,1)$*]{}, J. of Pure and Applied Algebra [**201**]{} (2005), 62-96.
P. Kleinschmidt: [*Über Hilbert-Funktionen graduierter Gorenstein-Algebren*]{}, Arch. Math. [**43**]{} (1984), 501-506.
F.H.S. Macaulay: [*The Algebraic Theory of Modular Systems*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1916).
J. Migliore, U. Nagel and F. Zanello: [*On the degree two entry of a Gorenstein $h$-vector and a conjecture of Stanley*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**136**]{} (2008), No. 8, 2755-2762.
J. Migliore, U. Nagel and F. Zanello: [*A characterization of Gorenstein Hilbert functions in codimension four with small initial degree*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**15**]{} (2008), No. 2, 331-349.
I. Reiten: [*The converse to a theorem of Sharp on Gorenstein modules*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**32**]{} (1972), 417-420.
R. Stanley: [*Hilbert functions of graded algebras*]{}, Adv. Math. [**28**]{} (1978), 57-83.
R. Stanley: [*Combinatorics and Commutative Algebra*]{}, Second Ed., Progress in Mathematics [**41**]{} (1996), Birkhäuser, Boston, MA.
F. Zanello: [*Extending the idea of compressed algebra to arbitrary socle-vectors*]{}, J. of Algebra [**270**]{} (2003), No. 1, 181-198.
F. Zanello: [*Extending the idea of compressed algebra to arbitrary socle-vectors, II: cases of non-existence*]{}, J. of Algebra [**275**]{} (2004), No. 2, 730-748.
F. Zanello: [*Stanley’s theorem on codimension 3 Gorenstein $h$-vectors*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**134**]{} (2006), No. 1, 5-8.
F. Zanello: [*When is there a unique socle-vector associated to a given $h$-vector?*]{}, Comm. in Algebra [**34**]{} (2006), No. 5, 1847-1860.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give examples of derived schemes $X$ and a line bundle ${\mathscr{L}}$ on the truncation $tX$ so that ${\mathscr{L}}$ does not extend to the original derived scheme $X$. In other words the pullback map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(tX)$ is not surjective. Our examples have the further property that, while their truncations are projective hypersurfaces, they fail to have any nontrivial line bundles, and hence they are not quasi-projective.'
author:
- Toni Annala
title: On line bundles in derived algebraic geometry
---
Introduction
============
It is a well known fact (see [@KST]), that for an affine derived scheme $X$, the induced pullback map $K^0(X) \to K^0(tX)$ is an isomorphism. However, due to the form that the descent spectral sequence takes, one would expect the $K^0$ of a derived scheme to be different from that of its truncation in general.
Moreover, a more computable invariant – the Picard group of $X$ – is a summand of $K^0(X)$: we have a map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to K^0(X)$ that sends a line bundle to its $K$-theory class, and a one sided inverse is induced by the perfect determinant map of Schürg-Toën-Vezzosi [@STV] as the determinant of a line bundle ${\mathscr{L}}$, regarded as a perfect complex, is again ${\mathscr{L}}$. We can therefore conclude that if the pullback map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(Y)$ fails to be injective (surjective), then so does the map $K^0(X) \to K^0(Y)$.
It is not very hard to find examples of derived schemes $X$ so that the map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(tX)$ is not injective. Some kind of trivial derived enhancement will often have this property: for example, take the derived scheme whose underlying scheme is ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, and whose structure sheaf is given by the trivial square zero extension ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2} \oplus {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2}(-3)[-1]$. One can compute, either using the descent spectral sequence or the deformation sequences as in , that the Picard group of $X$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}\oplus k$.
However, finding an example so that ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(tX)$ fails to be surjective is harder, as a trivial extension will not work anymore. It is also a much more interesting question. Consider for example the question of whether or not a derived scheme $X$ is quasi-projective. In [@An2] it was noted that a derived scheme $X$ is quasi-projective if and only if it has an *ample line bundle*, i.e., a line bundle whose truncation is ample on $tX$. Hence, the question of whether or not $X$ is quasi-projective can be divided into two parts:
- is the truncation $tX$ quasi-projective;
- does an ample line bundle on $tX$ extend to $X$;
and the second question is obviously related to the surjectivity of the map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(tX)$.
The main purpose of this article is finding an example of a derived scheme $X$ such that the pullback map ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(tX)$ is not surjective. However, in the examples we construct, ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X)$ is trivial while the truncation $tX$ is a projective hypersurface, realizing the second obstruction (as above) to quasi-projectivity. The examples are constructed in Section , and verifying the desired properties is an easy computation involving nothing else than just the basic graduate knowledge of algebraic geometry. However, justifying these computations takes a bit more work, and is done in section .
Conventions {#conventions .unnumbered}
-----------
Throughout this article, we are going to work over a field $k$ of characteristic $0$. A *derived ring* (over $k$) will be either a simplicial $k$-algebra, connective differential graded $k$-algebra or a connective ${\mathbb{E}}_\infty$-ring spectrum over $k$. Under our characteristic 0 assumption, all the above models are known to agree. All derived rings will be assumed to be commutative (in homotopical sense). As everything in this paper should be assumed to be derived, we will often drop the word ”derived” to not to burden the exposition. We will denote by $[-n]$ the operation of $n$-fold suspension $\Sigma^n$, which in the dg-world corresponds to the homological shift upwards $n$ times. Throughout the article, unless otherwise specified, $X$ will be a derived scheme over $k$. All derived schemes are assumed to be separated.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author would like to thank his advisor Kalle Karu for useful discussions relating the material of this article back to classical algebraic geometry. The author is supported by the Vilho, Yrjö and Kalle Väisälä Foundation of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.
Deformation theory {#DeformationTheory}
==================
A natural way to approach the problem is using the derived version of deformation theory. All the main references [@TV2], [@GR], [@Lur2] and [@Lur3] for derived algebraic geometry deal with the subject in one form or another. Other sources include short notes [@PV] made available by Porta and Vezzosi.
Background
----------
Deformation theory of a derived scheme is controlled by its cotangent complex. Let us recall the definition of a derived infinitesimal extension of a (derived) ring. Suppose $A$ is a ring, $B$ is an $n$-truncated $A$-algebra and let $M$ be a $\pi_0(B)$-module. An infinitesimal extension of $B$ by $M[-n-1]$ as an $A$-algebra is an $A$-algebra map $B' \to B$ whose homotopy fibre (as $B'$-modules) is equivalent to $M[-n-1]$. We note that in this case $\pi_i(B') = \pi_i(B)$ when $n \leq n$, $\pi_{n+1}(B') = M$ and $\pi_i(B')=0$ for $i > n+1$. We recall how infinitesimal extensions can be classified using the cotangent complex ${\mathbb{L}}_{B/A}$:
The derived infinitesimal extensions of the $A$-algebra $B$ by $M[-n-1]$ are classified by elements of $\pi_0({\mathrm{Hom}}_B({\mathbb{L}}_{B/A}, M[-n-2])) \cong \pi_{-n-2}({\mathrm{Hom}}_B({\mathbb{L}}_{B/A}, M))$.
The relationship is as follows: A map ${\mathbb{L}}_{B/A} \to M[-n-2]$ is exactly the data of an $A$-derivation $d: B \to M[-n-2]$, which in turn is exactly the data of a map of $A$-algebras $(1,d): B \to B \oplus M[-n-2]$ where $B \oplus M[-n-2]$ is the *trivial square zero extension*. Now the infinitesimal extension $B' \to B$ associated to $d$ is given as the pullback
(A2) at (2,2) [$B$]{}; (B2) at (2,1) [$B \oplus M[-n-2]$]{}; (A1) at (0,2) [$B'$]{}; (B1) at (0,1) [$B$]{}; (A1) edge\[->\] (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] node\[below\][$(1,d)$]{}(B2) (A1) edge\[->\] (B1) (A2) edge\[->\] node\[right\][$(1,0)$]{} (B2) ;
where $0$ is the trivial derivation.
In this paper we will be interested in the case when $A = k$ is a field and the $k$-algebra $B$ is $0$-truncated. Moreover, we want to find an extension $B'$ of $B$ to a $k[S^n]$-algebra. In other words, we are interested in all pushout diagrams
(A2) at (2,2) [$k$]{}; (B2) at (2,1) [$B$]{}; (A1) at (0,2) [$k[S^n]$]{}; (B1) at (0,1) [$B'$]{}; (A1) edge\[->\] (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] (B2) (A1) edge\[->\] (B1) (A2) edge\[->\] (B2) ;
Here $k[S^n]$ is the $k$-algebra incarnation of the $n$-sphere, i.e., the trivial square-zero extension $k \oplus k[-n]$. Such extensions of $B'$ of $B$ are exactly the infinitesimal extensions of $B$ by $B[-n]$, and hence they are classified by the cotangent complex. We record this in the following
Let $A$ be a classical $k$-algebra. Now the deformations $A'$ of $A$ over $k[S^n]$ are in one to one correspondence with $\pi_0({\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{L}}_{A/k}, A[-n-1])) \cong H^{n+1} ({\mathbb{T}}_{A/k})$, where ${\mathbb{T}}_{A/k}$ is the *tangent complex* of $A$ over $k$. Note that such a deformation $A'$ is necessarily derived, and the map $A' \to A$ is the map to the truncation.
The above results have immediate global analogues for schemes.
Deformation sequences in derived infinitesimal extensions {#DeformationSequences}
---------------------------------------------------------
Let us have an extension ${\mathcal{O}}_{X'} \to {\mathcal{O}}_X$ defined by
(A2) at (2,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_X$]{}; (B2) at (2,1) [${\mathcal{O}}_X \oplus {\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (A1) at (0,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_{X'}$]{}; (B1) at (0,1) [${\mathcal{O}}_X$]{}; (A1) edge\[->\] (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] node\[below\][$(1,d)$]{}(B2) (A1) edge\[->\] (B1) (A2) edge\[->\] node\[right\][$(1,0)$]{} (B2) ;
where ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a connective quasi-coherent sheaf over $X$, and $d,0$ are derivations ${\mathcal{O}}_X \to {\mathcal{F}}[-1]$. Note that this includes, but is more general than our definition of an infinitesimal extension (although that will be our only case of interest).
Taking vertical in the above diagram cofibres, we get
(A2) at (2,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_X \oplus {\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (B2) at (2,1) [${\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (A1) at (0,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_{X}$]{}; (B1) at (0,1) [${\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (A1) edge\[->\] node\[above\][$(1,d)$]{} (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] (B2) (A1) edge\[->\] (B1) (A2) edge\[->\] node\[right\][$p_2$]{} (B2) ;
where $p_2$ is the natural projection. Hence the left vertical map, the map that induces the connecting morphism of the long exact sequence of cohomology groups induced by the cofibre sequence $${\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{O}}_{X'} \to {\mathcal{O}}_{X},$$ is $d$. To understand the behavior of the Picard group in infinitesimal extensions, we need the following slight modification of above.
The connecting morphisms $H^{i}({\mathcal{O}}^*_X) \to H^{i+1}({\mathcal{F}})$ in the long exact sequence induced by the cofibre sequence $${\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{O}}_{X'}^* \to {\mathcal{O}}_{X}^*$$ are given by the *log differential* $\delta: {\mathcal{O}}_{X}^* \to {\mathcal{F}}[-1]$ associated to $d$, i.e., the map ”defined” by the formula $a \mapsto d(a)/a$.
Taking multiplicative groups of units preserves all limits of rings (this is true by definition as $A^*$ is the space of maps from $k[t,t^{-1}]$ to $A$), and hence we get the following diagram in Abelian sheaves
(D2) at (2.5,3) [${\mathcal{F}}$]{}; (D1) at (0,3) [${\mathcal{F}}$]{}; (C2) at (2.5,0) [${\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (C1) at (0,0) [${\mathcal{F}}[-1]$]{}; (A2) at (2.5,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_X^*$]{}; (B2) at (2.5,1) [$({\mathcal{O}}_X \oplus {\mathcal{F}}[-1])^*$]{}; (A1) at (0,2) [${\mathcal{O}}_{X'}^*$]{}; (B1) at (0,1) [${\mathcal{O}}_X^*$]{}; (A1) edge\[->\] (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] node\[below\][$(1,d)$]{}(B2) (A1) edge\[->\] (B1) (A2) edge\[->\] node\[right\][$(1,0)$]{} (B2) (D1) edge\[->\] (D2) (D1) edge\[->\] (A1) (D2) edge\[->\] (A2) (B1) edge\[->\] node\[right\][$\delta$]{} (C1) (B2) edge\[->\] (C2) (C1) edge\[->\] (C2) ;
where all the squares are pullback squares, and the columns are distinguished triangles. The formula given in the statement follows trivially from considering the situation in a concrete model (say, simplicial commutative $k$-algebras, where the result is readily seen to hold in every degree).
In order to utilize the above result, we need to be able to understand how the log derivation $\delta$ acts on the related cohomology groups. The result is most easily stated and proved in terms of Čech cohomology.
Suppose ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a quasi-coherent and discrete sheaf on $X$, ${\mathcal{A}}$ a discrete Abelian sheaf on $X$, and let $\delta: {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{F}}[-n]$ be a map of Abelian sheaves. Let ${\mathcal{U}}= (U_i)_{i \in I}$ be an affine cover of $X$, and suppose $\delta$ is given by the Čech cycle of maps $(\delta_{i_0 \cdots i_n}) $ from ${\mathcal{A}}$ to $\check{C}^{n}_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{F}})$.
Now the induced maps $\check{H}_{\mathcal{U}}^j({\mathcal{A}}) \to H^{n+j}({\mathcal{F}})$ can be presented by the formula $$(\delta a)_{i_0 \cdots i_{n+j}} = (-1)^n \delta_{i_0 \cdots i_n} (a_{i_n \cdots i_{n+j}})$$ on Čech cycles.
As $\check{C}^*_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{A}})$ is weakly equivalent to ${\mathcal{A}}$, one hopes that there would be only one map (up to homotopy) $\check{C}^*_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{A}}) \to \check{C}^{*+n}_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{F}})$ that extends the original map ${\mathcal{A}}\to \check{C}^{n}_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{F}})$. If this were true, then it would suffice to verify that the above formula for $\delta$ gives a well defined map of chain complexes $\check{C}^*_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{A}}) \to \check{C}^{*+n}_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{F}})$. This is indeed true, and the easy algebraic manipulation is left for the reader. Now the fact that the formula given for $\delta$ is the right one follows from the fact that the Čech complex maps (quasi-isomorphically) to an injective resolution and that maps to injective resolutions preserve homotopy equivalences.
Note that the assumptions of the above proposition are satisfied in our case of interest. Indeed, suppose $X$ is a classical scheme, and $d: {\mathcal{O}}_X \to {\mathcal{F}}[-n]$ is a derivation. This can always be presented as a cocycle $\check{C}^n_{\mathcal{U}}({\mathcal{F}})$ valued derivation for any affine cover ${\mathcal{U}}$, and hence we also obtain a similar presentation for the induced log derivation $\delta$.
Returning to our specific case of interest, let $X$ be a classical $k$-scheme. It is clear from the formula given by the above proposition that the map $$H^{i}(T_X) \times H^{j}({\mathcal{O}}_X^*) \to H^{i+j}({\mathcal{O}}_X)$$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}$-bilinear, and $k$-linear in the first argument. As a special case we obtain an *obstruction pairing* $$\{\text{Deformations $X'$ of $X$ over $k[S^n]$}\} \times {\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \to H^{n+2}({\mathcal{O}}_X)$$ controlling which line bundles on $X$ extend to which deformations $X'$.
The example {#Computation}
===========
In this section we are going to give the example. Let $X \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth hypersurface of degree $n+1$ defined as the vanishing locus of a homogeneous polynomial $F$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $X$ does not contain the point $[1 : 0 : \cdots : 0]$ so that ${\mathcal{U}}= (U_i|_X)^n_{i \geq 1}$, where $(U_i)^n_{i \geq 0}$ is the standard open cover of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$, is an affine cover of $X$.
Computing the Čech cohomology groups of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$ and $T_X$ associated to the above covering, one obtains the following two lemmas. The results are completely elementary, and can be worked out by nothing more than a few pages of diagram chasing. For completeness, however, we give short proofs.
\[CohomologyOfStructureSheaf\] Suppose $n \geq 3$. Then the cohomology group $H^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_X)$ is isomorphic to $k$, and it is generated by the Čech cocycle $${\partial_0 F \over x_1 \cdots x_n}.$$ Moreover, $H^{i}({\mathcal{O}}_X) \cong 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq n-2$.
All the other claims than that the given cocycle generates are standard. The last remaining claim follows from the fact that $\partial_0 F$ has a term $c x_0^n$, where $c \not = 0$, and $x_0^n / (x_1 \cdots x_n)$ is not a boundary (unlike all other possibilities).
\[TheDerivation\] Suppose $n \geq 4$. Then the cohomology group $H^{n-2}(T_X)$ is isomorphic to $k$, and it is generated by the Čech cocycle $d = (d_{12\cdots \hat{i} \cdots n})_{1 \leq i \leq n}$, where $$d_{12\cdots \hat{i} \cdots n} = (-1)^i {(\partial_0 F) \partial_i - (\partial_i F)\partial_0 \over x_1 x_2 \cdots \hat{x_i} \cdots x_n}$$
As is customary, we use the hat to denote an index or a term which is left out.
The fact that $H^{n-2}(T_X) \cong k$ follows immediately from Serre duality once we recall that by hard Lefschetz $H^1(X; \Omega^1_X) \cong H^1({\mathbb{P}}^n; \Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}) \cong k$. Moreover, $d$ is a cocycle in derivations on $X$: clearly all the chosen derivations send $F$ to 0, so they are derivations on $X$, and they do satisfy the cocycle condition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i d_{12\cdots \hat{i} \cdots n} &= \sum_{i=1}^n {(\partial_0 F) \partial_i - (\partial_i F)\partial_0 \over x_1 x_2 \cdots \hat{x_i} \cdots x_n} \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n {x_i (\partial_0 F) \partial_i - x_i (\partial_i F)\partial_0 \over x_1 x_2 \cdots x_n}\\
&= {x_0 (\partial_0 F) \partial_0 - x_0 (\partial_0 F)\partial_0 \over x_1 x_2 \cdots x_n} \\
&=0\end{aligned}$$ as the Euler form equals $0$. Hence $d$ generates $H^{n-2}(T_X)$ if it is nontrivial, but this in fact follows from the calculation following the lemma.
We are now ready to show that the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(-1)|_X$ does not extend to any nontrivial first order deformation of $X$ over $k[S^{n-3}]$. Recall that the transition maps $\alpha_{ij}$ of ${\mathcal{O}}(-1)$ are defined as $\alpha_{ij} = {x_j \over x_i}$.
We can now just apply the generating log differential to ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}(-1)|_X$. $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde d \alpha)_{12 \cdots n} &= (-1)^{n-2} \tilde{d}_{12 \cdots n-1}(\alpha_{n-1,n}) \\
&= (-1)^{n-2} {x_{n-1} \over x_n} (-1)^{n} {(\partial_0 F) \partial_n - (\partial_n F)\partial_0 \over x_1 x_2 \cdots x_{n-1}} \left( x_n \over x_{n-1} \right) \\
&= {x_{n-1} \over x_n} {(\partial_0 F)x_{n-1}^{-1} \over x_1 x_2 \cdots x_{n-1}} \\
&= {(\partial_0 F)\over x_1 x_2 \cdots x_{n}} \end{aligned}$$ which is known to be nonzero by an earlier lemma. We have proven the following
Let $X \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^n$, $n \geq 4$, be a smooth projective hypersurface of degree $n+1$. Then the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}(1)|_X$ does not extend to any nontrivial deformation of $X$ over $k[S^{n-3}]$.
Indeed, as we noticed earlier, the obstruction of a line bundle is $k$-linear in the deformation of $X$. We have shown that the obstruction is not 0 for the generating deformation, and therefore it will not be 0 for any nonzero multiple of it.
Note that when $n=3$, the derivation $\delta$ given in is still a perfectly valid element of $H^1(T_X)$, and applying the log differential to ${\mathcal{O}}(1)|_X$ as above shows that ${\mathcal{O}}(1)|_X$ does not extend to the deformation associated to $\delta$. This has a moduli theoretic interpretation. Indeed, it is a well known fact that the moduli space of *polarized K3 surfaces* (K3 surfaces equipped with an ample line bundle) is 19 dimensional. Therefore the kernel, which can easily be checked to be 19 dimensional, of the map $H^1(T_X) \to H^2({\mathcal{O}}_X)$ given by evaluating at ${\mathcal{O}}(1)|_X$ should be thought as the tangent space of the space of polarized $K3$ surfaces, sitting inside the tangent space of the moduli of $K3$ surfaces.
Assume again that $n \geq 4$. It is known that the Picard group of a smooth hypersurface $X \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and generated by ${\mathcal{O}}(1) |_X$. Hence
Let $X \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^n$, $n \geq 4$, be a smooth projective hypersurface of degree $n+1$ over an infinite field. Then ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \cong 0$ and therefore $X$ fails to be quasi-projective.
We have the deformation sequence $$\cdots \to H^{n-2}({\mathcal{O}}_X) \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(X') \to {\mathrm{Pic}}(X) \stackrel \delta \to H^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_X) \cdots$$ The claim follows from the fact that $\delta$ is injective and $H^{n-2}({\mathcal{O}}_X)$ is trivial.
[5]{} Annala, T.: Ample line bundles, global generation and $K_0$ on quasi-projective derived schemes, *preprint*, 2019.
Gaitsgory, D.; Rozenblyum, N.: A Study in Derived Algebraic Geometry: Volumes I and II, *Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*, Book 221, 2017.
Toën, B.; Vezzosi, G.: Homotopical Algebraic Geometry I: Topos theory, *Advances in Mathematics*, 193(2), 2005.
Toën, B.; Vezzosi, G.: Homotopical Algebraic Geometry II: geometric stacks and applications, *Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society*, 193(902), 2008.
Lurie, J.: Higher Topos Theory, *Annals of Mathematics Studies*, vol. 170, 2009.
Lurie, J.: Higher Algebra, *preprint*.
Kertz, M.; Strunk, F.; Tamme, G.: Algebraic K-theory and descent for blow-ups, *Inventiones Mathematicae*, 221(2):523-577, 2018.
Porta, M.; Vezzosi, G.: Infinitesimal and square-zero extensions of simplicial algebras, *online notes for students*.
Lurie, J.: Spectral Algebraic Geometry, *preprint*.
Schürg, T.; Toën, B.; Vezzosi, G.: Derived algebraic geometry, determinants of perfect complexes, and applications to obstruction theories for maps and complexes., *Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik*, 702:1-40, 2015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The problem of computing the smallest fixed point of a monotone map arises classically in the study of zero-sum repeated games. It also arises in static analysis of programs by abstract interpretation. In this context, the discount rate may be negative. We characterize the minimality of a fixed point in terms of the nonlinear spectral radius of a certain semidifferential. We apply this characterization to design a policy iteration algorithm, which applies to the case of finite state and action spaces. The algorithm returns a locally minimal fixed point, which turns out to be globally minimal when the discount rate is nonnegative.'
author:
- 'Assalé Adjé[^1] , Stéphane Gaubert[^2] and Eric Goubault[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'arxivbib.bib'
title: Computing the smallest fixed point of nonexpansive mappings arising in game theory and static analysis of programs
---
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
\#1
[**Keywords:** Game theory, policy iteration algorithm, negative discount, static analysis, nonexpansive mappings, semidifferentials. ]{}
[^4]
Introduction
============
Zero-sum repeated games can be studied classically by means of dynamic programming or Shapley operators. When the state space is finite, such an operator is a map $f$ from ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ to ${{\mathbb R}^d}$, where $d$ is the number of states. Typically, the operator $f$ can be written as: $$f_i(x)=\min_{a\in A_i}\max_{b\in B_{i,a}} P_i^{a,b}x +r_i^{a,b}$$ Here, $A_i$ represents the set of actions of Player I (Minimizer) in state $i$, $B_{i,a}$ represents the set of actions of Player II (Maximizer) in state $i$, when Player I has just played $a$ (the information of both players is perfect), $r_i^{a,b}$ is an instantaneous payment from Player I to Player II, and $P_i^{a,b}=(P_{ij}^{ab})_j$ is a substochastic vector, giving the transition probabilities to the next state, as a function of the current state and of the actions of both players. The difference $1-\sum_j P_{ij}^{a,b}$ gives the probability that the game terminates as a function of the current state and actions. The operator $f$ will send ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ to ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ if for instance the instantaneous payments are bounded. We may consider the game in which the total payment is the expectation of the sum of the instantaneous payments of Player I to Player II, up to the time at which the game terminates. This includes the discounted case, in which for all $i$, $\sum_j P_{ij}^{a,b}=\alpha<1$, for some discount factor $\alpha$. Then, the fixed point of $f$ is unique, and its $i$th-coordinate gives the value of the game when the initial state is $i$, see [@FV]. In more general situations [@MS], the value is known to be the largest (or dually, the smallest) fixed point of certain Shapley operators, and it is of interest to compute this value, a difficulty being that Shapley operators may have several fixed points.
The same problem appears in a totally different context. Static analysis of programs by abstract interpretation [@PCRC] is a technique to compute automatically invariants of programs, in order to prove them correct. The fixed point operators arising in static analysis include the Shapley operators of stochastic games as special cases. However, the “discount factor” may be larger than one, which is somehow unfamiliar from the game theoretic point of view. In this context, the existence of the smallest fixed point is guaranteed by Tarski-type fixed point arguments, and this fixed point is generally obtained by a monotone iteration (also called Kleene iteration) of the operator $f$. This method is often slow. Some accelerations based on “widening” and “narrowing”[@NarrWid] are commonly used, which may lead to a loss of precision, since they only yield an upper bound of the minimal fixed point. Some of the authors introduced alternative algorithms based on policy iteration instead [@CAV05; @ESOP07], which are often faster and more accurate. However, the fixed point that is returned is not always the smallest one.
In the present paper, we refine these policy iteration algorithms in order to reach the smallest fixed point of $f$ even in degenerate situations. Our work is partly inspired by [@Fix], where the uniqueness (rather than the minimality) problem for the fixed point of a nonexpansive maps is studied using semidifferentiability techniques.
We note that an alternative approach to compute the smallest fixed point has been developed by Gawlitza and Seidl [@seidl]. However, this reference concerns the integer fixed points of integer preserving maps, whereas we work here with real fixed points.
Basic notions
=============
In this paper, we will work in ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ equipped with the sup-norm $\norm{\cdot}$. We consider the natural partial order on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ defined as: $x\leq y$ if for all $i$, $1 \leq i \leq d$, $x_i\leq y_i$ where $x_i$ indicates the $i$th coordinate of $x$. We write $x<y$ when $x\leq y$ and there exists a $j$ such that $x_j<y_j$. We denote by $\mathbb{R}_+$ (resp. $\mathbb{R}_-$) the set of real nonnegative (resp. nonpositive) numbers. All vectors of ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ such that $f(x)=x$ are called fixed points of the map $f$. We denote by ${{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$ the set of fixed points of $f$.
When the action spaces are finite, dynamic programming operators are not differentiable, and they may even have empty subdifferentials or superdifferentials. However, their local behavior can be analyzed by means of a non-linear analogue of the differential, the semidifferential. In order to define it, let us recall some basic notions concerning cones.
\[cone\] A subset ${\textbf C}$ of ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ is called a cone if for all $\lambda\geq 0$ and for all $x\in{\textbf C}$, $\lambda x\in{\textbf C}$. A cone ${\textbf C}$ is said to be pointed if ${\textbf C}\cap-{\textbf C}=\{0\}$.
\[homogeneous\] Let ${\textbf C}$ be cone and $g$ be a self-map on ${\textbf C}$. The function $g$ is said to be homogeneous (of degree one), if for all strictly positive real numbers $\lambda$, $g(\lambda x)=\lambda g(x)$.
Closed convex pointed cones are precisely what we need to define spectral radii of homogeneous continuous self-maps $g$ on ${\textbf C}$.
\[spectralradius\] Let ${\textbf C}$ be a closed convex pointed cone. Let $g$ be a homogeneous continuous self-map on ${\textbf C}$. We define the spectral radius $\rho_{{\textbf C}}(g)$ to be the nonnegative number: $$\rho_{{\textbf C}}(g)=\sup\{\lambda\geq 0\mid\exists\ x\in{\textbf C}\backslash\{0\}, g(x)=\lambda x\}$$
A vector $x\in{\textbf C}\backslash\{0\}$ such that $g(x)=\lambda x$ is a [*non-linear eigenvector*]{} of $g$, and $\lambda$ is the associated non-linear eigenvalue. The existence of non-linear eigenvectors is guaranteed by standard fixed point arguments [@Nus].
We next recall the notion of semidifferential, see [@RW] for more background.
Let $u\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$ and $f$ be a self-map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. We say that $f$ is semidifferentiable at $u$ if there exists a homogeneous continuous map $g$ on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ and a neighborhood ${\mathcal V}$ of 0 such that for all $h\in{\mathcal V}$: $$f(u+h)=f(u)+g(h)+o(\|h\|)$$ We call $g$ the semidifferential of $f$ at $u$ and we note it ${f'_u}$.
If $f$ is semidifferentiable at $u$, we have for all $t>0$ and for $h$ in a small enough neighborhood of 0: $$f(u+h)=f(u)+t{f'_u}(h)+o(t\norm{h})$$ This implies $${f'_u}(h)=\lim_{t\to 0^+}\frac{f(u+th)-f(u)}{t}$$ and the semidifferential coincides with the directional derivative of $f$ at $u$ in direction $h$ (on the positive side). The following result shows that semidifferentiability requires the latter limit to be uniform in the direction $h$.
\[propRW\] Let $f$ be a self-map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Let $u$ be in ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. ${f'_u}$, the semidifferential of $f$ at $u$ exists if and only if for all vectors $h$, the following limit exists: $$\lim_{\substack{t\to 0^+\\h'\to h}}\dfrac{f(u+th')-f(u)}{t} \enspace$$
Main Results
============
Let $u\in{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$. We say that $u$ is a locally minimal fixed point if there is a neighborhood ${\mathcal V}$ of $u$ such that for all $v\in{\mathcal V}\cap{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$, $v\leq u \implies v=u$.
Now, for a semidifferentiable map $f$ at $u$, we denote ${{\mathbf{Fix}_{|{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}$ the set of the negative fixed points of ${f'_u}$.
\[thm1\] Let $u\in{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$. Consider the following statements:
1. $u$ is a locally minimal fixed point.
2. ${{\mathbf{Fix}_{|{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}=\{0\}$.
3. ${{\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}<1$.
Then $3\ \implies\ 2\ \implies 1$.
Point $3$ implies point $2$ indeed. In order to show that $2$ implies $1$, assume that $u$ is not a locally minimal fixed point. Then, there exists a sequence $h_n$ of non-zero vectors in ${{\mathbb R}^d}_-$ tending to the zero vector such that $u+h_n$ is a fixed point of $f$. After replacing $h_n$ by a subsequence, we may assume that $y_n:=\norm{h_n}^{-1}h_n$ has a limit $y$. Then, $\|y\|=1$ and $y\in {{\mathbb R}^d}_-$. Writing $u+h_n=u+\norm{h_n}y_n$, and using Prop. \[propRW\], we conclude that $y={f'_u}(y)$, showing that ${f'_u}$ has a non-zero fixed point in ${{\mathbb R}^d}_-$.
In the previous theorem, there are no restrictive conditions on the map, but we only get a sufficient condition for the local minimality of a fixed point. We next consider the special case of piecewise affine maps.
\[affmor\] Let $f$ be a map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. We say that $f$ is piecewise affine if for all $j\in\{1,\cdots,d\}$ there exists finite sets $A_j$, $\{B_a\}_{a\in A_j}$ and a family $\{g_{a,b}\}_{(a,b)\in A_j\times B_a}$ of affine maps such that $$f_j=\min_{a\in A_j}\max_{b\in B_a} g_{a,b}$$
It is shown in [@Ovc] that the set of piecewise affine maps that we define is the same as the set of functions $f$ for which there exists a family of convex closed sets with non empty interior which covers ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ and such that the restriction of $f$ on each element of this family is affine.
\[calsem\] Let $f$ be a piecewise affine self-map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Then $f$ is semidifferentiable at all $u\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$. Moreover for all $u\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$:
1. Let $\bar A_j=\{a\in A_j\mid f_j(u)=\max_{b\in B_a} g_{a,b}(u)\}$ and $\bar{B}_a=\{\bar b\in B_a\mid g_{a,\bar b}(u)=\max_{b\in B_a} g_{a,b}(u)\}$, then $$({f'_u})_j=\min_{a\in\bar A_j}\max_{b\in\bar B_a} \nabla g_{a,b}\cdot$$
2. There is neighborhood ${\mathcal V}$ of $u$ such that, for all $u+h\in{\mathcal V}$, $f(u+h)=f(u)+{f'_u}(h)$.
The first assertion may be deduced by applying the rule of the “differentiation” of a max see Exercise 10.27 of [@RW]. The following proof that we provide for the convenience of the reader, is a variation of this argument.
We set, for all $a\in A_j$, $g_a(x)=\max_{b\in B_a} g_{a,b}(x)$. By definition of $\bar{B}_a$, there exists a neighborhood ${\mathcal V}_a$ of $u$ such that: $g_a(u+h)=\max_{b\in\bar{B}_a} g_{a,b}(u+h)$, for all $h$ such that $u+h\in{\mathcal V}_a$. Since $g_{a,b}$ is affine, we have: $g_{a,b}(u+h)=g_{a,b}(u)+\nabla g_{a,b}\cdot h$. It follows that, for all $\bar b\in\bar{B}_a$: $$g_a(u+h)=g_{a,\bar b}(u)+\max_{b\in\bar{B}_a}\nabla g_{a,b}\cdot h
\label{eq1}$$ By definition of $\bar{A}_j$, there exists a neighborhood of $u$, ${\mathcal V}\subset\bigcap_a{\mathcal V}_a$, such that: $f_j(u+h)=\min_{a\in\bar{A}_j} g_a(u+h)$ if $u+h\in{\mathcal V}$. Applying (\[eq1\]), we get: $f_j(u+h)=f_j(u)+\min_{a\in\bar{A}_j}\max_{b\in\bar{B}_a}\nabla g_{a,b}\cdot h$ if $u+h\in{\mathcal V}$, which shows the two assertions.
\[desc\] Let $f$ be a piecewise affine map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ and let $u\in{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$, then $u$ is a locally minimal fixed point if and only ${{\mathbf{Fix}_{|{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}=\{0\}$.
The second part of the previous proposition is the basis of a “descent” algorithm given in the section \[algor\]. If a fixed point $u$ is not locally minimal, then there exists a strictly negative fixed point $h$ for ${f'_u}$ which may be thought of as a [*descent direction*]{} such that $u+h$ is a fixed point of $f$.
In order to pass from local minimality to global minimality, we shall need the following nonexpansiveness condition.
Let $f$ be a map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$: $f$ is nonexpansive (with respect to the sup-norm) if for all $x,y\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$, $\norm{f(x)-f(y)}\leq \norm{x-y}$.
\[ray\] Let $f$ be a nonexpansive map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ and let $u\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$, then ${{\mathbf{Fix}_{|{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}=\{0\}$ if and only if ${{\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}<1$.
It suffices to show that ${{\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}\leq 1$. Firstly, ${f'_u}$ is nonexpansive because it is a pointwise limit of nonexpansive mappings. Assume by contradiction that ${{\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}>1$, so there exists $\mu>1$ and $v\in{{\mathbb R}^d}_-$ such that ${f'_u}(v)=\mu v$, then $\norm{{f'_u}(v)-{f'_u}(0)}=\mu\norm{v}>\norm{v-0}$ which contradicts the nonexpansiveness of ${f'_u}$.
The main result of this paper is the following theorem, which will allow us to check the global minimality of a fixed point.
\[thm2\] \[fond\] Let $f$ be a monotone nonexpansive self-map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Let $u$ be a fixed point of $f$. Then, $u$ is locally minimal if and only if it is the smallest fixed point of $f$. If in addition $f$ is piecewise affine, the following assertions are equivalent:
1. $u$ is the smallest fixed point of $f$.
2. ${{\mathbf{Fix}_{|{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}=\{0\}$.
3. ${{\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}({f'_u})}}<1$.
The proof of this theorem relies on the existence of a monotone and nonexpansive retract on the fixed point set of $f$. This idea was already used in [@CAV05]. The existence of nonexpansive retracts on the fixed point set is a classical topic in the theory of nonexpansive mappings, see Nussbaum [@Nus]. In the present finite dimensional case, the result of the next lemma is an elementary one.
\[previous\] Let $f$ be a nonexpansive monotone map on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Let $u$ be in ${{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$. We suppose ${{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}\neq\emptyset$. Then there is a nonlinear monotone and nonexpansive map $P$ such that $P({{\mathbb R}^d})={{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$ and $\mathbf{Fix }(P)={{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$.
Following the idea of [@Per], we shall construct the map $P$ as follow: $P(x)=\lim_{k\to +\infty} f^k(y)$ where $y=\limsup_{l\to +\infty} f^l(x)$. Since $f$ is nonexpansive and $u\in{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$, $\{f^k(x)\}_{k\geq 0}$ is bounded for all $x\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$. We can now write, for all $x\in{{\mathbb R}^d}$, $Q(x)=\limsup_{k\to +\infty}f^k(x)$. Moreover, given $k\geq 0$, we have, for all $m\geq k$, $\sup_{n\geq k}f^n(x)\geq f^m(x)$ and since $f$ is monotone, for all $m\geq k$, $f(\sup_{n\geq k}f^n(x))\geq f(f^m(x))$ so, $f(\sup_{n\geq k}f^n(x))\geq \sup_{m\geq k}f(f^m(x))$, we conclude, by taking the limit when $k$ tends to $+\infty$ and using the continuity of $f$, $f(Q(x))\geq Q(x)$, so $\{f^l(Q(x)\}_{k\geq 0}$ is an increasing sequence. Moreover, since $f$ is nonexpansive, the limit $P(x)=\lim_{l\to +\infty}f^l(Q(x))$ is finite. Observe that the map $P$ is monotone and nonexpansive since it is the pointwise limit of monotone and nonexpansive maps. Furthermore, $f(P(x))=f(\lim f^l(Q(x))=\lim f^{l+1}Q(x)=P(x)$ so $P({{\mathbb R}^d})\subset{{\mathbf {Fix}}(f)}$. Moreover, it is easy to see that $P$ fixes every fixed point of $f$. It follows that $P$ is a projector.
Suppose that $u$ is a locally minimal fixed point but not the smallest fixed point. Then, there is fixed point $v$ such that $\inf(v,u)<u$. For all scalars $t\geq 0$, define $\omega_t:= \inf(v+t,u)$. Let us take $P$ as in Lemma \[previous\]. Since $P$ is nonexpansive for the sup-norm, $\norm{P(v+t)-P(v)}\leq t$ for all $t\geq 0$ and so $P(v+t)\leq P(v)+t$. Using the monotonicity of $P$, we deduce that $P(\omega_t)\leq \inf(P(v+t),P(u))\leq \inf(P(v)+t,P(u))
=\omega_t$. Let $t_0=\inf\{t\geq 0\mid\omega_t=u\}$. Then, for $0<t<t_0$, $P(\omega_t)$ is a fixed point of $f$, which is such that $P(\omega_t)<u$. Since $P$ is continuous, $P(\omega_t)$ tends to $P(\omega_{t_0})=P(u)=u$ as $t$ tends to $t_0^-$, which contradicts the local minimality of $u$. Hence, $u$ is the smallest fixed point. Define by $1'$ the property that $u$ is a locally minimal fixed point. We just showed $1\Leftrightarrow 1'$. By Theorem \[thm1\], we get $3\implies 2\implies 1'$. By Corollary \[desc\], $1'\implies 2$ and by Prop \[ray\] we get $2\implies 3$.
A policy iteration algorithm to compute the smallest fixed point {#algor}
================================================================
The previous results justify the following policy iteration algorithm which returns the smallest fixed point of a nonexpansive monotone piecewise affine map. Assume that $f$ is a map from ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ to ${{\mathbb R}^d}$, every coordinate of which is given by $$\label{selec}
f_j(x)=\inf_{a\in A_j} f_a(x)$$ where $A_j$ is finite and every $f_a$ is a supremum of monotone nonexpansive affine maps. A strategy $\pi$ is a map from $\{1,\cdots,d\}$ to $\mathcal A=\bigcup_{1\leq j\leq d} A_j$ such that $\pi(j)\in A_j$. We define $f^{\pi}=(f_{\pi(1)},\cdots,f_{\pi(j)},\cdots,f_{\pi(d)})$. The algorithm, needs two oracles. Oracle 1 returns the smallest fixed point in ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ of a map $f^{\pi}$. Oracle 2 checks whether the restriction of ${f'_u}$ to the convex cone ${{\mathbb R}^d}_-$ has a spectral radius equal to 1, and if this is the case, returns a vector $h\in{{\mathbb R}^d}_-\backslash\{0\}$ such that ${f'_u}(h)=h$. We discuss below the implementation of these oracles for subclasses of maps.
*INPUT*: $f$ in the form . *OUTPUT*: The smallest fixed point of $f$ in ${{\mathbb R}^d}$.\
**INIT**: Select a strategy $\pi^0$, $k=0$.\
**VALUE DETERMINATION** $\mathbf{(D_k)}$: Call Oracle 1 to compute the smallest fixed point $u^k$ of $f^{\pi^k}$.\
**POLICY IMPROVEMENT** $\mathbf{(I_k^1)}$: If $f(u^k)<u^k$ define $\pi^{k+1}$ such that $f(u^k)=f^{\pi^{k+1}}(u^k)$ and go to Step $(D_{k+1})$.\
**POLICY IMPROVEMENT** $\mathbf{(I_k^2)}$: If $f(u^k)=u^k$, call Oracle 2 to compute $\alpha_k:=\rho(f_{u^k}^{\prime})$. If $\alpha_k<1$, returns $u^k$, which is the smallest fixed point. If $\alpha_k=1$, take $h\in{{\mathbb R}^d}_-\backslash\{0\}$ such that $f_{u^k}^{\prime}(h)=h$. Define $\pi^{k+1}(j)$ to be any action $a$ which attains the minimum in $(f_{u^k}^{\prime})_j(h)=\min_{a\in \tilde{A}_j} (f_a^{\prime})_{u^k}(h)$ where $\bar{A}_j=\{a\mid f_a(u^k)=f(u^k)\}$. Then go to $(D_{k+1})$.
To show that Algorithm \[policymod\] terminates, it suffices to check that the sequence $u^0,u^1,\cdots$ is strictly decreasing, because the corresponding policies must be distinct and the number of policies is finite. If an improvement of type $I_k^1$ arises, then, the proof of the Theorem 3 from [@ESOP07] shows that $u^{k+1}<u^{k}$. If an improvement of type $I_k^2$ arises, then by Prop \[desc\] assertion 2, $f^{\pi^{k+1}}(u^k+th)=u^k+th$ for $t>0$ small enough. It follows that $u^{k+1}\leq u^k+th<u^k$.
Now, we discuss the implementation of the oracles. The following proposition identifies a situation where Oracle 1 can be implemented by solving a linear programming problem.
\[prop-lp\] Let $g$ be a monotone nonexpansive map that is the supremum of finitely many affine maps. Assume, furthermore, that $g$ has a smallest fixed point in ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Then this fixed point is the unique optimal solution of the linear program: $\min\{\sum_{1\leq i\leq d} x_i\mid x\in{{\mathbb R}^d}, g(x)\leq x\}$.
Let $\bar{x}$ denote the smallest fixed point. The vector $\bar{x}$ is clearly a feasible point of the previous linear program. If $x$ is an another feasible point, consider $y=\lim_k g^k(x)$. Since $g$ is monotone, nonexpansive and has a fixed point, $g^k(x)$ is a bounded decreasing sequence so $y\leq x$ and $y$ is a finite fixed point of $g$ so $y\geq\bar{x}$. We get $\sum_i\bar{x}_i\leq\sum_i y_i\leq\sum_i x_i$. Since this holds for all feasible $x$, it follows that $\bar{x}$ is an optimal solution. If $x$ is an arbitrary optimal solution, we must have $\sum_i\bar{x}_i=\sum_i x_i$ and we deduce from $y\leq x$ and $y\geq\bar{x}$ that $\bar{x}\leq x$. It follows that $\bar{x}=x$.
The implementation of Oracle 2 raises the issue of computing the spectral radius. Let $g$ be a monotone, homogeneous and continuous self-map of ${{\mathbb R}^d}_-$. It is known that: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)&=\inf_{x\in\operatorname{int}({{\mathbb R}^d}_-)}\sup_{1\leq i\leq d}\frac{g_i(x)}{x_i}
\label{spec1}\\
\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)&=\sup_{x\in\mathbf{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}}\limsup_{k\to +\infty}\norm{g^k(x)}^{\frac{1}{k}}
\label{spec2}\end{aligned}$$ The first equality, which is a generalization of the Collatz-Wielandt property in Perron-Frobenius theory, follows from a result of Nussbaum [@Cvx] Theorem 3.1. The second characterization is shown by Mallet-Paret and Nussbaum in [@Eig] under more general conditions. We deduce, for every vector $x\in\operatorname{int}({{\mathbb R}^d}_-)$: $$\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)\leq\left(\sup_{1\leq i\leq d}\frac{g_i^k(x)}{x_i}\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}.
\label{spec0}$$ Moreover, the latter upper bound converges to $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)$ as $k$ tends to infinity. This yields an obvious method to check whether $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)<1$, which consists in computing the upper bound in for successive values of $k$ as long as the upper bound is not smaller than 1. This algorithm will not stop when $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)=1$. However, we next describe a simple situation where this idea leads to a terminating algorithm.
\[minmax\] We call a homogeneous min-max function of the variables $h_1,\ldots,h_d$ a term in the grammar: $X\mapsto\min(X,X),\max(X,X),h_1,\cdots,h_d,0$.
For instance, the term $\min(h_1,\max(h_2,h_3,0))$ is produced by this grammar. More generally, we shall say that a map from ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ to ${{\mathbb R}^d}$ is a homogeneous min-max function if its coordinates are the form of Def \[minmax\]. This definition is inspired by the min-max functions considered by Gunawardena [@MMax] and Olsder [@Eigminmax]. The terms of this form comprise the semidifferentials of the min-max functions considered there. For simple classes of programs, like the one we shall consider in the next section, the semidifferential at any fixed point turns out to be a homogeneous min-max function. In this case, the spectral radius can be computed efficiently by using to the following integrity argument $g({\mathbb Z}^d)\subset{\mathbb Z}^d$.
\[caleff\] Let $g$ be a homogeneous min-max function on ${{\mathbb R}^d}$. Then $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)\in\{0,1\}$. Moreover $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)=0$ iff $\lim_{k\to +\infty} g^k(e)=0$, where $e$ is the vector all the entries of which are equal to -1, and the latter limit is reached in at most $d$ steps.
Since $g$ is nonexpansive and $g(0)=0$, we have $g(e)\geq e$. We deduce, by monotonicity of $g$, that $\{g^k(e)\}_{k\geq 0}$ is a nondecreasing sequence bounded from above by 0. Moreover, $g$ preserves the set of integer vectors. So this sequence converges in at most $d$ steps to some vector $b\in{\mathbb Z}_-^d$. Let us suppose that $b=0$. For all $y\in{{\mathbb R}^d}_-$, there exists $t\geq 0$ such that, $0\geq y\geq te$. Since $g$ is homogeneous and monotone, $0\geq g^k(y)\geq tg^k(e)=0$ for all $k\geq d$ which implies that $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)=0$. If $b<0$ we have $g(b)=b\neq 0$, and so $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)\geq 1$. Finally, since $g$ is nonexpansive, we also have $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(g)\leq 1$.
Example
=======
We next illustrate our results on an example from static analysis. We take a simple but interesting program with nested loops (Figure \[program\]). [From]{} this program, we create semantic equations on the lattice of intervals [@PCRC] (Figure \[equations\]) that describe the outer approximations of the sets of values that program variables can take, for all possible executions. For instance, at control point 4, the value of variable $y$ can come either from point 3 or point 5 (hence the union operator), as long as the condition $y\geq 5$ is satisfied (hence the intersection operator). An interval $I$ is written as $[-i^-,i^+]$ in order to get fixed point equations of monotone maps in $i^i$ and $i^+$. The equations we derive on bounds are monotone piecewise affine maps, to which we can apply our methods.
----------------------- -----
`int x,int y,`
`x=[0,2];y=[10,15]` //1
`while (x<=y) { ` //2
` x=x+1; ` //3
` while (5<=y) {` //4
` y=y-1;` //5
` } ` //6
`} ` //7
----------------------- -----
$$\begin{aligned}
(x_1,y_1)&=&([0,2],[10,15])\\
x_2&=&(x_1\cup x_6)\cap[-\infty,(y_1\cup y_6)^+]\\
y_2&=&(y_1\cup y_6)\cap[(x_1\cup x_6)^-,+\infty]\\
(x_3,y_3)&=&(x_2+[1,1],y_2)\\
(x_4,y_4)&=&(x_3,(y_3\cup y_5)\cap [5,+\infty])\\
(x_5,y_5)&=&(x_4,y_4+[-1,-1])\\
(x_6,y_6)&=&(x_5,(y_3\cup y_5)\cap [-\infty,4])\\
x_7&=&(x_1\cup x_6)\cap[(y_1\cup y_6)^-+1,+\infty]\\
y_7&=&(y_1\cup y_6)\cap[-\infty,(x_1\cup x_6)^+-1]\end{aligned}$$
The monotone nonexpansive piecewise affine map $f$ for the bounds of these intervals is: $$f\left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
y
\end{array}\right)
=
f\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_2^-\\
x_2^+\\
x_7^-\\
x_7^+\\
y_2^-\\
y_2^+\\
y_4^-\\
y_4^+\\
y_6^-\\
y_6^+\\
y_7^-\\
y_7^+
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&\vee&(x_2^--1)\\
2\vee (x_2^++1)&\wedge& \underline{15\vee y_6^+}\\
0\vee (x_2^--1)&\wedge&\underline{(-10\vee y_6^-)-1}\\
0&\vee&(x_2^++1)\\
\underline{0\vee (x_2^--1)}&\wedge& -10\vee y_6^-\\
15&\vee& y_6^+\\
y_2^-\vee (y_4^-+1)&\wedge&\underline{-5}\\
y_2^+&\vee& y_4^+-1\\
y_2^-&\vee& y_4^-+1\\
y_2^+\vee (y_4^+-1)&\wedge&\underline{4}\\
-10&\vee&y_6^-\\
15\vee y_6^+&\wedge&\underline{(2\vee (x_2^++1))-1}
\end{array}\right)$$
In the equations for the intervals $x_2,y_2,y_4,y_6,x_7$ and $y_7$, an intersection appears, which gives a $\min$ ($\wedge$) in the corresponding coordinate of $f$. Choosing a policy is the same as replacing every minimum of terms by one of the terms, which yields a simpler “minimum-free” non-linear map, which can be interpreted as the dynamic programming operator of a one-player problem.
We next illustrate Algorithm \[policymod\]. The underlined terms in the expression of $f$ indicate the initial policy $\pi^0$, for instance, the fifth coordinate of $f^{\pi^0}$ is $0\vee (x_2^--1)$. We first compute the smallest fixed point of this policy (Step $(D_0)$). This may be done by linear programming (Prop. \[prop-lp\]), or, in this special case, by a reduction to a shortest path problem. We find $(\bar x,\bar y)=(0,15,-1,16,0,15,-5,15,0,4,0,15)^{\intercal}$. The first Policy Improvement step, $(I^1_0)$, requires to check whether this is a fixed point of $f$. This turns out to be the case. To determine whether $(\bar x,\bar y)$ is actually the smallest fixed point, we enter in the second policy improvement step, $(I^2_0)$. We calculate the semidifferential at $(\bar x,\bar y)$ in the direction $(\delta x,\delta y)$, using the first point of Prop \[calsem\]:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
f'_{(\bar x,\bar y)}
\left( \delta\bar x,
\delta\bar y
\right)^{\intercal}
& = &
\left(
0,
0,
\delta\bar{y}_6^-,
\delta\bar{x}_2^+,
0\wedge\delta\bar {y}_6^-,
0,
0,
\delta\bar{y}_2^+,
\delta\bar{y}_2^-,
0,
\delta\bar{y}_6^-,
0\wedge\delta\bar{x}_2^+
\right)^{\intercal}
\end{array}$$ The method of Prop \[caleff\], which we use as Oracle 2, yields in three steps a fixed point for $f'_{(\bar x,\bar y)}$ that we denote by $h=(0,0,-1,0,-1,0,0,0,-1,0,-1,0)^{\intercal}$. This fixed point determines the new policy $\pi^1$, which corresponds to the map $g:=f^{\pi^1}$ given by: $$g\left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
y
\end{array}\right)
=
g\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_2^-\\
x_2^+\\
x_7^-\\
x_7^+\\
y_2^-\\
y_2^+\\
y_4^-\\
y_4^+\\
y_6^-\\
y_6^+\\
y_7^-\\
y_7^+
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&\vee& x_2^--1\\
15&\vee& y_6^+\\
-11&\vee& y_6^--1\\
0&\vee&x_2^++1\\
-10&\vee& y_6^-\\
15&\vee& y_6^+\\
&-5&\\
y_2^+&\vee& y_4^+-1\\
y_2^-&\vee& y_4^-+1\\
&4&\\
-10&\vee&y_6^-\\
1&\vee&x_2^+
\end{array}\right)$$
We are now in a new value determination step, $(D_1)$. We find the fixed point $(\tilde u,\tilde v)=(0,15,-5,16,-4,15,-5,15,-4,4,-4,15)^{\intercal}$ of $g$, which is also a fixed point of $f$ (Step $(I^1_1)$). In Step $(I^2_1)$, we compute the semidifferential of $f$ at $(\tilde u,\tilde v)$, which is given by: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
f'_{(\tilde u,\tilde v)}
\left(
\delta\tilde u,
\delta\tilde v
\right)^{\intercal}
& =&
\left(
0,
0,
\delta\tilde{v}_6^-,
\delta\tilde{u}_2^+,
\delta\tilde{v}_6^-,
0,
0,
\delta\tilde{v}_2^+,
\delta\tilde{v}_2^-\vee\delta\tilde{v}_4^-,
0,
\delta\tilde{v}_6^-,
0\wedge\delta\tilde{u}_2^+
\right)^{\intercal}
\end{array}$$
Calling again Oracle 2, we get $\rho_{{{\mathbb R}^d}_-}(f'_{(\tilde u,\tilde v)})=0$, and so, the algorithm stops: $(\tilde u,\tilde v)$ is the smallest fixed point of $f$.
[^1]: MeASI, LIX Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau Cedex. Email: [email protected]. This author has been supported by a fellowship from the Région Île-de-France.
[^2]: INRIA Saclay & Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France. Email: [email protected]. This author was partially supported by the joint RFBR-CNRS grant number 05-01-02807.
[^3]: MeASI, CEA LIST, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France. Email: [email protected].
[^4]: A slightly abridged version of the present manuscript shall appear in the Proceedings of the Eighteenth International symposium on the Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS’08), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, July 28-August 1, 2008.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we compare three methods to reconstruct galaxy cluster density fields with weak lensing data. The first method called FLens integrates an inpainting concept to invert the shear field with possible gaps, and a multi-scale entropy denoising procedure to remove the noise contained in the final reconstruction, that arises mostly from the random intrinsic shape of the galaxies. The second and third methods are based on a model of the density field made of a multi-scale grid of radial basis functions. In one case, the model parameters are computed with a linear inversion involving a singular value decomposition. In the other case, the model parameters are estimated using a Bayesian MCMC optimization implemented in the lensing software Lenstool. Methods are compared on simulated data with varying galaxy density fields. We pay particular attention to the errors estimated with resampling. We find the multi-scale grid model optimized with MCMC to provide the best results, but at high computational cost, especially when considering resampling. The SVD method is much faster but yields noisy maps, although this can be mitigated with resampling. The FLens method is a good compromise with fast computation, high signal to noise reconstruction, but lower resolution maps. All three methods are applied to the MACS J0717+3745 galaxy cluster field, and reveal the filamentary structure discovered in @ejlens:jauzac12. We conclude that sensitive priors can help to get high signal to noise, and unbiased reconstructions.'
author:
- |
E. Jullo$^1$, S. Pires$^2$, M. Jauzac$^3$ & J.-P. Kneib$^{4,1}$\
$^1$Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, LAM (Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille) UMR 7326, 13388, Marseille, France\
$^2$Laboratoire AIM, CEA/DSM-CNRS, Université Paris 7 Diderot, IRFU/SAp-SEDI, Service d’Astrophysique, CEA Saclay, Orme des\
Merisiers, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
$^3$Astrophysics and Cosmology Research Unit, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa\
$^4$LASTRO, Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Suisse
bibliography:
- 'ejlens.bib'
date: Released 2013 Xxxxx XX
title: Weak Lensing Galaxy Cluster Field Reconstruction
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
Galaxy redshift surveys such as SDSS @ejlens:york00 and N-body simulations of cosmic structure formation (for example the Millenium simulations @ejlens:springel05) have revealed a complicated network of matter, in which massive galaxy clusters are located at the nodes, filaments connect them to each others, and in-between extended regions with few galaxies and matter called voids fill about 80% of the volume of the Universe [@ejlens:pan12; @ejlens:bos12].
Galaxy clusters are of considerable cosmological interest, as they are the most recent structures to have formed at the largest angular scales. Taking advantage of this specificity, several cluster-related cosmological probes have been developed either based on cluster count statistics [@ejlens:berge08; @ejlens:pires09; @ejlens:shan12] or on the study of their physical properties (e.g. triaxialityÊ@ejlens:morandi11, bulleticity @ejlens:massey11 or gas mass fraction @ejlens:rapetti10).
Filamentary structures surrounding galaxy clusters also happen to be of particular interest. On the one hand, they reveal cosmological voids and alike cluster count statistics, void number counts and sizes are effective cosmological probes (@ejlens:davis11 [@ejlens:higuchi12; @ejlens:krause13]). On the other hand, filaments funnel matter onto the galaxy clusters, and as such they play an important role in cluster and galaxy formation.
Lensing has recently demonstrated its effectiveness at mapping filaments. For instances, @ejlens:heymans08 has uncovered a filamentary structure between the pair of clusters 901 and 902. In their analysis of the double cluster system Abell 222 and Abell 223, @ejlens:dietrich12 showed evidence for a possible dark matter filament connecting both clusters. Finally, in the COSMOS field [@ejlens:scoville07], @ejlens:massey07 uncovered a massive large-scale structure at redshift $z\sim0.73$ extending over about 1 degree in length.
Recently, @ejlens:jauzac12 claimed another detection of a large-scale filament connected on one end to the massive cluster MACS J0717+3745, and vanishing into the cosmic web on the other end. They used a model made of a multi-scale grid of radial basis functions (RBF) and a Bayesian MCMC optimization algorithm implemented in the lensing software Lenstool to map its mass distribution and measure its size and density.
In this paper, we study three methods of lensing map reconstruction, including the method used in @ejlens:jauzac12. The first method called FLens integrates an inpainting concept to invert the shear field with possible gaps, and a multi-scale entropy denoising procedure to remove the noise contained in the galaxies. The second and third method are based on the same model of multi-scale grid of RBFs, but in one case the parameters are estimated with Lenstool, and in the other case with a linear matrix inversion involving a singular value decomposition. We use simulated data and compare the reconstructed maps in terms of fidelity to the input map, sensitivity to the density of galaxies in the input weak lensing catalog. We also pay particular attention to the errors estimated either directly from the MCMC samples or the linear inversion theory, and the errors estimated with resampling.
The outline of the paper is the following. In §\[sec:method\], we review the formalism of the different techniques. In §\[sec:simus\], we use simulations to compare the methods, focusing successively on the reconstructing maps, azimuthally averaged density profiles, errors and signal to noise maps. Finally in §\[sec:macs0717\], we compare the reconstructions obtained with the different methods applied to real data coming from HST observations of the massive galaxy cluster MACS J0717+3745. Throughout this paper, we compute cosmological distances to lensed galaxies assuming the Universe is flat and described by the $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_mÊ= 0.3$ and $w = -1$.
Methods {#sec:method}
=======
Weak Lensing formalism
----------------------
Gravitational lensing i.e. the process by which light from distant galaxies is bent by the gravity of intervening mass in the Universe, is an ideal tool for mapping the mass distribution of lensed structures because it depends on the total matter distribution of the intervening structures.
In lensing, the spin-2 shear field ${\bf \gamma_i}(\thetav)$ that is derived from the shapes of observed background galaxies, can be written in terms of the intervening lensing gravitational potential $\psi(\thetav)$ projected on the sky [@ejlens:bartelmann01]: $$\label{gamma}
\begin{array}{l} \gamma_1(\theta)= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)\psi(\thetav)\\ \gamma_2(\thetav)=\partial_1\partial_2\psi(\thetav), \end{array}$$ where the partial derivatives $\partial_i$ are with respect to $\theta_i$.
The convergence $\kappa(\thetav)$ can also be expressed in terms of the lensing potential $\psi(\thetav)$, $$\label{kappa}
\kappa(\thetav)=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_1^2 + \partial_2^2) \psi(\thetav),$$ and is related to the mass density $\Sigma(\theta)$ projected along the line of sight by $$\label{sigma1}
\kappa(\thetav) = \frac{\Sigma(\thetav)}{\Sigma_{crit}},$$ where the critical mass density $\Sigma_{crit}$ is given by $$\label{sigma2}
\Sigma_{crit}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{OS}}{D_{OL}D_{LS}},$$ where $G$ is Newton’s constant, $c$ the speed of light, and $D_{OS}$, $D_{OL}$, and $D_{LS}$ are the angular-diameter distances between the observer (O), the lens (L), and a galaxy source (S) at an arbitrary redshift.
A new inverse method
--------------------
If the shear field could be measured everywhere, the convergence field could be determined without error. In reality, we only have access to an estimator of the shear field at the random discrete locations of the background galaxies. The shear information is contained in the observed ellipticity of the background galaxies, but is overwhelmed by the intrinsic galaxy own ellipticity. Fortunately, we can assume that this intrinsic shape noise is random and Gaussian distributed. Therefore we can compute an unbiased estimate of the shear by binning the galaxies in a grid and average their ellipticities.
### The Kaiser & Squires inversion
The weak lensing mass inversion problem consists in reconstructing the projected (normalized) mass distribution $\kappa(\theta)$ from the measured shear field $\gamma_i(\theta)$ in a grid. We invert Eq. (\[gamma\]) to find the lensing potential $\psi$ and then apply formula Eq. (\[kappa\]) to obtained $\kappa(\theta)$. This classical method is based on the pioneering work of @ejlens:kaiser93 [KS93]. In short, this corresponds to : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_reckE}
\tilde \kappa & = & \Delta^{-1}\left((\partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2) \gamma_1+ 2 \partial_1\partial_2 \gamma_2\right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2}{\partial_1^2 + \partial_2^2} \gamma_1+ \frac{2 \partial_1\partial_2}{\partial_1^2 + \partial_2^2}\gamma_2.\end{aligned}$$
Taking the Fourier transform of these equations, we obtain $$\hat{\kappa} = \hat P_1 \hat{\gamma_1} + \hat P_2 \hat{\gamma_2},$$ where the hat symbol denotes Fourier transforms and we have defined $k^2 \equiv k_1^2 + k_2^2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{P_1}(\mathbf k) & = & \frac{k_1^2 - k_2^2}{k^2} \nonumber \\
\hat{P_2}(\mathbf k) & = & \frac{2 k_1 k_2}{k^2},\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{P_1}(k_1,k_2) \equiv 0$ when $k_1^2 = k_2^2$, and $\hat{P_2}(k_1,k_2) \equiv 0$ when $k_1 = 0$ or $k_2 = 0$.
Note that to recover $\kappa$ from both $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, there is a degeneracy when $k_1 = k_2 = 0$. Therefore, the mean value of $\kappa$ cannot be recovered from the shear maps. This is known as the mass-sheet degeneracy. This problem can be solved with additional information such as lensing magnification measurements for instance.
In reality, the measured shear is noisy because only a finite number of galaxy ellipticities are averaged per pixel. The actual relation between the measured shear $\gamma_{ib}$ in pixel $b$ of area $A$ and the true convergence $\kappa$ is $$\label{eq_gamma}
\gamma_{ib} = P_i * \kappa + n_i\;,$$ where the intrinsic galaxy shape noise contribution $n_i$ is Gaussian distributed with zero mean and width $\sigma_n \simeq \sigma_\epsilon/\sqrt{N_g}$. The average number of galaxies in a pixel $N_g = n_g\ A$ depends on the the average number of galaxies per square arcminute $n_g$. The ellipticity dispersion per galaxy $\sigma_\epsilon$ arises both from measurement errors and the dispersion in the intrinsic shape of galaxies.
From the central limit theorem, we can assume to a good approximation that with $n_g \simeq 10$ galaxies per square arcminute, in pixels with area $A \gtrsim 1$ square arcminute the noise $n_i$ is Gaussian distributed and uncorrelated.
The most important drawback of the KS93 method is that it requires a convolution of shears to be performed over the entire sky. As a result, if the field is small or irregularly-shaped, then the method can produce artifacts in the reconstructed matter distribution near the boundaries.
### The Seitz & Schneider inversion
In @ejlens:seitz96, the authors propose a local inversion method that reduces these unwanted boundary effects. The convergence $\kappa$ is computed in real space (without Fourier transform) thanks to the kernel integration
$$\kappa(\theta)-\kappa_0=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\theta' \in \Omega}K(\theta - \theta')\cdot {\bf \gamma}(\theta')\, d\theta',$$
where $\kappa_0$ stands for the mean value of $\kappa$. The kernel $K$ depends on the geometry of the domain $\Omega$. For $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^2$, it is given by
$$K(\theta)=\left(\frac{\theta_2^2-\theta_1^2}{(\theta_1^2+\theta_2^2)^2} , \frac{-2\theta_1\theta_2}{(\theta_1^2+\theta_2^2)^2}\right) .$$
where we expressed the positions in complex coordinates $\theta = \theta_1 + i\theta_2$. For small irregularly-shaped fields, the authors propose to combine the derivatives of ${\gamma_i}$ $$\u=\left(\begin{array}{l} \partial_1\gamma_1+\partial_2\gamma_2 \\ \partial_1\gamma_2-\partial_2\gamma_1 \end{array}\right),$$ and then to apply the Helmholtz decomposition $\u=\nabla\kappa^{(E)}+\nabla\times\kappa^{(B)}$, in order to reconstruct the convergence $\kappa=\kappa^{(E)}$. This method reduces the unwanted boundary effects but whatever the formula, the reconstructed field is more noisy than that one obtained with a global inversion. Another point is that the reconstructed dark matter mass map still has a complex geometry that will complicate subsequent analyses.
### The FLens method {#sec:flens}
[**Binning the shape catalogue**]{}\
As said previously, the shape catalogue is first binned into a regular grid, in which each pixel value is obtained by averaging the ellipticity of the galaxies it contains. The pixel size is a parameter defined by hand, so that all (or almost all) pixels contain at least one galaxy. Not doing so usually prevents mass inversion because of missing data. In general, the pixel size is adjusted to have about 10 galaxies per pixel. If we were having a method to deal with this missing data issue, there would be no particular limitation on the pixel size. However the increasing number of empty pixels would make the mass inversion step always more difficult. Ideally, it would be preferable to have about one galaxy per pixel on average.
[**Dealing with missing data**]{}\
Missing data are common practice in weak lensing. They can be due to camera CCD defects, or bright stars that saturate the field of view. More specifically to cluster field reconstruction, the galaxies inside the Einstein radius are usually removed from the study because the weak lensing approximation does not hold there. In addition, depending on the pixel size and the regularity of the galaxy distribution, the amount of empty pixels can increase dramatically. As a result, the measured shear field is generally incomplete and the gaps in the data require proper handling.
A solution that has been proposed by [@ejlens:pires09] to deal with missing data consists in filling-in judiciously the masked regions by performing an *inpainting* method simultaneously with a global inversion. Inpainting techniques are an extrapolation of the missing information using some priors on the solution. This new method uses a prior of sparsity in the solution introduced by [@ejlens:elad05]. It assumes that there exists a dictionary $\mathcal{D}$ (here the Discrete Cosine Transform) where the complete data are sparse and where the incomplete data are less sparse. The weak lensing inpainting problem consists of recovering a complete convergence map $\kappa$ from the incomplete measured shear field $\gamma_i^{obs}$. The solution is obtained by minimizing $$\min_{\kappa} \| \mathcal{D}^T \kappa \|_0 \textrm{ subject to } \sum_i \parallel \gamma_i^{obs} - M (P_i * \kappa) \parallel^2 \le \sigma,$$ noting $|| z ||_0$ the $l_0$ pseudo-norm, i.e. the number of non-zero entries in $z$ and $|| z ||$ the classical $l_2$ norm (i.e. $|| z || =\sum_k (z_k)^2$), where $\sigma$ stands for the standard deviation of the input shear map, and $M$ is the binary mask (i.e. $M_i = 1$ if we have information at pixel $i$, $M_i = 0$ otherwise).($\sigma=0$ is only used for noiseless data).
If $\mathcal{D}^T \kappa$ is sparse enough, the $l_0$ pseudo-norm can also be replaced by the convex $l_1$ norm (i.e. $ || z ||_1 = \sum_k | z_k | $) [@ejlens:donoho_01]. The solution of such an optimization task can be obtained through an iterative thresholding algorithm called MCA [@ejlens:elad05] starting from the noisy $\kappa_0$ obtained with the KS93 method $$\kappa_{i+1} = \Delta_{\mathcal{D},\lambda_n}\left(\kappa_i + M[P_1*(\gamma_1^{obs}-P_1*\kappa_i)+P_2 * (\gamma_2^{obs}-P_2*\kappa_i)]\right),
\label{eqn_mca}$$
where the nonlinear operator $\Delta_{\mathcal{D},\lambda}(Z)$ consists in:
- decomposing the signal $Z$ on the dictionary $\mathcal{D}$ to derive the coefficients $\alpha = \mathcal{D}^T Z$.
- threshold the coefficients with a hard-thresholding (${\tilde \alpha} = \alpha_i$ if $ | \alpha_i | > \lambda_i$ and $0$ otherwise). The threshold parameter $\lambda_i$ decreases with the iteration $i$.
- reconstruct $\tilde Z$ from the thresholded coefficients ${\tilde \alpha}$.
This method enables to reconstruct a complete convergence map $\kappa_n$.
![Illustration of the filtering of a raw in-painted convergence map with FLens.[]{data-label="fig:filter"}](filter){width="\linewidth"}
However, this convergence map $\kappa_n$ obtained by inversion of the shear field is very noisy as shown in the left panel of Fig \[fig:filter\]. This noise originates from the shear measurement errors and the intrinsic galaxy shape noise, and grows inversely proportional to the number of galaxies per pixel.\
[**Dealing with noise in the Cluster reconstruction**]{}\
In this study, we use the MRLens (Multi-Resolution for weak Lensing) denoising method to denoise the reconstructed convergence map $\kappa$. The MRLens filter is based on the Bayesian theory that considers that some prior information can be used to improve the solution [@ejlens:starck06]. Bayesian filters search for a solution that maximizes the posterior probability $P(\kappa|\kappa_n)$ defined by the Bayes theorem : $$\begin{aligned}
P(\kappa|\kappa_n)=\frac{P(\kappa_n|\kappa)\ P(\kappa)}{P(\kappa_n)},
\label{bayes}\end{aligned}$$ where :
- $P(\kappa_n|\kappa)$ is the likelihood of obtaining the data $\kappa_n$ given a particular convergence distribution $\kappa$.
- $P(\kappa_n)$ is the probability of having the data $\kappa_n$. This term, called evidence, is simply a constant that ensures that the posterior probability is correctly normalized.
- $P(\kappa)$ is the prior probability of the estimated convergence map $\kappa$. This term codifies our expectations about the convergence distribution before acquisition of the data $\kappa_n$.
Searching for a solution that maximizes posterior probability $P(\kappa|\kappa_n)$ is the same as searching for a solution that minimizes the following quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} &=& - \log(P(\kappa|\kappa_n)), \\
\mathcal{Q}&=& - \log(P(\kappa_n|\kappa)) - \log(P(\kappa)).
\label{qteinfo1}\end{aligned}$$ If the noise is uncorrelated and follows a Gaussian distribution, the likelihood term $P(\kappa_n|\kappa)$ can be written $$\begin{aligned}
P(\kappa_n|\kappa) \propto \exp\ -\frac{\chi^2}{2},
\label{vraisemblance2}\end{aligned}$$ with the sum of squares of the residuals $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2 = \sum_{x,y} \frac{(\kappa_n(x,y)-\kappa(x,y))^2}{\sigma^2_{\kappa_n}}.
\label{vraisemblance3}\end{aligned}$$
Eq \[qteinfo1\] can then be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} = \frac{1}{2} \chi^2 - \log(P(\kappa)) = \frac{1}{2} \chi^2 - \beta H,
\label{qteinfo2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is a constant that can be seen as a parameter of regularization and $H$ represents the prior that is added to the solution.
If we have no expectation about the distribution of the convergence field $\kappa$, the prior probability $P(\kappa)$ is uniform and searching for the maximum of the posterior $P(\kappa|\kappa_n)$ is equivalent to the well-known maximum likelihood search. This maximum likelihood method has been used by @ejlens:bartelmann96 and @ejlens:seljak98 to reconstruct weak lensing fields, but the solution has to be regularized in some way to prevent overfitting of the data.
Choosing the prior is one of the most critical aspect in Bayesian analysis. An Entropic prior is frequently used but there are many definitions for Entropy [see @ejlens:gull84]. One currently in use is the Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) @ejlens:bridle98. A multi-scale maximum entropy prior has also been proposed by [@ejlens:marshall02] which uses the intrinsic correlation functions (ICF) with varying width.
The MRLens filtering uses a prior based on the sparse representation of the data that consists in replacing the standard Entropy prior by a wavelet based prior [@ejlens:pantin96] . The entropy is now defined by $$H(I) = \sum_{j=1}^{J-1} \sum_{k,l} h(w_{j,k,l})\;,$$ where $J$ is the number of wavelet scales, and we set $\beta = 1$ in Eq. \[qteinfo2\]. In this approach, the information content of an image $I$ is viewed as sum of information at different scales $w_{j}$. The function $h$ defines the amount of information relative to a given wavelet coefficient [see @ejlens:starck06 for details on the choice of this function]. In [@ejlens:pantin96], it has been suggested to not apply the regularization on wavelet coefficients which are clearly detected (i.e. significant wavelet coefficients). The multi-scale entropy then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
h_n(w_{j,k,l}) = {\bar M}(j,k,l) h(w_{j,k,l}) \end{aligned}$$ where ${\bar M}(j,k,l) = 1 - M(j,k,l)$, and $M$ is the multiresolution support [@ejlens:mur95_2]: $$\begin{aligned}
M(j,k,l) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \mbox{ 1 } &
\mbox{ if
} w_{j,k,l} \mbox{ is significant} \\ \mbox{ 0 } & \mbox{ if }
w_{j,k,l}
\mbox{ is not significant} \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$ This describes, in a Boolean way, whether the data contains information at a given scale $j$ and at a given position $(k,l)$. Commonly, in the case of Gaussian noise, $w_{j,k,l}$ is said to be significant if $| w_{j,k,l} | > k\sigma_j$, where $\sigma_j$ is the noise standard deviation at scale $j$, and $k$ is a constant, generally taken between 3 and 5.
The False Discovery Rate method (FDR) offers an effective way to select this constant $k$ [@ejlens:benjamini95; @ejlens:miller01; @ejlens:hopkins02]. The FDR defined as the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
FDR = \frac{V}{D}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the number of pixels erroneously identified as pixels with signal, and $D$ is the number of pixels identified as pixels with signal, both truly and erroneously.
This method requires to fix a rate $\alpha$ between 0 and 1. And it ensures that [*on average*]{}, the FDR will not be bigger than $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
E(FDR) \leq \frac{T}{V}.\alpha \leq \alpha\end{aligned}$$ The unknown factor $\frac{T}{V}$ is the proportion of truly noisy pixels. A complete description of the FDR method can be found in [@ejlens:miller01]. Here we apply the FDR method at each wavelet scale, which gives us a detection threshold $T_j$ per scale. We then consider a wavelet coefficient $w_{j,k,l}$ as significant if its absolute value is larger than $T_j$. This procedure is totally different from a $k\sigma$ thresholding, that only controls the ratio between the number of pixels erroneously identified over the total number of pixels in the map.
The proposed filter called MRLens (Multi-Resolution for weak Lensing[^1]) outperforms other techniques (Gaussian, Wiener, MEM, MEM-ICF) in the reconstruction of dark matter. For this reason, it has also been used to reconstruct the dark matter mass map from the Hubble Space Telescope in the COSMOS field [@ejlens:massey07].\
[**Dealing with reduced shear**]{}
In practice, the observed galaxy ellipticities, however, are induced not by the shear $\gamma$ but by the reduced shear $$g = \frac{\gamma}{1-\kappa}.
\label{eq:redshear}$$ The distinction between the true and the reduced shear is negligible in the weak shear regime ($\kappa \approx 0$). However in galaxy cluster fields, as we focus on in the work, the weak shear regime is not perfectly satisfied, and the discrepancy in the reconstructions can be as high as 10 % if the reduced shear is not properly taken into account.
In order to recover the true shear from the measured reduced shear, we consider an iterative algorithm. At the first iteration, we assume that the true shear is equal to the reduced shear. Then a convergence map is derived, and used along with Eq \[eq:redshear\] to compute a more accurate true shear for the next iteration. We found this procedure to effectively correct for the bias in the reconstruction, but found no improvement after three iterations.
The multi-scale grid model
--------------------------
### RBF Model description
Radial Basis Functions (RBFs) are commonly used to solve interpolation problems [see e.g. @ejlens:gentile12]. Let us consider an unknown function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ probed at a set of locations $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$, and approximated by a function $s : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$, a linear combination of translates of a set of RBFs $\phi_i$
$$\label{eq:rbf}
s(\bold{x}) = \sum \lambda_i\ \phi_i(|| \cdot - \bold{x}||)\,.$$
with unknown real coefficients $\lambda_i$. Those coefficients are obtained by solving the linear system $f(\xi) = s(\xi)$. A unique solution exists if there are as many RBFs as data points and the RBF profiles are positive definite [@ejlens:buhmann03]. However in our case, since data points are noisy and we want to avoid overfitting, we arbitrarily restrict the number of RBFs to a few, thus practically compressing the data to a smaller basis set.
In @ejlens:jullo09, we found that RBFs distributed on a hexagonal grid, and described by a Truncated Isothermal Mass Distribution (TIMD) [see e.g. @ejlens:kassiola93; @ejlens:kneib96; @ejlens:eliasdottir09] were giving good results. In our model, we approximate the true convergence field $\kappa$ with $$\label{eq:conv}
\kappa(\theta) = \frac{1}{\Sigma_{crit}} \sum_i \sigma_i^2\ f(\ || \theta_i -\ \theta\ ||,\ s_i,\ t_i)$$
where the RBFs on grid nodes $\theta_i$ are described by $$\textstyle
\label{eq:timd}
f(R,s, t) = \frac{1}{2G} \frac{r_{cut}}{t- s} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{s^2 + R^2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{t^2 + R^2}} \right).$$
In the TIMD model, the scaling factor $\sigma_i^2$ is the velocity dispersion at the centre of the gravitational potential, and radii $s$ and $t$ mark 2 changes in the slope respectively from $\kappa \propto R^0$ to $\kappa \propto R^{-1}$ and $\kappa \propto R^{-3}$ respectively.
In a similar manner, we approximate the true shear field with $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1(\theta) = \sum \sigma_i^2\ \Gamma_1(\ || \theta_i -\ \theta\ ||,\ s_i,\ t_i)\\
\gamma_2(\theta) = \sum \sigma_i^2\ \Gamma_2(\ || \theta_i -\ \theta\ ||,\ s_i,\ t_i)\end{aligned}$$
where analytical expressions also exist for $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ [see Eq A8 in @ejlens:eliasdottir09].
Let us now consider a set of $M$ ellipticity measurements ordered in a vector $\bold{e} = [\bold{e_1},\ \bold{e_2}]^\dagger$, and a model made of $N$ RBFs distributed in the field with unknown weights $\sigma_i^2$ ordered in a vector $\bold{v} = [\sigma_1^2, \ldots, \sigma_N^2]$. In the weak lensing approximation, we can write the linear relation
$$\label{eq:shearmat}
\bold{e} = M_{\gamma v} \bold{v} + \bold{n}\;,$$
where $\bold{n}$ is the galaxy shape noise as in Eq \[eq\_gamma\], and the transform matrix $M_{\gamma v} = \left[ \Delta_1, \Delta_2 \right]^\dagger$ is a block-2 matrix. Its individual elements are the contribution of each unweighted RBF scaled by a ratio of angular diameter distances
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dshear1}
\Delta_{1}^{(j,i)} &= &\frac{D_{LSi}}{D_{OSi}}\ \Gamma_{1}^i(|| \theta_i - \theta_j ||,\ s_i,\ t_i) , \\
\Delta_{2}^{(j,i)} &= &\frac{D_{LSi}}{D_{OSi}}\ \Gamma_{2}^i(|| \theta_i - \theta_j ||,\ s_i,\ t_i) . \end{aligned}$$
where subscript $j \inÊ[1, M]$ and $i\in [1, N]$ denote the rows and the columns of $M_{\gamma \nu}$ respectively.
### Comparison of TIMD and Gaussian filters
![Comparison between the TIMD profiles in convergence and shear spaces. In dashed-line, we also show the best-fit Gaussian profiles. The bottom panel shows that the TIMD profile in shear space is systematically broader than its equivalent in convergence space, in comparison to a self-similar Gaussian filter. []{data-label="fig:piemdgauss"}](piemd_gauss){width="\linewidth"}
By construction, we use the same parameters for the RBFs ($\sigma^2_i,\ s_i,\ t_i$) in the convergence and shear spaces. However, the corresponding functions $f$, $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ have different profiles in these two spaces. In Fig \[fig:piemdgauss\], we actually show that the TIMD filter is sharper in convergence space than in shear space. In practice, this makes the TIMD filter very efficient at picking shear information far away for a given RBF, and concentrate it to produce high resolution convergence maps. For example from Fig \[fig:piemdgauss\] we see that if we use a TIMD filter of core radius $s= 20"$ (equivalent to a Gaussian filter of width $\sigma \simeq 30"$ in shear space), the reconstructed convergence field is smoothed similarly as with a Gaussian filter of width $\sigma \simeq 22"$. In contrast with the standard KS93 method, the size of the Gaussian filter is the same in shear and convergence space.
### Estimation of the RBFs weights
[**Linear SVD inversion method**]{}
Assuming the galaxy shape noise $\bold{n}$ is Gaussian distributed, we can write the sum of the squares of the residuals $$\label{eq:chi2}
\chi^2 = (\bold{e} - 2 M_{\gamma v} \bold{v})^\dagger N_{e e}^{-1} (\bold{e} - 2 M_{\gamma v} \bold{v}),$$
where $N_{e e} \equiv\ < e e^\dagger >$ is the covariance matrix of the measured ellipticities. In this work, we assume this matrix is diagonal and its elements are $N_{e e}^{(i,j)} =(\sigma_m^2 + \sigma_{int}^2 )\ \delta_{ij}$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker symbol, $\sigma_m$ is the measurement uncertainty and $\sigma_{int}$ is the scatter in the distribution of the intrinsic shapes of the galaxies. Note also that we have a factor of $2$ in this equation because in Lenstool the ellipticity $e = \frac{a^2 - b^2}{a^2 + b^2}$ is computed as a function of the square of the major and minor axes [@ejlens:bartelmann01]. With Gaussian distributed errors, linear inversion theory tells us that an unbiased estimator of the RBF weights is $$\tilde{\bold{v}} = \left[ M_{\gamma v}^\dagger N_{e e}^{-1} M_{\gamma v} \right]^{-1} M_{\gamma v}^\dagger N_{e e}^{-1} \bold{e}$$
and their covariance is $$\label{eq:nvv}
N_{v v} = \left[ M_{\gamma v}^\dagger N_{e e}^{-1} M_{\gamma v} \right]^{-1}$$
The convergence field is obtained by the matrix product $$\tilde{\kappa} = M_{\kappa v}\, \tilde{v}$$
and the corresponding covariance matrix $N_{\tilde{\kappa} \tilde{\kappa}}$ by $$\label{eq:svdconv}
N_{\tilde{\kappa}Ê\tilde{ \kappa}} = M_{\kappa v} N_{v v} M_{\kappa v}^\dagger\;.$$
where the transform matrix $M_{\kappa v}$ is built from Eq \[eq:conv\] and \[eq:timd\]. In the following, we reconstruct the convergence field in grids of regularly spaced pixels.
There are several ways of speeding the calculations in the expressions above. In particular, it happens that in our case, the transform matrix $ M_{\gamma v}$ is sufficiently sparse so that we can perform a singular value decomposition (SVD). Details of the SVD decomposition can be found in [@ejlens:vanderplas11; @ejlens:diego05].\
[**Bayesian MCMC optimisation**]{}
![Impact of different user defined nuisance parameters on the Lenstool reconstruction of a simulated convergence map. Parameter $q_0$ has the strongest impact on the reconstruction result. These reconstructions are without shape noise, and with a multi-scale grid of 575 RBFs. []{data-label="fig:alphacomp"}](alphacomp){width="\linewidth"}
In this section, we describe the Bayesian Monte Carlo Markov Chain algorithm used to reconstruct the mass map in @ejlens:jauzac12. This algorithm called MassInf is also part of the Bayesys package [@ejlens:jullo07], but it is the first time we use it in Lenstool[^2]. It aims at inverting linear systems of equations in a Bayesian manner, i.e. with input priors.
Based on our definition of the $\chi^2$ in Eq \[eq:chi2\], we define the likelihood of having a set of weights $\bold{v}$ given the measured ellipticities $\bold{e}$ as $$\label{eq:lhood}
P(\bold{v}\, |\,Ê\bold{e}) = \frac{1}{Z_{L}} \exp{- \frac{ \chi^2}{2}}.$$ The normalization factor is given by $Z_{L} = \sqrt{(2 \pi)^{2M} \det N_{e e}}$.
As a prior, we want the individual weights $\sigma_i^2$ to be positive, so that the final mass map is positive everywhere. This conducted us to assume they are described by a Poisson probability distribution function (pdf) $$\mathrm{Pr}(\sigma_i^2) = \exp(-\sigma_i^2 / q) / q\,,$$
where the normalization factor $q$ is a nuisance parameter with a pdf given by the following expression $$\pi(q) = q_0^2 q e^{-q/q_0}\,.$$
This expression has been chosen to be tractable analytically whilst keeping $q$ away from 0 and $\infty$. The parameter $q_0$ is fixed and seeded by the user. In our case, we found that $q_{0} = 10$ was giving good performances in terms of computation time, and reconstruction fidelity against the simulated data. In Fig \[fig:alphacomp\], we show that its exact value has little impact on the final reconstruction.
In contrast to the standard Bayesys algorithm implemented in Lenstool, Massinf does not explore all the correlations between the parameters, but searches for the most relevant parameters (keeping the others fixed meanwhile), and explores their PDF individually, reproducing thus somehow the Gibbs sampling approach. It also makes use of an additional nuisance parameter called $n$, which is the number of RBFs the sampler estimates necessary to reproduce the data. We obtained good results with this number described by a geometric pdf $$\mathrm{Pr}(n) = (1 - c) c^{n-1} \quad \mathrm{where} \quad c = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha + 1}\,,$$
and parameter $\alpha = 2\%$ of the total number of RBFs. Again we show in Fig \[fig:alphacomp\] that this parameter has little impact on the reconstruction.
Simulated filament study {#sec:simus}
========================
![Simulated filamentary structure with 3 elliptical NFW clumps. The cross indicates the center of the field. Contour levels are in log scale between $10^{-4} < \kappa < 0.2$. []{data-label="fig:input3d"}](input3d){width="\linewidth"}
We applied our reconstruction algorithms to a simulated mass map made of 3 NFW halos at redshift $z=0.5$. The field of view is $10 \times 10$ square arcminutes, and the 3 halos are located at (0, 0.5’), (-1’, 0) and (2’, 0) in equatorial coordinates. They form a 3’ long filamentary structure aligned along the right ascension axis. To emphasize the extended aspect of the structure we made the halos elliptical with an ellipticity $e = \frac{a^2 - b^2}{a^2 + b^2} = 0.4$. For each halo, the scale radius is $r_s = 300$ kpc (50”), and their concentration are $c = 3$ and $c=3.5$ for the halo central halo. This translates into masses $M_{200} = 1.4\times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $M_{200} = 2.3\times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology $(\Omega_m = 0.3, \Omega_\Lambda =0.7, H_0 = 70\ {\rm km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}}, w_0 = -1)$.\
From this mass model, we generated a convergence map by setting the sources at redshift $z= 1.2$, which is reasonable for data coming from the Hubble Space Telescope, alike the COSMOS data. This convergence map is shown in Fig \[fig:input3d\]. We also produced reduced shear catalogs with sources taken randomly across the field of view, and to which we added a random intrinsic ellipticity drawn from a Gaussian pdf of width $\sigma_{\rm int} = 0.27$. Again, this is a reasonable value for data coming from HST [@ejlens:leauthaud07].\
Standard galaxy density catalog {#sec:model}
-------------------------------
![Convergence maps reconstructed with the three methods. Top panel reconstructions are made with 50 gals/arcmin$^2$, middle and bottom panels with 100 gals/arcmin$^2$. Bottom panel is obtain after resampling 100 times the shape noise of the input catalog. Globally, Lenstool and FLens reconstructions have a lower noise level than SVD reconstruction. Lenstool reconstructions have high resolution, but also contain spurious peaks, whereas FLens reconstructions have lower resolution, but no spurious peaks. Resampling is efficient at removing the spurious peaks in all 3 cases and increases the signal to noise of the SVD reconstructed peaks.[]{data-label="fig:comparison"}](comparison){width="\linewidth"}
First, we compare the reconstruction obtained with a catalog containing 5,000 sources, i.e. with a density of 50 galaxies per square arcminute. Results are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:comparison\]. At first, we note that Lenstool and FLens produce less noisy reconstructions than the SVD inversion method. The Lenstool reconstruction has high resolution, but also contains spurious peaks, whereas the FLens reconstruction has lower resolution, but no spurious peaks.
In this simulation, the FLens map is 64x64 pixels, and the pixel size is 0.156’. To filter out the reconstructed noise, Flens uses a wavelet decomposition procedure that only keeps scales with $J>3$, i.e. structures larger than 8 pixels in size. As described in \[sec:flens\], this wavelet scales thresholding is controlled by the FDR method. If a scale is noise dominated, the detection threshold will be very high and the scale will be removed, thus degrading the resolution of the reconstructed map. This global estimation of the detection threshold per scale is more robust to the noise but less sensitive to small structures. A more local approach would increase the resolution and the detection of small structures, but would also increase the number of false detections.
For the Lenstool and SVD inversion methods, we adjust the resolution of the grid-based reconstruction to the power spectrum of the input signal. Peaks can still be resolved by cutting high frequencies at $k > 10$ arcmin$^{-1}$ ($k = \frac{2\pi}{R}$). This translates into RBFs with core radius $s = 0.3'$. We choose an hexagonal grid of RBFs in order to limit high frequency noise at the junction between nearby RBFs. We can cover the whole FOV with a grid of 817 RBFs. The Lenstool reconstruction is less noisy than the SVD reconstruction essentially because of the priors implemented in Lenstool.
High galaxy density catalog
---------------------------
In order to increase the resolution of the FLens reconstruction, we produce a catalog with 10,000 sources, i.e. with a 100 galaxies per square arcminute. Results are shown in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:comparison\]. By doubling the size of the catalog, we could decrease by 4 the pixel size (0.04’), and detect the halo on the right in the FLens reconstructed map. The Lenstool reconstruction still contains spurious peaks.\
Shape noise resampling
----------------------
In the two previous analysis, we observed some overfitting of the galaxy shape noise, especially with Lenstool and the SVD inversion, leading to spurious peaks.\
In order to mitigate this issue, we resample 100 times the intrinsic galaxy shape noise in the input catalog of 10,000 sources. We run Lenstool, FLens and the SVD reconstructions on each of 100 catalogs, and average the reconstructed convergence maps. The outcome of this procedure is presented in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:comparison\].\
We note that the spurious peaks have disappeared from the averaged maps, but also that the power in the peaks is globally less than in the original map.\
Reconstructed density profile
-----------------------------
![Comparison of the convergence profile recovered with FLens, Lenstool and the SVD inversion, assuming 100 galaxies per sq. arcmin., and resampling of the noise. Errors are given at 68.2% C.L.[]{data-label="fig:simu_profile"}](compprof){width="\linewidth"}
It is a very common procedure in galaxy cluster studies to average the reconstructed mass maps azimuthally to produce a radial density profile. We perform this measurement for our three methods and compute the errors by taking the standard deviation of the 100 reconstructed maps.
In Fig. \[fig:simu\_profile\], we show the comparison of the azimuthally averaged density profiles. The striking point of this figure is the amount of noise in the SVD reconstruction. The second point is the fact that the FLens density profile becomes negative at radius $R > 180$ arcsec and over-estimates the density at small radius. This is due to the fact that wavelets are compensated filters with null mean. In contrast, Lenstool reconstruction is unbiased, and contains the input profile in its 1$\sigma$ confidence contours. The correct normalization at large radius is due to the fact that Lenstool takes into account the redshifts of the lens and the individual sources in the fit.\
Errors on the reconstructed maps
--------------------------------
![Errors on the reconstructed convergence maps with the three methods. In theory SVD errors are independent of the underlying shear signal, but we still notice that locally they depend on the galaxy density. SVD errors have been divided by 4 to fit the colormap range.[]{data-label="fig:stdcomp"}](stdcomp){width="\linewidth"}
We compute the errors of the reconstructed maps following 2 approaches. The Lenstool and the SVD inversion methods output an estimate of the error in each pixel, either by means the analysis of the MCMC samples, or the covariance matrix computed in Eq \[eq:svdconv\] respectively. Nonetheless to get rid of overfitting, we resample the galaxy shape noise in the input catalogs, and compute the variance of the pixels reconstructed both with Lenstool, Flens and the SVD inversion. Fig \[fig:stdcomp\] show that with the three methods, the errors scale with the input density field.
It is worth noticing that the SVD error map also scales with the input signal, although the covariance matrix $N_{\kappa \kappa}$ does not directly depend on the ellipticity measurements $\bold{e}$. We have done some tests, and found that with a uniform distribution of galaxies, this effect vanishes. *Therefore, it seems this effect is due to lensing amplification*, which decreases the amount of galaxies in this region, and as a result increases the variance in the reconstruction.
Finally, we have found that using RBFs with larger core radius increases the correlations between the RBF weights in $N_{vv}$, and decreases the resolution, as well as the overall signal to noise. In contrast, using RBFs with smaller core radius produces higher resolution but noisier reconstructions. We found that matching size of the RBFs to the grid resolution yields the best compromise.\
Errors on the reconstructed density profiles
--------------------------------------------
![Scaling of reconstructed noise as a function of reconstructed signal for different reconstruction methods. SVD inversion and Lenstool methods both provide a way to directly estimate errors on the reconstruction. This is what we call *Theroretical errors*. These errors are in good agreement with errors estimated with noise resampling.[]{data-label="fig:sigkok"}](sigkok_k){width="\linewidth"}
We then focus on the estimated errors on the azimuthally averaged density profiles. In Fig \[fig:sigkok\], we find that the errors scale with the reconstructed density, in agreement with what we observed in the errors on the reconstructed maps. With this figure, we clearly see that the SVD inversion produces errors about 4 times larger than what can be achieved with Lenstool or FLens methods.
Besides, it is reassuring to see that the errors estimated from the Lenstool MCMC samples or the covariance matrix $N_{\tilde{\kappa}Ê\tilde{\kappa}}$ agree with errors estimated after resampling.
Regarding the bias between the reconstructed and the true convergence profiles, we note from Figure \[fig:simu\_profile\] that Lenstool bias is almost constant at less than 5% from the input values, whereas FLens and SVD biases increase with $\kappa$ and reach about 30% at $\kappa = 0.07$.
Signal to noise estimates
-------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[**Top panel**]{} From left to right, probability distribution functions of the convergence reconstructed from 1000 noise maps, as obtained with Lenstool, FLens and the SVD inversion respectively. The dashed curve corresponds to Lenstool without the prior on positive convergence. [**Bottom panel**]{} Reconstructed convergence maps with 100 galaxies per sq. arc-minutes and noise resampling. Contours indicate the levels of confidence at 68.2%, 95.5%, 99.7% and 99.9%. []{data-label="fig:snmap"}](histo_all "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}
![[**Top panel**]{} From left to right, probability distribution functions of the convergence reconstructed from 1000 noise maps, as obtained with Lenstool, FLens and the SVD inversion respectively. The dashed curve corresponds to Lenstool without the prior on positive convergence. [**Bottom panel**]{} Reconstructed convergence maps with 100 galaxies per sq. arc-minutes and noise resampling. Contours indicate the levels of confidence at 68.2%, 95.5%, 99.7% and 99.9%. []{data-label="fig:snmap"}](snmap "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a common procedure to compute the signal to noise by dividing the estimated signal by the variance of the noise. However in the top panel of Fig.\[fig:snmap\], we show that in our case, the pdf of the reconstructed noise is not necessarily Gaussian distributed. This is particularly evident for the Lenstool method.
From each pdf, we therefore compute the threshold X, for which we have the probability of finding a value $x$, $P(x \le X)$ equals to 68.2%, 95.5%, 99.7% and 99.9%. We found that with 1000 realizations of noise, we had enough statistics to estimate up to only 4$\sigma$ level.
In the bottom panel of Fig.\[fig:snmap\], we observe that the SVD inversion is more noisy than the Lenstool or the FLens methods. The 1$\sigma$ region of the confidence is larger with Lenstool and smaller with the SVD inversion. Globally, the regions of equal confidence are similar in size with Lenstool and FLens, especially at larger signal to noise.
Application to MACSJ0717+3745 {#sec:macs0717}
=============================
In this section, we apply our three methods to the real case of the galaxy cluster MACS J0717+3745, in which a filament was recently detected with Lenstool multi-scale grid reconstruction [@ejlens:jauzac12].
Modeling description
--------------------
The analysis in @ejlens:jauzac12 was based on a mosaic of 18 multi-passband images obtained with the Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, covering an area of $\sim10\times 20$ square arcminute. The weak-lensing pipeline developed for the COSMOS survey, modified for the analysis of galaxy clusters, was used to produce a weak-lensing catalogue of roughly 52 galaxies per square arc-minutes. A uBV color diagram was used to distinguish the background sources from the foreground and cluster-member galaxies. Their redshift distribution was derived from photometric and spectroscopic redshifts obtained from Subaru and CFHT/WIRcam imaging in the same field [@ejlens:ma08]. Because they are in the strong lensing regime area, all the galaxies inside an elliptical region of 5 x 3 arc-minutes in size and 45$^\circ$-rotated centered on the cluster core were also removed from the catalog. The detail of the catalog construction is thoroughly described in @ejlens:jauzac12.
In order to compute error bars on the reconstructions, we resampled the weak lensing catalog with a bootstrap strategy, i.e. each galaxy in the catalog can be removed or duplicated, in order to increase its weight in the reconstruction. We produced 50 of such bootstrapped catalogs.
For the Lenstool and the SVD inversion methods, we built a grid of RBFs. In contrast to the model described above, in which all the RBFs had the same size, in Jauzac et al. we used a multi-scale grid with smaller RBF in regions where the cluster luminosity was brighter. First, we built a smoothed cluster luminosity map from the catalog of magnitudes in K-band of cluster member galaxies. Then, we computed a multi-scale grid of RBFs, making sure that the luminosity in each triangle was lower than a predefined threshold. As a result, we obtained a grid made of 468 RBFs, the smallest ones having a core radius $s = 26$ arcsec.
Reconstructed maps
------------------
. \[fig:comp0717\]
Fig \[fig:comp0717\] shows the reconstructed convergence maps of MACS J0717 obtained with the three methods. Globally, they all agree on the location of the cluster core, and the presence of an extension to the South-East. In the cluster core where data are missing, both the Lenstool and FLens reconstructions are smooth, whereas the SVD reconstruction is more clumpy. We attribute this difference to the priors assumed in both Lenstool and FLens.
We also observe some disagreement on the exact shape of the filament. Lenstool reconstruction suggests MACS J0717 lies into an extended over-dense region. In contrast, FLens reconstruction shows that the cluster is compact and connected to a long filament. In both the FLens and the Lenstool reconstructions, the filament is detected at 95% C.L. The SVD reconstruction presents 2 filaments next to each other.
Reconstructed density profile
-----------------------------
![Reconstructed convergence profiles obtained with the three methods. The FLens profile is in good agreement with the other profiles in the core, but deviates at large radius, were it becomes negative. The SVD reconstruction is not able to reproduce the central high density region. Without the positive prior on $\kappa$, we obtain a better agreement between Lenstool and FLens at large radius.[]{data-label="fig:sdens"}](sdens){width="\linewidth"}
Fig.\[fig:sdens\] shows the corresponding radial convergence profiles obtained with the three methods. We took the coordinates $\alpha = 109.39102$ and $\delta = 37.746639$ as the central point of the azimuthal average. Based on the photometric redshift analysis performed in @ejlens:jauzac12, we assumed in the Lenstool reconstruction that the redshift of the weak lensing sources to be $z_s = 0.65$.
As already observed in the simulations, the noise level estimated from bootstrap is about 4 times larger in the SVD reconstruction, especially close to the cluster center. The Lenstool method agrees with FLens at small radii, and with the SVD inversion at large radius. The FLens method predicts steeper radial profile between 500 kpc and 1000 kpc, and a bump at 3 Mpc, corresponding to the over-density in the filament. This feature is much less evident in the other reconstructions.
Note as well that the convergence profiles derived from single catalog and bootstrap catalogs reconstructions with Lenstool agree together. Lenstool error estimates from the MCMC sampling are therefore reliable.
Conclusion
==========
Systematic errors in lensing map reconstruction, especially due to the reconstruction methods, is a concerning issue. With the current and forthcoming datasets, they start to dominate the error budget over the statistical errors.
In this work, we have studied three methods of reconstruction of 10 arc-minutes scale structures, i.e. the environment of galaxy clusters. We limited our study to a toy-model structure in order to focus on the effect of priors. In a forthcoming paper, we will increase the level of complexity by using N-body simulations. The FLens method starts from a pixelated map of shear, with about one galaxy per pixel on average, and filter the noisy reconstructed convergence map by only keeping wavelet scales that contain non Gaussian signal.
The Lenstool and the SVD inversion methods share the same underlying multi-scale grid model. The field is paved with a set of RBF, whose number density and size scale with the smoothed surface brightness of the cluster member galaxies. Lenstool uses a Bayesian MCMC sampler to estimate the weight of each RBF in the reconstruction, where the SVD inversion makes use of the linear formalism of the weak-lensing approximation to estimate the weights. The RBF shape is defined from the Truncated Isothermal Mass Distribution (TIMD), which can either give the shear for the inversion or the convergence for the reconstruction.
So far with Lenstool, we have forced the density field and therefore the convergence to be positive everywhere. This assumption is valid here, because we consider the case of massive structures. Nonetheless in order to be exhaustive in this study, we also turned this prior off in Lenstool and redid all the computations. We found very similar results both for the simulated case and for MACSJ0717.\
From the simulations, we found the following :
- All three methods can detect clusters and surrounding filaments in the convergence range $0.01 < \kappa < 1$, although with different levels of significance.
- Doubling the galaxies number density from 50 to 100 per square arcminute allows to reduce the pixel size and increase the resolution of the FLens reconstruction. The resolution of Lenstool and the SVD inversion methods is more driven by the density of RBFs than by the galaxy density. However, the signal to noise per pixel increases with galaxy number density.
- The error on the reconstructed convergence scales with the underlying signal, and depends on the method used for the reconstruction. The residual is offset from zero by a small amount, that decreases when we increase the grid resolution.
- Thanks to the inpainting technique implemented in FLens, we could recover the shape of the cluster even in reasonably high density regions ($\kappa \sim 0.16$).
- We compared these results to the forward fitting method presented in @ejlens:jauzac12 and implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lenstool</span>. The forward fitting method recovers the true density map with deviations less than 5% at $\kappa > 0.5$, and less than 20% at $0.5 > \kappa > 0.01$. In contrast to the other method, the redshift of the cluster and sources are used as a constraint to break the mass-sheet degeneracy. As a result no significant offset is found in the residual.
- We found FLens to be more robust against shape noise than Lenstool or standard inversion methods. Resampling techniques increase the signal to noise of regions with low signal, but decrease signal to noise of regions with high signal.
We applied the new method to the galaxy cluster MACSJ0717, and confirmed the presence of the filament at 3$\sigma$ C.L. We also repeated the Lenstool analysis previously done in @ejlens:jauzac12, but this time with a bootstrap of the input source catalog. The consistent results obtained with these two techniques give us more confidence in the detection of the structures around MACSJ0717. Without the prior of positive convergence applied, we obtained a very similar map and consistent signal to noise contours in Figure \[fig:comp0717\] , and a density profile in better agreement with FLens at large radius in Figure \[fig:sdens\].
To conclude, it is very encouraging to see that priors can significantly enhance the signal to noise in weak lensing reconstructions. FLens priors are strictly limited to the properties of the galaxy shape noise. In contrast, Lenstool priors enforce the mass-follows-light assumption to build the multi-scale grid. Ideally, the science goals condition the type of priors to choose. A weak lensing peak counting analysis to characterize dark energy might prefer limited priors in order to better compare to theory, whereas the exploration of the cosmic web might heavily rely on external priors coming from other observables, such as galaxy density, X-ray or SZ maps.
The authors would like to thank J.-L. Starck for useful discussions. Computations have been performed at the Mésocentre d’Aix-Marseille Université. This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) grant SparseAstro (ERC-228261). JPK acknowledges support from the ERC advanced grant LIDA and from CNRS.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: The MRLens denoising software is available at the following address: “http://irfu.cea.fr/Ast/mrlens software.php”.
[^2]: Lenstool public package is available at the following address http://projects.lam.fr/projects/lenstool
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We update our analysis of technicolour theories with techniquarks in higher dimensional representations of the technicolour gauge group in the light of the new electroweak precision data on the Z resonance.'
author:
- 'Dennis D. [Dietrich]{}'
- 'Francesco [Sannino]{}'
- 'Kimmo [Tuominen]{}'
date: 'October 17, 2005'
title: ' Light composite Higgs and precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance: An update '
---
Introduction
============
In [@Dietrich:2005jn], we analysed technicolour theories [@TC; @TCrev] for the breaking of the electroweak symmetry with the techniquarks in higher representations of the gauge group [@higher]. We identified theories with two techniflavours in the two-index symmetric representation of SU$_\mathrm{T}$(2) as being consistent with the electroweak precision data available to that date [@Eidelman:2004wy]. At the same time, this theory is quasi-conformal [@Sannino:2004qp; @Hong:2004td] (walking coupling). This feature is a necessity for being able to generate sufficiently high masses for the ordinary fermions. It also helps avoiding inconsistently large flavour-changing neutral currents and lepton number violation due to extended technicolour interactions [@Cohen:1988sq; @etc]. Remarkably, also due to the walking, this special choice for the number of technicolours, techniflavours, and the representation leads to a predicted mass of the (non-elementary) Higgs of only 150GeV [^1]. For this particular set-up, in order to avoid the Witten anomaly [@Witten:fp], an additional family of leptons has to be included, which, amongst other things, provides possible non-hadronic components of dark matter. For the masses of these leptons we were able to make accurate predictions based on the electroweak precision data at hand. Since then new data has become available [@unknown:2005em]. It, at the 68$\%$ level of confidence, leads to a considerably larger parameter space for the lepton masses than was expected previously at the 90$\%$ level of confidence.
Widely independently of this, in [@Dietrich:2005jn] we had given an overview of the expected spectrum of technicolour-neutral particles. However, there, we did not mention that any number of techniquarks in the two-index symmetric representation of SU$_\mathrm{T}$(2) can be made technicolour neutral by adding technigluons. This is so since for SU$_\mathrm{T}$(2) the two-index symmetric representation coincides with the adjoint representation. The potentially lowest-lying technihadrons of this kind are bound states made out of one techniquark and technigluons. From the viewpoint of the standard model such bound states possess only weak interactions and mimic an additional lepton family. However, they also interact directly via the technicolour sector.
Analysis for the new data
=========================
After having fixed the number of particles, the gauge group, and the representation, it still remains to define the hypercharge assignment which is constrained but not fixed entirely by imposing the absence of gauge anomalies. We have studied the following cases [@Dietrich:2005jn; @Sannino:2005dy]: (I) a standard-model like case, in which the leptons are neutral and singly negatively charged, respectively; (II) a case, in which the leptons carry half elementary charges with opposite signs; (III) a singly and a doubly negatively charged lepton. Apart from various hadronic objects in all cases, in (I) the fourth neutrino is a natural dark matter candidate.
The black shaded areas in Figs. \[smleptons\] and \[frleptons\] show the accessible range of values of the oblique parameters $S$ and $T$ [@Peskin:1990zt] [^2] for degenerate techniquarks and if the masses of the leptons are varied independently in the range from one to ten Z-boson masses. The value of the third oblique parameter $U$ is close to zero for our model, consistent with presented data. The larger staggered ellipses in all of these plots are the 90$\%$ confidence level contours from the global fit to the data presented in [@Eidelman:2004wy]. The smaller single ellipse represents the 68$\%$ confidence level contour from the new global fit in [@unknown:2005em].
Even though it can be considered as a conservative estimate, already the perturbative assessment of the oblique parameters in our theories shows a considerable overlap with the data (see Figs. \[smleptons\]a and \[frleptons\]a). In nearly conformal theories like ours the contribution of the techniquarks is further reduced by non-perturbative effects [@nonpert1; @nonpert2]. This reduction is of the order of 20$\%$ [@nonpert2]. In the case of the integerly charged leptons (III) the nonperturbative contributions do not change the characterstics of the results (see Fig. \[frleptons\]). The same holds for the fractionally charged leptons (II). No dedicated plot has been devoted to that case, because it corresponds to a vertical line exactly in the opening of the area shaded in black in the other plots. Put differently, the black area is contracted to zero width in the direction of $S$. The situation is slightly different for the standard-model-like charges, where an additional overlap with the right branch of the black area is achieved. This corresponds to a second branch in the relative plot shown in Fig. \[masses\]. For our model, the expected mass of the composite Higgs is 150GeV [@Dietrich:2005jn]. Let it be noted that, even if it was as heavy as 1TeV there would still be an overlap between the measurements and the values attainable in our model.
Translating the overlap depicted in the perturbative versions of Figs. \[smleptons\] and \[frleptons\] to values of the lepton masses favoured at the 68$\%$ level of confidence leads to the plots in Fig. \[masses\]. For technical reasons not the exact intersection of the parabolic shape with the interior of the ellipse is presented but with the interior of a polygon characterised by: $-0.1<S+T<+0.5$, $-0.15<S-T<+0.025$, and $S<0.22$. In all investigated cases there exists a branch for which the more negatively charged lepton ($m_2$) is about one Z-boson mass ($m_Z$) heavier than the more positively charged lepton ($m_1$). The mass gap of approximately one $m_Z$ is mostly dictated by the limits in the ($S-T$)-direction. The second branch with $m_1>m_2$ is usually forbidden by the limits imposed on $S$. This does not affect the situation for the fractionally charged leptons (II), which yield no variation in $S$ as a function of their masses. Incorporating non-perturbative corrections leads to a second branch for not too small masses in the standard-model-like situation (I). This corresponds to the overlap of the ellipse with the right half of the black area in Fig. \[smleptons\]b.
Summary
=======
In light of the fact that new relevant electroweak precision data have appeared very recently we have investigated the consequences for the technicolour theory with two techniflavours in the two-index symmetric representation of SU$_\mathrm{T}(2)$ and one additional lepton generation presented in [@Dietrich:2005jn]. We found that the range of masses of the leptons, consistent with the new data at the 68$\%$ level of confidence [@unknown:2005em], is much larger than with the previous data at the 90$\%$ level of confidence [@Eidelman:2004wy]. The comparison of our theory with the new precision measurements further strengthens our claim that certain technicolour theories are directly compatible with precision measurements.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank S. Bolognesi, S. B. Gudnason, C. Kouvaris, and K. Petrov for discussions. The work of F.S. is supported by the Marie Curie Excellence Grant under contract MEXT-CT-2004-013510 and by a Skou Fellowship of the Danish Research Agency.
[99]{}
D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 055001 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0505059\].
L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{} (1979) 2619; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{} (1979) 1277.
for recent reviews see: C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rept. [**381**]{} (2003) 235 \[Erratum-ibid. [**390**]{} (2004) 553\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/0203079\]; K. Lane, arXiv:hep-ph/0202255.
K. D. Lane and E. Eichten, Phys. Lett. B [**222**]{}, 274 (1989); E. Eichten and K. D. Lane, Phys. Lett. B [**90**]{}, 125 (1980); E. Corrigan and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B [**87**]{}, 73 (1979). S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004).
F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 051901 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0405209.
D. K. Hong, S. D. H. Hsu and F. Sannino, Phys. Lett. B [**597**]{}, 89 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406200\].
A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**314**]{}, 7 (1989).
T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B [**548**]{} (2002) 204; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 201801; N. D. Christensen and R. Shrock, arXiv:hep-ph/0509109.
F. Sannino and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 96 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9501417\]; M. Harada, F. Sannino and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 034005 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309206\]; D. Black, A. H. Fariborz, F. Sannino and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 074026 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9808415\]; D. Black, A. H. Fariborz, F. Sannino and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 054012 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9804273\].
E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B [**117**]{}, 324 (1982).
\[ALEPH Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0509008.
F. Sannino, arXiv:hep-ph/0506205.
R. Mahbubani and L. Senatore, arXiv:hep-ph/0510064.
M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 964 (1990).
T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 067702; T. Appelquist, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 116007; Z. y. Duan, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, and F. Sannino, Nucl. Phys. B [**592**]{} (2001) 371. R. Sundrum and S. D. H. Hsu, Nucl. Phys. B [**391**]{} (1993) 127; M. Harada, M. Kurachi and K. Yamawaki, arXiv:hep-ph/0509193.
Figures {#figures .unnumbered}
=======
[^1]: It is relevant to note that even for technicolour theories resembling QCD the scalar sector is not simply described by just a heavy composite Higgs. One might also observe for these type of technicolour theories at CERN-LHC a scalar substantially lighter than one TeV. This composite scalar is the direct analog of the QCD scalar $f_0(600)$ [@sigma] and it is expected to be a four quark object.
[^2]: These parameters measure the contribution of the non-standard-model particles to the vacuum polarisation of the gauge bosons. Roughly speaking, $S$ is connected to the mixing of the photon with the Z-boson and $T$ to contributions to the violation of the isospin symmetry.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the zero-temperature metal-insulator transition in a one-dimensional two-component Fermi gas in the presence of a quasi-periodic potential resulting from the superposition of two optical lattices of equal intensity but incommensurate periods. A mobility edge separating (low energy) Anderson localized and (high energy) extended single-particle states appears in this continuous-space model beyond a critical intensity of the quasi-periodic potential. In order to discern the metallic phase from the insulating phase in the interacting many-fermion system, we employ unbiased quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations combined with the many-particle localization length familiar from the modern theory of the insulating state. In the noninteracting limit, the critical optical-lattice intensity for the metal-insulator transition predicted by the QMC simulations coincides with the Anderson localization transition of the single-particle eigenstates. We show that weak repulsive interactions induce a shift of this critical point towards larger intensities, meaning that repulsion favors metallic behavior. This shift appears to be linear in the interaction parameter, suggesting that even infinitesimal interactions can affect the position of the critical point.'
author:
- 'Sebastiano Pilati$^{1,2}$'
- 'Vipin Kerala Varma$^{1}$'
title: Localization of interacting Fermi gases in quasiperiodic potentials
---
To what extent, if at all, do Anderson insulators persist in the presence of interactions? This has been an outstanding problem since 1958 when noninteracting quantum systems were theoretically shown by Anderson to harbor no transport of conserved quantities for sufficiently strong disorder [@anderson1958absence; @Gang4]. In cold atom settings, among others, experimenters have observed the Anderson transition of noninteracting particles either in the nondeterministic random disorder created using spatially-correlated speckle patterns or in the one-dimensional quasidisorder created using incommensurate bichromatic lattice [@billy2008direct; @roati2008anderson; @jendrzejewski2012three; @kondov2011three; @mcgehee2013three]. Theoretical predictions about the critical point of the Anderson transition based on models that take into account the details of these cold-atoms experiments have been recently reported [@delande2014mobility; @fratini1; @fratini2; @pasek2016anderson], enabling quantitative comparison with experimental measurements [@semeghini].\
![(Color online) Logarithmic color-scale plot of the inverse participation ratio of the single-particle eigenstates $d_s/PR$ as a function of the rescaled eigenstate index $j/M_s$ and of the quasidisorder intensity $V/E_{rs}$, i.e. the intensity of the two optical lattices. $M_s=L/d_s=610$ and $M_l=M_s/r=377$ are the number of periods of the short-period and of the long-period lattices, respectively; $E_{rs}$ is the recoil energy corresponding to the former. The ratio of the two optical-lattice periods is $d_l/d_s=r\cong1.61803$ i.e. close to the golden ratio. The continuous horizontal (violet) segment indicates the index of the highest-occupied orbital for a density so that the short-period lattice is half filled, while the dashed (brown) horizontal segment the one so that the long-period lattice is fully filled. The vertical (red) bar with diagonal pattern indicates the Anderson localization transition of the states with index $j\simeq M_s/2$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Cold-atoms experiments have emerged as the ideal playground to explore also the effects due to interactions in disordered many-body systems [@aspect2009anderson; @sanchez2010disordered]. Experiments to understand the transport and localization phenomena in disordered interacting atomic gases continue to be performed [@deissler2010delocalization; @clement2006experimental; @tanzi2013transport; @esslinger; @d2014observation; @kondov2015disorder; @schreiber2015observation; @Choi1547]. Theoretically, a decade ago Basko and collaborators showed using diagrammatic techniques that the Anderson insulator can survive in the presence of interactions [@Basko], even at finite temperatures. For continuous-space disordered bosons this finite-temperature localization [@Michal] connects, in the zero temperature limit, to the superfluid to Bose glass transition [@Schulz]. The concomitant zero-temperature localization transition for continuous-space weakly interacting quasidisordered fermions is the subject of our study. In this Rapid Communication, we investigate the zero-temperature metal-insulator transition in a one-dimensional two-component Fermi gas with contact repulsive interactions. We consider a realistic continuous-space model for a cold-atom setup where an atomic Fermi gas is subjected to the quasiperiodic potential created by the superposition of two periodic optical lattices with the same intensity but with incommensurate periods. Similarly to the related (discrete-lattice) Aubry-André model [@AubryAndre] $-$ which would describe this physical system if one of the two optical lattices was very deep and the other extremely weak $-$ the single-particle spectrum of this (continuous-space) model displays an Anderson transition where (part of) the eigenstates become spatially localized; however, in contrast to the Aubry-André model, here there is a mobility edge which separates the localized state with energies below the mobility edge, from the extended ergodic states above it [@boers2007mobility; @biddle2009localization]. In order to discern the metallic phase from the insulating phase we adopt the concepts familiar from the modern theory of the insulating state [@Kohn], in particular the expectation value of the many-body phase operator [@RS]. This approach allows one to distinguish metals from insulators by inspecting ground-state properties i.e. without direct computation of low-lying exited states or dynamical properties. In the interacting case, we compute this quantity via unbiased quantum Monte Carlo simulations based on the diffusion Monte Carlo algorithm, which is suitable for simulating large-scale realistic models, paving the way to quantitative comparison with experiments in interacting atomic gases. Our main goal is to inspect the effects of weak interactions on the critical point of the Anderson transition i.e. whether it drifts towards stronger or weaker intensities of the quasiperiodic potential, or instead if it is insensitive to interactions below a certain threshold.
The one-dimensional atomic Fermi gas we consider is described by the following continuous-space Hamiltonian: $$\hat{H} =
\sum_{i=1 }^{N} \left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}x_{i}^2} + v(x_i) \right)
+ \sum_{i_\uparrow,i_\downarrow}g\delta(x_{i_\uparrow} -x_{i_\downarrow})
\;,
\label{hamiltonian}$$ where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant, $m$ is the atomic mass, $N_\uparrow$ and $N_\downarrow$ are the numbers of atoms of the two components $-$ hereafter referred to as spin-up and spin-down particles $-$ which are labelled by the indices $i_\uparrow = 1,\dots,N_\uparrow$ and $i_\downarrow = N_\uparrow+1,\dots,N$, respectively, and $N=N_\uparrow+ N_\downarrow$ is the total atom number. The one-dimensional coupling constant $g=-2\hbar^2/(ma_{1D})$ is related to the one-dimensional scattering length $a_{1D}$. We consider repulsive interactions $g\geqslant 0$. In experiments realized in tightly confining cigar-shaped waveguides, sufficiently strong to enter the regime where the gas is kinematically one-dimensional, the coupling constant $g$ can be related to the experimental parameters [@olshanii1998atomic], such as the three-dimensional s-wave scattering length (tunable using Feshbach resonances) and the radial harmonic confining frequency. It is convenient to introduce the interaction parameter $\gamma=mg/(\hbar^2n)=2/(n|a_{1D}|)$, where $n=N/L$ is the density. The external potential $v(x)=V\left[ \sin^2\left(\pi x/d_s\right) + \sin^2\left(\pi x /d_l\right)\right]$ is the superposition of two optical lattices, one with the (short) period $d_s$, the other with the (long) period $d_l$.
![(Color online) Main panel: Participation ratio $PR$ of the single-particle eigenstate labelled $j=M_s/2$ as a function of the quasi-disorder strength $V/E_{rs}$, for different system sizes $L$. $d_s$ and $d_s$ are the period lengths of the short-period and of the long-period lattices, respectively. The vertical (red) bar with diagonal pattern indicates the location of the Anderson transition. Inset: scaling of the inverse participation ratio $d_s/\textrm{PR}$ as a function of the inverse system size $d_s/L$, for two values of the quasidisorder strength: in one case PR saturates for large system sizes, whereas in the other case it diverges as $\textrm{PR}\propto L$ (see continuous black line). These two values bracket the critical point, and they determine the width of the (red) bar in the main panel. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Lower panel: modulus of the expectation value of the many-body phase operator $|Z|$ as a function of the quasidisorder strength $V/E_{rs}$, for different system sizes $L$. Full and empty symbols correspond to QMC and numerical-integration (NI) data, respectively. The continuous curves are the empirical fitting functions (see text). The vertical (red) bar indicates the Anderson transition. The density $n= 1/d_s$ is fixed so that the short-period lattice is half-filled, the period-lengths ratio is $r\simeq 1.618$. Upper panel: empty-symbols with connecting lines indicate the many-particle localization length $\lambda/d_s$ (left vertical axis), while the dashed curves indicate the (rescaled) derivative of $|Z|$ with respect to $V/E_{rs}$ (right vertical axis). []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In order to form an infinite quasi-periodic potential, that is, a deterministic but aperiodic modulation, one should set the ratio of the two periods to be an irrational (Diophantine) number [@modugno2009exponential]. However, in a finite-size continuous system such choice is incompatible with the use of periodic boundary conditions, which are in fact adopted in our calculations. The best remedy consists in choosing ratios of pairs of coprime integer numbers which, in the thermodynamic limit, converge to an irrational number. One convenient choice [@diener2001transition; @modugno2009exponential] is to set $r=d_l/d_s=K_{k+1}/K_{k}$, where the integer sequence $\{K_k\}$ (with $k=0,1,\dots$) is the Fibonacci sequence (defined by the rule $K_{k+2}=K_{k+1}+K_{k}$, with $K_0=1$ and $K_1=1$), in which case the limiting value for $k\rightarrow \infty$ is the golden ratio: $r\rightarrow \phi\cong1.61803$; if the system size is fixed as $L=K_{k+1}d_s=K_{k}d_l$, as we do in our calculations, the potential $v(x)$ complies with periodic boundary conditions, still being aperiodic within the finite box of length $L$. The intensity of the two optical lattices $V$ plays the role of quasi-disorder strength. Notice that also other coprime ratios $K_{k+1}/K_{k}$, not taken from the standard Fibonacci sequence, can give similar values of period ratio $r\simeq \phi$, and will be considered in our analysis.
Before addressing the (interacting) many-fermion system, we inspect the properties of the single-particle eigenstates $\psi_j(x)$ of the quasi-periodic potential $v(x)$ (which we label with the index $j=1,2,\dots$ for increasing eigenenergies). We compute them by performing exact diagonalization of the finite Hamiltonian matrix obtained by introducing a fine discretization in the continuous-space, and approximating the second derivative in $\hat{H}$ using a finite difference formula [@notepoints]. In order to quantify the spatial extent of the single-particle eigenstates, we compute the normalized participation ratio $PR= \left(\int_0^L \mathrm{d}x|\psi_i(x)|^2\right)^2/\int_0^L \mathrm{d}x|\psi_i(x)|^4$. Ergodic extended states are characterized by large values of the participation ratio, diverging in the thermodynamic limit as $PR\propto L$ (in one-dimension); instead, for localized states, $PR$ is essentially independent on $L$, for sufficiently large systems [@Kramer1993]. In Fig. \[fig1\] we display the $PR$ value as a function of the eigenstate index $j$ and of the disorder strength $V$. A sudden drop is noticeable around $V\approx 1.2 E_{rs}$ (where $E_{rs}= \pi^2\hbar^2/(2md_s^2)$ is the recoil energy of the short-period lattice, which is chosen to be the energy unit, while $d_s$ is used as the length unit), slightly depending on $j$, signaling an Anderson localization transition where the single-particle eigenstates become spatially localized. Furthermore, for $V\gtrsim1.2 E_{rs}$, a sudden increase of $PR$ for $j>M_l$ ($M_l=L/d_l$ in the number of periods of the long-period optical lattice; similarly $M_s=L/d_s$) is clearly visible, indicating a mobility edge separating the localized states with $j\leqslant M_l$, from extended states with $j>M_l$. This feature distinguishes the continuous-space model we consider from the related Aubry-Andreé model (i.e., a tight-binding discrete-lattice model with an incommensurate potential), where there are no mobility edges, meaning that the whole spectrum localizes at the critical quasi-disorder strength [@boers2007mobility; @biddle2009localization]. In fact, it has previously been found that extended Aubry-Andreé models which include beyond-nearest neighbor hopping processes, as well as other continuous-space quasi-periodic models similar to ours, host mobility edges [@diener2001transition; @diener2001transition; @Biddle].
Below we will consider a spin-population balanced (i.e. with $N_\uparrow=N_\downarrow=N/2$) many-fermion system with density $n=1/d_s$, meaning that the short-period lattice is half filled ($N=M_s$). At this density, the highest occupied orbital $-$ whose energy corresponds to the Fermi energy $-$ has the index $j=M_s/2$. In order to precisely pinpoint the critical quasi-disorder strength where the Anderson localization occurs at this energy, we perform a finite-size scaling analysis of the $PR$ values; see Fig. \[fig2\]. In the inset, the scaling behaviors for two values of the quasi-disorder strength are shown. In order to reduce fluctuations due to finite-size effects, we average $PR$ values for $M_s/40$ states with index around $j=M_s/2$. The scaling behaviors are opposite, saturating to a finite value for the larger $V$, diverging with system size for the smaller $V$. This allows us to locate the critical point $V_c^0$ in the narrow interval between the two $V$ values: $1.1956E_{rs}<V_c^0< 1.2057E_{rs}$. According to the theory of Anderson insulators, at this critical point a metal-insulator transition occurs [@Kramer1993]. It is worth emphasizing that the specific choice for the value of $r\simeq \phi$ is not crucial; an Anderson localization transition would occur also for different values (avoiding simple rational numbers and keeping $M_s$ large [@AubryAndre; @modugno2009exponential]), albeit at a different quasi-disorder strength [@biddle2009localization].
While the single-particle analysis reported above is suitable to identify the insulator transition in noninteracting disordered systems, for the interacting case we need a different approach. We tackle this problem by adopting the tools from the modern theory of the insulating state [@Resta]. This theory was initiated by Kohn with a seminal article published in 1963 [@Kohn], where he first proposed that insulating behavior in many-electron systems results from the organization of the electrons in the many-particle ground state and that insulators can be identified without inspecting exited state properties (as in the conventional theory of band insulator), nor the spatial extent of the single-particle eigenstate at the Fermi energy (as in the theory of noninteracting Anderson insulators). Resta and Sorella[@RS], and later on Souza, Wilkens and Martin [@SWM], developed a rigorous formalism, which has already proven successful to identify band, Mott [@RS], as well as Anderson insulators [@RestaAnderson], both in the case of uncorrelated random disorder and also in systems with correlated disorder, with quasi-periodic potentials, and in quasicrystals [@VarmaI; @VarmaII]. Furthermore, this formalism is amenable to powerful ab-initio computational techniques such as quantum Monte Carlo simulations [@Stella; @hine2007localization]. It has emerged that in order to discern insulators from metals one has to compute the expectation value $Z = \left< \Psi \left| \hat{U} \right| \Psi \right>$ ($\left|\Psi \right>$ is the many-body ground state) of the many-body phase operator $\hat{U}= \exp (i (2\pi/L) \hat{X} )$, where $\hat{X}= \sum_{i=1}^N x_i $. $|Z|$ is the figure of merit to distinguish the two phases. The theory predicts that $|Z|\rightarrow 0$ in the thermodynamic limit ($L\rightarrow \infty$ at fixed $n$) for metals, while $|Z|\rightarrow 1$ for insulators. Furthermore, one can define a many-particle localization length $\lambda$, which is related to the fluctuations of the macroscopic polarization, as $\lambda^2 = -\frac{L^2}{4\pi^2N}\log\left(\left|Z\right|^2\right)$. For metals, $\lambda$ diverges in the thermodynamic limit, while it saturates to a finite value for insulators, for sufficiently large systems. In a noninteracting many-fermion system, the ground-state many-body wave-function is the Slater determinant $D(N)$ of the first $N$ single-particle spin-orbitals, which involve the first $N/2$ single-particle spatial wave-functions $\psi_i(x)$. In this case, the expectation value $Z$ is readily evaluated as $Z=\left(\det S\right)^2$ where $S$ is the $N/2\times N/2$ matrix of the overlaps $S_{ij} = \int \mathrm{d}x \psi_j^*(x)\psi_i(x)\exp\left(i 2\pi x/L\right)$. Alternatively, $Z$ can be computed via a QMC simulation that samples the modulus squared of the exact wave-function $\Psi_{\mathrm{NI}} (X)=D(N_\uparrow)D(N_\downarrow)$ \[$X=(x_1,\dots,x_N)$ is the spatial configuration\], where the Slater determinants of the spin-up and spin-down components are separately written for computational efficiency. In Fig. \[fig3\] we show data for $|Z|$ and $\lambda$ obtained with both techniques (which we refer to as numerical integration and QMC simulation, respectively) as a function of the quasi-disorder strength $V$, for different system sizes $L$. These results confirm the expectations, in particular, $|Z|$ decreases with $L$ for small $V$, while it increases saturating to $|Z|=1$ for strong quasi-disorder. In order to pinpoint the metal-insulator transition using the finite $L$ data, where the $|Z|$ vs. $V$ curve is smooth $-$ as opposed to the thermodynamic limit, in which case a sudden jump develops $-$ we consider two criteria. The first consists in identifying the critical point with the location of the crossing of dataset corresponding to different system sizes. The second consists in identifying the critical point with the location of the maximum of the derivative of the curve $|Z|(V)$ with respect to $V$ (indicated as $|Z|'$ ) which, for sufficiently large $L$, would accurately approximate the position where the derivative diverges in the thermodynamic limit. In order to locate this point, we fit the data with an empirical fitting function based on a modified hyperbolic tangent function: $|Z|(V) = \frac{ \exp\left(a_1(V-c)\right) - \exp\left(-b_1(V-c)\right) }{ \exp\left(a_2(V-c) \right) - \exp\left(-b_2(V-c)\right)}$, where the $a's$, $b's$, and $c$ are fitting parameters, and we compute its derivative analytically. As is evident from Fig. \[fig3\], both criteria provide accurate estimates of the critical quasi-disorder strength, in excellent agreement with the predictions based on the system-size scaling of the $PR$ values discussed above, even for the relatively small system sizes amenable to the QMC simulations.
![(Color online) Main panel: modulus of the expectation value of the many-body phase operator $|Z|$ as a function of the quasidisorder strength $V/E_{rs}$, for different interaction strengths $\gamma$. The density $n= 1/d_s$ is fixed so that the short-period lattice is half-filled, the period-lengths ratio is $r\simeq 1.65$; full line shows modified hyperbolic tangent (see text). Inset: finite-size scaling analysis of $|Z|$ for the noninteracting case $\gamma=0$ (full symbols) and for an interacting case with $\gamma=0.02$ (empty symbols). Continuous curves are cubic fitting functions shown as guide to eye. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Critical quasidisorder strength $V_c/E_{rs}$, which separates the metallic phase (yellow region) from the insulating phase (cyan region), as a function of the interaction strength $\gamma$. The density is $n=1/d_s$, the optical lattice period is $r\simeq 1.65$. The empty (blue) circles indicate the data obtained from the crossing of the $|Z|(V)$ curves for different system sizes; the full (red) squares those obtained from the maximum of the derivative of these curves. The continuous (black) line $V_c/E_{rs}=1.03(3)\gamma+1.176(2)$ is a linear fit to the latter dataset. []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In order to determine $|Z|$ for the interacting many-fermion system, we employ QMC simulations based on the diffusion Monte Carlo algorithm [@reynolds1982fixed]. This projective techniques stochastically solves the imaginary-time Schrödinger equation, and allows one to sample the exact ground-state wave function. In order to circumvent the sign-problem, which would hinder many-fermion simulations, one has to introduce the fixed-node constraint, meaning that the ground-state wave function is forced to have the same nodes as those of a trial wave function. While in generic higher-dimensional systems this constraint would possibly introduce an uncontrolled approximation, in the one-dimensional case considered here this is not the case, since the wave function $\Psi_{\mathrm{NI}} (X)$ defined above has the same nodes as the exact ground state [@matveeva2016one]. Furthermore, in order to compute the unbiased expectation value of $\hat{U}$ we employ the standard forward walking technique. Therefore, the data reported in this Rapid Communication are free of systematic approximations. In order to reduce the stochastic fluctuations, we employ the importance sampling technique with the trial wave function written in the Jastrow-Slater form: $\Psi_T(X) = \Psi_{\mathrm{NI}} (X) \prod_{i_\uparrow i_\downarrow} f(\left|x_{i_\uparrow}-x_{i_\downarrow}\right|)$ which, beyond the Slater-determinant part $\Psi_{\mathrm{NI}} (X)$ that fixes the nodes, includes a Jastrow correlation function $f(x)>0$ that has to ensure the Bethe-Peierls boundary condition ${\partial \Psi}/{\partial \left(x_{i_\uparrow}-x_{i_\downarrow}\right)}\left.\right|_0=-\Psi/a_{1D}$, but is arbitrary otherwise (the specific choice affects only the statistical fluctuations).\
In the diffusion Monte Carlo simulations, for numerical convenience we consider the system sizes $L=38d_s=23d_l$, $L=58d_s=35d_l$, and for the weakest interactions also $L=78d_s=47d_l$. $r=d_l/d_s$ is again the ratio of two coprime integers, but with the value $r\cong 1.65$, which is slightly larger than the golden ratio $r\cong \phi$ considered above. In the noninteracting case (for which we use the numerical integration approach) we also consider the size $L=618d_s=373d_l$. Larger systems cannot be addressed via QMC simulations with the available computational resources due to the glassy nature of the insulating phase, which causes a pathological slow-down of the QMC dynamics and, therefore, a dramatic increase of the computational times. In Fig. \[fig4\] we show the results for $|Z|$ as a function of $V$, obtained for different values of the interaction strength $\gamma$. As $\gamma$ increases, the datasets are shifted (approximately homogeneously for the weakest interactions) towards significantly stronger quasi-disorder; this clearly indicates that interactions favors metallic behavior. In order to quantify this effect, we determine the critical quasi-disorder strength $V_c$ which separates the metal from the insulator using the two criteria (crossings and peaks of derivative) described above in the noninteracting case. The inset of Fig. \[fig5\] displays the finite-size scaling analysis for the interaction parameter $\gamma=0.02$, compared to the noninteracting case $\gamma=0$. In the interacting case, the crossing of the curves $-$ which we identify with the critical quasi-disorder, according to the first criterion $-$ is clearly drifted towards larger values of $V$ compared to the noninteracting case (notice that for $r\simeq 1.65$ the metal-insulator transition occurs at slightly weaker quasi-disorder than in the case $r\simeq \phi$ considered before), confirming that even interactions as weak as $\gamma=0.02$ determine a positive shift of $V_c$. This is the main result of this work.\
The zero-temperature phase diagram as a function of quasi-disorder strength $V$ and interaction parameters $\gamma$, including the metallic and the insulating phases, is displayed in Fig. \[fig5\]; the critical quasi-disorder strengths determined using the two criteria are compared, finding precise agreement. These data turn out to be well described by a simple linear fitting function. This suggests that even infinitesimal interactions affect the location of the metal-insulator transition. A similar linear increase of the critical quasi-disorder for weak repulsion was previously obtained for the Aubry-André model within the self-consistent Hartree-Fock approximation [@VarmaI]; also the statistical dynamical mean-field theory of Ref. [@SemmlerHofstetter] predicts delocalizing effects due to repulsive interaction. It is likely that this linear increase would cease to hold for strong interactions $\gamma\gtrsim 1$; this regime is however beyond the scope of this work. In conclusion, we have investigated the effect of weak repulsive contact interaction on the Anderson localization transition in a one-dimensional atomic Fermi gas exposed to a quasiperiodic potential. Our results clearly indicate that even weak repulsions induce a (seemingly linear) drift of the metal-insulator transition towards stronger quasidisorder. These results have been obtained by employing (unbiased) QMC simulations to compute the expectation value of the many-body phase operator familiar from the modern theory of the insulating state; this provides us with a novel approach to investigate the conduction properties of (quasi)disordered many-fermion systems which is suitable to address significantly larger system sizes and more complex models compared to the exact diagonalization calculations commonly adopted in the literature. This study parallels previous investigations on ultracold atoms in shallow optical lattices [@pilati2011bosonic; @de2012phase; @gordillo2015bosonic; @astrakharchik2016one; @boeris2016mott; @PhysRevA.91.043618; @pilati2014], which explored regimes where simple single-band tight binding approximations are not applicable and intriguing multi-band effects come into play. In extended tight-binding models [@VarmaI; @VarmaIII], interactions induce interesting effects like shifts of the critical point or, at finite energy-density, many-body mobility edges and nonergodic extended phases [@Iyer; @SarmaGaneshan]. The approach we implemented is a promising tool to further explore these and other phenomena, especially in the relatively unexplored finite temperature continuous-space setting and in higher-dimensional systems.
We thank G. E. Astrakharchik, R. Fazio, M. Holzmann, V. E. Kravtsov, and U. Schneider for useful discussions. S. P. acknowledges financial support from the EU-H2020 project No. 641122 QUIC - Quantum simulations of insulators and conductors.
[56]{}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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aaf8834) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM Campus Morelia, Morelia, Mich. 58190, México '
- 'CIMAT, Callejón Jalisco s/n, Valenciana, Guanajuato, México'
- 'Facultad de Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile'
author:
- Sevín Recillas
- 'Rubí E. Rodríguez'
title: Prym varieties and fourfold covers
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The problem of finding an isogenous decomposition of the Jacobian $J\widetilde{C}$ of a smooth connected complete curve $\widetilde{C}$ has been studied by many people, as well as its generalization for any abelian variety.
The first example of finding subtori $X$ and $Y$ of $J\widetilde{C}$ such that $X \times Y$ is isogenous to $J\widetilde{C}$ is due to Wirtinger [@w]; the situation is a double cover of curves $f : \widetilde{C} \to C$, where $J\widetilde{C}$ is found to be isogenous to the product of the abelian subvariety $f^{*}(JC)$ and its natural complement $P(\widetilde{C}/C)$, later called the Prym variety of the cover $f$, by Mumford in [@mumprym].
In this last work one finds a careful discussion of the kernels of the isogeny and of $f^{*}$, which is then used to describe the type of polarization that $P(\widetilde{C}/C)$ inherits from $J\widetilde{C}$.
These ideas were generalized by Ries in [@ri] where he studied the Prym variety associated to a cyclic unramified cover of a hyperelliptic Riemann surface, and in [@gg] for the case of a curve with an automorphism of prime order.
In a more general context, their results may be viewed as particular cases of the isotypical decomposition of an abelian variety with a finite group acting on it. Such decompositions have been studied by several people in different settings (Donagi, Kanev, Mérindol, Lange and Recillas, among others), with applications to the theory of integrable systems and the moduli spaces of principal bundles of curves.
In another related direction, there are two constructions that have proved very useful in the study of relations between Jacobians and Prym varieties. The Recillas trigonal construction (c.f. [@r]) shows that the Jacobian of a tetragonal curve is isomorphic to the Prym variety of a double cover of a trigonal curve, and Pantazis showed in [@p] that the Prym varieties associated to the bigonal construction of Donagi (c.f. [@d]) are dual to each other.
The aim of this work is the study of the structure of the Jacobian of the Galois extension $W \to T$ of a fourfold cover of smooth connected complete curves $X \to T$. We give explicit descriptions of the rational simple components of this Jacobian as generalized Pryms of intermediate covers of $W \to T$ and analyze the polarization types and kernels of the isogenies involved.
Even though the isotypical decomposition of $JW$ may be obtained faster from general methods (see, for instance, [@d2], [@kanev] and [@merindol]), our calculations for the kernels of the natural isogenies that appear allow us to obtain new proofs of the bigonal and trigonal constructions in purely group-theoretical terms, by considering $T = \mathbb{P}^1$ and particular values of the ramification of $X \to T$ (see Remark \[rem:orient\] and Section \[subsec:big\], Remark \[rem:classical\] and Theorem \[thm:classical\]).
Furthermore, by applying appropriate restrictions for the ramification data of $X \to T$, we also obtain families of Jacobian varieties isogenous to products of Jacobians and families of Prym varieties isogenous to the product of elliptic curves.
When working with the Jacobian of a curve, we use additive or tensor notation depending on whether the points of the Jacobian are considered as points of an abelian variety or as line bundles on the curve.
If $Y$ is a subvariety of an abelian variety, we denote by $Y^0$ its connected component of the origin, and by $Y[d]$ the subgroup of $Y$ consisting of its points of order $d$.
If $f : \w C \to C$ is an unramified cyclic cover of curves of degree $d$, we will denote by $\eta_f$ a point in $JC[d]$ which determines the cover $f$; equivalently, a generator for the kernel of $f^*$.
If $A$ is a polarized abelian variety with polarization $\lambda :
A \to \wh A$, where $\wh A$ is the dual abelian variety, then $K(\lambda)$ will denote the kernel of $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is of type $(d_1, \ldots, d_g)$ with $d_i$ dividing $d_{i+1}$ for $1
\leq i \leq g-1$, we will denote by $\lambda_{\wh A} : \wh A \to
\widehat{\widehat{A}} = A$ the polarization on $\wh A$ such that $\lambda_{\wh A} \circ \lambda$ is multiplication by $d_g$ on $A$.
If $f : A \to B$ is a morphism between abelian varieties, the dual map will be denoted by $\wh f : \wh B \to \wh A$; if $B$ has a polarization $\lambda_B$, then $A$ inherits the induced polarization $\lambda_A$ defined by $\lambda_A = \wh f \circ
\lambda_B \circ f$ (the pullback of $\lambda_B$ via $f$).
Prym varieties for covers of curves
===================================
>From now on, $\w C$ and $C$ are smooth connected complete curves over the complex numbers ${\mathbb C}$, of respective genera $\w
g$ and $g$ , and $f : \w C \to C$ is a cover of degree $d$.
Let $( J, \lambda )$ and $(\w J, \w \lambda )$ denote the Jacobians of $C$ and $\w C$, respectively. The cover $f$ induces two homomorphisms between Jacobians, denoted by $ f^* : J
\longrightarrow \w J$ and $\operatorname{{Nm}}f : \w J \longrightarrow J$ respectively. Just as in [@mumprym] for the case $d=2$, they are related as follows.
$$\label{nm}
\operatorname{{Nm}}f \circ f^* = d \, \cdot \, \Id \vert _{J} \quad \text{ and }
\quad \widehat{\operatorname{{Nm}}f} = \w \lambda \circ f^* \circ \lambda^{-1}$$
Also note that $(\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f)^0=(\ker(f^* {\circ} \operatorname{{Nm}}f))^0$.
We will use the following characterization given in [@lange:cav92 p. 337].
\[prop:lange\] Given a cover of curves $f : \widetilde{C} \to
C$, the induced homomorphism $f^* : JC \to J\widetilde{C}$ is not injective if and only if $f$ factors via a cyclic étale covering $f'$ of degree $\geq 2\; $ as is shown in the following diagram. $$\xymatrix{ \widetilde{C} \ar[rr]^{f} \ar[dr]_{f''} &
& C \\
& C' \ar[ur]_{f'} & \ \ \ .
}$$
\[rem:lange\] Note that by the proof of the above proposition, $\ker f^{'*}$ is cyclic of order equal to the degree of $f'$; hence if $f^{''*}$ is injective, then $\ker f^{*}$ is cyclic of order equal to the degree of $f'$.
The following result is well known.
\[lem:kernm\] Let $f : \w C \to C$ be a cover of curves of degree $d$.
Then the number of connected components of $\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f$ is the cardinality of $\ker f^{*}$.
In particular, if $d$ is prime and $f$ is ramified or if $d$ is prime and $f$ is not a cyclic cover then $\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f$ is connected.
We now recall the definition of the Prym variety of a subtorus of a principally polarized abelian variety (p.p.a.v.) and some of its properties (c.f. [@ri] and [@mumprym]).
Let $(A, \lambda)$ be a p.p.a.v., where $\lambda : A \to \w A$ is the principal polarization and let $X \overset i \hookrightarrow
A$ be a subtorus. Then the *Prym variety* $P = P(A,
\lambda , X)$ is defined by $P=\ker (\wh i \, {\circ} \, \lambda )
= \lambda^{-1}(\ker \wh i)$. Observe that $P$ is connected (since $\ker \wh i$ is injective) and its dimension is the codimension of $X$ in $A$.
If we denote by $j : P \to A $ the inclusion and by $\lambda _X$ and $\lambda _P$ the induced polarizations on $X$ and $P$, respectively, we obtain the following commutative diagram:
$$\label{dia:prym}
\xymatrix{
X \ar[d]_{\lambda_X} \ar[r]^{i} & A \ar[d]_{\lambda} & P \ar[l]_{j} \ar[d]^{\lambda_P}\\
\wh X & \wh A \ar[l]^{\wh i} \ar[r]_{\wh j} & \wh P
}$$
The following results appear in [@ri].
\[prop:ries\] Let $(A, \lambda)$ be a p.p.a.v., let $X$ be a subtorus of $A$ and let $P = P(A, \lambda , X)$ be its Prym variety. Then
1. The sum homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma: X \times P & \longrightarrow A \\
(x,y) & \longmapsto x + y\end{aligned}$$ is an isogeny with kernel given by $$\ker \sigma= \{\ (x, -x)\ : \ x \in X \cap P\ \} .$$
2. If we denote by $\lambda _{X\times P}$ the pullback of the polarization $\lambda$ to $X\times P$ via $\sigma$, then $$\lambda _{X\times P} = \wh \sigma {\circ} \lambda {\circ} \sigma
= \left ( \begin{matrix} \lambda_X & 0\\ 0 & \lambda
_P\end{matrix} \right )$$
3. The kernels of the induced polarizations are related as follows. $$K(\lambda_{X\times P})=K(\lambda_X)\times K(\lambda_P)$$
Furthermore, $\ker \sigma$ is a maximal isotropic subgroup.
4. $K(\lambda_X) = X \cap P = K(\lambda_P)$.
We now apply these results to our cover of curves $f : \w C \to
C$. In this case the *Prym Variety of $f$* is defined by $$P = P(f) = P(\w C/C) = (\ker ( \wh {f^{\ast}} {\circ}
\w{\lambda}))^0$$ and we can prove the following results.
\[prop1\] Let $f : \w C \to C$ be a cover of curves of degree $d$. Denote by ${\tilde \lambda}_{f^{*}(J)}$ and by ${\tilde
\lambda}_{P}$ the polarizations induced by $\w \lambda$ on $f^{*}(J)$ and on $P$, respectively. Then
1. $P = (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f)^0$;
2. $P = P(\w J , \w \lambda , f^{*}(J))$; i .e., $P$ is the Prym variety of the subtorus $f^{*}(J)$ of the p.p.a.v. $(\w J ,
\w \lambda )$;
3. the polarization on $J$ given by the pullback of ${\tilde \lambda}_{f^{*}(J)}$ via $f^{*}$ is $d \lambda$ and $H_0:=\ker f^{*} \subset J[d]$ is isotropic with respect to the Weil form associated to $d \lambda$;
4. $f^{*}$ induces an isomorphism $$H_0^{\bot }/H_0 \longrightarrow \ker (\lambda_{f^*J}) \, = \, \ker
(\lambda_P) = \, f^*J \cap P \, \subseteq P[d]$$ where orthogonality is with respect to the skew-symmetric multiplicative form $e_{d \lambda}$ on $J[d]$, and $$\label{eq:natural4}
\bigl| f^*J \cap P \bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| J[d] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl|^2}
\ .$$
5. Consider the isogeny $$\phi \; : J \times P \to \w{J} \ , \ \ \phi(c,\tilde{c}) =
f^*(c) + \tilde{c}$$ and the projection onto the first factor $\pi_1 : J \times P \to
J$.
Set $H_1 = \pi_1(\ker \phi)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\ker \phi = \{ (c, -f^*(c)) : c \in J[d] \text{ and } f^*(c) \in P
\} & \longrightarrow H_1 \\
(c, -f^*(c)) & \dashrightarrow c
\end{aligned}$$ is an isomorphism.
Furthermore, $H_1 = H_0^{\bot }$ and $$\label{eq:natural3}
\bigl| \ker \phi \bigl| = \bigl| H_1 \bigl| = \bigl| H_0^{\bot } \bigl|=
\dfrac{\bigl| J[d] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl|} \ .$$
i\) follows from $\lambda^{-1} {\circ} \wh {f^{\ast}} {\circ}
\w{\lambda} = \operatorname{{Nm}}f$.
ii\) holds since $f^{*}$ has finite kernel.
iii\) is just a computation involving the relations given in (\[nm\]): $$\wh{f^{*}} \circ {\w \lambda} \circ f^{*} = \lambda
\circ \operatorname{{Nm}}f \circ {\w \lambda}^{-1} \circ {\w \lambda} \circ f^{*}
= \lambda \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}f \circ f^{*} = d \,
\lambda$$
As for iv), it follows from descent theory that $f^{*} : J \to
f^{*}J$ induces an isomorphism from $H_0^{\bot }/H_0$ to $\ker
(\lambda_{f^*J})$; therefore, $$H_0^{\bot} = (f^{*})^{-1}(\ker \lambda_{f^*J}) \, .$$
But we already know from Proposition \[prop:ries\] that $$\ker (\lambda_{f^*J}) = \ker (\lambda_{P}) = f^*J \cap P \, .$$ Observing that $y \in f^*J \cap P$ if and only if $y$ is in $P$ and $y = f^{*}(x)$ for some $x \in J$, we obtain $0 = \operatorname{{Nm}}f (y) =
\operatorname{{Nm}}f (f^{*}(x)) = dx$, and therefore $dy =0$.
The equality $$\label{eq:lattices} \bigl| H_0 \bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| J[d]
\bigl|}{\bigl| H_0^{\bot} \bigl|}$$ will complete the proof of iv).
To prove it, consider $J = V/L$ and $f^{*}J = V/M$, with $L
\subseteq M$ lattices in $V$, and recall that $H_0 = M/L$, $H_0^{\bot} = M^{\bot}/L$, $J[d] = K(d \, \lambda) = L^{\bot}/L$, and that the index of $L$ in $M$ equals the index of $ M^{\bot}$ in $L^{\bot}$.
Then from $L \subseteq M \subseteq M^{\bot} \subseteq L^{\bot}$ it follows that $[ L^{\bot} : L ] = [ L^{\bot} : M^{\bot} ] \cdot [
M^{\bot} : L ]$; since $[ L^{\bot} : M^{\bot} ] = [ M : L ]$, we obtain (\[eq:lattices\]) in the form $[ L^{\bot} : L ] = [ M : L
] \cdot [ M^{\bot} : L ]$.
As for v), it is clear that $\ker \phi \subseteq J[d] \times P[d]$ and therefore $\phi$ is an isogeny. It is also clear that $s : H_1
\to \ker \phi$ defined by $c \mapsto
(c,-f^{*}(c))$ is a section of $\pi_1 : \ker \phi \to H_1$, so it follows that $\pi_1$ is an isomorphism.
But also $H_1 = \{c \in J : f^{*}(c) \in P \} =
(f^{*})^{-1}(f^{*}J \cap P) = H_0^{\bot }$. Therefore $ \bigl|
\ker \phi \bigl| = \bigl| H_0^{\bot } \bigl|$, which together with equality (\[eq:lattices\]) complete the proof of v) and of the Theorem.
Our next result gives the relation between the Prym variety of the composition of two covers of curves and the Prym varieties of the intermediate covers.
\[prop:comp\] Let $f : X \to Y$ and $g : Y \to Z$ be two covers of curves. Set $h = g \circ f : X \to Z$.
Then there are two isogenies given as follows. $$\operatorname{{ps}}: P(Y/Z) \times P(X/Y) \to P(X/Z) \, , \ \ \operatorname{{ps}}(y,x) = x + f^*y$$ and $$\psi : JZ \times P(Y/Z) \times P(X/Y) \to JX \, , \ \ \psi
(z, y, x) = x + f^*y + h^*z \, .$$
Furthermore,
- The kernel of $\operatorname{{ps}}$ is contained in $P(Y/Z)[\deg f] \times P(X/Y)[\deg f]$ and its cardinality is equal to $$\bigl| \ker \operatorname{{ps}}\bigl| = \bigl| P(Y/Z)[\deg f] \bigl|
\; \dfrac{\bigl| g^*(JZ) \cap \ker f^* \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^*
\bigl|} \, .$$
- The kernel of $\psi$ has cardinality equal to $$\bigl| \ker \psi \bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| JY[\deg f]\bigl|}
{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl|} \dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg g] \bigl|}{\bigl|
\ker g^* \bigl|} = \dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg h] \bigl| \bigl|
P(Y/Z)[\deg f] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl| \bigl|\ker g^*
\bigl|} \, .$$
By Theorem \[prop1\] we have isogenies $$\alpha : JY \times P(X/Y) \to JX \ , \ \ (y, x) \to f^{*}y + x \ ,$$ $$\beta : JZ \times P(Y/Z) \to JY \ , \ \ (z, y) \to g^{*} z + y \ ,$$ and $$\gamma : JZ \times P(X/Z) \to JX \ , \ \ (z, x) \to h^{*} z + x $$ whose kernels have sizes $\bigl| \ker \alpha \bigl| =
\dfrac{\bigl| JY[\deg f] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^{*} \bigl|} \; $, $\bigl| \ker \beta \bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg g]
\bigl|}{\bigl| \ker g^{*} \bigl|} \;$ and $\bigl| \ker \gamma
\bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg h] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker h^{*}
\bigl|} \,$ respectively.
A short computation and connectedness show that the image of $\operatorname{{ps}}$ is contained in $P(X/Z)$.
Furthermore if $(y, x) \in \ker \operatorname{{ps}}$, we have that $0 = f^* y
+x$. But then $0 = \operatorname{{Nm}}f(f^*y) + \operatorname{{Nm}}f(x) = (\deg f) \; y$; hence $y \in P(Y/Z)[\deg \; f]$ and $x = -f^* y$; therefore $\ker \operatorname{{ps}}\subseteq \{ (y, -f^*y) : y \in P(Y/Z)[\deg \; f] \}$, which proves the first part of i).
>From the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ JZ \times P(Y/Z) \times P(X/Y)
\ar[rr]^{(\beta , \, \text{id}_{P(X/Y)})} \ar[d]_{(\text{id}_{JZ} , \, \operatorname{{ps}})}
\ar[drr]^{\psi} & & JY \times P(X/Y) \ar[d]^{\alpha} \\
JZ \times P(X/Z) \ar[rr]^{\gamma} & & JX}$$ we obtain that $\psi$ is an isogeny and also that $$\bigl| \ker \psi \bigl| = \bigl| \ker \operatorname{{ps}}\bigl| \bigl| \ker \gamma \bigl|
= \bigl| \ker \alpha \bigl| \bigl| \ker \beta \bigl| \ .$$
Therefore $\bigl| \ker \psi \bigl| = \bigl| \ker \operatorname{{ps}}\bigl|
\dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg h] \bigl| }{\bigl| \ker h^* \bigl|} =
\dfrac{\bigl| JY[\deg f] \bigl| }{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl|} \dfrac{\bigl| JZ[\deg g]
\bigl| }{\bigl| \ker g^* \bigl|} $ and in order to finish the proof we only need to compute $\bigl| \ker \operatorname{{ps}}\bigl| $.
Now the last equality implies that $$\bigl| \ker \operatorname{{ps}}\bigl| =
\dfrac{\bigl| JY[\deg f] \bigl| \, \bigl| JZ[\deg g] \bigl|
}{\bigl| JZ[\deg h] \bigl|}
\dfrac{\bigl| \ker h^* \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^* \bigl| \, \bigl| \ker g^*
\bigl|} \ .$$
But it is clear that $$\dfrac{\bigl| JY[\deg f] \bigl| \, \bigl|
JZ[\deg g] \bigl| }{\bigl| JZ[\deg h] \bigl|} =
\bigl| P(Y/Z)[\deg f] \bigl|$$ and that $$\ker h^{*} = {g^{*}}^{-1} (g^*(JZ) \cap \ker f^*)$$ from where it follows that $$\bigl| \ker h^{*} \bigl| =
\bigl| \ker g^{*} \bigl| \bigl| g^*(JZ) \cap \ker f^* \bigl| \, .$$ The proof is now complete.
Galois covers
=============
Assume that the cover $f : \w C \to C$ is a Galois cover; i.e., that there exists a subgroup $G$ of the automorphism group of $\w
C$ such that $C = \w C/G$ and $f$ is the canonical quotient map. For any $g \in G$ we denote by the same symbol $g$ the automorphism induced by $g$ on $\w J$, by $\langle g \rangle$ the subgroup of $G$ generated by $g$, and by ${\w J}^{\, H}$ the set of fixed points of $H$ in $\w J$, for any subgroup $H$ of $G$. The following results are immediate.
\[prop:galois\] Let $f : \w C \to C = \w C/G$ be a Galois cover of degree $d$ and let $P = P(f)$ denote the corresponding Prym variety.
Then
1. $f^*(J) = (\w J^G)^0$ and ${\w{J}}^{\, G} = f^*(J) + P_0$, where $P_0 = P \cap {\w{J}}^{\,
G} \subseteq P[d] \,$.
2. If we define $\operatorname{{Nm}}G : \w J \to \w J$ by $\operatorname{{Nm}}G = \displaystyle{\sum_{g
\in G}} \, g$, then $\operatorname{{Nm}}G = f^* \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}f$.
3. $P = (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}G )^0$.
\[coro:double\] If $f : \w C \to C$ denotes a double cover given by the involution $\sigma : \w C \to \w C$ and $P$ denotes the corresponding Prym variety, then $${\w J}^{\, \langle \, \sigma \rangle} = f^{*}J + P[2]$$
>From Proposition \[prop:galois\] i) we know that ${\w J}^{\, \langle \, \sigma \rangle} = f^* J + P_0$, where $P_0 = {\w J}^{\, \langle \, \sigma \rangle} \cap P
\subseteq P[2]$.
Since $\sigma$ is an involution, it is clear that $P[2] \subseteq
{\w J}^{\, \langle \, \sigma \rangle}$ and the result follows.
Let $f : \w C \to C = \w C/\langle \alpha \rangle $ be a cyclic unramified cover.
Then ${\w J}^{\, \langle \alpha \rangle}$ is connected; i.e., ${\w
J}^{\, \langle \alpha \rangle} = f^* J$.
Assume $f$ is of degree $d$; then ${\w J}^{\, \langle \alpha
\rangle} = \ker ( 1 - \alpha )$.
If ${\mathcal L}$ is in $\ker ( 1 - \alpha )$, then there is an isomorphism $\phi : {\mathcal L} \to \alpha ({\mathcal L})$. But then $\alpha^{d-1} (\phi) \circ \ldots \alpha(\phi) \circ \phi$ is an isomorphism from $ {\mathcal L}$ to itself, and therefore equal to a nonzero complex constant $c$; adjusting the constant, we obtain an isomorphism $\phi_1 =
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt[d]{c}}} \phi$ of $ {\mathcal L}$ of order $d$.
Therefore $G$ acts on ${\mathcal L}$; i.e., $G$ is linearizable and it follows from [@mumav] that then ${\mathcal L}$ is in $f^* J$.
The next result appears in [@s3]; its corollary will be very useful later on.
\[lemma:norm\] Let $f : \w C \to C = \w C/G$ be a Galois cover of degree $d$, let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ and denote by $h : \w
C \to \w C/H$ and $\varphi : \w C/H \to C$ the corresponding covers, as in the following diagram. $$\xymatrix{
& \w C \ar[dl]_{h} \ar[dd]^{f} \\
\w C/H \ar[dr]^{\varphi} & \\
& C = \w C/G}$$
Then $f^{*}(\operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi (z)) = g_1 h^{*} z + g_2 h^{*} z +
\cdots + g_r h^{*} z$ for all $z \in J(\w C/H)$, where $\{g_1 ,
g_2 , \ldots , g_r \}$ is a complete set of representatives for $G/H$.
\[coro:norm\] Under the hypothesis of Lemma \[lemma:norm\], $$h^{*}(P(\varphi)) = \{ x \in {\w{J}}^{\, H} : \
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^r g_i (x) = 0 \}^{\circ} \ .$$
Let $$A = \{ x \in {\w{J}}^{\, H} : \ \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^r g_i (x) = 0 \}^{\circ} \, .$$
If $z \in P(\varphi)$ then $\operatorname{{Nm}}f (h^{*}z) = |H| \operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi(z) =
0$; hence $h^{*}(P(\varphi)) \subseteq (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f)^{\circ} =
(\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}G)^{\circ}$ and $\sum_{g \in G} g(h^{*}z) = 0$.
But clearly $h^{*}(P(\varphi)) \subseteq {\w J}^{H}$, so the last equation can be written as $\lvert H \rvert
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^r g_i (h^{*}z) = 0$, and we have proven that $h^{*}(P(\varphi)) \subseteq A$.
Conversely, let $x \in A$; then $$\operatorname{{Nm}}G (x) = \displaystyle\sum_i g_i \left( \displaystyle\sum_{k \in H}
k \right)(x) = |H| \displaystyle\sum_i g_i (x) = 0$$ and we obtain that $A \subseteq (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}G)^{\circ} = (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}f)^{\circ}$.
Therefore $\operatorname{{Nm}}h (A) \subseteq (\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi)^{\circ} =
P(\varphi)$; then $$|H| A = \displaystyle\sum_{k \in H} k (A) = h^{*}(\operatorname{{Nm}}h(A))
\subseteq h^{*}(P(\varphi))$$ and the result follows.
Degree two covers {#section:deg2}
=================
Consider a degree two morphism of curves $f :
\widetilde{C} \to C$ with total ramification degree $\omega$.
Set $g = g_C$ and $P = P(\widetilde{C}/C)$. Then $g_{\widetilde{C}} = 2g-1+\frac{\omega}{2}$, $\dim P =
g-1+\frac{\omega}{2}$, and $|P[2]| = 2^{2g-2+\omega}$.
In this section we describe $P[2]$ explicitly in terms of the ramification of $f$.
By Theorem \[prop1\] $\bigl| {(\ker f^{*})}^{\bot}\bigl| =
\dfrac{\bigl| J[2] \bigl|}{\bigl| \ker f^{*} \bigl|}$ and $f^*$ induces an isomorphism $${(\ker f^{*})}^{\bot}/\ker f^* \cong f^*J \cap P \subseteq P[2] \,
.$$
If $\omega = 0$, then $|\ker f^*| = 2$; hence $|{(\ker
f^{*})}^{\bot}/\ker f^*| = 2^{2g-2}$ and $f^*J \cap P = P[2]$.
If $\omega \neq 0$, then $|\ker f^*| = 0$; hence $f^*$ induces an isomorphism from $J[2]$ to $f^*(J[2]) \cap P \subseteq P[2]$. Therefore $f^*(J[2])
\subseteq P[2]$ and $|P[2]/f^*(J[2])| = 2^{\omega - 2}$.
In particular if $\omega = 2 \,$, then we have that $J[2]$ is isomorphic to $f^*(J[2]) = P[2]$.
Also note that it follows from Lemma \[lem:kernm\] and from Proposition \[prop:galois\] that if $\omega \neq 0$, then $\ker
(\operatorname{{Nm}}f) = \ker (1 + \sigma)$ is connected, where $\sigma$ is the involution of $\widetilde{C}$ associated to the cover $f$.
The cases $\omega = 0$ and $\omega = 2$ of above are the Classical Pryms described in Mumford’s beautiful paper [@mumprym].
We now consider $\omega > 2$. Let $ P_1 , \ldots , P_{\omega} \in
\widetilde{C}$ be the ramification points of $f$, and for $i \in
\{ 1, \ldots, \omega \}$, let $Q_i = f(P_i) \in C$.
For $j \in \{ 2, \ldots, \omega \}$, choose $m_j \in \operatorname{{Pic}}^{0}(C)$ such that $m_j^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_C (Q_1 -Q_j)$ and consider $${\mathcal F}_j = {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}} (P_j
-P_1) \otimes f^*(m_j) \, .$$
Then each ${\mathcal F}_j$ is in $P[2]$ and we have the following result.
\[prop:case2\] Let $f : \w C \to C$ be a degree two cover with total ramification degree $\omega > 2$.
Then for any ${\mathcal L} \in P[2]$ there exist $m \in J[2]$ and unique $\nu_j \in \{ 0,1 \}$ such that $${\mathcal L} = {\mathcal F}_2^{\nu_2} \otimes
\ldots {\mathcal F}_{\omega - 1}^{\nu_{\omega - 1}} \otimes f^* (m) \ .$$
In other words, $$P[2] = f^*(J[2]) \oplus_{j=2}^{\omega-1} {\mathcal F}_j
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .$$
Let ${\mathcal D} \in \operatorname{{Pic}}^{\frac{\omega}{2}}(C)$ be the divisor class defining the cover $f : \widetilde{C} \to C$; that is, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal D}^{\otimes 2} & = {\mathcal O}_C (Q_1 + \ldots + Q_{\omega})
& \text{ and } & \
f^* ({\mathcal D}) & = {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}} (P_1 + \ldots + P_{\omega})
\, .
\end{aligned}$$
Consider the Abel-Jacobi map $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{C}^{(\widetilde{g})} & \stackrel{\int}\longrightarrow \widetilde{J} \\
D & \longmapsto {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}(D-{\widetilde{g}} P_1) \ .\end{aligned}$$
Then, given ${\mathcal L} \in P[2]$, $\sigma$ acts on $\int
^{-1}(\mathcal L)=|D|$; hence there exists $D \in |D|$ such that $\sigma D= D$, and therefore $D$ must be of the form $D= f^*(E) +
\sum_{i=1}^r P_{l_i} \,$, for some effective divisor $E$ on $C$.
It follows that ${\mathcal L} = {\mathcal
O}_{\widetilde{C}}(\sum_{i=1}^r (P_{l_i}-P_1)) \otimes f^*(n) $, for some $n$ in $\operatorname{{Pic}}^0 (C)$. But ${\mathcal L}^{\otimes 2} =
{\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}$ and, since $f^*$ is injective, it follows that $n^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_{C}(\sum_{i=1}^r (Q_1 -
Q_{l_i}))$.
Therefore $${\mathcal L} = {\mathcal F}_{l_1} \otimes \ldots
{\mathcal F}_{l_r} \otimes f^* (m) \, ,$$ where $m = n \otimes
m_{l_1}^{-1} \otimes \ldots \otimes m_{l_r}^{-1} \in J[2]$.
The following result completes the proof.
\[lemma:case2\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[prop:case2\], we have $${\mathcal F}_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathcal F}_{i_k} \in
f^*(J[2]), \text{ with } \, 2 \leq i_1 < \ldots < i_k \leq \omega$$ if and only if $$\{ i_1 , \ldots ,i_k \} = \{ 2, \ldots ,\omega \} \, .$$
Let ${\mathcal D} \in \operatorname{{Pic}}^{\frac{\omega}{2}}(C)$ be as in the proof of Theorem \[prop:case2\] and assume $\{ i_1 , \ldots ,i_k
\} = \{ 2, \ldots ,\omega \}$.
Then $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal F}_2 \otimes \ldots
\otimes {\mathcal F}_{\omega}} &
= {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}(P_2 + \ldots + P_{\omega} -
(\omega - 1)P_1) \otimes f^*(m_2 \otimes \ldots \otimes m_{\omega}) \\
& = f^*({\mathcal D}(-{\frac{\omega}{2}} Q_1)
\otimes m_2 \otimes \ldots m_{\omega}) \, .\end{aligned}$$
But $$({\mathcal D}(-{\frac{\omega}{2}} Q_1) \otimes m_2 \otimes
\ldots m_{\omega})^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_C$$ i.e., $${\mathcal F}_2 \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathcal F}_{\omega}
\in f^*(J[2]) \, .$$
To show the other implication we may assume, without loss of generality, that $\{ i_1, \ldots , i_k \} = \{ 2, 3, \ldots , r
\}$. That is, it suffices to show that if $ {\mathcal F}_2 \otimes
\ldots \otimes {\mathcal F}_r = f^*(n)$, with $n \in J[2]$, then $r = \omega$.
Indeed, $ {\mathcal F}_2 \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathcal F}_r =
f^*(n)$ with $n \in J[2]$, is equivalent to $${\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}(\sum _{i=2}^r P_i-(r-1)P_i) = f^*(n \otimes
m_2^{-1} \otimes \ldots \otimes m_r^{-1}) \, .$$
Now consider the case $r$ even and define $${\mathcal F} = n \otimes m_2^{-1} \otimes \ldots \otimes m_r^{-1} \otimes
{\mathcal O}_C(\frac{r}{2} Q_1) \, .$$
Then ${\mathcal F}^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_C(\sum_{i=1}^r Q_i)$ and $f^*({\mathcal F}) = {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}(\sum_{i=1}^r
P_i) \,$. But this is possible by the definition of ${\mathcal D}$ only if $r = \omega$.
If $r$ were odd, then we would define $${\mathcal F} = n \otimes m_2^{-1} \otimes \ldots \otimes
m_r^{-1} \otimes {\mathcal O}_C(\frac{r-1}{2} Q_1)$$ and have that ${\mathcal F}^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal
O}_C(\sum_{i=2}^r Q_i)$ and that $f^*({\mathcal F}) = {\mathcal
O}_{\widetilde{C}}(\sum_{i=2}^r P_i) \,$, which is impossible since $r < \omega$.
We now give a different set of generators for $P[2]/f^*(J[2])$, which will be useful later on.
\[coro:p2\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[prop:case2\], choose $n_i$ and $s_j$ in $\operatorname{{Pic}}^{0}(C)$ such that $n_i^{\otimes 2}
= {\mathcal O}_C (Q_{2i-1} -Q_{2i})$ and that $s_j^{\otimes 2} =
{\mathcal O}_C (Q_{2j} -Q_{2j+1})$. Also let $${\mathcal L}_i = {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}}
(P_{2i} -P_{2i-1}) \otimes f^*(n_i), \text{ for } 1 \leq i \leq
\omega/2$$ and let $${\mathcal G}_j = {\mathcal O}_{\widetilde{C}} (P_{2j+1}
-P_{2j}) \otimes f^*(s_j), \text{ for } 1 \leq j \leq \omega/2-1$$
respectively.
Then $$P[2] = f^*(J[2]) \displaystyle{\oplus_{i=1}^{\omega/2-1}}
{\mathcal L}_i {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}
\displaystyle{\oplus_{i=1}^{\omega/2-1}} {\mathcal G}_i {\mathbb
Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .$$
Modulo $f^*(J[2])$ we may write $ {\mathcal F}_{2i} = {\mathcal L}_1 \otimes
{\mathcal G}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal G}_{i-1} \otimes {\mathcal L}_i
$ and $ {\mathcal F}_{2i+1} = {\mathcal L}_1 \otimes
{\mathcal G}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal G}_{i-1} \otimes {\mathcal L}_i
\otimes {\mathcal G}_i
$, for $1 \leq i \leq \omega/2-1$.
\[rem:rel\] Note that ${\mathcal L}_1 \otimes {\mathcal L}_2 \otimes \ldots {\mathcal
L}_{\omega/2} = {\mathcal F}_2 \otimes {\mathcal F}_3 \otimes \ldots {\mathcal
F}_{\omega} \in f^*(J[2])$.
Covers of degree three
======================
For degree three covers, the following results appear in [@s3].
\[theo:degree3\] Let $u : Z \to X$ be a non-Galois cover of degree three.
Denote by $g$ the genus of $X$, by $\alpha$ the number of total ramification points and by $\beta$ the number of simple ramification points.
Then there is a curve $W$ admitting the symmetric group on three letters $S_3 = \langle \tau, \sigma : \tau^3 = \sigma^2 = (\tau
\sigma)^2 =1 \rangle$ as group of automorphisms and a commutative diagram of curves and covers as follows $$\xymatrix{
&W\ar[dl]_{\ell}\ar[dd]_{\gamma}\ar[dr]^{\psi}&\\
Z\ar[dr]_{u}&&Y\ar[dl]^{v}\\ &X&} \label{dia:s3}$$ where $Y = W/\langle \tau \rangle$, $Z = W/\langle
\sigma \rangle$ and $X = W/S_3$.
Furthermore, there is an $S_3$-equivariant isogeny $$R : JX \times P(Y/X) \times P(Z/X) \times P(Z/X) \longrightarrow JW
\label{bigiso}$$ given by $R(x,y,z_1,z_2) = \gamma ^* x + \psi ^*y + \ell
^*z_1 + \tau \ell ^*z_2$ where the action of $S_3$ is trivial on the first factor of the left hand side, the alternating action on the second factor, and the unique irreducible complex representation of degree two of $S_3$ on the product of the last two factors.
The cardinality of its kernel is given by $$|\ker R \, | =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g -1} \cdot 3^{6g -3 + \alpha} &\text{if $\beta = 0$} \\
2^{2g} \cdot 3^{6g -3 + \alpha + \beta} &\text{if $\beta \neq 0$} \ .
\end{cases}$$
Observe that there are some natural restrictions on the data. Since $\beta = |B(Y \to X)|$, we must have $\beta \equiv 0 \ (2)$. Also, if $g_X = 0$, then $Y$ and $Z$ connected imply $\beta \geq
2$ and $2\alpha + beta \geq 4$.
The calculation of $ |\ker R \, |$ mentioned above depends upon the following lemma (c.f. [@s3 p. 136]), similar in spirit to the description of the points of order two in a Prym variety for a degree two cover given in Section \[prop:case2\]; we include it here for the sake of completeness.
\[kerl\] Let $W$ denote a curve with an $S_3$ action and associated Diagram (\[dia:s3\]).
Let $$L = \{ z \in P(Z/X)[3] : \ell^* z = \tau \ell^* z \}$$ for $\tau $ an element of order three in $S_3$, and let $\{ P_1
,\ldots , P_{\alpha } \} \subseteq Z$ denote the set of total ramification points of $u : Z \to X$.
Also, if $\alpha$ is greater than or equal to two, for each $j$ in $\{ 2, \ldots , \alpha\}$ choose ${\mathfrak m}_j \in
\operatorname{{Pic}}^{\circ}(X)$ such that ${\mathfrak m}_j ^{\otimes 3} =
{\mathcal O}_X (u(P_1) - u(P_j))$ and consider the element of $L$ given by $${\mathfrak F}_j = {\mathcal O}_Z (P_j - P_1) \otimes
u^*({\mathfrak m}_j) \, .$$
Then $u^{*} : JX \to JZ$ is injective and
1. $u^*(JX[3]) \subseteq L$;
2. for $\alpha$ equal to zero or one, $u^*(JX[3]) = L$. Thus in this case $L$ is isomorphic to $JX[3]$;
3. for $\alpha$ greater than one, $L = u^*(JX[3]) \bigoplus_{j=2}^{\alpha} {\mathfrak F}_j \, {\mathbb
Z}/3{\mathbb Z}$.
One cand find in [@ri] the particular instance of Theorem \[theo:degree3\] corresponding to the case $v : Y \to
X = {\mathbb P}^1$ is a hyperelliptic cover and $\psi : W \to Y$ is a cyclic unramified cover of odd prime degree (in our notation, this is equivalent to $\alpha = 0$ and $X = {\mathbb P}^1$).
There he obtains an $S_3-$equivariant isomorphism $$JZ \times JZ \to P(W/Y)$$
>From our point of view, this situation is part of the more general $S_3-$equivariant isogeny $P(Z/X) \times P(Z/X) \to P(W/Y)$ described in [@s3]; together with the result that the group $L$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the isogeny $$r : P(Z/X) \times P(Z/X) \to P(W/Y)$$ given by $$r(z_1 , z_2) = \ell^{*} z_1 + \tau \ell^{*} z_2$$ where $\tau$ is any element of order three in $S_3$, also in [@s3], and under the above assumptions, we also obtain that the isogeny $r$ is an isomorphism in this case.
In [@recillas:jeg94] one can find the case when $u : Z \to X =
{\mathbb P}^1$ is a simple trigonal cover (in our notation, this is equivalent to $\beta = 0$ and $X = {\mathbb P}^1$).
There, an $S_3-$equivariant isogeny is obtained $$JY \times JZ \times JZ \to JW \, ,$$ and statement ii) of the lemma is shown for the case $\alpha = 0$ (and $X = {\mathbb P}^1$).
Covers of degree four
=====================
In this section we study covers $f : X \to T$ of degree four.
There are five possibilities for $f$: if it is a Galois cover, then it may be either cyclic or given by the action of the Klein group on $X$; if $f$ is non Galois, then its corresponding Galois cover may be given either by the action of the dihedral group of order eight or by the alternating group on four letters or by the symmetric group on four letters.
We will see that the first three cases give the bigonal construction as a particular instance, whereas the last two imply the trigonal construction.
For each possibility of the Galois cover $W \to T$ with Galois group $G$, associated to $f : X \to T$, we will give a geometric decomposition of $JW$. Such decomposition is a $G-$equivariant isogeny between $JW$ and a product of appropriate Jacobians and Pryms of intermediate covers.
Moreover, each of the complex irreducible representations of $G$ corresponds to the action of $G$ on precisely one of the factors in the product.
We will also compute the kernel of each isogeny.
The cyclic case
---------------
If $X$ is a curve such that $${\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z} = \langle g: g^4 = 1 \rangle \subseteq \operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$$ then $T$ will denote the quotient $X/\langle g \rangle$ and $F$ will denote the quotient $X/ \langle g^2 \rangle$; the corresponding maps will be denoted by $a : X \to F$ and $b : F
\to T$.
We then have the following diagram of curves and covers. $$\xymatrix{
X \ar[d]_{a} \\
F \ar[d]_{b} \\
T
}
\label{cyclic}$$
Let $X$ be a curve such that ${\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z} = \langle
g : g^4 = 1 \rangle \subseteq \operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$ with associated Diagram (\[cyclic\]).
Denote by $\delta $ the number of fixed points of $g$ in $X$ (i.e., the number of total ramification points of the cover $X \to
T$), and by $\gamma $ the number of fixed points of $g^2$ in $X$ not fixed by $g$.
Then:
1. $g_F = 2g_T -1 + \frac{\delta}{2}$ and $g_X = 2g_F-1+\frac{\gamma + \delta}{2} = 4g_T-3+\frac{\gamma +
3\delta}{2}$.
Furthermore, the cardinality of the ramification locus is: $\delta
+ \gamma$, for $a : X \to F$, and $\delta$, for $b : F \to T$.
In particular, the signature type of $T$ is $(g_T ; \overbrace{2,
\ldots ,2}^{\gamma/2} , \overbrace{4, \ldots ,4}^{\delta})$.
2. There is a ${\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}-$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{{\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}} : JT \times P(F/T)
\times P(X/F) \to JW$$ defined by $$\phi_{{\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}} (t, f, x) = a^*(b^*(t)) + a^*(f) + x$$ where the action of ${\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}$ is: the trivial action on $JT$, the action given by the representation $g \to -1$ on $P(F/T)$, and, on $P(X/F)$, the sum of the other two irreducible representations of ${\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}$ given by $g \to I = \sqrt{-1}$ and $g \to -I$, respectively.
3. The cardinality of the kernel of $\phi_{{\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}}$ is given by $$\bigl| \ker
\phi_{{\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}} \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
2^{6g_T-2 + \delta} , &\text{if $\delta > 0$;} \\
2^{6g_T-3 } , &\text{if $\delta = 0$ and
$\gamma > 0$;} \\
2^{6g_T-4 }, &\text{if $\delta = \gamma = 0$.}
\end{cases}$$
Before proving the theorem, we state an elementary remark which will be useful in the sequel.
Let us observe that i) of the theorem imposes the conditions $$\gamma \equiv \delta \equiv 0 \ (2) \, .$$
Moreover, if $g_T = 0$ we must have $\delta \geq 2$ in order that the corresponding covers be connected.
For the first statement, the cardinality of the ramification loci is clear, thus the formulae for the genera follow from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula.
For the second and third statements, note that by Proposition \[prop1\] and Remark \[rem:lange\] we have that if $\delta > 0$, all induced homomorphisms between Jacobians are injective, that if $\delta = 0$ and $\gamma > 0$, then $a^*$ is injective and $|\ker (b \circ a)^*| = |\ker b^*| = 2$, finally that if $\delta = \gamma = 0$, then $|\ker a^*| = |\ker b^*| = 2$, and then apply Proposition \[prop:comp\].
The Klein case
--------------
Let $X$ be a curve such that the Klein group $${\mathcal K} =
\langle \sigma , \tau : \sigma^2 = 1, \tau^2 = 1, (\sigma \tau)^2
= 1 \rangle$$ is contained in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$.
We let $T$ denote the quotient $ X/{\mathcal K}$ and, for $k \in
{\mathcal K} $, $k \neq 1$, we will let $X_{k}$ denote the quotient $X/ \langle k \rangle$; the corresponding quotient maps will be denoted by $a_k : X \to X_k$, $b_k : X_k \to T $, and $f : X \to T$.
$$\xymatrix{
& X \ar[dl]_{a_{\sigma}} \ar[d]^{a_{\tau}} \ar[dr]^{a_{\sigma \tau}} \\
X_{\sigma} \ar[dr]_{b_{\sigma}} & X_{\tau} \ar[d]_{b_{\tau}}
& X_{\sigma \tau} \ar[dl]^{b_{\sigma \tau}} \\
& T
}
\label{klein}$$
\[T:klein\] Let $X$ be a curve such that ${\mathcal K} \subseteq \operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$ with associated Diagram (\[klein\]).
We also let $2r$ (resp. $2s$, $2t$) denote the number of fixed points in $X$ of $\sigma \tau$ (resp. $\sigma$, $\tau$) (or equivalently, the cardinality of the ramification locus of $a_{\sigma \tau}$, $a_{\sigma }$, $a_{\tau }$, respectively).
Then:
1. If $g$ denotes the genus of $T$, the genera of the intermediate covers and the cardinality of the corresponding ramification loci are given in the following table; in particular, the signature type of $T$ is $(g ; \overbrace{2, \ldots ,2}^{s} , \overbrace{2,
\ldots ,2}^{t} , \overbrace{2, \ldots ,2}^{r})$.
2. For $j,k,l \in \{ \sigma , \tau , \sigma \tau \}$ all different, there are respective isogenies $$\phi_{j} : P(X_{k}/T) \times P(X_{l}/T) \to P(X/X_{j})$$ defined by $$\phi_{j} (x_1, x_2) = a_{k}^*(x_1) + a_{l}^*(x_2) \, .$$
Furthermore, $\ker \phi_{j} \subseteq P(X_{k}/T)[2] \times
P(X_{l}/T)[2]$ and its cardinality is given as follows, where $B_j = |B(X \to X_{j})|$.
$$|\ker \phi_{j}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-2}, &\text{if $B_j = B_k = B_l = 0$;} \\
2^{2g_T-1}, &\text{if $B_j = 0$ and exactly
one of $B_k , B_l$ is zero;} \\
2^{2g_T}, &\text{if $B_j = 0$ and $ B_k B_l > 0$;} \\
2^{2g_T-1+B_j/2}, &\text{if $B_j > 0$.}
\end{cases}$$
3. There is an isogeny $$\varphi : P(X_{\sigma \tau}/T) \times P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times
P(X_{\tau}/T) \to P(X/T)$$ defined by $$\varphi (x_1, x_2, x_3) = a_{\sigma \tau}^*(x_1) +
a_{\sigma}^*(x_2) + a_{\tau}^*(x_3) \, .$$
Moreover, $\ker \varphi \subseteq P(X_{\sigma \tau}/T)[2] \times
P(X_{\sigma}/T)[2] \times P(X_{\tau}/T)[2] $ and its cardinality is given by
$$|\ker \varphi | =
\begin{cases}
2^{4g_T-4}, &\text{if all covers are unramified;} \\
2^{4g_T-3+r+s+t}, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
4. There is a ${\mathcal K}-$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{\mathcal K} : JT \times P(X_{\sigma \tau}/T) \times
P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times P(X_{\tau}/T) \to JX$$ defined by $$\phi_{\mathcal K} (t, x_1, x_2, x_3) = f^*(t) +
a_{\sigma \tau}^*(x_1) + a_{\sigma}^*(x_2) + a_{\tau}^*(x_3)$$ where the action of ${\mathcal K}$ is: the trivial one on $JT$, the action of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal K}$ given by $\sigma \to -1$ and $\tau \to -1$ on $P(X_{\sigma
\tau}/T)$, the action of the irreducible representation of $G$ given by $\sigma \to 1$ and $\tau \to -1$ on $ P(X_{\sigma}/T)$, and, on $P(X_{\tau}/T)$, the action of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal K}$ given by $\sigma \to -1$ and $\tau \to 1$.
The cardinality of the kernel of $\phi_{\mathcal K}$ is given by $$|\ker \phi_{\mathcal K}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{8g_T-6}, &\text{if all covers are unramified;} \\
2^{8g_T-4+r+s+t}, &\text{if exactly two of $r,s,t$ are equal to zero;} \\
2^{8g_T-3+r+s+t}, &\text{if exactly one or if none of $r,s,t$} \\
& \text{is equal to zero.}
\end{cases}$$
The restrictions on the data in this case are $$r \equiv s \equiv t \equiv 0 \ (2)$$ and if $g_T = 0$ then $r+s$, $r+t$ and $s+t \geq 2$.
For any involution $k \in {\mathcal K}$, denote $P_k = P(X_k/T)$.
Note that $f^*(t) \in JX^{{\mathcal K}}$, for any $t \in JT$, and that if $k$ is any involution in ${\mathcal K}$, then $a_k^*(x)
\in JX^{\langle k \rangle}$, for any $x \in JX_k$.
Moreover if $h$ is any of the other two involutions in ${\mathcal
K}$, then $h$ induces the involution $\tilde{h}$ on $X_k$ which gives the cover $b_k : X_k \to T$. By Corollary \[coro:norm\] we have that $P_k$ is the connected component of the identity of $\ker (1 + \tilde{h})$. Therefore $h(a_k^*(x)) =
a_k^*(\tilde{h}(x)) = -a_k^*(x)$, for every $x \in P_k$. This remark proves that the homomorphism $\phi_{\mathcal K}$ is ${\mathcal K}-$equivariant.
Consider the following homomorphisms $$\operatorname{{ps}}= \operatorname{{ps}}_{\sigma \tau} : P_{\sigma \tau} \times
P(X/X_{\sigma \tau}) \to P(X/T) \ , \, \operatorname{{ps}}(y, x) = a_{\sigma \tau}^*(y) + x$$ and $$\phi : JT \times P(X/T) \to JX \ , \, \phi (t, x) = f^*(t) + x
\, .$$
By Propositions \[prop:comp\] and \[prop1\] we have that $\operatorname{{ps}}$ and $\phi$ are isogenies with kernels of cardinalities $$|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}| = |P_{\sigma \tau }[2]|
\dfrac{| b_{\sigma \tau }^* JT \cap \ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|}
{|\ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|}$$ and $$|\ker \phi \ | = \dfrac{|JT[4]|}{|\ker f^*|} =
\dfrac{4^{2g_T}}{|\ker f^*|}$$ respectively.
By Remark \[rem:lange\] we have $$|\ker f^*| = \begin{cases}
4, &\text{if all covers are unramified;} \\
2, &\text{if exactly two of $r,s,t$ are equal to zero;} \\
1, &\text{if exactly one or if none of $r,s,t$ is equal to zero.}
\end{cases}$$
Now the homomorphism $\varphi$ may be factored as $\varphi = \operatorname{{ps}}\circ \left( \operatorname{{id}}_{ P_{\sigma \tau}}, \phi_{\sigma \tau} \right)$, and the homomorphism $\phi_{\mathcal K}$ as $\phi_{\mathcal K} =
\phi \circ \left( \operatorname{{id}}_{JT}, \varphi \right)$.
Hence if we show that $ \phi_{\sigma \tau} $ is an isogeny, it will follow that $\varphi$ and $\phi_{\mathcal K}$ are isogenies.
Assuming this, it also follows that $$|\ker \varphi | = |\ker \operatorname{{ps}}| \cdot |\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau}|
= |\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau}| |P_{\sigma \tau }[2]|
\dfrac{| b_{\sigma \tau }^* JT \cap \ker a_{\sigma \tau}^*|}{|\ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|}$$ and that $$|\ker \phi_{\mathcal K}| = |\ker \phi | \cdot |\ker \varphi | =
\dfrac{4^{2g_T}}{|\ker f^*|} |\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau}|
|P_{\sigma \tau}[2]| \dfrac{| b_{\sigma \tau }^* JT \cap \ker a_{\sigma \tau}^*|}
{|\ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|} \ .$$
To complete the proof we therefore have to show that the homomorphism $ \phi_{\sigma \tau} : P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times
P(X_{\tau}/T) \to JX$ is an isogeny onto $P(X/X_{\sigma \tau})$ and compute $|\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau} |$, $|P_{\sigma \tau }[2]|$ and $ \dfrac{| b_{\sigma \tau }^* JT \cap \ker a_{\sigma \tau
}^*|}{|\ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|}$.
To show that $\phi_{\sigma \tau} (P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times
P(X_{\tau}/T))$ is contained in $P(X/X_{\sigma \tau})$ it suffices to prove that $(1 + a_{\sigma \tau}) (\phi_{\sigma \tau}(x_1 ,
x_2)) = 0$ for all $(x_1 , x_2)$ in $P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times
P(X_{\tau}/T)$, since $P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times P(X_{\tau}/T)$ is connected and since $P(X/X_{\sigma \tau}) = (\ker (1 + a_{\sigma
\tau}))^{\circ}$ by Corollary \[coro:norm\].
But it follows from the remark at the beginning of the proof of this theorem that $$(1 + a_{\sigma \tau})(\phi_{\sigma \tau}(x_1 , x_2)) =
(1 + a_{\sigma \tau})(a_{\sigma}^*(x_1) + a_{\tau}^*(x_2))= 0 \, .$$
Hence we have proven that $\phi_{\sigma \tau}$ is a homomorphism from $P(X_{\sigma}/T) \times P(X_{\tau}/T)$ to $P(X/X_{\sigma
\tau})$. But these two varieties have the same dimension by i); therefore to show that $\phi_{\sigma \tau}$ is an isogeny, it suffices to show that its kernel is finite, which is what we prove next.
The fact that if $(y,x) \in \ker \operatorname{{ps}}$, then $y \in P_{\sigma
\tau}[2]$ follows from the proof of Proposition \[prop:comp\].
It follows that if $(x_1 , x_2 , x_3) \in \ker \varphi $, then we have $x_1 \in P_{\sigma \tau}[2]$ by the factorization for $\varphi$ given above. By symmetry we obtain the inclusion $$\label{eq:cont} \ker \varphi \subseteq P_{\sigma \tau}[2] \times
P_{\sigma}[2] \times P_{\tau}[2] \ .$$
Hence we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\ker (\phi_{\sigma \tau}) &= \{ (x_1 , x_2 ) \in
P_{\sigma}[2] \times P_{\tau}[2] : a_{\sigma}^* (x_1) = a_{\tau}^*
(x_2) \} \\ & = (a_{\sigma}^* , a_{\tau}^*)^{-1} \{ (x, x) : x
\in a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) \}
\, \,\end{aligned}$$ which says it is finite, since $$\bigl| \ker (\phi_{\sigma \tau} ) \bigl| =
\deg a_{\sigma}^*\bigl|_{P_{\sigma}} \cdot
\deg a_{\tau}^*\bigl|_{P_{\tau}} \cdot \bigl|
a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) \bigl| \,
\, .$$
The numbers appearing on the right side of the last equality and also the number $\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_{\sigma \tau} =|P_{\sigma \tau }[2]|
\dfrac{| b_{\sigma \tau }^* JT \cap \ker a_{\sigma \tau
}^*|}{|\ker a_{\sigma \tau }^*|}$ are computed in the Appendix, thus the proof is now complete.
\[rem:orient\] Given a double cover of a double cover $X \to Y
\to T$ which corresponds to a Galois four-fold cover, we have seen that in both possible cases - a cyclic cover or a Klein group action cover - there is another such object $X' \to Y' \to T$ (a double cover of a double cover of $T$) which is naturally associated to the original one: the same one for the cyclic case and any of the other two in Diagram (\[klein\]) for the Klein case.
In other words, the cyclic and the Klein constructions together give the bigonal construction (see [@d]) for the orientable cover case.
In another section (see \[subsec:big\]) we will complete the bigonal construction to include the non-orientable case.
The dihedral case
=================
Let $W$ be a curve such that the dihedral group of order eight ${\mathcal D}_4 = \langle r , s : r^4 = 1, s^2 = 1, (r s)^2 = 1
\rangle$ is contained in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(W)$.
We let $T$ denote the quotient $W/{\mathcal D}_4$, and for $d \in
{\mathcal D}_4$, $d \neq 1$, we will let $W_{d}$ denote the quotient $W/ \langle d \rangle$.
Let $K_s$ (resp. $K_{rs}$) denote the Klein subgroup of ${\mathcal
D}_4$ generated by $r^2$ and $s$ (resp. $r^2$ and $rs$), and let $W_{K_s}$ (resp. $W_{K_{rs}}$) denote the quotient $W/K_s$ (resp. $W/K_{rs}$).
The corresponding quotient maps will be denoted by: $\gamma : W
\to T \,$; for $n \in \{ s, r^2 s, r^2 , rs, r^3 s \}$, $a_n : W
\to W_n \,$; for $n \in \{ s, r^2 s, r^2 \}$, $b_{n} : W_n \to
W_{K_s}$; for $n \in \{ r s, r^3 s, r^2 \}$, $c_{n} : W_n \to
W_{K_{rs}}$; for $n \in \{ K_s , K_{r s}, r^2 \}$, $d_{n} : W_n
\to T$; and $e : W_{r^2} \to W_r$.
Then we have the following diagram of curves and covers.
$$\xymatrix{
& & W\ar[dl] \ar[d]_{a_{r^2}} \ar[dr] \ar[dll]_{a_{r^2s}} \ar[drr]^{a_{r^3s}} & & \\
W_{r^2s} \ar[dr] & W_s \ar[d]_{b_s} & W_{r^2} \ar[dr] \ar[dl] \ar[d]_e &
W_{rs} \ar[d]^{c_{rs}} & W_{r^3s}\ar[dl] \\
&W_{K_s} \ar[dr]_{d_{K_s}} & W_r \ar[d] & W_{K_{rs}}\ar[dl] \\
& & T
}
\label{dihedral}$$
\[T:dih\] Let $W$ be a curve such that ${\mathcal D}_4 \subseteq
\operatorname{{Aut}}(W)$ with associated Diagram (\[dihedral\]).
We let $2\delta$, $2\alpha$, $2\gamma_1$, $4\gamma_2$ denote the number of fixed points in $W$ of $r$, $s$ (or $r^2 s$), $rs$ (or $r^3s$), $r^2$ not fixed by $r$, respectively.
Then:
1. If $g$ denotes the genus of $T$, the genera of the intermediate covers and the cardinality of the corresponding ramification loci are given in the following table.
In particular, the signature type of $T$ is $$(g ; \overbrace{4, \ldots ,4}^{\delta} , \overbrace{2, \ldots
,2}^{\alpha} , \overbrace{2, \ldots ,2}^{\gamma_1}, \overbrace{2,
\ldots ,2}^{\gamma_2}) \ .$$
2. There is a ${\mathcal D}_4-$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{{\mathcal D}_4} : JT \times P(W_r/T) \times P(W_{K_s}/T)
\times P(W_{K_{rs}}/T) \times 2P(W_s/W_{K_s}) \to JW$$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_{{\mathcal D}_4} (t, w_1 , w_2 , w_3 , y_1 , y_2) )
= \gamma^* (t) + (e \circ a_{r^2})^*(w_1) \\
+ (b_{s} \circ \, a_s)^*(w_2) + (c_{rs} \circ \, a_{rs})^*(w_3)
+ a_s^*(y_1) + r a_{s}^*(y_2)
\end{gathered}$$ where the action of ${\mathcal D}_4$ is: the trivial one on $JT$, the action of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal D}_4$ given by $r \to 1$ and $s \to -1$ on $ P(W_r/T) $, the action of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal D}_4$ given by $r \to
-1$ and $s \to 1$ on $ P(W_{K_s}/T) $, the action of the irreducible representation of ${\mathcal D}_4$ given by $r \to -1$ and $s \to -1$ on $ P(W_{K_{rs}}/T) $, and, on $2P(W_s/W_{K_s})$, the action of the unique irreducible representation of degree two of ${\mathcal D}_4$.
The kernel of $\phi_{{\mathcal D}_4}$ has cardinality as follows.
3. There is a natural isogeny (the bigonal construction) $$\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs} \circ {a_s^*}_{|_{P(W_{s}/W_{K_{s}})}} : P(W_s/W_{K_s}) \to
P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}})\, .$$
If we denote by $G$ the Klein subgroup of $JW_{K_{rs}}[2]$ giving the covers $c_n : W_n \to W_{K_{rs}}$ for $n \in \{ r s, r^3 s,
r^2 \}$ for the case $\delta = \gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = 0$, then the kernel of the isogeny has cardinality given as follows.
The conditions on the data in this case are the following.
$$\gamma_1 + \delta , \, \alpha + \delta, \, \alpha + \gamma_1 \equiv
0 \ (2) \, .$$
Moreover, if $g = g_T = 0$ then $\gamma_1 + \delta$, $\alpha +
\delta$ and $\alpha + \gamma_1 \geq 2$.
Consider the following two subdiagrams of (\[dihedral\]): $$\label{dia:fakeklein}
\xymatrix{
& W_{r^2} \ar[dl]_{b_{r^2}} \ar[d]_{e}
\ar[dr]^{c_{r^2}}
\\
W_{K_s} \ar[dr]_{d_{K_s}} & W_r \ar[d]_{d_r}
& W_{K_{rs}} \ar[dl]^{d_{K_{rs}}}
\\
& T
} \ \
\ \
\xymatrix{
& & W \ar[dll]_{a_{r^2 s}} \ar[dl]^{a_{s}} \ar[d]^{a_{r^2}}
\\
W_{r^2 s} \ar[dr]_{b_{r^2 s}} & W_{s} \ar[d]^{b_{s}} & W_{r^2}
\ar[dl]^{b_{r^2}}
\\
& W_{K_s}
}$$
They correspond to actions of the Klein group, thus we can apply Theorem \[T:klein\] to obtain isogenies $$\phi_{\mathcal K} :
JT \times P(W_{r}/T) \times P(W_{K_s}/T) \times P(W_{K_{rs}}/T) \to
JW_{r^2}$$ and $$\phi_{r^2} : P(W_s/W_{K_s}) \times P(W_{r^2 s}/W_{K_s}) \to
P(W/W_{r^2})$$ defined by $$\phi_{\mathcal K} (t , w_1 , w_2 , w_3) =
(d_{r} \circ e)^*(t) + e^{*}(w_1)
+ b_{r^2}^{*}(w_2) + c_{r^2}^{*}(w_3)$$ and $$\phi_{r^2} (z_1 , z_2) = a_s^*(z_1) +
a_{r^2 s}^*(z_2)$$ respectively.
Furthermore, we have that the cardinality of their kernels is given by $$\label{eq:dk} |\ker \phi_{\mathcal K}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{8g_{T}-6}, &\text{if $\alpha = \delta = \gamma_1 = 0$ ;} \\
2^{8g_T-4+\alpha+\delta+\gamma_1}, &\text{if exactly two of $\alpha , \delta ,
\gamma_1$ are zero;} \\
2^{8g_T-3+\alpha+\delta+\gamma_1}, &\text{if exactly one or none of $\alpha ,
\delta , \gamma_1$ is zero;}
\end{cases}$$ and $$|\ker \phi_{r^2}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{16g_T-14+4\gamma_1} \, , &\text{if $\alpha = \delta =
\gamma_2 = 0$ ;} \\
2^{16g_T-12+4\gamma_1+2\gamma_2+5\delta} \, , &\text{if }\alpha = 0
\text{ and } \gamma_2 + \delta >0 \\
2^{16g_T-11+ 2\alpha + 4 \gamma_1 + 2 \gamma_2 + 5 \delta} \, ,
&\text{ if } \alpha >0.
\end{cases}$$
Now since $r \, (r^2 s) = s \, r$, the automorphism $r : JW \to
JW$ (induced by $r : W \to W$) induces an isomorphism $\tilde{r} :
JW_s \to JW_{r^2 s}$, therefore $$r_{|_{a_s^*(P(W_s/W_{K_s}))}} : a_s^*(P(W_s/W_{K_s}))
\to a_{r^2s}^*(P(W_{r^2s}/W_{K_s}))$$ is an isomorphism.
In particular, it follows that $a_{r^2 s}^*(\tilde{r} (y)) = r
a_s^*(y)$, for any $y \in P(W_s/W_{K_s})$. By composing with $\phi_{r^2}$ we obtain an isogeny $$g : 2P(W_s/W_{K_s}) \to P(W/W_{r^2})$$ defined by $$g(y_1, y_2) = a_s^*(y_1) + r a_{s}^*(y_2)$$ whose kernel has cardinality given by $$\label{eq:dg} |\ker g \, | =
\begin{cases}
2^{16g_T-14+4\gamma_1} \, , &\text{if $\alpha = \delta =
\gamma_2 = 0$ ;} \\
2^{16g_T-12+4\gamma_1+2\gamma_2+5\delta} \, , &\text{if }\alpha = 0
\text{ and } \gamma_2 + \delta >0 \\
2^{16g_T-11+ 2\alpha + 4 \gamma_1 + 2 \gamma_2 + 5 \delta} \, ,
&\text{ if } \alpha >0.
\end{cases}$$
By Proposition \[prop1\] we also have an isogeny $$\phi : JW_{r^2} \times P(W_{r^2}/T) \to JW$$ given by $$\phi(y,x) = a_{r^2}^*(y) + x$$ whose kernel has cardinality $$\bigl| \ker \phi \bigl| = \dfrac{\bigl| JW_{r^2}[2] \bigl|}{\bigl|
\ker a_{r^2}^* \bigl|} = \dfrac{2^{8g_T -6 +\delta + \alpha_1 +
2\gamma_1}}{\bigl| \ker a_{r^2}^* \bigl|}.$$
By Remark \[rem:lange\] we know that $\bigl| \ker a_{r^2}^*
\bigl| = 2$, if $\delta = \gamma_2 = 0$, and that $\bigl| \ker
a_{r^2}^* \bigl| = 1$, otherwise.
Therefore $$\label{eq:dnat} \bigl| \ker \phi \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
2^{8g_T -7 + \alpha + 2\gamma_1}, &\text{if $\delta = \gamma_2 = 0$;} \\
2^{8g_T -6 +\delta + \alpha + 2\gamma_1}, &\text{ if } \delta +
\gamma_2 > 0.
\end{cases}$$
Now note that $$\phi_{{\mathcal D}_4} = \phi \circ (\phi_{\mathcal K} , g)$$ and it follows that $\phi_{{\mathcal D}_4}$ is an isogeny whose kernel has cardinality $$\bigl| \ker \phi_{{\mathcal D}_4} \bigl| = \bigl| \ker
\phi \bigl| \cdot \bigl| \ker \phi_{\mathcal K} \bigl|
\cdot \bigl| \ker g \bigl| \, .$$
Combining this equality with (\[eq:dnat\]), (\[eq:dk\]), and (\[eq:dg\]) we obtain (\[eq:d4\] ii).
Concerning the equivariance, note that the action of the irreducible representation of order two of ${\mathcal D}_4$ is given by $r(x,y) = (-y,x)$ and $s(x,y) = (x, -y)$.
For statement iii), we first prove that $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs}(a_s^*(P(W_s/W_{K_s})))$ is contained in $P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}})$; then we show that $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs} \circ a_s^*$ restricted to $P(W_s/W_{K_s})$ is an isogeny and finally we compute the cardinality of its kernel.
Let us denote by $$h = (\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs} \circ a_s^{*})|_{P(W_s/W_{K_s})}$$ the restriction of $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs} \circ a_s^*$ to $P(W_s/W_{K_s})$.
Given $x \in P(W_s/W_{K_s})$ we know from the Klein case that $a_s^*(x)$ is in $P(W/W_{r^2})$ and hence $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{r^2}(a_s^*(x))
=0$.
Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{{Nm}}c_{rs}(h(x)) = (\operatorname{{Nm}}c_{rs} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs})(a_s^*(x))) \\
= (\operatorname{{Nm}}c_{r^2} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}a_{r^2})(a_s^*(x))) = 0
\end{gathered}$$ and it follows that $h(P(W_s/W_{K_s})) \subseteq
P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}})$.
To show that $h$ is an isogeny, denote by $$A = a_s^{*}(P(W_s/W_{K_s}))$$ and by $$B = a_{rs}^{*}(P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}}))$$
Then, by Corollary \[coro:norm\] iii), we know that $$A = \{ z \in JW^{\langle s \rangle} : z + r^2 s z = 0 \}^{\circ}$$ and that $$B = \{ w \in JW^{\langle r s \rangle} : w + r^2 w = 0
\}^{\circ} \, .$$
Moreover, the endomorphisms of $JW$ given by $1 + r s $ and $1 +
s$ induce morphisms which fit in the following commutative diagram.
and a short computation shows that $(1 + s) \circ (1 + r s) = 2_A$ and $(1 + rs) \circ (1 + s) = 2_B$, respectively. Therefore $h$ is an isogeny.
We now compute the cardinality of the kernel $K$ of $h$ through the next steps.
1. Since $$| \ker \left( (1+rs) \circ a_s^{*}\right)_{|_{P(W_s/W_{K_s})}}
| = | \ker (a_{rs}^{*} \circ h) | \, ,$$ we have that
$$\label{eq:kercard}
|K| = \frac{ |\ker \left( (1+rs) \circ a_s^{*}
\right)_{|_{P(W_s/W_{K_s})}} |}{| \ker
({a_{rs}^{*}}_{|_{P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}})}}) |}$$
Now from the rightmost diagram in (\[dia:fakeklein\]) we compute
if $G$ denotes the Klein subgroup of $JW_{K_{rs}}[2]$ giving the covers in the diagram for the case when they are all unramified.
2. Since $a_s^{*}$ and $a_{rs}^{*}$ are isogenies and since $(1 + s)
\circ (1 + r s) = 2_A$ it follows that $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{s} \circ
a_{rs}^* \circ h = 2_{P(W_s/W_{K_s})}$, so $\ker h \subseteq
P((W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$.
The same holds for $$\Gamma = \ker ((1+r)\circ a_s^{*}|_{P(W_s/W_{K_s}}) \subseteq P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$$
In fact, we see immediately that $$\Gamma = \{ x \in P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2] : a_s^{*}(x) \text{ is }
D_4-\text{invariant} \}$$
3. We compute the cardinality of $\Gamma$ by decomposing it into two parts: one coming from $JW_{W_{K_s}}$ and one coming from the ramification of $b_s : W_s \to W_{K_s}$.
Therefore we define $$\label{eq:ga1}
\Gamma_1 = b_s^{*}(JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}) \cap P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$$ where $\sigma : W_{K_s} \to W_{K_s}$ denotes the involution induced by $rs$ and we will show that $$\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \oplus \text{ part coming from the ramification of } b_s^{*}$$
In particular, if $b_s$ is unramified then it is clear that $\Gamma = \Gamma_1$.
4. To compute $\Gamma_1$ we first apply Corollary \[coro:double\] to the cover $d_{K_s} : W_{K_s} \to T$ to obtain $$JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle} = {d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT) +
P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:j2}
JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2] = ({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2] +
P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]$$
But we also know (see [@mumprym] and Section \[section:deg2\]) that $$P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \subsetneq ({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2] \text{
if } d_{K_s} \text{ is unramified}$$ and $$({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2] = {d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT[2]) \subseteq P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]
\text{ if } d_{K_s} \text{ is ramified}$$
Combining this information with (\[eq:j2\]) we obtain
$$\label{table:jac}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
& & \\
$JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2]$
& $\bigl| JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2] \bigl|$ & \text{Case} \\
& & \\ \hline
& & \\
$({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2]$ & $2^{2g_T}$ & $\delta = \gamma_1 = 0$ \\
& & \\ \hline
& & \\
$P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]$ & $2^{2g_T-2+\delta+\gamma_1}$ & $\delta + \gamma_1 > 0$ \\
& & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
On the other hand we can now prove the following.
\[claim:bs\] The following is always true. $${JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle} \cap \ker b_s^{*} = \{ 0 \}$$ In particular, $$P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \cap \ker b_s^{*} = \{ 0 \} \, .$$
Proof of the claim: if $b_s : W_s \to W_{K_s}$ is ramified, then $b_s^{*} : JW_{K_s} \to JW_s$ is injective, by Proposition \[prop:lange\] and the claim follows.
If $b_s : W_s \to W_{K_s}$ is unramified then all maps on the rightmost diagram of (\[dia:fakeklein\]) are unramified.
Let $\ker {b_{s}}^{*} = \{ 0, \eta_{b_{s}} \} \subseteq
JW_{K_s}[2]$ the element defining the cover $b_s$. Also, let $\sigma : W_{K_s} \to W_{K_s}$ denote the involution induced by $rs : W \to W$.
>From the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
W \ar[r]^{rs} \ar[d]_{{a_{r^2s}}} & W \ar[d]_{{a_{s}}} \\
W_{r^2s} \ar[d]_{{b_{r^2 s}}} & W_s \ar[d]_{{b_{s}}} \\
W_{K_s} \ar[r]_{\sigma} & W_{K_s}
}$$ we see that $\sigma^{*}(\eta_{b_{s}})$ defines the cover $b_{r^2 s} : W_{r^2 s} \to W_{K_s}$ and, in particular, $\sigma^{*}(\eta_{b_{s}}) \neq \eta_{b_{s}}$; i.e., $\eta_{b_{s}}
\notin JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}$, and the first part of the claim follows in this case.
The last part follows from (\[eq:j2\]), since it shows that $P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \subseteq {JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}$.
We now continue the proof of the Theorem.
The claim just proved shows that $b_s^{*}({JW_{K_s}}^{\langle
\sigma \rangle})$ is isomorphic to ${JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma
\rangle}$.
5. Computation of $\Gamma_1$, for the case $b_s$ ramified: i.e., $\alpha + 2 \gamma_2 + \delta > 0$.
In this case it follows from [@mumprym] and Section \[section:deg2\] that $b_s^{*}$ injects $JW_{K_s}[2]$ into $P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$ and from Claim \[claim:bs\] that $$b_s^{*}({JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle})[2] =
b_s^{*}({JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2]) \subseteq
P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$$
Therefore $$\Gamma_1 = b_s^{*}({JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2]) \cong
{JW_{K_s}}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2]$$ and from (\[table:jac\]) we obtain the following.
$$\label{table:jac2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
& & \\
$\Gamma_1$ & $\bigl| \Gamma_1 \bigl|$ & \text{Case} \\
& & \\ \hline
& & \\
$b_s^{*}\left( ({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2] \right)$ & $2^{2g_T}$ & $\delta = \gamma_1 = 0$ and \\
& & $\alpha + 2\gamma_2 >0$ \\
& & \\ \hline
& & \\
$b_s^{*}\left( P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \right)$&$2^{2g_T-2+\delta+\gamma_1}$&$\delta + \gamma_1 > 0$ and \\
& & $\alpha + 2\gamma_2 + \delta >0$ \\
& & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
6. Computation of $\Gamma_1$, for the case $b_s$ unramified: i.e., $\alpha = \gamma_2 = \delta = 0$.
Note that in this case $$\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \, .$$
It follows from [@mumprym] and Section \[section:deg2\] that if $\ker b_s^{*} = \{ 0, \eta_{b_s} \} \subseteq JW_{K_s}[2]$ then $$\{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}/\{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\} \cong
b_s^{*}(\{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}) = P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$$
Let us consider the map $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{{ps}}: P(W_{K_s}/T) \times P(W_s/W_{K_s}) & \to P(W_s/T) \\
(x,y) & \to b_s^{*}(x) + y
\end{aligned}$$ whose kernel has order $\dfrac{1}{2} |P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]|$, from Proposition \[prop:comp\].
It is clear that this kernel is isomorphic to $$F= \{ x \in P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] : b_s^{*}(x) \in P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2] \}$$ via the map $F \to \ker \operatorname{{ps}}$ given by $x \to (x,-b_s^{*}(x))$.
We now subdivide into two cases, according to Table \[table:jac\].
7. If $d_{K_s}$ is ramified, we know that $JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma \rangle}[2] = P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]$.
Then (from Claim \[claim:bs\]) we have $$F \cong b_s^{*}(F) = b_s^{*}(JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma
\rangle}[2]) \cap P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2] = \Gamma_1$$
Therefore we have proved that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ga12} |\Gamma_1| & = 2^{2\dim P(W_s/T)-1} = 2^{2g_T-3+\gamma_1} \,
, \\
\notag & \ \ \ \ \ \text{ if } \alpha = \gamma_2=\delta = 0 \text{ and } \gamma_1 > 0
\end{aligned}$$
8. If $d_{K_s}$ is unramified, then $JW_{K_s}^{\langle \sigma
\rangle}[2] = ({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2]$.
Since $b_s^{*}(\{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}) = P(W_s/W_{K_s})[2]$ we can write $$F = \{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp} \cap P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]
\text{ of index two in } P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \, .$$
Therefore $P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]$ is not contained in $\{ 0,
\eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}$; since $P(W_{K_s}/T)[2] \subseteq
({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2]$ we obtain that $$({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2] \not \subseteq \{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}
\, .$$
Moreover, $\{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}$ is of index two in $JW_{K_s}[2]$, and hence $$({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2] \cap \{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}
\text{ is of index two in } ({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2] \, .$$
But $$b_s^{*}(({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2] \cap \{ 0, \eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp})
= b_s^{*}(({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2]) \cap b_s^{*}(\{ 0,
\eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp}) = \Gamma_1$$ where the first equality holds since $z = b_s^{*}(x) = b_s^{*}(y)$ with $x \in ({d_{K_s}}^{*}(JT))[2]$ and $y \in (\ker
b_s^{*})^{\perp}$ implies that $x = y + w$ with $w \in \ker
b_s^{*}$, which shows that $x \in (\ker b_s^{*})^{\perp}$ and therefore $z \in b_s^{*}(({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2] \cap \{ 0,
\eta_{b_s}\}^{\perp})$.
It follows that $|\Gamma_1| = \dfrac{1}{2} |({d_{K_s}}^{*}JT)[2]|
= \dfrac{1}{2} |JT[2]|$.
Therefore we have proved the following. $$\label{eq:ga13}
|\Gamma_1| = 2^{2g_T-1} \, ,
\text{ if } \alpha = \gamma_2=\delta = \gamma_1 = 0$$
Putting together (\[eq:ga12\]) and (\[eq:ga13\]) we obtain
9. We now complete the description of $\Gamma$ (in the case $b_s$ ramified: $\alpha + 2\gamma_2 + \delta > 0$) by looking for those elements coming from the ramification of $b_s$.
Denote by $\{ Q_1, \ldots , Q_{2\gamma_2} , \ldots ,
Q_{2\gamma_2+\delta+\alpha} \}$ the ramification points of $b_s$ ordered such that the corresponding branch points in $T$ $$\{ d_{W_{K_s}}(b_s(Q_i)) = d_{W_{K_s}}(b_s(Q_{i+1})) \}_{i
\in \{ 1,3, \ldots , 2\gamma_2 -1 \}} \text{ are of type }
\gamma_2 \, ;$$ those of type $\delta$ are $$\{ d_{W_{K_s}}(b_s(Q_i)) \}_{2\gamma_2 + 1 \leq i \leq 2\gamma_2 +\delta} \, ;$$ and finally, those of type $\alpha$ are $$\{ d_{W_{K_s}}(b_s(Q_i)) \}_{2\gamma_2 + \delta +1 \leq i \leq 2\gamma_2 + \delta
+\alpha} \, .$$
Now choose $m_i \in \operatorname{{Pic}}^{0} W_{K_s}$ such that $$m_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_{W_{K_s}}
(b_s(Q_{i+1}) - b_s(Q_i))$$ and set $${\mathcal F}_i = {\mathcal O}_{W_{s}} (Q_i -Q_{i+1}) \otimes b_s^{*}(m_i) \, ,$$ for $1 \leq i \leq 2\gamma_2 + \delta + \alpha -1$.
Again, by Proposition \[prop:case2\] we obtain the description
Noting that the $a_s^{*}({\mathcal F}_i)$ are ${\mathcal
D}_4-$invariant precisely for $i \in \{ 1,3, \ldots , 2\gamma_2 -1
\}$ and for $ 2\gamma_2 +1 \leq i \leq 2\gamma_2 + \delta -1$, we obtain that
Combining this expression with Table \[table:jac2\] we obtain $$\label{eq:gammac}
\bigl| \Gamma \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-4+2\delta+\gamma_1} & \text{ if } \alpha = \gamma_2 = 0
\text{ and } \delta > 0; \\
2^{2g_T-3+2\delta+\gamma_1+\gamma_2} & \text{ if }
(\delta > 0 \text{ and } \alpha+\gamma_2 > 0) \\
& \text{or } (\alpha=\delta = 0 \text{ and } \gamma_1\gamma_2 >0); \\
2^{2g_T-2+\gamma_1+\gamma_2} & \text{ if } \delta = 0 \text{ and } \alpha\gamma_1 >
0; \\
2^{2g_T-1+\gamma_2} & \text{ if } \delta = \alpha = \gamma_1 = 0 \text{ and }
\gamma_2 > 0; \\
2^{2g_T+\gamma_2} & \text{ if } \delta = \gamma_1 = 0 \text{ and } \alpha
> 0.
\end{cases}$$
10. The proof of Theorem \[T:dih\] iii) is completed by using (\[eq:kercard\]) and putting together (\[eq:ars\]), (\[table:unram\]) and (\[eq:gammac\]).
The bigonal construction {#subsec:big}
------------------------
Giving a curve $W$ with a ${\mathcal D}_4$ action and associated Diagram (\[dihedral\]) is equivalent to giving a non-Galois degree four cover $f : X \to T$ which factorizes through two covers of degree two $X \stackrel{\pi}{\to} Y \stackrel{g}{\to}
T$.
In the Diagram, $X$ corresponds to any one of the intermediate first levelquotients of $W$ except for $W_{r^2}$. Without loss of generality, let $X$ correspond to $W_s$; then $Y$ corresponds to $W_{K_s}$.
In other words, we have associated to any nonorientable double cover of a double cover, say given by $$W_s \stackrel{\pi}{\to} W_{K_s} \stackrel{g}{\to} T$$ another such double cover of a double cover, given by $$X' = W_{rs} \to Y' = W_{K_{rs}} \to T \, .$$
That is, we have recovered the bigonal construction (see [@d]) for the nonorientable case, which together with Remark \[rem:orient\] gives the bigonal construction in general.
Furthermore, we have shown that $P(X/Y)$ is always isogenous to $P(X'/Y')$ and we have described explicitly the kernel of the isogeny in each case.
The case studied in [@p] is the bigonal construction applied to a ramified double cover $K \to K_0$ of a hyperelliptic curve $K_0$ to obtain the related cover $C \to C_0 \to {\mathbb P}^1$; the main result there is that the two Prym $P(K/K_0)$ and $P(C/C_0)$ in this special case are dual abelian varieties.
We will now obtain this result from our previous work on the action of $D_4$.
Let $K_0$ be a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ and let $f : K_0
\to {\mathbb P}^1$ be the morphism given by the $g^1_2$ with branch points $\{ a_1 , \ldots , a_{2g+2} \} \subseteq {\mathbb
P}^1$.
Consider a ramified cover of degree two $\pi : K \to K_0$, and assume the ramification points $\{ p_1 , \ldots , p_{2h+2} \}$ satisfy the following condition $$\label{cond:pantazis}
\pi(p_i) + \pi(p_j) \notin g^1_2 \ \ \text{ for all } i,j \in
\{ 1 , \ldots , 2h+2 \} \ .$$
Observe that $K$ has genus $2g+h$.
We claim that under the conditions just given, the Galois cover associated to the fourfold cover $ F = f \circ \pi : K \to K_0 \to
{\mathbb P}^1$ has Galois group $D_4$, with $\delta = \gamma_2 =
0$ and $\alpha \cdot \gamma_1 > 0$ where $\alpha$, $\delta$, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ refer to the numbers in Theorem \[T:dih\].
Proof of the claim: Let $b_i = F(p_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq 2h+2$ and denote by $\Sigma = {\mathbb P}^1 - \{ a_1 , \ldots ,
a_{2g+2}, b_1 , \ldots , b_{2h+2} \}$ and by $\sigma_1 , \ldots ,
\sigma_{2g+2}, \tau_1 , \ldots , \tau_{2h+2}$ the corresponding generators of $\Pi_1 (\Sigma)$.
Then the cover $F : K \to {\mathbb P}^1$ corresponds to a representation $$F_1 : \Pi_1 (\Sigma) \to S_4$$
Let $G = F_1(\Pi_1(\Sigma))$. We know that $G$ is a transitive subgroup of $S_4$ and condition (\[cond:pantazis\]) implies that it is generated by transpositions $F_1(\tau_j)$ and products of two disjoint transpositions $F_1(\sigma_k)$ for $1 \leq j \leq
2h+2$ and $1 \leq k \leq 2g+2$.
But furthermore, the associated diagram of cover maps $$\widetilde{K} \stackrel{\pi}{\to} \widetilde{K_0} \stackrel{f}{\to} \Sigma$$ where $$\widetilde{K} = K - \{F^{-1}(a_i) , F^{-1}(b_j) \}
\text{ and }
\widetilde{K_0} = K_0 - \{ f^{-1}(a_i) , f^{-1}(b_j) \}$$ corresponds to a chain of subgroups of index two $$S_3 \cap G \subseteq H \subseteq G$$ where $S_3$ is the subgroup of permutations of $S_4$ fixing the fourth symbol say, and the correspondence is given by $$\Pi_1(\widetilde{K}) = F_1^{-1}(S_3 \cap G) \subseteq
\Pi_1(\widetilde{K_0}) = F_1^{-1}(H) \subseteq \Pi_1(\Sigma) =
F_1^{-1}(G) \, .$$
The existence of this chain of subgroups and the fact that $G$ contains transpositions and products of two disjoint transpositions shows that $G$ must be isomorphic to $D_4$ and the type for its generators proves that the numbers $\alpha$ , $\delta$ , $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are as given.
In fact, recalling the notation of Theorem \[T:dih\], without loss of generality we may assume that $K = W_s$ and $K_0 =
W_{K_s}$; it follows that then $C = W_{rs}$ and $C_0 =
W_{K_{rs}}$; furthermore, $\alpha = 2h+2$ and $\gamma_1 = 2g+2$ are positive and $\delta = \gamma_2 = 0$.
Under these conditions, observe that $a_s^{*} : JK \to JW$, $a_{rs}^{*} : JC \to JW$ and $b_s^{*} : JK_0 \to JK$ are injective.
Furthermore, part iii) of the Theorem shows that the isogeny $$P_s = P(W_s/W_{K_s}) = P(K/K_0) \to P_{rs} = P(W_{rs}/W_{K_{rs}})
= P(C/C_0)$$ given by $H = \operatorname{{Nm}}a_{rs} \circ {a_s^*}_{|_{P_s}}$ has as kernel $b_s^{*}(P(W_{K_s}/T)[2]) = \pi^{*}(JK_0[2])$, of cardinality $2^{\gamma_1-2} = 2^{2g}$.
It also follows from Diagram (\[eq:mult2\]) that the map $\widetilde{H} \circ H : P_s \stackrel{H}{\to} P_{rs}
\stackrel{\widetilde{H}}{\to} P_s$ is multiplication by $2$ in $P_s$, where $P_{rs} \stackrel{\widetilde{H}}{\to} P_s$ is given by $\operatorname{{Nm}}a_{s} \circ {a_{rs}^*}_{|_{P_{rs}}}$ and therefore $\ker
(\widetilde{H} \circ H) = P_s [2]$.
But the polarization $\lambda_{P_s} : P_s \to \widehat{P_s}$ induced on $P_s$ by the principal polarization of $JK$ has as kernel $\ker \lambda_{P_s} = \pi^{*}(JK_0) \cap P_s =
\pi^{*}(JK_0[2])$ by Proposition \[prop1\], and therefore $\ker
\lambda_{P_s} = \ker H$.
Similarly, $\ker \lambda_{P_{rs}} = \ker \widetilde{H} =
b_{rs}^{*}(P(W_{K_{rs}}/T)[2]) = b_{rs}^{*}(JC_0[2])$, of cardinality $2^{\alpha-2} = 2^{2h}$.
Therefore, there are respective isomorphisms $\Gamma :
\widehat{P_s} \to P_{rs}$ and $\Delta : \widehat{P_{rs}} \to
P_{s}$ making the following diagram commutative. $$\xymatrix{
P_s \ar[d]_{\lambda_{P_s}} \ar[r]^{H} &
P_{rs} \ar[d]^{\lambda_{P_{rs}}} \ar[r]^{\widetilde{H}} & P_{s} \\
\widehat{P_s} \ar[ur]_{\Gamma} & \widehat{P_{rs}} \ar[ur]_{\Delta}
}$$
If we denote by $\lambda$ the polarization on $\widehat{P_s}$ induced by $\lambda_{P_{rs}}$ via $\Gamma$, we may complete the above to the following commutative diagram. $$\xymatrix{
P_s \ar[d]_{\lambda_{P_s}} \ar[r]^{H} &
P_{rs} \ar[d]^{\lambda_{P_{rs}}} \ar[r]^{\widetilde{H}} & P_{s} \\
\widehat{P_s} \ar[ur]_{\Gamma} \ar[d]_{\lambda} &
\widehat{P_{rs}} \ar[ur]_{\Delta} \ar[dl]^{\widehat{\Gamma}} \\
P_s
}$$
But then it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\ker (\lambda \circ \lambda_{P_s}) =
\lambda_{P_s}^{-1}(\ker \lambda) = H^{-1}(\ker \lambda_{P_{rs}}) \\
= H^{-1}(\ker \widetilde{H}) = \ker (\widetilde{H} \circ H) = P_s[2]
\end{gathered}$$ and therefore $$\lambda = \lambda_{\widehat{P_s}}$$ showing that $(P_s , \lambda_{P_s})$ and $(P_{rs},
\lambda_{P_{rs}})$ are dual abelian varieties.
The alternating case
====================
Let $W$ be a curve such that the alternating group on four letters ${\mathcal A}_4$ is contained in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$.
Let $\Delta = W/{\mathcal A}_4$ and $C = W /\langle \sigma
\rangle$ for $\sigma \in {\mathcal A}_4$ an element of order two.
Let $U = W/{\mathcal K}$ where ${\mathcal K}$ denotes the Klein subgroup of ${\mathcal A}_4$, and let $Y = W/\langle \tau \rangle$ where $\tau \in {\mathcal A}_4$ is an element of order three.
The corresponding cover maps will be denoted by $\gamma : W \to
\Delta$, $ \varepsilon : W \to U$, $\nu : W \to C$, $c : C \to
U$, $\varphi : U \to \Delta$, $\psi : W \to Y$ and $h : Y \to
\Delta$.
Then we have the following diagram of curves and covers.
$$\xymatrix{
& & W \ar[ddl]^{\varepsilon} \ar[dl]_{\nu} \ar[ddd]_{\gamma} \ar[dr]^{\psi}\\
& C \ar[d]_{c} & & Y \ar[ddl]^h \\
& U \ar[dr]_{\varphi} \\
& & \Delta
}
\label{dia:alt}$$
\[T:alt\] If $W$ is a curve such that ${\mathcal A}_4
\subseteq \operatorname{{Aut}}(X)$ with associated Diagram (\[dia:alt\]), let $\beta$ denote the number of fixed points of $\tau$, and let $2\gamma_1$ denote the number of fixed points of $\sigma$.
Then:
1. If $g$ denotes the genus of $\Delta$, the genera of the intermediate covers and the cardinality of the corresponding ramification loci are given in the following table. In particular, the signature type of $\Delta$ is $(g ; \overbrace{3, \ldots
,3}^{\beta} , \overbrace{2, \ldots ,2}^{\gamma_1})$.
2. There is an ${\mathcal A}_4-$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4} : J\Delta \times P(U/\Delta) \times 3P(C/U) \to JW$$ defined by $$\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4} (d, u , c_1 , c_2 , c_3 ) =
\gamma^* (d) + \varepsilon^*(u) + \nu^*(c_1) + \tau \nu^*(c_2)
+ \tau^2 \nu^*(c_3)$$ where the action of ${\mathcal A}_4$ is: the trivial one on $ J\Delta $, the action of the sum of the other two irreducible representations of degree one of ${\mathcal A}_4$ on $ P(U/\Delta) $, and, on $3P(C/U)$, the action of the irreducible representation of degree three of ${\mathcal A}_4$.
The cardinality of the kernel of $\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4}$ is given by $$|\ker \phi_{{\mathcal A}_4}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{24g-22} \, 3^{2g-1},
&\text{if all covers are unramified;} \\
2^{24g-22+8\beta} \, 3^{2g},
&\text{if $\gamma_1 = 0$ and $\beta$ is
positive;} \\
2^{24g-19+3\gamma_1} \, 3^{2g-1},
&\text{if $\beta = 0$ and $\gamma_1$ is
positive;} \\
2^{24g-19+8\beta+3\gamma_1} \, 3^{2g}, &\text{if
$\beta \cdot \gamma_1$ is positive.}
\end{cases}$$
3. There is a natural isogeny $${\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ \nu^{*}}_{|_{P(C/U)}} : P(C/U) \to P(Y/\Delta)$$ whose kernel is contained in $P(C/U)[2]$ and has cardinality given as follows:
$$|\ker ({\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ \nu^{*}}_{|_{P(C/U)}})| =
\begin{cases}
2^{4g-6+2\beta},
&\text{if $\gamma_1 = 0$ and} \\
& \text{if $P(U/\Delta)[2] \nsubseteq (\ker c^{*})^{\perp}$;} \\
2^{4g-5+2\beta+\gamma_1},
&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
The conditions on the data in this case are the following: if $g_{\Delta} = 0$ then $\beta \geq 2$ and $\beta + \gamma_1 \geq 3$ since $U$ and $Y$ must be connected covers.
Statement i) is immediate.
For statement ii), consider the commutative diagram $$\label{dia:kalt}
\xymatrix{
& W \ar[dl]_{\nu_2} \ar[d]_{\nu_3} \ar[dr]^{\nu_4}
\\
C_2 \ar[dr]_{c_2} & C_3 \ar[d]_{c_3} & C_4 \ar[dl]^{c_4}
\\
& U
}$$ where $C_j = W/\langle (1 \, j)(k \, l) \rangle$ with $\{ j,k,l\} = \{ 2,3,4 \}$.
Since it corresponds to an action of the Klein group, we may apply Theorem \[T:klein\] to obtain an isogeny $$\phi_{\mathcal K} : JU \times P(C_2/U) \times
P(C_3/U) \times P(C_4/U) \to JW$$ given by $$\phi_{\mathcal K} (u_1, c_2, c_3, c_4) = \varepsilon^* (u_1) +
\nu_2^*(c_2) + \nu_3^*(c_3) + \nu_4^*(c_4) \, .$$
Now we assume that $C = C_2$ and that $\tau$ is such that $$\tau (1 \, 2)(3 \, 4) = (1 \, 3)(2 \, 4)\tau \, .$$
Then, if we let $\tilde{\tau}$ denote the induced isomorphism from $JC$ to $JC_3$, we obtain an isomorphism $$n : 3P(C/U) \to P(C_2/U) \times P(C_3/U) \times P(C_4/U)$$ defined by $$n(c_1 , c_2 , c_3) = (c_1, \tilde{\tau} (c_2), \tilde{\tau}^2
(c_3))\, .$$
We also have the natural isogeny $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_U : J\Delta \times P(U/\Delta) & \to JU \\
(d,u) & \to \gamma^{*}(d) + u \, .
\end{aligned}$$
Hence we can write $$\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4} (d, w , c_1 , c_2 , c_3)
= \phi_{\mathcal K} (\phi_U (d,w), n(c_1 , c_2 , c_3))\, ,$$ and therefore $\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4}$ is an isogeny.
It also follows that its kernel has cardinality given by $$\bigl| \ker
\phi_{{\mathcal A}_4} \bigl| = \bigl| \ker \phi_{\mathcal K}
\bigl| \cdot \bigl| \ker \phi_U \bigl| \, .$$
But $$\bigl| \ker \phi_{\mathcal K} \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
2^{24g-22+8\beta}, &\text{if $\gamma_1 = 0$;} \\
2^{24g-19+8\beta+3\gamma_1}, &\text{if $\gamma_1 > 0$,}
\end{cases}$$ by Theorem \[T:klein\], and $$\bigl| \ker \phi_U \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
3^{2g-1}, &\text{if $\beta = 0$;} \\
3^{2g}, &\text{if $\beta > 0$}
\end{cases}$$ by Remark \[rem:lange\].
Concerning iii), we first prove that $\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi (\nu^*(P(C/U)))$ is contained in $P(Y/\Delta)$; then we show that $\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ
\nu^*$ restricted to $P(C/U)$ is an isogeny and finally we compute the cardinality of its kernel.
Denote by $H$ the restriction of $\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ \nu^*$ to $P(C/U)$.
Given $x$ in $P(C/U)$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{{Nm}}h (H(x)) = \operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi (\operatorname{{Nm}}c(\operatorname{{Nm}}\nu (\nu^* (x)))) \\
= 2\operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi (\operatorname{{Nm}}c(x)) = 2\operatorname{{Nm}}\varphi (0) = 0
\end{gathered}$$ and it follows that $H(P(C/U)) \subseteq P(Y/\Delta)$.
We now show that $H$ is an isogeny. Let $A =\nu^{*}(P(C/U))$ and $B = \psi^{*}(P(Y/\Delta))$.
By Corollary \[coro:norm\] iii) we have that $$A = \{ z \in JW : z = \sigma(z) , z + \sigma'(z) = 0\}^{\circ}$$ where $\sigma'$ is any element of order two in ${\mathcal A}_4$ different from $\sigma$ and that $$B = \{ w \in JW : w = \tau (w) ,
\displaystyle\sum_{k \in {\mathcal K}} k (w) = 0\}^{\circ} \, .$$
It is then clear that the endomorphisms of $JW$ given by $1 +\tau
+\tau^2$ and $1+\sigma$ induce respective isogenies $1 +\tau
+\tau^2 : A \to B$ and $1+\sigma : B \to A$ such that $(1+\sigma) \circ (1 +\tau +\tau^2) = 2_A$.
Now observe that the commutative diagram $$\label{dia:isoa4}
\xymatrix{
& A \ar[dr]_{\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi} \ar[rr]^{1+\tau+\tau^2} & &
B \ar[dr]_{\operatorname{{Nm}}\nu} \ar[rr]^{1+\sigma} & & A \\
P(C/U) \ar[rr]_{H} \ar[ur]^{\nu^{*}} & & P(Y/\Delta) \ar[rr]_{\operatorname{{Nm}}\nu \circ \psi^{*}}
\ar[ur]_{\psi^{*}} & & P(C/U) \ar[ur]_{\nu^{*}}
}$$ shows that $(\operatorname{{Nm}}\nu \circ \psi^{*}) \circ H = 2_{P(C/U)}$, since $\nu^{*}$ is an isogeny.
In particular, $\ker H \subseteq P(C/U)[2]$.
Since it follows from $(1+\sigma) \circ (1 +\tau +\tau^2) = 2_A$ that $\ker (1 + \tau + \tau^2)_{|_{A}} \subseteq A[2]$ and since $\deg \psi = 3$ it follows that any $z \in P(Y/\Delta) \cap \ker
\psi^{*}$ satisfies $2z = 0$ and $3z =0$, hence $z = 0$.
Hence $\ker \, \psi^{*}_{|_{P(Y/\Delta})} = \{ 0 \}$ and therefore $\ker (1 + \tau + \tau^2)_{|_{A}} = \ker (\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi)_{|_{A}}$, so the description of the kernel of the isogeny in iii) is as follows. $$\ker H = \{ z \in P(C/U)[2] : (1 + \tau + \tau^2)
(\nu^{*}(z)) = 0 \}.$$
We now compute the cardinality of this kernel.
Observe that all the cover maps in Diagram (\[dia:kalt\]) have ramification indices $2\gamma_1$, hence our calculation will be divided into two cases: $\gamma_1 = 0$ and $\gamma_1 > 0$.
Since ${\mathcal K}$ is a normal subgroup of ${\mathcal A}_4$, the action of $\tau $ on $W$ descends to an action on $U$, also denoted by $\tau$; recall that $P(U/\Delta)$ is the connected component of the identity of $\ker (1+\tau +\tau^2)$.
\[claim:eps\] If $\varepsilon : W \to U$ denotes the cover map $c_2 \circ \nu_2$, then $\varepsilon \tau = \tau \varepsilon$.
We also have:
1. $P(U/\Delta)[2] = (\ker (1+\tau +\tau^2))[2]$,
2. $\ker \varepsilon^{*} \subseteq (\ker (1+\tau +\tau^2))[2]$
Proof of the claim: The commutativity of $\varepsilon$ and $\tau$ is clear.
As for i), it follows from [@ri p. 61] that $\ker (1+\tau
+\tau^2) = P(U/\Delta) + \varphi^{*}J\Delta[3]$. Therefore, if $x
\in (\ker (1+\tau +\tau^2))[2]$ then $x = u +z$, with $u \in
P(U/\Delta)$ and $z \in \varphi^{*}J\Delta[3]$. But then $0 = 2x =
2u + 2z = 2u-z$, so $z \in P(U/\Delta)$ and hence $x \in
P(U/\Delta)$. This proves i).
To prove ii) observe that $$\ker \varepsilon^{*} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } \gamma_1 \neq 0 \\
\{ 0, \eta_{c_2}, \eta_{c_3}, \eta_{c_4} = \eta_{c_2} +\eta_{c_3}\} & \text{if } \gamma_1 = 0
\end{cases}$$ and that, in the second case, $\tau(\eta_{c_2}) = \eta_{c_3}$ and $\tau(\eta_{c_3}) = \eta_{c_4}$.
We continue the calculation of $\ker H$.
[*Case I: $\gamma_1 = 0$.*]{} In this case all the cover maps in Diagram (\[dia:kalt\]) are étale, hence $\ker \varepsilon^{*}
= \{ 0, \eta_c , \eta_{c_3} , \eta_{c_4} \} \subseteq
P(U/\Delta)[2]$.
We also have $c^{*}(\{ 0 , \eta_c \}^{\perp}) = P(C/U)[2]$.
We further subdivide Case I into two subcases: Case I.a: $g (= g
_{\Delta}) = 0$ and Case I.b: $g > 0$.
[*Case I.a: $g = 0$.*]{} In this case $P(U/\Delta)[2] = JU[2]$ and therefore $(1+\tau+\tau^2)m = 0$ for all $m \in JU[2]$ (by Claim \[claim:eps\]); in particular, for all $m \in \{ 0 , \eta_c
\}^{\perp}$.
But this implies that any $z \in P(C/U)[2]$ satisfies $ (1 + \tau
+ \tau^2) (\nu^{*}(z)) = 0$, since $P(C/U)[2] = c^{*}(\{ 0 ,
\eta_c \}^{\perp})$ and since $\varepsilon^{*} \tau = \tau
\varepsilon^{*}$.
We have thus proven that in this case $\ker H = P(C/U)[2]$ and therefore $$|\ker H |= 2^{2\beta-6} \ \text{ if } \gamma_1 = g = 0 \, .$$
[*Case I.b: $g > 0$.*]{} Now let $z \in \ker H$; that is, let $z$ be in $P(C/U)[2]$ such that $(1+\tau + \tau^2)(\nu^{*}(z)) = 0$.
Choose any $m \in \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}$ such that $c^{*}(m) =
z$. Then $m + \tau m + \tau^2 m$ belongs to $\ker \varepsilon^{*}
\subseteq P(U/\Delta)[2] $.
But $m + \tau m + \tau^2 m$ also belongs to $JU^{\langle \tau
\rangle} \cap P(U/\Delta) \subseteq P(U/\Delta)[3]$, by Proposition \[prop:galois\] i), and therefore $ m + \tau m +
\tau^2 m = 0$; that is, $m$ belongs to $P(U/\Delta)[2] \cap \{ 0,
\eta_c \}^{\perp}$.
But, since $ \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}$ is a subgroup of index two of $JU[2]$, we have $$|P(U/\Delta)[2] \cap \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}|
=
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_U - 2g_{\Delta}},
& \text{if $P(U/\Delta)[2] \subseteq \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}$;} \\
2^{2g_U - 2g_{\Delta}-1},
& \text{otherwise;}
\end{cases}$$ and therefore we obtain $$|\ker H| =
\begin{cases}
2^{4g + 2\beta - 5},
& \text{if $g > 0$, $\gamma_1 = 0$ and $P(U/\Delta)[2]\subseteq \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}$;} \\
2^{4g + 2\beta - 6},
& \text{if $g >0$, $\gamma_1 = 0$ and $P(U/\Delta)[2] \nsubseteq \{ 0, \eta_c \}^{\perp}$.}
\end{cases}$$
[*Case II: $\gamma_1 > 0$.*]{} In this case all of the maps $\nu_j^{*}$ and $c_j^{*}$ are injective.
To compute the cardinality of the kernel we first describe $P(C/U)[2]$.
We let $\{ Q_1 , \ldots , Q_{\gamma_1} , \sigma Q_1 , \ldots ,
\sigma Q_{\gamma_1} \}$ in $W$ denote the ramification points of $\nu_3 : W \to C_3$, where $\sigma$ is the involution of $W$ giving the cover $\nu = \nu_2 : W \to C = C_2$.
Then the ramification points of $c : C \to U$ are $\{ P_1 =
\nu(Q_1) , P_2 = \nu(\tau(Q_1)), \ldots , P_{2\gamma_1-1} =
\nu(Q_{\gamma_1}) , P_{2\gamma_1} = \nu(\tau(Q_{\gamma_1})) \}$.
We now apply Corollary \[coro:p2\] to the cover $c : C \to U$ observing that ${\mathcal O}_U(\varepsilon Q_i - \varepsilon \tau
Q_i)$ belongs to $\ker (1+\tau+\tau^2) \subseteq JU$, hence for $i
\in \{ 1, \ldots , r \}$ we can choose $n_i \in \ker
(1+\tau+\tau^2)$ such that $n_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal
O}_U(\varepsilon Q_i - \varepsilon \tau Q_i)$.
Now, setting ${\mathcal L}_i = {\mathcal O}_C (P_{2i}- P_{2i-1})
\otimes c^{*}(n_i) \in P(C/U)[2]$, we have that each ${\mathcal
L}_i$ clearly satisfies $(1+\tau+\tau^2)\nu^{*}{\mathcal L}_i =
0$, and since $ {\mathcal L}_1 \otimes {\mathcal L}_2 \ldots
\otimes {\mathcal L}_{\gamma_1} \in c^{*}JU[2] \cap \ker
(1+\tau+\tau^2)$, we obtain ${\mathcal L}_1 \otimes {\mathcal L}_2
\ldots \otimes {\mathcal L}_{\gamma_1} \in c^{*}P(U/\Delta)[2]$.
Letting ${\mathcal G}_1 , \ldots , {\mathcal G}_{\gamma_1-1}$ be as in Corollary \[coro:p2\], we obtain $$P(C/U)[2] = c^{*}JU[2]
\oplus_{i=1}^{\gamma_1-1} {\mathcal L}_i {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}
\oplus_{i=1}^{\gamma_1-1} {\mathcal G}_i {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}
\, .$$
To complete our computation, observe that $c^{*}JU[2] \cap \ker H
= \{ z \in c^{*}JU[2] : (1+\tau+\tau^2)(\nu^{*}z) = 0 \}$ is isomorphic (via $c^{*}$) to $JU[2] \cap \ker (1+\tau+\tau^2) =
P(U/\Delta)[2]$ and that no nontrivial combination of the ${\mathcal G}_i$ is in $\ker H$.
Therefore we have obtained the following result: if $\gamma_1
> 0$, then $ \ker H = c^{*}P(U/\Delta)[2]
\oplus_{i=1}^{\gamma_1-1} {\mathcal L}_i {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} $, and we have completed the proof.
The trigonal construction for the case ${\mathcal A}_4$
-------------------------------------------------------
As a corollary of Theorem \[T:alt\] we obtain a particular case of the trigonal construction as follows.
Let $h : Y \to {\mathbb P}^1$ be a tetragonal curve such that all its branch points come from triple ramification points, with the possible exception of one which is then of type $(2,2)$.
If we denote by $\gamma : W \to {\mathbb P}^1$ the corresponding Galois extension, it has group ${\mathcal A}_4$ and we are in the situation of Diagram (\[dia:alt\]) with $\Delta = {\mathbb P}^1$ and $\gamma_1 = 0$ or $1$, respectively.
Moreover, $P(C/U)$ is a classical Prym.
We can now prove the following.
Let $Y$ be a tetragonal curve such that all its branch points come from triple ramification points, with the possible exception of one which is then of type $(2,2)$.
Then the isogeny $H : P(C/U) \to JY$ from Theorem \[T:alt\] iii) induces an isomorphism between the principally polarized abelian varieties $(JY, \lambda_{JY})$ and $(\wh{P(C/U)},
\lambda_{\wh{P(C/U)}})$.
Let $P = P(C/U)$.
Under our hypothesis the isogeny given in Theorem \[T:alt\] iii) by $H = \operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ \nu^{*} : P \to JY$ has as kernel $P[2]$, which coincides with the kernel of $\lambda_P = 2 \lambda$ on $P$.
Therefore $H$ factorizes as follows, with $F$ an automorphism. $$\xymatrix{
P \ar[d]_{\lambda_P = 2 \lambda} \ar[r]^(.6){H} & JY \\
\wh{P} \ar[ru]_{F}^{\approx} }$$
We will now show that the isomorphism of complex tori $ F : \wh{P} \to JY$ is also an isomorphism of p.p.a.v.’s.
If we denote by $\lambda_1$ the polarization on $\wh P$ induced via $F$ by $\lambda_{JY}$, we may complete the above diagram to the following one. $$\xymatrix{
P \ar[d]_{\lambda_{P}} \ar[rr]^{H} & &
JY \ar[d]^{\lambda_{JY}} \\
\wh{P} \ar[d]_{\lambda_1} \ar[urr]_{F}^{\thickapprox}& &
\wh{JY} \ar[dll]^{\wh F}_{\thickapprox} \\
P
}$$
It now follows from the commutativity of the above diagram that $\lambda_1$ is principal and that $\ker (\lambda_1 \circ
\lambda_P) = P[2]$; therefore, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_{\wh P}$, as claimed.
The symmetric case
==================
Let $W$ be a curve such that the symmetric group on four letters ${\mathcal S}_4$ is contained in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(W)$.
Let $T = W/{\mathcal S}_4$ and $\Delta = W/{\mathcal A}_4$.
For $\{ j, k, l \} = \{ 2, 3, 4 \}$ and $\sigma_j = (1 \, j)(k \,
l) \in {\mathcal S}_4$, let $C_j = W/\langle \sigma_j \rangle$ and $U = W/{\mathcal K}$ where ${\mathcal K} = \{ 1,
\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4 \}$ is the normal Klein subgroup of ${\mathcal S}_4$.
Also, let $Z_{kl} = W/\langle (k \, l) \rangle$, $S_j = W/\langle
\sigma_j , (k \, l) \rangle$ the quotient by a non normal Klein subgroup, $V_j = W/\langle (1 \, k \, j \ l) \rangle$ the quotient by a cyclic group of order four and $R_j = W/\langle (1 \, k \, j
\, l), (k \ l) \rangle$ the quotient by ${\mathcal D}_4$.
For $n \in \{ 1, 2, 3, 4 \}$ and $\{ j,k, l, n \} = \{ 1, 2, 3, 4
\}$, let $Y_n = W/\langle (j \ k \ l) \rangle$ be the quotient by a cyclic group of order three, and let $X_n = W/\langle (j \ k \
l), (j \ k) \rangle$ denote the quotient of $W$ by the corresponding ${\mathcal S}_3$.
Then we have a diagram of curves and covers as follows; the sub-indices will be used as needed. $$\xymatrix@R=8pt@C=10pt
{ & & W \ar[ddrrrr]^{\psi} \ar[dd]^{\nu} \ar[ddll]_{\ell} \\
& \\
Z \ar[dd]_{\pi} \ar[ddrrrr]^(.7){u} & & C \ar[ddd]^{c}
\ar[ddll]_{a} \ar[ddl]^(.6){b} & & & & Y \ar[ddll]^{v}
\ar[ddddd]^{h} \\
& & & & \\
S \ar[ddd]_(.4){p} & V \ar[lddd]_(.4){q} & & & X \ar[ddddd]_(.6){f} \\
& & U \ar[ddll]_(.4){r} \ar@{-}[drr] \\
& & & & \ar[drr]^{\varphi} \\
R \ar[ddrrrr]^{g} & & & & & & \Delta \ar[ddll]^{d} \\
& \\
& & & & T
}
\label{dia:symm}$$
\[T:symm\] Let $W$ be a curve such that ${\mathcal S}_4
\subseteq \operatorname{{Aut}}(W)$ with associated Diagram (\[dia:symm\]).
We let $\gamma : W \to T = W/{\mathcal S}_4$ denote the quotient map, and let $\tau$ denote any element of order three in ${\mathcal S}_4$.
Let $2\alpha$, $2\beta$, $2\delta$, $4\gamma$ denote the number of fixed points in $W$ of, respectively, any transposition, any element of order three, any element of order four, the square of any element of order four not fixed by the element of order four.
Then
1. If $g$ denotes the genus of $T$, the genera of the intermediate covers and the cardinality of the corresponding ramification loci are given in the following table. In particular, the signature type of $T$ is $(g; \overbrace{2, \ldots
,2}^{\alpha}, \overbrace{3, \ldots ,3}^{\beta} , \overbrace{2,
\ldots ,2}^{\gamma} , \overbrace{4, \ldots ,4}^{\delta})$.
2. There is an ${\mathcal S}_4-$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4} : JT \times P(\Delta/T) \times
2P(R/T) \times 3P(S/R) \times 3P(V/R) \to JW$$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4} (t, d, r_1, r_2, s_1 , s_2 , s_3, v_1 , v_2 , v_3 )
= \gamma^* (t) \\
+ (h \circ \psi)^*(d) + (p \circ \pi \circ \ell)^* (r_1) + \tau (p \circ \pi \circ \ell)^* (r_2) \\
+ (a \circ \nu )^* (s_1) + \tau (a \circ \nu )^* (s_2) + \tau^2 (a \circ \nu
)^* (s_3) \\
+ (b \circ \nu)^* (v_1) + \tau (b \circ \nu)^* (v_2) + \tau^2 (b \circ \nu)^* (v_3)
\end{gathered}$$ where the action of ${\mathcal S}_4$ is: the trivial one on $JT $, the alternating action on $ P(\Delta/T) $, the action of the unique irreducible representation of degree two of ${\mathcal S}_4$ on $2P(R/T)$, the standard action (of degree three) of ${\mathcal S}_4$ on $3P(S/R)$, and, on $3P(V/R)$, the other irreducible action of degree three of ${\mathcal S}_4$.
The cardinality of the kernel of $\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4}$ is given by
3. For any $C$ and $Y$ there is a natural isogeny $${\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ \nu^{*}}_{|_{P(C/U)}} : P(C/U) \to P(Y/\Delta)
\, .$$
Its kernel is contained in $P(C/U)[2]$ and has cardinality given as follows:
4. For any $Z$ and $C$ not covering the same $S$ there is a natural isogeny $$\operatorname{{Nm}}\nu \circ {\ell^{*}}_{|_{P(Z/S)}} : P(Z/S) \to P(C/U) \, .$$
Moreover, if for the case $\gamma = \delta = 0$ we denote by $G$ the Klein subgroup of $JU$ giving the covers $c_j : C_j \to U$ for $j \in \{ 2,3,4 \}$, then the kernel of the isogeny has cardinality given as follows:
5. For any $S$ and $X$ covered by the same $Z$ there is a natural isogeny (the trigonal construction)
$${\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*}}_{|_{P(S/R)}} : P(S/R) \to P(X/T)$$ whose kernel has cardinality as follows.
where $\zeta = [P(R/T)[2]:P(R/T)[2]\cap \{ 0,
\eta_p \}^{\perp}] - 1$, $ \varepsilon = 0$ if $\alpha >0$, $\varepsilon = 1$ if $\alpha = 0$.
6. There is a natural isogeny $$\begin{aligned}
P(\Delta/T) \times P(V/R) & \longrightarrow P(Y/X) \\
\intertext{given by}
(d,v) & \longrightarrow h^{*}(d) + \operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ (b \circ
\nu)^{*}(v) \, .
\end{aligned}$$
7. There is a natural isogeny $$\begin{aligned}
P(R/T) \times P(Z/S) & \longrightarrow P(Z/X) \\
\intertext{given by}
(r,z) & \longrightarrow \pi^{*} \circ p^{*}(r) + z \, .
\end{aligned}$$
$$P(Z/S) \times P(R/T) \to P(Z/X)$$ given by
\[rem:point\] Equivalently, we could start with a degree four cover $f : X \to T$ whose Galois group is ${\mathcal S}_4$.
In this case, $\alpha$ is the number of simple ramification points of $f$, $\beta$ is the number of ramification points of order three, $\delta$ is the number of total ramification points, and $2\gamma$ is the number of the remaining type of ramification points.
The conditions on the data are $$\alpha + \delta \equiv 0 \ (2)$$ and if $g=0$ then $\alpha + \delta \geq 2$, $\beta \geq 1$ and $\gamma+\delta \geq 1$.
Using the Riemann-Hurwitz formula, statement i) is immediate.
For the proof of ii), we follow the idea behind the method of little groups and apply it to the decomposition of ${\mathcal S}_4$ given by the semi-direct product of the abelian normal subgroup ${\mathcal K}$ and a subgroup ${\mathcal
S}_3$.
Parts iii) and iv) are immediate consequences of Theorem \[T:alt\] iii) and Theorem \[T:dih\] iii), respectively.
For iii), just note that $\gamma_1$ for the case ${\mathcal A}_4$ corresponds to $2\gamma + \delta$ for the case ${\mathcal S}_4$ and $\beta$ for the case ${\mathcal A}_4$ corresponds to $2\beta$ for the case ${\mathcal S}_4$.
As for case iv) note that $\alpha $ for the case $D_4$ coincides with $\alpha$ for the case ${\mathcal S}_4$, as well as $\delta$, that $\gamma_2$ for the case $D_4$ coincides with $\gamma$ for the case ${\mathcal S}_4$ and that $\gamma_1$ for the case $D_4$ corresponds to $2\gamma + \delta$ for the case ${\mathcal S}_4$.
The isogenies in statements v) through vii) are suggested by comparing statement ii) with the geometric decompositions of $JW$ obtained by respectively applying Theorems \[T:klein\], \[T:dih\], \[T:alt\] and the results of [@s3] to the actions of appropriate subgroups of ${\mathcal S}_4$ on $W$.
Concerning ii), by Proposition \[prop1\] we know that there is an isogeny $$\phi_U : JU \times P(W/U) \to JW \ , \, \phi_U (u,w) = (\nu \circ c)^*(u)+w$$ whose kernel has cardinality given by $$\bigl| \ker \phi_U \bigl| =
\begin{cases}
2^{24g-22+6\alpha+8\beta}, &\text{if $\gamma=\delta = 0$;} \\
2^{24g-20+6\alpha+8\beta+6\delta}, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Note that this isogeny is ${\mathcal S}_4 -$equivariant with the corresponding natural actions of ${\mathcal S}_4$ on each factor on the left side.
We now decompose each such factor.
Since the action of ${\mathcal K} \subseteq {\mathcal S}_4$ is trivial on $JU = J(W/{\mathcal K})$, there is a natural ${\mathcal
S}_4/{\mathcal K} = {\mathcal S}_3$ action on $JU$; under this condition and from [@s3], it follows that there is a natural ${\mathcal S}_3 -$equivariant isogeny $$\phi_{{\mathcal S}_3} : JT \times P(\Delta/T) \times 2P(R/T) \to JU$$ defined by $$\phi_{{\mathcal S}_3}(t,d,r_1,r_2) = (r \circ g)^*(t)
+ \psi^*(d) + r^*(r_1) + \tilde{\tau}r^*(r_2)$$ where $\tilde{\tau}$ is the isomorphism induced on $JU$ by $\tau$ and the action of ${\mathcal S}_3$ on the domain is given by: the trivial representation of ${\mathcal S}_3$ on $JT$, the nontrivial representation of degree one on $P(\Delta/T)$, and the unique irreducible complex representation of degree two on $2P(R/T)$.
Note that each of these actions induces the corresponding irreducible actions of ${\mathcal S}_4$ on each factor.
Also by [@s3], the kernel of $\phi_{{\mathcal S}_3}$ has cardinality given by $$\label{eq:s3} |\ker \phi_{{\mathcal S}_3} \, | =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g-1} \cdot 3^{6g-3+\beta},
& \text{if $\alpha = \delta = 0$;} \\
2^{2g} \cdot 3^{6g-3+ \alpha + \beta+\delta}, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Concerning the factor $P(W/U)$, there is a Klein-equivariant isogeny $$\nu^* + \tau\nu^* + {\tau}^2 \nu^* : 3P(C/U) \to P(W/U)$$ whose kernel has cardinality given by $$\label{eq:kc}
|\ker ( \nu^* + \tau \nu^* + {\tau}^2 \nu^*) \, |
=
\begin{cases}
2^{24g-24+6\alpha+8\beta}, & \text{if $\gamma = \delta = 0$,} \\
2^{24g-23+6\alpha+8\beta+6\gamma+9\delta} &\text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ as in the proof of Theorem \[T:alt\] and by Theorem \[T:klein\].
Remark that this isogeny is, in fact, ${\mathcal S}_4 -$ equivariant.
To obtain the decomposition into irreducible representations, we further decompose $P(C/U)$ as follows: Note that the following piece of Diagram (\[dia:symm\]) corresponds to an action of a Klein group on $C$ $$\xymatrix{
& C \ar[dl] \ar[d] \ar[dr] \\
S \ar[dr] & V \ar[d] & U \ar[dl] \\
& R
}$$
By Theorem \[T:klein\] ii) we have a natural Klein-equivariant isogeny defined by $$a^* + b^*: P(S/R) \times P(V/R) \to P(C/U)
\, .$$
Furthermore, the cardinality of its kernel is given by $$\label{eq:oklein} |\ker (a^* + b^*) | =
\begin{cases}
2^{6g-6+2\beta}, &\text{if $\alpha = \gamma = \delta = 0$;} \\
2^{6g-5+ \alpha + 2\beta + 2\gamma + 2\delta}, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Note that, then, the isogeny $$3P(S/R) \times 3P(V/R) \to P(W/U)$$ given by the composition of the last two isogenies is ${\mathcal S}_4-$equivariant, where the action on $3P(S/R)$ is the standard one and the action on $3P(V/R)$ is the other irreducible action of degree three.
Combining the given isogenies we obtain part ii).
Concerning v), let $Z$ be the common cover of $S$ and $X$ via $\pi
:Z \to S$ and $u :Z \to X$ respectively.
We first prove that $\operatorname{{Nm}}u (\pi^*(P(S/R)))$ is contained in $P(X/T)$; then we show that $\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^*$ restricted to $P(S/R)$ is an isogeny and finally we compute the cardinality of its kernel.
Let $x \in P(S/R)$ and denote by $H$ the restriction of $\operatorname{{Nm}}u
\circ \pi^*$ to $P(S/R)$; we need to show that $H(x) \in P(X/T)$. Since $P(S/R)$ is connected, it is enough to show that $\operatorname{{Nm}}f
(H(x)) = 0$. But $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{{Nm}}f (H(x)) & = \operatorname{{Nm}}g (\operatorname{{Nm}}p \, (\operatorname{{Nm}}\pi (\pi^* (x)))) \\
& = \operatorname{{Nm}}g (\operatorname{{Nm}}p \, (2x)) \\
& = 2\operatorname{{Nm}}g (0) \\
& = 0\end{aligned}$$
We now show that $H$ is an isogeny.
We may assume that $S = S_j = W/\langle (1 \ j), (k \ l) \rangle$ and that $X = W/\langle \tau , (1 \ j) \rangle$ where $\tau$ denotes an element of order three of $S_4$. Then $Z = Z_{1j}$ is a common cover of $S$ and $X$, via $\pi : Z \to S$ and $u : Z \to
X$.
Let $A =\ell^{*}(\pi^{*}(P(S/R)))$ and let $B =
\ell^{*}(u^{*}(P(X/T)))$. Also, let $\sigma = (1 \ k)(j \ l)$ denote an element of ${\mathcal K} \subseteq S_4$ which induces the involution $S \to S$ giving the cover $S \to R$.
By Corollary \[coro:norm\] iii) we have that $$A = \{ z \in JW^{\langle (1 \ j), (k \ l) \rangle} : z + \sigma z =
0\}^{\circ}$$ and that $$B = \{ w \in JW^{\langle \tau , (1 \ j) \rangle} :
\displaystyle\sum_{k \in {\mathcal K}} k (w) =
0\}^{\circ} \, .$$
It is then clear that the endomorphisms of $JW$ given by $1 +\tau
+\tau^2$ and $1+ (k \ l)$ induce respective isogenies $1 +\tau
+\tau^2 : A \to B$ and $1+(k \ l) : B \to A$ such that $(1+(k \
l)) \circ (1 +\tau +\tau^2) = 2_A$.
We also have the following commutative diagram [$$\label{dia:isotrig}
\xymatrix{
& A \ar[rr]^{1+\tau+\tau^2} & &
B \ar[rr]^{1+(k \ l)}& & A \\
\pi^{*}(P(S/R)) \ar[drr]^{\operatorname{{Nm}}u} \ar[rr]^{u^{*}\circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u}
\ar[ur]^{\ell^{*}} & & u^{*}(P(X/T))
\ar[drr]^{\operatorname{{Nm}}\pi} \ar[rr]^{\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi }
\ar[ur]^{\ell^{*}} & & \pi^{*}(P(S/R))
\ar[ur]^{\ell^{*}} \\
P(S/R) \ar[u]^{\pi^{*}}_{\cong} \ar[rr]_{H} & & P(X/T) \ar[u]^{u^{*}}_{\cong}
\ar[rr]_{\operatorname{{Nm}}\pi \circ u^{*}} & & P(S/R) \ar[u]^{\pi^{*}}_{\cong}
}$$]{} which shows that $H$ is an isogeny.
We are interested in computing the kernel of this isogeny.
For this, first note that it follows from Claim \[claim:bs\] in the proof of Theorem \[T:dih\] iii) that $\pi^{*}$ restricted to $P(S/R)$ is injective; therefore, the two external vertical arrows of Diagram \[dia:isotrig\] are isomorphisms. That the middle vertical line is also an isomorphism follows from Lemma \[kerl\] (see also [@s3 p. 136]).
We can now prove the following result, which will be fundamental to complete the proof of the Theorem.
\[claim:mult2\] The composition $$\xymatrix@C=0.5cm{
P(S/R) \ar[rr]^{H} & & P(X/T) \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{{Nm}}\pi \circ u^{*}} & & P(S/R) }$$ is multiplication by $2$.
Proof of the claim: Since the topmost line of Diagram (\[dia:isotrig\]) is multiplication by $2$ on $A$ and since $\ell^{*}$ is an isogeny, it follows that the middle line is multiplication by $2$ on $\pi^{*}(P(S/R))$. But then the claim follows since we already know that the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.
A similar proof shows that we also have the following result.
\[lem:mult2\] The composition $$\xymatrix@C=0.5cm{
u^{*}(P(X/T)) \ar[rr]^{\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi} & &
\pi^{*}(P(S/R)) \ar[rr]^{u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u} & & u^{*}(P(X/T)) }$$ is multiplication by $2$.
An immediate consequence of Claim \[claim:mult2\] is that $\ker
H \subseteq P(S/R)[2]$. Now it follows from Diagram (\[dia:isotrig\]) that $\ker H$ is contained in the following set.
$$\label{eq:F}
F = \{ x \in P(S/R)[2] : (1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}(x) = 0 \}$$
In fact, we can be more precise.
Recall that if $\alpha = 0$, it follows from the description given in the table in part i) of Theorem \[T:symm\] that the covers $\ell :W \to Z$, $v : Y \to X$ and $a : C \to S$ are unramified of degree two, and therefore the kernels of the respective $*$-induced maps on Jacobians are non trivial subgroups of order two of $JZ[2]$, $JX[2]$ and $JS[2]$ respectively.
If moreover $\delta = 0$ then we must have $T \neq {\mathbb P}^1$ for $\Delta \to T$ to be connected.
\[claim:nsbig\] If $\alpha = 0$ then there exists $s \in F$ such that $u^{*}(H(s))
= \eta_{\ell}$. In particular, $\eta_{\ell} \in u^{*}(P(X/T))$.
Note that $u^{*}$ is always injective and that $u^{*}(\eta_v) =
\eta_{\ell}$; hence it is enough to show that there is $s \in
P(S/R)[2]$ such that $H(s) = \eta_v$ because if this holds then $0
= \ell^{*}(u^{*}(\eta_v)) = \ell^{*}(u^{*}(H(s)) =
(1+\tau+\tau^2)(\ell^{*}(\pi^{*}(s)))$ and therefore $s \in F$.
Furthermore, note that $$\operatorname{{Nm}}u(\eta_{\ell}) = \operatorname{{Nm}}u(u^{*}(\eta_v)) = 3 \eta_v = \eta_v$$ and therefore $$u^{*}(\operatorname{{Nm}}u(\eta_{\ell})) = \eta_{\ell}$$
We also observe that since $f^{*} : JT \to JX$ is always injective (because it does not factor), we always have $f^{*}(JT[4])
\subseteq P(X/T)[4]$.
We consider two cases.
1. *Case 1: $\delta > 0$:* In this case it follows from Case III in the Appendix that $\eta_a \in P(S/R)[2]$. Furthermore, it is clear that $\pi^{*}(\eta_a) = \eta_{\ell}$, by commutativity of the following subdiagram and by the injectivity of $\pi^{*}$. $$\xymatrix{
& W \ar[dl]_{\ell} \ar[d]^{\nu} \\
Z \ar[d]_{\pi} & C \ar[dl]^{a} \\
S &
}$$
But then $$\eta_v = \operatorname{{Nm}}u (\eta_{\ell}) = \operatorname{{Nm}}u (\pi^{*}(\eta_a)) =
H(\eta_a)$$ and we are done.
2. *Case 2: $\delta = 0$:* In this case $\eta_{\delta}$ is a point of order two in $JT$ and therefore $f^{*}(\eta_{\delta}) = \eta_v \in P(X/T)$.
But we also have $$\ell^{*}(\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi(\eta_{\ell})) = (1+(k \
l))(\ell^{*}(\eta_{\ell})) = 0$$ where the first equality follows from Diagram \[dia:isotrig\], and hence $\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi(\eta_{\ell}) \in \ker \ell^{*} =
\{ 0, \eta_{\ell} \}$.
We will now show that $\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi(\eta_{\ell}) = 0$: if not, then $$(\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi)(\eta_{\ell}) = \eta_{\ell}$$ and it follows that $$(u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u) \circ (\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi)(\eta_{\ell})
= (u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u)(\eta_{\ell}) = \eta_{\ell} \, .$$
But we also have that $(u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u) \circ (\pi^{*} \circ
\operatorname{{Nm}}\pi)$ is multiplication by $2$ on $u^{*}(P(X/T))$, from Lemma \[lem:mult2\], which is a contradiction.
Having proven that $(\pi^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi)(\eta_{\ell})= 0$, note that then $$(u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u)^{-1}(\eta_{\ell}) \subseteq \ker ((\pi^{*}
\circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\pi) \circ (u^{*} \circ \operatorname{{Nm}}u)) = (\pi^{*}(P(S/R))[2]$$ where the last equality follows from Claim \[claim:mult2\].
Hence there is $z \in (\pi^{*}(P(S/R))[2]$ such that $(u^{*} \circ
\operatorname{{Nm}}u)(z) = \eta_{\ell}$; since $\pi^{*}$ is an isomorphism on $P(S/R)$, there exists $ s \in P(S/R)[2]$ such that $(u^{*} \circ
\operatorname{{Nm}}u)(\pi^{*}(s)) = \eta_{\ell}$.
We can now prove the following result, interesting on its own.
\[prop:big\] $\ker H = F$ if and only if $\alpha \neq 0$.
Moreover, if $\alpha = 0$ then $[F : \ker H] = 2$.
Assume there exists $s \in F$ with $s \notin \ker H$. Then $u^{*}(H(s))$ is the non-zero element of $\ker \ell^{*}$ in $u^{*}(P(X/T))$, because $u^{*} : JX \to JZ$ is injective as we know from Lemma \[kerl\] and by the commutativity of Diagram \[dia:isotrig\]; therefore $\alpha = 0$.
Furthermore, it follows that $H(s) \in P(X/T)[2]$ is the non-zero element of $\ker v^{*}$ and hence the difference of two such $s$ is an element of $\ker H$; therefore $[F : \ker H] = 2$ in this case. The result now follows from Claim \[claim:nsbig\].
To compute the cardinality of $\ker H$ it now suffices to compute the cardinality of $F$.
Towards this goal we now prove the following result.
\[claim:prt\] With the notation of Diagram (\[dia:symm\])) we have the following description. $${r^{*}}^{-1}(P(U/\Delta)[2]) = P(R/T)[2] = \{ x \in JR[2] :
(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}p^{*}x = 0 \}.$$
Proof of the claim: We recall from the theory of $S_3-$actions (see [@s3]) that $r^{*} : P(R/T) \to P(U/\Delta)$ is injective and also that $\ker \{ P(R/T) \times P(R/T)
\stackrel{r^{*}+\tau r^{*}}{\longrightarrow} P(U/\Delta) \} = \{
(x,y): r^{*}x =\tau r^{*}y, x \in P(R/T)[3] \}$.
Hence $r^{*}P(R/T)[2] \ \cap \ \tau r^{*}P(R/T)[2] = \{ 0 \}$ and therefore $$r^{*}P(R/T)[2] + \tau r^{*}P(R/T)[2] = P(U/\Delta)[2]$$ (by counting cardinalities).
The first equality in the claim follows now from the injectivity of $r^{*}$ on $P(R/T)$. Noting that $(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}p^{*} = (1+\tau+\tau^2)
\varepsilon^{*} r^{*} = \varepsilon^{*} (1+\tau+\tau^2) r^{*}$ and using the first equality, we obtain that $P(R/T)[2] \subseteq \{ x
\in JR[2] : (1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}p^{*}x = 0 \}$.
Conversely, given $x \in \{ x \in JR[2] :
(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}p^{*}x = 0 \}$, then $(1+\tau+\tau^2) r^{*}(x) \in \ker \varepsilon^{*}$.
Since $\ker \varepsilon^{*} \subseteq \ker(1+\tau + \tau^2)$ by Claim \[claim:eps\] in the proof of Theorem \[T:alt\], it follows that $(1+\tau + \tau^2)(1+\tau + \tau^2)r^{*}(x) = 0$.
But $(1+\tau + \tau^2)(1+\tau + \tau^2)r^{*}(x) = 3 (1+\tau +
\tau^2)r^{*}(x) = (1+\tau + \tau^2)r^{*}(3x) = (1+\tau +
\tau^2)r^{*}(x)$ since $3x =x$. Using the first equality again, the claim is proved.
An immediate corollary of this claim is the following result.
\[claim:p\] If $p : S \to R$ is unramified, then $\eta_p$ is in $P(R/T)$.
Proof of the claim: Since $p$ unramified is equivalent to $2\gamma
+2\delta =0$, in this case we have that all maps $c_i :C_i \to U$ are unramified.
Furthermore, it is clear that $r^{*} \eta_p = \eta_{c_i}$ for the unique $i$ such that $C_i$ covers $S$. But then $r^{*} \eta_p$ belongs to $\ker \varepsilon^{*} \subseteq P(U/\Delta)[2]$ and this claim follows from Claim \[claim:prt\].
\[rem:F\] Recall that we are interested in describing the set $F$ defined in (\[eq:F\]).
Note that $p^{*}(P(R/T)[2]) \cap P(S/R)[2]$ is contained in $F$, by Claim \[claim:prt\].
The general philosophy to complete the description is based on proving that the complementary part of $F$ arises from some specific elements of $P(S/R)[2]$ which come from the ramification of $p : S \to R$.
In particular, if $p$ is unramified we should already have a description of $F$.
Our next result shows that this is the case, even if $p$ has two ramification points.
\[prop:almclass\] If $2\gamma + 2 \delta = 0$ or $2$, then $$F = p^{*}(P(R/T)[2]) \cap P(S/R)[2]$$
If $x$ is any element of $F$, then $x \in P(S/R)[2]$ and $(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}(x) = 0$.
If $2\gamma + 2 \delta = 0$ we know that $P(S/R)[2] = p^{*}(\{ 0,
\eta_p \}^{\bot})$ and if $2\gamma + 2 \delta = 2$ then $P(S/R)[2]
= p^{*}(JR[2])$.
In both cases there exists $y \in JR[2]$ such that $p^{*}(y) = x$; it now follows from Claim \[claim:prt\] that $y \in P(R/T)[2]$ and the result is proved.
We will analyze a further special case in the next section.
The classical case of the trigonal construction
-----------------------------------------------
Since the trigonal construction has been very useful in the theory of Prym varieties of unramified double covers, we devote this paragraph to it.
We say that we are in *the classical case* if the curve $W$ with ${\mathcal S}_4$-action –as in Diagram (\[dia:symm\])– is such that
1. $W/{\mathcal S}_4 = T = {\mathbb P}^1$, and such that
2. the canonical polarization on $JS$ induces $\lambda_P = 2 \lambda$ twice a principal polarization on $P(S/R)$.
In this case $P(X/T) = JX$ is also a principally polarized abelian variety.
Note that condition ii) occurs precisely when $p :S \to R$ is unramified or when it has two ramification points; equivalently, when $2\gamma + 2 \delta = 0$ or $2$.
Condition i) forces the double cover $d : \Delta \to {\mathbb
P}^1$ to have at least two points of ramification, since $\Delta$ must be connected; equivalently, $\alpha + \delta$ must be even and greater or equal to two.
Observe that both conditions together exclude the possibility $\alpha =0$ for the classical case, and also that they imply that the triple cover $R \to T = {\mathbb P}^1$ has at least one simple ramification point.
\[rem:classical\]
We could also say that the classical case corresponds to starting with a tetragonal curve $X$ with at least one simple ramification point and either no total ramification points nor points of type $(2,2)$, or no total ramification point and one ramification point of type $(2,2)$, or with one total ramification point and no ramification point of type $(2,2)$.
Or, equivalently, to a double cover, either unramified or with two ramification points, of a trigonal curve with at least one simple ramification point: $S \to R \to {\mathbb P}^1$.
The trigonal construction (see [@recillas:jeg94]) shows that these two situations are equivalent and, furthermore, that then $P(S/R)$ and $JX$ are isomorphic as principally polarized abelian varieties.
In both cases the corresponding Galois cover is given by the group ${\mathcal S}_4$ and we are in the situation of Theorem \[T:symm\] with $T = {\mathbb P}^1$, $\alpha >0$ and $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ or $2$; i.e., in the classical case.
We will now prove that we can also obtain from our methods that the two principally polarized abelian varieties are isomorphic.
We will first compute $\ker H$ for the classical case.
If $T = {\mathbb P}^1$ and either $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ or $2$, then the kernel of the morphism $H = \operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*} : P(S/R)
\to JX$ is $P(S/R)[2]$.
Note first that if $T = {\mathbb P}^1$, it follows from Claim \[claim:prt\] that $JR[2] = \{ x \in JR[2]:
(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}p^{*}x = 0 \}$. Therefore $p^{*}(JR[2]) \subseteq F$; applying Proposition \[prop:almclass\] we obtain $F = P(S/R)[2]$. It follows from $\alpha \neq 0$ and Proposition \[prop:big\] that $$\ker H = P(S/R)[2]$$ in the classical case.
Now we can prove the following result.
\[thm:classical\]
If $T = {\mathbb P}^1$ and either $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ or $2$, then the morphism $H = \operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*}|_{P(S/R)} : P(S/R) \to
JX$ induces an isomorphism between the principally polarized abelian varieties $(JX,\lambda_{JX})$ and $(\wh{P(S/R)},
\lambda_{\wh{P(S/R)}})$.
If we denote by $\lambda_P$ the polarization on $P= P(S/R)$ induced by the natural principal polarization on $JS$, it follows from our hypothesis that there exists a principal polarization $\lambda$ on $P$ such that $\lambda_P = 2\lambda$. Then note that, since $\ker \lambda_P = P[2] = \ker \left( P
\stackrel{\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*} }{\longrightarrow} JX \right)$, there exists an isomorphism $F : \wh P \to JX$ such that the following diagram commutes. $$\xymatrix{
P \ar[d]_{\lambda_P = 2\lambda} \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*}} & & JX \\
\wh P \ar[urr]_{F}^{\thickapprox} }$$ We now show that the isomorphism $F$ of tori is also an isomorphism of principally polarized abelian varieties. If we denote by $\lambda_1$ the polarization on $\wh P$ induced via $F$ by $\lambda_{JX}$, we may complete the above diagram to the following one. $$\xymatrix{
P \ar[d]_{\lambda_{P}} \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*}} & &
JX \ar[d]^{\lambda_{JX}} \\
\wh{P} \ar[d]_{\lambda_1} \ar[urr]_{F}^{\thickapprox}& &
\wh{JX} \ar[dll]^{\wh F}_{\thickapprox} \\
P
}$$ It now follows from the commutativity of the above diagram that $\lambda_1$ is principal and that $\ker (\lambda_1 \circ
\lambda_P) = P[2]$; therefore, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_{\wh P}$, as claimed.
Completion of the principally polarized $P(S/R)$ case
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section we compute $\ker H$ for the remaining principally polarized cases: $T \neq {\mathbb P}^1$ and either $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ or $2$.
Assume $T \neq {\mathbb P}^1$ and $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ or $2$. Then the cardinality of $\ker H$ is given as follows.
Recall that $F = p^{*}(P(R/T)[2]) \cap P(S/R)[2]$ holds under our hypothesis, from Proposition \[prop:almclass\]. If $2\gamma+2\delta = 2$, we know that $p^{*}$ is injective and $P(S/R)[2] = p^{*}(JR[2])$; it follows that $F =
p^{*}(P(R/T)[2])$, with $\bigl| F \bigr| =
2^{4g-4+\alpha+2\beta+\delta}$. We may now apply Proposition \[prop:big\] to conclude that if $\alpha$ is positive then $\ker
H = F$ and if $\alpha$ is zero then $[F : \ker H] = 2$. If $2\gamma+2\delta = 0$ we know that $\eta_p \in P(R/T)$, from Claim \[claim:p\], and also that $P(S/R)[2]= p^{*}(\{ 0, \eta_p
\}^{\bot})$ and is isomorphic to $\{ 0, \eta_p \}^{\bot}/\{ 0, \eta_p
\}$.
Therefore we have to analyze two separate cases:
1. $P(R/T)[2] \subseteq \{ 0, \eta_p \}^{\bot}$, or
2. $P(R/T)[2] \not\subseteq \{ 0, \eta_p \}^{\bot}$, which means $P(R/T)[2] \cap \{ 0, \eta_p \}^{\bot}$ is of ${\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb
Z}$-codimension $1$ in $P(R/T)[2]$.
In Case 1) we obtain $F = p^{*}(P(R/T)[2])$, which is isomorphic to $P(R/T)[2]/\{ 0, \eta_p \}$, and therefore $\bigl| F \bigr| =
2^{4g-5+\alpha+2\beta+\delta}$. In Case 2) $F = p^{*}(P(R/T)[2]
\cap \{ 0, \eta_p \}^{\bot})$ is isomorphic to $P(R/T)[2] \cap \{
0, \eta_p \}^{\bot}/\{ 0, \eta_p \}$, and therefore $\bigl| F
\bigr| = 2^{4g-6+\alpha+2\beta+\delta}$. Now each of the two cases splits into two more, depending on whether $\alpha > 0$ (with $\bigl| \ker H \bigr| = \bigl| F \bigr|$) or $\alpha = 0$, with $\bigl| \ker H \bigr| = \bigl| F \bigr|/2$).
The general case
----------------
We may now assume that $2\gamma + 2 \delta > 2$; we will continue the description of $F$ by constructing the elements of $P(S/R)[2]$ coming from the ramification. Then we will decide which of those lie in $F$.
First note that there are four types of points in $T$ over which $f : X \to T$ ramifies: the $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\delta$ and $\gamma$ points, corresponding to the images of simple, triple, total or $(2,2)$ type of ramification points, respectively.
Their preimages via $g : R \to T$ are the places over which $p : S
\to R$ may ramify. Careful consideration of the group actions involved shows that the $\alpha$ and the $\beta$ points do not contribute and that the $\delta$ and $\gamma$ points do contribute, in the following way.
[*The $\gamma$ points:*]{} If $\gamma_t \in T$ is a $\gamma$ point we will denote $$g^*(\gamma_t) = {\gamma_1}{'} + {\gamma_2}{'} +\gamma_3{'} \ , \
{\gamma_i}{'} \in R$$ where $$p^*(\gamma_1{'}) = 2\gamma_1, p^*(\gamma_2{'}) = 2\gamma_2 \text{ and }
p^*(\gamma_3{'}) = \gamma_5 + \gamma_6 \ , \ \gamma_j \in S .$$
With respect to $r : U \to R$, we choose $n \in JR$ such that $$n^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_{R}(\gamma_1{'}-\gamma_2{'}) \ \text{
and } \ r^*(n) \in \ker (1+\tau+\tau^2)$$
Then $${\mathcal G} = {\mathcal O}_S(\gamma_2-\gamma_1) \otimes p^*(n)$$ is in $P(S/R)[2]$ and we also have $$(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}({\mathcal G}) = 0 \, ;$$ that is, we have constructed an element of $F$.
Therefore, if we enumerate the $\gamma$ points of $T$ as $\gamma_t^1 , \ldots \gamma_t^{\gamma}$, we have that the corresponding points $\gamma_1^1, \gamma_2^1, \ldots
\gamma_1^{\gamma}, \gamma_2^{\gamma}$ in $S$ are ramification points of $p : S \to R$, and as above we construct, for each $i$ in $\{ 1, \ldots , \gamma \}$, elements in $F$ given as follows $${\mathcal G}_{2i-1} = {\mathcal O}_S(\gamma_2^i-\gamma_1^i) \otimes
p^*(n_i)$$ with $n_i \in JR$, $n_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal
O}_{R}({\gamma_1^{i}}{'}-{\gamma_2^i}{'})$ and $(1+\tau+\tau^2)r^*(n_i) = 0$.
Similarly, we construct elements of $P(S/R)[2]$ as follows. $${\mathcal G}_{2i} = {\mathcal O}_S(\gamma_1^{i+1}-\gamma_2^i) \otimes p^*(m_i)$$ with $m_i \in JR$, $m_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal
O}_{R}({\gamma_2^{i}}{'}-{\gamma_1^i}{'})$.
[*The $\delta$ points:*]{}
If $\delta_t \in T$ is a $\delta$ point we will denote $$g^*(\delta_t) = {\delta_1}{'} + 2{\delta_{23}}{'} \ , \
{\delta_i}{'} \in R$$ and $$p^*(\delta_1{'}) = 2\delta_1, p^*(\delta_{23}{'}) = 2\delta_{23} \ , \
{\delta_j} \in S \, .$$
Next choose $n \in JR$ such that $$n^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_{R}(\delta_{23}{'}-\delta_1{'}) \ \text{ with }
\ r^*(n) \in \ker (1+\tau+\tau^2) \, .$$
If we define ${\mathcal D}$ as follows $${\mathcal D} = {\mathcal O}_S(\delta_1-\delta_{23}) \otimes p^*(n)$$ then it is in $P(S/R)[2]$ and we also have $$(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}({\mathcal D}) = 0 \, ;$$ that is, we have constructed an element of $F$.
Therefore, if we enumerate the $\delta$ points of $T$ as $\delta_t^1 , \ldots \delta_t^{\delta}$, we have that the corresponding points $\delta_1^1, \delta_{23}^1, \ldots
\delta_1^{\delta}, \delta_{23}^{\delta}$ in $S$ are ramification points of $p : S \to R$, and as above we construct, for each $i$ in $\{ 1, \ldots , \delta \}$, elements in $F$ given as follows $${\mathcal D}_{2i-1} = {\mathcal O}_S(\delta_1^i-\delta_{23}^i)
\otimes p^*(n_i)$$ with $n_i \in JR$, $n_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal
O}_{R}({\delta_{23}^{i}}{'}-{\delta_1^i}{'})$ and $(1+\tau+\tau^2)r^*(n_i) = 0$.
Similarly, we construct elements of $P(S/R)[2]$ as follows. $${\mathcal D}_{2i} = {\mathcal O}_S(\delta_{23}^{i+1}-\delta_1^i)
\otimes p^*(m_i)$$ with $m_i \in JR$, $m_i^{\otimes 2}
= {\mathcal O}_{R}({\delta_1^{i}}{'}-{\delta_{23}^i}{'})$.
Finally, if $\gamma \delta > 0$ we consider one more sheaf which links both cases: $${\mathcal L} = {\mathcal O}_S(\delta_{1}^{1}-\delta_2^{\delta}) \otimes p^*(m)$$ with $m \in JR$ and $$m^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_{R}({\delta_2^{\gamma}}{'}-{\delta_{1}^1}{'}) \, .$$
Now we can apply Corollary \[coro:p2\] to give a description of $P(S/R)[2]$ in this case: $2\gamma + 2\delta > 2$.
We are now ready to describe $F$ for the case $2\gamma + 2\delta
> 2$.
With the above notation, $F$ is described as follows.
Since we are assuming $2\gamma + 2\delta > 2$, $p^{*} : JR \to JS$ is injective; hence $p^{*}(P(R/T)[2]) \subseteq P(S/R)[2]$ and therefore the factor of $F$ not coming from the ramification is $p^{*}(P(R/T)[2])$.
For $\delta\gamma>0$, let $\mathcal{F}= \{ {\mathcal G}_{2j-1} ,
{\mathcal D}_{2i-1} \}$ with $ 1 \leq j \leq \gamma $ and $1\leq i
\leq \delta$; if $\gamma \geq 2$ and $\delta = 0$, let $\mathcal{F}= \{ {\mathcal G}_{2j-1} \}$ with $1 \leq j \leq
\gamma $; and if $\delta \geq 2$ and $\gamma = 0$, let $\mathcal{F}= \{ {\mathcal D}_{2i-1} \}$ with $1 \leq i \leq
\delta $.
Note that, in each case, the elements of the collection $\mathcal{F}$ span the sheaves ${\mathcal S}$ which come from the ramification and such that $(1+\tau+\tau^2)\ell^{*}\pi^{*}({\mathcal S}) = 0$; i.e., those elements of $F$ coming from the ramification.
Also, there is exactly one relation among them (c.f. Remark \[rem:rel\]).
In this way we have obtained that $\bigl| F \bigr| =
2^{2(g_R-g_T)+\gamma+\delta-1}=2^{4g-5+\alpha+2\beta+\gamma+2\delta}$ whenever $2\gamma + 2\delta > 2$.
Now we can compute $\bigl| \ker H \bigr|$ for this case.
If $2\gamma + 2\delta > 2$, then the cardinality of $\ker H$ is given as follows.
We know from Proposition \[prop:big\] that if $\alpha$ is positive, then $\bigl| \ker H \bigr| = \bigl| F \bigr|$ and that if $\alpha = 0$, then $\bigl| \ker H \bigr| = \bigl| F \bigr|/2$.
We have thus completed the proof of v) in Theorem \[T:symm\].
As for vi), let us fix the notation: $V = V_3$, $R = R_3$, $Y =
Y_4$ and $X = X_4$ and let $$T_0 JW = \mathbf{U} \oplus \mathbf{U'} \oplus \mathbf{V_2}
\oplus \mathbf{V_3} \oplus \mathbf{V_3'}$$ denote the isotypical decomposition of the tangent space to $JW$ at the origin, where $\mathbf{U} = {\mathcal U}^{n_0}$, $\mathbf{U'} = {\mathcal U'}^{n_1}$, $\mathbf{V_2} = {\mathcal
V}_2^{n_2}$, $\mathbf{V_3} = {\mathcal V}_3^{n_3}$, $\mathbf{V'_3}
= {{\mathcal V}'_3}^{n_4}$ with ${\mathcal U}$, ${\mathcal U'}$, ${\mathcal V}_2$, ${\mathcal V}_3$, ${{\mathcal V}'_3} = {\mathcal
V}_3 \otimes {\mathcal U'}$ the complex irreducible representations of ${\mathcal S}_4$ of respective degrees $1$, $1$, $2$, $3$ and $3$.
Following [@sa], we compare actions to obtain the isogeny, as follows.
A short computation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
(d(b \circ \nu)^{*})_0 (T_0 P(V/R)) & =
{\mathbf{V'_3}}^{\langle (1 \, 3) (2 \,4) \rangle} \, , \\
(d(\psi \circ h)^{*})_0 (T_0 P(\Delta/T)) & =
{\mathbf{U'}} \ \text{ and }\\
(d \psi^{*})_0 (T_0 P(Y/X)) & =
{\mathbf{U'}} \oplus {\mathbf{V'_3}}^{\langle (1 \, 2 \, 3) \rangle} \, . \\
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore it follows from the second and third equalities that $$T_0 P(Y/X) = (d \, h^{*})_0 (T_0 P(\Delta/T)) \oplus (d
\psi^{*})_0^{-1} {\mathbf{V'_3}}^{\langle (1 \, 2 \, 3) \rangle}$$
But we can also prove that $$(1+\tau+\tau^2){{\mathcal V}'_3}^{\langle (1 \, 3)(2 \, 4) \rangle}
= {{\mathcal V}'_3}^{\langle (1 \, 2 \, 3) \rangle} \, ,$$ hence $$(1+\tau+\tau^2)(d(b \circ \nu)^{*})_0 (T_0 P(V/R)) =
(1+\tau+\tau^2){{\mathbf V}'_3}^{\langle (1 \, 3)(2 \, 4) \rangle}
= {{\mathbf V}'_3}^{\langle (1 \, 2 \, 3) \rangle}$$
If we now observe that on $JW$ we have $1+\tau+\tau^2 = \psi^{*}
\circ \operatorname{{Nm}}\psi$, we obtain $$T_0 P(Y/X) = (d \, h^{*})_0 (T_0 P(\Delta/T)) \oplus
d(\operatorname{{Nm}}\psi \circ (b \circ \nu)^{*})_0 (T_0 P(V/R))$$ proving vi).
As for vii), let us fix $Z = Z_{13}$, $S= S_3$, $R = R_3$ and $X=X_4$.
Since $|P(Z/S) \cap \pi^{*}(JS)| < \infty$ then $$\label{eq:fin}
|P(Z/S) \cap \pi^{*} \circ p^{*}(P(R/T))| < \infty \, .$$
On the other hand, some computations show that $$\begin{aligned}
T_0 (\ell^{*}\circ \pi^{*} \circ p^{*} P(R/T)) & =
{{\mathbf V}_2}^{\langle (1 \, 3) \rangle}\\
T_0 (\ell^{*} \circ u^{*} JX) & =
{{\mathbf V}_3}^{\langle (1 \, 2),(1 \, 3) \rangle} \oplus
{{\mathbf U}} \\
\intertext{and}
T_0 \ell^{*}JZ & = {{\mathbf V}_3}^{\langle (1 \, 3) \rangle} \cap
T_0(\ell^{*}P(Z/X))\oplus {{\mathbf V}'_3}^{\langle (1 \, 3)
\rangle} \\
& \hskip36pt \oplus {{\mathbf V}_2}^{\langle (1 \, 3) \rangle} \oplus
{{\mathbf V}_3}^{\langle (1 \, 2),(1 \, 3) \rangle} \oplus
{{\mathbf U}} \, .\\
\end{aligned}$$
These equalities imply that $\pi^{*} \circ p^{*} P(R/T) \subseteq
P(Z/X)$. But $$\dim P(R/T)+ \dim P(Z/S) = \dim P(Z/X)$$ which together with (\[eq:fin\]) complete the proof of vii) and of Theorem \[T:symm\].
Other applications
==================
Examples
--------
Throughout the paper we did put some obvious restrictions to the ramification data in some formulae.
Here we will actually construct curves with given ramification data and given $G-$action, where $G$ is one of the groups associated to non-Galois fourfold covers, as considered in this paper: ${\mathcal S}_4$, ${\mathcal A}_4$ or ${\mathcal D}_4$.
For this we recall the general construction: consider an $n-$fold cover between complex curves $$f : X \to T \, .$$
If we denote by $B(f) = \{ P_1, \ldots , P_{\omega}\} \subseteq T$ the branch locus of $f$, we have an induced homomorphism $$f^{\#} : \Pi_1(T - B(f)) \to {\mathcal S}_n$$
By the Monodromy theorem and the Riemann extension theorem, we know that the covers $f$ (up to isomorphism) are classified by the homomorphisms $f^{\#}$ with transitive image (up to inner automorphisms).
Moreover, one knows that ${f^{\#}}^{-1}({\mathcal S}_{n-1})
\approx \Pi_1(X - f^{-1}(B(f)))$ and that $ \ker f^{\#} \approx
\Pi_1(W-\gamma^{-1}(B(f)))$, where $\gamma : W \to T$ is the corresponding Galois extension of $f$, with group $G = \text{Im }
f^{\#} \subseteq {\mathcal S}_n$.
Also recall that $$\begin{gathered}
\Pi_1 =
\Pi_1 (T - B(f)) = \langle \alpha_1, \beta_1, \ldots , \alpha_g,
\beta_g, \sigma_1, \ldots , \sigma_{\omega} : \\
\alpha_1 \beta_1 \alpha_1^{-1} \beta_1^{-1} \ldots
\alpha_g \beta_g \alpha_g^{-1} \beta_g^{-1} =
\sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_{\omega}
\rangle
\end{gathered}$$ where $g = $ genus of $T$, $\alpha_1, \beta_1, \ldots , \alpha_g,
\beta_g $ are canonical generators for $\Pi_1(T)$ and each $\sigma_j$ is represented by a trajectory going from the base point to near $P_j$, around it once in the appropriate direction, and back.
So, to construct $W$ with $G = {\mathcal S}_4$ action and given values of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$, where $\omega
= \alpha + \beta +\gamma + \delta$, is equivalent to the construction of a four-fold cover of curves $f : X \to T$ with those ramification values, and therefore also equivalent to the construction of a *surjective* homomorphism $$f^{\#} : \Pi_1 \to {\mathcal S}_4$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond}
\begin{cases}
f^{\#}(\sigma_1), \ldots , f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha})
& \text{ are transpositions; } \\
f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+1}), \ldots ,f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta})
& \text{ are three-cycles; } \\
f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+1}), \ldots ,f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma})
& \text{ are products of two } \\
& \text{ disjoint transpositions; } \\
f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+1}), \ldots ,f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta})
& \text{ are four-cycles; } \\
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
For the other cases $G = {\mathcal A}_4$ or $G = {\mathcal D}_4$ the condition that $f^{\#}$ be surjective changes to $\text{Im }
f^{\#} = G$ is a transitive group of ${\mathcal S}_4$, whereas (\[cond\]) stays the same.
Jacobians of curves isogenous to a product of Jacobians
-------------------------------------------------------
The equivariant isogeny $\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4}$ of Theorem \[T:symm\] induces an isogeny $$\phi : JU \times 3P(S/R) \times 3P(V/R) \to JW$$ Hence we obtain curves $W$ with ${\mathcal S}_4$ action whose Jacobian $JW$ is isogenous to a product of Jacobians if $g_R = 0$.
Since $g_R = 3g_T -2 + \displaystyle{\frac{\alpha+\delta}{2}}
+\beta$, this is equivalent to $g_T= 0$ and $\alpha + \delta
+2\beta = 4$.
We now describe the cases for which such covers actually exist and the dimension of the corresponding moduli.
Recall from the previous section that we are looking for surjective homomorphisms $$\label{eq:homsp}
f^{\#} : \Pi_1 = \langle \sigma_1, \ldots , \sigma_{\omega} : \,
\sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_{\omega} = 1 \rangle \to {\mathcal S}_4$$ that satisfy (\[cond\]) with $\alpha + \delta +2\beta = 4$ and such that $$\label{eq:homg0}
f^{\#}(\sigma_1) \cdots f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta})= 1$$
Many a priori possibilities for $ \alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are excluded by our conditions; for instance we already know that $g_T = 0$ implies $\alpha + \delta > 0$ and even.
A final observation before we actually give all possible cases is that under our conditions we obtain $g_U = g_{\Delta}$, hence in fact we are considering the isogeny of Theorem \[T:symm\] ii) in the special cases $$\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4} : J\Delta \times 3JS \times 3JV \to JW$$
Let us observe that when $T = {\mathbb P}^1$ then $P(S/R)$ is isogenous to $JX$, so apparently we only need to impose the condition that $P(V/R)$ be isogenous to a Jacobian. The only way we know to do this at the moment is that $\dim P(V/R) = 1$, but this is equivalent to $$\alpha + \beta +\gamma+\delta = 4$$ so all possible cases are included in our next result.
The Jacobian of a curve W with ${\mathcal S}_4$ action is isogenous to a product of Jacobians, via the isogeny $\phi_{{\mathcal S}_4}$ of Theorem \[T:symm\] ii) in the form $$J\Delta \times 3JS \times 3JV \to JW$$ if the ramification data satisfies the following.
$$
-------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
Case $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ $\delta$
$I$ $4$ $0$ $\geq 1$ $0$
$II$ $2$ $1$ $\geq 1$ $0$
$III$ $2$ $0$ $\geq 0$ $2$
$IV$ $1$ $0$ $\geq 0$ $3$
$V$ $1$ $1$ $\geq 0$ $1$
$VI$ $0$ $0$ $\geq 0$ $4$
$VII$ $0$ $1$ $\geq 0$ $2$
$VIII$ $3$ $0$ $\geq 0$ $1$
-------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
$$
Furthermore, in the following table we list the genera of the corresponding curves, the degree of the isogeny $\phi_{{\mathcal
S}_4}$ and the number of respective moduli.
$$
-------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------------- ------------
Case $g_{\Delta}$ $g_S$ $g_V$ $g_W$ $\deg \phi$ moduli
$I$ $1$ $\gamma-1$ $\gamma+1$ $6\gamma+1$ $2^{12\gamma+2} 3$ $\gamma+1$
$II$ $0$ $\gamma-1$ $\gamma$ $6\gamma-3$ $2^{12\gamma-6}$ $\gamma$
$III$ $1$ $\gamma+1$ $\gamma+1$ $6\gamma+7$ $2^{12\gamma+14}3$ $\gamma+1$
$IV$ $1$ $\gamma+2$ $\gamma+1$ $6\gamma+10$ $2^{12\gamma+20}3$ $\gamma+1$
$V$ $0$ $\gamma$ $\gamma$ $6\gamma$ $2^{12\gamma}$ $\gamma$
$VI$ $1$ $\gamma+3$ $\gamma+1$ $6\gamma+13$ $2^{12\gamma+26}3$ $\gamma+1$
$VII$ $0$ $\gamma+1$ $\gamma$ $6\gamma+3$ $2^{12\gamma+6}$ $\gamma$
$VIII$ $1$ $\gamma$ $\gamma+1$ $6\gamma+4$ $2^{12\gamma+8}3$ $\gamma+1$
-------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------------- ------------
$$
The proof of this result is a direct application of Theorem \[T:symm\], but we must show that the given covers exist and why other cases are excluded.
In particular, since $\alpha + \delta$ must be positive and even, it is either $4$ or $2$, in which cases $\beta$ must be $0$ or $1$ respectively. From here we obtain eight cases for the values of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\delta$ as in the first table; the next step is to show that in the first two cases the value $\gamma = 0$ is excluded and that all the other possibilities actually exist.
This is done by either constructing surjective homomorphisms $$f^{\#} : \Pi_1 = \langle \sigma_1, \ldots , \sigma_{\omega} : \\
\sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_{\omega} = 1 \rangle \to {\mathcal S}_4$$ as in (\[eq:homsp\]) with $\omega = \alpha +
\beta+\gamma+\delta$, where $\alpha +2\beta+\delta = 4$, and satisfying (\[cond\]) and (\[eq:homg0\]), or showing that they cannot exist, depending on the values of the first table.
First of all it is clear that ${\mathcal S}_4$ cannot be generated by either $4$ transpositions with trivial product nor by two transpositions with product a $3$-cycle; therefore, if $\alpha=4$ and $\beta = \delta = 0$, or if $\alpha = 2$, $\beta = 1$ and $\delta = 0$, then $\gamma >0$.
The proof is completed by writing down specific homomorphisms for the other cases.
We will illustrate with a couple of examples, as follows.
*Case I: $\alpha = 4$, $\beta = \delta =0$ and $\gamma \geq
1$.* Then $f^{\#}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_1 & \to (1 \, 2) \\
\sigma_2 & \to (2 \, 3) \\
\sigma_3 & \to (3 \, 4) \\
\sigma_4 & \to (1 \, 3) \\
\intertext{and, for $\gamma \equiv 1 \ (2)$}
\sigma_5 & \to (1 \, 4)(2 \, 3) \\
\sigma_6 , \ldots , \sigma_{4+\gamma} & \to (1 \, 2)(3 \, 4), \text{ only if } \gamma > 1 \\
\intertext{and, for $\gamma \equiv 0 \ (2)$}
\sigma_5 & \to (1 \, 2)(3 \, 4) \\
\sigma_6 & \to (1 \, 3)(2 \, 4) \\
\sigma_7 , \ldots , \sigma_{4+\gamma} & \to (1 \, 2)(3 \, 4), \text{ only if } \gamma > 2.
\end{aligned}$$
Rigid Jacobians with ${\mathcal S}_4$ actions
---------------------------------------------
This time we have to look for surjective homomorphisms as follows.
$$\label{eq:homrig}
f^{\#} : \Pi_1({\mathbb P}^1-\{ P_1,P_2,P_3\}) \to {\mathcal S}_4$$
that satisfy (\[cond\]) with $\alpha +\beta + \gamma + \delta =
3$ and such that $$\label{eq:homrig3}
f^{\#}(\sigma_1) \cdots f^{\#}(\sigma_{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta})= 1$$
Again $g = g_T = 0$ implies $\alpha + \delta$ even and positive, and hence $\alpha + \delta = 2$; therefore $\beta +\gamma = 1$.
One verifies then that the only cases that do appear are the following two special cases from the previous section, the other possibilities not being realizable.
*Case V with $\gamma = 0$:*i.e., $\alpha = \beta = \delta =
1$.
In this case $g_W = 0$; that is we obtain a rational function $$\gamma : {\mathbb P}^1 \to {\mathbb P}^1$$ of degree $24$, which corresponds to the quotient map by the action of ${\mathcal S}_4$ (see [@klein]).
*Case VII with $\gamma = 0$:*i.e., $\alpha = 0$, $\beta =
1$, $\delta = 2$.
In this case $g_W = 3$ and $S = E$ is an elliptic curve with an isogeny $$E \times E \times E \to JW$$ of degree $2^6$.
One dimensional families of curves with ${\mathcal S}_4$ action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have to look for surjective homomorphisms $$f^{\#} : \Pi_1 \to {\mathcal S}_4$$ where either $$\begin{aligned}
(I) \ \Pi_1 & = \Pi_1({\mathbb P}^1-\{ P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\}) \\
\intertext{ respectively }
(II) \ \Pi_1 & = \Pi_1(E-\{ P \})
\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is an elliptic curve, and such that $f^{\#}$ satisfies (\[cond\]) with
The next result gives all possible cases.
The one–parameter families of curves $W$ with ${\mathcal S}_4$ action correspond exactly to those in the following table, where $g_T = 0$ except in the last case, where $g_T = 1$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
& & & & & & & & & \\
Case & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\delta$ & $g_R$ & $g_S$ & $g_V$ & $g_X$ & $g_W$ \\
$I$ & $3$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $4$ \\
$II$ & $2$ & $2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ & $0$ & $5$ \\
$III$ & $2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $7$ \\
$IV$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $3$ \\
$V$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $3$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $10$ \\
$VI$ & $1$ & $2$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ & $2$ & $1$ & $8$ \\
$VII$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $6$ \\
$VIII$ & $0$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $2$ & $2$ & $11$ \\
$IX$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $9$ \\
$X$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $4$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $3$ & $13$ \\
$XI$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ &$3$ & $3$ & $2$ & $9$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
Furthermore, in each case we have respective isogenies to $JW$ as follows.
Prym varieties of genus seven double covers of genus three curves, isogenous to a product of elliptic curves
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In [@B-C-V] it is shown that the Prym varieties of genus $7$ double covers of genus three curves, branched at $4$ points, are dense in the the moduli space of abelian fourfolds of type $(1,2,2,2)$.
Here we describe a one parameter family of such Prym varieties which are, moreover, isogenous to the product of elliptic curves.
Our example corresponds to Case III of the previous Section, which can also be described as follows.
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve and consider $E : \hookrightarrow
{\mathbb P}^3$ its projective normal embedding as a degree four space curve. Take two hyper-osculating points $P_1$ and $P_2$ of $E$; i.e., there exist planes $H_1$ and $H_2$ in ${\mathbb P}^3$ such that $H_i \cdot E = 4P_i$ for $i= 1,2$.
Now consider the degree four meromorphic function $f : E \to
{\mathbb P}^1$ obtained by projection from the line $L = H_1 \cap
H_2$; since the construction depends upon one parameter, we have that the ramification data for $f$ is given by $\alpha = \delta =
2$ and $\beta = \gamma = 0$ (the construction actually depends only on the corresponding cyclic subgroup of order $4$ of $E[4]$).
If we denote by $V = E_0$, $\Delta = E_1$, $S = E_2$ and $U = E_7$ the corresponding elliptic curves in this case and with a superscript the genus of the other curve, we obtain the following version of Diagram (\[dia:symm\]).
$$\xymatrix@R=8pt@C=10pt
{ & & W^7 \ar[ddrrrr] \ar[dd]^{\nu} \ar[ddll] \\
& \\
Z^3 \ar[dd]_{\pi} \ar[ddrrrr]^(.7){u} & & C^3 \ar[ddd]
\ar[ddll]_{a} \ar[ddl]^(.6){b} & & & & Y^3 \ar[ddll]
\ar[ddddd]\\
& & & & \\
E_2 \ar[ddd] & E_0 \ar[lddd] &
& & E \ar[ddddd]_(.6){f} \\
& & E_7 \ar[ddll] \ar@{-}[drr] \\
& & & & \ar[drr] \\
{\mathbb P}^1 \ar[ddrrrr] & & & & & & E_1 \ar[ddll] \\
& \\
& & & & {\mathbb P}^1
}$$
By the general trigonal construction we know that $$\ker(\operatorname{{Nm}}u \circ \pi^{*} : E_2 \to E) = E_2[2]$$ hence $E_2$ and $E$ are isomorphic.
>From the theory of the Klein group action we know that the isogeny $$a^{*}+b^{*} : E_2 \times E_0 \to P(C/E_7)$$ is of degree $2^2$ (Case IV in the Appendix).
With the notation of Theorem \[T:alt\] and again from a Klein action we have that the isogeny $$\nu_2^{*} + \nu_3^{*} : P(C_2/U) \times P(C_3/U) \to P(W/C_4)$$ is of degree $2^4$.
Therefore we have an isogeny $$E_2 \times E_0 \times E_2 \times E_0 \to P(W/C)$$ of degree $2^6$.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this section we complete the proof of Theorem \[T:klein\] by computing the following quantities for $\{ j, k, l \} = \{
\sigma \tau, \sigma, \tau \}$ and $P_k = P(X_k/T)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\bigl| \ker (\phi_{j}) \bigl| & = \deg a_{k}^*\bigl|_{P_{k}}
\cdot \deg a_{l}^*\bigl|_{P_{l}} \cdot \bigl| a_{k}^*(P_{k}[2])
\cap a_{l}^*(P_{l}[2]) \bigl| \\
\intertext{and}
\bigl| \ker (\operatorname{{ps}}_{j}) \bigl| & =|P_{j}[2]| \dfrac{| b_{j}^* JT
\cap \ker a_{j}^*|}{|\ker a_{j}^*|}
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{j} : P_k \times P_l & \to P(X/X_{j}) \, ,& \phi_{j} (x_1, x_2) & = a_{k}^*(x_1) +
a_{l}^*(x_2) \\
\intertext{ and }
\operatorname{{ps}}_{j} : P_j \times P(X/X_{j}) & \to P(X/T) \, ,& \operatorname{{ps}}_j (y, x) & = a_{j}^*(y) + x \, .
\end{aligned}$$
We will compute by analyzing the different possible cases for the ramifications of the covers appearing in the following Diagram.
$$\xymatrix{
& & X \ar[dll]_{a_{\sigma}}^{2s} \ar[d]_{a_{\tau}}^{2t} \ar[drr]^{a_{\sigma \tau}}_{2r} \\
X_{\sigma} \ar[drr]_{b_{\sigma}}^{t+r} & & X_{\tau} \ar[d]_{b_{\tau}}^{s+r}
& & X_{\sigma \tau} \ar[dll]^{b_{\sigma \tau}}_{s+t} \\
& & T
} \ .
\label{klein2}$$
The possibilities are as follows. [*Case I:*]{} All covers in Diagram (\[klein2\]) are unramified: $r=s=t=0$. [*Case II:*]{} Exactly two of the top covers in Diagram (\[klein2\]) are unramified. [*Case III:*]{} Exactly two of the top covers in Diagram (\[klein2\]) are ramified. [*Case IV:*]{} All covers in Diagram (\[klein2\]) are ramified: $rst \neq 0$.
[*Case I : $r=s=t=0$.*]{} In this case, all induced morphisms between corresponding Jacobians are non-injective.
Let $H_{j} = \ker b_{j}^* = \{ 0, \eta_{b_{j}} \} \subseteq
JT[2]$. Then $H_{l} = \ker b_{l}^* = \{ 0, \eta_{b_j} + \eta_{b_k}
\}$ and $$\ker \gamma^* = H_{j} + H_{k} = \{ 0, \eta_{b_{\sigma}} ,
\eta_{b_{\tau}} , \eta_{b_{\sigma}} + \eta_{b_{\tau}} \} \, .$$
By [@mumprym] we have, for each $j$, induced isomorphisms $H_{j}^{\perp}/H_{j} \to b_{j}^*(H_{j}^{\perp}) = P_{j}[2]$.
Therefore $$|P_{\sigma}[2]| = |P_{\tau}[2]| = |P_{\sigma \tau}[2]| =
2^{2g_T -2} \ \, \text{ if } \, r = s = t = 0.$$
We now distinguish two subcases, according to the value of the Weil pairing $(\eta_{b_{\sigma}} , \eta_{b_{\tau}})$ of $\eta_{b_{\sigma}} $ and $\eta_{b_{\tau}}$.
[*Case a):*]{} Assume $(\eta_{b_{\sigma}} , \eta_{b_{\tau}}) = 0$; or, equivalently, $\ker \gamma^* \subseteq H_{j}^{\perp} \cap
H_{k}^{\perp}$ for some pair (equivalently, each pair) $j,k$.
Then $\ker a_{l}^* = b_{l}^*(\ker \gamma^*) \subseteq P_{l}[2]$ for each $l$ and it follows that for each $l \in \{ \sigma \tau,
\sigma, \tau \}$ we have $$\deg a_{l}^*\bigl|_{P_{l}} = 2 \, , \ \, \text{ if } \, r = s = t =
0 \text{ and } (\eta_{b_{\sigma}} , \eta_{b_{\tau}}) = 0 \, .$$
On the other hand, $$|a_{j}^*(P_{j}[2]) \cap a_{k}^*(P_{k}[2])| = \left|
\dfrac{H_{j}^{\perp}}{H_{j} + H_{k}} \cap
\dfrac{H_{k}^{\perp}}{H_{j} + H_{k}} \right|$$ but our assumption for this case ($\ker \gamma^* = H_{j} + H_{k}
\subseteq H_{j}^{\perp} \cap H_{k}^{\perp}$) implies that $$\dfrac{H_{j}^{\perp}}{H_{j} + H_{k}} \cap
\dfrac{H_{k}^{\perp}}{H_{j} + H_{k}} =
\dfrac{(H_{j} + H_{k})^{\perp}}{H_{j} + H_{k}}$$ from where it follows that for each pair $j,k$ we have $$|a_{j}^*P_{j}[2] \cap a_{k}^*P_{k}[2]| = |(H_{j} +
H_{k})^{\perp}/(H_{j} + H_{k})| = 2^{2g_T -4} \, .$$
Hence we have obtained that $$\bigl| \ker (\phi_{j}) \bigl| = \deg
a_{k}^*\bigl|_{P_{k}} \cdot \deg a_{l}^*\bigl|_{P_{l}} \cdot
\bigl| a_{k}^*(P_{k}[2]) \cap a_{l}^*(P_{l}[2]) \bigl| =
2^{2g_T-2}$$ in this case.
We also have $\ker a_{j}^* = b_{j}^*(\ker \gamma^*) \subseteq
b_{j}^*JT$ and therefore $$\ker a_{j}^* \cap b_{j}^*JT = \ker a_{j}^* \ \text{ for each } j
\, .$$
It follows that $$\bigl| \ker (\operatorname{{ps}}_{j}) \bigl| =|P_{j}[2]|
\dfrac{| b_{j}^* JT \cap \ker a_{j}^*|}{|\ker a_{j}^*|} =
|P_{j}[2]| = 2^{2g_T-2} \ .$$
[*Case b):*]{} Assume $(\eta_{b_{\sigma}} , \eta_{b_{\tau}}) \neq
0$; or, equivalently, $(H_{j} + H_{k}) \cap H_{j}^{\perp} = H_{j}$ for some pair (equivalently, any pair) $j, k$.
Then it follows that $a_{l}^*\bigl|_{P_{l}}$ is injective for every $l$.
Now $H_{l}^{\perp}$ is of index two in $JT[2]$ and hence $$\gamma^* (H_{l}^{\perp}) = \gamma^* JT[2] \, ;$$ therefore, $$|a_{l}^*P_{l}[2] \cap a_{k}^*P_{k}[2]| = |\gamma^*
(H_{k}^{\perp}) \cap \gamma^* (H_{k}^{\perp})| = |\gamma^* JT[2]|
= 2^{2g_T-2} \, .$$
So again we obtain $$\bigl| \ker (\phi_{j}) \bigl| =
2^{2g_T-2} \ \, \text{ if } \, r = s = t = 0$$ and $$\bigl| \ker (\operatorname{{ps}}_{j}) \bigl| = 2^{2g_T-2} \ \, \text{ if } \, r = s = t = 0$$ which complete the proof for the unramified case.
[*Case II:*]{} Without loss of generality, in this paragraph we assume $r=t=0$ and $s>0$, which imply $s$ is even.
In this case $a_{\sigma}^*$, $b_{\tau}^*$ and $b_{\sigma \tau}^*$ are the only injective induced homomorphisms between Jacobians.
Let $\ker \gamma^* (= \ker b_{\sigma}^*) = \{ 0, \eta_{b_{\sigma}}
\} \subseteq JT[2]$. Then $$\ker a_{j}^* = \{ 0, b_{j}^*(\eta_{b_{\sigma}}) \}
\subseteq b_{j}^*(JT[2]) \subseteq P_{j}[2] \text{ for } j \neq \sigma$$ where the last inclusion follows from [@mumprym] since $b_{j}^*$ is injective.
It follows that $\deg a_{j}^*\bigl|_{P_{j}} = 2$ for $j \neq
\sigma$.
It also follows that $|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_j| = |P_j[2]|$ for $j \neq
\sigma$, whereas $|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_{\sigma}| = |P_{\sigma}[2]|$ follows from the injectivity of $a_{\sigma}^*$. Therefore in this case we have $$|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_k| =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-2+s} & \text{if } k \neq \sigma \text{ and } r=t=0, s>0;\\
2^{2g_T-2} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } r=t=0, s>0\\
\end{cases}$$
Now from $P_{\sigma}[2] = b_{\sigma}^*(\{ 0,
\eta_{b_{\sigma}}\}^{\perp})$ we obtain $a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) = {\gamma}^*(\{ 0,
\eta_{b_{\sigma}}\}^{\perp}) \subseteq {\gamma}^*(JT[2])$.
But $b_{j}^*(JT[2]) \subseteq P_{j}[2]$ for $j \neq \sigma$, and therefore ${\gamma}^*(JT[2]) \subseteq a_{j}^*(P_{j}[2])$, from where $a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{j}^*(P_{j}[2]) =
a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2])$ and $|a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2])
\cap a_{j}^*(P_{j}[2])|= 2^{2g_T-2}$.
In order to compute $|a_{\sigma \tau}^*(P_{\sigma \tau}[2]) \cap
a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2])|$ we use Proposition \[prop:case2\] as follows: let $S_1, \ldots , S_s , \tau S_1 , \ldots , \tau S_s$ denote the ramification points of $a_{\sigma}$ in $X$.
Then $a_{\tau}(S_i) = a_{\tau}(\tau (S_i))$ for $i \in \{ 1,
\ldots , s \}$ are the ramification points of $b_{\tau}$ in $X_{\tau}$ and $a_{\sigma \tau}(S_i) = a_{\sigma \tau}(\sigma \tau
(S_i))$ for $i \in \{ 1, \ldots , s \}$ are the ramification points of $b_{\sigma \tau }$ in $X_{\sigma \tau}$.
For $i \in \{ 2, \ldots , s \}$ we let $u_i$ in $\operatorname{{Pic}}^{0}(T)$ be such that $$u_i^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_T(\gamma(S_1) - \gamma(S_i))$$ and we define $${\mathcal S}_i^{j} = {\mathcal O}_{X_{j}}
(a_{j}(S_i) - a_{j}(S_1)) \otimes b_{j}^*(u_i) \text{ for }
j \in \{ \tau , \sigma \tau \} \text{ and } 2 \leq i \leq s \, ;$$ then Proposition \[prop:case2\] implies that $$P_j [2] = b_{j}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=2}^{s-1} {\mathcal S}_i^{j}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .$$
But $\ker a_{j}^* \subseteq b_{j}^*(JT[2])$ and hence $$a_{j}^*(P_j [2]) = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=2}^{s-1} a_{j}^*{\mathcal S}_i^{j}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .$$
Now, since $\sigma \tau(S_k) = \tau(S_k)$ for all $k$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\tau}^*({\mathcal S}_i^{\tau}) & = {\mathcal O}_{X}
(S_i + \tau(S_i) - S_1 - \tau(S_1)) \otimes a_{\tau}^* b_{\tau}^*(u_i)
\\
& = {\mathcal O}_{X} (S_i + \sigma \tau(S_i) - S_1 - \sigma \tau(S_1))
\otimes a_{\sigma \tau}^* b_{\sigma \tau}^*(u_i) \\
& = a_{\sigma \tau}^*({\mathcal S}_i^{\sigma \tau})
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$|a_{\tau}^*P_{\tau} [2] \cap a_{\sigma \tau}^*P_{\sigma \tau}
[2]| = |\gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=2}^{s-1}
a_{\tau}^*{\mathcal S}_i^{\tau} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}| =
2^{2g_T+s-3} \ .$$
In this way we have obtained that $$|\ker \phi_k | =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-1} & \text{if } k \neq \sigma \text{ and } r=t=0, s>0; \\
2^{2g_T-1+s} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } r=t=0, s>0
\end{cases}$$ which concludes case II.
[*Case III:*]{} Without loss of generality, in this paragraph we assume $s=0$ and $rt>0$, which imply $r$ and $t$ are even.
In this case $a_{\sigma}^*$ is the only non-injective induced homomorphism between Jacobians.
In particular $\eta_{a_{\sigma}} \notin b_{\sigma}^*(JT)$. This proves that $\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_{\sigma}$ is a subgroup of index two of $P_{\sigma}[2]$, and hence $$|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_{k}| =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-3+r+t} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } rt > 0, s =
0; \\
2^{2g_T-2+r} & \text{if } k = \tau \text{ and } rt > 0, s = 0;
\\
2^{2g_T-2+t} & \text{if } k = \sigma \tau \text{ and } rt > 0, s = 0
\end{cases}$$
In order to compute $\deg a_{\sigma}^{*} \bigl|_{P_{\sigma}}$, we now show that $\eta_{a_{\sigma}} \in P_{\sigma}[2]$: if $\tilde{\tau} : X_{\sigma} \to X_{\sigma}$ denotes the involution induced by $\tau : X \to X$, then $a_{\sigma}^{*}(\tilde{\tau}(\eta_{a_{\sigma}})) =
\tau(a_{\sigma}^{*}(\eta_{a_{\sigma}})) = 0$; hence ${\gamma}^{*}(\operatorname{{Nm}}b_{\sigma} (\eta_{a_{\sigma}})) =
a_{\sigma}^{*}(\eta_{a_{\sigma}} + \tilde{\tau}
\eta_{a_{\sigma}})= 0$.
But ${\gamma}^{*}$ is injective and therefore $\operatorname{{Nm}}b_{\sigma}(\eta_{a_{\sigma}}) =0$. Since $\operatorname{{Nm}}b_{\sigma}$ and $b_{\sigma}^{*}$ are dual morphisms (see [@mumprym]) and since $\ker b_{\sigma}^{*} = \{ 0 \}$ has only one connected component, $\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}b_{\sigma}$ must have only one connected component; i.e., $\ker \operatorname{{Nm}}b_{\sigma} = P_{\sigma}$.
The claim follows, and we obtain $\deg a_{\sigma}^{*}
\bigl|_{P_{\sigma}} = 2$.
In order to compute $|a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap
a_{l}^*(P_{l}[2])|$ we use Corollary \[coro:p2\] as follows: let $T_1, \ldots , T_t , \sigma(T_1) , \ldots , \sigma(T_t)$ and $R_1, \ldots , R_r , \sigma(R_1), \ldots , \sigma(R_r)$ denote the ramification points of $a_{\tau}$ and $a_{\sigma \tau} $ in $X$ respectively.
Then $\{ a_{\sigma}(R_1), \ldots , a_{\sigma}(R_r) ,
a_{\sigma}(T_1), \ldots , a_{\sigma}(T_t) \}$ are the ramification points of $b_{\sigma}$ in $X_{\sigma}$, $\{ a_{\tau}(R_1), \ldots
, a_{\tau}(R_r)\}$ are the ramification points of $b_{\tau}$ in $X_{\tau}$ and $\{ a_{\sigma \tau}(T_1), \ldots , a_{\sigma \tau}
(T_t)\}$ are the ramification points of $b_{\sigma \tau }$ in $X_{\sigma \tau}$.
For $i \in \{ 2, \ldots , r+t \}$ we let $\lambda_i$ in $\operatorname{{Pic}}^{0}(T)$ be such that
1. $\lambda_i^{\otimes 2} =
{\mathcal O}_T(\gamma (R_i) - \gamma (R_{i+1}))$, for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$;
2. $\lambda_r^{\otimes 2} =
{\mathcal O}_T(\gamma (R_r) - \gamma (T_1))$, for $ i = r$;
3. $\lambda_{r+i}^{\otimes 2} =
{\mathcal O}_T(\gamma (T_i) - \gamma (T_{i+1}))$, for $1 \leq i \leq t-1$.
and we define
1. $ {\mathcal F}_i^{\sigma} =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\sigma}} (a_{\sigma} (R_{i+1}) - a_{\sigma}
(R_i)) \otimes b_{\sigma}^*(\lambda_i) \in P_{\sigma}[2]$ and\
$ {\mathcal F}_i^{\tau} =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\tau}} (a_{\tau} (R_{i+1}) - a_{\tau} (R_i))
\otimes b_{\tau}^*(\lambda_i) \in P_{\tau}[2]$, for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$;
2. $ {\mathcal F}_r^{\sigma} =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\sigma}} (a_{\sigma} (T_1) - a_{\sigma} (R_r))
\otimes b_{\sigma}^*(\lambda_r) \in P_{\sigma}[2]$, for $ i = r$;
3. $ {\mathcal F}_{r+i}^{\sigma} =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\sigma}} (a_{\sigma} (T_{i+1}) - a_{\sigma} (T_i))
\otimes b_{\sigma}^*(\lambda_{r+i}) \in P_{\sigma}[2]$ and\
$ {\mathcal F}_{r+i}^{\sigma \tau} =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\sigma \tau}} (a_{\sigma \tau} (T_{i+1}) - a_{\sigma \tau} (T_i))
\otimes b_{\sigma \tau}^*(\lambda_{r+i}) \in P_{\sigma \tau}[2]$, for $1 \leq i \leq t-1$.
Then Corollary \[coro:p2\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psigma}
P_{\sigma}[2] & = b_{\sigma}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r+t-2} {\mathcal F}_i^{\sigma}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\label{eq:ptau}
P_{\tau}[2] & = b_{\tau}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r-2} {\mathcal F}_i^{\tau}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\intertext{and}
\label{eq:psigmatau}
P_{\sigma \tau}[2] & = b_{\sigma \tau}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{t-2}
{\mathcal F}_{r+i}^{\sigma \tau} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
Observe that $a_{\sigma}^* {\mathcal F}_i^{\sigma} =
a_{\tau}^* {\mathcal F}_i^{\tau}$, which will be denoted by $ {\mathcal F}_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$ and that $a_{\sigma}^* {\mathcal F}_{r+i}^{\sigma} = a_{\sigma \tau}^* {\mathcal
F}_{r+i}^{\sigma \tau}$, which will be denoted by ${\mathcal
F}_{r+i}$, for $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, t-1 \}$.
Since $a_{\tau}^*$ and $a_{\sigma \tau}^*$ are injective, applying them to (\[eq:ptau\]) and (\[eq:psigmatau\]) respectively we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:aptau}
a_{\tau}^* (P_{\tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r-2}
{\mathcal F}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\intertext{and}
\label{eq:apsigmatau}
a_{\sigma \tau}^*(P_{\sigma \tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{t-2}
{\mathcal F}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\ker a_{\sigma}^* = \{ 0, \eta_{a_{\sigma}} \} \subseteq
P_{\sigma}[2]$, in order to describe $a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2])$ we first have to express $\eta_{a_{\sigma}}$ in terms of the given generators for $P_{\sigma}[2]$: by Lemma \[lemma:case2\] we know that $${\mathcal F}_1^{\tau} \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\tau} = b_{\tau}^* (m) \text{ for some } m \in JT[2]$$ and that $${\mathcal F}_2^{\sigma} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\sigma}
\in P_{\sigma}[2] \text{ is \underline{not} in } b_{\sigma}^*JT[2] \, .$$
This implies that $${\mathcal F}_1^{\sigma} \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\sigma} \otimes b_{\sigma}^* (m^{-1}) \in P_{\sigma}[2]-
\{ 0 \}$$ but $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\sigma}^*({\mathcal F}_1^{\sigma} \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\sigma} \otimes b_{\sigma}^*(m^{-1})) & =
{\mathcal F}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1} \otimes \gamma^*(m^{-1}) \\
& = a_{\tau}^*({\mathcal F}_1^{\tau} \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\tau} \otimes b_{\tau}^*(m^{-1})) \\
& = a_{\tau}^*(0) \\
& = 0
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\eta_{a_{\sigma}} = {\mathcal F}_1^{\sigma} \otimes \ldots \otimes
{\mathcal F}_{r-1}^{\sigma} \otimes b_{\sigma}^*(m^{-1}) \ .$$
We may now apply $a_{\sigma}^*$ to (\[eq:psigma\]) to obtain $$\label{apsigma}
a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) = \gamma^*(JT[2])
\bigoplus_{ \substack{ i=1 \\ i \neq r-1 }}^{r+t-2}
{\mathcal F}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .$$
Equality (\[apsigma\]) shows that there is no dependence relation between $\mathcal F_1 , \ldots , {\mathcal F}_{r-2}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{r+1} , \ldots , {\mathcal F}_{r+t-2}$ and comparing we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) \cap a_{\sigma \tau}^*(P_{\sigma
\tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \ , \\
a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) \cap a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2])
& = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r-2}
{\mathcal F}_{i} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \\
\intertext{and}
a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{\sigma \tau}^*(P_{\sigma
\tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{t-2}
{\mathcal F}_{r+i} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
Thus we have proven $$|\ker \phi_k | =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-1+t} & \text{if } k = \tau \text{ and } rt>0, s=0;\\
2^{2g_T-1+r} & \text{if } k = \sigma \tau \text{ and } rt>0, s=0; \\
2^{2g_T} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } rt>0, s=0
\end{cases}$$ which concludes case III.
[*Case IV:*]{} All covers in Diagram (\[klein2\]) are ramified: $rst \neq 0$.
In this case all induced homomorphisms between Jacobians are injective and therefore $$|\ker \operatorname{{ps}}_k| = |P_k[2]| =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-2+s+r} & \text{if } k = \tau \text{ and } rst > 0; \\
2^{2g_T-2+s+t} & \text{if } k = \sigma \tau \text{ and } rst > 0; \\
2^{2g_T-2+t+r} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } rst > 0
\end{cases}$$
We also have $\deg a_{j}^{*} \bigl|_{P_{j}} = 1$ for every $j$; hence all that is left is to compute $$|\ker \phi_j| = \bigl| a_{k}^*(P_{k}[2]) \cap a_{l}^*(P_{l}[2]) \bigl| \, .$$
By the symmetries involved, it is enough to compute one of them: we will compute $$|\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau}| = \bigl| a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) \bigl| \, .$$
The computation for this case is subdivided into two cases, according to whether $r+t = 2$ or $r+t>2$.
[*Case a): $r = t = 1$.*]{} In this case $P_{\sigma}[2] =
b_{\sigma}^{*}(JT[2])$ and therefore $\gamma^{*}(JT[2]) =
a_{\sigma}^{*}(P_{\sigma}[2])$.
On the other hand, $b_{\tau}^{*}(JT[2]) \subseteq P_{\tau}[2]$ and therefore $a_{\sigma}^{*}(P_{\sigma}[2])
\subseteq a_{\tau}^{*}(P_{\tau}[2])$.
Thus $$a_{\sigma}^{*}(P_{\sigma}[2]) \cap a_{\tau}^{*}(P_{\tau}[2])
= \gamma^{*}(JT[2])$$ and in this case we obtain $$|\ker \phi_{\sigma \tau}| = 2^{2g_T} \ \text{ if } \, r = t = 1 , s > 0.$$
[*Case b): $r + t > 2$.*]{} Without loss of generality, we will assume $r>1$.
Let $\{ S_1 , \ldots, S_s , \tau(S_1) , \ldots , \tau(S_s) \}$, $\{T_1 , \ldots , T_t , \sigma (T_1), \ldots , \sigma (T_t)\}$ and $\{ R_1 , \ldots , R_r , \sigma (R_1), \ldots , \sigma (R_r)\}$ denote the ramification points of $a_{\sigma}$, $a_{\tau}$ and $a_{\sigma \tau}$ respectively.
Then the ramification points for $b_{\sigma}$, $b_{\tau}$ and $b_{\sigma \tau}$ are as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map Ramification points
------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
$b_{\sigma}$ $\{ a_{\sigma} (R_1),
\ldots , a_{\sigma} (R_r), a_{\sigma} (T_1), \ldots , a_{\sigma}
(T_t) \}$
$b_{\tau}$ $\{ a_{\tau}(R_1) , \ldots ,
a_{\tau}(R_r), a_{\tau}(S_1) , \ldots , a_{\tau}(S_s) \}$
$b_{\sigma \tau}$ $\{ a_{\sigma \tau}(S_1) , \ldots, a_{\sigma \tau}(S_s),
a_{\sigma \tau}(T_1) , \ldots , a_{\sigma \tau}(T_t) \}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we choose ${\mathcal F}_i^{\sigma} \in
P_{\sigma}[2]$ for $i \in \{ 1, \ldots , r+t-1 \}$ as in the proof of Case III, then (\[eq:psigma\]) holds.
Furthermore, we choose ${\mathcal F}_j^{\tau} \in P_{\tau}[2]$ for $1 \leq j \leq r-1$ and ${\mathcal F}_{r+j}^{\sigma \tau} \in P_{\sigma \tau}[2]$ for $1 \leq j \leq t-1$ as in the proof of Case III.
Also, for $i \in \{ 1, \ldots , s-1 \}$, choose $m_i$ in $\operatorname{{Pic}}^{0}(T)$ such that $$m_{i}^{\otimes 2} = {\mathcal O}_T(\gamma(S_i) - \gamma(S_{i+1}))$$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal G}_{i}^{\sigma \tau} & =
{\mathcal O}_{X_{\sigma \tau}} (a_{\sigma \tau}(S_{i+1}) - a_{\sigma \tau}(S_i))
\otimes b_{\sigma \tau}^*(m_{r+i}) \in P_{\sigma \tau}[2] \\
\intertext{and}
{\mathcal G}_{r+i}^{\tau} & = {\mathcal O}_{X_{\tau}} (a_{\tau}(S_{i+1}) - a_{\tau}(S_i))
\otimes b_{\tau}^*(m_{i}) \in P_{\tau}[2] \, .
\end{aligned}$$
With these generators and Corollary \[coro:p2\] we obtain the following descriptions.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ptaun}
P_{\tau}[2] & = b_{\tau}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r-1} {\mathcal F}_i^{\tau}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \oplus_{i=1}^{s-1}
{\mathcal G}_{r+i}^{\tau} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\intertext{and}
\label{eq:psigmataun}
P_{\sigma \tau}[2] & = b_{\sigma \tau}^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{s-1}
{\mathcal G}_{i}^{\sigma \tau} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \oplus_{i=1}^{t-1}
{\mathcal F}_{r+i}^{\sigma \tau} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $a_{\sigma \tau}^{*}({\mathcal G}_i^{\sigma \tau}) =
a_{\tau}^{*}({\mathcal G}_{r+i}^{\tau})$ for $i \in \{ 1, \ldots ,
s-1 \}$; the common value will be denoted by ${\mathcal G}_i$. Applying $a_{\sigma}^{*}$, $a_{\tau}^{*}$ and $a_{\sigma
\tau}^{*}$ to (\[eq:psigma\]), (\[eq:ptaun\]) and (\[eq:psigmataun\]) respectively, we obtain the following.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apsig2}
a_{\sigma}^*(P_{\sigma}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r+t-1}
{\mathcal F}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\label{eq:aptau22}
a_{\tau}^*(P_{\tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{r-1}
{\mathcal F}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \oplus_{i=1}^{s-1}
{\mathcal G}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ , \\
\intertext{and}
\label{eq:apsigtau2}
a_{\sigma \tau}^*(P_{\sigma \tau}[2]) & = \gamma^*(JT[2]) \oplus_{i=1}^{s-1}
{\mathcal G}_i \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \oplus_{i=1}^{t-1}
{\mathcal F}_{r+i} \ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$
It follows from equalities (\[eq:apsig2\]), (\[eq:aptau22\]) and (\[eq:apsigtau2\]) that
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\sigma}^* P_{\sigma}[2] \cap a_{\tau}^* P_{\tau}[2] & =
\gamma^*JT[2] \oplus_{i=1}^{r-1} {\mathcal F}_i
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \\
a_{\tau}^* P_{\tau}[2] \cap a_{\sigma \tau}^* P_{\sigma \tau}[2]
& =
\gamma^*JT[2] \oplus_{i=1}^{s-1} {\mathcal G}_i
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z} \\
a_{\sigma}^* P_{\sigma}[2] \cap a_{\sigma \tau}^* P_{\sigma
\tau}[2]
& = \gamma^*JT[2] \oplus_{i=1}^{t-1} {\mathcal F}_{r+i}
\ {\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we have proven that in this case we have $$\ker \phi_{k} =
\begin{cases}
2^{2g_T-1+t} & \text{if } k = \tau \text{ and } r>1, st > 0;\\
2^{2g_T-1+r} & \text{if } k = \sigma \tau \text{ and } r>1, st > 0;\\
2^{2g_T-1+s} & \text{if } k = \sigma \text{ and } r>1, st > 0;
\end{cases}$$
Thus the proof of Theorem \[T:klein\] is now complete.
[ceawo]{}
F. Bardelli, C. Ciliberto and A. Verra, *Curves of minimal genus on a general abelian variety* Compositio Math. **96** (1995), no. 2, 115–147.
R. Donagi, *The Fibers of the Prym Map*, Curves, Jacobians, and abelian varieties (Amherst, MA, 1990), pp. 55–125. Contemp. Math., **136**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992.
R. Donagi, *Decomposition Of Spectral Covers*, Journées de Géomtrie Algébrique d’Orsay (Orsay, 1992). Astérisque **218** (1993), 145–175.
E. Gómez–González, *Prym varieties of curves with an automorphism of prime order*, Aportaciones Mat. **13** (1998), 103–116.
*Spectral Curves, simple Lie Algebras, and Prym-Tjurin varieties*, Theta functions – Bowdoin 1987, Part 1,627–645, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. **49** Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., 1989.
F. Klein, *Lectures on the Icosahedron*. Dover Publications, New York, 1913.
H. Lange and C. Birkenhake, *Complex Abelian Varieties*, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften **302**. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
J-Y. Mérindol, *Variétés de Prym d’un revêtement galoisien*, J. Reine Angew. Math **461** (1995), 49–61.
D. Mumford, *Abelian Varieties*, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1970.
D. Mumford, *Prym Varieties I*, Contributions to analysis (a collection of papers dedicated to Lipman Bers), pp. 325–350. Academic Press, New York, 1974.
S. Pantazis, *Prym Varieties and the Geodesic Flow on $SO(n)$*, Mathematische Annalen **273** (1986), 297–315.
S. Recillas, *Jacobians of curves with $g^1_4$’s are the Prym’s of trigonal curves*, Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana (2) **19** (1974), no. 1, 9–13. **19** (1974), 9–13.
S. Recillas, *La Jacobiana de la extensión de Galois de una curva trigonal*, Aportaciones Matemáticas de la Soc Mat. Mexicana **14** (1994), 159–167.
S. Recillas and R. E. Rodríguez, *Jacobians and Representations of $S_3$*, Aportaciones Mat. Inv. **13** (1998), 117–140.
J. Ries, *The Prym variety for a cyclic unramified cover of a hyperelliptic Riemann surface*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **340** (1983), 59–69.
A. Sánchez-Argáez, *Acciones del grupo ${\mathcal A}_5$ en variedades jacobianas*, Aportaciones Mat. Com. **25** (1999), 99–108.
W. Wirtinger, *Untersuchungen über Theta Funktionen*. Teubner, Berlin (1895).
[^1]: This research was partially supported by CONACYT–CONICYT Exchange Program, by grants CONACYT 27962–E, Fondecyt 1000623 and Presidential Science Chair on Geometry.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we explore using self-supervised correspondence for improving the generalization performance and sample efficiency of visuomotor policy learning. Prior work has primarily used approaches such as autoencoding, pose-based losses, and end-to-end policy optimization in order to train the visual portion of visuomotor policies. We instead propose an approach using self-supervised dense visual correspondence training, and show this enables visuomotor policy learning with surprisingly high generalization performance with modest amounts of data: using imitation learning, we demonstrate extensive hardware validation on challenging manipulation tasks with as few as 50 demonstrations. Our learned policies can generalize across classes of objects, react to deformable object configurations, and manipulate textureless symmetrical objects in a variety of backgrounds, all with closed-loop, real-time vision-based policies. Simulated imitation learning experiments suggest that correspondence training offers sample complexity and generalization benefits compared to autoencoding and end-to-end training.'
author:
- 'Peter Florence$^{1}$, Lucas Manuelli$^{1}$, and Russ Tedrake$^{1}$[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'all-bib.bib'
title: '**Self-Supervised Correspondence in Visuomotor Policy Learning** '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
To achieve general-purpose manipulation skills, robots will need to use vision-based policies and learn new tasks in a scalable fashion with limited human supervision. For visual training, prior work has often used methods such as end-to-end training [@levine2016end], autoencoding [@finn2016deep], and pose-based losses [@levine2016end; @zhang2018deep]. These methods, however, have not benefitted from the rich sources of self-supervision that may be provided by dense three-dimensional computer vision techniques [@mahjourian2018unsupervised; @pillai2019superdepth; @schmidt2017self], for example correspondence learning which robots can automate without human input [@florence2018dense]. Correspondence is fundamental in computer vision, and we believe it has fundamental usefulness for robots learning complex tasks requiring visual feedback. In this paper we introduce using self-supervised correspondence for visuomotor policies, and our results suggest this enables policy learning that is surprisingly capable. Our evaluations pair correspondence training with a simple imitation learning objective, and extensive hardware validation shows that learned policies can address challenging scenarios: manipulating deformable objects, generalizing across a class of objects, and visual challenges such as textureless objects, clutter, moderate occlusion, and lighting variation (Fig \[hardwarefig\]). Additionally our simulation-based comparisons empirically suggest that our method offers significant generalization and sample complexity advantages compared to existing methods for training visuomotor policies, while requiring no additional human supervision. To bound our method’s scope: while spatial correspondence alone cannot suffice for all tasks (for example, it cannot discriminate when to be finished cooking eggs), there is a wide set of tasks for which dense spatial correspondence may be useful: essentially any spatial manipulation task.
 \[hardwarefig\]
**Contributions.** Our primary contribution is (i) a novel formulation of visuomotor policy learning using self-supervised correspondence. Through simulation experiments (ii) we measure that this approach offers sample complexity and generalization benefits compared to a variety of baselines, and (iii) we validate our method in real world experiments. We believe that compared to the existing state of the art in robotic manipulation, the abilities of our learned policies represent exciting levels of performance, especially the generalization across challenging scenarios (category-level manipulation, deformable objects, visually challenging scenes) and with limited data (between 50 and 150 demonstrations). We also (iv) introduce a novel data augmentation technique for behavior cloning, and (v) demonstrate a new technique for multi-camera time-synchronized dense spatial correspondence learning.
RELATED WORK
============
We focus our related work review around two topics: visual training methods for visuomotor policies, and approaches for providing the policy learning signal. An overview of the broader topic of robot learning in manipulation is provided in [@kroemer2019review]. For more related work in self-supervised robotic visual learning, including correspondence learning, we refer to the reader to [@florence2018dense].
Visual Training Methods for Visuomotor Policies {#vis-training-methods}
-----------------------------------------------
There have been three primary methods used in the robot learning literature to train the visual portion of visuomotor policies. Often these methods are used together – for example [@levine2016end; @zhang2018deep] use pose-based losses together with end-to-end training. **(1) End-to-End training.** This approach can be applied to any learning signal that is formed as a consequence of a robot’s actions, for example through imitation learning or reinforcement learning. While often end-to-end training is complemented with other learning signals, other works use purely end-to-end training. **(2) Autoencoders.** Autoencoding can be applied to any data with no supervision and is commonly used to aid visuomotor policy learning [@finn2016deep; @yang2016repeatable; @finn2016guided; @ghadirzadeh2017deep; @van2016stable; @rahmatizadeh2018vision]. Sometimes polices are learned with a frozen encoder [@finn2016deep; @yang2016repeatable; @finn2016guided], other times in conjunction with end-to-end training [@rahmatizadeh2018vision]. **(3) Pose-based losses.** In [@levine2016end], for example, a separate dataset is collected of the robot holding objects, and assuming that the objects are rigid and graspable, then using the robot’s encoders and forward kinematics the visual model can be trained to predict the object pose. In [@zhang2018deep], pose-based auxiliary losses are used regardless of whether or not objects are held – we wouldn’t expect this to learn how to predict object configurations unless they are also rigid and grasped. Simulation-based works [@james2017transferring] have also used auxiliary losses for object and gripper positions.
In our comparison experimentation, we include end-to-end training and autoencoding, but not pose-based losses, since they are not applicable to deformable or un-graspable objects. While the above are three of the most popular, other visual training methods include: training observation dynamics models [@agrawal2016learning; @ebert2018visual], using time-contrastive learning [@sermanet2018time], or using no visual training and instead using only generic pre-trained visual features [@sermanet2016unsupervised]. Relevant concurrent works include [@kulkarni2019unsupervised] which proposes autoencoder-style visual training but with a reference image and novel architecture, and [@sieb2019graph] which proposes a graph-based reward function using a fixed set of correspondences.
Methods for Learning Vision-Based Closed-Loop Policies
------------------------------------------------------
While the previous section discussed visual training methods, to acquire policies they must be paired with a policy learning signal. We are particularly interested in approaches that can (i) scalably address a wide variety of tasks with potentially deformable and unknown objects, (ii) use a small incremental amount of human effort (on the order of 1 human-hour) per each new object or task, and (iii) produce real-time vision-based closed-loop policies.
One source of policy learning signal may be from reinforcement learning, which has demonstrated many compelling results. A primary challenge, however, is the difficulty of measuring rewards in the real world. Some tasks such as grasping can be self-supervised [@pinto2016supersizing], and other tasks can leverage assumptions that objects are grasped and rigid in order to compute rewards [@levine2016end], but this only applies to a subset of tasks. A more generalizable direction may be offered by unsupervised methods of obtaining reward signals [@finn2016deep; @sermanet2016unsupervised; @sermanet2018time]. Another direction which has shown promising results is using sim-to-real transfer [@james2017transferring; @zhu2018reinforcement; @matas2018sim; @andrychowicz2018learning], but our interest in a small amount of incremental human effort per new task is challenging for these methods, since they currently require significant engineering effort for each new simulation scenario.
Another powerful source of signal may come from imitation learning from demonstration, which several recent works have shown promise in using to produce real-time vision-based closed-loop policies [@yang2016repeatable; @finn2016guided; @sermanet2016unsupervised; @finn2017one; @rahmatizadeh2018vision; @zhang2018deep; @yu2018one; @sermanet2018time]. We point the reader to a number of existing reviews of learning from demonstration [@argall2009survey; @billard2008robot]. Another direction may be to learn models from observations and specify goals via observations [@finn2016deep; @agrawal2016learning; @ebert2018visual], but these may be limited to tasks for which autonomous exploration has a reasonable chance of success. In terms of limitations of these prior works, one primary challenge relates to reliability and sample complexity – it is not clear how much data and training would be required in order to achieve any given level of reliability. Relatedly, a second limitation is that little work has characterized the distributions over which these methods should be trained and subsequently expected to generalize. Third, like in many areas of robotics it is difficult to reproduce results and compare approaches on a common set of metrics. While we believe hardware validation is critical, we also believe that increased effort should be put into simulation-based results that compare methods and can be reproduced.
VISUOMOTOR FORMULATION {#sec:formulation}
======================
First as preliminary we identify some primary attributes of existing approaches in visuomotor policy learning (Sec. \[prelim-vis-motor\]). We then present our approach based on self-supervised correspondence (Sec. \[subsec:correspondence-visuomotor\]). The discussion of visuomotor policy learning in this section is agnostic to the specific learning algorithm, i.e. reinforcement learning, imitation learning, etc., and focuses on the model structure and sets of trainable parameters. Sec. \[sec:methodology\] discusses the application of our approach to a specific case of imitation learning.
Preliminary: Visuomotor Policies {#prelim-vis-motor}
--------------------------------
 \[visuomotor\_diagrams\]
We would like to have a policy $\bm{a}_t = \pi_\theta(\bm{o}_{0:t})$, where $\bm{o}_{0:t} = (\bm{o}_0, \bm{o}_1, \ldots \bm{o}_t)$ is the full sequence of the robot’s observations during some episode up until time $t$, with each $\bm{o}_i \in \mathcal{O}$, the robot’s observation space. This sequence of observations is mapped by $\pi_\theta(\cdot)$, the robot’s policy parameterized by $\theta$, to the robot’s actions $\bm{a}$, each $\in \mathcal{A}$. In particular, we are interested in visuomotor policies in which the observation space contains high-dimensional images $\mathcal{O}_{\text{image}} \subset \mathcal{O}$, for example $\mathcal{O}_{\text{image}} = \mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times C}$ for a $C$-channel, width $W$, and height $H$ image. The visual data is perhaps complemented with additional lower-dimensional measurements $\mathcal{O}_{\text{robot}}$, such as produced from sensors like the robot’s encoders, such that $\mathcal{O}_{\text{robot}} \times \mathcal{O}_{\text{image}} = \mathcal{O}$.
It is common for a visuomotor policy to have an architecture that can factored as displayed in Fig. \[visuomotor\_diagrams\](a), $$\begin{aligned}
& \bm{z} = f_{\theta_v}(\bm{o}_{\text{image}}) : \bm{o}_{\text{image}} \in \mathcal{O}_{\text{image}}, \ \bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^Z \\
& \bm{a} = \pi_{\theta_p}(\bm{z}, \bm{o}_{\text{robot}} ) : \bm{o}_{\text{robot}} \in \mathcal{O}_{\text{robot}}, \ \bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^Z, \ \bm{a} \in \mathcal{A}\end{aligned}$$ in which a visual model $f_{\theta_v}(\cdot)$, parameterized by $\theta_v$, processes the high-dimensional $\bm{o}_{\text{image}}$ into a much smaller $Z$-dimensional representation $\bm{z}$. The policy model $\pi_{\theta_p}(\cdot)$ then combines the output of the visual model with other observations $\bm{o}_{\text{robot}}$. This is a practical modeling choice – images are extremely high dimensional, i.e. in this work we use images in $\mathbb{R}^{640 \times 480 \times 3} = \mathbb{R}^{921,600}$, whereas our $\mathcal{O}_{\text{robot}}$ is at most $\mathbb{R}^{13}$. A wide variety of works have employed a similar architecture to [@levine2016end], consisting of convolutional networks extracting features from raw images into an approximately $Z=32$ to $100$ bottleneck representation of features, e.g. [@finn2016deep; @rahmatizadeh2018vision; @finn2017one; @yahya2017collective; @ghadirzadeh2017deep; @zhang2018deep]
Visual Correspondence Models for Visuomotor Policy Learning {#subsec:correspondence-visuomotor}
-----------------------------------------------------------
The objective of the visual model is to produce a feature vector $\bm{z}$ which serves as a suitable input for policy learning. In particular, we are interested in deploying policies that can operate directly on RGB images. Given the role that pose estimation has played in traditional manipulation pipelines it seems valuable to encode the configuration of objects of interest in the vector $\bm{z}$. Pose estimation, however, doesn’t extend to the cases of deformable or unknown objects. Some of the prior works discussed in Sec. \[vis-training-methods\], for example [@levine2016end; @finn2016deep], have interpreted their learned feature points $\bm{z}$ as encoding useful spatial information for the objects and task. These feature points are learned via the supervisory signals of end-to-end, pose-based, or autoencoding losses, and don’t explicitly train for spatial correspondence. In contrast our approach is to directly employ visual correspondence training, building off the approach of [@florence2018dense] which can in a self-supervised manner, learn pixel descriptors of objects that are effective in finding correspondences between RGB images.
We introduce four different methods for how to employ dense correspondence models as the visual basis of visuomotor policy learning. The first three are based on the idea of a set of points on the object(s) that are localized either in image-space or 3D space. We represent these points as a set $\{\bm{d}_i\}_{i=1}^P$ of $P$ descriptors, with each $\bm{d}_i \in \mathbb{R}^D$ representing some vector in the $D$-dimensional descriptor space produced by a dense descriptor model $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}(\cdot)$. This $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}(\cdot)$, a deep CNN, maps a full-resolution RGB image, $\mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times 3}$, to a full-resolution descriptor image, $\mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times D}$. Let us term $f^{C}(\cdot)$ to be the non-parametric correspondence function that, given one or more descriptors and a dense descriptor image $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}(\bm{o}_{\text{image}})$, provides the predicted location of the descriptor(s): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:z_dc}
& \bm{z} = f^{C} \big( f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}(\bm{o}_{\text{image}}), \{\bm{d}_i\}_{i=1}^P \big)\end{aligned}$$ Specifically $f^C:\mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times D} \times \mathbb{R}^{P \times D} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{P \times K}$, where $K = 2$ corresponds to: $\bm{z}$ is the predicted corresponding $(u,v)$ pixel coordinates of each descriptor in the image, while $K=3$ is their predicted 3D coordinates.[^3] All four methods optimize a generic policy-based loss function, shown in Eq. (\[eq:generic\_loss\]), and vary only in the set of learnable parameters $\Theta$ and how $\bm{z}$ is acquired (the first three use Eq. \[eq:z\_dc\]). This loss function $\mathcal{L}$ is generic and could represent any approach for learning the parameters of a visuomotor policy.$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:generic_loss}
\underset{ \Theta } {min } \ \ & \mathcal{L} \bigg( \pi_{\theta_p} \big(\bm{z}, \bm{o}_{\text{robot}} \big) \bigg) $$ **Fixed Descriptor Set.** This method only optimizes the policy parameters, $\Theta = \{\theta_p\}$. In this case both the set of descriptors $\{\bm{d}_i\}_{i=1}^P$ and visual model $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}(\cdot)$ are fixed. We use a simple initialization scheme of sampling $\{\bm{d}_i\}$ from a single masked reference descriptor image. While we have found this method to be surprisingly effective, it is unsatisfying that the visual model’s representation is not optimized after the random initialization process.
**Descriptor Set Optimization.** This method optimizes the descriptor set $\{\bm{d}_i\}_{i=1}^P$ along with the policy parameters $\theta_p$ while keeping the dense descriptor mapping $f^{dense}_{\theta_v}$ fixed. Intuitively $f^{dense}_{\theta_v}$ has already been trained to perform correspondence, and we are simply allowing the policy optimization to choose *what to correspond*. We have observed that Descriptor Set Optimization can improve validation error in some cases over a Fixed Descriptor Set, and adds minimal computational cost and parameters.
**End-to-End Dense Optimization.** The third option is to train the full model architecture end-to-end by including $\theta_v$ in the optimization. While we may have expected this approach to allow the visual model to more precisely focus its modeling ability on task-critical parts of images, we so far have not observed a performance advantage of this approach over Descriptor Set Optimization. **End-to-End with Correspondence Pretraining.** The fourth option is to directly apply a differentiable operation to a model which was previously trained on dense correspondence. We can apply any differentiable operation $g(\cdot)$ on top of $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}$ directly to produce a representation $\bm{z} = g \big( f^{dense}_{\theta_v} (\bm{o}_{\text{image}}) \big)$. For example, we can apply non-parametric channel-wise spatial expectations to each of the $D$ channels of the dense descriptor images. The optimization variables in this case are $\Theta = \{\theta_p, \theta_v \}$.
For our $f^{\text{dense}}_{\theta_v}$ we use a 34-layer ResNet, as in [@florence2018dense], which is a powerful vision backbone. Accordingly, using either a fixed- or optimized- descriptor set will significantly increase policy training speed, since it does not require forward-backward optimizing through a very deep convolutional network in each step of policy training, which in our case is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude faster.
VISUAL IMITATION FORMULATION {#sec:methodology}
============================
We now propose how to use the general approach of Sec. \[subsec:correspondence-visuomotor\] for a specific type of imitation learning for robot manipulation.
Robot Observation and Action Spaces {#subsec:robot_observation_space}
-----------------------------------
At the lowest level our controller sends joint velocity commands to the robot. For ease of providing demonstrations via teleoperation, the operator commands relative-to-current desired end-effector poses $T_{\Delta,\text{cmd}}$. A low-level Jacobian based controller then tracks these end-effector pose setpoints. Our learned policies also output $T_{\Delta, \text{cmd}}$. The teleoperator also commands a gripper width setpoint which again is tracked by a low-level controller. Thus the action space is $\bm{a} = (T_{\Delta,\text{cmd}}, w_\text{gripper}) \in \mathcal{A} = SE(3) \times \mathbb{R}^+$.
Our $\bm{o}_{\text{robot}} \in \mathbb{R}^{13}$ is (i) three 3D points on the hand as in [@levine2016end], (ii) an axis-angle rotation relative to the task’s starting pose, and (iii) the gripper width. As noted previously, $\bm{o}_{\text{image}} \in \mathbb{R}^{921,600}$.
Imitation Learning Visuomotor Policies {#subsec:imitation_learning_visuomotor_policies}
--------------------------------------
To evaluate visual learning strategies for enabling visuomotor policy learning, we use imitation learning via a simple behavioral cloning [@pomerleau1989alvinn] strategy, which a few recent works have demonstrated to be viable for learning visuomotor manipulation policies [@rahmatizadeh2018vision; @zhang2018deep]. Optimizing a policy with parameters $\Theta$ on the behavioral cloning objective, given a dataset of $N_{\text{train}}$ trajectories of observation-sequence-to-action pairs $\{ (\bm{o}_{t}, \bm{a}^*_t) \}_{t=0}^{T_i}$ can be written as: $$\underset{\Theta}{min} \frac{1}{N_{\text{train}}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{train}}} \sum_{t=0}^{T_i} \mathcal{L}_\text{BC} \big( \bm{a}^*_t, \pi_{\Theta}( \bm{o}_{t} ) \big)$$ For our loss function we use a simple weighted sum of $l_1$ and $l_2$ loss, $\mathcal{L}_\text{BC}(\cdot) = || \bm{a}^* - \pi(\cdot) ||_2^2 + \lambda || \bm{a}^* - \pi(\cdot) ||_1$ where we use $\lambda = 0.1$. We scale $\bm{a}^*$ to equalize 1.0m end-effector translation, 0.1 radians end-effector rotation, and 1.0m gripper translation.
Training for Feedback through Data Augmentation {#subsec:trainig_for_feedback_through_data_augmentation}
-----------------------------------------------
We introduce a simple technique which we have found to be effective in at least partially addressing a primary issue in imitation learning: the issue of cascading errors [@ross2011reduction]. While other works have shown that injecting noise into the dynamics either during imitation learning [@laskey2017dart] or sim-to-real transfer [@peng2018sim] can alleviate cascading errors, we provide a simple method based only on data augmentation. This method does not address recovering from discrete changes in the environment, but can address local feedback stabilization.
Consider the output of our policy in a global frame, $\bm{a} = (T_{\text{cmd}}, w_{\text{gripper}})$, which we can acquire from $T_{\Delta, \text{cmd}}$ since we know the end-effector pose. As previously mentioned a low-level controller tracks these setpoints, thus our learned policies can stabilize a trajectory by commanding the same global-frame setpoint $\bm{a}$ in the face of small disturbances to the robot state. If we want our policy to command the same setpoint in the face of a slightly perturbed robot state $\tilde{\bm{o}}_{\text{robot}}$ we can simply use $((\bm{o}_\text{image}, \tilde{\bm{o}}_{\text{robot}}), \bm{a})$ as an observation-action pair. These noise-augmented observation-action pairs are generated on-the-fly during training. A remaining question, of course, is what scale of noise is appropriate. In practice given our robot’s scale and typical speeds we find $\tilde{\bm{o}}_{\text{robot}} \sim \mathcal{N} (\bm{o}_{\text{robot}}, I\bm{\sigma})$ with $\sigma_i$ of 1mm, 1 degree, and 1cm works well respectively for translational, rotational, and gripper components.
Multi-View Time-Synchronized Correspondence Training {#subsec:multi_view_time_synchronized_correspondence_training}
----------------------------------------------------
Unlike in previous work which trained robotic-supervised correspondence models only for static environments [@florence2018dense], we now would like to train correspondence models with dynamic environments. Other prior work [@schmidt2017self] has used dynamic non-rigid reconstruction [@newcombe2015dynamicfusion] to address dynamic scenes. The approach we demonstrate here instead is to correspond pixels between two camera views with images that are approximately synchronized in time, similar to the full-image-embedding training in [@sermanet2018time], but here for pixel-to-pixel correspondence.
For training, like the static-scene case, finding pixel correspondences between images requires only depth images, camera poses, and camera intrinsics. Autonomous object masking can, similar to [@florence2018dense], be performed using 3D-based background subtraction, using only the live depth sensors’ point clouds. Since both (a) the time-synchronized technique can only correspond between time-synchronized images rather than many different static-scene views ([@florence2018dense] used approximately 400\]), and (b) the time-synchronized technique does not have access to highly accurate many-view-fused 3D geometry as used in [@florence2018dense], it was unclear that our time-synchronized training would provide as compelling results as shown in Sec. \[subsec:hardware\_results\]. To encourage generalization despite having using only two static views, we add rotation, scale, and shear image augmentations, and to help alleviate incorrect correspondences due to noisy depth images, we add photometric-error-based rejection of correspondences.
Policy Models {#subsec:policy_models}
-------------
We use two standard classes of policy models, Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent networks, which are familiar model classes to many different types of machine learning problems and in particular have been demonstrated to be viable for real-world visuomotor control [@levine2016end; @zhang2018deep; @rahmatizadeh2018vision]. In our evaluations the MLPs are only provided current observations, $\pi(\bm{o}_t)$, whereas through recurrence the LSTMs use the full observation sequence. The Appendix provides more model details.
RESULTS
=======
Our experimentation sought to answer these primary questions: (1) Is it possible to use self-supervised descriptors as successful input to learned visuomotor policies? (2) How does visual correspondence learning compare to the benchmarked methods in terms of enabling effective policy learning, as measured by generalization performance and sample complexity? We also evaluate (3) the effect of noise augmentation, and (4) whether our dynamic-scene visual training technique is capable of effective correspondence learning. Simulation setup and results are detailed in Sec. \[subsec:sim\_experiments\_and\_benchmarking\], \[subsec:sim\_results\], hardware setup and results are in Sec. \[subsec:real\_hardware\_experimentation\], \[subsec:hardware\_results\].
Simulation Experimental Setup {#subsec:sim_experiments_and_benchmarking}
-----------------------------
We use simulated imitation learning tasks (Fig. \[fig:sim\_experiments\_images\]) to compare the generalization performance of behavior-cloned policies where the only difference is how the “visual representation” $\bm{z}$ is acquired. The first two tasks involve reaching to an object whose configuration varies between trials either in translation only, or rotation as well. The additional two tasks are both pushing tasks, which require feedback due to simulated external disturbances. Expert demonstrations use simple hand-designed policies using ground truth object state information. The compared methods are:
1. *Ground truth 3D points (GT-3D):* $\bm{z}$ is ground truth world-frame 3D locations of points on the object.
2. *Ground truth 2D image coordinates (GT-2D):* $\bm{z}$ is similar to the previous baseline, but the points are projected into the camera using the ground truth camera parameters.
3. *Autoencoder (AE):* $\bm{z}$ is the encoding of a pre-trained autoencoder, similar to the visual training in [@finn2016deep; @ghadirzadeh2017deep].
4. *End-to-End (E2E):* $\bm{z}$ is the intermediate representation from end-to-end training. This closely resembles the visual training and models in [@levine2016end; @zhang2018deep], but we do not also add pose-based losses, in order to investigate end-to-end learning without these auxiliary losses.
5. *Ours, Dense descriptors (DD):* $\bm{z}$ is the expected image-space locations (DD-2D) or 3D-space locations (DD-3D) of the descriptor set $ \{ \bm{d} \} _i $, where the visual model was trained on dense correspondence.
Note that the two vision-based baselines AE and E2E share an identical model architecture for producing $\bm{z}$, and differ only in the method used to train the parameters. The model is close to [@levine2016end; @finn2016deep; @zhang2018deep] with the key architectural traits of having a few convolutional layers followed by a channel-wise spatial expectation operation, which has been widely used [@finn2017one; @finn2016guided; @chebotar2017path; @yahya2017collective; @yu2019unsupervised; @singhiccv17; @ghadirzadeh2017deep]. Most methods we compare (AE, E2E, DD-2D) use only one RGB camera stream as input to learned policies; DD-3D additionally uses the depth image. DD methods use descriptor set optimization (Sec. \[subsec:correspondence-visuomotor\]) and use both views for the correspondence training, before policy training.
See the Appendix for additional model and task details.
Simulation Results {#subsec:sim_results}
------------------
{width="47.00000%"} \[fig:sim\_experiments\_images\]
Table \[table:simulation\_results\] contains the results of the simulation experiments. Interestingly we find that our method’s visual representation is capable of enabling policy learning that is remarkably close in performance to what can be achieved if the policy has access to ground truth world state information. In contrast the performances of the end-to-end (E2E) and autoencoder (AE) methods vary much more across the different tasks. Since our method benefits from object mask information during visual training, we also experimented with letting the autoencoder use this information by applying the reconstruction loss on only the masked image. Additionally we tried training the autoencoder end-to-end during behavior cloning. Both of these yield mixed results, depending on the task.
Since the vision network in our method is a 34-layer ResNet, we wanted to see if the end-to-end method would benefit from using the same, deeper vision backbone. The deeper network did not improve closed-loop performance (Table \[table:simulation\_results\]) although it did reduce behavior-cloning validation error. This suggests the advantage of our method comes from the correspondence training rather than the model capacity.
The binary success metrics of Table \[table:simulation\_results\], however, do not fully convey the methods’ performances. We also experiment with varying the number of demonstrations, and characterize the performance distributions. By plotting the performance for the *“Reach, T + R”* task over a projection of the sampled object configurations (Figure \[MTBSE2spatial\]), we learn that the few failures of our method occur when the box position lies outside the convex hull of the training data. Interestingly the GT-2D baseline also struggles with similar failure modes, while the GT-3D method succeeds in more cases outside the convex hull. This suggests that policies that consume 3D information are better able to extrapolate outside the training distribution; our DD-3D method also provides better generalization than DD-2D. The baseline vision-based methods do not generalize as well; for example, the E2E performance distribution is shown in Figure \[MTBSE2spatial\]. On this task we find that with just 30 demonstrations our method outperforms both AE and E2E with 200 demonstrations.
The pushing tasks are of particular interest since they demand closed-loop visual feedback. Disturbances are applied to the object both while collecting demonstrations and deploying the learned policies. Since the *“Push box”* task used a dynamic state feedback controller to provide demonstrations, we find that we need the sequence model (LSTM) for the policy network to achieve the task, even when the policy has access to ground truth object state. On the other hand, the *“Push plate”* task employed a static feedback controller to provide demonstrations, and so MLP models that consume only the current observation, $\pi_{\theta_p}(\bm{o}_t)$, are sufficient.
Interestingly a variety of methods performed well on the *“Push box”* task while large differences were evident in the *“Push plate”* task. We speculate that this is because higher precision is required to accurately push the plate as compared to the box. Since the rectangular robot finger experiences a patch contact with the box, while only a point contact with the plate, there is more open loop stability in pushing the box. On the harder *“Push plate”* task we found that our DD-2D method performed almost as well as the GT-2D baseline and significantly outperformed both the AE and E2E approaches, and that DD-3D improved performance even further.
Additionally we find (Table \[table:noise\_results\]) our noise augmentation technique (Sec. \[subsec:trainig\_for\_feedback\_through\_data\_augmentation\]) has a marked effect on task success for behavior-cloned policies. This applies to ground truth methods and our method, with as few as 30 demonstrations or as many as 200.
{width="48.00000%"} \[MTBSE2spatial\]
Hardware Experimental Setup {#subsec:real_hardware_experimentation}
---------------------------
We used a Kuka IIWA LBR robot with a Schunk WSG 50 parallel jaw gripper to perform imitation learning for the five tasks detailed in Figure \[hardwarefig\]. RGBD sensing was provided by RealSense D415 cameras rigidly mounted offboard the robot and calibrated to the robot’s coordinate frame. Note that for effective correspondence learning between views, it is ideal to have views with *some* overlap such that correspondences exist, but still maintain different-enough views. All shown hardware results use only RGB input for the trained policies (DD-2D, Sec. \[subsec:sim\_experiments\_and\_benchmarking\]) and use descriptor set optimization (Sec. \[subsec:correspondence-visuomotor\]). Human demonstrations were provided by teleoperating the robot with a mouse and keyboard.
Hardware Results {#subsec:hardware_results}
----------------
We validate both our visual learning method and its use in imitation learning in the real world. As in simulation, we *only use demonstration data* for both visual training and policy learning; no additional data collection is needed. While the simulation results provide a controlled environment for comparisons, there are a number of additional challenges in our real world experiments: (i) visual complexity (textures, lighting, backgrounds, clutter), (ii) use of human demonstrations rather than expert simulation controllers, (iii) real physical contact, and (iv) imperfect correspondence learning due to noisy depth sensors and calibration. Our hardware experiments test all of these aspects. All real hardware experiments use LSTM policy networks, since we suspect our human demonstrators use dynamic internal state.
 \[hardware\_correspondences\]
 \[boot\_correspondences\]
### Learned Correspondences from Dynamic Scenes
Fig. \[hardware\_correspondences\] displays visualizations of learned correspondences from demonstration data. The results show that the learned visual models, despite imperfect depth sensor noise, calibration, and only time-synchronized image pairs, are capable of identifying correspondences across a class of objects, for an object in different deformable configurations, and for objects in a diversity of backgrounds. Figure \[boot\_correspondences\] displays class-general correspondences for a particularly challenging instance with large shape variation.
### Real-World Visuomotor Policies
Figure \[hardwarefig\] displays examples of autonomous hardware results, and Table \[table\_hardware\_results\] provides a quantitative overview. To highlight a few results, several of the tasks achieve over 95% reliability, including the *“Push sugar box”* task with and without disturbances, and the *“Flip shoe, single instance”* and *“Push-then-grab plate”* tasks without disturbances. Each of the different tasks present significant challenges, best appreciated in [our video](https://sites.google.com/view/visuomotor-correspondence). Several of the tasks include non-prehensile manipulation, including pushing the box and plate, and flipping the shoes. In the *“Pick-then-hang hat on rack”* task, the robot autonomously reacts to the deformable configuration of the hat after disturbances. The *“Push-then-grab plate”* task as well is highly challenging given the visual clutter, the symmetry and lack of visual texture for the object, and requires using “extrinsic dexterity” [@dafle2014extrinsic] via the wood block to enable sliding the gripper into position to grasp the plate.
CONCLUSION
==========
Our experiments have shown self-supervised correspondence training to enable efficient policy learning in the real world, and our simulated imitation learning comparisons empirically suggest that our method outperforms two vision-based baselines in terms of generalization and sample complexity. While different hyperparameters, model architectures, and other changes to the baselines may increase their performance, our method is already near the upper bound of what can be expected in the used experimental setting: it achieves results comparable to baselines using ground truth information. One reason our approach may outperform the vision-based baselines is that it additionally uses a fundamentally different source of supervision, provided by visual correspondence training. Since our approach is self-supervised, it does not entail additional human supervision.
Dense descriptor learning has shown to be an exciting route for improving visuomotor policy learning. While this has enabled the variety of tasks shown, there are many that are out of scope. One current limitation is that our visual representation does not explicitly address simultaneously viewing multiple object instances of the same class. Future work could, similar to the visual pipeline in [@manuelli2019kpam], combine both instance-level segmentation with intra-instance visual representations. Additionally, returning to the cooking eggs example in the Introduction, it is interesting to consider using spatial correspondence as part, but not the entirety, of the visual representation of the world.
APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
**Simulation Tasks.** Our simulation environment was configured to closely match our real hardware experimentation. Using Drake [@drake], we simulate the 7-DOF robot arm, gripper, objects, and multi-view RGBD sensing. ***“Reach T only”***: goal is to move the end-effector to a target position relative to the sugar box object; success is within 1.2cm of target. The box pose only varies in translation, not rotation; training positions drawn from a truncated Gaussian ($\sigma_x=5$cm,$\sigma_y=10$cm), centered on the table, truncated to a 40cm$\times$10cm region. Test distribution drawn from uniform over same region. ***“Reach T + R”***: same as *“Reach T only”* but now the box pose varies in rotation as well, drawn from a uniform \[-30,30\] degrees; success is within 1.2cm and 2 degrees. ***“Push box”***: goal is to push the box object across the table, and the box is subject to random external disturbances; success if translated across table and final box orientation is within 2 degrees of target. ***“Push plate”***: goal is to push a plate across a table to a specific goal location, and the plate is subject to external disturbances; success if plate center is within 1cm of target position.
**Policy Networks**: All experiments using an ***“MLP"*** had a two-layer network with 128 hidden units, 20% dropout, in each layer and ReLU nonlinearities. Training was 75,000 steps with RMSProp, $\alpha=0.9$, with a batch size of 16, and *lr* starting at $1e-4$, and decaying by a factor of 0.5 every 10,000 steps. All experiments using an ***“LSTM"*** had a single LSTM layer with 100 units preprocessed by two MLP layers of 100 units, 10% dropout, and layer-normalized prior to the LSTM layer. Training was 200,000 steps with RMSProp, $\alpha=0.9$, with *lr* starting at $2e-3$, decaying 0.75 every 40,000 steps, with truncated backpropagation of maximum 50 steps, and gradient clipping of maximum magnitude 1.0. As recommended in [@rahmatizadeh2018vision] we train LSTMs on downsampled trajectories, we use 5 Hz.
**Vision Networks**: Both ***“AE”*** and ***“E2E”*** methods used an identical architecture, with the only difference being the additional decoder used for the AE method during autoencoding. The network is almost exactly as in [@levine2016end] and [@finn2016deep], but we provided a full-width image, $320\times240$. We used 16 2D feature points. ***“DD”*** architecture is identical to [@florence2018dense]. DD-2D computes image-space spatial expectation, DD-3D computes 3D-space spatial expectation using the depth image, see [@florence2019thesis] for details; both used 16 descriptors. The ***“E2E (34-layer)”*** network is exactly the DD architecture but with $D=16$ and channel-wise 2D spatial softmax to obtain $\bm{z}$.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by National Science Foundation Award No. IIS-1427050, Lockheed Martin Corporation Award No. RPP2016-002, and an Amazon Research Award grant. The views expressed are not endorsed by our funding sponsors.
[^1]: Video, source code, at: [sites.google.com/view/visuomotor-correspondence](https://sites.google.com/view/visuomotor-correspondence)
[^2]: $^{1}$All authors are with the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar St., Cambridge, MA, USA [{peteflo,manuelli,russt}@csail.mit.edu]{}
[^3]: The specific form of $f^{C}(\cdot)$ is defined by how the correspondence model was trained. In our preferred model we compute a spatial-expectation using a correspondence kernel, either in image-space or 3D. See [@florence2019thesis], Chapter 4, for details.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'Arxiv\_nvox.bib'
---
[**The effect of ionic diffusion on extracellular potentials in neural tissue** ]{}\
Geir Halnes$^{1,\ast}$, Tuomo Mäki-Marttunen$^{2}$ Daniel Keller$^{3}$, Klas H. Pettersen$^{4}$ Gaute T. Einevoll$^{1}$\
**[1]{} Dept. of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, [Å]{}s, Norway\
**[2]{} NORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway\
**[3]{} Blue Brain Project, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland\
**[4]{} Letten Centre and GliaLab, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway\
$\ast$ E-mail: [email protected]********
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
In computational neuroscience, it is common to use the simplifying assumption that diffusive currents are negligible compared to Ohmic currents. However, endured periods of intense neural signaling may cause local ion concentration changes in the millimolar range. Theoretical studies have identified scenarios where steep concentration gradients give rise to diffusive currents that are of comparable magnitude with Ohmic currents, and where the simplifying assumption that diffusion can be neglected does not hold. We here propose a novel formalism for computing (1) the ion concentration dynamics and (2) the electrical potential in the extracellular space surrounding multi-compartmental neuron models or networks of such (e.g., the Blue-Brain simulator). We use this formalism to explore the effects that diffusive currents can have on the extracellular (ECS) potential surrounding a small population of active cortical neurons. Our key findings are: (i) Sustained periods of neuronal output (simulations were run for 84 s) could change local ECS ion concentrations by several mM, as observed experimentally. (ii) For large, but realistic, concentration gradients, diffusive currents in the ECS were of the same magnitude as Ohmic currents. (iii) Neuronal current sources could induce local changes in the ECS potential by a few mV, whereas diffusive currents could could induce local changes in the ECS potential by a few tens of a mV. Diffusive currents could thus have a quite significant impact on ECS potentials. (v) Potential variations caused by diffusive currents were quite slow, but could influence the comparable to those induced by Ohmic currents up to frequencies as high as 7Hz.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
During periods of intense neural signaling, ion concentrations in the extracellular space (ECS) can change locally by several mM [@Cordingley1978; @Dietzel1989; @Gardner-Medwin1983; @Chen2000; @Haj-Yasein2014]. For example, the the extracellular K^+^-concentration can increase from a typical basal level of around 3mM and up to levels between 8 and 12 mM during non-pathological conditions [@Hertz2013; @Chen2000; @Newman1993]. Ion concentration shifts in the ECS will change neuronal reversal potentials and firing patterns (see e.g., [@Oyehaug2012; @Park2006]). Too large deviances from basal levels can lead to pathological conditions such as hypoxia, anoxia, ischemia and spreading depression [@Sykova2008]. The extracellular ion concentration dynamics depends not only on transmembrane ionic sources, but also on ionic diffusion along extracellular concentration gradients. Diffusion plays an important role in maintaining local ion concentrations at healthy levels [@Nicholson2000], but may also be involved in the propagation of e.g. epileptic seizures during pathological conditions [@Florence2009].
Diffusion of ions along concentration gradients carry electrical currents [@Kofuji2004; @Halnes2013], and may in principle have measurable effects on electrical potentials (c.f. liquid junction potentials [@VanEgeraat1993; @Sokalski2001; @Perram2006]). In many theoretical approaches, it is assumed that diffusive currents are negligible compared to the Ohmic currents propelled by the electrical field (hereby termed field currents). This is, for example, an underlying assumption when intracellular currents are computed with the cable equation, which is used in most multi-compartmental neural models (see e.g., [@Rall1977]). It is also an underlying assumption in volume conductor theory, which is used to estimate extracellular potentials [@Holt1999; @Pettersen2008; @Pettersen2008a; @Reimann2013], and in standard current source density (CSD) theory, which predicts neural current sources from recordings of extracellular potentials (see e.g., [@Einevoll2007; @Pettersen2008a]).
Ion concentration changes in the ECS often are accompanied by a slow negative potential shift, which can be in the order of a few millivolts [@Sykova2008; @Kriz1975; @Lothman1975; @Dietzel1989; @Cordingley1978]. Although Dietzel et al. argued that glial potassium buffering currents were the main source of these slow potential shifts, they also discussed possible contributions from diffusive currents [@Dietzel1989]. Theoretical studies have also identified scenarios where large, but biologically realistic ion concentration gradients may induce diffusive currents that are comparable in magnitude to Ohmic currents, both in the intracellular [@Qian1989] and extracellular [@Halnes2013] space. As ion concentrations in the ECS typically change at the time scale of seconds [@Dietzel1989; @Chen2000; @Halnes2013], it is unclear whether diffusive currents that originate from such changes can influence recorded extracellular potentials at frequencies higher than the typical cut-off frequencies of 0.1-0.2Hz applied in most electrode systems (see e.g., [@Einevoll2007]). However, if diffusive currents can have an impact on recorded extracellular potentials, it calls for a re-interpretation of extracellular voltage recordings, which have typically been assumed to predominantly reflect transmembrane current sources (and i.e. not diffusion in the ECS). This was the topic of a recent debate, where the omittance of diffusive currents in CSD theory was suggested as a possible explanation to an observed discrepancy between theoretical predictions and empirical measurements [@Riera2012; @Riera2013; @Destexhe2012; @Gratiy2013; @Cabo2014].
In principle, one could combine experimental measurements of ion concentration gradients with prior knowledge of diffusion constants and typical tortuosities (hindrances) [@Nicholson1981; @Nicholson1998] to determine the magnitude of the diffusive currents in the ECS. However, net diffusive currents generally depend on the joint movement of multiple ion species along their respective concentration gradients [@Halnes2013]. For example, in regions with intense neural action potential (AP) firing, we would expect the extracellular \[K^+^\] and \[Na^+^\] to increase and decrease, respectively. Accordingly, we would expect K^+^ to diffuse out from such a region and a similar amount of Na^+^ to diffuse into the same region. The net transport of charge (diffusive current) into/out from such a region would thus be much smaller than the charge transported by K^+^ and Na^+^ separately. A reliable experimental estimate of the net diffusive current would therefore require an extreme accuracy in the measurement of the different concentration gradients, and is probably not feasible. Therefore, questions about the relative importance of extracellular diffusive currents may be better addressed by a theoretical electrodiffusive framework. To give good predictions, such a framework should ensure both biophysical realism and physical consistency, and should ensure (i) that extracellular ion concentration gradients have values that are realistic in neural tissue, (ii) that ion concentration gradients of different species are consistent in the sense that they ensure local electroneutrality in the bulk solution, (iii) that realistic extracellular electrical potentials consistently follows from the interplay between neural, transmembrane current sources, and extracellular diffusive sources.
Several modelling frameworks based on the Poisson-Nernst-Planck equations are available for for handling the time development of the ion concentration dynamics and electrical potential [@Leonetti1998; @Lu2007; @Lopreore2008; @Nanninga2008; @Pods2013]. These frameworks typically require a very fine spatial and temporal resolution, and are not well suited for predictions at a population level. Simplified models, on the other hand, have so far either been restricted to only considering the ICS [@Qian1989], or to be limited in the handling of neuronal features, such as ion channel distributions and morphology [@Halnes2013]. The standard tool for simulating morphologically complex neurons is the NEURON simulator, which is an effective tool for computing the dynamics of neuronal membrane potentials. There are methods toolboxes for computing extracellular fields surrounding neural models based on the NEURON simulator (e.g., [@Linden2014]), but no formalism has yet been developed to compute the extracellular ion concentration dynamics and diffusion in a way that can readily be combined with NEURON.
![**The model system.** **(A)** A cortical column was subdivided into 15 depth intervals. The edges $n=1$ and $n=15$ were assumed to be a constant background. The interior 13 depth intervals contained a population of 10 neurons (only one shown in Figure) simulated with the NEURON simulator. The output of specific ions into each depth interval $n$ was computed for 10 neurons and summed, yielding the total input of an ion species $k$ to each depth interval. **(B)** Ion concentration dynamics in a ECS subvolume $n$. $J_n^{kM}$ denotes the total transmembrane efflux of ion species $k$ into the depth interval $n$ of the whole population of neurons. $J^{kf}$ and $J^{kd}$ denote ECS fluxes between neighboring subvolume driven by electrical potential differences and diffusion, respectively. **(C)** The extracellular potential could be calculated by demanding that the sum of currents into each ECS subvolume should be zero. Currents were determined by summing the contributions from all ionic fluxes, and adding the capacitive current (black arrow). []{data-label="Fvox"}](Newsketcs.pdf){width="6in"}
In the current work, we have explored the possible effects that diffusive currents may have on the extracellular potential around a small population of cortical neurons. To do this, we developed a hybrid formalism which is briefly summarized in Fig. \[Fvox\]. To simulate the neurodynamics, we used a previously developed multi-compartmental neural model of layer 5 pyramidal neurons with realistic morphology which was implemented in the NEURON simulator [@Hay2011]), and driven by realistic synaptic input (Fig. \[Fvox\]A). When we had computed the neuronal output in this way, another, electrodiffusive framework was used for computing the dynamics of the ion concentrations and electrical potential in the ECS surrounding the neurons (Fig. \[Fvox\]B). The scheme was based on the Nernst-Planck equations for electrodiffusion. However, instead of deriving the extracellular potential from Poisson’s equation, we derived it from Kirchoff’s current law (demanding that all currents into a ECS subvolume should sum to zero), a physical constraint that is valid at a larger spatiotemporal resolution (Fig. \[Fvox\]C). This framework represents a novel, efficient and generally applicable method for simulating extracellular dynamics surrounding multi-compartmental neural models or networks of such (e.g., the Blue Brain simulator).
This work is organized in the following way: In the result-section, the main focus is put on the investigation of the possible role of diffusive currents on electrical potentials in the ECS. In the Discussion section, we discuss possible implications that our findings will have for the interpretation of data from extracellular recordings. The Discussion also includes an overview of the assumptions made in the presented model, and on how the framework can be expanded to allow for more thorough investigations of extracellular diffusive currents in neural tissue. A detailed derivation of the electrodiffusive formalism is found in the Methods-section (which is found at the end of in this article).
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
We investigated the role that diffusion can have on extracellular potentials by comparing simulations where the ECS dynamics was predicted using the electrodiffusive formalism with simulations where diffusive currents were assumed to be negligible, so that extracellular ion transports were solely due to field currents. The model simulation upset is briefly introduced in the following section and in Fig. \[Fvox\], while the details are postponed to the methods-section. A list of useful symbols and definitions can be found in Table \[T1\].
------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
**Symbol** **Explanation** **Units**
$J^{kM}_n$ Net membrane flux of species $k$ into subvolume $n$ mol/s
$I^M_n$ Net ionic membrane current into subvolume $n$ A
$I^{cap}_n$ Capacitive current into subvolume $n$ A
$V_n$ Extracellular potential in subvolume $n$ V
$J^{kf}_{n-1,n}$ Flux of $k$ from subvolume $n-1$ to $n$ due to electrical migration mol/s
$I^{f}_{n-1,n}$ Electrical field current from subvolume $n-1$ to $n$ A
$J^{kd}_{n-1,n}$ Flux of $k$ from subvolume $n-1$ to $n$ due to diffusion mol/s
$I^{d}_{n-1,n}$ Diffusive current from subvolume $n-1$ to $n$ A
$l_{c}$ Length of ECS subvolume edge $100 \mu m$
$A_{c}$ Cross section area of ECS subvolume $600 \mu m^2$
------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
: **Useful symbols and definitions**
\[T1\]
Dynamics of a small neuronal population {#dynamics-of-a-small-neuronal-population .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
Since diffusion takes place at a long time scale compared to the millisecond time scale of neuronal firing, we simulated our neural population for 84 s. The neurons were driven by Poissonian input trains through 1000 synapses distributed uniformly over their membrane. The 10 neurons were simulated independently, receiving different input trains (but with the same statistics). Synaptic weights were tuned so that the input evoked an average single-neuron AP firing rate of about 5 APs per second, which is a typical firing rate for cortical neurons [@Linden2011].
The time-development of the output of the neural population to three selected extracellular volumes is shown in Fig. \[Fdata\] for the first 7s of the simulation. Fig. \[Fdata\]A shows the currents into the the ECS volume containing the somatas. Here, we see clear signatures of neuronal APs: Neuronal depolarization by a brief Na^+^ current pulses (of about -50nA, since this current is leaving the ECS), and repolarization by a brief K^+^ current (of about +50nA, since this current enters the ECS). Generally, the subvolume containing the somatas received a significantly higher influx/efflux of ions (Fig. \[Fdata\]A) compared to the volumes containing the apical trunk (Fig. \[Fdata\]B) and branches (Fig. \[Fdata\]C). These differences were mainly because the soma region contained a higher neuronal membrane area than other subvolumes. Similarly, the region where the apical dendrite branches, contained a larger membrane area than a part of the apical dendritic trunk, so that the net transmembrane currents were bigger in Fig. \[Fdata\]C compared to Fig. \[Fdata\]B. Regional differences were also due to the distribution of specific ion channels in the neuronal model [@Hay2011]. For example, in the region containing the somata and initial parts of axons/dendrites, the density of Na^+^ and K^+^-channels was much larger than in regions containing only dendrites. Accordingly, the Na^+^ and K^+^ currents leaving/entering the ECS in the soma-region (Fig. \[Fdata\]A1-2) were almost identical to the total Na^+^ and K^+^ currents that left/entered the neuron as a whole (Fig. \[Fdata\]D1-2).
The neural output in Fig. \[Fdata\] (but for 84 s, and not only the 7 s shown in the figure) was used in all simulations shown below.
![**Output from the neuronal population.** Transmembrane currents into selected extracellular volumes, including **(A)** the region containing the neuronal somatas ($n=3$), **(**[(B)]{} the region containing the trunk of the apical dendrite ($n=7$), and **(C)** the region where the apical dendrites branched out ($n=13$). Currents were subdivided into ion specific currents (row 1-4) and the capacitive current (row 5). The sum of all currents into a subvolume $n$ is indicated in row 6. The transmembrane currents were defined as positive when crossing the membrane in the outward direction. Currents were summed over all neural segments (of all neurons) that occupied a given ECS-volume (depth level $n$). The total transmembrane currents of the neuron as a whole (summed over all $N-2$ depth levels) were also calculated **(D)**. []{data-label="Fdata"}](Fdata_t22.pdf){width="6in"}
### The effect of diffusion on slow extracellular potentials {#the-effect-of-diffusion-on-slow-extracellular-potentials .unnumbered}
Extracellular potentials may have many origins, including synaptic currents, passive neuronal membrane currents, slow or fast active neuronal membrane currents [@Pettersen2008a; @Reimann2013], or glial buffering currents [@Dietzel1989]. To explore whether also diffusive currents in the ECS can be sources that influence the ECS potential, we first studied the long time-scale dynamics of the system. As we saw in Fig.\[Fdata\], the local neuronal current sources varied on a fast temporal time scale. However, the statistics of the input remained the same throughout the 84 s simulation, and on a time resolution of seconds, the transmembrane current source (at a given location, $n$) remained roughly constant with time. Fig.\[Fconc\]A2 and B2 show the profiles of the transmembrane current sources over the depth of the cortex when averaged over a time interval of 7 s. More or less identical profiles were observed if the average was taken over another time interval, regardless of where in the 84 s simulation this interval was placed, or the length of the interval as long as it exceeded a few seconds (results not shown). In the soma-region ($n=3$) a net current entered the ECS (current source), whereas a net current left the ECS in all other subvolumes (black lines in Fig. \[Fconc\]A2 and B2). This observation indicates that there should be a net extracellular current in the positive $z$-direction (in order to complete the current loop).
![**Extracellular profiles in ion concentrations and potential.** Distribution of different system variables over the depth of the cortex for the situation where diffusion was assumed to be zero **(A)**, and for the situation with diffusion included **(B)**. The distribution of transmembrane current sources (temporal average) is shown in (A2) and (B2). Panels A3-A6 and B3-B6 show the distributions of ECS ion concentrations at different time points. Panels A7 and B7 show the low pass filtered ECS potential ($\langle V \rangle$). For $\langle V \rangle$ (A7, B7), the temporal average was taken over the time interval 16.8s prior to the value indicated in the legend. For the current sources (A2,B2), the temporal average was taken over the first 16.8 ms of the simulation (the statistics of current sources did not change during the simulation, and any time interval $>1s$ gave nearly identical results for the temporal average). []{data-label="Fconc"}](Fconcentrationprofiles_t2.pdf){width="6in"}
As the neurodynamics resulted in influxes or effluxes of different ion species, ionic concentrations in the ECS varied during the 84 s simulations. Fig.\[Fconc\] shows the extracellular concentration profiles at selected time points in the cases when (i) diffusion was not included (Fig.\[Fconc\]A3-6), and (ii) when diffusion *was* included (Fig.\[Fconc\]B3-6). In the case (i) with no diffusion, changes in ECS ion concentrations were sharp in the soma region ($n=3$), as the transmembrane sources were larger there. For example, the Na^+^ concentration decreased significantly, while K^+^ increased significantly in the soma region. This effect was less pronounced in the case (ii) when diffusion was included, as diffusion acted to smoothen the ion concentrations over the cortical depth.
In the case (ii) when diffusion was included, the K^+^-concentration in the soma region increased from a basal level of 3 mM to slightly above 10 mM during the simulation. These final ECS concentrations were in line with the maximum local changes that have been observed experimentally during non-pathological conditions [@Hertz2013; @Chen2000; @Newman1993]. Hence, we expect that the extracellular diffusive transports obtained with such ion concentration gradients are realistic. In the case (i) when diffusion was not included, the local ion concentration changes in the soma-regions were unrealistically high. However, this was of no concern for our simulation of other variables, as no system properties depended on the ECS ion concentrations in the case when diffusion was not included.
To explore whether diffusion could have an impact on ECS potentials, we calculated the low pass filtered ECS potential ($\langle V \rangle$) in the cases without (i) and with (ii) diffusion included (Fig. \[Fconc\]A7 and B7). Our measure for ($\langle V \rangle$) at a time $t$ was simply the average $V$ taken over the time interval between two of the selected time points in Fig. \[Fconc\] (i.e. $\langle V \rangle$ at time $t$ was the temporal average of $V$ between $t-16.8 s$ and $t$). As the figure shows, $\langle V \rangle$ varied from around 0 mV in the basal dendrites and soma-region, to about -2 mV in the apical dendrites. Basically the profile of $\langle V \rangle$ reflected the profile of the transmembrane current (Fig. \[Fconc\]A2 and B2). As a net current entered the ECS in the soma region, and left the ECS along the apical dendrites, an extracellular current in the positive $z$-direction was required in order to *close the loop*. A positive current in the $z$-direction, is consistent with a negative voltage gradient in the positive $z$-direction. The $\langle V \rangle$ profile obtained in our simulations were qualitatively similar to what have been seen experimentally, where profiles of sustained voltages which vary by a few mV across the depth of the cortex have been observed (see e.g. [@Dietzel1989]).
When diffusion was not included, the $\langle V \rangle$ profiles did not vary with time (profiles for different $t$ coincide in Fig. \[Fconc\]A7 shows). This was as expected, since $\langle V \rangle$ in this case was determined solely by transmembrane current sources, which, as we saw in Fig. \[Fconc\]A2 were constant over time (for a time resolution of seconds). The $\langle V \rangle$ profiles obtained when diffusion was included were different (Fig. \[Fconc\]B7). In the latter case, $\langle V \rangle$ did vary with time, especially in the soma region, where the local ECS potential was reduced by approximately 0.2 mV during the time course of the simulation. Thus, Fig. \[Fconc\]B7 shows that diffusion can indeed induce visible changes in the ECS potential. Several previous, experimental studies have observed slow negative potential shift measured in the ECS that coincide with changes in ion concentrations, and in particular increases in extracellular K^+^ [@Kriz1975; @Lothman1975; @Cordingley1978; @Dietzel1989].
Mechanisms behind the impact of diffusion on extracellular potentials {#mechanisms-behind-the-impact-of-diffusion-on-extracellular-potentials .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To explore the relationship between diffusion and $<V>$ in further detail, we plotted the extracellular fluxes of all ion species (K^+^, Na^+^, Ca^2+^, and X^-^) in the cases (i) without and (ii) with diffusion included at the selected time points (Fig. \[Fflows\]). We also plotted the net electrical current associated with the ionic fluxes. To be able to compare the electrical current directly with ionic fluxes, we represented the currents as a flux of positive unit charges $e^+$. When diffusion was not included, all transports in the ECS were driven by the electrical field (Fig. \[Fflows\]A). The main transports were those mediated by the most abundant ion species in the ECS, which in our simulation were Na^+^ and X^-^. Due to the negative potential gradient between the soma and apical dendrites (\[Fconc\]A7), Na^+^ was driven away from the soma, while X^-^ (having the opposite valence) was driven towards the soma. Both these transport amounted to a net electrical current away from the soma, i.e. the flux of positive unit charges was positive in depth intervals with $n>3$, and negative in depth intervals with $n<3$.
![**Extracellular Ion fluxes.** Low pass filtered extracellular fluxes in the case when diffusion was assumed to be zero **(A)**, and in the case when diffusion was included **(B)**. In the latter case, the total flux **(B3)** was subdivided into a field-driven **(B1)** and diffusive **(B2)** component. Curves to the right/left of the blue, vertical lines represent fluxes in the positive/negative $z$-direction respectively. Electrical currents were represented as fluxes of positive unit charges $j^{e+}$ = $i/F$ (rightmost column). The scale bar and legend apply to all fluxes. The low pass filtered fluxes were computed as the temporal mean of the real fluxes, taken over the 16.8s prior to the value indicated in the legend. []{data-label="Fflows"}](Fflows_t2.pdf){width="6in"}
When diffusion was included, we distinguished between extracellular transports due the electrical field (Fig. \[Fflows\]B1), and extracellular transports due to diffusion (Fig. \[Fflows\]B2). The transports due to the electrical field were qualitatively similar to what we saw in the case without diffusion (compare Fig. \[Fflows\]A with Fig. \[Fflows\]B1)). However, in the case when diffusion was included, these transports varied slightly with time, since the extracellular $\langle V \rangle$ profile varied with time (as we saw in Fig. \[Fconc\]B7). Unlike the field currents, the diffusive transports were not determined by which ion species that were most abundant in the ECS, but on the concentration gradients, which were largest for Na^+^ and K^+^. Due to the high decrease/increase of Na^+^/K^+^ caused by AP firing in the soma region, extracellular diffusion drove Na^+^ into the soma region, and K^+^ out from the soma region (Fig. \[Fflows\]B2). Due to the opposite directionality of these two main diffusive transports, the net charge transport (as represented by a diffusive flux of unit charges, $e\textsuperscript{+}$) was smaller than the transports of Na^+^ and K^+^ separately. However, diffusive transports still gave rise to a net electrical transport that was smaller, but of the same order of magnitude as the Ohmic current (compare fluxes of $e^+$ in Fig. \[Fflows\]B1 and B2).
Fig. \[Fflows\]B3 shows the total ionic transports ($j^f + j^d$) in the case (ii) when diffusion was included. As expected, the extracellular ionic transports differed quite significantly from the case when diffusion was not included (Fig. \[Fflows\]A). However, the net transport of unit charges in the system were identical in the two cases (compare fluxes of $e+$ in Fig. \[Fflows\]A with that in Fig. \[Fflows\]B3). There is a simple physical argument to why this had to be the case: Since the formalism was based on Kirchoff’s law (the sum of electrical currents into any given ECS volume were zero), the transmembrane current sources into/out from an extracellular volume had to be balanced by extracellular currents out from/into the same volume. As our simulations were set up so that the neurodynamics (and thus the transmembrane current sources) were identical in the cases with and without diffusion, also the net extracellular current had to be identical.
Effect of diffusion on extracellular potentials at shorter time scales {#effect-of-diffusion-on-extracellular-potentials-at-shorter-time-scales .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Above, we predicted that realistic concentration variations and the diffusive currents that they evoked could cause observable variations in sustained extracellular voltage profiles, as earlier discussed in [@Dietzel1989]. As we saw in Fig. \[Fflows\], diffusive charge transport out of the soma region was of the same magnitude as field driven charge transport (compare fluxes of $e^+$ in Fig. \[Fflows\]B1 and B2). The assumption that diffusive currents is negligible compared to field currents is this not warranted in the scenarios studied here, which had large, but realistic extracellular ion concentration gradients.
The key differences between diffusive and field driven currents are clear if we explore their effects at a higher temporal resolution. In Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A1 we have plotted the extracellular voltage at two selected depth intervals (soma $n=3$ and apical dendrite $n=13$), in the cases (i) without and (ii) with diffusion included. The figure shows how $V$ varies over the entire simulation of 84 s. It was mainly included to illustrate the general time course of $V$ during the simulation. In Fig. \[Ftemporal\]B1 we see that the fluctuations in the field current (in the positive $z$-direction) out from the soma and apical dendrites had similar time course as $V$. As Fig. \[Ftemporal\]C1 shows, this was definitely not the case for the diffusive current. While field current densities could vary by $\sim 10 A/m^2$ over the time course of a millisecond, it took about 30s of neural activity to build up an extracellular diffusive current density of $\sim 0.5 A/m^2$ (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]C1). Early in the simulation, the diffusive current out from the soma-region increased with time in an approximately linear fashion. With time, diffusion between neighbouring subvolumes acted to smoothen the ECS ion concentration gradients. Due to this flattening of extracellular concentration gradients, the diffusive current out from the soma peaked after around 30 s, and decreased slowly after that. The concentration build-up was slower in the dendritic region, and the diffusive current out of the apical dendrite still increased in a linear fashion at the end of the 84 s simulation \[Ftemporal\]C1.
![**Dynamics on a shorter time-scale**. The time development of **(A)** the extracellular potential, **(B)** the field current, and **(C)** the diffusive current in ECS volumes surrounding the soma ($n=3$, full lines) and apical dendrite ($n=13$, dotted lines). The first column (A1-C1) shows the signal for the entire 84s simulation, while the remaining panels show the signal in selected, brief intervals during the simulations. Red lines show the signal obtained when diffusion was assumed to be zero, while blue lines show the signal obtained with the full electrodiffusive formalism. Field currents varied at the same time-scale as $V$ (ms), while diffusive currents varied very slowly (s). []{data-label="Ftemporal"}](Ftemporal_t2.pdf){width="6in"}
Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A2-4 shows the time course of $V$ at selected, shorter (40 ms) time intervals, which include include a few neuronal APs. In the soma-region, APs caused an initial decrease in the ECS voltage (current into the neurons discharge the ECS), followed by an increase in the ECS voltage when the neuron repolarized. Since currents always form closed loops, an inward current in the soma region evoked outward currents along the dendritic branches. Therefore, AP-signatures in the apical ECS region had the opposite temporal profiles (increase followed by decrease) compared to what we observed in the soma-region (decrease followed by increase). Although the fluctuation in $V$ during APs were of the same order of magnitude in the soma- and apical region, field currents were generally largest in the soma region (or out from the soma-region). The explanation to this has to do with the opposite extracellular AP-profiles in the subvolumes containing the soma versus those containing dendrites. In neighboring dendritic subvolumes, the AP profiles were very similar. Accordingly, the difference in $V$ between the subvolumes were small, and gave rise to small electrical currents through the ECS. Conversely, the soma-region had AP profiles that were opposite from its neighbours. During APs, there were thus large voltage differences between the soma ($n=3$) and its neighboring subvolumes, leading to to strong field currents. These observations are in line with previous investigations of extracellular AP-signatures (see e.g., [@Pettersen2008]).
At an early stage in the simulation, when ion concentrations did not diverge very much from the basal concentrations, the time development of $V$ was almost identical in the cases without (i) and with (ii) diffusion (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A2). However, as ion concentration built up in the system, $V$ was gradually shifted to more negative values in the case when diffusion was included (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A3-A4). After 82 s, $V$ was shifted with about -0.2 mV in the case when diffusion was included compared to the case with only field currents, consistent with what we also saw in Fig.\[Fconc\]. These shifts took place at a slow time scale, so that $V$ was close to parallel in the diffusive and non-diffusive cases over the short 40 ms time intervals plotted in Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A2-A4. Related to the shifts in $V$, also the field currents showed closely parallel time courses in the diffusive and non-diffusive cases (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]B2-B4). At this short time courses, the diffusive currents remained roughly constant, and single APs evoked no visible fluctuations in diffusive currents (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]C2-C4).
As we have seen, the maximum magnitude of the field currents were much larger than the diffusive currents during dramatic events such as APs (compare Fig. \[Ftemporal\]B2-B4 with Fig. \[Ftemporal\]C2-C4). In addition, we saw that diffusive currents had no visible impact on the temporal development of brief extracellular voltage signals, and would e.g. not have any impact on AP shapes detected in extracellular recordings (such as multi-unit array recordings). However, the high amplitude field currents were brief in duration, and for most of the time-course (i.e. between APs), the magnitude of field currents and diffusive currents were similar. We therefore hypothesized that diffusive currents could give a significant contribution to the low frequency part of extracellular voltage recordings, which are often sampled down to frequencies of 0.1-0.2Hz (see e.g., [@Einevoll2007]). Below, we explore which frequency components of the extracellular potential that may be influenced by diffusive sources.
Effect of diffusive currents on power spectra {#effect-of-diffusive-currents-on-power-spectra .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
Fig. \[Fpowersoma\] shows the power spectrum of $V$ at the depth level of the soma $n=3$ (i.e. of the signal seen in Fig. \[Ftemporal\]A1). To see if the power spectrum varied over the time course of the simulation, we split the signal into four intervals of 21 s, which are shown in Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A, B, C and D.
The effect of diffusion on the power spectrum was largest in the first 21 s of the simulation, i.e. in the period when the diffusive current out from the soma increased steeply with time (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]C1). Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A1 shows the full frequency spectrum for these initial 21 s, while Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A2-A4 are close-ups of selected frequency intervals of the signal in Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A1. When comparing the cases (i) without and (ii) with diffusion included, we found that diffusion had a strong impact on the power spectrum for frequencies around 1Hz \[Fpowersoma\]A2, and even clearly influenced the power of frequencies almost up to 10 Hz (Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A3). For higher frequencies, the power spectra obtained without and with diffusion included were more or less identical (Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]A4). In the final stages of the simulation (Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]D), the range of frequencies that were influenced by diffusion terminated at lower frequencies. The power spectra obtained without and with diffusion closely coincided at 7Hz (Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]D3), but diffusion still had a strong impact on frequencies up to 1 Hz (Fig. \[Fpowersoma\]D2).
![**Power spectrum for the ECS potential in the soma region** Power spectra for $V$ in the case when diffusion was set to zero (red lines) and in the case when diffusion was included (blue lines). Rows **(A)-(D)** represent different 21s time intervals of the simulations, so that e.g. **(A)** shows the power spectrum for $V$ between $t=0$ and $t=21s$, and **(C)** is the power spectrum for $V$ between $t=42s$ and $t=63s$. Column 1 shows the full power spectrum, while columns 2-4 show close ups of selected frequency intervals. Diffusive currents had strongest impact in the first simulation interval (A), where it had a notable impact on the power spectrum up to frequencies as high as 7Hz (A3). The soma region had $n=3$. []{data-label="Fpowersoma"}](Fpower_t2_soma.pdf){width="6in"}
Fig. \[Fpowerapical\] shows the frequency spectra for the extracellular potential in the region of the apical dendrites $n=13$. In this region, extracellular ion concentrations built up very slowly, and diffusion had a smaller impact. Here, only the very low frequency part (0.1 Hz) of the power spectrum was significantly influenced by including diffusion in the ECS dynamics.
![**Power spectrum for the ECS potential in the apical region** Power spectra for $V$ in the case when diffusion was set to zero (red lines) and in the case when diffusion was included (blue lines). Rows **(A)-(D)** represent different 21s time intervals of the simulations, so that e.g. **(A)** shows the power spectrum for $V$ between $t=0$ and $t=21s$, and **(C)** is the power spectrum for $V$ between $t=42s$ and $t=63s$. Column 1 shows the full power spectrum, while columns 2-4 show close ups of selected frequency intervals. Diffusive currents had relatively small effects on the frequency spectrum in the apical region, since concentration changes were quite small here. The apical region considered here, had $n=13$. []{data-label="Fpowerapical"}](Fpower_t2_apical.pdf){width="6in"}
Diffusive currents without neuronal sources {#diffusive-currents-without-neuronal-sources .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
A major component of the ECS diffusive currents did not depend directly on transmembrane neuronal sources. To show this, we ran an additional simulation, where we removed the neuronal sources midways in the simulation, i.e. after 42s. After this, extracellular transports were solely evoked by the concentration gradients that had built up in the ECS during the 42s of neuronal activity. In the case when diffusion was not included in the system, the ECS voltage gradient instantly turned to zero when the neuronal sources were removed, and there were no extracellular transports (results not shown).
In the case when diffusion was included in the system, the remaining concentration gradients evoked diffusive currents through the cortical column (Fig. \[Fsilence\]). The diffusive currents evoked a non-zero voltage gradient through the column, so that the ECS potential in the soma region was about 0.1 mV more negative than the potential in the apical region. This diffusion-generated potential difference is known as the liquid junction potential (Fig. \[Fsilence\]A5). To explain this effect, consider an example where two pools of salt solutions, so that pool 1 contains NaCl and pool 2 contains KCl. If these are set in contact with each other, Na^+^ will will diffuse from pool 1 to pool 2, while K^+^ will diffuse from pool 2 to pool 1. Since K^+^ and Na^+^ do not have identical diffusion constants ($D_K>D_{Na}$), diffusion will lead to net transport of charge from pool 2 to pool 1. It is known that the local charge separation associated with this process is extremely small [@Britz2014], as charge accumulation is rapidly counteracted by an induced electrical potential difference between the two pools, which drives charge in the opposite direction from diffusion (c.f., the potential profile seen in Fig. \[Fsilence\]). After the neuronal output was removed, the ionic composition was so that it evoked a net diffusive current out from the soma region. Accordingly, the electrical potential in the soma region decreased, which induced a net field current into the soma region. In this case, there was no neuronal current source, and the sum of the diffusive and field driven currents was always zero.
![**Extracellular dynamics in the case of no neuronal sources.** The neuronal transmembrane sources were removed midways (after 42s) in the (84s) simulation. **(A)** shows the distribution of different system variables over the depth of the cortex for different time points after the neurons were removed. Extracellular ion concentration gradients (**(A1)-(A4)** evoked diffusive currents that gave rise to liquid junction potentials in the ECS (**(A5)**). $\langle V \rangle$ was the temporal mean taken over the 8.4s prior to the value indicated in the legend. **(B-C)** Power spectra for $V$ in the time window $t=42s$ to $t=63s$ **(B)** and for $t=63s$ to $t = 84s$ **(C)**. **(B1) and **(C1)**** show the full power spectrum, while **B2-B4)** and **(C2)-(C4)** show close-ups of selected frequency intervals. Black, straight lines show the power spectra for the simulation when neuronal transmembrane sources were removed, and indicate an exponential decay of $\langle V \rangle$. Cases when neuronal sources were included (same as previous figures: blue lines = diffusion, red line = no diffusion) were included for comparison. Power spectra were for the soma region ($n=3$). []{data-label="Fsilence"}](silencefigure2.pdf){width="6in"}
In the absence of neuronal sources, diffusive transports gradually reduced the ECS concentration gradients. This was a quite slow process, which happened over a time course of tens of seconds (Fig. \[Fsilence\]A1-A4). The extracellular (liquid junction-) potential gradient decreased accordingly (Fig. \[Fsilence\]A5). This gives us valuable insight in the diffusive processes, as the simulations in this case are solely dependent on the ECS concentration gradients, and does not depend on momentary concentration fluctuation generated by neuronal output, or by the neural processes that originally generated these concentration gradients.
In Fig. \[Fsilence\]B-C we have explored the power spectrum of the diffusion evoked ECS potential (in the soma region). The black, straight lines indicate that the local $V$ decays exponentially with time. Fig. \[Fsilence\]B shows the power spectrum for the time period between 42s and 63s, i.e. for the first 21s after the neuronal sources had been removed. When we compared the power-spectrum of the exponential decay with the previous power spectra obtained for this time period (i.e. when neuronal sources were present), we see that the removal of neuronal sources increased the power for frequencies up to about 7Hz. We also plotted the power spectrum for the following 21s of activity, i.e. for the time period between 63s and 84s (Fig. \[Fsilence\]C). In this time interval, the ECS concentration gradients were smaller. The absence of neuronal sources then only increased the power for frequencies up to about 1Hz.
An increase in power for low frequencies was an expected outcome of removing the neuronal sources. In the presence of neuronal sources, the slow ECS potential profile was more or less preserved over time. The observed increase in power when neuronal sources were removed, reflected the gradual decay of the liquid junction potential $V$. However, we did not expect the range over which this decay process could dominate to stretch to as high frequencies as 1Hz or above.
Based on the analysis of Figures \[Fpowersoma\]-\[Fsilence\] we conclude that, as a generality, the contribution of diffusive sources to extracellular potentials are not negligible. However, a comparison between Fig. \[Fsilence\]B and Fig. \[Fsilence\]C, also shows that the powers of the extracellular $V$ that are affected by diffusive processes depend strongly on the ion concentration gradients in the system. Whether diffusive effects needs to be accounted for when interpreting extracellular recordings, thus depend on the extracellular ion concentration changes that are expected under the relevant experimental conditions (see Discussion for more on this).
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
We tested the hypothesis that neuronal activity could generate extracellular ion concentration gradients sufficiently large to induce diffusive currents of the same order of magnitude as field driven currents in the ECS. To explore this, we simulated the extracellular transport of ions in a cortical column, resulting from the activity of a small population of layer 5 pyramidal cells. We compared simulations when diffusive currents were included with simulations where diffusive currents were set to zero. Our findings were surprising. Not only could the slow component of diffusive currents be of roughly similar magnitude as field driven currents, but diffusive currents could influence the power spectrum of extracellular potentials up to frequencies as high as almost 10 Hz. We note that the simulated shifts in ECS ion concentrations were in the upper range of concentration shifts that have been observed under non-pathological, experimental conditions. Presumably, the role of diffusion was therefore in the upper range of what could be expected under physiological conditions, and it is possible that there are many cases when it is warranted to neglect diffusive currents (however, this should be verified in each specific case). We still conclude that, as a generality, diffusive currents can not be assumed to have a negligible impact on extracellular potentials, unlike what has been assumed in many previous theoretical analysis [@Riera2012; @Pettersen2008; @Reimann2013; @Einevoll2007; @Holt1999].
Model limitations {#model-limitations .unnumbered}
-----------------
The simplified model setup used in the current study has several limitations. Firstly, cortical columns contain several neuron species, whose somata are located in different cortical layers. The small population of 10 layer 5 pyramidal cells used in the current study, will likely create a bias towards strong concentration gradients in layer 5 (or in the soma region $n=3$ in Fig. \[Fvox\]). Secondly, synaptic connections between neurons were not considered in the current study. Such connections could induce a level of synchrony in the neuronal firing, which likely would have an impact on the power spectrum of the ECS potential [@Linden2011]. Thirdly, the multi-compartmental neuronal model used in this study [@Hay2011] (and most other multi-compartmental models) does not include ionic uptake mechanisms (such as Na^+^/K^+^-pumps). Such mechanisms would generally act to maintain the ECS ion concentrations closer to the basal levels, and also astrocytes are known to play a major role in the maintenance of the ECS [@Wang2008; @Halnes2013]. As such mechanisms were not included in the current study, the simulated shifts in ion concentrations were most likely larger than those that would naturally occur from the neuronal activity. A natural way to improve the model would be to incorporate the effect of neuronal and glial ionic uptake-mechanisms, as well as more of the cortical complexity. If appropriately expanded in this way, the model could ideally replicate the exact relationship between neuronal activity and extracellular ion concentration dynamics, and could then be used to identify the exact experimental conditions under which diffusion is likely to have an impact on ECS potentials, and the conditions for which diffusive currents can rightfully be neglected.
In the following sub-sections we discuss some of these model limitations in further detail. We also argue that, despite its limitations, the modelling study presented here gives strong support to the conclusion that, as a generality, diffusive currents can not be assumed to have a negligible impact on extracellular potentials.
Interpretation of the extracellular potential {#interpretation-of-the-extracellular-potential .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
In the current work, $V$ was computed in the following way: First, we determined what the current density $i^f$ needed to be between two ECS subvolumes in order for Kirchoff’s current law to be fulfilled (Eq. \[FchargeB\]), assuming that $i^f$ was uniformly distributed over the intersection ($A_c$) between the subvolumes. Next, we computed what $V$ needed to be in each subvolume in order to give the correct values for $i^f$ between subvolumes (c.f., Eq. \[Ifield\]). The obtained values for $V$ thus represented average potentials over the entire ECS subvolumes (with volumes $l_c \times A_c$).
Experimentally, ECS potentials depend on the distances between the recording electrode and the neuronal current source [@Pettersen2006]. For example, ECS signatures of action potentials are much higher close to the neural membrane, while slower signals can have a longer spatial reach [@Pettersen2008; @Linden2011]. Accordingly, it is likely that currents are not uniformly distributed over ECS cross sections $A_c$, but are larger in regions that are in the vicinity of neuronal membranes. A direct comparison between $V$ as determined by the formalism presented here (averaged over a ECS subvolume), and $V$ measured by point electrodes is thus not feasible. However, in both cases $V$ was determined by neuronal current sources, and followed the same time course as these signals (Fig. \[Ftemporal\]). In addition, the estimates of $V$ in the current work showed sustained ECS profiles (Fig. \[Fconc\]) that were qualitatively similar to those observed experimentally [@Dietzel1989; @Cordingley1978]. We thus believe that the large scale (volume averaged) $V$ in the current study represents a useful variable for assessing relative contribution of field currents and diffusive currents at a tissue level.
In our model, we assumed that the average cortex surface area per neuron was about $300 {\mu}m^2$ [@Linden2011]. This number is species- and region specific (e.g. a smaller surface area of $125 {\mu}m^2$ per neuron was used in [@Pettersen2008]). Essentially, changing $A_c$ (while keeping the population size constant) would amount to changing the average distance between an arbitrary point in the ECS and the neuronal sources. The computed amplitudes in $V$ thus depended on the ECS cross section area $A_c$. However, the results regarding the relative contributions from diffusive versus field driven currents did not depend qualitatively on $A_c$. To see why, we can start by noting that the neuronal current sources at each depth layer $n$ were unaltered when the ECS volume was changed. Accordingly, the total ECS current $I^{tot} = i^{tot}A_c = (i^d + i^f)A_c$ in the $z$-direction would also be unaltered. An increase in $A_c$ by a factor $\alpha$, would reduce ECS ion concentration gradients by the same factor $\alpha$ (as the same number of ions would enter an enlarged volume, concentration changes would be smaller). This would lead to a reduction $i^d \rightarrow i^d/\alpha$ in the the diffusive current density, but at the same time an increase in the ECS cross section area over which diffusion occurs $A_c \rightarrow \alpha A_c$. The net diffusive current $I^d = i^dA_c$ would thus be invariant to changes in $A_c$. The same must therefore hold for the field current $I^f$. In analog to the situation with $i^d$, this would imply a reduction in the current density $i^f$ by a factor $\alpha$, caused by a decrease in the voltage gradients by the same factor $\alpha$. Thus, the amplitudes of ECS potentials would scale approximately linearly with $A_c$, but but the relative roles of diffusive versus field currents in generating these potentials would remain the same (the scaling is not strictly linear due to possible variations in the ECS conductivity, see further below). This was verified in additional simulations, where we varied $A_c$ (results not shown).
We also ran test simulations to explore how the results depended on size of the neuronal population (results not shown, but described here). If we used a population of 100 neurons instead of 10 neurons, and scaled up the ECS volume accordingly by a factor 10, the power of the $V$ signal was generally reduced (results not shown). This was because the neurons were not firing in synchrony, and thus produced partially uncorrelated membrane currents within a given subvolume. The summation rules for correlated versus uncorrelated signals says that $N$ correlated signals, all with standard deviations (amplitudes) $\sigma$, will give a summed signal with standard deviation $\sigma N$, whereas $N$ uncorrelated signals with standard deviations $\sigma$ will give a summed signal with standard deviation $\sigma \sqrt(N)$. Thus, only fully correlated sources would give a linear increase in the net signal. A similar effect was shown in a previous study, where the high frequency part of the ECS potential was found to scale sublinearly with the number of APs elicited in a volume [@Pettersen2008]. Although changes in population size resulted in negative shifts in the power spectra, the qualitative findings regarding the relative contribution of diffusion to such power spectra were not significantly changed.
Extracellular conductivity {#extracellular-conductivity .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Physically, the ECS conductivity ($\sigma$) is determined by the number of free charge carriers, weighted by their mobility and valence. Thus, in our simulations $\sigma$ was a varying function of the ECS concentrations (c.f., Eq. \[conductivity\]). However, as absolute variations in ion concentrations were relatively small compared to the initial ion concentrations (at least of the most abundant species), and as these variations typically were asymmetric (decreases in K^+^ were accompanied by increases in Na^+^), variations in $\sigma$ were only by a few percent compared to the initial value. By running test simulations where we kept $\sigma$ fixed at the initial value, we could confirm that these variations had no significant effect on our simulation results.
With the initial ion concentrations that we used, we obtained an ECS conductivity of $\sigma 0.76 S/m$. In the literature, there are quite some variations in values that are given for the ECS conductivity, and also variations in how this quantity is defined. In analysis of neural tissue, Chen and Nicholson [@Chen2000] operated with an apparent conductivity, defined as ${\sigma}' = \alpha/\lambda^2 \sigma$, which was used to describe extracellular electrical currents through neural tissue (as a whole) at a relatively large spatial scale. In that study, $\sigma$ represented the conventional conductivity associated with the extracellular bath solution. The extracellular tortuosity ($\lambda = 1.6$) represented the hindrances imposed on moving ions by e.g. neuronal processes, while $\alpha$ represented the fraction of the neural tissue that was actually ECS [@Nicholson1981; @Nicholson1998]. The apparent ECS conductivity was in that work estimated to be 0.1 S/m [@Chen2000]. In our simulations, we considered the ECS as a separate domain, and thus explicitly accounted for the fact that ECS currents only moved through a fraction $\alpha = 0.2$ of the total tissue volume, but we did account for the hindrances (tortuosities) in the same way as Chen and Nicholson did. The apparent conductivity in the work by Chen and Nicholson [@Chen2000] would therefore correspond to a conductivity of $\sigma = 0.5 S/m$ in our ECS domain. For other comparisons, previous computational studies of local field potentials and current source density estimates, have used the value ${\sigma}' = 0.3 S/m$ [@Pettersen2008; @Pettersen2008a; @Linden2011]. However, also in those studies, ${\sigma}'$ represented the conductivity for electrical currents through neuronal tissue as a whole. This conductivity would therefore correspond to a conductivity of $\sigma = 1.5 S/m$ in our ECS domain. Our estimate for $\sigma$ thus lies between the previously estimated values for $\sigma$, and is relatively close to the value used in Chen and Nicholson’s work [@Chen2000].
### Ion exchange between neurons and the ECS {#ion-exchange-between-neurons-and-the-ecs .unnumbered}
Commonly, only a subset of the transmembrane currents in a multi-compartmental neuron model are ion specific. In the model that we used [@Hay2011], non-specific currents included the passive (leakage) current, synaptic currents, and the currents through a non-specific ion channel ($I_h$). For simplicity, we assumed that all non-specified currents were carried by an unspecified ion species X^-^, which to a large degree had the role that Cl^-^ has in the biological system. We are aware that this is an inaccurate assumption. However, we do not believe it to be of any significance for our main results. The arguments for this are (i) that ECS ion concentrations did not have any significant effects on the ECS conductivity (as discussed above), and (ii) that diffusive currents in the ECS were mainly mediated by K^+^ and Na^+^ gradients. The influence of the X^-^-dynamics was therefore rather minor, and subdividing the currents into different ionic species would likely not have any significant impact on the results. The ECS also contains other ion species than the ones included in our simulation, such as phosphorous and magnesium. However, the concentrations of these species are typically low compared to those of the main charge carriers, so that the omittance of these is unlikely to be a concern with our model.
A more critical issue is that real neurons contain Na^+^/K^+^-exchangers. As these typically work at a slower pace than the mechanisms involved in fast time scale neurodynamics, they are typically not included in neuronal models, and were not included in the model that we used [@Hay2011]. In addition to neural ion pumps, also glial cells, and particularly astrocytes, are involved in the maintenance of the extracellular space [@Gardner-Medwin1983; @Newman1993; @Chen2000; @Wang2008; @Halnes2013]. Significant changes in ECS ion concentrations are therefore likely to occur only in cases when the neuronal activity level is too intense for such clearance mechanisms to keep up. We are therefore aware that the ionic concentration gradients like those we predicted in Fig. \[Fconc\] are likely to be an overestimation of the ion concentration gradients that would realistically build up during the relatively moderate AP-firing activity of the neuronal population applied in our model. However, the key conclusions regarding the contribution of diffusive currents depended on ion concentration gradients in the ECS, but not directly on the neuronal activity responsible for building up such gradients. The ion concentration changes that occurred during our simulations were in the range of experimentally observed values during non-pathological conditions [@Hertz2013; @Chen2000; @Newman1993; @Haj-Yasein2011]. We therefore believe that our key conclusions are qualitatively sound.
The exact shape of the $\langle V \rangle$-profiles (Fig. \[Fconc\]) depended strongly on how the synaptic input was distributed over the cortical depth. In all simulations (Figs. \[Fdata\]-\[Fsilence\]) synapses were distributed uniformly over the neuronal membrane. We did run some test simulations to explore if the main conclusions depended critically on this modelling choice (results not shown, but described here). Profiles similar to those in Fig. \[Fconc\] were obtained when only the apical dendrites contained synapses. In the case when synapses were found exclusively in basal dendrites and soma, $\langle V \rangle$-profiles increased gradually from 0mV in the soma and basal dendrites to +2mV in the most superficial layers, and were almost a mirror image from what we observed with the uniform synapse distribution. Accordingly, the direction of electrical transports were reversed. However, all cases gave rise to qualitatively similar conclusion regarding the relative importance of extracellular diffusive currents. We therefore only included the scenario with a uniform synapse distribution in our main results.
The main objective of this work was to explore the effect of diffusion on the dynamics of the ECS potential. We therefore compared simulations obtained when we set $j^{dk} = 0$ (i.e. the case with purely Ohmic extracellular currents), with simulations where the extracellular ion concentration- and voltage dynamics were derived using the full electrodiffusive scheme. In the modelling setup, we assumed that there was no feedback between the ECS to the neurons. That is, we did not account for changes in neural reversal potentials due to changes in ECS ion concentrations [@Oyehaug2012; @Park2006], or ephaptic effects of ECS potentials on neuronal membrane potentials [@Bokil2001; @Mori2008; @Frohlich2010; @Agudelo-toro2013]. This simplification gave us the advantage that we could have exactly the same neurodynamics when comparing the ECS dynamics in the cases without or with diffusion included in the ECS. Hence, we could be sure that the observed differences between the two scenarios were due to extracellular diffusion, and not indirect effects stemming from altered neurodynamics. In a more realistic scenario, the shifts in ECS ion concentrations that occurred during the time course of the simulation would induce changes in the neuronal firing patterns. Most likely, the increases in K^+^ in the ECS would make neurons more excitable, and increase the AP firing rate. However, when it comes to the conclusions regarding the relative contribution of diffusive versus field currents for a given underlying neurodynamics, we do not believe that the inclusion of feedback from the ECS dynamics to the neurodynamics would induce any qualitative changes in our findings.
Theoretically, the sum of currents through a closed surface, such as a neuron, should be zero. In Fig. \[Fdata\]D6, we saw that the total sum of transmembrane neural currents was small but not zero. This was a numerical inaccuracy that could be improved by using smaller time steps in the Neuron-simulation. However, a non-zero input current is, however, not inconsistent with the ECS-formalism presented in this work. In principle, there is no demand that the selected ECS-volume should not contain partial membranes, such as e.g., a neural axon entering from a neuron located outside the column selected here. The formalism was based on Kirchoff’s current law, but had a leaky boundary at $n=1$. The small net current entering/leaving the ECS from the neuronal sources (Fig. \[Fdata\]D6) gave rise to a corresponding small current leaving/entering the system at $n=1$ (results not shown). The boundary condition at $n=N$ ensured that no net current could leave the system there.
A novel mathematical framework for simulating electrodiffusion in neural tissue {#a-novel-mathematical-framework-for-simulating-electrodiffusion-in-neural-tissue .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mathematical framework presented here represents a novel, general framework that can be used to compute the dynamics of ion concentrations and the electrical potential in the ECS surrounding multi-compartmental neuronal models or networks of such (such as e.g. the Blue-Brain-Simulator [@Markram2006]). The framework was particularly adapted to study dynamics at a large spatiotemporal scale (for active populations on neurons at the level of neural tissue). For this purpose, the framework is significantly more computationally efficient than other electrodiffusive frameworks based on the Poisson-Nernst-Planck equations [@Leonetti1998; @Lu2007; @Lopreore2008; @Nanninga2008; @Pods2013]. A future ambition is to expand this framework so that it (i) can account for neuronal and glial ionic uptake mechanisms (ion pumps), and (ii) can be used to simulate general, three dimensional transport processes in neural tissue. Such a generalized framework would be of undisputable value for the field of neuroscience, as it can be applied to explore pathological conditions related to ion concentration shifts in neural tissue [@Sykova2008; @Enger2015; @Frohlich2008; @Florence2009], and for further exporations of possible effects that diffusive currents can have on recorded extracellular fields.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Extracellular dynamics {#extracellular-dynamics .unnumbered}
----------------------
From a methods-development point of view, the main contribution of the current work was the formulation of a novel formalism for computing the ion concentration dynamics and the electrical potential in the ECS surrounding a neural population. For simplicity, we assumed that spatial variation only occurred in one spatial direction ($z$-direction), and that we had radial homogeneity. This simplification may be warranted in several brain regions, such as within a cortical column.
### Continuity equation {#continuity-equation .unnumbered}
The formalism represents a way of solving the continuity equation for the ionic concentrations ($c^k_n$ (mol/m^3^)) in a system as sketched in Fig. \[Fvox\]B. The ECS is subdivided into a number of $N$ subvolumes of length $l_c$ and cross section area $A_c$ (in the application used in the current work, we had $N=15$). In each subvolume $n$, the concentrations of all present ion species $k$ are assumed to be known. Ions may enter the subvolume either via (i) transmembrane fluxes from neurons that exchange ions with the subvolume ($j^{kM}$), (ii) diffusive fluxes between neighboring subvolumes ($j^{kd}$), or (iii) field fluxes between neighboring subvolumes ($j^{kf}$). The formalism computes the ECS fluxes, and is general to the choice of neuronal sources. For now, we therefore assume that the transmembrane fluxes $j^{kM}$ for all ion species as well as the transmembrane capacitive current (which will be relevant below) are known (e.g., determined from a separate simulation using the e.g., the NEURON simulator). The continuity equation is:
$$A_{c}l_{c}\frac{\partial{c^{k}_n}}{\partial t} = J^{kM}_n + J^{kd}_{n-1,n} - J^{kd}_{n,n+1} + J^{kf}_{n-1,n} - J^{kf}_{n,n+1}
\label{Fcontinuity}$$
Here, $A_{c}l_{c}$ is the volume of a subvolume, so that the left hand side of Eq. \[Fcontinuity\] represents the time dependent change of the number of particles (in mol/s) of species $k$ in subvolume $n$. The extracellular fluxes are described by the Nernst-Planck equation:
$$J^{kd}_{n-1,n} = -\frac{A_{c} D^{k}}{l_{c}} (c^k_n) - c^k_{n-1}) \\
\label{Jdiff}$$
and $$J^{kf}_{n-1,n} = - \frac{A_{c} D^{k} z^k}{\psi l_{c}} \frac{c^k_{n-1}+c^k_n}{2} (V_n-V_{n-1}),
\label{Jfield}$$ We have used the notation that $J_{n-1,n}$ denotes the flux from subvolume $n-1$ to subvolume $n$. The factor $\psi = RT/F$ is defined in terms of the gas constant ($R = 8.3144621 \, \mathrm{J/(mol \, K)}$), the absolute temperature ($T$), and Faraday’s constant. Furthermore, $D^k = \tilde{D}^k/\lambda^2$ is the effective diffusion constant for ion species $k$, where $\tilde{D^k}$ is the diffusion constant for ion species $k$ in dilute solvents, and $\lambda$ is the extracellular tortuosity, which represents miscellaneous hindrances to motion through neuronal tissue [@Nicholson1998; @Chen2000]. In the current work, we used the standard values [@Lyshevski2007]: $\tilde{D^K} = 1.96\times 10^{-9} m^2/s$, $\tilde{D^{Na}} = 1.33\times 10^{-9} m^2/s$, $\tilde{D^{Ca}}$ = $0.71\times 10^{-9} m^2/s$ and $\tilde{D^{X}} = 2.03\times 10^{-9} m^2/s$ (for the unspecified ion species, we used the diffusion constant for Cl^-^). These values were modified with a tortuosity of $\lambda = 1.6$ [@Chen2000].
We assume that the edge subvolumes ($n=1$ and $n=N$) represent a background where ion concentrations remain constant. The continuity equation then governs the ion concentration dynamics in all the $N-2$ interior subvolumes. If we include a number $K$ of different ion species, the continuity equation (Eq. \[Fcontinuity\]) for $n = 2,3,...,N-1$ and $k = 1,2,...,K$ gives us $K(N-2)$ conditions for the $K(N-2)$ ion concentrations $c^{k}_n$ in the $N-2$ non-constant subvolumes. However, the continuity equation also includes $N$ state variables for $V_n$ in all subvolumes (including the edges). We thus need $N$ additional constraints to fully specify the system.
### Derivation of the extracellular potential {#derivation-of-the-extracellular-potential .unnumbered}
In the following, we derive expressions for the ECS potential ($V_n$) based on the principle of Kirchoff’s current law, and the assumption that the bulk solution is electroneutral [@Halnes2013]. To do this, we multiply the continuity equation (Eq. \[Fcontinuity\]) by $Fz^k$, take the sum over all ion species $k$, and obtain the continuity equation for electrical charge: $$\frac{\partial{q_n}}{\partial t} = I^M_n + I^{d}_{n-1,1} - I^{d}_{n,n+1} + I^{f}_{n-1,n} - I^{f}_{n,n+1}
\label{Fcharge}$$ Here, we have transformed fluxes/concentrations into electrical currents/charge densities by use of the relations: $$I^M_n = F\sum_k \left(z^k J^{kM}_n \right),
\label{IMdef1}$$ $$q_n/(A_{c}l_{c}) = \rho_n = F\Sigma_k \left(z^k c^k_n \right),
\label{rhodef1}$$ $$I^{d}_{n-1,n} = F\Sigma_k \left(z^k J^{kd}_{n-1,n} \right) =
-A_{c} F\Sigma_k \left(\frac{z^k D^{k}}{l_{c}} (c^k_n-c^k_{n-1})) \right) \\
\label{Idiff}$$ and $$I^{f}_{n-1,n} = F\sum_k \left(z^k J^{kf}_{n-1,n} \right) =
-\frac{A_{c}}{l_{c}}\sigma_{n-1,n}(V_n-V_{n-1}),
\label{Ifield}$$ where $z^k$ is the valence of ion species $k$ and $F=96,485.3365 \, \mathrm{C/mol}$ is Faraday’s constant. In Eq.\[Ifield\], we also defined the conductivity (units $(\Omega m)^{-1}$)for currents between two subvolumes $n-1$ and $n$ as: $$\sigma(n-1,n) = F\sum_k \left(\frac{D^{k} (z^k)^2}{\psi}\frac{c^k_{n-1}+c^k_n}{2}\right)
\label{conductivity}$$
At time scales of $>1ns$, bulk solutions can be assumed to be electroneutral [@Grodzinsky2011]. For our purpose, bulk electroneutrality implies that any net ionic charge entering an ECS-subvolume, must be identical to the charge that enters a capacitive neural membrane within this subvolume. This is also an implicit assumption in the cable equation, upon which the Neuron-simulator is based (see e.g., [@Rall1977; @Koch1999; @Qian1989; @Halnes2013]). With this assumption at hand, the continuity equation for charge (Eq. \[Fcharge\]) becomes useful for us, as it is governed by a constraint that we did not have at the level of ion concentrations (Eq. \[Fcontinuity\]). Electroneutrality in the bulk solution implies that the net charge entering an ECS subvolume (the time derivative of $q_n$ in Eq. \[Fcharge\]) must be identical to the charge which accumulates at the neuronal membrane and gives rise to the neuronynamics. This means that the time derivative of $q_n$ must be equal to the capacitive current that we know from the NEURON-simulator: $$\frac{\partial{q_n}}{\partial t} = -I^{cap}_n
\label{Ficap}$$ Thus, $q_n$ (in Eq. \[Fcharge\]) is not a state variable, but an entity known from the Neuron-simulation (i.e. an input condition to the ECS). With this at hand, we can rewrite Eq. \[Fcharge\])on the form: $$-I^{cap}_n - I^M_n = I^{d}_{n-1,1} - I^{d}_{n,n+1} + I^{f}_{n-1,n} - I^{f}_{n,n+1}
\label{FchargeB}$$ We now see that Eq. \[FchargeB\] is simply Kirchoff’s current law, and states that the net current into an ECS volume $n$ is zero, cf. Fig. \[Fvox\]C. If we insert Eq. \[Ifield\] for $I^f$, Eq. \[FchargeB\] becomes: $$\sigma_{n-1,n}V_{n-1} - (\sigma_{n-1,n} + \sigma_{n,n+1})V_n + \sigma_{n,n+1}V_{n+1}
= \frac{l_{c}}{A_{c}} \left(-I^{cap}_n - I^M_n - I^{d}_{n-1,1} + I^{d}_{n,n+1}\right)
\label{Fcharge3}$$
We note that $I^M_n$ was defined as the net *ionic* transmembrane current (Eq. \[IMdef1\]), and that it does not include the capacitive current. We further note that Eq. \[Fcharge3\] for a subvolume ($n$) depends on the voltage levels in the two neighbouring subvolumes ($n-1$ and $n+1$), and thus only gives us $N-2$ conditions, i.e. one for the $N-2$ inferior volumes. We need two additional criteria for the edge subvolumes ($n=1$ and $n=N$). As we may chose an arbitrary reference point for the voltage, we may take the first criterion to be: $$V_1 = 0
\label{Fcharge0}$$
As the second criterion, we impose a boundary condition stating that no net electrical current is allowed to pass between the subvolumes $n=N-1$ and $n=N$ (i.e. no net electrical current enters/leaves the system from/to the constant background). Since there may be a diffusive current between these two subvolumes ($c^k_{N-1}$ is not constant), this criterion implies that we must define $V_N$ so that the field current is opposite from the diffusive current ($I^{d}_{N-1,N} + I^{f}_{N-1,N} = 0$). If we insert for $I^f$ (c.f., Eq. \[Ifield\]), this condition becomes: $$\sigma_{N-1,N}V_{N-1} - \sigma_{N-1,N}V_N = \frac{l_{c}}{A_{c}} I^{d}_{N-1,1}
\label{FchargeN}$$
The conductivities ($\sigma$) and the diffusive currents ($I^d$) are defined by ionic concentrations in the ECS, whereas we assumed that the neuronal output ($I^{cap}$ and $I^M$) was known. Equations \[Fcharge3\]-\[FchargeN\] thus give us $N$ equations for the $N$ voltage variables $V_n$. In matrix form, we can write the system of equations (Eq. \[Fcharge3\]-\[FchargeN\]) as: $$A_{m,n}V_n = M_n,
\label{Vmatrix}$$ where the vector $M_n$ has elements: $$M_n =
\begin{cases}
0 & \mathrm{for} \, n = 1 \\
\frac{l_{c}}{A_{c}} \left(-I^{cap}_n - I^M_n - I^{d}_{n-1,1} + I^{d}_{n,n+1}\right) & \mathrm{for } \, n = 1, 2, ..., N-1 \\
\frac{l_{c}}{A_{c}} \left( I^{d}_{N-1,1} \right) & \mathrm{for } \, n = N \\
\end{cases}
\label{Mn}$$ and where $$A_{m,n} =
\begin{pmatrix}
A_{1,1} & A_{1,2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
A_{2,1} & A_{2,2} & A_{2,3} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & A_{3,2} & A_{3,3} & A_{3,4} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &\vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & A_{N-1, N-2} & A_{N-1, N-1} & A_{N-1,N} \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & A_{N, N-1} & A_{N,N} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\label{Amatrix}$$ is a tridiagonal matrix. The diagonal above the main diagonal is given by: $$A_{n,n+1} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \mathrm{for} \, n = 1 \\
\sigma_{n,n+1} & \mathrm{for} \, n = 2,3,...,N-1 \\
\end{cases}$$ The diagonal below the main diagonal is given by: $$A_{n,n-1} =
\begin{cases}
\sigma_{n,n+1} & \mathrm{for } \, n = 2,3,...,N \\
\end{cases}$$ The main diagonal is given by: $$A_{n,n} =
\begin{cases}
1 & \mathrm{for } \, n = 1 \\
- \left( \sigma(n-1,n) + \sigma(n,n+1) \right) & \mathrm{for } \, n = 2,3,...,N-1 \\
- \sigma(N-1,N) & \mathrm{for } \, n = N \\
\end{cases}$$
For each time step in the simulation, we can determine $V_n$ by solving the algebraic equation set: $$V_n = A_{m,n}^{-1}M_n,
\label{Vsolve}$$
When we ran simulations where diffusion was not included, $j^d$ was simply set to zero in the continuity equation (Eq. \[Fcontinuity\]), and in the equation where the ECS potential is derived (Eq.\[Mn\]).
### Initial Conditions {#initial-conditions .unnumbered}
As initial conditions, we assumed that all ECS volumes were at potential $V_n = 0$. The initial ion concentrations were also identical in all ECS subvolumes. We used $c^{K0} = 3 mM$, $c^{Na0} = 150 mM$, $c^{Ca0} = 1.4 mM$. These ion concentrations are quite typical for the ECS solutions [@alzet]. To obtain an initial charge density of zero in the bulk solution ($\sum z^k c^{k0} = 0$), we computed that the initial concentration for the unspecified anion was $c^{X0} = 155.8 mM$. This value for $c^{X0}$ is close to typical ECS concentrations for Cl^-^, and the unspecified ion X^-^ can be seen as essentially taking the role that Cl^-^ has in real systems.
### Power spectrum analysis {#power-spectrum-analysis .unnumbered}
The power spectra (Figs. \[Fpowersoma\]-\[Fsilence\]) were computed with the fast Fourier-transform in MATLAB (http://se.mathworks.com/).
Neuronal population dynamics {#neuronal-population-dynamics .unnumbered}
----------------------------
In the current work, we applied the electrodiffusive formalism presented above to predict the extracellular ion concentration dynamics and electrical potential surrounding a small population of 10 layer 5 pyramidal cells. The neural simulation used in this study was briefly introduced in the Results section, but is presented in more detail here.
### Pyramidal cell model {#pyramidal-cell-model .unnumbered}
As neural model, we used the thick-tufted layer 5 pyramidal cell model by Hay et al. [@Hay2011], which was implemented in the NEURON simulation environment [@Hines2009]. The model was morphologically detailed (it had 196 sections, each of which was divided to 20 segments), and had an extension of slightly less than $1300 \mu m$ from the tip of the basal dendrite to the tip of the apical dendrites. It contained ten active ion channels with different distributions over the somatodendritic membrane, including two Ca^2+^-channels ($i^{CaT}$ and $i^{CaL}$), five K^+^-channels ($i^{KT}$, $i^{KP}$, $i^{SK}$, $i^{Kv3.1}$, and $i^m$) and two Na^2+^-channels ($i^{NaT}$ and $i^{NaS}$). In addition, in included a non-specific ion channel ($I^h$) and the non specific leakage current $i^{leak}$. We refer to the original publication for further model details [@Hay2011].
### Synapse model {#synapse-model .unnumbered}
The neurons were driven by Poissonian input trains through 1000 synapses. The synapses were uniformly distributed across the membrane so that the expected number of synapses in a segment was proportional to its membrane area. A population of 10 neurons was simulated by running 10 independent simulations with the same neural model. In the independent simulations, we applied different input trains (but with the same Poissonian statistics).
The AMPA synapses were modelled as $\alpha$-shaped synaptic conductances: $$I(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{l}g_{max}(t-t_0)/\tau\times\exp((t-t_0)/\tau),\ \mathrm{when}\ t \geq t_0\\0,\ \mathrm{when}\ t < t_0
\end{array}\right.,$$ where $t_0$ represents the time of onset. The time constant was set to $\tau = 1.0$ms, and the synaptic weight $g_{max} = 0.0008686\mu$S was tuned so that the input evoked an average single-neuron AP firing rate of about 5 APs per second, which is a typical firing rate for cortical neurons [@Linden2011].
### Population output to the ECS {#population-output-to-the-ecs .unnumbered}
The expansion of the cell morphology in the applied computational model [@Hay2011] was such that the maximal spatial distance between two segments (from tip of basal dendrite to tip of apical dendrite) was $<1300 \mu m$. We therefore assumed a cortical depth of $1500 {\mu}m$, and subdivided it into $N=15$ depth intervals of length $l_c = 100 {\mu}m$, so that the neurons populated the interior 13 subvolumes. Each neural segment was assigned as belonging to a particular subvolume $n$, determined by the spatial location of the segment midpoint. In the setup, the soma was placed in subvolume $n=3$, the basal dendrites were in subvolumes $n=2,3$ and 4, and the apical dendrites were in subvolumes $n=3,...,14$. The multi-compartmental model also included a short axon, which was, however, not based on the reconstruction and hence had no fixed coordinates. We assigned the axonal segments into the same subvolume as the soma, $n=3$. The edge-subvolumes 1 and 15 contained no neural segments (see Fig. \[Fvox\]A).
The transmembrane current density ($i^{kM}_{seg}$) of ion species $k$ is available in the Neuron simulation environment. It was multiplied by the surface area of the segment ($A_{seg}$) to get the net current, and divided by Faraday’s constant ($F$) to get a net ion flux with units mol/s. During the neural simulation, we grouped all currents that were carried by a specific ion species into the net transmembrane influx/efflux of this ion species. We assumed that all non-specific currents, including the synaptic currents ($i^{leak}$, $i^h$ and $i^{syn}$) were carried by a non specific anion that we denoted X^-^. In this way we could compute the net efflux of each ion species into a subvolume $n$:
$$\begin{aligned}
J^{CaM}_n = \frac{1}{2F}\sum_{seg} \left((i^{CaT}_{seg} + i^{CaL}_{seg}) A_{seg} \right)\\
\nonumber
J^{NaM}_n = \frac{1}{F}\sum_{seg} \left((i^{NaT}_{seg} + i^{NaS}_{seg}) A_{seg} \right)\\
\nonumber
J^{KM}_n = \frac{1}{F}\sum_{seg} \left((i^{KT}_{seg} + i^{KP}_{seg} + i^{SK}_{seg} + i^{Kv3.1}_{seg} + i^m_{seg} ) A_{seg} \right)\\
\nonumber
J^{XM}_n = -\frac{1}{F}\sum_{seg} \left((i^{leak}_{seg} + i^h_{seg} + i^{syn}_{seg}) A_{seg} \right).
\label{JkM}\end{aligned}$$
Here, the sum was taken over all neural segments ($seg$) of all 10 neurons contained in $n$. The factor 2 in the denominator in the extression for $J^{CaM}_n$ was due to $Ca^{2+}$ having valence 2, and the negative sign in the expression for $J^{XM}_n$ was due to $X^-$ having valence -1. We also kept track of the (non-ionic) capacitive currents, as required by the electrodiffusive formalism (Eq. \[Fcharge3\]).
$$I^{cap}_n = \sum_{seg} \left( i^{cap}_{seg} A_{seg} \right)
\label{icapo}$$
Following [@Linden2011], we assumed that the average cortex surface area per neuron was about $300 \mu m^2$. As we had 10 neurons, and as only about 20 % of cortical tissue is extracellular volume, the ECS subvolumes used in our simulations had surface area $A_c = 600 \mu m^2$ and length $l_c = 100 \mu m$ (Fig. \[Fvox\]B).
We wanted to simulate the extracellular ion concentration dynamics for steady-state neuronal activity over 84 s. Due to the immense amount of data associated with recording all ionic currents in 13 depth layers over such a long time period, we only simulated the neurons for 7 s, and looped this data 12 times to obtain 84 s of neuronal output.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $E$ be a (right) Hilbert module over a $C^*$-algebra $A$. If $E$ is equipped with a left action of a second $C^*$-algebra $B$, then tensor product with $E$ gives rise to a functor from the category of Hilbert $B$-modules to the category of Hilbert $A$-modules. The purpose of this paper is to study adjunctions between functors of this sort. We shall introduce a new kind of adjunction relation, called a local adjunction, that is weaker than the standard concept from category theory. We shall give several examples, the most important of which is the functor of parabolic induction in the tempered representation theory of real reductive groups. Each local adjunction gives rise to an ordinary adjunction of functors between categories of Hilbert space representations. In this way we shall show that the parabolic induction functor has a simultaneous left and right adjoint, namely the parabolic restriction functor constructed in [@CCH_ups].'
author:
- Pierre Clare
- 'Tyrone Crisp [^1]'
- 'Nigel Higson [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'hmod\_adj.bib'
title: 'Adjoint functors between categories of Hilbert C\*-modules'
---
\#1:20\#2\#3\#4\#5\#6\#7\#8 \#1
[Keywords:]{} Hilbert $C^*$-modules; adjoint functors; parabolic induction
[MSC2010:]{} 46L08, 18A40
Introduction {#intro_section}
============
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra and denote by ${}_A{{\mathcal H}}$ the category of non-degenerate Hilbert space representations of $A$. This is obviously a category of interest when $A$ is a group $C^*$-algebra, since it is isomorphic to the category of unitary representations of the group. Similarly, if $A$ is the *reduced* $C^*$-algebra of a real reductive group, then ${}_A{{\mathcal H}}$ is isomorphic to the category of *tempered* unitary representations of the group.
In addition, denote by ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ the category of right Hilbert $A$-modules (a Hilbert module is a Banach module whose norm is obtained from an associated $A$-valued inner product; see [@BlM], [@Lance], or Section \[background\_section\] for a quick review). The role of this category in representation theory is a bit less clear, but for example if $A$ is the reduced $C^*$-algebra of a real reductive group $G$, then each discrete series representation of $G$ determines an object in ${{\mathcal H}}_A$. More generally, the category ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ captures the topology of the dual space $\widehat A$ of irreducible representations of $A$ (this is the tempered dual in our reduced group $C^*$-algebra example). In contrast, the category ${}_A{{\mathcal H}}$ of Hilbert space representations is more closely related to the structure of the dual as a set or measurable space.
In this paper we shall study the categories ${}_A {{\mathcal H}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ with a particular view to the case of the reduced $C^*$-algebra of a real reductive Lie group $G$. We shall further develop the analysis of the parabolic induction functor $$\operatorname{Ind}_P^G \colon {}_{C^*_r (L)}{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_{C^*_r (G)}{{\mathcal H}}$$ from the perspective of Hilbert modules that was begun in [@Clare_pi] and [@CCH_ups]. Here $L$ is a Levi subgroup of a parabolic subgroup $P\subseteq G$. We shall examine the relationship between parabolic induction and the functor of parabolic restriction $$\operatorname{Res}^G_P \colon {}_{C^*_r (G)}{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_{C^*_r (L)}{{\mathcal H}}$$ that we introduced in [@CCH_ups]. We shall prove that parabolic induction and restriction are left and right adjoints of one another. In fact we shall prove this as a consequence of a stronger statement involving the Hilbert module categories ${{\mathcal H}}_{C^*_r(G)}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}_{C^*_r (L)}$. See Theorems \[main-reductive-thm\] and \[reductive-Hilbertspace-theorem\].
If $A$ and $B$ are $C^*$-algebras, then by a *correspondence from $A$ to $B$* we shall mean a Hilbert $B$-module equipped with a nondegenerate representation of $A$ as adjointable Hilbert $B$-module endomorphisms. Associated to such a correspondence $F$ there are functors $${}_B{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_A{{\mathcal H}}\quad \text{and} \quad {{\mathcal H}}_A \longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_B$$ that are constructed using Hilbert module tensor products. The functors of parabolic induction and restriction from [@Clare_pi] and [@CCH_ups] are of this type.
In the algebraic setting, where $A$ and $B$ are rings with unit, it is well known that if $F$ is an $A$-$B$-bimodule, then the associated tensor product functors $${}_B\operatorname{Mod} \longrightarrow {}_A\operatorname{Mod}
\quad \text{and} \quad \operatorname{Mod}_A \longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}_B$$ between left and right module categories always admit right adjoints, namely $X \mapsto \operatorname{Hom}_A(F,X) $ and $Y\mapsto \operatorname{Hom}_B(F,Y)$ respectively. But in the $C^*$-setting the extra symmetry imposed by the $*$-operation means that every right adjoint is also a left adjoint, and the existence of an adjoint functor in these circumstances is a much more delicate matter.
Kajiwara, Pinzari and Watatani [@KPW] have obtained necessary and sufficient conditions on a correspondence $F$ for the tensor-product functor between Hilbert module categories to admit an adjoint. Unfortunately their conditions, which we shall review in Section \[full\_adj\_section\], immediately rule out many naturally-occurring examples of correspondences. Most notably from our point of view, the conditions are not satisfied by the correspondences associated to parabolic induction and restriction. Comparing with the theory of smooth representations of $p$-adic reductive groups—where, as Bernstein showed ([@Bernstein], cf. [@Renard]), the parabolic-induction functor admits both left and right adjoints, and where those adjoints are close to being identical—we were led to look for a weaker notion of adjunction for Hilbert modules that would apply in particular to parabolic induction. The main novelty of this paper is to define such a notion, and to study some of its properties.
If $F$ is a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and $E$ is a correspondence from $B$ to $A$, we shall say that the associated tensor-product functors $${{\mathcal H}}_A\stackrel{\otimes _A F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_B \quad \text{and} \quad {{\mathcal H}}_B\stackrel{\otimes _B E}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_A$$ are *locally adjoint* if there are natural isomorphisms $${\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E )$$ between spaces of *compact* Hilbert module operators. See Definition \[ladj\_definition\] for details. Not every morphism between Hilbert modules is compact, so our definition is not the usual definition of an adjunction. Nor is it obtained from the usual definition by adjusting to take into account the $C^*$-structure [@GLR] on the categories ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ and ${{\mathcal H}}_B$. But if two tensor product functors are adjoint in the usual sense, then the natural isomorphisms coming from the adjunction restrict to isomorphisms between spaces of compact operators, as above, and so adjunction implies local adjunction. See Corollary \[adj\_implies\_ladj\_corollary\]. The converse is rarely true: in general local adjunction is a genuinely weaker condition.
The commutative case illustrates the distinction between adjoint and local adjoint quite well. If $Y$ is a quotient of a compact Hausdorff space $X$, then the pullback functor ${{\mathcal H}}_{C(Y)}\to {{\mathcal H}}_{C(X)}$ has an adjoint if and only if $X$ is a finite cover of $Y$, while it has a local adjoint if and only if $X$ is a finite *branched* cover. See Section \[sec-commutative\]. In addition, if $U$ is an open subset of $X$, then the pushforward ${{\mathcal H}}_{C_0(U)}\to {{\mathcal H}}_{C(X)}$ always has a local adjoint, but it has an adjoint if and only if $U$ is both open and closed in $X$.
In Sections \[adj\_bimod\_section\] and \[sec-indexes\] we characterize locally adjoint pairs of tensor product functors, and show that the condition of local adjointability is equivalent to the condition of “finite numerical index” considered in [@KPW]. Returning to categories of Hilbert space representations, we show that if two tensor product functors are locally adjoint, then the associated functors between the Hilbert space representation categories ${}_A{{\mathcal H}}$ and ${}_B{{\mathcal H}}$ are (two-sided) adjoints in the usual sense. See Theorem \[rep-adjunction-theorem\].
On the basis of all this it is easy to analyze several examples, and we shall do so in Section \[examples\_section\]. Our main example of parabolic induction is considered in Section \[parabolic\_section\]. As a particular consequence we show that the parabolic restriction functor constructed in [@CCH_ups] is a two-sided adjoint to the parabolic induction functor from tempered unitary representations of a Levi factor of a reductive group $G$ to tempered unitary representations of $G$. This adjoint functor appears to be new.
Background and Notation {#background_section}
=======================
Hilbert Modules and Correspondences
-----------------------------------
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra. Recall that a *Hilbert $A$-module* is a right $A$-module $X$ that is equipped with an inner product $$\langle\,{\underbar{\phantom{a}}}\,,\,{\underbar{\phantom{a}}}\,\rangle :X\times X\longrightarrow A$$ that is ${\mathbb{C}}$-antilinear in the first variable, ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear in the second variable, and satisfies $$\langle x,y a\rangle = \langle x,y\rangle a,\qquad \langle x,y\rangle ^* = \langle y, x\rangle \quad \text{and}\quad \langle x,x\rangle \geq 0$$ for all $x,y\in X$ and $a\in A$. In addition the formula $$\|x\|_X^2 {:=}\|\langle x,x\rangle \|_A$$ is required to define a complete norm on $X$. See for example [@BlM Chapter 8] or [@Lance] for an introduction to this concept. (But note that the name “Hilbert $C^*$-module” is used in [@BlM] to refer to what we are calling Hilbert module, while the name “Hilbert module” is used in [@BlM] to refer to a different concept.)
A map $T:X\to Y$ between Hilbert $A$-modules is *adjointable* if there is a map $T^*\colon Y \to X $ (necessarily unique) satisfying $$\langle Tx,y\rangle = \langle x,T^*y\rangle$$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$. Adjointable operators are automatically $A$-linear and bounded, but the converse is not true, in general. We shall denote by ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y)$ the Banach space of all adjointable operators from $X$ to $Y$. The space ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,X)$ of adjointable operators from $X$ to itself is a $C^*$-algebra in the operator norm.
\[nondegen-def\] Let $B$ be a second $C^*$-algebra and let $F$ be a Hilbert $B$-module. A $*$-homomorphism $A\to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(F,F)$ is *nondegenerate* if the elements $af$ ($a\in A$, $f\in F$) span a dense subspace of $F$.
By a *correspondence from $A$ to $B$* we shall mean a Hilbert $B$-module $F$ equipped with a nondegenerate $*$-homomorphism from $A$ into ${\mathfrak{B}}_B(F,F)$.
A correspondence from $A$ to $B$ is in particular an $A$-$B$ bimodule, but the definition is asymmetric in that no $A$-valued inner product is implied. The condition of nondegeneracy will not play a crucial role in what follows. Nevertheless we shall assume it since it in any case holds in the main examples of interest to us.
Compact Operators
-----------------
If $X$ and $Y$ are Hilbert $A$-modules, and if $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$, then the formula $$\label{eq-rank-one1}
y\otimes x^* \colon z \mapsto y\langle x,z\rangle$$ defines an adjointable operator from $X$ to $Y$; the adjoint is $x\otimes y^*$. The operator-norm closure of the linear span of the operators $$\label{eq-rank-one2}
y\otimes x^* \in {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y)$$ is by definition the subspace of *$A$-compact* operators, denoted ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Y)$. The composition, on either side, of a compact operator with an adjointable operator is compact.
To add some algebraic substance to the notation used in (\[eq-rank-one1\]) and (\[eq-rank-one2\]), we introduce the following concept:
\[conjugate\_definition1\] Let $X$ be a [Hilbert $A$-module]{}. The *conjugate* of $X$, denoted $X^*$, is the complex conjugate of the vector space $X$, equipped with left $A$-module structure defined by $$a\cdot x^* = (x a^* )^*.$$ Here $x^*\in X^*$ denotes the image of $x\in X$ under the obvious conjugate ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear isomorphism $X\to X^*$.
The term *adjoint* would usually be a more appropriate name for $X^*$ than *conjugate*, but the word will be used quite heavily in other senses in this paper.
Using the left $A$-module structure on $X^*$ we find that $$y\cdot a \otimes x^* = y \otimes a\cdot x^* \in {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y) ,$$ and so the formula (\[eq-rank-one1\]) defines a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear map $$\label{eq-tp-cpts}
Y\otimes _A^{\text{alg}} X^* \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_A (X,Y) .$$ The compact operators therefore constitute a completion of the algebraic tensor product $Y\otimes _A^{\text{alg}} X^*$ within ${\mathfrak{B}}_A (X,Y)$. We shall return to this perspective on compact operators in a little while.
We shall need one more idea about compact operators. Let $X$ be a Hilbert $A$-module. The space ${\mathfrak{K}}_A (A,X)$ of compact adjointable operators from the Hilbert module $A$ to $X$ is itself a Hilbert $A$-module under the inner product $$\langle S, T\rangle = S^* T
.$$ Here the operator $S^*T\colon A \to A$ is left multiplication by some unique element of $A$, and we identify $S^*T$ with that element so as to obtain an $A$-valued inner product. Each operator in ${\mathfrak{K}}_A (A,X)$ is of the form $$T \colon a \mapsto xa$$ for some unique element $x\in X$. Moreover all these operators are adjointable, with adjoint $$T^* \colon y \mapsto \langle x ,y\rangle.$$ Finally, $T$ and $T^*$ are compact, as can be seen using an approximate identity in $A$. We arrive at the following results (see also [@BlM Proposition 8.1.11]).
\[lem-compacts\] The Hilbert $A$-module $X$ is isomorphic to the Hilbert $A$-module ${\mathfrak{K}}_A (A,X)$ via the map that associates to $x\in X$ the compact operator $a \mapsto x a$.
\[lem-compacts2\] The conjugate $X^*$ of a Hilbert $A$-module $X$ is isomorphic to the $A$-module ${\mathfrak{K}}_A (X,A)$ via the map that associates to $x^*\in X^*$ the compact operator $y \mapsto \langle x,y\rangle$.
Functors on Hilbert Modules
---------------------------
If $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra, then denote by ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ the category whose objects are right Hilbert $A$-modules and whose morphisms are adjointable maps between Hilbert modules.
Within the algebraic context, bimodules give rise to functors between module categories via tensor product. This is so in the Hilbert module context, too, thanks to the following construction.
\[def-itp\] Let $X$ be a Hilbert $A$-module and let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$. The (*internal*) *tensor product* $X\otimes_A F$, which is a Hilbert $B$-module, is the completion of the algebraic tensor product $X\otimes^{{\mathrm{alg}}}_A F$ in the norm induced by the $B$-valued inner product $$\langle x_1\otimes f_1, x_2\otimes f_2\rangle_{X\otimes _A F} {:=}\langle f_1, \langle x_1,x_2\rangle_X \cdot f_2\rangle_F.$$
See [@Lance Chapter 4] for basic information on the internal tensor product construction. One has natural isomorphisms $$A\otimes_A F\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow F\quad \text{and}\quad F\otimes_B B \stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow F$$ via multiplication.
If $F$ is a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, then internal tensor product with $F$ gives rise to a *tensor product functor* $$F \colon {{\mathcal H}}_A \longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_B$$ (as indicated, we shall use the same letter for the bimodule and the functor), since the tensor product of an adjointable operator with the identity operator on $F$ is an adjointable operator between tensor product modules.
It is interesting to note that subject to a natural continuity condition and compatibility with the adjoint operation, every functor between Hilbert module categories is a tensor product functor. We shall not use this fact, but here is a short summary.
A functor $ F$ between categories of Hilbert modules is called a *$*$-functor* if it is ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear on morphisms, and satisfies $ F(T^*)= F(T)^*$ for every adjointable operator $T$.
A $*$-functor $F :{{\mathcal H}}_A\to{{\mathcal H}}_B$ is *strongly continuous* if for every object $X\in {{\mathcal H}}_A$, the $*$-homomorphism $$F: {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,X) \to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(F(X), F(X) )$$ is nondegenerate.
\[Blecher\_theorem\] The category of strongly continuous $*$-functors ${{\mathcal H}}_A\to {{\mathcal H}}_B$ and natural transformations is equivalent to the category of correspondences from $A$ to $B$ and adjointable operators compatible with the $A$-$B$ bimodule structure.
The equivalence is given in one direction by sending a functor $F$ to the correspondence $ F(A)$, and in the other direction by sending a correspondence $F$ to the associated tensor product functor.
\[rem-blecher\] In addition a strongly continuous $*$-functor ${{\mathcal H}}_A\to {{\mathcal H}}_B$ is an equivalence (with inverse a strongly continuous $*$-functor) if and only if the associated correspondence is a *Morita equivalence* between $A$ and $B$: see [@BlM 8.1.2, 8.2.20]. If $A$ and $B$ are Morita equivalent, then the dual spaces $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$ are homeomorphic (moreover the converse also holds if $A$ and $B$ are commutative). So we see that ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ carries information about the structure of $\widehat A$ as a topological space, as remarked in the introduction.
Adjunctions {#full_adj_section}
-----------
We shall start with the standard definition from category theory.
\[adj\_definition\] Let $A$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebras, and let $E$ and $F$ be correspondences from $B$ to $A$ and from $A$ to $B$, respectively, determining tensor product functors $${{\mathcal H}}_A\stackrel{\otimes _A F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_B \quad \text{and} \quad {{\mathcal H}}_B\stackrel{\otimes _B E}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_A .$$ An *adjunction* between $ F$ and $ E$ is a natural isomorphism $$\label{eq-adjunction}
\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{B}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E),$$ or in other words a natural equivalence between the left and right sides in (\[eq-adjunction\]), considered as functors from the product category ${{\mathcal H}}_A^{\mathrm{op}} \times {{\mathcal H}}_B$ to the category of sets.
But unlike the ordinary situation in category theory, there is no real distinction between left adjoints and right adjoints in the context of Hilbert modules: given an adjunction $\Phi_{X,Y}$ as above, the formula $$\Phi_{X,Y}^*:T\mapsto (\Phi_{X,Y})^{-1}(T^*)^*$$ defines an adjunction $$\label{eq-psi-from-phi}
\Phi^*_{X,Y} \colon
{\mathfrak{B}}_A( Y\otimes _B E, X) \stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_B( Y,X\otimes _A F )$$ that reverses the role of $E$ and $F$ in Definition \[adj\_definition\].
\[def-unit-counit\] Let $\Phi$ be an adjunction, as in Definition \[adj\_definition\].
1. A *unit* for $\Phi$ is a bounded, adjointable $A$-bimodule map $$\eta\colon A \longrightarrow F\otimes _B E$$ that defines $\Phi_{X,Y}$ by means of the commuting diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
X\otimes _A A \ar[d]_{\cong} \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{id}_X \otimes \eta} & X\otimes _A F \otimes _B E \ar[d]^{ T \otimes \mathrm{id}_E} \\
X \ar[r]_-{\Phi_{X,Y}(T)} & Y\otimes _B E .
}$$
2. A *counit* for $\Phi$ is a bounded, adjointable $B$-bimodule map $$\varepsilon \colon E\otimes _A F \longrightarrow B$$ that defines the inverse of the isomorphism $ \Phi_{X,Y}$ in (\[eq-adjunction\]) by means of the commuting diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
Y\otimes _B B\ar[d]_{\cong} & Y\otimes _B E \otimes _A F
\ar[l]_-{\mathrm{id}_Y \otimes \varepsilon}
\\
Y & X\otimes _B F \ar[l]^-{\Phi_{X,Y}^{-1}(T)} \ar[u]_{ T \otimes \mathrm{id}_F} .
}$$
\[adj\_unit\_counit\_proposition\] Every adjunction admits a unique unit and counit.
This is standard. For instance the unit is the image of the identity operator on $F$ under the map $$\Phi_{A,F}:{\mathfrak{B}}_B( F , F)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_A(A, F\otimes _B E),$$ See [@MacLane IV.1], for example.
No continuity conditions are imposed on the isomorphisms $\Phi_{X,Y}$ in an adjunction. But in fact continuity is automatic, as the following calculation shows.
\[adj\_cb\_lemma\] Let $\Phi$ be an adjunction, as in Definition \[adj\_definition\]. Each map $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{B}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y) \stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E),$$ is a linear, topological isomorphism.
It is clear from the definition of unit that $\Phi_{X,Y}$ is linear, with norm bounded by the operator norm of the unit map from $A$ into $F\otimes_B E$. The inverse is likewise linear, with norm bounded by the norm of the counit.
The following definition very slightly elaborates on Definition \[conjugate\_definition1\].
\[conjugate\_definition2\] Let $A$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebras and let $F$ be a [correspondence from $A$ to $B$]{}. The *conjugate* of $F$ is the Hilbert module conjugate $F^*$, as in Definition \[conjugate\_definition1\], equipped with right $A$-module structure defined by $$f^* \cdot a = (a^*f )^*.$$
The conjugate $F^*$ of a correspondence from $A$ to $B$ is a $B$-$A$-bimodule, but, as it stands, is not a correspondence from $B$ to $A$: there is no obvious $A$-valued inner product. Kajiwara, Pinzari and Watatani [@KPW] relate the existence of such an inner product on $F^*$ to the existence of adjoint functors, as follows.
\[adj\_bimod\_theorem\] A tensor product functor from $
{{\mathcal H}}_A$ to $ {{\mathcal H}}_B
$, induced from a correspondence $F$, has an adjoint tensor product functor if and only if all the following conditions are met:
1. The conjugate $B$-$A$-bimodule $ {F}^*$ carries an $A$-valued inner product making it into a correspondence from $B$ to $A$.
2. The conjugate operator space structure on $F^*$ is completely boundedly equivalent to the Hilbert $A$-module operator space structure on $F^*$.
3. The left action of $A$ on $F$ is through a $*$-homomorphism from $A$ into ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$.
4. The left action of $B$ on $F^*$ is through a $*$-homomorphism from $B$ into ${\mathfrak{K}}_A (F^*,F^*)$.
When these conditions are met, the adjoint functor from ${{\mathcal H}}_B$ to ${{\mathcal H}}_A$ is given by tensor product with the correspondence $F^*$.
Condition (b) will be explained in the next section, where we shall also give a proof of Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\] in the course of our study of the weaker notion of local adjunction. The full relationship of our results to those of [@KPW] will be discussed in detail in Section \[sec-indexes\].
\[unital\_example\] Consider the case of unital $C^*$-algebras $A$ and $B$. If $F$ is a correspondence satisfying condition (a) of Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\], then the conditions (c) and (d) are equivalent to requiring that $F$ be finitely generated (and hence projective, cf. [@BlM Theorem 8.1.27]) as a module over $B$ and $A$, respectively, while the analytic condition (b) follows automatically from (c) and (d): see [@KPW Example 2.31]. (We note that in the non-unital setting, the conditions (b), (c) and (d) are independent of one another: see the examples in Sections \[Hilbert\_sum\_example\] and \[nonunital\_noncounital\_example\].) Combined with a theorem of Morita on adjunctions in the algebraic setting [@Morita Theorem 4.1], we find that the following are equivalent for unital $C^*$-algebras $A$ and $B$:
1. The tensor product functor $\otimes_A F:{{\mathcal H}}_A\to {{\mathcal H}}_B$ has an adjoint.
2. The algebraic tensor product functor $\otimes_A^{{\mathrm{alg}}} F:\operatorname{Mod}_A\to \operatorname{Mod}_B$ has a two-sided adjoint.
This situation is reminiscent of Beer’s result, that two unital $C^*$-algebras are Morita equivalent as $C^*$-algebras if and only they are Morita equivalent as rings [@Beer Theorem 1.8].
Hilbert Modules as Operator Spaces {#operator_section}
----------------------------------
Recall that an *operator space structure* on a vector space $X$ is a sequence of Banach space norms on the spaces $M_n(X)$ of $n\times n$ matrices with entries from $X$ such that
1. the norm of a block diagonal matrix is the largest of the norms of its diagonal blocks; and
2. the norm of a three-fold product $ABC$, where $A$ and $C$ are scalar $n\times n$ matrices, and $B$ is an $n\times n$ matrix with entries from $X$, is no more than the product of the norms of the matrices $A$, $B$ and $C$ (we use the operator norm for the scalar matrices).
See [@MR1793753] or [@BlM]. An *operator space* is of course a vector space with an operator space structure.
\[C\*\_operator\_example\] The above conditions hold when $X$ is a closed subspace of a $C^*$-algebra $B$ and the norms on $M_n (X)$ are inherited from the $C^*$-algebra norm on $M_n(B)$.
A linear map $T:X\to Y$ between operator spaces is *completely bounded* if $$\|T\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}= \sup_n \|M_n(T)\|<\infty,$$ where $M_n(T):M_n(X)\to M_n(Y)$ is defined by applying $T$ entrywise. An *isomorphism of operator spaces* will mean, for us, a linear isomorphism $T:X\to Y$ such that both $T$ and $T^{-1}$ are completely bounded. We shall use the term *complete isometric isomorphism* when $$\|T\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} = \|T^{-1}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} =1.$$
Every operator space is completely isometrically isomorphic to a closed subspace of a $C^*$-algebra. See for example [@MR1793753 Chapter 2] for an exposition.
Suppose now that $X$ is a right Hilbert $A$-module. Then $M_n(X)$ is a Hilbert $M_n(A)$-module in a natural way, namely the right action of $M_n(A)$ on $M_n(X)$ is given by matrix multiplication, and the $M_n(A)$-valued inner product is $$\langle S, T\rangle _{i,j} = \sum _{k=1}^n \langle S_{kj}, T_{kj}\rangle .$$ This observation gives $X$ an [operator space]{} structure. See [@BlM 8.2.1].
If $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra, then the operator space norms on $M_n(A)$ induced by the inner product $\langle a,b\rangle = a^*b$ on $A$ are the canonical $C^*$-algebra norms.
\[operator\_corner\_example\] If $X$ is a closed subspace of ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(Y,Z)$, where $Y$ and $Z$ are Hilbert $A$-modules, then the operator space structure on $X$ associated to the ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(Y)$-valued inner product $\langle S, T\rangle = S^*T$ coincides with the one given by the natural embedding of ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(Y,Z)$ as a corner of the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(Y\oplus Z)$.
For instance, if $X$ is a Hilbert $A$-module then the isomorphism $X\cong {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,X)$ of Lemma \[lem-compacts\] is completely isometric for the operator space structure induced on $X$ by the $A$-valued inner product, and the operator space structure on ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,X)$ induced by its embedding into ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(A\oplus X)$.
If $H$ is a Hilbert space, then the operator space structure associated to the inner product on $H$ is the *column Hilbert space* structure [@BlM 1.2.23] coming from the identification $H\cong {\mathfrak{B}}({\mathbb{C}},H)$.
The assignment of an operator space structure to each Hilbert module, as above, gives a functorial embedding of the category of Hilbert modules and adjointable maps into the category of operator spaces and completely bounded maps:
\[Paschke\_theorem\] If $X$ and $Y$ are right Hilbert $A$-modules, then every bounded $A$-linear map $X\to Y$ is completely bounded.
We are going to use operator spaces to treat Hilbert $A$-modules $X$ and their conjugate modules $X^*$ introduced in Definition \[conjugate\_definition1\] on a somewhat equal footing. To this end, we recall the following concept:
\[def-operator-space-conj\] If $X$ is any operator space, then its *conjugate* $X^*$ is the complex conjugate vector space, equipped with the norms $$\| [x_{ij} ] \|_{M_n (X^*)} = \| [ x_{ji} ]\|_{M_n(X)},$$ which endow it with the structure of an operator space.
The operator space $X^*$ is usually called the *adjoint* of $X$, but once again we shall try to avoid over-using this word in this paper. However we warn the reader that the term *conjugate* as it is used in [@KPW] refers to adjoint functors.
In the case of a Hilbert $A$-module $X$, the operator space structure on $X^*$ provided by Definition \[def-operator-space-conj\] is the operator space structure we would obtain by viewing $X^*$ as a *left* Hilbert $A$-module (a concept that we are avoiding in this paper). See [@BlM 1.2.25 and 8.2.3(2)].
\[Hilbert\_cb\_example\] Let $H$ be a complex Hilbert space, equipped with its column operator space structure. The conjugate operator space $H^*$ is, as a vector space, the same as the complex conjugate Hilbert space $\overline{H}$, and the conjugate operator space structure on $H^*$ is the same as the *row Hilbert space* structure [@BlM 1.2.23] on $\overline{H}$. Being a Hilbert space in its own right, $\overline{H}$ also carries a column Hilbert space structure. The identity map $I:\overline{H}\to \overline{H}$, considered as a map from the row operator space to the column operator space, has $\| I\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}^2 = \dim H$. In particular, this map is *not* completely bounded if $H$ is infinite-dimensional. See [@MR1793753 p.56].
\[compact\_ci\_example\] Let $X$ be a Hilbert $A$-module, and view $X^*$ as a conjugate operator space as above. The isomorphism $X^*\cong {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,A)$ of Lemma \[lem-compacts2\] is completely isometric, where ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,A)$ is viewed as a subspace of ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X\oplus A)$ as in Example \[operator\_corner\_example\].
Operator Modules {#sec-operator-modules}
----------------
If a $C^*$-algebra $A$ (or more generally a Banach algebra of operators on a Hilbert space) acts on a Banach space $X$, then there are natural induced actions $$M_n(A) \times M_n (X) \longrightarrow M_n(X)$$ that combine the given action with matrix multiplication. When $X$ is an operator space we shall always assume that these actions are completely contractive in the sense that $$\|a\cdot x \|_{M_n(X)} \le \| a \|_{M_n(A)} \|x\|_{M_n(X)} .$$ The same will go for right actions instead of left actions, and we shall use the term *operator module* to describe this situation (the term *h-module* is used in [@BlM Section 3.1.3]; this is a reference to the Haagerup tensor product that we shall review below).
The Haagerup Tensor Product {#haagerup_section}
---------------------------
There are several notions of tensor product for operator spaces. Here we shall need only the *Haagerup tensor product*, which is defined as follows. Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra, let $X$ be a right operator $A$-module, and let $Y$ be a left operator $A$-module. The Haagerup tensor product $X\otimes_{hA} Y$ is the completion of the algebraic tensor product $X\otimes_A^{{\mathrm{alg}}} Y$ that is characterized by the following universal property: each bilinear map $$\Phi \colon X \times Y \longrightarrow Z$$ into an operator space for which
1. $\Phi (xa,y) = \Phi (x, ay)$, and
2. the matrix extensions $$\Phi _n \colon M_n(X) \times M_n (Y) \longrightarrow M_n(Z)$$ satisfy $$\|\Phi_n (x,y) \|_{M_n(Z)} \le \| x \|_{M_n(X)} \|y\|_{M_n(Y)} .$$ for all $n$
extends to a complete contraction from $X\otimes _{hA} Y $ to $Z$. See [@BlM 3.4.2].
The Haagerup tensor product is associative [@BlM Theorem 3.4.10] and functorial in both variables with respect to completely bounded module maps [@BlM Lemma 3.4.5], and the natural isomorphism on algebraic tensor products extends to a completely isometric isomorphism $$( X\otimes_{hA} Y)^*\stackrel \cong\longrightarrow Y^* \otimes_{hA} X^*.$$ See [@BlM 1.5.9].
The following theorems of Blecher relate the Haagerup tensor product to the tensor product and compact operators on Hilbert modules:
\[Haagerup\_theorem\] Let $X$ be a Hilbert $A$-module, and let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$. The identity map on $X\otimes_A^{{\mathrm{alg}}} F$ extends to a completely isometric natural isomorphism $$X \otimes_{hA} F \stackrel \cong\longrightarrow X\otimes_A F$$ from the Haagerup tensor product to the internal Hilbert module tensor product.
\[tensor\_compact\_theorem\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be Hilbert $A$-modules. There is a completely isometric isomorphism of operator spaces $$Y \otimes_{hA} X^* \stackrel \cong\longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Y)$$ mapping each elementary tensor $y\otimes x^*$ to the corresponding compact operator $y\otimes x^*$ defined in .
As in Example \[operator\_corner\_example\], ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Y)$ is a closed subspace of the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X\oplus Y)$ and it is to be viewed as an operator space in that way. Note that the operator space $Y\otimes_{hA} X^*$ does not depend on the inner products on $X$ and $Y$, but only on the induced operator space structures. In contrast, the action of $Y\otimes_{hA} X^*$ as operators $X\to Y$ appearing in Theorem \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\] does depend on the $A$-valued inner product on $X$.
Local Adjunctions for Hilbert Modules {#loc_adj_section}
=====================================
Definitions and Basic Properties {#adj_def_section}
--------------------------------
We are ready now to introduce the main concept of the paper.
\[ladj\_definition\] Let $A$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebras, and let $E$ and $F$ be correspondences from $B$ to $A$ and from $A$ to $B$, respectively, determining tensor product functors $${{\mathcal H}}_A\stackrel{\otimes _A F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_B \quad \text{and} \quad {{\mathcal H}}_B\stackrel{\otimes _B E}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal H}}_A .$$ A *local adjunction* between these functors is a natural isomorphism $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E )$$ that is, for each $X$ and $Y$, a continuous linear map.
\[ladj\_cb\_theorem\] Let $\Phi$ be a local adjunction, as in Definition \[ladj\_definition\]. Each of the linear maps $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y) \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E)$$ is an isomorphism of operator spaces.
We will see later (Corollary \[ladj\_cb\_corollary\]) that the matrix norms of $\Phi_{X,Y}$ are in fact bounded independently of $X$ and $Y$.
For a Hilbert $A$-module $X$, we let $X^\infty$ denote the orthogonal direct sum of countably many copies of $X$ (see [@BlM 8.1.9]). For each $n\geq 1$ there is a natural isometric embedding $$M_n({\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Z))\longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X^\infty, Z^\infty)$$ that is defined by letting each $n\times n$ matrix act by matrix multiplication on the first $n$ copies of $X$ inside $X^\infty$, and by zero on the remaining copies. One also has isometric isomorphisms $(X\otimes_A F)^\infty \cong X^\infty \otimes_A F$. The diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
M_n({\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)) \ar[r]^-{M_n(\Phi_{X,Y})} \ar[d] & M_n({\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_A E)) \ar[d] \\
{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X^\infty \otimes_A F, Y^\infty) \ar[r]^-{\Phi_{X^\infty, Y^\infty}} & {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X^\infty, Y^\infty\otimes_B E)
}$$ commutes by the naturality of $\Phi$, showing that $\|M_n(\Phi_{X,Y})\|\leq \|\Phi_{X^\infty,Y^\infty}\|$ for every $n$.
As with adjoints, there is no distinction between left and right local adjunctions: given a local adjunction $\Phi$ as above, we may define a second local adjunction, $$\label{eq-psi-from-phi2}
\Phi^*_{X,Y} \colon
{\mathfrak{K}}_A( Y\otimes _B E, X)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A( Y,X\otimes _A F )$$ by means of the formula $$\Phi^*_{X,Y}:T\mapsto (\Phi_{X,Y})^{-1}(T^*)^* .$$ This interchanges the roles played by the correspondences $E$ and $F$ in Definition \[ladj\_definition\]. And as with adjoints, it is very relevant to study units and counits associated to a local adjunction. The following definition merely repeats Definition \[def-unit-counit\] in the present context.
\[def-unit-counit2\] Let $\Phi$ be a local adjunction, as in Definition \[ladj\_definition\].
1. A *unit* for $\Phi$ is a bounded, adjointable $A$-bimodule map $$\eta\colon A \longrightarrow F\otimes _B E$$ that defines $\Phi$ by means of the commuting diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
X\otimes _A A \ar[d]_{\cong} \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{id}_X \otimes \eta} & X\otimes _A F \otimes _B E \ar[d]^{ T \otimes \mathrm{id}_E} \\
X \ar[r]_-{\Phi_{X,Y}(T)} & Y\otimes _B E .
}$$
2. A *counit* for $\Phi$ is a bounded, adjointable $B$-bimodule map $$\varepsilon \colon E\otimes _A F \longrightarrow B$$ that defines the inverse of the isomorphism $ \Phi_{X,Y}$ by means of the commuting diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
Y\otimes _B B\ar[d]_{\cong} & Y\otimes _B E \otimes _A F
\ar[l]_-{\mathrm{id}_Y \otimes \varepsilon}
\\
Y & X\otimes _A F \ar[l]^-{\Phi_{X,Y}^{-1}(T)} \ar[u]_{ T \otimes \mathrm{id}_F} .
}$$
Once again, these definitions are symmetric with respect to the transposition $\Phi \leftrightarrow \Phi^*$ given in (\[eq-psi-from-phi2\]) above. If $\eta$ is a unit for $\Phi$, then the adjoint operator $\eta^*$ is a counit for $\Phi^*$, while if $\varepsilon$ is a counit for $\Phi$, then $\varepsilon ^*$ is a unit for $\Phi^*$.
\[ladj\_unit\_lemma\] A local adjunction admits at most one unit and at most one counit.
Let $\eta:A\to F\otimes_B E$ be a unit, and let $u_\lambda$ be an approximate unit in the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$. The map $\eta$ is the strong-operator limit of the net $(u_\lambda\otimes \operatorname{id}_E)\circ \eta$, and the unit property of $\eta$ identifies this net with $\Phi_{A,F}(u_\lambda)$. Thus $\eta$ is uniquely determined by $\Phi$. The uniqueness of counits follows by symmetry from the uniqueness of units.
A local adjunction need admit neither a unit nor a counit, or it might admit one without the other. But in the examples of interest to us at least one will exist. It is also the case that every local adjunction admits a bounded (but not necessarily adjointable) counit $\epsilon:F\otimes_A E\to B$. See Section \[sec-local-unit-counit\].
If a functor has an adjoint, then the adjoint is unique up to a canonical natural isomorphism. Local adjoints are, in general, only unique in the following weaker sense:
\[ladj\_uniqueness\_lemma\] Suppose that a correspondence $F$ from $A$ to $B$ is a local adjoint to a correspondence $E$ from $B$ to $A$, and also to a second correspondence $G$ from $B$ to $A$. There is a canonical completely bounded isomorphism $E\cong G$ of $B$-$A$ operator bimodules.
The two local adjunctions give completely bounded isomorphisms $$E\cong {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,E)\cong {\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,B)\cong {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,G)\cong G$$ of $B$-$A$-bimodules.
The converse of Lemma \[ladj\_uniqueness\_lemma\] is also true: Theorems \[Haagerup\_theorem\] and \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\] together imply that up to natural isomorphism, ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B E)$ depends only on the operator bimodule structure of $E$. In the course of proving Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\], below, we will in fact establish a bijection between the set of local adjunctions between $F$ and $E$, and the set of $B$-$A$ operator bimodule isomorphisms $F^*\xrightarrow{\cong} E$.
On the question of uniqueness, we will later see (Proposition \[counit\_uniqueness\_proposition\]) that if there exists a counit $$\epsilon: E\otimes _A F \longrightarrow B,$$ then the canonical isomorphism $E\cong G$ of Lemma \[ladj\_uniqueness\_lemma\] is adjointable, and so furnishes a natural isomorphism between the tensor product functors $E$ and $G$. In particular, if the tensor product functor $F$ has an adjoint, then it has a unique local adjoint. In the absence of a counit, a tensor product functor may admit several local adjoints that are not isomorphic to one another as correspondences. See Section \[sec-miscellany\].
Local Adjunctions from Adjunctions {#scts_section}
----------------------------------
\[adj\_sc\_lemma\] If $F:{{\mathcal H}}_A\to {{\mathcal H}}_B$ is a tensor product functor with an adjoint $E\colon {{\mathcal H}}_B\to {{\mathcal H}}_A$, then for all $X\in {{\mathcal H}}_A$ and all $Y\in {{\mathcal H}}_B$, the natural isomorphism $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F,Y)\to {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X, Y \otimes_B E)$$ maps ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(X \otimes_A F,Y)$ isomorphically onto ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Y\otimes_B E)$.
The space ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)$ is densely spanned by operators of the form $$L=y\otimes (Kx\otimes f)^*,$$ where $y\in Y$, $x\in X$, $f\in F$, $K\in {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,X)$, and we are using the notation of . The naturality of $\Phi$ gives $$\Phi_{X,Y}(L) = \Phi_{X,Y}\bigl(\, (y\otimes(x\otimes f)^*)\circ (K^*\otimes 1_F)\,\bigr) = \Phi_{X,Y}\bigl (\, y\otimes(x\otimes f)^*\, \bigr)\circ K^*,$$ which is compact because $K^*$ is. This shows that $\Phi$ maps compact operators into compact operators, and a similar argument applied to $\Phi^{-1}$ shows that the map is a bijection.
\[adj\_implies\_ladj\_corollary\] Every adjunction of tensor product functors $$\Phi_{X,Y} \colon {\mathfrak{B}}_B( X\otimes _A F ,Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E)$$ restricts to a local adjunction $$\Phi_{X,Y} \colon {\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes _A F, Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E).$$
Characterization of Local Adjunctions {#adj_bimod_section}
-------------------------------------
\[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\] A tensor product functor from $
{{\mathcal H}}_A$ to $ {{\mathcal H}}_B
$, induced from a correspondence $F$, has a locally adjoint tensor product functor if and only if both of the following conditions are met:
1. The conjugate $B$-$A$-bimodule $ {F}^*$ carries an $A$-valued inner product making it into a correspondence from $B$ to $A$.
2. The conjugate operator space structure on $F^*$ is completely boundedly equivalent to the Hilbert $A$-module operator space structure on $F^*$.
First suppose that $E$ is a local adjoint to $ F$. The isomorphism $$\Phi_{A,B}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,B)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,E)$$ gives, using Lemma \[lem-compacts\], an isomorphism of $B$-$A$-bimodules $$F^* \stackrel \cong \longrightarrow E$$ that is, in addition, an operator space isomorphism. The $A$-valued inner product on $F^*$ inherited from $E$ via this isomorphism satisfies conditions (a) and (b).
Conversely, suppose we are given a compatible $A$-valued inner product making $F^*$ into a correspondence from $B$ to $A$. Let us introduce a second symbol, $E$, for this correspondence, and give $E$ the operator space structure it inherits from its Hilbert $A$-module structure (in contrast, we assign to $F^*$ the operator space structure it receives as the conjugate of $F$). We have sequences of natural isomorphisms of operator spaces $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F ,Y)
& \underset{(1)}{\cong} Y\otimes_{hB} \left( { X\otimes_A F}\right)^* \\
& \underset{(2)}{\cong} Y\otimes_{hB} \left( {X\otimes_{hA} F}\right )^* \\
& \underset{(3)}{\cong} Y\otimes_{hB} {F}^* \otimes_{hA} X^* \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Y\otimes_{hB} E \otimes_{hA} X^*
& \underset{(4)}{\cong} Y\otimes_B E \otimes_{hA} X^* \\
& \underset{(5)}{\cong} {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E) ,\end{aligned}$$ as follows. The isomorphisms (1) and (5) come from Theorem \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\], while (2) and (4) come from Theorem \[Haagerup\_theorem\]. The isomorphism (3) is a result of the compatibility of the Haagerup tensor product with the conjugation operation on operator spaces. If we assume that the identity map from $F^*$ to $E$ is a completely bounded isomorphism of operator spaces, then of course $$Y\otimes_{hB} {F}^* \otimes_{hA} X^* \cong Y\otimes_{hB} E \otimes_{hA} X^* ,$$ and we can link all of the displayed isomorphisms together to obtain a local adjunction between $F$ and $E$.
Since a local adjunction between $F$ and $E$ determines canonically an operator space isomorphism $E\cong F^*$—and conversely—we will usually just write $F^*$ instead of $E$ from now on, keeping in mind that this implies the choice of a suitable $A$-valued inner product on $F^*$.
The proof gives a very simple formula for the adjunction isomorphism $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y)\to {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B F^*) ,$$ namely $$\label{Phi_equation}
\Phi_{X,Y}\bigl (\, y \otimes (x\otimes f)^*\,\bigr) = (y \otimes f^* )\otimes x^* .$$ We also note that, given a local adjunction between $F$ and $F^*$, the equivalence of the two operator space structures on $F^*$ allows us to combine Theorems \[Haagerup\_theorem\] and \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\] to obtain canonical isomorphisms $$\label{ladj_compact_equation}
{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)\cong F\otimes_B F^* \qquad\text{and}\qquad {\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)\cong F^*\otimes_A F$$ of $A$-$A$-bimodules and $B$-$B$-bimodules, respectively.
\[ladj\_cb\_corollary\] Let $\Phi$ be a local adjunction, as in Definition \[ladj\_definition\]. The matrix norms of the isomorphisms $\Phi_{X,Y}$ are bounded independently of $X$ and $Y$: $$\| \Phi_{X,Y}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \leq \|\Phi_{A,B}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \leq \|\Phi_{A^\infty,B^\infty}\|.$$
Using Theorem \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\] to identify spaces of compact operators with Haagerup tensor products, the map $\Phi_{X,Y}$ is given by $$1_Y\otimes \Phi_{A,B} \otimes 1_{X^*}:Y\otimes_{hB} F^* \otimes_{hA} X^* \to Y\otimes_{hB} E \otimes_{hA} X^*.$$ The functoriality of the Haagerup tensor product (see [@BlM Lemma 3.4.5]) then gives $\|\Phi_{X,Y}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \leq \|\Phi_{A,B}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}$. Theorem \[ladj\_cb\_theorem\] gives the second inequality, $\|\Phi_{A,B}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}\leq \|\Phi_{A^\infty,B^\infty}\|$.
Local Adjunctions and Representations
-------------------------------------
In addition to the tensor product functors $ F:{{\mathcal H}}_A\to {{\mathcal H}}_B$ studied in the previous sections, every correspondence $F$ from $A$ to $B$ induces a functor $$F = F\otimes_B : {}_B{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_A{{\mathcal H}}$$ between the categories of (nondegenerate) Hilbert space representations of $A$ and $B$. In this section we shall prove the following result.
\[rep-adjunction-theorem\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and let $E$ be a correspondence from $B$ to $A$. Every local adjunction between $F$ and $E$ gives rise to a (two-sided) adjunction between the tensor product functors $$F :{}_B{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_A{{\mathcal H}}\quad \text{and} \quad E :{}_A{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_B{{\mathcal H}}$$ on categories of Hilbert space representations.
Under the equivalences explained in Section \[sec-indexes\], this theorem corresponds to [@KPW Theorem 4.4(1)]. Compare also [@CH_cb], where an adjunction theorem is formulated in the context of operator modules.
Before beginning the proof let us collect some preliminary facts.
\[ladj\_ip\_lemma0\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$. The formula $$( f_1^* , f_2) \mapsto \langle f_1,f_2 \rangle$$ defines a completely contractive map of operator $B$-$B$-bimodules $$F^*\otimes_{hA} F \longrightarrow B .$$
If $\overline{S} \in M_n (F^*)$ (we shall avoid writing $S^*$ to avoid confusion with the matrix adjoint operation) and if $T\in M_n(F)$, then the map $$\langle {\underbar{\phantom{a}}}, {\underbar{\phantom{a}}}\rangle _n \colon M_n (F^*) \times M_n (F) \longrightarrow M_n (B)$$ induced from the inner product map in the statement of the lemma, as in Section \[haagerup\_section\], sends the pair $(\overline{S},T)$ to the Hilbert module inner product $$\langle S^{\top}, T\rangle \in M_n (B),$$ where $S\in M_n(F)$ is image of $\overline S\in M_n (F^*)$ under the conjugate linear isomorphism $M_n (F^*)\to M_n (F)$ and $S^\top$ is the transpose matrix. So the lemma follows from the universal property of the Haagerup tensor product (cf. Section \[haagerup\_section\]) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality [@BlM p.297]: $$\|\langle S^\top, T\rangle \|_{M_n(B)} \leq \|S^\top\|_{M_n(F)} \|T\|_{M_n(F)} = \|\overline{S}\|_{M_n(F^*)} \|T\|_{M_n(F)}. \qedhere$$
Suppose next we are given a local adjunction $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y) \xrightarrow{\,\,\cong\,\,} {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B E) .$$ Use it to identify $E$ with $F^*$ as in the proof of Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\], and in this way equip $F^*$ with the structure of a Hilbert $B$-$A$-bimodule.
\[ladj\_ip\_lemma\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and assume that $F^*$ has been equipped with a Hilbert $A$-module structure making $F^*$ and $F$ local adjoints. The formulas $$\epsilon \colon f_1^*\otimes f_2 \mapsto \langle f_1,f_2 \rangle \qquad \text{and}\qquad \delta \colon f_1\otimes f_2^* \mapsto \langle f_1^*, f_2^*\rangle$$ define completely bounded bimodule maps $$\epsilon : F^*\otimes_A F \to B \qquad \text{and} \qquad \delta:F\otimes_B F^* \to A.$$
The assertion about $\varepsilon$ follows from the previous lemma and Theorem \[Haagerup\_theorem\]. The assertion about $\delta$ follows from these results together with Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\].
The completely bounded map $\delta:F\otimes_B F^*\to A$ given by Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\] induces, by Theorem \[Haagerup\_theorem\], a natural bounded Hilbert space operator $$\label{eq-delta-transf}
\delta_X:F\otimes_B F^* \otimes_A X\longrightarrow X$$ for each $X\in {}_A{{\mathcal H}}$. Being a bounded operator between Hilbert *spaces*, $\delta_X$ has an adjoint operator $$\label{eq-eta-formula}
\eta_X \colon X\longrightarrow F\otimes_B F^*\otimes_A X ,$$ and we obtain a natural transformation from the identity functor on ${}_A{{\mathcal H}}$ to the tensor product functor $$F \circ F^*\colon X \mapsto F \otimes _B F^* _A \otimes X.$$
We need just such a natural transformation in order to prove that the tensor product functor $F^*\colon {}_A {{\mathcal H}}\to {}_B {{\mathcal H}}$ is left adjoint to $F$ (namely the unit of the adjunction). We also need a natural transformation $$\epsilon_Y \colon F^*\otimes_A F\otimes_B Y\longrightarrow Y$$ for every $Y\in {}_B{{\mathcal H}}$ (this is the counit of the adjunction), and then we need to show that the compositions $$\label{rep_adjunction_equation}
F\otimes_B Y \xrightarrow{\eta_{F(Y)}} F\otimes_B F^*\otimes_A F\otimes_B Y \xrightarrow{ F( \epsilon_Y)} F\otimes_B Y$$ and $$\label{rep_adjunction_equation2}
F^*\otimes_A X \xrightarrow{F^*(\eta_{X})} F^* \otimes _A F\otimes_B F^*\otimes_A X \xrightarrow{ \epsilon_{F^*(X)}} F^*\otimes_A X$$ are the identity. See [@MacLane IV.1 Theorem 2].
We shall define $\varepsilon _Y$ to be the map $$F^*\otimes_A F\otimes_B Y\xrightarrow{ \varepsilon \otimes \textrm{id}_Y} A\otimes _A Y \stackrel \cong \longrightarrow Y$$ obtained from the completely bounded inner product map $\varepsilon :F^*\otimes_A F \to B$ in Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\]. Having done so, (\[rep\_adjunction\_equation\]) and (\[rep\_adjunction\_equation2\]) become effectively equivalent: just reverse the roles of $F$ and $F^*$ to get from one to the other. So it remains to prove (\[rep\_adjunction\_equation\]).
\[lem-hilb-adjunction\] Let $u_\lambda $ be an approximate unit for the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)$, viewed as a net in $F\otimes _B F^*$ using the isomorphism of Theorem . The adjoint operator $\eta_X = \delta _X ^*$ in is given by the formula $$\eta_X (x) = \lim_{\lambda\to \infty} u_\lambda \otimes x,$$ where the limit exists in the weak topology on the Hilbert space $F\otimes _B F^* \otimes _A X$.
We need to prove that $$\lim _{\lambda \to \infty} \langle u_\lambda \otimes x , v\rangle = \langle x, \delta _X v \rangle$$ for all $v\in F\otimes _B F^* \otimes _A X$. To this end, let us show that $$\label{eq-adjoint-T}
\langle T \otimes x , v\rangle = \langle x, \delta _X T^*v \rangle ,$$ where $T\in {\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)$ and where on the right hand side of the identity the adjoint operator $T^*$ acts on the triple tensor product $F\otimes_B F^* \otimes _A X$ by acting on the first factor alone. To prove (\[eq-adjoint-T\]) it suffices to calculate with elementary tensors $$T = f_1 \otimes f_2 ^* \quad \text{and} \quad v = f_3 \otimes f_4 ^* \otimes x_1,$$ and this straightforward using the formulas for the Hilbert space inner products given in Definition \[def-itp\].
Let us show that for every $Y\in {}_B {{\mathcal H}}$ the composition (\[rep\_adjunction\_equation\]) is equal to the identity map. Let $f\in F$, $y\in Y$ and $z\in F\otimes_B Y$. It suffices to show that $$\label{eq-step-of hilb-thm0}
\bigl\langle (F(\epsilon_Y) \eta_{F(Y)} ( f\otimes y) , z \bigr \rangle = \bigl\langle f\otimes y,z\bigr \rangle.$$ If we write $
w =
F(\epsilon_Y)^* z
$ then (\[eq-step-of hilb-thm0\]) becomes the identity $$\label{eq-step-of hilb-thm2}
\bigl\langle \eta_{F(Y)} ( f\otimes y) , w \bigr \rangle = \bigl\langle f\otimes y,z\bigr \rangle.$$ Using the formula for $\eta_{F(Y)}$ proved in the lemma, the left hand side of (\[eq-step-of hilb-thm2\]) is $$\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \bigl\langle u_\lambda \otimes f\otimes y , w \bigr \rangle ,$$ or in other words $$\label{eq-step-of hilb-thm1}
\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \bigl\langle F(\epsilon_Y)( u_\lambda \otimes f\otimes y) , z \bigr \rangle .$$ From the definition of $\epsilon_Y$ we have $$F(\epsilon_Y) \colon f_1\otimes f_2^*\otimes f_3\otimes y \mapsto f_1\langle f_2,f_3\rangle \otimes y,$$ and this implies that for every $T\in {\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)\cong F\otimes_B F^*$ one has $$F(\epsilon_Y)(T\otimes f\otimes y)=Tf\otimes y.$$ Applying this to (\[eq-step-of hilb-thm1\]) we find that $$\bigl\langle (F(\epsilon_Y) \eta_{F(Y)} ( f\otimes y) , z \bigr \rangle
= \lim_{\lambda \to \infty}
\bigl\langle u_\lambda f\otimes y , z \bigr \rangle ,$$ and (\[eq-step-of hilb-thm0\]) follows from this.
The uniqueness of adjoint functors in the usual context of category theory implies:
If $F$ admits local adjoints $E$ and $G$, then the tensor product functors $$E\otimes_A,\ G\otimes_A:{}_A{{\mathcal H}}\longrightarrow {}_B{{\mathcal H}}$$ are canonically isomorphic.
Existence of Units and Counits {#sec-local-unit-counit}
------------------------------
We continue to work with locally adjoint Hilbert modules $F$ and $F^*$ as in Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\], but let us return now from Hilbert space representations back to Hilbert modules. For each Hilbert $B$-module $Y$ we have a bounded, $B$-linear map $$\operatorname{id}_Y\otimes \epsilon: Y\otimes_B F^*\otimes_A F \to Y\otimes_B B$$ defined by identifying the Hilbert module tensor products with Haagerup tensor products, and using the functoriality of the latter with respect to completely bounded maps. A short computation using shows that for each Hilbert $A$-module $X$, and each $T\in {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B F^*)$, the diagram $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
Y\otimes_B B\ar[d]_{\cong} & Y\otimes_B F^* \otimes_A F
\ar[l]_-{\operatorname{id}_Y \otimes \epsilon}
\\
Y & X\otimes _B F \ar[l]^-{\Phi_{X,Y}^{-1}(T)} \ar[u]_{ T \otimes \operatorname{id}_F} .
}$$ is commutative: thus $\epsilon$ is almost a counit for the adjunction, its only defect being that it might not be adjointable. The action homomorphism $\eta:A\to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(F,F)$ may similary be considered a kind of generalised unit, a point of view justified by the following proposition.
\[unit\_proposition\] The following are equivalent:
1. There exists a unit $A\to F\otimes_B F^*$ for the local adjunction.
2. The natural isomorphism $\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)\to {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X,Y\otimes_B F^*)$ extends to a natural transformation ${\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)\to {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y\otimes_B F^*)$.
3. The action of $A$ on $F$ is through a $*$-homomorphism from $A$ into ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$.
4. The map $\delta:F\otimes_B F^*\to A$ of Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\] is adjointable.
If $A$ is unital, one may add a fifth equivalent condition:
1. $F$ is finitely generated as a right $B$-module.
When these conditions hold, the unit in is equal to $\delta^*$; the natural transformation in is $1$–$1$; and the $*$-homomorphism in corresponds to $\eta$ under the canonical identification of ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$ with $F\otimes_B F^*$.
That (a) implies (b) is clear. To prove (b) implies (c), let us first show that $\Phi_{X,Y}$ is one-to-one on ${\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)$. Fix a nonzero $T\in {\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)$, and choose $y\in Y$ such that $T^* y\neq 0$. Then the compact operator $(T^* y)^* = y^*\circ T\in {\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F,B)$ is nonzero, so its image under $\Phi_{X,B}$ is nonzero. By naturality we have $$\Phi_{X,B}(y^*\circ T) = (y^*\otimes 1_{F^*})\circ \Phi_{X,Y}(T),$$ and so $\Phi_{X,Y}(T)\neq 0$.
Now let $a$ be an element of $A= {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,A)$. By naturality, $\Phi_{A,F}(a\otimes 1_F)= a \circ \Phi_{A,F}(1_F)\in {\mathfrak{K}}_A(A,F\otimes_B F^*)$. Since $\Phi_{A,F}$ is $1$–$1$, and maps ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$ surjectively onto ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(A, F\otimes_B F^*)$, we conclude that $a\otimes 1_F$ is compact: i.e., $A$ acts on $F$ by compact operators.
Next, we show that (c) implies (d). Identifying $F\otimes_B F^*$ with ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$ as in , one finds the following formula for the $A$-valued inner product: $$\label{compact_ip_equation}
\langle K_1, K_2 \rangle_{{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)} = \delta(K_1^*K_2).$$ Letting $\eta:A\to {\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)$ be the action homomorphism, we find that $$\langle \eta(a), K \rangle_{{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)} = \delta(\eta(a^*)K) = a^*\delta(K)= \langle a, \delta(K)\rangle_A,$$ where we have used that $\delta$ is a map of $A$-bimodules. Thus $\delta$ is adjointable, with adjoint $\eta$.
Finally (d) implies (a), as follows. If $\delta$ is adjointable, then Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\] implies that $\delta$ is a counit for the local adjunction $\Phi^*$, and so $\delta^*$ is a unit for $\Phi$.
If $A$ is unital, then the equivalence of (c) and (e) follows from the well-known fact ([@BlM 8.1.27]) that the identity operator on a Hilbert $B$-module $F$ is compact if and only if $F$ is finitely generated.
\[decomposition\_corollary\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, admitting a local adjoint $F^*$ and a unit $\eta:A\to F\otimes_B F^*$. The $C^*$-algebra $A$ decomposes as the direct sum of two-sided ideals $$A= A_{F^*}\oplus A_{F^*}^\perp$$ where $A_{F^*}= \overline{\operatorname{span}} \{ \langle f_1^*, f_2^*\rangle\ |\ f_1^*,f_2^*\in F^*\}$ and $A_{F^*}^{\perp} = \ker (A\to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(F,F))$.
By Proposition \[unit\_proposition\], the existence of a unit $\eta$ implies that $\delta$ is adjointable, with $\delta^*=\eta$. Being a homomorphism of $C^*$-algebras, $\eta$ has closed range and so [@Lance Theorem 3.2] gives $$A = \operatorname{image}\delta \oplus \ker \eta = A_{F^*}\oplus A_{F^*}^\perp$$ as (right) Hilbert $A$-modules. Both $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ are left $A$-linear, so the above is a decomposition of $C^*$-algebras.
Recalling the relationship between units and counits, Proposition \[unit\_proposition\] and Corollary \[decomposition\_corollary\] immediately give:
\[counit\_proposition\] The following are equivalent:
1. There exists an adjointable counit $F^*\otimes_A F\to B$.
2. The natural isomorphism $\Phi_{X,Y}^{-1}:{\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B F^*)\to {\mathfrak{K}}_B(X \otimes_A F, Y)$ extends to a natural transformation ${\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y \otimes_B F^*) \to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(X \otimes_A F, Y)$.
3. The action of $B$ on $F^*$ is through a $*$-homomorphism from $B$ into the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)$.
4. The map $\epsilon:F^*\otimes_A F\to B$ of Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\] is adjointable.
If $B$ is unital, one may add a fifth equivalent condition:
1. $F$ is finitely generated as a left $A$-module.
When these conditions hold, the counit in is equal to $\epsilon$; natural transformation in is $1$–$1$; the $*$-homomorphism in corresponds to $\epsilon^*$ under the canonical identification of ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)$ with $F^*\otimes_A F$; and the $C^*$-algebra $B$ decomposes as the direct sum of two-sided ideals $B = B_F \oplus B_F^{\perp}$.
\[adj\_iff\_ladj\_corollary\] A local adjunction extends to an adjunction if and only if it admits both a unit and a counit.
As we observed above (Proposition \[adj\_unit\_counit\_proposition\]), the “only if” direction is a standard fact about adjoint functors. For the converse, assume that a local adjunction $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y) \to {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B F^*)$$ admits a unit and a counit. Proposition \[unit\_proposition\] gives an extension of $\Phi$ to a $1$–$1$ natural transformation $\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F,Y)\to {\mathfrak{B}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B F^*)$, while Proposition \[counit\_proposition\] gives a $1$–$1$ natural transformation $\Psi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{B}}_A(X,Y\otimes F^*)\to {\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F,Y)$ such that $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are mutually inverse on the subspaces of compact operators. For each $T\in {\mathfrak{B}}_B(X\otimes_A F,Y)$ and $y\in Y$ we have $$y^*\circ \Psi_{X,Y}\Phi_{X,Y}(T) = \Psi_{X,B}\Phi_{X,B}(y^*\circ T) = y^* \circ T$$ in ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, B)$. Since the maps $y^*:Y\to B$ separate the points of $Y$, the above calculation implies that $\Psi_{X,Y}\circ \Phi_{X,Y}=\operatorname{id}$. A similar computation shows that $\Phi_{X,Y}\circ \Psi_{X,Y}=\operatorname{id}$, and so $\Phi$ is a natural isomorphism.
Combining the above results, we recover Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\].
Uniqueness of Local Adjoints
----------------------------
Local adjoints are unique up to completely bounded bimodule isomorphism, by Lemma \[ladj\_uniqueness\_lemma\]. They are not, in general, unique as correspondences: see Section \[sec-miscellany\]. However, the stronger form of uniqueness does hold in the presence of a counit:
\[counit\_uniqueness\_proposition\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$ admitting a local adjoint $E$ and an adjointable counit $$\epsilon: E\otimes_A F\longrightarrow B.$$ If $G$ is a second local adjoint to $F$, then $E$ and $G$ are isomorphic as correspondences from $B$ to $A$.
The proposition is an easy consequence of the following two lemmas.
\[lemma-rank-one-adjoint\] Let $E$ and $G$ be Hilbert $A$-modules and let $T\colon E\to G$ be a bounded, $A$-linear operator not necessarily adjointable. If $K$ is any compact and hence adjointable operator on the Hilbert module $E$, and if $g\in G$, then the operator $$\begin{gathered}
S_{K,g} \colon E \longrightarrow A \\
S_{K,g}\colon e \longmapsto \langle g, TKe \rangle_G
\end{gathered}$$ is adjointable and indeed compact.
Since the compact operators are a norm-closed subspace of all operators, it suffices to prove the lemma in the special case where $K = e_1 \otimes e_2 ^*$. In this case the operator in the lemma is the compact operator $$S_{K,g} = \langle g, Te_1\rangle_G \otimes e_2^* \colon E\longrightarrow A,$$ and so the proof is complete.
\[lemma-cb-adjoint\] Let $E$ and $G$ be correspondences from $B$ to $A$. If the action of $B$ on $E$ is through compact operators, then every bounded, $A$-$B$-linear operator $T\colon E\to G$ is adjointable.
We need to show that for every $g\in G$ there is some $f\in E$ such that $$\langle g, Te\rangle_G = \langle f, e\rangle_E$$ for every $e\in E$. By the factorization theorem (applied twice), the element $g$ may be written as a product $b_1g_1a_1$ with $b_1\in B$ and $g_1\in G$, and $a_1\in A$. Next, if $e\in E$, then $$\langle b_1g_1, Te\rangle_G = \langle g_1, b_1^* Te\rangle_G = \langle g_1, Tb_1^* e\rangle_G ,$$ where in the last step we are using the $B$-linearity of $T$. Since $b_1^*$ is acting on $E$ as a compact operator, it follows from the previous lemma that we can write $$a^*\langle g_1, Tb_1^* e\rangle_G = \langle Sa ,e\rangle_E$$ for some operator $S\colon A \to E$ and every $a\in A$. Hence if we set $f = Sa_1$, then $$\langle g, T e\rangle_G =
\langle b_1g_1a_1, T e\rangle_G
= a_1^*\langle g_1, Tb_1^* e\rangle_G
=\langle f, e\rangle_E,$$ as required.
This is an immediate consequence of the previous lemma, together with Proposition \[counit\_proposition\], which tells us that $B$ acts on $E$ through compact operators, and Lemma \[ladj\_uniqueness\_lemma\], which tells us that $E$ and $G$ are isomorphic as $B$-$A$-operator bimodules.
If $F$ admits an adjoint $E$, then $E$ is the unique local adjoint to $F$.
Left and Right Indexes {#sec-indexes}
----------------------
The purpose of this section is to explicate the relationship between our results and those of [@KPW]. Throughout this section, $F$ denotes a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and we assume that $F^*$ has been equipped with an $A$-valued inner product making it into a correspondence from $B$ to $A$.
Following [@KPW Definitions 2.8 and 2.9], we say that $F$ is of *finite numerical index* if there are positive constants $l$ and $r$ such that for all $f_1,\ldots,f_n\in F$, $$\left\| \sum \langle f_i, f_i \rangle \right\|_B \leq l \left\| \sum f_i^*\otimes f_i \right\|_{{\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)}$$ and $$\left\| \sum \langle f_i^*, f_i^*\rangle \right\|_A \leq r \left\| \sum f_i\otimes f_i^* \right\|_{{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)}.$$ The smallest $l$ and $r$ for which these inequalities hold are called, respectively, the *left numerical index* and the *right numerical index* of $F$.
The correspondence $F$ is of finite numerical index if and only if $F^*$ is a local adjoint to $F$.
If $F^*$ is a local adjoint to $F$ then Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\], combined with the identifications ${\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)\cong F\otimes_B F^*$ and ${\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)\cong F^*\otimes_A F$, implies that the map $$\epsilon:{\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)\to B,\qquad f_1^*\otimes f_2 \mapsto \langle f_1,f_2\rangle$$ is bounded, and this ensures that $F$ has finite left numerical index (equal to $\|\epsilon\|$). Reversing the roles of $F$ and $F^*$ shows that $F$ also has finite right numerical index, equal to the norm of the map $$\delta:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)\to A,\qquad f_1\otimes f_2^* \mapsto \langle f_1^*,f_2^*\rangle.$$
To prove the converse, denote by $E$ the bimodule $F^*$ equipped with the operator space structure coming from the $A$-valued inner product; $F^*$ will denote the same bimodule with its conjugate operator space structure. If $F$ has finite right numerical index $r$, then for $f^*\in F^*$ one has $$\| f^*\|_E = \| \langle f^*, f^*\rangle \|_A^{1/2}\leq r \| f\otimes f^*\|_{{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)}^{1/2}= r \|\langle f,f\rangle\|_B^{1/2} = r \|f^*\|_{F^*},$$ showing that the identity map $E\to F^*$ has norm at most $r$. Similarly, if $F$ has finite left numerical index $l$, then the identity map $F^*\to E$ has norm at most $l$. Two successive applications of [@KPW Corollary 2.10] show that, if $F$ has left numerical index $l$ and right numerical index $r$, then so does $M_n(F)$ (viewed as a correspondence from $M_n(A)$ to $M_n(B)$). The above argument then shows that the identity map $M_n(E)\to M_n(F^*)$ has norm at most $r$, and its inverse has norm at most $l$. Therefore the identity $E\to F^*$ is completely bounded, and so $E$ is a local adjoint to $F$ by Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\].
Suppose $F$ has finite numerical index. The maps $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ may be extended to normal maps $$\epsilon'':{\mathfrak{K}}_A(F^*,F^*)'' \to B''\qquad\text{and}\qquad \delta'':{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F)''\to A''$$ between the enveloping von Neumann algebras. Following [@KPW Definition 2.17], we say that $F$ has *finite left index* if the image $\epsilon''(1)$ of the identity lies in the multiplier algebra of $B$. The condition of having *finite right index* is defined analogously, in terms of the map $\delta''$. Say $F$ has *finite index* if it has finite left index and finite right index.
Suppose $F$ has finite numerical index, so that $F^*$ is a local adjoint to $F$.
1. $F$ has finite left index if and only if there is a counit $F^*\otimes_A F\to B$ for the local adjunction.
2. $F$ has finite right index if and only if there is a unit $A\to F\otimes_B F^*$ for the local adjunction.
3. $F$ has finite index if and only if the local adjunction is an adjunction.
It is shown in [@KPW Theorem 2.22] that $F$ has finite left (respectively, right) index if and only if $B$ (resp. $A$) acts on $F^*$ (resp. $F$) by compact operators. The asserted equivalences now follow from Propositions \[unit\_proposition\] and \[counit\_proposition\] and from Corollary \[adj\_iff\_ladj\_corollary\]
These results are summarised in the following table, which relates our terminology to that of [@KPW]:
[The functor $\otimes_A F$ has]{} [if and only if the correspondence $F$ has]{}
----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
*a local adjoint* *finite numerical index*
*a local adjoint with unit* *finite numerical index and finite right index*
*a local adjoint with counit* *finite numerical index and finite left index*
*an adjoint* *finite index*
Examples {#examples_section}
========
Commutative Examples {#sec-commutative}
--------------------
Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space. The category of Hilbert modules over the $C^*$-algebra $C(X)$ is equivalent to the category of continuous fields of Hilbert spaces over $X$ (and adjointable operators between continuous fields) via the functor that associates to a continuous field its Hilbert module of continuous sections.
A continuous map $\varphi\colon X \to Y$ between compact Hausdorff spaces determines a homomorphism of $C^*$-algebras from $C(Y)$ to $C(X)$. Let $$F:=C(X)$$ be the associated correspondence from $C(Y)$ to $C(X)$. From the point of view of continuous fields the tensor product functor $${\varphi}^* : = {\otimes} F :{{\mathcal H}}_{C(Y)}\to {{\mathcal H}}_{C(X)}$$ associated to $F$ is given by pullback ${\varphi}^*$ of continuous fields of Hilbert spaces along the map $\varphi$.
#### Coverings. {#coverings. .unnumbered}
Let us examine the correspondence $F$ above in the case of a surjective map between compact Hausdorff spaces.
Let $\pi:X\to Y$ be a continuous surjection of compact Hausdorff spaces.
1. The map $\pi$ is a *covering* if it is an open map, and if $\# \pi^{-1}[y]$ (the number of points in the pre image of $y$) is a finite and locally constant function of $y\in Y$.
2. The map $\pi$ is a *branched covering* if it is open and if the number $\# \pi^{-1}[y]$ is finite and uniformly bounded over $y\in Y$.
The following is a consequence of results of Pavlov and Troitsky [@PT], combined with Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\] and Proposition \[FK\_proposition\] (below):
Let $\pi:X\to Y$ be a continuous surjection of compact Hausdorff spaces.
1. The pullback functor $\pi^*$ admits an adjoint if and only if $\pi$ is a covering.
2. The functor $\pi^*$ admits a local adjoint if and only if $\pi$ is a branched covering.
Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\] implies that $\pi^*$ admits an adjoint if and only if $F=C(X)$ is finitely generated and projective over $C(Y)$, which by [@PT Theorem 1.3] is equivalent to $\pi$ being a covering. Proposition \[FK\_proposition\] (below) implies that $\pi^*$ admits a local adjoint if and only if there is a finite-index conditional expectation $C(X)\to C(Y)$, which by [@PT Theorem 1.1] is equivalent to $\pi$ being a branched covering.
The $C(Y)$-valued inner product on the conjugate module $F^* = C(X)^*$ is given by a formula of the kind $$\langle f _1^* , f_2^* \rangle (y) = \sum _{x\in \pi^{-1}[y]} \mu_y(x) f_1(x) \overline{ f_2(x)}$$ where the weight functions $\mu_y:\pi^{-1}[y]\to [0,1]$ are determined (usually not uniquely) by the branching of the cover over the point $y$. For example, if $\pi$ is the quotient map for a finite group action, one can take $\mu_y$ to be the constant function $1/\#\pi^{-1}[y]$ (see Proposition \[W\_uniqueness\_proposition\]). For a construction of suitable $\mu_y$ for a general branched covering, see [@PT Proof of Theorem 4.3].
#### Open Subsets. {#open-subsets. .unnumbered}
Now let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, and let $U\subset X$ be an open subset. Let $F = C_0(U)$. This is a correspondence from $C(X)$ to $C_0(U)$, whose associated tensor-product functor ${{\mathcal H}}_{C(X)}\to {{\mathcal H}}_{C_0(U)}$ is restriction of continuous fields of Hilbert spaces from $X$ to $U$ (even though $U$ is not compact it is still true that ${{\mathcal H}}_{C_0(U)}$ is equivalent to the category of continuous fields of Hilbert spaces over $U$).
The functor of restriction to $U$ has a local adjoint, namely extension of continuous fields by zero, which is represented by $E=C_0(U)$ viewed as a correspondence from $C_0(U)$ to $C(X)$. The local adjoint is an adjoint if and only if $U$ is both open and closed in $X$.
This is a special case of Proposition \[Morita\_proposition\], below.
#### Infinite-Dimensional Fibers. {#infinite-dimensional-fibers. .unnumbered}
In the above examples, the bimodules that occur, viewed as continuous fields of Hilbert spaces, have finite fiber dimensions, namely fiber dimensions zero or one. Interesting examples with infinite fiber dimension do not occur in the purely commutative context. For instance, if $H$ is a Hilbert space, viewed as a correspondence from ${\mathbb{C}}$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, then $H$ has a local adjoint if and only if $H$ is finite-dimensional (in which case the local adjoint is an adjoint).
Relation with Morita Equivalences
---------------------------------
Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and suppose that $F^*$ has been given an $A$-valued inner product making it into a correspondence from $B$ to $A$, such that $$\label{Morita_equation}
\langle x^*, y^* \rangle z = x \langle y, z\rangle$$ for all $x,y,z\in F$. This condition says that $F$ and $F^*$ restrict to mutually inverse (strong) Morita equivalences between the ideals $A_{F^*}\subseteq A$ and $B_F\subseteq B$: see [@BlM 8.1.2].
\[Morita\_proposition\] The correspondences $F$ and $F^*$ are local adjoints. They are adjoints if and only if the ideals $A_{F^*}$ and $B_F$ are complemented.
The equality implies that the two norms on $F^*$ are equal: see [@BlM Lemma 8.1.15]. The equality is also satisfied by the induced inner products on $M_n(F)$ and $M_n(F^*)$, and so the identity map on $F^*$ is a complete isometry between the two operator structures; thus $F$ and $F^*$ are local adjoints, by Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\].
If $F$ and $F^*$ are adjoints, then the ideals $A_{F^*}$ and $B_F$ are complemented by Corollary \[decomposition\_corollary\] and Proposition \[counit\_proposition\]. Conversely, suppose that $A_{F^*}$ is complemented in $A$. The formula implies that the elements of $A_{F^*}$ act on $F$ by $B$-compact operators. On the other hand, implies that $F={\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F) F = A_{F^*} F$, showing that the complementary ideal $A_{F^*}^\perp$ acts by zero on $F$. Therefore $A$ acts by compact operators on $F$, and Proposition \[unit\_proposition\] thus implies that the local adjunction admits a unit; a similar argument proves the existence of a counit.
The local adjunctions for which the inner products satisfy are precisely those for which the adjunction isomorphisms $$\Phi:{\mathfrak{K}}_B( X\otimes _A F , Y)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes _B F^*)$$ are isomorphisms of *ternary rings of operators*, meaning that $$\label{tro_eq}
\Phi(RS^*T) = \Phi(R)\Phi(S)^*\Phi(T)$$ for every $R,S,T\in {\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y)$. (This is an immediate consequence of the formula for $\Phi$; we owe this observation to an anonymous referee.) This is in turn equivalent to the condition that the isomorphisms $\Phi$ be isometries, or equivalently complete isometries, as follows from a theorem of Hamana, Kirchberg and Ruan [@BlM Corollary 4.4.6] and a naturality argument as in Theorem \[ladj\_cb\_theorem\].
Conditional Expectations {#conditional_section}
------------------------
Let $A$ be a $*$-subalgebra of a $C^*$-algebra $C$, and assume that $A$ contains an approximate unit for $C$. Recall that a *conditional expectation* from $C$ to $A$ is a positive, idempotent, $A$-$A$-bimodule map ${\varphi}:C \to A$.
Following Frank and Kirchberg [@FK Theorem 1], we make the following definition.
\[def-fk\] A conditional expectation ${\varphi}\colon C \to A$ is of *finite index* if one of the following equivalent conditions is satisfied:
1. ${\varphi}(c^*c)\neq 0$ whenever $c\neq 0$, and $C$ is complete in the norm $$\|c \|_{\varphi}^2 = \|{\varphi}(c^*c)\| .$$
2. There is a $\lambda \geq 0$ such that $\lambda{\varphi}-\operatorname{id}_C\colon C\to C$ is a positive map.
3. There is a $\kappa \geq 0$ such that $\kappa{\varphi}-\operatorname{id}_C\colon C \to C $ is a completely positive map.
\[FK\_proposition\] Let $F$ be a correspondence from $A$ to $B$ and suppose that in fact $A\subseteq {\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)$. The correspondence $F$ admits a local adjoint if and only if there is a finite-index conditional expectation ${\varphi}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F) \to A$.
Suppose given a finite-index conditional expectation as in the statement of the proposition. Define an $A$-valued inner product on $F^*$ by $$\langle f_1^*,f_2^* \rangle = {\varphi}(f_1 \otimes f_2^*).$$ Condition (a) in Definition \[def-fk\] ensures that $F^*$ is a correspondence from $B$ to $A$. Denote by $E$ this correspondence, with the operator space structure it inherits from the $A$-valued inner product. The canonical map $F^*\to E$ is completely bounded because ${\varphi}$, like all conditional expectations, is completely bounded. The finite index condition (c) implies that the inverse map $E\to F^*$ is also completely bounded, since for each $f^*=[f^*_{i,j}]\in M_n(F^*)$ we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa\|f^*\|^2_{M_n(E)} = \|M_n(\kappa{\varphi})(f\otimes_{M_n(B)} f^*)\|_{M_n(A)} &\geq \| f\otimes_{M_n(B)} f^*\|_{M_n({\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F))} \\
& = \|f^*\|^2_{M_n(F^*)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus Theorem \[ladj\_bimod\_theorem\] implies that $F$ and $E$ are local adjoints.
Conversely, suppose that $F$ has a local adjoint, and again denote by $E$ the conjugate space $F^*$ with the operator space structure it inherits from the given $A$-valued inner product. The $A$-valued inner product determines a map of operator spaces $$F \otimes _B F^* \longrightarrow A$$ thanks to Lemma \[ladj\_ip\_lemma\], and so thanks to Theorem \[tensor\_compact\_theorem\], a (completely) positive map $$\psi\colon {\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F) \longrightarrow A$$ of $A$-$A$-bimodules that sends the elementary compact operator $f_1 \otimes f_2^*$ on $F$ to $\langle f_1^*, f_2^*\rangle_A$.
Now let $
T = \sum _{i=1}^n x_i \otimes y_i^* \in {\mathfrak{K}}(F).
$ We compute that $$\psi (T^*T) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n\bigl \langle \langle x_i, x_j\rangle y_j^*, y_i^* \bigr\rangle_A$$ where the inside inner product is the $B$-valued inner product of $F$, and hence, after a further computation, that $\| \psi (T^*T)\| $ is the norm of the element $$\begin{pmatrix}
\langle x_1, x_1\rangle & \dots & \langle x_1,x_n\rangle \\
\vdots && \vdots \\
\langle x_n, x_1\rangle & \dots & \langle x_n,x_n\rangle
\end{pmatrix}^{\frac 12}
\begin{pmatrix} y_1^* \\ \vdots \\ y_n ^*\end{pmatrix} \in M_n (E)$$ On the other hand a third computation shows that the $M_n(F^*)$-norm of this element is $\| T^*T\|$. Using the fact that the norms on $E$ and $F^*$ are completely equivalent we find that $$\| \psi (T^*T) \| \ge \text{constant} \cdot \|T^*T\|$$ for some constant independent of $T$.
The restriction of the map $\psi$ to $A\subseteq {\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)$ is multiplication by some positive and central element of the multiplier algebra of $A$. The computation above shows that this element is invertible. Adjusting $\psi$ by multiplying with the inverse of this element we obtain a finite-index conditional expectation, as required.
Here is an example that we shall use when analyzing parabolic induction in Section \[parabolic\_section\]. Let $W$ be a finite group acting by $*$-automorphisms on a $C^*$-algebra $B$, and also acting projectively by twisted automorphisms on a Hilbert $B$-module $F$. This means that associated to each $w\in W$ there is a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear operator $$U_w \colon F \longrightarrow F$$ such that
1. $ U_w(fb ) = U_w(f) w (b) $ for all $f\in F $, all $b\in B$, and
2. $\langle U_w(f_1), U_w(f_2)\rangle = w(\langle f_1,f_2\rangle)$ for all $f_1,f_2\in F $.
and such that moreover
1. $U_{w_1}(U_{w_2}(f) ) = U_{w_1w_2}(f) u({w_1,w_2})$
for some unitary $u({w_1,w_2})$ in the multiplier algebra of $B$. The formula $$w(T) = U_wTU_w^{-1} \colon F \longrightarrow F$$ defines a genuine action of $W$ by automorphisms on the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)$.
\[W\_uniqueness\_proposition\] Let $W$ be a finite group acting projectively by twisted automorphisms on a Hilbert $B$-module $F$, as above, and let $A$ be the fixed-point algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F)^W$. Then $F$, considered as a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, admits a unique local adjoint $E$ for which the canonical action of $W$ is isometric. The isomorphisms $$\Phi_{X,Y}:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(X\otimes_A F, Y) \to {\mathfrak{K}}_A(X, Y\otimes_B E)$$ for this local adjunction satisfy $$\| \Phi_{X,Y} \|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} = 1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \| \Phi_{X,Y}^{-1} \|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \leq |W|^{1/2}.$$
The *canonical action* on $E$ referred to in the statement of the proposition is the one coming from the identification of $E$ with $F^*$ that the local junction implies. And the term *isometric* refers to the given Banach space structure on $E$.
The conditional expectation $${\varphi}: {\mathfrak{K}}_B (F,F) \to A,\qquad {\varphi}(T){:=}\frac{1}{|W|}\sum_{w\in W} w(T)$$ has finite index, since if $T\ge 0$ then $$|W|{\varphi}(T) -T =\sum_{w\neq 1} w(T) \ge 0.$$ Therefore the correspondence $F$ admits a local adjoint, namely the $B$-$A$-bimodule $F^*$, with $A$-valued inner product $$\langle f_1^*,f_2^*\rangle = {\varphi}(f_1 f_2^*).$$ The action of $W$ on $E$ is isometric, because ${\varphi}$ is $W$-invariant.
Suppose $G$ is another local adjoint to $F$, and let $\psi:{\mathfrak{K}}_B(F,F) \to A$ denote the finite-index conditional expectation induced by the inner product on $G$ as in Proposition \[FK\_proposition\]. The action of $W$ on $G$ is isometric if and only if $\psi$ is $W$-invariant, which is to say, if and only if $\psi={\varphi}$. Thus $E$ is unique.
For the bounds on the norms, recall from Corollary \[ladj\_cb\_corollary\] that $$\|\Phi_{X,Y}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \leq \|\Phi_{A,B}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}.$$ The same argument shows that $\|\Phi_{X,Y}^{-1}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}\leq \|\Phi_{A,B}^{-1}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}$. The conditional expectation ${\varphi}$ is completely bounded, with ${\mathrm{cb}}$-norm equal to $1$, and this implies that $\Phi_{A,B}$ has ${\mathrm{cb}}$-norm $1$. The map $|W|{\varphi}-\operatorname{id}:B\to B$ is completely positive, and this implies that $$\|\Phi_{A,B}^{-1}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}}\leq |W|^{1/2},$$ as required.
Direct Sums {#dirsum_section}
-----------
Direct sums of local adjoints are not, in general, local adjoints: for example, ${\mathbb{C}}$ is an adjoint correspondence from ${\mathbb{C}}$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, but the countable direct sum ${\mathbb{C}}^\infty \cong \ell^2 (\mathbb N)$ does not possess a local adjoint as correspondence from ${\mathbb{C}}$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$. We may however consider ${\mathbb{C}}^\infty$ as a correspondence on the $C^*$-algebraic direct sum $\bigoplus^{\infty}{\mathbb{C}}\cong C_0({\mathbb{N}})$, and viewed in this way ${\mathbb{C}}^\infty$ does have a local adjoint, as we shall see.
Suppose we are given two $C^*$-algebra direct sums $$A=\bigoplus_\alpha A_\alpha \quad \text{and} \quad B=\bigoplus_\beta B_\beta .$$ Suppose we are given a map $\beta \mapsto \iota (\beta)$ from the index set for the decomposition of $B$ to the index set for the decomposition of $A$. For each index $\beta$ let $F_\beta $ be a correspondence from $A_{\iota(\beta)}$ to $B_\beta$. The *external direct sum* is $$F = \bigoplus_\beta F_\beta = \{ (f_\beta )\in \prod F_\beta \ : \ \|f_\beta \|\to 0 \text{ as }\beta \to \infty\},$$ with the obvious $A$-$B$-bimodule structure and $B$-valued inner product.
We shall assume throughout the rest of this section that the map $\iota$ on indices is finite-to-one; indeed we shall assume that it is uniformly finite-to-one, in the sense that $$\label{eq-finite-pt-inverse}
\sup _\beta \# \iota^{-1}[\beta] < \infty.$$
\[dirsum\_proposition\] Let $F_\beta $ be a family of correspondences from $A_{\iota(\beta)}$ to $B_\beta$, as above, and assume that condition holds. Suppose that each $F_\beta $ has a local adjoint $E_\beta$, such that the isomorphisms ${\varphi}_{\beta}: F_\beta ^*\to E _\beta $ satisfy $$\sup_\beta \{ \|{\varphi}_{\beta }\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}},\, \|{\varphi}_{\beta}^{-1}\|_{{\mathrm{cb}}} \} < \infty.$$ Then $F$ has a local adjoint.
Let $$E = \bigoplus_\beta E_\beta = \{ (e_\beta )\in \prod E_\beta \ : \ \|e_\beta \|\to 0 \text{ as }\beta \to \infty\},$$ This is a correspondence from $A$ to $B$, and the map $${\varphi}= \bigoplus_\beta {\varphi}_{\beta} : \bigoplus_\beta F_\beta^* \to \bigoplus E_\beta$$ is an isomorphism of $B$-$A$-bimodules. Moreover $$F^* = \bigoplus _\beta F^*_\beta,$$ and so ${\varphi}$ is also an isomorphism of operator spaces.
Miscellany {#sec-miscellany}
----------
### Units and Counits {#nonunital_noncounital_example}
Let $B$ be an ideal in $A$, and consider $F=B$ as a correspondence from $A$ to $A$, with the obvious bimodule structure and the inner product $\langle b_1,b_2\rangle = b_1^*b_2$. Then $F$ is locally adjoint to itself, but the local adjunction admits neither a unit nor a counit unless $B$ is complemented in $A$. Replacing one of the two acting copies of $A$ by $B$ gives an example of a local adjunction with a unit but no counit, or vice versa.
### Distinct Local Adjoints
Let $B=C[-1,1]$, and let $A=C[0,1]$, considered as a subalgebra of $B$ via the surjective map $x\mapsto |x|$, $[-1,1]\to [0,1]$. Let $F=B$, considered as a correspondence from $A$ to $B$. Define finite-index conditional expectations ${\varphi},\psi:B\to A$ by $${\varphi}(b)(y){:=}\frac{1}{2} b(y) + \frac{1}{2}b(-y) \qquad \text{and}\qquad \psi(b)(y){:=}\frac{2}{3} b(y) + \frac{1}{3} b(-y).$$ The associated correspondences $E=B_{\varphi}$ and $G=B_\psi$ from $B$ to $A$ are both locally adjoint to $F$, but $E$ and $G$ are not isomorphic as Hilbert modules. Indeed, if they were isomorphic, then by polar decomposition we could find a unitary isomorphism of bimodules $U:E\to G$. Unitarity means that ${\varphi}(b)=\psi(b U(1)^* U(1))$ for every $b\in B$, but this equality implies that the function $U(1)^* U(1)$ is discontinuous at the origin.
### Action by Compact Operators {#Hilbert_sum_example}
Let $A_i=B_i={\mathbb{C}}$ for $i=1,2,3,\ldots$. Let $F_i={\mathbb{C}}^i$, with its canonical Hilbert space structure, and let $E_i=({\mathbb{C}}^i)^*$, with its canonical Hilbert space structure. Considered as a correspondence from ${\mathbb{C}}$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, each $F_i$ has $E_i$ as its adjoint (cf. Example \[unital\_example\]). The direct sum $F=\bigoplus F_i$ does not, however, admit a local adjoint. Indeed, the universal property of direct sums implies that the only possibility for a local adjoint would be the direct sum $E=\bigoplus E_i$, but $\bigoplus F_i^*$ and $\bigoplus E_i$ are not isomorphic as operator bimodules over $\bigoplus_i {\mathbb{C}}^i$ (cf. Example \[Hilbert\_cb\_example\]). Note that $A=\bigoplus A_i$ and $B=\bigoplus B_i$ act as compact operators on $F$ and $E$ respectively, showing that condition (b) in Theorem \[adj\_bimod\_theorem\] is independent of the other conditions.
### Simple C\*-Algebras
Finally, here is a short remark concerning simple $C^*$-algebras.
\[ladj\_simple\_proposition\] Let $\Phi$ be a local adjunction as in Definition \[ladj\_definition\].
1. If $A$ is simple, $\Phi$ admits a unit.
2. If $B$ is simple, $\Phi$ admits a counit.
3. If $A$ and $B$ are simple, $\Phi$ extends to an adjunction.
Item (a) follows from Proposition \[unit\_proposition\] and [@KPW Corollary 2.26]. Item (b) follows by symmetry from (a). Item (c) follows from (a) and (b) by Corollary \[adj\_iff\_ladj\_corollary\].
Parabolic induction {#parabolic_section}
===================
In this section we shall analyze the correspondence associated in [@Clare_pi] and [@CCH_ups] to parabolic induction of tempered unitary group representations.
We shall work with a fixed real reductive group $G$ and standard parabolic subgroup $P$ with Levi factor $L$ and unipotent radical $N$ (thus $P=LN $ is a semidirect product, with $L$ acting on $N$). We shall be following the precise conventions of [@CCH_ups Section 3], but for instance we might take $G$ to be $GL(n,{\mathbb{R}})$, and $P$ to be a block upper triangular subgroup of $GL(n,{\mathbb{R}})$, decomposed as a semidirect product of the block upper diagonal matrices acting on the unipotent block upper triangular matrices (with identity matrix blocks down the diagonal).
The groups $G$ and $L$ act on the homogenous space $G/N$ on the left and right, respectively. The vector space $C_c^\infty (G/N)$ carries left and right actions of $G$ and $L$, respectively[^3] and it may be completed to a Hilbert $C^*_r (L)$-module $C^*_r (G/N)$ on which $C^*_r (G)$ acts on the left through bounded adjointable operators. See [@Clare_pi Section 2] or [@CCH_ups Section 4]. It is this correspondence, from $C^*_r(G)$ to $C^*_r(L)$, that we shall study in this section.
The importance of the correspondence $C^*_r (G/N)$ is that the associated tensor product functor from Hilbert space representations of $C^*_r (L)$ to $C^*_r (G)$ may be identified with the functor of parabolic induction from tempered unitary representations of $L$ to tempered unitary representations of $G$. See [@Clare_pi Section 3]. In [@CCH_ups Definition 8.2] we defined a correspondence $C^*_r(N\backslash G)$ from $C^*_r(L)$ to $C^*_r(G)$ (the construction is outlined below). Here we shall prove the following result.
\[main-reductive-thm\] The correspondences $C^*_r(G/N)$ and $C^*_r(N\backslash G)$ are local adjoints.
The $C^*$-algebras $A=C^*_r (G)$ and $B= C^*_r (L)$ both decompose into direct sums $$A = \bigoplus _\alpha A_\alpha \quad \text{and} \quad B = \bigoplus_\beta B_\beta .$$ The index sets are “associate classes” of pairs consisting of a parabolic subgroup in $G$ or $L$, respectively, and a discrete series representation of the compactly generated part of the parabolic. See [@CCH_ups Proposition 5.16 and Theorem 6.8].
There is a finite-to-one map $\iota$ from the index set for $B$ to the index set for $A$ which comes from the enlargement of standard parabolic subgroups of $L$ to standard parabolic subgroups of $G$ (for instance in the case of $GL(n,{\mathbb{R}})$, a parabolic subgroup of $L$ consists of a block diagonal group with each block itself a block upper triangular group, and this may be naturally extended to a block upper triangular subgroup of $GL(n,{\mathbb{R}})$). The enlargement process preserves Levi factors. The map $\iota$ of associate classes is finite-to-one because non-associate pairs for $B$ can become associate when enlarged to become pairs for $A$. There is a uniform bound on the size of the point inverse images of $\iota$.
The correspondence $F = C^*_r (G/N)$ from $A$ to $B$ decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum $$F = \bigoplus_\beta F_\beta$$ with the same index set as $B$. The inner products of elements in $F_\beta$ lie within the summand $B_\beta \subseteq B$. The action of $A$ on $F_\beta$ factors through the projection onto the summand $A_{\iota (\beta)}\subseteq A$.
The structure of $F_\beta$ is a little complicated to recall here (see [@CCH_ups Section 7]). But what is important for us is the structure of the $C^*$-algebra ${\mathfrak{K}}_B (F_\beta, F_\beta)$, which is given by a formula of the type $${\mathfrak{K}}_B (F_\beta, F_\beta) \cong {\mathfrak{K}}_{C_0(Z_\beta)} ( \mathcal M_\beta , \mathcal M _\beta )^{W_\beta (L)} ,$$ where, to use notation that has been streamlined from [@CCH_ups],
1. $\mathcal M_\beta $ is a continuous field of parabolically induced tempered unitary representations of $G$ over a locally compact space $Z_\beta$ (or in other words a correspondence from $C^*_r (G)$ to $C_0(Z_\beta)$).
2. $W_\beta (L)$ is finite group acting on $Z_\beta$ and also acting projectively by twisted automorphisms on $\mathcal M_\beta$.
The action of $A= C^*_r (G)$ on $F_\beta$ is through the inclusion of the summand $A_{\iota(\beta)}$ as a fixed point algebra $$A_{\iota(\beta)} =
{\mathfrak{K}}_{C_0(Z_\beta)} ( \mathcal M_\beta , \mathcal M _\beta )^{W_\beta (G)} ,$$ where $W_\beta (G)$ is a finite group containing $W_\beta (L)$ as a subgroup that also acts on $Z_\beta$, and on $\mathcal M_\beta$ projectively, by twisted automorphisms.
It follows from Proposition \[W\_uniqueness\_proposition\] that $F_\beta$ has a local adjoint $F_\beta^*$, whose $A_{\iota(\beta)}$-valued inner product is given by averaging over $W_{\beta}(G)$. The finite groups $W_\beta (G)$ are uniformly bounded in size, and so it follows from Proposition \[dirsum\_proposition\] that $F = \oplus_\beta F_\beta$ has a local adjoint too, namely the direct sum $\oplus_\beta F_\beta^*$. The correspondence $C^*_r(N\backslash G)$ was defined in [@CCH_ups] to be precisely this direct sum.
We obtain from Theorem \[rep-adjunction-theorem\] the following consequence:
\[reductive-Hilbertspace-theorem\] The functor of parabolic induction, from tempered unitary Hilbert space representations of $L$ to tempered unitary representations of $G$, possesses a two-sided adjoint.
Let us note for comparison that, while there is a $C^*$-correspondence $C^*(G/N)$ implementing parabolic induction for *full* group $C^*$-algebras (see [@Clare_pi]), there is no analogue of Theorem \[main-reductive-thm\] in this setting:
\[no-full-adjoint-proposition\] Let $G={\operatorname{SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, and let $P=LN$ be the parabolic subgroup of upper-triangular matrices. The $C^*$-correspondence $C^*(G/N)$, from $C^*(G)$ to $C^*(L)$, does not possess a local adjoint.
Suppose that $C^*(G/N)$ does have a local adjoint. Since $L$ is amenable we in fact have $C^*(G/N)=C^*_r(G/N)$, and the left action of $C^*(G)$ factors through the quotient mapping $C^*(G)\to C^*_r(G)$. Now $C^*_r(G)$ acts on $C^*_r(G/N)$ by compact operators (see [@CCH_ups Proposition 4.4]), and so Proposition \[unit\_proposition\] and Corollary \[decomposition\_corollary\] imply that the kernel $J$ of the action map $C^*(G)\to {\mathfrak{B}}_{C^*(L)}(C^*(G/N),C^*(G/N))$ is a direct summand in $C^*(G)$. The closed subset of the unitary dual $\widehat{G}$ corresponding to the ideal $J$ is precisely the [principal series]{}, i.e. the set of irreducible constituents of parabolically induced representations of $G$. The principal series is not open in $\widehat{G}$, as there is a [complementary series]{} of representations whose closure intersects the princial series (see e.g. [@Milicic]). Therefore $J$ is not a direct summand of $C^*(G)$, and $C^*(G/N)$ has no local adjoint.
We conclude with a remark. The determination of the structure of the correspondence $C^*_r (G/N)$ relies very heavily on the classification results on the tempered representations due to Harish-Chandra, Langlands and others. It is an interesting open problem to approach the construction of a locally adjoint correspondence from a more geometric starting point, without relying so heavily on representation theory.
[^1]: Partially supported by the Danish National Research Foundation through the Centre for Symmetry and Deformation (DNRF92).
[^2]: Partially supported by the US National Science Foundation DMS-1101382.
[^3]: In the case of the $L$-action, there is an adjustment to the standard action that reflects the fact that we should identify $C_c(G/N)$ with the space of compactly supported half-densities on $G/N$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a spectroscopic and photometric study of the Double Period Variable HD170582. Based on the study of the ASAS V-band light curve we determine an improved orbital period of 16.87177 $\pm$ 0.02084 days and a long period of 587 days. We disentangled the light curve into an orbital part, determining ephemerides and revealing orbital ellipsoidal variability with unequal maxima, and a long cycle, showing quasi-sinusoidal changes with amplitude $\Delta V$= 0.1 mag. Assuming synchronous rotation for the cool stellar component and semi-detached configuration we find a cool evolved star of $M_{2}$ = 1.9 $\pm$ 0.1 $M_{\odot}$, $T_{2}$ = 8000 $\pm$ 100 $K$ and $R_{2}$ = 15.6 $\pm$ 0.2 $R_{\odot}$, and an early B-type dwarf of $M_{1}$ = 9.0 $\pm$ 0.2 $M_{\odot}$. The B-type star is surrounded by a geometrically and optically thick accretion disc of radial extension 20.8 $\pm$ 0.3 contributing about 35% to the system luminosity at the $V$ band. Two extended regions located at opposite sides of the disc rim, and hotter than the disc by 67% and 46%, fit the light curve asymmetries. The system is seen under inclination 67.4 $\pm$ 0.4 degree and it is found at a distance of 238 $\pm$ 10 pc. Specially interesting is the double line nature of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> 5875; two absorption components move in anti-phase during the orbital cycle; they can be associated with the shock regions revealed by the photometry. The radial velocity of one of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> 5875 components closely follows the donor radial velocity, suggesting that the line is formed in a wind emerging near the stream-disc interacting region.'
title: Fundamental parameters of the close interacting binary HD170582 and its luminous accretion disc
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: early-type, stars: evolution, stars: mass-loss, stars: emission-line, stars: variables-others
Introduction
============
HD170582 (BD-14 5085, ASAS ID 183048-1447.5, $\alpha_{2000}$ = 18:30:47.5, $\delta_{2000}$ = -14:47:27.8, $V$ = 9.66 mag, $B-V$ = 0.41 mag, spectral type A9V)[^1] is a poorly studied binary star catalogued ESD (semi-detached eclipsing binary) and with orbital period 16.8599 days in the ASAS[^2] catalogue (Pojmański 1997). It is located in the region of the cool molecular cloud L379 and was observed by Lahulla and Hilton (1992) who obtained $V$ = 9.62 mag, $B-V$ = 0.44 mag and $U-B$ = -0.27 mag. The system is characterized by a long photometric cycle of 536 days and is the third longest-period member of the Galactic Double Period Variables (DPVs), after V495 Cen and V4142 Sgr (Mennickent & Rosales 2014, Mennickent et al. 2012a). DPVs are intermediate mass interacting binaries showing a long photometric cycle lasting about 33 times the orbital period, which has been interpreted as cyclic episodes of mass loss (Mennickent et al. 2003, Mennickent et al. 2008, 2012b, Poleski et al. 2010). More than 200 DPVs have been found in the Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds (Mennickent 2013), but very few of them have been studied spectroscopically (e.g. Barr[í]{}a et al. 2013, Garrido et al. 2013). The study of HD170852 is important to characterize DPVs in terms of their fundamental physical parameters and also to help to understand the still unknown cause for the long photometric cycle.
In this paper we determine fundamental orbital parameters and physical parameters for the stellar components and for the accretion disc surrounding the more massive star. We use indistinctly the terms primary or gainer for the more massive star and secondary or donor for the less massive star. The analysis of the circumstellar matter, long cycle and evolutionary stage are postponed for a forthcoming paper. In Section 2 we present the analysis of the ASAS light curve and derive photometric ephemerides. In Section 3 we present our high-resolution spectroscopy which is analyzed in Section 4 determining basic parameters for the cool stellar component and the system mass ratio. In Section 5 we model the light curve with a special code including light contributions of both stars and the accretion disc, determining stellar temperatures, radii, luminosities, surface gravities and masses and the system inclination. The characteristics of the accretion disc are determined in Section 5. The spectral energy distribution is analyzed in Section 6, determining reddening and distance. We end in Section 7 summarizing the main results of our research.
photometric ephemerides
=======================
We re-analyzed the ASAS light curve considering only those better-quality data points labeled as A-type and B-type and rejecting outliers and a cloud of deviating points around HJD2452471. The analysis was made on the remaining 455 data points. The period searching algorithm PDM (Stellingwerf 1978) was used on the dataset, revealing an orbital period $P_{\rm{o}}$ = 16.87177 $\pm$ 0.02084 (the error corresponds to the half-width-at-half-minimum of the periodogram’s peak) and epoch of maximum HJD = 2452118.2751 $\pm$ 0.337 days. A second periodicity was detected, $P_{\rm{l}}$ = 587 days, with a broad asymmetrical periodogram’s peak, characterized by a full-width-at-half-minimum of 85 days and epoch for maximum HJD2452070.88 $\pm$ 17.61 days. We noticed that the ASAS period (16.8599 days) does not fit the periodogram minimum as well as our period, probably because of the automatic character of the period searching algorithm used in this catalogue and the lack of filtering of bad data points. The light curve was disentangled with these two periods using the software written by Zbigniew Ko[ł]{}aczkowski and described in Mennickent et al. (2012a). Afterwards, the resulting disentangled light curves were folded with both periods as shown in Fig.1, revealing an orbital modulation typical for an ellipsoidal binary but with unequal maxima and longer cycle characterized by a quasi-sinusoidal variability. The difference in maxima in the orbital light curve could indicate a non-axisymetrical brightness distribution in the orbital plane.
\[1\][![The disentangled ASAS light curves of HD170582 folded with the long period (up) and the orbital period (down). Phases are calculated according to times of light curve maxima, given by Eqs.1 and 2.[]{data-label="x"}](Graph7.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}]{}
By phasing the disentangled light curves with their respective periods, and measuring the phases of maxima with polynomial fits, we determined the following ephemerides for the maxima of the light curves:\
$HJD_{\rm{max, long}} = 2\,452\,070.9 + 587 \times E, $(1)
$HJD_{\rm{max, orbital}} = 2\,452\,118.275(34) + 16.871(21) \times E. $ (2)\
These are used for the spectroscopic analysis and discussed with the new spectroscopic ephemerides determined in Section 4.
Spectroscopic Observations
==========================
We conducted spectroscopic observations of HD170582 since year 2008 to 2013 obtaining 13 optical spectra with resolution $R \sim$ 40,000 with the spectrograph CORALIE (La Silla ESO Observatory), 112 spectra with CHIRON spectrograph with $R \sim$ 30,000 (fiber mode, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, CTIO) and 11 spectra with the DuPont-echelle spectrograph with $R \sim$ 40,000 (Las Campanas Observatory, LCO)[^3]. The spectral regions covered were 3865-6900 Å (CORALIE), 4580-8760 Å (CHIRON) and 3600-9850 Å (DuPont-echelle).
All spectra discussed in this paper are normalized to the continuum and the RVs are heliocentric ones. Reductions were done with IRAF[^4] following usual procedures for echelle spectrography, including flat and bias correction, wavelength calibration and order merging. As a measure of internal error of the wavelength calibration we measured the position of the interstellar NaD1 line with $rms$ accuracy of 0.5 km s$^{-1}$. The spectra obtained with the optical fiber spectrographs CORALIE and CHIRON are not sky-subtracted. This limitation has no effect for radial velocity and line strength measurements, since HD170582 is bright even at full moon and we do not flux-calibrate our spectra. Details for our observational runs are given in Table1.
Spectroscopic analysis
======================
Determination of donor physical parameters
------------------------------------------
The first inspection of the spectroscopic material reveals a SB2 type binary consisting of a late-A star with sharp metallic lines and a less luminous B star with broader helium absorption lines. In addition, emission in Balmer lines is observed at some epochs suggesting that the system is an interacting binary. By comparison of relative strengths of metallic lines in the region 4500-4600 Å, devoid of lines of the hotter component, with some spectra from the UVES-POP library[^5], we find a relatively good fit with the diluted spectrum of HD90772, hence we estimate a spectral type A9 for the cooler component, in agreement with the figure given by Houk and Smith-Moore (1988). Comparing luminosity-sensitive features like the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tiii</span> double blend at 4172-8 Å, and similar blends at 4395-4400 Å, 4417 Å and 4444 Å, with less sensitive luminosity lines like <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cai</span> 4227, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> 4271 and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mgii</span> 4481, we estimate a luminosity class between I and III for the cooler star.
In order to determine the physical parameters of the A-type star, we compared our observed donor spectrum with synthetic spectra constructed with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">synthe</span> code which uses atmospheric models computed with the line-blanketed LTE <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">atlas9</span> code (Kurucz 1993). The Kurucz’s models are constructed with the assumptions of plane-parallel geometry and hydrostatic and radiative equilibrium of the gas. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Atlas9</span> was ported under GNU Linux by Sbordone [@sbordone] and is available online[^6]. The use of a LTE grid for studying a A-type supergiant atmosphere, which could be affected by NLTE effects, could introduce an underestimation of the iron group abundances by a factor of 2 to 3 (Przybilla et al. 2006).
The stellar line identification and the abundance analysis in the entire observed spectral range were performed on the basis of the line list from Castelli & Hubrig (2004).[^7]. The theoretical models were calculated for effective temperatures from 7000 to 9000 $K$ with steps of 100 $K$, surface gravities from 1.0 to 3.5 dex with the step of 0.5 dex, solar metallicity and microturbulences from 0.5 to 3.0 with the step of 0.1 km/s. As a template we choose the average donor spectrum obtained after shifting all spectra to the donor system of rest, hence removing at first order the gainer contribution. The velocities used are derived in the next section.
Our analysis follows the methodology presented in Niemczura &Po[ł]{}ubek (2006) and relies on an efficient spectral synthesis based on a least squares optimization algorithm. This method allows for the simultaneous determination of various parameters involved with stellar spectra and consists of the minimization of the deviation between the theoretical flux distribution and the observed normalized one. The synthetic spectrum depends on the stellar parameters, such as effective temperature , surface gravity , microturbulence , rotational velocity , radial velocity , and the relative abundances of the elements $\varepsilon_{El}$, where $El$ denotes the individual element. The first three parameters were determined before the determination of abundances of chemical elements. The value was determined by comparing the shapes of metal line profiles with the computed profiles, as shown in Gray(2005).
The effective temperature, surface gravity and microturbulence were determined by the analysis of neutral and ionized Fe lines. In this method we adjust , and by the comparison of the abundances determined from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> lines. The analysis is based on iron lines because they are the most numerous in the spectrum. In general, we require that the abundances measured from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> lines yield the same result. The strength of absorption lines of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> depend on , and overall metallicity $Z$, and are practically independent from . On the other hand the lines of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> are slightly sensitive to the temperature, metallicity and most of all to gravity. First, we adjust the microturbulence until we see no correlation between iron abundances and line intensity for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> lines. Second, is changed until we see no trend in the abundance versus excitation potential of the atomic level causing the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> lines. Then, the gravity is obtained by fitting the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> lines and by requiring the same abundances from both neutral and ionized lines.
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> abundances were calculated for a series of lines characterized by different excitation potential and line depth, in a grid of spectra spanning a range of values of logg, $T_{eff}$ and . From a careful examination of these calculations we estimated the mentioned parameters and their uncertainties.
From the above analysis we obtained the best model characterized by $T_{2}$ = 8000 $\pm$ 100 K, log$\,g_{2}$ = 1.7 $\pm$ 0.5 , $v_{\rm{2r}}$ sin $i$ = 44 $\pm$ 2 km s$^{-1}$ and = 1.0 $\pm$ 0.7 km s$^{-1}$. An example of the fit of this model with the observed spectrum is shown in Fig.2.
For these parameters we obtained the abundances of chemical elements. We adopt the usual astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log $\epsilon_{H}$ = 12.00, i.e. log $\epsilon_{El}$ = log $(N_{El}/N_{H})$ + 12, where $N_{El}$ and $N_{H}$ are the number densities of element $El$ and hydrogen, respectively (Table2). They are average abundances, which means that for example for iron it is the average abundance obtained from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Feii</span> lines. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fei</span> abundance is equal $7.47\pm0.16$ (Fig.3). In this figure we show an histogram for the abundance obtained with different lines, the abundance versus line excitation potential and the abundance versus line strength, measured as the line depth. We used line depth instead equivalent width in order to include in the analysis some weakly blended lines. The use of the line depth is justified since in general, line depth and EW should be correlated to first order and since as the resolving power through the whole spectral range is practically constant (R $\approx$ 30000), we should expect, for a given EW, and increase of line width of 30% between 4000 and 5000 Å. This means a decrease of line depth by the same order of magnitude, that should be translated into small horizontal shifts of the points in the right graph of Fig.3, without affecting the general pattern. This will not happen if the line is saturated. If the line is on the flat or damping portion of the curve-of-growth the assumption will fail. According to the obtained <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fe</span> abundance the metallicity of the star is approximately solar (Table2 and Fig.4).
In some Algols, the donor has transferred important part of its atmosphere into the gainer, exposing its inner layers rich in elements produced by thermonuclear fusion during the star’s main-sequence evolution. In these cases abundance analysis of the donor surface layers should reveal an excess of nitrogen and a carbon depletion (e.g. Kolbas et al. 2014 and reference therein). Our analysis shows carbon with solar abundance but with a large error, based only on 3 lines. On the other hand, we find oxygen and barium under-abundant and sodium and cobalt overabundant. While the case of Ba might be affected by the absence of hyperfine structure in the analysis; the interpretation of the other discrepancies is at present unclear.
\[1\][{width="18cm"}]{}
\[1\][{width="18cm"}]{}
\[1\][{width="18cm"}]{}
Radial velocities for the donor
-------------------------------
Radial velocities (RVs) for the donor were measured by cross-correlating the observed spectra with a reference spectrum and then applying the velocity shift corresponding to the template velocity. This last was obtained by fitting simple gaussians to some metallic lines, finding the central wavelength and comparing these wavelengths with the corresponding laboratory wavelengths. The cross-correlation was performed in two regions deployed of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hi</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> lines, viz.4500–4800 Å and 5050–5680 Å. The radial velocities are given in Table3. Subsequent inspection revealed much larger scatter in the RVs of spectra taken at LCO and ESO, they were not considered in the following analysis, i.e. we give more confidence to CHIRON based velocities and they are used in the rest of the paper.
The RVs can be fitted with a sinusoid with radial-velocity half-amplitude $K_{2}$ = 139.8 $\pm$ 0.2 km s$^{-1}$ and zero point $\gamma$ = -1.3 $\pm$ 0.2 km s$^{-1}$. A careful inspection of residuals shows a non-random distribution for the circular fit.
In order to resolve the question about the possible ellipticity of the orbit, we used the genetic algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pikaia</span> developed by Charbonneau (1995) to find the orbital elements for HD170582. The method consists in finding the set of orbital parameters that produces a series of theoretical velocities that minimize the function $\chi^{2}$ defined as:\
\[1\][![Upper panel: the donor radial velocities and the best fit, given by Eq.4 and the parameters of Table4. The radial velocity error bars are also shown, but they are usually smaller than the used symbols. Lower panel: disentangled orbital light curve. In both panels phases are calculated according to times of donor inferior conjunction, given by Eq.7. []{data-label="x"}](phase-HD170582.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}]{} \[1\][![Upper panel: the donor radial velocities and the best fit, given by Eq.4 and the parameters of Table4. The radial velocity error bars are also shown, but they are usually smaller than the used symbols. Lower panel: disentangled orbital light curve. In both panels phases are calculated according to times of donor inferior conjunction, given by Eq.7. []{data-label="x"}](Graph8.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}]{}
$\chi^{2} (P_{\rm{o}}, \tau, \omega, e, K_{2}, \gamma) = $\
$\frac{1}{N-6} \displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=1}^N
(\frac{V_{j}-V(t_{j}, P_{\rm{o}}, \tau, \omega, e, K_{2}, \gamma)}{\sigma_{j}}),
$(3)\
where $N$ is the number of observations, $P_{\rm{o}}$ is the orbital period, $\omega$ the periastron longitude, $\tau$ the time of passage per the periastron, $e$ the orbital eccentricity, $K_{2}$ the half-amplitude of the radial velocity for the donor and $\gamma$ the velocity of the system center of mass. $V_{j}$ and $V$ are the observed and theoretical radial velocities at $t_{j}$. The theoretical velocity is given by:\
$V(t) = \gamma + K_{2} (cos (\omega+\theta(t)) + e~ cos (\omega)), $(4)\
where $\theta$ is the true anomaly obtained solving the following two equations involving the eccentric anomaly $E$:\
$tan (\frac{\theta}{2}) = \sqrt{\frac{1+e}{1-e}}~ tan (\frac{E}{2}), $(5)\
$E - e~sin(E) = \frac{2 \pi}{P_{\rm{o}}} (t - \tau). $(6)\
A range of physically reasonable parameters need to be considered so that the method converge. For the period we used the range 10-20 days, the eccentricity was set between 0 and 1, $\omega$ between 0 and $2\pi$, $\tau$ between the minimum julian day and this value plus $P_{\rm{o}}$, $K_{2}$ between 0 and ($V_{\rm{max}} - V_{\rm{min}}$) and $\gamma$ between $V_{\rm{min}}$ and $V_{\rm{max}}$. The most reliable way to get error estimates for this genetic algorithm is by Monte Carlo simulations, specifically by perturbing the best fit solution and computing the $\chi^{2}$ of these perturbed solutions. To find the standard deviation region ($\sigma$) encompassed by the joint variation of two parameters with all other parameters at their optimized values, we draw the contour corresponding to that value of $\Delta \chi^2$ for 2 degrees of freedom that includes 68.3% of the probability. In our case this corresponds to $\Delta \chi^2 = 2.30$ (Bevington & Robinson 1992, Chapter 11, p. 212). The best orbital elements along with their estimated errors are given in Table4. The radial velocities and the best fit are shown in Fig.5, along with the re-phased disentangled orbital light curve. We notice that the radial velocity and the light curve match the expectation for a close binary seen under an intermediate inclination, where the distorted stellar atmospheres show maximum projected surface (and brightness) just at times of radial velocity extremes. We find that the elliptical solution provides a much better fit than the circular case, since it gives residuals without systematic trends and also a smaller $\chi^{2}$ value, viz. 2.39 versus 8.38. We note that our eccentric solution gives a small $e$ value (0.01) but it is highly significant, according to the statistical test “$p_{1}$” of Lucy (2005). In fact, following Lucy’s definition, we calculated $p_{1}$= 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{-29}$ satisfying the condition less than 0.05 for a significant ellipticity.
Using the results above we calculated the time for the inferior conjunction of the donor finding the following ephemerides:\
$HJD_{0} = (2\,456\,028.226 \pm 0.014) + (16.8722 \pm 0.0017) \times E. $(7)\
This ephemerides is used for orbital phases in the rest of the paper whereas the phases for the long cycle refers to the ephemerides given by Eq.1.
It has been pointed out that gas stream and circumstellar matter can distort spectroscopic features in semi-detached interacting binaries, producing skewed radial velocities and artificial small eccentricities (e.g. Lucy 2005). For a non-interacting binary with the stellar and orbital parameters of HD170582, dynamical tides should have circularized the orbit and synchronized the rotational periods (Zahn 1975, 1977). This should imply that the observed small eccentricity can be spurious. However, as we will show later, the system is found with a circumprimary disc produced by mass transferred from the donor. It is possible, but not here demonstrated, that the observed eccentricity could be the result of dynamical perturbations introduced by the accretion disc. If critical velocity is rapidly reached, as suggested by Packet (1981) and de Mink et al. (2007), then the disc could turn to be relatively massive, due to the inadequacy of the gainer of accreting more material. This last point has been debated; Petrovic et al. (2005) assume that accretion ceases when the mass gaining star reaches Keplerian rotation. On the contrary, Popham & Narayan (1991) argue that a star near critical rotation can sustain accretion due to viscous coupling between the star and the disc. In the case of HD170582, considering the luminous bright spots reported in Section 5, the disc could be relatively massive with asymmetrical mass distribution and hence to produce a small but non-zero orbital eccentricity.
Gainer, mass ratio and circumstellar matter
-------------------------------------------
A gainer of B-type is suggested by the detection of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hi</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> absorption lines. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mgi4481</span> is dominated by the donor while the contribution of the gainer to this line is weak, if present; this indicates an early B-type for the gainer. The helium lines are contaminated by emission and show variable line profile shape, especially during high state. They are rather broad therefore the gainer might be a rapidly rotating dwarf. The H$\alpha$ line is sometimes a sharp absorption with two cores, and the difference with the donor spectrum reveals a prominent double emission with deep central absorption (Fig.6). This finding supports the interacting binary nature for this system and suggests it is in a semi-detached stage. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> is very interesting since it shows two components moving in opposite directions (Fig.7). During low stage ($\Phi_{\rm{l}}$ between 0.2 and 0.8) the radial velocity of the main <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> component C1 (after deblending by its nearby component) as well as the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei7065</span> line, can be fit with a sine function of amplitude 75.1 $\pm$ 2.7 km s$^{-1}$ and zero point 20.6 $\pm$ 2.3 km s$^{-1}$ (Fig.8). The secondary component C2 can be fit with a sine of amplitud 127.2 $\pm$ 1.8 km s$^{-1}$ and zero point 11.8 $\pm$ 1.4 km s$^{-1}$. This curve lags the donor RV curve only by $\Delta \Phi$ = 0.004 $\pm$ 0.003, i.e. it practically follows the donor motion. However, around $\Phi_{\rm{o}}$ = 0.75, the velocities turn to be less negative, which does not occurs around the other quadrature at $\Phi_{\rm{o}}$ = 0.25 (Fig.8). These velocities are given in Table5 and parameters for the RV fits are given in Table6.
If we use the system inclination $i = 67^{\circ}$ derived in Section 5, and the basic kinematics formula:\
$\frac{r}{R_{\odot}} = \frac{Pv}{50.633} $ (8)\
where $r$ represents the radial distance from the center of rotation, $P$ the rotational period in days and $v$ the linear orbital velocity of material moving in the orbital plane measured in , then we can find the position of the light-centers of the line components listed in Table6. We find for C1 a light center located $r$ = 27.1 $R_{\odot}$ from the center of mass pointing 216$^{\circ}$ from the line joining the stellar centers measured in the direction opposite to the orbital motion. For C2 we find the light center located at $r$ = 45.9 $R_{\odot}$ from the center of mass, pointing 1.4$^{\circ}$ from the line joining the stellar centers, as measured in the direction opposite to the orbital motion. The meaning of these positions will be discussed in Section 5.2.
From the above and also considering the irregular line profiles, it seems that the helium lines are not fully formed in the gainer stellar photosphere, but they can be partly formed in the circumstellar material. Actually, the overall helium lines cannot be fit by conventional synthetic line profiles of photospheric models; the line width changes and the depth is usually larger than expected for an early B-type gainer contributing about 50% to the total light. This number comes from the veiling factor applied to the donor synthetic spectrum to match the observed metallic lines in Section 4.1. We considered the possibility that both components are artifacts produced by the motion of a central emission feature, however in this case we should observe both absorption components moving in phase which is not observed.
Let’s assume for now that the helium velocities of component C1 represent the gainer orbital motion, then the inferred mass ratio is $q$ = 0.54 $\pm$ 0.01. We can investigate if this value is compatible with synchronous rotation for the secondary star. For a secondary star filling its Roche-lobe in corotation with the binary:\
$\frac{v_{\rm{2r}}sin\,i}{K_{2}} \approx (1+q)\frac{0.49q^{2/3}}{0.6q^{2/3}+\ln(1+q^{1/3})}$(9)\
(Eggleton 2006, Eq. 3.9). Using the above equation, $K_{2}$ = 140.1 and $v_{\rm{2r}}$ sin $i$ = 44 km s$^{-1}$, we obtain $q \approx$ 0.21, much lower than the $q$ value derived from helium lines (Fig.9). This indicates that the donor is rotating sub-synchronously or that the helium lines do not represent the motion of the gainer. We argue now against the first assumption. Synchronization time scales for early type stars are 100-1000 times shorter than circularization time scales (Hilditch 2001). As the system is almost circularized ($e$ = 0.013, Table4), there is no reason to suspect a non-synchronous donor. We are left with the explanation that C1 is not formed in the gainer stellar photosphere. Their origin could be an accretion disc around the gainer, with asymmetrical brightness distribution, to account for the non-equal maxima in the light curve. We find support for this hypothesis in our light curve analysis presented in Section 5. The mass ratio $q$ = 0.21 is favored in this paper, since it is consistent with donor spin synchronization and is also justified by arguments about stellar masses and disc formation given in the next section.
\[1\][![H$\alpha$ line on HJD2456506.680476 ($\Phi_{\rm{o}}$= 0.36, $\Phi_{\rm{l}}$= 0.56) over-plotted with the donor synthetic spectrum (thick dashed line) and the difference spectrum vertically shifted by +1.[]{data-label="x"}](fig6.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}]{}
\[1\][![<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> lines for HJD2456489.690549 ($\Phi_{\rm{o}}$= 0.35, $\Phi_{\rm{l}}$= 0.53, up) and HJD2456497.705041 ($\Phi_{\rm{o}}$= 0.83, $\Phi_{\rm{l}}$= 0.54, down). The synthetic donor at the right velocity system is indicated with dotted lines and the arrow indicates the second <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> component.[]{data-label="x"}](helines.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}]{}
\[1\][![Radial velocity for the He5875 (components c1 and c2) and He7065 lines and the best sine fits. Small circles show the donor RV at the observation epochs. []{data-label="x"}](RVgainer3.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}]{}
\[1\][![Relative donor rotational velocity versus mass ratio ($q$ = $M_{2}/M_{1}$). The solid line is given by Eq.(9) and the dashed lines show the synchronous ($q$ = 0.21) and the observed (sub-synchronous, $q$ = 0.54) cases.[]{data-label="x"}](qvrot.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}]{}
Mass constrains from spectroscopy
---------------------------------
The system mass function for a binary in a circular orbit can be expressed as:\
$f = \frac{M_{2}sin^{3}i}{q(1+q)^{2}} = 1.0361\times10^{-7} (\frac{K_{2}}{km s^{-1}})^{3} \frac{P_{\rm{o}}}{day}$ M$_{\sun}$. (10)\
The $f$ value derived from our radial velocity study is 4.81 $\pm$ 0.01 M$_{\odot}$. Using $q$ = 0.21 (donor rotating synchronously), we get $M_{2}$ $>$ 1.48 and $M_{1}$ $>$ 7.05 . On the other hand, if $q$ = 0.54 we derive $M_{2}$ $>$ 6.16 and $M_{1}$ $>$ 11.41 . These masses turns to be too high for the temperatures derived from spectroscopy and this fact supports the $q$ = 0.21 solution.
To check if the formation of an accretion disc is possible, we calculate the distance to closest approach, measured from the center of the gainer, of a stream coming from the inner Lagrangian point $L_{1}$:\
$r_{\rm{min}} = 0.0488 q^{-0.464} a $(11)\
Lubow & Shu (1975). For $q$ = 0.21 we get $r_{\rm{min}}$ = 0.10 $a$. i.e. 6.1 (0.065 $a$ or 4.0 for $q$ = 0.54). When comparing with the gainer radius of 5.4 $R_{\odot}$ we observe that for the low mass ratio solution the disk can be formed ($r_{\rm{min}}$ $>$ $R_{1}$) but not for the high mass ratio case, when an impact system should be observed where the gas stream directly impacts the gainer.
Light curve model and system parameters
=======================================
The fitting procedure
---------------------
The light-curve fitting was performed using the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm (see e.g. Press et al. 1992) with optimizations described by Dennis and Torczon (1991), and the model of a binary system with a disc described in the previous section. For more detail see e.g. Djurašević (1992).
To obtain reliable estimates of the system parameters, a good practice is to restrict the number of free parameters by fixing some of them to values obtained from independent sources. In this Section we use subindexes $1$ and $2$ for labeling parameters of the hot and cool star, respectively. We fixed the mass ratio to $q$ = 0.21 and the stellar temperatures to $T_{1}$ = 18.000 $K$ and $T_{2}$ = 8000 $K$ based on our spectroscopic results. The hotter temperature was selected to provide a good fit to the spectral energy distribution as explained in Section 6. The implications of this choice are discussed at the end of Section 5.2. In addition, we set the gravity darkening coefficient and the albedo of the gainer and the donor to $\beta_{1,2}$ = 0.25 and $A_{1,2}$ = 1.0 in accordance with von Zeipel’s law for radiative envelopes (Von Zeipel 1924) and complete re-radiation (Rafert & Twigg 1980). The limb-darkening for the components was calculated in the way described by Djurašević et al. (2010).
The possible values of free parameters are constrained by imposing the lowest and highest values which seem reasonable based on previous studies of this binary. Here are the ranges for the fitted parameters:
- Inclination: 50.0 to 70.0 degrees.
- Disk dimension factor (the ratio of the disk radius and the radius of the critical Roche lobe along the y-axis): 0.5 to 0.9.
- Disk edge temperature: 4000 to 8000 K.
- Disk edge thickness: 0.02 to 0.06 (in units of $a_{\rm orb}$).
- Disk center thickness: 0.13 to 0.17 (in units of $a_{\rm orb}$).
- The exponent of the disk temperature distribution: 6.0 to 8.0.
After the first fit, these ranges were decreased according to the results of the first iteration.
We treated the rotation of the donor as synchronous ($f_{2}$ = 1.0), since it is assumed that the donor has filled its Roche lobe (i.e. the filling factor of the donor was set to $F_{2}$ = 1.0). Although it is expected that the accreted material from the disc would transfer enough angular momentum to increase the rotation rate of the gainer to the critical velocity (Packet 1981, de Mink, Pols & Glebbeek 2007), our study cannot discriminate between synchronous and non-synchronous gainer, probably because it is partly hidden by the accretion disc and rotationally sensitive absorption lines are produced in the disc more that in the gainer. For this reason we present both solutions in this paper; they practically do not differ in physical parameters. We were able to model the asymmetry of the light curve very precisely by incorporating two regions of enhanced radiation on the disc: the hot spot (hs), and the bright spot (bs). The hot spot and the bright spot in our model are located on the edge side of the disk and are described by the longitude of the center of the spot, the angular dimension of the spot, and the temperature ratio of the spot and the unperturbed local temperature of the disk. The difference between the temperature of the spot and the local unperturbed temperature of the disk is what results in the difference in brightness. Location of the hot spot is calculated from the assumption that the gas stream from the L1 point falls tangentially onto the disc. The bright spot can be located at any longitude. The angular dimension of the spots was constrained to the range from 10 to 40 degrees for the hot spot, and from 10 to 90 degrees for the bright spot; the temperature ratio for the spots can be from 1.0 to 2.0. The incorporation in the model, of extended spots at the disk outer rim, follows results of hydrodynamical simulations of gas dynamics in interacting close binary stars showing similar structures (e.g. Bisikalo et al. 2003), as explained in detail in the next section.
The best light-curve model
--------------------------
The fit, $O-C$ residuals, individual flux contributions of the donor, disc and the gainer, and the view of the optimal model at orbital phases 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75, obtained with the parameters estimated by the light curve analysis, are illustrated in Fig.10 for the gainer’s synchronous case. We note that residuals show no dependence on orbital or long-cycle phases and that the best fit model of HD170582 contains an optically and geometrically thick disc around the hotter, more massive gainer star. Our results for the synchronic gainer are shown in Table7 and those for a gainer rotating at critical velocity in Table8. Small differences are found in the physical parameters of both cases. It is reasonable to assume that the true parameters of the system are found in between both solutions. For simplicity we discuss here the synchronous case only.
The best model shows that the inclination angle is well constrained to 67.4 $\pm$ 0.4 degree. With a radius of $R_{d} \approx 20.8 R_{\odot}$, the disc is 3.8 times larger than the central star ($R_{h} \approx 5.5 R_{\odot}$). The disc has a convex shape, with central thickness $d_{c} \approx 9.5 R_{\odot}$ and edge thickness $d_{e} \approx 2.3 R_{\odot}$. The temperature of the disc increases from $T_{d}$ = 5410 $K$ at its edge, to $T_{h}$ = 18000 $K$ at the inner radius, where it is in thermal and physical contact with the gainer. The relatively large disc temperature gradient explains the big difference between disc thickness at the inner and outer edges. In our model the gainer rotates synchronously with lineal velocity $v_{\rm{1r}} = v_{\rm{2r}} (R_{1}/R_{2}$) = 15.5 km s$^{-1}$. The surface gravity for the giant is larger than the figure obtained from the spectroscopic analysis (= 2.3 $\pm$ 0.1 versus = 1.50 $\pm$ 0.25).
In the best model the hot spot with 19.6angular dimension covers 10.9% of the visible disc outer rim and it is situated at longitude $\lambda_{hs} \approx$ 334, roughly between the components of the system, at the place where the gas stream falls onto the disc (Lubow & Shu 1975). The temperature of the hot spot is approximately 66% higher than the disc edge temperature, i.e. $T_{hs} \approx 9000$ $K$.
Although including the hot spot region into the model improves the fit, it cannot explain the light curve asymmetry completely. By introducing one additional bright spot, larger than the hot spot and located on the disc edge at $\lambda_{bs} \approx$ 135, the fit becomes much better, i.e. has a lower $\chi^{2}$. This bright spot has $T_{bs} \approx$ 7900 $K$ and with 56.2angular dimension covers 31.2% of the visible disc outer rim.
The hot and bright spots might be tentatively identified with shock regions, characterized by higher density and higher temperature than the surrounding medium, revealed in hydrodynamical simulations of mass transfer in close binaries by Bisikalo et al. (1998, 1999, 2003). In particular, the hot spot is near the place where a ballistic trajectory of a particle released in the inner Lagrangian point intersects the accretion disc. The bright spot could correspond to the [*hotline*]{}, a shock region that, according to Bisikalo et al. (2003), should appear as product of the interaction of the circum-disk halo and the stream.
It is interesting to determine where the light centers of helium absorption components C1 and C2 calculated in Section 4.3 are located in the system. The C1 light center is on the disc outer rim in the second quadrant and C2 is roughly in the direction of the hot spot but far from the disc outer rim. Actually, the large $r$ = 45.9 indicates a position inside the donor for C2. This is inconsistent with the donor temperature which is not enough for forming helium absorption. For the same reason, an origin at the base of the gas stream is also hard to accept. However, we notice that the positions for the components were determined assuming Keplerian orbits (Eq.8). Therefore, a possible interpretation for the puzzling result is the existence of vertical motions in the hot spot region, a wind where <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> absorption occurs, characterized by high temperature (T $\geq$ 10000) and projected velocities larger than Keplerian. This wind is really expected in the stream/disc interaction region according to models of interacting close binaries (Deschamps et al. 2013, van Rensbergen et al. 2008).
We find a gainer mass of 9 $M_{\odot}$ too high for a temperature of 18000 $K$. This B-type dwarf should have a temperature of 21000 $K$ (Lang 1999). It is possible that the gainer temperature found in the analysis of the spectral energy distribution (Section 6) and used in our model is biased to low temperatures because of the presence of the low-temperature circumprimary disc and the low visibility of the gainer, which is almost completely hidden by the disc. To explore the sensitivity of our solution to the temperature of the gainer, we searched for the best synchronous solution with $T_{1}$ = 21000 $K$, and we found basically the same parameters that for the cooler gainer case (Table9). Our conclusion is that the best solution is almost insensitive to the choice of the gainer temperature among reasonable values for early B-type stars, and that the parameters found in our analysis are robust in this sense.
{width="17cm"}
Spectral energy distribution, reddening and distance
====================================================
We used the Spanish Virtual Observatory SED Analyzer[^8] (VOSA, Bayo et al. 2008) to get the broad-band photometric fluxes published for HD170582 (Table10). We performed a fit to the spectral energy distribution (SED) by means of the Marquant-Levenberg non-linear least square algorithm by minimization of $\chi^{2}$ of the function:\
$f_{\lambda}= f_{\lambda,0} 10^{-0.4E(B-V)[k(\lambda -V)+R(V)]}, $(12)\
where:\
$ f_{\lambda,0}= (R_{2}/d)^2 [(R_{1}/R_{2})^{2} f_{1, \lambda} + f_{2, \lambda}], $(13)\
and $f_{1}$ and $f_{2}$ are the fluxes of the primary and secondary star, $k(\lambda-V) \equiv E(\lambda-V)/E(B-V)$ is the normalized extinction curve, $R(V) \equiv A(\lambda)/E(B-V)$ is the ratio of reddening to extinction at $V$, $d$ is the distance to the binary and $R_{1}/R_{2}$ is the ratio of the primary radius to the secondary radius. We used the average Galactic Extinction Curve parametrized by Fitzpatrick & Massa (2007, hereafter FM07) to calculate reddened fluxes. The code was implemented in ORIGIN[^9]. The stellar fluxes were taken from the grid of ATLAS9 Kurucz ODFNEW /NOVER models available in the Theoretical Spectra Web Server of the Spanish Virtual Observatory[^10]. We used fluxes calculated with solar chemical abundance and microturbulence velocity 2 km s$^{-1}$. The free parameters of the fit were $R_{2}/d$ and $E(B-V)$. We fixed $R$ = 3.0 (FM07), $\log g_{1}$= 4.0, $T_{2}$= 8000 K, $\log g_{2}$= 1.5 and $R_{1}/R_{2}$ = 0.346. We tried models with temperatures $T_{1}$ = 15 kK, 18 kK, 20 kK and 22 kK. The deviating points from Lahulla and Hilton (1992) at $\lambda$ 3650 Å, and that of the DENIS survey at $\lambda$ 7862 Å were not considered in the fit. While the large deviation of the last one suggests an instrumental error, the first one could indicate a diminished Balmer jump regarding a normal star, as seen in some Be stars, a fact that is generally associated to the effect of a circumstellar envelope (Goraya 1986). It is important to keep in mind that the results of this section are limited to the validity of using the average Galactic extinction, which is not always true for different line of sights of our Galaxy (FM07). However, it is the only approximation possible at this moment. Another limitation of the model is the absence of the circumprimary disc component.
The best fit, minimizing $\chi^{2}$, gave $T_{1}$ = 18000 $\pm$ 1500 $K$, $R_{2}/d$= (1.478 $\pm$ 0.045) $\times$ 10$^{-9}$ and $E(B-V)$= 1.387 $\pm$ 0.015 (Fig.11). As noted before $T_{1}$ is too low for the gainer mass derived in Section 5.2. This could indicate that we are fitting the flux of the gainer plus the surrounding optically thick accretion disc, a pseudo-photosphere with a stellar-like flux distribution and temperature lower than the gainer. A disc surrounding a hot gainer and mimicking a cooler star is observed in the interacting binaries RX Cassiopeiae, W Crucis and W Serpentis (Plavec 1992); the possible connection of HD170582 with W Serpentis stars is discussed in Section 7.
The relatively large extinction matches published values of Galactic dust reddening and extinction in the region of HD170582, viz. $E(B-V)$ = 1.37 $\pm$ 0.06 and 1.60 $\pm$ 0.07 (NASA/IPAC infrared science archive, based on Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998 and Schlafly and Finkbeiner 2011). Our color excess differs from that derived by Lahulla & Hilton (1992), viz. $E(B-V)$ = 0.17, but they assumed a luminosity class V and a single A9 star in their analysis.
Although the color excess is relatively well constrained from the SED analysis, the strength of diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) indicate a different value. These bands are absorption lines observed in the optical and infrared spectra of reddened stars (Herbig 1995); the strength of some of them roughly correlated with the color excess produced by interstellar reddening. We measured the equivalent widths ($EWs$) of DIBs located at 5780, 5797 and 8620 Å ($EW$ = 0.30 $\pm$ 0.01, 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 and 0.20 $\pm$ 0.01 Å, respectively) and used the relations given by Munari (2000) and Weselak et al. (2008) to estimate $E(B-V)$ = 0.55 $\pm$ 0.15. On the other hand, the strength of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ki7699</span> suggests $E(B-V) \approx$ 0.5 (Munari & Zwitter 1997).
A possible explanation for this discrepancy is the existence of intrinsic reddening produced by circumstellar matter, such as $E(B-V) = E(B-V)_{\rm{is}} + E(B-V)_{\rm{cm}}$, where $E(B-V)_{\rm{is}}$ = 0.55 is the interstellar reddening and $E(B-V)_{\rm{cm}}$ = 0.82 is the circumstellar reddening. The existence of anomalous diffuse interstellar bands, weaker than expected for the stellar reddening, has been reported for the Be stars HD44458 and HD63462 (Porceddu et al. 1992) and the Herbig Be star HD53367 (Whittet & Blades 1980) and attributed to circumstellar matter. The idea behind is that the carriers of diffuse bands (whatever they are), cannot survive in the relatively dense regions of circumstellar shells (Porceddu et al. 1992). If this were the case for HD170582, then its relatively large reddening should not be related to the location of the system in the molecular cloud L379, but to the presence of circumstellar matter. Actually, the location of the system in a dense interstellar environment seems not to be related to their nature of Double Period Variable, since many of them exist in not so dense regions.
From $R_{2}/d$= (1.478 $\pm$ 0.045) $\times$ 10$^{-9}$ determined from the SED fitting and using $R_{2}$ = 15.6 $\pm$ 0.2 $R_{\odot}$ determined from the LC model we obtain a distance of 238 $\pm$ 10 pc. This figure compares well with the distance 210 pc derived by Lahulla & Hilton (1992). Results of this section are summarized in Table11.
\[1\][![Spectral energy distribution and the best fit given by Eq.12, excluding the two outliers discussed in the text.[]{data-label="x"}](SEDHD170582V4.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}]{}
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated spectroscopically and photometrically the Double Period Variable HD170582. It turns to be an interacting binary consisting of a 8000 $K$ supergiant of solar abundance transferring matter to an early B-type star. From a radial velocity study based on high-resolution spectra, we find a mass function of $f(M)$ = 4.81 $\pm$ 0.01 . Under the reasonable assumption of a donor with spin-orbit synchronization filling its Roche-lobe, we derive a system mass ratio of $q$ = 0.21. We model the light curve including synthetic stellar fluxes and an optically thick accretion disc around the B-type star. Using an inverse-problem solving algorithm, we derive the system inclination, stellar masses, radii, temperatures, surface gravities and bolometric luminosities along with the properties of the disc (e.g. the radial and vertical extension and the temperature as a function of the radial coordinate). All these parameters along with the donor rotational velocity, are given in Tables7, 8, 9 and 11.
The disc is luminous, contributing between 30% and 40% to the system luminosity at the V-band, depending on the orbital phase. The gainer is almost completely hidden by the disc and its contribution to the total light is only 10%; their temperature results low for the stellar mass probably due to this handicap. However, we show that our system parameters are robust for a range of reasonable gainer temperatures. Our study indicates that for HD170582, and possibly for others DPVs with luminous discs, the optical and infrared flux is dominated by the donor and the disc, a fact that should be taken into account when fitting the spectral energy distribution in this wavelength range. The best model of the accretion disk includes two relatively hot bright spots in the outer disc rim, in opposite positions, whose properties are given in Tables7 and 8. One of these spots is located at the region where the gas stream hits the accretion disc and the other could be explained as a shock region as indicated by previous simulations of gas dynamics in close binary systems.
We find that HD170882 shows spectroscopic properties similar to other DPVs like AUMonocerotis, V393 Scorpii, DQVelorum and OGLE05155332-6925581 (Mennickent et al, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, Barr[í]{}a et al. 2013, 2014, Garrido et al. 2013). These properties include the existence of an optically thick disc surrounding a B-type star and evidence for stream-disc interaction. In this sense, HD170582 could be related to the strongly interacting binaries of the W Serpentis type (e.g. Plavec & Koch 1978; Plavec 1980, 1992), however we observe in HD170582 the distinctive characteristics of DPVs which place them apart from the W Serpentis group, namely the relatively constant orbital period (it is variable in the Serpentids), and the presence of a long photometric periodicity lasting about 33 times the orbital period. To our knowledge, these last two features have never been reported simultaneously in any W Serpentis star. For instance, the eclipsing W Serpentis star RXCas also shows a primary hidden by an accretion disc (Andersen et al. 1989, Djurašević 1992), and unequal maxima in the orbital light curve (Gaposchkin 1944), but it shows a variable orbital period of 32.32739 days and $dP_{o}/dt \sim 10^{-7}$ (Pustylnik et al. 2007) and a long photometric cycle of 516.06 days (Gaposchkin 1944).
Among the DPVs so far studied, HD170582 is unique in showing a double <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei5875</span> line; two absorption lines move in antiphase during the orbital cycle. The light center of one of these absorptions is located in the disc outer rim in the second quadrant, and the other roughly in the direction of the hot spot, but well far from the disc outer edge and inside the donor. This position is contradictory with formation of helium absorption lines, hence we suggest that significant vertical motions are present near the hot spot producing a radial velocity half-amplitude larger than expected for Keplerian motion. This wind is predicted by models of interacting close binaries and could be a mechanism of mass and angular momentum loss in these systems (Deschamps et al. 2013, van Rensbergen et al. 2008).
From the SED analysis we find a distance of 238 $\pm$ 10 pc and a relatively large color excess, compatible with reported average measurements in the field. However, DIBs suggests a lower color excess. This might be explained by the presence of circumstellar matter.
We will investigate in a forthcoming paper the long-term variability, the properties of the circumstellar matter and the evolutionary stage of this system.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank the anonymous referee who provided useful insights on the first version of this paper. This investigation is based on observations conducted under CNTAC proposals CN2012A-17 and CN2013A-91. This publication makes use of VOSA, developed under the Spanish Virtual Observatory project supported from the Spanish MICINN through grant AyA2008-02156. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. R.E.M. acknowledges support by VRID-Enlace 214.016.001-1.0, Fondecyt 1110347 and the BASAL Centro de Astrof[í]{}sica y Tecnolog[í]{}as Afines (CATA) PFB–06/2007. EN acknowledges the support from the NCN grant 2011/01/B/ST9/05448 and 1007/S/IAs/14 funds. Some of the calculations have been carried out in Wroc[ł]{}aw Centre for Networking and Supercomputing (http://www.wcss.pl), grant No. 214. This research was funded in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia through the project ÓStellar PhysicsÓ (No. 176004). M.C. thanks the support of FONDECYT project 1130173 and Instituto de F[í]{}sica y Astronom[í]{}a de Valpara’so.
UT-date Observatory/Telescope Instrument N exptime (s) HJD $\Phi_{\rm{o}}$ $\Phi_{\rm{l}}$
------------ ----------------------- ------------ --- ------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
2008-05-24 ESO/EULER CORALIE 3 1800 2454610.882519 0.995 0.327
2008-05-25 ESO/EULER CORALIE 2 1800 2454611.903408 0.056 0.329
2008-06-13 LCO/Du-Pont Echelle 2 900 2454631.794399 0.235 0.363
2009-05-13 LCO/Du-Pont Echelle 1 750 2454965.917228 0.038 0.932
2008-08-22 ESO/EULER CORALIE 1 1200 2454701.652578 0.375 0.482
2008-08-23 ESO/EULER CORALIE 2 1200 2454702.665820 0.435 0.483
2008-08-24 ESO/EULER CORALIE 5 1500 2454703.630014 0.492 0.485
2009-08-24 LCO/Du-Pont Echelle 4 900 2454998.638369 0.977 0.988
2009-06-15 LCO/Du-Pont Echelle 4 900 2455068.596925 0.124 0.107
2012-03-29 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456016.817323 0.324 0.722
2012-04-05 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456023.877949 0.742 0.734
2012-04-10 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456028.833956 0.036 0.743
2012-04-30 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456048.725777 0.215 0.777
2012-05-05 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456053.891370 0.521 0.785
2012-05-14 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456062.708397 0.044 0.800
2012-05-20 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456068.848760 0.408 0.811
2012-05-31 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456079.881457 0.062 0.830
2012-06-04 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 6 1200 2456083.772875 0.292 0.836
2012-06-10 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456089.834323 0.651 0.847
2012-06-14 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 2 1200 2456093.762810 0.884 0.853
2012-06-26 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456105.720519 0.593 0.874
2012-08-11 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456151.703993 0.318 0.952
2012-08-25 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 1 1800 2456165.550340 0.139 0.976
2013-03-10 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 1 927 2456362.918475 0.837 0.312
2013-06-05 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456449.804977 0.987 0.460
2013-06-13 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 2 1500 2456457.834031 0.462 0.473
2013-06-15 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456459.854115 0.582 0.477
2013-06-17 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456461.827297 0.699 0.480
2013-06-19 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456463.818915 0.817 0.484
2013-06-25 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456469.811141 0.172 0.494
2013-06-29 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456473.683746 0.402 0.500
2013-06-30 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 1 241 2456474.801975 0.468 0.502
2013-07-03 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456477.678008 0.639 0.507
2013-07-07 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456481.694693 0.877 0.514
2013-07-11 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456485.709283 0.115 0.521
2013-07-13 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456487.681643 0.232 0.524
2013-07-15 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456489.676610 0.350 0.528
2013-07-17 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456491.688161 0.469 0.531
2013-07-23 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456497.691100 0.825 0.541
2013-07-27 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456501.729047 0.064 0.548
2013-08-01 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456506.680476 0.358 0.557
2013-08-03 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456508.675606 0.476 0.560
2013-08-05 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456510.636133 0.592 0.563
2013-08-10 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456515.651580 0.889 0.572
2013-08-12 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456517.687903 0.010 0.575
2013-08-14 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456519.695122 0.129 0.579
2013-08-16 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456521.675552 0.246 0.582
2013-08-20 CTIO/1.5m CHIRON 3 1200 2456525.616642 0.480 0.589
--------- ----- --------------------------- ---------------------------
Element N $\log\epsilon_{(\rm El)}$ $\log\epsilon_{(\rm El)}$
(Z) HD170582 Sun
6 3 8.68 $\pm$ 0.41 8.43
8 4 8.25 $\pm$ 0.15 8.69
11 5 7.05 $\pm$ 0.09 6.24
12 7 7.46 $\pm$ 0.23 7.60
13 2 6.48 $\pm$ 0.23 6.45
14 16 7.82 $\pm$ 0.23 7.51
16 3 7.59 $\pm$ 0.37 7.12
20 17 6.34 $\pm$ 0.23 6.34
21 11 2.87 $\pm$ 0.16 3.15
22 46 4.87 $\pm$ 0.18 4.95
23 11 4.02 $\pm$ 0.26 3.93
24 43 5.67 $\pm$ 0.16 5.64
25 13 5.60 $\pm$ 0.20 5.43
26 111 7.43 $\pm$ 0.12 7.50
27 3 5.70 $\pm$ 0.08 4.99
28 22 6.32 $\pm$ 0.19 6.22
29 2 4.22 $\pm$ 0.23 4.19
30 2 4.22 $\pm$ 0.23 4.56
39 7 2.14 $\pm$ 0.19 2.21
40 7 2.58 $\pm$ 0.22 2.58
56 3 1.82 $\pm$ 0.13 2.18
60 2 1.48 $\pm$ 0.23 1.42
63 1 0.92 $\pm$ 0.23 0.52
--------- ----- --------------------------- ---------------------------
HJD RV (km s$^{-1}$) error (km s$^{-1}$) HJD RV (km s$^{-1}$) error (km s$^{-1}$)
---------------- ------------------ --------------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------
2456016.817323 123.077 0.576 2456463.846797 -129.481 0.553
2456016.831268 122.705 0.561 2456469.811141 124.138 0.466
2456016.845214 122.151 0.563 2456469.825082 124.197 0.484
2456023.877949 -138.305 0.918 2456469.839868 124.374 0.471
2456023.891893 -138.747 1.076 2456473.683746 78.948 0.483
2456023.905839 -139.238 0.881 2456473.697687 78.744 0.551
2456028.833956 31.288 0.777 2456473.711628 78.730 0.528
2456028.847900 31.417 0.690 2456474.801975 24.714 0.667
2456028.861845 32.741 0.777 2456477.678008 -105.880 0.477
2456048.725777 137.003 0.934 2456477.691950 -106.418 0.481
2456048.739722 136.574 0.927 2456477.705890 -106.300 0.454
2456048.753667 135.962 1.421 2456481.694693 -101.678 0.421
2456053.891370 -19.690 0.872 2456481.708634 -100.842 0.457
2456053.905316 -24.102 1.593 2456481.722574 -99.809 0.394
2456053.919262 -21.101 0.690 2456485.709283 92.776 0.564
2456062.708397 37.087 0.694 2456485.723224 93.303 0.526
2456062.722342 39.364 0.791 2456485.737165 94.899 0.624
2456062.736286 38.642 0.459 2456487.681643 139.918 0.478
2456068.848760 75.111 0.486 2456487.695584 140.020 0.501
2456068.862704 74.932 0.677 2456487.709524 140.105 0.460
2456068.876649 73.976 0.542 2456489.676610 111.141 0.525
2456079.881457 51.508 0.463 2456489.690549 110.660 0.510
2456079.895401 53.076 0.439 2456489.704490 110.331 0.516
2456079.909346 52.806 0.443 2456491.688161 24.047 0.436
2456083.772875 132.789 0.567 2456491.702101 23.108 0.554
2456083.786819 131.921 0.498 2456491.716043 23.022 0.525
2456083.800763 132.396 0.561 2456497.691100 -127.555 0.510
2456083.815193 132.305 0.597 2456497.705041 -127.102 0.516
2456083.829138 131.286 0.559 2456497.718983 -126.540 0.497
2456083.843082 132.661 0.679 2456501.729047 54.682 0.550
2456089.834323 -111.254 0.838 2456501.742986 55.338 0.561
2456089.834323 -111.254 0.842 2456501.756926 55.363 0.432
2456089.834323 -111.254 0.847 2456506.680476 106.396 0.603
2456093.762810 -96.119 0.490 2456506.694416 106.082 0.546
2456093.776754 -95.180 0.733 2456506.708355 105.110 0.566
2456105.720519 -77.838 0.442 2456508.675606 17.626 0.641
2456105.734460 -78.346 0.478 2456508.689546 18.238 0.872
2456105.748401 -79.092 0.464 2456508.703486 16.241 1.755
2456151.703993 125.185 0.575 2456510.636133 -76.643 0.494
2456151.717933 125.114 0.657 2456510.650074 -77.083 0.487
2456151.731873 124.450 0.692 2456510.664855 -78.440 0.517
2456165.550340 107.411 0.503 2456515.651580 -93.099 0.426
2456449.804977 -13.799 0.500 2456515.665520 -91.941 0.439
2456449.818917 -12.957 0.276 2456515.686404 -91.941 0.440
2456449.832859 -12.406 0.343 2456517.687903 5.802 0.468
2456457.834031 29.909 0.484 2456517.701843 5.918 0.465
2456457.851445 28.075 0.643 2456517.715784 7.180 0.627
2456459.854115 -70.808 0.447 2456519.695122 101.865 0.443
2456459.868057 -71.100 0.392 2456519.709062 102.380 0.495
2456459.881998 -72.264 0.640 2456519.723001 102.046 0.490
2456461.827297 -131.490 0.622 2456521.675552 139.573 0.481
2456461.841237 -133.005 0.577 2456521.689492 139.634 0.510
2456461.855179 -132.800 0.528 2456521.703432 139.566 0.488
2456463.818915 -130.404 0.517 2456525.616642 15.008 0.572
2456463.832856 -129.967 0.493 2456525.630581 13.725 0.612
2456525.644520 12.044 0.568
Parameter best value lower limit upper limit
------------------------ ------------ ------------- -------------
$P_{\rm{o}}$ (days) 16.8722 16.8705 16.8739
$\tau^{*}$ 6029.56 6027.90 6030.96
$e$ 0.0133 0.0055 0.0205
$\omega$ 5.208 5.183 5.231
$K_{2}$ (km s$^{-1}$) 140.1 139.0 141.2
$\gamma$ (km s$^{-1}$) -1.30 -2.05 -0.55
HJD $\Phi_{\rm{o}}$ $\Phi_{\rm{l}}$ $RV_{5875}$ C1 (km s$^{-1}$ ) $RV_{5875}$ C2 (km s$^{-1}$ ) $RV_{7065}$ (km s$^{-1}$)
---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------
2456016.817323 0.324 0.722 -75.5 100.9 -
2456016.831268 0.325 0.722 -73.7 121.7 -
2456016.845214 0.325 0.722 -76.2 109.3 -
2456023.877949 0.742 0.734 - -121.7 -
2456023.891893 0.743 0.734 - -125.8 -
2456028.833956 0.036 0.743 49.0 - -
2456028.861845 0.038 0.743 67.6 - -
2456151.703993 0.318 0.952 - 134.0 -
2456151.717933 0.319 0.952 - 133.0 -
2456151.731873 0.320 0.952 - 135.6 -
2456165.550340 0.139 0.976 - 106.4 -
2456449.804977 0.987 0.460 38.8 - 40.7
2456449.818917 0.987 0.460 48.6 - 47.6
2456449.832859 0.988 0.460 46.3 - 49.6
2456459.854115 0.582 0.477 - -58.8 -
2456461.827297 0.699 0.480 - -106.3 -
2456461.841237 0.700 0.480 39.2 - -
2456461.855179 0.701 0.480 43.5 - -
2456463.818915 0.817 0.484 116.8 - -
2456463.832856 0.818 0.484 105.6 -103.4 -
2456463.846797 0.819 0.484 102.6 -99.7 -
2456469.811141 0.172 0.494 -18.9 114.8 -
2456469.825082 0.173 0.494 -18.7 113.7 -
2456469.839868 0.174 0.494 -12.3 135.7 -
2456473.683746 0.402 0.500 -51.9 100.5 -
2456473.697687 0.403 0.501 -54.8 100.0 -
2456473.711628 0.404 0.501 -50.0 92.6 -
2456477.678008 0.639 0.507 - - 27.6
2456477.705890 0.640 0.507 - - 26.2
2456481.694693 0.877 0.514 - -67.9 -
2456481.708634 0.878 0.514 - -74.7 -
2456481.722574 0.878 0.514 - -67.2 -
2456485.709283 0.115 0.521 22.4 - 32.6
2456485.723224 0.115 0.521 30.0 - -
2456485.737165 0.116 0.521 24.5 - -
2456487.681643 0.232 0.524 -35.8 135.8 -
2456487.695584 0.232 0.524 -30.5 141.1 -
2456487.709524 0.233 0.524 -36.0 138.4 -
2456489.676610 0.350 0.528 -52.3 116.8 -51.3
2456489.690549 0.351 0.528 -48.7 115.4 -57.1
2456489.704490 0.351 0.528 -47.3 118.6 -64.8
2456497.691100 0.825 0.541 113.3 -99.6 118.1
2456497.705041 0.826 0.541 117.4 -104.5 -
2456497.718983 0.826 0.541 114.9 -101.8 110.8
2456501.729047 0.064 0.548 31.0 - -
2456501.742986 0.065 0.548 27.5 - -
2456501.756926 0.066 0.548 19.1 - -
2456506.680476 0.358 0.557 -46.8 116.0 -54.4
2456506.694416 0.358 0.557 -45.0 113.9 -42.8
2456506.708355 0.359 0.557 -37.8 115.9 -
2456515.651580 0.889 0.572 92.8 -78.9 -
2456515.665520 0.890 0.572 97.9 -76.8 -
2456515.686404 0.649 0.572 97.1 -75.0 -
2456517.687903 0.010 0.575 35.6 - -
2456519.695122 0.129 0.579 18.5 - 30.9
2456519.709062 0.130 0.579 8.8 - 30.0
2456519.723001 0.131 0.579 - - 29.6
2456521.675552 0.246 0.582 -37.0 136.2 -
2456521.689492 0.247 0.582 -31.1 142.3 -
2456521.703432 0.248 0.582 - 137.7 -
2456525.616642 0.480 0.589 - 137.7 -
Line $\gamma$ $K$ $\delta$ $rms$
----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> 5875 C1 20.6 $\pm$ 2.3 75.1 $\pm$ 2.7 0.601 $\pm$ 0.008 15.3
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hei</span> 5875 C2 11.8 $\pm$ 1.4 127.2 $\pm$ 1.8 0.004 $\pm$ 0.003 7.9
$$\begin{array}{lrlr}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
{\rm Quantity} & & {\rm Quantity} & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
n & 455 & \cal M_{\rm_1} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 9.0 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm \Sigma(O-C)^2} & 0.1513 & \cal M_{\rm_2} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 1.9 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm \sigma_{rms}} & 0.0182 & \cal R_{\rm_1} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 5.5 \pm 0.2 \\
i {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 67.4 \pm 0.4 & \cal R_{\rm_2} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 15.6 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm F_d} & 0.65 \pm 0.02 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_1} & 3.90 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_d} [{\rm K}] & 5410 \pm 200 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_2} & 2.33 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm d_e} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.155 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 1}_{\rm bol} &-3.9 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm d_2} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.038 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 2}_{\rm bol} &-2.6 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm a_T} & 7.3 \pm 0.3 & a_{\rm orb} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 61.2 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm f_1} & 1.00 & \cal{R}_{\rm d} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 20.8 \pm 0.3 \\
{\rm F_1} & 0.187 \pm 0.004 & \rm{d_e} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 2.3 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_1} [{\rm K}] & 18000 & \rm{d_c} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 9.5 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_2} [{\rm K}] & 8000 & & \\
{\rm A_{hs}=T_{hs}/T_d} & 1.66 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 19.6 \pm 2.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 333.6 \pm 6.0 & \\
{\rm \theta_{rad}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 27.0 \pm 5.0 & \\
{\rm A_{bs}=T_{bs}/T_d} & 1.46 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{bs}} {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 56.2 \pm 3.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{bs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 134.8 \pm 6.0 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 1}} & 11.26 \pm 0.04 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 2}} & 2.26 \pm 0.02 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}$$
FIXED PARAMETERS: $q={\cal M}_{\rm 2}/{\cal M}_{\rm
1}=0.21$ - mass ratio of the components, ${\rm T_1=18000 K}$ ; ${\rm T_2=8000 K}$ - temperature of the more massive (hotter) gainer and less-massive (cooler) donor respectively, ${\rm F_2}=1.0$ - filling factor for the critical Roche lobe of the donor, $f{\rm _{1,2}}=1.00$ - non-synchronous rotation coefficients of the system components, ${\rm \beta_{1,2}=0.25}$ - gravity-darkening coefficients of the components, ${\rm
A_{1,2}=1.0}$ - albedo coefficients of the components.
Note: $n$ - number of observations, ${\rm
\Sigma (O-C)^2}$ - final sum of squares of residuals between observed (LCO) and synthetic (LCC) light-curves, ${\rm
\sigma_{rms}}$ - root-mean-square of the residuals, $i$ - orbit inclination (in arc degrees), ${\rm F_d=R_d/R_{yc}}$ - disk dimension factor (the ratio of the disk radius to the critical Roche lobe radius along y-axis), ${\rm T_d}$ - disk-edge temperature, $\rm{d_e}$, $\rm{d_c}$, - disk thicknesses (at the edge and at the center of the disk, respectively) in the units of the distance between the components, $a_{\rm T}$ - disk temperature distribution coefficient, $f{\rm _g}$ - non-synchronous rotation coefficient of the more massive gainer (in the synchronous rotation regime), ${\rm F_1}=R_1/R_{zc}$ - filling factor for the critical Roche lobe of the hotter, more-massive gainer (ratio of the stellar polar radius to the critical Roche lobe radius along z-axis for a star in synchronous rotation regime), ${\rm A_{hs,bs}=T_{hs,bs}/T_d}$ - hot and bright spots’ temperature coefficients, ${\rm \theta_{hs,bs}}$ and ${\rm \lambda_{hs,bs}}$ - spots’ angular dimensions and longitudes (in arc degrees), ${\rm
\theta_{rad}}$ - angle between the line perpendicular to the local disk edge surface and the direction of the hot-spot maximum radiation, ${\Omega_{\rm 1,2}}$ - dimensionless surface potentials of the hotter gainer and cooler donor, $\cal M_{\rm_{1,2}} {[\cal
M_{\odot}]}$, $\cal R_{\rm_{1,2}} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$ - stellar masses and mean radii of stars in solar units, ${\rm log} \
g_{\rm_{1,2}}$ - logarithm (base 10) of the system components effective gravity, $M^{\rm {1,2}}_{\rm bol}$ - absolute stellar bolometric magnitudes, $a_{\rm orb}$ ${\rm [R_{\odot}]}$, $\cal{R}_{\rm d} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$, $\rm{d_e} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$, $\rm{d_c} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$ - orbital semi-major axis, disk radius and disk thicknesses at its edge and center, respectively, given in solar units.
$$\begin{array}{lrlr}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
{\rm Quantity} & & {\rm Quantity} & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
n & 455 & \cal M_{\rm_1} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 9.0 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm \Sigma(O-C)^2} & 0.1542 & \cal M_{\rm_2} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 1.9 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm \sigma_{rms}} & 0.0184 & \cal R_{\rm_1} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 5.8 \pm 0.3 \\
i {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 67.4 \pm 0.4 & \cal R_{\rm_2} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 15.6 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm F_d} & 0.65 \pm 0.02 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_1} & 3.86 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_d} [{\rm K}] & 5700 \pm 200 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_2} & 2.33 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm d_e} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.154 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 1}_{\rm bol} &-4.0 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm d_c} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.041 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 2}_{\rm bol} &-2.6 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm a_T} & 7.1 \pm 0.3 & a_{\rm orb} {\rm. [R_{\odot}]} & 61.2 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm f_1} & 22.8 \pm 0.6 & \cal{R}_{\rm d} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 20.8 \pm 0.3 \\
{\rm F_1} & 1.00 & \rm{d_e} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 2.5 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_1} [{\rm K}] & 18000 & \rm{d_c} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 9.5 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_2} [{\rm K}] & 8000 & & \\
{\rm A_{hs}=T_{hs}/T_d} & 1.73 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 19.0 \pm 2.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 332.0 \pm 6.0 & \\
{\rm \theta_{rad}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 25.0 \pm 5.0 & \\
{\rm A_{bs}=T_{bs}/T_d} & 1.43 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{bs}} {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 56.0 \pm 3.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{bs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 141.0 \pm 5.0 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 1}} & 13.10 \pm 0.04 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 2}} & 2.26 \pm 0.02 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{llll}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
{\rm Quantity} & & {\rm Quantity} & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
n & 455 & \cal M_{\rm_1} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 9.0 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm \Sigma(O-C)^2} & 0.1516 & \cal M_{\rm_2} {[\cal M_{\odot}]} & 1.9 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm \sigma_{rms}} & 0.0183 & \cal R_{\rm_1} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 5.5 \pm 0.2 \\
i {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 67.4 \pm 0.4 & \cal R_{\rm_2} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 15.6 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm F_d} & 0.66 \pm 0.02 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_1} & 3.9 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_d} [{\rm K}] & 5430 \pm 200 & {\rm log} \ g_{\rm_2} & 2.33 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm d_e} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.156 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 1}_{\rm bol} &-4.5 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm d_c} [a_{\rm orb}] & 0.038 \pm 0.004 & M^{\rm 2}_{\rm bol} &-2.6 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm a_T} & 8.5 \pm 0.4 & a_{\rm orb} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 61.2 \pm 0.2 \\
{\rm f_1} & 1.00 & \cal{R}_{\rm d} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 21.2 \pm 0.3 \\
{\rm F_1} & 0.187 \pm 0.004 & \rm{d_e} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 2.4 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_1} [{\rm K}] & 21000 & \rm{d_c} {\rm [R_{\odot}]} & 9.6 \pm 0.1 \\
{\rm T_2} [{\rm K}] & 8000 & & \\
{\rm A_{hs}=T_{hs}/T_d} & 1.85 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 19.8 \pm 2.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{hs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 330.6 \pm 6.0 & \\
{\rm \theta_{rad}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 10.0 \pm 8.0 & \\
{\rm A_{bs}=T_{bs}/T_d} & 1.56 \pm 0.1 & \\
{\rm \theta_{bs}} {\rm [^{\circ}]} & 56.8 \pm 3.0 & \\
{\rm \lambda_{bs}}{\rm [^{\circ}]} & 103.7 \pm 6.0 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 1}} & 11.25 \pm 0.04 & \\
{\Omega_{\rm 2}} & 2.26 \pm 0.02 & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}$$
Filter $\lambda (\AA)$ $f_{\lambda}$ (erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ $\AA^{-1}$) $ef_{\lambda}$ (erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ $\AA^{-1}$) Reference
----------------- ----------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Johnson U 3600.00 5.120e-13 – Lahulla and Hilton 1992
TYCHO/TYCHO.B 4280.00 5.747e-13 2.064e-14 Hog et al. (2000)
TYCHO/TYCHO.V 5340.00 5.198e-13 1.915e-14 Hog et al. (2000)
SLOAN/SDSS.r 6122.33 4.428e-13 – Adelman-McCarthy et al. (2008)
DENIS/DENIS.I 7862.10 1.631e-13 1.952e-14 DENIS 3rd Release (Sep. 2005)
2MASS/2MASS.J 12350.00 1.371e-13 2.525e-15 Skrutskie et al. (2006))
2MASS/2MASS.H 16620.00 5.710e-14 3.524e-15 Skrutskie et al. (2006))
2MASS/2MASS.Ks 21590.00 2.552e-14 5.642e-16 Skrutskie et al. (2006))
WISE/WISE.W1 33526.00 6.331e-15 1.283e-16 Wright et al. (2010)
Spitzer/IRAC.I2 44365.78 1.942e-15 7.778e-17 Benjamin et al. (2003) and Churchwell et al. (2009)
WISE/WISE.W2 46028.00 2.025e-15 3.358e-17 Wright et al. (2010)
Spitzer/IRAC.I4 75891.59 2.684e-16 6.548e-18 Benjamin et al. (2003) and Churchwell et al. (2009)
WISE/WISE.W3 115608.00 6.002e-17 1.161e-18 Wright et al. (2010)
WISE/WISE.W4 220883.00 7.216e-18 9.638e-19 Wright et al. (2010)
Parameter value
---------------------------- ----------------------------------
Ephemeris$_{max, orbital}$ 2452118.275 + 16.871 $\times\,E$
Ephemeris$_{max, long}$ 2452070.9 + 587 $\times\,E$
$E(B-V)$ 1.387 $\pm$ 0.015
$d$ 238 $\pm$ 10 pc
$T_{1}$ 18000 $\pm$ 1500 K
$T_{2}$ 8000 $\pm$ 100 K
$v_{\rm{2r}}$ sin $i$ 44 $\pm$ 2 km s$^{-1}$
1.0 $\pm$ 0.7 km s$^{-1}$.
log$g_{2}$ 1.7 $\pm$ 0.5
Adelman-McCarthy J. K., et al., 2008, ApJS, 175, 297
Andersen J., Pavlovski K., Piirola V., 1989, A&A, 215, 272
Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481
Barr[í]{}a D., Mennickent R. E., Schmidtobreick L., Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{} G., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., Michalska G., Vu[č]{}kovi[ć]{} M., Niemczura E., 2013, A&A, 552, A63
Barr[í]{}a D., Mennickent R. E., Graczyk D., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., 2014, A&A, 567, A140
Bayo A., Rodrigo C., Barrado Y Navascu[é]{}s D., Solano E., Guti[é]{}rrez R., Morales-Calder[ó]{}n M., Allard F., 2008, A&A, 492, 277
Bevington P. R., Robinson D.K., 1992, in Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the physical Sciences, second ed., New York: McGraw-Hill
Benjamin R. A., Churchwell E., Babler B. L., et al., 2003, PASP, 115, 953
Bisikalo D. V., Boyarchuk A. A., Chechetkin V. M., Kuznetsov O. A., Molteni D., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 39
Bisikalo D. V., Boyarchuk A. A., Chechetkin V. M., Kuznetsov O. A., Molteni D., 1999, ARep, 43, 797
Bisikalo D. V., Boyarchuk A. A., Kaigorodov P. V., Kuznetsov O. A., 2003, ARep, 47, 809
Castelli, F., Hubrig, S., 2004, A&A, 425, 263
Charbonneau P., 1995, ApJS, 101, 309
Churchwell E., Babler B. L., Meade M. R., et al., 2009, PASP, 121, 213
Deschamps R., Siess L., Davis P. J., Jorissen A., 2013, A&A, 557, A40
Garrido H. E., Mennickent R. E., Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{} G., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., Niemczura E., Mennekens N., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1594
Gray D. F., 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press
de Mink S. E., Pols O. R., Glebbeek E., 2007, AIPC, 948, 321
Dennis J.E., Torczon V., 1991, Direct search methods on parallel machines, in SIAM Journal on Optimization, Vol. 1, Issue 4, pages 448-474
Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{} G., 1992, Ap&SS, 197, 17
Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{} G., Latkovi[ć]{} O., Vince I., Cs[é]{}ki A., 2010, MNRAS, 409, 329
Eggleton P., 2006, Evolutionary Process in Binary and Multiple Stars, Cambridge University Press
Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 2007, ApJ, 663, 320
Gaposchkin S., 1944, ApJ, 100, 230
Goraya P. S., 1986, MNRAS, 222, 121
Herbig G. H., 1995, ARA&A, 33, 19
Hilditch R. W., 2001, An Introduction to Close Binary Stars, Cambridge University Press
H[ø]{}g E., et al., 2000, A&A, 355, L27
Houk N., Smith-Moore M., 1988, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars. Volume 4, Declinations -26¡.0 to -12¡.0. Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1090, USA.
Kolbas V., Dervi[ş]{}o[ğ]{}lu A., Pavlovski K., Southworth J., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3118
Kurucz R., 1993, CD-ROM 18
Lahulla J. F., Hilton J., 1992, A&AS, 94, 265
Lang K. R., 1999, Astrophysical formulae, K. R. Lang. New York, Springer.
Lubow S. H., Shu F. H., 1975, ApJ, 198, 383
Lucy L. B., 2005, A&A, 439, 663
Mennickent R. E., Pietrzy[ń]{}ski G., Diaz M., Gieren W., 2003, A&A, 399, L47
Mennickent R. E., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., Michalska G., Pietrzy[ń]{}ski G., Gallardo R., Cidale L., Granada A., Gieren W., 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1605
Mennickent R. E., Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{} G., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., Michalska G., 2012a, MNRAS, 421, 862
Mennickent R. E., Ko[ł]{}aczkowski Z., Djurašević G., Niemczura E., Diaz M., Cur[é]{} M., Araya I., Peters G. J., 2012b, MNRAS, 427, 607
Mennickent R. E., Rosales J., 2014, IBVS, 6116, 1
Mennickent R. E., 2013, Central European Astrophysical Bulletin, 37, 41
Munari U., 2000, Molecules in Space and in the Laboratory, Proceedings of a workshop held 2-5 June 1999 in Carloforte, Cagliari. Edited by I. Porceddu, and S. Aiello. Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society, Conference Proceedings, v. 67, p.179
Munari U., Zwitter T., 1997, A&A, 318, 269
Niemczura E., Polubek G., 2006, ESASP, 624
Packet W., 1981, A&A, 102, 17
Petrovic J., Langer N., van der Hucht K. A., 2005, A&A, 435, 1013
Popham R., Narayan R., 1991, ApJ, 370, 604
Plavec M. J., 1980, IAUS, 88, 251
Plavec M. J., 1992, ASPC, 22, 47
Plavec M., Koch R. H., 1978, IBVS, 1482, 1
Pojmanski G., 1997, AcA, 47, 467
Poleski R., Soszy[ń]{}ski I., Udalski A., Szyma[ń]{}ski M. K., Kubiak M., Pietrzy[ń]{}ski G., Wyrzykowski [Ł]{}., Ulaczyk K., 2010, AcA, 60, 179
Porceddu I., Benvenuti P., Krelowski J., 1992, A&A, 257, 745
Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., Flannery B. P., 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran, second ed., in: The Art of Scientific Computing, vol. 120, Cambridge University Press
Przybilla N., Butler K., Becker S. R., Kudritzki R. P., 2006, A&A, 445, 1099
Pustylnik, I., Kalv, P., Harvig, V., 2007, A&AT, 26, 31
Rafert J. B., Twigg L. W., 1980, MNRAS, 193, 79
Sbordone, L., 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital. Suppl., 8, 61
Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, ApJ, 737, 103
Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Stellingwerf R. F., 1978, ApJ, 224, 953
van Rensbergen W., De Greve J. P., De Loore C., Mennekens N., 2008, A&A, 487, 1129
von Zeipel H., 1924, MNRAS, 84, 702
Weselak T., Galazutdinov G. A., Musaev F. A., Kre[ł]{}owski J., 2008, A&A, 484, 381
Whittet D. C. B., Blades J. C., 1980, MNRAS, 190, 41P
Wright E. L., et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
Zahn J.-P., 1977, A&A, 57, 383
Zahn J.-P., 1975, A&A, 41, 329
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/
[^2]: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/
[^3]: Technical descriptions for these spectrographs and their cameras can be found in www.eso.org/ , http://www.ctio.noao.edu/ and http://www.lco.cl/
[^4]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^5]: https://www.eso.org/sci/observing/tools/uvespop.html
[^6]: http://atmos.obspm.fr/
[^7]: http://wwwuser.oat.ts.astro.it/castelli/grids.html
[^8]: http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/theory/vosa4/
[^9]: http://www.originlab.com
[^10]: http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/theory/newov/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show analytically that the apparent non-analyticity discovered recently in the inverse participation ratio (IPR) of the eigenstates in Anderson’s model of localization is also present in a simple two-site model, along with a concurrent non-analyticity in the density of states (DOS) at the same energy. We demonstrate its evolution from two sites to the thermodynamic limit by numerical methods. For the two site model, non-analyticity in higher derivatives of the DOS and IPR is also proven to exist for all bounded distributions of disorder.'
author:
- 'S. Johri$^{1}$ and R. N. Bhatt$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Singular Behavior of Anderson Localized Wavefunctions for a Two-Site Model'
---
****
Introduction
============
In a recent paper[@johri-bhatt], we reported numerical studies of the Anderson model of localization[@anderson] in the insulating regime. We studied, in particular, the ensemble-averaged inverse participation ratio (IPR), $I(E)$, which characterizes the extent of eigenstates at a given energy $E$. We found that $I(E)$ exhibits a sharp, apparently singular, behavior as a function of $E$, at a specific energy $E$, which lies in the insulating phase, but is clearly distinct from the true band edge. This sudden change in behavior was interpreted in terms of a sharp transition from a regime comprising for the most part of typical, Anderson-localized states, to one comprising almost exclusively states involving resonance between two (or more) sites. Such states involving resonance among a large number of sites are known in the literature as Lifshitz states[@kramer], [@lifshitz].
This aforementioned behavior was seen in one, two and three dimensions for bounded distributions of on-site energies (e.g. the uniform distribution of width $w$ with a constant probability density between the limits $\pm w/2$.), but not for unbounded distributions ([*e.g.*]{} Gaussian). The apparent singular behavior could be observed most clearly for disorder exceeding a certain, moderate value (disorder width $w = 3.8$ for the uniform distribution in $d = 1$), and appeared to persist for extremely large disorder, where most states at the energies of interest are localized on a few sites. This provides motivation for studying various quantities analytically for the Anderson model defined on a small, finite number of sites. The simplest of these exhibiting the difference between typically localized and resonant states is the two-site model, which, as we show below, can be solved analytically.
The solution for the two-site model shows that for all bounded distributions defined in the interval $(-w/2, w/2)$, both the ensemble averaged IPR, $I(E)$, and the density of states $\rho(E)$, exhibit singular behavior at the energies $E=\pm E_2$ whose value is related to the disorder width $w$ by the simple algebraic expression $E_2 = \sqrt {w^2/4 + 1}$. The exact nature of the singularity depends on the form of the distribution characterizing the diagonal disorder of the Anderson model. In particular for the uniform distribution of Anderson’s original paper[@anderson], with a step discontinuity at $-w/2$ and $+w/2$, both quantities show a slope discontinuity. This is rather similar to what is seen numerically for the thermodynamic system[@johri-bhatt], though the energy at which the apparent singular behavior is seen for the thermodynamic system differs from that of the two-site model. Nevertheless, the reason for the discontinuity in slope is found to be the same in the two-site model, namely the loss of certain kind of states beyond a critical energy[@johri-bhatt], so it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the two phenomena are related. For other bounded distributions, with power-law thresholds, the singularity for the two-site model appears in a higher order derivative, while for integrable, inverse power law thresholds (where the distribution diverges at the edges), the [*derivatives*]{} of $\rho(E)$ and $I(E)$ diverge at $E=\pm E_2$.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II, we define the n-site Anderson model on a ring ([*i.e.*]{}, with periodic boundary conditions). Since all states of the Anderson model are known to be localized in $d = 1$, this set of models are representative of the localized phase, and also of the true thermodynamic model for sufficiently large disorder. We then specialize to the case of two sites and present complete results for the ensemble averaged density of states and the inverse participation ratio for the case of Anderson’s uniform distribution. The details of the calculation, provided in Appendix A, make it clear that a bounded distribution is necessary to obtain singular points for the two-site model. We then consider other bounded distributions with power law singularities, and demonstrate the singular behavior of appropriate derivatives of $\rho(E)$ and $I(E)$. Details of the derivation are provided in Appendix B. In Section III, we present our results for $\rho(E)$ and $I(E)$ for the n-site Anderson model with a uniform distribution obtained numerically for two values of $w$, representing moderate and large disorder, and show how these quantities evolve with n. Finally, in Section IV, we summarize our results.
Anderson Model and Symmetric, Bounded Probability Distributions
===============================================================
The Anderson model Hamiltonian is given by: $$\label{eq:ham}
H = \sum_{i}\epsilon_i |i><i| + V \sum_{<i,j>} |i><j|$$ where $|i>$ are states localized on sites $i$ of a simple hypercubic lattice in $d$-dimensions, and $i$, $j$ are nearest neighbours. The onsite energies $\epsilon_i$ are independent random variables taken from a specified distribution $P(\epsilon)$. By definition, $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}P(\epsilon) d\epsilon=1$. We take $P(\epsilon)$ to be non-zero only between $\pm w/2$. Within these limits, the distribution can have any form as long as it is continuous and symmetric in energy. Examples are the uniform, semicircular and inverse-power law distributions (Fig.\[fig:dist\] (i) - (iii)). Later in this section, we will briefly discuss what happens when $P(\epsilon)$ is not bounded (e.g. Gaussian distribution (Fig.\[fig:dist\] (iv))). In the thermodynamic limit, for symmetric $P(\epsilon)$ and $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattices which are bipartite (including the nearest neighbour chain that we consider here), properties are symmetric around $E=0$. The symmetry in energy also holds for finite size systems that have an even number of sites.
![Some normalized distributions of the on-site energy considered in this paper. On the left are three bounded distributions: (i) Uniform, $P(\epsilon)=1/w$, (ii) & (iii) have power law edges, $P(\epsilon)=\frac{2 \Gamma(3/2+\lambda)}{\sqrt{\pi}w\Gamma(1+\lambda)}(1-4\epsilon^2/w^2)^\lambda$ for $\lambda=1/2$ and $\lambda=-1/2$ respectively. On the right is the unbounded Gaussian distribution.[]{data-label="fig:dist"}](distributions-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The hopping $V$ is assumed to have the same non-zero value for all nearest neighbours, and zero for non-nearest neighbours. In this paper, we use $V=-1$ to define our unit of energy. In one-dimension, which is what we consider in this paper, all eigenstates in the Anderson model are known to be localized[@mott] for non-zero $w$. The localization length decreases as the disorder, parametrized by the range of possible values of $\epsilon_i$ (e.g. the width of its probability distribution $w$), increases.
The IPR for a wavefunction $\Psi=\sum_{i}a_i |i>$ is defined as $$\label{eq:defipr}
I_{\Psi}=\frac{\sum_{i} {|a_i|^4}}{\left(\sum_{i}{|a_i|^2}\right)^2}$$ It is inversely proportional to the width (support) of the wavefunction. For localized eigenstates, the IPR goes to a constant as the system size tends to infinity. As detailed in our previous paper, in the Anderson model which uses a uniform distribution, the IPR has a local (non-zero) minimum at the centre of the band, rises to a maximum and turns around sharply in an apparently non-analytic manner and goes to zero at the band edges $E=\pm(w/2+2)$. We now consider the Anderson model for finite lattices. For two sites (1,2), the Hamiltonian of Eq. \[eq:ham\] reduces to $$\label{eq:ham_two}
H = \epsilon_1 |1><1|+\epsilon_2 |2><2| - |1><2| - |2><1|
$$ i.e. a $2\times2$ matrix, which one can easily solve for arbitrary $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$. The eigenvalues are $$E_{\pm}=\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}} \pm \sqrt{\frac{y^2}{2}+1}$$ where $x=\frac{\epsilon_{1} + \epsilon_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $y=\frac{\epsilon_{1} - \epsilon_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$. The corresponding eigenstates can be written as $\alpha|1>+\beta|2>$ where $$\bigg(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\bigg) _{\pm}=\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}\mp \sqrt{\left(\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2+1}$$ The IPR for both wavefunctions is the same: $$\label{eq:ipr}
I_{\pm}=1-\frac{1}{1+y^2/2}$$ which is further independent of x.
The random variables $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ have a probability distribution $P(\epsilon)$. The ensemble averaged DOS ($\rho$) and IPR ($I$) are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dos}
\rho(E) &=& \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty }^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \epsilon_1 d \epsilon_2 P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2) \times {}
\nonumber\\
&& {} [\delta(E-E_1)+\delta(E-E_2)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ipr}
I(E) & = & \frac{1}{\rho(E)}\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \epsilon_1 d \epsilon_2 P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2)\times{}
\nonumber\\
&& {} [\delta(E-E_1)+\delta(E-E_2)]\times{}
\nonumber\\
&&{}\bigg(1-\frac{1}{2(1+\frac{y^2}{2})}\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ Transforming the variables to x and y makes the integrals easier to evaluate. The Jacobian is unity, giving $d\epsilon_1 d \epsilon_2 = dxdy$.
For $w=0$, the DOS will be two delta functions at $E=\pm 1$. For $0<w<2$, the DOS goes to zero for $w/2-1<E<-w/2+1$ (see Appendix A). Since the two-site model is expected to be a good approximation for the infinite model only at large $w$, we take $w>2$ from now on.
Under these conditions, the integrands in Eq. \[eq:dos\] and Eq. \[eq:ipr\] are non-zero only over the square shown in Fig.1. As shown in Appendix A, the arguments of the delta functions in the integrals are just two branches of a hyperbola symmetric about the x-axis, $(x/\sqrt{2}-E)^2-y^2/2=1$. At $E=0$, it is also symmetric about the y-axis. As $E$ increases (decreases), the hyperbola moves right (left) as shown in Fig \[fig:sqhyper\] of Appendix A. Any ensemble averaged property of the wavefunctions can be calculated as a function of energy by doing the relevant line integral along the length of the hyperbola lying inside the square.
![Allowed values of x and y lie inside the square. Colorbar shows variation of IPR over square. The red curve shows the left branch of the hyperbola when it is tangent to sides 1 and 4 of the square.[]{data-label="fig:rot_sq"}](rotated_square_ipr_map_3.pdf){width="1.5\columnwidth"}
The simplest bounded probability distribution is one in which the $P(\epsilon)$ is a constant between $-w/2$ and $w/2$. This is also the distribution considered in Anderson’s original paper[@anderson]. The complete expressions for the DOS and IPR when the probability distribution is uniform are given in Table \[table:dos\_ipr\_expr\] and the derivation is provided in Appendix A. In Fig \[fig:w2pt25\] and Fig \[fig:w3\], we plot (as solid lines) the analytical DOS and IPR for 2 sites as a function of energy for $w=4.5$ and $w=6$ respectively which agree with our numerical results shown as rightward-pointing triangles. Going from the centre to the edge of the band, the slope of the DOS and IPR discontinuously changes sign at $E=\pm E_2$. This can be understood as a loss of typical “Anderson” type states as follows.
Energy Range $\rho(E)$ $I(E)$
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
$-\frac{w}{2}-1\rightarrow -\sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1}$ $2\alpha$ $1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\tan^{-1}(\frac{\alpha}{2})$
$-\sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1}\rightarrow -\frac{w}{2}+1$ $2\beta$ $1-\frac{1}{\beta}\tan^{-1}(\frac{\beta}{2})$
$-\frac{w}{2}+1\rightarrow \frac{w}{2}-1$ $2(\alpha+\beta)$ $1-\frac{\tan^{-1}(\frac{\beta}{2})+\tan^{-1}(\frac{\alpha}{2})}{\alpha+\beta}$
$\frac{w}{2}-1\rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1} $ $2\alpha$ $1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\tan^{-1}(\frac{\alpha}{2})$
$\sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1}\rightarrow \frac{w}{2}+1$ $2\beta$ $1-\frac{1}{\beta}\tan^{-1}(\frac{\beta}{2})$
: Analytical expressions for DOS and IPR over the whole band for the uniform distribution when $w>2$. Here, $a=E+w/2$, $b=E-w/2$ and $\alpha= \frac{a^2-1}{a}$, $\beta=\frac{1-b^2}{b}$.[]{data-label="table:dos_ipr_expr"}
The IPR is an average over all the states lying on the hyperbola. Each point in the square will contribute to the average at two different energies, once when it lies on the left branch of the hyperbola and once when it lies on the right. The states with the highest IPR lie on the upper and lower vertices of the square. These states occur when $|y|$ is maximum, i.e. $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are far from each other. Near the center of the square, $\epsilon_1$ is close to $\epsilon_2$ — wavefunctions arising from these configurations can be called ‘resonant’ states.
At $E=E_2$, the left branch of the hyperbola becomes tangent to the sides 1 and 4 of the square as shown in Fig. 1. In this position, the maximum length of the hyperbola passes through the high IPR region. The average IPR will thus be maximum in this region. However, at any energy close to this, the hyperbola shifts and the high-IPR states start being lost leading to a decrease in the average IPR. The rate of decrease is different when the shift is left or right, leading to a discontinuity in the slope $\frac{dI(E)}{dE}$ of the average IPR. When the hyperbola moves left ($E$ decreases), it still passes through a large number of high IPR states. When it moves right ($E$ increases), it loses the high-IPR states much faster, and passes through states for which $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2$ is large and $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ is small, implying that both sites have energies close to $w/2$. These type of resonant states which occur near the edge of the band and arise from clusters of sites which have energies close to one of the band edges, are called Lifshitz states. They are separated here from the rest of the band by the non-analytic point in the IPR.
The softer discontinuity in the DOS is only due to a decrease in the total number of states lying on the hyperbola, irrespective of whether they are regular Anderson localized or resonant states.
For a non-constant (but still bounded) probability distribution, the discontinuity may be present in higher derivatives of the DOS and IPR. As shown in Appendix B, the expression for $(d^n\rho/dE^n)$ or $(d^n I/dE^n)$ will have terms of the form $(d^{m_1}P(\epsilon_1)/d\epsilon_1^{m_1}) (d^{m_2}P(\epsilon_2)/d\epsilon_2^{m_2})$ with $(m_1+m_2)$ ranging from $0$ to $(n-1)$. If any of these terms are non-zero at the edge, there will be a discontinuity in that derivative at $E=\pm E_2$. If any of them diverge at the edge, then the corresponding $(d^n\rho/dE^n)$ and $(d^n I/dE^n)$ will also diverge at $E=\pm E_2$. Thus, if a probability distribution $P(\epsilon)\rightarrow (1-4\epsilon^2/w^2)^\lambda$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow w/2$ with $-1<\lambda<0$, then all the derivatives of DOS and IPR will be infinite at $E=\pm E_2$. For $\lambda$ positive, the divergence will be in a higher derivative. From the above discussion, it is easy to see that a non-bounded probability distribution like the Gaussian, for which the boundaries of the square lie at infinity, will not exhibit any discontinuities in the 2-site model.
Numerical Results
=================
In Fig \[fig:w2pt25\] and Fig \[fig:w3\], we plot with varying symbols numerical results for $n$-site chains for typical values of disorder, $w=4.5$ and $6$. These typical cases show how the DOS and IPR converge to their thermodynamic limits relatively quickly as $n$ is increased, as expected since we are in the localized regime. Larger values of $w$ (larger disorder) require smaller size systems to reach the thermodynamic limit within a given precision as the localization length decreases with increasing disorder. Thus, for $w=4.5$, a lattice size of 100 is required to obtain results significantly closer to the thermodynamic limit than the size of the symbols, whereas for $w=6$, only 20 sites are required. The discontinuity in the derivative of the IPR survives and seems to grow sharper in the thermodynamic limit, whereas that for the DOS seems to flatten out a bit. There also seems to be an additional feature in the IPR beyond the maximum. This may be the start of a transition into another regime of resonant states, e.g. from 2 sites to 3 sites. However, this is hard to confirm numerically. Interestingly, as would be expected if the above conjecture were true, it is not present in the two-site model.
To measure the evolution of the non-analytic behavior with size, the curves on either side of the roughly estimated maxima of the DOS and IPR were fit with quadratic functions up to the points where additional kinks occur in the curve. The position of the maxima, $E_{\rho,1}$ and $E_{I,1}$ were then determined from the intersection of these fits. The difference of the slopes $s_{left}$ and $s_{right}$ of the fits near the maxima were used to quantify the discontinuity. ($\Delta s=s_{left}-s_{right}$) is shown to reach a constant value with increasing size in Fig \[fig:diffslope\], suggesting that the singularity survives in the thermodynamic limit.
![Evolution of DOS and IPR with increasing system size for $w=4.5$. Solid line shows analytical result for n=2.[]{data-label="fig:w2pt25"}](dos_ipr_evolution_n_w_2pt25-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="2\columnwidth"}
![Evolution of DOS and IPR with increasing system size for $w=6$. Solid line shows analytical result for n=2.[]{data-label="fig:w3"}](dos_ipr_evolution_n_w_3-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="2\columnwidth"}
![$\Delta s = (s_{left} - s_{right})$ as a function of system size for $w=6$ for DOS (triangles) and IPR (circles).[]{data-label="fig:diffslope"}](slope_diff_w_3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig \[fig:maxpos\] compares the analytically determined point of discontinuity ($E=\sqrt{w^2/4+1}$)in the 2-site case to the numerically determined one in the infinite size limit. For large disorder, the 2-site problem seems to be a good approximation to the infinite size limit, whereas for smaller $w$ the deviation is larger. This is to be expected since increasing disorder leads to smaller localization lengths.
![Comparison of value of energy at which singularity occurs for 2 sites (blue solid line) and the large size limit (red circles). The red dotted line is a fit to the circles. The leading term $w/2$ is subtracted from the energy to amplify the difference.[]{data-label="fig:maxpos"}](energydiffvsw-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have shown by direct calculation how the non-analyticity in the DOS and IPR arises for the 2-site model for bounded disorder. Further, we have shown the evolution with number of sites for the case of uniform disorder and found an apparent singularity, at least for IPR, surviving in the thermodynamic limit. Our numerical studies on different lattice sizes suggest that there is an exact energy at which high IPR states are lost and that the position as well as the magnitude of the singularity approach a limit as $n \rightarrow \infty$. It is at least clear that the singularity arises due to the bounded nature of the disorder distribution, which leads to loss of high-IPR wavefunctions at a particular energy in the band like in the 2-site model. The non-analyticity appears to be present for all lattice sizes and we surmise that it survives in the thermodynamic limit. The question of whether it is possible to show that the non-analyticity persists in the thermodynamic limit by analytical means remains unanswered at present.
We also remark that studying a 3-site model may allow us to determine if the shoulders seen in the IPR curves in Fig. \[fig:w2pt25\] and Fig. \[fig:w3\] are due to transition from 2 to 3 resonant sites.
After this work was completed, we received news of parallel work by Ujfalusi & Varga [@varga] which addresses some of the issues discussed in this paper.
This work was supported by DOE grant DE-SC20002140.
Appendix A
==========
The integrands in Eq. \[eq:dos\] and Eq. \[eq:ipr\] contain delta functions in a 2 dimensional space. Using the identity for $n$- dimensions: $$\int{\delta(g(\vec{r})) f(\vec{r}) d \vec{r}^n}= \int_{g(\vec{r})=0}{\frac{d \sigma(\vec{r})}{|\vec{\nabla}g|} f(\vec{x})}$$ where the integral on the right is over the hypersurface $g(\vec{r})=0$, in one dimension lower than the one on the left. In our case $g(\vec{r})=E-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x \pm \sqrt{y^2 + 2})$ i.e. the equation of a hyperbola for fixed $g(\vec{r})$, here $g(\vec{r})=0$. When $E=0$, the hyperbola is symmetric about the $y$-axis, and when $E$ is non-zero, the hyperbola is displaced along the $x$-axis. It is always symmetric about the $x$-axis.
Because of the delta function and the bounds on $x$ and $y$, we effectively have to calculate a line integral along the portion of the hyperbola which lies inside the square. The hyperbola can be parametrized by $x=\sqrt{2} (\sec (t) + E)$, $y=\sqrt{2} \tan (t)$. Thus, we have $|\vec{\nabla}g|=\sqrt{\frac{y^2+1}{y^2+2}}=\sqrt{\frac{2\tan^2(t)+1}{2 \sec^2(t)}}$ and $d\sigma=\sqrt{2 \sec^2(t) \tan^2(t)+2 \sec^4 (t)}dt = \sqrt{2} \sec(t) \sqrt{\tan^2(t)+ \sec^2(t)}$. The intersection points of the sides of the square (numbered as in Fig.1) with the hyperbola are: $y_3=\frac{(\frac{w}{2}+E)^2-1}{\sqrt{2}(\frac{w}{2}+E)}$, $y_4=\frac{(\frac{w}{2}-E)^2-1}{\sqrt{2}(\frac{w}{2}-E)}$, $y_1=-y_4$ and $y_2=-y_3$.
The five possible situations for $w>2$ are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sqhyper\]. The size of the square depends only on $w$. The position of the hyperbola depends only on the energy. For $w<2$, the density of states goes to zero in the middle case (Fig. \[fig:sqhyper\](iii)) since the square is small enough to lie between the two branches of the hyperbola without intersecting either of them.
![Hyperbola $E=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x \pm \sqrt{y^2 + 2})$ moves to the right as $E$ increases. Figures (i)-(v) depict sequentially the five cases in Table \[table:dos\_ipr\_expr\]. Allowed values of $x$ and $y$ lie inside the square.[]{data-label="fig:sqhyper"}](sq_hyperbola-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="4.8cm" height="10"}
In cases (i) and (ii), only the right branch of the hyperbola ($E_-$) falls inside the square, for (iv) and (v), we need to account for only the left branch ($E_+$), and in case (iii), both branches are required. For positive energies, the point which gives rise to the change in sign of the slopes of average DOS and IPR is at the transition from case (iv) to case (v) (There will also be a smaller discontinuous change in the slopes when transitioning from (iii) to (iv)).
The integrand is independent of $E$ and the dependence on $E$ is provided by the limits of the integration. The average IPR and DOS for the uniform distribution are $$\rho(E)= \int_{-y_0(E)}^{y_0(E)}{2 \sec^2(t) dt}$$Similarly, $$I(E)= \frac{1}{\rho(E)}\int_{-y_0(E)}^{y_0(E)}{2 \sec^2(t) \bigg(1-\frac{1}{2 \sec^2(t)}\bigg)}dt$$ with limits of the above integrals given by the intersection points and using one or both branches of the hyperbola as appropriate. The final expressions are given in Table \[table:dos\_ipr\_expr\].
The transitions between case (i) to case (ii) and case (iv) to case (v) occur at $E=\pm E_2$. At these points, $y_3=y_4 =\frac{w}{\sqrt{2}}$. From Eq. 2, $x=0$ at his point. This corresponds to the situation $\epsilon_1=w/2$ and $\epsilon_2=-w/2$ or vice versa, that is, the two sites lie at opposite ends of the probability distribution.
Appendix B
==========
The DOS (and IPR) contains contributions $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ from the 2 branches of the hyperbola. In this section, the analysis is carried out only for $\rho_1$. The other term can be calculated in an analogous manner.
For any symmetric, bounded and continuous probability distribution $P(\epsilon)$, the DOS due to the left branch of the hyperbola can be expressed in x and y coordinates as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dos_gen}
\rho_1(E) & = & \frac{1}{2}\int dx dy P\left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)P\left(\frac{x-y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\times {}
\nonumber\\
&& {} \delta\left(E-\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}} - \sqrt{\frac{y^2}{2}+1}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber &=& \frac{1}{2}\int_{-y_0(E)}^{y_0(E)} \frac{dy}{1/\sqrt{2}} P\left(\frac{x(E,y)+y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\times\\
& &P\left(\frac{x(E,y)-y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ In the integrand $x$ is now a function of $E$ and $y$: $x=\sqrt{2}E+\sqrt{y^2+2}$. $P\left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)=P(\epsilon_1)$ and $P\left(\frac{x-y}{\sqrt{2}}\right)=P(\epsilon_2)$. The limits $y_0(E)$ depend on the width of the probability distribution.
Differentiating Eq.\[eq:dos\_gen\] with respect to $E$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d \rho_1(E)}{dE}&= \sqrt{2}\left\{ \left[\int_0^{y_0} {dy \frac{\partial (P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2))}{\partial E}}\right] \right.\nonumber\\
&\qquad \left. {}+ [P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2)]_{y=y_0} \frac{d y_0}{dE}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ Consider the left and right limits of $\frac{d \rho_1(E)}{dE}$ at $E=-\sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1}$ when the probability distribution is bounded between $-w/2$ and $w/2$. $y_0=y_3$ (intersection of the hyperbola with sides 2 and 3 of the square) for the left limit and $y_0=y_4$ (intersection with sides 1 and 4) for the right limit. The first term (the integral) remains the same for both since at the critical energy $E=-\sqrt{\frac{w^2}{4}+1}$, $y_3=y_4=w/\sqrt{2}$. Now consider the second term. $\frac{d y_3}{dE} \neq \frac{d y_4}{dE}$, $P(\epsilon_1)=P(w/2)$ and $P(\epsilon_2)=P(-w/2)$, i.e. equal to their value at the edges. For the uniform distribution, these are non-zero, and therefore the first derivative of $DOS$ is discontinuous.
Similarly, we can calculate the second derivative:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2 \rho_1(E)}{dE^2} &=& \sqrt{2} \left(\int_0^{y_0} {dy \frac{\partial^2 (P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2))}{\partial E^2}}\right) {}
\nonumber\\
&& {} + \left(\frac{d (P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2))_{y=y_0}}{d E}\right) \frac{d y_0}{dE}
\nonumber\\
&& {} + \left(\frac{\partial (P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2))}{\partial E}\right)_{y=y_0} \frac{d y_0}{dE}
\nonumber\\
&& {}+ (P(\epsilon_1) P(\epsilon_2))_{y=y_0} \frac{d^2 y_0}{dE^2}\end{aligned}$$
and so on. Note that $\frac{\partial P(\epsilon)}{\partial E}= \frac{dP(\epsilon)}{d\epsilon}\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial E}$.
The integration term on the right is always same for both limits. The other terms are of the form $\frac{d^{m_1}P(\epsilon_1)}{d\epsilon_1^{m_1}} \frac{d^{m_2}P(\epsilon_2)}{d\epsilon_2^{m_2}}\frac{d^k y_0}{dE^k}$. Since $\frac{d^k y_0}{dE^k}$ is always discontinuous at $E=E_2$ for any $k$, a non-zero or infinite value of $\frac{d^{m_1}P(\epsilon_1)}{d\epsilon_1^{m_1}} \frac{d^{m_2}P(\epsilon_2)}{d\epsilon_2^{m_2}}$ is required for a discontinuity in $\rho$. For example, if $P(\epsilon)$ has the form $(1-2x/w)^{\lambda}$ at the edge, then $2\lambda-m_1-m_2>0$ for analyticity. Therefore, the derivative on the left side of the equation will be discontinuous at $E=E_2$ if it is of order $(n+1)$ or greater where $n$ is the smallest integer greater than or equal to $2\lambda$.
For a non-bounded distribution, $y_0$ will be infinity, independent of $E$ and therefore the DOS is always smooth. In the 2-site problem, since the IPR and its derivatives are only a function of y and independent of x, they will have discontinuities at the same orders and energies as the DOS.
[99]{} S.Johri and R.N. Bhatt, arXiv:1106.1131. P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**109**]{}, 1492 (1958). B. Kramer and A. MacKinnon, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**56**]{}, 1469 (1993). I. M. Lifshitz, Adv. Phys. [**13**]{}, 483 (1964); Soviet Physics Uspekhi [**7**]{}, 549 (1965). N. F. Mott and W. D. Twose, Adv. Phys. [**10**]{}, 107 (1961). L. Ujfalusi and I. Varga, arXiv:1205.4569
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Conventionally, network migration models study competition between emerging and incumbent technologies by considering the resulting increase in revenue and associated cost of migration. We propose to advance the science in the existing network migration models by considering additional critical factors, including (i) synergistic relationships across multiple technologies, (ii) reduction in operational expenditures (OpEx) as a reason to migrate, and, (iii) implications of local network effects on migration decisions. To this end, we propose a novel agent-based migration model considering these factors. Based on the model, we analyze the case study of network migration to two emerging networking paradigms, i.e., IETF Path Computation Element (PCE) and Software-Defined Networking (SDN). We validate our model using extensive simulations. Our results demonstrate the synergistic effects of migration to multiple complementary technologies, and show that a technology migration may be eased by the joint migration to multiple technologies. In particular, we find that migration to SDN can be eased by joint migration to PCE, and that the benefits derived from SDN are best exploited in combination with PCE, than by itself.'
author:
- Tamal Das
- Marek Drogon
- |
\
Admela Jukan
- Marco Hoffmann
bibliography:
- 'netmig.bib'
title: |
Study of Network Migration to New Technologies\
using Agent-based Modeling Techniques
---
Introduction
============
Technical novelties in conjunction with economic factors decide the fate of an emergent technology, protocol, standard or product in present-day communication networks. Networks are constantly migrating to new technologies and services, not only driven by the growth of subscribers base and application demand, but also new technological advances. The migration is typically a gradual transition over time, requiring the interoperability and integration of different network applications, technologies and protocols. For instance, though the first IPv6 specification was released in 1998 [@rfc2460], the migration process is still ongoing with only 0.2% of current Internet traffic being IPv6-compliant [@ddosarbor]. On the other hand, IP backbones today migrate to router interfaces of a higher capacity at a much faster pace. A typical carrier IP network is re-planned and increased capacity every 12-18 months, so that maximum utilization at peak traffic loads is never higher than approximately 30%-40% [@headroom]. Thus, there is no doubt that understanding the strategy and the investments for network migrations, as well as the expected revenue, network operation expense and user growth are at the heart of every network migration decision.
Technology adoption has been significantly investigated in the literature using various migration models. However, a few increasingly important factors have not received enough attention. First, the majority of previous studies model technology migration in isolation, disregarding the effect of co-existing technologies in the market. Such studies, thus, do not account for the synergistic relationships that may exist across technologies, which as a result, may either facilitate or impede the adoption of a new technology. For instance, an offering of VPN services with guaranteed QoS may result in a higher revenue, when combined with automated network management systems. Second, the majority of migration models are based on the capital expenditures (CapEx) required to purchase the new technology. However, technology migration often results in tangible reduction of operational expenditures (OpEx) that is gained over time, which is typically neglected in the current models. Finally, human decisions are subject to influence of the social and behavioral factors involved in the process of migration. For example, although herd mentality (or network effects) plays a significant role in the adoption of a technology, over and beyond its technological merits, it is rarely captured in migration models.
In this paper, we propose a generic agent-based model to explore network migration to multiple new *complementary* technologies – technologies whose simultaneous migration is expected to provide greater rewards than the sum of the rewards derived from their isolated migrations. In addition to CapEx, our model also incorporates the difference in the OpEx incurred pre- and post-migration, which significantly affects an agent’s decision to migrate. In the proposed model, an agent also incorporates its estimates of its neighbor’s decision to migrate, in its own migration decision. We accomplish this by means of both deterministic and probabilistic heuristics. Our results confirm that a technology migration may be eased by the joint migration of a complementary technology that is more likely to be adopted.
To validate our proposed model, we analyze the case study of optimal path computation with joint migration to two emerging networking paradigms, i.e., IETF Path Computation Element (PCE [@Farrel06]) and Software-Defined Networking (SDN [@SDN-onf-whitepaper]), respectively. The assumed network is a typical multi-vendor and multi-administration network, where separate *network islands* of routing systems need to cooperate to provision an end-to-end connection, and are subject to migration decision pertaining to PCE, SDN, or both. PCE enables optimal path computation across network islands, an improved price/performance ratio, while, at the same time simplifying path computation operations [@metaswitch-whitepaper]. All these benefits added together attract considerably more users (and in turn traffic) to the network. Exchanges between PCE and network elements, though standardized, are limited to PCEP messages, and thus a PCE cannot setup the computed paths itself. To overcome this limitation, the network operator may decide to migrate to another technology, say, SDN, which facilitates configuration of all the network elements, and thereby helps in setting up the computed paths. Moreover, combining a stateful PCE with OpenFlow provides an efficient solution for operating transport networks [@casellas]. Thus, there is an implicit correlation between the deployment of PCE and SDN in a network, which make these two technologies an interesting and practically relevant case study.
Our paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:rw\] discusses the related literatures and puts our contributions into perspective, while Section \[sec:reference architecture\] provides an overview of the technologies that we study, namely PCE and SDN. Section \[sec:model\] defines our generic multi-technology migration model and its application to the case study of PCE/SDN. Section \[sec:rd\] discusses the simulation framework to evaluate our network migration model, and highlights its various aspects using the empirical results, while, Section \[sec:conclusion\] presents some concluding remarks.
Related Work and Our Contribution {#sec:rw}
=================================
In this section, we summarize the previous research in the domain of our work, and highlight our contributions in this paper.
System Dynamics v/s Agent-based Models
--------------------------------------
Network migrations are typically studied using *system-dynamics* [@Jin08; @Sen10] and *agent-based* models [@Macy02; @Bonabeau02]. The former approach is based on aggregate system-wide properties, while, in the latter approach, simple rules of mutual interaction between agents govern the evolution of the system. In the system dynamics approach, the migration problem is treated as a dynamic system in [@Jin08; @Sen10], where the rate of migration depends on the existing number of migrated agents in the system, according to the traditional diffusion theory of innovation [@Bass69]. On the other hand, in an agent-based approach [@Macy02; @Bonabeau02], the system consists of an ensemble of agents, each trying to increase its own utility. For example, in [@Gill11], the migration to secure BGP is studied as a series of decisions by each domain to adopt the technology, based on the inter-domain routing and the deployment of secure BGP in other domains. Both approaches demonstrate that the cumulative number of migrations increase over time assuming a ‘*S*’-shaped (or sigmoidal) curve, implying that a majority of migrations is triggered in a short time interval [@Borshchev04]. Despite comparable results, an agent-based approach is preferred over system dynamics, when the mutual interactions between agents in the system is non-uniform, for example, when an agent does not interact uniformly with *all* other agents, but only with those in its local neighborhood. Hence, we choose agent-based modeling over system dynamics approach for our study in this paper.
Single v/s Multiple Migrations
------------------------------
The network migration problem has typically been studied for a single technology or protocol (e.g., IPv6 [@Joseph07; @Trinh10] or secure BGP [@Gill11; @Chan06]), where it is assumed that an emerging protocol/technology *replaces* an incumbent protocol/technology. For example, in case of IPv6, the models assume that the domain operates either in IPv4 or migrates *fully* to IPv6, at which point it operates only with IPv6. Even when multiple protocols are considered, such as S-BGP and soBGP [@Chan06], there is only a single prevalent protocol, and a decision is made by an agent to adapt to only one of the competing protocols. Sohn *et al*. propose an economic evaluation model for a particular aspect of migration, namely, joint development and standardization of correlated technologies [@Sohn11]. Thus, although majority of the prior migration studies deal with migration of a single technology, the novelty of our model is in considering multi-technology migrations.
CapEx and OpEx considerations
-----------------------------
An agent’s migration decision is often considered to be solely based on the CapEx involved. OpEx was recently introduced in cost analysis of migration research to precisely estimate the cost that the migration to a technology requires and compare the alternatives [@Verbrugge05]. However, the game-theoretic modeling of migration have not yet considered it [@Jin08; @Sen10; @Gill11; @Chan06; @Joseph07; @Trinh10]. In this paper, we consider both CapEx and OpEx in an agent’s decision to migrate. In our work, the OpEx reflects an assumption that the proposed new system will include a level of automation into the network that alleviates human efforts, resulting in its overall cost reduction. Our model is thus novel in considering both revenue increase and OpEx reduction, resulting from migration, as the factors affecting an agent’s decision to migrate.
{width="100.00000%"}
Our Approach and Contribution
-----------------------------
This paper extends our previous work on agent-based modeling of network migration to new technologies [@netmig-icc2013]. In this paper, we improve our CapEx, OpEx and revenue functions used in the network migration model. In particular, we take into consideration that revenue of a network island follows economies of scale, i.e., every subsequent unit of traffic incurs a lesser cost to the network operator than the previous. In contrast to [@netmig-icc2013], we differentiate between the OpEx functions in the unmigrated and migrated states. Unlike [@netmig-icc2013], where only an agent’s *immediate* neighbors were considered to affect the migration choices of the agent in question, we now extend this effect to include even *distant* neighbors within an agent’s *circle of influence* (defined in Section \[sec:estimation approaches\]). The mutual effect of an agent’s migration choice on another is weighted by the reciprocal of the distance between them, restricted to a threshold distance (beyond which the effect is considered negligible). We also introduce the notion of *coupling coefficient* to effectively capture the degree to which two complementary technologies couple with each other. We propose two novel heuristics for an agent to estimate the strategies of its neighboring agents in the immediate future, which, in turn, plays a significant role in the migration decision of the agent in question. Another unique contribution is in definiton of an agent’s *payoff* from a transition, which is based on its CapEx, OpEx and revenue functions. An agent migrates only if such a transition results in a positive payoff for itself.
To validate our model, we consider a novel case study of multi-vendor enterprise network, considering the revenue of a network to vary with the volume of traffic it transits for its customers. To this end, we consider simultaneous and correlated deployment of an automated network management system for path computation (PCE) as well as a programmable network configuration with SDN controllers, such as based on OpenFlow [@openflow]. We show that the proposed model is applicable for scenarios, where competing network solutions (such as multi-vendor environments) collaborate and compete at the same time for path setup, while aiming at maximum utilization in course of its operation. As is well-known, inter-operablity of multi-vendor network islands remains a challenge, and a migration to standardized and programmable automated systems is an ongoing open problem in carrier networks [@ONE].
Case Study of PCE and SDN: Background and Reference Architecture {#sec:reference architecture}
================================================================
In this section, we present an overview of the technologies, namely PCE and SDN, which we later study using our network migration model. We compare these two technologies on grounds of path computation and provisioning of a connection request across multiple network islands in a multi-vendor enterprise network based on emerging carrier-Ethernet (connection-oriented) networks.
Technology Overview
-------------------
PCE is a network-wide centralized server that receives path computation requests from Path Computation Clients (PCC), and computes optimal constrained end-to-end paths within a network island. The PCE can reduce the computation overhead and optimize resource utilization by computing optimal paths. A major advantage of the PCE architecture is its ability to compute optimal paths across multiple network islands using the Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) mechanism [@Vasseur09_2]. In the BRPC mechanism, PCEs in different islands along a pre-defined chain progressively compute a Virtual Shortest Path Tree (VSPT) from the destination to the source, in order to compute the optimal end-to-end path. In absence of PCE, network islands use Interior Gateway Protocols (like Open-Shortest-Path-First and Routing-Information-Protocol) and Exterior Gateway Protocols (like Border Gateway Protocol) to compute paths by means of predefined routing table entries.
SDN is an emerging networking architecture that facilitates programmability of the network control plane and its separation from the data plane [@SDN-onf-whitepaper]. It provides a centralized control interface to all the network elements that support SDN protocols, such as Open Flow [@openflow], which helps in quick experimentation, reconfiguration, optimization, and monitoring of switching/routing algorithms. SDN reduces the network OpEx by simplifying operations, optimizing resource usage through centralized data/algorithms, and simplifying network software upgrades. SDN also significantly cuts down a network operator’s CapEx, since a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) server with a high-end CPU is much cheaper than a high-end router [@metaswitch-whitepaper]. Further, SDN offers the possibilities of dynamic network topologies and network virtualization, which makes it currently a highly popular paradigm [@google-openflow].
Reference Architecture
----------------------
Figure \[figUNI\] illustrates an automated connection setup in a typical multi-vendor, multi-technology network island setting. Two different network islands are shown. The network island *A* consists of six different IP routers (C1-C6) from vendor C (e.g. Cisco), whereas, the network island *B* consists of six IP routers (J1-J6) from Vendor J (e.g. Juniper).
The choice of technology for network island *A* is PCE-only. A Path Computation Element (PCE-A) is used within the network to compute constrained-based paths across intra- and inter-network island scenarios. The topology discovery and distribution is handled via separate protocols, such as OSPF, and the RSVP-TE protocol can be used for path setup. All protocols need to be installed and configured separately on every router, with only limited possibilities for functionality extensions and optimizations. Network island *A* has the possibility to migrate to SDN in future. The migration to SDN would benefit network island *A* by introducing a central intelligence that is capable of automating processes, thus saving OpEx.
The choice of technology for network island *B* is PCE+SDN. In this network, a central intelligence (SDN Controller B) is directly accessing every router in the network, via a SDN router interface for flexible configuration of router equipment. The SDN Controller *B* can choose from different network functionalities, such as topology discovery, topology distribution, path computation and path setup. All functionalities are software-defined modules, that are programmed on top of the SDN Controller for on-the-fly functionality extensions and optimizations. Network Island *B* already has the maximal technology set of our case-study. All operations can be fully automated, thus no manual intervention is necessary, resulting in significant OpEx savings.
Both network island are connected via two inter-network island connections. A path computation request from C1 to J6 is handled via the PCEP protocol supported by both network islands. Router C1 sends a PCEP Request message to PCE-A (1). PCE-A tries to compute an end-to-end path to J6, but does not have enough information to calculate this path. PCE-A knows the existence of PCE-B (either through pre-configuration or discovery), and issues a Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation. The PCE-B computes the shortest path from J2 to J6 by accessing the SDN Controller B, that is retrieving all necessary information from the Topology Discovery and Distribution for optimal path computation within network island *B*. The optimal path from the entry-router (J2) to the destination (J6) is returned to PCE-A (4). PCE-A now has the optimal path from J2 to J6 and computes the best path from C1 to J2 and returns the whole path to C1 (5). The resulting path (C1-C2-C4-C6-J2-J3-J5-J6) is used to reach the destination.
A couple of comments are worth noting. First, although each PCE sees only its own network topology, BRPC enables an optimized (i.e., best QoS) end-to-end path. Second, despite the fact that each SDN controller can implement its own path computation algorithm, the assumption here is that they often tend to be highly proprietary in nature. Thus, lack of standards makes it hard for SDNs to interoperate in a multi-vendor setting — that is where the IETF-standardized approach with PCE comes in as an effective solution for interoperability.
Interplay involved in joint migration to PCE and SDN
----------------------------------------------------
As can be seen, the interplay involved in joint migration to PCE and SDN can lead to interesting, non-trivial network behavior, which we now discuss in further detail.
In our analysis, we assume a typical control plane with management network control environment. A network operator has an advantage in migrating to SDN over PCE, as a PCE can only compute paths, while a SDN controller can as well provision the computed paths in a highly programmable fashion. However, as previously mentioned, in a typical multi-vendor setting, a PCE has advantages over SDN. This is because PCE (being standardized) can communicate with neighboring PCEs, whereas, SDNs (being non-standardized) cannot. Thus, larger the diversity of network equipment in the same network, greater is the incentive for the network operator to migrate to PCE than SDN, on account of interoperability considerations.
Within a network island, a SDN controller is *likely* to be able to provision a path, even when a PCE may not. A typical SDN controller, based on OpenFlow, is in fact expected to access and configure network elements at the operator’s liking, including the handling of lower layers of the network, such as optical circuits. Not only can a SDN controller find paths that a PCE is requesting, but it can potentially even reconfigure the whole network such that a totally *new* path is configured to provision a connection request. Thus, SDN can potentially create paths with a better QoS unlike PCE, which only computes paths based on requests. Hence, the end-user benefits more if its network provider migrates to SDN, than PCE. On the other hand, as the PCE protocol is reactive in nature, unlike SDN (which is proactive), end-users stand to gain more from PCE than from SDN.
Whereas a SDN controller is triggered by the NMS/OSS in the network, PCE can be triggered by the end-user. Both SDN and PCE benefit the network operator through OpEx reduction; whereas, PCE, in addition, benefits the end-user by providing improved QoS for end-to-end connections involving multiple vendors. Although a network does not attract any additional traffic by migrating to PCE/SDN, it benefits significantly by reducing its OpEx after migration.
As SDN offers more functionalities than PCE (such as path provisioning, topology discovery and topology distribution), both the CapEx required to migrate to SDN and the resulting OpEx is more than that required to migrate to PCE. In addition, unlike PCE, the non-standardized nature of SDN adds to its OpEx. Further, the CapEx involved in simultaneous migration of a network island to PCE and SDN is less than the sum of the CapEx involved in separate migrations to PCE and SDN. This is because, in case of simultaneous migrations, the PCE can be incorporated *within* the SDN controller, thus providing an integrated platform at a reduced cost.
In summary, network islands that migrate to PCE can compute optimal paths (i.e., with QoS), which can be provisioned using automated network management frameworks, such as SDN. Thus, it is clear that SDN controllers, with its reach limited to a network island, ideally complement the PCEs that can communicate across networks, thereby, enabling optimal end-to-end, multi-vendor, multi-domain path computation and provisioning under QoS constraints.
Multi-Technology Network Migration Model {#sec:model}
========================================
In this Section, we present our generic agent-based model for studying network migration to complementary technologies. As a case study, we apply our model to study the dynamics of joint migration to multi-vendor path computation and provisioning, namely PCE and SDN, respectively.
Generic Model
-------------
Our model captures the collaborative and competitive business relationships between the agents and also the inter-dependencies involved in their decision-making process. The time is discretized, and thus the model progresses in time-steps. The agents are considered to be *myopic* (in time) in their decision-making and are assumed to act under *complete information*. The former assumption entails each agent optimizing their strategy choices *locally* (in time), while the latter means that each agent is aware of the complete network topology as well as the past strategy choices of all other agents.
*Notations*: The agents in our model are denoted by $N_1, N_2, \cdots, N_i,
\cdots$. An agent’s strategy set is represented by a compatible combination of the available strategies. We denote this universal set of strategies available for the agents to choose from, by two sets of *substitutive* strategies, $S
= \left\{ S_{u}, S_{v}\right\}$, where $u$ and $v$ are the *complementary* technologies under consideration, which implies that the payoff that an agent derives by adopting both of them simultaneously is higher than the sum of its payoffs derived by adopting each of them separately (while, no such relationship is assumed to exist between $s_{u,0}$ and $s_{v,0}$). Here, $S_{u}=\left\{s_{u,0},s_{u,1}\right\}$ represents the strategy of non-adoption and adoption of technology $u$, respectively. Similarly, $S_{v}=\left\{s_{v,0},s_{v,1}\right\}$ represents the strategy of non-adoption and adoption of technology $v$, respectively. Further, $s_{u,0}$ (or $s_{v,0}$) and $s_{u,1}$ (or $s_{v,1}$) are *substitutive* strategies, as an agent can adopt only one of them at any given time. Thus, an agent’s *strategy set* for any given time-step is denoted by $a=\left\{s_{u,
k_1},s_{v,k_2}\right\}$, where, $k_1,k_2 \in \{0,1\}$. The volume of sales of agent $N_i$ given its strategy set $a$ is denoted by $T_{a}^i$.
An agent’s revenue and OpEx depends on its amount of sales, while the cost of changing its strategy set depends on the required CapEx. Considering this, we define the following notations. $$\begin{array}{rcl}
C_i(a \to a^\prime) & \triangleq & \textrm{CapEx of } N_i \textrm{ to migrate from } a \textrm{ to } a^\prime \\
R_i(a) & \triangleq & \textrm{Revenue of } N_i \textrm{ with strategy set } a\\
O_i(a) & \triangleq & \textrm{OpEx of } N_i \textrm{ with strategy set } a
\end{array}$$ where, $a$ denotes the current strategy set of agent $N_i$ and $a^\prime$ denotes the strategy set to which $N_i$ migrates in the subsequent time-step. We define the payoff of an agent on migrating to a different strategy set by the *return on investment* it derives from such a decision. The payoff derived by an agent on migrating from $a$ to $a^\prime$ is thus given by the CapEx involved in the migration and the corresponding change in revenue and OpEx as:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:genericPayoffDef}
P_i({a \to a^\prime}) = \frac{\Delta\textrm{(Revenue)} - \left[\textrm{CapEx} + \Delta\textrm{(OpEx)}\right] }{\textrm{CapEx}}\\
=\frac{ \left[R_i(a^\prime)-R_i(a)\right] - C_i(a \to a^\prime) -\left[O_i(a^\prime)-O_i(a)\right]}{C_i(a \to a^\prime)}\end{gathered}$$
Each agent thus optimizes its strategy choices at every time-step based on its payoff maximization in the immediate future. Note that each of the CapEx, OpEx and revenue functions, in turn depend on the amount of sales of agent $N_i$, namely, $T_{a}^i$ and $T_{a^\prime}^i$. $T_{a}^i$, viz. the current amount of sales of agent $N_i$, can be deterministically computed by $N_i$ from its system measurements, whereas, $T_{a^\prime}^i$, viz. the expected amount of sales of $N_i$ on transitioning from strategy set $a$ to $a^\prime$, is unknown. We next present two different approaches to estimate this expected amount of sales, $T_{a^\prime}^i$.
Estimation of $T_{a^\prime}^i$ {#sec:estimation approaches}
------------------------------
The amount of sales of an agent primarily depends on the agent’s technology choices, which in turn is significantly affected by the strategy choices of the neighboring agents within its ‘*circle of influence*’. We define this novel concept referred to as a *circle of influence* of an agent as its neighborhood comprising of all agents, whose technology choices *significantly* affects the migration decision of the agent under consideration. In other words, we capture the notion of *local network effects* [@localNetworkEffects] using our concept of circle of influence. Thus, the circle of influence of, say, agent $N_i$ comprises of all agents whose distance from agent $N_i$ is bounded by a threshold distance (by the shortest path), say $\delta_i$. We call $\delta_i$ as the ‘*relevant radius*’ of $N_i$’s circle of influence. We also note that the mutual effect of the strategy choices of two agents (within each others circle of influence) is inversely proportional to the distance between them. To capture this aspect, we define the *effective migration coefficient* of agent $N_i$, as the weighted average of the strategy sets of all agents within $N_i$’s circle of influence; the weights being the reciprocal of the distance of the corresponding agent from $N_i$. The influence of the strategy choices of an agent, which does not fall within $N_i$’s circle of influence, on $N_i$’s migration decision is, hence, considered negligible. Thus, for an agent to estimate its expected amount of sales in the immediate future, it needs to estimate of the strategy choices of all agents within its circle of influence, in the immediate future. This computation of effective migration coefficient for agent $N_i$ is further illustrated in Algorithm \[pseudocode\].
Figure \[fig:effMigCoeff example\] shows a 12-node network to illustrate the above mentioned concepts. In this topology, the relevant radius of agent $N_1$, i.e. $\delta_1$, is considered to be 2 hops, and $N_1$’s circle of influence is marked by a dotted line. The adjoinging tables in Figure \[fig:effMigCoeff example\] list the current migration state of all agents in the network. Given this, the effective migration coefficient of $N_1$ is thus given by,
$$\dfrac{\overbrace{\dfrac{1}{1}}^{N_2}+\overbrace{\dfrac{0}{2}}^{N_3}+\overbrace{\dfrac{0}{1}}^{N_4}+\overbrace{\dfrac{1}{2}}^{N_5}+\overbrace{\dfrac{0}{1}}^{N_6}+\overbrace{\dfrac{0}{2}}^{N_7}+\overbrace{\dfrac{1}{2}}^{N_{10}}}{\dfrac{1}{1}+\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{1}+\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{1}+\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{2}}=\dfrac{2}{5}=0.4$$
We next present two heuristics for an agent to estimate its neighbor’s strategy in the subsequent time-slot, based on *probabilistic* and *deterministic* methods. The underlying rationale behind both these heuristics is that an agent’s strategy choice is very likely to vary with that of the majority of the agents in its circle of influence.
### Deterministic Strategy Estimation
In the *deterministic approach*, an agent considers the strategy choices of its neighboring agents to be the same as that of the majority of the agents in their circle of influence. Thus, while agent $N_i$ is estimating its future amount of sales, if $N_j$ is within $N_i$’s circle of influence, and if more than 50% of the agents in $N_j$’s circle of influence employ strategy set $a$ in the current time-step, then $N_i$ expects $N_j$ to switch to strategy set $a$ in the next time-step, under this approach.
### Probabilistic Strategy Estimation
In this estimation approach, an agent considers the *probability* of its neighbor’s strategy choice in the subsequent time-slot to be $a$, as $x$, if $x$ denotes the fraction of agents with strategy set $a$, in this neighbor’s circle of influence, in the current time-slot. Thus, in the process of agent $N_i$ estimating its future amount of sales, if $N_j$ is within $N_i$’s circle of influence, and if, say, 30% of the agents in $N_j$’s circle of influence employ strategy set $a$ in the current time-step, then $N_i$ assumes the probability of $N_j$ switching its strategy set to $a$ in the subsequent time-step as 0.3, under this approach.
![Circle of influence[]{data-label="fig:effMigCoeff example"}](./effMigCoeff_eg.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Note that it is due to our assumption of complete information that these heuristics can be realized. Figure \[fig:deterministic probabilistic curves\] plots the probability of migration of an agent using deterministic and probabilistic estimation approaches, as a function of its effective migration coefficient.
An agent thus estimates the strategy sets of all agents within its circle of influence in the immediate future, using one of the two strategy estimation approaches, mentioned above. It thus disregards the future strategy choices of agents outside its circle of influence, and assumes them to maintain the same strategy set, in the subsequent time-step. Thereafter, the agent takes note of its own set of possible transitions from its current state, i.e., $a \to \{a_1,
a_2, \ldots\}$ (see Figure \[fig:StrategySetTransitions\]). It then computes the payoffs resulting from each of its possible transitions, in sync with the strategy set estimations of the agents within its circle of influence, i.e., $\{P_i(a \to a_j)\},\forall j$, and accordingly chooses its future strategy set as the one that maximizes its resulting payoff, i.e., $a^\prime =
\operatorname{arg\,max}_{a_j} \{P_i(a \to a_j)\}$, given its current strategy set $a$. In this way, an agent optimizes its strategy set at each time-step.
![Probability of Migration of an agent in deterministic and probabilistic estimation approaches, as a function of its effective migration coefficient[]{data-label="fig:deterministic probabilistic curves"}](./DetProbCurve.pdf){width="6cm"}
Agent-based Model Applied
-------------------------
In this subsection, we customize our generic network migration to the particular scenario of migration to PCE and SDN.
--------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------
��������Agent��������� $\longleftrightarrow$ Network Island���
��������Strategy��� $\longleftrightarrow$ Technology Choice
��������Amount of Sales $\longleftrightarrow$ Amount of Traffic�
��������Technology $u$��� $\longleftrightarrow$ PCE���������������
��������Technology $v$��� $\longleftrightarrow$ SDN���������������
--------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------
: Mapping generic migration model to PCE/SDN[]{data-label="table: mapping generic model to pce/sdn"}
Table \[table: mapping generic model to pce/sdn\] summarizes the mappings between the generic network migration model and PCE/SDN scenario. In the context of PCE/SDN, agents translate to network islands, strategies correspond to technology choices, amount of sales relate to the amount of traffic that a network transits for its customers, technology $u$ maps to PCE, while, technology $v$ maps to SDN.
Figure \[fig:StrategySetTransitions\] shows all possible strategy set transitions for a network island, under the assumption that an island that has once migrated to $s_{\textrm{PCE},1}$ or $s_{\textrm{SDN},1}$ does not revert back to $s_{\textrm{PCE},0}$ or $s_{\textrm{SDN},0}$, respectively, in the future. This assumption is justified because the functionalities provided by PCE and SDN are beneficial to a network, irrespective of external factors, such as the technology choices of other network islands, etc. For instance, a migrated node definitely saves its OpEx, even if the resulting traffic does not increase post-migration (see Figure \[fig:cause of migration\]).
\[!hbt\]
![Strategy set transitions in a network.[]{data-label="fig:StrategySetTransitions"}](./Strategy "fig:"){width="60.00000%"} \[fig:str\]
A network island incurs CapEx if it migrates to PCE or SDN. Secondly, the CapEx of a network island is expected to follow economies of scale, i.e., every subsequent unit of traffic incurs a lesser CapEx than the previous. We, hence, assume the CapEx to vary with the square root of the network traffic. In addition, on account of the complementary relationship between PCE and SDN, the CapEx incurred by a network island in migrating to both the technologies simultaneously is less than the sum of the CapEx incurred by migrating to each of them separately. This is because, although PCE and SDN are separate components, if a network island migrates to both of them simultaneously, it can integrate both the technologies into a single, integrated component, leading to a reduced CapEx, as compared to a PCE component, and a separate SDN component. Considering both these aspects, the CapEx of network island $N_i$ from the generic model in equation can be expressed, in this case, as $$\label{eq:capex definition}
C_i(a \to a^\prime) = c_i(a,a^\prime)\sqrt{T_{a^\prime}^i}$$ where, $c_i(a,a^\prime) \in [0,1]$ is a coefficient given by, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:capex coefficients}
c_i(a,a^\prime)=
\left\{\begin{array}{c l}
c_\textrm{PCE}& \{s_{\textrm{PCE},0},s_{\textrm{SDN},k}\}\to\{s_{\textrm{PCE},1},s_{\textrm{SDN},k}\} \\
c_\textrm{SDN}& \{s_{\textrm{PCE},k},s_{\textrm{SDN},0}\}\to\{s_{\textrm{PCE},k},s_{\textrm{SDN},1}\} \\
\left(\dfrac{c_\textrm{PCE}+c_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}\right)&\{s_{\textrm{PCE},0},s_{\textrm{SDN},0}\} \to \{s_{\textrm{PCE},1},s_{\textrm{SDN},1}\} \\
\end{array} \right.\end{gathered}$$ where, $k \in \{0,1\}, c_\textrm{PCE}, c_\textrm{SDN} \in [0,1]$ and $\eta \in [1,2]$ denotes the *coupling coefficient* — $\eta = 1$ implies fully independent technologies, such that, migrating to both these technologies simultaneously is equivalent to migrating to each of them separately, whereas, $\eta = 2$ implies fully substitutive technologies, such that, migrating to both of them simultaneously is equivalent to migrating to any one of them. In the context of PCE and SDN, we consider $\eta = 1.5$ in this paper.
The revenue of a network island primarily depends on the amount of traffic flowing through it, and does not vary with the set of technologies deployed by the network operator. This is because the revenue comes from the customer, who is oblivious to the technology adopted by its network operator. The customer, generally, pays to the network operator, solely based on the amount of traffic that the operator transits for it. In addition, revenue of a network island is expected to follow economies of scale. We, thus, consider the revenue of a network island to vary as the square of the network traffic. And, given the *qualitative* nature of our model, without loss of generality, we set, $$\label{eq:revenue definition}
R_i(a)=(T_{a}^i)^2$$
Similar to CapEx, the OpEx of PCE and SDN in a network island is expected to follow economies of scale, i.e., every subsequent unit of traffic incurs a lesser CapEx than the previous. Hence, we consider the OpEx of a network island to vary with the square root of the network traffic. Thus, $$\label{eq:opex definition}
O_i(a) = \alpha_i(a)\sqrt{T_a^i}\\$$ where, $\alpha_i(a)$ is a coefficient given by, $$\label{eq:opex coefficients}
\alpha_i(a)=
\left\{\begin{array}{c l}
\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}+\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}} & a = \{s_\textrm{PCE,0},s_\textrm{SDN,0}\} \\
\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN} & a = \{s_\textrm{PCE,0},s_\textrm{SDN,1}\} \\
\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}} & a = \{s_\textrm{PCE,1},s_\textrm{SDN,0}\} \\
\left(\dfrac{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}\right) & a = \{s_\textrm{PCE,1},s_\textrm{SDN,1}\} \\
\end{array} \right.$$ where, the overline operator $(\overline{\textrm{PCE}} \textrm{ and }
\overline{\textrm{SDN}})$ denotes the alternatives available (say, manual operations) to the corresponding technology, (i.e., PCE and SDN, respectively) and $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}, \alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}, \alpha_\textrm{PCE}, \alpha_\textrm{SDN} \in [0,1]$. Thus, $\alpha_\textrm{PCE}$ is the coefficient of the PCE component of OpEx in the presence of PCE, whereas, $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}$ denotes the corresponding coefficient in the absence of PCE. Similarly, for $\alpha_{\textrm{SDN}}$ and $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}$. The presence of $\eta$ in equation captures the complementary relationship between PCE and SDN, i.e., the OpEx incurred by a network island on migrating to both the technologies simultaneously is less than the sum of the OpEx incurred by migrating to each of them separately.
We also note that both PCE and SDN are significantly more efficient than their alternative technologies (say, manual operations). Thus, a domain migrating to either PCE or SDN is expected to result in a non-negative change in OpEx, or in other words, in OpEx savings. To put it mathematically, the corresponding OpEx coefficients of PCE and SDN, pre- and post-migration must satisfy the following inequalities. $$\label{eq:unmig > mig}
\begin{array}{c}
\alpha_\textrm{PCE} < \alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}} \\
\alpha_\textrm{SDN} < \alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}
\end{array}$$
In all migration scenarios in general, and in migration to to PCE or SDN in particular, the major investment is often in the CapEx involved, whereas, the post-migration OpEx decreases, compared to pre-migration OpEx costs. Moreover, the CapEx of migration generally supersedes the post-migration OpEx costs by a significant margin. This, in conjunction with equations and , leads us to state,
$$\label{eq:capex>opex, pce}
c_\textrm{PCE} > \textrm{max}\left\{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}} , \dfrac{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}\right\}$$
$$\label{eq:capex>opex, sdn}
c_\textrm{SDN} > \textrm{max}\left\{\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN} , \dfrac{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}\right\}$$
$$\label{eq:capex>opex, both}
\dfrac{c_\textrm{PCE}+c_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta} > \dfrac{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}$$
Equation results from the fact that the CapEx of migrating from $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},0},s_{\textrm{SDN},k}\}$ to $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},1},s_{\textrm{SDN},k}\}$ is greater than the post-migratin OpEx costs in both cases ($k=0,1$). However, since the CapEx and OpEx functions are similar in nature, this relationship also holds for the corresponding coefficients. Thus, the corresponding CapEx coefficient ($c_\textrm{PCE}$) must be greater than both the OpEx coefficients in the two scenarios (viz., $\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}$ and $\dfrac{\alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}}{\eta}$). Equations and result from similar arguments for migrations from $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},k},s_{\textrm{SDN},0}\}$ to $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},k},s_{\textrm{SDN},1}\}$, and from $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},0},s_{\textrm{SDN},0}\}$ to $\{s_{\textrm{PCE},1},s_{\textrm{SDN},1}\}$, respectively.
Eliminating $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}$ between equations and , we have, $$c_\textrm{PCE} > \alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}$$
Similarly, eliminating $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}$ between equations and , we have, $$\label{eq:constraint}
c_\textrm{SDN} > \alpha_\textrm{PCE}+\alpha_\textrm{SDN}$$
With the above definitions of CapEx (equation ), OpEx (equation ) and revenue (equation ), as applicable for the joint migration to PCE and SDN, and subject to the associated contraints amongst the various coefficients (equations -), the payoff function in equation , reduces to,
$$\begin{gathered}
P_i({a \to a^\prime})=
\frac{[(T_{a^\prime}^i)^2-(T_{a}^i)^2] - [c_i(a,a^\prime)+\alpha_i(a^\prime)]\sqrt{T_{a^\prime}^i}+\alpha_i(a)\sqrt{T_a^i}}{c_i(a,a^\prime)\sqrt{T_{a^\prime}^i}}\end{gathered}$$
Numerical Results {#sec:rd}
=================
In this section, we present our simulation framework and the empirical results to evaluate various aspects of our proposed network migration model.
Simulation Model
----------------
For our simulation, we consider a scale-free network of 100 interconnected network islands, comprising of 39 “*transit*" islands and 61 “*stub*" islands. Akin to the terminology used in global Internetworks, a network island that is not a provider for any other island is called a *stub island*, while all other islands are called as *transit islands* [@gao]. Stub islands represent the end-users, and hence, the choice of migration rests only with the transit islands. Our topology was generated using Barabási and Albert’s topology generation algorithm [@Albert00], where the seed network comprised of 16 fully inter-connected network islands, referred to as *seed islands* due to their higher resulting connectivity. In our topology, a node represents a network island and a link represents an inter-island connection. To comply with policy-aware routing, each edge is marked as either Customer-to-Provider (C2P) or Peer-to-Peer (P2P). We employ No-Valley-Prefer-Customer (NVPC) routing to provision connection requests between two network islands, which comprises of the following two rules [@He12]:
- Paths learned from providers or peers are never advertised to other providers or peers.
- Paths learned from customers are preferred to the paths learned from peers and providers, and paths learned from peers are preferred to the paths learned from providers, regardless of path length.
Our simulation concerns with migration to technologies such as PCE, which are beneficial to a connection request, only when *all* domains on its path from source to destination, have migrated to the technology in question. This reflects in our routing algorithm, such as, while provisioning a connection request, amongst various equi-cost paths, the source domain prefers a path in which all domains have migrated to PCE. And if multiple equi-cost, shortest paths exist, the traffic is uniformly distributed across all such paths, or randomly over one of these paths, depending on the user preference. We model the incoming connection requests for each source-destination stub domain pairs as Poisson arrivals. The connection requests once provisioned are assumed to stay the same till the end of simulation. Link capacity is assumed to be unlimited, since for a given increment in incoming traffic (which translates to revenue for the host network island), the host network operator can easily increment the link bandwidth, with minimal effort. This is especially true since our study is not based on infinitesimal timescales, but of the order of weeks or months, wherein a domain has the flexibility to increase its link capacity, subject to incoming requests. All stub-to-stub paths had traffic since the beginning of the simulation.
As a new connection request arrives in a network island, the network provisions the request and reconsiders its migration choices based on its payoff function, as defined in Section \[sec:model\]. This, in turn, leads to its neighbors reconsidering their respective migration choices, which thus cascades throughout the network. Finally, on registering a change in the migration decision of any domain in the network, each domain revises the routes of its provisioned connections. All the presented results plot average values across 50 traffic profiles (each Poisson distributed), with each traffic profile replicated 5 times to eliminate any statistical variations. Paths were precomputed and stored, instead of on-the-fly path computations, as it significantly improved the simulation run time. The two primary input preferences to our simulation are (1) *equi-cost routing* — when multiple equi-cost paths exist to provision a given connection request, we consider both possibilities of assigning it to a single random node amongst them (single-path routing), as well as, that of uniformly distributing the traffic over all such paths (multipath routing), and, (2) *strategy estimation approach* — the approach used by domain to estimate the future technology deployment in neighboring domains in the process of optimizing its own migration decision; we consider two approaches for the same, namely, deterministic and probabilistic approaches, as defined in section \[sec:estimation approaches\].
We next present our simulation results from various experiments studying a variety of factors affecting the network *migration profile*. By ‘*migration profile*’, we mean the progress of the network-wide migration captured by monitoring the number of migrated nodes throughout the simulation. Unless otherwise stated, the parameter values assumed in our simulation are $\eta=1.5$, $c_\textrm{PCE}=0.3$, $c_\textrm{SDN}=0.4$, $\alpha_\textrm{PCE}=0.1$, $\alpha_\textrm{SDN}=0.2$, $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{PCE}}}=0.5$ and $\alpha_{\overline{\textrm{SDN}}}=0.8$ (though other parameters combinations were also found to result in similar plots). The relevant radius for each domain (as defined in section \[sec:estimation approaches\]) was set to 5 hops. As can be intuitively expected, the number of migrants should increase during the simulation, perhaps rapidly in the beginning, and saturating gradually. This is observed in almost all our case studies. Further, it is important to note that although the nature of the plots looks similar *across* the case studies, what is important to note is the difference in the migration profiles subject to variation in parameters *within* a case study.
Single v/s Double Migration
---------------------------
![Migration profiles of PCE, SDN, and PCE+SDN[]{data-label="fig:pce-sdn-both"}](./pce-sdn-both.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Single v/s Double Migrations[]{data-label="fig:single v/s double migrations"}](./single-double-migration.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In this experiment, we study the migration profiles of PCE and SDN, under varied circumstances.
Figure \[fig:pce-sdn-both\] plots the migration profiles of nodes in the network to PCE, SDN and PCE+SDN, under probabilistic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. Given that we assume migration to SDN is more expensive than that to PCE (i.e., $\alpha_{PCE}<\alpha_{SDN}$), Figure \[fig:pce-sdn-both\] shows that a greater number of nodes migrate to PCE, than SDN, and also that almost every node that migrates to SDN also migrates to PCE. We observe from Figure \[fig:pce-sdn-both\] that none of the domains migrate to SDN, without migrating to PCE. This demonstrates the fact the benefits derived from SDN are best exploited in combination with PCE, than by itself.
Figure \[fig:single v/s double migrations\] plots the migration profiles to PCE and SDN, in three different scenarios, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. *PCE-only* plots the PCE migration profile in the network, when only migration to PCE is studied in isolation, i.e., SDN is not considered at all. Similarly, *SDN-only* plots the SDN migration profile in the network, when only migration to SDN is considered in isolation, i.e., PCE is not studied at all. Finally, *PCE+SDN* plots the profile of nodes migrating to *both* PCE and SDN, when PCE and SDN migrations are considered simultaneously. This plot shows that migration to SDN which is generally small by itself, can be further promoted by joint migration to PCE, which is more widely accepted, given the complementary relationship between PCE and SDN. Also, a small increase can be observed in the PCE migration from *PCE-only* to *PCE+SDN*, thus SDN also has a small impact in improving the PCE deployment.
Early Adopters
--------------
![Effect of early adopters on PCE migration profile by type (top) and number (bottom)[]{data-label="fig:effect of early adopters"}](./early-adopters_type.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Effect of early adopters on PCE migration profile by type (top) and number (bottom)[]{data-label="fig:effect of early adopters"}](./early-adopters_number.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
We next study the effect of early adopters on the PCE and SDN migration profiles in the network, based on the type and number of early adopters. In this experiment, an early adopter is a network domain that has migrated to PCE since the beginning of simulation. Early adopters act as the seed for migration in the network, thereby catalyzing the migration process.
Figure \[fig:effect of early adopters\] (top) plots the effect of type of PCE early adopters on the PCE migration profile in the network, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. We choose the early adopters based on their degree of connectivity in the network. Figure \[fig:effect of early adopters\] (top) contrasts the PCE migration profile in the network given no early adopters, 3 early adopters (amongst the minimum degree nodes in the network), and 3 early adopters (amongst the maximum degree nodes in the network). As can be intuitively expected, these plots suggest that nodes with high degrees, on migrating, have a greater effect in promoting the network-wide migration profile, than nodes with smaller degrees. This can be attributed to the fact that a large number of paths pass through the high-degree nodes in the network. Thus, the migration of a single high-degree node would affect the migration choices of a large number of transit nodes, due to its high degree of connectivity.
Figure \[fig:effect of early adopters\] (bottom) plots the effect of number of PCE early adopters on the PCE migration profile in the network, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. It contrasts the PCE migration profile in the network given 0, 3 and 5 early adopters (amongst the minimum degree nodes in the network). As can be intuitively expected, the plot shows that a higher the number of early adotpers result in a better migration profile.
Cause of Migration
------------------
![Cause of Migration[]{data-label="fig:cause of migration"}](./cause-of-migration.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
In this experiment, we study the motivations for transit domains to migrate to either PCE or SDN or both. As discussed earlier, a transit node migrates either to reduce its operational expenditures (OpEx), or to increase the traffic flowing through it (and, in turn its revenue), or both. For every domain that choose to migrate during the simulation, we monitored them, and categorized their cause of its migration, amongst (1) exclusive reduction in OpEx, (2) exclusive increase in traffic (in turn, resulting in an increase in its revenue), and (3) both (1) and (2). Figure \[fig:cause of migration\] plots this data (in percentages) for various combinations of routing choice (single- or multi-path) and strategy estimation choice (deterministic or probabilistic). This plot contradicts the common misnomer that a domain migrates primarily because of a resulting increase in traffic (or revenue). The plot illustrates an important aspect of migration, which is, a transit node may migrate even if its migration decision does not result in an increase in traffic (or revenue), but only based on its OpEx reduction. We observe that a significant fraction of migrations result exclusively due to decrease in OpEx. Moreover, OpEx reduction proves to be more important in case of single path routing, than multi-path routing. Figure \[fig:cause of migration\] also demonstrates that revenue increase almost always results in combination with OpEx reduction as a cause of migration, and rarely in isolation.
Effect of Coupling Coefficient
------------------------------
![Effect of coupling coefficient on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of coupling coeff"}](./coupling-coeff_pce.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Effect of coupling coefficient on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of coupling coeff"}](./coupling-coeff_sdn.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In this experiment, we study the effect of coupling coefficient on the migration profile. Figure \[fig:effect of coupling coeff\] plots the effect of coupling coefficient on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles in a 150-node topology with 92 stubs and 58 transits, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. We observe that the resulting migration profile is enhanced, when we account for the complementary relationship between PCE and SDN (coupling coefficient = 1.5) than otherwise (coupling coefficient = 1). This is because, when PCE and SDN operate simultaneously in a domain, the resulting benefits are larger than the sum of benefits derived from PCE and SDN individually. Thus, domains deploying either PCE or SDN benefit from this aspect, and also choose to adopt the complementary technology i.e., SDN or PCE, respectively, consequently resulting in a higher number of migrants.
Effect of Equi-cost Routing Preferences
---------------------------------------
![Effect of routing choices on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of routing approaches"}](./routing-approach_pce.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Effect of routing choices on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of routing approaches"}](./routing-approach_sdn.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In this experiment, we study the effect of routing choices, when multiple equi-cost shortest paths exist in the network to provision a user request. Figure \[fig:effect of routing approaches\] plots the effect of equi-cost routing preferences on the PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profile, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. In presence of multiple equi-cost shortest paths, we consider the routing choices of randomly choosing any one of them (single-path routing), or distributing traffic uniformly across all of them (multi-path routing). As can be observed from Figure \[fig:effect of routing approaches\], the former choice results in an enhanced migration profile than the latter. This may be attributed to the fact that distributing traffic over multiple paths reduces the amount of traffic flowing through each such path, thereby lessening the incentive derived by the intermediate transit nodes from migration.
Effect of Network Topology
--------------------------
![Effect of topology size on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of topology size"}](./topology-pce.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Effect of topology size on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of topology size"}](./topology-sdn.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In this section, we discuss the effect of size of the network topology on the migration profile of a network. In addition to the 100-node topology, we consider 50- and 150-node topologies, with similar characteristics, in terms of the fraction of stub/transit nodes in the network, seed network size, degree of stub nodes, etc. Figure \[fig:effect of topology size\] plots the percentage of nodes migrating to PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles, under deterministic strategy estimation approach and multi-path routing preference. We observe that a larger fraction of nodes migrate in the 50-node topology, than in the 100-node topology, which in turn has a larger number of migrants than the 150-node topology. This leads us to conclude that for the same set of parameters, the migration profile is increasingly pronounced in smaller topologies than larger topologies.
Strategy Estimation Approach
----------------------------
![Effect of the strategy estimation approaches on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of strategy estimation approach"}](./strategy-est_pce.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Effect of the strategy estimation approaches on PCE (top) and SDN (bottom) migration profiles[]{data-label="fig:effect of strategy estimation approach"}](./strategy-est_sdn.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In this experiment, we compare the effect of different strategy estimation heuristics employed by a domain on the migration profile of the network. Figure \[fig:effect of strategy estimation approach\] plots the number of domains migrating to PCE or SDN over time, when multipath routing is enabled. We observe that the deterministic approach results in a lesser number of migrants than the probabilistic approach for both PCE and SDN migrations.
This behavior can be explained as follows. As a thumb rule, greater the number of neighboring migrated domains, greater is the likelihood of a domain to migrate. In the deterministic and probabilistic approaches, the estimated number of neighboring migrated domains considered by a domain is *greater than or equal* to the actual number of migrated domains in the neighborhood. Amongst the deterministic and probabilisitic approaches, the likelihood of migration of a node varies with the effective migration coefficient of neighboring nodes as shown in Figure \[fig:deterministic probabilistic curves\]. The reader may note that the area under curves in Figure \[fig:deterministic probabilistic curves\] are proportional to the total number of migrations resulting from each estimation approach. Had the effective migration coefficient of the nodes be uniformly varying between 0 and 1, both approaches would have resulted in similar migration profile. However, we observe in our simulation (and can also be intuitively derived) that the effective migration coefficient varies roughly between 0 and 0.8, thereby providing the probabilistic approach an upper hand. As a result, the probabilistic approach results in a greater number of migrants than that from the deterministic approach.
Although more and more transit domains migrate with increasing traffic in the network, it is important to note that the saturation point of migration is reached not when *all* transit domains migrate, but at a *lesser* number of migrants. For example, out of 39 transit nodes in the network, only about 36 migrate at saturation, as seen in Figure \[fig:effect of strategy estimation approach\]. This is because of the shortest-path routing between the stub nodes. Thus, only those transit domains which *lie* on the shortest path(s) between a pair of stub nodes, eventually migrate, whereas, transit nodes with no stub-to-stub traffic have no incentive in migrating, even when every other node in its neighborhood may have migrated.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we proposed an agent-based model to study network migration to multiple technologies that may be correlated, and applied it to study two emerging technology frameworks, i.e., PCE and SDN. We believe to have advanced the science in the existing agent-based models by considering a few novel critical factors, including (i) synergistic relationships across multiple technologies, (ii) reduction in operational expenditures (OpEx) as a reason to migrate, and, (iii) implications of local network effects on migration decisions. As is characteristic of agent-based models, defining the mutual, microscopic interactions between agents lead to insights about the macroscopic, system-wide behavior, which was analyzed and demonstrated by our model.
The results obtained from our case study suggest that migration to SDN can be eased by joint migration to PCE, and that the benefits derived from SDN are best exploited in combination with PCE, than by itself. The case study also showed that studying migration to related technologies in combination is important than studying migration to each technology in isolation. The results indicate that the migration to SDN can be promoted by several factors, namely, (a) in combination with a widely-accepted complementary technology such as PCE, (b) early adopters, (c) an agent’s ability to predict its neighbor’s decisions to migrate to either of the technologies.
Our future work includes applying our model to study larger topologies (of the scale of thousands of domains). Also, multi-vendor, multi-layer network migration scenarios with IP/Optical network integration is a relevant scenario to investigate. Our model can also be extended to study inter-relationships between three or more migrating technologies, which can be explored should a relevant case study emerge. Another important aspect would be to study the order of migration in a network, i.e., “migration scheduling", showing which type of nodes should migrate first.
\[sec:ack\] This work has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under support code 01BP12300A; EUREKA-Project SASER.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In order to study 3d loop quantum gravity coupled to matter, we consider a simplified model of abelian quantum gravity, the so-called $\mathrm{U}(1)^3$ model. Abelian gravity coupled to a scalar field shares a lot of commonalities with parameterized field theories. We use this to develop an exact quantization of the model. This is used to discuss solutions to various problems that plague even the 4d theory, namely the definition of an inverse metric and the role of the choice of representation for the holonomy-flux algebra.'
author:
- '[**Christoph Charles**]{}'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Abelian 2+1D Loop Quantum Gravity Coupled to a Scalar Field
---
Introduction
============
In order to tackle the problem of quantum gravity, instead of studying the full theory of general relativity, it is possible to study simpler models. One such model is pure 3d gravity, which describes a simplified universe with only 2 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time and without matter. Since classical 3d gravity is a topological theory (it does not have local degrees of freedom), its quantum theory is much more tractable as was originally noticed by Witten [@Witten:1988hc]. Since then, the model has been studied in various other manners, including using Loop Quantum Gravity techniques [@Freidel:2002hx; @Noui:2004iy]. Several directions can be considered from there. One could use the techniques developed to consider a four-dimensional theory and therefore follow the LQG developments. Or it is possible to try and couple 3d gravity to matter, in order to get a more complete model.
This last direction is however rather difficult since the main property of 3d gravity, namely its topological nature, is generically lost when coupling to matter. In the context of Loop Quantum Gravity, no complete model of 3d gravity coupled to matter, even a simple scalar field, is known [@Date:2011bg] [^1]. This is partially due to difficulties in quantizing scalar fields in LQG [@Thiemann:1997rq; @Ashtekar:2002vh; @Kaminski:2005nc; @Kaminski:2006ta], partially due to difficulties in constructing Dirac observables [@Dittrich:2004cb] but also simply to the difficulties in writing the Hamiltonian constraints involving an inverse metric [@Thiemann:1996ay; @Livine:2013wmq].
It does not mean that no reasonable conjecture is known. A surprising number of elements, at least from an LQG perspective [@Freidel:2005bb; @Freidel:2005me; @Ashtekar:1998ak], converge towards the idea that spacetime in 3d quantum gravity is best described by a non-commutative manifold when coupled to matter. In this regard, non-commutative field theory (see for instance [@Szabo:2001kg]) would be the right effective field theory to describe quantum gravity phenomena, at least in three dimensions. This new non-commutative structure is particularly interesting because it seems to be specific to quantum gravity phenomena and as such, it does provide potential insights for studying the full 4d theory. Our goal in this paper is therefore to work towards the goal of developing a rigorous, non-perturbative theory of 3d quantum gravity coupled to matter (most probably just a scalar field) in the context of LQG. If such a theory can be developed, we will finally be able to test the conjectures regarding the non-commutative structure of spacetime, at least in 3d.
In this paper and as a first step in this project, we will study the quatum theory of matter coupled to 3d *linear* gravity. The *linear* term here refers to the fact that we will consider a simplification on the gravity side, by considering an abelian gauge group (rather than the usual local Lorentz invariance). This model is inspired by Smolin’s remark on the $G \rightarrow 0$ limit of gravity (where $G$ is Newton’s constant) [@Smolin:1992wj]. This model, called the $\mathrm{U}(1)^3$ model, corresponds to the usual linearized gravity theory but expressed in a diffeomorphism invariant manner. This simplification might seem quite drastic, especially in 3d for which linearized gravity is quite trivial. Still, it does serve two purposes. First, pure 3d gravity, which has been studied so far, can be considered a simplification on the matter side. Here, we are trying to keep matter but rather simplify the gravity side in order to get new insights. Second, as we will see, and perhaps unsurprisingly, this linear theory is exactly solvable and exactly quantizable (at least with a few assumptions on the topology). The way it is solved however is interesting. Indeed, by writing every expressions in a diffeomorphism invariant manner, we will get formulas that are starting points for the full theory, either by deforming them accordingly, or as initial point for a perturbative study. On top of these expected benefits, we will also get interesting results and insights on how quantum matter and quantum spacetime interacts. In particular, our work reveals more precisely the role of the BF representation [@Dittrich:2014wpa; @Bahr:2015bra] of the holonomy-flux algebra with respect to the solutions of the theory but also the role of unconventional representations (inspired from [@Koslowski:2007kh; @Sahlmann:2010hn; @Koslowski:2011vn]) in the construction of the field operators.
The main result of this paper is that, in this simplified setting of a scalar field coupled to 3d linear gravity, two sectors entirely decouple. One of the sector correspond to the matter sector. Its structure is exactly equivalent to the free scalar field though expressed in a diffeomorphism invariant way. The second sector roughly corresponds to gravity and is governed by equations similar to BF theory. This separation is possible because we can write the equivalent of creation and annihilation operators of the free field theory, with the additional property of commuting with all the constraints. The first sector correspond to the states explored by the ladder operators while the second sector correspond to the part on which the constraints act. This separation allows the definition of an explicit exact (though trivial) quantum theory. It is noteworthy however that the scalar field operators (the field operator and its canonically conjugated momentum) cannot be expressed in the natural representations of the algebra we found, even though the ladder operators can. The problem is linked to the definition of the inverse of the determinant of the triad, a problem widely encountered in LQG [@Thiemann:1996ay; @Livine:2013wmq]. It is possible to solve this problem in this simplified context by appealing to representations that are peaked on classical solutions of the Gauß constraints. This result might indicate a possible route for solving similar problems in non-linear or 4d theories.
The paper is organized as follows. The first section gives a bird eye view on the ideas of the paper, staying quite general but still giving more technical details than this introduction. The second section is devoted to the classical study of the theory, in particular the decoupling of the two sectors classically. The third section is concerned with the quantization of the theory. Two approaches are provided: the naive approach that correspond to the previous study and a second approach that allows the development of all the fundamental operators. Finally, the last section discusses various implications of the results with regard to future work.
Overview
========
The model we intend to study in the end is 3d quantum gravity coupled to matter. More specifically here, we want to couple a scalar field to gravity in a quantum theory. For this, we can start from the standard action: $$S[e,A,\phi] = \int_{\mathcal{S}} \left(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} e^I \wedge F^{JK}[A] + \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} e^I \wedge e^J \wedge e^K + \frac{1}{2} \star \mathrm{d}\phi \wedge \mathrm{d}\phi + \frac{m^2}{2} \star \phi \wedge \phi \right) .$$ Here, $\mathcal{S}$ is the spacetime manifold. $e$ is the triad. It is an $\mathbb{R}^3$-valued $1$-form that can be interpreted as an $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$-valued one using the Levi-Civita symbol. $A$ is the spin connection. It is naturally an $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$-valued one form. $F[A]$ is then its curvature. $\phi$ is the scalar field. $\alpha$, $\Lambda$ and $m$ are coupling constants. $\alpha$ contains the gravity coupling constant $G$ and is, up to numerical factors $\frac{1}{G}$. $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant and $m$ is the mass of the field. Finally, $\star$ is the Hodge dual associated to the metric constructed out of the triad. We will choose the signature $(-\ +\ +\ +)$, which goes with the sign in front of the mass term. There is a slight subtlety here. Normally, if $g$ is the metric and $\omega$ is a $p$-form, then: $$(\star \omega)_{\mu_1 ... \mu_{n-p}} = \frac{1}{p! \sqrt{|\det g|}} \omega_{\nu_1 ... \nu_p} \epsilon^{\nu_1 ... \nu_p \rho_1 ... \rho_{n-p}} g_{\mu_1 \rho_1} ... g_{\mu_{n-p} \rho_{n-p}}.$$ $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}$ is not a tensor here and is simply the Levi-Civita symbol (it is a tensor multiplied by a density). Namely, $\epsilon^{012} = 1$ and all the other terms can be deduced by full anti-symmetry. But we have used the first order expression for the action which uses $\det e$ and not the square-root of the determinant of the metric, which are equal only up to a sign. Here, we will rather use the following expression, which also solves the sign problem: $$(\star \omega)_{\mu_1 ... \mu_{n-p}} = \frac{1}{p! (\det e)} \omega_{\nu_1 ... \nu_p} \epsilon^{\nu_1 ... \nu_p \rho_1 ... \rho_{n-p}} g_{\mu_1 \rho_1} ... g_{\mu_{n-p} \rho_{n-p}}.$$
As we discussed, one can hope that this theory is exactly quantizable (or at least in some special cases like $m = 0$). It is however rather difficult because of a few road-blocks:
- The gauge group is non-abelian. This leads to various difficulties when constructing well-defined version of operators.
- The classical theory is not always solvable. For instance, a simple homogeneous scalar field coupled to 3d quantum gravity does not have an exact solution linking the volume of the universe to the value of the field. Though this is not an argument against the existence of a quantum version of the model exists, it is a noteworthy difficulty.
- Even in the classical case of point particles coupled to 3d gravity, the exact solution is rather difficult to implement and involves a lot of book-keeping. [@tHooft:1992izc]
The main idea of this paper is then to study a simpler model. We will study a scalar field coupled to *linear* gravity. This model is taken from Lee Smolin work [@Smolin:1992wj]. It can be understood as a limit $G \rightarrow 0$ (that is $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$) of usual gravity with the additional constraint that $\frac{A}{G}$ (or $\alpha A$) is constant. This leads to the following (detailed) action: $$\begin{aligned}
S[e,A,\phi] &=& \int_{\mathcal{S}} \Big[ \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I (\partial_\nu A_\rho^{JK} - \partial_\rho A_\nu^{JK}) + \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^\sigma_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi - \frac{m^2}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^3 x .\end{aligned}$$ In this writing, $\epsilon_{IJK}$ is the standard Levi-Civita symbol. $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}$ is not a tensor though, and follows the same convention as the one we used for defining the Hodge star. Also, we have used the standard notation of $e^\mu_I$ to write the inverse of the triad.
In practice, we see that this amounts to removing the non-abelian term from the curvature of $A$. Everything else is left untouched. This theory is particularly interesting because, while still diffeomorphism invariant, with some natural constraints, it is equivalent to the free scalar field. Indeed, assuming that $\mathcal{S} \simeq \mathbb{R}^3$, that the various fields behave properly at infinity (vanish quickly at infinity with their derivatives or converge at infinity for the triad), and that the triad is invertible everywhere (which we have more or less assumed when writing its inverse), then we can solve the equations of motion. They are:
- $\mathrm{d} e^I = 0$ for all $I$. This means that, since $\mathcal{S}$ is simply connected, there is a collection of fields $\Psi^I$ such that $e^I = \mathrm{d} \Psi^I$.
- The usual equation of motion for the scalar field on a curved background: $\star \mathrm{d} (\star \mathrm{d} \phi) - m^2 \phi = 0$.
- For $A$, we get: $$\frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} F_{\nu\rho}^{JK}[A] + (\det e) \Lambda e^\mu_I = (\det e)\left[ \frac{1}{2} e^\mu_I \left( g^{\sigma\tau} \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi + m^2 \phi^2 \right) - e^\sigma_I \partial_\sigma \phi \partial^\mu \phi \right].$$ This equation always has a solution as long as the right term has a vanishing divergence, which is just the conservation of energy.
We see then, that $A$ is completely fixed by the rest of the fields, that the equation on $\phi$ are correct as soon as we can show that the space is flat. This is actually not always true. Indeed, all we have is: $e^I = \mathrm{d} \Psi^I$ and $e$ is invertible. This translates to $\epsilon_{IJK} \mathrm{d}\Psi^I \wedge \mathrm{d}\Psi^J \wedge \mathrm{d}\Psi^K \neq 0$ which means that the transformation from $\mathcal{S}$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$ encoded by $\Psi$ is *locally* invertible. This sadly does not imply global invertibility. It should be noted however that this is part of the space of solutions. And when it is globally invertible, then is true that space is flat and we get the standard free field theory.
So we still get something interesting: the free scalar field is an entire sector of our theory. At this stage, it is quite unclear if this sector can be quantized independently from the others, but it is surely a fair assumption. We have a theory, therefore, that is diffeomorphism invariant and still contains the free scalar field. We should notice here similarities with parametrized field theory (PFT) [@Kuchar:1989bk; @Kuchar:1989wz; @Varadarajan:2006am]. And indeed, working with PFT really corresponds to directly working with $\Psi^I$. Compared to PFT, in addition to using directly the triad, we will also develop new directions for quantizing such a theory.
As the goal at this point is to write the corresponding quantum theory, we should be able to find quantities more or less equivalent to the creation and annihilation operators in standard quantum field theory. Indeed, if the free scalar field is an entire sector of the theory, this sector should be in correspondence with the usual solutions. We expect in particular corresponding ladder operators acting in this sector, though these quantities should probably be amended to accommodate the new symmetries.
What do we expect? A nice way to look at this is to consider an even simpler theory. Let’s study a simple harmonic oscillator, that we can describe by the following action: $$S = \int \left(\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2 - \frac{1}{2}kx^2\right) \mathrm{d}t .$$ Let’s write this in a Hamiltonian manner. The momentum is: $$p = m\dot{x} .$$ This leads to the following Hamiltonian: $$H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + \frac{kx^2}{2}.$$ If we define $\omega = \sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}$, we can now write: $$H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + m \frac{\omega^2 x^2}{2}.$$ Now let’s define the complex quantity: $$a = \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{2}} x + \mathrm{i} \frac{p}{\sqrt{2m\omega}}$$ And we finally have: $$H = \omega a \overline{a} .$$ It is now well-known that $a$ and $\overline{a}$ becomes creation and annihilation operators in the quantum theory.
Let’s now turn to a diffeomorphism invariant version of this problem, starting with: $$S = \int \left(\frac{1}{2}m\frac{\dot{x}^2}{\dot{t}} - \frac{1}{2}kx^2 \dot{t}\right) \mathrm{d}s ,$$ where now $t$ is a variable depending on the parameter $s$ and all derivatives are taken with respect to $s$. A reparametrization will leave the action invariant which is therefore promoted to a diffeomorphism invariant one. We now have two momenta $p_x$ and $p_t$. And a complete Hamiltonian analysis will reveal that they must now satisfy a (first class) constraint which is: $$p_t + \frac{p_x^2}{2m} + \frac{kx^2}{2} = 0 ,$$ which is quite unsurprisingly the Shcrödinger equation (in its classical form). The interesting question though is can we adapt the $a$ quantity so that it commutes with this constraint?
Yes we can. The commutator of the current $a$ and our constraint is nearly zero already. In fact, the commutator with $p_t$ is zero but there is a constant (which is just the quanta of energy) for the second part. We must therefore add a term that does not commute with $p_t$. There are various ways to do that. The most interesting to us, is to just consider the time dependent expression for $a$. Indeed, $a$ follows the following equation of motion: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t} = - \mathrm{i}\omega a .$$ As a consequence: $$a(t) = \left( \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{2}} x + \mathrm{i} \frac{p}{\sqrt{2m\omega}} \right) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega t} .$$ Taken without modification, and by interpreting the $t$ as the conjugate to $p_t$, this quantity directly commutes with the constraint. This observation is what motivates our construction for the full system.
Our goal will be to reexpress the usual creation and annihilation operators in standard quantum field theory, so that the quantities linked to position and time can be reinterpreted in function of our new variables (the triad and the connection). If such a quantity can be constructed, it is by definition equal to the creation and annihilation operators when the gauge is fixed. But if it also commutes with the constraints, as our small study suggests, then it is a gauge-unfixed version of these operators and are really the natural operators in the diffeomorphism invariant world.
What we need to do then, is to get the Hamiltonian version of our problem. Then we will need to extract all the interesting operators as we just illustrated. This is what we do in the next section.
Classical model
===============
Hamiltonian analysis
--------------------
Ok, we now have the action we want to study. Let’s start the Hamiltonian analysis proper. There are various mathematical difficulties we will just ignore for now. Namely, there are questions surrounding the behaviour of the fields at infinity or the various possible topologies for $\mathcal{S}$ the spacetime manifold. We will concentrate on the simplest possibility. All the other possibilities will just create a richer theory for which we will have neglected various sectors.
We will assume that $\mathcal{S}$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^3$. We will also assume that all the matter fields vanish at infinity. Granted all this, we choose some decomposition of $\mathcal{S}$ as $\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$ with corresponding coordinates $(t,\sigma)$. $t$ will be our time variable and $\sigma$ will be the coordinates on the spatial slice $\Sigma$. We do assume that $\Sigma$ is homeomorphic (and even diffeomorphic) to $\mathbb{R}^2$ but not necessarily a flat slice though. We also make the strong assumption that $\Sigma$ is spacelike with respect to the metric and nowhere degenerate. This last assumption is reasonable though as, in a hamiltonian analysis, we are interested in parametrizing the space of solutions which should correspond to the variables on a Cauchy slice of spacetime.
This allows the following writing: $$S[e,A,\phi] = \int_\mathbb{R} L \mathrm{d}t,$$ with: $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I (\partial_\nu A_\rho^{JK} - \partial_\rho A_\nu^{JK})+ \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^\sigma_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi - \frac{m^2}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ From there, we proceed as usual: define the momenta, reverse the expressions that can be, keep the rest as primary constraints. The details of the computation can be found in appendix \[app:hamil\]. Once all this is done, we can write the Legendre transform of the Lagrangian which is the Hamiltonian.
After some computations (detailed in the appendix), we finally get: $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_0^{IJ} B^0_{IJ} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left( B^a_{IJ} - 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K\right) + X^\mu_I \partial_0 e_\mu^I - \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 - \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi \Big) \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ,\end{aligned}$$ with the following primary constraints: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
X^0_I &=& 0, \\
B^0_{IJ} &=& 0, \\
X^a_I &=& 0, \\
B^a_{IJ} &=& 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K.
\end{array}\right.$$ Here, summations on small latin indices cover only spatial coordinates. Capital latin indices do cover the $3$ dimensions. $X$ is the natural conjugate with respect to $e$, $B$ the conjugate with respect to $A$ and $\Pi$ the conjugate of $\phi$. We have also used the following notations in the Hamiltonian:
- $h_{ab}$ is the induced metric on $\Sigma$ and can be written as $h_{ab} = e_a^I e_b^J \eta^{IJ}$. Due to our assumptions, it is spacelike. $h^{ab}$ is the corresponding inverse metric.
- $n_I$ is the natural normal to $\Sigma$. It is a vector valued density and reads: $n_I = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K$.
From there, we can pursue the constraint analysis. After some lengthy, but straightforward, computations (see appendix \[app:hamil\]), we get the following system of constraints: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& X^0_I, \\
0 &=& B^0_{IJ}, \\
0 &=& X^a_I, \\
0 &=& B^a_{IJ} - 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K, \\
0 &=& -\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] - \Lambda n_I + \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi + \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 + \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 + \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi, \\
0 &=& 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a^I.
\end{array}\right.$$ It can then be separated into first and second class constraints. We get two sets of second class constraints which are the equivalent of the simplicity constraints in 3d [@Charles:2017srg]: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& X^a_I, \\
0 &=& B^a_{IJ} - 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K.
\end{array}\right.$$ And we get a system of first class constraints: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& X^0_I, \\
0 &=& B^0_{IJ}, \\
0 &=& \partial_b B^b_{IJ}, \\
0 &=& \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda \tilde{n}_I - \frac{1}{2} \tilde{n}_I \tilde{h}^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} \tilde{n}_I \phi^2 - \frac{\tilde{n}_I}{2 \det \tilde{h}} \Pi^2 - \frac{\tilde{n}_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} \tilde{e}_d^L}{\det \tilde{h}} \Pi \partial_c \phi.
\end{array}\right.$$ where the tilded quantitites are constructed out of $B$ rather than $e$.
This allows the computation of the Dirac brackets: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\{e^I_0(x), X_J^0(y)\}_D &=& -\delta^I_J \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_0(x), B_{KL}^0(y)\}_D &=& -(\delta^I_K \delta^J_L - \delta^I_L \delta^J_K) \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), e^{K}_b(y)\}_D &=& \frac{1}{2\alpha \det h} \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon^{IJK} \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), B_{KL}^b(y)\}_D &=& -\delta_a^b (\delta^I_K \delta^J_L - \delta^I_L \delta^J_K) \delta(x-y),\\
\{\phi(x), \Pi(y)\}_D &=& -\delta(x-y),
\end{array}\right.$$ all other (non-fundamental) brackets being zero (including brackets dealing with $X_I^a$). With these brackets, it is rather obvious that the second class constraints commute with all the other constraints. Interestingly, they can be solved, and the system can finally be rewritten as: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 - \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 - \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi, \\
0 &=& \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a^I,
\end{array}
\right.$$ with the following brackets: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), e^{K}_b(y)\} &=& \frac{1}{2\alpha \det h} \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon^{IJK} \delta(x-y),\\
\{\phi(x), \Pi(y)\} &=& -\delta(x-y).
\end{array}\right.$$ The $B$ variables have been removed thanks to the second class constraints and the time component variables have been removed as they decouple from the rest and can be trivially solved. We now have the Hamiltonian formulation of our problem.
How is this theory supposed to be linked to the free field theory? It is quite obvious that the constraint on the triad really carries the information that space is flat. There are a few subtleties linked to the problem of global invertibility we mentionned earlier but appart from this, it should be interpreted as the fact that the integral of $e$ is a vector that embed of surface $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$. The second constraint is familiar in its form (it is really the Einstein equation) but only set the value of the spin connection $A$. Apart from topological obstructions (which we avoided by choosing the simplest case), this equation always has a solution. So, where is the dynamics of the field encoded?
The point we have to remember is that the dynamics do not impose anything on a given Cauchy surface. As a consequence, $\phi$ and $\Pi$ are completely free. The only constraint will come from the evolution in time which should be encoded here as an action of the diffeomorphism constraints (they can be constructed out of the Einstein equation by projecting using $e$ and $n$). Therefore, the dynamics is not encoded in a constraint *per se* but rather in their action. The constraint must be contained in the brackets with the curvature constraints. Because the equivalence has been established using the equations of motion earlier, we won’t dwell into the equivalence here, which would require a careful analysis of possible gauge fixation. Rather, we will admit that this Hamiltonian theory should at least contain the free field theory and try from there to construct interesting quantities. In particular, we will study in the next section if it is possible to construct the equivalent of the creation and annihilation operators.
Creation and annihilation operators {#sec:basic_ops}
-----------------------------------
So we are looking for operators that should reduce in the correct gauge fixing to the standard creation and annihilation operator for the scalar field. In the diffeomorphism invariant context though, we expect them to commute with the constraints but still preserve a nice algebra among them, as was suggested on our simple harmonic oscillator study.
The difficulty resides in that the space manifold $\Sigma$ is not necessarily flat. The expression must therefore be adapted. We can go about two methods of construction. A first method would be to take advantage of the fact that $\Sigma$, though not flat, is supposed to be a Cauchy surface. This means that the field in the entire spacetime can be reconstructed from $\Pi$ and $\phi$ on the surface. The creation and annihilation operators could then be deduced as coefficient of the Fourier transform. This method would actually work (and it will be explored in section \[subsec:Fourier\] to prove a couple of interesting properties) but is more complicated than necessary for now. A second idea is just to make a simple ansatz and check that the resulting operators have the correct algebra, among themselves but also with the constraints.
Let’s go back to the standard free field theory for a moment. We have the following action: $$S = -\int \frac{1}{2} \left(\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu \phi + m^2 \phi^2\right) \mathrm{d}^2 x \mathrm{d} t.$$ This action leads to the following Hamiltonian: $$H = \frac{1}{2} \int \left( \Pi^2 + (\vec{\nabla} \phi)^2 + m^2\phi^2 \right) \mathrm{d}^2 x ,$$ where, once again $\Pi$ is conjugate to $\phi$. Normally, we define: $$a_{\vec{k}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega_{\vec{k}}}}\int \left(\omega_{\vec{k}} \phi + \mathrm{i} \Pi \right) \exp\left( -\mathrm{i} \vec{k}\cdot \vec{x} \right) \mathrm{d}^2 x ,$$ where $\omega_{\vec{k}} = \sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2}$. This allows the simple expression: $$H = \int \omega_{\vec{k}} \overline{a_{\vec{k}}} a_{\vec{k}} \mathrm{d}^2 k .$$ And of course, we have the well-known algebra: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\{a_k, \overline{a_{k'}}\} &=& \mathrm{i} \delta(k-k') , \\
\{H, a_k\} &=& -\mathrm{i} \omega_k a_k , \\
\{H, \overline{a_k}\} &=& \mathrm{i} \omega_k \overline{a_k} .
\end{array}\right.$$
Can we have a similar algebra with the coupling to linear gravity? The problem comes from the Hamiltonian which no longer exists but is replaced by a collection of constraints. The curvature constraints (which contain the Einstein equation projected on $\Sigma$) are however local. We can show the problem with this in the non-gravitational case, by looking at the commutator not with the Hamiltonian $H$ but rather with $H(x) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\Pi^2 + (\vec{\nabla} \phi)^2 + m^2\phi^2\right)$ which is the integrand. We get: $$\{H(x), a_k\} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega_k}} \left(- \vec{\nabla}\phi \cdot \vec{k} - \mathrm{i} m^2 \phi + \omega_k \Pi\right) \exp\left( -\mathrm{i} \vec{k}\cdot \vec{x} \right) .$$ The resulting expression is not integrated over space, depends on the derivatives of $\phi$ and cannot simply be expressed in terms of the creation and annihilation operators. How can we solve these problems?
What must happen is similar to what we have seen in the case of the harmonic oscillator: the curvature of $A$ in the curvature constraint will not commute with the operators and will exactly compensate. This is possible if some part of the creation-annihilation operators uses the triad. The natural way to do this, is to use the integral of the triad as a position operator.
So, let’s start from this kind of expressions: $$a_k = \int \left(f(k,\sigma,e,A) \phi + g(k,\sigma,e,A) \Pi\right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ This is just the most generic linear expression. Can we go further? Well somewhat yes. We want two additionnal properties:
1. The expression should be covariant with respect to local gauge transforms.
2. The expression should be covariant (or even invariant) with respect to diffeomorphism transforms.
Concerning the first point, we do expect some covariance. Basically, $k$ should be expressed in some local reference frame and when it is changed, $k$ should change meaning some covariance for $a_k$. In the linear gravity scenario though, the reference frames cannot change by gauge transform (an interpretation of this is that only infinitesimal changes have been kept). We therefore expect full invariance. This leads to the simple condition that $a_k$ should commute with the Gauß constraint ($\mathrm{d}e = 0$). As $e$ is invariant under Gauß transforms, then this means that $a_k$ can depend on $A$ only through its curvature.
Something similar can be said for diffeomorphism invariance. In principle, in the full theory, we only expect some kind of covariance. One problem for instance is that the integral of (parallel transported) $e$ depends on the path and so the annihilation operator could be linked to some integration path choice. In that case, diffeomorphism transform might lead to some transformation of the operators. We are in the linear gravity case though. And in that case, it is way easier to solve. The integral of $e$ does not depend on the choice of path (thanks to the Gauß constraint). So we can make similarly the reasonnable assumption that $a_k$ should be invariant under diffeomorphism transforms.
This leads to the following expression: $$a_k = \int \left(\tilde{f}(k,\sigma,e,F[A]) \phi + \tilde{g}(k,\sigma,e,F[A])\Pi\right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ with the additional constraint that $a_k$ commutes with the curvature constraints. We can make one additional assumption: that $a_k$ does not depend on $A$ at all. This seems reasonable enough since we don’t really see how this would enter the equation anyway and the standard creation operator doesn’t have any dependence on curvature (at least for scalars).
So, we have the following working hypothesis. The annihilation operator has the following form: $$a_k = \int \left(h_1(k,\sigma,e) \phi + h_2(k,\sigma,e)\Pi\right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ And: $$\{D_I, a_k\}_D = 0.$$ A nice addition is to use our guess about the depency in the triad for the position operators.. We offer the following ansatz: $$a_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(A(k,e,\sigma) k^I n_I \phi + \mathrm{i} B(k,e,\sigma) \Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ This expression is directly inspired from the standard expression for the annihilation operator. Let’s explain a few bits:
- The factor $k^I n_I$ is a density. This way $A$ is a scalar. It might not be the right density to put (for instance $\sqrt{n^I n_I}$ would work too) but this doesn’t matter since it can be corrected with the right expression for $A$ (which would then be the ratio between two densities). It is a natural[^2] density to consider though since it very much looks like the energy component of $k$.
- The integral term $\int^{\sigma} \vec{e}$ is a bit weird to say the least. First, $\vec{e}$ is simply the triad taken to be a vector-valued one-form. Now the integral only has an end point of coordinates $\sigma$. But the fact that there is no start point is actually important: we *cannot* take a specific point as reference. Indeed, the exponential of the triad creates curvature at one point and destroys it at the other. Here, we need an operator that only create curvatures at a specific point.
This operator really corresponds to the $\Psi$ we encountered earlier such that $\mathrm{d}\Psi^I = e^I$. Because of this relation ship with the triad, there is still a sense in which the difference of $2$ $\Psi$ is an integral of the triad. By extension, we use this notation with only one end-point to the integral.
There is a way to make this more rigorous for a non-compact spatial slice. Because, all the information is contained in a Dirac bracket, we can consider the action of the integral as the start points goes to infinity. Though the integral is not well-defined, its Dirac bracket still exists and correspond exactly to what we need.
It turns out that the correct values are: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
A(k,e,\sigma) &=& 1, \\
B(k,e,\sigma) &=& 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ This leads to the following, and in fact quite familiar, expression: $$a_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I \phi + \mathrm{i}\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ A lengthy - but not difficult - computation shows that indeed (see appendix \[app:operators\]): $$\{D_I, a_k\}_D = 0.$$ More interestingly, the algebra of these operators can be computed explicitly. It requires some technology we will develop in the next section.
Fourier transform and full algebra {#subsec:Fourier}
----------------------------------
A point must be underlined here: in usual free field theory, the creation and annihilation operators have a nice interpretation as Fourier coefficients of the 3d field solution of the equation of motion. A similar property holds true here, granted a few assumptions.
Our spacetime is $\mathbb{R}^3$ (this was one of our simplifying assumptions). We also assumed that $\Sigma$ (the space manifold) is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$. We will go a bit further here and assume that the embedding of $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ given by the integrals of the triads $\int \vec{e}$ is a Cauchy surface for the free field theory. This assumption is reasonable: when we choose a slice $\Sigma$ of spacetime, our goal is not to break diffeomorphism invariance but to parameterize the space of solutions for the problem. It is natural therefore to choose a Cauchy surface to do so. It is even natural to think that if we don’t choose a Cauchy surface, the Hamiltonian analysis will not be well-defined. We will leave this question open however and just assume a correct choice of $\Sigma$.
What we mean by this assumption is the following. Let $\phi : \mathbb{R}^3 \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be a field that satisfies the standard free scalar field equation: $$-\partial_t^2 \phi + \Delta \phi - m^2 \phi = 0.$$ Let’s now interpret $\Sigma$ as a submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^3$ with embedding given by $\vec{\Psi} = \int \vec{e}$. We assume that knowing $\phi$ and its derivative along the normal on this embedding is sufficient (and also necessary) to know $\phi$ on the whole $\mathbb{R}^3$. This means that we can now extend naturally some fields on $\Sigma$ to the whole $\mathbb{R}^3$ spacetime.
On the $\Sigma$ slice, we have two fields we are interested in $\phi$ and $\Pi$. $\Pi$ can naturally be connected to a derivative of $\phi$ in the time-direction (see appendix \[app:hamil\]): $$\Pi = -(\det e)g^{0\tau} \partial_\tau \phi = -\vec{n} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \phi.$$ Here, $\vec{n}$ is the normal density on $\Sigma$ induced by the triad and $\vec{\nabla} \phi$ is the gradient of $\phi$ (as a spacetime field) expressed in the coordinates we used for the embedding. This means that $\phi$ and $\Pi$ on $\Sigma$ can naturally be extended to a field on the whole spacetime $\mathbb{R}^3$. Now, we can use the Fourier transform as usual on $\mathbb{R}^3$ and get coefficients that will turn out to be the $a_k$ we defined earlier (up to some Dirac deltas factor). But of course, the formula will be more general and apply to any couple of fields we might define on $\Sigma$.
Now, let’s turn back to our expression for $a_k$: $$a_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I \phi + \mathrm{i}\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ Our claim is that, this is (up to a factor we will make explicit shortly) the Fourier coefficients for the extension of $\phi$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ according to the previous rules. There is a rather simple way to check this thanks to linearity. We just have to consider the case of: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\phi(\sigma) &=& A\frac{\delta(\sigma-\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h}}, \\
\Pi(\sigma) &=& B\delta(\sigma - \sigma_0).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:ini}$$ We have put the determinant for $\phi$, because $\phi$ is a scalar and we want $A$ not to depend on the choice of coordinates. $\Pi$ however is a density, and so to have $B$ coordinate independent, the determinant factor should be avoided. In that case: $$a_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(\frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}} A + \mathrm{i}B\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma_0} \vec{e}} .$$ Let’s now consider a field $\Phi(x,t)$ solution of the equation of motion in $\mathbb{R}^3$. We can write it in a general form as follows: $$\Phi(\vec{x}) = \int \delta(k^2 + m^2)b_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}} \mathrm{d}^3 k.$$ The $b_k$ are therefore the Fourier coefficients (up to a Dirac delta factor) of $\Phi$. Let’s now consider the plane $\mathcal{P}$ going through $\int^\sigma_0 \vec{e}$ and tangent to $\Sigma$ (or more precisely tangent to its embedding) at this point. This plane is spacelike and as such can be used as a Cauchy surface for the field $\Phi$.
There is always a Lorentz transformation sending $(1,0,0)$ to the normalized normal of the plane $\mathcal{P}$, granted the chosen orientation is the same (there is an infinite amount of such transformation but anyone will do, we can for instance take a boost). Let’s note such a Lorentz transformation $L$. We can now write a parametrisation of the points of $\mathcal{P}$ as follows: $$\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X}) = \overrightarrow{L\triangleright(0,\tilde{X})}+\int^{\sigma_0} \vec{e}.$$ Here we chose the following notation: to a vector $\vec{z}$ can be associated a 2d spatial vector $\tilde{z}$ and a time component $z_t$. By extension, any 2d vector will be written $\tilde{w}$ as we used for the coordinates on the plane denoted $\tilde{X}$. Also, $\triangleright$ is used to indicate the action of the Lorentz group onto 3d vectors. We can now write initial conditions on the plane $\mathcal{P}$ for $\Phi$: $$\forall \tilde{X}\in\mathbb{R}^2,\ \left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) &=& A\delta(\tilde{X}), \\
-\overrightarrow{L\triangleright(1,0,0)}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) &=& B\delta(\tilde{X}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ These initial conditions correspond to the values of equation \[eq:ini\]. Indeed, thanks to the Minkowski structure of spacetime, nothing can propagate faster than light. With the conditions of equation \[eq:ini\], this translates to $\Phi(x) = 0$ for any point outside of the lightcone of the point at $\sigma_0$. Now, the transformations laws under diffeomorphism are completely local which guarantees that $\Phi$ is a Dirac delta on any Cauchy surface passing through $\sigma_0$. The fact that $\Phi$ is a scalar even gives the coefficient of transformation which is $1$. We must however be careful, as the Dirac delta is a density, which is why the determinant is eaten up. A similar result holds for the derivative: it is zero nearly everywhere and locally can be expressed with respect to the gradient on $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$. Because, we chose a surface tangent to $\Sigma$, the gradient does not appear and we can conclude.
We can now use the standard derivation of $b_k$ in terms of $A$ and $B$. Let $\vec{k}$ be a 3d vector with $k^2 + m^2 = 0$ and $k_t > 0$. Then, we get: $$\int \Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} = A\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}.$$ We can also compute: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int \Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int \delta((k')^2 + m^2)b_{k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\vec{k'}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int \delta((k')^2 + m^2)b_{k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\left(L^{-1} \triangleright (\vec{k'} - \vec{k})\right)\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int \delta((L\triangleright k')^2 + m^2)b_{L\triangleright k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int \delta((k')^2 + m^2)b_{L\triangleright k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\tilde{k'} - (\tilde{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}}))\cdot \tilde{X}} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& (2\pi)^2 \int \delta((k')^2 + m^2)b_{L\triangleright k'}\delta(\tilde{k'} - (\tilde{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}})) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \nonumber \\
&=& (2\pi)^2 \int \frac{\delta\left(k'_t - \sqrt{\vec{k'}^2 + m^2}\right) + \delta\left(k'_t + \sqrt{\vec{k'}^2 + m^2}\right)}{2|k'_t|}b_{L\triangleright k'}\delta(\tilde{k'} - (\tilde{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}})) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k'.\end{aligned}$$ This last line splits into two terms. For the first line, the main observation is that: $$\delta\left(k'_t - \sqrt{\vec{k'}^2 + m^2}\right)\delta(\tilde{k'} - (\tilde{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}})) = \delta(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})$$ as there is a unique vector of square norm $-m^2$ with given spatial support and with positive time component. The second term is more involved. We get: $$\delta\left(k'_t + \sqrt{(-\vec{k'})^2 + m^2}\right)\delta(\tilde{k'} - (\tilde{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}})) = \delta(\vec{k'} - \overline{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}}) ,$$ where $\overline{\vec{x}}$ is the vector deduced from $\vec{x}$ by inverting its time component, namely $(-x_t, \tilde{x})$. This leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int \Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} \nonumber \\
&=& (2\pi)^2 \int \frac{1}{2|k'_t|}\delta(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})b_{L\triangleright k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \nonumber \\
&+& (2\pi)^2 \int \frac{1}{2|k'_t|}\delta(\vec{k'} - \overline{L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k}})b_{L\triangleright k'} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\vec{k'} - L^{-1} \triangleright \vec{k})\cdot \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)} \mathrm{d}^3 k' \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2\pi^2}{2(L\triangleright k)_t}\left( b_k + b_{\overline{k}}\mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \left(L^{-1}\triangleright k\right)_t \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)_t} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we can compute: $$\int -\overrightarrow{L\triangleright(1,0,0)}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} = B\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)},$$ and also: $$-\int \overrightarrow{L\triangleright(1,0,0)}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Phi(\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{X})} \mathrm{d}^2 \tilde{X} = -2\mathrm{i}\pi^2 (b_k - b_{\overline{k}}\mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \left(L^{-1}\triangleright k\right)_t \left(L^{-1} \triangleright\vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(\tilde{0})\right)_t}).$$ We can conclude: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
b_k &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( (L^{-1}\triangleright k)_t A + iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}, \\
b_{\overline{k}} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( (L^{-1}\triangleright k)_t A - iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\overline{\vec{k}}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Now: $$\begin{aligned}
(L^{-1}\triangleright k)_t &=& (L^{-1}\triangleright \vec{k})\cdot\overrightarrow{(1,0,0,)} \nonumber \\
&=& \vec{k}\cdot(L^{-1}\triangleright \overrightarrow{(1,0,0,)}) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}},\end{aligned}$$ where we used $n$ divided by its norm as an expression for the normal to $\mathcal{P}$. Thus: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
b_k &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( \frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}} A + iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}, \\
b_{\overline{k}} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( \frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}} A - iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\overline{\vec{k}}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We can finally rewrite this in the more traditional manner: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
b_k &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( \frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}} A + iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}, \\
b_{-k} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\left( -\frac{k^I n_I(\sigma_0)}{\sqrt{\det h(\sigma_0)}} A - iB \right)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}_\mathcal{P}(0)}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ And then: $$b_k = \frac{{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)}{\sqrt{2}\pi}a_k,$$ and this is true for any $k$ such that $k^2 + m^2 = 0$.
All this means that, up to a numerical factor, the sign of $k_t$ and a Dirac delta, the $a_k$ coefficients really are the Fourier coefficients of the field we get by specifying the initial conditions of $\Phi$ and $\Pi$ on $\Sigma$ embedded into $\mathrm{R}^3$. This is especially useful to compute the brackets between the $a_k$ coefficients. Let’s compute the following bracket: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \{\delta(k^2 + m^2)a_k, \delta(k'^2 + m^2)a_{k'}\} \nonumber \\
&=& \delta(k^2 + m^2) \delta(k'^2 + m^2) \{a_k, a_{k'}\} \nonumber \\
&=& \delta(k^2 + m^2) \delta(k'^2 + m^2) \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int \int \{k^I n_I(x) \phi(x) + \mathrm{i}\Pi(x), k'^J n_J(y) \phi(y) + \mathrm{i}\Pi(y)\} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e} - \mathrm{i}\vec{k'}\cdot \int^{y} \vec{e} } \mathrm{d}^2 x \mathrm{d}^2 y\nonumber \\
&=& \delta(k^2 + m^2) \delta(k'^2 + m^2) \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2\pi^2} \int \int \left( - k^I n_I(x) \delta(x-y) + k'^J n_J(y) \delta(x-y) \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e} - \mathrm{i}\vec{k'}\cdot \int^{y} \vec{e} } \mathrm{d}^2 x \mathrm{d}^2 y\nonumber \\
&=& \delta(k^2 + m^2) \delta(k'^2 + m^2) \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2\pi^2} \int (k' - k)^I n_I \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} (\vec{k} + \vec{k'})\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 x.\end{aligned}$$ Though this last form is pretty compact, it is better to expend it back a bit as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& \{\delta(k^2 + m^2)a_k, \delta(k'^2 + m^2)a_{k'}\} = \nonumber \\
& \delta(k'^2 + m^2) \left[ \delta(k^2 + m^2) \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \int \left((-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k'}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}})k^I n_I + \mathrm{i} (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}k'^I n_I \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k'}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}})\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 x \right]\end{aligned}$$ From what we just saw, the term in large square brackets is (up to a numerical factor and a sign) the Fourier coefficient of a field with initial values on $\Sigma$ given by: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\phi &=& -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k'}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}}, \\
\Pi &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}k'^I n_I \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k'}\cdot \int^{x} \vec{e}}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ But we know such a field: it is simply the field $\Phi(x) = -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} k'\cdot x}$ on the whole $\mathbb{R}^3$ spacetime. And its Fourier transform is proportional to a Dirac delta $\delta(k+k')$. From that, we conclude (with the factors correctly computed): $$\{\delta(k^2 + m^2)a_k, \delta(k'^2 + m^2)a_{k'}\} = -\mathrm{i}{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)\delta(k'^2 + m^2)\delta(k+k').$$ This is exactly the kind of algebra we wanted for creation-annihilation operators. It is correctly adapted to the diffeomorphism invariant case as no frame of reference can be preferred. Let’s note here that the sign is the reverse from the usual since we have: $$\overline{a_k} = -a_{-k}$$ with the extra sign coming from the fact that we put the ${\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)$ factor out of $a_k$.
Quantization
============
First approach {#sec:firstapproach}
--------------
We can now turn to the quantization of the system. In principle, we should start with some natural construction of the algebra of observables, starting with canonical variables. This is however notoriously difficult for matter coupled to gravity [@Ashtekar:2002vh; @Kaminski:2005nc; @Kaminski:2006ta]. As a first approach, let’s avoid the usual difficulties by choosing another set of fundamental variables.
The first point to note is that we have the creation and annihilation operators which are quite natural. They are for instance used in the construction of the Fock space and it does make sense to keep them as fundamental. The second point to note is that the creation and annihiliation operators, by construction, commute with the triad operators and with the curvature constraints. They commute with the triad because they do not depend on the connection, and we devoted a large part of this paper (see appendix \[app:operators\]) to prove it commutes with the curvature constraints. Conversely, the triad operators and the curvature constraints are particularly interesting as fundamental variables since they are conjugate to each other. Finally, we have proven previously that the $a_k$ can be interpreted as Fourier coefficients (section \[subsec:Fourier\]), which means we can reconstruct (at least classically) the field $phi$ and its momentum $\Pi$. This also means that, classically, if we now the triad and the curvature constraints, we can reconstruct the curvature of the connection everywhere. This is enough to reconstruct the spin connection up to a gauge. Therefore, the following collection:
- $a_{k}$ for all $k \in \mathbb{R}^3$ such that $k^2 + m^2 = 0$ (which contains both creation and annihilation operators based on the sign of $k^0$),
- $D_I(x)$ for all $I$ and $x$,
- and $e_a^I(x)$ for all $I$, $a$ and $x$
gives a complete description of the gauge invariant phase-space. This collection divides into two sectors that commute with each other and that, remarkably, we know how to quantize separately. The creation-annihilation algebra leads to the well-known Fock quantization (with a few caveats). And the algebra of the curvature and triad operators can lead to a quantization around a state similar to the BF vacuum [@Dittrich:2014wpa; @Bahr:2015bra] as we will shortly show.
There is one important point to underline here: all this works only when restricting to the gauge-invariant subspace of the phase space. It is not always possible to solve for this subspace explicitly, and it is not possible for the non-abelian case. In the abelian case however, not only is it possible, it greatly simplifies a number of expressions. Indeed, the algebra between the $D_I$ is only simple if the Gauß constraints is checked. The same thing holds for the brackets between $D_I$ and $a_k$ which in all generality is linear in the Gauß constraints. In general then, we would have to deal with partial gauge-fixing, the choice of path and other niceties. And such a treatment will be *necessary* for the non-abelian case. However, as a first approach, and when considering our simple linear theory, it is possible to avoid such consideration. And this is what will do in all the constructions from now on.
Let’s start with the Fock quantization. We have shown that the creation-annihilation operators respect an algebra similar to the standard one. There is a caveat though, as this algebra is labeled by vectors in $\mathbb{R}^3$ (rather than $\mathbb{R}^2$) but with the additional constraint of being on the mass shell. This corresponds to functions living on the two-sheet hyperboloid, with the condition that reflection with respect to the origin gives rise to a complex conjugation.
If we want to map this algebra onto the usual one, we have to project these functions over the hyperboloid onto the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. This can be done quite easily (though not in a covariant way) by considering only one sheet of the hyperboloid (the other one can be recovered by conjugation) and forgetting about the time component of the momentum $k$. For instance, let’s restrict to the $k_t > 0$ sheet. We can define: $$c_{\tilde{k}} = a_{(\sqrt{\tilde{k}^2 + m^2},\tilde{k})}.$$ The $c$ operators now check an algebra that is even more familiar: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\{c_{\tilde{k}}, c_{\tilde{k}'}\} &=& 0, \\
\{\overline{c_{\tilde{k}}}, \overline{c_{\tilde{k}'}}\} &=& 0, \\
\{c_{\tilde{k}}, \overline{c_{\tilde{k}'}}\} &=& 2\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\tilde{k}^2 + m^2} \delta(\tilde{k}-\tilde{k}').
\end{array}
\right.$$ We notice here an energy factor. This is due to the unusual convention used for the $a$ as we did not divide by the square root of the energy. Though this was natural to preserve a covariant expression, this means that the square of $a$ operators (that is $N_k = a_k^\dagger a_k$) does not count particles but rather directly counts energy quantas. From there, the usual Fock quantization is known. It is useful however, for the sake of completeness, to develop it in a language closer to our originally found algebra, that is with: $$\{\delta(k^2 + m^2)a_k, \delta(k'^2 + m^2)a_{k'}\} = -\mathrm{i}{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)\delta(k'^2 + m^2)\delta(k+k').$$ This will lead to a more covariant expression more suited to the quantum gravity problem.
We must start with the one particle Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. First let $\mathbb{H}$ be the two-sheet hyperboloid embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ defined by: $$t^2 - x^2 - y^2 = m^2$$ where $(t,x,y)$ are the coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Now, $\mathcal{H}$ will be the space of functions from $\mathbb{H}$ into $\mathbb{C}$ equipped with the following scalar product: $$\langle \psi | \phi \rangle = \int \delta(k^2 + m^2)\overline{\psi}(k)\phi(k) \mathrm{d}^3 k.$$ This is the momentum representation for our one-particle. Because, we are interested in real valued fields, we will add the following constraint: $$\forall k \in \mathbb{R}^3,\ \forall \phi \in \mathcal{H},\ \overline{\phi(k)} = -\phi(-k).$$ Note the minus sign corresponding to the fact that $\overline{a_k} = -a_{-k}$. With this definition $\mathcal{H}$ is trivially a pre-Hilbertian space. By choosing a plane in $\mathbb{R}^3$ to parametrize $\mathbb{H}$, we get however that: $$\langle \psi | \phi \rangle = \int \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2}}\overline{\psi}(k)\phi(k) \mathrm{d}^2 k.$$ This shows that $\mathcal{H}$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with the caveat that the wave-functions must be divided $\sqrt{2E}$ in the mapping. This factor is actually quite important as it appeared in our algebra for the $a_k$ and this will allow a simpler representation of the creation-annihilation operators.
Now, we define the following sequence of Hilbert spaces:
1. $\mathcal{H}_0 = \mathbb{C}$, the $0$-particle Hilbert space, also called the vacuum Hilbert space,
2. $\mathcal{H}_1 = \mathcal{H}$, the $1$-particle Hilbert space as previously explained.
3. $\mathcal{H}_n = \mathrm{Sym}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n})$, for $n \ge 2$, the symmetric part of the tensor product of $n$ copies of $\mathcal{H}$ and represents the $n$-particle Hilbert space for bosonic particles..
The Fock space $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ is defined by: $$\mathcal{H}_\phi = \bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \mathcal{H}_n .$$
Now, we can define the creation and annihilation operators $a_k$. There are two cases. First, let’s consider $k$ such that $k^2 + m^2 = 0$ and $k_t < 0$. We define $\hat{a}_k$ by its restriction $\hat{a}_{k,n}$ on $\mathcal{H}_n$. For $n \ge 1$, we define $\hat{b}_{k,n}$: $$\hat{b}_{k,n} : \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n} &\rightarrow& \mathcal{H}^{\otimes (n-1)} \\
| v_1 \rangle \otimes | v_2 \rangle \otimes \cdots \otimes | v_n \rangle &\mapsto& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n v_i(k) | v_1 \rangle \otimes | v_2 \rangle \otimes \cdots \otimes \widehat{| v_i \rangle} \otimes \cdots \otimes | v_n \rangle
\end{array}
\right.$$ As standard, $\widehat{| v_i \rangle}$ means that $| v_i \rangle$ is omitted from the list. $\hat{a}_{k,n}$ is the restriction of $\hat{b}_{k,n}$ to $\mathcal{H}_n$. For $n=0$, we have: $$\hat{a}_{k,0} : \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{H}_0 &\rightarrow& \mathcal{H}_{0} \\
v &\mapsto& 0
\end{array}
\right.$$ which corresponds to the fact that the vacuum is annihilated by all annihilation operators.
Similarly, we can define $a_k$ for $k$ such as $k^2 + m^2 = 0$ and $k_t > 0$. This will act in the (algebraic) dual spaces. Let’s define $\hat{b}_{k,n}$: $$\hat{b}_{k,n} : \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
(\mathcal{H}^\star)^{\otimes n} &\rightarrow& (\mathcal{H}^\star)^{\otimes (n+1)} \\
\langle v_1 | \otimes \langle v_2 | \otimes \cdots \otimes \langle v_n | &\mapsto& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \langle v_1 | \otimes \langle v_2 | \otimes \cdots \otimes \langle u | \otimes \langle v_i | \otimes \cdots \otimes \langle v_n | ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ with: $$\forall | v \rangle \in \mathcal{H},\ \langle u | v \rangle = v(k).$$ $\hat{a}_{k,n}$ is the restriction of $\hat{b}_{k,n}$ to $\mathcal{H}_n$. This concludes the matter sector.
For the gravity sector, we have two sets of observables. We have the curvature constraints which, as long as we don’t restrict to the constraint surface, are legitimate observables. We will write $D_I(x)$ from now on and remember that they are densities. And we have the triad $e_a^I(x)$. They are not exactly conjugate. The conjugate arise when we integrate them along a line (possibily starting from infinity as mentioned in section \[sec:basic\_ops\]). Then $\int^{P(\sigma)} e^I$ is conjugate to $D_I(x)$ and commutes with the $a$ operators. When we integrate, we loose some information. But it is remarkable that we don’t loose gauge-invariant information: thanks to gauge-invariance, the integral of $e$ only depends on the end-point of the integral. That means we completely characterize the subspace defined by $de^I = 0$. This is this subspace that we will quantize.
The curvature constraints $D_I(x)$ are densities while, the integral of the triad acts as a scalar function. This setup is similar to Loop Quantum Gravity where conjugate quantities are carried by dual geometrical constructs. It is in fact exactly equivalent to the usual Loop Quantum Gravity setup except that here, because we have used gauge-invariant quantities, the support is on surfaces and points rather than lines. As a first approach however, we will not quantize in the standard fashion - that is using the Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation or its equivalent - but will rather consider the equivalent of the BF representation [@Dittrich:2014wpa; @Bahr:2015bra]. Indeed, we have two choices: either we start from a vacuum state where $e=0$ everywhere or we start with a vacuum state that has $D_I(x) = 0$ everywhere. The second case is akin to the BF vacuum and is very relevant to our problem: this vacuum state is precisely the solution to the constraints. So let’s quickly sum up the construction in the abelian case.
Let’s define the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_G$. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be the space of functions over $\Sigma$ valued in $\mathbb{R}^3$ that are zero everywhere except for a finite number of points. Now $\mathcal{H}_G$ is the space of square integrable functions over $\mathcal{R}$ equipped with the following scalar product: $$\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 \rangle = \sum_{\vec{f} \in \mathcal{R}} \overline{\Psi_1(\vec{f})} \Psi_2(\vec{f}).$$ The sum is well-defined (though possibly infinite) thanks to the square integrable condition. Note that this space can be constructed by a projective limit (as it is standard in Loop Quantum Gravity). In that case, we would have functions depending on $\mathbb{R}^3$ labels for a finite number of points. Two functions with support on a different set of points would be equivalent (regarding cylindrical consistency) if they do not depend on the labels of the points that are no shared and if the dependency is the same for shared points. This is however not needed here thanks to the combination of two properties. First, because we look at the gauge-invariant subspace, the support is points rather than graph, things are greatly simplified. And because the gauge group is abelian, much simpler expressions can be given still. Nonetheless, the construction is similar in spirit: we have a normalized vacuum state which is: $$\Psi_0(f) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1 &\textrm{if }f = \vec{0}, \\
0 &\textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $\vec{0}$ is understood to be the function that is constant over $\Sigma$ and equal to the vector $\vec{0}$. Then, excitations can be constructed with the action of the exponential of the integrated triad (which we will construct shortly). The Hilbert space is then the completion of the linear span of these excitations. This means that we have an Hilbertian basis given by the indicator functions once more. A member $\Psi_f$ of the basis is given for each function $f$ of $\mathcal{R}$ and is defined by: $$\Psi_f(g) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
1 &\textrm{if}& g = f, \\
0 &\textrm{if}& g \neq f.
\end{array}
\right.$$
The operator corresponding to $D_I(x)$ must be regularized. As $D_I(x)$ is a density, it is natural to consider the following integrated quantities: $\int N(x) D_I(x) \mathrm{d}^2\sigma$ where $N$ is some test function. We will therefore define the operator $\hat{D}_I[N]$. It is defined by its action on the basis in the following manner: $$\hat{D}_I[N]\Psi_f = \left(\sum_{P \in \Sigma} N(P) f(P)_I\right)\Psi_f.$$ This action is not always well-defined but it is on a dense subset of the space (namely the span of states $\Psi_f$ with functions $f$ that have finitely many non-zero points). We see here that the basis we constructed diagonalizes the $\hat{D}_I[N]$ operator. Similarly, we can defined the exponentiated operator for the triad. We do not need to regularize this time (except through the integral). Let $\vec{k}$ be in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $P$ on $\Sigma$. We define $\hat{E}(\vec{k}, P)$ by its action of the basis: $$\hat{E}(\vec{k}, P)\Psi_f = \Psi_{\tilde{f}},$$ where: $$\tilde{f}(Q) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(Q) &\textrm{if}& Q \neq P, \\
f(P)+\vec{k} &\textrm{if}& Q = P.
\end{array}
\right.$$ As such $\hat{E}(\vec{k}, P)$ is the quantization of $\exp \left(-\mathrm{i}\vec{k}\cdot \int^P \vec{e}\right)$.
Note that the non-exponentiated version of the operator does not exist. In practice, this means we have used the Bohr compactification of $\mathbb{R}^3$ for the values of the integrals. This can be seen by the fact that the dual (present in eigenvalues of the curvature constraints) is $\mathbb{R}^3$ equipped with a discrete topology. This trick is handy to circumvent the problem of using non-compact groups. Sadly, the Bohr compactification is only injective for maximally almost periodic groups which the gauge group of the non-abelian theory ($\mathrm{SU}(1,1)$) is not. This is what prevents the standard Ashtekar-Lewandowski construction for non-compact gauge group. It should be noted however that such an obstruction is not present for the BF vacuum [@Bahr:2015bra]. It might very well be then, that the current construction generalizes to the non-abelian case.
Finally, the kinematical Hilbert space is simply $\mathcal{H}_G \otimes \mathcal{H}_\phi$ with the operators naturally extended. The solution to the constraints is simply: $(\mathbb{C} \Psi_0)\otimes \mathcal{H}_\phi \simeq \mathcal{H}_\phi$ where $\Psi_0$ is the vacuum for $\mathcal{H}_G$. It is trivial to see that this space is isomorphic to the standard Hilbert space for a free field theory. Though this construction is interesting to get a feel of how the theory works in the quantum realm, it is not satisfying on at least two accounts:
1. First, it relies too much on a change of variable. Normally, to get a direct link with the classical theory, one would start with canonical variables and represent them, and then try to express constraints and similar operators. Here, not only have we not done that, it is not even possible to express the original operators. For instance, it is incredibly difficult (if not outright impossible) to extract the curvature operator out of the constraints. Indeed, to do that, we require both the fields operators (which we don’t have) and the inverse of the metric (which does not even exist as an operator). Similarly, the natural expression for the momentum operator for the field depends on the normal operator, which does not exist because of the Bohr compactification we used.
2. Second, it relies heavily on the abelian structure of the theory. All this approach was only possible because we can decouple completely two sectors that we might want to call the gravitational and the matter sector (though the curvature cosntraint has a bit of matter in it). This is not something we can hope for in a non-abelian theory. So the method is way too specific to our case.
It does not mean it is not useful though: this acts as a guideline. We now know what the theory looks like and what to expect from different constructions.
The ideal construction however would start from the curvature operator, the triad and the field operators and then get the constraints. At least, it should be possible to reconstruct all these operators. This is however not possible in our case. Indeed, the curvature operator (or the holonomy operator) appears only in the curvature operator for now. As a consequence, we will first need the scalar field operator and the momentum operator to be able to retrieve it. However, from the work done in section \[subsec:Fourier\], we can use the Fourier transform in $\mathbb{R}^3$ to get expressions of $\phi$ and $\Pi$ in terms of the creation and annihilation operators. We get: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\phi(\sigma) &=& \int \delta(k^2 + m^2) \frac{{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)}{\sqrt{2}\pi}a_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^\sigma \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^3 k, \\
\Pi(\sigma) &=& \int \delta(k^2 + m^2) (\vec{k} \cdot \vec{n}) \frac{{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)}{\sqrt{2}\pi}a_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^\sigma \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^3 k.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The expression of $\Pi$ is particularly problematic as it relies on the existence of an operator for the normal $n$, which does not exists in our representation.
One might want to try and use the more standard Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation $\mathcal{H}_{AL}$. In that case, it is possible to construct a normal operator $n$ in a way similar to the area operator in LQG [@Ashtekar:1996eg]. However, in that case, we face another problem: given a state of the form $|0\rangle \otimes |\phi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}_{AL}\otimes\mathcal{H}_\phi$ where $|0\rangle$ is the AL vacuum and $|\phi\rangle$ is some state in $\mathcal{H}_\phi$, we have $\hat{\Pi}|0\rangle \otimes |\phi\rangle = 0$ irrespective of the state $|\phi\rangle$. This might be possible to cure, by forgetting about classical expressions and rather concentrating on reproducing the algebra at the quantum level. This would be however surprising since the expression for $\Pi$ is quite regular involving only exponentials and polynomials in the triad that commute among themselves and should not require regularization.
We want to suggest another direction in this paper, that we will start exploring in the next section. Though, we do not have a complete proof for a successful construction, the arguments we just laid out fail in this context. This solution, though it seems unnatural at first, has - in hindsight - geometrical justification. The idea is to use the work done by Koslowski and Sahlmann [@Koslowski:2007kh; @Sahlmann:2010hn; @Koslowski:2011vn] and to develop a representation peaked on a classical non-degenerate spatial metric. Though perfect diffeomorphism invariance (for the vacuum) is lost, there is still a notion of diffeomorphism covariance available and the geometrical interpretation we will offer justifies the choice of a particular background, at least for abelian gravity. We develop this approach in the following section.
Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation peaked on a classical vacuum {#sec:newrep}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The difficulty we face is linked to the non-existence of non-exponentiated versions of the triad operators on the Hilbert space. This is quite standard in Loop Quantum Gravity: the standard constructions only allow for one operator out of a conjugated pair to be defined, the other one is only defined through its exponentials. In the usual Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation [@Ashtekar:1996eg; @Ashtekar:1997fb; @Ashtekar:1998ak] for instance, the holonomy operators are well-defined but only the exponentiated versions are defined. In the BF representation defined by Dittrich *et al.* [@Dittrich:2014wpa; @Bahr:2015bra], the triad is only defined through its exponentials, but some version of the logarithm of the holonomies are defined[^3]. In our case, we have developed the equivalent of the BF representation, since the conjugate to the triad is defined. Moving to the standard Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation will not help however. Indeed, our problem is not only linked with the possibility of writing a simple triad operator but also the possibility of inverting it, at least to some extent as we want to be able to write the inverse determinant of the spatial metric. And the usual Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation does not allow for that (at least not in any known ways[^4]) since the vacuum is degenerate everywhere and all the excited states are degenerate almost everywhere. If we want to write the inverse determinant, we will therefore need a new representation of the holonomy-flux algebra (or of its equivalent in our case - since we considered only the gauge-invariant sector).
It is noteworthy that some other representations have been discussed already in Loop Quantum Gravity, most notably [@Koslowski:2007kh; @Sahlmann:2010hn; @Koslowski:2011vn]. This representation is very similar to the Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation, except the vacuum is not peaked on degenerate geometry but rather on a given classical metric. Of course, diffeomorphism invariance of the vacuum is lost, which explains how the LOST theorem [@Lewandowski:2005jk] is evaded, and is replaced by a notion of diffeomorphism covariance. This representation is however very interesting to us because the metric is everywhere non-degenerate for the vacuum. Even for most of the excited states, the metric is non-degenerate and when it is not, it is only degenerate on a finite number of points. As long as we can reproduce the classical algebras correctly, this leads to very natural expressions for the inverse determinant of the metric. However, we have now traded another issue which is the choice of the background metric, which seems a bit counter-productive with regard to the standard Loop Quantum Gravity approach.
Before tackling this problem however, let’s sum up Koslowski’s and Sahlmann’s approach in [@Koslowski:2007kh; @Sahlmann:2010hn; @Koslowski:2011vn] and adapt it to our case. The construction uses the dual structure to the one we have done in section \[sec:firstapproach\]. In the previous construction, the operators acting on surfaces (the constraints) were diagonal, and excitations were created by acting on points. Here, it is the reverse: the point operators are diagonal and the surface operators create the excitations. This means we need some projective techniques to deal with it correctly.
We can define a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_\Delta$ for a given triangulation $\Delta$ of $\Sigma$. This Hilbert space is the completion of the span of the basis given by $\mathbb{R}^3$ labels of the triangles that are non-zero for a only finite number of triangles. We can make this precise in the following manner: let $\mathcal{F}_\Delta$ be the space of functions for the triangles of $\Delta$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that the values are non-zero for a finite number of triangles. This is the space of labels on the triangulation. The elements of $\mathcal{H}_\Delta$ are functions from $\mathcal{F}_\Delta$ into $\mathbb{C}$ that are square integrable for: $$\langle \psi | \phi \rangle = \sum_{f \in \mathcal{F}_\Delta} \overline{\psi(f)} \phi(f).$$ The full (continuous) Hilbert space is defined as: $$\mathcal{H}_{KS} = \left(\bigcup_{\Delta} \mathcal{H}_\Delta \right)\Big\slash \sim.$$ Here the union is a disjoint union over all possible triangulations of $\Sigma$. We must now define the equivalence relation $\sim$.
For this, we need the notion of a refinement of a triangulation. A triangulation $\Delta'$ is a refinement of $\Delta$ if for any triangle in $\Delta$ is the union of triangles in $\Delta'$. We can then map any function of $\mathcal{F}_\Delta$ into $\mathcal{F}_{\Delta'}$. For $f \in \mathcal{F}_\Delta$, we define $f' \in \mathcal{F}_{\Delta'}$ as: $$f'(t) = f(T)\textrm{, with }t \subseteq T.$$ Similarly, we can write extend a state $\psi \in \mathcal{H}_\Delta$ into $\psi' \in \mathcal{H}_{\Delta'}$ as follows: $$\psi'(f) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\psi(g)&\textrm{if }g'=f, \\
0 &\textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ We can finally get to our equivalence relation necessary to define $\mathcal{H}_{KS}$. Two states $\psi \in \mathcal{h}_\Delta$ and $\psi' \in \mathcal{H}_{\Delta'}$ are equivalent if and only if there exists a refinement $\Delta''$ of both $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ such that the extension of $\psi$ and $\psi'$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\Delta''}$ are identical. Note that if this is true, it is true for any refinement of both triangulations. Note also that there is always a refinement of both triangulations but there is no guarantee that the extension of $\psi$ and $\psi'$ will match.
Up to this point, the definition actually follows the techniques of the BF vacuum in order to adapt the construction to quantities carried by surfaces and points (rather than lines). But what will distinguish $\mathcal{H}_{KS}$ from both the BF representation and the standard AL representation is the construction of the operators.
First, let’s start with the simplest operator: the integrated curvature constraint. Let $\Delta$ be a triangulation of $\Sigma$ and $\phi$ a function from the triangles into $\mathbb{R}^3$ non-zero only a finite number of triangles. If $\Delta'$ is a refinement of $\Delta$, we define: $$\widehat{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} D[\phi]}} : \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{H}_{\Delta'} &\rightarrow& \mathcal{H}_{\Delta'} \\
\psi &\mapsto& \psi'
\end{array}
\right.$$ with: $$\psi'(f) = \psi(f + \phi).$$ The final sum is done by extending $\phi$ to $\Delta'$. This is standard action, completely equivalent, so far, to the one in the AL-representation. This action can be extended on coarser representation. It is compatible with the quotient and therefore carries to whole space $\mathcal{H}_{KS}$.
Second, we can consider the triad operator. This is done in two steps. As a first step, let $\Delta$ be a triangulation. Let’s denote$| \psi_f \rangle$ the state in $\mathcal{H}_{\Delta}$ defined by: $$\psi_f(g) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1 &\textrm{if }f=g,\\
0 &\textrm{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $f \in \mathcal{F}_{\Delta}$. These states form a (Hilbertian) basis of $\mathcal{H}_{\Delta}$. We can now define: $$\widehat{\mathcal{O}[\phi]} | \psi_f \rangle = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \phi(\sigma) \cdot f(\sigma) | \psi_f \rangle,$$ with $\phi$ is a function from $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ with finitely many non-zero values. Thus $\sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \phi(\sigma) \cdot f(\sigma)$ is understood as a sum over these finitely many values and $f(\sigma)$ is the label for the triangle of $\Delta$ that $\sigma$ belongs to[^5]. We recognize here the definition of the triad operator in the standard AL-representation. But now, as a second step, let’s define a background field $\tilde{e} : \Sigma \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$. And consider the following operator: $$\widehat{e[\phi]} = \int \phi\cdot\tilde{e} + \widehat{\mathcal{O}[\phi]}.$$ This operator trivially has the same algebra but is peaked on a classical configuration for the triad. This is the main difference of the KS representation (compared to the usual AL one).
Now, all this construction relies on a choice of background metric and even, to be more precise, a choice of background triad. This choice seems arbitrary at first, but in our case there is a very natural way to select a class of metrics. Indeed, we have to remember that we are considering the gauge-invariant subspace which translates to the condition: $$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}^I = 0.$$ This condition entails that, if we restrict once more to a simply connected manifold, the triad derives from a potential $\Psi^I$. This functions acts as an embedding of $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ (if the metric is invertible). But it also means that the integrated triad is zero on any closed loops. And this is valid also on the vacuum state. This means that the background triad must satisfy all these conditions and in particular correspond to an embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$. Up to topological questions, that we have discarded as we are considering the simplest case, this means that the metric is fixed up to diffeomorphism. This entails in turn that the construction will indeed depend on the metric but once the diffeomorphism constraints will be enforced, diffeomorphism invariance will be restored in a way which is independent from the choice of the initial metric (as long as it is invertible). So, from now on, let’s just choose a background embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$ and use the triad that derives from it.
Let’s turn back to the full representation, including the matter sector. Our goal was to able to write expressions like: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\phi(\sigma) &=& \int \delta(k^2 + m^2) \frac{{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)}{\sqrt{2}\pi}a_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^\sigma \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^3 k, \\
\Pi(\sigma) &=& \int \delta(k^2 + m^2) (\vec{k} \cdot \vec{n}) \frac{{\mathrm{sgn}}(k_t)}{\sqrt{2}\pi}a_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^\sigma \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^3 k.
\end{array}
\right.$$ This suggested that the gravity sector needed a new representation. The Fock space used for matter is however completely equipped for such expressions. We will therefore rather keep it. This leads to the full Hilbert space: $$\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{Full}} = \mathcal{H}_{KS}\otimes\mathcal{H}_\phi.$$ Before moving to the next section, let’s make a final remark: though this representation gives natural inverse operators, in a sense, this does not matter. What matters is the algebra of the operators. In the end, we must find two natural pairs of collections of operators, corresponding to the field and momentum operator on the one hand and to the triad and curvature operator on the other. Moreover, these operator should lead to expressions for the constraints that match the previously found algebra. If the naive inversion fails, this will mean that this technique fails. This is what in the end should guide such construction. And these tests are still to be done with the method we just suggested.
Discussion & Future work
========================
Granted the previous idea can be made to work, the natural question is whether this can be extended outside of the abelian theory. Indeed, the representation we chose depended on a background which, for the abelian case, can be chosen naturally. This however depended on the resolution of the Gauß constraints. In the non-abelian case, such a procedure might not be that well-defined. A few points are encouraging though: this representation gives a natural understanding of how matter propagates on an (abelian) quantum spacetime. Indeed, as we mentioned early on in this paper, the theory we developed is, at least in some sector, equivalent to a free scalar field theory. With such a theory, spacetime is completely classical. Our theory however is completely quantum mechanical, including spacetime. On the constraint surface, the triad in particular is completely ill-defined (in a quantum mechanical sense) and only the curvature has a precise value. We might wonder how a field might propagate freely here. The answer, according to the construction we have just done, is simple: spacetime really is flat. The degeneracy of the triad does not come from a true quantum degeneracy but rather is caused by the superposition of all the states coming from the action of the diffeomorphism constraints. The final state therefore is a superposition of classical flat space but seen from all possible coordinate systems. This is of course possible only because there are no local degrees of freedom in 3d gravity. Though, it might be possible to extend these techniques to non-abelian 3d gravity, the implications are not quite as clear for the 4d case. An interesting idea, that has been explored almost accidentally in the context of cosmology (see for instance [@mukhanov2007introduction]) as a first approach, is that only local degrees of freedom (that is gravitational waves) are quantum in that sense.
Let’s get back to the 3d problem. Even in that case, once we want to get to the full non-abelian theory, a few roadblocks appear. One of the major problem is path-dependency. Indeed, we defined the following operator as a creation operator: $$a_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I \phi + \mathrm{i}\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma .$$ There we used the integral $\int^\sigma \vec{e}$ which did not depend on the path chosen as long as the Gauß constraints were satisfied. A natural extension to the non-abelian case would be: $$b_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I \phi + \mathrm{i}\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} g \triangleright \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma ,$$ where $g$ is the holonomy of the connection along the integration path and acts as parallel transport. Though this expression is gauge-invariant, it depends on the path chosen for the integration, even when the Gauß constraints are checked. This makes the correct generalization quite unclear. Two points should be underlined here however. First, similar problem have been dealt with in the construction of the BF representation and have been solved by a systematic choice of paths for gauge-fixing [@Dittrich:2014wda]. This is moreover close to book-keeping techniques needed for the classical solution of the problem [@tHooft:1992izc] which seems to support such an approach. Second, this problem can be partially recovered in the abelian case, if one wants to define the theory more generally without imposing first the Gauß constraints. This might be needed anyway to be able to check the brackets of all the quantum operators we are interested in from the end of section \[sec:newrep\]. This will therefore be an interesting intermediate step to consider.
The abelian case also relied on the commutativity between the operators $a_k$ and the constraints $D_I$. It would be surprising, to say the least, that such a setup could be possible in the non-abelian case, for the operators $b_k$ and the corresponding constraints $\tilde{D}_I$. Several scenarios can be envisioned, the most probable to our eyes though is that, though the $b_k$ will not commute with the constraints, it should still be possible to make them into the algebra of creation and annihilation operator for some non-commutative field theory. In that case, they would allow us to write a basis of states on which it is reasonable to to a perturbative study. Ideally of course, some exact cases could be found, like a $m \rightarrow 0$ limit, one-particle states or maybe some cosmological setup. In any case, the non-commutativity is not a problem as long as we can interpret it to be almost commutative in some limit. This, however, will only be possible if we can develop the full set of operators $\phi$, $\Pi$, $e$ and $A$ independently from the techniques we have employed in the commutative case. This means that one of the most important point moving forward is concluding the program opened by section \[sec:newrep\].
Let’s mention one last point before wrapping up: the idea of studying the abelian theory as a starting point, possibly for perturbative expansion is not new and was originally introduced by Smolin [@Smolin:1992wj]. In our case however, we wanted it in particular to be able to study the geometry of the quantum spacetime. According to Connes’work (for instance [@Chamseddine:1996zu]), this is better encoded in the Dirac operator governing the propagation of fermions rather than just the metric. A similar approach would then start with fermions coupled to abelian gravity. This is however rather ill-defined at the moment. Indeed, the gauge group does share the same topology as $\mathrm{SU}(1,1)$, making the distinctions between bosons and fermions less clear. Moreover, it is not completely straightforward how the abelian connection should be coupled to the fermions. This is therefore an interesting point to explore further in future work.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we considered a simplified model for 3d quantum gravity coupled to a scalar field. The model was taken from Smolin work [@Smolin:1992wj], corresponds to a specific $G \rightarrow 0$ limit of standard 3d gravity, and can be formulated as standard BF theory (coupled to a scalar field in our case) but with an abelian gauge group. In four dimensions, this corresponds to a linearization of gravity but still expressed in a diffeomorphism invariant way. In three dimensions, the theory is still topological, but the dynamics is simplified. We showed in this paper in particular that a full sector of the theory is completely equivalent to a free scalar field, the gravity field only being there to allow for a diffeomorphism covariant formulation. This sector is actually fairly similar to what was already developed with parametrized field theories [@Kuchar:1989bk; @Kuchar:1989wz; @Varadarajan:2006am], although in higher dimensions and with a different language.
We showed furthermore that this equivalence with a free scalar field theory leads to the formulation of a creation-annihilation algebra of operators, even in a diffeomorphism invariant setting. This algebra can in principle be extended to other sectors of the theory as long as the metric is everywhere invertible. Though the natural formulation is a bit different due to diffeomorphism invariance, the algebra is completely equivalent to the standard one for the free scalar field. The interesting point is that all these operators commute with the constraints for the abelian theory. This means they allow the construction of a set of solutions of the constraints, and mirror the fact that the classical abelian gravity theory (coupled to a scalar field) is equivalent, at least in some sector, to the classical free scalar field theory. This also means that these expressions are a good starting point for studying the non-abelian theory, for instance to try and quantize the theory perturbatively. This also allows the construction of a full quantization of the linear theory based on these operators as new variables. The quantum theory splits into two sectors. One is the sector that encodes the various excitation of the scalar field, and can be mapped one to one to the free scalar field theory. The second can be understood as the gravity sectors that more or less decouples in this abelian theory. It can be mapped onto the BF theory and be solved exactly.
The drawback of such an approach is that some natural operators do not exist or are extremely difficult to construct. In particular, the momentum operator for the scalar field, and the holonomy operator for the gravity field, require the definition of (non-exponentiated) triad operators and an inverse-metric operator. This implies in particular, that even the canonical variables of the theory cannot be expressed simply or may be downright impossible to write. This is not really a specific problem of our approach: we used the equivalent of the BF representation in our construction which has similar difficulties for constructing triad operators or inverse-triad operators. However, in our case, these difficulties become a problem when trying to write a correlation operator for the scalar field for instance, which is a quantity we will eventually want to be able to compute. Using the older and somewhat more standard Ashtekar-Lewandowski representation only partially solves the problem. If it is indeed possible to define a non-exponentiated triad operator, the fact that the metric is degenerate almost everywhere for almost all states create huge problems with our approach which precisely requires the opposite. Moreover, natural expressions for the momentum operator of the scalar field are pathological, even though they only require exponential and polynomial terms in the triads, which should not need any regularization for the quantum case.
We offered a possible way out. Though the construction needs to be studied more thoroughly, the drawbacks of the previous two approaches disappear. The idea is to construct a representation peaked on a given classical state for the spatial metric. This idea was explored by Koslowski and Sahlmann [@Koslowski:2007kh; @Sahlmann:2010hn; @Koslowski:2011vn] as an equivalent to condensed state around a classical configuration. Though strict diffeomorphism invariance of the vacuum was lost, a sens of diffeomorphism covariance can still be retained. However, if this breaking was natural in their case, it seems more dubious when studying the theory from a more fundamental standpoint. We showed however that a specific vacuum can be selected using the Gauß constraints in the linear case and corresponds to a flat space. Because the vacuum is nowhere degenerate, all the problems with the previously mentioned representations are lifted. Interestingly, the construction also allows a very nice interpretation of how the spacetime on which a free scalar field propagates is recovered in a setup where the triad is supposed to be completely degenerate in a quantum sense. In fact (in the abelian case), the classical spacetime is there all along and the degeneracy only comes from the superposition of all the diffeomorphism equivalent way of describing the system.
Finally, we left several questions open for further inquiry. Most notably, as we just said, the new representation we offered should be studied further. Indeed, even though the straightforward problems have been lifted, the study of the construction of the full operator set is still to be done. We left it ou however because a full and complete study would include a more complete treatment of the Gauß constraints which we just assume to be satisfied. Lifting this condition requires dealing with gauge fixing, choice of path when integrating, etc. These points must be considered at some point as they are needed for the non-abelian theory but were left out of this first investigation. Similarly, we have left out all questions regarding the various possible sectors of the theory, the role of topology, the possible restrictions when considering compact spaces, etc. Though this is certainly worth investigating on its own merit, our goal was to get a first grap on how to develop a non-abelian theory. In this regard, though all this is very important, it will most probably be quite different when changing the Lorentz gauge group.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Stefan Hohenegger for the numerous discussions that helped and guided this project, and without whom none of this would have been possible. I would also like to thank John Barrett for the various conversations that launched the initial idea for this paper.
Details of the Hamiltonian analysis {#app:hamil}
===================================
Primary constraints and Hamiltonian
-----------------------------------
We have the following action as a starting point: $$\begin{aligned}
S[e,A,\phi] &=& \int_{\mathcal{S}} \Big[ \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I (\partial_\nu A_\rho^{JK} - \partial_\rho A_\nu^{JK}) + \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^\sigma_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi - \frac{m^2}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^3 x .\end{aligned}$$ Let’s start the hamiltonian analysis by choosing a integration manifold. We will simply choose $\mathcal{S} = \mathbb{R}^3$ to avoid some problems on compact manifolds and with non-trivial topology. We will though also neglect boundary terms, assuming nice behaviour at infinity.
Let choose some decomposition of $\mathcal{S}$ as $\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$ with corresponding coordinates $(t,\sigma)$. $t$ will be our time variable and $\sigma$ will be the coordinates on the spatial slice $\Sigma$. We only assume that $\Sigma$ is diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$ but not that it is a flat slice.
This allows the following writing: $$S[e,A,\phi] = \int_\mathbb{R} L \mathrm{d}t,$$ with: $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I (\partial_\nu A_\rho^{JK} - \partial_\rho A_\nu^{JK}) + \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^\sigma_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi - \frac{m^2}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ We can now define the various momenta.
Let’s note $B$ the momentum conjugated to $A$, $X$ the momentum conjugated to $e$ and $\Pi$ the momentum conjugated to $\phi$. The definitions are: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
B^\mu_{IJ}(\sigma) &\equiv& \frac{\delta L}{\delta (\partial_0 A_\mu^{IJ}(\sigma))},\\
X^\mu_I(\sigma) &\equiv& \frac{\delta L}{\delta (\partial_0 e_\mu^I(\sigma))},\\
\Pi(\sigma) &\equiv& \frac{\delta L}{\delta (\partial_0 \phi(\sigma))}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here, it is understood that $\partial_0$ means derivative with respect to the time variable $t$.
This leads to our primary constraints. Let’s start with the easy ones: $$X^\mu_I = 0.$$ This comes from the fact that the action does not depend at all on the derviatives of $e$.
Let’s now turn to the variable $B$. We must distinguish two cases. First, $B^0$ is easy to study as no time derivate of $A_0$ appears in the action. Therefore: $$B^0_{IJ} = 0.$$ The story is a bit different for $B^a$ ($a \neq 0$). Here we rather get: $$B^a_{IJ} = 2 \alpha \epsilon_{KIJ} \epsilon^{\mu 0 a} e_\mu^K = 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K.$$
There is no constraint on $\Pi$ as the relation we get is invertible in $\partial_0 \phi$. More precisely, we get: $$\Pi = -\frac{1}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^0_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\tau \phi = -(\det e)g^{0\tau}\partial_\tau \phi .$$ This can be inverted into: $$\partial_0 \phi = -\frac{1}{(\det e)g^{00}}\left(\Pi + (\det e)g^{0a}\partial_a \phi\right) .$$ We have assumed here that the metric is invertible.
We can, at last, write the Hamiltonian which is defined as: $$H \equiv \int_\Sigma \left(\frac{1}{2} B^\mu_{IJ} \partial_0 A_\mu^{IJ} + X^\mu_I \partial_0 e_\mu^I + \Pi \partial_0 \phi \right) \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma - L.$$ Thanks to the constraints, most of the first terms vanish. We will only get the $\Pi$ term, as well as the $B^a$ terms. At the end of the day, we must also make sure that the final expression does not depend on $\partial_0 \phi$. We must therefore take some time to rewrite $L$ so that any time component is made explicit and not bulked together with the spatial ones.
So let’s try to declutter $L$ a bit: $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I (\partial_\nu A_\rho^{JK} - \partial_\rho A_\nu^{JK}) + \frac{\Lambda}{6} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \left( e^\sigma_M e^\tau_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_\sigma \phi \partial_\tau \phi - \frac{m^2}{12} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} e_\mu^I e_\nu^J e_\rho^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma \nonumber \\
&=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ e_0^I \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} (\partial_a A_b^{JK} - \partial_b A_a^{JK}) + \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^I \partial_0 A_a^{JK} + \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^I \partial_b A_0^{JK} \nonumber \\
&+& e_0^I \frac{\Lambda}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K - e_0^I \frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K g^{00} \partial_0 \phi \partial_0 \phi \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_0 \phi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \left( e^c_M e^d_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \frac{m^2}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \phi^2 \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ Now assuming we can neglect the condition at the boundary (for example by asking all the fields to vanish at infinity), we can rewrite this a bit: $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left(2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K \right) + \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&+& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \frac{\Lambda}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K - \frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K g^{00} \partial_0 \phi \partial_0 \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_0 \phi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \left( e^c_M e^d_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{m^2}{4} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K \phi^2 \Big) \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ Let’s now define : $$n_I = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_a^J e_b^K .$$ This will allow the following more compact expression: $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left(2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K \right) + \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&+& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I g^{00} \partial_0 \phi \partial_0 \phi \nonumber \\
&-& n_I \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_0 \phi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{2} n_I \left( e^c_M e^d_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 \Big) \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ Let’s go back to the Hamiltonian. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_0^{IJ} B^0_{IJ} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left( B^a_{IJ} - 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K\right) \nonumber \\
&+& X^\mu_I \partial_0 e_\mu^I + \Pi \partial_0 \phi - \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I g^{00} \partial_0 \phi \partial_0 \phi \nonumber \\
&-& n_I \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_0 \phi \partial_c \phi - \frac{1}{2} n_I \left( e^c_M e^d_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 \Big) \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ In this expression, we must now write $\partial_0 \phi$ in terms of $\Pi$ using: $$\partial_0 \phi = -\frac{1}{(\det e)g^{00}}\left(\Pi + (\det e)g^{0a}\partial_a \phi\right) .$$ Lets concentrate only on the relevant terms $T$: $$\begin{aligned}
T &\equiv& \Pi \partial_0 \phi + \frac{1}{2} e_0^I n_I g^{00} \partial_0 \phi \partial_0 \phi + e_0^I n_I \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \partial_0 \phi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{(\det e)g^{00}}\Pi \left(\Pi + (\det e)g^{0a}\partial_a \phi\right) + \frac{1}{2} e_0^I n_I g^{00} \left[\frac{1}{(\det e)g^{00}}\left(\Pi + (\det e)g^{0a}\partial_a \phi\right)\right]^2 \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I n_I \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right)\frac{1}{(\det e)g^{00}}\left(\Pi + (\det e)g^{0a}\partial_a \phi\right)\partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{2(\det e)g^{00}}\Pi^2 - \frac{1}{g^{00}} \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) \Pi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\det e}{2g^{00}} g^{0a} g^{0b} \partial_a \phi \partial_b \phi - \frac{\det e}{g^{00}} \left( e^0_M e^c_N \eta^{MN} \right) g^{0a} \partial_a \phi \partial_c \phi \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{2(\det e)g^{00}}\Pi^2 - \frac{g^{0c}}{g^{00}} \Pi \partial_c \phi - \frac{\det e}{2g^{00}} \left(g^{0a} \partial_a \phi\right)^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Let’s put this in one single package: $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_0^{IJ} B^0_{IJ} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left( B^a_{IJ} - 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K\right) + X^\mu_I \partial_0 e_\mu^I - \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I g^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 + \frac{n_I}{2g^{00}} (g^{0a}\partial_a \phi)^2 \Big) \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{2(\det e)g^{00}}\Pi^2 - \frac{g^{0c}}{g^{00}} \Pi \partial_c \phi \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$ Note that: $$g^{cd} - \frac{g^{0c} g^{0d}}{g^{00}} = h^{cd}$$ where $h^{cd}$ denotes the inverse of the induced metric on $\Sigma$. In particular, it does not depend on $e_0^I$. Similarly: $$\frac{1}{(\det e) g^{00}} = \frac{1}{(\det e) \frac{\det h}{\det g}} = -\frac{\det e}{\det h},$$ which is linear in $e_0^I$. We can see therefore that every single one of the last terms is linear in $e_0^I$. We can sum up this in the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \int_{\Sigma} \Big[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_0^{IJ} B^0_{IJ} + \frac{1}{2} \partial_0 A_a^{IJ} \left( B^a_{IJ} - 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K\right) + X^\mu_I \partial_0 e_\mu^I - \frac{1}{2} A_0^{JK} \left(- 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a ^I \right) \nonumber \\
&-& e_0^I \Big(\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 - \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi \Big) \Big] \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$
Constraint analysis
-------------------
So let’s start the constraint analysis. First, we must list all the constraints. The first constraints are the primary constraints. Explicitely, they read: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
X^0_I &=& 0, \\
B^0_{IJ} &=& 0, \\
X^a_I &=& 0, \\
B^a_{IJ} &=& 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K.
\end{array}\right.$$ Their Poisson bracket with the Hamiltonian must be zero on shell so that the constraints are conserved. We will be using the following sign convention: $$\{q, p\} = -1$$ where $q$ represents a fundamental variable ($\phi$, $e$ or $A$) and $p$ the corresponding conjugated momentum ($\Pi$, $X$ or $B$). Let’s study this. First: $$\{X^0_I, H\} = -\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] - \Lambda n_I + \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi + \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 + \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 + \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi .$$ We will simply write this quantity $D_I$. No Lagrange multiplier appears here, so necessarily, $D_I = 0$, which is indeed the curvature constraint. Similarly: $$\{B^0_{IJ}, H\} = 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a^I.$$ Here, we can identify some version of the Gauß constraint, which we will write $G_{IJ} = 0$.
It is easy to see that no other constraint arise as the other commutators all involve Lagrange multipliers and can be inverted. Therefore the system of equations is now: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& X^0_I, \\
0 &=& B^0_{IJ}, \\
0 &=& X^a_I, \\
0 &=& B^a_{IJ} - 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K, \\
0 &=& -\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] - \Lambda n_I + \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi + \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 + \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 + \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi, \\
0 &=& 2 \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a^I.
\end{array}\right.$$ The first two constraints are obviously first class. The last four are not, but that does not mean we have found all the first class constraints.
It can be checked that the following constraint is first class: $$\partial_b B^b_{IJ} = 0 .$$ It obvisouly commutes with every constraint and it is a constraint as a linear combination of the Gauß constraint found so far and the simplicity constraint. Finally, it is quite obvious that: $$\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda \tilde{n}_I - \frac{1}{2} \tilde{n}_I \tilde{h}^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} \tilde{n}_I \phi^2 - \frac{\tilde{n}_I}{2 \det \tilde{h}} \Pi^2 - \frac{\tilde{n}_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} \tilde{e}_d^L}{\det \tilde{h}} \Pi \partial_c \phi = 0$$ where the tilded quantitites are constructed out of $B$ (rather than $e$), is a first class constraint.
Counting the number of degrees of freedom, we find that necessarily, the last constraints are second class. That is: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& X^a_I, \\
0 &=& B^a_{IJ} - 2\alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} e_b^K, \\
\end{array}\right.$$ are second class. This allows the computation of the Dirac brackets: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\{e^I_0(x), X_J^0(y)\}_D &=& -\delta^I_J \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_0(x), B_{KL}^0(y)\}_D &=& -(\delta^I_K \delta^J_L - \delta^I_L \delta^J_K) \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), e^{K}_b(y)\}_D &=& \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h} \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon^{IJK} \delta(x-y),\\
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), B_{KL}^b(y)\}_D &=& -\delta_a^b (\delta^I_K \delta^J_L - \delta^I_L \delta^J_K) \delta(x-y),\\
\{\phi(x), \Pi(y)\}_D &=& -\delta(x-y),
\end{array}\right.$$ all other (non-fundamental) brackets being zero (including brackets dealing with $X_I^a$). With these brackets, it is rather obvious that the second class constraints commute with all the other constraints. Interestingly, they can be solved, and the system can finally be rewritten as: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 - \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 - \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi, \\
0 &=& \epsilon^{ab} \partial_b e_a^I,
\end{array}
\right.$$ with the following brackets: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\{A^{IJ}_a(x), e^{K}_b(y)\} &=& \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h} \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon^{IJK} \delta(x-y),\\
\{\phi(x), \Pi(y)\} &=& -\delta(x-y).
\end{array}\right.$$ The $B$ variables have been removed thanks to the second class constraints and the time component variables have been removed as they decouple from the rest and can be trivially solved. We now have the Hamiltonian formulation of our problem. This concludes this appendix.
Brackets between the ladder operators and the constraints {#app:operators}
=========================================================
In this appendix, we consider the bracket (using the Dirac bracket found in the previous appendix \[app:hamil\]) between the curvature constraints and the would-be creation and annihilation operators. Namely, we want to compute $\{D_I, a_k\}_D$ (for which we will now drop the $D$ index from now on) where: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
D_I &=& \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A] + \Lambda n_I - \frac{1}{2} n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi \partial_d \phi - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I \phi^2 - \frac{n_I}{2 \det h} \Pi^2 - \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} \Pi \partial_c \phi, \\
a_k &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I \phi + s \mathrm{i}\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $s$ is a sign to be determined. To deal with this problem properly, we will need to integrate $D_I$ with a test field. We will therefore compute the following bracket: $$\{\int N^I(\tau) D_I(\tau) \mathrm{d}^2\tau, a_k\}$$ where both terms now have regular dependency on the variables and $N^I$ is the test field we just mentioned.
In this bracket, we can distinguish three kinds of terms, when expanding $D_I$. First, the bracket involving the cosmological constant term is trivial. Indeed, this terms only depends on the triad and as $a_k$ does not depend on $A$ at all, the bracket is zero. Second, we have the bracket involving the curvature of $A$. This part of $D_I$ does not depend on the matter field. As a consequence, only the dependence on the triad in $a_k$ will be of importance. Third, and finally, we will have the part of $D_I$ which involves the matter fields but does not involve the connection. And there only, the dependence on the matter fields in $a_k$ will be important for computing the brackets. The hope is of course that these last two terms compensate. It is quite intuitive that it is possible since this would correspond to $a_k$ creating energy on the matter field and compensating by giving the correct curvature to satisfy the Einstein equation.
Let’s start by computing the following bracket: $$A = \{\int N^I(\tau) \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^{JK}[A](\tau) \mathrm{d}^2\tau, a_k\}.$$ We have: $$\begin{aligned}
A &=& \int N^I(\tau) \frac{\alpha}{2} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau) - \partial_b A_a^{JK}(\tau), a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int N^I(\tau) \alpha \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int N^I(\tau) \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \left(\phi(\sigma)\{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), k^L n_L(\sigma) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} + s \mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma)\{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} \right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma\mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int N^I(\tau) \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \left(\phi(\sigma)k^L \{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), n_L(\sigma)\} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} + (k^L n_L(\sigma) \phi(\sigma) + s\mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma))\{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} \right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma\mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
& & \end{aligned}$$ Let’s compute the two intermediary brackets. First, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), n_L(\sigma)\} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a}\{ A_b^{JK}(\tau), \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{LMN} \epsilon^{cd} e_c^M(\sigma) e_d^N(\sigma)\} \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{LMN} \epsilon^{cd} e_c^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a}\{ A_b^{JK}(\tau), e_d^N(\sigma)\} \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{LMN} \epsilon^{cd} e_c^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h(\sigma)} \epsilon_{bd}(\sigma) \epsilon^{JKN} \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h(\sigma)} \epsilon_{bd}(\sigma) \epsilon^{NJK} \epsilon_{NLM} \epsilon^{cd} e_c^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h(\sigma)} h_{bb'}(\sigma) \epsilon^{cd} h_{dd'}(\sigma) \epsilon^{b'd'} (\delta^J_M \delta^K_L - \delta^J_L \delta^K_M) e_c^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\alpha\det h(\sigma)} h_{bb'}(\sigma) (\det h(\sigma)) h^{cb'}(\sigma) (\delta^J_M \delta^K_L - \delta^J_L \delta^K_M) e_c^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\alpha} (\delta^J_M \delta^K_L - \delta^J_L \delta^K_M) e_b^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\alpha} (\delta^J_L \delta^K_M - \delta^J_M \delta^K_L) e_b^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ We used the equality between the two derivatives for $\delta$ (up to a sign) on the last line to avoid the appearance of derivatives of $N^I$ in the full bracket.
Now, we also have (we include the initial $\epsilon$ for simplifications): $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} &=& \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \{ A_b^{JK}(\tau), \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab}\int_\xi \left( - \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PQ} \delta(\xi - \zeta(s) )\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta^c}{\mathrm{d}s} \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \{A_b^{JK}(\tau), e_c^Q(\xi) \} \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab}\int_\xi \left( - \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PQ} \delta(\xi - \zeta(s) )\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta^c}{\mathrm{d}s} \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \nonumber \\
&\times& \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \frac{1}{2\alpha \det h(\xi)}\epsilon_{bc}(\xi) \epsilon^{JKQ} \delta(\tau - \xi) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\xi \left( \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI} \delta(\xi - \zeta(s) )\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta^a}{\mathrm{d}s} \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^a} \left( \delta(\tau - \xi) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\xi \left( \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI} \delta(\xi - \zeta(s) )\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta^a}{\mathrm{d}s} \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^a} \left( \delta(\tau - \xi) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\xi \left( \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^a} (\delta(\xi - \zeta(s) ))\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta^a}{\mathrm{d}s} \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \delta(\tau - \xi) \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\xi \left( \int^\sigma \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s} (\delta(\xi - \zeta(s) )) \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \delta(\tau - \xi) \mathrm{d}^2\xi \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI}}{\alpha} \left( \int^\sigma \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s} (\delta(\tau - \zeta(s) )) \mathrm{d}s \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI}}{\alpha} \delta(\tau - \sigma ) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\end{aligned}$$ The last line should also contain an opposite contribution from the start point of the integral. To make this omission rigorous, we have to consider that $N^I$ has compact support. In that case, once the start point is sufficiently far, its contribution will always be zero. This however means that we have some restrictions on the distribution spaces we might consider.
Let’s put all these computations together. We get: $$\begin{aligned}
A &=& \int \int N^I(\tau) \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \left(\phi(\sigma)k^L \{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), n_L(\sigma)\} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} + (k^L n_L(\sigma) \phi(\sigma) + s\mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma))\{\partial_a A_b^{JK}(\tau), \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\} \right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma\mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int N^I(\tau) \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \phi(\sigma)k^L \frac{1}{2\alpha} (\delta^J_L \delta^K_M - \delta^J_M \delta^K_L) e_b^M(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. (k^L n_L(\sigma) \phi(\sigma) + s\mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma)) \frac{\mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI}}{\alpha} \delta(\tau - \sigma ) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma\mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \int \frac{N^I(\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \phi(\sigma)k^J e_b^K(\sigma) \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma^a} \left( \delta(\tau-\sigma) \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \right) \mathrm{d}^2\sigma\mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&+& \int \frac{ N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left( (k^L n_L \phi + s\mathrm{i}\Pi) \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \right)\mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&\approx& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} (-\partial_a \phi) k^J e_b^K + \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \phi k^J e_b^K (\mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PQ} e^Q_a) + (k^L n_L \phi + s\mathrm{i}\Pi) \mathrm{i} k^P \eta_{PI}\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&\approx& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(-(\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} k^J e_b^K)\partial_a \phi + (\epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P e_b^K e^Q_a + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L ) \mathrm{i}\phi - s(\eta_{PI} k^P) \Pi \right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma ,\end{aligned}$$ where everything with the $\approx$ is only true on-shell and more precisely when the Gauß constraints are verified.
Let’s now turn to the second half of the computation: $$\begin{array}{c}
B= \\
\{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(- \frac{1}{2} n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \partial_d \phi(\tau) - \frac{m^2}{2} n_I(\tau) \phi(\tau)^2 + \frac{n_I(\tau)}{2 \det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau)^2 + \frac{n_J(\tau) \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\} .
\end{array}$$ Once more, let’s split this expression into simpler components. We will have: $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(- \frac{1}{2} n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \partial_d \phi(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\}, \\
B_2 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(- \frac{m^2}{2} n_I(\tau) \phi(\tau)^2 \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\}, \\
B_3 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(-\frac{n_I(\tau)}{2 \det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau)^2 \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\}, \\
B_4 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(-\frac{n_J(\tau) \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let’s compute each one of them separately, starting with $B_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(- \frac{1}{2} n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \partial_d \phi(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\} \nonumber \\
&=& - \int N^I(\tau) n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \{ \partial_d \phi(\tau) , a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& - \int N^I(\tau) n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^d} \{ \phi(\tau) , a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2\tau\end{aligned}$$ This calls for the following computation: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \phi(\tau) , a_k\} &=& \{ \phi(\tau) , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I(\sigma) \phi(\sigma) + s\mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma)\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\mathrm{i}s}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \{ \phi(\tau), \Pi(\sigma)\} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{\mathrm{i}s}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \delta(\tau - \sigma) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{\mathrm{i}s}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}}\end{aligned}$$ Putting it back into $B_1$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 &=& - \int N^I(\tau) n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^d} \{ \phi(\tau) , a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& - \int N^I(\tau) n_I(\tau) h^{cd}(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^d} \left( - \frac{\mathrm{i}s}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{s}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \int N^I n_I h^{cd} \partial_c \phi k^P \eta_{PQ} e^Q_d \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} (s \eta_{PQ} k^P h^{ab} n_I e^Q_b) \partial_a \phi \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last expression was written in a form similar to that of $A$.
Let’s now consider $B_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
B_2 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(- \frac{m^2}{2} n_I(\tau) \phi(\tau)^2 \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\} \nonumber \\
&=& - \int N^I(\tau) m^2 n_I(\tau) \phi(\tau) \{\phi(\tau) , a_k\} \mathrm{d}^2 \tau \nonumber \\
&=& - \int N^I(\tau) m^2 n_I(\tau) \phi(\tau) \left( - s\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} \right) \mathrm{d}^2 \tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} (s m^2 n_I) \mathrm{i}\phi \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$
Let’s turn to $B_3$: $$\begin{aligned}
B_3 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(-\frac{n_I(\tau)}{2 \det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau)^2 \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\} \nonumber \\
&=& -\int N^I(\tau) \frac{n_I(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \{\Pi(\tau), a_k \} \mathrm{d}^2\tau .\end{aligned}$$ We must now compute: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \Pi(\tau) , a_k\} &=& \{ \Pi(\tau) , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int \left(k^I n_I(\sigma) \phi(\sigma) + s\mathrm{i}\Pi(\sigma)\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int k^I n_I(\sigma) \{ \Pi(\tau), \phi(\sigma)\} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\int k^I n_I(\sigma) \delta(\tau - \sigma) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2\sigma \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{k^L n_L(\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} .\end{aligned}$$ This gives: $$\begin{aligned}
B_3 &=& -\int N^I(\tau) \frac{n_I(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \{\Pi(\tau), a_k \} \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& -\int N^I(\tau) \frac{n_I(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \left( \frac{k^L n_L(\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(-\frac{k^L n_L n_I}{\det h}\right) \Pi \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}} \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma .\end{aligned}$$
Finally, let’s turn to $B_4$: $$\begin{aligned}
B_4 &=& \{ \int N^I(\tau) \left(-\frac{n_J(\tau) \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \Pi(\tau) \partial_c \phi(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau , a_k\} \nonumber \\
&=& -\int N^I(\tau) \frac{n_J(\tau) \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \left( \{\Pi(\tau), a_k \}\partial_c \phi(\tau) + \Pi(\tau) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^c}\{\phi(\tau), a_k \}\right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& -\int N^I(\tau) \frac{n_J(\tau) \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L(\tau)}{\det h(\tau)} \left( \left( \frac{k^M n_M(\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} \right)\partial_c \phi(\tau) + \Pi(\tau) \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau^c}\left( - \frac{s\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\tau} \vec{e}} \right)\right) \mathrm{d}^2\tau \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{N^I}{\sqrt{2}\pi} \left(\left[-\frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{ad} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M \right]\partial_a \phi + \left[s\frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^P \eta_{PQ} e^Q_c \right]\Pi\right) \mathrm{e}^{- \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \int^{\sigma} \vec{e}}\mathrm{d}^2\sigma\end{aligned}$$
Before moving to the full expression, let’s try and simplify the terms in $\partial_a \phi$ on one side and $\Pi$ on the other. First, for $\partial_a \phi$, we have: $$C_1 = s\eta_{PQ} k^P h^{ab} n_I e^Q_b - \frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{ad} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M .$$ And for, $\Pi$, we have: $$C_2 = \frac{-k^L n_L n_I}{\det h} + s\frac{n_J \eta^{JK} \epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^P \eta_{PQ} e^Q_c .$$
$C_2$ is slightly simpler, let’s start with it. Indeed, we now we’d like to find $-s\eta_{PI} k^P$ so that it exactly compensates the term in $A$. So let’s compute: $$\eta_{PI} k^P = \delta^J_I \eta_{PJ} k^P .$$ We will now try to find another way to write $\delta^J_I$. For this, let’s consider the tetrad $d$ defined by, for all spatial directions $a$, $d_a^I = e_a^I$ and for the time direction, $d_0^I = \frac{\eta^{IJ} n_J}{\sqrt{-n^2}}$ (where $n^2$ is the Minkowski square of $n_I$). If the triad is non-degenerate (which we assumed), $d$ is invertible by construction and $\det d = -\sqrt{-n^2}$. Therefore, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^J_I &=& d^J_\mu d^\mu_I \nonumber \\
&=& d^J_0 d^0_I + d^J_a d^a_I \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\eta^{JR} n_R}{\sqrt{-n^2}} \frac{\epsilon_{IMN} \epsilon^{cd} e_c^M e_d^N}{2 (-\sqrt{-n^2})} + e_a^J \frac{\epsilon^{ab} \epsilon_{IMN} d_b^M d_0^N}{(-\sqrt{-n^2})} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\eta^{JR} n_R n_I}{n^2} + \frac{\epsilon^{ab} \epsilon_{IMN} e_a^J e_b^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{n^2} \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{\eta^{JR} n_R n_I}{\det h} - \frac{\epsilon^{ab} \epsilon_{IMN} e_a^J e_b^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{\det h} .\end{aligned}$$ The last line uses $\det h = -n^2$. Therefore: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{PI} k^P &=& \eta_{PJ} \delta^J_I k^P \nonumber \\
&=& -\eta_{PJ} k^P \left(\frac{\eta^{JR} n_R n_I}{\det h} + \frac{\epsilon^{ab} \epsilon_{IMN} e_a^J e_b^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{\det h}\right) \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{k^L n_L n_I}{\det h} - \frac{\epsilon_{ILK} e^L_d \eta^{KJ} n_J \epsilon^{cd} e_c^Q}{\det h} \eta_{PQ} k^P \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{k^L n_L n_I}{\det h} + \frac{\epsilon_{IKL} e^L_d \eta^{JK} n_J \epsilon^{cd} e_c^Q}{\det h} \eta_{PQ} k^P\end{aligned}$$ And so, we get (for $s=1$): $$C_2 = s\eta_{PI} k^P ,$$ which is exactly what we wanted.
Let’s turn to $C_1$. Once more, we know what we would like. We would like to compensate the term $-\epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab}k^J e_b^K$ coming from $A$. So, we would like $C_1$ to be equal to the opposite. Once more, let’s start from the desired expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab}k^J e_b^K &=& \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \delta^J_S k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \left(\frac{\eta^{JR} n_R n_S}{\det h} + \frac{\epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{SMN} e_c^J e_d^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{\det h}\right) k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\eta^{JR} n_R n_S}{\det h} k^S e_b^K - \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{SMN} e_c^J e_d^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{\det h} k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M - \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{SMN} e_c^J e_d^M \eta^{NL} n_L}{\det h} k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M - \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\epsilon^{cd} \epsilon_{SMN} e_c^J e_d^M \eta^{NL} \epsilon_{LPQ} \epsilon^{ij} e_i^P e_j^Q}{2\det h} k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M - \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\epsilon^{cd} (\eta_{SQ} \eta_{MP} - \eta_{SP} \eta_{MQ}) e_c^J e_d^M \epsilon^{ij} e_i^P e_j^Q}{2\det h} k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M - \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \frac{\epsilon^{cd} \eta_{SQ} e_c^J \epsilon^{ij} h_{id} e_j^Q}{\det h} k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M + \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab} \eta_{SQ} e_c^J h^{jc} e_j^Q k^S e_b^K \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M + \epsilon_{IJK}e_{c'}^J e_{b'}^K \frac{\epsilon^{b'c'} \epsilon_{bc}}{2\det h} \epsilon^{ab} \eta_{SQ} h^{jc} e_j^Q k^S \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M - \frac{\epsilon_{dc}}{\det h} n_I\epsilon^{ad} \eta_{PQ} h^{bc} e_b^Q k^P \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{n_J \eta^{JK}\epsilon^{ad}\epsilon_{IKL} e_d^L}{\det h} k^M n_M + n_I \eta_{PQ} h^{ba} e_b^Q k^P\end{aligned}$$ And so, we get (once more for $s=1$): $$C_1 = \epsilon_{IJK}\epsilon^{ab}k^J e_b^K$$ which is once again what we wanted.
The only thing that remains is the term in $\phi$. This time it is more natural to look at the term in $A$ and try to get the necessary term to compensate in $B$, namely to compensate $sm^2n_I$. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
D &=& \epsilon_{IJK} \epsilon^{ab} \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P e_b^K e^Q_a + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{IJK} \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P \epsilon^{ab} e_b^{K'} e^{Q'}_a \frac{\delta_{K'}^K \delta_{Q'}^Q -\delta_{K'}^Q \delta_{Q'}^K}{2} + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{IJK} \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P \epsilon^{ab} e_b^{K'} e^{Q'}_a \frac{\epsilon^{LKQ} \epsilon_{LQ'K'}}{2} + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& \epsilon_{IJK} \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P n_L \epsilon^{LKQ} + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& (\delta^L_I \delta^Q_J - \delta^L_J \delta^Q_I) \eta_{PQ} k^J k^P n_L + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& \eta_{PJ} k^J k^P n_I - \eta_{PI} k^J k^P n_J + \eta_{PI} k^L k^P n_L \nonumber \\
&=& k^2 n_I \nonumber \\
&=& -m^2 n_I\end{aligned}$$ which is indeed $-sm^2 n_I$ for $s=1$. Putting all this together, we do get: $$A+B_1 + B_2 + B_3 + B_4 \approx 0.$$ Or to put it in the original question terms: $$\{\int N^I(\tau) D_I(\tau) \mathrm{d}^2\tau, a_k\} \approx 0$$ if $s=1$. It is to be noted that this result holds on-shell, when the Gauß constraint is checked. Otherwise, the bracket is linear in the Gauß constraints.
[^1]: There is however substantial work trying to use matter as a clock [@Giesel:2012rb; @Bilski:2017sze]. In that case, the scalar field is used to fix the gauge and the resulting theory is formulated as a diffeomorphism invariant theory. This actually evades the problem of Dirac observable we mention a bit later.
[^2]: There are other possibilities that reflect this though: for instance $k^I n_I(Q) \sqrt{n^I n_I}$ where $Q$ is some fixed reference point on the manifold. But once more, this can be done by adjusting $A$, thought this might be taken as some explicit dependancy on $\sigma$. So let’s not forget this possibility later on.
[^3]: There are in fact technical difficulties in this case because of the non-abelian nature of the gauge group. However, the limit for loops going to zero is usually well-defined (though group-valued) and play the same role.
[^4]: Though Thiemann developed some ideas in this regard [@Thiemann:1996ay], there are severe questions on whether his approach is successful [@Livine:2013wmq].
[^5]: In practice, this means that this sums is not well-defined if the point $\sigma$ fulls on an edge or a vertex of the triangulation. This is not important for us as we can just reduce the domain of the operator.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequality is a probabilistic result that guarantees the existence of special matrices with entries $1$ and $-1$ generating unimodular $m$-linear forms $A_{m,n}:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times
\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ (or $\mathbb{C}$) with relatively small norms. The optimal asymptotic estimates for the smallest possible norms of $A_{m,n}$ when $\left\{ p_{1},...,p_{m}\right\}
\subset\lbrack2,\infty]$ and when $\left\{ p_{1},...,p_{m}\right\}
\subset\lbrack1,2)$ are well-known and in this paper we obtain the optimal asymptotic estimates for the remaining case: $\left\{ p_{1},...,p_{m}\right\} $ intercepts both $[2,\infty]$ and $[1,2)$. In particular we prove that a conjecture posed by Albuquerque and Rezende is false and, using a special type of matrices that dates back to the works of Toeplitz, we also answer a problem posed by the same authors.
address:
- |
Departamento de Matemática\
Universidade Federal da Paraíba\
58.051-900 - João Pessoa, Brazil.
- |
Departamento de Matemáticas\
Universidad Nacional de Colombia\
111321 - Bogotá, Colombia
- |
Departamento de Matemática\
Universidade Federal da Paraíba\
58.051-900 - João Pessoa, Brazil.
author:
- Daniel Pellegrino
- 'Diana Serrano-Rodríguez'
- Janiely Silva
title: On unimodular multilinear forms with small norms on sequence spaces
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\mathbb{K}$ be the real or complex scalar field. The Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequality (see [@ab; @boas]) asserts that for positive integers $m,n$ and $p_{1},...,p_{m}\in\lbrack2,\infty]$, there exist a universal constant $C$ (depending only on $m$), a choice of signs $1$ and $-1$, and an $m$-linear form $A_{m,n}:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times
\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{K}$ of the type $$A_{m,n}(z^{(1)},...,z^{(m)})=\sum_{j_{1},...,j_{m}=1}^{n}\pm z_{j_{1}}^{(1)}\cdots z_{j_{m}}^{(m)},$$ such that $$\Vert A_{m,n}\Vert\leq Cn^{\frac{m+1}{2}-\left( \frac{1}{p_{1}}+\cdots
+\frac{1}{p_{m}}\right) }.$$ An interpolation argument shows that if $p_{1},...,p_{m}\in\lbrack1,2]$, there is a universal constant $C$ (depending only on $m$), and an $m$-linear form as above such that $$\Vert A_{m,n}\Vert\leq Cn^{1-\frac{1}{\max\{p_{1},...,p_{m}\}}}.$$ The above estimate appears is essence in Bayart’s paper [@bayart]. Both the multilinear and polynomial versions of the Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequalities play a fundamental role in modern Analysis (see, for instance, [@ab; @bk; @vel] and the references therein). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, despite the existence of more involved abstract generalizations of the Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequality (see [@mas]), the best estimate (i.e., the smallest possible exponent for $n$) for the general case ($p_{1},...,p_{m}\in\lbrack1,\infty]$) of sequence spaces is still unknown. Recently, Albuquerque and Rezende ([@alb]) have proved that, for $p_{1},...,p_{m}\in\lbrack1,\infty],$ there is a universal constant $C$ (depending only in $m$) and an $m$-linear form as above satisfying$$\Vert A_{m,n}\Vert\leq Cn^{1-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{
\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} },$$ with $$\gamma:=\min\left\{ 2,\max\{p_{k}:p_{k}\leq2\}\right\} .$$ Note that this last estimate encompasses the previous ones. In this note we obtain the optimal solution to the general case:
\[888\]Let $m,n$ be positive integers and $p_{1},...,p_{m}\in\left[
1,\infty\right] $. Then there exist a universal constant $C$ (depending only on $m$), a choice of signs $1$ and $-1$ and an $m$-linear form $A_{m,n}:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{K}$ of the type $$A_{m,n}(z^{(1)},...,z^{(m)})=\sum_{j_{1},...,j_{m}=1}^{n}\pm z_{j_{1}}^{(1)}\cdots z_{j_{m}}^{(m)},$$ such that$$\Vert A_{m,n}\Vert\leq Cn^{\frac{1}{\min\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\right\}
\}}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} },
\label{818}$$ where $p_{k}^{\ast}$ is the conjugate of $p_{k}.$ Moreover, the exponent $\frac{1}{\min\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\right\} \}}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} $ is optimal.
The proof
=========
We begin by recalling the following estimate obtained by Albuquerque and Rezende:
\[KSZ\_gen\](see [@alb]) Let $m,n_{1},\ldots,n_{m}$ be positive integers and $p_{1},\ldots,p_{m}\in\left[ 1,\infty\right] $. Then there exist a constant $C$ (depending only on $m$), a choice of signs $1$ and $-1$, and an $m$-linear form $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n_{m}}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ of the form $$A\left( z^{1},\ldots,z^{m}\right) =\sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\cdots\sum
_{j_{m}=1}^{n_{m}}\pm_{\mathbf{j}}z_{j_{1}}^{1}\cdots z_{j_{m}}^{m},$$ such that $$\Vert A\Vert\leq C\left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{\gamma}}\prod_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{\max\left\{ \frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} },$$ with $\gamma:=\min\left\{ 2,\max\{p_{k}:p_{k}\leq2\}\right\} .$
Proof of the inequality (\[818\])
---------------------------------
We shall prove (\[818\]) following the more general environment of the above result. We will show that for positive integers $m,n_{1},\ldots,n_{m}$ and $p_{1},\ldots,p_{m}\in\left[ 1,\infty\right] $, there is a universal constant (depending only on $m$), and a $m$-linear form $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n_{m}}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ of the form $$A\left( z^{1},\ldots,z^{m}\right) =\sum_{j_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\cdots\sum
_{j_{m}=1}^{n_{m}}\pm z_{j_{1}}^{1}\cdots z_{j_{m}}^{m},$$ such that $$\Vert A\Vert\leq C\left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}\right) ^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\prod_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.
\label{new}$$ with $$\rho:=\min\limits_{k}\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\right\} \}.\text{\ }$$ If $p_{k}\geq2$, for all $k=1,\cdots,m$, our estimate coincides with the ones of Theorem \[KSZ\_gen\]. The same happens when $p_{k}<2$ for all $k=1,...,m.$
Finally, let us suppose (with no loss of generality) that $1\leq d<m$, and $p_{k}\geq2$, for all $k=1,\cdots,d$ and $p_{k}<2$ for $k=d+1,...,m$. Theorem \[KSZ\_gen\] guarantees the existence of an $m$-linear form $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{d}}^{n_{d}}\times\ell_{2}^{n_{d+1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{2}^{n_{m}}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ such that $$\Vert A\Vert_{\mathcal{L}\left( \ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times
\ell_{p_{d}}^{n_{d}}\times\ell_{2}^{n_{d+1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{2}^{n_{m}};\mathbb{K}\right) }\leq C\left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\prod_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.$$ On the other hand, for each $k\notin\{1,\cdots,d\},$ by the monotonicity of the $\ell_{p}$ norms, the restriction of this form to $\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{d}}^{n_{d}}\times\ell_{p_{d+1}}^{n_{d+1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n_{m}}$ has norm $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert A\Vert_{\mathcal{L}\left( \ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times
\ell_{p_{d}}^{n_{d}}\times\ell_{p_{d+1}}^{n_{d+1}}\times\cdots\times
\ell_{p_{m}}^{n_{m}};\mathbb{K}\right) } & \leq\Vert A\Vert_{\mathcal{L}\left( \ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{d}}^{n_{d}}\times
\ell_{2}^{n_{d+1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{2}^{n_{m}};\mathbb{K}\right)
}\label{2s}\\
& \leq C\left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\prod_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that in this case$$\rho:=\min\limits_{k}\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\right\} \}=2.$$ Considering $n_{1}=\cdots=n_{m}=n$ we obtain the proof of (\[818\]).
Proof of the optimality
-----------------------
The optimality of the case $p_{k}\geq2$ for all $k\in\{1,...,m\}$ is well-known (it is a consequence of the Hardy–Littlewood inequalities) and the constant involved does not depend on $p_{1},...,p_{m}$.
More precisely, for all unimodular forms we have$$\Vert A\Vert\geq\frac{1}{\left( \sqrt{2}\right) ^{m-1}}n^{\frac{1}{2}+\left( \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}\right) +\cdots+\left( \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{m}}\right) }.$$ It remains only to prove the optimality of the exponents in the case in which at least one of the $p_{k}$ is smaller than $2$. We shall split the proof in three cases:
- First case: $p_{k}<2$, for all $k=1,\cdots,m$
- Second case: $p_{k}\geq2$ for only one $k\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,m\right\}
$.
- Third case: the complement of the previous cases.
The optimality of the first case seems to be folklore, but for the sake of completeness we shall provide a proof. In the first case the exponent of $n$ is $$\frac{1}{\rho}=\frac{1}{\min\limits_{k}\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\right\}
\}}=\frac{p_{j}-1}{p_{j}},$$ where $$p_{j}:=\max\limits_{k}p_{k}.$$ There is no loss of generality in supposing $j=m$. In the second case (we can also suppose $k=m$), the exponent of $n$ is also $\frac{p_{m}}{p_{m}-1}.$ For all $m$-linear forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K},$ we have$$\sup_{j_{1},...,j_{m-1}}\left( \sum_{j_{m}=1}^{n}\left\vert A\left(
e_{j_{1}},\dots,e_{j_{m}}\right) \right\vert ^{\frac{p_{m}}{p_{m}-1}}\right)
^{\frac{p_{m}-1}{p_{m}}}\leq\left\Vert A\right\Vert \sup_{\varphi\in
B_{\left( \ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\right) ^{\ast}}}\left( \sum_{j_{m}=1}^{n}\left\vert \varphi\left( e_{j_{m}}\right) \right\vert ^{\frac{p_{m}}{p_{m}-1}}\right) ^{\frac{p_{m}-1}{p_{m}}}\leq\left\Vert A\right\Vert .$$ Thus, for all unimodular $m$-linear forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times
\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K},$ we have$$\Vert A\Vert\geq n^{\frac{p_{m}-1}{p_{m}}},$$ and this guarantees the optimality of the exponent for the first and second cases.
It remains to prove the $m$-linear case when at least two $p_{i}\in\left[
2,\infty\right] $ and at the same time at least one $p_{i}\in\lbrack1,2)$.
We shall proceed by induction on $m$. The case of bilinear forms is completed by the previous steps. So, let us suppose that the result is valid for $\left( m-1\right) $-linear forms and let us prove for $m$-linear forms. So, our induction hypothesis is that for all $p_{i}\in\left[ 1,\infty\right] $ and $i=1,...,m-1$ we have (for all unimodular forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m-1}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$)$$\Vert A\Vert\geq D_{m-1}n^{\frac{1}{\min\left\{ \max\{2,p_{1}^{\ast
}\},...,\max\{2,p_{m-1}^{\ast}\}\right\} }+\sum_{k=1}^{m-1}\max\left\{
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }$$ and we want to prove that (for all unimodular forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$) we have$$\Vert A\Vert\geq D_{m-1}n^{\frac{1}{\min\left\{ \max\{2,p_{1}^{\ast
}\},...,\max\{2,p_{m}^{\ast}\}\right\} }+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{ \frac
{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.$$ Recalling that it just remains to prove the case when at least two $p_{i}\in\left[ 2,\infty\right] $ and at the same time at least one $p_{i}\in\lbrack1,2)$, we have $$\rho=\min\limits_{k}\left\{ \max\{2,p_{k}^{\ast}\}\right\} =2.$$ So, we shall prove that for all unimodular $m$-linear forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ (when at least two $p_{i}\in\left[ 2,\infty\right] $ and at the same time at least one $p_{i}\in\lbrack1,2)$) we have $$\Vert A\Vert\geq D_{m}n^{\frac{1}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.$$ We can suppose that $p_{m}\in\lbrack1,2)$. In this case, for any unimodular $m$-linear form $$A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$$ we have, by the Induction Hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert A\Vert & \geq\sup\left\{ \left\vert A\left( x_{j_{1}}^{\left(
1\right) },\dots,x_{j_{m-1}}^{\left( m-1\right) },\left( 1,0,...0\right)
\right) \right\vert :\text{ }{\textstyle\sum\limits_{j_{k}=1}^{n}}
\left\vert x_{j_{k}}^{(k)}\right\vert ^{p_{k}}\leq1\text{ for all }1\leq k\leq
m-1\right\} \\
& \geq D_{m-1}n^{\frac{1}{2}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m-1}\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }\\
& =D_{m-1}n^{\frac{1}{2}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }.\end{aligned}$$
The conjecture of Albuquerque–Rezende is false
==============================================
The following conjecture was proposed by Albuquerque and Rezende (see [@alb Conjecture 3.3]):
Let $p_{1},\dots,p_{m}\in\lbrack1,\infty]$. There exist $B_{m},C_{m}>0$ (depending only on $m$) such that $$B_{m}\leq\inf\frac{\Vert A\Vert}{\left( \sum_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{1-\frac
{1}{\gamma}}\right) \cdot\prod_{k=1}^{m}n_{k}^{\max\left\{ \frac{1}{\gamma
}-\frac{1}{p_{k}},0\right\} }}\leq C_{m}, \label{113}$$ with $\gamma:=\min\left\{ 2,\max\{p_{k}:p_{k}\leq2\}\right\} $, and the infimum is calculated over all unimodular $m$-linear forms $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\cdots\times\ell_{p_{m}}^{n_{m}}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ and the exponents involved are sharp.
Note that the estimate (\[2s\]) shows that the conjecture is false. In fact, for the sake of illustration, let us choose $m=3$, $p_{1}=3/2$ and $p_{2}=p_{3}=3.$ By (\[2s\]) there is a universal constant $C$ such that for all $n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}$ there exist a unimodular trilinear form $A:\ell
_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\ell_{p_{2}}^{n_{2}}\times\ell_{p_{3}}^{n_{3}}\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ satisfying$$\Vert A\Vert\leq C\left( n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}\right) ^{1/2}n_{2}^{1/6}n_{3}^{1/6}.$$ Thus, if (\[113\]) was valid, we would have $$0<\frac{C\left( n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}\right) ^{1/2}n_{2}^{1/6}n_{3}^{1/6}}{\left( n_{1}^{1/3}+n_{2}^{1/3}+n_{3}^{1/3}\right) n_{2}^{1/3}n_{3}^{1/3}}$$ for all $n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}$, and this is impossible.
We end this paper by answering a problem posed in [@alb] for complex-valued versions of the Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequality. More precisely, in [@alb Problem 3.6] the authors ask about the constants involved in complex-valued versions of the Kahane–Salem–Zygmund inequality, i.e., when the coefficients $1$ and $-1$ are replaced by complex numbers with modulo $1$. We shall show that in the bilinear case the former constant can be replaced by $1$.
Let $p_{1},p_{2}\geq2$ and $n$ such that $n=\max\{n_{1},n_{2}\}$. Borrowing ideas that date back to Toeplitz [@toe] and Littlewood [@li] (see also [@bh page 609]), we consider a $n\times n$ matrix $(a_{ij})$ defined by $$a_{ij}=e^{2\pi i\frac{ij}{n}}.$$ Note that $$\sum_{t=1}^{n}a_{rt}\overline{a_{st}}=n\delta_{rs}.$$ Define $A:\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}\times\ell_{p_{2}}^{n_{2}}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ by $$A\left( x^{(1)},x^{(2)}\right) =\sum_{i_{1},i_{2}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}x_{i_{1}}^{(1)}x_{i_{2}}^{(2)}.$$ Let $x^{(1)}\in B_{\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}}$ and $x^{(2)}\in B_{\ell_{p_{2}}^{n_{2}}}$, where $B_{\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}}$ and $B_{\ell_{p_{2}}^{n_{2}}}$ are the closed unit balls of $\ell_{p_{1}}^{n_{1}}$ and $\ell_{p_{2}}^{n_{2}}$, respectively. Then, completing with zeros, if necessary, consider $y^{(1)}=(x_{1}^{(1)},\ldots,x_{{n_{1}}}^{(1)},0\ldots,0)$ and $y^{(1)}=(x_{1}^{(2)},\ldots,x_{{n_{2}}}^{(2)},0\ldots,0)$ in $B_{\ell_{p_{1}}^{n}}$and $B_{\ell_{p_{2}}^{n}}.$ Using the Hölder inequality, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert A\left( x^{(1)},x^{(2)}\right) \right\vert & \leq\sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert
\left\vert y_{i_{2}}^{(2)}\right\vert \\
& \leq\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}|y_{i_{2}}^{(2)}|^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& =\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n_{2}}\left\vert x_{i_{2}}^{(2)}\right\vert
^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& \leq\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n_{2}}|1|\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n_{2}}\left\vert x_{i_{2}}^{(2)}\right\vert ^{p_{2}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum
_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac
{1}{2}}\\
& \leq n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert
^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since$$\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\left\vert \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left( \sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}\sum_{\substack{i_{1}=1\\j_{1}=1}}^{n}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\overline{y_{j_{1}}^{(1)}}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}\overline{a_{j_{1}i_{2}}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left(
\sum_{\substack{i_{1}=1\\j_{1}=1}}^{n}y_{i_{1}}^{1}\overline{y_{j_{1}}^{(1)}}\underbrace{\sum_{i_{2}=1}^{n}a_{i_{1}i_{2}}\overline{a_{j_{1}i_{2}}}}_{n\delta_{i_{1}j_{1}}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert A\left( x^{(1)},x^{(2)}\right) \right\vert & \leq n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum_{\substack{i_{1}=1\\j_{1}=1}}^{n}y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\overline{y_{j_{1}}^{(1)}}n\delta_{i_{1}j_{1}}\right)
^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& \leq n^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum
_{i_{1}=1}^{n}\left\vert y_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& =n^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\left\vert x_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& \leq n^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\left( \sum
_{i_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}|1|\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}\left(
\sum_{i_{1}=1}^{n_{1}}\left\vert x_{i_{1}}^{(1)}\right\vert ^{p_{1}}\right)
^{\frac{1}{p_{1}}}\\
& \leq n^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\left\Vert A\right\Vert \leq n^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}\leq\left( n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}}+n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right) n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}.$$ In [@alb] it is proved that$$\inf\frac{\left\Vert A\right\Vert }{\left( n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}}+n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right) n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}}\leq8\sqrt{2\ln9}\approx16.8.$$ For the complex case, our result shows that$$\inf\frac{\left\Vert A\right\Vert }{\left( n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}}+n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right) n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}}\leq\inf\frac{\left\Vert A\right\Vert }{\left(
\max\{n_{1},n_{2}\}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}n_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}}n_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_{2}}}}\leq1.$$
The constant $1$ that we have just obtained is optimal in a certain sense: if we fix, for instance, $n_{1}=1$, then it is simple to see that the infimum on the right-hand-side is precisely $1$.
[99]{}
N. Albuquerque, L. Rezende, Asymptotic estimates for unimodular multilinear forms with small norms on sequence spaces, to appear in Bull. Braz. Math. Soc.
F. Bayart, Maximum modulus of random polynomials. Q. J. Math. 63 (2012), no. 1, 21–39.
F. Bayart, D. Pellegrino, J.B. Seoane-Sepúlveda, The Bohr radius of the n-dimensional polydisk is equivalent to $\sqrt{\left( \log
n\right) /n}$. Adv. Math. 264 (2014), 726–746.
H.P. Boas, Majorant series. Several complex variables (Seoul, 1998). J. Korean Math. Soc. 37 (2000), no. 2, 321–337.
H.P. Boas, D. Khavinson, Bohr’s power series theorem in several variables. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 10, 2975–2979.
H. F. Bohnenblust and E. Hille, On the absolute convergence of Dirichlet series, Ann. of Math. **32** (1931), 600–622.
J.E. Littlewood, On bounded bilinear forms in an infinite number of variables, Q J Math, Volume os-1, Issue 1, (1930), 164–174.
M. Mastyło, R. Szwedek, Kahane-Salem-Zygmund polynomial inequalities via Rademacher processes. J. Funct. Anal. 272 (2017), no. 11, 4483–4512.
J. Santos, T. Velanga, On the Bohnenblust-Hille inequality for multilinear forms. Results Math. 72 (2017), no. 1-2, 239–244.
O. Toeplitz, Uber eine bei den Dirichletschen Reihen auftretende Aufgabe aus der Theorie der Potenzreihen vonunendlichvielen Veränderlichen, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göottingen, 417–432 (1913).
[^1]: D. Pellegrino is supported by CNPq Grant 307327/2017-5 and Grant 2019/0014 Paraiba State Research Foundation (FAPESQ) and J. Silva is supported by CAPES
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a coupled channel unitary approach to obtain states dynamically generated from the meson baryon interaction with hidden charm, using constraints of heavy quark spin symmetry. We use as basis of states, $\bar D B$, $\bar D^* B$ states, with $B$ baryon charmed states belonging to the 20 representations of SU(4) with $J^P=1/2^+,~3/2^+$. In addition we also include the $\eta_c N$ and $J/\psi N$ states. The inclusion of these coupled channels is demanded by heavy quark spin symmetry, since in the large $m_Q$ limit the $D$ and $D^*$ states are degenerate and are obtained from each other by means of a spin rotation, under which QCD is invariant. The novelty in the work is that we use dynamics from the extrapolation of the local hidden gauge model to SU(4) and we show that this dynamics fully respects the constraints of heavy quark spin symmetry.
With the full space of states demanded by the heavy quark spin symmetry and the dynamics of the local hidden gauge we look for states dynamically generated and find four basic states which are bound, corresponding to $\bar D \Sigma_c$, $\bar D \Sigma_c^*$, $\bar D^* \Sigma_c$ and $\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*$, decaying mostly into $\eta_c N$ and $J/\psi N$. All the states appear in isospin $I=1/2$ and we find no bound states or resonances in $I=3/2$. The $\bar D \Sigma_c$ state appears in $J=1/2$, the $\bar D \Sigma_c^*$ in $J=3/2$, the $\bar D^* \Sigma_c$ appears nearly degenerate in $J=1/2, ~3/2$ and the $\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*$ appears nearly degenerate in $J=1/2, ~3/2, ~5/2$, with the peculiarity that in $J=5/2$ the state has zero width in the space of states chosen. All the states are bound with about 50 MeV with respect to the corresponding $\bar D B$ thresholds and the width, except for the $J=5/2$ state, is also of the same order of magnitude.
author:
- 'C. W. Xiao$^{1,2}$, J. Nieves$^{2}$ and E. Oset$^{1,2}$'
title: Combining heavy quark spin and local hidden gauge symmetries in the dynamical generation of hidden charm baryons
---
1.5pt
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[\_[(\_M=[\#4]{}/2,\_B=[\#5]{})]{}S\_[c| c]{}=[\#1]{}, [L]{}=; J=|]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[\_[(\_M=0,\_B=)]{}S\_[c| c]{}=[\#1]{}, [L]{}=; J=|]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[| S\_[c|c]{}=[\#1]{}, [L]{}=;J=\_[(\_M=[\#4]{}/2,\_B=[\#5]{})]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[| S\_[c|c]{}=[\#1]{}, [L]{}=; J=\_[(\_M=0,\_B=)]{}]{}
Introduction {#Intro}
============
In this paper we investigate hidden charm baryons which come from the interaction of mesons with baryons, with the system containing a $c \bar c$ component. This can come from pseudoscalar-baryon or vector-baryon interactions. In [@wuprl; @wuprc] this problem was faced and, mostly by means of the $\bar D \Sigma_c$, $\bar D \Lambda_c$ and $\bar D^* \Sigma_c$, $\bar D^* \Lambda_c$ components, a series of meson-baryon dynamically generated, relatively narrow $N^*$ and $\Lambda^*$ resonances, were predicted around 4.3 GeV. The interaction used in [@wuprl; @wuprc] was obtained from an extrapolation to SU(4), conveniently broken, of the local hidden gauge dynamics used for SU(3) [@hidden1; @hidden2; @hidden4].
The local hidden gauge model is dynamically very rich and is considered a good representation of QCD at low energies. In the pseudoscalar sector it contains the lowest order chiral Lagrangian [@Weinberg:1978kz; @Gasser:1983yg] and, in addition, the hidden gauge Lagrangian provides the interaction between vectors and their coupling to pseudoscalars. It implements the vector meson dominance hypothesis of Sakurai [@sakurai] and, within this assumption, it also provides the second order Lagrangian for pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction of [@Gasser:1983yg], as shown in [@Ecker:1989yg]. The use of the local hidden gauge Lagrangian in connection with coupled channels and unitary techniques provides a tool that allows to study vector meson interactions in the intermediate energy range where the interaction itself gives rise to dynamically generated states. This is the case for the $\rho \rho$ interaction, from where one obtains the $f_2(1270)$ and $f_0(1370)$ resonances [@raquelrho] and its extension to the interactions of vectors of the $\rho$ nonet [@gengvec], from where a few more dynamically generated resonances are obtained, like the $f_0(1710)$, $f'_2(1525)$ and $K^*_2(1430)$. The properties of the resonances obtained are shown to be consistent with the radiative decay to two photons [@junko] and to two-photon and one photon-one vector meson in [@tanyageng]. Similarly, consistency with experiment has been shown in $J/\psi \to \phi(\omega) R$ [@conchinos], with R any of the resonances of [@gengvec], and in $J/\psi$ radiative decays in [@radiative]. The extension of these ideas to the charm and hidden charm sector have also shown that some of the excited $D$ states and X,Y,Z states recently reported could be explained in terms of molecules involving mesons with charm [@raquelhideko; @xyz; @raqueltanya; @Dong:2012hc; @Branz:2010gd; @Branz:2010sh; @Lee:2009hy].
The extension of the local hidden gauge approach to the baryon sector for the interaction of vector mesons with baryons has also been tackled: the interaction of vector mesons with the decuplet of baryons is studied in [@sourav] and with the octet of baryons in [@angelsvec]. In both cases some dynamically generated resonances are obtained which can be associated to reported resonances in the PDG [@pdg]. One step forward in this direction is the consideration of vector-baryon and pseudoscalar-baryon simultaneously in the interaction, which has been done in [@javier]. A thorough work in this direction has also been done in [@kanchan1; @kanchan2; @kanchan3]. A review of the hidden gauge approach for vector-baryon and vector-nucleus interaction can be seen in [@review].
Work in the charm sector for meson-baryon interaction has been done along different lines, which share similarities with the local hidden gauge approach [@Lutz:2003jw; @Lutz:2005ip; @Hofmann:2005sw; @Hofmann:2006qx]. A different approach is done in [@laura], where one uses the analogy of the work of the $\bar K N$ interaction and replaces a s-quark by the c-quark. As mentioned in [@Mizutani:2006vq], while the potentials obtained are fine with this prescription, in the coupled channel approach one is missing channels that mix charm and strangeness in that approach. In [@Mizutani:2006vq; @JimenezTejero:2009vq] the work of [@Lutz:2003jw] is retaken and appropriate modifications are done in the potentials and the regularization scheme. Similar work is also done by the Jülich group in [@Haidenbauer:2007jq; @Haidenbauer:2008ff; @Haidenbauer:2010ch]. All these works share the dynamical generation of the $\Lambda_c(2595)$, which comes mostly from the interaction of the $D N$ channel. Some hidden charm baryonic state is also generated in [@Hofmann:2005sw], albeit with a binding of the order of 1000 MeV, difficult to accommodate with the generated potentials as discussed in [@wuprl; @wuprc].
As we can see, the topic of baryonic molecules with charm and hidden charm has attracted much attention, and the coming of the FAIR facility is certainly stimulating much work along these lines. Yet, an element missing in principle in these works is the consideration of heavy quark spin symmetry, which should be a good symmetry when working with mesons and baryons with charm. From the point of view of Heavy Quark Spin Symmetry (HQSS), which is a proper QCD spin-flavor symmetry [@IW89; @Ne94; @MW00] when the quark masses become much larger than the typical confinement scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, one should consider in the same footing $D$ and $D^*$ as well as charmed members of the $20$ SU(4) representation of baryons containing the octet of the proton and the $20$ representation containing the decuplet of the $\Delta$ when their isospin and strange contents are the same. Work along these lines is done in [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Gamermann:2010zz; @Romanets:2012hm; @Garcia-Recio:2013gaa]. In these references, an extended Weinberg-Tomozawa (WT) interaction to four flavors is derived. The model for four flavors includes all basic hadrons (pseudoscalar and vector mesons, and $\frac12^+$ and $\frac32^+$ baryons) and it reduces to the WT interaction in the sector where Goldstone bosons are involved, while it incorporates HQSS in the sector where charm quarks participate. Charmed and strange baryons are studied in [@Romanets:2012hm], where among other results, a heavy-quark spin symmetry doublet is associated to the tree stars $\Xi_c(2790)$ and $\Xi_c(2815)$ pair of resonances. Moreover, the model derived in Ref. [@Romanets:2012hm] also accommodates naturally the three stars charmed resonances $\Lambda_c(2595)$ and $\Lambda_c (2625)$. The $\Lambda_c (2595)$ was previously dynamically generated in other schemes based on $t$-channel vector-meson-exchange models [@Hofmann:2005sw; @laura; @Mizutani:2006vq; @JimenezTejero:2009vq], but in [@Romanets:2012hm], as first pointed out in [@GarciaRecio:2008dp], a large (dominant) $ND^*$ component in its structure was claimed. This is in sharp contrast with the findings of the former references, where it was generated mostly as one $ND$ bound state, since the $ND^*$ channel was not considered in the coupled channels space. The work of Ref. [@GarciaRecio:2012db] takes advantage of the underlying spin-flavor extended WT structure of the couplings of the model of Refs. [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Romanets:2012hm] and it is used to study odd parity bottom-flavored baryon resonances by replacing a $c-$quark by a $b-$quark.[^1] Two resonances $\Lambda_b(5912)$ and $\Lambda_b(5920)$, which are heavy quark spin symmetry partners, are predicted in [@GarciaRecio:2012db] and turn out to be in excellent agreement with the two narrow baryon resonances with beauty recently observed by the LHCb Collaboration [@Aaij:2012da]. Finally, in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] the model of Ref. [@Romanets:2012hm] is extended to the hidden charm sector, subject of the current work. Seven odd parity $N-$like and three $\Delta-$like states with masses around 4 GeV, most of them as bound states, are predicted in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa]. These states form heavy-quark spin multiplets, which are almost degenerate in mass. As we will discuss below, here we will extend the hidden gauge approach, and the predictions found in this work will notably differ from those obtained in [@Romanets:2012hm] (we do not obtain any isospin 3/2 states, and the isospin 1/2 states are significantly heavier, in the region of 4.4 GeV). Besides the use of different dynamics, both consistent as we shall see with the leading order HQSS requirements, the scheme to renormalize the Bethe-Salpeter equation employed here is also quite different to that advocated in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa], which for the case of the hidden charm sector leads to appreciable differences. We will give some more details when our results will be presented.
However, the HQSS does not determine the potential, simply puts some constraints in it, so the determination in the works of [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Gamermann:2010zz; @Romanets:2012hm; @Garcia-Recio:2013gaa; @GarciaRecio:2012db] is made assuming extra elements of SU(8) spin-isospin symmetry. The work with baryons along these lines has run parallel to work in the meson sector [@Nieves:2012tt; @HidalgoDuque:2012pq; @HidalgoDuque:2012ej; @Guo:2009id; @Guo:2013sya]. In these works, an Effective Field Theory (EFT) that implements leading order (LO) HQSS constrains is constructed and its consequences are derived. Many dynamically generated resonances are obtained as HQSS partners of the $X(3872)$, $Z_b(10610)$, and the $Z_b(10650)$, some of which can be associated to known resonances, but most are predictions.
In the present work we come back to the local hidden gauge approach and introduce $D^*$ and the members of the $20$-plet of the $\Delta$, as demanded by HQSS, but the dynamics linking the different pseudoscalar-baryon and vector-baryon states is taken from the hidden gauge approach. We look again in the hidden charm baryon sector. What we find in the work is that the matrix elements obtained with the dynamics of the local hidden gauge approach respect the HQSS for the dominant terms in the mass of the heavy quarks, something that was not known so far. Another of the findings is that, within this model, the transition from $D$ to $D^*$ states is subleading in the heavy quark mass counting, as well as the transition from the $1/2^+$ baryons of the $20$ representation to those of the $3/2^+$ $20$ representation. In this sense, the findings of the present work give extra support to earlier works using the local hidden gauge approach where the different spaces were not allowed to connect. Yet, in addition to the states obtained in [@wuprl; @wuprc] from $D B_{1/2^+}$ and $D^* B_{1/2^+}$, one obtains extra states from the $D B_{3/2^+}$ and $D^* B_{3/2^+}$, which will be reported here.
Lowest order HQSS constraints
=============================
HQSS predicts that all types of spin interactions vanish for infinitely massive quarks: the dynamics is unchanged under arbitrary transformations of the spin of the heavy quark ($Q$). The spin-dependent interactions are proportional to the chromomagnetic moment of the heavy quark, and hence, they are of the order of $1/m_Q$. The total angular momentum $\vec{J}$ of the hadron is always a conserved quantity, but in this case the spin of the heavy quark $\vec{S}_Q$ is also conserved in the $m_Q\to \infty$ limit. Consequently, the spin of the light degrees of freedom $\vec{S}_l=\vec{J}-\vec{S}_Q$ is a conserved quantity in that limit. Thus, heavy hadrons come in doublets (unless $s_l=0$), containing states with total spin $j_\pm=s_l\pm 1/2$ (with $\vec{S}_l^2=s_l(s_l+1)$ and $J^2= j (j+1)$) obtained by combining the spin of the light degrees of freedom with the spin of the heavy quark $s_Q=1/2$. These doublets are degenerate in the $m_Q\to \infty$ limit. This is the case for the ground state mesons $D$ and $D^*$ or $D_s$ and $D^*_s$ which are composed of a charm quark with $s_Q=1/2$ and light degrees of freedom with $s_l=1/2$, forming a multiplet of negative parity hadrons with spin 0 and 1. The entire multiplet of degenerate states should be treated in any HQSS inspired formalism as a single field that transforms linearly under the heavy quark symmetries [@Ne94; @MW00]. For finite charm quark mass, the pseudoscalar and vector $D$ meson masses differ in about just one pion mass (actually one has $m_D-m_{D^*} = {\cal O}(1/(m_D+m_{D^*}))$), even less for the strange charmed mesons, thus it is reasonable to expect that the coupling $DN \to D^*N$ might play an important role. This is indeed what happens when SU(8) symmetry is used [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Romanets:2012hm]. Conversely, we shall see that with the local hidden gauge dynamics, the transition $DN \to D^*N$, which is mediated by pion exchange, is rather small and vanishes formally in the limit of zero difference between the mass of the $D$ and the $D^*$. Something similar occurs with the transition from the $1/2^+$ baryons to those with $3/2^+$. As a consequence, four diagonal blocks develop when the hidden gauge dynamics is used while at the same time the relations due to heavy quark symmetry are exactly fulfilled in each of the blocks. With a different dynamics than the one provided by the SU(8) symmetry, the numerical results that we obtain are also different from those obtained in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] and we will make a discussion of these results in the present work.
We study baryons with hidden charm and $I=1/2,\ 3/2,\ J=1/2,\ 3/2,\ 5/2$. We take as coupled channels states with $\eta_c,\ J/\psi$ and a $N$ or a $\Delta$, and states with $\bar D,\ \bar D^*$ and $\Lambda_c,\ \Sigma_c$ or $\Sigma_c^*$. For the different $I,\ J$ quantum numbers we have the following space states.\
1) $J=1/2,\ I=1/2$
$\quad \eta_c N,\ J/\psi N,\ \bar{D} \Lambda_c,\ \bar{D} \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Lambda_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
2) $J=1/2,\ I=3/2$
$\quad J/\psi \Delta,\ \bar{D} \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
3) $J=3/2,\ I=1/2$
$\quad J/\psi N,\ \bar{D}^* \Lambda_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D} \Sigma_c^*,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
4) $J=3/2,\ I=3/2$
$\quad \eta_c \Delta,\ J/\psi \Delta,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D} \Sigma_c^*,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
5) $J=5/2,\ I=1/2$
$\quad \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
6) $J=5/2,\ I=3/2$
$\quad J/\psi \Delta,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$.\
Attending to the spin quantum number we have thus 17 orthogonal states in the physical basis. Next we will introduce a different basis, that we will call HQSS basis, for which it is straightforward to implement the LO HQSS constraints. In the HQSS basis we will classify the states in terms of the quantum numbers, $J$: total spin of the meson-baryon system, ${\cal L}$: total spin of the light quarks system, $S_{c \bar{c}}$: total spin of the $c \bar{c}$ subsystem, $\ell_M$: total spin of the light quarks in the meson and $\ell_B$: total spin of the light quarks in the baryon. Note that we assume that all orbital angular momenta are zero, since we are dealing with ground state baryons.
Thus, the 17 orthogonal states in the HQSS basis are given by
- [$\ketcc 0111$, $\ket 01110$,\
$\ket 01111$]{}
- [$\ketcc 1111$, $\ket 11110$,\
$\ket 11111$]{}
- [$\ketcc 1131$, $\ket 11310$,\
$\ket 11311$]{}
- [$\ketcc 0333$, $\ket 03311$]{}
- [$\ketcc 1313$, $\ket 13111$]{}
- [$\ketcc 1333$, $\ket 13311$]{}
- [$\ketcc 1353$, $\ket 13511$]{}
The approximate HQSS of QCD leads (neglecting ${\cal
O}(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q)$ corrections) to important simplifications when the HQSS basis is used: $$\begin{split}
& _{(\ell_M',\ell_B')}\big\langle S'_{c\bar c},\, {\cal L}'; J',\, \alpha'|H^{QCD}|
S_{c\bar c},\, {\cal L}; J,\, \alpha \big \rangle_{(\ell_M,\ell_B)} \\
= \, & \delta_{\alpha \alpha'}\delta_{JJ'}\delta_{S'_{c\bar c}S_{c\bar c} }
\delta_{{\cal L}{\cal L}'} \big\langle \ell_M'\ell_B' {\cal L};
\alpha ||H^{QCD} || \ell_M\ell_B {\cal L}; \alpha \big\rangle \ , \label{eq:hqs}
\end{split}$$ where $\alpha$ stands for other quantum numbers (isospin and hypercharge), which are conserved by QCD. Note that the reduced matrix elements do not depend on $S_{c\bar c}$, because QCD dynamics is invariant under separate spin rotations of the charm quark and antiquark. Thus, one can transform a $c \bar{c}$ spin singlet state into a spin triplet state by means of a rotation that commutes with $H^{QCD}$, i.e. a zero cost of energy. Thus, in a given $\alpha$ sector, we have a total of nine unknown low energy constants (LEC’s):
- Three LEC’s associated to ${\cal L}=3/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=0,\, \ell_B'=\frac32,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=0,\, \ell_B=\frac32,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
\big\rangle \\
\lambda_2^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=1/2,\, \ell_B'=1,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=1,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
\big\rangle \\
\lambda_{12}^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=0,\, \ell_B'=\frac32,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} ||\ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=1,\, {\cal L}=3/2;\alpha
\big\rangle\end{aligned}$$
- Six LEC’s associated to ${\cal L}=1/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=0,\, \ell_B'=\frac12,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=0,\, \ell_B=\frac12,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
\big\rangle \\
\mu_2^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=1/2,\, \ell_B'=0,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=0,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
\big\rangle\\
\mu_3^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=1/2,\, \ell_B'=1,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=1,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
\big\rangle\\
\mu_{12}^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=0,\, \ell_B'=\frac12,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} ||\ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=0,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
\big\rangle\\
\mu_{13}^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=0,\, \ell_B'=\frac12,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} ||\ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=1,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
\big\rangle\\
\mu_{23}^\alpha &=& \big\langle \ell_M'=1/2,\, \ell_B'=0,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha
||H^{QCD} || \ell_M=1/2,\, \ell_B=1,\, {\cal L}=1/2;\alpha \big\rangle\end{aligned}$$
This means that in the HQSS basis, the $H^{QCD}$ is a block diagonal matrix, i.e, up to ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q)$ corrections, $H^{QCD}=
{\rm Diag}(\mu^\alpha,\mu^\alpha,\mu^\alpha,\lambda^\alpha,\lambda^\alpha,\lambda^\alpha,\lambda^\alpha)$, where $\mu^\alpha$ and $\lambda^\alpha$ are symmetric matrices of dimension 3 and 2, respectively.
To exploit Eq. (\[eq:hqs\]), one should express hidden charm uncoupled meson–baryon states in terms of the HQSS basis. For those states composed of hidden charm mesons ($\ell_M=0$) the relations are trivial, $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta_c N; J=\frac12\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 0111 \\
\nonumber\\
|\eta_c \Delta; J=\frac32\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 0333 \\
\nonumber\\
|J_\Psi N; J=\frac12\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 1111 \\
\nonumber\\
|J_\Psi N; J=\frac32\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 1131 \\
\nonumber\\
|J_\Psi \Delta; J=\frac12\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 1313 \\
\nonumber\\
|J_\Psi \Delta; J=\frac32\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 1333 \\
\nonumber\\
|J_\Psi \Delta; J=\frac52\big\rangle &=& \ketcc 1353\end{aligned}$$ while for the other states, one needs to use 9-j symbols.
The 9-j symbols are used to relate two basis where the angular momentums are coupled in a different way. Taking two particles with $\vec{l}_1,\ \vec{s}_1$ and $\vec{l}_2,\ \vec{s}_2$, we can combine them to $\vec{j}_1,\ \vec{j}_2$ and finally $\vec{j}_1,\ \vec{j}_2$ to total $\vec{J}$. Alternatively we can couple $\vec{l}_1,\ \vec{l}_2$ to $\vec{L}$, $\vec{s}_1,\ \vec{s}_2$ to $\vec{S}$, and then $\vec{L},\ \vec{S}$ to total $\vec{J}$. These two bases are related as [@Rose] $$\begin{split}
|l_1 s_1 j_1; l_2 s_2 j_2; J M \big\rangle =& \sum_{S,L} [ (2 S + 1) (2 L + 1) (2 j_1 + 1) (2 j_2 + 1)]^{1/2} \\
& \times \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
l_1 & l_2 & L \\
s_1 & s_2 & S \\
j_1 & j_2 & J
\end{array}
\right\} \ |l_1 l_2 L; s_1 s_2 S; J M \big\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where the symbol $\{ \}$ stands for the 9-j coefficients.
As an example take a meson(M)-baryon(B) state of the type $\bar{D}^{(*)} B_c$ and look at the recombination scheme on Fig. \[fig:9j\].
Thus in this case we have the correspondence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{generic:} && l_1 && l_2 && s_1 && s_2 && j_1 && j_2 && L && S && J \\
&\text{HQSS:} && \ell_M(\frac{1}{2}) && \ell_B && \frac{1}{2} && \frac{1}{2} && J_M(0,1) && J_B (\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}) && {\cal L} && S_{c \bar{c}} && J (\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ with $J_M$ and $J_B$ the total spin of the meson and baryon respectively. Then one easily finds:
- $J=1/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
|\bar D \Lambda_c\big \rangle &=& \frac12 \ket01110 \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \ket11110 \\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D \Sigma_c\big \rangle &=& \frac12 \ket01111 -
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \ket11111 \nonumber \\
&+& \sqrt{\frac23} \ket13111 \\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D^* \Lambda_c\big \rangle &=& \frac{\sqrt{3}}2 \ket01110 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac12 \ket11110\\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D^* \Sigma_c\big \rangle &=& -\frac1{\sqrt{12}} \ket01111 +
\frac56 \ket11111 \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{2}}3 \ket13111\\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*\big \rangle &=& \frac2{\sqrt{6}} \ket01111 +
\frac{\sqrt{2}}3 \ket11111 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac13 \ket13111\end{aligned}$$
- $J=3/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
|\bar D^* \Lambda_c\big \rangle &=& \ket11310\\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D^* \Sigma_c\big \rangle &=& -\frac1{\sqrt{3}} \ket03311 +
\frac13 \ket11311 \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{5}}3 \ket13311 \\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D \Sigma_c^*\big \rangle &=& \frac12 \ket03311
-\frac1{\sqrt{3}} \ket11311 \nonumber \\
&+& \sqrt{\frac5{12}} \ket13311\\
\nonumber \\
|\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*\big \rangle &=& \sqrt{\frac5{12}} \ket03311 +
\frac{\sqrt{5}}3 \ket11311 \nonumber \\
&+& \frac16 \ket13311\end{aligned}$$
- $J=5/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
|\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*\big \rangle &=& \ket13511\end{aligned}$$
Ignoring hidden strange channels, we find the following interactions for each sector (these are the most general interactions compatible with HQSS):
- $J=1/2$, $I=1/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\phantom{ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\mu_{13}$}} & \phantom{\frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3}} & \phantom{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\mu_{23}$}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})} &
\phantom{\frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9}
(\text{$\lambda_2 $}+8 \text{$\mu_3$})}\\
\eta_c N & J_\Psi N & \bar D \Lambda_c & \bar D \Sigma_c & \bar D^* \Lambda_c
& \bar D^* \Sigma_c & \bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=1/2}}$$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\text{$\mu_1$} & 0 & \frac{\text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} &
\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{3} \text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} &
-\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2 \sqrt{3}} & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\text{$\mu_{13}$} \\ \\
0 & \text{$\mu_1$} & \frac{\sqrt{3} \text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} &
-\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2 \sqrt{3}} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2}
& \frac{5 \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{6} & \frac{\sqrt{2}
\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3} \\ \\
\frac{\text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{3} \text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} &
\text{$\mu_2$} & 0 & 0 & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} &
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\mu_{23}$} \\ \\
\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2 \sqrt{3}} & 0 & \frac{1}{3} (2 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+\text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{2 (\text{$\lambda_2$}-\text{$\mu_3$})}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $}) \\ \\
\frac{\sqrt{3} \text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{12}$}}{2} & 0 & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \text{$\mu_2$} & -\frac{2 \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} & \frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} \\ \\
-\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{2 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{5 \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{6} & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{2 (\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$})}{3 \sqrt{3}} & -\frac{2 \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} & \frac{1}{9} (2 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+7 \text{$\mu_3$}) &
\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $}) \\ \\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\mu_{13}$ } & \frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3}\; & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\mu_{23}$ } & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})\; &
\frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3}\;\; & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $}) & \frac{1}{9}
(\text{$\lambda_2 $}+8 \text{$\mu_3$}) \\ \\
\end{array}
\right)_{ I=1/2}
\label{eq:ji11}$$
- $J=1/2$, $I=3/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phantom{-\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12}$}}{3}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9}
(\text{$\lambda_2$}+8 \text{$\mu_3$})} \\
J_\Psi \Delta & \bar D \Sigma_c & \bar D^* \Sigma_c & \bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=3/2}}$$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\text{$\lambda_1$} & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12}$} &
\frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\lambda_{12}$}}{3} &
-\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12}$}}{3} \\ \\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12}$} & \frac{1}{3} (2 \text{$\lambda_2$}+\text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{2 (\text{$\lambda_2$}-\text{$\mu_3$})}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{3}
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$}) \\ \\
\frac{\sqrt{2} \text{$\lambda_{12}$}}{3} & \frac{2 (\text{$\lambda_2$}-\text{$\mu_3$})}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{9} (2 \text{$\lambda_2$}+7 \text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$})\\ \\
-\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12}$}}{3} & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$})\;\; & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{2} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2$}) & \frac{1}{9}
(\text{$\lambda_2$}+8 \text{$\mu_3$}) \\
\end{array}
\right)_{ I=3/2}
\label{eq:ji13}$$
- $J=3/2$, $I=1/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\phantom{\frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3}} & \phantom{\frac{\sqrt{5}
\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{5}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}
(\text{$\lambda_2$}-\text{$\mu_3$})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} (4 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+5 \text{$\mu_3$})}\\
J_\Psi N & \bar D^* \Lambda_c & \bar D^* \Sigma_c
& \bar D \Sigma^*_c & \bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=1/2}}$$
$$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\text{$\mu_1$} & \text{$\mu_{12}$} & \frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3} \\\\
\text{$\mu_{12}$} & \text{$\mu_2$} & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} \\\\
\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3} & \frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3} & \frac{1}{9} (8 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+\text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{9}
\sqrt{5} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $}) \\\\
-\frac{\text{$\mu_{13}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & -\frac{\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{3} (2 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+\text{$\mu_3$}) &
\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} (\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}) \\\\
\frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\mu_{13}$}}{3}\; & \frac{\sqrt{5}
\text{$\mu_{23}$}}{3}\; & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{5}
(\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})\; & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}
(\text{$\lambda_2$}-\text{$\mu_3$})\; & \frac{1}{9} (4 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+5 \text{$\mu_3$}) \\
\end{array}
\right)_{I=1/2}
\label{eq:ji31}$$
- $J=3/2$, $I=3/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\phantom{\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $}} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{5} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}
(\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$})} & \phantom{\frac{1}{9} (4 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+5 \text{$\mu_3$})} \\
\eta_c \Delta & J_\Psi \Delta & \bar D^* \Sigma_c
& \bar D \Sigma^*_c & \bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=3/2}}$$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\text{$\lambda_1 $} & 0 & -\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $} \\\\
0 & \text{$\lambda_1 $} & \frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{3} & \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $} & \frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{6} \\\\
-\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\sqrt{5} \text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{3} & \frac{1}{9} (8 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+\text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}}{3
\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{5} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $}) \\\\
\frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $} & \frac{\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}}{3 \sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{3} (2 \text{$\lambda_2$}+\text{$\mu_3$}) & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} (\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$}) \\\\
\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \text{$\lambda_{12} $} & \frac{\text{$\lambda_{12} $}}{6} & \frac{1}{9} \sqrt{5} (\text{$\mu_3$}-\text{$\lambda_2 $})\;\; & \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}
(\text{$\lambda_2 $}-\text{$\mu_3$})\; & \frac{1}{9} (4 \text{$\lambda_2 $}+5 \text{$\mu_3$}) \\
\end{array}
\right)_{I=3/2}
\label{eq:ji33}$$
- $J=5/2$, $I=1/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{c}
\phantom{\text{$\lambda_2$}}\\
\bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=1/2}}$$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$\lambda_2$} \\
\end{array}
\right)_{I=1/2}
\label{eq:ji51}$$
- $J=5/2$, $I=3/2$ $$\left. \phantom{(}
\begin{array}{cc}
\phantom{\text{$\lambda_{12}$}} &\phantom{\text{$\lambda_{12}$}} \\
J_\Psi \Delta \quad & \bar D^* \Sigma^*_c
\end{array}
\right. \phantom{)_{I=3/2}}$$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\text{$\lambda_1$} & \text{$\lambda_{12}$} \\\\
\text{ $\lambda_{12}$ } & \text{ $\lambda_2$ } \\
\end{array}
\right)_{I=3/2}
\label{eq:ji53}$$
We should stress, once more, that $\mu$ and $\lambda$ depend on isospin, and thus those LEC’s corresponding to $I=1/2$ are not the same as those corresponding to $I=3/2$. Though, they can be related using SU(3) flavor symmetry.
There is a total of 7 (6$\mu's$ and $\lambda_2$) independent LEC’s for $I=1/2$, while for $I=3/2$, we have 4 (3$\lambda's$ and $\mu_3$) LEC’s. Thus, when one neglects open and hidden strange channels, we have a total of 11 LEC’s. The extension of the WT model, using SU(8) spin-flavor symmetry [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa], provides predictions for all these LEC’s. Namely,[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
I=1/2 &\to& \mu_1=0,\quad
\mu_2=\mu_3=1,\quad \mu_{12}=-\mu_{13}=\sqrt{6},\quad
\mu_{23}=-3,\quad \lambda_2=-2; \\
I=3/2 &\to& \mu_3=-2, \quad \lambda_1=0,\quad
\lambda_{12}=2\sqrt{3},\quad \lambda_2=4,\end{aligned}$$ up to an overall $\frac{1}{4f^2} (k^0 + k'^0)$ factor, being $k^0$ and $k'^0$ the center mass energies of the incoming and outgoing mesons. The extension of the local hidden gauge approach to the charm sector provides different values, as we discuss below.
Note that in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] (Sec. II.F) the 12 most general operators allowed by SU(3)$\times$HQSS in the hidden charm baryon-meson sector were already given. Moreover, the reduction of these Lagrangians when no strangeness is involved was also discussed. In this latter case, there are 11 independent couplings, which determine the 11 LEC’s ($\mu's$ and $\lambda's$) introduced in Eqs. (\[eq:ji11\]$-$\[eq:ji53\]).
Brief description of the local hidden gauge formalism
=====================================================
We summarize the formalism of the hidden gauge interaction for vector mesons which we take from [@hidden1; @hidden2] (see also useful Feynman rules in [@hidekoroca]) extended to SU(4). The Lagrangian accounting for the interaction of vector mesons amongst themselves is given by $${\cal L}_{III}=-\frac{1}{4}\langle V_{\mu \nu}V^{\mu\nu}\rangle \ ,
\label{lVV}$$ where the $\langle \rangle$ symbol represents the trace in the SU(4) space and $V_{\mu\nu}$ is given by $$V_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu} V_\nu -\partial_\nu V_\mu -ig[V_\mu,V_\nu]\ ,$$ with the coupling of the theory given by $g=\frac{M_V}{2f}$ where $f=93$ MeV is the pion decay constant. The magnitude $V_\mu$ is the SU(4) matrix of the vectors of the meson 15-plet + singlet, given by [@Gamermann:2008jh] $$V_\mu=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\rho^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}} & \rho^+ & \quad K^{*+}\quad & \quad \bar D^{*0} \\ & & & \\
\rho^{-} & -\frac{\rho^0}{\sqrt{2}} + \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}} & K^{*0} & D^{*-} \\
& & & \\
K^{*-} & \bar K^{*0} & \phi & D_s^{*-} \\
& & & \\
D^{*0} & D^{*+} & D_s^{*+} & J/\psi \\
\end{array}
\right)_\mu \ .$$
The interaction of ${\cal L}_{III}$ provides a contact term which comes from $[V_\mu,V_\nu][V_\mu,V_\nu]$ $${\cal L}^{(c)}_{III}=\frac{g^2}{2}\langle V_\mu V_\nu V^\mu V^\nu-V_\nu V_\mu
V^\mu V^\nu\rangle\ ,
\label{lcont}$$ as well as to a three vector vertex from $${\cal L}^{(3V)}_{III}=ig\langle (\partial_\mu V_\nu -\partial_\nu V_\mu) V^\mu V^\nu\rangle
=ig\langle (V^\mu\partial_\nu V_\mu -\partial_\nu V_\mu
V^\mu) V^\nu\rangle \ .
\label{l3Vsimp}$$
It is worth recalling the analogy with the coupling of vectors to pseudoscalars given in the same formalism by $${\cal L}_{VPP}= -ig ~\langle [P,\partial_{\mu}P]V^{\mu}\rangle,
\label{lagrVpp}$$ where $P$ is the SU(4) matrix of the pseudoscalar fields, $$P = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta_8}{\sqrt{6}} +\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c}{\sqrt{12}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c'}{\sqrt{4}} &\pi^+ & K^{+} &\bar{D}^{0}\\
\pi^- & -\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta_8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c}{\sqrt{12}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c'}{\sqrt{4}}& K^{0} &D^{-}\\
K^{-} & \bar{K}^{0} &\frac{-2\eta_8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c}{\sqrt{12}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c'}{\sqrt{4}} &D^{-}_s\\
D^{0}&D^{+}&D^{+}_s&-\frac{3\tilde{\eta}_c}{\sqrt{12}}+\frac{\tilde{\eta}_c'}{\sqrt{4}}\\
\end{array}
\right) \ .$$ where $\tilde{\eta}_c$ stands for the SU(3) singlet of the 15th SU(4) representation and we denote $\tilde{\eta}'_c$ for the singlet of SU(4) (see quark content in [@wuprc]). The physical $\eta_c$ can be written as [@wuprc] $$\eta_c = \frac{1}{2}(-\sqrt{3}\tilde{\eta}_c+\tilde{\eta}'_c)\ .$$
The philosophy of the local hidden gauge in the meson-baryon sector is that the interaction is driven by the exchange of vector mesons, as depicted in Fig. \[f1\].
Eqs. and provide the upper vertex of these Feyman diagrams. It was shown in [@angelsvec] that the vertices of Eq. (\[l3Vsimp\]) and Eq. (\[lagrVpp\]) give rise to the same expression in the limit of small three momenta of the vector mesons compared to their mass, a limit which is also taken in our calculations. This makes the work technically easy and it allows the use of many previous results.
The lower vertex when the baryons belong to the octet of SU(3) is given in terms of the Lagrangian [@Klingl:1997kf; @Palomar:2002hk] $${\cal L}_{BBV} =
\frac{g}{2}\left(\langle\bar{B}\gamma_{\mu}[V^{\mu},B]\rangle+\langle\bar{B}\gamma_{\mu}B\rangle \langle V^{\mu}\rangle \right),
\label{lagr82}$$ where $B$ is now the SU(3) matrix of the baryon octet [@Eck95; @Be95]. Similarly, one has also a Lagrangian for the coupling of the vector mesons to the baryons of the decuplet, which can be found in [@manohar].
In the charm sector the lower vertex $VBB$ does not have such a simple representation as in SU(3) and in practice one evaluates the matrix elements using SU(4) symmetry by means of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and reduced matrix elements. This is done in [@wuprl; @wuprc] (a discussion on the accuracy of the SU(4) symmetry is done there). Since the 20 representation for baryon states of $3/2^+$ is not considered there, we must consider these matrix elements here too. Once again one uses SU(4) symmetry for this vertex to evaluate the matrix elements, as done in [@wuprl; @wuprc]. Alternatively, one can use results of SU(3) symmetry substituting a $s$ quark by a $c$ quark, or make evaluations using wave functions of the quark model [@close], substituting the $s$ quark by the $c$ quark.
The $\gamma^\mu$ matrix of the $VBB$ vertex (see Eq. ) gets simplified in the approach, where we neglect the three momenta versus the mass of the particles (in this case the baryon). Thus, only the $\gamma^0$ becomes relevant, which can be taken as unity within the baryon states of positive energy that we consider. Then the transition potential corresponding to the diagram of Fig. \[f1\](b) is given by $$V_{i j}= - C_{i j} \, \frac{1}{4 f^2} \, (k^0 + k'^0)~ \vec{\epsilon} \ \vec{\epsilon
}\ ',
\label{eq:kernel}$$ where $k^0, k'^0$ are the energies of the incoming and outgoing vector mesons, and $C_{ij}$ numerical coefficients evaluated as described above. The expression is the same for the pseudoscalar baryon matrix elements for the same quark content of pseudoscalar and vector mesons, omitting the $\vec{\epsilon}~\vec{\epsilon }~'$ factor.
The scattering matrix is evaluated by solving the coupled channels Bethe-Salpeter equation in the on shell factorization approach of [@angels; @ollerulf; @Nieves:1999bx] $$T = [1 - V \, G]^{-1}\, V,
\label{eq:Bethe}$$ with $G$ being the loop function of a meson and a baryon, which we calculate in dimensional regularization using the formula of [@ollerulf] and similar values for the subtraction constants.
The iteration of diagrams produced by the Bethe Salpeter equation in the case of the vector mesons keeps the $\vec{\epsilon}~\vec{\epsilon }~'$ factor in each of the terms. Hence, the factor $\vec{\epsilon}~\vec{\epsilon }~'$ appearing in the potential $V$ factorizes also in the $T$ matrix for the external vector mesons. A consequence of this is that the interaction is spin independent and one finds degenerate states having $J^P=1/2^-$ and $J^P=3/2^-$.
In the present work, in the spirit of the heavy quark symmetry, we shall include in the coupled channels dynamics, the pseudoscalars, vectors, baryons of spin $J=1/2$ and baryons of $J=3/2$ using the matrices of Eqs. (\[eq:ji11\]$-$\[eq:ji53\]).
Evaluation of the HQSS LEC’s in the local hidden gauge approach
===============================================================
Let us examine first the $I=1/2$ sector. As an example let us take $\bar{D} \Lambda_c \to \bar{D} \Lambda_c$ and $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c \to \bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$. These two interactions are equal as we discussed. This is in agreement with the general HQSS constraints explicited in Eq. for $J=1/2$ and $I=1/2$, where both matrix elements are equal to the LEC’s $\mu_2$, and it is also consistent with the diagonal $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ entry in Eq. ($J=3/2,~I=1/2$). So we see that the HQSS is respected there by the local hidden gauge results. In addition the interactions of $\bar{D} \Sigma_c \to \bar{D} \Sigma_c$ and $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ are also equal. This does not contradict Eqs. and , it simply forces $$\frac{1}{3} (2 \lambda_2 + \mu_3) = \frac{1}{9} (2 \lambda_2 + 7 \mu_3),$$ which has as a solution, $$\lambda_2 = \mu_3.$$ This has as a consequence that the matrix element of $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^* \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^* $ is also equal to $\lambda_2$. The evaluation of this later matrix element using SU(4) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients also tells us that this matrix element is the same as the one of $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$. Once again we can see that the constraints of HQSS are fulfilled by the hidden gauge formalism, only that it gives us $\lambda_2 = \mu_3$, which is a result different to the one obtained in the approach of [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa].
Let us look at the coefficients $\mu_1$. It is related to the $\eta_c N \to \eta_c N$ or $J/\psi N \to J/\psi N$ matrix elements. In this case with the diagram of Fig. \[fig:mu1\],
since $\eta_c$ or $J/\psi$ have $c \bar{c}$, there is no vector that can be exchanged in Fig. \[fig:mu1\] and hence this leads to $$\mu_1 = 0.$$
This also occurs in the approach of [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] and it is a consequence of the OZI rule, that is implemented in both schemes. Let us now look at the $\mu_{12}$ parameter. This enters in $\eta_c N \to \bar{D} \Lambda_c$ transition which is depicted the diagram of Fig. \[fig:mu123\] a).
Within the hidden gauge model, the diagram forces the exchange of a $D^*$ and is subleading in the $m_Q$ counting (${\cal O}(m_Q ^{-2})$). In the limit of $m_Q \to \infty$ this term would vanish. We, however, keep it and take it from [@wuprl; @wuprc]. Yet, because it is subleading we shall not expect the LO HQSS restrictions to hold. We also evaluate the diagram of Fig. \[fig:mu123\] b), and using again SU(4) symmetry for the $D^* N \Sigma_c$ vertex (see [@wuprl; @wuprc]) we find that $$\frac{\mu_{13}}{2} = -\frac{\mu_{12}}{2} \ \Rightarrow \ \mu_{13} = -\mu_{12},$$ which also occurs in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa].
As to the transition from $\eta_c N \to \bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$, they are mediated by the exchange of a $D$ meson, see Fig. \[fig:mu123\] c). This term is doubly suppressed because of the $D$ propagator and because of the Yukawa coupling, $\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{q}$, in $D N \Lambda_c$ vertex, where the three momentum is small compared with $m_D$. In Eq. we see that this term is proportional to $\mu_{12}$, showing again that the LO HQSS constraints does not hold for these subleading terms in the $m_Q$ counting. In practice keeping this term, and those for $\eta_c N \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c, ~\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ or ignoring them has no practical repercussion on the final results.
Transition from $D,\ D^*$
-------------------------
With the dynamics of the local hidden gauge approach only the pion exchange in the t-channel is allowed in this case, see Fig. \[fig:pionex\].
The $D \Lambda_c \to D^* \Lambda_c$ transition is zero because the $\pi$ exchange is zero in $\pi \Lambda_c \Lambda_c$ vertex. This agrees with the result of the matrix of Eqs. , and . However the transition $D \Lambda_c \to D^* \Sigma_c$ is not null and we evaluate it here.
The $\pi \Lambda_c \Sigma_c$ vertex can be obtained by analogy to the $\pi \Lambda \Sigma$ vertex in SU(3) (exchanging $c$ and $s$ quark) and using the Lagrangian, $${\cal L} = \frac{1}{2} D \langle \bar{B} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \{u_\mu,B\} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} F \langle \bar{B} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 [u_\mu,B] \rangle,$$ where $u_\mu = i u^\dagger \partial_\mu U u^\dagger$, $u^2 = U = e^{i \sqrt{2}\phi /f}$ with $D = 0.80,\ F = 0.46$ from [@Borasoy:1998pe]. The $D D^* \pi$ vertex is evaluated from Eq. . We find at the end projecting over s-wave, $$-i t = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\ \frac{M_V}{2f}\ \frac{2}{5}\ \frac{D+F}{2f}\ \vec{q}\,^2\ \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\epsilon}\ \frac{i}{q^{0\ 2} - \vec{q}\,^2 - m_\pi^2},\label{eq:tpiexcha}$$ with $\vec{q}$ the momentum transfer.
One can also prove that the matrix element of $\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\epsilon}$ is $\sqrt{3}$ [@javier]. If we compare this contribution of this diagram with that of the $D \Lambda_c \to D \Lambda_c$ transition from [@wuprl; @wuprc], we find a contribution of the order of 7%. If one looks at diagonal matrix elements in the final scattering T-matrix, the non diagonal terms of the transition potentials come squared and then we can safely neglect this contribution. Thus we take $$\mu_{23} = 0.$$ Note that the transitions $\bar{D} \Sigma_c \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ also require the pion exchange and should be taken zero. This is consistent with the matrix of Eq. since these matrix elements are proportional to $\lambda_2 - \mu_3$ but we saw before that $\lambda_2 = \mu_3$.
When evaluating the pion exchange mechanism in the $VB \to VB$ transition one has to consider the equivalent contact term that in the case of $\gamma N \to \pi N$ scattering is known as the Kroll Ruderman term. Explicit expressions to obtain it can be found from [@javier; @kanchan1; @kanchan2; @kanchan3] and is of the same order of magnitude as the pion exchange term, with usually destructive interference. We do not need to evaluate it explicitly here because the important point is that, as Eq. , it is of order ${\cal O}(1)$ in the $m_Q$ counting for the field theoretical potential, which implies ${\cal O}(m_Q^{-1})$ for the ordinary potential of Quantum Mechanics, as we shall see in the next section.
With this exercise we have proved that the dynamics of the local hidden gauge approach is fully consistent with the HQSS requirements for the matrix of Eq. . The values for the parameters that we obtain from [@wuprl; @wuprc], together with those determined here, are $$\begin{split}
\mu_2 &= \frac{1}{4f^2} (k^0 + k'^0),\\
\mu_3 &= -\frac{1}{4f^2} (k^0 + k'^0),\\
\mu_{12} &= -\sqrt{6}\ \frac{m_\rho^2}{p^2_{D^*} - m^2_{D^*}}\ \frac{1}{4f^2}\ (k^0 + k'^0),\\
\mu_1 &= 0,\\
\mu_{23} &= 0,\\
\lambda_2 &= \mu_3,\\
\mu_{13} &= -\mu_{12}.\label{eq:ji11fi}
\end{split}$$ $\mu_{12}$ is small, of the order of 15%. But we keep it since this term is the only one that allows the scattering $\eta_c N \to \eta_c N$ ($J/\psi N \to J/\psi N$) through intermediate inelastic states.
The matrix of Eq. for $J=1/2$ and $I=3/2$ is equally analyzed. We find $$\lambda_1 = 0.$$ Then $\lambda_{12}$ is also suppressed since it requires again the exchange of a $D$ meson, see Fig. \[fig:lam12\].
Once again, since the $\bar{D} \Sigma_c \to \bar{D} \Sigma_c$ transition is equivalent to $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$. This implies that $$\frac{1}{3} (2 \lambda_2 + \mu_3) = \frac{1}{9} (2 \lambda_2 + 7 \mu_3),$$ from where we conclude again that $$\lambda_2 = \mu_3.$$ Once again the $\bar{D} \Sigma_c \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c,\ \bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ transitions involve pion exchange and we find them negligible, which is compatible with the HQSS requirement since $\mu_3 - \lambda_2 = 0$. The values that we obtain with this isospin combination are $$\begin{split}
\lambda_{12} &= 3\sqrt{3}\ \frac{m_\rho^2}{p^2_{D^*} - m^2_{D^*}}\ \frac{1}{4f^2}\ (k^0 + k'^0),\\
\mu_3 &= 2 \frac{1}{4f^2} (k^0 + k'^0),\\
\lambda_2 &= \mu_3,\\
\lambda_1 &= 0. \label{eq:ji13fi}
\end{split}$$
For Eq. ($J=3/2, I=1/2$) since our interaction is spin independent for $P B \to P B$ and of the type $\vec{\epsilon}~ \vec{\epsilon}~'$ for $VB \to VB$, then the coefficients are the same as those for Eq. ($J=1/2,~ I=1/2$), given in Eq. .
The same can be said for the matrix of Eq. with respect to the one of Eq. , which are given in Eq. .
As to Eq. , once again $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^* \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ has the same matrix element as $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^* \to \bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ of Eq. and, indeed, since $\lambda_2 = \mu_3,~ \frac{1}{9} (\lambda_2 + 8 \mu_3) = \lambda_2$, which is given in Eq. .
Finally in Eq. $\lambda_1 = 0$ for us and $\lambda_2,~ \lambda_{12}$ the same as those given in Eq. ($I=3/2$).
Heavy quark spin symmetry in the SU(4) extended hidden gauge approach
=====================================================================
The origin of the heavy quark spin symmetry in this case is easy to trace. The $PB \to PB$ transitions have no spin dependence. Also, under the approximation that $\vec{q}/M_D,\ \vec{q}/M_{D^*}$ are negligible (consistent with the heavy quark symmetry), the $VB \to VB$ interaction has the trivial $\vec{\epsilon}~ \vec{\epsilon}~'$ dependence and no spin dependence of the baryons which also leads to spin independence. Also up to the trivial $\vec{\epsilon}~ \vec{\epsilon}~'$ factor the $\bar{D}^* B \to \bar{D}^* B$ interaction is the same as the one for $\bar{D} B \to \bar{D} B$.
Heavy quark symmetry also implies that in leading order the potential is independent of the flavour of the heavy quarks in the limit of $m_Q \to \infty$. This is also accomplished by the dynamics of the local hidden gauge approach. This might be surprising since, as seen in Eq. , the potential goes like the sum of the energies of the mesons. This obviously grows from the strange to the charm and then to the bottom sector. However, this is the potential in the field theoretical approach. To have an idea of the strength of the interaction one has to converts this into the ordinary potential that appears in the Schrödinger equation of Quantum Mechanics. This is done in [@gamer] (Eq. (68) of that reference).
Because of the normalization of the field ($\sqrt{\frac{2M_B}{2E_B}}$ for baryons and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \omega_M}}$ for mesons) we have $$V^{FT} = \frac{32 \pi^3}{2 M_B} \sqrt{s}\ \mu\ v^{QM}, \text{ (meson-baryon)}$$ where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the system, $M_B m_D / (M_B + m_D)$. Considering that the leading potentials go as $k^0 + k'^0$, we find that $$v^{QM} \sim \frac{(1 + \frac{M_B}{m_D})^2}{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{M_B}{m_D} + \frac{M_B^2}{2m_D^2}} \sim {\cal O}(m_Q^0),$$ which goes as ${\cal O} (1)$ in powers of $m_D$, both if $M_B$ is a nucleon or if $M_B$ is one charmed baryon.
Incidentally, in the case of meson-meson interaction the formula is $$V^{FT} = 32 \pi^3 \sqrt{s}\ \mu\ v^{QM}, \text{ (meson-meson)}$$ Here the interaction in field theory goes as $V^{FT} \sim (k^0 + k'^0)(p^0 + p'^0)$ since both meson lines are linked by a vector meson and we have the $(k^0 + k'^0)$ in each vertex. In this case we also find immediately that $V^{QM} \sim {\cal O} (1)$. This means that the extrapolation of the rules of the hidden gauge to SU(4) or even to the bottom sector are strictly fulfilling the rules of LO HQSS. This would justify the work of [@wuzou], where a direct extrapolation of the work [@wuprl; @wuprc] to the beauty sector is done, or of [@GarciaRecio:2012db], where a direct extrapolation of the Weinberg-Tomozawa term is taken also in the beauty sector.
Results and discussion
======================
We use the Bethe-Salpeter equation of Eq. in coupled channels to evaluate the scattering amplitudes. We need the $G$ function, loop function of meson-baryon interaction, for which we take the usual dimensional regularization formula [@ollerulf] $$\begin{aligned}
G(s) &=&i \int\frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{2M_{B}}{(P-q)^{2}-M^{2}_{B}+i\varepsilon}\,\frac{1}{q^{2}-M^{2}_{P}+i\varepsilon},\\
&=&\frac{2M_{B}}{16\pi^2}\big\{a_{\mu}+\textmd{ln}\frac{M^{2}_{B}}{\mu^{2}}+\frac{M^{2}_{P}-M^{2}_{B}+s}{2s}\textmd{ln}\frac{M^{2}_{P}}{M^{2}_{B}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{q_{cm}}{\sqrt{s}}\big[\textmd{ln}(s-(M^{2}_{B}-M^{2}_{P})+2q_{cm}\sqrt{s})+\textmd{ln}(s+(M^{2}_{B}-M^{2}_{P})+2q_{cm}\sqrt{s})\nonumber\\
&&-\textmd{ln}(-s-(M^{2}_{B}-M^{2}_{P})+2q_{cm}\sqrt{s})-\textmd{ln}(-s+(M^{2}_{B}-M^{2}_{P})+2q_{cm}\sqrt{s})\big]\big\}\ ,\label{eq:G}\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is the four-momentum of the meson, $q_{cm}$ the three-momentum of the particle in the center mass frame, and $P$ is the total four-momentum of the meson and the baryon, thus, $s=P^2$. This formula avoids an undesired behaviour at large energies when one uses a cut off method with a small cut off [@Guo:2005wp]. As done in [@wuprl; @wuprc], we take $\mu=1000 {\textrm{ MeV}},~a(\mu)=-2.3$ for the parameters in Eq. , which are the only free parameters in our present study. We solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation of Eq. in coupled channels and look for poles in the second Riemann sheet when there are open channels, or in the first Riemann sheet when one has stable bound states (see [@wuprc; @luis] for details).
Let $\sqrt{s_p}$ be the complex energy where a pole appears. Close to a pole the amplitude behaves as $$T_{ij}=\frac{g_{i}g_{j}}{\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_p}}\ .\label{eq:tgigj}$$ where $g_i$ is the coupling of the resonance to the $i$ channel. As one can see in Eq. , $g_{i}g_{j}$ is the residue of $T_{ij}$ at the pole. For a diagonal transitions we have $$g_{i}^{2}=\lim_{\sqrt{s}\rightarrow
\sqrt{s_p}}~T_{ii}\,(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_p}).\label{eq:coup}$$ The determination of the couplings gives as an idea of the structure of the states found, since according to [@gamer; @junko2], the couplings are related to the wave function at the origin for each channel.
Let us begin with the $J=1/2,~I=3/2$ sector. We can see in the Eq. that the large potentials are repulsive. So, we should not expect any bound states or resonances. Yet, technically we find bound states in the first Riemann sheet, as one can see in Fig. \[fig:i32a\] for different channels.
However, inspection of the energies tell us that these are states bound by about 250 MeV, a large number for our intuition, even more when we started from a repulsive potential. The reason for this, which forces us to reject these poles on physical grounds, is that the $G$ function below threshold turns out to be positive for large binding energies (see Fig. \[fig:i32b\] and discussions in [@wuzou]), contradicting what we would have for the $G$ function evaluated with any cut off, or in Quantum Mechanics with a given range. These poles are then discarded and, thus, we do not find bound states or resonances in $I=3/2$ in our approach.
The WT extended model of Ref.[@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] predicts $\mu_3=-2$, which leads to some attractive interactions in the space generated by ${\bar D}^* \Sigma_c$ , ${\bar D} \Sigma^*_c$ and ${\bar D}^* \Sigma^*_c$. These give rise to three odd parity $\Delta-$like resonances (two with spin 1/2 and one with spin 3/2) with masses around 4 GeV. In addition, two other states show up as cusps very close to the $\Delta J/\psi$ threshold, and their real existence would be unclear.
Our results for the $J=1/2,~I=1/2$ sector are shown in Fig. \[fig:res11\].
From the squared amplitudes of $|T|^2$, we can find three clear peaks with non zero width around the energy range $4200 \sim 4500 {\textrm{ MeV}}$, which are not far away below the thresholds of $\bar{D} \Sigma_c, ~\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c, ~\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ respectively. The relatively small width of about $40{\textrm{ MeV}}$ of these states allows to distinguish them clearly. We have checked that in the energy ranges where these peaks appear, the real parts of the loop function $G$, Eq. , are negative in these channels. Thus these peaks are acceptable as physical ones. Then, because of the non zero width, we look for the poles corresponding to these peaks in the second Riemann sheet, and find the poles at $(4261.87+i17.84){\textrm{ MeV}}, ~(4410.13+i29.44){\textrm{ MeV}}, ~(4481.35+i28.91){\textrm{ MeV}}$. The couplings to the various coupled channels for these poles are given in Table \[tab:cou11\].
[cccc cccc]{}\
& $\eta_c N$ & $J/\psi N$ & $\bar{D} \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$\
$g_i$ & $1.04+i0.05$ & $0.76-i0.08$ & $0.02-i0.02$ & $3.12-i0.25$ & $0.14-i0.48$ & $0.33-i0.68$ & $0.16-i0.28$\
$|g_i|$ & $1.05$ & $0.76$ & $0.02$ & $3.13$ & $0.50$ & $0.75$ & $0.32$\
\
& $\eta_c N$ & $J/\psi N$ & $\bar{D} \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$\
$g_i$ & $0.34+i0.16$ & $1.43-0.12$ & $0.15-i0.10$ & $0.20-i0.05$ & $0.17-i0.11$ & $3.05-i0.54$ & $0.07-i0.51$\
$|g_i|$ & $0.38$ & $1.44$ & $0.18$ & $0.20$ & $0.20$ & $3.10$ & $0.51$\
\
& $\eta_c N$ & $J/\psi N$ & $\bar{D} \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ & $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$\
$g_i$ & $1.15-i0.04$ & $0.72+i0.03$ & $0.18-i0.08$ & $0.10-i0.03$ & $0.09-i0.08$ & $0.09-i0.06$ & $2.88-i0.57$\
$|g_i|$ & $1.15$ & $0.72$ & $0.19$ & $0.10$ & $0.12$ & $0.11$ & $2.93$\
From Table \[tab:cou11\] we can see that the first pole, $(4261.87+i17.84){\textrm{ MeV}}$, couples mostly to $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$. It could be considered like a $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ bound state which, however, decays into the open channels $\eta_c N$ and $J/\psi N$. The $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ threshold is at $4320.8{\textrm{ MeV}}$ and, thus, the $\bar{D} \Sigma_c$ state is bound by about $58{\textrm{ MeV}}$. The second pole couples most strongly to $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$. In this channel the threshold is $4462.2{\textrm{ MeV}}$ and thus we have a state bound by about $52{\textrm{ MeV}}$, much in line with what one expects from heavy quark symmetry comparing this with the former state. This state decays mostly into the $\eta_c N$ and $J/\psi N$ channels again. These two states correspond to those reported in [@wuprl; @wuprc]. In our work, we get one more new baryon state, $(4481.35+i28.91){\textrm{ MeV}}$, with total momentum $J=1/2$, which couples mostly to $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$. Since in [@wuprl; @wuprc] one did not include the baryons of $J^P=3/2^+$, their consideration here leads to a new resonance. The threshold for the $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ channel is $4526.7{\textrm{ MeV}}$ and, hence, the state can be considered as a $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ bound state by about $46{\textrm{ MeV}}$, which decays mostly in $\eta_c N$ and $J/\psi N$.
For the $J=3/2,~I=1/2$ sector, we show our results in Fig. \[fig:res31\].
From the results of $|T|^2$, we can also see three clear peaks around the range $4300 \sim 4500 {\textrm{ MeV}}$, which are not far away below the thresholds of $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*, ~\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c, ~\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ respectively. The strength of the second peak is 17 times bigger than the other two and the widths are small enough to allow the peaks to show up clearly. We have also checked that in these channels the real parts of the propagator $G$, Eq. , are acceptable too. So, these are our predictions for the new baryon states with total momentum $J=3/2$. We search the poles in the second Riemann sheet, and find $(4334.45+i19.41){\textrm{ MeV}}, ~(4417.04+i4.11){\textrm{ MeV}}, ~(4481.04+i17.38){\textrm{ MeV}}$. The couplings to each coupled channel corresponding to these poles are listed in Table \[tab:cou31\].
$4334.45+i19.41$ $J/\psi N$ $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$
------------------ -------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------
$g_i$ $1.31-i0.18$ $0.16-i0.23$ $0.20-i0.48$ $2.97-i0.36$ $0.24-i0.76$
$|g_i|$ $1.32$ $0.28$ $0.52$ $2.99$ $0.80$
$4417.04+i4.11$ $J/\psi N$ $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$
$g_i$ $0.53-i0.07$ $0.08-i0.07$ $2.81-i0.07$ $0.12-i0.10$ $0.11-i0.51$
$|g_i|$ $0.53$ $0.11$ $2.81$ $0.16$ $0.52$
$4481.04+i17.38$ $J/\psi N$ $\bar{D}^* \Lambda_c$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$
$g_i$ $1.05+i0.10$ $0.18-i0.09$ $0.12-i0.10$ $0.22-i0.05$ $2.84-i0.34$
$|g_i|$ $1.05$ $0.20$ $0.16$ $0.22$ $2.86$
: The coupling constants to various channels for certain poles in the $J=3/2,~I=1/2$ sector.[]{data-label="tab:cou31"}
From Table \[tab:cou31\], we find that the first pole, $(4334.45+i19.41){\textrm{ MeV}}$, couples most strongly to the channel $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ and corresponds to a $\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ state, bound by $51{\textrm{ MeV}}$ with respect to its threshold of $4385.3{\textrm{ MeV}}$, decaying essentially into $J/\psi N$. The state corresponding to the big peak in Fig. \[fig:res31\] (left) couples mostly to $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$, it is bound by $45{\textrm{ MeV}}$ with respect to the threshold of this channel, $4462.2{\textrm{ MeV}}$ and decays mostly into $J/\psi N$. The third state with $J=3/2,~I=1/2$ couples mostly to $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$, is bound by $45{\textrm{ MeV}}$ with respect to the threshold of this channel, $4526.7{\textrm{ MeV}}$ and also decays mostly into $J/\psi N$.
Finally, we also find a new bound state of $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ around $(4487.10+i0){\textrm{ MeV}}$ in the $J=5/2,~I=1/2$ sector, seen in Fig. \[fig:res51\].
As we can see in the figure, the state has no width, as it corresponds to a single channel, $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ of Eq. . It is then a bound state in this channel. The pole appears in the first Riemann sheet and the state is bound by about $40{\textrm{ MeV}}$ with respect to the $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ threshold.
The states that we have reported are different states since they correspond to different energies or different total spin $J$. Hence, we get seven states. Yet, we found that some states of a given meson and baryon appear at about the same energy but different $J$. This was to be expected from the hidden gauge dynamics because for $\bar{D}^* B$ the main diagonal terms have an interaction of the type $\vec{\epsilon}~\vec{\epsilon}~'$, which is spin independent. Then, up to the small mixing with other channels, we get states degenerate in $J=1/2,~3/2$ for $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ and $J=1/2,~3/2,~5/2$ for $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$. From this perspective we can present our results as saying that we get four bound states with about $40-50{\textrm{ MeV}}$ binding, corresponding to $\bar{D} \Sigma_c,~\bar{D} \Sigma_c^*$ with $J=1/2,~3/2$ respectively, $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c$ degenerated with $J=1/2,~3/2$ and $\bar{D}^* \Sigma_c^*$ degenerated with $J=1/2,~3/2,~5/2$.
The results reported in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] show certain parallelism with those found here. There, seven odd parity $N-$like states are also found (three with spin 1/2 and 3/2 and a further one with spin 5/2). Moreover, the dynamics of these resonances is strongly influenced by the ${\bar D}^{(*)}\Sigma_c^{(*)}$ components, as it is the case here. Their masses, however, are quite, different, since those found in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] lie in the region of 4 GeV, being thus significantly lighter than those found in this work. Besides differences of dynamical origin (SU(8) extension of the WT interaction + pattern of spin-flavor symmetry breaking versus SU(4) extension of the hidden gauge approach + pattern of flavor symmetry breaking) that can help to understand these changes in the position of the masses, there exists a major difference among both approaches in what concerns to the renormalization of the loop function, $G(s)$, in the coupled channels space. The baryon-meson propagator is logarithmically ultraviolet divergent, thus, the loop needed to be renormalized. Here, we use Eq.(64) with a scale $\mu=1000$ MeV and the subtraction constant $a(\mu)$ is set to $-2.3$, as it was done in [@wuprl; @wuprc]. However in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa], a subtraction point regularization is chosen such that $G_{ii} (s) = 0$ at a certain point $\sqrt{s} = \mu_{I}$. The subtraction point $\mu_{I}$ is set to $\sqrt{m^2_{\rm th} +M^2_{\rm th}}$, where $m_{\rm th}$ and $M_{\rm th}$ are, respectively, the masses of the meson and baryon producing the lowest threshold (minimal value of $m_{\rm th} +M_{\rm th}$) for each $I$ (isospin) sector, independent of the angular momentum $J$. This renormalization scheme was first proposed in Refs. [@Hofmann:2005sw; @Hofmann:2006qx] and it was successfully used in Refs. [@GarciaRecio:2003ks; @Gamermann:2011mq] for three light flavors and in the open charm (bottom) studies carried out in [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Gamermann:2010zz; @Romanets:2012hm] ([@GarciaRecio:2012db]). Both renormalization schemes (the one used in this work and that employed in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa]) lead to similar results for the case of light flavors, but however produce quite different results in the hidden-charm sector studied here. Indeed, a significant part of the differences between the masses of the resonances found here and those reported in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] can be attributed to the different renormalization procedure followed in both works. As an example, let us pay attention to the $I=1/2$, $J=5/2$ sector, where there is only one coupled channel: ${\bar D}^* \Sigma^*_c$. The interactions used here and that of Ref. [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] are attractive and nearly the same, once it is taken into account that for this particular channel $1/f^2$ is replaced by $1/f^2_{D^*}$ in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] according to pattern of spin-flavor symmetry breaking implemented in that work (see Sect. IIIB of [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa]). However, the state found in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] is around 450 MeV lighter (more bound) than that predicted here. This difference can be only attributed to the renormalization scheme[^3]. Large binding energies cannot be discarded. For instance, interpreting the $\Lambda_c (2595)$ in the open charm sector as a ${\bar D}^* N$ bound state [@GarciaRecio:2008dp; @Romanets:2012hm] would lead to a binding energy of around 350 MeV. On the other hand, the subtraction constant (main difference of the two renormalization schemes) generates terms at the next order of the expansion used to determine the potential [@Nieves:1999bx]. Thus, different values for the subtraction constant can only be discriminated with the help of some phenomenological input, for instance the position of some states, that could be used to constrain such terms.
We would like to finish this discussion just stressing again that, ignoring the difference in the mass positions, the isospin 1/2 states found in this work have a clear resemblance with those reported in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa]. The predicted new resonances definitely cannot be accommodated by quark models with three constituent quarks and they might be looked for in the forthcoming PANDA experiment at the future FAIR facility.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have addressed a relevant topic which is to show the consistency of the dynamics of the local hidden gauge Lagrangians extrapolated to SU(4) with the LO constraints of Heavy Quark Spin Symmetry. These latter constraints are very powerful since they have their root in the QCD Lagrangian and must be understood as a very stringent. To show the consistency we have addressed the problem of the interaction of mesons and baryons with hidden charm, a problem of much current interest in view of ongoing work at the BES, BELLE, FAIR and other facilities. Once again the requirements of HQSS demanded that we put together pseudoscalar and vector mesons, as well as baryons with $J=1/2, 3/2$. A series of relationships were developed for the transition potentials between the different meson-baryon channels in different combinations of spin and isospin. After this, we evaluated these matrix elements using the dynamics of the local hidden gauge approach and found them to fulfil all the relationships of LO HQSS, while at the same time providing some determined expressions for them which allowed us to find out the existence of several bound states or resonances stemming from this interaction. We found seven states with different energies or different spin-isospin quantum numbers. Yet, the fact that the interaction that we had for vector-baryon factorizes as $\epsilon \cdot \epsilon'$ produces matrix elements which are degenerate in the different spins allowed by the meson-baryon combinations. Hence, up to some different mixing with subleading channels, we found a very approximate degeneracy in the states that qualify as quasibound $\bar D^* B$. In view of this, the seven states that we found could be more easily classified as four basic states corresponding to a quasibound $\bar D \Sigma_c$ state which appears in $J=1/2$, a $\bar D \Sigma_c^*$ state in $J=3/2$, a $\bar D^* \Sigma_c$ state which appears nearly degenerate in $J=1/2, ~3/2$ and a $\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*$ state which appears nearly degenerate in $J=1/2, ~3/2, ~5/2$. All the states are bound with about 50 MeV with respect to the corresponding $\bar D B$ thresholds and the width, except for the $J=5/2$ state, is also of the same order of magnitude. The $J=5/2$ state which appears in the single $\bar D^* \Sigma_c^*$ channel has the peculiarity that it has zero width in the space of states chosen. All the states found appear in $I=1/2$ and we found no states in $I=3/2$. The masses obtained here are substantially heavier than those found in another model [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa] that also fulfils HQSS, but incorporates some elements of extra SU(8) symmetry and a different renormalization scheme. In spite of this, this latter model predicts also the same $J^P$ quantum numbers for these states. Experiments to search for the states predicted will bring further light on this issue in the future and we can only encourage them.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
One of us, C. W. X., thanks C. Hanhart, F.K. Guo for helpful discussions in the Hadron Physics Summer School 2012 (HPSS2012), Germany. This work is partly supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad and European FEDER funds under the contract number FIS2011-28853-C02-01 and FIS2011-28853-C02-02, and the Generalitat Valenciana in the program Prometeo, 2009/090. We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity Study of Strongly Interacting Matter (acronym Hadron Physics 3, Grant Agreement n. 283286) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU.
[99]{}
J. -J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 232001 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.0573 \[nucl-th\]\]. J. -J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 015202 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.2399 \[nucl-th\]\]. M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1215 (1985).
M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. [**164**]{}, 217 (1988). U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept. [**161**]{}, 213 (1988). S. Weinberg, Physica A [**96**]{}, 327 (1979). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. [**158**]{}, 142 (1984).
J. J. Sakurai, Currents and Mesons (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969).
G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B [**223**]{}, 425 (1989).
R. Molina, D. Nicmorus and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 114018 (2008) \[arXiv:0809.2233 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 074009 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.1199 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Nagahiro, J. Yamagata-Sekihara, E. Oset, S. Hirenzaki and R. Molina, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 114023 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.3717 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Branz, L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 054037 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.0206 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Martinez Torres, L. S. Geng, L. R. Dai, B. X. Sun, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B [**680**]{}, 310 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.2963 \[nucl-th\]\]. L. S. Geng, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. A [**44**]{}, 305 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.5192 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Molina, H. Nagahiro, A. Hosaka and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 014025 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.3823 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 114013 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.3043 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 014010 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.0335 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Dong, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, J. Phys. G [**40**]{}, 015002 (2013) \[arXiv:1203.1894 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Branz, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 054010 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.4311 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Branz, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 054025 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.3168 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 094005 (2009) \[arXiv:0910.1009 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Sarkar, B. -X. Sun, E. Oset and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Eur. Phys. J. A [**44**]{}, 431 (2010) \[arXiv:0902.3150 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Oset, A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. [**A44**]{}, 445-454 (2010).
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012). E. J. Garzon and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A [**48**]{}, 5 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.3756 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. P. Khemchandani, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 114041 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.0307 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 094018 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.0574 \[nucl-th\]\]. K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 114020 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.6711 \[nucl-th\]\]. E. Oset, A. Ramos, E. J. Garzon, R. Molina, L. Tolos, C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**21**]{}, 1230011 (2012) \[arXiv:1210.3738 \[nucl-th\]\].
M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A [**730**]{}, 110 (2004) \[hep-ph/0307233\].
M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A [**755**]{}, 29 (2005) \[hep-ph/0501224\]. J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A [**763**]{}, 90 (2005) \[hep-ph/0507071\]. J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A [**776**]{}, 17 (2006) \[hep-ph/0601249\]. L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{}, 025203 (2004) \[nucl-th/0404064\]. T. Mizutani and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 065201 (2006) \[hep-ph/0607257\]. C. E. Jimenez-Tejero, A. Ramos and I. Vidana, Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 055206 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.5316 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, U. -G. Meissner and A. Sibirtsev, Eur. Phys. J. A [**33**]{}, 107 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.3668 \[nucl-th\]\]. J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, U. -G. Meissner and A. Sibirtsev, Eur. Phys. J. A [**37**]{}, 55 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3752 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, U. -G. Meissner and L. Tolos, Eur. Phys. J. A [**47**]{}, 18 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.3794 \[nucl-th\]\].
N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**232**]{}, 113 (1989). M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. [**245**]{}, 259 (1994) \[hep-ph/9306320\]. A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, [*Heavy Quark Physics*]{}, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, vol. 10
C. Garcia-Recio, V. K. Magas, T. Mizutani, J. Nieves, A. Ramos, L. L. Salcedo and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 054004 (2009) \[arXiv:0807.2969 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Gamermann, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, L. L. Salcedo and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 094016 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.2763 \[hep-ph\]\]. O. Romanets, L. Tolos, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, L. L. Salcedo and R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 114032 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.2239 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, O. Romanets, L. L. Salcedo and L. Tolos, arXiv:1302.6938 \[hep-ph\].
C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, O. Romanets, L. L. Salcedo and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 034032 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.4755 \[hep-ph\]\]. RAaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 172003 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.3452 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 056004 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.2790 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 076006 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.5431 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, arXiv:1211.7004 \[hep-ph\]. F. -K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. -G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 242004 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.3338 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. -K. Guo, C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, arXiv:1303.6608 \[hep-ph\].
M. E. Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum, John Wiley, 1957.
H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 014015 (2009) D. Gamermann, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. A [**41**]{}, 85 (2009) \[arXiv:0805.0499 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Klingl, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A [**624**]{}, 527 (1997) \[hep-ph/9704398\].
J. E. Palomar and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A [**716**]{}, 169 (2003)
G. Ecker, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1995) 1.
V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U. G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E4 (1995) 193.
E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B [**259**]{}, 353 (1991). F. E. Close, An Introduction to Quarks and Partons, Academic Press, 1979.
E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A [**635**]{} (1998) 99.
J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B [**500**]{}, 263 (2001). J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Nucl. Phys. A [**679**]{}, 57 (2000) \[hep-ph/9907469\].
B. Borasoy, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 054021 (1999) \[hep-ph/9811411\].
D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 014029 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4407 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. -J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B [**709**]{}, 70 (2012) \[arXiv:1011.5743 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. -K. Guo, R. -G. Ping, P. -N. Shen, H. -C. Chiang and B. -S. Zou, Nucl. Phys. A [**773**]{}, 78 (2006) \[hep-ph/0509050\]. L. Roca, E. Oset and J. Singh, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 014002 (2005) \[hep-ph/0503273\]. J. Yamagata-Sekihara, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 014003 (2011) \[arXiv:1007.3923 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Garcia-Recio, M. F. M. Lutz and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B [**582**]{}, 49 (2004) \[nucl-th/0305100\]. D. Gamermann, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 056017 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.2737 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: The universality of the interactions of heavy quarks, regardless of their concrete (large) mass, flavor and spin state, follows from QCD [@IW89; @Ne94; @MW00].
[^2]: We thank L. L. Salcedo.
[^3]: We should note that in [@Garcia-Recio:2013gaa], the interaction is splitted in different irreducible representations of the symmetry group, and only those sectors where the interaction is attractive are studied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1
=16truecm F=22truecm =0.4truecm =0.4truecm =16truecm =-1.5truecm =0.4truecm ===[>1 [- -]{} ]{} =0.15truecm *[**]{} T=11.5truecm F=cmr12 =cmr10 =cmr8 =cmr7 =cmr6 =cmr5*
=cmbx12 =cmbx10 =cmbx8 =cmbx7 =cmbx6 =cmbx5
=cmti12 =cmti10 =cmti8 =cmti7 =cmti6 =cmti5
=cmsl12 =cmsl10 =cmsl8 =cmsl7 =cmsl6 =cmsl5
=cmmi12 =cmmi10 =cmmi8 =cmmi7 =cmmi6 =cmmi5
=cmsy10 at 12pt =cmsy10 =cmsy8 =cmsy7 =cmsy6 =cmsy5 =cmsy10 at 12pt =cmsy10 =cmsy8 =cmsy7 =cmsy6 =cmsy5
=cmr12 =cmr10 =cmr8 =cmr7 =cmr6 =cmr5
=cmbx12 =cmbx10 =cmbx8 =cmbx7 =cmbx6 =cmbx5
=cmtt12 =cmtt10 =cmtt8
=cmex10 at 12pt =cmex10 =cmex9 at 8pt
=msbm10 at 12pt =msbm10 =msbm8 =msbm7 =msbm6 =msbm5
=eusm10 at 12pt =eusm10 =eusm8 =eusm7 =eusm6 =eusm5 T=ptmr at 12pt =ptmr at 10pt =ptmr at 8pt =ptmr at 7pt =ptmr at 6pt =ptmr at 5pt
=ptmb at 12pt =ptmb at 10pt =ptmb at 8pt =ptmb at 7pt =ptmb at 6pt =ptmb at 5pt
=ptmri at 12pt =ptmri at 10pt =ptmri at 8pt =ptmri at 7pt =ptmri at 6pt =ptmri at 5pt
=ptmro at 12pt =ptmro at 10pt =ptmro at 8pt =ptmro at 7pt =ptmro at 6pt =ptmro at 5pt
=cmmi12 =cmmi10 =cmmi8 =cmmi7 =cmmi6 =cmmi5
=cmsy10 at 12pt =cmsy10 =cmsy8 =cmsy7 =cmsy6 =cmsy5 =cmsy10 at 12pt =cmsy10 =cmsy8 =cmsy7 =cmsy6 =cmsy5
=cmr12 =cmr10 =cmr8 =cmr7 =cmr6 =cmr5
=cmbx12 =cmbx10 =cmbx8 =cmbx7 =cmbx6 =cmbx5
=cmtt12 =cmtt10 =cmtt8
=cmex10 at 12pt =cmex10 =cmex9 at 8pt
=msbm10 at 12pt =msbm10 =msbm8 =msbm7 =msbm6 =msbm5
=eusm10 at 12pt =eusm10 =eusm8 =eusm7 =eusm6 =eusm5
16=2.7pt 13=4.3pt 17=2.7pt 14=4.3pt 18=4.3pt 16=2.7pt 13=4.3pt 17=2.7pt 14=4.3pt 18=4.3pt \#1[\#1 0123456789 ABCDEF]{} ‘=“33D =”336 ‘="22B ‘$="4\hexnumber\truecmr28
\mathcode`$="529 ‘="521 ‘$="4\hexnumber\truecmr28
\mathcode`$="529 |["016 ]{} =1 =1 =0 =1 (\#1,\#2,\#3)[\#1\#216[!!!!!doubly defined \#1,\#2]{}]{} \#1,\#2,\#3 [([\#1]{},[\#2]{},[\#3]{})]{} (\#1)[(\#1)(\#1)]{} (\#1)[&(\#1)(\#1)]{} (\#1)[(\#1)(.) e,\#1,(.) by 1 ]{} (\#1)\#2
(\#1)\#2
s,\#1,
(\#1)\#2
(\#1) \#2
s,\#1,[.]{}
\#1(\#2) \#3
.1in[(\#2)**\#1 ..**]{} [*\#3*]{}
c,\#2,[\#1 .]{} by 1 1 [- -]{}
T=cmbx10 scaled2 =cmbx10 scaled1 =cmbx10 =cmr7 =cmr10 =cmr10 ==ptmb at 14 pt =ptmb at 12pt =ptmb at 10pt =ptmr at 7pt =cmcsc10 =ptmb at 10pt =1.5em \#1
=1
\#1[0==0]{} \#1[to]{} \#1[0=0> ]{} \#1
[ plus.2-75 plus -.2 by 1 [. \#1]{} =1 =1 =1 ]{}
=34 Ł[[L]{}]{} ==== 0.5truecm
0.5truecm
**
J.-P. Eckmann${}^{1,2}$ and C.E. Wayne${}^3$
0.3truecm
${}^1$Dépt. de Physique Théorique, Université de Genève, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland
${}^2$Section de Mathématiques, Université de Genève, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland
${}^3$Dept. of Mathematics, Boston University, 111 Cummington St., Boston, MA 02215, USA
0.5truecm [ We extend the invariant manifold method for analyzing the asymptotics of dissipative partial differential equations on unbounded spatial domains to treat equations in which the linear part has order greater than two. One important example of this type of equation which we analyze in some detail is the Cahn-Hilliard equation. We analyze the marginally stable solutions of this equation in some detail. A second context in which such equations arise is in the Ginzburg-Landau equation, or other pattern forming equations, near a codimension-two bifurcation. ]{} Introduction and statement of results
In this paper, we extend the methods developed in \[W1\], \[W2\], \[EWW\], to study the asymptotic behavior of marginally stable non-linear PDE’s. These are PDE’s such as $$\partial_t u \,=\, P(-i\nabla_x) u + W'(u)~,$$ where $u=u(x,t)$, with $x\in \real^d$, and where $P$ is a polynomial. In the papers cited above, we have treated essentially parabolic problems, [*i.e.*]{}, the case where $P(\xi)=-\xi^2$. In this paper, we extend the problem to non-parabolic cases such as $P(\xi)=-\xi^4$, where $P(-i\nabla_x)$ has continuous spectrum all the way up to 0. We deal in particular with the stability analysis of the equation \[CH\] in an infinite domain. Where appropriate, we indicate how to formulate the assumptions for more general differential operators and non-linearities.
The equation models the dynamics of a material with the following 3 properties:
[i)]{}The material prefers one of two concentrations that can coexist at a given temperature.
[ii)]{}The material prefers to be spatially uniform.
[iii)]{}The total mass is conserved.
The first point above means that we should consider a potential with 2 minima with equal critical values, and for concreteness, we will choose $W(u)=(1-u^2)^2$.[^1][In our example, the curvatures of the two minima are equal. This does not seem to be necessary for our proofs.]{} The equation is then $$\partial_t u\,=\, \Delta \bigl (-\Delta u + W'(u)\bigr)~,
\EQ(CH1)$$ or, expanding, $$\partial_t u\,=\, -\Delta^2 u - 4 \Delta u + 4 \Delta u^3~.
\EQ(CH2)$$ We will be interested specifically in the [*non-linear stability*]{} of the spatially uniform states, $u(x,t)\equiv u_0$.
It is obvious that constants are solutions of Eq.(CH2), for any $u_0$. Furthermore, it is easy to check that these solutions are (locally) linearly stable for $|u_0|>3^{-1/2}$, and linearly unstable for $|u_0|<3^{-1/2}$. We concentrate our analysis on the remaining case, namely $u_0=\pm 3^{-1/2}$. In this case, linearizing about $u_0=3^{-1/2}$ leads to the linear equation $$\partial_t v \,=\, -\Delta ^2 v~,
\EQ(lch)$$ which has spectrum in $(-\infty,0]$ and corresponds to the case $P(\xi)=-\xi^4$. It is obvious that bounded initial data lead to solutions which tend to 0 as $t\to\infty$ and the purpose of this paper is to study under which conditions the addition of the nonlinear terms does [*not*]{} change the stability of the solutions. This is more difficult, for two reasons: First, as we have said, the spectrum of the linearized problem extends all the way to 0, and second, the nonlinearity does not have a sign.
Another, more complicated, example of a similar nature is provided by time-independent solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equations (on $\real$) $$\partial_t u\,=\, \partial_x^2 u +u - u |u|^2~,
\EQ(GL1)$$ which are exactly on the borderline between being Eckhaus stable and Eckhaus unstable. These solutions are $$u_q(x)\,=\, e^{iqx}\sqrt{1-q^2} ~,$$ with $q=1/\sqrt{3}$, [*cf.*]{} \[EG\]. We will not prove that this problem scales like the Cahn-Hilliard equations, but only describe a program which we believe would lead to a proof. The first part of the analysis of this problem would follow rather closely that given in \[EEW\] for the Swift-Hohenberg equation. Letting $u^*= u_q $ for the critical value $q=1/\sqrt{3}$, and writing $u=u^*+v$, the equation for $v$ is $$\partial_t v \,=\, \partial_x^2 v + v - 2 v |u^*|^2 -\bar v (u^*)^2
+\OO(v^2)~.
\EQ(GL2)$$ It has a linear part which is like a Schrödinger operator in a periodic potential (the inhomogeneity $u^*$). This can be handled by going to Floquet variables, namely setting $$v(x,t)\,=\,\int _{-q}^q \d k\, e^{ikx}v_k(x,t)~,$$ where $v_k$ is $\pi/q$-periodic in $x$: $$v_k(x,t)\,=\,\sum_{m\in\integer} e^{2imqx} v_{k,m}(t)~.$$ The linear part of Eq.(GL2) leaves the subspace spanned by the $v_k$ invariant, and has discrete spectrum in each such subspace. The spectrum is in $\sigma\le0$ and the largest eigenvalue is $-\OO(k^4)$ when $q $ equals its critical value $q=1/\sqrt{3}$ (which is the case we discuss here). In this sense, the problem of the marginal Eckhaus instability resembles the problem of the Cahn-Hilliard equation. At this point, the discussion of the problem follows the techniques we developed in \[EWW\]. We would like to rescale as we will do below for the Cahn-Hilliard equation and its generalizations, but the problem will be more complicated because the Brillouin zone is restricted to $k\in [-q,q]$. We then have to check that the non-linearity is “irrelevant” in the terminology developed below. Again, as in \[EWW\], we believe that this will not be quite the case, but the saving grace will be that the projection of the potentially non-irrelevant modes onto the eigenstates corresponding to the $-\OO(k^4)$ term vanish to some higher degrees because of translation invariance of the original problem, [*cf.*]{} \[EWW, Section 4\], and \[S\].
We place our examples in the following more general setting. Consider equations of the form $${\partial u\over \partial t}\,=\, (-1)^{n+1} \Delta^n u + F(u,
\{\partial_x^\alpha u\})~,
\EQ(X1)$$ where the multi-indices $\alpha $ satisfy $|\alpha |\le 2n-1$, and $x\in \real^d$, $t\ge1$. Furthermore, $F$ is a polynomial in $u$ and its derivatives. We wish to study the asymptotics of the solution $u$ of (X1) as $t\to\infty $. First, one introduces scaling variables by defining $$u(x,t)\,=\,{1\over t^{ d/(2n)} }\, v\bigl ( {x\over t^{ 1/(2n)}} ,
\log t\bigr )~.
\EQ(X2)$$ Introducing new variables $\xi=x/t^{1/(2n)}$ and $\tau = \log(t
+t_0)$, with $t_0$ an arbitrary positive constant, the Eq.(X1) is transformed to the non-autonomous problem $${\partial v\over \partial \tau }\,=\, (-1)^{n+1} \Delta_\xi^n v +
{1\over 2n} \xi\cdot \nabla_\xi v + {d\over 2n} v + e^{({2n+d\over
2n})\tau} F(e^{-{d\tau \over 2n}}v, \{e^{-({|\alpha| +d\over 2n})\tau
} \partial_\xi^\alpha v\})~.
\EQ(X3)$$ The analysis of this equation involves two steps:
[i)]{}An analysis of the linear operator
[ii)]{}A determination of which non-linear terms are relevant. As we will see, the term $1/(2n) \xi\cdot \nabla_\xi$ plays an important rôle in the analysis of this linear operator as it allows us to push the continuous spectrum of the operator more and more into the stable region by working in Sobolev spaces with higher and higher polynomial weights. These weights force the functions to decrease more and more rapidly near $|x|=\infty$. Taking Fourier transforms on both sides of Eq.(X3) we obtain: $${\partial \tilde v\over \partial \tau }\,=\, - (p\cdot p)^{n}\tilde v -
{1\over 2n} p\cdot \nabla_p \tilde v+ e^{({2n+d\over 2n})\tau}
F^*(e^{-{d\tau \over 2n}}\tilde v, \{e^{-({|\alpha| +d\over 2n})\tau }
(-ip)^\alpha \tilde v\})~,
\EQ(X4)$$ where $F^*$ is the polynomial $F$, written in terms of convolution products, (see the discussion of the non-linearities below).
We will discuss the form of the non-linear terms below, and consider first the linear operator $$\LL \,=\, -(p\cdot p)^{n} -{1\over 2n} p\cdot \nabla _p~.
\EQ(X5)$$ A straightforward calculation shows that $\LL $ has the countable set of eigenvalues $$\lambda _j\,=\, -{ j\over 2n}~,\quad j=0,1,2,\dots~,
\EQ(X6)$$ with eigenfunctions (written in multi-index notation), $$\phi_ \alpha (p)\,=\, p^{\alpha }e^{-(p\cdot p)^{n}}~,
\EQ(af1)$$ and $|\alpha |=j$.
If we consider $\LL $ as acting on the Sobolev spaces $$\tilde{H}_{\ell,m}\,=\,\left \{ \tilde v ~:~
\|p^\alpha \partial_p^\beta \tilde v\|_{\L^2} <\infty ~,
{\rm ~for~all~} |\alpha |\le \ell, |\beta |\le m\right \}~,$$ then $\LL $ will have continuous spectrum in the half-plane $\Re
\lambda < -\sigma_m$ in addition to the eigenvalues above. By choosing $m$ appropriately, we can force this continuous spectrum arbitrarily far into the left half-plane, and the dominant behavior of the linear operator will be dictated by the eigenvalues with the largest real part.
In order to switch back and forth from the Fourier transform representation of $\LL$ to the un-Fourier transformed representation of this operator with ease, we also consider the Sobolev spaces $${H}_{\ell,m}\,=\,\left \{ v ~:~
\|\partial_x^\alpha x^\beta v\|_{\L^2} <\infty ~,
{\rm ~for~all~} |\alpha |\le \ell, |\beta |\le m\right \}~.$$ Note that Fourier transformation is an isomorphism from $\tilde{H}_{\ell,m}$ to ${H}_{\ell,m}$.
Note that $\LL$ is [*not*]{} sectorial, and therefore we know of no way to bound the semi-group generated by $\LL$ by spectral information alone. However, in Appendix A, we develop an integral representation of the semi-group and we then show that it satisfies the estimates needed for the invariant manifold theorem.
We next discuss which terms in the non-linearity are “relevant.” Consider a monomial $$A\,=\,
\prod _{j=0}^s \left ( \partial_x^{\alpha ^{(j)}} u\right )^{k_j}~,
\EQ(X7)$$ where the $\alpha ^{(j)}$ are distinct multi-indices. After rescaling and taking Fourier transforms this becomes $$\eqalign{
\tilde A\,&=\,
\exp\left(({2n+d\over 2n})\tau \right)\,\,\exp\left (-\sum_{j=0}^s
\bigl ({|\alpha ^{(j)}|+d\over 2n}\bigr )k_j\tau \right )\cr
&\times
\bigl ((-ip)^{\alpha ^{(0)}}\tilde v\bigr )^{*k_0}*\cdots*
\bigl ((-ip)^{\alpha ^{(s)}}\tilde v\bigr )^{*k_s}~.\cr
}
\EQ(X8)$$ Here, $*$ denotes the convolution product. If we combine the powers of $\tau $ in the exponential, we see that if $$2n+d\,<\,\sum_{j=0}^s
\bigl ({|\alpha ^{(j)}|+d}\bigr )k_j~,
\EQ(X9)$$ then the coefficient of this term will go to zero exponentially fast in $\tau $, and hence it will be irrelevant from the point of view of the long time behavior of the solutions.
A monomial like (X8) is called [*irrelevant*]{} if it satisfies the inequality (X9). It is called [*critical*]{} if the l.h.s. of Eq.(X9) is equal to the r.h.s, and [*relevant*]{} in the remaining case.
These definitions are suggested by the following which is our first main result: Theorem(T1) Assume all terms in the non-linearity in Eq.(X1) are irrelevant. For any solution $u(x,t)$ of Eq.(X1) with sufficiently small initial conditions in $H_{m,\ell}$ (with $\ell>
(2n-1)+d/2$ and $m>(n+2)/(2n)$ ), there is a constant $B^*$, depending on the initial conditions, such that for every $\epsilon >0$, $$\lim_{t\to\infty }
t^{({d+1\over 2n}-\epsilon )} \left \| u(x,t)-{B^*\over t^{d/(2n)}}
f^*({x\over t^{1/(2n)}}) \right \|_{\L^\infty } \,=\,0~.$$ Here, $$f^*(\xi)\,=\,{1\over (2\pi)^{d/2}} \int\, \d^dp\, e^{ip\cdot \xi }
e^{-(p\cdot p)^n}~.
\EQ(Xfstar)$$
This theorem is a special case of a more detailed analysis which will be given below. That analysis will allow us to compute, in principle, the [*form*]{} of the solutions of Eq.(X1) up to $\OO(t^{-k})$, for any $k>0$. We note that if one only wanted the first order asymptotics of the solution, one could also use the renormalization group analysis of \[BKL\].
We now apply the (T1) to the Cahn-Hilliard equation. Writing $u=
3^{-1/2} + w$, the function $w$ is seen to satisfy $${\partial w\over \partial t}\,=\,-\Delta^2 w +\sqrt{3} \Delta (w^2) +
\Delta(w^3)~.
\EQ(X10)$$ Upon expanding $\Delta(w^2)$ we obtain two types of terms—those of the form $w(\partial_{x_i}^2 w)$ and those of the form $(\partial_{x_i}w)^2$. In both cases, $$\sum (|\alpha ^{(j)}|+d )k_j \,=\, 2d+2~.$$ Since $n=2$ in this example, these terms will be irrelevant if $4+d<2d+2$, that is in dimensions $d>2$. Also, the term $\Delta(w^3)$ is irrelevant for $d>1$. Thus, as a corollary to (T1) we get immediately Corollary(T2) Solutions of the Cahn-Hilliard equation in dimension $d\ge3$, with initial conditions sufficiently close (in $H_{1,1}$) to the constant solution $u\equiv 3^{-1/2}$ behave asymptotically as $$u(x,t)\,=\, {1\over 3^{1/2}} + {B^*\over t^{d/4}} f^*\bigl ({x\over
t^{1/4}}\bigr ) + \OO\bigl ( {1\over t^{(d+1)/4 -\epsilon }}\bigr )~.
\EQ(Xcor2)$$
We will examine below what happens in the cases $d=1,2$. The case $d=2$ is of particular interest because its non-linearity is critical in the renormalization group terminology.
Invariant manifolds
Note that spectral subspaces corresponding to eigenvalues of $\LL$ are automatically invariant manifolds for the semi-flow defined by the linear part of Eq.(X4). The aim of this section is to demonstrate that the full non-linear problem has similar invariant manifolds in a neighborhood of the origin. This then shows that the conceptual understanding of what is happening can be gained purely from a knowledge of $\LL $, (and the scaling behavior of the non-linearity).
We begin with a proposition concerning the linear semi-group generated by $\LL $. Proposition(T3) Let $P_k$ denote the projection onto the spectral subspace associated with the eigenvalues $\bigl \{ {-j\over
2n}\bigr \}_{j=0}^k$, and let $Q_k=P_k^\perp$ (in $H_{\ell,m}$). If $m>(n+k+1)/(2n)$, then there exists $C_k>0$ such that the semi-group generated by $\LL $ satisfies $$\eqalign{
\|Q_k e^{\tau \LL } Q_k v\|_{{\ell,m}}\,&\le\,{C_k\over t^{q/2n}
} \exp\bigl ( {k+1\over 2n}\tau \bigr )\|v\|_{{\ell-q,m}}~,
q=0,1,\dots,2n-1~.\cr}
\EQ(X12)$$
The proof, which is presented in Appendix A, is modeled on the proof in \[EWW\] which treats the case $n=1$.
Given such estimates on the linear evolution, the construction of invariant manifolds is straightforward. Denote by $y$ the coordinates on the (finite-dimensional) range of $P_k$, and let $z=Q_k\tilde
v$. Finally let $\eta= e^{-\tau /(2n)}=(t+t_0)^{-1/(2n)}$. Then, applying the projection operators $P_k$ and $Q_k$ to Eq.(X4), it can be written as the system of equations $$\eqalign{
\dot y\,&=\, \Lambda_k y + f(y,z,\eta)~,\cr
\dot z\,&=\,Q_k \LL z + g (y,z,\eta)~,\cr
\dot \eta \,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 2n}} \eta~,\cr
}
\EQ(X13)$$ where $\dot{\hphantom X}$ denotes differentiation w.r.t. $\tau$. We next need a bound on the non-linearity: Lemma(T4) Assume $u\in H_{m,\ell}$ with $\ell> 2n-1+d/2$, and assume $$2n+d \,\le\, \sum_{j=0}^s |{\alpha ^{(j)}+d} |k_j~.$$ Then the non-linear term Eq.(X8) has $H_{m,\ell-2n+1} $ norm bounded by $$\eta^p \prod _{j=0}^s \|u\|_{{m,\ell-2n+1}}\,=\,
\eta^p \|u\|_{{m,\ell-2n+1}}^K~,$$ with $p=\sum_{j=0}^s |{\alpha ^{(j)}+d}|k_j - (2n+d)$ and $K=\sum_{j=0}^s k_j$.
Taking the inverse Fourier transform of Eq.(X8), and substituting $\eta= e^{-\tau/(2n)}$, Eq.(X8) becomes $$\eta^p \prod_{j=0}^s \left ( \partial_\xi^{\alpha ^{(j)}}v\right )^{k_j}~.$$ The result then follows from the Sobolev embedding theorem. Note that the lemma has the immediate corollary (because $F$ is a polynomial): Corollary(T5) Under the hypotheses of (T4), for every $r\ge
1$, the non-linear term in Eq.(X4) is a $\CC^r$ function from $\real\times H_{m,\ell}$ to $H_{m,\ell-2n+1}$.
This corollary in turn implies that the terms in Eq.(X8) and Eq.(X13) are all $\CC^r$ functions. This, in conjunction with the estimates on the linear semi-group is sufficient to establish the following Theorem(T6) Suppose that $\ell> 2n-1 +d/2$ and $m>(n+k+1)/(2n)$. Suppose further that all terms in the nonlinearity satisfy $$2n+d \,\le\, \sum_{j=0}^s |{\alpha ^{(j)}+d} |k_j~.
\EQ(X99)$$ Then there exists a $\CC^{1+\alpha }$ function $h(\eta,y)$, with $\alpha >0$, defined in some neighborhood of the origin in $\real\times\real^{{\rm dim~range}(P_k)}$, such that the manifold $z=h(\eta,y)$ is left invariant by the semi-flow of Eq.(X13). Furthermore, any solution of Eq.(X13) which remains near the origin for all times approaches a solution of (X13)—restricted to the invariant manifold—at a rate $\OO\bigl(
e^{{k+1-\epsilon \over 2n}\tau}\bigr)$.
The existence of the invariant manifold, given the assumptions on the linear semi-group and the non-linearity, seems, to our knowledge, not to be explicitly spelled out in the literature. The formulation which comes closest to our needs is the one given in \[H\], where the assumptions on the non-linearity are those we have in our case, but the semi-group is supposed to be analytic. However, Henry’s construction of the invariant manifold only uses certain bounds on the decay of the semi-group, and not the stronger assumption of analyticity. Those bounds [*are*]{} true in our case, by (T4). Thus, existence of the invariant manifold follows in fact from Henry’s proof.
Once one knows that the manifold exists, it is also easy to show that any solution near the origin must approach a solution on the invariant manifold (see, [*e.g.*]{} \[C\]). Note that even though our non-linearity is quite smooth, we cannot hope, in general, to obtain an invariant manifold whose smoothness is greater than $\CC^{1+\alpha }$, since this smoothness is related to the gap between the spectrum of $\Lambda_k$, and that of $Q_k \LL Q_k$, (see, [*e.g.*]{} \[LW\]). Applications
Here, we show how the existence of the invariant manifold implies (T1) and related results. To prove (T1), we assume that all terms in the non-linearity are irrelevant. This means that Eq.(X99) holds. Suppose further that $k=1$ and that $\ell>
2n-1+d/2$ and $m>(n+2)/(2n)$. These hypotheses guarantee that (T6) applies and hence any solution near the origin must approach a solution on the invariant manifold, at a rate $\OO\bigl(
e^{{2-\epsilon \over 2n}\tau }\bigr)$ in $H_{m,\ell}$.
The equations on the invariant manifold can be written as a system of ordinary differential equations: $$\eqalign{
\dot y_0\,&=\, \bigl\langle \phi_ 0^* | f\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle~,\cr
\dot y_{1,j}\,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 2n}} y_{1,j}+\bigl\langle \phi_ {1,j}^* | f\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle~,\quad j=1,\dots,d~,\cr
\dot \eta \,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 2n}} \eta~,\cr
}
\EQ(X14)$$ where $\phi_0^*$ and $\phi_{1,j}^*$ are the projections onto the spectral subspace of $\lambda _0$ and $\lambda _1=-1/(2n)$, respectively. Note that $\lambda _1$ has a $d$-dimensional spectral subspace.
The important observation to make at this point is that since the non-linearity is assumed to be irrelevant, there exist constants $C_0$ and $C_1$ such that $$\left |\bigl\langle \phi_ {0}^* | f\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle\right |\,\le\,C_0 \eta^p~,\quad
\left |\bigl\langle \phi_ {1}^* | f\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle\right |\,\le\,C_1\eta^p~,$$ for some $p\ge1$. Since $\eta(\tau )=e^{-\tau /(2n)}\eta(0)$, this implies immediately that solutions of Eq.(X14) behave as $$\eqalign{
y_0(\tau )\,&=\,B^*+\OO(e^{-\tau /(2n)})~,\cr y_{1,j}(\tau
)\,&=\,\OO(e^{-\tau /(2n)})~.\cr }$$ The eigenfunction with eigenvalue 0 of $\LL $ is $e^{-p\cdot p}$, or taking inverse Fourier transform, $f^*$, [*cf.*]{} Eq.(Xfstar). Thus, in $H_{m,\ell}$ solutions of Eq.(X4) behave as $$\tilde v(p,\tau )\,=\, B^*e^{-p\cdot p} +\OO(e^{-\tau /(2n)})~.$$ Reverting from scaling variables to the unscaled variables $u(x,t)$ and using the Sobolev lemma to estimate the $\L^\infty $ norm in terms of the $H_{m,\ell}$ norm, we obtain (T1). Since we observed above that the non-linearity in the Cahn-Hilliard equation is irrelevant when $d\ge3$, we immediately see in this case that Eq.(Xcor2) holds for initial conditions which are close to $u\equiv 3^{-1/2}$, which yields (T2).
The critical case
We now consider the Cahn-Hilliard equation in dimension $d=2$, which is the critical case in terms of the renormalization group terminology \[BKL\]. This means that in some non-linear terms the inequality Eq.(X9) becomes an equality.
In the Cahn-Hilliard equation, when $d=2$ (and $n=2$), we see that the quadratic term is critical, and the cubic term is irrelevant. Note that (T6) still implies the existence of an invariant manifold tangent at the origin to the eigenspace of $\lambda_0$. This means that when written in the form of Eq.(X13), the non-linearity can be written as the sum of 2 pieces—one quadratic in $y$ and $z$ which is independent of $\eta$ (and hence critical) and a cubic piece in $y$ and $z$ which is linear in $\eta$ (and hence irrelevant). This implies that the Eqs.(X14), when reduced to the invariant manifold, take the form $$\eqalign{
\dot y_0\,&=\,\bigl\langle \phi_ 0^* | f^{(2)}\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle +\bigl\langle \phi_ 0^* |
f^{(3)}\bigl( y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle~,\cr
\dot y_{1,j}\,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 4}} y_{1,j}+\bigl\langle \phi_
{1,j}^* | f^{(2)}\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle+\bigl\langle \phi_ {1,j}^* |
f^{(3)}\bigl( y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle~,\quad j=1,2~,\cr
\dot \eta \,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 4}} \eta~.\cr
}\EQ(X17)$$
We now exploit the form of the non-linear term in Eq.(X10), namely $3^{1/2}\Delta(w^2)+\Delta(w^3)$, plus the fact that the eigenfunction $\phi_0^*\equiv 1$. Thus if we integrate by parts, we find that $$\bigl\langle \phi_ 0^* | f^{(2)}\bigl(
y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle +\bigl\langle \phi_ 0^* |
f^{(3)}\bigl( y,h(\eta,y),\eta\bigr)\bigr\rangle\,=\,0~,$$ so that in Eq.(X17), $\dot y_0\equiv0$ and thus $y_0(t)=y_0(0)$. This reflects the fact that the Cahn-Hilliard equation conserves mass.
Since from Eq.(X17) we also see that $y_{1,j}=\OO(e^{-\tau /4})$, we find upon reverting to the unscaled variables the second main result: Theorem(T7) For $d=2$, if the initial conditions of the Cahn-Hilliard equation are sufficiently close in $H_{1,4}$ to the stationary state $u\equiv 3^{-1/2}$, then the solution behaves asymptotically as $$u(x,t)\,=\,{1\over 3^{1/2}}+{B^*\over t^{1/2}}f^*\bigl( {x\over
t^{1/4}}\bigr) +\OO\bigl( {1\over t^{3/4-\epsilon }}\bigr)~.$$
The relevant case
Here, we consider the case of $d=1$ where one term of the non-linearity is relevant. This necessitates a change of strategy, because the quadratic term is proportional to $\eta^{-1}$ and hence the non-linear terms in Eq.(X13) are not smooth enough to apply the invariant manifold theorem. In order to circumvent this difficulty, we choose a scaling different from Eq.(X2). Consider again the Cahn-Hilliard equation, Eq.(X10), with $u=3^{-1/2}+w$. In $d=1$, we get $${\partial w\over \partial t}\,=\, - {\partial^4\over \partial x^4} w
+3^{1/2} {\partial^2\over \partial x^2}\bigl( w^2\bigr) +
{\partial^2\over \partial x^2}\bigl( w^3\bigr)~.
\EQ(X18)$$ Now let $w(x,t)=t^{-1/2} W(x/t^{1/4},\log t)$. Then $W$ satisfies $${\partial W\over \partial \tau }\,=\, -\partial_\xi^4 W + {1\over 4}
\xi \cdot\partial_\xi W +{1\over 2} W + 3^{1/2} \partial_\xi^2 \bigl(
W^2\bigr) +e^{-\tau/2} \partial_\xi^2\bigl( W^3\bigr)~.
\EQ(X19)$$ Proceeding as in the other cases, we define the linear operator $L_1=-\partial_\xi^4 +{1\over 4} \xi\partial_\xi + \HALF$, which in Fourier variables becomes $$\LL _1\,=\,-p^4 -{\textstyle{1\over 4}} p \partial_p + {\textstyle{1\over 4}}~,$$ so that it has eigenvalues $\mu_m={1-j\over 4}$, $j=0,1,\dots$ . Thus, unlike the operator $\LL$, we have one eigenvalue lying in the right half-plane. Let $\tilde \eta=e^{-\tau /8}$, and let $y_0$ and $y_1$ denote the amplitudes of the eigenvectors with eigenvalues $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$. Then Eq.(X19) takes the form $$\eqalign{
\dot y_0\,&=\,{\textstyle {1\over 4}} y_0+ f_0(y_0,y_1,\eta,y^\perp)~,\cr
\dot y_1\,&=\,f_1(y_0,y_1,\eta,y^\perp)~,\cr
\dot \eta~\, \,&=\, -{\textstyle{1\over 8}} \eta~,\cr
\dot y^\perp \,&=\, QL_1 y^\perp + f^\perp(y_0,y_1,\eta,y^\perp)~.\cr
}
\EQ(X21)$$ Here, $Q$ is the projection onto the complement of the eigenspaces corresponding to $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$, $y^\perp =QW$, and $f_0$, $f_1$, and $f^\perp$ are the projections of the non-linearity onto the various subspaces.
Since the spectrum of $QL_1Q $ lies in the half-plane $\Re \mu\le
{1\over 4}$, we can construct an invariant manifold for Eq.(X21) which is the graph of a function $h^\perp(y_0,y_1,\eta)$, and every solution of Eq.(X21) which remains in a neighborhood of the origin will approach this manifold at a rate $\OO(e^{-\tau /4})$. What is more, the equations on the invariant manifold are extremely simple in this case, since the projections onto the “0” and “1” components correspond to integrating with respect to the functions 1 and $x$, respectively. Applying these projections to the non-linearity and integrating once, resp. twice by parts, we see that these projections of the non-linear terms vanish. Thus, the equations on the invariant manifold of Eq.(X21) are simply $$\dot y_0\,=\,{\textstyle{1\over 4}} y_0~,
\quad
\dot y_1\,=\,0~,\quad \dot {\tilde \eta} = -
{\textstyle{1\over 8}} \tilde \eta~.$$ Thus, [*as long as the solution of Eq.(X21) remains in a neighborhood of the origin*]{}, it will be of the form $$\eqalign{
y_0(\tau)\,&=\,e^{\tau /4} y_0(0)~,\cr y_1(\tau)\,&=\,y_1(0)~,\cr
\tilde \eta(\tau) \,&=\,e^{-\tau /8}\tilde \eta(0)~,\cr
y^\perp(\tau)\,&=\,\OO(e^{-\tau /4})~.\cr }
\EQ(X23)$$ Thus, we see that the solution either leaves the neighborhood of the origin, or its asymptotic behavior can be read off from Eq.(X23). Note that the solutions that remain near the origin must have $y_0=0$. Thus: Theorem(T8) Suppose that the initial condition of the Cahn-Hilliard equation is of the form $u_0=3^{-1/2}+w_0$ with $w_0$ small in the $H_{m,\ell} $ norm for some $\ell\ge4$ and $m\ge2$. Assume furthermore that $\int_{-\infty }^\infty \d
x\,w_0(x)=0$. Then the solution is of the form $$u(x,t)\,=\, {1\over 3^{1/2}} + {B^{**}\over t^{1/2}} f^{**} \bigl(
{x\over t^{1/4}}\bigr) +\OO\bigl( {1\over t^{3/4-\epsilon }}\bigr)~,$$ where $$B^{**} \,=\,\int_{-\infty }^\infty \d x\,xw_0(x)~,
\quad
f^{**}(\xi)\,=\,{1\over \sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty }^\infty \d p\,
e^{ip\xi}e^{-p^4}~.$$
The constant $B^*$ in (T1) is not as easy to describe because there, the non-linearity in the equation for $y_0$ did [*not*]{} necessarily disappear.
The proof is an obvious modification of the one of (T1), taking into account the special form of the eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalues $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$. Appendix. Bounds on the linear semi-group
In this appendix, we sketch the proof of (T3). The proof is quite similar to the estimates on the linear semi-group in Appendix B of \[EWW\], (which was given for the case of a one-dimensional Laplacian, or in the present notation $n=d=1$) so we concentrate only on the points where the present argument differs from the one in \[EWW\].
We begin with the representation $$\bigl (e^{\tau L}\bigr )(x)\,=\, {e^{\tau d\over 2n}\over 2\pi^d }
\int \d^dz\, g(z,\tau ) v\bigl (e^{\tau \over 2n}(x+z)\bigr )~,
\EQ(b1)$$ where $$g(z,\tau )\,=\,\int \d^d k \,e^{i k\cdot z} \exp\bigl ({-(k\cdot k)^n
}(1-e^{-\tau })\bigr )~.
\EQ(b1g)$$ As in \[EWW\], the action of the semi-group is analyzed by considering separately the behavior of the part far from the origin and that close to the origin. The new difficulty here is that we do not have an explicit representation of $g$ as in the case $n=1$. However, the technique of estimating the long-time behavior will remain essentially the same. Let $\chi_R$ be a smooth characteristic function which vanishes for $|x|<R$ and is equal to 1 for $|x|> 4R/3$. We start by studying the region far from the origin. The analog of Proposition B.2 of \[EWW\] is
Proposition(more1) For every $\ell \ge 1$ and every $m\ge0$, there exist a $\gamma>0$ and a $C(\ell,m)<\infty $ such that for all $v\in
H_{\ell,m}$ one has $$\left \| \chi_R e^{\tau L} v\right \|_{\ell,m}\,\le\,
{C(\ell,m)\over \bigl (a(\tau )\bigr )^{q\over 2n}}
e^{({{\tau}\over{2n}})(d+\ell)} \left
(e^{-\tau m/2}+e^{-\gamma R^{2n/(2n-1)}}\right )\, \|v\| _{\ell-q,m}~,
\EQ(equmore1)$$ for $q=0,1,\dots, 2n-1$. Here, $a(\tau )=1-e^{-\tau }$.
The crucial step in proving this estimate is to derive the asymptotics of $g(z,\tau )$ for large $z$. This will replace the explicit (Gaussian) estimates for the $d=1$, $n=1$ case analyzed in \[EWW\]. This estimate is provided by the following Proposition(more2) The kernel $g(z,\tau )$ decays faster than any inverse power of $z$ for $|z|$ large. In fact, one has the estimate $$|g(z,\tau)|\,\le\,
C a(\tau )^{-{d\over 2n}}
\exp\bigl (
-\gamma (|z|^{2n}/a(\tau ))^{1\over 2n-1}
\bigr )~,
\EQ(b1a)$$ for some $\gamma = \gamma (n,d)>0$.
If $n=1$, we recover the explicit bound on the Green’s function: $${C\over \sqrt{a(\tau )}} e^{-\gamma (2,d) z^2/a(\tau )}~.$$
We need to estimate the quantity $$I_{n,d}\,=\,\int \d^d k\, e^{-a(\tau )\bigl
(\sum_{j=1}^d k_j^2\bigr )^n} e^{i \sum
_{j=1}^d k_j x_j} ~.
\EQ(b1b)$$ By rotational symmetry, it suffices to bound the preceding expression for $x$ lying on the positive real axis. Setting $x = 2n a(\tau) z^{2n-1}$, and $k = (p,q)$, with $p \in \real$, and $q \in \real^{d-1}$, this means that we must bound $$X\,=\,\int \d p \,\d^{d-1}q \exp\bigl ( -a(\tau) (p^2 + q \cdot q)^n +
2inp a(\tau) z^{2n-1}
\bigr )~.$$ If we rescale the variables as $p=z t$, and $q=z s$, then we have $$X\,=\,z^d \int \d t \,\d^{d-1} s \exp\bigl (
- a(\tau) z^{2n}\bigl ((t^2 + s \cdot s)^n
+ 2int\bigr )\bigr )~.$$ Note that the polynomial $(t^2 + s \cdot s)^n + 2int$ is independent of $z$.
We will bound $X$ by taking advantage of the fact that the integrand is an entire function and translate the contour of integration so that it passes through at least one critical point of the exponent. These critical points occur at $s=0$ and the roots of $t^{2n-1} =i$ – [*i.e.*]{}, at the points $t_k = \exp(i{{\pi(4k+1)}\over{2(2n-1)}})$, $k=0,1,2, \dots, 2n-2$.
Inserting this expression into the exponent of the integrand of $X$, we see that the value of the polynomial at the critical points is $$\eqalign{
-a(\tau) &z^{2n}\left (\exp( i{{2n \pi(4k+1)}\over{2(2n-1)}})
-2ni\exp( i{{\pi(4k+1)}\over{2(2n-1)}})\right )\cr
\,&=\,
(2n-1)a(\tau) z^{2n}\exp(i{{\pi(4k+2n)}\over{2(2n-1)}})~.\cr
}$$ In particular, if we take $k=0$, then the real part of the critical value is $$(2n-1) a(\tau) z^{2n} \cos\bigl (\pi/2+\pi/(4n-2)\bigr )
\,\approx\, - a(\tau) z^{2n} \cdot {{\pi}\over{2}}~,$$ when $n$ is large (and is negative for all $n>0$). Integrating over the region $\real+t_0$ and observing that there is only one critical point on this line, we get, using the techniques of Hörmander: $$X\,\approx\, a(\tau)^{d/(2n)} e^{-C_n a(\tau) z^{2n}}~,$$ with $C>0$ and $C_n\to \pi/2$ as $n\to\infty $, when $z\to \infty $. Reverting to the original variables, this leads to $$I_{n,d}\,\approx\, a(\tau )^{d/(2n)}
e^{-D_n x^{2n/(2n-1)}/a(\tau)^{1/(2n-1)}}~,$$ where $D_n=C_n / (2n)^{1/(2n-1)}$.
We now consider the action of the semi-group on functions localized inside a ball of radius $R$. A key observation here is the following lemma. Let $\phi_ 0(x)$ denote the eigenfunction of $L$ with eigenvalue 0 and let $T(x)=\tilde \phi_ 0(x)^{1/2}$ (note that $\tilde \phi_ 0(x)>0$ for all $x$). Lemma(af1) The operator $H=T^{-1} L T$ is self-adjoint on (a dense domain in) $\L^2(\real^d)$ and has the same eigenvalues as $L$.
The proof is a straightforward calculation. We note further that if $\phi_\alpha $ are the eigenfunctions of $L$ then the eigenfunctions of $H$ are $\psi_\alpha (x)=\bigl
(T^{-1}\phi_{\alpha}\bigr )(x)$.
If we take the inverse Fourier transform of the eigenfunctions $\phi_
\alpha (p)$ of Eq.(af1), we see that $$|\tilde \phi_ \alpha (x)|\,\approx\,
C|x|^{|\alpha |} \exp( -\gamma |x|^{2n\over 2n-1})~,$$ for some $\gamma>0$, using the same sort of estimates as those used to bound the kernel $g$ of the semi-group. Thus, for $|x|$ sufficiently large, we get $$|\tilde \psi_ \alpha (x)|\,\approx\,
C|x|^{|\alpha |} \exp( -\HALF\gamma |x|^{2n\over 2n-1})~.$$
The usefulness of introducing the operator $H$ is that it is sectorial, since it is self-adjoint and bounded below. Therefore, the associated semi-group can be estimated from spectral information alone. In particular, if $P_k$ denotes the projection onto the spectral subspace spanned by the eigenfunctions with eigenvalues $0$, $-{1\over 2n}$, ${-2\over 2n}$,…, ${-k\over
2n}$, and $Q_k$ is defined by $Q_k=1-P_k$, then we have a bound on the operator norm of $Q_k e^{\tau H} Q_k$
$$\|Q_k e^{\tau H} Q_k\|\,\le\,
C_k e^{-\tau k/(2n)}~.
\EQ(af2)$$ We can use this information to bound the semi-group associated with $L$. Note that if we denote by $P_k^{(0)}$ and $Q_k^{(0)}$ the projection associated with the spectral subspaces of $L$ (as we did for $H$), the we have the identity: $$e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}v\,=\,
e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}(1-\chi_R)v+e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}\chi_Rv~.$$ Since $\chi_R v$ is localized away from the origin, it can be studied with the help of (more1), so we only focus on the other term. And there we get $$\eqalign{
\| e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}(1- \chi_R) v\|_{q,r}
\,&=\,
\| T T^{-1} e^{\tau L}T T^{-1}Q_k^{(0)}
T T^{-1}(1- \chi_R) v\|_{q,r}
\cr
\,&=\,\bigl \| T\bigl (e^{\tau H} Q_k \bigr )\bigl (T^{-1}(1- \chi_R)
v\bigr )\bigr \|_{q,r} \cr
\,& \le\,
C \exp\bigl ({-\tau {k+1\over 2n}}\bigr )\bigl \|
T^{-1} (1- \chi_R)
v\bigr \|_{q,r} ~.\cr
}$$ Using now the information that $|T^{-1}(x)|\le C \exp( \gamma
|x|^{2n\over 2n-1})$ and that $(1- \chi_Rv)(x)=0$ when $|x|> 4R/3$, we get $$\left \|
T^{-1}(1- \chi_R) v \right \|_{q,r}\,\le\, C \exp\bigl (
\gamma (4R/3)^{2n\over 2n-1}\bigr )\|v \|_{q,r} ~,$$ so that finally $$\left \|
e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}(1- \chi_R) v \right \|_{\ell,m}\,\le\, C \exp\bigl (
\gamma (4R/3)^{2n\over 2n-1}\bigr )
\exp \bigl ( -\tau {k+1\over 2n}\bigr )\|v \|_{\ell,m} ~.$$
Thus we have proven: Proposition(smallsup) Under the hypotheses of (more1), there exist constants $C(\ell,m) >0$ and $\gamma >0$, such that for all $v\in H_{\ell,m}$, one has $$\left \|
e^{\tau L} Q_k^{(0)}(1- \chi_R) v \right \|_{\ell,m}\,\le\, C \exp\bigl (
\gamma (4R/3)^{2n\over 2n-1}\bigr )
\exp \bigl ( -\tau {k+1\over 2n}\bigr )\|v \|_{\ell,m} ~.$$
We now return to the: As in \[EWW\] it is only necessary to consider the term with highest derivative in $\|\chi_R e^{\tau
\LL}v\|_{\ell,m}$. All other terms are easier to estimate. Also, as in that paper, we use the fact that $$\D^{\ell} e^{\tau \LL}\,=\,e^{\tau \ell/(2n)} e^{\tau \LL} \D^{\ell}~,
\EQ(b10)$$ where $\D^\ell$ is a shorthand notation for a product of derivatives w.r.t. the $x_j$ of total degree $\ell$. Thus, $$\bigl ( e^{\tau \LL} \D^{\ell} v\bigr )(x)\,=\,
{e^{\tau d/(2n)}\over (2\pi)^d}
\int \d^dz\,
g(z,\tau ) \bigl (\D^{\ell} v\bigr )(e^{\tau /(2n)}(x+z))~.
\EQ(b11)$$ First consider the $q=0$ case of (equmore1). Then $$\|\chi_R e^{\tau
\LL}v\|_{\ell,m}
\,\le\,
{e^{\tau d/(2n)}\over (2\pi)^d}
\int \d^dz\,
|g(z,\tau )| \bigl \|w^m \chi_R\bigl (\D^{\ell} v\bigr )(e^{\tau
/(2n)}(.+z))\bigr \|_2~,
\EQ(b12)$$ where $w$ is the operator of multiplication by $(1+x\cdot x)^{1/2}$. Note that the conclusions of Lemma B.4 of \[EWW\] do not depend on the exact form of $g$ and so it also holds in the present situation and we have Lemma(b3) One has the bounds $$\bigl \|w^r\chi_Rv(e^{\tau
/(2n)}(.+z))\bigr \|_2^2
\,\le\,
\cases
{
Ce^{-\tau m} \|v\|_{0,m}^2~, & if $|z|\le 7R/8$~,\cr
C(1+|z|^2)^r \|v\|_{0,m}^2,& if $|z|> 7R/8$~.
\cr
}$$
Note that the proof in \[EWW\] is also unaffected by the dimension $d$ in which we work.
Now use (b3) to bound the integral in (b12) by writing it as an integral over $|z|\le7R/8$ and an integral over $|z|>7R/8$. The integral over $|z|\le7R/8$ is bounded with the aid of (b3) as $$C {e^{\tau d/(2n)}\over (2\pi)^d}
\int_{|z|\le 7R/8}
|g(z,\tau )| e^{-\tau m/2}
\|v\|_{\ell,m}
\,\le\,
C(n) e^{\tau d/2n} e^{-\tau m} \|v\|_{\ell,m}~,
\EQ(b14)$$ where the last step used the estimates of (T7) to show that $\int \d z |g(z,\tau )|\le C$, with $C$ independent of $\tau $.
To estimate the integral in the outer region, we use the second part of (b3) and then bound it by $$C {e^{\tau d/(2n)}\over (2\pi)^d}
\int_{|z| > 7R/8}
|g(z,\tau )| e^{-\tau r/2}
\|v\|_{\ell,m}
\,\le\,
C(n,m) e^{\tau d/(2n)} \exp\bigl (-\gamma R^{2n\over 2n-1}\bigr )
\|v\|_{\ell,m}~,
\EQ(b15)$$ for some $\gamma >0$, where, again, we have used the estimates of decay in (T7) both to extract the factor of $ \exp\bigl (-\gamma R^{2n\over 2n-1}\bigr )$ as well as to bound the integral over $z$. Combining Eqs.(b1), (b14), and (b15), we get the $q=0$ case of Eq.(equmore1).
We next indicate how to treat the $q>0$ cases of Eq.(equmore1). Consider the case $q=1$. We can rewrite Eq.(b11) by integrating by parts once w.r.t. one component of $z$, for example $z_1$. Then, $$\bigl (
e^{\tau \LL} \D^{\ell} v
\bigr )(x) \,=\,
{e^{\tau d/(2n)}e^{-\tau /(2n)}\over (2\pi)^d}
\int \d^d z \bigl (\D_{z_1} g\bigr )(z,\tau)
\bigl (\D^{\ell-1}v\bigr )(e^{\tau /(2n)}(x+z))
~.
\EQ(b16)$$ Differentiating (b1g) w.r.t. $z_1$ gives $$(\D_{z_1} g\bigr )(z,\tau)
\,=\,
\int \d^d k \,ik_1\,\exp(iq\cdot z) \exp\bigl (
(k\cdot k)^n (1-e^{-\tau }) \bigr )~.
\EQ(b17)$$ To estimate (b17), first replace $k$ by $ p_j=a(\tau )^{1/(2n)}
k_j$, where, as before $a(\tau )=1-e^{-\tau }$. Then, $$(\D_{z_1} g\bigr )(z,\tau)
\,=\,
{i\over a(\tau )^{d/(2n)}} {1\over a(\tau )^{1/(2n)}}
\int
\d^dp\,
p_1 \exp \bigl ((p\cdot p)^n \bigr )
\exp \bigl (i p\cdot z / a(\tau )^{1/(2n)}\bigr )
~.
\EQ(b18)$$ The estimate of the integral in Eq.(b18) now follows as before, since the extra factor of $p_1$ does not cause any trouble as it is easily offset by the exponentially decaying terms.
One now uses the Schwarz inequality to rewrite $$\|
\chi_R
e^{\tau \LL}
\D^\ell v
\|_{\ell,m}
\,\le\,
{ e^{\tau {d/(2n)}}
\over
(2\pi)^d}
\int \d^d z\,
\left | \D_{z_1} g(z,\tau )\right |
\,\left \|
w^m \chi_R \bigl ( \D^{\ell-1} v\bigr )
(e^{\tau /2}(.+z))
\right \|_2~,
\EQ(b19)$$ and then proceeds as in the case when $q=0$, breaking the integral over $z$ into the same two pieces as before. These two pieces are then estimated with the aid of (b3). Note that while the factor $a(\tau )^{-d/(2n)}$ of Eq.(b18) will be absorbed when one integrates w.r.t $z$, the remaining factor of $a(\tau )^{-1/(2n)}$ will remain in the final bound of Eq.(equmore1). The bounds for $q=2,3,\dots\,2n-1$ follow in a similar fashion.
To complete the proof of (T3), first rewrite $$e^{\tau \LL} Q_k\,=\,
e^{\tau \LL/2} Q_k e^{\tau \LL/2}
\,=\,
e^{\tau \LL/2} Q_k \chi_R e^{\tau \LL/2} +
e^{\tau \LL/2} Q_k(1-\chi_R) e^{\tau \LL/2}~.
\EQ(191)$$ The second of these terms involves an estimate of the action of $
e^{\tau \LL/2} Q_k$ on a function localized near the origin, so by (smallsup), we get a bound $$\|e^{\tau \LL/2} Q_k(1-\chi_R)e^{\tau \LL/2} v \|_{\ell,m}
\,\le\,
C_q \exp\left (
\gamma \bigl ({4R\over 3}\bigr )^{2n/( 2n-1)}
-\HALF {k+1\over 2n}\right )
\|v\|_{\ell-q,m}~.
\EQ(192)$$ We use (more1) to bound the first term of (191): $${C(\ell,m)\over a(\tau )^{q\over (2n)}}
e^{\tau \ell/2}
\left (
e^{-{1\over 4} \tau m} + e^{-\gamma R^{2n/ (2n-1)}}
\right )
\|v\|_{\ell-q,m}~.
\EQ(193)$$ As a preliminary step, we note that if we first choose $r$ and $R$ such that $$e^{\tau q/2}
\left (
e^{-{1\over 4} \tau r} + e^{-\gamma R^{2n/ (2n-1)}}
\right )\,\le\,
e^{-\mu ((k+1)/(2n))}~,$$ then for sufficiently small $\mu$ (roughly speaking $\mu\sim \HALF
\bigl (1+(4/3)^{2n/(2n-1)}\bigr )^{-1}$), the Eqs.(192) and (193) imply $$\|e^{\tau \LL}Q_k\|\,\le\,
{C\over a(\tau)^{q/(2n)}}
e^{-\mu {k+1\over 2n}}
\|v\|_{\ell-q,k}
\,=\,
{C\over a(\tau)^{q/(2n)}}
e^{-\mu |\lambda_{k+1}|}
\|v\|_{\ell-q,k}~.$$
This shows that the projection of the semi-group onto the complement of the eigenspace spanned by the first $k$ eigenvalues decays with a rate proportional to the eigenvalue $\lambda _{k+1}$. We can sharpen the decay rate so that we obtain a rate like $\exp\bigl (-(1-\epsilon
)|\lambda _{k+1}|\bigr )$ by the techniques of \[EWW\], (see Eq. B.14 and following) and this completes the proof of (T3)
References
[^1]: ${}^*$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We combine new high sensitivity ultraviolet (UV) imaging from the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) with existing deep HST/Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) optical images from the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) program to identify UV-dropouts, which are Lyman break galaxy (LBG) candidates at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. These new HST/WFC3 observations were taken over 50 [arcmin$^2$]{} in the GOODS-South field as a part of the Early Release Science program. The uniqueness of these new UV data is that they are observed in 3 UV/optical (WFC3 UVIS) channel filters (F225W, F275W and F336W), which allows us to identify three different sets of UV-dropout samples. We apply Lyman break dropout selection criteria to identify F225W-, F275W- and F336W-dropouts, which are $z\!\simeq\!1.7$, $2.1$ and $2.7$ LBG candidates, respectively. We use multi-wavelength imaging combined with available spectroscopic and photometric redshifts to carefully access the validity of our UV-dropout candidates. Our results are as follows: (1) these WFC3 UVIS filters are very reliable in selecting LBGs with $z\!\simeq\!2.0$, which helps to reduce the gap between the well studied $z\!\gtrsim\!3$ and $z\!\sim\!0$ regimes; (2) the combined number counts with average redshift $z\!\simeq\!2.2$ agrees very well with the observed change in the surface densities as a function of redshift when compared with the higher redshift LBG samples; and (3) the best-fit Schechter function parameters from the rest-frame UV luminosity functions at three different redshifts fit very well with the evolutionary trend of the characteristic absolute magnitude, $M^*$, and the faint-end slope, $\alpha$, as a function of redshift. This is the first study to illustrate the usefulness of the WFC3 UVIS channel observations to select $z\!\lesssim\!3$ LBGs. The addition of the new WFC3 on the HST has made it possible to uniformly select LBGs from $z\!\simeq\!1$ to $z\!\simeq\!9$, and significantly enhance our understanding of these galaxies using HST sensitivity and resolution.'
author:
- 'N. P. Hathi, R. E. Ryan Jr., S. H. Cohen, H. Yan, R. A. Windhorst, P. J. McCarthy, R. W. O’Connell, A. M. Koekemoer, M. J. Rutkowski, B. Balick, H. E. Bond, D. Calzetti, M. J. Disney, M. A. Dopita, Jay A. Frogel, D. N. B. Hall, J. A. Holtzman, R. A. Kimble, F. Paresce, A. Saha, J. I. Silk, J. T. Trauger, A. R. Walker, B. C. Whitmore, and E. T. Young'
title: 'UV-dropout Galaxies in the GOODS-South Field from WFC3 Early Release Science Observations'
---
Introduction
============
The Lyman break ‘dropout’ technique was first applied to select Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) at $z\!\simeq\!3$ [@guha90; @stei96; @stei99], and since then it has been extensively used to select LBG candidates at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!9$ [e.g., @sawi06; @bouw07; @redd08; @rafe09; @oesc10; @bunk10; @yan10]. This dropout technique has generated large samples of star-bursting galaxy candidates at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!9$, but there is only one major study [@ly09] that investigates LBGs at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{} based on dropout selection criteria. The primary reason for this is that we need highly sensitive space-based cameras to observe the mid- to near-ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths required to select LBGs at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. The new Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) on the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope (HST) with its superior sensitivity — compared to the Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) or the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) — and filters below the atmospheric cut-off wavelength (e.g., F225W and F275W), allows us to photometrically identify and study lower redshift ([$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}) LBGs. The improved sensitivity/depth allows us to probe the lower luminosity systems at these redshifts.
There are two important reasons to understand these LBGs. First, to study the star formation properties of these LBGs, because they are at redshifts corresponding to the peak epoch of the global star formation rate [e.g., @ly09; @bouw10a; @bouw10b; @yan10], and, secondly, they are likely lower redshift analogs of the high redshift LBGs — because of the similar dropout selection at all redshifts — whose understanding will help shed light on the process of reionization in the early Universe [e.g., @labb10; @star10; @yan10]. The major advantage of identifying and studying various properties — including star formation properties — of lower redshift LBGs is that these LBGs can be investigated in rest-frame UV *as well as* rest-frame optical filters. The high redshift LBGs have very little information on their rest-frame *optical* properties, so a detailed understanding of lower redshift LBGs is very important to get insight into the physical and morphological nature of high redshift LBGs.
The new UV observations of the WFC3 Science Oversight Committee (SOC) Early Release Science extragalactic program (PID: 11359, PI: O’Connell; hereafter “ERS2”), covers approximately 50 [arcmin$^2$]{} in the north-western part of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey [GOODS; @giav04a] South field. Here we use the high sensitivity of the new WFC3 UVIS channel data, along with existing deep optical data obtained with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) as part of the GOODS program, to search for LBG candidates at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. We use dropout color selection criteria based on color-color plots, obtained with the WFC3 UVIS and ACS filters to find three unique sets of UV dropouts — F225W-dropouts, F275W-dropouts and F336W-dropouts — which are LBG candidates at $z\!\simeq\!1.7$, $2.1$ and $2.7$, respectively (as shown in [Figure \[fig:lybreak\]]{}).
This paper is organized as follows: In [§ \[data\]]{} we summarize the WFC3 ERS2 observations, and in [§ \[sample\]]{} we discuss the selection, and in [§ \[reliable\]]{} the reliability of our color selected [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{} LBG sample. In [§ \[results\]]{} we discuss the data analysis, which includes measuring their number counts and surface density ([§ \[ncounts\]]{}), and compare these with other surveys at higher redshifts, and estimate rest-frame UV luminosity functions ([§ \[lfs\]]{}) for these samples. In [§ \[conclusion\]]{} we conclude with a summary of our results.
In the remaining sections of this paper we refer to the HST/WFC3 F225W, F275W, F336W, filters as [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, and HST/ACS F435W, F606W, F775W, F850LP filters as [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}, [$V_{\rm 606}$]{}, [$i_{\rm 775}$]{}, [$z_{\rm 850}$]{}, respectively, for convenience. We assume a *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe* (WMAP) cosmology with $\Omega_m$=0.274, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.726 and [$H_{\rm 0}$]{}=70.5 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, in accord with the 5 year WMAP estimates of @koma09. This corresponds to a look-back time of 10.37 Gyr at $z\!\simeq\!2$. Magnitudes are given in the AB$_{\nu}$ system [@oke83].
Observations {#data}
============
The WFC3 ERS2 observations were done in both the UVIS (with a FOV of 7.30 [arcmin$^2$]{}) and the IR (with a FOV of 4.65 [arcmin$^2$]{}) channels. Details of these observations are described in @wind10. Here we briefly summarize the UV imaging observations. The WFC3 ERS2 UV observations were done in three broad-band filters [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 275}$]{} and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, whose total throughput curves are shown in [Figure \[fig:lybreak\]]{}. The ERS2 field covers the north-western $\sim$50 [arcmin$^2$]{} of the GOODS-South field, and was observed in 8 pointings with a 2$\times$4 grid pattern during September-October 2009. The [$U_{\rm 225}$]{} and [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}filters were observed for 2 orbits per pointing, while the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}filter was observed for 1 orbit per pointing, for a total of 40 orbits over the full ERS2 field. The raw images were processed through the `CALWF3` task (using the latest version as of December 1, 2009) included in the STSDAS package (version 3.11), and the latest reference files from the STScI. The flat-fielded images were then aligned and drizzled using `MULTIDRIZZLE` [@koek02] onto the same grid as the GOODS-South v2.0[^1] ACS data, which were rebinned to a pixel size of 0.09. The final UV image mosaics have a pixel scale of 0.09 — to match the WFC3 IR image mosaics — in all filters, and cover $\sim$50 [arcmin$^2$]{} area in the GOODS-South field.
The combination of the three WFC3 UV filters and the four ACS optical filters provide excellent capability of selecting galaxies at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}, using the dropout technique to detect the Lyman-break signature that occurs at a rest-frame wavelength of 912 Å[@mada95]. [Figure \[fig:lybreak\]]{} shows the locations of the rest-frame 912 Å Lyman break at various redshifts. It is clear that three WFC3 UVIS filters, along with the ACS [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}- and [$V_{\rm 606}$]{}-bands are very useful in identifying LBG candidates at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. We performed matched-aperture photometry by running the `SExtractor` [@bert96] algorithm in the dual-image mode with the corresponding RMS maps. The RMS maps were derived from the `MULTIDRIZZLE` generated weight maps, following the procedure discussed in @dick04. We have measured the 10-$\sigma$ point source detection limits in a 0.2 aperture as 26.0, 26.1 and 25.7 AB-mag in [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 275}$]{} and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, respectively. We constructed three separate catalogs by using the three separate images ([$U_{\rm 275}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) as detection images. These catalogs are referred as the [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-based, [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-based and [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}-based catalogs. We used the WFC3 in-flight photometric zeropoints [24.06, 24.14, 24.64 AB-mag for [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}, [$U_{\rm 275}$]{} & [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}; @kali09] obtained from STScI website[^2].
Color Selection {#sample}
---------------
Our initial selection of UV dropouts is based on dropout color criteria obtained from the stellar population models of @bruz03 [BC03]. The top three panels of [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{} shows the BC03 star-forming galaxy models for three dropout samples with $E(B-V)=0, 0.15, 0.30$ mag (solid black lines), expected colors of stars (black dots) from @pick98, and tracks of low-redshift ellipticals (gray lines) from @kinn96 and @cole80. The gray shaded region in top panels is our selection region. Though Galactic stars clearly land in the selection region in [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{}, these are easily removed by simple morphological criteria, as in @wind10. We have applied the @mada95 prescription to estimate IGM attenuation for proper comparison with other studies. We also checked how BC03 tracks are affected by applying the Madau prescription only to galaxies at $z\!>\!2.5$ (i.e. no IGM attenuation below $z\!<\!2.5$), and only to galaxies at $z\!>\!1.0$, to see the effects of fluctuations in IGM attenuation. We find that our adopted selection criteria will still be able to pick-up star-forming galaxies with $E(B-V)<0.3$. The selection criteria adopted here are similar to the criteria used to identify LBG candidates at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!8$ [e.g., @stei96; @giav04b; @bouw10a; @bouw10b; @yan10]. We use [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-based catalogs to select [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts using ([$U_{\rm 225}$]{} – [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}) vs. ([$U_{\rm 275}$]{} – [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}) color-color space, as shown in the bottom leftmost panel of [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{}. For [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-band dropouts, we require: $$\left\{ \begin{array} {ll} (U_{\rm 225}-U_{\rm 275}) > 1.3 \:
{\rm mag} \: \hbox{and} \: U_{\rm 275} \le 26.5 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 275}-U_{\rm 336}) < 1.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 275}-U_{\rm 336}) > -0.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 225}-U_{\rm 275}) > 0.35 + [1.3 \times
(U_{\rm 275}-U_{\rm 336})] \:\hbox{mag} \\ \hbox{and}\:
(U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435}) > -0.5, \: [S/N(U_{\rm 275})] > 3,\:
[S/N(U_{\rm 225})] < 3
\end{array} \right.$$ Here, the $S/N$ is defined as 1.0857 divided by the `SExtractor` error in the total magnitude. The `SExtractor` magnitude uncertainties are estimated from carefully constructed RMS maps that account for correlated pixel noise and hence, gives better estimate of the noise. Details of the WFC3 data reduction process are given in @wind10. We require ([$U_{\rm 225}$]{} – [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}) $>$ 1.3 mag, which is redder than what we have applied for other dropouts, because there is no bluer filter available than [$U_{\rm 225}$]{} to confirm that these dropouts are undetected at wavelengths bluer than rest-frame 912 Å. We have also applied the additional criterion ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{} – [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) $>$ –0.5 mag to eliminate the possibility of selecting spurious candidates, since this color-color space is based only on three UV filters, and it is required that LBG candidates be detected and are bright enough in the [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}-band. The [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}-band is about $\sim$2–2.5 mag deeper than the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-band, so a simple $S/N$ ([$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) $>$ 3 cut cannot be used, because we would still pick-up very faint objects in [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}-band. There are 106 objects inside the selection region. We find a total of 70 LBG candidates ([$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts) based on these selection criteria. After visually checking each candidate using the 10-band (3 WFC3 UV, 4 ACS optical and 3 WFC3 IR) HST imaging from the ERS2 GOODS observations, we eliminated 4 candidates from our sample as spurious (due to their closeness to a bright object or a probable faint stellar diffraction spike). This examination leaves us with 66 [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts.
Similarly, we use [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-based catalogs to select [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts using ([$U_{\rm 275}$]{} – [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}) vs. ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{} – [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) color-color space as shown in the bottom middle panel of [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{}. For [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-band dropouts, we require: $$\left\{ \begin{array} {ll} (U_{\rm 275}-U_{\rm 336}) > 1.0 \:
{\rm mag} \: \hbox{and} \: U_{\rm 336} \le 26.5 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435}) < 1.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435}) > -0.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 275}-U_{\rm 336}) > 0.35 + [1.3 \times
(U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435})] \:\hbox{mag} \\ \hbox{and}\:
[S/N(U_{\rm 336})] > 3,\: [S/N(U_{\rm 275})] < 3, \:
[S/N(U_{\rm 225})] < 1
\end{array} \right.$$ There are 223 objects inside the selection region. We find a total of 153 LBG candidates ([$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts) based on these selection criteria. After visual examination, we eliminated 2 candidates from our sample as spurious, because of their proximity to a brighter object. Therefore, our core sample contains 151 [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts.
Finally, we use [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}-based catalogs to select [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts using ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{} – [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) vs. ([$B_{\rm 435}$]{} – [$V_{\rm 606}$]{}) color-color space as shown in the bottom rightmost panel of [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{}. For [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-band dropouts, the following color selection was applied: $$\left\{ \begin{array} {ll} (U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435}) > 0.8 \:
{\rm mag} \: \hbox{and} \: B_{\rm 435} \le 26.5 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (B_{\rm 435}-V_{\rm 606}) < 1.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (B_{\rm 435}-V_{\rm 606}) > -0.2 \:\hbox{mag}
\\ \hbox{and}\: (U_{\rm 336}-B_{\rm 435}) > 0.35 + [1.3 \times
(B_{\rm 435}-V_{\rm 606})] \:\hbox{mag} \\ \hbox{and}\:
[S/N(B_{\rm 435})] > 3,\: [S/N(U_{\rm 336})] < 3,\:
[S/N(U_{\rm 275})] < 1, \: [S/N(U_{\rm 225})] < 1
\end{array} \right.$$ We require ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{} – [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}) $>$ 0.8 mag, which is bluer than what we have applied for other dropouts, because we have two bands bluer than [$U_{\rm 336}$]{} to confirm that these dropouts are not detected ($S/N <1$) at wavelengths bluer than rest-frame 912 Å. There are 1156 objects inside the selection region. We find a total of 260 LBG candidates ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts) based on the above mentioned selection criteria. After visually checking each candidate, we eliminated 4 spurious candidates (same reason as discussed before for other dropout candidates). The final sample consists of 256 [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts.
The gray data points in the bottom panels of [Figure \[fig:clr-clr\]]{} shows *all* the sources in our catalogs that are not selected as LBG candidates. Those that fall within our selection regions were excluded from our candidate samples mainly because of our low $S/N$ cuts ($<1$) in the bluer bands and the hard magnitude limit ($<26.5$ mag) in the selection band. The primary reason for this is the varying depth of these filters. The [$B_{\rm 435}$]{} is much deeper than [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, so when we select [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts with [$B_{\rm 435}$]{} $<26.5$ mag, we are not selecting galaxies fainter than 26.5 mag in [$B_{\rm 435}$]{}. We cannot conclusively say whether these faint galaxies are LBG candidates or not because of the shallower [$U_{\rm 336}$]{} images. Similarly, [$U_{\rm 225}$]{} and [$U_{\rm 275}$]{} are slightly deeper than [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}, so while selecting the [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- or [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts, our selection criteria of $S/N<1$ in the bluer bands still keeps some faint objects (with $S/N>1$) in the selection region which are not selected as dropouts. Therefore, the varying depth between filters, combined with our magnitude and $S/N$ cuts, are responsible for objects in the selection region that are not selected as LBG candidates. Overall, our selection is conservative, because of these constraints.
There are a few compact objects in our selected samples, but when we visually check these objects in the 10-band HST imaging, and compare with the more robustly selected star catalog of @wind10, we cannot confirm any stars. @wind10 gives a detailed discussion of the star-galaxy separation procedure used for the ERS2 data, and confirms that within our sample magnitude range (24–26.5 mag) there are practically no stars in the UV bands, and very few in the B-band. There could be a weak AGN in some of these galaxies, which we will investigate in our future paper on stellar populations and spectral analysis of these LBGs.
[Figure \[fig:image\]]{} shows three example images of color selected UV-dropouts whose redshifts are confirmed by ground-based spectroscopy (see next section). These examples are shown here in the 10-band HST imaging obtained from ERS2 observations. The final sample consists of 66 [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-, 151 [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and 256 [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts. There is one object overlapping between [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}- and [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropout samples, while seven objects are in common between [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropout samples.
Reliability of Color Selection {#reliable}
------------------------------
In order to test reliability of our color selection, we compare our dropout samples with spectroscopic redshifts from the Very Large Telescope [VLT; e.g., @graz06; @wuyt08; @vanz08; @bale10] and with the 10-band (3 WFC3 UV, 4 ACS optical and 3 WFC3 IR) photometric redshifts obtained from our ERS2 observations (Cohen et al. 2010, in prep). When we match our dropout catalogs with these redshift catalogs, we find that $\sim$80% of our dropouts have photometric redshifts, but only $\sim$30% have spectroscopic redshifts. Though photometric redshifts are from the same ERS2 dataset, we don’t have 100% matching catalogs. The ERS2 photometric redshifts are based on the [$H_{\rm 160}$]{}-band selected catalogs, and the WFC3 IR channel covers a smaller area than the WFC3 UVIS or ACS/WFC cameras, which were used here to identify these UV dropouts. The most likely reason for the low number of spectroscopic confirmations is the ‘redshift desert’. The galaxies in this redshift range ($1\!\lesssim\!z\!\lesssim\!3$) are difficult to identify via ground-based spectroscopy, because of the lack of strong features in 4500-9000 Å range, where most spectrographs on large telescopes are optimized.
[Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{} shows the redshift distributions of the dropout LBG candidates — three dropout samples are shown in three separate panels — with spectroscopic and photometric redshifts. The hashed (solid gray) histogram and solid (dot-dash) curve shows the distribution and the best Gaussian fit to the number of LBG candidates with photometric (spectroscopic) redshifts. [Table \[tab:redshifts\]]{} lists the number of dropouts with spectroscopic/photometric redshifts and their average redshifts obtained from the distributions in [Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{}.
[Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{} shows that based on these available redshifts, our dropout selection is very reliable, and that WFC3 UV filters provide a very efficient way to select LBGs at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. Spectroscopic redshifts are only available for $\sim$30% of our dropout galaxies, and have — on average — $\sim$6% outliers or low-$z$ interlopers ($\sim$5% for [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-, $\sim$5% for [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and $\sim$9% for [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts). The outliers are defined as any object at $z\!\lesssim\!1$. The ERS2 photometric redshifts are available for $\sim$80% of our dropouts and have — on average — $\sim$12% outliers with the most ($\sim$15%) amongst the [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts, as expected because of the lack of any available WFC3 bands bluer than [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}. The comparison of our color selected dropouts with spectroscopic and photometric redshifts show that the fraction of outliers in both cases are comparable or better than the fraction of outliers in spectroscopic follow-up surveys of star-forming galaxies and dropout selected LBGs at $z\!\simeq\!1.5\!-\!3.4$, which is about $\sim$5-15% [@stei03; @stei04; @redd08; @ly09]. A similar comparison with publicly available photometric redshifts [e.g., @wuyt08; @sant09] shows that they have a higher percentage of outliers ($\sim$17%), because these large surveys have mostly shallow ground-based near-UV data which cannot go bluer than $\sim$3000 Å, because of the atmospheric cut-off. Therefore, space-based WFC3 UV data are essential to get accurate photometric redshifts for these lower redshift galaxies ([$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}).
The average spectroscopic or photometric redshift for [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts from [Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{} is $z\!\simeq\!2.4$, but based on the location of the Lyman break ([Figure \[fig:lybreak\]]{}), the average redshift for [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts should be about $z\!\sim\!3.0$. We have identified small number of brighter ($\la 26.0$ mag) LBG candidates at $z\!\gtrsim\!2.8$, but we are missing a significant number of fainter ($> 26.0$ mag) LBG candidates at these redshifts. The main reason is that we require redder colors ([$U_{\rm 336}$]{} – [$B_{\rm 435}$]{} $\gtrsim$ 2.0 mag) to select higher redshift galaxies in this dropout sample, because the Ly$\alpha$ forest absorption at 912-1216 Å begins to increasingly affect the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{} band at these redshifts. This implies that we need the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{} images to be $\sim$1–1.5 mag deeper to consistently select all dropouts at $z\!\ga\!2.8$, improve the photometric redshift distribution, and lower the number of outliers for this sample. Therefore, we have a relatively smaller number of LBG candidates (within our magnitude limit) at $z\!\gtrsim\!2.8$ in the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts sample.
Results and Discussion {#results}
======================
Number Counts {#ncounts}
-------------
The observed raw number counts of LBG candidates at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{} at a rest-frame wavelength of 1700 Å are shown in [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{}. When we combine all three dropout samples, the average photometric redshift is $z\!\simeq\!2.2$. For proper comparison, these number counts are *not* corrected for incompleteness or cosmic variance, and therefore, the counts start to drop at fainter magnitudes ($\gtrsim26.0$ mag). [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{} (top panel) shows number counts (in number per arcmin$^2$ per 0.5 mag bin) of *all* dropouts ([$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}) in our sample compared with other ground-based and space-based LBG surveys [@stei99; @noni09; @ly09] at $z\!\simeq\!2\!-\!3$. We have also plotted $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ number counts from @bouw07 to show the change in the surface densities (number per arcmin$^2$) as a function of redshift.
@stei99 [$z\!\simeq\!3$] used ground-based imaging in $\sim$14 fields, with each field observed for many kilo-seconds (ks), followed by ground-based spectroscopy to confirm many of their color selected candidates. The @stei99 selection was based on LBG color criteria down to AB$\sim$25 mag. @noni09 observed the GOODS-South field using VLT/VIMOS to get deep $U$-band imaging (AB$\sim$27 mag). Their number counts for LBG candidates at $z\!\simeq\!3$ shown in [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{} come from the deepest part of the VIMOS field, which covers $\sim$88 [arcmin$^2$]{} with exposure time of $\sim$20 hours (72 ks). On the other hand, @ly09 observed the Subaru Deep Field [@kash04] using deep ($>$100 ks) near-UV imaging from the space-based GALEX observations (with $\sim$5 FWHM resolution) to select LBG candidates at $z\!\simeq\!2.2$ down to AB$\sim$25 mag, and used ground-based spectroscopy to confirm many LBGs at $z\!\simeq\!2.2$.
From [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{} (top panel) we note three major points. First, there is only one space-based — GALEX — LBG survey at $z\!\simeq\!2.2$ [@ly09], which clearly shows that the WFC3 UV observations — with better sensitivity and resolution — can play a vital role in identifying LBGs at $z\!\lesssim\!2.5$. Secondly, all surveys mentioned above use deep UV imaging with $\gtrsim70$ ks exposures, while our WFC3 UV observations are only $\lesssim5$ ks (1 to 2 orbits), and still we find that our observations are $\sim$0.5–1.0 mag deeper compared to some of these surveys. Finally, our numbers agree very well with the decreasing trend of LBG surface densities as a function of redshift from $z\!\simeq\!2.0$ to $6.0$, which we will address quantitatively in the next section.
The bottom panel of [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{} shows number counts for each dropout sample. The [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropout samples show comparable number counts and agree generally with surveys at higher redshifts, but the [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts show lower number counts. Given the trend with redshift shown by other samples in the upper panel of [Figure \[fig:ncounts\]]{}, we would expect more [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts than other dropouts at higher redshifts. The numbers are smaller than expected because of the conservative selection criteria we applied owing to the absence of a second filter below the Lyman break (see [§ \[sample\]]{}) to confirm our dropout selection. This approach led us to small numbers of [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts in a relatively narrow redshift range around $z\!\simeq\!1.7$. Hence, we don’t have a fully representative [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropout sample, but with the future deeper observations we can use a somewhat more liberal selection criteria to get better statistics for this sample.
Determination of the UV Luminosity Function {#lfs}
-------------------------------------------
We calculated the rest-frame UV luminosity functions (LF) using the $V_{\rm eff}$ method [e.g., @stei99; @sawi06; @ly09] in 0.5 mag wide bins. The absolute magnitudes of LBG candidates were measured in the observed bands that are equivalent to rest-frame 1500 Å to minimizes $k$-corrections, and using the average redshift for each object in each sample ($z\!\simeq\!1.7$, $2.1$, $2.7$, respectively). These absolute magnitudes are uncorrected for internal dust absorption.
We compute LFs for the three dropout samples: [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts ($z\!\simeq\!1.7$ LBG candidates), [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts ($z\!\simeq\!2.1$ LBG candidates), and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts ($z\!\simeq\!2.7$ LBG candidates). [Figure \[fig:lf\]]{} shows the LFs for these three dropout samples. We model these LFs with a standard Schechter function [@sche76], which is parametrized by the characteristic absolute magnitude ($M^{*}$), the normalization ($\phi^{*}$), and the faint-end slope ($\alpha$). The shaded gray regions in [Figure \[fig:lf\]]{} show the uncertainty in the LF based on 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty in $M^*$ and $\alpha$. [Table \[tab:lfs\]]{} lists the best-fit Schechter function parameters $M^*$, $\alpha$ and $\phi^*$ for these three dropout samples.
To investigate incompleteness in each redshift bin, we ran simulations to calculate $P(m,z)$, which is the probability that a galaxy of apparent magnitude $m$ and at redshift $z$ will be detected in the image *and* will meet our color selection criteria. In these simulations, large numbers of artificial objects with a range of redshifts and magnitudes were added to the real ERS2 images, and then recovered using exactly the same method and selection criteria that were employed for the real observations. For these simulations, we used BC03 models assuming Salpeter Initial Mass Function (IMF), constant SFR, solar metallicity, $E(B-V)=0.0-0.3$, an age of 1 Gyr with different redshift range for each sample and varying magnitudes. These models were used to generate color and extinction properties of our artificial objects. We chose artificial objects to be point-like sources. The selection function obtained from this exercise (adding and recovering artificial objects) is similar in shape as the distributions in [Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{}, and the mean redshift value obtained from these simulations (for each sample) is within 1-sigma of the mean value obtained in [Figure \[fig:redshifts\]]{}. These $P(m,z)$ estimates were used to determine $V_{\rm eff}$ for the LF.
We did not make the corrections for interlopers in our LF estimates. There are five main reasons for this. First, we have checked our LFs by boosting the errors by 10%, and we find that the best fit values remain the same, while the uncertainties on these values increases slightly. Second, the limited number of spectroscopic redshifts ($\lesssim30$% candidates have spectroscopic redshifts) does not give us a correct estimate of interlopers in our color selected sample. Third, the total fraction of spectroscopic interlopers is very small ($\lesssim9$%), and when we subdivide them as a function of magnitude it is even smaller. Fourth, the estimate of interlopers based on photometric redshifts is not very accurate because of uncertainty in the photometric redshifts. Though the ERS2 photometric redshifts (Cohen et al. 2010, in prep) are better than some of the publicly available photometric redshifts, they are still uncertain by a few percent. Finally, for the [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts the faintest bin is most affected by the interlopers, but that data point is already uncertain because of very few objects in that bin.
### Luminosity Functions
The leftmost panel of [Figure \[fig:lf\]]{} shows the resulting LF for [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts. The three brightest bins contain on average 3 objects per bin, and hence they are more uncertain. That leaves us with only three data points with a statistically significant number of objects. It is not possible to fit a Schechter function to three data points by keeping all three parameters free. In the absence of deeper data, we fix the faint-end slope, $\alpha$, based on the best-fit observed trend between redshifts and $\alpha$ for LBGs at $z\!\simeq\!1.5\!-\!8$ ([Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{}). The best-fit parameters for this dropout sample are meant to be mostly illustrative due to low number statistics. The middle panel of [Figure \[fig:lf\]]{} shows the LF for the [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts and the rightmost panel shows the LF for the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts. It is difficult to estimate the faint-end slope from these observations, as we can see from the uncertain faintest point in the LFs of [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts. Though our best-fit estimates are very close to what we expect at these redshifts ([$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}) from other studies [e.g., @stei99; @ly09] at nearby redshifts, we will need deeper ($\sim$1–2 mag) UV observations to properly constrain the faint-end slope for these three dropout samples.
### Redshift Evolution of $M^*$ and $\alpha$
In general, it is not straightforward to directly compare our LFs with those from previous studies. First, our redshift range is different, and this is the first time that this camera and filter set have been used to select LBGs. Secondly, in some cases the adopted cosmologies are slightly different. It is well known [e.g., @sawi06] that the derived LFs strongly depends on the assumed cosmological models, but the evolutionary trends seen in the LFs in our three redshift bins are virtually independent of the assumed cosmology. [Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{} shows the evolutionary trends in our three redshift bins, as well as comparisons to other studies on LBGs at different redshifts.
The top panel of [Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{} shows the faint-end LF slope, $\alpha$, as function of redshift. The @arno05 $z\!\lesssim\!1.5$ sample is based on the spectroscopically confirmed galaxies with the GALEX near-UV detection ($\lesssim24.5$ mag), and the $z\!>\!1.5$ sample is based on the photometric redshifts. The @arno05 samples are not selected based on Lyman break color criteria but because of the lack of LBG candidates at $z\!\lesssim\!2.0$, we have used this star-forming galaxies sample for comparison. The @redd09 and the @ly09 samples are dropout selected LBGs at $z\!\simeq\!3$ and $z\!\simeq\!2.2$, respectively. The black line is the best-fit observed trend between $\alpha$ and $z$ for LBGs at $z\!\simeq\!1.5\!-\!8$, which is very similar to that of @ryan07. The observed trend is that as the redshift increases, the faint-end slope, $\alpha$, becomes steeper (more negative), illustrating that lower luminosity dwarf galaxies dominate the galaxy population at higher redshifts. Excluding the fixed $\alpha$ data point at $z\!\simeq\!1.7$, our data points at $z\!\simeq\!2.1$ and $z\!\simeq\!2.7$ agree very well — within the current uncertainties — with the black line, as well as with other data points in close redshift proximity.
The bottom panel of [Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{} shows the characteristic absolute magnitude, $M^*$, as a function of redshift. Again, the general observed trend is that as redshift increases, the characteristic absolute magnitude, $M^*$, becomes brighter (more negative) until $z\!\simeq\!3.5$. This trend is considered as an evidence of ‘downsizing’ galaxy formation scenario [e.g., @cowi96], where luminous massive galaxies form at higher redshifts. Our first data point at $z\!\simeq\!1.7$ follows this general trend, but it is more uncertain due to the limited statistics in this dropout sample. The other two data points at $z\!\simeq\!2.1$ and $2.7$ fit very well within the evolutionary trend seen at these and higher redshifts. [Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{} shows rapid decline of $M^*$ between $z\!\simeq\!3$ and extending to $z\!\simeq\!1.5$. This turnover is well defined in our and @ly09 samples. It is important for future surveys to exploit the special capabilities of the WFC3 in the near-UV to obtain larger samples to understand the relation between this critical transition in $M^*$ and physical processes in LBGs at $z\!<\!3$.
@redd09 have used deep ground-based imaging data to constrain the UV LF of the ‘BX’ [e.g., @adel04] population at $1.9\!<\!z\!<\!2.7$, which selects star-forming galaxies based on $U_{n}GR$ colors. When we compare our LFs with that of the ‘BX’ population, we find some differences in $M^*$ and $\alpha$ values. First, our [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropout sample has lower redshift ($z\!\sim\!1.7$) compared to the ‘BX’ population ($z\!\sim\!2.3$), so our $M^*$ value (–19.43 mag) is fainter than their value of –20.70 mag, and agrees with the general trend discussed above. Second, $M^*$ values of our [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropout sample and the ‘BX’ sample agree within our 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty, while the $\alpha$ is little steeper for the ‘BX’ sample. We believe that complete agreement between our LBGs sample and the ‘BX’ sample is not possible, because although the ‘BX’ selection selects star-forming galaxies, it is very likely that the dropout selected sample at a similar redshift might not be same as the ‘BX’ selected sample. Some galaxies which are selected through the ‘BX’ color selection criteria might not be in the dropout selected sample, and vice versa. Therefore, it is difficult to directly compare the ‘BX’ and the LBG samples, and the differences in these samples could cause the LF parameters at similar redshift to differ [see also @ly09].
Therefore, for both $M^*$ and $\alpha$ our results agree very well with the expected observed trends ([Figure \[fig:mstr\]]{}) as a function of redshift. At lower redshifts ($z\!<\!3$), our data points will help to reduce the gap between the well studied $z\!\gtrsim\!3$ and $z\!\sim\!0$ regimes. The agreement with the observed evolutionary trend of M$^*$ and $\alpha$ also show the reliability of our LFs, which can be improved with the future deeper and wider WFC3 UV observations (e.g., CANDELS Multi-Cycle Treasury program \# 12060-12064, PI: S. Faber).
Summary {#conclusion}
=======
We use newly acquired UV observations from the WFC3 UVIS channel along with existing deep ACS observations of the GOODS program, to identify UV dropout galaxies, which are LBG candidates at [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. We find 66 [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-, 151 [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}- and 256 [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts to a magnitude limit of AB$\simeq$26.5 mag. This allows us to estimate rest-frame UV LFs in three redshift bins ($z\!\simeq\!1.7$, $2.1$, $2.7$). Their best-fit Schechter function parameters $M^{*}$, $\alpha$ and $\phi^{*}$ agree very well with the observed evolution of these parameters with respect to redshift. We need space-based UV imaging to identify and understand the $z\!\lesssim\!3$ LBGs selected based on their UV dropout signature. The new WFC3 UVIS camera on the HST now allows us to do that with much better sensitivity and resolution than GALEX, and has opened up a new regime of detailed UV imaging studies of low to intermediate redshift ($z\!\lesssim\!3$) LBGs, which is not possible from the ground due to the atmospheric cut-off. The quality of rest-frame near-UV imaging ($\gtrsim$3000 Å) of these galaxies greatly exceeds that which can be done with ground-based near-UV observations. Future work will investigate the morphology and stellar populations of these lower redshift LBGs, to better understand their higher redshift counterparts. The upcoming WFC3 UVIS imaging surveys — deep and wide — have the potential to robustly measure the evolution of LBGs at $z\!\lesssim\!3$, and — with uniform selection all-the-way to very high redshifts — provide better understanding of very high redshift LBGs.
We thank the referee for helpful comments and suggestions that significantly improved this paper. We thank M. Nonino, C. Ly and their collaborators for providing their LBG number counts. This paper is based on Early Release Science observations made by the WFC3 Scientific Oversight Committee. We are grateful to the Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute for awarding Director’s Discretionary time for this program. Finally, we are deeply indebted to the brave astronauts of STS-125 for rejuvenating HST. Support for program \#11359 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 226 Arnouts, S., Schiminovich, D., Ilbert, O., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L43 Balestra, I., Mainieri, V., Popesso, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A12 Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Franx, M., & Ford, H. 2007, ApJ, 670, 928 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 709, L133 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2010b, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:1006.4360) Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Bunker, A. J., Wilkins, S., Ellis, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:0909.2255) Coleman, G. D., Wu, C.-C., & Weedman, D. W. 1980, ApJS, 43, 393 Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu, E. M., & Cohen, J. G. 1996, AJ, 112, 839 Dickinson, M., Stern, D., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L99 Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004a, ApJ, 600, L93 Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2004b, ApJ, 600, L103 Grazian, A., Fontana, A., de Santis, C., et al. 2006, A&A, 449, 951 Guhathakurta, P., Tyson, J. A., & Majewski, S. R. 1990, ApJ, 357, L9 Kalirai, J. S., MacKenty, J., Rajan, A., et al. 2009, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2009-31 Kashikawa, N., Shimasaku, K., Yasuda, N., et al. 2004, PASJ, 56, 1011 Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38 Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2002, The 2002 *HST* Calibration Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, and B. Whitmore (Baltimore:STScI), 337 Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 330 Labbé, I., González, V., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, L26 Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Treu, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1410 Nonino, M., Dickinson, M., Rosati, P., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 244 Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18 Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, L16 Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713 Pickles, A. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863 Rafelski, M., Wolfe, A. M., Cooke, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2033 Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C., Pettini, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 48 Reddy, N. A., & Steidel, C. C. 2009, ApJ, 692, 778 Ryan, R. E., Hathi, N. P., Cohen, S. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 839 Santini, P., Fontana, A., Grazian, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 751 Sawicki, M., & Thompson, D. 2006, ApJ, 642, 653 Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297 Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Chiu, K., et al. 2010, MNRAS, submitted (arXiv:1003.5244) Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 462, L17 Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Giavalisco, M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 1 Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 728 Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A., Pettini, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 534 Vanzella, E., Cristiani, S., Dickinson, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 478, 83 Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Hathi, N. P., et al. 2010, ApJS, submitted (arXiv:1005.2776) Wuyts, S., Labbé, I., Schreiber, N. M. F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 985 Yan, H., Windhorst, R. A., Hathi, N. P., et al. 2010, RAA, in press (arXiv: 0910.0077)
![The top three panels show color selection region (gray shaded region) obtained using BC03 star-forming galaxy models with $E(B-V)=0, 0.15, 0.30$ mag (solid black lines), expected colors of stars (black dots) from @pick98, and tracks of low-redshift ellipticals (gray lines) from @kinn96 and @cole80. Though stars clearly land in the selection region, these are easily removed by simple morphological criteria, as in @wind10. \[Bottom-Left\] shows the color-color plot with the [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropout selection region, \[Bottom-Middle\] shows the selection of the [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts and \[Bottom-Right\] shows the selection of the [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts. The gray data points in the bottom panels are *all* objects in the catalog. Average uncertainties in the color measurements are shown as the error bar in the lower right corner. Red points indicate the selected dropouts, while gray data points in the selected region were excluded by other criterion as given in [§ \[sample\]]{}.[]{data-label="fig:clr-clr"}](fig2.eps)
![Three examples of color selected UV-dropouts with spectroscopic redshifts are shown here in the 10-band HST imaging from the ERS2 data. The object at the top is a [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropout ([$V_{\rm 606}$]{} $\sim$ 24.5 mag) with a spectroscopic redshift of $z\!\simeq\!1.61$, the object in the middle is a [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropout ([$V_{\rm 606}$]{} $\sim$ 23.9 mag) with $z\!\simeq\!2.04$, and the object at the bottom is a [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropout ([$V_{\rm 606}$]{} $\sim$ 24.7 mag) with $z\!\simeq\!2.69$. Each stamp is 3 on a side, has North up, and has a pixel scale of 0.09/pixel.[]{data-label="fig:image"}](fig3.eps)
![ The hashed histogram (solid gray) and solid (dot-dash) curve shows the distribution and the Gaussian fit, respectively, to our LBG candidates with photometric (spectroscopic) redshifts. \[Left\] shows distribution of 55 (22) [$U_{\rm 225}$]{}-dropouts with photometric (spectroscopic) redshifts. The average redshifts are $<\!z_{ph}\!>$=1.51$\pm$0.13 and $<\!z_{sp}\!>$=1.59$\pm$0.22, \[Middle\] shows the distribution of 117 (57) [$U_{\rm 275}$]{}-dropouts with photometric (spectroscopic) redshifts. The average redshifts are $<\!z_{ph}\!>$=2.09$\pm$0.42 and $<\!z_{sp}\!>$=2.07$\pm$0.40, and \[Right\] shows the distribution of 203 (52) [$U_{\rm 336}$]{}-dropouts with photometric (spectroscopic) redshifts. The average redshifts are $<\!z_{ph}\!>$=2.28$\pm$0.40 and $<\!z_{sp}\!>$=2.40$\pm$0.40.[]{data-label="fig:redshifts"}](fig4.eps)
![Rest-frame UV luminosity functions for [$z\!\simeq\!1\!-\!3$]{}. The best fit Schechter function parameters are shown for each LF. The gray shaded region shows uncertainty in the LF based on 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties in $\alpha$ and $M^*$. In the leftmost panel, $\alpha$ is kept fixed while fitting the Schechter function, so the uncertainty indicated with the gray shaded region is based on 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty of $M^*$ only. The more uncertain brightest point in the leftmost panel occurs because of very limited statistics and does not contribute to the best fit parameters, while the uncertain faintest points in the middle and the rightmost panel are at the limit of our observations, and could also be affected by low redshift interlopers. The vertical error bars in our data are 1$\sigma$ Poisson uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:lf"}](fig6.eps)
[cccc]{}
$U_{\rm 225}$ & 66 & 22 & 55\
& & 1.59$\pm$0.22 & 1.51$\pm$0.13\
$U_{\rm 275}$ & 151 & 57 & 117\
& & 2.07$\pm$0.40 & 2.09$\pm$0.42\
$U_{\rm 336}$ & 256 & 52 & 203\
& & 2.40$\pm$0.40 & 2.28$\pm$0.40\
[cccc]{}
$U_{\rm 225}$ & –19.43$\pm$0.36 & 0.00217$\pm$0.00077 & –1.27 (fixed)\
$U_{\rm 275}$ & –20.39$\pm$0.64 & 0.00157$\pm$0.00115 & –1.17$\pm$0.40\
$U_{\rm 336}$ & –20.94$\pm$0.53 & 0.00154$\pm$0.00114 & –1.52$\pm$0.29\
[^1]: http://archive.stsci.edu/pub/hlsp/goods/v2/
[^2]: zeropoints were made public in September 2009: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfc3/phot\_zp\_lbn/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the set of absolutely normal numbers is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_3$-complete in the Borel hierarchy of subsets of real numbers. Similarly, the set of absolutely normal numbers is $\Pi^0_3$-complete in the effective Borel hierarchy.'
bibliography:
- 'pi3.bib'
date: 'November 1, 2013'
title: Normal Numbers and the Borel Hierarchy
---
Introduction
============
What is the descriptive complexity of the set of absolutely normal numbers? Alexander Kechris posed this question in the early 1990s when he asked whether the set of real numbers which are normal to base two is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_3$-complete in the Borel hierarchy. Ki and Linton [@KiLin94] proved that, indeed, the set of numbers that are normal to any fixed base is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_3$-complete. However, their proof technique does not extend to the case of absolute normality, that is, normality to all bases simultaneously.
We show that the set of absolutely normal numbers is also ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_3$-complete. In fact, it is $\Pi^0_3$-complete in the effective Borel hierarchy. We give, explicitly, a reduction that proves the two completeness results. By a feature of this reduction we also provide an alternate proof of Ki and Linton’s theorem. Our analysis here is a refinement of our algorithm for computing absolutely normal numbers in [@BecHeiSla1301].
Preliminaries
=============
[**Notation.**]{} As usual ${\mathbb{N}}$ is the set of positive integers. A *base* is an integer $b$ greater than or equal to $2$, a [*digit*]{} in base $b$ is an element of $\{0,\dots,b-1\}$, and a [*block*]{} in base $b$ is a finite sequence of digits in base $b$. The length of a block $x$ is $|x|$. We denote the set of blocks in base $b$ of length $\ell$ by $\{0,\dots,b-1\}^\ell$. We write the concatenation of two blocks $x$ and $u$ as $xu$. For arbitrary many blocks $u_i$, for $i:1,2,\ldots,m$, ${{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{1\leq i\leq m}u_i$, is their concatenation in increasing order of $i$. Along the sequel, when the starting value for the index is $1$, we abbreviate this expression as ${{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{ i\leq m}u_i$.
In case $x$ is a finite or an infinite sequence of digits, $x \restriction i$ is the subblock of the first $i$ digits of $x$ and $x[i]$ is the $i$th digit of $x$. A digit $d$ [*occurs*]{} in $x$ at position $i$ if $x[i]=d$. A block $u$ [*occurs*]{} in $x$ at position $i$ if $x[i+j-1]=u[j]$ for $j=1..|u|$. The number of occurrences of the block $u$ in the block $x$ is $\operatorname{occ}(x, u)=\#\{ i: u \mbox{ occurs in } x \mbox{ at position } i \}.$
For each real number $R$ in the unit interval we consider its unique expansion in base $b$ $R = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} a_i b^{-i}$, where the $a_i$ are digits in base $b$, and $a_i<b-1$ infinitely many times. This last condition over $a_i$ ensures a unique representation for every rational number. We write $(R)_b$ to denote the expansion of a real $R$ in base $b$ given by the sequence $(a_i)_{i\geq 1}$.
On normal numbers
-----------------
Among the several equivalent definitions of absolute normality the following is the most convenient for our presentation. For a reference see the books [@Bug12] or [@kuipers].
\[2.1\]
1. A real number $R$ is *simply normal to base $b$* if for each digit $d$ in base $b$, $\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{occ}((R)_b \restriction n, d)/n=1/b.$
2. $R$ is *normal to base $b$* if it is simply normal to the bases $b^\ell$, for every integer $\ell\geq~1$.
3. $R$ is *absolutely normal* if it is normal to every base.
4. $R$ is *absolutely abnormal* if it is not normal to any base.
Notice that absolute normality is equivalent to being simply normal to every base, but absolute abnormality is not equivalent to being not simply normal to every integer base.
\[2.2\] If a real number $R$ is simply normal to at most finitely many bases then $R$ is absolutely abnormal. If a real number $R$ is normal to at most finitely many bases then $R$ is absolutely abnormal.
Fix a base $b$. By contraposition, if $R$ were normal to base $b$, then it would be simply normal to all bases $b^\ell$, a contradiction to the hypothesis of the first claim. Simple normality to all bases $b^\ell$ implies by definition normality to all bases $b^\ell$, which contradicts the hypothesis of the second claim.
The [*simple discrepancy*]{} of a block in base $b$ indicates the difference between the actual number of occurrences of the digits in that block and their expected average. The definition of normality can be given in terms of discrepancy, see [@Bug12].
\[2.3\] Let $u$ be a block of digits in base $b$. The *simple discrepancy* of the block $u$ to base $b$ is $$D(u,b)= \max\{ |\operatorname{occ}(u, d)/|u|-1/b\,| : d\in \{0,\dots,b-1\} \}$$ Let $\ell$ be a positive integer. The *block discrepancy* of block $u$ to blocks of length $\ell$ in base $b$ is $$D_\ell(u,b)=\max\{|\operatorname{occ}(u, v)/|u|-1/b^\ell\,|: v \in \{0,\dots,b-1\}^\ell\},$$
Notice that $D(u,b)$ is a number between $0$ and $1-1/b$, and $D_\ell(u,b)$ is a number between $0$ and $1-1/b^\ell$. By the definition of simple discrepancy, a real number $R$ is simply normal to base $b$ if and only if $\lim_{n\to\infty} D((R)_b \restriction n,b) = 0.$ Instead of asking for simple discrepancy for every base $b^\ell$, $\ell\geq 1$, it is possible to characterize normality using block discrepancy.
\[2.4\] A real number $R$ is normal to base $b$ if and only if for every $\ell\geq 1$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} D_\ell((R)_b \restriction n,b) = 0.$
The next lemma bounds the discrepancy of a concatenations of blocks. We use it very often in the sequel, without making explicit reference to it.
If $u_1,\dots,u_n$ are blocks of digits in base $b$, $$D\left({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j\le n} u_j, b\right) \le
\left. {\sum_{j=1}^n D(u_j,b) |u_j| } \middle/ { \sum_{h=1}^n |u_h| }. \right.$$
Let $d$ be a digit in base $b$ which maximizes $\left|\operatorname{occ}\left({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_j, d\right)\middle/\left|{{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_j\right| - 1/b\,\right|$. $$\begin{aligned}
D\left({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_j, b\right)
=& \left|\operatorname{occ}\left({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_j, d\right)\middle/\left|{{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_j\right| - 1/b\,\right| \\
\le& \left| \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \operatorname{occ}(u_j,d) \middle/ \sum_{h=1}^n |u_h|\right) - \frac{1}{b}\,\right| \\
\le& \left. \left| \sum_{j=1}^n \operatorname{occ}(u_j,d) - \frac{|u_j|}{b} \right|\ \middle/\ \sum_{h=1}^n |u_h| \right. \\
\le& \left. \sum_{j=1}^n |u_j| \left|\frac{\operatorname{occ}(u_j,d)}{|u_j|} - \frac{1}{b} \right|\ \middle/\ \sum_{h=1}^n |u_h| \right. \\
\le& \left. \sum_{j=1}^n D(u_j,b) |u_j|\ \middle/\ \sum_{h=1}^n |u_h| \right..\end{aligned}$$
Borel’s fundamental theorem showing that almost all real numbers are absolutely normal is underpinned by the fact that, for any base, almost every sufficiently long block has small simple discrepancy relative to that base. We need an explicit bound for the number of blocks of a given length having larger simple discrepancy than a given value.
Let $p_{b}(k,i)$ be the number of blocks of length $k$ in base $b$ where a given digit occurs exactly $i$ times. Fix a base $b$ and a block of length $k$. For every real $\varepsilon$ such that $6/k \leq \varepsilon \leq 1/b$, $\sum_{ i=0}^{ k/b-\varepsilon k} p_b(k,i)$ and $\sum_{i= k/b+\varepsilon k}^{ k} p_b(k,i)$ are at most $b^k e^{- b \varepsilon^2 k/6}$.
\[2.7\] Let $t \geq 2$ be an integer and let ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$ be real numbers between $0$ and $1$, with ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/t$. Let $k$ be the least integer greater than the maximum of ${\lceil 6/{\varepsilon}\rceil }$ and $-\ln(\delta/2t) 6/{\varepsilon}^2$. Then, for all $b\leq t$ and for all $k'\geq k$, the fraction of blocks $x$ of length $k'$ in base $b$ for which $D(x,b)>{\varepsilon}$ is less than $\delta$.
On descriptive set theory
-------------------------
Recall that the Borel hierarchy for subsets of the real numbers is the stratification of the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the open sets with the usual interval topology. For references see Kechris’s textbook [@Kec95] or Marker’s lecture notes [@Mar02].
A set $A$ is ${\mathbf \Sigma}^0_1$ if and only if $A$ is open and $A$ is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_1$ if and only if $A$ is closed. $A$ is ${\mathbf \Sigma}^0_{n+1}$ if and only if it is a countable union of ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_{n}$ sets, and $A$ is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_{n+1}$ if and only if it is a countable intersection of $\mathbf\Sigma^0_n$ sets.
$A$ is hard for a Borel class if and only if every set in the class is reducible to $A$ by a continuous map. $A$ is complete in a class if it is hard for this class and belongs to the class.
When we restrict to intervals with rational endpoints and computable countable unions and intersections, we obtain the effective or lightface Borel hierarchy. One way to present the finite levels of the effective Borel hierarchy is by means of the arithmetical hierarchy of formulas in the language of second-order arithmetic. Atomic formulas in this language assert algebraic identities between integers or membership of real numbers in intervals with rational endpoints. A formula in the arithmetic hierarchy involves only quantification over integers. A formula is $\Pi^0_0$ and $\Sigma^0_0$ if all its quantifiers are bounded. It is $\Sigma^0_{n+1}$ if it has the form $\exists x\, \theta$ where $\theta$ is $\Pi^0_n$, and it is $\Pi^0_{n+1}$ if it has the form $\forall x\, \theta$ where $\theta$ is $\Sigma^0_n$.
A set $A$ of real numbers is $\Sigma^0_n$ (respectively $\Pi^0_n$) in the effective Borel hierarchy if and only if membership in that set is definable by a formula which is $\Sigma^0_n$ (respectively $\Pi^0_n$). Notice that every $\Sigma^0_n$ set is ${\mathbf \Sigma}^0_n$ and every $\Pi^0_n$ set is ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_n$. In fact for every set $A$ in ${\mathbf \Sigma}^0_n$ there is a $\Sigma^0_n$ formula and a real parameter such that membership in $A$ is defined by that $\Sigma^0_n$ formula relative to that real parameter.
$A$ is hard for an effective Borel class if and only if every set in the class is reducible to $A$ by a computable map. As before, $A$ is complete in an effective class if it is hard for this class and belongs to the class. Since computable maps are continuous, proofs of hardness in the effective hierarchy often yield proofs of hardness in general by relativization. This is the case in our work.
Main Theorem
============
By the form of its definition, normality to a fixed base is explicitly a ${\Pi^0_3}$ property of real numbers. The same holds for absolute normality. Absolute abnormality is, for all bases, the negation of normality, hence a $\Pi^0_4$ property.
\[3.1\] The set of real numbers that are normal to a given base is $\Pi^0_3$. The set of real numbers that are absolutely normal is $\Pi^0_3$. The set of real numbers that are absolutely abnormal is $\Pi^0_4$.
Thus, to prove completeness of the set of absolutely normal real numbers for the class $\Pi^0_3$ we need only prove hardness. We prove our hardness result for the Borel hierarchy by relativizing a hardness result for ${\Pi^0_3}$ subsets of the natural numbers. Let $\cal L$ be the language of first-order arithmetic. As usual, a sentence is a formula without free variables.
\[3.2\] There is a computable reduction from ${\Pi^0_3}$ sentences $\varphi$ in $\cal L$ to indices $e$ such that the following implications hold.
1. If $\varphi$ is true then $e$ is the index of a computable absolutely normal number.
2. If $\varphi$ is false then $e$ is the index of a computable absolutely abnormal number.
We postpone the proofs of Theorem \[3.2\] and its corollaries to the end of the next section.
\[3.3\] The set of absolutely normal numbers is ${\Pi^0_3}$-complete, and hence $\mathbf{\Pi^0_3}$-complete.
The reduction in Theorem \[3.2\] gives just two possibilities: absolute normality or absolute abnormality; that is, normality to all bases simultaneously, or to no base at all. Consequently, it also separates normality in base $b$ from non-normality in base $b$, for any given $b$.
\[3.4\] For every base $b$, the set of normal numbers in base $b$ is ${\Pi^0_3}$-complete, and hence $\mathbf{\Pi^0_3}$-complete.
This gives an alternate proof of Ki and Linton’s theorem in [@KiLin94] for $\mathbf {\Pi^0_3}$-completeness, that also covers the case of ${\Pi^0_3}$-completeness. Another consequence of Theorem \[3.2\] is that absolute abnormality, which is a $\Pi^0_4$ property, is hard for the classes $\Sigma^0_3$ and ${\mathbf \Sigma}^0_3$.
Proofs
======
We shall define a computable reduction that maps ${\Pi^0_3}$ sentences in the language of first order arithmetic $\cal L$ to indices of computable infinite sequences of zeros and ones. If the given sentence is true then the corresponding binary sequence is the expansion in base two of an absolutely normal number. Otherwise, the corresponding binary sequence is the expansion in base two of an absolutely abnormal number.
Our reduction is the composition of two reductions. We use Baire space ${\mathbb{N}}^{\mathbb{N}}$, the set of infinite sequences of positive integers, as an intermediate working space. The first reduction maps sentences from $\cal L$ to programs that produce infinite sequences of positive integers that reflect the truth or falsity of the given sentences. The second reduction maps these programs to ones that produce binary sequences with the appropriate condition on normality.
By relativizing this reduction, given a ${\Pi^0_3}$ formula in second order arithmetic and a real number $X$, we produce a binary sequence computably from $X$ which is absolutely normal or absolutely abnormal depending on whether the given formula is true of $X$. This is exactly what is required to establish $\Pi^0_3$-hardness.
The first reduction
-------------------
Recall that a $\Pi^0_3$ formula in first order arithmetic is equivalent to one starting with a universal quantifier $\forall$, followed by the quantifier “there are only finitely many” $\exists^{<\infty}$ and ended by a computable predicate, see Theorem XVII and Exercise 14-27 in [@Rog87]. The computable predicate in this equivalent form comes from the $\Sigma^0_0$ subformula of the original.
\[2.1\] The *first reduction* takes sentences in $\cal L$ to positive integers by mapping $\forall x \exists^{<\infty} y\ C(x,y)$, where $C$ is computable, to an index of the following program: For every positive integer $n$ in increasing order, let $x = \max\{z\in {\mathbb{N}}: 2^z \text{ divides } n\}$ and let $y = n/2^x$. If $y = 1$ or $C(x,y)$ then append $x,x+1,...,x+y-1$ to the output sequence.
\[4.2\] If $\varphi$ is a ${\Pi^0_3}$ sentence in $\cal L$ then Definition \[2.1\] gives the index of a program that outputs an infinite sequence $f$ of integers such that the subsequence of $f$’s first occurrences is an enumeration of ${\mathbb{N}}$ in increasing order and the following dichotomy holds:
1. If $\varphi$ is true then no positive integer occurs infinitely often in $f$.
2. If $\varphi$ is false then all but finitely many integers occur infinitely often in $f$.
Assume $\varphi$ of the form $\forall x \exists^{<\infty} y\ C(x,y)$, where $C$ is computable. We say that a tuple ${\langle x,y \rangle}$ is *appending* if $y=1$ or $C(x,y)$. It is clear by inspection that all possible pairs ${\langle x,y \rangle}$ with $x,y \in {\mathbb{N}}$ are processed, and that ${\langle x+1,y \rangle}$ and ${\langle x,y+1 \rangle}$ are always processed after ${\langle x,y \rangle}$. Thus, the first occurrence of an integer $x$ in $f$ is due to the appending tuple ${\langle x,1 \rangle}$. Moreover, if $x > 1$ then the appending tuple ${\langle x,1 \rangle}$ is processed after ${\langle x-1,1 \rangle}$. Thus, $x$ occurs for the first time in $f$ after $x-1$.
Suppose now $\varphi$ is true. For any $x$, there are finitely many appending tuples of the form ${\langle x',y \rangle}$ with $x' \le
x$. After all such appending tuples have been processed, $x$ will not be appended to the output sequence. Thus no positive integer can occur infinitely often in $f$.
Now suppose $\varphi$ is false. Let $x$ be such that there are infinitely many $y$ such that $C(x,y)$. Let $z$ be any positive integer. Each time an appending tuple of the form ${\langle x,y \rangle}$ with $z < y$ is processed, $x+z$ is appended to the output. Since we assumed there are infinitely many such tuples, $x+z$ is appended to the output an infinite number of times. Thus, all integers greater than $x$ occur infinitely often in the output sequence.
The second reduction
--------------------
We use the phrase *$b$-adic interval* to refer to a semi-open interval of the form $[a/{b^m},(a+1)/{b^m})$, for $a<b^m$. We move freely between $b$-adic intervals and base-$b$ expansions. If $x$ is a base-$b$ block and it is understood that we are working in base $b$, then we let $.x$ denote the rational number whose expansion in base $b$ has exactly the digits occurring in $x$. Given the block $x$, the reals such that their base-$b$ expansions extend $x$ are exactly those belonging to the $b$-adic interval $[.x,.x+b^{-|x|})$. Conversely, every $b$-adic interval $[a/{b^m},(a+1)/{b^m})$ corresponds to a block $x$ as above, where $x$ is obtained by writing $a$ in base $b$ and then prepending a sufficient number of zeros to obtain a block of length $m$. We use $\mu$ to denote Lebesgue measure and $\log$ to denote logarithm in base $2$.
Now we introduce some tools and establish some of their properties.
\[4.3\] For every non-empty interval $I$ and base $b$, there is a $b$-adic subinterval $I_b$ of $I$ such that ${\mu\!\left( I_b \right)}\geq {\mu\!\left( I \right)} /(2b)$. Moreover, such subinterval can be computed uniformly from $I$ and $b$.
\[4.4\] A *$t$-sequence* is a nested sequence of $t-1$ intervals, $\vec{I}=(I_2,\dots,I_{t})$, such that $I_2$ is dyadic and for each base $b$, $I_{b+1}$ is a $(b+1)$-adic subinterval of $I_b$ such that ${\mu\!\left( I_{b+1} \right)}\geq {\mu\!\left( I_b \right)}/2(b+1)$. We let $x_b(\vec{I})$ be the block in base $b$ such that $.x_b(\vec{I})$ is the expansion of the left endpoint of $I_b$ in base $b$.
We can iteratively apply Lemma \[4.3\] to obtain the following corollary.
\[4.5\] For every non-empty dyadic interval $I$ and every integer $t \ge 2$, there is a $t$-sequence that begins with $I$. Moreover, such $t$-sequence can be computed uniformly from $I$ and $t$.
If $\vec{I} = (I_2,\dots,I_t)$ is a $t$-sequence, then for any base $b\leq t$ and any real $X\in I_{t}$, $X$ has $x_b(\vec{I})$ as an initial segment of its expansion in base $b$. If, further, $\vec{I}'=(I'_2,\dots
I'_{t'})$ is a $t'$-sequence with $t\leq t'$ such that $I'_2\subset I_t$ and $X\in I'_{t'}$, then for each $b\leq t$, $\vec{I'}$ specifies how to extend $x_b(\vec{I})$ to a longer initial segment $x_b(\vec{I}')$ of the base $b$ expansion of $X$. As opposed to arbitrary nested sequences, for $t$-sequences there is a function of $t$ that gives a lower bound of the ratio between the measures of $I_b$ and $I_{b'}$, for any two bases $b$ and $b'$ both less than or equal to $ t$. That is, assuming $b>b'$, we have $${\mu\!\left( I_b \right)} \geq \frac{{\mu\!\left( I_{b'} \right)}}{2^{b-b'}\; b!/b'!}.$$ In the sequel we use the inequality above repeatedly.
Our next task is to define a function that, for an integer $i$ and a $t$-sequence $\vec{I}$ (for some $t$), constructs an $(i+1)$-sequence inside $\vec{I}$ with good properties. The method is to determine the expansion of the rational endpoints of each $b$-adic interval in the $(i+1)$-sequence. Since the respective $b$-adic intervals are nested, the determination of the expansions is done by adding suffixes.
We introduce three functions of $i$, $(\delta_i)_{i\geq 1}$, $(k_i)_{i\geq 1}$ and $(\ell_i)_{i\geq 1}$, that act as parameters for the construction of an $(i+1)$-sequence. The integer $k_i$ indicates how many digits in base $(i+1)$ can be determined in each step; thus, ${{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}$ indicates how many digits in base $2$ can be determined in each step (keep in mind that, in general, more digits are needed to ensure the same precision in base $2$ than in a larger base). The integer $\ell_i$ limits how many digits in base $2$ can [*at most*]{} be determined in each step. And the rational $\delta_i$ bounds the relative measure of any two intervals in two consecutive nested $(i+1)$-sequences. We call ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i$ the function that given $\vec{I}$ constructs an $(i+1)$-sequence by recursion. It is a search through nested $(i+1)$-sequences until one with good properties is reached. The choice we make for $(\delta_i)_{i\geq 1}$, $(k_i)_{i\geq 1}$ and $(\ell_i)_{i\geq 1}$, allow us to prove the correctness of the construction.
\[4.6\] Let $(k)_{i\geq 1}$ and $(\ell)_{i\geq 1}$ be the computable sequences of positive integers and let $(\delta)_{i\geq 1}$ be the computable sequence of positive rational numbers less than $1$ such that, for each $i\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_i =& \frac{1}{2^{2i-2}\ {(i+1)!}^2} \\
k_i =& \text{least integer greater than}
\max \left( \left\lceil 6(i+2)\right\rceil , -\ln\left(\frac{\delta_i}{2(i+1)^2}\right) 6 (i+2)^2\right) \\
\ell_i =& {{{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }} + {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{i}) \rceil }}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[4.7\] The function ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i$ maps a $(p+1)$-sequence $\vec{I} = (I_2,\dots,I_{p+1})$ into an $(i+1)$-sequence ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i(\vec{I})$, that we define recursively.
[*Initial step $0$.*]{} Let $\vec{I}_0=(I_{0,2},\dots,I_{0,i+1})$ be an $(i+1)$-sequence where $I_{0,2}$ is the leftmost dyadic subinterval of $I_{p+1}$ such that ${\mu\!\left( I_{0,2} \right)} \ge {\mu\!\left( I_{p+1} \right)}/4$.
[*Recursive step $j+1$.*]{} Let $\vec{I}_{j+1}$ be the $(i+1)$-sequence such that
- Let $L$ be the leftmost dyadic subinterval of $I_{j,i+1}$ such that ${\mu\!\left( L \right)} \ge {\mu\!\left( I_{j,i+1} \right)}/4$.
- Partition $L$ into ${{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}$ many dyadic subintervals of equal measure $\displaystyle{2^{-{{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}} {\mu\!\left( L \right)}}$.\
For each such subinterval $J_2$ of $L$, define the $(i+1)$-sequence $\vec{J}=(J_2,J_3,\dots,J_{i+1})$.
- \[4.7\] Let $\vec{I}_{j+1}$ be the leftmost of the $(i+1)$-sequences $\vec{J}$ considered above such that for each base $b \leq i+1$, $D(u_b(\vec{J}),b) \leq 1/(i+2)$, where $u_b(\vec{J})$ is such that $x_b(\vec{I_j}) u_b(\vec{J}) = x_b(\vec{J})$.
Repeat the recursive step until step $n$ when all the following hold for every base $b \leq i+1$: $$\begin{array}{llcl}
a. \ & |x_b(\vec{I}_n)| &> & \ell_{i+1}(i+3) \\
b.\ & D(x_b(\vec{I}_n),b) &\leq &2/(i+2) \\
c.\ & D_{2\ell_i}(x_b(\vec{I}_n),b)& > & b^{-2\ell_i-1}.
\end{array}$$
Finally, let ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i(\vec{I}) = \vec{I}_n$.
The following lemmas show that for every positive integer $i$, the function ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i$ is well defined and it is computable.
\[4.8\] There is always a suitable (i+1)-sequence $\vec{J}$ to be selected in the recursive step of Definition \[4.7\].
Consider the recursive step $j+1$ of Definition \[4.7\]. Let ${{S}}$ be the union of the set of intervals $J_{i+1}$ over the $2^{{{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}}$ many $(i+1)$-sequences $\vec{J}$. We have ${\mu\!\left( L \right)} \ge {\mu\!\left( I_{j,i+1} \right)}/4$ and, since $\vec{J}$ and $\vec{I_j}$ are $(i+1)$-sequences, we have $${\mu\!\left( J_{i+1} \right)} \ge \frac{ {\mu\!\left( J_2 \right)} }{2^{i-2} (i+1)!} \quad \text{ and }\quad
{\mu\!\left( I_{j,i+1} \right)} \ge \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} }{2^{i-2} (i+1)!}.$$ Since the possibilities for $J_2$ form a partition of $L$, $${\mu\!\left( {S}\right)} \ge \frac{ {\mu\!\left( L \right)} }{2^{i-2} (i+1)!} \ge \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,i+1} \right)} }{2^i (i+1)!} \ge \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} }{2^{2i-2} (i+1)!^2} = \delta_i {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)}.$$ Let us say that an $(i+1)$-sequence $\vec{J}$ is [*not suitable*]{} if for some base $b\leq i+1$, $$D(u_b(\vec{J}),b) > 1/(i+2).$$ Let ${{N}}$ be the subset of ${S}$ defined as the union of the set of intervals $J_{i+1}$ which occur in $(i+1)$-sequences which are [*not suitable*]{}. Each $\vec{J}$ considered at stage $i+1$ is such that for every base $b\leq i+1$ each interval $J_b$ is a subinterval of $I_{j,b}$. By definition, $|u_b(\vec{J})|>k_i$ for each $b$ and $\vec{J}$. By Lemma \[2.7\] with $t=i+1$, ${\varepsilon}= 1/(i+2)$, $\delta = \delta_i / (i+1)$ and $k=k_i$, for each base $b\leq i+1$, the subset of $I_{j,b}$ consisting of reals with base $b$ expansions starting with $x_b(\vec{I_j}) u_b(\vec{J})$ for which $D(u_b(\vec{J}),b)>1 / (i+2)$ has measure less than $\delta {\mu\!\left( I_{j,b} \right)}$, and hence, less than $\delta {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)}$. Therefore, $$\displaystyle{{\mu\!\left( {N}\right)} < (i+1) \delta {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} = \delta_i {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} = {\mu\!\left( {S}\right)}.}$$ This proves that ${{S}}$ is a proper superset of ${{N}}$, therefore, there is a suitable $(i+1)$-sequence.
\[4.9\] The recursion in Definition \[4.7\] finishes for every input sequence $\vec{I}$.
Using Lemma \[4.3\] or Corollary \[4.5\] the needed $b$-adic subintervals with the appropriate measure and $(i+1)$-sequences can be found computably. Lemma \[4.8\] ensures that a suitable $\vec{J}$ can always be found in each recursive step. All the other tasks in the recursive step are clearly computable. It remains to check that the ending conditions of the recursion are eventually met. Let $u_{b,j+1}$ be such that $$x_b(\vec{I}_j) u_{b,j+1} = x_b(\vec{I}_{j+1})$$ and $v_b$ be such that $$x_b(\vec{I_0}) = x_b(\vec{I}) v_b.$$ Then, $1 \le |u_{b,j}|$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|u_{b,j}| =\ & |x_b(\vec{I}_j)| - |x_b(\vec{I}_{j-1})|
\\=\ & -\log_b \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,b} \right)} }{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j-1,b} \right)} }
\\=\ & -\log_b \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,b} \right)} }{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} }\ \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j,2} \right)} }{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j-1,i+1} \right)} }\ \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j-1,i+1} \right)} }{ {\mu\!\left( I_{j-1,b} \right)} }
\\\le\ & -\log_b \frac{1}{2^{b-3} b!}\ \frac{1}{4\ 2^{{{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}}}\ \frac{1}{2^{i+1-b} (i+1)!/b!}
\\\le\ & -\log \frac{1}{2^{i-2} (i+1)!}\ \frac{1}{4\ 2^{{{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }}}}
\\\le\ & {{k_{i}{\lceil \log({i}+1) \rceil } }} -\log \delta_i
\\\le\ & \ell_i.\end{aligned}$$ The recursive step establishes $D(u_{b,j}, b) \le 1/(i+2)$, and for any $k$, $x_b(\vec{I_k}) = x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le k} u_{b,j}.$ Notice that, in each of the three conditions $(a),(b)$ and $(c)$, the right side of the inequality is fixed. For condition $(a)$, $|x_b(\vec{I_n})| = |x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}|$ is strictly increasing on $n$, so it is greater than the required lower bound for sufficiently large $n$. For condition $(b)$, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
D(x_b(\vec{I_n}), b)
=\ & D(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, b) \\
\le\ & |x_b(\vec{I}) v_b| / |x_b(\vec{I}_n)| +
D({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, b) \\
\le\ & |x_b(\vec{I}) v_b| / |x_b(\vec{I}_n)| + 1/(i+2).\end{aligned}$$ In the right hand side, the first term approaches $0$ for large $n$, so the entire expression is less than $2/(i+2)$ for sufficiently large $n$. For condition $(c)$, observe that the recursive step ensures that $u_{b,j}$ is never all zeros. So, a sequence of $2\ell_i$ zeros does not occur in ${{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}$. By definition, $$D_{2\ell_i}(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, b) \ \ge \
\left|\frac{ \operatorname{occ}(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, 0^{2\ell_i}) }{ |x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}| } - \frac{1}{b^{2\ell_i}} \right|.$$ Since $\operatorname{occ}(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, 0^{2\ell_i})$ is bounded by a constant, for sufficiently large $n$, the discrepancy $D_{2\ell_i}(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le n} u_{b,j}, b)$ is arbitrarily close to $b^{-2\ell_i}$.
\[4.10\] Let $\vec{I} $ be an arbitrary $(p+1)$-sequence, $i \ge 1$ be an integer and $\vec{R}$ be ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i(\vec{I})$. For every base $b \le \min(i,p)+1$,
1. $R_2 \subseteq I_{p+1}$
2. $D(x_b(\vec{R}),b) \le 2/(i+2)$
3. $D_{2\ell_i}(x_b(\vec{R}), b) > b^{-2\ell_i-1}$
4. $|x_b(\vec{R})| > \ell_{i+1} (i+3)$
5. For each $\ell$ such that $|x_b(\vec{I})| \le \ell \le |x_b(\vec{R})|$,
$$D(x_b(\vec{R}) \restriction \ell,b) \le D(x_b(\vec{I}), b) + {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{p}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{I})| + 1/(i+2) + \ell_i/|x_b(\vec{I})|.$$
As in the proof of Lemma \[4.9\], let $u_{b,j+1}$ be such that $x_b(\vec{I}_j) u_{b,j+1} = x_b(\vec{I}_{j+1})$ and let $v_b$ be such that $x_b(\vec{I_0}) = x_b(\vec{I}) v_b$. Then, $1 \le |u_{b,j}| \le \ell_i$, $D(u_{b,j}, b) \le 1/(i+2)$, and for any $k$ it holds that $x_b(\vec{I_k}) = x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le k} u_{b,j}.$
Fix a base $b$. Point (1) follows by induction in the recursive steps in the definition of ${\text{\sc Ref}}_i(\vec{I})$, since each subsequent interval is contained in the previous one. Points (2), (3) and (4) follow from the termination condition in that recursion. For point (5), use the above definition of $v_b$ and the parameter $\delta_p$ (see Definition \[4.6\]). $$\begin{aligned}
|v_b| =\ & |x_b(\vec{I_0})| - |x_b(\vec{I})| \\
=\ & -\log_b \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{0,b} \right)} }{ {\mu\!\left( I_b \right)} } \\
=\ & -\log_b \frac{ {\mu\!\left( I_{0,b} \right)} }{{\mu\!\left( I_{0,2} \right)}} \frac{{\mu\!\left( I_{0,2} \right)}}{{\mu\!\left( I_{p+1} \right)}} \frac{{\mu\!\left( I_{p+1} \right)}}{ {\mu\!\left( I_b \right)} } \\
=\ & -\log_b \frac{ 1 }{ 2^{b-3} b! } \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{ 2^{p+1-b} (p+1)!/b! } \\
=\ & -\log \frac{ 1 }{ 2^p (p+1)! } \\
\le\ & -\log \delta_p \\
\le\ & {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{p}) \rceil }}. \end{aligned}$$ Then, for each $m$, $D({{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le m} u_{b,j}, b) \le 1/(i+2)$ and $$D(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le m} u_{b,j}, b)\ \le \ D(x_b(\vec{I}), b) + {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{p}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{I})| + 1/(i+2).$$ Finally, fix $\ell$ and let $m$ and $\ell'$ be such that $(x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le m} u_{b,j}) (u_{b,m+1} \restriction \ell') =
x_b(\vec{R}) \restriction \ell$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
D(x_b(\vec{R}) \restriction \ell, b)
=\ & D((x_b(\vec{I}) v_b {{\scriptstyle \prod}}_{j \le m} u_{b,j}) (u_{b,m+1} \restriction \ell'), b) \\
\le\ & D(x_b(\vec{I}), b) + {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{p}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{I})| + 1/(i+2) + |u_{b,m+1}|/|x_b(\vec{I})| \\
\le\ & D(x_b(\vec{I}), b) + {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{p}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{I})| + 1/(i+2) + \ell_i/|x_b(\vec{I})|.\end{aligned}$$
\[4.11\] We define the function ${\text{\sc LimRef}}$ that takes infinite sequences of positive integers to real numbers in the unit interval, and $${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f) \text{ is the unique element in } \bigcap_{j=1}^\infty (\vec{R}_j)_2,
\text{ where }
\vec{R}_0 = ([0,1)) \text{ and } \vec{R}_{j+1} = {\text{\sc Ref}}_{f_{j+1}}(\vec{R}_j).$$
That is, ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is the real obtained by iterating applications of ${\text{\sc Ref}}_{i}$ where $i$ is determined by the positive integers in $f$. By point (1) of Lemma \[4.10\], for each $j\geq 1$, ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is inside every interval in every $(f_j+1)$-sequence $\vec{R}_j$, and therefore, for each base $b \le f_j+1$, $x_b(\vec{R}_j)$ is a prefix of $({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_b$.
\[4.12\] Let $f$ be a sequence of positive integers such that the subsequence of $f$’s first occurrences is an enumeration of ${\mathbb{N}}$ in increasing order and no positive integer occurs infinitely often in $f$. Then, ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is an absolutely normal number.
Fix a base $b$ and ${\varepsilon}> 0$. We prove that $D(({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_b \restriction \ell,b) \le {\varepsilon}$ for each sufficiently large $\ell$. Let $j_0$ be large enough such that $f_j > \max(b,{\lceil 8/{\varepsilon}\rceil })$ for every $j \ge j_0$. Consider $\ell > |x_b(\vec{R}_{j_0})|$, and noticing that $(|x_b(\vec{R}_j)|)_{j \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is an increasing sequence, let $j$ be such that $|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| \le \ell < |x_b(\vec{R}_{j+1})|$. Observe that $({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_b \restriction \ell = x_b(\vec{R}_{j+1}) \restriction \ell$. Now note that $1/(f_j+2) \le {\varepsilon}/8$ and apply point (2) of Lemma \[4.10\] to $\vec{R}_j = {\text{\sc Ref}}_{f_j}(\vec{R}_{j-1})$ to conclude that $$D(x_b(\vec{R}_j), b) \le 2/(f_j+2) \le {\varepsilon}/4.$$ By hypothesis, $f_j,f_{j+1} > b > 1$, so let $j_1 < j$ be such that $f_{j_1} = f_j-1$ and $j_2 < j+1$ be such that $f_{j_2} = f_{j+1}-1$. By point (4) of Lemma \[4.10\], $$|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| \ge |x_b(\vec{R}_{j_1})| > \ell_{f_j}(f_j+2) > {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{f_j}) \rceil }}(f_j+2),$$ then, $${{\lceil -\log(\delta_{f_j}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| < 1/(f_j+2) \le {\varepsilon}/8.$$ Similarly, $$|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| \ge |x_b(\vec{R}_{j_2})| > \ell_{f_{j+1}}(f_{j+1}+2),$$ then, $$\ell_{f_{j+1}}/|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| < 1/(f_{j+1}+2) \le {\varepsilon}/8.$$ Now consider Lemma \[4.10\] again, but applied to $\vec{R}_{j+1} = {\text{\sc Ref}}_{f_{j+1}}(\vec{R}_j)$. By point (5), $$D(x_b(\vec{R}_{j+1}) \restriction \ell, b) \le D(x_b(\vec{R}_j), b) \ +\ {{\lceil -\log(\delta_{f_j}) \rceil }}/|x_b(\vec{R}_j)| \ +\ 1/(f_j+2) \ +\ \ell_{f_{j+1}}/|x_b(\vec{R}_j)|.$$ By the bounds established above, each term on the right part of the inequality is at most ${\varepsilon}/4$. So, $$D(({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_b \restriction \ell, b) = D(x_b(\vec{R}_{j+1}) \restriction \ell,b) \le {\varepsilon}.$$ By the choice of $j_0,j,j_1,j_2$ the sequences $\vec{R}_{j_0}, \vec{R}_j, \vec{R}_{j_1}, \vec{R}_{j_2}$ contain a $b$-adic interval, hence the function $x_b$ is defined on them.
\[4.13\] Let $f$ be a sequence of positive integers such that all but finitely many occur infinitely often in $f$. Then, ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is absolutely abnormal.
Fix a base $b$ such that $b$ appears infinitely often in $f$. By the conditions imposed on $f$, $({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_{b+1}$ has infinitely many prefixes of the form $x_{b+1}({\text{\sc Ref}}_{b}(\vec{I}))$ for some $\vec{I}$. By point (3) of Lemma \[4.10\], $$D_{2\ell_{b}}(x_{b+1}({\text{\sc Ref}}_{b}(\vec{I})),b+1) > (b+1)^{-2\ell_{b}-1}.$$ Hence, for infinitely many prefixes of $({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_{b+1}$ their discrepancy to blocks of length $2\ell_{b}$ in base $b+1$ is bounded away from $0$. Then, by Lemma \[2.4\], ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is not normal to base $b+1$. Since all but finitely many bases can be chosen as $b+1$, ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is not normal to all but finitely many bases. By Lemma \[2.2\] it is absolutely abnormal.
We are ready to define the second reduction.
\[def:second\] The *second reduction* maps the index for a computable infinite sequence of integers $f$ to the index for the infinite binary sequence $({\text{\sc LimRef}}(f))_2$.
Since ${\text{\sc LimRef}}(f)$ is uniformly computable from the input $f$, the second reduction is computable.
Proof of the main theorem and corollaries
-----------------------------------------
The needed reduction is the composition of the first reduction, given in Definition \[2.1\], and the second reduction, given in Definition \[def:second\]. Apply Lemma \[4.2\] for the first reduction and Lemma \[4.12\] for the second reduction to obtain the first implication in Theorem \[3.2\]. Apply Lemma \[4.2\] for the first reduction and Lemma \[4.13\] for the second reduction to obtain the second implication.
Lemma \[3.1\] states that the corresponding sets are in the ${\Pi^0_3}$ and $\mathbf {\Pi^0_3}$ classes. The hardness result in the effective case is immediate from Theorem \[3.2\] by relativization. We have the reduction from a ${\Pi^0_3}$ sentence in first order arithmetic to an appropriate index for a computable real number. By relativization, we obtain a reduction from a ${\Pi^0_3}$ statement about a real number $X$ to an appropriate index of a real number which is computable from $X$.
For the general case, recall that to prove hardness of subsets of reals at levels in the Borel hierarchy it is sufficient to consider subsets of Baire space ${\mathbb{N}}^{\mathbb{N}}$, because there is a continuous function from the real numbers to ${\mathbb{N}}^{\mathbb{N}}$ that preserves ${\mathbf \Pi}^0_3$ definability. Baire space admits a syntactic representation of the levels in the Borel hierarchy in arithmetical terms, namely a subset of ${\mathbb{N}}^{\mathbb{N}}$ can be defined by a ${\Pi^0_3}$ formula with a fixed parameter $P\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\mathbb{N}}$. The analysis given for the effective case, but now relativized to $X$ and $P$, applies.
Observe that normality in all bases implies normality in each base. And absolute abnormality is lack of normality in every base. Thus, the same reductions used in the proof of Corollary \[3.3\] also prove the completeness results for just one fixed base.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} This research received support from CONICET and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina, from the National Science Foundation, USA, under Grant No. DMS-1001551, and from the Simons Foundation. V. Becher and P. A. Heiber are members of the Laboratoire International Associé INFINIS, /Universidad de Buenos Aires – CNRS/Université Paris Diderot. This work was done while the authors participated in the Buenos Aires Semester in Computability, Complexity and Randomness, 2013.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show how to construct low energy solutions to the Randall Sundrum II (RSII) model using an associated $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ problem. The RSII solution is given in terms of a perturbation of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution, with the perturbation parameter being the radius of curvature of the brane metric compared to the AdS length $\ell$. The brane metric is then a specific perturbation of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ boundary metric. For low curvatures the RSII solution reproduces 4$d$ GR on the brane. The leading correction is from local higher derivative curvature terms. The subleading correction is derived from similar terms and also the dual CFT stress tensor. Recently $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solutions with 4$d$ Schwarzschild boundary metric were numerically constructed. We modify the boundary conditions to introduce the RSII brane, and use elliptic numerical methods to solve the resulting boundary value problem. We construct large RSII static black holes with radius up to $\sim 20 \ell$. For large radius the RSII solutions are indeed close to the associated $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution. In this case the local curvature corrections vanish, and we confirm the leading correction is given by the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution stress tensor. We also follow the black holes to small radius $\ll\ell $, where as expected they transition to a 5$d$ behaviour. Our numerical solutions indicate the RSII black holes are dynamically stable for axisymmetric perturbations for all radii.'
author:
- Pau Figueras
- Toby Wiseman
bibliography:
- 'rsbh.bib'
date: May 2011
title: ' Gravity and large black holes in Randall-Sundrum II braneworlds '
---
Introduction
============
The single brane RSII model [@RSI; @RSII] is remarkable in that it is claimed to yield 4$d$ low energy physics for brane observers even though the 5$d$ geometry is not compact. Using arguments from $AdS$-$CFT$ it has been claimed that the low energy behaviour of this model for a brane observer is equivalent to 4$d$ gravity coupled to a conformal field theory (CFT) [@Verlinde:1999fy; @Gubser:1999vj; @Hawking:2000kj; @Duff:2000mt; @Giddings:2000mu; @deHaro:2000wj][^1]. Following from this, a remarkable conjecture has been made in [@Tanaka:2002rb; @Emparan:2002px] that static black holes can not exist in RSII for radius much greater than the AdS length, $\ell$. If true this is an important phenomenological result, allowing constraints on the existence of extra dimensions derived from astrophysical black holes rather than tests of Newton’s law [@Emparan:2002jp]. However the conjecture is based on applying free field theory intuition to the CFT, which is strongly coupled. It has been argued that such extrapolation may not be justified [@Fitzpatrick:2006cd; @Gregory:2008br].
Ultimately the existence of RSII black hole solutions reduces to existence of solutions to the non-linear coupled PDEs of the Einstein equations. Using the numerical methods of [@Wiseman:2001xt; @Wiseman:2002zc], black holes in 5$d$ RSII with radius up to $\sim 0.2 \ell$, and for 6$d$ up to $\sim 2.0 \ell$ were constructed in [@Kudoh:2003xz; @Kudoh:2003vg; @Kudoh:2004kf]. However, using the same methods it has subsequently been argued that even very small RSII static black holes do not exist [@Yoshino:2008rx; @Kleihaus:2011yq]. Other numerical work includes [@Chamblin:2000ra; @Casadio:2002uv] and perturbative construction of small black holes was done in [@Karasik:2003tx; @Karasik:2004wk]. The near horizon geometry of extremal RSII black holes has been determined [@Kaus:2009cg], although extremal solutions are thought to evade the non-existence conjecture.
In this letter we firstly will make precise the claim that low energy physics on the brane is described by gravity coupled to a CFT. We shall explicitly show how to construct low curvature solutions to RSII, including matter on the brane, from an associated $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ problem, where the boundary metric is given by a particular perturbation of the brane metric. An $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution with Schwarzschild boundary metric has recently been numerically constructed by us and Lucietti [@PFLuciettiTW] and in the second half of the letter we shall report on work where we modify the numerical construction used there to compute the RSII black hole solutions for both large and small radii. For large radius the solutions are close to this $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution. The details of this numerical construction and results will be discussed in a forthcoming paper [@PFTW], and in this letter we give an overview of the methodology and highlight the salient results.
Low curvature RSII solutions from $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ {#sec:RS2}
=================================================
In this section we will follow [@deHaro:2000wj] although we note the emphasis is subtly different. Our aim is not to derive an effective 4$d$ description of gravity on the brane as done in [@deHaro:2000wj], but rather to explicitly demonstrate the relation between solutions in AdS/CFT and corresponding ones in RSII.
Consider a solution to $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ with boundary metric $g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}$. The 5$d$ metric $g_{AB}$ obeying $R_{AB} = - \frac{4}{\ell^2}\, g_{AB} $ can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = g_{AB} dx^A dx^B = \frac{\ell^2}{z^2} \left( dz^2 + \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(z,x) dx^\mu dx^\nu \right)
\label{eqn:FGmetric}\end{aligned}$$ near the conformal boundary, $z = 0$, where the Fefferman-Graham expansion dictates that, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(z,x) = g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x) + z^2 \left( R^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x) - \frac{1}{4} g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x) R^{(0)}(x) \right) \nonumber \\
+ z^4 \left( g^{(4)}_{\mu\nu}(x) + t_{\mu\nu}(x) \right) + 2 z^4 \log{z} \, h^{(4)}_{\mu\nu}(x) + O(z^6)
\end{aligned}$$ where the expressions for $g^{(4)}$ and $h^{(4)}$ can be found in [@deHaro:2000xn]. Here $g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x)$ and $t_{\mu\nu}(x)$ are the two constants of integration for the bulk equations which are second order in $z$. The constraint equations for this radial evolution imply $\nabla^{(0)}_\mu t^{\mu\nu} = 0$ and $t = \frac{1}{16} \left( R^{(0)}_{\alpha\beta} R^{(0)\alpha\beta} - \frac{1}{3} ( R^{(0)} )^2 \right)$, and $t_{\mu\nu}$ gives the vev of the $CFT_4$ stress tensor as, $\langle T^{CFT}_{\mu\nu} \rangle = t_{\mu\nu} / (4 \pi \ell G_5)$.
We assume that for some boundary metric $g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} = {g}_{\mu\nu}$ a solution exists for boundary conditions in the IR of the geometry such that the metric tends to the Poincare horizon of AdS. We further assume that solutions exist for regular perturbations of the boundary metric $g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} = {g}_{\mu\nu} + \epsilon^2 h_{\mu\nu}$ in some finite neighbourhood of $\epsilon = 0$, so that, $t_{\mu\nu}[ {g} + \epsilon^2 h ] = t_{\mu\nu}[ {g} ] + O(\epsilon^2)$.
From this $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution we will construct an RSII solution in the limit where brane curvatures are small compared to the curvature of the bulk $AdS_5$. We take two copies of the solution above restricted to $z \ge \epsilon$ and glue them together on their common boundary. We then identify the two halves under a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ action which leaves the orbifold plane $z = \epsilon$, the RSII brane with induced metric $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, fixed. The Israel conditions determine the matter on the brane to have stress tensor, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T}
8 \pi G_4 T^{brane}_{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{2}{\ell} \left( K_{\mu\nu} - K \gamma_{\mu\nu} + \frac{3}{\ell} \gamma_{\mu\nu} \right)
\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{\mu\nu} = - \frac{1}{2} \frac{z}{\ell} \partial_z\big(\frac{\ell^2}{z^2} \,\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(z,x)\big)$ is the extrinsic curvature of the $z = \epsilon$ surface.
We begin the construction by choosing the perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$ so that $\gamma_{\mu\nu} = \frac{\ell^2}{\epsilon^2} g_{\mu\nu}$, and then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundary}
g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} &=& {g}_{\mu\nu} + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \left( {R}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{6} {g}_{\mu\nu} {R} \right) + O( \epsilon^4 \log{\epsilon} ) \, .\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to work with the rescaled brane metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, rather than $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$ since we are interested in the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.
Computing the brane matter stress tensor from in terms of the rescaled brane metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ gives the ‘Einstein equation on the brane’ derived in [@deHaro:2000wj]: $$\begin{aligned}
&& G_{\mu\nu} - 8 \pi G_4 T^{brane}_{\mu\nu} = \epsilon^2 \log{\epsilon}\, {b}_{\mu\nu}[g] \\
& & \qquad + \epsilon^2 \left( 16 \pi G_4 \langle T^{CFT}_{\mu\nu}[g] \rangle + {a}_{\mu\nu}[g] \right) + O(\epsilon^4 \log \epsilon) \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where (the separately conserved) tensors $a_{\mu\nu}$, $b_{\mu\nu}$ are, $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\mu\nu}[{g}] & \equiv & -\frac{1}{4}{\nabla}^2{R}_{\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{12}{\nabla}_\mu{\nabla}_\nu{R} + \frac{1}{24} {\nabla}^2 \bar{R}{g}_{\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{6}{R}{R}_{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{8}{R}_{\alpha\beta}{R}^{\alpha\beta}{g}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{24}{R}^2{g}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{R}_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}{R}^{\alpha\beta} \nonumber \\
b_{\mu\nu}[{g}] & \equiv & -\frac{1}{2}{\nabla}^2{R}_{\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{6}{\nabla}_\mu{\nabla}_\nu{R} + \frac{1}{12} {\nabla}^2{R}{g}_{\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{3}{R}{R}_{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{4}{R}_{\alpha\beta}{R}^{\alpha\beta}{g}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{12}{R}^2{g}_{\mu\nu} -{R}_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}{R}^{\alpha\beta} \; .\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\epsilon$ controls the curvature scale on the brane relative to the AdS length and $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ gives the low curvature limit on the brane where we see the usual 4$d$ Einstein equations are recovered.
Subject to the assumption that the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution exists for boundary metric we have constructed a braneworld solution with metric $\gamma_{\mu\nu} = \frac{\ell^2}{\epsilon^2} g_{\mu\nu}$ perturbatively in $\epsilon$. Working to higher order in $\epsilon$ one will obtain further local higher curvature terms together with terms involving functional derivatives of the $CFT_4$ stress tensor. We note that we have not assumed $g_{\mu\nu}$ is a metric perturbation of flat space, only that its curvature is everywhere small.
Interestingly the leading correction in $\epsilon$ for 4$d$ Einstein gravity comes from the $O(\epsilon^2 \log \epsilon)$ local four derivative term $b_{\mu\nu}[g]$. In the absence of brane matter, $T^{brane}_{\mu\nu} = 0$, then as $g_{\mu\nu}$ is Ricci flat to order $O(\epsilon^0)$, the corrections $a_{\mu\nu}$, $b_{\mu\nu}$ vanish to give, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vac}
\delta G_{\mu\nu} = 16 \pi G_4 \langle T^{CFT}_{\mu\nu}[ {g} ] \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\mu\nu}[ g ] = \epsilon^2 \delta G_{\mu\nu} + O(\epsilon^4)$. This form of correction was conjectured by [@Emparan:2002px], and here we have provided a proof of this, although we emphasize that including brane matter, the CFT correction is not the leading one.
5d static RSII black holes
==========================
*Set up.* In the previous section we have seen how low curvature classical solutions of the RSII model with brane metric $\frac{\ell^2}{\epsilon^2} g_{\mu\nu}$ are related to existence of $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solutions with boundary metric a perturbation of $g_{\mu\nu}$. Consider large static vacuum black holes in RSII. Provided there exists a static $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution with 4$d$ Schwarzschild as the boundary metric and which asymptotes to the Poincare horizon of AdS in the IR, then large black holes in the RSII scenario exist. Furthermore these will be static, since the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution they derive from has boundary metric with $g$ being Schwarzschild so that $g^{(0)}$ is static (and will be to all orders in $\epsilon$) and the bulk geometry must inherit the isometries of the boundary metric [@AndersonChrusciel].
Such an $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution has recently been found [@PFLuciettiTW] using the new numerical approach of [@Headrick:2009pv]. In the remainder of this letter we will report on work where we modify this numerical construction to replace the AdS boundary (‘UV’ end of the geometry) with an RSII brane boundary condition, and solve the resulting elliptic boundary value problem. The details will be presented in a longer forthcoming paper [@PFTW].
Following [@Headrick:2009pv] we analytically continue our static solution to Euclidean signature, and consider the solution to the 5$d$ Einstein-DeTurck equations with a negative cosmological constant, $$\label{eq:DeTurck}
R_{MN}+\frac{4}{\ell^2}\,g_{MN}-\nabla_{(M}\xi_{N)}=0$$ where $\xi^M=g^{PQ}(\Gamma^M_{PQ}-\bar{ \Gamma}^M_{PQ})$ and $\Gamma^M_{PQ}$ is the connection associated to the metric $g_{AB}$ that we want to determine and $\bar{ \Gamma}^M_{PQ}$ is a connection associated to a fixed reference metric $\bar{g}$. For Euclidean signature the above equation is elliptic and can be solved as a boundary value problem for well-posed boundary conditions.
An important point is that a solution to this Einstein-DeTurck equation need not be Einstein if $\xi^A \ne 0$. In favourable situations one can analytically show that solutions with non-zero $\xi^A$, called ‘Ricci solitons’, cannot exist [@PFLuciettiTW]. However, even if they may exist, provided the elliptic problem and boundary conditions are well-posed, solutions should be locally unique. Hence, an Einstein solution cannot be arbitrarily close to a soliton solution [@Anderson:2006fk], and one should easily be able to distinguish the Einstein solutions of interest from solitons.
Following [@PFLuciettiTW] we will choose a similar ansatz to that used for the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution with Schwarzschild boundary, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:metric}
&ds_5^2 = \frac{\ell^2}{\Delta(r,x)^2} \bigg( r^2 T d\tau^2+ \frac{x^2 g(x) S}{f(r)^2} d\Omega_{(2)}^2+ \frac{4\,A}{f(r)^4} dr^2\nonumber \\
& \hspace{2cm} + \frac{4\, B}{f(r)^2g(x)}\,dx^2 + \frac{ 2\,r\,x F }{f(r)^3}\, dr dx \bigg)\,,\\
&\Delta(r,x) = \frac{(1-r^2)+\tilde\beta(1-x^2)}{ \tilde\beta(1 - r^2) }\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $f(r)=1-r^2$ and $g(x)=2-x^2$, and $X=\{T,\,S,\,A,\,B,\,F\}$ are smooth functions (to be determined) which depend on $(r,x)$ only. The (dimensionless) coordinates $(r,x)$ both take values in the range $[0,1]$ and we assume $T, S > 0$ and that $A B -r^2x^2g(x) F^2/16 > 0$ to ensure that the metric is Euclidean with the correct topology. In contrast to the setting in [@PFLuciettiTW], now the function $\Delta(r,x)$ does *not* vanish at $x=1$, so there is no ‘UV’ conformal boundary there. We choose the reference metric $\bar{g}$ to be the metric with $T = A = B = S = 1$ and $F = 0$.
The boundaries of our domain are the same as in [@PFLuciettiTW] (and therefore so are the boundary conditions for the functions $X$ [^2]), except that now $x=1$ corresponds to the location of the brane. Here we impose the vacuum Israel matching conditions (eq. with the l.h.s. equal to zero) together with $\xi_x = 0$ and $F = 0$, which imply mixed Neumann-Dirichlet conditions for the various functions $X$. Such boundary conditions have been considered in [@PFLuciettiTW] where they were shown to give a regular elliptic system. Furthermore they imply $\partial_n \xi_r = \frac{2}{\ell} \xi_r$ on the brane (where $\partial_n$ denotes the normal derivative) which is compatible with obtaining an Einstein solution with $\xi = 0$ everywhere. Note that imposing the Israel vacuum condition and both $\xi_r = 0$ and $\xi_x = 0$ on the brane does not give a regular elliptic system [@Anderson:2006fk; @PFLuciettiTW]. We remark that for this negative tension orbifold brane there is no maximum principle argument that rules out the existence of a soliton solution. Hence we will have to check explicitly that our solution is Einstein and not a soliton – indeed we have found no solitons.
Finally we note that our metric has the dimensionless parameter $\tilde\beta$ which determines the inverse temperature as $\beta=4\pi\,\tilde\beta\,\ell$. This effectively controls the size of the black hole relative to the cosmological constant scale.
*Results.* Two approaches have been proposed in [@Headrick:2009pv] to solve . The Ricci flow method works particularly well in finding the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution in [@PFLuciettiTW] since the solution is a stable fixed point of the flow. All the RSII black holes we have found have a *single* Euclidean negative mode, and hence the solution is an unstable fixed point of the Ricci flow which makes this method less practical. For this reason we have used the Newton algorithm to find solutions. We have used two independent codes: one is based on a pseudospectral collocation approximation in $r$, $x$ (up to $40\times 40$ points), and the other is based on second order finite difference. As expected the former gives highly accurate results and the data presented is for this code. The finite difference code gives consistent, but less accurate solutions for the resolutions attainable.
To construct black holes whose proper radius on the brane, $R_4$, is large compared to $\ell$ (for instance, setting $\tilde\beta=20$ in ), we found that using the reference metric $\bar{g}$ as the initial guess was sufficient for Newton’s method to converge. Once a large black hole had been obtained we could easily find nearby ones by simply perturbing both the previous solution and the reference metric varying $\tilde\beta$. Using this procedure we have been able to construct braneworld black holes with $R_4/\ell\in [0.07,20]$. It should be possible to extend this range increasing the resolution but we have not attempted to do so.
![Area of the black hole as a function of the radius of the horizon on the brane (black dots), and the same quantity for an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild black hole in 5$d$ (red) and in 4$d$ (blue). Note the log scale of both axes. []{data-label="fig:entropy"}](entropy.pdf)
In Fig. \[fig:entropy\] we have plotted the area of the full 5$d$ black hole as a function of the radius of the horizon on the brane, comparing it with the analogous quantities for an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild black hole in 5$d$ (red) and 4$d$ (blue) respectively. It is apparent from this plot that small (compared to $\ell$) braneworld black holes behave like 5$d$ asymptotically flat Schwarzschild black holes and large ones recover 4$d$ behaviour.
![Embedding of the spatial cross sections of the horizon into $\mathbb H^4$ (red). The black curve corresponds to the embedding of the horizon of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution of [@PFLuciettiTW], with 4$d$ Schwarzschild as the conformal boundary metric.[]{data-label="fig:embedding"}](embedding.pdf)
We have embedded the geometry of the spatial cross sections of the horizon into $\mathbb H^4$, $ds^2=\frac{\ell^2}{z^2}(dz^2+dr^2+r^2d\Omega_{(2)}^2)$, as a surface of revolution $r(z)$ such that the induced metric on this surface is that of the horizon. To compare black holes of different sizes we have fixed the maximum extent of the horizon into the bulk to be at $z=1$ so that the brane is located at a $z=z_{min}$ which depends on the size of the black hole. Fig. \[fig:embedding\] depicts the embeddings of the horizon of braneworld black holes of different sizes (red), together with the embedding of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution of [@PFLuciettiTW]. This gives a beautiful graphical confirmation of the analysis given in the first part of this letter. For large black holes, where $z_{min} \to 0$, we see the horizon tends to that of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution, the perturbation from it getting smaller as the cut off $z_{min}$ is removed. From these embeddings we see the horizon is pancake-like [@Chamblin:1999by], with a proper distance to the tip going as $\sim \ell \log(R_4/\ell)$ for large $R_4/\ell$. We note the similarity of these large radius embeddings to the shape estimated from linear theory in [@Fitzpatrick:2006cd]. As discussed there, such a horizon geometry presumably has too little extent into the bulk to experience a Gregory-Laflamme type instability [@Gregory:2000gf].
We can provide evidence of dynamical stability for our solution by computing the spectrum of our linearized Euclidean Einstein-DeTurck equation about our solutions. We note this linear operator must be computed anyway as part of the Newton method. For transverse traceless perturbations about an Einstein solution it coincides with the spectrum of the Lichnerowicz operator restricted to static axisymmetric modes [@Headrick:2009pv]. We find that for all our solutions there is a single negative mode, which for small $R_4/\ell$ tends to the usual negative mode of 5$d$ asymptotically flat Schwarzschild black hole. Small solutions are close to 5$d$ Schwarzschild and should be stable. Then the absence of any zero modes and hence new negative modes as one moves to larger radius solutions indicates we should expect no dynamical instabilities, at least with axisymmetry. Further details will be provided in [@PFTW].
As the black hole becomes larger, the induced geometry on the brane tends to the 4$d$ asymptotically flat Schwarzschild solution. We may verify this by computing the induced Einstein tensor on the brane. In Fig. \[fig:Gtt\] we plot the dimensionless quantity $R_4^{\phantom 44} \, G_\tau^{~\tau}\,\ell^{-2}$ against proper radial distance from the horizon along the brane, $\rho$, in the combination $\rho / R_4$. The other components of $G_{\mu}^{\phantom\mu\nu}$ give the same behaviour, and we see that the solutions become Ricci flat with corrections going as $O(\ell^2/R_4^2)$, i.e. $O(\epsilon^2)$. With these scalings we see the curves for large radius solutions limit to a fixed curve, which appears to be precisely predicted by the stress tensor of the $AdS_5$-$CFT_4$ solution of [@PFLuciettiTW]. This explicitly confirms the prediction . We should note that as the black hole on the brane becomes large the value of $G_\mu^{\phantom\mu\nu}$ becomes small and ultimately, for sufficiently large black holes (while keeping the resolution fixed), e.g. $R_4/\ell\sim 10$, is comparable to the our numerical error. This is manifest in Fig. \[fig:Gtt\], where $G_\mu^{\phantom\mu\nu}$ is further multiplied by a factor of $R_4^{\phantom 4 4}$, which can be very large, and numerical errors contaminate the data for large black holes.
![ $R_4^{~4} \, G_\tau^{~\tau}\,\ell^{-2}$ computed from the induced geometry on the brane against proper distance for braneworld black holes of sizes $R_4/\ell\sim 1.24-6.70$ (red). In black, r.h.s. of computed from the solution of [@PFLuciettiTW] using standard holographic renormalisation [@deHaro:2000xn]. The red curves approach the black one as the black hole size is increased. For large black holes, the actual value of $G_\tau^{~\tau}$ on the brane is so small as to be comparable to the numerical error, and we see some noise in this quantity. []{data-label="fig:Gtt"}](Gtt.pdf)
Finally we comment on the possibility that our solutions are in fact Ricci solitons. We have performed convergence tests which indicate that the solutions indeed have $\phi = \xi^A \xi_A \rightarrow 0$ in the continuum limit. As shown in Fig. \[fig:convergence\] for black holes with $R_4/\ell=O(1)$ our $40 \times 40$ pseudospectral code gives a maximum value of $\phi$, denoted by $\phi_\textrm{max}$, such that $\phi_\textrm{max} < 10^{-8}$, which is already very small. It is also worth noting that for a fixed spatial resolution, $\phi_\textrm{max}$ grows as the black hole becomes very large or very small, which is expected since we have to resolve widely separated length scales, namely the horizon radius on the brane, and the AdS length.
![Maximum value of $\phi$, $\phi_\textrm{max}$, in the whole domain (including the brane) for braneworld black holes with $R_4/\ell=13.35, 5.04, 1.13, 0.07$, as a function of the number of grid points $N$ for the pseudospectral code. Lines are drawn to guide the eye. As this figure shows, $\phi_\textrm{max}\to 0$ in the continuum limit, which provides evidence that our solutions are *not* Ricci solitons. []{data-label="fig:convergence"}](convergence.pdf)
Another check is to observe that the Bianchi identity for implies, $\nabla^2\,\xi^M+R^{M}_{\phantom MN}\xi^N=0$. Hence a necessary condition for a solution to be a soliton is that the linear elliptic vector operator $D \equiv \delta_A^{~B} \nabla^2 +R_{A}^{~B}$ has a zero mode with the same boundary conditions on the vector as for the behaviour of $\xi$ with our boundary conditions. We have computed the lowest eigenmode of $D$ by simulating long time diffusion $\dot{v}^A = D v^A$ for a vector $v^A$ with the appropriate boundary behaviour and find no evidence of zero or even near zero modes. This again confirms that our solutions are not solitons.
We reiterate that the overview of the numerical construction given here will be expanded in detail in the forthcoming work[@PFTW].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Roberto Emparan, Mukund Rangamani, Harvey Reall and especially James Lucietti for very useful discussions. PF is supported by an EPSRC postdoctoral fellowship \[EP/H027106/1\]. TW is supported by an STFC advanced fellowship and Halliday award.
[^1]: This was first discussed in unpublished remarks by Juan Maldacena and by Edward Witten.
[^2]: Here we have rescaled $\tau\to \ell\,\tilde\beta\,\tau$ so that regularity at the horizon $r=0$ requires $T = 4 A$ there and $\tau\sim \tau+\pi$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The widespread adoption of cloud computing has resulted in proliferation of open source cloud computing frameworks that give more control to enterprises over their data and networks. Though, the benefits of the open source software are widely recognized, there is a growing concern over their security assurance. Often open source software is a subject of frequent updates. The updates might introduce or remove a variety of features and hence violate security properties of the previous releases. Obviously, a manual inspection of security would be prohibitively slow and inefficient. In this work, we propose an automated approach that can help developers to assure security of open source cloud framework even in the presence of frequent releases. Our methodology consists of creating a (stateful) wrapper that emulates the usage scenarios with explicit representation of security and functional requirements as contracts. We use a model-driven approach to model REST APIs of KeyStone, an identity service in OpenStack. Openstack is an open source cloud computing framework providing IaaS. Our models define structural and behavioral properties of Keystone together with its security requirements. We detail the implementation of these models in Django Web Framework and also show how to use the behavioral interfaces to implement a service monitor for the cloud services. This mechanism facilitates verification and validation of functional behavior and security requirement in an automated manner.'
author:
- Irum Rauf
- Elena Troubitsyna
bibliography:
- 'fmMdd17.bib'
title: Securing Open Source Clouds Using Models
---
Introduction
============
Open source cloud frameworks allow their customers to build their own private Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). IaaS provides Virtual Machines (VMs) under the pay-per-use business model [@mell2011nist]. The source code of Open Source (OS) clouds is distributed publicly. Moreover, often software is developed in a collaborative manner that makes it a subject of frequent updates. These updates might introduce or remove a variety of features and hence, violate the security properties of the previous releases.
Assuring the security of opensource clouds is an important concern for cloud providers. Often open source clouds use REST architectural style to offer their APIs. REST offers a different architectural style to invoke remote services in contrast to contemporary SOAP-based services. Its different architecural style motivates the need to develop novel design and security assurance methodologies to handle its stateless protocol for developing stateful services. Stateful services can have different states that a service must go through during its lifecycle. It requires a certain sequence of method invocations that must be followed in order to fulfill the functionality a service promises to deliver to its users. In this work, we propose a methodology that consists of creating a (stateful) wrapper that emulates the usage scenarios and contains an explicit representation of security and functional requirements as contracts.
We adopt a model-driven approach – curity and st compliant L Models (SecReUM) – that builds on the theory presented in [@porres2011modeling] to create a security-validating wrapper. We define the structural interface of a REST API using UML class diagram. The usage scenarios – the dynamic behaviors – are represented as state diagrams. These models lead to RESTful interfaces, describe the behavior of operations in terms of preconditions and postconditions and also facilitate the specification of the authentication mechanism. In this work, we demonstrate how to generate contracts defining the security properties as pre- and post-conditions using these models and implement them as a wrapper for the cloud implementation. The approach is implemented as a wrapper in Django Web Framework [@holovaty2009definitive] for the KeyStone component of OpenStack. OpenStack is an open-source software platform for cloud computing that offers REST interfaces to provide IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service)[@sefraoui2012OpenStack]. Keystone offers identity service in OpenStack for authentication and authorization.
The paper is organized as: Section 2 briefly explains Keystone and its interface. Section 3 presents an overview of our overall approach. Section 4 explains our modeling approach for REST APIs with stateful behavioral and section 5 shows the generation of contracts with security concerns. The implementation of the approach is presented in section 6. Section 7 and section 8 show the applications of our work and the related work, respectively. The paper is concluded in section 8.
Keystone Open Stack
===================
Keystone is the centralized identity service of OpenStack that offers authentication and authorization [@sefraoui2012OpenStack]. KeyStone authenticates a user by generating a token. A token can either be scoped or unscoped depending on the client’s request and the configured policy of KeyStone. An unscoped token authenticates a user without authorising for any project. In contrast, a scoped token provides the authorization information of the user for a particular project or domain.
KeyStone offers REST API in compliance with OpenStack policy [@ksapi]. REST services expose their functionality as resources and each resource has a unique URI that provides *addressability*. CRUD (create, retrieve, update and delete) operations can be performed on resources using standard HTTP methods. This means that only HTTP request methods (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE) can be invoked on KeyStone resources. In order to offer scalability, the *statelessness* feature of REST is ensured by treating every request independently without requiring any session or cookie information from user requests. Each resource, when invoked via its URI and a standard HTTP method, replies with a status code and a resource representation, which contains the data about the resource attributes and links to other resources. The HTTP response code is a numeric code that tells the clients whether the request went successfully. HTTP has a list of status codes that reveal how the request went [@berners1996hypertext], for example, 200 means the request was successful, 404 means the resource was not found and 403 implies that it is forbidden to make this request on this resource. The client machine interpret these response codes to know how their request went.
Overall Approach
================
In this section we give an overview of our overall approach to create security-validating wrapper. The approach is presented in Figure \[fig:mdf\]. It consists of two main steps 1) Designing SecReUM and 2) Implementing wrapper with behavioral contracts.
The specifications and implementation of the open source cloud frameworks, that are publicly available, are taken as input. The security requirements for the system are provided by security experts and also taken as an input. These three entities are shown as grey boxes in Figure \[fig:mdf\] to indicate their availability beforehand.
In the first step, Security and REST compliant UML Models (SecReUM) are designed using our approach detailed in Section \[sec:modeling1\].
In the second step, we build upon the design by contract strategy and generate contracts that define the security properties from SecReUM that are implemented as code skeletons in the wrapper program. The code-skeletons can be generated using our tool presented in [@rauf2011beyond]. The tool generates code skeleton for design models in Django that is a high level Python web framework [@djbook].
A wrapper program is capable of invoking another program, perhaps with a larger body of code, by providing an interface to call. Our code skeletons, generated for the security-validating wrapper, has behavioral information, i.e., contracts for each method and the developer just has to write the implementation of the operations, i.e., invocation to the cloud implementation. Contracts use pre- and post-conditions for the methods to define correctness conditions of the program. They are capable of detecting a change in the state of the program and identifying when a certain piece of code violates the pre-defined conditions. Moreover, they can be used for fault localization. Our approach builds upon these features offered by contracts and invoke the cloud implementation through our wrapper program to validate if the cloud implementation conforms to its security specifications.
Our approach can be used by an in-house developer, a designer of the cloud of an organization or a security expert to validate if the implementation of the cloud is as specified. As shown in Figure \[fig:mdf\], user invokes the wrapper with the right method call. The wrapper program checks the user request and invokes the cloud implementation only if the pre-conditions for that method are satisfied. The wrapper, thus, constraint the user to invoke the service under the right conditions. This information can be used by security experts to know whether a method can be invoked on the cloud implementation if different resources of the service are not in the specified or required state. Similarly, the response from the cloud implementation is received by the wrapper and checked to see if it satisfies the post-condition for that method. The corresponding response to the user is only given if the post-condition for that method is satisfied. The post-condition, thus, constraint the implementation to provide the correct functionality and fulfill the security concerns expected from it. This gives security experts the information whether a feature is removed or updated in the cloud implementation that was not intended during the update resulting in functional incorrectness or compromise on the expected security features.
![Model-Driven Framework for Security Assurance[]{data-label="fig:mdf"}](images/Approach){width="11cm"}
Modeling approach for SecReUM {#sec:modeling1}
=============================
REST APIs use stateless protocol but they can be used to create applications with complex stateful behavior. Stateful behavior requires that methods are invoked in a particular sequence to fulfill a specific goal. For example, in order to delete a user in KeyStone, the user must first authenticate herself in *admin* role and also get a valid scoped token. The stateless feature of REST implies that every method is treated independently without requiring information about the methods invoked earlier by not keeping any hidden state or session information. All the methods in REST API are self-contained, i.e., all the information required to invoke the method is contained in the invoked method. By adopting this architecture style, scalable services can be offered. However, in addition to preserving sequence of method calls, stateful behavior also offers information about the conditions under which these methods should be invoked in order to fulfill service goals. This information can be used in a variety of ways in order to determine if the service continues to offer the functional and non-functional properties it promises to deliver. In this section, we present our approach to model stateful services using REST architecture style.
In section \[sec:rm\] and section \[sec:bm\], we present resource model as UML class diagram and behavioral model with UML state machine, respectively, with additional constraints to represent REST features. Figure \[fig:ks\_rm\] and Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\] gives an excerpt of REST interface of KeyStone as an example.
Resource Model: {#sec:rm}
---------------
A UML class diagram represents the classes of a software and the associations between them. An association defines a relationship between two classes by which one class knows about the other class [@uml20112]. We are using UML class diagram with additional design constraints to represent resources, their properties and relation with each other. The concept of a [*resource*]{} is central to Resource Oriented Architecture (ROA). ROA is a structural design that fulfills design criteria presented by REST [@rwsbook]. A resource is something that can be referred to and can have an address. Any important information in a service interface is exposed as a resource.
We have used the term *resource definition* to define resource entity such that its instances are called resources. This is analogous to the relationship between a *class* and its *objects* in object oriented paradigm.
In our resource model, we represent *resource definitions* as classes. A resource is an instance of a *resource definition*, analogous to the object of a class. A collection *resource definition* is represented by a class with no attributes and a normal *resource definition* has one or more attributes. Each association has a name and minimum and maximum cardinalities. These cardinalities define the minimum and maximum number of resources that can be part of the association.
In Figure \[fig:ks\_rm\], there are four collection *resource definitions*, i.e., *projects*, *tokens*, *users* and *roles*, and five normal *resource definition*, i.e., *SecKS*, *token*, *role*, *user* and *project* where *SecKS* represents our wrapper program capable of invoking resources in KeyStone. A collection *resource definition* is represented by classes that have no attributes and their name starts with $collection\_$. It has one outgoing transition with multiplicity of 0...\* for the contained *resource definition* indicating that a collection resource can have none or many resources. A GET method on a collection resource returns a list of all the child resources it contains
We require that every association must have a role name in order to form URI addresses.The attributes of classes must be public since the representation of a resource is available for manipulation and they must have a type since they represent a document containing information of the resource, i.e. an XML document or a JSON serialized object.
![Resource Model for KS Security Wrapper(SecKS)[]{data-label="fig:ks_rm"}](images/classDforexampleKS)
Behavioral Model: {#sec:bm}
------------------
The purpose of the behavioral model is to describe the dynamic structure of the behavioral interface of a REST service and is represented by a UML state-machine. Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\] shows an excerpt of the behavioral interface of KeyStone with wrapper and provides information on what methods a user can invoke on a resource and under what circumstances. Any client can invoke the service to request the token but only an *admin* user (shown as an actor) can delete a user. Only if the client is valid, the token is generated.
A UML state-machine has transitions that are triggered by method calls and each state has a *state invariant*. State invariant is a boolean condition that evaluates to true when the service is in that particular state. Otherwise it evaluates to false.
In our work, we define the invariant of a state using OCL [@OMG_OCL2] as a boolean expression over addressable resources. In this way, the stateless nature of REST remains uncompromised since no hidden information about the state of the service is being kept between method calls.
In Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\], state invariant for state $Token\_Not\_$ $Granted$ is written as an OCL expression:\
$Token.token->size()=0\ \ \ and\ \ \ self.processing = False$. Here, $Token.token->size()=0$ implies that the response for invoking GET on token resource was not 200, meaning either the resource does not exist or is not reachable to infer anything about its state. Similarly, an OCL expression $Token.token->size()=1\ $ implies the response for invoking GET on token resource was 200, meaning the resource exists. The state invariant:\
$[self.processing = False\ \ \ and\ \ \ Token.token->size()=1]\ \ \ and\ \ \ User.id->size()=1\ \ \ and\ \ \ \\
token.expires\_at <= clockTime$ for $Token\_Issued$ specify that whenever a token is requested, a token is issued if the authorized user exists in the database, expiration time of token is less than the current time of the system and the wrapper is not processing the request (an asynchronous call from wrapper to KeyStone). Thus, in order to define state with stateless REST protocol, we define the state invariant as a predicate over resources.
![ Behavioral Model for KS Security Wrapper(SecKS)[]{data-label="fig:ks_bm"}](images/SDKS.pdf)
In addition, we constrain our behavioral model to have only side-effect methods, i.e., PUT, POST and DELETE methods as method calls for a transition. This is because only these HTTP methods are capable of making any changes to resources.
Generating Contracts from SecReUM {#sec:contract}
=================================
The stateful behavior of a software requires a certain order of method invocation. These condition under which the methods can be invoked are called contracts, i.e., the pre- and post-conditions of a method. This information together with the expected effect of an operation become part of the behavioral interface of a service. Our design approach preserves the sequence of method invocations and contains behavioral information specifying the conditions under which these methods can be invoked.
Method Contract with Functional Requirements
--------------------------------------------
The method contracts can be generated from the behavioral model. The precondition of a method should be true in order to fire the method in the behavioral model because it defines the conditions under which a method is allowed to be invoked by the client. We say that if a method *m* triggers a transition *t* in a state machine, then the precondition for method *m* is true if the invariant of the source state of transition *t* and the guard on *t* is true. The post-condition constraints the implementation to provide the functionality expected from it as specified in its specification document. Thus, the post-condition states that if the precondition for invoking a method is true then its post-condition should also be true. We say, that the postcondition of method *m* is true if the conjunction of state invariant of the target state of *t* and the effect on transition *t* is true provided its pre-condition is true. The implication principle encompasses the stateful behavior since the same method can be fired from different states of the system and have different results. Thus, if the method is fired with certain pre-conditions then the corresponding post-condition for that method should be true.
The re-evaluation of the precondition of a method for evaluating the post-condition may not return the same values, i.e., before the method execution, since after the method execution values of some of the resources may change. This situation is kept safe by saving the resource values before method execution in local values in the wrapper. The values of these variables are later used to calculate the post-condition. We believe this is not computationally expensive as we do not need to save the copy of the whole resource/s but only the values that constitute guards and invariants that are enabled. Usually, that only requires a few bits of storage per method.
For detailed description on how contracts are generated from state-machines under different scenarios, readers are referred to [@porres2010nondeterministic].
Security Requirements in OCL {#sec:sreq1}
----------------------------
The security requirements are usually specified by security experts. We assume that they are represented in tabular format for each method. Security specifications are then translated to OCL manually. These OCL-based security requirements become part of method contract during code transformation process as shown in section \[sec:sreq\].
The functional and security requirements for Keystone at the application level are not clearly separable. This is because the KeyStone functionality is to validate the identity of the user, his roles, and access rights before generating scoped or unscoped token. The security requirements on KeyStone also impose the same semantics. We classify them under security requirements since the security experts expect these behaviors from KeyStone at the application level to assure its security. We explain our approach with two important security concerns, authentication and authorization. Authentication is explained with transition *t2* and authorization is explained with transition *t3*.
### Authentication
Authentication is an important security concern that requires that only the user with the right credentials is able to enter the system. It is also considered as one of the top three security concerns addressed by the existing model-driven security engineering approaches [@nguyen2015extensive]. In Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\], an authentication request to KeyStone triggers transition t2. The security requirements attached to t2 are listed in Table \[table:req\].
**No.** **If** **Then**
--------- ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
1.1 User is valid and has not given an unscoped token should be generated
scope information
1.2 User is valid and has explicitly requested
unscoped token
1.3 Token is valid and has not given
scope information
1.4 Token is valid and has explicitly
requested unscoped token
2.1 User is valid and has valid scope information a scoped token should be generated
2.2 Token is valid and has valid scope information
: Requirements for Authentication in KeyStone (excerpt)
\[table:req\]
These security requirements are written in OCL. For example, the security requirement for scoped token is written as:
((user.credential->size()=1 or token.token->size()=1) and
(request.scope->size()=1 and not request.scope.oclIsInvalid())) ==> (token.token->size()=1) and token.catalog->size()=1)
In Table \[table:req\], the security requirements specify different conditions under which scoped and unscoped tokens are issued and are written in the if-else format on resources and resource attributes. The security requirements can also be in a statement form enforcing some rule, for example, the authorization requirement explained in the next section.
### Authorization
Authorization defines access rights of users by defining permissions on the user, user roles, and user groups. KeyStone determines whether a request from the user should be accepted based on the policy rules defined in Role Based Access Control (RBAC). In Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\], *t3* can only be fired by an *admin* user. In addition, the guard value shows that the user to be deleted should have initially existed in the system. The information about actors in the behavioral model can be realized in two ways.\
1) The developer can use this information to implement the access rights on resources and help users in understanding and writing correct authorization headers. Different authentication mechanisms can be implemented to control access to resources [@authLink]. If the Basic authentication mechanism is implemented, the client sends the username and password to the server in the authorization header. The authentication information is in base-64 encoding. It should only be used with HTTPS, as the password can be easily captured and reused over HTTP.
For KeyStone, authorization to resources is checked with *token*. A typical call from *curl* to access *User* resource using user’s *token* is given as:
curl -s \ -H "X-Auth-Token: $OS_TOKEN" \ "http://localhost:5000/v3/users"
2\) It becomes part of the method contract. The security requirement for the authorization is: *Only an admin user can delete a user.* In OCL, it is written as: $user.role='admin'$.
This can be specified in UML as notes (not shown in Figure \[fig:ks\_bm\] due to space limitation). In the next section, we define rules on how they become part of the method contract.
Method Contracts with Functional and Security Requirements {#sec:sreq}
----------------------------------------------------------
The security requirements are merged with functional requirements during the translation process to code. In our example, the KeyStone service is invoked by POST method on the token resource\
($POST(../v3/auth/tokens)$). We populate our definition of contracts with security requirements given above such that:
- The statement in *if* clause becomes part of the method pre-condition
- The statement in *else* clause become part of the method post-condition
- The statement/s that are not part of *if-else* clause become part of both the pre- and post-conditions. By checking the rule in pre-condition, the user request is validated before processing the method and causing undesired changed in the system. By placing in the post-condition, the system is validated that it behaves as expected and without side effects. This serves as a double check on security requirements.
We, thus, require that for KeyStone to generate a token, the following method contract must be met:\
PreCondition(POST(../v3/auth/tokens)):
[(self.processing = True and (user.credential->size()=1 or
token.token->size()=1 and token.expires_at-> <= clockTime])
and
((request.scope->size()=1 and request.scope <> 'unscope' and not request.scope.oclIsInvalid())
or (request.scope->size()=0 or request.scope.oclIsInvalid() or
request.scope = 'unscope' ))]
PostCondition(POST(../v3/auth/tokens)):
[((user.credential->size()=1 or
token.token->size()=1 and User.id->size()=1 and
token.expires\_at <= clockTime$) and
((request.scope->size()=1 and request.scope <> 'unscope' and not request.scope.oclIsInvalid())==>
(self.processing = False and token.token->size()=1 and token.catalog->size()=1))
or ((self.processing = True and request.scope->size()=0 or request.scope.oclIsInvalid() or
request.scope = 'unscope') ==> (self.processing = False and token.token->size()=1 and token.catalog->size()=0))]
The preconditions in the listing above show the boolean expression that should be true for invoking a POST on KeyStone for either scoped or unscoped token. The postcondition circumscribes different scenarios for scoped and unscoped token. In order to return an unscoped/ scoped token, the previous values, i.e. the values before method invocation, are checked. If the previous values require an unscoped/ scoped token then the response of method calls are checked to ensure if unscoped/ scoped token is actually delivered. The previous values, i.e., the values before the method invocation are stored as local variables in the wrapper program.
For authorization, the method contract for DELETE on user resources is given as:
PreCondition(DELETE(../v3/users/{user_id}))):
[self.processing = False and token.token->size()=1 and
user.id->size()=1 and token.expires_at <= clockTime
and user.role='admin']
PostCondition(DELETE(../v3/users/{user_id})):
[(self.processing = False and token.token->size()=1 and
user.id->size()=1 and token.expires_at <= clockTime
and user.role='admin') ==>
(token.token->size()=1 and user.role='admin' and
user.id->size()=0)]
In this listing, $user.role='admin'$ is checked before invoking DELETE method on $User$ resource to ensure that user with the right credentials is making the desired change in the system. Interestingly, $user.role='admin'$ is also a part of the post-condition, i.e., the credentials of the user are checked before and after the method execution to ensure that the system change is made by the right user. This double check of the security requirement for authorization provides added security and guards the system against the malicious user during the communication.
Implementation of OpenStack and a Service Monitor {#sec:imp}
=================================================
We deployed OpenStack on a separate machine as single node deployment using DevStack. The machine had UBuntu 16.04 installed with 8GB RAM and i3 processor. The Keystone service was invoked using OpenStack client and *curl* commands over the network using a machine with MacOS and 8 GB RAM. We implemented our monitoring mechanism in Django [@holovaty2009definitive] by using the behavioral and security information present in our design model. At a glance, Django can be understood with its three basic files that support separation of concerns, i.e. models.py, urls.py and views.py where models.py contain descriptions of database tables, views.py contains the business logic and urls.py specify which URIs map to which view. For a detailed working of Django Framework, readers are encouraged to read Django Documentation [@djdoc] and Django Book [@djbook].
The service monitor is implemented as a service proxy (wrapper). It listens for requests from the cloud user, verifies the conditions to invoke the method and then forward it to the actual service implementation.
A service monitor can be used to continuously verify the functionality of an implemented cloud service. This monitoring mechanism checks that the open source cloud environment continues to follow its security concerns despite frequent updates in the code by other developers. We consider our implementation of monitoring mechanism as a complementary approach to other security validation mechanisms.
In the current implementation, we validate security concerns of authentication and authorization. If the cloud user does not invoke the cloud service with right credentials, the error messages are returned back without invoking the cloud service. If the pre-conditions for invoking the method are met, the method is invoked on the cloud service and the response is received from the cloud. The implemented wrapper then goes through the response and verifies if the response from the cloud service is as expected, i.e. according to the user’s request. For example, if the user has given credentials for the unscoped token, then the cloud service should provide the unscoped token correspondingly. If the scoped token is requested, then the cloud service should return the scoped token. Thus, the cloud user is checked for an invocation to the service under right conditions and the cloud service is constraint to provide the implementation as specified.
The main steps in our implementation phase are:
- Implement database tables in models.py
- Create views for each resource and its transitions in views.py
- Map relative URIs from resource model to respective views in urls.py.
Our models.py contain only one class *kswrapper*, i.e., the wrapper class as shown in the listing below since our wrapper saves all the information required for processing requests. The other required pieces of information are retrieved from the open source implementations through their REST APIs at runtime.
from django.db import models
class kswrapper(models.Model):
ksDate = models.DateTimeField()
tokenId = models.CharField(max_length=200)
In the second step, a view is defined for each resource in our resource model. These views contain information on allowed and not-allowed methods on resources retrieved from behavioral model and also the contracts for these invocations. The incoming request to the view is verified against the allowed methods and redirected to the view that supports the request method for the resource.
In a proxy interface for the KeyStone service, a POST method on the token resource for a scoped token is implemented as:
def ks_token(request, body):
if not request.method in ["GET", "POST"]:
return HttpResponseNotAllowed(["GET", "POST"])
if request.method == "GET":
body1 = body
return ks_token_get(request, body1)
if request.method == "POST":
body1 = body
return ks_token_post(request, body1)
def ks_token_post(request, body):
parsed_json = json.loads(body)
sc_var=False
scopeVar= None
try:
scopeVar=parsed_json["auth"]["scope"]
if scopeVar:
sc_var=True
except KeyError:
print "The object does not have scope information"
sc_var=False
scopeVar= None
req_method=parsed_json["auth"]["identity"]["methods"][0]
if req_method == "password":
uname=parsed_json["auth"]["identity"]["password"]["user"]["name"]
un_flag=True # This means that request has username information
else:
if req_method=="token":
tid = parsed_json["auth"]["identity"]["methods"][0]
token_flag=True # This means that request has token information
req = urllib2.Request('http://130.232.85.9/identity/v3/auth/tokens',body)
processing=True
req.add_header("Content-Type",'application/json')
if (processing==True and (un_flag == True or token_flag==True) and ((sc_var== True and scopeVar != "unscope") or (scopeVar== False or scopeVar != "unscope"))):
response = urllib2.urlopen(req)
the_page = response.read()
processing=False
parsed_json2 = json.loads(the_page)
cat_var= False
try:
cat=parsed_json2["token"]["catalog"]
if cat:
cat_var=True
except KeyError:
print "The object doesn't have catalog information"
cat_var= False
response_headers = response.info()
##skipping the extraction of other attributes like expires_at for token
token = response.info().getheader('X-Subject-Token') # getting token
body= "token:", token
if ((response.code == 200 or response.code == 201 and p==False and notExpired=True) and ((un_flag == True or token_flag==True) and (sc_var== True and scopeVar != "unscope")) and (cat_var==True )):
# for scoped token
T_type="T_type = Scoped Token: "
body= str(body) + T_type
r = HttpResponse(the_page)
response = HttpResponse(body)
response.status_code = 200
return response
elif ((response.code == 200 or response.code == 201 and p==False and notExpired=True) and ((un_flag == True or token_flag==True) and (sc_var== False or scopeVar == "unscope")) and (cat_var==False )):
# for UNscoped Token
T_type="T_type = UNscoped Token: "
body= str(body) + T_type
r = HttpResponse(the_page)
response = HttpResponse(body)
response.status_code = 200
return response
else:
print response.code
response = HttpResponse()
response.status_code = 404
return response
The listing above follows the following algorithm:
1\) When an HTTP request comes for authentication to *token* view (associated with token resource), the request is filtered according to request method and redirected to the corresponding *view*. In the listing above, we only show *post* view in detail.
2\) The request body is parsed and checked to see if it has scope values. The scope flag (*sc\_var*) is set to *true* if scope values are present and otherwise *false*.
3\) If the preconditions are satisfied, then the Keystone REST API is invoked with the authorization header.
4\) The response from the Keystone is parsed to check if it contains right information, e.g., does it have catalog information. The response body from KeyStone for POST request on *token* contain catalog information if it is a scoped token.
5\) Different variable values, some of which were set earlier by parsing the request body before method invocation to KeyStone API and some that were set by parsing response body after method invocation to KeyStone API, are combined together in boolean expressions as explained earlier in section \[sec:sreq\]. Based on these conditions, successful or unsuccessful responses are given by the wrapper program.
In the real proxy interface, i.e. our wrapper, a method is implemented for each of the selected methods that are invoked on the Keystone component of OpenStack using urllib2. urllib2 is a python module that is used to fetch URLs [@urllib]. The number of methods that are selected for implementation in the wrapper can be reduced by selecting only those resources that are considered assets by security experts or any other priority criteria. We leave the job of selecting the resources and methods to be implemented by the wrapper program on security experts and quality experts based on their priority lists.
In the third step, the relative URIs shown in the resource model are mapped to the respective views. Every resource in our resource model is addressable. We can get the relative URI for each resource directly from Figure \[fig:ks\_rm\] that is then mapped to the respective views as shown in Listing \[lst\_uris\].
urlpatterns = [
url(r'^kswrapper/', views.index, name='index'),
url(r'^kswrapper/tokens/', views.ks_tokens, name='ks_token'),
url(r'^domains/', views.domains, name='domains_get'),
url(r'^admin/', admin.site.urls),
]
Applications of the Approach
============================
Cloud security is generally associated with the use of latest technologies and security techniques to protect applications, data and infrastructure associated with cloud computing. However, as security technologies and techniques evolve so do the techniques used by the attackers to attack the clouds. There is a need to consider security of cloud at the software and application level in addition to the use of latest security-related technologies.
By using models to define behavioral interfaces for REST APIs and the approach described in this article to generate contracts as code skeletons in a wrapper program, we can benefit from previous and future efforts in test case generation from behavioral contracts while using a familiar and standardized visual notation. In addition, our work complements the security technologies in providing secure cloud by providing a continuous validation and monitoring approach for the security concerns.
The security concerns of authentication and authorization are part of behavioral contracts implemented in the behavioral wrapper. The Identity service, like KeyStone of OpenStack, define role assignments, i.e. what role does a user has on a specific project or domain [@pepple2011deploying]. However, the capabilities of roles, i.e. what can or cannot these roles do is defined in the authorization policies defined separately for each service in OpenStack. Different authorization policies can be defined for different services in the same cloud environment. Using our approach, the specification of different authorization policies along with the functional contracts can become part of behavior wrapper which can be used to validate the security concerns in the actual cloud implementation. The contracts can thus be exploited for the generation of test oracles and test cases can validate the implementation of a cloud. Test oracles are used to determine whether a test has passed or failed. In the context of test case generation and test oracle generation, we can take advantage of several efforts done previously to validate the behavior of classes and services using contracts [@ciupa2005automatic] [@dai2007contract].
The wrapper program with behavioral specifications can also be added as a proxy interface to the implemented cloud to monitor its functioning and security compliance. This facilitates location of the fault in and application by observing the conditions that are not being met and by which methods. It can also check for any failure caused by a network fault, late delivery or if an implementation violates a certain pre or post condition of a method.
Finally, cloud designers and developers along with security experts can use the models with usage scenarios and security information as detailed documentation on how to use a cloud correctly.
Related Work
============
Research in using models to develop and analyze secure systems has been an active area of research for more than a decade.The work of Nguyen et al. [@nguyen2015extensive] provides a comprehensive review of efforts done in the area of model-driven development of secure systems. Their work encompasses various modeling approaches like UML-based approaches, UML profiles, DSLs and aspect-oriented approaches and analyzes them for their support for model-to-code and model-to-model transformations, verification, validation and different types of security concerns. UML has been used much to model security concerns. Some approaches use only UML (e.g., [@abramov2012methodology], *MDSE@R* [@almorsy2014adaptable], *AOMSec* [@georg2009aspect] etc.) and some use UML profiles(e.g., SECTET [@alam2004model],*UMLsec*[@jurjens2001towards], etc.)
In [@abramov2012methodology], Abramov et. al. present a model-driven approach to integrate access control policies on database development. SECTET [@alam2004model] provides a model-driven security approach for web services. They also use OCL to define constraints on UML to provide access control. The approach generates XACML policy files that provide a platform-independent policy for enforcing the access control policy. The SECTET framework mainly addresses authorization and provides state-dependent permissions that are not applicable to REST interfaces. *UMLsec*[@jurjens2001towards; @jurjens2007tools] provides a comprehensive and consistently progressing approach to formally analyze the security properties. *MDSE@R* [@almorsy2014adaptable] provides a UML profile based approach that uses aspect-oriented programming to integrate security concerns at the runtime. *AOMSec* [@georg2009aspect] also uses aspect-oriented approach to model security mechanism and attacks to the system. A detailed analysis of existing literature is out of the scope of this paper. However, compared to previous work our work strongly relies on existing UML without the need of any new profiles. This gives the benefit of using many well-known and mature tools with a wide user base for our approach. Our work also caters well with the stateless nature of REST.
In our previous work [@troubitsyna2016towards],[@troubitsyna2016integrated], we have investigated the problem of deriving the security requirements from the formal system model. The approach presented in this paper, complements this work by bridging the gap between the security requirements and the actual code. In [@laibinis2016formal], we have proposed a method for identifying security vulnerabilities using formal architectural model. The UML modeling patterns proposed in this paper can significantly facilitate constructing such models and hence, enable the industrial adoption of the proposed technique.
Conclusions
===========
Open source cloud frameworks are becoming popular as more and more enterprises are opting for private clouds for their work amid data and network security concerns. Security experts are often looking out for ways to assure that their security expectations from a system are met. Our approach provides security experts with a model-driven approach that facilitates them by providing a semi-automatable approach for validating the open source cloud environment for its security concerns like authentication and authorization. We show how the security concerns can be integrated into the behavioral models of REST services and how method contracts can be generated from them that can be later used to validate any security loopholes in the open source software in case of frequent updates. The approach is applied on the KeyStone component of OpenStack.
We have presented in detail the implementation of service monitor using Django web framework. We also present the applications of our behavioral and security modeling approach along with the contract generation methodology for cloud security. In our future work, we plan to further extend our work for different authorization scenarios and validating cloud implementations for their security concerns.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Baker and Cirinei introduced an exact but naive algorithm [@Baker2007], based on solving a state reachability problem in a finite automaton, to check whether sets of sporadic hard real-time tasks are schedulable on identical multiprocessor platforms. However, the algorithm suffered from poor performance due to the exponential size of the automaton relative to the size of the task set. In this paper, we successfully apply techniques developed by the formal verification community, specifically antichain algorithms [@Doyen2010], by defining and proving the correctness of a simulation relation on Baker and Cirinei’s automaton. We show our improved algorithm yields dramatically improved performance for the schedulability test and opens for many further improvements.'
author:
- |
Markus Lindström Gilles Geeraerts Joël Goossens\
\
Université libre de Bruxelles\
Département d’Informatique, Faculté des Sciences\
Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt 50, CP 212\
1050 Bruxelles, Belgium\
{mlindstr, gilles.geeraerts, joel.goossens}@ulb.ac.be
bibliography:
- 'antichains.bib'
title: A faster exact multiprocessor schedulability test for sporadic tasks
---
\[introduction\]
In this research we consider the schedulability problem of hard real-time sporadic constrained deadline task systems upon identical multiprocessor platforms. Hard real-time systems are systems where tasks are not only required to provide correct computations but are also require to adhere to strict deadlines [@Liu1973].
Devising an exact schedulability criterion for sporadic task sets on multiprocessor platforms has so far proven difficult due to the fact that there is no known worst case scenario (nor critical instant). It was notably shown in [@Goossens2002] that the periodic case is not necessarily the worst on multiprocessor systems. In this context, the real-time community has mainly been focused on the development of *sufficient* schedulability tests that correctly identify all unschedulable task sets, but may misidentify some schedulable systems as being unschedulable [@Baker2006] using a given platform and scheduling policy (see e.g. [@Bertogna2011; @Baruah2007]).
Baker and Cirinei introduced the first correct algorithm [@Baker2007] that verified *exactly* whether a sporadic task system was schedulable on an identical multiprocessor platform by solving a reachability problem on a finite state automaton using a naive brute-force algorithm, but it suffered from the fact that the number of states was exponential in the size of the task sets and its periods, which made the algorithm intractable even for small task sets with large enough periods.
In this paper, we apply techniques developed by the formal verification community, specifically Doyen, Raskin [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@Doyen2010; @DeWulf2006] who developed faster algorithms to solve the reachability problem using algorithms based on data structures known as [*antichains*]{}. Their method has been shown to be provably better [@Doyen2010] than naive state traversal algorithms such as those used in [@Baker2007] for deciding reachability from a set of initial states to a given set of final states.
An objective of this work is to be as self-contained as possible to allow readers from the real-time community to be able to fully understand the concepts borrowed from the formal verification community. We also hope our work will kickstart a “specialisation” of the methods presented herein within the realm of real-time scheduling, thus bridging the two communities.
#### Related work.
This work is not the first contribution to apply techniques and models first proposed in the setting of formal verification to real-time scheduling. In the field of operational research, Abdeddaïm and Maler have studied the use of stopwatch automata to solve job-shop scheduling problems [@Maler2002]. Cassez has recently exploited game theory, specifically timed games, to bound worst-case execution times on modern computer architectures, taking into account caching and pipelining [@Cassez2011]. Fersman [[*et al.*]{}]{} have studied a similar problem and introduced task automata which assume continuous time [@Fersman2007], whereas we consider discrete time in our work. They showed that, given selected constraints, schedulability could be undecidable in their model. Bonifaci and Marchetti-Spaccamela have studied the related problem of feasibility of multiprocessor sporadic systems in [@Bonifaci2010] and have established an upper bound on its complexity.
#### This research.
We define a restriction to constrained deadlines (systems where the relative deadline of tasks is no longer than their minimal interarrival time) of Baker and Cirinei’s automaton in a more formal way than in [@Baker2007]. We also formulate various scheduling policy properties in the framework of this automaton such as memorylessness.
Our main contribution is the design and proof of correctness of a non-trivial *simulation relation* on the automaton, required to successfully apply a generic algorithm developed in the formal verification community, known as an *antichain algorithm* to Baker and Cirinei’s automaton to prove or disprove the schedulability of a given sporadic task system.
Finally, we will show through implementation and experimental analysis that our proposed algorithm outperforms Baker and Cirinei’s original brute-force algorithm.
#### Paper organization.
Section \[section:problem\] defines the real-time scheduling problem we are focusing on, i.e. devising an exact schedulability test for sporadic task sets on identical multiprocessor platforms. Section \[section:automaton\] will formalize the model (a non-deterministic automaton) we will use to describe the problem and we formulate how the schedulability test can be mapped to a reachability problem in this model. We also formalize various real-time scheduling concepts in the framework of our formal model.
Section \[section:reachability\] then discusses how the reachability problem can be solved. We present the classical breadth-first algorithm used in [@Baker2007] and we introduce an improved algorithm that makes use of techniques borrowed from the formal verification community [@Doyen2010]. The algorithm requires coarse *simulation relations* to work faster than the standard breadth-first algorithm. Section \[section:idlesim\] introduces the *idle tasks simulation relation* which can be exploited by the aforementioned algorithm.
Section \[section:experimental\] then showcases experimental results comparing the breadth-first and our improved algorithm using the aforementioned simulation relation, showing that our algorithm outperforms the naive one. Section \[section:conclusions\] concludes our work. Appendix \[appendix:lemma\] gives a detailed proof of a lemma we use in Section \[section:reachability\].
\[section:problem\]
We consider an identical multiprocessor platform with $m$ processors and a sporadic task set $\tau = \{ \tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots, \tau_n \}$. Time is assumed to be discrete. A sporadic task $\tau_i$ is characterized by a [*minimum interarrival time*]{} $T_i > 0$, a [*relative deadline*]{} $D_i > 0$ and a [*worst-case execution time*]{} (also written WCET) $C_i > 0$. A sporadic task $\tau_i$ submits a potentially infinite number of jobs to the system, with each request being separated by at least $T_i$ units of time. We will assume jobs are not parallel, i.e. only execute on one single processor (though it may migrate from a processor to another during execution). We also assume jobs are independent. We wish to establish an *exact* schedulability test for any sporadic task set $\tau$ that tells us whether the set is schedulable on the platform with a given deterministic, predictable and preemptive scheduling policy. In the remainder of this paper, we will assume we only work with [*constrained deadline*]{} systems (i.e. where $\forall \tau_i : D_i {\leqslant}T_i$) which embody many real-time systems in practice.
\[section:automaton\]
Baker and Cirinei’s automaton as presented in [@Baker2007] models the evolution of an *arbitrary* deadline sporadic task set (with a FIFO policy for jobs of a given task) scheduled on an identical multiprocessor platform with $m$ processors. In this paper, we focus on constrained deadline systems as this hypothesis simplifies the definition of the automaton. We expect to analyze Baker and Cirinei’s more complete construct in future works.
The model presented herein allows use of *preemptive*, *deterministic* and *predictable* scheduling policies. It can, however, be generalized to model broader classes of schedulers. We will discuss this aspect briefly in Section \[section:conclusions\].
An *automaton* is a tuple $A=\langle V, E, S_0, F\rangle$, where $V$ is a finite set of *states*, $E\subseteq V\times V$ is the set of *transitions*, $S_0\in V$ is the *initial state* and $F\subseteq V$ is a set of *target states*.
The problem on automata we are concerned with is that of *reachability* (of target states). A *path* in an automaton $A=\langle V, E, S_0, F\rangle$ is a finite sequence $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ of states s.t. for all $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}\ell-1$: $(v_i,v_{i+1})\in E$. Let $V'\subseteq V$ be a set of states of $A$. If there exists a path $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$ in $A$ s.t. $v_\ell\in V'$, we say that *$v_1$ can reach $V'$*. Then, the *reachability problem* asks, given an automaton $A$ whether the initial state $S_0$ can reach the set of target states $F$.
Let $\tau = \{ \tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots, \tau_n \}$ be a set of sporadic tasks and $m$ be a number of processors. This section is devoted to explaining how to model the behaviour of such a system by means of an automaton $A$, and how to reduce the schedulability problem of $\tau$ on $m$ processors to an instance of the reachability problem in $A$. At any moment during the execution of such a system, the information we need to retain about each task $\tau_i$ are: $(i)$ the *earliest next arrival time* $\operatorname{nat}(\tau_i)$ relative to the current instant and $(ii)$ the remaining processing time $\operatorname{rct}(\tau_i)$ of the currently ready job of $\tau_i$. Hence the definition of *system state*:
\[def:nat+rct\] Let $\tau = \{ \tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots, \tau_n \}$ be a set of sporadic tasks. A *system state* of $\tau$ is a tuple $S=\langle\operatorname{nat}_S,\operatorname{rct}_S\rangle$ where $\operatorname{nat}_S$ is a function from $\tau$ to $\{0,1,\ldots T_{\max}\}$ where $T_{\max}{\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\max_i T_i$, and $\operatorname{rct}_S$ is a function from $\tau$ to $\{0,1,\ldots, C_{\max}\}$, where $C_{\max} {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\max_iC_i$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ the set of all system states of $\tau$.
In order to define the set of transitions of the automaton, we need to rely on ancillary notions:
\[def:eligible\] A task $\tau_i$ is *eligible* in the state $S$ if it can submit a job (i.e. if and only if the task does not currently have an active job and the last job was submitted at least $T_i$ time units ago) from this configuration. Formally, the set of eligible tasks in state $S$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Eligible}}(S)&{\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}&\{\tau_i\mid \operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_i) = \operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i) = 0\}\end{aligned}$$
\[def:active\] A task is *active* in state $S$ if it currently has a job that has not finished in $S$. Formally, the set of active tasks in $S$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Active}}(S)&{\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}&\{\tau_i\mid \operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i) > 0\}\end{aligned}$$ A task that is not active in $S$ is said to be [*idle*]{} in $S$.
\[def:laxity\] The laxity of a task $\tau_i$ in a system state $S$ is: $$\operatorname{laxity}_S(\tau_i) {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_i) - (T_i - D_i) -\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i)$$
\[def:fail\] A state $S$ is a *failure state* iff the laxity of at least one task is negative in $S$. Formally, the set of failure states on $\tau$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau&{\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}&\{S\mid\exists \tau_i\in\tau:\operatorname{laxity}_S(\tau_i) < 0\}\end{aligned}$$
Thanks to these notions we are now ready to explain how to build the transition relation of the automaton that models the behaviour of $\tau$. For that purpose, we first choose a *scheduler*. Intuitively, a scheduler is a *function*[^1] ${\mathsf{Run}}$ that maps each state $S$ to a set of at most $m$ active tasks ${\mathsf{Run}}(S)$ to be run:
\[def:sched\] A (deterministic) *scheduler* for $\tau$ on $m$ processors is a function ${\mathsf{Run}}:{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}} \to 2^\tau$ s.t. for all $S$: ${\mathsf{Run}}(S)\subseteq {\mathsf{Active}}(S)$ and $0{\leqslant}|{\mathsf{Run}}(S)|{\leqslant}m$. Moreover:
1. ${\mathsf{Run}}$ is *work-conserving* iff for all $S$, $|{\mathsf{Run}}(S)|=
\min\{m, |{\mathsf{Active}}(S)|\}$
2. ${\mathsf{Run}}$ is *memoryless* iff for all $S_1,S_2\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ with ${\mathsf{Active}}(S_1)={\mathsf{Active}}(S_2)$: $$\begin{array}{c}
\forall \tau_i \in {\mathsf{Active}}(S_1) :
\left( \begin{array}{l}
\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i) =\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i)\\
\land\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i) =\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}(\tau_i) \end{array}
\right)\\
\textrm{implies } {\mathsf{Run}}(S_1) = {\mathsf{Run}}(S_2)
\end{array}$$
Intuitively, the work-conserving property implies that the scheduler always exploits as many processors as available. The memoryless property implies that the decisions of the scheduler are not affected by tasks that are idle and that the scheduler does not consider the past to make its decisions.
As examples, we can formally define the preemptive global DM and EDF schedulers.
Let $\ell {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\min\{m,|{\mathsf{Active}}(S)|\}$. Then, ${\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{DM}}$ is a function that computes ${\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{DM}}(S) {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\{\tau_{i_1}, \tau_{i_2}, \ldots, \tau_{i_\ell}\}$ s.t. for all $1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\ell$ and for all $\tau_k$ in ${\mathsf{Active}}(S) \setminus {\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{DM}}(S)$, we have $D_k > D_{i_j}$ or $D_k = D_{i_j} \land k > i_j$.
Let $\operatorname{ttd}_S(\tau_i) {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_i) - (T_i-D_i)$ be the time remaining before the absolute deadline of the last submitted job [@Baker2007] of $\tau_i \in {\mathsf{Active}}(S)$ in state $S$. Let $\ell {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\min\{m,|{\mathsf{Active}}(S)|\}$. Then, ${\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{EDF}}$ is a function that computes ${\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{EDF}}(S) {\stackrel{\textbf{def}}{=}}\{\tau_{i_1}, \tau_{i_2}, \ldots, \tau_{i_\ell}\}$ s.t. for all $1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\ell$ and for all $\tau_k$ in ${\mathsf{Active}}(S) \setminus {\mathsf{Run}}_{\text{EDF}}(S)$, we have $\operatorname{ttd}_S(\tau_k) > \operatorname{ttd}_S(\tau_{i_j})$ or $\operatorname{ttd}_S(\tau_k) = \operatorname{ttd}_S(\tau_{i_j}) \land k > i_j$.
By Definition \[def:sched\], global DM and EDF are thus work-conserving and it can also be verified that they are memoryless. In [@Baker2007], suggestions to model several other schedulers were presented. It was particularily shown that adding supplementary information to system states could allow broader classes of schedulers to be used. Intuitively, states could e.g. keep track of what tasks were executed in their predecessor to implement non-preemptive schedulers.
Clearly, in the case of the scheduling of sporadic tasks, two types of events can modify the current state of the system:
1. [*Clock-tick transitions*]{} model the elapsing of time for one time unit, i.e. the execution of the scheduler and the running of jobs.
2. [*Request transitions*]{} (called *ready transitions* in [@Baker2007]) model requests from sporadic tasks at a given instant in time.
Let $S$ be a state in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$, and let ${\mathsf{Run}}$ be a scheduler. Then, letting one time unit elapse from $S$ under the scheduling policy imposed by ${\mathsf{Run}}$ amounts to decrementing the $\operatorname{rct}$ of the tasks in ${\mathsf{Run}}(S)$ (and only those tasks), and to decrementing the $\operatorname{nat}$ of all tasks. Formally:
\[def:clocktick\] Let $S=\langle\operatorname{nat}_S,\operatorname{rct}_S\rangle\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ be a system state and ${\mathsf{Run}}$ be a scheduler for $\tau$ on $m$ processors. Then, we say that $S^+=\langle\operatorname{nat}_S^+,\operatorname{rct}_S^+\rangle$ is a *clock-tick successor* of $S$ under ${\mathsf{Run}}$, denoted $S\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S^+$ iff:
1. for all $\tau_i\in{\mathsf{Run}}(S)$: $\operatorname{rct}_S^+(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i)-1$ ;
2. for all $\tau_i\not\in{\mathsf{Run}}(S)$: $\operatorname{rct}_S^+(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i)$ ;
3. for all $\tau_i\in\tau$: $\operatorname{nat}_S^+(\tau_i)=\max\{\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_i)-1,0\}$.
Let $S$ be a state in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$. Intuitively, when the system is in state $S$, a request by some task $\tau_i$ for submitting a new job has the effect to update $S$ by setting $\operatorname{nat}(\tau_i)$ to $T_i$ and $\operatorname{rct}(\tau_i)$ to $C_i$. This can be generalised to sets of tasks. Formally:
\[def:reqtrans\] Let $S\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ be a system state and let $\tau'\subseteq{\mathsf{Eligible}}(S)$ be a set of tasks that are eligible to submit a new job in the system. Then, we say that $S'$ is a *$\tau'$-request successor* of $S$, denoted $S\xrightarrow{\tau'}S'$, iff:
1. for all $\tau_i\in \tau'$: $\operatorname{nat}_{S'}(\tau_i)=T_i$ and $\operatorname{rct}_{S'}(\tau_i)=C_i$
2. for all $\tau_i\in\tau\setminus\tau'$: $\operatorname{nat}_{S'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_i)$ and $\operatorname{rct}_{S'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_i)$.
Remark that we allow $\tau'=\emptyset$ (that is, no task asks to submit a new job in the system).
We are now ready to define the automaton $A(\tau, {\mathsf{Run}})$ that formalises the behavior of the system of sporadic tasks $\tau$, when executed upon $m$ processors under a scheduling policy ${\mathsf{Run}}$:
\[def:automaton\] Given a set of sporadic tasks $\tau$ and a scheduler ${\mathsf{Run}}$ for $\tau$ on $m$ processors, the automaton $A(\tau, {\mathsf{Run}})$ is the tuple $\langle V, E, S_0,F\rangle$ where:
1. $V={\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$
2. $(S_1,S_2)\in E$ iff there exists $S'\in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ and $\tau'\subseteq \tau$ s.t. $S_1\xrightarrow{\tau'}S'\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_2$.
3. $S_0=\langle\operatorname{nat}_0,\operatorname{rct}_0\rangle$ where for all $\tau_i\in\tau$, $\operatorname{nat}_0(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_0(\tau_i)=0$.
4. $F={\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$
Figure \[fig:simulation\] illustrates a possible graphical representation of one such automaton, which will be analyzed further in Section \[section:idlesim\]. On this example, the automaton depicts the following EDF-schedulable sporadic task set using an EDF scheduler and assuming $m=2$:
$$\begin{array}{c|ccc}
& T_i & D_i & C_i\\\hline
\tau_1 & 2 & 2 & 1\\
\tau_2 & 3 & 3 & 2
\end{array}$$
System states are represented by nodes. For the purpose of saving space, we represent a state $S$ with the $[\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta]$ format, meaning $\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_1) = \alpha$, $\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_1) = \beta$, $\operatorname{nat}_S(\tau_2) = \gamma$ and $\operatorname{rct}_S(\tau_2) = \delta$. We explicitly represent clock-tick transitions by edges labelled with ${\mathsf{Run}}$, and $\tau'$-request transitions by edges labelled with $\tau'$. $\tau'=\emptyset$ loops are implicit on each state. Note that, in accordance with Definition \[def:automaton\], there are no successive $\tau'$-request transitions, and there are thus no such transitions from states such as $[21,00]$ and $[00,32]$. Also note that the automaton indeed models the evolution of a sporadic system, of which the periodic case is one possible path (the particular case of a synchronous system is found by taking the maximal $\tau'$-request transition whenever possible, starting from $[00,00]$).
We remark that our definition deviates slightly from that of Baker and Cirinei. In our definition, a path in the automaton corresponds to an execution of the system that alternates between requests transitions (possibly with an empty set of requests) and clock-tick transitions. In their work [@Baker2007], Baker and Cirinei allow any sequence of clock ticks and requests, but restrict each request to a single task at a time. It is easy to see that these two definitions are equivalent. A sequence of $k$ clock ticks in Baker’s automaton corresponds in our case to a path $S_1,S_2,\ldots S_{k+1}$ s.t. for all $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}k$: $S_i\xrightarrow{\emptyset}S_i\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_{i+1}$. A maximal sequence of successive requests by $\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots,\tau_k$, followed by a clock tick corresponds in our case to a single edge $(S_1,S_2)$ s.t. $S_1\xrightarrow{\{\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_k\}}S'\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_2$ for some $S'$. Conversely, each edge $(S_1,S_2)$ in $A(\tau, {\mathsf{Run}})$ s.t. $S_1\xrightarrow{\tau'}S'\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_2$, for some state $S'$ and set of tasks $\tau'=\{\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_k\}$, corresponds to a sequence of successive requests[^2] by $\tau_1$,…, $\tau_k$ followed by a clock tick in Baker’s setting.
The purpose of the definition of $A(\tau,{\mathsf{Run}})$ should now be clear to the reader. Each possible execution of the system corresponds to a path in $A(\tau,{\mathsf{Run}})$ and vice-versa. States in ${\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$ correspond to states of the system where a deadline will unavoidably be missed. Hence, *the set of sporadic tasks $\tau$ is feasible under scheduler ${\mathsf{Run}}$ on $m$ processors iff ${\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$ is not reachable in $A(\tau,{\mathsf{Run}})$* [@Baker2007]. Unfortunately, the number of states of $A(\tau,{\mathsf{Run}})$ can be intractable even for very small sets of tasks $\tau$. In the next section we present generic techniques to solve the reachability problem in an efficient fashion, and apply them to our case. Experimental results given in Section \[section:experimental\] demonstrate the practical interest of these methods.
\[section:reachability\]
Let us now discuss techniques to solve the reachability problem. Let $A=\langle V, E, S_0,F\rangle$ be an automaton. For any $S\in V$, let ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(S\right)}}=\{S'\mid (S,S')\in E\}$ be the set of one-step successors of $S$. For a set of states $R$, we let ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(R\right)}}=\cup_{S\in
R}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(S\right)}}$. Then, solving the reachability problem on $A$ can be done by a *breadth-first traversal* of the automaton, as shown in Algorithm \[algo:bf\].
Intuitively, for all $i{\geqslant}0$, $R_i$ is the set of states that are reachable from $S_0$ in $i$ steps at most. The algorithm computes the sets $R_i$ up to the point where $(i)$ either a state from $F$ is met or $(ii)$ the sequence of $R_i$ stabilises because no new states have been discovered, and we declare $F$ to be unreachable. This algorithm always terminates and returns the correct answer. Indeed, either $F$ is reachable in, say $k$ steps, and then $R_k\cap F\neq \emptyset$, and we return ‘`Reachable`’. Or $F$ is not reachable, and the sequence eventually stabilises because $R_0\subseteq R_1\subseteq
R_2\subseteq\cdots\subseteq V$, and $V$ is a finite set. Then, we exit the loop and return ‘`Not reachable`’. Remark that this algorithm has the advantage that the whole automaton does not need be stored in memory before starting the computation, as Definition \[def:clocktick\] and Definition \[def:reqtrans\] allow us to compute ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(S\right)}}$ *on the fly* for any state $S$. Nevertheless, in the worst case, this procedure needs to explore the whole automaton and is thus in $\mathcal{O}(|V|)$ which can be too large to handle in practice [@Baker2007].
Equipped with such a simple definition of *automaton*, this is the best algorithm we can hope for. However, in many practical cases, the set of states of the automaton is endowed with a *strong semantic* that can be exploited to speed up Algorithm \[algo:bf\]. In our case, states are tuples of integers that characterise sporadic tasks running in a system. To harness this information, we rely on the formal notion of *simulation*:
\[def:simu\] Let $A=\langle V, E, S_0,F\rangle$ be an automaton. A *simulation relation* for $A$ is a preorder ${\succcurlyeq}\subseteq V\times V$ s.t.:
1. For all $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$ s.t. $(S_1,S_2)\in E$ and $S_3{\succcurlyeq}S_1$, there exists $S_4$ s.t. $(S_3,S_4)\in E$ and $S_4 {\succcurlyeq}S_2$.
2. For all $S_1$, $S_2$ s.t. $S_1{\succcurlyeq}S_2$: $S_2\in F$ implies $S_1\in F$.
Whenever $S_1{\succcurlyeq}S_2$, we say that $S_1$ *simulates* $S_2$. Whenever $S_1{\succcurlyeq}S_2$ but $S_2\not{\succcurlyeq}S_1$, we write $S_1{\succ}S_2$.
Intuitively, this definition says that whenever a state $S_3$ simulates a state $S_1$, then $S_3$ can *mimick* every possible move of $S_1$ by moving to a similar state: for every edge $(S_1,S_2)$, there is a corresponding edge $(S_3,S_4)$, where $S_4$ simulates $S_2$. Moreover, we request that a *target state* can only be simulated by a target state. Remark that for a given automaton there can be several simulation relations (for instance, equality is always a simulation relation).
The key consequence of this definition is that **if** $S_2$ is a state that can reach $F$, and if $S_1{\succcurlyeq}S_2$ **then** *$S_1$ can reach $F$ too*. Indeed, if $S_2$ can reach $F$, there is a path $v_0,v_1,\ldots, v_n$ with $v_0=S_2$ and $v_n\in F$. Using Definition \[def:simu\] we can inductively build a path $v_0',v_1',\ldots, v_n'$ s.t. $v_0'=S_1$ and $v_i'{\succcurlyeq}v_i$ for all $i{\geqslant}0$. Thus, in particular $v_n'{\succcurlyeq}v_n\in F$, hence $v_n'\in F$ by Definition \[def:simu\]. This means that $S_1$ can reach $F$ too. Thus, when we compute two states $S_1$ and $S_2$ with $S_1{\succcurlyeq}S_2$, at some step of Algorithm \[algo:bf\], we *do not need to further explore the successors of $S_2$*. Indeed, Algorithm \[algo:bf\] tries to detect reachable target states. So, if $S_2$ cannot reach a failure state, it is safe not to explore its succesors. Otherwise, if $S_2$ *can* reach a target state, then $S_1$ can reach a target state too, so it is safe to explore the successors of $S_1$ only. By exploiting this heuristic, Algorithm \[algo:bf\] could explore only a (small) subset of the states of $A$, which has the potential for a dramatic improvement in computation time. Remark that such techniques have already been exploited in the setting of *formal verification*, where several so-called *antichains algorithms* have been studied [@DeWulf2006; @Doyen2010; @DBLP:conf/cav/FiliotJR09] and have proved to be *several order of magnitudes more efficient* than the classical techniques of the literature.
Formally, for a set of states $V'\subseteq V$, we let ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(V'\right)}}=\{S\in V'\mid \nexists S'\in V' \textrm{ with }
S'{\succ}S\}$. Intuitively, ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(V'\right)}}$ is obtained from $V'$ by removing all the states that are simulated by some other state in $V'$. So the states we keep in ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(V'\right)}}$ are irredundant[^3] wrt ${\succcurlyeq}$. Then, we consider Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] which is an improved version of Algorithm \[algo:bf\].
Proving the correctness and termination of Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] is a little bit more involved than for Algorithm \[algo:bf\] and relies on the following lemma (proof in appendix):
\[lem:prop-bf-anti\] Let $A$ be an automaton and let ${\succcurlyeq}$ be a simulation relation for $A$. Let $R_0,R_1,\ldots$ and ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_0,{\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_1,\ldots$ denote respectively the sequence of sets computed by Algorithm \[algo:bf\] and Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] on $A$. Then, for all $i{\geqslant}0$: ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_i\right)}}$.
Intuitively, this means that some state $S$ that is in $R_i$ could not be present in ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i$, but that we always keep in ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i$ a state $S'$ that simulates $S$. Then, we can prove that:
For all automata $A=\langle V,E,S_0,F\rangle$, Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] terminates and returns `Reachable` iff $F$ is reachable in $A$.
The proof relies on the comparison between the sequence of sets $R_0,R_1,\ldots$ computed by Algorithm \[algo:bf\] (which is correct and terminates) and the sequence ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_0,{\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_1,\ldots$ computed by Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\].
Assume $F$ is reachable in $A$ in $k$ steps and not reachable in less than $k$ steps. Then, there exists a path $v_0, v_1,\ldots v_k$ with $v_0=S_0$, $v_k\in F$, and, for all $0{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}k$ $v_i\in
R_k$. Let us first show *per absurdum* that the loop in Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] does not finish before the $k$th step. Assume it is not the case, i.e. there exists $0< \ell< k$ s.t. ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_\ell={\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{\ell-1}$. This implies that ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_\ell\right)}}={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{\ell-1}\right)}}$ through Lemma \[lem:prop-bf-anti\]. Since $R_\ell\neq {\mathbin{R}}_{\ell-1}$, we deduce that all the states that have been added to $R_\ell$ are simulated by some state already present in $R_{\ell-1}$: for all $S\in R_\ell$, there is $S'\in R_{\ell-1}$ s.t. $S'{\succcurlyeq}S$. Thus, in particular, there is $S'\in R_{\ell-1}$ s.t. $S'{\succcurlyeq}v_\ell$. We consider two cases. Either there is $S'\in R_{\ell-1}$ s.t. $S'{\succcurlyeq}v_k$. Since $v_k\in F$, $F\cap
R_{\ell-1}\neq \emptyset$, which contradicts our hypothesis that $F$ is not reachable in less than $k$ steps. Otherwise, let $0{\leqslant}m< k$ be the least position in the path s.t. there is $S'\in R_{\ell-1}$ with $S'{\succcurlyeq}v_m$, but there is no $S''\in R_{\ell-1}$ with $S''{\succcurlyeq}v_{m+1}$. In this case, since $S'{\succcurlyeq}v_m$ and $(v_m,v_{m+1})\in E$, there is $S\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(S'\right)}}\subseteq R_{\ell}$ s.t. $S{\succcurlyeq}v_{m+1}$. However, we have made the hypothesis that every element in $R_\ell$ is simulated by some element in $R_{\ell-1}$. Thus, there is $S'' \in R_{\ell-1}$ s.t. $S''{\succcurlyeq}S$. Since $S{\succcurlyeq}v_{m+1}$, we deduce that $S''{\succcurlyeq}v_{m+1}$, with $S''\in R_{\ell-1}$, which contradicts our assumption that $S'' \notin R_{\ell-1}$. Thus, Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] will not stop before the $k$th iteration, and we know that there is $S_F\in R_k$ s.t. $S_F\in
F$. By Lemma \[lem:prop-bf-anti\], ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_k={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_k\right)}}$, hence there is $S'\in {\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_k$ s.t. $S'{\succcurlyeq}S$. By Definition \[def:simu\], $S'\in F$ since $S\in F$. Hence, ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_k\cap F\neq \emptyset$ and Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] terminates after $k$ steps with the correct answer.
Otherwise, assume $F$ is not reachable in $A$. Hence, for every $i{\geqslant}0$, $R_i\cap F=\emptyset$. Since ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i\subseteq R_i$ for all $i{\geqslant}0$, we conclude that ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i\cap F=\emptyset$ for all $i{\geqslant}0$. Hence, Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] never returns `Reachable` in this case. It remains to show that the **repeat** loop eventually terminates. Since $F$ is not reachable in $A$, there is $k$ s.t. $R_k=R_{k-1}$. Hence, ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_k\right)}}={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}$. By Lemma \[lem:prop-bf-anti\] this implies that ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_k={\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}$. Thus, Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] finishes after $k$ steps and returns `Not reachable`.
In order to apply Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\], it remains to show how to compute a simulation relation, which should contain as many pairs of states as possible, since this raises the chances to avoid exploring some states during the breadth-first search. It is well-known that the largest simulation relation of an automaton can be computed in polynomial time wrt the size of the automaton [@DBLP:conf/focs/HenzingerHK95]. However, this requires first computing the whole automaton, which is exactly what we want to avoid in our case. So we need to define simulations relations that can be computed *a priori*, only by considering the structure of the states (in our case, the functions $\operatorname{nat}$ and $\operatorname{rct}$). This is the purpose of the next section.
\[section:idlesim\]
In this section we define a simulation relation ${\succcurlyeq_{idle}}$, called the *idle tasks simulation relation* that can be computed by inspecting the values $\operatorname{nat}$ and $\operatorname{rct}$ stored in the states.
Let $\tau$ be a set of sporadic tasks. Then, the [*idle tasks preorder*]{} ${\succcurlyeq_{idle}}\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}\times{\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ is s.t. for all $S_1$,$S_2$: $S_1 {\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_2$ iff
1. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}$ ;
2. for all $\tau_i$ s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i) = 0$: $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i) {\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i)$ ;
3. for all $\tau_i$ s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i) > 0$: $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i) =\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i)$.
Notice the relation is reflexive as well as transitive, and thus indeed a preorder. It also defines a partial order on ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ as it is antisymmetric. Moreover, since $S_1{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_2$ implies that $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}$, we also have ${\mathsf{Active}}(S_1)={\mathsf{Active}}(S_2)$. Intuitively, a state $S_1$ simulates a state $S_2$ iff $(i)$ $S_1$ and $S_2$ coincide on all the active tasks (i.e., the tasks $\tau_i$ s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i)>0$), and $(ii)$ the $\operatorname{nat}$ of each idle task is not larger in $S_1$ than in $S_2$. Let us show that this preorder is indeed a simulation relation when we consider a *memoryless* scheduler (which is often the case in practice):
\[theorem:idlesim\] Let $\tau$ be a set of sporadic tasks and let ${\mathsf{Run}}$ be a *memoryless* (deterministic) scheduler for $\tau$ on $m$ processors. Then, ${\succcurlyeq_{idle}}$ is a simulation relation for $A(\tau,{\mathsf{Run}})$.
Let $S_1$, $S_1'$ and $S_2$ be three states in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ s.t. $(S_1, S_1')\in E$ and $S_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1$, and let us show that there exists $S_2'\in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{States}\left(\tau\right)}}$ with $(S_2,S_2')\in E$ and $S_2'{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1'$.
Since $(S_1, S_1')\in E$, there exists ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$ and $\tau'\subseteq
\tau$ s.t. $S_1\xrightarrow{\tau'}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_1'$, by Definition \[def:automaton\]. Let ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2$ be the (unique) state s.t. $S_2\xrightarrow{\tau'}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2$, and let us show that ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$:
1. for all $\tau_i\in \tau'$: $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=C_i=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$. For all $\tau_i\not\in \tau'$: $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i)$, $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}(\tau_i)$, and, since $S_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1$: $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}(\tau_i)$. Thus we conclude that $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}$.
2. Let $\tau_i$ be s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=0$. Then, we must have $\tau_i\not\in \tau'$. In this case, $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i)$, $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i)$, and, since $S_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1$, $\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i)$. Hence, $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)$. We conclude that for every $\tau_i$ s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=0$: $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)$
3. By similar reasoning, we conclude that, for all $\tau_i$ s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)>0$: $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$
Then observe that, by Definition \[def:simu\], ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$ implies that ${\mathsf{Active}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1)={\mathsf{Active}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2)$. Let $\tau_i$ be a task in ${\mathsf{Active}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1)$, hence $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)>0$. In this case, and since ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$, we conclude that $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$ and $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$. Thus, since ${\mathsf{Run}}$ is memoryless by hypothesis, ${\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1)={\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2)$, by Definition \[def:sched\]. Let $S_2'$ be the unique state s.t. ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{Run}}}S_2'$, and let us show that $S_2'{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1'$:
1. Since ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$, we know that $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}$. Let $\tau_i$ be a task in ${\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1)={\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2)$. By Definition \[def:clocktick\]: $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)-1$ and $\operatorname{rct}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)-1$. Hence, $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)$. For a task $\tau_i\not\in{\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1)={\mathsf{Run}}({\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2)$, we have $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)$ and $\operatorname{rct}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$, again by Definition \[def:clocktick\]. Hence, $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)$. We conclude that $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}=\operatorname{rct}_{S_2'}$.
2. Let $\tau_i$ be a task s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=0$. By Definition \[def:clocktick\]: $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\max\{0,\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)-1\}$ and $\operatorname{nat}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)=\max\{0,\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)-1\}$. However, since ${\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1$, we know that $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)$. We conclude that $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1'}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)$.
3. Let $\tau_i$ be a task s.t. $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)>0$. By Definition \[def:clocktick\]: $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\max\{0,\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)-1\}$ and $\operatorname{nat}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)=\max\{0,\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)-1\}$. Since $\operatorname{rct}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)>0$, we have $\operatorname{rct}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)>0$ too, since $\operatorname{rct}$ can only decrease with time elapsing. Since $S_1{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_2$ we have also $\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_2}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{{\ensuremath{\overline{S}}}_1}(\tau_i)$. We conclude that $\operatorname{nat}_{S_1'}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{S_2'}(\tau_i)$.
To conclude the proof it remains to show that, if $S_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1$ and $S_1\in{\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$ then $S_2\in{\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$ too. Let $\tau_i$ be a task s.t $\operatorname{laxity}_{S_1}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i)-(T_i-D_i)-\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i)<0$. Since $S_2{\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_1$: $\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{rct}_{S_1}(\tau_i)$, and $\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{nat}_{S_1}(\tau_i)$. Hence, $\operatorname{laxity}_{S_2}(\tau_i)=\operatorname{nat}_{S_2}(\tau_i)-(T_i-D_i)-\operatorname{rct}_{S_2}(\tau_i){\leqslant}\operatorname{laxity}_{S_1}(\tau_i)<0$, and thus, $S_2\in{\mathsf{Fail}}_\tau$.
Note that Theorem \[theorem:idlesim\] does [*not*]{} require the scheduler to be work-conserving. Theorem \[theorem:idlesim\] tells us that any state where tasks have to wait until their next job release can be simulated by a corresponding state where they can release their job earlier, regardless of the specifics of the scheduling policy as long as it is deterministic, predictable and memoryless, which is what many popular schedulers are in practice, such as preemptive DM or EDF.
![Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] exploits simulation relations to avoid exploring states needlessly. With ${\succcurlyeq_{idle}}$ on this small example, all grey states can be avoided as they are simulated by another state (e.g. $[00,21] {\succcurlyeq_{idle}}[10,21]$ and $[00,00] {\succcurlyeq_{idle}}[10,10]$).[]{data-label="fig:simulation"}](simulation.pdf)
Figure \[fig:simulation\], previously presented in Section \[section:problem\], illustrates the effect of using ${\succcurlyeq_{idle}}$ with Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\]. If a state $S_1$ has been encountered previously and we find another state $S_2$ such that $S_1 {\succcurlyeq_{idle}}S_2$, then we can avoid exploring $S_2$ and its successors altogether. However, note that this does not mean we will never encounter a successor of $S_2$ as they may be encountered through other paths (or indeed, may have been encountered already).
We implemented both Algorithm \[algo:bf\] (denoted *BF*) and Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] (denoted *ACBF* for “antichain breadth-first”) in C++ using the STL and Boost libraries 1.40.0. We ran head-to-head tests on a system equipped with a quad-core 3.2 GHz Intel Core i7 processor and 12 GB of RAM running under Ubuntu Linux 8.10 for AMD64. Our programs were compiled with Ubuntu’s distribution of GNU g++ 4.4.5 with flags for maximal optimization.
We based our experimental protocol on that used in [@Baker2007]. We generated random task sets where task minimum interarrival times $T_i$ were uniformly distributed in $\{1,2,\ldots,T_{\max}\}$, task WCETs $C_i$ followed an exponential distribution of mean $0.35\,T_i$ and relative deadlines were uniformly distributed in $\{C_i,\ldots, T_i\}$. Task sets where $n {\leqslant}m$ were dropped as well as sets where $\sum_i C_i/T_i > m$. Duplicate task sets were discarded as were sets which could be scaled down by an integer factor. We used EDF as scheduler and simulated $m=2$ for all experiments. Execution times (specifically, used CPU time) were measured using the C `clock()` primitive.
![States explored by BF before halt vs. execution time of BF and ACBF (5,000 task sets with $T_{\max} = 6$).[]{data-label="fig:states_vs_speed"}](states_vs_speed.pdf)
Our first experiment used $T_{\max} = 6$ and we generated 5,000 task sets following the previous rules (of which 3,240 were EDF-schedulable). Figure \[fig:states\_vs\_speed\] showcases the performance of both algorithms on these sets. The number of states explored by BF before halting gives a notion of how big the automaton was (if no failure state is reachable, the number is exactly the number of states in the automaton that are reachable from the initial state; if a failure state is reachable, BF halts before exploring the whole system). It can be seen that while ACBF and BF show similar performance for fairly small systems (roughly up to 25,000 states), ACBF outperforms BF for larger systems, and we can thus conclude that the antichains technique *scales better*. The largest system analyzed in this experiment was schedulable (and BF thus had to explore it completely), contained 277,811 states and was handled in slightly less than 2 hours with BF, whereas ACBF clocked in at 4 minutes.
![States explored by BF before halt vs. states explored by ACBF before halt (5,000 task sets with $T_{\max} = 6$).[]{data-label="fig:bc_vs_ac_states"}](bc_vs_ac_states.pdf)
Figure \[fig:bc\_vs\_ac\_states\] shows, for the same experiment, a comparison between explored states by BF and ACBF. This comparison is more objective than the previous one, as it does not account for the actual efficiency of our crude implementations. As can be seen, the simulation relation allows ACBF to drop a considerable amount of states from its exploration as compared with BF: on average, 70.8% were avoided (64.0% in the case of unschedulable systems which cause an early halt, 74.5% in the case of schedulable systems). This of course largely explains the better performance of ACBF, but we must also take into account the overhead due to the more complex algorithm. In fact, we found that in some cases, ACBF would yield worse performance than BF. However, to the best of our knowledge, this only seems to occur in cases where BF took relatively little time to execute (less than five seconds) and is thus of no concern in practice.
![States explored by ACBF before halt vs. ACBF execution time (5,000 task sets with $T_{\max} = 8$).[]{data-label="fig:ac_states_vs_time"}](ac_states_vs_time.pdf)
Our second experiment used 5,000 randomly generated task sets using $T_{\max} = 8$ (of which 3,175 were schedulable) and was intended to give a rough idea of the limits of our current ACBF implementation. Figure \[fig:ac\_states\_vs\_time\] plots the number of states explored by ACBF before halting versus its execution time. We can first notice the plot looks remarkably similar to BF in Figure \[fig:states\_vs\_speed\], which seems to confirm the exponential complexity of ACBF which we predicted. The largest schedulable system considered necessitated exploring 198,072 states and required roughly 5.5 hours. As a spot-check, we ran BF on a schedulable system where ACBF halted after exploring 14,754 states in 78 seconds; BF converged after just over 6 hours, exploring 434,086 states.
Our experimental results thus yield several interesting observations. The number of states explored by ACBF using the idle tasks simulation relation is significantly less on average than BF. This gives an objective metric to quantify the computational performance gains made by ACBF wrt BF. In practice using our implementation, ACBF outperforms BF for any reasonably-sized automaton, but we have seen that while our current implementation of ACBF defeats BF, it gets slow itself for slightly more complicated task sets. However, we expect smarter implementations and more powerful simulation relations to push ACBF much further.
\[section:conclusions\]
We have successfully adapted a novel algorithmic technique developed by the formal verification community, known as antichain algorithms [@DeWulf2006; @Doyen2010], to greatly improve the performance of an existing exact schedulability test for sporadic hard real-time tasks on identical multiprocessor platforms [@Baker2007]. To achieve this, we developed and proved the correctness of a simulation relation on a formal model of the scheduling problem. While our algorithm has the same worst-case performance as a naive approach, we have shown experimentally that our preliminary implementation can still outperform the latter in practice.
The model introduced in Section \[section:automaton\] yields the added contribution of bringing a fully formalized description of the scheduling problem we considered. This allowed us to formally define various scheduling concepts such as memorylessness, work-conserving scheduling and various scheduling policies. These definitions are univocal and not open to interpretation, which we believe is an important consequence. We also clearly define what an execution of the system is, as any execution is a possibly infinite path in the automaton, and all possible executions are accounted for.
We expect to extend these results to the general Baker-Cirinei automaton which allows for arbitrary deadlines in due time. We chose to focus on constrained deadlines in this paper mainly because it simplified the automaton and made our proofs simpler, but we expect the extension to arbitrary deadlines to be fairly straightforward. We also only focused on developing *forward simulations*, but there also exist antichain algorithms that use [*backward simulations*]{} [@Doyen2010]. It would be interesting to research such relations and compare the efficiency of those algorithms with that presented in this paper.
The task model introduced in Section \[section:problem\] can be further extended to enable study of more complex problems, such as job-level parallelism and semi-partitioned scheduling. The model introduced in Section \[section:automaton\] can also be extended to support broader classes of schedulers. This was briefly touched on in [@Baker2007]. For example, storing the previous scheduling choice in each state would allow modelling of non-preemptive schedulers.
It has not yet been attempted to properly optimize our antichain algorithm by harnessing adequate data structures; our objective in this work was primarily to get a preliminary “proof-of-concept” comparison of the performance of the naive and antichain algorithms. Adequate implementation of structures such as *binary decision diagrams* [@Bryant1992] and *covering sharing trees* [@Delzanno2004] should allow pushing the limits of the antichain algorithm’s performance.
Antichain algorithms should terminate quicker by using coarser simulation preorders. Researching other simulation preorders on our model, particularily preorders that are a function of the chosen scheduling policy, is also key to improving performance. Determining the complexity class of sporadic task set feasability on identical multiprocessor platforms is also of interest, as it may tell us whether other approaches could be used to solve the problem.
\[appendix:lemma\] In order to establish the lemma, we first show that, for any set $B$ of states, the following holds:
\[lem:post\] ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$.
We first show that ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}\subseteq{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$. By def of ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}$, we know that ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\subseteq
A$. Moreover, $\mathsf{Succ}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}$ are monotonic wrt set inclusion. Hence: $$\begin{array}{cl}
&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\subseteq B\\
\Rightarrow&{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\\
\Rightarrow&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}\subseteq {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}
\end{array}$$
Then, we show that ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}\supseteq{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$. Let $S_2$ be a state in ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$. Let $S_1\in B$ be a state s.t. $(S_1,S_2)\in E$. Since, $S_2\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}$, $S_1$ always exists. Since $S_1\in B$, there exists $S_3\in{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}$ s.t. $S_3{\succcurlyeq}S_1$. By Definition \[def:simu\], there is $S_4\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$ s.t. $S_4{\succcurlyeq}S_2$. To conclude, let us show *per absurdum* that $S_4$ is maximal in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$. Assume there exists $S_5\in{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$ s.t. $S_5{\succ}S_4$. Since ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\subseteq A$, $S_5$ is in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}$ too. Moreover, since $S_4{\succcurlyeq}S_2$ and $S_5{\succ}S_4$, we conclude that $S_5{\succ}S_2$. Thus, there is, in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}$ and element $S_5{\succ}S_2$. This contradict our hypothesis that $S_2\in{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(B\right)}}\right)}}$.
*Induction hypotesis* we assume that ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_k\right)}}$. Then: $$\begin{array}{cll}
&{\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_k\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}\cup{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}&\textrm{By def.}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}\right)}}\cup{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}&\textrm{by~(\ref{eq:cup})}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}\cup{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}&\textrm{By I.H.}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}\cup{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}\right)}}&\textrm{By Lemma~\ref{lem:post}}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_{k-1}\cup{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Succ}\left(R_{k-1}\right)}}\right)}}&\textrm{By~(\ref{eq:cup})}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_k\right)}}&\textrm{By def.}
\end{array}$$
Then, we are ready to show that:
\[lemma:antichain\] Let $A$ be an automaton and let ${\succcurlyeq}$ be a simulation relation for $A$. Let $R_0,R_1,\ldots$ and ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_0,{\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_1,\ldots$ denote respectively the sequence of sets computed by Algorithm \[algo:bf\] and Algorithm \[algo:bfanti\] on $A$. Then, for all $i{\geqslant}0$: ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_i={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_i\right)}}$.
The proof is by induction on $i$. We first observe that for any pair of sets $B$ and $C$, the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cl}
&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\cup
C\right)}}\\
=&{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(B\right)}}\cup {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(C\right)}}\right)}}
\end{array}
\label{eq:cup}
\end{aligned}$$
Base case $i=0$
: Clearly, ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Max}^{{\succcurlyeq}}}}\left(R_0\right)}}=R_0$ since $R_0$ is a singleton. By definition ${\ensuremath{{\widetilde}{R}}}_0=R_0$.
Inductive case $i=k$
: See Figure \[fig:proof\].
#### Acknowledgment.
We thank Phan Hiep Tuan for identifying mistakes in Definition \[def:simu\] and Theorem \[theorem:idlesim\].
[^1]: Remark that by modeling the scheduler as a function, we restrict ourselves to *deterministic schedulers*.
[^2]: Remark that the order does not matter.
[^3]: They form an *antichain* of states wrt ${\succcurlyeq}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
People learn in fast and flexible ways that have not been emulated by machines. Once a person learns a new verb “dax,” he or she can effortlessly understand how to “dax twice," “walk and dax,” or “dax vigorously.” There have been striking recent improvements in machine learning for natural language processing, yet the best algorithms require vast amounts of experience and struggle to generalize new concepts in compositional ways. To better understand these distinctively human abilities, we study the compositional skills of people through language-like instruction learning tasks. Our results show that people can learn and use novel functional concepts from very few examples (few-shot learning), successfully applying familiar functions to novel inputs. People can also compose concepts in complex ways that go beyond the provided demonstrations. Two additional experiments examined the assumptions and inductive biases that people make when solving these tasks, revealing three biases: mutual exclusivity, one-to-one mappings, and iconic concatenation. We discuss the implications for cognitive modeling and the potential for building machines with more human-like language learning capabilities.
**Keywords:** concept learning; compositionality; word learning; neural networks
author:
- |
[**Brenden M. Lake$^{1,2}$, Tal Linzen$^3$, and Marco Baroni$^{2,4}$**]{}\
$^1$New York University, $^2$Facebook AI Research, $^3$John Hopkins University, $^4$ICREA
bibliography:
- 'library\_clean.bib'
- 'marco.bib'
title: 'Human few-shot learning of compositional instructions'
---
People use their compositional skills to make critical generalizations in language, thought, and action. Once a person learns a new concept “photobombing”, she or he immediately understands how to “photobomb twice”, “jump and photobomb”, or “photobomb vigorously.” This example illustrates systematic compositionality, the algebraic capacity to understand and produce an infinite number of utterances from known components [@Chomsky:1957; @Montague:1970a; @Fodor1975]. This ability is central to how people can learn from limited amounts of experience [@Lake2016], and uncovering its computational basis is an important open challenge.
There have been dramatic advances in machine language capabilities, yet the best algorithms require tremendous amounts of training data and struggle with generalization. These advances have been largely driven by neural networks, a class of models that has been long criticized for lacking systematic compositionality [@Fodor:Pylyshyn:1988; @Marcus1998; @Fodor:Lepore:2002; @Marcus2003; @Calvo:Symons:2014]. Neural networks have developed substantially since these classic critiques, yet recent work evaluated contemporary neural networks and found they still fail tests of compositionality [@LakeBaroni2018; @Bastings:etal:2018; @Loula2018]. To evaluate compositional learning, introduced the SCAN dataset for learning instructions such as “walk twice and jump around right,” which were built compositionally from a set of primitive instructions (e.g., “run” and “walk”), modifiers (“twice” or “around right”), and conjunctions (“and” or “after”). The authors found that modern recurrent neural networks can learn how to “run” and to “run twice” when both of these instructions occur in the training phase, yet fail to generalize to the meaning of “jump twice” when “jump” but not “jump twice” is included in the training data.
Classic arguments about the human ability to generalize have mostly rested on thought experiments. The latter, however, might underestimate facilitating factors, such as our knowledge of English, on which we are undoubtedly relying when interpreting “photobombing twice”. In this paper, we study the scope and nature of people’s compositional learning abilities through artificial instruction learning tasks that minimize reliance on knowledge of a specific language. The tasks require mapping instructions to responses, where an instruction is a sequence of pseudowords and a response is a sequence of colored circles. These tasks follow the popular sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) framework and studied in and used to great effect in recent machine learning . Seq2seq tasks require a learner to first read a sequence of input symbols, and then produce a sequence of output symbols (Fig. \[fig\_seq2seq\]), whereby the input and output sequences can have different lengths. This framework allows us to directly compare humans and recent recurrent neural network architectures, while providing enough flexibility and richness to study key aspects of compositional learning. Moreover, the seq2seq problems investigated here present a novel challenge for both human and machine learners: unlike standard seq2seq benchmarks, which provide the learner with thousands of paired input and output examples, our “few-shot learning" paradigm provides the learner with only a handful of training examples.
Our tasks differ from the artificial grammar learning [@Reber:1967; @Fitch:Friederici:2012], rule learning [@Marcus1999], and program learning [@Stuhlmuller2010] paradigms in that we do not ask participants to implicitly or explicitly determine if items are grammatical. Instead, we ask them to process input sequences in a pseudo-language in order to generate output sequences (“meanings”). Asking participants to associate new words or sentences with visual referents is a standard practice in psycholinguistics . Some of this work is particularly close to ours in that it studies the biases underlying linguistic generalization . However, we are not aware of other studies that adopted the sequence-to-sequence language-to-meaning paradigm we are proposing here. Moreover, the biases studied in the earlier miniature language literature are more specific to grammatical phenomena attested in language (e.g., pertaining to linguistic syntax and morphology) than the basic generalization preferences we are exploring here.
![A sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) recurrent neural network applied to few-shot instruction learning. Instructions are provided in a novel language of pseudowords and processed with an encoder network (in this case, the instruction is “lug blicket wif”), in order to generate an output sequence using a decoder network (“BLUE GREEN BLUE”). The symbols $<$EOS$>$ and $<$SOS$>$ denote end-of-sentence and start-of-sentence, respectively. The encoder (left) ends with the first $<$EOS$>$ symbol, and the decoder (right) begins with $<$SOS$>$.[]{data-label="fig_seq2seq"}](figures/seq2seq.pdf){width="3.2in"}
{width="7in"}
Experiment 1: Few-shot instruction learning
-------------------------------------------
Participants were asked to learn novel instructions from limited demonstrations. The task was inspired by the SCAN dataset for evaluating compositional learning in machines [@LakeBaroni2018], adapted to be novel and tractable for human learners in the lab. Instead of following instructions in English, participants learned to interpret and execute instructions in a novel language of pseudowords (e.g., “zup blicket lug”) by producing a sequence of abstract outputs (a sequence of colored circles; Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]). Some pseudowords were primitive instructions that correspond to a single output symbol, while other pseudowords are interpreted as functions that need to be applied to arguments to construct the output. As in SCAN, one primitive (“zup”) is only presented in isolation during study but is evaluated compositionally during test, appearing in each test instruction. To perform well, participants must learn the meaning of each function from just a small number of demonstrations, and then generalize to new primitives and more complex compositions than previously observed.
### Stimuli.
The instructions consisted of seven possible pseudowords and the output sequences consisted of four possible response symbols (Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]). Four primitive pseudowords are direct mappings from one input word to one output symbol (e.g., “dax” is “RED” and “wif” is “GREEN”), and the other pseudowords are functional terms that take arguments. To discourage a strategy based on word-to-word translation into English, the functional terms could not be easily expressed by single-word modifiers in English; they also formed phrases whose order would be unnatural in English.
The meanings of the functions were as follows. Function 1 (“fep” in Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]) takes the preceding primitive as an argument and repeats its output three times (“dax fep” is “RED RED RED”). Function 2 (“blicket”) takes both the preceding primitive and following primitive as arguments, producing their outputs in a specific alternating sequence (“wif blicket dax” is “GREEN RED GREEN”). Last, Function 3 (“kiki”) takes both the preceding and following strings as input, processes them, and concatenates their outputs in reverse order (“dax kiki lug” is “BLUE RED”). We also tested Function 3 in cases where its arguments were generated by the other functions, exploring function composition (“wif blicket dax kiki lug” is “BLUE GREEN RED GREEN”). During the study phase (see Methods below), participants saw examples that disambiguated the order of function application for the tested compositions (Function 3 takes scope over the other functions).
### Methods.
Thirty participants in the United States were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and the psiTurk platform [@Psiturk]. Participants were informed that the study investigated how people learn input-output associations, and that they would be asked to learn a set of commands and their corresponding outputs. Learning proceeded in a curriculum with four stages, with each stage featuring both a study phase and a test phase. In the first three stages, during the study phase participants learned individual functions from just two demonstrations each (Functions 1 through 3; Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]). In the final stage, participants learned to interpret complex instructions by combining these functions (Function compositions; Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]).
Each study phase presented participants with a set of example input-output mappings. For the first three stages, the study instructions always included the four primitives and two examples of the relevant function, presented together on the screen. For the last stage, the entire set of study instructions was provided together in order to probe composition. During the study phases, the output sequence for one of the study items was covered and participants were asked to reproduce it, given their memory and the other items on the screen. Corrective feedback was provided, and participants cycled through all non-primitive study items until all were produced correctly or three cycles were completed. The test phase asked participants to produce the outputs for novel instructions, with no feedback provided. The study items remained on the screen for reference, so that performance would reflect generalization in the absence of memory limitations. The study and test items always differed from one another by more than one primitive substitution (except in the Function 1 stage, where a single primitive was presented as novel argument to Function 1). Some test items also required reasoning beyond substituting variables, and in particular understanding longer compositions of functions than were seen in the study phase.
The response interface had a pool of possible output symbols which could be clicked or dragged to the response array. The circles could be rearranged within the array or cleared with a reset button. The study and test set only used four output symbols, but the pool provided six possibilities (that is, there were two extra colors that were not associated to pseudowords), to discourage reasoning by exclusion. The assignment of nonsense words to colors and functions was randomized for each participant (drawn from nine possible nonsense words and six colors), and the first three stages were presented in random order.
We used several strategies to ensure that our participants were paying attention. First, before the experiment, participants practiced using the response interface and had to pass an instructions quiz; they cycled through the quiz until they passed it. Second, catch trials were included during the test phases, probing the study items rather than new items, with the answers clearly presented on the screen above. There was one catch trial per stage (except the last stage had two); a participants’ test data was excluded if the participant missed two or more catch trials ($n=5$). Finally, test phases were also excluded if the corresponding study phases were not passed in the allotted time (13% of remaining data).
### Recurrent neural networks.
Standard sequence-to-sequence recurrent neural networks (RNNs; Fig. \[fig\_seq2seq\]) failed to generalize from the study set to the test set. RNNs were trained using supervised learning on the 14 study instructions and evaluated on the test instructions (Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]), using the best overall architecture from on the related SCAN benchmark (2-layer LSTM encoder and decoder, 200 hidden units per layer, a dropout probability of 0.5, no attention). This network (Fig. \[fig\_seq2seq\]) consists of two neural networks working together: an encoder RNN that processes the instruction and embeds it as a vector, and a decoder RNN that decodes this vector as a sequence of output symbols. Another top architecture from @LakeBaroni2018 was also evaluated (1-layer LSTM encoder and decoder, 100 hidden units per layer, dropout 0.1, with attention). The training setup mimicked @LakeBaroni2018 but with 10,000 instruction presentations, corresponding to about 700 passes through the training data (epochs). Several variants of the architectures were also trained, repeatedly reducing the number of hidden units by half until there were only three hidden units per layer. Averaged across five random seeds, no architecture generalized better than 2.5% correct on the test instructions, confirming @LakeBaroni2018’s conclusion that seq2seq RNNs struggle with few-shot learning and systematic generalization.
### Results.
Human participants showed an impressive ability to learn functions from limited experience and generalize to novel inputs, as summarized in Fig. \[fig\_miniscan\]. In the first three stages, performance was measured separately for each functional term after exclusions through the above attention criteria. Average performance across participants was 84.3% correct ($n=25$), counting sequences as correct only if every output symbol was correct. Measured for individual functions, accuracy was 88.0% ($n = 25$) for Function 1, 83.3% ($n=24$) for Function 2, and 86.4% ($n = 22$) for Function 3.[^1]
Participants were also able to compose functions together to interpret novel sequences of instructions. In the final stage, accuracy on complex instructions was 76.0% ($n = 20$). People could generalize to longer and more complex instructions than previously observed, an ability that seq2seq neural networks particularly struggle with [@LakeBaroni2018]. During the study phase, the most complex instruction consisted of five input pseudowords requiring two function compositions, producing four output symbols. At test, most participants could successfully go beyond this, correctly processing six input pseudowords requiring three function compositions, producing six output symbols (72.5% correct).
The pattern of errors showcases intriguing alternative hypotheses that participants adopted. Some errors were suggestive of inductive biases and assumptions that people bring to the learning task—principles that are reasonable a priori and consistent with some but not all of the provided demonstrations. For instance, many errors can be characterized by a bias we term “one-to-one,” the assumption that each input symbol corresponds to exactly one output symbol, and that inputs can be translated one-by-one to outputs without applying complex functional transformations. This characterized 24.4% of all errors.[^2] Other errors involved misapplication of Function 3, which required concatenating its arguments in reverse order. When participants made an error, they often concatenated but did not reverse the argument (23.3% of errors for instructions using Function 3), a bias we term “iconic concatenation,” referring to a preference for maintaining the order of the input symbols in the order of the output symbols. Forms of iconic concatenation are widely attested in natural language, and constitute important biases in language learning [@Haiman:1980; @GoldinMeadow:etal:2008; @deRuiter:etal:2018].
In sum, people learn in several ways that go beyond powerful seq2seq neural networks. People can learn novel functions from as few as two examples and generalize in systematic ways, appropriately applying the functions to previously unused input variables. People can also compose these novel functions together in ways not observed during training. Finally, people appear to bring strong inductive biases to this learning challenge, which may contribute to both their learning successes and failures.
{width="6.5in"}
Experiment 2: Inductive biases in instruction learning
------------------------------------------------------
This experiment investigated the inductive biases that appeared to influence the previous task. We devised a new set of seq2seq problems that were intentionally ambiguous and compatible with a number of possible generalizations, related to the “poverty of the stimulus” paradigm in experimental linguistics [@Wilson:2006; @mccoy2018revisiting]. These problems provide a more direct window into people’s inductive biases because the information provided is insufficient for deducing the correct answer. The design also parametrically varied the context under which the biases were evaluated to better understand their structure and scope.
This experiment studies the one-to-one and iconic concatenation biases identified above, as well as the mutual exclusivity (ME) bias that has been studied extensively in the developmental literature. Classic studies of ME present children with a familiar and an unfamiliar object (e.g., a ball and a spatula; ), or two unfamiliar objects in which one is familiarized during the experiment [@Diesendruck2001]. When given the instruction “show me the zup,” children typically understand “zup” to refer to the novel object rather than acting as a second name for the familiar object. In our instruction learning paradigm, ME is operationalized as the inference that if “dax” means “RED”, then “zup” is likely another response besides “RED.” Although Exp. 1 did not naturally lend itself to probing the effect of the ME bias, we conjecture that it is because of the latter that participants rapidly eliminated many degenerate solutions (such as all strings referring to the same output item) in virtually any word learning experiment. We thus want to study the impact of ME more explicitly.
### Methods.
Twenty-eight participants in the United States were recruited using Mechanical Turk and psiTurk. The instructions were as similar as possible to the previous experiment. In contrast, the curriculum of related stages in the previous experiment was replaced by 14 independent trials that evaluated biases under different circumstances. Each trial provided a set of study instructions (input-output mappings) and asked participants to make a judgment about a single new test instruction. To highlight the independence between trials, the pseudoword and colors were re-randomized for each trial from a larger set of 20 possible pseudowords and 8 colors. To emphasize the inductive nature of the task, participants were told that there were multiple reasonable answers for a given trial and were instructed to provide a reasonable guess.
The trials were structured as follows. Six trials pertain to ME and whether participants are sensitive to counter-evidence and the number of options in the response pool (e.g., Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A left and middle columns). Three trials pertain to iconic concatenation and how participants concatenate instructions together in the absence of demonstrations (e.g., Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A right column). Three additional trials pertain to how people weigh ME versus one-to-one in judgments that necessarily violate one of these biases (not shown in figure). Finally, two catch trials queried a test instruction that was identical to a study instruction. The design minimized the risk that the biases could be learned from the stimuli themselves. None of the study instructions demonstrated how to concatenate, facilitating a pure evaluation of concatenation preferences. In the novel test trials, 6 instructions supported ME and 6 violated it, although both catch trials also supported ME. We did not explicitly control for the one-to-one bias. Missing a catch trial was the only criterion for exclusion ($n = 6$). There was no memory quiz for the study items since each contained just a few instructions.
### Results.
There was strong evidence for each of the three inductive biases. The classic mutual exclusivity (ME) effect was replicated within our seq2seq learning paradigm. If “dax” means “RED”, what is a “zup”? As shown in the top-left cell of Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A, most participants (18 of 22; 81.8%) chose a single “BLUE” symbol as their response if the pool provided only “RED” and “BLUE” as options, and a larger fraction (20 of 22; 90.9%) followed ME by choosing a (possibly multi-element) meaning different from “RED.”
While the ME effect was robust, it was sensitive to context and was not rigidly applied. The other ME trials examined the influence of two additional factors (Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A left and middle columns): the number of contradictory examples provided (0–2; Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A rows) and the number of output symbols available in the response pool (2 vs. 6; Fig \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A columns). With these two variables as fixed effects, we fit a logistic mixed model predicting whether or not a response was consistent with ME. Both the number of contradictory examples ($\beta = 1.76$, $SE=0.483$, $Z=3.64$, $p<0.001$) and pool size ($\beta=2.05$, $SE=0.698$, $Z=2.93$, $p<0.01$) were significant predictors, indicating that people were willing to override or weaken ME when faced with more ME counter-evidence (or equivalently in our case, positive evidence that “RED” is the right answer), or when more output symbols were available in the pool (Fig. \[fig\_summary\_ME\]). The second effect is intriguing. Although we leave a detailed analysis to future work, we conjecture that it stems from pragmatic reasoning on behalf of the participants: When five yet-to-be-named objects are in the pool, ME is such a weak heuristic that participants might conclude that the experiment is not asking them to rely on it.
![The proportion of responses consistent with mutual exclusivity (y-axis) declines with the number of contradictory examples and the number of output symbols available in the response pool.[]{data-label="fig_summary_ME"}](figures/summary_ME.pdf){width="2.5in"}
There was strong confirmatory evidence for iconic concatenation. Across three trials that examined this bias in various forms, we found that 93.9% ($n=22$) of responses were consistent with iconic concatenation, even though no examples of concatenation were provided during this experiment (Fig. \[fig\_summary\_bias\]A right column). In three trials where all of the output symbols in the pool were already assigned to unique pseudowords, participants had to choose between violating ME by reassigning an output symbol, or violating one-to-one by choosing a more complex functional or multi-element meaning. Interestingly, the responses were evenly split (50.0%) between following one principle versus the other.
Taken together, there was substantial support for three inductive biases in how people approach compositional learning in sequence-to-sequence mapping problem, confirming our hypotheses from Exp. 1. A drawback of this experiment’s within-subjects design was the risk of judgments interfering with one another. The experiment used heavy randomization and mitigated the risk that the biases could be learned from the aggregate statistics of the stimuli, but these controls were not perfect. The next experiment addresses these concerns.
Experiment 3: Inductive biases in free-form response
----------------------------------------------------
In this experiment, participants responded to novel instructions without receiving any demonstrations, e.g., making plausible guesses for the outputs of instructions “fep”, “fep fep,” and “fep wif” and how they relate to one another. This design offers the purest examination of people’s assumptions since they have no relevant evidence about how to respond.
### Methods.
Thirty participants in the United States were recruited using Mechanical Turk and psiTurk. The instructions were similar as possible to the previous experiments, using Exp. 2’s wording emphasizing there are multiple reasonable answers and to provide a reasonable guess. Participants produced the output for seven novel instructions utilizing five possible pseudowords (Fig. \[fig\_summary\_bias\]B). Responses were entered on a single page, allowing participants to edit and maintain consistency. Participants also approved a summary view of their responses before submitting. There were six pool options, and the assignment of pseudowords and item order were random. One participant was excluded because she or he reported using an external aid in a post-test survey.
### Results.
The results provide strong confirmatory evidence for the three key inductive biases: ME, iconic concatenation, and one-to-one. Although the task was highly under-determined, there was a substantial structure in the responses, unlike an untrained seq2seq recurrent neural network which would respond arbitrarily. The majority of participants (17 of 29; 58.6%) responded in an analogous way to the participant shown at the top of Fig. \[fig\_summary\_bias\]B. This set of responses is perfectly consistent with all three inductive biases, assigning a unique output symbol to each input symbol and concatenating to preserve the input ordering. Other participants produced alternative hypotheses that followed some but not all the inductive biases. Overall, 23 of 29 participants (79.3%) followed iconic concatenation, assigning consistent (but possibly multi-element) output sequences to individual input words (e.g., Fig. \[fig\_summary\_bias\]B bottom). In all but one of these cases, each input word was assigned a unique output sequence, abiding by mutual exclusivity (22 of 23; 95.7%).
Discussion and Conclusions
--------------------------
People learn in fast and flexible ways not captured by today’s algorithms. After learning how to “dax”, people can immediately understand how to “dax slowly” or “dax like you mean it.” These types of inferences are critical to language learning and understanding, yet modern recurrent neural networks struggle to generalize in similarly systematic ways [@LakeBaroni2018; @Loula2018]. To study these distinctively human abilities, we examined people’s compositional skills in novel language-like instruction learning problems. The tasks followed the popular sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) framework from machine learning, allowing humans and machines to be compared side-by-side. Experiment 1 examined how people learn novel instructions from examples, asking participants to interpret sequences of pseudowords by producing sequences of abstract output symbols. People could learn new functions from just two examples and successfully applied them to new inputs, while standard seq2seq recurrent neural networks (RNNs) failed to generalize. People could also handle longer sequences that require more compositions than previously observed, again surpassing the skills of powerful neural networks. Inspired by the errors participants made, Experiments 2 and 3 investigated inductive biases that constrain human learning, revealing that human learners draw upon mutual exclusivity (ME), iconic concatenation, and one-to-one in seq2seq word learning tasks.
More than a source of error, these biases provide important inductive constraints. If people interpreted the instruction as unanalyzable wholes, they would have no basis for generalization. Instead, people facilitate generalization by favoring hypotheses that assign unique and consistent meanings to individual words and follow certain input/output ordering constraints. As the final experiment shows, participants assume these characteristics before observing any data. The assumptions turn out to be powerful, characterizing most of the word meanings in Exp. 1 and the related SCAN benchmark, even though neither was designed with these biases in mind. Notably, the biases can mislead when learning function words; this was the case in many of the errors made in Exp. 1.
Future work should investigate the origin and scope of these biases through other compositional learning tasks. To the extent that our tasks evoke language learning, they could recruit biases known in the developmental literature such as mutual exclusivity [@Markman1988]. If the outputs are viewed as objects, one-to-one is related to the whole object assumption in word learning [@Macnamara:1982]. Alternatively, if the outputs are viewed as events or actions, iconic concatenation could be justified by aligning a description with its content in time [@deRuiter:etal:2018]. Another important line of future work should be providing a more explicit account of how the biases, which we observed emerging in participants’ errors, are also aiding faster learning of the correct generalizations.
These insights from human learning could be fruitfully incorporated into machine learning. These biases could facilitate learning of seq2seq problems such as machine translation and semantic parsing, or related image2seq problems such as caption generation. Powerful seq2seq models do not have these inductive biases, suggesting a path to building more powerful and human-like learning architectures by incorporating them.
Acknowledgments
---------------
We thank the NYU ConCats group, Michael Frank, Kristina Gulordava, Germán Kruszewski, Roger Levy, and Adina Williams for helpful suggestions.
[^1]: The number of participants varies since data was included on the basis of passing the study phase. For comparison, the overall accuracy with no exclusions at all was 72.0%.
[^2]: These errors are defined as responses such that the input and output sequence have the same length, and each input primitive is replaced with its provided output symbol. Function words are replaced with an arbitrary output symbol.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Large-scale ad hoc analytics of genomic data is popular using the R-programming language supported by 671 software packages provided by Bioconductor. More recently, analytical jobs are benefitting from on-demand computing and storage, their scalability and their low maintenance cost, all of which are offered by the cloud. While Biologists and Bioinformaticists can take an analytical job and execute it on their personal workstations, it remains challenging to seamlessly execute the job on the cloud infrastructure without extensive knowledge of the cloud dashboard. How analytical jobs can not only with minimum effort be executed on the cloud, but also how both the resources and data required by the job can be managed is explored in this paper. An open-source light-weight framework for executing R-scripts using Bioconductor packages, referred to as ‘RBioCloud’, is designed and developed. RBioCloud offers a set of simple command-line tools for managing the cloud resources, the data and the execution of the job. Three biological test cases validate the feasibility of RBioCloud. The framework is publicly available from `http://www.rbiocloud.com`.'
author:
-
-
title: |
RBioCloud: A Light-weight Framework for\
Bioconductor and R-based Jobs on the Cloud
---
Cloud computing, R programming, Bioconductor, Amazon Web Services, Data analytics
Introduction
============
Ad-hoc analytics of genomic data is popular in domains such as computational biology and bioinformatics. Typically, an analytical job comprises software scripts written by biologists or bioinformaticists in high-level programming languages, such as R [@Rprogramming], along with large amounts of data that needs to be processed. R-based analytics in computational biology or bioinformatics is gaining popularity and is supported through 671 software packages provided by Bioconductor [@bioconductor]. Analytical jobs which may require a few hours or perhaps even a few days may ingest large amounts of data and subsequently also produce data in large volumes. Not only is analytics inherently computationally intensive, but also data intensive. High-performance computing systems have therefore become attractive for executing large-scale analytical jobs [@prelim10].
Traditional high-performance computing systems such as clusters and supercomputers offer a good platform to perform large-scale analytics. However, it is required of the computational biologist and bioinformaticist, who has excellent programming and statistical skills, to also have extensive knowledge of the high-performance computing hardware. Moreover, the costs required for investing in large-scale systems and their maintenance is high. The cloud has become an appealing high-performance computing platform for ad-hoc analytics since it offers on-demand computing and storage resources, along with scalability and low maintenance costs [@prelim2; @prelim7; @prelim5-2]. This has led to a variety of research for supporting computational biology and bioinformatics related jobs on the cloud (for example, genome sequencing [@prelim2-1], genome informatics [@prelim8], comparative genomics [@prelim3-1], proteomics [@prelim4-1] and biomedical computing [@prelim5-1]).
Software projects such as elasticR [@elasticR], DARE [@DARE] and AzureBlast [@AzureBlast] support applications on the cloud, all of which require the user to have extensive knowledge of the cloud dashboard to be able to port an existing analytical workload onto the cloud. The options provided by such projects for a fully configurable cloud cluster can fit well with the skill set of a cloud developer, thereby narrowing their wide usage. The major challenge in the research of developing software similar to the ones above for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (for example, CloudBLAST [@CloudBLAST], GalaxyCloudMan [@GalaxyCloudMan], SIMPLEX [@SIMPLEX] and Crossbow [@Crossbow]) is to seamlessly execute an analytical job on the cloud in a manner similar to how the job would be executed on the personal workstation. However, the use of such software adds an additional layer of complexity for managing the software on top of executing the job. Further, adapting the above projects to execute workloads developed using the R programming language is cumbersome, specific adaptations being required in many cases. A similar challenge exists for executing the increasing number of analytical workloads that are developed using the R with Bioconductor packages [@RandBioconductor].
The current Bioconductor based solution [@BioconductorCloudAMI] is based on manually configuring the cloud dashboard for every job that needs to be executed. Software developed to support R and Bioconductor, for example, Myrna [@Myrna], Contrail [@Contrail] and [@Jnomics] are restricted to specific applications in computational biology and bioinformatics. These challenges can be overcome by the development of a generic framework that can support R-based jobs supported by Bioconductor packages, and their execution and management on the cloud.
The research reported in this paper aims to address the above challenges. A light-weight framework, ‘RBioCloud’, for supporting R-based analytical applications which use Bioconductor software packages and need to be executed on the cloud is presented. Domain scientists have to often spend a lot of time dealing with the complex details of configuring the cloud. Using RBioCloud, an analytical job can be executed on the cloud with minimal effort using a set of five commands from a personal workstation. The need for any extensive knowledge of the cloud dashboard is minimised.
The contributions of RBioCloud research is a framework (i) for handling a diverse range of Bioconductor based analytical jobs on the cloud, (ii) for abstracting the complexities of cloud set up and configuration, (iii) for computational biologist and bioinformaticists to easily access and use the cloud, thereby saving time, and (iv) with seemingly minimal difference between a domain scientists workstation though remote resources are accessed. The feasibility of RBioCloud is validated by using three test cases employing Bioconductor packages for executing R-based scripts on the cloud. In the first test case, genome searching is performed on a single cloud instance, in the second test case, differentially expressed genes are detected on a single cloud instance, and in the third test case, normalisation of microRNA (miRNA) microarray data is performed on a cluster in the cloud.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section \[design\] considers the design of the RBioCloud framework. Section \[tools\] describes the command line tools offered by RBioCloud for managing and executing an analytical job. Section \[feasibilitystudy\] presents three test cases to validate the feasibility of RBioCloud. Section \[conclusions\] concludes this paper by considering future work.
Framework Design {#design}
================
Figure \[figure1\], shows the design of the RBioCloud framework which is located on a host site for accessing and managing cloud resources. The host site represents the workstation of a computational biologist or a bioinformaticist who makes use of the cloud infrastructure to execute a job. The Amazon cloud infrastructure is employed in this research. RBioCloud is designed so that the job can be executed from the host site using the following five step sequence (refer Figure \[figure2\]):
- *Step 1:* Gather resources - initialise cloud compute and storage resources from the host.
- *Step 2:* Submit job - send the analytical job from the host onto cloud resources.
- *Step 3:* Execute job - execute the scripts within the job on the resources.
- *Step 4:* Retrieve results - get results generated on the cloud resources onto host.
- *Step 5:* Terminate resources - release all resources which were initialised on the cloud.
![Design of RBioCloud framework[]{data-label="figure1"}](Figure1.jpg){width="33.00000%"}
{width="93.00000%"}
Supporting Interfaces
---------------------
RBioCloud is developed using the Python programming language and is supported by a number of interfaces. The compute and storage resources are provided by the Amazon Web Services (AWS)[^1]. All resources are available on-demand and are paid for on the basis of their usage. The computational resources are offered through Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2)[^2] and are available as instances. The storage resources are referred to as the Elastic Block Storage (EBS)[^3] provide persistent data storage. Two Python interfaces, namely BOTO[^4] provides the interface to access the resources provided by AWS and Fabric[^5] facilitates remote administration of the cloud resources.
Amazon instances are initialized using Amazon Machine Images (AMI)[^6]. The RBioCloud framework is built on the Bioconductor Cloud AMI [@BioconductorCloudAMI] and supports the R programming language along with Bioconductor packages.
The cloud is attractive for large analytical jobs as parallel computations incorporated within jobs can be exploited on the cloud. The Simple Network Of Workstations (SNOW)[^7] interface is employed for parallel execution of jobs on the cloud.
Tools
=====
The five Command line tools offered by RBioCloud to support gathering of cloud resources, to submit and execute a job, retrieve results from the cloud and terminate resources are presented in this section.
Gather Resources
----------------
`RBC_GatherResource` provisions configuring an instance or multiple instances and a cluster on the cloud. The syntax of the command is
1. `RBC_GatherResource [-h] [-v] [-rname RESOURCE_NAME] [-rsize RESOURCE_SIZE] [-ebsvol EBS_VOLUME | -snap EBS_SNAP] [-type INSTANCE_TYPE] [-desc RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION]`
The optional arguments are: (a) `rname` to name a resource (instance or cluster) that is created, (b) `rsize`, to specify the size of the resource (if size is one, then only one instance is created, else if size is greater than one, then the instances are configured as a cluster), (c) `ebsvol` and `snap`, which are not specified at the same time. `ebsvol` specifies the EBS volume ID when an EBS volume is created. `snap` specifies the EBS snapshot ID from which an EBS volume can be created. `ebsvol` can be specified when an EBS volume is available, however, if `snap` is specified then a new EBS volume is created from the snapshot specified. If both arguments are not provided, then a default snapshot from a configuration file is used, (d) `type`, which defines the Amazon EC2 instance type[^8] based on the computational requirements of the task, and (e) `desc`, which can be used to provide a description for a resource.
Submit Job
----------
A job comprises the script that needs to be executed and the data required by the script both of which need to be submitted to the cloud. The ‘rsync’ protocol is used to submit the job. One advantage of using rsync is that subsequent data transfers are quickly synchronised between the host and the cloud. The submission of a job is facilitated using `RBC_SubmitJob` and the syntax is
1. `RBC_SubmitJob [-h] [-v] [-rname RESOURCE_NAME [-toallnodes | -tomaster]] [-jobdir JOB_DIRECTORY][-data]`
The optional arguments are: (a) `rname` to specify the resource to which the job needs to be submitted. If a resource is not specified then the default resource from RBioCloud’s configuration file is employed, (b) `jobdir` to specify the job directory at the host. If the job directory is not specified then the current working directory at the host site is considered to be the source job directory. The destination job directory is not provided since in the current setup the host job directory is synchronised to the home directory of the root user on the cloud. The job directory comprises a set of R scripts, a set of data files required by the scripts and a sub-directory that will contain results after the execution of the script.
The optional switch `-tomaster` (default) submits the job to the master node of a cluster, while `-toallnodes` submits the job to all nodes of a cluster. The `-data` switch synchronises any folder not adhering to the structure of the job directory on to the resource.
Execute Job
-----------
`RBC_ExecuteJob` executes a job on the cloud resource. This command locks the resource onto the job and is only available for any additional use after the job has completed. The syntax of the command is
1. `RBC_ExecuteJob [-h] [-v] [-rname RESOURCE_NAME] [-jobdir JOB_DIRECTORY] [-rscript R_SCRIPT] [-runname RUN_NAME]`
The optional arguments of are: (a) `rname` to specify the resource on which the job needs to be executed, (b) `jobdir` indicates the job directory at the host site; the job with the same name from the corresponding job directory on the cloud is executed, and (d) `rscript` to indicate the R script to be executed. If `rscript` is not provided then the user is prompted to select from a list of R scripts that are available in the job directory.
The mandatory argument `runname` specifies the name of a run to distinguish multiple executions of a particular job.
Retrieve Results
----------------
`RBC_GetResults` retrieves results from the cloud resource onto the host and the syntax is
1. `RBC_GetResults [-h] [-v] [-rname RESOURCE_NAME [-frommaster | -fromall]] [-jobdir JOB_DIRECTORY] [-runname RUN_NAME]`
The optional arguments are: (a) `rname` to specify the resource from where the results need to be retrieved, (b) `jobdir` to indicate the location of the source job directory at the host site; the results are fetched from the corresponding job directory on the cloud. If no job directory is specified then the current working directory at the host site is used.
The mandatory argument `runname` indicates the name of a run that was specified during execution and whose results need to be gathered. This argument can be used when the same R script has been executed a number of times and each execution had to be differentiated. Within the job directory the results are generated in a sub-directory. There are two scenarios of generating results on a cluster. In the first scenario, the master instance aggregates results from all worker instances and stores them on the master instance, and retrieval from the master instance is possible using `-frommaster`. In the second scenario, the results are generated on all instances, and retrieving results is possible using `-fromall`.
Terminate Resources
-------------------
After the completion of a job, the resources on the cloud need to be safely released to avoid billing of unused resources. `RBC_TerminateResource` facilitates this and the syntax is
1. `RBC_TerminateResource [-h] [-v] [-rname RESOURCE_NAME] [-deletevol]`
The optional arguments are: (a) `rname` to specify the resource that needs to be terminated. The optional switch `-deletevol` deletes the EBS volume attached to the resource being terminated.
All the above commands can be used with two switches; firstly, `-h` to provide a description of the use and arguments of the command, and secondly, `-v` to provide provides the version of the installation.
Feasibility Study {#feasibilitystudy}
=================
Popular biological jobs include searching, analysing and normalising data [@biotasks-1]. In this section three test cases that represent such biological jobs are selected to demonstrate the feasibility of RBioCloud for Bioconductor and R based jobs. Firstly, genome searching, secondly, detecting differential expression of genes and thirdly, normalisation of microRNA (miRNA) microarray data are presented. In the first and second test cases a single Amazon EC2 instance is used while in the third test case a cluster of Amazon EC2 instances are employed.
Test case 1: Genome searching on an Instance
--------------------------------------------
The first test case is based on the `BSgenome` software package [@workflow1] available from Bioconductor[^9], and the script executed is `GenomeSearching.R` which performs efficient genome searching with Biostrings and BSgenome data packages. The R script loads `BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2`, which is the ce2 genome for chromosome I of Caenorhabditis elegans [@workflow1a]. The script finds an arbitrary nucleotide pattern in a chromosome and in an entire genome. For executing the script using RBioCloud, the job is organised into one directory, for example `BSGenome`, which contains the `GenomeSearching.R` script and all associated data. `BSGenome` also needs to contain two additional directories `Results` and `RunResults` (a similar directory structure needs to be followed for executing any job using RBioCloud). All the results that need to be generated by the script need to be directed to `Results`. `RunResults` is not submitted onto the cloud but remains on the host site to retrieve and store results of each individual run. The following sequence of five commands will execute `GenomeSearching.R` on the cloud and fetch the results onto the host site:
- `RBC_GatherResource -rname BSgenome_instance -rsize 1 -desc ‘For_Genome_ Searching`
- `RBC_SubmitJob -rname BSgenome_instance`
- `RBC_ExecuteJob -rname BSgenome_instance -rscript GenomeSearching.R -runname Run1_on_BSgenome_instance`
- `RBC_GetResults -rname BSgenome_instance -runname Run1_on_BSgenome_instance`
- `RBC_TerminateResource -rname BSgenome_instance -deletevol`
When the first command of the sequence is executed one EC2 instance is initialised using the Bioconductor AMI, and tagged as `BSgenome_instance`. If optional arguments such as type of instance and EBS volume are not provided then the default values which are defined in the RBioCloud configuration file are chosen; the default values can be edited. The `BSGenome` folder is synchronised with `BSgenome_instance` when the second command is executed; BSGenome is the current working directory from which the `RBC_SubmitJob` is executed. The script, `GenomeSearching.R` from `BSGenome` directory is executed on `BSgenome_instance` with a run name, `Run1_on_BSgenome_instance`, when the third command is executed. The results from `Run1_on_BSgenome_instance` are retrieved on to the host `Results` directory when the fourth command is executed. The Amazon resource `BSgenome_instance` is terminated using the fifth command. The multiple execution of the `RBC_GatherResource` command facilitates the creation of multiple instances, and multiple instances cannot have the same name.
The job is to find nucleotide patterns in an entire genome using two methods and produce their result in two seperate files. The input is a dictionary, containing 50 patterns, each of which is a short nucleotide sequence of 15 to 25 bases. In the first method, the forward and reverse strands of seven Caenorhabditis elegans chromosomes named as chrI, chrII, chrIII, chrIV, chrV, chrX, chrM are the target. The result obtained is in a tabulated form in `ce2dict0_ana1.txt` providing the name of the chromosome where the hit occurs, two integers giving the starting and ending positions of the hit, an indication of the hit either in the forward or reverse strand, and unique identification for every pattern in the dictionary. A sample of the output in `ce2dict0_ana1.txt` is shown in Figure \[figure3\] (left).
In the second method, a function which is approximately one hundred times faster is employed. One limitation of the function is that it works only when all DNA patterns searched for have a constant number of nucleotide bases. Therefore, the nucleotide patterns in the dictionary are truncated to a constant length of 15. The output of this method is also tabulated in the second result file `ce2dict0cw15_ana2.txt` in a similar way to the first method. A sample of the output is shown in Figure \[figure3\] (right).
[2]{}
seqname start end strand patternID
chrI 5942496 5942511 - pattern17
chrI 6298363 6298377 + pattern19
chrI 12760564 12760587 - pattern21
chrI 3953136 3953150 + pattern23
chrI 11568996 11569018 - pattern27
chrI 753618 753641 + pattern37
...
seqname start end strand patternID
...
chrI 13745040 13745054 + pattern04
chrI 14075187 14075201 + pattern04
chrI 11745177 11745191 + pattern08
chrI 8981081 8981095 + pattern11
chrI 12188778 12188792 + pattern16
chrI 12233665 12233679 + pattern16
...
Test case 2: Detection of differentially expressed genes on an Instance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second test case is based on the `logitT` software package [@workflow2] available from Bioconductor. The script executed is `logitT.R` which is a statistical method based on the Logit-t algorithm for identifying differentially expressed genes using probe-level data. The input to the script is the `spikein95` data set of the `SpikeInSubset` library [@spikeinsubset-1]. This data set is a subset of the Human Genome U95 data set containing a series of genes spiked-in at known concentrations and arrayed in a Latin Square format[^10]. The Logit-t algorithm requires limited pre-processing before the actual statistical analysis and produces better results [@workflow2a] compared to competing approaches such the regression modelling approach [@statmethod-1], the mixture model approach [@statmethod-2] and the Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) [@SAM-1].
For executing the script using RBioCloud, the job is organised into one directory, for example `logitT`, which contains the `logitT.R` script, all associated data and the `Results` and `RunResults` directories. The following sequence of five commands will execute `logitT.R` on the cloud and fetch the results onto the host site:
- `RBC_GatherResource -rname logitT_instance -rsize 1 -desc ‘For_Detecting_Differentially_Express-ed_Genes`
- `RBC_SubmitJob -rname logitT_instance`
- `RBC_ExecuteJob -rname logitT_instance -rscript logitT.R -runname Run1_on_logitT_instance`
- `RBC_GetResults -rname logitT_instance -runname Run1_on_logitT_instance`
- `RBC_TerminateResource -rname logitT_instance -deletevol`
When the `logitT.R` script is executed on the `logitT_instance`, firstly, probe level intensities are normalised using the logit-log transformation. Then the normalised probe level intensities are standardised using Z-transformation. Student’s t-tests are then performed for every Perfect Match (PM) probe in a probe set. The median t-statistic for the probe set defines Logit-t. The p-values of all the probe sets are calculated and probe sets with p-values less than 0.01 marks the detection of differentially expressed genes. The output of the algorithm is as follows:
"1024_at" "1708_at" "32660_at" "36202_at"
"36311_at" "38734_at"
Test case 3: Normalisation of microRNA (miRNA) microarray data on a Cluster
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third workflow is based on the `LVSmiRNA` software package [@workflow3] available from Bioconductor. The script executed is `LVSmiRNA.R` which normalises microRNA (miRNA) microarray data. The Least-Variant Set (LVS) normalisation method [@workflow3a] is employed in the package and the input is the miRNA expression data [@workflow3b] provided as `Comparison_Ar-ray.txt`. The script then identifies a subset of miRNAs with the smallest array-to-array variation, using the `estVC` function. The first result obtained from the script is an RA-plot, which is a scatter plot (refer Figure \[figure5-1\]) with logarithmic scales showing the array effect versus standard deviation. The second result obtained from the script is a box plot (refer Figure \[figure5-2\]) of data after normalisation.
The `estVC` function can benefit from using parallel computation for achieving higher speed up over sequential computation, and can take a cluster object as an argument. Here Amazon clusters can come to play, and will need to be manually configured using the Amazon dashboard as shown in [@BioconductorCloudAMI] and [@workflow2c]. Employing RBioCloud will be easier as the user can configure this as a single parameter in the `RBC_GatherResource` command.
To execute the `LVSmiRNA.R` script on an Amazon cluster, the script and the input data needs to be provided in a directory, for example `LVSmiRNA`, and the directory also needs to contain two additional sub-directories `Results` and `RunResults`. The two graphs generated by the script needs to be directed to `Results`. `RunResults` is not submitted onto the cloud but remains on the host site to store results of every individual run. The following sequence of five commands will execute `LVSmiRNA.R` on a cloud cluster and fetch the results onto the host site:
- `RBC_GatherResource -rname LVSmiRNA_cluster -rsize 8 -desc ‘For_LVS_miRNA`
- `RBC_SubmitJob -rname LVSmiRNA_cluster`
- `RBC_ExecuteJob -rname LVSmiRNA_cluster -rscript LVSmiRNA.R -runname Run2_on_LVSmiRNA_cluster`
- `RBC_GetResults -rname LVSmiRNA_cluster -runname Run2_on_LVSmiRNA_cluster -frommaster`
- `RBC_TerminateResource -rname LVSmiRNA_cluster -deletevol`
A cluster with eight EC2 instances is initialised using the Bioconductor AMI, and tagged as `LVSmiRNA_cluster` when the first command is executed. Should the optional arguments such as type of instance and EBS volume be not provided then the default values which are defined in a configuration file are chosen. The `LVSmiRNA` folder is synchronised on `LVSmiRNA_cluster` when the second command is executed; `LVSmiRNA` is the current working directory. The script, `LVSmiRNA.R` from `LVSmiRNA` is executed on `LVSmiRNA_cluster` with a run name, `Run2_on_LVSmiRNA_cluster` when the third command is executed. The resultant graphs from `Run2_on_LVSmiRNA_cluster` run is retrieved on to the host `Results` directory when the fourth command is executed. The Amazon resource `LVSmiRNA_cluster` is terminated using the fifth command.
Summary
-------
Figure \[figure6\] shows a graph for the time taken to move data related to the job in and out of the cloud. The Amazon resources used for test case 1 and test case 2 are one m1.xlarge instance and for test case 3 is a cluster of six m1.xlarge instances. There is an increase in the time taken for initialising and terminating the cluster over the time taken for initialising and terminating one instance. Therefore, alternative techniques will need to be considered for initialising and terminating resources in parallel. This can contribute to the reduction of the overall time taken by RBioCloud.
The time taken to submit the job is proportional to the size of the script and the input data being submitted. Large data sets required by the three test cases are available on the Amazon instances employed in this research (a custom built Amazon Machine Image (AMI) based on the Bioconductor AMI is used in this research). Genome searching takes 79 seconds and the detection of differential expression of genes takes 41 seconds to complete execution. The potential for parallelism in these jobs and scaling the job across multiple instances need to be explored to achieve speed up. The third test case exploits parallelism and executes on a cluster of six instances taking 18 seconds for completing the job. Again the time for retrieving results is proportional to the size of the files produced as results. The second test case takes the least time for retrieval since it produces a small output.
{width="93.00000%"}
Additional test cases to confirm the feasibility of RBioCloud were performed using a large number of scripts provided by over 150 Bioconductor packages. For example, the following were performed using RBioCloud on a large-memory Amazon EC2 instance:
- Estimation of False Discovery Rate (FDR) using Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) [@SAM-1] and the Empirical Bayes Analyses of Microarrays (EBAM) [@EBAM-1] provided as `siggenes.R` available from the `siggenes` package [@siggenes-1],
- Joint Deregulation Analysis (JODA) for quantifying changes due to regulation of genes between two distinct cell populations provided as `JodaVignette.R` available from the `joda` package [@JODA-1], and
- Analysing ChIP-seq data including the detection of protein-bound genomic regions provided as `CSAR.R` available from the `CSAR` package [@CSAR-1].
One observation from the test cases is that the full advantage of the cloud is exploited when jobs harness the potential of parallelism. The results obtained from the additional test cases are beyond the scope of this paper and will be reported elsewhere.
Conclusions
===========
Gathering and managing vast cloud resources in the computational biology or bioinformatics setting for executing an analytical job can be cumbersome. This is not because cloud resources aren’t readily accessible, but the pipeline for executing an analytical job on the cloud requires extensive knowledge of the cloud. While high-performance computer architects may be able to design and deploy such workflows for production based applications it may not be easily possible for biologists with limited high-performance computing skills to perform ad hoc analytics. To allow analytical jobs to fully benefit from the cloud there needs to be a framework that can seamlessly adapt analytical jobs located on a host site for execution on the cloud, provide minimal difference between a personal desktop and the cloud, and offer data and resource management easily on the cloud.
In this paper, such a framework, ‘RBioCloud’, which is light-weight and easily deployable has been designed and developed to support analytical jobs comprising R scripts which employ Bioconductor packages. The framework is deployed between a host site and the cloud, and a set of five command line tools are offered for analytical workflows to facilitate gathering resources, submitting a job, executing a job, retrieving results, and terminating resources. The research contributions of RBioCloud has been a framework to (i) seamlessly handle a diverse range of analytical job on the cloud, (ii) abstract the complexities of cloud set up and configuration, (iii) easily access and manage cloud resources, thereby saving time of domain scientists, and (iv) remotely access cloud resources from a workstation with seemingly minimal differences. Test cases using Bioconductor and R-based jobs demonstrate the feasibility of RBioCloud. Three test cases have been employed to validate the feasibility of RBioCloud. In the first test case, genome searching, and in the second test case, detection of differential expression of genes were both performed on a single Amazon EC2 instance. In the second test case, normalisation of microRNA (miRNA) microarray data was performed using a cluster of Amazon EC2 instances. The framework is available for download from `http://www.rbiocloud.com`.
Future efforts will be made towards extending RBioCloud for dynamic and automated management of compute and storage resources on the cloud and submission and execution of multiple jobs. On top of on-demand instances which are available for fixed price the cost effective solution of bidding for spare instances will be explored.
[00]{}
R Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Website: <http://www.R-project.org>. \[Last accessed: 25 July 2013\]
R. Gentleman, V. Carey, D. Bates, B. Bolstad, M. Dettling, S. Dudoit, B. Ellis, L. Gautier, Y. Ge, J. Gentry, K. Hornik, T. Hothorn, W. Huber, S. Iacus, R. Irizarry, F. Leisch, C. Li, M. Maechler, A. Rossini, G. Sawitzki, C. Smith, G. Smyth, L. Tierney, J. Yang and J. Zhang, “Bioconductor: Open Software Development for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics,” Genome Biology 5(10): R80, 2004.
E. E. Schadt, M. D. Linderman, J. Sorenson, L. Lee and G. P. Nolan GP, “Computational Solutions to Large-Scale Data Management and Analysis,” Nature Reviews Genetics 11(9), 2010.
J. T. Dudley, Y. Pouliot, R. Chen, A. A. Morgan and A. J. Butte, “Translational Bioinformatics in the Cloud: An Affordable Alternative,” Genome Medicine 2(8), 2010.
M. C. Schatz, B. Langmead and S. L. Salzberg, “Cloud Computing and the DNA Data Race,” Nature Biotechnology 28: 691-693, 2010.
A. Rosenthal, P. Mork, M. H. Li, J. Stanford, D. Koester and P. Reynolds, “Cloud Computing: A New Business Paradigm for Biomedical Information Sharing,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics 43: 342–353, 2009.
B. Langmead, M. C. Schatz, J. Lin, M. Pop and S. L. Salzberg, “Searching for SNPs with Cloud Computing,” Genome Biology 10: R134, 2009.
L. D. Stein, “The Case for Cloud Computing in Genome Informatics,” Genome Biology 11(5), 2010.
D. P. Wall, P. Kudtarkar, V. A. Fusaro, R. Pivovarov, P. Patil and P. J. Tonellato, “Cloud Computing for Comparative Genomics,” BMC Bioinformatics 11(1), 2010.
B. D. Halligan, J. F. Geiger, A. K. Vallejos, A. S. Greene and S. N. Twigger, “Low Cost, Scalable Proteomics Data Analysis Using Amazon’s Cloud Computing Services and Open Source Search Algorithms,” Journal of Proteome Research 8(6): 3148-3153, 2009.
V. A. Fusaro, P. Patil, E. Gafni, D. P. Wall and P. J. Tonellato, “Biomedical Cloud Computing with Amazon Web Services,” PLoS Computational Biology 7(8), 2011.
K. Chine, “Scientific Computing Environments in the Age of Virtualization, Toward a Universal Platform for the Cloud,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Opensource Software for Scientific Computation, 44-48, 2009.
J. Kim, S. Maddineni and S. Jha, “Building Gateways for Life-Science Applications using the Dynamic Application Runtime Environment (DARE) Framework,” Proceedings of the 2011 TeraGrid Conference: Extreme Digital Discovery, 2011.
W. Lu, J. Jackson and R. Barga, “AzureBlast: A Case Study of Developing Science Applications on the Cloud,” Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, 413-420, 2010. A. Matsunaga, M. Tsugawa and J. Fortes J, “CloudBLAST: Combining MapReduce and Virtualization on Distributed Resources for Bioinformatics Applications,” Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on eScience, 222-229, 2008.
E. Afgan, D. Baker, N. Coraor, B. Chapman, A. Nekrutenko and J. Taylor, “Galaxy CloudMan: Delivering Cloud Compute Clusters,” BMC Bioinformatics 11(Suppl 12), 2010.
M. Fischer, R. Snajder, S. Pabinger, A. Dander, A. Schossig, J. Zschocke, Z. Tranjanoski and G. Stocker, “SIMPLEX: Cloud-Enable Pipeline for the Comprehensive Analysis of Exome Sequencing Data,” PLoS ONE 7(8), 2012.
B. Langmead, M. C. Schatz, J. Lin, M. Pop and S. L. Salzberg, “Searching for SNPs with Cloud Computing,’ Genome Biology 10(11), 2009.
R. Gentleman, V. Carey, W. Huber, R. Irizarry and S. Dudoit, “Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Solutions Using R and Bioconductor,” Springer, 494 p, 2005.
Bioconductor in the cloud website: <http://www.bioconductor.org/help/bioconductor-cloud-ami/>. \[Last accessed: 25 July 2013\]
B. Langmead, K. D. Hansen and J. T. Leek, “Cloud-Scale RNA-Sequencing Differential Expression Analysis with Myrna,” Genome Biology 11(8), 2010.
Contrail website: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/contrail-bio/index.php?title=Contrail. \[Last accessed: 25 July 2013\]
Jnomics website: [http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/jnomics/index.\\php?title=Jnomics](http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/jnomics/index.\php?title=Jnomics). \[Last accessed: 25 July 2013\] R. Stevens, C. Goble, P. Baker and A. Brass, “A Classification of Tasks in Bioinformatics,” Bioinformatics 17(2): 180-188, 2001.
H. Pages, “BSgenome: Infrastructure for Biostrings-based Genome Data Packages,” R package version 1.26.1, 2012.
A. G. Fraser, R. S. Kamath, P. Zipperlen, M. Martinez-Campos, M. Sohrmann and J. Ahringer, “Functional Genomic Analysis of C. elegans Chromosome I by Systematic RNA Interference,” Nature 408: 325-330, 2000.
T. Guennel, “logitT: logit-t Package,” R package version 1.18.0, 2008.
R. Irizarry and Z. Wu, “SpikeInSubset: Part of Affymetrix’s Spike-In Experiment Data,” R package version 1.2.13, 2013.
W. J. Lemon, S. Liyanarachchi and M. You, “A High Performance Test of Differential Gene Expression for Oligonucleotide Arrays,” Genome Biology 4: R67, 2003.
J. G. Thomas, J. M. Olson, S. J. Tapscott and L. P. Zhao, “An Efficient and Robust Statistical Modelling Approach to Discover Differentially Expressed Genes Using Genomic Expression Profiles,” Genome Research 11(7): 1227-1236, 2001.
W. Pan, J. Lin and C. T. Le, “A Mixture Model Approach to Detecting Differentially Expressed Genes with Microarray Data,” Functional and Integrative Genomics 3(3): 117-124, 2003.
V. G. Tusher, R. Tibshirani and G. Chu, “Significance Analysis of Microarrays Applied to the Ionizing Radiation Response,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 98, 5116-5121, 2001.
S. Calza, S. Chen and Y. Pawitam, “LVSmiRNA: LVS Normalization for Agilent miRNA Data,” R package version 1.8.0, 2010.
S. Calza, D. Valentini and Y. Pawitan, “Normalization of Oligonucleotide Arrays Based on the Least-Variant Set of Genes,” BMC Bionformatics 140: 5-9, 2007.
H. Willenbrock, J. Salomon, R. Sokilde, K. B. Barken, T. N. Hansen, F. C. Nielsen, S. Moller and T. Litman, “Quanitative miRNA Expression Analysis: Comparing Microarrays with Next-Generation Sequencing,” RNA 15(11): 2028-2034, 2009.
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, “Getting Started Guide,” API Version 2012-10-01, 2012.
B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, J. D. Storey, and V. Tusher, “Empirical Bayes Analysis of a Microarray Experiment,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1151-1160, 2001.
H. Schwender, “siggenes: Multiple testing using SAM and Efron’s Empirical Bayes approaches,” R package version 1.34.0, 2012.
Joint Deregulation Analysis (JODA) webpage: <http://joda.molgen.mpg.de/> \[Last accessed: 25 July 2013\]
J. M. Muino, K. Kaufmann, R. C. H. J. van Ham, G. C. Angenent and P. Krajewski, “ChIP-seq Analysis in R (CSAR): An R Package for the Statistical Detection of Protein-Bound Genomic Regions, Plant Methods, 7:11, 2011.
[^1]: <http://aws.amazon.com/>
[^2]: <http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/>
[^3]: <http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/>
[^4]: <https://github.com/boto/boto>
[^5]: <http://docs.fabfile.org/en/1.4.3/>
[^6]: <http://aws.amazon.com/amis>
[^7]: [http://www.sfu.ca/\\textasciitilde sblay/R/snow.html](http://www.sfu.ca/\textasciitilde sblay/R/snow.html)
[^8]: <http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/>
[^9]: <http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/>
[^10]: <http://www.affymetrix.com/support/technical/sample_data/datasets.affx>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Nigel Cundy\
Universiät Wuppertal\
E-mail:
- |
\
NIC/ZAM Forschungzentrum Jülich/Universiät Wuppertal\
E-mail:
- |
Thomas Lippert\
NIC/ZAM Forschungzentrum Jülich/Universiät Wuppertal\
E-mail:
title: Improving the dynamical overlap algorithm
---
Improved Correction Step\[correctionstep\]
==========================================
The sign function in the overlap Dirac operator creates a discontinuity $-2\;d$ in the pseudo-fermion contribution to the action whenever an eigenvalue of the kernel operator changes sign. To conserve energy, we integrate up to the computer time $\tau_c$ where the eigenvalue crosses, and introduce a discontinuity in the kinetic energy which exactly cancels the jump in the pseudo-fermion energy. A general area conserving and reversible update which can do this is: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^+&=&\Pi^-+\left( \eta
(\eta,\Pi^-)\right)\left(\sqrt{1+ \frac{4\;d_0}{
(\eta,\Pi^-)^2}}-1\right)+\sum_{j=1}^N
\left(\eta_1^j(\eta_1^j,\Pi^-)+\eta_2^j(\eta_2^j,\Pi^-)\right)
\nonumber\\
&&\times\left(\sqrt{1+
\frac{4\;d_j}{(\eta_1^j,\Pi^-)^2+(\eta_2^j,\Pi^-)^2}}-1\right) + A,\label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ $\Pi_-$ is the original momentum, $\Pi_+$ the final momentum, A is an arbitrary function of the gauge field at $\tau_c$, $\eta$ is a unit vector normal to the $\lambda=0$ surface, and the $\eta^i_j$ are unit vectors normal to $\eta$. The original algorithm [@Fodor] set $d_1=4\;d$ and $d_j=0$, and had O($\tau_c$) errors. We can use the $d_j$ terms to cancel these errors, giving the *transmission* algorithm: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^+ &=& \Pi^- + \tau_c(F) - \eta \tau_c(\eta,F) - \frac{\tau_c}{3}{\mathrm{Tr}}(F)+
(\eta,\Pi^-)\sqrt{1+\frac{4\;d}{(\eta,\Pi^-)^2}} \nonumber\\
&&+ \left(\eta^2_1 (\eta^2_1, \Pi^- - {\hat F}) + \eta_2^2 (\eta_2^2,
\Pi^-
- {\hat F})\right) \times\left(\sqrt{1 +
\frac{d_2 }{(\eta^2_1,
\Pi^- - {\hat F})^2 + (\eta_2^2, \Pi^- -
{\hat F})^2}}-1\right)
\nonumber\\
d_2 &=& - 2\tau_c(F^-,\eta)(\Pi^-,\eta)
+2\tau_c(F^+,\eta)(\Pi^+,\eta)+ 2\tau_c({\hat F},F^+ - F^-).\nonumber\\
{\hat F} &=& \frac{\tau_c}{2}(F^- + F^+) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $F^{\pm}$ are the MD forces immediately before and after the crossing. We cannot use this algorithm if it would lead to complex $\Pi^+$. In this case, we have to *reflect* of the $\lambda=0$ surface, and there will be no topological charge change. Figure \[energy\] shows how the energy difference across the correction step varies as a function of $\Delta\tau$. It clearly shows that the energy has errors of at maximum O($\Delta\tau^2$).
![Dependency of the energy on $\Delta\tau$. The red lines are from top down: ($\Delta\tau$, $\Delta\tau^2$, $\Delta\tau^3$).[]{data-label="energy"}](energy.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
Improved Leapfrog algorithm\[leapfrog\]
=======================================
In [@deForc] an alternative leapfrog update for the molecular dynamics part of the HMC is suggested:
1. $\Pi(\tau+\lambda\Delta\tau) = \Pi(\tau) + \lambda\Delta\tau \dot{\Pi}(\tau)$.
2. $U(\tau+\Delta\tau/2) = e^{i(\Delta\tau/2) \Pi(\tau+\lambda\Delta\tau)}U(\tau)$.
3. $\Pi(\tau+(1-\lambda)\Delta\tau) = \Pi(\tau) + (1-2\lambda)\Delta\tau \dot{\Pi}(\tau+\lambda\Delta\tau)$.
4. $U(\tau+\Delta\tau) = e^{i(\Delta\tau/2) \Pi(\tau+(1-\lambda)\Delta\tau)}U(\tau+\Delta\tau/2)$.
5. $\Pi(\tau+\Delta\tau) = \Pi(\tau+(1-\lambda)\Delta\tau)+ \lambda\Delta\tau \dot{\Pi}(\tau+(1-\lambda)\Delta\tau)$.
The optimal value of $\lambda$ is given in [@deForc]. This algorithm has improved energy conservation, which more than compensates for the need to invert the overlap operator twice. We have tested it on $4^4$, $8^4$, and $12^4$ lattices, and found gains of around 30$\%$ (see section \[results\]).
Stout Smearing\[Smearing\]
==========================
We use the “stout links” proposed in [@stout]. As mentioned in [@deGrand] this improves the condition number of the Wilson operator substantially, thus speeding up the inversions needed to construct the overlap operator. We find however that there is a “phase transition” at a critical level of the smearing parameter, leading to a sharp increase in the magnitude of the smallest eigenvalue of the Wilson operator. This reduces the effectiveness of the smearing.
Hasenbusch acceleration\[hasenbusch\]
=====================================
Hasenbusch acceleration has been used to speed up dynamical simulations. We introduce an additional fermion flavour with a large mass, and by placing the two fermions on different time scales we can in principle reduce the number of low mass inversions needed during a trajectory. However, we saw little gain when using this method, partly because we were testing on large masses, and partly because our overlap operators are usually well conditioned (see section \[results\]).
Overlap eigenmode preconditioning\[preconditioning\]
====================================================
In the case of a topological nontrivial configuration, the spectrum of the overlap matrix includes a “zero mode”. Inversions of the overlap operator become prohibitively expensive when simulating in the regime of small quark masses. Our ansatz is to calculate the smallest $m$ eigenvectors $\Psi_m$ and eigenvalues $\lambda_m$ of the overlap operator to a very low precision (e.g. $10^{-2}$) and use them as a preconditioner for our CG preconditioner in our GMRESR inverter. Our preconditioner is: $$P = 1+\sum_m\left(\frac{\alpha_m}{\lambda_m}-1\right){|\Psi\rangle}_m{\langle \Psi|}_m$$ Figures \[plots\_preconditioning\_non-zero\] and \[plots\_preconditioning\_non-zero\] show the convergence of CG with and without preconditioning using above projector. These plots were generated using a $8^4$ dynamical configuration at mass $\mu=0.1$, with the inversions carried out at mass $\mu=0.03$. Figure \[plots\_preconditioning\_non-zero\] shows the convergence history for the case of a configuration with trivial topology; Figure \[plots\_preconditioning\_zero\] shows the convergence history for a configuration with a “zero mode” induced by topology: Clearly in the latter case the preconditioning offers great possible gains, which — according to our experience — increase with the volume and decreasing of the masses.
![Convergence history for the preconditioning method on configuration with trivial topology[]{data-label="plots_preconditioning_non-zero"}](non-zero.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
![Convergence history for the preconditioning method on configuration with non trivial topology[]{data-label="plots_preconditioning_zero"}](zero.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
In an HMC simulation, using the previous eigenvectors as a starting point for the next eigenvalue calculation can dramatically reduce the time needed, although it is unclear how large an effect this leads has on the reversibility of the MD.
Non area conserving correction step\[nap\]
==========================================
It is possible to use a non area conserving molecular dynamics update by including the Jacobian in the Metropolis accept/reject step[^1]. The detailed balance condition reads: $$\begin{aligned}
P[U^\prime \leftarrow U]W_C[U] &=& \int \mathrm{d} \Pi \mathrm{d} \Pi^\prime
\exp^{-\frac{1}{2}\Pi^2}\delta([U,\Pi]-T_{MD}[U^\prime,\Pi^\prime])
\min\left(1,\exp^{\Delta}\right) W_C[U]
\nonumber \\
& =& \int
\mathrm{d}\Pi\mathrm{d}\Pi^\prime\exp^{-\frac{1}{2}{\Pi}^2}\delta([U^\prime,-\Pi^\prime]-T_{MD}^{-1}[U,-\Pi])
\frac{\partial U^\prime, \Pi^\prime}{\partial U, \Pi}
\min\left(1,\exp^{\Delta}\right)W_C[U] \nonumber \\
& = &
\int\mathrm{d}\Pi\mathrm{d}\Pi^\prime\exp^{-\frac{1}{2}{\Pi^\prime}^2}\delta([U^\prime,-\Pi^\prime]-T_{MD}^{-1}[U,-\Pi])
\min\left(1,\exp^{-\Delta}\right)W_C[U^\prime] \nonumber\\
&=& P[U \leftarrow U^\prime]W_C[U^\prime]\nonumber \\
\Delta &=& -\ln \left[\frac{\partial U^\prime, \Pi^\prime}{\partial U,
\Pi}\right] +
S_G[U]+\frac{1}{2}\Pi^2-S_G[U^\prime]-\frac{1}{2}{\Pi^{\prime}}^2
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The most general transmission update which is reversible and conserves $\Delta$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\exp^{-(\Pi^+,\eta)^2/2} &=& \exp^{-(\Pi^-,\eta)^2-2d}-\exp^{-r_0^2/2 - 2d}+\exp^{-r_0^2/2} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $r_0=\infty$, this gives the usual area conserving transmission formula equation (\[eq:1\]). One has to reflect if the transmission formula gives a complex ($\Pi^+,\eta$). By tuning $r_0$, we can improve the transmission rate. The results displayed in the tables of section \[results\] were obtained using $r_0=1$, and give a 50% improvement in the transmission rate.
Results\[results\]
==================
In this section we summarise the results referred to in the previous sections.
Type time Acc $n_{md}$ trans./traj. refl./traj. $n_{t} $
----------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------------- ------------- ----------
normal 1897(60) 94$\%$ 40 0.0738(240) 1.348(100) 325
has 1986(20) 88$\%$ 40 0.0521(311) 1.059(94) 307
imp 1420(10) 94$\%$ 15 0.0535(233) 0.876(98) 299
imphas 1594(40) 75$\%$ 15 0.0772(336) 1.093(118) 324
impnap 1480(10) 95$\%$ 15 0.117(34) 1.336(136) 310
impnaphas 1611(60) 78$\%$ 15 0.110(21) 0.832(159) 155
\
$\mu=0.05$
Type time Acc $n_{md}$ trans./traj. refl./traj. $n_{t} $
----------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------------- ------------- ----------
normal 1816(20) 95$\%$ 40 0.447(64) 0.938(80) 465
has 2100(90) 90$\%$ 40 0.569(65) 0.880(65) 374
imp 1479(20) 96$\%$ 15 0.371(43) 0.947(62) 533
imphas 1470(60) 90$\%$ 15 0.413(53) 0.531(76) 518
impnap 1445(50) 95$\%$ 15 0.674(89) 1.818(147) 209
impnaphas N/A 94$\%$ 15 0.663(69) 1.370(114) 281
\
$\mu=0.2$
In these tables “has” denotes Hasenbusch acceleration, “imp” denotes usage of the preconditioner and “nap” refers to the non area preserving update.
[9]{}
[^1]: We thank A. Borici for pointing this out to us
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The distribution of the zeros of the Euler double zeta-function $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$, in the case when $s_1=s_2$, is studied numerically. Some similarity to the distribution of the zeros of Hurwitz zeta-functions is observed.'
address:
- 'K. Matsumoto, Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan'
- 'M. Sh[ō]{}ji, Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Japan Women’s University, Mejirodai, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 112-8681, Japan'
author:
- Kohji Matsumoto
- 'Mayumi Sh[ō]{}ji'
title: 'Numerical computations on the zeros of the Euler double zeta-function I'
---
Introduction {#sec-1}
============
The multiple sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-1}
\zeta_r(s_1,\ldots,s_r)=\sum_{1\leq n_1<\cdots<n_r}\frac{1}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots
n_r^{s_r}},\end{aligned}$$ where $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and $s_1,\ldots,s_r$ are complex variables, was introduced independently by Hoffman [@Hof92] and Zagier [@Zag94], and has been studied extensively in recent decades. Mathematicians were first interested in special values of at positive integer points. Then around 2000, the meromorphic continuation of to the whole space $\mathbb{C}^r$ was established, and mathematicians started to consider analytic properties of .
The case $r=2$ of , that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-2}
\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)=\sum_{n_1=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n_2=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n_1^{s_1}
(n_1+n_2)^{s_2}},\end{aligned}$$ was first studied already by Euler. Therefore is sometimes called the Euler double sum, or the Euler double zeta-function. Since this is the simplest case, it is natural to begin analytic studies with .
The series is absolutely convergent in the region $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-3}
\{(s_1,s_2)\in\mathbb{C}^2\;|\;\Re s_1+\Re s_2>2, \quad \Re s_2>1\},\end{aligned}$$ and can be continued meromorphically to the whole space $\mathbb{C}^2$. The order estimate of $|\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)|$ outside the region was discussed in [@IshMat03], [@KiuTan06], [@KiuTanZha11]. Various mean values of $|\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)|$ has recently been discussed by [@MatTsuPre] and [@IkeMatNagPre].
The problem of studying the distribution of zeros of (or more generally, ) was first proposed by Zhao [@Zha00]. The case $r=1$ of is nothing but the classical Riemann zeta-function $\zeta(s)$. For the Riemann zeta-function there is the famous Riemann hypothesis, which predicts that all non-trivial zeros (that is, zeros except those on the negative real axis) lie on the line $\Re s=1/2$. In the case of $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$, however, the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis does not hold. In fact, consider the case $s_1=s_2(=s)$. Let $N(\sigma',\sigma'',T;\zeta_2)$ denotes the number of zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ (counted with multiplicity) in the rectangle $\sigma'<\sigma<\sigma''$, $0<t<T$, where $\sigma=\Re s$ and $t=\Im s$. Then it is shown in a recent preprint of Nakamura and Pankowski [@NakPanPre] that for any $\sigma'$ and $\sigma''$ satisfying $1/2<\sigma'<\sigma''<1$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-4}
c_1 T\leq N(\sigma',\sigma'',T;\zeta_2)\leq c_2 T\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1,c_2$ are constants with $0<c_1<c_2$.
The reason of this difference lies, probably, on the fact that $\zeta(s)$ has the Euler product expansion while $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$ does not have. This is because the additive structure $n_1+n_2$ in the denominator on the right-hand side of breaks multiplicative structure. This observation suggests that the behaviour of zeros of $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$ may resemble the behaviour of zeros of not $\zeta(s)$, but Hurwitz zeta-functions $$\zeta(s,\alpha)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+\alpha)^{s}}\qquad(0<\alpha\leq 1),$$ because $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ also includes an additive structure in its denominator. In fact, the result analogous to is known for Hurwitz zeta-functions; let $N(\sigma',\sigma'',T;\alpha)$ denotes the number of zeros of $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ in the rectangle as above. Then, at least when $\alpha$ is a rational number ($\neq 1,1/2$) (due to Voronin) or a transcendental number (due to Gonek), it holds that $c_3 T\leq N(\sigma',\sigma'',T;\alpha)\leq c_4 T$ with $0<c_3<c_4$ (see Theorems 4.7, 4.8 and 4.10 in [@LauGar02 Chapter 8]).
The purpose of the present series of papers is to study the behaviour of zeros of $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$ from the viewpoint of numerical computations. In the present paper, as the first step, we will study the case $s_1=s_2=s$, and especially we will show that the behaviour of zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ is indeed similar to the behaviour of zeros of Hurwitz zeta-functions in some sense.
The distribution of zeros off the real axis {#sec-2}
===========================================
In this and the next section we describe the results on the distribution of zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$. In this case, the simplest way of computations is to use the harmonic product formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-1}
\zeta(s_1)\zeta(s_2)=\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)+\zeta_2(s_2,s_1)+\zeta(s_1+s_2).\end{aligned}$$ Putting $s_1=s_2(=s)$ in , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-2}
\zeta_2(s,s)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\zeta(s)^2-\zeta(2s)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ and hence all computations can be done just by using [*Mathematica 9.0.1.0*]{}, in which the package for the computations of the values of $\zeta(s)$ is equipped. However in a forthcoming paper we will study more general situation, when the values of $s_1$ and $s_2$ are different. As a preparation to such a study, in the present paper we will also develop another method, which can be applied to the general case.
Here we explain the theoretical background of our second method. The basic formula which we use in our computations is the following form of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-3}
\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)&=\frac{\zeta(s_1+s_2-1)}{s_2-1}-\frac{\zeta(s_1+s_2)}{2}\\
&+\sum_{q=1}^l (s_2)_q\frac{B_{q+1}}{(q+1)!}\zeta(s_1+s_2+q)-
\sum_{n_1=1}^{\infty}\frac{\phi_l(n_1,s_2)}{n_1^{s_1}},\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $B_q$ is the $q$th Bernoulli number defined by $t/(e^t-1)=\sum_{q=0}^{\infty}B_q t^q/q!$, $(s)_q=s(s+1)\cdots(s+q-1)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-4}
&\phi_l(n,s)=\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^s}-\\
&\quad\left\{\frac{n^{1-s}-1}{1-s}+\frac{1}{2n^s}
-\sum_{q=1}^l\frac{{s}_q B_{q+1}}{(q+1)! n^{s+q}}+\zeta(s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right\}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to see that $\phi_l(n,s)$ is actually the usual remainder term of the Euler-Maclaurin formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-5}
\phi_l(n,s)=\frac{(s)_{2k+1}}{(2k+1)!}\int_n^{\infty}B_{2k+1}(x-[x])x^{-s-2k-1}dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $k=l/2$ (if $l$ is even) or $=(l+1)/2$ (if $l$ is odd), $[x]$ is the fractional part of $x$ and $B_q(x)$ is the $q$th Bernoulli polynomial.
This is formula (3) of Akiyama, Egami and Tanigawa [@AkiEgaTan01]. The last sum on the right-hand side of is absolutely convergent in the region $\Re(s_1+s_2)>-l$. They use this formula (and its multiple generalization) to show the meromorphic continuation of . Moreover they proved that $\zeta_2(s_1,s_2)$ is holomorphic except for the singularities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sing}
s_2=1,\quad s_1+s_2=2,1,0,-2,-4,-6,\ldots \end{aligned}$$
The details how to calculate the zeros by using formula will be explained in Section \[sec-4\].
In this section we consider the distribution of zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ off the real axis. Since $\overline{\zeta_2(s,s)}=\zeta_2(\overline{s},\overline{s})$ (here “bar” signifies the complex conjugate), it is enough to consider the situation in the upper half-plane. Our numerical result on the distribution of zeros is given in Figure \[X1-1\]. Let $D(a,b)=\{s\;|\;a<\sigma<b\}$ for any real numbers $a$ and $b$ with $a<b$. From Figures \[X1-1\]–\[X6-2\] we can observe:
![The distribution of zeros of $\zeta_2(\sigma+it,\sigma+it)$ for $-1 \leq \sigma \leq 2$ and $0 \leq t \leq 800$. The horizontal axis represents $\sigma$ and the vertical axis does $t$.[]{data-label="X1-1"}](figure1a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![The distribution of zeros of $\zeta_2(\sigma+it,\sigma+it)$ for $-1 \leq \sigma \leq 2$ and $0 \leq t \leq 800$. The horizontal axis represents $\sigma$ and the vertical axis does $t$.[]{data-label="X1-1"}](figure1b.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
![Plots of numbers of zeros for $0 \le T \le 800$; $N(-1,2,T;\zeta_2), N(0,1/2,T;\zeta_2)$ and $N(1/2,1,T;\zeta_2)$, respectively from the top. The horizontal axis represents $T$.[]{data-label="X1-2"}](figure2.eps){width="80.00000%"}
\[obs1\] [(i)]{} There are many zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ in the strip $0<\sigma<1$.
[(ii)]{} It seems that there are more zeros in the region $D(0,1/2)$ than in the region $D(1/2,1)$. [(]{}More rigorously, it seems that $N(0,1/2,T;\zeta_2)$ is larger than $N(1/2,1,T;\zeta_2)$.[)]{}
[(iii)]{} At least in the range of our computations, there is no zero[^1] lying on the line $\sigma=1/2$.
[(iv)]{} There are some zeros in the region $\sigma>1$, but no zero when $\sigma$ is sufficiently large.
[(v)]{} There are some zeros in the region $\sigma<0$, but it seems that there is no zero when $|\sigma|$ is sufficiently large, and also becomes few and few when $t$ becomes large.
Observation (i) suggests that there should be infinitely many zeros in the region $D(0,1/2)$ and $D(1/2,1)$. As mentioned in Section \[sec-1\], at least in the case of $D(1/2,1)$, this fact has already been proved by Nakamura and Pankowski [@NakPanPre]. The graphs in Figure \[X1-2\] look like straight lines, which suggests that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{line}
&N(-1,2,T;\zeta_2)\sim C_1 T, \;\;N(0,1/2,T;\zeta_2)\sim C_2 T,\\
&N(1/2,1,T;\zeta_2)\sim C_3 T\notag\end{aligned}$$ (with some positive constants $C_1, C_2, C_3$) would probably hold, as $T\to\infty$. This agrees with of Nakamura and Pankowski.
In Section \[sec-1\] we also mentioned that the behaviour of zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ might be similar to that of Hurwitz zeta-functions. We see that observations (ii), (iii) and (iv) agree with this expectation.
In fact, in the case of $\zeta(s,\alpha)$, Garunk[š]{}tis and Steuding [@GarSte02 Corollary 3] proved that there are more zeros of $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ in $D(0,1/2)$ than those in $D(1/2,1)$. Observation (ii) and Figure \[X1-2\] suggests that the same situation happens in the case of $\zeta_2(s,s)$.
The line $\sigma=1/2$ is very important in the theory of $\zeta(s)$, but it seems that the same line has no special meaning for Hurwitz zeta-functions. Let $N_0(T)$ (resp. $N_0(T,\alpha)$) be the number of zeros in the interval $\{s\;|\;\sigma=1/2, 0<t<T\}$ of $\zeta(s)$ (resp. $\zeta(s,\alpha)$). Then it is believed that $N_0(T)\sim (T/2\pi)\log T$, while Gonek [@Gon81] proved that $N_0(T,\alpha)$ is less than $c(T/2\pi)\log T$ with a certain $c<1$ for $\alpha=1/3,2/3,1/4,3/4,1/6$ and $5/6$. Moreover in the same paper he conjectured that $N_0(T,\alpha)\ll T$ for any rational $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\alpha\neq 1/2$. Our observation (iii) suggests that the line $\sigma=1/2$ is also not special for $\zeta_2(s,s)$.
![The graph of $|\zeta_2(4+it, 4+it)|$ for $0 \le t \le 100$.[]{data-label="X6-1"}](figure3.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![The graph of $|\zeta_2(-2+it, -2+it)|$ for $0 \le t \le 100$.[]{data-label="X6-2"}](figure4.eps){width="80.00000%"}
The fact corresponding to observation (iv) is classically known for Hurwitz zeta-functions. In fact, $\zeta(s,\alpha)\neq 0$ if $\sigma\geq 1+\alpha$ ([@LauGar02 Chapter 8, Theorem 1.1]). We note here that the latter part of (iv) can be easily verified theoretically.
\[prop1\] We have $\zeta_2(s,s)\neq 0$ when $\sigma$ is sufficiently large.
Assume $\sigma>1$. Divide the sum (with $s_1=s_2=s$) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-6}
&\zeta_2(s,s)=\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(1+n_2)^s}
+\sum_{n_1\geq 2}\frac{1}{n_1^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(n_1+n_2)^s}\\
&\;=\frac{1}{2^s}+\sum_{n_2\geq 2}\frac{1}{(1+n_2)^s}+\frac{1}{2^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}
\frac{1}{(2+n_2)^s}
+\sum_{n_1\geq 3}\frac{1}{n_1^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(n_1+n_2)^s}\notag\\
&\;=\frac{1}{2^s}\left\{1+\sum_{n\geq 3}\frac{1}{(n/2)^s}
+\sum_{n\geq 3}\frac{1}{n^s}
+\sum_{n_1\geq 3}\frac{1}{(n_1/2)^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(n_1+n_2)^s}
\right\}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ The second sum on the right-hand side is (putting $n=2k$ when $n$ is even and $n=2k+1$ when odd) equal to $$\sum_{k\geq 2}\frac{1}{k^s}+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{(k+1/2)^s}.$$ We also divide the last sum on the right-hand side of similarly. Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-7}
\zeta_2(s,s)=\frac{1}{2^s}\{1+Z\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-8}
Z&=\frac{1}{2^s}+2\sum_{k\geq 3}\frac{1}{k^s}+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{(k+1/2)^s}\\
&\;+\sum_{k\geq 2}\frac{1}{k^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(2k+n_2)^s}
+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{(k+1/2)^s}\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(2k+1+n_2)^s}.\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{2^s}+2Z_1+Z_2+Z_3+Z_4,\notag\end{aligned}$$ say. Since $$\left|\sum_{n_2\geq 1}\frac{1}{(2k+n_2)^s}\right|\leq
\int_{2k}^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x^{\sigma}}=\frac{(2k)^{1-\sigma}}{\sigma-1},$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|Z_3|\leq \frac{2^{1-\sigma}}{\sigma-1}\sum_{k\geq 2}k^{1-2\sigma}
=\frac{2^{1-\sigma}}{\sigma-1}\left(2^{1-2\sigma}+\sum_{k\geq 3}k^{1-2\sigma}
\right)\\
&\leq\frac{2^{1-\sigma}}{\sigma-1}\left(2^{1-2\sigma}+\int_2^{\infty}x^{1-2\sigma}
dx\right)
=\frac{\sigma}{(\sigma-1)^2}2^{2-3\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we can show $$|Z_4|\leq \frac{\sigma-1/4}{(\sigma-1)^2}2^{1-\sigma}\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)
^{1-2\sigma},$$ and further $$|Z_1|\leq \frac{1}{3^{\sigma}}+\int_3^{\infty}x^{-\sigma}dx
=\frac{\sigma+2}{\sigma-1}3^{-\sigma},$$ $$|Z_2|\leq \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{\sigma}+\int_1^{\infty}(x+1/2)^{-\sigma}dx
=\frac{\sigma+1/2}{\sigma-1}\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{\sigma}.$$ Collecting the above results we find that $Z\to 0$ as $\sigma\to\infty$. Therefore $1+Z\neq 0$ for sufficiently large $\sigma$, and hence from the desired assertion follows.
Zeros on the real axis {#sec-3}
======================
In this section we study the behaviour of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ on the real axis. When $s_1=s_2=s$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-1}
\zeta_2(s,s)&=\frac{\zeta(2s-1)}{s-1}-\frac{\zeta(2s)}{2}\\
&+\sum_{q=1}^l (s)_q\frac{B_{q+1}}{(q+1)!}\zeta(2s+q)-
\sum_{n_1=1}^{\infty}\frac{\phi_l(n_1,s)}{n_1^{s}}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ From we can observe that $\zeta_2(s,s)$ has a double pole at $s=1$, a single pole at $s=1/2$, and varies from $+\infty$ to $-\infty$ when $s$ moves from 1 to $1/2$. Therefore there exists (at least) one zero $s=\sigma_0$ on the interval $(1/2,1)$. Figure \[X2\] shows this situation, and we calculate $\sigma_0=0.626817\cdots$.
![The graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma, \sigma)$ for $0 \le \sigma < 1$ (left) and a close-up in the vicinity of $\sigma_0=0.626817\cdots$ (right). The vertical axis represents $\zeta_2$ and the horizontal axis does $\sigma$.[]{data-label="X2"}](figure5a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma, \sigma)$ for $0 \le \sigma < 1$ (left) and a close-up in the vicinity of $\sigma_0=0.626817\cdots$ (right). The vertical axis represents $\zeta_2$ and the horizontal axis does $\sigma$.[]{data-label="X2"}](figure5b.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The list of singularities implies that the intersections of the hyperplane $s_1=s_2$ and singular loci are $$s=1,\frac{1}{2},0,-1,-2,-3,\ldots.$$ The first two of these points are poles (when restricted to the hyperplane $s_1=s_2(=s)$), as discussed above. The points $s=-k$ ($k=0,1,2,\ldots$) are also on singular loci, so they are points of indeterminancy. Figures \[X3-1\]–\[X3-2\] are the graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma,\sigma)$, therefore the values at $\sigma=-k$ in Figure \[X3-2\] show the limit value $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-2}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\zeta_2(-k+\varepsilon,-k+\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ This type of limit is called “central values” in Akiyama and Tanigawa [@AkiTan01]. We use their notation to write as $\zeta_2^C(-k,-k)$. Kamano [@Kam06] proved an explicit formula for $\zeta_2^C(-k,-k)$. Formula (1.6) in [@Kam06] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-3}
\zeta_2^C(-k,-k)&=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\zeta(-k)^2-\zeta(-2k)\right\}\end{aligned}$$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$. In particular, as Kamano stated [@Kam06 Corollary 2], $\zeta_2^C(0,0)=3/8$ and $\zeta_2^C(-2k,-2k)=0$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$. (The latter was conjectured by Akiyama, Egami and Tanigawa [@AkiEgaTan01].) These values agree with Figure \[X3-1\] and Figure \[X3-2\].
![The graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma, \sigma)$ for $-2.5 \le \sigma < 0.5$ (left) and a close-up in the vicinity of $\zeta_2^C(0,0)$ (right). The vertical axis represents $\zeta_2$ and the horizontal axis does $\sigma$.[]{data-label="X3-1"}](figure6a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma, \sigma)$ for $-2.5 \le \sigma < 0.5$ (left) and a close-up in the vicinity of $\zeta_2^C(0,0)$ (right). The vertical axis represents $\zeta_2$ and the horizontal axis does $\sigma$.[]{data-label="X3-1"}](figure6b.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![The graph of $\zeta_2(\sigma, \sigma)$ for $\sigma < 0$. The vertical axis represents $\zeta_2$ and the horizontal axis does $\sigma$. Amplitude of the vibration becomes intense when $\sigma < -6$. Here zeros are $-1.095527\cdots, \; -2, \; -3.005839\cdots, \; -4$ and $-5.000415\cdots$.[]{data-label="X3-2"}](figure7.eps){width="60.00000%"}
When $k\in\mathbb{N}$, from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-4}
\zeta_2^C(-k,-k)=\frac{1}{2}\zeta(-k)^2=\frac{(B_{1+k})^2}{2(1+k)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ For example $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-5}
\zeta_2^C(-1,-1)=\frac{1}{288},\;\zeta_2^C(-3,-3)=\frac{1}{28800},
\;\zeta_2^C(-5,-5)=\frac{1}{127008}.\end{aligned}$$ These values are rather small because the corresponding values of Bernoulli numbers are small ($B_2=1/6$, $B_4=-1/30$, $B_6=1/42$). This is the reason why $\zeta_2(\sigma,\sigma)$ has zeros near $\sigma=-1,-3,-5$ in Figure \[X3-2\]. However, since $|B_{2k}|\sim 2(2k)!/(2\pi)^{2k}$ as $k\to\infty$ ([@Apos Theorem 12.18]), we see that $\zeta_2^C(-2k+1,-2k+1)\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$.
Comparing the above situation on the real axis with Observation \[obs1\] (v), we may guess that there would exist some $A>0$, such that $\zeta_2(s,s)$ would have no zero in the region $\sigma<-A$ except for the real axis. This is again similar to the case of Hurwitz zeta-functions (Theorem 2.7 of [@LauGar02 Chapter 8]).
The method of computations {#sec-4}
==========================
In this section we explain the details of our method to compute the zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ in $\mathbb{C}$. As we already mentioned in Section \[sec-2\], we apply two methods. The first method is based on the harmonic product formula , which gives high-precision zeros of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ in any digits by virtue of the function [*Zeta*]{} of [*Mathematica*]{}. But we also calculate the zeros by using the Euler-Maclaurin formula. For this second method, instead of the formula , we use the following truncated form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-1}
\zeta_2^N(s,s)&:=\frac{\zeta(2s-1)}{s-1}-\frac{\zeta(2s)}{2}\\
&+\sum_{q=1}^l (s)_q\frac{B_{q+1}}{(q+1)!}\zeta(2s+q)-
\sum_{n_1=1}^{N}\frac{\phi_l(n_1,s)}{n_1^{s}},\notag\end{aligned}$$ where the infinite summation of is truncated by $N$ terms.
Calculation accuracy {#subsec-0}
--------------------
Obviously, calculation accuracy becomes better as the value of $N$ increases in . It is necessary to ascertain the appropriate value of $N$ for our aim. Fortunately we can get the data of high-precision zeros by . Therefore, comparing the zeros obtained from with the high-precision zeros obtained by , we can estimate the accuracy of zeros of . Appropriate value of $N$ depends on $l$, the number of terms of the first summation. As $l$ is smaller, it is necessary to take $N$ larger. On the other hand, the number $l$ should be taken rather small since the value of the first summation increases rapidly with $l$ and $s$. Under the machine precision, $l \leq 10$ is appropriate.
Some specific examples are shown below. Let $s^*$ be the high-precision zero of calculated by , and let $s^{l,N}$ be the zero of with $l$ and $N$. The first two examples are about zeros which will be shown in Figure \[X5-2\]. Concerning $s^* = (0.719846\cdots) + i \; (42.458519\cdots)$, we obtain $s^{l,N}$ such as[^2] $$\begin{array}{lll}
|s^*-s^{10,100}| &= |7.8\times10^{-17} + i \; 4.3\times10^{-17}| &= O\left(10^{-17}\right), \\
|s^*-s^{10,200}| &= |-6.2\times10^{-22} + i \; 3.2\times10^{-22}| &=O\left(10^{-22}\right),
\end{array}$$ where $s^{10,100}$ is a zero of with $(l,N)=(10,100)$ and so on. It shows that larger $N$ gives higher accuracy, namely $|s^*-s^{l,N}|$ of $N=200$ is smaller than that of $N=100$. Similarly, concerning $s^* = (1.043571\cdots) + i \; (98.989673\cdots)$, we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
|s^*-s^{10,100}| &= O\left(10^{-14}\right), \;\; |s^*-s^{10,200}| = O\left(10^{-18}\right), \\
|s^*-s^{10,1000}| &= O\left(10^{-26}\right).
\end{array}$$ Note that the accuracy of the second example is lower than that of the first one with the same $(l, N)$. The next example is as to $s^* = (0.778519\cdots) + i \; (799.497864\cdots)$, the imaginary part of which is larger than the above two examples. In this case, we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
|s^*-s^{8,200}| &= O\left(10^{-6}\right), \;\; |s^*-s^{6,300}| = O\left(10^{-7}\right), \\
|s^*-s^{4,1000}| &= O\left(10^{-12}\right).
\end{array}$$ For the third example, $l$ should be taken smaller than 10. The reason is that its absolute value is larger than the first two examples. From these examples, we see that the calculation accuracy gets better by taking $N$ large. In our actual computations we choose $(l, N)=(10,100)$ for $t < 400$, $(l, N)=(8,200)$ for $400 \le t < 600$ and $(l, N)=(8,300)$ for $600 \le t < 800$, respectively, to realize higher accuracy than $O(10^{-6})$.
Hereafter, we will omit the superscript of $\zeta_2^N$ and $s^{l,N}$ for simplicity.
The way to find zeros {#subsec-1}
---------------------
We first search for candidates of zeros by drawing a plot of $|\zeta_2(s,s)|$. See Figure \[X4\], which shows the absolute value of $|\zeta_2(\sigma+it,\sigma+it)|$ for $\sigma=0.56$ and $0 \le t \le 80$. In this figure, there is a point which seems to be in contact with the horizontal axis. Then we use it as a starting value for the root finder [*FindRoot*]{}, which is a built-in function of [*Mathematica*]{}. As an option of [*FindRoot*]{}, we specify WorkingPrecision to 100 digits.
In this way, we draw this type of graphs for various values of $\sigma$ to search for candidates of zeros. Figure \[X1-1\] is the consequence of such search in the region $-2 \le \sigma \le 4$ and $0 \le t \le 800$. In Figure \[X1-1\], the leftmost zero is $$s = (-0.830372\cdots) + i \; (35.603804\cdots)$$ and the rightmost zero is $$s = (1.605277\cdots) + i \; (333.223539\cdots).$$
![A plot of $|\zeta_2|$ when $\sigma=0.56$ to search for a starting value for the root finder.[]{data-label="X4"}](figure8.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Some numerical examples of zeros with small imaginary parts are listed below.
= $ ( 0.27672860\cdots) + i ( 8.39755368\cdots) $\
$ (-0.18995147\cdots) + i (12.30422130\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.06443907\cdots) + i (15.02312694\cdots) $\
$ (-0.53767831\cdots) + i (17.58063303\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.12844956\cdots) + i (20.59707674\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.08804454\cdots) + i (21.93232180\cdots) $\
$ ( 1.10778631\cdots) + i (23.79708697\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.27268471\cdots) + i (24.93425087\cdots) $\
$ (-0.67413685\cdots) + i (26.88584448\cdots) $\
$ (-0.15708737\cdots) + i (30.02450294\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.24085861\cdots) + i (30.35443945\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.27943393\cdots) + i (32.43085844\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.19640810\cdots) + i (33.30504691\cdots) $\
$ (-0.83037218\cdots) + i (35.60380497\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.26817981\cdots) + i (37.74099414\cdots) $\
$ ( 1.48543370\cdots) + i (38.13262119\cdots) $\
$ (-0.45570264\cdots) + i (39.63195833\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.09633802\cdots) + i (41.36138867\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.71984635\cdots) + i (42.45851912\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.32260735\cdots) + i (43.57397755\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.30547044\cdots) + i (47.82257631\cdots) $\
$ (-0.07836730\cdots) + i (47.93661087\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.17623000\cdots) + i (49.35798458\cdots) $\
$ (-0.10065156\cdots) + i (50.42344359\cdots) $\
$ ( 1.20851184\cdots) + i (52.67628393\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.25607674\cdots) + i (52.90185286\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.26312128\cdots) + i (56.23680524\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.99787597\cdots) + i (57.00712796\cdots) $\
$ (-0.54056567\cdots) + i (57.89377726\cdots) $\
$ ( 0.25852514\cdots) + i (59.37031354\cdots) $\
The imaginary parts of the zeros in this list are less than 60, so the calculation accuracy is much better than $O(10^{-6})$; it is around $O(10^{-17})$.
The “throwing a net and catching fish” method {#subsec-2}
---------------------------------------------
By the method in the preceding subsection, we can find candidates of zeros, but we canot determine by that method whether they are really zeros, or they are just very small absolute values but not 0.
Therefore, to make sure that they are really zeros, we have to develop another method. Let $s^*=\sigma^*+it^*$ be a candidate of zero which we found by the method in Subsection \[subsec-1\]. Consider a small rectangle $$R=\{s=\sigma+it\;|\;a\leq\sigma\leq b,\;c\leq t\leq d\}$$ which includes $s^*$ as an interior point. Divide the interval $[a,b]$ as $a=\sigma_0<\sigma_1<\cdots<\sigma_n=b$, and draw the figure of the curves $$\mathcal{K}_j=\{\zeta_2(\sigma_j+it,\sigma_j+it)\;|\;c\leq t\leq d\}
\qquad{\rm (}0\leq j\leq n{\rm )}$$ on the complex plane. If $R$ is sufficiently small, then the points inside $R$ are very close to $s^*$, and hence the curves $\mathcal{K}_j$ locate near the origin. When $j$ moves from $0$ to $n$, the curves $\mathcal{K}_j$ also move little by little. If in the course of this moving process $\mathcal{K}_j$ crosses the origin, we should conclude that $\zeta_2(s,s)$ has a zero here, because $\zeta_2(s,s)$ is a continuous function (Figure \[X5-1\] and Figure \[X5-2\]). Therefore $s^*$ should be a zero of $\zeta_2(s,s)$.
![The left figure is a plot of the curves $\zeta_2(s, s)$ with $65 \leq t \leq 67$ drawn in the complex plane. The point $\zeta_2(s^*,s^*)$ is on the solid line. The right figure is a plot of $s=\sigma+i t$ in $\sigma$-$t$ plane, whose each segment corresponds to each curve on the left figure. The point $s^*$ is on the solid line. The curves represent the behaviour of $\zeta_2(s, s)$ when $\sigma = 0.54, 0.55, 0.561016, 0.57$ and $0.58$, respectively.[]{data-label="X5-1"}](figure9a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} 1.5cm ![The left figure is a plot of the curves $\zeta_2(s, s)$ with $65 \leq t \leq 67$ drawn in the complex plane. The point $\zeta_2(s^*,s^*)$ is on the solid line. The right figure is a plot of $s=\sigma+i t$ in $\sigma$-$t$ plane, whose each segment corresponds to each curve on the left figure. The point $s^*$ is on the solid line. The curves represent the behaviour of $\zeta_2(s, s)$ when $\sigma = 0.54, 0.55, 0.561016, 0.57$ and $0.58$, respectively.[]{data-label="X5-1"}](figure9b.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}\
0.5cm $s^* = (0.561016\cdots) + i\; (65.626461\cdots)$
![Plots of the curve $\zeta_2(\sigma+it,\sigma+it)$ drawn in the complex plane. The left figure shows the curves with $98 \leq t \leq 100$ for $\sigma = 0.95,\; 1,\; 1.043572,\;
1.1$ and $1.15$. The right figure shows the curves with $41 \leq t \leq 44$ for $\sigma = 0.6, 0.65,\; 0.719846,\;
0.75$ and $0.8$.[]{data-label="X5-2"}](figure10a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Plots of the curve $\zeta_2(\sigma+it,\sigma+it)$ drawn in the complex plane. The left figure shows the curves with $98 \leq t \leq 100$ for $\sigma = 0.95,\; 1,\; 1.043572,\;
1.1$ and $1.15$. The right figure shows the curves with $41 \leq t \leq 44$ for $\sigma = 0.6, 0.65,\; 0.719846,\;
0.75$ and $0.8$.[]{data-label="X5-2"}](figure10b.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
0.5cm (i) $s^* = (1.043571\cdots) + i \; (98.989673\cdots)$
\(ii) $s^* = (0.719846\cdots) + i \; (42.458519\cdots)$
It is to be noted that we have not yet checked all candidates of zeros in Figure \[X1-1\] by this “throwing a net and catching fish” method, but we believe that all of those candidates are indeed zeros.
The order of the zeros
----------------------
Some zeros in Figure \[X1-1\] seem to overlap or be very close to each other, but this is because the vertical scale of Figure \[X1-1\] is heavily reduced. All of them are actually isolated from other zeros. In fact, the closest zeros in the figure are
$$(-0.024589\cdots) + i\; (575.888143\cdots)$$ and $$(0.176317\cdots) + i\; (575.841132\cdots),$$ the distance of which is about $0.206$.
As a precaution, for all zeros here, we checked that the values of the derivative $\zeta_2^{\prime}(s,s)$ at those points are non-zero. The values of the derivative of $\zeta_2(s,s)$ can be calculated, by using , by a built-in function of [*Mathematica*]{}. From those facts, we are sure they are not zero of order two (or more) [^3].
**Acknowledgements.**$\;$ The authors express their thanks to Professor Aleksandar Ivi[ć]{}, Professor Ken Kamano and Professor Gediminas Stepanauskas for valuable comments.
[999]{}
, Analytic continuation of multiple zeta-functions and their values at non-positive integers, [Acta Arith.]{} [**98**]{} (2001), 107-116.
, Multiple zeta values at non-positive integers, [Ramanujan J.]{} [**5**]{} (2001), 327-351.
, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Springer, 1976.
, On the zero distributions of Lerch zeta-functions, [Analysis]{} [**22**]{} (2002), 1-12.
, The zeros of Hurwitz’s zeta-function on $\sigma=1/2$, in “Analytic Number Theory”, M. I. Knopp (ed.), Lecture Notes in Math. [**899**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1981.
, Multiple harmonic series, [Pacific J. Math.]{} [**152**]{} (1992), 275-290.
, On certain mean values of the double zeta-function, preprint, arXiv:1303.6505.
, On the estimation of the order of Euler-Zagier multiple zeta-functions, [Illinois J. Math.]{} [**47**]{} (2003), 1151-1166.
, The multiple Hurwitz zeta function and a generalization of Lerch’s formula, [Tokyo J. Math.]{} [**29**]{} (2006), 61-73.
, Bounds for double zeta-functions, [Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, Cl. Sci.]{} (5)[**5**]{} (2006), 445-464.
, Analytic properties of double zeta-functions, [Indag. Math.]{} [**21**]{} (2011), 16-29.
, The Lerch Zeta-function, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2002.
, Mean value theorems for the double zeta-function, J. Math. Soc. Japan, to appear.
, On complex zeros off the critical line for non-monomial polynomial of zeta-functions, preprint, arXiv:1212.5890.
, Values of zeta functions and their applications, in: [First European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II]{}, A. Joseph et al. (eds.), Progr. Math. [120]{}, Birkh[ä]{}user, 1994, pp. 497–512.
, Analytic continuation of multiple zeta functions, [Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} [**128**]{} (2000), 1275-1283.
[^1]: Some zeros in Figure \[X1-1\] may seem to be on the line $\sigma=1/2$, but numerical data shows that they are very close to, but not on that line. For example there is a zero at $(0.502166\cdots)+i(559.930082\cdots)$.
[^2]: Here and in what follows, the symbol $O(10^{-n})$ implies $\leq C10^{-n}$ with a constant $C>0$. What we actually want to claim is that the error is as small as $10^{-n}$, so the numerical value of $C$ is $\lesssim 10$.
[^3]: One might be worried about the possibility that a zero point on Figure \[X1-1\] actually represents two zeros which are so close to each other that cannot be distinguished by our present computations. However such a possibility can also be removed by checking the values of derivatives.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An alternative to the famous see-saw mechanism is proposed to explain the smallness of the neutrino masses (if present). This model involves a fourth family which mixes [*very little*]{} with the other three. It contains one heavy neutrino ($m_N > m_Z /2$) and three very light neutrinos whose masses are radiatively induced. In contrast with the see-saw mechanism, all neutrino masses are [*Dirac masses*]{}. In one particular scenario, the three light neutrinos are almost degenerate in mass and are found to be consistent with fits to the Solar and Atmospheric neutrino deficits. They might even account for the Hot Dark Matter.'
address: 'Dept. of Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901'
author:
- 'P. Q. Hung'
title: 'See-Sawless Neutrino Masses'
---
The possible presence of small neutrino masses and of neutrino oscillations is believed to be a plausible explanation for a set of experimental “discrepancies” and “evidences”: the solar neutrino problem, the atmospheric neutrino problem, and the Liquid Scintillation Neutrino Detector (LSND) data[@mohapatra]. These experimental results, naturally, will have to be confirmed in the future.
In this paper, we propose an alternative way of looking at the neutrino mass problem without resorting to the famous see-saw mechanism[@seesaw]. The most important difference with the see-saw mechanism is the fact that, in our model, the neutrinos have [*only*]{} Dirac masses. We now list our three main assumptions.
I\) There is a [*non-sequential*]{} fourth family. By non-sequential, we mean that this fourth family is isolated from the first three families by tiny mixing angles. One way to realize this picture is to assume an almost unbroken 3 + 1 structure under a “light” horizontal family symmetry to isolate the fourth family. By “light” horizontal family symmetry, we mean a symmetry [*among the first three families*]{}.
Recently, it was found[@hung] that such a fourth generation with a quark mass $\sim$ 150 GeV helps bring about a unification of the SM gauge couplings at a scale $\sim 3.5 \times 10^{15}$ GeV, corresponding to a partial proton lifetime $\sim 3.3 \times 10^{34 \pm 2}$ years, in a non-supersymmetric $SU(5)$ model. In Ref. [@frampton], a search was proposed for long-lived quarks which can arise in such a model.
II\) There is [*one and only one*]{} right-handed neutrino, $N_R$, which is a singlet under that horizontal symmetry. (This is in contrast with the usual picture where there is one right-handed neutrino for each species.)
III\) There is an exact global L (lepton number) symmetry and that $N_R$ carries the same lepton number as all the other leptons. (In the context of simple grand unification, it would be the B-L global symmetry of SU(5) with minimal Higgs.) This symmetry would forbid a Majorana mass term of the form $N_R N_R$ for $N_R$. If one is not concerned about any grand unification, then global lepton number conservation alone is sufficient to forbid such a term.
The Yukawa couplings which respect the “light” horizontal symmetry (The SM Higgs field $\phi$ is assumed to be a singlet under that symmetry), are of the form: 1) $G_{l} (\bar{l}_{L}^{i} \phi e_{R,i} + h. c.)$; 2) $G_{E} (\bar{L}_{L} \phi E_{R} +h. c.)$; 3) $G_{N} (\bar{L}_{L} \tilde{\phi} N_{R} +h. c.)$, where $\tilde{\phi} = i \sigma_2 \phi^{\ast}$, $i=1,2,3$ ( the “light” indices), and $L_L = (N_L, E_L)$. When $<\phi> = (0, v/\sqrt{2})$, the $4 \times
4$ charged lepton mass matrix is [*diagonal*]{} and the only neutral lepton that gets a (Dirac) mass is the fourth family $N$. At this level, there is [*no*]{} mixing between $E$ and the light leptons. It is thus natural, at tree level, to have a massive Dirac fourth neutrino and three massless neutrinos. Assumption (III) (L or B-L symmetry) forbids a Majorana mass term $N_R N_R$.
To proceed further, one needs to embed the (light) horizontal symmetry into a larger one. For this purpose, let us assume the “light” family symmetry to be described by the group $SO(3)$ with the first three families transforming as a 3-dimensional vector representation and with the fourth family being a singlet. Let us now assume that there is a Grand Family gauge symmetry group and it is $SO(4)$. We shall choose the following basis for the $SO(4)$ generators: $M_{ij}$ and $M_{4i}$, with $i,j = 1,2,3$, which are the generators of the $SO(3)$ subgroup and $SO(4)/SO(3)$ factor group respectively. The gauge bosons of $SO(3)$ couple to $M_{ij}$ while those of $SO(4)/SO(3)$ couple to $M_{4i}$. When $SO(4)$ breaks down to $SO(3)$, it is this $SO(3)$ that we identify with the “light” family symmetry. Under $SO(4)$, the left and right-handed leptons would transform as $\psi^{\alpha}_L = (l_{L}^i , L_{L})$ and $e^{\alpha}_R =
( e_{R}^i , E_R)$, where the superscripts $\alpha= 1,..,4$ and $i = 1, 2, 3$ denote the $SO(4)$ and “light” lepton family indices respectively. Since, in our model, there is only one right- handed neutral lepton, $N_R$, it would automatically be a [*singlet*]{} under the Grand Family Symmetry $SO(4)$.
Under $SO(4)$, the only invariant Yukawa coupling that can be written is $G_{L} \bar{\psi}^{\alpha}_{L} \phi
e_{R,\alpha}$. This alone would be unsatisfactory from a phenomenological viewpoint since it would give equal masses, $m^{0}_E$, to all four charged leptons. Furthermore, from LEP2, one has $m_E > m_W$ and since the fourth family is assumed to mix very little with the other three , one cannot use some kind of democratic mass matrix (with unity everywhere) to make $E$ much heavier than the lighter three. An extra term is needed to give an additional mass to the fourth charged lepton.
Another important question concerns the nature of the Yukawa term $G_{N}
(\bar{L}_{L} \tilde{\phi} N_{R} +h. c.)$ which gives a Dirac mass to the “heavy” 4th neutrino $N$. It is, however, not $SO(4)$ invariant (although it is invariant under the “light” family symmetry $SO(3)$). To be consistent, this Yukawa coupling should be derived from an $SO(4)$-invariant term .
To address the above issues, let us introduce the Higgs fields needed to break $SO(4)$. For instance, to break $SO(4)$ completely, one might use four Higgs fields belonging each to a vector representation. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the details of such a breaking and we shall assume that it can be done. Let us call one of such 4-dimensional Higgs fields $\Omega$ where $\Omega = (\Sigma^{i}, \Theta)$, with $i=1,2,3$. Let us assume that $\Omega$ develops the following vacuum expectation value (VEV): $<\Omega> = (0, <\Theta>)$, with $<\Theta> =
{\cal M}$ being typically the scale of $SO(4)$ breaking. In fact, if $\Omega$ were the only Higgs field present for $SO(4)$, its VEV would spontaneously break $SO(4)$ down to the “light” family symmetry $SO(3)$.
We now propose the following minimal set of extra “superheavy” fermions- singlets under $SO(4)$- whose attractive feature is to generate tree-level masses for $N$ and $E$. These are the fermions which can couple to $\Omega$. They are (under $SU(2)_L
\otimes U(1)_Y$): 1) $F_{L,R} = (2, -1/2)$; 2) $M_{L,R} = (1, -1)$. These extra fermions are vector-like under the SM. As a result, they can have the following gauge-invariant mass terms: ${\cal M}_{F}\bar{F}_{L}
F_{R} + h.c.$ and ${\cal M}_{M} \bar{M}_{L} M_{R} + h.c.$, where ${\cal M}_{F}$ and ${\cal M}_{M}$ are [*assumed*]{} to be of the order of the $SO(4)$ breaking scale. We propose the following Yukawa interactions which respect $SO(4) \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_Y$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_Y& =& G_1 \bar{\psi}^{\alpha}_{L} \Omega_{\alpha} F_{R} +
G_2 \bar{F}_{L} \tilde{\phi} N_{R} +
G_3 \bar{F}_{L} \phi M_{R} + \nonumber \\
& &G_4 \bar{M}_{L} \Omega_{\alpha} e^{\alpha}_{R},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha= 1,..,4$ is the $SO(4)$ index. We shall endow $\psi^{\alpha}_L$, $e^{\alpha}_R$ and $\Omega$ with a discrete symmetry so that $\psi^{\alpha}_L$ and $e^{\alpha}_R$ couple [*only*]{} to $\Omega$ and not to other 4-dimensional $SO(4)$ Higgs fields. (This discrete symmetry could be, for instance, the simultaneous change of sign of these three fields.)
Integrating out the heavy fields $F$ and $M$ below the $SO(4)$ breaking scale and with $<\Omega> = (0, <\Theta>)$, it is straigthforward to derive the following effective Yukawa terms: $G_N \bar{L}_L \tilde{\phi} N_R$ with $G_N = G_1 G_2 <\Theta> / {\cal M}_F$, and $G_E \bar{L}_L \phi E_R$ with $G_E = G_1 G_3 G_4 <\Theta>^{2}/ {\cal
M}_F {\cal M}_M$. From these terms we obtain the following masses: $m_{0N} = G_1 G_2 \frac{<\Theta>}{{\cal M}_F} \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}$, and $\tilde{m}_E = G_1 G_3 G_4 \frac{<\Theta>^{2}}{{\cal M}_F {\cal M}_M} \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}$, where $<\Theta> \sim {\cal M}_F$. The total mass of the fourth charged lepton, $m_E$, would be the sum of $\tilde{m}_E$ and $m^{0}_E$ (the mass which is common to all four charged leptons). Phenomenologically, one could have $m^{0}_E \ll \tilde{m}_E$ which would provide the desired hierarchy.
There are two steps that one could do to compute the “light” neutrino masses. These steps are depicted in Figs.1 and 2 which show the $E-e^{i}$ mixing and the effective Yukawa term $ \bar{\nu}^{i}_L \phi^{0} N_R$ respectively. We shall assume that $SO(3)$ breaking will give rise to a non-diagonal mass matrix for the “light” charged lepton sector. (Its detailed form and mechanism is not essential to the arguments presented below.)
In Fig.1, we have introduced another quartet of Higgs field which we denote by $\tilde{\Omega} = (\tilde{\Sigma}^{i}, \tilde{\Theta})$. (This is one of several Higgs field needed to spontaneously break $SO(4)$.) First, this particular quartet is prevented by the previous discrete symmetry from coupling to the fermions. Secondly, in contrast with $\Omega$, we require that $<\tilde{\Omega}> = (<\tilde{\Sigma}^{i}>, <\tilde{\Theta}>)$ so that one obtains an effective Yukawa coupling of the form: $C_{i} \bar{e}^{i}_L \phi^{0} E_R$, where $C_i$ is a constant containing the loop inegration and various couplings. (The contribution of $\Omega$ to $C_i$ is zero because $<\Omega> = (0, <\Theta>)$.) This can be easily seen because such a Yukawa mixing between $e^{i}_L$ and $E_R$ can only arise when $SO(3)$ is itself broken. This kind of vacuum expectation value can be arranged in a general potential. It is beyond the scope of the paper to present it here. We shall assume that it can be done.
The gauge bosons in Fig.1 are the massive $SO(4)/SO(3)$ gauge bosons. Without loss of generality, we shall assume that their masses, $M_4$, are of the order of $<\tilde{\Theta}>$. With this in mind, the coefficient $C_i$ can be computed to be: $C_i = \tilde{\lambda} (\frac{g_F^2}{16 \pi^2})(\frac{\sqrt{2}
m_{e_i}}{v}) \frac{<\tilde{\Sigma}^i>}{M_4} \ln (\frac{M_4^2 + m_{\tilde{\Theta}}^2}
{m_{\tilde{\Theta}}^2})$, where $g_F$, $m_{\tilde{\Theta}}$, and $M_4$ are the $SO(4)$ gauge coupling, the mass of $\tilde{\Theta}$, and the mass of the $SO(4)/SO(3)$ gauge bosons respectively. The factor $\tilde{\lambda}$ comes from the cross coupling $\tilde{\lambda} \phi^{\dag} \phi \tilde{\Omega}^{\dag}
\tilde{\Omega}$. Also, in $C_i$, $m_{e_i}$ is the mass eigenvalue of the charged lepton $e_i$. We shall comment below on the possible ranges for the various parameters in $C_i$.
In the following discussion, for simplicity, we shall assume that $<\tilde{\Sigma}^{i}> = M_3$, independent of $i$. $M_3$ will be related to the scale of $SO(3)$ breaking.
Using $C_i \bar{e}^{i}_L \phi^{0} E_R$, one can now calculate (in the Feynman-’t Hooft gauge) the diagrams shown in Fig.2a,b. The various factors that enter the vertices of the diagrams need some explanations. For $\bar{E}_L \phi^{-} N_R$, one has $\sqrt{2} m_{0N}/ v$. $C_{i} \bar{e}^{i}_L \phi^{0} E_R$ gives the $\bar{e}_{iL} E_R$ mixing. The $\bar{\nu}_{iL} \phi^{+} e_{jR}$ vertex contains a term $V_{ij} \sqrt{2} m_{e_j} / v$, where $V_{ij}$’s are actually elements of the matrix that diagonalizes the [*charged*]{} lepton sector. The reason is that there is only [*one*]{} right-handed neutral lepton, $N_R$, and the neutral lepton mass matrix is necessarily diagonal. We show below what the effective right-handed component for [*each*]{} neutrino will be.
Diagram (2a) is proportional to $m_{e_i}^2 m_E^2$ while Diagram (2b) is proportional to $m_{e_i}^3 m_E$ with similar coefficients in front. Therefore Diagram (2a) is larger than (2b) by a factor $m_E / m_{e_i}$, which is much larger than unity even for $m_{e_i} = m_{\tau}$. Because of this we list below the dominant contribution to Fig.2, namely Fig.2a. We obtain: $$\frac{m_{0\nu_i}}{m_{0N}} = K \sum_{j=1}^{3} V_{ij} \frac{m_{e_j}^{2}}{v^2},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K& =& \tilde{\lambda}\frac{g_{F}^2}{16 \pi^2} \frac{M_3}{M_4}
\frac{1}{4 \pi^2} \frac{m_{E}^2}{m_{W}^2} \ln (\frac{M_4^2 + m_{\tilde{\Theta}}^2}
{m_{\tilde{\Theta}}^2})\{\ln (\frac{M_{W}^2 + m_{E}^2}
{m_{E}^2}) \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{m_{E}^2}{M_{W}^2 + m_{E}^2}\}.\end{aligned}$$
We first show how $m_{0\nu_i}$ and $m_{0N}$ are related to the Dirac masses of the neutrinos. We then discuss their relative magnitudes.
Let us write the part of the Lagrangian containing the kinetic and mass terms for the four neutrinos. For simplicity, we shall omit the gauge part in the kinetic term. One has: ${\cal L}^{(\nu)} = \sum_{j=1}^{3} i\bar{\nu}_{jL}\not\!\partial \nu_{jL}
+ i\bar{N}_L\not\!\partial N_L + i\bar{N}_R \\
\not\!\partial N_R
- m_{0N} (\bar{N}_L N_R + h.c.) - \sum_{j=1}^{3} m_{0i} (\bar{\nu}_{jL}
N_R + h.c.)$ . Let us introduce the following 4-component Dirac spinors: $\tilde{\nu}_i = (\nu_{iL} , \alpha N_R)$ ; $\tilde{N} = (N_{L}, \alpha N_R)$. By writing ${\cal L}^{(\nu)}$ in terms of the above Dirac spinors and comparing it with the previous expressions, it is easy to see that one has to have $\alpha = 1/2$. It means that the Dirac masses, $m_{\nu_i}$ and $m_N$, coming from terms like $m_{\nu_i}\bar{\tilde{\nu}}_i \tilde{\nu}_i$ and $m_N \bar{\tilde{N}} \tilde{N}$, are now given by: $m_{\nu_i} = 2\,m_{0\nu_i}; m_N = 2\,m_{0N}$. The ratio, however, remains the same, i.e. $m_{\nu_i}/m_N = m_{0\nu_i}/m_{0N}$.
To know the relative magnitude of $m_{\nu_i}$ compared with $m_{N}$, one needs to have an estimate for various parameters which appear in $K$. To be more specific, let us take a definite example. For instance, let us assume that $m_E \sim 2 m_W$, $M_3 \sim M_4$, $g_F \sim g_{weak}$. A crude estimate then gives $K \sim 1.5 \times 10^{-3} \tilde{\lambda}$. Now let us recall that $\tilde{\lambda}$ comes from $\tilde{\lambda} \phi^{\dag} \phi
\tilde{\Omega}^{\dag} \tilde{\Omega}$. In order to prevent the SM Higgs field from acquiring a large mass, it is easy to see that the constraint on $\tilde{\lambda}$ is approximately $\tilde{\lambda} < v^2 / M_{4}^2$ where we have set the SM quartic coupling $\lambda \sim O(1)$. In consequence, if $v \ll M_4$, $\tilde{\lambda}$ can be [*very*]{} small. (This is the familiar statement of gauge hierarchy encountered in the construction of Grand Unified theories.) For example, if the Grand Family breaking is in the TeV region so that, say, $v^2 / M_{4}^2 \sim 10^{-4}$, one then has $\tilde{\lambda} < 10^{-4}$ implying $K < 1.5 \times 10^{-7}$. Since $|V_{ij}| \lesssim 1$ and the heaviest charged lepton mass is $m_{\tau} = 1.784$ GeV, the heaviest “light” neutrino can have a mass of roughly 1.3 eV for $m_N \sim
160$ GeV. It could, of course, be heavier or lighter depending on, e.g. the ratio $v^2 / M_{4}^2$, among other things.
Let us now turn to a more complete discussion of all neutrino masses. From $C_i$, one can see that, for the range of parameters mentioned above, the mixing between $E$ and the “light” charged leptons is very small, i.e. $\sim
10^{-5}$. In consequence, the $3\times 3$ mixing submatrix, among the “light” charged leptons, whose elements are $V_{ij}$ will be approximately unitary. Without loss of generality, we shall use the standard CKM parametrization for such a matrix, neglecting any possible CP violation effect. The weak charged current can be written, in terms of mass eigenstates, as: $J_{\mu} = 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^{3} \bar{l}_{Li} V_{ij} \nu_{Lj}$. Here $l_{Li} = (e, \mu, \tau)$ and $\nu_{Lj}$ are the mass eigenstates. Also $V_{ij} = U_{l}^{\dagger} U_{\nu}$, where $U_{l}$ and $U_{\nu}$ are the matrices which diagonalize the charged and neutral lepton sectors respectively. As we have stated earlier, the neutral lepton mass matrix is diagonal because there is only one right-handed neitrino. As a result, $U_{\nu} = 1$ and $V_{ij} = U_{l}^{\dagger}$. The neutrino masses computed below are [*directly*]{} related to the matrix that diagonalizes the charged lepton sector. The “light” neutrino mass eigenvalues can now be written in terms of the “light’ charged lepton mass eigenvalues as: $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\nu_1}& =& \frac{K m_N}{v^2} \{ (c_{\omega} c_{\phi})m_{e}^2 + (-s_{\omega}
c_{\psi}-c_{\omega}s_{\psi}s_{\phi})m_{\mu}^2 + \nonumber \\
& &(s_{\omega}s_{\psi}-c_{\omega}c_{\psi}s_{\phi})m_{\tau}^2 \} \\
m_{\nu_2}& =& \frac{K m_N}{v^2} \{ (s_{\omega} c_{\phi})m_{e}^2 + (c_{\omega}
c_{\psi}-s_{\omega}s_{\psi}s_{\phi})m_{\mu}^2 + \nonumber \\
& &(-c_{\omega}s_{\psi}-s_{\omega}c_{\psi}s_{\phi})m_{\tau}^2 \} \\
m_{\nu_3}& =& \frac{K m_N}{v^2} \{ s_{\phi}m_{e}^2 + s_{\psi}c_{\phi}m_{\mu}^2 +
c_{\psi}c_{\phi}m_{\tau}^2 \} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c\equiv cos$ and $s \equiv sin$. The angles $\omega, \phi, \psi$ are used in Ref. [@kuo]. The hierarchy, if any, among the $m_{\nu_i}$’s depends on several factors: the relative magnitudes of the charged lepton masses and the magnitude of the coefficients appearing in front of these masses. In the discussion of neutrino oscillation, the angles that appear there come from the equation that expresses the flavour eigenstates in terms of the mass eigenstates, namely $\nu^{0}_{Li} = \sum_{j=1}^{3} V_{i j} \nu_{Lj}$, where $\nu_{Li}^{0} = (\nu_{e}, \nu_{\mu}, \nu_{\tau})$. Therefore, the neutrino masses are intrinsically linked to the oscillation angles. Next, one observes that: $m_{\mu}^2 / m_{\tau}^2 \sim 3.5072 \times 10^{-3}$ and $m_{e}^2 / m_{\tau}^2 \sim 10^{-7}$, $m_{e}^2 / m_{\mu}^2 \sim 2.3 \times 10^{-5}$. Unless the coefficients appearing in front of $m_{\mu}^2$ and $m_{\tau}^2$ are extremely small- a rather unusual scenario- it is safe to say that the main contributions to the masses come from $m_{\mu}^2$ and $m_{\tau}^2$ in Eqs. (4,5,6). We thus neglect the $m_{e}^2$ terms from hereon. The mass differences relevant to neutrino oscillation are customarily written as: $\Delta m_{ij}^2 = |m_{\nu_i}^2 - m_{\nu_j}^2|$. From Eqs. (4,5,6), one can compute the following relevant ratios: $\frac{\Delta m_{12}^2}{m_{\nu_3}^2}$ and $\frac{\Delta m_{23}^2}{m_{\nu_3}^2}$. These ratios depend only on the three angles and on the known masses, $m_{\mu}$ and $m_{\tau}$. The actual values of $\Delta m_{ij}^2$ will also depend on $m_{\nu_3}$ which is a free parameter since it depends on various factors such as, for example, the breaking scale of the Grand Family symmetry, among others. Its magnitude could have interesting implications concerning the physics of the family symmetry.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to do a detailed analysis of various possible scenarios using Eqs. (4,5,6). We choose to illustrate the predictive power of these equations by taking the following example. We ask the question: Given $m_{\nu_3}$ (input) and the three angles $\phi$, $\omega$ and $\psi$, would one obtain consistent values for $\Delta m_{ij}^2$ and the oscillation angles? What would that imply as far as the three neutrino masses are concerned? After a quick scan of various angles, we choose: $\phi = 2.9^{0}$, $\omega = 47.04325^{0}$, $\psi = 55.01^{0}$, and $m_{\nu_3}^2 = 2.5\, eV^2$. Plugging these values into the ratios $\frac{\Delta m_{12}^2}{m_{\nu_3}^2}$ and $\frac{\Delta m_{23}^2}{m_{\nu_3}^2}$, we obtain: $\Delta m_{12}^2 = 8.65 \times 10^{-6} eV^2$; $\Delta m_{23}^2 = 0.0233 eV^2$; $\sin^2 2\theta_{e\mu} = 4 s_{\phi}^2 c_{\phi}^2 s_{\psi}^2 =\sin^2 2\phi s_{\psi}^2
=6.85 \times 10^{-3}$; and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\mu\tau} = 4 s_{\psi}^2 c_{\psi}^2
c_{\phi}^4 =\sin^2 2\psi c_{\phi}^4 = 0.878$. These values are consistent with the small-angle MSW solution to the Solar neutrino deficit, and with the sub-GeV and multi-GeV data for the solution to the Atmospheric neutrino deficit[@mohapatra]. Furthermore, from the relationship between the neutrino masses, we deduce the values for $m_{\nu_1}$ and $m_{\nu_2}$, given the above values of the angles and of $m_{\nu_3} = 1.5811388\, eV$. We get: $m_{\nu_1} = 1.5884876\, eV$ and $m_{\nu_2} = 1.5884904\, eV$. Interestingly, one has here a case of almost degenerate neutrinos: $m_{\nu_1} \approx
m_{\nu_2} \approx m_{\nu_3}$. Notice that $m_{\nu_1} + m_{\nu_2} +
m_{\nu_3} \approx 4.78\, eV$, which seems to be a preferred value for the hot dark matter in a mixed hot-cold scenario[@mohapatra; @babu]. The neutrino masses in our scenario are of a Dirac nature and, as a consequence, they should [*not*]{} give rise to neutrinoless double beta decay. Their masses can be $\sim$ 1.6 eV and are not subject to the upper limit (for a Majorana mass) of $\sim$ 0.56 eV from the search for neutrinoless double beta decay by the Heidelberg- Moscow $^{76}Ge$ experiment[@klapdor]. Note, in passing, that, for the values of $\Delta m_{ij}^2$ presented above, even if $m_{\nu_i} \sim 1.6\, eV$, there appears to be no problem with the so-called $r$-process in supernova nucleosynthesis of heavy elements. One last (but not least) remark: with $m_{\nu_3} \sim 1.6$ eV and assuming, e.g. $m_N \sim 160$ GeV, we obtain $M_4 \sim M_3 \sim 18$ TeV, where the expression for $K$ has been used. The Family scales $M_{3,4}$ can vary, depending on a number of factors contained in $K$. If $m_{\nu_3}$ were to be much smaller,these scales will be correspondingly much larger than the previous rough estimate. Nevertheless it is interesting to see, in this scenario, the deep connection between neutrino masses and Family scales.
I would like to thank Qaisar Shafi for an insightful comment. This work is supported in parts by the US Department of Energy under grant No. DE-A505-89ER40518.
For a review and a comprehensive list of references, see R. N. Mohapatra in Neutrino’96, edited by K. Enqvist et. al, World Scientific, 1997. M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky in Supergravity, edited by D. Freedman et al. (1979). P. Q. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett. in press (1998). P. H. Frampton and P. Q. Hung, hep-ph/9711218. H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 438 (1974). T. K. Kuo and J. Pantaleone, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 937 (1989). See H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, in Double Beta Decay and Related Topics, ed. by H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and S. Stoica, World Scientific (1995) p. 3. K. S. Babu, R. K. Schaefer, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 606 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the Markov decision process model, policies are usually evaluated by expected cumulative rewards. As this decision criterion is not always suitable, we propose in this paper an algorithm for computing a policy optimal for the quantile criterion. Both finite and infinite horizons are considered. Finally we experimentally evaluate our approach on random MDPs and on a data center control problem.'
author:
- 'Hugo Gilbert[^1]'
- 'Paul Weng[^2]'
- 'Yan Xu[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio160226.bib'
title: |
Optimizing Quantiles in\
Preference-based Markov Decision Processes
---
Introduction
============
Sequential decision-making in uncertain environments is an important task in artificial intelligence. Such problems can be modeled as Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). In an MDP, an agent chooses at every time step actions to perform according to the current state of the world in order to optimize a criterion in the long run. In standard MDPs, uncertainty is described by probabilities over the possible action outcomes, preferences are represented by numeric rewards and the expectation of future cumulated rewards is used as the decision criterion. And yet, for numerous applications, the expectation of cumulated rewards may not be the most appropriate criterion. For instance, in one-shot decision-making problems an alternative and well motivated objective for the agent is to insure a certain level of satisfaction with high probability.
In this paper we focus on the decision criterion that consists in maximizing a quantile. Intuitively, the $\tau$th quantile of a population is the value $x$ such that $100\cdot\tau$ percent of the population is equal or lower than $x$ and $100\cdot(1-\tau)$ percent of the population is equal or greater than $x$. Optimizing a quantile criterion offers nice properties: i) no assumption is made about the commensurability between preferences and uncertainty, ii) preferences over actions or trajectories can be expressed on a purely ordinal scale, iii) preferences induced over policies are more robust than with the standard criterion of maximizing the expectation of cumulated rewards.
As a result, maximizing a quantile is used in many applications. For instance, the *Value-at-Risk* criterion [@Jorion06] widely used in finance is in fact a quantile. Moreover, in the Web industry [@WolskiBrevik14; @DeCandiaHastorunJampaniKakulapatiLakshmanPilchinSivasubramanianVosshallVogels07], decisions about performance or Quality-Of-Service are often made based on quantiles. For instance, Amazon reports [@DeCandiaHastorunJampaniKakulapatiLakshmanPilchinSivasubramanianVosshallVogels07] that they optimize the 99.9% quantile for their cloud services. More generally, in the service industry, because of skewed distributions [@BenoitVandenPoel09], one generally does not want that customers are satisfied on average, but rather that most customers ([*e.g.,* ]{}99% of them) to be as satisfied as possible.
**Our contribution:** We show that optimizing the quantile criterion amounts to solving a sequence of MDP problems using an Expected Utility criterion with a target utility function. We provide a binary search algorithm using functional backward induction [@LiuKoenig06] as a subroutine for computing an optimal policy. Moreover, we investigate some properties of the optimal policies in the finite and infinite cases. Finally, we provide the results of experiments testing our algorithm in a variety of settings.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:background\] introduces the necessary background to present our approach and state formally our problem. Section \[sec:algo\] presents the details of our solving algorithm for the finite horizon case. Section \[sec:infinite\] provides some theoretical results in the infinite horizon case. In Section \[sec:expe\], we experimentally evaluate our proposition. Section \[sec:related\] discusses the related work and Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
In this section, we provide the background information necessary for the sequel.
Markov Decision Process
-----------------------
*Markov Decision Processes* (MDPs) offer a general and powerful formalism to model and solve sequential decision-making problems [@Puterman94]. An MDP is formally defined as a tuple $\mathcal{M}_T=(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{A},\mathcal{P},r,s_0)$ where $T$ is a time horizon, $\mathcal{S}$ is a finite set of states, $\mathcal{A}$ is a finite set of actions, $\mathcal{P}:\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a transition function with $\mathcal{P}(s,a,s')$ being the probability of reaching state $s'$ when action $a$ is performed in state $s$, $r:\mathcal{S}\times \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a bounded reward function and $s_0\in\mathcal{S}$ is a particular state called initial state.
In a nutshell, at each time step $t$, the agent knows her current state $s_t$. According to this state, she decides to perform an action $a_t$. This action results in a new state $s_{t+1} \in \mathcal{S}$ according to probability distribution $\mathcal{P}(s_t,a_t,.)$, and a reward signal $r(s_t, a_t)$ which penalizes or reinforces the choice of this action. At time step $t=0$, the agent is in the initial state $s_0$. We will call $t$-history $h_t$ a succession of $t$ state-action pairs starting from state $s_0$ ([*e.g.,* ]{}$h_t = (s_0,a_0,s_1,\ldots,s_{t-1},a_{t-1},s_t)$). We call episode a $T$-history and denote $\mathcal{E}$ the set of episodes.
The goal of the agent is to determine a policy, [*i.e.,* ]{}a procedure to select an action in a state, that is optimal for a given criterion. More formally, a [*policy*]{} $\pi$ at an horizon $T$ is a sequence of $T$ decision rules $(\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{T})$. [*Decision rules*]{} are functions which prescribe the actions that the agent should perform. They are *Markovian* if they only depend on the current state. Moreover, a decision rule is either [*deterministic*]{} if it always selects the same action in a given state or [*randomized*]{} if it can prescribe a probability distribution over possible actions. A policy can be *Markovian*, *deterministic* or *randomized* according to the type of its decision rules. Lastly, a policy is *stationary* if it uses the same decision rule at every time step, [*i.e.,* ]{}$\pi = (\delta,\delta,\ldots)$.
Different criteria can be defined in order to compare policies. One standard criterion is [*expected cumulated reward*]{}, for which it is known that an optimal deterministic Markovian policy exists at any horizon $T$. This criterion is defined as follows. First, the value of a history $h_t = (s_0,a_0,s_1,\ldots,s_{t-1},a_{t-1},s_t)$ is described as the sum of rewards obtained along it, [*i.e.,* ]{}$r(h_t) = \sum_{i=0}^{t-1} r(s_{i}, a_i)$. Then, the value of a policy $\pi = (\delta_1, \ldots, \delta_T)$ in a state $s$ is set to be the expected value of the histories that can be generated by $\pi$ from $s$. This value, given by the [*value function*]{} $v^\pi_1 : \mathcal S \to \mathbb R$ can be computed iteratively as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
v^{\pi}_{T+1}(s)&= 0 \nonumber\\
v^{\pi}_t(s)&= r(s,\delta_t(s)) + \sum_{s'\in \mathcal{S}}\mathcal{P}(s,\delta_t(s),s')v^{\pi}_{t+1}(s') \label{eq:value_function}\end{aligned}$$
The value $v^{\pi}_t(s)$ is the expectation of cumulated rewards obtained by the agent if she performs action $\delta_t(s)$ in state $s$ at time step $t$ and continues to follow policy $\pi$ thereafter. The higher the values of $v^{\pi}_t(s)$ are, the better. Therefore, value functions induce a preference relation $\succsim_{\pi}$ over policies in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi \succsim_{\pi} \pi' \Leftrightarrow \forall s\in \mathcal{S}, \forall t=1,\ldots, T, v^{\pi}_t(s) \geq v^{\pi'}_t(s)\end{aligned}$$
A solution to an MDP is a policy, called [*optimal policy*]{}, that ranks the highest with respect to $\succsim_{\pi}$. Such a policy can be found by solving the *Bellman equations*. $$\begin{aligned}
v^{*}_{T+1}(s)&= 0 \\
v^{*}_t(s)&=\max_{a\in \mathcal{A}} r(s,a)+ \sum_{s'\in \mathcal{S}}\mathcal{P}(s,a,s')v^{*}_{t+1}(s')
\label{eq:bellman}\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen, the preference relation $\succsim_{\pi}$ over policies is directly induced by the reward function $r$.
The decision criterion, based on the expectation of cumulated rewards, may not always be suitable. Firstly, unfortunately, in many cases, the reward function $r$ is not known. One can therefore try to uncover the reward function by interacting with an [*expert*]{} of the domain considered [@ReganBoutilier09; @WengZanuttini13]. However, even for an expert user, the elicitation of the reward function can be burdensome. Indeed, this process can be cognitively very complex as it requires to balance several criteria in a complex manner and as it can imply a large number of parameters. In this paper, we address this problem by only assuming that we have a strict weak ordering on episodes.
Secondly, for numerous applications, the expectation of cumulated reward, as used in Equation \[eq:value\_function\], may not be the most appropriate criterion (even when a numeric reward function is defined). For instance, in the Web industry, most decisions about performance are based on the minimal quality of $99\%$ of the possible outcomes. Therefore, in this article we aim at using a quantile (defined in Section \[sec:quantile\]) as a decision criterion to solve an MDP.
Preferences over Histories
--------------------------
For generality’s sake, contrary to standard MDPs, we define in this work the reward function to take values in a set $\mathcal R$. Moreover, we assume that the values of histories take values in a set $\mathcal W$, called the wealth level space, and that the value of a history $h_t = (s_0, a_0, s_1, \ldots, s_t)$ is defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
w(h_0) = w_0 \hspace{0.5cm} w(h_t) = w(h_{t-1}) \circ r(s_{t-1}, a_{t-1})\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{t-1} = (s_0, a_0, s_1, \ldots, s_{t-1})$, $\circ$ is a binary operation from $\mathcal W \times \mathcal R$ to $\mathcal W$ and $w_0 \in \mathcal W$ is the left identity element of $\circ$. Let $\mathcal W_T \subset \mathcal W$ be the set of wealth levels of $T$-histories. We make three assumptions about $\mathcal W_T$:
- It is ordered by a total order $\preceq_{\mathcal W}$, which defines how $T$-histories are compared,
- It admits a lowest element, denoted $w_{\min}$ and a greatest element, denoted $w_{\max}$ for order $\preceq_{\mathcal W}$.
- A distance consistent with $\preceq_{\mathcal W}$ is defined over $\mathcal W_T$. It is denoted $d(w, w')$ for any pair $(w, w') \in \mathcal W_T \times \mathcal W_T$.
Note that when a distance is defined, for any pair $(w, w')$, its set of mid-elements is also defined $mid(w, w') = \operatorname*{arg\,inf}\{ \max(d(w, w''), d(w', w'')) \,|\, w'' \in \mathcal W_T \}$.
In a numerical context, the possible wealth levels of a state are the possible sums (resp. $\gamma$-discounted sums) of rewards that can be obtained during an episode. We have $w_{\max} = R_{\max} T$ (resp. $w_{\max} = R_{\max} \frac{(1-\gamma)^T}{1-\gamma}$) with $R_{\max}$ being the highest reward and $mid(w, w') = \{(w+w')/2\}$. In the most general case, the possible wealth levels of a state are the possible histories (or more precisely their equivalent classes) that can be obtained during an episode. Here, if the equivalence classes are known and denoted by $w_1 \prec_{\mathcal W} w_2 \prec_{\mathcal W} \ldots \prec_{\mathcal W} w_m$ and if $d(w_i,w_j)=|j-i|$, then $w_{\min} = w_1$, $w_{\max} = w_m$ and $mid(w_i, w_j) = \{w_{\floor{(i+j)/2}}, w_{\ceil{(i+j)/2}}\}$ (where $\floor{x}$is the greatest integer smaller than $x$ and $\ceil{x}$ is the smallest integer greater than $x$).
The goal of the agent is then to make sure that most of the time, it will generate episodes that have the highest possible wealth levels. This can be implemented by optimizing a quantile criterion as explained in the next subsection.
Quantile Criterion {#sec:quantile}
------------------
Intuitively, the $\tau$-quantile of a population of ordered elements, for $\tau\in[0,1]$, is the value ${q}$ such that $100 \cdot \tau\%$ of the population is equal or lower than ${q}$ and $100 \cdot (1-\tau)\%$ of the population is equal or greater than ${q}$. The $0.5$-quantile, also known as the median, can be seen as the ordinal counterpart of the mean. More generally, quantiles define decision criteria that have the nice property of not requiring numeric valuations, but only an order. They have been axiomatically studied as decision criteria by @Rostek10 .
We now give a formal definition of quantiles. For this purpose we define the probability distribution ${p}^{\pi}$ over wealth levels induced by a policy $\pi$, [*i.e.,* ]{}${p}^{\pi}(w)$ is the probability of getting a wealth level $w \in \mathcal W_T$ when applying policy $\pi$ from the initial state. The [*cumulative distribution*]{} induced by ${p}^\pi$ is then defined as ${F}^{\pi}$ where ${F}^{\pi}(w) = \sum_{w' \preceq_{\mathcal W} w} {p}^{\pi}(w')$ is the probability of getting a wealth level not preferred to $w$ when applying policy $\pi$. Similarly, the [*decumulative distribution*]{} induced by ${p}^\pi$ is defined as ${G}^{\pi}(w) = \sum_{w \preceq_{\mathcal W} w'} {p}^{\pi}(w')$ is the probability of getting a wealth level “not lower” than $w$.
These two notions of cumulative and decumulative enable us to define two kinds of criteria. First, given a policy $\pi$, we define the lower $\tau$-quantile for $\tau \in(0,1]$ as: $${\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi} = \min\{w \in \mathcal W_T \,|\, {F}^{\pi}(w) \geq \tau\}$$ where the $\min$ operator is with respect to $\prec_{\mathcal W}$.
Then, given a policy $\pi$, we define the upper $\tau$-quantile for $\tau \in[0,1)$ as: $${\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi} = \max\{w \in \mathcal W_T \,|\, {G}^{\pi}(w) \geq 1-\tau\}$$ where the $\max$ operator is with respect to $\prec_{\mathcal W}$.
If $\tau = 0$ or $\tau = 1$ only one of ${\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi}$ or ${\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi}$ is defined and we define the $\tau$-quantile ${q}_{\tau}^{\pi}$ as that value. When both are defined, by construction, we have ${\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi} \preceq_{\mathcal W} {\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi}$. If those two values are equal, ${q}_{\tau}^{\pi}$ is defined as equal to them. For instance, this is always the case in continuous settings for continuous distributions. However, in our discrete setting, it could happen that those values differ, as shown by Example \[ex:1\].
\[ex:1\] Consider an MDP where $\mathcal W_T = \{w_1 \prec_{\mathcal W} w_2 \prec_{\mathcal W} w_3\}$. Now assume a policy $\pi$ attains each wealth level with probabilities $0.5$, $0.2$ and $0.3$ respectively. Then it is easy to see that ${\underline{q}}_{0.5}^{\pi} = w_1$ whereas ${\overline{q}}_{0.5}^{\pi} = w_2$.
When the lower and upper quantiles differ, one may define the quantile as a function of the lower and upper quantiles [@Weng12]. For simplicity, we show in this paper how to optimize (approximately) the lower and the upper quantiles.
A policy $\pi^*$ is optimal for the lower (resp. upper) $\tau$-quantile criterion if: $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*} = \max_\pi {\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi} \hspace{0.5cm} (\text{resp. }{\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*} = \max_\pi {\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi})\end{aligned}$$ where the $\max$ operator is with respect to $\prec_{\mathcal W}$ and taken over all policies $\pi$ at horizon $T$.
Even in a numerical context where a numerical reward function is given and the quality of an episode is defined as the cumulative of rewards received along the episode, this criterion is difficult to optimize, notably due to the two following related points:
- It is [*non-linear*]{} meaning for instance that the $\tau$-quantile ${q}_{\tau}^{\tilde{\pi}}$ of the mixed policy $\tilde{\pi}$ that generates an episode using policy $\pi$ with probability $p$ and $\pi'$ with probability $1-p$ is not given by $p {q}_{\tau}^{\pi} + (1-p){q}_{\tau}^{\pi'}$.
- It is [*non-dynamically consistent*]{} meaning that at time step $t$, an optimal policy computed in $s_0$ with horizon $T$ might not prescribe in state $s_t$ to follow a policy optimal in $s_t$ for horizon $T-t$.
Three solutions are then possible [@McClennen90]: 1) adopting a [*consequentialist*]{} approach, [*i.e.,* ]{}at each time step $t$ we follow an optimal policy for the problem with horizon $T-t$ and initial state $s_t$ even if the resulting policy is not optimal at horizon $T$; 2) adopting a [*resolute choice*]{} approach, [*i.e.,* ]{}at time step $t=0$ we apply an optimal policy for the problem with horizon $T$ and initial state $s_0$ and do not deviate from it; 3) adopting a [*sophisticated resolute choice*]{} approach [@Jaffray98; @FargierJeantetSpanjaard11], [*i.e.,* ]{}we apply a policy $\pi$ (chosen at the beginning) that trades off between how much $\pi$ is optimal for all horizons $T, T-1, \ldots, 1$.
With non-dynamically consistent preferences, it is debatable to adopt a consequentialist approach, as the sequence of decisions may lead to dominated results. In this paper, we adopt a resolute choice point of view. We leave the third approach for future work.
As optimizing exactly a (lower or upper) quantile is hard, we aim at finding an approximate solution. Let ${\underline{q}}^*_\tau$ and ${\overline{q}}^*_\tau$ be equal to the optimal lower and upper quantile respectively.
Let $\varepsilon>0$. A policy $\pi^*_\varepsilon$ is said to be $\varepsilon$-optimal for the lower (resp. upper) $\tau$-quantile criterion if $d({\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi^*_\varepsilon} ,{\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{*}) \leq \varepsilon$ (resp. $d({\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{\pi^*_\varepsilon} ,{\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{*}) \leq \varepsilon$).
Solving Algorithm {#sec:algo}
=================
In this section, we present a technique for computing an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy for the quantile criterion. Our approach amounts to solving a sequence of MDPs optimizing EU with target utility functions (see Section \[sec:dp\]).
Binary Search
-------------
In order to justify our algorithm, we introduce two lemmas that characterize the optimal lower and upper quantiles[^4]:
The optimal lower $\tau$-quantile ${\underline{q}}^*$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{q}}^* &= \min\{w : {F}^{*}(w) \geq \tau \} \label{eq:bslq1}\\
{F}^{*}(w) &= \min_\pi {F}^{\pi}(w) \quad \forall w \in \mathcal W \label{eq:pblq1}\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:3\]
Note the last two equations can be equivalently rewritten: $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{q}}^* &= \min\{w : {G}_\prec^*(w) \leq 1 - \tau \} \label{eq:bslq}\\
{G}_\prec^{*}(w) &= \max_\pi {G}_\prec^{\pi}(w) \quad \forall w \in \mathcal W \label{eq:pblq}\end{aligned}$$ where ${G}_\prec^{\pi}(w) = 1 - {F}^\pi(w) = \sum_{w \prec_{\mathcal W} w'} {p}^\pi(w')$.
The optimal upper $\tau$-quantile ${\overline{q}}^*$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{q}}^* &= \max\{w : {G}^{*}(w) \geq 1 - \tau \} \label{eq:bsuq}\\
{G}^{*}(w) &= \max_\pi {G}^{\pi}(w) \quad \forall w \in \mathcal W \label{eq:pbuq}\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:4\]
Given Lemmas \[lem:3\] and \[lem:4\] the problem now reduces to finding the right value of $w \in \mathcal{W}$ that solves the problems defined by Equation \[eq:bslq\] or \[eq:bsuq\]. Our solving method is based on binary search (see Algorithm \[alg:lqo\]) and on the function $solve(\mathcal M, w)$ that returns a pair $(\pi, p)$, the solution of the problems defined by Equation \[eq:pblq\] or \[eq:pbuq\] for a fixed $w$, [*i.e.,* ]{}the $\max$ is equal to $p$ and attained at $\pi$. Note that while for the upper quantile criterion, $solve(\mathcal M, {\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*})$ returns an optimal policy, for the lower quantile, $solve(\mathcal M, {\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*})$ may not if ${\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*} \!\succ_\mathcal{W}\! \min(\mathcal{W}_T)$. However, $solve(\mathcal M, prec({\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi^*}))$ returns an optimal policy where $prec(w) $ is the most preferred element such that $prec(w)\!\prec_\mathcal{W}\! w$ (see supplementary material).
In the next subsection, we show how function $solve$ can be computed for the lower and upper quantile.
Note that when $\mathcal{W}_T$ is defined on the real line, Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] needs only $$\ceil*{\log_2 d(w_{\max}, w_{\min})/\varepsilon}$$ iterations to terminate by using $[w_{\min},w_{\max}]$ as $\mathcal{W}_T$. In the case where $\mathcal W_T$ is finite, binary search can of course determine the optimal policy with $\varepsilon = 1$ and needs $\ceil{\log_2(|\mathcal W_T|)}$ iterations.
$\overline w\gets w_{\max}$; $\underline w\gets w_{\min}$; $w\leftarrow mid(\underline w, \overline w)$\
$\pi^*$
The next proposition asserts that Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] is correct:
Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] returns an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy for the lower (or upper) quantile criterion.
Dynamic Programming {#sec:dp}
-------------------
For $\triangleleft \in \{\prec_\mathcal W, \preceq_\mathcal W\}$, we denote by $U_{w}^\triangleleft: \mathcal W \to \mathbb R$ the function, called [*target utility function*]{}, defined as follows: $$\label{eq:u}
U_{w}^\triangleleft(x) = 1 \text{ if } w \triangleleft x \text{ and } 0 \text{ else.}$$
When optimizing the lower (resp. upper) quantile, function $solve(\mathcal M, w)$ can be computed by solving MDP $\mathcal M$ using EU as a decision criterion with $U_w^{\prec_\mathcal W}$ (resp. $U_w^{\preceq_\mathcal W}$) as a utility function. Indeed, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E_\pi[ U^\triangleleft_w \big(w(H_T)\big) ] &= \mathbb P[ w \triangleleft w(H_T) \,|\,\pi ] $$ where $H_T$ is a random variable representing a $T$-history and $\mathbb P[ w \triangleleft w(H_T) \,|\,\pi]$ denotes the probability that $\pi$ generates a history whose wealth is strictly better (resp. at least better) than $w$ when $\triangleleft = \prec_\mathcal W$ (resp. $\triangleleft = \preceq_\mathcal W$).
Following [@LiuKoenig06], this problem can be solved with a functional backward induction (Algorithm \[alg:biuf\]). For each state $s$, it maintains a function $V_{t}(s,.)$ which associates to each possible wealth level $w$ the expected utility obtained by applying an optimal policy in state $s$ for the remaining $T-t$ time steps with $w$ as initial wealth level. At each time step $(t=T,\ldots,1)$ this function is updated similarly as in backward induction except that operations are not applied to scalars but to functions. The $\max$ and $\times$ operations are extended over functions as pointwise operations. As utility functions defined by Equation \[eq:u\] are piecewise-linear, $V_t(s,.)$ is also piecewise-linear because all the operations in Line \[algline:update\] of Algorithm \[alg:biuf\] preserve this property.
$(\pi_{V_1}, V_1(s_0, w_0))$ $\backslash\backslash$ $\pi_{V_1}$= policy corresponding to $V_1$
Policies returned by Algorithm \[alg:biuf\] have a special structure. They are deterministic and wealth-Markovian:
A policy is said to be [*wealth-Markovian*]{} if its decision rules are functions of both the current state and the current wealth level.
Besides, this is also the case for policies optimal with respect to the quantile criterion.
\[pro:opt\] Optimal policies for the lower or upper quantile at horizon $T$ can be found as deterministic wealth-Markovian policies.
Infinite Horizon {#sec:infinite}
================
We present in this section some results regarding the infinite horizon case. Similarly to the finite horizon setting, the situation for the quantile criterion is not as simple as for the standard case. Indeed, in the infinite horizon case, it may happen that there is no [*stationary*]{} deterministic Markovian policy that is optimal (w.r.t. the quantile criterion) among all policies, contrary to standard MDPs.
Consider an MDP with two states $s_1$ and $s_2$ and two actions $a_1$ and $a_2$. In $s_1$, the transition probabilities are $\mathcal P(s_1, a_1, s_1) = 0.1$, $\mathcal P(s_1, a_1, s_2) = 0.9$ and $\mathcal P(s_1, a_2, s_2) = 1$. To make this example shorter, we assume that rewards depend on next states. The rewards are $r(s_1, a_1, s_1) = 1$, $r(s_1, a_1, s_2) = -1$ and $r(s_1, a_2, s_2) = 1$. In $s_2$, the transition probabilities are $\mathcal P(s_2, a_1, s_2) = \mathcal P(s_2, a_2, s_2) = 1$. Rewards are null for both actions in $s_2$. Among all decision rules, there are only two distinct rules: $\delta_1(s_1) = a_1$ and $\delta_2(s_1) = a_2$. To ensure that the values of histories are well-defined, we assume that they are defined as discounted sum of rewards with a discount factor $\gamma=0.9$. One can then check that the $0.95$-quantile of the stationary policy using $\delta_1$ is $0.1$, that of the stationary policy using $\delta_2$ is $1$. Finally, the $0.95$-quantile of the policy applying first $\delta_1$ and then $\delta_2$ is $1.9$. Therefore, no stationary deterministic Markovian policy is optimal for the quantile criterion.
![Computation times vs state sizes for Functional Backward Induction.[]{data-label="1 BI: Running Time Cost"}](timeVSstate-random){width="80.00000%"}
However, considering wealth-Markovian policies, some results can be given when rewards are numeric and wealth levels are undiscounted:
Optimal policies for the lower or upper quantile can be found as stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian policies in the two following cases:
(i)
: $\forall (s, a) \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}, r(s,a) \le 0$.
(ii)
: $\forall (s, a) \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}, r(s,a) \ge 0$. Furthermore, we require the existence of a finite upper bound on the optimal lower and upper quantiles.
Then, a solving algorithm can be obtained from Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] by replacing functional backward induction (Alg. \[alg:biuf\]) by functional value iteration [@LiuKoenig06] in the binary search. This amounts to do the for loop over $t$ (line 4) until convergence of $V_{t}$, [*i.e.,* ]{}$\| V_{t} - V_{t-1}\|_\infty \le \epsilon'$. Binary search will then return an $(\epsilon + \epsilon')$-optimal for the $\tau$-quantile. However, note that in the first (resp. second) case, a lower (resp. upper) bound on the optimal lower or upper quantile is required to do the binary search.
Experimental Results {#sec:expe}
====================
We experimentally evaluated our approach on a server equipped with four Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz and 64Gb of RAM. The algorithms were implemented in Matlab and ran only on one core. We expect the running times to be improved with a more efficient programming language and by exploiting a multicore architecture.
![Computation times vs horizon for Functional Backward Induction.[]{data-label="1.5 BI: Running Time Cost"}](timeVShorizon-dataCenter){width="80.00000%"}
We designed three sets of experiments. Although our approach could be used in a preference-based setting, we performed the experiments with numerical rewards for simplicity. The first shows the running time of functional backward induction for different varying state sizes on random MDPs. The second set of experiments shows the running time of functional backward induction for different horizons on a data center control problem with various number of servers. Finally, the third compares the cumulative distributions of a policy optimal for the quantile criterion and a policy optimal for the standard criterion on a fixed MDP.
The first set of experiments was conducted on Garnets [@McKinnonThomas95], which designate random MDPs with a constrained branching factor. A Garnet $G(n_S, n_A, b)$ is characterized by $n_S$ a number of states, $n_A$ a number of actions and $b$ the number of successor states for every state and action. For our experiments, $n_S\in\{ 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000, 2250 \}$ and we set $n_A = 5$ and $b = \ceil{\log_2 n_S}$. Rewards are randomly chosen in $[0, 1]$ and the values of histories are simply cumulated rewards. The horizon of the problem was set to $5$. The results are presented in Figure \[1 BI: Running Time Cost\] where the x-axis represents the state size and the y-axis the computation time. Each point is the average over 10 runs. Naturally, computation times increases with state sizes. In this setting, binary search would call functional backward induction $\ceil*{\log_2(1/\varepsilon)} = 10$ times if $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$.
The second set of experiments was performed on a more realistic domain, which is a data center control problem inspired by the model proposed by @YinSinopoli14 . In this problem, one needs to decide every time step how many servers to switch on or off, while maximizing Quality-of-Service and minimizing power consumption. In the model proposed by @YinSinopoli14, the two objectives are simply combined into one cost, which defines our reward signal. The state is defined as the number of servers that are currently on and the number of jobs that needs to be processed during a time step. The action represents the number of servers that will be on at the next time step. We assume for simplicity that the maximum number of jobs that can arrive at one timestep is three times the total number of servers. For instance, in a problem with $n=30$ servers, the total number of states is $30\times3\times30 = 2700$. Besides, the distribution of the next number of jobs is modeled as a Poisson distribution whose parameter can be $\ceil{n/2}$, $\ceil{3n/2}$ or $\ceil{5n/2}$ (to model different regimes) depending on the current number of jobs. Figure \[1.5 BI: Running Time Cost\] shows the computation times of functional backward induction for $n\in\{20, 30, 40\}$ and different horizons. We can see that for more structured problems, the computation time is much more reasonable than on random MDPs.
In the last set of experiments, to give an intuition of the kind of policy obtained when optimizing a quantile, we compare the cumulative distribution of a policy optimal for the quantile criterion and that of a policy optimal for the standard criterion. This experiment is performed on an instance of Garnet $G(100, 5, \ceil{\log_2 100})$ whose rewards are slightly modified to make the distribution of the optimal policy skewed, as it is often the case in some real applications [@BenoitVandenPoel09]. The horizon is set to $5$ and we optimize the $0.1$-quantile with $\varepsilon=0.001$ in binary search. The two cumulative distributions are plotted in Figure \[2 Comparison: quantile and standard\]. We can observe that although the optimal policy for the standard criterion maximizes the expectation, it may be a risky policy to apply as the probability of obtaining a high reward is low. On the contrary, the optimal policy for the $\tau$-quantile criterion will guarantee a reward as high as possible with probability at least $1-\tau$.
![Comparison of cumulative distributions under the quantile criterion and standard criterion[]{data-label="2 Comparison: quantile and standard"}](cumprob-random){width="80.00000%"}
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Much work in the MDP literature [@BBMSWeng10] considered decision criteria different to the standard ones (i.e., expected discounted sum of rewards, expected total rewards or expected average rewards). For instance, in the operations research community, @White87 considered different cases where preferences over policies only depend on sums of rewards: Expected Utility (EU), probabilistic constraints and mean-variance formulations. In this context, he showed the sufficiency of working in a state space augmented with the sum of rewards obtained so far. Recently, [@prashanth2013actor] and [@mannor2011mean] provided algorithms for this mean-variance formulation. @FilarKallenbergLee89 investigated decision criteria that are variance-penalized versions of the standard ones. They formulated the obtained optimization problem as a non-linear program. Several researchers [@White93; @BouakizKebir95; @Yu98; @WuLin99; @OhtsuboToyonaga02; @hou2014revisiting; @fan2005arriving] worked on the problem of optimizing the probability that the total (discounted) reward exceeds a given threshold.
Additionally, in the artificial intelligence community, [@LiuKoenig05; @LiuKoenig06; @ermon2012probabilistic] also investigated the use of EU as a decision criterion in MDPs. In the continuation of this work, @GilbertSpanjaardViappianiWeng15 investigated the use of Skew-Symmetric Bilinear (SSB) utility [@Fishburn81] functions — a generalization of EU with stronger descriptive abilities — as decision criteria in finite-horizon MDPs. Interestingly, SSB also encompasses probabilistic dominance, a decision criterion that can be employed in preference-based sequential decision-making [@BusaFeketeSzorenyiWengChengHullermeier14].
Recent work in MDP and reinforcement learning considered conditional Value-at-risk (CVaR), a criterion related to quantile, as a risk measure. @BauerleOtt11 proved the existence of deterministic wealth-Markovian policies optimal with respect to CVaR. @ChowGhavamzadeh14 proposed gradient-based algorithms for CVaR optimization. In contrast, @BorkarJain14 used CVaR in inequality constraints instead of as objective function.
Closer to our work, several quantile-based decision models have been investigated in different contexts. In uncertain MDPs where the parameters of the transition and reward functions are imprecisely known, @DelageMannor07 presented and investigated a quantile-like criterion to capture the trade-off between optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints on an uncertain MDP. The quantile criterion they use is different to ours as it takes into account the uncertainty present in the parameters of the MDP. @FilarKrassRoss95 proposed an algorithm for optimizing the quantile criterion when histories are valued by average rewards. In that setting, they showed that an optimal stationary deterministic Markovian policy exists. In MDPs with ordinal rewards [@Weng11; @Weng12; @Filar83], quantile-based decision models were proposed to compute policies that maximize a quantile using linear programming. While quantiles in those works are defined on distributions over ordinal rewards, we defined them as distributions over histories.
More recently, in the machine learning community, quantile-based criteria have been proposed in the multi-armed bandit (MAB) setting, a special case of reinforcement learning. @YuNikolova13 proposed an algorithm in the pure exploration setting for different risk measures, including Value-at-Risk. @CarpentierValko14 studied the problem of identifying arms with extreme payoffs, a particular case of quantiles. Finally, @SzorenyiBusaFeketeWengHullermeier15 investigated MAB problems where a quantile is optimized instead of the mean.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper we have developed a framework to solve sequential decision problems in a very general setting according to a quantile criterion. Modeling those problems as MDPs we developed an offline algorithm in order to compute an $\epsilon$-optimal policy and investigated the properties of the optimal policies in the finite and infinite horizon cases. Lastly, we provided experimental results, testing those two algorithms in a variety of settings.
As future work, we plan to investigate how this work can be extended to the case of reinforcement learning, a framework more involved than the one of MDPs where the dynamics of the problems are unknown and must be learned.
Supplementary material of “Optimizing Quantiles in Preference-based Markov Decision Processes"
===============================================================================================
We provide in this section the proofs of our lemmas and propositions.
The optimal lower $\tau$-quantile ${\underline{q}}^*$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{q}}^* &= \min\{w : {F}^{*}(w) \geq \tau \} \\
{F}^{*}(w) &= \min_\pi {F}^{\pi}(w) \quad \forall w \in \mathcal W \end{aligned}$$
We recall that for any policy $\pi$, $F^{\pi}$ is nondecreasing and that consequently $F^*$ is also nondecreasing. Let $w_1 = \max_\pi\min_w\{w\in\mathcal{W}_T|F^{\pi}(w)\geq\tau\}$ and let $w_2 = \min\{w : {F}^{*}(w) \geq \tau \}$. By contradiction, assume $w_1 > w_2$. Then there exists $\pi$ such that $F^{\pi}(w_1)\geq\tau$ and $F^{\pi}(w)<\tau$, $\forall w < w_1$. Thus $F^{\pi}(w_2)<\tau$ which contradicts the definition of $w_2$. Now, assume $w_2 > w_1$. Then $F^*(w_1)<\tau$. Thus, there exists $\pi$ such that $F^{\pi}(w_1)<\tau$ and $\underline{q}_{\tau}^{\pi} > w_1$ which contradicts the definition of $w_1$.
The optimal upper $\tau$-quantile ${\overline{q}}^*$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{q}}^* &= \max\{w : {G}^{*}(w) \geq 1 - \tau \} \\
{G}^{*}(w) &= \max_\pi {G}^{\pi}(w) \quad \forall w \in \mathcal W \end{aligned}$$
We recall that for any policy $\pi$, $G^{\pi}$ is nonincreasing and that consequently $G^*$ is also nonincreasing. Let $w_1 = \max_\pi\max_w\{w\in\mathcal{W}_T|G^{\pi}(w)\geq1 - \tau\}$ and let $w_2= \max\{w : {G}^{*}(w) \geq 1 - \tau \}$. By definition of $w_1$, there exists a policy $\pi$ such that $G^\pi(w_1)\geq 1-\tau$, thus $G^*(w_1)\geq 1-\tau$ and $w_2 \geq w_1$. By definition of $w_2$, there exists a policy $\pi$ such that $G^\pi(w_2)\geq 1-\tau$, thus $\max_w\{w\in\mathcal{W}_T|G^{\pi}(w)\geq1 - \tau\}\geq w_2$ and $w_1 \geq w_2$.
The following example shows that ${F}^*({\underline{q}}^*)$ (see Equation \[eq:pblq1\]) may not be attained by an optimal policy (for the lower quantile):
Let ${F}_1$ and ${F}_2$ be two cumulatives defined over three elements $w_1 \prec_{\mathcal W} w_2 \prec_{\mathcal W} w_3$ with the following probabilities: ${F}_1 = (0.5, 0.5, 1)$ and ${F}_2 = (0, 0.6, 1)$. The lower $0.5$-quantile of ${F}_1$ is $w_1$ and that of ${F}_2$ is $w_2$. Therefore the optimal lower quantile is ${\underline{q}}^* = w_2$. We have ${F}^* = (0, 0.5, 1)$ and ${F}^*({\underline{q}}^*) = 0.5$, which is attained by ${F}_1$.
This implies that $solve(\mathcal M, {\underline{q}}^*)$ may return a non-optimal policy when ${\underline{q}}^* \succ_{\mathcal W} \min(\mathcal W_T)$. For $w\in \mathcal{W}_T$, we define $prec(w)$ as the most preferred element of $\mathcal{W}_T$ such that $prec(w) \prec w$. If there are no element $w' \in \mathcal{W}_T$ such that $w' \prec w$, $prec(w)$ is defined as $w$. The optimal policy can be found using the following property:
Any policy $\pi^*$ such that ${F}^{\pi^*}(prec({\underline{q}}^*)) = {F}^{*}(prec({\underline{q}}^*))$ is an optimal policy with regard to the lower quantile criterion.
Assume that ${\underline{q}}^* \succ_{\mathcal W} \min(\mathcal W_T)$. Otherwise the lemma is clearly true. Assume by contradiction that there is a non-optimal policy $\pi$ such that ${F}^{\pi}(prec({\underline{q}}^*)) = {F}^{*}(prec({\underline{q}}^*))$. Let ${\underline{q}}$ be the lower $\tau$- quantile of policy $\pi$, ${\underline{q}}^*$ be the optimal lower quantile and $\pi^*$ be an optimal policy. By assumption, we have ${\underline{q}}\preceq_{\mathcal W} prec({\underline{q}}^*) \prec_{\mathcal W} {\underline{q}}^*$ and ${F}^{\pi^*}(prec({\underline{q}}^*)) \ge {F}^{\pi}(prec({\underline{q}}^*))$. As a cumulative is non-decreasing, we have ${F}^{\pi}(prec({\underline{q}}^*)) \ge {F}^\pi({\underline{q}}) \ge \tau$, which contradicts the fact that the lower quantile of $\pi^*$ is ${\underline{q}}^*$.
Before proving that Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] is correct, we introduce a lemma that gives sufficient conditions for a policy to be approximately optimal.
Let $\pi$ be a policy for which there exists $w$ such that $d(w,{\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{*}) \leq \varepsilon$ (resp. $d(w,{\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{*}) \leq \varepsilon$) and: $$\begin{aligned}
{F}^{\pi}(w) < \tau \hspace{0.5cm} (\text{resp. } {G}^{\pi}(w) \ge 1 - \tau ).\end{aligned}$$ Then $\pi$ is $\varepsilon$-optimal for the lower (resp. upper) $\tau$-quantile criterion. \[lem:epsopt\]
Indeed, for such a policy, as ${F}^{\pi}(w)$ is nondecreasing (resp. ${G}^{\pi}(w)$ is nonincreasing), we have that ${\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}\in[w,{\underline{q}}_\tau^{*}]$ (resp. ${\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}\in[w,{\overline{q}}_\tau^{*}]$) and thus $d({\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}, {\underline{q}}_\tau^{*}) \leq \varepsilon$ (resp. $d({\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}, {\overline{q}}_\tau^{*}) \leq \varepsilon)$ .
Algorithm \[alg:lqo\] returns an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy for the lower (or upper) quantile criterion.
If $\mathcal{W}_T\subset \mathbb{R}$ we have seen that the algorithm terminates in $\ceil*{\log_2\frac{d(w_{\max}, 0)}{\varepsilon}}$ iterations. In the most general setting, the algorithm terminates, because in the worst case we will check all the $m$ possible final wealth values. Let $\pi$ be the policy returned by the algorithm. For the lower (resp. upper) quantile, when the algorithm terminates, $d({\underline{q}}_{\tau}^{*},\underline{w})$ (resp. $d({\overline{q}}_{\tau}^{*},\underline{w})$) $\leq d(\overline{w},\underline{w}) \leq \varepsilon$ and ${F}^{\pi^*}(\underline{w}) < \tau$ (resp. ${G}^{\pi}(\underline{w}) \ge 1 - \tau$). Thus, we can apply Lemma \[lem:epsopt\] which concludes the proof.
Optimal policies for the lower or upper quantile at horizon $T$ can be found as deterministic wealth-Markovian policies.
We recall that for the lower (resp. upper) quantile criterion, procedure $solve(\mathcal{M},w)$ returns the policy which minimizes $F^\pi(w)$ (resp. maximizes $G^\pi(w)$). Thus, for any policy $\pi$, by definition of quantiles, $solve(\mathcal{M},prec({\underline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}))$ (resp. $solve(\mathcal{M},{\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi})$) returns a deterministic wealth-Markovian policy, which is at least as good as $\pi$ regarding the lower (resp. upper) quantile criterion. As the set of deterministic wealth-Markovian policies is finite in the finite horizon case, taking the one with highest lower (resp. upper) quantile concludes the proof.
Optimal policies for the lower or upper quantile in the infinite horizon setting can be found as stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian policies in the two following cases:
(i)
: $\forall (s, a) \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}, r(s,a) \le 0$.
(ii)
: $\forall (s, a) \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}, r(s,a) \ge 0$. Furthermore, we require the existence of a finite upper bound on the optimal lower and upper quantiles.
We prove for the upper quantile and case (i), the other cases are similar. If all policies have $-\infty$ as quantile, they are all optimal. Now, if one policy has a finite lower quantile $q\in\mathbb{R}^{-}$, the optimal quantile must be greater than or equal to $q$. From the original MDP, consider the state-augmented MDP whose state space is defined by $\overline{\mathcal{S}} =\{(s,w)|s,w \in \mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{W}\}$. In $\overline{\mathcal{S}}$, regroup all states having a wealth level strictly less than $q$ in a single absorbing state. Indeed, as the optimal upper quantile is greater than $q$ and $r(s,a) \le 0$, $\forall s,a$, the choices of the policies in those states are irrelevant to find an optimal policy w.r.t the upper quantile criterion. Note that the resulting augmented state space $\overline{\mathcal{S}}_{<q}$ is finite. In this MDP, we use reward functions parametrized by a value $x \in \mathcal{W}$ defined as follows : $$\begin{aligned}
r_x((s,w),a) =
\left \{
\begin{array}{r c l}
-1 & & \text{ if } w \ge x \text{ and } w + r(s,a) < x \\
0 & & \text{else.} \\
\end{array}
\right .\end{aligned}$$ A policy solving this MDP w.r.t the expectation of total reward criterion maximizes the probability of getting an episode with a wealth level greater than or equal to $x$. According to Puterman ([-@Puterman94], Theorem 7.1.9), such a policy can be found as a stationary deterministic Markovian policy in the augmented MDP. Stated differently, there exists a stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian optimal policy in the original MDP. Then, for any policy $\pi$, the stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian policy which is optimal when using reward function $r_{{\overline{q}}_\tau^{\pi}}$ (and expectation of total reward) is at least as good as $\pi$ regarding the upper quantile criterion. By partitioning those policies by regrouping the ones that agree on $\overline{\mathcal{S}}_{<q}$ we reduce the set of stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian policies to a finite set. By taking the “best one” in this set, we obtain a stationary deterministic wealth-Markovian optimal policy.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: For lack of space, all proofs are in the supplementary material.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Running head: Theory of $\Q$ and elliptic curves March 28th, 2006
Math. Subj. Class. (2000): 03B25, 11U05
Elliptic divisibility sequences and
undecidable problems about rational points
[*by*]{} Gunther Cornelissen [*and*]{} Karim Zahidi
> Julia Robinson has given a first-order definition of the rational integers $\Z$ in the rational numbers $\Q$ by a formula $(\forall \exists \forall \exists)(F=0)$ where the $\forall$-quantifiers run over a total of 8 variables, and where $F$ is a polynomial. This implies that the $\Sigma_5$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable. We prove that a conjecture about elliptic curves provides an interpretation of $\Z$ in $\Q$ with quantifier complexity $\forall \exists$, involving only one universally quantified variable. This improves the complexity of defining $\Z$ in $\Q$ in two ways, and implies that the $\Sigma_3$-theory, and even the $\Pi_2$-theory, of $\Q$ is undecidable (recall that Hilbert’s Tenth Problem for $\Q$ is the question whether the $\Sigma_1$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable).
>
> In short, granting the conjecture, there is a one-parameter family of hypersurfaces over $\Q$ for which one cannot decide whether or not they all have a rational point.
>
> The conjecture is related to properties of elliptic divisibility sequences on an elliptic curve and its image under rational 2-descent, namely existence of primitive divisors in suitable residue classes, and we discuss how to prove weaker-in-density versions of the conjecture and present some heuristics.
[**Introduction.**]{}
This paper addresses a mixture of number theory and logic, and we will use this introduction to give an informal preview directed at both communities. The central two questions can be phrased as follows: “What is more difficult: to decide of an arbitrary polynomial equation with integer coefficients whether it has an integer solution, or whether it has a rational solution?”; and: “What is a hard problem about rational points?” If one makes these vague questions mathematically more precise, “decide” should mean the existence of an algorithm on a Turing Machine (which in practice is equivalent to any notion of “computable” via Church’s Thesis). Call Hilbert’s Tenth Problem ${\rm HTP}(R)$ for a subring $R$ of the rational number $\Q$ the question whether one can decide if an arbitrary polynomial equation with integer coefficients has a solution in $R$. The classical result of Davis, Matijasevich, Putnam and Robinson ([@Davis:73], [@M1], [@M2]) shows that ${\rm HTP}(\Z)$, for $\Z$ the ring of integers, has a negative answer. The answer to ${\rm HTP}(\Q)$, however, is not known. But a more general problem has been settled by Julia Robinson in 1949 ([@Robinson:49]). She showed that $\Z$ is definable in $\Q$ by a first-order formula. This implies that the full first order theory of $\Q$ is undecidable, i.e., that one cannot decide (in the above sense) the truth of an arbitrary first-order sentence in $\Q$ built from the symbols $(0,1,+,\times,=)$. One should think of such a sentence as a “algorithmically hard” number theoretical statement $$(\forall x^{(1)}_{1} \dots x^{(1)}_{f_1})( \exists y^{(1)}_{1} \dots y^{(1)}_{e_1}) \cdots (\forall x^{(N)}_{1} \dots x^{(N)}_{f_N})( \exists y^{(N)}_{1} \dots y^{(N)}_{e_N}) \ : \ F({\bf x}, {\bf y}) = 0,$$ where $F$ is a polynomial over $\Z$ in multi-variables ${\bf x}= (x_{1}^{(1)},\dots,x^{(N)}_{f_N})$ and ${\bf y}= (y_{1}^{(1)},\dots,y_{e_N}^{(N)})$. Note: any formula over $\Q$ can be put into this form, which we call [*positive prenex*]{} form (cf. lemma \[prenex\]). Examples of such statements: if there are only existential quantifiers ($N=1,f_1=0$), such a formula says that a certain diophantine equation has a solution; a formula with $N=1$ says that a family of diophantine equations has a solution in ${\bf y}$ for all values of the parameters ${\bf x}$, etc.
Related to our first question, Robinson’s result expresses in some sense that testing the truth of such sentences in $\Q$ or in $\Z$ is “equally hard”. ${\rm HTP}(\Q)$ is the particular case where one only wants to decide the truth of formul[æ]{} with $N=1$ and $f_1=0$ (with $e_1=m$ arbitrary): $ (\exists y^{}_1 \dots y^{}_{m}) \ : \ F(y_1,\dots,y_m) = 0. $ We now recast the original question above in the following way: how “complex” does a formula in $\Q$ have to be, in order to be undecidable? Phrased more dramatically: what is the easiest [*hard*]{} problem about rational points? Since we want to indicate how far a formula is from being “diophantine” (i.e., in positive prenex form with $N=1$), in \[meas\]—\[compl-reduce\] we look at the following two measures of complexity. First, we define the [*positive*]{} arithmetical hierarchy $(\Sigma^+,\Pi^+)$ as follows: we let $\Sigma^+_0=\Pi^+_0$ denote the set of [*atomic*]{} formul[æ]{} (=“polynomials”). Define a formula $\mathcal F$ inductively to be in $\Sigma^+_n$ (resp. $\Pi^+_n$) if it is of the form $\exists \mathcal G$ (resp. $\forall \mathcal G$) with $\mathcal G \in \Pi^+_{n-1}$ (resp. $\mathcal G \in \Sigma^+_{n-1}$). The place in the hierarchy of a formula counts its number of [*quantifier changes*]{}. Secondly, we introduce the [*total number of universal quantifiers*]{} of a formula as above to be $f_1+\cdots+f_N$.
An analysis shows that a positive prenex form of Julia Robinson’s original formula defining $\Z$ in $\Q$ is a $\Pi_4^+$-formula (see \[compl-julia-nf\]), and we can conclude from this that the $\Sigma_5^+$-theory of $\Q$ ($=$ theory of all $\Sigma_5^+$-sentences that are true in $\Q$) is undecidable. ${\rm HTP}(\Q)$ is the question whether the $\Sigma_1^+$-theory is undecidable. Also, that formula, in positive prenex form, has 8 universal quantifiers. This should be considered at the verge of human mathematical understanding — one is compelled to quote Hartley Rogers, Jr.: “The human mind seems limited in its ability to understand and visualize beyond four or five alternations of quantifier.” ([@Rogers], p. 322).
So how can we, in any way, improve upon this complexity? We propose to use elliptic curves and give a conjectural improvement. First of all, we recall the concept of a [*model*]{}[^1] of $\Z$ in $\Q$ (cf. \[diomodel\]) and study how the complexity of formul[æ]{} changes under interpretation via certain models (\[def-compldiomodel\]–\[undecQ\]). We then recall (in Section \[eds\]) how elliptic curves over $\Q$ provide natural models of $(\Z,+)$ in $\Q$. We follow a suggestion of Pheidas ([@Pheidas]) that it is natural to use such models to try to define “divisibility” of integers within $\Q$; this is very much inspired by the function field case. For this, we have to introduce a variant of the old concept of “elliptic divisibility sequence” (apparently due to Lucas and studied by M. Ward, cf. [@Ward:48]). Assume that $E$ is an elliptic curve over $\Q$ with $(0,0)$ as 2-torsion point and Weierstrass equation $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$ with $b$ squarefree, and that $P$ is a point of infinite order of sufficiently large height on $E$. Then for even $n$, we can write $$nP=(x_n,y_n)=\left( \left( \frac{A_n}{B_n}\right)^2,\frac{A_n C_n}{B_n^3}\right)$$ for coprime integers $A_n,B_n,C_n$, and $\{C_\ast\}$ forms an [*odd divisibility sequence*]{} in the sense that $C_n$ divides $C_{tn}$ precisely for odd $t$ (\[odd\]). Our first main theorem uses two further notions. Let $R$ denote a set of primes. We agree to identify primes $p$ with normalized non-archimedean valuations $v=v_p$, such that $v(p)=1$ and $v(ab)=v(a)+v(b)$ (please mind: this is a logarithm of what has been called a valuation elsewhere). We say that $\{ C_\ast \}$ is $R$-(odd-)primitive if any $C_n$ has an (odd order) primitive divisor from $R$, i.e., there is a valuation $v \in R$ such that $v(C_n)$ is non-zero (odd) but $v(C_i)=0$ for all $i<n$. Secondly, for two rational numbers $x$ and $y$, we denote by ${\mathcal D}_R$ the [*$R$-divisibility predicate*]{}: $(\forall v \in R)(v(x) \mbox{ odd } \Rightarrow v(x) < v(y^2)$). Theorem \[defdiv\] then says that [*if in the above setup, $\{ C_\ast \}$ is $R$-odd-primitive, then for any integers $m,n \in {\bf Z}$, $$\begin{aligned}
m | n &\iff& \D_R(y_m \sqrt{x_m}, y_n \sqrt{x_n}) \vee \D_R(y_m \sqrt{x_m}, y_{m+n} \sqrt{x_{m+n}})\end{aligned}$$*]{} This is our attempt at defining integer divisibility in the rational numbers.
The relevant question becomes: can we find $R$ for which ${\mathcal D}_R$ is equivalent to a formula in $\Sigma_1^+$ (whence irrelevant from our point of view of complexity) and for which $\{ C_\ast \}$ is $R$-primitive? The elliptic Zsigmondy’s theorem, transferred to $C$, says that $R$-primitivity holds for $R$ equal to the set of all primes, but we don’t know whether ${\mathcal D}_R$ is $\Sigma_1^+$ for that $R$. On the other hand, a theorem of Van Geel and Demeyer (based on previous work of Pheidas and Van Geel/Zahidi) states that ${\mathcal D}_R$ is diophantine for $R=R_D$ the set of primes inert in one of finitely many quadratic number fields of discriminants $D=\{d_1,\dots,d_r\}$, and hence for $R$ of arbitrary high Dirichlet density $\neq 1$, see \[dir\]. So our natural conjecture (\[SC\]) becomes an [*inertial elliptic Zsigmondy’s theorem: there exists $E,P$ and $D$ as above such that $\{C_\ast\}$ is $R_D$-odd-primitive.*]{}
We can show that multiplication is definable in $(\Z,+,|,0,\neq)$ by a $\Sigma_3^+$-formula only involving one universal quantifier (\[lemdiv\]), and that our model allows us to get rid of “$0$” and “$\neq$”. Collecting these facts, we arrive at our second main theorem: [*the conjecture implies that integer arithmetic $(\Z,+,\times)$ is interpretable by a $\Sigma_3^+$-formula in the rationals $\Q$, using only one universal quantifier; and that the $\Sigma_3^+$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable.*]{} This (conjecturally) improves the complexity of Robinson’s definition in two ways. In section \[pi2\], we adapt the construction to show that [*the conjecture even implies that the $\Pi_2^+$-theory (and even the set of formul[æ]{} with only one universal quantifier) is undecidable*]{}; but note that this is [*not*]{} proven by constructing a model of $\Z$ in $\Q$ that has complexity $\Pi_2^+$. The geometrical meaning of this statement is that there is a one-parameter family of hypersurfaces over $\Q$ for which one cannot decide whether or not they all have a rational point.
It is difficult to verify the conjecture numerically since it involves hard prime factorisations. However, note that the philosophy of encoding the integer $n$ by the point $nP$ on an elliptic curve is advantageous from the point of view of divisibility for two reasons: the “powerful” part of the coordinates of $nP$ is very small (in the sense that the height of the “powerless” part of $nP$ is of the same order as the height of $nP$), and $C_n$ tends to have many more prime factors than $n$. These remarks can be turned into heuristics that support the conjecture (see section \[conj\]). The conjecture incorporates statements about solutions in coprime integers of such Calabi-Yau surfaces as $$(A^2+B^2)(A^2+11B^2)=3^2 \cdot 5^2 \cdot (X^2-5Y^2)^2,$$ which becomes the “One Equation to Rule Them All” of the $\Pi_2$-theory of $\Q$ (like Martin Davis’s for the $\Sigma_1$-theory of $\Z$; but that equation heuristically behaved the wrong way, cf. [@Shanks2]).
Finally, we use the periodicity of elliptic divisibility sequences to prove in Section \[densversion\] that [*if $\{ B_\ast \}$ is the elliptic divisibility sequence associated to $(2,-4)$ on $y^2=x^3+7x^2+2x$, then any $B_{s^e}$ for $s$ a prime number $=\pm 3$ mod 8 has a [*primitive*]{} odd order divisor from $R_5$, and for $D=\{5,13,29,41,53\}$, the set $\{ s \mbox{ prime} : B_s \mbox{ has a primitive odd order divisor from } R_D \}$ has Dirichlet density at least $95.5 \% $.*]{}
[**Remarks.**]{} (i) Beltjukov studied the theory of $(\Z,+,|)$ ([@Bel]) and Lipshitz ([@Lip2], [@Lip], [@Lip1]) has studied divisibility structures of the form $({\mathcal O},+,|)$ for $\mathcal{O}$ the ring of integers in a number field $K$, including (independently) the usual integers, and obtained exact results on which of these theories are (un)decidable. He showed in particular that multiplication is definable in the $\Sigma^+_1$-theory of such a structure and that it contains a diophantine model of $\Z$, precisely if ${\mathcal O}$ has infinitely many units. Thus, if $K$ is not equal to $\Q$ or an imaginary quadratic number field and $A$ is an abelian variety with multiplication by ${\mathcal O}$, then an imitation of the above theory for $A$ would lead to a $\Sigma_1^+$-definition of $\Z$ in $\Q$ and hence a negative answer to Hilbert’s Tenth Problem for $\Q$. This can already occur for $A$ the Jacobian of a genus two curve with real multiplication: to give an example from [@Stoll], the curve $$\mathcal{C} \ : \ y^2 + (x^3+x^2+x)y=x^4+x^3+3x^2-2x+1$$ (the modular curve $X_0(85)$ modulo an Atkin-Lehner involution) has a Jacobian of rank two over $\Q$, and real multiplication by $\Z[\sqrt{2}]$ defined over $\Q$. The rôle of the “$x$-coordinate” on the elliptic curve should be played by the associated Kummer surface. There are, however, many obstacles to make such a generalisation work, even assuming certain arithmetical conjectures.
A generalisation of the above to elliptic curves with complex multiplication, however, should be unproblematic.
\(ii) In another direction, Poonen ([@Poonen:2003]) has shown that there exists a set $S$ of primes of Dirichlet density one such that $\Z$ is definable by a diophantine formula in $\Z[\frac{1}{S}]$.
\(iii) This paper supersedes the first author’s year 2000 manuscripts [@Cornelisseneds] about the topic.
\(iv) Number theorists can take the following direct path to the relevant conjecture: Sections \[divpoly\]-\[exa\] (divisibility sequences), \[primcond\], \[weakprim\] ((weak) $R$-primitivity), \[SC\] (main conjecture) and Sections \[conj\] and \[densversion\] (discussion of the conjecture).
[ It is a pleasure to thank Thanases Pheidas for his help. The first author thanks Graham Everest for making him reconsider this material during an inspiring visit to UEA in 2004, and for many suggestions. Some of the heuristical arguments in section \[heur\] were shown to us by Bjorn Poonen at Oberwolfach in 2003, and some of the references in that section where kindly provided by Pieter Moree. Marco Streng suggested some important improvements in section \[eds\].]{}
\[compl\]
#### **Positive prenex-form.** {#compl-intro}
Julia Robinson proved in 1949 that the set of rational integers $\Z$ is definable in the rational numbers $\Q$ ([@Robinson:49]) by a first-order formula. It is still an open problem whether $\Z$ can be defined in $\Q$ by a positive-existential formula (and consequently, the positive-existential theory of $\Q$ is undecidable). It should therefore be interesting to study the question of how complicated the definition of $\Z$ is in terms of number of universal quantifiers used, or number of quantifier changes. We thus propose to study the complexity of defining the integers in the rational numbers. To formulate the problem very precisely, we need to make the following convention: a formula $\Fr$ in the first-order theory of $(\Z,+,\times,0,1,=)$ or $(\Q,+,\times,0,1,=)$ will be written in the following normal form: $$\forall x^{(1)}_1 \dots \forall x^{(1)}_{f_1} \exists y^{(1)}_1 \dots \exists y^{(1)}_{e_1} \cdots \forall x^{(N)}_1 \dots \forall x^{(N)}_{f_N} \exists y^{(N)}_1 \dots \exists y^{(N)}_{e_N} \ : \ F({\bf x}, {\bf y}) = 0,$$ with $e_i>0$ for $i=1,\dots,N-1$ and $f_i>0$ for all $i=2,\dots,N$; where $F$ is a polynomial in multi-variables ${\bf x}= (x^{(1)}_1,\dots,x^{(1)}_{f_1},\cdots,x^{(N)}_1,\dots,x^{(N)}_{f_N})$ and ${\bf y}= (y^{(1)}_1,\dots,y^{(1)}_{e_1},\cdots,y^{(N)}_1,\dots,y^{(N)}_{e_N})$. We will call such a formula [*a $((f_1,e_1),\dots,(f_N,e_N))$-formula*]{} and call this form the [*positive prenex*]{} form. Note that the formula is not only in “prenex”-form (in which the quantifiers are followed by a quantifier-free formula that can be any boolean combination of atomic formul[æ]{}; see, e.g. [@CL], p. 157), but that we let the quantifiers be followed by a single atomic formula, viz. an equation. That this is possible is specific to certain languages. We don’t want to allow negations in the quantifier-free part, because we are interested in measuring “closeness” to a [*positive existential*]{} ($=$ diophantine) formula. It is indeed possible to transform any formula into such positive prenex normal form; this is well known but we include a proof for completeness.
#### **Lemma.** {#prenex}
[*let $R \subseteq \Q$ be a ring. Any first-order formula in the ring language $(R,+,\times,0,1,=)$ of $R$ can be written in normal form.*]{}
The following logical connectives can occur: $ \Rightarrow, \neg, \vee, \wedge$. Here is an algorithm that eliminates their occurrences. Replace $A \Rightarrow B$ by $\neg A \vee B$. Pull negations from left to right through a formula (changing quantifiers and connectives accordingly). Put all the quantifiers on the left (possibly changing names of variables).
Lagrange’s four-squares theorem states that any integer $n \geq 0$ is a sum of four squares. Therefore, for $x \in R$ we have $$x>0 \iff (\exists a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h)((e^2+f^2+g^2+h^2)(x+1)=a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2).$$ Furthermore, $n \neq 0 \iff (n>0)\vee(n<0)$. Use this to replace, for a polynomial $P$, the formula $P \neq 0$ by a formula only involving equality signs.
For polynomials $P$ and $Q$, replace $(P=0) \vee (Q=0)$ by $PQ=0$, and $(P=0) \wedge (Q=0)$ by $P^2+Q^2 = 0$. The final result of all these replacements is the above normal form.
#### **Remark.**
\[compl-rmkQ\] Depending on $R$, one can sometimes improve upon the number of existential quantifiers used to translate $P \neq 0$. For example, if $R=\Q$, then $P \neq 0 \iff (\exists Q)(PQ=1)$.
#### **Remark.**
The polynomial $F$ in the general positive prenex form might still depend on unquantified variables (also called free variables) which are omitted in our notation; this will cause no confusion. If no free variables occur we call the formula a [*sentence*]{}. A sentence has a precise truth-value, whereas this is not the case for a formula with free variables. However if we give these free variables a specific value then we obtain a sentence with a specific truth value. The set of all specifications of the free variables for which the corresponding sentence is true, is [*the set defined by the formula*]{}.
#### **Measures of complexity.**
\[meas\] As explained in the introduction, we do not care too much about the number of existential quantifiers, but want to have as few universal quantifiers as possible in our formul[æ]{}. A first measure of such complexity of a formula is its [*total number of universal quantifiers*]{} ($t$-complexity) $$t(\Fr):=f_1 + \cdots + f_N.$$ A second measure of complexity is the place of the formula in the (positive) arithmetical hierarchy, that we will now introduce.
#### **The positive arithmetical hierarchy.** {#defpisigma}
One usually defines the (arithmetical) hierarchy $(\Sigma, \Pi)$ of a language as follows (compare [@CK], p. 117). Let $\Sigma_0=\Pi_0$ denote the set of quantifier-free formul[æ]{}. Define a formula $\mathcal F$ inductively to be in $\Sigma_n$ (resp. $\Pi_n$) if it is of the form $\exists \mathcal G$ (resp. $\forall \mathcal G$) with $\mathcal G \in \Pi_{n-1}$ (resp. $\mathcal G \in \Sigma_{n-1}$).
In accordance with our use of a normal form which is positive prenex, we define the [*positive arithmetical hierarchy*]{} $(\Sigma^+,\Pi^+)$ as follows: we let $\Sigma^+_0=\Pi^+_0$ denote the set of positive boolean combinations of atomic formul[æ]{}. Define a formula $\mathcal F$ inductively to be in $\Sigma^+_n$ (resp. $\Pi^+_n$) if it is of the form $\exists \mathcal G$ (resp. $\forall \mathcal G$) with $\mathcal G \in \Pi^+_{n-1}$ (resp. $\mathcal G \in \Sigma^+_{n-1}$).
A formula in $\Sigma_1$ is called [*existential*]{}, in $\Pi_1$ [*universal*]{}, in $\Sigma^+_1$ [*positive existential*]{} or [*diophantine*]{}.
The [*number of quantifier changes*]{} $c$ ($c$-complexity) can be defined by $$c(\Fr) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2N-1 & \mbox{if } f_1e_N \neq 0, \\ 2N-2 & \mbox{if one of } f_1, e_N = 0 \\ 2N-3 & \mbox{if } f_1=e_N=0. \end{array} \right.$$ In terms of the hierarchy, this means the following: if ${\mathcal F} \in \Sigma^+_{n+1}-\Pi^+_{n}$ or ${\mathcal F} \in \Pi^+_{n+1}-\Sigma^+_{n}$, then $c({\mathcal F})=n$.
For a ring language as in \[prenex\], formul[æ]{} in $\Sigma_0^+$ are equivalent to [*atomic*]{} formul[æ]{} by \[prenex\]. Furthermore, as non-equalities are existential, any $\Sigma_{2n+1}$-formula is equivalent to a $\Sigma_{2n+1}^+$-formula and any $\Pi_{2n}$-formula is equivalent to a $\Pi_{2n}^+$-formula.
By abuse of the syntax/semantics difference, we will from now on sometimes write that $\Fr \in \Sigma_n^+$ if $\Fr$ is equivalent in the theory under consideration to a formula in $\Sigma_n^+$.
#### **Remark.** {#compl-davis}
(i) For $({\bf N},+,\times,0,1)$, a polynomial bijection ${\bf N}^2 \rightarrow {\bf N}$ as in Martin Davis ([@Davis:73], pp. 236-237) can be used to show that any formula is equivalent to a formula in positive prenex form with $f_1=\dots=f_N=1$. For $({\bf Z},+,\times,0,1)$, the same conclusion $f_1=\dots=f_N=1$ holds by the method of diophantine storing. The analogous statement is not known for $\Q$, but would follow from the ABC-hypothesis, see [@Cor].
\(ii) In the course of the proof of the main theorem, we will also have to use other languages than the usual ring language, and the reader should be cautioned that the positive and the usual hierarchy can be quite different in such a case (up to equivalence of formul[æ]{} in that language): there might be quantifier-free formul[æ]{} that are not equivalent to an atomic formula. Example: $(a=b) \wedge (c=d)$ in $(\Z,+,0,1,=)$.
#### **Remark.** {#compl-reduce}
A formula $\Fr$ could be equivalent (in a given theory) to a formula $\mathcal G$ whose complexity is different. In practice, it is often possible to reduce the number of universal quantifiers in a formula by using fewer variables, and we will sometimes do so. For example if $\Fr$ and $\mathcal G$ are formul[æ]{} with disjoint sets of variables, then $(\forall X,Y)(\Fr(X) \wedge {\mathcal G}(Y))$ is equivalent to $(\forall X)(\Fr(X) \wedge {\mathcal G}(X))$.
#### **Robinson’s definition.**
Julia Robinson’s definition of the integers is the following: Let $\phi(A,B,K)$ denote the formula $(\exists X,Y,Z)(P_{A,B,K}^{X,Y,Z}=0)$ with $P_{A,B,K}^{X,Y,Z} = 2+ABK^2+BZ^2 -X^2 - AY^2$. Then for $N \in \Q$, we have $N \in \Z \iff \mathcal{R}(N)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}(N) & : & \forall A,B \{ \ [ \ \phi(A,B,0) \ \wedge \ (\forall M)(\phi(A,B,M) \Rightarrow \phi(A,B,M+1)) \ ] \\
& & \Rightarrow \phi(A,B,N) \ \}\end{aligned}$$
We will now analyse the diophantine complexity of this formula:
#### **Lemma.** {#compl-julia-nf}
[*The formula $\mathcal{R}$ is equivalent to a $\Pi_4^+$- $((5,4),(3,1))$-formula $\Fr$ with $t(\Fr)=8$ and $c(\Fr)=3$.*]{}
We use the algorithm from the proof of Lemma \[prenex\]. Thus, we replace the implications to get $$(\forall A,B) \{ \ \neg [ \ \phi(A,B,0) \ \wedge \ (\forall M)(\neg \phi(A,B,M) \vee \phi(A,B,M+1)) \ ] \vee \phi(A,B,N) \ \} .$$ We pull through the negations $$(\forall A,B) \{ \ [ \ \neg \phi(A,B,0) \ \vee \ (\exists M)( \phi(A,B,M) \wedge \neg \phi(A,B,M+1)) \ ] \vee \phi(A,B,N) \ \} .$$ Now plug in the $(0,3)$-formula $\phi(A,B,\ast)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\forall A,B,X,Y,Z)( \exists M,X',Y',Z')( \forall X'',Y'',Z'' )(\exists X''',Y''',Z''') \\ & & [ \ P_{A,B,0}^{X,Y,Z} \neq 0 \vee (P_{A,B,M}^{X',Y',Z'}=0 \wedge P_{A,B,M+1}^{X'',Y'',Z''} \neq 0) \vee P_{A,B,N}^{X''',Y''',Z'''}=0 \ ]\end{aligned}$$ In $\Q$, we can replace an inequality by an equality at the cost of introducing one existential quantifier (\[compl-rmkQ\]). We can use the same variable for both inequalities in the above formula, since it is a disjunction of inequalities. We can simplify the arising formula further by using the same name for $X'$ and $X'''$, $Y'$ and $Y'''$ and $Z'$ and $Z'''$. to arrive at a $((5,4),(3,1))$-formula.
#### **(Diophantine) models.** {#diomodel}
Our (conjectural) improvement of this formula will not depend on a definition of $\Z$ as a [*subset*]{} of $\Q$, but rather on the existence of a model of $\Z$ over $\Q$. We therefore give a general definition first (in a certain model theoretic parlance, this just means an interpretation of the first theory in the second model):
#### **Definition.** {#def-diomodel}
Let $(M,L,\phi)$ be a triple consisting of a set $M$ and a finite collection $L=\{r_i\}$ of subsets of cartesian powers of $M$ (called “relations” or “constants”), where $\phi$ is an [*interpretation*]{} of $L$ in $M$ (which we will often leave out of the notation). If $(N,L'= \{ s_i \},\phi')$ is another such triple, $M$ is said to have a [*model $(D,\iota)$ in $N$*]{} if there is a bijection $\iota : M \rightarrow D$ between $M$ and a definable subset $D$ of some cartesian power $N^d$ of $N$, such that the induced inclusions of $\iota(r_i)$ in the appropriate cartesian power of $N$ are definable subsets. We call $d$ the [*dimension*]{} of the model. By slight abuse, we will sometimes omit $\iota$ from notations.
#### **Examples.**
\[ex1-diomodel\] From now on, we will write $\Z$ and $\Q$ for $(\Z,L)$ and $(\Q,L)$ with $L=(0,1,+,\times,=)$ the standard language of rings. By further abuse of notation, we will often leave out the constants “$0$”,“$1$” and equality “$=$” from a language on a ring. A model of $\Z$ in $\Q$ is a countable definable subset of $D$, such that under a bijection $ \iota : \Z \rightarrow D$, the induced images of the graphs of addition and multiplication are definable subsets $D_+$ and $D_\times$ of $\Q^3$. The result of Julia Robinson shows that one can cake $D={\bf Z}$ and $\iota=\mbox{id}$, leading to a one-dimensional model. If $G$ is an affine algebraic group over $\Q$, then embedding $G$ in some affine space of dimension $d$ gives a $d$-dimensional model of $(G(\Q),+_G)$ in $(\Q,+,\times)$. If $G(\Q) = \Z$, one thus has a model of $(\Z,+)$ in $\Q$ (but lacking multiplication).
One can measure the complexity of a model by the complexity of the formul[æ]{} that define the embeddings of the relations. Thus,
#### **Definition.** {#definition.}
\[def-compldiomodel\] For $S$ a definable subset of a cartesian power of $N$, write $t(S) \leq n$ (or $c(S) \leq n$) if there exists a formula $\Fr$ defining $S$ with $n=t(\Fr)$ (or $n=c(\Fr)$).
We say that the [*$t$-complexity $t(D)$ of a model*]{} $(D,\iota)$ of $(M,L)$ in $(N,L')$ satisfies $t(D) \leq n$ if $$\max \{ t(\iota(D)), t(\iota(r_i)) \} \leq n,$$ and similarly for the $c$-complexity or position in the hierarchy. $D$ is called a [*diophantine model*]{} of $M$ in $N$ if $t(D)=0$.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-2}
This definition involves only upper bounds for the complexity of a definable set, since $S$ could be definable by several equivalent formul[æ]{} having different complexity, cf. \[compl-reduce\]. In general, it seems quite hard to prove that a set [*cannot*]{} be defined by a less complex formula.
#### **Examples**
(continued). \[ex2-diomodel\] The complexity of Julia Robinson’s model is as in Lemma \[compl-julia-nf\]. The $t$-complexity of embedding $(G(\Q),+_G)$ in $\Q$ (for $G$ an affine algebraic group) is zero, since $G(\Q)$ is the solution set to the ideal of equations that defines $G$ in affine space, and addition is defined by an algebraic formula that involves the coordinates in that affine space (note that a different formula might be needed for distinct cases, such as doubling of points, but this distinction is made by a formula only involving inequalities and case distinctions, that are equivalent to a formula only involving existential quantifiers).
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-3}
If $\Z$ admits a diophantine model in $\Q$, then there exists a variety $V$ over $\Q$ such that the real topological closure of the set of rational points $V(\Q)$ in the set of real points $V({\bf R})$ has infinitely many connected components. This contradicts a conjecture of Mazur, cf. [@CZ].
#### **Translation of formul[æ]{}.**
One can use a model of $M$ in $N$ to translate formul[æ]{} in $M$ to formul[æ]{} in $N$, such that true sentences in $M$ are precisely translated into true sentences in $N$. Given a formula $\Fr$ in $M$, one replaces every occurrence of a variable $x$ by the $N$-definition of “$x \in D$”, and every occurrence of a relation $r({\bf x})$ by the $N$-definition of $r$. One thus gets a formula which we denote by $\iota({\Fr})$.
#### **Example.** {#ex-trans}
Consider the formula $\Fr \ : \ (\exists x_1)(\forall x_2)(x_1^2 x_2 + x_2 = 0)$ in $\Z$. Suppose one is given a 2-dimensional model $D \subseteq \Q^2$ of $\Z$ in $\Q$. Then this formula translates into $$\begin{aligned}
\iota(\Fr) & : & (\exists y_1^1 y_1^2)(\forall y_2^1 y_2^2)(\exists u_1 u_2 v_1 v_2)[(y_1^1,y_1^2) \in D \wedge [(y_2^1,y_2^2) \in D \Rightarrow \\
& & [(y_1^1,y_1^2,y_1^1,y_1^2,u_1,u_2) \in \iota(\times) \wedge (y_2^1,y_2^2,u_1,u_2,v_1,v_2) \in \iota(\times) \wedge \\ & &
(y_2^1,y_2^2,v_1,v_2,\iota(0)) \in \iota(+)]]]\end{aligned}$$ where one should now further replace membership of $D, \iota(+)$ and $\iota(\times)$ by their first-order definitions. Note the introduction of the “dummy variables” $u_i,v_i$ to unravel nested occurrences of addition and multiplication.
If one applies positive prenex simplification to remove implications and negations, one can keep track of the complexity of the translation. One can ask how the complexity of a formula changes under translation. We will only consider the following case:
#### **Proposition.**
\[compl-change\]
*Let $(D,\io)$ be a $d$-dimensional model of $\Z$ in $\Q$ and assume that membership of $D$ is atomic and of $\io (+)$ is $\Sigma _{1}^{+}$. In the following table, the second and third column list the positive hierarchical status of the formula $\io(\Fr)$ as a function of the status of $\io(\times)$ and $\Fr$ as it is indicated in the first column and top row:*
$\Fr \in$ $\io(\times) \in \Sigma_{s}^{+} \Rightarrow \io(\Fr) \in$ $\io(\times) \in \Pi_{s}^{+} \Rightarrow \io(\Fr) \in$
------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma_{2n}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+s}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+s+1}^{+}$
$\Sigma_{2n+1}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+s}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+s+1}^{+}$
$\Pi_{2n}^{+}\; (n>0)$ $\Pi_{2n+s-1}^{+}$ $\Pi_{2n+s}^{+}$
$\Pi_{2n+1}^{+}$ $\Pi_{2n+s+1}^{+}$ $\Pi_{2n+s+2}^{+}$
(note: inclusion of a formula in a class of the hierarchy means that the formula is equivalent to a formula in that class). Furthermore, in all cases we have $$t(\io (\Fr)) \leq t(\iota(\times)) +dt(\Fr )\; .$$
The proof is a matter of non-trivial book-keeping. We use the following notation: let $\Delta _{n}^{+}=\Sigma _{n}^{+}\cup \Pi_{n}^{+}$. We need to establish the following fact, that will be used implicitly in the sequel:
[**\[compl-change\].1 Lemma.**]{}
*Let $\Fr_{1}$ be a $\Sigma _{n}^{+}$-formula (respectively a $\Pi _{n}^{+}$-formula) and suppose that $\{ \Fr_{2}, ...,\Fr_{q}\}$ is a finite collection of formul[æ]{} such that each $\Fr_{i}$ is either a $\Sigma _{n}^{+}$-formula (respectively a $\Pi _{n}^{+}$-formula) or a $\Delta _{m}^+$-formula, for some $m<n$. Then $$\Fr=\Fr_{1}\wedge...\wedge \Fr_{q} \mbox{ and }\Fr '=\Fr_{1}\vee...\vee \Fr_{q}$$ are $\Sigma _{n}^{+}$-formul[æ]{} (respectively $\Pi _{n}^{+}$-formul[æ]{}).*
Suppose further that $\Fr_i$ is a $((f_{ik_i},e_{ik_i}),...,(f_{i1},e_{i1}))$-formula; then: $$t(\Fr )\leq \sum_{j=1}^{k_1} \max\{f_{1j},...,f_{qj}\}\;
\mbox{ \ and \ } t(\Fr ') \leq t(\Fr_1)+...+t(F_q) = \sum_{i=1}^q \sum_{j=1}^{k_i} f_{ij} \; .$$
We prove the result for $\Fr _1$ a $\Pi_n^+$ statement – the other cases are similar. Without loss of generality, we may assume that each formula $\Fr _{i}$ is a $\Pi_{n}^+$-formula (indeed, we can add quantifiers whose variables are those variables that do not appear freely in $\Fr_i$; for each new variable $x$ introduced in this way add the equation “$x=x$”). For $n=0$ the statement is trivial. For $n=1$ the result is also clear, since for any formul[æ]{} $\C$, $\D$, $(\forall x)(\C(x))\wedge (\forall y)(\D(y))$ is equivalent to $(\forall x)(\C(x)\wedge \D(x))$. So, suppose each of the $\Fr _{i}$ is a $\Pi _{n+1}^+$-formula with $n>0$, i.e., each $\Fr_i$ is of the form $$(\forall x_{1},...,x_{f_{i1}})(\exists y_{1},...,y_{m_{i}})
(\G _{i}(x_{1},...,x_{n},y_{1},...,y_{f}))$$ with $\G_{i}\in \Pi_{n-1}^{+}$. Let $m=m_{1}+...+m_{q}$ and $f=\max_{i}f_{i1}$. Since for any formul[æ]{} $\C$, $\D$, $(\forall x)(\C(x))\wedge (\forall y)(\D(y))$ is equivalent to $(\forall x)(\C(x)\wedge \D(x))$, and $(\exists x)(\C (x))\wedge (\exists y)(\D(y))$ is equivalent to $(\exists x,y)(\C (x)\wedge (\D(y))$, the formula $\Fr $ is equivalent to $$(\forall x_{1},...,x_{f})(\exists y_{1},...,y_{m})(\G _{1}\wedge ...\wedge \G_{q})\; .$$ By induction, the formula $\G= \G_{1}\wedge ...\wedge \G_{q}$ is $\Pi _{n-1}^{+}$, hence $\Fr $ is a $\Pi_{n+1}^{+}$-formula. We have $t(\Fr)=f+t(\G)$, and hence by induction $t(\Fr)=\max_if_{i1}+\sum_{j=2}^{k}\max_{i}f_{ij}$, which proves the result (note that the extra quantifiers which we may have added to make all formul[æ]{} $\Pi _n^+$ do not affect the statement). The statement concerning a disjunction of $\Pi _{n}^{+}$-formul[æ]{} can be proven similarly, by noting that for formul[æ]{} $\C$, $\D$, $(\forall x)(\C(x))\vee (\forall y)(\D(y))$ is equivalent to $(\forall x,y)(\C(x)\vee \D(x))$, and $(\exists x)(\C (x))\vee (\exists y)(\D(y))$ is equivalent to $(\exists x)(\C (x)\vee (\D(x))$. This proves the lemma.
The proof of \[compl-change\] is by induction, jumping down by 2 in the hierarchy (and thus induction starts at the two lowest levels of the hierarchy):
\(a) Let $\iota(\times) \in \Sigma^+_s$. Suppose first that $\Fr\in \Sigma_0^+$, i.e., $$\Fr: \; F(x_{1},...,x_{n})=0$$ for some integral polynomial. Then there exists a set $\Lambda=\{1,...,\ell\}$, with $\ell \geq n$, subsets $I,J\subset
\Lambda ^{3}$ and natural numbers $s,r\in \Lambda$ such that the translation $\io (\Fr)$ is of the form: $$(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge (\exists \uu_{1},...,\uu_{\ell})$$ $$(\uu_{1}=\x_{1}\wedge...\wedge\uu_{n}=\x_{n} \bigwedge_{\bar{i}\in I}(\uu _{i_{1}},\uu _{i_{2}},\uu _{i_{3}})\in \io (+)$$ $$\bigwedge_{\bar{j}\in J}(\uu _{j_{1}},\uu _{j_{2}},\uu _{j_{3}})\in \io (\times)\wedge (\uu _{r},\uu _{r},\io (0))\in \io (+)) \; ,$$ where $\bar{i}=(i_{1},i_{2},i_{3})$ and $\bar{j}=(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})$ are multi-indices and boldface variables are variables ranging over $\Q^d$. The conjunction $$\bigwedge_{\bar{i}\in I}(\uu _{i_{1}},\uu _{i_{2}},\uu _{i_{3}})\in \io (+)
\bigwedge_{\bar{j}\in J}(\uu _{j_{1}},\uu _{j_{2}},\uu _{j_{3}})\in \io (\times)\wedge (\uu _{r},\uu _{r},\io (0))\in \io (+))$$ is a conjunction of $\Sigma _1^+$-formul[æ]{} and $\Sigma _{s}^+$-formul[æ]{}, and hence is itself a $\Sigma_{s}^+$-formula. Hence, the formula $\io (\Fr)$ is a conjunction of a $\Sigma_{s}^{+}$-formula and a $\Sigma _0^+$formula, hence is a $\Sigma_{s}^{+}$-formula. Furthermore, $t(\io (\Fr))=t(\io (\times))$.\
If $\Fr\in\Sigma_{1}^{+}$, then $\io (\Fr) \in \Sigma_{s}^+$. Indeed, write $\Fr= (\exists x_1,...,x_n)\G(x_1,...,x_n)$ for some quantifier-free formula $\G$. The translation $\io (\Fr)$ is then given by: $$(\exists \x_1,...,\x_n)(\x_1\in D\wedge ...\wedge \x_n\in D \wedge \io(\G)(\x_1,...,\x_n)),$$ and the result is clear since membership of $D$ is atomic.
We proceed by induction. Suppose that $\Fr$ is $\Sigma_{n+1}^{+}$, i.e. there exists a $\Sigma _{n-1}^+$-formula $\G$ such that $$\Fr:\; (\exists x_{1},...,x_{n})(\forall y_{1},...,y_{m})(\G (x_{1},...,x_{n},y_{1},...,y_{m}))\; .$$ The translation $\io (\Fr)$ then becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\exists \x_{1},...,\x_{n})(\forall \y_{1},...,\y_{m}) [(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge \\ & & \wedge ((\y_{m}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\y_{m}\in D)
\Rightarrow \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))] \end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\exists \x_{1},...,\x_{n})(\forall \y_{1},...,\y_{m})
[(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D) \wedge \\ & & \wedge (\y_{1}\notin D\vee...\y_{m}\vee \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))]\end{aligned}$$ Since subformul[æ]{} of the form $\y \notin D$ are negations of atomic formul[æ]{} in the language of $\Q$, they are equivalent to a formula in $\Sigma _{1}^{+}$ and, by induction $\io (\G)\in \Sigma_{n-1+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ even) or $\Sigma_{n-2+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ odd), it follows that the subformula $$(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge (\y_{1}\notin D\vee...\y_{m}\vee \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))$$ is $\Sigma _{n-1+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ even) or $\Sigma_{n+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ odd). Hence $\io (\Fr)$ is $\Sigma _{n+1+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ even) or $\Sigma_{n+s}^{+}$ ($n+1$ odd). Furthermore, $t(\io(\Fr))=dm+t(\io(\G))$, from which we find by iteration that $t(\io(\Fr))=dt(\Fr)+t(\io(\times))$.\
If $\Fr $ is a $\Pi_n^+$-formula, the result can be proven in a similar way – but one has to start the induction at $n=1$ and $n=2$.
\(b) Assume $\iota(\times) \in \Pi_s^+$. If $\Fr $ is a $\Sigma_0^+$-formula we get the same translation as in (a). The subformula $$\bigwedge_{\bar{i}\in I}(\uu _{i_{1}},\uu _{i_{2}},\uu _{i_{3}})\in \io (+)
\bigwedge_{\bar{j}\in J}(\uu _{j_{1}},\uu _{j_{2}},\uu _{j_{3}})\in \io (\times)\wedge (\uu _{r},\uu _{r},\io (0))\in \io (+))$$ is a conjunction of $\Sigma _1^+$-formul[æ]{} and $\Pi_{s}^+$-formul[æ]{}, and hence is itself a $\Pi_{s}^+$-formula. The translation of $\io (\Fr )$ is then of the form: $$(\exists \uu _1,...,\uu _l) \G$$ where $\G$ is $\Pi_s^+$, hence $\io (\Fr)$ is $\Sigma _{s+1}^+$.\
If $\Fr $ is a $\Sigma_1^+$-formula, then $\Fr= (\exists x_1,...,x_n)\G(x_1,...,x_n)$ for some quantifier-free formula $\G$. The translation $\io (\Fr)$ is then given by: $$(\exists \x_1,...,\x_n)(\x_1\in D\wedge ...\wedge \x_n\in D \wedge \io(\G)(\x_1,...,\x_n))\; .$$ Since $\io (\G)$ is $\Sigma _{s+1}^+$ and membership of $D$ is atomic, the quantifier-free part of this formula is $\Sigma_{s+1}^+$. Hence $\io(\Fr)$ is $\Sigma_{s+1}^+$.\
We proceed by induction. Let $\Fr$ be a $\Sigma _{n+1}^+$-formula, i.e. $$\Fr= (\exists x_1,...,x_n)(\forall y_1,...,y_m)(\G( x_1,...,x_n,y_1,...,y_m))$$ for some $\G \in \Sigma_{n-1}^+$. The translation $\io (\Fr)$ then becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\exists \x_{1},...,\x_{n})(\forall \y_{1},...,\y_{m})[(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge \\ & & \wedge ((\y_{m}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\y_{m}\in D)
\Rightarrow \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))]\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\exists \x_{1},...,\x_{n})(\forall \y_{1},...,\y_{m})
[(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge \\ & & \wedge (\y_{1}\notin D\vee...\y_{m}\vee \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))]\; . \end{aligned}$$ By induction $\io (\G)$ is a $\Sigma_{n+s}^+$-formula (if $n+1$ is even) or $\Sigma_{n+s-1}^+$-formula (if $n+1$ is odd), hence $$(\x_{1}\in D\wedge ...\wedge\x_{n}\in D)\wedge (\y_{1}\notin D\vee...\y_{m}\vee \io (\G)(\x_{1},...,\x_{n},\y_{1},...,\y_{m}))\;$$ is $\Sigma_{n+s}^+$ or $\Sigma_{n+s-1}^+$. From which it easily follows that $\io(\Fr)$ is $\Sigma _{n+s+2}^+$ ($n+1$ even) or $\Sigma _{n+s+1}^+$ ($n+1$ odd).\
If $\Fr $ is a $\Pi_n^+$-formula, the result can be proved in a similar way (but starting the induction at $n=1$ and $n=2$.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-4}
If membership of $D$ is positive-existential, then one can slightly alter the model $(D,\iota)$ to another $(D',\iota')$ in which membership of $D'$ is quantifier-free, and hence for this altered model the theorem is true.
#### **Corollary.**
\[undecQ\] [*If $(D,\iota)$ is a model of $\Z$ in $\Q$ that has $D$ defined by an atomic ($\Sigma_0^+$-)formula, $\iota(+)$ diophantine ($\Sigma_1^+$) and $t(\iota(\times)) \leq 1$, then the $\Sigma^+_{3}$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable.*]{}
Davis, Matijasevich, Putnam and Robinson (cf. [@Davis:73]) have shown that the $\Sigma^+_1$-theory of $\Z$ is undecidable, but the proposition implies that any $\Sigma^+_1$-sentence is translated into a $\Sigma^+_{3}$-sentence over $\Q$ using $\iota$. Indeed, $\iota(\times)$ is $\Pi^+_2, \Sigma_2^+$ or $\Sigma_3^+$, and in each of these cases, a $\Sigma^+_1$-sentence translates to a $\Sigma^+_3, \Sigma_2^+$ and $\Sigma_3^+$-sentence, respectively.
\[eds\]
#### **Elliptic curve model of $(\Z,+)$.**
Let $E$ denote an elliptic curve of rank one over $\Q$. Thus, as a group, $E(\Q)=\Z \oplus {\mathcal T}$ for a finite group $\mathcal T$ of cardinality $\tau$. Let $P$ be a point of infinite order on $E$. Choose a plane model $f(x,y)=0$ for $E$.
#### **Lemma.** {#diodefE}
*In the above coordinates $(x,y)$, for any $r$, the set $T_{r\tau}= \langle r\tau P \rangle = \{ nr \tau P \ : \ n \in \Z \}$ is diophantine over $\Q$.*
Consider $D_r:=\{ (x,y,1) \ : \ (x,y) \in T_{r\tau} \} \cup \{ (0,1,0) \}$. Consider ${\bf 0}:=(0,1,0)$ as a symbol for the neutral element of $E$. If $+$ denotes the addition on $E$, then $(D_r,\iota)$ is a three-dimensional diophantine model of $(\Z,+)$ over $\Q$ (where $\iota(0)={\bf 0}$ and $\iota(n)=(x(n\tau rP),y(n\tau r P),1)$). Furthermore, membership of $D_r$ (“$(x,y,z) \in D_r$”) can be expressed by an atomic formula.
The relations “$0$” and “$\neq$” in $(\Z,+)$ are diophantine over $\Q$ via $(D_r,\iota)$.
\(i) Let $Q$ be a generator for the free part of $E$. Then there exists an integer $N$ such that $P=NQ$. Then $$T_{r\tau} =\{ R \in E(\Q) \ : \ (\exists S \in E(\Q))(R=Nr \tau S) \}.$$ The statement that “$R \in E(\Q)$” is a quantifier-free formula in $\Q$. The statement that $R=Nr \tau S$ (for fixed integers $N,r$) is too. Hence $T_r$ is diophantine over $\Q$.
\(ii) The map $\iota$ is a bijection since we have killed the torsion subgroup of $E(\Q)$ by multiplying by $\tau$. The addition formul[æ]{} on $E$ can be written down in terms of coordinates on the chosen model. They will involve a choice distinction (e.g., doubling a point is different from adding two distinct points that are not opposite), but these choices are written by a formula involving inequalities and connectives, which translates into normal form only involving existential quantifiers. Hence addition is given by a diophantine formula. The statement about membership is immediate.
\(iii) $\iota(0)=(0,1,0)$ is obviously atomic. Since we are in a group, to define “$a \neq b$” in a diophantine way, it suffices to define “$n \neq 0$”, and this is clearly equivalent to $\iota(n) \in T_{r\tau}$, which is diophantine.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-5}
Note that if $E$ is an elliptic curve of rank one over $\Q$, there is an algorithm to compute the torsion subgroup, and if a point $P$ of infinite order is known, then one can find $N$ and $Q$ algorithmically by going through the (finite) list of points $R$ of height smaller than $P$ and checking whether $mR=P$ for the appropriate finite list of integers $m$.
#### **An “odd” divisibility sequence.**
\[divpoly\] Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\Q$ of non-zero rank over $\Q$. Let $P$ be a point of infinite order on $E$. We want to study arithmetical properties of the numerator and denominator of the coordinates of multiples of $P$. Choose a plane Weierstrass model for $E$:
$$y^2 = x^3 + ax^2 + b x + c,$$ with $a,b,c$ integers. We can write $$nP = (x_n, y_n) = \left( \frac{a_n}{B_n^2},\frac{c_n}{B_n^3} \right),$$ with $a_n,B_n$ and $c_n,B_n$ pairs of coprime integers (with $B_n$ and $c_n$ defined up to sign).
#### **Notation.**
We write $(a,b)$ to denote any greatest common divisor of integers $a$ and $b$ (hence this symbol doesn’t have a well-defined sign).
#### **Lemma.** {#fg}
*If $v$ is a valuation for which $v(B_n)>0$ then for any integer $t$, $v(B_{tn}) = v(B_n) + v(t).$*
$\{ B_n \}$ is a divisibility sequence, i.e., if $m|n$, then $B_m$ divides $B_n$.
$\{ B_n \}$ is a strong divisibility sequence, i.e., $(B_m,B_n)=B_{(m,n)}.$
\(i) For $v \neq v_2$, the claim follows from looking at the formal group law associated to $E({\bf Q}_p)$, cf. [@Cheon:98] - but some care should be taken with this reference, cf. the remark below. The following considerations hold regardless of the fact whether $E$ is in global minimal form or not, as long as the coefficients are integral.
Let $v=v_p$. Let $\hat{E}$ denote the formal group of $E$. If $E_1$ denotes the kernel of reduction modulo $p$, then $E_1 \rightarrow \hat{E}(p\Z) : P=(x,y) \mapsto z(P):=-\frac{x}{y}$ is an isomorphism such that $v(z)=-\frac{1}{2} v(x)$. Theorem IV.6.4(b) from [@SilvermanAEC] says that if $r>1/(p-1)$, then the formal logarithm induces an isomorphism $\hat{E}(p^r\Z) \cong p^r\Z$.
Note that for rational primes, $1/(p-1)<1$ unless $p=2$. Hence if $p \neq 2$ or $v(z(P))>1$, the isomorphism $\hat{E}(p^r\Z) \cong p^r\Z$ holds for $r=v(z(P))$ and since it is true for any larger $r$, the map preserves valuations. Hence $v(z(nP))=v(n)+v(z(P))$. This implies the claim since $z(nP)=-\frac{a_n B_n}{c_n}$ and $a_n$ and $c_n$ are coprime to $B_n$.
We are only left to consider the case $v=v_2$ and $v_2(z(P))=1$. Assume $v_2(x)<0$. The duplication formula gives $$x_2 = \frac{x}{4} \cdot \frac{1-2bx^{-2}-8cx^{-3}+(b^2-4ac)x^{-4}}{1+ax^{-1}+bx^{-2}+cx^{-3}},$$ The second factor in this product has valuation zero, and hence we get $v(x_2)=v(x)-4$, and this implies the result for $t=2$. It follows by induction for $t=2^\ell$ for some $\ell$, and then, using the first part of the proof, for general $t=2^\ell \cdot t'$ with $t'$ odd.
\(ii) follows immediately from (i).
For (iii), we only need to prove that $(B_m,B_n)$ divides $B_d$ for $d=(m,n)$. Choose integers $x,y$ such that $xm+yn=d$. Then part (i) implies that $v(B_{xm}) \geq v(B_m) \geq v(B_d)$ and $v(B_{yn}) \geq v(B_n) \geq v(B_d)$. Therefore $dP=xmP+ynP$ belongs to the [*group*]{} of points $P=(x,y)$ with $v(x) \leq -2r$ (including the zero element of $E$) — this is a group, since under the isomorphism $E_1 \mapsto \hat{E}(p\Z)$ it corresponds to the subgroup $\hat{E}(p^r\Z)$. Hence $v(x_d) \geq -2r$, so $v(B_d) \leq r$.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-6}
As Marco Streng notes, the claim in [@Cheon:98] that $v(B_{tn}) = v(B_n) + v(t)$ also holds for the long Weierstrass form and for number fields is wrong; a counterexample is given by $P=\left(-\frac{1}{4},\frac{7}{8} \right)$ on $y^2+xy=x^3+x^2-2x$, for which $v_2(B_2)=3$ but $v_2(B_1)+v_2(2)=2$. Over an arbitrary number field, it might go wrong for a larger number of (too ramified) valuations.
In proofs to follow, we will rely on properties of division polynomials $\phi_n, \psi_n, \omega_n$ (e.g., [@SilvermanAEC] III.3.7 for standard Weierstrass form and [@Ayad:92] for the general case). The sequence $\{ \psi_n \}$ has been termed an [*elliptic divisibility sequence*]{} by Morgan Ward ([@Ward:48]). This recourse to the literature is strictly speaking not necessary in this section (but we will need it in the final part of the paper), since all properties can be checked by direct, but sometimes tedious, computation using the addition formul[æ]{} on $E$. Instead, we will use the following
#### **Substitution principle.**
[*Let $f \in {\bf C}[x_1,y_1,z_1,\dots,x_r,y_r,z_r]$ be a homogeneous polynomial w.r.t. the weights wt$(x_i)=2i^2$, wt$(y_i)=i^2$ and wt$(z_i)=3i^2$. Suppose $f(\phi_1,\psi_1,\omega_1,\dots,\phi_r,\psi_r,\omega_r)=0.$ Then for any point $P \in E(\Q)$ that is [*non-singular modulo all primes*]{}, we have $$f(a_1,B_1,c_1,\dots,a_r,B_r,c_r)=0,$$ if we choose the signs of $a_i,B_i,c_i$ such that they agree with those of the classical division polynomials.*]{}
The trick is dehomogeneization w.r.t. the denominator of $x_1$. As Mohamed Ayad has notes by direct computation in [@Ayad:92] (bottom of page 306), for any $n$ we can write $$x_n = \frac{b_1^{2n^2} \phi_n}{b_1^2((b_1^{n^2-1} \psi_n)^2}, y_n = \frac{b_1^{3n^2} \omega_n}{b_1^3 (b_1^{n^2-1} \psi_n)^3},$$ where numerators and denominators in these fractions are [*integers*]{}; that there is no cancellation of factors of $b_1$ in this representation; and that the common divisors of $b_1^{2n^2} \phi_n$ and $b_1^{n^2-1} \psi_n$ (and $b_1^{3n^2} \omega_n$ and $b_1^{n^2-1} \psi_n$) are the primes $p$ for which $P$ is singular modulo $p$. Therefore, if $P$ is non-singular modulo all primes, we find $a_n=b_1^{2n^2}\phi_n, B_n=b_1^{n^2}\psi_n$ and $c_n=b_1^{3n^2}\omega_n$, and the result follows.
Now let $E$ be an elliptic curve of rank one over $E$ with a rational two-torsion point. By translation, we can assume that $(0,0)$ is a two-torsion point on $E$. Then $E$ has a Weierstrass equation $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$.
#### **Lemma/Definition.** {#Moh}
*Let $E$ be in Weierstrass form $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$, having $(0,0)$ as rational 2-torsion point. Let $P$ be a point of infinite order in $2E(\Q)$ (i.e., divisible by 2 in $E(\Q)$) that is non-singular modulo all primes. Then we can write $$nP = (x_{n},y_{n}) = \left(\left(\frac{{A}_{n}}{B_{n}}\right)^2, \frac{A_n{C}_{n}}{B_{n}^3}\right)$$ for integers ${A}_{n},B_{n}$ and $C_n$ (defined up to sign) with $(A_n,B_n)=1$ and $(B_{n},{C}_{n})=1$. Then:*
The greatest common divisor of $A_{n}$ and $C_{n}$ divides the coefficient $b$ of the Weierstrass model, and the order of $b$ at any common divisor of $A_{n}$ and $C_{n}$ is at least 2; in particular, if $b$ is squarefree, then $(A_n,C_n)=1$;
We have $B_{2n} = {2A_nB_nC_n}$ up to sign; in particular, $A_n$ divides $B_{2n}$.
Let $P=2Q$ with $Q \in E(\Q)$. We have $\phi_2 = (\phi_1-b)^2$, so applying the substitution principle to this equation and the point $nQ$, we find that $x_n$ is a rational square and hence $A_n$ is well-defined up to sign. Substituting the point $nP$ into the equation of $E$ gives that $c_{n}^2 =A_n^2(A_{n}^4+aA_{n}^2 B_{n}^2+bB_{n}^4),$ so $A_n$ divides $c_n$ and the definition of $C_n$ makes sense. Then $C_{n}^2 =A_{n}^4+aA_{n}^2 B_{n}^2+bB_{n}^4,$ and the gcd of $C_{n}$ and $A_{n}$ divides $bB_{n}^4$, hence $b$ since $B_{n}$ and ${A}_{n}$ are coprime; if $v((C_{n},A_{n}))>0$, then we see immediately from this formula that $v(b) \geq 2$. This proves (i).
\(ii) This follows from the substitution principle via the identity of division polynomials $\psi_2 = 2 \psi_1 \omega_1$ applied to $nQ$.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-7}
The numbers $A_n$, $B_n$ and $C_n$ (and the symbol $\sqrt{x_n}$ occasionally to be used) are only defined up to sign, but that sign will play no rôle in the formul[æ]{} under consideration (such as (ii) above), so we will not mention this issue anymore, except in the final section of this paper.
In subsequent considerations, we will also need to study the divisibility properties of the sequences $\{ A_\ast \}$ and $\{ C_\ast \}$. It turns out that divisibility between their $m$- and $n$-th term is only assured if $n$ is an [*odd*]{} multiple of $m$.
#### **Definition.** {#definition.-1}
We call a sequence of integers $\{X_\ast\}$ an [*odd divisibility sequence*]{} if $X_n$ divides $X_{nt}$ as soon as $t$ is odd. We call $\{C_\ast\}$ as defined by the previous lemma [*the odd divisibility sequence associated to $(E,P)$.*]{}
That the previous definition makes sense is the contents of the following lemma:
#### **Lemma.** {#odd}
*Assume $(E,P)$ and $(A_\ast,B_\ast,C_\ast)$ are as in Lemma \[Moh\], with $b$ and $a^2-4b$ squarefree. Then:*
$\{ A_\ast B_\ast \}$ is a strong divisibility sequence.
$\{ A_\ast \}$ and $\{ C_\ast \}$ are odd divisibility sequences.
If $t$ is odd and $v(A_n)>0$, then $v(A_{nt})=v(A_n)+v(t)$; but if $t$ is even, then $(A_n,A_{nt})=1$ for all $n$. Identical statements hold with $A_\ast$ replaced by $C_\ast$.
Recall that we have a morphism of 2-descent (cf. [@SilvermanAEC], X.4.9) given by the rational map: $$\delta' \ : E \rightarrow E' \ : \ (X,Y) \mapsto (\frac{Y^2}{X^2}, \frac{Y(X^2-a^2+4b)}{X^2})$$ with $E' \ : \
y^2=x^3-2ax^2+(a^2-4b)x$.
\(i) Suppose $Q=nP$ maps via $\delta'$ to $Q'$. Then $x(Q')=(\frac{y(Q)}{x(Q)})^2$, so $$\sqrt{x(Q')}= \frac{A'_n}{B'_n} = \frac{C_n}{B_n A_n}$$ is a coprime representation (since $b$ is squarefree), and we find that $\{ A_\ast B_\ast \}$ is a strong divisibility sequence, as in Lemma \[fg\], (as it is equal to the “$B'$”-sequence $\{B'_\ast\}$ associated to $(E',\delta'(P))$.
\(ii) Let us now prove that $\{ A_\ast \}$ is an odd divisibility sequence. Suppose $v(A_n)>0$. Then $v(B_n)=0$ by coprimeness of the representation. Now $v(A_n B_n) \geq v(A_n) >0$, and since $B'_n = 2 A_n B_n $, the formal group law on $E'$ (\[fg\]) implies that $v(B'_{tn})=v(B'_n)+v(t)$, so we find $$v(A_{tn})+v( B_{tn})=v(A_n)+v(t). \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{odd}.1)}}}$$ If $v(B_{tn})=0$, we indeed find that $v(A_{tn}) \geq v(A_n)$. If on the other hand, $v(B_{tn})=0$, then since $A_{tn}$ and $B_{tn}$ are coprime, we find that $v(A_{tn})=0$, and hence $v(B_{tn})=v(A_n)+v(t)$. Now $A_n$ divides $B_{2n}$ (\[Moh\] (ii)), so we have that $(B_{tn}, B_{2n}) = B_{(tn,2n)} = B_{n(t,2)}$ is divisible by a valuation $v$ which doesn’t divide $B_n$; hence $(t,2) \neq 1$ and $t$ is even; which we have excluded.
That $\{ C_\ast \}$ is an odd divisibility sequence is immediate, since $C_n = A'_n$ for the image sequence under $\delta'$ (with $a^2-4b$ squarefree), and we have just shown that $\{A'_\ast\}$ is an odd divisibility sequence.
\(iii) This is implicit in the proof of (ii), noting again that $A_{tn}$ and $B_{tn}$ are coprime in (\[odd\].1).
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-8}
Here is a quick proof that $\{A_\ast\}$ and $\{C_\ast\}$ are odd divisibility sequences: if an integer $d$ divides $A_n$ or $C_n$, then $nP \in E[2]({\bf Z}/d)$, so for odd $t$, $tnP=nP \in E[2]({\bf Z}/d)$.
#### **Example.** {#exa}
The elliptic curve $E \ : \ y^2=x^3+12x^2+11x=x(x+1)(x+11)$ is of rank one over $\Q$, and $P=(1/4,15/8)$ is of infinite order. The torsion subgroup of $E(\Q)$ is $\Z/2 \times \Z/2$, generated by $(-1,0)$ and $(0,0)$. We computed the prime factorisations of $A_n,B_n$ and $C_n$ for $n \leq 8$:
------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
$A_1$ = $1$
$A_2$ = $5 \cdot 7$
$A_3$ = $19 \cdot 269 $
$A_4$ = $659 \cdot 1931$
$A_5$ = $ 23042506969 $
$A_6$ = $\underline{5 \cdot 7} \cdot 89 \cdot 4639 \cdot 4575913 $
$A_7$ = $647873811 \cdot 19522768049$
$A_8$ = $ 1321 \cdot 6637 \cdot 1356037 \cdot 6591431535431$
------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------
------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$B_1$ = $2$
$B_2$ = $\underline{2^2} \cdot 3$
$B_3$ = $\underline{2} \cdot 29 \cdot 41$
$B_4$ = $\underline{2^3 \cdot 3} \cdot 5 \cdot 7 \cdot 37 \cdot 53 $
$B_5$ = $\underline{2} \cdot 11 \cdot 6571 \cdot 10949$
$B_6$ = $\underline{2^2 \cdot 3^2} \cdot 19 \cdot \underline{29 \cdot 41} \cdot 269 \cdot 467 \cdot 2521$
$B_7$ = $\underline{2} \cdot 31 \cdot 211 \cdot 1481 \cdot 8629 \cdot 184598671 $
$B_8$ = $\underline{2^4 \cdot 3^1 \cdot 5 \cdot 7} \cdot 13 \cdot \underline{37 \cdot 53} \cdot 659 \cdot 1931 \cdot 160117 \cdot 5609521$
------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$C_1$ = $ 3 \cdot 5$
$C_2$ = $- 37 \cdot 53$
$C_3$ = $\underline{3^2 \cdot 5} \cdot 467 \cdot 2521$
$C_4$ = $-13 \cdot 160117 \cdot 5609521$
$C_5$ = $\underline{3 \cdot 5} \cdot 17 \cdot 67 \cdot 1601 \cdot 3019 \cdot 17417 \cdot 379513$
$C_6$ = $23 \cdot \underline{37 \cdot 53} \cdot 59 \cdot 10531 \cdot 1131223 \cdot 7186853449441$
$C_7$ = $-\underline{3 \cdot 5} \cdot 353 \cdot 1483 \cdot 17609 \cdot 11748809 \cdot 281433601 \cdot 46333351129459$
$C_8$ = $ 5303 \cdot 108739 \cdot 1830931 \cdot 170749043903 \cdot 92397921271034416798380481$
------- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that although $b=11$ is squarefree in the example, $a^2-4b=100$ is not. This means something might go wrong with the valuation formula for $C_\ast$ upon multiplication by 2 or 5, and indeed, $v_5(C_5) \neq v_5(C_1)+v_5(5)$.
The examples illustrate all the (non-)divisibility-properties mentioned before, but also some other apparent features that will be discussed later on: whereas the indices have one prime factor on average, the numbers themselves have three primitive factors on average. It is expected that for any given $k>0$, all terms in the sequence from a certain moment on will have at least $k$ primitive factors. In the above tables, we have underlined the “non-primitive” part, i.e., the prime factors that occur earlier on the list.
\[rubin\] [*All divisors of $A_n$ and $B_n$ for odd $n$ are $= \pm 1$ mod 5.* ]{}
[*Proof* (for $B_\ast$, as shown to us by Karl Rubin). ]{} Suppose $l$ is a prime with $l|B_n$, i.e., $nP=0$ mod $l$. Since $n$ is odd, $P=2Q$ mod $l$ for $Q=(n+1)/2 \cdot P$. Then $x=x(Q)$ satisfies the equation $(x^2-8x+11)(x^2+7x+11)=0$ mod $l$. Since both factors of this equation have discriminant $5$ up to squares, there is a solution mod $l$ precisely if $5$ is a square modulo $l$. $\Box$
On the other hand, all $C_n$ seem to have primitive prime divisors of odd order $=\pm 2$ mod 5, i.e., inert in $\Q(\sqrt{5})$, but we have no general proof of that.
\[edsmod\]
#### **Primitivity condition.**
\[primcond\] Let $\{X_\ast\}$ be an (odd) divisibility sequence. Let $R$ denote a set of valuations. We say $\{X_\ast\}$ [*is $R$-primitive*]{} if every term $X_n$ has a primitive divisor from $R$, that is: $$(\forall n)(\exists v \in R)[v(X_n)>0 \mbox{ and } (\forall i<n) (v(X_i)=0)].$$ We say $\{X_\ast\}$ [*is $R$-odd-primitive*]{} if every term $X_n$ has a primitive [*odd order*]{} divisor from $R$, that is: $$(\forall n)(\exists v \in R)[v(X_n) \mbox{ is odd and } (\forall i<n) (v(X_i)=0)].$$ We sometimes say $v$ is $R$-(odd-)primitive for $X_n$ if these formul[æ]{} holds for $v$ and $X_n$.
#### **Lemma.** {#Cdiv}
[*Suppose that $E$ and $P$ are as in lemma \[Moh\]. Assume that $\{ C_\ast \}$ is $R$-(odd-)primitive for some $R$. If $v \in R$ is (odd-)primitive for $C_m$ and $v(C_n)>0$ for some $n$, then $m|n$ and $n/m$ is odd.*]{}
It suffices to prove this for the $A$-sequence, since the descent morphism $\delta'$ transfers $\{C_\ast\}$ into $\{A_\ast\}$ (proof of Lemma \[odd\]). Now since $\{ A_\ast B_\ast \}$ is a strong divisibility sequence (\[odd\]), we have $$(A_m B_m, A_n B_n) = A_{(m,n)} B_{(m,n)}.$$ Since we assume $v(A_m)>0$ and $v(A_n)>0$, we have $v(B_m)=v(B_n)=0$ by coprimeness assumptions; and $v( (A_{(m,n)} B_{(m,n)}))>0$ by the above formula. Suppose first that $v(A_{(m,n)})>0$. Since $(m,n) \leq m$, the $R$-primitivity of $v$ for $A_m$ implies that $(m,n)=m$. This means that $m|n$. By \[odd\] (iii), we find that $n/m$ is odd.
On the other hand, if $v(B_{(m,n)})>0$, since $\{ B_\ast \}$ is a divisibility sequence and $(m,n)|m$, we have $v(B_m)>0$, contrary to the assumption.
#### **Divisibility predicate.**
Let $R$ denote a set of valuations. Denote by $\mathcal{D}_R(x,y)$ the property $$\mathcal{D}_R(x,y) \ : \ \forall v \in R \ : \ v(x) \mbox{ odd } \Rightarrow v(x) < v(y^2).$$
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-9}
This predicate says that odd order “zeros” of $x$ are zeros of at least half that order of $y$, and that odd order “poles” of $x$ are at most poles of $y$ of half that order. Note that it seems at this point maybe more natural to have a definition in which the condition $v(x)<v(y^2)$ is replaced by $v(x)<v(y)$, but for future applications, we will need it as it stands.
#### **Theorem.** {#defdiv}
[*Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\Q$ and $P$ a point of infinite order on $2E(\Q)$ of sufficiently large height. Assume $E$ has Weierstrass form $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$ (in particular, a rational 2-torsion point) with $b$ and $a^2-4b$ squarefree. Assume the odd divisibility sequence $\{C_\ast\}$ associated to $P$ on $E$ is $R$-odd-primitive. Then for any integers $m,n \in {\bf Z}$, $$\begin{aligned}
m | n &\iff& \D_R(y_m \sqrt{x_m}, y_n \sqrt{x_n}) \vee \D_R(y_m \sqrt{x_m}, y_{m+n} \sqrt{x_{m+n}})\end{aligned}$$*]{} Replacing $P$ by a suitable multiple, we can assume $P$ is non-singular modulo all primes. Indeed, for any prime $p$, consider the group $E(\Q_p)$ and the subgroup $E_0(\Q_p)$ of points that reduce to non-singular points modulo $p$. Then $E(\Q_p)/E_0(\Q_p)$ is finite and non-zero for only finitely many $p$ (actually, by a theorem of Kodaira and Néron, of order bounded uniformly in $p$ by 4 times the least common multiple of the exponents in the minimal discriminant of $E$, cf. [@SilvermanAEC] VII.6.1). Note that the $R$-odd-primitivity condition is unaffected by this replacement of $P$ by a multiple. By \[odd\], $\{C_\ast\}$ is an odd divisibility sequence.
It follows from the definition of $C_n$ that $$C_N = \pm y_N \sqrt{x_N} \left(\frac{B_N^2}{A_N}\right)^2. \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{defdiv}.1)}}}$$ We claim that our assumption that $b$ is squarefree implies the following:
[****[\[defdiv\].2]{}** Claim.**]{} [*If $v(C_N) \neq 0$, then $v(C_N)=v(y_N \sqrt{x_N})$.*]{}
[*Proof of the claim.*]{} By the above formula we should prove $v(B_N^2/A_N)=0$. Now $B_N$ and $C_N$ are coprime by definition, and by \[Moh\] (i) and since $b$ is squarefree, we find that $A_N$ and $C_N$ are also coprime.
[*Proof of $\Rightarrow$.*]{} Assume $m|n$. Then either $n/m$ or $(n+m)/m$ is odd. Then lemma \[odd\] implies that $C_m | C_n$ or $C_m | C_{m+n}$. We will agree from now on to write $n$ but mean either $n$ or $m+n$, and assume that $n/m$ is odd.
Pick a valuation $v$ in $R$ and suppose that $v(y_m \sqrt{x_m})$ is odd. From formula (\[defdiv\].1), we see that $v(C_m)$ has to be odd. Since $n/m$ is odd, lemma \[odd\] implies that $v(C_n) \geq v(C_m)>0$. By (\[defdiv\].2), we find $v(y_n \sqrt{x_n}) \geq v(y_m \sqrt{x_m})>0$ and this implies $\D_R(y_m \sqrt{x_m}, y_n \sqrt{x_n})$.
[*Proof of $\Leftarrow$.*]{} Choose a valuation $v$ that belongs to an odd order primitive divisor of $C_m$ from $R$. Then claim (\[defdiv\].2) implies that $v(y_m\sqrt{x_m})$ is positive and odd. The assumption means that $2v(y_n \sqrt{x_n}) > v(y_m \sqrt{x_m}) > 0$ (or similarly with $n$ replaced by $m+n$). Formula (\[defdiv\].1) implies that one of the following two cases has to occur: $v(C_n)>0$ or $v(A_n)>0$. In the first case, since $v$ is primitive for $C_m$, we find that $m|n$ from Lemma \[Cdiv\]. In the second case, note that $A_n$ divides $B_{2n}$ (\[Moh\](ii)), so $B_{2n}$ and $C_m$ have a common divisor $v$. We will prove that $v$ is a primitive divisor of $B_{2m}$. Since $v(B_{2n})>0$, we will find from this that $m|n$.
By \[Moh\] (ii), we have an identity $$C_m = \frac{B_{2m}}{2A_m B_m}. \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{defdiv}.3)}}}$$ Should $v(B_m)>0$, then $v(B_{2m})=v(B_m)+v(2)$, and hence (as $A_m$ and $B_m$ are coprime) $v(C_m)=0$, a contradiction. Hence $$v(B_m)=0 \mbox{ and } v(B_{2m})>v(2A_m). \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{defdiv}.4)}}}$$ Since $v$ is primitive for $C_m$, we have $v(C_i)=0$ if $i|m, \ i<m$. Recall $v(B_m)=0$, and since $\{B_\ast\}$ is a divisibility sequence, $v(B_i)=0$ for all $i$ as before. Hence for such $i$, we find from (\[defdiv\].3): $$i|m, \ i<m \Rightarrow v(B_{2i})=v(2A_i). \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{defdiv}.5)}}}$$
Suppose that $m/i$ is odd. Since $\{A_\ast\}$ forms an odd divisibility sequence (by \[odd\]), should $v(A_i)>0$, then $v(A_m)>0$. But since we assume $b$ squarefree, $A_m$ and $C_m$ are coprime, so we cannot have $v(A_m)>0$ and $v(C_m)>0$. Hence $v(A_i)=0$ for all $v$ and so by (\[defdiv\].5), $v(B_{2i})=0$ for all $i|m$, unless $v=v_2$. For $v=v_2$, we find instead that $v(B_{2i})=v(2A_i)=1$, and hence $v(B_{2m})=v(B_{\frac{m}{i} \cdot 2i}) = v(B_{2i})=1$ by the formal group law, since $m/i$ is odd. But since $v(C_m)>0$, we have $v(B_{2m})>1$ from (\[defdiv\].3). This is a contradiction.
For the general case ($m/i$ not odd), write $m/i = 2^l \cdot k$ with $k$ odd. We conclude from the previous reasoning that $v(B_{2^{l+1} i})=0$, but since $\{B_\ast\}$ forms a divisibility sequence, we find from this that also $v(B_{2i})=0$.
Recall that $v(B_m)=0$ and hence $v(B_i)=0$ for all $i|m$. We conclude from this and $v(B_{2i})=0$ that $v$ is also primitive for $B_{2m}$. But remember we had $v(B_{2n})>0$. Hence $2m|2n$.
#### **Remarks.**
(i) It might be possible to remove the assumption that $b$ or $a^2-4b$ be squarefree, but then (\[defdiv\].2) changes.
\(ii) We work with $\{ C_\ast \}$ because $C_n$ is an algebraic function of the coordinates of $nP$ “up to squares” (\[defdiv\].1). It has been suggested in the past that $m|n$ is equivalent to $\D_R(\sqrt{x_m},\sqrt{x_n})$, but this is wrong in two ways: if $n/m$ is even, then “zeros” of $x_m$ are not zeros of $x_n$; and in general, “poles” of $x_m$ are “poles” of $x_n$ of [*larger*]{} order (in particular, if $n/m$ is divisible by that pole). In case of an isotrivial elliptic curve over a rational function field, this problem doesn’t occur ([@Pheidas], esp. 2.2), since the order stays equal.
Not to obscure the proof too much, we have not included the following stronger statement in the original statement of the theorem:
#### **Proposition/Definition.**
\[weakprim\]
*The conclusion of the above theorem \[defdiv\] still holds if one replaces the $R$-odd-primitivity condition of $\{ C_\ast \}$ by the following weaker condition:*
> All terms $C_{2^a p^b}$ for $a,b$ positive integers and $p$ any odd prime have a primitive odd order divisor from $R$.
The only part of the proof that changes is the proof of $\Leftarrow$. Set $a=v_2(m)$. If $p$ is an odd prime such that $v_p(m)=b>0$, choose a primitive odd divisor $v$ for $C_{2^a p^b}$ from $R$ based on the assumption. Since $m/2^a p^b$ is odd, lemma \[odd\] implies that $v(C_m)$ is odd, so the assumption of the theorem assures us that $v(C_n)>0$. We can then proceed as before with $m$ replaced by $2^a p^b$ to conclude $2^a p^b |n$. Since this holds for any odd $p$, we find $m|n$.
We now suggest the following conjecture about the sequences $\{C_\ast\}$:
#### **Conjecture.** {#GC}
*The following exist:*
an elliptic curve over $\Q$, such that $E$ has Weierstrass form $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$ (in particular, a rational 2-torsion point) with $b$ and $a^2-4b$ squarefree;
a point $P$ of infinite order on $E$ with associated odd divisibility sequence $\{C_\ast\}$;
a set $R$ of prime numbers such that ${\mathcal D}_R$ is diophantine over $\Q$; and such that $\{ C_\ast \}$ is (weakly) $R$-odd-primitive.
#### **Theorem.** {#thmGC}
[*Assume Conjecture \[GC\]. Then $(\Z,+,|)$ has a three-dimensional diophantine model in $\Q$.*]{}
Immediate from \[diodefE\], \[defdiv\] and \[weakprim\], observing that $a=\pm y_n \sqrt{x_n}$ for $(x_n,y_n) \in T_r$ is diophantine over $\Q$.
#### **Proposition (($C$)-elliptic Zsigmondy’s theorem).**
*Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\Q$ and $P$ a point of infinite order in $E(\Q)$ of sufficiently large height. Let $R$ denote the set of all finite valuations of $\Q$. Then*
$\{B_\ast\}$ is $R$-primitive.
If $(0,0) \in E[2]$, then $\{ C_\ast \}$ is $R$-primitive.
If $E$ has $j$-invariant $j=0$ or $j=1728$, then the $ABC$-conjecture implies that $\{B_\ast\}$ and $\{ C_\ast \}$ (for $(0,0) \in E[2]$) are $R$-odd-primitive.
The crucial statement is Siegel’s theorem on integral points on an elliptic curve (cf. [@SilvermanAEC], IX 3.3), which implies that $A_n$ and $B_n$ are both of order of magnitude the height of $nP$.
For $B_\ast$, (i) is the usual elliptic Zsigmondy’s theorem, first proven by Silverman in [@SilvWief], Lemma 9. The same proof works for the sequence $\{ A_* \}$; we include a variation of the proof for completeness.
Suppose that $A_n$ doesn’t have a primitive divisor. We will show that $n$ is absolutely bounded, so changing $P$ to some multiple, we get the result. We claim that there exists a set $W$ of distinct divisors $d$ of $n$ with all $d>1$ such that $$A_n \ | \ n \prod_{ d \in W} A_{\frac{n}{d}}.$$ We can then finish the proof as follows: We get $$\log |A_n| \leq \log n + \sum_{d \in W} \log |A_{\frac{n}{d}}|.$$ Let $m$ denote the canonical height of $P$. Classical height estimates give $\log |A_{\frac{n}{d}}| \leq \left( \frac{n}{d} \right)^2 m + O(1)$. They combine with Siegel’s theorem (“$|A_n|$ and $|B_n|$ are of the same size”) to give for any $\varepsilon>0$, $(1-\varepsilon)n^2 m \leq \log |A_n|$. Since $${\displaystyle \sum\limits_{d \in W} \frac{1}{d^2} < \zeta(2)-1} \mbox{ (recall: $d>1$ for $d \in W$),}$$ we find after insertion of these estimates into the above formula: $$(2-\varepsilon -\zeta(2)) m n^2 \leq \log(n) + O(1),$$ and this bounds $n$ absolutely.
For the proof of the claim: by assumption, any prime $p$ dividing $A_n$ divides $A_m$ for some $m<n$. Then also $p|A_{(m,n)}$ (as in the proof of \[Cdiv\]), so we can assume $m|n$ and $n/m$ odd. Hence $v_p(A_n)=v_p(A_m)+v_p(n/m)$ (\[odd\] (iii)). Run through all $p$ in this way, and pick such an $m$ for each $p$. If $v_p(A_n)=v_p(A_m)$, then let $d:=n/m \in W$. Then $v_p(A_n)=v_p(A_{\frac{n}{d}})$. If, on the other hand, $v_p(A_n)>v_p(A_m)$, then we must have $p|\frac{n}{m}$. In this case, set $d:=p \in W$. Then $v_p(A_n) = v_p(A_{\frac{n}{d}})+1$. Indeed, we only have to prove that $v_p(A_{\frac{n}{d}})>0$ since we get the implication by the formal group law formula as $p$ is odd. Now since $v_p(A_m)>0$ and $n/mp$ is an odd integer, the same formula implies that $v_p(A_{\frac{n}{p}})=v_p(A_m)+v_{p(\frac{n}{mp}})>0$, and we are done.
To finish the proof of the proposition, the statement is true for $C_\ast$, since it is the $A_\ast$-sequence of the isogenous curve $E'$ (as observed before). We note that (iii) for $\{ B_\ast \}$ is Lemma 13 in [@SilvWief], and a similar argument works for $\{ C_\ast \}$.
#### **Remarks.**
(i) We don’t know whether ${\mathcal D}_R$ for $R$ the full set of valuations is diophantine over $\Q$. This would be quite a strong statement. For example, if we write a rational number $x$ as $x=x_0 \cdot x_1^2$ with for any $v \in R$ such that $v(x_0) \neq 0$, one has $v(x_0)$ odd and $v(x_1)=0$, then ${\mathcal D}_R(x^{-1},1)$ expresses that $x_0$ is an integer.
\(ii) Using elliptic Zsigmondy and a proof similar to (but easier than) that of theorem \[defdiv\], one can prove that $m|n \iff B_m | B_n \iff \mbox{rad}(B_m)|B_n$. However, we don’t know that the formula $\Fr(x,y) : (\forall v)(v(x)<0 \Rightarrow v(y) < 0)$ is equivalent to a diophantine formula $\mathcal{D}'(x,y)$ in $\Q$. If so, then $\mathcal{D}'(x_m,x_n)$ would be a diophantine definition of $m|n$ in $\Q$. But then again, “$\mathcal{D}'(x,1)$” would be a diophantine definition of $\Z$ in $\Q$.
#### **A diophantine predicate.**
We will now investigate in how far one can construct sets $R$ for which ${\mathcal D}_R$ is diophantine over $\Q$. In [@Pheidas], Pheidas has produced a diophantine definition over $\Q$ that says of two rational numbers $x$ and $y$ that for any prime $p = 3$ mod 4, we have $v_p(x) > v_p(y^2)$ (and some extra conditions). This was consequently extended to all primes inert in a given quadratic extension of $\Q$ by Van Geel and Zahidi at Oberwolfach ([@ZahidiVanGeel]), but still involving extra conditions. Finally, Demeyer and Van Geel have proven the following (for an arbitrary extension of global fields, but we only state it for $\Q$):
#### **Proposition.**
([@Demeyer:04]) [*For a non-square $d$, let $R_d$ denote the set of valuations of $\Q$ that are inert in $\Q(\sqrt{d})$. Then there is a (diophantine) $\Sigma_1^+$-formula equivalent to $\mathcal{D}_{R_d}(x,y)$, i.e., $t(\mathcal{D}_{R_d})=0$.*]{}
#### **Remarks.**
The proof involves the theory of quadratic forms and is very close in spirit to the proof of Pheidas, which in its turn is an attempt to analyse Julia Robinson’s definition $\mathcal R$ from the following perspective: $\mathcal R$ is essential a conjunction over all valuations $v$ of a predicate that says that a rational number $x$ is $v$-integral. The latter is expressed by the isotropy of a quaternary quadratic form that depends on $x$ and $v$. Pheidas’ analysis says that one can discard this conjunction over an infinite set of primes (but not all). It would be interesting to see whether $\mathcal{D}_{R}$ is diophantine for other sets of primes $R$ that are inert in not necessarily quadratic extensions of $\Q$. Note that one can define $v(x) \geq 0$ for all $v$ not completely split in a cyclic extension of $\Q$ of degree $q$ (with finitely many exceptions on $v$), but for $x \in {\bf Z}[T^{-1}]$ where $T$ is the complement of finitely many primes, instead of $x \in {\bf Q}$ (Shlapentokh [@Shlap], 4.4.6).
#### **Corollary.** {#dir}
[*For any finite set $D$ of fundamental discriminants, set $$R_D := \bigcup\limits_{d \in D} R_{d}.$$ Then $\mathcal{D}_{R_D}$ is expressible by a $\Sigma_1^+$-formula. In particular, there are sets of primes $R$ of arbitrary high Dirichlet density $<1$ for which $\mathcal{D}_R$ is diophantine*]{}.
The first claim is automatic, since a finite disjunction of $\Sigma_1^+$-formul[æ]{} is equivalent to a $\Sigma_1^+$-formula. For the second statement, choose all $\Q(\sqrt{d})$ for $d \in D$ linearly disjoint, then $R_D$ is the complement of the set of primes that split completely in the compositum $L$ of all $\Q(\sqrt{d})$ for $d \in D$, and this complement has Dirichlet density $1/|L|=1/2^{|D|}$ (by Chebotarev’s or weaker density theorems), which can be made arbitrary small $\neq 0$ by increasing $|D|$.
Based on this information, we change our conjecture to the following, the plausibility of which will be discussed in another section, and that will be used here as input for our main theorem.
#### **Conjecture.** {#SC}
*The following exist:*
\(a) an elliptic curve over $\Q$, such that $E$ has Weierstrass form $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx$ (in particular, a rational 2-torsion point) with $b$ squarefree;
\(b) a point $P$ of infinite order on $E$ with associated odd divisibility sequence $\{C_\ast\}$;
\(c) a finite set $D$ of quadratic discriminants such that $\{ C_\ast \}$ is (weakly) $R_D$-odd-primitive.
As before, we get:
#### **Theorem.** {#thmSC}
[*Assume Conjecture \[SC\]. Then $(\Z,+,|)$ has a diophantine model in $\Q$.* ]{}
\[x\]
#### **Lemma.** {#lemma.}
\[lemdiv\] [*There exists a $\Sigma_3^+$-formula $\Fr$ in $(\Z,+,|,\neq)$ such that for integers $m,n,k$, we have $k=m \cdot n \iff \Fr(m,n,k)$.*]{}
The first part of the proof is very similar to that of Lipshitz for ${\bf N}$ in [@Lip3]. To define multiplication by a $\Sigma_3^+$-formula, it suffices to define squaring by a $\Pi_2^+$-formula, since $x=mn \iff 2x = (m+n)^2-m^2-n^2$ (translating this as $(\exists u,v,w,s)(x+x+u+v=w \wedge u=m^2 \wedge v=n^2 \wedge w=s^2 \wedge s=m+n)$).
We first claim that $y=x^2$ if and only if $(\forall t) (\phi (x,y,t))$, where $\phi$ is the formula
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi & : & x|y\wedge x+1|y+x\wedge x-1|y-x\wedge \\ & & \left(( x|t\wedge x+1|t+x\wedge
x-1|t-x)\Rightarrow (y+x|t+x\wedge y-x|t-x)\right )\end{aligned}$$
Indeed, the first three divisibilities imply $y=u x$ with $u \in {\bf Z}$ and $|x+1|\leq|u+1|$ and $|x-1|\leq|u-1|$. Taking $t=x^{2}$, the divisibilities following the implication sign imply $|x+1|\geq|u+1|$ and $|x-1|\geq|u-1|$. Hence $x+1=\pm (u +1)$ and $x-1=\pm (u-1)$. If in either of the two equalities, the equality holds with a positive sign we get that $u=x$ and hence $y=x^2$. The case $x-1=-u+1$ and $x+1=-u-1$ leads to a contradiction. The other direction is easy.
Rewriting the formula $\phi$ as an atomic formula using the recipe from Lemma \[prenex\], we see that the replacement of the implication in $\phi$ by disjunction introduces (non-positive) expressions of the form “$a$ does not divide $b$”. We will now show how to replace this by a positive existential statement in $(\Z,+,|,\neq)$.
Observe that $g$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ in $\Z$ (notation: $(g)=(a,b)$) if and only if $$g|a \wedge g|b \wedge (\exists x,y)(a|x \wedge b|x \wedge g=x+y). \leqno{\indent\textrm{{\rm (\ref{lemdiv}.1)}}}$$ Indeed, the first two divisibilities imply an inclusion of ideals $(a,b) \subseteq (g)$, and the existential statement implies that $g \in (a,b)$.
Now $a$ doesn’t divide $b$ if and only if $(a) \neq (a;b)$, and this can be rewritten as $$(\exists g,g')((g)=(a,b) \wedge g+g'=0 \wedge a \neq g \wedge a \neq g'),$$ which is a positive existential formula in $(\Z,+,|,\neq)$, after substitution of (\[lemdiv\].1).
#### **Theorem.** {#42}
[*Assume Conjecture \[GC\] or \[SC\]. Then $\Z$ has a model $D$ in $\Q$ with complexity $t(D)\leq 1$, $c(D)\leq 1$; and the $\Sigma_3^+$-theory ($=\Sigma_3$-theory) of $\Q$ is undecidable.*]{}
Picking an elliptic curve as in one of the conjectures, we find a three-dimensional diophantine model of $(\Z,+,|)$ in $(\Q,+,\times)$ as in Theorem \[thmGC\] or \[thmSC\]. Now observe that $0$ is also definable in the model by an atomic formula, and that $n \neq 0$ is also definable in the model by an existential formula, cf. Lemma \[diodefE\]. Hence each of the conjectures actually imply that $(\Z,+,|,0,\neq)$ is definable in $\Q$.
Now $\times$ is defined by a $\Sigma^+_3$-formula in $(\Z,+,|,\neq)$ with only one universal quantifier; in particular, $t(\iota(\times)) \leq 1$ and $c(\iota(\times)) \leq 1$ for the induced model $D$ of $\Z$ in $\Q$. By \[undecQ\], we conclude that $t(D)\leq 1$, $c(D)\leq 1$ and that the $\Sigma_3^+$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable.
#### **Remark.** {#remark.-10}
The trick of replacing non-divisibilities by existential sentences in the lemma (communicated to us by Pheidas) is crucial. The negation of a diophantine formula expressing divisibility (as it comes out of our conjecture) is a universal formula that leads to a model of the same complexity as Julia Robinson’s.
\[pi2\]
Theorem \[42\] is our main result about the complexity of a model of $\Z$ in $\Q$. Although the model given there is $\Sigma_3^+$, we can slightly alter the method to (conditionally) prove the existence of undecidable formul[æ]{} in $\Q$ of complexity $\Pi_2^+$.
#### **Lemma**
. \[pi-undec\] [*The $\Pi_2^+$-theory of $(\Z,+,|)$ is undecidable.*]{}
The proof is entirely analogous to that for ${\bf N}$ by Lipshitz in [@Lip3]. By Lemma \[lemdiv\], we know that squaring is definable in $({\mathbf
Z},+,|)$ by a $\Pi_2^+$-formula. The proof of \[lemdiv\] actually shows that if one allows negated divisibilities, the defining formula can be taken to be a $\Pi_1$-formula. It is easily seen that the $\Sigma_1^+$-theory of the structure $({\mathbf
Z},+,x\rightarrow x^2)$ is undecidable (since multiplication is existentially definable). We obtain that the $\Sigma_2$-theory of $({\mathbf Z},+,|)$ is undecidable. Since the negation of a $\Sigma_2$-formula is a $\Pi_2$-formula, we obtain that the $\Pi_2$-theory of $({\mathbf Z},+,|)$ is undecidable. This means that sentences of the form: $$\forall {\mathbf x}\exists {\mathbf y} \phi({\mathbf x},{\mathbf y})$$ (with $\phi $ quantifier free) are undecidable. However $\phi $ may still contain negated divisibilities and inequations. These can be eliminated as in the proof of \[lemdiv\] at the expense of introducing extra existential quantifiers. Thus, any $\Pi_2$-sentence is equivalent to a $\Pi_2^+$-sentence and hence the $\Pi_2^+$-theory of $({\mathbf Z},+,|)$ is undecidable.
We now need the following extension of Lemma \[compl-change\]:
#### **Proposition.**
\[compl-change2\]
*Let $(D,\io)$ be a diophantine model of $(\Z,+,|)$ in $(\Q,+,\times)$, such that membership of $D$ is quantifier-free. In the following table, the second column lists the positive hierarchical status of the formula $\io(\Fr)$ as a function of the status of $\Fr$:*
$\Fr $ $\io(\Fr)$
------------------------ ---------------------
$\Sigma_{2n}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+1}^{+}$
$\Sigma_{2n+1}^{+}$ $\Sigma_{2n+1}^{+}$
$\Pi_{2n}^{+}\; (n>0)$ $\Pi_{2n}^{+}$
$\Pi_{2n+1}^{+}$ $\Pi_{2n+2}^{+}$
(note: inclusion of a formula in a class of the hierarchy means that the formula is equivalent to a formula in that class).
The proof is completely analogous to the proof \[compl-change\].
#### **Theorem.** {#theorem.}
\[undecQ2\] [*Assume Conjecture \[GC\] or \[SC\]. Then the $\Pi_2^+$-theory of $\Q$ is undecidable. Furthermore the subset of sentences of $\Pi_2^+$ with $t$-complexity $1$ is already undecidable.*]{}
Follows immediately from \[thmGC\], \[thmSC\], \[pi-undec\] and \[compl-change2\].
\[conj\]
#### **Different versions of the conjecture.**
Our conjecture is merely about the existence of [*one*]{} elliptic curve, but one can of course also investigate whether the conjecture might be true for any elliptic curve $E$ with a point of infinite order on it. The conjecture then becomes a kind of elliptic Zsigmondy conjecture with odd order and inertial conditions. It then seems natural to also look at the conjecture for $\{ B_\ast \}$ instead of $\{ C_\ast \}$, although we don’t know of a direct application to logic. We now first list these variants of the conjecture in a more precise way:
#### **(Odd-)inertial $C$-elliptic Zsigmondy’s conjecture.**
\[ICZ\] [*For every elliptic curve $E$ in Weierstrass form such that $(0,0) \in E[2]$ and every rational point $P$ of infinite order and sufficiently large height, the associated odd divisibility sequence $\{ C_\ast \}$ is (weakly) $R_D$-(odd-)primitive for some $D$.*]{}
#### **(Odd-)inertial elliptic Zsigmondy’s conjecture.**
\[IZ\] [*For every elliptic curve $E$ in generalised Weierstrass form and every rational point $P$ of infinite order and sufficiently large height, the associated elliptic divisibility sequence $\{ B_\ast \}$ is (weakly) $R_D$-(odd)-primitive for some $D$.*]{}
It is hard to falsify these conjectures, because if one finds a multiple of a given point $P$ for which the divisibility sequences under consideration has [*no*]{} primitive odd order divisor from a given $R_D$, one simply takes a multiple of $P$ or enlarges the set of discriminants. But if the height of $P$ becomes too large, one can no longer factor $B_n$ or $C_n$ in reasonable time with existing algorithms, and if the height of $P$ is too small, then $B_n$ or $C_n$ could be non-typical (e.g., prime) for small $n$ (similar problems occur in [@EverestWard]). We will therefore refrain from presenting extensive numerical computation, but rather present some heuristics and remarks below, and a density version of the conjecture in the next section.
#### **Heuristic arguments.**
\[heur\]
We start from the following observation:
(\[heur\].1) (Landau-Serre [@Serre] 2.8) [*Let $M$ be a multiplicative set of positive non-zero integers (i.e., $xy \in M \iff x \in M \vee y \in M$), and assume that the set of prime numbers in $M$ is frobenian with density $\delta>0$ (i.e., every sufficiently large prime $p$ belongs to $M$ exactly if its Frobenius morphism belongs to a fixed subset $H$ of the Galois group $G$ of some fixed number field with $H$ stable under conjugation by $G$ and $\delta=|H|/|G|$). Then the probability that a given number $x$ belongs to the complement of $M$ admits an asymptotic expansion $$\log(x)^{-\delta} (\sum_{i=0}^N c_i \log(x)^{-i} +O(\log(x)^{-(N+1)}))$$ with $c_0>0$, for any positive integer $N$.*]{}
We can now “prove” heuristically:
(\[heur\].2) [*Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\Q$. Then set $A=E(\Q)-E(\Z[\frac{1}{R_D}])$ of points whose denominators are only divisible by primes outside $R_D$ is heuristically finite if $|D|$ is large enough.*]{}
Let $M$ denote the set of integers having at least one factor from $R_D$. Then $M$ is multiplicative, and a prime $p$ belongs to $M$ exactly if $p$ is not completely split in the compositum $L=\Q(\sqrt{d_1},\dots\sqrt{d_N})$, where $D=\{d_1,\dots,d_N\}$. This is the same as saying that the Frobenius element of $p$ belongs to $H=\mbox{Gal}(L/\Q)-\{1\}$. Note that $H$ is stable under conjugation, and that $\delta:=|G|/|H|=1-1/2^N>0$.
We approximate the probability that a number is outside $M$ by the first order term in (\[heur\].1) — in the considerations below, any finite order truncation actually gives the same result. We consider the set $$A_x=\{ P \in E(\Q)-E(\Z[\frac{1}{R_D}]) : \hat{h}(P) \leq x \}.$$ We find for large $x$, $$|A_x| \approx \sum_{{{P \in E(\Q)}\atop{\hat{h}(P) \leq x}}} \hat{h}(P)^{-\delta}.$$ We now pick a basis $\{ P_i \}_{i=1}^r$ for the free part of $E(\Q)$ and write any $P \in E(\Q)$ as $\sum \lambda_i P_i+T$ with $\lambda_i \in \Z$ and $T \in E(\Q)_{{\rm tor}}$. Then $\hat{h}(P) \approx ||\lambda||^2 \cdot \log c$ for some constant $c$, an the above sum becomes $$|A_x| \approx \sum_{{\lambda \in \Z^r-\{0\}}\atop{||\lambda||^2 \leq x}} ||\lambda||^{-2\delta}.$$ We group terms with $||\lambda||=m$ for a fixed integer $m$: $$|A_x| \approx \sum_{m=1}^{\sqrt{x}} m^{r-1} \cdot m^{-2\delta}.$$ We let $x \rightarrow \infty$, and find that $A$ is finite if this sum converges, which happens exactly for $2\delta-r+1 > 1$, i.e., $\delta>r/2$. This can be attained for $N$ sufficiently large.
With $r=1$, this implies that $B_n$ doesn’t have a divisor in $R_D$ only for finitely many $n$ as soon as $|D| \geq 2$. Applying it to the isogenous curve $E'$, it implies the same for $\{A_\ast\}$ and hence $\{C_\ast\}$.
Actually, the primitive part of $B_n$ is of size at least $\hat{h}(P)^{0.6 \cdot n^2}$ (cf. Silverman [@SilvWief], Lemma 9 for an estimate $\hat{h}(P)^{n^2/3}$ and [@Streng] for a proof with a factor 0.6, using elliptic transcendence theory). We can apply the same argument to the primitive part of $B_n$. Furthermore, taking the $ABC$-conjecture for granted, if $E$ has $j$-invariant $0$ or $1728$, then we even know that the squarefree primitive part of $B_n$ is of the same order (Lemma 13 in loc. cit.), and this gives a heuristical proof of $R_D$-odd-primitivity for $|D| \geq 2$ on such curves.
(\[heur\].3) One might note the following about the error term in (\[heur\].1): Shanks [@Shanks] analysed (\[heur\].1) in case $M$ is the complement of the set of sums of two squares (cf. Ramanujan’s first letter to Hardy) and noted that the first two terms give an accuracy of only $0.005$ at $x=10^7$.
(\[heur\].4) Note further that for $E$ having a rational 2-torsion point, $B_n$ can be prime only finitely often, as follows from [@Everest] (since it arises as image sequence under an isogeny). It is actually conjectured (see loc. cit.) that $B_n$ can only be prime for $n \leq K$ and some constant $K$ independent of $E$ and $P$; this is related to the elliptic Lehmer problem. It is reasonable to expect that $B_n$ has $m$ distinct odd order primitive prime factors as soon as $n \geq K$ for some constant $K$ only depending on $P$ and $E$ and $m$ (and maybe even only $m$). Granting that the (many) prime factors of $B_n$ are equidistributed over residue classes, the probability that at least one of the them is inert in a given $\Q(\sqrt{d})$ is very high.
#### **Further remarks.** {#remconj}
\(i) One can wonder whether the property of being $R_D$-primitive is very sensitive to the choice of $D$, so ask whether it is true that [*for every elliptic curve $E$ (respectively, such that $(0,0) \in E[2]$) and every non-empty set $D$ of discriminants, for every rational point $P$ of infinite order and sufficiently large height, $B_n$ (respectively $C_n$) satisfies the $R_D$-primitivity condition*]{}. There is some evidence that the $R_D$-primitive part doesn’t behave the same for all $D$. For example, if $E$ has complex multiplication by some $d
\in D$, there appear to be “more” split primes. This is explained by a Zsigmondy’s theorem for an interpolation of the usual elliptic divisibility sequence by a sequence indexed by all endomorphisms of the curve, see Streng [@Streng]. Another example is Rubin’s proof in \[exa\].
\(ii) It is interesting to observe that the multiplicative group (disguised as the Fibonacci sequence) played an essential rôle in the original proof of ${\rm HTP}(\Z)$. However, the analogue of our conjectures for linear recurrent sequences or the multiplicative group, i.e., an “inertial classical Zsigmondy’s theorem”, is almost certainly false. Let us reason heuristically for the sequence $\{a^n-1\}_{n \geq 1}$ for fixed $a$. The probability that $a^n-1$ is divisible only by primes outside $R_D$ is $[\log(a^n-1)]^{-\delta}$ with $\delta=1-1/2^{|D|}$ (cf. (\[heur\].1)), so the number of $n \leq x$ for which this holds is approximately $$\sum\limits_{n \leq x} \log[(a^n-1)]^{-\delta} \approx \ \sum\limits_{n \leq x} n^{-\delta}$$ which diverges if $x \rightarrow \infty$ for all $\delta$. Also, a general term of such a sequence (if $a$ is not composite) can be prime infinitely often. This is why we really need elliptic curves.
\(iii) It is easy to formulate an analogue of the above conjecture for elliptic curves over global function fields. Especially in the case of an isotrivial curve (e.g., the “Manin-Denef curve” $f(t)y^2=f(x)$), some information can be found in the literature, cf. [@Pheidas].
Another function field analogue of \[IZ\] is the following: let $\phi$ be a rank-2 $\F_q[T]$-Drinfeld module over $\F_q(T)$ (see, e.g. [@Goss]). If $x \in \F_q[T]$ is a polynomial of sufficiently large degree with $\phi_a(x) \neq 0$ for all $a \in \F_q[T]$, then for all polynomials $n$, $\phi_n(x)$ is divisible by an irreducible polynomial $\wp$ coprime to $\phi_m(x)$ for all $m$ of degree $\deg(m)<\deg(n)$, such that $\wp$ is inert in at least one of $\F(T)(\sqrt{d})$ for $d$ in a finite set of polynomials. A Drinfeld module analogue of Zsigmondy’s theorem was proven by Hsia ([@Hsia]).
\(iv) The weaker statement that every $C_n/C_1$ has an odd order divisor from $R_d$, but not necessarily primitive, is equivalent to the fact that each of the “fibrations in conics over $E$” $$C/C_1=f(X,Y) \wedge C^2=A^4+aA^2B^2+bB^4$$ has only finitely many rational (${\bf P}^1$-)fibres over $E$, where $f$ runs over the classes of binary quadratic forms of the correct discriminant. For example, since $\Q(\sqrt{5})$ has class number one, related to example \[exa\] is the diophantine equation $$(A^2+B^2)(A^2+11B^2)= 3^2 \cdot 5^2 \cdot (X^2-5Y^2)^2,$$ a smooth projective K3-surface whose rational points should be found. One is reminded of the trouble deciding whether or not Martin Davis’s equation has finitely many solutions (cf. Shanks and Wagstaff [@Shanks2], again using Landau-Serre type estimates).
\(v) In conjecture \[IZ\], one can move the point $P$ to $(0,0)$ by a rational change of coordinates. Then the conjecture becomes purely a statement about the division points on $E$, as we then have $$B_n^2 = \pm n^2 \prod_{Q \in E[n]} x(Q).$$
\(vi) If $E$ has complex multiplication, then one has a divisibility sequence $\{ B_\alpha \}$ associated to any $\alpha \in \mbox{End}(E)$ (cf. [@Chud]). A similar theory with similar conjectures can be worked out. For the analogue of Zsigmondy’s theorem, see [@Streng].
\[densversion\]
#### **Periodicity technique.**
There is a principle of periodicity of elliptic divisibility sequences that can be used to prove density versions of the conjectures. Here is an example for Conjecture \[IZ\]: the point $P=(-2,4)$ is non-singular modulo all primes and of infinite order on the curve $E \ : \ y^2=x^3+7x^2+2x$. The sequence $\{B_\ast\}$ for $P$ starts as $(1,2^2,3\cdot 11,2^3 \cdot 5^2, \dots)$ up to signs.
#### **Definition.** {#definition.-2}
The [*rank of apparition*]{} $\rho_p=\rho_p(X_\ast)$ of a prime $p$ in a sequence $\{ X_\ast \}$ is the smallest $n$ for which $p|X_n$.
#### **Periodicity** {#Per}
(Morgan Ward [@Ward:48], section III). [*Assume that the sign of $B_n$ is chosen so that $B_n=\psi_n(P)$ for the classical division polynomial $\psi_n$. Assume $p>3$ has rank of apparition $\rho_p>3$ in $\{ B_\ast \}$. Then that sequence is periodic with period $\pi_p$ given by $$\pi_p = \rho_p \cdot 2^{a_p} \cdot \tau_p,$$ where $\tau_p$ is the least common multiple of the (multiplicative) orders $\epsilon$ and $\kappa$ of $B_{\rho_p-1}$ and $B_{\rho_p-2}/B_2$ modulo $p$, respectively; and where $a_p=1$ if both $\epsilon$ and $\kappa$ are odd, $a_p=-1$ if both $\epsilon$ and $\kappa$ are divisible by the same power of $2$, and $a_p=0$ otherwise.*]{}
We now look at the behaviour of the Jacobi symbol of $B_\ast$ modulo a given prime $p$. To avoid sign problems, we choose $p = 1$ mod $4$. For example, our sequence is periodic modulo $5$ with period 8. Hence the sequence of Jacobi symbols $(\frac{5}{B_n})=(\frac{B_n}{5})$ (by quadratic reciprocity) is periodic with the same period, and its repeats $$(1,1,-1,0,-1,1,1,0) \mbox{ mod } 5.$$ This implies that $(\frac{5}{B_n})=-1$ whenever $n=\pm 3$ mod $8$, so all $B_s$ for $s$ a prime congruent to $\pm 3$ mod $8$ have a primitive odd order divisor in $R_{5}$.
In this case, one can do a little better. Assume $n=s^e$ is a power of a prime $s= \pm 3$ mod $8$. Then for $e$ even, $s^e = 1$ mod $8$ and $s^{e-1} = \pm 3$ mod $8$, whereas for $e$ odd, we have $s^e = \pm 3$ mod $8$ and $s^{e-1} = 1$ mod $8$. From periodicity, we see that in any case the Jacobi symbol of $B_{s^e}/B_{s^{e-1}}$ is $-1$, so the number is divisible by an odd order divisor in $R_{5}$. We conclude:
#### **Proposition.**
\[exadense\] [*If $\{ B_\ast \}$ is the elliptic divisibility sequence associated to $(2,-4)$ on $y^2=x^3+7x^2+2x$, then any $B_{s^e}$ for $s$ a prime number $=\pm 3$ mod 8 has a [*primitive*]{} odd order divisor from $R_5$. In particular, the set $\{ s \mbox{ prime } : \ B_s \mbox{ has a primitive odd order divisor from } R_5 \}$ has Dirichlet density at least $2/\varphi(8)=1/2$.*]{}
One can go on and create a race between inertial conditions in different $\Q(\sqrt{p})$ and the period of $\{B_\ast\}$ modulo $p$. We do this for the first few $p=$ 1 mod $5$ and the above curve and point (leaving out the easy computations). For $p=13$, the sequence has period 36 and for $s = \pm 5,7,11,13$ mod $36$, $(\frac{B_s}{13})=-1$. For $p=17$, all Kronecker symbols are positive. For $p=29$, the period is 38, and $s= \pm 9,11,15$ mod $38$ give a negative Kronecker symbol. For $p=37$, no new residue classes occur. For $p=41$, the period is $42$, and $s=\pm 13, 17$ mod $42$ have negative Kronecker symbol. For $53$, the period is $66$ and $s=\pm 5,7,25,29$ mod $66$ have negative Kronecker symbol. An easy density computation gives:
#### **Proposition.**
\[exadense2\] [*Let $\{ B_\ast \}$ denote the elliptic divisibility sequence associated to $(2,-4)$ on $y^2=x^3+7x^2+2x$, and let $D=\{5,13,29,41,53\}$. Then the set $$\{ s \mbox{ prime}\; :\; B_s \mbox{ has a primitive odd order divisor from } R_D \}$$ has Dirichlet density at least $43/45 \geq 95.5 \%$.*]{}
#### [**Remark.**]{} {#remark.-11}
It is an interesting question whether, given any elliptic divisibility sequence $B_\ast$, and $\varepsilon>0$, one can choose a set $D$ such that $$\{ s \mbox{ prime}\; :\; B_s \mbox{ has a primitive odd order divisor from } R_D \}$$ has density at least $1-\varepsilon$.
[10]{}
Mohamed Ayad. Points [$S$]{}-entiers des courbes elliptiques. , 76(3-4):305–324, 1992.
A.P. Beltjukov, Decidability of the universal theory of natural numbers with addition and divisibility. Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, VII. Zap. Naučn. Sem.Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) 60:15–28, 1976.
C. C. Chang and H. J. Keisler. . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1973. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 73.
J. Cheon and S. Hahn. Explicit valuations of division polynomials of an elliptic curve. , 97(3):319–328, 1998.
D. V. Chudnovsky and G. V. Chudnovsky. Sequences of numbers generated by addition in formal groups and new primality and factorization tests. , 7(4):385–434, 1986.
Ren[é]{} Cori and Daniel Lascar. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
Gunther Cornelissen. Stockage diophantien et hypothèse abc généralisée. , 328(Ser.I), 3–8, 1999.
Gunther Cornelissen. Elliptic curves and rational diophantine models of integer divisibility; [E]{}lliptic curves and divisibility. Unpublished manuscripts, 2000.
Gunther Cornelissen and Karim Zahidi. Topology of [D]{}iophantine sets: remarks on [M]{}azur’s conjectures. In [*Hilbert’s tenth problem: relations with arithmetic and algebraic geometry (Ghent, 1999)*]{}, volume 270 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 253–260. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
Martin Davis. Hilbert’s tenth problem is unsolvable. , 80:233–269, 1973.
Jeroen Demeyer and Jan Van Geel. An existential divisibility lemma for global fields. , 147:293–308, 2006.
Manfred Einsiedler, Graham Everest, and Thomas Ward. Primes in elliptic divisibility sequences. , 4:1–13 (electronic), 2001.
Graham Everest, Victor Miller, and Nelson Stephens. Primes generated by elliptic curves. , 132(4):955–963, 2004.
E. Victor Flynn, Franck Lepr[é]{}vost, Edward F. Schaefer, William A. Stein, Michael Stoll, and Joseph L. Wetherell. Empirical evidence for the [B]{}irch and [S]{}winnerton-[D]{}yer conjectures for modular [J]{}acobians of genus 2 curves. , 70(236):1675–1697 (electronic), 2001.
David Goss. , volume 35 of [*Ergebn. der Math. und ihrer Grenzgeb. (3)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
L.-C. Hsia. [On the reduction of a non-torsion point of a Drinfeld module]{}, preprint (2002).
Leonard Lipshitz. Undecidable existential problems for addition and divisibility in algebraic number rings. [II]{}. , 64(1):122–128, 1977.
Leonard Lipshitz. The [D]{}iophantine problem for addition and divisibility. , 235:271–283, 1978.
Leonard Lipshitz. Undecidable existential problems for addition and divisibility in algebraic number rings. , 241:121–128, 1978.
Leonard Lipshitz. Some remarks on the Diophantine problem for addition and divisibility. Proceedings of the Model Theory Meeting (Brussels/Mons, 1980). 33:41–52, 1981.
Yuri V. Matiyasevic. The Diophantineness of enumerable sets. 191:279–282, 1970.
Yuri V. Matiyasevich. Hilbert’s tenth problem. Foundations of Computing Series. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
Thanases Pheidas. An effort to prove that the existential theory of [${\bf Q}$]{} is undecidable. In [*Hilbert’s tenth problem: relations with arithmetic and algebraic geometry (Ghent, 1999)*]{}, volume 270 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 237–252. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
Bjorn Poonen. Hilbert’s tenth problem and [M]{}azur’s conjecture for large subrings of [$\mathbb Q$]{}. , 16(4):981–990, 2003.
Julia Robinson. Definability and decision problems in arithmetic. , 14:98–114, 1949.
Hartley Roger, Jr. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw-Hill,1967.
Jean-Pierre Serre. Divisibilité de certaines fonctions arithmétiques. , 22(3-4):227–260, 1976.
Daniel Shanks. The second-order term in the asymptotic expansion of [$B(x)$]{}. , 18:75–86, 1964.
Daniel Shanks and Samuel S. Wagstaff, Jr. 48 more solutions of Martin Davis’s quaternary quartic equation. , 64:1717–1731, 1995.
Alexandra Shlapentokh. . Cambridge University Press, to appear.
Joseph H. Silverman. , volume 106 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
Joseph H. Silverman. Wieferich’s criterion and the [$abc$]{}-conjecture. , 30(2):226–237, 1988.
M. Streng. Elliptic divisibility sequences with complex multiplication. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University, 2006.
Jan Van Geel and Karim Zahidi. Quadratic forms and divisibility. In: Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach Report nr. 3/2003 Mini-Workshop “Hilbert’s 10th Problem, Mazur’s conjecture and divisibility sequences”, p. 4, 2003.
Morgan Ward. Memoir on elliptic divisibility sequences. , 70:31–74, 1948.
Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Utrecht, Postbus 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht, Nederland
Email: [[email protected]]{}
Departement Wiskunde, Statistiek en Actuariaat, Universiteit Antwerpen, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgi[ë]{}
Email: [[email protected]]{}
[^1]: The words “model” and “interpretation” seem to have acquired a non-standard meaning in connection with HTP. The precise meaning will be explained in the text.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A quantum device for measuring two-body interactions, scalar magnetic fields and rotations is proposed using a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) in a ring trap. We consider an imbalanced superposition of orbital angular momentum modes with opposite winding numbers for which a rotating minimal atomic density line appears. We derive an analytical model relating the angular frequency of the minimal density line rotation to the strength of the non-linear atom-atom interactions and the difference between the populations of the counter-propagating modes. Additionally, we propose a full experimental protocol based on direct fluorescence imaging of the BEC that allows to measure all the quantities involved in the analytical model and use the system for sensing purposes.'
author:
- 'G. Pelegrí'
- 'J. Mompart'
- 'V. Ahufinger'
title: 'Quantum sensing using imbalanced counter-rotating Bose–Einstein condensate modes'
---
Introduction
============
Pushing the limits of sensing technologies is one of the main challenges in modern physics, opening the door to high-precision measurements of fundamental constants as well as applications in many different areas of science. Specifically, the development of highly-sensitive compact magnetic field sensors enables from detecting extremely weak biologically relevant signals to localize geological structures or archaeological sites [@review_magnetometers]. In this context, superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) [@review_SQUIDS1; @review_SQUIDS2] and atomic [@atomic_magnetometers; @Kominis2003; @Sheng2013; @Baumgart2016; @MitchellCold; @MitchellHot; @Kitching; @Polzik] and nitrogen-vacancy diamonds [@NV1; @NV2] magnetometers are the three main approaches that allow achieving, in a non-invasive way, unprecedented sensitivity to extremely small magnetic fields.
In particular, the extraordinary degree of control of ultracold atomic systems [@Bloch2008; @llibreveronica] makes them ideal platforms for precision measurements [@Zhang2016]. There are basically two types of ultracold atomic magnetometers depending on whether the magnetic field drives the internal or the external degrees of freedom of the atoms. The former are typically based on the detection of the Larmor spin precession of optically pumped atoms while the latter encode the magnetic field information in the spatial density profile of the matter wave. Atomic magnetometers with Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs) have been investigated, for instance, by using stimulated Raman transitions [@magnetometryRaman], probing separately the different internal states of a spinor BEC after free fall [@magnetometryfreefall], or measuring the Larmor precession in a spinor BEC [@magnetometryLarmor1; @magnetometryLarmor2; @magnetometryLarmor3; @magnetometryLarmor4; @magnetometryLarmor5]. In the latter case, sensitivity can be increased by probing spin-squeezed states [@spinsqueezed]. In [@FeshbachMiscibility], the possibility of taking profit of Feshbach resonances to use a two-component BEC as a magnetometer was also outlined. Ultracold atomic magnetometers based on detecting density fluctuations in a BEC due to the deformation of the trapping potential have also been demonstrated [@magnetometrydensity1; @magnetometrydensity2; @magnetometrydensity3].
Ring-shaped potentials for ultracold atoms are a particularly interesting trapping geometry for quantum sensing and atomtronics [@atomtronics1; @atomtronics2]. Ring potentials are currently implemented by means of a variety of techniques, such as optically plugged magnetic traps [@ring1], static Laguerre-Gauss Beams [@ring2], painting [@ring3; @ring4] and time-averaged potentials [@ring5; @ring6; @ringTaver] or conical refraction [@ring7]. In fact, persistent currents have been observed in BECs confined in annular traps [@persistent; @QuenchSupercurrent] and it has also been shown that their physical behavior is in close analogy to that of SQUIDs [@squid1; @squid2; @squid3; @squid4; @squid5; @squid6b; @squid6; @squid7; @squid8; @squid9]. It has also been suggested [@ring5; @squid5] that BECs in this trapping geometry could be used as rotation sensors, which have already been realized with superfluid $^3$He [@rotationHe] and have been proposed for matter waves based on the Sagnac effect [@Sagnac1; @Sagnac2; @Sagnac3; @Sagnac4].
In this article, we propose to use a BEC trapped in a two-dimensional (2D) ring potential for measuring with high sensitivity non-linear interactions, scalar magnetic fields and rotations. We consider an imbalanced superposition of counter-rotating Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) modes, whose spatial density distribution presents a minimal line. A weak two-body interaction between the atoms of the BEC leads to a rotation of the minimal atomic density line whose angular frequency is directly related to the strength of such interactions. This phenomenon is somehow reminiscent of the propagation of gray solitons, which originate in repulsively interacting BECs due to a compensation between the kinetic and mean field interaction energies. In this case, however, the minimal density line appears for attractive, repulsive or even non-interacting BECs, and is a consequence of the interference between the counter-propagating modes that takes place due to the circular geometry of the system.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec1\] we describe the physical system and we derive an analytical expression that accounts for the rotation of the line of minimal density. In section \[sec2\], we take profit of this expression to propose a full experimental protocol to measure the interaction strength, which is proportional to the $s$-wave scattering length. Far from the resonant field or with a dilute enough BEC, the relation between the scattering length and the applied magnetic field given by Feshbach resonances could be exploited to use the system as a novel type of scalar magnetometer. We also outline the possibility of using the system as a rotation sensor. Finally, in section \[conclusions\] we summarize the main conclusions. In appendix \[CoupledEquations\] we derive the general equations that govern the dynamics of a BEC carrying OAM in a ring potential, and in appendix \[imaging\] we give further details about the experimental implementation of the measurement protocol.
Quantum sensing device {#sec1}
======================
![Sketch of the physical system under consideration. A BEC formed by $N$ atoms is loaded in an annular trap, with a $p_{1+}$ population of the state $\ket{1,+}$ and $p_{1-}$ population of $\ket{1,-}$. The interference between these two counter-rotating modes yields a minimum line in the probability density. $R$ is the radius of the annulus and $\sigma$ is the width of the radial harmonic potential.[]{data-label="physicalsystem"}](figure1.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Physical system
---------------
We consider a BEC formed by $N$ atoms of mass $m$ confined in the $z$ direction by a harmonic potential of frequency $\omega_z$ and in the perpendicular plane by an annular trap of radial frequency $\omega$ and radius $R$. We study the system in the limit of strong confinement along the $z$ direction; $\omega_z\gg \omega$. Under this assumption, in the limit $a_za_sn_2\ll 1$, where $a_s$ is the $s$-wave scattering length, $n_2$ the two-dimensional density of the BEC and $a_z=\sqrt{\hbar/(m\omega_z)}$ the harmonic oscillator length along the $z$ direction, the three-dimensional (3D) Gross–Pitaevskii equation (GPE) can be restricted to the $x-y$ plane by considering the profile for the BEC order parameter along the $z$ direction as a Gaussian of width $a_z$, which corresponds to its ground state along this direction [@BECbook]. In doing so, the 3D two-body interaction parameter $g_3=(N4\pi\hbar^2a_s)/m$ is transformed to its two-dimensional (2D) form $g_2=(N\sqrt{8\pi}\hbar^2a_s)/(ma_z)$ (note that in these expressions we have taken the BEC wave function to be normalized to 1). Thus, the 2D GPE that we will use to describe the system reads $$i\hbar\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}=\left[-\frac{\nabla^2}{{{2m}}}+V(r)+g_{2}|\Psi|^2\right]\Psi,
\label{GPE1}$$ where $V(r)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2(r-R)^2$ is the potential created by the ring. Furthermore, by expressing the distances in units of $\sigma=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{m\omega}}$, the energies in units of $\hbar \omega$ and time in units of $1/\omega$, we arrive at the following dimensionless form of the 2D GPE, which is the one that we will use throughout the paper $$i\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}=H\Psi=\left[-\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}|\Psi|^2\right]\Psi,
\label{GPE}$$ where all quantities are now expressed in terms of the above defined units and the dimensionless non-linear interaction parameter is given by $$g_{2d}=Na_s\sqrt{\frac{8\pi m \omega_{z}}{\hbar}}.
\label{g2d}$$
The system supports stationary states with a well-defined total OAM $l$ and positive or negative winding number, which we denote as $\ket{l,\pm}$. The OAM eigenstates have the wave functions $$\braket{\vec{r}|l,\pm}=\phi_{l\pm}(\vec{r})=\phi_{l\pm}(r,\varphi)=f_{l}(r)e^{\pm i l\varphi},
\label{OAMstates}$$ where $f_l(r)$ is the corresponding radial part of the wave function.
Dynamics in the weakly interacting regime
-----------------------------------------
Let us consider as initial state an imbalanced superposition of the $\ket{1,+}$ and $\ket{1,-}$ states, with $n_{1\pm} \equiv p_{1+}-p_{1-}$ being the population imbalance. Such state could be realized for instance by preparing the BEC in the ground state of the ring, imprinting a $2\pi$ round phase and momentarily breaking the cylindrical symmetry of the potential to induce a coupling between the degenerate states of positive and negative circulation [@reversingcirculation; @geometricallyinduced] or by directly transferring OAM with a laser beam [@OAMLightAtoms].
Due to parity reasons, the non-linear term in the GPE can only couple OAM states with odd total OAM $l$, see appendix \[CoupledEquations\] for a more detailed justification. Thus, we can write the total wave function at any time $t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(\vec{r},t)&=\sum_{l\,{\rm odd}}\sum_{\beta=\pm} a_{l\beta}(t)\phi_{l\beta}(\vec{r}).
\label{FSM}\end{aligned}$$ Since we focus on the weakly interacting regime, we consider that the only higher energetic states with a relevant role in the dynamics are $\ket{3,+}$ and $\ket{3,-}$. In order to simplify the forthcoming analytical expressions, we assume that the radial part of the wave functions are the ones of the ring potential ground state, i.e. we take $f_l(r)=f_0(r)$ in Eq. . This is an excellent approximation as long as the width of the the density profile of the BEC along the radial direction is much smaller than the radius of the ring, which is always the case in the weakly interacting regime.
The time evolution of the probability amplitudes $a_{l\pm}(t)$ ($l=1,3$) is obtained by substituting into the GPE (see appendix \[CoupledEquations\] for details) $$i\frac{d}{dt}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{1+}\\
a_{1-}\\
a_{3+}\\
a_{3-}
\end{pmatrix}
=H_{\text{FSM}}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{1+}\\
a_{1-}\\
a_{3+}\\
a_{3-}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{dynamicsFSM}$$ where the four-state model (FSM) Hamiltonian reads
$$H_{\text{FSM}}
=U
\begin{pmatrix}
\mu_1/U&\rho_{1+1-}+\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1-3-}&\rho^*_{1+1-}+\rho_{1+3+}+\rho^*_{1-3-}
&\rho_{1+3-}+\rho^*_{1-3+}\\
\rho^*_{1+1-}+\rho_{1+3+}+\rho^*_{1-3-}&\mu_1/U&\rho^*_{1+3-}+\rho_{1-3+}
&\rho_{1+1-}+\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1-3-}\\
\rho_{1+1-}+\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1-3-}&\rho_{1+3-}+\rho^*_{1-3+}&\mu_3/U&\rho_{3+3-}\\
\rho^*_{1+3-}+\rho_{1-3+}&\rho^*_{1+1-}+\rho_{1+3+}+\rho^*_{1-3-}&\rho^*_{3+3-}&\mu_3/U\\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{hamFSM}$$
where $\rho_{i\pm j\pm}\equiv a_{i\pm}a^*_{j\pm}$ with $i,j=1,3$ are the density matrix elements, $\mu_{l}$ the chemical potential of the ${l=1,3}$ OAM states, $H\phi_{l\pm}=\mu_{l}\phi_{l\pm}$, and ${U=g_{2d}\int d^2r |f_0(r)|^4}$. From these parameter definitions, the validity condition of the weakly interacting regime reads ${(\mu_3-\mu_1)\equiv \Delta \gg U}$. Within this regime, Fig. \[dynamics\_g1\_p+07\_v3\](a) shows a typical temporal evolution of the populations of all the OAM states involved in the dynamics considering as initial state an imbalanced superposition of the $\ket{1,+}$ and $\ket{1,-}$ states. The continuous lines have been obtained by solving with a high order Runge-Kutta method the FSM, Eq. , and the insets show the comparison with the results obtained by a full numerical integration of the 2D GPE (points). We have performed this integration using a standard Crank-Nicolson algorithm in a space-splitting scheme [@SpaceSplitting], i.e., we have introduced the Trotter decomposition $e^{iH(x,y)\Delta t} \approx e^{iH(x)\Delta t} e^{iH(x)\Delta t}$, where $\Delta t$ is the discrete time step, that we have taken to be $\Delta t=10^{-3}$. The grid used for the simulations has a spatial discretization width $\Delta x=2.4\times 10^{-3}$ and a total of 1000 points in each dimension. For all the populations, we find an excellent agreement between the results obtained with the two different methods, with relative discrepancies typically on the order of $10^{-2}$. Despite the fact that the populations of the different OAM states present only very small fluctuations, the initial state is not in general a stationary state of the system because the minimum appearing in the density profile rotates at a constant speed. This fact can be appreciated in Fig. \[dynamics\_g1\_p+07\_v3\](b), where the density profile is shown for different times. At $t=0$, the density profile has a minimum density line at $x=0$, and as time marches on this line rotates in the $x-y$ plane. The fact that the minimum density line rotates means that there is a time-dependent relative phase $\alpha(t)$ between the $a_{1+}(t)$ and $a_{1-}(t)$ coefficients, so that the state of the system evolves in time as $\Psi({\vec{r},t})\approx a_{1+}(0)\phi_{1+}(\vec{r})+a_{1-}(0)e^{i\alpha (t)}\phi_{1-}(\vec{r})$. This phase difference is due to the non-linear interaction, and can be understood as a consequence of the presence of off-diagonal terms in the FSM Hamiltonian . In order to determine the time dependence of $\alpha$, in Fig. \[dynamics\_g1\_p+07\_v3\](c) we plot the temporal evolution of the real part of the coherence $\rho_{1+1-}=a_{1+}(t)a^*_{1-}(t)$. We observe that it oscillates harmonically, which means that $\alpha$ evolves linearly with time. The oscillation frequency of the coherence corresponds to the rotation frequency of the minimum density line.
![(a) Time evolution of the population of the states involved in the dynamics. (b) Snapshots of the density profile for different instants of the dynamical evolution. (c) Time evolution of the real part of the coherence between the $\ket{1,+}$ and $\ket{1,-}$ states. The points correspond to the numerical simulation of the GPE, while the continuous lines are obtained by solving the FSM equations. The considered parameter values are $R=5$, $g_{2d}=1$, for which $U=0.0128$, ${\mu_1=0.529}$ and $\mu_3=0.699$, $a_{1+}(0)=\sqrt{p_{1+}(0)}=\sqrt{0.7}$ and $a_{1-}(0)=\sqrt{p_{1-}(0)}=\sqrt{0.3}$.[]{data-label="dynamics_g1_p+07_v3"}](figure2.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
From the FSM, we can obtain the oscillation frequency of $\rho_{1+1-}$ by solving the [von Neumann]{} equation $i\dot{\rho}=[H_{\text{FSM}},\rho]$. After assuming $\rho_{1+1+}=p_{1+}$ and $\rho_{1-1-}=p_{1-}$ to be constant and neglecting all terms $\mathcal{O}(a^2_{3\pm}(t))$, we arrive at a linear system of three coupled differential equations
$$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{d\rho_{1+1-}}{dt}&=Up_{1-}(2\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1+1-}+\rho_{1-3-})\nonumber\\
&-Up_{1+}(\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1+1-}+2\rho_{1-3-})\label{eqcoherences1}\\
i\frac{d\rho^*_{1+3+}}{dt}&=Up_{1+}(\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1+1-}+2\rho_{1-3-})+\Delta\rho^*_{1+3+}\label{eqcoherences2}\\
i\frac{d\rho_{1-3-}}{dt}&=-Up_{1-}(2\rho^*_{1+3+}+\rho_{1+1-}+\rho_{1-3-})-\Delta\rho_{1-3-}.\label{eqcoherences3}\end{aligned}$$
\[eqscoherences\]
The characteristic frequencies $k$ of the system of equations are obtained by solving the eigenvalue equation $$ik^3+ik(U\Delta+\Delta^2-p_{1+}p_{1-}U^2)+U\Delta^2(p_{1+}-p_{1-})=0.
\label{eqfreqs}$$ Since $U \ll \Delta$ in the weakly interacting regime, the term proportional to $p_{1+}p_{1-}U^2$ can be neglected in front of the others. The three eigenvalues that are obtained after solving Eq. are imaginary. The eigenmode associated to the eigenvalue of lowest modulus $k_0$ has a predominant component of $\rho_{1+1-}(t)$, allowing us to write ${\rho_{1+1-}(t)\approx \rho_{1+1-}(0)e^{k_0t}}$. Thus, the rotation frequency of the nodal line is $\Omega_{\text{FSM}}=-\frac{i}{2}k_0$, where the subscript indicates that the rotation frequency has been obtained in the context of the FSM. In the limit ${\Delta \gg \Omega_{FSM}}$, the rotation frequency of the nodal line is given by $$\Omega_{\text{FSM}}=\frac{U n_{1\pm}}{2(1+\frac{U}{\Delta})}.
\label{omeganode}$$ Note that, although the $l=3$ states are nearly not populated during the dynamical evolution, the parameter $\Delta$, which contains the chemical potential $\mu_3$, plays a significant role in the expression of the rotation frequency . Thus, these states must be taken into account for an accurate description of the dynamics of the system.
Quantum sensing protocol {#sec2}
========================
Sensing of two-body interactions
--------------------------------
Recalling that the parameter $U$ of the FSM Hamiltonian is given by ${U=g_{2d}\int d^2r |f_0(r)|^4\equiv g_{2d}I}$ and assuming that we are in the regime of validity of the FSM, Eq. allows us to express the interaction parameter $g_{2d}$ as $$g_{2d}=\frac{1}{I}\frac{2\Omega}{n_{1\pm}-2\frac{\Omega}{\Delta}},
\label{eqg2d}$$ where $\Omega$ is the observed frequency of rotation of the nodal line. The relation constitutes the basis to use the physical system under consideration as a quantum sensing device. By determining the parameters appearing on the right hand side, one can infer the value of $g_{2d}$ and thus, from Eq. , either the $s$-wave scattering length or the number of atoms forming the BEC.
In Fig. \[plotfreqcomplet\](a), we plot $\Omega$ as a function of $g_{2d}$ for different values of $n_{1\pm}$, computed using (continuous lines) and the full numerical integration of the 2D GPE (points), showing an excellent agreement between the two methods for low non-linearities and population imbalances. For $g_{2d}<4$, Fig. \[plotfreqcomplet\](b) shows the relative error $\frac{\delta\Omega}{\Omega_{\text{GPE}}}$, where $\Omega_{\text{GPE}}$ is the rotation frequency of the nodal line obtained from the GPE and ${\delta\Omega=|\Omega_{\text{FSM}}-\Omega_{\text{GPE}}|}$, as a function of the *ab initio* values of $n_{1\pm}$ and $g_{2d}$ in the numerical simulation, finding a maximum relative error of $10^{-2}$. Since all the treatment developed so far is valid for low values of $g_{2d}$, this sensing device could be used for dilute BECs.
![(a) Rotation frequency of the nodal line $\Omega$ as a function of $g_{2d}$ for different values of $n_{1\pm}$ obtained with the FSM (continuous lines) and full integration of the GPE (points) (b) Relative error committed in the determination of $\Omega$ using Eq. as a function of the *ab initio* values of $g_{2d}$ and $n_{1\pm}$ in the simulation.[]{data-label="plotfreqcomplet"}](figure3.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The rotation frequency of the minimum density line, $\Omega$, can be measured by direct imaging in real time of the density distribution of the BEC. If the coherence time of the BEC is $\tau$, in order for this measurement to be possible the condition $\Omega \omega \gtrsim 1/\tau$ must be fulfilled, since otherwise the rotation would be so slow that it could not be appreciated during the time that the experiment lasts. The upper limit of observable relevant values of $\Omega$ is imposed by the regime of validity of the model. If the interaction is too large, the assumptions of the FSM model are no longer valid and it is thus not possible to relate the rotation frequency of the nodal line to the non-linear interaction parameter using . The rest of parameters appearing on the right hand side of can be determined experimentally from fluorescence images of the BEC. In Appendix A we design a specific protocol to measure the population imbalance $n_{1\pm}$, the integral of the radial wave function $I$, and the chemical potential difference $\Delta$. Note that currently there are different approaches to measure the $s-$wave scattering length of ultracold atoms [@PethickandSmith] such as those based on photoassociation spectroscopy, ballistic expansion, and collective excitations. Our proposal constitutes an alternative to these approaches where all the unknowns can be directly inferred from fluorescence images of the BEC. However, the limit $g_{2d}<4$ obtained for the configuration discussed in Fig. \[plotfreqcomplet\] implies that for a BEC of, e.g., $10^4$ atoms of $^{23}$Na, with a trapping frequency $\omega_z$ of a few hundreds of Hz, the maximum $s-$wave scattering length that could be measured with high precision, e.g., with a relative error of $10^{-2}$, would be few times the Bohr radius.
Sensing of magnetic fields
--------------------------
Assuming that the total number of atoms of the BEC $N$ and the trapping frequency in the $z$ direction $\omega_z$ are precisely known quantities, Eqs. and together with the protocols to measure $n_{1\pm}$, $I$ and $\Delta$ allow to determine the scattering length $a_S$ at zero magnetic field. Alternatively, if the scattering length is a known quantity, the measurements of $\Omega$, $I$ and $\Delta$ can be used to determine $n_{1\pm}$ through the aforementioned relations.
If the scattering length depends somehow on the modulus of the external magnetic field $B$, turning on the field will be translated into a variation of $\Omega$. Thus, the system could be used as a scalar magnetometer by relating changes on the frequency of rotation of the minimal line to variations of the modulus of the magnetic field. Taking into account that $I$ and $\Delta$ are almost independent of $g_{2d}$ and thus of $B$ in the regime of interaction strengths for which the model is valid, combining Eqs. and we can evaluate the sensitivity that this magnetometer would have as $$\frac{d\Omega_{\text{FSM}}}{dB}=\frac{n_{1\pm} I N\sqrt{\frac{8\pi m\omega_z}{\hbar}}}{2(1+\frac{U(B)}{\Delta})^2}\frac{da_S}{dB}.
\label{dOmegadB}$$ Since we must have $U\ll \Delta$ in order for the model to be valid, we can define a threshold limit for the sensitivity by taking $U/\Delta=1$ in . Defining the aspect ratio $\Lambda\equiv \omega_z/\omega$ and changing the differentials in by finite increments, we find the following upper threshold for the sensitivity in magnetic field variations $\Delta B_{\text{th}}$ as a function of the change in the rotation frequency of the nodal line $$\Delta B_{\text{th}} = \frac{8\sigma}{n_{1\pm} I N\sqrt{8\pi \Lambda}} \frac{1}{\frac{da_S}{dB}}\Delta \Omega.
\label{sensitivity}$$ From Eq. , we observe that the sensitivity is improved by having a large number of condensed particles and a strong dependence of the scattering length on the magnetic field modulus. However, since the parameter $g_{2d}\propto Na_s$ needs to be small in order for the model to be valid, it is also required that the scattering length takes small values.
In the presence of a Feshbach resonance, the scattering length depends of the magnetic field modulus as $$a_S(B)=\tilde{a}_S\left(1-\frac{\delta}{B-B_0}\right),
\label{Feshbach}$$ where $\tilde{a}_S$ is the background scattering length, $B_0$ is the value of $B$ at resonance and $\delta$ is the width of the resonance. Thus, by placing the magnetic field close to the resonant value $B_0$, one could in principle meet both the requirement that the scattering length is small and that it depends strongly on the magnetic field modulus. However, in most cases this procedure would have the inconvenience that close to a Feshbach resonance the three-body losses are greatly enhanced, limiting the lifetime of the BEC and hindering the measurement procedure. Nevertheless, some atomic species such as $^{85}$Rb [@BECRb85], $^{133}$Cs [@BECCs133], $^{39}$K [@BECK39] or $^7$Li [@BECLi7] have been reported to form BECs that are stable across Feshbach resonances, so they could be potential candidates for using the system as a magnetometer. Additionally, the BECs formed by these species have lifetimes on the order of a few seconds. Taking into account that the trapping frequency $\omega$, in units of which $\Omega$ is expressed, is typically of the order of a few hundreds of Hz for ring-shaped traps, and considering typical values of $\Omega$ shown in figure \[plotfreqcomplet\] (a), in International System units $\Omega\sim 1$Hz. This means that in the typical time that an experiment would last, $\tau\sim 1$s, the minimum density line would perform some complete laps. Under the reasonable assumption that the fluorescence imaging system could resolve angular differences on the order of $\sim 0.1$ rad, incrementals in the rotation frequency on the order of $10^{-2}$Hz could be measured. Thus, in the dimensionless units of Eq. , sensitivites on the order of $\Delta\Omega\sim 10^{-4}$ could be achieved. These atomic species have, however, the drawback that they typically form BECs with a low number of particles, which limits the sensitivity to magnetic fields. Although it is outside of the scope of this paper to give accurate values of the sensitivities that could be achieved with this apparatus, making use of Eqs. and , and considering the experimental parameters reported in [@squid7], we have estimated that, in principle, this magnetometer would allow to measure changes in the magnetic field on the order of a few pT at a bandwidth of 1 Hz.
As a last remark, we point out that after measuring the scattering length, far from the resonant field $B_0$, if the line of minimal density rotates at a constant speed the relation can be inverted to infer the absolute value of the magnetic field.
Sensing of rotations
--------------------
Let us consider the case when the BEC is placed in a reference frame rotating at an angular frequency $\Omega_{\text{ext}}$, which is positive (negative) if the rotation is clockwise (counter-clockwise). Now the dynamics is governed by the modified GPE $$i\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}=\left[-\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+V(r)+g_{2d}|\Psi|^2-\Omega_{\text{ext}} L_z\right]\Psi,
\label{GPErotation}$$ where $L_z=-i\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}$ is the $z$ component of the angular momentum operator. The ideal instance for using the system under study as a sensor of rotations is the non-interacting limit $g_{2d}=0$. In that case, it can be easily shown that the effect of the external rotation is to make the line of minimal density rotate at an angular speed $\Omega_{\text{ext}}$, which can be directly measured in experiments.
In the weakly interacting regime, the system under study can still be used as a sensor of external rotations. In that case, we find that the only difference in the dynamics with respect to the case when there is no external rotation is that the rotation frequency of the nodal line is shifted precisely by a quantity $\Omega_{\text{ext}}$. Thus, if $g_{2d}$ is known and $I$, $n_{1\pm}$ and $\Delta$ are measured using the protocol provied in the appendix A, the system under consideration can be used as a sensing device for external rotations by computing the external rotation as $\Omega_{\text{ext}}=\Omega-\Omega_{\text{FSM}}$, where $\Omega$ is the rotation frequency of the nodal line observed in the experiment and $\Omega_{\text{FSM}}$ is given by .
The proposed setup constitutes an alternative to the two main lines of development of rotation sensors using ultracold atoms: the atomic-gas analogues of superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) [@squid1; @squid2; @squid3; @squid4; @squid5; @squid6b] and the Sagnac interferometers, for a review see [@Sagnac1]. Gyroscopes based on the Sagnac effect measure a rotation rate relative to an inertial reference frame, based on a rotationally induced phase shift between two paths of an interferometer and the low available atomic fluxes and low effective areas are the main limiting factors of their sensitivity.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the dynamics of an imbalanced superposition of the two degenerate counter-rotating $l=1$ OAM modes of a weakly interacting BEC trapped in a 2D ring potential. We have found that the non-linear interaction induces a time-dependent phase difference between these two modes which leads to a rotation of the line of minimal atomic density of the BEC. The derived few state model provides a simple analytical dependence between the rotation frequency and the non-linear parameter which, for low non-linearities, perfectly matches with the *ab initio* numerical simulations. The measurement of the rotation frequency allows to use the system as a quantum sensor of two-body interactions, scalar magnetic fields and rotations. The theoretical treatment exposed in this work can also be extended to a regime of higher interactions, where higher OAM modes are excited and a myriad of new physical scenarios opens up. We thank M. W. Mitchell for fruitful and stimulating discussions. We acknowledge support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under Contract No. FIS2014-57460-P and FIS2017-86530-P, and from the Catalan Government under Contract No. SGR2014-1639 and SGR2017-1646. G.P. also acknowledges financial support from the FPI Grant No. BES-2015-073772.
General equations of the dynamics of the OAM modes {#CoupledEquations}
==================================================
In this appendix, we derive the general equations that govern the dynamics of a BEC carrying OAM in the lowest vibrational state of the ring potential. These equations will allow us to justify why only states with odd values of $l$ can be excited after setting as initial state an imbalanced superposition of the $l=\pm 1$ OAM modes. We will also indicate how we have obtained the FSM Eqs. and from the general set of equations.
We start by considering the expansion of a general state of the BEC in terms of the OAM modes $$\Psi=\sum_{m}a_m(t)\phi_m(r,\varphi)=\sum_{m}a_m(t)\left[f_0(r)e^{mi\varphi}\right],
\label{ExpansionPsi}$$ where $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ is an index that corresponds to the multiplication of the indices $l$ and $\beta$ in the expression of the OAM modes of the main text . Like in the main text, we have assumed that the radial parts of the OAM modes correspond to the lowest vibrational state of the ring, i.e., $f_m(r)=f_0(r)\;\forall m$. Since the OAM wave functions are normalized to unity, $\int |\phi_m(r,\varphi)|^2rdrd\varphi=1$, the amplitudes in the expansion fulfill the constraint $\sum_{m}|a_m(t)|^2=1$. Substitution of the wave function into the 2D GPE yields (we drop the explicit dependences on $t$ and $\vec{r}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l}i\frac{da_l}{dt}\phi_l&=\left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}\sum_{m,m'}a_ma_{m'}^*\phi_m\phi_{m'}^*\right]\sum_k a_k\phi_k\nonumber\\
&=\left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}\sum_m |a_m|^2|\phi_m|^2+g_{2d}\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*\phi_m\phi_{m'}^*\right]\sum_k a_k\phi_k\nonumber\\
&=\left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}|f_0|^2\right]\sum_k a_k\phi_k+g_{2d}\sum_k\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_k\phi_m\phi_{m'}^*\phi_k
\label{EqsCoefs1}\end{aligned}$$ From the expression , an equation of motion for each of the amplitudes can be found by multiplying both sides by $\phi_l^*$ and integrating over the whole 2D space $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{da_l}{dt}&=\sum_k a_k\int rdrd\varphi\;\phi_l^* \left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}|f_0|^2\right]\phi_k+g_{2d}\sum_k\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_k\int rdrd\varphi\;\phi_l^*\phi_m\phi_{m'}^*\phi_k\nonumber\\
&=\sum_k a_k\int rdrd\varphi\;\phi_l^* \left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}|\phi_k|^2\right]\phi_k+g_{2d}\sum_k\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_k\int rdrd\varphi\;|f_0|^4e^{i\varphi (m+k-m'-l)}\nonumber\\
&=\mu_la_l+U\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_{(l+m'-m)},
\label{EqsCoefs2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the quantity $U\equiv g_{2d}\int rdrd\varphi\;|f_0(r)|^4$ and we have taken profit of the fact that the OAM modes $\phi_l(r,\varphi)$ are eigenstates of the time-independent 2D GPE with eigenvalue equal to their chemical potential $\mu_l$, i.e., $\left[\frac{\nabla^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(r-R)^2+g_{2d}|\phi_l(r,\varphi)|^2\right]\phi_l(r,\varphi)=\mu_l\phi_l(r,\varphi)$.
From Eq. , one can see that the term $U\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_{(l+m'-m)}$, which appears due to the presence of the non-linear interaction term in the GPE, introduces coupling between different OAM modes. In this paper, we have considered initial states of the form $\Psi(0)=(\sqrt{p_{1+}}\phi_1(r,\varphi)+\sqrt{p_{1-}}\phi_{-1}(r,\varphi));\; p_{1+}+p_{1-}=1$. Thus, since $a_{l}(0)=0\;\forall l\neq 1,-1$, the only higher order OAM states that will initially be directly coupled will be those in which the non-linear part of has a term such as $a_{1}a_{-1}^*a_{1}$ or any other combination of $l=\pm 1$ amplitudes. The only modes that have terms of this type are those of OAM $l=\pm 3$. Higher odd OAM modes, $l=\pm 5,\pm 7,...$, are subsequently populated through coupling terms that contain combinations of amplitudes of lower odd OAM modes. However, for this particular form of the initial state, the modes with an even value of the OAM, $l=0,\pm 2,...$, cannot be excited because in their dynamical equations the terms in $\sum_{m\neq m'}a_ma_{m'}^*a_{(l+m'-m)}$ always contain at least one even OAM amplitude and, since the lowest even modes $l=0,\pm 2$ are not directly coupled to the $l=\pm 1$ modes, none of the even modes will be populated during the time evolution. This justifies the expansion of the wave function in terms of only odd OAM modes of Eq. .
The FSM Eqs. and have been obtained directly from Eqs. by truncating the basis at the $l=\pm 3$ OAM modes and rewriting the resulting four non-linear coupled equations in a more compact matrix form.
Fluorescence imaging protocol {#imaging}
=============================
In the following lines, we describe in detail how the values of the parameters appearing in the right hand side of Eq. could be inferred experimentally by means of direct fluorescence imaging of the BEC.
### 1. Population imbalance {#population-imbalance .unnumbered}
The population imbalance between the two $l=1$ states can be determined from the density profile per particle at any time $t$, which can be obtained by fluorescence imaging. Since the wave function is given by $\Psi(\vec{r},t)=f_0(r)(\sqrt{p_{1+}}e^{i\varphi}+\sqrt{p_{1-}}e^{-i(\varphi+\Omega t)})$, its density profile reads $$|\Psi|^2=f_0^2(r)(1+2\sqrt{p_{1+}p_{1-}}\cos 2(\varphi+\Omega t)).
\label{psisquare}$$ Thus, the atom density has a minimum at $\varphi=\pi/2-\Omega t$ and a maximum at $\varphi=-\Omega t$. Let us now consider the two integration regions $A_1$ and $A_2$ shown in Fig. \[figureprotocol\](a), which are arcs of radius $\rho$ and angle $2\theta$ centred around the maximum and minimum of intensity, respectively. The integrals of $|\Psi|^2$ over $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be performed numerically and, for sufficiently small $\theta$, they yield approximately
$$\begin{aligned}
I_1=\int_{A_1} d^2r |\Psi|^2\approx 2\theta(1+2\sqrt{p_{1+}p_{1-}})\int_0^\rho rf_0^2(r) dr\ \label{I_1}\\
I_2=\int_{A_2} d^2r |\Psi|^2\approx 2\theta(1-2\sqrt{p_{1+}p_{1-}})\int_0^\rho rf_0^2(r) dr\ \label{I_2}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, combining and one can determine the product of populations as $$p_{1+}p_{1-}=\left(\frac{I_1-I_2}{2(I_1+I_2)}\right)^2,$$ which, together with the constraint $p_{1+}+p_{1-}=1$, allows to determine the population imbalance from a fluorescence image.
![(a) Example of $A_1$ and $A_2$ integration areas to experimentally determine the population imbalance (b) Relative error committed in the determination of $g_{2d}$ using the full experimental protocol described in the main text as a function of the *ab initio* values of $g_{2d}$ and $p_{1+}$ in the simulation.[]{data-label="figureprotocol"}](figure4.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
### 2. Integral of the radial wave function I {#integral-of-the-radial-wave-function-i .unnumbered}
From equation , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi|^4&=f_0^4(r)\left[1+4\sqrt{p_{1+}p_{1-}}\cos2(\varphi+\Omega t)\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+4p_{1+}p_{1-}\cos^22(\varphi+\Omega t)\right].\end{aligned}$$ From a fluorescence image, one can numerically perform the integral $\int d^2 r|\Psi|^4$ over the whole space, from which the desired quantity can be calculated as $$I=\int d^2r f_0^4(r)=\frac{\int d^2 r|\Psi|^4}{1+2p_{1+}p_{1-}}.$$
### 3. Chemical potential difference {#chemical-potential-difference .unnumbered}
The chemical potential of the angular momentum states can be decomposed into its kinetic, potential and interaction contributions. Since one can assume that the wave functions take the form $\phi_{l\pm}(\vec{r})=f_0(r)e^{\pm il\varphi}$, the potential and interaction contributions will be the same regardless of $l$, while the kinetic contribution is given by $$E^{kin}_l=\frac{1}{2}\int d^2r |\nabla \phi_{l\pm}(\vec{r})|^2=\frac{1}{2}\int d^2r \left[\left(\frac{df_0}{dr}\right)^2+l^2\left(\frac{f_0}{r}\right)^2\right].$$ Thus, the chemical potential difference is only due to the difference in the centrifugal terms of the kinetic energy $$\mu_3-\mu_1=E^{kin}_3-E^{kin}_1=4 \int d^2r \left(\frac{f_0(r)}{r}\right)^2.
\label{Delta}$$ From Eq. , one can see that the integral can be numerically performed after determining $f_0^2(r)$ from a fluorescence image as ${f_0^2(r)=\frac{|\Psi(r,\varphi=-\Omega t,t)|^2}{1+2\sqrt{p_{1+}p_{1-}}}}$.
In order to check the accuracy of the proposed experimental protocol, we have computed $g_{2d}$ using Eq. and determining all the parameters on the right hand side following the above described numerical procedures, and later on comparing with the *ab initio* used value of $g_{2d}$ in the simulation. In Fig. \[figureprotocol\](b) we plot the relative error $\frac{\delta g_{2d}}{g_{2d}}$ committed as a function of the *ab initio* values of $g_{2d}$ and $p_{1+}$. In the region $g_{2d}\approx 1$ and $n_{1\pm}\approx 0.6$, the relative error is minimal and it reaches very low values, on the order of $10^{-5}$. The maximum value of the relative error is about $10\%$, and is found for low values of $n_{1\pm}$. In our simulations, we have used a grid of dimensions $24\times 24$ and 1000 points in each spatial direction. With higher grid precision, the relative error committed with the proposed protocol could prove to be even lower.
[99]{}
D. Robbes, *Sensors and Actuators A* **129**, 86 (2006).
R. L. Fagaly, *Review of Scientific Instruments* **77**, 101101 (2006).
H. Weinstock (Ed.), *SQUID Sensors: Fundamentals, Fabrication and Applications* (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, *Nature* **422**, 596 (2003).
V. Shah, S. Knappe, P. D. D. Schwindt, and J. Kitching, *Nature Photonics* **1**, 649 (2007).
W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **104**, 133601 (2010).
F. Wolfgramm, A. Cerè, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojević, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **105**, 053601 (2010).
M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, and M. W. Mitchell, *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **98**, 074101 (2011).
D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, *Optical Magnetometry* (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
D. Sheng, S. Li, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 160802 (2013).
I. Baumgart, J.-M. Cai, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, and Ch. Wunderlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 240801 (2016).
L. Rondin, J. P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J. F. Roch, P. Maletinsky, and V. Jacques, *Rep. Prog. Phys.* **77**, 056503 (2014).
T. Wolf, P. Neumann, K.Nakamura, H. Sumiya, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, and J. Wrachtrup, *Phys. Rev. X* **5**, 041001 (2015).
I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 885 (2008).
M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger, *Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices. Simulating quantum many-body systems* (Oxford University Press, 2012).
X. Zhang and J. Ye, *Natl. Sci. Rev.* **3**, 189 (2016).
M. L. Terraciano, M. Bashkansky, and F. K. Fatemi, *Opt. Express* **16**, 13062 (2008).
K. S. Hardman, P. J. Everitt, G. D. McDonald, P. Manju, P. B. Wigley, M. A. Sooriyabandara, C. C. N. Kuhn, J. E. Debs, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **117**, 138501 (2016).
T. Isayama, Y. Takahashi, N. Tanaka, K. Toyoda, K. Ishikawa, and T. Yabuzaki, *Phys. Rev. A* **59**, 4836 (1999).
M. Vengalattore, J. M. Higbie, S. R. Leslie, J. Guzman, L. E. Sadler, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98**, 200801 (2007).
F. K. Fatemi and M. Bashkansky, *Opt. Express* **18**, 2190 (2010).
Y. Eto, H. Ikeda, H. Suzuki, S. Hasegawa, Y. Tomiyama, S. Sekine, M. Sadgrove, and T. Hirano, *Phys. Rev. A* **88**, 031602(R) (2013).
Y. Eto, S. Sekine, S. Hasegawa, M. Sadgrove, H. Saito, and T. Hirano *Appl. Phys. Express* **6**, 05280 (2013).
W. Muessel, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, D. B. Hume, and M. K. Oberthaler, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **113**, 103004 (2014).
S. Tojo, Y. Taguchi, Y. Masuyama, T. Hayashi, H. Saito, and T. Hirano, *Phys. Rev. A* **82**, 033609 (2010).
S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, E. Haller, L. M. Andersson, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, P. Krüger, and J. Schmiedmayer, *Nature* **435**, 440 (2005).
S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, S. Groth, P. Krüger, and J. Schmiedmayer, *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **88**, 264103 (2006).
F. Yang, A. J. Kollár, S. F. Taylor, R. W. Turner, and B. L. Lev, *Phys. Rev. Applied* **7**, 034026 (2017).
B. T. Seaman, M. Krämer, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland *Phys. Rev. A* **75**, 023615 (2007).
R. A. Pepino, J. Cooper, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 140405 (2009).
C. Ryu, M. F. Andersen, P. Cladé, Vasant Natarajan, K. Helmerson, and W. D. Phillips *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99**, 260401 (2007).
E. M. Wright, J. Arlt, and K. Dholakia *Phys. Rev. A* **63**, 013608 (2000).
S. K. Schnelle, E. D. van Ooijen, M. J. Davis, N. R. Heckenberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, *Opt. Express* **16**, 1405-1412 (2008).
K. Henderson, C. Ryu, C. MacCormick, and M. G. Boshier, *New J. Phys.* **11**, 043030 (2009).
B. E. Sherlock, M. Gildemeister, E. Owen, E. Nugent, and C. J. Foot, *Phys. Rev. A* **83**, 043408 (2011).
A. S. Arnold, *Opt. Lett.* **37**, 2505 (2012).
T. A. Bell, J. A. P. Glidden, L. Humbert, M. W. J. Bromley, S. A Haine, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely, M. A. Baker, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, *New J. Phys.* **18**, 035003 (2016).
A. Turpin, J. Polo, Yu. V. Loiko, J. Küber, F. Schmaltz, T. K. Kalkandjiev, V. Ahufinger, G. Birkl, and J. Mompart, *Opt. Express* **23**, 1638 (2015).
S. Beattie, S. Moulder, R. J. Fletcher, and Z. Hadzibabic *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110**, 025301 (2013).
L. Corman, L. Chomaz, T. Bienaimé, R. Desbuquois, C. Weitenberg, S. Nascimbène, J. Dalibard, and J. Beugnon *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **113**, 135302 (2014).
A. Ramanathan, K. C. Wright, S. R. Muniz, M. Zelan, W. T. Hill, C. J. Lobb, K. Helmerson, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 130401 (2011).
K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110**, 025302 (2013).
S. Eckel, J. G. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, N. Murray, C. W. Clark, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, M. Edwards, and G. K. Campbell, *Nature* **506**, 200 (2014).
S. Eckel, F. Jendrzejewski, A. Kumar, C. J. Lobb, and G. K. Campbell, *Phys. Rev. X* **4**, 031052 (2014).
C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 205301 (2013).
A. Kumar, N. Anderson, W. D. Phillips, S. Eckel, G. K. Campbell, and S. Stringari, *New J. Phys.* **18**, 025001 (2016).
Y. Sato and R. E. Packard, *Rep. Prog. Phys.* **75** 016401 (2012).
B. Barrett, R. Geiger, I. Dutta, M. Meunier, B. Canuel, A. Gauguet, P. Bouyer, and A. Landragin, *Comptes Rendus Physique* **15**, 875 (2014).
J. L. Helm, S. L. Cornish, and S. A. Gardiner, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **114**, 134101 (2015).
P. Navez, S. Pandey, H. Mas, K. Poulios, T. Fernholz, and W. von Klitzing, *New J. Phys.* **18**, 075014 (2016).
F. I. Moxley, III, J. P. Dowling, W. Dai, and T. Byrnes *Phys. Rev. A* **93**, 053603 (2016).
L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, *Bose-Einstein Condensation and Superfluidity*, Oxford University Press (2016).
F. Jendrzejewski, S. Eckel, N. Murray, C. Lanier, M. Edwards, C. J. Lobb, and G. K. Campbell, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **113**, 045305 (2014).
Y. Wang, A. Kumar, F. Jendrzejewski, R. M. Wilson, M. Edwards, S. Eckel, G. K. Campbell, and C. W. Clark, *New J. Phys.* **17**, 125012 (2015).
L. Amico, D. Aghamalyan, F. Auksztol, H. Crepaz, R. Dumke, and L.-C. Kwek, *Scientific Reports* **4**, 4298 (2014).
D. Aghamalyan, M. Cominotti, M. Rizzi, D. Rossini, F. Hekking, A. Minguzzi, L.-C. Kwek, and L. Amico, *New J. Phys.* **17**, 045023 (2015).
G. Watanabe and C. J. Pethick, *Phys. Rev. A* **76**, 021605(R) (2007).
J. Polo, J. Mompart, and V. Ahufinger, *Phys. Rev. A* **93**, 033613 (2016).
S. Franke-Arnold, *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A* **375** 2087 (2017).
K. A. Bagrinovskii and S. K. Godunov, *Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR* **115**, 431 (1957).
C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, *Bose-–Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases* (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **85**, 1795 (2000).
T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H. C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm, *Science* **299**, 232 (2003).
G. Roati, M. Zaccanti, C. D’Errico, J. Catani, M. Modugno, A. Simoni, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99**, 010403 (2007).
S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, M. Junker, Y. P. Chen, T. A. Corcovilos, and R. G. Hulet, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **102**, 090402 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Emerging deep-learning (DL)-based techniques have significant potential to revolutionize biomedical imaging. However, one outstanding challenge is the lack of reliability assessment in the DL predictions, whose errors are commonly revealed only in hindsight. Here, we propose a new Bayesian convolutional neural network (BNN)-based framework that overcomes this issue by quantifying the uncertainty of DL predictions. Foremost, we show that BNN-predicted uncertainty maps provide surrogate estimates of the true error from the network model and measurement itself. The uncertainty maps characterize imperfections often unknown in real-world applications, such as noise, model error, incomplete training data, and out-of-distribution testing data. Quantifying this uncertainty provides a per-pixel estimate of the confidence level of the DL prediction as well as the quality of the model and dataset. We demonstrate this framework in the application of large space-bandwidth product phase imaging using a physics-guided coded illumination scheme. From only five multiplexed illumination measurements, our BNN predicts gigapixel phase images in both static and dynamic biological samples with quantitative credibility assessment. Furthermore, we show that low-certainty regions can identify spatially and temporally rare biological phenomena. We believe our uncertainty learning framework is widely applicable to many DL-based biomedical imaging techniques for assessing the reliability of DL predictions.'
author:
- 'Yujia Xue$^{1}$, Shiyi Cheng$^{1}$, Yunzhe Li$^{1}$, Lei Tian$^{1,*}$\'
title: 'Reliable deep-learning-based phase imaging with uncertainty quantification'
---
Introduction
============
The imaging throughput of traditional techniques is fundamentally limited by the intrinsic trade-off among field-of-view (FOV), resolution, and acquisition speed. It is well known that the space-bandwidth product (SBP) of an optical system is invariant under any linear canonical transform [@lohmann:96; @lohmann1989]. Further considering super-resolution-type techniques that require multiple measurements, the acquisition time scales linearly with the expanded bandwidth in a single dimension, and quadratically for 2D isotropic resolution enhancement [@Lukosz_1966; @Lukosz_1967]. The same scaling law also applies to the scanning-based systems for enlarging the FOV. Accordingly, the 3D trade-space spanned by the FOV, resolution, and acquisition speed can be visualized as shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\](a), with a hyperplane defining the achievable imaging attributes which highlights the linear trade-off among them (for a 1D problem). The imaging techniques of our interest belong to the classical phase-retrieval problem. Despite the extra complexity from the intensity-only, nonlinear measurements, the general scaling law for the achievable imaging attributes follows the same trade-space, as studied both theoretically [@wicker2014] and experimentally [@zheng2013; @tian2015b]. Our first goal here is to investigate the feasibility of bypassing the classical limit imposed by the linear trade-space by combining non-conventional multiplexed measurement schemes and deep learning (DL). By doing so, our technique will open up an expanded design space that allows a combination of FOV, resolution, and acquisition speed beyond those achievable using conventional phase-retrieval techniques \[as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:intro\](a)\].
Our work is inspired by the recent demonstration of several DL-based phase-retrieval techniques [@sinha2017lensless; @rivenson2018phase; @Nguyen_2018; @LiShuai_2018; @Li_2018; @Wu_2018; @horstmeyer2017convolutional; @Diederich_2018; @Robey_2018; @kellman2018physics], which can be categorized into two classes. The first class focuses on solving the phase-retrieval problem alone using a convolutional neural network (CNN); no modification to the measurement procedure is made [@sinha2017lensless; @rivenson2018phase; @Nguyen_2018; @LiShuai_2018; @Li_2018; @Wu_2018]. As a result, these techniques generally do not improve the imaging throughput. Nevertheless, using the CNN-based algorithm has been reported to have several benefits, including its robustness to noise, scattering, and experimental errors [@sinha2017lensless; @rivenson2018phase; @Nguyen_2018; @LiShuai_2018; @Li_2018; @Wu_2018]. The second class focuses on introducing the physical model into the construction of the CNN. This is done by modeling the image formation process as the initial layers of the CNN [@horstmeyer2017convolutional; @Diederich_2018; @Robey_2018; @kellman2018physics]. As a result, training the CNN jointly optimizes the physical parameters used in the acquisition alongside its computational parameters. However, the effectiveness of this approach relies on the accurate modeling of the image formation process [@horstmeyer2017convolutional], which can be difficult in practice due to the presence of uncalibrated aberrations and other experimental imperfections.
Differing from these two classes, we propose to solve the large-SBP phase-retrieval problem using a [*physics-guided*]{} DL approach, which consists of two complementary components. The first component is a highly measurement-efficient illumination multiplexing strategy designed by two physical principles. First, we exploit asymmetric illumination to encode the phase information into the intensity measurements based on the principle of differential phase contrast (DPC) [@tian2015a]. Second, we enhance the resolution following the principles of the synthetic aperture [@hillman2009] and Fourier ptychographic microscopy (FPM) [@zheng2013] by using oblique illumination to introduce into the measurements high-frequency information that are beyond the native passband of objective lens. Most importantly, our method uses only [*five*]{} coded measurements regardless of the final resolution \[Fig. \[fig:intro\](b)\], making our technique highly flexible and scalable for large-SBP phase-retrieval problems. As a result, our proposed technique avoids the need to quadratically increase the number of measurements to achieve a higher resolution; a limitation that is imposed by conventional FPM techniques. The reason behind preventing such multiplexed measurements to be used previously is the severe ill-posedness of the resulting inverse problem [@tian2015b; @tian2014; @bostan2018accelerated; @Chen_2018]. This results in undesirable phase artifacts in the reconstruction from existing multiplexed FPM (mFPM) algorithms. The second component uses DL to overcome the ill-posedness of the inverse problem and complements the new measurement strategy. Specifically, we show that our DL algorithm robustly inverts the physical model and recovers large-SBP phase information from highly multiplexed nonlinear measurements, which would otherwise not be possible.
An important feature of our DL technique is the ability to quantitatively assess its reliability. In particular, we aim to address a common criticism on DL that the error of the prediction cannot be easily evaluated unless the ground truth is known. To address this issue, we develop an uncertainty learning (UL) framework based on the Bayesian convolutional neural network (BNN) [@kendall2017uncertainties] \[Fig. \[fig:intro\](c)\]. We show that the reliability of the BNN prediction can be quantified by two predictive uncertainties, including the model uncertainty and the data uncertainty, akin to the epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, respectively, in Bayesian analysis [@Kiureghian_2009]. In particular, we show that the model uncertainty allows us to characterize the robustness of our physics-guided DL technique. By training and testing on an ensemble of CNNs, the BNN quantifies the variabilities intrinsic to the model without “cherry-picking” the results [@kendall2017uncertainties]. In addition, we show that the data uncertainty allows assessing the randomness of the predictions that originate from data imperfections [@kendall2017uncertainties], including noise, incompleteness in the training data, and the error due to out-of-distribution testing data.
In order to rigorously quantify the reliability of the BNN predictions, an important step is to perform statistical data analysis. We develop a procedure to relate the BNN output to Bayesian statistical metrics, including credibility, credible interval, and reliability diagram. By doing so, our work establishes a comprehensive procedure for evaluating the reliability of our DL-based phase-retrieval technique.
By capturing experimental data on two different computational microscopy platforms, we justify our proposition that our technique is applicable to different experimental setups. First, we demonstrate 5$\times$ resolution enhancement on the setup in [@ling_2018]. Next, we demonstrate the scalability of our technique by synthesizing multiplexed measurements on both static and dynamic biological data from [@tian2015b] and achieve 4$\times$ resolution improvement. In addition, the robustness of our technique to common experimental factors is quantified by evaluating the BNN-predicted uncertainties, including spatially varying aberrations, illumination misalignment, and phase wrapping artifacts. Mostly importantly, the results show that the selection of the training data indeed affects the confidence of the prediction, whose effect can be quantified by our UL framework. Specifically, we investigate the effect of limited training data due to spatial and temporal constraints and biological sample types. Furthermore, the BNN is shown to be reliable when trained and tested on different sample types and under different experimental configurations. The BNN-predicted uncertainties are shown to be indicative to the true error. Finally, a potential utility of our UL framework is explored in a time-series experiment to identify rare biological structures and phenomena.
Method {#sec:method}
======
Multiplexed illumination for large-SBP phase imaging
----------------------------------------------------
Our illumination multiplexing scheme combines the physical principles of DPC [@tian2015a] and FPM [@zheng2013] to encode high-resolution phase information across a wide FOV using a small number of intensity measurements. DPC is a phase microscopy technique that involves taking intensity measurements using asymmetric illumination [@mehta2009]. Under the first Born approximation, a brightfield intensity measurement is linearly related to a sample’s permittivity contrast by a weak phase transfer function [@tian2015a]. The distribution of the transfer function affects the quality of the phase retrieval and can be tuned by adjusting the illumination pattern. Most importantly, the transfer function contains missing frequencies along the axis of asymmetry for a given illumination pattern [@tian2015a]. As a result, illumination patterns containing at least two axes of asymmetry are commonly used to ensure complete Fourier coverage. Several studies on the choice of illumination patterns have been performed based on the linear model [@tian2015a; @fan2019optimal]. A CNN-based technique has also been developed to optimize the illumination patterns using a data-driven framework [@kellman2018physics]. It should be noted that the validity of the DPC model relies on the presence of a strong reference wave as in the brightfield measurements; the model no longer holds for darkfield measurements. Accordingly, the maximum resolution achievable by DPC is limited to $2\times$ the objective NA.
To further extend the resolution by more than $2\times$, our technique adapts the principle of FPM. In FPM, intensities are measured with asymmetric illumination in both brightfield and darkfield. Next, an iterative algorithm that simultaneously retrieves phase information and carries out the synthetic aperture is implemented. As a result, this method can increase the resolution up to the sum of the illumination and objective NAs [@zheng2013]. A major advantage of FPM is its ability to achieve both a wide-FOV and a high resolution, i.e. a large SBP. However, its imaging throughput is limited by the long acquisition time imposed by the large data requirement. Specifically, the original sequential FPM (sFPM) requires taking hundreds of images since it requires scanning through all the controllable illumination angles one by one [@zheng2013] \[Fig. \[fig:intro\](b)\]. The acquisition time can be shortened by illumination multiplexing in mFPM. In [@tian2014], a random multiplexing scheme is shown to achieve up to 8$\times$ data reduction. A hybrid multiplexing scheme that combines DPC in the brightfield with random multiplexing in the darkfield is shown to provide improved robustness in solving the mFPM phase-retrieval problem of mFPM [@tian2015b]. However, all these FPM schemes are fundamentally limited by the conventional trade-off, which results in an undesirable quadratic increase in the data requirement as the resolution increases [@tian2015b].
Here, we develop a DL-augmented illumination multiplexing scheme that uses only five asymmetric illumination \[Fig. \[fig:intro\](b)\]. First, we design two brightfield patterns based on the DPC model with in-total two axes of asymmetry (every $90^{\circ}$) to provide complete Fourier coverage within the brightfield limit. Next, we design three darkfield patterns with in-total three axes of asymmetry (every $120^{\circ}$) to further extend the Fourier coverage set by the sum of the illumination and objective NAs, same as in the FPM. A notable feature of the proposed scheme is that extending the resolution simply requires modifying the illumination scheme to use a larger darkfield pattern, without the need for additional measurements. This means that the data requirement remains the [*same*]{} as the resolution increases – bypassing the limitation imposed by conventional techniques. By doing so, we improve the throughput of the data acquisition process by trading off computational complexity. Specifically, the multiplexed measurements cannot be robustly inverted by existing model-based mFPM algorithms due to the severe ill-posedness of the inverse problem. We show that our proposed BNN-based algorithm overcomes this issue owing to its nonlinear multilayer structure.
Uncertainty learning framework
------------------------------
Our UL framework is built on the probabilistic view of neural networks [@Ghahramani_2015]. The learned neural network differs from training to training, which in turn results in varied predictions. The variability stems from several stochastic processes involved in the training, such as random weight initialization [@pmlr-v9-glorot10a], dropout [@srivastava.etal2014], and the stochastic-gradient-descent-type algorithms [@Bottou_2010]. There are two ways to quantify the variabilities in a neural network, including the Bayesian [@kendall2017uncertainties] and frequentist [@lakshminarayanan2017simple] approaches. We outline both the approaches, provide the mathematical foundations for the Bayesian analysis, and then quantify uncertainties using both the Monte Carlo dropout [@gal2016dropout] and the Deep Ensembles [@lakshminarayanan2017simple].
The BNN replaces the deterministic network weights with probability distributions over them \[as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:intro\](a)\]. To quantify the variability of a prediction ${\mathbf{y}}$, we model the predictive distribution $p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})$ given the test input ${\mathbf{x}}^*$ through marginalization over all the possible network weights ${\mathbf{w}}$ that were learned from the training data $({\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})=\{{\mathbf{x}}^t,{\mathbf{y}}^t\}^T_{t=1}$: $$p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}}) = \int p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}})p({\mathbf{w}}|{\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})d{\mathbf{w}},
\label{eq:p_predict}$$ where Eq. applies the conditional independence between the training and testing data, and can be visualized by the graphical model in Fig. \[fig:graph\]. The posterior distribution $p({\mathbf{w}}|{\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})$ describes all the possible [*network weights*]{} given the training data. The predictive distribution $p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}})$ describes all the possible [*predictions*]{} given the network weights ${\mathbf{w}}$ and the testing input ${\mathbf{x}}^*$ \[Fig. \[fig:uncertainty\](a) Top\]. By modeling $p({\mathbf{w}}|{\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})$ and $p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}})$, we can evaluate the model and data uncertainties, respectively.
To quantify the [*data uncertainty*]{}, we describe the probability distribution of the $k$th random output of the BNN (given the input ${\mathbf{x}}^k$) by a multivariate Laplacian distributed likelihood function: $$\begin{aligned}
&& p({\mathbf{y}}^k|{\mathbf{x}}^k,{\mathbf{w}})=\prod_{i=1}^{N}{p(y^k_{i}|{\mathbf{x}}^k,{\mathbf{w}})},\\
&& p(y^k_{i}|{\mathbf{x}}^k,{\mathbf{w}})
= \frac{1}{2\sigma^k_i}\exp\left(-\frac{|y^k_{i}-\mu^k_i|}{\sigma^k_i}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the output pixels (indexed by $i$) are assumed to be independent, and $\mu^k_i$ and $\sigma^k_i$ denote the pixel-wise mean and standard deviation, respectively. It can be shown that the widely used mean absolute error (MAE) corresponds to this Laplacian model with a constant standard deviation assumed for the entire output [@kendall2017uncertainties]. By incorporating spatially [*varying*]{} standard deviations in our model, our BNN accounts for [*inhomogeneous*]{} noise and [*shift-variant*]{} model errors.
At the [*training*]{} stage, learning of the network weights is performed by minimizing the normalized negative log-likelihood function, i.e. the loss function $L({\mathbf{w}}| {\mathbf{x}}^t, {\mathbf{y}}^t)$, given the training data $({\mathbf{x}}^t, {\mathbf{y}}^t)$: $$L({\mathbf{w}}| {\mathbf{x}}^t, {\mathbf{y}}^t) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N
\left[
\frac{|y^t_i-\mu^t_i|}{\sigma^t_i} + \log(2\sigma^t_i)
\right].$$ $L({\mathbf{w}}| {\mathbf{x}}^t, {\mathbf{y}}^t)$ consists of two parts: the first residual term resembles the MAE loss normalized by the pixel-wise standard deviation. The second is the [*data uncertainty regularization*]{} term. Most importantly, one does [*not*]{} need the ground-truth mean ($\mu_i^t$) [*nor*]{} the ground-truth standard deviation ($\sigma_i^t$) for learning the uncertainty – minimizing $L({\mathbf{w}}| {\mathbf{x}}^t, {\mathbf{y}}^t)$ allows learning both using the sample pairs $({\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})$ taken from the random process. This is achieved by the structure of this loss function. Specifically, a large residual error $|y^t_i-\mu^t_i|$ will be regulated by a large standard deviation, which in turn, increases the $\log(2\sigma^t_i)$ term; the optimum can only be reached when the two terms are balanced. Training the BNN helps to not only find the optimal weights that explains all the data, but also quantifies the individual [*mismatch*]{} between the data and the model as measured by the spread ($\sigma^t_i$) in the network’s output. At the predication stage, the BNN estimates both the mean and the standard deviation given the testing input, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:intro\](c).
One approach to assess the [*model uncertainty*]{} is to use the dropout network [@gal2016dropout]. Briefly, with dropout applied before every weight layer, a simple distribution $q({\mathbf{w}})$ is learned to provide a variational Bayesian approximation to the posterior $p({\mathbf{w}}|{\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})$.
At the [*prediction*]{} stage, the model uncertainty is calculated by Monte Carlo dropout [@gal2016dropout]. By using Monte Carlo integration over $P$ samples satisfying ${\mathbf{w}}^{(p)}\sim q({\mathbf{w}})$, we can approximate the predictive distribution by a Laplacian mixture model: $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}}) \approx \int p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}})q({\mathbf{w}})d{\mathbf{w}}\approx \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}}^{(p)}).
\label{eq:MCDO}\end{aligned}$$ The variations in the distributions $p({\mathbf{y}}|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}}^{(p)})$ from the network ensembles are a consequence of the model uncertainty \[Fig. \[fig:uncertainty\](a) bottom\].
The predicted mean $\hat{\mu}_i$ of the $i$th pixel can be estimated by the unbiased minimum mean squared error estimator: $$\hat{\mu}_i \equiv \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[y_i|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}}] \approx \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[y_i|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{w}}^{(p)}]
\approx \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P
\mu_i^{(p)},
\label{eq:E}$$ where $\mu_i^{(p)}$ is the predicted mean from the $p$th network, and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}$ denotes taking the expectation.
To provide a single, holistic measure of the uncertainty of the entire process, we quantify the overall uncertainty $\hat{\sigma}_i$ by computing the pixel-wise variance (Var): $$\begin{split}
\hat{\sigma}^2_i \equiv &\operatorname{Var}(y_i|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Y}})\\
=& \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\operatorname{Var}(y_i|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{w}})] + \operatorname{Var}(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[y_i|{\mathbf{x}}^*, {\mathbf{w}}])\\
\approx & \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P 2\left(\sigma^{(p)}_i\right)^2
+ \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P \left(\mu_i^{(p)}-\hat{\mu}_i\right)^2 \\
= & \left(\sigma^{(D)}_i\right)^2 + \left(\sigma^{(M)}_i\right)^2
\label{eq:var}
\end{split}$$ where the first equality follows the law of total variance, and the second one is derived from Eq. and the Laplacian mixture model. $\sigma^{(p)}_i$ denotes the pixel-wise standard deviation predicted from the $p$th network ensemble. Equation shows that the overall data uncertainty $\textstyle \sigma^{(D)}_i$ is measured by the mean of the predicted variance; the model uncertainty $\textstyle \sigma^{(M)}_i$ is quantified by the variance of the predicted mean.
The second approach to quantify the uncertainties is the Deep Ensembles [@lakshminarayanan2017simple], in which multiple identical networks are trained under the same condition. A sufficient number of trained networks fully captures the variabilities of the model. We train eight networks to quantify the uncertainties. The model uncertainty is quantified by the same procedures in Eqs. (\[eq:E\], \[eq:var\]).
Some examples of the predicted mean phase map, data uncertainty map, and model uncertainty map are shown in Fig. \[fig:uncertainty\](b). Comparisons between the Monte Carlo dropout and the Deep Ensembles are provided in the supplementary material.
BNN structure
-------------
Our BNN follows the U-Net architecture owing to its versatility in solving image-to-image problems [@ronneberger2015u]. It takes the encoder-decoder structure with skip connections to preserve high-frequency features, as shown in Fig. \[fig:cnn\]. We made several modifications to perform uncertainty quantification. Mostly importantly, the output of the BNN contains two channels, including the predicted (mean) phase map and the data uncertainty standard deviation map. To achieve high resolution enhancement, we further adapt the generative adversarial network (GAN) [@isola2017image]. We found that this GAN approach is needed to achieve 5$\times$ resolution improvement of data from our setup. To achieve 4$\times$ resolution improvement, however, we do [*not*]{} need to use the GAN . The impact of GAN on the reliability of the prediction is analyzed in Section \[subsec:reliability\]. Additional details about the network structure and training procedures are provided in the supplementary material. We have also made our implementation open source, along with pre-trained weights and test sample data, on our GitHub project page [@git_UL_FPM].
Data acquisition
----------------
Our technique is tested on two LED-array-based computational microscope setups, detailed in [@ling_2018; @tian2015b] and five different types of biological samples. First, we collect data on unstained HeLa cells prepared under two fixation conditions, including ethanol and formalin, on the setup in [@ling_2018]. Depending on the fixation, unique morphologies can be observed in each sample, specifically in the plasma membrane and nuclei regions. All images are captured with a 4$\times$, 0.1 NA objective (Nikon CFI Plan Achromat). Each data set consists of the multiplexed data (two brightfield and three darkfield images) and the corresponding sFPM data (185 images). Both the multiplexed and sFPM data are captured with the same 0.41 illumination NA, providing a final resolution of 0.51 NA . Next, we validate our technique on the data from [@tian2015b]. The multiplexed measurements are synthesized by summing the single-LED images. We experimentally validate this procedure on the setup in [@ling_2018] and find that the numerically synthesized multiplexed intensity closely matches with the physically captured measurement since the LEDs are spatially and temporally incoherent. We test our method on both fixed U2OS, MCF10A and dynamic live HeLa cell samples. Images were captured with a 4$\times$, 0.2 NA objective (CFI Plan Apo Lambda)at an illumination NA of either 0.5 or 0.6, which provide a final NA of 0.7 – 0.8. Each dataset contains synthesized multiplexed and corresponding sFPM data. More details are provided in the supplementary material.
Training and test data configuration {#sec:dataseparation}
------------------------------------
We design three different training and testing data configurations in order to fully investigate the robustness of the BNN subject to different types of “limited data”, including unseen biological sample types, a limited FOV, and inaccessible temporal data.
In the first set of experiments, the training data are taken from a single cell type; testing is then performed on several different cell types. In practice, different cells can produce out-of-distribution measurements that are not statistically “similar” to the training set. Differing from the classification networks that are prone to testing errors from unseen object types, our network solves the inverse problem of an imaging model. As such, a properly trained network should be able to perform high-quality phase predictions and is robust to sample variations. We investigate how well the BNN can detect and quantify such abnormalities. In addition, we also study the network’s robustness to variations in experimental setup.
In the second set of experiments, the training data are taken from a limited FOV region, whereas testing data are from the entire FOV. This task is of practical importance because wide-field systems like FPM often suffer from spatially variant aberrations [@ou2014] and illumination mis-alignment [@Eckert_2018]. These variations in the imaging path can change the intensity measurements significantly, such as contrast reversal, even when they are taken from the same sample, due to the interference effect. As a result, intensity measurements taken from FOV regions outside of the training region can produce out-of-distribution data due to the limited training FOV. Differing from the model-based FPM approach, our data-driven BNN algorithm does [*not*]{} directly take any calibration information when constructing the network. Instead, the BNN needs to learn the spatially varying imaging model from the measurements and the ground truth phase. We will investigate the reliability of the BNN against these model variations.
In the final set of experiments, the training data are taken from a limited observation time window from a time-series experiment. Dynamical biological processes can result in sample variations, which in turn affect the statistics of the intensity measurements, which may be inconsistent with the training set. We will assess the BNN’s ability to make temporal predictions and quantify the uncertainty induced by the limited temporal data.
Data preprocessing {#sec:preprocessing}
------------------
To obtain the ground truth phase for training, we first perform phase reconstruction using the sFPM algorithm [@tian2014]. To minimize model-mismatch-induced errors, we further perform algorithmic angle calibration using the algorithm in [@Eckert_2018], and digitally correct for the aberrations using the algorithm in [@tian2014]. Additional preprocessing is performed to remove the residual phase artifacts, including phase wrapping, a slowly varying background, and a large dynamic range. First, we perform phase unwrapping using the algorithm in [@Ghiglia_1994]. Examples from this procedure are given in the supplementary material. Next, the slowly varying background artifact is removed with a morphological-opening-based algorithm. Third, we perform phase dynamic range correction, which clips the $0.1\%$ pixels having extreme values to be a constant. Finally, the phase is linearly normalized to $[0,1]$. This processed phase map is then cropped into small patches for training. Still, the unwrapped phase contains residual isolated errors typically around large-phase or complex cellular features. This results in incorrect “phase labels” in the training data, which later affects the prediction. The impact of incorrect labels and phase clipping on the uncertainties of the phase predictions are analyzed in details in Sec. \[subsec:scalability\].
To facilitate a later credibility analysis of the BNN output, we further quantify the noise present in the ground truth phase. Following [@tian2015b], we measure the standard deviation in the background region and treat it as the intrinsic phase noise. We assume that the same noise level is uniformly distributed also across the sample (e.g. cell) regions. This noise level sets the tightest credible interval our BNN can provide; a detailed analysis is presented in Section \[subsec:reliability\].
To preprocess the intensity measurements, background removal based on [@tian2014; @yeh2015] is first performed, followed by the dynamic range correction as in the ground truth phase preprocessing. Next, the full FOV is divided into small patches, which are resized with a cubic interpolation algorithm to match the size of the input image with the ground truth phase. For training, the matching phase and intensity patches are fed into the BNN. For testing, we apply an additional mean equalization to intensity patches taken from the [*untrained*]{} FOV region to alleviate the out-of-distribution effect. We find this procedure is essential to improve the BNN’s generalization. Additional details about the preprocessing are provided in the supplementary material.
Data analysis {#sec:resultquant}
-------------
We develop data analysis procedures to quantitatively relate the BNN predictions to Bayesian statistical reliability measures. Typical neural networks can only evaluate errors based on the ground truth, which is [*not*]{} possible for many practical problems. Here, we derive a set of metrics that do [*not*]{} require knowing the ground truth. Our analysis is based on the predictive Laplacian mixture model \[Eq. \]. The probability density of the $i$th pixel to take the value $y$ is $$f_i(y) \equiv p({y_i}=y|{\mathbf{x}}^*,{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Y}}) \approx \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P {\mathcal{L}}(y; \mu_i^{p}, \sigma_i^{p}).$$ Accordingly, we define the [*credible interval*]{} $A^{\epsilon}_i = [\mu_i-\epsilon,\mu_i+\epsilon]$ and its bound $\epsilon$. The corresponding [*credibility*]{} $p^{\epsilon}_i$ is the predicted probability that the true mean $\mu^*_i$ falls within $A^{\epsilon}_i$: $$\begin{split}
p^{\epsilon}_i & \equiv g_i(\epsilon)
=\int_{\mu_i-\epsilon}^{\mu_i+\epsilon}f_i(y)dy
\\& = \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^{P}\left[
F^{p}(\mu_i+\epsilon)-F^{p}(\mu_i-\epsilon)
\right], \mathrm{for}~y_i\in A^{\epsilon}_i
\end{split}
\label{eq:conf}$$ where $F^{p}(\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the $p$th predicted Laplace distribution from the neural network ensembles. Another way to quantify the reliability is to calculate the bound $\epsilon^p_i$ given a targeted credibility $p$ and the predictive Laplacian mixture model; this can be computed by using the inverse function $g_i^{-1}(\cdot)$: $$\epsilon^p_i=g_i^{-1}(p).
\label{eq:error}$$ $g^{-1}(\cdot)$ does not have an elementary function, which is approximated by the bisection method.
To ensure the predictive metrics in Eqs. (\[eq:conf\], \[eq:error\]) are indicative, we further characterize how well they are [*calibrated*]{} [@kuleshov2018accurate]. To quantify this, a standard procedure is to compute the [*reliability diagram*]{} that compares the [*accuracy*]{}, i.e. the empirical probability of the ground truth matching with the predicted value, and the [*credibility*]{} [@Niculescu_Mizil_2005]. Well-calibrated metrics should predict credibility similar to the accuracy – the reliability diagram is diagonal. For the regression problem like ours, we adapt the modified reliability diagram [@Weigert_2018], which compares the averaged credibility and the empirical accuracy. To generate a reliability diagram with $M$ probability bins, we define the bin interval $\Delta p = 1/M$ and the $m$th bin $P_m$ bounded by $p_{m-1}$ and $p_m$. The averaged credibility $\operatorname{Cred}({P_m},{\epsilon})$, takes the mean over the set of pixels $S^{\epsilon}_m$ having similar credibility within $(p_{m-1},p_m]$: $$\operatorname{Cred}({P_m},{\epsilon}) =
\frac{1}{|S^{\epsilon}_m|}
\sum_{i\in S^{\epsilon}_m} p_i
=
\frac{1}{|S^{\epsilon}_m|}\sum_{p_i\in (p_{m-1},p_m]} p_i,
\label{eq:confmetric}$$ where $|S^{\epsilon}_m|$ measures the total number of pixels within the set. The empirical accuracy $\operatorname{Acc}({P_m},{\epsilon})$ is defined as the fraction (empirical probability) of the pixels in set $S^{\epsilon}_m$ in which the ground truth mean $\mu^*_i$ is within the corresponding credible intervals $A^{\epsilon}_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Acc}({P_m},{\epsilon})
= \frac{1}{|S^{\epsilon}_m|}
\sum_{i\in S^{\epsilon}_m}
{\mathbb{I}}_{\{\mu^*_i\in A^{\epsilon}_i\}}
= \frac{1}{|S^{\epsilon}_m|}
\sum_{i\in S^{\epsilon}_m}
{\mathbb{I}}_{\{\mu_i-\epsilon\leq \mu^*_i\leq \mu_i+\epsilon\}}.
\label{eq:acc}\end{aligned}$$ In practice, the ground truth mean is unknown and can only be approximated by the sFPM phase that is “noisy”, and so $\operatorname{Acc}({P_m},{\epsilon})$ is influenced by the quality of sFPM reconstruction. The bin interval sets the sampling interval in the reliability diagram, and also affects the sample size in $S^{\epsilon}_m$. We use the minimum interval while ensuring sufficient sample size for reliable statistical calculation. Both the averaged credibility and empirical accuracy depend on the credible interval bound $\epsilon$. We assess our model using different $\epsilon$ values in Section \[subsec:reliability\].
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Our results are presented in the following order: first, we show that our technique provides high-resolution phase predictions, and that the uncertainty maps are highly indicative to the true error. In addition, we show that the method is scalable to different sample types, and is applicable to experimental setups with varying final resolution. Second, we present large-SBP phase prediction and show that the uncertainty maps allow quantifying the effect of out-of-distribution data due to a limited FOV. Third, we establish the reliability of our technique by performing statistical analysis. Finally, we demonstrate time-series predictions and show that UL can facilitate the discovery of spatially and temporally rare biological features and events.
Scalable illumination coding based DL phase imaging {#subsec:scalability}
---------------------------------------------------
Our illumination coding scheme is highly scalable to large-SBP applications since it always uses five multiplexed measurements for achieving different resolution. Experiments are performed on five cell types capture with two microscope setups and three different resolutions are achieved. Specifically, Fig. \[fig:phase\](i) and (ii) are obtained with the setup in [@ling_2018] and achieve resolution enhancement from 0.1 NA to 0.51 NA; Fig. \[fig:phase\](iii–v) are from the setup in [@tian2015b]; (iii) and (iv) enhances resolution from 0.2 NA to 0.8 NA, and (v) from 0.2 NA to 0.7 NA. First, we present results from training individual network for each cell type. Without any hyper-parameter tuning, the same network structure is applicable to different samples captured on different setups. Next, we show that the BNN trained with a single cell type is generalizable to other “unseen” cell types.
Example multiplexed intensity measurements are shown in Fig. \[fig:phase\](b). Our BNN is able to consistently provide high-quality phase predictions, as shown in Fig. \[fig:phase\](c). To evaluate a BNN predicted phase, we first compare it with the phase from sFPM in Fig. \[fig:phase\](a) and then compute the pixel-wise absolute error map in Fig. \[fig:phase\](f). Adding the additional uncertainty prediction in the BNN does [*not*]{} degrade the phase predictions as compared with the CNN approach (see supplementary material). To demonstrate the need for using the DL method to overcome the ill-posedness of the phase-retrieval problem, we compare our results with those from two state-of-the-art model-based algorithms using the same multiplexed measurements. The linear DPC model [@tian2015a] can only recover phase with limited resolution, whereas the mFPM algorithm [@tian2015b] results in high-frequency artifacts in the recovered phase (see supplementary material).
Next, we inspect the BNN-predicted data uncertainty \[Fig. \[fig:phase\](d)\] and model uncertainty maps \[Fig. \[fig:phase\](e)\]. The regions where the BNN [*potentially*]{} makes larger errors are marked with higher uncertainties. We observe that the uncertainty maps generally match well with the corresponding absolute error map. In addition, the predicted uncertainty values are about $1/3$ of the absolute error. This is because for a Laplace distribution “$3\sigma$” closely approximates the credible interval bound with $95\%$ credibility. This demonstrates the utility of the uncertainty maps as a direct measure of the accuracy of the neural network predictions. Further quantitative reliability analyses are discussed in Section \[subsec:reliability\]. In addition, we observe that the data uncertainty is the dominant term in our experiments, which suggests that the incompleteness in the training data is the main source of error in the prediction. Indeed, our training data are only taken from a small region of the FOV, as further discussed in Section \[subsec:fullFOV\]. The low model uncertainty indicates that the predicted phase (i.e. pixel-wise mean) does not vary much across different neural network ensembles. This suggests that phase predictions based on the multiplexed measurements can be performed [*consistently*]{} – the stochastic training process does [*not*]{} lead to unstable inference results. Furthermore, the high uncertainty regions consistently correspond to the cellular features with large phase values. We attribute this to two primary sources of error. First, the phase clipping inevitably introduces unwanted saturation artifacts in the ground truth phase. Second, although we correct for phase wrapping artifacts when generating the ground truth, residual errors still exist. Due to the presence of these inconsistencies present in the training data associated with the large-phase features, the trained BNN tends to flag such “abnormal” regions in the uncertainty output.
Our BNN is trained to solve an inverse problem. As such, a properly trained network learns to invert the physical model, which is independent of the type of objects used in the training. To justify this proposition, we compare the results from the BNN trained from the same cell type and from a different cell type in Fig. \[fig:crossval\]. In general, the BNN is able to make high-quality phase predictions and is robust to the selection of the sample type. Nevertheless, a slight degradation is observed in the phase predicted from the network trained from a different cell type. This is because different cell types have distinct morphological features that can result in different intensity measurements. If the training data do not fully capture the statistical variations in the measurements, less accurate phase predictions would be produced when the network input contains “out-of-distribution” measurements. Most importantly, the uncertainty map from the BNN can automatically detect such abnormalities in the data. As highlighted in Fig. \[fig:crossval\], the uncertainty map remains highly indicative to the true absolute error regardless of the cell types being used for training and testing. Additional results to demonstrate the robustness of our BNN to both sample and setup variations are provided in the supplementary material.
Large-SBP phase prediction and uncertainty quantification {#subsec:fullFOV}
---------------------------------------------------------
Next, we present large-SBP phase prediction across a wide FOV. Our BNN is trained on small image patches. We perform phase and uncertainty predictions patch-by-patch. The full-FOV predictions in Fig. \[fig:fullfov\](a–c) are obtained by stitching the patches using the alpha blending algorithm.
The full-FOV [*model*]{} uncertainty \[Fig. \[fig:fullfov\](c)\] allows critically assessing the robustness of our technique. We observe that the model uncertainty is low across the FOV except in small regions around the boundary. This verifies that the BNN can reliably make high-resolution phase predictions from the multiplexed measurements – the predicted mean does not vary much across different network ensembles. In the boundary regions, the measurements suffer from severe experimental errors that lead to higher variations in the predicted means.
The effect of the out-of-distribution data due to the limited FOV is studied as follows: our [*training*]{} data are taken from a small central region ($0.4\times0.4$mm$^2$ from the full $3.5\times4.2$mm$^2$ FOV), as shown in Fig. \[fig:fullfov\](d). In general, aberration degrades as the field angle increases (i.e. the distance away from the center). In addition, the LED illumination produces greater angle mis-calibration [@Sun_2016] and background non-uniformity as the field angle increases. Both effects imply a greater degree of out-of-distribution as compared with the training data. Importantly, [*our UL approach allows predicting the potential errors induced by the out-of-distribution data*]{} – the data uncertainty map predicts higher standard deviation at the peripheral FOV regions \[Fig. \[fig:fullfov\](b)\].
Identifying such data incompleteness [*a posteriori*]{} provides important feedback to improve the data pipeline in DL. Intuitively, introducing previously out-of-distribution data to the training can reduce the data uncertainty. In our case, more credible predictions can be made by training on more examples encompassing aberrations and angle miscalibration in other FOV regions, as verified by additional experiments detailed in the supplementary material.
Quantitative reliability analysis {#subsec:reliability}
---------------------------------
To provide a quantitative assessment to our prediction, we first calculate the [*credibility map*]{} from the predicted pixel-wise distribution. Given the bound $\epsilon$ and the predicted mean $\mu_i$ (at pixel $i$), the credibility $p_i^{\epsilon}$ \[Eq. \] measures the BNN-predicted probability that the true mean falls in the credible interval $A_i^{\epsilon}=[\mu_i-\epsilon,\mu_i+\epsilon]$. To properly choose $\epsilon$, we consider the intrinsic noise in the sFPM reconstructed phase by measuring the background standard deviation $\sigma_{\mathrm{background}}$. We take this sFPM noise level as the credible interval bound ($\epsilon=\sigma_{\mathrm{background}}$) and compute the credibility pixel-by-pixel. The credibility map provides a direct quantification of how much one can trust the BNN predicted phase. The credibility maps for the five samples and the credible interval bounds are shown in Fig. \[fig:analysis\](b). As expected, less credible regions point to the “abnormal” regions where phase clipping or wrapping artifacts are likely present in the training data.
Alternatively, we evaluate the credible interval bound giving a desired credibility. The bound $\epsilon_i^p$ (at pixel $i$) is computed using Eq. . By setting a constant $p=0.95$ (i.e. 95%) credibility across the whole image, we compute the predicted credible interval bound map in Fig. \[fig:analysis\](d). We observe that the credible interval bound map generally encompasses the corresponding true absolute error map \[Fig. \[fig:analysis\](e)\]. These results match well with our previous observations on the predicted uncertainty maps.
Finally, we assess how well our UL framework is calibrated. We generate the reliability diagram \[Fig. \[fig:analysis\](c)\] by computing the averaged credibility \[Eq. \] and the approximated accuracy \[Eq. \]. We set the probability bin interval $\Delta p = 0.04$ and use six credible interval bounds ($\epsilon$). The first two cases \[Fig. \[fig:analysis\](i–ii)\] [*with*]{} GAN included both show slightly over-confident predictions, as indicated by the curves below the diagonal. The other three cases \[Fig. \[fig:analysis\](iii–v)\] [*without*]{} GAN provide better calibrated predictions since the curves closely follow the diagonal. Besides the difference in the BNN structures, the first two cases have $\sim 3\times$ stronger phase resulting in more phase clipping induced errors, and $\sim 2\times$ higher intrinsic noise in the ground truth. Since the estimated empirical accuracy is also influenced by the quality of ground truth, the lower quality ground truth phase in the first two cases could also contribute to the less calibrated predictions. Methods to improve the calibration of BNN is an active area of research [@kuleshov2018accurate] and will be developed in our future work.
Time-series large-SBP phase and credibility prediction {#subsec:time}
------------------------------------------------------
Our technique is also applicable to imaging dynamic samples. Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\] shows time-series predictions made by training the BNN using data only from a single time frame. We train the BNN using the upper $3/4$ of the FOV at the 26min frame and perform full-FOV predictions on the rest of time frames. An example FOV phase prediction is shown in Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\](a). The reliability of the temporal predictions is further quantified by calculating the credibility maps over time. An example credibility map is shown in Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\](b). As expected, the BNN is credible across the entire [*trained*]{} FOV region and less credible over the [*untrained*]{} region, matching our previous observations.
To quantify the reliability over time, we calculate the averaged credibility over the full FOV, the cell and the background regions \[Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\](c)\]. The averaged credibility fluctuates within a small range. The credibility for the cell regions slowly decays over time, which can be explained by that the temporal dynamics gradually induce more “dissimilar” out-of-distribution data. Our BNN enables quantifying such “temporal decorrelation”.
Next, we zoom in on two small regions where cell divisions undergo over time \[Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\](d–e)\]. In both cases, the credibility drops when the cells present significant morphological changes during mitosis, and increases back to the “normal” level immediately after the process is over. More examples are shown in the movie in Visualization 1. As cells become more globular during mitosis, the phase values grow significantly and often result in phase wrapping errors in the training phase data. In Fig. \[fig:conf\_time\](e), a cell undergoes apoptosis and presents distinct morphological structures. Similar to our previous observations, the BNN consistently identifies these spatially and temporally rare features by “flagging” them as being less credible.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a physics-guided DL framework for large-SBP phase imaging. Our technique enables high-resolution phase inference across a wide FOV using only five asymmetric illumination coded intensity measurements. Our results show that this BNN-based technique can effectively learn the underlying physical model. Once trained, the BNN can robustly solve the phase retrieval problem and is generalizable to different samples. Further, we have developed an uncertainty quantification framework that allows critically assessing the reliability of the BNN predictions. Specifically, we have applied our UL approach to evaluate the robustness of our illumination coding and DL phase estimation model. In addition, we have also quantified the effect of common experimental errors using the predicted uncertainties. Furthermore, we have showed that applying the UL enables discovering the incompleteness in the training data and quantifying the associated out-of-distribution testing errors. Finally, the predicted credibility map has shown to be useful in identifying spatially and temporally rare biological phenomena and characterizing the “temporal decorrelation” in dynamic processes. We believe this UL framework is widely applicable to many emerging DL-based scientific and biomedical imaging applications where critical assessment to the DL inference is essential.
Funding Information {#funding-information .unnumbered}
===================
National Science Foundation (1813848), National Institute of Health (R21GM128020).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dr. Ji Yi for providing the samples in our experiments, and Joseph Greene and Alex Matlock for helpful discussions.
[10]{}
A. W. Lohmann, R. G. Dorsch, D. Mendlovic, Z. Zalevsky, and C. Ferreira, “Space-bandwidth product of optical signals and systems,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*]{}, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 470–473, 1996.
A. W. Lohmann, “Scaling laws for lens systems,” [*Appl. Opt.*]{}, vol. 28, pp. 4996–4998, Dec 1989.
W. Lukosz, “Optical systems with resolving powers exceeding the classical limit,” [*Journal of the Optical Society of America*]{}, vol. 56, p. 1463, Nov 1966.
W. Lukosz, “Optical systems with resolving powers exceeding the classical limit ii,” [*Journal of the Optical Society of America*]{}, vol. 57, p. 932, Jul 1967.
K. Wicker and R. Heintzmann, “Resolving a misconception about structured illumination,” [*Nature Photonics*]{}, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 342–344, 2014.
G. Zheng, R. Horstmeyer, and C. Yang, “Wide-field, high-resolution [Fourier]{} [P]{}tychographic microscopy,” [*Nat. Photonics*]{}, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 739–745, 2013.
L. Tian, Z. Liu, L.-H. Yeh, M. Chen, J. Zhong, and L. Waller, “Computational illumination for high-speed in vitro [Fourier]{} ptychographic microscopy,” [*Optica*]{}, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 904–911, 2015.
A. Sinha, J. Lee, S. Li, and G. Barbastathis, “Lensless computational imaging through deep learning,” [*Optica*]{}, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1117–1125, 2017.
Y. Rivenson, Y. Zhang, H. G[ü]{}nayd[i]{}n, D. Teng, and A. Ozcan, “Phase recovery and holographic image reconstruction using deep learning in neural networks,” [*Light: Science & Applications*]{}, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 17141, 2018.
T. Nguyen, Y. Xue, Y. Li, L. Tian, and G. Nehmetallah, “Deep learning approach for [Fourier]{} ptychography microscopy,” [*Optics Express*]{}, vol. 26, p. 26470, Sep 2018.
S. Li, M. Deng, J. Lee, A. Sinha, and G. Barbastathis, “Imaging through glass diffusers using densely connected convolutional networks,” [*Optica*]{}, vol. 5, p. 803, Jul 2018.
Y. Li, Y. Xue, and L. Tian, “Deep speckle correlation: a deep learning approach toward scalable imaging through scattering media,” [*Optica*]{}, vol. 5, p. 1181, Sep 2018.
Y. Wu, Y. Rivenson, Y. Zhang, Z. Wei, H. G[ü]{}naydin, X. Lin, and A. Ozcan, “Extended depth-of-field in holographic imaging using deep-learning-based autofocusing and phase recovery,” [*Optica*]{}, vol. 5, p. 704, May 2018.
R. Horstmeyer, R. Y. Chen, B. Kappes, and B. Judkewitz, “Convolutional neural networks that teach microscopes how to image,” [*arXiv:1709.07223*]{}, 2017.
B. Diederich, R. Wartmann, H. Schadwinkel, and R. Heintzmann, “Using machine-learning to optimize phase contrast in a low-cost cellphone microscope,” [*PLOS ONE*]{}, vol. 13, p. e0192937, Mar 2018.
A. Robey and V. Ganapati, “Optimal physical preprocessing for example-based super-resolution,” [*Optics Express*]{}, vol. 26, p. 31333, Nov 2018.
M. Kellman, E. Bostan, N. Repina, and L. Waller, “Physics-based learned design: Optimized coded-illumination for quantitative phase imaging,” [ *IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging*]{}, pp. 1–1, 2019.
L. Tian and L. Waller, “Quantitative differential phase contrast imaging in an [LED]{} array microscope,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 11394–11403, May 2015.
T. R. Hillman, T. Gutzler, S. A. Alexandrov, and D. D. Sampson, “High-resolution, wide-field object reconstruction with synthetic aperturefourier holographic optical microscopy,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 17, pp. 7873–7892, May 2009.
L. Tian, X. Li, K. Ramchandran, and L. Waller, “Multiplexed coded illumination for [Fourier]{} ptychography with an [LED]{} array microscope,” [*Biomed. Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 5, pp. 2376–2389, Jul 2014.
E. Bostan, M. Soltanolkotabi, D. Ren, and L. Waller, “Accelerated [Wirtinger]{} flow for multiplexed [Fourier]{} ptychographic microscopy,” [ *arXiv:1803.03714*]{}, 2018.
P. Chen and A. Fannjiang, “Coded aperture ptychography: uniqueness and reconstruction,” [*Inverse Problems*]{}, vol. 34, p. 025003, Jan 2018.
A. Kendall and Y. Gal, “What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?,” in [*Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.*]{}, pp. 5580–5590, 2017.
A. D. Kiureghian and O. Ditlevsen, “Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter?,” [*Structural Safety*]{}, vol. 31, pp. 105–112, Mar 2009.
R. Ling, W. Tahir, H.-Y. Lin, H. Lee, and L. Tian, “High-throughput intensity diffraction tomography with a computational microscope,” [*Biomedical Optics Express*]{}, vol. 9, p. 2130, Apr 2018.
S. Mehta and C. Sheppard, “Quantitative phase-gradient imaging at high resolution with asymmetric illumination-based differential phase contrast,” [*Opt. [L]{}ett.*]{}, vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 1924–1926, 2009.
Y. Fan, J. Sun, Q. Chen, X. Pan, L. Tian, and C. Zuo, “Optimal illumination scheme for isotropic quantitative differential phase contrast microscopy,” [*arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10718*]{}, 2019.
Z. Ghahramani, “Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence,” [*Nature*]{}, vol. 521, pp. 452–459, May 2015.
X. Glorot and Y. Bengio, “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” in [*International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 249–256, 13–15 May 2010.
N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskevar, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting,” [ *J. Machine Learning Research*]{}, vol. 15, pp. 1929–1958, 2014.
L. Bottou, “Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent,” [*COMPSTAT*]{}, pp. 177–186, 2010.
B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell, “Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,” in [*Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.*]{}, pp. 6402–6413, 2017.
Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” in [*Int. Conf. on Mach. Learn.*]{}, pp. 1050–1059, 2016.
O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in [*Med. Image. Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv.*]{}, pp. 234–241, Springer, 2015.
P. Isola, J. Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” [*CoRR*]{}, vol. abs/1611.07004, 2016.
Y. Xue, S. Cheng, Y. Li, and L. [Tian]{}, “https://github.com/bu-cisl/illumination-coding-meets-uncertainty-learning.”
X. Ou, G. Zheng, and C. Yang, “Embedded pupil function recovery for [Fourier]{} ptychographic microscopy,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 22, pp. 4960–4972, Mar. 2014.
R. Eckert, Z. F. Phillips, and L. Waller, “Efficient illumination angle self-calibration in [Fourier]{} ptychography,” [*Applied Optics*]{}, vol. 57, p. 5434, Jun 2018.
D. C. Ghiglia and L. A. Romero, “Robust two-dimensional weighted and unweighted phase unwrapping that uses fast transforms and iterative methods,” [*Journal of the Optical Society of America A*]{}, vol. 11, p. 107, Jan 1994.
L.-H. Yeh, J. Dong, J. Zhong, L. Tian, M. Chen, G. Tang, M. Soltanolkotabi, and L. Waller, “Experimental robustness of [Fourier]{} ptychography phase retrieval algorithms,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 33214–33240, Dec 2015.
V. Kuleshov, N. Fenner, and S. Ermon, “Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using calibrated regression,” [*arXiv:1807.00263*]{}, 2018.
A. Niculescu-Mizil and R. Caruana, “Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning,” [*International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, 2005.
M. Weigert, U. Schmidt, T. Boothe, A. M[ü]{}ller, A. Dibrov, A. Jain, B. Wilhelm, D. Schmidt, C. Broaddus, S. Culley, and et al., “Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy,” [ *Nature Methods*]{}, Nov 2018.
J. Sun, Q. Chen, Y. Zhang, and C. Zuo, “Efficient positional misalignment correction method for [Fourier]{} ptychographic microscopy,” [*Biomedical Optics Express*]{}, vol. 7, p. 1336, Mar 2016.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The relaxation of photoexcited nanosystems is a fundamental process of light-matter interaction. Depending on the couplings of the internal degrees of freedom, relaxation can be ultrafast, converting electronic energy in a few fs, or slow, if the energy is trapped in a metastable state that decouples from its environment. Here, helium nanodroplets are resonantly excited by femtosecond extreme-ultraviolet (XUV) pulses from a seeded free-electron laser. Despite their superfluid nature, we find that helium nanodroplets in the lowest electronically excited states undergo ultrafast relaxation. By comparing experimental photoelectron spectra with time-dependent density functional theory simulations, we unravel the full relaxation pathway: Following an ultrafast interband transition, a void nanometer-sized bubble forms around the localized excitation (He$^*$) within 1 ps. Subsequently, the bubble collapses and releases metastable He$^*$ at the droplet surface. This study highlights the high level of detail achievable in probing the photodynamics of nanosystems using tunable XUV pulses.'
author:
- 'M. Mudrich'
- 'A. LaForge'
- 'A. Ciavardini'
- 'P. O’Keeffe'
- 'Y. Ovcharenko'
- 'M. Ziemkiewicz'
- 'M. Devetta'
- 'P. Piseri'
- 'M. Coreno'
- 'M. Drabbels'
- 'A. Demidovich'
- 'C. Grazioli'
- 'P. Finetti'
- 'O. Plekan'
- 'M. Di Fraia'
- 'K. C. Prince'
- 'R. Richter'
- 'C. Callegari'
- 'T. Möller'
- 'F. Stienkemeier'
- 'J. Eloranta'
- 'A. Hernando'
- 'M. Pi'
- 'M. Barranco'
title: Ultrafast relaxation of photoexcited superfluid He nanodroplets
---
Understanding the ultrafast response of condensed phase nanosystems to photoexcitation is essential for many research areas, including atmospheric science [@George:2015], radiation damage in biological matter [@Barbatti:2010; @Gokhberg:2013], light-harvesting mechanisms in natural and artificial complexes [@Collini:2010; @Son:2013], and photocatalysis [@BookPhotocatalysis]. However, the complex couplings of electronic and translational degrees of freedom often present major theoretical challenges [@Masson:2014]. In addition, the complexity of heterogeneous solid or liquid systems, as well as difficulties in preparing well-controlled samples and performing reproducible measurements, make it difficult to unravel the elementary steps in the relaxation process. In this respect, superfluid He nanodroplets are ideal model systems for studying the photodynamics in weakly-bound nanostructures, both experimentally and theoretically; He atoms have a simple electronic structure, interatomic binding is extremely weak, and, the structure of He nanodroplets is homogeneous and nearly size-independent due to their superfluid nature [@Toennies:2004; @Stienkemeier:2006]. Exploring transient phenomena associated with superfluidity is a particularly intriguing aspect of He nanodroplet spectroscopy [@Benderskii:2002; @Gruner:2011]. By probing the dynamics of laser-excited molecular systems coupled to He droplets, one gains insight into the fluid dynamics, dissipation, and transport properties of a superfluid on the molecular scale [@Brauer:2013; @Shepperson:2017; @Thaler:2018].
The properties of pure He droplets can be directly studied using electron bombardment or XUV radiation. From previous theoretical [@Barranco:2006; @Ancilotto:2017] and static photoexcitation studies [@Froechtenicht:1996; @Joppien:1993; @Karnbach:1995; @Haeften:1997; @Haeften:2002; @Peterka:2003; @Ziemkiewicz:2014], the following dynamical response to resonant absorption of an XUV photon has been inferred: The electronic excitation created in the droplet localizes on an atomic or molecular center He$_n^*$, $n=1,2,\dots$, within a few 100 fs [@Closser:2014]. Subsequently, a void cavity or bubble forms around He$_n^*$ due to Pauli repulsion between the excited electron and the surrounding ground state He atoms [@Haeften:2002], which expands up to a radius of 6.4 Å [@Hansen:1972] within about 350 fs [@Rosenblit:1995]. Depending on how close to the droplet surface the excitation localizes, the bubble either collapses before fully forming thereby ejecting He$^*$ or He$_2^*$ out of the droplet, or remains in a metastable state in the droplet [@Haeften:2002]. Using laser-based high-harmonic light sources [@Ziemkiewicz:2015], various ultrafast processes initiated by exciting high-lying states in the autoionization continuum of He nanodroplets have been revealed, including the emission of slow electrons [@Peterka:2003], the ejection of Rydberg atoms and excimers [@Kornilov:2011; @BuenermannJCP:2012], and ultrafast interband relaxation [@Ziemkiewicz:2014]. However, the dynamics of low-lying states below the autoionization threshold and in particular the bubble formation have not been probed for pure He nanodroplets, neither at the strongest absorption band associated with the atomic He$^*$ $1s2p\,^1P$ state (photon energy around $h\nu = 21.6~$eV [@Joppien:1993]), nor at the lowest optically accessible $1s2s\,^1S$ state ($h\nu = 21.0~$eV [@Joppien:1993]).
In the present study we excite these lowest excited states to directly probe the relaxation dynamics of neutral pure He nanodroplets. The experiment was carried out using tunable XUV pulses generated by the seeded free-electron laser (FEL) FERMI [@Lyamayev:2013]. The comparison of time-resolved photoelectron spectra (PES) with time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) calculations reveals an ultrafast three-step relaxation process. Despite the extremely weak binding of the He atoms in the droplets and the superfluid nature thereof, energy dissipation is very efficient even for the lowest excited states; more than 1 eV of electron energy is dissipated in less than 1 ps due to the coupling of electronic and nanofluid nuclear degrees of freedom.
The pump-probe scheme is sketched in Fig. \[fig:Scheme\]. The gray shaded area in a) shows the absorption spectrum of He nanodroplets taken from Ref. [@Joppien:1993]; for reference, the He$^*$ atomic levels are given on the right-hand side of Fig. \[fig:Scheme\] a). The massive broadening and shifting of the atomic-like excited state is due to unfavorable Rydberg-core interaction [@Guberman:1975]. The straight vertical arrows illustrate the pump (purple) and probe (blue) steps, realized by one XUV pulse and one time delayed UV pulse. The electron kinetic energy, $T_e$, measured by means of electron velocity-map imaging (VMI) [@Eppink:1997; @Lyamayev:2013], is indicated as a black double-sided arrow. The most likely relaxation pathway for $1s2p\,^1P$-excited He nanodroplets is indicated by the dotted curved arrows. The inset shows a schematic view of a He nanodroplet exposed to a pair of laser pulses, containing a localized excitation marked by ($*$).
Examples of time-dependent PES measured by exciting He droplets to the $1s2s\,^1S$ state ($h\nu=21.0$ eV) and on the blue edge of the $1s2p\,^1P$ band ($h\nu=22.2$ eV) are shown in Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] a) and b), respectively. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the electron energy one would expect for direct 1+1’ ionization of He by absorption of one pump and one probe photon, $T_e^\mathrm{direct}=h\nu+h\nu'-E_i$, where $E_i=24.6~$eV is the ionization energy of He and $h\nu'=4.8~$eV is held fixed. The panels on the right-hand sides show the PES at selected pump-probe delays. For positive delays (XUV first, UV second), the PES mainly consist of two spectral components in both cases a) and b). A broad feature labeled ‘D’ dominates the PES at short delays $t\lesssim 0.5~$ps, whereas a sharp peak ‘A’ becomes prominent at longer delays. Figs. \[fig:PPdata\] c) and d) show the amplitudes and center positions of these two peaks obtained from fits of the PES measured at various $h\nu$ (see Methods section). Peak D \[solid lines in Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] c)\] rises within the first 0.5 ps delay time and then slowly decreases, accompanied by a rapid increase of peak A (dashed lines). The opposite trends of these two components indicates a redistribution of population from D to A within 0.5-2.5 ps.
The energy of peak D \[Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] d)\] rapidly decreases within $t<1$ ps, followed by a slow decrease beyond 2.5 ps. Peak A slightly shifts from 0.9 to 0.8 eV within $t<1$ ps and remains constant thereafter. This value matches the electron energy expected for ionization of a He atom in the lowest excited singlet state, $T_e^{S\;\mathrm{atom}}=E(1s2s\,^1S)+h\nu'-E_i=0.8~$eV, where $E(1s2s\,^1S)=20.6~$eV. Therefore, we associate peak A with the ionization of a $1s2s\,^1S$-excited He$^*$ which is either weakly bound to the droplet surface or ejected into vacuum. This interpretation is supported by PES measured for various He droplet sizes presented in the supplementary material (SM). While for larger droplets peak A appears slightly later and remains less intense in proportion to peak D, its position converges to the same final value ($0.8~$eV). Consequently, peak D is assigned to a He$^*$ located further inside the He droplet such that it is energetically shifted up. When exciting the He droplet to its $1s2s\,^1S$ state \[Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] a)\], the initial position of peak D ($1.2~$eV) matches the electron energy one expects based on the droplet absorption spectrum \[Fig. \[fig:Scheme\] a)\], $T_e^{S\;\mathrm{drop}}=21\,\mathrm{eV}+h\nu'-E_i=1.3~$eV. At higher $h\nu$, where mainly the $1s2s\,^1P$ droplet state is excited \[Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] b)\], feature D corresponds to a superposition of $^1S$ and $^1P$ states which relaxes into the $^1S$ droplet state faster than the cross correlation of the two laser pulses ($250~$fs FWHM) and thus cannot be fully resolved. Note that not all droplets evolve into the atomic $^1S$ state (peak A), but nearly the same fraction of atoms remain in feature D which converges to an energy 0.1-0.2 eV above the $^1S$ atomic value.
How can the extremely weakly bound, ultracold van der Waals He clusters induce ultrafast energy relaxation by up to 1.6 eV within 1 ps? To answer this question, we first consider the potential curves of the He$^*_2$ excimer correlated to the atomic $1s2s\,^1S$ and $1s2p\,^1P$ levels as the simplest model system for the excited He droplet, shown in Fig. \[fig:Scheme\] b). The blue-shifted absorption profiles with respect to the atomic levels can be related to the steep upwards bending of the optically active $A$, $D$ and $F$ states in the range of most probable interatomic distances (3.6 Å). Following excitation of the $1s2p\,^1P$-correlated droplet state, ultrafast internal conversion proceeds due to level crossings at short interatomic distance according to the pathway indicated by the pink dotted arrows. Subsequently, the local environment rearranges to accommodate the newly formed $1s2s\,^1S$ He$^*$ atom. On the longer timescale of the fluorescence lifetime, part of the He$^*$ stabilize by forming He$_2^*$ excimers [@Buchenau:1991; @Karnbach:1995; @Haeften:1997].
To simulate this process for He droplets in three dimensions, we carried out TD-DFT calculations for a He$^*$ excitation in the $1s2s\,^1S$ state, as outlined in the Methods section. Note that this transition is forbidden in free atoms. Therefore it preferentially takes place in the surface region of the droplets where the radially-varying He density breaks the symmetry of the free He atom and makes the transition partly allowed (see Methods).
As seen in Fig. \[Fig:TDDFT\], the system evolves differently depending on the initial position $d$ of He$^*$ with respect to the droplet surface. The radius of the droplet containing $N=1000$ He atoms is $2.2$ nm. Shown are snapshots of the He density distribution at fixed times $t$ after He$^*$ excitation. Animations of these simulations for various $d$ are presented in the SM. When He$^*$ is initially placed at the surface of the droplet ($d=0$, left column), the surrounding region is locally compressed and forms a spherical dimple, while He$^*$ flies off within $t\lesssim 1~$ps. This scenario resembles the dynamics of excited alkali metal atoms which initially reside in dimple states at the droplet surface [@Hernando:2012; @Vangerow:2014; @Vangerow:2017; @Dozmorov:2018]. When He$^*$ is initially placed deeper in the bulk of the droplet ($d=0.7~$nm, right column), first a bubble forms around He$^*$, which then bursts at $t\approx 4$ ps, thereby allowing He$^*$ to escape out of the droplet. This scenario has been studied theoretically for photoexcited silver atoms [@Mateo:2013], and experimentally for indium atoms embedded in He nanodroplets [@Thaler:2018].
Besides visualizing the dynamics ensuing excitation of the droplet, the TD-DFT model allows us to simulate the time-dependent PES, see Methods section. Fig. \[Fig:Compare\] a) shows the resulting electron energies $T_e^\mathrm{sim}$ for different values of $d$. In the case He$^*$ is initialized close to the droplet surface ($d=0$ and $0.2$ nm), $T_e^\mathrm{sim}$ rapidly drops from about $1.4$ eV at $t=0$ to the final value of $0.8~$eV within $t=250$-$500$ fs due to prompt desorption of He$^*$. When He$^*$ is placed deeper inside the droplet ($d=0.4$ and $0.7$ nm), an initial fast drop of $T_e^\mathrm{sim}$ from $1.6$ to $0.9$-$1.1$ eV is followed by a slow decrease to $0.9$ eV at $t=2~$ps.
The weighted average of these curves is shown in Fig. \[Fig:Compare\] b) as a dashed line. It nicely follows the experimental curve for the droplet feature D \[red solid line in Fig. \[Fig:Compare\] b)\] up to about 2 ps delay and eventually converges to the final value of the atomic peak A. In particular, the fast drop between 0 and 1 ps coincides with the drop of peak D energy in the experimental PES \[Fig. \[fig:PPdata\] d)\] and with the appearance of peak A as the bubble forms around He$^*$. Thereafter it slowly decreases from $0.9$ to $0.8$ eV as the bubble migrates to the droplet surface and eventually releases an unperturbed He$^*$. Note that the simulated curve for $d=0.7$ nm shows an oscillatory behavior between $t=0.4$ and $2$ ps. We attribute this nearly periodic modulation of $T_e$ to the oscillation of the He bubble around He$^*$. He bubble oscillations around impurity atoms (Ag and In) have also been discussed [@Mateo:2013; @Thaler:2018]. From the comparison of the experimental and theoretical results we can now map out the full picture of the relaxation dynamics of excited He nanodroplets: Following $1s2p\,^1P$ excitation, ultrafast interband relaxation to the $1s2s\,^1S$ droplet state occurs within $< 250~$fs induced by curve crossings of the He$_2^*$ potentials (step 1). This is in line with earlier photoluminescence studies which showed that the $1s2p\,^1P$ droplet state mainly decays by XUV-photon emission of He$_2^*$ in its $A$ state correlating to the $1s2s\,^1S$ state of He$^*$ [@Karnbach:1995].
Further relaxation proceeds within the $1s2s\,^1S$ droplet band due to the local opening of a void bubble around He$^*$ (step 2). The relaxation time associated with this step ($0.5$ ps) is in good agreement with the established model of bubble formation around an electron, if we assume a final bubble radius of 6.4 Å [@Hansen:1972; @Rosenblit:1995]. It is nearly independent of the location of He$^*$ within the droplet and of the droplet size $\bar{N}$. This explains the weak variation of the experimental pump-probe PES when changing $\bar{N}$.
Subsequently, the bubble migrates to the droplet surface and bursts to release a free He$^*$ (step 3). The fact that in our experiment, both free and bubble-bound He$^*$ are measured at $t=2.5$ ps shows that the migration of the bubble to the surface is a slow process which strongly depends on the initial He$^*$ location and therefore on $\bar{N}$. A recent study of the excited state dynamics of xenon clusters revealed electronic relaxation and the emission of free xenon atoms [@Serdobintsev:2018]. Thus, our findings appear not to be specific to He nanodroplets but of rather general relevance for weakly bound condensed phase systems. Eventually, the He$^*$ that remain attached to the droplet surface further relax by forming He$_2^*$ as seen in time-independent measurements [@Karnbach:1995; @Haeften:1997]. The latter radiatively decay to the ground state after undergoing vibrational relaxation and partly detaching from the droplet [@Buchenau:1991].
The presented measurements show that it is now possible to follow the relaxation dynamics of free nanodroplets in great detail using ultrashort tunable XUV pulses. This paves the way to probing the photodynamics of more complex natural or synthetic nanosystems in various regimes of excitation of the valence shell and even inner shells.
Methods
=======
The experiments described were performed at the Low Density Matter (LDM) end station of the seeded free-electron laser FERMI [@Lyamayev:2013].
He droplet generation
---------------------
The He nanodroplets were formed by expanding He gas from a high pressure reservoir (50 bar) through a pulsed, cryogenically cooled Even-Lavie nozzle at a pulse repetition rate of $10~$Hz [@Pentlehner:2009]. The mean size of the He droplets formed in this way was controlled by changing the temperature of the nozzle in the range of 5 to 28 K.
Light sources
-------------
Linearly polarized XUV pulses in the photon energy range 21.0-22.2 eV were provided by the FERMI free electron laser set to the 5$^{th}$ harmonic of the seed laser wavelength [@Allaria:2012]. The XUV pulses generated in this way have a bandwidth $<0.1$ eV and a temporal duration of about $100$ fs FWHM. A Kirkpatrick-Baez mirror system was used to focus the FEL light to a spot size of $0.5$ mm in the interaction region of the spectrometer. To minimize non-linear effects due to absorption of more than one photon per droplet the XUV pulses were strongly attenuated by a combination of a N$_2$ filled gas cell and an aluminum filter. The pulse energy in the interaction region was estimated to be $6~\mu$J.
The UV probe pulses (170 fs duration, 7 $\mu$J pulse energy) were generated by frequency tripling part of the 775 nm Ti$:$Sa laser used to generate the seed light for the FEL. The UV pulses were focused to the same focal spot size as the XUV beam and superimposed with the XUV pulses in a quasi collinear geometry via reflection from a holey mirror. The temporal cross-correlation function was measured using two-photon ionization of He atoms *via* the He $1s5p\,^1P$ state. A Gaussian fit yields a FWHM of $250$ fs.
Electron detection, data acquisition and analysis
-------------------------------------------------
PES from the He nanodroplets are recorded using a VMI spectrometer, in which electrons are accelerated by electrostatic imaged onto a position sensitive detector consisting of a 75 mm microchannel plate and phosphor screen assembly. For each step of the pump-probe delay of 50 fs delay, VMI spectrometer images from 2000 shots were saved. A background subtraction procedure was implemented in which the bunches of He nanodroplets were periodically desynchronized from the FEL pulses so that spurious signals such as scattered light could be subtracted. The VMI spectrometer images for each delay were then summed and subsequently inverted using the pBasex routine to extract the photoelectron kinetic energy and angular distributions [@Garcia:2004]. The PES for each value of the pump-probe delay were fit with a constrained 3 Gaussian fit. The time variation of the resulting fit parameters reveal the temporal behavior of the various ionization channels.
*Ab-initio* calculations of He-He$^*$ and He-He$^+$ potentials and transition dipole moment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The He$^*$-He interaction potentials corresponding to 2$s$ and 2$p$ He atomic asymptotes were obtained at the CC3-EOM level [@Koc97; @Smi05] by using the Psi4 code [@Tur12]. The basis set was taken from Ref. [@Fie14]. All the calculated potentials were corrected for basis set superposition errors by the counterpoise method of Boys and Bernardi [@Boy70].
The transition dipole $\vec{\mu}_{2s}$ as a function of He$^*$(2$s$)-He(1$s$) distance was evaluated at the multi-reference configuration interaction (MRCI) level using the Molpro code [@Kno92; @Molpro]. The active space consisted of the molecular states originating from 1$s$ and 2$s$ atomic states. These calculations employed the basis set given in Refs. [@Sun83] and [@Cha89]. The transition dipole induced by the inhomogeneous He density in the droplet surface region is calculated as the vector sum of dipole moments of a single He$^*$-He pair weighted by the radial He density distribution, $$\begin{split}
\vec{\mu}_{2s}^\mathrm{drop} &= \int d\mathbf{r} \, \rho(\mathbf{r}) \vec{\mu}_{2s}(|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_X|) \\
&=
\int d \mathbf{r} \, \rho(\mathbf{r}) \left|\vec{\mu}_{2s} (|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_X|)\right| \frac{\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_X}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_X|}.
\end{split}$$ We find the transition dipole moment to be peaked nearly at the He droplet radius $r_0N^{1/3}$, $r_0=2.22$ Å, where it takes the value $|\vec{\mu}_{2s}^\mathrm{drop}|=0.17$ Debye.
Time-dependent density function theory
--------------------------------------
The dynamics of the excited He droplet was simulated using time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) for droplets consisting of 1000 He atoms [@Barranco:2006; @Ancilotto:2017], to which the dynamics of the He$^*$ atom is self-consistently coupled.
Due to the light mass of the He$^*$ “impurity”, its dynamics is followed by solving the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation for it, where the potential term is given by the He$^*$-droplet interaction. The expected high velocity of the impurity makes it advantageous to use the test-particles method for solving the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation [@Hernando:2012; @Ancilotto:2017]. We obtain the excess energy transfered to the photoelectron as $T_e(t)=h\nu'-[U^+(t)-U^*(t)]$. Here, the interaction energies of He$^*$ with its local environment in the He droplet in the ($t$-dependent) initial state, $U^*(t)$ is computed as $$U^*(t) = \int \int d \mathbf{r}\, d \mathbf{r}' \,\Phi^2(\mathbf{r}',t)\,\rho(\mathbf{r},t)\, {\cal V}_{\mathrm{He}-\mathrm{He}^*} (|\mathbf{r}' - \mathbf{r}|),
\label{Eq:U}$$ where $\Phi^2$ is the probability density of He$^*$, $\rho$ is the ground-state He density, and ${\cal V}_{\mathrm{He}-\mathrm{He}^*}$ is the He-He$^*$ interaction pair potential, respectively. The interaction energy of He$^+$ with the droplet in the final state, $U^+(t)$, is obtained in the same way only using the He-He$^+$ interaction potential, ${\cal V}_{\mathrm{He}-\mathrm{He}^+}$.
Funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MU 2347/8-1, STI 125/19-1), Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond, National Science Foundation (DMR-1828019), Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, and Grant No. FIS2017-87801-P (AEI/FEDER, UE) is gratefully acknowledged.
[51]{} 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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'During the execution of a job, it may suspend itself, i.e., its computation ceases to process until certain activities are complete to be resumed. This paper provides a counterexample of the schedulability analysis by Devi in Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS) in 2003.'
author:
- 'Mario Günzel and Jian-Jia Chen'
bibliography:
- 'real-time.bib'
title: 'On Schedulability Analysis of EDF Scheduling by Considering Suspension as Blocking[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Self-suspension behavior has been demonstrated to appear in complex cyber-physical real-time systems, e.g., multiprocessor locking protocols, computation offloading, and multicore resource sharing, as demonstrated in [@Chen2018-suspension-review Section 2]. Although the impact of self-suspension behavior has been investigated since 1990, the literature of this research topic has been flawed as reported in the review by Chen et al. [@Chen2018-suspension-review].
Although the review by Chen et al. [@Chen2018-suspension-review] provides a comprehensive survey of the literature, two unresolved issues are listed in the concluding remark. One of them is regarding the “*correctness of Theorem 8 in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03 Section 4.5] $\cdots$ supported with a rigorous proof, since self-suspension behavior has induced several non-trivial phenomena*”. This paper provides a counterexample of Theorem 8 in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03 Section 4.5] and disproves the schedulability test.
We consider a set of implicit-deadline periodic tasks, in which each task $\tau_i$ has its period $T_i$, worst-case self-suspension time $S_i$, and worst-case execution time $C_i$. The relative deadline $D_i$ is set to $T_i$. There are two main models of self-suspending tasks: the *dynamic* self-suspension and *segmented* (or *multi-segment*) self-suspension models. Devi’s analysis in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03] considers the dynamic self-suspension model. That is, a task instance (job) released by a task $\tau_i$ can suspend arbitrarily as long as the total amount of suspension time of the job is not more than $S_i$.
The analysis by Devi in Theorem 8 in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03 Section 4.5] extended the analysis proposed by Jane W.S. Liu in her book [@Liu:2000:RS:518501 Page 164-165] for uniprocessor preemptive fixed-priority scheduling to uniprocessor preemptive EDF scheduling. Under preemptive EDF scheduling, the job that has the earliest absolute deadline has the highest priority. Despite the non-optimality of EDF for scheduling self-suspending task systems as shown in [@DBLP:conf/rtss/RidouardRC04; @RTSS2016-suspension], EDF remains one of the most adopted scheduling strategies.
Devi’s analysis quantifies the additional interference due to self-suspensions from the higher-priority jobs by setting up the *blocking time* induced by self-suspensions. The correctness of the analysis by Liu in [@Liu:2000:RS:518501 Page 164-165] has been proved by Chen et al. [@ChenECRTS2016-suspension] in 2016 for fixed-priority scheduling. The authors in [@ChenECRTS2016-suspension] noted that “*Even though the authors in this paper are able to provide a proof to support the correctness, the authors are not able to provide any rationale behind this method which treats suspension time as blocking time.*”
Devi’s analysis for implicit-deadline task systems is rephrased as follows:
\[thm:devistheorem\] Let $\textbf{T} = {\left\{{\tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots, \tau_n}\right\}}$ be a system of $n$ implicit-deadline periodic tasks, arranged in order of non-decreasing periods. The task set $\textbf{T}$ is schedulable using preemptive EDF if $$\forall k: 1 \leq k \leq n:: \frac{B_k+B_k'}{T_k} +
\sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{C_i}{T_i} \leq 1,$$ where $$\label{eq:Bk}
B_k = \sum_{i=1}^{k} \min\{S_i, C_i\}$$ $$\label{eq:Bkprime}
B_k' = \max_{1 \leq i \leq k}\left(\max\{0, S_i - C_i\}\right)$$
Note that the notation follows the survey paper by Chen et al. [@Chen2018-suspension-review] instead of the original paper by Devi [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03]. Moreover, Devi considered arbitrary-deadline task systems with asynchronous arrival times. Our counterexample is valid by considering two implicit-deadline periodic tasks released at the same time.
Counterexample for Devi’s Analysis {#sec:counterexample}
==================================
The following task set with two tasks provides a counterexample for Devi’s analysis:
- $\tau_1: (T_1=D_1=6, C_1=5, S_1=1)$ and
- $\tau_2: (T_2=D_2=8, C_2=\epsilon, S_2=0)$, for any $0
<\epsilon \leq 1/3$.
The test of Theorem \[thm:devistheorem\] is as follows:
- When $k=1$, we have $B_1 = 1$ and $B_1'=0$. Therefore, when $k=1$, $\frac{B_k+B_k'}{T_k} + \sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{C_i}{T_i} = 1$.
- When $k=2$, we have $B_2 = 1$ and $B_2'=0$. Therefore, when $k=2$, $\frac{B_k+B_k'}{T_k} + \sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{C_i}{T_i} =
\frac{1}{8} + \frac{\epsilon}{8} + \frac{5}{6} =
\frac{23+3\epsilon}{24} \leq 1$, since $\epsilon \leq 1/3$.
Therefore, Devi’s schedulability test concludes that the task set is feasibly scheduled by preemptive EDF. But, a concrete schedule as demonstrated in Figure \[fig:counter-example\] shows that one of the jobs of task $\tau_1$ misses its deadline even when both tasks release their first jobs at the same time.
The example in Figure \[fig:counter-example\] shows that a job of task $\tau_1$ may be blocked by a job of task $\tau_2$, which results in a deadline miss of the job of task $\tau_1$. However, in Devi’s schedulability analysis, such blocking is never considered since $B_1$ and $B_1'$ do not have any term related to $\tau_2$.
Conclusion and Discussions
==========================
The counterexample in Section \[sec:counterexample\] only requires task $\tau_1$ to suspend once. The counterexample shows that applying Devi’s analysis in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03] is unsafe for the segmented self-suspension model under EDF scheduling.
Although there have been many different analyses for preemptive fixed-priority scheduling, Devi’s analysis was the *only* existing suspension-aware analysis for hard real-time task systems under preemptive EDF scheduling for long time until 2016, where Dong and Liu [@DBLP:conf/rtss/Dong0CTHL16] developed a utilization-based schedulability test for global EDF in multiprocessor systems. The special case when there is only one processor, i.e., $m=1$ in [@DBLP:conf/rtss/Dong0CTHL16], can be applied for testing the schedulability of preemptive EDF in uniprocessor systems. We note that the analysis in [@DBLP:conf/rtss/Dong0CTHL16] is limited to implicit-deadline task systems. For task systems that are not with implicit deadlines, the invalidation of Devi’s analysis implies that there is no suspension-aware schedulability analysis for preemptive EDF. The only safe schedulability test is the trivial suspension-oblivious analysis, which considers suspension time of the self-suspending tasks as if they are usual execution time. (Detailed discussions can be found in [@Chen2018-suspension-review Section 4].
Suspension-aware timing analysis for preemptive EDF hence remains as an open problem. We note that the above counterexample is only for Theorem 8 in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03]. We do not examine any other schedulability tests in [@DBLP:conf/ecrts/Devi03].
[^1]: This work has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), as part of Sus-Aware (Project no. 398602212) and the collaborative research center SFB876, subproject A1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We theoretically study a circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) architecture with current-biased flux qubits. The qubit is coupled to the transmission line resonator by a bias current originating from the current mode of the resonator. Ultrastrong coupling regime can be obtained by varying the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. We propose a scalable design for the circuit QED with current-biased flux qubits, where the dc-SQUIDs take the role of switching the qubit-resonator coupling. An exact calculation on two-qubit coupling strength in the scalable design shows the transition from ferromagnetic to antiferromagnetic xy-type interaction.'
author:
- Mun Dae Kim
title: 'A circuit QED architecture with current-biased flux qubits '
---
Introduction
============
An artificial two level system can be coupled with the quantized electromagnetic field in a superconducting transmission line resonator, while the natural atom is coupled with 3D cavity. This circuit quantum electrodynamics (QED) architecture [@Blais; @Blais07] is a solid-state analog of 3D cavity QED, providing a strong coupling strength between the qubit and resonator owing to the large dipole moment of the artificial qubit. The circuit QED scheme has been applied to the superconducting qubits. Among the superconducting qubits the flux qubit [@Mooij; @Orlando; @Kim2] has the advantage of fast gate operation because the flux qubit does not require low anharmonicity in circuit QED scheme. There have been many studies for the circuit QED with the superconducting flux qubit. [@Lind; @Oelsner] However, the inductive coupling between the flux qubit and the transmission line resonator of the circuit is too weak to perform the quantum gate operation.
Recently a galvanic coupling scheme for the circuit QED with the flux qubits has been proposed to enhance the coupling strength by sharing the flux qubit loop and the resonator transmission line. [@Abd; @Niem; @Fedorov] In this study, we propose a [*bias current coupling*]{} scheme between the flux qubit and the transmission line resonator; the qubit and the resonator are not galvanically coupled with each other, but by a current flowing through the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. In this scheme the three-junctions flux qubit is coupled by a bias current similarly to the superconducting phase qubit. [@Martinis; @QIP; @Berkley; @Sill] While the states of phase qubit are defined in terms of the phase degrees of freedom in a washboard type potential, the present current-biased flux qubit uses the persistent current states as qubit states. The qubit state preparation and the quantum gate operation are achieved by the bias current. Our qubit thus has the advantages of phase qubit such as fast qubit operation and readout and individual addressing.
In the design of our qubit the capacitance can be controlled by varying the width of capacitance line extended from the qubit loop and the distance between the capacitance line and the transmission line resonator. The coupling strength between the qubit and the resonator shows a maximum where the coupling constant can reach even ultrastrong coupling regime with reasonable parameter values.
We also introduce a scalable design with switching function and study the behavior of coupling strength for various number of qubits. The coupling between qubit and the resonator can be switched on/off by using a dc-SQUID inserted between the flux qubit and the ground plane of circuit QED. Further we analyze the xy-type interaction between two qubits. The two-qubit coupling is shown also to be strong, which requires an exact, not perturbative, representation of the two-qubit interaction. The obtained two-qubit coupling shows that we can selectively choose between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic xy-type coupling by varying system parameters.
A strong coupling and single qubit operation
============================================
Strong qubit-resonator coupling
--------------------------------
Usually the transmon qubit is coupled with the voltage mode of the transmission line resonator through a capacitance. [@Blais; @Blais07] For superconducting flux qubits, there have been many studies to couple the flux qubit with the transmission line resonator by using mutual inductance between the qubit loop and the resonator [@Lind; @Oelsner] or by sharing the qubit loop with the resonator. [@Abd; @Niem; @Fedorov] On the other hand the three-junctions flux qubit can also be coupled with the transmission line resonator through a capacitance, but in this case it is coupled with the [*current mode*]{} of the resonator. An oscillating bias current flowing across the capacitance gives rise to the coupling between the qubit and the resonator. [@Kim]
If the three-junctions flux qubit is penetrated by a magnetic flux of half flux quantum $\Phi_0/2$, there are two current states in the qubit loop. The clockwise and counterclockwise current states correspond to the local minima in the effective potential of the qubit loop. If the three Josephson junctions are identical, they have equal phase difference $\pm\alpha$ with $\alpha=\pi/3$, depending on the current states. When a bias current $I_0$ is applied to the flux qubit where three Josephson junctions are located asymmetrically in the loop as shown in Fig. \[fig1\], the coupling strength is given by a product of flux variable and bias current [@Kim] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g}
g=\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi}\alpha I_0\end{aligned}$$ similarly to the superconducting phase qubit. [@Tinkham; @Berkley] Here we have the phase difference $\alpha$ instead of $3\alpha$ because the two phases in different sides of the qubit are cancelled out each other. This bias current coupling has recently been realized in experiments with three-junctions flux qubit. [@Steffen; @Chow; @Tsai]
![ (a) A current-biased three-junctions flux qubit where $w_0$ is the width of qubit loop and $d_0$ the distance between the resonator and the ground plane. The upper superconducting plane is the transmission line resonator and the lower is the ground plane. (b) A schematic diagram for the circuit in (a), where $c$ and $c'$ are the capacitance density. The three Josephson junctions with phase difference $\phi_i$ are located asymmetrically along the qubit loop with threading flux $\Phi$. []{data-label="fig1"}](qubit.eps){width="48.00000%"}
In this study, we consider a qubit design which can control the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. Large capacitance allows high bias current, and thus makes the qubit-resonator coupling reach even ultrastrong coupling regime. We consider a qubit design shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), where the three-junctions flux qubit is coupled with the transmission line resonator by a capacitance line extended from the qubit loop. The width $w$ of the capacitance line and the distance $d$ between the capacitance line and the resonator can be adjusted to determine the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. In this case the capacitance density around the qubit location is larger than other area of the resonator, providing a strong qubit-resonator coupling. Two capacitors at the ends of the resonator are introduced for the current mode of the resonator to be periodic in a scalable design. Here we use the second harmonics of the current mode, and the arrows show the corresponding current in the circuit.
The microwave passing through the uniform resonator in the circuit QED architecture can be described as a one-dimensional motion by the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lag}
{\cal L}(\theta,{\dot\theta};t)=\int^{\frac{L}{2}}_{-\frac{L}{2}}
\left(\frac{l}{2}({\dot \theta}(x,t))^2-\frac{1}{2c}(\nabla\theta(x,t))^2\right)dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ and $c$ are the inductance and the capacitance per unit length of the uniform transmission line resonator, respectively, and $\theta(x,t)=\int^x_{-L/2}dx'q(x',t)$ with the linear charge density $q(x)$ is a collective field variable.
Figure \[fig1\](b) shows the schematic diagram of (a), where $c$ and $c'$ are the capacitance density between the resonator and the ground plane and between the resonator and the qubit, respectively. When $c' \gg c$, almost current flows through the qubit at the center and the capacitors at the ends of the resonator. The resonator thus is not uniform any more, and the equation of motion of the field variable in the sector $i$ of the resonator is given by in terms of the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ELeq}
\frac{1}{c_i}\frac{\partial^2\theta_i(x,t)}{\partial x^2} -l
\frac{\partial^2\theta_i(x,t)}{\partial t^2}=0.\end{aligned}$$
If the field variable is represented as a product of spatial and temporal parts $\theta_i(x,t)=X_i(x)\phi(t)$, we get the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqx}
\frac{1}{c_i}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}X_i(x)+l\omega^2_rX_i(x)=0.\end{aligned}$$ The spatial part $X_i(x)~(-2\leq i \leq 2)$ is explicitly written as $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!X(x)\!\!=\!\!\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\!\!A_{-2}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}+B_{-2}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}
& \!\!(-\frac{L}{2}<x<-\frac{L}{2}+\frac{w}{2}) \cr
\!\!A_{-1}e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x}+B_{-1}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x} &
\!\!(-\frac{L}{2}+\frac{w}{2}<x<-\frac{w}{2}) \cr
\!\! A_0e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}+B_0e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x} &
\!\!(-\frac{w}{2}<x<\frac{w}{2}) \cr
\!\!A_1e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x}+B_1e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x} &
\!\!(\frac{w}{2}<x<\frac{L}{2}-\frac{w}{2}) \cr
\!\!A_2e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}+B_2e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}
& \!\!(\frac{L}{2}-\frac{w}{2}<x<\frac{L}{2})
\end{matrix}
\right.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and $\omega_r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{lc_i}}\frac{j_i\pi}{L}$ is the resonator frequency. Here $c_i=c$ and $j_i=j_1$ for odd $i$ and $c_i=c'$ and $j_i=j_2$ for even $i$, and thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{omegar}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{lc}}\frac{j_1\pi}{L}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{lc'}}\frac{j_2\pi}{L}
=\omega_r.\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[eqx\]) we can readily observe that $(1/c_i)\partial X_i(x)/\partial x$ and $X_i(x)$ are continuous at the boundary between the sectors, which means the continuity of electric potential $V_i(x,t)=(1/c_i)\partial\theta(x,t)/\partial x=(1/c_i)\nabla X_i(x)\phi(t)$ and current $I(x,t)=\partial\theta(x,t)/\partial t=X(x){\dot \phi}(t)$ at boundary. In Fig. \[fig1\] the resonator and the qubit are coupled by a bias current flowing into the qubit through the capacitance in the region $-w/2<x<w/2$. The bias current is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ib}
I_b(t)=\int^{w/2}_{-w/2}{\dot q}(x,t)dx=I\left(\frac{w}{2},t\right)-I\left(-\frac{w}{2},t\right)\end{aligned}$$ from the current conservation condition ${\dot q}(x,t)=\partial I(x,t)/\partial x$ in the resonator. The other current flows from the resonator to the ground plane directly through the capacitors with small capacitance density $c$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b).
In Appendix A we present the boundary conditions for general N qubit case. We, first of all, consider $N=1$ case. The boundary conditions are categorized into two sets in Appendix A. $X(x)$ should be an odd function in order to have a finite coupling constant $g$, because the bias current of Eq. (\[Ib\]) vanishes if $X(x)$ is an even function for $-w/2<x<w/2$. In Appendix A, thus, the determinant of matrix corresponding to set (ii) of boundary conditions should be zero, resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{det}
e^{\frac{ij_1\pi}{2}\left(1-\frac{2w}{L}\right)}=
\pm\frac{cj_2\cos\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}-ic'j_1\sin\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}}
{cj_2\cos\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}+ic'j_1\sin\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}}.\end{aligned}$$ The values of $j_1$, $j_2$ and $\omega_r$ are determined from Eqs. (\[omegar\]) and (\[det\]). For uniform capacitance density $c'=c$, $j_1$ and $j_2$ are integers, but in general they are rational numbers depending on the ratio $c'/c$.
The set (i) of boundary conditions in Appendix A provides the relation $A_{-i}=-B_i$, and the coefficients $A_i$ and $B_i$ are determined from the set (ii) of boundary conditions as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqs}
B_{2}\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!-e^{ij_2\pi}A_2,\nonumber\\
A_{\!1}\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!-\!\frac{1}{j_1} e^{\!\frac{i\pi}{2}
\left(\!j_2-\!j_1(\!1-\!\frac{w}{L}\!)\!\right)}
(\!-\!\frac{cj_2}{c'}\!\cos\!\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}\!\!
+\!ij_1\!\sin\!\!\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\!\frac{w}{L})\!A_2,\nonumber\\
B_{\!1}\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!-\!\frac{1}{j_1} e^{\!\frac{i\pi}{2}
\left(\!j_2+j_1(\!1-\!\frac{w}{L}\!)\!\right)}
(\frac{cj_2}{c'}\!\cos\!\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}\!\!
+\!ij_1\!\sin\!\!\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\!\frac{w}{L})\!A_2,\nonumber\\
A_{0}\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\frac{c'j_1}{2cj_2\cos\frac{j_2\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}}
(e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}}A_1-e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{2}\frac{w}{L}}B_1).
$$
The Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lag\]) of the resonator modes can be written as ${\cal L}(\phi,{\dot \phi})= L\left(\frac{l}{2} \mu {\dot \phi}^2-\frac{1}{2c} \kappa\phi^2\right)$ with dimensionless constant $\mu=(1/L)\sum_i\int^{L/2}_{-L/2}X^2_i(x)dx$ and $\kappa=(1/L)\sum_i\int^{L/2}_{-L/2}(c/c_i)(\nabla X_i(x))^2dx$. If we introduce the representations [@Blais] $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot \phi}(t)=\frac{-i}{\sqrt{2\mu}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{Ll}}(a-a^\dagger),\\
\phi(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\kappa}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_rc}{L}}(a+a^\dagger),\end{aligned}$$ the Hamiltonian of the resonator modes is written in a diagonalized form $H_r=\hbar\omega_r(a^\dagger a+\frac12)$. The current $I(x,t)=X(x){\dot \phi}(t)$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ixt}
I(x,t)=-i\frac{X(x)}{\sqrt{2\mu}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{Ll}}(a-a^\dagger),\end{aligned}$$ where the remaining coefficient $A_2$ in Eq. (\[eqs\]) is a common factor in the numerator and denominator, and thus is cancelled out.
The total Hamiltonian $H_{\rm JC}=H_r+H_q+H_I$ given by the sum of the Hamiltonian for the resonator modes, for the qubit, and for the interaction between the resonator modes and the qubit is written as a Jaynes-Cummings type Hamiltonian [@Kim] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hc}
H_{\rm JC}=\hbar\omega_r a^\dagger a
+\frac{\omega_a}{2}\sigma_z+i g\sigma_x(a-a^\dagger),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_a$ is the qubit frequency and the last term represents the coupling between the qubit and the current mode in the resonator, which is different from $g\sigma_x(a+a^\dagger)$ in transmon case. This type of bias current coupling term for the three-junctions flux qubit has also been derived recently in a different manner. [@Tsai]
The amplitude of bias current in Eq. (\[Ib\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I0}
I_0=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{Ll}}\delta\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\delta=2\frac{X(\frac{w}{2})}{\sqrt{2\mu}},\end{aligned}$$ and thus the coupling strength $g$ in Eq. (\[g\]) is determined by $\delta$ and $\omega_r$. Since the amplitude of current $I(x,t)$ in Eq. (\[Ixt\]) satisfies the condition, $(1/L)\sum_i\int^{L/2}_{-L/2}(X_i(x)/\sqrt{2\mu})^2dx=0.5$, $\delta$ has the maximum value of $\sqrt{2}$ when the current profile takes the rectangular function form.
![ Coupling constant $g$ for the single qubit case in the plane of $(d_0/d, w/w_0)$ with the resonator impedance $Z=50\Omega$. $g$ has a maximum value corresponding to a ultrastrong coupling. At the bottom the contour plot of $g$ is shown. []{data-label="fig3"}](g.eps){width="47.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig2\] (a) we show the current profile $I(x)=\frac{X(x)}{\sqrt{2\mu}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{Ll}}$, where we set $w_0/L=10^{-4}$ corresponding to $w_0=1\mu$m when $L=10$mm. Here a finite current gap develops around the qubit location at the center of the resonator. The capacitance $c' = (wd_0/w_0d)c$ between the resonator and the capacitance line increases along with $w/w_0$ and $d_0/d$, which enables more charges to flow across the qubit. The resulting large bias current, producing the gap in current profile of Fig. \[fig2\](a), gives rise to a strong coupling $g$.
Fig. \[fig2\](b) shows the central part of current profile closed by a dotted ellipse in Fig. \[fig2\](a) for various $w/w_0$ with fixed $d_0/d$, demonstrating a larger gap for larger $w/w_0$. At the boundary ($x=\pm w/2$), the electric potential $(1/c_i)\partial
X_i(x)/\partial x$ is continuous. Fig. \[fig2\](c) shows the currents for various $d_0/d$ with fixed $w/w_0$, which shows the gap also grows along with $d_0/d$. These figures show that the current gap $\delta$ grows along with both $w/w_0$ and $d_0/d$, and is finally saturated to $\sqrt{2}$.
The coupling constant in Eq. (\[g\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g2}
\frac{g}{\hbar\omega^0_r}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\Phi_0}{\sqrt{hZ}}
\sqrt{\frac{\omega_r}{\omega^0_r}}\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega^0_r=\pi/\sqrt{lc}L$ is the frequency of the 1st harmonic mode of the uniform resonator as can be seen in Eq. (\[omegar\]) and $Z=\sqrt{l/c}$ is the impedance of the resonator. [@Huang] In Fig. \[fig3\] we show the coupling constant $g$ in the plane of ($d_0/d$, $w/w_0$) with $Z=50\Omega$. [@Abd; @Oelsner] From the contour plot of the $g$ at the bottom of the figure the strong coupling regime ($g\sim \hbar\omega^0_r$) is shown to be achievable with $w$ and $1/d$ of just several multiples of $w_0$ and $1/d_0$. The coupling $g$ shows a maximum, where the coupling reaches ultrastrong coupling regime.
In Fig. \[fig5\] the behaviors of the current gap $\delta$, the resonator frequency $\omega_r$, and the coupling $g$ along the diagonal line $w/w_0=2d_0/d$ in the plane of ($w/w_0$, $d_0/d$) in Fig. \[fig3\] are shown. Note that the frequency of the resonator mode $\omega^0_r$ becomes small for large $c$. The increase of $w/w_0$ and $d_0/d$ makes the average capacitance of the resonator larger, and thus the resonator frequency $\omega_r$ smaller. As a result, the coupling $g$ in Eq. (\[g2\]) demonstrates a global maximum because $\omega_r$ decreases while $\delta$ increases.
Single qubit gate
-----------------
Single qubit gate can be performed by applying an external driving mode $H_D=\epsilon a^\dagger e^{-i\omega_d t}+\epsilon^* a e^{i\omega_d t}$. The total Hamiltonian is written as $H_t=H^R_{\rm JC} + H_D$, where $H^R_{\rm JC}$ is given in the rotating wave approximation (RWA) of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Hc\]). By using the transformation [@Blais07] ${\cal D}(\gamma)=e^{\gamma a^\dagger-\gamma^* a }$ with $\gamma(t)=-(\epsilon/\Delta_r)e^{-i\omega_d t}$ and $\Delta_r=\omega_r-\omega_d$, we can get the transformed Hamiltonian ${\tilde H}={\cal D}^\dagger H_t {\cal D}
-i{\cal D}^\dagger {\dot {\cal D}}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde H}=\Delta_r a^\dagger a+\frac{\Delta_a}{2}\sigma_z
-ig(a^\dagger\sigma_--a\sigma_+)+\frac{\Omega_R}{2}\sigma_y\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta_a=\omega_a-\omega_d$.
This Hamiltonian can be considered as if it is derived from the RWA of the Hamiltonian $H'_t=\Delta_r a^\dagger a+\frac{\Delta_a}{2}\sigma_z
-g(a+a^\dagger)\sigma_y+\frac{\Omega_R}{2}\sigma_y$, which is identical to the Hamiltonian for the circuit QED with transmon qubit in Ref. \[\] except $\sigma_y$ instead of $\sigma_x$. Hence the analysis of qubit operation for our current-biased flux qubit can be obtained from Ref. \[\] by simply replacing $\sigma_x$ with $\sigma_y$. In the dispersive regime $|\Delta| \gg g$ with $\Delta=\omega_a-\omega_r$, for example, the coupling between qubit and resonator can be eliminated by introducing the transformation ${\cal H}={\cal U}^\dagger{\tilde H}{\cal U}$ with ${\cal U}=e^{-i\frac{g}{\Delta}(a^\dagger\sigma_-+a\sigma_+)}$, resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}\approx\Delta_r a^\dagger a+\frac{\Delta_a}{2}\sigma_z
+\chi(a^\dagger a +\frac12)\sigma_z+\frac{\Omega_R}{2}\sigma_y\end{aligned}$$ with $\chi=g^2/\Delta$. This Hamiltonian shows the resonator transmission shift $\pm\chi$ depending on the qubit state.
For the present current-biased flux qubit we can get much stronger coupling $g\gtrsim\Delta$. In this case we cannot use above small parameter expansion any more, and thus should calculate exact energy eigenvalues by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in the RWA $$\begin{aligned}
H^R_{n}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
(n+1)\Delta_r-\frac{\Delta_a}{2} & -ig\sqrt{n+1} \cr
ig\sqrt{n+1} & n\Delta_r+\frac{\Delta_a}{2}
\end{matrix}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ which results in the eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
E_n=\pm\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta}{2}\right)^2+(n+1)g^2}.\end{aligned}$$ For weak coupling regime $g\ll \Delta$ with the photon number $n=0$ in the resonator we have $E_n\approx \pm[(\omega_a-\omega_r)/2+g^2/\Delta]$, where the first term is the energy for the qubit and resonator, and the second term corresponds to the frequency shift of $\pm\chi$.
![(a) A schematic diagram for a scalable design of circuit QED with current-biased three-junctions flux qubits. Here we show, for example, two qubits and $x_{i,\pm}$ is given in Appendix A. The dc-SQUIDs between qubit and ground plane take the role of switching the coupling between qubit and resonator. The capacitance line has the width of $w$. (b) Current profiles when there are nine qubits in the circuit of (a) for $(d_0/d,w/w_0)=(1,1), (5,10), (15,30)$. The current gaps appear at qubit sites, and grow as the width $w$ of capacitance line increases.[]{data-label="fig4"}](scale.eps){width="48.00000%"}
A scalable design and two-qubit coupling
=========================================
Scalable design
---------------
Figure \[fig4\](a) shows the schematic diagram of a scalable design for the circuit QED with current-biased flux qubits, where dc-SQUIDs are inserted between the qubit and the ground plane for switching the qubit-resonator coupling. $\Phi_{{\rm x}i}$ and $\Phi_{{\rm s}i}$ are the external and switching flux for $i$-th qubit, respectively. Usually superconducting qubits are coupled with the resonator by the voltage mode or the mutual inductance. The current-biased flux qubit, however, is coupled with the resonator through the current flowing across the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. Hence, if we switch off the bias current by piercing a half-flux quantum into the dc-SQUID loop, the qubit and the resonator are decoupled from each other. In Fig. \[fig4\](b) we show the current profiles in the resonator for 9 qubits. In this case we use the 10th harmonic mode of the resonator. Similarly to the single qubit case of Fig. \[fig2\](a) the current gap increases at the qubit sites along with $w/w_0$ and $d_0/d$. However, the coupling strength is different from that of the single qubit case.
![ (a) The current gap $\delta$ for $N=$1, 2, 5, 9 qubits in the circuit of Fig. \[fig4\] as a function of $w/w_0$ along the diagonal line $w/w_0=2d_0/d$ in the bottom of Fig. \[fig3\]. $\delta/\sqrt{2}$ increases along with $w/w_0$ and saturate to 1 finally. (b) The resonator frequency $w_r$ decreases as $w/w_0$ increases. As $N$ increases, we need higher resonator mode and thus higher resonator frequency $w_r$. (c) The coupling constant $g$ shows a maximum which is larger for more number of qubits.[]{data-label="fig5"}](wr.eps){width="45.00000%"}
If there are N qubits in the circuit, we need (N+1)th harmonic mode in the resonator. For large $N$ we use higher resonator mode, and thus $\omega_r$ has larger value in Fig. \[fig5\](b). The higher mode has a shorter wave length, and thus larger amount of bias current flows from the capacitance line of width $w$ to the qubit. As a result, the current gap $\delta$ becomes larger for many qubits \[Fig. \[fig5\](a)\]. Since both $\omega_r$ and $\delta$ have large values for many qubits in the circuit, the coupling $g$ in Eq. (\[g2\]) increases along with the number of qubits $N$ \[Fig. \[fig5\](c)\]. Note that though the high frequency of resonator field might be technically challenging, the resonator frequency can be minimized, if we increase $w/w_0$ or $d_0/d$ \[Fig. \[fig5\](b)\].
Two-qubit coupling
------------------
The universal gate in quantum computing requires a two-qubit gate in addition to the single qubit operation. In the scalable design of Fig. \[fig4\](a) the two-qubit Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H2q}
H_{\rm 2q}\!\!=\omega_r a^\dagger a\!+\!\!\!\sum_{k=1,2}\!\frac{\omega_{ak}}{2}\sigma_{zk}
\!-\!i\!\!\!\sum_{k=1,2}g_k(a^\dagger\sigma_{-k}\!-\!a\sigma_{+k}).\end{aligned}$$ In the dispersive regime $|\Delta_k|=|\omega_{ak}-\omega_r|\gg g_k$, we can obtain the coupling Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hint}
H_{\rm int}=\frac12\left(\frac{1}{\Delta_1}+\frac{1}{\Delta_2}\right)
g_1g_2(\sigma_{-1}\sigma_{+2}+\sigma_{+1}\sigma_{-2})
$$ by introducing a transformation similar to that in Ref. \[\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U2}
U_2=e^{-i\frac{g_1}{\Delta_1}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-1}+a\sigma_{+1})
-i\frac{g_2}{\Delta_2}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-2}+a\sigma_{+2})}.\end{aligned}$$
When the qubit-resonator coupling $g$ is strong, the Hamiltonian should be solved by exact diagonalization rather than by series expansion with a small parameter. The two-qubit Hamiltonian of Eq. (\[H2q\]) can be written as $H_{\rm 2q}=H_{\rm cavity}\otimes H_{\rm qubit 1} \otimes H_{\rm qubit 2}$ and we introduce a transformation matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calU2}
{\cal U}_2=e^{-i\frac{\varphi_1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-1}+a\sigma_{+1})
-i\frac{\varphi_2}{\sqrt{2}}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-2}+a\sigma_{+2})}\end{aligned}$$ in the same basis. Then the Hamiltonian $H_{2q}$ and the transformation matrix ${\cal U}_2$ can be represented by a block-diagonal matrix by slightly changing the order of basis.
![(a) Contour plot for the two-qubit xy-type interaction strength $J/\hbar\omega^0_r$ in the plane of $(d_0/d, w/w_0)$ when there are only two qubits in the circuit. The parameter values are $Z=50\Omega$, $\omega^0_r/2\pi$=6GHz, and $\omega_a/2\pi$=2GHz. (b) The two-qubit coupling $|J|$ along the dotted line in (a). For weak coupling $|J|$ scales as $g^2/|\Delta|$, while in the limit of large $g/|\Delta|$ $|J|$ approaches $g/\sqrt{2}$. At the point $w/w_0\sim 38$, the sign of $\Delta$ changes, which implies the change from ferromagnetic to antiferromagnetic two-qubit coupling.[]{data-label="fig6"}](ContourJ.eps){width="40.00000%"}
For simplicity, we consider nominally identical qubits, $\omega_{a1}=\omega_{a2}$, $g_1=g_2$, and $\varphi_1=\varphi_2$, and then the lowest block involving the resonator photon number $n=$ 0 and 1 in the Hamiltonian is written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm 2q}&=&\left(
\begin{matrix}
-\Delta & -ig & -ig \cr
ig & 0& 0 \cr
ig & 0& 0
\end{matrix}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ with the basis $\{|1\downarrow\downarrow\rangle, |0\uparrow\downarrow\rangle,
|0\downarrow\uparrow\rangle \}$, where $|\uparrow\rangle$ and $|\downarrow\rangle$ are the qubit states, and $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ are the photon number states. Further the lowest block of the transformation matrix in the same basis can be evaluated by exactly summing a infinite series as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U}_2=\left(
\begin{matrix}
\cos\varphi & -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\varphi & -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\varphi\cr
-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\varphi & \cos^2\frac{\varphi}{2} & -\sin^2\frac{\varphi}{2}\cr
-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\varphi & -\sin^2\frac{\varphi}{2} & \cos^2\frac{\varphi}{2}
\end{matrix}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
Then we can easily check that if the condition $\tan 2\varphi=2\sqrt{2}g/\Delta$ is satisfied, the transformed Hamiltonian ${\tilde H}_{\rm 2q}={\cal U}^\dagger_2 H_{\rm 2q} {\cal U}_2$ becomes block-diagonal further as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde H}_{\rm 2q}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
-\Delta-\sqrt{2}g\tan\varphi & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi & \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi \cr
0 & \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi & \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi
\end{matrix}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ which describes the xy-type coupling between two states, $|0\uparrow\downarrow\rangle$ and $|0\downarrow\uparrow\rangle$, with the coupling constant $$\begin{aligned}
J=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi\end{aligned}$$ for $n=0$. $J$ can be explicitly evaluated with above condition and the interaction Hamiltonian is written by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int}=\pm\frac{g^2}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta}{2}\right)^2+2g^2}+\frac{|\Delta|}{2}}
(\sigma_{-1}\sigma_{+2}+\sigma_{+1}\sigma_{-2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the sign is $+$ for $\Delta>0$ and $-$ for $\Delta<0$ because $g>0$. For the two-qubit Hamiltonian with the transmon qubits $H_{\rm 2q}=\omega_r a^\dagger a+\sum_{k=1,2}\frac{\omega_{ak}}{2}\sigma_{zk}
-\sum_{k=1,2}g_k(a^\dagger\sigma_{-k}+\sigma_{+k} a)$, the same coupling constant $J$ can be obtained by using the transformation matrix $U=e^{-\frac{\varphi_1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-1}-a\sigma_{+1})
-\frac{\varphi_2}{\sqrt{2}}(a^\dagger\sigma_{-2}-a\sigma_{+2})}.$
In Fig. \[fig6\](a) we show $|J|/\hbar\omega^0_r$ in the plane of $(d_0/d, w/w_0)$ when there are only two qubits in the circuit of Fig. \[fig4\]. We set $\omega_a/2\pi$=2GHz for usual flux qubits, $\omega^0_r/2\pi$=6GHz, [@Lind] and $Z=50\Omega$. [@Abd; @Oelsner] The strong two-qubit coupling $J\sim \hbar\omega^0_r$ can be obtained with a few multiple values of $w_0$ and $1/d_0$. The two-qubit coupling $J$ also shows a maximum where $J/\hbar\omega^0_r \sim 2.4$.
Fig. \[fig6\](b) shows the cut view of $|J|$ along the dotted line in (a). For small $g/\Delta$ limit the condition $\tan 2\varphi=2\sqrt{2}g/\Delta$ is written as $\varphi\approx \sqrt{2}g/\Delta$. Then, the transformation matrix ${\cal U}_2$ in Eq. (\[calU2\]) is reduced to $U_2$ in Eq. (\[U2\]), and the coupling constant $J=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan\varphi$ becomes $J\approx g^2/\Delta$ in accordance with Eq. (\[Hint\]). For large $g/\Delta$ limit, $J$ is given by $J\approx \pm g/\sqrt{2}$.
These behaviors are demonstrated in Fig. \[fig6\](b). For small $w/w_0$ where the coupling $g$ is weak, it is shown that $J\sim g^2/\Delta$. As $w/w_0$ grows, $\Delta$ increases because $\omega_r$ in Fig. \[fig5\](b) decreases. At the point where the sign of $\Delta$ changes, $g/\Delta$ goes to infinity and $J$ approaches $\pm g/\sqrt{2}$. Hence, by changing parameters $(w/w_0,d_0/d)$ around this point the two-qubit ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic xy-type interaction can be obtained selectively.
Summary
=======
In summary, we propose a circuit QED architecture with current-biased flux qubits. The three-junctions flux qubit is coupled with the resonator by a bias current flowing through the capacitance between the qubit and the resonator. We introduce a capacitance line extended from the qubit loop which takes the role of leading the oscillating current, flowing from the resonator to the ground plane, into the qubit loop. For much larger capacitance almost current flows through the qubit, resulting in a ultrastrong coupling between the qubit and the resonator.
The two-qubit xy-type interaction also can reach strong coupling regime owing to the strong qubit-resonator coupling. Hence the two-qubit gate will be performed sufficiently fast in a finite coherence time of the flux qubit. The two-qubit gate in a scalable design can be performed by introducing dc-SQUIDs between the qubit and the ground plane to switch on/off the qubit-resonator coupling. We provide an exact expression of the two-qubit coupling which shows the transition from ferromagnetic to antiferromagnetic two-qubit coupling in circuit QED with the current-biased flux qubits.
[**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**]{}
The author acknowledges the useful discussion with K. Moon. This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011-0023467).
[1]{}
A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 062320 (2004).
A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 032329 (2007).
J. E. Mooij, T. P. Orlando, L. Levitov, L. Tian, C. H. van der Wal, and S. Lloyd, Science [**285**]{}, 1036 (1999); I. Chiorescu, Y. Nakamura, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Science [**299**]{}, 1869 (2003). T. P. Orlando, J. E. Mooij, L. Tian, C. H. van der Wal, L. S. Levitov, Seth Lloyd, and J. J. Mazo, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 15398 (1999).
M. D. Kim, D. Shin, and J. Hong, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 134513 (2003).
A. A. Abdumalikov, Jr., O. Astafiev, Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 180502(R) (2008); J. Bourassa, J. M. Gambetta, A. A. Abdumalikov, Jr., O. Astafiev, Y. Nakamura, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 032109 (2009).
T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. Hummer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Nature Phys. [**6**]{}, 772 (2010).
A. Fedorov, A. K. Feofanov, P. Macha, P. Forn-D[' i]{}az, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 060503 (2010).
T. Lindstrom, C. H. Webster, J. E. Healey, M. S. Colclough, C. M. Muirhead, and A. Y. Tzalenchuk, Supercond. Sci. Technol. [**20**]{}, 814 (2007).
G. Oelsner, S. H. W. van der Ploeg, P. Macha, U. Hubner, D. Born, S. Anders, E. Il’ichev, H.-G. Meyer, M. Grajcar, S. W[ü]{}nsch and M. Siegel, A. N. Omelyanchouk, and O. Astafiev Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 172505 (2010).
J. M. Martinis, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, and C. Urbina, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 117901 (2002).
J. M. Martinis, Quant. Inform. Proc. [**8**]{}, 81 (2009).
A. J. Berkley, H. Xu, R. C. Ramos, M. A. Gubrud, F. W. Strauch, P. R. Johnson, J. R. Anderson, A. J. Dragt, C. J. Lobb, and F. C. Wellstood, Science [**300**]{}, 1548 (2003).
M. A. Sillanpää, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Nature [**449**]{}, 438 (2007).
M. D. Kim and K. Moon, J. Korean Phys. Soc. [**58**]{}, 1599 (2011); arXiv: 1005.1703.
See, e.g., M. Tinkham, [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{} (McGraw Hill, New York, ed. 2, 1996).
M. Steffen, S. Kumar, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, and M. B. Ketchen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 100502 (2010).
J. M. Chow, A. D. Corcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 080502 (2011).
K. Inomata, T. Yamamoto, P.-M. Billangeon, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 140508(R) (2012).
R.-S. Huang, PhD thesis, Indiana Univ. (2004).
N qubits
========
Let’s first consider the case that the number of qubit $N$ is odd. Then the spatial part $X(x)$ of the wavefunction is written by $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!X(x)\!\!=\!\!\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\!\!\!\!A_{\!-\!N\!-\!1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}\!\!+\!\!B_{\!-\!N\!-\!1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}
& \!\!\!\!\!(-\frac{L}{2}<x<-\frac{L}{2}+\frac{w}{2}) \cr
\cdot & \cr \cdot & \cr \cdot & \cr
\!\!\!\!\!\!A_{k_o}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x}\!\!+\!\!B_{k_o}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x} &
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(x_{k_o\!-\!1,+}\!<\!x\!<\!x_{k_o\!+\!1,-}\!) \cr
\!\!\!\!A_{k_e}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}\!+\!B_{k_e}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x} &
\!\!\!\!(x_{k_e-}<x<x_{k_e+}) \cr
\cdot & \cr \cdot & \cr \cdot & \cr
\!\!A_{N+1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}\!+\!B_{N+1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x}
& \!\!(\frac{L}{2}-\frac{w}{2}<x<\frac{L}{2}), \cr
\end{matrix}
\right.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $k_e$ is even and $k_o$ is odd among $k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm (N+1)$. Here $x_{k_e\pm}=\frac{k_e}{N+1}\frac{L}{2}\pm\frac{w}{2}$, $x_{k_o\pm 1,\pm}=\frac{k_o\pm 1}{N+1}\frac{L}{2}\pm\frac{w}{2}$, $x_{-N-1,-}=-\frac{L}{2}$, and $x_{N+1,+}=\frac{L}{2}$.
The conditions for continuity of $X(x)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{odd}
&&A_{k_o-1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}+B_{k_o-1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}\\
&&=A_{k_o}e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}+B_{k_o}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}\nonumber\\
\label{even}
&&A_{k_e-1}e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}+B_{k_e-1}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&=A_{k_e}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}+B_{k_e}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm N, N+1$, and the boundary conditions at the end of resonator are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lend}
&&A_{-N-1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}+B_{-N-1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}=0,\\
\label{rend}
&&A_{N+1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}+B_{N+1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[odd\]) can be written in terms of $k_e$ and Eq. (\[even\]) in terms of $k_o$. If we set $k_e=-k_o+1$ and use the relation $x_{-k,\pm}=-x_{k,\mp}$, Eqs. (\[odd\]) and (\[even\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{odda}
&&A_{-k_e}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}+B_{-k_e}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&=A_{-k_e+1}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}+B_{-k_e+1}e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}},\nonumber\\
\label{evena}
&&A_{-k_o}e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}+B_{-k_o}e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}\\
&&=A_{-k_o+1}e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}+B_{-k_o+1}e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
A set of boundary conditions is obtained from sum of Eqs. (\[even\]) and (\[odda\]), Eqs. (\[odd\]) and (\[evena\]), and Eqs. (\[lend\]) and (\[rend\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esum}
&&(A_{-k_e}\!\!+\!B_{k_e})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}
\!\!+\!(A_{k_e}\!\!+\!B_{-k_e})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&=\!(\!A_{-k_e\!+\!1}\!+\!B_{k_e\!-\!1})e^{\!-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e\!-}}
\!\!+\!(\!A_{k_e\!-\!1}\!\!+\!B_{-k_e\!+\!1}\!)e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e\!-}},\nonumber\\
\label{osum}
&&(A_{-k_o}\!\!\!+\!B_{k_o})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}
\!\!+\!(A_{k_o}\!\!\!+\!B_{-k_o})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}\\
&&=\!(\!A_{\!-\!k_o\!+\!1}\!\!+\!\!B_{k_o\!-\!1}\!)e^{\!-i\!\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}
\!\!+\!(\!A_{\!k_o\!-\!1}\!\!+\!\!B_{\!-\!k_o\!+\!1}\!)e^{i\!\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}},\nonumber\\
\label{endsum}
&&(A_{N\!+\!1}\!+\!B_{\!-N\!-\!1})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}
\!\!\!+\!(A_{-N\!-\!1}\!+\!B_{\!N\!+\!1})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}\!\!\!=\!0.\end{aligned}$$
From the condition for continuity of $(1/c_i)dX_i(x)/dx$ similar equations are also obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{desub}
&&-\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{-k_e}\!\!+\!B_{k_e})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}
\!\!+\!\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{k_e}\!\!+\!B_{-k_e})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{-k_e+1}+B_{k_e-1})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&~~~+\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{k_e-1}+B_{-k_e+1})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}},\nonumber\\
\label{dosub}
&&-\!\frac{j_1}{c}(\!A_{-k_o}\!\!\!+\!\!B_{k_o})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}
\!\!+\!\!\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{k_o}\!\!\!+\!B_{-k_o})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{-k_o+1}+B_{k_o-1})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}\\
&&~~~+\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{k_o-1}+B_{-k_o+1})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The boundary conditions of Eqs. (\[esum\])-(\[dosub\]) are represented in terms of $A_{-k}+B_k$. On the other hand, another set of boundary conditions can be obtained in terms of $A_{-k}-B_k$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esub}
&&(A_{-k_e}\!\!-\!B_{k_e})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}
\!\!-\!(\!A_{k_e}\!-\!B_{-k_e})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&=\!(\!A_{-k_e\!+\!1}\!-\!B_{k_e\!-\!1})e^{\!-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e\!-}}
\!\!-\!(\!A_{k_e\!-\!1}\!\!-\!B_{-k_e\!+\!1}\!)e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e\!-}},\nonumber\\
\label{osub}
&&(A_{-k_o}\!\!\!-\!\!B_{k_o})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}
\!\!-\!(A_{k_o}\!\!\!-\!\!B_{-k_o})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}\\
&&=\!(\!A_{\!-\!k_o\!+\!1}\!\!-\!\!B_{k_o\!-\!1}\!)e^{\!-i\!\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}
\!\!-\!(\!A_{\!k_o\!-\!1}\!\!-\!\!B_{\!-\!k_o\!+\!1}\!)e^{i\!\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}},\nonumber\\
\label{endsub}
&&(A_{N\!+\!1}\!-\!B_{\!-N\!-\!1})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}
\!\!\!-\!(A_{-N\!-\!1}\!-\!B_{\!N\!+\!1})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{2}}\!\!\!=\!0,\\
\label{desum}
&&-\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{-k_e}\!\!-\!B_{k_e})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}
\!\!-\!\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{k_e}\!\!-\!B_{-k_e})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{-k_e+1}-B_{k_e-1})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}}\\
&&~~~-\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{k_e-1}-B_{-k_e+1})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_e-}},\nonumber\\
\label{dosum}
&&-\!\frac{j_1}{c}(\!A_{-k_o}\!\!\!-\!\!B_{k_o})e^{-i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}
\!\!-\!\!\frac{j_1}{c}(A_{k_o}\!\!\!-\!B_{-k_o})e^{i\frac{j_1\pi}{L}x_{k_o\!-\!1,\!+}}\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{-k_o+1}-B_{k_o-1})e^{-i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}\\
&&~~~-\frac{j_2}{c'}(A_{k_o-1}-B_{-k_o+1})e^{i\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x_{k_o-1,+}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
As a result, there are two sets of boundary conditions of (i) Eqs. (\[esum\])-(\[dosub\]) and (ii) Eqs. (\[esub\])-(\[dosum\]). Each set can be treated as an independent eigenvalue problem. If the determinant of matrix corresponding to set (i) is non-zero while that for (ii) is zero, we have $A_{-k}=-B_k$. Around the central qubit site the solution becomes $X_0(x)\sim A_0 \sin\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x$. On the contrary, if the determinant for (i) is zero while that for (ii) is non-zero, we have $A_{-k}=B_k$ and $X_0(x)\sim A_0 \cos\frac{j_2\pi}{L}x$. For the case that the number of qubits $N$ is even, a similar analysis can also be performed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Skyrmions are nanometric spin whirls that can be stabilized in magnets lacking inversion symmetry. The properties of isolated skyrmions embedded in a ferromagnetic background have been intensively studied. We show that single skyrmions and clusters of skyrmions can also form in the helical phase and investigate theoretically their energetics and dynamics. The helical background provides natural one-dimensional channels along which a skyrmion can move rapidly. In contrast to skyrmions in ferromagnets, the skymion-skyrmion interaction has a strong attractive component and thus skyrmions tend to form clusters with characteristic shapes. These clusters are directly observed in transmission electron microscopy measurements in thin films of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$. Topological quantization, high mobility and the confinement of skyrmions in channels provided by the helical background may be useful for future spintronics devices.'
author:
- Jan Müller
- Jayaraman Rajeswari
- Ping Huang
- Yoshie Murooka
- 'Henrik M. Rønnow'
- Fabrizio Carbone
- Achim Rosch
title: 'Magnetic skyrmions and skyrmion clusters in the helical phase of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$'
---
In crystals lacking inversion symmetry, subtle relativistic interactions lead to the formation of exotic spin textures [@dzyaloshinskii1964theory; @bogdanov1989; @bogdanov1994; @janson2014quantumnature]. For example, in chiral magnets such as Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$, ferrimagnetically ordered spins spontaneously cant to form helices with a pitch of $60\--70$nm [@adams2012long; @seki2012formation; @rajeswari2015filming]. Upon applying a tiny magnetic field, lattices of stable magnetic whirls emerge [@seki2012formation; @seki2012observation; @nagaosa2013topological; @langner2014coupledsublattices; @zhang2016imagingdomains; @zhang2016resonantxray; @zhang2016multidomainSKX]. Due to the nanometer confinement and sensitivity to electromagnetic control, these magnetic structures have potential for new spintronic devices.
In particular, the spin direction of a magnetic skyrmion wraps once around the unit sphere. This implies that the spin configuration cannot be continuously deformed to another magnetic state i.e, skyrmions are topologically protected particles [@nagaosa2013topological; @muhlbauer2009skyrmion]. Therefore they can be created and destroyed only by singular magnetic configurations [@milde2013unwinding]. Furthermore, for sufficiently small temperatures and magnetic fields, skyrmions can have practically an infinite lifetime [@hagemeister2015stability]. As a very smooth magnetic configuration, skyrmions couple only weakly to local defects [@muller2015capturing; @iwasaki2013universal]. Instead, they couple extremely well to external forces. In metals and heterostructures, skyrmions can be manipulated by small electric or thermal currents [@iwasaki2013universal; @jonietz2010spin; @yu2012skyrmion; @lin2014ac] while in magnetoelectric insulators they can be manipulated dissipationlessly with electric fields [@seki2012magnetoelectric; @white2012electricfield; @white2014electric; @omrani2014exploration], heat currents [@lin2014ac; @koshibae2014creation], and laser pulses [@ogawa2015ultrafast; @Ghil2017]. Furthermore, skyrmions are repelled from the edges of nanostructures and react very fast to external control [@sampaio2013nucleation; @woo2016observation; @zhang2015skyrmion; @zhang2017motion].
From the application perspective, research has mainly focused on the manipulation of skyrmions in a ferromagnetic background. For example, it has been suggested to build memory devices [@fert2013skyrmions] based on skyrmions arranged in a nanowire where information is encoded in the distance between skyrmions. Alternative designs use nanostructures with lanes for skyrmions where the information is stored in the lane number [@muller2016magnetic].
\
An interesting alternative is to consider skyrmions in a helical background. This problem, first studied by Ezawa [@ezawa2011compact], has, up to now, received little attention. Such states naturally occur when the phase transition from the skyrmion crystal phase to the helical phase is investigated [@milde2013unwinding; @schutte2014dynamics]. We argue that four major properties distinguish skyrmions in a helical background from their cousins in a ferromagnetic environment: (i) Skyrmions naturally move along the tracks defined by the helical order. Currents perpendicular to these naturally formed tracks are expected to drive skyrmions to very high speeds especially in materials with low Gilbert damping [@iwasaki2013universal; @iwasaki2013current; @sampaio2013nucleation]. (ii) In the helical phase, skyrmions are metastable even for vanishing magnetic field. In contrast, skyrmions in the ferromagnetic state require either a sufficiently strong external magnetic field or sufficiently strong easy-axis anisotropy to guarantee local stablility [@ezawa2011compact; @muller2016edge; @kezsmarki2015neel]. (iii) While in the ferromagnetic state only one type of skyrmion is preferred by the background magnetization [@koshibae2016theory], in the helical phase skyrmions and antiskyrmions can coexist moving on different tracks in the helical background. (iv) While the skyrmion-skyrmion interaction is typically repulsive in the ferromagnetic case [@bogdanov1995interaction; @zhang2015skyrmion], there are strong attractive components in the helical phase which naturally lead to the formation of skyrmion dimers and larger skyrmion clusters. Recently, clusters of skyrmions were also predicted [@leonov2016threedimensional] in a conical background. Leonov [*et al.*]{} [@leonov2016chiral] studied experimentally the hysteretic behavior in this regime and the formation of multidomain patterns. After submission of this manuscript, a study by Loudon [*et al.* ]{} [@loudon2017cluster] reported the observation of skyrmion clusters within the conical phase. Other works suggest attractive skyrmions in a fully polarized background only if an additional frustrated exchange [@Rozsa2016attractiveskyrmions] is taken into account. Also clusters in a homogeneous background have been measured under strong geometrical confinement [@zhao2016direct]. In a helical background, however, the attractive interaction intrinsically arises from the helical modulations and thus no additional extensions of the minimal model are required.
In the following, we will first describe the theory of skyrmions in the helical phase, their interactions, and the formation of clusters of skyrmions. Energies and magnetic fields will be measured in units of $E_0$ and $B_0$, respectively. These are set by the exchange coupling and the critical field stabilizing the ferromagnet, see the Supplemental Material [@supplement]. To observe these clusters experimentally, we acquired real space and real time movies of the helical-skyrmion phase transition in a thin film of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$ using Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (LTEM) [@supplement]. The movies reveal the nucleation of skyrmions in the helical background and their tendency to arrange in clusters of different configurations.
[*Single skyrmions in a helical phase:*]{} To investigate the energetics of skyrmions in a helical background, we performed micromagnetic simulations, see Supplemental Material [@supplement]. Figure \[fig1\] depicts the different skyrmion configurations: top panels represent single skyrmions and the characteristic skyrmion dimer. Bottom panels show the different multiskyrmion cluster configurations. While the “interstitial” skyrmion in panel (a) resembles the well-known skyrmion in a ferromagnetic background, the H-shaped skyrmion of panel (b) can be viewed as a bound state of two half-skyrmions (merons) defined by the ends of a helical strip, also refered to as a [*meron pair*]{} in Ref. . An antiskyrmion (panel (c)) with opposite winding number can be obtained by time reversal. Panel (d) represents the formation of a two-skyrmion dimer bound state due to the presence of attractive interactions. Plots of the winding number densities show that the skyrmions are indeed well localized, see Supplemental Material [@supplement].
Figure \[fig2\](a) shows the energetics of four configurations of skyrmions (solid lines) and the corresponding antiskyrmions (dashed lines). Blue and red lines represent the energetics of the “interstitial” and the H-shaped configuration, respectively, and the green lines describe the dimer state. The H-shaped state requires much less distortion of the helical background lattice and has a significantly lower energy than the interstitial state. However, both states have the same winding number [@ezawa2011compact; @supplement] and can be smoothly deformed into each other. For $B=0$, skyrmions and antiskyrmions are degenerate but since each skyrmion configuration carries a finite magnetization, they split linearly in the magnetic field. Above a critical field $B^c_s$ the energy of a single skyrmion becomes negative with respect to the pure helical background implying that above this field the system energetically favors the proliferation of skyrmions. The exact critical field for the phase transition to the skyrmion lattice is, however, slightly lower due to attractive interactions between skyrmions (explained below).
By translational symmetry it costs no energy for a single skyrmion to move parallel to the track defined by the helical background. In contrast, a huge energy barrier of several exchange coupling constants (per layer of the material) prohibits the motion to the parallel lane as can be estimated from the large energy value of the interstitial skyrmion configuration. This confinement has also important consequences for the velocity of the skyrmion when it is driven by a spin-current perpendicular to the confining walls where we assume that the helix is pinned by disorder. In a ferromagnet, the skyrmion would flow in the direction of the spin current with a velocity of the order of $v_s$, the velocity characterizing the spin current [@thiele1973steady]. Instead, the helical background acts as a confining potential [@iwasaki2013universal; @iwasaki2013current; @sampaio2013nucleation; @muller2016magnetic; @muller2015capturing] and accordingly one finds a velocity of the order of $v_s/\alpha$, if $v_s$ has a component perpendicular to the track. Here $\alpha$ is the Gilbert damping constant, which can be smaller than $10^{-2}$ in insulating materials like Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$ [@onose2012observation; @heinrich2011spin]. This effect is somehow similar to a sailing boat which can obtain velocities larger than the velocity of the wind: in this analogy the keel of the boat takes over the role of the helical background.
[*Interactions and cluster formation:*]{} Skyrmion-skyrmion interactions determine the collective behavior of skyrmions and the nature of phase transitions. Attractive interactions, for example, induce the formation of bound states and clusters and render the phase transition into the skyrmion phase to be of first order. To investigate collective skyrmion states in the helical background, we calculate [@supplement] the skyrmion-skyrmion interaction potential $V_i(R)$ for two skyrmions in the H-type configuration and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). Red and blue solid lines describe the potential for skyrmions on the same track and on neighboring tracks, respectively. In both cases, the interaction is characterized by a weak long-ranged repulsion and a much stronger short ranged attraction. This leads to the formation of a bound state of two skyrmions, the dimer state depicted in Fig. \[fig1\](d). For comparison, we also show the interaction potential for two skyrmions in a polarized background [@bogdanov1995interaction; @zhang2015skyrmion] (gray dashed line). Note that this potential is purely repulsive, which is in sharp contrast to the situation in a helical background. The attractive potential in the helical background is strongest when the two skyrmions are on the same track (n = 0). Remarkably, the attractive potential on neighboring tracks, $-0.175 E_0$, is only about 25% lower than on the same track, $-0.234 E_0$. The minimal energy is thereby obtained for a relative displacement of the two skyrmions of about half the helical wavelength either to the right or to the left. The attractive skyrmion-skyrmion interaction implies that it is energetically favourable to form clusters of skyrmions. Their energy can be estimated with high accuracy by adding the interaction potential of neighboring skyrmions. For $B=0.2 B_0$, for example, we obtain from this simple estimate $-0.469, -0.584, -4.67 E_0$ for the binding energy of three skyrmions in the same track, three skyrmions distributed on two tracks, and a 12-skyrmion cluster shown in Fig. \[fig1\](h). These values can be compared to $-0.482, -0.581, -4.60 E_0$ obtained from direct minimization. We have checked that similar results hold for $B=0.4 B_0$.
{width="100.00000%"}
[*Experiments:*]{} To experimentally detect the different skyrmion configurations predicted above, we have investigated a 110nm thin plate of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$. The magnetic textures were imaged using a cryo-LTEM, see methods in the Supplemental Material. The applied magnetic field and temperature of the sample were held constant at 33mT and 13K, respectively, such that the system is close to the phase transition between the helical and the skyrmion phase. We recorded several movies and analyze here a selected movie of 100 frames with an integration time of 125ms per frame. We observe a coexistence of helical and skyrmion domains which fluctuate with time, see Supplemental Material [@supplement]. Fig. \[fig3\](a-d) represents a $3.3 \times 3.3$ $\mu$m$^2$ zoom of the total $5.7\times5.7$ $\mu$m$^2$ micrograph at four different time points. One can clearly identify large regions dominated either by skyrmion crystals or the helical phase. The interesting feature here is the appearance of smaller clusters of skyrmions inside the helical phases. For clarity, we show a zoom of the real-space images marked by red squares in the lower panels (Fig. \[fig3\](e-h)). To highlight the different configurations of skyrmions, some of the helical regions are marked in red.
We can identify several frequently occurring defect clusters that can be related to the theoretical states shown in Fig.\[fig1\](e)-(h). The configurations I forming a line of skyrmions correspond to the state shown in Fig. \[fig1\](e). Also lines of dimers, compare Fig. \[fig1\](f), are often found and labeled by II in Fig. \[fig3\]. Averaging over several such configurations of I and II, we find that the angle between the defect orientation and the ordering vector of the helix is given by $23.5\pm 1.5^{\circ}$ for a line of skyrmions and $25.2\pm1^{\circ}$ for a line of dimers. This can be compared to $24^\circ$ and $26^\circ$ obtained within our simulations. We also find one further type of defect marked by III in Fig. \[fig3\] which cannot be interpreted as a bound state of skyrmions in a given helical background. Instead, in this “zipper” configuration the helical background on one side is shifted by half a lattice period. A simulation of such a structure is displayed in Fig. \[fig1\](g). In our simulation the binding energy per skyrmion for this configuration is lowered by approximately $0.1 E_0$ compared to the skyrmion line of Fig. \[fig1\](e) which implies that long defects of type I may transform into defects of type III. Furthermore, we observe all types of irregularly shaped clusters denoted by IV in Fig. \[fig3\]. It is instructive to compare the formation of skyrmions in the helical and the ferromagnetic state. In the latter case, skyrmion-skyrmion interactions are repulsive [@bogdanov1995interaction; @zhang2015skyrmion; @muller2016magnetic] and therefore no formation of skyrmion clusters is expected. We have checked this by performing experiments at magnetic fields of 100mT to 150mT, where only skyrmions in a ferromagnetic background occur. As expected, no cluster formation was observed by us, see Supplemental Material [@supplement].
We also observe regions where the image is blurred at the location of defects. We believe that this effect arises from the motion of defects. Assuming a Gilbert damping of the order of $10^{-2}$, we estimate the 1d diffusion constant of a cluster of $n$ skyrmions [@supplement] in the absence of defects to be of the order of $\frac{1}{n} 10^{-9}$m$^2$/s. Within the capturing time of a frame of our movie ($125 \textrm{ms}$) a freely moving cluster can therefore move distances of the order of $\frac{10}{\sqrt{n}}$ $\mu$m. This estimate is consistent with large fluctuations which we see from frame to frame captured within our movie. Sharply resolved images correspond to clusters which are temporarily bound to defects presumably arising either from lattice defects or height variations of our films.
[*Conclusions:*]{} While sharing the same topology, skyrmions embedded in a helical or a ferromagnetic environment have very different properties. Our studies highlight one aspect of this: attractive interactions in the helical background let skymions arrange in lines and clusters. These lines and clusters have characteristic shapes and orientations which we identified both in our micromagnetic simulations and electron microscopy experiments. From the viewpoint of application, skyrmions in a helical background are potentially attractive since the helical stripes provide natural lanes along which skyrmions can be driven fast. However, one has to avoid the formation of zipper configuration which can, for example, be achieved in nanowires of suitable dimensions. The energy barrier for passing skyrmions between parallel lanes could be controlled for example with tailored light pulses or electric fields and will be explored in future experiments.
We thank the Deutsche Telekom Stiftung (J.M.), the Bonn-Cologne Graduate School of Physics and Astronomy BCGS (J.M.) and the CRC 1238 (project C04) of the German Science Foundation (A. R., J.M.) for financial support. J.R. thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for funding through the Ambizione Fellowship PZ00P2\_168035. Work at LUMES was supported by the National Center for Competence in Research Molecular Ultrafast Science and Technology (NCCR MUST), a research instrument of the SNSF. Work at LQM was supported by ERC project Controlled Quantum Effects and Spin Technology and SNSF (H.M.R.).
J. M., J. R. and P. H. contributed equally to this work.
[50]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6376 10.1038/ncomms6376) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.237204) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.220406) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.1513343112) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1214143) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2013.243) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.167202) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4967499) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214420) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b00845) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1166767) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1234657) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms9455) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.054410) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms2442) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1195709) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms1990) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.187203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.060403) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/24/i=43/a=432201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.107203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.064406) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms6148) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep09552) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nnano.2013.210) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat4593) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep07643) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/19/i=6/a=065001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2013.29) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/aa5b55) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.100408) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.174432) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2013.176) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/18/6/065006) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nmat4402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms10542) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/28/i=35/a=35LT01) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.087202) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.157205) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.1600197113) @noop @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.037603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.066604)
**Supplemental Material for “Magnetic skyrmions and skyrmion clusters in the helical phase of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$”**
We present some details on the micromagnetic simulations, the calculation of interaction potentials and diffusion constants. Furthermore, we give experimental details and show that skyrmions close to the phase transition to the ferromagnetic state do not display the characteristic cluster formation observed in the helical phase.
I. Micromagnetic Simulations
============================
We consider a two-dimensional plane with the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ represented by a three-dimensional vector field. The free energy functional, $F = \int d^2 \mathbf{r} \mathcal{F}$, includes exchange interaction $A$, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-interaction $D$ and an external magnetic field $B$: $$\mathcal{F} = A (\nabla \hat{n})^2 + D \hat n \cdot \left( \nabla \times \hat n \right) - B M \hat n_z \text{,}
\label{eq:energy}$$ where $\hat n = \mathbf{M}/M$ is the normalized magnetization. Since the theory is continuous, we introduce dimensionless scales for the momentum $Q$, energy per layer $E_0$ and magnetic field $B_0$ $$Q = \frac{D}{2A}, \quad E_0 = 2 A, \quad B_0 = \frac{2 A Q^2}{M} \text{.}$$ For numerical implementation, we discretize the system, typically using 22 spins per pitch $2 \pi/Q$ of the helix. For the calculation of energy minima we prepare an initial magnetic texture and let it then relax by a fourth order Runge-Kutta integration of the equation $$\partial_\text{t} \hat n = \mathbf{B_\text{eff}^\perp}
\label{eq:LLG}$$ with $\mathbf{B}_\text{eff}^\perp$ the component of the effective magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_{\rm eff} = - \frac{1}{M} \delta F/\delta \hat n$ perpendicular to the magnetization. This equation can be interpreted as the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation where the precession term is omitted. For the calculation of interaction potentials we fixed a couple of spins (one to nine) in the center of the monomers during the minimization and hence ensure that the distance is preserved during the minimization process. We have checked that the results are approximately independent of the number of fixed spins.
A. Localization of topological charge
-------------------------------------
\
We compute the topological charge density $w(\mathbf{r})$ from the relaxed monomer, anti-monomer and dimer configurations via the formula $$w(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \hat n (\mathbf{r}) \cdot \left( \partial_x n (\mathbf{r}) \times \partial_y n (\mathbf{r}) \right)
\label{eq:windingnumberdensity}$$ and show the results in Fig. \[fig1\]. What should be noticed here is that the charge distribution is indeed localized. Furthermore, upon integration we find that the total charge $W = \int w(\mathbf{r}) \, \mathrm{d}^2r$ is $-1$ for the interstitial (a) and the H-shaped skyrmion (b), $+1$ for the antiskyrmion (c) and $-2$ for the skyrmion dimer (d).
B. Dimer potentials and energetics of clusters
----------------------------------------------
![Interaction potential of a dimer with a monomer ([*DM*]{}, dashed) and a monomer with a monomer ([*MM*]{}, solid) on the same helical lane. The MM potential is shifted such that the position of one monomer matches the position of the central monomer in the DM potential. []{data-label="fig4"}](S2.pdf){width=".6\linewidth"}
![Interaction potential of a dimer with a monomer ([*DM*]{}, dashed) and a monomer with a monomer ([*MM*]{}, solid blue) on the same helical lane. The MM potential is shifted such that the position of one monomer matches the position of one monomer of the dimer in the DM potential. The green curve ([*M2M*]{}) shows a simple two-particle approximation of the DM potential. It is a superposition of twice the MM potential, shifted to the positions of both the monomers in a dimer.[]{data-label="fig5"}](S3.pdf){width=".6\linewidth"}
In the main text the monomer-monomer potentials are discussed. Figures \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] show the interaction potential of a dimer (i.e. a bound pair of monomers) with a monomer on the same lane (Fig. \[fig4\], red dashed) and on the neighboring lane (Fig. \[fig5\], blue dashed). We emphasize that these interactions can be reduced to the potentials of only monomer interaction by additionally plotting the interaction between monomers in the same setups (solid lines respectively). These two-particle interaction potentials are shifted on the x-axis such that they match the positions of the single monomer and the nearest other monomer of the full three-particle potentials. In the case of the dimer and the monomer being placed on neighboring lanes, Fig. \[fig5\], the monomer can be located between the two constituents of the dimer and thus feels both of them. Here the full three-particle potential can be accurately described by a superposition of two two-particle interaction potentials accordingly shifted (solid green).
The energy of a cluster of skyrmions can then be estimated by simply adding the energies at the interaction minima. For example, the energy of the $12$-skyrmion cluster, Fig. 1(h) in the main text, is the sum of in total $8$ monomer pairs on the same lane and $16$ monomer pairs on neighboring lanes. This gives a total binding energy of $-4.67 E_0$ compared to $-4.60 E_0$ from the full relaxation.
C. Diffusion
------------
The dynamics of the magnetization are governed by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation (LLG). In the presence of thermal fluctuations, these equations are made stochastic by adding a fluctuating term $\mathbf{b}^\text{th}(\mathbf{r},t)$ to the effective magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_\text{eff} \to \mathbf{B}_\text{eff} + \mathbf{b}^\text{th}(\mathbf{r},t)$. This fluctuating field has to vanish on average $$\langle \mathbf{b}^\text{th}_i(\mathbf{r},t) \rangle = 0$$ and is uncorrelated with a suitable normalization factor $$\langle \mathbf{b}^\text{th}_i(\mathbf{r},t) \mathbf{b}^\text{th}_j(\mathbf{r'},t') \rangle
= 2 \alpha \frac{k_B T}{\gamma M} \delta_{i j} \delta(r-r')\delta(t-t') \text{,}$$ where $\alpha$ is the Gilbert damping, $\gamma$ the gyromagnetic ratio and $M$ the saturation magnetization. Application of the Thiele ansatz, where the magnetization is assumed a rigid object, yields the thermal stochastic force $\mathbf{F}^\text{th}(t)$ on a skyrmion. Its average properties follow directly from the LLG after the Thiele procedure $$\langle \mathbf{F}^\text{th}_i(t) \rangle = 0,
\quad
\langle \mathbf{F}^\text{th}_i(t) \mathbf{F}^\text{th}_j(t') \rangle = 2 \alpha \mathcal{D}_{i j} k_B T \delta(t-t'),$$ where $\mathcal{D}_{i j} = s d \int \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}{\hat{\mathbf{M}}}}{\mathrm{d}r_i} \cdot \frac{\mathrm{d}{\hat{\mathbf{M}}}}{\mathrm{d}r_j}\right) \mathrm{d}r^2$ is the corresponding entry of the dissipation matrix, including the spin density $s$ and the thickness $d$ of the sample. $\hat{\mathbf{M}} = \mathbf{M}/M$ is the normalized magnetization.
Via the Thiele equation, the thermal force $\mathbf{F}^\text{th}(t)$ relates directly to the velocity $\dot{\mathbf{R}}$ of the skyrmion. The resulting mean squared displacement $\langle \Delta \mathbf{R}^2 \rangle_t$ for the free motion in two spatial dimensions follows to vanish linear in the damping $\alpha$, $$\langle \Delta \mathbf{R}^2 \rangle_t = 2 \frac{ 2 \alpha \mathcal{D}}{(\alpha \mathcal{D})^2 + \mathcal{G}^2} k_B T t \text{,}$$ which can be understood as the strong circular motion of the skyrmion due to a dominant Magnus force if the damping is low. However, the motion of a skyrmion in the helical background is effectively confined to only one dimension. In this case, a low damping results in a fast velocity since the mean squared displacement in the helical lane after a time $t$ follows as $$\langle \Delta x^2 \rangle_t = 2 \frac{k_B T}{\alpha \mathcal{D}_{x x}} t = 2 D t$$ where we obtained the diffusion constant $D = \frac{k_B T}{\alpha \mathcal{D}_{x x}}$. Numerical evaluation of the dimensionless integral in the dissipation matrix coefficient yields $\mathcal{D}_{x x} \approx 65 s d$. We used for the spin density $s= 1 \hbar / 89 \AA^3$, the sample thickness $d=150\mathrm{nm}$, the temperature $T=13K$ and estimated a Gilbert damping of $\alpha=0.01$. Consequently, we obtain an estimate for the diffusion constant of the order $D= 10^{-9} m^2/s$. Since the dissipation element $\mathcal{D}_{x x}$ is linear in the number of skyrmions $n$, the diffusion constant scales as $D \propto n^{-1}$.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
II. Experimental details
========================
A high-quality single crystal of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$ was grown by the chemical vapor transport method. The single crystal was aligned and cut into a cube so that the three main directions correspond to $[1 \bar{1} 0]$, $[1 1 1]$ and $[\bar{1} \bar{1} 2]$, respectively. Then, choosing $(1 \bar{1} 0)$ as the main surface, the cube was cut into slices of $\approx 0.5$mm thickness. The sample was thinned to about 110nm by Focused Ion Beam (FIB) technique.
The magnetic structures of the sample were investigated using the FEI Titan Themis cryo-LTEM [@CIME] after zero-field cooling. The microscope equipped with a field emission gun was operated at 300kV in the Fresnel mode. The magnetic field was applied normal to the sample surface along the $[1 \bar{1} 0]$ direction.
III. Fluctuation of helical and skyrmion domains
================================================
Figure\[fig6\] presents four different frames from the movie indicating the coexistence as well as the fluctuation of helical and skyrmion domains. Magnified views of the highlighted red squares are shown in the bottom panels. For clarity, some of the helical regions are drawn in red to underline their movement as function of time.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
IV. Skyrmions in a ferromagnetic background
===========================================
Figure\[fig7\] shows Lorentz micrographs upon increasing magnetic fields as the system passes from the skyrmion to the ferrimagnetic or conical phase. Since our method averages the signal over the sample thickness, we can not clearly distinguish between these two phases which occur at higher fields. As discussed in the main text, the interactions between skyrmions depend on the precise phase in which they are embedded. While skyrmions in the helical background form characteristic line defects, no such clusters can be found in Fig. \[fig7\]b, where skyrmions are embedded in a polarized background.
V. Phase diagram
================
Figure\[fig8\] shows a schematic phase diagram for a $\approx 100\mathrm{nm}$ thin film of Cu$_2$OSeO$_3$. The schematic phase diagram is a sketch based on the data points which we have taken from Ref. . We have marked the positions in the phase diagram at which we record movies. The red diamond marks the point in phase space ($13$K, $33$mT) for which the movies in the main text were recorded. The blue diamonds mark other experimental parameters for which we have performed our measurements, among which are also the frames for the decay into the polarized phase, shown in Fig. \[fig7\].
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
[38]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [“,” ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1214143)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a particular Bardeen black hole in 2+1-dimensions. The black hole is sourced by a radial electric field in non-linear electrodynamics (NED). The solution is obtained anew by the alternative Hamiltonian formalism. For $r\rightarrow \infty $ it asymptotes to the charged BTZ black hole. It is shown that by inserting a charged, thin-shell (or ring) the charge of the regular black hole can be screened from the external world.'
author:
- 'S. Habib Mazharimousavi'
- 'M. Halilsoy'
title: 'Charge screening by thin-shells in a 2+1-dimensional regular black hole '
---
Introduction
============
Charge is one of the principal hairs associated with black holes that can be detected classically / quantum mechanically by external observers. The question that naturally may arise is the following: By some artefact is it possible to hide charge from distant observers? This is precisely what we aim to answer in a toy model of a regular Bardeen black hole in $2+1-$dimensions. For this purpose we revisit a known black hole solution powered by a source from nonlinear electrodynamics (NED) [@1]. With the advent of NED coupled to gravity interesting solutions emerge as a result. The reason for this richness originates from the arbitrary self-interaction of electromagnetic field paving the way to a large set of possible Lagrangians. From its inception NED has built a good reputation in removing singularities due to point charges [@2]. This curative power of NED can equally be adopted to general relativity where spacetime singularities play a prominent role. As an example we cite the Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) solution which is known to suffer from the central, less harmful time-like singularity. By replacing the linear Maxwell theory with NED it was shown that the spacetime singularity can be removed [@3; @4]. For similar purposes NED can be employed in different theories as well. Let us add that one should not conclude that all gravity-coupled NED solutions are singularity free. For instance, we gave newly a solution in $2+1-$dimensions where the Maxwell’s field tensor is $F_{\mu \nu }=E_{0}\delta _{\mu }^{t}\delta _{\nu }^{\theta }
$, ($E_{0}=$constant), which yields a singular solution [@6].
We must also add that apart from introducing NED coupling to make a regular RN an alternative approach was considered long ago by Israel [@5]. In [@5] it was considered a collapsing spherical shell as a source for the Einstein-linear Maxwell theory which served equally well to remove the central singularity.
In this paper we elaborate on a regular Bardeen black hole in $2+1-$dimensions [@1]. We rederive it by applying a Legendre transformation so that from the Lagrangian we shift to Hamiltonian of the system. The Lagrangian of the involved NED model turns out to be transcendental whereas the Hamiltonian becomes tractable. We show that at least the weak energy conditions (WECs) are satisfied. By applying the extrinsic curvature formalism of Lanczos (i.e. the cutting and pasting method) [@7] we match the regular interior to the chargeless BTZ spacetime [@8] outside. The boundary in between is a stable thin-shell, (or intrinsically a ring) which is the trivial version of an FRW universe. The choice of charge on the thin-shell with appropriate boundary conditions renders outside to be free of charge. This amounts, by construct, to shield inner charge of the spacetime (herein a Bardeen black hole) from the external observer. The idea can naturally be extended to higher dimensional spacetimes to eliminate black hole’s charge, or other hairs by artificial setups.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we derive the Bardeen black hole from the Hamiltonian formalism; the energy conditions and simple thermodynamics are presented. Charge screening effect and stability of thin-shell are described in Sec. III. The paper is completed with Conclusion in Sec. IV.
Bardeen Black Hole in $2+1-$dimensions
======================================
Rederivation of the solution using Hamiltonian method
-----------------------------------------------------
Bardeen’s black hole in $2+1-$dimensions was found by Cataldo et al. [@1]. They represented a regular black hole in $2+1-$dimensions whose source, in analogy with $3+1-$dimensional counterpart [@3], is NED. In this section first we revisit the solution by introducing the Hamiltonian of the system. The $2+1-$dimensional action reads $$I=\frac{1}{2}\int dx^{3}\sqrt{-g}\left( R-2\Lambda -\mathcal{L}\left(
\mathcal{F}\right) \right)$$in which $\mathcal{F}=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$ is the Maxwell invariant with $R$ the Ricci scalar and $\Lambda $ the cosmological constant. The line element is circular symmetric written as $$ds^{2}=-A\left( r\right) dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{A\left( r\right) }%
+r^{2}d\theta ^{2},$$where $A(r)$ is the metric function to be determined. The field $2-$form is chosen to be pure radial electric field (as in the charged BTZ) $$\mathbf{F}=E\left( r\right) dt\wedge dr$$in which $E\left( r\right) $ stands for the electric field to be found. The Maxwell’s nonlinear equation is$$d\left( ^{\star }\mathbf{F}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}%
\right) =0,$$where $^{\star }\mathbf{F}$ is the dual of $\mathbf{F}$ while the Einstein-NED equations read $$G_{\mu }^{\nu }+\Lambda g_{\mu }^{\nu }=T_{\mu }^{\nu }$$in which $$T_{\mu }^{\nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left( \mathcal{L}\delta _{\mu }^{\nu }-4\left(
F_{\mu \lambda }F^{\nu \lambda }\right) \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial
\mathcal{F}}\right) .$$We note that $\mathcal{F}=2F_{tr}F^{tr}$ and therefore$$T_{t}^{t}=T_{r}^{r}=\frac{1}{2}\left( \mathcal{L}-2\mathcal{F}\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}\right) ,$$while $$T_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}.$$We apply now the Legendre transformation [@3] $P_{\mu \nu }=\frac{%
\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}F_{\mu \nu }$ with $\mathcal{P}%
=P_{\mu \nu }P^{\mu \nu }=\left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial
\mathcal{F}}\right) ^{2}\mathcal{F}$ to introduce the Hamiltonian density as$$\mathcal{H}=2\mathcal{F}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}-%
\mathcal{L}.$$If one assumes that $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}\left( \mathcal{P}\right) $ then from the latter equation $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}d\mathcal{P}=\left( \frac{%
\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}+2\mathcal{F}\frac{\partial ^{2}%
\mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}^{2}}\right) d\mathcal{F}$$which implies$$\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}d\left( \left( \frac{%
\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}\right) ^{2}\mathcal{F}\right) =%
\frac{1}{\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}}\frac{\partial }{%
\partial \mathcal{F}}\left( \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial
\mathcal{F}}\right) ^{2}\mathcal{F}\right) d\mathcal{F}$$and consequently$$\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}=\frac{1}{\frac{\partial
\mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{F}}}.$$Using the inverse transformation $F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{%
\partial \mathcal{P}}P_{\mu \nu }$ one finds $\mathcal{F}=\left( \frac{%
\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}\right) ^{2}\mathcal{P}$ and finally$$\mathcal{L}=2\mathcal{P}\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}-%
\mathcal{H}.$$As a result of the Legendre transformation the Maxwell’s equations become$$d\left( ^{\star }\mathbf{P}\right) =0$$in which $\mathbf{P=}P_{\mu \nu }dx^{\mu }\wedge dx^{\nu }$ and $$T_{\mu }^{\nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left( \left( 2\mathcal{P}\frac{\partial \mathcal{%
H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}-\mathcal{H}\right) \delta _{\mu }^{\nu }-4\left(
P_{\mu \lambda }P^{\nu \lambda }\right) \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial
\mathcal{P}}\right) .$$From our field ansatz one easily finds that$$T_{t}^{t}=T_{r}^{r}=\frac{-\mathcal{H}}{2},$$while $$T_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{1}{2}\left( 2\mathcal{P}\frac{\partial \mathcal{H%
}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}-\mathcal{H}\right) .$$Let’s choose now $$\mathcal{H}=\frac{2q^{2}\mathcal{P}}{s^{2}\mathcal{P}-2q^{2}}$$in which $q$ and $s$ are two constants. Also from (3) we know that$$\mathbf{P=}D\left( r\right) dt\wedge dr$$and therefore the Maxwell’s equation (14) implies$$D\left( r\right) =\frac{Q}{r}.$$Here $Q$ is an integration constant related to charge of the possible solution. Having $D\left( r\right) $ available one finds $\mathcal{P}=-\frac{%
2Q^{2}}{r^{2}}$ and therefore $$\mathcal{H}=\frac{2Q^{2}}{s^{2}+r^{2}}$$in which $Q=q$ is used. The $tt$ / $rr$ component of the Einstein’s equation with $G_{t}^{t}=G_{r}^{r}=\frac{A^{\prime }\left( r\right) }{2r}$ reads$$\frac{A^{\prime }\left( r\right) }{2r}+\Lambda =-\frac{Q^{2}}{\left(
s^{2}+r^{2}\right) }$$for a prime denoting $\frac{d}{dr},$ which admits the following solution for the metric function$$A\left( r\right) =C+\frac{r^{2}}{\ell ^{2}}-Q^{2}\ln \left(
r^{2}+s^{2}\right) ,$$where $C$ is an integration constant and $\frac{1}{\ell ^{2}}=-\Lambda .$ The $\theta \theta $ component of energy momentum tensor is found to be$$T_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{Q^{2}\left( r^{2}-s^{2}\right) }{\left(
r^{2}+s^{2}\right) ^{2}}.$$One can check that with $G_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{A^{\prime \prime
}\left( r\right) }{2}$ the $\theta \theta $ component of the Einstein equations is also satisfied. Herein, without going through the detailed calculations, we refer to the Brown and York formalism [@9] to show that $-C$ in (23) is the mass of the black hole i.e., $C=-M$. Such details in $%
2+1-$dimensions can also be found in Ref. [@10]. The asymptotic behavior of the solution at large $r$ is the standard charged BTZ solution i.e., $$\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty }A\left( r\right) =-M+\frac{r^{2}}{\ell ^{2}}%
-2Q^{2}\ln r.$$For small $r$ it behaves as $$\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}A\left( r\right) =-M-Q^{2}\ln s^{2}+\frac{r^{2}}{\ell
^{2}}$$which makes the metric locally (anti-)de Sitter. Furthermore, one observes that all invariants are finite at any $r\geq 0$ [@1]. Next, explicit form of the Lagrangian density with respect to $\mathcal{P}$ is given by$$\mathcal{L}=\frac{-2Q^{2}\mathcal{P}\left( 2Q^{2}+s^{2}\mathcal{P}\right) }{%
\left( 2Q^{2}-s^{2}\mathcal{P}\right) ^{2}}$$and the closed form of the electric field i.e., $E\left( r\right) =\frac{%
\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathcal{P}}D\left( r\right) $ becomes$$E\left( r\right) =-\frac{Qr^{3}}{\left( s^{2}+r^{2}\right) ^{2}}.$$We comment that $E\left( r\right) $ is also regular everywhere and at large $%
r$ it behaves similar to the standard linear Maxwell’s field theory. In all our results, setting $s$ to zero takes our solution to the standard charged BTZ solution. We must add that the metric function (23) provides a regular solution. Depending on the parameters $M,$ (or $C$), $Q$ and $s$ it may give a black hole with single / double horizon, or no horizon at all (See Fig.s 1 and 2).
Energy Conditions and Thermodynamics in brief
---------------------------------------------
In this part we would like to check the energy conditions such as the weak (WECs) and the strong energy conditions (SECs). As we have found, the energy density is given by$$\rho =-T_{t}^{t}=\frac{Q^{2}}{\left( s^{2}+r^{2}\right) }$$while the radial and tangential pressures are given respectively by$$p_{r}=T_{r}^{r}=-\frac{Q^{2}}{\left( s^{2}+r^{2}\right) }$$and$$p_{\theta }=T_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{Q^{2}\left( r^{2}-s^{2}\right) }{%
\left( r^{2}+s^{2}\right) ^{2}}.$$WECs imply i) $\rho \geq 0$ ii), $\rho +p_{r}\geq 0$ and iii) $\rho
+p_{\theta }\geq 0.$ All of these conditions are trivially satisfied. The SECs state that in addition to WECs we must also have $\rho +p_{r}+p_{\theta
}\geq 0$ leading to the condition$$\frac{Q^{2}\left( r^{2}-s^{2}\right) }{\left( r^{2}+s^{2}\right) ^{2}}\geq 0$$which is satisfied for $r\geq s$. In conclusion WECs are satisfied everywhere while SECs are satisfied only for $r\geq s$.
To complete our solution we look at the thermodynamics of the solution. (A comprehensive study on thermodynamics of Einstein-Born-Infeld black holes in three dimensions can be found in Ref. [@11]). If we consider $r_{h}$ to be the radius of the event horizon then$$A\left( r_{h}\right) =0$$which implies the mass given by$$M=\frac{r_{h}^{2}}{\ell ^{2}}-Q^{2}\ln \left( r_{h}^{2}+s^{2}\right) .$$From the first law of thermodynamics $dM=TdS+\Phi dQ$ in which $S=2\pi r_{h}$ is the entropy and $\Phi $ is the electric potential all measured at the horizon, one can write$$T=\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\right) _{Q}=\frac{r_{h}\left(
r_{h}^{2}+s^{2}-Q^{2}\ell ^{2}\right) }{2\pi \ell ^{2}\left(
r_{h}^{2}+s^{2}\right) }.$$Finally we write the heat capacity as $C_{Q}=T\left( \frac{\partial T}{%
\partial S}\right) $ which is given by$$C_{Q}=\frac{r_{h}\left( r_{h}^{2}+s^{2}-Q^{2}\ell ^{2}\right) \left(
r_{h}^{4}+r_{h}^{2}\left( 2s^{2}+Q^{2}\ell ^{2}\right) +s^{2}\left(
s^{2}-\ell ^{2}Q^{2}\right) \right) }{16\pi ^{3}\ell ^{4}\left(
r_{h}^{2}+s^{2}\right) ^{3}}.$$One observes that $\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}$ $T=\frac{r_{h}^{2}-Q^{2}\ell ^{2}}{%
2\pi \ell ^{2}r_{h}}$ and $\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}$ $C_{Q}=\frac{%
r_{h}^{4}-Q^{4}\ell ^{4}}{16\pi ^{3}\ell ^{4}r_{h}^{3}}$ which are the thermodynamic quantities of charged BTZ.
In brief, we rederived the $2+1-$dimensional version of the regular Bardeen black hole. Our source is NED with an electric field $F_{tr}\neq 0,$ in $%
2+1- $dimensions. Our Maxwell invariant $\mathcal{F}=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu
} $ is regular everywhere. For $r\rightarrow \infty $ our solution goes to the charged BTZ solution. For $r\rightarrow 0$ the solution is locally (anti)-de Sitter which globally can be interpreted as a topological defect.
Charge Screening by a Thin Stable Shell
=======================================
In this section we shall use the formalism introduced by Eiroa and Simeone [@7] to construct a thin-shell (not bubble) which may shield the charge of the regular Bardeen black hole given above. (There are some other related works in $2+1-$dimensions which are given in Ref. [@12]) Therefore we employ the Bardeen black hole solution in $2+1-$dimensions for $r<a$ (region 1 with $f_{1}\left( r\right) =A\left( r\right) $ in (2)) and the de Sitter BTZ black hole solution for $r>a$ (region 2 with $f_{2}\left( r\right)
=A\left( r\right) $ in (2)) in which $a$ is the radius of the thin-shell under construction. The extrinsic line element on the shell (or ring) is written as $$ds_{12}^{2}=-d\tau ^{2}+a^{2}d\theta ^{2}.$$where $\tau $ is the proper time on our timelike shell. One must note that our shell is not dynamic in general but in order to investigate the stability of the thin shell against a linear perturbation, we let the radius $a$ to be a function of the proper time $\tau $ which is measured by an observer on the shell. This indeed does not mean that the bulk metric is time dependent. This method has been introduced by Israel [@5] and being used widely to study the stability of thin-shell and thin-shell wormholes ever since [@13]. The Einstein equations on the shell become Lanczos equations [@5; @7] which are given by$$-[K_{i}^{j}]+\left[ K\right] \delta _{i}^{j}=8\pi S_{i}^{j}$$in which one finds [@7] the energy density on the shell $$\sigma =-S_{\tau }^{\tau }=\frac{1}{8\pi a}\left( \sqrt{f_{1}\left( a\right)
+\dot{a}^{2}}-\sqrt{f_{2}\left( a\right) +\dot{a}^{2}}\right)$$and the pressure $$p=S_{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{2\ddot{a}+f_{2}^{\prime }\left( a\right) }{%
16\pi \sqrt{f_{2}\left( a\right) +\dot{a}^{2}}}-\frac{2\ddot{a}%
+f_{1}^{\prime }\left( a\right) }{16\pi \sqrt{f_{1}\left( a\right) +\dot{a}%
^{2}}}.$$Note that a ’prime’ is derivative wrt $a$ while a ’dot’ is wrt proper time. Having energy conserved implies that $$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left( a\sigma \right) +p\frac{da}{d\tau }=0$$for any dynamic shell (ring) as $a$ is a function of proper time $\tau .$ If one considers the equilibrium radius to be at $a=a_{0}$ the energy density and pressure at equilibrium are given by$$\sigma _{0}=\frac{1}{8\pi a_{0}}\left( \sqrt{f_{1}\left( a_{0}\right) }-%
\sqrt{f_{2}\left( a_{0}\right) }\right)$$and$$p_{0}=\frac{f_{2}^{\prime }\left( a_{0}\right) }{16\pi \sqrt{f_{2}\left(
a_{0}\right) }}-\frac{f_{1}^{\prime }\left( a_{0}\right) }{16\pi \sqrt{%
f_{1}\left( a_{0}\right) }}.$$Furthermore a linear perturbation causes the pressure and energy density to vary as $p\simeq p_{0}+\beta \sigma $ in which $\beta $ is a parameter equivalent to the speed of sound on the shell. Next, one can, in principle, solve the conservation of energy equation to find
{width="130mm"}
{width="130mm"}
$$\sigma =\left( \frac{a}{a_{0}}\right) ^{1+\beta }\left( \sigma _{0}+\frac{%
p_{0}}{1+\beta }\right) -\frac{p_{0}}{1+\beta }.$$
The dynamic of the energy density also is given by (39) which together imply a one dimensional equation of motion for the shell is given by$$\dot{a}^{2}+V\left( a\right) =0$$with $$V\left( a\right) =\frac{f_{1}\left( a\right) +f_{2}\left( a\right) }{2}%
-\left( \frac{f_{1}\left( a\right) -f_{2}\left( a\right) }{16\pi a\sigma }%
\right) ^{2}-\left( 4\pi a\sigma \right) ^{2}.$$At the equilibrium $V\left( a_{0}\right) =V^{\prime }\left( a_{0}\right) =0$ and the first nonzero term is the second derivative of the potential at $%
a=a_{0}$ which must be positive to have an oscillatory motion for the shell upon linear perturbation. This in turn means that the shell will be stable. In Fig.s 1 and 2 we plot the region in which $V^{\prime \prime }\left(
a_{0}\right) \geq 0$ or the stable regions with $$f_{1}\left( a\right) =-M_{1}+\frac{a^{2}}{\ell ^{2}}-Q_{1}^{2}\ln \left(
a^{2}+s^{2}\right)$$and $$f_{2}\left( a\right) =-M_{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{\ell ^{2}}.$$To do so we used a critical mass $$M_{1c}=Q^{2}\left[ 1-\ln \left( Q^{2}\ell ^{2}\right) \right] -\frac{s^{2}}{%
\ell ^{2}}$$at which for $M_{1}>M_{1c}$ a black hole with two horizons forms inside the thin-shell and for $M_{1}<M_{1c}$ the solution for inside thin-shell is non-black hole while $M_{1}=M_{1c}$ represents the extremal black hole inside the thin-shell. We note that a distant observer does not detect any electric charge of the black hole. Therefore the black hole structure of the spacetime inside the shell may not be seen even though $a$ was supposed to be larger than the horizon. In this case the thin-shell carries a charge $%
Q_{2}=-Q_{1}$ which completely shields the black hole nature of the spacetime. In fact Fig.s 1 and 2 show that the thin-shell is stable for all values of $\beta $ irrespective of whether we have an extremal black hole or no black hole at all. However in the case of non-black hole solution which are shown in Fig.s 1B and 2B, if the initial radius of the ring $a_{0}$ (which is also the equilibrium radius) is set less than $r_{\min }$ in which $f_{1}^{\prime }\left( r_{\min }\right) =0$, such perturbation may make the ring to collapse to a point. In such case still there is no singularity and the remained spacetime is BTZ solution. Furthermore, since the internal black hole is regular, the thin-shell behaves like an ordinary object with no singularity inside.
Conclusion
==========
No doubt, Einstein / Einstein-Maxwell theory has limited scopes in $2+1-$dimensional spacetimes which has been studied extensively during the recent decade [@8]. With non-linear electrodynamics (NED) fresh ideas has been pumped into the spacetime and served well as far as removal of singularities is concerned [@10; @14]. Most of the black hole properties in $3+1-$dimensional spacetime has counterparts in $2+1-$dimensions with yet some differences. One common property is the existence of regular Bardeen black hole which is sourced by a radial electric field in $2+1-$dimensions whereas the source in $3+1-$dimensions happened to be magnetic. By encircling the central regular Bardeen black hole by a charged thin-shell and matching inside to outside in accordance with the Lanczos’ conditions we erase the entire effect of charge to the outside world. Such a thin-shell (or ring) doesn’t seem a mere illusion, but is a reality since it turns out to be stable against linear perturbations. The idea works in the case of a regular interior black hole well but remains to be proved whether it is applicable for a singular black hole. From astrophysical point of view is it possible that a natural, concentric thin-shell with equal (but opposite) charge to that of a central black hole forms to cancel external effect of charge at all? Admittedly our analysis here relates only to the $2+1-$dimensional case but it is natural to expect a similar charge screening effect in higher dimensions as well.
[99]{} M. Cataldo and A. García, Phys. Rev. D **61**, 084003 (2000).
M. Born and L. Infeld, Foundations of the New Field Theory. Proc. Roy. Soc, A **144,** 425 (1934).
E. Ayón-Beato and A. Garciá, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 5056 (1998);
E. Ayón-Beato and A. García, Phys. Lett. B **464**, 25 (1999).
J. M. Bardeen, et al, Commun. Math. Phys. **31,** 161 (1973);
S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 031103 (2006);
J. Bardeen, abstract in Proceedings of GR5, Tiflis, USSR (1968);
I. Dymnikova, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **24**, 235 (1992); Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **5**, 529 (1996); Classical Quantum Gravity **19**, 725 (2002); Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **12**, 1015 (2003).
M. Mars, M. M. Martín-Prats, and J. M. M. Senovilla, Classical Quantum Gravity 13, L51 (1996);
A. Borde, Phys. Rev. D **55**, 7615 (1997);
M. R. Mbonye and D. Kazanas, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 024016 (2005);
I. Dymnikova, Classical and Quantum Gravity, **21**, 4417 (2004);
K. Lin, J. Li, S. Yang and X. Zu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **52**, 1013 (2013);
S. Hossenfelder, L. Modesto and I. Prémont-Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 044036 (2010);
K. A. Bronnikov and J. C. Fabris, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 251101 (2006);
K. A. Bronnikov, Phys. Rev. D **63**, 044005 (2001);
K. A. Bronnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 4641 (2000);
N. Uchikata, S. Yoshida and T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D **86**, 084025 (2012).
W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento B **44**, 1 (1966); **48**, 463(E) (1967).
W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento **66**, 1 (1966).
S. H. Mazharimousavi and M. Halilsoy, “A new Einstein-nonlinear electrodynamics solution in $2+1-$dimensions” arXiv:1304.5206.
N. Sen, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 378, 365 (1924); K. Lanczos, ibid. **379**, 518 (1924);
G. Darmois, Me'morial des Sciences Mathematiques, Fascicule XXV (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927), Chap. 5;
E. F. Eiroa, and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 064041 (2013).
M. Bãnados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 1849 (1992);
M. Banados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D **48**, 1506 (1993);
C. Martinez, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D **61**, 104013 (2000).
J. D. Brown and J.W. York, Phys. Rev. D **47,** 1407 (1993);
J. D. Brown, J. Creighton and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D **50,** 6394** (**1994).
M. Cataldo, N. Cruz, S. del Campo and A. Garcia, Phys. Lett. B **484,** 154 (2000).
Y. S. Myung, Y.-W. Kim and Y.-J. Park, Phys. Rev. D **78,** 044020 (2008).
J. Crisóstomo and R. Olea, Phys. Rev. D **69**, 104023 (2004);
R. Olea, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **20**, 2649 (2005);
R.B. Mann and J.J. Oh, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 124016 (2006); **77**, 129902(E) (2008);
R.B. Mann, J.J. Oh, and M.-I. Park, 79, 064005 (2009).
P. Musgrave and K. Lake, Classical Quantum Gravity **13**, 1885 (1996);
P. R. Brady, J. Louko, and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D **44**, 1891 (1991);
M. Ishak and K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 044011 (2002);
S. M. C. V. Gonçalves, Phys. Rev. D **66**, 084021 (2002);
F. S. N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Classical Quantum Gravity **22**, 4869 (2005);
M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes (AIP Press, New York, 1996);
E. Poisson and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D **52**, 7318 (1995).
L. Balart, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **24**, 2777 (2009);
S. H. Mazharimousavi, O. Gurtug, M. Halilsoy and O. Unver, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 124021 (2011);
O. Gurtug, S. H. Mazharimousavi, M. Halilsoy, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 104004 (2012);
S. H. Hendi, Journal of High Energy Physics **2012**, 65 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Yun-Zhi Du'
- Ren Zhao
- 'Li-Chun Zhang'
title: 'Phase Transition of the Horava-Lifshitz AdS black holes'
---
Recently, people pay more attention to the phase transition of Anti-de-Sitter (AdS) and de-Sitter (dS) black holes by regarding the cosmological constant of a n-dimensional AdS black hole $\Lambda=-\frac{n(n-1)}{2l^2}$ as the pressure $P=\frac{n(n-1)}{16\pi l^2}$. Especially the critical phenomena of phase transition of a AdS black hole in the P-V diagram were investigated in Refs. [@Kubiznak2012; @Dolan2013; @Gunasekaran2012; @Frassino2014; @Wei2019; @Sinovic2019; @Altamirano2014a; @Anabalon2018; @Cai2015; @Ge2015; @Cai2016; @Zhang2015; @Zhao2013a; @Zhao2013; @Hendi2017; @Hendi2018; @Hendi2017c; @Hendi2017e; @Hendi2017a; @Hendi2016a; @Hendi2016b; @Hendi2016c; @Hendi2015]. The research of the phase transition will not only help us to understand the nature of black holes more deeply, but also understand some phase transition behaviors in conformal field. The authors in Ref. [@Dehyadegari2017] found when choosing $Q^2-\Psi$ as the independent dual parameters, the charged AdS black hole has the similar phase transition to that in the van der Waals (vdW). Furthermore, people found that for the more parameters black hole, the behavior of phase transition is similar to that of vdW by adopting the different independent dual parameters [@Hendi2017; @Zou2017a; @Xu2015; @Hendi2018a; @Hobrecht2018; @Maeda2018; @Meng2018; @Brihaye2018; @Dayyani2018; @Ovguen2018; @Bhattacharya2017a; @Zhang2019; @Majhi2017]. And the entanglement entropy in the AdS black holes also has the similar vdW’s Phase Transition [@Johnson2014; @Caceres2015; @Nguyen2015; @Zeng2016; @Lan2019; @Zeng2016a; @Wu2017; @Liu2017]. The authors investigated the phase transition of a AdS black hole by the Maxwell’s equal area law and the adoption of independent dual parameters $T-S$, and found the phase transition point of the entanglement entropy is consistent with the first-order phase transition point. Moreover there exists one kind of black holes, whose have the three-phase coexistence point with similar vdW’s system [@Frassino2014; @Altamirano2014a; @Anabalon2018; @Zou2017a; @Gunasekaran2012a; @Fujimori2015; @KordZangeneh2018; @Wei2014].
In Refs. [@Hennigar2017b; @Xu2018; @Ma2017b], the $C_P-T$ curve near the critical point of the LoveLock AdS black holes and the Horava-Lifshitz (HL) AdS black holes is consistent with the $C_V-T$ curve of $^4He$. As what we have known, there exists the $\lambda$ phase transition as $^4He$ into the superfluid state. And the reasonable physical explanation have been given: the $\lambda$ phase transition may be a Bose condensation, and superfluid is related to the Bose body condensed at zero energy level. Therefore, the physical explanation of the similar phase transition of black holes is also an interesting issue. In order to give the corresponding physical explanation of phase transition, we should explore more thermodynamical properties of black holes deeply. The HL gravity, which is proposed by Horava, is a power-counting renormalizable gravity theory and can be regarded as an ultraviolet complete candidate for general relativity [@Li2014; @Lu2009]. And the black hole solutions, thermodynamics and phase transitions of the HL black hole have attracted a lot of attention [@Cai2009; @Mo2013; @Cai2009a; @Majhi2012; @Wei2015]. People have given the condition of second-order phase transition and the critical exponents of HL AdS black holes by investigating the P-V diagram. Note that the first-order phase transition point of HL AdS black holes is a curve with a certain condition, and the $C_P-T$ curve near the second-order point is similar the $\lambda$ phase transition.
From the classification of the phase transition by Ehrenfest, we know that there are the obviously difference between the first-order phase transition and the second-order $\lambda$ one. For the liquid-gas phase transition in a vdW system, the $\lambda$ phase transition has the obvious signal: the heat capacity has a sharp increase before reaching the critical temperature, while the divergence of the first-order phase transition occurs when two phases coexist. The first-order phase transition will be transformed to the second-order one as $T\rightarrow T_c$ ($T<T_c$). For example, when the liquid-gas phase transition $T<T_c$, the entropy is discontinuity. And this discontinuity will be more and more small as $T\rightarrow T_c$, until it becomes zero for $T=T_c$ or $P=P_c$. At the same time, there is a vertical slope in the T-S diagram, that is the corresponding $\lambda$ phase transition. Therefore, there are some questions naturally: whether there is the vdW-like first-order phase transition for the HL AdS black holes? If the answer is yes, what is the condition and the corresponding physical reason of the phase transition for the HL AdS black holes?
In this paper, the first-order phase transition of the four-dimensional HL AdS black holes thermodynamic system is explored by Maxwell’s equal area law. We will exhibit the the condition of the two phases coexisting by adopting the independent dual parameters T-S and give the corresponding physical explanation. Furthermore the factors, which will affect the coexistence zone of the first-order phase transition, are also analyzed.
Thermodynamic quantities of Horava-Lifshitz black holes {#scheme2}
=======================================================
In this section, we will present the extended thermodynamics of the generalized topological HL black holes. The action of the HL gravity without the detailed-balance condition is [@Lu2009]: $$\begin{aligned}
I=\int dt d^d x\left[L_0+(1-\epsilon^2)L_1+L_m\right]\end{aligned}$$ with the Lagrangian of other matter fields $L_m$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L_0&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&\sqrt{g}N\!\left[\!\frac{2}{k^2}(K_{ij}K^{ij}\!\!-\!\!\lambda K^2)\!\!+\!\!\frac{k^2\mu^2[(d\!\!-\!\!2)\Lambda R\!\!-\!\!d\Lambda^2]}{8(1\!\!-\!\!d\lambda)}\right],\\
L_1&\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!&\sqrt{g}N\!\left[\!\frac{k^2\mu^2R^2}{8(1-d\lambda)}
\left(1-\frac{d}{4}-\lambda\right)-\frac{k^2}{2\omega^4}Z_{ij}Z^{ij}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here $Z_{ij}=C_{ij}-\frac{\mu\omega^2}{2}R_{ij}$ with the Cotton tensor $C_{ij}$. In this theory, there are several parameters: $\epsilon,~k^2,~\lambda,~\mu,~\omega$ and $\Lambda$.
Compared with the general relativity, there are the relations for the parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
c=\frac{k^2\mu}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{1-d\lambda}},~~~G=\frac{k^2c}{32\pi},~~~
\bar\Lambda=\frac{d\Lambda}{2(d-2)},\end{aligned}$$ where $c,~G$ and $\bar\Lambda$ are Newton’s constant, speed of light and consmological constant, respectively. We will fix $\lambda=1$ in the following, only for which the general relativity can be reconvered in the large distance approximation. In addition, we will only consider the general values of $\epsilon$ with the region $0\leq\epsilon^2\leq1$.
In this system there are the arbitrary dimensional topological AdS black holes with the metric [@Xu2018]: $$\begin{aligned}
ds=-f(r)dt^2+f^{-1}(r)dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2_{d-1,k}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
f(r)&\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&k+\frac{32\pi Pr^2}{(1-\epsilon^2)d(d-1)}-4r^{2-d/2}\times\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\sqrt{\frac{(d-2)MP\pi}{d(1-\epsilon^2)}+\frac{64\epsilon^2P^2\pi^2r^d}
{d^2(1-\epsilon^2)^2(d-1)^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $d\Omega^2_{d-1,k}$ denotes the line element of a (d-1)-dimensional manifold with the constant scalar curvature $(d-1)$, and $k=0,~\pm1$ indicate different topology of the spatial spaces. In AdS spacetime, the cosmological constant is introduced as the thermodynamical pressure [@Kubiznak2012]: $P=-\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi}$
The mass of this system reads $$\begin{aligned}
M\!=\!\frac{64\pi Pr^d_+}{d(d\!-\!1)^2(d\!-\!2)}\!+\!\frac{1\!-\!\epsilon^2dk^2r^{d\!-\!2}_+}
{16P\pi(d\!-\!2)}\!+\!\frac{4kr^{d\!-\!2}_+}{(d\!-\!1)(d\!-\!2)},\end{aligned}$$ where $r_+$ denotes the event horizon which the largest positive root of $f(r_+)=0$. The conjugate thermodynamic volume of pressure, the entropy and temperature are presented [@Hobrecht2018] in the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
V&\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&\frac{64\pi r^d_+}{d(d-1)^2(d-2)}-\frac{(1-\epsilon^2)dk^2r^{d-4}_+}{16P^2\pi(d-2)}, \label{V}\\
S&\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&\!\!\left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
4\pi r^2_+\left(1\!+\!\frac{3k(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)\ln r_+}{8\pi Pr^2_+}\right)\!+\!S_0 & d=3 \\
\frac{16\pi r^{d\!-\!1}_+}{(d\!-\!1)^2(d\!-\!2)}\left(1\!+\!\frac{kd(d\!-\!1)^2(d\!-\!2)(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}
{32(d\!-\!2)(d\!-\!3)P\pi r^2_+}\!+\!S_0\right)& d\geq4
\end{array}\right.\!\!\!\!\!\!, \label{S}\\
T&\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&\frac{1}{8(d-1)\pi r_+[32\pi r^2_+P+kd(d-1)(1-\epsilon^2)]}\times\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\bigg\{1024P^2\pi^2r^4_++64k(d-1)(d-2)P\pi r^2_+\nonumber\\
&&+k^2d(d-1)^2(d-4)(1-\epsilon^2)\bigg\}.\label{T}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check the first law of thermodynamics as $$\begin{aligned}
dM=TdS+VdP+\Psi d\epsilon^2\end{aligned}$$ with the potential $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=-\frac{dk^2r^{d-4}_+}{16P\pi(d-2)}.\end{aligned}$$
The construction of the Equal-Area Law in $T-S$ diagram {#scheme3}
=======================================================
For the HL AdS black hole thermodynamic system with the unchanged pressure in the equilibrium state, the entropies at the boundary of the two-phase coexistence area are $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively. And the corresponding temperature is $T_0$, which is less than the critical temperature $T_c$ and is determined by the horizon radius $r_+$. Therefore, from the Maxwell’s equal-area law $T_0(S_2-S_1)=\int^{S_2}_{S_1}TdS$, we have in the four-dimensional spacetime ($d=3$) $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&T_0\left(4\pi r^2_2(1-x^2)-\frac{3k(1-\epsilon^2)\ln{x}}{2P}\right)-2kr_2(1-x)\nonumber\\
&&-
\frac{16}{3}P\pi r^3_2(1-x^3)+\frac{3k^2(1-\epsilon^2)(1-x)}{16\pi Pr_2x}\label{T0P0}\end{aligned}$$ with $x=\frac{r_1}{r_2}$. From the equation (\[T\]), there are the following expresses: $$\begin{aligned}
2T_0&\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!&6k\epsilon^2P\!\left(\!\frac{r_1}{16\pi Pr_1^2\!+\!3k(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}\!+\!\frac{r_2}{16\pi Pr_2^2\!+\!3k(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}\!\right)\!\nonumber\\
&&\!\!+2(r_1+r_2)P-\frac{k}{8\pi}(1/r_1+1/r_2),\\
0&\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!&6k\epsilon^2P\!\left(\!\frac{r_1}{16\pi Pr_1^2\!+\!3k(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}\!-\!\frac{r_2}{16\pi Pr_2^2\!+\!3k(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}\!\right)\!\nonumber\\
&&\!\!+2(r_1-r_2)P-\frac{k}{8\pi}(1/r_1-1/r_2).\end{aligned}$$ For the simplicity we define the parameter as $y\equiv\frac{16\pi r^2_+}{k}P$, so there are $$\begin{aligned}
y_1\equiv\frac{16\pi r^2_1}{k}P,~~~~~~
y_2\equiv\frac{16\pi r^2_2}{k}P\label{y22}\end{aligned}$$ at the boundary of the two-phase coexistence area. The above equations can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
T_0&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\frac{y_2k}{16\pi r_2}\times\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\left[\!\frac{[\!1\!+\!x]\![y_2x\!-\!\!1]}{y_2x}\!+\!\frac{\!3\epsilon^2x\!}
{\!y_2x^2\!+\!3(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)\!}\!+\!\frac{\!3\epsilon^2\!}{\!y_2\!+\!3(1\!-\!\epsilon^2)}\right],
~~~~~\label{T0}\\
0&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!y_2^3x^3+y_2^2x\left[3(1+x^2)(1-\epsilon^2)
+x(1-3\epsilon^2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+3y_2(1-\epsilon^2)[1+3x+x^2]+9(1-\epsilon^2)^2,\label{y2}\end{aligned}$$ and the equation (\[T0P0\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{4\pi r_2 T_0}{k}\left(1+x-\frac{6(1-\epsilon^2)\ln{x}}{y_2(1-x)}\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{y_2(1+x+x^2)}{3}+2-\frac{3(1-\epsilon^2)}{y_2x}.\label{T00}\end{aligned}$$ From the equations (\[S\]) and (\[T\]), we can obtain the critical parameters as $$\begin{aligned}
y_c=\frac{2\sqrt{3}-1}{3},~~~~~\epsilon_c^2=\frac{4}{9}\left(1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the critical point ($x=1$), substituting $y=y_c$ and $\epsilon=\epsilon_c$ into the equation (\[T\]), the critical temperature ($T_c$), pressure ($P_c$) and horizon radius ($r_c$) satisfy the following expressions $$\begin{aligned}
8\pi r_cT_c&=&\frac{4\sqrt{3}k}{3}, \label{Tc}\\
16\pi r_c^2P_c&=&k y_c=\frac{(2\sqrt{3}-1)k}{3}.\label{Pc}\end{aligned}$$ For similarity, we introduce the new parameter $\xi=\frac{1-\epsilon^2}{1-\epsilon_c^2}$, the equation (\[y2\]) can be transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
0&\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!&\frac{3}{11}(15\!+\!8\sqrt{3})x^3y_2^3\!+\!y_2\xi(1\!+\!3x\!+\!x^2)\!
+\!\frac{1}{9}(15\!-\!8\sqrt{3})\xi^2\nonumber\\
&&+xy_2^2\left[(1+x+x^2)\xi-\frac{6}{11}(15+8\sqrt{3})x\right]\label{y2x1}\end{aligned}$$ Combining the equations (\[T0\]) and (\[T00\]), the expression related with $y_2$ and x reads $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!&&\!\!\!\!\!\frac{[1\!-\!x]\left(3(1+x+x^2)x y_2^2+18x y_2-(15-8\sqrt{3})\xi\right)}{x y_2[9(1-x^2)y_2-2(15-8\sqrt{3})\xi\ln{x}]}\nonumber\\
\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\frac{\!(\!1\!+\!x\!)\!(\!x\!y_2\!-\!1\!)\!}{\!x y_2\!}\!+\!\frac{\!27x\!-\!(\!15\!-\!8\sqrt{3}\!)\!\xi x\!}{\!9x^2 y_2\!+\!(\!15\!-\!8\sqrt{3}\!)\!\xi\!}\!+\!\frac{27\!-\!(\!15\!-\!8\sqrt{3}\!)\!\xi \!}{\!9y_2\!+\!(\!15\!-\!8\sqrt{3}\!)\!\xi}.~~~~~\label{y2x2}\end{aligned}$$ It is obviously that for the given parameters $\xi$ and k, the solutions of $y_2$ and $x$ can be obtained by solving equations (\[y2x1\]) and (\[y2x2\]). Thus for the first-order phase transition of the HL AdS black hole with the given pressure, we can obtain the phase transition temperature $T_0$ and the horizons ($r_1$ and $r_2$) of the black hole in two different phases by substituting the values of $\xi$ and k into equations (\[y22\]) and (\[T00\]). The phase transition curves $T-S$ of the HL AdS black hole with different parameter values $\xi$ and the unchanged pressure $P=0.1$ are shown in Fig. \[k1TS\].
{width="9cm" height="8.5cm"}
-4mm
From Fig. \[k1TS\] we know that the phase transition of the HL AdS black hole will appear when the redefined parameter $\xi$ is less than one (namely, $\epsilon>\epsilon_c$), and the temperature $T_0$ is bigger than the critical one $T_c$. These behaviors are fully different from the other AdS black holes [@Kubiznak2012; @Anabalon2018; @Zhang2015; @Zhao2013; @Hendi2017; @Dehyadegari2017; @Zou2017a; @Bhattacharya2017a; @Majhi2017; @Nguyen2015; @Mo2013]. That maybe mean this system has the fully new structure from others and the physical mechanism of the phase transition is also unique.
For the first-order phase transition point of the HL AdS black hole with the given parameters ($k,~\xi$), because of $\frac{y_1}{y_2}=x^2$, there is $y=y_2$, or $y=y_1$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
16\pi r_2^2P=ky_2=kF_2,~~\text{or}~~16\pi r_1^2P=ky_1=kF_1.\end{aligned}$$ That indicates the first-order phase transition point is related with the horizon radius and pressure. As what we have known the pressure $F$ on the surface of the black hole’s horizon reads: $F=AP=16\pi r_+^2P=kP$. Thus the defined parameter $y$ stands for the pressure $F$ on the surface of the black hole’s horizon. In the other words, the first-order phase transition point is only determined by the pressure $F$ on the surface of the black hole’s horizon, that is different from the charged AdS black holes [@Kubiznak2012; @Wei2015]. When the pressure $F$ on the surface of the black hole’s horizon satisfies $16\pi r_c^2P=ky_c$, the difference of the phase transition between this system and other charged AdS black holes will disappear.
From the equations (\[Tc\]) and (\[Pc\]), we can see that the critical temperature $T_c$ and pressure $P_c$ are not unique and are both related with the critical horizon radius. That means the parameters influencing the phase transition of the HL AdS black hole are different from other normal thermodynamic systems. With the above analyze, we find for the different values of $\xi$ in the HL AdS black hole with any given pressure, there may be a first-order phase transition, or a second-order, or nothing. Note that for the HL AdS black hole with a fixed parameter value ($\epsilon>\epsilon_c$), there is a critical curve of phase transition, not only is a critical point.
Discussions and conclusions {#scheme4}
===========================
In this paper we mainly study the first-order phase transition of the HL AdS black hole by the construction of the equal-area law in $T-S$ diagram. With the above analyze, the characteristics of the thermodynamic property for the HL AdS black hole are summarized as: i) It is easy to see that from the equation (\[V\]) in the four-dimensional spacetime, the thermodynamical volume is zero when $y^2=9(1-\epsilon^2)$, while the horizon radius is not zero. That indicates there is the minimal horizon, which is related with the parameter $\epsilon$ and pressure P ($16\pi P r_{min}^2/k=3(1-\epsilon^2)^{1/2}$). ii) Since the location of horizon is independent with the temperature from equations (\[y2x1\]) and (\[y2x2\]), the temperature is not the only factor to determine the phase transition, which is different from the other AdS black holes. iii) The phase transition is related with the pressure F on the surface of the black hole’s horizon. In other words the phase transition of the four-dimensional HL AdS black hole with other fixed parameters ($k,~\epsilon$) is only determined by the pressure F on the surface of horizon.
[0]{}
D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, [*P-V criticality of charged AdS black holes*]{}, JHEP 1207 (2012) 033, arXiv:1205.0559.
B. P. Dolan, D. Kastor, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and J. Traschen, [*Thermodynamic Volumes and Isoperimetric Inequalities for de Sitter Black Holes*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 10, arXiv:1301.5926.
S. Gunasekaran, D. Kubiznak, and R. B. Mann, [*Extended phase space thermodynamics for charged and rotating black holes and Born-Infeld vacuum polarization*]{}, JHEP 11 2012, arXiv:1208.6251.
A. M. Frassino, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and F. Simovic, [*Multiple Reentrant Phase Transitions and Triple Points in Lovelock Thermodynamics*]{}, JHEP 09 2014, arXiv:1406.7015.
S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, [*Ruppeiner Geometry, Phase Transitions, and Microstructure of Charged AdS Black Holes*]{}, arXiv:1909.03887.
F. Sinovic and R. B. Mann, [*Critical Phenomena of Born-Infeld-de Sitter Black Holes in Cavities*]{}, JHEP 05 2019 136, arXiv:1904.04871.
N. Altamirano, D. Kubiz¨¾¨¢k, R. B. Mann, and Z. Sherkatghanad, [*Kerr-AdS analogue of triple point and solid/liquid/gas phase transition*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. 31 2014, arXiv:1308.2672
A. Anabalon, F. Gray, R. Gregory, D. Kubiznak, and R. B. Mann, [*Thermodynamics of Charged, Rotating, and Accelerating Black Holes*]{}, JHEP 04 2019 096, arXiv:1811.04936.
R-G. Cai, Y-P. Hu, Q-Y. Pan, and Y-L. Zhang, [*Thermodynamics of Black Holes in Massive Gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 91 2015 2, arXiv:1409.2369.
X-H. Ge, Y. Ling, CH. Niu, and S-J. Sin, [*Thermoelectric conductivities, shear viscosity, and stability in an anisotropic linear axion model*]{}, Phys. Rev. D. 92 2015 10, arXiv:1412.8346.
R-G. Cai, Sh-M Ruan, Sh-J. Wang, R-Q. Yang, and R-H. Peng, [*Action growth for AdS black holes*]{}, JHEP 09 2016, arXiv:1606.08307.
J-L. Zhang, R-G. Cai, and H-W. Yu, [*Phase transition and thermodynamical geometry of Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS black holes in extended phase space*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 91 2015 4, arXiv:1502.01428.
R. Zhao, H-H. Zhao, M-S. Ma, and L-Ch. Zhang, [*On the critical phenomena and thermodynamics of charged topological dilaton AdS black holes*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 2013, arXiv:1305.3725.
R. Zhao, H-H. Zhao, M-S. Ma, and L-Ch. Zhang, [*On Thermodynamics of Charged and Rotating Asymptotically AdS Black Strings*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013 7.
S. H. Hendi, R. B. Mann, S. Panahiyan, and B. Eslam Panah, [*van der Waals like behavior of topological AdS black holes in massive gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 95 2017, arXiv:1702.00432.
S. H. Hendi, Z. S. Taghadomi, and C. Corda, [*New aspect of critical nonlinearly charged black hole*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 97 2018 8, arXiv:1803.10767.
S. H. Hendi, M. S. Talezadeh, and Z. Armanfard, [*Phase Transition of Black Holes in Branes-Dicke Born-Infeld Gravity through Geometrical Thermodynamics*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, arXiv:1709.00289.
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan, B. Eslam Panah, and M. Jamil, [*A new prescription towards thermodynamic phase transition*]{}, arXiv:1706.07662.
S. H. Hendi, B. Eslam Panah, S. Panahiyan, and M. S. Talezadeh, [*Geometrical thermodynamics and P-V criticality of black holes with power-law Maxwell field*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 2017 2, arXiv:1612.00721.
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan, B. Eslam Panah, M. Faizal, and M. Momennia, Mehrab, [*Critical behavior of charged black holes in Gauss-Bonnet gravity’s rainbow*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 94 2016 2, arXiv:1607.06663.
S. H. Hendi, R. M. Tad, Z. Armanfard, and M. S. Talezadeh, [*Extended phase space thermodynamics and P-V criticality: Brans-Dicke-Born-Infeld vs. Einstein-Born-Infeld-dilaton black holes*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 2016 5, arXiv:1511.02761.
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan, B. E. Panah, and Z. Armanfard, [*Phase transition of charged Black Holes in Brans-Dicke theory through geometrical thermodynamics*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 2016 7, arXiv:1511.00598.
S. H. Hendi, A. Sheykhi, S. Panahiyan, and B. Eslam Panah, [*Phase transition and thermodynamic geometry of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton black holes*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 92 2015 6, arXiv:1509.08593.
A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi, and A. Montakhab, [*Critical behavior and microscopic structure of charged AdS black holes via an alternative phase space*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 768 2017 235, arXiv:1607.05333.
D-Ch. Zou, R-H. Yue, and M. Zhang, [*Reentrant phase transitions of higher-dimensional AdS black holes in dRGT massive gravity*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 2017 4, arXiv:1612.08056.
J-F. Xu, L-M. Cao, and Y-P. Hu, [*P-V criticality in the extended phase space of black holes in massive gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 91 2015 12, arXiv:1506.03578.
S. H. Hendi, H. Behnamifard, and B. Bahrami-Asl, [*Energy-dependent topological anti-de Sitter black holes in Gauss-Bonnet Born-Infeld gravity*]{}, PTEP 2018 3, arXiv:1804.10519.
H. Hobrecht and A. Hucht, [*Anisotropic scaling of the two-dimensional Ising model II: Surfaces and boundary fields*]{}, arXiv:1805.00369.
H. Maeda, R. Svarc, and J. Podolsky, [*Decreasing entropy of dynamical black holes in critical gravity*]{}, JHEP, 2018 06, arXiv:1805.00026.
K. Meng, [*Hairy black holes of Lovelock-Born-Infeld-scalar gravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 2018 784, arXiv:1804.10951.
Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, [*Critical phenomena of charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black holes with charged scalar hair*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 2018 17, arXiv:1804.10536.
Z. Dayyani, A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, and S. Hajkhalili, [*Critical behavior and phase transition of dilaton black holes with nonlinear electrodynamics*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 2018 2, arXiv:1709.06875.
Ali Ovg¨¹n, [*$P-v$ criticality of a specific black hole in $f(R)$ gravity coupled with Yang-Mills field*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, arXiv:1710.06795.
K. Bhattacharya and B. R. Majhi, [*Thermogeometric description of the van der Waals like phase transition in AdS black holes*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 95 2017 10, arXiv:1702.07174.
Li-Chun Zhang and Ren Zhao, [*The entropic force in Reissoner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 797 2019 134798.
B. R. Majhi and S. Samanta, [*P-V criticality of AdS black holes in a general framework*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 2017 773, arXiv:1609.06224.
C. V. Johnson, [*Large N Phase Transitions, Finite Volume, and Entanglement Entropy*]{}, JHEP, 047 2014 1403, arXiv:1306.4955.
H. Caceres, P. H. Nguyen, and J. F. Pedraza, [*Holographic entanglement entropy and the extended phase structure of STU black holes*]{}, JHEP, 184 2015 1509, arXiv:1507.06069.
Phuc H. Nguyen, [*An equal area law for holographic entanglement entropy of the AdS-RN black hole*]{}, JHEP 12 2015 139, arXiv:1508.01955.
X-X. Zeng, H-B. Zhang, and L-F. Li, [*Phase transition of holographic entanglement entropy in massive gravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 756 2016 170, arXiv:1511.00383.
Sh-Q. Lan, G-Q. Li, J-X. Mo, and X-B. Xu, [*New Phase Transition Related to the Black Hole¡¯s Topological Charge*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019 8270265, arXiv:1804.06652.
X-X. Zeng, and X-Y. Hu, and Y-J. Gao, [*Holographic thermalization in the background with conformal anomaly corrected black holes*]{}, Sci. Sin-Phys Mech Astron 46 2016 060401.
S-Y. Wu and L. Ling, [*Holographic phase transition for a black hole in the background with dark energy*]{}, Sci. Sin-Phys Mech Astron 47 2017 060602.
H. Liu, S. von Hausegger, and P. Naselsky, [*Towards understanding the Planck thermal dust models*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 95 2017 10, arXiv:1705.05530.
S. Gunasekaran, R. B. Mann, and D. Kubiznak, [*Extended phase space thermodynamics for charged and rotating black holes and Born-Infeld vacuum polarization*]{}, JHEP 11 2012 110, arXiv:1208.6251.
T. Fujimori, T. Kimura, M. Nitta, and K. Ohashi, [*2d partition function in $\Omega$-background and vortex/instanton correspondence*]{}, JHEP 12 2015 110, arXiv:1509.08630.
M. Kord Zangeneh, A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi, and R. B. Mann, [*Microscopic Origin of Black Hole Reentrant Phase Transitions*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 97 2018 8, arXiv:1709.04432.
S-W. Wei and Y-X. Liu, [*Triple points and phase diagrams in the extended phase space of charged Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS space*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 90 2014 4, arXiv:1402.2837.
R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, and E. Tjoa, [*Superfluid Black Holes*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 2017 021301.
W. Xu, [*$\lambda$ phase transition in Horava gravity*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018 2175818, arXiv:1804.03815.
M-S. Ma and R-H. Wang, [*Peculiar $P-V$ criticality of topological Horava-Lifshitz black holes*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 96 2017 2, arXiv:1707.09156.
T-J. Li, Y-H. Qi, Y-L. Wu, and Y-L. Zhang, [*Topological charged black holes in generalized Horava-Lifshitz gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 90 2014 12, arXiv:1405.4457.
H. Lu, J-W. Mei, and C. N. Pope, [*Solutions to Horava Gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 2009 091301, arXiv:0904.1595.
R-G. Cai, L-M. Cao, and N. Ohta, [*Topological black holes in Horava-Lifshitz gravity*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 80 2009 024003.
J-X. Mo, X-X. Zeng, G-Q. Li, X. Jiang, and W-B. Liu, [*A unified phase transition picture of the charged topological black hole in Horava-Lifshitz gravity*]{}, JHEP 10 2013 056, arXiv:1404.2497.
R-G. Cai, L-M. Cao, and N. Ohta, [*Thermodynamics of Black Holes in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 679 2009 504, arXiv:0905.0751.
B. R. Majhi and D. Roychowdhury, [*Phase transition and scaling behavior of topological charged black holes in Horava-Lifshitz gravity*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 2012 245012, arXiv:1205.0146.
S-W. Wei and Y-X. Liu, [*Insight into the Microscopic Structure of an AdS Black Hole from a Thermodynamical Phase Transition*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 2015 111302, arXiv: 1502.00386. S-W. Wei, Y-X. Liu, and B. M. Robert, [*Repulsive Interactions and Universal Properties of Charged Anti-de Sitter Black Hole Microstructures*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 2019 071103, arXiv: 1906.10840.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'T.A. Carroll [^1], M. Kopf , I. Ilyin & K.G. Strassmeier'
title: 'Zeeman-Doppler Imaging of late-type stars – The surface magnetic field of II Peg'
---
Introduction
============
Even though the technique for Zeeman-Doppler imaging was introduced almost two decades ago by @Semel89 there are only a very small number of magnetic surface images for late-type stars [@Donati99; @Petit06]. The reason for this fact is not so much the limited number of available targets than the inherent complexity of the surface magnetism which may lead to a severe reduction or even the mutual cancellation of circular polarization profiles (Stokes $V$) by different magnetic polarities. The linear polarization profiles (Stokes $Q$ and $U$) which are, as a rule of thumb, at least one order of magnitude lower than the circular polarization are even harder to detect. Cross-correlation techniques, in its simplest form the multi-line technique of @Semel96 or the more elaborate technique of Least-Square Deconvolution (LSD) [@Donati97a] are used to extract and boost the polarization signal to a level were a detailed diagnostic of surface magnetic fields become feasible. But the trade off is the reduced interpretability of the retrieved *mean* line profile.
In an effort to provide the necessary analysis and diagnostic tools for the next generation of spectropolarimeter (PEPSI) at the 8.4 m Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) [@Strass03; @Strass07], which, for the first time, provide the instrumental capabilities to detect and measure the magnetic fields of a significant number of active late-type stars, we have developed a novel multi-line reconstruction technique and a full Stokes Zeeman-Doppler imaging code. In the following we give a short presentation of the new line profile reconstruction technique as well as of our new ZDI code *IMap*. In a first application we also present magnetic field surface maps of II Pegasi.
The Zeeman-Doppler Imaging code
===============================
The forward module of the ZDI code *IMap* incorporates the full numerical solution of the polarized radiative transfer equation by means of the so called Diagonal Lambda Operator method (DELO) [@Rees89]. The code works on the basis of precalculated and/or interpolated Kurucz model atmospheres [@Kurucz93]. Parameters for the individual spectral lines are retrieved from the Vald database [@Piskunov95] and line blends are full accounted for. The surface is parameterized on a variable equal-area or equal-degree partition with a minimum area of 1 $\times$ 1 degree. For each surface element a local Stokes vector is calculated with respect to its position and atmospheric parameters (Doppler velocity, bulk velocity, temperature, pressure, LOS magnetic field, micro- and macroturbulence). The atmospheric parameters are also allowed to vary along their local vertical direction which facilitates the complete description of a 3-dimensional atmosphere. Center-to-limb variations in the model atmosphere as well in the atmospheric parameters are fully account for by adjusting the depth stratification for each surface element with respect to the local reference frame of the observer. Field structures (in temperature and magnetic fields) can either be described by setting individual surface elements or using spherical harmonics.
The inverse module which is responsible for the fitting of the observed profiles by adjusting the model parameters implements two optimization algorithms. A Levenberg-Marquardt method and a conjugate gradient method [@Press92]. Both algorithms are complemented by a regularization functional. We have used a similar maximum entropy regularization as formulated by @Brown91. which reads $$S = - \sum_{i} \left ( |P_i| + \alpha \right ) \log \frac{|P_i| + \alpha}{|m_i| + \alpha} - 1 \; ,
\label{entropy1}$$ where the index $i$ runs over all surface elements, $\alpha$ is a small positive value to ensure that the entropy function is always greater than zero and $m_i$ is the so called default image of the surface element or segment. It is this default value which can give the entropy function a quite different characteristic. Even though the importance of the default images was never described in great detail in the ZDI literature the default images of the elements are usually set all to an equal value which is in most cases the global average of the parameter under consideration (i.e. magnetic field strength, inclination, azimuth or temperature). This is in fact problematic becuase this constrain is invariant under random mixing of the surface elements (pixels) and therefore inadequate for small scale (spatial) variations with great local differences in the parameters but also for smooth large scale variations in the parameters [@Brown91; @Donati97b; @Piskunov02]. We therefore propose an adaptive *local* entropy function where the default images $m_i$ are retrieved by the actual mean value of the surrounding neighborhood pixels such that $$\begin{aligned}
S = - \sum_{i} \left ( |P_i| + \alpha \right ) \hspace{3.6cm} \nonumber \\
\times \log \frac{|P_i| + \alpha}{\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k}\beta(j) |m_j| + \alpha} - 1 \;.
\label{entropy2}\end{aligned}$$ Here the sum in the logarithm runs over the entire neighborhood of k elements and $\beta(j)$ is an extra term which includes a particular positve weighting. As the regularization term in the penalty function becomes important (compared to the regular squared error function) as soon as the fit of the individual Stokes profiles reaches the noise level of the observations, the default image is also the appropriate place to incorporate prior knowledge or assumptions that are not purely data driven (determined by the local gradient of the error function). We will described this topic in greater detail in a forthcoming paper.
The ZDI code can simultaneously or in a consecutive manner retrieve the temperature (Doppler imaging) and the magnetic field distribution (Zeeman Doppler imaging) by using the complete Stokes vector ($I,U,Q,V$) or optionally only the Stokes $I$ and $V$ component.
Multi-Line principal component reconstruction
=============================================
Most of the measured spectropolarimetric signals and profiles of individual spectral lines do not allow an in-depth analysis and interpretation which led to the development of powerful multi-line techniques such as LSD [@Donati97a]. The success to which this method is able to extract and boost the signal quality comes at the expense of using approximate assumptions (weak fields, a-priori model atmospheres and Gaussian line profiles) and, moreover, of loosing the ability to use single spectral line profiles. Only a kind of *mean* line profile can be extracted by this technique which therefore has to be described in terms of artificial mean line parameters (e.g. excitation potential, Lande factor, oscillator strength etc.). In order to avoid simplified a-priori assumptions and making use of single spectral line profiles but benefiting at the same time from a multi-line cross-correlation technique we propose a multi-line principal component reconstruction technique. The basic idea is to use the redundancy and the variance in the observed data (the Stokes profiles) to determine a new coordinate system where each new coordinate axis accounts for a maximum of the variance in the original data. This can be conveniently expressed in terms of the covariance matrix $\bm{C_x}$ of the individual observed profile vectors $\bm{x_i}$, which reads in the velocity domain $$\bm{C_x} = \sum_n \left ( \bm{x}_n(v) - \bar{\bm{x}}(v) \right ) \left ( \bm{x}_n(v) - \bar{\bm{x}}(v) \right )^T \; ,
\label{covar1}$$ where $v = c \Delta\lambda/\lambda$ and $n$ is the number of individual spectral line profiles used for the analysis and $\bar{\bm{x}}$ is the mean Stokes profile of all spectral lines. The new set of coordinate axes which accounts for the maximum variance in the observed data (Stokes spectra) can then be determined by calculating the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix Eq. (\[covar1\]). This is exactly what the so called Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Karhunen-Loeve transformation accomplishes [@Bishop95]. We use the PCA method to decompose the entire set of observed Stokes spectra into a new coordinate system. This procedure will project the most coherent and systematic features in the observed Stokes profiles into the first few eigenvectors with the largest eigenvalues while the uncoherent features (i.e. noise) will be mapped to the less significant eigenvectors (with low eigenvalues). Since the covariance matrix Eq. (\[covar1\]) is symmetric it results in a set of orthogonal eigenvectors which we can used to decompose all observed Stokes spectra (with out any loss) into the new basis of eigenvectors $\bm{u_l}$, as $$\bm{x}_k(v) = \sum_l \alpha_{k,l} \bm{u}_l(v) \; ,
\label{project}$$ where $\alpha_{k,l} = \bm{x}_k(v) \bm{u}_l(v)$ is the scalar product (the projection or the cross-correlation) between the observed Stokes profile $\bm{x}_k(v)$ and the eigenvector $\bm{u}_l(v)$. If we make use of the well know decomposition and dimensionality reduction capabilities of the PCA method [@Bishop95] and using only the first few eigenvectors to reconstruct the original spectra $\bm{x_k}$ such that $$\bm{x}_k(v) = \sum_{m < l} \alpha_{k,m} \bm{u}_m(v) \; ,
\label{reconpro}$$ we can reconstruct the individual Stokes profiles to an extent that the majority of the characteristic features of one particular line are well reproduced with a minimum of uncorrelated effects. This allows us to use a large set of observed Zeeman-sensitive spectral line profiles to get rid of the uncoherent effects like noise while retaining the common and systematic features (in all observed line profiles) which are induced by the Doppler- and Zeeman-effect. Since this method allows the reconstruction of a single line profile, all the known line parameter can be used in the following DI and ZDI process.
![On the left the original observed Stokes $V$ profile of the FeI 5497 Å line and on the right side the multi-line PCA reconstructed Stokes $V$ profile for one rotational phase.[]{data-label="Fig:origProf"}](OrigProfile.eps "fig:"){width="41mm" height="36mm"} ![On the left the original observed Stokes $V$ profile of the FeI 5497 Å line and on the right side the multi-line PCA reconstructed Stokes $V$ profile for one rotational phase.[]{data-label="Fig:origProf"}](ReconProfile.eps "fig:"){width="41mm" height="36mm"}
In Fig. \[Fig:origProf\] we show a Stokes $V$ line profile for the iron line FeI 5497 Å which has been observed for II Peg with the SOFIN spectrograph at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) [@Tuominen99]. For the multi-line PCA reconstruction we have used 18 magnetic sensitive spectral lines (, ,) in a wavelength range between 4600 and 6600 Å. To reconstruct the individual line profile we have used the three largest principal components. The Stokes $V$ line profile – although only 18 spectral lines in the covariance matrix are used – exhibit a much smoother and less noisy behavior and is due to the PCA analysis more reliable in terms of its interpretability. This method will be fully described and statistically analyzed in a forthcoming paper.
The surface magnetic field of II Peg
====================================
In a first application we have applied our code to spectropolarimetric observation of the K1 subgiant star II Peg observed with the SOFIN spectrograph at the NOT. The data (Stokes $I$ and Stokes $V$ ) were collected in an observing campaign in 2004 and cover a whole rotational period. The stellar parameters for the inversion are taken from @Berdyu98.
![Stokes $V$ profile fits (dashed) to the observed profiles (solid) of the iron line FeI 5497 Å for different rotational phases.[]{data-label="Fig:allPhases"}](AllPhasesStokesV.eps){width="70mm" height="80mm"}
Prior to the actual Zeeman-Doppler inversion we have used our code in DI mode to retrieve the temperature distribution of the surface of II Peg, where we have used the CaI 6439 Å line. This information was subsequently used in the ZDI inversion to determine the magnetic field from the phase resolved Stokes $V$ profiles of the FeI 5497 Å line, which was reconstructed by the multi-line PCA technique described in the preceeding section. After careful tests with different initialization and setups the observed profiles are well reproduced (see Fig.\[Fig:allPhases\]). Despite the fact we have only used Stokes $V$ profiles the surface exhibits a rich magnetic surface structure as can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:surfIIPeg\] and Fig. \[Fig:mercIIPeg\]. One of the conspicuous features in the ZDI map is that the magnetic activity is mainly located in one active longitude where the magnetic field shows a strong radial component. It will be interesting to see in forthcoming studies which expands over longer time periods if and in which way these regions of magnetic activity are associated with the active longitudes in the temperature distribution found by @Berdyu99.
![Surface magnetic field of II Peg. The thin white lines indicating the field vector for each surface pixel and the underlying color gives the absolute field strength.[]{data-label="Fig:surfIIPeg"}](SurfaceIIPeg.eps){width="70mm" height="70mm"}
As has been observed in former ZDI approaches [@Donati99] we also notice only a small correlation between the dark and cool starspots as retrieved by our DI run and the magnetic field distribution from the ZDI. This seems to be plausible because of the strong suppression of the photon flux in the spot regions which are between 700 and 1000 K cooler than the quiet and hot parts of the surface.
![Mercator plots of the surface magnetic field of II Peg. Top: the radial magnetic field; Middle: the azimuthal magnetic field component; Bottom : The meridional magnetic field component.[]{data-label="Fig:mercIIPeg"}](MercRadIIPeg.eps "fig:"){width="80mm" height="40mm"} ![Mercator plots of the surface magnetic field of II Peg. Top: the radial magnetic field; Middle: the azimuthal magnetic field component; Bottom : The meridional magnetic field component.[]{data-label="Fig:mercIIPeg"}](MercAziIIPeg.eps "fig:"){width="80mm" height="40mm"} ![Mercator plots of the surface magnetic field of II Peg. Top: the radial magnetic field; Middle: the azimuthal magnetic field component; Bottom : The meridional magnetic field component.[]{data-label="Fig:mercIIPeg"}](MercMerIIPeg.eps "fig:"){width="80mm" height="40mm"}
It should be mentioned that the retrieved surface field exhibit a strong imbalance in the magnetic polarity and we believe that this imbalance of magnetic flux results to a large extent from the inability of the circular polarization signal to capture the whole magnetic flux of the star, e.g. the probably strong magnetic fields in the spot regions of II Peg seem to be virtually absent in the Stokes $V$ profiles.
Summary and conclusion
----------------------
We have presented a new Zeeman-Doppler imaging code which is particularly designed for the demands of retrieving surface temperature and magnetic field vector distributions of active late-type stars. Moreover, we have introduced a novel multi-line PCA reconstruction technique which relies on a minimal number of a-priori assumption and allows to extract and boost the signal-to-noise ratio of individual spectral line profiles. A first application shows the potential of the ZDI code and the new multi-line technique. Even though the field structure results in a smooth distribution it should be noted that the reconstruction of the surface magnetic field is far from being a well posed problem. Small differences in the underlying initialization, in the regularization function or the temperature distribution as well as changes in the optimization strategy can lead to rather drastic effects in the recovered magnetic surface fields (see forthcoming paper of Carroll et al. 2008)). It is therefore of particular interest to make the linear polarization profiles available and to retrieve circular polarized profiles with the best possible accuracy and signal-to-noise ratio to provide more constrains to the solution of the ZDI inversion and to reveal more of the hidden magnetic field information in the spectra.
Berdyugina, S. V., Jankov, S., Ilyin, I., Tuominen, I., & Fekel, F. C. 1998, A&A, 334, 863
Berdyugina, S. V., Berdyugin, A. V., Ilyin, I., & Tuominen, I. 1999, A&A, 350, 626
Bishop, C.M., 1995, Neural Networks for Pattern Recogniti on, Oxford University Press
Brown, S. F., Donati, J.-F., Rees, D. E., & Semel, M. 1991, A&A, 250, 463
Donati, J.-F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., Rees, D. E., & Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 658 Donati, J.-F., & Brown, S. F. 1997, A&A, 326, 1135
Donati, J.-F. 1999, Solar and Stellar Activity: Similarities and Differences, 158, 27
Donati, J.-F. 2003, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 307, 41
Kurucz, R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993., 13,
Petit, P. 2006, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 358, 335
Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, A&A suppl., 112, 525
Piskunov, N., & Kochukhov, O. 2002, A&A, 381, 736
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.,
Rees, D. E., Durrant, C. J., & Murphy, G. A. 1989, ApJ, 339, 1093
Semel, M. 1989, A&A, 225, 456
Semel, M., & Li, J. 1996, Solar Physics, 164, 417
Strassmeier, K. G., Hofmann, A., Woche, M. F., Rice, J. B., Keller, C. U., Piskunov, N. E., & Pallavicini, R. 2003, SPIE, 4843, 180
Strassmeier, K. G., Woche, M., Andersen, M., & Ilyin, I. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 627
Tuominen, I., Ilyin, I., & Petrov, P. 1999, Astrophysics with the NOT, 47
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
When dealing with numerical solution of stochastic optimal control problems, stochastic dynamic programming is the natural framework. In order to try to overcome the so-called curse of dimensionality, the stochastic programming school promoted another approach based on scenario trees which can be seen as the combination of Monte Carlo sampling ideas on the one hand, and of a heuristic technique to handle causality (or nonanticipativeness) constraints on the other hand.
However, if one considers that the solution of a stochastic optimal control problem is a feedback law which relates control to state variables, the numerical resolution of the optimization problem over a scenario tree should be completed by a feedback synthesis stage in which, at each time step of the scenario tree, control values at nodes are plotted against corresponding state values to provide a first discrete shape of this feedback law from which a continuous function can be finally inferred. From this point of view, the scenario tree approach faces an important difficulty: at the first time stages (close to the tree root), there are a few nodes (or Monte-Carlo particles), and therefore a relatively scarce amount of information to guess a feedback law, but this information is generally of a good quality (that is, viewed as a set of control value estimates for some particular state values, it has a small variance because the future of those nodes is rich enough); on the contrary, at the final time stages (near the tree leaves), the number of nodes increases but the variance gets large because the future of each node gets poor (and sometimes even deterministic).
After this dilemma has been confirmed by numerical experiments, we have tried to derive new variational approaches. First of all, two different formulations of the essential constraint of nonanticipativeness are considered: one is called *algebraic* and the other one is called *functional*. Next, in both settings, we obtain optimality conditions for the corresponding optimal control problem. For the numerical resolution of those optimality conditions, an adaptive mesh discretization method is used in the state space in order to provide information for feedback synthesis. This mesh is naturally derived from a bunch of sample noise trajectories which need not to be put into the form of a tree prior to numerical resolution. In particular, an important consequence of this discrepancy with the scenario tree approach is that the same number of nodes (or points) are available from the beginning to the end of the time horizon. And this will be obtained without sacrifying the quality of the results (that is, the variance of the estimates). Results of experiments with a hydro-electric dam production management problem will be presented and will demonstrate the claimed improvements.
author:
- 'Pierre Carpentier [^1]'
- 'Guy Cohen [^2]'
- 'Anes Dallagi [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Particle Methods For Stochastic Optimal Control Problems
---
stochastic programming; measurability constraints; discretization
90C15, 49M25, 62L20
[PARTICLE METHODS FOR STOCHASTIC OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Taking into account uncertainties in the decision process has become an important issue for all industries. Facing the market volatilities, the weather whims and the changing policies and regulatory constraints, decision makers have to find an *optimal* way to introduce their decision process into this uncertain framework. One way to take uncertainties into account is to use the *stochastic optimization* framework. In this approach, the decision maker makes his decision by optimizing a mean value with regard to the multiple possible scenarios weighted with a probability law.
Stochastic optimization problems often involve information constraints: the decision maker makes his decision after getting observations about the possible scenarios. In the literature, two different communities have dealt with this information issue using different modelling techniques, and therefore different solution methods. The question is: knowing that stochastic optimization problems are often infinite dimensional problems, how can we implement tractable solution methods (which can be implemented using a computer)? To answer this question each community brought its own answers.
The stochastic programming community models the information structure by scenarios trees: this involves Monte Carlo sampling plus some manipulations of the sample trajectories to enforce the tree structure. Then, tractable solution methods for stochastic optimization problems consist in solving deterministic problems over the decision trees. We refer to [@Pflug01; @HeitschRomisch03; @DupacovaGroweKuskaRomisch03] for further details on these methods. Nevertheless, stochastic programming faces an important difficulty: due to the tree structure, one has a few discretization points (nodes of the tree) at the early stages, which could represent a serious handicap when attempting to synthesizing a feedback law. On the contrary, when approaching the last stages, one has a large number of discretization points but with a future which may be almost or completely deterministic.
The stochastic optimal control community uses special structures of the stochastic optimization problems (time sequentiality and state notions) to model the information constraints through a functional interpretation that leads to the Dynamic Programming Principle. We refer to [@Bellman:1957; @Bertsekas:1976; @Bertsekas-Shreve:1996] for further details on this method. However, stochastic dynamic programming is also confronted with a serious obstacle known as the “curse of dimensionality”. In fact, this method leads one to blindly discretize the whole state space without taking into account a, generally nonuniform, state distribution at the optimal solution.
This paper tries to bridge the gap between those two communities. We propose a tractable solution method for stochastic optimal control problems which makes use of the good ideas of both Monte Carlo sampling and variational methods on the one hand, functional handling of the information structure on the other hand. Other related works [@BrodieGlasserman97; @ThenieVial06] are still closer to the stochastic programming point of view. In our approach, the same number of discretization (sample) points are used from the beginning to the end of the time horizon, and this discretization grid is adaptive: when transposed into the state space, it reflects the optimal state distribution at each time stage.
The proposed method is of a variational nature in that it is based on gradient calculations which involve the forward state variable integration and the backward adjoint state (co-state) evaluation as in the Pontryagin minimum principle. The purpose is to solve the Kuhn-Tucker necessary optimality conditions of the considered problem (including the information constraints).
This paper is organized as follows. In §\[SecPrelim\], we discuss how to model the information structure in stochastic optimization problems. Then we derive optimality conditions for stochastic optimization problems with information constraints. In §\[OCalg\], these optimality conditions are specialized to the situation of stochastic optimal control problems. A special attention is paid to the so-called *Markovian* case in §\[OCfunc\]. The numerical implementation of a resolution method based on Monte Carlo and functional approximations is presented in §\[adapdisc\]. Finally, in §\[SecTest\], a case study, namely a hydro-electric dam management problem, illustrates the proposed method, and compares it to the standard scenario tree approach.
Preliminaries\[SecPrelim\]
==========================
In this section, we present the main framework of this paper: how to model stochastic optimization problems and how to represent the information structure of such problems. This preliminary section is directly inspired from the works of the System and Optimization Working Group[^4] [@TheseBarty; @TheseStrugarek; @TheseDallagi].
In the sequel of the paper, the random variables, defined over a probability space $(\omeg,\trib,\prbt)$, will be denoted using bold letters (e.g. $\va{\xi} \in L^{2}(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\Xi)$) whereas their realizations will be denoted using normal letters (e.g. $\xi \in \Xi$).
Modelling information
---------------------
When unknown factors affect a process that we try to control, we consider a set $\omeg$ of possible *states of nature* $\omega$ among which the true state $\omega_0$ is supposed to be. Roughly speaking, an information structure is a partition of $\omeg$ into a collection of subsets $G$. A posteriori observations will help us to determine in which particular subset of this partition the true state $\omega_0$ lies. Two extreme cases may be mentioned.
1. If the partition is simply the crude partition $\{\emptyset,\omeg\}$, then the a posteriori observations are useless. We will refer to this situation as an *open-loop* information structure.
2. If the partition is the finest possible one, namely all subsets $G$ are singletons, then the a posteriori observations will tell us exactly what is the true state of nature $\omega_0$. This is the situation of perfect knowledge prior to making our decisions.
In between, after the a posteriori observations become available, we will remain with some uncertainty about the true $\omega_0$, that is we will know in which particular $G$ the true state lies but all $\omega$’s in that $G$ are still possible. Moreover, in dynamic situations, new observations may become available at each time stage and a partition of $\omeg$ corresponding to this information structure must be considered at each time stage. We refer to the general case as a *closed-loop* decision process.
In order to have a framework in which various operations on information structures become possible, probability theory introduces so-called $\sigma$-algebras or $\sigma$-fields, random variables and a pre-order relation between random variables. The latter is called *measurability*.[^5]
We refer the reader to [@Rao04] for further details on information structure and probability theory. As far as this paper is concerned, we here state a result found in [@Rao04 Theorem 8 p.108] giving the main properties of the measurability relation between random variables.
Let $(\omeg,\trib,\prbt)$ be a probability space, let $\va{y}_1:\omeg\rightarrow\espacea{Y}_1$ and $\va{y}_2:\omeg\rightarrow\espacea{Y}_2$ be two random variables taking their values in $\espacea{Y}_1$ and $\espacea{Y}_2$ respectively. The following statements are equivalent:
1. $\va{y}_1\preceq \va{y}_2$,
2. $\sigma(\va{y}_1)\subset\sigma(\va{y}_2)$,
3. $\exists \phi:\espacea{Y}_2\rightarrow \espacea{Y}_1$, a measurable mapping such that $\va{y}_1=\phi\circ \va{y}_2$,
4. $\va{y}_1=\nespc{\va{y}_1}{\va{y}_2}\eqsepv\Pps$.
\[propmes\]
\[MSOP\]Modelling a stochastic optimization problem
---------------------------------------------------
In this section, we consider two interpretations of a stochastic optimization problem: an algebraic one in which the information constraint is modelled through the standard measurability relation (Statement $1$ of Proposition \[propmes\]), and a functional interpretation in which we use the functional equivalent of measurability relation (Statement $3$ of Proposition \[propmes\]).
### Algebraic interpretation
Let $(\omeg,\trib,\prbt)$ be a probability space and let $\va{\xi}:\omeg\rightarrow\Xi$ be a random variable taking values in $\Xi:=\bbR^{d_\xi}$ (noise space). We denote by $\espacea{U}:=\bbR^{d_u}$ the control space and by $\espacef{U}$ the functional space $L^2(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\espacea{U})$. The cost function $J:\espacef{U}\rightarrow\bbR$ is defined as the expectation of a normal integrand[^6] $j:\espacea{U}\times\Xi\rightarrow\bbR$ $$J(\va{u}) \defegal \besp{j(\va{u},\va{\xi})} =
\int_\omeg j\left(\va{u}(\omega),\va{\xi}(\omega)\right)\mathrm{d}\prbt(\omega)
\eqfinp$$ The feasible set $\Ufe\defegal\Uas\cap\Ume$ accounts for two different constraints:
- almost sure constraints: $$\label{eq:as-const}
\Uas \defegal \left\{\va{u}\in\espacef{U} \eqsepv
\va{u}(\omega)\in\bGammaas(\omega) \eqsepv \Pps\right\} \eqfinv$$ where $\bGammaas:\omeg\rightrightarrows\espacea{U}$ is a measurable set-valued mapping (see [@Rockafellar-Wets:1998 Definition 14.1]) which is convex and closed valued, and
- measurability constraints: $$\label{eq:mes-const}
\Ume\defegal\left\{\va{u}\in\espacef{U} \eqsepv
\va{u}\enspace\text{is}\enspace\tribu{G}\mathrm{-measurable}\right\} \eqfinv$$ where $\tribu{G}$ is a given sub-$\sigma$-field of $\trib$.
From their respective definitions, it is easy to prove that $\Ume$ is a closed subspace of $\espacef{U}$ (indeed $L^2(\omeg,\tribu{G},\prbt;\espacea{U})$) and that $\Uas$ is a closed convex subset of $\espacef{U}$.
The optimization problem under consideration is to minimize the cost function $J(\va{U})$ over the feasible subset $\Ufe$. The first model representing the stochastic optimization problem is thus $$\min_{\va{u}\in\espacef{U}} \; J(\va{u})
\quad \text{s.t.} \quad \va{u} \in \Ufe \eqfinp
\label{GSP}$$ This interpretation is called algebraic as it uses an algebraic relation (measurability) to define the information structure of Problem .
### Functional interpretation
According to Proposition \[propmes\], a functional model for stochastic optimization problems is available, in which the optimization is achieved with respect to functions called *feedbacks*. Indeed, let
- $\va{y}:\omeg\rightarrow\espacea{Y}$ be a random variable (called *the observation*) taking value in $\espacea{Y}:=\bbR^{d_y}$,
- $\Phi$ be the space $L^2(\espacea{Y},\borel{\espacea{Y}},\prbt_{\va{y}};\espacea{U})$ where $\borel{\espacea{Y}}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-field of $\espacea{Y}$ and $\prbt_{\va{y}}$ the image of the probability measure $\prbt$ by $\va{y}$,
- $\Phias$ be the subset of $\Phi$ defined by $$\Phias \defegal \big\{\phi\in\Phi \eqsepv \phi\compo\va{y}(\omega)
\in \bGammaas(\omega) \eqsepv \Pps\big\} \eqfinp$$
We define the cost function $\bar{J} : \Phi \rightarrow \bbR$ as $\bar{J}(\phi) \defegal \Besp{j\big(\phi(\va{y}),\va{\xi}\big)}$. We are interested in the functional optimization problem: $$\min_{\phi\in\Phi}\bar{J} \; (\phi)
\quad \text{s.t.} \quad \phi \in \Phias \eqfinp
\label{FSP}$$
If $\sigma(\va{y})=\tribu{G}$, then Problem is equivalent to Problem in the sense that if $\va{u}^\sharp$ is solution of (resp. $\phi^\sharp$ solution of ), then there exists $\phi^\sharp$ solution of (resp. $\va{u}^\sharp$ solution of ) such that $\va{u}^\sharp=\phi^\sharp(\va{y})\eqsepv\Pps$. \[propalgfunc\]
This is a straightforward consequence of Proposition \[propmes\] and of the definition of the feasible sets in both problems.
\[OCSOP\]Optimality conditions for a stochastic optimization problem
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous works dealt with optimality conditions for stochastic optimal control problems [@Romisch05; @Hiriart82]. This paragraph can be viewed as a slight extension of [@Romisch05] when considering a stochastic optimization problem subject to almost-sure *and* measurability constraints.
We consider Problem presented in §\[MSOP\]. We recall that the feasible set $\Ufe$ is the intersection of a closed convex subset $\Uas$ and of a linear subspace $\Ume$. In order to apply the results given in Appendix \[app-OC-Hilbert\], we first establish the following lemma.
Let $\Uas$ be the convex set defined by almost sure constraints and let $\Ume$ be the linear subspace defined by measurability constraints . We assume that $\bGammaas$ is a $\tribu{G}$-mesurable and closed convex valued mapping. Then $$\proj{\Uas}{\Ume} \subset \Ume \eqfinp$$ \[lemprint\]
We first prove that $\big(\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}\big)(\omega)=
\proj{\bGammaas(\omega)}{\va{u}(\omega)} \eqsepv \Pps$. Indeed, let $F(\va{V}) \defegal \frac{1}{2} \norm{\va{v}-\va{u}}_{\espacef{U}}^{2} +
\fcara{\Uas}(\va{v})$. From the definition of almost sure constraints, we have $F(\va{v}) = \int_{\omeg} f\big( \va{v}(\omega),\omega\big)
\mathrm{d}\prbt(\omega)$, with $f(v,\omega) \defegal \frac{1}{2} \norm{v-\va{u}(\omega)}_{\espacea{U}}^{2} +
\fcara{\bGammaas(\omega)}(v)$. By definition of the projection, $\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}$ is solution of the optimization problem $$\min_{\va{V}\in\espacef{U}}
\int_{\omeg} f\big( \va{v}(\omega),\omega\big)\mathrm{d}\prbt(\omega) \eqfinp$$ Using [@Rockafellar-Wets:1998 Theorem 14.60] (interchange of minimization and integration), we obtain $$\big(\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}\big)(\omega) \in
\argmin_{v\in\espacea{U}} f(v,\omega) =
\big\{ \proj{\bGammaas(\omega)}{\va{u}(\omega)} \big\} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinv
\label{eq:prf-pra}$$ hence the claimed property.
Let us consider any $\va{u}\in\Ume$. We deduce from that $$\big(\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}\big)(\omega) =
\argmin_{v\in\bGammaas(\omega)} \frac{1}{2}
\norm{v-\va{u}(\omega)}_{\espacea{U}}^{2} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp$$ From [@AubinFrankowska90 Theorem 8.2.11] (measurability of marginal functions), we deduce from the $\tribu{G}$-measurability of both $\va{U}$ and $\bGammaas$ that the $\argmin$ function $\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}$ is also a $\tribu{G}$-measurable function, which means that $\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}}\in\Ume$.
The main result of this section is given by the following theorem.
Assume that $\bGammaas$ is a $\tribu{G}$-mesurable and closed convex valued mapping, that function $j$ is a normal integrand such that $j(\cdot,\va{\xi})$ is differentiable $\Pps$ and that $j'_u(\va{u}(\cdot),\va{\xi}(\cdot))\in\espacef{U}$ for all $\va{u}\in\espacef{U}$. Let $\va{u}^{\sharp}$ be a solution of Problem . Then $$\bespc{j'_u(\va{u}^{\sharp},\va{\xi})}{\tribu{G}} \in
-\partial\fcara{\Uas}(\va{u}^{\sharp}) \eqfinp
\label{eq:GOC}$$ \[theoCOpr\]
The differentiability of $J:\espacef{U}\rightarrow\bbR$ is a straightforward consequence of both the integral expression of $J$ and the differentiability assumption on $j$. Moreover the expression of the derivative of $J$ is given by $$J'(\va{u})(\omega)=j'_u(\va{u}(\omega),\va{\xi}(\omega)) \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp$$ Let $\va{u}^{\sharp}$ be a solution of . From Lemma \[lemprint\] and Proposition \[propCOpr\] in the Appendix, we obtain $$\proj{\Ume}{J'(\va{u}^{\sharp})}\in -\partial\fcara{\Uas}(\va{u}^{\sharp})
\eqfinv$$ this last expression being equivalent to thanks to the characterization of the conditional expectation as a projection and the expression of $J'$.
Using the equivalent statements , the optimality conditions given by Theorem \[theoCOpr\] can be reformulated as $$\va{u}^{\sharp} =
\proj{\Uas}{\va{u}^{\sharp}-\epsilon \proj{\Ume}{\nabla J(\va{u}^{\sharp})}}
\eqsepv \forall \epsilon > 0 \eqfinp$$ This last formulation can be used in practice to solve Problem using a projected gradient algorithm. The projection over $\Uas$ involves random variables, but we saw in the proof of Lemma \[lemprint\] that $\projop{\Uas}$ can be performed in a pointwise manner ($\omega$ per $\omega$), so that the implementation of the algorithm is effective.
The optimality conditions , which are given in terms of random variables, also have a pointwise interpretation. As a matter of fact, using the equivalent statements and the pointwise interpretation of $\projop{\Uas}$, it is straightforward to prove that $\va{r}\in\partial\fcara{\Uas}(\va{u})$ implies $\va{r}(\omega)\in\partial\fcara{\bGammaas(\omega)}(\va{u}(\omega))\eqsepv\Pps$.
\[OCalg\]Stochastic optimal control problems
============================================
Stochastic optimal control problems rest upon the same framework as stochastic optimization problems: they can be modelled as closed-loop stochastic optimization problems with a sequential time structure. In this section, we deal with the algebraic interpretation of stochastic optimal control problems in a discrete time framework. We will derive optimality conditions following the same principle as in §\[OCSOP\].
Problem formulation
-------------------
We consider a stochastic optimal control problem in discrete time, $T$ denoting the time horizon. At each stage $t=0,\ldots,T$, we denote by $\espacea{W}_t:=\bbR^{d_{w_t}}$ the noise space at time $t$. Let $\espacef{W}_t$ be a set of random variables defined on $(\omeg,\trib,\prbt)$ and taking values in $\espacea{W}_t$, and let $\espacef{W}\defegal\espacef{W}_0\times\cdots\times\espacef{W}_T$. The noise process of the problem is a random vector $\va{w}\in\espacef{W}$ such that $\va{w}=(\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_T)$, with $\va{w}_t\in \espacef{W}_t$.
At each stage $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, we denote by $\espacea{U}_t \defegal \bbR^{d_{u_t}}$ the control space and by $\espacef{U}_t \defegal L^2(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\espacea{U}_t)$ the space of square integrable random variables taking values in $\espacea{U}_t$. At $t$, the decision maker makes a decision (a control) $\va{u}_t\in\espacef{U}_t$. Let $\espacef{U} \defegal \espacef{U}_0\times\cdots\times\espacef{U}_{T-1}$. The control process of the problem is a random vector $\va{u}\in\espacef{U}$ such that $\va{u}=(\va{u}_0,\ldots,\va{u}_{T-1})$, with $\va{u}_t\in \espacef{U}_t$. We also assume that each control variable $\va{u}_{t}$ is subject to almost-sure constraints. More precisely, for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, let $\bGammaas_t: \Omega\rightrightarrows\espacea{U}_t$ be a set-valued mapping (random set), let $\Uas_t\defegal\left\{\va{u}_t\in\espacef{U}_t,\;
\va{u}_t(\omega)\in \bGammaas_t(\omega) \eqsepv \Pps\right\}$ and let $\Uas\defegal\Uas_0\times\cdots\times\Uas_{T-1}$. The almost-sure constraints writes $$\va{u}_t\in \Uas_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinp
\label{ascons}$$
### Dynamics
At each stage $t=0,\ldots,T$, we denote by $\espacea{X}_t:=\bbR^{d_{x_t}}$ the state space at time $t$. Let $\espacef{X}_t$ be a set of random variables defined on $(\omeg,\trib,\prbt)$ and taking values in $\espacea{X}_t$, and let $\espacef{X}\defegal\espacef{X}_0 \times\ldots\times\espacef{X}_T$. The state process of the problem is a random vector $\va{x}\in\espacef{X}$ such that $\va{x}=(\va{x}_0,\ldots,\va{x}_T)$, with $\va{x}_t\in \espacef{X}_t$. It arises from the dynamics $f_t:\espacea{X}_t\times
\espacea{U}_t\times\espacea{W}_{t+1}\rightarrow\espacea{X}_{t+1}$ of the system, namely
$$\begin{aligned}
\va{x}_0 & =\va{w}_0 \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinv\\
\va{x}_{t+1}& =f_t(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1}) \eqsepv \Pps
\quad \forall t=0,\ldots, T-1 \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[SOCDyn\]
The shift on the time index between the random variable $\va{x}_t$ and the control $\va{u}_t$ on the one hand and the noise $\va{w}_{t+1}$ on the other hand enlightens the fact that we are in the so-called *decision-hazard* scheme: at time $t$, the decision maker chooses a control variable $\va{u}_{t}$ before having any information about the noise $\va{w}_{t+1}$ which affects the dynamics of the system.
### Cost function
We consider at each stage $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, an “integral” cost function $L_t:\espacea{X}_t\times\espacea{U}_t\times\espacea{W}_{t+1}\rightarrow\bbR$. Moreover, at the final stage $T$, we consider a final cost function $K:\espacea{X}_T\rightarrow\bbR$. Summing up all these instantaneous costs, we obtain the overall cost function of the problem $$\widetilde{\jmath}(x,u,w)\defegal\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}L_t(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1})+K(x_T)
\eqfinv$$ and the decision maker has to choose the control variables $\va{u}_t$ in order to minimize the overall cost expectation $$\widetilde{J}(\va{x},\va{u})\defegal
\bgesp{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}L_t(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+K(\va{x}_T)}
\eqfinp
\label{SOCCost}$$
### Information structure
Generally speaking, the information available on the system at time $t$ is modelled as a random variable $\va{y}_t:\Omega\rightarrow\espacea{Y}_t$, where $\espacea{Y}_t:=\bbR^{d_{y_t}}$ is the observation space. Let $\espacef{Y}_t$ be the set of random variables taking their values in $\espacea{Y}_t$. We suppose that there exists an observation mapping $\widetilde{h}_t:\espacea{W}_0\times\cdots\times\espacea{W}_T\rightarrow
\espacea{Y}_t$ such that $\va{y}_t=\widetilde{h}_t(\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_T) \eqsepv \Pps$. For all $t=0,\ldots,T$, we denote by $\tribu{G}_t=\sigma(\va{y}_t)$ the sub-$\sigma$-field of $\trib$ generated by the random variable $\va{y}_t$:[^7] $$\tribu{G}_t = \sigma \big( \widetilde{h}_t(\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_T) \big)
\eqfinp$$ The decision maker knows $\va{y}_t$ when choosing the appropriate control $\va{u}_t$ at time $t$, so that the information constraint is $\va{u}_t \preceq \va{y}_t$. Using the notations $\Ume_t=\left\{\va{u}_t\in\espacef{U}_t \eqsepv
\va{u}_t\;\;\text{is}\;\;\tribu{G}_t\mathrm{-measurable}\right\}$ and $\Ume=\Ume_0\times\cdots\times\Ume_{T-1}$, the measurability constraints of the problem writes $$\va{u}_t \in \Ume_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinp
\label{SOCInfo}$$
We also introduce the sequence of $\sigma$-fields $\big(\tribu{F}_t\big)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ associated with the noise process $\va{w}$, where $\tribu{F}_t$ is the $\sigma$-field generated by the noises prior to $t$: $$\tribu{F}_t=\sigma\big(\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_t\big) \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T
\eqfinp$$ This sequence is a filtration as it satisfies the inclusions $\tribu{F}_0\subset\tribu{F}_1\subset\ldots\subset\tribu{F}_T\subset\trib$. When $\tribu{G}_t=\tribu{F}_t$, we are in the case of complete causal information.
### Optimization problem
According to the notation given in the previous paragraphs, the stochastic optimal control problem we consider here is
$$\min_{(\va{u},\va{x})\in\espacef{U}\times\espacef{X}} \quad
\bgesp{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}L_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+K(\va{x}_{T})}
\eqfinv$$
subject to both the dynamics constraints and the control constraints $$\va{u}_t\in \Uas_t \cap \Ume_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1
\eqfinp$$ \[SOC\]
We follow here the algebraic interpretation of an optimization problem given in §\[MSOP\], as the information structure is defined using a measurability relation.
In the way we modelled Problem , we have to minimize the cost function $\widetilde{J}(\va{u},\va{x})$ with respect to both $\va{u}$ and $\va{x}$ under the dynamics constraints . But the state variables $\va{x}_{t}$ are in fact intermediary variables and it is possible to eliminate them by recursively incorporating the dynamics equations into the cost function . The resulting cost function $J$ only depends on the control variables $\va{u}_{t}$. Its expression is $J(\va{u}) = \besp{j(\va{u},\va{W})}$, with $$j(u,w) =
\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}\widetilde{L}_t(u_0,\ldots,u_t,w_0,\ldots,w_{t+1})+
\widetilde{K}(u_0,\ldots,u_{T-1},w_0,\ldots,w_T) \eqfinp$$ In this setting, Problem is equivalent to $$\min_{\va{u}\in\espacef{U}} \quad J(\va{u})
\quad \text{s.t.} \quad \va{u}\in\Uas\cap\Ume \eqfinp
\label{SO}$$
The derivatives of the cost function $J$ can be obtained from the derivatives of $\widetilde{J}$ using the well known adjoint state method. This is based on the following result stated here without proof.
Assuming that functions $f_{t}$ and $L_{t}$ are continuously differentiable with respect to their first two arguments and that function $K$ is continuously differentiable, the partial derivatives of $j$ with respect to $u$ are given by $$(j)'_{u_t}(u,w) =
(L_t)_{u_t}'(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1})+\lambda_{t+1}^\top(f_t)_{u_t}'(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1})
\eqfinv$$ where the state vector $(x_0,\ldots,x_T)$ satisfies the forward dynamics equation $$x_{0}=w_{0} \eqsepv x_{t+1}=f_t(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1}) \eqfinv$$ whereas the adjoint state (or co-state) vector $(\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_T)$ is chosen to satisfy the backward dynamics equation $$\lambda_T=K'^\top(x_T) \eqsepv
\lambda_t=(L_t)'^\top_{x}(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1})+(f_t)'^\top_{x}(x_t,u_t,w_{t+1})
\lambda_{t+1} \eqfinp$$ \[propcuisine\]
### Assumptions
In order to derive optimality conditions for Problem , we make the following assumptions.
1. $\bGammaas_t$ are closed convex set-valued mappings, $\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1$.
\[AssStruct\]
1. Functions $f_{t}$ (dynamics) and $L_{t}$ (cost) are continuous differentiable with respect to their first two arguments (state and control), $\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1$.
2. Function $K$ (final cost) is continuously differentiable.
3. Functions $L_t$ and $f_t$ are normal integrands, $\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1$.
4. The derivatives of $f_t$, $L_t$ and $K$ are square integrable, $\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1$.
\[AssDiff\]
1. $\tribu{G}_t\subset\tribu{F}_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T$.
2. Mappings $\bGammaas_t$ are $\tribu{G}_t$-measurable, $\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1$.
\[AssNonAnt\]
Assumption \[AssDiff\] will allow us all integration and derivation operations needed for obtaining optimality conditions. The measurability condition on $\bGammaas_t$ in Assumption \[AssNonAnt\] expresses that the almost-sure constraints must at least have the same measurability as the decision variables. The first condition in Assumption \[AssNonAnt\] expresses the causality of the problem: the decision maker has no access to information in the future! Under this assumption, there exists a measurable mapping $h_t:\espacea{W}_0\times\cdots\times\espacea{W}_t\rightarrow\espacea{Y}_t$ such that the information variable $\va{y}_t$ writes $$\va{y}_t=h_t(\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_t) \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp$$
From Assumption \[AssStruct\] and using Lemma \[lemprint\] the following property is readily available.
For all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$,
1. $\Uas_t$ is a closed convex subset of $\espacef{U}_t$,
2. $\proj{\Uas_t}{\Ume_t}\subset\Ume_t$.
\[PrpStruct\]
Optimality conditions in stochastic optimal control problems
------------------------------------------------------------
We present here necessary optimality conditions for the stochastic optimal control problem , which are an extension of the conditions given in Theorem \[theoCOpr\].
### Non-adapted optimality conditions
A first set of optimality conditions is given in the next theorem.
Let the two random processes $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ $\in\espacef{X}$ and $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ $\in\espacef{U}$ be a solution of Problem . Suppose that Assumption \[AssStruct\], \[AssDiff\] and \[AssNonAnt\] are satisfied. Then, there exists a random process $(\va{\lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}\in\espacef{X}$ such that, for all $t=0,...,T-1$,
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{x}_0=\va{w}_0
\eqfinv \label{eqPMS1-a} \\
& \va{x}_{t+1} = f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})
\eqfinv \label{eqPMS1-b} \\
& \nonumber \\
& \va{\lambda}_{T} = K'^\top(\va{x}_{T})
\eqfinv \label{eqPMS1-c} \\
& \va{\lambda}_{t} = (L_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}
\eqfinv \label{eqPMS1-d} \\
& \nonumber \\
& \bespc{(L_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^{\top}
(f_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{G}_{t}} \in - \partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t)
\eqfinp \label{eqPMS1-e}\end{aligned}$$
\[eqPMS1\]
\[thmPMS1\]
From the equivalence between Problem and Problem , we obtain, using Theorem \[theoCOpr\], that the solution $\va{u}$ satisfies $$\proj{\Ume}{J'(\va{u})}\in -\partial\fcara{\Uas}(\va{u}) \eqfinv$$ and therefore $\bespc{j'_{u_t}(\va{u},\va{w})}{\tribu{G}_t}\in-\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t)$ for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$. The desired result follows from Proposition \[propcuisine\].
The conditions given by Theorem \[thmPMS1\] are called *non-adapted optimality conditions* because the dual random process $(\va{\lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ is not adapted to the natural filtration $(\tribu{F}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$, that is, $\va{\lambda}_t$ generally depends on the future. We will see in the next section that similar optimality conditions can be written with help of an adapted dual random process.
### Adapted optimality conditions
The following theorem presents optimality conditions involving an adapted dual random process.
Let the two random processes $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ $\in\espacef{X}$ and $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ $\in\espacef{U}$ be a solution of Problem . Assume that Assumption \[AssStruct\], \[AssDiff\] and \[AssNonAnt\] are satisfied. Then, there exists a process $(\va{\Lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}\in\espacef{X}$ adapted to the filtration $(\tribu{F}_{t})_{t=0,\ldots,T} $ such that, for all $t=0,...,T-1$,
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{x}_0=\va{w}_0 \eqfinv \\
& \va{x}_{t+1} = f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1}) \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \va{\Lambda}_{T} = K'^\top(\va{x}_{T}) \eqfinv \\
& \va{\Lambda}_{t} =
\bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}}
{\tribu{F}_t} \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \bespc{(L_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}^\top(f_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{G}_{t}} \in-\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t) \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[eqPMS2\]
\[thmPMS2\]
All assumptions of Theorem \[thmPMS1\] are met, so that there exists a random process $(\va{\lambda}_{t})_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ satisfying . Define for all $t$ the random variable $\Lambda_{t}$ by $$\va{\Lambda}_{t} \defegal \bespc{\va{\lambda}_{t}}{\tribu{F}_{t}} \eqfinp$$ By construction, the process $(\va{\Lambda}_{t})_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ is adapted to the filtration $(\tribu{F}_{t})_{t=0,\ldots,T}$. At stage $T$, we have $$\va{\Lambda}_{T} = \nespc{\va{\lambda}_T}{\tribu{F}_T}
= \bespc{K'^\top(\va{x}_T)}{\tribu{F}_T}
= K'^\top(\va{x}_T) \eqfinv$$ because $\va{x}_T$ is $\tribu{F}_T$-measurable. For all $t=T-1,\ldots,0$, using the law of total expectation $\nespc{\cdot}{\tribu{F}_t}=\bespc{\nespc{\cdot}{\tribu{F}_{t+1}}}{\tribu{F}_t}$ and since all variables $\va{x}_t$, $\va{u}_t$ and $\va{w}_{t+1}$ are $\tribu{F}_{t+1}$-measurable, we deduce from that $$\begin{aligned}
\va{\Lambda}_t
& = \bespc{(L_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})
\nespc{\va{\lambda}_{t+1}}{\tribu{F}_{t+1}}}
{\tribu{F}_t} \eqfinv \\
& = \bespc{(L_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}}
{\tribu{F}_t} \eqfinv\end{aligned}$$ hence the adapted backward dynamics equations given in .
Assumption \[AssNonAnt\] implies that $\tribu{G}_t\subset\tribu{F}_t\subset\tribu{F}_{t+1}$. Using $\nespc{\cdot}{\tribu{G}_t}=\bespc{\nespc{\cdot}{\tribu{F}_{t+1}}}{\tribu{G}_t}$, and the measurability properties of $\va{x}_t$, $\va{u}_t$ and $\va{w}_{t+1}$, the last optimality condition in becomes $$\bespc{(L_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\nespc{\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^\top}{\tribu{F}_{t+1}}
(f_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{G}_t} \in -\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t) \eqfinv$$ hence the last optimality condition given in .
Note that in the optimality conditions given in Theorem \[thmPMS2\], at each stage $t$, the gradient is projected over the subspace generated by the observation $\sigma$-field $\tribu{G}_t$, whereas the adapted dual random variable is projected over the subspace generated by $\tribu{F}_t$ which corresponds to the natural filtration of Problem .
\[KKTX\]Optimality conditions in the Markovian case
---------------------------------------------------
As far as information structure is concerned, the optimality conditions and were obtained assuming only nonanticipativeness (see Assumption \[AssNonAnt\]) and the fact that the observation $\sigma$-fields $(\tribu{G}_t)_{t=0,\dots,T}$ do not depend on the decisions $(\va{U}_t)_{t=0,\dots,T-1}$. The last assumption allows us to avoid the so-called “dual effect of control” (see [@barty03] for further details). Another feature often available in practice for the information structure is the “perfect memory” property, which intuitively means that the information is not lost over time. The last property implies that $(\tribu{G}_t)_{t=0,\dots,T}$ is a filtration, namely $$\tribu{G}_t\subset\tribu{G}_{t+1}\eqsepv \forall t=0,\dots T-1 \eqfinp$$ We will assume in the sequel that the perfect memory property holds, and we will moreover assume complete causal noise observation, so that $\tribu{G}_t=\tribu{F}_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T$.[^8] Then both optimality conditions and involve conditional expectations with respect to a random observation variable the dimension of which increases with time (a new noise random variable becomes available at each stage $t$). This leads to a computational difficulty, of the same nature as the so-called curse of dimensionality. To address this difficulty, it would be an easier situation to have a constant dimension for the observation space, as in the stochastic dynamic programming principle [@Bertsekas:1976; @Bertsekas-Shreve:1996] when the optimal control at $t$ only depends on the state variable at the same time stage. We thus consider new (more restrictive) assumptions which match the stochastic optimal control framework an lead us to the desired situation.
1. $\tribu{G}_t=\tribu{F}_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T$ (perfect memory and causal noise observation).
2. The random variables $\va{w}_{0},\ldots,\va{w}_{T}$ are independent (white noise).
3. The mappings $\bGammaas_t$ are constant (deterministic constraints):\
$\forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqsepv \exists \: \Gammaas_t\subset\espacea{U}_t
\eqsepv \bGammaas_t(\omega) = \Gammaas_t \eqsepv \Pps$.
\[AssMark\]
The standard formulation of a stochastic optimal control problem in the Markovian case is to assume that the state is completely and perfectly observed. The problem formulation is accordingly
$$\min_{(\va{u},\va{x})\in\espacef{U}\times\espacef{X}} \quad
\bgesp{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}L_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+K(\va{x}_{T})}
\eqfinv$$
subject to both the dynamics constraints and the control constraints $$\va{u}_t \in \Gammaas_t \eqsepv \Pps \quad \text{and} \quad
\va{u}_t \preceq \va{x}_t \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1
\eqfinp$$ \[SOCX\]
We now consider the optimality conditions and and we specialize them to the Markovian case.
### Markovian case: non-adapted optimality conditions
We present a non-adapted version of the optimality conditions of Problem with Markovian assumptions. We begin by presenting a result inspired by the stochastic dynamic programming principle.
Suppose that Assumptions \[AssStruct\], \[AssDiff\] and \[AssMark\] are fulfilled, and assume that there exist two random processes $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{U}$ and $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}\in\espacef{X}$ solution of Problem . Then there exists a process $(\va{\lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{X}$ satisfying and such that, for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& (a) \enspace
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}\preceq
\big(\va{x}_{t+1},\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_T\big) \eqsepv \\
& (b) \enspace
\va{u}_t\preceq \va{x}_t \eqsepv \\
& (c) \enspace
\bespc{(L_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^\top(f_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_t} = \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\bespc{(L_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^\top(f_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\va{x}_t} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$ \[thmPMS1X\]
First, Assumption \[AssNonAnt\] being implied by Assumption \[AssMark\], the existence of the process $(\va{\lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}\in\espacef{X}$ satisfying is given by Theorem \[thmPMS1\]. Denoting by $H_{t}$ the Hamiltonian at time $t$, namely $H_{t}(x,u,w,\lambda) = L_{t}(x,u,w) + \lambda^{\top}f_{t}(x,u,w)$, optimality conditions and write
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{\lambda}_{t} = (H_{t})'^\top_{x}
(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\va{\lambda}_{t+1})
\eqfinv \label{eqHPMS1-d} \\
& \bespc{(H_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\va{\lambda}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_{t}} \in-\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t)
\eqfinp \label{eqHPMS1-e}\end{aligned}$$
The proof of statements $(a)$ and $(b)$ is obtained by induction. For the sake of simplicity, we first prove the result when $\Uas_t=\espacef{U}$, so that reduces to the equality condition: $$\label{eqHPMS1-eq1}
\bespc{(H_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\va{\lambda}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_{t}} = 0 \eqfinp$$
- At stage $T$, we know from that $\va{\lambda}_T = \mu_{T-1}(\va{x}_T)$, with $\mu_{T-1}$ being a measurable function,[^9] and hence
$$\label{lambda_induction-T}
\va{\lambda}_T \preceq \va{x}_T.$$
Then using , the optimality condition takes the form: $$\bespc{(H_{T-1})'_{u}
\big(\va{x}_{T-1},\va{u}_{T-1},\va{w}_{T},
\mu_{T-1} \compo f_{T-1}(\va{x}_{T-1},\va{u}_{T-1},\va{w}_{T})\big)}
{\tribu{F}_{T-1}} = 0 \eqfinp$$ $\va{X}_{T-1}$ and $\va{u}_{T-1}$ being both $\tribu{F}_{T-1}$-measurable random variables, and $\va{w}_{T}$ being independent of $\tribu{F}_{T-1}$ (white noise assumption), we deduce that the conditional expectation in the last expression reduces to an expectation. Let $G_{T-1}$ denotes the function resulting from its integration, namely $$G_{T-1}(x,u) = \Besp{(H_{T-1})'_{u}
\big(x,u,\va{w}_{T},\mu_{T-1} \compo f_{T-1}(x,u,\va{w}_{T})\big)}
\eqfinp$$ $G_{T-1}$ is a mesurable mapping,[^10] and the optimality condition writes $$G_{T-1} (\va{x}_{T-1},\va{u}_{T-1}) = 0 \eqfinp$$ Using the measurable selection theorem available for implicit measurable functions [@Leese:1974 Theorem 8],[^11] we deduce that there exists a measurable mapping $\gamma_{T-1} : \espacea{X}_{T-1} \rightarrow \espacea{U}_{T-1}$ such that $G_{T-1} \big(\va{x}_{T-1},\gamma_{T-1}(\va{x}_{T-1})\big)=0$. As a conclusion, the control variable $\va{u}_{T-1}=\gamma_{T-1}(\va{x}_{T-1})$ satisfies the optimality condition at $t=T-1$ and is such that $$\label{u_induction-T}
\va{u}_{T-1} \preceq \va{x}_{T-1}.$$
- At stage $t$, assume that $\va{\lambda}_{t+1} \preceq (\va{x}_{t+1},\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_T)$. Then there exists a measurable function $\mu_{t}$ such that
$$\label{lambda_induction-t}
\va{\lambda}_{t+1} = \mu_{t} (\va{x}_{t+1},\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_T)
\eqfinp$$
The optimality condition at stage $t$ takes the form $$\Bespc{(H_{t})'_{u}
\Big(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},
\mu_{t} \big(f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1}),
\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_{T}\big)\Big)}
{\tribu{F}_{t}} = 0 \eqfinp$$ With the same reasoning as at stage $T$, we deduce that this conditional expectation reduces to an expectation, so that the optimality condition writes $$G_{t} (\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t}) = 0 \eqfinv$$ $G_{t}$ being a measurable function given by $$G_{t}(x,u) = \Besp{(H_{t})'_{u}
\Big(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1},\mu_{t} \big( f_{t}(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1}),
\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_{T}\big)\Big)}
\eqfinp$$ Using again [@Leese:1974 Theorem 8], we deduce that there exists a measurable mapping $\gamma_{t} : \espacea{X}_{t} \rightarrow \espacea{U}_{t}$ such that $\va{u}_{t}=\gamma_{t}(\va{x}_{t})$ satisfies the optimality condition at $t$. We have accordingly $$\label{u_induction-t}
\va{u}_{t} \preceq \va{x}_{t}.$$ Ultimately, starting from the optimality condition , namely $$\va{\lambda}_{t} = (H_{t})'^\top_{x}
(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\va{\lambda}_{t+1})
\eqfinv$$ using the induction assumption together with and , we obtain that $$\va{\lambda}_{t} = (H_{t})'^\top_{x}
\Big(
\va{x}_{t},\gamma_{t}(\va{x}_{t}),\va{w}_{t+1},
\mu_{t}\big(f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\gamma_{t}(\va{x}_{t}),\va{w}_{t+1}),
\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_T\big)
\Big)
\eqfinp$$ We conclude that $\va{\lambda}_{t}\preceq\big(\va{x}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\ldots,\va{w}_T\big)$ so that the desired result holds true.[^12]
Let’s go now to the general case $\Uas_t\subset\espacef{U}$. From , the optimality condition is again equivalent to an equality condition: $$\proj{\Uas_t}
{\va{u}_{t}-\epsilon
\bespc{{(H_{t})'_{u}}^{\top}
(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\va{\lambda}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_{t}}} - \va{u}_{t} = 0 \eqfinv$$ and the same arguments as in the previous case remain valid.
At last, from $\va{u}_t\preceq\va{x}_t$, $\va{\lambda}_{t+1} \preceq (\va{x}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\ldots,\va{w}_T)$ and the white noise assumption, we deduce that $\va{\lambda}_{t+1}$ depends on $\tribu{F}_t$ only through $\va{x}_t$, so that $$\begin{gathered}
\bespc{(L_t)'_u (\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^\top (f_t)'_u (\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_t}= \\
\bespc{(L_t)'_u (\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\lambda}_{t+1}^\top (f_t)'_u (\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\va{x}_t} \eqfinp\end{gathered}$$ Statement $(c)$ is thus satisfied and the proof is complete.
In the Markovian case, the optimal solution of Problem (measurability with respect to all past noise variables) satisfies the measurability constraints of Problem (measurability with respect to the current state variable). The two problems are equivalent (same $\min$ and $\argmin$). In fact, the feasible set of contains the feasible set of , and Theorem \[thmPMS1X\] shows us that any optimal solution of is feasible for , and is therefore also optimal also for . Ultimately, the optimality conditions of Problem can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{x}_0=\va{w}_0 \eqfinv \\
& \va{x}_{t+1} = f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1}) \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \va{\lambda}_{T} = K'^\top(\va{x}_{T}) \eqfinv \\
& \va{\lambda}_{t} = (L_{t})'^\top_{x_t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x_t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})
\va{\lambda}_{t+1} \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \bespc{(L_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t\!+\!1})\!+\!
\va{\lambda}_{t\!+\!1}^\top(f_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t\!+\!1})}
{\va{x}_{t}} \in -\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t) \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[eqPMS1X\]
Let $(\va{g}_t^1)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ and $(\va{g}_t^2)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ be the gradient processes associated with and respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\va{g}_t^1\defegal &
\bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})\va{\lambda}_{t+1}}
{\tribu{F}_{t}} \eqfinv \\
\va{g}_t^2\defegal &
\bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})\va{\lambda}_{t+1}}
{\va{x}_{t}} \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$ Unlike Problem \[SOC\], we are unable to compute the optimality conditions of Problem by differentiating the Lagrangian function, because the conditioning term $\va{x}_{t}$ depends itself on the control variables $\va{u}_{t}$. Consequently, $\va{g}_{t}^{2}$ is not claimed to represent the projected gradient of Problem . The equality between the gradient $\va{g}_t^1$ and $\va{g}_t^2$ holds true only at the optimum.
### Markovian case: adapted optimality conditions
We now present the adapted version of the optimality conditions of Problem under Markovian assumptions.
Suppose that Assumptions \[AssStruct\], \[AssDiff\] and \[AssMark\] are fulfilled, and assume that there exists two random processes $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{U}$ and $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{X}$ solution of Problem . Then there exists a process $(\va{\Lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{X}$ satisfying and such that, for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& (a) \enspace
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}\preceq \va{x}_{t+1} \eqfinv \\
& (b) \enspace
\va{u}_t \preceq \va{x}_t \eqfinv \\
& (c) \enspace
\bespc{(L_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}^\top(f_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\tribu{F}_t} = \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\bespc{(L_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})+
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}^\top(f_t)'_u(\va{x}_t,\va{u}_t,\va{w}_{t+1})}
{\va{x}_t} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$ \[thmPMS2X\]
The proof follows the same scheme as the one of Theorem \[thmPMS1X\]. We just point out that $\va{\lambda}_{t+1}\preceq (\va{x}_{t+1},\va{w}_{t+2},\ldots,\va{w}_T)$ and $\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}=\nespc{\va{\lambda}_{t+1}}{\tribu{F}_{t+1}}$ implies that $\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}\preceq\va{x}_{t+1}$.
From the equivalence between Problem (measurability with respect to the past noise) and Problem (measurability with respect to the state) in the Markovian framework, we may consider that the optimality conditions of Problem in the adapted version are
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{x}_0=\va{w}_0 \eqfinv \\
& \va{x}_{t+1} = f_{t}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1}) \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \va{\Lambda}_{T} = K'^\top(\va{x}_{T}) \eqfinv \\
& \va{\Lambda}_{t} = \bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1})
\va{\Lambda}_{t+1}}
{\va{x}_t} \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \bespc{(L_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t\!+\!1})\!+\!
\va{\Lambda}_{t\!+\!1}^\top(f_{t})'_{u}(\va{x}_{t},\va{u}_{t},\va{w}_{t\!+\!1})}
{\va{x}_{t}} \in -\partial\fcara{\Uas_t}(\va{u}_t) \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[eqPMS2X\]
The optimality conditions and involve conditional expectations with respect to the state variable the dimension of which is, in most cases, fixed, that is, it does not depend on the time stage. In order to solve Problem (and equivalently Problem ), we have to discretize those conditions and in particular to approximate the conditional expectations. The literature on conditional expectation approximation only offers biased estimators with an integrated squared error depending on the dimension of the conditioning term. On the contrary, approximating an expectation through a Monte-Carlo technique involves non-biased estimators the variance of which does not depend on the dimension of the underlining space. In the next section, we propose a functional interpretation of the stochastic optimal control problem in order to get rid of those conditional expectations and deal only with expectations.
\[OCfunc\]Optimality conditions from a functional point of view
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the stochastic optimal control Problem . Under Markovian assumptions, we have shown in §\[KKTX\] that it is equivalent to Problem and that is a set of necessary optimality conditions. Hereafter we transform the optimality conditions using Theorem \[thmPMS2X\] and the functional interpretation of the measurability relation between random variables (see Proposition \[propmes\]).
Suppose that Assumptions \[AssStruct\], \[AssDiff\] and \[AssMark\] are fulfilled, and assume that there exist two random processes $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{U}$ and $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{X}$ solution of Problem . Let $(\va{\Lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}\in\espacef{X}$ be a random process satisfying the optimality conditions . Then there exists two sequences of mappings $(\Lambda_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ and $(\phi_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$, $\Lambda_t:\espacea{X}_t\rightarrow\espacea{X}_t$ and $\phi_t:\espacea{X}_t\rightarrow\espacea{U}_t$, such that for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$,
\[eqPMS3X\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \va{\Lambda}_t=\Lambda_t(\va{x}_t) \eqfinv \\
& \va{u}_t=\phi_t(\va{x}_t) \eqfinv \\
& \nonumber \\
& \Lambda_{t}(\cdot) =
\Besp{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)
\Lambda_{t+1}\big(f_t(\cdot,\phi_t(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})\big)} \eqfinv \\
& \Besp{(L_{t})'_{u}\big(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t\!+\!1}\big)+
\Lambda_{t+1}^\top\big(f_t(\cdot,\phi_t(\cdot),\va{w}_{t\!+\!1})\big)
(f_{t})'_{u}\big(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t\!+\!1}\big)}
\!\in\!-\partial\fcara{\Phias_t}(\phi_t) \eqfinv\end{aligned}$$
with $\Phias_t\defegal\left\{\phi_t\in
L^2(\espacea{X}_t,\borel{\espacea{X}_t},\prbt_{\va{x}_t};\espacea{U}_t)
\eqsepv \phi_t(x)\in\Gammaas_t \eqsepv \forall x\in\espacea{X}_t\right\}$ and $\prbt_{\va{x}_t}$ the probability measure associated with $\va{x}_t$.
\[thmPMS3X\]
By Theorem \[thmPMS2X\], the random processes $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ and $(\va{\Lambda}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ are such that $\va{u}_t\preceq\va{x}_t$ and $\va{\Lambda}_t\preceq\va{x}_t$. By Proposition \[propmes\], there exist measurable mappings $\phi_t:\espacef{X}_t\rightarrow\espacea{U}_t$ and $\Lambda_t:\espacea{X}_t\rightarrow\espacea{X}_t$ such that $\va{u}_t=\phi_t(\va{x}_t)$ and $\va{\Lambda}_t=\Lambda_t(\va{x}_t)$. From $\va{u}_t\in\espacef{U}_t=L^2(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\espacea{U}_t)$, we deduce that $\phi_t\in L^2(\espacea{X}_t,\borel{\espacea{X}_t},\prbt_{\va{x}_t};\espacea{U}_t)$: $$\int_\Omega\norm{\va{u}_t(\omega)}^2\mathrm{d}\prbt(\omega) =
\int_\Omega\norm{\phi_t\left(\va{x}_t(\omega)\right)}^2\mathrm{d}\prbt(\omega) =
\int_{\espacea{X}_t}\norm{\phi_t(x)}^2\mathrm{d}\prbt_{\va{x}_t}(x) <
+\infty.$$ Since $\va{u}_t\in\Uas_t \Leftrightarrow
\phi_t\left(\va{x}_t(\omega)\right)\in\Gammaas_t \eqsepv \Pps$, we obtain that $\phi_t\in\Phias_t$.
The co-state dynamic equations in rewrites [$$\Lambda_{t}(\va{x}_t) =
\Bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\va{x}_{t},\phi_{t}(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)+ \\
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\va{x}_{t},\phi_{t}(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)
\Lambda_{t+1}(\va{x}_{t+1})}
{\va{x}_t} \eqfinv$$ ]{} which, using $\va{x}_{t+1}=f_t\left(\va{x}_t,\phi_t(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1}\right)$, becomes [$$\begin{gathered}
\Lambda_{t}(\va{x}_t) =
\Bespc{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\va{x}_t,\phi_{t}(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)\\
+(f_{t})'^\top_{x}\big(\va{x}_t,\phi_{t}(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1}\big)
\Lambda_{t+1}\big(f_t(\va{x}_t,\phi_t(\va{x}_t),\va{w}_{t+1})\big)}
{\va{x}_t} \eqfinp\end{gathered}$$ ]{} From the white noise assumption, the random variable $\va{w}_{t+1}$ is independent of $\va{x}_t$, so that the conditional expectation turns out to be just an expectation with respect to the noise random variable. The co-state dynamics equation writes accordingly as a functional equality: [$$%%%%% \Lambda_{T}(\cdot) = K'^\top(\cdot),\\
\Lambda_{t}(\cdot) =
\Besp{(L_{t})'^\top_{x}(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})+
(f_{t})'^\top_{x}(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})
\Lambda_{t+1}\big(f_t(\cdot,\phi_t(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})\big)}.$$ ]{}
Using similar arguments, we easily obtain from the last condition in : [$$\Besp{(L_{t})'_{u}(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})+
\Lambda_{t+1}^\top\big(f_t(\cdot,\phi_t(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})\big)
(f_{t})'_{u}(\cdot,\phi_{t}(\cdot),\va{w}_{t+1})}
\in-\partial\fcara{\Phias_t}(\phi_t) \eqfinv$$ ]{} which completes the proof.
Theorem \[thmPMS3X\] provides the new functional optimality conditions for Problem in the Markovian case. These optimality conditions do not involve conditional expectations but just expectations. Therefore, we may hope that, in the approximation process of these conditions, we will obtain non biased estimates the variance of which will not depend on the dimension of the state space.
\[adapdisc\]Adaptive discretization technique
=============================================
In this section we develop *tractable* numerical methods for obtaining the solution of Problem . We will limit ourselves here to the Markovian framework, but methods for all cases described in §\[OCalg\] can be found in [@TheseDallagi]. We briefly discuss two classical solution methods, namely *stochastic programming* and *dynamic programming*. Then we present an *adaptive mesh* algorithm which consists in discretizing the optimality conditions obtained at §\[OCfunc\] and in using them in a gradient-like algorithm.
Discrete representation of a function\[RmqRT\]
----------------------------------------------
As far as numerical resolution is concerned, we need to manipulate functions which are infinite dimensional objects and which, in most cases, do not have a closed-form expression. Thus we must have a discrete representation of such an object. Let $\phi : \espacea{X}\rightarrow\espacea{U}$ be a function. We suppose that we have at disposal a fixed or variable grid $\grid{x}$ in $\espacea{X}$, that is a collection of elements in $\espacea{X}$: $$\grid{x} = (x^i)_{i=1,\ldots,n} \in \espacea{X}^n \eqfinp$$ A point $x^{i}$ will be called a *particle*. In order to obtain a discrete representation of $\phi$, we define its *trace*, that is a grid $\grid{u}$ on $\espacea{U}$ which corresponds to the values of $\phi$ on $\grid{x}$: $$\grid{u} = \big(\phi(x^i)\big)_{i=1,\ldots,n} \in \espacea{U}^n \eqfinp$$ We denote by $\gridop{T}_{\espacea{U}}:
\espacea{U}^\espacea{X}\rightarrow\espacea{X}^n\times\espacea{U}^n$ the *trace operator* which, with any function $\phi:\espacea{X}\rightarrow\espacea{U}$, associates the couple of grids $(\grid{x},\grid{u})$, that is the $n$ points $\big(x^i,\phi(x^i)\big)\in\espacea{X}\times\espacea{U}$. On the other hand, knowing the trace of $\phi$, we need to compute an approximation of the value taken by $\phi$ at any $x\in\espacea{X}$. Let $\gridop{R}_{\espacea{U}}:
\espacea{X}^n\times\espacea{U}^n\rightarrow\espacea{U}^\espacea{X}$ be an *interpolation-regression operator* which, with any couple of grids $(\grid{x},\grid{u})$, associates $\widetilde{\phi}:\espacea{X}\rightarrow\espacea{U}$ representing the initial function. Such an interpolation-regression operator may be defined in different ways (polynomial interpolation, kernel approximation, closest neighbor, etc).
Stochastic programming\[adapdisc:stochprog\]
--------------------------------------------
One way to discretize stochastic optimal control problems of type is to model the information structure as a decision tree.
1. First, simulate a given number $N$ of scenarios $(\va{w}_t^k)_{t=0,\ldots,T}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ of the noise process. Then, by some tree generation procedures (see e.g. [@Pflug01] or [@HeitschRomisch03]), organize these scenarios in a scenario tree (at any node of any time stage $t$, there is a single past trajectory but multiple futures: see Figure \[treegen\]).
![\[treegen\]From scenarios to a tree](scentotree){width="10cm"}
2. Second, write the components of the problem (state dynamics and cost expectation) on the scenario tree (note that the information constraints are built-in in such a tree structure).
Then the approximation on the scenario tree of Problem is solved using an appropriate (deterministic) non-linear programming package. The optimal solution consists of state and control particles at each node of the tree. An interpolation-regression procedure (as suggested at §\[RmqRT\]) has to be performed at each time stage in order to synthesize a feedback law.
Such a methodology is relatively easy to implement and need not in fact any Markovian assumption. Nevertheless, it faces a serious drawback: at the first time stages (close to the tree root), only a few particles — or nodes — are available, and experience shows that the estimates of the optimal feedback they provide has a relatively weak variance (because the number of pending scenarios at each such node is still large enough); on the contrary, at the final time stages (near the tree leaves), a large number of particles is available, but with a huge variance. In both cases, the feedback synthesis (the interpolation-regression process from the available grid) will be inaccurate. Such an observation will be highlighted later on the case study §\[SecTest\].
Stochastic dynamic programming\[adapdisc:dynprog\]
--------------------------------------------------
We consider Problem in the Markovian case, which is thus equivalent to Problem . From Theorem \[thmPMS1X\], the optimal control process $(\va{u}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ can be searched as a collection of feedback laws $(\phi_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ depending on the process state $(\va{x}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$, that is $$\va{u}_t=\phi_t(\va{x}_t)
\eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp$$
According to the *Dynamic Programming Principle*, the resolution is built up *backward* from $t=T$ to $t=0$ by solving the Bellman equation at each time stage for all state values $x\in\espacea{X}_t$. Such a principle leads to the following algorithm [@Bertsekas:1976; @Bertsekas-Shreve:1996].
- **At stage $T$**,\
define the Bellman function $V_{T}$ as $$V_T(x)\defegal K(x) \eqsepv \forall x\in\espacea{X}_T \eqfinp$$
- **Recursively for $t=T-1,\ldots,0$**,\
compute the Bellman function $V_{t}$ as $$V_t(x) = \min_{u\in \Gammaas_t}
\Besp{L_t(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1})+V_{t+1}\big(f_t(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1})\big)}
\eqsepv \forall x\in\espacea{X}_t \eqfinv$$ the optimal feedback law $\phi_{t}$ being obtained as $$\phi_t(x)=\mathrm{arg}\min_{u\in \Gammaas_t}
\Besp{L_t(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1})+V_{t+1}\big(f_t(x,u,\va{w}_{t+1})\big)}
\eqsepv \forall x\in\espacea{X}_t \eqfinp$$
\[algoDP\]
This algorithm is only conceptual because it operates on infinite dimensional objects $V_t$ (and expectations cannot always be evaluated analytically). We must indeed manipulate those objects as indicated at §\[RmqRT\]. For every $t=0,\ldots,T$, let $\grid{x}_t\defegal (x_t^i)_{i=1,\ldots,n_t}$ be a *fixed* grid of $n_t$ discretization points in the state space $\espacea{X}_t$. We approximate the functions appearing in Algorithm \[algoDP\] by their trace over that grid: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
& v_t^i= V_t(x_t^i) \eqsepv
& \forall i=1,\ldots,n_t \eqsepv
& \forall t=0,\ldots,T \eqfinv \\
& u_t^i= \phi_t(x_t^i) \eqsepv
& \forall i=1,\ldots,n_t \eqsepv
& \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$ We also need to approximate the expectations by the Monte Carlo method. Let $(\va{w}_t^k)_{t=0,\ldots,T}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ denote $N$ independent and identically distributed scenarios of the random noise process. The discretized stochastic dynamic programming algorithm is as follows.
- **At stage $T$**,\
compute the trace $\grid{v}_{T}$ of the Bellman function $V_{T}$: $$v_T^i=V_T(x_T^i)\eqsepv \forall i=1,\ldots,n_T \eqfinv$$
- **Recursively for $t=T-1,\ldots,0$**,\
approximate $V_{t+1}$ by interpolation-regression: $$\widehat{V}_{t+1}=\gridop{R}_\bbR\left(\grid{x}_{t+1},\grid{v}_{t+1}\right) \eqfinv$$ compute the two grids $\grid{v}_{t}$ and $\grid{u}_{t}$, that is, for each $i=1,\ldots,n_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
v_t^i & =
\min_{u\in \Gammaas_t}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\biggr[ L_t\big(x_t^i,u,\va{w}_{t+1}^k\big)+
\widehat{V}_{t+1}\big(f_t(x_t^i,u,\va{w}_{t+1}^k)\big) \biggr] \eqfinv \\
u_t^i & =
\argmin_{u\in \Gammaas_t}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\biggr[ L_t\big(x_t^i,u,\va{w}_{t+1}^k\big)+
\widehat{V}_{t+1}\big(f_t(x_t^i,u,\va{w}_{t+1}^k)\big) \biggr] \eqfinv\end{aligned}$$ and obtain the feedback law as $$\phi_t=\gridop{R}_{\espacea{U}_t}\left(\grid{x}_t,\grid{u}_t\right) .$$
\[DPApprox\]
The interpolation-regression operator is in most cases mandatory in Algorithm \[DPApprox\]. As a matter of fact, for a given time stage $t$ and a given control value $u\in\espacea{U}_t$, there usually does not exist any index $j$ such that $x_{t+1}^j= f_t(x_t^i,u,\va{w}_{t+1}^k)$, which means that $V_{t+1}$ has to be computed out of the grid $\grid{x}_{t+1}$. Note however that the Bellman function at time stage $T$ is known analytically, so that interpolation is not needed for $V_{T}$.
This method faces an important difficulty: the *curse of dimensionality*. In fact, one generally discretizes each state coordinate at each time stage $t$ using a *scalar* grid and a fixed number of points. Therefore, the grid $\grid{x}_t$ is obtained as the Cartesian product of the scalar grids over all the coordinates. Thus, the number of particles of that grid increases *exponentially* with the state space dimension. This is the well-known drawback of most methods derived from Dynamic Programming, which do not take advantage of the repartition of the optimal state particles in the state space in order to concentrate computations in significant parts of the state space.
The adaptive mesh algorithm
---------------------------
Considering the difficulties faced by both stochastic and dynamic programming methods, we propose an alternative method for solving Problem in the Markovian case. The method, based on optimality conditions , aims at
- dealing with the same number of noise particles from the beginning of the time horizon to the end: we thus hope that the generated feedback law estimators will have a reduced and fixed variance during all time stages;
- attempting to alleviate the curse of dimensionality by operating on an adaptive discretization grid automatically generated from the primary noise discretization grid.
### Approximation
Let us denote by $(\va{w}_t^k)_{t=0,\ldots,T}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ a set of $N$ independent and identically distributed scenarios obtained from the noise random process. Given random control grids $\grid{u}_t\defegal (\va{u}_t^k)_{k=1,\ldots,N}$ for $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, we can compute the state random grids $\grid{x}_t\defegal (\va{x}_t^k)_{k=1,\ldots,N}$ by propagating the state dynamics equation:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{x}_0^k=\va{w}_0^k \eqsepv \forall k=1,\ldots,N \eqfinv \\
& \va{x}_{t+1}^k=f_t\left(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^k\right)
\eqsepv \forall k=1,\ldots,N \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[DynXApprox\]
The feedback at time stage $t$ is obtained using an interpolation-regression operator on the grids $(\grid{x}_t,\grid{u}_t)$. Note that the state space grids $\grid{x}_t$ are not a priori fixed as in Dynamic Programming methods. They are in fact adapted to the control particules, as they change whenever the decision maker changes its control strategy.
If the optimal state is concentrated in a region of the state space, the optimal feedback will be synthesized only inside that region. In fact we need not compute it elsewhere, because the state will hardly reach other regions.
In order to obtain approximations $\widehat{\Lambda}_t$ of the co-state functions $\Lambda_t$ introduced at Theorem \[thmPMS3X\], we compute particles $\va{\Lambda}^k_t$ by integrating the co-state backward dynamic equation over the state grids $\grid{x}_t$. We thus obtain co-state grids $\grid{l}_t=(\va{\Lambda}^k_t)_{k=1,\ldots,N}$, and make use of interpolation-regression operators $\gridop{R}_{\espacea{X}_t}$ in order to compute the co-state function for values out of the current grid. More specifically, the process is initiated with $\widehat{\Lambda}_T(\cdot) = \Lambda_T(\cdot) = K'(\cdot)$; then, for all $t=T-1,\ldots,0$, one computes:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \va{\Lambda}^k_t = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N
(L_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j)+
(f_t)'^\top_x(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j)
\widehat{\Lambda}_{t+1}^\top\big(f_t(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j)\big) \eqfinv \\
& \widehat{\Lambda}_t(\cdot)=\gridop{R}_{\espacea{X}_t}(\grid{x}_t,\grid{l}_t)(\cdot) \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
\[DynLApprox\]
Ultimately, for all $k=1,\ldots,N$ and for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$, the gradient particles $\va{g}_t^k$ are obtained as [$$\va{g}_t^k=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\biggr[
(L_t)'^\top_u\big(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j\big)+
(f_t)'^\top_u\big(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j\big)
\widehat{\Lambda}_{t+1}^\top\Big(f_t\big(\va{x}_t^k,\va{u}_t^k,\va{w}_{t+1}^j\big)\Big)
\biggr] \eqfinp
\label{Gradapprox}$$ ]{} As already noticed, the direction associated with these particles represents the gradient only at the optimum.
### Algorithm
We can now derive a descent-like algorithm to solve Problem under Markovian assumptions. At each iteration, state particles are propagated forward — with no interaction between particles — then, co-state particles are propagated backward — now with interaction caused by the regression-interpolation operations). Then, gradient particles are computed using and the control particles are updated using a gradient-like method. Ultimately, a functional representation of the feedback laws is obtained thanks to a regression-interpolation operator.
- **Step $[0]$**.\
Let $(\grid{u}_t^{[0]})_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}=
\big(\va{u}_t^{[0],k}\big)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ be the initial control grids.
- **Step $[\ell]$**.
1. Compute the state grids $(\grid{x}_t^{[\ell]})_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ by propagating the dynamics with $\va{u}=\va{u}^{[\ell]}$.
2. Compute both co-state grids $(\grid{l}_t^{[\ell]})_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ and functional approximations $(\widehat{\Lambda}_{t}^{[\ell]})_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}$ by propagating the dynamics with $\va{u}=\va{u}^{[\ell]}$ and $\va{x}=\va{x}^{[\ell]}$.
3. Compute the gradient particles $\big(\va{G}_t^{[\ell],k}\big)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ using Equation with $\va{u}=\va{u}^{[\ell]}$, $\va{x}=\va{x}^{[\ell]}$ and $\widehat{\Lambda}=\widehat{\Lambda}^{[\ell]}$.
4. For all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$, update the control particles by performing a projected gradient step: $$\va{u}_t^{[\ell+1],k} =
\proj{\Gammaas_{t}}{\va{u}_t^{[\ell],k}-\rho^{[\ell]}\va{g}_{t}^{[\ell],k}} \eqfinp$$
5. Stop if some degree of accuracy is reached. Else set $\ell=\ell+1$ and iterate.
- **Step $[\infty]$**.
1. Set the grids: $$\begin{aligned}
(\grid{u}_t^{[\infty]})_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}&=
\big(\va{u}_t^{[\ell],k}\big)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}^{k=1,\ldots,N} \eqfinv \\
(\grid{x}_t^{[\infty]})_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}&=
\big(\va{x}_t^{[\ell],k}\big)_{t=0,\ldots,T-1}^{k=1,\ldots,N} \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$
2. Obtain for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$ the feedback law: $$\phi_t(\cdot)=
\gridop{R}_{\espacea{U}_t}
\big(\grid{x}^{[\infty]}_t,\grid{u}_t^{[\infty]}\big)(\cdot)
\eqfinp$$
\[gradproj\]
The only a priori discretization made during this algorithm is relative to the noise sampling. Once such a discretization has been performed, all other grids used to ultimately obtain the feedback laws are derived by integrating dynamic equations. In addition, no conditional expectation approximations are involved in the process. We just approximate expectations using Monte Carlo techniques, and it is well-known that the variance of such an approximation does not depend on the dimension of the underlying space. The only space-size dependent operations are in fact the interpolation operators used to approximate the co-state mappings during the iterative process, plus the feedback laws once convergence is achieved.
Furthermore, this adaptive discretization makes computations concentrate in effective state space regions, unlike dynamic programming which explores the whole state space.
\[SecTest\]Case study
=====================
We consider the production management of an hydro-electric dam. The problem is formulated as a stochastic optimal control, and we consider solving it by the three methods described in §\[adapdisc\].
Model
-----
The problem is formulated in discrete time over $24$ hours using a constant time step of one hour. The index $t=0,\ldots,T$ (where $T=24$) defines the time discretization grid.
The water volume stored in the dam at time stage $t=0,\ldots,T$, is a one dimensional random variable $\va{x}_t\in L^2(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\bbR)$ corresponding to the system state. This storage variable has to remain between given bounds $\underline{x}$ (minimal volume to be kept in the dam) and $\overline{x}$ (maximal water volume the dam can contain) so that, for all $t=0,\ldots,T$, the following almost-sure constraint must hold: $$\underline{x}\leq \va{x}_t\leq\overline{x} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp
\label{dam:bornex}$$ The water inflow into the dam at stage $t$ is denoted by $\va{a}_{t}$. It is a one dimensional random variable with known probability law. We denote by $\va{u}_t\in L^2(\omeg,\trib,\prbt;\bbR)$ the one dimensional random variable corresponding to the *desired* volume of water to be turbinated at stage $t$, and by $\va{e}_{t}$ the *effectively* turbinated water volume during the same time stage. In most cases, $\va{e}_t=\va{u}_t$. But this equality is not achievable if the dam goes under its minimal volume. Therefore, we have for all $t=0,\ldots,T-1$: $$\va{e}_t=\min(\va{u}_t,\va{x}_t+\va{a}_{t+1}-\underline{x})
\eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp
\label{dam:commande}$$ The shift in the time indices is due to the fact that the decision to turbinate is supposed to be made before observing the water inflow volume entering the dam: we are in a *decision-hazard* framework. Moreover, the control variables $\va{u}_t$ are subject to the following bounds: for all$t=0,\ldots,T-1$, $$\underline{u}\leq \va{u}_t\leq\overline{u} \eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp
\label{dam:borneu}$$ Taking into account a possible overflow, the dam dynamics write for $t=0,\ldots,T-1$: $$\va{x}_{t+1}=\min(\va{x}_t-\va{e}_t+\va{a}_{t+1},\overline{x})
\eqsepv \Pps \eqfinp
\label{dam:dynamique}$$ Note that constraints are fully taken into account in the modelling of the dam dynamics. An electricity production $\va{p}_t$ is associated with the effectively turbinated water volume, and it also depends on the water storage (indeed, on the water level in the dam, due to the fall height effect): $$\va{p}_t=g(\va{x}_t,\va{e}_t) \eqfinp
\label{dam:production}$$ Let $(\va{d}_{t})_{t=1,\ldots,T}$ denotes the electricity demand, which is supposed to be a stochastic process with known probability law. In our decision-hazard framework, production $\va{p}_t$ has to meet demand $\va{d}_{t+1}$: either $\va{p}_t\geq \va{d}_{t+1}$ and the production excess is sold on the electricity market, or $\va{p}_t\leq \va{d}_{t+1}$ and the gap must be compensated for either by buying power on the market or by paying a penalty. The associated cost is modelled as $$c_t(\va{d}_{t+1}-\va{p}_t) \eqfinp
\label{dam:cout}$$ Ultimately, we suppose that a penalty function $K$ on the final stock $\va{x}_T$ is given, and that the initial condition $\va{x}_0$ is a random variable with known probability law.
Let $(\va{w}_t)_{t=0,\ldots,T}$ be the noise random process defined as $$\begin{aligned}
& \va{w}_0 = \va{x}_0 \eqfinv \\
& \va{w}_t = (\va{a}_t,\va{d}_t) \eqsepv \forall t=1,\ldots,T \eqfinp\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the noises are fully observed in a non-anticipative way, and that the control variables are measurable with respect to the past noises. The dam management problem is then the following.
$$\min_{(\va{u}_{t},\va{x}_{t})} \quad
\bgesp{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} c_t\big(\va{d}_{t\!+\!1}-g(\va{x}_t,\va{e}_t)\big) +
K(\va{x}_T)} \eqfinv$$
subject to the constraints –– and to the measurability constraints $$\va{u}_t\preceq (\va{w}_0,\ldots,\va{w}_t) \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinp$$ \[SPDam\]
It precisely corresponds to the stochastic optimal control problem formulation when using the following notations:
- $w=(a,d)$,
- $L_t(x,u,w) =
c_t\big(d-g\big(x,\min(u,x+a-\underline{x})\big)\big)$,
- $f_t((x,u,w) =
\min\big(x-\min(u,x+a-\underline{x})+a,\overline{x}\big)$
- $\Gammaas_t=[\underline{u},\overline{u}]$.
Both equations and incorporate the non differentiable operator $\min$. We approximate this non-smooth operator by the following operator depending on a smoothing parameter $c$: $$\min(x,y) \approx
\begin{cases}
y &
\text{ if } \; y\leq x-c \eqfinv \\
\frac{x+y}{2}-\frac{(x-y)^2}{4c}-\frac{c}{4}&
\text{ if } \; x-c\leq y\leq x+c \eqfinv \\
x &
\text{ if } \; y \geq x+c \eqfinp
\end{cases}$$ in order to recover a differentiable problem.
Numerical and functional data
-----------------------------
Both electricity demand and water inflows correspond to white noises, obtained by adding a discrete disturbance around their mean trajectories. Using the Monte Carlo method, we draw $N=200$ inflow trajectories and demand trajectories, which are depicted in Figure \[dam:apports\] and Figure \[dam:demandelec\] respectively, the associated particles being denoted $\big(\va{a}_t^k\big)_{t=1,\ldots,T}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ and $\big(\va{d}_t^k\big)_{t=1,\ldots,T}^{k=1,\ldots,N}$.
![\[dam:demandelec\]Electricity demand trajectories](s_apports){width="6.4cm"}
![\[dam:demandelec\]Electricity demand trajectories](s_demande){width="6.4cm"}
The initial state $\va{x}_0$ follows a uniform probability law over $[\underline{x},\overline{x}] = [0,2]$. We also draw $N$ particles $(\va{x}_0^k)^{k=1,\ldots,N}$ for the initial state and each one is associated with the previous trajectories with the same index $k$ to form one scenario among $N$. The control random variables $\va{u}_t$ are subject for each $t=0,\ldots,T-1$ to the bounds $[\underline{u},\overline{u}] = [0,1]$.
The mapping $g$ modelling the electricity production $\va{p}_t$ is chosen to represent a linear variation between $0.5$ and $1$ with respect to the water fall height $\va{x}_t-\underline{x}$: $$g(\va{x}_t,\va{e}_t) = \va{e}_t
\frac{\va{x}_t+\overline{x}-2\underline{x}}{2(\overline{x}-\underline{x})}
\eqfinp$$
The expression of the instantaneous cost $c_{t}$ is $$c_t(y)=\tau_{t}(e^y-1) \eqfinv$$ where $\tau_{t}$ is the electricity price at stage $t$. The variation of this price is depicted in Figure \[dam:prixelec\].
![\[dam:prixelec\]Electricity price $\tau_t$](tau){width="7cm"}
The final cost is an incentive to fill the dam at the end of the day: $$K(x)=12(x-\overline{x})^2.$$
Results using Dynamic Programming
---------------------------------
We apply Algorithm \[DPApprox\] to Problem using an even discretization of the state space $[\underline{x},\overline{x}]$ in $n=200$ points: $$x_i=\underline{x}+\frac{i-1}{n-1}(\overline{x}-\underline{x})
\eqsepv \forall i=1,\ldots,n \eqfinp$$ The two operators $\gridop{R}_\bbR$ and $\gridop{R}_{\espacea{U}_t}$ are linear interpolation operators: to compute the value of a function outside the grid, we consider the weighted mean of the two surrounding grid points. The optimal feedback laws $\phi_t$ obtained at each time stage $t=0,\ldots,T-1$ will be used as a reference in the comparison with the other resolution methods. The optimal cost is obtained by simulating the system using the optimal feedback laws over all trajectories: $$c \defegal \besp{V_0(\va{x}_0)} =
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^2 V_0(x)\mathrm{d}x =
6.48 \eqfinp
\label{cSDP}$$
Results obtained by Stochastic Programming
------------------------------------------
We then make use of a stochastic programming technique to solve Problem . Using quantization techniques, we first generate a scenario tree from the $N=200$ noises trajectories. We will not discuss here the quantization method used to build such a scenarios tree and refer to [@TheseBarty] for further details. The resulting tree includes $2$ nodes at stage $t=0$, $4$ nodes at stage $t=1$ and so on till stage $t=6$ for which we have $2^{6+1}=128$ nodes. As $2^{8}>200$, the tree structure becomes deterministic as soon as $t\geq 7$, each node in the tree corresponding to $t \geq 7$ having a unique future (Figure \[treegen\] just sketches the beginning of the story).
Problem is then formulated and optimized over the tree: the optimization process yields a pair $(x_{\nu},u_{\nu})$ of optimal values for the state and the control at each node $\nu$ of the tree. The next figures depict the optimal pairs of particles at different time stages (represented by dots) and the optimal feedback laws obtained by Dynamic Programming (represented by continuous curves). The comparison leads to the following conclusions.
- There are only two nodes corresponding to $t=0$ in the scenario tree, and therefore only two optimal control particles. These two particles fit the optimal feedback obtained by Dynamic Programming rather accurately (see Figure \[feed0Tree\]), but it would be difficult to synthesize a feedback law with such a limited number of points.
- At stages $t=12$ and $t=23$, $200$ optimal control particules are available. Nevertheless these particles have a visible huge variance (see Figures \[feed12Tree\] and \[feed23Tree\]), so that it would again be difficult to synthesize a feedback law.
![\[feed12Tree\]Scenario tree: optimal control ($t=12$)](feed0Tree){width="6cm"}
![\[feed12Tree\]Scenario tree: optimal control ($t=12$)](feed12Tree){width="6cm"}
![\[feed23Tree\]Scenario tree: optimal control ($t=23$)](feed23Tree){width="6cm"}
Results with the adaptive mesh method
-------------------------------------
We ultimately apply Algorithm \[gradproj\] to solve the hydro-electric dam management problem . The result of this algorithm is an optimal feedback law $\phi_t$ for every time stage $t=0,\ldots,T-1$. We then draw new noise trajectories independent from those used by the algorithm, and we simulate the system behavior along these new trajectories using the optimal feedback laws: $$\begin{split}
&\va{x}_0=\va{w}_0 \eqfinv \\
%& \va{u}_t=\phi_t(\va{x}_{t})
% \eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinv \\
& \va{x}_{t+1}=
f_t\big(\va{x}_{t},
\phi_t(\va{x}_{t}),
\va{w}_{t+1}\big)
\eqsepv \forall t=0,\ldots,T-1 \eqfinv
\end{split}$$ and thus obtain an approximation of the optimal cost generated by this algorithm: $$c = 6.51 \approx \bgesp{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}
L_t\big(\va{x}_t,
\phi_t(\va{x}_{t}),
\va{w}_{t+1}\big) +
K(\va{x}_T)} \eqfinp$$ This optimal cost is close to the cost generated by Dynamic Programming. We are also interested in the controls generated by the adaptive mesh method. To this purpose, Figures \[feed0Part\], \[feed12Part\] and \[feed23Part\] show the optimal control particles given by the adaptive mesh method (dots), to be compared with the optimal feedback laws obtained by Dynamic Programming (curves) for different time stages.
![\[feed12Part\]Particle: optimal control ($t=12$)](feed0Part){width="6.45cm"}
![\[feed12Part\]Particle: optimal control ($t=12$)](feed12Part){width="6.45cm"}
![\[feed23Part\]Particle: optimal control ($t=23$)](feed23Part){width="6.45cm"}
We note that the optimal particles obtained by the adaptive mesh method are close to the feedback laws obtained by Dynamic Programming. By construction, there are the same number of particles at each time stage $t$, and the dispersion of the particles remains at first sight constant from the beginning to the end of the time horizon. This represents a significant advance compared to the scenario tree method. On the other hand, observe that particles may sometimes concentrate in restricted parts of the state space (see Figure \[feed12Part\]): in our view, this is not a *drawback*, but an *advantage* of the proposed method in that the optimal feedback is computed only where it is needed to do so. Indeed, the particles distribute adaptively and automatically according to the optimal probability density of the state (we call this an “adaptive mesh” — in Figure \[feed0Part\], the distribution is even because the initial condition is uniformly distributed), and this is an advantage over Dynamic Programming in which a uniform grid is defined a priori over the whole state space, irrespective of the optimal solution distribution.
Conclusions and perspectives
============================
In this paper we presented new tractable methods for solving stochastic optimal control problems in the discrete time case. We derived several forms of the optimality conditions for such problems:
- non-adapted optimality conditions as well as adapted optimality conditions with measurability constraints on the past noise variables; these conditions incorporate conditional expectations and the dimension of the conditioning random variable grows with the number of time stages;
- in the Markovian case, non-adapted optimality conditions and adapted optimality conditions with measurability constraints on the state variable; the conditional expectations are taken with respect to the instantaneous state variable whose dimension is constant over the time stages, but the mean square error when approximating such conditional expectations depends on the state space dimension;
- still in the Markovian case, functional optimality conditions including only expectations.
The last conditions have been used to devise a gradient-like adaptive mesh algorithm in order to solve stochastic optimal control problems in the Markovian case, and we applied the algorithm to a hydro-electric dam management problem.
In light of the numerical results, it is clear that the proposed adaptive mesh algorithm represents a significant advance with respect to usual stochastic programming techniques (same number of particles and same particle dispersion at every time stage). In addition, the adaptive mesh feature may save useless computations in some problems, depending on the profile of the optimal state probability density. In fact, the only a priori discretization concerns noise particles, which does not depend on the dimension of the underlining state space: the only operator which could be dimension-dependent is the interpolation operator.
Future work will concentrate on the convergence rate of the mesh algorithm with respect to the number $N$ of noise trajectories. We will also deal with stochastic optimal control problems involving a multi-dimensional state vector, and try to quantify the impact of the interpolation operator on the approximation error.
\[app-OC-Hilbert\]Optimization on an Hilbert space: a special case
==================================================================
Let $\espacef{H}$ be an Hilbert space, let $\Hfe$ be a closed convex subset of $\espacef{H}$ and let $f$ be a real valued function defined on $\espacef{H}$. We consider the following optimization problem: $$\min_{x\in\Hfe} \; f(x) \eqfinp
\label{GOP}$$ In the following, $\fcara{H}$ will denote the indicator function of a subset $H\subset\espacef{H}$, namely $$\fcara{H}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{if $x\in H$} \eqfinv\\
+\infty & \text{otherwise} \eqfinp
\end{array}
\right.$$ The optimization literature gives different expressions for the necessary optimality conditions of an optimization problem in a general Hilbert space (see e.g. [@EkelandTemam76]). For instance, if $x^\sharp\in\espacef{H}$ is solution of , then the following statements are equivalent:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \forall x\in\Hfe \eqsepv \proscal{f'(x^\sharp)}{x-x^\sharp}\geq 0
\eqfinv \label{cond1} \\
& f'(x^\sharp)\in -\partial\fcara{\Hfe}(x^\sharp)
\eqfinv \label{cond2} \\
& \forall \epsilon> 0 \eqsepv
x^\sharp=\proj{\Hfe}{x^\sharp-\epsilon \gradi{f}(x^\sharp)}
\eqfinp \label{cond3}\end{aligned}$$
\[cond123\]
We now consider a specific structure for the feasible set $\Hfe$. More precisely, we assume that $\Hfe=\Hcv\cap\Hsp$, $\Hsp$ being a *closed subspace* of $\espacef{H}$ and $\Hcv$ being a *closed convex subset* of $\espacef{H}$. We moreover assume that the following property holds.
The sets $\Hsp$ and $\Hcv$ are such that $\proj{\Hcv}{\Hsp}\subset\Hsp$. \[ass:proj-inter\]
Then the projection operator on $\Hfe$ has the following property.
Under Assumption \[ass:proj-inter\], the following relation holds true: $$\projop{\Hcv\cap\Hsp}=\projop{\Hcv}\circ\projop{\Hsp} \eqfinp$$ \[lem:proj-inter\]
Let $y\in\Hcv\cap\Hsp$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\proscal{x-\proj{\Hcv}{\proj{\Hsp}{x}}}
{y- \proj{\Hcv}{\proj{\Hsp}{x}}} = \\
\proscal{x-\proj{\Hsp}{x}}
{y- \proj{\Hcv}{\proj{\Hsp}{x}}} + \\
\proscal{\proj{\Hsp}{x}-\proj{\Hcv}{\proj{\Hsp}{x}}}
{ y- \proj{\Hcv}{\proj{\Hsp}{x}}} \eqfinp\end{gathered}$$ From the characterization of the projection of $z\defegal \proj{\Hsp}{x}$ over the convex subset $\Hcv$, the last inner product in the previous expression is non positive: therefore, $$\proscal{x-\proj{\Hcv}{z}}{y- \proj{\Hcv}{z}}
\leq \proscal{x- z}{y- \proj{\Hcv}{z}} \eqfinp$$ From $\proj{\Hcv}{\Hsp}\subset\Hsp$, we deduce that $y-\proj{\Hcv}{z}\in\Hsp$. Since $\projop{\Hsp}$ is a self-adjoint operator, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\proscal{x-\proj{\Hcv}{z}}{y-\proj{\Hcv}{z}}
&\leq \proscal{x- z}{\proj{\Hsp}{y-\proj{\Hcv}{z}}} \eqfinv \\
&\leq \proscal{\proj{\Hsp}{x-z}}{y-\proj{\Hcv}{z}} \eqfinv \\
&\leq 0 \eqfinv\end{aligned}$$ the last inequality arising from the fact that $\proj{\Hsp}{x-z} = \proj{\Hsp}{x}-\proj{\Hsp}{z}$ $=0$ (since $\Hsp$ is a linear subspace, then $\proj{\Hsp}{\cdot}$ is a linear operator). We thus conclude that, for all $y\in\Hcv\cap\Hsp$, $$\proscal{x-\projop{\Hcv}\circ\proj{\Hsp}{x}}
{y- \projop{\Hcv}\circ\proj{\Hsp}{x}}\leq 0 \eqfinv$$ a variational inequality which characterizes $\projop{\Hcv}\circ\proj{\Hsp}{x}$ as the projection of $x$ over $\Hfe=\Hcv\cap\Hsp$.
The following proposition gives necessary optimality conditions for Problem when the feasible set $\Hfe$ has the specific structure $\Hcv\cap\Hsp$.
We suppose that Assumption \[ass:proj-inter\] is fulfilled and that $f$ is differentiable. If $x^\sharp$ is solution of , then $$\proj{\Hsp}{f'(x^\sharp)}\in -\partial\fcara{\Hcv}(x^\sharp) \eqfinp$$ \[propCOpr\]
Let $x^\sharp$ be solution of . Using Condition and Lemma \[lem:proj-inter\], we obtain that $$x^\sharp=\projop{\Hcv}\circ\proj{\Hsp}{x^\sharp-\epsilon \gradi{f}(x^\sharp)}
\eqsepv \forall \epsilon \geq 0 \eqfinp$$ But $\projop{\Hsp}$ is a linear operator and $x^\sharp\in\Hsp$, so that $$x^\sharp=\proj{\Hcv}{x^\sharp-\epsilon\:\proj{\Hsp}{\gradi{f}(x^\sharp)}}
\eqfinp$$ From , the last relation is equivalent to $\proj{\Hsp}{f'(x^\sharp)}\in -\partial\fcara{\Hcv}(x^\sharp)$.
[^1]: École Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées, 32 boulevard Victor, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France ([[email protected]]{})
[^2]: Université de Paris-Est, CERMICS, École des Ponts, Champs sur Marne, 77455 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France ([[email protected]]{})
[^3]: EDF R&D, 1 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 92141 Clamart Cedex, France ([[email protected]]{})
[^4]: SOWG, École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées: Laetitia Andrieu, Kengy Barty, Pierre Carpentier, Jean-Philippe Chancelier, Guy Cohen, Anes Dallagi, Michel De Lara, Pierre Girardeau, Babakar Seck, Cyrille Strugarek.
[^5]: A random variable $\va{y}_1$ is measurable with respect to another random variable $\va{y}_2$ if and only if the $\sigma$-field generated by the first is included into the one generated by the second: $\sigma(\va{y}_1)\subset\sigma(\va{y}_2)$. In this paper, we will not give further details on these definitions. Instead, we refer the reader to [@Brei92] for further details on the probability and measurability theory.
[^6]: See [@Rockafellar-Wets:1998 Definition 14.27]. We remind that the normal integrand assumption is done to ensure measurability properties [@Rockafellar-Wets:1998 Proposition 14.28].
[^7]: Note that the $\sigma$-fields $\tribu{G}_t$’s are “fixed”, in the sense that they do not depend on the control variable $\va{u}$.
[^8]: Note that complete causal noise observation implies the perfect memory property, as far as $(\tribu{F}_t)_{t=0,\dots,T}$ is a filtration.
[^9]: In fact, $\mu_{T-1}={K'}^{\top}$. From Assumption \[AssDiff\], $\mu_{T-1}$ is a continuous mapping.
[^10]: in fact a continuous one (from Assumption \[AssDiff\])
[^11]: See for instance [@Wagner:1977 Section 7] for a survey of measurable selection theorems corresponding to the implicit case. Note that [@Leese:1974 Theorem 8] needs a particular assumption concerning the $\sigma$-field equipping $\espace{X}_{T-1}$. We assume here that such assumption holds.
[^12]: Note that we obtained as an intermediate result that $\va{\lambda}_{t+1}\preceq\big(\va{x}_{t},\va{w}_{t+1},\ldots,\va{w}_T\big)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Anonymous Author(s)'
- Mark Bun
- Jörg Drechsler
- Marco Gaboardi
- 'Audra McMillan[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: |
Controlling Privacy Loss in Survey Sampling\
(Working Paper)
---
[^1]: Currently at Apple.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We show that standard solar models are in good agreement with the helioseismologically determined sound speed and density as a function of solar radius, the depth of the convective zone, and the surface helium abundance, as long as those models do not incorporate the most recent heavy element abundance determinations. However, sophisticated new analyses of the solar atmosphere infer lower abundances of the lighter metals (like C, N, O, Ne, and Ar) than the previously widely used surface abundances. We show that solar models that include the lower heavy element abundances disagree with the solar profiles of sound speed and density as well as the depth of the convective zone and the helium abundance. The disagreements for models with the new abundances range from factors of several to many times the quoted uncertainties in the helioseismological measurements. The disagreements are at temperatures that are too low to affect significantly solar neutrino emission. If errors in the calculated OPAL opacities are solely responsible for the disagreements, then the corrections in the opacity must extend from $2 \times 10^6$K ($R = 0.7R_\odot$) to $5\times 10^6$K ($R =
0.4 R_\odot$), with opacity increases of order 10%.
author:
- 'John N. Bahcall'
- Sarbani Basu
- Marc Pinsonneault
- 'Aldo M. Serenelli'
nocite:
- '[@grevesse93]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@BP95]'
- '[@jcd96]'
- '[@jcd02]'
- '[@couvidat03]'
- '[@sackmann03]'
- '[@richard04]'
- '[@bahcallulrich1988]'
- '[@ahmad01]'
- '[@fukuda01]'
- '[@bpbc97]'
- '[@bbp98]'
- '[@BP00]'
- '[@bahcall01]'
- '[@asplundetal00]'
- '[@asplund00]'
- '[@allende01]'
- '[@allende02]'
- '[@asplund04]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@BP04]'
- '[@BSP04]'
- '[@basu04]'
- '[@kosovichevcz]'
- '[@jcdCZ]'
- '[@basucz; @basu04]'
- '[@basu98]'
- '[@guzikcz]'
- '[@BP00]'
- '[@BSP04]'
- '[@BP04]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@rog96]'
- '[@BP00]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@BP92; @BP95]'
- '[@bahcallulrich1988]'
- '[@BP00]'
- '[@garching]'
- '[@schlattl02]'
- '[@BP04]'
- '[@OPAL2001]'
- '[@thoul]'
- '[@BP92; @BP95]'
- '[@prather]'
- '[@pinsonneault89]'
- '[@BSP04]'
- '[@BSP04]'
- '[@seaton]'
- '[@opacityproject]'
- '[@dziem90]'
- '[@da91]'
- '[@hmasb94]'
- '[@dziem94]'
- '[@elliott]'
- '[@tripathy2]'
- '[@cox84]'
- '[@balmforth92b]'
- '[@jcd91]'
- '[@jcd97]'
- '[@dziem90]'
- '[@dziem90]'
- '[@fpp92]'
- '[@fpp94]'
- '[@ra99a]'
- '[@sch98]'
- '[@ber00]'
- '[@basu02]'
- '[@oldcomp]'
- '[@basu04]'
- '[@BSP04]'
- '[@tripathy1]'
- '[@basu04]'
- '[@basuantia94]'
- '[@bpbc97]'
- '[@antiachitre98]'
- '[@elliottgough98]'
- '[@asplundetal00]'
- '[@asplund00]'
- '[@allende01]'
- '[@allende02]'
- '[@asplund04]'
- '[@seaton]'
title: Helioseismological Implications of Recent Solar Abundance Determinations
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Why are precision tests of solar models important? The Sun is a laboratory in which the predictions of stellar evolution theory can be compared with uniquely accurate and detailed measurements. Stellar evolution calculations are used throughout astronomy to classify, date, and interpret the spectra of individual stars and of galaxies. Comparisons, discussed in this paper, between helioseismological measurements and solar model calculations suggest that at least one of the ingredients of stellar evolution calculations is not known as precisely as previously believed. We shall see that there are reasons for questioning the accuracy of the most sophisticated and detailed determinations of stellar abundances, the recent measurements of the solar heavy element abundances. Alternatively, unexpectedly large changes could be required in the radiative opacity. However, we shall also see that the disagreement between helioseismological measurements and solar model predictions (with the new metal abundances) occur at relatively low temperatures and therefore do not affect significantly the predicted solar neutrino fluxes.
Helioseismology provides sensitive and powerful tests of the theory of stellar evolution. In addition to measuring the depth of the solar surface convection zone and the surface helium abundance, inversions of seismic data are used to measure to high precision the speed of sound as a function of depth in the star for almost the entire solar interior. The density distribution can also be determined, although with an order of magnitude less precision than for the sound speed.
A number of investigators have made comparisons of seismic data with solar models and have confirmed that the standard solar mixture of Grevesse & Noels (1993) and the updated mixture of Grevesse & Sauval (1998) yield solar models in good agreement with the data (e.g., Bahcall & Pinsonneault 1995; Christensen-Dalsgaard, et al. 1996; Bahcall, Pinsonneault & Basu 2001; Christen-Dalsgaard 2002; Couvidat, Turck-Chieze, & Kosovichev 2003; Sackmann & Boothroyd 2003; Richard, Théado, & Vauclair 2004, and references therein.) As early as 1988, Bahcall & Ulrich (1988) showed that detailed solar models computed with the accurate physics and the numerical precision required for solar neutrino predictions yielded results in good agreement with the then-available helioseismological data.
In a series of papers that preceded the epochal and definitive measurements of the SNO and Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino experiments ( Ahmad, et al. 2001; Fukuda et al. 2001), we showed that the excellent agreement between the computed sound speeds in precise standard solar models and the precise helioseismological inversions (differences $< 0.1$% rms throughout the solar interior)implied that new physics was required to solve the solar neutrino problem (Bahcall, Pinsonneault, Basu, & Christensen-Dalsgaard 1997; Bahcall, Basu, & Pinsonneault 1998; Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu 2001; Bahcall 2001).
New and more powerful analyses of the surface chemical composition of the Sun have recently become available. These new analyses use three-dimensional atmospheric models, take account of hydrodynamic effects, and pay special attention to uncertainties in the atomic data and the observed spectra. Lower mass fractions have been obtained in this way for C, N, O, Ne, and Ar (Asplund et al. 2000; Asplund 2000; Allende Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund 2001; Allende Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund 2002; Asplund et al. 2004; ). The new abundance determinations, together with the previous best-estimates for other solar surface abundances (Grevesse & Sauval 1998), imply $Z/X =
0.0176$, much less than the previous value of $Z/X = 0.0229$ (Grevesse & Sauval 1998). In fact, the recent estimates for the C, N, and O mass fractions are lower than all the abundance measurements we have used in the precision solar models in this series going back to 1971 (see, e.g., Table II of Bahcall and & Pinsonneault 1995).
Despite the great improvement in the techniques now used to determine the new element abundances, the new abundances cause the depth calculated for the solar convective zone with the aid of a standard solar model, $R_{\rm CZ} = 0.726 R_\odot$ (Bahcall & Pinsonneault 2004; Bahcall, Serenelli, & Pinsonneault 2004; Basu & Antia 2004), to be in strong disagreement with the measured depth, $$R_{\rm CZ} = 0.713 \pm 0.001 R_\odot \, ,
\label{eq:radiuscz}$$ which is determined by helioseismological techniques ( Kosovichev & Fedorova 1991; Christensen-Dalsgaard, Gough, & Thompson 1991; Guzik & Cox 1993; Basu & Antia 1997, 2004; Basu 1998). Paradoxically, the calculated depth of the convective zone obtained using the older element abundances, $R_{\rm CZ} = 0.714 R_\odot$, agrees with the helioseismological value (Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu 2001). This situation has been described as the “convective zone problem” (Bahcall, Serenelli, & Pinsonneault 2004).
Our goal here is to determine the helioseismological implications of the recent abundance determinations. We compare the helioseismologically measured depth of the solar convective zone, the sound speed and density as a function of radius, and the primordial helium abundance with the values that are obtained using a series of precise solar models. The solar models considered here incorporate the most recent and accurate nuclear and stellar data, including the equation of state and radiative opacity.
We describe in § \[sec:models\] the solar models whose properties are investigated in the present paper. We then discuss in § \[sec:inversions\] the helioseismological data and the inversion technique that we have used to obtain the measured depth of the convective zone, the sound speeds and density as a function of radius, and the initial helium abundance. We compare in § \[sec:comparison\] the properties of our set of solar models with the solar parameters that are determined by helioseismology. We summarize and discuss our conclusions in § \[sec:conclusions\].
DESCRIPTION OF SOLAR MODELS {#sec:models}
===========================
We describe in this section the basic ingredients of six solar models that we use to assess the helioseismological implications of the recent heavy element abundance determinations.
The six solar models considered in detail in this paper are listed below. Models 1 and 2 were originally computed by Bahcall & Pinsonneault (2004); Model 4 was computed by Bahcall, Pinsonneault, Serenelli (2004).
(1) BP04:
: older element abundances from Grevesse, & Sauvall (1998), and best-available values for all other input parameters (including improved nuclear rates and equation of state);
(2) BP04+:
: the same as BP04 except that recent lower estimates for heavy element abundances are incorporated;
(3) BP04–EOS96:
: the same as BP04 but with the OPAL 1996 EOS (Rogers, Swenson, & Iglesias 1996) instead of the OPAL 2001 EOS (Rogers 2001, Rogers and Nayfonov 2002[@eos2001]);
(4) BP04+ 21%:
: the same as BP04+ except that the OPAL radiative opacity is increased by 21% near the base of the convective zone;
(5) BP04+ 11%:
: the same as BP04+ except that the OPAL radiative opacity is increased by 11% for temperatures ranging from $2\times 10^6$K to $5\times 10^6$K; and
(6) BP00:
: our best previous-generation standard solar model, obtained by Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu (2001) with older values of nuclear reaction data, an older equation of state (OPAL 1996), and the Grevesse & Sauval (1998) element abundances.
The code and techniques used in these calculations have been described in Bahcall & Pinsonneault (1992, 1995), Bahcall & Ulrich (1988), Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu (2001).
The reader may wonder why we include in this paper the results from the model BP00, when BP04 has superseded BP00 by incorporating more accurate nuclear reaction data and an improved equation of state. We include results from BP00 as well as BP04 in order to have some indication of the kind of differences that can be expected, independent of solar abundance determinations, as further improvements are made in the input data to solar models. The differences between values obtained with the BP00 and the BP04 models may be regarded as within the expected range. We shall see in what follows that the differences in solar model results caused by adopting the new heavy element abundance determinations are much larger than the differences between the results obtained with BP00 and BP04.
We want our investigations to be as precise as possible and our inferences to be as free as possible from dependence upon the idiosyncrasies of a particular stellar evolution code. Therefore, we have recalculated the BP04, BP04+ and BP04+ 21% solar models using the Garching stellar evolution code (see, e.g., Schlattl, Weiss, & Ludwig 1997 and Schlattl 2002 for details of the code), to which the nuclear energy generation routine ‘exportenergy.f’[^1] has been coupled. The nuclear cross sections adopted are those used in Bahcall & Pinsonneault (2004). The models were calculated using the latest version of the OPAL equation of state (Rogers 2001), OPAL radiative opacities (see below for the composition adopted) and element diffusion for helium and metals (Thoul, Bahcall, & Loeb 1994, code available at the URL given in footnote 1). The mixing length theory for convection has been used in all the models. The Schwarzschild criterion was used to determine the location of the convective boundaries.
We have verified that the Garching stellar evolution code and the Bahcall-Pinsonneault code (which has its origins in the CalTech, UCLA, and Yale codes, see Bahcall & Ulrich 1988; Bahcall & Pinsonneault 1992, 1995; Prather 1976; Pinsonneault, Kawaler, Sofia, & Demarque 1989)) yield identical results to the accuracy of interest in all of the investigations considered in this paper.
The model, BP04, which was calculated assuming the older Grevesse & Sauval (1998) solar surface composition, has a present surface ratio of heavy element to hydrogen mass fractions of $Z/X=0.0229$. The model BP04+, which incorporates the new determinations of the solar heavy element composition, has a much lower ratio of heavy elements to hydrogen, $Z/X=0.0176$. Since new solar abundance determinations are being reported as they come available, Table 1 of Bahcall, Serenelli, & Pinsonneault (2004) lists the specific element abundances adopted in computing both BP04 and BP04+.
The model BP04+ 21% was designed to bring into agreement the calculated and the helioseismologically measured depths of the convective zone using a solar model that incorporates the recent heavy element abundance determinations. Bahcall, Serenelli, & Pinsonneault (2004) showed that a local 21% increase in the tabulated OPAL radiative opacity near the base of the convective envelope will produce a model with the base of its convective zone at $R_{\rm CZ} = 0.713 R_\odot$, in essentially perfect agreement with the measured value for the depth of the convective zone. The factor by which the opacity was increased is similar to the factor needed by Basu & Antia (2004) to construct solar envelope models with the new heavy element abundances that have the same convection zone depth, helium abundance, and density profile as the Sun. Very recently, Seaton & Badnell (2004) have shown that a detailed calculation using the methods of the Opacity Project (OP, see Seaton et al. 1994) for a six element mixture yields a Rosseland-mean opacity in the region of interest of order 5% larger than the OPAL opacity for the same mixture.
All the models assume a solar age of $4.57\times 10^9$ yr, a present solar luminosity ${\rm L}_\odot=3.8418\times
10^{33}$ ergs$^{-1}$, and a present solar radius of R$_\odot=
6.9598 \times 10^{10}$ cm. For each model, OPAL opacity tables were used that correspond to the detailed composition that was adopted.
HELIOSEISMOLOGICAL INVERSIONS {#sec:inversions}
=============================
We summarize in this section the largely standard techniques that we use to determine the differences between the solar model characteristics and the properties of the Sun as determined by helioseismological measurements.
Helioseismological inversions generally proceed through a linearization of the equations of stellar oscillation, using their variational property, around a known reference model (see, e.g., Dziembowski, Pamyatnykh & Sienkiewicz 1990; Däppen et al. 1991; Antia & Basu 1994; Dziembowski et al. 1994; Elliott 1995; Tripathy and Christensen-Dalsgaard 1998). The differences between the structure of the Sun and the reference model are then related to the differences in the measured oscillation frequencies of the Sun and the model by known kernels. Non-adiabatic effects and other errors in modeling the surface layers give rise to frequency shifts which are not accounted for by the variational principle (Cox & Kidman 1984; Balmforth 1992). Since the eigenfunctions of low- and medium-degree modes are essentially independent of degree in the near-surface layers, the frequency shifts are just a function of mode frequency, divided by the mode inertia (Christensen-Dalsgaard & Berthomieu 1991; Christensen-Dalsgaard & Thompson 1997). The frequency of a deeply penetrating mode is shifted less by near-surface perturbations than that of a shallowly penetrating mode of the same frequency. In the absence of any first-principle formulation, these effects are usually taken into account in an [*ad hoc*]{} manner by including an arbitrary function of frequency in the variational formulation (Dziembowski et al. 1990). Thus, the fractional change in the frequency of a mode can be expressed in terms of the fractional changes in the structure of the model, which can be characterized, for example, by the adiabatic sound speed, $c$, and the density, $\rho$, as well as a surface term. After linearization, one obtains: $${\delta \nu_i \over \nu_i}
= \int_0^{R_\odot} K_{c^2,\rho}^i(r){ \delta c^2(r) \over c^2(r)}d r +
\int_0^{R_\odot} K_{\rho,c^2}^i(r) {\delta \rho(r)\over \rho(r)} d r
+{F_{\rm surf}(\nu_i)\over I_i}
\label{eq:inv}$$ (e.g., Dziembowski et al. 1990). Here $\delta \nu_i$ is the difference in the frequency $\nu_i$ of the $i$th mode between the solar data and a reference model, $i$ representing the pair $(n,l)$, where $n$ is the radial order and $l$ the degree of the model. The kernels $K_{c^2, \rho}^i$ and $K_{\rho, c^2}^i$ are known functions of the reference model which relate the changes in frequency to the changes in $c^2$ and $\rho$, respectively. The term involving $F_{\rm surf}$ takes into account the near-surface errors in modeling the structure and the modes, and $I_i$ is the mode inertia of the $i^{\rm th}$ mode.
Equation (\[eq:inv\]) constitutes the inverse problem that must be solved to infer the differences in structure between the Sun and the reference model. The inversions shown in this paper have been carried out using the the Subtractive Optimally Localized Averages (SOLA) technique (Pijpers & Thompson 1992, 1994). Details of how SOLA inversions are carried out and how various parameters of the inversion are selected are given by Rabello-Soares, Basu, & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1999).
In this paper, we use helioseismic inversions to determine how similar the different solar models discussed in § \[sec:models\] are to the real Sun. Each of the models described in § \[sec:models\] is used as a reference model. For the helioseismological data, we use solar oscillation frequencies obtained by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). In particular, we use frequencies obtained from MDI data that were collected for the first 360 days of its observation (Schou et al. 1998). This data set was chosen because it was derived from a long time series when solar activity was low. The length of the time series results in reduced noise, and hence a larger number of modes for which the frequencies can be determined reliably. Mode-sets derived from longer data sets are available, but they only consist of low degree modes (e.g., Bertello et al. 2000). Also, a longer time series would have meant adding observations from periods of increasing solar activity, which would have changed the frequencies. It is a well established fact that solar frequencies increase with solar activity. However, it is also known that the increase occurs as an increase in the surface term in Eq. \[eq:inv\], and hence does not change inversion results (Basu 2002).
We invert for both the sound-speed differences and the density differences between the solar models and the Sun.
COMPARISONS BETWEEN SOLAR MODELS AND OBSERVATIONS {#sec:comparison}
=================================================
In this section, we compare solar parameters determined from helioseismological measurements with the values obtained from the six solar models that are discussed in § \[sec:models\]. Table \[tab:comparisons\] summarizes the principal results.
Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] shows the fractional differences between the sound speeds as a function of solar radius that are computed for each of the solar models and the sound speeds determined from helioseismology. Figure \[fig:densitydiffs\] shows for the density profiles a similar trend as Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] shows for the sound speeds. Since it is well known that sound speed determinations are more accurate and more robust than density determinations, we do not discuss further the density profiles other than to remark that they are consistent with all of the other comparisons we make between solar model predictions and helioseismological measurements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MODEL $Z/X$ $\sqrt{<\left( c - c_\odot $\sqrt{<\left( \rho - \rho_\odot $R_{\rm CZ}/{\rm R}_\odot$ $Y_{\rm surf}$
\right)^2/c^2>} $ \right)^2/\rho^2>} $
------------ -------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------
BP00 0.0229 0.0010 0.005 0.7141 0.243
BP04 0.0229 0.0014 0.011 0.7146 0.243
BP04–EOS96 0.0229 0.0013 0.012 0.7148 0.243
BP04+ 0.0176 0.0046 0.037 0.7259 0.238
BP04+ 21% 0.0176 0.0029 0.027 0.7133 0.239
BP04+ 11% 0.0176 0.0014 0.013 0.7162 0.243
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Solar model predictions versus helioseismological determinations. The table presents for comparison with helioseismological measurements the results of a series of four solar models discussed in § \[sec:models\]. The successive columns give the model designation, the adopted present heavy element to hydrogen mass ratio at the solar surface, the rms fractional difference between the solar model sound speeds and the helioseismologically-determined sound speeds, the rms fractional difference for the density, the radius of the convective zone, and the present surface helium abundance. For consistency, all the results reported in this table were obtained with the Garching stellar evolution code. \[tab:comparisons\]
Comparisons for models BP00 and BP04: 1998 element abundances {#subsec:bp00bp04}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The third column of Table \[tab:comparisons\] presents the fractional rms differences between each solar model (used as a reference model, see § \[sec:inversions\]) and the helioseismologically determined sound speeds. We see that the BP00 and the BP04 solar models, both of which are computed using the older Grevesse & Sauval (1998) heavy element abundances, are in good agreement with the solar sound speeds. The rms agreement with the solar sound speeds is about 0.1% for both BP00 and BP04. Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] shows the agreement between the sound speeds predicted by the BP00 solar model (dark line) and the BP04 solar model (dashed line).
The fifth column of Table \[tab:comparisons\] shows that the calculated depth of the convective zone for the BP00 and the BP04 models is in satisfactory agreement with the the measured value of the depth of the convective zone given in equation(\[eq:radiuscz\]), $0.713R_\odot$.
The surface helium abundance of the Sun has recently been redetermined by Basu and Antia (2004). They find $$Y_{\rm helioseismology} = 0.2485 \pm 0.0034.
\label{eq:Yhelio}$$ The interpretation of the error given in equation (\[eq:Yhelio\]) is not simple since systematic uncertainties are dominant. The fifth column of Table \[tab:comparisons\] shows that the present-day surface helium abundance obtained from models BP00 and BP04 may be slightly lower than is obtained from helioseismology, but the statistical significance of this difference is uncertain.
For completeness, we have computed a model that is identical to BP04 except that instead of using the 2001 OPAL equation of state, as was done in deriving the model BP04, we use the older 1996 OPAL equation of state. The results are given in the third row of Table \[tab:comparisons\].
Improvements in the equation of state between 1996 and 2001 are reflected in Table \[tab:comparisons\] by the slightly different values that are found for BP04 (row two) and BP04–EOS96 (row three). We see that the improvement in the equation of state does not affect significantly the agreement of the solar model results with the measured helioseismological values. We conclude that plausible changes in the equation of state are unlikely to explain the discrepancy between solar model predictions and helioseismological measurements when the lower metal abundances are used.
As discussed in Basu, Pinsonneault, and Bahcall (2001), the effect of mixing in the radiative zone of the Sun would be in the direction to reconcile the meteoritic and solar photospheric lithium abundances and to bring the computed surface helium slightly closer to the measured value. Such models have a somewhat shallower solar surface convection zone and the overall agreement with the sound speed data is comparable, or slightly less good, than models without extra mixing.
Comparisons for model BP04+ : new heavy element abundances {#subsec:bp04+}
----------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] shows the dramatic lack of agreement between the helioseismological sound speeds and the values predicted by the BP04+ solar model, which uses the new heavy element abundance determinations that lead to $Z/X =
0.0176$. The biggest discrepancy is in the vicinity of the base of the convective zone, near $0.7R_\odot$. However, there is a significant discrepancy between BP04+ and the helioseismological values all the way into about $0.3 R_\odot$.
Table \[tab:comparisons\] summarizes the magnitude of this discrepancy. For the solar model BP04+, the rms discrepancy in the sound speeds is more than a factor of three worse than for the BP04 model (and more than a factor of five worse than for the BP00 model). Furthermore, the depth of the convective zone, $0.726
R_\odot$, given in column 6 of Table \[tab:comparisons\] is inconsistent with the measured value of $0.713 R_\odot$.Finally, the surface helium abundance given in column 6, $Y = 0.238$, is lower than the measured value given in equation (\[eq:Yhelio\]).
We conclude that the solar model BP04+, which is constructed using the most recent heavy element abundance estimates, is inconsistent with helioseismological measurements.
Comparisons for BP04+ 21%: enhanced opacity new abundances {#subsec:bp04+21}
----------------------------------------------------------
The comparison between the predictions of the model BP04+ 21% and the helioseismological data is very instructive. This solar model was investigated in Bahcall, Serenelli, & Pinsonneault (2004) because the 21% increase in the radiative opacity relative to the standard OPAL opacity was found to be sufficient to resolve the discrepancy in the calculated depth of the convective zone that was obtained with BP04+ model (with no enhanced opacity). For a related discussion, see the paper by Tripathy, Basu, and Christensen-Dalsgaard 1998.
The BP04+ 21% model was constructed with exactly the same input data as for the BP04+ model, including the recent heavy element abundance determinations, but in addition BP04+ 21% has the radiative opacity increased artificially by 21% near the base of the convective zone. The precise form of the opacity increase was postulated to be of the form obtained by multiplying the OPAL opacity in the vicinity of the convective envelope boundary by a Lorentzian function $f(T)$. Specifically, the multiplicative factor $f(T)$ was taken to be $$f(T)= 1 + \frac{\alpha \gamma^2}{\left( (T-T_0)^2 + \gamma^2
\right)} \, . \label{eq:defnofperturbation}$$ Here $T$ is the temperature in the solar model. The perturbed opacity is $\kappa_{\rm perturbed} = \kappa_0 f(T)$, where $\kappa_0$ is the unperturbed radiative opacity, $\alpha$ is the amplitude of the perturbation, and $\gamma$ is the width of the perturbation (defined as the point where the perturbation drops to $\alpha /2$). The temperature at the base of the CZ is $T\approx
2.18\times 10^6$K, which was used for $T_0$ in equation (\[eq:defnofperturbation\]). The BP04+ 21% solar model was calculated for a width of the opacity perturbation $\gamma= 0.2\times 10^6 {\rm \, K} \approx 0.1T_0$. This value of $\gamma$ corresponds to a width in the solar radius of only $\Delta R = 0.02 R_\odot$.
Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] shows two things about the solar model. First, the 21% increase in the opacity near the base of the solar convective zone indeed improves significantly the agreement with the measured sound speeds over what is obtained with the model BP04+. Second, the improved agreement is limited to the region near the base of the convective zone and there remains a significant disagreement down to radii of order $0.4 R_\odot$ ($T = 5\times10^6$K). Of course, different assumed forms of the factor $f(T)$ lead to different estimates of how much opacity change is required to construct a model with the correct depth of the convection zone (see, e.g., Basu & Antia 2004).
In summary, Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] indicates that the radiative opacity would have to be changed in a broad range of temperatures (radii) in order to resolve the discrepancies between helioseismological measurements and solar model predictions made using the new heavy element abundances. The relatively low value for the surface helium abundance, $Y = 0.239$ obtained with (see Table \[tab:comparisons\]), may also reflect the need for an opacity correction that extends down to $\sim 5 \times 10^6$K.
Comparisons for BP04+ 11% {#subsec:bp04+11}
-------------------------
Motivated by the results of § \[subsec:bp04+21\], we have computed a variety of solar models assuming the correctness of the recently determined low metal abundances but with different assumed opacity changes. We have studied the helioseismological properties of these models. The reader will immediately recognize that one can in principle consider an infinite number of such ‘low-metal, higher-opacity’ models, with prescriptions for changing the opacity of varying complexity and artificiality . We acknowledge that there is limited utility in computing such models without a physical basis for the assumed opacity changes.
However, we have found a relatively simple prescription for changing the opacity, while adopting the low metal abundances, that yields reasonable agreement with the observed helioseismological properties. We present the results for this model here not out of any conviction that the assumed opacity law is correct, but rather to illustrate the general quality of the fit to the helioseismological data that is possible and to indicate approximately how much the opacity would have to be shifted in order to obtain reasonably good agreement with the helioseismological measurements.
The results of § \[subsec:bp04+21\] indicate that the opacity must be changed over a relatively broad range of temperatures if we adopt the lower metal abundances. For simplicity, we assumed a constant 11% increase above the OPAL opacity from $2\times 10^6$K ($R = 0.7R_\odot$) down to $5\times 10^6$K ($R = 0.4 R_\odot$), where the opacity increase was smoothly turned off (half-width of turn off is $2 \times 10^5$K). We denote this model by BP04+11%.
We are sure that the prescription of a constant opacity increase that is implemented in BP04+11% is too simple to represent the improvements in the radiative opacity that are likely to result from detailed quantum mechanical calculations of the solar mixture of hydrogen, helium, and heavy elements. But, we shall see that this model with a constant opacity increase fits the data reasonably well and is a crude approximation to what might guess is required by comparing (see Figure \[fig:opacitydifferences\] below) the opacities in the BP04 model (successful in describing the helioseismological data) and the BP04+ model (unsuccessful in describing the helioseismological data).
Figure \[fig:diffsbp04+11\] and Table \[tab:comparisons\] show that the BP04+11% solar model fits the helioseismological data with an accuracy that is comparable to our best-fitting solar models, BP00 and BP04. We conclude that an increase in the opacity of the order of 10% in the range $2\times 10^6$K to $5\times 10^6$K would resolve the discrepancy between the predictions of solar models computed with the new lower metal abundances and the helioseismological measurements.
![ Opacity difference between BP04 and BP04+ solar models. The figure shows the fractional opacity difference between the two solar models BP04 (higher metal abundances) and BP04+ (lower metal abundances) as a function of the temperature in the BP04 solar model. []{data-label="fig:opacitydifferences"}](f4.eps){width="12cm"}
Figure \[fig:opacitydifferences\] shows how the OPAL radiative opacity changes due to the adoption of the new solar composition.We have evaluated the opacity at the same temperatures and densities for two solar models, BP04 and BP04+, that differ only in their assumed composition. To correct for the small effect that at the same temperature the density differs slightly in the two models, we use the following equation: $$\left(\frac{\delta \kappa}{\kappa}\right)_{T,\rho} ~\equiv~
\frac{\kappa_{04}(T,\rho)-\kappa_{04+}(T,\rho)}{\kappa_{04+}(T,\rho)},
\label{eq:deltakappacomposition}$$ where $$\kappa_{04+}(T,\rho) \approx \kappa_{04+}(T,\rho') +
\left(\frac{\partial \kappa_{04+}}{\partial \rho'}\right)_T (\rho
- \rho') . \label{eq:kappataylorseries}$$ Here $\kappa_{04}$ and $\kappa_{04+}$ are the opacities corresponding to the BP04 and BP04+ solar models respectively, $T$ and $\rho$ are temperatures and densities at a given point in the BP04 model and $\rho'$ is the density in the BP04+ model at the temperature $T$. Including the density dependence, makes very little difference near the base of the CZ but increases the fractional opacity difference by about 40% of its value at the highest temperature ($T = 5 \times 10^6$ K) at which an opacity perturbation was introduced into the solar model BP04+11%. The fractional difference is small (less than 3%) in the regions where solar neutrinos are produced ($R < 0.2 R_\odot$ and $T <
9\times 10^6$ K). However, for $T<5\times 10^6$ K the difference increases and reaches about 15% close to the base of the convective zone. Figure \[fig:opacitydifferences\] shows why the BP04+ 11% model approximately restores the agreement with helioseismological measurements.
We have evolved solar models with larger opacity increases near the base of the convective zone and smaller increases further in, but we have not obtained by this procedure a substantial improvement in the agreement with helioseismological data over what is achieved with the BP04+11% model.
Basu & Antia (2004) discussed the characteristics of a solar envelope model which invoked, in order to satisfy helioseismic constraints, a 19% increase in radiative opacity relative to the tabulated OPAL opacities. We have evolved a full solar model with the same opacity increase and heavy element abundance as the Basu & Antia (2004) model (i.e. a 19% increase in opacity from the base of the convection zone to a temperature of $5\times10^6$K and the heavy element to hydrogen mass ratio of Z/X=0.0171). We find, as expected from the previous discussion of BP04+11% and from Figure \[fig:diffsbp04+11\], that the 19% increase in opacity is too large to provide a good fit to the helioseismological data. The depth of the convection zone for the evolved model is $R=0.708R_\odot$ and the rms fractional sound speed discrepancy is $\delta c/c = 0.0033$. The reason for the difference in our conclusion and the Basu & Antia (2004) result almost certainly lies in the fact that the Basu & Antia envelope model was forced to have abundance profiles near the base of the convective zone that are different from what we find in our stellar evolution models, while at the same time being silent about the helioseismological properties in the radiative interior. The Basu & Antia envelope model was forced to have heavy-element and helium profiles in agreement with the helioseismological determinations near the base of the convective zone. For standard solar models, the heavy element and helium profiles are different from that of the Sun near the base of the convective zone (Basu & Antia 1994; Bahcall, Pinsonneault, Basu, & Christensen-Dalsgaard 1997; Antia & Chitre 1998 ), probably because of turbulent mixing not included in the standard models (Elliott & Gough 1998). Over the radiative interior of the Sun, $R = 0.0$ to $R = 0.7 R_\odot $ standard solar models like BP00 or BP04 are, as we have seen, in excellent agreement with the helioseismological data.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We summarize and discuss in this section our five principal conclusions. The main quantitative results of our studies are given in Table \[tab:comparisons\] and in Figure \[fig:velocitydiffs\] and Figure \[fig:diffsbp04+11\].
(1) Larger heavy element abundances yield satisfactory solar models.
: Standard solar models constructed with the older (i. e., higher) heavy element abundances (models BP00, BP04, and BP04-EOS96) are in good agreement with the helioseismological data. The solar sound speeds, depth of the convective zone, and surface abundance of helium determined from helioseismology are all in agreement with the values obtained from these solar models that were computed using the older element abundances. We interpret the differences between the predictions of the models BP00, BP04, and BP04–EOS96 as indicating the expected range of characteristic parameters that can occur with typical improvements in the input data to the solar models.
(2) Standard models with less heavy elements disagree with helioseismology.
: A solar model constructed with the new heavy element abundances, BP04+, is inconsistent with the helioseismologically measured sound speeds, the depth of the convective zone, and the surface helium abundance.
(3) Increasing the opacity near the base of the CZ helps, but is not enough.
: We calculate a solar model using the newer heavy element abundances and also increase the radiative opacity near the base of the solar convective zone by just the amount required to make the CZ depth calculated with new heavy element abundances agree with the measured depth. The improved agreement between the solar model and the helioseismological determinations is limited, like the assumed change in the radiative opacity, to regions near the base of the convective zone.
(4) A 11% increase in opacity over a broader range is okay.
: Suppose that a change in the OPAL radiative opacity is required to explain the reason why solar models constructed with the newer heavy element abundances are in conflict with helioseismology measurements. Then the OPAL opacity must be increased by about 11% from about $2.2\times 10^6$K at the base of the CZ ($R = 0.71R_\odot$) all the way down to about $5 \times
10^6$K ($R = 0.4 R_\odot$). It would be very useful to study whether such a change in opacities is consistent with other astronomical data. The required 11% increase is larger than the difference reported by Seaton & Badnell (2004) between the radiative opacities calculated independently by the Opacity Project and by the OPAL project.
(5) The predicted solar neutrino fluxes are not significantly affected.
: The differences in the predicted solar neutrino fluxes for the most different solar models considered in this paper, BP04 and BP04+, are all within the $1\sigma$ quoted theoretical errors (see Table 1 of Bahcall and Pinsonneault 2004). If we compare models that differ only in whether or not a 11% increase in opacity has been included, the differences in predicted neutrino fluxes are slightly smaller, especially for the most important neutrino sources: 1% ($p-p$ neutrinos), 2% ($^7$Be neutrinos), and 6% ($^8$B neutrinos).
There are, in addition to the opacity, other sources of potential change in the solar model input data, most importantly the uncertainties in the measurements of the heavy element abundance and the uncertainties in the calculation of the heavy element diffusion coefficients. The recent heavy element abundance determinations have quoted uncertainties of order 0.05 dex (12%) (see Asplund et al. 2000; Asplund 2000; Allende Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund 2001; Allende Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund 2002; Asplund et al. 2004). The heavy element diffusion coefficients are uncertain by about 15% (see Thoul, Bahcall, and Loeb 1994).
It may well be that the correct reconciliation of abundance determinations will involve modest adjustments relative to the present standard values of all of the factors mentioned above, namely, the abundances themselves, the diffusion coefficients, and the radiative opacity. The increase of the radiative opacity by 11% obtained in this paper with the help of the model BP04+ 11% may be regarded as a plausible upper limit to the opacity correction that is required since it assumes no change in any of the other input parameters.
Why have we not constructed and explored even more solar models with a variety of hypothetical changes in the radiative opacity, diffusion coefficients, and heavy element abundances? The reason is that for the opacity changes by themselves there is an infinity of conceivable corrections, with different amplitudes and shapes. Moreover, one can assume whatever changes one wants, within the quoted uncertainties, for the diffusion coefficients and the heavy element abundances. Improved calculations of the radiative opacity (see, Seaton and Badnell 2004 for recent refinements) will determine what, if any, significant refinements are implied by more accurate calculations. Once those calculations are available it will be appropriate to make new solar models to incorporate the newly calculated opacities.
J. N. B. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0070928. S. B. was partially supported by NSF grants ATM 0206130 and ATM 0348837. A. M. S is supported in by the W. M. Keck Foundation through a grant to the Institute for Advanced Study. We are grateful to M. Seaton for stimulating comments.
This work utilizes data from the Solar Oscillations Investigation/Michelson Doppler Imager (SOI/MDI) on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. MDI is supported by NASA contract NAG5-13261 to Stanford University.
[99]{}
Ahmad, Q. R., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 071301
Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D. L., & Asplund, M. 2001, ApJ, 556, L63
Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D. L., & Asplund, M. 2002, ApJ, 573, L137
Antia, H. M., & Basu, S. 1994, , [107]{}, 421
Antia, H. M., & Chitre, S. M. 1998, A&A, 339, 239
Asplund, M. 2000, A&A, 359, 755
Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., Allende Prieto, C., & Kiselman, D. 2004, A&A, 417, 751; M. Asplund (private communication)
Asplund, M., Nordlund, A., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R. F. 2000, A&A, 359, 743
Bahcall, J. N. 2001, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 91, 9
Bahcall, J. N., Basu, S., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 1998, Phys. Lett. B, 433, 1 Bahcall, J. N., & Pinsonneault M. H. 1992, Rev. Mod. Phys., 64, 885 Bahcall, J. N., & Pinsonneault M. H. 1995, Rev. Mod. Phys., 67, 781 Bahcall, J. N., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121301 Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Basu, S. 2001, ApJ, 555, 990
Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., Basu, S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 171
Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli A. M., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2004, ApJ, accepted for publication Bahcall, J. N., & Ulrich, R. K. 1988, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 297
Balmforth, N. J. 1992, MNRAS, [255]{}, 632
Basu, S. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 719
Basu, S. 2002 in From Solar Min to Solar Max: Half a Solar Cycle with SOHO, Proc. SOHO 11 Symposium, ed. A. Wilson, ESA SP-508, 7
Basu, S., & Antia, H. M. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 1137
Basu, S., & Antia, H. M. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 189
Basu, S., & Antia, H. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, L85
Bertello, L., Henney, C. J., Ulrich, R. K., et al. 2000, , 535, 1066 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1073 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Berthomieu, G. 1991, in Solar Interior and Atmosphere, eds. A. N. Cox, W. C. Livingston, & M. Matthews (Space Science Series; Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 401 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Gough, D. O., & Thompson, M. J. 1991, ApJ, 378, 413 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Thompson, M. J. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 527 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1286 Couvidat, S., Turck-Chieze, S., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1434 Cox, A. N., & Kidman, R. B. 1984, in Theoretical Problems in Stellar Stability and Oscillations, ed. A. Noels, & M. Gabriel (Liège: Institut d’Astrophysique), 259
\[\[Däppen et al. (1991)\][da91]{} Däppen, W., Gough, D. O., Kosovichev, A. G., & Thompson, M. J. 1991, in [Challenges to Theories of the Structure of Moderate-mass Stars]{}, ed. D. O. Gough, & J. Toomre (Heidelberg: Springer). Also [Lecture Notes in Physics]{}, 388, 111
Dziembowski, W. A., Pamyatnykh, A. A., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1990, MNRAS, [244]{}, 542
Dziembowski, W. A., Goode, P. R., Pamyatnykh, A. A., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1994, , [432]{}, 417 Elliott, J. R., Gough, D. O. 1998, ApJ, 516, 475 Elliott, J. R. 1995, MNRAS 277, 1567 Fukuda, S., et al., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 5651 Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, Phys. Scripta, T47, 133 Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161
Guzik, J. A., & Cox, A. N. 1993, ApJ, 411, 394
Kosovichev, A. G., & Fedorova, A. V. 1991, Sov. Astron., 35, 507
Pijpers, F. P., & Thompson, M. J. 1992, , [262]{}, L33
Pijpers, F. P., & Thompson, M. J. 1994, , [281]{}, 231
Pinsonneault, M. H., Kawaler, S. D., Sofia, S., & Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424 Prather, M. J. 1976, Ph.D. Thesis (Yale University)
Rabello-Soares, M. C., Basu, S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1999, [MNRAS]{}, [309]{}, 35
Richard, O., Théado, S., & Vauclair, S. 2004, Solar Phys., 220, 243 Rogers, F. J. 2001, Contrib. Plasma Phys., 41, 179 Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064 Rogers, F. J., Swenson, F. J., & Iglesias, C. A. 1996, ApJ, 456, 902 Sackmann, I.-J., & Boothroyd, A. I. 2003, ApJ, 583, 1024
Schlattl, H. 2002, A&A, 395, 85
Schlattl, H., Weiss, A., & Ludwig, H.-G. 1997, A&A, 322, 646
Schou, J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Howe, R., et al. 1998, in Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars, ed. S. G. Korzennik, & A. Wilson (Noordwijk: ESA), ESA SP-418, 2, 845 Seaton, M. J., & Badnell, N. R. 2004, astro-ph/0404437 Seaton, M. J., Yan, Y., Mihalas, D., & Pradhan, A. K. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805 Tripathy, S.C., Basu, S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J 1998, in Provost, J., Schmider, F.X. (eds), Poster Volume; Proc IAU Symp. no, 181; "Sounding Solar and Stellar Interiors, Universite de Nice, p 129 Tripathy, S. C.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics,337,579 Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828
[^1]: The routine is publicly available at http://www.sns.ias.edu/\~jnb.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The morphology of the outer rings of early-type spiral galaxies is compared to integrations of massless collisionless particles initially in nearly circular orbits. Particles are perturbed by a quadrupolar gravitational potential corresponding to a growing and secularly evolving bar. We find that outer rings with R1R2 morphology and pseudorings are exhibited by the simulations even though they lack gaseous dissipation. Simulations with stronger bars form pseudorings earlier and more quickly than those with weaker bars. We find that the R1 ring, perpendicular to the bar, is fragile and dissolves after a few bar rotation periods if the bar pattern speed increases by more than $\sim 8\%$, bar strength increases (by $\gtrsim 140\%$) after bar growth, or the bar is too strong ($Q_T>0.3$). If the bar slows down after formation, pseudoring morphology persists and the R2 ring perpendicular to the bar is populated due to resonance capture. The R2 ring remains misaligned with the bar and increases in ellipticity as the bar slows down. The R2 ring becomes scalloped and does not resemble any ringed galaxies if the bar slows down more than 3.5% suggesting that bars decrease in strength before they slow down this much. We compare the morphology of our simulations to B-band images of 9 ringed galaxies from the Ohio State University Bright Spiral Galaxy Survey, and we find a reasonable match in morphologies to R1R2’ pseudorings seen within a few bar rotation periods of bar formation. Some of the features previously interpreted in terms of dissipative models may be due to transient structure associated with recent bar growth and evolution.'
author:
- |
Micaela Bagley, Ivan Minchev, & Alice C. Quillen\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627
title: The Morphology of Collisionless Galactic Rings Exterior to Evolving Bars
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
Rings in barred galaxies can exist interior to the bar, encircling the bar or exterior to the bar. For a review on classification and properties of ringed galaxies see @buta96. The outer rings of barred galaxies are classified as R1 or R2 depending upon whether the ring is oriented with major axis perpendicular to the bar (R1) or parallel to it (R2) (e.g., @romero06). If the ring is broken, partial or is a tightly wrapped spiral it is called a pseudoring and denoted R1’ or R2’. Some galaxies contain both types of rings and are denoted R1R2’ or R1R2. R1’ and R2’ morphologies were predicted as morphological patterns that would be expected near the outer Lindblad resonance (OLR) with the bar [@schwarz81; @schwarz84]. Rings are often the site of active star formation and so are prominent in blue visible band images, H$\alpha$ narrow band images, and HI emission [@buta96].
Orbital resonances, denoted Lindblad Resonances, occur at locations in the disk where $$\Omega_b = \Omega \pm \kappa/m$$ where $\Omega_b$ is the angular rotation rate of the bar pattern and $m$ is an integer. Here $\Omega(r)$ is the angular rotation rate of a star in a circular orbit at radius $r$ and $\kappa(r)$ is the epicylic frequency. The $m=2$ OLR is that with $\Omega_b = \Omega + \kappa/2$. Orbits of stars are often classified in terms of nearby periodic orbits that are closed in the frame rotating with the bar. Near resonances orbits become more elongated and have higher epicyclic amplitudes. Exterior to the OLR periodic orbits parallel to the bar are present whereas interior to the OLR both perpendicular and parallel periodic orbits are present. For a steady pattern, closed orbits interior to the OLR are expected to be aligned with major axis perpendicular to the bar whereas those exterior to the OLR are aligned parallel to it (e.g., @cont89 [@kalnajs91]).
A common assumption is that rings form because gas accumulates at resonances. This follows as gas clouds cannot follow self-intersecting orbits without colliding. Because of dissipation in the gas, the bar can exert a net torque on the gas leading to a transfer of angular momentum. The torque is expected to change sign at resonances so gas can move away from them or accumulate at them. The CR region is expected to be depopulated leading to gas concentrations at the OLR and ILR resonances. Gaseous rings form when gas collects into the largest periodic orbit near a resonance that does not cross another periodic orbit [@schwarz84].
@schwarz81 [@schwarz84] first demonstrated the efficiency of this process. Other papers have confirmed and extended this work (e.g., @combes85 [@byrd94; @salo99; @rau00; @rau04]). Because dissipation is thought to be important, spiral like features and ovals that are not perfectly aligned with the bar, similar to those observed, are predicted. In some cases galaxy morphology and kinematics have not been successfully modeled with a single steady state bar component. Improvements in the models have been made with the addition of an additional exterior oval or spiral component (e.g., @hunter88 [@lindblad96]).
Previous work accounting for ring galaxy morphology has primarily simulated the gas dynamics using sticky particle simulations that incorporate dissipative or inelastic collisions. @rau00 ran N-body stellar simulations coupled with sticky gas particles. These simulations have self-consistent bars so that the orbits of the stars in the bars are consistent with the bar’s gravitational potential. The disadvantage of using N-body simulations is that the properties of the bar such as its pattern speed and strength cannot be set. They can only be changed indirectly by varying the initial conditions of the simulations. An alternative approach is to set the bar perturbation strength, shape and pattern speed and search for likely bar parameters consistent with the properties of observed galaxies (e.g., @salo99 [@rau04; @rau08]).
Previous work has explored the affect of bar strength and pattern speed on ring morphology (e.g., @salo99 [@rau04; @rau08]) and length of time since the bar grew (e.g., @rau00 [@ann00]). Here we explore the role of bar evolution on ring galaxy morphology. By bar evolution we mean changes in bar pattern speed and strength during and after bar growth. N-body simulations lacking live halos predict long lived bars with nearly constant pattern speeds (e.g., @voglis07). However angular momentum transfer between a bar and the gas disk either interior or exterior to the bar or between a bar and a live halo can cause the pattern speed to vary (e.g., @debattista98 [@bournaud02; @das03; @ath03; @sellwood06; @martinez06]). Thus constraints on the secular evolution of bars could tell us about the coupling between bars, gas and dark halos.
Gas and stars exterior to a bar are sufficiently distant and moving sufficiently slowly compared to the bar that they are unlikely to cause strong perturbations on the orbits of stars in the bar. Because a calculation of the gravitational potential involves a convolution with an inverse square law function, high order Fourier components are felt only extremely weakly exterior to the bar. The dominant potential term exterior to the bar is the quadrupolar term which decreases with radius to the third power, $\Phi \propto r^{-3}$.
Here we explore the role of a changing quadrupolar potential field on the morphology of stars exterior to a bar. In this work we focus on collisionless stellar orbits and leave investigating the study of dissipative effects for future study. In Section 2 we describe our simulations and present the results obtained by varying the parameters. In Section 3 we compare the results of our simulations with 9 galaxies from the Ohio State University Bright Spiral Galaxy Survey (@eskridge02, hereafter OSUBSGS). Finally in Section 4 we summarize and discuss our results.
Test particle simulations
=========================
We perform 2D test-particle simulations of an initially axisymmetric galactic disk that is perturbed by a forcing bar pattern. The rotation curve adopted for a particle in a circular orbit is $$v_c(r) = s^{\gamma/2}$$ with $s = \sqrt{r^2 + a^2}$ and $a>0$ a core radius to prevent extreme orbits near the galaxy center. A flat rotation curve has $\gamma=0$. This curve corresponds to an axisymmetric potential $$\Phi_0(s) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\log(s) & {\rm for} ~~ \gamma=0 \\
\gamma^{-1} s^{\gamma} & {\rm for} ~~ \gamma \ne 0
\end{array}
\right.$$
To this axisymmetric component we add a quadrupole perturbation for the bar in the form used by @dehnen00 [@minchev07], $$\Phi_b(r,\phi,t) = \epsilon \cos\left[ 2 (\phi - \Omega_b t)\right]
\times
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(r_b/r)^3, & r>r_b, \\
2 - (r/r_b)^3, & r \le r_b.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:phib}$$ where $r_b$ is the bar length and $\Omega_b$ its angular rotation rate or pattern speed.
As we wish to explore bars with changing pattern speeds we allow $\Omega_b$ to vary with time; however, we fix the ratio of the bar length to the corotation radius, $R$, so that $$r_b(t) = r_{b,0} { \Omega_{b,0} \over \Omega_b(t) }.$$ Previous studies have found that bars end interior to their corotation radius, $r_{CR}$, with the ratio of bar length to bar corotation radius $R=0.7-0.9$ [@ath92; @rau08]. We describe pattern speed variations with two parameters: the rate of change during bar growth, $d\Omega_g/dt$, and that after bar growth, $d\Omega_b/dt$. The bar strength grows linearly with time, $\epsilon \propto t$, until a time $t_{grow}$, at which time it reaches a strength $\epsilon_{tgrow}$. After $t_{grow}$ the bar strength may vary at a slower rate, $d\epsilon/dt$.
Previous work has used as a measure of bar strength the parameter $Q_T$ [@combes81]. At a given radius this is the ratio of the maximum tangential force to the azimuthally averaged radial force. Here equation (\[eqn:phib\]) implies that the maximum value of $Q_T$ is $Q_T = 2 \epsilon / v_c^2$.
The simulations presented here integrate $10^5$ particles with a 4$^{th}$ order Runge-Kutta method. All particles are integrated simultaneously in parallel on a NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX graphics card. The code is written with NVIDIA’s CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture), the C-language development environment for CUDA enabled Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
Particle initial conditions are nearly circular orbits with epicyclic amplitude randomly generated so the initial velocity dispersion is $\sigma$ times the circular velocity. In our simulations the velocity dispersion is about 0.04 of the circular velocity, which is about 7 km/s for a galaxy with a 200 km/s rotational velocity. For comparison, HI line widths are typically in the range of 5-10 km/s. The epicylic amplitude distribution is Gaussian. Initial radii are chosen from a flat distribution with minimum and maximum radius between 0.5 and 4.0 times the initial bar length. This leads to an initial disk surface density proportional to $1/r$.
Unless otherwise noted, when we discuss times in terms of bar periods we are referring to the initial bar period, which has time $P_{b,0}=2\pi/\Omega_{b,0}$. We run our simulations for twenty-five bar periods, and the bar grows for the first three bar rotation periods; $t_{grow}=3$. We focus on a ratio of bar length to corotation radius of $R=0.8$, so that the initial bar pattern speed is $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$ and the corotation radius is therefore $r_{CR}=1.25$. Table \[tab:tab1\] lists the initial conditions that all of our simulations have in common. Table \[tab:tab2\] lists remaining simulation parameters. The majority of our simulations have bars of strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$, corresponding to $Q_T = 0.2$. Lengths are given in terms of the initial bar length, $r_{b,0}$, and angular velocities are given in terms of that at a radius of the initial bar length. We use negative values of $\epsilon$ to signify that the bar is initially oriented horizontally.
Description of simulations
--------------------------
Snapshots at different times for simulation 1 with parameters listed in Tables \[tab:tab1\] and \[tab:tab2\] are shown in Figures \[mongrow.eps\] and \[mon2beven.eps\]. Simulation 1 is our base or comparison simulation, with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$, corresponding to $Q_T=0.2$, and bar grown in $t_{grow}=3$ bar rotation periods. In Figures \[mongrow.eps\] and \[mon2beven.eps\] each frame has been rotated so that the bar is horizontal. Figure \[mongrow.eps\] shows the first 3 bar periods of bar growth of simulation 1 with each image separated in time by a quarter bar period. Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] shows snapshots of the 25 bar periods of the simulation with each image separated by a full bar period. As can be seen from Figure \[mongrow.eps\], during bar growth, strong open spiral-like structure is present that might be interpreted as an R1’ ring. Just after bar growth (see Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]), both R1 and R2 rings are present but the R2 ring is not always oriented parallel to the bar. For up to 5 bar rotation periods following bar growth, there are azimuthal variations in density in the rings as well as shifts in the R2 ring orientation so they could be considered pseudorings. After bar growth the structure stabilizes and R1 and R2 rings remain that are increasingly mirror symmetric and remain oriented perpendicular and parallel to the bar, respectively.
The bar is grown sufficiently slowly that the orbits change adiabatically. Orbits remain near to closed or periodic orbits and structure associated with both R1 and R2 orbit families is seen. Most interesting is that the simulation displays twists in the density peaks, azimuthal variations in the density of the ring and deviations of ring orientation from perpendicular and parallel to the bar at the end of and a few periods after bar growth. Previous work has suggested that weak dissipation is required to exhibit spiral structure or pseudoring morphology, however here we see transient spiral structures induced by bar growth and pseudoring type morphology for a few rotation periods following bar growth. After $\sim 5$ periods the asymmetries are reduced and the morphology contains both stable R1 and R2 type rings.
Our simulation looks similar to the sticky particle simulations by @schwarz81 [@byrd94]. Their simulations also displayed early spiral structure. The sticky particle simulations exhibit strong R1’ morphology for a few bar rotation periods. Our simulation exhibits R1’ type morphology only during bar growth, R1R2’ morphology a few rotation periods after bar growth and stable R1R2 morphology on long timescales.
![ Bar growth in simulation 1. The distribution of collisionless particles is shown every quarter bar period. The bar is growing up to the left frame of the last row. Strong open spiral-like structure is evident during bar growth even though the simulation is lacking gaseous dissipation. \[mongrow.eps\] ](mongrow.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ Simulation 1, with bar angular rotation rate $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$, bar strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$ (corresponding to $Q_T = 0.2$) and bar grown in $t_{grow}=3$ bar periods. The distribution of collisionless particles is shown each full bar rotation period, and the entire 25 bar periods of the simulation are shown. The bar is growing up to the fourth frame. We note that the R2 ring is misaligned with bar and azimuthal variations in densities are seen until $\sim t=5$ bar rotation periods after bar formation. Pseudoring morphology is present at the end of and a few rotation periods after bar growth. Both R1 and R2 rings are present and stable after bar growth. We find that collisionless particles that are initially in nearly circular orbits can display R1R2 outer ring morphology. \[mon2beven.eps\] ](mon2beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
During bar growth these simulations look remarkably similar to the sticky particle simulations by @rau04 [@rau08] even though they lack dissipation. N-body and SPH simulations often suffer from artificially heating. Fine structure that would only be present in a perturbed initially cold population might not survive due to excess heating inherent in the simulation. Sticky particle and SPH simulations, because they allow dissipation, can reduce the velocity dispersion of the particles. The similarity between the sticky particle simulations and the dissipationless simulations shown here could be because our initial orbits were nearly circular.
The ability of collisionless simulations to display R1R2 type morphology suggests that we reexamine the role of dissipation in influencing ring galaxy morphology. SPH simulations [@ann00; @bissantz03] sometimes show open outer spiral arms that are similar to R1’ pseudorings and resemble morphology during bar growth seen here. However our simulations stop showing spiral structure soon after bar growth. The SPH simulations by @ann00 show R1’ type pseudoring morphology but only within a few rotation periods after bar growth. Likewise the sticky particle simulations by @rau00 show R1 or R2 or both R1R2 ring morphology, but only within a few bar rotation periods after bar growth (see their figure 10). The SPH simulations by @ann00 show spiral structure for a somewhat longer time than ours (a few bar rotations following bar growth) but they fail to exhibit R1 or R2 ring morphology. We find that R1R2 rings (systems with both types of features) do not require dissipation for formation, however they do require particles to be on nearly closed orbits. This can result either because of dissipation or because gas and recently born stars tend to be on nearly circular orbits prior to bar growth. The success of sticky particle simulations in reproducing outer ring morphology, may be in part because of their ability to cool or reduce the velocity dispersion of their particles. SPH simulations (e.g., @ann00 [@bissantz03]) exhibit only R1’ pseudoring morphology suggesting that when dissipation is large, both types of rings are not formed. Recent SPH and sticky particle simulations fail to exhibit long lived R1R2 morphology. Here however we see that R1R2 morphology can be long lived, though it’s possible that R1R2 ring morphology is a short lived phenomenon as many barred galaxies do not exhibit R1 or R2 type outer rings.
Morphology sensitivity to pattern speed variation after bar growth
------------------------------------------------------------------
We first explore the sensitivity of outer ring morphology to weak changes in bar pattern speed following bar growth. Simulations 2-6 are identical to simulation 1 except the bar pattern speed increases after bar growth. Simulations 7-11 are identical to simulation 1 except the bar pattern speed decreases after bar growth. Figure \[mon9beven.eps\] shows simulation 5 that has an increasing bar pattern speed $d\Omega/dt = 0.0004$. For this simulation the pattern speed increases 0.39% each bar period. We find that the R1 outer ring grows weaker as the pattern speed increases. The R1 has completely dissolved by the end of the simulation when the pattern speed has increased by about 9% compared to its initial value. At later times, even though the perturbation is always changing the morphology is nearly mirror symmetric. We find that spiral structure or pseudoring structure is not caused by the increase in bar pattern speed.
![Simulation 5 showing a bar with increasing pattern speed, $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0004$. The bar speeds up only after it has finished growing at 3 bar rotation periods. Each frame is separated by one full initial bar rotation period. Note the loss of the R1 ring later in the simulation. \[mon9beven.eps\] ](mon9beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[domegab.eps\] shows the morphology at the end of simulations 1-6. Here we see that the R1 ring disappears as the bar pattern speed increases. At later times in the simulations with more quickly increasing pattern speeds the R1 ring dissolves and only a nearly circular outer ring remains. We find that when the bar pattern speed increases by more than $\sim 8\%$, the R1 ring completely dissolves.
![ The last frame of simulations 1-6. Each frame shows the density distribution at a time 25 bar periods after the start of the simulation. From left to right the top row shows simulation 1 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0$; simulation 2 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0001$ and simulation 3 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0002$. The bottom row shows simulation 4 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0003$; simulation 5 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0004$ and simulation 6 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0005$. We find that when the bar pattern speed increases by more than $\sim 8\%$ the R1 ring completely dissolves. \[domegab.eps\] ](domegab.eps){width="3.3in"}
In simulations 7-11 we decrease the bar pattern speed after bar growth. Figure \[mon14beven.eps\] shows simulation 11 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.0003$. The R2 ring in this simulation is elongated and strong and is seldom aligned parallel to the bar even at later times. While the simulation with the increasing pattern speed (shown in Figure \[mon9beven.eps\]) did not exhibit pseudoring morphology after bar growth or misaligned R1 or R2 rings, the simulations with decreasing pattern speed do show misaligned R2 type rings even at late times. The ellipticity of the R2 ring is higher than seen in the comparison simulation shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] with a bar with a constant pattern speed.
![ Simulation 11 showing a bar with decreasing pattern speed, $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.0003$. The bar slows down after it has finished growing. Each frame is separated by one full bar rotation period. We see a high epicyclic amplitude R2 ring that we attribute to resonance capture. This ring can be misaligned with the bar even at late times. \[mon14beven.eps\] ](mon14beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[domegab2.eps\] shows the last periods of simulations 1 and 7-11. Here we see that the R2 ring remains misaligned 22 bar periods after bar growth is complete when the pattern speed begins to decrease. The ellipticity of the R2 ring increases as the bar pattern speed decreases. We find that when the pattern speed decreases by more than $\sim 3.5\%$, the simulations do not resemble real galaxy morphology.
![ The last frame of simulations 1 and 7-11. Each frame shows the density distribution at a time 25 bar periods after the start of the simulation. From left to right the top row shows simulation 1 with $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0$, simulation 7 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.0001$ and simulation 8 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.00015$. The bottom row shows simulation 9 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.0002$, simulation 10 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.00025$ and simulation 11 with $d\Omega_b/dt=-0.0003$. We attribute the high epicyclic amplitude R2 rings to resonance capture. The R2 ring remains misaligned with the bar even 22 bar periods after the bar pattern speed began decreasing. \[domegab2.eps\] ](domegab2.eps){width="3.3in"}
Decreasing the pattern speed moves the bar’s resonances outwards. Exterior to the OLR only one family of periodic orbits exits aligned parallel to the bar. However interior to the bar, two families of periodic orbits exist, both those perpendicular and parallel to the bar (e.g., @cont89 [@quillen03]). When the bar slows down orbits can be captured into resonance (e.g., @romero06). Only the orbit family parallel to the bar can capture particles, and as the bar pattern speed continues to decrease these orbits will increase in epicyclic amplitude. This is mathematically similar to Pluto’s orbit increasing in eccentricity as Neptune migrates outwards (e.g., @quillen06). Resonance capture into orbits parallel with the bar is likely to explain the higher epicyclic amplitude of the R2 rings seen in Figure \[mon14beven.eps\] in which the bar pattern is slowing down.
In summary if the bar speeds up subsequent to bar formation (or increases in pattern speed by more than $\sim 8\%$) we find that the R1 ring dissolves. Simulations with increasing pattern speeds show misaligned rings and azimuthal density contrasts only 1-2 periods after bar formation. If the bar slows down however, we find that the R2 ring is increased in strength and eccentricity and both R2 and R1 are seen even at later times ($>20$ periods after bar formation). Furthermore the R2 ring is misaligned with the bar for many rotation periods. If the bar decreases by more than $\sim 3.5\%$ we find that the R2 becomes unrealistically scalloped.
Morphology sensitivity to pattern speed variation during bar growth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We next explore the effect of altering the bar pattern speed during bar growth rather than following bar growth. $d\Omega_g/dt$ is positive in simulations 12-15, causing the pattern speed to increase for the first 3 periods of each simulation. Figure \[mon21beven.eps\] shows simulation 13 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.01$. Open spiral arms are present at the end of the third period of bar growth. However, R1R2 double ring morphology does not form in this simulation. As was true in the simulations with bar pattern speed increasing following bar formation (simulations 2-6; see Figures \[mon9beven.eps\] and \[domegab.eps\]) the R1 ring dissolves and only a nearly circular outer ring remains. We note that the spiral and outer ring structure in simulations 2-6 (see \[mon9beven.eps\]) did not dissolve as quickly as in simulation 13, where an R1R2 outer ring never forms. This suggests that outer ring structures are more sensitive to alterations in pattern speed during bar growth than to changes after bar growth.
![ Simulation 13 showing a bar with increasing pattern speed during bar growth, $d\Omega_g/dt=0.01$. The bar pattern speed is only increasing in the first three frames while the bar is growing. Each frame is separated by one full initial bar period. R1R2 structure does not form as it does in Figure \[mon9beven.eps\] where the pattern speed is increasing after bar growth. Here spiral structure dissolves within 3 periods after bar growth and only a nearly circular outer ring remains. Outer ring structures may be more sensitive to alterations in pattern speed during bar growth than to changes after bar growth. \[mon21beven.eps\] ](mon21beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[domdtgr.eps\] shows the last 2 of the 3 periods of bar growth for simulations 1 and 12-15. The first row shows simulation 1 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.0$. $d\Omega_g/dt$ increases by 0.005 in each consecutive simulation, corresponding to each row in Figure \[domdtgr.eps\]. We note from these simulations that open spiral arms are seen during bar growth when the bar is increasing in pattern speed. The radii of spiral structure decreases as the pattern speed increases. This is expected as the radii of the resonances move inward as the bar pattern speed increases.
![ Morphology change when the pattern speed is increased during bar growth. Five frames, corresponding to the last 2 periods of bar growth, of the simulations in which the pattern speed is increased during growth. From top to bottom the rows show simulation 1 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.0$; simulation 12 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.005$; simulation 13 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.01$; simulation 14 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.015$ and simulation 15 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.02$. As the pattern speed increases, the axes of the rings decreases. \[domdtgr.eps\] ](domdtgr.eps){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[domegab.eps\] shows that ring radial size does not decrease as the bar pattern speed increases when the pattern speed increases after bar growth. However when the pattern speed increases during bar growth (see Figure \[domdtgr.eps\]) the ring radius does decrease. This suggests that ring size is primarily set during bar growth and is not strongly affected by subsequent increases in pattern speed. Subsequent bar speed increases primarily dissolves or weakens the rings rather than changes their radius.
We now compare the effect of decreasing pattern speed during bar growth with the effect of increasing pattern speed during bar growth. The pattern speed is decreasing during the 3 periods of bar growth in simulations 16-19. Figure \[mon43beven.eps\] shows the entire simulation 17 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.005$, while Figure \[domdtgr2.eps\] shows the last 2 of the 3 periods of bar growth for simulations 1 and 16-19. We find that when the bar pattern slows down during bar growth the outer rings are not lost as was true when the pattern speed increased during growth. The R1R2’ structure seen during bar growth for simulation 1 is exhibited by this simulation but later, 2 to 3 periods after bar growth rather than in the first period following bar growth. During this time the rings appear almost double or tightly wound. The pseudorings close, the morphology stabilizes and presents the R1R2 structure characteristic of our steady state comparison simulation shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. As is expected from the location of the OLR, the ring radii become larger if the bar pattern speed decreases.
The first row of Figure \[domdtgr2.eps\] shows simulation 1 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.0$. $d\Omega_g/dt$ decreases by 0.0025 in each consecutive simulation, corresponding to each row in Figure \[domdtgr2.eps\]. The decreasing pattern speed seems to delay the formation of strong spiral structure. Figure \[domdtgr.eps\] showing morphology during bar growth for a bar that is speeding up can be compared to Figure \[domdtgr2.eps\] that shows morphology during bar growth for a bar that is slowing down. The simulation with the largest decrease in pattern speed shows the weakest spiral structure during bar growth and that with the largest increase in pattern speed the strongest spiral structure earliest.
In summary, we find that if the bar pattern speed is decreasing during growth, transient spiral structure is weaker during growth and the formation of the R1 and R2 ring structure is delayed by a few bar rotation periods. If the bar pattern speed increases during rather than after growth, the outer rings are smaller. An increase in pattern speed during bar growth destroys the R1 ring and asymmetries typical of pseudorings.
![ Simulation 17 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.005$. The pattern speed is decreasing during bar growth. Each frame is separated by one full bar rotation period. The transient spiral structure during bar growth is weaker than when bar pattern is fixed (see top row of Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]). Formation of the R1 and R2 rings is delayed in this simulation and occurs after the bar has finished growing compared to that with a fixed pattern speed. \[mon43beven.eps\] ](mon43beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ Morphology change when the pattern speed is decreased during bar growth. Five frames, corresponding to the last 2 periods of bar growth, of the simulations in which the pattern speed is decreased during bar growth. From top to bottom the rows show simulation 1 with $d\Omega_g/dt=0.0$; simulation 16 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.0025$; simulation 17 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.005$; simulation 18 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.0075$; and simulation 19 with $d\Omega_g/dt=-0.01$. Transient spiral structure during bar growth is weaker when the bar is slowing down. \[domdtgr2.eps\] ](domdtgr2.eps){width="3.3in"}
Morphology sensitivity to bar strength
--------------------------------------
We now explore the sensitivity of the morphology to bar strength. The bar strength increases linearly with time during bar growth until, at $t=t_{grow}$, it reaches a strength determined by the parameter $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$. Thus a lower value of $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$ results in both a weaker bar at $t=t_{grow}$ and a slower rate of bar growth. Figure \[mon46beven.eps\] shows simulation 21 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.08$ corresponding to $Q_T=0.16$. This is a weaker bar than that of our comparison simulation shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] where $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$. During and right after bar growth we see the open spiral structure evident in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. Here the R2 ring is misaligned with the bar for up to 6 bar rotation periods following bar growth, whereas the R2 ring in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] is misaligned for 5 bar periods following bar growth. The timescale for misalignment in the R2 ring is probably related to the bar strength, which would set the libration timescale in the OLR. The R1 and R2 rings become increasingly mirror symmetric. They remain strong, stable, and oriented perpendicular and parallel to the bar, respectively.
Figure \[mon38beven.eps\] shows simulation 23 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.14$ corresponding to $Q_T=0.28$. This is a stronger bar than that of our comparison simulation shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. The spiral structure evident during and right after bar growth is much stronger than that of either Figure \[mon46beven.eps\] or Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. The R2 ring is misaligned with the bar for only 3 to 4 bar periods following bar growth. R1 and R2 rings form earlier, and we see a weakening of the R1 ring at later times of the simulation.
![ Simulation 21 for a weak bar with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.08$ corresponding to $Q_T=0.16$. This is a weaker bar than that of simulation 1 shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] where $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$. Each frame is separated by one full bar period. The R2 ring is misaligned with the bar for up to 6 bar periods after bar growth, longer than the R2 ring in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. At late times stable R1 and R2 rings form and remain mirror symmetric. \[mon46beven.eps\] ](mon46beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ Simulation 23 for a strong bar with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.14$ corresponding to $Q_T=0.28$. This is a stronger bar than that shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. Each frame is separated by one full bar period. The R2 ring is only misaligned with the bar for 3 bar periods after bar growth. The R1R2 structure is evident earlier than in Figure \[mon46beven.eps\] but the R1 ring weakens at the end of the simulation. \[mon38beven.eps\] ](mon38beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
In Figure \[eps1.eps\] we compare the last 2 periods of bar growth of simulation 1 and simulations 20-24. $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$ increases from 0.06 (top row of Figure \[eps1.eps\]) to 0.16 (bottom row). Strong transient spiral structure forms noticeably earlier when the bar is stronger.
By the third period of simulation 24 in the bottom row, $|\epsilon_{tgrow,24}|=0.16$ ($Q_T=0.32$), the pseudoring structure most closely resembles that of the fourth period of simulation 1, $|\epsilon_{tgrow,1}|=0.10$. Simulation 24 exhibits closed R1R2 structure a half period after bar growth, whereas simulation 1’s R1R2 structure is not evident until 1.5 periods after bar growth. Thus, a 60% increase in bar strength accelerates pseudoring formation such that closed-orbit rings are evident one bar period earlier.
![ Morphology change when the bar strength is altered. Five frames, showing the last 2 periods of bar growth, of simulations 1 and 20-24. From top to bottom the rows show simulation 20 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.06$, $Q_T=0.12$; simulation 21 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.08$, $Q_T=0.16$; simulation 1 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$, $Q_T=0.2$; simulation 22 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.12$, $Q_T=0.24$; simulation 23 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.14$, $Q_T=0.28$; and simulation 24 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.16$, $Q_T=0.32$. By the end of the fifth frame, $t=t_{grow}$ and the strength of the bar is equal to the value of the parameter $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$. Bars with higher values of $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$, i.e. stronger bars that grow faster, develop strong spiral structure and outer rings earlier. By the end of the 3 periods of bar growth, our strongest bar (simulation 24, $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.16$) has pseudorings that have almost fully closed to form an R1R2 ring. \[eps1.eps\] ](eps1.eps){width="3.3in"}
We now consider the structure at later times as a function of bar strength. Figure \[eps3.eps\] shows the last bar period of each of the same six simulations, simulations 1 and 20-24. The bar strength, $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$, increases by 0.02 in each successive simulation. In the first and second frames we see a very strong concentration of particles in the R1 ring. By the last frame in the second row, however, the R1 ring is almost completely gone. Thus, though the increased bar strength accelerates ring formation at early times, we find that the R1 outer ring dissolves at later times when the bar strength is high, just as it does in Figure \[mon9beven.eps\] when the pattern speed is increasing after bar growth.
![ The last frame of the simulations in which the strength of the bar, $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$, is varied. Each frame shows the density distribution at a time 25 bar periods after the start of the simulation. This figure shows the same simulations as Figure \[eps1.eps\]. From right to left the top row shows simulation 20 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.06$, simulation 21 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.08$ and simulation 1 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$. The bottom row shows simulation 22 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.12$, simulation 23 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.14$ and simulation 24 with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.16$. We find that R1 rings dissolve at later times when the bar strength $|\epsilon| > 0.15$. \[eps3.eps\]](eps3.eps){width="3.3in"}
The concentrations of particles above and below the bar that are evident in Figure \[mon46beven.eps\] and in the weaker bars shown at later times in Figure \[eps3.eps\] are the L4 and L5 Lagrange points and so are corotating with the bar. Small changes in the orbits circulating around these points would cause the particles to circle the bar rather than remain confined to the vicinity of the L4 or L5 point corotating with the bar (e.g., @cont06). Small variations in pattern speed during or after bar growth (e.g., see Figures \[domegab.eps\] and \[mon21beven.eps\]) and stronger bars (e.g., Figure \[eps3.eps\]) reduce the number of particles near these points. We note that stars and gas are not commonly seen in galaxies at these points, suggesting that weak bars with unchanging pattern speeds and strengths do not persist in galaxies.
Morphology sensitivity to slow variations in bar strength after bar growth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now consider variations in bar strength after bar growth. In simulations 25-29, we allow the bar strength to grow linearly with time after $t=t_{grow}$. Figure \[mon26beven.eps\] shows simulation 26 with increasing bar strength. The bar strength at the end of bar growth is $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$. It then continues to increase in strength at a slower rate with $d|\epsilon|/dt=0.0004$. The bar strength increases by 3.1% each rotation period reaching a final value of $|\epsilon| = 0.17$. As was true for the strong bar shown in Figure \[mon38beven.eps\], the R1 ring weakens as the simulation progresses.
Figure \[depsdt2b.eps\] shows the last frame of simulation 1 and 25-29 that have different rates of change in the bar strength following bar growth. We find that by the twenty-fifth bar period, the density distributions of these simulations exhibit the same loss of the R1 ring as the simulations in which we increased the value of the bar strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$.
We can conclude that an increase in bar strength dissolves the R1 ring. We lose the R1 ring if the bar becomes 60% stronger ($|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.16$ as opposed to $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.10$) or if the bar strength increases by $\sim 140\%$ compared to its initial value. It does not appear to matter whether this increase in bar strength occurs during bar growth or more slowly after bar growth is completed; we find that the R1 ring dissolves in both cases. Thus, the R1 ring dissolves for bars with higher strengths.
![ Simulation 26 showing a bar with strength increasing after bar growth, $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0004$. Each frame is separated by one full initial bar rotation period. As was true for the strong bar shown in Figure \[mon38beven.eps\], increasing bar strength causes the R1 ring to weaken and dissolve. \[mon26beven.eps\] ](mon26beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ The last frame of each of the simulations in bar strength is increasing after $t=t_{grow}$. Each frame shows the density distribution at a time 25 bar periods after the start of the simulation. From right to left the top row shows simulation 1 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=0.0$, simulation 25 with $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0002$ and simulation 26 with $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0004$. The bottom row shows simulation 27 with $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0006$, simulation 28 with $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0008$ and simulation 29 with $d|\epsilon|/dt= 0.0010$. We see the same loss of the R1 ring as that in Figure \[eps3.eps\] (showing the morphology at later times as a function of bar strength) suggesting that bars with $|\epsilon| \gtrsim 0.16$ cannot maintain stable R1 rings. \[depsdt2b.eps\] ](depsdt2b.eps){width="3.3in"}
We now consider simulations 30-34 in which the bar strength decreases after bar growth. Figure \[mon52beven.eps\] shows simulation 32 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0003$, while Figure \[depsdt2c.eps\] shows the last frame of simulations 1 and 30-34.
In Figure \[mon52beven.eps\] showing a bar that decreases in strength after growth, we see the strong open spiral structure during and immediately following bar growth displayed by many of our simulations. The R2 ring is misaligned with the bar for $\sim 5$ bar periods after bar growth. After the R1 and R2 rings form, they begin to lose their respective alignments (perpendicular and parallel) with the bar in favor of more circular orientations. As shown in Figure \[depsdt2c.eps\], we find that the outer rings become circular at later times when the bar strength is decreased after bar growth. The simulations with the weakest bars at the end of the simulation leave behind two circular rings. NGC 2273 an unusual double-outer ring galaxy [@buta96], may be an example of a bar that has weakened.
![ Simulation 32 showing a bar with decreasing strength, $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0003$. The bar strength decreases linearly with time after bar growth is complete. Each frame is separated by one full initial bar period. The R1 and R2 rings become more circular as the bar weakens. \[mon52beven.eps\] ](mon52beven.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ The last frame of each of the simulations in which the bar is decreasing in strength after growth. Each frame shows the density distribution at a time 25 bar periods after the start of the simulation. From left to right the top row shows simulation 1 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=0.0$, simulation 30 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0001$ and simulation 31 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0002$. The bottom row shows simulation 32 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0003$, simulation 33 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0004$ and simulation 34 with $d|\epsilon|/dt=-0.0005$. As the bar becomes weaker the rings separate and become more circular. Two circular rings are left at the end of the simulations that have the weakest bars at the end of the simulation. NGC 2273 with an unusual double outer ring [@buta96] may be an example of a galaxy with a bar that has weakened. \[depsdt2c.eps\] ](depsdt2c.eps){width="3.3in"}
Morphology sensitivity to the ratio of bar length to corotation radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we explore the effect of altering the ratio of bar length to corotation radius. @rau08 finds that late galaxies have smaller ratios of bar length to corotation ratios, $R$, and weaker bars. @ath92 and @rau08 find that $R=0.7-0.9$ for most galaxies. Previously we have only investigated simulations with an initial bar pattern speed of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$, a corotation radius of $r_{CR}=1.25$, and a ratio of bar length to corotation radius of $R=0.8$. Figure \[mon1ceven.eps\] shows simulation 35 with an initial bar pattern speed of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.7$. The ratio of corotation radius to bar length here is $r_{CR}=1.43$ and the ratio of bar length to corotation radius is $R=0.7$. Figure \[mon3ceven.eps\] shows simulation 36 with an initial bar patter speed of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.9$, and $R=0.9$. Both of these figures may be compared with simulation 1 shown in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\], for which $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$, $r_{CR}=1.25$ and $R=0.8$. In Figure \[mon1ceven.eps\] we note that the spiral-like structure at the end of bar growth is not as strong here as it is in Figures \[mon2beven.eps\] and \[mon3ceven.eps\]. As was true for the simulations with decreasing bar pattern speed following bar growth (see Figure \[domdtgr2.eps\]), transient spiral structure during bar growth is weaker at slower pattern speeds. R1 and R2 rings are present 1 to 2 periods later than in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] and 2 to 3 periods later than in Figure \[mon3ceven.eps\]. Azimuthal variations in density in the rings and shifts in the R2 ring orientation are present for up to 6 bar periods following bar growth, whereas they are present for only 5 periods in Figure \[mon2beven.eps\]. In Figure \[mon3ceven.eps\] these variations are only present up to the 4$^{th}$ bar period following bar growth, and the R2 ring is oriented parallel to the bar at this point. The timescale for R2 orientation changes is likely to depend on the libration timescale in the OLR. When the pattern speed is decreased with respect to the bar length, the OLR is further from the end of the bar and so is likely to have a longer libration timescale accounting for the increase in the length of time of R2 ring misalignment seen in simulation 35 (shown in Figure \[mon1ceven.eps\]).
The rings of Figure \[mon1ceven.eps\] have noticeably larger radii than the rings of Figure \[mon3ceven.eps\]. The radii of the rings shrinks as the corotation radius and the radii of the Lindblad resonances is decreased. Finally, there is a large concentration of particles in the L4 and L5 Lagrange points in Figure \[mon1ceven.eps\], while Figure \[mon2beven.eps\] shows only a small concentration of particles corotating with the bar at the L4 and L5 points. Figure \[mon3ceven.eps\] shows no such concentrations in the Lagrange points. As mentioned previously, an increase in pattern speed and variations in bar strength will reduce the number of particles that are confined to these points.
![ Simulation 35 with a slower initial pattern speed of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.7$. The ratio of bar length to corotation radius is $R=0.7$. Frames are separated by one full initial bar rotation period. A smaller ratio of bar length to corotation radius results in weaker spiral structure during bar growth. The R2 ring takes longer to become aligned with the bar, and the radii of the rings is larger as the resonances have moved outward. \[mon1ceven.eps\] ](mon1ceven.eps){width="3.3in"}
![ Simulation 36 with an initial pattern speed of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.9$ and $R=0.9$. Frames are separated by one full initial bar rotation period. We see stronger spiral structure during bar growth, and the R1 and R2 rings form and align (perpendicular and parallel, respectively) with the bar earlier than in simulations with slower pattern speeds. The resonances have moved inward, creating rings with smaller radii. \[mon3ceven.eps\] ](mon3ceven.eps){width="3.3in"}
Comparison to ring galaxy morphology
====================================
Sample
------
Following the lead of @rau08 we compare our simulations to B-band galactic images from OSUBSGS. We initially considered all galaxies in the OSUBSGS that are classified as ring galaxies, however we then restricted our choices of galaxies to those that have clearly visible outer rings in the B band images and with inclinations below $60^\circ$, so that they could be compared to the morphology of our simulations. We also restricted our comparison galaxies to early type barred spiral galaxies as they contain less gas and dust compared to later type galaxies and so would be more appropriately compared to our collisionless dissipationless simulations. We include two additional galaxies, NGC 4314 and NGC 4548, that are not classified as ring galaxies, but have strong bars and display R1’ type ring morphology. Our sample of comparison objects consists of 9 spiral galaxies with morphological classifications ranging from SB0/a to SBbc. These classifications are based on those put forth by @vau76. One of the galaxies is weakly barred, NGC 4457, with maximum $Q_T \sim 0.1$ [@laurikainen04]. The galaxies that we compare to our simulations are listed in Table \[tab:tab3\] with Hubble type, inclination with respect to the line of sight, distance, H band magnitude from the 2MASS extended source catalog, estimated circular velocity, bar length, strength and estimated bar rotation periods. Bar lengths and strengths ($Q_T$) are taken from the measurements by @laurikainen04. Distances in Mpc from the HyperLeda database [@hyperleda03] calculated using velocities corrected for infall of the Local Group towards Virgo and a Hubble constant $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc $^{-1}$. Inclinations are those from the HyperLeda database [@hyperleda03]. The circular velocity is estimated from the H band magnitude and the luminosity line width relation by @piercetully92.
For each galaxy in our comparison sample we ran simulations with bar strengths that matched those measured by @laurikainen04. When comparing galaxies to our simulations, we focus on the location, orientation and morphology of the spiral arms and outer rings. We searched through our bank of simulations for images that best resembled the outer ring galaxy morphology. Galaxy images have been corrected for inclination and rotated so that the bar lies horizontal in our figures. In some cases the galaxy images have been flipped so that the galaxy is rotating counter clockwise and so is in the same direction as our simulations.
We first compare galaxies with strong R1’ pseudoring morphology to morphology displayed by our simulations during bar growth. We then focus on galaxies with R1R2 rings. Finally we explore simulations that can account for the weak bar and distant outer ring present in NGC 4457.
Comparison of particle simulations to galaxies exhibiting similar spiral-like structure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[b2picsb.eps\] shows four galaxies, with strong R1’ type pseudorings; NGCs 4548, 7552, 1300, and 4134. To best match their pseudoring morphology, we chose simulations with $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$ and a bar that grows in three bar periods. Each of the galaxy images is compared with the density distribution at a time during or just following bar growth. NGC 4548 and NGC 7552 have the weakest strengths $Q_T = 0.34$ and 0.4 respectively. NGC 4314 and NGC 1300 have stronger bars with $Q_T = 0.44$ and 0.54 respectively. The simulations show stronger spiral structure at late times during bar growth and for stronger bars. Thus we chose a relatively early time (1.5 bar periods since the beginning of the simulation) for the simulation matching NGC 4548 which has weaker spiral structure and later times for the other galaxies ($t=2P_{b,0}$, 2.5$P_{b,0}$ and 4$P_{b,0}$ for NGC 7552, NGC 1300 and NGC 4314, respectively). NGC 1300 has the strongest spiral structure but also has the strongest bar. A later time in the simulation is required to match the NGC 1300’s longer spiral arms. NGC 4314’s spiral structure is not as narrow as for the other galaxies. We find a better match of morphologies between NGC 4314 and our simulation when we increase the initial velocity dispersion of our simulation from 0.04 to 0.07. The outer disk of NGC 4314 is devoid of star formation suggesting that an initial velocity dispersion typical of a stellar disk rather than a gaseous one should be used. The increase in velocity dispersion decreases the strength of the arms displayed by the simulation, requiring a later time to match the observed morphology.
![ We compare the pseudorings of four galaxies with the structure created during bar growth in our simulations. From top to bottom, Row 1 shows NGC 4548 with $Q_T=0.34$, Row 2 NGC 7552 with $Q_T=0.4$, Row 3 NGC 1300 with $Q_T=0.54$, and Row 4 shows NGC 4314 with $Q_T=0.44$. Galaxy images are on the left and simulations on the right. Galaxy images have been corrected for inclination and rotated so that the bar lies horizontal. In some galaxies the galaxy image has been inverted so that the galaxy is viewed rotating counter clockwise. The simulation for NGC 4548 is shown at $t=1.5P_{b,0}$, (for $P_{b,0}$ initial bar rotation periods) from the beginning of the simulation. That for 7552 is shown at $t=2P_{b,0}$, that for NGC 1300 at $t=2.5P_{b,0}$ and that for NGC 4314 at 4$P_{b,0}$. The simulation for NGCs 4548, 7552 and 1300 are shown during bar growth, and that for NGC 4314 1 period after bar growth. The initial orbits for the NGC 4314 simulation had twice the velocity dispersion of the other simulations. \[b2picsb.eps\] ](b2picsb.eps){width="3.3in"}
We find that our simulations display reasonable matches to observed R1’ ring morphology near the end of bar growth when strong spiral pseudorings are displayed by our simulations. It is likely that these galaxies have experienced recent bar growth. These bars could still be growing. We note that R1’ pseudoring structure is displayed for a longer timescale (up to a few bar rotation periods following bar growth) by SPH and sticky particle simulations [@byrd94; @ann00]. This comparison suggests that our dissipationless simulations could underestimate the longevity of R1’ structure.
R1R2 rings
----------
We now compare our simulations to galaxies that display R1R2 morphology which is exhibited by our simulations following bar growth. We begin by comparing our simulations to two galaxies that exhibit R1R2’ morphology. Depending on the strength of the bar, the R2 ring can remain misaligned with the bar for up to $\sim 10$ bar periods following growth. Figure \[b2var.eps\] shows R1R2’ galaxies that exhibit structure similar to that in our simulations that is evident before the R2 ring aligns with the bar. From top to bottom Figure \[b2var.eps\] shows NGC 5701, and NGC 5101.
Figure \[stbar.eps\] compares NGC 6782 and NGC 3504 with density distributions showing simulations that have stabilized and exhibit R1R2 morphology.
NGC 5701 is a fairly weak bar with $Q_T=0.14$ that shows a strong R1 ring but a weaker R2 ring. NGC 5701 is compared to a simulation one period after bar growth has completed. At this time the spiral arms generated during bar growth are beginning to close and will soon form both R1 and R2 rings. As NGC 5701 has a weaker bar it may take longer for R1 and R2 rings to form and become aligned perpendicular and parallel with the bar, respectively.
NGC 5101 is somewhat stronger with $Q_T=0.19$, and displays both R1 and R2 rings. It is compared to a simulation 7.5 periods following bar growth. The R2 ring at this time is misaligned with the bar similar to the misalignment in the galaxy. The galaxy displays a more elliptical ring than that of our simulation. A number of factors could account for this discrepancy. The bar could be slowing down and causing increased epicyclic motion in the R2 ring due to resonance capture. We may not have corrected for inclination correctly, or the rotation curve could be dropping in this region, causing the OLR to be stronger than we have considered here with a flat rotation curve.
The simulations we have chosen to match the galaxies with R1R2 morphology have bars with fixed pattern speeds. Reasonable matches between observed and simulated morphology are found a few periods following bar growth during which time our simulations contain both R1 and R2 rings but still exhibit asymmetries in the R2 ring. Based on the exploration in section 2.2 we can conclude that the bars in these galaxies are unlikely to have increased in pattern speed as this would have destroyed the R1 ring. Moderate decreases in bar pattern speed could have occurred.
![ The top row shows NGC 5701, $Q_T=0.14$, compared with the 4$^{th}$ period of a simulation with a bar of strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.07$ 1 period after bar formation. The bottom row shows NGC 5101, $Q_T=0.19$, compared with the density distribution of a simulation with a bar of strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.095$ 7.5 periods after bar formation. The ring structure of these galaxies is similar to the broken or misaligned rings shown in our simulations a few rotation periods following bar growth. \[b2var.eps\] ](b2var.eps){width="3.3in"}
We now compare our simulations to two galaxies that exhibit R1R2 morphology. In Figure \[stbar.eps\] NGC 6782 and NGC 3504 are both compared to the eleventh frame of simulations with bars of strengths $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.085$ and 0.145, respectively. Both simulations are shown 2 periods after bar growth.
NGC 6782 is an (R’)SB(r)0/a galaxy with an inclination of 56.0$^\circ$ and $Q_T=0.17$. Because of the weaker bar, the R2 ring in NGC 6782’s comparison simulation remains misaligned with the bar for $\sim 6$ bar periods following bar growth. The spiral-like structure evident during bar growth does not close to form R1 and R2 rings until 2 periods after bar growth, in the frame shown in Figure \[stbar.eps\]. There is a reasonable match between the R1 structure of NGC 6782 and that exhibited by our simulation.
NGC 3504 is classified as an (R)SAB(s)ab galaxy with an inclination of 53.4$^\circ$ and $Q_T=0.29$. NGC 3504 has a much stronger bar than NGC 6782. R1 and R2 rings are evident only 1 period after bar growth, and the R2 ring is aligned with the bar within 4 bar rotation periods following bar growth. As with NGC 4314 in Figure \[b2var.eps\], the strong bar leads to a weakening of the R1 ring.
![ We compare NGC 6782 and NGC 3504 to density distributions of simulations 2 periods after bar growth. The top row compares NGC 6782, $Q_T=0.17$, to a simulation with a bar of strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.085$. The bottom row shows NGC 3504, $Q_T=0.29$, compared to a simulation with $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|=0.145$. The bars of these galaxies may be responsible for the R1 structure visible in these images. The galaxies’ R2 rings may be present but not visible in the B-band. \[stbar.eps\] ](stbar.eps){width="3.3in"}
Sticky particles simulations by @schwarz84 displayed R1 or R2 morphology depending on the initial gas distribution. Either dissipation is required to exhibit R1 morphology only, or the initial stellar and gas distribution is different for the galaxies showing longer lived R1 morphology.
Dissolving the R1 ring and NGC 4457
-----------------------------------
We found in section 2.2 that the R1 ring dissolves when the bar pattern speed increases by more than $\sim 8\%$ after bar growth. We see the same loss of the R1 ring if the bar has strength $|\epsilon_{tgrow}| > 1.5$ or if the bar strength increases by $\gtrsim 140\%$ after bar growth. In either case, the R1 ring is destroyed leaving a nearly circular R2 ring.
NGC 4457, an (r)SAB(s)0/a galaxy, appears to be lacking an R1 ring. According to @laurikainen04 NGC 4457’s bar has $Q_T=0.09$, which corresponds to a very weak bar. It is therefore unlikely that loss of the R1 ring is due to the strength of the bar, as we find that strong bars dissolve the R1 ring and weakening bars can leave behind a double ring. It is possible, however, that the lack of an R1 ring is the result of a bar that has increased in pattern speed. For this reason, in Figure \[mon4457.eps\] we compare NGC 4457 with the last frame ($t=25P_{b,0}$) of simulation 5, which has a bar that is speeding up after bar growth, $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0004$. NGC 4457’s outer rings are very faint in the B-band image, yet it does appear that the outer ring is circular and no R1 ring is evident. It is possible that the pattern speed of this galaxy’s bar has increased since the bar finished growing, thereby destroying any R1 ring that would have formed shortly after bar growth.
![ NGC 4457 compared to the 25$^{th}$ frame of simulation 5, which has a bar with increasing pattern speed; $d\Omega_b/dt=0.0004$. Both the galaxy and the simulation lack an R1 outer ring but do maintain a nearly circular outer ring. \[mon4457.eps\] ](mon4457.eps){width="3.3in"}
Discussion and Summary
======================
We have presented integrations of collisionless massless particles perturbed by growing and secularly evolving bar perturbations. We find that collisionless simulations can exhibit double ringed R1 and R2 outer ring morphology with rings both perpendicular (R1) and parallel (R2) to the bar. In the last period of bar growth, strong open spiral structure is exhibited resembling an R1’ pseudoring. For 2-3 periods following bar growth R1 and R2 rings are seen with the R2 ring changing in orientation and azimuthal density contrast. Thus R1R2’ pseudoring morphology is displayed within a few bar periods following bar growth. Our simulations start with particles in nearly circular orbits with velocity dispersions equivalent to 7 km/s for a 200 km/s rotation curve. This suggests sticky particle simulations have been successful in exhibiting R1R2 ring morphology because the velocity dispersion of orbits is damped and so particles are in initially nearly circular orbits.
In our collisionless simulations we find that the outer rings with major axis perpendicular (R1) to the bar are fragile. If the bar pattern speed increases more than 8% after bar growth, or if the bar strength is higher than or increases past $|\epsilon| \gtrsim 0.16$ or $Q_T \gtrsim 0.32$ the R1 outer ring will dissolve after $\sim 20$ twenty bar periods. The simulations are then nearly mirror symmetric and do not display asymmetries typical of pseudorings.
Stronger bars can form R1’ pseudorings earlier. However if the bar strength $|\epsilon| \gtrsim 0.16$ or $Q_T \gtrsim 0.32$ the R1 ring will dissolve after $\sim 20$ bar rotation periods. If the bar strength increases to this value subsequent to formation, the R1 ring also dissolves.
We find that a decrease in the bar pattern speed after bar growth causes particles to be captured in orbits parallel to the bar which are increased in epicyclic amplitude as the bar slows down. Strong R1 and elongated R2 rings persist in these simulations. Misalignments between the R2 ring and the bar also persist so the galaxy can exhibit R1R2’ pseudoring morphology for a longer period of time. If the bar pattern speed slows down more than $\sim 3.5\%$ the R2 ring develops a scallop above and below the bar. As these are not observed in galaxies, bars probably do not slow down more than $\sim 3.5\%$ without also varying in strength.
@sandage94 find that early type barred galaxies often have semi-detached outer rings (e.g, NGC 1543, @buta96 and NGC 4457). These galaxies may contain bars that have increased in pattern speed or were once strong and so destroyed their R1 ring. If the bar weakens the R1 and R2 rings can be left behind as two nearly circular rings, similar to those observed in the unusual double outer ringed galaxy NGC 2273.
We find that the morphology of our simulations resembles that of R1’ ringed galaxies if the simulation time is chosen during or just after bar formation. We find we can match pseudoring morphology with simulations that have bar strengths estimated from the bar shapes. Stronger and longer spiral arms are seen later in the simulation and in more strongly barred systems. The constraint on simulation timescale suggests that R1’ ring morphology is a signpost of recent bar formation. We note that sticky particle and SPH simulations exhibit R1 pseudoring morphology a few bar rotation periods longer than ours suggesting that the dissipationless simulations explored here underestimate the longevity of these features.
We find that galaxies with R1R2’ morphology are well matched by simulations a few bar rotation periods following bar growth. As R1 rings are fragile, we infer that these galaxies have had stable bars that have not experienced large changes in either pattern speed or strength.
The exploration of parameter space in the collisionless dissipationless limit done here can be used by future work to differentiate between phenomena that would be exhibited by collisionless models and that that is a result of dissipation. A better understanding of the role of dissipation in affecting outer ring morphology should allow observationally based constraints on the secular evolution of bars.
Only 10-20% of early type galaxies exhibit outer rings with pseudorings being more prevalent in later type galaxies [@buta96]. Not all but most galaxies classified with outer rings are barred suggesting that only 15-40% of barred galaxies exhibit outer rings. Here we have found that R1’ and R1R2’ galaxies are likely to represent different times since bar formation with R1’ galaxies representing an earlier timescale during or just after bar formation and R1R2 morphology representing galaxies with stable bars a few bar rotation periods following bar formation. Galaxies in these two transient categories probably comprise a significant fraction of all outer ring galaxies. This suggests that most outer ring galaxies represent morphology that is only present for a few bar rotation periods. It is interesting to ask what timescales these morphologies correspond to. Bar rotation periods for the ringed galaxies in our sample range from $\sim 100-200$ Myr (see \[tab:tab3\]). The R1’ classification, may only last a few bar rotations or 1/2 Gyr and the R1R2’ classification only $\sim$ 1 Gyr. Both of these timescales are short compared to the lifetime of a galaxy. Ringed galaxies lacking R1 rings may be longer lived but may provide evidence for bar evolution. It is likely that only a low fraction of barred galaxies might be considered systems that are not evolving secularly or have not formed in the last Gyr.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Eija Laurikainen for helpful correspondence. This work made use of data from the Ohio State University Bright Spiral Galaxy Survey, which was funded by grants AST-9217716 and AST-9617006 from the United States National Science Foundation, with additional support from the Ohio State University. This project was supported in part by NSF award PHY-0552695. We acknowledge the usage of the HyperLeda database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr). 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.
Ann, H. B., & Lee, H. M. 2000, JKAS, 33, 1
Athanassoula E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345
Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179
Bissantz, N., Englmaier, P., & Gerhard, O. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 949
Bournaud, F., & Combes, F. 2002, A&A, 392, 83
Buta, R., & Combes, F. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Physics, 17, 95
Byrd, G., Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Crocker, D. A. 1994, AJ, 108, 476
Combes, F., & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164
Combes, F., & Gerin, M. 1985, A&A, 150, 327
Contopoulos, G. & Grosbol, P. 1989, Astr. Astrophys. Rev., 1, 261.
Contopoulos, G. & Patsis, P. A. 2006, MNRAS< 369, 1054
Das, M., Teuben, P. J., Vogel, S. N., Regan, M. W., Sheth, K., Harris, A. I., & Jefferys, W. H. 2003, ApJ, 582, 190
Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 493, L5
Dehnen, W. 2000, AJ, 119, 800
de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., & Corwin, H. G., 1976, Second Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies, University of Texas Press, Austin London
de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin H. G., Jr, Buta R., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies. Springer-Verlag, New York
Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., Quillen, A. C., Berlind, A. A., Davies, R. L., DePoy, D. L., Gilbert, K. M., Houdashelt, M. L., Kuchinski, L. E., Ramírez S. V., Sellgren, K., Stutx, A., Terndrup, D. M., Tiede, G. P., 2002, ApJS, 143, 73
Gadotti, D. A., & de Souza, R. E. 2006, ApJS, 163, 270
Hunter, J. H., Jr., England, M. N., Gottesman, S. T., Ball, R., & Huntley, J. M. 1988, ApJ, 324, 721
Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S., Skrutskie, M., Huchra, J. P. 2000, AJ, 119, 298
Kalnajs, A. J. 1991, in Dynamics of Disc Galaxies, ed. B. Sundelis, Göteborg, Sweden, p. 323
Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Vasylyev, S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1251
Lindblad, P. A. B., Lindblad, P. O., & Athanassoula, E. 1996, A&A, 313, 65
Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2006, ApJ, 637, 214
Minchev, I., Nordhaus, J., & Quillen, A. C. 2007, ApJ, 664, L31
Paturel, G., Petit, C., Prugniel, P., Theureau, G., Rousseau, J., Brouty, M., Dubois, P., & Cambr[é]{}sy, L. 2003, A&A, 412, 45
Pierce, M. J. & Tully, R. B. 1992, ApJ, 387, 47
Quillen, A. C. 2003, AJ, 125, 785
Quillen, A C., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1367
Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2008, MNRAS, in press, arXiv0806.0471
Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., & Buta, R. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 933
Rautiainen, P., & Salo, H. 2000, A&A, 362, 465
Romero-Gomez, M., Masdemont, J. J., Athanassoula, E., & Garcia-Gomez, C. 2006, AA, 453, 39
Salo, H., Rautiainen, P., Buta, R., Purcell, G. B., Cobb, M. L., Crocker, D. A., & Laurikainen, E. 1999, AJ, 117, 792
Sandage, A. and Bedke, J. 1994, The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies, Carnegie Inst. of Wash. Publ. No. 638
Schwarz, M. P. 1981, ApJ, 247, 77
Schwarz, M. P. 1984, Proc. Astr. Soc. Australia, 5, 464
Sellwood, J. A., & Debattista, V. P. 2006, ApJ, 639, 868
Voglis, N., Harsoula, M., & Contopoulos, G. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 757
Parameter Value Comments
--- ---------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
1 $\gamma$ 0.0 Sets the slope of the rotation curve
2 $t_{grow} $ 3 Bar growth time in bar rotation periods
3 $\Omega_{b,0}$ 0.8 Initial bar pattern speed
4 $r_{b,0}$ 1.0 Initial bar length
5 $r_{CR}$ 1.25 Radius of corotation
6 $R$ 0.8 Ratio of bar length to corotation radius
7 $\sigma$ 0.036 Initial velocity dispersion in units of the circular velocity
[\
With the exception of simulations 35 and 36, these parameters are not altered from simulation to simulation. Length scales are given in units of the initial bar length. Angular rotation rates are given in units of that at $r_{b,0}$. The initial bar rotation period is $P_{b,0}=2\pi/\Omega_{b,0}$. For simulation 35, $\Omega_{b,0}=0.7$, $r_{CR}=1.43$ and $R=0.7$. For simulation 36, $\Omega_{b,0}=0.9$, $r_{CR}=1.1$ and $R=0.9$. ]{}
-- ------ ---------------- ------- ---------------- -------- ---------------------- ------------------ --------
Sim. $d\Omega_b/dt$ % $d\Omega_g/dt$ % $|\epsilon_{tgrow}|$ $d|\epsilon|/dt$ %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
2 0.0001 2.16 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
3 0.0002 4.32 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
4 0.0003 6.48 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
5 0.0004 8.64 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
6 0.0005 10.80 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
7 -0.0001 -2.16 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
8 -0.00015 -3.24 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
9 -0.0002 -4.32 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
10 -0.00025 -5.40 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
11 -0.0003 -6.48 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
12 0.0 0.0 0.005 14.73 0.10 0.0 0.0
13 0.0 0.0 0.01 29.45 0.10 0.0 0.0
14 0.0 0.0 0.015 44.18 0.10 0.0 0.0
15 0.0 0.0 0.02 58.90 0.10 0.0 0.0
16 0.0 0.0 -0.0025 -7.36 0.10 0.0 0.0
17 0.0 0.0 -0.005 -14.73 0.10 0.0 0.0
18 0.0 0.0 -0.0075 -22.09 0.10 0.0 0.0
19 0.0 0.0 -0.01 -29.45 0.10 0.0 0.0
20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0
21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.0
22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.0 0.0
23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.0 0.0
24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.16 0.0 0.0
25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0002 34.56
26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0004 69.12
27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0006 103.7
28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0008 138.2
29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0010 172.8
30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 -0.0001 -17.28
31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 -0.0002 -34.56
32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 -0.0003 -51.84
33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 -0.0004 -69.12
34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 -0.0005 -86.39
35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0
-- ------ ---------------- ------- ---------------- -------- ---------------------- ------------------ --------
[\
Length-scales are given in units of the initial bar length. Velocities are given in units of the circular velocity at the initial bar end. Time is given in units such that the period of rotation is $2 \pi$ at $r_{b,0}$. Angular rotation rates are in units of that at $r_{b,0}$. The initial bar period $P_{b,0}=2\pi/\Omega_{b,0}$. Bar strength is given in units of the square of the circular velocity at $r_{b,0}$. By Column Col. (1): Simulation. Col. (2): $d\Omega_b/dt$ is the rate of bar pattern speed change after bar growth. Col. (3): The percent by which the bar pattern speed has changed by $t=25 P_{b,0}$, after twenty-five bar rotation periods. Col. (4): $d\Omega_g/dt$ is the rate of bar pattern speed change during bar growth. Col. (5): The percent by which the bar pattern speed has changed by the end of bar growth. Col. (6): $\epsilon_{tgrow}$ is the bar strength at the end of bar growth or at time $t=t_{grow}$. Col. (7): $d\epsilon/dt$ is the bar strength rate of change after $t_{grow}$. Col. (8): The percent by which the bar strength changes by $t=25 P_{b,0}$. Note: Simulations 35 and 36 have initial bar pattern speeds of $\Omega_{b,0}=0.7$ and 0.9, respectively, whereas all other simulations have $\Omega_{b,0}=0.8$ (see Table \[tab:tab1\]). ]{}
---------- -------------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Type $i$ $Q_T$ $D$ $m_H$ $M_H$ $v_c$ $r_b$ $P_b$
Mpc mag mag km/s kpc Myr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NGC 1300 (R’)SB(s)bc 49.3 0.54 20.1 7.770 -23.7 258.6 8.5 206.7
NGC 3504 (R)SAB(s)ab 53.4 0.29 23.9 8.609 -23.3 234.7 7.0 187.6
NGC 4314 SB(rs)a 16.2 0.44 16.4 7.725 -23.3 234.7 6.0 160.7
NGC 4457 (R)SAB(s)0/a 34.6 0.09 13.4 8.015 -22.6 198.1 2.9 92.0
NGC 4548 SB(rs)b 37.0 0.34 8.5 7.373 -22.3 184.2 2.8 95.5
NGC 5101 (R)SB(rs)0/a 23.2 0.19 25.2 7.401 -24.6 321.7 8.5 166.2
NGC 5701 (R)SB(rs)0/a 41.3 0.14 22.9 8.358 -23.4 240.5 5.5 143.8
NGC 6782 (R’)SB(r)0/a 56.0 0.17 52.0 9.115 -24.5 314.0 11.7 234.4
NGC 7552 (R’)SB(s)ab 23.6 0.40 20.1 7.840 -23.7 258.6 6.8 165.3
---------- -------------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
[\
By Column Col. (1): Morphological classifications by @vau76, except those for NGC 1300 and NGC 6782, which are by @vau91. Col. (2): Inclinations from the HyperLeda database [@hyperleda03]. Col. (3): Maximum gravitational bar torque per unit mass per unit square of the circular speed measured by @laurikainen04. Col. (4): Distances in Mpc from the HyperLeda database [@hyperleda03] calculated using velocities corrected for infall of the Local Group towards Virgo and a Hubble constant $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc $^{-1}$. Col. (5): Total integrated flux magnitudes in H band from the 2MASS extended source catalog [@jarrett00]. Col. (6): Absolute magnitudes in the H band. Col. (7): Circular velocities estimated from the H-band magnitude using the luminosity line widths relation by @piercetully92. Col. (8): Bar lengths measured by @laurikainen04. In their paper @laurikainen04 define the bar length to be the radius of the bar region at which the phases of the $m=2$ and $m=4$ density amplitudes are constant. Col. (9): Periods of bar rotation calculated using the angular frequencies defined by $\Omega=v_c/r_b$. ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a system composed of a quantum dot in contact with ferromagnetic leads, held at different temperatures. Spin analogues to the thermopower and thermoelectric figures of merit are defined and studied as a function of junction parameters. It is shown that in contrast to bulk ferromagnets, the spin thermopower coefficient in a junction can be as large as the Seebeck coefficient, resulting in a large spin figure of merit. In addition, it is demonstrated that the junction can be tuned to supply only spin current but no charge current. We also discuss experimental systems where our predictions can be verified.'
author:
- Yonatan Dubi and Massimiliano Di Ventra
title: 'Thermo-spin effects in a quantum dot connected to ferromagnetic leads'
---
[0.truecm *Introduction*. – ]{} Thermoelectricity - the relation between a temperature bias and a voltage bias - is a very old problem of solid-state physics. It has gained renewed interest in recent years [@Mahan; @Majumdar; @book] due to the prospect of utilizing nanostructures to develop high efficiency thermoelectric converters [@Hochbaum; @Boukai]. Theoretical models have been put forward for the thermoelectric transport through quantum point contacts, [@QPCtheory; @ourwork] quantum dots,[@QDtheory; @Krawiec; @Subroto], molecular junctions [@MolJuncTHeory] and other strongly correlated nanostructures [@Freericks].
Recently, Uchida [@Uchida] have measured the spin equivalent of the charge Seebeck coefficient, namely the *spin* Seebeck effect, in which a temperature difference between the edges of a bulk ferromagnetic (FM) slab induces a spin-voltage difference and generates spin current. These authors have suggested using this effect to construct a spin-current source for spintronic devices [@spintronics]. However, the spin-Seebeck coefficient in this experiment was measured to be four orders of magnitude smaller than the charge Seebeck coefficient. In addition, the temperature difference unavoidably generates also a regular voltage bias across the sample, which may preclude easy applicability in spintronic devices.
Here we study the [*thermo-spin effect*]{}, i.e., the spin-analogue to the Seebeck effect in a nanojunction composed of a quantum dot (either a molecule or a semi-conductor quantum dot structure) placed between two FM leads. The charge transport properties of such systems have been studied both theoretically [@FQDFtheory] and experimentally [@FQDFexp1; @FQDFexp2]. We define the spin analogues of the thermo-electric coefficients, and show that in this particular case the spin- and charge-Seebeck coefficients are of the same order of magnitude. We also calculate the thermo-spin figure-of-merit (FOM), and show it to be relatively large, indicating high heat-to-spin-voltage conversion efficiency. Finally, it is demonstrated that the system parameters can be tuned such that a large spin-current can be generated without any charge current, thus making this system ideal for spintronic applications.
[0.truecm *Definitions of spin-thermal coefficients*. – ]{} Consider a system composed of some structure (for instance a quantum dot) placed between two FM leads, which we assume have the same magnetization alignment. The system is held at a temperature $T_\L=T_\R=T$. In linear response, the thermo-electric Seebeck coefficient is defined as minus the ratio between the voltage bias $\del V$ and the applied temperature bias $\del T$ that generates it (in the absence of charge current). In a spin system out of equilibrium one can define a spin-voltage bias as $\del V_s=\D\mu_\R-\D \mu_\L$, where $\D
\mu_\nu=\mu_{\nu \uparrow}-\mu_{\nu \downarrow}$, with $\mu_{s\nu}$ the electro-chemical potential of the spin-$s$ on either right or left of the the quantum dot. We expect this bias to be essentially zero when measured in the bulk of the FMs, but it may acquire a finite (albeit possibly small) value in proximity to the quantum dot.
To derive the spin-Seebeck coefficient, we consider a system in which there is both an infinitesimal temperature bias and spin-voltage bias. The charge and spin currents are defined as $I=I_\uparrow+I_\downarrow, ~I_s=I_\uparrow-I_\downarrow$, respectively (note that they have the same dimensions). In linear response, the spin-current is given by $ I_s=G_s\del V_s+L_{T} \del T~~$where the response coefficient $L_T$ is related to the fact that a temperature gradient can induce both a spin flow and energy flow [@book; @rem1]. Setting $I_s=0$, we find the spin-Seebeck coefficient S\_s=-= .\[Ss\]Once $S_s$ and $G_s$ are defined, one may define a spin-FOM, $Z_sT=\left|\frac{G_s
S^2_s}{\kappa /T}\right|$, where $\kappa=\kappa_e+\kappa_{ph}$ is the thermal conductance of the system, which has an electron contribution and a phonon contribution. The absolute value is taken because the spin-conductance $G_s$ may be negative. In analogy with charge transport, one expects that a system with $Z_s T> 1$ is a good heat-to-spin-voltage converter[@Mahan]. [0.truecm *Model*. – ]{} The model consists of a quantum dot between two FM leads. The corresponding Hamiltonian of the system is &=&\_[k,=Ł,]{} \_[s=,]{} (\_[ks]{}-\_)\_[ks]{} c\_[ks]{}+ \_[s=,]{}\_s d\^\_s d\_s & &+U + \_[k,=Ł,]{} \_[s=,]{}( \_[ks]{} \_[ks]{}d\_s+) ,\[H\] where $\cdag_{\nu k s}$ creates an electron in the $\nu=\L,\R$ lead with spin $s$ and energy $\e_{ks}$ (the energy depends on spin due to the FM splitting) , $d^\dagger_s$ creates an electron in the dot with spin $s$, $\hat{n}_s=d^\dagger_s d_s$ is the number operator, $U$ is the Coulomb charging energy, $\e_s$ is the energy level in the dot, which is spin dependent due to a field-induced Zeeman splitting, $\Delta B$. The latter may originate from the magnetic field induced by the FM leads or by an external field. It may also arise from the presence of spin-dipoles which are dynamically formed around a nanojunction [@Malshukov; @book]. $\gamma_{\nu k s}$ is the coupling between the leads and the dot. This is the simplest system that exemplifies the physics of this paper but it can also be realized in experiments [@FQDFexp1; @FQDFexp2].
If the temperatures are higher than the Kondo temperature, in the sequential tunneling approximation (i.e. first order in $\gamma_{\nu ks}$) one can describe the system by using rate equations [@Ralph], which describe the populations of the different states in the dot. The dot can be either empty (with probability $P_0$), populated by a spin-up electron ($P_1$), by a spin-down electron ($P_2$) or by two electrons ($P_3$). The corresponding rate equation is
(
[c]{} P\_0\
P\_1\
P\_2\
P\_3\
) =(
[cccc]{} -W\_[0 1]{}-W\_[0 2]{} & W\_[1 0]{} & W\_[2 0]{} & 0\
W\_[0 1]{} & -W\_[13]{}-W\_[1 0]{} & 0 & W\_[3 1]{}\
W\_[0 2]{} & 0 & -W\_[2 3]{}-W\_[2 0]{} & W\_[3 2]{}\
0 & W\_[1 3]{} & W\_[2 3]{} & -W\_[3 1]{}-W\_[3 1]{}
) (
[c]{} P\_0\
P\_1\
P\_2\
P\_3\
) .\[RateEquation\]
The rates $W_{n\to n'}$ describe the probability per unit time to transfer from state $n$ to state $n'$. They are evaluated by noting that the rate for an electron to hop onto (off) the dot is proportional to the probability $p_{\nu s} (\e)$ to find an electron (hole) in the $\nu$-lead with spin $s$ at an energy $\e$. We assume that the coupling between the leads and the dot is energy independent (wide band approximation) and for simplicity assume that the leads are symmetric (it is easy to show that our results, e.g., Eqs. (\[Ss\]) and (\[Ss2\]) do not depend on junction asymmetry). We thus have $p_{\nu s} (\e)=\al_s f_\nu(\e)$, where $f_\nu(\e)$ is the Fermi distribution of lead $\nu$ (with the corresponding temperature and chemical potential). The constant $\al_s$ parameterizes both the dot-lead coupling and the density of states (DOS), the spin dependence coming from both the FM band-shift and the tunneling rate[@Tedrow]. We assume that there is a majority of spin up in the ferromagnets (and that the leads magnetizations are aligned), and define $\gamma=\al_\downarrow /\al_\uparrow$. Thus, $\gamma$ encodes the difference between both the DOS and the tunneling rates of the different spins.
Thus, for example, we have (setting $k_B=\hbar=1, \al_\uparrow=\al$ and $\al_\downarrow=\gamma \al$) W\_[0 1]{} &=& W\_[0 2]{}&=& W\_[1 3]{}&=& W\_[3 2]{}&=& , \[rates\] and similarly for the rest of the transition rates. We assume that phonon-induced spin-relaxation processes in the dot are inhibited due to the presence of FM leads, and are hence slower than the spin transfer time-scale and may be neglected. We set the chemical potentials $\mu_L$ and $\mu_R$ as the zero of energy, and so the dot energies are $\e_{\uparrow,\downarrow}=\e\mp 2 \mu_B\D B$ ($\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton). We will discuss two limiting cases of small and large Zeeman field $\D B$ (in the sense that $2 \mu_B\D B
>>\al$ or $2 \mu_B\D B<< \al$). The dot level $\e$ may be tuned, e.g., by a gate voltage.
The steady-state solution is obtained by equating the right-hand side of Eq. \[RateEquation\] to zero. From this solution, one can determine the charge current, spin current and heat current, using the continuity equation. For the charge and spin currents, one has $\frac{dn}{dt}=I_\R-I_\L$, and $\frac{dm}{dt}=I_{s\R}-I_{s\L}$ where $n$ is the charge on the dot and $m=n_\uparrow-n_\downarrow$ is the magnetization of the dot. Using the rate equation one thus obtains (setting $e=\hbar=1$)
I\_&=&P\_0 (W\_[01]{}\^[()]{}+W\_[02]{}\^[()]{})-P\_1 (W\_[10]{}\^[()]{}-W\_[13]{}\^[()]{})-P\_2 (W\_[20]{}\^[()]{}-W\_[23]{}\^[()]{})-P\_3 (W\_[3 1]{}\^[()]{}+W\_[32]{}\^[()]{}) I\_[s]{}&=&P\_0 (W\_[01]{}\^[()]{}-W\_[02]{}\^[()]{})-P\_1 (W\_[10]{}\^[()]{}+W\_[13]{}\^[()]{})-P\_2 (W\_[20]{}\^[()]{}+W\_[23]{}\^[()]{})-P\_3 (W\_[3 1]{}\^[()]{}-W\_[32]{}\^[()]{}) ,
where $W_{n\to n'}^{(\nu)}$ are scattering rates of transitions between the dot and the $\nu=\L,\R$ lead. Once all the currents are obtained, it is a matter of algebra to obtain the different transport coefficients using the linear response definition of the spin current.
[0.truecm *Results*. – ]{} The procedure described above allows us to obtain analytic expressions for all the currents and thermo-electric/spin coefficients. The first result is that in the limit of $\D B \to 0$, the charge-Seebeck coefficient $S$ is independent of $\gamma$ and is the same as was calculated in Ref. . The spin-Seebeck coefficient $S_s$ is found to be proportional to $S$, S\_s= S .\[Ss\]Thus, for normal leads ($\gamma=1$) we have $S_s=0$, and for perfect FM leads ($\gamma=0$ or $\gamma=\infty$) the spin and charge coefficients are identical (up to a sign). Eq. (\[Ss\]) shows that even for a moderate value of $\gamma=0.3$ we have $S_s \sim 0.5 S$, as opposed to the bulk case where it is orders of magnitude smaller[@Uchida]. In the case of large $\D B$, the situation is even more interesting, since in fact $S_s$ may become larger than $S$. In the limit of $U \to \infty$ and at $\e=0$ (i.e. the leads Fermi energies at the center of the Zeeman splitting) we find that =-1\[Ss2\] . For a value of $\D B=1.5$T at $T=5$K, a value of $\gamma=0.3$ yields $\frac{S_s}{S} \approx 2.6$.
Let us now turn our attention to the FOM. We have calculated the FOM (spin and charge) numerically. For this we take the following parameters. The coupling between the dot and the leads is taken as $\al=10^{-2}$ meV (which is typical of semiconductor quantum dots). The charging energy is taken to be two orders of magnitude larger, $U=2$ meV, and we take $\gamma=0.2$. We add to the thermal conductance a phonon contribution which is $\kappa_{ph}=3 \kappa_0$ ($\kappa_0=\frac{\pi^2}{3}\frac{k_B^2}{h}T$ is the quantum of thermal conductance [@quantum1; @quantum2]), a reasonable value for nanoscale junctions [@Segal]. In Fig. \[fig1\] we plot the spin-FOM ($Z_sT$, solid line, blue online) and charge-FOM ($ZT$, dashed line, purple online) as a function of the dot energy level $\e$ for two temperatures of 2K and 4K (left and right columns, respectively) and for $\D
B=10^{-3}$T (Fig \[fig1\](a-b)) and $\D B=1.5 $T (Fig \[fig1\](c-d)). The first value is a typical field produced by regular ferromagnets (e.g., iron), and the second corresponds to a large field splitting, which may be found in rare-earth ferromagnets or be induced by an external magnetic field.
0.5truecm ![(color online) Spin-FOM ($Z_sT$, solid line, blue online) and charge-FOM ($Z_T$, dashed line, purple online) as a function of $\e$ at temperatures $T=2$K (left column) and $T=4$K (right column), for two values of Zeeman splitting, $\D
B=10^{-3}$T (a-b) and $\D B=1.5$T (c-d) (see text for other numerical values). The spin- and charge-FOM are comparable in size, and at certain parameters spin efficiency may even exceed that of charge. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps "fig:"){width="8truecm"}
From Fig. \[fig1\] one can see that the behavior of the spin and charge FOM is similar for small Zeeman splitting, and that $Z_sT$ and $ZT$ are of the same order of magnitude. The situation is different for large $\D B$, for which at certain energies close to $\e=0$ one may obtain small $ZT$ but large $Z_sT$. This is due to the fact that the Zeeman splitting in that case preserves the particle-hole transport symmetry (the lack of which is responsible for charge thermo-power) but dramatically changes the transport properties of different spins, and hence increases the spin-thermopower.
Finally, we study the system at finite currents. In the bulk, a temperature gradient will inevitably induce both charge and spin voltage [@Uchida], and since the spin-Seebeck effect is much smaller than the charge Seebeck effect, inducing large temperature biases (to generate sizeable spin currents) would result in even larger voltage biases. In the system studied here, one can instead tune the system parameters such that there will be a large spin current but vanishing charge current.
In Fig. \[fig2\] the spin current $I_s$ (solid line) and charge current $I$ (dashed line) are plotted as a function of $\e$. Here the temperature $T=5$K, $\Delta B=1.5$T and we have added a constant temperature gradient $\del T=10 $K (the spin- and charge- voltage biases are zero). When the charge current vanishes (indicated by an arrow in Fig. \[fig2\]) the spin current remains finite. The inset of Fig. \[fig2\] shows the dependence of the spin-current, evaluated by varying the energy $\e$ so that the charge current vanishes, as a function of the temperature bias $\del T$. The magnitude of the spin current increases with the temperature difference, and attains significant values for realizable temperature differences, until it saturates at large temperatures (note, however, that the saturation temperature is comparable to the interaction energy $U$, and hence one expects that the sequential tunneling approximation breaks down at these temperatures). The finite spin current at large temperature difference stems from the fact that while the right lead is held at a high temperature, the temperature in the left lead is still low, allowing for differences in the tunneling rates of the different spins to be substantial. We stress that a situation of finite $I_s$ but vanishing $I$ can not be achieved by using only a voltage bias, but a temperature bias is needed.
0.5truecm ![(color online) Spin current (solid line, blue online) and charge current (dashed line, purple online) as a function of $\e$ at a finite temperature difference $\del T=10 $K (see text for other numerical parameters). The arrow indicates the energy at which the charge current vanishes and the spin-current is finite. Inset: spin-current as a function of temperature difference, evaluated at the energy $\e$ at which the charge-current vanishes. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps "fig:"){width="6.5truecm"}
Our results are valid even if one considers additional single particle levels in the dot. In the limit of infinite $U$, in fact, Eq. (\[Ss\]) is exact for the case of equidistant levels with no Zeeman splitting. In the case with Zeeman splitting, we have numerically estimated $S_s/S$ for up to five levels and found that even in the presence of the additional levels $S_s/S\sim 1$.
The ability to couple a quantum dot to FM leads [@FQDFexp1; @FQDFexp2] and to measure a local spin bias [@Uchida] have been demonstrated experimentally. It is thus reasonable that the results presented here are accessible by future experiments. Another interesting candidate for such experiments is graphene, for which both the possibility to fabricate quantum dots [@Graphene1] and to bond FM leads to measure spin currents [@Graphene2] have been demonstrated.
We also point out that if the leads are FM, extracting the spin-current (or measuring the spin-voltage) has to be done close to the junction, at a distance shorter than the spin-diffusion length of the FM leads. Possible ways to circumvent this difficulty include the use of half-metallic leads (in which the spin-diffusion length should be very large) or to use a normal metal in contact with a thin FM layer for each lead, with the FM thin layers sandwiching the quantum dot. We thank M. Krems and A. Sharoni for fruitful discussions. We are grateful to Yu. V. Pershin for crucial comments and to L. J. Sham for valuable remarks. This work has been funded by the DOE grant DE-FG02-05ER46204 and UC Labs.
G. Mahan, B. Sales and J. Sharp, Phys. Today [**50**]{}, 42 (1997).
A. Majumdar, Science [**303**]{}, 777 (2004).
M. Di Ventra, [*Electrical Transport in Nanoscale Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008).
A. I. Hochbaum, R. Chen, R. D. Delgado, W. Liang, E. C. Garnett, M. Najarian, A. Majumdar and P. Yang, Nature (London) [**451**]{}, 163 (2008).
A. I. Boukai, Y. Bunimovich, J. Tahir-Kheli, J.-K. Yu, W. A. Goddard III and J. R. Heath, Nature (London) [**451**]{}, 168 (2008).
A. M. Lunde and K. Flensberg, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, [**17**]{}, 3879 (2005); A. M. Lunde, K. J. Flensberg and L. I. Glazman, , 256802 (2005).
Y. Dubi and M. Di Ventra, Nano Letters [**9**]{}, 97 (2009).
C. W. J. Beenakker and A. A. M. Starling, , 9667 (1992); L. W. Molenkampt, A. A. M. Staring, B. W. Alphenaar, H. van Houten ana C. W. J. Beenakker, Semicond. Sci. Technol.[**9**]{}, 903 (1994).
M. Krawiec and K. I. Wysokinski, , 075307 (2006).
P. Murphy, S. Mukerjee and J. Moore, cond-mat/0805.3374 (2008).
M. Paulsson and S. Datta, , 241403(R) (2003); J. Koch, F. Von Oppen, Y. Oreg and E. Sela, , [**70**]{}, 195107 (2004); D. Segal, , [**72**]{}, 165426 (2005);F. Pauly, J. K. Viljas and J. C. Cuevas, , 035315 (2008); F. Pauly, J. K. Viljas and J. C. Cuevas, , 035315 (2008).
J. K. Freericks,V. Zlatic’ and A. M. Shvaika, , 035133 (2007); S. Mukerjee, , 195109 (2005); M. R. Peterson, S. Mukerjee, B. S. Shastry and J. O. Haerter, , 125110 (2007).
K. Uchida, S. Takahashi, K. Harii, J. Ieda, W. Koshibae, K. Ando, S. Maekawa and E. Saitoh, Nature [**455**]{}, 778 (2008).
S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Molnár, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova and D. M. Treger, Science [**294**]{}, 1488 (2001).
See, e.g. J. Martinek, M. Sindel, L. Borda, J. Barnaś, J. König, G. Schön, and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 247202 (2003); Y. Qi, J.-X. Zhu, S. Zhang and C. S. Ting, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 045305 (2008), and references therein.
A. N. Pasupathy, R. C. Bialczak, J. Martinek, J. E. Grose, L. A. K. Donev, P. L. McEuen and D. C. Ralph, Science [**306**]{}, 86 (2004).
J. R. Hauptmann, J. Paaske and P. E. Lindelof, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 373 (2008).
There should also be a term proportional to $\del V$ (the charge bias) which is disregarded, since it does not supply any information on the thermal efficiency.
E. Bonet, M. M. Deshmukh, and D. C. Ralph, , 045317 (2002).
A. G. Mal’shukov and C. S. Chu, , 076601 (2006).
P. M. Tedrow and R. Meservey, , 192 (1971). K. Schwab, E. A. Henriksen, J. M. Worlock, and M. L. Roukes, Nature (London) [**404**]{}, 974 (2000).
L. G. C. Rego and G. Kirczenow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 232 (1998).
D. Segal, A. Nitzan and P. Hanggi, J. Chem. Phys. [**119**]{}, 6840 (2003). A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials [**6**]{}, 183 (2007).
N. Tombros, C. Jozsa, M. Popinciuc, H. T. Jonkman and B. J. van Wees, Nature [**448**]{}, 571 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Die teilchenphysikalische Identität der Dunklen Materie ist eines der gro[ß]{}en Rätsel unseres Universums. Seine Lösung kann mit einer bisher noch nicht nachgewiesenen fundamentalen Raumzeit-Symmetrie verknüpft sein: der Supersymmetrie. In vielen supersymmetrischen Erweiterungen des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik kann das leichteste supersymmetrische Teilchen nicht zerfallen und ist daher ein vielversprechender Kandidat für die Dunkle Materie. Das leichteste Neutralino, das bereits in dem minimalen supersymmetrischen Modell auftritt, kann als ein solcher Kandidat in der indirekten Suche, der direkten Suche und über die Produktion an zukünftigen Beschleunigern identifiziert werden. Auch das Gravitino, der Superpartner des Gravitons, liefert als mögliches leichtestes Superteilchen eine mögliche Erklärung der Dunklen Materie. Es kann weder in der direkten oder der indirekten Suche nach der Dunklen Materie nachgewiesen noch direkt an Beschleunigern produziert werden. Die Untersuchung von Zerfällen langlebiger geladener Teilchen an zukünftigen Beschleunigern könnte jedoch einen experimentellen Nachweis des Gravitinos ermöglichen. Die kommenden Experimente am CERN Large Hadron Collider können so zu einem zentralen Schlüssel für das Verständnis unseres Universums werden.\
\
The identity of dark matter is one of the greatest puzzles of our Universe. Its solution may be associated with supersymmetry which is a fundamental space-time symmetry that has not been verified experimentally so far. In many supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics, the lightest supersymmetric particle cannot decay and is hence a promising dark matter candidate. The lightest neutralino, which appears already in the minimal supersymmetric model, can be identified as such a candidate in indirect and direct dark matter searches and at future colliders. As the superpartner of the graviton, the gravitino is another candidate for the lightest superparticle that provides a compelling explanation of dark matter. While it will neither be detected in indirect or direct searches nor be produced directly at accelerators, the analysis of late-decaying charged particles can allow for an experimental identification of the gravitino at future accelerators. In this way, the upcoming experiments at the CERN Large Hadron Collider may become a key to the understanding of our Universe.
author:
- |
Frank Daniel Steffen\
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 München
title: Supersymmetrische Kandidaten für die Dunkle Materie
---
=1
Einleitung
==========
Zahlreiche astrophysikalische und kosmologische Beobachtungen deuten darauf hin, dass unser Universum zu ca. 73% aus Dunkler Energie und zu ca. 22% aus Dunkler Materie besteht. Diese Bestandteile des Universums lassen sich nicht mit den Teilchen erklären, die bisher in teilchenphysikalischen Experimenten entdeckt und untersucht werden konnten. Es liegen also nur ca. 5% des Energieinhaltes unseres Universums in Form der bekannten Teilchen vor (Abb. \[Fig:1\]a). Mit zukünftigen Teilchenbeschleunigern – wie z.B. dem nahezu fertiggestellten Large Hadron Collider (LHC) am Forschungszentrum CERN in Genf (Abb. \[Fig:1\]b) – könnte es jedoch schon in den nächsten Jahren gelingen, neue Teilchen und damit auch den fundamentalen Baustein der Dunklen Materie zu produzieren und zu identifizieren.
![(a) Der Gesamtenergieinhalt des Universums besteht nach heutigen Erkenntnissen zu ca. 73 % aus Dunkler Energie, zu ca. 22 % aus Dunkler Materie und nur zu ca. 5 % aus den bekannten Teilchen, die bisher in teilchenphysikalischen Experimenten entdeckt und untersucht werden konnten. (Grafik: MPI für Physik) (b) Illustration des Teilchenbeschleunigers LHC am Forschungszentrum CERN in Genf. Der gro[ß]{}e ringförmige LHC Beschleuniger (blau) hat einen Umfang von 27 km und befindet sich etwa 100 m tief unter der Erdoberfläche. An den Experimenten ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) und CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) könnte bereits in den nächsten Jahren die Produktion und die Identifizierung des fundamentalen Bausteins der Dunklen Materie gelingen. (Grafik: CERN)[]{data-label="Fig:1"}](Abbildung1){width="\textwidth"}
Die bisher entdeckten fundamentalen Teilchen und ihr Verhalten in Experimenten werden sehr erfolgreich vom Standardmodell der Elementarteilchenphysik beschrieben. Basierend auf der Quantenfeldtheorie beschreibt dieses Modell drei der vier fundamentalen Kräfte: die elektromagnetische Kraft, die schwache Kraft und die starke Kraft. Die vierte Kraft, die Gravitation, ist bei den experimentell zugänglichen Energien sehr viel schwächer als die zuvor genannten. Sie wird von Einsteins Allgemeiner Relativitätstheorie beschrieben, deren Verknüpfung mit der Quantentheorie noch immer zu den grö[ß]{}ten Herausforderungen der theoretischen Physik gehört.
Beobachtungen der Gravitationsfelder von Galaxien und Galaxienhaufen deuten auf die Existenz der Dunklen Materie hin. Zum Beispiel liefern die hohe Rotationsgeschwindigkeit der sichtbaren Materie in den äu[ß]{}eren Armen von Spiralgalaxien (Abb. \[Fig:2\]a) oder die hohe Relativgeschwindigkeit von Galaxien in Galaxienhaufen Hinweise auf Gravitationsfelder, die viel stärker sind als die Gravitationsfelder, die man aufgrund der sichtbaren gewöhnlichen Materie erwartet. Die gro[ß]{}e Materieansammlung in einem Galaxienhaufen kann auch als Gravitationslinse wirken, die verzerrte Bilder dahinterliegender Galaxien liefert (Abb. \[Fig:2\]b). Das Ausma[ß]{} dieser Verzerrungen lässt sich wiederum nur mit Gravitationsfeldern erklären, deren Stärke weit über der von der sichtbaren Materie erwarteten liegt. Galaxien und Galaxienhaufen müssen also zu einem Gro[ß]{}teil aus Materie bestehen, die Licht weder absorbiert noch emittiert: der Dunklen Materie.
![Hinweise auf die Existenz der Dunklen Materie im Universum. (a) Die Spiralgalaxie M 31 (Andromeda Galaxie) hat ein Rotationsverhalten, das auf die Existenz der Dunklen Materie hindeutet. (Foto: Sloan Digital Sky Survey) (b) Der Galaxiehaufen Abell 2218 wirkt als Gravitationslinse und liefert sichelförmige Bilder dahinterliegender Galaxien, die Rückschlüsse auf die Menge der Dunklen Materie in dem Galaxiehaufen erlauben. (Foto: NASA, A. Fruchter and the ERO Team) (c) Die Visualisierung der von der numerischen Millenium-Simulation berechneten heutigen Verteilung der Dunklen Materie im Universum zeigt eine Struktur, die sehr gut mit der beobachteten Verteilung der sichtbaren Galaxien übereinstimmt. (Bild: MPI für Astrophysik) (d) Die von dem WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) Satelliten vermessenen winzigen Temperaturschwankungen in der kosmischen Mikrowellenstrahlung können überzeugend erklärt werden, wenn man annimmt, dass das Universum zu 73 % aus Dunkler Energie, zu 22 % aus Dunkler Materie und zu 5 % aus den bekannten Teilchen besteht. (Bild: NASA and the WMAP Science Team)[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](Abbildung2){width="\textwidth"}
Die Dunkle Materie spielt nach heutigen Erkenntnissen insbesondere bei der Bildung der gro[ß]{}räumigen Struktur im Universum (Abb. \[Fig:2\]c) eine zentrale Rolle. Bereits die winzigen Temperaturschwankungen in der kosmischen Mikrowellenstrahlung (Abb. \[Fig:2\]d), die von Satelliten- und Ballonexperimenten sehr genau vermessen werden, lassen sich überzeugend erklären, wenn man die Existenz der Dunklen Materie annimmt. Analysen dieser Temperaturschwankungen ermöglichen eine genaue Bestimmung des Anteils der Dunklen Materie an der Gesamtenergie des Universums. Tatsächlich charakterisieren die Temperaturschwankungen in der kosmischen Mikrowellenstrahlung die Dichteschwankungen im frühen Universum, die der Ausgangspunkt für die spätere Bildung der Galaxien und Galaxienhaufen waren. Computersimulationen liefern – von den Anfangsbedingungen aus den Analysen der kosmischen Mikrowellenstrahlung ausgehend – wertvolle Einsichten in die kosmische Strukturbildung. Unter der Annahme, dass die Dunkle Materie aus Teilchen mit vernachlässigbaren Geschwindigkeiten besteht, zeigen diese Simulationen ein Bild (Abb. \[Fig:2\]c), das sehr gut mit der beobachteten Verteilung der Galaxien übereinstimmt.
Da die Dunkle Materie sichtbares Licht und auch elektromagnetische Strahlung mit anderen Wellenlängen weder absorbiert noch emittiert, müssen ihre Bestandteile elektrisch neutral sein. Sie müssen darüber hinaus entweder stabil sein oder eine Lebensdauer besitzen, die nicht weit unterhalb des Alters unseres Universums liegen kann. Mit einer kürzeren Lebensdauer wäre ein Gro[ß]{}teil der Dunklen Materie heute bereits zerfallen. Dies widerlegen jedoch die auch noch in der Milchstra[ß]{}e und in nahegelegenen Spiralgalaxien beobachteten Effekte der Dunklen Materie.
Unter den bekannten Teilchen des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik besitzen nur die Neutrinos die Grundeigenschaften der Dunklen Materie: Sie sind stabil, elektrisch neutral und unterliegen allein der schwachen Kraft und der Gravitation. Die erst vor wenigen Jahren klar nachgewiesenen so genannten Neutrinooszillationen zeigen darüber hinaus, dass Neutrinos eine Masse besitzen. Diese Masse ist jedoch so klein, dass die Geschwindigkeit der Neutrinos im jungen Universum und auch später noch sehr hoch gewesen sein muss. Unter der Annahme, dass die Dunkle Materie aus den etablierten Neutrinos besteht, ist es aufgrund dieser hohen Geschwindigkeiten nicht möglich, die Bildung und die Existenz der beobachteten Strukturen in unserem Universum zu verstehen. Im Standardmodell der Elementarteilchenphysik existiert somit kein Teilchen, das die Dunkle Materie in Übereinstimmung mit den Beobachtungen erklären kann.
Supersymmetrische Erweiterungen des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik
===============================================================================
Berechnet man die Stärke der Standardmodell-Kräfte für Energien, die viele Grö[ß]{}enordnungen oberhalb jener Energien liegen, die an Teilchenbeschleunigern erreicht werden, dann findet man, dass sich die unterschiedlichen Kopplungsstärken mit zunehmender Energie einem gemeinsamen Wert annähern. Dieses Verhalten kann ein Hinweis für die Vereinigung der drei Standardmodell-Kräfte zu einer übergeordneten Kraft sein. Nimmt man jedoch die Gültigkeit des Standardmodells bis zu der Vereinigungsenergieskala an, dann begegnet man dem so genannten Hierarchieproblem: Es stellt sich heraus, dass die aufgrund von Quanteneffekten erwartete ‘natürliche’ Grö[ß]{}enordnung der Masse des so genannten Higgs-Teilchens weit oberhalb des Bereiches liegt, den man indirekt in Präzisionsrechnungen aus den Daten von Experimenten an Teilchenbeschleunigern erhält. Solche Präzisionsrechnungen gehören zu den Forschungsaktivitäten am MPI für Physik.
Im Standardmodell ist das Higgs-Teilchen für die Massen der fundamentalen Teilchen verantwortlich und somit ein zentraler Baustein. Bisher konnte es noch nicht direkt beobachtet werden. Es ist daher davon auszugehen, dass die für seine Produktion notwendige Energie an den bisherigen Teilchenbeschleunigern nicht erreicht werden konnte. Der noch ausstehende direkte Nachweis des Higgs-Teilchens ist daher mit ein Hauptgrund für den Bau des LHC am Forschungszentrum CERN in Genf. Dieser Teilchenbeschleuniger wird in den kommenden Jahren in einen bisher in Labor-Experimenten unerreichten Energiebereich vorsto[ß]{}en.
Eine besonders elegante Lösung des Hierarchieproblems ergibt sich in supersymmetrischen Erweiterungen des Standardmodells. Die Supersymmetrie ist eine fundamentale Raumzeit-Symmetrie zwischen Elementarteilchen mit unterschiedlichem Spin, d.h. zwischen den Materieteilchen und den die Kräfte vermittelnden Austauschteilchen, die die Bausteine der zugrunde liegenden Quantenfeldtheorie darstellen. Sollte diese Symmetrie in der Natur realisiert sein, dann muss es mehr als ein Higgs-Teilchen geben, und jedes der etablierten Standardmodell-Teilchen muss einen supersymmetrischen Partner besitzen. Die Quanteneffekte dieser neuen Teilchen kompensieren im Falle der Higgs-Masse die Quanteneffekte der Standardmodell-Teilchen. So kann dann diese Masse auf natürliche Weise in dem von den Präzisionsbetrachtungen erwarteten Bereich liegen.
Interessanterweise löst die Supersymmetrie nicht nur das Hierarchieproblem. Aufgrund der von der Supersymmetrie postulierten neuen Teilchen verhalten sich die Kopplungsstärken der drei Standardmodell-Kräfte bei der Extrapolation zu hohen Energien so, dass sie sich am Vereinigungspunkt tatsächlich in einem Punkt treffen, was im Rahmen des nicht-supersymmetrischen Standardmodells nicht der Fall ist. Dieses Verhalten untermauert die Hypothese der Vereinigung der drei Standardmodell-Kräfte zu einer übergeordneten Kraft. Ebenso wie die Higgs-Teilchen wurden die Superpartner der Standardmodell-Teilchen bisher nur aus theoretischen Überlegungen vorhergesagt. Experimentell konnte die Existenz dieser Teilchen noch nicht nachgewiesen werden. Doch auch hier wird auf Entdeckungen am LHC gehofft.
Supersymmetrische Dunkle Materie
================================
Sollte die Supersymmetrie in der Natur realisiert sein, dann wird – auch aufgrund der beobachteten Stabilität des Protons – davon ausgegangen, dass supersymmetrische Prozesse eine diskrete Symmetrie, die so genannte R-Parität, respektieren. Die dazugehörige Quantenzahl unterscheidet zwischen den Standardmodell- und den Higgs-Teilchen, die eine [*gerade*]{} R-Parität ($+1$) besitzen, und ihren Superpartnern, die eine [ *ungerade*]{} R-Parität ($-1$) besitzen. Ein Prozess erhält nur dann die R-Parität, wenn das Produkt der R-Paritäten der Teilchen im Anfangszustand gleich dem der Teilchen im Endzustand ist.
Aus der geforderten Erhaltung der R-Parität folgt, dass aus dem Zerfall eines Superpartners immer ein weiterer Superpartner hervorgehen muss. Da die Massen von Zerfallsprodukten aufgrund von Energie-Impuls-Erhaltung immer unterhalb der Masse des zerfallenden Teilchens liegen müssen, impliziert dies, dass der leichteste Superpartner – auch wenn er deutlich schwerer als die etablierten Standardmodell-Teilchen ist – bei erhaltener R-Parität nicht zerfallen kann. Der leichteste Superpartner wird also stabil sein. Sollte er im frühen Universum produziert worden sein, dann könnte er noch heute in gro[ß]{}en Mengen vorhanden sein. Ein elektrisch neutraler leichtester Superpartner ist somit ein vielversprechender Kandidat für die Dunkle Materie.
Tatsächlich liefern supersymmetrische Erweiterungen des Standardmodells auf sehr natürliche Weise solche Dunkle-Materie-Kandidaten. Hierzu gehören u.a. das leichteste Neutralino und das Gravitino. Im Folgenden werden diese noch hypothetischen Teilchen, ihre Eigenschaften und Nachweismöglichkeiten näher beschrieben.
Das leichteste Neutralino
-------------------------
Die Neutralinos sind Superteilchen, die aus Mischungen der elektrisch neutralen Superpartner der Higgs-Teilchen, des Photons und des so genannten Z-Bosons bestehen. Wie die Neutrinos unterliegen sie nur der schwachen Kraft und der Gravitation. Sollten die Neutralinos existieren, dann müssen sie – da sie noch nicht an Teilchenbeschleunigern nachgewiesen werden konnten – um Grö[ß]{}enordnungen schwerer sein als die Neutrinos. Dies motiviert die Klassifizierung eines Neutralinos als ein Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP).
Die Temperaturen direkt nach dem Urknall können um weitere Grö[ß]{}enordnungen höher gewesen sein als die Masse der Neutralinos. Bei solch hohen Temperaturen konnten alle Standardmodell-Teilchen, die Higgs-Teilchen und ihre Superpartner effizient produziert werden. Die primordialen Dichten dieser Teilchen können daher so hoch gewesen sein, dass ein thermisches Gleichgewicht von Produktions- und Vernichtungsprozessen vorherrschte. Die Häufigkeit jeder einzelnen Teilchensorte war dann in dieser hei[ß]{}en Epoche vergleichbar mit der der Photonen. Mit der Ausdehnung des Universums nimmt jedoch die Temperatur ab. Bei Temperaturen unterhalb der Masse eines Teilchen wird die Dichte dieser Teilchensorte sehr schnell sehr klein. Es ist nicht mehr genug thermische Energie vorhanden, um diese Teilchen weiter produzieren zu können. Je schwerer ein Teilchen ist, das sich im thermischen Gleichgewicht befindet, umso früher nimmt seine Dichte rapide ab. Auch die Dichte des leichtesten Neutralinos nimmt stark ab bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, an dem die Temperatur ein Bruchteil seiner Masse beträgt. An diesem Punkt ist die Dichte der Neutralinos und der anderen Superpartner so gering, dass ein Neutralino praktisch keinen Reaktionspartner mehr für einen Vernichtungsprozess findet. Solch ein weiterer Superpartner ist notwendig, da aufgrund der Erhaltung der R-Parität Superpartner nur paarweise produziert oder vernichtet werden können. Ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit für Neutralino-Vernichtungsprozesse vernachlässigbar, dann entkoppelt das leichteste Neutralino vom thermischen Plasma, so dass die Anzahl dieser Teilchensorte im Universum sich (nahezu) nicht mehr ändert.
Mit Computerprogrammen kann man heute sehr genau die Entkopplung des leichtesten Neutralinos im frühen Universum und daraus seine heutige Häufigkeit berechnen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Dichte der Neutralinos heute tatsächlich mit der beobachteten Dichte der Dunklen Materie übereinstimmen kann. Darüber hinaus ist die Geschwindigkeit der aus dem thermischen Gleichgewicht entkoppelten Neutralinos vernachlässigbar. Unter der Annahme, dass das leichteste Neutralino der fundamentale Baustein der Dunklen Materie ist, lässt sich somit die Bildung und die Existenz der beobachteten Strukturen in unserem Universum gut verstehen. Es könnte also eine Anhäufung der leichtesten Neutralinos sein, die den Gro[ß]{}teil der Masse in Galaxien und Galaxienhaufen ausmacht.
Drei zueinander komplementäre Methoden werden verfolgt, um dieses theoretisch ansprechende Bild experimentell zu verifizieren: die indirekte Suche, die direkte Suche und die Produktion an Beschleunigern.
![Nachweismöglichkeiten von Neutralinos. (a) Treffen zwei Neutralinos aufeinander, dann werden diese in energetische kosmische Strahlung umgewandelt. (Grafik: MPI für Physik) (b) Diese sollte z.B. mit dem Teleskop MAGIC beobachtbar sein. (Foto: MPI für Physik) (c) Stö[ß]{}t ein Neutralino auf einen Atomkern, dann erfährt dieser einen Rücksto[ß]{}, der das umliegende Material erwärmt. (Grafik: MPI für Physik) (d) Das CRESST Experiment sucht nach diesen Ereignissen in tiefgekühlten, in Modulen angeordneten Kristallen. (Foto: MPI für Physik) (e) Neutralinos sollten paarweise z.B. in den Proton-Proton Kollisionen am LHC produziert werden können. (Grafik: MPI für Physik) (f) Zur Identifikation der unsichtbaren Neutralinos müssen Teilchendetektoren, wie z.B. der nahezu fertiggestellte ATLAS Detektor, die zusätzlich produzierten Standardmodell-Teilchen extrem genau vermessen. (Foto: CERN)[]{data-label="Fig:3"}](Abbildung3){width="\textwidth"}
Bei der indirekten Suche wird nach Signalen aus Neutralino-Vernichtungsprozessen gesucht. Man erwartet, dass in Regionen des Universums, in denen die Konzentration der Dunklen Materie überdurchschnittlich hoch ist, wie z.B. in Galaxien, noch heute gelegentlich Neutralino-Vernichtungsprozesse stattfinden. Obwohl diese Prozesse keinen gro[ß]{}en Einfluss auf die Neutralino-Häufigkeit haben, sollten in dieser Reaktion Standardmodell-Teilchen emittiert werden. Diese Standardmodell-Teilchen können eine hohe Energie besitzen und somit zu energetischen kosmischen Strahlen führen (Abb. \[Fig:3\]a), die in Erdnähe und auf der Erde beobachtbar sein sollten. Möglicherweise sind solche kosmischen Strahlen bereits von dem satellitenbasierten Experiment EGRET (Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope) beobachtet worden. Hier besteht jedoch die Herausforderung, bei der Interpretation des beobachteten Spektrums, Signale von Neutralino-Vernichtungsprozessen, die auch von der genauen Verteilung der unsichtbaren Dunklen Materie abhängen, aus dem komplizierten Hintergrund von anderen Quellen hochenergetischer Strahlen herauszufiltern. Das Weltraumteleskop GLAST (Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope) wird hierzu in Zukunft neue Daten liefern. Auch in so genannten Cherenkov-Teleskopen, wie z.B. H.E.S.S. (High Energy Stereoscopic System) oder $\mbox{MAGIC}$ (Major Atmosspheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov), an dem das MPI für Physik beteiligt ist (Abb. \[Fig:3\]b), sollten Signale aus Neutralino-Vernichtungsprozessen beobachtbar sein.
Bei der direkten Suche wird nach Signalen von Neutralinos aus deren Kollision mit Atomkernen gesucht. Als Dunkle Materie sollten Neutralinos auch die Erde in solch einer Häufigkeit umgeben, dass sie trotz ihrer schwachen Wechselwirkungen gelegentlich auf Atomkerne stossen. Da die Masse der Neutralinos so gro[ß]{} ist, erfährt der Kern hierbei einen deutlichen Rücksto[ß]{}, der zu einer minimalen Temperaturerhöhung in dem den Kern umgebenden Material führt (Abb. \[Fig:3\]c). Die Herausforderung ist, die von den Neutralinos verursachten Rückstö[ß]{}e von denen zu unterscheiden, die durch andere Teilchen verursacht werden. Vielversprechende Methoden hierzu finden z.B. in den Experimenten CDMS (Cryogenic Dark Matter Search), CRESST (Cryogenic Rare Event Search with Superconducting Thermometers) und EDELWEISS (Expérience pour DEtecter Les WIMPs En Site Souterrain) Verwendung. Zur Abschirmung von störenden Standardmodell-Teilchen befinden sich diese Experimente unter mehreren hundert Metern von Gestein, die allerdings von den schwach wechselwirkenden Neutralinos problemlos durchdrungen werden können. Das MPI für Physik ist an dem Experiment CRESST, das sich im Gran-Sasso-Untergrundlabor befindet, beteiligt (Abb. \[Fig:3\]d).
Schwere, nur schwach wechselwirkende Teilchen werden seit ca. 20 Jahren mit Hilfe von Teilchenbeschleunigern produziert und untersucht. Kurzlebige Z-Bosonen, die die bisher schwersten beobachteten Teilchen sind, die allein der schwachen Kraft und der Gravitation unterliegen, konnten so bereits zahlreich produziert werden. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, Neutralinos zu produzieren, sollte ähnlich sein, sofern die Energien an den Teilchenbeschleunigern hoch genug sind. Somit ist es gut möglich, dass bereits in den nächsten Jahren Neutralinos in den Proton–Proton Kollisionen am LHC erzeugt werden können (Abb. \[Fig:3\]e). Während ein Z-Boson über seinen Zerfall und die daraus resultierenden sichtbaren Zerfallsprodukte nachgewiesen werden kann, hinterlässt ein stabiles leichtestes Neutralino keine Spur in den Teilchendetektoren und kann daher nur mit Hilfe der Energie-Impuls-Erhaltung nachgewiesen werden. Dies erfordert eine extrem genaue Vermessung der Spuren der zusätzlich produzierten Standardmodell-Teilchen, die auch an dem noch im Aufbau befindlichen ATLAS Experiment (Abb. \[Fig:3\]f) unter Beteiligung des MPI für Physik erreicht werden soll. Von theoretischer Seite muss darüber hinaus der Mechanismus, der zur Neutralino-Produktion am Beschleuniger führt, sehr gut verstanden sein. Dies ist ein Gegenstand aktueller Forschung auch am MPI für Physik.
Das Gravitino
-------------
Das Gravitino ist der Superpartner des Gravitons, das das Austauschteilchen der Gravitation und als solches nicht Teil des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik ist. Die Wechselwirkungen des Gravitinos sind, wie die des Gravitons, sensitiv auf die Energien der Interaktionspartner. Die Stärke dieser Wechselwirkungen ist darüber hinaus durch die sehr kleine Newtonsche Gravitationskonstante gegeben. Tatsächlich ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit für die Interaktion eines Gravitinos im Labor so klein, dass ein Gravitino an Teilchenbeschleunigern nicht direkt produziert werden kann, selbst wenn seine Masse in dem Energiebereich liegt, der bereits zugänglich ist. Die Tatsache, dass noch kein Gravitino an Beschleunigern nachgewiesen werden konnte, lässt daher keine Rückschlüsse auf die Gravitino-Masse zu. Wird das Gravitino als Dunkle-Materie-Kandidat betrachtet, dann wird jedoch angenommen, dass es der leichteste existierende Superpartner und somit leichter als die Standardmodell-Superpartner, zu denen auch das oben diskutierte leichteste Neutralino gehört, ist. Aufgrund der extrem unterdrückten Wechselwirkungen und der unbekannten Masse kann man das Gravitino als ein Extremely Weakly Interacting Particle klassifizieren.
Hier muss noch betont werden, dass das Gravitino – im Gegensatz zum masselosen Graviton – nur deshalb eine Masse besitzen kann, da bei niedrigen Energien die Supersymmetrie nicht als eine exakte, sondern nur als eine so genannte spontan gebrochene Symmetrie vorliegen kann. Im Falle einer exakten Supersymmetrie müssten die Massen der Superpartner identisch mit denen der zugehörigen Standardmodell-Teilchen sein. Dies kann jedoch ausgeschlossen werden, da Superpartner an Teilchenbeschleunigern bisher noch nicht beobachtet werden konnten. Tatsächlich ist der Wert der Gravitino-Masse direkt mit der so genannten Brechungsskala der Supersymmetrie, also der Energieskala oberhalb derer die Supersymmetrie wieder als eine perfekte Symmetrie betrachtet werden kann, verknüpft und daher von fundamentaler Bedeutung in supersymmetrischen Theorien.
Die Stärke der Gravitino-Wechselwirkungen wächst an, wenn die Energien der Interaktionspartner zunehmen. In den ersten Momenten unseres Universums können die Temperaturen und damit die Energien der Standardmodell-Teilchen, der Higgs-Teilchen und ihrer Superpartner so gro[ß]{} gewesen sein, dass eine effiziente Produktion von Gravitinos möglich war. Gravitino-Vernichtungsprozesse sind typischerweise vernachlässigbar, so dass ein thermisches Gleichgewicht für Gravitinos nicht vorliegt. Die Dichte der thermisch produzierten Gravitinos muss daher mit Methoden der Quantenfeldtheorie bei endlichen Temperaturen berechnet werden. Solche Rechnungen sind in den letzten Monaten auch am MPI für Physik durchgeführt worden.
Zur gesamten Gravitino-Dichte trägt auch die nicht-thermische Produktion bei, die deutlich später – also bei viel kleineren Temperaturen – als die thermische stattfand. In einem Szenario, in dem das Gravitino der leichteste Superpartner ist, sind die anderen Superpartner nicht stabil. Diese anderen Superpartner können auch bei niedrigen Temperaturen stets in ein Gravitino zerfallen. Da allerdings bei niedrigen Temperaturen sogar die schwache Kraft um viele Grö[ß]{}enordnungen stärker als die die Gravitino-Wechselwirkung bestimmende Gravitation ist, zerfallen die schwereren Superpartner zuerst in den leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartner. Dieser kann das leichteste Neutralino oder auch ein elektrisch geladenes Teichen sein, wie z.B. der Superpartner des Tau-Leptons: das so genannte Stau. Die Lebensdauer des leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners hängt von seiner Masse und der Gravitino-Masse ab und kann in einem Bereich von einigen Sekunden bis hin zu Jahren liegen. Mit solch einer langen Lebensdauer verhält sich der leichteste Standardmodell-Superpartner im frühen Universum so, als wäre er stabil. Seine Dichte vor dem Zerfall lässt sich daher, wie bereits oben für das leichteste Neutralino beschrieben, berechnen. Schlussendlich zerfällt jedoch jedes einzelne Teilchen dieser Sorte in ein Gravitino. Diese nicht-thermisch produzierten Gravitinos sind bei der Berechnung der gesamten Gravitino-Dichte stets einzubeziehen.
Während die thermisch produzierte Gravitino-Dichte von der Gravitino-Masse und der Anfangstemperatur des frühen strahlungsdominierten Universums abhängt, ist die nicht-thermisch produzierte sensitiv auf das Massen-Spektrum der Superpartner, aber typischerweise unabhängig von der obigen Anfangstemperatur. Unter realistischen Annahmen für diese Anfangstemperatur, die Gravitino-Masse und das Massen-Spektrum der Standardmodell-Superpartner findet man, dass eine Übereinstimmung der Gravitino-Dichte mit der beobachteten Dunkle-Materie-Dichte möglich ist.
Sollte das Gravitino tatsächlich der fundamentale Baustein der Dunklen Materie sein, dann muss die Geschwindigkeit eines Gro[ß]{}teils der Gravitinos hinreichend klein sein, da ansonsten die Bildung und die Existenz der beobachteten Strukturen in unserem Universum nicht erklärt werden kann. Diese Bedingung liefert Untergrenzen einerseits für die Gravitino-Masse, die die Geschwindigkeit der thermisch produzierten Gravitinos bestimmt, und andererseits für die Masse des leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners, die die Geschwindigkeit der nicht-thermisch produzierten Gravitinos bestimmt. Einschränkungen an die Gravitino-Masse sind von besonderem Interesse, da sie, wie oben beschrieben, direkt mit der Brechungsskala der Supersymmetrie verknüpft ist.
In Szenarien, in denen das Gravitino der leichteste Superpartner ist, liefern die beobachteten Häufigkeiten der leichten Atomkerne Helium, Deuterium und Lithium in unserem Universum weitere kosmologische Einschränkungen. Diese leichten Elemente wurden bereits in der so genannten primordialen Nukleosynthese produziert, die einsetzte, als das Universum etwa eine Sekunde alt war. Man glaubt heute, die primordiale Nukleosynthese weitgehend verstanden zu haben. Sie kann von Computerprogrammen simuliert werden. Hierbei findet man, dass die berechneten primordialen Elementhäufigkeiten gut mit den Beobachtungen übereinstimmen. Wenn nun der leichteste Standardmodell-Superpartner während oder nach der primordialen Nukleosynthese zerfällt, dann werden neben dem Gravitino auch Standardmodell-Teilchen emittiert, die mit den produzierten leichten Atomkernen wechselwirken und dabei deren Häufigkeit beeinflussen können (Abb. \[Fig:4\]a). Die Computersimulationen der primordialen Nukleosynthese liefern daher zusammen mit den beobachteten Elementhäufigkeiten Obergrenzen für die Emission von Standardmodell-Teilchen in Zerfällen des leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners. Sollte der leichteste Standardmodell-Superpartner eine elektrische Ladung tragen, wie z.B. das Stau, dann kann dieser vor dem Zerfall einen gebundenen Zustand mit den bereits produzierten positiv geladenen Atomkernen eingehen und auch so Prozesse der primordialen Nukleosynthese beeinflussen (Abb. \[Fig:4\]b). Hieraus folgen Obergrenzen für die Häufigkeit eines negativ geladenen leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners. Mit den diskutierten Obergrenzen lässt sich entscheiden, ob eine bestimmte supersymmetrische Erweiterung des Standardmodells, in der das Gravitino die Dunkle Materie liefern könnte, kosmologisch erlaubt ist.
![ (a) Das Stau kann als leichtester Standardmodell-Superpartner eine Lebensdauer von zehn Stunden besitzen und im frühen Universum nach der Synthese der Atomkerne Deuterium, Helium und Lithium zerfallen. Die hierbei emittierten Standardmodell-Teilchen können einen Helium-Kern in zwei Deuterium-Kerne zerlegen. (b) Vor seinem Zerfall kann ein Stau einen gebundenen Zustand mit einem Helium-Kern eingehen und so die primordiale Produktion von Lithium erleichtern. (c) Staus könnten in den Proton-Proton Kollisionen am LHC produziert werden und bereits mit einer Lebensdauer von einer Sekunde wie scheinbar stabile Teilchen den Teilchendetektor gut sichtbar durchfliegen. (d) Es ist denkbar, dass in den Elektron-Positron Kollisionen an dem geplanten nächsten Linearbeschleuniger, dem International Linear Collider (ILC), langsame Staus, die noch im Teilchendetektor oder in zusätzlichem Detektormaterial stecken bleiben, produziert werden können. Die Untersuchung der darauffolgenden Zerfälle könnte dann die Identifikation des Gravitinos als leichtester Superpartner und mögliches Dunkle-Materie-Teilchen erlauben. (Grafiken: MPI für Physik)[]{data-label="Fig:4"}](Abbildung4){width="\textwidth"}
Die experimentellen Nachweismöglichkeiten eines Gravitinos als Dunkle-Materie-Kandidat sind stärker eingeschränkt als die im Falle des leichtesten Neutralinos. Aufgrund der extrem unterdrückten Wechselwirkungen scheint es in absehbarer Zeit mit den derzeit denkbaren Technologien nicht möglich zu sein, Gravitinos in der indirekten oder der direkten Suche, die oben für Neutralinos beschrieben sind, experimentell nachzuweisen. Auch die direkte Produktion von Gravitinos an Beschleunigern ist aufgrund der geringen Stärke der Wechselwirkungen sehr stark unterdrückt. Dennoch gibt es Szenarien, in denen der experimentelle Nachweis von Gravitinos an zukünftigen Beschleunigern gelingen kann.
Mit dem Gravitino als leichtester Superpartner kann der leichteste Standardmodell-Superpartner, wie bereits oben erwähnt, elektrisch geladen sein. Dieses geladene Teilchen kann darüber hinaus eine Lebensdauer besitzen, die weit oberhalb von einer Sekunde liegt. Sollte dieser leichteste Standardmodell-Superpartner an einem zukünftigen Beschleuniger produziert werden, dann würde er als ein langlebiges geladenes Teilchen eine gut sichtbare Spur in den Teilchendetektoren hinterlassen. Die Lebensdauer kann so gro[ß]{} sein, dass dieses Teilchen nicht von einem stabilen unterschieden werden kann, da seine Zerfälle erst au[ß]{}erhalb des Detektorvolumens stattfinden und so der Beobachtung entgehen (Abb. \[Fig:4\]c). Aufgrund der strengen kosmologischen Grenzen für die Existenz eines schweren stabilen geladenen Teilchens können Signaturen solcher scheinbar stabiler leichtester Standardmodell-Superpartner bereits auf die Existenz des Gravitinos oder eines anderen extrem schwach wechselwirkenden leichtesten Superpartners hindeuten.
Da ein schweres geladenes langlebiges Teilchen auf seinem Weg durch den Teilchendetektor Energie verliert, ist sogar denkbar, dass solch ein leichtester Standardmodell-Superpartner, wenn er mit einer geringen Anfangsgeschwindigkeit produziert wird, im Detektorvolumen stecken bleiben und dort bis zu seinem Zerfall verharren kann. Die Analyse dieses Zerfalls kann dann möglich sein und zu einem experimentellen Nachweis der Gravitinos führen (Abb. \[Fig:4\]d).
Die Theorie, die als Supergravitation bezeichnet wird, liefert klare Vorhersagen für die Zerfälle des leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners in das Gravitino und Standardmodell-Teilchen. Diese Vorhersagen hängen nur von den Massen der beteiligten Teilchen ab. Nach einer Messung des Massen-Spektrums der Standardmodell-Superpartner an zukünftigen Beschleunigern wird die einzige Unbekannte in diesen Vorhersagen die Gravitino-Masse sein. Diese kann dann gefunden werden als der Wert, bei dem die gemessene Lebensdauer des leichtesten Standardmodell-Superpartners mit der entsprechenden theoretischen Vorhersage der Supergravitation übereinstimmt. Da in den Zerfällen die Energie-Impuls-Erhaltung erfüllt sein muss, ist zusätzlich auch eine Bestimmung der Gravitino-Masse aus der Messung der Energien der anderen emittierten sichtbaren Teilchen denkbar. Mit der so bestimmten Gravitino-Masse sind die theoretischen Vorhersagen eindeutig festgelegt, so dass eine mögliche Übereinstimmung mit den Daten als experimenteller Nachweis für das Gravitino als leichtester Superpartner und zugleich als Bestätigung der Supergravitation angesehen werden kann. Eine Messung der Gravitino-Masse bestimmt darüber hinaus die Brechungsskala der Supersymmetrie und ist essenziell, um zu entscheiden, ob das Gravitino tatsächlich der fundamentale Baustein der Dunklen Materie sein kann.
Während ein langlebiger geladener leichtester Standardmodell-Superpartner direkt nach seiner Produktion gut unterscheidbar von den anderen an zukünftigen Beschleunigern zu erwartenden Reaktionen sein sollte, ist die Beobachtung eines solchen Superpartners, der nach einer Produktion mit einer bereits geringen Anfangsgeschwindigkeit im Detektor zur Ruhe kommt und dann dort zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zerfällt, als eine enorme Herausforderung anzusehen. Die nahezu fertiggestellten Detektoren am LHC sind z.B. entwickelt worden, um sehr schnell Reaktionen aufzuzeichnen, und sind daher weniger geeignet, Zerfälle langlebiger Teilchen zu untersuchen. Insbesondere sind diese Detektoren auf Reaktionen ausgerichtet, die in der Nähe des Punktes stattfinden, an dem die beschleunigten Teilchen kollidieren. Auf langsame langlebige geladene Superpartner, die im Detektorvolumen mit einem relativ gro[ß]{}en Abstand vom Kollisionspunkt zu Ruhe kommen und dann später zerfallen, sind diese Detektoren und die dazugehörigen Analyseprogramme bisher nicht vorbereitet. Es gibt aber Arbeitsgruppen, in denen gegenwärtig untersucht wird, wie mit den Detektoren am LHC und an anderen zukünftigen Beschleunigern – wie z.B. dem geplanten International Linear Collider (ILC) – Szenarien mit einem langlebigen geladenen Superpartner optimal erforscht werden können. Hierbei wird auch über zusätzliches Detektormaterial nachgedacht, mit dem die Anzahl der gestoppten langlebigen Superpartner erhöht werden kann (Abb. \[Fig:4\]d). Gerade für die eindeutige Identifizierung des Gravitinos wird eine hohe Anzahl von Zerfällen aufgezeichnet und analysiert werden müssen. Für diese Identifizierung ist auch die Berechnung und Vorhersage möglicher Signaturen anderer extrem schwach wechselwirkender Kandidaten für das leichteste Superteilchen, wie z.B. das so genannte Axino, unerlässlich. Da langlebige geladene Standardmodell-Superpartner auch bei einer leichten Verletzung der R-Parität auftreten können, müssen auch solche Szenarien entsprechend studiert werden. Diese theoretischen Untersuchungen gehören zu den Forschungsaktivitäten am MPI für Physik.
Zusammenfassung
===============
Kosmologische und astrophysikalische Untersuchungen zeigen, dass unser Universum nur zu ca. 5% aus den bisher entdeckten Teilchen besteht. Ein wesentlich grö[ß]{}erer Teil von ca. 22% des Gesamtenergieinhaltes liegt in Form von Dunkler Materie vor. Da deren fundamentaler Baustein nicht Teil des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik sein kann, muss die Existenz der Dunklen Materie als ein Hinweis auf neue Physik jenseits des Standardmodells der Elementarteilchenphysik verstanden werden. Die supersymmetrische Erweiterung des Standardmodells ist ein besonders attraktives Konzept, da sie unter anderem eine elegante Lösung des Hierarchieproblems liefert und die Hypothese der Existenz einer übergeordneten, die Standardmodell-Kräfte vereinheitlichenden Kraft untermauert.
Sollte die Supersymmetrie tatsächlich in der Natur realisiert sein, dann ist aufgrund der Proton-Stabilität und der dadurch motivierten Erhaltung der R-Parität davon auszugehen, dass der leichteste Superpartner stabil ist. Damit ist als möglicher leichtester Superpartner das leichteste Neutralino, das nur der schwachen Kraft und der Gravitation unterliegt, ein vielversprechender Dunkle-Materie-Kandidat. Sollte das leichteste Neutralino tatsächlich der fundamentale Baustein der Dunklen Materie sein, dann sollte die schwache Wechselwirkung des leichtesten Neutralinos ausreichen, diese in der indirekten Suche, in der direkten Suche und an zukünftigen Beschleunigern nachweisen zu können. Dieser Nachweis könnte bereits in den kommenden Jahren gelingen.
Ein weiterer sehr gut motivierter Kandidat für das leichteste Superteilchen und die Dunkle Materie ist das Gravitino, das als der Superpartner des Gravitons viel schwächer wechselwirkt als das leichteste Neutralino. Sollte das Gravitino der fundamentale Baustein der Dunklen Materie sein, dann wird man die Dunkle Materie aufgrund der extrem schwachen Gravitino-Wechelwirkungen weder in der direkten noch in der indirekten Suche nachweisen können. Ein experimenteller Nachweis kann dennoch an zukünftigen Teilchenbeschleunigern gelingen, wenn der nächstleichteste Superpartner ein elektrisch geladenes Teilchen ist, dessen Zerfälle in das Gravitino noch im Detektorvolumen beobachtet werden können. Bereits in den nächsten fünf Jahren könnte ein langlebiger geladener leichtester Standardmodell-Superpartner am LHC als erster Hinweis auf das Gravitino als Baustein der Dunklen Materie gefunden werden.
Neben dem leichtesten Neutralino und dem Gravitino gibt es noch andere Kandidaten für das leichteste supersymmetrische Teilchen wie z.B. das Axino, das wie das Gravitino trotz extrem schwacher Wechselwirkungen ein vielversprechender Kandidat für die Dunkle Materie ist. Sollten supersymmetrische Teilchen an zukünftigen Beschleunigern produziert werden können, dann wird die Identifikation des leichtesten Superpartners und damit möglicherweise die des fundamentalen Bausteins der Dunklen Materie eine der zentralen Aufgaben sein.
Nach bisherigen Untersuchungen ist es vorstellbar, dass tatsächlich der Gro[ß]{}teil der Materie in unserem Universum aus dem leichtesten supersymmetrischen Teilchen besteht. Mit den kommenden Experimenten am LHC und anderen zukünftigen Beschleunigern kann es gelingen, genau diesen fundamentalen Baustein der Dunklen Materie erstmals im Labor zu produzieren und zu untersuchen. Die Entschlüsselung der teilchenphysikalischen Identität der Dunklen Materie würde eines der grö[ß]{}ten Rätsel der Naturwissenschaften lösen und zu den grö[ß]{}ten Entdeckungen der Menschheit gehören.
[999]{}
Die folgende Schrift gibt einen allgemeinverständlichen Überblick über das Forschungsgebiet der Astroteilchenphysik, zu dem auch die Erforschung der Identität der Dunklen Materie gehört: G. Raffelt [*et al.*]{} (Redaktionskomitee), [ *Astroteilchenphysik in Deutschland*]{}, Komitee für Astroteilchenphysik (2006) \[[ http://www.astroteilchenphysik.de]{}\].
Der Review der Particle Data Group enthält – neben der Katalogisierung gemessener Teilcheneigenschaften – aktuelle Daten zur Zusammensetzung des Universums und kompakte Zusammenfassungen zentraler Gebiete der Astrophysik und Kosmologie. Auch Ergebnisse aus der Suche nach Superpartnern sind aufgeführt: W. M. Yao [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], [*Review of particle physics*]{}, J. Phys. G [**33**]{} (2006) 1 \[[http://pdg.lbl.gov]{}\].
Eine Einführung in die Supersymmetrie, in der auch supersymmetrische Dunkle Materie diskutiert wird, gibt das folgende Lehrbuch: M. Drees, R. Godbole and P. Roy, [*Theory and Phenomenology of Sparticles*]{} (World Scientific, Hackensack, USA, 2004). Der folgende Review gibt eine ausführliche Beschreibung von Szenarien, in denen das leichteste Neutralino das Dunkle-Materie-Teilchen ist. Auch die indirekte und die direkte Suche werden diskutiert: G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, [*Supersymmetric dark matter*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**267**]{} (1996) 195 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9506380\]. Die Untersuchung von Neutralinos an den Beschleunigern LHC und ILC wird für charakteristische Szenarien in der folgenden Arbeit diskutiert: E. A. Baltz, M. Battaglia, M. E. Peskin and T. Wizansky, [*Determination of dark matter properties at high-energy colliders*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 103521 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0602187\]. Eine Beschreibung von Szenarien, in denen das Gravitino das Dunkle-Materie-Teilchen und das Stau der leichsteste Standardmodell-Superpartner ist, kann in dem folgenden Papier gefunden werden: F. D. Steffen, [*Gravitino dark matter and cosmological constraints*]{}, JCAP [**0609**]{} (2006) 001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0605306\]. Die Effekte von gebundenen Zuständen aus Staus und Helium-Kernen wurden erstmals in der folgenden Arbeit untersucht: M. Pospelov, [*Particle physics catalysis of thermal big bang nucleosynthesis*]{}, arXiv:hep-ph/0605215. Die thermische Produktion von Gravitinos und die Folgen der Effekte von gebundenen Zuständen aus Staus und Helium-Kernen für Szenarien, in denen das Gravitino das Dunkle-Materie-Teilchen ist, werden in dem folgenden Brief diskutiert: J. Pradler and F. D. Steffen, [*Constraints on the reheating temperature in gravitino dark matter scenarios*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**648**]{} (2007) 224 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612291\]. Nachweismöglichkeiten von Gravitinos durch die Analyse von Stau-Zerfällen sind in der folgenden Arbeit vorgestellt worden: W. Buchmüller, K. Hamaguchi, M. Ratz and T. Yanagida, [*Supergravity at colliders*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**588**]{} (2004) 90 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402179\]. Eine weitere Studie zur Identifizierung von Gravitinos an Beschleunigern kann in dem folgenden Papier gefunden werden: A. Brandenburg, L. Covi, K. Hamaguchi, L. Roszkowski and F. D. Steffen, [*Signatures of axinos and gravitinos at colliders*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**617**]{} (2005) 99 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0501287\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ordinary differential equations have an arithmetic analogue in which functions are replaced by numbers and the derivation operator is replaced by a Fermat quotient operator. In this survey we explain the main motivations, constructions, results, applications, and open problems of the theory.'
author:
- Alexandru Buium
title: Differential calculus with integers
---
*University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA*
The main purpose of these notes is to show how one can develop an arithmetic analogue of differential calculus in which differentiable functions $x(t)$ are replaced by integer numbers $n$ and the derivation operator $x\mapsto \frac{dx}{dt}$ is replaced by the Fermat quotient operator $n \mapsto \frac{n-n^p}{p}$, where $p$ is a prime integer. The Lie-Cartan geometric theory of differential equations (in which solutions are smooth maps) is then replaced by a theory of “arithmetic differential equations" (in which solutions are integral points of algebraic varieties). In particular the differential invariants of groups in the Lie-Cartan theory are replaced by “arithmetic differential invariants" of correspondences between algebraic varieties. A number of applications to diophantine geometry over number fields and to classical modular forms will be explained.
This program was initiated in [@char] and pursued, in particular, in [@pjets]-[@adel3]; for an exposition of some of these ideas we refer to the monograph [@book]. We shall restrict ourselves here to the [*ordinary differential*]{} case. For the [*partial differential*]{} case we refer to [@laplace; @pde; @pdemod; @forms]. Throughout these notes we assume familiarity with the basic concepts of algebraic geometry and differential geometry; some of the standard material is being reviewed, however, for the sake of introducing notation, and “setting the stage". The notes are organized as follows. The first section presents some classical background, the main concepts of the theory, a discussion of the main motivations, and a comparison with other theories. The second section presents a sample of the main results. The third section presents a list of open problems.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}. The author is indebted to HIM for support during part of the semester on Algebra and Geometry in Spring 2013. These notes are partially based on lectures given at the IHES in Fall 2011 and MPI in Summer 2012 when the author was partially supported by IHES and MPI respectively. Partial support was also received from the NSF through grant DMS 0852591.
Main concepts
=============
Classical analogies
-------------------
The analogies between functions and numbers have played a key role in the development of modern number theory. Here are some classical analogies. All facts in this subsection are well known and entirely classical; we review them only in order to introduce notation and put things in perspective.
### Polynomial functions
The ring $\bC[t]$ of polynomial functions with complex coefficients is analogous to the ring $\bZ$ of integers. The field of rational functions $\bC(t)$ is then analogous to the field of rational numbers $\bQ$. In $\bC[t]$ any non-constant polynomial is a product of linear factors. In $\bZ$ any integer different from $0,\pm 1$ is up to a sign a product of prime numbers. To summarize $$\bC \subset \bC[t]\subset \bC(t)$$ are analogous to $$\{0,\pm 1\}\subset \bZ\subset \bQ$$
### Regular functions
More generally rings $\cO(T)$ of regular functions on complex algebraic affine non-singular curves $T$ are analogous to rings of integers $\cO_F$ in number fields $F$. Hence curves $T$ themselves are analogous to schemes $Spec\ \cO_F$. Compactifications $$T \subset \overline{T}=T\cup \{\infty_1,...,\infty_n\}\stackrel{\ }{\simeq} \text{(compact Riemann surface of genus $g$)}$$ are analogous to “compactifications" $$Spec\ \cO_F\subset \overline{Spec\ \cO_F}=(Spec\ \cO_F) \cup \frac{Hom(F,\bC)}{\text{conjugation}}$$
### Formal functions
The inclusions $$\bC \subset \bC[[t]] \subset \bC((t))$$ (where $\bC[[t]]$ is the ring of power series and $\bC((t))$ is the ring of Laurent series) are analogous to the inclusion $$\{0\}\cup \mu_{p-1}=\{c\in \bZ_p;c^p=c\}\subset \bZ_p\subset \bQ_p$$ (where $\bZ_p$ is ring of $p$-adic integers and $\bQ_p=\bZ_p[1/p]$). Recall that $$\bZ_p=\lim_{\leftarrow} \bZ/p^n\bZ= \{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_i p^i; c_i\in \{0\}\cup\mu_{p-1}\}$$ So $\{0\}\cup \mu_{p-1}$ plays the role of “constants" in $\bZ_p$. Sometimes we need more “constants" and we are led to consider, instead, the inclusions: $$\{0\}\cup \bigcup_{\nu} \mu_{p^{\nu}-1} \subset \widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}\subset \widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}[1/p]$$ where $$\widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}=\bZ_p[\zeta; \zeta^{p^{\nu}-1}=1, \nu\geq 1]\h=
\{\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} c_i p^i; c_i\in \{0\}\cup \bigcup_{\nu} \mu_{p^{\nu}-1}\}.$$ Here the upper hat on a ring $A$ means its $p$-adic completion: $$\widehat{A}:=
\lim_{\leftarrow} A/p^nA.$$ So in the latter case the monoid $\{0\}\cup \bigcup_{\nu} \mu_{p^{\nu}-1}$ should be viewed as the set of “constants" of $\widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}$; this is consistent with the “philosophy of the field with one element" to which we are going to allude later. Let us say that a ring is a [*local $p$-ring*]{} if it is a discrete valuation ring with maximal ideal generated by a prime $p\in \bZ$. Then $\bZ_p$ and $\widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}$ are local $p$-rings. Also for any local $p$-ring $R$ we denote by $k=R/pR$ the residue field and by $K=R[1/p]$ the fraction field of $R$. Sometimes we will view local $p$-rings as analogues of rings $\bC\{x\}$ of germs of analytic functions on Riemann surfaces and even as analogues of rings of global analytic (respectively $C^{\infty}$ functions) on a Riemann surface $T$ (respectively on a $1$-dimensional real manifold $T$, i.e. on a circle $S^1$ or $\bR$).
### Topology
Fundamental groups of complex curves (more precisely Deck transformation groups of normal covers $T'\ra T$ of Riemann surfaces) have, as analogues, Galois groups $G(F'/F)$ of normal extensions number fields $F\subset F'$. The genus of a Riemann surface has an analogue for number fields defined in terms of ramification. All of this is very classical. There are other, less classical, topological analogies like the one between primes in $\bZ$ and nodes in $3$-dimensional real manifolds [@knots].
### Divisors
The group of divisors $$Div(\overline{T})=\{\sum_{P\in \overline{T}} n_P P; n_P\in \bZ\}$$ on a non-singular complex algebraic curve $\overline{T}$ is analogous to the group of divisors $$Div(\overline{Spec\ \cO_F})=\{\sum \nu_P P; \nu_P\in \bZ \ \text{if $P$ is finite}, \nu_P\in \bR\ \text{if $P$ is infinite}\}$$ One can attach divisors to rational functions $f$ on $\overline{T}$ ($Div(f)$ is the sum of poles minus the sum of zeroes); similarly one can attach divisors to elements $f\in F$. In both cases one is lead to a “control" of the spaces of $f$s that have a “controlled" divisor (the Riemann-Roch theorem). One also defines in both settings divisor class groups. In the geometric setting the divisor class group of $\overline{T}$ is an extension of $\bZ$ by the Jacobian $$Jac(\overline{T})=\bC^g/(\text{period lattice of $\overline{T}$})$$ where $g$ is the genus of $\overline{T}$. In the number theoretic setting divisor class groups can be interpreted as “Arakelov class groups"; one recaptures, in particular, the usual class groups $Cl(F)$. Exploring usual class groups “in the limit", when one adjoins roots of unity, leads to Iwasawa theory. We will encounter Jacobians later in relation, for instance, to the Manin-Mumford conjecture. This conjecture (proved by Raynaud) says that if one views $\overline{T}$ as embedded into $Jac(\overline{T})$ (via the “Abel-Jacobi map") the the intersection of $\overline{T}$ with the torsion group of $Jac(\overline{T})$ is a finite set. This particular conjecture does not seem to have an analogue for numbers.
### Families
Maps $$M \ra T$$ of complex algebraic varieties, complex analytic, or real smooth manifolds, where $\dim T=1$, are analogous to arithmetic schemes i.e. schemes of finite type $$X \ra Spec\ R$$ where $R$ is either the ring of integers $\cO_F$ in a number field $F$ or a complete local $p$-ring respectively. Note however that in this analogy one “goes arithmetic only half way": indeed for $X \ra Spec\ R$ the basis is arithmetic yet the fibers are still geometric. One can attempt to “go arithmetic all the way" and find an analogue of $M\ra T$ for which both the base and the fiber are “arithmetic"; in particular one would like to have an analogue of $T \times T$ which is “arithmetic" in two directions. This is one of the main motivations in the search for $\bF_1$, the “field with one element".
### Sections
The set of sections $$\Gamma(M/T)=\{s:T\ra M; \pi \circ \sigma=1\}$$ of a map $\pi:M \ra T$ is analogous to the set $$X(R)=\{s:Spec\ R\ra X; \pi\circ s=1\}$$ of $R$-points of $X$ where $\pi:X\ra Spec\ R$ is the structure morphism. This analogy suggests that finiteness conjectures for sets of the form $X(R)$, which one makes in Diophantine geometry, should have as analogues finiteness conjectures for sets of sections $\Gamma(M/T)$. A typical example of this phenomenon is the Mordell conjecture (Faltings’ theorem) saying that if $X$ is an algebraic curve of “genus" $\geq 2$, defined by polynomials with coefficients in a number field $F$, then the set $X(F)$ is finite. Before the proof of this conjecture Manin [@manin] proved a parallel finiteness result for $\Gamma(M/T)$ where $M\ra T$ is a “non-isotrivial" morphism from an algebraic surface to a curve, whose fibers have genus $\geq 2$. Manin’s proof involved the consideration of differential equations with respect to vector fields on $T$. Faltings’ proof went along completely different lines. This raised the question whether one can develop a theory of differential equations in which one can differentiate numbers.
All these examples of analogies are classical; cf. work of Dedekind, Hilbert, Hensel, Artin, Weil, Lang, Tate, Iwasawa, Grothendieck, and many others.
Analogies proposed in [@char]-[@adel3]
--------------------------------------
One thing that seems to be missing from the classical picture is a counterpart, in number theory, of the differential calculus (in particular of differential equations) for functions. Morally the question is whether one can meaningfully consider (and successfully use) “arithmetic differential equations" satisfied by numbers. In our research on the subject [@char] - [@adel3] we proposed such a theory based on the following sequence of analogies:
### Derivatives
The derivative operator $\d_t=\frac{d}{dt}:\bC[t]\ra \bC[t]$ is analogous to the [*Fermat quotient operator*]{} $\d=\d_p:\bZ \ra \bZ$, $\d_p a=\frac{a-a^p}{p}$. More generally the derivative operator $\d_t=\frac{d}{dt}:C^{\infty}(\bR)\ra C^{\infty}(\bR)$ (with $t$ the coordinate on $\bR$) is analogous to the operator $\d=\d_p:R \ra R$ on a complete local $p$-ring $R$, $\d_p \alpha=\frac{\phi(\alpha)-\alpha^p}{p}$ (where $\phi:R \ra R$ is a fixed homomorphism lifting the $p$-power Frobenius map on $R/pR$). The map $\d=\d_p$ above is, of course, not a derivation but, rather, it satisfies the following conditions: $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\d(1) & = & 0\\
\d(a+b) &= &\d(a)+\d(b)+C_p(a,b)\\
\d(ab)&=&a^p\d(b)+b^p\d(a)+p\d(a)\d(b),\end{array}$$ where $C_p(x,y)\in \bZ[x,y]$ is the polynomial $C_p(x,y)=p^{-1}(x^p+y^p-(x+y)^p)$. Any set theoretic map $\d:A\ra A$ from a ring $A$ to itself satisfying the above axioms will be referred to a $p$-[*derivation*]{}; such operators were introduced independently in [@joyal; @char] and they implicitly arise in the theory of Witt rings. For any such $\d$, the map $\phi:A\ra A$, $\phi(a)=a^p+p\d a$ is a ring homomorphism lifting the $p$-power Frobenius on $A/pA$; and vice versa, given a $p$-torsion free ring $A$ and a ring homomorphism $\phi:A\ra A$ lifting Frobenius the map $\d:A\ra A$, $\d a=\frac{\phi(a)-a^p}{p}$ is a $p$-derivation.
### Differential equations
Differential equations $F(t,x,\d_t x,...,\d_t^n x)=0$ (with $F$ smooth) satisfied by smooth functions $x\in C^{\infty}(\bR)$ are replaced by [*arithmetic differential equations*]{} $F(\alpha,\d_p \alpha,...,\d_p^n \alpha)=0$ with $F\in R[x_0,x_1,...,x_n]\h$ satisfied by numbers $\alpha\in R$. As we shall see it is crucial to allow $F$ to be in the $p$-adic completion of the polynomial ring rather than in the polynomial ring itself; indeed if one restricts to polynomial $F$’s the main interesting examples of the theory are left out.
### Jet spaces
More generally, the Lie-Cartan geometric theory of differential equations has an arithmetic analogue which we explain now. Let $M \ra T$ be a submersion of smooth manifolds with $\dim T=1$, and let $$J^n(M/T)=\{J^n_t(s);s\in \Gamma(M/T), t\in T\}$$ be the space of $n$-jets $J^n_t(s)$ of smooth sections $s$ of $M \ra T$ at points $t \in T$. Cf. [@ALV; @IL; @olver] for references to differential geometry. If $M=\bR^d \times \bR$, $T=\bR$, $M\ra T$ is the second projection, and $x=(x_1,...,x_d)$, $t$ are global coordinates on $\bR^d$ and $\bR$ respectively then $J^n(M/T)=\bR^{(n+1)d}\times \bR$ with [*jet coordinates*]{} $x,x',...,x^{(n)},t$. So for general $M \ra T$ the map $J^n(M/T)\ra M$ is a fiber bundle with fiber $\bR^{nd}$ where $d+1=\text{dim}(M)$. One has the total derivative operator $$\d_t:C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))\ra C^{\infty}(J^{n+1}(M/T))$$ which in coordinates is given by $$\d_t=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+
\sum_{j=0}^n \sum_{i=1}^d x_i^{(j+1)}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i^{(j)}}.$$ In the arithmetic theory the analogues of the manifolds $J^n(M/T)$ are certain formal schemes (called [*arithmetic jet spaces*]{} or [*$p$-jet spaces*]{}) $J^n(X)=J^n(X/R)$ defined as follows. Assume $X$ is affine, $X=Spec\ \frac{R[x]}{(f)}$ with $x,f$ tuples; the construction that follows is easily globalized to the non-affine case. Let $x',...,x^{(n)},...$ be new tuples of variables, consider the polynomial ring $R\{x\}:=R[x,x',x'',...]$, let $\phi:R\{x\}\ra R\{x\}$ be the unique ring homomorphism extending $\phi$ on $R$ and sending $\phi(x)=x^p+px'$, $\phi(x')=(x')^p+px''$,..., and let $$\d=\d_p:R\{x\}\ra R\{x\}$$ be the $p$-derivation $$\d F=\frac{\phi(F)-F^p}{p}.$$ Then one defines $$J^n(X)=Spf\ \frac{R[x,x',...,x^{(n)}]\h}{(f,\d f,...,\d^n f)}.$$
### Differential equations on manifolds
Usual [*differential equations*]{} are defined geometrically as elements of the ring $C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))$; alternatively such elements are referred to as (time dependent) [*Lagrangians*]{} on $M$. Their analogue in the arithmetic theory, which we call [*arithmetic differential equations*]{} [@book], are the elements of the ring $\cO^n(X):=\cO(J^n(X))$. For group schemes the following concept [@char] plays an important role: if $G$ is a group scheme of finite type over $R$ then we may consider the $R$-module $\cX^n(G)=Hom_{gr}(J^n(G),\widehat{\bG}_a) \subset
\cO^n(G)$.
Going back to arbitrary schemes of finite type $X/R$ note that $\d_p:R\{x\}\ra R\{x\}$ induces maps $\d=\d_p:\cO^n(X)\ra \cO^{n+1}(X)$ which can be viewed as arithmetic analogues of the total derivative operator $\d_t:C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))\ra C^{\infty}(J^{n+1}(M/T))$. The latter is a “generator" of the Cartan distribution defined by $dx_i-x_i'dt$, $dx_i'-x_i''dt$, etc. Note however that the forms in differential geometry defining the Cartan distribution do not have a direct arithmetic analogue; for one thing there is no form “$dp$" analogous to $dt$. On the other hand in the arithmetic case we have induced ring homomorphisms $\phi:\cO^n(X)\ra \cO^{n+1}(X)$ which have no analogue in differential geometry.
### Differential functions
Any differential equation $F \in C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))$ defines a natural [*differential function*]{} $F_*:\Gamma(M/T) \ra C^{\infty}(T)$; in coordinates sections $s\in \Gamma(M/T)$ correspond to functions $x=x(t)$ and then $F_*$ sends $x(t)$ into $F_*(x(t))=F(x(t),\d_t x (t),...,\d_t^n x(t))$. Analogously any arithmetic differential equation $f \in \cO(J^n(X))$ defines a map of sets $f_*:X(R)\ra R$, referred to as a $\d$-[*function*]{}, which in affine coordinates sends $\alpha \in X(R)\subset R^N$ into $f_*(\alpha):=F(\alpha,\d_p \alpha,...,\d^n_p\alpha) \in R$ if $F \in R[x,x',...,x^{(n)}]\h$ represents $f$. If $X=G$ is in addition a group scheme and $\psi\in \cX^n(G)$ then $\psi_*:G(R)\ra \bG_a(R)=R$ is a group homomorphism called a $\d$-[*character*]{} of $G$. For $X/R$ smooth and $R/pR$ algebraically closed $f$ is uniquely determined by $f_*$ so one can identify $f$ with $f_*$ and $\psi$ with $\psi_*$.
### Prolongations of vector fields
For any vertical vector field $$\xi:=\sum_{i=1}^d a_i(t,x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$$ on $M/T$ one can consider the canonical prolongations $$\xi^{(n)}:=\sum_{j=0}^n \sum_{i=1}^d (\d^j_t a_i(t,x))\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i^{(j)}}$$ on $J^n(M/T)$. The map $$\xi^{(n)}:C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))\ra C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))$$ is the unique $\bR$-derivation whose restriction to $C^{\infty}(M)$ is $\xi$ and which commutes with the total derivative operator $\d_t$. The above construction has an arithmetic analogue that plays a key technical role in the development of the theory. Indeed for any affine smooth $X/R$ and any $R$-derivation $\xi:\cO(X) \ra \cO(X)$ the canonical prolongation $$\xi^{(n)}:\cO^n(X)[1/p]\ra \cO^n(X)[1/p]$$ is defined as the unique $K=R[1/p]$-derivation whose restriction to $\cO(X)$ is $\xi$ and which commutes with $\phi$. This construction then obviously globalizes.
### Infinitesimal symmetries of differential equations
Some Galois theoretic concepts based on prolongations of vector fields have arithmetic analogues. Indeed recall that if ${\mathcal L}\subset C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))$ is a linear subspace of differential equations then a vertical vector field $\xi$ on $M/T$ is called an [*infinitesimal symmetry*]{} of ${\mathcal L}$ if $\xi^{(n)}{\mathcal L}\subset {\mathcal L}$; it is called a [*variational infinitesimal symmetry*]{} if $\xi^{(n)}{\mathcal L}=0$. Similarly given an $R$-submodule ${\mathcal L}\subset \cO^n(X)$ an [*infinitesimal symmetry*]{} of ${\mathcal L}$ is an $R$-derivation $\xi:\cO(X)\ra \cO(X)$ such that $\xi^{(n)}{\mathcal L}\subset {\mathcal L}[1/p]$. One says $\xi$ is a [*variational infinitesimal symmetry*]{} of ${\mathcal L}$ if $\xi^{(n)}{\mathcal L}=0$.
### Total differential forms on manifolds
Recall that a [*total differential form*]{} ([@olver], p. 351) on $M/T$ is an expression that in coordinates looks like a sum of expressions $$F(t,x,x',...,x^{(n)})dx_{j_1} \wedge...\wedge dx_{j_i},$$ It is important to introduce an arithmetic analogue of this which we now explain. We consider the case of top forms ($i=d$) which leads to what we will call [*$\d$-line bundles*]{}. Denote by $\cO^n$ the sheaf $U \mapsto \cO^n(U)$ on $X$ for the Zariski topology. Define a [*$\d$-line bundle*]{} of order $n$ on $X$ to be a locally free $\cO^n$-module of rank $1$. Integral powers of bundles need to be generalized as follows. Set $W=\bZ[\phi]$ (ring of polynomials with $\bZ$-coefficients in the symbol $\phi$). For $w=\sum a_s\phi^s$ write $deg(w)=\sum a_s$. Also let $W_+$ be the set of all $w=\sum a_s\phi^s \in W$ with $a_s\geq 0$ for all $s$. If $L$ is a line bundle on $X$ given by a cocycle $(g_{ij})$ and $w=\sum_{s=0}^n a_s\phi^s\in W$, $w \neq 0$, $a_n \neq 0$, then define a $\d$-line bundle $L^w$ of order $n$ by the cocycle $(g_{ij}^w)$, $g_{ij}^w=\prod_s \phi^s(g_{ij})^{a_s}$. With all these definitions in place we may define the following rings which, by the way, are the main objects of the theory: $$R_{\d}(X,L)=\bigoplus_{0\neq w
\in W_+}H^0(X,L^w).$$ Note that the above is a graded ring without unity. The homogeneous elements of $R_{\d}(X,L)$ can be viewed as arithmetic analogues of Lagrangian densities and can also be referred to as [*arithmetic differential equations*]{} [@book].
### Differential forms on jet spaces and calculus of variations
The spaces $$\Lambda^i_{\uparrow}(J^n(M/T))$$ of vertical smooth $i$-forms on $J^n(M/T)$ (generated by $i$-wedge products of forms $dx,dx',...,dx^{(n)}$) play an important role in the calculus of variations [@olver]. These spaces fit into a deRham complex where the differential is the vertical exterior differential $$d_{\uparrow}:\Lambda^i_{\uparrow}(J^n(M/T))\ra \Lambda^{i+1}_{\uparrow}(J^n(M/T))$$ with respect to the variables $x,x',...,x^{(n)}$. On the other hand we have unique operators $$\d_t:\Lambda^i_{\uparrow}(J^n(M/T))\ra \Lambda^i_{\uparrow}(J^{n+1}(M/T))$$ that commute with $d_{\uparrow}$, induce a derivation on the exterior algebra, and for $i=0$ coincide with the total derivative operators. Then one can define spaces of [*functional forms*]{} ([@olver], p. 357) $$\Lambda^i_*(J^n(M/T))=\frac{\Lambda_{\uparrow}^i(J^n(M/T))}{Im(\d_t)}$$ and the (vertical part of the) [*variational complex*]{} ([@olver], p. 361) with differentials $$d:\Lambda^i_*(J^n(M/T))\ra \Lambda^{i+1}_*(J^n(M/T)).$$ The class of $\omega \in \Lambda_{\uparrow}^i(J^n(M/T))$ in $\Lambda_*^i(J^n(M/T))$ is denoted by $\int \omega dt$. For $i=0$, $\omega=F$, have the formula $d(\int F dt)= \int EL(F)dt$ in $\Lambda_*^i(J^{2n}(M/T))$ where $EL(F)=\sum_{i=1}^d F_i dx_i$ is the [*Euler-Lagrange*]{} total differential form, $$F_i=\sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^j \d_t^j \left( \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i^{(j)}}\right).$$ Noether’s theorem then says that for any vertical vector field $\xi $ on $M/T$ we have the formula $$\langle \xi, EL(F)\rangle - \xi^{(n)} (F)=\d_t G$$ for some $G \in C^{\infty}(J^{2n-1}(M/T))$; $G$ is unique up to a constant. If $\xi$ is a variational infinitesimal symmetry of $F$ then $G$ is referred to as the [*conservation law*]{} attached to this symmetry; in this case if $x(t)$ is a solution of all $F_i=0$ then $G$ evaluated at $x(t)$ will be a constant. Analogously, for $X/R$ smooth and affine, one can consider the modules $\Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}$ (exterior powers of the inverse limit of the Käher differentials $\Omega_{\cO^n(X)\otimes (R/p^nR)/(R/p^nR)}$), and the exterior differential $$d:\Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}\ra \Omega^{i+1}_{\cO^n(X)/R}.$$ Also one may consider the operators $$\phi^*:\Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}\ra \Omega^i_{\cO^{n+1}(X)/R};$$ again $\phi^*$ and $d$ commute. Also note that any element in the image of $\phi^*$ is uniquely divisible by $p^i$; for any $\omega \in \Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}$ and $r\geq 0$ we then set $\omega_r=p^{-ir}\phi^{*r} \omega$. The operation $p^{-ir}\phi^{*r}$ is a characteristic zero version of the inverse Cartier operator. For any element $\mu\in R$ (which we refer to as [*eigenvalue*]{}) one can define groups $$\Lambda^i_*(J^n(X))=\frac{\Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}}{Im(\phi^*-\mu)}$$ that fit into a [*variational complex*]{} with differentials $$d:\Lambda^i_*(J^n(X))\ra \Lambda^{i+1}_*(J^n(X)).$$ The class of $\omega \in \Omega^i_{\cO^n(X)/R}$ in $\Lambda_*^i(J^n(X))$ is denoted by $\int \omega dp$. For $i=0$, $\mu=1$, $\omega=F\in \cO^n(X)$ we have $d (\int Fdp)=\int \{\sum_{i=1}^d F_i \omega_n^i\}dp$ in $\Lambda^1_*(J^{2n}(X))$ where $F_i\in \cO^{2n}(X)$, $\omega^i$ is a basis of $\Omega_{\cO(X)/R}$, and $\omega^i_n=p^{-n}\phi^{*n}\omega^i$. Also an analogue of the Noether theorem holds in this context with $\epsilon(F):=\sum_{i=1}^d F_i \omega_n^i$ playing the role of the Euler-Lagrange form; indeed for any vector field $\xi$ on $X$ there exists $G \in \cO^{2n-1}(X)$ such that $$\langle \xi^{(n)}, \epsilon(F)\rangle - \xi^{(n)} (F)=G^{\phi}-G.$$ If $\xi$ is a variational infinitesimal symmetry of $F$ then $G$ can be referred to as a [*conservation law*]{}; in this case if $P\in X(R)$ is a point which is a solution to all $F_{i*}(P)=0$ then $G_*(P)^{\phi}=G_*(P)$. Part of the formalism above can be used to introduce an arithmetic analogue of the Hamiltonian formalism for which we refer to [@BYM].
### “Category of differential equations"
A categorical framework for differential equations on manifolds can be introduced (cf. [@ALV], for instance). In one variant of this the objects are locally isomorphic to projective systems of submanifolds of $J^n(M/T)$ compatible with the total derivative operator and morphisms are smooth maps between these, again compatible with the total derivative operator. This categorical framework has an arithmetic analogue as follows. Note first that $\phi$ acts naturally on $R_{\d}(X,L)$ but $\d$ does not. Nevertheless for any homogeneous $s \in R_{\d}(X,L)$ of degree $v$ the ring $R_{\d}(X,L)_{\langle s \rangle}$ of all fractions $f/s^w$ with $f$ homogeneous of degree $wv$ has a natural $p$-derivation $\d$ on it. This inductive system $X_{\d}(L)=(R_{\d}(X,L)_{\langle s \rangle},\d)_s$ of rings equipped with $p$-derivations $\d$ is an object of a natural category underlying a geometry more general than algebraic geometry which we refer to as $\d$-[*geometry*]{} [@book]. This geometry is an arithmetic analogue of the categorical setting in [@ALV] and also an arithmetic analogue of the Ritt-Kolchin $\d$-algebraic geometry [@Kolchin; @hermann]. If one restricts to étale maps of smooth schemes we have a functor $X \mapsto X_{\d}=X_{\d}(K^{\nu})$ from “algebraic geometry" to our “$\d$-geometry" by taking $L=K^{\nu}$ to be a fixed power of the canonical bundle; the natural choice later in the theory turns out to be the anticanonical bundle $L=K^{-1}$. In $\d$-geometry $X_{\d}$ should be viewed as an infinite dimensional object.
### Differential invariants
Recall the concept of [*differential invariant*]{} which plays a key role in the “Galois theoretic" work of Lie and Cartan. Assume that a group $G$ acts on $M$ and $T$ such that $M \ra T$ is $G$-equivariant. (In this discussion assume $d:=\dim T$ is arbitrary.) Then $G$ acts on $J^n(M/T)$ and the ring $C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))^G$ of $G$-invariant elements in the ring $C^{\infty}(J^n(M/T))$ is called the ring of [*differential invariants*]{}. There are two extreme cases of special interest: the case when $G$ acts trivially on $T$ and the case when $G$ acts transitively on $T$. A special case of the first extreme case mentioned above is that in which $M=F \times T$, with $G$ a Lie group acting trivially on $T$ and transitively on $F$; this leads to the context of Cartan’s moving frame method and of Cartan connections. For $\dim T=1$, $T$ is the “time" manifold, $F$ is the “physical space", and sections in $\Gamma(M/T)$ correspond to particle trajectories. A special case of the second extreme case mentioned above is the situation encountered in the study of “geometric structures" and in the formulation of field theories, in which $G$ is the group $\text{Diff}(T)$ of diffeomorphisms of $T$, $T$ is viewed as the “physical space" or “physical space-time", and $M$ is a [*natural bundle*]{} over $T$, i.e. a quotient $M=\Gamma \backslash \text{Rep}_n(T)$ of the bundle $\text{Rep}_n (T)\ra T$ of $n$-jets of frames $(\bR^d,0)\ra T$ by a Lie subgroup $\Gamma$ of the group $\text{Aut}_n(\bR^d,0)$ of $n$-jets of diffeomorphisms of $(\bR^d,0)$; cf. [@ALV], pp. 150-153 and 183. (E.g. the Riemannian metrics on $T$ identify with the sections in $\Gamma(M_{1,O(d)}/T)$ where $O(d) < GL(d)=\text{Aut}_1(\bR^d,0)$ is the orthogonal group.) In the case when the action of $G$ on $T$ is trivial the ring of differential invariants above turns out to have an interesting arithmetic analogue, namely the ring of [*$\d$-invariants of a correspondence*]{}; cf. the discussion below. The special case of Cartan connections has also an arithmetic analogue: the [*arithmetic logarithmic derivative*]{} attached to a $\d$-[*flow*]{}. The latter has a flavor different from that of $\d$-invariants of correspondences and will be discussed later. There are also interesting candidates for arithmetic analogues of the situation when $G=\text{Diff}(T)$; cf. our discussion of Lie groupoids below.
We next explain the ring of $\d$-invariants of a correspondence. Pursuing an analogy with usual geometric invariant theory assume we are given $(X,L)$, a [*correspondence*]{} on $X$ (i.e. a morphism $\sigma=(\sigma_1,\sigma_2):\tilde{X} \ra X \times X$), and a [*linearization*]{} of $L$ (i.e. an isomorphism $\beta:\sigma_1^*
L \simeq \sigma_2^*L$). Then we may define the ring of [*$\d$-invariants of $\sigma$*]{} by $$R_{\d}(X,L)^{\sigma}=\{f\in R_{\d}(X,L);\ \beta
\sigma_1^*f=\sigma_2^*f\}.$$ (This ring, again, has no unity!) The homogeneous elements $s$ of $R_{\d}(X,L)^{\sigma}$ can be viewed as arithmetic analogues of total differential forms invariant under appropriate symmetries. The inductive system of rings $$(R_{\d}(X,L)^{\sigma}_{\langle s \rangle},\d)$$ equipped with $p$-derivations $\d$ can be viewed as an incarnation of the quotient space “$X_{\d}/\sigma_{\d}$" in $\d$-geometry (and, under quite general hypotheses, is indeed the categorical quotient of $X_{\d}$ by $\sigma_{\d}$); note that, in most interesting examples (like the ones in Theorem \[thm2\] below), the quotient $X/\sigma$ does not exist in usual algebraic geometry (or rather the categorical quotient in algebraic geometry reduces to a point).
It is worth revisiting the sequence of ideas around differential invariants. Classical Galois theory deals with algebraic equations (satisfied by numbers). Lie and Cartan extended Galois’ ideas, especially through the concept of differential invariant, to the study of differential equations (satisfied by functions); roughly speaking they replaced numbers by functions. In the theory presented here functions are replaced back by numbers. But we did [*not*]{} come back to where things started because we have added new structure, the operator $\d=\d_p$. In particular the $\d$-invariants mentioned above, although arithmetic in nature, and although attached to algebraic equations (defining $X$, $\tilde{X}$, $\sigma$), are nevertheless [*not*]{} “Galois theoretic" in any classical sense.
### Lie groupoids
Let us go back to the (interrelated) problems of finding arithmetic analogues of $T\times T$ and of $\text{Diff}(T)$. The arithmetic analogue of $S:=T\times T$ is usually referred to as the hypothetical tensor product “$\bZ \otimes_{\bF_1}\bZ$" over the “field with one element"; cf. [@maninf1] for some history of this. The arithmetic analogue of $\text{Diff}(T)$ could be thought of as the Galois group “$\text{Gal}(\bQ/\bF_1)$". According to a suggestion of Borger [@borger] one should take “$\bZ \otimes_{\bF_1}\bZ$" to be, by definition, the big Witt ring of $\bZ$. Since we are here in a local arithmetic situation it is convenient, for our purposes, to take, as an arithmetic analogue of $S=T \times T$, the schemes $\Sigma_m=Spec\ W_m(R)$, where $W_m$ is the $p$-typical functor of Witt vectors of length $m+1$ (we use Borger’s indexing) and $R$ is a complete local $p$-ring. On the other hand an infinitesimal analogue of $\text{Diff}(T)$ is the Lie groupoid of $T$ defined as the projective system of groupoids ${\mathcal G}_n(T):=J^n(S/T)^*$ (where the upper $*$ means taking “invertible" elements and $S=T \times T \ra T$ is the second projection.) So an arithmetic analogue of the system $J^n(S/T)^*$ (which at the same time would be an infinitesimal analogue of “$\text{Gal}(\bQ/\bF_1)$") would be the system $J^n(\Sigma_m)$ equipped with the natural maps induced by the comonad map. This system is a rather non-trivial object [@pw]. It is worth noting that a good arithmetic analogue of $J^n(S/T)^*$ could also be the “usual" jet spaces (in the sense of [@annals]) of $W_m(R)/R$ (which in this case can be constructed directly from the module of Käher differentials $\Omega_{W_m(R)/R}$). By the way $\Omega_{W_m(R)/R}$ is also the starting point for the construction of the deRham-Wit complex [@he]. However $\Omega$ involves usual derivations (rather than Fermat quotients) so taking $\Omega$ as a path to an arithmetic analogue of $J^n(S/T)^*$ seems, again, like “going arithmetic halfway". On the contrary taking the system $J^n(\Sigma_m)$ as the analogue of $J^n(S/T)^*$ seems to achieve, in some sense, the task of “going arithmetic all the way".
We end by remarking that if we denote $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ the source and target projections from ${\mathcal G}_n(T)$ into $T$ then there are natural “actions" $\rho$ of the groupoids ${\mathcal G}_n(T)$ on all natural bundles $M_{n,\Gamma}:=\Gamma \backslash \text{Rep}_n(T) \ra T$ fitting into diagrams: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
M_{n,\Gamma} \times_{T,\pi_1} {\mathcal G}_n(T) & \stackrel{\rho}{\longrightarrow} & M_{n,\Gamma} \\
p_2 \downarrow & \ & \downarrow\\
{\mathcal G}_n(T) & \stackrel{\pi_2}{\longrightarrow} & T
\end{array}$$ where $p_2$ is the second projection. The above induce “actions" $$\begin{array}{rcl}
J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T) \times_{T,\pi_1} {\mathcal G}_n(T) & \stackrel{\rho}{\longrightarrow} & J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T) \\
p_2 \downarrow & \ & \downarrow \\
{\mathcal G}_n(T) & \stackrel{\pi_2}{\longrightarrow} & T
\end{array}$$ where $p_2$ is again the second projection. One can consider rings of differential invariants $$C^{\infty}(J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T))^{\rho}:=\{F\in C^{\infty}(J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T));F \circ \rho=F \circ p_1\}$$ where $p_1:J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T) \times_{T,\pi_1} {\mathcal G}_n(T)\ra J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T)$ is the fist projection. There should be arithmetic analogues of the above “actions" and rings of differential invariants. One can argue that the analogue of $\text{Rep}_n(T)$ is, again, the system $J^n(\Sigma_m)$. Then for $\Gamma=1$ the analogue of $J^n(M_{n,\Gamma}/T)$ might be $J^n(J^n(\Sigma_m))$; the analogue, for $\Gamma=1$, of the “action" $\rho$ above could then be the map $J^n(J^n(\Sigma_{m',m''}))\ra J^n(J^n(\Sigma_{m'+m''}))$ where $\Sigma_{m',m''}=Spec\ W_{m'}(W_{m''}(R))$. A challenge would then be to find arithmetic analogues of non-trivial $\Gamma$s.
### Differential Galois theory of linear equations
This subject is best explained in a complex (rather than real) situation. Classically (following Picard-Vessiot and Kolchin [@kolchin]) one starts with a differential field ${\mathcal F}$ of meromorphic functions on a domain $D$ in the complex plane ${\mathbb C}$ and one fixes an $n \times n$ matrix $A\in {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n({\mathcal F})$ in the Lie algebra of the general linear group $GL_n({\mathcal F})$. The problem then is to develop a “differential Galois theory" for equations of the form $$\d_z U=A\cdot U$$ where $U\in GL_n({\mathcal G})$, ${\mathcal G}$ a field of meromorphic functions on a subdomain of $D$, and $z$ a coordinate on $D$. The start of the theory is as follows. One fixes a solution $U$ and introduces the differential Galois group $G_{U/{\mathcal F}}$ of $U/{\mathcal F}$ as the group of all ${\mathcal F}-$automorphisms of the field ${\mathcal F}(U)$ that commute with $d/dz$. One can ask for an arithmetic analogue of this theory. There is a well developed difference algebra analogue of linear differential equations [@SVdP]; but the arithmetic differential theory is still in its infancy [@adel1; @adel2; @adel3]. What is being proposed in loc. cit. in the arithmetic theory is to fix a matrix $\alpha\in {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n(R)$ and define $\d$-linear equations as equations of the form $$\d u=\alpha \cdot u^{(p)}$$ where $u=(u_{ij})\in GL_n(R)$, $\d u:=(\d u_{ij})$, and $u^{(p)}:=(u_{ij}^p)$. Note that the above equation is equivalent to $\phi(u)=\epsilon \cdot u^{(p)}$ where $\epsilon=1+p\alpha$ which is [*not*]{} a difference equation for $\phi$ in the sense of [@SVdP]; indeed difference equations for $\phi$ have the form $\phi(u)=\epsilon \cdot u$. To define the $\d$-Galois group of such an equation start with a $\d$-subring $\cO\subset R$ and let $u\in GL_n(R)$ be a solution of our equation. Let $\cO[u]\subset R$ the ring generated by the entries of $u$; clearly $\cO[u]$ is a $\d$-subring of $R$. We define the [*$\d$-Galois group*]{} $G_{u/\cO}$ of $u/\cO$ as the subgroup of all $c\in GL_n(\cO)$ for which there exists an $\cO$-algebra automorphism $\sigma$ of $\cO[u]$ such that $\sigma\circ \d=\d\circ \sigma$ on $\cO[u]$ and such that $\sigma(u)=uc$. The theory starts from here.
### Cartan connections
The Maurer-Cartan connection attached to a Lie group $G$ is a canonical map $T(G)\ra L(G)$ from the tangent bundle $T(G)$ to the Lie algebra $L(G)$; for $G=GL_n$ it is given by the form $dg\cdot g^{-1}$ and its algebraic incarnation is Kolchin’s logarithmic derivative map [@kolchin] $GL_n({\mathcal G})\ra {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n({\mathcal G})$, $u\mapsto \d_z u\cdot u^{-1}$. In our discussion of linear equations above the arithmetic analogue of the Kolchin logarithmic derivative map is the map $GL_n(R)\ra {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n(R)$, $$u\mapsto \d u \cdot (u^{(p)})^{-1}.$$ This map is naturally attached to the lift of Frobenius $\phi_{GL_n,0}:\widehat{GL_n}\ra \widehat{GL_n}$ whose effect on the ring $\cO(\widehat{GL_n})=R[x,\det(x)^{-1}]\h$ is $\phi_{GL_n,0}(x)=x^{(p)}$. The latter lift of Frobenius behaves well (in a precise sense to be explained later) with respect to the maximal torus $T\subset GL_n$ of diagonal matrices and with respect to the Weyl group $W\subset GL_n$ of permutation matrices but it behaves “badly" with respect to other subgroups like the classical groups $SL_n,SO_n,Sp_n$. (This phenomenon does not occur in the geometry of Lie groups where the Maurer-Cartan form behaves well with respect to [*any*]{} Lie subgroup of $GL_n$, in particular with respect to the classical groups.) In order to remedy the situation one is lead to generalize the above constructions by replacing $\phi_{GL_n,0}$ with other lifts of Frobenius $\phi_{GL_n}:\widehat{GL_n}\ra \widehat{GL_n}$ that are adapted to each of these classical groups. Here is a description of the resulting framework.
First we define an arithmetic analogue of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ of $GL_n$ as the set ${\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ of $n\times n$ matrices over $R$ equipped with the non-commutative group law $+_{\d}:{\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n\times {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n\ra {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ given by $$a+_{\d}b:=a+b+pab,$$ where the addition and multiplication in the right hand side are those of ${\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$, viewed as an associative algebra. There is a natural “$\d$-adjoint" action $\star_{\d}$ of $GL_n$ on ${\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ given by $$a\star_{\d} b:=\phi(a) \cdot b \cdot \phi(a)^{-1}.$$
Assume now one is given a ring endomorphism $\phi_{GL_n}$ of $\cO(\widehat{GL_n})$ lifting Frobenius, i.e. a ring endomorphism whose reduction mod $p$ is the $p$-power Frobenius on $\cO(GL_n)\h/(p)=k[x,\det(x)^{-1}]$; we still denote by $\phi_{GL_n}:\widehat{GL_n}\ra \widehat{GL_n}$ the induced morphism of $p$-formal schemes and we refer to it as a lift of Frobenius on $\widehat{GL_n}$ or simply as a $\d$-[*flow*]{} on $\widehat{GL_n}$. Consider the matrices $\Phi(x)=(\phi_{GL_n}(x_{ij}))$ and $x^{(p)}=(x_{ij}^p)$ with entries in $\cO(GL_n)\h$; then $\Phi(x)=x^{(p)}+p\Delta(x)$ where $\Delta(x)$ is some matrix with entries in $\cO(GL_n)\h$. Furthermore given a lift of Frobenius $\phi_{GL_n}$ as above one defines, as usual, a $p$-derivation $\d_{GL_n}$ on $\cO(GL_n)\h$ by setting $\d_{GL_n}(f)=\frac{\phi_{GL_n}(f)-f^p}{p}.$
Assume furthermore that we are given a smooth closed subgroup scheme $G\subset GL_n$. We say that $G$ is $\phi_{GL_n}$-horizontal if $\phi_{GL_n}$ sends the ideal of $G$ into itself; in this case we have a lift of Frobenius endomorphism $\phi_G$ on $\widehat{G}$, equivalently on $\cO(G)\h$.
Assume the ideal of $G$ in $\cO(GL_n)$ is generated by polynomials $f_i(x)$. Then recall that the Lie algebra $L(G)$ of $G$ identifies, as an additive group, to the subgroup of the usual additive group $({\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n,+)$ consisting of all matrices $a$ satisfying $$``\epsilon^{-1}"f_i(1+\epsilon a)=0,$$ where $\epsilon^2=0$. Let $f^{(\phi)}_i$ be the polynomials obtained from $f_i$ by applying $\phi$ to the coefficients. Then we define the $\d$-Lie algebra $L_{\d}(G)$ as the subgroup of $({\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n,+_{\d})$ consisting of all the matrices $a\in {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ satisfying $$p^{-1}f_i^{(\phi)}(1+pa)=0.$$
The analogue of Kolchin’s logarithmic derivative (or of the Maurer-Cartan connection) will then be the map, referred to as the [*arithmetic logarithmic derivative*]{}, $l\d:GL_n\ra {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n,$ defined by $$l\d a:=\frac{1}{p}\left(\phi(a)\Phi(a)^{-1}-1\right)=(\d a-\Delta(a))(a^{(p)}+p\Delta(a))^{-1}.$$ For $G$ a $\phi_{GL_n}$-horizontal subgroup $l\d$ above induces a map $l\d:G\ra L_{\d}(G)$. Now any $\alpha\in L_{\d}(G)$ defines an equation of the form $
l\d u=\alpha,
$ with unknown $u\in G$; such an equation will be referred to as a $\d$-linear equation (with respect to our $\d$-flow). Later in the paper we will explain our results about existence of $\d$-flows on $GL_n$ compatible with the classical groups. These $\d$-flows will produce, as explained above, corresponding $\d$-linear equations.
Main task of the theory
-----------------------
At this point we may formulate the main technical tasks of the theory. Let, from now on, $R=\widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}$. First given a specific scheme $X$ (or group scheme $G$) the task is to compute the rings $\cO^n(X)$ (respectively the modules $\cX^n(G)$). More generally given a specific pair $(X,L)$ we want to compute the ring $R_{\d}(X,L)$. Finally given $(X,L)$, a correspondence $\sigma$ on $X$, and a linearization of $L$, we want to compute the ring $R_{\d}(X,L)^{\sigma}$. [*The main applications of the theory (cf. the subsection below on motivations) arise as a result of the presence of interesting/unexpected elements and relations in the rings $\cO^n(X)$, $R_{\d}(X,L)$, $R_{\d}(X,L)^{\sigma}$.*]{}
Motivations of the theory
-------------------------
There are a number of motivations for developing such a theory.
### Diophantine geometry
Usual differential equations satisfied by functions can be used to prove diophantine results over function fields (e.g. the function field analogues of the Mordell conjecture [@manin] and of the Lang conjecture [@annals]). In the same vein one can hope to use “arithmetic differential equations” satisfied by numbers to prove diophantine results over number fields. This idea actually works in certain situations, as we will explain below. Cf. [@pjets; @local]. The general strategy is as follows. Assume one wants to prove that a set $S$ of points on an algebraic variety is finite. What one tries to do is find a system of arithmetic differential equations $F_i(\alpha,\d_p \alpha,...,\d_p^n \alpha)=0$ satisfied by all $\alpha \in S$; then one tries, using algebraic operations and the “differentiation" $\d_p$, to eliminate $\d_p \alpha,...,\d_p^n \alpha$ from this system to obtain another system $G_j(\alpha)=0$ satisfied by all $\alpha \in S$, where $G_j$ do not involve the “derivatives" anymore. Finally one proves, using usual algebraic geometry that the latter system has only finitely many solutions.
### “Impossible" quotient spaces
If $X$ is an algebraic variety and $\sigma:\tilde{X} \ra X\times X$ is a correspondence on $X$ then the categorical quotient $X/\sigma$ usually reduces to a point in the category of algebraic varieties. In some sense this is an illustration of the limitations of classical algebraic geometry and suggests the challenge of creating more general geometries in which $X/\sigma$ becomes interesting. (The non-commutative geometry of A. Connes [@Connes] serves in particular this purpose.) As explained above we proposed, in our work, to replace the algebraic equations of usual algebraic geometry by “arithmetic differential equations"; the resulting new geometry is called $\d_p$-geometry (or simply $\d$-geometry). Then it turns out that important class of quotients $X/\sigma$ that reduce to a point in usual algebraic geometry become interesting in $\d$-geometry (due to the existence of interesting $\d$-invariants). A general principle seems to emerge according to which this class coincides with the class of “analytically uniformizable" correspondences. Cf. [@book].
### “Impossible" liftings to characteristic zero
A series of phenomena belonging to algebraic geometry in characteristic $p$, which do not lift to characteristic $0$ in algebraic geometry, can be lifted nevertheless to characteristic $0$ in $\d$-geometry. This seems to be a quite general principle with various incarnations throughout the theory (cf. [@difmod; @book; @igusa]) and illustrates, again, how a limitation of classical algebraic geometry can be overcome by passing to $\d$-geometry.
Comparison with other theories
------------------------------
It is worth noting that the paradigm of our work is quite different from the following other paradigms:
1\) Dwork’s theory of $p$-adic differential equations [@dwork] (which is a theory about $\delta_t$ acting on functions in $\bQ_p[[t]]$ and not about $\d_p$ acting on numbers; also Dwork’s theory is a theory of linear differential equations whereas the theory here is about analogues of non-linear differential equations),
2\) Vojta’s jet spaces [@vojta] (which, again, although designed for arithmetic purposes, are nevertheless constructed from Hasse-Schmidt derivations “$\frac{1}{n!}\delta_t^n$" acting on functions and not from operators acting on numbers),
3\) Ihara’s differentiation of integers [@I] (which, although based on Fermat quotients, goes from characteristic zero to characteristic $p$ and hence, unlike our $\d_p$, cannot be iterated),
4\) the point of view of Kurokawa et. al. [@kur] (which uses an operator on numbers very different from $\d_p$ namely $\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial p}:=np^{n-1}\beta$ for $\alpha=p^n
\beta \in {\mathbb Z}$, $p\not| \beta$),
5\) the theory of Drinfeld modules [@Drinfeld](which is entirely in characteristic $p$),
6\) the difference geometry in the work of Cohn, Hrushovski-Chatzidakis [@CH], and others (in which the jet spaces are $n$-fold products of the original varieties as opposed to the jet spaces in our work which are, as we shall see, bundles over the original varieties with fibers affine spaces),
7\) Raynaud’s deformation to Witt vectors $W_2(k)$ over a field $k$ of characteristic $p$ [@raynaud] (which again leads to operators from characteristic zero to characteristic $p$ which cannot be iterated; loosely speaking $W_2(k)$ in Raynaud’s approach is replaced in our theory by $W_2(W(k))$).
8\) the work of Soulé, Deitmar, Connes, and many others on the “geometry over the field $\bF_1$ with one element". (In their work passing from the geometry over $\bZ$ to the geometry over $\bF_1$ amounts to [*removing*]{} part of the structure defining commutative rings, e.g. removing addition and hence considering multiplicative monoids instead of rings. On the contrary our approach (cf. the Introduction to [@book]), and Borger’s \[3\], can be seen as a way of passing from $\bZ$ to $\bF_1$ by [*adding*]{} structure to the commutative rings, specifically adding the operator(s) $\d_p$).
9\) the work of Joyal [@joyal] on the Witt functor (which is a right adjoint to the forgetful functor from “$\d$-rings" to rings as opposed to our arithmetic jet functor which is a left adjoint to the same forgetful functor. As it is usually the case the left and right stories turn out to be rather different.)
10\) the theory of the Greenberg transform, cf. Lang’s thesis and [@greenberg] (which attaches to a scheme $X/R$ varieties $G^n(X)$ over $k$; one can show [@pjets] that $G^n(X)\simeq J^n(X)\otimes_R k$ so the arithmetic jet spaces are certain remarkable liftings to characteristic zero of the Greenberg transforms. The operators $\d$ on $\cO^n(X)$ do not survive after reduction mod $p$ as operators on the Greenberg transforms.)
11\) the work on the deRham-Witt complex, cf., e.g. [@he] (which has as its starting point the study of Kähler differential of Witt vectors; on the contrary, what our research suggests, cf. [@pw], is to push arithmetization one step further by analyzing instead the [*arithmetic*]{} jet spaces of Witt vectors.)
12\) the theory $\phi$-modules (which is a theory about linear equations as opposed to the theory here which is non-linear).
Main results
============
We present in what follows a sample of our results. We always set $\overline{A}=A \otimes_{\mathbb Z}\bF_p=A/pA$, $\overline{X}=X \otimes_{\mathbb Z} \bF_p$ for any ring $A$ and any scheme $X$ respectively. Recall that we denote by $\widehat{A}$ the $p$-adic completion of $A$; for $X$ Noetherian we denote by $\widehat{X}$ the $p$-adic completion of $X$. Also, in what follows, $R:=\widehat{\bZ_p^{ur}}$, $k:=R/pR$. We begin with completely general facts:
Affine fibration structure of $p$-jet spaces
--------------------------------------------
\[fibb\] [@char]
1\) If $X/R$ is a smooth scheme of relative dimension $d$ then $X$ has an affine covering $X_i$ such that $J^n(X_i)\simeq \widehat{X_i} \times \widehat{\bA^{nd}}$ in the category of $p$-adic formal schemes.
2\) If $G/R$ is a smooth group scheme of relative dimension $d$, with formal group law ${\mathcal F}\in R[[T_1,T_2]]^d$ ($T_1,T_2$ $d$-tuples), then the kernel of $J^n(G)\ra \widehat{G}$ is isomorphic to $\widehat{\bA^{nd}}$ with composition law obtained from the formal series $$\d {\mathcal F},...,\d^n {\mathcal F}\in R[[T_1,T_2,...,T_1^{(n)},T_2^{(n)}]]^d$$ by setting $T_1=T_2=0$.
Note that after setting $T_1=T_2=0$ the series $\d^n {\mathcal F}$ become restricted i.e. elements of $(R[T_1',T_2',...,T_1^{(n)},T_2^{(n)}]\h)^d$ so they define morphisms in the category of $p$-adic formal schemes. Assertion 1) in the theorem makes $p$-jet spaces resemble the usual jet spaces of the Lie-Cartan theory. Note however that, even if $G$ is commutative, the kernel of $J^n(G)\ra \widehat{G}$ is not, in general the additive group raised to some power. Here is the idea of the proof of 1) for $n=1$. We may assume $X=Spec\ A$, $A=R[x]/(f)$, and there is an étale map $R[T]\subset A$ with $T$ a $d$-tuple of indeterminates. Consider the unique ring homomorphism $R[T]\ra W_1(A[T'])$ sending $T\mapsto (T,T')$ where $W_1$ is the functor of Witt vectors of length $2$ and $T'$ is a $d$-tuple of indeterminates. Using the fact that $R[T]\subset A$ is formally étale and the fact that the first projection $W_1(A[T']/(p^n))\ra A[T']/(p^n)$ has a nilpotent kernel, one constructs a compatible sequence of homomorphisms $A \ra W_1(A[T']/(p^n))$, $T\mapsto (T,T')$. Hence one gets a homomorphism $A\ra W_1(A[T']\h)$, $a\mapsto (a,\d a)$. Then one defines a homomorphism $R[x,x']\h/(f,\d f) \ra A[T']\h$ by sending $x \mapsto a:=\text{class}(x)\in A$, $x'\mapsto \d a$. Conversely one defines a homomorphism $A[T']\h\ra R[x,x']\h/(f,\d f)$ by sending $T'\mapsto \d T$. The two homomorphisms are inverse to each other which ends the proof of 1) for $n=1$.
$\d$-functions and $\d$-characters on curves
--------------------------------------------
The behavior of the rings $\cO^n(X)$ for smooth projective curves $X$ depends on the genus of $X$ as follows:
\[thm1\] [@char; @pjets; @je] Let $X$ be a smooth projective curve over $R$ of genus $g$.
1\) If $g=0$ then $\cO^n(X)=R$ for all $n \geq 0$.
2\) Let $g=1$. If $X$ is not a canonical lift then $\cO^1(X)=R$ (hence $\cX^1(X)=0$) and $\cX^2(X)$ is a free module of rank $1$; in particular $\cO^2(X)\neq
R$. If, on the other hand, $X$ is a canonical lift then $\cO^1(X)=\cO(\widehat{{\mathbb A}^1})$ and $\cX^1(X)$ is free of rank one.
3\) If $g \geq 2$ then $J^n(X)$ is affine for $n \geq 1$; in particular $\cO^1(X)$ separates the points of $X(R)$.
The proof of 1) is a direct computation. The idea of proof of the statements about $\cX^n$ in 2) is as follows. Let $N^n=Ker(J^n(X)\ra \widehat{X})$. Then one first proves (using Theorem \[fibb\]) that $Hom(N^n,\widehat{\mathbb G}_a)$ has rank at least $n$ over $R$ and one computes the ranks of $\cX^n(X)$ by looking at the exact squence $$Hom(J^2(X),\widehat{\mathbb G}_a)\ra Hom(N^2,\widehat{\mathbb G}_a)\ra H^1(X,\cO).$$ Here $Hom=Hom_{gr}$. The proof of 3) is based on representing $\overline{J^1(X)}$ as ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal E})\backslash D$ where ${\mathcal E}$ is a rank $2$ vector bundle on $\overline{X}$, and $D$ is an ample divisor.
If $g=1$ and $X$ is not a canonical lift then a basis $\psi$ for $\cX^2(X)$ can be viewed as an analogue of the “Manin map" of an elliptic fibration [@manin]. Also note that assertion 3) in Theorem \[thm1\] implies the effective version of the Manin-Mumford conjecture [@pjets]. Indeed Manin and Mumford conjectured that if $X$ is a complex curve of genus $\geq 2$ embedded into its Jacobian $A$ then $X \cap A_{tors}$ is a finite set. This was proved by Raynaud [@raynaud]. Mazur later asked [@Mazur] if $\sharp(X \cap A_{tors})\leq C(g)$ where $C(g)$ is a constant that depends only on the genus $g$ of $X$. Using 3) in Theorem \[thm1\] one can prove:
\[zuzu\] [@pjets] For a smooth projective complex curve $X$ in its Jacobian $A$ we have $\sharp(X \cap A_{tors})\leq C(g,p)$ where $C(g,p)$ is a constant that depends only on the genus $g$ and (in case $X$ is defined over $\overline{\bQ}$) on the smallest prime $p$ of good reduction of $X$.
Roughly speaking the idea of proof is as follows. First one can replace the complex numbers by $R$ and $A_{tors}$ by its prime to $p$ torsion subgroup $\Gamma < A(R)$. Then one embeds $X(R)\cap \Gamma$ (via the “jet map") into the the set of $k$-points of $\overline{J^1(X)}\cap p \overline{J^1(A)}$. But the latter is a finite set because $\overline{J^1(X)}$ is affine, $p \overline{J^1(A)}$ is projective, and both are closed in $\overline{J^1(A)}$. Moreover the cardinality of this finite set can be bounded using Bézout’s theorem.
One can ask for global vector fields on a smooth projective curve $X/R$ that are infinitesimal symmetries for given $\d$-functions on $X$. The only non-trivial care is that of genus $1$ (elliptic curves); indeed for genus $0$ there are no non-constant $\d$-functions (cf. Theorem \[thm1\]) while for genus $\geq 2$ there are no non-zero vector fields. Here is the result:
[@char; @book] Let $X$ be an elliptic curve over $R$ with ordinary reduction.
1\) If $X$ has Serre-Tate parameter $q(X)\not\equiv 1$ mod $p^2$ then there exists a non-zero global vector field on $X$ which is a variational infinitesimal symmetry for all the modules $\cX^n(X)$, $n \geq 1$.
2\) If $X$ is a canonical lift (equivalently has Serre-Tate parameter $q(X)=1$) then there is no non-zero global vector field on $X$ which is a variational infinitesimal symmetry of $\cX^1(X)$.
Finally here is a computation of differentials of $\d$-characters.
[@from; @book] Assume $X$ is an elliptic curve over $R$ which is not a canonical lift and comes from an elliptic curve $X_{\bZ_p}$ over $\bZ_p$. Let $a_p\in \bZ$ be the trace of Frobenius of the reduction mod $p$ of $X_{\bZ_p}$ and let $\omega$ be a basis for the global $1$-forms on $X_{\bZ_p}$. Then there exists an $R$-basis $\psi$ of $\cX^2(X)$ such that $$p\cdot d \psi=(\phi^{*2}-a_p\phi^*+p)\omega.$$ In particular for the eigenvalue $\mu=1$ we have $$p\cdot d\left( \int \psi dp\right)=(1-a_p+p)\cdot \int \omega dp.$$
A similar result holds in case $X$ is a canonical lift.
$\d$-invariants of correspondences
----------------------------------
Here is now a (rather roughly stated) result about $\d$-invariants of correspondences on curves; for precise statements we refer to [@book].
\[thm2\] [@book] The ring $R_{\d}(X,K^{-1})^{\sigma}$ is “$\d$-birationally equivalent" to the ring $R_{\d}(\bP^1,\cO(1))$ if the correspondence $\sigma$ on $X$ “comes from" one of the following cases:
1\) (spherical case) The standard action of $SL_2(\bZ_p)$ on $\bP^1$.
2\) (flat case) A dynamical system $\bP^1 \ra \bP^1$ which is post-critically finite with (orbifold) Euler characteristic zero.
3\) (hyperbolic case) The action of a Hecke correspondence on a modular (or Shimura) curve.
Here by saying that $\sigma$ “comes from" a group action on $X$ (respectively from an endomorphism of $X$) we mean that (“up to some specific finite subschemes" for which we refer to [@book]) $\tilde{X}$ is the disjoint union of the graphs of finitely many automorphisms generating the action (respectively $\tilde{X}$ is the graph of the endomorphism). Also $\d$-birational equivalence means isomorphism (compatible with the actions of $\d$) between the $p$-adic completions of the rings of homogeneous fractions of degree zero with denominators not divisible by $p$. The proofs behind the spherical case involve direct computations. The proofs behind the flat case use the arithmetic Manin map, i.e. the space ${\mathcal X}^2(X)$ in Theorem \[thm1\], plus an induction in which canonical prolongations of vector fields play a crucial role. The proofs behind the hyperbolic case of Theorem \[thm2\] are based on a theory of [*$\d$-modular forms*]{} which we quickly survey next.
$\d$-modular forms
------------------
Cf. [@difmod; @Barcau; @book; @hecke; @eigen; @igusa]. Let $X_1(N)$ be the complete modular curve over $R$ of level $N>4$ and let $L_1(N)\ra X_1(N)$ be the line bundle with the property that the sections of its various powers are the classical modular forms on $\Gamma_1(N)$ of various weights. Let $X$ be $X_1(N)$ minus the cusps and the supersingular locus (zero locus of the Eisenstein form $E_{p-1}$ of weight $p-1$). Let $L\ra X$ be the restriction of the above line bundle and let $V$ be $L$ with the zero section removed. So $L^2\simeq K$. The elements of $M^n=\cO^n(V)$ are called $\d$-modular functions. Set $M^{\infty}=\cup M^n$. The elements of $\cO^n(X)$ are called $\d$-modular forms of weight $0$. For $w\in W$, $w\neq 0$, the elements of $H^0(X,L^w)\subset M^{\infty}$ are called $\d$-modular forms of weight $w$. We let $\sigma=(\sigma_1,\sigma_2):\tilde{X} \ra X \times X$ be the union of all the (prime to $p$) Hecke correspondences. Any $\d$-modular function $f\in M^n$ has a “$\d$-Fourier expansion" in $R((q))[q',...,q^{(n)}]\h$; setting $q'=q''=...=0$ in this $\d$-Fourier expansion one gets a series in $R((q))\h$ called the Fourier expansion of $f$. Finally let $a_4$ and $a_6$ be variables; then consideration of the elliptic curve $y^2=x^3+a_4 x+a_6$ yields an $R$-algebra map $$R[a_4,a_6,\Delta^{-1}]\ra M^0$$ where $\Delta=\Delta(a_4,a_6)$ is the discriminant polynomial. By universality we have induced homomorphisms $$R[a_4,a_6,...,a_4^{(n)},a_6^{(n)},\Delta^{-1}]\h \ra M^n$$ that are compatible with $\d$.
\[cuc\] [@eigen; @local]
[@difmod]
[@Barcau]
\[uff\] [@Barcau; @difmod; @book] The ring $R_{\d}(X,K^{-1})^{\sigma}$ is “$\d$-generated" by $f^1$ and $f^{\partial}$.
Note that $f^1$ and $f^{\partial}$ do not actually belong to $R_{\d}(X,K^{-1})$ so the above theorem needs some further explanation which we skip here; essentially, what happens is that $f^1$ and $f^{\partial}$ belong to a ring slightly bigger than $R_{\d}(X,K^{-1})$ and they “$\d$-generate" that ring. We also note the following structure theorem for the kernel and image of the $\d$-Fourier expansion map, in which the forms $f^1$ and $f^{\partial}$ play a key role:
\[vine\] [@igusa]
1\) The kernel of the Fourier expansion map $M^{\infty}\ra R((q))\h$ is the $p$-adic closure of the smallest $\d$-stable ideal containing $f^1$ and $f^{\partial}-1$.
2\) The $p$-adic closure of the image of the Fourier expansion map $M^{\infty}\ra
R((q))\h$ equals Katz’ ring $\bW$ of generalized $p$-adic modular forms.
The proof of the Theorem above is rather indirect and heavily Galois-theoretic. Statement 2) in Theorem \[vine\] says that all Katz’ divided congruences between classical modular forms can be obtained by taking combinations of “higher $p$-derivatives" of classical modular forms. Statement 1) above is a lift to characteristic zero of the Serre and Swinnerton-Dyer theorem about the kernel of the classical Fourier expansion map for classical modular forms mod $p$. Theorem \[uff\] can also be viewed as a lift to characteristic zero of results of Ihara [@Ihara1] about the Hasse invariant in characteristic $p$. These mod $p$ results do not lift to characteristic zero in usual algebraic geometry but do lift, as we see, to characteristic zero in $\d$-geometry.
We mention the following remarkable infinitesimal symmetry property; recall the classical Serre operator $\partial:\cO(V)\ra \cO(V)$. Also consider the Euler derivation operator ${\mathcal D}:\cO(V)\ra \cO(V)$ given by multiplication by the degree on each graded component of $\cO(V)$. Finally let $P$ be the Ramanujan form (in the degree $2$ component of $\cO(V)$) and let $\theta:\cO(V)\ra \cO(V)$ be the derivation $\theta=\partial+P{\mathcal D}$.
[@book] The operator $\theta$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of the $R$-module generated by $f^1,f^{\partial}$, and $f_{\partial}$ in $M^1=\cO^1(V)$. Also $\theta$ is a variational infinitesimal symmetry of the $R$-module generated by $f^{\partial}$ and $f_{\partial}$ in $M^1=\cO^1(V)$.
Here is a calculation of differentials of the forms $f^1,f^{\partial},f_{\partial}$.
[@book] Let $\omega,\alpha$ be the basis of $\Omega_{\cO(V)/R}$ dual to $\theta, {\mathcal D}$. Then $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\ & \ & \ \\
d (f^{\partial}) & = & f^{\partial} \cdot (\phi^* \alpha-\alpha)\\
\ & \ & \ \\
d(f_{\partial}) & = & -f_{\partial} \cdot (\phi^*\alpha- \alpha)\\
\ & \ & \ \\
d(f^1) & = & -f^1 \cdot (\phi^*\alpha+\alpha)-f_{\partial} \cdot \omega + f^{\partial}\cdot p^{-1}\phi^* \omega.
\end{array}$$ In particular, for the eigenvalue $\mu=1$ we have $$\int \{\frac{d(f^{\partial})}{f^{\partial}}\} dp=\int \{\frac{d(f_{\partial})}{f_{\partial}}\} dp=0.$$
By the way, the forms $f^{\sharp}$ and $f^1$ introduced above can be used to prove some interesting purely diophantine results. For instance we have the following:
\[anti\] [@local] Assume that $\Phi:X=X_1(N) \ra A$ is a modular parametrization of an elliptic curve. Let $p$ be a sufficiently large “good" prime and let $Q \in X(R)$ be an ordinary point. Let $S$ be the set of all rational primes that are inert in the imaginary quadratic field attached to $Q$. Let $C$ be the $S$-isogeny class of $Q$ in $X(R)$ (consisting of points corresponding to isogenies of degrees only divisible by primes in $S$). Then there exists a constant $c$ such that for any subgroup $\Gamma \leq A(R)$ with $r:=rank(\Gamma)<\infty$ the set $\Phi(C)\cap \Gamma$ is finite of cardinality at most $c p^{r}$.
Other results of the same type (e.g. involving Heegner points) were proved in [@local]. In particular an analogue of the above Theorem is true with $C$ replaced by the locus $CL$ of canonical lifts. To have a rough idea about the arguments involved assume we want to prove that $\Phi(CL)\cap \Gamma$ is finite (and to bound the cardinality of this set) in case $\Gamma$ is the torsion group of $A(R)$. One considers the order $2$ $\d$-modular form $f^{\sharp}:X_1(N)(R)\ra R$ and one constructs, using $f^1$, a $\d$-function of order $1$, $f^{\flat}:X(R)\ra R$, on an open set $X \subset X_1(N)$ which vanishes exactly on $CL\cap X(R)$. Then any point $P$ in the intersection $X(R)\cap \Phi(CL)\cap \Gamma$ satisfies the system of “differential equations of order $\leq 2$ in $1$ unknown" $$\begin{cases}
f^{\sharp}(P)=0\\
f^{\flat}(P)=0
\end{cases}$$ One can show that this system is “sufficiently non-degenerate" to allow the elimination of the “derivatives" of the unknown; one is left with a differential equation $f^0(P)=0$ “of order $0$" which has, then, only finitely many solutions (by Krasner’s theorem). By that theorem one can also bound the number of solutions.
We end the discussion here by noting that the main players in the theory above enjoy a certain remarkable property which we call $\d$-overconvergence. Morally this is a an overconvergence property (in the classical sense of Dwork, Monsky, Washnitzer) “in the direction of the variables $x',x'',...,x^{(n)}$" (but not necessarily in the direction of $x$). We prove:
[@over] The $\d$-functions $f^{\sharp}, f^1, f^{\partial}$ are $\d$-overconvergent.
$\d$-Hecke operators
--------------------
Next we discuss the Hecke action on $\d$-modular forms. For $(n,p)=1$ the Hecke operators $T_m(n)$ act naturally on $\d$-series (i.e. series in $R((q))[q',...,q^{(r)}]\h$) by the usual formula that inserts roots of unity of order prime to $p$ which are all in $R$. However no naive definition of $T_m(p)$ seems to work. Instead we consider the situation mod $p$ and make the following definition. Let $x$ be a $p$-tuple $x_1,...,x_p$ of indeterminates and let $s$ be the $p$-tuple $s_1,...,s_p$ of fundamental symmetric polynomials in $x$. An element $f\in
k[[q]][q',...,q^{(r)}]$ is called $\d$-$p$-symmetric mod $p$ if the sum $$f(x_1,...,x^{(r)}_1)+...+f(x_p,...,x^{(r)}_p)\in k[[x]][x',...,x^{(r)}]$$ is the image of an element $$f_{(p)}=f_{(p)}(s_1,...,s_p,...,s_1^{(r)},...,s_p^{(r)})\in
k[[s]][s',...,s^{(r)}].$$ For $f$ that is $\d$-$p$-symmetric mod $p$ define $$``pT_m(p)"f=f_{(p)}(0,...,0,q,...,0,...,0,q^{(r)}) +p^mf(q^p,...,\d^r(q^p))\in
k[[q]][q',...,q^{(r)}].$$ Eigenvectors of $``pT_m(p)"$ will be automatically understood to be $\d$-$p$-symmetric. Also let us say that a series in $k[[q]][q',...,q^{(r)}]$ is primitive if the series in $k[[q]]$ obtained by setting $q'=...=q^{(r)}=0$ is killed by the classical $U$-operator. Then one can give a complete description (in terms of classical Hecke eigenforms mod $p$) of $\d$-“eigenseries" mod $p$ of order $1$ which are $\d$-Fourier expansions of $\d$-modular forms of arbitrary order and weight:
\[mooor\] [@hecke] There is a $1-1$ correspondence between:
1\) Series in $k[[q]]$ which are eigenvectors of all $T_{m+2}(n),T_{m+2}(p)$, $(n,p)=1$, and which are Fourier expansions of classical modular forms over $k$ of weight $\equiv m+2$ mod $p-1$.
2\) Primitive series in $k[[q]][q']$ which are eigenvectors of all $nT_m(n),``pT_m(p)"$, $(n,p)=1$, and which are $\d$-Fourier expansions of $\d$-modular forms of some order $\geq 0$ with weight $w$, $deg(w)=m$.
Note that the $\d$-Fourier expansion of the form $f^{\sharp}$ discussed in Example \[cuc\] is an example of series in 2) of Theorem \[mooor\]. (Note that $f^{\sharp}$ has order $2$ although its $\d$-Fourier expansion reduced mod $p$ has order $1$!) More generally the series in 1) and 2) of Theorem \[mooor\] are related in an explicit way, similar to the way $f$ and $f^{\sharp}$ of Example \[cuc\] are related. The proof of Theorem \[mooor\] involves a careful study of the action of $\d$-Hecke operators on $\d$-series plus the use of the canonical prolongations of the Serre operator acting on $\d$-modular forms.
$\d$-functions on finite flat schemes
-------------------------------------
The $p$-jet spaces of finite flat schemes over $R$ seem to play a key role in many aspects of the theory. These $p$-jet spaces are neither finite nor flat in general and overall they seem quite pathological. There are two remarkable classes of examples, however, where some order seems to be restored in the limit; these classes are finite flat $p$-group schemes that fit into $p$-divisible groups and finite length $p$-typical Witt rings. Recall that for any ring $A$ we write $\overline{A}=A/pA$. Then for connected $p$-divisible groups we have:
[@pp] \[mik\] Let $\cF$ be a formal group law over $R$ in one variable $x$, assume ${\mathcal F}$ has finite height, and let $\cF[p^{\nu}]$ be the kernel of the multiplication by $p^{\nu}$ viewed as a finite flat group scheme over $R$. Then $$\lim_{\stackrel{\ra}{n}} \overline{\cO^n(\cF[p^{\nu}])} \simeq
\frac{k[x,x',x'',...]}{(x^{p^{\nu}},(x')^{p^{\nu}},(x'')^{p^{\nu}},...)}$$ sending $x,\d x,\d^2 x,...$ into the classes of $x, x', x'',...$.
A similar result is obtained in [@pp] for the divisible group $E[p^{\nu}]$ of an ordinary elliptic curve; some of the components of $J^n(E[p^{\nu}])$ will be empty and exactly which ones are so is dictated by the valuation of $q-1$ where $q$ is the Serre-Tate parameter. The components that are non-empty (in particular the identity component) behave in the same way as the formal groups examined in Theorem \[mik\] above.
In the same spirit one can compute $p$-jet spaces of Witt rings. Let us consider the ring $W_m(R)$ of $p$-typical Witt vectors of length $m+1$, $m\geq 1$, and denote by $\Sigma_m=Spec\ W_m(R)$ its spectrum. Set $v_i=(0,...,0,1,0,...,0)\in W_m(R)$, ($1$ preceded by $i$ zeroes, $i=1,...,m$), set $\pi=1-\d v_1\in \cO^1(\Sigma_m)$, and let $\Omega_m=\{1,...,m\}$. The following is a description of the identity component of the limit of $p$-jet spaces mod $p$:
\[uuu\] [@pw] For $n \geq 2$ the image of $\pi^p$ in $\overline{\cO^n(\Sigma_m)}$ is idempotent and we have an isomorphism $$\lim_{\stackrel{\ra}{n}}\overline{\cO^n(\Sigma_m)}_{\pi}\simeq \frac{k[x_i^{(r)};i\in \Omega_m;r \geq 0]}{(x_ix_j, (x_i^{(r)})^p;i,j\in \Omega_m, r\geq 1)}$$ sending each $\overline{\d^r v_i}$ into the class of the variable $x_i^{(r)}$.
A similar description is obtained in [@pw] for the $p$-jet maps induced by the Witt comonad maps. We recall that the data consisting of $\cO^n(\Sigma_m)$ and the maps induced by the comonad maps should be viewed as an arithmetic analogue of the Lie groupoid of the line.
$\d$-Galois groups of $\d$-linear equations
-------------------------------------------
Recall that for any solution $u\in GL_n(R)$ of a $\d$-linear equation $$\d u=\alpha \cdot u^{(p)}$$ (where $\alpha\in {\mathfrak gl}_n(R)$) and for any $\d$-subring $\cO\subset R$ we defined the $\d$-Galois group $G_{u/\cO}\subset GL_n(\cO)$. We want to explain a result proved in [@adel2]. Consider the maximal torus $T\subset GL_n(R)$ of diagonal matrices, the Weyl group $W\subset GL_n(R)$ of permutation matrices, the normalizer $N=WT=TW$ of $T$ in $GL_n(R)$, and the subgroup $N^{\d}$ of $N$ consisting of all elements of $N$ whose entries are in the monoid of constants $R^{\d}$. We also use below the notation $K^a$ for the algebraic closure of the fraction field $K$ of $R$; the Zariski closed sets $Z$ of $GL_n(K^a)$ are then viewed as varieties over $K^a$. The next result illustrates some “generic" features of our $\d$-Galois groups; assertion 1) of the next theorem shows that the $\d$-Galois group is generically “not too large". Assertions 2) and 3) show that the $\d$-Galois group are generically “as large as possible". As we shall see presently, the meaning of the word [*generic*]{} is different in each of the $3$ situations: in situation 1) [*generic*]{} means [*outside a Zariski closed set*]{}; in situation 2) [*generic*]{} means [*outside a thin set*]{} (in the sense of diophantine geometry); in situation 3) [*generic*]{} means [*outside a set of the first category*]{} (in the sense of Baire category).
\[food\]
1\) There exists a Zariski closed subset $\Omega\subset GL_n(K^a)$ not containing $1$ such that for any $u\in GL_n(R) \backslash \Omega$ the following holds. Let $\alpha=\d u \cdot (u^{(p)})^{-1}$ and let $\cO$ be a $\d$-subring of $R$ containing $\alpha$. Then $G_{u/\cO}$ contains a normal subgroup of finite index which is diagonalizable over $K^a$.
2\) Let $\cO=\bZ_{(p)}$. There exists a thin set $\Omega\subset {\mathbb Q}^{n^2}$ such that for any $\alpha\in \bZ^{n^2}\backslash \Omega$ there exists a solution $u$ of the equation $\d u=\alpha u^{(p)}$ with the property that $G_{u/\cO}$ is a finite group containing the Weyl group $W$.
3\) There exists a subset $\Omega$ of the first category in the metric space $$X=\{u\in GL_n(R);u\equiv 1\ \ \text{mod}\ \ p\}$$ such that for any $u \in X\backslash \Omega$ the following holds. Let $\alpha=\d u\cdot (u^{(p)})^{-1}$. Then there exists a $\d$-subring $\cO$ of $R$ containing $R^{\d}$ such that $\alpha\in {\mathfrak gl}_n(\cO)$ and such that $G_{u/\cO}=N^{\d}$.
The groups $W$ and $N^{\d}$ should be morally viewed as “incarnations" of the groups “$GL_n({\mathbb F}_1)$" and “$GL_n({\mathbb F}_1^a)$" where “${\mathbb F}_1$" and “${\mathbb F}_1^a$" are the “field with element" and “its algebraic closure" respectively [@borger]. This suggests that the $\d$-Galois theory we are proposing here should be viewed as a Galois theory over “${\mathbb F}_1$".
$\d$-flows for the classical groups
-----------------------------------
The main results in [@adel2] concern the existence of certain $\d$-flows on $\widehat{GL_n}$ that are adapted, in a certain precise sense, to the various classical subgroups $GL_n,SL_n,SO_n,Sp_n$.
Let $G=GL_n$ and let $H$ be a smooth closed subgroup scheme of $G$. We say that a $\d$-flow $\phi_G$ is left (respectively right) compatible with $H$ if $H$ is $\phi_{G}$-horizontal and the left (respectively right) diagram below is commutative: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\widehat{H}\times \widehat{G} & \ra & \widehat{G}\\
\phi_H\times \phi_G \downarrow & \ & \downarrow \phi_G\\
\widehat{H}\times \widehat{G} & \ra & \widehat{G}\end{array}\ \ \ \
\begin{array}{rcl}
\widehat{G}\times \widehat{H} & \ra & \widehat{G}\\
\phi_G\times \phi_H \downarrow & \ & \downarrow \phi_G\\
\widehat{G}\times \widehat{H} & \ra & \widehat{G}\end{array}$$ where $\phi_H:\widehat{H}\ra \widehat{H}$ is induced by $\phi_G$ and the horizontal maps are given by multiplication.
Next by an involution on $G$ we understand a morphism of schemes $\dagger:G\ra G$ over $R$, $x\mapsto x^{\dagger}$, such that $x^{\dagger \dagger}=x$ and $(xy)^{\dagger}=y^{\dagger}x^{\dagger}$. By a quadratic map on $G$ we mean a morphism of schemes $\cH:G\ra G$ over $R$ such that there exists an involution $\dagger:G\ra G$ and an element $q\in G$ with the property that $\cH(x)=x^{\dagger}qx.$ Given a quadratic map $\cH$ one can define a map $ \cH_2:G\times G\ra G$ by the formula $\cH_2(x,y)=\cH(x)x^{-1}y=x^{\dagger}qy$. One can also define a closed subgroup scheme $S$ of $G$ as the connected component $\cH^{-1}(q)^{\circ}$ of the group scheme $\cH^{-1}(q)$; we say that $S$ is defined by $\cH$.
Let us fix now a lift of Frobenius $\phi_{G,0}$ on $\widehat{G}$ such that $q$ is $\phi_{G,0}$-horizontal (i.e. the ideal of $q$ in $\cO(G)\h$ is sent by $\phi_{G,0}$ into itself). For a lift of Frobenius $\phi_{G}$ on $\widehat{G}$ we say that ${\mathcal H}$ is horizontal (respectively symmetric) with respect to $\phi_G,\phi_{G,0}$ if the left (respectively right) diagram below is commutative: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\widehat{G} & \stackrel{\phi_{G}}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{G}\\
\cH \downarrow & \ & \downarrow \cH \\
\widehat{G} & \stackrel{\phi_{G,0}}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{G}\\
\end{array}\ \ \ \
\begin{array}{rcl}
\widehat{G} & \stackrel{\phi_{G,0} \times \phi_{G}}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{G}\times \widehat{G}\\
\phi_{G} \times \phi_{G,0} \downarrow & \ & \downarrow \cH_2\\
\widehat{G}\times \widehat{G} & \stackrel{\cH_2}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{G}\end{array}$$
Note that if ${\mathcal H}$ is horizontal with respect to $\phi_G,\phi_{G,0}$ and $q$ is $\phi_{G,0}$-horizontal then the group $S$ defined by $\cH$ is $\phi_{G}$-horizontal; in particular there is an induced lift of Frobenius $\phi_S$ on $\widehat{S}$. Also note that if we set $\phi_{G,0}(x)=x^{(p)}$, viewing $\cH$ as a matrix $\cH(x)$ with entries in $R[x,\det(x)^{-1}]\h$, we have that horizontality of $\cH$ with respect to $\phi_{G},\phi_{G,0}$ is equivalent to the condition that $\d_{G}\cH=0$, which can be interpreted as saying that ${\mathcal H}$ is a [*prime integral*]{} for our $\d$-flow $\phi_G$.
The basic split classical groups $GL_n,SO_n,Sp_n$ are defined by quadratic maps on $G=GL_n$ as follows. We start with $GL_n$ itself which is defined by $\cH(x)=1$; in this case $x^{\dagger}=x^{-1}$, $q=1$. We call $\cH$ the canonical quadratic map defining $GL_n$. We also recall that $T\subset G$ is the maximal torus of diagonal matrices and $W\subset G$ is the Weyl subgroup of $GL_n$ of all permutation matrices. Throughout our discussion we let $\phi_{G,0}(x)$ be the lift of Frobenius on $\widehat{GL_n}$ defined by $\phi_{G,0}(x):=x^{(p)}$; one can prove that this $\phi_{G,0}(x)$ is the unique lift of Frobenius on $\widehat{G}$ that is left and right compatible with $T$ and $W$ and extends to a lift of Frobenius on $\widehat{{\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n}$ (where we view $\widehat{GL_n}$ as an open set of $\widehat{{\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n}$). On the other hand the groups $Sp_{2r}, SO_{2r}, SO_{2r+1}$ are defined by the quadratic map on $G=GL_n$ given by $\cH(x)=x^tqx$ where $q$ is equal to $$\left(\begin{array}{cl} 0 & 1_r\\-1_r & 0\end{array}\right),\ \
\left(
\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 1_r\\1_r & 0\end{array}\right),\ \
\left( \begin{array}{lll} 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1_r\\
0 & 1_r & 0\end{array}\right),\ $$ $n=2r, 2r, 2r+1$ respectively, $x^{\dagger}=x^t$ is the transpose, and $1_r$ is the $r\times r$ identity matrix. We call this $\cH$ the canonical quadratic map defining $Sp_{2r}, SO_{2r}, SO_{2r+1}$ respectively. All these groups are smooth over $R$.
\[laugh\] Let $S$ be any of the groups $GL_n, SO_n, Sp_n$ and let $\cH$ be the canonical quadratic map on $G=GL_n$ defining $S$. Then the following hold.
1\) (Symmetry and horizontality.) There exists a unique lift of Frobenius $\phi_{G}$ on $\widehat{G}$ such that ${\mathcal H}$ is horizontal and symmetric with respect to $\phi_{G},\phi_{G,0}$.
2\) (Compatibility with torus and Weyl group.) $\phi_{G}$ is right compatible with $T$ and $W$; also $\phi_{G}$ is left compatible with $T_S:=T\cap S$ and $W_S:=W\cap S$. In particular if $l\d:GL_n\ra {\mathfrak g}{\mathfrak l}_n$ is the arithmetic logarithmic derivative associated to $\phi_{G}$ then for all $a\in T_S W_S$ and $b\in GL_n$ (alternatively for all $a\in GL_n$ and $b\in TW$) we have $$\label{cris}l\d(ab)=a \star_{\d} l\d (b) +_{\d} l\d(a).$$
3\) (Compatibility with root groups.) If $\chi$ is a root of $S$ (which is not a shortest root of $SO_n$ with $n$ odd) then the corresponding root group $U_{\chi}\simeq {\mathbb G}_a$ is $\phi_{GL_n}$-horizontal.
Note that a similar result can be proved for $SL_n$; the involution $\dagger$ lives, in this case, on a cover of $GL_n$ rather than on $GL_n$ itself. Note also that the exception in assertion 3 of the Theorem (occurring in case $\chi$ is a shortest root of $SO_n$ with $n$ odd) is a curious phenomenon which deserves further understanding.
Problems
========
\[p1\] Study the arithmetic jet spaces $J^n(X)$ of curves $X$ (and more general varieties) with bad reduction.
This could be applied, in particular, to tackle Mazur’s question [@Mazur] about bounding the torsion points on curves unifromly in terms of the genus; in other words replacing $C(g,p)$ by $C(g)$ in Theorem \[zuzu\]. Our proof in [@pjets] is based on the study of the arithmetic jet space of $J^1(X)$ at a prime $p$ of good reduction. A study of the arithmetic jet space of curves at primes of bad reduction might lead to dropping the dependence of $C(g,p)$ on $p$. Evidence that arithmetic jet spaces can be handled in the case of bad reduction comes in particular from the recent paper [@over].
\[p2\] Study the $\d$-modular forms that vanish on arithmetically interesting Zariski dense subsets of Shimura varieties (such as CM loci or individual non-CM isogeny classes). Compute $\d$-invariants of higher dimensional correspondences.
This could be applied to extend results in [@local], e.g. Theorem \[anti\] above. A deeper study of differential modular forms may allow one, for instance, to replace $S$-isogeny class with the full isogeny class. The arguments might then be extended to higher dimensional contexts and to the global field rather than the local field situation. That such a deeper study is possible is shown by papers like [@igusa], for instance. For the higher dimensional case the theory in [@siegel] might have to be further developed to match the one dimensional theory in [@difmod; @book]. In a related direction one might attempt to use the methods in [@local] to tackle Pink’s conjectures in [@Pink]. In [@local] it was shown that behind finiteness theorems in diophantine geometry one can have reciprocity maps that are somehow inherited from $\d$-geometry (and that provide effective bounds); a similar picture might hold for (cases of) Pink’s conjecture. The first case to look at for such reciprocity maps would be in the case of the intersection between a multisection $X$ of an abelian (or semiabelian) scheme $G\ra S$ over a curve $S$ with the set of torsion points lying in special (CM or otherwise) fibers; more general situations, in which torsion points are replaced by division points of a group generated by finitely many sections, can be considered. Results of André, Ribet, and Bertrand are pertinent to this question.
\[p3\] Compare the $\d$-geometric approach to quotient spaces with the approach via non-commutative geometry.
The quotients $X/\sigma$ for the correspondences appearing in Theorem \[thm2\] do not exist, of course, in usual algebraic geometry. As Theorem \[thm2\] shows these quotients exist, however, and are interesting in $\d$-geometry. Remarkably such quotients also exist and are interesting in non-commutative geometry [@Marcolli]. More precisely the $3$ cases (spherical, flat, hyperbolic) of Theorem \[thm2\] are closely related to the following $3$ classes of examples studied in non-commutative geometry:
1\) (spherical) $\frac{\bP^1(\bR)}{SL_2(\bZ)}$, non-commutative boundary of the classical modular curve;
2\) (flat) $\frac{S^1}{\langle e^{2 \pi i
\tau}\rangle}$ ($\theta \in \bR\backslash \bQ$): non-commutative elliptic curves;
3\) (hyperbolic) Non-commutative space $Sh^{nc}$ containing the classical Shimura variety $Sh$ ($2$-dimensional analogue of Bost-Connes systems).
It would be interesting to understand why these $3$ classes appear in both contexts ($\d$-geometry and non-commutative geometry); also one would like to see whether there is a connection, in the case of these $3$ classes, between the $2$ contexts.
Note that non-commutative geometry can also tackle the dynamics of rational functions that are not necessarily post-critically finite of Euler characteristic zero. It is conceivable that some post-critically finite polynomials of non-zero Euler characteristic possess $\d$-invariants for some particular primes (with respect to the anticanonical bundle or other bundles). A good start would be to investigate the $\d$-invariants of $\sigma(x)=x^2-1$. Another good start would be to investigate $\d$-invariants of post-critically finite polynomials with Euler characteristic zero that are congruent modulo special primes to post-critically finite polynomials with Euler characteristic zero.
\[p4\] Study the de Rham cohomology of arithmetic jet spaces. Find arithmetic analogues of Kähler differentials $\Omega$ and ${\mathcal D}$-modules. Find an object that is to ${\mathcal D}$ what $\cO^1$ is to $Sym(\Omega)$.
The study of de Rham cohomology of arithmetic jet spaces was started in [@forms] where it is shown that the de Rham cohomology of $J^n(X)$ carries information about the arithmetic of $X$. The de Rham computations in [@forms] are probably shadows of more general phenomena which deserve being understood. Also the de Rham setting could be replaced by an overconvergent one; overconvergence is known to give an improved picture of the de Rham story and, on the other hand, as already mentioned, it was proved in [@over] that most of the remarkable $\d$-functions occurring in the theory possess a remarkable overconvergence property in the “$\d$-variables" called $\d$-[*overconvergence*]{}. Finally one is tempted to try to relate the de Rham cohomology of arithmetic jet spaces $J^n(X)$ to the de Rham-Witt complex of $X$ in characteristic $p$ and in mixed characteristic. Note further that since the arithmetic jet space $J^1(X)$ is an analogue of the (physical) tangent bundle $T(X)$ of $X$ it follows that the sheaf $\cO^1$ is an arithmetic analogue of the sheaf $Sym(\Omega_{X/R})$, symmetric algebra on the Kähler differentials. But there is no obvious arithmetic analogue of the sheaf $\Omega_{X/R}$ itself. Also there is no obvious arithmetic analogue of the sheaf ${\mathcal D}_X$ of differential operators on $X$ and of ${\mathcal D}_X$-modules. The absence of immediate analogues of $\Omega$ and ${\mathcal D}$ is of course related to the intrinsic non-linearity of $p$-derivations. It would be interesting to search for such analogues. It is on the other hand conceivable that there is a sheaf in the arithmetic theory that is to ${\mathcal
D}$ what $\cO^1$ is to $Sym(\Omega)$. Recall that the associated graded algebra of ${\mathcal D}$ is canonically isomorphic to the algebra of functions on the (physical) cotangent bundle $\cO(T^*(X))$ (and not on the tangent bundle); this looks like a discrepancy but actually the arithmetic jet space $J^1(X)$ has a sort of intrinsic self-duality (cf. [@book]) that is missing in the classical algebro-geometric case where the tangent bundle $T(X)$ and the cotangent bundle $T^*(X)$ and not naturally dual (unless, say, a symplectic structure is given).
The $\d$-overconvergence property mentioned in Problem \[p4\] may hold the key to:
\[p5\] Define and study the/a maximal space of $\d$-modular forms on which Atkin’s $U$ operator can be defined.
Indeed the Hecke operators $T(n)$ with $p\not|n$ are defined on $\d$-modular forms and have a rich theory in this context [@difmod]. In contrast to this $T(p)$ and hence $U$ are still mysterious in the theory of $\d$-modular forms. An step in understanding $U$ was taken in [@hecke] where the theory mod $p$ for series of order $1$ was given a rather definitive treatment. However the theory in characteristic zero seems elusive at this point. There are two paths towards such a theory so far. One path is via $\d$-[*symmetry*]{} [@dcc; @hecke]; this is a characteristic $0$ analogue of the concept of $\d$-$p$-symmetry mod $p$ discussed above. Another path is via $\d$-overconvergence [@over]. The two paths seem to lead into different directions and this discrepancy needs to be better understood. Assuming that a good theory of $U$ is achieved, this might lead to a Hida-like theory of families of differential modular forms, including Galois representations attached to such forms. It is conceivable that families in this context are not power series but Witt vectors. Part of the quest for a $U$ theory of $\d$-modular forms is to seek a $\d$-analogue of Eisentein series. It is conceivable that the rings $\cO^n(X_1(N))$ contain functions that do not vanish at the cusps and are eigenvectors of the Hecke operators; such functions could be viewed as “$\d$-Eisenstein" forms of weight zero.
\[p6\] Interpret information contained in the arithmetic jet spaces $J^n(X)$ as an arithmetic Kodaira-Spencer “class" of $X$.
Indeed some of these arithmetic Kodaira-Spencer classes (e.g in the case of elliptic curves or, more generally, abelian schemes) were studied in [@difmod; @book] and lead to interesting $\d$-modular forms. For general schemes (e.g for curves of higher genus) these classes were explored in Dupuy’s thesis [@Taylor]. They are non-abelian cohomology classes with values in the sheaf of automorphisms of $p$-adic affine spaces $\widehat{\mathbb A}^d$ (in the case of curves $d=1$). These classes arise from comparing the local trivializations of arithmetic jet spaces. In this more general case these classes may hold the key to a “deformation theory over the field with one element”. On the other hand Dupuy proved in [@Taylor] that if $X$ is a smooth projective curve of genus $\geq 2$ over $R$ then $J^1(X)$ is a torsor for some line bundle over $X$; this is rather surprising in view of the high non-linearity of the theory. One should say that the line bundle in question is still mysterious and deserves further investigation.
\[p7\] Further develop the partial differential theory in [@laplace; @pde; @pdemod].
Indeed in spite of the extensive work done in [@laplace; @pde; @pdemod] the arithmetic [*partial*]{} differential theory is still in its infancy. The elliptic case of that theory [@laplace] (which, we recall, involves operators $\delta_{p_1}$ and $\delta_{p_2}$ corresponding to two primes $p_1$ and $p_2$) is directly related to the study of the de Rham cohomology of arithmetic jet spaces [@forms]; indeed one of the main results in [@forms] shows that the arithmetic Laplacians in [@laplace] are formal primitives (both $p_1$-adically and $p_2$-adically) of global $1$-forms on the arithmetic jet spaces (these forms being not exact, although formally exact, and hence closed). By the way analogues of these results in [@forms] probably exist in the case of modular curves; in the one prime case a beginning of such a study was undertaken in [@book], where some of the main $\d$-modular forms of the theory were shown to satisfy some remarkable systems of Pfaff equations. The hyperbolic/parabolic case of the theory [@pde; @pdemod] (which, we recall, involves a $p$-derivation $\d_p$ with respect to a prime $p$ and a usual derivation operator $\delta_q$) could be further developed as follows. One could start by “specializing" the variable $q$ in $\delta_q$ to elements $\pi$ in [*arbitrarily ramified*]{} extensions of $\bZ_p$. This might push the theory in the “arbitrarily ramified direction" which would be extremely desirable for arithmetic-geometric applications. Indeed our ordinary arithmetic differential theory is, at present, a non-ramified (or at most “boundedly ramified") theory. A further idea along these lines would be to use the solutions of the arithmetic partial differential equations in [@pde; @pdemod] to let points “flow" on varieties defined over number fields. Some of the solutions in [@pde; @pdemod] have interesting arithmetic features (some look like hybrids between quantum exponentials and Artin-Hasse exponentials, for instance) so the “flows" defined by them might have arithmetic consequences. The challenge is to find (if at all possible) “special values" of these solutions that are algebraic. One should also mention that the arithmetic hyperbolic and parabolic equations in [@pde; @pdemod] have, in special cases, well defined “indices" that seem to carry arithmetic information; the challenge would be to make the index machinery work in general situations and to study the variation of indices in families.
\[p8\] Find an arithmetic analogue of Sato hyperfunction solutions of both “ordinary" and “partial" arithmetic differential equations.
Indeed Sato’s hyperfunctions, in their simplest incarnation, are pairs $(f(x),g(x))$ of functions on the unit disk (corresponding to the distribution $f(x)-g(x^{-1})$) modulo $(c,c)$, $c$ a constant. The derivative of a pair is then $(\frac{df}{dx}(x),-x^2\frac{dg}{dx}(x))$.) One could then try to consider, in the arithmetic case, pairs $(P,Q)$ of points of algebraic groups with values in $\d$-rings modulo an appropriate equivalence relation and with an appropriate analogue of differentiation with respect to $p$; this framework could be the correct one for “non-analytic" solutions of the equations in [@laplace; @pde; @pdemod].
\[p9\] Construct $p$-adic measures from $\d$-modular forms.
Indeed one of the main ideas in Katz’s approach to $p$-adic interpolation [@Katzgen] was to lift some of the remarkable $\bZ_p$-valued ($p$-adic) measures of the theory to ${\mathbb
W}$-valued measures where ${\mathbb W}$ is the ring of (generalized) $p$-adic modular forms. One can hope that some of these ${\mathbb W}$-valued measures of Katz can be further lifted to measures with values in the $p$-adic completion of the ring of $\d$-modular functions $M^{\infty}$. Indeed recall from Theorem \[vine\] that there is a canonical homomorphism $M^{\infty}\ra
{\mathbb W}$ whose image is $p$-adically dense, hence the “lifting" problem makes sense. These lifted $\widehat{M^{\infty}}$-valued measures could then be evaluated at various elliptic curves defined over $\d$-rings to obtain new $\bZ_p$-valued measures (and hence new $p$-adic interpolation results) in the same way in which Katz evaluated his measures at special elliptic curves. Another related idea would be to interpret the solutions in $\bZ_p[[q]]$ of the arithmetic partial differential equations in Problem \[p7\] above as measures (via Iwasawa’s representation of measures as power series). There is a discrepancy in this approach in that the derivation of interest in Iwasawa’s theory is $(1+q)\frac{d}{dq}$ whereas the derivation of interest in Problem \[p7\] is $q\frac{d}{dq}$; nevertheless one should pursue this idea and understand the discrepancy.
\[p10\] Find arithmetic analogues of classical theorems in the theory of differential algebraic groups and further develop the $\d$-Galois theory in [@adel3].
Indeed the theory of groups defined by (usual) differential equations (“differential algebraic groups”) is by now a classical subject: it goes back to Lie and Cartan and underwent a new development, from a rather new angle, through the work of Cassidy and Kolchin [@Cassidy; @Kolchin]. It is tempting to seek an arithmetic analogue of this theory: one would like to understand, for instance, the structure of all subgroups of $GL_n(R)$ that are defined by arithmetic differential equations. The paper [@buca] proves an arithmetic analogue of Cassidy’s theorem about Zariski dense subgroups of simple algebraic groups over differential fields; in [@buca] the case of Zariski dense mod $p$ groups is considered. But Zariski dense groups such as $GL_n(\bZ_p)$ are definitely extremely interesting (and lead to interesting Galois theoretic results such as in [@book], Chapter 5). So a generalization of [@buca] to the case of Zariski dense (rather than Zariski dense mod $p$) groups, together with a generalization of the Galois theoretic results in [@book], would be very desirable. For instance it would be interesting to classify all $\delta$-subgroups of the multiplicative group ${\mathbb G}_m(R)=R^{\times}$ (or more generally of $GL_2(R)$) and find the invariants of such groups acting on $\widehat{R\{x\}_{(p)}}$ (where $R\{x\}=R[x,x',x'',...]$). Also remark that, as in the case of usual derivations, there are interesting (“unexpected") homomorphisms in $\d$-geometry between $GL_1={\mathbb G}_m$ and $GL_2$, for instance $${\mathbb G}_m(R)\rightarrow GL_2(R),\ \ \ \ a \mapsto \left( \begin{array}{rcl} a & a\psi_*(a)\\ 0 & a \end{array}\right)$$ where $\psi_*$ is a $\d$-character, i.e. $\psi \in {\mathcal X}^n({\mathbb G}_m)$. Cf. [@herras] for interesting developments into this subject. The main open problem in the $\d$-Galois theory of $GL_n$ [@adel3] seems at this point to decide if the $\d$-Galois groups always contain a subgroup of the diagonal matrices as a subgroup of finite index. Other problems are: to establish a Galois correspondence; to understand the relation (already hinted at in [@adel3]) between $\d$-Galois groups and Galois problems arising from the dynamics on ${\mathbb P}^n$; to generalize the theory by replacing $GL_n$ with an arbitrary reductive group.
\[p11\] Compose some of the basic $\d$-functions of the theory in [@book] (e.g. the $\d$-modular forms on Shimura curves) with $p$-adic uniformization maps (e.g. with Drinfeld’s uniformization map of Shimura curves).
Indeed this might shed a new light (coming from the analytic world) on $\d$-geometry. These composed maps would belong to a “$\d$-rigid geometry" which has yet to be developed in case these maps are interesting enough to require it. By the way it is not at all clear that the functor that attaches to a formal $p$-adic scheme its arithmetic jet space can be prolonged to a functor in the rigid category. The problem (which seems to boil down to some quite non-trivial combinatorially flavored calculation) is to show that the arithmetic jet space functor sends blow-ups with centers in the closed fiber into (some version of) blow-ups.
In the spirit of the last comments on Problem \[p11\] one can ask:
\[p12\] Study the morphisms $J^n(X)\ra J^n(Y)$ induced by non-étale finite flat covers of smooth schemes $X \ra
Y$.
Indeed note that if $X \ra Y$ is finite and étale then it is well known that $J^n(X) \ra J^n(Y)$ are finite and étale; indeed $J^n(X)\simeq J^n(Y)\times_Y X$. But note that if $X \ra Y$ is only finite and flat then $J^n(X)\ra J^n(Y)$ is neither finite nor flat in general. One of the simplest examples which need to be investigated (some partial results are available [@pp], cf. Theorem \[mik\]) is that of the covers $[p^{\nu}]:G\ra G$ of smooth group schemes (or formal groups) given by multiplication by $p^{\nu}$. The geometry of the induced endomorphisms of the arithmetic jet spaces is highly complex and mysterious. Understanding it might be, in particular, another path towards introducing/understanding the Atkin operator $U$ on $\d$-modular forms referred to in Problem \[p5\]. An obviously closely related problem is to understand the $p$-jet spaces of $p$-divisible groups; cf. Theorem \[mik\]. Yet another example of interest is the study of $J^n(X)\ra J^n(X/\Gamma)$ for $\Gamma$ a finite group acting on a smooth $X$; even the case $X=Y^n$ with $Y$ a curve and $\Sigma=S_n$ the symmetric group acting naturally is still completely mysterious. This latter case is related to the concept of $\d$-symmetry mentioned in Problem \[p5\] and appeared in an essential manner in the paper [@dcc]: the failure of invariants to commute with formation of jet spaces (in the ramified case) is directly responsible for the existence (and indeed abundance) of $\d$-functions on smooth projective curves which do not arise from $\d$-characters of the Jacobian.
\[p13\] Understand which analytic functions $X(\bZ_p)\ra \bZ_p$ for smooth schemes $X/\bZ_p$ are induced by $\d$-functions.
Indeed it was proved in [@BRS] that a function $f:\bZ_p
\rightarrow \bZ_p$ is analytic if, and only if, there exists $m$ such that $f$ can be represented as $f(x)=F(x, \d x, \ldots , \d^m
x)$, where $F\in \bZ_p[x_0,x_1,...,x_m]\h$ is a restricted power series with $\bZ_p$-coefficients in $m+1$ variables. This can be viewed as a “differential interpolation result": indeed $f(x)$ is given by a finite family of (unrelated) power series $F_i(x)$ convergent on disjoint balls $B_i$ that cover $\bZ_p$ and the result says that one can find a single power series $F(x,\d x,...,\d^m x)$ that equals $F_i(x)$ on $B_i$ for each $i$. One can ask for a generalization of this by asking which analytic functions $f:X(\bZ_p)\ra \bZ_p$ defined on the $\bZ_p$-points of a smooth scheme $X/\bZ_p$ come from a $\d$-function $\tilde{f} \in \cO^n(X)$ (i.e. $f=\tilde{f}_*$); of course such a $\tilde{f}$ cannot be, in general, unique. If $X=\bA^1$ is the affine line then the result in [@BRS] says that any $f$ comes from some $\tilde{f}$. This is probably still the case if $X$ is any affine smooth scheme. On the other hand this fails if $X=\bP^1$ is the projective line simply because there are no non-constant $\d$-functions in $\cO^n(\bP^1)$ [@pjets] but, of course, there are plenty of non-constant analytic functions $\bP^1(\bZ_p)\ra \bZ_p$. There should be a collection of cohomological obstructions to lifting $f$ to some $\tilde{f}$ that should reflect the global geometry of $X$. This seems to us a rather fundamental question in understanding the relation between $p$-adic analytic geometry and $\d$-geometry.
In the light of Theorem \[mik\] one can ask:
\[p14\] Let $\alpha_0,...,\alpha_{\nu}$ be elements in the algebraic closure of the fraction field of $R$ which are integral over $R$. Let $X_i=Spec\ R[\alpha_i]$ be viewed as a closed subscheme of the line $\bA^1$ over $R$. Compute/understand the arithmetic jet spaces $J^n(\cup_{i=0}^{\nu} X_i)$.
This is a problem “about the interaction" of algebraic numbers. Indeed the case $\nu=0$ is clear; for instance if $R[\alpha]$ is totally ramified over $R$ (and $\neq R$) then the arithmetic jet spaces are empty: $J^n(Spec\ R[\alpha])=\emptyset$ for $n \geq 1$. However, for $\nu \geq 1$, an interesting new phenomenon occurs. Indeed if $\alpha_i=\zeta_{p^i}$ (primitive $p^i$-th root of unity) then although $J^n(Spec\ R[\zeta_{p^i}])=\emptyset$ for $n\geq 1$ and $i\geq 1$ we have that $J^n(\cup_{i=0}^{\nu} Spec\
R[\zeta_{p^i}])=J^n(\mu_{p^{\nu}})$ is non-empty and indeed extremely interesting; cf. Theorem \[mik\].
\[p15\] Find arithmetic analogues of Hamiltonian systems and of algebraically completely integrable systems. Find arithmetic analogues of the formal pseudo-differential calculus.
This problem is motivated by the link (due to Fuchs and Manin [@Manin]) between the Painlevé VI equation (which has a Hamiltonian structure) and the Manin map of an elliptic fibration. Painlevé VI possesses an arithmetic analogue whose study was begun in [@BYM]; this study is in its infancy and deserves further attention. More generally there is an intriguing possibility that other physically relevant differential equations (especially arising in Hamiltonian contexts, especially in the completely integrable situation, both finite and infinite dimensional) have arithmetic analogues carrying arithmetic significance. Finally it is conceivable that a meaningful arithmetic analogue of the formal pseudo-differential calculus in one variable [@olver]. p. 318 can be developed; in other words one should be able to bring into the picture negative powers of the $p$-derivation $\d:\cO^n(X)\ra \cO^{n+1}(X)$ in the same way in which formal pseudo-differential calculus brings into the picture the negative powers of the total derivative operator acting on functions on jet spaces.
\[p16\] Find an arithmetic analogue of the differential groupoids/Lie pseudogroups in the work of Lie, Cartan, Malgrange .
Indeed recall that one can view the $p$-jet spaces $J^n(\Sigma_m)$ of $\Sigma_m=Spec\ W_m(R)$ and the jet maps induced by the comonad maps as an arithmetic analogue of the Lie groupoid $J^n(\bR\times \bR/\bR)^*$ of the line; cf. [@pw] and Theorem \[uuu\] above for results on this. It would be interesting to investigate subobjects of the system $J^n(\Sigma_m)$ that play the role of analogues of differential sub-groupoids and to find arithmetic analogues of the differential invariants of diffeomorphism groups acting on natural bundles arising from frame bundles. A theory of $J^n(\Sigma_m)$, suitably extended to other rings and to arithmetic analogues of poly-vector fields, could also be interpreted as an arithmetic analogue of the theory of the deRham-Witt complex [@he] because it would replace the usual Kähler differentials $\Omega$ by constructions involving the operators $\d_p$.
Compute $\cO^n({\mathbb T}(N,\kappa))$ where ${\mathbb T}(N,\kappa)$ is the Hecke ${\mathbb Z}$-algebra attached to cusp forms on $\Gamma_1(N)$ of level $\kappa$.
This could lead to a way of associating differential modular forms $f^{\sharp}$ to classical newforms $f$ of weight $\neq 2$. (Cf. Theorem \[mooor\].) This might also lead to a link between $\d$-geometry and Galois representations. The problem may be related to the study of double coset sets of $GL_2$ (or more generally $GL_n$) and a link of this to the study in [@adel1; @adel2; @adel3] is plausible.
We end by stating two of the most puzzling concrete open problems of the theory.
\[p17\] Compute $\cO^n(X)$ for an elliptic curve $X$.
Note that $\cO^1(X)$ and $\cX^n(X)$ have been computed (Theorem \[thm1\]) and one expects $\cX^n(X)$ to “generate" $\cO^n(X)$. In particular assume $X$ is not a canonical lift and $\psi$ is a basis of $\cX^2(X)$; is it true that $\cO^n(X)=R[\psi,\d \psi,...,\d^{n-1}\psi]\h$? The analogue of this in differential algebra is true; cf. [@hermann].
\[p18\] Compute $\cX^n(G)$ for $G$ an extension of an elliptic curve by $\bG_m$.
One expects that this module depends in an arithmetically interesting way on the class of the extension. The problem is directly related to that of understanding the cohomology of arithmetic jet spaces.
[AA]{}
D. V. Alexeevski, V. V. Lychagin, A. M. Vinogradov, *Basic ideas and concepts of differential geometry*, in: Geometry I, R. V. Gamkrelidze, Ed., Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, Volume 28, Springer 1991.
M.Barcau, [*Isogeny covariant differential modular forms and the space of elliptic curves up to isogeny*]{}, Compositio Math., 137 (2003), 237-273.
M. Barcau, A. Buium, [*Siegel differential modular forms*]{}, International Math. Res. Notices, 2002, No. 28, pp.1459-1503.
J. Borger, [*The basic geometry of Witt vectors, I*]{}: the affine case, Algebra and Number Theory 5 (2011), no. 2, pp 231-285.
Borger, J., [*The basic geometry of Witt vectors, II: Spaces*]{}, Mathematische Annalen 351 (2011), no. 4, pp 877-933.
J. Borger, [*$\Lambda$-rings and the field with one element*]{}, arXiv:0906.3146v1
J. Borger, A. Buium, [*Differential forms on arithmetic jet spaces*]{}, Selecta Math., 17, 2 (2011), pp. 301-335.
A.Buium, *Intersections in jet spaces and a conjecture of S.Lang*, Annals of Math. 136 (1992) 557-567.
A. Buium, *Differential algebra and diophantine geometry*, Hermann, 1994.
A. Buium, [*On a question of B.Mazur*]{}, Duke Math. J., 75, 3, (1994), 639-644.
A. Buium, [*Differential characters of Abelian varieties over $p$-adic fields*]{}, Invent. Math., 122 (1995), pp. 309-340.
A. Buium, [*Geometry of $p$-jets*]{}, Duke J. Math. 82, (1996), 2, pp. 349-367.
A. Buium, [*Differential characters and characteristic polynomial of Frobenius*]{}, Crelle J. 485 (1997), 209-219.
A. Buium, [*Differential subgroups of simple algebraic groups over p-adic fields*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 120 (1998), 1277-1287.
A. Buium, [*Differential modular forms*]{}, J. reine angew. Math., 520, (2000), pp. 95-167.
A. Buium, [*Arithmetic Differential Equations*]{}, Math. Surveys and Monographs, 118, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005. xxxii+310 pp.
A. Buium, Differential eigenforms, J. Number Theory, 128 (2008), 979-1010.
A. Buium, B. Poonen, [*Independence of points on elliptic curves arising from special points on modular and Shimura curves, I: global results*]{}, Duke Math. J., 147, 1 (2009), 181-191.
A. Buium, B. Poonen, [*Independence of points on elliptic curves arising from special points on modular and Shimura curves, II: local results*]{}, Compositio Math., 145 (2009), 566-602.
A. Buium, S.R. Simanca, [*Arithmetic Laplacians*]{}, Adv. Math. 220 (2009), pp. 246-277.
A. Buium, S.R. Simanca, [*Arithmetic partial differential equations, I*]{}, Advances in Math. 225 (2010), 689-793.
A. Buium, S.R. Simanca, [*Arithmetic partial differential equations II*]{}, Advances in Math., 225 (2010), 1308-1340.
A. Buium, C. Ralph, S.R. Simanca, [*Arithmetic differential operators on ${\mathbb Z}_p$*]{}, J. Number Theory 131 (2011), pp. 96-105.
A. Buium, [*Differential characters on curves*]{}, in: Number Theory, Analysis and Geometry: In Memory of Serge Lang, D. Goldfeld et al. Editors, Springer, 2011, pp. 111-123.
A. Buium, A. Saha, [*The ring of differential Fourier expansions*]{}, J. of Number Theory 132 (2012), 896-937.
A. Buium, A. Saha, [*Hecke operators on differential modular forms mod $p$*]{}, J. Number Theory 132 (2012), 966-997
A. Buium, A. Saha, [*Differential overconvergence*]{}, in: Algebraic methods in dynamical systems; volume dedicated to Michael Singer’s $60$th birthday, Banach Center Publications, Vol 94, 99-129 (2011).
A. Buium, [*$p$-jets of finite algebras, I: $p$-divisible groups*]{}, Documenta Math., 18 (2013) 943–969.
A. Buium, [*$p$-jets of finite algebras, II: $p$-typical Witt rings*]{}, Documenta Math., 18 (2013) 971–996.
A. Buium, [*Galois groups arising from arithmetic differential equations*]{}, to appear in: Proceedings of a Conference in Luminy, Seminaires et Congrès, Soc. Math. France.
A. Buium, Yu. I. Manin, [*Arithmetic differential equations of Painlevé VI type*]{}, arXiv:1307.3841
A. Buium, A. Saha, [*The first $p$-jet space of an elliptic curve: global functions and lifts of Frobenius*]{}, arXiv:1308.0578.
A. Buium, T. Dupuy, [*Arithmetic differential equations on $GL_n$, I: differential cocycles*]{}, arXiv:1308.0748v1.
A. Buium, T. Dupuy, [*Arithmetic differential equations on $GL_n$, II: arithmetic Lie theory*]{}, arXiv:1308.0744.
A. Buium, T. Dupuy, [*Arithmetic differential equations on $GL_n$, III: Galois groups*]{}, arXiv:1308.0747
P. Cassidy, [*Differential algebraic groups*]{}, Amer. J. Math 94 (1972), 891-954.
Z. Chatzidakis, E. Hrushovski, *Model theory of difference fields*, Trans. AMS, 351 (1999), 2997-3071.
A. Connes, [*Non-commutative Geometry*]{}, Academic Press, 1994.
V. G. Drinfeld, *Elliptic modules*, Math. Sbornik 94 (1974), 594-627.
T. Dupuy, Arithmetic deformation theory of algebraic curves, PhD Thesis (UNM).
B. Dwork, G. Gerotto, F. J. Sullivan, [*An introduction to $G$-functions*]{}. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 133. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994. xxii+323 pp.
M.Greenberg, *Schemata over local rings*, Annals of Math. 73 (1961), 624-648.
A. Herras-Llanos, PhD thesis (UNM), in preparation.
L. Hesselholt, The big deRham-Witt complex, preprint, 2011.
C. Hurlburt, [*Isogeny covariant differential modular forms modulo $p$*]{}, Compositio Math. 128, (2001), 1, pp. 17-34.
Y. Ihara, *An invariant multiple differential attached to the field of elliptic modular functions of characteristic $p$*, Amer. J. Math., XCIII, 1, (1971), 139-147.
Y. Ihara, *On Fermat quotient and differentiation of numbers*, RIMS Kokyuroku 810 (1992), 324-341, (In Japanese). English translation by S. Hahn, Univ. of Georgia preprint.
T. A. Ivey, J. M. Landsberg, *Cartan for beginners: differential geometry via moving frames and exterior differential systems*, GTM 61, AMS 2003.
A. Joyal, [*$\d-$anneaux et vecteurs de Witt*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Canada, Vol. VII, No. 3, (1985), 177-182.
N. Katz, [*$p$-adic interpolation of real Eisenstein series*]{}, Ann. of Math. 104 (1976), 459-571.
E.R. Kolchin, [*Differential algebra and algebraic groups*]{}. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 54. Academic Press, New York-London, 1973. xviii+446 pp.
E.Kolchin, [*Differential Algebraic Groups*]{}, Academic Press, 1985.
N. Kurokawa, H. Ochiai, M. Wakayama, *Absolute derivations and zeta functions*, Documenta Math.,Extra Volume Kato (2003), 565-584.
B. Malgrange, Le groupoïde de Galois d’un feuilletage, Monographie 28 Vol 2, L’enseignement Mathématique (2001).
Yu. I. Manin, [*Rational points on algebraic curves over function fields*]{}, Izv. Acad. Nauk USSR, 27 (1963), 1395-1440.
Yu. I. Manin, [*Sixth Painlevé equation, universal elliptic curve, and mirror of $\bP^2$*]{}, arXiv:alg-geom/9605010.
Yu. I. Manin, *Cyclotomy and analytic geometry over $\bF_1$*, arXiv:0809.1564.
B.Mazur, [*Arithmetic on curves*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 14, 2 (1986), 207-259.
M.Marcolli, *Lectures on Arithmetic Non-commutative Geometry*, Univ. Lecture Series 36, AMS, 2005.
M. Morishita, *Knots and primes*, Springer, 2012.
P. J. Olver, *Appications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations*, GTM 107, Springer, 2000.
R. Pink, *A combination of the conjectures of Mordell-Lang and André-Oort*, in: Progress in Math 235, Birkhauser 2005, pp. 251-282.
M.Raynaud, [*Courbes sur une variété abélienne et points de torsion*]{}, Invent. Math. 71 (1983), 207-235.
M. Singer, M. van der Put, [*Galois theory of difference equaltions*]{}, LNM, Springer 1997.
P. Vojta, Jets via Hasse-Schmidt derivations, in: Diophantine geometry, pp. 335-361, CRM Series, 4, U. Zannier Ed., Sc. Norm., Pisa, 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.