text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'This paper considers a zero-sum two-player asymmetric information stochastic game where only one player knows the system state, and the transition law is controlled by the informed player only. For the informed player, it has been shown that the security strategy only depends on the belief and the current stage. We provide LP formulations whose size is only linear in the size of the uninformed player’s action set to compute both history based and belief based security strategies. For the uninformed player, we focus on the regret, the difference between $\mathbf{0}$ and the future payoff guaranteed by the uninformed player in every possible state. Regret is a real vector of the same size as the belief, and depends only on the action of the informed player and the strategy of the uninformed player. This paper shows that the uninformed player has a security strategy that only depends on the regret and the current stage. LP formulations are then given to compute the history based security strategy, the regret at every stage, and the regret based security strategy. The size of the LP formulations are again linear in the size of the uninformed player action set. Finally, an intrusion detection problem is studied to demonstrate the main results in this paper.'
author:
- 'Lichun Li, Cedric Langbort and Jeff S. Shamma [^1]'
title: '**Security Strategies of Both Players in Asymmetric Information Zero-Sum Stochastic Games with an Informed Controller**'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Cyber attacks have been a serious threat to the security and privacy of individuals (e.g. Equifax data breach), companies (e.g. HBO cyberattack and Sony Pictures hack), and nations (e.g. stuxnet), and are reported to spur billions of dollars in loss [@cyberattackloss]. Such cyber attacks have become more stealthy, targeted, and sophisticated over the past few years. One difficulty in modelling and defending against them is that attackers often have access to a vast amount of attacking measures, which results in lack of complete information on the defender’s part. Hence, we propose to model cyber security problems as games with asymmetric information, and get a systematic strategy to fight against cyber attacks.
A key element in asymmetric information games is to estimate the private information of the other players. This element is usually a probability, which is also called belief, over the other player’s private information based on the history of observations. Generally speaking, a belief over the other player’s private information depends on the player’s strategy, which, in turn, depends on the belief. Therefore, there is always a coupling between the belief and the strategy. To decompose the coupling, common information based belief and the corresponding strategy were proposed [@nayyar2014common; @ouyang2017dynamic; @sinha2016structured; @nayyar2017information]. In [@nayyar2014common], Bayesian Nash equilibrium was considered. To decouple the belief from the strategy, it was assumed that the belief was strategy independent. With this assumption, asymmetric information games can be transformed to a symmetric game in which a backward induction was derived, and the Bayesian Nash equilibrium can be found by solving a one-stage Bayesian game. The idea was adopted in [@nayyar2017information] with a focus on zero-sum stochastic games. Both [@ouyang2017dynamic] and [@sinha2016structured] considered perfect Bayesian equilibrium which consists of a belief system and a strategy profile. The belief and the strategy need to be consistent with each other to form a perfect Bayesian equilibrium. In [@ouyang2017dynamic; @sinha2016structured], players’ strategies were assumed to be known by each other. Based on this assumption, Ouyang et.al decomposed a stochastic game with asymmetric information and used a backward induction to find common information based perfect Bayesian equilibrium [@ouyang2017dynamic]. Sinha and Anastasopoulos studied an infinite horizon discounted asymmetric information game in [@sinha2016structured], and found that the common information based belief and strategy are stationary. A methodology was developed to decompose the interdependence between the belief and strategy, and to evaluate structured perfect Bayesian equilibrium.
While many previous work focused on beliefs in asymmetric information games, there is another group of works pointing out another key element in asymmetric information games [@de1996repeated; @rosenberg1998duality; @sorin2002first]. This element is a real vector of the same size as the belief, and does not depend explicitly on the other player’s strategy. We call this vector ‘regret’, because it is the difference between $\mathbf{0}$ and the future payoff guaranteed by a security strategy for every possible initial private information of the other players [@li2017computing; @li2017efficient; @li2017solving]. It was shown that the player without private information (uninformed player) has a security strategy that only depends on the regret in repeated games, plus the current stage if this is a finite stage game [@de1996repeated]. This paper focuses on asymmetric information zero-sum two-player stochastic games where only one player (informed) has access to private information (system state) which evolves following a Markovian rule controlled by the informed player only. Our goal is to provide tractable conditions for the computation of *both players’* security strategies (to be defined precisely in Section \[section: problem statement\]) for such games. More precisely, we show how to obtain LP formulations whose size is only linear in the cardinality of the uninformed player’s action set, in contrast with existing approaches which do not consider the uninformed player’s strategy and/or require LPs with size scaling polynomially in the cardinality of that set [@koller1996efficient]. For the informed player, our approach builds on the work of [@renault2006value], which showed that the informed player has a security strategy that only depends on the belief and the current stage, and is independent of the action history of the uninformed player. We extend our original contribution [@li2014lp] by introducing an algorithm to compute belief based security strategy for the informed player. For the uninformed player, we introduce and build on the new notion of ‘regret’, which generalizes the similar object we first considered in the context of repeated games [@li2017computing]. By using the dual game of the asymmetric information stochastic game, we show that in finite horizon asymmetric information stochastic games, the uninformed player has a security strategy that only depends on the regret and the current stage, and is independent of the history action of the uninformed player. The regret only depends on the action history of the informed player, and is independent of the strategy of the informed player. It is because of this property that an appropriately-sized LP can be derived, along with algorithms to compute the regret at every stage.
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[section: problem statement\] introduces the game model. Section \[section: informed\] and \[section: uninformed\] introduce the security strategies of informed and uninformed players, respectively, and detail the derivations mentioned above. Finally, in Section \[section: simulation\], we apply our security strategy computation techniques to a game model of an intrusion detection problem.
Problem statement {#section: problem statement}
=================
Let $\mathbb{R}^n$ denote the $n$-dimensional real space. For a finite set $K$, $| K |$ denotes its cardinality, and $\Delta(K)$ indicates the set of probability distributions over $K$. The symbols $\mathbf{1}$ and $\mathbf{0}$ denote vectors with all elements equal to 1 and 0, respectively. The size will be implied from context. For a vector $p$ and a matrix $Z$, we use $p(i)$ to denote the $i$th element of $p$, and $Z(i,j)$ to denote the element at the $i$th row and $j$th column of $Z$. The $i$th row and the $j$th column of $Z$ are denoted as $Z(i,:)$ and $Z(:,j)$, respectively.
A *two-player zero-sum stochastic game* is specified by a six-tuple $(K,A,B,M,p_0$ $,Q)$, where
- $K$ is a finite set, called the state set, whose elements are the states of the game.
- $A$ and $B$ are the finite action sets of player 1 and player 2, respectively.
- $M_k\in \mathbb{R}^{|A|\times|B|}$ is the payoff matrix if the state is $k\in K$. $M_k(a,b)$ is player 1’s one stage payoff, or player 2’s one stage cost if the current state is $k$ and the current actions of player 1 and 2 are $a$ and $b$, respectively.
- $p_0 \in \Delta(K)$ is the initial probability of the state.
- $Q_a \in \mathbb{R}^{|K|\times |K|}$ denotes the transition matrix if player 1 plays $a\in A$. $Q_a(k,k')$ is the conditional probability that the next state is $k'$ given the current action is $a$ and the current state is $k$.
An $N$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game with a single controller is played as follows. At the beginning of stage $t= 1,\ldots,N$, the state $k_t$ is chosen by nature according to the initial probability $p_0$ if this is the first stage, or the transition law $Q_{a_{t-1}}(k_{t-1},:)$ otherwise. The current state $k_t$ is only observed by player 1, and hence player 1 is called the informed player while player 2 is called the uninformed player. Both players choose their actions $a_t$ and $b_t$ simultaneously, which are observable by both players. The resulting one stage payoff of player 1, i.e. the one stage cost of player 2, is $M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t)$. We assume both players have perfect recall.
At the beginning of stage $t$, the available state history and action history of players 1 and 2 are indicated by $S_t=\{k_1,\ldots,k_t\}$, $I_t=\{a_1,\ldots,a_{t-1}\}$ and $J_t=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{t-1}\}$, respectively. Player 1’s behavior strategy is an element $\sigma=(\sigma_t)_{t=1}^N$, where for each $t$, $\sigma_t: K^t\times A^{t-1}\times B^{t-1} \rightarrow \Delta(A)$. Player 2’s behavior strategy is an element $\tau=(\tau_t)_{t=1}^N$, where for each $t$, $\tau_t: A^{t-1}\times B^{t-1} \rightarrow \Delta(B)$. Denote by $\Sigma_N$ and $\mathcal{T}_N$ the set of $N$-stage strategies of player $1$ and $2$, respectively.
Every quadruple $(p_0,\sigma,\tau,Q)$ induces a probability $P_{p_0,\sigma,\tau,Q}$ over the set of plays $(K \times A\times B)^N$. We denote by $\mathbf{E}_{p_0,\sigma,\tau,Q}$ the corresponding expectation operator. The *total payoff* of the $N$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_N(p_0,\sigma,\tau)=\mathbf{E}_{p_0,\sigma,\tau,Q}\left(\sum_{t=1}^N M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t) \right)\end{aligned}$$ The $N$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_N(p_0)$ is defined as the zero-sum game with strategy spaces $\Sigma_N$ and $\mathcal{T}_N$, and payoff function $\gamma_N(p_0,\sigma,\tau)$.
In this game, player 1 wants to maximize the total payoff, while player 2 wants to minimize it. Therefore, player 1 has a security level $\underline{v}_N(p_0)$, which is also called the maxmin value of the game and defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{v}_N(p_0)=\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_N}\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_N} \gamma_N(p_0,\sigma,\tau).\end{aligned}$$ A strategy $\sigma^*$ that guarantees player 1’s security level, i.e. $\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}} \gamma_N(p_0,\sigma^*,\tau)=\underline{v}_N(p_0)$, is called a security strategy of player 1. Player 2 also has a security level $\bar{v}_n(p_0)$ which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{v}_N(p_0)=\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_N}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_N}\gamma_N(p_0,\sigma,\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Player 2’s security level is also called the minmax value of the game, and a strategy $\tau^*\in \mathcal{T}$ that guarantees the security level of player 2 is a security strategy of player 2. Since this is a finite game (finite horizon, action sets, and state set) and behavior strategies are considered, its maxmin value and minmax value match [@sorin2002first]. In this case, we say the game has a value $v_N(p_0)=\underline{v}_N(p_0)=\bar{v}_N(p_0)$, and the security strategy pair $(\sigma^*,\tau^*)$ is the saddle point of the game.
Security strategies of the informed player {#section: informed}
==========================================
The security strategies of the informed players in asymmetric information stochastic games have been thoroughly studied in previous work [@rosenberg2004stochastic; @renault2006value; @li2014lp]. For completeness of this paper, we will review the related results in this section. Interested readers can find proofs in the corresponding references.
History based security strategy and its LP formulation {#subsec: history, informed}
------------------------------------------------------
Renault showed that the informed player’s security strategy only depends on the current state and its own action history [@renault2006value]. We state this property in the following lemma.
\[lemma: H\^B independent strategy, informed\] Consider an $N$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_N(p_0)$. The informed player has a security strategy that, at every stage $t$, only depends on the current state $k_t$, and on the actions history $I_t$ of the informed player.
Based on this property, by mathematical induction, [@li2014lp] presented an LP whose size is only linear with respect to the size of the uninformed player’s action set. Proposition \[lemma: H\^B independent strategy, informed\] indicates that there is no loss of generality in only considering the informed player’s behavior strategies that depend on $k_t$ and $I_t$ only. Therefore, for the rest of this paper, we only consider informed player’s behavior strategy $\sigma_t$ as a function from $K\times A^{t-1}$ to $\Delta(A)$.
Before presenting the simplified LP, we first define a matrix variable $Z_{I_t}\in \mathbb{R}^{|A|\times |K|}$ and a scalar variable $\ell_{I_t}\in \mathbb{R}$. Let $Z=(Z_{I_t})_{I_t\in A^{t-1}, t=1,\ldots,N}$ and $\ell=(\ell_{I_t})_{I_t\in A^{t-1}, t=1,\ldots,N}$. Denote the sets of all possible values that $Z$ and $\ell$ can take by $\mathcal{Z}$ and $L$. The history based security strategy of the informed player can be computed according to the following theorem.
\[theorem: history based strategy\] Consider an $N$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_N(p_0)$ with the initial probability $p_0$. The game value $v_N(p_0)$ of $\Gamma_N(p_0)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
v_N(p_0)=&\max_{Z\in \mathcal{Z},\ell\in L}\sum_{t=1}^N \sum_{I_t\in A^{t-1}} \ell_{I_t} \label{eq: LP informed 1}\\
s.t.& \sum_{k\in K}M_k^T Z_{I_t}(:,k) \geq \ell_{I_t} \mathbf{1}, && \forall I_t\in A^{t-1} ,\forall t=1,\ldots,N \\
& \mathbf{1}^T Z_{I_t}(:,k) = Z_{I_{t-1}}(a,:)Q_a(:,k),&& \forall I_t=(I_{t-1},a)\in A^{t-1},\forall k\in K,\\
&&&\forall t=2,\ldots,N \\
& \mathbf{1}^T Z_{I_1}(:,k)=p_0(k),&& \forall k\in K \\
& Z_{I_t}(:,k) \geq \mathbf{0} , &&\forall k\in K, \forall I_t\in A^{t-1},\forall t=1,\ldots,N \label{eq: LP informed 5}\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, a security strategy $\sigma^*_t(k,I_t)$ of the informed player at stage $t$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^*_t(k,I_t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{Z^*_{I_t}(:,k)}{ \mathbf{1}^T Z_{I_t}^*(:,k)}, & \hbox{if $Z_{I_t}^*(:,k)\neq \mathbf{0}$;} \\
\mathbf{0}, & \hbox{$\mathrm{othewise}$}
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq: security strategy informed}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z^*$ is the optimal solution of the LP formulation (\[eq: LP informed 1\]-\[eq: LP informed 5\]).
Belief based security strategy and its LP based algorithm
---------------------------------------------------------
The memory required to record the history based security strategy increases exponentially with $N$ in game $\Gamma_N(p_0)$. Therefore, a sufficient statistics based security strategy is of interest, especially when $N$ is large. When studying the game value of a finite stage game, Renault showed that at stage $t$, the sufficient statistics of the informed player is the stage index and the conditional probability $p_t$ of the current state given the action history of the informed player. The conditional probability $p_t$ is also called the belief state which is updated as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
p_{t+1}=\phi^T(p_t,X_t,a)Q^{a}, \label{eq: belief update}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi:K\times \Delta(A)^{K} \times A \rightarrow \Delta(K)$ is a vector valued function whose $k$th element is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_k(p_t,X_t,a)=\frac{p_t(k) X_t(a,k)}{\bar{x}(p_t,x_t,a)}, \forall k\in K \label{eq: p+}\end{aligned}$$ $X_t(:,k)=\sigma_t(k,I_t)$, and $\bar{x}(p_t,X_t,a)=\sum_{k\in K}p_t(k) X_t(a,k)$ is the probability that player 1 plays $a$ at stage $t$.
Based on the belief state $p_t$, a recursive formula to compute the game value $v_N(p_0)$ was provided in [@renault2006value], and the sufficient statistics of the informed player was also given at the same time.
\[theorem: sufficien statistics, informed\] Consider an $n$ stage asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_n(p)$. Its game value $v_n(p)$ satisfies the following recursive formula. $$\begin{aligned}
&v_n(p)\\
= &\max_{X\in \Delta(A)^{|K|}} \min_{\hat{y}\in\Delta(B)}\left(\sum_{k\in K}p(k) X^T(:,k) M_k \hat{y}+\sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(p,x,a)v_{n-1}(\phi^T(p,X,a)Q_a)\right) \label{eq: recursive formula primal 1}\\
= &\min_{\hat{y}\in\Delta(B)} \max_{X\in \Delta(A)^{|K|}} \left(\sum_{k\in K}p(k) X^T(:,k) M_k \hat{y}+\sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(p,x,a)v_{n-1}(\phi^T(p,X,a)Q_a) \right) \label{eq: recursive formula primal 2}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the informed player has a security strategy at stage $t$ that only depends on stage $t$ and belief state $p_t$.
Based on this theorem, one can derive an algorithm to compute the belief based security strategy of the informed player as follows.
\[Algorithm: belief based, informed\]
1. Initialization
1. Read payoff matrices $M$, transition matrices $Q$, time horizon $N$ and initial probability $p_0$.
2. Set $t=1$ and $p_t=p_0$. Read $k_t$.
2. Solve LP (\[eq: LP informed 1\]-\[eq: LP informed 5\]) by replacing $N$ and $p_0$ by $N+1-t$ and $p_t$. A security strategy at $t$ is $\sigma_1^*(k_t,I_1)$ computed according to (\[eq: security strategy informed\]).
3. Draw an action $a_t$ according to the security strategy $\sigma_1^*(k_t,I_1)$.
4. Update $p_{t+1}$ according to (\[eq: belief update\]).
5. Update $t=t+1$, read $k_t$.
6. If $t\leq N$, go to step 2). Otherwise, end.
Compared with history based security strategy, the belief based security strategy only needs to record stage $t$ and belief state $p_t$ whose size is fixed and much smaller than $I_t$ which is recorded in history based security strategy, especially when the time horizon $N$ is large. The belief based security strategy also provides us a research direction in dealing with infinite horizon asymmetric information stochastic games, which was studied in [@li2015efficient] for the discounted case.
Security strategies of the uninformed player {#section: uninformed}
============================================
While the security strategies of informed players in asymmetric information stochastic games were well studied in the previous work, only a few papers studied the security strategies of uninformed players [@de1996repeated; @rosenberg1998duality]. Both references studied the security strategies of the uninformed player using the dual games of the corresponding game model. We follow a similar path in this section, noting that our game model is more general than that considered in [@de1996repeated], and incomparable with that of [@rosenberg1998duality].
Regret based security strategies and $J_t$ independent security strategies {#subsection: strategy property, uninformed}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us first introduce the dual game of the asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_N(p)$. A dual asymmetric information stochastic game is specified by a six-tuple $(K,A,B,M,Q,\alpha)$, where $K,A,B,M,Q$ are defined in the same way as in the primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$, and $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ is the initial vector payoff of player 1. The dual game is played exactly in the same way as the primal game except that at the first stage, player 1, instead of Nature, chooses the state. Let $p\in \Delta(K)$ be player 1’s mixed strategy to choose the initial state. The total payoff in the dual game is $$\begin{aligned}
g_N(\alpha,\sigma,\tau)=\mathbf{E}_{p,\sigma,\tau,Q}\left(\alpha(k_1)+\sum_{t=1}^N M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The $N$-stage dual asymmetric information stochastic game $G_N(\alpha)$ is defined as a two-player zero-sum game with strategy spaces $\Delta(K)\times \Sigma_N$ and $\mathcal{T}_N$, and payoff function $g_N(p,\sigma,\tau)$.
The dual game $G_N(\alpha)$ is still a finite game. Since behavior strategies are considered, the dual game has a value, i.e. $ w_N(\alpha)=\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_N}\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_N} g_N(\alpha,\sigma,\tau)$ $= \min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_N} \max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_N} g_N(\alpha,\sigma,\tau)$. Before studying the relation between the game values of the primal game and the dual game, we introduce the initial regret of the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ as follows. Denote the informed player strategy from stage $2$ to $N$ as $\sigma_{2:N}\in \Sigma_{2:N}$, where $\Sigma_{2:N}$ is the set of all possible values that $\sigma_{2:N}$ can take. Let $\tau^*$ be the uninformed player’s security strategy in primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$. The initial regret $\hat{\alpha}_0\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ of a primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\alpha}_0(k)=-\max_{\substack{\sigma_1(k,\emptyset)\in \Delta(A)\\ \sigma_{2:N}\in \Sigma_{2:N}}} \mathbf{E}_{(\sigma_1(k,\emptyset),\sigma_{2:N}),\tau^*,Q}(\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t)|k_1=k).\label{eq: initial regret}\end{aligned}$$ The $k$th element of the initial regret is the difference between $0$, the total payoff realized at the beginning of stage 1, and the security level that the uninformed player’s security strategy can guarantee if the game state is $k$. Later, we will see that if we use the initial regret of primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ as the initial vector payoff in the dual game, the security strategy of the uninformed player in the dual game is also the security strategy of the uninformed player in the primal game. Moreover, the game value $v_n(p)$ of the primal game equals to the game value $w_n(\hat{\alpha}_0)$ minus $p^T \hat{\alpha}_0$. In this way, we can evaluate the game value of the primal game from the game value of the dual game. Now, let us introduce the relations between the game values of the primal game and the dual game.
\[theroem: game value relations\] Consider an $n$-stage asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_n(p)$ and its dual game $G_n(\alpha)$. Let $v_n(p)$ and $w_n(\alpha)$ be the game values of $\Gamma_n(p)$ and $G_n(\alpha)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
v_n(p)=\min_{\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}}\{w_n(\alpha)-p^T \alpha\}, \label{eq: v n} \\
w_n(\alpha)=\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\{v_n(p)+p^T\alpha\}. \label{eq: w n}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the initial regret $\hat{\alpha}_0$ of the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ is an optimal solution to the minimum problem (\[eq: v n\]).
First, we will show that $$\begin{aligned}
v_n(p)\leq w_n(\alpha)-p^T\alpha, \forall p\in \Delta(K), \alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{|K|}. \label{eq: transient results 1}
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tau^+$ be player 2’s security strategy in the dual game $G_n(\alpha)$. We then have $w_n(\alpha)=\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} p^T\alpha+\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)$, which implies that for any $p$ and $\alpha$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} p^T\alpha+\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)\\
=&p^T\alpha+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)\\
\leq &w_n(\alpha)
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for any $p\in \Delta(K)$ and $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+) \leq w_n(\alpha)-p^T\alpha . \label{eq: transient results 3}\end{aligned}$$ Since for any $p\in \Delta(K)$, $v_n(p)\leq \max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)$, equation (\[eq: transient results 1\]) is proven.
Second, we show that for any $p\in \Delta(K)$, there exists an $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
v_n(p)\geq w_n(\alpha)-p^T\alpha. \label{eq: transient results 2}
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tau^*$ be player 2’s security strategy in the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$. From the definition of the initial regret $\hat{\alpha}_0$ of the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$, we see that $v_n(p)=-p^T \hat{\alpha}_0$. Notice that $\tau^*$ may not be player 2’s security strategy any more if the initial probability changes. Therefore, we have for any $p'\in \Delta(K)$, $v_n(p')\leq \max_{\sigma\in\Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p',\sigma,\tau^*)=-p'^T \hat{\alpha}_0$. $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\hat{\alpha}_0)=&\max_{p'\in \Delta(K)}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\min_{\tau\in\mathcal{T}_n} p'^T \hat{\alpha}_0+\gamma_n(p',\sigma,\tau^*)\\
=&\max_{p'\in \Delta(K)} p'^T \hat{\alpha}_0+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\min_{\tau\in\mathcal{T}_n}\gamma_n(p',\sigma,\tau)\\
=& \max_{p'\in \Delta(K)} p'^T \hat{\alpha}_0+ v_n(p').
\end{aligned}$$ Since $v_n(p')\leq -p'^T \hat{\alpha}_0$ for any $p'\in \Delta(K)$, it can be derived that $w_n(\hat{\alpha}_0)\leq 0=v_n(p)+p^T\hat{\alpha}_0$, which proves that there exists an $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ such that equation (\[eq: transient results 2\]) holds. Equation (\[eq: transient results 1\]) and equation (\[eq: transient results 2\]) imply equation (\[eq: v n\]), and $\hat{\alpha}_0$ is an optimal solution to the minimum problem in (\[eq: v n\]).
Finally, we prove equation (\[eq: w n\]). $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=&\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_n} \max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} p^T\alpha+\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau)\\
=&\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_n} \max_{p\in \Delta(K)} p^T\alpha+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau).
\end{aligned}$$ Function $\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau)$ is linear in $\tau$, and we have for any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\epsilon \tau+(1-\epsilon)\tau')\\
=&\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \epsilon\gamma_n(p,\sigma, \tau)+(1-\epsilon) \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau') \\
\leq & \epsilon\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma, \tau)+(1-\epsilon) \max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau'),
\end{aligned}$$ which shows that $\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau)$ is convex in $\tau$. Together with the fact that $p^T\alpha+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau)$ is linear in $p$, according to the Sion’s minimax theorem [@sion1958general], we have $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=&\max_{p\in \Delta(K)} \min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_n} p^T\alpha+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau)\\
=& \max_{p\in \Delta(K)} p^T\alpha+v_n(p),
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
While Theorem \[theroem: game value relations\] provides the relations between the game values of the primal game and the dual game, the next theorem states that the in some special case, the security strategy of the uninformed player in the dual game is also the security strategy of the uninformed player in the primal game.
\[theorem: relation in security strategy of uninformed player\] Given an optimal solution $\alpha^*$ to the minimum problem (\[eq: v n\]), any security strategy of the uninformed player in the dual game $G_n(\alpha^*)$ is a security strategy of the uninformed player in the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$.
Let $\tau^+$ be a security strategy in the dual game $G_n(\alpha^*)$. Equation (\[eq: transient results 3\]) implies that $\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+) \leq w_n(\alpha^*)-p^T\alpha^*=v_n(p)$. The last equality is derived from the fact that $\alpha^*$ is the optimal solution to the minimum problem (\[eq: v n\]). Meanwhile, $\displaystyle v_n(p)\leq \max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)$. Therefore, we have $\displaystyle v_n(p)=\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^+)$, and $\tau^+$ is a security strategy of the uninformed player in the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$.
Equation (\[eq: v n\]) provides us a way to evaluate the game value of the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ from the game value of the dual game $G_n(\alpha)$. Generally speaking, for any initial vector payoff $\alpha$, $w_n(\alpha)-p^T \alpha$ is an upper bound on $v_n(p)$, and if we play the uninformed player’s security strategy of the dual game in the primal game, the security level is no less than $v_n(p)$. However, if the initial vector payoff of the dual game is the initial regret in the primal game, we will have $v_n(p)=w_n(\hat{\alpha}_0)-p^T \hat{\alpha}_0$, and the security strategy of the uninformed player’s in the dual game can guarantee an expected total payoff of $v_n(p)$ in the primal game. Therefore, when playing the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$, we can see the game as a dual game $G_n(\hat{\alpha}_0)$ and play the dual game instead.
A security strategy of the uninformed player in the dual game has some nice properties. According to Theorem \[theorem: relation in security strategy of uninformed player\], these properties also apply to security strategies of the uninformed player in the primal game. To explore the properties of uninformed player’s security strategy, we first present a recursive formula of the game value $w_n(\alpha)$ in dual game $G_n(\alpha)$.
\[lemma: recursive formula transient result\] Consider a dual asymmetric information stochastic game $G_{n+1}(\alpha)$. Its game value $w_{n+1}(\alpha)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&w_{n+1}(\alpha) \label{eq: w n+1 to v n}\\
=&\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)} \max_{\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y}) + \sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(\Pi,a)v_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $v_n(p)$ is the game value of primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$.
According to equation (\[eq: w n\]) and (\[eq: recursive formula primal 1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&w_{n+1}(\alpha)\\
=&\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\max_{X\in \Delta(A)^{|K|}}\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)}p^T\alpha+ \sum_{k\in K} p(k)X^T(:,k) M_k \hat{y}+\sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(p,X,a)v_n(\phi^T(p,s,a)Q_a) \\
=& \max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\max_{X\in \Delta(A)^{|K|}} \min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)}\left\{ \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}p(k) X(a,k) (\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y}) \right.\\
&\left.+ \sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(p,X,a)v_n(\phi^T(p,s,a)Q_a)\right\}\\
=& \max_{\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \min_{\hat{y} \in \Delta(B)} \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y}) + \sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(\Pi,a)v_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is derived by letting $\Pi(k,a)=p(k) X(a,k)$.
Next, we need to change the order of the maximum function and the minimum function. To this end, we will show that function $$f(\Pi,\hat{y})=\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y}) + + \sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(\Pi,a)v_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)$$ is concave in $\Pi$ and linear in $\hat{y}$. According to Lemma III.1 in [@li2014lp], $\bar{x}(\Pi,a)v_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)=v_n(\Pi^T(:,a) Q_a)$. Since $v_n(p)$ is concave in $p$ [@zamir1992repeated], it is concave in $\Pi$, and $f(\Pi,\hat{y})$ is also concave in $\Pi$. Together with the fact that $f(\Pi,\hat{y})$ is linear in $\hat{y}$, according to Sion’s minimax theorem [@sion1958general], we have equation (\[eq: w n+1 to v n\]).
The idea behind equation (\[eq: w n+1 to v n\]) is similar to the idea of dynamic programming. The first term of (\[eq: w n+1 to v n\]) is the expected current payoff, and the second term is the expected future payoff. In that expression, the uninformed player controls $y$, its strategy at stage 1, and aims to minimize the total expected payoff. The informed player controls $p$, the probability to choose the initial game state, and $X$, its strategy at stage 1, which means that it controls the joint probability $\Pi$ of the state and its action at stage 1, and the informed player’s objective is to maximize the total expected payoff.
From stage 2 on, however, the game’s state is not freely chosen by the informed player but distributed according to $\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a$. In turn, the future payoff can be seen as the value of primal game $\Gamma_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)$. Using Theorem \[theroem: game value relations\], we can further evaluate this value by, again, looking at the corresponding dual game. This, together with Proposition \[lemma: recursive formula transient result\], allows us to derive a recursive formula for the value of a dual game as follows.
\[lemma: recursive formula and H B independent property\] Consider a dual asymmetric information stochastic game $G_{n+1}(\alpha)$. Its game value $w_{n+1}(\alpha)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&w_{n+1}(\alpha)\label{eq: recursive formula dual}\\
=&\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)}\min_{(\beta_a \in \mathbb{R}^{|K|})_{ a\in A}} \max_{\pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \sum_{k\in K, a\in A} \Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\alpha(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_n(\beta_a)),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $w_1(\alpha)=\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)} \max_{\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \sum_{k\in K, a\in A} \Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\alpha(k))$.
From equation (\[eq: w n+1 to v n\]) and (\[eq: v n\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&w_{n+1}(\alpha)\nonumber\\
=&\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)} \max_{\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \left\{ \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y}) \right.\\
&\left.+ \sum_{a\in A}\bar{x}(\Pi,a) \min_{\beta_a\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}}\{w_n(\beta_a)-\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a \beta_a\}\right\} \\
=& \min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)} \max_{\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \min_{(\beta_a\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|})_{a\in A}} \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) \left(\alpha(k)+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y} -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a + w_n(\beta_a)\right).\end{aligned}$$
Now, we need to change the order of $\max_{\pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \min_{\beta_a\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|},\forall a\in A}$. For this purpose, we need to show that $w_n(\cdot)$ is convex. Let $\beta_1,\beta_2$ be any $|K|$ dimensional real vectors. For any $\epsilon\in (0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\epsilon\beta_1+(1-\epsilon)\beta_2)
=&\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\{v_n(p)+p^T(\epsilon\beta_1+(1-\epsilon)\beta_2)\}\\
=&\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\{\epsilon(v_n(p)+p^T\beta_1)+(1-\epsilon)(v_n(p)+p^T\beta_2)\}\\
\leq & \epsilon\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\{v_n(p)+p^T\beta_1\}+(1-\epsilon)\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\{v_n(p)+p^T\beta_2\}\\
=&\epsilon w_n(\beta_1)+(1-\epsilon)w_n(\beta_2).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $w_n(\cdot)$ is convex. Together with the fact that $\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a)(\alpha(k)$ $+ M_k(a,:)\hat{y} -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a + w_n(\beta_a))$ is linear in $\Pi$, according to Sion’s minimax theorem [@sion1958general], equation (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]) is shown.
The variable $\beta_a$ is introduced when we replace $v_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)$ with $$\min_{\beta_a\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}}\{w_n(\beta_a)-\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a \beta_a\}$$, and can be seen as the uninformed player’s guess about the initial regret, i.e. future cost compared to zero, of the future primal game $\Gamma_n(\phi^T(\Pi,a)Q_a)$. On one hand, the uninformed player controls its strategy $y$. On the other hand, it takes a guess about the initial regret $\beta_a$ of the future primal game given the informed player’s current action $a$. Given $y$ and $\beta_a$, the expected total payoff is $\sum_{k\in K, a\in A} \Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\alpha(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_n(\beta_a))$. Since the informed player aims to maximize the expected total payoff, the uninformed player will choose $y$ and $\beta_a$ such that the maximum expected total payoff is minimized. The optimal solution $(\beta_a^*)_{a\in A}$ to the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]) is called the regret at stage $2$ in a dual game $G_{n+1}(\alpha)$. The regret at stage $t$ in a dual game is formally defined as below.
\[definition: regret, dual\] Consider a dual game $G_N(\alpha)$. We call $\alpha$ the regret at stage 1, and denote it as $\alpha_1$.
Given regret $\alpha_t$ and informed player’s action $a$ at stage $t$, let $\hat{y}^*$ and $(\beta_a^*)_{a\in A}$ be the optimal solution to the following problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)}\min_{(\beta_a \in \mathbb{R}^{|K|})_{ a\in A}} \max_{\pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \sum_{k\in K, a\in A} \Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\alpha_t(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_{N-t}(\beta_a)), \label{eq: regret update, dual}
\end{aligned}$$ We call $\beta_a^*$ the regret at stage $t+1$, and denote it as $\alpha_{t+1}$.
Now, we are ready to present a regret based strategy for the uninformed player in a dual game. Let $\hat{y}^*$ and $\beta^*$ be the optimal solution to the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]). At every stage $t$ with vector payoff $\alpha_t$, we can use the optimal solution $\hat{y}^*$ as the current strategy of the uninformed player, and update the vector payoff $\alpha_{t+1}$ at the next stage to $\beta^*_{a_t}$. The detailed algorithm is given below.
\[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\]
1. Initialization
- Read payoff matrices $M$, transition matrices $Q$, and initial vector payoff $\alpha$.
- Set stage $t=1$, and $\alpha_t=\alpha$.
2. Find out the optimal solution $\hat{y}^*$ and $(\beta_a^*)_{a\in A}$ to the minmax problem (\[eq: regret update, dual\]).
3. Draw an action according to $\hat{y}^*$ and read the action $a_t$ of the informed player.
4. Set $t=t+1$, and update $\alpha_t=\beta^*_{a_t}$.
5. If $t\leq N$, go to step 2). Otherwise, end.
We shall notice that the strategy derived in this algorithm is independent of $\sigma$, the strategy of the informed player.
The next question is whether the strategy constructed in Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\] is a security strategy of the uninformed player in dual game $G_N(\alpha)$, and the answer is yes. We provide the detail in the following theorem.
\[theorem: regret based security strategy, dual game\] In the dual asymmetric information game $G_N(\alpha)$, the uninformed player has a security strategy at stage $t$ that only depends on regret $\alpha_t$ and the stage $t$. Moreover, such a security strategy can be constructed using Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\].
We will construct a strategy of the uninformed player as in Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\].
Mathematical induction is used to prove the theorem. First, we see that in dual game $G_1(\alpha)$, it is easy to check that $\hat{y}^*$ is a security strategy of player 2.
Assume that $\tau^*(\alpha)$ is a security strategy of player 2 in dual game $G_n(\alpha)$ constructed as in Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\]. Let $\hat{y}^*$ and $\beta^*$ be the optimal solution to the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]). We will show that in dual game $G_{n+1}(\alpha)$, if player 2 plays $\hat{y}^*$ at stage 1, and $\tau^*(\beta^*_{a_1})$ afterwards, then player 2 can guarantee the game value $w_{n+1}(\alpha)$.
For any $a\in A$, since $\tau^*(\beta^*_a)$ is a security strategy of player 2 in dual game $G_n(\beta^*_a)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))+p^T\beta^*_a\leq w_n(\beta^*_a), \forall p\in \Delta(K),\forall \sigma\in \Sigma_n.\end{aligned}$$ Let $p_{\Pi}(k')=\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) Q_a(k,k')$, where $\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a)) \leq \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a)( w_n(\beta^*_a)-\sum_{k'\in K}Q^a_{k,k'}\beta_a^*(k')),\end{aligned}$$ for all $\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A), a\in A, \sigma\in \Sigma_n $. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) \gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a)) \leq \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a)( w_n(\beta^*_a)-Q_a(k,:)\beta_a^{*}),\end{aligned}$$ for all $\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A), \sigma\in \Sigma_n$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)+\gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))) \\
\leq &\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a)( w_n(\beta^*_a)-Q_a(k,:)\beta_a^*+M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)),\end{aligned}$$ for all $\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A), a\in A, \sigma\in \Sigma_n$. Therefore, we have for all $\pi\in \Delta(K\times A), \sigma\in \Sigma_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)+\gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))) \\
\leq &\max_{\pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a)( w_n(\beta^*_a)-Q_a(k,:)\beta_a^*+M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{y}^*$ and $\beta^*$ is the optimal solution to the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]), we have for all $\Pi\in \Delta(K\times A), \sigma\in \Sigma_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)+\gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))) \leq w_{n+1}(\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Pi(k,a)=p_1(k) X(a,k)$, where $p_1$ is player 1’s strategy to choose a state, and $X(:,k)=\sigma_1(k,\emptyset)$ is player 1’s strategy to choose an action at stage 1 given state $k$. It is straight forward to show that $$g_{n+1}(\alpha,(X,\sigma),(\hat{y}^*,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))=\sum_{k\in K,a\in A}\Pi(k,a) (M_k(a,:) \hat{y}^*+\alpha(k)+\gamma_n(p_{\Pi},\sigma,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))).$$ Therefore, we have for any $p_1\in \Delta(K)$ and $(x,\sigma)\in \Sigma_{n+1}$, $$g_{n+1}(\alpha,(X,\sigma),(\hat{y}^*,\tau^*(\beta^*_a))) \leq w_{n+1}(\alpha),$$ which completes the proof.
Regret $\alpha_t$ and stage $t$ form a sufficient statistics for the uninformed player to make decisions. The reason why $\alpha_t$ plays such a role (similar as that of $p_t$ for the informed player in the primal game) for the uninformed player in the dual game can be explained intuitively as follows. In a primal game, to decide the current strategy, the informed player needs to estimate the current payoff and the future payoff $v_{n-1}(p_{t+1})$ (equation (\[eq: recursive formula primal 1\])). The belief $p_{t+1}$ at the next stage decides the future payoff. Similarly, in a dual game, to decide the current strategy, the uninformed player also needs to estimate the current payoff and the future payoff $v_n(p_{t+1})$ (equation (\[eq: w n+1 to v n\])). While the uninformed player cannot compute $p_{t+1}$ without the informed player’s strategy, it can consider the worst case scenario, and compute the worst case vector security level of the uninformed player, and hence the regret for the future game at the next stage. The regret at the next stage characterizes the worst case future payoff, and hence plays an important role for the uninformed player in making decisions.
Noticing that regret $\alpha_{t+1}$ at stage $t+1$ derived in Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\] only depends on regret $\alpha_{t}$ at stage $t$ and the player 1’s action $a_t$, we have the following corollary.
\[corollary: H B independent strategy, uninformed, dual game\] In a dual game $G_N(\alpha)$, the uninformed player has a security strategy that, at stage $t$, only depends on stage $t$ and the action history $I_t$ of the informed player.
Now, let us get back to the primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$. Since for any $p\in \Delta(K)$, there always exists an $\alpha$ such that any security strategy of the uninformed player in dual game $G_N(\alpha)$ is a security strategy of the uninformed player in primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$ (Theorem \[theroem: game value relations\]), the properties described in Theorem \[theorem: regret based security strategy, dual game\] and Corollary \[corollary: H B independent strategy, uninformed, dual game\] are also true for security strategies of the uninformed player in the primal game. Let us first define regrets in a primal game.
\[definition: regret\] In a primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$, $\hat{\alpha}_1\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|}$ is called the regret at stage 1 if $\hat{\alpha}_1$ is an optimal solution to the minimum problem in equation (\[eq: v n\]).
Given the regret $\hat{\alpha}_t$ and the informed player’s action $a_t$ at stage $t$, let $\hat{y}^*$ and $\beta^*$ be an optimal solution of the minmax problem in (\[eq: regret update, dual\]). We call $\beta^*_{a_t}$ the regret at stage $t+1$, and denote it as $\hat{\alpha}_{t+1}$.
According to Definition \[definition: regret\], the initial regret $\hat{\alpha}_0$ defined in (\[eq: initial regret\]) is also the regret at stage 1 in primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$.
Theorem \[theroem: game value relations\] says that any security strategy of the uninformed player in the corresponding dual game with initial vector payoff $\hat{\alpha}_1$, the regret at stage 1 in the primal game, is a security strategy of the uninformed player in the primal game. Theorem \[theorem: regret based security strategy, dual game\] states that if we update the regret in dual game as in Algorithm \[algorithm: vector based security strategy, dual\], then the security strategy of the uninformed player depends only on the regret and the current stage. The regret defined in Definition \[definition: regret\] in primal game is updated exactly the same as in Definition \[definition: regret, dual\]. Therefore, we can compute uninformed player’s security strategy and update the regret using the following algorithm.
\[algorithm: regret based security strategy, primal\]
- Initialization
- Read payoff matrices $M$, transition matrices $Q$, time horizon $N$, and initial probability $p_0$.
- Set $t=1$, and $p_t=p_0$.
- Compute the optimal solution $\alpha^*$ to the minimum problem in (\[eq: v n\]) with $n=N$ and $p=p_0$. Set $\hat{\alpha}_1=\alpha^*$.
- Compute the optimal solution $\hat{y}^*$ and $(\beta_a^*)_{a\in A}$ to the minmax problem (\[eq: regret update, dual\]) with $\alpha_t=\hat{\alpha}_t$.
- Draw an action $b\in B$ according to $\hat{y}^*$ and read the action $a$ of the informed player.
- Set $t=t+1$, and update $\hat{\alpha}_t=\beta^*_a$.
- If $t\leq N$, go to step 3. Otherwise, end.
\[corollary: regret based, primal, uninformed\] Consider a primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$. The uninformed player has a security strategy at stage $t$, that only depends on the regret $\hat{\alpha}_t$ and the stage $t$, and such a security strategy can be constructed by Algorithm \[algorithm: regret based security strategy, primal\]. Moreover, this security strategy only depends on stage $t$ and the history action $I_t$ of the informed player.
Now that the basic steps to find out a security strategy of the uninformed player in a primal game are clear, we further provide LP formulations to compute the regret at stage 1, a security strategy in the corresponding dual game, and the regret at every stage.
LP formulation of history based security strategies
---------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in Section \[subsec: history, informed\], a security strategy of the uninformed player can also be computed by solving an LP based on a sequence form [@koller1996efficient] whose size is linear with respect to the size of the game tree ($|K|^N\times|A|^N\times|B|^N$). Based on the fact that player 2 has a security strategy that is independent of its own history action, we can reduce the size of the LP to be linear with respect to $|B|$. This simplified LP formulation is introduced in this subsection.
Consider an asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_N(p_0)$. We define a realization plan $r_t(S_t,I_{t+1})$ given state history $S_{t}$ and player 1’s action history as $I_{t+1}$ as $r_t(S_t,I_{t+1})=p_0(k_1)\prod_{s=1}^t \sigma_s^{a_s}(k_s,I_s)$, where $\sigma_s^{a_s}(k_s,I_s)$ denotes the $a_s$th element of $\sigma_s(k_s,I_s)$ . Let $r=(r_t)_{t=1}^N$, and $R$ be the set of all possible values that the realization plan can take. The realization plan satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{a_t}r_t(S_t,I_{t+1})=r_{t-1}(s_{t-1},I_t), \forall S_t\in K^t, I_t\in A^{t-1}, \forall t=1,\ldots,N, \label{eq: realization 1}\\
&r_t(S_t,I_{t+1})\geq 0, \forall t=1,\ldots,N. \label{eq: realization 2}\end{aligned}$$ It is straight forward to show that $p(S_N,I_{N+1})=r_N(S_N,I_{N+1})\prod_{t=1}^{N-1}Q_{a_{t}}(k_t,k_{t+1})$.
Before presenting the simplified LP formulation for uninformed players, we would like to introduce some variables used in the LP formulation. Based on Corollary \[corollary: regret based, primal, uninformed\], we only consider player 2’s strategies that depend on the informed player’s history action only. Let $F_t=(S_t,I_t)\in K^t\times A^{t-1}$ be the full information the informed player has at the beginning of stage $t$. Let $y_{I_t}=\tau_t(I_t)\in \Delta(B)$, $y=(y_{I_t})_{I_t\in A^{t-1}, t=1,\ldots,N}$, and $Y$ be the set of all possible values that y can take. Let $\ell_{F_t}\in \mathbb{R}$ be a real variable. We use $\ell=(\ell_{F_t})_{F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1},t=1,\ldots,N}$ to denote the collection of the $\ell$ variable, and use $L$ to denote the set of all possible values that $l$ can take. The simplified LP formulation is given below.
\[theorem: LP, history based, primal, uninformed\] Consider a primal asymmetric information stochastic game $\Gamma_n(p)$. Its game value $v_n(p)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
v_n(p)=&\min_{y\in Y}\min_{\ell\in L} \sum_{k\in K}p^k \ell_{F_1}, &&where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset)), \label{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1}\\
s.t.& \sum_{k_t\in K} \ell_{F_t}\leq \ell_{F_{t-1}}, &&\forall F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1}, \forall t=2,\ldots,n, \nonumber\\
&&& where\ F_t=(F_{t-1},(k_t,a_{t-1})) \label{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 2}\\
&\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1}) \sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{I_t} \leq \ell_{F_n},& &\forall F_n\in K^n\times A^{n-1}, \forall a_n\in A. \nonumber \\
&&& where\ F_n=((k_1,\emptyset),\ldots,(k_n,a_{n-1}))\label{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3}\end{aligned}$$ A security strategy $\tau^*_t(I_t)$ of player 2 at stage $t$ given the action history $I_t$ of player 1 is $\tau^*_t(I_t)=y^*_{I_t}$, where $y^*$ is the optimal solution of LP (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]).
$$\begin{aligned}
v_n(p)=&\min_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}_n}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\sum_{S_n\in K^n, I_{n+1}\in A^n} p(S_n,I_{n+1})E(\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t)|S_n,I_{n+1})\\
=&\min_{y\in Y}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n} \sum_{S_n\in K^n, I_{n+1}\in A^n} p(k_1)\prod_{t=1}^n \sigma_t^{a_t}(k_t,I_t)\prod_{t=1}^{n -1} Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1})\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{I_t}\\
=&\min_{y\in Y}\max_{r\in R} \sum_{S_n\in K^n, I_{n+1}\in A^n} r(S_n,I_{n+1})\left(\prod_{t=1}^{n -1} Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1})\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{I_t}\right),\\
s.t. & equation (\ref{eq: realization 1}-\ref{eq: realization 2}).\end{aligned}$$
According to the strong duality theorem, equation (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]) is shown.
The size of the LP problem in (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]) is $O(|K|^n|A|^n|B|)$. Let us first look at the variable size. Variable $y$ has a size of $(1+|A|+\ldots+|A|^{n-1})|B|$ which is of order $|A|^n|B|$. Variable $\ell$ is of size $|K|(1+|A||K|+\ldots+(|A||K|)^{n-1})$ which is of order $|A|^n|K|^n$. Next, we will analyze the constraint size. Constraint \[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 2\] has a size of $(|A||K|+(|A||K|)^2+\ldots+(|A||K|)^{n-1}$ which is of order $|A|^n|K|^n$. The size of constraint \[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\] is also of order $|A|^n|K|^n$. Therefore, in all, we see that the size of the LP problem (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]) is $O(|K|^n|A|^n|B|)$.
The LP formulation provides us not only with a history based security strategy for player 2, but also the regret $\hat{\alpha}_1$ at stage 1 in the primal game.
\[lemma: initial regret\] Let $y^*,\ell^*$ be the optimal solution of LP problem (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]). The initial regret of the primal game $\Gamma_n(p)$ is $-\ell^*_1$, where $\ell_1^*=(\ell^*_{F_1})_{F_1\in K\times \emptyset}$, i.e. $-\ell^*_1$ is an optimal solution to the minimum problem in equation (\[eq: v n\]).
First, we show that $w_n(-\ell^*_1) \geq 0$. Equation (\[eq: w n\]) indicates that $w_n(-\ell^*_1)\geq v_n(p)-p^T \ell^*_1=0$.
Second, we show that $w_n(-\ell^*_1)\leq 0$. To this end, we first show that $\bar{\alpha}_{y^*}(k)=\mathbf{E}(\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t)|k_1=k)\leq \ell^*_1(k)$, for all $k\in K$. $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\alpha}_{y^*}(k)
=&\sum_{k_{2:n}\in K^{n-1}}\sum_{a_{1:n}\in A^n}P(k_2,\ldots,k_n,a_1,\ldots,a_n|k_1=k)\\
&\mathbf{E}\left(\sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,b_t))|k_1=k,k_2,\ldots,k_n,a_1,\ldots,a_n)\right)\\
=&\sum_{k_{2:n}\in K^{n-1}}\sum_{a_{1:n}\in A^n}\prod_{t=1}^n\sigma_t^{a_t}(k_t,I_t)\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_{t}}(k_t,k_{t-1}) \sum_{t=1}^nM_{k_t}(a_t,:)y^*_{I_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\alpha}_{y^*}(k)\leq &\sum_{k_{2:n}\in K^{n-1}}\sum_{a_{1:n}\in A^n}\prod_{t=1}^n\sigma_t^{a_t}(k_t,I_t)\ell_{F_n}\\
&where\ F_n=((k,\emptyset),(k_2,a_1),\ldots,(k_n,a_{n-1})) \\
=&\sum_{k_{2:n}\in K^{n-1}}\sum_{a_{1:n-1}\in A^{n-1}}\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}\sigma_t^{a_t}(k_t,I_t)\ell_{F_n}\\
\leq & \sum_{k_{2:n-1}\in K^{n-2}}\sum_{a_{1:n-1}\in A^{n-1}}\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}\sigma_t^{a_t}(k_t,I_t) l_{F_{n-1}}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is derived from equation (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 2\]). Following the same steps, we can show that $\bar{\alpha}_{y^*}(k)\leq \ell^*_1(k)$. For any $p'\in \Delta(K)$, we have $\displaystyle v_n(p')\leq \max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\gamma_n(p',\sigma,y^*) =p'^T \bar{\alpha}_{y^*}\leq p'^T \ell^*_1$. Therefore, $w_n(-\ell^*_1)=\max_{p'\in \Delta(K)} v_n(p')-p'^T \ell^*_1 \leq 0$.
Therefore, we have $w_n(-\ell^*_1)=0$. From equation (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]), we have $w_n(-\ell^*_1)-p^T(-\ell^*_1)=v_n(p)$. This completes the proof.
LP formulation of regret based security strategy
------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[subsection: strategy property, uninformed\], the uninformed player can construct a regret based security strategy following Algorithm \[algorithm: regret based, primal\]. Proposition \[lemma: initial regret\] provides an LP formulation to compute the regret at stage 1. In this section, we further study this LP formulation and show how the regret vector can be efficiently updated. To this end, we first introduce the LP formulation to compute the game value of a dual game $G_n(\alpha)$.
\[lemma: LP, dual, history\] The game value $w_n(\alpha)$ of a dual game $G_n(\alpha)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=& \min_{y\in Y}\min_{\ell\in L}\min_{\hat{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}} \hat{\ell} \label{eq: LP, uninformed, dual 1} \\
s.t.& \alpha(k)+\ell_{F_1} \leq \hat{\ell}, &&\forall k\in K, where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset)), \label{eq: LP, uninformed, dual 2}\\
& \sum_{k_t\in K} \ell_{F_t}\leq l_{F_{t-1}},&& \forall F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1}, \forall t=2,\ldots,n,\nonumber\\
&&& where F_t=(F_{t-1},(k_t,a_{t-1})) \label{eq: LP, uninformed, dual 3}\\
&\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1}) \sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{I_t} \leq \ell_{F_n},& &\forall F_n\in K^n\times A^{n-1}, \forall a_n\in A. \label{eq: LP, uninformed, dual 4}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=&\min_{y\in Y}\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}p^T\alpha+\mathbf{E}(\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau))\\
=&\min_{y\in Y}\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}p^T\alpha+\max_{\sigma\in \Sigma_n}\mathbf{E}(\gamma_n(p,\sigma,\tau))
\end{aligned}$$
Following the same steps as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: LP, history based, primal, uninformed\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=& \min_{y\in Y}\max_{p\in \Delta(K)}p^T\alpha+ \min_{\ell\in L} \sum_{k\in K}p^k \ell_{F_1}, where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset))\\
s.t. equation (\ref{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 2}-\ref{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $p^T\alpha+\sum_{k\in K}p^k \ell_{F_1}$ is linear in both $p$ and $l$, according to Sion’s minimax theorem [@sion1958general], we have $$\begin{aligned}
w_n(\alpha)=&\min_{y\in Y}\min_{\ell\in L} \max_{p\in \Delta(K)}p^T\alpha+ \sum_{k\in K}p^k \ell_{F_1}\\
s.t. equation (\ref{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 2}-\ref{eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3}).\end{aligned}$$ According to the strong duality theorem, equation (\[eq: LP, uninformed, dual 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, dual 4\]) is shown.
Now, we are ready to present the LP formulation to compute the regret based security strategy of player 2 and to update the regret in a primal game. With a little abuse of notation $y$ and $\ell$, we use $y_{a,I_t}\in \Delta(B)$ to indicate a $|B|$ dimensional probability variable given $a\in A$ and $I_t\in A^{t-1}$, and $\ell_{a,F_t}\in \mathbb{R}$ to denote a scalar variable given $a\in A$ and $F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1}$. The collection of $(y_{a,I_t})){I_t\in A^{t-1},t=1,\ldots,n}$ is denoted as $y_a$, and the collections of $(\ell_{a,F_t})_{F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1},t=1,\ldots,n}$ is denoted by $\ell_a$.
Consider a primal game $\Gamma_{n+1}(p)$. Let $\hat{\alpha}_1$ be the regret at stage 1 in the primal game. The game value $w_{n+1}(\hat{\alpha}_1)$ of the dual game $G_{n+1}(\hat{\alpha}_1)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
w_{n+1}(\hat{\alpha}_1)=&\min_{\hat{y}\in \Delta(B)}\min_{(\beta_a\in \mathbb{R}^{|K|})_{a\in A}}\min_{\tilde{\ell}\in \mathbb{R}}\min_{(\hat{\ell}_a\in \mathbb{R})_{a\in A} }\min_{(y_a\in Y,\ell_a\in L)_{a\in A}} \tilde{\ell} \label{eq: LP, regret based, dual 1}\\
s.t.& M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+\hat{\ell}_a \leq \tilde{\ell}, \forall a\in A, k\in K, \label{eq: LP, regret based, dual 2}\\
& \beta_a(k)+\ell_{a,F_1} \leq \hat{\ell}_a, \forall a\in A, k\in K, where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset)) \label{eq: LP, regret based, dual 3}\\
& \sum_{k_t\in K} \ell_{a,F_t}\leq \ell_{a,F_{t-1}}, \forall a\in A,\forall F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1},\forall t=2,\ldots,n,\nonumber \\
& where\ F_t=(F_{t-1},(k_t,a_{t-1})) \label{eq: LP, regret based, dual 4}\\
&\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1}) \sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{a,I_t} \leq \ell_{a,F_n}, \forall a\in A, F_n\in K^n\times A^{n-1}, \forall a_n\in A.\label{eq: LP, regret based, dual 5}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, player 2’s security strategy at the current step is $\hat{y}^*$ and the regret at the next step is $\beta^*_a$ if the current action of player 1 is $a$.
Theorem \[theroem: game value relations\] indicates that any security strategy of player 2 in dual game $G_{n+1}(\hat{\alpha}_1)$ is a security strategy of player 2 in the primal game $\Gamma_{n+1}(p)$.
Let $\hat{y}^*$ and $\beta^*$ be the optimal solution to the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]). According to Theorem \[theorem: regret based security strategy, dual game\] and Definition \[definition: regret\], the current security strategy of player 2 in dual game $G_{n+1}(\hat{\alpha}_1)$ is the optimal solution $\hat{y}^*$, and the regret at the next stage is $\beta_a^*$ if the current action of player 1 is $a$. Now we need to build an LP to solve the minmax problem (\[eq: recursive formula dual\]).
According to the strong duality theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{\pi\in \Delta(K\times A)} \Pi(k,a)( M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_n(\beta_a) )\\
=&\min_{\tilde{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}} \tilde{\ell} \label{eq: -1}\\
s.t.& M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_n(\beta_a) \leq \tilde{\ell}, \forall a\in A,k\in K \label{eq: -2}\\
=& \min_{\tilde{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}} \tilde{\ell} \label{eq: 0}\\
s.t.& M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+\min_{\hat{\ell}_a\in\mathbb{R}}\min_{(y_a\in Y,\ell_a\in L)_{a\in A}} \hat{\ell}_a \leq \tilde{\ell}, \forall a\in A,k\in K, \label{eq: 1}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\ell},y_a,\ell_a, \tilde{\ell}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \beta_a(k)+\ell_{a,F_1} \leq \hat{\ell}_a, \forall a\in A, k\in K, where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset)) \label{eq: 2}\\
& \sum_{k_t\in K} \ell_{a,F_t}\leq \ell_{a,F_{t-1}}, \forall a\in A,\forall F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1},\forall t=2,\ldots,n,\nonumber \\
& where\ F_t=(F_{t-1},(k_t,a_{t-1})) \label{eq: 3}\\
&\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1}) \sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{a,I_t} \leq \ell_{a,F_n}, \forall a\in A, F_n\in K^n\times A^{n-1}, \forall a_n\in A.\label{eq:4}
\end{aligned}$$
This is a nested LP. We will show that the optimal value of the embedded LP is the same as the the optimal value of the following LP. $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\tilde{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}}\min_{(\hat{\ell}_a\in\mathbb{R})_{a\in A}}\min_{(y_a\in Y,\ell_a\in L)_{a\in A}} \tilde{\ell} \label{eq: a1}\\
s.t.& M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+\hat{\ell}_a \leq \tilde{\ell}, \forall a\in A,k\in K, \label{eq: a2}\\
& \beta_a(k)+\ell_{a,F_1} \leq \hat{\ell}_a, \forall a\in A, k\in K, where\ F_1=((k,\emptyset))\label{eq: a3}\\
& \sum_{k_t\in K} \ell_{a,F_t}\leq \ell_{a,F_{t-1}}, \forall a\in A,\forall F_t\in K^t\times A^{t-1},\forall t=2,\ldots,n,\nonumber \\
& where\ F_t=(F_{t-1},(k_t,a_{t-1})),\label{eq: a4}\\
&\prod_{t=1}^{n-1}Q_{a_t}(k_t,k_{t+1}) \sum_{t=1}^n M_{k_t}(a_t,:) y_{a,I_t} \leq \ell_{a,F_n}, \forall a\in A, F_n\in K^n\times A^{n-1}, \forall a_n\in A. \label{eq: a5}
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\tilde{l}^*, (\hat{l}^*_a)_{a\in A}, (y^*_a)_{a\in A}, (l_a^*)_{a\in A}$ be the optimal solution to (\[eq: 0\]-\[eq:4\]), and $\tilde{l}^+,$ $ (\hat{l}^+_a)_{a\in A},$ $ (y^+_a)_{a\in A}, (l_a^+)_{a\in A}$ be the optimal solution to (\[eq: a1\]-\[eq: a5\]). We first show that $\tilde{l}^*\leq \tilde{l}^+$. Since for any $a\in A$, $\hat{l}_a^+,y^+_a,l_a^+$ satisfy constraint (\[eq: a3\]-\[eq: a5\]), so $w_n(\beta_a)\leq \hat{l}_a^+$ for any $a\in A$. Hence, we have $M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+w_n(\beta_a)\leq M_k(a,:)\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -Q_a(k,:)\beta_a+\hat{l}_a^+ \leq \tilde{l}^+$ for any $k\in K$ and $a\in A$. From equation (\[eq: -1\]-\[eq: -2\]), we see that $\tilde{l}^+$ is a feasible solution of (\[eq: -1\]-\[eq: -2\]), and $\tilde{l}^+ \geq \tilde{l}^*$.
Next, we show that $\tilde{l}^*\geq \tilde{l}^+$. It is easy to see that $(\hat{l}^*_a)_{a\in A}, (y^*_a)_{a\in A}, (l_a^*)_{a\in A}$ satisfy constraint (\[eq: a3\]-\[eq: a5\]). Equation (\[eq: 1\]) implies $M^k_{a,:}\hat{y}+\hat{\alpha}_1(k) -\sum_{k'\in K}Q^a_{k,k'}\beta^{k'}_a+ \hat{l}_a^* \leq \tilde{l}^*$, for any $ a\in A,k\in K$, and hence $\tilde{l}^*, (\hat{l}^*_a)_{a\in A}$ satisfies constraint (\[eq: a2\]). Therefore, $(\hat{l}^*_a)_{a\in A}, $ $ (y^*_a)_{a\in A},$ $ (l_a^*)_{a\in A}$ is a feasible solution of LP (\[eq: a1\]-\[eq: a5\]), and $\tilde{l}^* \geq \tilde{l}^+$
Therefore, $\tilde{l}^*=\tilde{l}^+$, and the optimal values of LP (\[eq: 0\]-\[eq:4\]) and LP (\[eq: a1\]-\[eq: a5\]) are the same.
According to Proposition \[lemma: recursive formula and H B independent property\], (\[eq: LP, regret based, dual 1\]-\[eq: LP, regret based, dual 5\]) is true.
Now, we will give the detailed algorithm to compute the regret based security strategy of the uninformed player in a primal game $\Gamma_N(p)$
\[algorithm: regret based, primal\]
1. Initialization
1. Read payoff matrices $M$, transition matrices $Q$, time horizon $N$ and initial probability $p$.
2. Set $t=1$, and $p_t=p$.
2. Compute the regret $\hat{\alpha}_1=-l_1^*$ at stage 1 by solving LP (\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 1\]-\[eq: LP, uninformed, primal 3\]).
3. Compute the security strategy $\hat{y}^*$ and the regret candidate $(\beta^*_a)_{a\in A}$ by solving LP (\[eq: LP, regret based, dual 1\]-\[eq: LP, regret based, dual 5\]) with $n=N-t$ and $\hat{\alpha}_1=\hat{\alpha}_t$.
4. Draw an action in $B$ according to $\hat{y}^*$, and read player 1’s action $a_t$.
5. Update $t=t+1$, and set $\hat{\alpha}_t=\beta^*_{a_t}$.
6. If $t\leq N$, go to step 3. Otherwise, end.
Case study: Asymmetric information stochastic intrusion detection game {#section: simulation}
======================================================================
Reference [@alpcan2010network] introduced a stochastic intrusion detection game. In this game, an administrator is assigned to protect a system from attacks. The administrator can do either high level maintenance (hl) or low level maintenance (ll) at every time stage, with $A=\{hl,ll\}$. If high level maintenance is done, the system is less vulnerable to attacks. Otherwise, the system is more vulnerable to attacks. We indicate the state of the system as vulnerable (v) or non-vulnerable (nv), i.e. $K=\{nv,v\}$. The transition matrices are given in Table \[table: transition matrix\]. The attacker decides whether to launch an attack (a) or not (na) at every stage, i.e. $B=\{a,na\}$. The corresponding payoff of a vulnerable system is always lower than the payoff of a non-vulnerable system, which is reflected by the payoff matrices in Table \[table: payoff matrices\]. While in [@alpcan2010network], it is assumed that the attacker knows the original system state, we assume that the attacker cannot directly observe the system state at any stage. Besides the transition matrices, payoff matrices and the initial probability over the state, the attacker knows the administrator’s action at every stage. But the payoff, or the actual influence due to the attack, is not known by the attacker. We model this intrusion detection problem as an asymmetric information stochastic game, and demonstrate our main results about history based and belief based security strategies of informed player, and history based and regret based security strategies of uninformed player in this model.
---- ---- --- -- ---- ---- ---
nv v nv v
nv nv
v v
---- ---- --- -- ---- ---- ---
: Transition matrices $Q_a$ of stochastic intrusion detection game[]{data-label="table: transition matrix"}
---- --- ---- -- ---- --- ----
a na a na
hl hl
ll ll
---- --- ---- -- ---- --- ----
: Payoff matrices $M_k$ of stochastic intrusion detection game[]{data-label="table: payoff matrices"}
We set the time horizon $N=3$ and the initial probability $p_0=[0.5\ 0.5]$. The history based security strategy of the administrator (informed player) computed according to Theorem \[theorem: history based strategy\] is given in the first two rows in Table \[table: security strategy, informed\], and the game value is $-3.4698$. We, then, follow Algorithm \[Algorithm: belief based, informed\] to compute the belief based security strategy which is the same as the history based security strategy, and the updated belief of the corresponding $h_t^A$ is given in the last row of Table \[table: security strategy, informed\]. This demonstrates Theorem \[theorem: sufficien statistics, informed\] which says that the informed player has a security strategy that only depends on the current stage and the current belief.
-------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------
nv 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
v 0.1875 0.8125 0.375 0.625 0.1356 0.8644 0.375 0.625
belief 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.1448 0.8552 0.8 0.2
v 0 1 0 1 0 1
nv 0.133 0.867 0.375 0.625 0.1391 0.8609
belief 0.1135 0.8865 0.8 0.2 0.1836 0.8164
-------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------
: Security strategy of informed player and belief update. Each element of the first two rows is administrator’s security strategy $\sigma_t^{*T}(k_t,I_t)$. Each element of the last row is the belief $p_t^T$ given informed player’s security strategy $\sigma^*$ and history action $I_t$. []{data-label="table: security strategy, informed"}
The history based security strategy of the attacker (uninformed player) computed according to Theorem \[theorem: LP, history based, primal, uninformed\] is provided in the first row in Table \[table: security strategy, uninformed\], and the computed game value is $-3.4698$ which meets the game value computed by the informed player. We then compute the regret based security strategy of attacker according to Algorithm \[algorithm: regret based, primal\]. The regret based security strategy is the same as the history based security strategy, which demonstrate Corollary \[corollary: regret based, primal, uninformed\]. The initial regret and updated regret given $h_t^A$ is provided in the last row of Table \[table: security strategy, uninformed\].
$h_t^A$
---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$\tau_t$ 0.6657 0.3347 0.6617 0.3383 0.6617 0.3383 0.6875 0.3125
regret 3.1669 3.7729 0.9109 1.5038 0.7568 1.3498 0.2621 0.9496
$h_t^A$
$\tau_t$ 0.6875 0.3125 0.6875 0.3125 0.6875 0.3125
regret 0.0666 0.7541 0.2621 0.9496 0.0666 0.7541
: Security strategy of uninformed player and regret update. Each element in the first row is informed player’s security strategy $\tau^{*T}_t(I_t)$, and each element in the last row is the regret $\hat{\alpha}_t$ given uninformed player (attacker)’s security strategy $\tau^*$ and informed player (administrator)’s history action $I_t$[]{data-label="table: security strategy, uninformed"}
The security strategies of both players are then used in the intrusion detection game. We considered $1000$ realizations of the game, and compute the empirical average of the attacker’s payoff over those runs. This number, $-3.4204$, is comparable to the computed value of the game, $-3.4698$, which demonstrates that the strategies of both players shown in Table \[table: security strategy, informed\] and \[table: security strategy, uninformed\] achieves the game value, and hence are indeed the security strategies of the corresponding players.
Conclusion and future work {#section: conclusion}
==========================
This paper studied security strategies of both players in an asymmetric information zero-sum two-player stochastic game in which only the informed player controls the system state’s evolution. We showed that security strategies exist for the informed player, which only depend on the belief, and can be computed by solving a linear program whose size is linear in the cardinality of the uninformed player’s action set. A similarly computationally attractive security strategy also exists for the uninformed player, which only depends on a new object called ‘the regret’, which can itself be efficiently computed at every step.
We are interested in extending this work to two-player Bayesian stochastic games where both players have their own private types. The main foreseen challenge in Bayesian stochastic games is to find out sufficient statistics of both players. We expect regret to play a role in this context as well, maybe in combination with a player’s belief on its own type.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by NSF grants 1619339 and 1151076 to Cedric Langbort, and by funding from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Every virtually cyclic group $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ that surjects onto the infinite dihedral group $D_\infty$ contains an index two subgroup $\Pi$ of the form $H\rtimes _\alpha \mathbb Z$. We show that the Waldhausen Nil-group of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ vanishes if and only if the Farrell Nil-group of $\Pi$ vanishes.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Ohio State University\
Columbus, OH 43210
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Miami University\
Oxford, OH 45056
author:
- 'Jean-François Lafont'
- 'Ivonne J. Ortiz'
title: 'Relating the Farrell Nil-groups to the Waldhausen Nil-groups.'
---
Statement of results.
=====================
The Bass Nil-groups, Farrell Nil-groups, and Waldhausen Nil-groups appear respectively as pieces in the computation of the algebraic $K$-theory of direct products, semi-direct products, and amalgamations. While the Bass Nil-groups have been extensively studied, much less is known for both the Farrell Nil-groups and the Waldhausen Nil-groups. For the purposes of computing the algebraic $K$-theory of infinite groups, the Nil-groups of virtually cyclic groups yield obstructions to certain assembly maps being isomorphisms. In particular, the vanishing/non-vanishing of Nil-groups is of crucial importance for computational aspects of algebraic $K$-theory. In this short note we prove the following result:
Let $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ be a virtually cyclic group that surjects onto the infinite dihedral group $D_\infty$, and $\operatorname{\Gamma}=G_1 \ast_{H} G_2$ be the corresponding splitting of groups (with $H$ of index two in both $G_1$ and $G_2$). Let $\Pi= H \rtimes_{\alpha} \mathbb Z\leq \operatorname{\Gamma}$ be the canonical subgroup of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ of index two, obtained by taking the pre-image of the canonical index two ${\mathbb Z}$ subgroup of $D_\infty$. Then for $i=0,1$, the following two statements are equivalent:
- The Waldhausen Nil-group $NK_i(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H],
\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])$ for the group $\operatorname{\Gamma}=G_1 \ast_{H} G_2$ vanishes.
- The Farrell Nil-group $NK_i(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ for the group $\Pi = H\rtimes_{\alpha} \mathbb Z$ vanishes.
The proof of our Main Theorem will be completed in Section 2, with some concluding remarks in Section 3.
Next, let us recall that the Farrell-Jones Isomorphism Conjecture for a finitely generated group $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ states that the assembly map: $$H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})\longrightarrow H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}}(E_{\operatorname{\mathcal A\mathcal L\mathcal L}}(\operatorname{\Gamma});\operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}}) =K_{n}(\mathbb Z\operatorname{\Gamma})$$ is an isomorphism. The term on the left is the generalized equivariant homology theory of the space $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ with coefficients in the integral $K$-theory spectrum, where the space $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ is a classifying space for $\operatorname{\Gamma}$-actions with isotropy in the family $\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}$ of virtually cyclic subgroups. The term on the right gives the algebraic $K$-theory of the integral group ring of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$.
Explicit models for the classifying space $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ are known for few classes of groups: virtually cyclic groups (take $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ to be a point with trivial action), crystallographic groups (by work of Alves and Ontaneda [@AO06]), hyperbolic groups (by work of Juan-Pineda and Leary [@JL], and Lück [@Lu05]), and in the case of relatively hyperbolic groups (due to the authors [@LO]). In contrast, explicit models are known for $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ for many classes of groups (see [@Lu05] for a thorough survey), where $E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ is a classifying space for $\operatorname{\Gamma}$-actions with isotropy in the family of finite subgroups. Furthermore, the algebraic K-theory of finite groups is much better understood than the algebraic K-theory of virtually cyclic groups. As such, it is interesting to know whether one can further reduce the computation of the algebraic $K$-theory of the integral group ring of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ to the computation of $H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})$, i.e., whether the natural map: $$H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})\rightarrow H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})$$ is an isomorphism. There is a well known criterion for this, namely the map will be an isomorphism for all $n \leq q$ if and only if, for every infinite virtually cyclic subgroup $Q$ of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$, the map: $$H_n^{Q} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(Q); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})\rightarrow K_n(\operatorname{{\mathbb
Z}}Q)$$ is an isomorphism for all $n \leq q$ (see [@DL98 Theorem 2.3] for $q<\infty$, and [@FJ93 Theorem A.10] for $q=\infty$). Since the cokernel of these maps are precisely the Nil-groups, our main theorem now gives us the following
Let $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ be a finitely generated group, and $q=0$ or $1$. Then the following two statements are equivalent:
- the relative assembly map $$H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}} (E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})\rightarrow H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}}(E_{\operatorname{\mathcal V\mathcal C}}(\operatorname{\Gamma});\operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}})$$ is an isomorphism for $n\leq q$,
- for every subgroup $H\rtimes _\alpha {\mathbb Z}\leq \operatorname{\Gamma}$ with $H$ finite, and for every $n\leq q$, the Farrell Nil-group $NK_n(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ for the group $H\rtimes_\alpha {\mathbb Z}$ vanishes.
If in addition, we know that the Farrell-Jones Isomorphism Conjecture holds for the group $\operatorname{\Gamma}$, then we have that (for $n\leq q$): $$H_n^{\operatorname{\Gamma}}(E_{\operatorname{\mathcal F\mathcal I\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{\Gamma}); \operatorname{\mathbb K \mathbb Z^{-\infty}}) \cong K_{n}({\mathbb Z}\operatorname{\Gamma}).$$
We start by recalling that Farrell-Jones [@FJ95] have shown that the Nil-groups (Bass, Farrell, and Waldhausen type) always vanish for $n\leq -1$. So we focus on $n=0,1$.
The proof follows immediately from the discussion above: if one has an infinite virtually cyclic subgroup of the form $H\rtimes_\alpha \mathbb Z$ for which the Farrell Nil-group $NK_n(\mathbb Z H, \alpha)\neq 0$, then the criterion above tells us that the relative assembly map fails to be an isomorphism for $n$. Let us now argue for the converse. We know that every infinite virtually cyclic subgroup $Q$ of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$ is either a semidirect product $H\rtimes _\alpha {\mathbb Z}$, or surjects onto the infinite dihedral group $D_\infty$. For groups of the first type, we have that the Farrell Nil-group vanish (by assumption). For groups of the second type, we know that there is an index two subgroup which is a semi-direct product of a finite group $H$ with ${\mathbb Z}$ (where ${\mathbb Z}$ acts on $H$ via some automorphism $\alpha$). Our main theorem says that if the Farrell Nil-group $NK_n(\mathbb Z H,
\alpha)$ associated to the semi-direct product is zero (which holds by hypothesis), then the Waldhausen Nil-group associated to $V$ are likewise automatically zero. In particular, if the Farrell Nil-groups vanish [*for every*]{} infinite virtually cyclic subgroup of the form $H\rtimes _\alpha \mathbb Z$, then the Nil-groups vanish [*for every*]{} infinite virtually cyclic subgroup $Q$ in $\operatorname{\Gamma}$. The criterion discussed above now implies that the relative assembly map is actually an isomorphism.
**Acknowledgements.**
The results in this paper expand on a method used in a previous paper by the authors [@LO]. The technique in that previous paper (and hence ultimately the technique in the present paper) was originally suggested to us by Tom Farrell. We would like to thank Tom for his suggestion, as well as for his friendly advice throughout the years.
In addition, we would like to thank J. Grunewald, D. Juan-Pineda, I. Leary, S. Prassidis, and M. Varisco for helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper.
The work in this paper was partly supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMS-0606002.
Proof of the Main Theorem.
==========================
In this section, we will provide a proof of the main theorem. The proof will make use of two maps to compare the $K$-theory of $\mathbb Z \operatorname{\Gamma}$ with the $K$-theory of $\mathbb Z \Pi$:
- the maps $\sigma_*:K_i({\mathbb Z}\Pi)\rightarrow K_i({\mathbb Z}\operatorname{\Gamma})$, functorially induced by the inclusion $\Pi\hookrightarrow \operatorname{\Gamma}$, and the transfer maps $\sigma^*:K_i({\mathbb Z}\operatorname{\Gamma})\rightarrow K_i({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ (see Farrell-Hsiang [@FH78]). This will be used to establish $(A)\Rightarrow (B)$.
- a map $\pi_i\mathcal A: \pi_i \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)
\longrightarrow \pi_i \mathcal P(E)$ between suitably defined spectra of stable pseudo-isotopies (see Farrell-Jones [@FJ95]). This will be used to establish $(B)\Rightarrow (A)$.
Recall that in the situation we are dealing with, the group $\Pi =
H\rtimes _\alpha \mathbb Z$ is the canonical index two subgroup of the group $\operatorname{\Gamma}= G_1*_H G_2$.
Another result we will need is that, as shown by Farrell-Hsiang [@FH68], the group $K_i({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ can be expressed in the following form: $$K_i(\mathbb ZH_{\alpha}[\mathbb Z]) \cong C \oplus NK_i(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha) \oplus NK_i(\mathbb ZH, \alpha^{-1})$$ where $C$ is a suitable quotient (determined by the automorphism $\alpha$) of the group $K_{i-1} (\mathbb ZH) \oplus K_i(\mathbb ZH)$. On the other hand, a classic result of Waldhausen [@W1], [@W2] (as reformulated by Connolly-Prassidis [@CP02]) expresses $K_i({\mathbb Z}\operatorname{\Gamma})$ as: $$K_i({\mathbb Z}[G_1 \ast_{H} G_2]) \cong NK_i(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H],
\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])$$ $$\hskip 1.5in \oplus \big[ \big(K_i({\mathbb Z}G_1)\oplus K_i({\mathbb Z}G_2)\big)/K_i({\mathbb Z}H)\big].$$
We will first establish that $(A)\Rightarrow (B)$ (in Section 2.1). We will then briefly recall a construction of Farrell-Jones [@FJ95] of a stratified fiber bundle $\rho_E:E\rightarrow X$, for a suitably defined space $E$, and stratified control space $X$ (Section 2.2). We will also explain in that section the relevance of their result to what we are trying to establish. Next we shall use the topology of the spaces $\rho_E^{-1}(x)$ for $x\in X$, to gain information on the $E^2$-terms in the Quinn spectral sequence (see Section 2.3). Finally, we shall use the information we obtain concerning the spectral sequence to prove that $(B)\Rightarrow (A)$ (Section 2.4). Throughout Sections 2.1-2.4, we will be working exclusively with the case $i=1$. We will complete the proof in Section 2.5 by explaining the required modifications needed to obtain the case $i=0$.
Vanishing of Waldhausen Nil forces vanishing of Farrell Nil
-----------------------------------------------------------
In order to show that $(A)\Rightarrow (B)$, we first assume that the Waldhausen Nil-group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H],
\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])=0$. Note that under this hypothesis, the decomposition in equation (2) reduces to: $$K_1({\mathbb Z}[G_1 \ast_{H} G_2])\cong \big(K_1({\mathbb Z}G_1)\oplus K_1({\mathbb Z}G_2)\big)/K_1({\mathbb Z}H)$$ We now want to argue that the corresponding Farrell Nil-group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ is trivial. The key observation is contained in the following:
The map $\sigma_*$ is [*injective*]{} on the subgroup $NK_1(\mathbb
ZH, \alpha)$ in the decomposition (1) of the group $K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$.
This follows from [@FH68 Proposition 20], which shows that the composite map $\sigma ^*\circ \sigma_*:K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)\rightarrow
K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ has an explicit expression in terms of the decomposition of $K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ given in equation (1) above: it maps an element in the $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ summand to the sum of itself with the image of this element under the canonical isomorphism $\tau: NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)\rightarrow NK_1(\mathbb
ZH, \alpha^{-1})$. This can be seen as follows: in the short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow \Pi \rightarrow \operatorname{\Gamma}\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}/2 \rightarrow 0$$ the ${\mathbb Z}/2$ acts on $\Pi = H \rtimes _\alpha {\mathbb Z}$ via the map $z\mapsto -z$ on the ${\mathbb Z}$ factor. But the Farrell Nil-groups $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ and $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha^{-1})$ are canonically associated to the sub-semirings ${\mathbb Z}[H\rtimes _\alpha {\mathbb Z}^+]$ and ${\mathbb Z}[H\rtimes _\alpha {\mathbb Z}^-]$, where ${\mathbb Z}^+, {\mathbb Z}^-$ refers to the non-negative and non-positive integers respectively. Since the action of ${\mathbb Z}/2$ on $\Pi$ interchanges these two sub-semirings inside ${\mathbb Z}\Pi$, the induced action of the non-trivial element $g\in {\mathbb Z}/2$ on the $K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ interchanges the two summands $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ and $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha^{-1})$ via the canonical isomorphism $\tau$ (this map was precisely the one used by Farrell-Hsiang to see that these two Nil-groups are isomorphic). Now the composite map $\sigma ^*\circ
\sigma_*:K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)\rightarrow K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ is given by the following formula $$x\mapsto \Sigma _{g\in {\mathbb Z}/2} \hskip 3pt g_*(x)$$ where $g_*:K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)\rightarrow K_1({\mathbb Z}\Pi)$ is the map induced on the $K$-theory of ${\mathbb Z}\Pi$ via the action of $g$ on $\Pi$ (recall that $\Pi$ is normal in $\operatorname{\Gamma}$). In the situation we are interested in, the discussion above implies that for $x\in NK_1(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha)$, we have $(\sigma ^*\circ \sigma_*)(x) = x + \tau(x)$, where $\tau:NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha) \rightarrow NK_1(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha^{-1})$ is the canonical isomorphism. This implies that the composite map $\sigma ^*\circ \sigma_*$ is injective on the $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ summand, and hence the map $\sigma_*$ must likewise be injective, concluding the proof of the lemma.
In particular, in the decomposition of the group $K_1({\mathbb Z}[G_1
\ast_{H} G_2])$, we have that the group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ injects into the group $\big(K_1({\mathbb Z}G_1)\oplus K_1({\mathbb Z}G_2)\big)/K_1({\mathbb Z}H)$. Since the latter group is a finitely generated abelian group, this implies that the group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha)$ is finitely generated. But Grunewald [@G1 Theorem 2.5] and Ramos [@R] independently showed that the groups $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ are either trivial or infinitely generated. This forces $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ to vanish, establishing $(A)\Rightarrow (B)$.
Some results of Farrell-Jones
-----------------------------
Farrell and Jones in [@FJ95 Section 2] defined a $3$-dimensional stratified control space $X$, and constructed from the pair $\Pi\hookrightarrow \operatorname{\Gamma}$ a stratified fiber bundle $E$ over $X$. The stratified control space $X$ contains a distinguished point $p$, and the stratified fiber bundle $\rho_E:E\rightarrow X$ in their construction has the following properties:
- E is a closed manifold with $\pi_1(E)\cong \operatorname{\Gamma}$,
- for every $x\in X$ satisfying $x\neq p$, the group $\pi_1(E_x)$ is a finite group,
- for the distinguished point $p\in X$, $\pi_1(E_p)\cong \Pi$.
where $E_x=\rho_E^{-1}(x)$.
The important result for our purposes is [@FJ95 Theorem 2.6], establishing that the group homomorphism $$\pi_{i}\mathcal A: \pi_i \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)
\longrightarrow \pi_i \mathcal P(E)$$ is an epimorphism for every integer $i$. Here $\mathcal P(E)$ is the spectrum of stable topological pseudoisotopies on $E$, $\mathcal P(E, \rho_E)$ is the spectrum of those stable pseudoisotopies which are controlled over $X$ via $\rho_E$, and $\mathcal A$ is the ‘assembly’ map.
Now the relevance to the situation we are considering is that, by results of Anderson and Hsiang [@AH77 Theorem 3], the lower homotopy groups of the pseudo-isotopy spectrum coincide (with a shift in dimension) with the lower algebraic $K$-theory of the integral group ring of the fundamental group of the space. In particular, we have that the right hand side of the map in (3) is given by: $$\pi_j \mathcal P(E)=
\begin{cases}
Wh( \operatorname{\Gamma}) , & j=-1 \\
{\tilde K_0}(\mathbb Z\operatorname{\Gamma}), & j=-2 \\
K_{j+2}(\mathbb Z\operatorname{\Gamma}), & j \leq -3
\end{cases}$$ To understand the left hand side of the map given in (3), we recall that Quinn [@Qu82 Theorem 8.7] constructed a spectral sequence $E^n_{s,t}$ abutting to $ \pi_{s+t} \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)$ with $E^2_{s,t} = H_s(X ; \pi_t \mathcal P(\rho_E))$. Here $\pi_q \mathcal P(\rho_E)$, $q \in \mathbb Z$, denotes the stratified system of abelian groups over $X$ where the group above $x \in X$ is $\pi_q \mathcal P(\rho^{-1}_E(x))$.
Note that by Anderson and Hsiang’s result (see [@AH77 Theorem 3]) mentioned above, we also have that for every $x$: $$\pi_j \mathcal P(E_x)=
\begin{cases}
Wh( \pi_1(E_x)) , & j=-1 \\
{\tilde K_0}(\mathbb Z\pi_1(E_x)), & j=-2 \\
K_{j+2}(\mathbb Z\pi_1(E_x)), & j \leq -3
\end{cases}$$ where $E_x=\rho^{-1}_E(x)$.
$E^2$-terms in the Quinn spectral sequence
------------------------------------------
Let us now assume that $(B)$ holds, and let us analyze the $E^2$-terms in the Quinn spectral sequence. Recall that in our situation, we have that the groups $\pi_1(E_x)$ are all finite, except at one distinguished point $p$ where $\pi_1(E_p)\cong \Pi$. In particular, since the lower algebraic $K$-groups of the integral group ring of a finite group are finitely generated, this implies that the groups $\pi_j \mathcal P(E_x)$ are finitely generated groups, except possibly over the distinguished point $p$.
We now focus on the distinguished point $p$, and recall that we are assuming that the Farrell Nil-group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ is trivial. Since the Nil-groups $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$ and $NK_1(\mathbb ZH, \alpha^{-1})$ are canonically isomorphic (see [@FH68 Proposition 20]), we conclude that the Nil-groups vanish. This implies, by the formula for $K_1(\mathbb Z\Pi)$ given in equation (1) that $K_1(\mathbb Z\Pi)=C$. Recall that $C$ is a suitable quotient (determined by the automorphism $\alpha$) of the group $K_{0} (\mathbb ZH)
\oplus K_1(\mathbb ZH)$. Since $H$ is finite, we have that $K_0(\mathbb ZH)$ and $K_1(\mathbb ZH)$ are finitely generated, and it follows that $K_1(\mathbb Z\Pi)=C$ is finitely generated. Since $Wh(\Pi)$ is a quotient of $K_1(\mathbb Z\Pi)$, this implies that the Whitehead group $Wh(\Pi)$ is likewise finitely generated.
From the result of Anderson and Hsiang [@AH77], this tells us that at the distinguished point $p$, $$\pi_{-1} \mathcal P(E_p)= Wh
(\pi_1(E_p)) = Wh( \Pi)$$ is finitely generated. Furthermore, by results of Farrell-Jones [@FJ95 Corollary 1.3] we know that for $j\leq -4$, the groups $$\pi_j \mathcal
P(E_p)=K_{j+2}(\mathbb Z\pi_1(E_p))=K_{j+2}(\mathbb Z\Pi)$$ vanish, and that the group $\pi_{-3} \mathcal P(E_p)=K_{-1}(\mathbb
Z\pi_1(E_p))=K_{-1}(\mathbb Z\Pi)$ is finitely generated. We summarize the information we have so far concerning the homotopy groups $\pi_j \mathcal P(E_x)$ in the following:
[**Fact 1:**]{} For the distinguished point $p\in X$, we have that for $j\leq -1$, the groups $\pi_j \mathcal P(E_p)$ are finitely generated, except possibly for the case where $j=-2$. For all other points $x\neq p$ in $X$, the groups $\pi_j \mathcal
P(E_x)$ are finitely generated for all $j \leq -1$.
Now in terms of the stratified space $X$, let us recall how the $E^2_{p,q}$ term of the spectral sequence can be computed. The space $X$ is a stratified 3-dimensional CW-complex, with six cells. Furthermore, for points $x,y\in X$ lying in the interior of the same strata $\sigma^p$, we have that $E_x$ is homeomorphic to $E_y$ (we will denote this common space by $E_{{\sigma}^{p}}$). In particular, the stratified system of abelian groups is [*constant*]{} on the interior of each cell. Then the $E^2_{p,q}$ term is given by the homology of the chain complex: $$\cdots \rightarrow \bigoplus_{{\sigma}^{p+1}} \pi_q \mathcal
P(E_{{\sigma}^{p+1}}) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{{\sigma}^p} \pi_q
\mathcal P(E_{{\sigma}^{p}}) \rightarrow
\bigoplus_{{\sigma}^{p-1}} \pi_q \mathcal P(E_{{\sigma}^{p-1}})
\rightarrow \cdots$$ where each sum is over all appropriate dimensional strata in the decomposition of $X$. Note that from this chain complex, and the fact that $X$ is 3-dimensional, we immediately see that $E^2_{p,q}=0$ as soon as $p\leq -1$ or $4\leq p$. Similarly, since all the groups in the chain complex are trivial for $q\leq -4$, we see that for such values of $q$, $E^2_{p,q}=0$. This gives us:
[**Fact 2:**]{} The only $E^2_{p,q}$-terms that can be non-zero are those for which $0\leq p\leq 3$ and $-3\leq q$. In particular, the spectral sequence collapses (by the $E^4$-stage).
Next we observe that the distinguished point $p\in X$ is actually a 0-cell in the CW-complex structure on $X$. From Fact 1 above, along with the chain complex describing the $E^2$-terms, we immediately obtain the following:
[**Fact 3:**]{} Within the range $q\leq -1$, all the $E^2$-terms in the spectral sequence are [*finitely generated*]{}, with the possible exception of the $E^2_{0,-2}$ term.
Vanishing of Farrell Nil forces vanishing of Waldhausen Nil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have gathered together information on the $E^2$-terms of the spectral sequence (assuming statement (B) holds), let us show that statement (A) must also hold.
Observe that, in an arbitrary spectral sequence, if a term $E^2_{p,q}$ is finitely generated, then $E^k_{p,q}$ is finitely generated [*for all $k\geq 2$*]{}. Furthermore, we have that if a term $E^2_{p,q}=0$, then $E^k_{p,q}=0$ for all $k\geq 2$. From Fact 2, our sequence collapses by the $E^4$-term, and we see that the only possible non-zero terms satisfying $p+q=-1$ are $E^4_{0,-1}$, $E^4_{1,-2}$, and $E^4_{2,-3}$. Combining Fact 3 with the observation above, we see that $\pi_{-1} \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)
\cong E^4_{0,-1} \oplus E^4_{1,-2} \oplus E^4_{2,-3}$ is finitely generated, and by Farrell-Jones [@FJ95 Theorem 2.6], this group [*surjects*]{} onto $\pi_{-1} \mathcal P(E) = Wh(\operatorname{\Gamma})$. In particular, we see that the group $Wh(\operatorname{\Gamma})$ must be finitely generated, and hence the group $K_1(\mathbb Z\operatorname{\Gamma})$ is finitely generated. From the decomposition in equation (2), we see that the Waldhausen Nil-group $NK_1(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H], \mathbb
Z[G_2 - H])$ is a direct summand in $K_1(\mathbb Z\operatorname{\Gamma})$, and hence, must also be finitely generated. But Grunewald [@G1] has shown that the Waldhausen Nil-group is either trivial or infinitely generated. We conclude that the Waldhausen Nil-group is in fact trivial, completing the proof that $(B)\Rightarrow (A)$.
Modifications for the case i=0
------------------------------
We now proceed to explain the modifications required to deal with the case $i=0$. The argument given above would extend verbatim, provided we had analogues for $i=0$ for the following key results (known to hold for $i=1$):
- the result in [@FH68 Proposition 20], used in the proof of Lemma 2.1.
- the results of Ramos [@R] and Grunewald [@G1] establishing that the Waldhausen and Farrell Nil-groups are either trivial or infinitely generated.
To explain why these results extend to $i=0$, we recall some basic facts concerning the suspension functor from rings to rings. The [*cone ring*]{} $\Lambda \mathbb Z$ of $\mathbb Z$ is the ring of matrices over $\mathbb Z$ such that every column and every row contains only finitely many non-zero entries. The suspension ring $\Sigma\operatorname{{\mathbb
Z}}$ is the quotient of $\Lambda\operatorname{{\mathbb
Z}}$ by the ideal of finite matrices. For an arbitrary ring $R$ we define the suspension ring $\Sigma R=\Sigma\operatorname{{\mathbb
Z}}\otimes R$. The suspension fuctor $\Sigma\operatorname{{\mathbb
Z}}\otimes -$ has the key property that $K_i(R) \cong K_{i+1}(\Sigma R)$ for all $i \in \mathbb Z$.
[**Fact 4:**]{} For $\Pi\leq \Gamma$ as in our Main Theorem, with respect to the decomposition $$K_0(\mathbb ZH_{\alpha}[\mathbb Z]) \cong C \oplus NK_0(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha) \oplus NK_0(\mathbb ZH, \alpha^{-1})$$ we have for all $x\in NK_0(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha)$ the equality $(\sigma ^*\circ \sigma_*)(x) = x + \tau(x)$, where $\tau:NK_0(\mathbb ZH, \alpha) \rightarrow NK_0(\mathbb ZH,
\alpha^{-1})$ is the canonical isomorphism.
To establish this fact, we merely note that [@FH68 Proposition 20] holds for [*any*]{} ring $R$, and establishes that, for an abstract ring automorphism $\alpha$, we have (1) the $K_1$ of the twisted ring $R_\alpha[T]$ can be computed via $$K_1(R_\alpha [T])\cong C \oplus NK_1(R, \alpha) \oplus NK_1(R, \alpha ^{-1}),$$ where $C$ is some suitable quotient of $K_0(R) \oplus K_1(R)$, and (2) the groups $NK_1(R, \alpha)$ and $NK_1(R, \alpha ^{-1})$ are canonically associated to the sub-semirings $R_\alpha[T^+]$ and $R_\alpha [T^-]$. Here $T$ is an infinite cyclic group, $T^+$ and $T^-$ the semigroup generated by the generator and the inverse of the generator respectively.
Now observe that there is a canonical ring isomorphism $\Sigma (R_\alpha[T]) \cong (\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T]$ (see [@G2 Remark 2.12 part (2)]). This induces a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{K_0(R_\alpha[T]) \ar[rr] \ar[d]_{\cong} & & K_0(R) \ar[d]^{\cong} \\
K_1(\Sigma (R_\alpha [T])) \ar[rr] & & K_1(\Sigma R)
}$$ which implies that the kernel of the top row is isomorphic to the kernel of the bottom row. But these groups are, by definition, $NK_0(R,\alpha)\oplus NK_0(R,\alpha ^{-1})$ and $NK_1(\Sigma R, 1 \otimes \alpha)\oplus NK_1(\Sigma R, 1 \otimes \alpha^{-1})$ respectively. Furthermore, the functor $\Sigma$ maps the sub-semiring $R_\alpha[T^+]$ (and $R_\alpha [T^{-}]$) of the ring $R_\alpha[T]$ to the sub-semiring $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T^+]$ (and $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T^-]$, respectively) of the ring $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T]$. This forces the isomorphism above to restrict to isomorphisms $NK_0(R,\alpha)\cong NK_1(\Sigma R, 1 \otimes \alpha)$ and $NK_0(R,\alpha ^{-1})\cong NK_1(\Sigma R, 1 \otimes \alpha^{-1})$ respectively. Finally, under the situation we are dealing with, we note that the non-trivial element $g\in \mathbb Z/2 = \Gamma/\Pi$ which acts on $R = \mathbb Z\Pi$ by interchanging the two sub-semirings $R_\alpha[T^+]$ and $R_\alpha [T^-]$ commutes with the functor $\Sigma$, and hence acts on $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T]$ by permuting the two sub-semirings $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T^+]$ and $(\Sigma R)_{1 \otimes \alpha}[T^-]$. This implies that the map $\tau$ acts on the decomposition of $K_0(\mathbb Z\Pi)$ by interchanging the two factors $NK_0(R,\alpha)$ and $NK_0(R,\alpha ^{-1})$, as was required in the argument of Lemma 2.1. This completes the verification of the first point mentioned above.
For the second point mentioned above, we note that, by the argument in the previous paragraph, we have that $NK_0(\mathbb ZH, \alpha) \cong NK_1(\Sigma (\mathbb ZH), 1 \otimes
\alpha)$. Since Grunewald [@G1] showed that the $NK_1(R, \beta)$ is either trivial or infinitely generated, for [*any*]{} ring $R$ and [*any*]{} automorphism $\beta$ of finite order, we immediately have the corresponding property for $NK_0$. A similar argument shows that, for the Waldhausen Nil-groups, we have isomorphisms: $$NK_0(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H],\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])
\cong NK_1\big(\Sigma(\mathbb ZH); \Sigma(\mathbb Z[G_1 - H]),\Sigma(\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])\big)$$ Note in the above expression that the functor $\Sigma$ has a natural extension to left bimodules, in the sense that if $B$ is a left bimodule for the ring $R$, then $\Sigma B$ is a left bimodule for $\Sigma R$ (see [@G2 Section 2] for more details). Applying Grunewald’s result for $NK_1$ to the right hand term, concludes the argument for the following:
[**Fact 5:**]{} For $\Pi\leq \Gamma$ as in our main theorem, we have that both
- the Farrell Nil-group $NK_0(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$, and
- the Waldhausen Nil-group $NK_0(\mathbb ZH;\mathbb Z[G_1 - H],\mathbb Z[G_2 - H])$,
are either trivial or infinitely generated.
Finally, we explain how Facts 4 and 5 can be used to promote the arguments in Sections 2.1-2.4. Using Fact 4, the proof in Lemma 2.1 extends verbatim to show that the map $\sigma_*: K_0(\mathbb Z\Pi)\rightarrow K_0(\mathbb Z\Gamma)$ is injective on the subgroup $NK_0(\mathbb ZH, \alpha)$. Using Fact 5 and the decompositions of $K_0(\mathbb Z\Pi)$ and $K_0(\mathbb Z\Gamma)$ given in equations (1) and (2), the arguments in the last paragraph of Section 2.1 yield the implication $(A) \Rightarrow (B)$ for the case $i=0$.
In the proof of the converse, the sole changes occur in Section 2.3, Fact 1, where all the groups $\pi_j \mathcal P(E_p)$ are finitely generated except possibly for $j=-1$ (instead of $j=-2$). Correspondingly, there is a change in Fact 3, where within the range $q\leq -1$, all the $E^2$-terms of the spectral sequence are finitely generated except possibly for the $E^2_{0,-1}$ term. The argument in Section 2.4 allows one to conclude that the group $\pi_{-2} \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E) \cong E^4_{0,-2} \oplus E^4_{1,-3}$ is finitely generated, and the rest of the discussion in Section 2.4, along with Fact 5, completes the converse implication $(B)\Rightarrow (A)$ for the case $i=0$.
Concluding remarks.
===================
While our main theorem provides a relationship between the Farrell Nil-groups and the Waldhausen Nil-groups, one can speculate about whether one can establish a further reduction to the Bass Nil-groups. This motivates the following:
[**Question:**]{} For an arbitrary ring $R$, are the following two statements equivalent:
- the Bass Nil-group $NK_i(R)$ vanishes, and
- the Farrell Nil-groups $NK_i(R, \alpha)$ vanish for [*every*]{} automorphism $\alpha$ of the ring $R$.
This last question seems extremely difficult to answer. The most interesting case would be where the ring $R$ is the integral group ring of a finitely generated group $G$, and the automorphisms are generated by automorphisms of $G$.
Finally, we point out that if one does [*not*]{} assume vanishing of the Farrell Nil-group of $\Pi$, the Quinn spectral sequence still gives us some information relating the Farrell Nil-group of $\Pi$ with the Waldhausen Nil-group of $\operatorname{\Gamma}$. Indeed, a more careful analysis of the Quinn spectral sequence can be used to show that the Farrell Nil-group appearing in the $E^2$ term survives to the $E^4$ stage, and [*surjects*]{} onto the Waldhausen Nil-group (see Prassidis [@P97 pages 412-413] for a similar analysis). This is motivated by the well-known philosophy that, in the map of Farrell-Jones: $$\pi_{i}\mathcal A: \pi_i \mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)
\longrightarrow \pi_i \mathcal P(E)$$ the controlled (resp. non-controlled) part of the pseudo-isotopy spectrum $\mathcal P(E ; \rho_E)$ must map to the controlled (resp. non-controlled) part of the pseudo-isotopy spectrum $\mathcal
P(E)$. The non-controlled part is precisely the Nil-groups.
Now one could use this surjection to show that the exponent of the Waldhausen Nil-group must divide the exponent of the Farrell Nil-group. We observe however that the estimates this would yield provide no improvement on known estimates (due independently to Grunewald [@G1] and Ramos [@R]). In the interest of clarity of exposition, the authors have chosen to omit this further analysis, leaving the details to the interested reader.
[BFPP00]{}
A. Alves, P. Ontaneda *A formula for the Whitehead group of a three-dimensional crystallographic group*, Topology**45** (2006), 1-25.
D. R. Anderson, and W. C. Hsiang *The functors $K_{-i}$ and pseudo-isotopies of polyhedra*, Ann. of Math. **105** (1977), 210-223.
H. Bass, *Algebraic $K$-theory*. W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1968.
F. X. Connolly and S. Prassidis, *On the exponent of the cokernel of the forget-control map on $K_0$-groups*, Fund. Math. **172** (2003), no. 3, 201-216.
J. F. Davis and W. Lück, *Spaces over a category and assembly maps in isomorphism conjectures in K- and L-theory*, K-theory **15** (1998), no. 3, 201-252.
F. T. Farrell, *The nonfiniteness of Nil*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **65** (1977), no. 2, 215-216.
F. T. Farrell and L. Jones, *Isomorphism conjectures in algebraic K-theory*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **6** (1993), no.2, 249-297.
F. T. Farrell and L. Jones, *The lower algebraic K-theory of virtually infinite cyclic groups*, K-theory **9** (1995), 13-30.
F. T. Farrell and W. C. Hsiang, *A formula for $K\sb{1}R\sb{\alpha }\,[T]$*, 1970 Applications of Categorical Algebra (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. **17**), New York (1968), 192-218.
F. T. Farrell and W. C. Hsiang, *The topological-Euclidean space form problem*, Inventiones Math. **45** (1978), 181-192.
J. Grunewald *Non-finiteness results for Nil-groups*, preprint (2006).
J. Grunewald *The Behavior of Nil-Groups under localization and the relative assembly map*, preprint (2006).
D. Juan-Pineda and I. J. Leary, *On classifying spaces for the family of virtually cyclic subgroups*, to appear in Recent Developments in Algebraic Topology (Contemp. Math. **407**), Amer. Math. Soc., 2006.
J. F. Lafont and I. J. Ortiz, *Relative hyperbolicity, classifying spaces, and lower algebraic $K$-theory*, preprint (2006).
W. Lück, *Survey on classifying spaces for families of subgroups*, in “Infinite groups: geometric, combinatorial and dynamical aspects” (Progr. Math., **248**), 269-322, Birkh�ser, Basel, 2005.
S. Prassidis, *A split exact sequence of equivariant K-groups of virtually nilpotent groups*, $K$-theory **11** (1997), 397-415.
F. Quinn, *Ends of maps II*, Invent. Math., **68** (1982), 353-424.
R. Ramos, *Non finiteness of twisted Nils*, preprint (2006).
F. Waldhausen, *Algebraic $K$-theory of generalized free products. I, II.*, Ann. of Math. (2), **108** (1978), 135-204.
F. Waldhausen, *Algebraic $K$-theory of generalized free products. III, IV.*, Ann. of Math. (2), **108** (1978), 205-256.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a method for compactifying stacks of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors (Azumaya algebras) on algebraic spaces. In particular, when the ambient space is a smooth projective surface we use our methods to show that various moduli spaces are irreducible and carry natural virtual fundamental classes. We also prove a version of the Skolem-Noether theorem for certain algebra objects in the derived category, which allows us to give an explicit description of the boundary points in our compactified moduli problem.'
address: 'Fine Hall, Washington Road, Princeton NJ 08544-1000'
author:
- Max Lieblich
title: Compactified moduli of projective bundles
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we present a method for constructing compactified moduli of principal ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$-bundles on an algebraic space. As a demonstration of its usefulness, we will prove the following theorem.
Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over an algebraically closed field $k$ and $n$ a positive integer which is invertible in $k$. For any cohomology class $\alpha\in{\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$, the stack of stable ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors on $X$ with cohomology class $\alpha$ and sufficiently large $c_2$ is of finite type and irreducible whenever it is non-empty, and it is non-empty infinitely often.
Here the number $c_2$ is meant to be the second Chern class of the adjoint vector bundle associated to a ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor. For the definition of stability of a ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor, we refer the reader to Definition \[D:stab\] below; in characteristic $0$ it is equivalent to slope-stability of the adjoint vector bundle, while in arbitrary characteristic one quantifies only over ideals in the adjoint (with respect to its natural Azumaya algebra structure).
The Irreducibility Theorem may be viewed as a $0$th order algebraic version of results of Mrowka and Taubes (see e.g. [@taubes]) on the stable topology of the space of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-bundles; we show that $\pi_0$ is a singleton. Our proof arises out of a reduction of the moduli problem to another recently studied problem: moduli of twisted sheaves. Before making a few historical remarks, let us outline the contents of the paper.
In Section \[sec:twist-objects-rigid\] we present a general theory of twisted objects in a stack, including the resulting deformation theory and the relationship between twisted and untwisted virtual fundamental classes. In Section \[sec:abstract-compac\] we apply this theory to ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors to show that the stack of twisted sheaves is naturally a cover of a compactification of the stack of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors. In Section \[S:genaz\], we give a reinterpretation of the results of Section \[sec:abstract-compac\] using certain algebra objects of the derived category (generalized Azumaya algebras), with the ultimate aim being an approach to virtual fundamental classes for spaces of stable ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors. The key result there is Theorem \[T:the one\], a version of the Skolem-Noether theorem for these algebra objects, which we believe should be of independent interest.
In Section \[S:surfaces\], we specialize the whole picture to study moduli of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors on smooth projective surfaces. We develop the theory of stability in Section \[S:stability\] and use the known structure theory of moduli spaces of twisted sheaves on a surface to prove the Irreducibility Theorem in Section \[S:conseq\]. In Sections \[S:p=s on surface\] and \[S:dtvfc\], we use the interpretation of the moduli problem in terms of generalized Azumaya algebras to produce virtual fundamental classes on moduli spaces of stable ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors on surfaces. In Section \[sec:potent-appl-new\], we record a question due to de Jong regarding potentially new numerical invariants for division algebras over function fields of surfaces arising out the virtual fundamental classes constructed in Section \[S:dtvfc\].
Historical remarks {#historical-remarks .unnumbered}
------------------
As has become clear in the history of algebraic geometry, a propitious choice of compactification of a moduli problem can lead to concrete results about the original (usually open) subproblem which is being compactified. Thus, Deligne and Mumford proved that ${\mathscr M}_g$ is irreducible by embedding it as an open substack of ${\overline{{\mathscr M}_g}}$ and connecting points by first degenerating them to the boundary. Similarly, O’Grady approached the moduli of semistable vector bundles on a surface by considering the larger space of semistable torsion free sheaves and showing that the boundary admits a stratification by spaces fibered over moduli of stable vector bundles with smaller $c_2$. Combining this inductive structure with delicate numerical estimates allowed him to prove that the spaces of semistable vector bundles with sufficiently large $c_2$ are irreducible. (This is very beautifully explained in Chapter 9 of [@h-l].) The similarity between the Irreducibility Theorem above and O’Grady’s results for stable sheaves is traceable to the fact that our compactification is closely related to the space of twisted sheaves, so that we get a similar inductive structure on the moduli problem from the geometry of its boundary.
Various attempts have been made at constructing compactified moduli spaces of $G$-torsors for arbitrary (reductive) groups $G$ (the reader can consult [@gomez-sols2], [@hyeon], [@langer-moduli], [@schmitt2], and [@schmitt] for a sampling of moduli problems and techniques). Of course, when $G={\operatorname{GL}}_{n}$, one can take torsion free sheaves, and when $G=\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_{n}$, one can take torsion free sheaves with a trivialized determinant. In the existing literature, most compactifications proceed (at least in the case where the center of $G$ is trivial) essentially by encoding a degeneration of a principal $G$-bundle in a degeneration of its adjoint bundle to a torsion-free sheaf along with data which remember the principal $G$-bundle structure over the open subspace on which the degenerate sheaf is locally free.
We show how one can analyze the case $G={\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$ using more subtle methods, which roughly amount to allowing a principal bundle to degnerate by degenerating its associated adjoint bundle to an object of the derived category (rather than simply a torsion free sheaf). By controlling the nature of these derived objects, we arrive at a compact moduli stack whose geometry is as tightly controlled as that of the stack of $\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n$-bundles. This “tight control” is formalized precisely by the covering using twisted sheaves.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The results of this paper are an extension of part of the author’s PhD thesis. He would like to thank his adviser, A. J. de Jong, for many helpful conversations. The author also greatly benefitted from contact with Dan Abramovich, Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène, Tomás Gómez, Daniel Huybrechts, Martin Olsson, and Kōta Yoshioka during various stages of this project. He thanks the referee for useful comments.
Notation
========
All stacks will be stacks in groupoids. Thus, given an algebraic structure (e.g., torsion free sheaf), the stack of objects with that structure will be assumed to keep track only of isomorphisms.
Given a geometric morphism $f:X\to S$ of topoi and a stack ${\mathscr S}$ on $X$, $f_{\ast}{\mathscr S}$ will denote the stack on $X$ whose sections over an object $T\in S$ are the sections of ${\mathscr S}$ over $\pi^{-1}T\in X$. We will often write $T\to S$ for the map to the final object of $S$ and we will often use $X\times_S T$ to denote the object $f^{-1}(T)$. Most of the topoi we encounter will be the usual étale or fppf topos of an algebraic space or stack, but we do include a few which are slightly less conventional (e.g., the relative small étale topos of Section \[sec:relative-flat-etale\]).
A stack over an algebraic space will be called *quasi-proper* if it satisfies the existence part of the valuative criterion of properness over discrete valuation rings (allowing finite extensions, as is usually required for algebraic stacks). Given a Deligne-Mumford stack ${\mathscr M}$ with a coarse moduli space, we will let ${\mathscr M}^{\text{\rm mod}}$ denote the coarse space. Given a moduli space (stack) $M$ of sheaves on a proper algebraic space $X$, we will let $M^{{\textrm{lf}}}$ denote the open subspace parametrizing locally free sheaves.
The notation $({\mathscr O},{\mathfrak m},\kappa)$ will mean that ${\mathscr O}$ is a local ring with maximal ideal ${\mathfrak m}$ and residue field $\kappa$.
Generalities {#S:generalities}
============
Throughout this section, we fix a geometric morphism of ringed topoi $f:X\to
S$. (In various subsections, there will be additional hypotheses on the nature of $X$, $S$, or $f$, but the notation will remain unchanged.)
Stacks of sheaves {#sec:stacks-sheaves}
-----------------
There are various types of sheaves which will be important for us. We recall important definitions and set notations in this section. Let $Z$ be an algebraic space and ${\mathscr F}$ a quasi-coherent sheaf of finite presentation on $Z$.
The sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ is
1. *perfect* if its image in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O}_Z)$ is a perfect complex;
2. *pure* if for every geometric point $z\to Z$ the stalk ${\mathscr F}_z$ (which is a module over the local ring ${\mathscr O}_{z,Z}^{\text{\rm hs}}$) has no embedded primes;
3. *totally supported* if the natural map ${\mathscr O}_Z\to{{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ is injective;
4. *totally pure* if it is pure and totally supported.
The key property of perfect sheaves for us will be the fact that one can form the determinant of any such sheaf. The reader is referred to [@mumford-knudsen] for the construction and basic facts.
It is clear that all of these properties are local in the étale topology on $Z$ (in the sense that they hold on $Z$ if and only if they hold on an étale cover). Thus, we can define various stacks on the small étale site of $Z$. We will write
1. ${\mathscr T}_Z$ for the stack of totally supported sheaves;
2. ${\mathscr T}_Z^{{\text{\rm parf}}}$ for the stack of perfect totally supported sheaves;
3. ${\mathscr P}_Z$ for the stack of pure sheaves;
4. ${\mathscr P}_Z^{{\text{\rm parf}}}$ for the stack of perfect pure sheaves;
5. if ${\mathscr M}$ denotes any of the preceding stacks, we will use ${\mathscr M}(n)$ to denote the substack parametrizing sheaves with rank $n$ at each maximal point of $Z$.
In particular, if $n>0$ then ${\mathscr P}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}_Z(n)$ parametrizes perfect totally pure sheaves.
The relative small étale site {#sec:relative-flat-etale}
-----------------------------
We recall a few pieces of pure nonsense that will help us apply the techniques of Section \[sec:twist-objects-rigid\] below to study moduli problems. In this section, we assume that $f$ is a morphism of algebraic spaces.
The *relative small étale site of $X/S$* is the site whose underlying category consists of pairs $(U,T)$ with $T\to S$ a morphism and $U\to X\times_S T$ an étale morphism. A morphism $(U,T)\to
(U',T')$ is an $S$-morphism $T\to T'$ and an $T$-morphism $U\to
U'\times_T' T$. A covering is a collection of maps $\{(V_i,T)\}\to\{(U,T)\}$ such that $V_i\to U$ form a covering.
We will denote the topos of sheaves on the relative small étale site by $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$. There is an obvious geometric morphism of topoi $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}\to T_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$. (In fact, $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$ is just the “total space” of a fibered topos over $T_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$ whose fiber over $T\to S$ is just the small étale topos of $X\times_S T$.)
The relative small étale topos is naturally suited to studying moduli of $T$-flat sheaves on $X$ (as pushforwards of $X$-stacks).
\[P:retale\] Pullback defines a natural equivalence of the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on $X$ with the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$. Moreover,
1. there is a stack ${\mathscr C}_{X/S}\to X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$ whose sections over $(U,T)$ parametrize quasi-coherent sheaves on $U$ which are $T$-flat and which are locally of finite presentation;
2. if ${\mathscr M}$ denotes any of the stacks from Section \[sec:stacks-sheaves\], there is a substack ${\mathscr M}_{X/S}\subset{\mathscr C}_{X/S}$ whose sections over $(U,T)$ are $T$-flat quasi-coherent sheaves ${\mathscr F}$ of finite presentation on $U$ such that for each geometric point $t\to T$, the restriction ${\mathscr F}_t$ lies in ${\mathscr M}_{U_t}$;
3. for each ${\mathscr M}$, there is a substack ${\mathscr M}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}_{X/S}\subset{\mathscr M}_{X/S}$ parametrizing ${\mathscr F}$ such that each ${\mathscr F}_t$ is perfect;
4. for any ${\mathscr M}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}_{X/S}$ as in the previous item, there is a substack ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n)\subset{\mathscr M}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}_{X/S}$ parametrizing sheaves ${\mathscr F}$ such that each fiber ${\mathscr F}_t$ has rank $n$ at each maximal point of $U_t$, along with a global trivialization $\det{\mathscr F}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}_U$.
In the last item, we implicitly use the standard fact that a sheaf which is perfect on each geometric fiber is perfect. As an example, we have that ${\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n)$ denotes the stack on $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$ whose objects over $(U,T)$ are pairs $({\mathscr F},\delta)$ with ${\mathscr F}$ perfect and $T$-flat, $\delta:\det{\mathscr F}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}_U$ an isomorphism, and such that for each geometric point $t\to T$, the sheaf ${\mathscr F}_t$ has rank $n$ at each maximal point of $U_t$.
The proof of Proposition \[P:retale\] is essentially a sequence of tautologies and is omitted. Note that we cannot make any claims about algebraicity of ${\mathscr C}$, ${\mathscr T}$, or ${\mathscr P}$ because such a statement is meaningless for stacks on $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$. However, when $f:X\to S$ is a proper morphism of finite presentation between algebraic spaces, it is of course standard that the pushforward of ${\mathscr C}_{X/S}$ to $S_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$ is an algebraic stack (and similarly for any ${\mathscr M}_{X/S}$ or ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}$, as the added conditions are open and the addition of a trivialization of the determinant is algebraic).
The following lemma will be useful later.
\[L:flat tot supt\] Suppose $f:Y\to Z$ is a flat morphism of locally Noetherian schemes and ${\mathscr F}$ is a $Z$-flat coherent sheaf on $Y$. If the restriction of ${\mathscr F}$ to every fiber of $f$ is totally supported, then ${\mathscr F}$ is totally supported on $Y$.
We may assume that $X={\operatorname{Spec}}B$ and $S={\operatorname{Spec}}A$ are local schemes and that $f$ is the map associated to a local homomorphism ${\varphi}:A\to
B$. Write $F$ for the stalk of ${\mathscr F}$ at the closed point of $B$. Choosing generators $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ for $F$, we find a surjection $B^n{\twoheadrightarrow}F$ which yields an injection $\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(F){\hookrightarrow}F^n$. The composition of this injection with the natural inclusion of $B$ sends $1\in B$ to the $n$-tuple $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in F^n$. We will show that this map $\iota:B\to F^n$ is an injection. Note that $\iota$ respects base change in the sense that for any $A$-algebra $C$, $\iota\operatorname*{\otimes}_A C$ is the map corresponding to the composition $C\to\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}_C(F\operatorname*{\otimes}_A C)\to (F\operatorname*{\otimes}_A C)^n$. As the right-hand map in that sequence is always an injection, we find that the left-hand map is an injection if and only if $\iota\operatorname*{\otimes}_A C$ is an injection.
We proceed by “infinitesimal induction” relative to $A$, i.e., write $A$ with the ${\mathfrak m}_A$-adic topology as an inverse limit of small extensions $\{A_m\}$ with $A_0=k(A)$, the residue field of $A$. We will show that ${\varprojlim}\iota_m:\widehat B\to\widehat F^n$ is an injection. Krull’s theorem and the obvious compatibility then show that $\iota$ itself is an injection.
By hypothesis $\iota_0$ is an injection. Suppose by induction that $\iota_m$ is an injection. Let ${\varepsilon}$ generate the kernel of $A_{m+1}\to A_m$. By flatness, there are identifications ${\varepsilon}B_{m+1}\cong({\varepsilon})\operatorname*{\otimes}_{A_{m+1}} B_{m+1}\cong B_0$ and ${\varepsilon}F_{m+1}^n\cong({\varepsilon})\operatorname*{\otimes}F_{m+1}^n\cong F_0^n$, and under these identifications, ${\varepsilon}\cdot\iota_{m+1}$ is identified with $\iota_0$. Now consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{0\ar[r] & {\varepsilon}B_{m+1}\ar[r]\ar[d] & B_{m+1}\ar[r]\ar[d] &
B_m\ar[r]\ar[d] & 0\\
0\ar[r] & {\varepsilon}F^n_{m+1}\ar[r] & F^n_{m+1}\ar[r] & F^n_m\ar[r] & 0.
}$$ By the Snake Lemma and the inductive hypothesis, the kernel of the left-hand vertical map is identified with the kernel of the middle map (which is $\iota_{m+1}$). But the left-hand map is identified with $\iota_0$, hence is injective.
In particular, a section of ${\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}$ over $T\to S$ lies in ${\mathscr T}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}_{X_T}(X_T)$. This will be essential when we study relative generalized Azumaya algebras in Section \[L:flat tot supt\].
Azumaya algebras {#S:azumaya}
----------------
For the sake of completeness, we recall a few basic facts about Azumaya algebras, which can be thought of as coherent models for ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$-torsors. We suppose that $f:X\to S$ is a proper morphism of finite presentation between algebraic spaces. By abuse of notation, we will also write $f$ for the induced geometric morphism $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}\to S_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$
Let $G\to S$ a flat linear algebraic $S$-group of finite presentation. It follows from the definition that $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{G_{X}}$ is the stack of (étale) $G$-torsors on $X$, whose sections over an $S$-scheme $T$ are $G_{T}$-torsors on $X_{T}$.
The stack $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{G_{X}}$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation over $S$.
By the usual arguments, we may assume that $S$ is the spectrum of an excellent Noetherian ring (even a finite type ${{\mathbf Z}}$-algebra if we so desire) and that there is a closed immersion $G{\hookrightarrow}{\operatorname{GL}}_{n,S}$ for some $n$. It is well-known that the stack $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{GL}}_{n}$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation over $S$. (One can see [@l-mb] for the case of $X$ projective or apply the main theorem of [@artin] – using the standard deformation theory of [@sga1] and the usual Grothendieck existence theorem of [@ega3-1] – in the arbitrary proper case.) Furthermore, extension of structure group yields a 1-morphism ${\varepsilon}:f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{G}\to f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{{\operatorname{GL}}_{n}}$; it suffices to show that ${\varepsilon}$ is representable by algebraic spaces locally of finite presentation. To see this, let $T\to f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{{\operatorname{GL}}_{n}}$ be any morphism over $S$, corresponding to some ${\operatorname{GL}}_{n}$-torsor $V$ on $X_T$. The fiber product $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{G}\times_{f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{GL}}_{n}}T$ is identified with the sheaf of reductions of structure group of $V$ to $G$, which is simply $V/G$. Thus, we will be done if we show that $f_{\ast}(V/G)$ is an algebraic space locally of finite presentation over $T$.
By Corollary 6.3 of [@artin], the quotient sheaf $V/G$ is representable by a separated algebraic space of finite presentation over $X_T$. The fact that $f_{\ast}(V/G)$ is an algebraic space may be seen in several ways. Here is one of them: we can identify it with the fiber of $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_T(X_T,V/G)\to\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_T(X_T,X_T)$ over the section ${\operatorname{id}}_{X_T}$. Thus, it suffices to show that $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_T(X_T,V/G)$ is an algebraic space locally of finite presentation over $T$; this is a standard result, as $X_T$ is proper and $V/G$ is separated. Its algebraicity follows from e.g. Artin’s theorem or from the methods of [@lieblich-algebras].
In the case of $G={\operatorname{PGL}}_{n,S}$, there is a natural closed immersion $G{\hookrightarrow}{\operatorname{GL}}_{n^{2}}$ given by the action of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$ on $\operatorname{\operatorname{M}}_{n}({\mathscr O})$ by conjugation (the adjoint representation). In this case, one in fact has that ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}={{\mathscr A}\!ut}_{\text{alg}}(\operatorname{\operatorname{M}}_{n}({\mathscr O}))$. Thus, there this is a very concrete way to describe those bundles admitting a reduction of structure group to ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$: they are those bundles such that the associated locally free sheaves of rank $n^{2}$ carry the structure of *Azumaya algebra*.
\[D:az-alg\] An *Azumaya algebra* ${\mathscr A}$ of degree $n$ on a ringed topos $T$ is a form of $\operatorname{\operatorname{M}}_{n}({\mathscr O}_{T})$.
More precisely, to give a reduction of structure group on a ${\operatorname{GL}}_{n^2}$-torsor is to give a multiplication on the associated locally free sheaf making it into an Azumaya algebra. The diagram $$\xymatrix{1\ar[r] & {{\mathbf G}}_m\ar[r] & {\operatorname{GL}}_n\ar[r] & {\operatorname{PGL}}_n\ar[r] & 1\\
1\ar[r] & {\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n\ar[r]\ar[u] & \operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\ar[r]\ar[u] &
{\operatorname{PGL}}_n\ar[r]\ar@{=}[u] & 1}$$ (where the horizontal sequences are exact in the fppf topology, with the bottom exact in the étale topology only if $n$ is invertible on $S$) gives rise to a diagram of coboundary maps in non-abelian (flat) cohomology $$\xymatrix{ & {\operatorname{H}}^2(T,{{\mathbf G}}_m) &\\
{\operatorname{H}}^1(T,{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] & & \\
& {\operatorname{H}}^2(T,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n).\ar[uu] & }$$ In Giraud’s theory (section V.4.2 of [@giraud]), one can be more precise: given a ${\operatorname{PGL}}_{n}$-torsor $P\to T$, the cohomology class $\operatorname{\operatorname{cl}}(P)\in{\operatorname{H}}^{2}(T,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n})$ is precisely that given by the ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n}$-gerbe of liftings (reductions of structure group) of $T$ to an $\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_{n}$-torsor. In the language of Azumaya algebras, this is accomplished by looking at the gerbe of trivializations: a trivialization of ${\mathscr A}$ is given by a triple $({\mathscr V},\delta,{\varphi})$ with ${\mathscr V}$ a locally free sheaf, $\delta:\det{\mathscr V}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}$ a trivialization of the determinant, and ${\varphi}:{{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr V}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr A}$ an isomorphism.
Twisted objects and rigidifications {#sec:twist-objects-rigid}
-----------------------------------
In this section, we give a possible definition for a *twisted object* in a stack (relative to an abelian gerbe). We then review a basic stack-theoretic construction of Abramovich, Corti, and Vistoli [@a-c-v] and show how pushing it forward naturally yields coverings by stacks of twisted objects.
### Twisted objects {#sec:twisted-objects}
Let ${\mathscr S}\to X$ be a stack. Suppose (for the sake of simplicity) that $A$ is an abelian sheaf on $X$ admitting a central injection $\chi:A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$ into the inertia stack of ${\mathscr S}$. Let ${\mathscr X}\to X$ be an $A$-gerbe on $X$. (Since $A$ is abelian, we may view this as an $X$-stack along with an identification of $A$ with the inertia stack ${\mathscr I}({\mathscr X})$.)
An *${\mathscr X}$-twisted section of ${\mathscr S}$* over $T\to X$ is a $1$-morphism $f:{\mathscr X}\times_X T\to{\mathscr S}$ such that the induced map $A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr X}\times_X T)\to f^{\ast}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$ is identified with the pullback under $f$ of the canonical inclusion $\chi:A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$.
The collection of ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sections of ${\mathscr S}$ forms a substack of the Hom-stack $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_X({\mathscr X},{\mathscr S})$, as the condition on the inertial morphism is local on the base of any family. We will write this substack as ${\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}$. Note that there is a natural central injection $A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ given by acting on a map ${\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr S}$ by acting on sections of ${\mathscr S}$, or (what amounts to the same thing by the twisted condition) on the sections of ${\mathscr X}$.
The following transition results will prove useful.
\[L:transition-2\] Let ${\mathscr S}$ be an $X$-stack and $\sigma:X\to{\mathscr S}$ a section. There is an essentially unique $1$-morphism $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{{{\mathscr A}\!ut}(\sigma)}\to{\mathscr S}$ sending the section corresponding to the trivial torsor to $\sigma$.
Let ${\overline{\sigma}}\subset{\mathscr S}$ be the stack-theoretic image of $\sigma$ (so that $\sigma$ factors as an epimorphism $X\to{\overline{\sigma}}$ followed by a monomorphism ${\overline{\sigma}}\to{\mathscr S}$). By definition, ${\overline{\sigma}}$ is the substack of ${\mathscr S}$ consisting of objects which are locally isomorphic to $\sigma(X)$. Given an object $Y$ of ${\overline{\sigma}}$ over some $X$-space $T$, the sheaf $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}_T(Y,\sigma(T))$ is an ${{\mathscr A}\!ut}(\sigma)_T$-torsor; this defines a $1$-morphism $\gamma:{\overline{\sigma}}\to\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{{\mathscr A}\!ut}(\sigma)$.
To check that this is a $1$-isomorphism, we choose a cleavage for ${\mathscr S}$. It is enough to prove that $\gamma$ is fully faithful on fiber categories, as it is clear that any torsor is locally in the image of $\gamma$. Let $Y$ and $Y'$ be two objects of ${\overline{\sigma}}_T$, and consider the induced map of sheaves $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(Y,Y')\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(X,Y),\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(X,Y'))$. Since $Y$ and $Y'$ are both locally isomorphic to $X$, this map of sheaves is trivially a surjection. Thus, we are done once we show that it is injective, for which it suffices (by the universality of the argument) to show that it is injective on global sections.
The map described in the statement is simply the $1$-inverse of ${\overline{\sigma}}\to\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{{\mathscr A}\!ut}(\sigma)$.
\[P:transition-0\] Given a section $\sigma:X\to{\mathscr X}$, the natural restriction map ${\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}\to\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_X(X,{\mathscr S})={\mathscr S}$ is a $1$-isomorphism.
Given a section of ${\mathscr S}$, the injection $A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$ combined with Lemma \[L:transition-2\] yields an essentially unique induced map $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}\to{\mathscr S}$ which respects the $A$-structures on the inertia stacks. This construction gives an isomorphism ${\mathscr S}\to {\mathscr S}^{\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}}$. Using $\sigma$ to identify ${\mathscr X}$ with $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$, we have just described the inverse of the natural map given in the statement.
\[P:transition\] Let ${\mathscr X}$ and ${\mathscr Y}$ be $A$-gerbes on $X$. There is a natural $1$-isomorphism $$({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})^{{\mathscr Y}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr Y}\wedge{\mathscr X}}$$ of stacks of twisted objects.
Consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}({\mathscr Y},\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}({\mathscr X},{\mathscr S}))\ar@{=}[r] & \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}({\mathscr Y}\times{\mathscr X},{\mathscr S})\\
& \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}({\mathscr Y}\wedge{\mathscr X},{\mathscr S})\ar[u]\\
({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})^{{\mathscr Y}}\ar[uu]\ar@{-->}[r] & {\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr Y}\wedge{\mathscr X}}\ar[u].}$$ The top equality comes from the natural adjunction and the uppermost vertical right map comes from the natural map $m:{\mathscr Y}\times{\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr Y}\wedge{\mathscr X}$. The map $A\times A\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr Y}\times{\mathscr X})\to
m^\ast{\mathscr I}({\mathscr Y}\wedge{\mathscr X})=A$ is just the addition map, from which it follows that a unique (up to $2$-isomorphism) dashed arrow exists filling in the diagram. The fact that every arrow is either an equality or an inclusion shows that the dashed arrow is a $1$-isomorphism.
\[Para:cocycley\] There is a more ad hoc description of ${\mathscr X}$-twisted objects into terms of a cocycle representing the cohomology class of ${\mathscr X}$. This can be useful for its value in constructing quick (but perhaps not philosophically satisfying) proofs, but we will not use this formalism. In order to make the definition, we must fix a cleavage (pseudo-functor structure) on ${\mathscr S}$.
Given ${\mathscr X}$, we can choose a hypercovering $U_{\bullet}\to X$ which splits ${\mathscr X}$, in the following sense:
1. there is a section $\sigma$ of ${\mathscr X}$ over $U_0$, and
2. the two pullbacks of $\sigma$ to $U_1$ are isomorphic, say via ${\varphi}$.
Computing the coboundary of ${\varphi}$ and using the fact that ${\mathscr X}$ is an $A$-gerbe yields a $2$-cocycle $a\in\Gamma(U_2,A)$. It is a standard fact that this cocycle represents the same cohomology class as ${\mathscr X}$. Slightly more subtle is the fact that one can explicitly construct a gerbe from a cocycle on a hypercovering. (This gerbe is just the stack of “twisted $A$-torsors”; we will not describe it in detail here.)
Given $(U_{\bullet},a)$ as above, a $(U_{\bullet},a)$-twisted section of ${\mathscr S}$ over $T\to X$ is given by
1. a $1$-morphism ${\varphi}:U_0\times_X T\to{\mathscr S}$, and
2. a $2$-morphism $\psi:(p^1_0)^{\ast}{\varphi}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}(p^1_1)^{\ast}{\varphi}$, where $p^1_0$ and $p^1_1$ are the two natural maps $U_1\times_X T\to U_0\times_X T$,
subject to the condition that the coboundary $\delta\psi\in\operatorname{\operatorname{Aut}}((p^2_0)^{\ast}{\varphi})$ is equal to the action of $a$ (via the inclusion of $A$ in ${\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$).
It is clear that $(U_{\bullet},a)$-twisted objects of ${\mathscr S}$ form a stack on $X$.
Moreover, given an ${\mathscr X}$-twisted object of ${\mathscr S}$ over $T$, the construction of $(U_{\bullet},a)$ induces a $(U_{\bullet},a)$-twisted object of ${\mathscr S}$ over $T$.
\[P:twisty\] There is a natural equivalence between the stack of ${\mathscr X}$-twisted objects of ${\mathscr S}$ and $(U_{\bullet},a)$-twisted objects of ${\mathscr S}$.
First, let $f:{\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr S}$ be an ${\mathscr X}$-twisted object of ${\mathscr S}$. Let ${\varphi}:U_0\to{\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr S}$ be the composition of $f$ with the map coming from the chosen trivialization of ${\mathscr X}$ over $U_0$. Via the cleavage on ${\mathscr S}$, the two maps $U_1\to U_0$ give an isomorphism $\psi:(p^1_0)^{\ast}{\varphi}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}(p^1_1)^{\ast}{\varphi}$ of the pullbacks. The condition that $f$ be ${\mathscr X}$-twisted shows that the action of the coboundary is precisely multiplication by $a$, giving a $(U_\bullet,a)$-twisted object of ${\mathscr S}$.
By descent theory, the statement that this gives an equivalence boils down to the proposition that a morphism ${\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr S}$ is equivalent to a natural transformation between fibered categories. (This requires some careful justification, which for example comes from the realization of ${\mathscr X}$ as the stack of $a$-twisted torsors with respect to the pair $(U_\bullet,a)$. Since we will not use this formalism in this paper, we will not go into the rather unpleasant details.)
### Pushing forward rigidifications {#sec:push-forw-rigid}
Let ${\mathscr S}\to X$ be a stack on $X$ with inertia stack ${\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})\to{\mathscr S}$. Suppose $A$ is an abelian sheaf on $X$ admitting a central injection $A_{{\mathscr S}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})$. In [@a-c-v], Abramovich, Corti, and Vistoli construct the *rigidification of ${\mathscr S}$ along $A$*, denoted ${\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$ (using the notation of section 5 of [@romagny]). It is characterized by a universal property: there is a 1-morphism ${\mathscr S}\to{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$ which is 1-universal among morphisms ${\varphi}:{\mathscr S}\to{\mathscr T}$ for which $A_{{\mathscr S}}$ is in the kernel of the induced map ${\mathscr I}({\mathscr S})\to{\varphi}^{\ast}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr T})$. We will freely use the standard fact that ${\mathscr S}\to{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$ is representable by $A$-gerbes.
While all existing references discuss rigidifications only for algebraic stacks on the category of $S$-schemes for some scheme $S$, the abstract nonsense works perfectly well for stacks on any site. We will implicitly use this in what follows.
In this section we study the morphism $f_{\ast}{\mathscr S}\to f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$. Given an $S$-space $T\to S$ and a $1$-morphism $\gamma:T\to f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$, there results an $A_T$-gerbe on $X\times_S T$, coming from the fact that ${\mathscr S}\to{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$ is represented by $A$-gerbes and the fact that $T\to
f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ corresponds to a morphism $X\times_S
T\to{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$.
\[def:gerbe\] With the above notation, the $A$-gerbe associated to $\gamma$ will be denoted ${\mathscr X}_\gamma$ and called the *gerbe of $\gamma$*. The class of ${\mathscr X}_\gamma$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X\times_S T,A)$ will be called the *(cohomology) class of $\gamma$*.
Let ${\mathscr X}\to X$ be an $A$-gerbe. There is a canonical isomorphism ${\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A\cong{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$. Moreover, for any $T\to S$, a $1$-morphism $\gamma:T\to f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ lifts to a $1$-morphism $T\to f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}_{\gamma}})$.
Consider the following diagram $$\label{E:diag}
\xymatrix{
{\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}\ar[r]\ar@{-->}[d] & \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_X({\mathscr X},{\mathscr S})\ar[d]\\
\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_X(X,{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r] & \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_X({\mathscr X},{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)\\
{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A.}$$ The ${\mathscr X}$-twisted condition shows that the dashed arrow exists, and since every arrow in question is a monomorphism, the dashed arrow is unique up to $2$-isomorphism. By the universal property of ${\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}$, there results a natural morphism $\nu:{\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A\to{\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A$.
To show that $\nu$ is an equivalence, we may work locally on $X$ and assume that ${\mathscr X}$ is trivial. In this case, Proposition \[P:transition-0\] shows that the dashed arrow in (\[E:diag\]) is the image of a $1$-isomorphism ${\mathscr S}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}$ which respects the $A$-structures. It follows that the map on rigidifications is an isomorphism, as desired.
Given an $A$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$, let $f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ denote the stack-theoretic image of $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ under the natural map $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})\to
f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$. We will call $f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ the *${\mathscr X}$-twisted part of $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$*.
\[L:pushforwardcovering\] Given an $A$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$ and a $1$-morphism ${\varphi}:T\to f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$, there is an étale surjection $U\to
T$ and an isomorphism $T\times_{f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}({\mathscr A}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)}f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})|_U\cong f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}|_U$.
By construction $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})\to f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ is an epimorphism of stacks, so there is some $U\to
T$ such that ${\varphi}|_U$ lifts into $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$. Thus, it suffices to show that if ${\varphi}$ lifts to $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ then the fiber product is isomorphic to $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$. In this case the gerbe ${\mathscr X}_{\gamma}\to X\times_S T$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$. The result follows from the compatibility of the formation of fiber product with pushforward.
### Deformation theory {#sec:defmn-thry}
In this section we assume that $f$ is a proper morphism of finite presentation between algebraic spaces and $A$ a tame constructible abelian étale sheaf.
*We assume throughout this section that $f_{\ast}A$ and ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ are finite étale over $S$*. (It is known that they are both constructible; if $f$ is smooth and $A$ is the pullback of a finite étale group scheme then this hypothesis will be satisfied. This will be the case in applications of interest to us.)
\[L:BA-structure\] There is a natural morphism $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}\to{{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ which realizes $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$ as a $f_{\ast}A$-gerbe over ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$.
Recall that ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ is defined as the sheafification of the functor $(T\to S)\mapsto{\operatorname{H}}^1(X\times_S T,A)$ on the big étale site of $S$. A section of $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$ over $T\to S$ corresponds to an $A$-torsor ${\mathscr T}$ on $X\times_S T$. In fact, the set of isomorphism classes of objects of $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$ over $T$ is naturally isomorphic to ${\operatorname{H}}^1(X\times_S T,A)$. Thus, ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ is the sheafification of the stack $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$, from which it immediately follows that $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}\to{{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ is a gerbe. It remains to identify the inertia stack ${\mathscr I}(f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A})$. But the inertia stack of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$ is naturally identified with $A$, from which it follows that there is a natural isomorphism $f_{\ast}A{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr I}(f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A})$.
\[C:no-cotgt-cplx\] The cotangent complex of $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}$ over $S$ is trivial.
By the usual triangles and the fact that ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$ is étale over $S$, it suffices to show that if $\Gamma$ is a finite étale group scheme and ${\mathscr Y}\to Y$ is a $\Gamma$-gerbe then the cotangent complex of ${\mathscr Y}$ over $Y$ is trivial. But this follows immediately from the fact that ${\mathscr Y}$ there is a surjection $U\to{\mathscr Y}$ such that $U$ is étale over both ${\mathscr Y}$ and $Y$.
The natural map $\chi:f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}}){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}f_{\ast}A\to f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ is representable by finite étale covers.
By Lemma \[L:pushforwardcovering\], the fiber of $\chi$ is locally $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{A}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}f_{\ast}A$. Applying Lemma \[L:BA-structure\] shows that this is precisely ${{\mathbf R}}^1f_{\ast}A$.
\[P:alg alg stack stack\] If $f:{\mathscr S}\to{\mathscr S}'$ is a map of $S$-stacks which is representable by fppf morphisms of algebraic stacks then ${\mathscr S}$ is algebraic if and only if ${\mathscr S}'$ is.
First, we show that the diagonal of ${\mathscr S}$ is separated, quasi-compact, and representable by algebraic spaces if and only if the same is true for ${\mathscr S}'$. To this end, let $T'\to{\mathscr S}'\times{\mathscr S}'$ be a morphism with $T'$ an affine scheme. Consider the diagram
$$\xymatrix{& {\mathscr S} \ar[rr]\ar'[d][dd] & & {\mathscr S}\times{\mathscr S}\ar[dd] \\
I \ar[ur]\ar[rr]\ar[dd] & & T \ar[ur]\ar[dd] \\
& {\mathscr S}' \ar'[r][rr] & & {\mathscr S}'\times{\mathscr S}' \\
I'\ar[rr]\ar[ur] & & T' \ar[ur] }$$ whose terms we now explain. The sheaf $I'$ is the pullback of $T'$ along the diagonal. By assumption, the fiber product ${\mathscr S}\times{\mathscr S}\times_{{\mathscr S}'\times {\mathscr S}'}T'$ is an algebraic stack over $T'$ with fppf structure morphism. Thus, we may let $T$ be a scheme which gives a smooth cover, and then we let $I$ be the pullback sheaf of $T$ along the diagonal of ${\mathscr S}$. We see that $I\to I'$ is relatively representable by fppf morphisms of algebraic spaces. By a result of Artin [@l-mb 10.1], $I$ is an algebraic space if and only if $I'$ is.
It remains to show that ${\mathscr S}$ has a smooth cover by an algebraic space if and only if ${\mathscr S}'$ does. In fact, it suffices to replace the word “smooth” by “fppf,” by Artin’s theorem \[*ibid*.\]. But then the statement is clear.
\[P:stacky-means-stacky\] Given an $X$-stack ${\mathscr S}$ and an $A$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$, the stack $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ is an Artin (resp. DM) stack if and only if the stack $f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$ is an Artin (resp. DM) stack.
This follows immediately from Lemma \[L:pushforwardcovering\], Lemma \[L:BA-structure\], and Lemma \[P:alg alg stack stack\].
We apply the above considerations to give a relation between certain virtual fundamental classes on $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ and $f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A)$.
\[P:virt-fund\] Let $\xi:{\mathscr Z}\to{\mathscr W}$ be a map of $S$-stacks. Suppose there is a tame finite étale group scheme $G\to S$ and a central injection $G_{{\mathscr Z}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr Z})$ such that
1. the map $G_{{\mathscr Z}}\to{\mathscr I}({\mathscr Z})\to\xi^{\ast}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr W})$ is trivial;
2. the induced $1$-morphism ${\mathscr Z}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}G\to{\mathscr W}$ is representable by finite étale morphisms of degree invertible on ${\mathscr W}$.
Given a perfect complex ${\mathscr E}\in\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr W})$ and a map $\xi^{\ast}{\mathscr E}\to{L}_{{\mathscr Z}/S}$ which gives a perfect obstruction theory, there is a map ${\mathscr E}\to{L}_{{\mathscr W}/S}$ giving a perfect obstruction theory.
Write ${\overline{{\mathscr Z}}}:={\mathscr Z}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}G$. We have a diagram ${\mathscr Z}\to{\overline{{\mathscr Z}}}\to{\mathscr W}$ with the property that the relative cotangent complex of any pair vanishes. We first claim that any map $\xi^{\ast}{\mathscr E}\to{L}_{{\mathscr Z}/S}$ is the pullback of a map ${\mathscr E}|_{{\overline{{\mathscr Z}}}}\to{L}_{{\overline{{\mathscr Z}}}/S}$. This follows from the fact that $A$ acts trivially on the sheaves making up the complexes ${\mathscr E}$ and ${L}_{{\mathscr Z}/S}$ and the usual description of sheaves on gerbes in terms of the representation theory of $A$.
Thus, to prove the result, we are reduced to the case where ${\mathscr Z}\to{\mathscr W}$ is representable by finite étale maps with invertible degrees. In this case, there is a splitting trace map given by dividing the trace of the covering by the degree. Note that ${L}_{{\mathscr Z}/S}=\xi^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathscr W}/S}$, so that the perfect obstruction theory becomes a map $\alpha:\xi^{\ast}{\mathscr E}\to\xi^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathscr W}/S}$. Taking the splitting trace produces a map ${\mathscr E}\to{L}_{{\mathscr W}/S}$, which is a perfect obstruction theory because it is a summand of $\xi_{\ast}\alpha$.
\[C:v-c\] A complex in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}A))$ can be realized as a perfect obstruction theory if and only if its pullback to $f_{\ast}({\mathscr S}^{{\mathscr X}})$ can be realized as a perfect obstruction theory.
Compactified moduli of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors: an abstract approach {#sec:abstract-compac}
=============================================================================
In this section we compactify the moduli of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors using the techniques of Section \[sec:twist-objects-rigid\] and use the structure of our compactification to prove the Irreducibility Theorem. In Section \[S:genaz\] we will give a more concrete description of the abstract compactification we construct here and use it to describe the virtual fundamental class on the moduli stack.
Throughout this section, $f:X\to S$ will be a proper flat morphism of finite presentation between algebraic spaces, $n$ will be an integer invertible on $S$, and $\pi:{\mathscr X}\to X$ will be a fixed ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe. We will abuse notation and let $f$ also stand for the geometric morphism $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}\to S_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$.
Twisted sheaves {#sec:tw-sh}
---------------
We briefly describe how the theory developed in Section \[sec:twisted-objects\] works out in the case of twisted objects of the stack of coherent sheaves on $X/S$. We fix the ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$ and do the twisting with respect to the natural inclusion of ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ into the inertia stack of $f_{\ast}{\mathscr C}_{X/S}$ (see Proposition \[P:retale\]).
An ${\mathscr X}$-twisted object of $f_{\ast}{\mathscr C}_{X/S}$ over $T\to S$ is called *a flat family of ${\mathscr X}$-twisted coherent sheaves parametrized by $T$*.
If the fibers of the family are torsion free, we will speak of a flat family of torsion free ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves, etc. The reader is referred to paragraph 2.2.6.3 of [@twisted-moduli] for a discussion of associated points, purity, and torsion free sheaves on Artin stacks.
Concretely, an ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf is a sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ on ${\mathscr X}$ such that the representation of ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ on each geometric fiber of ${\mathscr F}$ is given by scalar multiplication. These sheaves were originally introduced by Giraud in [@giraud] and have found various recent applications in mathematical physics and in algebra.
The stack of totally pure ${\mathscr X}$-twisted coherent sheaves with rank $n$ and trivialized determinant will be denoted ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O})$.
It is relatively straightforward to prove that ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O})$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation over $S$. This is done in detail in section 2.3 of [@twisted-moduli]. Earlier work on twisted sheaves in the context of elliptic fibrations and $K3$ surfaces was carried out by [Căldăraru]{} [@caldararu; @caldararu2], and a study of their moduli for projective varieties, with a description of the moduli spaces associated to $K3$ and Abelian surfaces, by Yoshioka [@yoshioka]. Applications of Yoshioka’s results to a conjecture of [Căldăraru]{} were discovered by Huybrechts and Stellari (described in the appendix to [@yoshioka]). The abstract approach taken here has also proven useful in the study of certain arithmetic questions [@period-index-paper]. When ${\mathscr X}$ admits a locally free twisted sheaf ${\mathscr V}$ (i.e., when its class in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$ lies in the Brauer group of $X$), ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves are equivalent to $\pi_\ast{{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr V})$-modules, where the problem of constructing moduli under various stability conditions was first studied by Simpson [@simpson]. The case in which the $\pi_\ast{{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr V})$-modules have rank $1$ was studied by Hoffmann and Stuhler [@h-s]; they also produced a symplectic structure on the moduli space when $X$ is a $K3$ or abelian surface, giving results analogous to those of Yoshioka.
Compactification by rigidification {#sec:compac-by-rig}
----------------------------------
The natural map $\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\to{\operatorname{PGL}}_n$ gives an “extension of structure group” morphism ${\varepsilon}:\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\to\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n$.
The map ${\varepsilon}$ induces an isomorphism $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n$.
Given a stack ${\mathscr S}$, there is a natural equivalence of categories between morphisms $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\to{\mathscr S}$ and $\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n$-equivariant objects of ${\mathscr S}$. (The reader is referred to section 3.A of [@kovacs-2006] for a description of this equivalence.) On the other hand, there is clearly a natural equivalence between ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-equivariant objects of ${\mathscr S}$ and $\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n$-equivariant objects on which the ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n\subset\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n$ acts trivially. But these correspond precisely to morphisms $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\to{\mathscr S}$ such that the induced map on inertia annihilates ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n\subset{\mathscr I}(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n)$. The lemma follows from the universal property of the rigidification.
Taking the associated locally free sheaf with trivialized determinant yields an inclusion $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n\subset{\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n)$. (Note that the natural target is not ${\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n)$ unless the fibers of $X/S$ are Cohen-Macaulay.) Moreover, there is a natural inclusion ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n{\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr I}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n))$ extending the inclusion over $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n$. It follows that there is an inclusion $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n{\hookrightarrow}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$.
There is a natural morphism from $\chi:f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n\to{{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ which we may define as follows. (Note that since $X$ is proper over $S$, the sheaf ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ on $S_{{\operatorname{\acute{E}T}}}$ is a quasi-finite algebraic space of finite presentation by Artin’s theorem. A proof in terms of algebraic spaces may be found in the last chapter of [@repr-artin].) Given an object of $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n=f_{\ast}(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ over some $T\to
S$, there is an associated ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe on $X\times_S T$ (see Definition \[def:gerbe\]), and we simply take the image in ${\operatorname{H}}^0(T,{{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$.
The stack $f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation over $S$. If in addition $f$ is smooth then the stack is quasi-proper.
Since ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ is an algebraic space, it suffices to show that $\chi$ makes $f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n))$ into an algebraic $({{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$-stack of finite presentation. To prove this, it suffices to work locally on ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$. Thus, as any section of ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ (and in particular, the “universal section” given by the identity map) is locally associated to the cohomology class of a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe, we see that it suffices to prove that, given a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$, the stack $f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/T}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation. Applying Proposition \[P:stacky-means-stacky\], we see that it suffices to prove that $f_{\ast}(({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/T}(n))^{{\mathscr X}})$ is an Artin stack locally of finite presentation. But this is an open substack of the stack of perfect ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves with trivialized determinant, which is known to be Artin and locally of finite presentation. (For the proof that it is an Artin stack, the reader is referred to section 2.3 of [@twisted-moduli]. The condition that the fibers be perfect is clearly an open condition, and closed if $X/S$ is smooth.)
Suppose $f$ is smooth, and let $(R,(t),\kappa)$ be a discrete valuation ring over $S$ with fraction field $K$. Suppose ${\operatorname{Spec}}K\to
f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ is a $1$-morphism. We may suppose without loss of generality that $S={\operatorname{Spec}}R$. Since $f$ is proper and smooth, ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ is finite and étale over $R$. Making a finite base change (which is permitted in the stacky version of the valuative criterion), we may assume that ${{\mathbf R}}^2f_{\ast}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$ is a disjoint union of sections over ${\operatorname{Spec}}R$. It follows that to prove that $f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ is quasi-proper, it suffices to prove that $f_{\ast}(({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n))^{{\mathscr X}})$ is quasi-proper, where ${\mathscr X}\to X$ is an arbitrary ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe. Since $X$ is regular, the condition that the twisted sheaf be perfect is trivial, and the result comes down to showing that given a discrete valuation ring $R$ and a torsion free ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ of rank $n$ with trivialized determinant over the generic point of $R$, there is an extension of ${\mathscr F}$ to a flat family over a finite flat extension of $R$ such that the trivialization of the determinant extends.
Let $K$ be the fraction field of $R$ and $\kappa$ its residue field. It is easy to see that any flat extension ${\mathscr G}$ of ${\mathscr F}$ will have trivial determinant (as all invertible sheaves on ${\operatorname{Spec}}R$ are trivial). Choose an isomorphism $\iota:\det{\mathscr G}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}$. Composing with the fixed generic isomorphism $\det{\mathscr F}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}_{X_K}$ yields an injection $\alpha:\det{\mathscr G}\to{\mathscr O}_{X_K}$ (the latter being viewed as a sheaf on $X$ by pushforward from $X_K$). Since $X$ is geometrically connected, the trivial invertible ${\mathscr O}_{X_R}$-subsheaves of ${\mathscr O}_{X_K}$ all have the form $t^s{\mathscr O}_{X_R}$ for some $s\in{{\mathbf Z}}$. Taking an $n$th root of $t$ if necessary (which may result in a finite extension of $R$), we may assume that $s=ns'$ for some integer $s'$. Replacing ${\mathscr G}$ by ${\mathscr G}(t^{-s'})$ yields $\det{\mathscr G}(t^{-s'})=(\det{\mathscr G})(t^{-s})$. Thus, via $\iota$ and the given isomorphism $\det{\mathscr F}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr O}$, $\det{\mathscr G}(t^{-s'})$ gets identified with $t^{-s}t^s{\mathscr O}$, i.e., $\iota$ yields a trivialization of $\det{\mathscr G}(t^{-s'})$ which extends that of $\det{\mathscr F}$, as desired.
The natural map $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n\to f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ is representable by open immersions.
It again suffices to prove this for $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n^{{\mathscr X}}$ and $f_{\ast}({\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n))^{{\mathscr X}}$, where we note that $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}\operatorname{\operatorname{SL}}_n^{{\mathscr X}}$ parametrizes locally free ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves of rank $n$ and trivialized determinant and hence constitutes an open substack, as desired.
\[P:pure-mod\] When the fibers of $X/S$ are Cohen-Macaulay, the entire discussion from the beginning of the section until the present paragraph also yields a compactification coming from the induced inclusion $\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n{\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}$. We omit the details; the statements of the results are literally identical, with ${\mathscr P}$ replacing ${\mathscr T}$. Since ${\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}$ is much larger than ${\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}$, it is preferable to use the latter whenever possible. Thus, for example, if $X/S$ is a smooth morphism, then there results an open immersion into a quasi-proper Artin stack $f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n{\hookrightarrow}f_{\ast}({\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$. This latter stack will play an important role in what follows. We endow it with the following notation.
Given a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}$, let ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n:=f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$.
There is a surjective map ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O})\to{\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$ which is universally closed and submersive.
An explicit description of ${\mathscr M}_n^{{\mathscr X}}$: generalized Azumaya algebras {#S:genaz}
========================================================================================
In this section, we use certain algebra objects of the derived category to give a concrete description of ${\mathscr M}_n^{{\mathscr X}}$. Using this description, we will show that when $X$ is a smooth projective surface and ${\mathscr X}\to X$ has order $n$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$ then ${\mathscr M}_n^{{\mathscr X}}$ has a virtual fundamental class.
Derived Skolem-Noether {#S:skolem-noether}
----------------------
In this section, we work primarily in the derived category of modules over a local commutative ring $({\mathscr O},{\mathfrak m}, k)$. For the sake of a smoother exposition, we assume that ${\mathscr O}$ is Noetherian, but this is unnecessary. On occasion, we will work in the category of chain complexes. However, we will use the word “complex” in both settings; it will be clear in context whether we mean an object of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})$ or an object of $\operatorname{K}({\mathscr O})$. Similarly, “isomorphism” will be consistently used in place of “quasi-isomorphism” and we will always assume that isomorphisms preserve whatever additional structures of objects are implicit. Given a scheme $X$, the symbol $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ will denote a derived category of sheaves of ${\mathscr O}_X$-modules, with various conditions (boundedness, perfection, quasi-coherence of cohomology) clear from context. In the end, it will suffice to work in the category denoted $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}_{\text{fTd}}(X)$ by Hartshorne in [@hartshorne-residues], so the hypotheses on $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}$ will not be a focus of attention.
Given a scheme $X$, an object $A\in \operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ will be called a [ *weak ${\mathscr O}$-algebra*]{} if there are maps $\mu:A\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}A\to A$ and $i:{\mathscr O}\to A$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ which satisfy the usual axioms for an associative unital algebra, the diagrams being required to commute in the derived category.
In other words, a weak algebra is an algebra object of the derived category. Note that the derived tensor product makes $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ into a symmetric monoidal additive category (as the universal property of derived functors ensures that all different associations of an iterated tensor product are naturally isomorphic). Thus, it makes sense to speak of “associative” algebra structures.
Given an additive symmetric monoidal category, one can define most of the usual objects and maps of the theory of algebras: (unital) modules, bimodules, linear maps, derivations, inner derivations, maps of algebras, etc. We leave it to the reader to write down precise definitions of these terms, giving two examples: Given a map of weak algebras $A\to B$, an [*${\mathscr O}$-linear derivation*]{} from $A$ to $B$ is a map $\delta:A\to B$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ such that $\delta\circ\mu_A=\mu_B\circ({\operatorname{id}}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}\delta+\delta\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\operatorname{id}})$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$. A derivation from $A$ to $A$ is [*inner*]{} if there is an $\alpha:{\mathscr O}\to A$ such that $\delta=\mu\circ(\alpha\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\operatorname{id}})-\mu\circ({\operatorname{id}}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}\alpha)$.
Given a ring map ${\mathscr O}\to{\mathscr O}'$, the derived functor $(\cdot)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}_{{\mathscr O}}{\mathscr O}':\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})\to\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O}')$ respects the monoidal structure. There results a natural base change operation for weak algebras and modules. (This operation will be consistently written as a change of base on the right to avoid sign errors.)
Similarly, given a weak algebra $A$ and a left $A$-module $P$, the functor $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}(\cdot)$ takes objects of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})$ to $A$-modules. This follows from the natural associativity of the derived tensor product.
The first non-trivial example of a weak algebra is given by $$\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K):=\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}Hom}}(K,K)$$ for a perfect complex $K$. Replacing $K$ by a projective resolution, one easily deduces the weak algebra structure from the usual composition of functions: if we write $K$ as a finite complex of free modules (which we will also call $K$), then $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$ has as $n$th module $\prod_p{\operatorname{Hom}}(K^p,K^{p+n})$, with differential $\partial^n(\alpha_p)_q=(-1)^{n+1}\alpha_{q+1}d+d\alpha_q$. Since $K$ is perfect, the $n$th module of $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$ is equal to $$\prod_{a+b=n}\prod_{s,t}{\operatorname{Hom}}(K^s,K^{s+a})\operatorname*{\otimes}{\operatorname{Hom}}(K^t,K^{t+b})$$ and the multiplication projects to the factors with $s=t+b$ and then composes functions as usual. Setting $K^{\vee}=\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}Hom}}(K,{\mathscr O})$ (the derived dual of $K$), we have the following basic lemma.
\[L:duality compatibility\] Let $K$ be a perfect complex.
1. There is a natural isomorphism $K\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}K^{\vee}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$.
2. There is a natural left action of $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$ on $K$.
Tensoring the action $$\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}K\to K$$ with $K^{\vee}$ on the right and using $($i$)$ yields the multiplication of $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$.
It is essential that the action be written on the left (when using the standard sign convention for forming the total complex of a double complex [@illusie I.1.2.1], [@matsumura Appendix]) and that $K^{\vee}$ be written on the right for the signs to work out. These kinds of sign sensitivities abound in the derived category and require vigilance.
An algebra of the form $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(K)$ will be called a [*derived endomorphism algebra*]{}. Our goal is to re-prove the classical results about matrix algebras for derived endomorphism algebras of perfect complexes.
The symbols $P$ and $Q$ will always be taken to mean perfect complexes with a chosen realization as a bounded complex of finite free modules. Thus, maps $P\to Q$ in the derived category will always come from maps of the “underlying complexes” (taken to mean the chosen realizations). Similarly, $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)$ will have as chosen representative the complex constructed from the underlying complex of $P$ as above: $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)^n=\prod_t{\operatorname{Hom}}(P^t,P^{t+n})$ with differential $\partial(\alpha_t)_s=(-1)^{n+1}\alpha_{s+1}
d+d\alpha_s$.
These conventions facilitate making certain basic arguments without speaking of replacing the object by a projective resolution, etc., but it is ultimately only important for this book-keeping reason; the reader may ignore it without fear (until it is explicitly invoked!).
Given $M\in\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})$, the [*annihilator of $M$*]{} is the kernel $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ann}}(M)$ of the natural map from ${\mathscr O}$ to $\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}_{\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})}(M)$. The quotient ${\mathscr O}/\operatorname{\operatorname{Ann}}(M)$ will be denoted by ${\mathscr O}_M$.
Given an isomorphism $\psi:P\to Q(n)$, there is an isomorphism $\psi^{\ast}:\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$ given by functorial conjugation by $\psi$ followed by the natural identification of $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q(n))$ with $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$. We will call this the [*induced map*]{}. The map $\psi^{\ast}$ may also be described as follows: under the natural identification of $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)$ with $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}P^{\vee}$, $\psi^{\ast}$ is identified with $\psi\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}(\psi^{\vee})^{-1}$.
\[T:the one\] Let $P$ and $Q$ be non-zero perfect complexes of ${\mathscr O}$-modules. If $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\cong\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$ as weak algebras, then there exists a unique $n$ such that the map $$\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(P,Q(n))\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}(\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P),\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q))$$ is surjective with each fiber a torsor under ${\mathscr O}_P^{\times}$. If $P=Q$, then $n=0$ and the kernel is naturally a split torsor.
\[C:ders\] The sequence $$0\to {\mathscr O}_P\to\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(P)\to{\operatorname{Der}}(\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P))\to 0$$ is exact. More generally, if $P$ and $Q(n)$ are isomorphic, then the map $${\operatorname{Hom}}(P,Q(n))\to{\operatorname{Der}}(\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P),\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q))$$ is surjective with each fiber naturally a torsor under ${\mathscr O}_P$.
Apply Theorem \[T:the one\] to $P[{\varepsilon}]$ (as a complex over ${\mathscr O}[{\varepsilon}]$) and look at automorphisms of the weak algebra $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}_{{\mathscr O}[{\varepsilon}]}(P[{\varepsilon}])$ reducing to the identity modulo ${\varepsilon}$.
The proof of Theorem \[T:the one\] will make use of the completion of ${\mathscr O}$ to lift the classical theorems on matrix algebras from the closed fiber by “infinitesimal induction.”
\[P:field\] If ${\mathscr O}$ is a field $k$ then Theorem \[T:the one\] and Corollary \[C:ders\] hold.
The bounded derived category of $k$ is naturally identified with the category of ${{\mathbf Z}}$-graded finite $k$-modules by sending a complex to the direct sum of its cohomology spaces. Given perfect complexes $P$ and $Q$, the algebra $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)$ (resp. $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$) is then identified with a matrix algebra, carrying the induced grading from the grading of the vector space $P$ (resp. $Q$), and an isomorphism from $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$ is identified with an isomorphism of matrix algebras which respects the gradings. By the allowance of a shift, we may restrict our attention to graded spaces whose minimal non-zero graded piece is in degree 0; any reference in what follows to graded vector spaces will implicitly assume this hypothesis. (Of course the algebras involved will still carry non-trivial graded pieces with negative degrees.)
Let $A$ be a graded matrix algebra of rank $n^2$ and $V$ and $W$ two graded $n$-dimensional vector spaces with non-trivial graded $A$-actions. By the Skolem-Noether theorem, there is an $A$-linear isomorphism $\alpha:V\to W$. We claim that $\alpha$ is graded. To prove this, it suffices to show that given a non-zero vector $v\in
V_0$, $\alpha(v)$ is in $W_0$ (because $V$ and $W$ are simple $A$-modules). Write $\alpha(v)=\sum w_i$. Since $V$ is a simple $A$- module, $A_n\cdot v = V_n$; a similar statement holds for $W$ (given a choice of non-zero weight 0 vector, which exists by the hypothesis on the gradings). Thus, the highest non-trivial grading $N$ of $A$ will equal the highest non- trivial grading of both $V$ and $W$. Furthermore, given any $i$ such that $w_i\neq 0$, the fact that $A_{-i}\cdot w_i = W_0$ means that $A_{-i}\neq 0$. Given $i>0$ such that $w_i\neq 0$, we have for all $\tau\in A_{-i}$ that $$0=\alpha(0)=\alpha(\tau(v))=\tau(\alpha(v))=\tau\Big(\sum
w_j\Big)=\tau(w_i)+\textrm{higher terms.}$$ Thus, $\tau(w_i)=0$, which implies that $W_0=0$. This contradicts the assertion that $W_0$ is the minimal non-trivial graded piece. So $w_i=0$ for all $i>0$ and therefore $w\in W_0$. Translating this back into the derived language, we have proven that given an isomorphism ${\varphi}:\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$, there is an isomorphism $P\to Q$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(k)$ which induces ${\varphi}$ by functoriality. In fact, we have shown the rest of the proposition as well, because $\alpha$ is the unique choice for such an isomorphism up to scalars by the Skolem-Noether theorem.
To prove Corollary \[C:ders\], let $V=\oplus V_i$ be a graded vector space and $T\in\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(V)$ a non-central linear transformation. We wish to show that if the (non-trivial) inner derivation by $T$ is homogeneous of degree $0$ then $T$ is homogeneous of degree $0$. To do this, consider the restriction of $T$ to the degree $0$ part of $\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(V)$. Let $T^{n}$ be a graded component of $T$ (so that $T^{n}:V\to V$ shifts degrees by $n$). Let $V^{m}$ be a graded component such that the induced transformation $T^{n}:V^{m}\to V^{m+n}$ is non-zero. Consider the graded linear transformation (of degree $0$) $S:V\to V$ which acts as the identity on $V^m$ and annihilates every other component. It is easy to see that the commutator $[T^{n},S]$ is $T^{n}S$, which implies that $[T,S]$ has a non-trivial component of degree $n$. Since the derivation $[T,-]$ is homogeneous of degree $0$, it follows that $n=0$, and thus $T$ is homogeneous of degree $0$, as desired.
\[L:completing\] Theorem \[T:the one\] is true for ${\mathscr O}$ if it is true for $\widehat{{\mathscr O}}$.
We proceed by reducing the problem to a question of linear algebra and then using the faithful flatness of completion.
Suppose given $P$ and $Q$ and an isomorphism ${\varphi}:\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$; this defines an action of $A:=\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)$ on $Q$. We claim that finding $u:P\to Q$ such that ${\varphi}=u^{\ast}$ is equivalent to finding an $A$-linear isomorphism from $P$ to $Q$. Indeed, suppose $u:P\to Q$ is $A$-linear, so that the diagram $$\xymatrix{\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}P\ar[r]^{{\varphi}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}u}\ar[d] &
\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}Q\ar[d]\\
P\ar[r]^u & Q }$$ commutes, where the vertical arrows are the actions. Tensoring the left side with $P^{\vee}$ and the right side with $Q^{\vee}$, we see that the resulting diagram $$\xymatrix{\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}P^{\vee}\ar[rr]^{{\varphi}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}u\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}(u^{\vee})^{-1}}\ar[d] & & \operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}Q^{\vee}\ar[d]\\
P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}P^{\vee}\ar[rr]^{u\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}(u^{\vee})^{-1}} & & Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}Q^{\vee}
}$$ also commutes. Applying Lemma \[L:duality compatibility\] and writing $B$ for $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$, we find that the diagram $$\xymatrix{A\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}A\ar[r]^{u^{\ast}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\varphi}}\ar[d] & B\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}B\ar[d]\\
A\ar[r]^{u^{\ast}} & B }$$ commutes, where the vertical arrows are the multiplication maps. Considering the units in the algebras, one readily concludes the proof of the claim. Note that to conclude that any such $u$ as above is an isomorphism, it suffices for its reduction to the residue field to be an isomorphism (e.g. because the complexes are bounded above).
It is easy to see (using the realization in terms of diagrams of finite flat ${\mathscr O}$-modules) that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})}$ is compatible with flat base change and completion when restricted to the category of perfect complexes: given a flat ring extension ${\mathscr O}\to{\mathscr O}'$, there is a natural isomorphism $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O}')}(M\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr O}',N\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr O}')\cong{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})}(M,N)\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr O}'$$ for all perfect $M$ and $N$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})$. Furthermore, given a perfect weak algebra $\Xi$, the realization of the module of $\Xi$-linear maps as a kernel of maps of ${\operatorname{Hom}}$-modules shows that the same statement is true for ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\Xi}$. Thus there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@C=0pt{{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\Xi}(M,N)\ar[d]\ar[rr] & &
{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\widehat{\Xi}}(\widehat M,\widehat N)\ar[d]\\
{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\Xi}(M,N)\operatorname*{\otimes}_{{\mathscr O}}k\ar@{=}[rr]\ar[dr] & &
{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\widehat{\Xi}}(\widehat M,\widehat N)\operatorname*{\otimes}_{\widehat{{\mathscr O}}}k\ar[dl]\\
& {\operatorname{Hom}}_{\Xi\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}k}(M\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}k,N\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}k). }$$ with surjective vertical arrows. This immediately applies to our situation to show that the map of Theorem \[T:the one\] is surjective for ${\mathscr O}$ if it is for $\widehat{{\mathscr O}}$ (for a fixed $n$, which may be determined from the reduction to the residue field). Indeed, a $\widehat{\Xi}$-linear map $\widehat M\to\widehat N$ yields an element of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\widehat{\Xi}}(\widehat M,\widehat N)\operatorname*{\otimes}k$ whose image in the bottom module is an isomorphism. It follows from the diagram that there is a $\Xi$-linear map $u:M\to N$ whose (derived) reduction to $k$ is an isomorphism, whence $u$ is an isomorphism by Nakayama’s lemma for perfect complexes (see e.g. Lemma 2.1.3 of [@mod-of-comp]).
Similarly, to verify that an isomorphism $\xi:P{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}P$ in the kernel of the automorphism map is homotopic to a constant, it suffices to show that an element $\xi\in\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}_{\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})}(P)$ is in ${\mathscr O}_P$ if and only if this is true after completing. But the module of maps homotopic to a constant is also clearly compatible with flat base change and completion is moreover [*faithfully*]{} flat (all modules involved are finite over ${\mathscr O}$ because the complexes involved are perfect), so $\xi$ is in a submodule $Z$ of $\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(P)$ if and only if its image in $\operatorname{\operatorname{End}}(P)\operatorname*{\otimes}\widehat{{\mathscr O}}$ is contained in $Z\operatorname*{\otimes}\widehat{{\mathscr O}}$.
From this point onward, [*we assume that ${\mathscr O}$ is a complete local Noetherian ring*]{}. Recall that a quotient of local rings $0\to I\to {\mathscr O}\to{\overline{{\mathscr O}}}\to 0$ is [*small*]{} if $I$ is generated by an element ${\varepsilon}$ which is annihilated by the maximal ideal of ${\mathscr O}$ (so that, in particular, ${\varepsilon}^2=0$). We can choose a filtration ${\mathscr O}\supset{\mathfrak m}=I_0\supset I_1\supset
I_2\supset\cdots$ which is separated (i.e., so that $\cap_{i}
I_{i}=0$) and defines a topology equivalent to the ${\mathfrak m}$-adic topology such that for all $i\geq 0$, the quotient $0\to
I_i/I_{i+1}\to{\mathscr O}/I_{i+1}\to{\mathscr O}/ I_i\to 0$ is a small extension, with $I_i/I_{i+1}$ generated by ${\varepsilon}_i$. We fix such a filtration for remainder of this section, and we denote ${\mathscr O}/I_n$ by ${\mathscr O}_n$.
\[L:algebra quotient\] Let $0\to I\to R\to{\overline{R}}\to 0$ be a surjection of rings. Let $A$ be a weak $R$-algebra and $P$ and $Q$ two left $A$-modules. Let $T$ denote the triangle in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(R)$ arising from the quotient map $R\to {\overline{R}}$.
1. The maps in $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}T$ are $A$-linear $($with the natural $A$-module structures$)$.
2. Any $A$-linear map $\psi:P\to Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$ factors through an $A$-linear map ${\overline{\psi}}:
P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}\to Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$ which is the derived restriction of scalars of an $A\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$-linear map from $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$ to $Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$.
3. If $R\to{\overline{R}}$ is a small extension of local rings with residue field $k$, then the natural identification $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}I{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}P_k$ induced by a choice of basis for $I$ over $k$ is $A$-linear.
Note that basic results about homotopy colimits allow us to replace any object of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(R)$ by a complex of projectives, so there are no boundedness conditions on any of the complexes involved. Part (i) follows immediately from the fact that $P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}(\cdot)$ is a functor from $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(R)$ to $A$-modules. Part (ii) follows from writing $P$ and $A$ as complexes of projectives and representing the map $P\to Q\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\overline{R}}$ as a map on complexes. (Note that this factorization need not be unique as a map in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(R)$, but it is unique as the derived restriction of scalars from a map in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\overline{R}})$.) Part (iii) follows similarly from looking at explicit representatives of $P$ and $A$.
\[L:homotopy\] Suppose $f,g:P\to Q$ are two maps of perfect complexes in $K({\mathscr O})$. Let $P_n=P\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr O}_n$, $Q_n=Q\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr O}_n$, $f_n=f\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr O}_n$, $g_n=g\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr O}_n$. Suppose there are homotopies $$h(n)\in\prod_t{\operatorname{Hom}}(P^t,Q^{t-1}\operatorname*{\otimes}I_n)$$ such that for all $n$, $$f_{n}-g_{n}=d\Big(\sum_{s<n}\bar h(s)\Big)+\Big(\sum_{s<n}\bar h(s)\Big)d$$ as maps of complexes, where $\bar h$ denotes the induced map. Then $f$ is homotopic to $g$.
The element $h=\sum_{s=0}^{\infty} h(s)$ converges and defines the homotopy.
\[L:auto\] Let $0\to I\to R\to{\overline{R}}\to 0$ be a small extension of local rings with residue field $k$. Let $P$ and $Q$ be perfect complexes of $R$-modules $($with chosen realizations$)$ and ${\varphi}:\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$ an isomorphism of the derived endomorphism algebras, written as a map in that direction on the underlying complexes. If there exists an isomorphism of the underlying complexes ${\overline{u}}:{\overline{P}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\overline{Q}}$ such that ${\overline{{\varphi}}}={{\overline{u}}}^{\ast}$ as maps of complexes, then there is a lift $u$ of ${\overline{u}}$ and a homotopy $h$ between ${\varphi}$ and $u^{\ast}$ such that $h(\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P))\subset \operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)\operatorname*{\otimes}I$. In particular, ${\varphi}=u^{\ast}$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(R)$.
Let $A=\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)$ and let $A$ act on $Q$ via ${\varphi}$. The identification of ${\overline{{\varphi}}}$ with ${{\overline{u}}}^{\ast}$ provides an ${\overline{A}}$-linear isomorphism ${\overline{\gamma}}:
{\overline{P}}\to{\overline{Q}}$, and we wish to lift this to an $A$-linear isomorphism $P\to Q$. Consider the composition $P\to {\overline{Q}}\to
Q\operatorname*{\otimes}I(1)\cong Q_k(1)$ in the derived category. By Lemma \[L:algebra quotient\], this map is $A$-linear and factors through an $A$-linear map $\alpha:P_k\to Q_k(1)$ which comes by derived restriction of scalars from an $A_k$-linear map in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(k)$. By Proposition \[P:field\] (and the method of its proof), we see that $\alpha$ is either zero or an isomorphism. But $P_k\cong
Q_k\not\cong 0$, which implies that $\alpha=0$. This means that there is an [*$R$-linear*]{} lift $\gamma$ of ${\overline{\gamma}}$. Now $(\gamma^{\ast})^{-1}\circ{\varphi}-{\operatorname{id}}$ is identified with a map $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}_k(P_k)\to\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}_k(P_k)$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(k)$ which is a derivation of the algebra, hence is homotopic to the inner derivation induced by a map $\omega_k:P_k\to P_k$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(k)$. Writing $\omega$ for the composition $$\xymatrix{P\ar[r] &
P_k\ar[r]^{\omega_k}& P_k\ar[r]^{\cong}& P\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}I\ar[r]&
P,}$$ we see that there is a homotopy between ${\varphi}$ and $\gamma(1+\omega)^{\ast}$ with image in $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)\operatorname*{\otimes}I$, and that $\gamma(1+\omega)$ is a lift of ${\overline{\gamma}}$ as maps of complexes.
\[L:kernel\] Let $0\to I\to R\to{\overline{R}}\to 0$ be a small extension of local rings with residue field $k$. Let $P$ be a perfect complex of $R$-modules $($with a chosen realization$)$ and $\psi:P\to P$ an automorphism of the underlying complex such that ${\overline{\psi}}={\overline{\alpha}}$ for some ${\overline{\alpha}}\in{\overline{R}}_{{\overline{P}}}$ as maps of the complex ${\overline{P}}$ and such that $\psi^{\ast}$ is homotopic to the identity as a map of weak algebras. Then there is a unit $\alpha$ lifting ${\overline{\alpha}}$ and a homotopy $h$ between $\psi$ and $\alpha$ such that $h(\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P))\subset \operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P)\operatorname*{\otimes}I$.
The proof is quite similar to the proof of Lemma \[L:auto\], using the left half of the exact sequence of Corollary \[C:ders\] rather than the right half.
\[P:done\] Theorem \[T:the one\] holds for ${\mathscr O}$ $($now assumed complete$)$.
Given an isomorphism ${\varphi}:\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(P){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)$, we may assume after adding zero complexes to $P$ and $Q$, shifting $Q$, and applying a homotopy to ${\varphi}$, that there is an isomorphism $\psi_0:P_0\to Q_0$ such that ${\varphi}_0=\psi_0^{\ast}$ as maps of complexes. We can now apply Lemma \[L:auto\] to arrive at an isomorphism $\psi_1$ lifting $\psi_0$ and a homotopy ${\overline{h}}(0)$ with image in $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}_{{\mathscr O}_1}(Q_1)\operatorname*{\otimes}_{{\mathscr O}_1}I_0/I_1$ between ${\varphi}_1$ and $\psi_1^{\ast}$. Lift ${\overline{h}}(0)$ to a homotopy $h(0)$ with image in $\operatorname{\operatorname{{\bf R}End}}(Q)\operatorname*{\otimes}I_0$. Then $({\varphi}-
(dh(0)+h(0)d))_1=\psi_1^{\ast}$ as maps of complexes, and we may find a homotopy $h(1)$, etc. By Lemma \[L:homotopy\], we see that there is an isomorphism $\psi:P\to Q$ such that ${\varphi}=\psi^{\ast}$ in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}({\mathscr O})$. A similar argument shows that the kernel is ${\mathscr O}_P^{\ast}$.
The construction of ${\mathbf{GAz}}$ {#S:gen azumaya construction}
------------------------------------
In this section, we define a stack which we will use to compactify the stack of Azumaya algebras. While the definition is rather technical in general, in the case of a relative surface it assumes a simpler and more intuitive form.
Let $(X,{\mathscr O})$ be a ringed topos.
A *pre-generalized Azumaya algebra* on $X$ is a perfect algebra object ${\mathscr A}$ of the derived category $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ of ${\mathscr O}_{X}$-modules such that there exists an object $U\in X$ covering the final object and a totally supported perfect sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ on $U$ with ${\mathscr A}|_{U}\cong{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{U}({\mathscr F})$ as weak algebras. An isomorphism of pre-generalized Azumaya algebras is an isomorphism in the category of weak algebras.
### Stackification {#sec:stackification}
Consider the fibered category ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}\to Sch_{{\operatorname{\acute{e}t}}}$ of pre-generalized Azumaya algebras on the large étale topos over ${\operatorname{Spec}}{{\mathbf Z}}$. We will stackify this to yield the stack of generalized Azumaya algebras. This is slightly different from the construction given in [@l-mb 3.2], as we do not assume that the fibered category is a pre-stack.
\[L:stackification\] Suppose $T$ is a topos and ${\mathscr C}\to T$ is a category fibered in groupoids. There exists a stack ${\mathscr C}^{s}$, unique up to 1-isomorphism, and a 1-morphism ${\mathscr C}\to{\mathscr C}^{s}$ which is universal among 1-morphisms to stacks (up to 2-isomorphism).
The proof is the usual type of argument. A reader interested in seeing a generalization to stacks in categories larger than groupoids should consult [@giraud]. First, we may assume that in fact ${\mathscr C}\to T$ admits a splitting (after replacing ${\mathscr C}$ by a 1-isomorphic fibered category). Define a new fibered category ${\mathscr C}^{p}$ as follows: the objects will be the same, but the morphisms between two objects $a$ and $b$ over $t\in T$ will be the global sections of the sheafification of the presheaf ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{t}(a,b):(s{\xrightarrow}{{\varphi}}
t)\mapsto{\operatorname{Hom}}_{s}({\varphi}^{\ast}a,{\varphi}^{\ast}b)$ on $t$. Clearly ${\mathscr C}^{p}$ is a prestack (i.e., given any two sections $a$ and $b$ over $t$, the hom-presheaf just described is a sheaf) and the natural map ${\mathscr C}\to{\mathscr C}^{p}$ of fibered categories over $T$ is universal up to 1-isomorphism for 1-morphisms of ${\mathscr C}$ into prestacks. Now we apply [@l-mb 3.2] to construct ${\mathscr C}^{s}$ as the stackification of ${\mathscr C}^{p}$.
The stack of *generalized Azumaya algebras* on schemes is defined to be the stack in groupoids ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}\to Sch_{{\operatorname{\acute{e}t}}}$ associated to the fibered category of pre-generalized Azumaya algebras.
Explicitly, given a scheme $X$, to give a generalized Azumaya algebra on $X$ is to give an étale 3-hypercovering $\xymatrix{Y''\ar@<4pt>[r]\ar[r]\ar@<-4pt>[r]&Y'\ar@<2pt>[r]\ar@<-2pt>[r]&Y\ar[r]&X}$, a totally supported sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ on $Y$, and a gluing datum for ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{Y}({\mathscr F})$ in the derived category $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(Y')$ whose coboundary in $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(Y'')$ is trivial. Two such objects $(Y_{1},{\mathscr F}_{1},\delta_{1})$ and $(Y_{2},{\mathscr F}_{2},\delta_{2})$ are isomorphic if and only if there is a common refinement $Y_{3}$ of the 3-hypercovers $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ and an isomorphism ${\varphi}:{\mathscr F}_{1}|_{Y_{3}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr F}_{2}|_{Y_{3}}$ commuting with the restrictions of $\delta_{1}$ and $\delta_{2}$. Thus, a generalized Azumaya algebra is gotten by gluing “derived endomorphism algebras” together in the étale topology. When $X$ is a quasi-projective smooth surface, or, more generally, a quasi-projective scheme smooth over an affine with fibers of dimension at most 2, then the sections of ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}$ over $X$ are the same as the sections of ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}$ over $X$; see Section \[S:p=s on surface\].
Let $\pi:{\mathscr X}\to X$ be a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n}$-gerbe and ${\mathscr F}$ a totally supported perfect ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf. The complex ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{*}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr F})\in\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ is a pre-generalized Azumaya algebra, hence has a naturally associated generalized Azumaya algebra. We will see below that the global sections of the stack ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}$ are precisely the weak algebras of this form.
\[L:isoms-check\] Let ${\mathscr F}$ and ${\mathscr G}$ be totally supported perfect sheaves on a ${{\mathbf G}}_m$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$.
1. The sheaf of isomorphisms between the generalized Azumaya algebras associated to the weak algebras ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ and ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr G})$ is naturally isomorphic to $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})/{{\mathbf G}}_m$, with ${{\mathbf G}}_m$ acting by scalar multiplication on ${\mathscr G}$.
2. Any isomorphism of generalized Azumaya algebras ${\varphi}:{{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr G})$ is the isomorphism associated to an isomorphism ${\mathscr F}{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr L}\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr G}$ for some invertible sheaf ${\mathscr L}$ on $X$.
Temporarily write ${\mathscr I}$ for the sheaf of isomorphisms of generalized Azumaya algebras from ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ to ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr G})$. There is clearly a map $\chi:\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})/{{\mathbf G}}_m\to{\mathscr I}$. To verify that it is an isomorphism, it suffices to verify it étale-locally on $X$, whence we may assume that $X$ is strictly local. Choosing an invertible ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf and twisting down ${\mathscr F}$ and ${\mathscr G}$, we are reduced to showing the analogous statement for totally supported sheaves on $X$ itself. Any local section of ${\mathscr I}$ comes from an isomorphism of weak algebras ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr G})$, so Theorem \[T:the one\] shows that $\chi$ is surjective. Similarly, any section of the kernel of $\chi$ must locally be trivial, whence $\chi$ is an isomorphism.
The second part is a formal consequence of the first: there is an étale covering $U\to X$ such that ${\varphi}|_U$ is associated to an isomorphism $\psi:{\mathscr F}|_U{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr G}|_U$. The coboundary of $\psi$ on the product $U\times_X U$ is multiplication by some scalar, which is a cocycle by a formal calculation. This gives rise to the invertible sheaf ${\mathscr L}$; tensoring with ${\mathscr L}$ makes the coboundary of $\psi$ trivial, whence it descends to an isomorphism ${\mathscr F}\to{\mathscr L}\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr G}$ inducing ${\varphi}$, as desired.
\[D:gerbe-o-trivs\] Let ${\mathscr A}$ be a generalized Azumaya algebra on $X$. The *gerbe of trivializations* of ${\mathscr A}$, denoted ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})$, is the stack on the small étale site $X_{{\operatorname{\acute{e}t}}}$ whose sections over $V\to X$ given by pairs $({\mathscr F},{\varphi})$, where ${\mathscr F}$ is a totally supported sheaf on $V$ and ${\varphi}:{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{V}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr A}|_{V}$ is an isomorphism of generalized Azumaya algebras. The isomorphisms in the fiber categories are isomorphisms of the sheaves which respect the identifications with ${\mathscr A}$, as usual.
This is entirely analogous to the gerbe produced in section V.4.2 of [@giraud]. There is also an analogue of the ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe associated to an Azumaya algebra of degree $n$.
Given a generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ of degree $n$ on ${\mathscr X}$, the *gerbe of trivialized trivializations* of ${\mathscr A}$, denoted ${\mathscr X}_{{\textrm{triv}}}({\mathscr A})$, is the stack on the small étale site of $X$ whose sections over $U\to X$ consist of triples $({\mathscr F},{\varphi},\delta)$ with ${\varphi}:{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{U}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr A}_U$ an isomorphism of generalized Azumaya algebras and ${\mathscr O}_U{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}\det({\mathscr F})$ an isomorphism of invertible sheaves on $U$. The isomorphisms in the fiber categories are isomorphisms of the sheaves which preserve the identifications with ${\mathscr A}$ and the trivializations of the determinants.
The stack ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})$ is a ${{\mathbf G}}_{m}$-gerbe. If ${\mathscr A}$ has degree $n$, then ${\mathscr X}_{{\textrm{triv}}}({\mathscr A})$ is a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe whose associated cohomology class maps to $[{\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})]$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$.
This follows immediately from the derived Skolem-Noether Theorem \[T:the one\] and the fact that all of the sheaves ${\mathscr F}$ are totally supported.
A generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ has a class in ${\operatorname{H}}^{2}(X,{{\mathbf G}}_{m})$. When the rank of ${\mathscr A}$ is $n^{2}$, ${\mathscr A}$ has a class in ${\operatorname{H}}^{2}(X,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n})$ (in the fppf topology).
When $\operatorname{\operatorname{rk}}{\mathscr A}=n^{2}$, we will call the cohomology class in ${\operatorname{H}}^{2}(X,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n})$ the *class of ${\mathscr A}$*, and write $\operatorname{\operatorname{cl}}({\mathscr A})$.
Let $\pi:{\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})\to X$ denote the natural projection.
\[L:embedding lemma\] There is an ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$ and an isomorphism of generalized Azumaya algebras ${\varphi}:{{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr A}$. The datum $({\mathscr X}({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr F},{\varphi})$ is functorial in ${\mathscr A}$.
As usual, the construction of ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})$ yields by first projection a twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$. Whenever ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A})$ has a section $f$ over $V$, there is an isomorphism ${{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{V}(f^{\ast}{\mathscr F})\to{\mathscr A}|_{V}$ by construction, and this is natural in $V$ and $f$. This is easily seen to imply the remaining statements of the lemma.
Let ${\mathscr D}\to Sch_{{\operatorname{\acute{e}t}}}$ denote the fibered category of derived categories which to any scheme $X$ associates the derived category $\operatorname{\operatorname{\bf D}}(X)$ of étale ${\mathscr O}_{X}$-modules.
\[P:gen az isom\] There is a faithful morphism of fibered categories ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}\to{\mathscr D}$ which identifies ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}$ with the subcategory of ${\mathscr D}$ whose sections over $X$ are weak algebras of the form ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr F})$, where $\pi:{\mathscr X}\to X$ is a ${{\mathbf G}}_{m}$-gerbe, and whose isomorphisms ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf R}}\pi'_{\ast}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}'}({\mathscr F}')$ are naturally a pseudotorsor under ${{\mathscr A}\!ut}({\mathscr F})/{{\mathbf G}}_m$.
The morphism ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}^{s}\to{\mathscr D}$ comes from Lemma \[L:embedding lemma\]. Given ${\mathscr A}$ and ${\mathscr B}$, an isomorphism ${\varphi}:{\mathscr A}\to{\mathscr B}$ induces an isomorphism ${\mathscr X}({\mathscr A}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr X}({\mathscr B})$. Thus, given ${\mathscr X},{\mathscr F},{\mathscr X}',{\mathscr F}'$, an isomorphism ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf R}}\pi'_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}')$ induces an isomorphism ${\varepsilon}:{\mathscr X}\to{\mathscr X}'$ and an isomorphism of generalized Azumaya algebras ${{\mathbf R}}\pi_\ast{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf R}}\pi_\ast{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\varepsilon}^{\ast}{\mathscr F}')$. (In particular, any isomorphism is identified with an isomorphism of the underlying weak algebras.) By Lemma \[L:isoms-check\], once there is an isomorphism the set of isomorphisms is a torsor under ${{\mathscr A}\!ut}({\mathscr F})/{{\mathbf G}}_m$, as claimed. The faithfulness also results from Lemma \[L:isoms-check\].
\[R:rigid-prep\] When ${\mathscr X}={\mathscr X}'$ in Proposition \[P:gen az isom\], the sheaf of isomorphisms is simply identified with the quotient sheaf $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr F}')/{{\mathbf G}}_m$. This will be the case when we study the moduli of generalized Azumaya algebras on a surface, as the (geometric) Brauer class will be constant in families.
Thus, at the end of the complex process of stackification, one is left simply with the derived endomorphism algebras of twisted sheaves, with a subset of the quasi-isomorphisms giving the isomorphisms.
### Identification with rigidifications {#sec:riggaz}
Let ${\mathscr G}_{X}(n)$ be the stack of generalized Azumaya algebras on $X$ of degree $n$.
\[P:G-rig\] The morphism $\rho:{\mathscr T}_{X}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}\to{\mathscr G}_{X}$ sending ${\mathscr F}$ to ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ yields an isomorphism ${\mathscr T}_{X}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{{\mathbf G}}_m{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr G}_{X}$.
It follows from Theorem \[T:the one\] that ${\mathscr G}_{X}$ is the stackification of the prestack given by taking totally supported sheaves and replacing $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})$ with $\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})/{{\mathbf G}}_m$. But this is precisely how ${\mathscr T}_{X}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{{\mathbf G}}_m$ is constructed!
\[L:stupid-lemma\] If ${\mathscr Q}\to{\mathscr Q}'$ is a morphism of prestacks on a site which is fully faithful on fiber categories and an epimorphism (i.e., any object of ${\mathscr Q}'$ is locally in the image of ${\mathscr Q}$) then the induced map of stackifications is an isomorphism.
An object of the stackification is just an object of the prestack with a descent datum. Moreover, refining the descent datum yields a naturally isomorphic object of the stackification. Thus, we see that the map on stackifications $\widetilde{{\mathscr Q}}\to\widetilde{{\mathscr Q}'}$ is fully faithful and an epimorphism. (Indeed, after refining the descent datum on an object of ${\mathscr Q}'$, we can assume the object and descent datum come from ${\mathscr Q}$.) It follows that it must be an isomorphism.
\[P:G-rig-det\] Assume $n$ is invertible on $X$. The morphism $\rho:{\mathscr T}_{X}^{{\mathscr O}}(n)\to{\mathscr G}_{X}(n)$ sending ${\mathscr F}$ to ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ yields an isomorphism ${\mathscr T}_{X}^{{\mathscr O}}{\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr G}_{X}$.
In light of Proposition \[P:G-rig\], it is enough to prove that the natural map ${\varphi}:{\mathscr T}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X}(n)\to{\mathscr T}_{X}(n)$ yields an isomorphism of the appropriate rigidifications. Clearly, ${\varphi}$ is an epimorphism. Moreover, for any ${\mathscr F}$ and ${\mathscr G}$ with trivialized determinants, ${\varphi}$ induces an isomorphism of sheaves $f:\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}_{\det}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})/{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\operatorname{Isom}}({\mathscr F},{\mathscr G})/{{\mathbf G}}_m$. To check this, it is enough to suppose $X={\operatorname{Spec}}A$ is strictly Henselian. Since $n$ is invertible on $X$, any unit of $A$ has an $n$th root, from which it follows that $f$ is surjective. If $\gamma:{\mathscr F}\to{\mathscr G}$ and $\eta:{\mathscr F}\to{\mathscr G}$ are isomorphisms which preserve determinants and differ by multiplication by a scalar $\theta$ on ${\mathscr G}$ then $\theta$ must be an $n$th root of unity, which shows that $f$ is injective.
Forming prestacks by dividing out by the appropriate scalars, we thus find a morphism of prestacks ${\mathscr Q}\to{\mathscr Q}'$ which is fully faithful on fiber categories and is an étale epimorphism. Applying Lemma \[L:stupid-lemma\] completes the proof.
### The relative case
Now we push everything forward (with one important Warning \[W:warning\] below) to define relative stacks of generalized Azumaya algebras.
Let $f:X\to S$ be a morphism. A *relative generalized Azumaya algebra* on $X/S$ is a generalized Azumaya algebra on $X$ whose local sheaves are $S$-flat and totally pure in each geometric fiber. This is equivalent to writing ${\mathscr A}\cong{{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{{\mathbf R}}{{\mathscr E}\!nd}_{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr F})$ with ${\mathscr X}\to X$ a ${{\mathbf G}}_{m}$-gerbe and ${\mathscr F}$ an $S$-flat ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf which is totally pure in every geometric fiber.
\[W:warning\] Even though the absolute theory of generalized Azumaya algebras used totally supported sheaves, in the relative theory we will use totally pure sheaves. While this is not necessary for the abstract results to be true, it gives a better moduli theory when $X/S$ is sufficiently nice (e.g., a smooth projective surface).
As in Definition \[D:gerbe-o-trivs\], one may define the class of such a generalized Azumaya algebra. Let ${\mathscr X}\to X$ be a fixed ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_{n}$-gerbe, with $n\in{\mathscr O}_{S}(S)^{\times}$.
Let ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n)$ denote the stack of generalized Azumaya algebras on $X/S$ of rank $n^{2}$ in every geometric fiber whose class agrees with $[{\mathscr X}]$ étale locally around every point on the base. When we do not wish to specify the cohomology class, we will write ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{X/S}(n)$ for the stack of generalized Azumaya algebras of rank $n^2$ on each fiber.
When $X\to S$ is proper and $n$ is invertible on $S$, the condition that the cohomology class agree with $[{\mathscr X}]$ étale-locally on $S$ is equivalent to the condition that it agree with $[{\mathscr X}]$ in every geometric fiber.
### Identification of ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n)$ with ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$ {#sec:comp}
Let ${\mathscr G}_{X/S}(n)$ be the stack on $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$ parametrizing generalized Azumaya algebras which are locally isomorphic to ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ with ${\mathscr F}$ an object of ${\mathscr P}_{X/S}^{{\text{\rm parf}}}(n)$. An argument identical to Proposition \[P:G-rig\] shows that the natural map ${\mathscr P}_{X/S}^{{\mathscr O}}(n)\to{\mathscr G}_{X/S}(n)$ yields an isomorphism ${\mathscr P}^{{\mathscr O}}_{X/S}(n){\mathbin{\!\!\pmb{\fatslash}}}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr G}_{X/S}(n)$.
On the other hand, it is easy to see that ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{X/S}(n)=f_{\ast}({\mathscr G}_{X/S}(n))$ and ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n)=f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}({\mathscr G}_{X/S}(n))$. We conclude that ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n)\cong{\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$, thus showing that generalized Azumaya algebras give a coherent model for ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$. Moreover, it is easy to see that ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$ is identified with the stack of generalized Azumaya algebras of the form ${\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F})$ with ${\mathscr F}$ an ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf with trivialized determinant and $\deg c_2({\mathscr F})=c/2n$. This condition is equivalent to the condition that $\deg
c_2({\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}))=c$, giving a coherent interpretation of ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$.
For the reader uncomfortable with the stackification procedure (in spite of its concrete outcome), we will show in Section \[S:p=s on surface\] that when $X$ is a surface stackification is in fact unnecessary.
Moduli of stable ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors on surfaces {#S:surfaces}
=============================================================
For the rest of this paper, we assume that $S={\operatorname{Spec}}k$ with $k$ a separably closed field and $X/S$ a smooth projective surface with a fixed ample divisor $H$.
Stability of torsors {#S:stability}
--------------------
We first recall a basic definition.
Given a torsion free sheaf ${\mathscr F}$, the *slope* of ${\mathscr F}$ is $\deg{\mathscr F}/\operatorname{\operatorname{rk}}{\mathscr F}$.
To define stability for ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors, we use the adjoint sheaf. As described in Section \[S:azumaya\], this adjoint sheaf naturally comes with an algebra structure, which we will use in our definition.
\[D:stab\] An Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ on $X$ is *stable* if for all non-zero right ideals ${\mathscr I}\subset{\mathscr A}$ of rank strictly smaller than $\operatorname{\operatorname{rk}}{\mathscr A}$ we have $\mu({\mathscr I})<0$.
It is equivalent to quantify over left ideals. Thus, one could state the definition by omitting the word “right” and quantifying over arbitrary ideals, understood as right or left ideals. It is of course not sufficient to quantify over two-sided ideals.
This definition is meant to apply only to the classical notion of slope-stability, and not to the more refined notion due to Gieseker. While such notions of stability using normalized Hilbert polynomials are essential for the development of moduli theory using Geometric Invariant Theory (GIT), they are somewhat artificial in the sense that they no longer correspond to the existence of a Hermite-Einstein connection. (However, recent work of Wang [@wang1; @wang2] has clarified the analytic meaning of Gieseker-stability in terms of the existence of certain weak Hermite-Einstein connections.)
One way to understand the compactifications of the stack of slope-stable bundles – using slope-semistability or Gieseker-semistability, GIT-bound or purely stacky, etc. – is that each really only serves to impose the kind of inductive strucure on the moduli problem necessary to prove theorems about the actual part of interest: the open sublocus of slope-stable bundles. Working in a GIT-free manner (which is necessary in the context of twisted sheaves) frees us to ignore the subtleties (both algebraic and analytic) of Gieseker-stability. This is pursued in [@more-moduli], where the asymptotic properties of moduli are proved entirely without GIT.
To relate Definition \[D:stab\] to the cover of $f_\ast(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)$ by the stack of twisted sheaves, we recall some rudiments from the theory of Chern classes for twisted sheaves. A different development of the theory of Chern classes for twisted sheaves and the relationship to the theory described here is given in [@heinloth].
Given a coherent ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$, we can use the rational Chow theory of ${\mathscr X}$ to define Chern classes $c_i({\mathscr F})$, $i=1,2$. (The first Chern class $c_1({\mathscr F})$ is just the class in Chow theory associated to the invertible sheaf $\det{\mathscr F}$.) There is also a degree map from $d:A_0({\mathscr X})\to{{\mathbf Q}}$; this has the property that the $0$-cycle supported over a closed point of $X$ has degree $1/n$. We define a normalized degree function by $\deg=nd$. Using this degree, we have the following definition.
A torsion free ${\mathscr X}$ twisted sheaf ${\mathscr V}$ is *stable* if for every subsheaf ${\mathscr W}\subset{\mathscr V}$ we have $$\mu({\mathscr W})<\mu({\mathscr V}).$$
As a special case of 2.2.7.22 of [@twisted-moduli], it follows that if ${\mathscr F}$ is a flat family of coherent ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves parametrized by $T$ with trivialized determinant, then the function $t\mapsto\deg c_2({\mathscr F}_t)$ is locally constant on $T$. Moreover, by Proposition 4.3.1.2 of [@more-moduli], we have that stability is an open condition in a flat family of torsionfree ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaves.
Let ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c)\subset{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ denote the open and closed substack parametrizing families such that $\deg
c_2({\mathscr F}_t)=c$ in each geometric fiber. Let ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c)\subset{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c)$ denote the open substack whose objects over $T$ are families ${\mathscr F}$ such that the fiber ${\mathscr F}_t$ is stable for each geometric point $t\to T$.
A locally free ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr V}$ is stable if and only if the Azumaya algebra $\pi_\ast{{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr V})$ is stable.
Given a subsheaf ${\mathscr W}\subset{\mathscr V}$, a straightforward computation shows that $\mu({{\mathscr H}\!om}({\mathscr V},{\mathscr W}))=\mu({\mathscr W})-\mu({\mathscr V})$. On the other hand, any right ideal of ${\mathscr A}$ has the form ${{\mathscr H}\!om}({\mathscr V},{\mathscr W})$ for a subsheaf ${\mathscr W}\subset{\mathscr V}$. The result follows.
Suppose $B\to S$ is a $k$-scheme and $T\to X_B$ is a ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor. Let ${\mathscr A}$ be the locally free sheaf (of rank $n^2$) associated to the adjoint torsor (which is a ${\operatorname{GL}}_{n^2}$-torsor). Using the Riemann-Roch theorem, the invariance of Euler characteristic in a flat family, and the fact that $\det{\mathscr A}\cong{\mathscr O}$, we see that the function $b\mapsto\deg c_2({\mathscr A}_b)$ is locally constant on $B$. This provides a numerical invariant of a ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor which is constant in a family. Given a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$ and an integer $c$, let $(f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)(c)$ be the substack of $f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n$ parametrizing families where the locally free sheaf associated to the adjoint bundle has $\deg c_2=c$ in every fiber.
Thus, there is a decomposition $$f_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n=\sqcup_{{\mathscr X}}\sqcup_c(f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)(c),$$ where the first disjoint union is taken over a set of ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe representatives for ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ and the second is taken over ${{\mathbf Z}}$. Similarly, there is a decomposition $$f_\ast(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)^s=\sqcup_{{\mathscr X}}\sqcup_c(f^{{\mathscr X}}_\ast(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)^s$$ of stable loci.
\[sec:stability-torsors\] Given an integer $c$, the closed and open substack ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ is equal to the preimage of its image in ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$. Similarly, ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ is equal to the preimage of its image in ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$.
Given a point $p$ of ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$ which lifts into $[{\mathscr F}]\in{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$, it is easy to see that the full preimage of $p$ in ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O})$ is given by the twists ${\mathscr F}\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr L}$ with ${\mathscr L}\in{{\mathscr P}ic}_{X/S}[n]$. But these have the same (rational) Chern classes as ${\mathscr F}$, as ${\mathscr L}$ is trivial, so they also lie in ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$. The second statement follows from the fact that ${\mathscr F}$ is stable if and only if ${\mathscr F}\operatorname*{\otimes}{\mathscr L}$ is stable for an invertible sheaf ${\mathscr L}$.
There is an open substack $f_\ast(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)^s\subset f_\ast(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)$ parametrizing families $P\to X_T$ of ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsors such that for all geometric points $t\to T$ the fiber $P_t\to X_t$ is a stable ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor.
This follows from Lemma \[sec:stability-torsors\] and the fact that ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})^{{\textrm{lf}}}\to f_{\ast}(\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)$ is universally submersive.
Since ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ is open (and closed) in ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O})$, it follows that there is a well-defined open (and closed) substack ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$ whose preimage is ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$. There is an open substack ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$ whose preimage is ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$. We have that each ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$ is quasi-proper and that there is an open immersion $f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n(c){\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$ and an open immersion $f^{{\mathscr X}}_\ast\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n(c)^s{\hookrightarrow}{\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$. Moreover, each ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)$ is covered by ${\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ in such a way that the fibers are locally ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbes over $\operatorname{Pic}_{X/S}[n]$-torsors, and similarly for the open substacks parametrizing stable objects. This covering restricts to a covering of $(f^{{\mathscr X}}_{\ast}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)(c)^s$ by ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)^{{\textrm{lf}}}$.
In particular, we have that ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$ is irreducible, separated, …(resp. has any local property stable for the étale topology) if (resp. if and only if) the same is true for ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$. Moreover, there is a virtual fundamental class for ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$ if and only if there is one for ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$.
Let ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n)^s$ denote the open substack parametrizing stable generalized Azumaya algebras via the isomorphism ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/S}(n){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}({\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n)^s$ of Section \[sec:comp\].
Structure of moduli of twisted sheaves
--------------------------------------
The following results show that infinitely many of the spaces ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ are non-empty. It is a geometric restatement of the fundamental result of de Jong [@dejong-per-ind] on the period-index problem for Brauer classes over functionf ields of algebraic surfaces.
\[L:dejong\] There is a stable locally free ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf of rank $n$.
A proof of this result may be found in Theorem 4.2.2.3 of [@period-index-paper] and Proposition 5.1.2 of [@more-moduli].
\[L:induct\] Suppose ${\mathscr F}$ is a coherent ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf of rank $n$ with $\deg c_2({\mathscr F})=\gamma$ and $\det{\mathscr F}\cong{\mathscr O}$. For each integer $\ell\geq 0$, there is a (noncanonical) subsheaf ${\mathscr F}_{\ell}\subset{\mathscr F}$ such that $\dim{\mathscr F}/{\mathscr F}_{\ell}=0$, $\det{\mathscr F}_{\ell}\cong{\mathscr O}$, and $\deg c_2({\mathscr F}_{\ell})=\gamma+\ell$. If ${\mathscr F}$ is stable then so is ${\mathscr F}_\ell$.
By induction, it suffices to construct ${\mathscr F}_1$. Choose a point $x\in X(k)$ around which ${\mathscr F}$ is locally free and let ${\mathscr F}\operatorname*{\otimes}\kappa(x){\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathscr Q}$ be a quotient with geometric fiber of dimension $1$. (In other words, given an algebraically closed extension field $L/\kappa(x)$ and a map ${\operatorname{Spec}}L\to{\mathscr X}\operatorname*{\otimes}\kappa(x)$, the pullback of ${\mathscr Q}$ to ${\operatorname{Spec}}L$ is the sheaf associated to a one-dimensional vector space.) We claim that $\deg(c_2({\mathscr Q}))=-1$, from which the result follows by the multiplicativity of the total Chern polynomial. A proof of the claim uses the Grothendieck-Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem for representable morphisms of Deligne-Mumford stacks and can be found in the proof of Lemma 3.2.4.8 of [@twisted-moduli] (where there is an unfortunate sign error in the statement, even though the proof is correct!).
To deduce stability of ${\mathscr F}_1$ from stability of ${\mathscr F}$, first note that the two sheaves agree in codimension $1$. Since stability depends on a calculation of degree and this calculation depends only on a sheaf in codimension $1$, we see that we need only quantify over saturated subsheaves (see Definition 1.1.5 of [@h-l]), which are determined by their values in codimension $1$. Thus, the criterion determining stability of ${\mathscr F}$ and ${\mathscr F}_1$ quantifies over the same set of subsheaves with the same numerical calculations.
\[C:non-empty\] If ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ is non-empty then so is ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma+\ell)$ for all integers $\ell\geq 0$.
The fundamental structure theorem concerning these moduli spaces is the following.
\[T:asymp\] There exists a constant $C$ such that for all $\gamma\geq C$,
1. the open substack ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)^{{\textrm{lf}}}\subset{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ is schematically dense;
2. ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ is an irreducible proper normal lci tame Deligne-Mumford stack over $k$ whenever it is non-empty;
3. it is non-empty for infinitely many $\gamma$.
The third statement follows immediately from Corollary \[C:non-empty\]. For the proof of the first and second, the reader is referred to paragraph 3.2.4.1 (and especially Theorem 3.2.4.11) of [@twisted-moduli].
\[coarse\] Since every object of ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ is geometrically stable, it is simple (see, e.g., Corollary 1.2.8 and Theorem 1.6.6 of [@h-l]), i.e., its automorphisms are simply given by multiplication by scalars (in ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$, since the determinant is trivialized). It follows that ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$ is a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe over its coarse moduli space $\operatorname{Tw}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},\gamma)$.
Consequences for ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n$ and $f^{{\mathscr X}}_\ast\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n$ {#S:conseq}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[T:main\] There is a constant $D$ such that for all $c\geq D$,
1. the open substack $f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n(c)^s$ is schematically dense in ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$;
2. ${\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s$ is an irreducible proper normal lci tame Deligne-Mumford stack over $k$ whenever it is non-empty;
3. it is non-empty for infinitely many $c$.
In particular, the open substack $(f_{\ast}^{{\mathscr X}}\operatorname{\operatorname{\mathsf B\!}}{\operatorname{PGL}}_n)(c)^s$ is irreducible (and non-empty for infinitely many $c$).
The proof follows immediately by combining the covering described at the end of Section \[sec:compac-by-rig\] with Lemma \[L:dejong\], Lemma \[L:induct\], and Theorem \[T:asymp\].
Recall that “lciq singularities” are by definition finite quotients of lci singularities.
\[C:lciq\] For sufficiently large $c$, the coarse moduli space $({\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s)^{\text{\rm mod}}$ is an irreducible proper normal algebraic space with lciq singularities.
Lemma \[L:pushforwardcovering\] gives rise to a finite morphism $\operatorname{Tw}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)\to({\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s)^{\textrm{mod}}$ from the coarse space of Paragraph \[coarse\] which is invariant for the natural action of $\operatorname{Pic}_{X/k}[n]$ on $\operatorname{Tw}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ and such that the natural map $\chi:\operatorname{Tw}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)/\operatorname{Pic}_{X/k}[n]\to({\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s)^{\textrm{mod}}$ is birational. Since the coarse space of a normal tame Deligne-Mumford stack is normal, it follows from Zariski’s Main Theorem that $\chi$ is an isomorphism. Since ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O},c/2n)$ is lci, it follows that $({\mathscr M}^{{\mathscr X}}_n(c)^s)^{\textrm{mod}}$ is lciq.
Stackification is unnecessary on a surface {#S:p=s
on surface}
------------------------------------------
Let $f:X\to S$ be a smooth projective relative surface. We will prove here that pre-generalized Azumaya algebras on $X$ as in Section \[S:gen azumaya construction\] form a stack on $S$.
Given a pre-generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ on $X$, Lemma \[L:embedding lemma\] produces a ${{\mathbf G}}_{m}$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}$, an ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$, and an isomorphism of *generalized* Azumaya algebras ${\mathscr B}:={{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr A}$. We will show that in fact ${\mathscr B}$ and ${\mathscr A}$ are isomorphic as *pre-generalized Azumaya algebras*. We will temporarily call ${\mathscr B}$ the *associated twisted derived endomorphism algebra* (or TDEA for short).
\[P:genaz is TDEA\] Suppose $f:X\to S$ is a smooth (possibly non-proper) relative surface over an affine scheme. Any pre-generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ is isomorphic to the associated TDEA in ${{\mathscr P}{\mathscr R}}$. Furthermore, the isomorphisms of two such weak algebras form a sheaf on $S$.
By standard arguments (e.g. Theorem 3.2.4 of [@BBD] or Theorem 2.1.9 of [@abramovich-polishchuk]), it suffices to prove that $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr A},{\mathscr A})=0$ for all $i>0$ (as long as we allow $f:X\to S$ to be arbirary with the stated hypotheses). From the definition of pre-generalized Azumaya algebra, we know that ${\mathscr A}$ has cohomology only in degrees $0$ and $1$, that ${\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A})$ has totally pure fibers over $S$, and that ${\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A})$ has support with relative dimension $0$. The natural triangle $${\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A})\to{\mathscr A}\to{\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A})[-1]{\xrightarrow}{+}$$ gives rise to an exact sequence $$\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr A}[1])\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr A},{\mathscr A})\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr A}).$$ The left-hand group fits into an exact sequence $$\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}))\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr A}[1])\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A}))$$ and the right-hand group fits into an exact sequence $$\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}))\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i}({\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr A})\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^{-i-1}({\mathscr H}^0({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr H}^1({\mathscr A})).$$ (This is simply an explicit description of a certain spectral sequence, which is especially simple because ${\mathscr A}$ has so few cohomology sheaves.) We wish to show that the ends of the last two sequences vanish, for which it is enough to show (using the local-to-global $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}$-spectral sequence) that the $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}$-sheaves ${{\mathscr E}\!xt}^{\ast}({\mathscr H}^{\ast}({\mathscr A}),{\mathscr H}^{\ast}({\mathscr A}))$ vanish for appropriate indices. But there are no negative $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}$-groups for modules over a ring. This completes the proof.
When $X/S$ is quasi-projective, one can also give an explicit proof of Proposition \[P:genaz is TDEA\] (which does not rely on [@BBD]) using resolutions by sums of powers of ${\mathscr O}(1)$.
Deformation theory and the virtual fundamental class {#S:dtvfc}
----------------------------------------------------
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field and $X/k$ a smooth projective surface over $k$. Fix a ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n$-gerbe ${\mathscr X}\to X$ with $n$ invertible in $k$.
### Perfect obstruction theory for twisted sheaves {#sec:perf-obstr-theory}
Let ${\mathscr F}$ be the universal ${\mathscr X}$-twisted sheaf on ${\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$. Write $p$ (resp. $q$) for the projection of ${\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ to ${\mathscr X}$ (resp.${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$). Recall that there is a natural isomorphism $${L}_{{\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}\cong{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathscr X}}\oplus{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})},$$ and that there is an isomorphism of functors (coming from Grothendieck duality for $q$) $${{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}\cong{{\mathbf L}}q^{!}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X^{\vee}[-2].$$ The Atiyah class $${\mathscr F}\to{L}_{{\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F}[1]$$ yields by projection a map $${\mathscr F}\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[1]\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F}.$$ Since ${\mathscr F}$ is perfect, this is equivalent (by the cher à Cartan isomorphism) to a map $${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[1],$$ yielding a map $${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{!}{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[-1]\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X^{\vee}.$$ Applying Grothendieck duality yields a morphism $${\mathfrak b}:{{\mathbf R}}q_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F},{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F})\to{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[-1]$$ and restriction to the traceless part finally yields a morphism $${\mathfrak b}_0:{{\mathbf R}}q_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F},{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F})_0\to{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[-1]$$
\[P:perf-obs-tw-sh\] The shifted map ${\mathfrak b}_0[1]$ gives a perfect obstruction theory for ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$.
There are three things to check: that the complex ${{\mathbf R}}q_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F},{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F})_0$ is perfect of amplitude $[0,1]$, that ${\mathfrak b}_0$ induces an isomorphism on ${\operatorname{H}}^1$ sheaves, and that ${\mathfrak b}_0$ induces a surjection on ${\operatorname{H}}^{0}$ sheaves. The first assertion follows from the compatibility of the formation of the complex with base change on ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ (which shows that it is perfect, as its fibers are bounded complexes on regular schemes) and the fact that the fibers of ${{\mathbf R}}^2
q_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F},{{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}\omega_X\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F})_0$ over geometric points of ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ compute (by Serre duality) the traceless endomorphisms of stable sheaves, which must be trivial (so that the amplitude is as claimed). The other two assertions will follow from Illusie’s theory. We already know (thanks to Illusie) that deformations and obstructions are governed by Atiyah classes; we will describe how this allows us to show that ${\mathfrak b}_0$ gives a perfect obstruction theory.
Since both the domain and codomain of ${\mathfrak b}_0$ have no cohomology above degree $1$, to show that ${\mathfrak b}_0$ induces an isomorphism on ${\operatorname{H}}^1$ sheaves, it suffices to show this after base change to geometric points of ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$. Given a geometric point $x\to{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ corresponding to a twisted sheaf on ${\mathscr X}\operatorname*{\otimes}\kappa(x)$, we know that ${\operatorname{Hom}}({L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})},\kappa(x))$ is naturally identified with the space $T$ of first order determinant-preserving deformations of $F$ over $\kappa(x)[{\varepsilon}]$. Moreover, by the functoriality of our construction with respect to base change on ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$, the map ${\mathfrak b}_0$ is the Serre dual of the Kodaira-Spencer map $T\to\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(F,F)_0$ (see e.g. Example 10.1.9 of [@h-l]). This is well-known to give an isomorphism (e.g., Section 10.2 of [@h-l]).
To show that ${\operatorname{H}}^0({\mathfrak b}_0)$ is surjective, we may proceed as follows. Recall (IV.3.1.8 of [@illusie]) that if $A\to A_0$ is a small extension of $B$-algebras with kernel $I$ in a topos and $M$ is an $A_0$-module, then one can find the obstruction to deforming $M$ to an $A$-module as the composition $$M\to{L}_{A_0/B}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}M[1]\to I\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}M[2]\to I\operatorname*{\otimes}M[2],$$ where the first map is the Atiyah class of $M$ with respect to $A_0/B$, the second map comes from the morphism ${L}_{A_0/B}\to I$ parametrizing the class of the extension $A\to A_0$, and the third map is the natural augmentation onto the $0$th cohomology module. To apply this to our case, consider a situation $${\operatorname{Spec}}B\leftarrow {\operatorname{Spec}}B_0\to{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$$ with $B\to B_0$ a small extension of strictly Henselian local rings and kernel annihilated by the maximal ideal of $B$. We let $A$ be the structure sheaf of ${\mathscr X}\times{\operatorname{Spec}}B$ and $A_0$ that of ${\mathscr X}\times{\operatorname{Spec}}B_0={\mathscr X}\times{\operatorname{Spec}}B\times_{{\operatorname{Spec}}B}{\operatorname{Spec}}B_0$. Thus, we have that $${L}_{A_0/B}={{\mathbf L}}p^{\ast}{L}_{{\mathscr X}}\oplus{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{B_0/B}.$$ Moreover, it is clear that the morphism ${L}_{A_0/B}\to {\mathscr O}_{{\mathscr X}}\operatorname*{\otimes}I[1]$ parametrizing the extension $A\to A_0$ is given by the map $${L}_{A_0/B}\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{B_0/B}\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}I[1].$$ By functoriality, composing the Atiyah class with the natural map $${L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}|_{B_0}\to {L}_{B_0/B}$$ gives rise to the map $${\mathscr F}\to{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}{L}_{B_0/B}\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F}[1]$$ associated to the projection of the Atiyah class. Thus, we find that the obstruction to deforming ${\mathscr F}$ over $B$ is the element corresponding by Serre duality to the composition $${{\mathbf R}}q_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{{\mathscr H}\!om}}({\mathscr F},{{\mathbf L}}q^{\ast}\omega\operatorname*{\stackrel{{\mathbf L}}{\otimes}}{\mathscr F})|_{B_0}\to{L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}[-1]|_{B_0}\to{L}_{B_0/B}[-1]\to\kappa.$$ On the other hand, the last two arrows give precisely the obstruction to extending the map ${\operatorname{Spec}}B_0\to{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$ to a map ${\operatorname{Spec}}B\to{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$. Thus, the entire composition is trivial if and only if the composition of the last two maps is trivial. Since any map ${L}_{{\mathbf{Tw}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})}\to\kappa[1]$ factors through some deformation situation $B\to B_0$, this shows that ${\operatorname{H}}^0({\mathfrak b})$ is surjective. Using the fact that $n$ is invertible in $k$, and thus the existence of a splitting trace map, it is easy to see that the canonical obstruction given here actually lies in the traceless part of $\operatorname{\operatorname{Ext}}^2({\mathscr F},{\mathscr F})$; this shows that in fact ${\operatorname{H}}^0({\mathfrak b}_0)$ is surjective, as desired.
The deformation theory described here has a concrete form: given a generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ on $X$, the first-order infinitesimal deformations form a pseudo-torsor under the hypercohomology ${\operatorname{\bf H}}^1(X,{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})_0)$, while there is naturally a class in ${\operatorname{\bf H}}^2(X,{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})_0)$ giving the obstruction to deforming ${\mathscr F}$. When ${\mathscr F}$ is locally free, so that ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})\cong A$ is an Azumaya algebra, we recover the well-known fact that ${\operatorname{H}}^1(X,A_0)$ parametrizes deformations of $A$, while ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,A_0)$ receives obstructions. If $A\cong{{\mathscr H}\!om}({\mathscr V})$ is the sheaf of endomorphisms of a locally free sheaf on $X$ with trivial(ized) determinant, our general machine simply says that the deformation and obstruction theory of the algebra $A$ is the same as the deformation and obstruction theory of ${\mathscr V}$ as a locally free sheaf with trivialized determinant. (This similarly describes the deformation theory of a twisted sheaf with trivialized determinant.)
### The virtual fundamental class of ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ {#sec:virt-fund-class}
By its construction, ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ is a subfibered category of the fibered category of weak algebras on $X_{{\operatorname{r\acute{e}t}}}$. As such, there is a universal generalized Azumaya algebra ${\mathscr A}$ on $X\times{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ whose fibers over the moduli space have cohomology class $[{\mathscr X}]$. If $\pi:{\mathscr Y}\to X\times{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ is the gerbe of trivialized trivializations of ${\mathscr A}$, then we have that ${\mathscr A}\cong{{\mathbf R}}\pi_{\ast}{\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})$ for some ${\mathscr Y}$-twisted sheaf ${\mathscr F}$. Moreover, the covering ${\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})\to{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ gives rise to an isomorphism $$\rho:{\mathscr Y}\times_{X\times{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s}X\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}$$ and an isomorphism ${\mathscr G}\to\rho^{\ast}{\mathscr F}$, where ${\mathscr G}$ is the universal twisted sheaf on ${\mathscr X}\times{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})$. There results a natural isomorphism of weak algebras ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F}){\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf L}}\rho^{\ast}{\mathscr A}$.
Letting ${\mathscr A}_0\subset{\mathscr A}$ be the traceless part, there is an induced isomorphism ${\mathbf{R}{\mathscr E}\!nd}({\mathscr F})_0{\stackrel{\sim}{\to}}{{\mathbf L}}\rho^{\ast}{\mathscr A}_0$. Applying Proposition \[P:virt-fund\] and Proposition \[P:perf-obs-tw-sh\], we conclude that there is a perfect obstruction theory ${\mathscr A}_0\to{L}_{{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s}$, giving rise to a virtual fundamental class on ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$.
A potential application: numerical invariants of division algebras over function fields {#sec:potent-appl-new}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose that the cohomology class $\alpha$ of ${\mathscr X}$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$ has order $n$. If ${\mathscr A}$ is an Azumaya algebra of degree $n$ with cohomology class $\alpha$, then the generic fiber of ${\mathscr A}$ must be a finite dimensional central division algebra $D$ over the function field $k(X)$. In this case, we have an especially nice description of the stable locus.
When $[{\mathscr X}]$ has order $n$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2(X,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$, any ${\operatorname{PGL}}_n$-torsor $T$ with class $\alpha$ is stable.
Indeed, if ${\mathscr A}$ is the Azumaya algebra associated to $T$ then any non-zero right ideal must have rank $n^2$, since the generic fiber of ${\mathscr A}$ is a division algebra.
Thus, ${\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s$ is a proper Deligne-Mumford stack which carries a virtual fundamental class, as described in Section \[sec:virt-fund-class\]. The following question was asked by de Jong.
Does the virtual class $[{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s]^{\textrm{vir}}$ lead to any new numerical invariants attached to $D$?
Via Proposition \[P:virt-fund\](ff), any invariants coming from $[{\mathbf{GAz}}_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n)^s]^{\textrm{vir}}$ will be closely related to similar numbers attached to $[{\mathbf{Tw}}^s_{{\mathscr X}/k}(n,{\mathscr O})^s]^{\textrm{vir}}$. One might expect the latter invariants to be related to Donaldson invariants.
One interesting direct comparison might arise as follows: suppose given a family of surfaces ${\mathcal X}\to S$ and a class $\alpha\in{\operatorname{H}}^2({\mathcal X},{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_n)$ with $n$ invertible on the base, such that there are two geometric points $0,1\to S$ such that $\alpha|_{{\mathcal X}_0}$ has order $n$ in ${\operatorname{H}}^2({\mathcal X}_0,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$ and $\alpha|_{{\mathcal X}_1}$ vanishes in ${\operatorname{H}}^2({\mathcal X}_1,{{\mathbf G}}_m)$. (This happens whenever there is jumping in the rank of the Néron-Severi group in the family.) Assuming one could prove deformation invariance of whatever invariants one eventually defines, one would then be able to give a direct comparision between the division-algebra invariants attached to ${\mathcal X}_0$ and the classical invariants attached to ${\mathcal X}_1$.
[10]{}
. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971. Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois Marie 1960–1961 (SGA 1), Dirigé par Alexandre Grothendieck. Augmenté de deux exposés de M. Raynaud, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 224.
Dan Abramovich, Alessio Corti, and Angelo Vistoli. Twisted bundles and admissible covers. , 31(8):3547–3618, 2003. Special issue in honor of Steven L. Kleiman.
Dan Abramovich and Alexander Polishchuk. Sheaves of [$t$]{}-structures and valuative criteria for stable complexes. , 590:89–130, 2006.
Michael Artin. Versal deformations and algebraic stacks. , 27:165–189, 1974.
Michael Artin. . Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Que., 1973. En collaboration avec Alexandru Lascu et Jean-François Boutot, Séminaire de Mathématiques Supérieures, No. 44 (Été, 1970).
Alexander Be[ĭ]{}linson, Joseph Bernstein, and Pierre Deligne. Faisceaux pervers. In [*Analysis and topology on singular spaces, I (Luminy, 1981)*]{}, volume 100 of [*Astérisque*]{}, pages 5–171. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1982.
Andrei Căldăraru. Nonfine moduli spaces of sheaves on $K3$ surfaces. 2002, no. 20, 1027–1056.
Andrei Căldăraru. Derived categories of twisted sheaves on elliptic threefolds. 544 (2002), 161–179.
Aise Johan de Jong. The period-index problem for the [B]{}rauer group of an algebraic surface. , 123(1):71–94, 2004.
Jean Giraud. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 179.
Tom[á]{}s G[ó]{}mez and Ignacio Sols. Moduli space of principal sheaves over projective varieties. , 161(2):1037–1092, 2005.
Alexander Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. [III]{}. Étude cohomologique des faisceaux cohérents. [I]{}. , (11):167, 1961.
Robin Hartshorne. . Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A. Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64. With an appendix by P. Deligne. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 20. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966.
Jochen Heinloth. Twisted Chern classes and $\Bbb G\sb m$-gerbes. 341(10):623–626, 2005.
Norbert Hoffmann and Ulrich Stuhler. Moduli schemes of generically simple Azumaya modules. (10):369–389, 2005.
Daniel Huybrechts and Manfred Lehn. . Aspects of Mathematics, E31. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1997.
Donghoon Hyeon. Principal bundles over a projective scheme. , 354(5):1899–1908 (electronic), 2002.
Luc Illusie. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 239.
Finn Faye Knudsen and David Mumford. The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves. [I]{}. [P]{}reliminaries on “det” and “[D]{}iv”. , 39(1):19–55, 1976.
Sándor Kovács and Max Lieblich. Boundedness of families of canonically polarized manifolds: A higher dimensional analogue of shafarevich’s conjecture, 2006.
Adrian Langer. . , 128, no. 3:511–540, 2005.
G[é]{}rard Laumon and Laurent Moret-Bailly. , volume 39 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
Max Lieblich. Moduli of complexes on a proper morphism. , 15(1):175–206, 2006.
Max Lieblich. Moduli of twisted orbifold sheaves. Submitted for publication.
Max Lieblich. Moduli of twisted sheaves. , 138(1):23–118, 2007.
Max Lieblich. Remarks on the stack of coherent algebras. , Vol. 2006, Art. ID 75273, 2006.
Max Lieblich. Twisted sheaves and the period-index problem. To appear.
Hideyuki Matsumura. , volume 8 of [*Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1989. Translated from the Japanese by M. Reid.
Matthieu Romagny. Group actions on stacks and applications. , 53(1):209–236, 2005.
Alexander H. W. Schmitt. Singular principal bundles over higher-dimensional manifolds and their moduli spaces. , (23):1183–1209, 2002.
Alexander H. W. Schmitt. A closer look at semistability for singular principal bundles. , (62):3327–3366, 2004.
Carlos Simpson. Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety. I. , (79):47–129, 1994.
Clifford Henry Taubes. The stable topology of self-dual moduli spaces. , 29(1):163–230, 1989.
Xiaowei Wang. Balance point and stability of vector bundles over a projective manifold. 9(2-3):393-411, 2002.
Xiaowei Wang. Canonical metrics on stable vector bundles. 13(2):253–285, 2005.
Kōta Yoshioka. Moduli spaces of twisted sheaves on a projective variety. , 1–30, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 45, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Finite Differences of the Logarithm of**
the Partition Function
William Y.C. Chen$^{1}$, Larry X.W. Wang$^{2}$ and Gary Y.B. Xie$^{3}$\
Center for Combinatorics, LPMC-TJKLC\
Nankai University\
Tianjin 300071, P. R. China\
Email: $^{1}$[[email protected]]{}, $^{2}$[[email protected], $^{3}[email protected]]{}
[**Abstract.**]{} Let $p(n)$ denote the partition function. DeSalvo and Pak proved that $\frac{p(n-1)}{p(n)}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)> \frac{p(n)}{p(n+1)}$ for $n\geq 2$, as conjectured by Chen. Moreover, they conjectured that a sharper inequality $\frac{p(n-1)}{p(n)}\left( 1+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{24}n^{3/2}}\right) > \frac{p(n)}{p(n+1)}$ holds for $n\geq 45$. In this paper, we prove the conjecture of Desalvo and Pak by giving an upper bound for $-\Delta^{2} \log p(n-1)$, where $\Delta$ is the difference operator with respect to $n$. We also show that for given $r\geq 1$ and sufficiently large $n$, $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log p(n)>0$. This is analogous to the positivity of finite differences of the partition function. It was conjectured by Good and proved by Gupta that for given $r\geq 1$, $\Delta^{r} p(n)>0$ for sufficiently large $n$.
[**Keywords:**]{} partition function, log-concavity, finite difference, the Lambert $W$ function, the Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher formula
[**AMS Classification:**]{} 05A20, 11B68
Introduction
============
A partition of positive integer $n$ is a nonincreasing sequence of positive integers $\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{r}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{r} \lambda_{i}=n$. Let $p(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$. In particular, we set $p(0)=1$. The Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher formula for $p(n)$ states that $$\begin{split}
p(n)=&\frac{\sqrt{12}}{24n-1}\sum^{N}_{k=1}A_{k}(n)\sqrt{k}
\left[\left(1-\frac{k}{\mu(n)}\right)e^{\mu(n)/k}
+\left(1+\frac{k}{\mu(n)}\right)e^{-\mu(n)/k}\right]\\
&\quad +R_{2}(n,N),
\end{split}$$ where $A_{k}(n)$ is an arithmetic function, $R_{2}(n,N)$ is the remainder term and $$\label{mumuref1}
\mu(n)=\frac{\pi}{6}\sqrt{24n-1},$$ see, for example, Hardy and Ramanujan [@hrsf], Rademacher [@rade]. Note that $A_{1}(n)=1$ and $A_{2}(n)=(-1)^{n}$ for $n\geq 1$. Lehmer [@lehmm; @lehm] gave the following error bound $$|R_{2}(n,N)|<\frac{\pi^{2}N^{-2/3}}{\sqrt{3}}\left[\left(\frac{N}{\mu(n)}\right)^{3}
\sinh \frac{\mu(n)}{N}+\frac{1}{6}-\left(\frac{N}{\mu(n)}\right)^{2}\right],$$ which is valid for all positive integers $n$ and $N$.
Employing Rademacher’s convergent series and Lehmer’s error bound, DeSalvo and Pak [@desp] proved the following inequality conjectured by Chen [@chen3].
For $n\geq 2$, we have $$\frac{p(n-1)}{p(n)}\left( 1+\frac{1}{n}\right)> \frac{p(n)}{p(n+1)}.$$
The above relation has been improved by DeSalvo and Pak [@desp].
For $n \geq 7$, we have $$\label{dpconj1}
\frac{p(n-1)}{p(n)}\left( 1+\frac{240}{(24n)^{3/2}}\right)> \frac{p(n)}{p(n+1)}.$$
They also proposed the following conjecture.
\[dp\] For $n\geq 45$, we have $$\label{dpc1}
\frac{p(n-1)}{p(n)}\left( 1+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{24}n^{3/2}}\right)> \frac{p(n)}{p(n+1)}.$$
It should be mentioned that by using Lehmer’s error bound for the remainder term of $p(n)$, Bessenrodt and Ono [@bo] proved the following inequality.
For any integers $a,b$ satisfying $a,b>1$ and $a+b>9$, we have $$p(a)p(b)>p(a+b).$$
In this paper, we shall prove Conjecture \[dp\] by giving an upper bound for $-\Delta^2 \log p(n-1)$ for $n\geq 5000$. Moreover, for any given $r$, we give an upper bound for $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r} \log p(n)$.
In 1977, Good [@goodp] conjectured that $\Delta^{r}p(n)$ alternates in sign up to a certain value $n=n(r)$, and then it stays positive. Using the Hardy-Rademacher series [@rade1] for $p(n)$, Gupta [@gupta] proved that for any given $r$, $\Delta^{r} p(n)>0$ for sufficiently large $n$. In 1988, Odlyzko [@amo] proved the conjecture of Good and obtained the following asymptotic formula for $n(r)$: $$n(r)\sim \frac{6}{\pi^{2}}r^{2}\log^{2} r \quad \textrm{as}~ r \rightarrow \infty.$$ Knessl and Keller [@kka1; @kka] obtained an approximation $n(r)'$ for $n(r)$ for which $|n(r)'-n(r)|\leq 2$ up to $r=75$. Almkvist [@gadp1; @gadp] proved that $n(r)$ satisfies certain equations.
By using the bounds of the modified Bessel function of the first kind, we shall prove that for any given $r\geq 1$, there exists a positive integer $n(r)$ such that $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r} \log p(n)>0$ for $n\geq n(r)$.
Proof of Conjecture \[dp\]
==========================
In this section, we give a proof of Conjecture \[dp\] by using an inequality of DeSalvo and Pak [@desp]. Let $$p_{2}(n)=2\log p(n)-\log p(n-1)-\log p(n+1),$$ DeSalvo and Pak have shown that for $n \geq 50$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p22}
p_{2}(n) \!&<&\! \frac{24\pi}{(24(n-1)-1)^{3/2}}+\frac{288\pi(-3+\pi \sqrt{24(n-1)-1})}{(24(n-1)-1)^{3/2}(-6+\pi \sqrt{24(n-1)-1})^{2}} \nonumber\\
& & \quad -\frac{864}{(24(n+1)-1)^{2}}+2e^{-\frac{\pi}{10}\sqrt{\frac{2n}{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall give an estimate of the right hand side of (\[p22\]), leading to a proof of the conjecture.
[*Proof of Conjecture* \[dp\].]{} The conjecture can be restated as follows $$\label{cpp1}
p_2(n)< \log \left(1+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{24}n^{3/2}}\right),$$ where $n\geq 45$. We proceed to give an estimate of each term of the right hand side of (\[p22\]).
We begin with the first term of the right hand side of . We claim that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{cpp3}
\frac{24\pi}{(24(n-1)-1)^{3/2}}<\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}-
\left(\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\right)^{2}+\frac{3}{2n^{5/2}}.$$ For $0<x\leq \frac{1}{48}$, it can be easily checked that $$\label{cpp2}
\frac{1}{(1-x)^{3/2}}< 1+\frac{3}{2}x+\frac{3}{8}x^{3/2}.$$ For $n\geq 50$, we have $\frac{25}{24n}\leq \frac{1}{48}$, and hence we can apply (\[cpp2\]) to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hhh}
\frac{24\pi}{(24(n-1)-1)^{3/2}}&=&
\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
&<&\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}
\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\cdot\frac{25}{24n}+\frac{3}{8}
\left(\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{3/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For $n\geq 50$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{3/2}&<&
\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{25}{24}\right)^{3/2}
\cdot \frac{1}{50^{1/2}n},\\[6pt]
\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}&<&\frac{24\pi}{(24)^{3/2}50^{1/2}}\cdot \frac{1}{n}.\\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dpak1}
&&\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\left(\frac{3}{2}\cdot\frac{25}{24n}+
\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{3/2}+\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\right)
\nonumber\\[6pt]
&&\quad \leq \frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\cdot\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{25}{16}+
\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{25}{24}\right)^{3/2}\cdot \frac{1}{50^{1/2}}+\frac{24\pi}{(24)^{3/2}50^{1/2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad <\frac{3}{2n^{5/2}} .\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[hhh\]) and (\[dpak1\]), we obtain (\[cpp3\]).
As for the second term of the right hand side of , it can be shown that for $n>50$, $$\label{cpp5}
\frac{288\pi(-3+\pi\sqrt{24(n-1)-1})}{(24(n-1)-1)^{3/2}(-6+\pi\sqrt{24(n-1)-1})^{2}}
<\frac{1}{2n^{2}}+\frac{1}{n^{5/2}}.$$ To this end, we need the following inequality for $\alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$ and $0< x\leq c<1$, $$\label{gongs1}
\frac{1}{(1-x)^{\alpha}}\leq 1+\left(\frac{1}{1-c}\right)^{\alpha+1}\alpha x.$$ Let $$f(x)=\frac{1}{(1-x)^{\alpha}}- 1-\left(\frac{1}{1-c}\right)^{\alpha+1}\alpha x.$$ For $\alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$ and $0\leq x\leq c<1$, we see that $$f'(x)=\frac{\alpha}{(1-x)^{\alpha+1}}-\left(\frac{1}{1-c}\right)^{\alpha+1}\alpha \leq 0.$$ Since $f(0)=0$, we obtain that $f(x)\leq 0$ under the above assumption. This yields that $f(x)<0$ for $0< x\leq c<1$ and $\alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$, and hence (\[gongs1\]) is proved.
The left hand side of can be rewritten as $$\frac{288\pi\cdot \frac{\pi}{2} \sqrt{24n-25}}{(24n-25)^{3/2}(-6+\pi\sqrt{24n-25})^{2}}+
\frac{288\pi(-3+\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{24n-25})}{(24n-25)^{3/2}(-6+\pi\sqrt{24n-25})^{2}},$$ which can be simplified to $$\label{dpak3}
\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}
\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)^{2}}+
\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)}.$$ Setting $x =\frac{25}{24n}$, $\alpha=2$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 50$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. By (\[gongs1\]), we find that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{dpak4}
\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}}\leq 1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3}\frac{25}{12n}.$$ Setting $x=\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}$, $\alpha=2$ and $c=\frac{1}{15}$, for $n\geq 50$, we also have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$. Again, using (\[gongs1\]), we see that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{dpak5}
\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)^{2}}<
1+\left(\frac{15}{14}\right)^{3}\frac{6}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}<1+\frac{24}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}.$$ Combining and , we deduce that for $n\geq 50$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dpak6}
&&\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}
\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)^{2}}\nonumber\\ &&\quad \leq\frac{1}{4n^{2}}\left(1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3}
\frac{25}{12n}\right)\left(1+\frac{24}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Setting $x =\frac{25}{24n}$, $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 50$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Applying (\[gongs1\]), for $n\geq 50$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dpak7}
\frac{24}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}&=&\frac{24}{\pi (24n)^{1/2}}\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
&<&\frac{24}{\pi (24n)^{1/2}}\left(1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3/2}\frac{25}{48n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we find that for $n\geq 50$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}
\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)^{2}}\notag\\
& \quad \leq \frac{1}{4n^{2}}\left(1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3}\frac{25}{12n}\right)
\left(1+\frac{24}{\pi (24n)^{1/2}}\left(1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3/2}\frac{25}{48n}\right)\right).
\label{dpak8}\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of can be expanded as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{4n^{2}}+\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2\pi n^{5/2}}+\frac{25}{48n^{3}}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3}
+\frac{25\sqrt{6}}{96\pi n^{7/2}}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3/2} \notag \\
&\quad +\frac{25\sqrt{6}}{24\pi n^{7/2}}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3}
+\frac{25^{2}\sqrt{24}}{48^{2}\pi n^{9/2}}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{9/2}.\label{gcpp1}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, for $\alpha>\frac{5}{2}$ and $n\geq 50$, $$\frac{1}{n^{\alpha}}\leq \frac{1}{50^{\alpha-5/2}n^{5/2}},$$ which implies that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{examgp1}
\frac{1}{n^{3}}\leq \frac{1}{50^{1/2}n^{5/2}},$$ $$\label{examgp2}
\frac{1}{n^{7/2}}\leq \frac{1}{50n^{5/2}},$$ $$\label{examgp3}
\frac{1}{n^{9/2}}\leq \frac{1}{50^{2}n^{5/2}}.$$ Applying , and to the last four terms of , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{22s1}
\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)^{2}} <\frac{1}{4n^{2}}+\frac{1}{2n^{5/2}}.$$ For the second term of . Setting $x=\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}$, $\alpha=1$ and $c=\frac{1}{15}$, for $n\geq 50$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$. By (\[gongs1\]), we see that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{dpaks5}
\frac{1}{1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}}<1+\left(\frac{15}{14}\right)^{2}\frac{6}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}<1+\frac{12}{\pi \sqrt{24n-25}}.$$ Using and the same argument as in the derivation of , it can be shown that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{22s2}
\frac{1}{4n^{2}\left(1-\frac{25}{24n}\right)^{2}\left(1-\frac{6}{\pi\sqrt{24n-25}}\right)}
<\frac{1}{4n^{2}}+\frac{1}{2n^{5/2}}.$$ In view of (\[22s1\]) and (\[22s2\]), we arrive at .
To estimate the third term of the right hand side of , we aim to show that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{cpp4}
-\frac{864}{(24(n+1)-1)^{2}}<\frac{1}{2n^{5/2}}-\frac{3}{2n^{2}}.$$ It’s easily verified that for $\alpha\geq 1/2$ and $0\leq x\leq1$, $$\label{posalpha1}
1\geq \frac{1}{(1+x)^{\alpha}}\geq 1-\alpha x.$$ So for $n\geq 50$, we have $$\frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{23}{24n}\right)^{2}}\geq 1-\frac{23}{12n}.$$ Consequently, for $n\geq 50$, $$-\frac{864}{(24(n+1)-1)^{2}}=-\frac{3}{2n^{2}\left(1+\frac{23}{24n}\right)^{2}}
\leq\frac{23}{8n^{3}}-\frac{3}{2n^{2}}
\leq \frac{1}{2n^{5/2}}-\frac{3}{2n^{2}}.$$
Utilizing the above upper bounds , and for the three terms of the right hand side of (\[p22\]), we conclude that for $n\geq 50$, $$ p_{2}(n)< \frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}-\left(\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\right)^{2}
-\frac{1}{n^{2}}+\frac{3}{n^{5/2}}+2e^{-\frac{\pi}{10}\sqrt{\frac{2n}{3}}}.$$
Next we show that for $n\geq 5000$, $$\label{cwfcc2}
p_{2}(n)<\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}-\left(\frac{24\pi}{(24n)^{3/2}}\right)^{2}.$$ Clearly, for $n\geq 100$, $$-\frac{1}{n^{2}}+\frac{3}{n^{5/2}}<-\frac{2}{3n^{2}}.$$ To prove that for $n\geq 5000$, $$\label{cwfc1}
-\frac{2}{3n^{2}}+2e^{-\frac{\pi}{10}\sqrt{\frac{2n}{3}}}<0,$$ let $$g(x)=-\frac{2}{3 x^{2}}+2e^{-\frac{\pi}{10}\sqrt{\frac{2x}{3}}}.$$ The equation $g(x)=0$ has two solutions $$\begin{aligned}
x_{1}&=&\frac{2400}{\pi^{2}}\left(W_{0}\left(-\frac{\pi\sqrt{2}}{40\cdot 3^{3/4}}\right)\right)^{2},\\
x_{2}&=& \frac{2400}{\pi^{2}}\left(W_{-1}\left(-\frac{\pi\sqrt{2}}{40\cdot 3^{3/4}}\right)\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{0}(z)$ and $W_{-1}(z)$ are two branches of Lambert $W$ function $W(z)$, see Corless, Gonnet, Hare, Jeffrey and Knuth [@lwfk]. More explicitly, we have $x_{1}\approx 0.64$, $x_{2}\approx 4996.47$. It can be checked that $g(5000)<0$. Thus for $x\geq 5000$, $$g(x)<0.$$ This proves . Hence (\[cwfcc2\]) holds.
Using (\[cwfcc2\]), it can be shown that (\[cpp1\]) holds for $n\geq 5000$. It is easily verified that for $x>0$, $$\label{cwfcc3}
x(1-x)< \log(1+x).$$ Let $$h(x)=\log(1+x)-x+x^{2}.$$ For $x\geq 0$, we see that $$h'(x)=\frac{x+2x^{2}}{1+x}\geq 0.$$ Since $h(0)=0$, we have $h(x)>0$ for $x>0$. Combining (\[cwfcc2\]) and (\[cwfcc3\]), we conclude that for $n \geq 5000$, $$p_2(n)< \log \left(1+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{24}n^{3/2}}\right).$$ DeSalvo and Pak [@desp] have verified the above relation for $45\leq n\leq 8000$. Thus (\[cpp1\]) holds for $n\geq 45$ and the proof is completed.
An upper bound for $(-1)^{r-1} \Delta ^{r}\log p(n)$
====================================================
The conjecture of DeSalvo and Pak can be formulated as an upper bound for $ 2\log p(n)-\log p(n-1)-\log p(n+1) $, namely, for $n\geq 45$, $$\label{betcpp1}
-\Delta^{2}\log p(n-1) < \log \left(1+\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{24}n^{3/2}}\right),$$ where $\Delta$ is the difference operator as given by $\Delta f(n)=f(n+1)-f(n)$.
In this section, we give an upper bound for $(-1)^{r-1} \Delta^{r} \log p(n)$. When $r=2$, this upper bound reduces to the above relation (\[betcpp1\]). In the following theorem, we adopt the notation $(a)_k$ for the rising factorial, namely, $(a)_0=1$ and $(a)_{k}=a(a+1)\cdots (a+k-1)$ for $k\geq 1$.
\[dprm1\] For each $r\geq 1$, there exists a positive integer $n(r)$ such that for $n\geq n(r)$, $$(-1)^{r-1}\Delta
^{r} \log p(n)<\log \left(1+\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\right).$$
In the proof of the above theorem, we shall use Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher series for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{hrs3}
p(n)=2\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}A_{k}(n)k^{-5/2}L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\pi^2}{6k^2}\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)\right),$$ and the following estimate for $A_{k}(n)$, $$\label{amr2}
|A_{k}(n)|\leq 2k^{3/4},$$ see Rademacher [@rade1]. In particular, we have $A_{1}(n)=1$ and $A_{2}(n)=(-1)^{n}$. The function $L_{\nu}(x)$ in (\[hrs3\]) is defined by $$\label{deflnux1}
L_{\nu}(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{m}}{m!\Gamma(m+\nu+1)},$$ where $\Gamma(m+\nu+1)$ is the Gamma function.
With the notation of $\mu(n)$ as in (\[mumuref1\]), we have $$\frac{\pi^2}{6}\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)=\frac{\mu^{2}(n)}{4},$$ and so can be rewritten as $$\label{ccphrs3}
p(n)=2\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}A_{k}(n)k^{-5/2}
L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\mu^2(n)}{4k^2}\right),$$ Denote the $k$th summand in by $f_{k}(n)$, namely, $$\label{askm1}
f_k(n)=2\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}A_{k}(n)k^{-5/2}
L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\mu^2(n)}{4k^2}\right).$$ Writing as $$\label{ccpheq3}
p(n)=f_{1}(n)\left(1+\frac{f_{2}(n)}{f_{1}(n)}\right)\left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}\right).$$ It is known that $$L_{3/2}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\cdot \frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{\sinh 2\sqrt{x}}{\sqrt{x}}\right),$$ see Abramowitz and Stegun [@ahand] or Almkvist [@gadp1]. Since $A_1(n)=1$, $f_{1}(n)$ can be expressed as $$\label{ccphrs4}
f_{1}(n)=\frac{\sqrt{12}}{24n-1}
\left[\left(1-\frac{1}{\mu(n)}\right)e^{\mu(n)}
+\left(1+\frac{1}{\mu(n)}\right)e^{-\mu(n)}\right].$$ Recall $A_2(n)=(-1)^n$, by and we obtain that for $n\geq 1$, $$f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|=2\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\left(\frac{1}{4^m}-\frac{1}{2^{5/2}16^m}\right) \frac{\mu^{2m}(n)}{m!\Gamma(m+5/2)}.$$ Clearly, $\frac{1}{4^m}-\frac{1}{2^{5/2}16^m}>0$ for $m\geq 0$. Hence for $n \geq 1$, $$\label{geq0}
f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|>0,$$ which implies that for $n\geq 1$, $f_1(n)$ is positive and $$f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)>0.$$ It is also clear that, for $n\geq 1$, both of $\mu(n)-1$ and $1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}$ are positive. Applying (\[ccphrs4\]) to , we obtain that for $n\geq 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\log p(n)=&\log \frac{\pi^{2}}{6\sqrt{3}}-3\log \mu(n) +\log (\mu(n)-1)+\mu(n)\notag\\
&\quad+\log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}\right)+\log \left(1+\frac{f_{2}(n)}{f_{1}(n)}\right) \notag\\
&\quad+\log \left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\label{loghrs2}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\log p(n)=H_{r}+F_{1}+F_{2}+F_{3},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_{r} &=& (-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\left(-3\log \mu(n)
+\log (\mu(n)-1)+\mu(n) \right), \\[6pt]
F_{1} &=& (-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}\right),\\[6pt]
F_{2} &=& (-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log
\left(1+\frac{f_{2}(n)}{f_{1}(n)}\right),\\[6pt]
F_{3} &=& (-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log \left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\label{geq0loghrs2}
G_{r}=F_{1}+F_{2}+F_{3}.$$ To estimate $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\log p(n)$, we shall give upper bounds for $H_{r}$ and $G_{r}$. We first consider $G_{r}$.
\[estg\] For $n \geq 50$, we have $$\label{gestmm1}
|G_{r}|<5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$
To prove Theorem \[estg\], we recall a monotone property of the ratio of two power series, see Ponnusamy and Vuorinen [@pv1]. We also need a lower bound and an upper bound on the ratio of $L_{\nu}(x)$ and $L_{\nu}(y)$, which can be deduced from known bounds on the ratio of two modified Bessel functions of the first kind.
\[logpvm\] Suppose that the power series $$f(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\alpha_{m}x^{m} \quad \textrm{and}\quad g(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\beta_{m}x^{m}$$ both converge for $|x|<\infty$ and $\beta_{m}>0$ for all $m>0$. Then the function $\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}$ is strictly decreasing for $x>0$ if the sequence $\{\alpha_{m}/\beta_{m}\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ is strictly decreasing.
Let $I_{\nu}(x)$ be the modified Bessel function of the first kind as given by $$I_{\nu}(x)=\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{\nu}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\left(\frac{x^{2}}{4}\right)^{m}}{m!\Gamma(m+\nu+1)},$$ see Watson [@watson1]. It is known that for $\nu \geq 1/2$ and $0<x<y$, $I_{\nu}(x)$ increases with $x$ and $$e^{x-y}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)^{\nu}<\frac{I_{\nu}(x)}{I_{\nu}(y)}
<e^{x-y}\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)^{\nu},$$ see Baricz [@bondli inequalities 2.2 and 2.4]. For $x>0$, from we see that $L_{\nu}(x)$ can be expressed by $I_{\nu}(x)$, $$L_{\nu}(x)=x^{-\nu/2}I_{\nu}(2\sqrt{x}).$$ Thus the above properties of $I_{\nu}(x)$ can be restated in terms of $L_{\nu}(x)$.
\[logpropb1\] For $\nu \geq 1/2$ and $0<x<y$, we have $$ e^{2\sqrt{x}-2\sqrt{y}}<\frac{L_{\nu}(x)}{L_{\nu}(y)}<e^{2\sqrt{x}
-2\sqrt{y}}\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)^{\nu}.$$
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[estg\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[estg\]*.]{} Since $|G_{r}|\leq |F_{1}|+|F_{2}|+|F_{3}|$, in order to estimate $G_r$, we shall estimate $|F_{1}|$, $|F_{2}|$ and $|F_{3}|$. It follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
|f_{k}(n)|&=&2\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}|A_{k}(n)|k^{-5/2}
L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\mu(n)^2}{4k^2}\right)\\[6pt]
&\leq&4\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}k^{-7/4}
L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\mu(n)^2}{4k^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which yields that $$\label{loghrs4}
\sum_{k=3}^{\infty}|f_{k}(n)|\leq 4\pi \left(\frac{\pi}{12}\right)^{3/2}\zeta(7/4)L_{3/2}\left(\frac{\mu(n)^2}{4k^2}\right),$$ where $\zeta(x)$ is the Riemann zeta function. For convenience, we denote by $g(n)$ the right hand side of the above inequality, so that becomes $$\label{loghrs5}
\sum_{k=3}^{\infty}|f_{k}(n)|\leq g(n).$$ To estimate $F_{1}$, $F_{2}$ and $F_{3}$, we shall make use of the monotonicity of $\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}$, $\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}$ and $\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}$. It is easily seen that $\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}$ decreases with $n$ for $n\geq 1$, since $\frac{y+1}{y-1}e^{-2y}$ decreases with $y$ for $y>0$ and $\mu(n)$ increases with $n$. By , we have $$\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}=
\frac{L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/16)}{2^{5/2}L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/4)}.$$ The ratio of coefficients of $x^m$ in $L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/16)$ and $L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/4)$ is $\frac{4^{m}}{16^{m}}$. By Proposition \[logpvm\], we see that $\frac{L_{3/2}(y/16)}{L_{3/2}(y/4)}$ decreases with $y$ for $y>0$. Notice that $\mu^{2}(x)$ increases with $x$ for $x\geq 1$. So $\frac{L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(x)/16)}{L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(x)/4)}$ decreases with $x$ for $x\geq 1$. This implies that $\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}$ decreases with $n$.
Next we prove the monotonicity of $\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}$. Recall that $$\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|} = \frac{2\zeta(7/4)L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/36)}{L_{3/2}
(\mu^{2}(n)/4)-2^{-5/2}L_{3/2}(\mu^{2}(n)/16)}.$$ The ratio of coefficients of $x^m$ in $L_{3/2}(y/36)$ and $L_{3/2}(y/4)-2^{-5/2}L_{3/2}(y/16)$ equals $$\frac{\frac{1}{36^{m}}}{\frac{1}{4^{m}}-\frac{1}{2^{5/2}16^{m}}},$$ which decreases with $m$ for $m\geq 0$. By Proposition \[logpvm\], we deduce that for $y>0$, $$\frac{L_{3/2}(y/36)}{L_{3/2}(y/4)-2^{-5/2}L_{3/2}(y/16)}$$ decreases with $y$. Hence $\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}$ decreases with $n$ for $n\geq 1$.
Using the above monotone properties, we proceed to derive upper bounds for $|F_{1}|$, $|F_{2}|$ and $|F_{3}|$. It is known that for $0<x<1$, $$\label{loglogeq1}
\log(1-x)\geq \frac{-x}{1-x},$$ $$\label{loglogeq2}
|\log(1\pm x)|\leq -\log (1-x),$$ see also DeSalvo and Pak [@desp].
We first estimate $F_{1}$. Since $$\Delta^{r} f(n)=\sum_{k=0}^{r}(-1)^{r-k}{r \choose k}f(n+k),$$ we have $$F_{1}=\sum_{k=0}^{r}(-1)^{k+1}{r \choose k}\log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n+k)+1}{\mu(n+k)-1}e^{-2\mu(n+k)}\right).$$ It follows that $$\label{f1d1a1}
|F_{1}|\leq \sum_{k=0}^{r}{r \choose k}\log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n+k)+1}{\mu(n+k)-1}e^{-2\mu(n+k)}\right).$$ By the monotonicity of $\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}$, we see that for $n\geq 1$ and $0\leq k \leq r$, $$\label{f1d1a2}
\log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n+k)+1}{\mu(n+k)-1}e^{-2\mu(n+k)}\right)\leq \log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}\right).$$ Applying to , we find that for $n\geq 1$, $$|F_{1}|\leq 2^{r}\log \left(1+\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}\right).$$ Since $\log(1+x)\leq x$ for $x\geq 0$, we see that for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{usef1}
|F_{1}|\leq 2^{r}\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-2\mu(n)}.$$ To estimate $F_{2}$, we begin with the following expression $$\label{f2f2geq1}
F_{2}= \sum_{k=0}^{r}(-1)^{k+1}{r \choose k}\log\left(1+\frac{f_{2}(n+k)}{f_{1}(n+k)}\right).$$ It follows from that $$0<1-\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}<1.$$ Using , we find that for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{f2f2geq2}
\left|\log\left(1+\frac{f_{2}(n+k)}{f_{1}(n+k)}\right)\right|\leq -\log\left(1-\frac{|f_{2}(n+k)|}{f_{1}(n+k)}\right).$$ Combining (\[f2f2geq1\]) and (\[f2f2geq2\]), we obtain that for $n\geq 1$, $$|F_{2}|\leq -\sum_{k=0}^{r}{r \choose k}\log\left(1-\frac{|f_{2}(n+k)|}{f_{1}(n+k)}\right).$$ Using the monotonicity of $\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}$, we see that for $n\geq 1$, $$|F_{2}|\leq -2^{r}\log\left(1-\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}\right).$$ Hence, by , we obtain that for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{usef2}
|F_{2}|\leq 2^{r}\frac{|f_2(n)|}{f_1(n)-|f_2(n)|}.$$
To estimate $F_{3}$, we use the following expression $$\label{f33est1}
F_{3}= \sum_{k=0}^{r}(-1)^{k+1}{r \choose k}\log\left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n+k)}{f_{1}(n+k)+f_{2}(n+k)}\right).$$ By Proposition \[logpropb1\], we find that for $n\geq 1$ $$\label{f1f4a1}
2^{-\frac{5}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}<\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}<\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}},$$ and $$\label{f1f4a2}
2\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{2\mu(n)}{3}}<\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)}<54\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{2\mu(n)}{3}}.$$ Consequently, for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{f1f4a3}
\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}+\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)}<
\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}+54\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{2\mu(n)}{3}}.$$ For $n\geq 50$, it can be checked that $$\label{f1f4a4}
\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}+54\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{2\mu(n)}{3}}<1.$$ Combining and , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}+\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)}<1,$$ or equivalently, $$\label{f1f4a5}
f_1(n)-|f_2(n)|-g(n)>0.$$ Combining and , we see that for $n\geq 50$, $$f_1(n)-|f_2(n)|-|\sum_{k\geq3}^{\infty}f_k(n)|>0,$$ which can be rewritten as $$1\geq 1-\frac{\left|\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)\right|}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}>0.$$ Thus, we can use to deduce that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{f1f4a7}
\left|\log \left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}\right)\right| \leq -\log\left(1-\frac{|\sum_{k\geq3}^{\infty}f_k(n)|}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}\right).$$ Since $-\log(1-x)$ is increasing for $x>-1$, according to and , we deduce that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{f1f4a8}
-\log\left(1-\frac{|\sum_{k\geq3}^{\infty}f_k(n)|}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}\right)
<-\log\left(1-\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}\right).$$ Combining and , we see that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{f1f4a9}
\left|\log \left(1+\frac{\sum_{k\geq 3}^{\infty}f_{k}(n)}{f_{1}(n)+f_{2}(n)}\right)\right| \leq -\log\left(1-\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}\right).$$ It follows from (\[f33est1\]) and (\[f1f4a9\]) that for $n\geq 50$, $$|F_{3}|\leq -\sum_{k=0}^{r}{r\choose k}\log\left(1-\frac{g(n+k)}{f_{1}(n+k)-|f_{2}(n+k)|}\right).$$ Based on the monotonicity of $\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}$, we find that for $n \geq 50$, $$|F_{3}|\leq -2^{r}\log\left(1-\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|}\right).$$ Hence, by , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{usef3}
|F_{3}|\leq 2^{r}\frac{g(n)}{f_{1}(n)-|f_{2}(n)|-g(n)}.$$ By Proposition \[logpropb1\], we see that for $n\geq 1$ $$\label{gf1f4a3}
2^{\frac{7}{2}}\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{6}}<\frac{g(n)}{|f_{2}(n)|}<
27\sqrt{2}\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{6}}.$$ In view of and , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{estg1f1}
\frac{|F_{1}|}{F_{4}} < 2^{\frac{5}{2}}\frac{\mu(n)+1}{\mu(n)-1}e^{-\frac{3}{2}\mu(n)},$$ where $F_{4}$ is defined by $$F_{4}=2^{r}\frac{|f_{2}(n)|}{f_{1}(n)}.$$ As a consequence of and , it can be checked that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{estg1f2}
\frac{|F_{2}|}{F_{4}} < \frac{1}{1-\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}}.$$ Applying , and to , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{estg1f3}
\frac{|F_{3}|}{F_{4}} < \frac{27\sqrt{2}\zeta(7/4)}{e^{\frac{\mu(n)}{6}}-
\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{3}}-54\zeta(7/4)e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}}.$$ Combining , and , we conclude that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{estgron1}
|F_{1}|+|F_{2}|+|F_{3}|<5 F_{4}.$$ It follows from that for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{estgron2}
F_{4}<2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$ Thus (\[estgron1\]) and (\[estgron2\]) lead to an upper bound for $|F_{1}|+|F_{2}|+|F_{3}|$. This completes the proof.
To prove Theorem \[dprm1\], we still need to estimate $H_r$ and we shall use two relations due to Odlyzko [@amo] on the relations between the higher order differences and derivatives.
\[abc\] Let $r$ be a positive integer. Suppose that $f(x)$ is a function with infinite continuous derivatives for $x\geq 1$, and $(-1)^{k-1}f^{(k)}(x)>0$ for $k\geq 1$. Then for $r>1$, $$(-1)^{r-1} f^{(r)}(x+r)\leq (-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}f(x) \leq (-1)^{r-1}f^{(r)}(x).$$
[*Proof of Theorem \[dprm1\]*.]{} First, we treat the case $r=1$, which states that for $n\geq 12$, $$\label{th1h1}
\Delta \log p(n)< \log \left(1+\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}\right).$$ Since we have estimated $|G_{r}|$, we only need to estimate $H_{r}$ for $r=1$. By Proposition \[abc\], we have $$\label{h1h1f1}
H_{1}\leq \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{24n-1}}-\frac{36}{24(n+1)-1}+\frac{12}{(24n-1)(1-\frac{6}{\pi \sqrt{24n-1}})}.$$ We claim that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{gh1h1f1}
H_{1}< \frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}
-\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{5}{4\left(n+1\right)^{3/2}}.$$ We proceed to estimate each term of the right hand side of . For the first term, we need to show that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{h1h1f2}
\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{24n-1}}<\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}-\frac{3}{2(n+1)}.$$ Setting $x =\frac{25}{24(n+1)}$, $\alpha=1/2$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 50$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. It follows from (\[gongs1\]) that for $n\geq 50$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{24n-1}}&=&\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{24}\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{1/2}} \nonumber \\[6pt]
&\leq& \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{24}\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}\left(
1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{3/2}\frac{25}{48(n+1)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
For the second term of the right hand side of , for $n\geq 50$, we have $$\label{h1h1f3}
-\frac{36}{24(n+1)-1}<-\frac{3}{2(n+1)}.$$ For the last term of the right hand side of , using the same argument as in the derivation of , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\label{h1h1f4}
\frac{12}{(24n-1)(1-\frac{6}{\pi \sqrt{24n-1}})}<\frac{1}{2(n+1)}
+\frac{1}{2\left(n+1\right)^{3/2}}.$$ Combining , and , we obtain .
By the estimate of $H_1$ in and the estimate of $G_1$ in , we obtain that for $n\geq 50$, $$\Delta \log p(n)<\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}
-\frac{1}{n+1}+\frac{5}{4\left(n+1\right)^{3/2}}
+10\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\pi}{12}\sqrt{(24n-1)}}.$$ Notice that for $n\geq 200$, $$\frac{5}{4\left(n+1\right)^{3/2}}<\frac{12-\pi^{2}}{24(n+1)},$$ and for $n\geq 50$, $$10\sqrt{2}e^{-\frac{\pi}{12}\sqrt{(24n-1)}}<\frac{12-\pi^{2}}{24(n+1)}.$$ Hence, for $n\geq 200$, $$\label{ggh1ga1}
\Delta \log p(n)<\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}
-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12(n+1)}.$$ Moreover, it can be easily checked that for $x>0$, $$x\left(1-\frac{x}{2}\right)< \log(1+x).$$ Thus, for $n\geq 1$, $$\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12(n+1)}
<\log\left(1+\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6\left(n+1\right)^{1/2}}\right).$$ Combining the above relation and (\[ggh1ga1\]), we reach for $n\geq 200$.
It can be checked that is valid for $12 \leq n \leq 200$, and so Theorem \[dprm1\] holds for $r=1$.
We now turn to the case $r\geq2$. We proceed to show that there exists an integer $n(r)$ such that for $n\geq n(r)$, $$\label{drum0}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r} \log p(n)< U_{r},$$ where $$U_{r}= \frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\left(1-\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\right).$$ Since $x(1-x)<\log(1+x)$ for $x>0$, we have that for $n\geq 1$, $$U_{r}<\log \left(1+\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\right).$$ Thus implies Theorem \[dprm1\] for $r\geq 2$.
By , we see that for $n\geq 1$, $$(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\log p(n)\leq H_r+|G_r|.$$ To prove , it suffices to show that for $n\geq n(r)$ $$\label{drumm1}
H_r+|G_r|<U_r.$$ Since Theorem \[estg\] gives the upper bound for $|G_r|$, we need an upper bound for $H_r$. Recall that for $n\geq 1$, $$\label{husum1}
H_{r}=(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\left(-3\log \mu(n)
+\log (\mu(n)-1)+\mu(n) \right).$$ For $x\geq1$, write $$\log (\mu(x)-1)=\log \mu(x)-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k\mu(x)^{k}}.$$ By exchanging the order of two summations with one being finite, it can be seen that for $x\geq 1$, $$\Delta ^{r}\log (\mu(x)-1)=\Delta \log \mu(n)-\sum_{k}^{\infty}\Delta^{r}\left(\frac{1}{k\mu(n)^{k}}\right).$$ Hence implies that for $n\geq 1$, $$H_r=(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\left(\mu(n)-2\log \mu(n)\right)-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}
\left(\frac{1}{k\mu(n)^{k}}\right).$$ The $r$th derivatives of $\mu(x)=\frac{\pi}{6}\sqrt{24x-1}, \log \mu(x)$ and $\mu(x)^{-k}$ are given as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{(r)}(x)&=&\frac{(-1)^{r-1}(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}24^{r}\pi}{12(24x-1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}, \\[6pt]
\log^{(r)}(\mu(x))&=&\frac{(-1)^{r-1}(r-1)!24^{r}}{(24x-1)^{r}}, \\[6pt]
\left(\frac{1}{\mu^{k}}\right)^{(r)} &=& \left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r} \frac{(-144)^{r}}{\pi^{k}(24x-1)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the functions $\mu(x)=\frac{\pi}{6}\sqrt{24x-1}, \log \mu(x)$ and $-\mu(x)^{-k}$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition \[abc\] for $r\geq 1$ and $k\geq 1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{upbnd1}
H_{r} &\leq& \frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}24^{r}\pi}{12(24n-1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}
-\frac{(r-1)!24^{r}}{(24(n+r)-1)^{r}} \nonumber \\[6pt]
&&\quad + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r} \frac{144^{r}}{k\pi^{k}(24n-1)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Rewrite the right hand side of as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{upbnd2}
&\frac{(\sqrt{6}\pi\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}}{(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}} -\frac{(r-1)!}{(n+1)^{r}\left(1-\frac{24r-25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r}} \notag \\[6pt]
&\quad +\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r}
\frac{6^{r}}{k\pi^{k}24^{\frac{k}{2}}\left(n+1\right)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}}.\end{aligned}$$ To bound the first term of , we claim that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\label{ansupbnd1}
\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}}{6(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\leq U_r
+\frac{ a_{1}}{(n+1)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}},$$ where $$a_{1}= \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}(2r-1)
\frac{25\pi}{24^{\frac{3}{2}}}
+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6}\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\right)^{2}
\frac{1}{(48r-2)^{r-\frac{3}{2}}}.$$ Setting $x =\frac{25}{24(n+1)}$, $\alpha=r-1/2$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 48r-3$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. Invoking (\[gongs1\]), we find that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r-1/2}}\leq 1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{r+1/2}\frac{25(2r-1)}{48(n+1)}.$$ This yields that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}}{6(n+1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}} \\[6pt]
&\quad \leq U_r+
\frac{\pi^{2}\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\right)^{2}}{6(n+1)^{2r-1}}+
\frac{25\pi(2r-1)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}
}{24^{3/2}\left(n+1\right)^{r+1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easily seen that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{2r-1}}\leq
\frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{r+1/2}\left(48r-2\right)^{r-3/2}}.$$ So we arrive at .
As for the second term of , it can be shown that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\label{ansupbnd2}
-\frac{(r-1)!}{(n+1)^{r}\left(1-\frac{24r-25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r}}\leq -\frac{(r-1)!}{(n+1)^{r}},$$ or equivalently, $$0<\frac{24r-25}{24(n+1)}< 1.$$ This can be easily justified since for $0\leq x<1$, $r\geq 2$ and $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\frac{1}{(1-x)^{r}}\geq 1 .$$
To estimate the last term of , we aim to show that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\label{ansupbnd3}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r}
\frac{6^{r}}{k\pi^{k}24^{\frac{k}{2}}\left(n+1\right)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}
\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}}\leq \frac{ a_{2}+a_{3}}{(n+1)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&a_{2}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r} \left(\frac{1}{48r-2}\right)^{\frac{k-1}{2}}
\frac{6^{k}}{k\pi^{k}24^{\frac{k}{2}}}, \\[6pt]
&a_{3}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r+1} \left(\frac{1}{48r-2}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}
\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}+r+1}\frac{25\cdot6^{k}(r+\frac{k}{2})}
{k\pi^{k}24^{\frac{k}{2}+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for given $r$, $a_2$ and $a_3$ are convergent. Setting $x =\frac{25}{24(n+1)}$, $\alpha=k/2+r$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 48r-3$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. By (\[gongs1\]), we find that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$\label{dpakhrg2}
\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{25}{24(n+1)}\right)^{r-1/2}}\leq 1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{k/2+r+1}\frac{25(2r+k)}{48(n+1)}.$$ Clearly, for $n\geq 48r-3$ and $k\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{k/2+r}}&\leq& \frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{r+1/2}
\left(48r-2\right)^{\frac{k-1}{2}}}, \label{complexa1}\\
\frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{k/2+r+1}}&\leq& \frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)^{r+1/2}
\left(48r-2\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}}. \label{complexa2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, follows from , and .
Combining , and , we obtain that for $n\geq 48r-3$, $$H_{r}(n)< U_r-\frac{(r-1)!}{(n+1)^{r}}+\frac{ a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}}{(n+1)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ Let $$u_{1}=\frac{4(a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3})^{2}}{\left((r-1)!\right)^{2}}.$$ Notice that for given $r$ ,$a_1$ is a finite number and $a_2+a_3$ is convergent, so $a_1+a_2+a_3$ is a number for given $r$. It can be verified that for $n\geq u_1+1$, $$\frac{ a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}}{(n+1)^{r+\frac{1}{2}}}<\frac{(r-1)!}{2(n+1)^{r}}.$$ Thus, for $n\geq \max\{48r-3, u_1+1\}$, $$H_{r}(n)<U_r-\frac{(r-1)!}{2(n+1)^{r}}.$$ Using the above inequality and , we deduce that for $n\geq \max\{50, 48r-3, u_1+1\}$, $$H_{r}+|G_r|< U_{r}-\frac{(r-1)!}{2(n+1)^{r}}+5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$ Observe that for $n\geq 1$, $$\frac{1}{(n+1)^r}\geq \frac{\left(\frac{23}{48}\right)^{r}}{\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r}}.$$ It follows that for $n\geq \max\{50, 48r-3, u_1+1\}$, $$\label{xyz1}
H_{r}+|G_r|< U_{r}-\frac{\left(\frac{23}{48}\right)^{r}(r-1)!}{2\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r}}+5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$ To deduce (\[drumm1\]) from , we consider the following equation $$\label{expu1}
\frac{\left(\frac{23}{48}\right)^{r}(r-1)!}{2\left(x-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r}}
=5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(x)}{2}}.$$ Keep in mind that $\mu(x)$ is defined for $x\geq 1/24$. We claim that equation has two real roots. Recall that the Lambert $W$ function $W(z)$ is defined to be a function satisfying $$W(z) e^{W(z)}=z,$$ for any complex number $z$, see Corless, Gonnet, Hare, Jeffrey and Knuth [@lwfk]. So a solution of (\[expu1\]) has the following form $$x=\frac{1}{24}+\frac{6r^{2}}{\pi^2}
\left(W\left(-\frac{\sqrt{46}\pi}{48r}
\left(\frac{(r-1)!}{10\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2r}}\right)\right)^{2}.$$ It is known that $W(z)$ is a multi-valued function. In particular, $W(z)$ has two real values $W_0(z)$ and $W_{-1}(z)$ for $-\frac{1}{e}<z<0$. Using the following inequality, see Abramowitz and Stegun [@ahand], $$\label{estimatefac}
m!<\sqrt{2\pi}m^{m+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-m+\frac{1}{12m}},$$ we see that for $r\geq 2$, $$\frac{\sqrt{46}\pi}{48r}
\left(\frac{(r-1)!}{10\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2r}}<\frac{1}{e}.$$ Hence has two real roots. Let $u_{2}$ be the larger real root. Clearly, for sufficient large $x$, $$5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(x)}{2}}<
\frac{\left(\frac{23}{48}\right)^{r}(r-1)!}{2\left(x-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r}}.$$ It follows that for $n\geq u_{2}+1$, $$\label{exepu1}
5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}<\frac{\left(\frac{23}{48}\right)^{r}
(r-1)!}{2\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r}}.$$ Combining and , we conclude that holds for $n\geq n(r)$, where $$n(r)=\max\{50, 48r-3, u_{1}+1, u_{2}+1\}.$$ This completes the proof for the case $r\geq 2$.
The positivity of $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log p(n)$
==================================================
In this section, we prove the positivity of $(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r} \log p(n)$ for $r\geq 1$ and sufficiently large $n$. This is analogous to the positivity of the differences of the partition function conjectured by Good [@goodp] and proved by Gupta. The proof relies on the estimates of $H_r$ and $G_r$ in the previous section.
\[dprm2\] For each $r\geq 1$, there exists a positive integer $n(r)$ such that for $n\geq n(r)$, $$\label{thmmdp1}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r} \log p(n)>0.$$
The case $r=1$ is obvious since $p(n+1)>p(n)$ for $n\geq 1$. For $r=2$, DeSalvo and Pak [@desp] have shown that sequence $p(n)$ is log-concave for $n> 25$, or equivalently, for $n\geq 25$, $$-\Delta^{2}\log p(n)>0.$$ We now consider the case $r\geq 3$. Recall that $$(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r}\log p(n)=H_r+G_r,$$ where $H_r$ and $G_r$ are given in (\[loghrs2\])and (\[geq0loghrs2\]). Hence, we see that for $r\geq 1$, $$\label{dprme1}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r}\log p(n)\geq H_{r}-|G_{r}|.$$ An upper bound for $|G_r|$ has been given in Theorem \[estg\], so we only need a lower bound for $H_r$. By Proposition \[abc\], we find that $$\begin{aligned}
H_{r}&=& (-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r}\left(\mu(n)-2\log \mu(n)-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k\mu(n)^{k}}\right) \nonumber\\[6pt]
&\geq& \frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}24^{r}\pi}{12(24(n+r)-1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{(r-1)!24^{r}}{(24n-1)^{r}} \nonumber\\[6pt]
&&\quad + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)_{r} \frac{ 144^{r}}{k\pi^{k}(24(n+r)-1)^{\frac{k}{2}+r}}. \label{geqff1}\end{aligned}$$ The first term of the right hand side of (\[geqff1\]) has the following lower bound for $r\geq 48r-2$, $$\label{geq0fir1}
\frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}24^{r}\pi}{12(24(n+r)-1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\geq
\frac{b_{1}}{n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{b_{2}}{n^{r}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
b_{1}&=&\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}, \\[6pt]
b_{2}&=&\frac{\pi\sqrt{48r-2}}{24^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $x =\frac{24r-1}{24n}$ and $\alpha=r-1/2$, for $n\geq 48r-2$, we have $0<x<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. It follows from (\[posalpha1\]) that for $n\geq 48r-2$, $$\frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{24r-1}{24n}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\geq
1-\frac{24r-1}{24n}\left(r-\frac{1}{2}\right),$$ or equivalently, $$\frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{r-1}24^{r}\pi}{12(24(n+r)-1)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\geq
\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}\frac{1}{n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-
\frac{\sqrt{6}\pi}{6}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r}\frac{24r-1}{24n^{r+\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ Observing that for $n\geq 48r-2$, $$\frac{1}{n^{r+\frac{1}{2}}}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{48r-2}n^r},$$ we obtain for $n\geq 48r-2$.
For the second term of the right hand side of , we claim that for $n\geq 48r-2$, $$\label{geq0fir2}
\frac{(r-1)!24^{r}}{(24n-1)^{r}}\leq \frac{b_{3}}{n^{r}},$$ where $$b_{3}= (r-1)! \left(1+\frac{r}{24}\left(\frac{1}{48r-2}\right)
\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{r+1}\right).$$ Setting $x =\frac{1}{24n}$, $\alpha=r$ and $c=\frac{1}{48}$, for $n\geq 48r-2$, we have $0<x<c<1$ and $\alpha\geq \frac{1}{2}$. By (\[gongs1\]), we see that for $n\geq 48r-2$, $$\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{1}{24n}\right)^{r}}\leq
1+\left(\frac{48}{47}\right)^{r+1}\frac{r}{24n}.$$ So we obtain for $n\geq 48r-2$.
Since the last term of the right hand side of is positive, combining and , we deduce that for $n\geq 48r-2$, $$\label{dprme3}
H_{r}\geq \frac{b_{1}}{n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-\frac{b_{2}+b_{3}}{n^{r}}.$$ To derive a simpler expression for a lower bound of $H_r$, let $$m_{1}=\frac{4(b_{2}+b_{3})^2}{b_{1}^2}.$$ Then we have that for $n\geq m_{1}+1$, $$\frac{b_{2}+b_{3}}{n^{r}}< \frac{b_{1}}{2n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ It follows that for $n\geq \max\{48r-2,m_1+1\}$, $$\label{dprme4}
H_r(n)> \frac{b_{1}}{2n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ By and , we find that for $n\geq \max\{50, 48r-2, m_1 +1\}$, $$\label{dprme5}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r}\log p(n)>\frac{b_{1}}{2n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}
-5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$ Notice that for $r\geq 1$ and $n\geq 1$, $$\frac{1}{n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}\geq \frac{\left(\frac{23}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}
{\left(n-\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ Thus, for $n\geq \max\{50, 48r-2, m_1 +1\}$, $$\label{geq0dprme5}
(-1)^{r-1}\Delta ^{r}\log p(n)>\left(\frac{23}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{b_{1}}{2n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}
-5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}.$$ To prove that the right hand side of is positive for sufficiently large $n$, consider the following equation $$\label{expx1}
\left(\frac{23}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{b_{1}}{2x^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}=5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(x)}{2}}.$$ The solution of can be expressed in terms of the Lambert $W$ function, namely, $$x=\frac{1}{24}+\frac{6\left(2r-1\right)^{2}}{\pi^{2}}
W\left(-\frac{\sqrt{46}\pi}{24(2r-1)}\left(\frac{\pi\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}}
{20\sqrt{6}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2r-1}}\right)^{2}.$$ For $r\geq 1$, we have $\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r}<r!$. Using the estimate of $r!$ as given by , we obtain that for $r\geq 3$, $$-\frac{1}{e}<-\frac{\sqrt{46}\pi}{24(2r-1)}\left(\frac{\pi\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_{r-1}}
{20\sqrt{6}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2r-1}}<0.$$ Thus has two real roots. Let $m_{2}$ be the larger real root of equation . Clearly, for sufficiently large $x$, $$\left(\frac{23}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{b_{1}}{2x^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(x)}{2}}>0.$$ It follows that for $n\geq m_{2}+1$, $$\label{expx2}
\left(\frac{23}{24}\right)^{r-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{b_{1}}{2n^{r-\frac{1}{2}}}-5\cdot 2^{r+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\mu(n)}{2}}>0.$$ Let $$n(r)= \max\{50, 48r-2, m_{1}+1, m_{2}+1\}.$$ Combining and , we conclude that for $n\geq n(r)$, $$(-1)^{r-1}\Delta^{r}\log p(n)>0.$$ This completes the proof.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} This work was supported by the 973 Project, the PCSIRT Project of the Ministry of Education and the National Science Foundation of China.
[99]{}
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Function, Dover, New York 1965.
G. Almkvist, Exact asymptotic formulas for the coefficients of nonmodular functions, J. Number Theory, 38 (1991), 145–160.
G. Almkvist, On the differences of the partition function, Acta Arith., 61 (1992), 173–181.
Á. Baricz, Bounds for modified Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., 53 (2010), 575–599.
C. Bessenrodt and K. Ono, Maximal multiplicative properties of partitions, Ann. Combin. to appear.
W.Y.C. Chen, Recent developments on log-concavity and $q$-log-concavity of combinatorial polynomials, DMTCS Proceeding of 22nd International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics, 2010.
R.M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey and D. E. Knuth, On the Lambert $W$ function, Adv. in Comp. Math., 5 (1996), 329-359.
S. DeSalvo and I. Pak, Log-concavity of the partition function, arXiv:1310.7982.
I.J. Good, The difference of the partiton function, Problem 6137, Amer. Math. Monthly, 84 (1997), 141.
H. Gupta, Finite differences of the partition function, Math. Comp., 32 (1978), 1241–1243.
G.H. Hardy and S. Ramanujan, Asymptotic formulae in combinatory analysis, Proc. London Math. Soc., 17 (1918), 75–175.
C. Knessl and J. B. Keller, Partition asymptotics from recursion equations, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 50 (1990), 323–338.
C. Knessl and J. B. Keller, Asymptotic behavior of high order differnces of the partition function, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math., 44 (1991), 1033–1045.
D.H. Lehmer, On the series for the partition function, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 43 (1938), 271–292.
D.H. Lehmer, On the remainders and convergence of the series for the partition function, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 46 (1939), 362–373.
A.M. Odlyzko, Differences of the partition function, Acta Arith., 49 (1988), 237–254.
S. Ponnusamy, M. Vuorinen, Asymptotic expansions and inequalities for hypergeometric functions, Mathematika, 44 (1997), 43–64.
H. Rademacher, A convergent series for the partition function $p(n)$, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, 23 (1937), 78–84.
H. Rademacher, Topics in Analytic Number Theory, Springer, Berlin, 1973.
G.N. Watson, A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions, Cambridge University Press, 1944.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The context-dependent nature of online aggression makes annotating large collections of data extremely difficult. Previously studied datasets in abusive language detection have been insufficient in size to efficiently train deep learning models. Recently, *Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter*, a dataset much greater in size and reliability, has been released. However, this dataset has not been comprehensively studied to its potential. In this paper, we conduct the first comparative study of various learning models on *Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter*, and discuss the possibility of using additional features and context data for improvements. Experimental results show that bidirectional GRU networks trained on word-level features, with Latent Topic Clustering modules, is the most accurate model scoring 0.805 F1.'
author:
- |
Younghun Lee[^1] Seunghyun Yoon Kyomin Jung\
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea\
[[email protected] {mysmilesh,kjung}@snu.ac.kr]{}
bibliography:
- 'emnlp2018.bib'
title: Comparative Studies of Detecting Abusive Language on Twitter
---
Introduction
============
Abusive language refers to any type of insult, vulgarity, or profanity that debases the target; it also can be anything that causes aggravation [@spertus1997smokey; @schmidt2017survey]. Abusive language is often reframed as, but not limited to, offensive language [@razavi2010offensive], cyberbullying [@xu2012learning], othering language [@burnap2014hate], and hate speech [@djuric2015hate].
Recently, an increasing number of users have been subjected to harassment, or have witnessed offensive behaviors online [@Duggan:17]. Major social media companies (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) have utilized multiple resources—artificial intelligence, human reviewers, user reporting processes, etc.—in effort to censor offensive language, yet it seems nearly impossible to successfully resolve the issue [@Robertson:17; @Musaddique:17].
The major reason of the failure in abusive language detection comes from its subjectivity and context-dependent characteristics [@chatzakou2017mean]. For instance, a message can be regarded as harmless on its own, but when taking previous threads into account it may be seen as abusive, and vice versa. This aspect makes detecting abusive language extremely laborious even for human annotators; therefore it is difficult to build a large and reliable dataset [@founta2018large].
Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size [@chatzakou2017mean; @golbeck2017large]. This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models. Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods. Most recently, Founta et al. introduced *Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter*, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels. Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date.
This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language. We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models.[^2] Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset. Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models.
Related Work
============
The research community introduced various approaches on abusive language detection. Razavi et al. applied Naïve Bayes, and Warner and Hirschberg used Support Vector Machine (SVM), both with word-level features to classify offensive language. Xiang et al. generated topic distributions with Latent Dirichlet Allocation [@blei2003latent], also using word-level features in order to classify offensive tweets.
More recently, distributed word representations and neural network models have been widely applied for abusive language detection. Djuric et al. used the Continuous Bag Of Words model with paragraph2vec algorithm [@le2014distributed] to more accurately detect hate speech than that of the plain Bag Of Words models. Badjatiya et al. implemented Gradient Boosted Decision Trees classifiers using word representations trained by deep learning models. Other researchers have investigated character-level representations and their effectiveness compared to word-level representations [@mehdad2016characters; @park2017one].
As traditional machine learning methods have relied on feature engineering, (i.e. n-grams, POS tags, user information) [@schmidt2017survey], researchers have proposed neural-based models with the advent of larger datasets. Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks have been applied to detect abusive language, and they have outperformed traditional machine learning classifiers such as Logistic Regression and SVM [@park2017one; @badjatiya2017deep]. However, there are no studies investigating the efficiency of neural models with large-scale datasets over 100K.
Methodology
===========
This section illustrates our implementations on traditional machine learning classifiers and neural network based models in detail. Furthermore, we describe additional features and variant models investigated.
Traditional Machine Learning Models
-----------------------------------
We implement five feature engineering based machine learning classifiers that are most often used for abusive language detection. In data preprocessing, text sequences are converted into Bag Of Words (BOW) representations, and normalized with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) values. We experiment with word-level features using n-grams ranging from 1 to 3, and character-level features from 3 to 8-grams. Each classifier is implemented with the following specifications:\
**Naïve Bayes (NB)**: Multinomial NB with additive smoothing constant 1\
**Logistic Regression (LR)**: Linear LR with L2 regularization constant 1 and limited-memory BFGS optimization\
**Support Vector Machine (SVM)**: Linear SVM with L2 regularization constant 1 and logistic loss function\
**Random Forests (RF)**: Averaging probabilistic predictions of 10 randomized decision trees\
**Gradient Boosted Trees (GBT)**: Tree boosting with learning rate 1 and logistic loss function
Neural Network based Models
---------------------------
Along with traditional machine learning approaches, we investigate neural network based models to evaluate their efficacy within a larger dataset. In particular, we explore Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and their variant models. A pre-trained GloVe [@pennington2014glove] representation is used for word-level features.\
**CNN**: We adopt Kim’s implementation as the baseline. The word-level CNN models have 3 convolutional filters of different sizes \[1,2,3\] with ReLU activation, and a max-pooling layer. For the character-level CNN, we use 6 convolutional filters of various sizes \[3,4,5,6,7,8\], then add max-pooling layers followed by 1 fully-connected layer with a dimension of 1024.
Park and Fung proposed a HybridCNN model which outperformed both word-level and character-level CNNs in abusive language detection. In order to evaluate the HybridCNN for this dataset, we concatenate the output of max-pooled layers from word-level and character-level CNN, and feed this vector to a fully-connected layer in order to predict the output.
All three CNN models (word-level, character-level, and hybrid) use cross entropy with softmax as their loss function and Adam [@kingma2014adam] as the optimizer.\
**RNN**: We use bidirectional RNN [@schuster1997bidirectional] as the baseline, implementing a GRU [@cho2014learning] cell for each recurrent unit. From extensive parameter-search experiments, we chose 1 encoding layer with 50 dimensional hidden states and an input dropout probability of 0.3. The RNN models use cross entropy with sigmoid as their loss function and Adam as the optimizer.
For a possible improvement, we apply a self-matching attention mechanism on RNN baseline models [@wang2017gated] so that they may better understand the data by retrieving text sequences twice. We also investigate a recently introduced method, Latent Topic Clustering (LTC) [@yoon2018learning]. The LTC method extracts latent topic information from the hidden states of RNN, and uses it for additional information in classifying the text data.
Feature Extension
-----------------
While manually analyzing the raw dataset, we noticed that looking at the tweet one has replied to or has quoted, provides significant contextual information. We call these, *“context tweets"*. As humans can better understand a tweet with the reference of its context, our assumption is that computers also benefit from taking context tweets into account in detecting abusive language.
As shown in the examples below, (2) is labeled abusive due to the use of vulgar language. However, the intention of the user can be better understood with its context tweet (1).\
\(1) I hate when I’m sitting in front of the bus and somebody with a wheelchair get on.\
(2) I hate it when I’m trying to board a bus and there’s already an as\*\*ole on it.\
Similarly, context tweet (3) is important in understanding the abusive tweet (4), especially in identifying the target of the malice.\
\(3) Survivors of \#Syria Gas Attack Recount ‘a Cruel Scene’.\
(4) Who the HELL is “LIKE" ING this post? Sick people....\
Huang et al. used several attributes of context tweets for sentiment analysis in order to improve the baseline LSTM model. However, their approach was limited because the meta-information they focused on—author information, conversation type, use of the same hashtags or emojis—are all highly dependent on data.
In order to avoid data dependency, text sequences of context tweets are directly used as an additional feature of neural network models. We use the same baseline model to convert context tweets to vectors, then concatenate these vectors with outputs of their corresponding labeled tweets. More specifically, we concatenate max-pooled layers of context and labeled tweets for the CNN baseline model. As for RNN, the last hidden states of context and labeled tweets are concatenated.
Experiments
===========
Dataset
-------
*Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter* [@founta2018large] classifies tweets into 4 labels, *“normal"*, *“spam"*, *“hateful"* and *“abusive"*. We were only able to crawl 70,904 tweets out of 99,996 tweet IDs, mainly because the tweet was deleted or the user account had been suspended. Table \[table\_crawledTweets\_labels\] shows the distribution of labels of the crawled data.
Data Preprocessing
------------------
In the data preprocessing steps, user IDs, URLs, and frequently used emojis are replaced as special tokens. Since hashtags tend to have a high correlation with the content of the tweet [@lehmann2012dynamical], we use a segmentation library[^3] [@segaran:09] for hashtags to extract more information.
For character-level representations, we apply the method Zhang et al. proposed. Tweets are transformed into one-hot encoded vectors using 70 character dimensions—26 lower-cased alphabets, 10 digits, and 34 special characters including whitespace.
Training and Evaluation
-----------------------
In training the feature engineering based machine learning classifiers, we truncate vector representations according to the TF-IDF values (the top 14,000 and 53,000 for word-level and character-level representations, respectively) to avoid overfitting. For neural network models, words that appear only once are replaced as unknown tokens.
Since the dataset used is not split into train, development, and test sets, we perform 10-fold cross validation, obtaining the average of 5 tries; we divide the dataset randomly by a ratio of 85:5:10, respectively. In order to evaluate the overall performance, we calculate the weighted average of precision, recall, and F1 scores of all four labels, “*normal*”, “*spam*”, “*hateful*”, and “*abusive*”.
Empirical Results
-----------------
As shown in Table \[table\_performance\], neural network models are more accurate than feature engineering based models (i.e. NB, SVM, etc.) except for the LR model—the best LR model has the same F1 score as the best CNN model.
Among traditional machine learning models, the most accurate in classifying abusive language is the LR model followed by ensemble models such as GBT and RF. Character-level representations improve F1 scores of SVM and RF classifiers, but they have no positive effect on other models.
For neural network models, RNN with LTC modules have the highest accuracy score, but there are no significant improvements from its baseline model and its attention-added model. Similarly, HybridCNN does not improve the baseline CNN model. For both CNN and RNN models, character-level features significantly decrease the accuracy of classification.
The use of context tweets generally have little effect on baseline models, however they noticeably improve the scores of several metrics. For instance, CNN with context tweets score the highest recall and F1 for “*hateful*" labels, and RNN models with context tweets have the highest recall for “*abusive*" tweets.
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
While character-level features are known to improve the accuracy of neural network models [@badjatiya2017deep], they reduce classification accuracy for *Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter*. We conclude this is because of the lack of labeled data as well as the significant imbalance among the different labels. Unlike neural network models, character-level features in traditional machine learning classifiers have positive results because we have trained the models only with the most significant character elements using TF-IDF values.
Variants of neural network models also suffer from data insufficiency. However, these models show positive performances on *“spam"* (14%) and *“hateful"* (4%) tweets—the lower distributed labels. The highest F1 score for *“spam"* is from the RNN-LTC model (0.551), and the highest for *“hateful"* is CNN with context tweets (0.309). Since each variant model excels in different metrics, we expect to see additional improvements with the use of ensemble models of these variants in future works.
In this paper, we report the baseline accuracy of different learning models as well as their variants on the recently introduced dataset, *Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter*. Experimental results show that bidirectional GRU networks with LTC provide the most accurate results in detecting abusive language. Additionally, we present the possibility of using ensemble models of variant models and features for further improvements.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
K. Jung is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, ASRI, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2016M3C4A7952632), the Technology Innovation Program (10073144) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea).
We would also like to thank Yongkeun Hwang and Ji Ho Park for helpful discussions and their valuable insights.
[^1]: \* Equal contribution.
[^2]: The code can be found at: <https://github.com/younggns/comparative-abusive-lang>
[^3]: WordSegment module description page: <https://pypi.org/project/wordsegment/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A novel orthogonalization-free method together with two specific algorithms are proposed to solve extreme eigenvalue problems. On top of gradient-based algorithms, the proposed algorithms modify the multi-column gradient such that earlier columns are decoupled from later ones. Global convergence to eigenvectors instead of eigenspace is guaranteed almost surely. Locally, algorithms converge linearly with convergence rate depending on eigengaps. Momentum acceleration, exact linesearch, and column locking are incorporated to further accelerate both algorithms and reduce their computational costs. We demonstrate the efficiency of both algorithms on several random matrices with different spectrum distribution and matrices from practice.'
author:
- |
Weiguo Gao$^{\,\dagger\,\ddagger\,\mathsection}$, Yingzhou Li$^{\,\sharp}$, Bichen Lu$^{\,\mathsection\,\dagger}$\
$\dagger$ School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University\
$\ddagger$ School of Data Science, Fudan University\
$\mathsection$ Shanghai Center for Mathematical Sciences\
$\sharp$ Department of Mathematics, Duke University\
[[^1]]{}
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: 'Triangularized Orthogonalization-free Method for Solving Extreme Eigenvalue Problems'
---
[[**Keywords.**]{} eigenvalue problem; orthogonalization-free; iterative eigensolver; full configuration interaction; ]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
This paper proposes a novel triangularized orthogonalization-free method ([TriOFM]{}) for solving extreme eigenvalue problems. Given a symmetric matrix $A$, the extreme eigenvalue problem is defined as, $$\label{eq:EVP}
AX = X \Lambda,$$ where $A \in \bbR^{n \times n}$, $A^\top = A$, $\Lambda \in \bbR^{p
\times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with $A$’s smallest (largest) $p$ eigenvalues being its diagonal entries in ascending (descending) order, and the columns of $X$ are the corresponding eigenvectors. The proposed methods are targeting some specific applications in computational physics and computational chemistry, in which areas smallest eigenpairs are desired as the ground-state and low-lying excited-states. Hence, in the following, we describe and analyze methods for smallest $p$ eigenpairs. All eigensolvers in this paper can be applied to a linearly transformed $A$ to obtain either its smallest or its largest $p$ eigenpairs.
Solving extreme eigenvalue problem is the fundamental computational step in a wide range of applications, including but not limited to principle component analysis, dimension reductions, electronic structure calculation, quantum many-body problems, etc. In this paper, we specifically concern extreme eigenvalue problems with two properties:
(i) Orthogonalization of $X$ is not permitted;
(ii) Eigenvectors are sparse vectors.
At least two important applications, linear scaling density functional theory (DFT) [@Mauri1993] and full configuration interaction (FCI) [@Knowles1984] for low-lying excited states from electronic structure calculation, admit these two properties. In DFT with spacial local basis sets, the eigenvectors are sparse in general, which are also known as Wannier functions [@Brouder2007; @Stubbs2020]. Hence, the second property holds in linear scaling DFT. Regarding the first property, since the number of desired eigenpairs is on the same order as the problem size in DFT, any orthogonalization on $X$ would make the computational complexity go beyond linear scaling. Hence the first property is needed in the algorithm design. FCI for low-lying excited states is very different from DFT problems. In FCI, $p$ is usually a small constant, e.g., $p=10$. However, the size of the matrix $n$ grows factorially as the number of electrons and orbitals in the system increases. Luckily, the eigenvectors of the low-lying excited states are extremely sparse, which makes the problem tackleable. Coordinate descent algorithm is applied to the FCI problem to reveal the sparse pattern efficiently [@Wang2019]. Orthogonalization of $X$, however, is incompatible with the coordinate descent algorithm. Hence it is not permitted. For both applications, the sparsity of the eigenvectors is the key feature to preserve. For algorithms converging to the eigenspace instead of eigenvectors directly would destroy the sparsity and are not favored by these applications. Hence, we need an orthogonalization-free method that converges to eigenvectors directly.
Related Work
------------
For linear eigenvalue problems as , there are many classical eigensolvers from textbooks of numerical linear algebra. Readers are referred to [@Golub2013] for references. In electronic structure calculation, variants of classical eigensolvers, like Davidson [@Davidson1975], locally optimal block preconditioned conjugate gradient method (LOBPCG) [@Knyazev2001], projected preconditioned conjugate gradient (PPCG) [@Vecharynski2015], Chebyshev filtering [@Banerjee2016; @Zhou2006], pole expansion [@Li2017b; @PeterTang2014], are widely used in the self consistent field iteration in DFT. All these methods are related to Krylov subspace methods to certain degree. A recent software ELSI [@Yu2018; @Yu2019] provides an interface to many of these eigensolvers for DFT calculation.
Besides Krylov subspace methods, another family of methods view the eigenvalue problem as a constrained optimization problem and solve it using either first-order or second-order optimization methods [@Dai2019b; @Gao2018; @Huang2015; @Wen2013; @Zhang2014]. These methods usually targeting more general objective functions with orthonormal constraint. But the linear eigenvalue problem is always one of their potential applications. Since the feasible domain of the orthonormality constraint is known as Stiefel manifold, these methods are also known as manifold optimization methods. They take either Euclidean gradient or Riemannian gradient step with certain strategies in calculating the stepsize. A retraction or projection step is needed to maintain the feasibility of the iterator $X$. Recently, in order to enhance the parallelizability, the retraction step is avoided through either augmented Lagrangian method [@Gao2019; @Wen2016] or extend gradient [@Dai2019a].
Linear eigenvalue problems can also be written as an unconstrained optimization problem. The most well-known one is minimizing the Rayleigh quotient, which can be extended to multicolumn case as well. Another two unconstrained objective functions are $$\label{eq:obj1} \tag{Obj1}
\min_{X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}} \fnorm{A + XX^\top}^2,$$ and $$\label{eq:obj2} \tag{Obj2}
\min_{X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}} {\mathrm{tr}\left((2I-X^\top X)X^\top AX\right)},$$ where $\fnorm{\cdot}$ denotes the Frobenius norm and ${\mathrm{tr}\left(\cdot\right)}$ denotes the trace operation. They are processors of the [TriOFM]{} proposed in this paper. has been adopted to address the extreme eigenvalue problems arsing from several areas [@Lei2016; @Li2019c; @Liu2015c], including FCI [@Wang2019; @Li2020a]. is widely known in the orbital minimization method (OMM) [@Corsetti2014; @Lu2017a; @Lu2017; @Ordejon1993; @Mauri1993], which is popular in the area of (linear scaling) DFT. More details about and are deferred to Section \[sec:preliminary\].
For all methods afore mentioned in this section, some of them are orthogonalization-free, and some of them converge to eigenvectors directly. But none of them holds two properties simultaneously.
Contribution
------------
In this paper, a novel iterative framework, named triangularized orthogonalization-free method ([TriOFM]{}), is proposed, which has orthogonalization-free property and converges to eigenvectors directly. The framework is inspired by the unconstrained optimization methods while the updating direction is no longer a gradient of any energy functional. Instead of viewing the iterative framework as an optimization method, it is more proper to view it as a discrete dynamical system or discrete time flow in a vector field. Under the novel iterative framework, locking technique can be activated, which is of important practical usage but not available in other orthogonalization-free methods. Two iterative schemes are proposed under [TriOFM]{} framework for and , namely [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}.
The convergence analysis of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} is carried out in detail. The global convergence is proved without convergence rate. And the key in the global convergence proof, not surprisingly, is the stable manifold theorem. Then we also provide local convergence analysis with convergence rate, where the rate is carried out through a careful analysis on the accumulated error term. All these analyses are carried over to [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} without detailed proof.
After the analysis, we propose a few algorithmic strategies to further accelerate the convergence and reduce the computational cost. Conjugate gradient direction and a few line search strategies are suggested to accelerate both iterative schemes. Locking technique is incorporated to reduce the computational cost.
Numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the novel framework. All suggested algorithmic strategies are first tested on randomly generated matrices and then applied to practical examples, one from DFT and another one from FCI. In both practical examples, we observe that the proposed framework achieves both the orthogonalization-free and converging to eigenvectors properties while not losing much efficiency comparing with their original versions (gradient-based versions).
Organization
------------
Section \[sec:preliminary\] provides detail introductions to both and with an analysis on the energy landscape of the multicolumn case. Section \[sec:Triu-opt\] introduces the novel iterative framework and its two iterative schemes in detail. The global and local convergence analysis are carried out in Section \[sec:globalconv\] and Section \[sec:localconv\] respectively. Algorithmic strategies are suggested in Section \[sec:implementation\]. In Section \[sec:numerical\], all iterative schemes and algorithmic strategies are numerically tested on random matrices and matrices from practice. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper with discussion on future directions.
Preliminary {#sec:preliminary}
===========
We introduce optimization based eigensolvers using and in detail in this section. These eigensolvers are closely related to our proposed methods. Notations used throughout the paper is summarized in Table \[tab:notations\], which would be used without further explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notation Explanation
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$n$ The size of the matrix.
$p$ The number of desired eigenpairs.
$q$ The number of negative eigenvalues of the matrix.
$A$ The $n$-by-$n$ symmetric matrix.
$\Lambda$ A diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being eigenvalues of $A$ in increasing ordering.
$\lambda_i$ The $i$-th smallest eigenvalue of $A$.
$\Lambda_i$ The first $i$-by-$i$ principal submatrix of $\Lambda$.
$U$ The orthogonal matrix denoting the eigenvectors of $A$.
$u_i$ The eigenvector of $A$ corresponding to $\lambda_i$.
$U_i$ The first $i$ columns of $U$.
$\rho$ The two norm of $A$, , $\rho = \norm{A}_2$.
$X^{(t)}$ An $n$-by-$p$ matrix denoting the vectors at $t$-th iteration.
$x^{(t)}_i$ The $i$-th column of $X^{(t)}$.
$X^{(t)}_i$ The first $i$ columns of $X^{(t)}$, $X^{(t)}_i = \begin{pmatrix} x_1^{(t)} & x_2^{(t)} & \cdots
& x_i^{(t)} \end{pmatrix}$.
$f(X)$ The objective function of $X$, either or .
$f_1(X), f_2(X)$ The objective function of and respectively.
$\grad{f}(X)$ The gradient of $f(X)$.
$\grad{f_1}(X), \grad{f_2}(X)$ The gradient of $f_1(X)$, $f_2(X)$.
$\alpha$ The stepsize used in optimization algorithms.
$e_i$ The $i$-th standard basis, , a vector of length $n$ with one on the $i$-th entry and zero elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Notations used throughout the paper.[]{data-label="tab:notations"}
As mentioned in Section \[sec:introduction\], there have already been many well-known methods for solving linear symmetric eigenvalue problems, including the traditional ones like power method, QR iteration, Lanczos, etc. All these methods can be viewed as solvers for the constrained optimization problem, $$\label{eq:optimization}
\min_{\substack{X \in \bbR^{n \times p} \\ X^\top X = I}}
{\mathrm{tr}\left(X^\top A X\right)}.$$ Hence a projection back onto the constraint space is needed after each iteration or after a few iterations. Such a projection is necessary to guarantee that different columns of $X$ convergence to different eigenvectors, but is difficult to parallelize efficiently. Unconstrained optimization based eigensolvers, in contrast to those traditional ones, require matrix-matrix product without projection. Hence the parallel communication cost is significantly reduced and the parallel efficiency is preserved, which is plausible for solving large problems on massive parallel environment.
The most well-known unconstrained optimization based eigensolver for a single eigenpair is to minimize the Rayleigh quotient, whose multicolumn extension is $$\label{eq:Rayleighquotient}
\min_{X \in \bbR^{n \times p}} r(X) = {\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(X^\top
X\right)^{-1}X^\top A X\right)}.$$ The minimizer of is any point in the eigenspace spanned by $\{u_1, u_2, \dots, u_p\}$. However, if we minimize with gradient based optimization methods, the gradient at each iteration requires solving a matrix inverse $(X^\top X )^{-1}$, which is computation-wise expensive and lacks parallel efficiency. and are two unconstrained optimization problems for multicolumn symmetric eigenvalue problems. More importantly, the gradient based iteration for both objective functions are inverse-free and projection-free.
Objective Function One
----------------------
The intuition behind is simple. Since $A$ is symmetric and we aim to compute the smallest negative eigenpairs, $A + X X^\top$ is the residual of the symmetric low-rank approximation. Hence, minimizes the Frobenius norm square of the residual. has an equivalent trace form similar to , , $$\min_{X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}} \fnorm{A + XX^\top}^2
\Leftrightarrow
\min_{X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}} {\mathrm{tr}\left(2X^\top AX + X^\top
XX^\top X\right)}.$$ With an extra penalty parameter, is also equivalent to a trace-penalty minimization model [@Liu2015c].
The gradient of using the trace form can be derived as $$\label{eq:grad-obj1}
\grad{f_1}(X) = 4AX + 4XX^\top X.$$ In both [@Li2019c; @Liu2015c], the energy landscape of has been analyzed using the properties of its gradient and Hessian. does not have any spurious local minimum. We summarize energy landscape analysis related theorems in [@Li2019c; @Liu2015c] as follows.
\[thm:obj1\] Assume that $A$ has $q$ negative eigenpairs with $q \geq p$. All [**stationary points**]{} of are of form $X = U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P S Q$ and all [**local minima**]{} are of form $X = U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} Q$, where $\sqrt{\cdot}$ is applied entry-wise, $P \in \bbR^{q \times p}$ is the first $p$ columns of an arbitrary $q$-by-$q$ permutation matrix, $S \in
\bbR^{p \times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being 0 or 1, and $Q \in \bbR^{p\times p}$ is an arbitrary orthogonal matrix. Further, any local minimum is also a global minimum.
Notice that in Theorem \[thm:obj1\], $A$ is assumed to have at least $p$ negative eigenpairs, which is not necessary for the theorem to hold. When $A$ has less number of negative eigenpairs, both stationary points and global minima can be modified to include zero columns. In order to simply the presentation in this paper, we stick to this assumption for throughout the paper. For practical problems from physics, this assumption usually holds and no diagonal shift of the matrix is needed.
Objective Function Two
----------------------
For , the intuition is more complicated. There are two ways to understand the construction of the objective function: approximation of inverse and Lagrange multiplier.
Recalling the objective function in Rayleigh quotient , the matrix inverse leads to expensive computational cost. Assuming the spectrum of $X^\top X$ is bounded by one, we have the Neumann series expansion and its first order approximation as, $$(X^\top X)^{-1} = (I - (I - X^\top X) )^{-1} = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}
(I - X^\top X )^i \approx 2I - X^\top X,$$ which leads to the approximation of the objective function as $${\mathrm{tr}\left( (X^\top X )^{-1} X^\top A X\right)} \approx {\mathrm{tr}\left((2I - X^\top X)
X^\top A X\right)}.$$
Another way to understand the construction of is through applying the Lagrange multiplier method to , where the Lagrangian function is $$\calL (X, \Xi ) = {\mathrm{tr}\left(X^\top A X\right)} - {\mathrm{tr}\left(\Xi (X^\top X - I)\right)}$$ and $\Xi$ denotes the Lagrange multiplier. Using the first order optimality condition, $\frac{\partial \calL}{\partial X} = 0$, and left multiplying both sides by $X$, we obtain $\Xi = X^\top A
X$. Substituting the expression of $\Xi$ back into $\calL$ leads to .
The gradient of can be derived through a multivariable calculus as, $$\label{eq:grad-obj2}
\grad{f_2}(X) = 4AX - 2XX^\top AX - 2AXX^\top X.$$ Analyzing the properties of the gradient and Hessian, previous work [@Lu2017a] shows that has simple form of the stationary points and does not have any spurious local minimum. The theorems therein are summarized as follows.
\[thm:obj2\] Let $A$ be a negative definite matrix. All [**stationary points**]{} of are of form $X = U P S Q$ and all [**local minima**]{} are of form $X = U_p Q$, where $P \in
\bbR^{n \times p}$ is the first $p$ columns of an arbitrary $n$-by-$n$ permutation matrix, $S \in \bbR^{p \times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being 0 or 1, and $Q \in
\bbR^{p\times p}$ is an arbitrary orthogonal matrix. Further, any local minimum is also a global minimum.
Notice that the matrix $A$ in must be negative definite. Otherwise, $X$ can be selected as scaled eigenvectors corresponding to the positive eigenvalues and $f_2(X)$ can be arbitrarily negative and unbounded from below. For eigenvalue problems, the matrix can be shifted to be negative definite, which requires an estimation of the largest eigenvalue. Later in this paper, we will always assume $A$ is negative definite in the case of .
Based on the analysis of the energy landscape of both and , any algorithm avoiding saddle points converges to the global minimum. Such algorithms include but not limit to regular gradient descent [@Lee2019], conjugate gradient descent, stochastic gradient descent [@Bottou2018; @Li2019], etc. Using the notation defined in Table \[tab:notations\] and gradients defined as and , the gradient descent iterations for and are defined as, $$\label{eq:iterobj1}
X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha \left( AX^{(t)} + X^{(t)} \left(
X^{(t)} \right)^\top X^{(t)} \right),$$ and $$\label{eq:iterobj2}
X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha \left( 2AX^{(t)} - AX^{(t)} \left(
X^{(t)} \right)^\top X^{(t)} - X^{(t)} \left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top
AX^{(t)} \right),$$ where we have absorbed the constant common factor into the stepsize $\alpha$. Unfortunately, the Hessian of both and are unbounded from above, hence the valid set for the choice of the stepsize over the entire domain is empty. One solution which has been applied before [@Li2019c] is to find a huge bounded domain of $X$ such that iterations are guaranteed to stay within this domain and the objective functions have bounded Hessian and nonempty choice for the stepsize. In Section \[sec:Triu-opt\], we need a similar theorem as well.
As shown in Theorem \[thm:obj1\] and Theorem \[thm:obj2\], the global minima are generated as a linear combination of eigenvectors corresponding to low-lying eigenvalues. Further computation is required to obtain the low-lying eigenpairs, which is needed in many practical computations like DFT for metallic systems, FCI, etc. We introduce two ways to compute eigenpairs from the global minimum $X$. The first way works only for . We can apply singular value decomposition (SVD) to $X$ and obtain the explicit decomposition $X = U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} Q$. Hence the eigenpairs can be recovered explicitly. The second way works for both and . Applying eigenvalue decomposition to $X^\top
AX$ results, $X^\top AX = Q^\top \Lambda Q$, which gives eigenvalues explicitly. Then computing $U_p = XQ^\top \sqrt{-\Lambda_p}^{-1}$ and $U_p = XQ^\top$ gives the eigenvectors for and respectively. Both ways for computing explicit eigenpairs cost $O(np^2)$ operations, which is negligible when $p
\ll n$. When $p \sim n$ as in DFT calculation, the post processing cost is still cubic scaling in $n$ and lacks parallel efficiency.
Triangularized Optimization Eigensolvers {#sec:Triu-opt}
========================================
We propose triangularized orthogonalization-free methods ([TriOFM]{}) as eigensolvers based on and , which are denoted as [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}.
Our goal as mentioned in Section \[sec:introduction\] is to find $p$ extreme eigenpairs with two properties: (i). Orthogonalization of $X$ is not permitted; (ii). Eigenvectors are sparse vectors. Optimizing and almost achieves the first required property except the post processing part. While, the second property is totally ignored. Due to the existence of the arbitrary orthogonal matrix $Q$, the convergent point for both and almost surely destroy the sparsity in the original eigenvectors. Adding $\ell_1$ penalty to [@Lu2017] is proposed to achieve the sparsity as much as possible in DFT problems, which is not likely to be applicable to FCI problems.
Another way of explicitly getting the eigenpairs rather than a point in the eigenspace is to solve the single column version of or multiple times. For the first time, we solve the single column version of or for $A_1
= A$ and obtain the smallest eigenpair $\lambda_1$ and $u_1$. Then we apply either method to $A_2 = A_1 - \lambda_1 u_1 u_1^\top$ and obtain $\lambda_2$ and $u_2$. At $k$-th time, either method is applied to $A_k = A_{k-1} - \lambda_{k-1} u_{k-1} u_{k-1}^\top = A -
\sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \lambda_i u_i u_i^\top$ and $\lambda_k$ and $u_k$ are computed. Such a procedure has two drawbacks. First, single column operation is known as BLAS2-level (matrix-vector) operation, which is significantly slower than BLAS3-level (matrix-matrix) operation due to the memory hierarchy in modern computer architecture. This drawback would mostly impact the performance of DFT calculations. The second drawback is due to the transformed matrix $A_k$. The sparsity in $A$ plays crucial role in designing coordinate descent algorithms for FCI problems. However, it is destroyed in $A_k$ by the additive low-rank matrix. Hence the second drawback makes the proposed procedure infeasible for FCI problems.
Although the afore mentioned procedure is not working satisfactorily for our problems, it does inspire [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}. We first motivate and derive [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}. Then [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} can be derived in an analogy way.
In the above procedure, the single column version of is applied to $A_k = A - \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} \lambda_i u_i u_i^\top$. Notice that if the column-by-column procedure is applied, the convergent point of $x_i$ is $\pm \sqrt{-\lambda_i}u_i$. Hence, $A_k$ can be viewed as the summation of $A$ and the outer product of convergent vector of $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_{k-1}$. If we assume all columns iterate together, and the single column version of is applied to the most closed approximation of $A_k$, , $A_k \approx {\widetilde{A}}_k = A + \sum_{i = 1}^{k-1} x_k x_k^\top$, then we obtain the following iterative schemes, $$\begin{split}
x_1^{(t+1)} = & x_1^{(t)} - \alpha \left( A x_1^{(t)} + x_1^{(t)}
\left( x_1^{(t)} \right)^\top x_1^{(t)} \right), \\
x_2^{(t+1)} = & x_2^{(t)} - \alpha \left( A x_2^{(t)} +
x_1^{(t)} \left( x_1^{(t)} \right)^\top x_2^{(t)} + x_2^{(t)}
\left( x_2^{(t)} \right)^\top x_2^{(t)} \right), \\
\cdots & \\
x_k^{(t+1)} = & x_k^{(t)} - \alpha \left( A x_k^{(t)} + \sum_{i
= 1}^{k} x_i^{(t)}
\left( x_i^{(t)} \right)^\top x_k^{(t)} \right), \\
\cdots. & \\
\end{split}$$ Using matrix notation, the above iterative schemes admit the following representation, $$\label{eq:triofm-obj1}
X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha \left( AX^{(t)} + X^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left( \left(
X^{(t)} \right)^\top X^{(t)}\right)} \right),$$ where ${\mathrm{triu}\left(\cdot\right)}$ denote the upper triangular matrix. The key difference between and is that the gradient is modified by an upper triangular version, $$\label{eq:g1}
g_1(X) = AX + X {\mathrm{triu}\left(X^\top X\right)}.$$
Next we analyze the stationary points of in Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\]
\[thm:stationarypt-obj1\] Assume that $A$ has $q$ negative eigenpairs with $q \geq p$. All [**stationary points**]{} of are of form $X = U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P S D$, where $\sqrt{\cdot}$ is applied entry-wise, $P \in \bbR^{q \times p}$ is the first $p$ columns of an arbitrary $q$-by-$q$ permutation matrix, $S \in
\bbR^{p \times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $0$ or $1$, and $D \in \bbR^{p\times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $+1$ or $-1$. Within these points all [**stable stationary points**]{} are of form $X
= U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D$ and others are [**unstable stationary points**]{}.
All stationary points of satisfy $g_1(X)
= 0$ for $g_1(X)$ being a $n$-by-$p$ matrix. We prove the theorem by induction. Here we introduce notations for four matrices: $X_i$ denote the first $i$ columns of $X$, $P_i \in \bbR^{q \times i}$ is the first $i$ columns of an arbitrary $q$-by-$q$ permutation matrix, $S_i \in \bbR^{i \times i}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $0$ or $1$, and $D_i \in \bbR^{i\times i}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $+1$ or $-1$.
Consider the first column of $g_1(X) = 0$, which is $$\label{eq:equalityx1}
Ax_1 + x_1 x_1^\top x_1 = 0,$$ for $x_1^\top x_1$ being a scalar. When $x_1 = 0$, naturally holds. When $x_1 \neq 0$, $x_1$ must be a scalar multiple of an eigenvector of $A$ and $x_1^\top
x_1$ is the negative number of the corresponding eigenvalue, which must be negative. Hence $X_1 = x_1$ is of the form, $X_1 =
U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P_1 S_1 D_1$.
Now assume the first $i$ columns of $X$ obeys $X_i = U_q
\sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P_i S_i D_i$. Then the $(i+1)$-th column of $g_1(X) = 0$ is $$\label{eq:equalityxi}
0 = Ax_{i+1} + X_i X_i^\top x_{i+1} + x_{i+1} x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1}
= {\widetilde{A}}x_{i+1} + x_{i+1} x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1},$$ where ${\widetilde{A}}= A + X_i X_i^\top = A + U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P_i
S_i P_i^\top \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} U_q^\top$. ${\widetilde{A}}$ is the original matrix $A$ zeroing out a few eigenvalues corresponding to the selected columns in $P_i$ with $1$ in $S_i$. Applying the similar analysis as in the case of to , we conclude that $X_{i+1}$ is of the form, $X_{i+1} = U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P_{i+1} S_{i+1} D_{i+1}$.
Since $q \geq p$, we have sufficient number of negative eigenpairs to be added to $X$. The induction can be processed until $i =
p$, and we obtain the expression for all stationary points as in the theorem.
The stabilities of stationary points are determined by the spectrum of their Jacobian matrices of $g_1$, , $\Diff g_1(X)$. Since both $g_1(X)$ and $X$ are matrices, the Jacobian is a 4-way tensor, which is unfolded as a matrix here. In order to avoid over complicated index in subscripts, we denote the matrix $g_1(X)$ as $G$. Notation $G_{ij}$ and $x_{ij}$ denote the element on $j$-th row and $i$-th column of $G$ and $X$ respectively. Then the Jacobian matrix is written as a $p$-by-$p$ block matrix, $$\Diff g_1(X) = \Diff G =
\begin{pmatrix}
J_{11} & \cdots & J_{1p}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
J_{p1} & \cdots & J_{pp}
\end{pmatrix},$$ with each block $J_{ij}$ being, $$J_{ij} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\parfrac{G_{i1}}{x_{j1}} & \cdots & \parfrac{G_{in}}{x_{j1}}
\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\parfrac{G_{i1}}{x_{jn}} & \cdots & \parfrac{G_{in}}{x_{jn}}
\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Notice that the $i$-th column of $G$, $G_i = A x_i + X_i X_i^\top
x_i$, is independent of $x_{i+1}, \dots x_p$, which means $J_{ij} = 0$ for $i < j$. Hence $\Diff g_1(X)$ is a block upper triangular matrix. The spectrum of $\Diff g_1(X)$ is determined by the spectrum of $J_{ii}$ for $i = 1, 2, \dots, p$. Through a multivariable calculus, we obtain the explicit expression for $J_{ii}$, $$\label{eq:Jacobiansubmat}
J_{ii} = A + X_i X_i^\top + x_i^\top x_i I + x_i x_i^\top.$$
We first show the stability of the stationary points of form $X =
U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D$. Substituting these points into , we have, $$J_{ii} = A - U_i \Lambda_i U_i^\top - \lambda_i I - u_i
\lambda_i u_i^\top.$$ Since $\lambda_i$ is negative and strictly smaller than all eigenvalues of $A - U_i \Lambda_i U_i^\top$, $J_{ii}$ is strictly positive definite for all $i = 1, 2, \dots, p$. Therefore we have all eigenvalues of $\Diff g_1(U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D)$ are strictly positive and $X = U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D$ are stable stationary points.
Next, we show the instability of the rest stationary points. If $X$ is a stationary points but not of the form $U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D$, then there exist indices $s$ such that $x_s^\top u_s = 0$. Denote $s$ as the first such index. Substituting this point into $J_{ss}$ and computing the bilinear form of $J_{ss}$ with respect to $u_s$, we have, $$u_s^\top J_{ss} u_s = \lambda_s - x_s^\top x_s < 0,$$ where the inequality comes from the fact that $x_s$ is zero or corresponds to eigenvalues greater than $\lambda_s$. Hence the Jacobian matrix has negative eigenvalues. Hence these points are unstable stationary points.
Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] illustrates the detailed pseudocode for . The choice of the stepsize is unspecified, which will be revealed in later sections.
a symmetric matrix A, an initial point $X^{(0)}$ $t=0$ $g_1^{(t)} = AX^{(t)} + X^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left(\left( X^{(t)}
\right)^\top X^{(t)}\right)}$ Choose a stepsize $\alpha^{(t)}$ $X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha^{(t)} g_1^{(t)}$ $t = t + 1$
There is another way to understand the iterative scheme. The column with smaller index is decoupled from the later columns. For example, the iterative scheme of $x_1$ is independent of all later columns. For the second column, $x_2$, the iterative scheme on $x_2$ is the same as the second column in the 2-column version of . Recursively applying the idea, we also reach to Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\].
Similar idea can be applied to solve as well. We notice that there are two terms in coupling columns together, , $AX^{(t)} \left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top X^{(t)}$ and $X^{(t)} \left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top AX^{(t)}$. Using the decoupling idea, we can replace the $\left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top
X^{(t)}$ and $\left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top AX^{(t)}$ by their upper triangular parts and result the following iterative scheme, $$\label{eq:triofm-obj2}
X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha \left( 2AX^{(t)} - AX^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left(
\left( X^{(t)} \right)^\top X^{(t)}\right)} - X^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left( \left(
X^{(t)} \right)^\top AX^{(t)}\right)} \right).$$ Comparing to , the gradient is modified as, $$g_2(X) = 2AX - AX {\mathrm{triu}\left(X^\top X\right)} - X {\mathrm{triu}\left(X^\top AX\right)}.$$
The stationary points of can be analyzed in a slightly modified way. We summarize the properties in Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj2\] and leave the proof in Appendix \[app:stationarypt-obj2\].
\[thm:stationarypt-obj2\] Let $A$ be a negative definite matrix. All [**stationary points**]{} of are of form $X = U P S D$ and all [**stable stationary points**]{} are of form $X = U_p D$, where $P \in \bbR^{n \times p}$ is the first $p$ columns of an arbitrary $n$-by-$n$ permutation matrix, $S \in \bbR^{p \times
p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $0$ or $1$, and $D \in \bbR^{p\times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being $+1$ or $-1$.
Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] illustrates the detailed pseudocode for and the choice of the stepsize is also deferred to later sections.
a symmetric matrix A, an initial point $X^{(0)}$ $t = 0$ $g_2^{(t)} = 2AX^{(t)} - AX^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left(
\left(X^{(t)}\right)^\top X^{(t)}\right)} - X^{(t)} {\mathrm{triu}\left(
\left(X^{(t)}\right)^\top A X^{(t)}\right)}$ Choose a stepsize $\alpha^{(t)}$ $X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha^{(t)} g_2^{(t)}$ $t = t + 1$
We claim a few advantages of Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] over other related methods. First, both algorithms converge to the eigenvectors or their scaled ones without mixing them. Hence the sparsity of the eigenvectors is preserved. Although we do not benefit from the sparsity during the iteration in Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] directly, we expect that the coordinate descent versions of them would benefit from the sparsity and achieve fast convergence and small memory cost for FCI problems. Second, the orthogonalization step is totally removed, which makes the algorithm friendly to parallel computing. Third, all cubic scaling operations can be processed through BLAS3-level routines. Algorithms, therefore, benefit from the memory hierarchy of modern computer architecture.
All gradient based optimization algorithms can be viewed as a discrete time dynamic systems on a conservative field. However, Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] are discrete time dynamic systems on a non-conservative field, since neither $g_1(X)$ nor $g_2(X)$ corresponds to a gradient of an energy functional. Hence the usual convergence analysis in optimization field can not be applied directly here. Through a careful analysis inspired by optimization analysis, in Section \[sec:globalconv\] and Section \[sec:localconv\], we propose the global and local convergence analysis for both algorithms.
Although we only propose Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] and analyze their convergence in this paper, the idea of [TriOFM]{} can be applied to a wide range of algorithms to remove the redundancy introduced by gauge freedom or gauge invariance. The key point here is decoupling each column from later columns while ensuring the iterative scheme for later column is the same as solving the multicolumn version of the objective function. We conduct the convergence analysis for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] case by case. Hence we expect the convergence analysis for other [TriOFM]{} algorithms also need to be done case by case. The unified convergence analysis for [TriOFM]{} is open.
Global Convergence Analysis {#sec:globalconv}
===========================
In this section, we prove the global convergence for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] and Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\]. The global convergence analysis for both algorithms are intuitively simple but technically difficult. We first state the intuition for $p = 2$. The global convergence of a single column version of Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] is almost surely guaranteed [@Li2019c]. Intuitively, if we assume the first columns $x_1$ has converged and is frozen to be a global minimum, then the second column in the iterative scheme is associated with an optimization problem, $$\fnorm{A + x_2 x_2^\top}^2 + 2\fnorm{x_1^\top x_2}^2 = \fnorm{{\widetilde{A}}+
x_2 x_2^\top}^2,$$ where ${\widetilde{A}}= A + x_1 x_1^\top = A - \lambda_1 u_1 u_1^\top$. Notice the optimization problem for $x_2$ is of the same form as the single column version of Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\]. Hence the convergence of $x_2$ is also guaranteed almost surely. However, there are two niches. First, the numerical error for the converged $x_1$ should be taken into account in the convergence analysis of $x_2$, which would be similar to an sensitivity analysis. The second niche is more problematic. For a random initial $x_1$ and $x_2$, the convergence of $x_1$ should not make $x_2$ fall into the problematic zero-measure initial set where $x_2$ will converge to an unstable stationary point. A complete proof must fill these two niches.
In the following, we conduct a careful global convergence analysis for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] step-by-step. The analog proof procedure can be applied to show the global convergence for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\]. Hence, the global convergence theorem for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] is given without a detailed proof.
All lemmas and theorems for Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] in this section are stated under Assumption \[assump:init\], where we assume the iteration starts within a big domain, where the Hessian matrix is bounded from above, and the stepsize is fixed and upper bounded by a small constant.
\[assump:init\] Let $R_i=2^{i-1}\sqrt{3\rho}$ for all $1 \leq i\leq
p$. The initial point $X^{(0)} = \begin{pmatrix}x_1^{(0)}
& x_2^{(0)} & \cdots & x_p^{(0)}\end{pmatrix}$ satisfies $\norm{x_i^{(0)}} \leq R_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq p$. Iteration follows Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] with a constant stepsize satisfying $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{5R_p^2}$.
According to Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\], stable stationary points are of form $X = U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D$ and columns are scalar multiple of the $p$ low-lying eigenvectors of $A$. Global convergence aims to show that Algorithm converges to one of the stable stationary points. In order to simplify the notation, we define the set of stable stationary points as $\calX^* = \left\{
U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p}D \right\}$, where $U_p$, $\Lambda_p$, and $D$ are defined in Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\]. Further, the distance between a point $X$ and the set $\calX^*$ is denoted as $\fnorm{X - \calX^*} = \min_{Y \in \calX^*} \fnorm{X-Y}$, which means the smallest F-norm between $X$ and all points in $\calX^*$. For the first $k$ columns, we define the set of stable stationary points as $\calX^*_k = \left\{ U_k \sqrt{-\Lambda_k}D_k \right\}$, where $U_k$ is the first $k$ columns of $U_p$, $\Lambda_k$ and $D_k$ are the first principle $k$-by-$k$ submatrices of $\Lambda_p$ and $D$ respectively.
Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj1\] states that Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] converges to a global minimum almost surely. While the proof depends on the following lemmas, including another few lemmas in Appendix \[app:global-conv-obj1\]. Within these lemmas, the proof directly depends on the following ones: Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\] guarantees that the iteration following Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] stays within a big domain as long as the initial point is in there; Lemma \[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\] shows the global convergence of $x_1$; Lemma \[lem:multi-global-conv-obj1\] shows the global convergence of $x_k$ for $k > 1$. We leave the proofs of these lemmas in Appendix \[app:global-conv-obj1\].
\[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied. Then for any iteration $t$, $X^{(t)}=(x_1^{(t)}, \dots, x_n^{(t)})$ satisfies $\norm{x_i^{(t)}} \leq R_i$ for all $1 \leq i \leq p$.
\[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $x_1^{(0)}$ is not perpendicular to $u_1$. Then $x_1^{(t)}$ converges to $\pm
\sqrt{-\lambda_1} u_1$.
\[lem:multi-global-conv-obj1\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1}} = 0$. Then $x_k^{(t)}$ converges to one of the points in $\left\{ 0,
\pm\sqrt{-\lambda_j}u_j \text{ for } j = k, \dots, p \right\}$.
\[thm:global-conv-obj1\] If Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied, then Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] converges to $\calX^*$ for all initial points except those in $W$, where the set $W$ has measure zero.
For the iteration in [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}, as mentioned earlier, earlier columns are independent of later columns. Hence induction is used to prove this theorem. In the following proof, all initial points satisfy Assumption \[assump:init\] without further notice and the set of these initial points is denoted as $\calX_k$ for the first $k$ columns. Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\] guarantees that $\iota - \alpha g_1$ maps points in $\calX_k$ to $\calX_k$, where $\iota$ denotes the identity operator and $g_1$ is the operator defined in . We further introduce a notation for unstable stationary points for $\calX_k$ as $\calA_k^*$. Recall Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\] for $p =
k$, we can characterize $\calA_k^*$ as, $$\calA_k^* = \left\{ X \in \calX_k \middle| X =
U_q \sqrt{-\Lambda_q} P S D \text{ and } X \neq U_k
\sqrt{-\Lambda_k} D \right\}.$$
For the first column $x_1^{(t)}$, Lemma \[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\] shows that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}x_1^{(t)}=\pm \sqrt{-\lambda_1}u_1$ for all $x_1^{(0)}$ not perpendicular to $u_1$. Alternatively, it can be restated as $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{X_1^{(t)}
- \calX_1^*} = 0$ for all initial points except those in $W_1
= \left\{X_1^{(0)} \middle| u_1^\top X_1^{(0)} = 0\right\} =
\left\{X_1^{(0)} \middle| \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} (\iota -
\alpha g_1)^t \left(X_1^{(0)}\right) \in \calA_1^* \right\}$. Obviously the set $W_1$ has measure zero.
Now we assume that the statement of Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj1\] holds for the first $k-1$ columns for $k \in (1, p]$, , $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\fnorm{X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX_{k-1}^*} = 0$ for all initial points except those in $W_{k-1}$ and the set $W_{k-1}$ has measure zero.
We first define the set $W_k$ for $k$ as, $$W_k = \left\{X_k^{(0)} \middle| \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
(\iota - \alpha g_1)^t \left(X_k^{(0)}\right) \in \calA_k^*
\right\} \bigcup V_k,$$ for $V_k = \left\{X_k^{(0)} \middle| X_{k-1}^{(0)} \in W_{k-1}
\right\}$. Since $W_{k-1}$ has measure zero, we know that the set $V_k$ also has measure zero. Next we focus on the points in $\calX_k \setminus V_k$ and $W_k \setminus V_k$.
Here we would like to apply Theorem 2 in @Lee2019 to show that $W_k \setminus V_k$ has measure zero. All conditions therein must be checked first. Since, under the operator $\iota
- \alpha g_1$, the first $k-1$ columns are independent of the $k$-th one, the operator $\iota - \alpha g_1$ is smooth and maps $\calX_k \setminus V_k$ to $\calX_k \setminus V_k$. According to Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\], points in $\calA_k^*$ are unstable stationary points, so are points in $\calA_k^* \setminus
V_k$. The last thing to check is the invertibility of $\Diff (\iota
- \alpha g_1) = I - \alpha \Diff g_1$. As has been discussed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\], the spectrum of $\Diff g_1$ is determined by the spectrum of $J_{ii}$ for $i = 1,
\dots, k$, where $J_{ii}$ is of form . For points in $\calX_k$, the spectrum norm of $X_i X_i^\top$, $x_i^\top x_i I$, and $x_i x_i^\top$ are upper bounded by $2R_p^2$, $R_p^2$, and $R_p^2$ respectively. Further we have $\norm{A} <
\frac{R_p^2}{3}$. Hence, combined with the assumption on $\alpha$, we have the following bound, $$\lambda (\Diff (\iota - \alpha g_1)) > \frac{1}{15}$$ for all $X_k \in \calX_k$, which implies that $\mathrm{det}
\left(\Diff (\iota - \alpha g_1)\right) \neq 0$ for all $X_k
\in \calX_k \setminus V_k$. Finally, by applying Theorem 2 in @Lee2019, the set $W_k \setminus V_k$ has measure zero. Therefore, the set $W_k$ has measure zero.
Then Lemma \[lem:multi-global-conv-obj1\] shows that for $X_k^{(0)} \in \calX_k \setminus W_k$ there is $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}x_k^{(t)} = \pm \sqrt{-\lambda_k}u_k.$$ Hence we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{X_k^{(t)} -
\calX_k^*} = 0$ for all initial points except those in $W_k$ and the set $W_k$ has measure zero. Using the induction argument, the theorem is proved.
After proving the global convergence of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}, here we informally state another theorem for [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} without proof.
\[thm:global-conv-obj2\] If stepsize is a small constant and the initial point satisfies $\norm{X^{(0)}} \leq \frac{3}{2}$, then Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj2\] converges to $\left\{U_pD \right\}$ as defined in Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj2\] for all initial points except those in $W$, where the set $W$ has measure zero.
Both Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj1\] and Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj2\] show that algorithms with the proposed triangularization strategy converge to the global minima of the objective functions for almost all the initial points, if the stepsize is a small constant. However, since the objective functions we have here, and , are non-convex and have strict saddle points, we do not expect any provable rate of convergence.
Local Convergence Analysis {#sec:localconv}
==========================
In this section, we will prove the local linear convergence of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}, the similar conclusion for [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} can be proved.
In Section \[sec:globalconv\] when we are proving the global convergence, we have already showed the linear convergence of our [TriOFM]{} algorithm in the single column case, but the convergence rate hidden in the proof of Lemma \[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\] is too messy to become a part of a linear convergence proof. In this section we assume $X^{(t)}$ is already close to global minima and obtain a linear convergence for [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} in detail.
The set of global minima $\calX^* = \{U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} D\}$ are used as the convergence target in previous section and the convergence is analyzed under the F-norm distance between the iterator and this set. However, in this section, we first focus on the convergence to a global minimum, denoted as $X^* \in
\calX^*$. Similar notations as in Table \[tab:notations\] are applied to $X^*$ as well. More precisely, $x^*_i$ denotes the $i$-th column of $X^*$ and $X_i^*$ denotes the first $i$ columns of $X^*$. The analysis of the local convergence to $X^*$ is carried out through Lemma \[lem:one-vec-linear\], Lemma \[lem:multi-vec-linear\], and Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\]. Lemma \[lem:one-vec-linear\] and Lemma \[lem:multi-vec-linear\] provide per-iteration bound on the residual of the first column and later columns respectively, and Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\] put together these bounds and concludes a local linear convergence. Once the local convergence to a global minimum is analyzed, we show the linear convergence to the set of global minima in Corollary \[cor:local-conv-obj1\]. Since all global minima are isolated from each other and the small stepsize restrict the iterator staying around a particular minimum, the linear convergence to the set of global minima is a straightforward result from Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\].
\[lem:one-vec-linear\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied. Let ${\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}$ be the residual of the first column in $t$-th iteration, ${\varepsilon}_1^{(t)} = x_1^{(t)} - x_1^*$. If $\norm{{\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}} \leq \frac{\lambda_2 - \lambda_1} {8
\sqrt{-\lambda_1}}$, then $\norm{{\varepsilon}_1^{(t+1)}} \leq \left( 1 -
\alpha \frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2} \right) \norm{{\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}}$.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix. For simplicity, we drop the iteration index superscript and use $x_1 = x_1^{(t)}$, ${\varepsilon}_1 = {\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}$, ${\widetilde{x}}_1 =
x_1^{(t+1)}$ and ${\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_1 = {\varepsilon}_1^{(t+1)}$ instead. Further we denote the first column of $X^*$ as $v_1 = x_1^*$. Using the expression of $X^*$, we have $v_1^\top v_1 = -\lambda_1$ and $v_1
v_1^\top = -\lambda_1 u_1 u_1^\top = -\lambda_1 e_1 e_1^\top$.
Based on the iterative scheme on the first column, , ${\widetilde{x}}_1 = x_1 - \alpha Ax_1 - \alpha x_1^\top
x_1 x_1$, there is $$\begin{split}
{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_1 = {\widetilde{x}}_1 - v_1 = &
{\varepsilon}_1 - \alpha A (v_1 + {\varepsilon}_1) - \alpha (v_1 +
{\varepsilon}_1)^\top (v_1 + {\varepsilon}_1) (v_1 + {\varepsilon}_1) \\
= &
\left( (1 + \alpha \lambda_1) I - \alpha A - 2 \alpha
v_1v_1^\top \right) {\varepsilon}_1
- \alpha v_1 \norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^2 - 2 \alpha v_1^\top {\varepsilon}_1
{\varepsilon}_1 - \alpha \norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^2 {\varepsilon}_1.
\end{split}$$ The assumption on $\alpha$ implies that $1 + \alpha \lambda_1 \pm
\alpha \lambda_i > 0$ holds for any $i$. Hence, the two norm of the diagonal matrix $(1+\alpha \lambda_1) I - \alpha A - 2 \alpha
v_1 v_1^\top $ is $$\begin{split}
\norm{(1+\alpha \lambda_1) I - \alpha A - 2 \alpha v_1
v_1^\top }
= & \norm{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 + 2 \alpha \lambda_1 & & & \\
& 1 + \alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha \lambda_2 & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & 1 + \alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha \lambda_n
\end{pmatrix}
}\\
= & 1 + \alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha \lambda_2.
\end{split}$$ With this estimation, the two norm of ${\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_1$ can be bounded as, $$\begin{split}
\norm{{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_1} \leq & ( 1 + \alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha
\lambda_2 ) \norm{{\varepsilon}_1} + 3 \alpha \sqrt{-\lambda_1}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^2 + \alpha \norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^3 \\
& \leq \left(1-\alpha\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2}\right)
\norm{{\varepsilon}_1},
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality adopts the fact $\norm{{\varepsilon}_1} \leq
\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_1}}$.
Here we have proved, for the single column case, the residual of $x_1$ has a linear convergence with speed at least $1 - \alpha
\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2}$. While, before we move onto the multicolumn case, we would like to mention that, if we ignore the higher order terms, $\norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^2$, and $\norm{{\varepsilon}_1}^3$, we are able to get a better linear convergence rate. For $u_1^\top {\varepsilon}_1$, we have $u_1^\top {\varepsilon}^{(t+1)}_1 \approx \left(1 + 2 \alpha \lambda_1
\right) u_1^\top {\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}$. For $u^\top_i {\varepsilon}_1$ with $i>1$, we have $u^\top_i {\varepsilon}_1^{(t+1)} \approx \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_i +
\alpha \lambda_1 \right) u^\top_1 {\varepsilon}_1^{(t)}$.
Now we turn to the multicolumn case. For the $i$-th column $x_i$, we have the following lemma.
\[lem:multi-vec-linear\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied. Let ${\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}$ be the residual of the $i$-th column in $t$-th iteration, ${\varepsilon}_i^{(t)} =
x_i^{(t)} - x_i^*$. If $\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(t)}_j}\leq
\frac{\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_j}}$ for all $j\leq i$, then we have $\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(t+1)}_i}\leq
\left(1-\alpha \frac{\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i}{2}
\right)\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(t)}_i}+\alpha\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
\frac{2\norm{A}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda_j
\lambda_i}}\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(t)}_j}$.
Similar as in previous lemma, we drop the superscript in the proof. We denote the $i$-th column of $X^*$ as $v_i = x_i^*$. Using the expression of $X^*$, we have $v_i^\top v_i = -\lambda_i$ and $v_i v_i^\top = -\lambda_i u_i u_i^\top $ for $i = 1,
\dots, p$.
Based on the iterative scheme, ${\widetilde{x}}_i = x_i - \alpha A x_i - \alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i}x_j x_j^\top
x_i$, there is $$\label{eq:iter-loc-multi}
\begin{split}
{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_i = {\widetilde{x}}_i - v_i = & {\varepsilon}_i - \alpha A (v_i + {\varepsilon}_i)
- \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i (v_j v_j^\top + {\varepsilon}_j {\varepsilon}_j^\top
+ v_j {\varepsilon}_j^\top + {\varepsilon}_j v_j^\top )(v_i + {\varepsilon}_i) \\
= & ((1 + \alpha \lambda_i)I - \alpha A - \alpha v_i
v_i^\top - \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i v_j v_j^\top ) {\varepsilon}_i -
\alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} v_j v_i^\top {\varepsilon}_j \\
& - \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i {\varepsilon}_j {\varepsilon}_j^\top v_i - \alpha
\sum_{j=1}^i (v_j {\varepsilon}_j^\top + {\varepsilon}_j v_j^\top ) {\varepsilon}_i
- \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i {\varepsilon}_j {\varepsilon}_j^\top {\varepsilon}_i.
\end{split}$$ Similar as the diagonal form in the proof of Lemma \[lem:one-vec-linear\], the norm of the prefactor of ${\varepsilon}_i$ can be bounded as, $$\norm{\left(1+\alpha \lambda_i\right)I-\alpha A-\alpha v_i
v_i^\top -\alpha \sum_{j=1}^i v_j v_j^\top } \leq 1+\alpha
\lambda_i-\alpha \lambda_{i+1}.$$
When we take norm on both sides of , there is $$\begin{split}
\norm{{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_i} \leq & \left(1 + \alpha \lambda_i -
\alpha \lambda_{i+1}\right) \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha
\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \norm{{\varepsilon}_j}
+ \alpha \sqrt{-\lambda_i} \sum_{j=1}^i \norm{{\varepsilon}_j}^2 \\
& + 2 \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i \sqrt{-\lambda_j} \norm{{\varepsilon}_j}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^i \norm{{\varepsilon}_j}^2
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i} \\
= & \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{i+1} + \alpha \lambda_i
\right) \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + 3 \alpha \sqrt{-\lambda_i}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i}^2 +\alpha \norm{{\varepsilon}_i}^3 \\
& +\alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left[\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_j} + \sqrt{-\lambda_i} \norm{{\varepsilon}_j}^2 +
2 \sqrt{-\lambda_j} \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} +
\norm{{\varepsilon}_j}^2 \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} \right].
\end{split}$$ Denote $\Delta_j = \lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j$ as the $j$-th eigengap. Due to the assumption $\norm{{\varepsilon}_j}\leq
\frac{\Delta_j}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_j}}$ for all $1 \leq j \leq i$, we have $$\norm{{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_i} \leq \left(1 - \alpha \frac{\Delta_i}{2}\right)
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left(
\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} + \sqrt{-\lambda_i}
\frac{\Delta_j}{8 \sqrt{-\lambda_j}} + \sqrt{\lambda_j}
\frac{\Delta_i}{4 \sqrt{-\lambda_i}} + \frac{\Delta_i
\Delta_j}{64 \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j}}\right) \norm{{\varepsilon}_j},$$ where the first term $\left(1-\alpha
\frac{\Delta_i}{2}\right)\norm{{\varepsilon}_i}$ is bounded in the same way as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:one-vec-linear\]. The summation term can be controlled as follows, $$\begin{split}
\norm{{\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_i} \leq & \left(1 - \alpha
\frac{\Delta_i}{2}\right) \norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha
\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \frac{64\lambda_i \lambda_j - 8 \lambda_i
\Delta_j - 16 \lambda_j \Delta_i + \Delta_i \Delta_j}{64
\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j}} \norm{{\varepsilon}_j} \\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \frac{\Delta_i}{2}\right)
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
\frac{116\norm{A}^2}{64\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j}}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_j} \\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \frac{\Delta_i}{2}\right)
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i} + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}
\frac{2\norm{A}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j}}
\norm{{\varepsilon}_j}.
\end{split}$$ Here $\norm{A}$ is adopted for simplicity cause all terms in the $\lambda$s can be controlled by $\norm{A}$, thus the lemma is proved.
To make the linear convergence more clear, in Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\], we investigate the additional term $2\alpha \frac{\norm{A}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda_j \lambda_i}}\norm{{\varepsilon}_j}$ and find it does not harm the linear convergence.
\[thm:local-conv-obj1\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied. Let ${\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}$ be the residual of the $i$-th column in $t$-th iteration, ${\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}
= x_i^{(t)} - x_i^*$. If $\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(0)}_j}\leq
\frac{\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_j}}$ for all $j\leq
i$, then there exists a series of polynomials of degree $i-1$, $C_i(t)$, such that $\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}}\leq C_i(t) r_i^{t}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq p$, where $r_i = 1 - \frac{\alpha}{2}
\min_{j \in [1,i]} \{\lambda_{j+1} - \lambda_j\}$.
The theorem is proved in an inductive way. First, for $i=1$, Lemma \[lem:one-vec-linear\] shows that $\norm{{\varepsilon}^{(t)}_1}$ has already satisfied the condition in the theorem and it is not difficult to figure out that $C_1 = \norm{{\varepsilon}^{\left(0
\right)}_1}$. Given $i \leq p$, assume that for all $j < i$, there exists a non-decreasing polynomial of degree $j-1$, $C_j(t)$, and $\norm{{\varepsilon}_j^{(t)}} \leq C_j(t) r_j^t$ holds. Here a non-decreasing polynomial means that the polynomial is non-decreasing for $t \geq 0$. Denoting $a_j =
\alpha \frac{2\norm{A}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda_j \lambda_i}}$, the inequality in Lemma \[lem:multi-vec-linear\] can be bounded as, $$\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}} \leq r_i \norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t-1)}}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_j \norm{{\varepsilon}_j^{(t-1)}} \leq r_i
\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t-1)}} + C_{max}(t) r_{i-1}^{t-1},$$ where $C_{max}(t) = \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_j C_j(t)$ and the relationship $r_1\leq \cdots \leq r_{i-1}$ is used so that all $r_j$s are controlled by $r_{i-1}$. Notice that for each $j$, $a_j$ is positive and $C_j(t)$ is a non-decreasing polynomial of degree $j-1$. $C_{max}(t)$ is then a non-decreasing polynomial of degree $i-2$.
Since the inequality above holds for all $t \geq 1$, we apply it repeatedly and obtain, $$\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}} \leq r_i^{t} \norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(0)}} +
\sum_{k = 0}^{t-1} r_i^{t-1-k} C_{max}(k) r_{i-1}^{k} \leq
\left(\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(0)}} + \frac{t}{r_i} C_{max}(t) \right)
r_i^{t} = C_i(t) r^t_i,$$ where $C_i(t) = \norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(0)}} + \frac{t}{r_i}C_{max}(t)$ is a non-decreasing polynomial of degree $i-1$. Hence the theorem is proved by induction.
\[cor:local-conv-obj1\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied. Let $\delta^{(t)}$ be the distance from the global minima in $t$-th iteration, $\delta^{(t)} = \fnorm{X^{(t)}
- \calX^*}$. If $\delta^{(0)} \leq \min_{j \in [1, p]}
\frac{\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_j}}$, then there exists a polynomial of degree $p-1$, $C(t)$, such that $\delta^{(t)} \leq C(t) r^{t}$, where $r = 1 - \frac{\alpha}{2}
\min_{j \in [1,p]} \{\lambda_{j+1} - \lambda_j\}$.
We first notice that for any two distinct points in $\calX^*$, the smallest distance in F-norm is $-2\sqrt{\lambda_p}$, which is larger than the condition of initial residual $\delta^{(0)} \leq \min_{j \in [1, p]}
\frac{\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j}{8\sqrt{-\lambda_j}}$, so for one initial point, it can only be attracted by one stable fixed point. Then using the definition of $\delta^{(t)}$, there is $$\delta^{(t)}=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{p}\norm{{\varepsilon}_i^{(t)}}^2}
\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{p}\left(C_i(t)r_i^t\right)^2}.$$ Here the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\] is used. Due to the fact $r_1\leq \cdots\leq r_p =r$ and define $C(t)=\sum_{i=1}^p C_i(t)$ which is a polynomial of degree $p-1$, there is $$\delta^{(t)}\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^p C_i^2(t)}r^t \leq
\sum_{i=1}^p C_i(t) r_p^t =C(t)r^t$$ The inequality holds because $C_i(t)$ is always non-negative. Thus, the conclusion is proved.
Before we move onto the next conclusion, we shall notice that the estimation $\delta^{(t)} \leq C(t) r^{t}$ satisfies $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\delta^{(t+1)}}{\delta^{(t)}}=r$ which is the definition of linear convergence, because for certain polynomial $C(t)$, there is always $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{C(t+1)}{C(t)}=1$.
Implementation Details {#sec:implementation}
======================
In previous sections, we introduce [TriOFM]{} algorithms based on the gradient descent method with a constant stepsize and prove their global and local convergence properties. [TriOFM]{} can be regarded as a modified iterative scheme of traditional gradient based optimization algorithms. In this section, we explore traditional techniques for accelerating iterations and adapt them to [TriOFM]{}. Such techniques include momentum acceleration, stepsize choices, column locking.
Momentum Acceleration
---------------------
Momentum is a widely-used technique to accelerate gradient descent methods. In traditional gradient descent methods, with the help of momentum, the oscillatory trajectories are much smoothed and the convergence rates become depending on the square root of the condition number rather than the condition number.
Generally, momentum method, instead of using the gradient direction directly as the moving direction, uses an accumulated gradient direction with a discounting parameter $\beta \in (0, 1]$, , $$\label{eq:momentum}
V^{(t)} = \beta g \left( X^{(t)} \right) + (1 - \beta ) V^{(t-1)},$$ where $V^{(t)}$ denotes the accumulated gradient directions and $g$ is the gradient function. Then the iteration moves along $V^{(t)}$ with a stepsize parameter $\alpha$, , $$X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha V^{(t)}.$$ Since $V$ can also be regarded as a linear combination of previous moving directions, an explicit way to generalize it to the triangularized method is replacing the gradient function $g$ by our triangularized direction function either $g_1$ or $g_2$. Hence we get the modified algorithm for [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} as in Algorithm \[alg:triu-momentum-obj1\]. It can be modified for [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} in a similar way.
symmetric matrix A, initial point $X^{(0)}$, momentum coefficient $\beta$ and stepsize $\alpha$ $t = 0$ $V^{(t)} =
\begin{cases}
g_1(X^{(t)}) & \text{if } t = 0\\
\beta g_1(X^{(t)}) + (1-\beta) V^{(t-1)} &
\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}$ $X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} - \alpha V^{(t)}$ $t=t+1$
Obviously, such a modification will not change the dependency between columns of $X$. Hence with this momentum enabled algorithm, Algorithm \[alg:triu-momentum-obj1\], the first $i$ columns can be regarded as this algorithm applied on $X = \begin{pmatrix} x_1 &
x_2 & \cdots & x_i \end{pmatrix}$. Hence any column of $X$ still only depends on its previous columns throughout the iterations. However, choosing an efficient momentum parameter $\beta$ is an art.
Similarly, we can adopt the idea of conjugate gradient (CG) [@Golub2013] to triangularized algorithms as well. Since CG methods can be regarded as a momentum accelerated algorithm with adaptive momentum parameters, choosing $\beta$ is avoided. For linear problems with symmetric positive definite matrices, CG method is efficient. The convergence rate depends on the square root of the condition number. In addition to linear problems, CG has also been widely used to solve nonlinear problems. Some success of nonlinear CG in solving eigenvalue problems have already been observed in OMM [@Corsetti2014]. A typical non-linear CG method is the Fletcher-Reeves CG (FR-CG) [@Fletcher1964], which adopts the following steps per iteration in a single-vector setting: $$\begin{split}
\beta^{(t)} = & \frac{g(x^{(t)})^\top
g(x^{(t)})}{g(x^{(t-1)})^\top g(x^{(t-1)})}, \\
v^{(t)} = & -g(x^{(t)}) + \beta^{(t)} v^{(t-1)}, \\
x^{(t+1)} = & x^{(t)} + \alpha v^{(t)}. \\
\end{split}$$
In a multi-vector setting, , the iterator is a matrix, the formula for $\beta^{(t)}$ must be modified. One natural way is to extend the single-vector inner product to the multi-vector inner product, , $$\label{eq:beta-CG}
\beta^{(t)} = \frac{{\mathrm{tr}\left(g(X^{(t)})^\top g(X^{(t)})\right)}}{
{\mathrm{tr}\left(g(X^{(t-1)})^\top g(X^{(t-1)})\right)}},$$ where $X^{(t)}$ denotes the multi-vector iterator. However, this choice of $\beta^{(t)}$ is unfavorable in the triangularized algorithms. The $\beta^{(t)}$ as in mixes information of all columns of $X^{(t)}$. Hence the dependency of columns in triangularized algorithms will be changed if is used. Applying the algorithm to the first $i$ columns will not give you the identical iteration comparing to the first $i$ columns of applying the algorithm to all columns. Numerically, on practical problems, algorithms using show slower convergence than the following strategy in choosing $\beta$.
A favorable choice of $\beta$ for triangularized algorithms is to use different $\beta^{(t)}$s for different columns, which is called a columnwise CG here. The parameter for the $i$-th column, denoted as $\beta_i^{(t)}$, is calculated as the single-vector setting with $x_i^{(t)}$ and applied to update $x_i^{(t)}$ only. The corresponding algorithm for [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} is summarized as Algorithm \[alg:triu-columnwisecg-obj1\]. In Algorithm \[alg:triu-columnwisecg-obj1\], $g_i^{(t)}$ and $v_i^{(t)}$ denote the $i$-th column of $G^{(t)}$ and $V^{(t)}$ respectively. The algorithm for [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} can be updated accordingly.
symmetric matrix $A$, initial point $X^{(0)}$, stepsize $\alpha$ $G^{(0)} = g_1(X^{(0)})$ $V^{(0)} = - G^{(0)}$ $X^{(1)} = X^{(0)} + \alpha V^{(0)}$ $t = 1$ $G^{(t)} = g_1(X^{(t)})$ $\beta_i^{(t)} = \frac{(g_i^{(t)})^\top
g_i^{(t)}}{(g_i^{(t-1)})^\top g_i^{(t-1)}}$ $v_i^{(t)} = - g_i^{(t)} + \beta_i^{(t)} v_i^{(t)}$ $X^{(t+1)} = X^{(t)} + \alpha V^{(t)}$ $t = t+1$
Comparing the per-iteration computational cost, Algorithm \[alg:triu-columnwisecg-obj1\] remains the same as using . While the column dependent $\beta$ allows a column of $X^{(t)}$ to be decoupled from all later columns. Hence we preserve the column dependency in triangularized algorithms. As a remark, there is another way in computing the column dependent parameter $\beta_i^{(t)}$s, , $\beta_i^{(t)}$ is calculated via using $X_i^{(t)}$. The column dependency is also preserved in this setting. However, in order to avoid the increase of computational cost, the trace operation must be carefully computed in a cumulative way.
Stepsize Choices
----------------
In previous sections, we describe algorithms with constant stepsize to simplify the presentation. However, we find that, comparing to the later described linesearch strategy, algorithms with constant stepsize are significantly slower in practice. In this section, we introduce an exact linesearch strategy as the practical choice of stepsize.
The idea of using an exact linesearch has been adopted by several previous work [@Lei2016; @Li2019c; @Wang2019]. Since both and we considered in this paper are quartic polynomials of $X$, given a direction $V$, the exact linesearch can be calculated through minimizing a quartic polynomial. Noticing that we want to minimize a quartic polynomial with a positive leading coefficient, whose global minimum can also be found through solving a cubic polynomial. For , the cubic polynomial is of the following form, $$\label{eq:full-linesearch}
\begin{split}
\frac{\diff }{\diff \alpha} f_1(X + \alpha V) = & {\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top
\grad{f_1(X + \alpha V)}\right)}\\
= & \alpha^3 {\mathrm{tr}\left((V^\top V)^2\right)} + 3 \alpha^2 {\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top V
X^\top V\right)} \\
& + \alpha {\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top A V + (V^\top X)^2 + V^\top X X^\top V
+ V^\top V X^\top X\right)} \\
& + V^\top AX + {\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top X X^\top X\right)}.
\end{split}$$ Solving the expression above would result possibly one, two, or three real roots. Through a basic analysis, we can show that 1) if there is only one real root, then the optimal stepsize is the root; 2) if there are two real roots, then the optimal stepsize is the root with multiplicity one; 3) if there are three real roots, then the optimal stepsize is the one further away from the middle one. Similar calculation and analysis can also be carried out for . We omit the details here.
However the above stepsize does not work for [TriOFM]{}. Consider a simple case for example. If $X$ is in the space spanned by the smallest eigenpairs but not the global minimum we want, which means $X = U_p \sqrt{-\Lambda_p} Q$ with $Q$ different from the identical matrix, then $X$ is already a global minimum of and the stepsize $\alpha$ is zero for the linesearch mentioned above. This simple example shows that the above linesearch strategy is not working properly for [TriOFM]{} and we need to find a different strategy for stepsize.
Notice that the exact linesearch computes an $\alpha$ such that ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top \grad{f(X+\alpha V)}\right)} = 0$. However, for [TriOFM]{}, optimization is based on $g_1$ or $g_2$ rather than $\grad{f_1}$ or $\grad{f_2}$, which means the iteration is not consistency with the exact linesearch. One option to fix the inconsistency is to solve an equation for $\alpha$ $${\mathrm{tr}\left(V^\top g(X+\alpha V)\right)} = 0,$$ where $g$ is either $g_1$ or $g_2$. Such a modification works in practice. However the stepsize calculated in this way also involves information from all columns of $X^{(t)}$. Hence the column dependency in [TriOFM]{} is destroyed again. Recall the columnwise strategy for CG parameters, which can be adapted to the stepsize as well.
The columnwise stepsize strategy based on exact linesearch can be described as follows. First, considering the stepsize for the first column $x_1$, two equations, $v_1^\top g(x_1 + \alpha v_1) = 0$ and $v_1^\top \grad{f}(x_1 + \alpha v_1) = 0$ are identical. According to the convergence proof in [@Li2019c], we know that $x_1$ will converge to $\pm\sqrt{-\lambda_1}u_1$, which are desired global minima for $x_1$. Now we move on to the stepsize $\alpha_i$ for the $i$-th column $x_i$. We can solve either ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top \grad{f(X_i +
\alpha_i V_i)}\right)} = 0$ or ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top g(X_i + \alpha_i V_i)\right)} = 0$ for $\alpha_i$. The former is the same as with $X$ and $V$ replaced by $X_i$ and $V_i$ respectively. The later can be expressed as again a cubic polynomial of $\alpha_i$, $$\label{eq:linesearch-poly}
\begin{split}
p(\alpha_i) = & \alpha_i^3 {\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top V_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(V_i^\top
V_i\right)}\right)} \\
& + \alpha_i^2 {\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top V_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(X_i^\top V_i\right)} +
V_i^\top V_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(V_i^\top X_i\right)} + V_i^\top X_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(V_i^\top
V_i\right)}\right)} \\
& + \alpha_i {\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top A V_i + V_i^\top X_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(V_i^\top
X_i\right)} + V_i^\top X_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(X_i^\top V_i\right)} + V_i^\top V_i
{\mathrm{triu}\left(X_i^\top X_i\right)}\right)} \\
& + {\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top A X_i + V_i^\top X_i {\mathrm{triu}\left(X_i^\top X_i\right)}\right)}.
\end{split}$$ Using either equation, we are able to avoid $\alpha_i = 0$ if $X_i$ stays in the space spanned by eigenvectors while $X_i$ is not the desired global minima. The convergence using either equation can be shown in a similar inductive way as in previous sections. Regarding the computational cost, since all trace term can be computed in a accumulative way, the computational cost for getting coefficients in for all $i$ remains the same as getting the coefficients in .
According to our numerical experiments, the columnwise stepsize strategy based on exact linesearch significantly outperforms the fixed stepsize, while there is not much difference between solving ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top g(X_i + \alpha V_i)\right)} = 0$ and ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top
\grad{f(X_i + \alpha V_i)}\right)} = 0$. Throughout the rest paper, we solve ${\mathrm{tr}\left(V_i^\top g\right)} = 0$ for stepsize.
Column Locking
--------------
In Section \[sec:localconv\] we notice that each column has its own convergence rate and later columns converge slower than earlier ones in terms of the analysis. Numerically, we also observe that earlier columns usually converge faster than later ones. It is waste of computational resources if we update all columns throughout iterations until the last column converges. Hence we introduce column locking technique here to allow early stopping for converged columns.
The idea of column locking has been widely adopted in many traditional eigensolvers, where orthogonalization is applied every a few iterations. However, in orthogonalization-free eigensolvers [@Corsetti2014; @Li2019c; @Wang2019], usual locking technique is not applicable, since all columns are coupled together throughout iterations. [TriOFM]{}, very differently, can adopts a column locking technique in a particular ordering. Since the earlier columns in [TriOFM]{} are independent of later columns, as long as they converged, we can lock these columns and no further updating is needed for these columns.
In this paper, either of the following criteria can be adopted as the overall stopping criteria: $$\fnorm{g(X^{(t)})} < \epsilon \quad \text{or} \quad
\frac{\fnorm{X^{(t)} - \calX^*}}{\fnorm{\calX^*}} < \epsilon.$$ Since any global minimum is of the same F-norm, we denote the value as $\fnorm{\calX^*}$ here.
Correspondingly, the $i$-th column is locked if all previous $1$st to $(i-1)$-th columns are locked and the criteria (corresponding to the overall stopping criteria) for $i$-th column is satisfied, $$\fnorm{g_i^{(t)}} < \frac{\epsilon}{m} \quad \text{or}
\quad \frac{\norm{x_i^{(t)} - x^{*}_i}}{\sqrt{-\lambda_i}} <
\frac{\epsilon}{m},$$ where $g_i^{(t)}$ is the $i$-th column of $g(X^{(t)})$, $x^*_i$ denote the $i$-th column of the nearest global minimum, and $m$ is a given constant. We emphasize again that column locking must be done in order. While, locking multiple contiguous columns in one iteration is allowed. Usually $m$ should be chosen slightly larger than $p$. If $m$ is too small, the earlier columns do not converge with high accuracy enough, then the convergence of later columns may not be achievable or the convergence rate would be much slower.
Numerical Results {#sec:numerical}
=================
In this section, we show the efficiency of [TriOFM]{} applying to three different groups of matrices, , random matrices with different eigenvalue distributions, a synthetic matrix from density functional theory, and a matrix of Hubbard model under full configuration interaction framework.
In Section \[sec:rand\_matrix\], we first show that [TriOFM]{} with a constant stepsize has linear local convergence rate on different random matrices with different eigenvalue distributions, which agrees with our analysis in Section \[sec:localconv\]. Further in Section \[sec:rand\_matrix\], numerical techniques introduced in Section \[sec:implementation\] are adopted and the comparisons against vanilla [TriOFM]{} with a constant stepsize show the advantages of using these techniques. Then we apply [TriOFM]{} with these techniques enabled to two numerical examples from chemistry in Section \[sec:numres\_dft\] and Section \[sec:numres\_fci\]. In both examples, [TriOFM]{} converges to sparse eigenvectors whereas traditional orthogonalization-free methods fail to recover the sparsity pattern. Regarding the computational cost, [TriOFM]{} is, in general, comparable to its non-triangularized counterpart.
Throughout this section, we adopt the following expressions as the stopping criterion and accuracy measurements. For [TriOFM]{}, the F-norm of the triangularized gradient is used as the overall stopping criterion together with the column locking status, , the overall algorithm stops if either $\fnorm{g(X^{(t)})}$ is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$ or all columns have been locked. For traditional orthogonalization-free methods, the iteration stops if the F-norm of the gradient is smaller than a tolerance, , $\fnorm{\grad{f(X^{(t)})}} < \epsilon$.
Since we want to calculate the accuracy of both [TriOFM]{} and traditional methods under the same measurement, the expression must be valid for both methods. Two measurements are used with focus on the accuracy of eigenvectors and eigenvalues respectively. The first measure of the accuracy is as follows, $$\label{eq:evec}
e_{vec} = \min_{ X^* \in
\calX^*} \frac{\fnorm{X - X^*}}{\fnorm{X^*}},$$ where $\calX^*$ denotes the set of all possible global minima of the used algorithm. The second measure more focuses on the eigenvalues, $$\label{eq:eval}
e_{val} = \frac{\abs{{\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(X^\top X\right)^{-1} X^\top A X\right)}
- \sum_{i=1}^{p} \lambda_i}}{\abs{\sum_{i=1}^{p} \lambda_i}}.$$
In addition to these criteria and accuracy measurements defined above, we also define two measurements for computational costs. Since all of our codes are implemented in MATLAB, which favors matrix operations over vector operations, the runtime comparison is not fair especially considering the matrix sizes we used to explore the efficiency in Section \[sec:rand\_matrix\] and the matrix sizes of practical examples in Section \[sec:numres\_dft\] and Section \[sec:numres\_fci\] are not extremely large. Hence we introduce two other measurements of computational costs, , *total number of iterations* and *total number of column accesses*. The total number of iterations is self-explanatory. The total number of column accesses aims to provide measurement of two equal quantities, , the number of writing columns of $X^{(t)}$ to its data structure and the number of multiplying matrix $A$ to vectors in $X^{(t)}$. When the scale of the matrix is huge and $X^{(t)}$ has sparse structure as in Section \[sec:numres\_fci\], the columns of $X^{(t)}$ are stored in special data structures such as hash table, black-red tree, etc, writing to any of these special data structures is one of the computational bottleneck in FCI computations. Another computational bottleneck is multiplying the matrix $A$ to columns of $X^{(t)}$. Without column locking technique, the total number of column accesses is simply the number of iterations multiplying the number of columns in $X_{(t)}$. When column locking is enabled, it is the summation of the number of unlocked columns throughout iterations.
Random Matrices {#sec:rand_matrix}
---------------
In this section we apply different [TriOFM]{} algorithms to random matrices and compare the performance against their non-triangularized counterparts. For testing purpose, we limit the size of matrices being $n = 500$ and the number desired eigenpairs being $p
= 5$ in Section \[sec:numres\_localconv\] and $p = 10$ in Section \[sec:numres\_techniques\]. Random matrices are of the form $$A = U^\top \Lambda U,$$ where $U$ is a random orthogonal matrix generated by QR factorization of a random matrix with entries sampled from a standard normal distribution independently. Here $\Lambda$ denotes a diagonal matrix with its elements $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1}^n$ generated from three different ways, which are generated as follows,
1. (Uniform) $\lambda_i = \frac{i-1}{500} - 1$ for $1\leq
i\leq n$;
2. (Logarithm) $\lambda_i = - \frac{2^{10}}{500} \frac{1}{2^i}$ for $1\leq i\leq n$;
3. (U-Shape) $\lambda_1 = -\frac{14}{16}, \lambda_2 =
-\frac{10}{16}, \lambda_3 = -\frac{8}{16}, \lambda_4 =
-\frac{7}{16}, \lambda_5 = -\frac{5}{16}, \lambda_i =
-\frac{1}{16}$ for all $6\leq i\leq n$.
Here, in the U-shape gap case, the first 5 eigengaps are set to be $\frac{4}{16},\frac{2}{16},\frac{1}{16},\frac{2}{16},\frac{4}{16}$, which decays exponentially first and then grows exponentially. We denote these three random matrices as $A_{uni}$, $A_{log}$, and $A_{ushape}$ respectively. Since as shown in Section \[sec:localconv\], the convergence rate depends on the eigengap, $A_{uni}$ and $A_{log}$ serves as two typical cases of eigengap distribution, where the former has equal eigengap and the later has exponentially decaying eigengap. The last matrix, $A_{ushape}$ is adopted to reveal the difference between [TriOFM]{} and traditional orthogonalization-free methods. The convergence rate of [TriOFM]{} depends on the smallest eigengap of all desired eigenpairs, , $\Delta_3 = \lambda_4 - \lambda_3$ for $A_{ushape}$, whereas the rate of traditional methods depends on the eigengap of desired ones and undesired ones, , $\Delta_5 = \lambda_6 - \lambda_5$ for $A_{ushape}$. Since $\Delta_3$ is exponentially smaller than $\Delta_5$, we expect that [TriOFM]{} in this case converges slower than traditional methods.
### Local Convergence Rate {#sec:numres_localconv}
We first numerically validate the local linear convergence as proved in Section \[sec:localconv\] and its rate for all three matrices. Momentum or CG is disabled. Fixed stepsize $\alpha = 0.4$ is used. Each time we sample $p$ unit vectors independently to form $X^{(0)} \in \bbR^{n\times p}$ as the initial value. Column locking technique is applied here.
![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). Fixed step size $\alpha = 0.4$ is used and column locking is applied.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_fixed_stepsize"}](figure/even_gd.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). Fixed step size $\alpha = 0.4$ is used and column locking is applied.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_fixed_stepsize"}](figure/decay_gd.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). Fixed step size $\alpha = 0.4$ is used and column locking is applied.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_fixed_stepsize"}](figure/ugap_gd.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"}
![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). CG, exact linesearch, and column locking are applied together.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_cg"}](figure/even_cg.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). CG, exact linesearch, and column locking are applied together.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_cg"}](figure/decay_cg.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Convergence behavior of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{uni}$ (left), $A_{log}$ (middle), and $A_{ushape}$ (right). CG, exact linesearch, and column locking are applied together.[]{data-label="fig:converge_rate_cg"}](figure/ugap_cg.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"}
Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] shows the convergence behaviors of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applied to all three matrices. Nonlinear convergence is observed in all three figures for the first few iterations. Linear convergence is observed for every single curve towards convergence. Hence we provide numerical support to the statement that [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} converges linearly in neighborhoods of global minima.
-------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Matrix $\lambda_1$ $\lambda_2$ $\lambda_3$ $\lambda_4$ $\lambda_5$
Reference rate $0.7952$ $0.8976$ $0.9489$ $0.9143$ $0.9872$
Numerical rate $0.7952$ $0.8976$ $0.9489$ $0.9143$ $0.9872$
-------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
: Local convergence rate of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applying to $A_{log}$.[]{data-label="tab:convergence_rate"}
In Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] left, we notice that all curves towards convergence are parallel to each other. Hence numerically the local convergence rates are the same. Since $A_{uni}$ has all equal eigengaps, as shown in Section \[sec:localconv\], the local convergence rates are the same, which agrees with our numerical observation. In Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] middle, curves towards convergence have very different slopes, hence very different convergence rates. Since $A_{log}$ has exponentially decaying eigengaps, the local convergence rates are indeed different. Here we provide a quantitative comparison of the convergence rates for $A_{log}$ in Table \[tab:convergence\_rate\]. We fit the slope of each curve after certain number of iterations and use it as the numerical rate. The reference rates (or theoretical rate) are computed according Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\], $r_i = 1 - \alpha \min_{j=1}^i \{ \lambda_{j+1} -
\lambda_j\}$. According to Table \[tab:convergence\_rate\], the numerical rates agree perfectly with reference rate for $A_{log}$. Hence we claim that Theorem \[thm:local-conv-obj1\] provides a tight upper bound in terms of the convergence rate. In Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] right, first three curves associated with 1st, 2nd, 3rd eigenpairs towards convergence have different convergence rate, and two curves associated with 3rd, 4th eigenpairs are parallel to each other since the convergence behavior of the 4th eigenpair is affected by the smallest eigengap among first 4 gaps which is the same as 3rd eigenpair. Meanwhile, we find that the convergence of the 5th eigenpair is faster than that of the 3rd or 4th one. Hence its convergence rate is theoretically upper bounded by the previous smallest eigengaps but numerically faster. Therefore, through numerical results for all three matrices, we claim that our theoretical analysis of the local convergence rate provides a tight upper bound for practice.
A more interesting numerical observation is that, for all three matrices, the local linear convergences of all columns have some degree of overlapping iterations, which means they converge simultaneously during part of the iterations. Especially for $A_{uni}$, there are a lot of iterations that all curves converge linearly simultaneously. However we should notice that if the eigengaps shrink too fast, there is a delay for the later eigenvectors to converge linearly. This delay can be observed in Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] middle. For $A_{log}$, neighbour curves have some iterations of simultaneous linear convergence and the delay of convergence is observed. The performance on $A_{ushape}$ is a combination of that on $A_{uni}$ and $A_{log}$. In Section \[sec:localconv\], we prove the local convergence in a column by column fashion, , the convergence of later column is proved if all earlier columns are close to their global minima. Since only an $\epsilon$ accuracy is needed for the convergence of previous columns, such a delay of convergence is also reasonably agree with our analysis.
In addition to the fixed stepsize, we also investigate the convergence behaviors of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} with all techniques enabled applying to three matrices, whose convergence behaviors are included in Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_cg\] left, middle, and right for $A_{uni}$, $A_{log}$, and $A_{ushape}$ respectively. We emphasize that the scales of iteration number ($x$-axis) are totally different in Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] and Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_cg\]. Overall, the convergence of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} with all techniques enabled are much faster than that of vanilla [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}. Nonlinear convergence is observed in all three figures throughout iterations. Nearly linear convergence is observed for every single curve towards convergence. The approximate linear convergence rates, however, are very different (in general, faster) from that in Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\]. We leave the convergence analysis of [TriOFM]{} with techniques as future work.
### Accelerating Techniques {#sec:numres_techniques}
Comparing numerical results in Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_fixed\_stepsize\] and Figure \[fig:converge\_rate\_cg\], we already notice significant acceleration due to all techniques we introduced, , CG, exact linesearch, and column locking. In this section, we aim to provide more quantitative comparisons for column locking and momentum acceleration for both [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}.
Specifically in this section, the tolerance $\epsilon$ used for stopping criteria and column locking is $10^{-8}$. And each experiment is repeated $500$ times, with different random $U$s and initial values. For both the iteration number and the total number of column accesses, we report the mean, max, and min among $500$ random tests.
Similar to the observation in previous work [@Corsetti2014; @Li2019c; @Wang2019], we also observe that an algorithm with exact linesearch, in all cases, outperforms the same algorithm with fixed stepsize. Hence we omit the comparison results for exact linesearch technique from the paper and focus on the other two techniques, momentum and column locking.
First we show the advantage of using column locking. This experiment is done on with CG and exact linesearch enabled. Table \[tab:comp\_locking\] list the iteration number and the total number of column accesses for [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applied to $A_{uni}$ with and without column locking.
--------------------------------- ------- ----- ----- -------- ------ ------
(lr)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-7]{} Mean Max Min Mean Max Min
[TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} + CG +locking 673.2 773 579 5139.2 6749 4372
[TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} + CG 676.4 931 580 6764.4 9310 5800
--------------------------------- ------- ----- ----- -------- ------ ------
: Performance comparison of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} applied to $A_{uni}$ with and without column locking. CG and exact linesearch are enabled.[]{data-label="tab:comp_locking"}
From Table \[tab:comp\_locking\], we observe that the number of iteration is not much affected by the column locking. Especially, the mean of iteration number only reduced by about 3 iterations out of nearly 700 iterations. However, the number of column accesses is significantly reduced. All three numbers, , mean, max and min of the number of column access, are reduced by nearly $25\%$ after applying the column locking. Similar results can be obtained for other matrices and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{} as well. Considering the negligible increase of computational cost, we conclude that the column locking technique significantly reduced the number of column accesses and hence the computational cost of [TriOFM]{}.
Then we move on to explore the advantage of momentum and CG techniques. In this part, all algorithms are using their own exact linesearch as stepsize choices. For algorithms with vanilla momentum acceleration, the coefficient are chosen as $\beta = 0.9$ for and $\beta = 0.95$ for . Although not extensive search for $\beta$ is done, several different values of $\beta$ are tested for both objective functions. Among those tested $\beta$s, we pick the $\beta$ for each objective function leading to the fastest convergence. For each objective function, there is a comparison between [TriOFM]{} and its non-triangularized version (denoted as OFM) with and without momentum acceleration enabled. Numerical results are summarized in Table \[tab:comparison\_uni\] and Table \[tab:comparison\_log\] for $A_{uni}$ and $A_{log}$ respectively.
------------------------- --------------------- --------- ------- ------ ---------- -------- -------
(lr)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} Mean Max Min Mean Max Min
[TriOFM]{}+CG 673.2 773 579 5139.2 6749 4372
OFM+CG 325.6 681 217 3255.8 6810 2170
[TriOFM]{}+Momentum 1196.3 1494 1001 8528.9 10877 7328
OFM+Momentum 428.5 706 390 4285.0 7060 4900
[TriOFM]{}+GD 7157.2 9880 4863 65829.6 89045 46400
OFM+GD 6910.1 9736 4400 69101.2 97360 44000
[TriOFM]{}+CG 968.8 1144 862 7141.1 9915 6158
OFM+CG 540.0 1135 298 5400.5 11350 2980
[TriOFM]{}+Momentum 1783.2 2116 1588 13336.1 15837 12227
OFM+Momentum 757.3 1281 739 7573.6 12810 7390
[TriOFM]{}+GD 14217.7 19444 9392 129519.9 171456 90160
OFM+GD 13141.9 19071 8021 131419.3 190710 80210
------------------------- --------------------- --------- ------- ------ ---------- -------- -------
: Performance comparison of [TriOFM]{} and OFM with and without momentum accelerating techniques for $A_{uni}$. Exact linesearch is enabled for all algorithms and column locking is enabled for [TriOFM]{}.[]{data-label="tab:comparison_uni"}
------------------------- --------------------- --------- ------- ------- ---------- -------- --------
(lr)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} Mean Max Min Mean Max Min
[TriOFM]{}+CG 54.8 67 44 415.0 495 340
OFM+CG 967.7 2716 461 9676.8 27160 4610
[TriOFM]{}+Momentum 51.3 59 44 414.3 463 377
OFM+Momentum 1556.5 2423 968 15565.6 24230 9670
[TriOFM]{}+GD 68.0 80 58 610.1 700 528
OFM+GD 20593.4 26445 14864 205934.7 264450 148640
[TriOFM]{}+CG 293.0 637 195 1094.0 1628 899
OFM+CG 1035.2 2239 544 10352.1 22390 5440
[TriOFM]{}+Momentum 934.1 1398 706 2905.0 2985 1264
OFM+Momentum 1988.0 2986 1265 19879.3 29860 12650
[TriOFM]{}+GD 8384.3 10990 4497 188263.6 22400 10706
OFM+GD 36126.9 45066 24280 361268.9 450660 242800
------------------------- --------------------- --------- ------- ------- ---------- -------- --------
: Performance comparison of [TriOFM]{} and OFM with and without momentum accelerating techniques for $A_{log}$. Exact linesearch is enabled for all algorithms and column locking is enabled for [TriOFM]{}.[]{data-label="tab:comparison_log"}
For matrices with equal eigengaps, $A_{uni}$, we find that from Table \[tab:comparison\_uni\] all [TriOFM]{}s are slightly slower than their non-triangularized counterparts. Such a slow down is acceptable since [TriOFM]{} converges to eigenvectors directly, which include a finite number of global minima, while its non-triangularized counterpart converges to the eigenspace, which includes infinity number of global minima. For matrices with logarithmic decay eigengaps, $A_{log}$, as in Table \[tab:comparison\_log\], the comparison between [TriOFM]{}s and their non-triangularized counterparts gives opposite results. For all cases in Table \[tab:comparison\_log\], [TriOFM]{}s converge in less number of iterations and less number of column accesses. When algorithms are applied to $A_{log}$, convergence rates are determined by the last eigengap. Hence we anticipate that [TriOFM]{} performs no worse than its non-triangularized counterpart. While the results in Table \[tab:comparison\_log\] are beyond our theoretical analysis. Our explanation for such results has two-folds. First, since first several columns converge much faster in [TriOFM]{}, it makes later columns move into linear convergence at very early iterations. Second, in [TriOFM]{}, different stepsizes from exact linesearches are applied to different columns, whereas OFM uses the stepsize is uniform for all columns, which is impacted by the smallest eigengap. Overall, the computational cost comparison between [TriOFM]{}s and their non-triangularized counterparts depends on the eigengap distribution, although [TriOFM]{}s aim to solve a more tough problem.
From both Table \[tab:comparison\_uni\] and Table \[tab:comparison\_log\], in everything single comparison, algorithms with momentum accelerations outperform their non-accelerated versions. Further, comparing CG with momentum accelerate, algorithms with CG are at least no slower than their vanilla momentum acceleration with carefully chosen parameter $\beta$. If the parameter $\beta$ is not carefully chosen, algorithms with CG definitely win. Hence we prefer to use CG as momentum acceleration since it does not have an extra hyper-parameter and is faster.
Summarizing all these tests, the comparison of computational costs for [TriOFM]{} and its non-triangularized counterpart is not definitive and depends on the eigengap distribution of the matrix. Regarding the accelerating techniques, CG is the best momentum acceleration, and both exact linesearch and column locking accelerate [TriOFM]{}. Hence, our best choice is to use [TriOFM]{} with CG, exact linesearch, and column locking enabled. As in the later sections, Section \[sec:numres\_dft\] and Section \[sec:numres\_fci\], this will be our representative algorithm of [TriOFM]{} and we will move our focus onto the sparsity of eigenvectors.
Synthetic Density Functional Theory {#sec:numres_dft}
-----------------------------------
In this section we show a synthetic example from DFT computation. We propose a second order differential operator on the domain $[0,1]$ with periodic boundary condition, $$\label{eq:dft_eg}
H(x) = -\Delta + V(x),$$ where $-\Delta$ is the Laplace operator denoting the kinetic term and $V(x)$ is a local potential with four Gaussian potential wells, $$\label{eq:dft_potential}
V(x) = -\sum_{i = 1}^4 \alpha_i e^{-\frac{(x -
\ell_i)^2}{2\sigma^2}}.$$ In , the centers of the wells are located at $\ell_i = \frac{2i-1}{8}$, the depths of the wells are $\alpha_i =
850 + 50 \times \mathrm{mod}(i,4)$, and the constant width of the wells is $\sigma = 0.1$. This second order differential operator, , can be viewed as a synthetic linear operator in each self-consistent field iteration in DFT computation, simulating four different atoms located periodically on a line. In this example, we are interested in computing the low-lying four eigenpairs. The matrix form of is obtained via discretizing the problem on a uniform grid with $n = 500$ points. The Laplace operator is discretized with second-order central difference scheme. In Figure \[fig:dft\_eigenvector\] left, we plot the four eigenvectors corresponding to smallest four eigenvalues. Due to the localized potential and periodicity, the eigenvectors associated with low-lying eigenvalues have localized property as well, which means that these vectors are sparse.
![Left figure plots the ground truth of eigenvectors associated with four low-lying eigenvalues of problem ; middle figure plots scaled four convergent columns from [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}; and right figure plots scaled four convergent columns from the non-triangularized counterpart.[]{data-label="fig:dft_eigenvector"}](figure/om_real.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Left figure plots the ground truth of eigenvectors associated with four low-lying eigenvalues of problem ; middle figure plots scaled four convergent columns from [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}; and right figure plots scaled four convergent columns from the non-triangularized counterpart.[]{data-label="fig:dft_eigenvector"}](figure/om_triu.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"} ![Left figure plots the ground truth of eigenvectors associated with four low-lying eigenvalues of problem ; middle figure plots scaled four convergent columns from [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}; and right figure plots scaled four convergent columns from the non-triangularized counterpart.[]{data-label="fig:dft_eigenvector"}](figure/om_nontriu.eps "fig:"){width="33.30000%"}
Method Iter Num Total Column Access NNZ $e_{vec}$ $e_{val}$
--------------- ---------- --------------------- ------- ----------------------- -----------------------
[TriOFM]{}+CG 665.1 2531.5 178 $1.30\times 10^{-11}$ $1.17\times 10^{-15}$
OFM+CG 401.3 1601.2 660.0 – $1.35\times 10^{-11}$
: Performance comparison of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and its non-triangularized counterpart applied to .[]{data-label="tab:numres_dft"}
Numerical results are demonstrated in Figure \[fig:dft\_eigenvector\] and Table \[tab:numres\_dft\] over 100 runs. Figure \[fig:dft\_eigenvector\] middle plots scaled four convergent columns from [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and the right figure plots scaled four convergent columns from the non-triangularized counterpart. Table \[tab:numres\_dft\] further includes the iteration numbers, total numbers of column accesses, sparsity counts, and accuracy measurements for both algorithms. In Table \[tab:numres\_dft\], the NNZ (number of non-zeros) is measured as the number of entries with absolute values greater than $10^{-5}$. For [TriOFM]{} case, NNZ is $178$ which is exactly equal to that of reference eigenvectors. The non-triangularized algorithm does not provide eigenvectors without extra orthogonalization step. Hence the accuracy measurement of eigenvectors is not available.
According to Figure \[fig:dft\_eigenvector\], the convergent columns of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} recover the eigenvectors as in the left plot up to a sign difference. While the convergent columns of non-triangularized algorithm mixes all four eigenvectors and have non-zero peaks near all four Gaussian centers. Hence the sparsity pattern of eigenvectors are destroyed. The sparsity column in Table \[tab:numres\_dft\] further provides quantitative comparison. [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} has about $75\%$ less non-zero entries after thresholding. We claim this saving by a factor of $4$ is very important from the memory cost point of view. As the problem size getting larger and larger, the memory cost is the key bottleneck in many computations. In our opinion, saving the memory cost by a factor of $4$ is more important than saving the computational cost by the same factor, since the former leads to infeasibility and the later leads to a longer runtime. Meanwhile, the number of iterations and total number of column accesses stay similar (within a factor of $1.5$) to [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and its non-triangularized counterpart. Hence, [TriOFM]{} is potentially a valuable replacement of non-triangularized counterpart in DFT computations. If some metallic systems are considered in DFT, where eigenvalues are explicitly needed for Fermi-Dirac function, [TriOFM]{} with its orthogonalization free property would be more valuable.
Full Configuration Interaction {#sec:numres_fci}
------------------------------
This section solves the low-lying eigenpairs for two dimensional Hubbard model under FCI framework. The fermion Hubbard model is widely used approximate model in solid-state physics, which ignores long range interaction and only includes near site hopping on lattice. Since the FCI framework is applied, the matrix size scales exponentially with respect to the lattice size and the number of electrons in the Hubbard model. The eigenvectors associated with low-lying eigenvalues are in general very sparse. This is one of the most important target applications of [TriOFM]{}.
The Hamiltonian operator in the second quantization notation is, $$\hat{H} = -t \sum_{\langle r,r'\rangle, \sigma}
\hat{a}_{r,\sigma}^\dagger \hat{a}_{r', \sigma}
+ U \sum_{r} \hat{a}_{r,\uparrow}^\dagger \hat{a}_{r,\uparrow}
\hat{a}_{r,\downarrow}^\dagger \hat{a}_{r,\downarrow}$$ where $t$ is the hopping strength, $U$ is the interaction strength, $r,r'$ are lattice index, $\langle r, r'\rangle$ means that $r$ and $r'$ are neighbor on lattice. Further, $\hat{a}_{r,\sigma}^\dagger$ and $\hat{a}_{r,\sigma}$ denotes the creation and annihilation operator of an electron with spin $\sigma$ on site $r$.
In stead of working on the real space, our matrix in this section is generated from the Hubbard model in momentum space, where the hopping term is then a diagonal matrix. The Fourier transform of the creation and annihilation operator is $\hat{a}_{k,\sigma}
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^{orb}}} \sum_r e^{\imath k\cdot r}
\hat{a}_{r,\sigma}$, where $k$ is the wave number and $N^{orb}$ is the number of orbitals (sites). The Hamiltonian operator in momentum space is then, $$\label{eq:ham-fci}
\hat{H} = t \sum_{k, \sigma} -2 (\cos{k_1} + \cos{k_2})
\hat{a}_{k,\sigma}^\dagger \hat{a}_{k, \sigma} +
\frac{U}{N^{orb}} \sum_{k,p,q} \hat{a}_{p-q,\uparrow}^\dagger
\hat{a}_{k+q,\downarrow}^\dagger \hat{a}_{k,\downarrow}
\hat{a}_{p,\uparrow}$$ where $k = (k_1,k_2)$.
The 2D Hubbard model we used in this section is on a lattice of size $4 \times 4$ with $6$ electrons (3 spin up and 3 spin down). The strength of hopping and interaction are $t = 1$ and $U = 0.25
N^{orb}$. Hence the FCI matrix has diagonal entries between $-20$ and $20$ and off-diagonal entries being $\pm 0.25$. We compute the smallest $p = 10$ eigenpairs. [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and its non-triangularized counterpart are applied to address this problem. The tolerance of convergence is set as $10^{-10}$. Both CG and exact linesearch are enabled for both algorithms. And column locking is enabled for [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{}. For each algorithm, we test 100 random initializations and report the mean of the iteration number, the total number of column accesses, the sparsity, and accuracies. The sparsity counts the number of entries with magnitude greater than $10^{-5}$. All numerical results are reported in Table \[tab:fci\].
Method Iter Num Total Col Access NNZ $e_{vec}$ $e_{val}$
--------------- ---------- ------------------ --------- ----------------------- ------------------------
[TriOFM]{}+CG 718.2 4305.0 57901.4 $2.07 \times 10^{-8}$ $3.44 \times 10^{-15}$
OFM+CG 466.5 4655.3 75041.2 – $3.43 \times 10^{-15}$
: Performance comparison of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and its non-triangularized counterpart applied to []{data-label="tab:fci"}
According to Table \[tab:fci\], although [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} requires larger number of iterations than its non-triangularized counterpart, the total number of column accesses remains similar for both algorithms, which is proportional to the actual runtime. For the matrix in this experiment, there are several eigenvalues of multiplicity larger than 1, and the stable fixed points form a subspace. Hence, NNZ for [TriOFM]{} is not a constant and many change due to different rotations within each subspace. Also, the sparsity of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} is lower than that of its non-triangularized counterpart. Hence, [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} outperforms its non-triangularized counterpart on this FCI problem again. We add a few more discussion for applying [TriOFM]{} to FCI problems below.
In FCI problems, eigenvalues and eigenvectors are needed for the ground state and low-lying excited states. Hence non-triangularized algorithms need an explicit post orthogonalization step. However, since FCI problems are usually of extremely large scale, the post orthogonalization step is often computationally too expensive to be practical. Therefore, [TriOFM]{} is, to authors’ best knowledge, only orthogonalization free family of eigensolvers for eigenpairs. Direct comparison of [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} with its non-triangularized counterpart is not fair in this setting, since the later does not provide needed results. Another important thing is the sparsity. Again, due to the extremely large scale of the problems, the memory cost is the key bottleneck in practice. In order to save memory, we would like to recover the sparsity pattern of eigenvectors as much as possible throughout iterations. Although, in this paper, we only investigate the sparsity of convergent point, adding thresholding together with coordinate-wise descent algorithm would potentially give sparse pattern throughout iterations. Hence this is the first step towards practical algorithms for excited states problem under FCI framework.
Conclusion and Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
In this work, we introduce the novel [TriOFM]{} framework for solving extreme eigenvalue problems. Under [TriOFM]{} framework, the eigenpairs are directly solved via orthogonalization-free iterative methods, where the orthogonalization-free feature is crucial for extremely large scale eigenvalue problems with sparse eigenvectors. Two algorithms, namely [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} and [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}, under the framework are proposed for and . Global convergence for both algorithms are guaranteed for almost all initial values in a big domain. Locally, we prove that, in neighbors of global minima, [TriOFM-(Obj1)]{} converges linearly. The local convergence proof can also be adapted to [TriOFM-(Obj2)]{}. Although, under the framework, our proposed algorithms are different from gradient-based optimization algorithms, acceleration techniques, including momentum, linesearch, and column locking, still work effectively. According to a sequence of numerical experiments on both synthetic examples and practical examples, our algorithms converge efficiently and reveals the sparsity of eigenvectors without any orthogonalization step.
There are many future directions. As has been mentioned before, [TriOFM]{} framework is not only applicable to and . It can be adopted by other algorithms to remove the gauge freedom. We would like to explore more such algorithms and potential applications in the future. Moreover, we claim the advantage of [TriOFM]{} in keeping sparsity towards convergent. It is a interesting future direction to explore truncation techniques as well as coordinate-wise algorithms so that the sparse property can be kept throughout iterations. Then the application to FCI low-lying excited states problems would be potentially of great interest to many other communities including computational physics, computational chemistry, and material science, etc. In addition to above two directions, orthogonalization-free algorithms are friendly to massive parallel computing. Hence the parallelization of these proposed algorithms is another future direction.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors thank Jianfeng Lu and Zhe Wang for helpful discussions. YL is supported in part by the US Department of Energy via grant de-sc0019449. WG is supported in part by National Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11690013, U1811461.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj2\] {#app:stationarypt-obj2}
==========================================
All stationary points of satisfy $g_2(X) = 0$. We first analyze the stationary points for a single column case, and then complete the proof by induction. Notations used in this proof are the same as that in the proof of Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\].
We denote the single column $X$ as $x$. Obviously, when $x = 0$, we have $g_2(x) = 0$. Now, consider the nontrivial case $x \neq
0$. The equality $g_2(x) = 0$ can be expanded as, $$\label{eq:eigzeroobj2}
\left( (2 - x^\top x)A - x^\top A x I \right) x = 0.$$ According to , for nonzero $x$, the matrix $B = (2 - x^\top x)A - x^\top A x I$ must has a zero eigenvalue and $x$ lies in its corresponding eigenspace. When $x^\top x = 2$, the matrix $B = x^\top A x I$ does not have zero eigenvalue due to the negativity assumption on $A$. Hence $x$ is parallel to one of $A$’s eigenvector, , $Ax = \lambda x$. Substituting this into , we obtain, $$2 (1 - x^\top x) \lambda x = 0.$$ Since $\lambda < 0$ and $x \neq 0$, we have $x^\top x = 1$. Hence we conclude that for $g_2(x) = 0$, $x$ is either a zero vector or an eigenvector of $A$.
Now we consider multicolumn case. The first column of $g_2(X) = 0$ is the same as . Hence $X_1 = U P_1 S_1 D_1$.
Assume the first $i$ columns of $X$ obey $X_i = U P_i S_i D_i$. Then the $(i+1)$-th column of $g_2(X) = 0$ is $$\label{eq:eigzeroiobj2}
2A x_{i+1} - Ax_{i+1} x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1} - x_{i+1}
x_{i+1}^\top A x_{i+1} - AX_i X_i^\top x_{i+1} - X_i X_i^\top
Ax_{i+1} = 0.$$ Obviously, if $x_{i+1} = 0$, then holds. When $x_{i+1} \neq 0$, we left multiply with $X_i^\top$, adopt the commuting property of diagonal matrices, and obtain, $$\label{eq:eigzeroxtiobj2}
\begin{split}
0 = & D_i S_i P_i^\top \left( 2\Lambda - x_{i+1}^\top
x_{i+1} \Lambda - x_{i+1}^\top A x_{i+1} I - \Lambda P_i
P_i^\top - \Lambda \right) U^\top x_{i+1} \\
= & - D_i S_i P_i^\top \left( x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1} \Lambda
+ x_{i+1}^\top A x_{i+1} I \right) U^\top x_{i+1} \\
\end{split}$$ where the second equality adopts the fact that $P_i^\top \Lambda
P_i P_i^\top = P_i^\top \Lambda$. Due to the negativity of $A$, we notice that $x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1} \Lambda + x_{i+1}^\top A
x_{i+1} I$ is a diagonal matrix with strictly negative diagonal entries. Hence the equality is equivalent to $$\label{eq:eigzeroshortobj2}
S_i P_i^\top U^\top x_{i+1} = 0.$$ As long as holds, we have $X_i^\top
x_{i+1} = 0$ and $X_i^\top A x_{i+1} = 0$. Therefore, solving can be addressed via solving $$2A x_{i+1} - Ax_{i+1} x_{i+1}^\top x_{i+1} - x_{i+1}
x_{i+1}^\top A x_{i+1} = 0$$ such that $x_{i+1}$ satisfies . Combining the solution of the single column case and the constraint , we conclude that $X_{i+1}$ is of the form $U P_{i+1} S_{i+1} D_{i+1}$.
The stabilities of stationary points should also be analyzed through the spectrum properties of their Jacobian matrices. The Jacobian matrix $\Diff g_2(X)$, again, can be written as a $p$-by-$p$ block matrix. And using the similar argument as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:stationarypt-obj1\], $\Diff g_2(X)
= \Diff G$ is a block upper triangular matrix, whose spectrum is determined by the spectrum of its diagonal blocks. Through a multivariable calculus, we obtain the expression for $J_{ii}$ as, $$\label{eq:Jiiobj2}
J_{ii} = 2A - A X_i X_i^\top - X_i X_i^\top A - A x_i x_i^\top -
x_i^\top x_i A - x_i^\top A x_i I - x_i x_i^\top A.$$
We first show the stability of the stationary points of form $X =
U_p D$. Substituting these points into , we have, $$J_{ii} = A - 2 U_i \Lambda_i U_i^\top - 2 \lambda_i u_i u_i^\top
- \lambda_i I.$$ Since $\lambda_i$ is smaller than all eigenvalues of $A - U_i
\Lambda_i U_i^\top$, $A - U_i \Lambda_i U_i^\top - \lambda_i I$ is strictly positive definite. The rest part of is, obviously, positive definite. Hence $J_{ii}$ is strictly positive definite for all $i = 1, 2, \dots, p$ and stationary points of the form $X = U_p D$ are stable stationary points.
Next we show the rest stationary points are not stable. For a stationary point $X$, we denote the first index $s$ such that $x_s^\top u_s = 0$. Then we estimate $u_s^\top J_{ss} u_s$ as, $$u_s^\top J_{ii} u_s = 2\lambda_s - x_s^\top x_s \lambda_s -
x_s^\top A x_s < 0,$$ since $x_s^\top x_s \leq 1$ and $A$ is negative definite. Therefore, the rest stationary points are not stable.
[TriOFM]{} Global Convergence Analysis {#app:global-conv-obj1}
======================================
This section aims to facilitate the proof of Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj1\].
It is sufficient to show that the condition holds for one iteration. In order to simplify the notations, we denote $x_i^{(t)}$ and $x_i^{(t+1)}$ as $x_i$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_i$ respectively. The norms of $x_i$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_i$ are denoted as $r_i$ and ${\widetilde{r}}_i$ respectively.
The iteration in Algorithm \[alg:triofm-obj1\] can be written as, $${\widetilde{x}}_i = x_i - \alpha A x_i - \alpha (\sum_{j=1}^{i}x_j
x_j^\top) x_i
= x_i - \alpha {\widetilde{A}}x_i - \alpha x_i
x_i^\top x_i.$$ where ${\widetilde{A}}= A + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} x_j x_j^\top $. The norm square of ${\widetilde{x}}_i$ can be calculated as, $$\begin{split}
{\widetilde{r}}_i^2 = {\widetilde{x}}_i^\top {\widetilde{x}}_i = & x_i^\top x_i - 2 \alpha
\left(x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + (x_i^\top x_i)^2 \right) +
\alpha^2 \left( x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + (x_i^\top
x_i)^3 + 2x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i (x_i^\top x_i) \right) \\
= & r_i^2 - 2 \alpha
\left(x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + r_i^4 \right) +
\alpha^2 \left( x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + r_i^6 + 2
x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i r_i^2 \right).
\end{split}$$ Given that all $x_i$ satisfy the conditions $\norm{x_i}
\leq R_i$, we have inequality for any vector $x$ and power $k$, $$\label{eq:ineqA}
-\left( \rho + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}R_j^2 \right)^k \norm{x}^2
\leq x^\top {\widetilde{A}}^k x \leq \left( \rho + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}R_j^2
\right)^k \norm{x}^2,$$ where we adopt the definition of eigenvalues for the first part in ${\widetilde{A}}$ and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality for the second part in ${\widetilde{A}}$. Due to the assumption on $R_j$, we can bound the factor in the right part of as, $$\label{eq:ineqsum}
\rho+\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}R_j^2
\leq \rho \left( 1 + 3\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}4^{j-1} \right)
\leq 4^{i-1}\rho = \frac{R_i^2}{3}.$$
With these inequalities, the first order term of $\alpha$ can be estimated as, $$\begin{split}
-2\alpha \left(x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + r_i^4 \right) \leq & 2\alpha
\left( \left(\rho+\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}R_j^2 \right) r_i^2 -
r_i^4 \right)\\
\leq & 2\alpha r_i^2
\left( \frac{ R_i^2 }{3} -
r_i^2 \right),
\end{split}$$ which is due to and . And the second order term of $\alpha$ can be estimated as, $$\label{eq:term2}
\begin{split}
\alpha^2 \left(x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}^2 x_i + r_i^6 +
2x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i r_i^2 \right) \leq & \alpha^2 \left(
\left(\rho+\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}R_j^2 \right)^2 r_i^2 +
r_i^6 + 2\left(\rho + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} R_j^2\right)
r_i^4 \right) \\
\leq & \alpha^2 r_i^2 \left(
\frac{R_i^4}{9} +
r_i^4 + \frac{2 R_i^2}{3} r_i^2 \right),
\end{split}$$ which is again due to and . The rest of the proof is divided into two scenarios, , $r_i \in [\frac{\sqrt{2}R_i}{\sqrt{3}}, R_i]$ and $r_i \in [0,
\frac{\sqrt{2}R_i}{\sqrt{3}})$.
In the first scenario, $r_i \in [\frac{\sqrt{2}R_i}{\sqrt{3}},
R_i]$, we have $ -2\alpha \left( x_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_i + r_i^4
\right)\leq -\alpha r_i^2 \frac{2R_i^2}{3}$ for the first order term. Applying $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{5R_p^2}$, we have, $${\widetilde{r}}_i^2 \leq r_i^2 + \alpha r_i^2
\left( -\frac{2R_i^2}{3} + \frac{R_i^4}{45 R_p^2} +
\frac{R_i^4}{5 R_p^2} + \frac{2R_i^4}{15 R_p^2} \right)
\leq r_i^2 - \alpha r_i^2
\frac{14R_i^2}{45} < r_i^2 \leq R_i^2.$$
In the second scenario, $r_i \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}R_i $, with bounds on the first and second order term, we have $$\begin{split}
{\widetilde{r}}_i^2 \leq & r_i^2 + 2\alpha r_i^2 \left( \frac{ R_i^2 }{3}
- r_i^2 \right) + \alpha^2 r_i^2 \left( \frac{R_i^4}{9}
+ r_i^4 + \frac{2R_i^2}{3} r_i^2 \right) \\
\leq & \frac{2R_i^2}{3} + \frac{ 4 R_i^4 }{45 R_p^2}
+ \frac{2 R_i^6}{675 R_p^4}
+ \frac{ 8 R_i^6}{675 R_p^4} + \frac{8R_i^6}{675 R_p^4} <
R_i^2. \\
\end{split}$$
This proves the lemma.
Now we proved that each column $x_i$ is trapped by a ball throughout iterations. Next we pave the path to prove Lemma \[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\], which show that the first column always converge to the scaled eigenvector corresponding to the first eigenvalue, to be more specific, $\pm \sqrt{-\lambda_1}u_1$.
Let $\theta^{(t)}$ denotes the acute angle between $x_1^{(t)}$ and $\pm
u_1$, we will show that $\theta^{(t)}$ converges to zero almost surely.
\[app:lemma2\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $
x_1^{(0)}$ is not perpendicular to $u_1$. Then the tangent of $\theta^{(t)} = \angle (x_1^{(t)},u_1)$ linearly converges to 0, , $\tan \theta^{(t+1)}\leq \frac{1 - \alpha \lambda_2} {1 -
\alpha\lambda_1}\tan \theta^{(t)}$.
Since the eigenvectors of symmetric matrix $A$ are orthonormal vectors, both vector 2-norm and the angle $\theta^{(t)} = \angle
(x_1^{(t)},u_1) = \angle (U^\top x_1^{(t)},e_1)$ are invariant to orthonormal transform, without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix with its diagonal being $\lambda_1,
\lambda_2, \dots, \lambda_n$ and the corresponding eigenvectors are $e_i, 1 \leq i \leq n$. Following the notation in the proof of Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\], we drop the iteration index in the superscript and denote the following iteration variables with $\widetilde{\cdot}$. The first column of $X^{(t)}$ iterates as follows, $${\widetilde{x}}_{1} = \left(I - \alpha A - \alpha x_1^\top x_1 I\right)x_1.$$ Let $x_{1i}$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_{1i}$ denotes the $i$-th element of $x_1$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ respectively. The $i$-th element of ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ then satisfies, $$\label{eq:elementiter}
{\widetilde{x}}_{1i} = \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_i - \alpha r_1^2
\right) x_{1i},$$ where $r_1$ denotes the norm of $x_1$.
Since ${\widetilde{\theta}}$ is the angle between ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ and $e_1$, the tangent of ${\widetilde{\theta}}$ can be written in terms of elements of ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ as, $$\label{eq:tanttheta}
\tan {\widetilde{\theta}}= \frac{ \sqrt{ {\widetilde{x}}_{12}^2 + {\widetilde{x}}_{13}^2 + \cdots +
{\widetilde{x}}_{1n}^2 } }{ \abs{{\widetilde{x}}_{11}} }.$$
Substituting into , we obtain, $$\label{eq:thetaineq}
\begin{split}
\tan {\widetilde{\theta}}= & \frac{ \sqrt{ \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_2 -
\alpha r_1^2\right)^2 x_{12}^2 + \cdots + \left(1 - \alpha
\lambda_n - \alpha r_1^2\right)^2 x_{1n}^2 } }{ \left(1 -
\alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha r_1^2\right) \abs{x_{11}} }\\
\leq & \frac{1 - \alpha \lambda_2 - \alpha r_1^2}{1 - \alpha
\lambda_1 - \alpha r_1^2} \left( \frac{ \sqrt{ x_{12}^2 +
\cdots + x_{1n}^2 } }{ \abs{x_{11}} } \right)\\
= & \frac{1 -
\alpha \lambda_2 - \alpha r_1^2}{1 - \alpha \lambda_1 -
\alpha r_1^2} \tan \theta
\leq \frac{1 -
\alpha \lambda_2}{1 - \alpha \lambda_1} \tan \theta,
\end{split}$$ where we adopt the assumption on $\alpha$, which guarantees the positivity of $1 - \alpha \lambda_1 - \alpha r_1^2$ and $1 -
\alpha \lambda_2 - \alpha r_2^2$.
Recursively applying , we have $\tan
\theta^{(t)} \leq \left( \frac{1-\alpha \lambda_2}{1-\alpha
\lambda_1}\right)^t \tan \theta^{(0)}$, which implies $\theta^{(t)}\rightarrow 0$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$.
Although we have linear convergence for the tangent of the angle between $x_1^{(t)}$ and $u_1$, $\tan \theta^{(0)}$ can be huge if $x_1^{(0)}$ is nearly orthogonal to $u_1$. Next, we would focus on the convergence of the vector length.
\[app:lemma3\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $ x_1^{(0)}$ is not perpendicular to $u_1$. Then there exists an integer $N$ such that $\norm{x_1^{(t)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$ holds for all $t \geq N$.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix with its diagonal being $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots,
\lambda_n$ and the corresponding eigenvectors are $e_i,
1 \leq i \leq n$. Following the notation in the proof of Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\], we drop the iteration index in the superscript and denote the following iteration variables with $\widetilde{\cdot}$. Let $x_{1i}$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_{1i}$ denote the $i$-th element of $x_1$ and ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ respectively. The $i$-th element of ${\widetilde{x}}_1$ then satisfies, $${\widetilde{x}}_{1i} = \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_i - \alpha r_1^2
\right) x_{1i},$$ where $r_1$ denotes the norm of $x_1$. Further we split $x_1$ into two vectors as $x_1 = \begin{pmatrix} y_1^\top & y_2^\top
\end{pmatrix}^\top$ where $y_1 = \begin{pmatrix}x_{11} &
\cdots & x_{1q}\end{pmatrix}^\top$ and $y_2 = \begin{pmatrix}x_{1(q+1)} &
\cdots & x_{1n}\end{pmatrix}^\top$.
The proof consists two parts. In the first part, we show that there exist an iteration $N_1$, such that $\norm{y_1^{(N_1)}}
\geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$ and $\norm{y_2^{(N_1)}} \leq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$. In the second part, we show that as long as the condition in the first part is satisfied, the length of $x_1$ never reduces below $\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$.
Notice that for any $r_1$ we have, $$\label{eq:x1idecrease}
\abs{{\widetilde{x}}_{1i}} \leq \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_i - \alpha
(x_{1i})^2 \right) \abs{x_{1i}}$$ for $i = q+1, \dots, n$. $\abs{x_{1i}}$ decays monotonically to zero. Hence there exists an integer $M$ such that for any $t \geq M$ we have $\norm{y_2^{(t)}} \leq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$. Further, for $t \geq M$, if $\norm{y_1} \leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$, we have, $$\label{eq:x11increase}
\abs{{\widetilde{x}}_{1i}} \geq \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_i + \alpha
\frac{5\lambda_q}{8} \right) \abs{x_{1i}},$$ for $i = 1, \dots, q$, where the increasing factors are strictly greater than one. Also we have $x_{11}^{(0)} = x_1^\top u_1 \neq
0$ in the assumption. Hence there exists a integer $N \geq M$ such that $\norm{y_1^{(N)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$ and $\norm{y_2^{(N)}} \leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$.
Next, we show that for any $t \geq N$, if $\norm{y_1} \geq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$, then we have, $$\norm{{\widetilde{y}}_1} \geq (1 - \alpha r_1^2)
\norm{y_1}
\geq \left(1 - \frac{R_1^2}{5R_p^2} \right)
\norm{y_1}
\geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4},$$ where we adopt Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\] and the assumption on $\alpha$ in the second inequality. Such a relation means that as long as $\norm{y_1} \geq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$, the length cannot reduce below $\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$ in one iteration.
When $\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4} \leq
\norm{y_1} \leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$ and $\norm{y_2}
\leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$, we have, $$\norm{{\widetilde{y}}_1} \geq (1 - \alpha \lambda_q - \alpha r_1^2)
\norm{y_1} \geq \left(1 - \frac{3}{8} \alpha \lambda_q \right)
\norm{y_1} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}.$$
Hence, as long as $t \geq N$, we have $\norm{x_1^{(t)}} \geq
\norm{y_1^{(t)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$.
Similar as in the proofs of previous lemmas, without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix with its diagonal being $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots, \lambda_n$ and the corresponding eigenvectors are $e_i, 1 \leq i \leq n$. All notations follow that in the proofs of previous lemmas.
According to Lemma \[app:lemma2\], the tangent of $\theta$ converges to zero, , $$\tan \theta = \frac{ \sqrt{ x_{12}^2 + x_{13}^2 + \cdots +
x_{1n}^2 } }{ \abs{x_{11}} } \rightarrow 0.$$ Lemma \[lem:bounded-domain-obj1\] implies the boundedness of $x_1$, which implies the boundedness of $x_{11}$. Hence we have, $$\sqrt{ x_{12}^2 + x_{13}^2 + \cdots + x_{1n}^2 } \rightarrow 0.$$ To simplify the notation, we denote $\eta$ as $\eta = \sqrt{
x_{12}^2 + x_{13}^2 + \cdots + x_{1n}^2 }$. The convergence of $\eta$ can be stated as follows. For any ${\varepsilon}\leq
\min \left( \frac{\sqrt{-\lambda_q}}{4}, \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_1
\lambda_q}}{8R_1} \right)$, there exists an integer $N_1$ such that for any $t \geq N_1$, we have $\eta^2 \leq {\varepsilon}^2$. Also recall Lemma \[app:lemma3\], there exists an integer $N_2$, such that for any $t \geq N_2$, we have $\norm{x_1^{(t)}} \geq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$. Combining the bounds on $\eta$ and $\norm{x^{(t)}_1}$, we obtain, when $t \geq M = \max (N_1, N_2)$, $\left( x^{(t)}_{11} \right)^2 = \norm{x^{(t)}_1}^2 - \eta^2 \geq
-\frac{\lambda_q}{8} - {\varepsilon}^2 \geq -\frac{\lambda_q}{16}$.
Since the stepsize $\alpha$ guarantees the positivity of $(1-\alpha
\lambda_1 - \alpha r_1^2)$, ${\widetilde{x}}_{11} = (1 - \alpha \lambda_1 -
\alpha r_1^2)x_{11}$ remains the same sign as $x_{11}$ and the same as $x_{11}^{(0)}$. We first discuss the scenario $x_{11}^{(0)} > 0$.
Let $\delta^{(t)} = x_{11}^{(t)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_1}$. We have the recurrent relationship, $$\begin{split}
\delta^{(t+1)} = & x_{11}^{(t+1)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_1}
= \left( 1 - \alpha \left( \lambda_1 +
\left(x_{11}^{(t)}\right)^2 + \left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2
\right) \right) x_{11}^{(t)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_1} \\
= & \left( 1 - \alpha \left( \sqrt{-\lambda_1} +
x_{11}^{(t)}\right) x_{11}^{(t)} \right) \delta^{(t)} -
\alpha \left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2 x_{11}^{(t)}.
\end{split}$$ Taking the absolute value of both side, we obtain the recurrent inequality relationship, $$\begin{split}
\abs{\delta^{(t+1)}}
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \left( \sqrt{-\lambda_1} +
x_{11}^{(t)}\right) x_{11}^{(t)}
\right) \abs{\delta^{(t)}} + \alpha
\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2 x_{11}^{(t)}\\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_q}}{4}
\right) \abs{\delta^{(t)}} + \alpha
{\varepsilon}^2 R_1 \\
\leq & \cdots \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_q}}{4}
\right)^{t+1-M} \abs{\delta^{(M)}} +
{\varepsilon}^2 \frac{4R_1}{\sqrt{\lambda_1
\lambda_q}} \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_q}}{4}
\right)^{t+1-M} \abs{\delta^{(M)}} +
\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}. \\
\end{split}$$ Hence there exists an integer $N \geq M$ such that for any $t \geq
N$, $\abs{\delta^{(t)}} \leq {\varepsilon}$.
If $x_{11}^{(0)} < 0$, the iteration converges to $-\sqrt{-\lambda_1}$. The analysis is analogy to the above one. The lemma is proved.
After proving the single column case, we turn to the multicolumn case. When we are proving the multicolumn case, we first assume the fact that all previous columns have converged to global minima, , $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{ X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1}
} = 0,$$ then Theorem \[thm:global-conv-obj1\] proves the overall global convergence by induction. In the following, we first prove a few lemmas to support the proof of Lemma \[lem:multi-global-conv-obj1\].
\[app:lemma5\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{ X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1} } = 0$. Then $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = 0$ for all integer $i \in [1, k) \bigcup (q, n]$.
First we will introduce some notations. Let $E$ be the symmetric residual of the first $k-1$ columns, , $E^{(t)} = \sum_{i =
1}^{k-1} x_i^{(t)} \left(x_i^{(t)}\right)^\top + \lambda_i u_i
u_i^\top$, and $E_i^{(t)}$ denote the $i$-th column of $E^{(t)}$. The convergence of $X^{(t)}_{k-1}$ implies that $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{E^{(t)}} = 0$ and hence $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \norm{E_i^{(t)}} = 0$ for any $i = 1, 2,
\dots, n$. Using the notation $E^{(t)}$ and , the iteration for the $k$-th column of $X^{(t)}$ can be written as, $$\label{eq:it-for-xk}
x_k^{(t+1)} = \left(I - \alpha {\widetilde{A}}- \alpha \left(x_k^
{(t)}\right)^\top x_k^{(t)} I \right) x_k^{(t)}-\alpha
E^{(t)} x_k^{(t)},$$ where ${\widetilde{A}}= A - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \lambda_i u_i u_i^\top$.
Similar as in previous proofs, without loss of generality, we assume $A$ is a diagonal matrix. Then showing the convergence of $u_i^\top x_k^{(t)}$ is equivalent to showing the convergence of $e_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)}$. In the following, we consider the convergence of $x_{ki}^{(t)}$ for $i \in [1, k)
\bigcup (q, n]$.
Since we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \norm{E_i^{(t)}}
= 0$, for any ${\varepsilon}< \sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha}}$, there exists $N$ such that $\norm{E^{(t)}_i} < \frac{{\varepsilon}^3}{2R_k}$ holds for all $t \geq N$. Multiplying $e_i^\top$ on both sides of for $i \in [1, k) \bigcup (q, n]$, we have the following estimation, $$\begin{split}
\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t+1)} } = & \abs{ \left( 1 - \alpha \left(
x_k^{(t)} \right)^\top x_k^{(t)} \right)x_{ki}^{(t)} -
\alpha e_i^\top {\widetilde{A}}x_{k}^{(t)} -
\alpha \left( E_i^{(t)} \right)^\top x_k^{(t)}} \\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \left( x_{ki}^{(t)} \right)^2
\right) \abs{x_{ki}^{(t)}} + \alpha \norm{E_i^{(t)}}
\norm{x_k^{(t)}} \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \left(x_{ki}^{(t)}\right)^2 +
\frac{\alpha {\varepsilon}^3}{2 \abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)}} }\right)
\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} },
\end{split}$$ where we adopt the assumption on $\alpha$ and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Notice that when $\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} } > {\varepsilon}$, the inequality reduces to $\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t+1)} } \leq \left(1 -
\frac{\alpha {\varepsilon}^2}{2} \right) \abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} }$, which means $\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} }$ decays exponentially with the factor $1 -
\frac{\alpha {\varepsilon}^2}{2}$. On the other hand, if there is a $t$ such that $\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} } \leq {\varepsilon}$, then the quantity in the following iteration is upper bounded by $$\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t+1)} } \leq \left(1+\alpha
R_k^2\right){\varepsilon}+ \frac{\alpha {\varepsilon}^3}{2} \leq \left(
2 + \alpha R_k^2 \right) {\varepsilon},$$ where the second inequality holds due to ${\varepsilon}<
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpha}}$.
Hence we conclude that, for any ${\varepsilon}$, there exist a constant $N^{\prime} > N$, such that $\abs{ x_{ki}^{(t)} } \leq \left( 2 +
\alpha R_k^2 \right) {\varepsilon}$ holds for all $t \geq N^{\prime}$. Thus we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} =
0$ for all $i \in [1, k) \bigcup (q, n]$.
Lemma \[app:lemma6\] is the multicolumn version of Lemma \[app:lemma3\].
\[app:lemma6\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{ X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1}
} = 0$. If there exists an integer $i \in [k, q]$ such that $u_i^\top x_{k}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, then there exists an integer $N$ such that $\norm{x_k^{(t)}}\geq
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$ holds for all $t > N$.
Without loss of generality, we assume $A$ is diagonal. Hence we have $u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = e_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)}$. The notation of $E^{(t)}$ and the same iteration as in the proof of Lemma \[app:lemma5\] are used here.
We split the vector $x_k^{(t)}$ into three parts: $y_1^{(t)}
= \left(x_{k1}^{(t)}, \dots, x_{k(k-1)}^{(t)} \right)^\top$, $y_2^{(t)} = \left(x_{kk}^{(t)}, \dots, x_{kq}^{(t)} \right)^\top$, and $y_3^{(t)} = \left(x_{k(q+1)}^{(t)}, \dots, x_{kn}^{(t)}
\right)^\top$.
From the assumption there exists an integer $i \in [k,q]$ such that $u_i^\top x_{k}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero. Hence, there exists a positive ${\varepsilon}_0 < \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{8}$, such that for any $N$ there exists a $t > N$ and $\norm{y_2^{(t)}} >
{\varepsilon}_0$ holds. Further, we assume the convergence of $E^{(t)}$ and Lemma \[app:lemma5\] guarantees the convergence of $y_1^{(t)}$ and $y_3^{(t)}$. Thus for such ${\varepsilon}_0$, there exists an $N_1$ such that $\norm{E^{(t)}} \leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}
{\varepsilon}_0}{4}$, $\norm{y_1^{(t)}} < \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{8}$, and $\norm{y_3^{(t)}} < \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{8}$ hold for all $t \geq N_1$, and $\norm{y_2^{(N_1)}} > {\varepsilon}_0$. Considering the iteration of the $j$-th entry of $x_k^{(t)}$ for $j \in [k,q]$, we have, $$x_{kj}^{(t+1)} = \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_j - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(t)}}^2 \right) x_{kj}^{(t)} - \alpha e_j^\top
E^{(t)} x_k^{(t)}.$$ If $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} \leq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$ for $t =
N_1$, then we can bound the norm of $y_2^{(t)}$ as, $$\begin{split}
\norm{y_2^{(t+1)}} \geq & \left(1-\alpha
\lambda_q - \alpha \norm{x_k^{(t)}}^2 \right)
\norm{y_2^{(t)}} -\alpha \norm{E^{(t)}} \norm{x_k^{(t)}} \\
\geq & \left(1 - \frac{\alpha \lambda_q}{2} - \alpha
\frac{\norm{E^{(t)}} \norm{x_k^{(t)}}}{\norm{y_2^{(t)}}}\right)
\norm{y_2^{(t)}} \\
\geq & \left(1-\frac{\alpha \lambda_q}{4} \right)
\norm{y_2^{(t)}}.
\end{split}$$ The increasing factor is strictly greater than one. Hence $\norm{y_2^{(t+1)}} > {\varepsilon}_0$ holds for $t+1$ as well. And $\norm{y_2^{(t)}}$ increase monotonically until $\norm{x_k^{(t)}}
> \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$.
When $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} > \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2}$, the norm of the following iteration is lower bounded as, $$\begin{split}
\norm{x_k^{(t+1)}} \geq &
\left(1-\alpha \lambda_n-\alpha R_k^2\right)
\norm{x_k^{(t)}} - \alpha
\norm{E^{(t)}} R_k \\
\geq & \left(1-\alpha \lambda_n -\alpha
R_k^2\right) \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{2} - \alpha
\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q} {\varepsilon}_0}{4} \\
\geq & \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4},
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality is due to the assumption on $\alpha$. Further, the norm of $y_2^{(t+1)}$ can be lower bounded as, $$\norm{y_2^{(t+1)}} \geq
\sqrt{\norm{x_k^{(t+1)}}^2 - \norm{y_1^{(t+1)}}^2 -
\norm{y_3^{(t+1)}}^2}
\geq \sqrt{\frac{-2\lambda_q}{16} + 2\frac{2\lambda_q}{64}}
> {\varepsilon}_0.$$
Therefore, the norm of $x_k^{(t)}$ is lower bounded by $\frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$ after the first iteration later than $N_1$ such that $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} > \sqrt{\frac{-2\lambda_q}{2}}$.
Lemma \[app:lemma7\] and Lemma \[app:lemma8\] serve as the multicolumn version of Lemma \[app:lemma2\]. More precisely, under the assumption that $x_k^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, Lemma \[app:lemma7\] and Lemma \[app:lemma8\] prove that there exists a tangent of $\theta_k^{(t)} = \angle (x_k^{(t)},u_k)$ or $\theta_j^{(t)}=\angle (x_k^{(t)},u_j)$ for $j \in (k,q]$ converging linearly to zero, where as before $\theta_j^{(t)}$ denotes the acute angle between $x_k^{(t)}$ and $\pm u_j$ for $j \in [k, q]$.
\[app:lemma7\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{ X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1} }
= 0$. If $u_k^\top x_{k}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, then the tangent of $\theta_k^{(t)} = \angle (x_k^{(t)},u_k)$ converges to 0.
Without loss of generality, we assume $A$ is diagonal. Hence we have $u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = e_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)}$. The notation of $E^{(t)}$ and the same iteration as in the proof of Lemma \[app:lemma5\] are used here.
Based on the assumptions that $e_k^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{kk}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, there exists a positive number $\delta > 0$ such that for any $N$, there exists a $t>N$ and $\abs{x_{kk}^{(t)}} > \delta$. We also know that Lemma \[app:lemma6\] holds and $\norm{E^{(t)}}$ converges to zero. Hence, for any ${\varepsilon}$ sufficiently small, there exists an integer $N_1$ such that $\norm{E^{(t)}} \leq {\varepsilon}^2$ and $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$ hold for all $t > N_1$. Since $e_k^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{kk}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, there exists an integer $N_2 > N_1$, such that, $$\label{eq:ratio-cond}
\frac{\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2)}} }{\norm{x_{k}^{(N_2)} }}
\geq \frac{\delta}{R_k} \geq
\frac{ 2 {\varepsilon}^2}{\lambda_{k+1}-\lambda_k},$$ where we notice that $\cos \theta_k^{(N_2)} =
\frac{\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2)}} }{\norm{x_{k}^{(N_2)} }}$. Since $\theta_k^{(t)}$ is defined as the acute angle, we have, $$\label{eq:tan-theta}
\tan \theta_k^{(t+1)} = \frac{\sqrt{ \sum_{j \neq k} \left(
x_{kj}^{(t+1)} \right)^2 }}{\abs{x_{kk}^{(t+1)}}}.$$ Next, we derive lower bound and upper bound for the denominator and numerator respectively when $t = N_2$.
Using the iterative relationship , we have the lower bound on the denominator, $$\label{eq:denominator-lower-bound}
\begin{split}
\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2+1)}} = & \abs{ \left(1-\alpha \lambda_k
- \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 \right) x_{kk}^{(N_2)} -
\alpha e_k^\top E^{(N_2)} x_k^{(N_2)}} \\
\geq & \left(1-\alpha \lambda_k - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 - \alpha \frac{\norm{E^{(N_2)}}
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}} }{\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2)}}} \right)
\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2)}} \\
\geq & \left(1 - \alpha \frac{\lambda_k + \lambda_{k+1}}{2}
- \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 \right) \abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2)}},
\\
\end{split}$$ where the second inequality is due to .
Regarding the numerator in , again using the iterative relationship , we have, $$\label{eq:numerator-upper-bound}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{ \sum_{j \neq k} \left( x_{kj}^{(N_2+1)} \right)^2 }
\leq & \Bigg\{ \sum_{j \neq k} \bigg[ \left(1 - \alpha
\lambda_{k+1} - \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right)^2
\left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2 + \alpha^2 \norm{E^{(N_2)}}^2
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 \\
& + 2 \alpha \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{k+1} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 \right) \abs{ x_{kj}^{(N_2)}
} \norm{E^{(N_2)}} \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}} \bigg]
\Bigg\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{k+1} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right) \sqrt{ \sum_{j\neq k}
\left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2} + \alpha \sqrt{n} R_k
{\varepsilon}^2 + 2 \sqrt{\alpha n}R_k {\varepsilon}\\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{k+1} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right) \sqrt{ \sum_{j\neq k}
\left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2} + 3 \sqrt{\alpha n}R_k
{\varepsilon}. \\
\end{split}$$ The first inequality adopts the fact that, without $k$-th entry, $\lambda_{k+1}$ is the smallest eigenvalue of ${\widetilde{A}}$; the second inequality mainly uses the inequality of square-root function; and the last inequality holds for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$.
Substituting and into , we obtain, $$\label{eq:tan-ineq}
\begin{split}
\tan \theta_k^{(N_2+1)} \leq & \frac{1 - \alpha
\lambda_{k+1} - \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2}{1 -
\alpha \frac{\lambda_k+\lambda_{k+1}}{2} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2} \tan \theta_k^{(N_2)} +
\frac{3\sqrt{\alpha n}R_k^2 {\varepsilon}}{\frac{1}{2}
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}} \delta} \\
\leq & \frac{1 - \alpha \lambda_{k+1}}{1 - \alpha
\frac{\lambda_k+\lambda_{k+1}}{2}} \tan \theta_k^{(N_2)}
+ \frac{24\sqrt{\alpha n}R_k^2 {\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}
\delta} \\
\leq & (1 - \beta) \tan \theta_k^{(N_2)} - \beta \tan
\theta_k^{(N_2)} + C {\varepsilon},
\end{split}$$ where $\beta = \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \frac{1 - \alpha
\lambda_{k+1}}{1 - \alpha \frac{\lambda_k + \lambda_{k+1}}{2}}
\right) = \frac{\alpha (\lambda_{k+1} - \lambda_k)}{4 - 2\alpha
(\lambda_k + \lambda_{k+1})} \in (0,1)$ and $C = \frac{24\sqrt{\alpha
n}R_k^2}{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q} \delta}$.
Based on the last inequality in , if $\tan \theta_k^{(N_2)} > \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, than we have $\tan \theta_k^{(N_2+1)} < (1 - \beta) \tan
\theta_k^{(N_2)}$, which implies $\cos \theta_k^{(N_2+1)}
> \cos \theta_k^{(N_2)}$ due to the fact that all angles acute angle. Therefore, holds for $t =
N_2+1$ and $\tan \theta_k^{(t)}$ decay monotonically until $\tan \theta_k^{(t)} \leq \frac{C {\varepsilon}}{\beta}$. When $\tan
\theta_k^{(t)} \leq \frac{C {\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, we obviously have $\tan \theta_k^{(t+1)} \leq \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$. The inequality condition still holds as long as ${\varepsilon}$ is sufficiently small. Hence there exists a $N$ such that for all $t
> N$, we have $\tan \theta_k^{(t+1)} \leq \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, which can be arbitrarily small.
Lemma \[app:lemma8\] is fairly similar to Lemma \[app:lemma7\] with only subtle difference in the proof. Hence we provide the proof without detail derivation for inequalities.
\[app:lemma8\] Assume Assumption \[assump:init\] is satisfied and $\lim_{t
\rightarrow \infty} \fnorm{ X_{k-1}^{(t)} - \calX^*_{k-1} } =
0$. If $u_k^\top x_{k}^{(t)}$ converges to zero and there exists an integer $j \in (k, q]$ such that $u_j^\top x_k^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, then there exists an integer $i \in (k, q]$ such that the tangent of $\theta_i^{(t)} = \angle (x_k^{(t)},u_i)$ converges to 0.
Without loss of generality, we assume $A$ is diagonal. Hence we have $u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = e_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)}$. The notation of $E^{(t)}$ and the same iteration as in the proof of Lemma \[app:lemma5\] are used here.
Based on the assumptions, we denote $i \in (k, q]$ as the smallest integer such that $e_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero. Hence, there exists a positive number $\delta > 0$ such that for any $N$, there exists a $t>N$ and $\abs{x_{ki}^{(t)}} > \delta$. We also know that Lemma \[app:lemma6\] holds, $\norm{E^{(t)}}$ converges to zero, and $e_j^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{kj}^{(t)}$ converges to zero for all $j \in [k, i)$. Hence, for any ${\varepsilon}$ sufficiently small, there exists an integer $N_1$ such that $\norm{E^{(t)}} \leq
{\varepsilon}^2$, $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$, and $\abs{x_{kj}^{(t)}} \leq {\varepsilon}$ hold for all $t > N_1$ and $j \in [k, i)$. Since $e_j^\top x_k^{(t)} = x_{kj}^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero, there exists an integer $N_2 > N_1$, such that, $$\label{eq:ratio-cond-j}
\frac{\abs{x_{kj}^{(N_2)}} }{\norm{x_{k}^{(N_2)} }}
\geq \frac{\delta}{R_k} \geq
\frac{ 2 {\varepsilon}^2}{\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j}.$$
Using the iterative relationship , we have the lower bound on $\abs{x_{kj}^{(N_2+1)}}$, $$\label{eq:denominator-lower-bound-j}
\abs{x_{kk}^{(N_2+1)}} \geq \left(1 - \alpha \frac{\lambda_j
+ \lambda_{j+1}}{2} - \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2 \right)
\abs{x_{kj}^{(N_2)}}.$$
Again using the iterative relationship , we provide the upper bound for $\sqrt{\sum_{j \neq i}
\left( x_{kj}^{(N_2+1)} \right)^2}$, and the derivation is slightly different from that in , $$\label{eq:numerator-upper-bound-j}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{ \sum_{j \neq i} \left( x_{kj}^{(N_2+1)}
\right)^2 } \leq & \Bigg\{ \sum_{j < k} \left(1 - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right)^2 \left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2
+ \sum_{k \leq j < i} \left(1 - \alpha
\lambda_j - \alpha \norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right)^2
{\varepsilon}^2 \\
& + \sum_{j > i} \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{i+1} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right)^2 \left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2
\Bigg\}^{\frac{1}{2}} + 3 \sqrt{\alpha n}R_k {\varepsilon}. \\
\leq & \left(1 - \alpha \lambda_{i+1} - \alpha
\norm{x_k^{(N_2)}}^2\right) \sqrt{ \sum_{j \neq i}
\left(x_{kj}^{(N_2)}\right)^2 } + \sqrt{n}{\varepsilon}+ 3
\sqrt{\alpha n}R_k {\varepsilon}. \\
\end{split}$$ The first inequality adopts similar derivation in while keeps the first term unchanged; and the second inequality mainly uses the inequality of square-root function.
Substituting and into the expression of $\tan
\theta_i^{(N_2+1)}$, we obtain, $$\label{eq:tan-ineq-j}
\tan \theta_i^{(N_2+1)} \leq (1 - \beta) \tan \theta_i^{(N_2)}
- \beta \tan \theta_i^{(N_2)} + C {\varepsilon},$$ where $\beta = \frac{\alpha (\lambda_{i+1} - \lambda_i)}{4
- 2\alpha (\lambda_i + \lambda_{i+1})} \in (0,1)$ and $C =
\frac{8\sqrt{n}R_k + 24\sqrt{\alpha n}R_k^2}{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}
\delta}$.
Based on the last inequality in , if $\tan \theta_i^{(N_2)} > \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, than we have $\tan \theta_i^{(N_2+1)} < (1 - \beta) \tan
\theta_i^{(N_2)}$, which implies $\cos \theta_i^{(N_2+1)} >
\cos \theta_i^{(N_2)}$ due to the fact that all angles acute angle. Therefore, holds for $t =
N_2+1$ and $\tan \theta_i^{(t)}$ decay monotonically until $\tan \theta_i^{(t)} \leq \frac{C {\varepsilon}}{\beta}$. When $\tan
\theta_i^{(t)} \leq \frac{C {\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, we obviously have $\tan \theta_i^{(t+1)} \leq \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$. The inequality condition still holds as long as ${\varepsilon}$ is sufficiently small. Hence there exists a $N$ such that for all $t
> N$, we have $\tan \theta_i^{(t+1)} \leq \frac{C{\varepsilon}}{\beta}$, which can be arbitrarily small.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix. All notations follow that in the proofs of previous lemmas.
Lemma \[app:lemma5\] implies that under the given assumptions, we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} u_i^\top x_k^{(t)} = 0$ for all integer $i \in [1, k) \bigcup (q, n]$.
If $u_i^\top x_k^{(t)}$ converges to zero for all $i \in [k, q]$, then $x_k^{(t)}$ converges to zero vector, which is included in the statement of Lemma \[lem:multi-global-conv-obj1\].
Otherwise, there exists an integer $j \in [k, q]$ such that $u_j^\top x_k^{(t)}$ does not converge to zero. Hence the condition in Lemma \[app:lemma6\] is satisfied. At the same time, either of Lemma \[app:lemma7\] or Lemma \[app:lemma8\] holds, which means that there exists an integer $i \in [k, q]$ such that the tangent of $\theta_i^{(t)}$ converges to zero. Now we focus on the convergence of $x_{ki}^{(t)}$ and the proof follows steps in that of Lemma \[lem:single-global-conv-obj1\].
To simplify the notation, we denote $\eta$ as $\eta =
\sqrt{x_{k1}^2 + \cdots + x_{k(i-1)}^2 + x_{k(i+1)}^2 +
\cdots + x_{kn}^2}$. Notice that $\sin \theta_i^{(t)} =
\frac{\eta^{(t)}}{\norm{x_k^{(t)}}}$ converges to zero since the convergence of tangent and boundedness of cosine function. Lemma \[app:lemma6\] also shows the $\norm{x_k^{(t)}}$ is lower bounded by a constant for $t$ large. Hence we conclude that $\eta^{(t)}$ converges to zero.
According to the convergence of $\eta^{(t)}$ and Lemma \[app:lemma6\], for any ${\varepsilon}\leq \min \left(
\frac{\sqrt{-\lambda_q}}{4}, \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_i
\lambda_q}}{8R_k} \right)$, there exists an integer $M$ such that for any $t \geq M$, we have $\eta^{(t)} \leq {\varepsilon}$, $\norm{x_k^{(t)}} \geq \frac{\sqrt{-2\lambda_q}}{4}$, and $\norm{E^{(t)}} \leq {\varepsilon}^2$. Combining these bounds, we obtain, $\left( x^{(t)}_{ki} \right)^2 = \norm{x^{(t)}_k}^2 - \eta^2 \geq
-\frac{\lambda_q}{8} - {\varepsilon}^2 \geq -\frac{\lambda_q}{16}$.
Since the stepsize $\alpha$ is small, the signs of $x_{ki}^{(t)}$ and $x_{ki}^{(0)}$ remain the same. We first discuss the scenario $x_{ki}^{(0)} > 0$.
Let $\delta^{(t)} = x_{ki}^{(t)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_i}$. We have the recurrent relationship for $t > M$, $$\begin{split}
\delta^{(t+1)}= & x_{ki}^{(t+1)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_i} \\
= & \left(1 - \alpha \left(\lambda_i +
\left(x_{ki}^{(t)}\right)^2 + \left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2
\right) \right) x_{ki}^{(t)} - \alpha
\left(E_i^{(t)}\right)^\top x_{k}^{(t)} - \sqrt{-\lambda_i}
\\
= & \left(1 - \alpha \left(\sqrt{-\lambda_i} +
x_{ki}^{(t)}\right) x_{ki}^{(t)}\right) \delta^{(t)}
- \alpha \left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2 x_{ki}^{(t)}
- \alpha \left(E_i^{(t)}\right)^\top x_{k}^{(t)}.
\end{split}$$ Taking the absolute value of both side, we obtain the recurrent inequality relationship, $$\begin{split}
\abs{\delta^{(t+1)}} \leq & \left( 1 - \alpha
\left( \sqrt{-\lambda_i} + x_{ki}^{(t)}\right)
x_{ki}^{(t)} \right) \abs{\delta^{(t)}} + \alpha
\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)^2 x_{ki}^{(t)} + \alpha
\norm{E^{(t)}} \norm{x_k^{(t)}} \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_q}}{4}
\right) \abs{\delta^{(t)}} + 2 \alpha
{\varepsilon}^2 R_k \\
\leq & \cdots \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_q}}{4}
\right)^{t+1-M} \abs{\delta^{(M)}} +
{\varepsilon}^2 \frac{8R_k}{\sqrt{\lambda_i
\lambda_q}} \\
\leq & \left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_q}}{4}
\right)^{t+1-M} \abs{\delta^{(M)}} +
\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}. \\
\end{split}$$ Hence there exists an integer $N \geq M$ such that for any $t \geq
N$, $\abs{\delta^{(t)}} \leq {\varepsilon}$.
If $x_{ki}^{(0)} < 0$, the iteration converges to $-\sqrt{-\lambda_i}$. The analysis is analogy to the above one. The lemma is proved.
[^1]: [Authors are listed in alphabetical order.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We test claims that the power-law mass functions of young star clusters (ages $\lea\mbox{few}\times10^8$ yr) have physical upper cutoffs at $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$. Specifically, we perform maximum likelihood fits of the Schechter function, $\psi(M)=dN/dM\propto M^{-\beta}\mbox{exp}(-M/M_*)$, to the observed cluster mass functions in eight well-studied galaxies (LMC, SMC, NGC 4214, NGC 4449, M83, M51, Antennae, and NGC 3256). In most cases, the value of $M_*$ is indeterminant, and the maximum cluster mass $M_{\rm max}$ is consistent with a statistical cutoff linked to sample size rather than a physical cutoff. We find weak evidence for $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$ in only one case (M51, at $\sim3\sigma$ significance) and strong evidence against this value in several cases. Our data are generally consistent with much larger cutoffs, at $M_*\sim\mbox{few}\times10^6~M_{\odot}$. This is the predicted cutoff from dynamical models in which old globular clusters and young clusters observed today formed by similar processes with similar initial mass functions.'
author:
- Angus Mok
- Rupali Chandar
- 'S. Michael Fall'
title: Constraints on Upper Cutoffs in the Mass Functions of Young Star Clusters
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
One of the most important characteristics of a population of astronomical objects is its mass function, $\psi(M) = dN/dM$. The shape of this function, and especially any distinct features, such as upper or lower cutoffs, encodes important information about the physical processes involved in the formation and subsequent evolution of the objects. For young star clusters in different galaxies, the mass function is always found, in a first approximation, to have a power-law shape, $\psi(M) \propto M^{\beta}$, with an exponent close to $\beta \approx -2$, over the range from below $\sim 10^4~M_\odot$ to above $\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$ (see e.g. @Fall12, and references therein). Of course, to keep the total mass of clusters in a galaxy finite, mass functions with $\beta \approx -2$ must have both upper and lower cutoffs. The lower cutoff likely lies near the transition between individual stars and clusters of stars at $\sim10^2~M_{\odot}$. The upper cutoff is the subject of this paper.
As is customary, we represent the mass function of young star clusters by the Schechter function, $\psi(M) = \psi_*~ (M/M_*)^{\beta} \exp(-M/M_*$), i.e., a power law with an exponent $\beta$ and an exponential cutoff at $M \approx M_*$. @Fall01 introduced the Schechter mass function into this field in a theoretical study of the long-term disruption of star clusters. Their models match the observed peaked mass function of globular clusters after $\sim10^{10}$ yr of evolution if the initial mass function has almost any shape, including a power law, and an exponential cutoff at $M_* \sim$ few $\times 10^6~M_\odot$ [see also @Chandar07; @Jordan07; @McLaughlin08; @Goudfrooij16].
This prompted a search for upper cutoffs in the observed mass functions of recently formed clusters. Several such studies have claimed to detect cutoffs near $M_* \sim 10^5~M_\odot$ [e.g. @Gieles09; @Larsen09; @Portegies10; @Adamo15; @Messa18], far below the cutoff predicted by the @Fall01 model. However, few of these claimed detections appear convincing by eye and few have been confirmed by robust statistical tests. The few tests that have been performed are mostly based on binned data and/or cumulative distributions. The purpose of this paper is to remedy this situation by performing maximum-likelihood fits of the Schechter function to the mass data for young clusters in eight well-studied galaxies.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the cluster samples, mass estimates, and mass distributions we use in this study. In Section 3, we describe likelihood analysis we use to derive best-fit values and confidence contours for the parameters $\beta$ and $M_*$ in the Schechter function. We summarize our results and discuss their implications in Section 4.
Cluster Mass Functions {#sec:data}
======================
We re-examine the mass functions of the cluster population in eight galaxies from our previous studies [@Chandar15; @Chandar17]. The identification and photometry of clusters is based on $UBVI$H$\alpha$ images taken wih the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ($HST$) for NGC 4214, NGC 4449, M83, M51, the Antennae, and NGC 3256, and $UBVR$ images taken with the Michigan Curtis Schmidt telescope [@Massey02] for the LMC and SMC. Clusters were selected to be compact, but no attempt was made to distinguish bound from unbound clusters based on their appearance. The number of clusters varies from a few hundred (e.g., NGC 4449 and NGC 4214) to many thousands (e.g., M83, M51, the Antennae). The mass and age of each cluster were determined by comparing the observed shape of the spectral energy distribution with predictions from the @Bruzual03 models, assuming a @Chabrier03 stellar IMF, and a Milky Way extinction law [@Fitzpatrick99]. Details of the observations, data reduction, and the cluster catalogs can be found in @Chandar17 and the references therein.
The major uncertainty in our mass estimates comes from uncertainties in the $M/L$ values, which in turn come from uncertainties in the ages. For most clusters, the typical uncertainties are $\sim0.3$ in log $M$, corresponding to a factor of $\sim2$ in $M$ [e.g. @Fall05; @Chandar10; @deGrijs06]. The uncertainties may be larger for clusters with ages in the interval 10-100 Myr, where the stellar population models show loops in color-color space, potentially leading to non-unique age and hence mass estimates. Errors in the distance or assumed stellar IMF will not affect the [*shape*]{} of the cluster mass function, although they will affect the normalization.
As in our previous studies, we group the clusters into three age intervals $<10$ Myr, $10-100$ Myr, and $100-400$ Myr [@Chandar15; @Chandar17]. The oldest age interval of $100-400$ Myr is best suited to characterizing the cluster mass functions, because it is well populated, has reliable mass estimates, and uniform completeness. In contrast, the middle age interval ($10-100$ Myr) has uncertain and non-unique mass estimates, due to loops in color-color tracks of the stellar population models, while the youngest age interval ($<10$ Myr) has potential incompleteness due to obscuration and crowding [@Chandar14].
Figure \[fig:massfunc\] shows the binned mass functions of the cluster populations in our 8 galaxies in the three age intervals $<10$, $10-100$, and $100-400$ Myr [reproduced from @Chandar17]. All of these mass functions are well represented by power laws, $\psi(M)\propto M^{\beta}$ with $\beta\approx-2$, and have no obvious bends or breaks. Thus, any upper cutoff must occur near or beyond the maximum observed mass $M_{\rm max}$ in each sample of clusters. This circumstance raises the question of whether $M_{\rm max}$ is determined by a physical cutoff, as in the Schechter function, or by a statistical cutoff linked to the sample size.
Figure 2 shows the observed values of $M_{\rm max}$ plotted against the observed total masses $M_{\rm tot}$ in clusters more massive than $10^4~M_{\odot}$ (a proxy for sample size) in each of the three age intervals and eight galaxies[^1]. We have also plotted the predicted statistical relations between $M_{\rm max}$ and $M_{\rm tot}$ for a pure power law with $\beta=-2$ and a Schechter function with $\beta=-2$ and $M_*=10^5~M_{\odot}$ (red dotted and dot-dash lines, respectively). These were computed from the requirement that the expected number of clusters more massive than $M_{\rm max}$ be unity. For the pure power law with $\beta=-2$, the $M_{\rm max}$-$M_{\rm tot}$ relation takes the particularly simple form $$M_{\rm tot} = M_{\rm max} \times \ln \Big(\frac{M_{\rm max}}{10^4 M_\odot}\Big).$$ The gray bands in Figure 2 show the 95% confidence regions computed from 100 realizations of the underlying mass functions following the methodology in Chapter 5.3 of @Bevington03. Evidently, the observed correlation between $M_{\rm max}$ and $M_{\rm tot}$ for our sample follows more closely the predicted statistical relation for a pure power law than that for a Schechter function with $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$. Hence, our observations are more consistent with statistical, rather than physical, cutoffs in the mass functions.
Maximum Likelihood Fits {#sec:analysis}
=======================
We now determine the best-fit values and confidence intervals of the parameters $\beta$ and $M_*$ in the Schechter function by the method of maximum likelihood. This method has the advantages of not requiring binned data (where weak features at the ends of the distribution may be hidden) or cumulative distributions (where the data points are not independent of one another). We follow the procedure described in detail in Chapter 15.2 of @Mo10 for fitting a Schechter function to discrete luminosity or mass data. Specifically, we compute the likelihood $L(\beta,M_*)=\prod\limits_i P_i$ as a function of $\beta$ and $M_*$, where the probability $P_i$ for each cluster is given by $$P_i = \frac{\psi(M_i)}{\int_{M_{\rm min}}^{M_{\rm max}} \psi(M) dM},$$ and the product is over all clusters in the sample in question. We adopt the $M_{\rm min}$ values listed in Table 4 of @Chandar17, which stay above the completeness limit of each sample, and we set $M_{\rm max}=10^{7.5} M_\odot$ in all cases. We use the Nelder-Mead (1965) algorithm to find the maximum likelihood $L_{\rm max}$, and the standard formula $$\ln L(\beta,M_*) = \ln L_{\rm max} - \frac{1}{2}\chi^2_p(k),$$ where $\chi^2_p (k)$ is the chi-squared distribution with $k$ degrees of freedom and $p$ confidence level [@Mo10], to derive the corresponding confidence contours. We have checked all our results using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) routine, and find similar contours whenever these close around best-fit values of $\beta$ and $M_*$. For the cases of contours which extend to the right edge, the corresponding contours derived from the MCMC routine are slightly smaller than those derived from equation (3), leading to tighter lower limits on $M_*$.
Figures \[fig:likelm\] and \[fig:likehm\] show the best-fit values of $\beta$ and $M_*$ (dashed lines), and the 1, 2, and $3\sigma$ confidence contours (shaded regions) derived from equation (3) for each of the three age intervals, $<10$ Myr (left panels), $10-100$ Myr (middle panels), and $100-400$ Myr (right panels), and for each galaxy in our sample. The best-fit values of $\beta$ and $M_*$ and $2\sigma$ uncertainties are listed in Table 1. We emphasize that the uncertainties in $\beta$ and $M_*$ indicated in Figures \[fig:likelm\] and \[fig:likehm\] and Table 1 are actually lower limits, because they neglect uncertainties in the mass estimates (both random and systematic), and incompleteness in the cluster samples caused for example by dust obscuration and crowding. We have repeated our likelihood analysis on the cluster catalogs for M51 from @Messa18 and M83 from @Silva-Villa14, and find qualitatively similar results with slightly weaker constraints on $\beta$ and $M_*$ than found here.
[ccccccc]{}\[ht!\] LMC & 1.42 \[1.15, 1.65\] & 4.48 \[4.10, 5.35\] & 1.57 \[0.85, 2.15\] & 4.43 \[3.95, 7.50\] & 1.65 \[1.25, 2.00\] & 5.01 \[4.50, 7.50\]\
SMC & 1.88 \[1.40, 2.30\] & 5.37 \[4.00, 7.50\] & 1.51 \[0.00, 2.70\] & 4.18 \[3.50, 7.50\] & 0.95 \[0.00, 2.40\] & 3.82 \[3.50, 7.50\]\
NGC 4214 & 2.22 \[1.45, 2.85\] & 4.09 \[3.50, 7.50\] & 0.24 \[0.00, 2.00\] & 4.02 \[3.55, 7.50\] & 1.67 \[1.25, 2.05\] & 5.99 \[4.80, 7.50\]\
NGC 4449 & 0.55 \[0.00, 1.55\] & 4.22 \[3.90, 4.95\] & 1.93 \[0.00, 3.00\] & 5.92 \[4.45, 7.50\] & 2.00 \[1.50, 2.55\] & [*17.9*]{} \[5.65, 7.50\]\
M83 & 1.90 \[1.55, 2.20\] & 5.20 \[4.55, 7.50\] & 1.43 \[1.15, 1.70\] & 4.83 \[4.60, 5.15\] & 2.38 \[1.85, 2.80\] & 5.38 \[4.75, 7.50\]\
M51 & 1.82 \[1.65, 2.00\] & 4.90 \[4.65, 5.30\] & 1.58 \[1.25, 1.90\] & 5.08 \[4.80, 5.60\] & 1.85 \[1.60, 2.10\] & 5.26 \[5.00, 5.75\]\
Antennae & 2.16 \[2.05, 2.25\] & 6.40 \[5.80, 7.50\] & 1.81 \[1.65, 1.95\] & 6.26 \[5.90, 6.95\] & 2.29 \[2.15, 2.40\] & 6.73 \[6.10, 7.50\]\
NGC 3256 & 1.28 \[1.10, 1.45\] & 6.35 \[6.05, 6.80\] & 0.89 \[0.45, 1.25\] & 6.22 \[5.95, 6.65\] & 1.63 \[1.05, 2.00\] & 7.42 \[6.05, 7.50\]\
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
The main results of this paper are displayed graphically in Figures \[fig:likelm\] and \[fig:likehm\]. Before discussing these results in detail, we offer a few general remarks. Ideally, we should find consistent estimates of, or limits on, the Schechter parameters $\beta$ and $M_*$ in all three age intervals, because we do not expect the physics of cluster formation to change significantly over the relatively short period spanned by our data (a few$\times10^8$ yr). Thus, it would be physically implausible for $M_*$ to increase with age, although it could in principle decrease as a result of the preferential disruption of the most massive clusters. Nevertheless, systematic errors potentially affect mass estimates and sample completeness differently in the three age intervals. The upper cutoff $M_*$ is particularly sensitive to the presence or absence of only a few clusters and any errors in their masses.
As we have already noted, sample completeness is likely lowest in the youngest age interval, due to dust obscuration and crowding, while systematic errors and non-uniqueness in mass estimates are likely highest in the middle age interval due to loops in the color tracks of stellar population models. Moreover, the middle age interval also tends to have the smallest number of clusters and thus the largest sampling errors. This leaves the oldest age interval as the most reliable for determining the parameters $\beta$ and $M_*$ in the Schechter mass function. This age interval is well populated with clusters, has a higher degree of completeness, and more reliable mass estimates.
With these remarks in mind, we now group the results shown in Figures \[fig:likelm\] and \[fig:likehm\] into three broad categories based largely on our likelihood analysis in the [*oldest age interval*]{}. The first category, which includes the LMC, SMC, NGC 4214, and M83 shows [*no evidence for*]{} a cutoff. For these galaxies, a wide range of $M_*$ is allowed by the long horizontal confidence contours that start below $10^5~M_{\odot}$ and continue without closing to the right edge of the diagrams at $10^{7.5}~M_{\odot}$. This means that the cluster masses are consistent with being drawn from a pure power law, but that an upper cutoff (over this mass range of $M_*$) cannot be ruled out. We note that the large allowable ranges in $M_*$ for the LMC, SMC, and NGC 4214 are driven in part by the relatively small number of clusters in these galaxies. Our likelihood analysis of the M83 cluster catalog produced by @Silva-Villa14 gives similar results to those shown here.
A second category, which includes NGC 4449, the Antennae, and NGC 3256, shows [*evidence against*]{} an upper mass cutoff near $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$. While the confidence contours for these galaxies also remain unbounded up to the maximum value of $10^{7.5}~M_{\odot}$, they do not extend down to $10^5~M_{\odot}$. The youngest age interval in NGC 4449 has closed contours that suggest a value of $M_*\sim 10^4~M_{\odot}$, but this is inconsistent with the contours for the oldest age interval. This galaxy, in particular, violates the principle noted above that $M_*$ should not increase with age.
M51 is the only galaxy in our sample that shows evidence, at the $\sim3\sigma$ level, for a cutoff near $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$. However, our likelihood analysis of the M51 cluster catalog produced by the LEGUS collaboration [@Messa18] reveals an unbounded 2$\sigma$ confidence contour for the $100-400$ Myr clusters and thus even weaker evidence for a physical cutoff. We also fit a truncated power law to the cumulative mass distributions from both M51 cluster catalogs using the code [mspecfit]{}; @Rosolowsky05). The results from this independent method also suggest that the statistical significance for a truncation near $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$ for $100-400$ Myr clusters in M51 is weak, at the $\sim3\sigma$ level for the @Chandar16 catalog, and at the $\sim2\sigma$ level for the LEGUS catalog. At this level, just $1-2$ massive clusters in M51 that were missed due to obscuration, crowding, or lack of coverage, can affect the results. It is also reasonable that, in a sample of 8 galaxies, as in this study, one will show evidence for an upper cutoff when none exists, simply due to a statistical fluke or to uncertainties that are not accounted for in the likelihood analysis.
In conclusion, our results show that upper cutoffs near $M_*\sim10^5~M_{\odot}$ are not ubiquitous in the mass functions of young cluster populations. If such cutoffs exist at all, they are the exception, rather than the rule. On the other hand, much higher cutoffs, at $M_*\sim\mbox{few}\times10^{6}~M_{\odot}$, are perfectly consistent with our likelihood analysis in nearly all cases. The higher cutoffs are needed to reconcile the mass functions of young clusters observed today with those of old globular clusters, assuming they formed by similar physical processes with similar initial mass functions, as in the Fall & Zhang (2001) models.
R. C. acknowledges support from NSF grant 1517819. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. This work makes use of Python and Python packages, including [numpy]{} and the optimization package from [scipy]{} [@scipy] for the minimization routine.
, A., [Kruijssen]{}, J. M. D., [Bastian]{}, N., [Silva-Villa]{}, E., & [Ryon]{}, J. 2015, , 452, 246
, P. R., & [Robinson]{}, D. K. 2003, [Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (McGraw-Hill Higher Education)]{}
, G., & [Charlot]{}, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
, G. 2003, , 115, 763
, R., [Fall]{}, S. M., & [McLaughlin]{}, D. E. 2007, , 668, L119
, R., [Fall]{}, S. M., & [Whitmore]{}, B. C. 2015, , 810, 1
, R., [Fall]{}, S. M., [Whitmore]{}, B. C., & [Mulia]{}, A. J. 2017, , 849, 128
, R., [Whitmore]{}, B. C., [Calzetti]{}, D., & [O’Connell]{}, R. 2014, , 787, 17
, R., [Whitmore]{}, B. C., [Dinino]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2016, , 824, 71
, R., [Whitmore]{}, B. C., [Kim]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2010, , 719, 966
, R., & [Anders]{}, P. 2006, , 366, 295
, S. M., & [Chandar]{}, R. 2012, , 752, 96
, S. M., [Chandar]{}, R., & [Whitmore]{}, B. C. 2005, , 631, L133
, S. M., & [Zhang]{}, Q. 2001, , 561, 751
, E. L. 1999, , 111, 63
, M. 2009, , 394, 2113
, P., & [Fall]{}, S. M. 2016, , 833, 8
Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., [et al.]{} 2001–, [SciPy]{}: Open source scientific tools for [Python]{} <http://www.scipy.org/>
, A., [McLaughlin]{}, D. E., [C[ô]{}t[é]{}]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2007, , 171, 101
, S. S. 2009, , 494, 539
, P. 2002, , 141, 81
, D. E., & [Fall]{}, S. M. 2008, , 679, 1272
, M., [Adamo]{}, A., [[Ö]{}stlin]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2018, , 473, 996
, H., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., & [White]{}, S. 2010, [Galaxy Formation and Evolution]{} (Cambridge University Press)
, S. F., [McMillan]{}, S. L. W., & [Gieles]{}, M. 2010, , 48, 431
, E. 2005, , 117, 1403
, E., [Adamo]{}, A., [Bastian]{}, N., [Fouesneau]{}, M., & [Zackrisson]{}, E. 2014, , 440, L116
[^1]: We omit the $<10$ Myr age bin for NGC 4449 because it has no clusters with $M>10^4~M_{\odot}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We pursue the study of one-dimensional symmetry of solutions to nonlinear equations involving nonlocal operators. We consider a vast class of nonlinear operators and in a particular case it covers the fractional $p-$Laplacian operator. Just like the classical De Giorgi’s conjecture, we establish a Poincaré inequality and a linear Liouville theorem to provide two different proofs of the one-dimensional symmetry results in two dimensions. Both approaches are of independent interests. In addition, we provide certain energy estimates for layer solutions and Liouville theorems for stable solutions. Most of the methods and ideas applied in the current article are applicable to nonlocal operators with general kernels where the famous extension problem, given by Caffarelli and Silvestre, is not necessarily known.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA'
author:
- Mostafa Fazly and Yannick Sire
title: Symmetry properties for solutions of nonlocal equations involving nonlinear operators
---
[^1]
[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:*]{} [35J60, 35B35, 35B32, 35D10, 35J20. ]{}\
[*Keywords: Nonlocal operators, nonlinear operators, stable solutions, classifications of solutions, one-dimensional solutions*]{}.
Introduction
============
We examine nonlocal and nonlinear operators whose model is associated with the following energy functional for $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^n$ $$\label{energy}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u,\Omega):=\mathcal K^\Phi_K{(u,\Omega)} - \int_{\Omega} F(u) dx,$$ when the term $\mathcal K^\Phi_K$ is given by $$\label{kphik}
\mathcal K^\Phi_K(u,\Omega):= \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}\setminus (\mathbb R^n\setminus \Omega)^2 } \Phi[ u(x) -u(y) ] K (x-y) dy dx.$$ For the above operator, we suppose that $K$ is a nonnegative measurable kernel and even that is $K (z) = K (-z)$ for $ z\in\mathbb R^n$ and $F\in C^1(\mathbb R)$. We also assume that the function $\Phi\in C^2(\mathbb R^+)$, $\Phi(0)=\Phi'(0)=0$, $\Phi'$ is an odd function with $\Phi, \Phi', \Phi''>0$ in $\mathbb R^+$. For even nonlinearity $\Phi$ and even kernel $K$, the above kinetic energy $\mathcal K^\Phi_K$ becomes $$\label{kphisymm}
\mathcal K^\Phi_K(u,\Omega) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega} \int_{\Omega} \Phi[ u(x) -u(y) ] K (x-y) dy dx + \int_{\Omega} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \Omega} \Phi[ u(x) -u(y) ] K (x-y) dy dx.$$ The associated Euler-Lagrange nonlocal equation to (\[energy\]) is $$\label{mainw}
\iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[ u(x) -u(y) ] [v(x) - v(y)] K (x-y) dy dx = \int_{\mathbb R^n} f(u(x)) v(x) dx,$$ for every smooth function $v$ with compact support and when $f(t)=F'(t)$. In this regard, we study solutions of the following nonlocal equation $$\label{main}
T_{ \Phi }[u(x)] = f(u(x)) \quad \text{in} \ \ \RR^n ,$$ when the operator $T_{ \Phi }$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T}
\begin{array}{lcl}
T_{ \Phi }[u(x)] &:= & p.v. \int_{\RR^n } \Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] K (y-x) dy
\\&=&
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int_{\RR^n\setminus B_\epsilon(x) } \Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] K (y-x) dy ,
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $p.v.$ stands for the principal value. Note that when $\Phi(t)= \frac{t^2}{2}$ the operator $T_{ \Phi }$ is a linear operator and the associated equation is of the form $$\label{2lap}
p.v.\int_{\mathbb R^n} [u(x)-u(y)] K (y-x) dy = f(u) \quad \text{in} \ \ \mathbb{R}^n .$$ The above linear operator is well-studied in the literature in particular for the following (translation invariant) standard kernel $$\label{Jumpi}
K (x-z) = \frac{c(x-z)}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha}},$$ where $c(x-z)$ is bounded between two positive constants $0<\lambda \le \Lambda$ and $0<\alpha<2$ (see [@fg] and references therein). For the case of $\lambda = \Lambda$ that is when $$\label{fracK}
K (x-z) = \frac{\lambda}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha}},$$ the operator in (\[2lap\]) is known as the fractional Laplacian operator that is $(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$. It is by now a well-known fact that the fractional Laplacian operator can be realized as the boundary operator (more precisely the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator) of a suitable extension function in the half-space, see Caffarelli-Silvestre in [@cas]. In addition to above kernels, the following truncated kernels that are locally comparable to (\[Jumpi\]) and have been of great interests as well and with a finite range $$\label{Jumpki}
\frac{c(x-z)}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha}} \mathds{1}_{\{|x-z|\le r_*\}} \le K (x-z) \le \frac{c(x-z)}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha}} \mathds{1}_{\{|x-z|\le R_*\}},$$ when $0< r_* \le R_*$. We also consider the following kernel with decays that are $$\label{Jumpkei}
K (x,z) = \frac{c (x-z)}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha }} \ \ \ \text{when} \ \ \ |x-z|\le R_* ,$$ and $$\label{Jumpkeri}
\int_{r<|x-z|<2r} |K (x,z) | dz \le C D (r)\ \ \ \text{when} \ \ \ r > R_* ,$$ where $0\le D \in C(\mathbb R^+)$ with $\lim_{r\to\infty} D (r)=0$.
The above problems (\[energy\]), (\[main\]) and (\[mainw\]) have been of great interests in the literature for various nonlinearity $\Phi$ and kernel $K$. For the case of general $\Phi$ satisfying $$\Phi(t) \le \Lambda |t| \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ \Phi(t) t \ge t^2,$$ and kernels modeled on the fractional $p$-Laplacian, several studies have been devoted to the regularity and a priori estimates for the weak solutions. In this regard we refer interested readers to [@kms2; @ckp1; @ckp2] and references therein. The fractional-type $p$-Laplacian is when $\Phi(t)= \frac{|t|^p}{p}$ for $p \ge 2$. The above equation (\[main\]) is then of the following form $$\label{plap}
\int_{\mathbb R^n} |u(x)-u(y)|^{p-2} [u(x)-u(y)] K (y-x) dy = f(u) \quad \text{in} \ \ \mathbb{R}^n .$$ The operator in the above equation with kernel (\[fracK\]) for $\alpha=ps$ when $0<s<1$ is known as fractional $p$-Laplacian operator that is denoted usually $(-\Delta_p)^s$, see for instance [@bcf]. Various properties of solutions of this equation are studied extensively in the literature. Let us mention that there are many other functions fulfilling conditions on $\Phi$ such as $\Phi(t)= \sqrt{1+t^2}-1$. For this choice of $\Phi$, the equation (\[main\]) is of the following form $$\label{curv}
\int_{\mathbb R^n} \left[\frac{u(x) - u(y)}{\sqrt{1+|u(x)-u(y)|^2} } \right] K (y-x) dy = f(u) \quad \text{in} \ \ \mathbb{R}^n .$$ The above equation can be seen as the fractional minimal graph equation. Throughout the article, we assume that there exist positive constant $C$ and a nonnegative constant $\beta$ such that $\beta>\alpha$, one of the following holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phiddtb}
\Phi''(t) &\le& C t^{\beta-2} \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ \ t\in\mathbb R^+,
\\ \label{Phidtb}
\Phi'(t) &\le& C t^{\beta-1} \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ \ t\in\mathbb R^+,
\\ \label{Phibeta}
\Phi(t) &\le& C t^{\beta} \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ \ t\in\mathbb R^+, \end{aligned}$$ when $\beta \ge 2$. Note that for equations (\[2lap\]), (\[plap\]) and (\[curv\]) the exponent $\beta$ is given by $\beta=2$, $\beta=p\ge 2$ and $\beta=2$, respectively.
In the current article, we also study the sum of nonlocal operators $$\label{mainS}
S_{\Phi }[u(x)] = f(u(x)) \quad \text{in} \ \ \RR^n ,$$ when the operator $S_{\Phi }$ stands for $$\label{Ti}
S_{\Phi }[u(x)] : = \sum_{i=1}^m T^i_{ \Phi_i }[u(x)] ,$$ where each $T^i_{ \Phi_i }$ is given by (\[\]) that is $$\label{TiK}
T^i_{ \Phi_i }[u(x)] = \sum_{i=1}^m \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int_{\RR^n\setminus B_\epsilon(x) } \Phi_i'[u(x) - u(y)] K_i (y-x) dy\ \ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ m,n\ge1.$$ Needless to say that for the case of $m=1$ operators given in (\[mainS\]) and (\[main\]) are equivalent. The sum operators of the form (\[mainS\]), and in particular the sum of fractional Laplacian operators, have been studied from both deterministic and probabilistic perspectives. In this regard we refer interested readers to [@cs] by Cabré and Serra, to [@si] by Silvestre, to [@bl] by Bass and Levin and references therein. We assume that the truncated kernels $K_i$ are of the form $$\label{Jumpkis}
\frac{c_i(x-y)}{|x-y|^{n+\alpha_i}} \mathds{1}_{\{|x-z|\le r_i\}} \le K_i (x-y) \le \frac{c_i(x-y)}{|x-y|^{n+\alpha_i}} \mathds{1}_{\{|x-y|\le R_i\}},$$ for $0<r_i\le R_i$, $\alpha_i>0$ and $0< \lambda_i \le c_i \le \Lambda_i $. Note that (\[Jumpkis\]) is locally comparable to $$\label{alKal2is}
K_i (x-y) = \frac{c_i(x-y)}{|x-y|^{n+\alpha_i}} .$$ We assume that each $\Phi_i$ satisfies one of the conditions (\[Phiddtb\])-(\[Phibeta\]) for $\beta_i\ge 2 $ and $\beta_i>\alpha_i$. As an example, consider operators $T^1_{\Phi_1}$, $T^2_{\Phi_2}$ and $T^3_{\Phi_3}$ given with (\[2lap\]), (\[plap\]) and (\[curv\]), respectively. For these operators we have $\beta_1=2$, $\beta_2=p$ and $\beta_3=2$ so that (\[Phibeta\]) holds. Now, consider the following nonlocal problem $$\label{mainS123}
S_{\Phi }[u(x)]= \sum_{i=1}^3 T^i_{\Phi_i} [u(x)] = f(u(x)) ) \quad \text{in} \ \ \RR^n.$$ Suppose also that $\alpha_1=2s$, $\alpha_2=ps$ and $\alpha_3=2s$ for $0<s<1$ and $p>2$ so that kernels $K_i$ satisfy all of the requirements on indices. We also consider the following kernel with decays that is $$\label{Jumpkeis}
K_i (x,z) = \frac{c_i (x-z)}{|x-z|^{n+\alpha_i }} \ \ \ \text{when} \ \ \ |x-z|\le R_i ,$$ and $$\label{Jumpkeris}
\int_{r<|x-z|<2r} |K_i (x,z) | dz \le C D_i (r)\ \ \ \text{when} \ \ \ r > R_i ,$$ where each $0\le D_i \in C(\mathbb R^+)$ with $\lim_{r\to\infty} D_i (r)=0$.
The ideas and methods developed in the current article are strongly motivated by a famous conjecture of De Giorgi (1978) in [@DeGiorgi] that states bounded monotone solutions of the Allen-Cahn equation must be one-dimensional at least for $n \leq 8$. Here by monotonicity we mean monotonicity in one directions, e.g. $\partial_{x_n} u>0$. The goal of the present article is to develop symmetry results for stable solutions of semilinear nonlocal equations involving nonlinear operators described above in lower dimensions. The notion of stable solutions is as follows.
\[stable\] A solution $u$ of (\[main\]) is called stable when there exists $\phi>0$ such that $$\label{L}
L_\Phi [\phi(x)] =f'(u) \phi(x) \ \ \ \text{in}\ \ \mathbb R^n,$$ where $L_\Phi (\phi(x)) $ is the linearized operator and given by $$\label{LPhi}
L_\Phi [\phi(x)] := \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int_{\RR^n\setminus B_\epsilon(x) } \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [ \phi(x) - \phi(y)] K (y-x) dy.$$
Note that stability is weaker assumption that monotonicity. The De Giorgi’s conjecture has been of great interests in the literature for the past decades from mathematical analysis, geometry and mathematical physics perspectives. The conjecture was solved for $n=2$ by Ghoussoub-Gui in [@gg1], for $n=3$ by Ambrosio-Cabré in [@ac] for the Allen-Cahn equation, and later by Alberti-Ambrosio-Cabré [@aac] for a general nonlinearity. In higher dimensions, up to some additional natural assumptions, the conjecture is settled by Savin in [@savin] and also by Ghoussoub-Gui in [@gg2]. In addition, we refer interested readers to [@bar; @bbg; @fsv; @bcn] for related results. A counterexample in dimensions $n\ge 9$ has been obtained by del Pino-Kowalczyk-Wei in [@dkw]. Note also that De Giorgi type results for the case of fractional Laplacian operator are provided in [@cc; @cc2; @csol; @hrsv; @sv; @cabSire] and references therein.
Here is how this article is structured. In Section \[SecPoi\], we establish a Poincaré type inequality for stable solutions of (\[main\]) with a general kernel $K$. This inequality is inspired by the ones given originally by Sternberg and Zumbrun in [@sz; @sz1] and later in [@cf; @fsv; @fsv2; @fg]. In Section \[SecOne\], we apply the Poincaré inequality to establish our main result that is one-dimensional symmetry of solutions for (\[main\]) in two dimensions when the kernel is either with finite range or with decay at infinity. In Section \[SecLio\], we prove a linear Liouville theorem and we apply the theorem to provide a second proof of our main results. In Section \[SecEne\], we prove certain energy estimates for layer solutions under various assumptions on kernels. Lastly, in Section \[SecSum\], we consider the sum of nonlocal operators examined in previous sections and we provide similar results.
A Poincaré inequality for stable solutions {#SecPoi}
==========================================
We start this section with a technical lemma that is useful in the forthcoming proofs.
\[lemtech\] Assume that operators $T_\Phi$ and $L_{\Phi}$ are given by (\[T\]) and (\[L\]) with a measurable and even kernel $K$. Suppose also that $f,g\in C^1(\mathbb R^n)$. Then, $$\label{}
\int_{\mathbb R^n} g(x)T_{\Phi}(f(x)) dx=\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb R^n} \int_{\mathbb R^n} \Phi'[f(x) - f(y)] \left[g(x)-g(y) \right] K(x-y) dx dy,$$ and $$\int_{\mathbb R^n} g(x)L_{\Phi}(f(x)) dx=\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb R^n} \int_{\mathbb R^n} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [f(x) - f(y)] \left[g(x)-g(y) \right] K(x-y) dx dy.$$
These are direct consequences of the fact that $\Phi'$ and $\Phi''$ are odd and even functions, respectively.
In what follows we establish a stability inequality that is our main tool to derive a priori estimates on stable solutions. Note that this inequality is valid for a general kernel $K$ and nonlinearity $\Phi$.
\[propstab\] Let $u$ be a stable solution of (\[main\]). Then, for any $\zeta\in C_c^1(\mathbb R^n)$, $$\label{stability}
\int_{\RR^n} f'(u) \zeta^2(x) dx \le \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [\zeta(x)- \zeta(y)]^2 K(x-y) dy dx .$$
Let $u$ denote a stable solution of (\[main\]). Then, there exists a function $\phi$ such that $$\label{L12}
L_\Phi[\phi]= f'(u) \phi \ \ \ \text{in}\ \ \mathbb R^n.$$ Multiply both sides with $\frac{\zeta^2}{\phi}$ where $\zeta$ is a test functions. Therefore, $$\label{}
L_\Phi[\phi] \frac{\zeta^2}{\phi}= f'(u) \zeta^2 \ \ \ \text{in}\ \ \mathbb R^n.$$ From this and (\[L12\]) we get $$\label{LL1}
\int_{\RR^n} f'(u(x)) \zeta^2(x) dx \le \int_{\RR^n} L_{\Phi} [\phi(x)] \frac{\zeta^2(x)}{\phi(x)} dx .$$ Applying Lemma \[lemtech\] for the right-hand side of the above, we have $$\label{Lphi}
\int_{\RR^n} L_\Phi[ \phi(x)] \frac{\zeta^2(x)}{\phi(x)} dx=
\frac{1}{2} \int_{\RR^n} \int_{\RR^n} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [\phi(x) - \phi(y)] \left[ \frac{\zeta^2(x)}{\phi(x)}- \frac{\zeta^2(y)}{\phi(y)} \right] K (x-y) dx dy.$$ Note that for $a,b,c,d\in\mathbb R$ when $ab<0$ we have $$(a+b)\left[ \frac{c^2}{a} + \frac{d^2}{b} \right] \le (c-d)^2 .$$ Since each $\phi$ is positive, we have $\phi(x)\phi(z)>0$. Setting $a=\phi(x)$, $b=-\phi(y)$, $c=\zeta(x)$ and $d=\zeta(y)$ in the above inequality and from the fact that $ab=-\phi(x)\phi(y)<0$, we conclude $$[\phi(x) - \phi(y)] \left[ \frac{\zeta^2(x)}{\phi(x)}- \frac{\zeta^2(y)}{\phi(y)} \right] \le [\zeta(x)- \zeta(y)]^2 .$$ Note that $\Phi''$ is even and $\Phi''>0$ in $\mathbb R^+$. Therefore, $$\int_{\RR^n} L[\phi(x)] \frac{\zeta^2(x)}{\phi(x)} dx\le \frac{1}{2} \int_{\RR^n} \int_{\RR^n} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [\zeta(x)- \zeta(y)]^2 K(y-x) dy dx.$$ This together with (\[LL1\]) complete the proof.
We are now ready to establish a Poincaré type inequality for stable solutions. As mentioned earlier, the methods and ideas that we apply here are strongly motivated by the ones given in [@sz; @sz1; @cf; @fsv; @fsv2; @fg] and references therein. Note that the following inequality is valid for a vast class of kernels $K$ and nonlinearities $\Phi$. Note also that the function $f$ does not appear in the inequality directly.
\[thmpoin\] Assume that $n\ge 1$ and $ u$ is a stable solution of (\[main\]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poinsysm1}
&&\iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}\cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) [\eta^2(x)+\eta^2(x+y)] K(y) dx dy
\\&\le&
\iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal B_y(\nabla_x u) [ \eta(x) - \eta(x+y) ] ^2 K(y) d x dy ,
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\eta \in C_c^1(\mathbb R^{n})$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mathcalA}
\mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) &:= & |\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y)| -\nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) ,
\\ \label{mathcalB}
\mathcal B_y(\nabla_x u) & :=& |\nabla_x u(x)| | \nabla_x u(x+y)| .
\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $u$ is a stable solution of (\[main\]), Proposition \[propstab\] implies that the stability inequality (\[stability\]) holds. Test the stability inequality on $\zeta(x)=|\nabla _x u(x)| \eta(x)$ where $\eta \in C_c^1(\mathbb R^n)$ is a test function to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stability}
&& \int_{\RR^n} f'(u) |\nabla_x u (x)|^2 \eta^2(x) dx
\\&\le& \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\RR^{2n} } \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] [ |\nabla_x u(x)| \eta(x)- |\nabla_x u(x+y)| \eta(x+y)]^2 K (y) dy dx. \end{aligned}$$ Expanding the right-hand side of the above inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hijstability}
&& \int_{\RR^n} f'(u) |\nabla_x u (x)|^2 \eta^2(x) dx
\\&\le&
\frac{1}{2} \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x)|^2 \eta^2(x) K(y) dy dx
\\&&+ \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x+y)|^2 \eta^2(x+y) K(y) dy dx
\\&& - \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y)| \eta(x) \eta(x+y) K(y) dy dx. \end{aligned}$$ We now apply the equation (\[main\]). Note that for any index $1\le k\le n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{x_k} T_\Phi[u(x)] &=& L_\Phi [ \partial_{x_k} u(x)]
\\&=&
\int_{\RR^n } \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] [ \partial_{x_k} u(x) - \partial_{x_k} u(x+y)] K(y-x) dy
\\&=& f'(u) \partial_{x_k} u(x) . \end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides of the above equation with $\partial_{x_k} u(x) \eta^2(x)$ and integrating we have $$\int_{\mathbb R^{n}} f'(u) [\partial_{x_k} u(x)]^2 \eta^2(x)
dx = \int_{\mathbb R^n} \partial_{x_k} u(x) \eta^2(x) L_\Phi [\partial_{x_k} u(x) ] dx .$$ From Lemma \[lemtech\] we can simplify the right-hand side of the above as $$\frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)]
\left [ \partial_{x_k} u(x) \eta^2(x) -\partial_{x_k} u(x+y) \eta^2(x+y)\right ]
\left[ \partial_{x_k} u(x) -\partial_{x_k} u(x+y) \right] K(y) dx dy .$$ Combining the above two equalities, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HijIden}
&& \int_{\mathbb R^{n}} f'(u) |\nabla_x u(x)|^2 \eta^2(x) dx
\\&=& \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x)|^2 \eta^2(x) K(y) dx dy
\\&&+ \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x+y)|^2 \eta^2(x+y) K(y) dx dy
\\&& - \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) \eta^2(x) K(y) dx dy
\\&& - \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) \eta^2(x+y) K(y) dx dy . \end{aligned}$$ Combining this and (\[Hijstability\]) we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HijIden2}
&& \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] |\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y)| \eta(x) \eta(x+y) K(y) dy dx
\\&\le&
\frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) \left[ \eta^2(x) +\eta^2(x+y) \right] K(y) dx dy .\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $ \eta(x) \eta(x+y) =\frac{1}{2} [\eta^2(x) +\eta^2(x+y)] - \frac{1}{2} \left[ \eta(x) -\eta(x+y) \right]^2 $ and regrouping terms we get the desired result.
One-dimensional symmetry: via a Poincaré inequality {#SecOne}
===================================================
In this section, we apply the Poincaré inequality, given in former section, to establish one-dimensional symmetry results for bounded stable solution of (\[main\]) in two dimensions. Due to mathematical techniques and ideas that we apply in the proof, we assume that the kernel $K$ is of finite range or with certain decay at infinity.
\[Thmain\] Suppose that $u$ is a bounded stable solution of (\[main\]) in two dimensions and (\[Phiddtb\]) holds. Assume also that the kernel $K$ satisfies either (\[Jumpki\]) or (\[Jumpkei\]) and (\[Jumpkeri\]) with $D(r)<C r^{-\theta}$ for $\theta>\beta+1$. Then, $u$ must be a one-dimensional function.
From the Poincaré inequality (\[poinsysm1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PhiAB}
&&\iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}\cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) [\eta^2(x)+\eta^2(x+y)] K(y) dx dy
\\&\le& \nonumber C \iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] \left[ \eta(x) - \eta(y) \right] ^2 K(x-y) d x dy,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u):= |\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y)| -\nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) \ge 0$ for all $x,y$ and C is a positive constant depending on $|| \nabla_x u||_{\infty}$. Since $\Phi''$ satisfies (\[Phiddtb\]), we have $$\Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] \le C | u(x) - u(y) |^{\beta-2}.$$ for $\beta\ge 2$ and $\beta>\alpha$. Note that $|u(x) - u(y)|\le C |x-y|$ when $C$ is a positive constant depending only on $||u||_{\infty}$. Therefore, $$\Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] \le C | x-y |^{\beta-2}.$$ From this, (\[PhiAB\]) and the assumptions on the kernel, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PhiAB1}
&&\iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}\cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\}} \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) [\eta^2(x)+\eta^2(x+y)] K(y) dx dy
\\&\le& \label{PhiB2} C \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n} } \left[ \eta(x) - \eta(y) \right] ^2 | x-y |^{\beta-2} K(x-y) d x dy.
\end{aligned}$$ We now test the above inequality on the following standard test function $$\eta (x):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}, & \hbox{if $|x|\le\sqrt{R}$,} \\
\frac{ \log {R}-\log {|x|}}{{\log R}}, & \hbox{if $\sqrt{R}< |x|< R$,} \\
0, & \hbox{if $|x|\ge R$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Suppose that $ \Omega_R:=\cup_{i=1}^6 \Omega^i_R
$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Omega^1_R:=B_{\sqrt R}\times (B_ R\setminus B_{\sqrt R}), \ \Omega^2_R:=(B_ R\setminus B_{\sqrt R})\times (B_ R\setminus B_{\sqrt R}), \ \Omega^3_R:=(B_ R\setminus B_{\sqrt R})\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_R),\
\\&& \Omega^4_R:=B_{\sqrt R}\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_R) , \ \Omega^5_R:=B_{\sqrt R}\times B_{\sqrt R}, \
\Omega^6_R:=(\mathbb R^n\setminus B_R)\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_R) .\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of test function $\eta$ we have $|\eta(x)-\eta(y)|=0$ on $\Omega^5_R$ and $\Omega^6_R$. We now apply this in (\[PhiAB1\]) to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intIJR}
&& \iint_{ \{\mathbb R^n \times B_{\sqrt R}\} \cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\} } \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) K(y) dx dy
\\&\le& \nonumber C \sum_{i=1}^4 \iint_{\Omega^i_R \cap |x-y|\le R_* } \left[ \eta(x) - \eta(y) \right] ^2 | x-y |^{\beta-2-n-\alpha} d x dy
\\&& \nonumber +C \sum_{i=1}^4 \iint_{\Omega^i_R \cap |x-y| > R_* } \left[ \eta(x) - \eta(y) \right] ^2 | x-y |^{\beta-2} K(x-y) d x dy \\&=:&\label{sumgam}
C \sum_{i=1}^4 I_i(R) + C \sum_{i=1}^4 J_i(R).
\end{aligned}$$ Applying properties of the test function $\eta$ to compute an upper bound for each $ I_i(R)$ and $J_i(R)$. In this regard, we use the following straightforward inequality $$\label{logab}
|\log b - \log a|^2 \le \frac{1}{ab} |b-a|^2,$$ where $a,b\in\mathbb R^+$. We now consider various cases based on the domains.
[**Case 1**]{}: Let $(x,y)\in \Omega^1_R \cap |x-y|\le R_*$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $x\in B_{\sqrt{R}}\setminus B_{\sqrt{R}-R_*}$ and $y\in B_ {\sqrt{R}+R_*} \setminus B_{\sqrt R}$. Note that $\eta(x)=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\eta(y)=1-\frac{\log |y|}{\log R}$. Applying (\[logab\]) and the fact that $|x|< \sqrt R \le |y|$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta(x) -\eta(y)|^2 &=& \frac{1}{\log^2 R} |\log |y| - \log \sqrt R|^2
\le \frac{1}{\log^2 R} \frac{1}{|y| \sqrt R} | |y| - \sqrt R|^2
\\ &\le& \frac{1}{R\log^2 R} | |y| - |x||^2 \le \frac{1}{R\log^2 R} | y - x|^2 .\end{aligned}$$ From this for kernels satisfying (\[Jumpki\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(R) &\le & \frac{C }{R\log^2 R} \left[ \int_{B_{\sqrt R}\setminus B_{\sqrt R-R_*}} dx \right]\left[\int_{B_{R_*}} |z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz \right]
\\&\le & \frac{C}{\beta-\alpha} \frac{R_*^{\beta-\alpha}}{\sqrt R \log^2 R} , \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the assumptions $\beta-\alpha>0$ and $n=2$. We now consider kernels satisfying (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) with $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta+1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J1R}
J_1(R) & \le & \frac{C}{R\log^2 R} \left[ \int_{ B_{\sqrt{R}} \setminus B_{\sqrt{R}-R_*} } dx\right] \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R_* <|z|<2k R_*} |z|^\beta K(z) dz \right]
\\&\le&\nonumber \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta}}{R\log^2 R} \left[ \int_{ B_{\sqrt{R}} \setminus B_{\sqrt{R}-R_*} } dx \right] \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-\theta}\right] \le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta }}{\sqrt R \log^2 R}. \end{aligned}$$
[**Case 2**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Omega^2_R \cap |x-y|\le R_*$. Without loss of generality we assume that $|x|\le |y|$. Since $x,y\in B_ R\setminus B_{\sqrt R}$, we have $$|\eta(x) -\eta(y)|^2 = \frac{1}{\log^2 R} |\log |y| - \log |x||^2 \le \frac{1}{\log^2 R} \frac{1}{|x| |y|} | |y| - |x||^2 \le \frac{1}{|x|^2\log^2 R} | y - x|^2 .$$ From this for kernels (\[Jumpki\]) we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
I_2(R) &\le& \frac{C}{\log^2 R} \int_{B_{ R}\setminus B_{\sqrt R}} \frac{1}{|x|^2} dx \int_{B_{R_*}} |z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz
\le \frac{C }{\log^2 R} \int_{\sqrt R}^R r^{n-3}dr \int_{0}^{R_*} r^{\beta-1-\alpha} dr
\\&\le & \frac{C}{\beta-\alpha} \frac{R_*^{\beta-\alpha}}{\log R} , \end{aligned}$$ and again we have used the assumptions $\beta-\alpha>0$ and $n=2$. On the other hand, for kernels satisfying (\[Jumpkei\]) and (\[Jumpkeri\]) with decay $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>3$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J2R}
J_2(R) &\le& \frac{C}{\log^2 R} \left[ \int_{B_{ R}\setminus B_{\sqrt R}} \frac{dx}{|x|^2} \right] \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R_*<|z|<2k R_*} |z|^\beta K(z) dz\right]
\\&\le& \nonumber \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta}}{\log^2 R} \left[ \int_{\sqrt R}^R r^{n-3}dr \right] \left[\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-\theta}\right] \le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta }}{\log R}. \end{aligned}$$
[**Case 3**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Omega^3_R \cap |x-y|\le R_*$. Without loss of generality we assume that $x\in B_{R}\setminus B_{R-R_*}$ and $y\in B_ {{R}+R_*} \setminus B_{R}$ for large enough $R$. Therefore, $\eta(x)=1-\frac{\log |x|}{\log R}$ and $\eta(y)=0$. Applying (\[logab\]) and the fact that $|x|< R \le |y|$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta(x) -\eta(y)|^2 &=& \frac{1}{\log^2 R} |\log |x| - \log R|^2 \le \frac{1}{\log^2 R} \frac{1}{|x| R} | |x| - R|^2 \le \frac{1}{|x|^2 \log^2 R} | |y| - |x||^2
\\&\le& \frac{1}{|x|^2\log^2 R} | y - x|^2 . \end{aligned}$$ We first assume that (\[Jumpki\]) and we provide the following upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
I_3(R) &\le& \frac{C}{\log^2 R} \int_{B_{ R}\setminus B_{R-R_*}} \frac{1}{|x|^2} dx \int_{B_{R_*}}|z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz
\\&\le & \frac{C}{\beta-\alpha} \frac{R_*^{\beta-\alpha}}{\log^2 R} . \end{aligned}$$ Assume that (\[Jumpkei\]) and (\[Jumpkeri\]) hold when $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ for $\theta>\beta+1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J3R}
J_3(R) \le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta }}{\log R}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Case 4**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Omega^4_R$. Note that $\eta(x)=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\eta(y)=0$ and $|x-y|>R-\sqrt R>R_*$ for large enough $R$. This implies that $I_4(R)=0$ for either (\[Jumpki\]) or (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]). Note also that $J_4(R)=0$ provided (\[Jumpki\]). Therefore, we assume that the kernel satisfy the decay assumptions (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) and $$\label{J4R}
J_4(R) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{ B_{\sqrt R}} dx \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k(R-\sqrt R)<|z|<2k (R-\sqrt R)}|z|^{\beta-2} K(z) dz \le \frac{C R}{(R-\sqrt R)^{\theta-\beta+2 }} \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-2-\theta }
\le \frac{C}{ R^{\theta -\beta+1} }.$$ From the above cases and (\[intIJR\]), we get $$\label{}
\frac{1}{2} \iint_{ \{\mathbb R^2 \times B_{\sqrt R}\} \cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\} } \Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) K(y) dx dy
\le\frac{C}{\beta-\alpha} \frac{R_*^{\beta-\alpha}}{\log R} \ \ \ \text{for large} \ R.$$ Sending $R\to\infty$ and applying the fact that $\mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u)\ge 0$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb R^2$, we get $$\Phi''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) K(y) = 0 \ \ \text{a.e. for all} \ \ x,y\in\mathbb R^2.$$ Since $u$ is not constant and $\Phi''$ is an even function, we have $\Phi''(u(x) - u(x+y) ) >0$. Therefore, $\mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) = 0$ for all $x\in\mathbb R^2$ and $y\in B_{r_*}$. This implies that $$|\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y) |=\nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) ,$$ when $|\nabla_x u|\neq 0$. The above is equivalent to $$u_{x_1}(x) u_{x_2}(x+y)= u_{x_1}(x+y) u_{x_2}(x),$$ and $$\label{unabla}
\nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x^\perp u(x+y)=0.$$ This finishes the proof.
For the rest of this section, we provide a Liouville theorem for solutions of (\[main\]) under some sign assumptions on the function $f$.
\[thmliouville\] Let $ u$ be a bounded solution of (\[main\]) when the kernel $K$ satisfies either (\[Jumpki\]) or (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) with $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta+1$. Suppose that $\Phi$ satisfies (\[Phidtb\]). If $f(u) \ge0$ or $uf(u)\le 0$, then $u$ must be constant provided $n\le \beta$.
Suppose that $f(u) \ge0$. Let $\eta$ be a test function and multiply (\[main\]) with $(u(x) - ||u||_{\infty}) \eta^{2m}(x)$ and integrate to get $$\int_{\mathbb R^n} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] (u(x) - ||u||_{\infty}) \eta^{2m}(x) T_\Phi [u(x)] dx \le 0,$$ for $m:=\frac{\beta}{2} \ge 1$. We now apply the technical Lemma \[lemtech\] to conclude $$\label{mathcal1}
0 \ge \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ (u(x) - || u||_{\infty}) \eta^{2m}(x) - (u(y) - || u||_{\infty}) \eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy .$$ Adding and subtracting $u(y) \eta^{2m}(x)$ and $u(x) \eta^{2m}(y)$ to above and applying the fact that $\Phi'$ is an odd function, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
&& \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [ \eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy
\\&\le& 4 ||u||_{\infty} \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} |\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] | |\eta^{2m}(x)-\eta^{2m}(y)| K(x-y) dx dy . \end{aligned}$$ Note that $ |\eta^{2m}(x)-\eta^{2m}(y) | \le 2m |\eta(x)-\eta(y)| |\eta^{2m-1}(x)+\eta^{2m-1}(y)| $. This and above implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
&& \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [ \eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy
\\&\le&C \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} |\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] | |\eta(x)-\eta(y)| [\eta^{2m-1}(x)+\eta^{2m-1}(y)] K(x-y) dx dy, \end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant and it is independent from $R$. Consider the standard test function $\eta$ when $\eta=1$ in $\overline {B_R}$ and $\eta=0$ in $\overline{\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{2R}}$ with $\eta\in C_c^1(\mathbb R^n)$ and $||\nabla \eta||_{\infty}<C R^{-1}$ in $\overline{B_{2R}\setminus B_R}$. We now apply the Hölder inequality with exponent to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uxuy}
&& \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [ \eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy
\\&\le&C \left[\iint_{\Gamma_R } |\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] |^{ \frac{2m}{2m-1} } [\eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y)] K(x-y) dx dy \right]^{\frac{2m-1}{2m}}
\\&& \left[\iint_{\Gamma_R } |\eta(x)-\eta(y)|^{2m} K(x-y) dx dy \right]^{\frac{1}{2m}} ,\end{aligned}$$ when $$\label{gamma2}
\Gamma_R=\cup_{i=1}^6\Gamma^i_R \ \ \ \text{and each } \Gamma^i_R \ \text{is given by}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
&& \Gamma^1_R:=B_{ R}\times (B_ {2R}\setminus B_{R}), \Gamma^2_R:=(B_ {2R}\setminus B_{ R})\times (B_ {2R}\setminus B_{ R}), \Gamma^3_R:=(B_ {2R}\setminus B_{ R})\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{2R}),\
\\&& \label{gamma3} \ \Gamma^4_R:=B_{ R}\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{2R}), \ \Gamma^5_R:=B_{R}\times B_{R}, \ \Gamma^6_R:=(\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{2R})\times (\mathbb R^n\setminus B_{2R}). \end{aligned}$$ Note that from the assumptions we have $ |\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] | \le |u(x) - u(y)]|^{2m-1} $. Multiplying both side of this with $|\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] |^{2m-1}$, we conclude $$|\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] |^{ 2m } \le |u(x) - u(y)]|^{2m-1} |\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] |^{2m-1} .$$ From the oddness assumption on $\Phi'$, we have $t\Phi(t)\ge 0$ for $t\in\mathbb R$. Therefore, $$|\Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] |^{ \frac{2m}{2m-1} } \le \Phi'[u(x) - u(y)] [u(x) - u(y)].$$ Substituting this in (\[uxuy\]) we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uxuy2}
&& \iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [ \eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy
\\&\le&C \label{uxuy3} \left[\iint_{\Gamma_R}\Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [\eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y)] K(x-y) dx dy \right]^{\frac{2m-1}{2m}}
\\&& \label{uxuy4} \left[\iint_{\Gamma_R} |\eta(x)-\eta(y)|^{2m} K(x-y) dx dy \right]^{\frac{1}{2m}}. \end{aligned}$$ We now provide an upper bound for (\[uxuy4\]). Note that when $(x,y)\in\Gamma^5_R\cup\Gamma^6_R$, we have $|\eta(x)-\eta(y)|=0$. $$\begin{aligned}
\iint_{\Gamma_R} |\eta(x)-\eta(y)|^{2m} K(x-y) dx dy &=& \sum_{i=1}^4 \iint_{\Gamma^i_R \cap \{|x-y|\le R_*\} } |\eta(x)-\eta(y)|^{2m} K(x-y) dx dy
\\&&+ \sum_{i=1}^4 \iint_{\Gamma^i_R \cap \{|x-y| > R_*\} } |\eta(x)-\eta(y)|^{2m} K(x-y) dx dy
\\&=& \sum_{i=1}^4 I_i(R) + \sum_{i=1}^4 J_i(R). \end{aligned}$$ For $(x,y)\in \Gamma^4_R$, we have $|\eta(x)-\eta(y)|=1$ and for $(x,y)\in\cup_{i=1}^3 \Gamma^i_R$, we conclude $$|\eta(x)- \eta(y)|^{\beta} \le C R^{-\beta} |x-y|^{\beta}.$$ We now consider each domain $\Gamma^i_R$ for $1\le i\le 3$ and $\Gamma^4_R$ separately to provide upper bounds for (\[uxuy4\]).
[**Case 1**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Gamma^1_R $. Then, for kernels satisfying (\[Jumpki\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(R)&\le& CR^{-\beta} \int_{B_R\setminus B_{R-R_*}} \int_{B_{R+R_*}\setminus B_R} |x-y|^\beta K(x-y) dy dx
\\&\le& C R^{-\beta} \int_{B_R\setminus B_{R-R_*}} dx \int_{B_{R_*}}|z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz \le \frac{C {R_*}^{\beta-\alpha}}{\beta-\alpha} R^{n-1-\beta} . \end{aligned}$$ Now suppose that (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) hold with $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta+1$. Then, $$J_1(R) \le CR^{-\beta} \left[ \int_{B_R} dx \right] \left[\sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R_*<|z|<2k R_*} |z|^\beta K(z) dz \right]
\le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta}}{R^\beta} \left[ \int_{B_{R}} dx \right] \left[\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-\theta}\right] \le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta } }{R^{\beta-n}} ,$$ where we have used $\theta>\beta+1$ and $\beta-\alpha>0$.
[**Case 2**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Gamma^2_R $. Then, whenever (\[Jumpki\]) holds we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_2(R)&\le& CR^{-\beta} \left[\int_{B_ {2R}\setminus B_{ R}} dx \right] \left[ \int_{B_{R}} |z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz \right]
\\ &\le& \frac{C {R_*}^{\beta-\alpha}}{\beta-\alpha} R^{n-\beta} . \end{aligned}$$ For kernels satisfying (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]), the above estimate holds for $I_2(R)$ and $$\label{J2R}
J_2(R) \le CR^{-\beta} \left[ \int_{B_ {2R}\setminus B_{ R}} dx \right] \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R_*<|z|<2k R_*} |z|^\beta K(z) dz \right]\le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\theta } }{R^{\beta-n}} ,$$ where we have used $\theta>\beta+1$ and $\beta-\alpha>0$.
[**Case 3**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Gamma^3_R $. Just like the previous cases we first assume that (\[Jumpki\]) holds. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
I_3(R)&\le& C R^{-\beta} \int_{B_{2R}\setminus B_{2R-R_*}} \int_{B_{2R+R_*}\setminus B_{2R}} |x-y|^\beta K(x-y) dy dx
\\&\le& C R^{-\beta} \int_{B_{2R}\setminus B_{2R-R_*}} dx \int_{B_{R_*}}| z|^{\beta-n-\alpha} dz
\le \frac{C R_*^{\beta-\alpha}}{\beta-\alpha} R^{n-1-\beta} . \end{aligned}$$ When the kernel satisfies (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]), then an upper bound of the form (\[J2R\]) holds for $J_3(R)$.
[**Case 4**]{}: Suppose that $(x,y)\in \Gamma^4_R $. Note that $I_4(R)=J_4(R)=0$ whenever (\[Jumpki\]) holds for large enough $R$. We now assume that (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) holds and we provide an estimate for $J_4(R)$. Note that $\eta(x)=1$ and $\eta(y)=0$ and $|x-y|>R>R_*$, $$\label{J4R}
J_4(R) = \left[ \int_{ B_{ R}} dx \right] \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R<|z|<2kR} K(z) dz\right] \le C R^{n-\theta} \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-\theta}
\le C R^{n-\theta} .$$ From the assumption $n\le \beta$ and from the estimate (\[uxuy2\]), we conclude $$\label{}
\iint_{\Gamma_R} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] [ \eta^{2m}(x)+\eta^{2m}(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy\le C ,$$ where $C $ is a positive constant that is independent from $R$. From this and (\[uxuy2\]), we get $$\label{}
\iint_{\mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ u(x) - u(y) ] K(x-y) dx dy =0.$$ This implies that $ \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ (u(x) - (u(y) ] K(x-y) =0$ a.e. $(x,y)\in\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^{n}$. From the assumptions, we have $\Phi'$ is an odd function and $\Phi'>0$ in $R^+$. This implies that $ \Phi'[u(x) - u(y) ] [ (u(x) - (u(y) ] \ge 0$ and equality occurs if and only if $u(x)=u(y)$ for $x\in\mathbb R^2$ and $y\in B_{r_*(x)}$. This implies that $u$ is constant. Note that the case of $u f(u)\le 0$ is similar and we omit the proof.
Liouville Theorem: Second proof of Theorem \[Thmain\] {#SecLio}
=====================================================
We now provide a Liouville theorem for the quotient $\sigma:=\frac{\psi}{\phi}$ when $\psi:=\nabla u\cdot \nu$ for $\nu(x)=\nu(x',0):\RR^{n-1}\to \RR $ and $\phi$ solves the linearized system (\[L\]). Note that for stable solutions $u$ of (\[main\]), there exists a function $\phi$ such that $$\label{phi}
L_\Phi[\phi(x)] = f'(u) \phi(x) .$$ Differentiating (\[mainS\]) with respect to $x$, we get $$\label{psisum}
L_\Phi[\psi(x)] = f'(u) \psi(x).$$ From (\[psisum\]) and the fact that $\psi =\sigma \phi$, we have $$\label{sigmaphisum}
L_\Phi[ \sigma (x) \phi (x)] = f'(u) \sigma(x) \phi(x).$$ Multiply (\[phi\]) with $-\sigma $ and add with (\[sigmaphisum\]) to get $$\label{LLL}
L_\Phi[ \sigma(x) \phi(x) ]- \sigma(x) L_\Phi [\phi(x)]= 0 .$$ Note that for any two functions $g,h\in C^1(\mathbb R^n)$, the following technical identity holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{idenLL}
L_{\Phi} [g(x)h(x)] &=& g(x) L_{\Phi}[h(x)] + h(x) L_{\Phi}[g(x)]\\&& \nonumber - \int_{\mathbb R^n} \Phi''[u(x) - u(y)] \left [g(x) - g(y) \right] \left[h(x)-h(y) \right] K(x-y) dy. \end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[LLL\]) and (\[idenLL\]) for $h=\phi$ and $g=\sigma$, we conclude $$\label{Lphisigma}
\phi (x) L_\Phi[\sigma(x)] - \int_{\RR^n} \Phi''[ u(x) - u(y)] [\sigma(x)-\sigma(y)] [\phi(x)-\phi(y)] K(x-y) dy = 0.$$ This implies that $$\label{linPhi}
\int_{\RR^n} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] \left( \sigma(x)- \sigma(y) \right) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy = 0 .
$$
\[thmlione\] Suppose that $\sigma$ and $\phi$ satisfy (\[linPhi\]) and $\phi$ does not change sign. Assume also that $$\label{Phiuxuy}
\iint_{ \{\cup_{k=1}^4 \Gamma^k_R \}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) |x-y|^2 K(x-y) dy dx \le C R^2 ,$$ where $\Gamma^k_R$ are given in (\[gamma2\]). Then, $\sigma$ must be constant.
Multiplying both sides of (\[linPhi\]) with $\eta^2(x) \sigma(x) \phi(x)$ and integrating, we get $$\label{}
\iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] \left( \sigma(x)- \sigma(y) \right) \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) \eta^2 (x) dx dy = 0 ,$$ for a test function $\eta\in C_c^1(\mathbb R^n).$ Rearranging terms and apply the fact that $\Phi''$ is an even function, we get $$\label{etasigmale0}
\iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\eta^2(x) \sigma(x) - \eta^2(y) \sigma(y)] [\sigma(x)- \sigma(y)] \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx = 0 .$$ Note that $$\label{etaiden}
[\eta^2(x) \sigma(x) - \eta^2(y) \sigma(y)] = \frac{1}{2} [\sigma(x) - \sigma(y)][\eta^2(x) + \eta^2(y)]
+ \frac{1}{2} [\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)][\eta^2(x) - \eta^2(y)] .$$ Combining (\[etasigmale0\]) and (\[etaiden\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\ \ \ \ 0\le I &:=& \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) - \sigma(y)]^2 [\eta^2(x) + \eta^2(y)] \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx
\\& = & \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma^2(x) - \sigma^2(y)] [\eta^2(x) - \eta^2(y)] \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx
\\&\le& C \left( \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) - \sigma(y)]^2 [\eta^2(x) + \eta^2(y)] \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx \right)^{1/2}
\\& & \left( \iint_{\RR^{2n}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 [\eta(x) - \eta(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx \right)^{1/2} \end{aligned}$$ Note that in the above we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and $[\eta(x) + \eta(y)]^2 \le 2 [\eta^2(x) + \eta^2(y)]$ and $$\label{etaiden1}
[\sigma^2(y) - \sigma^2(x)] [\eta^2(x) - \eta^2(y)] = [\sigma(y) - \sigma(x)] [\sigma(y) + \sigma(x)][\eta(x) - \eta(y)] [\eta(x) + \eta(y)] .$$ We now set to be the standard test function that is $\eta=1$ in $\overline {B_R}$ and $\eta=0$ in $\overline{\RR^n\setminus B_{2R}}$ with $||\nabla \eta||_{L^{\infty}(B_{2R}\setminus B_R)}\le C R^{-1}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\ \ \ I^2&\le & C \left( \iint_{ \{\cup_{k=1}^4\Gamma^k_R \} \ } \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) - \sigma(y)]^2 [\eta^2(x) + \eta^2(y)] \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx \right)
\\& & \left( \iint_{ \{\cup_{k=1}^4\Gamma^k_R\} } \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 [\eta(x) - \eta(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) K(x-y) dy dx \right)
\\& =:& I(R) J(R) ,\end{aligned}$$ where domain decompositions $\Gamma^k_R$ are set in (\[gamma2\]). From the definition of $\eta$, for $(x,y)$ in $\{\cup_{k=1}^4\Gamma^k_R \} $ we have $$(\eta(x)-\eta(y))^2 \le C R^{-2} |x-y|^2 .$$ Note that $I(R)\le I$ and from the assumptions we have $$J(R) \le R^{-2} \iint_{\cup_{k=1}^4 \Gamma^k_R} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] [\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) |x-y|^2 K(x-y) dy dx \le C.$$ This implies that $0\le I\le C$ and then $I(R)\le C$. Therefore, $I=0$. This completes the proof.
Note that the above Liouville theorem can be applied to establish one-dimensional symmetry results for higher dimensions that is $n\ge 2$. One can simplify the assumption (\[Phiuxuy\]) as what follows. Since $|\nabla u|$ is globally bounded, we conclude that $|\sigma|\le \frac{C}{\phi}$. This implies that $$[\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 \le C \left(\frac{1}{\phi^2(x)} + \frac{1}{\phi^2(y)} \right).$$ Therefore, $$[\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) \le C \left( \frac{\phi(x)}{\phi(y)} + \frac{\phi(y)}{\phi(x)} \right).$$ Suppose now that the following Harnack inequality holds for $\phi$ $$\label{harn}
\sup_{B_1(x_0)} \phi \le C \inf_{B_1(x_0)} \phi, \ \ \text{for all} \ \ x_0\in\mathbb R^n.$$ This implies that $$[\sigma(x) + \sigma(y)]^2 \phi(x) \phi(y) \le C.$$ From this, the assumption (\[Phiuxuy\]) can be simplified as $$\label{Phiuxuysim}
\iint_{ \{\cup_{k=1}^4 \Gamma^k_R \}} \Phi''\left[ u(x) - u(y) \right] |x-y|^2 K(x-y) dy dx \le C R^2.$$ Let $u$ be a bounded monotone solution of (\[main\]) in two dimensions when the kernel $K$ satisfies either (\[Jumpki\]) or (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) with $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta+1$. Applying similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[thmliouville\], one can conclude that (\[Phiuxuysim\]) holds in two dimensions. Therefore, $u$ must be a one-dimensional function.
We end this section with mentioning that bounded global minimizers of nonlocal energy is studied in [@bucur]. The author has provided one-dimensional symmetry results for global energy minimizers of certain nonlocal operators in two dimensions, under various assumptions on the operator. The ideas and methods applied in this article are different from ours, however, there are some connections in the spirit.
Energy estimates for layer solutions {#SecEne}
====================================
Let us start this section with the notion of layer solutions.
\[layer\] We say that $u$ is a layer solution of (\[main\]) if $ u$ is a bounded monotone solution of (\[main\]) such that $$\label{asympsys}
\lim_{x_n\to \pm\infty} u(x',x_{n})= \pm 1
\ \ \text{for} \ \ \ x'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}.$$
We refer interested readers to [@csol; @cc; @cabSire; @cp; @sv; @savin] and references therein in regards to layer solutions. Note that assumption (\[asympsys\]) is known as a natural assumption in this context and Savin’s proof of De Giorgi’s conjecture in dimensions $4\le n\le 8$ and the counterexample of del Pino-Kowalczyk-Wei in dimensions $n\ge 9$ rely on (\[asympsys\]). The following theorem deals with energy estimates for layer solutions of (\[main\]) when the kernel is either with finite range or decay at infinity. Note that the energy estimate holds for a large class of kernels $K$ and nonlinearities $\Phi$.
\[thmlayerK1\] Suppose that $ u$ is a bounded monotone layer solution of (\[main\]) when $ F(1)=0$ and (\[Phidtb\]) hold. Assume also that the kernel $K$ satisfies either (\[Jumpki\]) or (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) with $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta$. Then, $$\label{EKRnminus1}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1} \ \ \text{for} \ \ R>R_*,$$ where the positive constant $C$ is independent from $R$ but may depend on $R_*,\alpha,\beta$.
Set the shift function $u^t( x):=u( x',x_n+t)$ for $( x',x_n)\in\mathbb R^{n}$ and $t\in\mathbb R$. The energy functional for the shift function $u^t$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) &=& \mathcal K^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) - \int_{B_R} F(u^t) dx
\\&=& \frac{1}{2} \int_{B_R} \int_{B_R} \Phi[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] K(x-y) dy dx \\&&+ \int_{B_R} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \Phi[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] K(x-y) dy dx - \int_{B_R} F(u^t) dx, \end{aligned}$$ where $R>R_*$. We now differentiate the energy functional in terms of parameter $t$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) &=& \partial_t \mathcal K^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) - \int_{B_R} f' (u^t) \partial_t u^t dx
\\&=& \frac{1}{2} \int_{B_R} \int_{B_R} \Phi'[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] [ \partial_t u^t(x) -\partial_t u^t(y) ] K(x-y) dy dx \\&&+ \int_{B_R} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \Phi'[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] [ \partial_t u^t(x)
- \partial_t u^t(y) ] K(x-y) dy dx \\&& - \int_{B_R} f' (u^t) \partial_t u^t dx . \end{aligned}$$ Straightforward computations show that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\partial_t\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) &=&
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \int_{B_R} \Phi'[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] \partial_t u^t(x) K(x-y) dy dx \\&& \label{tutT}+ \int_{B_R} \partial_tu^t(x) T_\Phi( u^t(x)) dx - \int_{B_R} f' (u^t) \partial_t u^t dx .\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to notice that $u^t$ is a solution of (\[main\]). Therefore, (\[tutT\]) vanishes and consequently $$\partial_t \mathcal E^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \int_{B_R} \Phi'[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] \partial_t u^t(x) K(x-y) dy dx .$$ Note that $ \mathcal E^\Phi_K(u,B_R)= \mathcal E^\Phi_K(1,B_R)- \int_0^\infty \partial_t \mathcal E^\Phi_K(u^t,B_R) dt$. From the fact that $ \mathcal E^\Phi_K(1,B_R)=0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EKT}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u, B_R) &\le& \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \int_{B_R} \int_0^\infty | \Phi'[ u^t(x) -u^t(y) ] | \partial_t u^t(x) K(x-y) dt dy dx
\\&\le& \int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R} \int_{B_R} \int_0^\infty | u^t(x) -u^t(y) |^{\beta-1} \partial_t u^t(x) K(x-y) dt dy dx ,\end{aligned}$$ where (\[Phidtb\]) is used. Note that $|u^t(x)- u^t(y)| \le C |x-y|$. From the boundedness of $u$ and $|\nabla u|$, we have $$\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u, B_R) \le C \iint_{[(\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R )\times B_R ] } |x-y|^{\beta-1} K(x-y) dy dx .$$ Therefore, $$\label{Pik}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u, B_R) \le C \sum_{k=1}^3 \iint_{\Pi^k_R } |x-y|^{\beta-1} K(x-y) dy dx
=: C \sum_{i=1}^3 I_i(R),$$ when $$\label{Pi123}
\Pi^1_R:=B_{R-R_*}\times (\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R), \ \ \Pi^2_R:=B_{R}\times (\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_{R+R_*}), \ \ \Pi^3_R:=(B_{R}\setminus B_{R-R_*})\times(B_{R+R_*}\setminus B_{R}) .$$ We first assume that (\[Jumpki\]) holds. Note that the above integrals $I_1(R)$ and $I_2(R)$, on domains $\Pi^1_R$ and $\Pi^2_R$, vanish. Hence, $$\label{EphiBR}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u, B_R) \le C I_3(R) \le C \int_{ B_{R}\setminus B_{R-R_*} } \int_{ B_{R+R_*}\setminus B_{R} } |x-y|^{\beta-1-n-\alpha} dy dx .$$ On the other hand, straightforward computations show that $$\label{IntIER}
\int_{ B_{R}\setminus B_{R-R_*} } \int_{ B_{R+R_*}\setminus B_{R} } |x-y|^{\beta-1-n-\alpha} dy dx
\le C \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
\hfill R_* R^{n-1} \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ \beta- \alpha=1,\\
\hfill \frac{(2R_*)^{-\alpha+\beta}}{(-1-\alpha+\beta)(-\alpha+\beta)} R^{n-1} \ \ \text{for}\ \ \beta- \alpha \neq 1,
\end{array}\right.$$ when $C$ is a positive constant it does not depend on $R,\alpha,\beta, R_*$. Combining (\[IntIER\]) and (\[EphiBR\]) finishes the proof of (\[EKRnminus1\]) for the truncated kernels satisfying (\[Jumpki\]). We now assume that (\[Jumpkei\])-(\[Jumpkeri\]) hold for $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ when $\theta>\beta$. $$I_{1}(R) \le C \left[ \int_{B_{R+R_*}\setminus B_R} dx \right]\left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k R_*<|z|<2k R_*} |z|^{\beta-1} K(z) dz\right]
\le C\left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-1-\theta} \right] R^{n-1} \le C R^{n-1} ,$$ where we have used $D(r)< C r^{-\theta}$ for $\theta>\beta$. For $I_{2}(R)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2}(R) &\le& \int_{B_{R}} \int_{|x-y|>R+\kappa_i- |x|} |y-x|^{\beta-1} K(y-x) dy dx
\\&=& \int_{B_{R}} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{k(R+R_*- |x|)<|x-y|<2k(R+R_*- |x|)} |y-x|^{\beta-1} K(y-x) dy dx
\\&\le& \int_{B_{R}} (R+R_* - |x|)^{\beta-1-\theta} dx \left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\beta-1-\theta} \right]\le C R^{n-1} \int_0^R (R+R_* - r)^{\beta-1-\theta} dr
\\&=&C\left[ \frac{R_*^{\beta-\theta}}{\theta-\beta} - \frac{(R+R_*)^{\beta-\theta} }{\theta - \beta} \right] R^{n-1} \le
C\left[ \frac{R_*^{\beta-\theta}}{\theta-\beta} \right] R^{n-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ when $C$ is a positive constant that is independent from $R$. Note that due to the structure of the domain $\Pi^3_R$, a similar estimate as (\[IntIER\]) holds for $I_3(R)$. This completes the proof.
We end this section with an energy estimate for layer solutions of (\[main\]) when the kernel $K$ satisfies (\[Jumpi\]) that is a generalization of the fractional Laplacian kernel. Note that in this case, unlike the previous theorem, the energy estimate depends on the exponent $\alpha$. For similar results in the case of fractional Laplacian operator where the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension problem is used we refer interested readers to [@cc; @cc2]. Note that our proofs do not rely on the local extension problem and we apply integral estimates directly, as this is the case in [@cs; @cp].
\[thmlayerK2\] Suppose that $ u$ is a bounded monotone layer solution of (\[main\]) with $ F(1)=0$ and (\[Phidtb\]) holds. Assume also that the kernel $K$ satisfies (\[Jumpi\]). Then, the following energy estimates hold for $R>\max\{R_*,1\}$.
1. If $0<\alpha<1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-\alpha}$,
2. If $\alpha=1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1}\log R$,
3. If $\alpha>1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1}$,
where the positive constant $C$ is independent from $R$ but may depend on $R_*,\alpha,\beta$.
The proof is similar to the one of Theorem \[thmlayerK1\]. We only need to provide an upper bound for the right-hand side of (\[EKT\]). From $|u^t(x)- u^t(y)| \le C \min\{R_*, |x-y|\}$ and the boundedness of $u$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u, B_R) &\le& C \iint_{(\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R )\times B_R } \left[\min\{R_*, |x-y|\}\right]^{\beta-1} K (x-y) dy dx
\\&\le &
\label{EPhiuBR}C \iint_{\Pi_R} \left[\min\{R_*, |x-y|\}\right]^{\beta-1} K (x-y) dy dx , \end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_R$ is given by (\[Pi123\]). Note that an upper bound for the integral on $\Pi_R^3$ is given by (\[IntIER\]). Due to the symmetry in $\Pi^1_R$ and $\Pi^2_R$, we only compute an upper bound for the integral on $\Pi^1_R$ that is $$\begin{aligned}
R_*^{\beta-1} \iint_{\Pi^1_R }|x-y|^{-n-\alpha} dy dx
&=& R_*^{\beta-1} \int_{B_{R-R_*} } \int_{ \mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R(x) } |z|^{-n-\alpha} dz dx
\\&\le&R_*^{\beta-1} \int_{B_{R-R_*} } \int_{R-|x|}^{\infty} r^{-1-\alpha} dr dx
\\&\le& \frac{R_*^{\beta-1}}{\alpha} \int_{B_{R-R_*} } (R - |x|)^{-\alpha} dx
\\&\le& \frac{R_*^{\beta-1} }{\alpha} R^{n-1} \int_{0}^{R-R_*} (R - r)^{-\alpha} dr . \end{aligned}$$ Straightforward computations show that the latter integral is bounded by the following term, $$\label{IntJ2R11}
R_*^{\beta-1}\int_{B_{R-R_*} } \int_{ \mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_R } |x-y|^{-n-\alpha} dy dx
\le C \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
\hfill \frac{R_*^{\beta-1} }{\alpha} \log \left(\frac{R}{R_*} \right) R^{n-1} \ \ &\text{for}& \ \ \ \alpha=1,\\
\hfill \frac{R^{\beta-1}_*}{\alpha(1-\alpha)} [R^{1-\alpha}- R^{1-\alpha}_*] R^{n-1} \ \ &\text{for}&\ \ \alpha\neq 1 .
\end{array}\right.$$ Now combining (\[IntJ2R11\]) and (\[EPhiuBR\]) completes the proof.
Sum of nonlocal operators {#SecSum}
=========================
This section is devoted to the sum of nonlocal and nonlinear operators as it is stated in . The proofs are similar to the ones given in previous sections. Therefore, we omit the proofs. The sum of fractional powers of Laplacian operators have been studied in the literature. We refer interested readers to [@cs] by Cabré and Serra where symmetry results, among other interesting results, are provided via proving and applying the extension problem. In addition, Silvestre in [@si] studied Hölder estimates and regularity properties for the sum operators. The following theorem states a Poincaré type inequality for the sum operators.
\[thmpoinSum\] Assume that $n,m\ge 1$ and $ u$ is a stable solution of (\[mainS\]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{i=1}^m \iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}\cap \{|\nabla_x u|\neq 0\}} \Phi_i''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) [\eta^2(x)+\eta^2(x+y)] K^i_{\Phi_i}(y) dx dy
\\&\le& \sum_{i=1}^m
\iint_{ \mathbb R^{2n}} \Phi_i''[u(x) - u(x+y)] \mathcal B_y(\nabla_x u) [ \eta(x) - \eta(x+y) ] ^2 K^i_{\Phi_i}(y) d x dy ,
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\eta \in C_c^1(\mathbb R^{n})$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mathcalA}
\mathcal A_y(\nabla_x u) &:= & |\nabla_x u(x)| |\nabla_x u(x+y)| -\nabla_x u(x) \cdot \nabla_x u(x+y) ,
\\ \label{mathcalB}
\mathcal B_y(\nabla_x u) & :=& |\nabla_x u(x)| | \nabla_x u(x+y)| .
\end{aligned}$$
Applying the above Poincaré inequality as well as other mathematical techniques we provide a one-dimensional symmetry result and a Liouville theorem as what follows.
\[thmoneDi\] Let $m\ge 1$ and $u$ be a bounded stable solution of (\[mainS\]) in two dimensions and (\[Phiddtb\]) for each $\Phi_i$ and $\beta_i$. Assume also that the kernel $K$ satisfies either (\[Jumpkis\]) or (\[Jumpkeis\]) and (\[Jumpkeris\]) with $D_i(r)<C r^{-\theta_i}$ for $\theta_i>\beta_i+1$ for all $1\le i\le m$. Then, $u$ must be a one-dimensional function.
\[thmliouville\] Let $m\ge 1$ and $ u$ be a bounded solution of (\[mainS\]) when the kernel $K_i$ satisfies either (\[Jumpkis\]) or (\[Jumpkeis\]) and (\[Jumpkeris\]) with $D_i(r)<C r^{-\theta_i}$ for $\theta_i>\beta_i+1$ for all $1\le i\le m$. If $f(u) \ge0$ or $uf(u)\le 0$, then $u$ must be constant provided $n\le \min\{\beta_i, 1\le i\le m\}$.
Consider the following energy functional corresponding to (\[mainS\]) $$\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u,\Omega):=\sum_{i=1}^m \mathcal K^{\Phi_i}_{K_i}{(u,\Omega)} - \int_{\Omega} F(u) dx,$$ where each $\mathcal K^{\Phi_i}_{K_i}{(u,\Omega)} $ satisfies (\[kphisymm\]) for even $\Phi_i$ and $K_i$. Then, the following energy estimate holds for the sum operator when the kernel $K$ is of finite range or with decay at infinity.
\[thmlayerK1i\] Suppose that $ u$ is a bounded monotone layer solution of (\[main\]) with $ F(1)=0$ and (\[Phidtb\]) hold. Assume also that the kernel $K_i$ satisfies either (\[Jumpkis\]) or (\[Jumpkeis\]) and (\[Jumpkeris\]) with $D_i(r)<C r^{-\theta_i}$ for $\theta_i>\beta_i$ for all $1\le i\le m$. Then, $$\label{sumEKRn}
\mathcal E^\Phi_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1} \ \ \text{for} \ \ R>R_*:=\min\{R_i,1\le i\le m\},$$ where the positive constant $C$ is independent from $R$ but may depend on $R_i,\alpha_i,\beta_i$.
Lastly, the following theorem provides an energy estimate for layer solutions of (\[mainS\]) where each kernel $K_i$ satisfies (\[alKal2is\]). Note that, unlike the above, the following energy estimate depends on the minimum of all exponents $\alpha_i$.
\[thmlayerK2i\] Suppose that $ u$ is a bounded monotone layer solution of (\[mainS\]) with $ F(1)=0$ and (\[Phidtb\]) holds. Assume also that the kernel $K_i$ satisfies (\[alKal2is\]). Then, the following energy estimates hold for $R>\max\{R_*,1\}$.
1. If $0<\alpha_*<1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-\alpha_*}$,
2. If $\alpha_*=1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1}\log R$,
3. If $\alpha_*>1$, then $\mathcal E_K(u,B_R) \le C R^{n-1}$,
where $\alpha_*:=\min\{\alpha_i, 1\le i\le m\}$ and the positive constant $C$ is independent from $R$ but may depend on $R_i,\alpha_i,\beta_i$.
[*Acknowledgment*]{}. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee(s) for comments and for pointing out the reference [@bucur].
[99]{}
G. Alberti, L. Ambrosio, and X. Cabré, *On a long-standing conjecture of E. De Giorgi: symmetry in 3D for general nonlinearities and a local minimality property*, Acta Appl. Math., 65 (2001) pp. 9-33.
L. Ambrosio and X. Cabré, *Entire solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in $\mathbb R^3$ and a conjecture of De Giorgi*, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 13 (2000) pp. 725-739.
M. T. Barlow, *On the Liouville property for divergence form operators*, Canadian J. Math., 50 (1998) pp. 487-496.
M. T. Barlow, R. F. Bass and C. Gui, *The Liouville property and a conjecture of De Giorgi*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 53 (2000) pp. 1007-1038.
R. F. Bass and D. A. Levin, *Harnack inequalities for jump processes*, Potential Anal., 17 (2002) pp. 375-388.
H. Berestycki, L. Caffarelli, and L. Nirenberg, *Further qualitative properties for elliptic equations in unbounded domains*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 25 (1997) pp. 69-94.
C. Bjorland, L. Caffarelli, A. Figalli, *Non-local gradient dependent operators*, Adv. Math., 230 (2012) pp. 1859-1894.
C. Bucur, *A symmetry result in $\mathbb R^2$ for global minimizers of a general type of nonlocal energy*, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.04924.pdf
X. Cabré, E. Cinti, *Energy estimates and 1-D symmetry for nonlinear equations involving the half-Laplacian*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 28 (2010) pp. 1179-1206.
X. Cabré, E. Cinti, *Sharp energy estimates for nonlinear fractional diffusion equations*, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 49 (2014) pp. 233-269.
X. Cabré, Solá-Morales, *Layer solutions in a half-space for boundary reactions*, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 58 (2005) pp. 1678-1732.
X. Cabré, J. Serra, *An extension problem for sums of fractional Laplacians and 1- D symmetry of phase transitions*, Nonlinear Anal., 137 (2016) pp. 246-265.
X. Cabré and Y. Sire, *Nonlinear equations for fractional Laplacians II: Existence, uniqueness, and qualitative properties of solutions*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 367 (2015) pp. 911-941.
L. Caffarelli and L. Silvestre, *An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 32 (2007) pp. 1245-1260.
A. D. Castro, T. Kuusi, G. Palatucci, *Local behavior of fractional p-minimizers*, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis, 33 (2016) pp. 1279-1299.
A. D. Castro, T. Kuusi, G. Palatucci, *Nonlocal Harnack inequalities*, Journal of Functional Analysis, 267 (2014) pp. 1807-1836.
E. Cinti, F. Ferrari, *Geometric inequalities for fractional Laplace operators and applications*, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 22 (2015), pp. 1699-1714.
M. Cozzi, T. Passalacqua, *One-dimensional solutions of non-local Allen-Cahn-type equations with rough kernels*, J. Differential Equations, 260 (2016) pp. 6638-6696.
E. De Giorgi, *Convergence problems for functional and operators*, Proceedings of the International Meeting on Recent Methods in Nonlinear Analysis (Rome, 1978), pp. 131-188, Pitagora, Bologna, 1979.
M. del Pino, M. Kowalczyk, J. Wei, *On De Giorgi’s conjecture in dimension $N\ge 9$*. Ann. of Math., (2) 174 (2011) pp. 1485-1569.
A. Farina, A., B. Sciunzi, E. Valdinoci, *Bernstein and de giorgi type problems: New results via a geometric approach*. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 7 (2008) pp. 741-791.
A. Farina, A., B. Sciunzi, E. Valdinoci, *On a Poincaré type formula for solutions of singular and degenerate elliptic equations*, Manuscripta Math. 132 (2010) pp. 335-342.
M. Fazly, C. Gui, *On nonlocal systems with jump processes of finite range and with decays*, Preprint 2018.
N. Ghoussoub, C. Gui, *On a conjecture of De Giorgi and some related problems*, Math. Ann. 311 (1998), no. 3, pp. 481-491.
N. Ghoussoub, C. Gui, *About De Giorgi’s conjecture in dimensions 4 and 5*, Ann. of Math. (2) 157 (2003) pp. 313-334.
F. Hamel, X. Ros-Oton, Y. Sire, E. Valdinoci, *A one-dimensional symmetry result for a class of nonlocal semilinear equations in the plane*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 34 (2017), no. 2, pp. 469-482.
T. Kuusi, G. Mingione, Y. Sire, *Nonlocal equations with measure data*, Comm. Math. Phys. 337 (2015), no. 3, pp. 1317-1368.
O, Savin, *Regularity of flat level sets in phase transitions*, Ann. of Math. (2) 169 (2009), no. 1, pp. 41-78.
L. Silvestre, *Hölder estimates for solutions of integro-differential equations like the fractional Laplace*, Indiana University Mathematics Journal., 55 (2006) pp. 1155-1174.
Y. Sire and E. Valdinoci, *Fractional Laplacian phase transitions and boundary reactions: A geometric inequality and a symmetry result*, J. Functional Analysis, 256 (2009) pp. 1842-1864.
P. Sternberg and K. Zumbrun, *A Poincaré inequality with applications to volume-constrained area-minimizing surfaces*, J. Reine Angew. Math., 503 (1998) pp. 63-85.
P. Sternberg and K. Zumbrun, *Connectivity of phase boundaries in strictly convex domains*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 141 (1998) pp. 375-400.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many current successful Person Re-Identification(ReID) methods train a model with the softmax loss function to classify images of different persons and obtain the feature vectors at the same time. However, the underlying feature embedding space is ignored. In this paper, we use a modified softmax function, termed Sphere Softmax, to solve the classification problem and learn a hypersphere manifold embedding simultaneously. A balanced sampling strategy is also introduced. Finally, we propose a convolutional neural network called SphereReID adopting Sphere Softmax and training a single model end-to-end with a new warming-up learning rate schedule on four challenging datasets including Market-1501, DukeMTMC-reID, CHHK-03, and CUHK-SYSU. Experimental results demonstrate that this single model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all four datasets without fine-tuning or re-ranking. For example, it achieves 94.4% rank-1 accuracy on Market-1501 and 83.9% rank-1 accuracy on DukeMTMC-reID. The code and trained weights of our model will be released.'
author:
- 'Xing Fan, Wei Jiang[^1], Hao Luo, Mengjuan Fei'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'SphereReID: Deep Hypersphere Manifold Embedding for Person Re-Identification'
---
18SubNumber[\*\*\*\*]{}
Introduction
============
Person re-identification is the task of identifying bounding box images of the same person from non-overlapping camera views. Given a probe image, we need to retrieve all images of the same person ID in gallery images.
Person re-identification has many practical applications such as video surveillance for public security, and thus attracts much research attention in the computer vision community. With the utilization of deep convolution neural networks (CNNs) [@AlexNet_2012] in recent years, ReID performance has made significant progress. However, some problems remain to be solved owing to the challenges of ReID, including changes in camera viewpoints, illumination changes, human pose variation and occlusion.
![Two-dimensional visualization of sample distribution in the embedding space supervised by (a)Softmax Loss, (b)Triplet Loss [@TripletLoss], and (c)Sphere Loss. Yellow and red points represent embedding features from two different classes. []{data-label="fig:visualizaion"}](fig1){width=".8\linewidth"}
Most of the current ReID approaches can be categorized into two types: feature-based or metric-based. Extracting features from input images and seeking a metric for comparing these features across images are the two main components of person re-identification. Some hand crafted features such as scale invariant feature transforms(SIFT) features [@SIFT_ICCV_2013; @SIFT_CVPR_2013] and local maximal occurrence(LOMO) features [@LOMO_2015] have been used to represent the a person’s appearance.
With the success of deep learning, CNN-based methods have been proposed for ReID to automatically learn the feature representations from the training data. These methods [@STN_2017; @Spindle_2017; @LearnedPart_2017; @GLAD_2017] often model ReID as a classification problem and consider images from a specific person ID as a class. Then the softmax cross-entropy loss is applied to supervise the training procedure. Simultaneously, as a by-product, feature vectors before the last fully connected layer are extracted as the final image features. It corresponds with intuition that when a feature vector can be used to classify a person ID correctly, it is a good representation of that person’s appearance. However, without explicit constraints on the feature space distribution, the learned feature mapping may not be optimal. As shown in Fig. \[fig:visualizaion\](a), there is no constraint on the distribution in the embedding space, which leads to a general spread.
To overcome the aforementioned drawbacks of feature-based works, metric-based methods [@Gate_2016; @LSTM_2016; @Triplet_ReID_2015; @TripletHard; @Quadruplet] have been proposed to learn an embedding of the original images that satisfies some specified conditions. For example, triplet loss [@TripletLoss] requires the distance of samples from the same class to be less than that of samples from different classes by a pre-defined threshold, which pulls the instances of the same person closer and simultaneously pushes the instances belonging to different persons away from each other in the embedding space. Then the learned model is used for feature mapping of test images, and the extracted features can be compared using the Euclidean distance criterion. However, the range of each dimension is from minus infinity to plus infinity, and the feature of each dimension only lies within a small interval, as shown in Fig. \[fig:visualizaion\](b). Consequently, the target embedding space may not be fully utilized.
In this paper, we propose a novel metric-based person re-identification network called SphereReID, which adopts a new function called Sphere Loss to supervise the training process. Softmax cross-entropy is the basic loss function for the classification task. Despite the widespread use of softmax, whether it is the optimal loss function for classification is still uncertain. With the re-examination of softmax in the face recognition community [@L_Softmax_2016; @A_Softmax_2017; @AAM_Softmax_2018; @CosFace_2018; @ArcFace_2018], some valuable insights have been obtained. Motivated by their works, we adopt a modified softmax loss function called Sphere Loss, which classifies image samples from different persons and restrains the distribution of sample embeddings on a hypersphere manifold at the same time.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a person image has been mapped onto a hypersphere manifold for person re-identification. To this end, feature normalization and weight normalization are introduced. After elimination of different norms, the classification will only rely on the angle between the embedding vector and the target class weight vector, which has a more clear geometric interpretation in the embedding space, as shown in Fig. \[fig:visualizaion\](c), where embedding features lie on a hypersphere manifold. Compared with Euclidean space embedding, SphereReID maps images on the surface of a hypersphere, which limits the possible space distribution to a restricted angular space. Thus, the target embedding space can be fully exploited and we can train a network to classify images from different persons and simultaneously regulate the target embedding distribution. Furthermore, the implementation of Sphere Loss is simple and the code will be released.
One issue with person re-identification is that there are many datasets [@VIPeR_2008; @PRID_2011; @iLIDS_VID_2016; @CUHK_03; @Market_1501_2015; @CUHK_SYSU; @Mars_2016; @DukeMTMC_reID_2017; @PRW] and everay labelled person has an indefinite quantity of images, thus sampling amount bias always exists. Further, some ReID datasets are image-based [@VIPeR_2008; @CUHK_03; @Market_1501_2015; @CUHK_SYSU; @DukeMTMC_reID_2017; @PRW] whereas some are video-based [@PRID_2011; @iLIDS_VID_2016; @Mars_2016] consisting of a lot of consecutive images frames, which makes the images per person ID even more diverse. A softmax supervised classification approach suffers from the sample amount bias and end up with an inferior performance. In this paper, a balanced sampling strategy is introduced in the training process, and every mini-batch is generated by sampling a specific number of each person ID with a specific number of images which alleviates the sample amount bias problem.
With a new warming-up learning rate schedule, we train a single SphereReID model end-to-end without fine-tuning on four ReID datasets, and this single model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all the four datasets and achieves rank-1 accuracy 94.4% on Market-1501 [@Market_1501_2015], 83.9% on DukeMTMC-reID [@DukeMTMC_reID_2017], 93.1% on CUHK03 [@CUHK_03] and 95.4% on CUHK-SYSU [@CUHK_SYSU].
The contribution of our work is three-fold:
- First, we introduce a new classification loss function called Sphere Loss modified from the softmax loss function, which can supervise the model to classify images of different persons and learn an embedding on a hypersphere manifold simultaneously.
- Second, a balanced sampling strategy is adopted to eliminate the sample amount bias and further facilitate the model performance without additional computational overhead. During training, a warming-up learning rate schedule also be used to bootstrap the network, which leads to a better convergence point.
- Finally, we propose a novel network called SphereReID adopting Sphere Loss. Extensive experiments on four datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model.
Related Works
=============
### Feature-Based ReID.
Some hand crafted features such as scale invariant feature transforms(SIFT) features [@SIFT_ICCV_2013; @SIFT_CVPR_2013], Local Binary Patterns(LBP) features [@LBP_2014], and local maximal occurrence(LOMO) features [@LOMO_2015] have been used to represent a person’s appearance. With the rise of deep learning, automatically learning feature representations have been used for the ReID task and significant progress has been made as a result. Features extracted by a pre-trained CNN on a large annotated dataset, *e.g.*, ImageNet, have been proven to be strong off-the-shelf descriptors for various recognition tasks, and Matsukawa *et al.* [@CLS_ATTR_2016] present CNN features for person re-identification fine-tuned on a pedestrian attribute dataset. To extract fine-grained part feature, Varior *et al.* [@Gate_2016] present a gate structure, while LSTM [@LSTM_1997] is introduced in [@LSTM_2016; @LSTM_Attention_2017; @DeepPerson_2017] to learn horizontal local features. Additonally, Sun *et al.* [@Refined_2017] use horizontal stripes and Li *et al.* [@STN_2017] use a Spatial Transform Networks (STN) [@STN] subnet to localize the refined body parts and Zhao *et al.* [@LearnedPart_2017] learn the parts automatically through a mask predictor. Furthermore, Yao *et al.* [@PartLoss_2017] represent different body parts by directly clustering feature maps based on the location of their maximum responses. As the human body is highly structured with known key points, external skeleton models have also been used for predicting different body regions in [@GLAD_2017; @PoseBox_2017; @PoseDriven_2017; @Spindle_2017].
### Metric-Based ReID.
Along with feature-based methods, there are some approaches to ReID that use metric learning, which formulate the person re-identification as a supervised distance metric learning problem. Traditional metric learning methods like the Keep It Simple and Straightforward Metric(KISSME) [@KISSME] and cross-view quadratic discriminant analysis (XQDA) [@LOMO_2015] learn a transformation matrix of features. Nowadays, however, the community pays more attention to the loss function of a network. Instead of the softmax classification loss function, contrastive loss [@ContrastiveLoss] is used to supervise a Siamese network in [@LSTM_2016; @Gate_2016]. Motivated by FaceNet [@FaceNet], a convolutional neural network used to learn an embedding for faces, triplet loss [@TripletLoss] is used in [@ECCV_TRI_2014; @Triplet_ReID_2015] to optimize in the embedding space such that embedding features for the same identity are closer to each other than those of different identities. Cheng *et al.* [@ImprovedTripletLoss] propose an improved triplet loss by introducing another pull term into the loss, penalizing large distances between positive embeddings. Quadruplet loss proposed in [@Quadruplet], adds another pull term for the distance between negative pairs, which can lead to a model with a larger inter-class variation and a smaller intra-class variation. Generation of samples of triplets or quadruplets will remain a challenge, as easy samples will lead to a degeneration and too difficult samples may result in gradient explosion. To solve this problem, Hermans *et al.* [@TripletHard] propose a batch hard sampling strategy.
### Other ReID Methods.
Xiao *et al.* [@DomainGuidedDropout] propose a domain guided dropout algorithm to improve the feature learning procedure for multiple ReID datasets. Geng *et al.* [@ConsistentDropout] introduce pairwise-consistent dropout for the pairwise verification loss layers, that is, each pair of compared training data points share the same dropout mask. AlignedReID [@AlignedReID] introduces a feature matching method to align different body parts. And DarkRank [@DarkRank] shows that a powerful teacher model can significantly help the training of a smaller and faster student network for ReID. Re-ranking methods [@Re_Ranking_1; @Re_Ranking_2] can also be used to rearrange the original ranking list to further improve the accuracy. Generative adversarial nets (GAN) [@GAN] have also been proven to be effective, and can also be exploited for the ReID task. PTGAN [@PersonTransferGAN] proposes a Person Transfer Generative Adversarial Network (PTGAN) to bridge the domain gap between different datasets which relieves the expensive costs of annotating new training samples. Pose-normalization GAN (PN-GAN) [@PoseNormalized] proposes a deep person image generation model for synthesizing realistic person images conditional on pose.
### Softmax Re-examination in Face Recognition.
The face recognition community has re-examined the meaning of softmax [@L_Softmax_2016; @A_Softmax_2017; @AAM_Softmax_2018; @CosFace_2018; @ArcFace_2018] and obtained valuable insights. Large-margin softmax (L-Softmax) loss is introduced in [@L_Softmax_2016], and it maps the cosine value between feature vectors and the weight vector to a monotonically decreasing function with a large margin. The angular softmax (A-Softmax) loss proposed by [@A_Softmax_2017] enables convolutional neural networks to learn angularly discriminative features and weight normalization is introduced. In [@AAM_Softmax_2018; @CosFace_2018; @ArcFace_2018], feature normalization is also applied, which makes the classification results only depend on the angle between the feature vector and weight vector.
Our Approach
============
Softmax Loss
------------
![Geometrical interpretation of (a)Softmax Loss and (b)Sphere Loss. Yellow arrows represent embedding feature vectors and green arrows represent class center weight vectors of two different classes.[]{data-label="fig:interpretation"}](fig2){width=".8\linewidth"}
In this section, we will discuss the meaning of the softmax loss function. Softmax is commonly used for classification task. Given an input feature vector $x_i$ with its corresponding label $y_i$, it can be formulated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{softmax} = -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log\frac{e^{z_{y_i}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{C}e^{z_j}}
\label{eq:softmax}\end{aligned}$$
where $N$ is the number of training samples and $C$ is the number of classes. $z_j$ is activation of the $j$-th neuron in a fully connected layer with weight vector $W_j$ and bias $b_j$. There are a total of $C$ neurons, and each neuron outputs the score $z_j$ of the corresponding $j$-th class. We fix the bias $b_j = 0$ for simplicity, and as a result we can formulate $z_j$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
z_j = W_j^Tx = \|W_j\| \|x\|\cos{\theta_j}\end{aligned}$$
where $\theta_j$ is the angle between $W_j$ and $x$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:interpretation\](a), for an embedding feature vector $x$, and learnable weights $W_1$ and $W_2$ which serve as the class center, both the feature vector and weight vector influence the output scores. For a binary classification, when $z_1>z_2$, the sample is classified into class 1, and class 2 otherwise. The decision boundary is as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\|W_1\| \cos{\theta_1} = \|W_2\| \cos{\theta_2}
\label{eq:softmax-boundary}\end{aligned}$$
Equation \[eq:softmax-boundary\] shows that both the norm and angle influence the final decision. As shown in Fig. \[fig:boundary\], there is an intersection area of class 1 and class 2, and thus samples of two classes can not be distinguished only by the angle.
![The decision boundary of (a)Softmax Loss and (b)Sphere Loss. Samples lie within yellow area will be classified into class 2 and class 1 when samples lie within red area. Blue area means the class is uncertain because both angle and norm contribute to the decision.[]{data-label="fig:boundary"}](fig3){width=".8\linewidth"}
Sphere Loss
-----------
To eliminate the influence of norm and learn angularly discriminative features, we fix $\|W_j\| = 1$ and $\|x\|=1$ by L2 normalization as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
W_j = \frac{W_j^*}{\|W_j^*\|}, x = \frac{x^*}{\|x^*\|}\end{aligned}$$
Where $W_j^*$ and $x^*$ are the original weight vector and feature vector.
In the original softmax loss function without normalization, when the angle between the feature vector and weight vector is the same, a sample tends to be classified into classes with larger norm, which we call weight bias, and a sample with larger norm tends to output a larger score, which we call feature bias. With the introduction of weight normalization and feature normalization, weight bias and feature bias are removed.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:interpretation\](b), after normalization, the weight vector and feature vector are all mapped onto a hypersphere manifold, and the classification results only depend on the angle between the feature vector and weight vector. For a binary classification, when $\cos{\theta_1}>\cos{\theta_2}$, the sample is classified into class 1, and class 2 otherwise. The decision boundary is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\cos{\theta_1}=\cos{\theta_2}\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Fig. \[fig:boundary\](b), compared with softmax, there is a clear decision boundary and classification results only depend on the angle.
Combining weight normalization and feature normalization, we also add a scale factor to control the temperature of the softmax function. Note that $\|W_j\|=1$ and $\|x\|=1$ and we then get the Sphere Loss:
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{sphere} = -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log\frac{e^{s\cos{\theta_{y_i}}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{C}e^{s\cos{\theta_j}}}
\label{eq:sphere}\end{aligned}$$
where $s$ is the scale factor. In this paper, we use $s = 14$ for all experiments. Equation \[eq:sphere\] is similar to the normalized version of softmax loss (NSL) proposed in [@CosFace_2018], but in [@CosFace_2018], it is only an intermediate result proposed for the face recognition task and its effects are not fully exploited. Equation \[eq:sphere\] also matches the special case of additive margin softmax loss [@AAM_Softmax_2018] and additive angular margin loss [@ArcFace_2018] when the margin is set to 0.
With the supervision of Sphere Loss, we can learn an embedding on a hypersphere manifold, and different samples are discriminated by angles.
Balanced Sampling Strategy
--------------------------
A ReID datasets consists of images from different person where every person has an indefinite number of images. Usually there is no constraint on the proportion of different persons in a mini-batch and training data is chosen randomly from all the training images. However, the training process suffers from an imbalance of data. The network trains more on a person with more images, while it trains less on a person with less images. Thus the model tends to fit more on the person with more images. However, there is an a priori that every person is of the same importance and should be treated equally.
Therefore, we introduce a balanced sampling strategy. To generate a mini-batch, we randomly choose $P$ different persons without replacement, and for each person, we randomly choose $K$ images. Thus there are a total of $PK$ images in a mini-batch. For people with less than $K$ images, we use sampling with replacement, and sampling without replacement otherwise. After all persons are sampled, we say that an epoch is considered done.
This balanced sampling strategy is similar to the strategy proposed in [@TripletHard] for hard triplets mining, whereas in this paper, we use it to remove the imbalance of classes.
In this manner, for persons with more images we just ignore the over abundance of images, while for persons with less images we may use the same images multiple times. This approach guarantees that every person ID has the same number of instances.
SphereReID Network
------------------
![The proposed SphereReID network structure. Inputs are a total of $PK$ images generated by a balanced sampling strategy. After the last convolutional layer of the ResNet-50 [@ResNet] backbone, a global average pooling (GAP), batch normalization (BN), dropout (DP), fully connected layer (FC), batch normalization (BN), L2 normalization (L2) are follows respectively.[]{data-label="fig:network"}](fig4){width=".8\linewidth"}
Combining Sphere Loss and the balanced sampling strategy, we propose a deep convolution neural network named SphereReID for the ReID task. As shown in Fig. \[fig:network\], we use a ResNet-50 [@ResNet] network as the backbone network. After the last convolutional layer, a global average pooling follows to aggregate spatial information. Then we apply a batch normalization layer.
We also add a dropout layer as a regularizer, followed by a fully connected layer and another batch normalization layer. Now, we can apply weight normalization and feature normalization, and compute the Sphere Loss.
Experiments
===========
Datasets
--------
We conduct extensive experiments on four widely used ReID datasets: Market-1501 [@Market_1501_2015], DukeMTMC-reID [@DukeMTMC_reID_2017], CUHK03 [@CUHK_03], and CUHK-SYSU [@CUHK_SYSU].
**Market-1501** contains 32,668 annotated bounding box images of 1,501 labelled persons captured by five high-resolution cameras and one low-resolution camera. The dataset employes the Deformable Part Model (DPM) [@DPM] as the pedestrian detector. A total of 751 persons are used for training.
**DukeMTMC-reID** is a subset of Duke-MTMC [@Duke_MTMC] for person re-identification. It contains 36,411 annotated bounding box images of 1,812 different identities captured by eight high-resolution cameras. A total of 1,404 identities are observed by at least two cameras, and the remaining 408 identities are distractors. The training set contains 16,522 images of 702 identities and the test set contains the other 702 identities.
**CUHK03** contains 14,096 annotated bounding box images of 1,467 identities. Each identity is observed by two disjoint camera views. There are two kinds of bounding boxes available: one is manually cropped and the other is automatically detected by DPM [@DPM]. In this paper, we use the manually cropped version.
**CUHK-SYSU** containing 18,184 full images and 8,432 identities. A total of 99,809 bounding box images are annotated from full images. The training set contains 11,206 full images and 5,532 persons, whereas the test set contains 6,978 full images of 2,900 persons.
Implementation Details
----------------------
Our SphereReID model is built on the PyTorch framework. The backbone network is ResNet-50 [@ResNet] pre-trained on ImageNet and the original fully connected layer is discarded.
The inputs images are resized to $288\times144$ then randomly cropped to $256\times128$. The parameters $P$ and $K$ in the balanced sampling strategy are 16 and 4 respectively, as a result, a mini-batch size of 64 is used in our experiments.
We use the Adam optimizer with the default hyper-parameters($\epsilon=10^{-8}$, $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.99$). We set the initial learning rate to $10^{-3}$ and apply the decay schedule at epoch 80 and reduce the learning rate to $10^{-4}$. At epoch 100, we reduce the learning rate again to $10^{-5}$. The total number of training epochs for all conducted experiments is set to 140.
We also introduce a warming-up strategy to bootstrap the network, as shown in Fig. \[fig:lr\]. We spend 20 epochs to linearly increase the learning rate from $5\times10^{-5}$ to $10^{-3}$. We think this strategy will help the network to initialize well before applying a large learning rate to optimize it. The experiment results are shown in the next section and demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy.
![Our learning rate schedules with or without warming-up. Blue one is with warming-up and the orange one is without warming-up.[]{data-label="fig:lr"}](fig5){width=".65\linewidth"}
Results of SphereReID
---------------------
In this section, we go over different experiments settings and compare the rank-1 accuracies on Market-1501 [@Market_1501_2015], DukeMTMC-reID [@DukeMTMC_reID_2017], CUHK03 [@CUHK_03], and CUHK-SYSU [@CUHK_SYSU].
### Network Structure and Loss.
After the last convolutional layer of the ResNet-50 [@ResNet] backbone, we have four different structures as follows: (A) global average pooling; (B) global average pooling, then a fully connected layer; (C) global average pooling, then a fully connected layer and a batch normalization; (D) global average pooling, batch normalization, dropout, fully connected layer and then a batch normalization again. The embedding feature size is 2048 for network-A and is 1024 for network-B, network-C and network-D. For network-D, the ratio of dropout is set to 0.5. Finally, L2 normalization is applied for all the networks.
The results are shown in Table. \[table:structure\]. We can see that network-B is much better than network-A, which suggests that the additional fully connected layer can fuse input information and produce better embedding features. Network-C is also better than network-B, which demonstrates the effect of batch normalization. Network-D is the best and achieves 93.1% rank-1 accuracy on Market-1501 which combines the strength of batch normalization and dropout. Table. \[table:structure\] also shows that sphere Loss is clearly better than softmax.
The subsequent experiments all use the network-D structure.
[c|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<|p[.1]{}<]{} & & & &\
&Sphere & Softmx & Sphere & Softmx & Sphere & Softmx & Sphere & Softmx\
network-A & 59.5 & 57.9 & 49.1 & 46.1 & 67.3 & 62.3 & 77.4 & 78.1\
network-B & 86.4 & 65.6 & 75.5 & 53.9 & 86.8 & 63.7 & 90.6 & 83.1\
network-C & 92.3 & 72.7 & 81.6 & 59.0 & 91.5 & 62.2 & 94.1 & 83.1\
network-D & 93.1 & 77.3 & 81.9 & 61.9 & 92.8 & 66.6 & 94.3 & 86.2\
### Balanced Sampling Strategy.
The balanced sampling strategy can guarantee that each training identity has the same number of instances and alleviates the imbalance of sample size. As shown in Table. \[table:balance-warmup\], when the model is trained with the balanced sampling strategy, the final performance is significantly boosted by a large margin, even with the exactly same network structure. This strategy may be applied to a wider area of tasks, helping to eliminate the class bias in a imbalanced dataset.
Market-1501 DukeMTMC-reID CUHK03 CUHK-SYSU
--------------------------- ------------- --------------- -------- -----------
balanced, w/ warming-up 93.1 81.9 92.8 94.3
imbalanced, w/ warming-up 79.3 56.5 79.2 89.9
balanced, w/o warming-up 77.1 64.4 80.6 88.9
: The influence of balanced sampling strategy and warming-up strategy.[]{data-label="table:balance-warmup"}
### Influence of Warming-up.
As shown in Table. \[table:balance-warmup\], with a warming-up process of the learning rate to help the network bootstrap, rather than applying a large learning rate from the beginning, the network can converge on a much better point. It is intuitive that when a network is initialized by weights pre-trained on ImageNet and never be used for the ReID task, a large learning rate may be inappropriate. The proposed fine-to-coarse then coarse-to-fine learning rate schedule can help set up a better initialization status and thus result in a better performance. The proposed warming-up strategy is not limited to the ReID task, and it may be applied to other areas to obtain a better optimizing result.
### Ratio of Dropout.
We try three different ratios of dropout, and a network without dropout. Results are shown in Table. \[table:dropout\]. We can see that the networks with no dropout(when the ratio is 0) or with too much dropout are inferior to the network with a modest dropout ratio of 0.25. In the following experiments, we will fix the dropout ratio to 0.25.
ratio Market-1501 DukeMTMC-reID CUHK03 CUHK-SYSU
------- ------------- --------------- -------- -----------
0 93.1 82.2 92.5 94.6
0.25 92.8 83.5 93.2 94.8
0.5 93.1 81.9 92.8 94.3
0.75 91.3 80.5 1.5 93.5
: The influence of dropout ratio.[]{data-label="table:dropout"}
### Influence of the Bias Term.
In the last fully connected layer, the bias term $b$ can be set to 0 or learned automatically. We train two networks with and without the automatically learned bias term. Results are shown in Table. \[table:bias\]. We can see that the network with the bias term automatically learned performs slightly better than the network without the bias term.
From now on, we will refer this best network setting with a bias term as SphereReID network.
Market-1501 DukeMTMC-reID CUHK03 CUHK-SYSU
---------- ------------- --------------- -------- -----------
w/ bias 93.7 83.9 92.6 94.9
w/o bias 92.8 83.5 93.2 94.8
: The influence of bias term in the last fully connected layer.[]{data-label="table:bias"}
### Test Image Size.
In the training phase, we resize the image to $288\times144$, then randomly crop it to $256\times128$. In the testing phase, results of different image sizes are shown in Table. \[table:size\]. We can see that with larger input size, the performance is better on Market-1501, CUHK03, and CUHK-SYSU, and is worse on DukeMTMC-reID. After examining images from the four datasets, we find that images from DukeMTMC-reID have a larger border background area. Thus, we use $256\times128$ test size for DukeMTMC-reID and $288\times144$ for the others.
Market-1501 DukeMTMC-reID CUHK03 CUHK-SYSU
---------------- ------------- --------------- ---------- -----------
$256\times128$ 93.7 **83.9** 92.6 94.9
$288\times144$ **94.4** 82.7 **93.1** **95.4**
: The influence of test image size. Images are resized to $288\times144$ with and without center crop of $256\times128$.[]{data-label="table:size"}
Comparison with the State of the Art
------------------------------------
We compare SphereReID with the state of the art. As shown in Table. \[table:market\], Table. \[table:cuhk-sysu\], and Table. \[table:cuhk03\], our single mode consistently outperforms the state of the art in terms of both accuracy and mAP, and it achieves 94.4% rank-1 accuracy on Market-1501. It is necessary to point out that no extra attributes, skeleton datasets, or models are used in our SphereReID network.
On DukeMTMC-reID, as shown in Table. \[table:duke\], PCB+RPP [@Refined_2017] obtains competitive results, but it is trained by a three stage process with fine-tuning. However, the proposed SphereReID is trained end-to-end without fine-tuning and is clearly better than PCB+RPP on Market-1501. Furthermore, SphereReID achieves all the results with a feature size of 1,024, while PCB+RPP uses a feature size of 12,288, which proves that our SphereReID features mapped onto a hypersphere manifold are more discriminative.
method rank-1 rank-5 rank-10 mAP
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Spindle [@Spindle_2017] 76.9 91.5 94.6 -
SVDNet [@SVDNet] 82.3 92.3 95.2 62.1
PDC [@PoseDriven_2017] 84.1 92.7 94.9 63.4
Mutual [@Mutual] 87.7 - - 68.8
PSE [@Re_Ranking_2] 87.7 94.5 96.8 69.0
PartLoss [@PartLoss_2017] 88.2 - - 69.3
DPFL [@DPFL] 88.9 - - 72.6
CamStyle [@CamStyle] 89.5 - - 71.6
GLAD [@GLAD_2017] 89.9 - - 73.9
HA-CNN [@HA-CNN] 91.2 - - 75.7
Deep-Person [@DeepPerson_2017] 92.3 - - 79.6
PCB+RPP [@Refined_2017] 93.8 97.5 98.5 81.6
SphereReID **94.4** **98.0** **98.7** **83.6**
: Comparison with the State of the Art on Market-1501[]{data-label="table:market"}
method rank-1 rank-5 rank-10 mAP
------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
deep [@CUHK_SYSU] 62.7 - - 55.7
DLDP [@DLDP] 76.7 - - 74.0
NPSM [@NPSM] 81.2 - - 77.9
SphereReID **95.4** **98.6** **98.9** **93.9**
: Comparison with the State of the Art on CUHK-SYSU[]{data-label="table:cuhk-sysu"}
method rank-1 rank-5 rank-10 mAP
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
SVDNet [@SVDNet] 76.7 86.4 89.9 56.8
HA-CNN [@HA-CNN] 78.3 - - 57.6
DPFL [@DPFL] 79.2 - - 60.6
PSE [@Re_Ranking_2] 79.8 89.7 92.2 62.0
HA-CNN [@HA-CNN] 80.5 - - 63.8
Deep-Person [@DeepPerson_2017] 80.9 - - 64.8
PCB+RPP [@Refined_2017] 83.3 90.5 **92.5** **69.2**
SphereReID **83.9** **90.6** 92.4 68.5
: Comparison with the State of the Art on DukeMTMC-reID[]{data-label="table:duke"}
method rank-1 rank-5 rank-10
-------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
PartLoss [@PartLoss_2017] 82.8 96.6 98.6
GLAD [@GLAD_2017] 85.0 97.9 99.1
DPFL [@DPFL] 86.7 - -
Spindle [@Spindle_2017] 88.5 97.8 98.6
PDC [@PoseDriven_2017] 88.7 98.6 99.2
Deep-Person [@DeepPerson_2017] 91.5 **99.0** **99.5**
SphereReID **93.1** 98.7 99.4
: Comparison with the State of the Art on CUHK03[]{data-label="table:cuhk03"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we introduce a modified softmax loss function called Sphere Loss with weight normalization and feature normalization. We also propose a CNN network adopting Sphere Loss called SphereReID which can learn the feature embedding on a hypersphere manifold. We train the SphereReID end-to-end with the balanced sampling strategy and warming-up strategy and our single model outperforms the state of the art on all four datasets without re-ranking or fine-tuning.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first network to learn a deep hypersphere manifold embedding for person re-identification, and the proposed SphereReID network demonstrates the effectiveness of this concept. We have provided a new idea for ReID and there are more further improvements can be explored by the person re-identification community, for example, the addition of a margin term to increase inter-class variation and reduce intra-class variation.
And the proposed warming-up strategy can further boost the performance of deep neural network without extra computing overhead. It’s very simple to implement and can be easily introduced into the training process. In this paper, we focus on SphereReID for person re-identification task, but it can also be used in other tasks, which remains for the computer vison community to explorer in the further.
Acknowledgement
===============
Our work was supported by the Public Projects of Zhejiang Province, China (No. LGF18F030002) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61633019).
[^1]: Corresponding author, Email address: jiangwei\[email protected] (Wei Jiang)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Erdös and Zaremba showed that $ \limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\Phi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2}=e^\g$, $\g$ being Euler’s constant, where $\Phi(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$. We extend this result to the function $\Psi(n)= \sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d}$ and some other functions. We show that $ \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,=\, e^\g$. The proof requires to develop a new approach. As an application, we prove that for any $\eta>1$, any finite sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, $\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \, \frac{\gcd(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell} \le C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K} c_\nu^2(\log\log\log \nu)^\eta \Psi(\nu)
$, where $C(\eta)$ depends on $\eta$ only. This improves a recent result obtained by the author.
address: 'IRMA, UMR 7501, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France.'
author:
- 'Michel J.G. WEBER'
title: An extension of a result of Erdős and Zaremba
---
**Introduction.** {#s1}
=================
Erdös and Zaremba showed in [@EZ] the following result concerning the arithmetical function $\Phi(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$, $$\label{EZ1}\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\Phi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2}=e^\g,$$ where $\g $ is Euler’s constant. This function appears in the study of good lattice points in numerical integration, see Zaremba [@Z]. The proof is based on the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{formule}\Phi(n)
=\sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{\nu_i=1}^{\a_i}\frac{\log p_i^{\nu_i}}{p_i^{\nu_i}}\sum_{\d|n p_i^{-\a_i}}\frac{1}{\d} , \qq\qq ( n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}),\end{aligned}$$ which follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{base} \sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}&=& \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i\log p_i\Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Let $h(n)$ be non-decreasing on integers, $h(n)= o(\log n)$, and consider the slightly larger function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi}\Phi_h(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )\,h(d)}{d^{}}.\end{aligned}$$
In this case a formula similar to no longer hold, the “log-linearity” being lost due to the extra factor $h(n)$. The study of this function requires to devise a new approach. We study in this work the case $h(n)= \log\log n$, that is the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi}\Psi (n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d^{}}.\end{aligned}$$ We extend Erdős-Zaremba’s result for this function, as well as for the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&=&\sum_{
p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p^{\m_{r}}_{r}|n}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i(\log p_i)(\log\log p_i)}{p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p^{\m_{r}}_{r}}
\cr \Phi_2(n)&=&\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)
\log\, \O(d) }{d},
%\cr \Phi_\eta(n)&=&\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)^\eta }{d},\end{aligned}$$ where $\O(d)$ denotes as usual the number of powers of primes dividing $d$. These functions are linked to $\Psi$. 2 pt Throughout, $\log\log x$ (resp. $\log \log\log x$) equals $1$ if $0\le x \le e^{e}$ (resp. $0\le x \le e^{e^e}$), and equals $\log\log x$ (resp. $\log \log\log x$) in the usual sense if $x> e^{e}$ (resp. $x> e^{e^e}$).
One verifies by using standard arguments that $$\label{phipsi} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g, \qq
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g,$$ and in fact that $$\label{Phi1est} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,= \,e^\g .$$
2 pt By the observation made after , the corresponding extension of this result to $\Psi(n)$ is technically more delicate. It follows from that $$\label{trois} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^3}\, \le \, e^\g.$$ The question thus arises whether the exponent of $\log\log n$ in can be replaced by $2+\e$, with $\e>0$ small.
2 pt We answer this question affirmatively by establishing the following precise result, which is the main result of this paper.
\[t1\] $$\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\, =\, e^\g.$$
An application of this result is given in Section \[s6\]. The upper bound is obtained, via the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec} \Psi(n)\ \le \ \Phi_1(n) + \Phi_2(n),\end{aligned}$$ as a combination of an estimate of $\Phi_1(n)$ and the following estimate of $\Phi_2(n)$. Recall that Davenport’s function $w(n)$ is defined by $w(n)=\sum_{p|n}\frac{\log p}{p}$. According to Theorem 4 in [@D] we have, $$\label{wdavenport}\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{w(n)}{\log\log n}=1.$$
\[t2\]For all even numbers $n$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n)\, \le \, C\, (\log\log\log \o(n))(\log \o(n))w(n)
.\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is an absolute constant.
Here and elsewhere $C$ (resp. $C(\eta)$) denotes some positive absolute constant (resp. some positive constant depending only of a parameter $\eta$). 2 pt The approach used for proving Theorem \[t2\] can be adapted with no difficulty to other arithmetical functions of similar type. 4 pt The paper is organized as follows. Sections \[s4\] and \[s5\] form the main part of the paper, and consist with the proof of Theorem \[t2\], which is long and technical and involves the building of a binary tree (subsection \[subsection4.2.1\]). The proof of Theorem \[t1\] is given in section \[s5\]. Section \[s2\] contains complementary results and the proofs of , . Section \[s6\] concerns the afore mentioned application of Theorem \[t1\]. Additional remarks or results are concluding the paper in Section \[s7\].
2 pt -3 pt
**Proof of Theorem \[t2\].** {#s4}
============================
We use a chaining argument. We make throughout the convention $0\log 0=0$. 6 pt Let $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$ be an even number. We will use repeatedly the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{min}\min_{i=1}^r p_i\ge 3.\end{aligned}$$ 10 pt
We note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{basic}
\Phi_2(n)&=&\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big)
\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\underbrace{\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}}_{\hbox{\small the sum relatively}\atop\hbox{\small to $ \m_i$ is excluded}} \underbrace{\frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}}_{\hbox{\small $ p_i^{\m_i}$}\atop\hbox{\small is excluded}}\ \Big(\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big)
.\end{aligned}$$
As there is no order relation on the sequence $p_1, \ldots, p_r$, it suffices to study the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi_2(r,n)}
\Phi_2(r,n)&:=& \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}\frac{\m_r \log p_r}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The sub-sums in will be estimated by using a recursion argument.
Preparation
-----------
Some technical lemmas are preliminary needed.
\[phivar\] [(i)]{} Let $\p_1(x)=x\big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$, $\p_2(x)=\big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. Then $\p_1(x)$ is non-increasing on $[3, \infty)$ if $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge \log 2$. Further, $\p_2(x)$ is non-increasing on $[1,\infty)$, if $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge 1$.
3 pt Assume that $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge \log 2$. For any integer $m\ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi.intest1}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+m)}e^{-\a m}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-\a m} + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m}
\cr & & + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$
3 pt Assume that $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intest2}
\int_1^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&\le &\frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} e^{-\a}+\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}.
\end{aligned}$$
\(i) We have $\p_1'(x) = \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}+ \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}
-\a x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. By assumption and since $\p_1'(x)\le 0 \Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{x}+ \frac{1}{(A+x)\log (A+x)}\le \a$, we get $$\frac{1}{x}+ \frac{1}{(A+x)\log (A+x)}\le\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{8\log 2} \le \frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}<\log 2\le \a.$$ Similarly $ \p_2'(x)=\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}-\a \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. As $\p_2'(x)\le 0 \Leftrightarrow (A+x)\log (A+x)\ge \frac{1}{\a}$, we also get $$(A+x)\log (A+x)\ge 2\log 2>1\ge \frac{1}{\a}.$$
\(ii) We deduce from (i) that $$\label{49} \a x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}= \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}+ \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}-\big( x (\log A+x) e^{-\a x}\big)' .$$ By integrating, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1int}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&=& \int_m^\infty x\big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \int_m^\infty \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x
\cr & & \quad + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly $$\a \int_m^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x=\int_m^\infty
\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \big(\log (A+m)\big) e^{-\a m}.$$ By combining we get, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{int1}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&=& \frac{1}{\a}\int_m^\infty\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \int_m^\infty \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x
\cr & & + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m} + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore,$$\begin{aligned}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+m)}e^{-\a m}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-\a m} + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m}
\cr & & + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$
\(iii) We deduce from (i) that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_1^N \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&=&\frac{1}{\a}\int_1^N\frac{1}{(A+x)}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\cr & & \qq -\frac{1}{\a}\Big(\big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a}-\log (A+N)\big) e^{-\a N}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ As $\frac{1}{\a}\int_1^N\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\le
\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}$, letting $N$ tend to infinity gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_1^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&\le &\frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} e^{-\a}+\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}.\end{aligned}$$
\[E1\] Assume that $A\ge 1$, and $\a \ge 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}\ \le \ \a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a}
\cr & &\qq\qq + \Big\{3\a \log (A+3)+3 \log (A+3)+ \frac{1}{\a} \log (A+3) + \frac{1}{\a}
+ \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}\Big\} e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$
As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}&=&\a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a} \cr & & + 3\a \big(\log (A+3)\big)e^{-3\a}+ \a\sum_{\m=4}^\infty \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}.\end{aligned}$$ by applying Lemma \[phivar\]-(ii), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\a\sum_{\m=4}^\infty \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}&\le &\a\int_{3}^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x} \hbox{\rm d} x
\cr &\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}e^{-3\a}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-3\a } + \frac{\log (A+3)}{\a}e^{-3\a}
+ 3(\log A+3) e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{Est1}
& & \sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}\ \le \ \a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a}
\cr & & + \Big\{3\a \log (A+3)+3 \log (A+3)+ \frac{1}{\a} \log (A+3) + \frac{1}{\a}
+ \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}\Big\} e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$
\[E3a\] Under assumption we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i +h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}&\le &
\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big) + \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big)
\cr & &\quad +\frac{1}{(1+(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + 2))(\log p_s)^2p_s}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i +h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}} &\le &
\Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}} +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2}\big) \Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+2\big).\end{aligned}$$
As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} &=& \log A + \big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a }+ \sum_{\m=2}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m}
\cr &\le & \log A + \big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a }+ \int_{1}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\end{aligned}$$ we deduce from Lemma \[phivar\]-(iii), $$\label{sumphi2}\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} \ \le \ \log A + e^{-\a}\Big(\log (A+1)+ \frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} + \frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}\Big) .$$
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}&\le &
\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big)+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big)\cr & &\quad +\frac{1}{(1+(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + 2))(\log p_s)^2p_s}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}
%&\le &
% \Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\big)\Big)\log
%\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big) +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2p_s} \cr
&\le &
\Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\big) +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+2\big) .\end{aligned}$$
\[E2\] Assume that condition is satisfied. 3 pt [(i)]{} If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i\ge 1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }&\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) \le \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1\big)+ \frac{2\log p_r}{p_r^2} \log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 2\big) \cr &+ \frac{1}{p_r^3} \Big(3\log p_r + 3+ \frac{1}{\log p_r} \Big)\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big) + \frac{1}{p_r^3\log p_r}\Big(
1+ \frac{1}{(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3)\log p_r}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)& \le & 5\ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big).\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt [(ii)]{} If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i=0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) &\le & 18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} .\end{aligned}$$
\(i) The first inequality follows from Lemma \[E1\] with the choice $\a =\log p_r$, $A=\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i$, noting that by assumption , $\a >1$. As $p_r\ge 3$, it is also immediate that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}} \log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)
\cr &\ \le \Big\{3 \frac{\log p_r}{p_r} + \frac{\log p_r }{9p_r} \Big(3 + \frac{3}{\log p_r}+ \frac{1}{(\log p_r)^2} \Big)\Big\}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big) + \frac{1}{9p_r\log p_r}\Big(
1+ \frac{1}{4\log p_r}\Big)
\cr &\ \le \ 5\ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big).\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i=0$, the sums relatively to $\m_i$, $1\le i\le r-1$, do not contribute. Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)&=&\sum_{\m_r=2}^{\a_r}\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m_r}}\log \m_r\ =\ \sum_{\m=1}^{\a_r-1}\frac{(\m+1)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m+1}}\log (\m+1)
\cr &\le &\frac{1}{p_{r}}\Big\{\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\m\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)+\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)\Big\} .\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[E1\] applied with $A=1$ and $\a =\log p_{r}$ provides the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\m\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)
&\le &
\frac{(\log 2)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} + \frac{2(\log 3)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^2} + \frac{1}{p_{r}^3}\Big\{(6\log 2)(\log p_{r}) \cr & & +6 \log 2+ \frac{2\log 2}{(\log p_{r})} + \frac{1}{(\log p_{r})}
+ \frac{1}{4(\log p_{r})^2}\Big\}
\cr &\le & 8\Big(\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}+\frac{1}{p_{r}^3} \Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Next estimate applied with $A=1$ and $\a =\log p_{r}$, further gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1) &\le & \frac{1}{p_{r}}\Big(\log 2+ \frac{\log 2}{\log p_{r}} + \frac{1}{2(\log p_{r})^2}\Big) \ \le \ \frac{2}{p_{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $ \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) \le 18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} .$
As $\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big)\le \log
\big(\O(n)+3\big)$, one can deduce from Corollary \[E2\]-(ii) that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n)
%&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\log\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big)
%\cr&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}\log (\O(n)+3) \prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(\frac{1-p_i^{-\a_i-1}}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
%\cr
&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}\log (\O(n)+3) \prod_{i=1}^{r}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
.\end{aligned}$$ So that by the observation made at the beginning of section \[s4\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n)&\le &18\ \big(\log (\O(n)+3)\big)\Big( \sum_{j=1}^r\frac{\log p_{j}}{p_{j}}\Big) \prod_{i=1}^{r}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
.\end{aligned}$$ By combining this with the bound for $\Phi_1(n)$ established in Lemma \[phi1maj\], next using inequality , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec1} \Psi(n)\ \le\ \Big(\prod_{j=1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\bigg\{\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + 18\ \Big( \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_{i}}{p_{i}}\Big)\log (\O(n)+3) )\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ recalling that $r=\o(n)$. Whence by invoking Proposition \[tEZm\], noticing that $\o(n)\le\O(n)\le \log_{2} n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n)&\le & e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2\big(\log\log\log n+ 18 w( n)\big).\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt The finer estimate of $\Psi(n)$ will be derived from a more precise study of the coefficients of $\Psi(r,n)$. This is the object of the next sub-section.
Estimates of $\boldsymbol{ \Phi_2(r,n)}$.
-----------------------------------------
${}$ We define successively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n1}{}\begin{cases} \ \ \ \ \ \m=(\m_1, \ldots, \m_r), \qq (\m_1, \ldots, \m_r)\in \prod_{i=1}^r\big([0,\a_i]\cap \N\big),
% \cr\Sigma_\m(s,h) = \sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h,
\cr p_\m(s)=p_1^{-\m_1}\ldots p_s^{-\m_s}, \quad 1\le s\le r,\cr
\quad \Pi_s=\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_s=0}^{\a_s}p_\m(s)= \prod_{\ell = 1}^s\big(\frac{1-p_\ell^{-\a_\ell -1}}{1-p_\ell^{s -1}}\big) .
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Next, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_s(h)= \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_s=0}^{\a_s}p_\m(s) \log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big), \qq \quad 1\le s\le r-1.\end{aligned}$$
We also set
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{n5} \begin{cases}c_1=1, \qq c_2=\frac{2}{p_r},
\qq c_3=\frac{1}{p_r^2}\big(3 + \frac{3}{\log p_r}+ \frac{1}{(\log p_r)^2}\big), \cr c_4=\frac{1}{p_r^3\log p_r}\big(1 + \frac{1}{3\log p_r}\big)\cr
c_0= \frac{\log p_r}{ p_r}, \qq\qq\qq \ c=\sum_{i=1}^3 c_i,\cr b_s=\frac{1}{ p_s}\big( 1+ \frac{1}{ \log p_s}\big), \qq \ \b_s= \frac{1}{2 p_s (\log p_s)^2}. \qq\qq\qq\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
### Recurrence inequality. {#subsection4.2.1}
We deduce from the first part of Lemma \[E3a\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+ \frac{1}{2(\log p_s)^2p_s}\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence with the previous notation,
\[E3\] Under assumption , we have for $s=2,\ldots ,
r-1$,$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ b_s\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+\b_s\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$
The notation introduced also allows one to rewrite estimate (i) of Lemma \[E2\] in a more condensed form. Under assumption , if $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i\ge 1$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n) &\le & c_0 \underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h \Phi_{r-1}(h)}_{(1)} + c_4 \Pi_{r-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By applying twice the recurrence inequality, we also obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n) &\le & c_0 \underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h \big[\Phi_{r-3}(h)}_{(1)}+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-2}\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)}_{(3)}+c_0c b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-3}
\cr& &+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-1}\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)}_{(2)}+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-1}b_{r-2}\Phi_{r-3}(h+2)}_{(4)}+c_0cb_{r-1}\b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-3}
\cr& &+c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2}+ c_4 \Pi_{r-1}.\end{aligned}$$ One easily verifies (see expressions underlined by (1)) that the coefficient of $\Phi_{r-1}(h)$ is the same as the one of $\Phi_{r-2}(h)$ and $\Phi_{r-3}(h)$. So is also the case for $\Phi_{r-2}(h+1)$, see expressions underlined by (2). New expressions underlined by (3),(4) and linked to $\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)$, $\Phi_{r-3}(h+2)$ appear. 2 pt Each new coefficient is kept until the end of the iteration process generated by the recurrence inequality of Lemma \[E3\]. 2 pt We also verify, when applying this inequality, that we pass from a majoration expressed by $\Phi_{r-1}(h)$, $\Pi_{r-1}$, [ uniquely]{}, to a majoration expressed by $\Phi_{r-2}$ (in $h$ or $h+1$) and $\Pi_{r-2}$, $\Pi_{r-1}$ [uniquely]{}. 2 pt This rule is general, and one verifies that when iterating this recurrence relation, we obtain at each step a bound depending on $\Phi_{r-d}$ and the products $\Pi_{r-d}, \Pi_{r-d+1},\ldots,$ $ \Pi_{r-1}$ only. 4 pt $\underline{\hbox{\cmssqi Binary tree}}$: The shift of length $h$ or $h+1$ generates a binary tree whose branches are at each division (steps corresponding to the preceding iterations), either stationnary: $\Phi_{r-d}(h)\to \Phi_{r-d-1}(h)$, or creating new coefficients: $\Phi_{r-d}(h)\to \Phi_{r-d-1}(h+1)$. One can represent this by the diagram below drawn from Lemma \[E3\]. 5 pt
${}_\downarrow$ ${}_\downarrow$+52 pt
-15 pt $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ b_s\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+\b_s\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$
${}^\uparrow$ ${}^\uparrow$ +120 pt
6 pt
Before continuing, we recall that by , $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\a_s} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} &\le & \log A + e^{-\a}\Big(\log (A+1)+ \frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} + \frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}\Big) .\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(v)&\le & \sum_{\m_1=0}^\infty p_\m(1)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^v\m_i+1\Big)
%L_\m(1,v)
\ =\ \sum_{\m_1=0}^\infty \frac{\log (v+\m)}{p_1^\m}
\cr &\le & \log v + \frac{1}{p_1}\Big( \log (v+1) +\frac{\log (v+1)}{\log p_1}+ \frac{1}{v(\log p_1)^2}\Big) \qq (v\ge 1).\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(h) &\le & C\log h.\end{aligned}$$ One easily verifies that the $d$-tuples formed with the $b_i$ have all $\Phi_{r-x}(h+d)$ as factor. The terms having $\Phi_{r-\cdot}(h+\cdot)$ as factor are forming the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{somme} c_0\, \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big) \Phi_1(h+d),\end{aligned}$$ once the iteration process achieved, that is after having applied $(r-1)$ times the recurrence inequality of Lemma \[E3\].
This sums can thus be bounded from above by (recalling that $h=1,2$ or $3$) $$\begin{aligned}
c_0\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
. \end{aligned}$$ But, for all positive integers $a_{ 1},\ldots, a_{r}$ and $1\le d\le r$, we have, $$\Big(\sum_{i=1}^r a_i\Big)^d\ge d!
\sum_{ 1\le i_1<\ldots<i_d\le r } a_{i_1}\ldots a_{i_d}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
&\le & \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, \Big( \sum_{i=1}^r b_{i}\Big)^d
. \end{aligned}$$ As moreover, $$b_{i}=\frac{1}{p_{i}}\big(1 + \frac{1}{\log p_{i+1}}\big)\le \frac{1}{p(i)} + \frac{1}{p(i)\log p(i)},$$ one has by means of , $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^r b_{i}&\le & \sum_{i=1}^r\big(\frac{1}{i \log i} + \frac{1}{i (\log i)^2}\big)
\ \le \ \log\log r +C. \end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
&\le & C \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, (\log\log r +C)^d
%\cr &\le & C \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,e^{-d(\log d-1 - \log\log\log r)}
. \end{aligned}$$ On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\log d\le 1+\e +\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\,(\log\log r +C)^d&\le & \big(1+\e +\log\log\log r\big) \sum_{d>1}\frac{(\log\log r +C)^{d}}{d!}
\cr &\le &C \big(1+\e +\log\log\log r\big) \log r.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other, utilizing the classical estimate $d\,!\ge C \sqrt d \,d^d\,e^{-d}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\log d> 1+\e+\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, (\log\log r)^d&\le &\sum_{\log d> 1+\e+\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,e^{-d(\log d-1 - \log\log\log r)}
\cr &\le & \sum_{d>1}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,\,e^{-\e d}<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ One thus deduces, concerning the sum in that, $$\label{somme1} c_0\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big) \Phi_1(h+d)\ \le \ C\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\big(1+\log\log\log r\big)\log r;$$ 4 pt
Coefficients related to $ \Pi_s$.
-----------------------------------
3 pt By applying the recurrence inequality (Lemma \[E3\]), one successively generates $$\begin{aligned}
c_4\Pi_{r-1} \quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\cr
c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2}\quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\quad\ \
\cr c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2} + c_0c\b_{r-2}\big(1 + b_{r-1}b_{r-2} \big)\Pi_{r-3}\quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\quad\ \,
\cr c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2} + c_0c\b_{r-2}\big(1 + b_{r-1}b_{r-2} \big)\Pi_{r-3} +c_0c\b_{r-3}\big( 1+ b_{r-2} + b_{r-1}+ + b_{r-1} b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-4}. \end{aligned}$$ $\underline{\hbox{\cmssqi Coefficients}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\qq\qq \Pi_{r-1}: c_4\qq\qq \qq\qq \, \Pi_{r-2}: c_0c\b_{r-1} \qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\cr
\Pi_{r-3}: c_0c\b_{r-2}(1+ b_{r-1})\qq \Pi_{r-4}: c_0c\b_{r-3}(1+ b_{r-2}+b_{r-1}+b_{r-1}b_{r-2}).\qq\qq \end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that the coefficients $\Pi_{r-x}$ are exactly those of $\Phi_{r-x+1}(.)$ affected with the factor $c_0c\b_{r-x+1}$. The products form the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumpi} c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By , one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}\b_j= \frac{1}{2 p_j (\log p_j)^2}\le \frac{1}{2 p(j) (\log p(j))^2}\le \frac{1}{2j (\log j)^3},\qq \hbox{si $j\ge 2$,}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, and imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_j= \prod_{\ell =1}^j \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p_\ell}} \Big)&\le &\prod_{\ell =1}^j \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p(\ell)}} \Big)\ \le \ \prod _{p\le j(\log j +\log\log j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1- \frac{1}{p}}\Big)
\cr &\le & C (\log j) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We now note that by definition of $\Pi_j$, we also have $$\Pi_j\le \max_{\ell \le 5}\prod_{p\le p(\ell)} \frac{1}{1 -\frac{1}{p}}= C_0.$$ We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Piest}\Pi_j &\le &C( \log j) ,\qq\qq \hbox{if $j\ge 2$.}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, and imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betapi}\b_{j+1}\Pi_j &\le & \frac{C}{j (\log j)^2} ,\qq\qq \hbox{if $j\ge 2$.}\end{aligned}$$
It is resulting from it that the sum in can be bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estsumpi}
& & c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}
\cr &\le &c_0c \prod _{i=1}^{r-2}\big( 1+b_{r-i}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\, \Pi_{r-d-1}
\ =\ c_0c \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\, \Pi_{r-d-1}
\cr &\le &c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\frac{1}{(r-d)\big(\log (r-d)\big)^2}
\cr &\le &c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{\d=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\d (\log \d)^2}
\cr &\le & c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big). \end{aligned}$$ We recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p\le x }\frac{1}{p}\le \log\log x +C.
\end{aligned}$$ See for instance [@RS], inequality (3.20). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1plusbi} \prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+b_i\big)&\le & C\, \log r.\end{aligned}$$ Now estimate implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estsumpi2}
c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}&\le & c_0c\, C \log r
\cr &\le & C\, \frac{ \log p_r}{p_r} \log r.\end{aligned}$$ We thus deduce from and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estS2}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\le & C\,\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\big(1+\log\log\log r\big)\log r + C\, \frac{ \log p_r}{p_r} \log r
\cr &\le & C\,\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}(\log r)(\log\log\log r) \, .\end{aligned}$$
As a result, by taking account of the observation made at the beginning of section \[s4\], we obtain $$\label{estS2}
\Phi_2(n) \le C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \log p_i}{p_i}\ =\ C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)w(n)
%\cr &\le & C\, \frac{ \log r}{r\log r} \big( \log r ) \ \hbox{[\ rajout}\ = C\, \frac{ \log r}{r}\ ]
\, .$$ 3 pt By combining with the upper estimate $\Phi_1(n)$ established at Lemma \[phi1maj\] and using inequality , we arrive to $$\label{convexdec1} \Psi(n)\le \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)w(n)
,$$ recalling that $p_j\ge 3$ by assumption .
**Proof of Theorem \[t1\].** {#s5}
============================
First we prove inequality . We recall the convention $0\log 0=0$. Inequality is an immediate consequence of the following convexity lemma.
\[lconvexe\] For any integers $\mu_i\ge 0$, $p_j\ge 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\big(\m_i\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big)&\le & \sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)
\cr & &\qq +\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big) .\end{aligned}$$
We may restrict to the case $\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\ge 1$, since otherwise the inequality is trivial. Let $M=\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i$ and write that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big)
%&= & M\ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{M} \log p_i\Big\}\,.\,M\Big)\cr
&= & M\bigg\{ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{M} \log p_i\Big\} \cr & & \quad +\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big)(\log M) \bigg\} .\end{aligned}$$ By using convexity of $\psi(x)=x\log x$ on $\R_+$, we get $$\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i} \log p_i\Big\}\le \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i}\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log \log p_i\big).$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\big(\m_i\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big) \le \sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big) .\end{aligned}$$
The odd case (i.e. condition is satisfied) is obtained by combining with Corollary \[ests1\] and utilizing inequality . Since $r\le \log n$, by taking account of estimate of $w(n)$ given in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec2} \Psi(n)&\le& e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n) + C\, (\log\log\log\log n)(\log\log n)^2
\cr &= & e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n).
\end{aligned}$$ 5 pt To pass from the odd case to the general case is not easy. This step will necessitate an extra analysis of some other properties of $\Psi(n)$. 3 pt We first exclude the trivial case when $n$ is a pure power of $2$, since $\Psi(2^k) \le C$ uniformly over $k$, and $C$ is a finite constant. 3 pt Now if $2$ divides $n$, writing $n=2^vm$, $2 \not| m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n)&=&\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d}\ =\ \sum_{k=0}^v\sum_{\d| m}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}.
.\end{aligned}$$ As the function $x\mapsto \frac{(\log x )(\log\log x)}{x}$ decreases on $[x_0,\infty)$ for some positive real $x_0$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\sum_{k=0}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \sum_{k=k_0+1}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \int_{2^{k_0}\d}^{\infty} \frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u^2}\dd u,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_0$ is depending on $x_0$ only. Moreover $$\Big(\frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u}\Big)'\ge - \frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u^2}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sum_{k=0}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \frac{(\log (2^{k_0}\d) )(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d))}{2^{k_0}\d},\end{aligned}$$ whence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psik_0}\Psi(n)
&\le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $m=p_1^{b_1}\ldots p_{\m}^{b_{\m}}$. We have by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(m)&\le& \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^{\m} \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^{\m} \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le& \Big(\prod_{j =2 }^\m \frac{1}{1-p(j)^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &=& \frac12\, \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^\m \frac{1}{1-p(j)^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \m + \mathcal O(1) \big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m),\end{aligned}$$ by using Mertens’ estimate and since $p(\m)\sim \m\log \m$. Furthermore by using estimate , and since $2^\m\le m$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi(m)est} \Psi(m)
&\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \m + \mathcal O(1) \big)(1+\e)(\log \m)(\log\log \m) + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \frac{\log m}{\log2} + \mathcal O(1) \big)(1+\e)(\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(\log\log \frac{\log m}{\log2}) \cr & &
+ C\, (\log\log\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(1+o(1))\log\log m
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\,(1+2\e) (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m),\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large.
Now let $\psi(2^km)=\sum_{\d|m} \frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}$, $1\le k\le k_0$. If $n$ is not a pure power of $2$, then its odd component $m$ tends to infinity with $n$. Thus with , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase} \frac{\Psi(n)}{\big(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}}{ (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
.\end{aligned}$$ But $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencasea}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}&=&\frac{(k(\log 2) )(\log\log (2^k\d))+ (\log \d)(\log\log (2^k\d) }{\d}
\cr &\le &k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log\big(k_0(\log 2)+\log\d\big)}{\d}+ \frac{(\log \d)(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d) }{\d}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we have the inequality: $\log \log (a+x)\le \log (b\log x)$ where $b\ge (a+e)$ and $a\ge 1$, which is valid for $x\ge e$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencaseb}\log\big(k_0(\log 2)+\log\d\big)\le \log (k_0\log 2+ e)+\log \log \d. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase1}
& & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log (k_0(\log 2)+\log\d )}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2)\frac{\log (k_0\log 2+ e)}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & & \quad + \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log\log\d}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr&\le &2k_0(\log 2)\big(\log (k_0\log 2+ e)\big) \frac{\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & & \quad + \frac{2k_0(\log 2)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{\log\log\d}{\d}
\cr&\le &C(k_0)\Big\{\frac{1}{\log \log m(\log\log\log m)}
+ \frac{\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)(\log\log\log m)}\Big\}
\cr&\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m} \quad \to \ 0\quad \hbox{ as $m$ tends to infinity}.\end{aligned}$$ Further $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase2}\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\frac{\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d)(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d) }{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
& \le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d)( \log (k_0\log 2+ e)+\log \log \d) }{\d(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{\log (k_0\log 2+ e)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}\,\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d) }{\d}
\cr & &\quad+2\,\frac{\Psi(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{2\log (k_0\log 2+ e)\,\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & &\quad+2\,\frac{\Psi(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m}
+2\,\frac{ e^{\g}}2 \,(1+2\e)\,\frac{ (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m}
+ e^{\g} \,(1+2\e)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large, where we used estimate . Plugging estimates and into finally leads, in view of , to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencasef} \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le& \frac{C}{\log\log\log m}
+ e^{\g} \,(1+2\e)\,\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large, where $C$ depends on $k_0$ only. As $\e$ can be arbitrary small, we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evencasef} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le& e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes Theorem \[t1\].
**Complementary results.** {#s2}
==========================
In this section we prove complementary estimates $\Phi_1$, $\Phi_2$ and $\Psi$, notably estimates and
Upper estimates.
----------------
\[phi1maj\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le&\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi1formula} \Phi_1(n)&\le&\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\underbrace{\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}}_{\hbox{\small the sum relatively}\atop\hbox{\small to $ \m_i$ is excluded}} \underbrace{\frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}}_{\hbox{\small $ p_i^{\m_i}$}\atop\hbox{\small is excluded}}\ \Big(\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big] .\end{aligned}$$
Now as $$\sum_{\m=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m}{p_i^\m}\le\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{j}{p_i^j} =\frac{1}{(p_i-1)(1-p_i^{-1})},$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le &\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}}\Big)\,.\,\frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{(p_i-1)(1-p_i^{-1})} \cr
&\le &\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}.\end{aligned}$$
\[ests1\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n)} &\le & e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $p(j)$ denote the $j$-th consecutive prime number, and recall that ([@RS (3.12-13)], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p(i)est}
p(i) &\ge& \max(i \log i, 2), \qq\quad\ \ i\ge 1,
\cr p(i)&\le& i(\log i + \log\log i ), \qq \ \! i\ge 6.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\e>0$ and an integer $r_0\ge 4$. If $r\le r_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr1}
\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le &\d\,r_0, \qq \qq \d= \sup_{p\ge 3}\frac{(\log p)\big(\log\log p\big)}{p-1}<\infty\,.\end{aligned}$$ If $r>r_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le & \Big(\max_{i>r_0}\frac{p(i)}{p(i)-1}\Big)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)}
\cr &\le & \Big(\max_{i>r_0}\frac{p(i)}{p(i)-1}\Big)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log (i\log i))\big(\log\log (i\log i)\big)}{i\log i}\end{aligned}$$ We choose $r_0=r_0(\e)$ so that $\log r_0 \ge 1/\e$ and the preceding expression is bounded from above by $$(1+\e)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{\log\log i}{i}$$ We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr2}
%& &
\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
%\ \le \ (1+\e)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \int_{i-1}^i\frac{\log\log t}{t}\dd t
%\cr
&\le &(1+\e)\int_{r_0}^r\frac{\log\log t}{t}\dd t
% \ =\ (1+\e)\Big\{(\log t)(\log\log t)\Big|_{r_0}^r-\int_{r_0}^r\frac{ \dd t}{t} \Big\}
\cr &\le & (1+\e)(\log r)(\log\log r).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, for some $r(\e)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr}
\sum_{i= 1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le & (1+\e)(\log r)(\log\log r), \qq r\ge r(\e).\end{aligned}$$ By using Mertens’ estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prod}\prod_{p\le x}\Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p}}\Big)=e^{\g}\log x + \mathcal O(1)\qq \quad x\ge 2,\end{aligned}$$ we further have $$\label{p(i)estappl}
\prod_{\ell =1}^r \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p_\ell}} \Big)\,\le\, \prod_{\ell =1}^r \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p(\ell)}} \Big) \le \prod _{p\le r(\log r +\log\log r)}\Big(\frac{1}{1- \frac{1}{p}}\Big)
\,\le \, e^{\g} (\log r) + C\, ,$$ if $r\ge 6$, and so for any $r\ge 1$, modifying $C$ if necessary. As $r=\o(n)$ and $2^{\o(n)}\le n$, we consequently have, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)
%&\le & e^{\g}(1+\e) \big((\log r) + C\big)(\log r) (\log\log r)
%\cr &\le & e^{\g}(1+\e) (1+ C\e)(\log r)^2 (\log\log r)
%\cr
&\le & e^{\g}(1+ C\e)^2 (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n),\end{aligned}$$ si $r>r_0$. If $r\le r_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le & \d e^{\g}(1+\e) \big((\log r_0) + C\big):=C(\e).\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\le & e^{\g}(1+\e)^2 (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n)+ C(\e).\end{aligned}$$ As $\e$ can be arbitrary small, the result follows.
The following lemma is nothing but the upper bound part of . We omit the proof.
\[tEZm\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d} &\le &\prod_{p|n}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p^{-1}}\Big) \ \sum_{p|n}\frac{\log p}{p-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{1}{ (\log\log n)(\log \o(n))}\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d} &\le & e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$
**Lower estimates.** {#s3}
--------------------
We recall that the smallest prime divisor of an integer $n$ is noted by $P^-(n)$.
\[phi1min\] Let $n=p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, $r\ge 1$, $\a_i\ge1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\ge & \Big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\Big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]\end{aligned}$$
By , $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &=&\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big]
\cr &\ge &\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[ \frac{\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]
%\cr &= & \prod_{j =1}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{(1-p_i^{ -1})\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{(1-p_i^{ -1})\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\ge & \Big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\Big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big].\end{aligned}$$
We easily deduce from Lemma \[phi1maj\] and Lemma \[phi1min\] the following corollary.
\[phi1est\] Let $n=p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, $r\ge 1$, $\a_i\ge1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big) \ \le \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ (\log p_i)(\log\log p_i)}{p_i}}\ \le 2\, \prod_{j =1}^r\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big).\end{aligned}$$
\[tEZ\] We have the following estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{$\rm a)$}& & \limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{1}{ (\log\log n)} \sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d)}{d }\ \ge \ e^{\g}
\cr \hbox{$\rm b)$} & &\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g,
\cr \hbox{$\rm c)$} & &\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g.\end{aligned}$$
Case a) is Erdős-Zaremba’s lower bound of function $\Phi(n)$. Since it is used in the proof of b) and c), we provide a detailed proof for the sake of completion. 3 pt a) Let $n_j=\prod_{p<e^j}p^j$. Recall that $p(i) \ge \max(i \log i, 2)$ if $i\ge 1$. Let $r(j)$ be the integer defined by the condition $p(r(j))< e^j< p(r(j)+1)$.
By using and following Gronwall’s proof [@Gr], we have, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{d|n_j} \frac{\log d}{d} \ =\ \sum_{i=1}^{r(j)}\prod_{\ell=1\atop \ell\neq i}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1-p(\ell)^{-j-1}}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\Big[\sum_{\m=0}^{j}\frac{\m\log p(i)}{p(i)^\m}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} (1-p(i)^{-1})\frac{\log p(i)}{p(i)}\Big[1+ \frac{1}{p(i)}+\ldots +\frac{1}{p(i)^{j-1}}\Big]
\cr &= & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} \frac{\log p(i)}{p(i)}\big(1-p(i)^{-j}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\vartheta(x)=\sum_{p\le x}\log p$ is Chebycheff’s function and that $\vartheta(x)\ge(1-\e(x))x$, $x\ge 2$, where $\e(x)\to 0$ as $x$ tends to infinity. Thus, $\log n_j = j\vartheta(e^j)= je^j(1+ o(1))$, and thus $\log\log n_j
%= j+ \log j(1+ o(1))
= j(1+ o(1))$. 2 pt On the one hand, by , $$\label{prodnj}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\big(1-p(\ell)^{-1}\big)=
\prod_{p<e^j}\big(1-p^{-1}\big)=\frac{e^{-\g}}{j}\big(1+ \mathcal O(\frac{1}{j})\big).$$ And on the other, by Mertens’ estimate $$\label{sumnj}\sum_{p<e^j} \frac{\log p}{p}=j+\mathcal O(1)\ge (1+o(1)) \log \log n_j .$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lbeta1} \sum_{d|n_j} \frac{\log d}{d} &\ge & (1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^{2} \qq\qq j\to \infty\,\end{aligned}$$ since $\zeta(j+1)\to 1$ as $j\to \infty$.
3 pt b) Let $\s'_{1}(n)= \sum_{d|n\,,\, d\ge 3} 1/d$. Let also $X$ be a discrete random variable equal to $\log d$ if $d|n$ and $d\ge 3$, with probability $1/(d\s'_{-1}(n))$. By using convexity of the function $x\log x$ on $[1,\infty)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\E X\log X&=& \sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d\s'_{1}(n) }\ \ge\ (\E X)\log\,(\E X)
\cr &= & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{-1}(n) }\Big)\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{1}(n) }\Big)
\cr &\ge & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{-1}(n) }-C\Big)\Big(\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d }-C\Big)-\log \s_{-1}(n)\Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Whence$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d} &\ge & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d
}-C\s_{-1}(n)\Big)\Big(\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d }-C\Big)
\cr & & - \log \s_{-1}(n)\Big) \end{aligned}$$ Letting $n=n_j$, we deduce from that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n) &\ge &\sum_{d|n_j\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d} \ \ge \ \Big((1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^{2}
-C\log\log n_j\Big)
\cr & & \qq \times \Big(\log \big\{(1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^2-C\big\}
- \log C \log\log n_j\Big)
\cr & \ge &(1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^2\log\log\log n_j. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2\log\log\log n}%\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d}
& \ge &e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt c) We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n_j) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)}\prod_{\ell=1\atop \ell\neq i}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1-p(\ell)^{-j-1}}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\Big[\sum_{\m=0}^{j}\frac{\m
(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)^\m}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\cr & & \quad\times\ \sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} (1-p(i)^{-1})\frac{(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)}\Big[1+ \frac{1}{p(i)}+\ldots +\frac{1}{p(i)^{j-1}}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}(e^{\g}j)\big(1+ \mathcal O(\frac{1}{j})\big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} \frac{(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)}\big(1-p(i)^{-j}\big).\end{aligned}$$ by . Let $0<\e <1$. By using , we also have for all $j$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)(\log\log p)}{p} &\ge & \sum_{e^{\e j}\le p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)(\log\log p)}{p}
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))\big(\log(\e j)\big)\sum_{e^{\e j}\le p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)}{p}
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))(1-\e)j\big(\log(\e j)\big)\big(1+ \mathcal O({1}/{j})\big)
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))(1-\e)(\log \log n_j)\big(\log (\e \log \log n_j)\big).\end{aligned}$$ As $\log (\e \log \log n_j) \sim \log\log \log n_j$, $j\to \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{j\to \infty}\frac{\Phi_1(n_j)}{(\log \log n_j)^2(\log\log \log n_j)} &\ge & e^{\g}(1-\e).\end{aligned}$$ As $\e$ can be arbitrarily small, this proves (c).
\[Phi\_2(r,n)min\] We have the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n) &\ge & (\log 2)\,\Big(\frac{P^-(n)}{P^-(n)+1}\Big) \,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big).\end{aligned}$$
We observe from that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\ge & \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\log \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1\Big].\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that the above multiple sum can contribute (is not null) only if $\max_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i \ge 1$, in which case $\log\, [\,\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1]\ge \log 2$. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi2(r,n)min}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\ge & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,
\underbrace{
\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}}}_{\hbox{$\max_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i \ge 1$}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}
\cr &= & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,\prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(1+\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i}\frac{1}{ p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)
\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,\prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi2(rn)min}
\Phi_2(n) &\ge & (\log 2)\,\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big)\,\prod_{i=1\atop i\neq j}^{r}\Big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\Big)
%\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\,\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{ P^-(n)}}\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big)\,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)
\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\,\Big(\frac{P^-(n)}{P^-(n)+1}\Big) \,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big).\end{aligned}$$
**An application.** {#s6}
===================
We deduce from of Theorem \[t1\] the following result.
\[t3\] Let $\eta>1$. There exists a constant $C(\eta)$ depending on $\eta$ only, such that for any finite set $K$ of distinct integers, and any sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{approx}\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}&\le & C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K} c_\nu^2
\,\,(\log\log\log n)^\eta\,\Psi (\nu)
.\end{aligned}$$ Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{approx1}
\sum_{k,\ell \in K}
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}&\le& C(\eta)\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log \nu)^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^{1+\eta}. \end{aligned}$$
This much improves Theorem 2.5 in [@W1] where a specific question related to Gál’s inequality was investigated, see [@W1] for details. The interest of inequality , is naturally that the bound obtained tightly depends on the arithmetical structure of the support $K$ of the coefficient sequence, while being close to the optimal order of magnitude $(\log\log \nu)^2$. 2 pt Theorem \[t3\] is obtained as a combination of Theorem \[t1\] with a slightly more general and sharper formulation of Theorem 2.5 in [@W1].
\[t5\] Let $\eta >1$. Then, for any real $s$ such that $0<s\le 1$, for any sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1m}\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}&\le & C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K}
c_\nu^2(\log\log\log
\nu)^\eta
\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{(\log \d )(\log\log \d)}{\d^{2s-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $C(\eta)$ depends on $\eta$ only.
\[rems\]From Theorem 2.5-(i) in [@W1], follows that for every $s>1/2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{i1}
\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s} &\le&\zeta(2s) \inf_{0< \e\le 2s-1} \frac{1+\e}{\e } \, \sum_{\nu \in K}
c_\nu^2 \, \s_{ 1+\e-2s}(\nu) ,
\end{aligned}$$ $\s_{u}(\nu)$ being the sum of $u$-th powers of divisors of $\nu$, for any real $u$. As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{(\log \d )(\log\log \d)}{\d^{2s-1}}\ll \sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{1}{\d^{2s-1-\e}} =\s_{ 1+\e-2s}(k) ,
\end{aligned}$$ estimate is much better than the one given .
The proof is similar to that one of Theorem 2.5 in [@W1] and shorter. Let $\e>0$ and let $J_\e$ denote the generalized Euler function. We recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jordan}
J_\e(n)= \sum_{d|n} d^\e \m(\frac{n}{d}).
\end{aligned}$$
We extend the sequence $\{c_k, k\in K\}$ to all $\N$ by putting $c_k= 0$ if $k\notin K$. By Möbius’ formula, we have $n^\e =\sum_{d|n} J_\e (d)$. By using Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, we successively obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HS1a}
L&:=& \sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}\ =\ \sum_{k,\ell \in K} \frac{c_k c_\ell }{k^s\ell^s}\Big\{\sum_{d\in F(K)}
J_{2s} (d) {\bf 1}_{d|k} {\bf 1}_{d|\ell}\Big\}
\cr \hbox{($k=ud$, $\ell=vd$)} &\le& \sum_{u,v\in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^sv^s} \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}c_{vd} \Big)
\cr &\le & \sum_{u,v\in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^sv^s} \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}^2 \Big)^{1/2}\Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}} c_{vd}^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\cr &=& \Big[\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^s } \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}^2 \Big)^{1/2}\Big]^2
\cr &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^s\psi(u) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) u^{ s} \psi(u) \Big) , \end{aligned}$$ where $\psi (u)>0$ is a non-decreasing function on $\R^+$. We then choose $$\psi(u) = u^{-s} \psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t),\qq \qq \psi_1(u)= (\log\log\log u)^\eta.$$ Hence,$$\begin{aligned}
L &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) \psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)\Big)
\cr &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2 \psi_1(\nu)
}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu } J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) \Big) .
\end{aligned}$$ As $\nu \in K$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f}
\sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) \sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)&=& \sum_{u|\nu}\sum_{d|\frac {\nu}u}d^{2s}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{ud}\Big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)
\cr & = &\sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{u|\frac {\nu}d}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{ud}\Big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)
\cr \hbox{(writing $u=tx$)}
&=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{t|\frac {\nu}d}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\sum_{x|\frac {\nu}{dt}}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{dtx}\Big)
%\sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{tt'|\frac {\nu}d}f(t)\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{dtt'}\Big)
\cr \hbox{(writing $\frac {\nu}{dt}=x\theta$)}&
=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{t|\frac {\nu}d}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\sum_{\theta|\frac {\nu}{dt}}\m (\theta)
\cr&=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}(\frac {\nu}d) (\log (\frac {\nu}d))(\log\log (\frac {\nu}d)),
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that $\sum_{d|n}\m(d)$ equals $1$ or $0$ according to $n=1$ or $n>1$.
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
L &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2
\psi_1(\nu) }{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}(\frac {\nu}d) (\log (\frac {\nu}d))(\log\log (\frac {\nu}d)) \Big)
\cr &=& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)} \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 \psi_1(\nu) \sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{1}{\d^{2s}}\,\d (\log \d)(\log\log \d) \Big) .
\end{aligned}$$ 7 pt From the trivial estimate $\sum_{t|u}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\ge u (\log u)(\log\log u)$, it is resulting that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
\sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}
&\le& \Big(\sum_{u \ge 1 } \frac{1}{u (\log u)(\log\log u) (\log\log\log u)^\eta } \Big)
\cr & &\times \Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{ (\log \d)(\log\log \d) }{\d^{2s-1}} \Big)
\cr & = & C(\eta)\ \sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{ (\log \d)(\log\log \d) }{\d^{2s-1}}
%\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\,\sum_{\d|\nu}\d^{2(1-s)}\, \Psi(\d)
.
\end{aligned}$$
Letting $s=1$ in Theorem \[t5\] and using Theorem \[t1\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}
&\le& C(\eta)\,
\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \d)^\eta \Phi(\nu), \end{aligned}$$ which proves Theorem \[t3\].
3 pt
3 pt
**Concluding Remarks.** {#s7}
=======================
The proof of Theorem \[t2\] can be adapted with no difficulty to similar arithmetical functions. However, a possible extension of Erdős-Zaremba’s result to the function $$\Phi_\eta(n)=\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)^\eta }{d}, \qq \qq \eta>1,$$ is a more delicate task. In particular, the application of the chaining argument used in the proof of Theorem \[t2\] to $\Phi_\eta(n)$, raises serious technical complications. We only indicate partial estimates. By using a convexity argument one shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phietamin}\limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{\Phi_\eta(n)}{ (\log\log n)^{1+\eta}} &\ge&e^{\g} .\end{aligned}$$
For integers $n$ with distant prime divisors, this lower bound is optimal. More precisely, there exists a constant $C(\eta)$ depending on $\eta$ only, such that for any integer $n=\prod_{i=1}^r p_i^{\a_i}$ satisfying the condition $\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i-1}<2^{1-\eta},
$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phietaminmajex}\Phi_\eta(n)\ \le \ C(\eta)(\log\log n)^{\eta} \s_{-1}(n) .\end{aligned}$$ As $\s_{-1}(n)\le C\log\log n$, it follows that $\Phi_\eta(n)\ \le \ C(\eta)(\log\log n)^{1+\eta}$. 7 pt
We conclude with some remarks concerning Davenport’s function $w(n)$. At first, if $p_1,\ldots,p_r$ are the $r$ first consecutive prime numbers and $n=p_1 \ldots p_r$, then $w( n)\sim\log\,\o(n)$. Next, the obvious bound $w( n)\ll\log\log\log n$ holds true when the prime divisors of $n$ are large, for instance when these ones, write them $p_1,\ldots, p_r$, verify for some given positive number $B$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prop.pfinite} \sum_{j=1}^r\frac{\log p_{j}}{p_{j}} \le B \qq \hbox{ and} \qq p_1\ldots p_r\gg e^{e^B}.
\end{aligned}$$ More generally, one can establish the following result. Let $\{p_i, i\ge 1\}$ be an increasing sequence of prime numbers enjoying the following property $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prop.p} p_1\ldots p_s&\le & p_{s+1}\qq\qq s=1,2,\ldots\, .
\end{aligned}$$
Numbers of the form $n=p_1\ldots p_\nu$ with $p_1\ldots p_{i-1}\le p_i$, $2\le i\le \nu$, $\nu=1,2,\ldots$ appear as extremal numbers in some divisors questions, see Erdős and Hall [@EH].
\[b(n)\]Let $\{p_i, i\ge 1\}$ be an increasing sequence of prime numbers satisfying condition . There exists a constant $C$, such that if $p_1\ge C$, then for any integer $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$ such that $\a_i\ge 1$ for each $i$, we have $w( n)\le \log\log\log n$.
We use the following inequality. Let $0<\theta<1$. There exists a number $h_\theta$ such that for any $h\ge h_\theta$ and any $H$ such that $e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}\le H\le h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hH} h&\le &e^h\, \log \frac{\log(H+h)}{\log H}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, note that $\log (1+x) \ge \theta x$ if $0\le x \le (1-\theta)/\theta$. Let $h_\theta$ be such that if $h\ge h_\theta$, then $h\log h \le \theta(\log 2) e^h$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
h& \le & e^h\,\theta\frac{\log 2}{\log h}\le e^h\, \theta\frac{\log 2}{\log H} \le e^h\,\log \Big(1+\frac{\log 2}{\log H}\Big)=e^h\,\log \Big(\frac{\log 2H}{\log H}\Big)\cr&\le& e^h\,\log \Big(\frac{\log H+h}{\log H}\Big) \, .
\end{aligned}$$
We shall show by a recurrence on $r$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lll} \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_i}{p_i}&\le & \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_r)\, .
\end{aligned}$$ This is trivially true if $r=1$ by the notation made in the Introduction, and since $p\ge 2$. Assume that is fulfilled for $s=1, \ldots , r-1$. Then, by the recurrence assumption, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_i}{p_i}&\le & \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_{r-1} )+ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Put $H=\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\log p_i$, $h=\log p_r$. It suffices to show that$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\ =\ \frac{h}{e^h} &\le & \log\frac{\log \sum_{i=1}^r\log p_i}{\log \sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\log p_i}\ =\ \, \log\frac{\log H+h}{\log H},
\end{aligned}$$ But $H\le h$, by assumption . Choose $C=e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}$. Then $H\ge \log p_1\ge e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}$. The searched inequality thus follows from .
Let $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, where $\a_i\ge 1$ for each $i$. We have $w( n)\le \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_r)\le \log\log\log n$. 6 pt
[99]{} I. Berkes and M. Weber, (2012) On series of dilated functions, *Quart. J. Math.* [**65**]{}, no. 1, 25–52. H. Davenport, (1932) On a generalization of Euler’s function $\phi(n)$, *J. London Math. Soc.* [**7**]{}, 290–296. P. Erdös and R. R. Hall, (1978) On some unconventional problems on the divisors of integers, *J. Austral. Math. Soc.* (Series A) [**25**]{}, 479–485. P. Erdös and S. K. Zaremba, (1972) The arithmetical function $\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$, *Demonstratio Math.* [**6**]{}, Part. 2, 575–579. I. S. Gál, (1949) A theorem concerning diophantine approximations, *Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde* [**23**]{}, 13–38. T. H. Gronwall, (1912) Some asymptotic expressions in the theory of numbers, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**8**]{}, 118–122. H. Montgomery and R. Vaughan, *Multiplicative number theory: I. Classical Theory*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math. [**97**]{}, (2006), Cambridge UK. J. B. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld, (1962) Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, *Illinois J. Math.* [**6**]{}(1), 64–94. M. Weber, (2016) An arithmetical approach to the convergence problem of series of dilated functions and its connection with the Riemann Zeta function, *J. Number Th.* [**162**]{}, 137–179. M. Weber, (2011) On systems of dilated functions, *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris*, Sec. 1 [**349**]{}, 1261–1263. S. K. Zaremba, (1974) Good lattice points modulo composite numbers, *Monatshefte für Math.* [**78**]{}, 446–460.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
epsf.tex
Cosmic neutrinos with energies above $10^8~{\text{GeV}}$, so far unobserved, have great potential as probes of astrophysics and particle physics phenomena. They escape from dense regions of matter and point back to their sources, thereby providing a unique window into the most violent events in the universe. Once they reach the Earth, they interact with center-of-mass energies far beyond foreseeable man-made colliders and probe new physics at and beyond the weak scale.
The sources of ultra-high energy neutrinos range from the well-established to the highly speculative [@reviews]. The cosmic ray spectrum is well-measured up to the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz’min (GZK) cutoff [@Greisen:1966jv; @Zatsepin:1966jv] at $5\times
10^{10}~{\text{GeV}}$. Such cosmic rays necessarily interact with the $2.7^{\circ} \text{K}$ cosmic microwave background through pion photoproduction $p\gamma \to n \pi^+$, producing “Greisen neutrinos” when the pions decay [@Greisen:1966jv; @Stecker:1979ah]. In addition to this ‘guaranteed’ flux, far larger fluxes are predicted in models of active galactic nuclei (AGN) [@Stecker:1991vm; @Mannheim:1995mm] and in proposed explanations of the observed cosmic rays with energies above the GZK cutoff. The latter include decays of topological defects (TDs) [@Hill:1987mn] and $Z$-bursts [@Weiler:1999sh]. Fluxes from photoproduction and some representative hypothesized sources are given in Fig. \[fig:fluxes\].
The detection of ultra-high energy cosmic neutrinos is, however, extremely difficult, especially for those with energies above $10^8~{\text{GeV}}$. At these energies, the neutrino interaction length is below $2000~{\text{km}}$ water equivalent in rock, and so upward-going neutrinos are typically blocked by the Earth. This shadowing severely restricts rates in underground detectors such as AMANDA/IceCube [@Alvarez-Muniz:2001gb], which are bounded by detection volumes of at most $1~{\text{km}}^3$. At the same time, the atmosphere is nearly transparent to these neutrinos. Even for quasi-horizontal neutrinos, which traverse an atmospheric depth of up to $360~{\text{m}}$ water equivalent, fewer than 1 in $10^3$ convert to charged leptons. At the Pierre Auger Observatory, estimated detection rates are of order 0.1 to 1 event per year for Greisen neutrinos from the ground array [@Capelle:1998zz; @Coutu:1999ub], with similar rates for the Auger air fluorescence detectors [@Yoshida:1997ie].
Here we explore an alternative method for detecting ultra-high energy neutrinos with $E_{\nu} > 10^8~{\text{GeV}}$. While upward-going neutrinos are usually blocked by the Earth, those that skim the Earth, traveling at low angles along chords with lengths of order their interaction length, are not. Some of these neutrinos will convert to charged leptons. In particular, muon and tau leptons travel up to ${\cal
O}(10~{\text{km}})$ in the Earth at these energies, and so a significant number of them may exit the Earth and be detected by surface fluorescence detectors. A schematic picture of the events we are considering is given in Fig. \[fig:event\]. This method exploits both the Earth as a large-volume converter, and the atmosphere as a large-volume detector.
Upward-going air showers have been discussed previously [@Domokos], with an emphasis on differences between upward-going and conventional showers and the possibility of space-based detection. The question of rates was not addressed. Very recently, the detection of showers from $\tau$ decays in the Auger Observatory ground array has been considered [@Bertou:2001vm]. The possibility of detecting moon-skimming neutrinos through radio signals has also recently generated interest [@Alvarez-Muniz:2001rs; @Gorham:2001aj].
Given an isotropic neutrino flux $\Phi_{\nu}$, the resulting differential flux of charged leptons exiting the Earth is $$\frac{d\Phi_{\ell} (E_{\ell}, \cos\theta, \phi)}
{dE_{\ell}\, d\cos\theta\, d\phi}
= \frac{1}{2\pi}\!\! \int\!\!
dE_{\nu} \frac{d\Phi_{\nu} (E_{\nu})}{d E_{\nu}}
K(E_{\nu}, \theta; E_{\ell}) \ ,
\label{conversion}$$ where $K$ is the probability that a neutrino entering the Earth with energy $E_{\nu}$ and nadir angle $\theta$ produces a lepton that exits the Earth with energy $E_{\ell}$. Such an event requires that (a) the neutrino survives for some distance $z$ in the Earth, (b) the neutrino then converts to a lepton, (c) the created lepton exits the Earth before decaying, and (d) the lepton’s energy and position when produced are such that it leaves the Earth with energy $E_{\ell}$.
The probability for a neutrino with energy $E_{\nu}$ and nadir angle $\theta$ to survive for a distance $z$ is $$P_a = \exp \left[ -\int_0^z \frac{dz'}{L^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu}, \theta,
z')} \right] \ ,
\label{Pa}$$ where $L^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu}, \theta, z) = [ \sigma^{\nu}_{CC}
(E_{\nu}) \rho (r(\theta, z)) N_A ]^{-1}$ is the charged current interaction length, with $\sigma^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu})$ the interaction cross section $\sigma(\nu N \to \ell X)$ for a neutrino with energy $E_{\nu}$, $\rho(r)$ the Earth’s density at distance $r$ from its center, and $N_A = 6.022 \times 10^{23}~\text{g}^{-1}$. The distance $r$ is given by $r^2(\theta, z) = {R_{\oplus}}^2 + z^2 - 2 {R_{\oplus}}z \cos
\theta$, where ${R_{\oplus}}\approx 6371~{\text{km}}$ is the radius of the Earth. For $E_{\nu} \agt 10^8~{\text{GeV}}$, the charged current $\nu$ and $\bar{\nu}$ cross sections are virtually identical, and we may neglect multiple charged current interactions and neutrino energy degradation from neutral current processes. Also, at these energies, the optimal nadir angle for charged lepton production is $90^{\circ} - \theta
\approx 1^{\circ}$. Leptons produced by Earth-skimming neutrinos travel essentially horizontally.
The probability for neutrino conversion to a charged lepton in the interval $[z,z+dz]$ is $dz/L^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu}, \theta, z)$. However, given that detectable leptons travel nearly horizontally with path length of ${\cal O}(10~{\text{km}})$, this conversion must take place near the Earth’s surface where the Earth’s density is $\rho_s =
2.65~{\text{g}}/{\text{cm}}^3$. The conversion probability is then well-approximated by $$P_b = \frac{dz}{L^{\nu}_{CC\, s}(E_{\nu})} \ ,
\label{Pb}$$ where $L^{\nu}_{CC\, s}(E_{\nu}) = [\sigma^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu}) \rho_s
N_A ] ^{-1}$. We assume the lepton takes all of the neutrino energy. For ultra-high energy neutrinos, the mean inelasticity parameter is $\langle 1 - E_{\ell}/E_{\nu} \rangle \approx
0.2$ [@Gandhi:1996tf]. We therefore expect this assumption to make only a small difference.
The survival probability $P_c$ for a charged lepton losing energy as it moves through the Earth is described by the coupled differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
dE_{\ell}/dz &=& - \left( \alpha_{\ell} +
\beta_{\ell} E_{\ell} \right) \rho (r (\theta, z)) \label{Eloss} \\
dP_c/dz &=& - P_c / (c \tau_{\ell} E_{\ell} / m_{\ell}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, and $m_{\ell}$ and $\tau_{\ell}$ are the lepton’s rest mass and lifetime, respectively. Equation (\[Eloss\]) parameterizes lepton energy loss through bremsstrahlung, pair production, and photonuclear interactions, under the assumption of uniform energy loss. For the energies of interest here, $\beta_{\tau} \approx 0.8 \times 10^{-6}~{\text{cm}}^2/{\text{g}}$, $\beta_{\mu}
\approx 6.0 \times
10^{-6}~{\text{cm}}^2/{\text{g}}$ [@Lipari:1991ut; @Dutta:2000hh], and the effects of $\alpha_{\tau,\mu}$ are negligible. At the Earth’s surface, taus and muons lose a decade of energy in 11 km and 1.5 km, respectively. These differential equations are easily solved for a constant density $\rho_s$, and the survival probability is $$P_c = \exp \left[ \frac{m_{\ell}}{c \tau_{\ell} \beta_{\ell} \rho_s }
\left( \frac{1}{E_{\nu}} - \frac{1}{E_{\ell}} \right) \right] \ .
\label{Pc}$$ Muon lifetimes are long enough that $P_c \simeq 1$, but this factor may play a significant role for taus.
Finally, the lepton’s energy and location when produced must be consistent with an exit energy $E_{\ell}$. From [Eq. (\[Eloss\])]{}, for constant density $\rho_s$ and negligible $\alpha_{\ell}$, this condition is enforced with the delta function $$P_d = \delta \left( E_{\ell} - E_{\nu} e^{- \beta_{\ell}
\rho_s \left( 2{R_{\oplus}}\cos\theta - z \right)} \right) \ .
\label{Pd}$$
Combining Eqs. (\[Pa\]), (\[Pb\]), (\[Pc\]), and (\[Pd\]), the kernel is then $$K(E_{\nu}, \theta; E_{\ell}) =
\int_0^{2{R_{\oplus}}\cos\theta} P_a P_b P_c P_d \ .
\label{complete}$$ However, [Eq. (\[complete\])]{} may be further simplified, because the lepton’s range in Earth is far less than the typical neutrino interaction length. The kernel is therefore dominated by the contribution from $z \approx 2{R_{\oplus}}\cos\theta$, and we may replace $z$ with $2{R_{\oplus}}\cos\theta$ in $P_a$. The only remaining $z$-dependence is in $P_d$. Using $\int dz\, \delta( h(z)) = | dh/dz
|^{-1}_{h=0}$, the $z$ integration yields $$\begin{aligned}
K(E_{\nu}, \theta; E_{\ell}) &\approx&
\frac{1}{L^{\nu}_{CC\, s}(E_{\nu})}
e^{-\int_0^{2{R_{\oplus}}\cos\theta}
\frac{dz'}{L^{\nu}_{CC}(E_{\nu}, \theta, z')}} \nonumber \\
&\times&
\exp \left[ \frac{m_{\ell}}{c\tau_{\ell}\beta_{\ell}\rho_s}
\left( \frac{1}{E_{\nu}} - \frac{1}{E_{\ell}} \right) \right]
\frac{1}{E_{\ell} \beta_{\ell} \rho_s } \ .
\label{practical}\end{aligned}$$ In our calculations, we use the kernel of [Eq. (\[practical\])]{} with the Preliminary Earth density profile [@preliminary]. Our cross section evaluation closely follows Refs. [@Gandhi:1996tf; @Gandhi:1998ri]; details will be presented elsewhere [@inprep].
Muons and taus may be detected in fluorescence detectors either directly or indirectly through their decay products. We have evaluated rates for all of these possibilities [@inprep]; here we concentrate on the most promising signal from electromagnetic energy in $\tau$-decay showers. The recent discovery of near-maximal $\nu_\mu$–$\nu_\tau$ mixing [@Learned:2000qq] implies that, even at the high energies of interest here, $\nu_\mu:\nu_\tau = 1:1$ at the Earth’s surface. We assume also that tau decay initiates an electromagnetic shower with probability $B_{\text{EM}} = 80\%$ and a typical energy, averaged over all $\tau$ decay modes weighted by branching fraction, of $E_{\text{EM}} = \frac{1}{3} E_{\tau}$. At energies of order $10^{10}~{\text{GeV}}$, the typical shower length is $\sim
10~{\text{km}}$ in the low atmosphere.
We follow the analysis of Ref. [@Baltrusaitis:1985mx] to estimate the effective aperture for $\tau$-decay induced showers. The signal from an electromagnetic shower must compete with the average noise from the night sky. By considering the signal to background ratio in individual photomultiplier tubes, the energy required for an electromagnetic shower to be detected was found to be $$E_{\text{EM}} = E_d R_p^{3/2} e^{R_p/\lambda_R} \ ,
\label{Rp}$$ where $R_p$ is the shower’s impact parameter in km, and $\lambda_R
\approx 18~{\text{km}}$ is the Rayleigh scattering length [@Baltrusaitis:1985mx]. $E_d$ is an energy characteristic of the detector. In particular, $E_d \propto \sqrt{\Delta \theta/D^2}
\propto \sqrt{d/D^3}$, where $\Delta \theta = d/D$ is the angular acceptance of each photomultiplier tube, and $d$ and $D$ are the diameters of the photomultiplier tubes and mirror aperture, respectively. For Fly’s Eye, requiring a 4$\sigma$ triggering threshold, the value $E_d = 10^8~{\text{GeV}}$ was verified to reproduce the experimental data well [@Baltrusaitis:1985mx]. For HiRes, $D$ has been increased from $1.575~{\text{m}}$ to $2.0~{\text{m}}$ and $d$ reduced from $14.4~{\text{cm}}$ to $3.5~{\text{cm}}$ [@Abu-Zayyad:2000uu]; we therefore take $E_d \approx 3.2\times 10^7~{\text{GeV}}$. For each module of the proposed Telescope Array, and requiring a 4$\sigma$ signal, $E_d$ has been estimated to be roughly $4\times 10^5~{\text{GeV}}$ [@TAdesignreport]. Finally, the fluorescence detectors of the Auger Observatory [@Auger] will also be sensitive to Earth-skimming events; we expect their sensitivity to lie somewhere between that of HiRes and Telescope Array.
Following Ref. [@Baltrusaitis:1985mx], we assume that showers are detected if and only if initiated within distance $R_p$ of the detector. We also make use of the fact that, at these energies, all $\tau$ leptons exit the Earth horizontally. Apertures for Earth-skimming taus for each of the three detectors discussed above are given in Fig. \[fig:apertures\]. In each case, the aperture rises with energy until time dilation causes taus to decay too late to be detected. The HiRes aperture peaks at $2000~{\text{km}}^2~{\text{sr}}$ near $3\times 10^{10}~{\text{GeV}}$. With increased sensitivity, however, the aperture peak rises and moves to lower energies, significantly enhancing detection rates.
Given the kernel function $K(E_{\nu},\theta;E_{\tau})$ and effective apertures $(A\Omega)_{\text{eff}}(E_{\tau})$, the number of tau leptons detected is $N_{\tau}\! =\! \int dE_{\nu} dE_{\tau}
d\cos\theta d\phi \cos\theta \frac{d\Phi_{\nu}}{dE_{\nu}} K
(A\Omega)_{\text{eff}} T D$, where $d\Phi_{\nu}(E_{\nu})/dE_{\nu}$ is the differential flux originating from a given neutrino source, $T$ is the time an experiment runs, and $D$ is the duty cycle. To account for the requirement of clear moonless nights for fluorescence detection, we take $D = 10\%$, corresponding to an observing period of $3 \times
10^6~{\text{s}}$ per year.
Event rates for the four neutrino sources given in Fig. \[fig:fluxes\], binned by tau energy, are summarized in Table \[table:I\]. \[Note that these rates are suppressed relative to those presented in an earlier version of this paper.\] We assume 2 and 11 detectors for HiRes and Telescope Array, respectively; some reduction from overlapping fields of view may be expected. For HiRes, we find that neutrinos from AGN and TDs are marginally detectable. For Telescope Array, these rates are enhanced by more than two orders of magnitude — several Greisen neutrinos per year can be detected, and tens to hundreds of AGN and TD neutrinos are possible. Note that the rates may be significantly enhanced by including multi-bang events, which we have neglected, and also if the $\tau$ energy loss, dominated by uncertain photo-nuclear interactions, is less than our conservative assumption.
Detector $E_{\tau}$ (GeV)
----------- ------------------- --------- -------- --------- ---------
Fly’s Eye $10^{8}-10^{9}$ 0.0039 0.051 0.0098 0.00028
$10^{9}-10^{10}$ 0.0021 0.027 0.012 0.0015
$10^{10}-10^{11}$ 0.00082 0.0011 0.0030 0.0014
$10^{11}-10^{12}$ $-$ $-$ 0.00018 0.00042
$10^{12}-10^{13}$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$
[*Total*]{} 0.0068 0.079 0.025 0.0036
HiRes $10^{8}-10^{9}$ 0.0033 0.43 0.083 0.0024
$10^{9}-10^{10}$ 0.017 0.22 0.094 0.012
$10^{10}-10^{11}$ 0.0055 0.0077 0.020 0.0092
$10^{11}-10^{12}$ $-$ $-$ 0.00086 0.0019
$10^{12}-10^{13}$ $-$ $-$ $-$ 0.00011
[*Total*]{} 0.026 0.66 0.20 0.026
Telescope $10^{8}-10^{9}$ 1.4 230 41 1.0
Array $10^{9}-10^{10}$ 3.2 50 20 2.3
$10^{10}-10^{11}$ 0.62 0.93 2.2 0.93
$10^{11}-10^{12}$ $-$ $-$ 0.045 0.094
$10^{12}-10^{13}$ $-$ $-$ 0.00035 0.0033
[*Total*]{} 5.2 280 63 4.3
: Expected number of $\nu_{\tau}$-induced electromagnetic showers detected by atmospheric fluorescence. Three years of running with duty cycle $D=10\%$ is assumed. \[table:I\]
Hundreds or even tens of events will shed light on many aspects of ultra-high energy astrophysics. The energy spectrum of detected events varies from source to source, as evident in Table \[table:I\]. With many events, the source energy spectrum may be determined by deconvolving the observed spectrum with the kernel function. Note also that these rates may be improved with detectors that cover the sky densely very near the horizon or by filters optimized for nearly horizontal events. Placement of detectors in valleys, which effectively enhances the conversion volume, may also improve detection rates.
Earth-skimming neutrinos also open up other possibilities for detection. Cerenkov radiation provides an alternative signal for showers initiated by $\tau$ decay. Conventional air shower arrays, which deploy a large number of modules over a horizontal area, are not optimally adapted to Earth-skimming events. It is interesting to contemplate ‘vertical’ arrays, say on the side of a mountain, that would intercept Earth-skimming showers originating from a very large surrounding area. Earth-skimming events may also be detected from space, as in the OWL/Airwatch proposal [@OWL].
[*Acknowledgements*]{}. We thank F. Halzen for helpful discussions and for bringing Ref. [@Bertou:2001vm] to our attention, and A. Kusenko and T. Weiler for helpful correspondence. JLF also thanks E. Kearns, J. Rosner, and C. Walter for conversations about future experiments. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DF–FC02–94ER40818.
[99]{}
See, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, R. J. Protheroe, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{}, 465 (1999); D. B. Cline and F. W. Stecker, astro-ph/0003459; F. Halzen, Phys. Rept. [**333**]{}, 349 (2000). K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**16**]{}, 748 (1966). G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuz’min, JETP Lett. [**4**]{}, 78 (1966). F. W. Stecker, Astrophys. J. [**228**]{}, 919 (1979). F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon and P. Sommers, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2697 (1991); R. J. Protheroe, astro-ph/9607165; F. Halzen and E. Zas, Astrophys. J. [**488**]{}, 669 (1997) \[astro-ph/9702193\]. K. Mannheim, Astropart. Phys. [**3**]{}, 295 (1995). C. T. Hill, D. N. Schramm and T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 1007 (1987); P. Bhattacharjee, C. T. Hill and D. N. Schramm, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 567 (1992). T. J. Weiler, Astropart. Phys. [**11**]{}, 303 (1999) \[hep-ph/9710431\]; D. Fargion, B. Mele and A. Salis, Astrophys. J. [**517**]{}, 725 (1999) \[astro-ph/9710029\]. G. Sigl, S. Lee, P. Bhattacharjee and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 043504 (1999) \[hep-ph/9809242\]. S. Yoshida, G. Sigl and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5505 (1998) \[hep-ph/9808324\]. J. Alvarez-Muniz and F. Halzen, astro-ph/0102106; S. Barwick, talk given at RADHEP 2000. K. S. Capelle, J. W. Cronin, G. Parente and E. Zas, Astropart. Phys. [**8**]{}, 321 (1998) \[astro-ph/9801313\]. S. Coutu, X. Bertou and P. Billoir \[AUGER Collaboration\], GAP-1999-030.
S. Yoshida, H. Dai, C. C. Jui and P. Sommers, Astrophys. J. [**479**]{}, 547 (1997) \[astro-ph/9608186\]; J. C. Diaz, M. G. do Amaral, and R. C. Shellard, GAP-2000-058.
G. Domokos and S. Kovesi-Domokos, hep-ph/9801362; [[*ibid.*]{}]{}, hep-ph/9805221; D. Fargion, astro-ph/0002453. X. Bertou [[*et al.*]{}]{}, astro-ph/0104452. J. Alvarez-Muniz and E. Zas, astro-ph/0102173. P. W. Gorham [[*et al.*]{}]{}, astro-ph/0102435. R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Astropart. Phys. [**5**]{}, 81 (1996) \[hep-ph/9512364\]. P. Lipari and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3543 (1991). S. Iyer Dutta, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 094020 (2001) \[hep-ph/0012350\]. A. Dziewonski, “Earth Structure, Global,” in [*The Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics*]{}, edited by D. E. James (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989), p. 331.
R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 093009 (1998) \[hep-ph/9807264\]. J. L. Feng, P. Fisher, F. Wilczek, and T. M. Yu, in preparation.
J. G. Learned \[SuperKamioKande Collaboration\], hep-ex/0007056. R. M. Baltrusaitis [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**240**]{}, 410 (1985). T. Abu-Zayyad [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**450**]{}, 253 (2000). Telescope Array Design Report, July 2000, http://www-ta.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Pierre Auger Obveratory, http://www.auger.org.
OWL/Airwatch Project, http://owl.uah.edu.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The calculation of physical quantities by lattice QCD simulations requires in some important cases the determination of the inverse of a very large matrix. In this article we describe how stochastic estimator methods can be applied to this problem, and how such techniques can be efficiently implemented on parallel computers.'
address: 'Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Fachbereich Physik, 42097 Wuppertal, Germany'
author:
- Stephan Güsken
title: Stochastic Estimator Techniques and Their Implementation on Distributed Parallel Computers
---
WUB-99-16\
Lattice QCD; Stochastic Estimator; Matrix Inversion
Introduction
============
Within our current level of comprehension of the fundamental principles of nature, physical processes on an atomic or subatomic scale can be successfully described by Quantum Field Theories (QFT). In such theories particles as well as their interactions are represented by quantum fields, defined at each space-time point. The value of a physical quantity, which can be measured in experiment, can be calculated by a weighted average over all “would be” values of this quantity, achieved for each possible configuration of the quantum fields involved. The weight with which each of these “would be” values contributes is determined by the so called action, a scalar quantity which contains the characteristic features of the QFT in question and which depends on the quantum fields. The formal expression of this averaging procedure is known as the path functional.
An exact analytical treatment of the path functional is in most cases not possible. Approximate solutions can be achieved in the framework of perturbation theory if the interaction strength is weak. Perturbative methods have been proven very successful in the evaluation of the QFT of the electromagnetic and weak forces. They fail however when applied to the QFT of the strong force, the so called Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD). The strong force is responsible for a large range of phenomena at and below the scale of the atomic nuclei.
Lattice QCD is designed for a non-perturbative numerical evaluation of QCD. The space-time continuum is approximated by a lattice with $N_s^3 \times N_t$ space-time points. The calculation of physical quantities is done in two steps. First, one generates a representative sample of quantum field configurations, where each configuration is represented according to its specific weight, by a Monte Carlo procedure [@mc_quenched; @mc_full; @Kennedy_here]. Secondly, one determines the “would be” value of the physical quantity in question on each of the quantum field configurations and takes the average. We call the latter step the analysis of quantum field configurations.
Clearly, the computational effort which has to be invested in the analysis part depends on the physical quantity one is interested in. In this article we report on a computationally very hard problem which occurs in the analysis of configurations with respect to so called disconnected contributions. The latter are of great physical importance as they are expected to play a substantial role in the solution of the “proton spin problem” [@review_ga] and of the “$U(1)$ problem” of QCD [@reviews_u1].
Naively, the calculation of disconnected contributions requires the inversion of a complex matrix of size $(N_s^3 \times N_t \times 12)^2$ on each single quantum field configuration. For currently available lattice sizes, see ref.[@burkhalter], such a calculation would be prohibitively expensive. To circumvent this problem one applies stochastic estimator methods which converge to the true result in the stochastic limit. It turns out however, that even with such techniques one still needs a parallel supercomputer to handle this problem.
This article is organized as follows. In the next section we will give an impression of the physical meaning of disconnected contributions. Section 3 explains what has to be done technically to calculate such contributions. Section 4 is devoted to the stochastic estimator techniques. The implementation of these techniques on parallel computers is discussed in section 5. Section 6 will give an overview of state of the art calculations of disconnected contributions. Section 7 contains a short summary.
The Physical Motivation
=======================
It is nicely explained by R. Gupta in this volume [@gupta_here] that our “parton” picture of a proton as being made of 3 interacting quarks is not applicable in full QCD. The reason is that in this case the spontaneous creation and annihilation of quark antiquark pairs leads to an additional contribution to the proton amplitude. This is shown in Gupta’s fig.3.
Suppose that we would like to investigate the properties of a proton by a scattering experiment, e.g. by deep inelastic $\mu$p (muon proton) scattering. Then, the $\mu$p scattering amplitudes measured in such an experiment could in principle differ sizably from the parton expectation since the latter neglects the interaction of the $\mu$ particle with the quark antiquark loop.
To illustrate this point we show in fig. \[fig\_schema\_con\_dis\] the full QCD contributions to the propagator of a proton which interacts with an external current $j$.
![\[fig\_schema\_con\_dis\][*Connected (a) and disconnected (b) contributions to a proton interacting with a current $j$. All quark lines, including the quark loop, are connected by infinitely many gluon lines and virtual quark loops.* ]{}](fig_schema_con_dis.eps)
Part (a) of the figure depicts the naive (parton) case, where the current couples to one of the quarks of the proton. Part (b) shows the interaction of the current $j$ with a quark antiquark loop, in the field of the proton. This disconnected contribution is present only in full QCD. We emphasize that the location in space and time of the quark antiquark loop is not fixed. Thus, to calculate the disconnected contribution one has to sum over all positions.
Of course, it is not obvious from these considerations that the disconnected part really gives non negligible contributions to the scattering amplitudes. In fact, it turns out that many of them have a structure such that their net contribution is expected to be small.
There is however a class of amplitudes, the flavor singlet amplitudes, where disconnected contributions can be sizeable. In order to investigate quark loop effects in QCD it is therefore of utmost interest to calculate flavor singlet amplitudes and to compare the results with experimentally measured data.
From experimental measurements one can extract the values of at least 2 flavor singlet amplitudes. The first, which describes the interaction of a proton with a pseudo-vector current deviates by about a factor of 2 from the naively expected value. This deviation gave rise to the so called “proton spin crisis”. The second, which couples a scalar current to a proton, yields, when multiplied by the quark mass, the pion-nucleon sigma term $\Sigma_{\pi N}$ [@gasser_nsigma]. The experimental value of this quantity also differs by about a factor of 2 from the naive expectation. Thus, these quantities are most promising candidates to study the influence of quark loops by a full QCD lattice simulation.
Disconnected amplitudes are supposed to contribute also to many physical processes other than proton scattering. For example, a (pseudo scalar) meson, which is made of a quark and an antiquark, can be “mimicked”, with respect to its quantum numbers, by 2 quark antiquark loops. This is shown in fig.\[fig\_schema\_eta\].
![\[fig\_schema\_eta\][*Connected (a) and disconnected (b) contributions to the propagator of a pseudo scalar meson.*]{}](fig_schema_eta.eps)
An experimental measurement of e.g. the mass of this meson would include both terms, connected and disconnected.
From symmetry considerations one again concludes, that the disconnected part should contribute mostly if the quarks in the meson are put together in a flavor singlet combination. Experimentally, one finds that the mass of such a flavor singlet meson, which is named $\eta'$, is much larger than that of its non-singlet partners. This discrepancy is called the “$U(1)$ problem of QCD”.
Clearly, a full QCD lattice calculation of the diagrams of fig. \[fig\_schema\_eta\] would be of great help to solve this problem.
The Technical Problem
=====================
Quark Propagator
----------------
A key quantity in the analysis of quantum field configurations is the quark propagator $\Delta$. It is defined as the correlation of 2 (fermionic) quantum fields $\Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi}$ at the space-time points $(\vec{x},t)$ and $(\vec{x}',t')$ respectively: $$\Delta(\vec{x},t,a,\alpha;\vec{x}',t',a',\alpha') =
\psi(\vec{x},t,a,\alpha)\bar{\psi}(\vec{x}',t',a',\alpha') \;.
\label{eq_qprop_def}$$ The indices $a,\alpha$, $a',\alpha'$ denote internal degrees of freedom of the fermionic quantum fields. $a$,$a'$ are called color indices. They can take the values 1,2 and 3. $\alpha$,$\alpha'$ are called Dirac indices. They run from 1 to 4.
In the language of QCD, the quark propagator $\Delta$ denotes the probability amplitude of a strongly interacting elementary particle (quark) to travel from point $(\vec{x},t)$ to point $(\vec{x}',t')$. Once $\Delta$ is known, a whole bunch a physical quantities like the spectrum and the decay properties of strongly interacting composite particles can be determined immediately.
Unfortunately, eq. (\[eq\_qprop\_def\]) cannot be used for a numerical calculation of $\Delta$ since, with current Monte Carlo algorithms, the fermion fields $\Psi,\bar{\Psi}$ are not explicitely available. They enter only indirectly in form of the fermionic matrix $M$. The quark propagator is related to $M$ by $$\Delta(x;x') = M^{-1}(x,x') \;,
\label{eq_qprop_M}$$ where we have used the multi index $x$ for space-time, color and Dirac indices.
The fermionic matrix $M$ is complex and sparse. In the widely used Wilson form it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{M(x,a,\alpha;x',a',\alpha') =} \label{eq_M_Wilson} \\
&& \qquad \qquad 1 - \kappa \sum_{\mu=1}^4
\left[
(1 - \gamma_{\mu}(\alpha;\alpha'))U_{\mu}(a;a')(x)
\delta_{x+\hat{\mu};x'} + \right. \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \;
(1 + \gamma_{\mu}(\alpha;\alpha'))U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(a;a')(x-\hat{\mu})
\delta_{x-\hat{\mu};x'} \left. \right] \;. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\kappa$ is a real number, which determines the mass of the propagating quark. $\gamma_{\mu}$ denotes the $4 \times 4$ anti-commuting Dirac matrices. The “links” $U_{\mu}$ are $SU(3)$ matrices, which act in color space. They represent the quantum fields of the interaction between quarks. The unit vector $\hat{\mu}$ points into the direction $\mu$.
According to eq. (\[eq\_qprop\_M\]), the computationally expensive part of the analysis is to determine the inverse of $M$ for each quantum field configuration $U$. Fortunately, for many applications, it is not necessary to solve the full problem. For example, to calculate the spectrum and the decay properties of strongly interacting composite particles, it is sufficient to determine only one row of $M^{-1}$. This reduced problem $$M(z,x) \Delta(x,x_0) = \delta_{z,x_0} \quad,\quad x_0 \; \mbox{fixed}
\label{eq_1rowprop}$$ can be treated using fast iterative solvers [@Thomas_here] with moderate computational effort.
Disconnected Contributions
--------------------------
There is however a class of important physical quantities (see above), whose determination requires, in a sense, the solution of the full problem. To be specific, the prominent combinations $D_{\Gamma}$ of $M^{-1}$ needed for the calculation of the disconnected contributions are given by $$D_{\Gamma} = Tr \left[ \Gamma M^{-1} \right] \;,
\label{eq_def_DG}$$ where $\Gamma=1,\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_5,\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix which acts on the Dirac indices of $M^{-1}$. $\gamma_5$ is defined by $\gamma_5 = \gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3\gamma_4$.
Clearly, an exact determination of $D_{\Gamma}$ would require $N_s^3 \times N_t \times 3 \times 4$ applications of the “row” method, eq. (\[eq\_1rowprop\]). This would overtax even the capacity of a fast parallel supercomputer.
We will see in the next section how one can circumvent this problem by a calculation of a reliable estimate, $D^E_{\Gamma}$, instead of the exact value $D_{\Gamma}$.
Stochastic Estimation
=====================
Suppose that we would have created $N$ random vectors $\eta_k(i)$, $i=1,\dots,V$, $k=1,\dots,N$ with the properties $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \eta_k(i)
&\equiv & \langle \eta(i)\rangle =0 \;, \label{eq_stochdef_1} \\
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \eta_k(i)\eta_k(j)
&\equiv & \langle \eta(i) \eta(j)\rangle = \delta_{i,j} \;.
\label{eq_stochdef_2}\end{aligned}$$ These properties are fulfilled by, for example, Gaussian [@bitar_gauss] or $Z_2$ [@liu_z2; @liu_z2_sup] random number distributions.
Suppose furthermore that we would modify eq. (\[eq\_1rowprop\]) by inserting a random source vector $\eta_k$ on the right hand side $$M(z,x) \tilde{\Delta}_k(x) = \eta_k(z) \;,\;
\tilde{\Delta}_k(x)=\delta_{x,x'}\eta_k(x') \;.
\label{eq_etaprop}$$ Then, the product $\eta_k \tilde{\Delta}$ can be written as $$\tilde{D}_1^k = Tr(\Delta) \sum_{i=1}^{V} \eta(i)_k\eta(i)_k +
\sum_{i \neq j} \Delta(i,j)\eta(i)_k\eta(j)_k \;.
\label{eq_stochest_dk}$$ According to eq. (\[eq\_stochdef\_2\]) one gets in the stochastic limit ($N \rightarrow \infty$) of $N$ solutions to eq. (\[eq\_etaprop\]) $$\langle \tilde{D_1}\rangle = D_1 \;.$$ Thus, this procedure converges to the correct result. We mention that the stochastic estimator method can be also applied, with small modifications [@sesam_nsigma], to the calculation of arbitrary $D_{\Gamma}$, c.f. eq. (\[eq\_def\_DG\]).
Of course, the stochastic method is useful only if already a moderate number $N$ of solutions to eq. (\[eq\_etaprop\]) suffices to calculate a reliable estimate $$D_1^E = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \tilde{D}_1^k
\label{eq_D_estsum}$$ of $D_1$. The question of how large $N$ should be chosen has been investigated by the authors of ref. [@sesam_disc] in some detail for a medium size lattice ($V=16^3\times 32 \times 3
\times 4$). It turned out that $N \simeq 100$ allows to estimates $D_1$ within a $10\%$ uncertainty. The situation might be much less favorable however for $\Gamma \neq 1$. For example, for $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ D_{\Gamma} = D_{\gamma_3\gamma_5} = } \\
&& \qquad \qquad \sum_{x,a} \left[\; \Delta(x,a,1;x,a,1) - \Delta(x,a,2;x,a,2)
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \quad \qquad \qquad \, - \Delta(x,a,3;x,a,3) + \Delta(x,a,4;x,a,4)
\left. \right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ one has to determine differences of the diagonals of $\Delta$ instead of the sum over diagonal elements. Since all these numbers are of similar size, such a task could require a much higher number of estimates to achieve a reliable result on each single quantum field configuration.
Fortunately, the problem is softened by the average over quantum field configurations, for the following reason: Quantum Field Theories, such as QCD, exhibit the property of gauge invariance, i.e. physical quantities do not change their values under gauge transformations. The path integral, which represents the formal expression of how to calculate physical quantities in QFT, automatically removes all non gauge invariant contributions. Since most of the (unwanted) noise terms on the right hand side of eq. (\[eq\_stochest\_dk\]) are not gauge invariant, the average over quantum field configurations will help to increase the accuracy of the estimate of $D^E_{\Gamma}$. Nevertheless, as we will show at the end of this article, one still needs at least 400 estimates per quantum field configuration to achieve statistically significant signals for $D_{\Gamma}$ or for the (physically important) correlations between $D_{\Gamma}$ and the proton propagator.
Thus, the computational effort which is necessary to calculate disconnected contributions exceeds the one for the “standard analysis” by more than 2 orders of magnitude.
Parallelization
===============
There are a least two straightforward ways to implement the numerical problem defined by eqs. (\[eq\_etaprop\]),(\[eq\_D\_estsum\]) on a parallel computer. The first, which we call “external parallelization” can be used for medium size lattices on machines with a, compared to the processor speed, slow communication network. The second one, which we name “internal parallelization” is useful for large lattice and, on machines with fast communication lines.
External Parallelization
------------------------
A natural way to implement the stochastic estimator method on a parallel computer arises from the fact that the estimates, eq. (\[eq\_etaprop\]), are completely independent of each other. Thus, the estimates can be calculated simultaneously on separate compute nodes. Communication is required only at the beginning of the calculation, when quantum fields and stochastic sources have to be passed to their respective nodes, and at the end, when the results of the single estimates have to be gathered and averaged.
Alternatively, one can implement “external parallelization” with respect to the quantum field configurations. In this case, each processor receives its own quantum field configuration at the beginning and computes $N$ estimates.
In both cases, one has to ensure that the random numbers used on such a distributed system are not correlated. This can be achieved either by running a large period random number generator only on one node, which passes the random vectors successively to all other nodes, or by using a parallel random number generator, where each node creates its own random numbers from an independent stream of the generator [@random_number_generators].
An ideal machine to implement on a stochastic estimator program in the “external” mode would be a large cluster of powerful workstations, which are connected e.g. by Ethernet.
Let us give an example. One needs with a standard inverter, say the minimal residual (MR) inverter, on a workstation which runs with a sustained speed of 50 Mflops about 20 minutes of CPU time to solve eq. (\[eq\_etaprop\]) on a $16^3 \times 32$ lattice for values of $\kappa$, c.f. eq. (\[eq\_M\_Wilson\]), in the physically interesting range. Thus, on a cluster of 100 workstations it would take about 11 days to calculate $D^E_\Gamma$ with 400 estimates on 200 quantum field configurations.
The memory requirements on each node for medium size lattices are moderate. For a $16^3 \times 32$ lattice one needs an overall amount of about 60 Mbytes. Thus, even a $26^3 \times 52$ lattice would easily fit into the memory of a 512 Mbyte workstation.
Internal Parallelization
------------------------
To handle large lattices on parallel computers with a comparatively small amount of memory per node or on massively parallel systems with a large number of nodes, one should divide the lattice into sub-lattices and distribute the latter among the nodes. Since the matrix $M$, see eq. (\[eq\_M\_Wilson\]), connects only nearest neighbors, this can be accomplished in a straightforward way. A simple but efficient realization of this “internal parallelization” is shown in fig. \[fig\_scheme\_para\].
![\[fig\_scheme\_para\][*Internal parallelization of a $8 \times 8$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions lattice on 4 node system.* ]{}](fig_scheme_para.eps)
for an $8 \times 8$ lattice. Each node administers the data points of a $4 \times 4$ sub-lattice (denoted by crosses) as well as the current values of the surface points of the neighboring sub-lattices (denoted by O). After each iteration step of the solver, e.g. MR, the updated values of each sub-lattice ($X_N,X_S,X_W,X_E$) are passed to the “O-buffers” of the neighboring sub-lattices, i.e. $X_S \rightarrow O_N, X_N \rightarrow O_S$ etc. . This procedure is repeated until some stopping criterion, set by e.g. an upper bound of the norm of the rest vector, is fulfilled.
The “internal parallelization” requires of course a communication network of much higher quality than the “external parallelization”. Although the amount of data which has to be exchanged between the nodes after each iteration step can be adjusted by a suitable choice of the sub-lattice size, the number of communications necessary to complete one full estimate can not: It is determined by the number of iterations needed by the solver to converge. Typically, this number is in the range of a few hundred for $\kappa$ values in a physically interesting region. Thus, the startup time for the communication has to be taken seriously into account.
We mention that the memory overhead introduced by the “O-buffers” can be avoided on shared memory machines. On such a machine each processor reads the required data directly from the memory of the neighboring nodes.
Finally, we emphasize that “external” and “internal” parallelization can be mixed. In this case one would divide the total of nodes into subgroups, on which one would implement “internal” parallelization. These subgroups could then run essentially independent of each other, in the “external” mode, to work at different estimates. An advantage of such a mixed solution is that one needs fast communication only within the subgroups. Furthermore, one would achieve more flexibility in optimizing the ratio of communication to CPU time on a given set of nodes.
What has been achieved so far
=============================
The evaluation of disconnected contributions with stochastic estimator methods is still at its beginning. Clearly, this is due to the requirement of a very high computer speed needed to tackle such a problem.
Pioneering studies of disconnected contributions have been performed some time ago on conventional (vector) computers in the quenched approximation of QCD, where one neglects the fermionic quantum fields in the Monte Carlo update, by the authors of refs. [@japan_nsigma; @japan_ga] and [@liu_nsigma; @liu_ga]. Due to the lack of computer speed, the authors had to make concessions to the statistical reliability of their results. Thus, although the data look promising, a systematic bias of their findings cannot be excluded.
With the advent of powerful parallel computers it became possible to treat disconnected contributions more reliably [@sesam_nsigma; @sesam_disc; @sesam_ga; @kilcup], although one is still limited to medium size lattices.
So far, the most intense study of such contributions has been performed by the SESAM collaboration [@sesam_nsigma; @sesam_ga] on a QH2 APE-100 computer [@rapuano_here] which runs the stochastic estimator code with a sustained speed of $\simeq 6$ Gflops. SESAM has analyzed 200 full QCD quantum field configurations of a $16^3 \times 32$ lattice, at several values of the mass parameter $\kappa$. On each configuration, and for each $\kappa$, the values of $D_1$ and $D_{\gamma_3\gamma_5}$ have been estimated 400 times.
The statistical analysis of the SESAM data revealed that the related physical quantities, i.e. the correlation $C_{\Gamma}$ of $D_{\Gamma}$ and the proton propagator with respect to the quantum field configurations, can be determined within an uncertainty of $30\%$ for $C_1$ and $50\%$ for $C_{\gamma_3\gamma_5}$ within this setup.
Clearly, this is not satisfactory. But, as we pointed out above, the use of stochastic estimator techniques is still in its infancy. The SESAM result sets the stage of what has to be invested to achieve the goal of calculating disconnected contributions within a few percent uncertainty.
Besides the expected increase of computational power over the next years, improvements of the stochastic estimator technique will help to increase the statistical significance in the calculation of disconnected amplitudes. Promising suggestions along this line can be found in [@philippe] and [@viehoff_dolby].
Summary
=======
We have illustrated that the calculation of disconnected contributions with stochastic estimator methods represents a computationally very hard problem in lattice QCD.
Fortunately, there are several straightforward ways to implement the code on a parallel computer. Thus, almost every powerful parallel machine can be used.
In view of the intrinsic parallelism of the problem with respect to the number of estimates, the ideal computer to run the code for medium size lattices is a large cluster of workstations.
[999]{} N. Metroprolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, A.H. Teller, and E. Teller: Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, J. Chem. Phys.21 (1953)1087; N. Cabibbo and E. Marinari: A New Method for Upadating $SU(N)$ Matrices in Computer Simulations of Gauge Theories, Phys. Lett. 119B (1982)387; K. Fabricius and O. Haan: Heat Bath Method for the Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model, Phys. Lett. B143 (1984)459; A. Kennedy and B. Pendleton: Improved Heat Bath Method for Monte Carlo Calculations in Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Lett. B156 (1985)393; M. Creutz: Overrelaxation and Monte Carlo Simulation, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987)515. S. Duane, A.D. Kennedy, B.J. Pendleton, and D.Roweth: Hybrid Monte Carlo, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987)216; M. Lüscher: A New Approach to the Problem of Dynamical Quarks in Numerical Simulations of Lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B418 (1994) 637. A.D. Kennedy: The Hybrid Monte Carlo Algorithm on Parallel Computers, this volume. For recent reviews see:\
G.M. Shore: The ’Proton Spin’ Effect: Theoretical Status ’97, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 64 (1998)167;\
H.-J. Cheng: Status of the Proton Spin Problem, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11 (1996)5109;\
M. Anselmino, A. Efremov, and E. Leader: The Theory and Phenomenology of Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rep. 261 (1995)1, erratum ibid. 281 399 (1997). G. t’Hooft: Computation of the Quantum Effects due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976)3432, erratum ibid. D18 2199 (1978); E. Witten: Current Algebra Theorems for the $U(1)$ ’Goldstone Boson’, Nucl. Phys. B156 (1979)269; G. Veneziano: U(1) without Instantons, Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979)213. R. Burkhalter: Recent Results from the CP-PACS Collaboration, hep-lat/9810043, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 1999, in print. R. Gupta: General Physics Motivations for Numerical Simulations of Quantum Field Theory, this volume. J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M.E. Sainio: Sigma Term Update, Phys. Lett. B253(1991)252; J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M.E. Sainio: Form-Factor of the Sigma Term, Phys. Lett. B253 (1991)260. T. Lippert: Parallel SSOR Preconditioning for Lattice QCD, this volume. K. Bitar, A.D. Kennedy, R. Horsley, S. Meyer, and P. Rossi: Hybrid Monte Carlo and Quantum Chromodynamics, Nucl. Phys. B313 (1989)348. S.J. Dong and K.F. Liu: Quark Loop Calculations, Nucl. Phys. B(Proc. Suppl.)26 (1992)353. S.J. Dong and K.F. Liu: Stochastic Estimation with $Z(2)$ Noise, Phys. Lett. B328 (1994)130. SESAM Collaboration, S. Güsken, P. Ueberholz, J. Viehoff, N. Eicker, P. Lacock, T. Lippert, K. Schilling, A. Spitz, and T. Struckmann: The Pion Nucleon Sigma Term with Dynamical Wilson Fermions, Phys. Rev. D59, 054504 (1999). SESAM Collaboration, N. Eicker, U. Glässner, S. Güsken, H. Hoeber, T. Lippert, G. Ritzenhöfer, K. Schilling, G. Siegert, A. Spitz, P. Ueberholz, and J. Viehoff: Evaluating Sea Quark Contributions to Flavour-Singlet Operators in Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B389 (1996)720. For an overview see Web-page http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Apps/CMP/RNG/ M. Fukugita, Y. Kuramashi, M. Okawa, and A. Ukawa: Pion - Nucleon Sigma Term in Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995)5319. M. Fukugita, Y. Kuramashi, M. Okawa, and A. Ukawa: Proton Spin Structure from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995)2092. S.J. Dong, J.F. Lagaë, and K.F. Liu: Pi N Sigma Term, Anti-S S in Nucleon, and Scalar Form-Factor: A Lattice Study, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996)5496; S.J. Dong and K.F. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)42 (1995)322. S.J. Dong, J.F. Lagaë, and K.F. Liu: Flavor Singlet g(A) from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995)2096. SESAM Collab., S. Güsken, P. Ueberholz, J. Viehoff, N. Eicker, T. Lippert, K. Schilling, A. Spitz, and T. Struckmann: The Flavor Singlet Axial Coupling of the Proton with Dynamical Wilson Fermions, preprint WUB98-44, HLRZ 1998-85, hep-lat/9901009, Phys. Rev. D. in print. L. Venkataraman and G. Kilcup: The $\eta'$ Meson with Staggered Fermions, hep-lat/9711006. F. Rapuano: Physics on APE Computers, this volume. Ph. de Forcrand: Monte Carlo Quasi-Heatbath by Approximate Inversion, Phys. Rev. E 59 (1999)3698. SESAM Collaboration, J. Viehoff et al.: News on Disconnected Diagrams, hep-lat/9809130, to be published in Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) 1999.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Patrick Jefferson
- Sheldon Katz
- 'Hee-Cheol Kim'
- and Cumrun Vafa
bibliography:
- '5d-paper.bib'
title: On Geometric Classification of 5d SCFTs
---
Introduction
============
The discovery of superconformal theories (SCFTs) in six and five dimensions has been one of the most surprising results emerging from string theory in the past few decades. There are two types of 6d SCFTs, both of which are classified in terms of singular geometries: $\mathcal N = (2,0)$ theories [@Witten:1995zh] and $\mathcal N =(1,0)$ theories [@Heckman:2013pva; @Heckman:2015bfa; @Bhardwaj:2015xxa]. Given the surprising effectiveness of geometry in describing 6d SCFTs, a natural next step is to attempt to classify 5d SCFTs in terms of singular geometries. In some ways, 5d SCFTs are more rigid as there is only a single type of 5d SCFT corresponding to the 5d ${\cal N}=1$ (i.e. eight supercharges) superconformal algebra. Many examples of 5d SCFTs have been realized in string theory using brane probes [@Seiberg:1996bd], M-theory on local Calabi-Yau 3-folds [@Morrison:1996xf; @Douglas:1996xp; @Intriligator:1997pq], and type IIB $(p,q)$ 5-brane webs [@Aharony:1997bh; @Aharony:1997ju; @Leung:1997tw; @Bergman:2014kza].
The classification of 6d $\mathcal N = (1,0)$ theories led to a picture involving generalized ‘quiver-like’ theories whose structures could by and large be anticipated from field theoretic reasoning. There are of course exceptions to this idea and explicit geometric constructions in F-theory clarified which possible exceptions arise that evade field theoretic analysis [@Heckman:2015bfa; @Heckman:2013pva]. Similarly, in the 5d case, one might expect field theoretic reasoning to be a powerful, albeit incomplete guide. Indeed, as spearheaded in [@Intriligator:1997pq] it has been clear for a long time that field theoretic tools combined with the constraints of supersymmetry provide an unexpectedly powerful method for deducing the existence of interacting UV fixed points. More recently it was found in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] that relaxing some of the assumptions in [@Intriligator:1997pq] can resolve the conflict between the gauge theoretic classification described in [@Intriligator:1997pq] with low energy descriptions of some known stringy constructions, leading to a set of necessary (as opposed to sufficient) conditions for a 5d gauge theory to have a UV fixed point. However, it is unclear whether or not there are additional conditions needed to guarantee the existence of gauge theories as consistent 5d SCFTs. Moreover, there are known cases in which a 5d SCFT is not a gauge theory (for example, M-theory on a local $\mathbb P^2$ embedded in a Calabi-Yau 3-fold)[^1]. A reasonable follow-up to the field theoretic approach, then, is to try to check if the necessary gauge theoretic consistency conditions described in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] are in fact also sufficient, by using other string constructions to engineer the same theories. The main aim of this paper is to use geometric constructions of 5d SCFTs, realized as M-theory compactified on local Calabi-Yau (CY) 3-fold (and cross checked with dual constructions involving ($p,q$) 5-brane webs), to devise a classification scheme for 5d SCFTs. As a byproduct of our efforts, we are led to either validate or exclude various candidate 5d SCFTs predicted by the perturbative gauge theoretic analysis.
The basic mathematical setup leading to 5d SCFTs from M-theory on CY 3-folds involves studying how all compact 4-cycles (compact complex surfaces) inside a non-compact 3-fold can be shrunk to a point at a finite distance in moduli space; we call CY 3-folds engineering 5d SCFTs in this manner ‘shrinkable’ 3-folds. This geometric picture can be schematically represented by a graph whose nodes are 4-cycles (surfaces) and whose edges denote the resulting intersecting 2-cycles (curves). We note that a systematic study of the consistency conditions needed to construct such geometries has not been undertaken in the mathematics literature. Starting from a collapsed set of 4-cycles, the condition that one can resolve the singularities and thereby bring the 4-cycles to finite volume restricts the admissible types of Kähler surfaces (i.e. the nodes of the graph). We call the number of nodes of such a graph the *rank* of the 5d SCFT. In particular, we show that the nodes of the graph must be rational or ruled surfaces (possibly blown up at a positive number of points)[^2] in the rank 2 case, and further conjecture this to be true for arbitrary rank. The Calabi-Yau condition and the requirement of positive volumes place further restrictions on the allowed intersections of the surfaces (i.e. the edges of the graph; see Figure \[fig:graph\]). We thus devise a set of necessary critieria which must be satisfied for a 3-fold to engineer a 5d SCFT and conjecture that these criteria are sufficient to guarantee the existence of a 5d SCFT; this conjecture is supported by various cross checks using ($p,q$) 5-brane webs. Furthermore, we conjecture that all 5d SCFTs can be realized in M-theory on CY 3-folds satisfying these criteria. Similar to the 6d case, where F-theory compactified on elliptic 3-folds was used to classify $\mathcal N = (1,0)$ theories and it was subsequently found that for a few exotic cases frozen singularities are necessary to realize $\text{O7}^+$ planes in F-theory [@Tachikawa:2015wka; @Bhardwaj-progress], we find that in the M-theory case it is also necessary to include frozen singularities to obtain a complete classification of 5d SCFTs.
\(a) at (0,0) [$S_5$]{}; (b) at (2,0) [$S_3$]{}; (e) at (2,2) [$S_4$]{}; (f) at (2,-2) [$S_2$]{}; (c) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (g) at (4,-2) [$S_1$]{}; (d) at (6,0) [$S_r$]{}; (b) –(c) – (d); (a) – (b); (b) – (e); (e) – (a); (b)–(f); (f) – (g) – (d);
A complete classification of such CY 3-folds appears to be a rather daunting task. For example, it is unknown whether or not the list of possible 5d SCFTs is finite for a given rank. Luckily, it turns out that the rank 2 case is finite, permitting an exhaustive classification of physically distinct SCFTs.
By classifying rank 2 SCFTs in terms of Calabi-Yau geometry, we learn that all rank 2 gauge theories predicted in [@Jefferson:2017ahm], except for one family, are realized.[^3] Additionally, we are also able to pinpoint the non-perturbative physics missing in the gauge theoretic approach of [@Jefferson:2017ahm] responsible for excluding this family of SCFTs. Furthermore, the geometric approach allows us to identify additional non-Lagrangian SCFTs whose existence motivates the existence of dual ($p,q$) 5-brane web configurations.
Given the significant practical challenges presented by this classification program, it is natural to ask if the insight we have gained from the rank 2 case can be used to streamline the classification of higher rank cases. Indeed, a careful examination of the list of rank 2 theories reveals a beautifully simple picture: rank 2 SCFTs in 5d can be organized into four distinct families, related and interconnected by RG flows triggered by mass deformations—see Figure \[tree\]. Each family of 5d SCFTs has a parent 6d SCFT, where the parent 6d SCFT is related to a 5d descendant by circle compactification, up to a choice of automorphism twist (see [@Apruzzi:2017iqe] for work on classifying such automorphism twists, and see [@DelZotto:2015isa] for a discussion of additional discrete data characterizing circle compactifications of 6d SCFTs.) Thus the rank 2 classification could have been anticipated entirely from the 6d perspective! This result echoes a well-known property of rank 1 SCFTs: rank 1 5d SCFTs belong to a single family which descends from the 6d E-string theory via circle compactification.
We thus conjecture that [*all 5d SCFTs arise from 6d SCFTs compactified on a circle, possibly up to an automorphism twist*]{}. More precisely, we anticipate that all 5d SCFTs can be organized into distinct families, each of which arises from a 6d theory. For a fixed rank in 5d, the possible 6d SCFT parents are rather limited. For example (ignoring the possible automorphism twist), the 6d SCFTs leading to rank $r$ 5d SCFTs will have $r-k$ dimensional tensor branches with rank $k$ gauge algebra. This suggests a practical method to classify 5d SCFT families starting with the 6d classification: compactifying a 6d SCFT on a circle produces a 5d theory with a Kaluza Klein (KK) tower of states. We call such theories ‘5d KK theories’; these theories are in some sense analogous to 6d little string theories. To obtain non-trivial 5d SCFTs from 5d KK theories we need to turn on holonomies suitably tuned to trigger an RG flow to a nontrivial 5d SCFT in the infrared. Aspects of the phase structure of 5d theories arising from circle compactifications of 6d SCFTs were analyzed in [@DelZotto:2017pti].
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:review\] we discuss the preliminaries of 5d SCFTs, their effective gauge theory descriptions on the Coulomb branch, and their realizations in M-theory. In Section \[sec:algorithm\] we discuss the mathematics of shrinkable 3-folds and explain the basic approach of our geometric classification program. In Section \[sec:classification\] we repeat the classification of rank 1 5d SCFTs and extend the same methods to the rank 2 case. We also discuss the connection to 6d $\mathcal N = (1,0)$ SCFTs. Some mathematical results essential for the rank 2 classification are collected in the appendices: Appendix \[app:AG\] contains an explicit description of the Mori cones of blowups of Hirzebruch surfaces; Appendix \[app:bound\] contains some numerical bounds constraining rank 2 shrinkable 3-folds; finally, Appendix \[app:smooth\] contains a detailed discussion of some smoothness assumptions which simplify the classification program.
Effective Description of 5d SCFTs {#sec:review}
=================================
In this section we discuss some of the preliminaries that set the stage for the classification of 5d SCFTs later in this paper. The following discussion involves two perspectives on 5d $\mathcal N =1$ theories: the gauge theoretic perspective, and the geometric perspective of M-theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau 3-fold.
5d superconformal field theories (SCFTs) are strongly interacting systems with no marginal deformations [@Cordova:2016emh] and no known Lagrangian description at the CFT fixed point. In order to study the physics of these conformal theories, one needs to use rather indirect approaches. 5d SCFTs admit supersymmetric relevant deformations which lead to several weakly interacting effective descriptions while preserving some amount of supersymmetry. Surprisingly, these effective descriptions can be powerful tools for studying the dynamics of the conformal point. There exist some CFT observables which are rigidly protected under the renormalization group (RG) flow triggered by these deformations. Many BPS quantities are such observables: for example, the spectrum of BPS operators, supersymmetric partition functions, effective Lagrangians on the Coulomb branch, the Coulomb branch of moduli space, etc. In particular, BPS observables are protected by supersymmetry and thus we expect BPS quantities appearing in the effective theories to be a reliable description of the corresponding observables at the CFT fixed point.
String theory provides many effective descriptions of 5d SCFTs. Multiple D4-brane systems in Type IIA string theory and ($p,q$) 5-brane webs in Type IIB string theory can engineer various 5d SCFTs as singularities. Away from the singularity, when mass parameters and gauge couplings are turned on, these brane systems often permit a gauge theory description of the corresponding 5d theories.
5d SCFTs can also be engineered in M-theory: M-theory on a singular non-compact Calabi-Yau 3-fold is described at long distances by an SCFT living on the five-dimensional spacetime transverse to the 3-fold. In familiar cases, the Calabi-Yau singularity can be resolved by means of various Kähler deformations, which correspond to mass and Coulomb branch deformations in the corresponding gauge theory.
Gauge theory description
------------------------
Gauge theories in five dimensions are non-renormalizable and flow to free fixed points at low energy. As a result, these theories are typically believed to be ‘trivial’ theories. However, a large class of 5d gauge theories, mostly engineered in string theory, turn out to have interacting CFT fixed points in the UV [@Seiberg:1996bd]. In such cases, 5d gauge theories are rather interesting since they can provide low energy effective descriptions of the CFT.
In this paper, we focus primarily on gauge theories which have 5d SCFTs as their UV completions. These theories preserve $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry, and their massless field content consists of vector multiplets with gauge algebra $G$ and hypermultiplets in a representation $\textbf{R} = \oplus \textbf{R}_j$ of $G$. These gauge theories might be further specified by topological data $k$ corresponding to classical Chern-Simons level, as in the case of $G = SU(N \geq 3)$, or discrete $\theta$-angle as in the cases $G= Sp(N)$. We can also consider the cases with product gauge algebra $G=\prod_i G_i$. Once the data $G,\textbf{R},k$ is fixed, the low energy gauge theory Lagrangian is uniquely determined by supersymmetry. Our notation for describing 5d gauge theories is $$\begin{aligned}
G_k + \sum_j N_{\textbf{R}_j} \textbf{R}_j,\end{aligned}$$ where $\textbf{R}_j$ is the representation under which the $j$-th matter hypermultiplet is charged, $N_{\textbf{R}_j}$ is the number of hypermultiplets in the representation $\textbf{R}_j$.
5d $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theories possesses a rich vacuum structure. The moduli space of vacua is parametrized by expectation values of various local operators. In particular, we are interested in the Coulomb branch of vacua parametrized by vacuum expectation values of scalar fields $\phi$ in the vector multiplets. Here the scalar field $\phi$ takes values in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group $G$. So the dimension of the moduli space of the Coulomb branch is given by the rank of group $G$, $r={\rm rank}(G)$. By abuse of notation, we will denote both a scalar field in the vector multiplet and its expectation value by $\phi$ from now on.
There are global symmetries acting on the hypermultiplets. The classical Lagrangian has global symmetry algebra $F$ rotating the perturbative hypermultiplets and also a topological $U(1)_I$ symmetry for each gauge group. The objects charged under the $U(1)_I$ are non-perturbative particles called ‘instantons’. Surprisingly, this classical global symmetry is often enhanced in the CFT fixed point by non-perturbative instanton dynamics [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Douglas:1996xp]. The flavor symmetry of the perturbative hypermultiplets can combine with the topological $U(1)_I$ instanton symmetry and enhance to an even larger symmetry algebra in the UV CFT. One can turn on mass parameters $m_i$ associated to the global symmetry. Doing so breaks some of the global symmetry. In particular, the mass deformation with parameter $g^{-2}$ along the $U(1)_I$ instanton symmetry leads to a gauge theory description with gauge coupling $g$ at low energy.
At a generic point in the Coulomb branch, the gauge symmetry $G$ is broken to the maximal torus $U(1)^{r}$. Thus the low energy dynamics on the Coulomb branch can be effectively described by abelian gauge theories. The low energy abelian action is determined by a prepotential $\mathcal{F}$. The prepotential is 1-loop exact and the full quantum result is a cubic polynomial of the vector multiplet scalar $\phi$ and mass parameters $m_j$, given by [@Witten:1996qb; @Intriligator:1997pq]: $$\label{eqn:pre}
\mathcal{F} = \frac{1}{2g^2}h_{ij}\phi_i \phi_j + \frac{k}{6} d_{ijk}\phi_i\phi_j\phi_k + \frac{1}{12}\left(\sum_{e\in {\rm root}} |e\cdot \phi|^2 -\sum_j \sum_{w\in {\bf R}_j}|w\cdot\phi+m_j|^3\right) \ ,$$ where by abuse of notation ${\bf R}_j$ denotes the set of weights of the $j$-th hypermultiplet representation of $G$, $h_{ij}={\rm Tr}(T_iT_j)$, and $d_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}_{\bf F}(T_i\{T_j,T_k\})$ with ${\bf F}$ in the fundamental representation. The first two terms in the prepotential are from the classical Lagrangian and the last two terms are 1-loop corrections coming from integrating out charged fermions in the Coulomb branch. We remark that the prepotential may have different values in the different sub-chambers (or phases) of the Coulomb branch due to the absolute values in the 1-loop contributions.
The 1-loop correction to the prepotential renormalizes the gauge coupling. The effective coupling in the Coulomb branch is simply given by a second derivative of the quantum prepotential which also fixes the exact metric on the Coulomb branch: $$\label{eqn:der}
(\tau_{\rm eff})_{ij} = (g^{-2}_{\rm eff})_{ij} = \partial_i\partial_j\mathcal{F} \ , \qquad ds^2 = (\tau_{\rm eff})_{ij}d\phi_id\phi_j \ .$$ Interestingly, the exact spectrum of magnetic monopoles on the Coulomb branch can be easily obtained from the quantum prepotential. Since monopoles are magnetically dual to electric gauge bosons, tensions of magnetic monopole strings can be computed as $$\label{eqn:mono}
\phi_{Di} = \partial_i\mathcal{F} \ , \quad i=1,\cdots r \ .$$ One can also compute Chern-Simons couplings: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{ijk} = \partial_ i \partial_j \partial_k \mathcal F.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we can use $\mathcal F $ to exactly compute some quantum observables such as the Coulomb branch metric and monopole spectrum.
In [@Intriligator:1997pq; @Jefferson:2017ahm], the above supersymmetry protected data is used to attempt a classification of possible 5d SCFTs admitting low energy gauge theory descriptions. The main idea in these classification programs is that the quantum metric on the Coulomb branch should be positive semi-definite in the CFT limit, as required by unitarity. In [@Intriligator:1997pq], the positivity condition of the metric was imposed throughout the ‘perturbative’ Coulomb branch and all sensible gauge theories were subsequently identified using this constraint. In this classification, the ‘perturbative’ Coulomb branch is determined by forcing only *perturbative* particles to have positive masses. Under this condition, the number and type of hypermultiplets are strictly constrained and quiver type gauge theories are ruled out; see [@Intriligator:1997pq] for details. We refer to this classification as the ‘IMS classification’.
However, it was pointed out later works [@Aharony:1997ju; @Bergman:2014kza; @Hayashi:2015fsa; @Gaiotto:2015una; @Yonekura:2015ksa] that string theory can engineer many 5d gauge theories with non-trivial CFT fixed points not included among the theories in the IMS classification. It turns out that the condition of metric positivity throughout the entire perturbative Coulomb branch is too strong [@Jefferson:2017ahm] and unnecessarily excludes many non-trivial 5d gauge theories. This suggests that the IMS classification is incomplete, and the gauge theories exceeding the IMS bounds lead us to revisit the problem of classifying 5d SCFTs.
Let us briefly review the classification of [@Jefferson:2017ahm]. One of the main results of this analysis is the observation that the ‘perturbative’ Coulomb branch receives quantum corrections by light non-perturbative states [@Aharony:1997ju]. It is possible that some of non-perturbative states can become massless somewhere in the perturbative Coulomb branch. These hyperplanes in the Coulomb branch where these light states become massless can be thought of as ‘non-perturbative’ walls. Beyond such walls, the perturbative Coulomb branch breaks down. One way to see this is to note that the signature of the quantum metric on the Coulomb branch changes beyond these non-perturbative walls, which implies the metric cannot be trusted in these regions. However, the classification in [@Intriligator:1997pq] imposes metric positivity on the whole perturbative Coulomb branch, even beyond non-perturbative walls. The result is that some theories are excluded because of the unreliability of the metric in these regions, and this leads to an incomplete classification. In order to obtain a complete classification, metric positivity should be applied only on the ‘physical’ Coulomb branch, which can be computed by accounting for restrictions introduced by non-perturbative states.
In general, it is difficult to identify the correct physical Coulomb branch after taking into account non-perturbative effects since this necessarily involves studying the full non-perturbative spectrum. In particular, it is not easy to analyze the spectrum of gauge theory instantons. Only when we know a precise UV completion of the instanton moduli space, such as the ADHM construction, can we compute the exact spectrum using localization. For most gauge theories, such a convenient construction of the instanton moduli space is lacking.
Fortunately, the perturbative prepotential contains part of the exact spectrum of non-perturbative states. As noted in (\[eqn:mono\]), the full monopole spectrum can be obtained from the prepotential. We can use this information to identify some of the non-perturbative walls in the perturbative Coulomb branch. By relaxing the metric positivity constraint to apply only to the region interior to such non-perturbative walls, it was conjectured in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] that all gauge theories having interacting CFT fixed points satisfy the metric positivity condition in the sub-locus of Coulomb branch where perturbative particles and monopole strings have positive masses. In [@Jefferson:2017ahm], it was also shown that a large class of known 5d gauge theories satisfy this criterion. It may be true that all the known 5d gauge theories having 5d SCFT fixed points satisfy this refined condition.
In addition, there are two more conjectures in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] used to carry out the classification of 5d gauge theories with simple gauge algebras. The first conjecture is that if all perturbative particles and monopoles have positive masses *somewhere* in the Coulomb branch, the gauge theory has a UV CFT fixed point. The second conjecture is that perturbative prepotentials of all gauge theories with UV CFT fixed points are positive *everywhere* in the perturbative Coulomb branch. Note that the first conjecture is not sufficient to guarantee that all instanton particles have positive mass and also that the metric is positive in the same region. So this is simply a necessary condition. We will see later that certain theories predicted by this approach must be excluded because some non-perturbative particles acquire negative masses in the CFT limit. The second conjecture is based on the convergence of the 1-loop sphere partition function of 5d CFTs, but there is neither physical nor mathematical motivation for this conjecture beyond its practical implications. Using these two conjectures, non-trivial gauge theories with single gauge node were fully classified in [@Jefferson:2017ahm]. This classification includes all known single gauge node theories and additionally predicts a large number of new gauge theories.
In this paper, we construct rank 1 and rank 2 CFTs using Calabi-Yau geometry. Rank 1 gauge theories arising from SCFTs were classified in [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Morrison:1996xf; @Intriligator:1997pq; @Katz:1996fh]; these theories have gauge algebra $SU(2)$ with $N_\textbf{F}\leq 7$. Geometrically, the rank 1 SCFTs can be engineered by del Pezzo surfaces embedded in a non-compact $3$-fold. The families of rank 2 gauge theories predicted by the classification of [@Jefferson:2017ahm] are displayed in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\]. The UV completions of the theories shown in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\] are all expected to be 6d theories, rather than 5d SCFTs; on the other hand, their descendants obtained by mass deformations are expected to have 5d CFT fixed points. Many of these theories in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\] are new theories, for example $SU(3)$ with $(N_{\bf F},|k|)=(6,4),(3,\frac{13}{2}),(0,9)$ in $(a)$.
One of the purposes of this paper is to check if the new rank 2 CFTs predicted in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] (or descendants of theories in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\]) can be constructed geometrically. We will see that, surprisingly, almost all new theories in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\] admit geometric constructions, therefore their descendants indeed have interacting CFT fixed points. However, some theories do not correspond to geometries in their conformal limits due to subtle non-perturbative effects. Therefore, the geometric constructions of this paper indicate that the criteria described in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] require additional non-perturbative corrections in order to be complete. We hope to revisit the field theoretic approach of [@Jefferson:2017ahm] in the near future with the benefit of our improved understanding.
[0.45]{}
$N_{\textbf{Sym}}$ $N_{\textbf F}$ $|k|$
-------------------- ----------------- ----------------
$1$ $0$ $\frac{3}{2}$
$1$ $1$ $0$
$0$ $10$ $0$
$0$ $9$ $\frac{3}{2}$
$0$ $6$ $4$
$0$ $3$ $\frac{13}{2}$
$0$ $0$ $9$
: Rank 2 gauge theories.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification"}
[0.45]{}
$N_{\textbf{AS}}$ $N_{\textbf F}$
------------------- -----------------
$3$ $0$
$2$ $4$
$1$ $8$
$0$ $10$
: Rank 2 gauge theories.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification"}
$N_{\textbf F}$
----------------- -- --
$6$
: Rank 2 gauge theories.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification"}
M-theory compactifications {#sec:Mth}
--------------------------
String compactifications are an extraordinarily useful tool for realizing local, non-perturbative models of gauge sector physics in terms of brane dynamics. Consider in particular M-theory on a non-compact singular Calabi Yau variety $Y$, which is conjectured to be described at low energies by a 5d $\mathcal N = 1$ SCFT. We are specifically interested in studying the Coulomb branch deformations of these 5d SCFTs. The heart of this analysis is the correspondence between the Coulomb branch $\mathcal C$ and the extended Kähler cone $\mathcal K(Y)$ of the singular threefold $Y$ [@Witten:1996qb]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal C =\mathcal K(Y).
\end{aligned}$$
The above correspondence is made more precise by establishing a dictionary between the geometry of the threefold and the BPS spectrum of the associated 5d theory, which we now describe in detail. Consider a smooth non-compact 3-fold $X$. The Kähler metric of $X$ depends on $h^{1,1}(X)$ moduli controlling the sizes of complex $p$ cycles in $X$. In order to decouple gravitational interactions, it is necessary to scale the volume of $X$ to be infinitely large while keeping the volumes of all 2- and 4-cycles at finite size; this has the effect of sending the 5d Planck mass to infinity. Given a basis $D_i \in H^{1,1}(X)$, one may therefore express the Kähler form $J$ as the linear combination $$\begin{aligned}
J = \phi_i D_i,~~ i = 1, \dots, h^{1,1}(X),
\end{aligned}$$ where the Kähler moduli $\phi_{i=1,\dots, r}$ associated to (cohomology classes dual to) compact 4-cycles $D_i = S_i$ are identified with Coulomb branch moduli, while the Kähler moduli $\phi_{r+j,\dots, r+M}=m_{j=1,\dots, M}$ associated to non-compact 4-cycles $D_{r+j} = N_j$ are interpreted as mass parameters of the 5d theory. To align the discussion with the 5d field theoretic interpretation, we find it useful to partition the Kähler moduli into $r$ Coulomb branch parameters and $M$ mass parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
h^{1,1}(X) = r + M.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that when the associated 5d field theory admits a description as a gauge theory, $r$ coincides with the rank of the gauge group.
The BPS states of the 5d theory include electric particles and (dual) magnetic strings. Geometrically these states correspond to M2 branes wrapping holomorphic 2-cycles and magnetic dual M5 branes wrapping holomorphic 4-cycles, and the masses and tensions of these BPS degrees of freedom are proportional to the volumes of the corresponding holomorphic cycles. At a generic point $\phi \in \mathcal C$ the spectrum of BPS states is massive, and this is reflected by the fact that the 2- and 4-cycles of $Y$ have finite volume. Since the conformal point $\phi = 0$ is characterized by the appearance of interacting massless and tensionless degrees of freedom, we interpret the threefold $Y$ as a singular limit of the smooth threefold $X$ in which some collection of compact 4-cycles have collapsed to a point. Said differently, $X$ is a desingularization of $Y$.
The above discussion suggests that the data of the massive BPS spectrum is encoded in the geometry of $X$. Indeed this is the case, the main connection to geometry being the interpretation of the 5d prepotential (\[eqn:pre\]) as the cubic polynomial of triple intersection numbers of 4-cycles in $X$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal F = \text{vol}(X) =\frac{1}{3!} \int_X J^3 =\frac{1}{3!} \phi_i \phi_j \phi_k\int_X D_i \wedge D_j \wedge D_k.
\end{aligned}$$ In the previous section, we saw that various data characterizing the massive BPS spectrum can be expressed as derivatives of $\mathcal F$. This data equivalently characterizes the geometry of $X$. In particular, the tensions (\[eqn:der\]) of elementary monopole strings are the volumes of the compact 4-cycles $S_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{Di} = \partial_i \mathcal F =\text{vol}(S_i)= \frac{1}{2!} \int_X J^2 \wedge S_i,~~ 1 \leq i \leq r,
\end{aligned}$$ the matrix of effective couplings has as its components the volumes of various 2-cycles: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ij} = \partial_i \partial_j \mathcal F= \text{vol}(S_i \cap S_j) = \int_X J \wedge S_i \wedge S_j,~~ 1 \leq i,j \leq r,
\end{aligned}$$ and the effective Chern-Simons couplings $k_{ijk}$ are triple intersection numbers: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{ijk} = \partial_i \partial_j \partial_k \mathcal F = \int_X D_i \wedge D_j \wedge D_k.
\end{aligned}$$ The Kähler cone $\mathcal K$ of the singularity $Y$ can also be specified quite easily; $\mathcal K$ is simply the set of all positive Kähler forms (parametrized by the moduli $\phi$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal K(X \backslash Y) = \{ J = \phi_i D_i ~|~\int_{C} J > 0 ~~\text{for all holomorphic curves $C \subset X$} \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it is possible to study Coulomb branch deformations of 5d SCFTs purely in terms of the geometry of a smooth 3-fold $X$. Generically there are multiple smooth 3-folds $X_i$ which share a common singular limit $Y$, so the extended Kähler cone is simply the closure of the union of Kähler cones, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal K(Y) = \overline{\cup \mathcal K(X_i \backslash Y)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The extended Kähler cone has the structure of a fan, with pairs of cones separated by hypersurfaces in the interior of $\mathcal K(Y)$. The boundaries of $\mathcal K(X_i \backslash Y)$ correspond to loci where the 3-fold $X_i$ develops a singularity. The interior boundaries are regions where a holomorphic curve collapses to zero volume and formally develops negative volume in the adjacent Kähler cone, signaling a flop transition (see Section (\[sec:gtrans\]) for further discussion.) By contrast, the boundaries of $\mathcal K(Y)$ are loci where one of the 4-cycles can collapse to a 2-cycle or a point. The SCFT point is the origin of $\mathcal K(Y)$, and corresponds to the singularity $Y$ which is characterized by a connected union of 4-cycles shrinking to a point.
In some cases the 5d theory associated to a 3-fold $X$ admits a description as a gauge theory. In such cases, the abelian gauge algebra is $H^2(X,\mathbb R) / H^2(X ,\mathbb Z)$ and enhances to a non-abelian gauge algebra in the singularity $Y$. The simple coroots of the gauge algebra correspond to the classes $S_i \in H^2(X,\mathbb Z)$, whereas the simple roots are generic fibers $f_j$ contained in $H_2(X,\mathbb Z)$. More precisely, the W-bosons of the 5d theory correspond to M2-branes wrapping holomorphic curves $f_j$, and so the Cartan matrix $A_{ij}$ is the matrix of charges $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Cartan}
A_{ij} = - \int_{f_j} S_i.
\end{aligned}$$
In practice, we work in an algebro-geometric setting in which volumes of holomorphic cycles can be computed as intersection products. Thus the volumes of 2-cycles $C_i \subset H_2(X,\mathbb Z)$ and 4-cycles $S_i \subset H_4(X,\mathbb Z)$ are expressed in terms of the intersection products of numerical classes of (resp.) complex curves $[C]$ and surfaces $[D]$. That is, $\text{vol}(C) = (J \cdot [C])_X$ and $\text{vol}(S) = (J \cdot J \cdot S_i)_{X}$. We abuse notation and use the same symbols to denote $p$-cycles, their homology classes, and their numerical equivalence classes whenever the context is clear.
Classification Program {#sec:algorithm}
======================
Physical equivalence classes of 3-folds {#subsec:constructshrink}
---------------------------------------
In this section we propose a classification of CY 3-folds defining 5d SCFTs via M-theory compactification. One way to approach this problem is to study singular 3-folds for which there exist desingularizations that preserve the Calabi-Yau condition (i.e. *crepant resolutions*.) However, the problem of classifying singular 3-folds admitting crepant resolutions is notoriously difficult. Rather than attempting to classify singularities, we instead classify *physical equivalence classes* of singularities. We define a pair of 3-folds to be physically equivalent (i.e. leading to the same SCFT, up to decoupled sectors) if they are related by a finite change in Kähler and complex parameters. There is a conjectural aspect to this definition which we now clarify.
It is immediate from the above definition that normalizable Kähler and complex deformations do not change the physical equivalence class of a 3-fold, since these deformations do not change the singular limit (and hence do not change the SCFT). However, we also find it useful to identify 3-folds that differ by non-dynamical large complex deformations. While the singular limits of such 3-folds are not identical, we claim they are nevertheless closely related in that their SCFTs differ at most by decoupled free states. As we will see, the notion of physical equivalence dramatically simplifies the problem of classification.
Shrinkable 3-folds {#sec:shrinkable}
------------------
In this section we specify the necessary criteria a smooth 3-fold must satisfy in order to define a 5d SCFT. Note that we assume all 5d SCFTs have a *maximal* Coulomb branch, meaning that there exists a phase in which the 5d theory has no dynamical massless hypermultiplets, possibly after turning on some mass parameters. Geometrically this means that we assume there exists a smooth 3-fold which has no normalizable (dynamical) complex structure deformations. The geometry of such a 3-fold is thus controlled by three types of parameters: normalizable Kähler (i.e. Coulomb branch) parameters, non-normalizable Kähler (i.e. mass) parameters, and non-dynamical non-normalizable complex structure deformation parameters (see Section \[sec:transitions\] for an example).
Before spelling out the necessary criteria, we recall the key features of the geometries which are the subject of our analysis. We are interested in smooth, non-compact CY 3-folds $X$ containing a finite number of compact 4-cycles $S_i$ and non-compact 4-cycles $N_j$. As discussed in the previous section the number of independent compact 4-cycles is equal to the number of Coulomb branch parameters, while the number of mass parameters is identified with the number of non-normalizable Kähler deformations. The 4-cycles $S_i \subset X$ are irreducible projective algebraic surfaces, hence Kähler. Moreover, $X$ also contains compact 2-cycles which can either be isolated or part of a family of compact 2-cycles belonging to one of the 4-cycles.
From the physics perspective the natural condition for CY 3-folds to lead to SCFTs is that we can tune non-normalizable Kähler parameters (mass parameters) so that at a finite distance in normalizable Kähler moduli space we can reach a singular CY 3-fold which has no finite volume cycles or surfaces. However, formulating this in algebro-geometric terms is not simple. Instead we formulate it in a somewhat different way which we believe is equivalent to this. Namely, in order for a 3-fold $X$ to define a 5d SCFT, $X$ must satisfy the property of being *shrinkable*, which we define below:
[**Definition.**]{} \[def:shrinkability\] Let $X$ be a smooth CY 3-fold modeled locally as the neighborhood of a connected union of compact Kähler surfaces $S = \cup S_i$. We say $X$ is *shrinkable* if there exists an intersecting (possibly empty) union of non-compact surfaces $N=\cup N_j$ and a limit $Y$ of Kähler metrics such that:
1. $S$ (and all curves $C \subset S$) have zero volume in $Y$;
2. $Y$ is at finite distance from a metric $X_0$ for which $N$ has zero volume while $S$ has positive volume.
By abuse of terminology, we say the surface $S$ is shrinkable if $S$ is contained in a shrinkable 3-fold $X$ as a maximal compact algebraic surface.
Let us now translate the above definition of shrinkability into a set of necessary geometric conditions. We consider first the limit where all non-normalizable Kähler moduli have been set to zero. In this limit we may have a singular 3-fold which is described by the Kähler class $J=\phi_iS_i$. Our convention is to assume $\phi_i\ge0$ and compute volumes with respect to $-J$; thus, the volume of a curve $C$ is given by $\mathrm{vol}(C)= -J\cdot C$ and the volume of a divisor $D$ is $\text{vol}(D) = J^2 \cdot D$.[^4] Since we require $-J$ to define a Kähler metric which assigns postive volumes to complex $p$-cycles in $X$, a necessary condition for shrinkablity is $$\label{eq:shrinkability}
\mathrm{vol}(C)= -J\cdot C\ge0,~~\forall C\subset S.$$
What happens when the inequality (\[eq:shrinkability\]) is saturated? Suppose there exists a curve $C$, with $\text{vol}(C)=0$. So far, we have only considered the case in which all non-normalizable Kähler moduli are set to zero. To give finite volume to $C$ requires a non-normalizable Kähler deformation, which in turn implies the existence of a non-compact 4-cycle $N$ attached to $S$ along $C$. Notice that since $C$ belongs to $N$, there may also be other compact curves $C'$ which are homologous to $C$ in $N$; in particular, the full set of curves homologous to $C$ can fiber over $N$. For each of these curves $C'$ it must be that $\text{vol}(C')=0$, and thus $N$ can be said to have degenerated to a non-compact 2-cycle along its fibers.[^5] By making a non-normalizable Kähler deformation, we can bring the curve $C = S \cap N$ to finite volume, and we expect that we are again in a situation where the surface $S$ is contractible.
We believe that the above necessary criteria are in fact sufficient to define a shrinkable 3-fold:
*Conjecture*. Let $X$ be a smooth CY 3-fold modeled locally as the neighborhood of a connected union of compact Kähler surfaces $S= \cup S_i$. Then $S$ is shrinkable provided that $- J \cdot C \geq 0$ for all curves $C \subset S$ and that there is one $S_i$ with positive volume and the rest should have non-negative (possibly zero) volume.
Elliptic Calabi-Yau 3-folds are immediately ruled out by these criteria. F-theory on an elliptic 3-fold engineers a 6d theory. In a 6d theory, cubic terms in the prepotential $\mathcal{F}$ are trivial; they are non-trivial only when we compactify the 6d theory on a circle and turn on holonomies for gauge symmetries where the circle size is inversely proportional to a mass parameter (or a non-compact Kähler parameter). This means that the volumes of all 4-cycles in the associated 3-fold are zero when we turn off mass parameters (or equivalently, in the 6d limit). Therefore elliptic 3-folds are not shrinkable.
Building blocks for shrinkable 3-folds {#sec:buildingblocks}
--------------------------------------
We now argue in favor of a series of simplifying assumptions we make concerning the surfaces $S$ which are instrumental for our proposed classification of shrinkable rank 2 surfaces modulo physical equivalence. Observe that when the inequalities of (\[eq:shrinkability\]) are all strict, then $S$ is *contractible* [@grauert], so that $S$ can be contracted to an isolated singular point $p$ of a singular 3-fold $Y$. In more precise mathematical terms, this means there exists a holomorphic map $f:X \to Y$ with $f(S)=p$ such that $f$ restricts to an isomorphism away from $S$, i.e. $f|_{X-S}:X-S \cong Y-p$. Since $X$ is at finite distance from $Y$ in moduli space, it is evident that contractibility of $S \subset X$ implies shrinkability of $X$. When a curve has zero volume, we expect that we can obtain a contractible surface by means of a non-normalizable Kähler deformation which involves bringing non-compact 4-cycles to finite volume. Hence, we conjecture that a holomorphic map $f$ exists when $S$ is shrinkable, as well:
*Conjecture*. Let $X$ be a shrinkable CY 3-fold modeled locally as a neighborhood of a connected union of compact Kähler surfaces $S= \cup S_i$ meeting a (possibly empty) collection of non-compact surfaces $N = \cup N_j$. Then there exists a holomorphic map $f:X \to Y$ sending $S$ to a point $p$ and $N$ to a collection of curves $C$ such that $\left. f\right|_{X - S - N} : X - S - N \to Y - C$ is an isomorphism.
The existence of a holomorphic map $f$ as described above permits a number of simplifying assumptions for the following reasons. Replacing the singular 3-fold $Y$ by its normalization if necessary, we can assume that the singularities of $Y$ are normal. It follows that $Y$ has “canonical singularities”, and moreover that $X$ is a crepant resolution of $Y$. But it is known the components of the resolutions of canonical threefold singularities $Y$ are rational or ruled [@can3f].
We next argue that we can further restrict the types of possible building blocks by exploiting physical equivalence:
*Conjecture*. Shrinkable surfaces are physically equivalent to a shrinkable surface $S=\cup S_i$, where the irreducible components $S_i$ are either equal to $\mathbb P^2$ or a blowup $\text{Bl}_{p} \mathbb F_n$ of a Hirzebruch surface at $p$ points intersecting one another (or self-intersecting) transversally. Moreover, there exist non-negative integers $p_{\text{max}}(n)$ such that $p \leq p_{\text{max}}(n)$.
We briefly discuss the content of the above conjecture, deferring a more detailed discussion of the first two points to Section \[sec:transitions\]. In that section, we describe the rank 2 case only. For higher rank, we have to also consider the situation where three surfaces can intersect transversally.[^6] At such a point of intersection, called a triple point, the three intersecting surfaces have local equation $xyz=0$. As part of the argument in Section \[sec:transitions\], we blow up a point where two surfaces intersect, at which the intersecting surfaces have local equation $xy=0$, so our construction will not apply at a triple point. To handle triple points, we simply supplement the argument in Section \[sec:gtrans\] by noting that a complex structure deformation will keep a point to be blown up distinct from any of the triple points.
1. Using a combination of complex structure and Kähler deformations, it is possible to map a 3-fold containing a ruled surface over a genus $g$ to a 3-fold containing a Hirzebruch surface. We defer a detailed discussion to Section \[sec:transitions\].
2. In all examples that we have investigated, we have been able to bypass non-transverse intersections in one of two ways: either by a complex structure deformation, or by a Kähler deformation in the form of a flop. The idea is that when we flop a curve (in $S_1$, say) which passes through a point of non-transversal intersection, the result is to blow up $S_2$ at that point, simplifying the singularity of the intersection curve and rendering it more transverse. We therefore assume that a combination of complex and Kähler deformations will always suffice to produce a 3-fold containing transversally intersecting surfaces $S_i$.
3. We prove in Appendix \[app:Mori\] that if $p>p_{\text{max}}(n)$ there are infinitely many generators for rational curves. The presence of infinitely many generators is expected to indicate the presence of an infinite dimensional global symmetry group. An example of this is $\text{dP}_9$ (note $p_{\text{max}}(1)=7$), in which case the symmetry group permuting these generators is the affine $E_8$ Weyl group. In such a case, the Weyl group is infinite dimensional, and can be interpreted as a finite symmetry group of a 6d theory viewed from the 5d perspective. As we discussed above, geometries associated to 6d theories are not shrinkable. Since a CFT should not have an infinite dimensional global symmetry group, we claim that surfaces $S_i$ with an infinite number of Mori cone generators cannot be building blocks for 5d SCFTs and are thus excluded.
Consistency conditions for shrinkable 3-folds {#sec:consistency}
---------------------------------------------
The condition that $S$ is contained in a CY 3-fold imposes constraints on the curves of intersection of the components of $S$, which will be exploited in a crucial way in our classification program.
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two smooth surfaces glued along a curve $C = S_1 \cap S_2$. Now suppose that $S_1\cup S_2$ is contained in a 3-fold $X$, and that the intersection of $S_1$ and $S_2$ is transverse in $X$. Then the normal bundle of $C$ in $X$ is given by $N_{C,X}=N_{C,S_1}\oplus N_{C,S_2}$. The Calabi-Yau condition then implies $$\label{eq:gluingcond}
C^2_{S_1}\oplus C^2_{S_2}=2g-2,$$ where $g$ is the genus of $C$ and the subscripts on the right-hand side denote the irreducible surface in which the self-intersection takes place. The gluing curves must satisfy the adjunction formula for each surface $S_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:adjunction}
(K \cdot C)_{S_i} + C_{S_i}^2 = 2g - 2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{S_i}$ is the canonical class of the surface $S_i$. For the rank 2 case, which is the primary focus of this paper, we argue in Section \[sec:rank2\] that it suffices for our classification to assume that $g=0$.
Suppose a compact connected holomorphic surface $S$ satisfies the above constraints on its curves of intersection. These constraints immediately imply that a CY 3-fold can be found containing a neighborhood in $S$ of the curves of intersection (for example, the total space of the normal bundle of $S_1 \cap S_2$ in $X$ works, as the complement of $S_1 \cap S_2 \subset S$ is smooth). Moreover, we can also find local CY 3-folds containing the complement of the intersection curves $S_1 \cap S_2$ in $S$ (for example, just take the total space of the canonical bundle as before). Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that above two types of local models can be glued to form a local model of a CY 3-fold. In other words, given smooth holomorphic surfaces $S_1$ and $S_2$ glued along a smooth curve $C$ and satisfying (\[eq:gluingcond\]), a smooth CY 3-fold $X$ can be found containing $S=S_1\cup S_2$. While we have not proven that such an $X$ can always be found if (\[eq:gluingcond\]) and (\[eq:adjunction\]) are satisfied, these conditions are consistent with all known examples and it is presumably not too difficult to rigorously prove this.
We emphasize here that the above gluing condition is a local condition that has no bearing on the overall topology of the surface $S$, and therefore permits a variety of interesting configurations. In principle there is nothing preventing, for example, gluing two surfaces together along multiple irreducible curves. Another interesting configuration involves two curves belonging to a single surface $S_i$ being glued together. However, we will see that the only gluing configurations which play a role in the rank 2 classification are pairwise transverse intersections between the irreducible components $S_1$ and $S_2$.
The above discussion plays an essential role in our classification because we do not need to actually construct $X$ to proceed; rather, we only require the existence of $X$ and the existence of a surface $S$ can be used as a proxy for the existence of a local 3-fold. Thus the problem of classifying shrinkable 3-folds can be reduced to the problem of classifying embeddable, shrinkable surfaces $S$.
### A simple example: $S = \mathbb F_0 \cup \mathbb F_2$ {#a-simple-example-s-mathbb-f_0-cup-mathbb-f_2 .unnumbered}
An illustrative example of this construction is a simple complex surface $S=S_1 \cup S_2$ with $S_1= \mathbb F_0, S_2 = \mathbb F_2$ as depicted in Figure \[fig:F0F2\]. Our rank 2 ansatz gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:geotrip}
J^3 &= S_1^3 \phi_1^3 + S_2^3 \phi_2^3 + 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 (J \cdot S_1 \cdot S_2) =K_{S_1}^2 \phi_1^3 + K_{S_2}^2 \phi_2^3 - 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 \text{vol}(S_1 \cap S_2).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
The first order of business is to determine an appropriate gluing. Gluing these two surfaces together requires us to identify an irreducible, smooth curve $C = S_1 \cap S_2$ belonging to the Mori cone of both surfaces, satisfying (\[eq:gluingcond\]). In the case of Hirzebruch surfaces $\mathbb F_{n_i}$, the Mori cones are the positive linear spans $\langle E_{i}, F_{i} \rangle$, where the curve classes satisfy the intersections $F_i^2= 0, E_i \cdot F_i =1, E_i^2 = -n_i$, so the range of possibilities is severely restricted. The gluing condition (\[eq:gluingcond\]) implies that the self intersection of one of the two gluing curves must be negative. Since the curve $E$ is the unique rational curve with negative self intersection [@GH], it therefore follows that we must select $C_{S_i} = E_{i}$ for one of the two surfaces, say $C_{S_2} =E_{2}$. The other curve must then satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
C_{S_1}^2 = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ As a trial solution let us take $C_{S_1} = a F_{1} + b E_{1}$, so that $C_{S_1}^2 = 2 ab = 0$. Therefore, either $a = 0$ or $b = 0$. From the adjunction formula (\[eq:adjunction\]), we know that $(C \cdot E_1 + C \cdot F_1)_{S_1}= a+b= 1$, and therefore the remaining nonzero coefficient must be set equal to unity. To be concrete, we choose $$\begin{aligned}
C_{S_1} = F_{1},~~~ C_{S_2} = E_{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Now that we have constructed the surface $S$, we must check that the local 3-fold $X$ associated to this surface is shrinkable. We parametrize a Kähler class $J$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
J = \phi_1 [\mathbb F_0] + \phi_2 [ \mathbb F_2],
\end{aligned}$$ where $[\mathbb F]$ is the class associated to the 4-cycle $\mathbb F \subset X$. The Mori cone of $X$ is the union of the Mori cones of the component surfaces $S_i$, namely the positive span $\langle E_{1}, E_{2}, F_{2}
\rangle$ (we omit $F_{1}$ because the gluing identifies $F_1$ and $E_2$.) Therefore, the shrinkability condition (\[eq:shrinkability\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
(\text{vol}(E_1), \text{vol}(E_2), \text{vol}(F_2) ) = (2 \phi_1 -\phi_2 , 2 \phi_1, -\phi_1 + 2\phi_2 ) \geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Since that the above conditions can be satisfied for a nontrivial set of Coulomb branch parameters $\phi_i$, we conclude that the geometry $X$ corresponds to a 5d SCFT on the Coulomb branch.
![Example of a gluing construction of the Kähler surface $S = \mathbb F_0 \cup \mathbb F_2$. The gluing curves in both surfaces, $C_1, C_2$, are encircled by dashed lines in the left figure. The final geometry (on the right) is the result of identifying these two curves subject to the conditions described in Section \[sec:algorithm\].[]{data-label="fig:F0F2"}](F0-F2.pdf)
Geometry of physical equivalences {#sec:transitions}
---------------------------------
In this section we discuss some important types of physical equivalences upon which our classification relies. Many of these equivalences identify 3-folds related by geometric transitions, i.e. maps between smooth geometries which involve passing through an intermediate singularity. Another type of physical equivalence identifies 3-folds related by a “large" change in the complex structure of non-dynamical modes, which interpolates between two singular geometries—this is a Hanany-Witten transition [@Hanany:1996ie]. We illustrate these two types of maps in turn.
### Geometric transitions
### Flop transitions {#sec:gtrans .unnumbered}
One of the simplest and most thoroughly studied types of geometric transitions is a *flop transition*, which is a topology-changing transition $X \rightarrow X'$ between two 3-folds $X, X'$ that is in practice typically realized by blowing down a $-1$ curve $C \subset X$ and blowing up a different $-1$ curve $C' \subset X'$ (see Figure \[fig:flop\]). A flop is a birational map $X\dashrightarrow X'$ which is an isomorphism away from curves $C,C'$, with $K_X\cdot C=K_{X'}\cdot C'=0$. If $C$ and $C'$ are both isomorphic to $\IP^1$, the flop is called a simple flop. Simple flops were classified in [@km].
In field theoretic terms, a flop transition corresponds to a continuous change of the mass of a particular state in the matter hypermultiplet from positive to negative values; this change corresponds to a singular phase transition on the Coulomb branch.
![A local illustration of a flop transition $X \rightarrow X'$ between two CY 3-folds. The red lines in both diagrams correspond to the $-1$ curves in (respectively) $X$ and $X'$.[]{data-label="fig:flop"}](flop-trans.pdf)
### Genus reduction {#genus-reduction .unnumbered}
We saw in Section \[sec:buildingblocks\] that the $S_i$ can be ruled surfaces over higher genus curves as well as genus 0. Here we argue that by our notion of physical equivalences we can restrict to $g=0$ using geometric transitions. This can be obtained by composing a complex structure deformation of a surface $S_i$ with a flop transition. This provides a map from a ruled surface over a curve of genus $g$ to a self-glued Hirzebruch surface.
This type of geometric transition is particularly important because it exhibits the non-normalizable Kähler moduli of the local 3-fold defined by a ruled surface over a curve of genus $g$ as blowup parameters of the 3-fold defined by a self-glued surface $\text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F_n$. While we have not proven that the transition can always be achieved in the higher rank case due to the requirement that additional compact surfaces remain glued throughout the transition, we nevertheless believe this construction can be extended to higher rank surfaces with at most minor modifications.
\(a) at (0,0) [$
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8,xscale=1.1]
\draw [thick] (0,0) to [out=90,in=180] (1,1) to [out=0,in=180] (2,.85) to [out=0,in=180] (3,1) to [out=0,in=90] (4,0) to [out=270,in=0] (3,-1) to [out=180,in=0] (2,-.85) to [out=180,in=0] (1,-1) to [out=180,in=270] (0,0);
\draw[thick] (.7,0) to [out=-20,in=180] (1.1,-.13) to [out=1,in=200] (1.5,0);
\draw[thick] (2.5,0) to [out=-20,in=180] (2.9,-.13) to [out=1,in=200] (3.3,0);
\draw[thick] (2.6,-.05) -- (3.2,-.05);
\draw[thick] (.8,-.05) -- (1.4,-.05);
\end{tikzpicture}
$]{}; (b) at (6,0) [$
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=.8,xscale=1.1]
\draw [thick] (0,0) to [out=90,in=180] (1,1) to [out=0,in=180] (2,.85) to [out=0,in=180] (3,1) to [out=0,in=90] (4,0) to [out=270,in=0] (3,-1);
\draw[thick] (.8,-1) to [out=180,in=270] (0,0);
\draw[thick] (2.5,0) to [out=-20,in=180] (2.9,-.13) to [out=1,in=200] (3.3,0);
\draw[thick] (2.6,-.05) -- (3.2,-.05);
\draw[thick] (.9,-.09) -- (1.45,-.09);
\draw[thick](.7,-.05) to [out=-10,in=90] (1.2,-.45) to [out=270,in=0] (.8,-1);
\draw[thick] (1.6,-.03) to (1.4,-.13) to [out=200,in=90] (1.2,-.5) to [out=270,in=180] (1.6,-1) to (3,-1);
\end{tikzpicture}
$]{}; (a) – (b);
![A transition from a ruled surface over a $g=1$ curve to a Hirzebruch surface. The red point in the second figure is a blowup point on a nodal curve and the red lines in the third figure are the exceptional curves. Two proper transforms of the fiber $F$ in a blown up Hirzebruch surface are glued together along the nodal curve.[]{data-label="fig:selfgluing"}](self-gluing.pdf)
Before giving a detailed description of this geometric transition, we recall that by the irreducibility of the moduli space $\overline{M}_g$ of stable curves of genus $g$ the complex structure of a smooth curve $C$ of genus $g$ can be degenerated to a rational curve $C_0$ with $g$ nodes (see Figure \[fig:degen\].) The curve $C_0$ can be constructed directly by identifying $g$ pairs of points of $\IP^1$. Note that this construction immediately extends to give a degeneration of a ruled surface $S$ over $C$ to a ruled surface $S_0$ over the singular curve $C_0$. Conversely, the degeneration of the ruled surface can be described by starting with $\IP^1$-bundle over $\IP^1$ (i.e. a Hirzebruch surface $\IF_n$) and identifying $g$ pairs of fibers $F \subset \mathbb F_n$.
However, this description of $S_0$ is not completely satisfactory, as $S_0$ cannot be embedded into a CY 3-fold for the following reason. Let $F\subset S_0$ be one of the singular fibers obtained by identifying $g$ pairs of fibers. Locally, $S_0$ has two branches near $F$ with equation $xy=0$ (pulled back from the local equation $xy=0$ of a node of $C_0$). Being a fiber, $F$ has self-intersection 0 in each branch, So if $S_0$ were contained in a smooth threefold, the normal bundle of $F$ would be $\CO_F\oplus\CO_F$. Fortunately, the geometric transition naturally rectifies this problem by introducing blowups, in a manner which we describe below.
Consider again the degeneration point of view, which can be described by a holomorphic map $\pi:\CS\to \Delta$. Here $\CS$ is a smooth[^7] threefold, $\Delta$ is a disk, $\pi^{-1}(0)\simeq S_0$, and $\pi^{-1}(t)$ is diffeomorphic to $S$ for $t\ne0$. We now pick a point $p\in F\subset S_0\subset \CS$ and blow up $p$ to get $\phi:\widetilde{\CS}\to \CS$. Via $\pi\circ\phi$ we can view $\widetilde\CS$ as a family over $\Delta$. However, $\widetilde\CS$ and $\CS$ are isomorphic over $\Delta-0$, so this gives another degeneration of $S$. The singular limit is $(\pi\circ\phi)^{-1}(0)$, which we now describe.
Blowing up a point $p$ in a smooth threefold creates an exceptional divisor $E$ isomorphic to $\IP^2$, and blows up $S_0$ to a surface $\widetilde{S_0}$. We have $(\pi\circ\phi)^{-1}(0)=\widetilde{S}_0\cup \IP^2$. It remains to describe $\widetilde{S}_0$ and how $\IP^2$ is attached to it.
Since $S_0$ has local equation $xy=0$ at $p$, the exceptional curve of $\widetilde{S}_0\to S_0$ has $xy=0$ as its equation. In this latter instance, the equation $xy=0$ is understood as a homogeneous equation in the exceptional $\IP^2$ of the blown-up threefold. In other words, $\IP^2$ meets $\widetilde{S_0}$ in two intersecting projective lines $L,L'$; each of these $\IP^1$’s can be thought of as arising from the blowup of $p$ in a corresponding branch of $S_0$ near $p$.
The point of intersection $q = L \cap L'$ also intersects the proper transform $\widetilde{F}$ of the original singular fiber $F$. The curve $\widetilde{F}$ is still singular in $\widetilde{S_0}$ and still has two branches in a local description, but now the blowup has reduced the self-intersection from $0$ to $\widetilde F^2 = -1$ in each branch. So if $\widetilde{S_0}$ is contained in a smooth threefold, then the normal bundle of $\widetilde{F}$ is $\CO_F(-1)\oplus \CO_F(-1)$ and the threefold can be Calabi-Yau!
We can apply this construction to all of the $g$ singular fibers. Since $\widetilde{F}$ has self-intersection $-1$ in each branch, we can view it as the gluing of a pair of exceptional $\IP^1$’s. Therefore the resulting $\widetilde{S}_0$ is a blown up Hirzebruch surface with $g$ pairs of exceptional curves identified. Each singular fiber consists of a double curve with self-intersection $-1$ in each branch, glued at a common point $q$ to curves $L,L'$ of self-intersection $-1$ in each of the respective local branches (the surface $\widetilde{S}_0$ is smooth along $L\cup L'-\{q\}$).
In the degeneration described above, we also need to attach $g$ copies of $\IP^2$. However, we are only concerned with the rank 2 case, so in our examples these $\IP^2$’s can replaced by noncompact cycles containing $L\cup L'$ and safely ignored.
The final step is to flop the $g$ curves $\widetilde{F}_1,\ldots\widetilde{F}_g$, where we have added a subscript to $\widetilde{F}$ to distinguish these curves. Let us investigate the birational transform of $\widetilde{S_0}$ after the flops. When the curves $\widetilde{F}_i$ are contracted, the points of intersection $q_i = L_i \cap L_i'$ become conifolds. When we complete the flops, new $\IP^1$’s appear in place of the $q_i$ and the curves $L_i,L'_i$ get separated. These curves become identified with fibers of a ruled surface over the desingularization $\widetilde{C}_0$ of $C_0$, the fibers over the pairs of points of $\widetilde{C}_0$ which get identified to form a node of $C_0$. Since $\widetilde{C}_0$ is isomorphic to $\IP^1$, the result is a Hirzebruch surface in general with blowups.
### An example of genus reduction: $G_2 + N_\textbf{F} \textbf{F}$ {#an-example-of-genus-reduction-g_2-n_textbff-textbff .unnumbered}
An illustrative example of complex deformations that exchange ruled surfaces over a curve of genus $g >0$ for self-glued Hirzebruch surfaces blown up at $2g$ points is the family of shrinkable 3-folds engineering $G_2 + N_{\textbf{F}} \textbf{F}$, as described in [@Diaconescu:1998cn].
We begin by recalling the form of the gauge theoretic 1-loop prepotential for $G_2 + N_{\textbf{F}} \textbf{F} + N_{\textbf{adj}} \textbf{adj}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:G2nomass}
6 \mathcal F_{\text{1-loop}} &= ( 8 - 8 N_\textbf{F} -8 N_\textbf{adj}) \phi_1^3 + ( 8 - 8 N_{\textbf{adj}}) \phi_2^3\\
&~+ 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 [ (6 +3 N_\textbf{F} - 6 N_\textbf{adj} )\phi_1 + (8 N_{\textbf{adj}} - N_\textbf{F} - 8 ) \phi_2 ].
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We set $N_{\textbf{adj}} =0$ to be consistent with $\mathcal N = 1$ supersymmetry. By giving a nonzero value to mass parameters in the hypermultiplet contributions to the prepotential, one can study the RG flow from $N_{\textbf{F}}$ to $N_{\textbf{F}}-1$ flavors. In order to decouple a massive hypermultiplet, the theory must pass through three phase transitions. These four phases have the following prepotentials (we omit mass parameter terms for brevity): $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:G2RG}
6 \mathcal F_{}^{(1)} &=(8- 8N_\textbf{F}) \phi_1^3 + 8 \phi_2^3 + 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 [\phi _1 \left(3 N_{\textbf F}+6\right)-\phi _2 \left(N_{\textbf F}+8\right)]\\
6 \mathcal F_{}^{(2)} &=(16-8N_\textbf{F}) \phi_1^3 + 7 \phi_2^3 + 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 [ \phi _1 \left(3 N_{\textbf F}+2\right)-\phi _2 \left(N_{\textbf F}+6\right)]\\
6 \mathcal F_{}^{(3)} &=(15 - 8 N_\textbf{F}) \phi_1^3 + 8 \phi_2^3 + 3 \phi_1 \phi_2 [ \phi _1 \left(3 N_{\textbf F}+3\right)-\phi _2 \left(N_{\textbf F}+7\right) ]\\
6 \mathcal F_{}^{(4)} &=6 \mathcal F_{N_\textbf{F}-1}^{(1)}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
We determine a shrinkable Kähler surface $S$ that engineers this theory by setting the triple intersection polynomial (\[eqn:geotrip\]) equal to prepotential (\[eqn:G2nomass\]) and demanding that there exist an intersection matrix $f_i \cdot S_j = (A_{G_2})_{ij}$ for some choice of fiber classes $f_i \subset S_i$. Restricting the possible building blocks to be blowups of rational and ruled surfaces *without self-gluing*, the only solutions to these conditions are the geometries shown in Table \[tab:G2geo\]. For all of these surfaces we have $9n_2+6a=2g-2+n_1$, as required by (\[eq:gluingcond\]). A key point here is that the surface $S_1$ must be a ruled surface of a curve of genus $g = N_{\textbf{F}}$. This is precisely the geometric setup described in [@Diaconescu:1998cn].
$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
g & a & (n_1,n_2) \\\hline
0 & 1 & (8,0) \\\hline
1 & 0 & (9,1) \\\hline
2 & 2 & (10,0) \\\hline
3 & 1 & (11,1) \\\hline
4 & 0 & (12,2) \\\hline
4 & 3 & (12,0) \\\hline
5 & 2 & (13,1) \\\hline
6 & 4 & (14,0) \\\hline
\end{array}
$
We now demonstrate that we can engineer the same family of theories described above by replacing $S_1$ with the surface $S_1' = \text{Bl}_{ 2g} \mathbb F_{n_1}^{(g)} $, where again $g = N_{\textbf{F}}$ and the superscript notation indicates $S_1'$ is obtained by identifying $g$ pairs of exceptional curves in $\text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F_{n_1}$ (i.e. self-gluing; see Appendix \[app:math\] for some mathematical background.) This shrinkable surface not only reproduces the prepotential (\[eqn:G2nomass\]) and $G_2$ Cartan matrix, but also has the merit of exhibiting the RG flow (\[eqn:G2RG\]) in a very natural manner. The four phases, related by flops, have the following geometries:
1. $ \text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F^{(g)}_{8-g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2}$, where the blowups are all at special points[^8] $F \cap E$.
2. $\text{Bl}_{2g-2} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{8- g} \cup \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_{n_2}$.
3. $\text{Bl}_{2g-1} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{8- g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2\pm{} 1}$.
4. $\text{Bl}_{2g-2} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{9- g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2 \pm{} 1}$.
The first phase is $ \text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F^{(g)}_{8-g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2}$, where we introduce $g$ self-gluings of $\text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F_p$ along the pairs of exceptional divisors $X_{2i}, X_{2i-1}, i = 1, \dots, g$,[^9]the where the gluing curve is defined by $C_{S_1} = E - \sum_{i=1}^{2 g} X_i$ and $C_{S_2} = F + 3 H$, so that $a=1$ in the notation adopted in the caption of Table \[tab:G2geo\]. Since the canonical class[^10] is given by $K_{\mathbb F_{8 - g}} + 2\sum_{i=1}^{N_\textbf{F}} (X_{2i-1}+X_{2i})$, we find a perfect match with the first line of (\[eqn:G2RG\]), using the adjunction relation $9n_2+6-(8+g)=2g-2$.
We now describe the flop to the second phase. The matter curve with volume $2\phi_1 - \phi_2$ which shrinks is one of the self-gluing exceptional divisors, say $X_1$. Blowing down $X_1$ forces us to also blow down $X_2$. We can blow up $\mathbb F_{n_2}$ at a generic point $F_2 \cap H_2$ if we eventually want to decrease $n_2$ to $n_2 -1$, or at a special point $F_2 \cap E_2$ if we want to increase $n_2$ to $n_2 +1$ in the third phase.
The geometry of the second phase is $\text{Bl}_{2g-2} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{8- g} \cup \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_{n_2}$, where $C_{S_1} = E -\sum_{i=1}^{2g -2} X_i$ and $C_{S_2}=a F + 3 H - 2 Y_1$. Since the blowup of $\IF_{n_2}$ is at the double point of $E$ introduced by gluing $X_{2g-1}$ to $X_{2g}$, the coefficient of $Y$ in $C_{S_2}$ is $-2$.
The matter curve with volume $\phi_2 - \phi_1$ which we blow down is $F_2 - Y_1 \subset \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_{n_2}$. Because $F - Y_1$ meets $C$ in one point, we must introduce an exceptional divisor $Y_2$ in the surface $S_1$, leading us to the third phase.
The geometry of the third phase is $\text{Bl}_{2g-1} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{8- g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2\pm{} 1}$, where $C_{S_1} = E - \sum_{i=1}^{2g-2} X_i - Y_2$. Concerning the gluing curve class $C \subset \mathbb F_{n_2 \pm{} 1}$, there are two possible cases. In the case of a generic blowup, the proper transforms of $H, F \subset S_2$ are $H- Y_1, Y_1$, so we set $C_{S_2} = (a +1) F + 3 H$, where now $ H^2_{S_2} = n_2 -1$. It follows that $C^2_{S_2} =((a +1) F + 3 H)_{S_2}^2 = 6 (a + 1) + 9 (n_2-1) = 3 g + 3$, which is a nontrivial check that this geometry is consistent with the phase structure of the $G_2$ theory. On the other hand, in the case of a special blowup, the difference is that the proper transform of $H \subset S_2$ is $H$, so that $C_{S_2} = H + (a - 2) F$, where now $H_{S_2}^2 = n_2 +1$. We again confirm that $C^2_{S_2} = ((a -2) F + 3 H)_{S_2}^2 = 6 (a - 2) + 9 (n_2 +1) = 3 g+ 3$.
In order to reach the fourth and final phase, the matter curve with volume $\phi_1$ which we blow down is $F - Y_2 \subset S_1$. The geometry of the fourth phase is $\text{Bl}_{2g-2} \mathbb F^{(g-1)}_{9- g} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2 \pm{} 1}$. Keeping in mind the previous identity $n_1 = 8- g$ along with the fact that we blow down the curve $F - Y_2 \subset S_1$, we compute the canonical class: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
K_{S_1} &= -2 H + (n_1 -2) F + 2\sum_{i=1}^{g-1} (X_{2i-1} + X_{2i} ) + Y_2\\
&= -2 H + ((n_1+1) -2) F + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{g-1} (X_{2i-1} + X_{2i} ) .
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Note also that the self-intersection of $H \subset S_1$ shifts from $8-g$ to $9-g$.
### Hanany-Witten transitions and complex deformations
The next type of transition we will discuss is a *complex structure deformation*. In particular, we concern ourselves with two types of complex structure deformations that preserve the rank of the 3-fold. The first type of complex structure deformation is a Hanany-Witten (HW) transition [@Hanany:1996ie]. This type of transition is most easily understood in the setting of $(p,q)$ 5-brane webs, and involves interchanging the relative position of a $(p,q)$ 7-brane and a $(p,q)$ 5-brane. After the transition, despite the fact that the brane webs look different, in the low-energy decoupling limit the corresponding SCFTs describe the same physics up to decoupled free sectors. The example displayed in Figure \[fig:HW\] describes a geometric (or HW) transition from a local 3-fold $X$ with $S= \mathbb F_2$ to another 3-fold $X'$ with $S' = \mathbb F_0$. Therefore, $X$ and $X'$ are physically equivalent.
![Hanany-Witten transition from $\mathbb F_2$ to $\mathbb F_0$. The $\otimes$ symbol denotes the location of a transverse $(0,1)$ 7-brane, and the dashed line denotes the location of the 7-brane monodromy cut.[]{data-label="fig:HW"}](F0-F2-HW.pdf)
This example can be geometrically described as follows: $\IF_2$ is physically equivalent to $\IF_0$ by a (non-normalizable) complex structure deformation. One way to see this is to first contract the curve $E$ in $\IF_2$ (with $E^2=-2$) to an $A_1$ singularity, which can be identified with the quadric cone $x^2+y^2+z^2=0$ in $\IP^3$. A complex structure deformation takes this to a smooth quadric surface (e.g. $w^2+x^2+y^2+z^2 =0$), which is isomorphic to $\IP^1\times\IP^1=\IF_0$.
Another type of complex structure deformation involves changing special type blow ups (i.e. blow ups on top of blow ups) to generic blow ups, where the blow up points are not on top of one another, unless the blow up curve is part of the identification between $S_i$’s. We will show that in the rank 2 case this can be avoided and we can always assume general point blow ups.
Classifications {#sec:classification}
===============
Let $S=\cup S_i$ be a connected union of surfaces contained in a CY 3-fold $X$. We classify all shrinkable $S$ for rank 1 and rank 2 according to the conjectures and algorithm described in Section \[sec:algorithm\]. We first summarize the rank 1 and rank 2 classification results and in the next two subsections we present details of the classification.
All rank 1 and rank 2 shrinkable geometries (or SCFTs) belong to one or more families of geometric RG-flows, and the geometries in each RG-flow family are related by rank-preserving mass deformations (or blowdowns of -1 curves in geometric terminology), up to physical equivalence. The ideas of geometric RG-flow and rank-preserving mass deformations will be discussed later. Based on these ideas, we can start from a “top” geometry, which corresponds to a 5d CFT or a 6d CFT on a circle (equivalently, a 5d Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory), and obtain all other geometries in the same family by a finite sequence of geometric transitions or mass deformations. This UV geometry is at the top of the RG-flow in a given family and can therefore be a representative of the entire RG-flow family. We conjecture that all descendants of the top UV geometry engineer 5d SCFTs. When shrinkable, the top UV geometry itself also engineers a 5d SCFT.
For rank 1 geometries, we have only one RG-flow family corresponding to a local elliptic 3-fold defined by the del Pezzo surface $\text{dP}_9$. All other rank 1 geometries are obtained by blowing down exceptional curves. The RG-flow family of $\text{\text{dP}}_9$ involves other del Pezzo surfaces $\text{dP}_n$ with $n\le 8$ and a Hirzebruch surface $\mathbb{F}_0$; it is believed that these are the complete set of geometries leading to rank 1 5d SCFTs.
$S=S_1\cup S_2$ $G$
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
$(\mathbb{F}_6\cup \text{dP}_4)^*$ $Sp(2)_{\theta=0} + 3\textbf{AS}$
$(\mathbb{F}_2\cup \text{dP}_7)^*$ $SU(3)_4 + 6\textbf{F}$
$Sp(2)+ 4 \textbf{F} + 2\textbf{AS}$
$G_2 + 6 \textbf{F}$
$(\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4\cup \mathbb{F}_0)^*$ $SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F}$
$Sp(2)+8\textbf{F} + \textbf{AS}$
$(\text{Bl}_{10}\mathbb{F}_6\cup \mathbb{F}_0)^*$ $SU(3)_0+10 \textbf{F}$
$Sp(2)+ 10\textbf{F}$
: Rank 2 geometries with maximal $M$. In the above table, $S$ is the rank 2 Kähler surface, while $G$ is the corresponding gauge theory description. These geometries denoted as $(\cdot)^*$ are not shrinkable and correspond to 5d KK theories.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-classification"}
Similarly, the top rank 2 geometries are summarized in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\]. We have identified four geometric RG-flow families represented by these top geometries. These geometries are not shrinkable; rather, we expect that these geometries have 6d UV completions and thus they engineer 5d KK theories. However, their descendants, obtained by blowing down $-1$ curves, are shrinkable and therefore give rise to 5d SCFTs. For example, the geometry $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4\cup \mathbb{F}_0$ is ruled out from our CFT classification because its building block $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4$ has an infinite number of Mori cone generators as explained in Appendix \[sec:mori\], violating our criterion in Section \[sec:buildingblocks\]. However, a geometric RG-flow from this geometry by blowing down an exceptional curve as well as a number of flop transitions leads to the geometry $\text{Bl}_8\mathbb{F}_3\cup \text{dP}_1$ which is now shrinkable and engineers a 5d SCFT. Similarly, other geometries in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\] are associated to KK theories, but their descendants are shrinkable. Therefore, we find that all rank 1 and 2 smooth 3-fold geometries engineering 5d SCFTs are mass deformations of 5d KK theories. See Section \[sec:rank2\] for further discussion.
This result confirms the existence of many new rank 2 SCFTs predicted in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] which are listed in Table \[tb:rank2-gauge-theory-clssification\]. For example, the $SU(3)_7$ gauge theory is predicted to exist in Table \[tb:SU3-classification\]. This theory turns out to have a geometric realization as $\mathbb{F}_0\cup \mathbb{F}_8$ which is a descendant of $\mathbb{F}_2\cup \text{dP}_7$. This implies that the gauge theory approach in [@Jefferson:2017ahm], which analyzes the magnetic monopole and perturbative BPS spectrum, is quite powerful and capable of predicting new interacting 5d SCFTs.
Our study also reveals that there are no smooth 3-fold geometries associated to the following gauge theories: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:ruleout}
&SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 1\bf{Sym} \ , \\
& SU(3)_{7} +2 {\bf F} \ \rightarrow \ SU(3)_{\frac{15}{2}}+1{\bf F} \ \rightarrow \ SU(3)_8 \ .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ These theories are expected to have interacting CFT fixed points by the perturbative gauge theory analysis in [@Jefferson:2017ahm]. See Table \[tb:SU3-classification\]. The SCFT of the first gauge theory indeed exists—this theory is a mass deformation of the $SU(3)_0$ theory with $N_{\bf Sym}=1,N_{\bf F}=1$ whose brane construction is given in [@Bergman:2015dpa; @Hayashi:2015vhy]. Our study of smooth 3-folds fails to capture this theory. The reason for this failure is because the corresponding geometry involves a ‘frozen’ singularity. For example, the brane construction in [@Bergman:2015dpa; @Hayashi:2015vhy] contains O7$^+$-planes; indeed, constructions involving O7$^+$ planes are dual to frozen singularities involving non-geometric monodromies and a fractional M-theory 3-form background as discussed in [@Tachikawa:2015wka]. Therefore, we do not expect that our analysis can capture this type of singularity, and hence the geometric classification in this paper is incomplete in this sense. We nevertheless conjecture that our classification includes all 5d SCFTs coming from [*smooth*]{} Calabi-Yau threefolds which do not involve frozen singularities dual to brane constructions involving O7$^+$ planes. In the following sections, we classify smooth rank 1 and rank 2 3-fold geometries engineering 5d SCFTs in their singular limits.
On the other hand, we predict that there are no SCFTs corresponding to three gauge theories belonging to the RG flow in the second line of (\[eqn:ruleout\]). As we discuss in Section \[sec:rank2\], despite the fact that these gauge theories can be realized geometrically using our algorithm, they are shrinkable only when we attach a number of non-degenerate non-compact 4-cycles to the compact surface $S$. Introducing these non-compact 4-cycles entails non-normalizable Kähler deformations which in the field theory setting corresponds to introducing nonzero mass parameters. We find that these mass parameters cannot be set to zero in the CFT limit—at small nonzero values, the corresponding geometries develop at least one 2-cycle with negative volume and therefore their singular limits do not engineer well-defined CFT fixed points. This computation excludes the three gauge theories in the second line of (\[eqn:ruleout\]) as possible candidates for interacting 5d SCFTs. This is also an indication that the classification criteria described in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] are necessary, but not sufficient to identify 5d SCFT fixed points. The criteria of [@Jefferson:2017ahm] must be modified to account for non-perturbative BPS states (such as instantons in gauge theories) in order to be both necessary and sufficient.
We also remark that a single 3-fold $X$ can admit multiple gauge theory descriptions. This is possible because some geometries admit more than one distinct choice of fiber class associated to charged gauge bosons. The existence of multiple gauge theoretic descriptions corresponding to a single geometry suggests that the gauge descriptions are dual to one another. Starting with the the “top” UV geometries in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\], we predict the following dualities: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:dual}
SU(3)_{5-\frac{N_{\bf F}}{2}} + N_{\bf F} {\bf F} ~&\cong ~Sp(2)+N_{\bf F}{\bf F} \ , \quad N_{\bf F} \le 10 \\
SU(3)_{6-\frac{N_{\bf F}}{2}}+ N_{\bf F}{\bf F} ~&\cong ~Sp(2)+1{\bf AS}+(N_{\bf F}-1){\bf F} \ , \quad 1 \le N_{\bf F} \le 9 \\
SU(3)_{7-\frac{N_{\bf F}}{2}}+N_{\bf F}{\bf F} ~&\cong ~ G_2 + N_{\bf F}{\bf F} ~ \overset{2\le N_{\bf F}}{\cong}~ Sp(2)+ 2{\bf AS}+(N_{\bf F}-2){\bf F} \ , \quad N_{\bf F} \le 6
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The first and the second dualities in (\[eqn:dual\]) were conjectured already in [@Gaiotto:2015una] and in [@Jefferson:2017ahm], respectively. So our construction provides concrete geometric evidence for these duality conjectures. On the other hand, the third duality is a new duality discovered by an explicit geometric construction in this section.
Rank 1 classification {#sec:rank1}
---------------------
We warm up by starting with rank 1, recovering the result that all rank 1 5d SCFTs are geometrically engineered by local 3-folds containing a del Pezzo surface. More precisely, our algorithm identifies del Pezzo surfaces as shrinkable, but also identifies additional shrinkable surfaces; however, each of these turns out to be physically equivalent to a del Pezzo surface.
Recall that a del Pezzo surface $S$ is defined to be a smooth algebraic surface whose anticanonical bundle $-K_S$ is ample—this means that $-K_S \cdot C > 0$ for all effective curves $ C \subset S$. The classification of del Pezzo surfaces is well known: $S$ is either $\text{dP}_n$ for $0\le n\le 8$ or $\IP^1\times\IP^1=\IF_0$. Such a surface satisfies (\[eq:shrinkability\]) as well as $K_S^2>0$, so is shrinkable. We now set out to systematically classify rank 1 shrinkable surfaces up to physical equivalence.
To apply (\[eq:shrinkability\]), we need to know $K_S$, the generators of the Mori cone of curves on $S$, and the intersection numbers of the curves in $S$. Our algorithm leads us to consider $\IP^2$, $\IF_n$, and their generic blowups.
$\IP^2$ is del Pezzo, but it is instructive to check shrinkability anyway. For $\IP^2$, the Mori cone is generated by the class $\ell$ of a line, $\ell^2=1$, and $K_{\IP^2}=-3\ell$. So $K_{\IP^2}^2=9>0$ and $K_{\IP^2}\ell=-3<0$, so $\IP^2$ is shrinkable.
Next, we consider $\IF_0$, $\IF_1$ and $\IF_{n \geq 2}$ separately. Since $\IF_1$ is the blowup of $\IP^2$ at a point, $\IF_1$ and its generic blowups are just the generic blowups of $\IP^2$. Similarly, $\IF_0$ is del Pezzo, and the blowup of $\IF_0$ at a point is isomorphic to the blowup of $\IP^2$ at two points [@GH]. So the possibilities for $S$ can be reduced to either generic blowups of $\IP^2$, or $\IF_{n \geq 2}$.
As usual, we denote by $\text{dP}_n$ the blowup of $\IP^2$ at general points $p_1,\ldots,p_n$. Let $X_1,\ldots, X_n$ denote the corresponding exceptional $\IP^1$’s,[^11] and we let $\ell$ denote the class of the total transform in $\text{dP}_n$ of a line in $\IP^2$. The intersection numbers are $$\label{eq:intp2}
\ell^2=1,~~\ X_i\cdot X_j = -\delta_{ij},~~\ \ell\cdot X_i=0$$ and $K_{\text{dP}_n}=-3\ell+\sum_{i=1}^nX_i$. Then $K_{\text{dP}_n}^2=9-n>0$ for $n\le 8$.
We first observe that $\text{dP}_n$ is not shrinkable for $n\ge9$. To see this, we simply observe that $K_{\text{dP}_n}^2\le0$ for $n\ge9$ which implies that the string tensions are not positive.
Again, we can cite known results simply say that $\text{dP}_n$ is shrinkable for $n\le8$, but it is instructive to work out details without assuming this fact. We adopt a convenient shorthand to describe the generators of the Mori cone: Any curve $C\subset \text{dP}_n$ other than the $X_i$ will project to a curve $D\subset \IP^2$ of some degree $d>0$. Let $m_i$ be the multiplicity of $D$ at $p_i$, so that $m_i=0$ if $p_i\not\in D$, $m_i=1$ if $p$ is a nonsingular point of $D$, $m_i=2$ if $p$ is a node or cusp of $D$, etc. Then the class of $C$ is $d\ell-\sum_{i=1}^n a_i X_i$. It is customary to abbreviate this class as $(d;m_1,\ldots,m_n)$, as well as to omit any $m_i$ which are zero. Then the Mori cone of $\text{dP}_n$ is generated by the classes[^12] $$X_i,\ (1;1^2),\ (2,1^5),\ (3,2,1^6),\ (4,2^3,1^5),\ (5,2^6,1^2),\ (6;3,2^7)
\label{eq:moridp}$$ up to permuting the order of the $p_i$. It follows from the adjunction formula (\[eq:adjunction\]) that each of the curve classes $C$ in (\[eq:moridp\]) satisfies $K_{\text{dP}_n}\cdot C=-1$,[^13] so $\text{dP}_n$ is shrinkable.
Next, consider the Hirzebruch surfaces $S=\IF_n$. Using the notation in Appendix \[app:Mori\], there are two disjoint toric sections $E,H$ and the fiber class $F$. These classes satisfy $$\label{eq:intfn}
H^2=n,\ E^2=-n,\ H \cdot E=0,\ H \cdot F=E\cdot F=1,\ F^2=0,\ H=E+nF.$$ The canonical bundle of $\IF_n$ is $K_{\IF_n}=-2H+(n-2)F$ and so $K_{\IF_n}^2=8>0$. Furthermore, the Mori cone of effective curves is generated by $E$ and $F$. While $K_{{\mathbb F}_n} \cdot F=-2<0$, we also have $K_{{\IF}_n}\cdot E=n-2$, which is strictly negative for $n<2$, zero for $n=2$, but strictly positive for $n>2$. Thus $\IF_2$ is shrinkable. However, as discussed in section 3, this is physically equivalent to $\IF_0$. The same reasoning combined with the earlier observation that $\text{Bl}_1\IF_0\simeq \text{dP}_2$ shows that $\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_2$ is physically equivalent to $\text{dP}_{p+1}$.
In conclusion, all rank 1 shrinkable surfaces are physically equivalent to $\text{dP}_n$ for some $n$ or $\IF_0$.
Rank 2 classification {#sec:rank2}
---------------------
The main result of this paper is a full classification of shrinkable rank 2 geometries up to physical equivalence. We preface our result by arguing some further simplifying assumptions we make about the surface $S$ in order to make the classification into a manageable problem.
### Three simplifications {#three-simplifications .unnumbered}
In this section we show that we can utilize the following three simplifying assumptions for classifying shrinkable rank 2 surfaces:
- $S_1 \cap S_2$ is an irreducible curve.
- $S_1 \cap S_2$ is a rational curve.
- The surfaces $S_i$ are equal to $\IP^2$ or Hirzebruch surfaces and their blowups at general points.
We now discuss these three simplifications in order.
First, we argue that in the case of a rank 2 surface $S = S_1 \cup S_2$, we can assume that $S_1$ is not glued to $S_2$ along multiple curves. Namely, there exists a single edge between two nodes. Suppose we glue two surfaces along $C_1,C_2$ with appropriate identifications. Since $S_1$ and $S_2$ should intersect transversally, we have $(C_1 \cdot C_2)_{S_1} = (C_1 \cdot C_2)_{S_2}= 0$. This means that $C_1, C_2$ do not intersect. We claim there always exists an effective curve $D=d_1+d_2$ such that ${\rm vol}(D) \le 0$. If ${\rm vol}(D)<0$, then $S$ is not shrinkable, so it suffices to consider the situation where ${\rm vol}(D)=0$. But in that case, we will further show below that we can arrange for the curve $D$ to be elliptic (i.e. $g(D) = 1$), which would contradict our conjectures. Therefore, the full surface is not shrinkable implying that we cannot glue two surfaces along two or more curves.
In order to show this, we first prove that there always exist curves $d_i \subset S_i$ with $K_{S_i}\cdot d_i\ge-2$ that intersect both $C_1$ and $C_2$. These classes $d_1$ and $d_2$ are identified as follows. First, if both $C_1$ and $C_2$ are not fiber classes, we can always find a curve $d_1$ satisfying these conditions among $\{F, \, F-X_i,\, H-X_i-X_j \}$[^14] in $\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_n$, where $X_i$ are exceptional curves associated to the blowups of $\mathbb F_n$ at $p$ general points. When $n>2$, $C_1 =E$, otherwise the volume of the curve $E$ will be negative. Next, suppose $C_1$ or $C_2$ is a fiber class. This is possible only when $S_1=\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_1$ or $\text{dP}_n$, otherwise the class $E$, which has $E\cdot C_1\neq0$ or $E\cdot C_2 \neq 0$, will have negative volume thus preventing the surface $S$ from being shrinkable. In the case that $S_1=\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_1$, when $C_1$ is a fiber class $F_1$, $C_2$ must be one of $X_i$’s, due to the assumption of transversal intersection. Then we can take $d_1=H-X_i$ with $H^2=1$. With any choice of $d_1$ given here, we find that ${\rm vol}(d_1)=m\phi_1 - n\phi_2$ with $m=1,2$ and $n\ge2$ where $\phi_i \geq 0$. We can choose $d_2 \subset S_2$ in the same manner and then show that ${\rm vol}(d_2)=m'\phi_1 - n'\phi_2$ with $m'=1,2$ and $n'\ge2$. This proves ${\rm vol}(D) \le 0$ for an effective curve $D=d_1+d_2$. Now we will assume ${\rm vol}(C_i)\ge 0$ for all other curves $C_i$ because otherise the surface is not shrinkable and already ruled out. As already noted above, it is clear that the total surface is not shrinkable when ${\rm vol}(D)<0$. Moreover, when ${\rm vol}(D) = 0$, i.e. when $m=m'=n=n'=0$, the curves $d_1$ and $d_2$ are both fiber classes $F_i\subset S_i$. In this case, the curve $F_1$ and $F_2$ can be deformed so that $F_1\cap C_i=F_2\cap C_i$ for $i=1,2$. Then the curve $D=F_1+F_2$ is the union of two rational curves intersecting in two points, hence elliptic. By further complex structure deformation if necessary, we can arrange that all fibers $F_1$ of $S_1$ meet all fibers $F_2$ of $S_2$ in two points, or in other words, that $S=S_1\cup S_2$ is elliptically fibered.
We argue that we can deform the complex structure of $X$ if necessary so that $X$ is also elliptically fibered. To see this, let $E$ be an elliptic fiber of $S$. Since $E$ is part of an elliptic fibration of $S$, we have that $N_{E/S}\simeq\mathcal{O}_E$. Furthermore, $\det(N_{E/X})$ is trivial by the Calabi-Yau condition and the ellipticity of $E$. Then the normal bundle sequence $$\label{eq:nbs}
0 \to N_{E/S} \to N_{E/X} \to N_{S/X}|_E \to 0$$ is identified with $$\label{eq:Atiyah}
0 \to \mathcal{O}_E \to N_{E/X} \to \mathcal{O}_E \to 0.$$ However, since $H^1(\mathcal{O}_E) \ne 0$, (\[eq:Atiyah\]) generically does not split[^15] and dim $H^0(N_{E/X})=1$. The uniqueness of a normal direction says that $E$ moves in a 1-parameter family, enough deformations to fiber $S$ but not enough to fiber $X$.
However, we can choose a complex structure deformation of $X$ so that (\[eq:Atiyah\]) splits, and then $N_{E/X}\simeq\mathcal{O}_E^2$. In this situation, $E$ moves in two independent directions and fibers $X$.
This justifies our claim, hence $S$ is not shrinkable. The same argument holds for cases with more than two edges (i.e. gluing curves) between $S_1$ and $S_2$. Therefore rank 2 geometries formed by two surfaces glued along two or more different curves are not shrinkable.
Second, we claim that the gluing curves must be rational. Suppose $C = S_1 \cap S_2$ has $g>0$. In Appendix \[app:Mori\] we explain that we must have finitely many Mori cone generators in each $S_i$ (which implies a bound on the number of blowups), hence we have finitely many Mori cone generators in $X \supset S = S_1 \cup S_2$. We argue that this implies $C_{S_i}^2 \ge 0$ as follows. We assume $C_{S_i}^2<0$ and derive a contradiction. Since $C_{S_i}^2+C \cdot K_{S_i}=2g-2\ge0$, we have $C\cdot K_{S_i}>0$. Anticipating the next bulleted claim that the building blocks are generic blowups of Hirzebruch surfaces at a bounded number of points, we show in Appendix \[app:Mori\] that $C_{S_i} \cdot K_{S_i}>0$ implies $C_{S_i}=E$. This is a contradiction, since $g>0$. Although this argument is slightly circular in its current form depending as it does on the next bulleted claim, we believe that with further care we can independently justify $C_{S_i}^2\ge0$. Furthermore, an extensive computer search has revealed no counterexamples.
Let us now return to the claim that the gluing curves are rational. Recalling equations (\[eq:gluingcond\]) and (\[eq:adjunction\]), we have $$C^2_{S_1} + C^2_{S_2} = C_{S_i}^2 + K_{S_i}\cdot C = 2g-2 \ .$$ These conditions tell us that $K_{S_i} \cdot C\ge0$. This implies that the volume of the intersection curve, ${\rm vol}(C)=-\phi_1 K_{S_1}\cdot C -\phi_2 K_{S_2}\cdot C$, is negative unless $C^2_{S_1}=C_{S_2}^2=0$ and $g=1$, i.e. unless $C$ is an elliptic curve. This proves that rank 2 geometries containing two surfaces meeting in a curve with genus $g>0$ are not shrinkable.
Third, we observe that many of the building blocks in our classification program are related to one another by maps (for instance, isomorphisms and complex deformations) which at the level of 5d SCFT physics constitute physical equivalences. Therefore, we observe that the full number of rank 2 surfaces that can be constructed from our list of building blocks dramatically overcounts the number of unique CFT fixed points, and hence we can reduce the complexity of the problem at the outset by restricting our attention to a minimal representative set of configurations capturing the full list of physical equivalence classes. We will argue in particular that we need only consider configurations $S = S_1 \cup S_2$ for which $S_1$ is a blowup of $\mathbb F_{n> 0}$ at $p$ generic points[^16] and $S_2$ is $\text{dP}_m$ or $\mathbb F_0$. We summarize our simplifications by stating that [*every rank 2 shrinkable CY 3-fold can be realized locally as a neighborhood of*]{} $S = S_1 \cup S_2$[*, for which* ]{}$S_1 = \text{Bl}_{p} \mathbb F_{n_1 > 0} $ [*and*]{} $S_2 = \text{dP}_{n_2}$ [*or* ]{}$\mathbb F_0$. [*Moreover, the surfaces* ]{}$S_1, S_2$ [*are glued along a single smooth rational curve*]{} $C =S_1 \cap S_2$.
We argue the third simplification as follows. First, observe that all of the curves $C'$ with self intersection $C'{}^2 < -2$ which do not intersect the gluing curve $C$ have negative volume. Therefore, the only curves $C' \neq C$ with negative self-intersection should have $C'{}^2 \geq -2$. Suppose $C'{}^2 = -2$ and the surface $S$ is shrinkable. Then, it should follow that such a geometry is related via complex deformation to a physically-equivalent surface for which the only curves $C'$ of negative self-intersection have $C'{}^2 = -1$. The idea is essentially identical to the description of a transitions already described in Section \[sec:transitions\]: we perform a conifold transition. Strictly speaking, this is only true up to physical equivalence, but that is good enough for us. Hence, we may assume that the only component surfaces $S_i$ appearing in our representative classes are those for which all curves $C' \ne C$ satisfy $C'{}^2 \geq -1$. This already places a significant constraint on the possible configurations $S_1 \cup S_2$.
Next, recall that our list of possible building blocks includes $\mathbb P^2$ and $\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_n$, where the configuration of $p$ points can be special or generic. The gluing condition (\[eq:gluingcond\]) implies that one of the two gluing curves $C_{S_1}$ or $C_{S_2}$ must have negative self-intersection. Therefore, we are forced to fix one of the two surfaces, say $S_1 = \text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_{n_1}$. Observe that any blowup of $\mathbb F_n$ at $p$ points $F \cap E$ is always isomorphic to the blowup of $\mathbb F_{n+p}$ at $p$ generic points, so (redefining $n$) we can always assume that $S_1$ is a blowup of $\mathbb F_{n_1}$ at $p$ points away from the curve $E$ with self intersection $E^2 = -n_1$.
Assume that $n \geq 2$ and suppose we take such a surface $S_1$ and glue it to $S_2$ along some curve $C_{S_1} \ne E$. Then this violates the condition that all curves $C' \ne C_1$ satisfy $C'{}^2 \geq -1$, in particular for $C' = E$. Hence, we are forced to set $C_{S_1} = E$, and moreover we are confined to surfaces $S_1 = \text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_{n_1}$ for which the configuration of points $p$ is a generic configuration (a special configuration of points would produce curves with self-intersection less than $-1$).
Let us focus on $S_2$. If $n_1 \geq 2$, then $S_2$ must be glued to $S_1$ along a curve $C_{S_2}$ with non-negative self intersection, $C_{S_2}^2 \geq 0$. Since we may again assume that all $C' \ne C_{S_2}$ satisfy $C'{}^2 \geq -1$, it follows that $S_2 = \text{dP}_{n_2}$ or $S_2 = \mathbb F_0$. Returning to the remaining cases $n _1< 2$, we find these cases consist of gluing configurations for which $S_i = \text{dP}_{n_i}$ glued along curves $C_{S_i}$ with $C_{S_i}^2 = -1$. However, $\text{dP}_n \cong \text{Bl}_{n-1} \mathbb F_1$, and therefore in order to avoid overcounting we assume that our configuration is again of the form conjectured above.
Finally, we turn our attention to the case where one of the component surfaces $S_i$ is a ruled surface over a curve of genus $g >0$. As explained in Section \[sec:transitions\], a ruled surface over a curve with genus $g >0$ is physically equivalent to a blowup of $\mathbb F_n$ at $2g$ generic points with $g$ self-gluings. Notice that when $S_1$ is the $\text{Bl}_{2g}\mathbb{F}_n$ with $g$ self-gluings, the gluing curve $C_{S_1}$ should be the section $E$ (with $E^2=-n$) since otherwise $E$ has negative volume or leads to an elliptic fiber class. This implies due to the shrinkability condition that the second surface $S_2$ is again ${\rm dP}_m$ or $\mathbb{F}_0$. The self-gluing curves must always be exceptional curves, and hence we perform a flop transition in which we blow these curves down at the expense of blowing up another curve inside the surface $S_2$. Provided we always perform enough blow downs to completely eliminate the self-glued curves, we can always exchange a configuration involving a self-glued blowup of $\mathbb F_n$ with one of the configurations described in the above conjecture. This completes our argument concerning the representative configurations for rank 2 surfaces $S=S_1 \cup S_2$.
### Endpoint classification: 0 and 1 mass parameters {#subsec:endpoint .unnumbered}
In this section we show that we can first classify geometries which are blown down ‘as much as possible’; we refer to these as ‘endpoint geometries’. The general classification then follows by classifying endpoints and subsequently classifying their possible blowups.
Suppose a SCFT admits mass deformations for its global symmetry. Then we can take a large mass limit and integrate out all the heavy degrees of freedom. This triggers an RG flow and it is expected that the SCFT below energy scales set by the masses flows to another SCFT with a lower rank global symmetry group commuting with the mass deformations of the UV SCFT. In general, such mass deformations can reduce the rank of the resulting theory. Another possibility is for the IR theory to be a trivial free theory.
We pay attention to a particular class of mass deformations which leads to interacting SCFTs while preserving the rank of the UV SCFT. Equivalently, we restrict our attention to mass deformations which do not change the dimension of the Coulomb branch. One can typically obtain a new interacting SCFT with the same rank by means of such ‘rank-preserving mass deformations’. We expect that RG flows of the UV SCFT triggered by such mass deformations can generate a family of SCFTs with the same rank but different global symmetries. SCFTs in the family are distinguished by their global symmetries (i.e. the number of mass parameters), as well as topological data such as the classical Chern-Simons level $k$ or $\IZ_2$-valued $\theta$ angle.
These types of RG flows terminate in a class of interacting SCFTs which we will call ‘endpoint SCFTs’. An endpoint SCFT is defined to be a theory which does not admit any rank-preserving mass deformations. Thus these theories are ‘endpoints’ of RG flows and they cannot flow to other SCFTs via rank-preserving deformations. Endpoint geometries engineer endpoint SCFTs.
Rank-preserving mass deformations and endpoint geometries are mathematically well-defined notions. We define distinct endpoint geometries to be surfaces which cannot be related to another smooth surface of the same rank via a large mass deformation. Rank-preserving mass deformations are defined as follows: suppose $S$ is shrinkable and $C\subset S_j$ is a $-1$ curve which does not intersect any $S_k$ for $k\ne j$. Then $S$ can be blown down to a surface $S'=\cup S'_i$ with $S'_j$ the blowdown of the $-1$ curve of $S_j$ and $S'_k\simeq S_k$ for $k\ne j$. This type of blowdown is the geometric realization of a rank-preserving mass deformation.
We will now show that [*if* ]{}$S$ [*is shrinkable, then its endpoint geometry* ]{}$S'$ [*is also shrinkable.*]{} If $C'\subset S'_i$, let $C\subset S_i$ be its proper transform. We have $K_{S'_i}^2=K_{S_i}^2+1$. If $i\ne j$ we have $K_{S_j}\cdot C=K_{S'_j} \cdot C'$, so we need only consider the case $i=j$. Let $p\in S'_j$ be the point that the $-1$ curve in $S_j$ blows down to, and suppose that $C'$ has multiplicity $m$ at $p$. Then $K_{S'_i}\cdot C'=K_{S_i}\cdot C-m$. The desired conclusion follows immediately.
Endpoint SCFTs are interesting due to the following reasons. First, these theories are the simplest theories in their family of RG flows. Their parameter spaces are smaller, so they are comparatively easier to understand than other theories belonging to the same family. The classification of endpoint SCFTs is therefore a much easier problem than the full classification, as we will see below. We can thus regard the endpoint classification as a tutorial on our classification algorithm. Second, all other SCFTs in the family of RG flows in principle can be obtained from endpoint theories by increasing the number of mass parameters. Namely, we can undo mass deformations, and retrace the RG flow to obtain an entire family of UV SCFTs. This could sound puzzling: we know that RG flow is irreversible. So it may be hard to accept the idea that we can restore UV theories starting from an IR theory. However, this turns out to be the case among 5d supersymmetric theories. Since 5d $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFTs are so strongly constrained by supersymmetry, one can control their RG flows by tuning discrete data such as (for theories with gauge theory descriptions) gauge algebra, matter representations, classical CS level, and discrete $\theta$ angle. We expect that this allows us to build a family of SCFTs starting from an endpoint theory.
From the geometric standpoint, these constraints can be understood as arising from the Calabi-Yau condition. Mass deformations of a 3-fold correspond to blowups or blowdowns of exceptional curves. As discussed above, a large mass deformation corresponds to blowing down a $-1$ curve which is isolated from gluing curves and is in fact a reversible geometric transition—one can just as easily blow up the same curve to recover the original 3-fold. This means that by starting from an endpoint geometry, it is possible to obtain a family of local (smooth) 3-folds by blowing up all possible exceptional curves. In this sense, the study of endpoint geometries is a good starting point for the classification of 5d SCFTs.
Let us now classify all rank 2 endpoint geometries by employing our classification algorithm. We learned above that rank 2 geometries are constructed by gluing $S_1=\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_{m_1}$ and $S_2={\rm dP}_{m_2}$ or $\mathbb{F}_0$. This implies that endpoint geometries with $M=0,1$ will take the form $\mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_{n}$ or $\mathbb{F}_{n_1}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$. For being an endpoint geometry with $M>1$, there must be no irreducible exceptional curve which does not intersect with the gluing curves and no flop transitions introducing such exceptional curve away from the gluing curves. This is possible only for ${\rm dP}_2 \cup {\rm dP}_2$ with $C_1 = \ell \!-\!X_1 \!-\!X_2$ and $C_2=\ell \!-\!X_1\!-\!X_2$ which is shrinkable. We thus find that ${\rm dP}_2 \cup {\rm dP}_2$ is the only endpoint geometry with $M>1$ [^17]. Therefore the endpoint classification reduces to a simple classification of two types of geometries, $\mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_{n}$ for $M=0$ and $\mathbb{F}_{n_1}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$ for $M=1$, other than ${\rm dP}_2 \cup {\rm dP}_2$ with $M=3$.
We first classify geometries of the type $\mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_{n}$. We can choose a curve class $C_{S_1}=C_1=a \ell$ in $\mathbb{P}^2$ with a positive integer $a$ and $C_{S_2}=C_2=E$ in $\mathbb{F}_n$ satisfying the gluing condition (\[eq:gluingcond\]). Since $C$ should be rational, the integer in $C_1$ is fixed to be either $a=1$ or $a=2$. Accordingly, the second surface is fixed to be $\mathbb{F}_3$ or $\mathbb{F}_6$ respectively. Hence we find only two geometries of this type: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_3 \quad {\rm with} \quad C_1 = \ell \ , \ C_2 = E_3 \ , \\
&\mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_6 \quad {\rm with} \quad C_1 = 2\ell \ , \ C_2 = E_6 \ .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ These two geometries have brane constructions as depicted in Fig \[fig:rank2-branes1\]. These geometries have no mass parameter. Therefore we do not expect any gauge theory descriptions associated to these CFTs.
![Brane configurations of rank 2 SCFTs with zero mass.[]{data-label="fig:rank2-branes1"}](rank2-branes-m0.pdf)
The second type of endpoint geometry can be classified in the same manner. Due to the gluing condition (\[eq:gluingcond\]), a gluing curve in one of two Hirzebruch surfaces should have negative self-intersection. We choose $C_2=E_2$ in the second surface $\mathbb{F}_{n_2}$. Then the gluing curve $C_1$ in the first surface $\mathbb{F}_{n_1}$ needs to be a rational irreducible curve with self-intersection $n_2-2$. The curve $C_1$ takes the form of $C_1 = aF_1+bH_1$ with $a,b\ge0$ or $C_1=E_1$, and must satisfy $$C_1^2 = n_2-2 \ , \quad C_1 \cdot S_1 = -n_2 \ .$$ We now need to check shrinkability conditions. In both irreducible components $S_i = \mathbb F_{n_i}$, the curve classes generating Mori cone are $E_i, F_i$. When these curve classes have non-negative volumes with respect to the Kähler class $-J=-\phi_1 S_1-\phi_2 S_2$, the local 3-fold defined by $S$ is shrinkable and thus engineers a 5d SCFT. In this case, the criteria for shrinkability are $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\rm vol}(E_1) = (2-n_1)\phi_1-a \phi_2 \ge 0 \ , \quad {\rm vol}(F_1) = 2\phi_1-b\phi_2 \ge 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&&{\rm vol}(E_2) = (2a+2b-bn)\phi_1+(2-n)\phi_2 \ge 0 \ , \quad {\rm vol}(F_2) = -\phi_1+2\phi_2 \ge 0 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\phi_1,\phi_2>0$. We can easily solve these conditions and the gluing condition (\[eq:gluingcond\]). Each solution will give a shrinkable geometry and thus a SCFT. The full list of shrinkable surfaces $\mathbb{F}_{n_1}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$ (denoted by $(n_1,n_2)$) is given in Tables \[tb:endpoint-F-F\] and \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\]. Some of these geometries have brane constructions given in Figure \[fig:rank2-branes2\]. We find that only the six geometries in Table \[tb:endpoint-F-F\] are independent endpoint geometries.
[.8]{}
$S_1\cup S_2$ $C_{S_1}$ $C_{S_2}$
---------------------------------- ----------- -----------
$\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_3$ $\ell$ $E$
$\mathbb{P}^2 \cup \mathbb{F}_6$ $2\ell$ $E$
: Classification of all rank 2 geometries with $M=0,1$.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-F-F-clssification"}
[.9]{}
$(n_1,n_2)$ $C_{S_1}$ $G$ $(n_1,n_2)$ $C_{S_1}$ $G$
------------- ----------- ----------------------- ------------- ----------- ---------------
$(0,2)$ $F$ $SU(3)_1$ $(0,8)$ $F+3H$ $SU(3)_7,G_2$
$(0,4)$ $F+H$ $SU(3)_3$ $(1,1)$ $E$ $SU(3)_0$
$(0,6)$ $F+2H$ $SU(3)_5,Sp(2)_{\pi}$ $(1,7)$ $2F+H$ $SU(3)_6$
: Classification of all rank 2 geometries with $M=0,1$.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-F-F-clssification"}
[.8]{}
$(n_1,n_2)$ $C_{S_1}$ $G$ Endpoint
------------- ----------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------
$(1,2)$ $F$ $SU(2)\hat{\times}SU(2)$ $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_3$
$(1,3)$ $H$ $SU(3)_2$ $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_3$
$(1,5)$ $F+H$ $SU(3)_4$ $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_6$
$(1,6)$ $2H$ $Sp(2)_{0}$ $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_6$
$(2,4)$ $H$ $SU(3)_1$ $\cdot$
$(0,10)$ $F+4H$ $SU(3)_9$ $\cdot$
: Classification of all rank 2 geometries with $M=0,1$.[]{data-label="tb:rank2-F-F-clssification"}
![Brane configurations of rank 2 SCFTs with $M=1$.[]{data-label="fig:rank2-branes2"}](rank2-branes.pdf)
In fact, all the endpoint geometries in Table \[tb:endpoint-F-F\] have gauge theory descriptions with simple gauge group $G$. As explained in Section \[sec:Mth\], a distinguished property of geometries corresponding to gauge theories is that the matrix of intersection numbers (\[eqn:Cartan\]) of holomorphic fiber classes $f_i$ with the surfaces $S_i$ is equal to (minus) the Cartan matrix of the gauge algebra. We remark here that the Hirzebruch surface $\mathbb{F}_0$ has a base-fiber duality exchanging the base curve class $H$ and the fiber curve class $F$. Geometrically, this is an isomorphism between two geometries related by the exchange of $H$ and $F$. It is possible that the dual geometry often has different gauge theory realization from the gauge theory of the original geometry. In this case, the geometric duality leads to a duality between two different gauge theories.
Aside from studying the Cartan matrices, we can also compare the triple intersection polynomial $J^3$ to the perturbative expression for the prepotential given in (\[eqn:pre\]). For the geometries in Table \[tb:endpoint-F-F\] and \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\], the prepotentials are $$6\mathcal{F} = J^3 = 8\phi_1^3 + 3\phi_1\phi_2(-n_2\phi_1+(n_2-1)\phi_2) + 8 \phi_2^3\ .$$ We can compare these prepotentials against known gauge theory prepotentials as a means to identify the corresponding gauge theories.
Let us first select the respective fibers $H,F$ for $\mathbb{F}_{0}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$, and $F,F$ for $\mathbb{F}_{1}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$. The Cartan matrix $A_{ij}$ of the following geometries computed using these fiber classes is that of the gauge algebra $SU(3)$ as $$(A_{SU(3)})_{ij} ~:~(n_1,n_2) ~=~ (0,2) \, , \ (0,4) \,, \ (0,6) \,, \ (0,8) \,, \ (1,1) \,, \ (1,7) \ ,$$ for the choices of degrees $(n_1,n_2)$ of $\mathbb F_{n_1} \cup \mathbb F_{n_2}$. Moreover, their triple intersections agree with gauge theory prepotentials of $SU(3)_k$ listed in Table \[tb:endpoint-F-F\]. Therefore, we expect that these endpoint geometries have $SU(3)_k$ gauge theory realizations.
The geometries $(0,6)$ and $(0,8)$ are particularly interesting, as they have two different gauge theory descriptions related by the base-fiber exchange of $\mathbb{F}_0$. When we consider the fibers classes to be $F,F$, the two geometries $(0,6),(0,8)$ exhibit (respectively) $Sp(2),G_2$ Cartan matrices. On the other hand, if we choose fiber classes $H,F$, the geometries exhibit the $SU(3)$ Cartan matrix in both cases.
Studying triple intersection numbers gives us a means to narrow down the precise gauge theory that corresponds to these geometries. The triple intersection polynomial $J^3$ of the geometry $(0,6)$ is identical to the prepotentials of both pure $SU(3)_5$ gauge theory and also pure $Sp(2)_\theta$ theory, which can have either $\theta=0$ or $\theta=\pi$. However, the prepotential cannot distinguish two $Sp(2)$ cases. We can instead determine the $\theta$ angle using the known duality between $SU(3)$ and $Sp(2)$. In [@Gaiotto:2015una], it was conjectured that $SU(3)_5$ is dual to $Sp(2)_\pi$. This suggests that the geometry $(0,6)$ corresponds to $Sp(2)_\pi$ while $(1,6)$ corresponds to $Sp(2)_0$. Thus, the geometric construction provides yet additional evidence supporting the duality between the $SU(3)_5$ and $Sp(2)_{\pi}$ gauge theories.
As another example of a duality between gauge theories, the triple intersections of $(0,8)$ agree with the prepotentials of $SU(3)_7$ and $G_2$ gauge theories. We thus conjecture that $SU(3)_7$ and $G_2$ theories are dual and describe the low energy physics of the SCFT corresponding to $\mathbb{F}_0\cup \mathbb{F}_8$.
Additional (not necessarily endpoint) geometries of type $\mathbb{F}_{n_1}\cup \mathbb{F}_{n_2}$ are displayed in Table \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\]. The first five geometries in Table \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\] are shrinkable. However, the first four geometries of these are not endpoints. They all can be obtained from other endpoint geometries, $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_3$ or $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_6$, by blowing up a point and performing flop transitions; see Figure \[fig:P2-F-transition\] for more details. We find that these geometries but $(1,2)$ have gauge theory descriptions as listed in Table \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\]. The geometry $(1,2)$ has gauge algebra $SU(2)\hat{\times}SU(2)$ where $\hat{\times}$ denotes that we gauge the $SU(2)$ global symmetry of another $SU(2)$ gauge theory which arises from the $U(1)_I$ instanton symmetry in the IR gauge theory.
![Geometric transitions from $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_3$ and $\mathbb{P}^2\cup \mathbb{F}_6$ to $\mathbb{F}_1\cup \mathbb{F}_n$’s with $n=2,3,5,6$.[]{data-label="fig:P2-F-transition"}](P2-F-transitions.pdf)
The geometry $(2,4)$ in Table \[tb:shirinkable-F-F\] is an endpoint geometry admitting no additional rank preserving mass deformations. However, this geometry is equivalent to another endpoint geometry $(0,4)$ by a complex structure deformation, or a Hanany-Witten transition. Thus these two geometries belong to the same physical equivalence class.
Lastly, the geometry $(0,10)$ is not shrinkable. This geometry satisfies all other shrinkablity conditions, but we find that no 4-cycles have nonzero volume at any point in the Kähler cone. Thus $(0,10)$ is not shrinkable unless we make a non-normalizable Kähler deformation. This means the corresponding field theory possesses an intrinsic energy scale set by the Kähler parameter of the non-compact 4-cycle. Therefore, we do not expect that this geometry corresponds to a 5d SCFT. Indeed, in Section \[sec:rank2\], we will argue that this geometry gives a 5d KK theory.
We have finished the full classification of rank 2 endpoint geometries (thus rank 2 endpoint SCFTs), which have $M=0,1$. The result is rather surprising—we observe that all rank 2 SCFTs are actually realized by gauge theories and their mass deformations. Note that geometries $\mathbb{P}^2\cup\mathbb{F}_3$ and $\mathbb{P}^2\cup\mathbb{F}_6$ corresponding to non-Lagrangian theories can also viewed as deformations of geometries which admit gauge theory descriptions, for example (respectively) $\mathbb{F}_1\cup\mathbb{F}_2$ and $\mathbb{F}_1\cup\mathbb{F}_5$. This seems to suggest that gauge theory descriptions are generally quite useful, even for 5d SCFTs of higher rank.
Furthermore, all geometries in Table \[tb:rank2-F-F-clssification\] except for $(1,2)$ were already predicted in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] using perturbative gauge theory analysis. In fact these geometric constructions confirm all predictions with $r=2$ and $M=1$ in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] except for $SU(3)_8$. It was conjectured in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] that the $SU(3)_8$ theory exists and has an interacting UV fixed point. However, the existence of this theory appears to be ruled out by our geometric classification.
Let us briefly discuss the geometry of the $SU(3)_8$ gauge theory. This theory in fact has a geometric realization as the local 3-fold with Kähler surface $\mathbb{F}_1\cup \mathbb{F}_9$, where we identify the 2-cycles $C_{S_1}=3F_1+H_1$ and $C_{S_2} = E_2$. However, this geometry is not shrinkable because at least one 2-cycle contained in $S$ has negative volume. For example, the volumes $$\text{vol}(E_1) = \phi_1 - 3\phi_2 \ , \quad \text{vol}(F_2) = 2\phi_2 - \phi_1 $$ with $\phi_1,\phi_2>0$ cannot be both non-negative. Therefore the Coulomb branch of this geometry is trivial and this geometry is not shrinkable. In order to make the geometry shrinkable we need to attach a non-compact 4-cycle with non-zero Kähler parameter corresponding to bare gauge coupling constant $1/g^2$. This Kähler parameter cannot be tuned to zero while maintaining positivity of the Kähler metric. So even though the IR gauge description with $1/g^2\not=0$ makes sense geometrically, we cannot take the $1/g^2=0$ limit without taking the Coulomb branch parameter to $0$. This means that if the point $1/g^2=0$ is a CFT point, then it has no Coulomb branch deformation, and thus in conflict with a SCFT from this gauge theory based on our assumptions. Thus we do not expect that this geometry has a CFT limit. The gauge theory analysis in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] uses only the perturbative spectrum and monopole tensions and thus cannot capture the spectrum of M2-branes wrapping the curve $E_1 \subset \mathbb F_1$ (which correspond to instantons in the gauge theory). Missing non-perturbative states such as these are crucial for assessing whether or not a geometry is shrinkable. This again shows that the perturbative constraints used in [@Jefferson:2017ahm] are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the existence of CFT fixed points.
### Full rank 2 classification {#full-rank-2-classification .unnumbered}
We showed in the previous section that our classification program can be reduced to a classification of the following types of geometric configurations: $\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n \cup \text{dP}_{p_2}$ and $ \text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n \cup \mathbb F_0$. As already discussed $p_2$ and $p_1$ are bounded above by $p_{\text{max}}(n)$, which we note depends upon both the degree $n$ and the type of gluing configuration. However, we are still faced with the problem of restricting the range of (non-negative) integer $n$ for which there exist shrinkable configurations. It turns out that some necessary conditions of shrinkability allows us to derive a crude bound on $n$. From a physical perspective, the existence of such a bound is not surprising as it is closely tied to the existence of only a finite number of 5d interacting fixed CFT points for a fixed rank.
Appropriate bounds on $n$ can be determined in the two separate cases of $S_2 = \text{dP}_{p_2}$ or $S_2= \mathbb F_0$. For both cases, we need only consider $n \geq 2$, since setting $n=0,1$ produces a geometric configuration isomorphic to $\text{dP}_{p_1+1} \cup \text{dP}_{p_2}$. In the case of $S_2 = \text{dP}_2$, we find that $n \leq 7$, while in the case of $S_2 = \mathbb F_0$, we find that $n \leq 8$. See Appendix \[app:bound\] for proofs of these bounds.
We present our classification of rank 2 Kähler surfaces associated to 5d UV interacting fixed points in Figures \[fig:11\]-\[fig:0\]. These results are organized by the number of mass parameters $M$, with $0 \leq M \leq 11$. Given $M >0$ mass parameters, a shrinkable geometry with $M-1$ mass parameters may be obtained by performing a blowdown of an exceptional divisor (possibly after a sequence of flops) in the surface $S$; in the associated field theory, blowing down an exceptional curve corresponds to integrating out a massive matter hypermultiplet.
In each figure, we list the Kähler surface $S= S_1 \overset{C_{S_2}}{\cup} S_2$, where $C_{S_2}=( S_1 \cap S_2)_{S_2}$ is the curve along which the two surfaces are glued, restricted to the *second* surface $S_2$. Geometries marked with $( \cdot )^*$ correspond to 5d KK theories. Beneath each geometry, we also list the associated gauge theory; geometries with no associated gauge system indicated do not admit a known description as a gauge theory.
Our method for identifying gauge theoretic descriptions involves comparing the triple intersection $J^3$ with the gauge-theoretic prepotential $6\mathcal F$ in (\[eqn:pre\]) for given gauge group and matter content in the Kähler cone, as well as identifying a geometric realization of the Cartan matrix of associated to the gauge algebra.
The Cartan matrices are determined up to sign by a choice of fibers[^18] $f_1\subset S_1, f_2 \subset S_2$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
(f_i \cdot S_j)_{S_i} = - (A_G)_{ij}.
\end{aligned}$$ Geometrically, these fibers are rational curves over which M2-branes may be wrapped to give rise to charged BPS vectors in the 5d spectrum. In Figures \[fig:11\]-\[fig:0\], we indicate to the left of each gauge description a possible choice of fibers giving rise to stated gauge algebra. We merely list all possible gauge theory descriptions and do not attempt to list all possible configurations of fibers. When there is more than one choice of fiber leading to different Cartan matrices (and hence different gauge symmetries), there are dualities between the associated gauge theory descriptions. For $\text{dP}_{p_2 <8}$, the possible fibers are (using the same notation as in \[eq:moridp\]) $$\begin{aligned}
(1;1)~,~(2;1^4)~,~(3;2,1^6)~,~(4;2^3,1^4)~,~(5;2^6,1).
\end{aligned}$$ The list of possible fibers in $\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n$ is significantly more complicated; see Appendix \[app:fiber\].
We also note that the double arrows connecting pairs of different geometries $S$ indicate flop transitions mapping the geometries into one another. Each figure contains several clusters of geometries connected by arrows, with each cluster belonging to the same birational, and thus physical, equivalence class. Arrows decorated with the symbol $\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$ indicate that the flop transition requires us to reverse our identifications $S_1 \leftrightarrow S_2$, and flip the sign of the Chern-Simons level, $k \to - k$.
Finally, we remark that the gluing curves $C_{S_2} \in \text{dP}_{p_2 \geq 3}$ are only listed up to the action of the Weyl group $W(E_{p_2})$. Said differently, each choice of gluing curve displayed in the figures is a single element in the Weyl orbit. We now briefly describe the Weyl group action in $\text{dP}_{p_2}$ and explain why in most cases we only need to distinguish geometric configurations whose gluing curves belong to the same Weyl orbit in a given surface. Given a simple root $\alpha_i = X_i - X_{i+1}, i = 1, \dots, p_2-1$, and an effective curve $$\begin{aligned}
C= d \ell - m_i X_i,
\end{aligned}$$ the Weyl reflections $w_{\alpha_i}$ act by transposing exceptional divisors, $X_i \leftrightarrow X_{i+1}$, while the reflection $w_{\alpha_{p_2}}$ associated to the root $\alpha_{p_2} = \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i$ acts on $C$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
w_{\alpha_{p_2}}(C) &= (2 d - m_1 - m_2 -m_3) \ell - ( d - m_2 - m_3 ) X_1 - ( d - m_1 - m_3) X_2 \\
&- (d - m_1 - m_2) X_3 - \sum_{i > 3} m_i X_i.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ As was shown in [@Iqbal:2001ye], the action of $W(E_{p_2})$ on a rational curve $C \in \text{dP}_{p_2}$ for $p_2 \geq 4$ and degree $d_C \equiv - K \cdot C = C^2 + 2 = n$ in all cases studied in this paper is transitive. Therefore, since the Weyl action $w_{\alpha}: C \mapsto C + (C \cdot \alpha) C$ preserves intersection products, $$\begin{aligned}
C \cdot C' = ( C + (C \cdot \alpha) \alpha) \cdot ( C' + (C'\cdot \alpha) \alpha),
\end{aligned}$$ it is sufficient to set the gluing curve $C_{S_2}$ equal to a single element of the Weyl orbit in order to understand the full intersection structure, as the intersection numbers are identical up to permutation for any two elements belonging to the same Weyl orbit. For $p_2 <3$, the Weyl group either has multiple orbits (as in the case of $p_2 =3$) or is otherwise undefined (as in the case of $p_2 <3$), and so for $p_2<4$ we only list gluing curves $C_{S_2}$ up to cyclic permutations of the exceptional divisors $X_i$.
Upon mass deforming these SCFTs and flowing to the IR we get a tree of relations between these conformal theories which is summarized in the RG flow tree diagram in Figure \[tree\]. The top theories of the RG families are related to 5d KK theories which are discussed in the next section.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.4]
\node[](a) at (-4,2) {$ \begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{10} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1)^* \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i , \ell - X_1 &\hat A_1\\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,0) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{9} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2)^* \\\scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i , \ell - X_2& \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (4,2) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{10} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0)^* \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F} \\\hline F, E & SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i ,F& \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (0,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{8} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3)^* \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F}\\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i, \ell - X_3 & \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (0,-5) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{7} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4)^*\\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F}\\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i, \ell -X_4 & \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (0,-7.5) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5)^* \\\scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_5 & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F}\\\hline H- X_1 - X_2, 2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \times [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i,\ell-X_5 & \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array} $} \end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (0,-10) {$\begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^5 X_i }{\cup} \text{dP}_6)^*\\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_6 & Sp(2) + 10\textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, 2\ell - \sum_{i=2}^5 X_i & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \times [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \\\hline f_1 \cdot E= 2, \ell- X_6 & \hat A_1 \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.3]
\node[](a) at (7.5,10) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{9} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (5.5,8) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{8} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (3.5,10) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{9} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F} \\\hline F, E & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,6) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{7} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,4) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4\\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (5.5,1.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_5 & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F}\\\hline H - X_1-X_2, 2 \ell- \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F} ] \times [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (-2,1.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^5 X_i }{\cup} \text{dP}_6\\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell- X_5 &SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_6 & Sp(2) + 9\textbf{F}\\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, \ell-X_6 & [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}] \times [ SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}]\\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](a3) at (-2,11.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{10} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[] at (5.5,12) {$ \begin{array}{c} (\text{Bl}_{9} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0)^* \\\scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,E& SU(3)_{-\frac{3}{2}} + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum_{i=1}^8 X_i ,E & Sp(2) + 8 \textbf{F}+ 1\textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array} $};
\node[](b3) at (-2,10) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{9} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}}+ 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F- \sum X_i , \ell- X_1 & Sp(2) + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](c3) at (-2,8) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{8} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}}+ 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F- \sum X_i , \ell- X_1 & Sp(2) + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](d3) at (-2,6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{7} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}}+ 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i , \ell - X_{1} & Sp(2) + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](e3) at (-2,4) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}}+ 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H + 2 F - \sum X_i, \ell - X_{1} & Sp(2) + 9 \textbf{F} \\\hline H - X_1 -X_2 , 2 \ell - \sum X_i & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \times [ SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a3) -- (b3);
\draw[big arrow] (e3) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- node[right,midway]{$\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$} (e3);
\draw[big arrow] (b3) -- (c3);
\draw[big arrow] (c3) -- (d3);
\draw[big arrow] (d3) -- (e3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b3) -- (a3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c3) -- (b3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d3) -- (c3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e3) -- (d3);
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.3]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, E & SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4\\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (5.5,2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_5 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H- X_1 - X_2 , 2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & SU(2)_\pi \times [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (5.5,4.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^5 X_i }{\cup} \text{dP}_6\\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_6 & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0 , 2\ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & SU(2)_\pi \times [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F} ] \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node(g) at (-2,4.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_6 \mathbb F_2 \overset{E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, F & SU(3)_{-2} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H+2F - \sum X_i ,F & Sp(2) + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H-X_1-X_2, E & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}] \times SU(2)_{\pi} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node(A) at (7.5,6) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_7 \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2\end{array}$};
\node(B) at (3,6) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_6 \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline H-X_1-X_2 , \ell - X_1 & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F} ] \times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node(C) at (-3,6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_5 \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell-X_{1} & [SU(2) + 4 \textbf{F}]\times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (A) -- (B);
\draw[big arrow] (B) -- (A);
\draw[big arrow](C) -- (B);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}](B) -- (C);
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow] (f) -- node[above,pos=.5]{$\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$} (g);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (g) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (e) at (2.5,-1) {$\begin{array}{c} (\mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_7 )^*\\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell- X_2 & SU(3)_4 + 6 \textbf{F}\\\hline F, 2\ell- \sum_{i=2}^5 X_i & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} + 2 \textbf{AS} \\\hline F,4\ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i - 2 \sum_{j=5}^7 X_j& G_2 + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,5\ell - X_1 - 2 \sum_{i=2}^7 X_i &A^{(2)}_2 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\\\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1,xscale=1.2]
\node[](a) at (3.2,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{7} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{1}+ 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{1}+ 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (0,-4) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{1}+ 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (0,-6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{1}+ 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H-X_1-X_2 , 2\ell - \sum X_i & [SU(2)+ 1 \textbf{F}] \times [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (0,-8.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^5 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell-X_1 & SU(3)_{1} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, 2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & [SU(2) + 1 \textbf{F} ] \times [ SU(2)\times 3 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](a3) at (0,-11) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_2 \overset{ \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_2 & SU(3)_{-1} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H-X_1-X_2, \ell-X_1 & [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}] \times [ SU(2)+ 1 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array} $};
\node[](a4) at (0,-13) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_3 \overset{ \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\\scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{-1} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array} $};
\node[] at (7.5,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_7 \\\scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{3} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell-X_2 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} + 1 \textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array} $};
\node (b3) at (7.5,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,E & SU(3)_{0} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (c3) at (7.5,-5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{0} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (d3) at (7.5,-7) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell- X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_{2} & SU(3)_{0} + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline H-X_1-X_2 , \ell -X_1 & [SU(2) + 2 \textbf{F} ] \times [SU(2) \times 2\textbf{F}] \\\hline\end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node(e3) at (7.5,-9) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_3 \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_{3} & SU(3)_0 + 6 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, \ell- X_{1} & [SU(2) + 2 \textbf{F} ] \times [SU(2) \times 2\textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b3) -- (c3);
\draw[big arrow] (c3) -- (b3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c3) -- (d3);
\draw[big arrow] (d3) -- (c3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d3) -- (e3);
\draw[big arrow] (e3) -- (d3);
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (a3) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (a3) -- (a4);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- node[right,midway]{$\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$} (a3);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (a4) -- (a3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.3]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, E & SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4\\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (5.5,2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_5 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (-1,2) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^5 X_i }{\cup} \text{dP}_6\\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_6 & Sp(2) + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\node[](a) at (4,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{6} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}+ 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (0,-4) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} & SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}+ 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (0,-6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}+ 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (0,-8.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}+ 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline H - X_1 - X_2 , 2\ell - \sum X_i & SU(2)_\pi \times [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F} ] \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (0,-10.8) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^5 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}+ 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, 2\ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i & SU(2)_\pi \times [ SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}]\\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node(g) at (0,-13) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_5 \mathbb F_2 \overset{E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, F & SU(3)_{-\frac{3}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline H-X_1 - X_2 ,E& [SU(2) + 3\textbf{F}] \times SU(2)_\pi \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow] (f) -- (g);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (g) -- node[right,midway]{$\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$} (f);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node(A) at (8,-8) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_6 \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2\end{array}$};
\node(B) at (8,-10) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_5 \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline H-X_1-X_2 , \ell - X_1 & [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F} ] \times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node(C) at (8,-12) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_4 \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{.7}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell-X_{1} & [SU(2) + 3 \textbf{F}] \times SU(2)_{0} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (A) -- (B);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (C) -- (B);
\draw[big arrow] (B) -- (A);
\draw[big arrow] (B) -- (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (e) at (1.5,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_6 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell - X_6 & SU(3)_{\frac{9}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F}\\\hline F, 2\ell - \sum_{i=3}^6 X_{i} & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} + 2 \textbf{AS} \\\hline F, 3 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^5 X_i - 2 X_6 & G_2 + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (f) at (9,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_6 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell-X_2 & SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F}\\\hline F,2 \ell- \sum_{i=3}^6 X_i & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} + 1 \textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}\\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (bn) at (8.1,-1) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,F & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (cn) at (8.1,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (dn) at (8.1,-5.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell- X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline H- X_1 - X_2 , \ell-X_1 & [SU(2) + 1 \textbf{F} ] \times [SU(2) +2 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node(en) at (8.1,-8) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_2 \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell -X_4 & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E =0 , \ell-X_1 & [SU(2) + 1 \textbf{F} ] \times [SU(2) +2 \textbf{F}] \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](a1n) at (8.1,-13) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_3 \overset{ \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\\scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array} $};
\node[](a2n) at (8.1,-10.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_2 \overset{ \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{-\frac{1}{2}} + 5 \textbf{F} \\\hline H- X_1 -X_2 ,\ell-X_1 & [SU(2) + 2 \textbf{F}] \times [ SU(2) + 1 \textbf{F}]\\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array} $};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (bn) -- (cn);
\draw[big arrow] (cn) -- (bn);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (cn) -- (dn);
\draw[big arrow] (dn) -- (cn);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (dn) -- (en);
\draw[big arrow] (en) -- (dn);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (a1n) -- (a2n);
\draw[big arrow] (a2n) -- (a1n);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (a2n) -- node[right,midway]{$\phi_1 \leftrightarrow \phi_2$} (en);
\draw[big arrow] (en) -- (a2n);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.3]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{3} + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, E & SU(3)_{3} + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{3} + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4\\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{3} + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (5.5,2) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{3} + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_5 & Sp(2) + 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} $}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{5} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{2}+ 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (0,-4) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{j=1,2} &SU(3)_{2}+ 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (0,-6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{j=1,\dots,3} &SU(3)_{2}+ 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (0,-8) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{j=1,\dots,4} &SU(3)_{2}+ 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](f) at (0,-10) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^5 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_5 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 &SU(3)_{2}+ 4 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (f);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (f) -- (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.3]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\\scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,F & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,E &SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4\\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_4 & Sp(2) + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{4} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}}+ 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (0,-4) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}}+ 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (0,-6) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}}+ 3 \textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\node[](e) at (0,-8) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^4 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}}+ 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (e) -- (d);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (b) at (1,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,F & SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (c) at (1,-5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node (d) at (1,-7) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell- X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \scalebox{1}{$ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\node(e) at (1,-9) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_4 \\ \scalebox{1}{$\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_3 &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 3 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}$} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (e);
\draw[big arrow] (e) -- (d);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\node[](a) at (-4.5,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{3} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{3}+ 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{j=1,2} &SU(3)_{3}+ 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node[](d) at (5.5,-4.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_3 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^3 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, \ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{3}+ 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (d) -- (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.2]
\node[](a) at (0,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{4} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, F & Sp(2) + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, E &SU(3)_{4} + 2 \textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5.5,-2) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell-\sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{1} &SU(3)_{4} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell - X_3 & Sp(2) + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (b) at (-5,-2.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,F & SU(3)_{2} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (c) at (-.5,-2.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 &SU(3)_{2} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (d) at (4.5,-2.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell- X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{2} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (d);
\draw[big arrow] (d) -- (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node(C2) at (4,5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{dP}_2 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline \ell- X_1, \ell-X_{1} & SU(2)_{0} \times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node(a) at (-2,5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_3 \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2\end{array}$};
\node(b) at (-2,3) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_2 \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline H-X_1-X_2, \ell - X_1 & SU(2)_\pi \times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node(C1) at (6,3) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, \ell-X_{1} & SU(2)_{\pi} \times SU(2)_0 \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (C1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (C1) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={xshift=.5em}] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (a);
\node(d1) at (-2.5,1) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_2 \mathbb F_2 \overset{E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,F & SU(3)_{0} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline H - X_1 - X_2 , E & SU(2)_\pi \times SU(2)_\pi \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node(d2) at (5.5,1) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_1 \overset{X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{0} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline f_1 \cdot E = 0, \ell - X_2 & SU(2)_\pi \times SU(2)_\pi \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (f) at (-3.5,-3) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2\ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{5} + 2 \textbf{F}\\\hline F,\ell - X_{2} & Sp(2) + 1\textbf{F} + 1\textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (f) at (2,-3) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_3\\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell -X_{1} & Sp(2)_{0}+ 2 \textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](k) at (-3,-1) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_3 \overset{ \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{1} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array} $};
\node (l) at (2,-1) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell-X_2 &SU(3)_{1} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (m) at (7,-1) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell-X_1-X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_3 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell - X_3 &SU(3)_{1} + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (g) at (7,-3.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_6 \overset{3 \ell - 2 X_1 - X_2 }{\cup} \text{dP}_3\\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell-X_2 &Sp(2)_{\pi} + 2 \textbf{AS} \\\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_6 + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline F, \ell- X_3 &G_2 + 2 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (k) -- (l);
\draw[big arrow] (l) -- (k);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (l) -- (m);
\draw[big arrow] (m) -- (l);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (d1) -- (d2);
\draw[big arrow] (d2) -- (d1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1]
\node[](a) at (-5,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{2} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b) at (0,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}}+1 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node[](c) at (5,-2) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_4 \overset{2 \ell - \sum_{i=1}^2 X_i}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_{j=1,2} &SU(3)_{\frac{7}{2}}+ 1 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (a);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (c) -- (b);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.2]
\node[](a) at (5,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & Sp(2) + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node[](b1) at (0,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{9}{2}} + 1 \textbf{F} \\\hline F,\ell - X_2 & Sp(2) + 1 \textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (-5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_6 \overset{F + 2 E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F, F & Sp(2) + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline F,E &SU(3)_{\frac{9}{2}} + 1\textbf{F}\\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow] (b1) -- (b2);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b2) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b1) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\ \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (b) at (-2.5,-2.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_4 \overset{F+E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,F & SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (c) at (2.5,-2.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 &SU(3)_{\frac{5}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (c);
\draw[big arrow] (c) -- (b);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node(a) at (-1,3) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_2 \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2\end{array}$};
\node(b) at (3,3) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (a) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow] (b) -- (a);
\node(d1) at (.5,1.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_2 \overset{E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, F & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node(d2) at (5.5,1.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node(d3) at (7,3) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{\ell - X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (d3) -- (b);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b) -- (d3);
\node (f) at (-2,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_7 \overset{3\ell -2 X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{13}{2}} + 1\textbf{F}\\\hline F, \ell - X_2 & G_2 + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (f) at (3,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell - X_1 &Sp(2)_0 + 1\textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node (f1) at (8,-2.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_6 \overset{3\ell - 2 X_1 - X_2}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell - X_1& SU(3)_{\frac{11}{2}} + 1\textbf{F}\\\hline F,\ell - X_2 & Sp(2)_\pi +1 \textbf{AS} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](k) at (0,-.5) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_3 \overset{ \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array} $};
\node (l) at (5,-.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_2 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell -X_2 &SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}} + 1\textbf{F} \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (k) -- (l);
\draw[big arrow] (l) -- (k);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (d1) -- (d2);
\draw[big arrow] (d2) -- (d1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.2]
\node[](a1) at (-4,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_{1} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array} $};
\node[](b1) at (-.5,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_5 \overset{2 \ell - X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_{4} \\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a1) -- (b1);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (b1) -- (a1);
\node[](a) at (3,-3) {$ \begin{array}{c} \text{Bl}_1 \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2 \end{array}$};
\node(ee) at (6.5,-3) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_2 \overset{\ell-X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \end{array}$};
\node[](b2) at (1.5,.5) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_{2b} \overset{F + (b-1) E}{\cup} \mathbb F_0 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline
b=1 & F,E & SU(3)_1 \\\hline b=2 &F,F & SU(3)_3 \\\hline b=3 &F, E & SU(3)_5 \\\hline b = 3 &F,F & Sp(2)_{\pi} \\\hline b = 4 & F,E & SU(3)_7 \\\hline b = 4 &F,F &G_2 \\\hline b = 5 & F,E & SU(3)_9\\\hline b = 5 & F, F & A^{(2)}_2 \\\hline \end{array} \end{array}$};
\draw[big arrow] (a) -- (ee);
\draw[big arrow,transform canvas={yshift=-.5em}] (ee) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (-2.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_2 \\\hline\end{array} \end{array}$};
\node[](a) at (1,0) {$ \begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_6 \overset{2 \ell}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
F,\ell - X_1 &Sp(2)_0\\\hline \end{array}\end{array}$};
\node at (4.5,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_1 \overset{X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F,\ell - X_1 & SU(3)_0 \\\hline\end{array} \end{array}$};
\node at (8,0) {$\begin{array}{c} \mathbb F_7 \overset{3\ell - 2X_1}{\cup} \text{dP}_1 \\ \begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline F, \ell - X_1 & SU(3)_6 \\\hline\end{array} \end{array}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbb F_3 \overset{\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2
& ~~~~&
\mathbb F_6 \overset{2\ell}{\cup} \mathbb P^2
\\ \\
\end{array}
$
### 6d Theories on a Circle {#d-theories-on-a-circle .unnumbered}
In this section we show that the complicated web of theories we have uncovered are actually unified from the perspective of 5d Kaluza-Klein (KK) theories arising from 6d SCFTs compactified on a circle (up to possible automorphism twists and holonomies).
As discussed in Section \[sec:rank1\], shrinkable rank 1 geometries are classified by del Pezzo surfaces $\text{dP}_{n\leq 8}$ and $\mathbb{F}_0$ up to physical equivalence. Interestingly, all of them can be obtained via geometric RG flows from $\text{dP}_9$ (equivalently, $\frac{1}{2}$K3). The local $\text{dP}_9$ model is an elliptic 3-fold engineering the 6d SCFT called the ‘E-string theory’. Therefore all rank 1 5d SCFTs are descendants (i.e. related by rank preserving mass deformations) of the 6d E-string theory compactified on a circle.
We also find that all rank 2 5d SCFTs have 6d origin, but the rank 2 case is significantly more elaborate than the rank 1 case. Geometric constructions produce 5d SCFTs belonging to the four distinct families displayed in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\]. The geometries of type $(\cdot)^*$ are not shrinkable but rather 5d KK theories [^19]. We expect that these geometries correspond to 6d SCFTs compactified on a circle, possibly with automorphism twists.
One distinguished property of geometries corresponding to 5d KK theories is that there must exist an elliptic curve class whose volume is not controlled by normalizable Kähler moduli. The M2-branes wrapping this elliptic class correspond to KK momentum states. For example, the canonical class $-K_{\text{dP}_9} \subset\text{dP}_9$ is an elliptic class with zero volume associated to the KK momenta of the E-string theory compactified on a circle. Another important property is that some KK geometries contain fiber classes forming an affine gauge algebra. Namely, we can find fiber classes $f_i$ such that $$-f_i \cdot S_j = (A_{\hat{G}})_{ij},$$ where $\hat{G}$ denotes an affine gauge algebra. This signals that the corresponding geometry is an elliptic geometry realizing a 5d KK theory. We will now identify 6d origins of the geometries in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\] using these properties.
We begin with $\text{Bl}_{10}\mathbb{F}_6\cup \mathbb{F}_0$. This geometry has two gauge theory descriptions, namely $SU(3)_0 + 10 \textbf{F}$ and $Sp(2)+ 10 \textbf{F}$. The 6d origin of these gauge theories is discussed in [@Yonekura:2015ksa; @Hayashi:2015fsa; @Gaiotto:2015una; @Hayashi:2016abm]. These theories are a circle reduction of the 6d $(D_5,D_5)$ conformal matter theory introduced in [@Heckman:2013pva; @DelZotto:2014hpa]. The geometry $\text{Bl}_{10}\mathbb{F}_6\cup \mathbb{F}_0$ realizes the circle compactification of this 6d theory. This theory has another duality frame in which an affine gauge algebra is manifest. To see this, choose the fiber classes $f_1=H+2F-\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_i $ and $f_2= F$. These fiber classes indeed form the affine $\hat{A}_1$ Cartan matrix: $$-(f_i \cdot S_j) = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & -2 \\ -2 & 2 \end{pmatrix} .$$
Another geometry $\mathbb{F}_2\cup \text{dP}_7$ is interesting for similar reasons. This geometry admits three different gauge theory descriptions corresponding to the following choices of fiber classes: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
f_1&= F,~~ f_2= \ell - X_2 \ \ \rightarrow \ \ SU(3)_4+6{\bf F} \ , \\
f_1&= F,~~ f_2= 2\ell - \sum_{i=2}^5X_i \ \ \rightarrow \ \ Sp(2)+2{\bf AS}+4{\bf F} \ , \\
f_1&= F,~~ f_2= 3\ell - \sum_{i=2}^6X_i -2X_7 \ \ \rightarrow \ \ G_2+6{\bf F} \ .
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Here, the two surfaces are glued along the curves $C_{S_1}=E$ and $C_{S_2}=\ell-X_1$. This implies new dualities between these three gauge theories and their descendants obtained by RG-flows induced by relevant mass deformations. In addition, we find another distinct duality frame: $$f_1 = F \,, \ f_2 = 5\ell -X_1-2\sum_{i=2}^7X_i \ .$$ The fiber classes in this last frame form the affine Cartan matrix $ A^{(2)}_2$: $$-(f_i\cdot S_j) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 2 & -1 \\ -4 & 2 \end{array}\right) \ .$$ This algebra $ A^{(2)}_2$ is obtained by an outer automorphism twist of the affine $A^{(1)}_2=\hat{A}_2$ algebra which identifies ${\bf 3}$ and $\bar{\bf 3}$ representations in $A_2\subset \hat{A}_2$. Therefore, one can expect that this geometry is also a KK geometry corresponding to a 6d $SU(3)$ gauge theory compactified on a circle with an outer automorphism twist. The unique 6d theory satisfying these properties is the 6d $\mathcal{N}=(1,0)$ SCFT with $SU(3)$ gauge group and $N_\textbf{F}=12$ fundamental hypermultiplets. Circle compactification of this 6d theory with an outer automorphism twist of the $SU(3)$ gauge algebra leads to a 5d theory with affine $A^{(2)}_2$ gauge algebra and 6 flavors. This interpretation agrees with the geometric model $\mathbb{F}_2\cup \text{dP}_7$. Therefore, we conclude that $\mathbb{F}_2\cup \text{dP}_7$ is a ‘KK geometry’ engineering the circle compactification of the 6d $SU(3)$ theory with $N_\textbf{F} = 12$.
$\mathbb{F}_6\cup \text{dP}_4$ is also a KK geometry. When one chooses the fiber classes $f_1=F_1,f_2=\ell-X_1$ (with the gluing curve $C_{S_2}=2\ell$), this geometry has a gauge theory description as $Sp(2)_{0}+3{\bf AS}$. However, if we choose the fiber classes $f_1=F,f_2=2\ell-\sum_{i=1}^4X_i$, their intersections with the irreducible components $S_i$ form the affine $A^{(2)}_2$ Cartan matrix, up to sign. This suggests that $\mathbb{F}_6\cup \text{dP}_4$ is a KK geometry. Indeed we find that the 6d $SU(3)$ gauge theory with $N_\textbf{F}=6$ can give rise to the 5d KK theory associated to this geometry upon circle reduction with an outer automorphism twist.
$\mathbb{F}_{10}\cup \mathbb{F}_0$ is yet another KK geometry constructed by our building blocks. This geometry admits two dual descriptions related to the base-fiber exchange symmetry of $\mathbb{F}_0$. One description is $SU(3)_9$, while the other is the $ A^{(2)}_2$ gauge theory description without matter hypermultiplets. We anticipate that this affine $ A^{(2)}_2$ gauge theory is the 5d KK theory coming from the 6d theory $\mathcal{O}(-3)$ minimal SCFT with $SU(3)$ gauge group compactified on a circle with an outer automorphism twist of the $SU(3)$ gauge algebra.
Lastly, $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4\cup \mathbb{F}_0$ is a KK geometry. This geometry is formed by gluing two surfaces along $C_{S_1}=E$ in $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4$ and $C_{S_2}=F+H$ in $\mathbb{F}_0$. We find that this geometry involves an elliptic fiber class given by $E+2X$ (with $E^2=-4,X^2=-1,E\cdot X=2$) in $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4$ which signals that this geometry is an elliptic CY 3-fold. In the 5d reduction, this geometry has two gauge theory descriptions as predicted in [@Jefferson:2017ahm]: $SU(3)_{\frac{3}{2}}$ with $N_{\bf F}=9$ and $Sp(2)$ with $N_{\bf AS}=1,N_{\bf F}=8$. This geometry is associated to the 6d rank 2 E-string theory on a circle. This becomes clearer after a flop transition with respect to the exceptional curve $X$. The flop transition described in Section \[sec:transitions\] leads to $\text{dP}_9\cup \mathbb{F}_0^{g=1}$ geometry where we glue the anticanonical class in $\text{dP}_9$ to the elliptic class $E$ (with $E^2=0$) in $\mathbb{F}_0^{g=1}$. This is the rank 2 generalization of $\text{dP}_9$ (or the 6d rank 2 E-string theory).
All top geometries in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\] come from 6d SCFTs. We also claim that all smooth rank 2 3-folds engineering 5d SCFTs belong to one of the RG-flow families exhibited in Table \[tb:rank2-classification\]. Therefore, we deduce the following conclusion: *All rank 2 5d SCFTs realized by smooth non-compact 3-folds have 6d SCFT origins.*
This is one of the most important lessons from our classification of rank 2 5d SCFTs. The same conclusion may hold also for singular geometries involving $\text{O7}^+$-planes. As mentioned earlier, the classification of smooth 3-folds misses a single geometry corresponding to the theory $SU(3)_{\frac{1}{2}} + 1\textbf{Sym}$, despite the fact that this theory is known to have a brane construction involving $\text{O7}^+$-planes [@Hayashi:2015vhy]. This theory may be the only rank 2 SCFT which cannot be engineered by a smooth 3-fold. But, we also know that this theory can be obtained from a KK theory with 6d origin, so we have found no counterexamples to the notion that all rank 2 5d SCFTs come from 6d SCFTs.
The above discussion motivates classifying automorphisms of 6d SCFTs which lead to 5d KK theories, as in [@Apruzzi:2017iqe]. Given the fact that 6d SCFTs are already classified (not counting frozen singularities involving $\text{O7}^+$ planes), the possible automorphisms can be deduced from symmetries of the tensor branch diagrams of 6d SCFTs dressed by gauge symmetries which respect the automorphisms.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Ron Donagi, Hirotaka Hayashi, Sung-Soo Kim, Kimyeong Lee, Dave Morrison, Kantaro Ohmori and Gabi Zafrir for useful comments and discussions. We also like to thank SCGP summer workshop 2017 for hospitality during part of this work. The research of P.J. and H.K. and C.V. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-1067976. S.K. is supported by NSF grant DMS-1502170.
Mathematical Background {#app:AG}
=======================
Notation, conventions, and formulae {#app:math}
-----------------------------------
Let $S$ be a smooth projective variety, and let a (real) *1-cycle* be a formal linear combination $C = \sum a_i C_i$ of irreducible, reduced and proper curves $C_i$ with real coefficients $a_i$. We declare two 1-cycles $C, C'$ to be *numerically equivalent* if $C \cdot D = C' \cdot D$ for all Cartier divisors $D$ on $X$. Let $N_1(S)$ be the real vector space of 1-cycles modulo numerical equivalence. The *Mori cone* of $S$ is defined to be the closure of the set $$\begin{aligned}
\text{NE}(S) = \{ \sum a_i [C_i]~ |~ a_i \in \mathbb R_{\geq 0} \},
\end{aligned}$$ where $[C_i]$ are the classes of $C_i$ in $N_1(S)$. Since we work exclusively with numerical equivalence classes, we drop the bracket notation.
Given a local 3-fold $X$ defined by a connected Kähler surface $S = \cup S_i$, the Mori cone of $X$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\text{NE}(X)} = \overline{\cup \text{NE}(S_i)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The *Kähler cone* $\mathcal K(X)$ is defined to be the closure of the set of all divisors $J$ such that $J \cdot C >0$ for all curves $C$ that lie in the span of the Mori cone, where $\cdot$ is the intersection product of the Chow ring of $X$. Hence, given a basis $J = \phi_i D_i$, we may parametrize $\mathcal K(X)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal K(X) = \{ \phi : -J \cdot C \geq 0 \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the Kähler cone is dual to the Mori cone of $X$ in the sense of convex geometry.
The correspondence between 5d field theory and Calabi-Yau geometry described in Section \[sec:Mth\] allows us to identify blowdowns with RG flows triggered by mass deformations. As a consequence, it is necessary to consider not only minimal surfaces but also their blowups as the basic building blocks $S_i$ of shrinkable 3-folds. For this reason, we find it useful to recall a few facts about the proper transform of the canonical class $K$ of a surface $S_i$ with respect to a blowup. Let $\pi: S' \rightarrow S$ be a blowup of a collection of points $p_i$ in general position with multiplicities $m_i$ and exceptional divisors $X_i$. Then the canonical divisor $K_{S'}$ of $S'$ is $$\begin{aligned}
K_{S'} = \pi^*(K_S) + \sum X_i.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if the points $p_i$ lie on a curve $C \subset S$, then the proper transform $C' \subset S'$ of the curve $C$ is $$\begin{aligned}
C' = \pi^*(C) - \sum m_i X_i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $m_i$ is the multiplicity of of $C$ at $p_i$ [@GH]. In some situations, one is also forced to consider self-glued surfaces $S'$. The self-glued surfaces we study can be obtained from non-self-glued surfaces $S_i$ by identifying pairs of curves $C_1, C_2 \subset S_i$, thus leading to a birational map $\rho:S \rightarrow S'$. The canonical class of $S'$ is then determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^*(K_{S'}) = K_S + C_1 + C_2.
\end{aligned}$$
Blowups of Hirzebruch surfaces, $\text{Bl}_{p} \mathbb F_{n \geq 2}$ {#app:Mori}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this appendix, we fix notation for Hirzebruch surfaces and their blowups at general points. We also list their fiber classes and explicitly describe the generators of their Mori cones. Significantly, we show that if the number of blowups exceeds $p_{\text{max}}(n)$, then the Mori cone of $\text{Bl}_{p} \IF_n$ is (countably) infinitely generated. In the context of shrinkable 3-folds, this (roughly) implies the existence of an infinite dimensional discrete symmetry, which is not expected for 5d SCFTs and hence excludes these surfaces from the list of building blocks for shrinkable 3-folds.
A *ruled surface* $\mathbb F^g_n$ over a curve $E$ of genus $g$ can be realized as the projectivization of a locally free rank 2 sheaf $\mathcal E$ with $\text{deg} (\mathcal E) =E^2 = -n$, following the notation of [@GH]. The Mori cone of a ruled surface is spanned by two curve classes, namely the genus $g$ curve $E$ and a fiber class $F$. The canonical divisor is $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\mathbb F_n^g} = - 2 E + (2 g - 2 - n) F
\end{aligned}$$ up to numerical equivalence. When $g = 0$, $\mathbb F^{0}_n = \mathbb F_n$ is a *Hirzebruch surface* and can be understood as the projectivization of the bundle $\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(n)$ on $\IP^1$. After projectivization, the summands $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{O}(n)$ of $\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(n)$ correspond to sections which we denote by $E$ and $H$ respectively. At the level of cohomology classes, we have $H=E+nF$. The intersection numbers are $$\label{eq:hirzint}
H^2=n,\ E^2=-n,\ F^2=0,\ H\cdot E=0,\ H\cdot F=E\cdot F=1.$$ The Mori cone of $\IF_n$ is generated by $E$ and $F$. The canonical class is given by $$\label{eq:hirzcan}
K_{\IF_n}=-2E-\left(n+2\right)F.$$ Writing a curve class on $\IF_n$ as $C=aE+bF$, we can use (\[eq:hirzcan\]) to compute the genus of the curve by the adjunction formula: $$\label{eq:adjform}
g(aE+bF)=(a-1)(b-1)-\frac{na(a-1)}2.$$
### Mori cones {#sec:mori}
Below we list the generators of Mori cones in Hirzebruch surfaces with $p >0$ blowups at generic points which we denote by $\text{Bl}_p \mathbb{F}_n$. These are particular classes spanning the extremal rays in the Mori cone in the surface. These classes can be expressed as $C=dH + s F -\sum_{i=1}^pa_i X_i$, which we abbreviate as $(d,s;a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_p)$, where $H^2=n,F^2=0$ and $X_i$’s are exceptional classes of $p$ blowups.
The Mori cone generators in $\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_n$ with $2\le n\le 7$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_2 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^3) \ , \ (1,1;1^5) \ , \ (2,0;2,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (1,2;1^7) \ ,
\ (2,1;2^2,1^5)\ , \ (3,0;2^4,1^3) \ , \ (3,1;2^6,1) \ , \ (4,0;3,2^6) \label{eq:f2mori}\\
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_3 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^4) \ , \ (1,1;1^6) \ , \ (1,2;1^8) \ , \ (2,0;2^2,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (2,1;2^3,1^5) \ , \ (3,0;2^7) \ , \ (3,0;3,2^4,1^3) \ , \ (3,1;3,2^6,1) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (4,0;3^4,2^3,1) \ , \ (4,0;4,3,2^6) \ , \ (4,1;3^5,2^3) \ , \ (5,0;4^2,3^4,2^2) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (5,1;4^2,3^6) \ , \ (6,0;4^6,3,2) \ , \ (6,0;5,4^3,3^4) \ , \ (6,1; 4^7,3) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (7,0;5^3,4^4,3) \ , \ (7,0;6,4^7) \ , \ (8,0;6,5^5,4^2) \ , \ (9,0;6^4,5^4) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (10,0;7,6^7)
\\
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_4 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^5)\ , \ (1,1;1^7)\ , \ (2,0;2^3,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (3,0;3,2^7) \\
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_5 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^6)\ , \ (1,1;1^8)\ , \ (2,0;2^4,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (3,0;3^2,2^7) \ , \ (4,0;3^9) \\
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_6 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^7)\ , \ (1,1;1^9)\ , \ (2,0;2^5,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (3,0;3^3,2^7) \ , \ (4,0;4,3^9)\\
\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_7 \ :&& \ E\ , \ X_i \ , \ (0,1;1) \ , \ (1,0;1^8)\ , \ (1,1;1^{10})\ , \ (2,0;2^6,1^5) \ , \nonumber \\
&& \ (3,0;3^4,2^7) \ , \ (4,0;4^2,3^9)\ , \ (5,0;4^{11})\end{aligned}$$
Here the number of blowups is restricted as $p\le p_{\rm max}$ where $p_{\rm max}=7,8,8,9,10,11$ for $n=2,3,4,5,6,7$ respectively.
We are using the cone theorem of Mori theory: the Mori cone is generated by curves with $C\cdot K\ge 0$ (this is the ‘$K$-positive’ part of the Mori cone) and the extremal rational curves of Mori theory. There are three types of extremal rational curves on surfaces: (i) lines in $\mathbb{P}^2$, (ii) curves $F$ with $F^2=0$ forming a $\mathbb{P}^1$-fibration, and (iii) exceptional curves.
Case (i) obviously does not occur. For case (ii), we claim that any rational curve $F$ with $F^2=0$ can be written as a sum of two exceptional curves. We conclude that the Mori cone is generated by the curves $C$ with $C\cdot K\ge0$ and the exceptional curves. To see this, first note that the fibration which $F$ is a part of must contain at least one reducible fiber. Otherwise, we would have a $\IP^1$ bundle, implying that $\text{Bl}_p\IF_n$ is itself a Hirzebruch surface, which is impossible since we are assuming that $p>0$. So we can write the class $F=C_1+C_2$ as a sum of two curve classes. Then $C_1\cap C_2$ is a single point, otherwise $F$ would have positive genus. Replacing $F$ by a distinct fiber, we see that $C_i\cdot F=0$, since each $C_i$ is disjoint from the distinct fiber $F$. We then compute $C_1\cdot F=C_1\cdot(C_1+C_2)=C_1^2+1=0$, so $C_1^2=-1$ and $C_1$ is an exceptional curve. The same argument shows that $C_2$ is also an exceptional curve, and the claim is proven.
We now claim that for $p\le n+4$, the only curve $C$ with $C\cdot K\ge 0$ is $C=E$. The above table was produced by listing the exceptional curves and prepending $E$.
To prove the claim, we write $-K$ in the form $$\label{eq:kblpfn}
- K=E+H+2F-\sum_{i=1}^pX_i.$$ We compute that $E\cdot (-K)=-n+2$. Let us first assume that $n>2$, in which case $E\cdot (-K)< 0$. Now consider any effective curve $C=\cup C_i$ in the class $-K$ (for $p\le p_{\rm max}$ there exist such curves by a straightforward dimension count). If each $C_i$ were disjoint from $E$, we would get a contradiction since $C_i\cdot E\ge0$ is just a (nonnegative) count of intersection points. Thus $E$ must be one of components of any curve in the class $-K$.[^20] It follows that every curve in the class $-K$ is the sum of $E$ and a curve in the class of what is left over: $M_n=H+2F-\sum_{i=1}^pX_i$.[^21] Curves in the class $M_n$ move in a family by a straightforward dimension count using the bound on $p$, hence curves in the class $M_n$ cover $\text{Bl}_p\IF$ . Since $M_n^2=n+4-p\ge 0$, curves in the class $M_n$ must intersect every curve nontrivially, with one possible exception in the case $p=n+4$: a curve in the class $M_n$ will not meet a different curve in the class $M_n$, since $M_n^2=0$.
So if $C\ne E$, and $C\ne M_n$ in the case $p=n+4$, then $C\cdot(-K)=C\cdot(E+M_n)=C\cdot E+C\cdot M_n$. The first term is nonnegative while the second term is positive, hence $C\cdot K <0$. If $p=n+4$ and $C=M_n$, the we compute $M_n\cdot K=-2$ directly and there is still no problem.
If $n=2$, then $-K$ moves in a family covering $\text{Bl}_p\IF$ and has no fixed component. So this case is handled by a similar but simpler argument.
In conclusion, the only curve $C$ with $C\cdot K\ge0$ is $C=E$ and the $K$-negative part of the Mori cone of $\text{Bl}_{p >0} \mathbb F_n$ is generated exclusively by exceptional curves.
We checked numerically that, when $p\ge p_{\rm max}$, there appear infinitely many Mori cone generators for each surface. We now explain that for $p\ge n+6$, $\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_n$ has infinitely exceptional curves and therefore infinitely many Mori cone generators. We give the argument for $n=2$ for simplicity of exposition and then repeat the argument in the general case.
We now adapt the argument of [@nagata] from $\mathbb{P}^2$ to $\mathbb{F}_n$. We start by blowing up 4 general points of $\mathbb{F}_2$ to obtain a surface $\text{Bl}_4\mathbb{F}_2$. For each $1\le j\le 4$, consider the curve $Y_j=H_2 - \sum_{i=1,i\ne j}^4 X_i$. The $Y_j$ are disjoint exceptional curves ($Y_j\cdot Y_k=0$ for $j\ne k$) and so can be blown down by a map $\pi:\text{Bl}_4\mathbb{F}_2\to S$ to a smooth surface $S$. We claim that $S\simeq \text{Bl}_4\mathbb{F}_2$, producing a birational automorphism of $\mathbb{F}_2$ analagous to the quadratic transformation of $\mathbb{P}^2$ used in [@nagata].
To verify the claim, we begin by observing that $E\cdot Y_j=0$, i.e. $E$ is disjoint from each $Y_j$, so blowing down the $Y_j$ does not change the self-intersection of $E$. In other words, if we put $E'=\pi_*(E)$, we have $E'^2=-2$. Furthermore, the curve class $H+F-\sum_{i=1}^4X_i$ (with $\mathbb{P}^1$ moduli space) has self-intersection 0 and is disjoint from the curves $Y_j$. So by the same reasoning, the curve class $F'=\pi_*(H+F-\sum_{i=1}^4X_i)$ satisfies $(F')^2=0$. Furthermore, $E'\cdot F'=1$, since $E\cdot(H+F-\sum_{i=1}^4X_i)=1$. Thus $S$ has $b_2(S)=2+4-4=2$ and contains a curve of self-intersection $-2$ which is a section of $\mathbb{P}^1$-fibration. By classification of rational surfaces, we conclude that $S$ is a Hirzebruch surface, and $S\simeq\mathbb{F}_2$ because of the presence of the curve $E'$.
We now change notation and rewrite $\pi$ as $\pi:\text{Bl}_4\mathbb{F}_2\to \mathbb{F}_2$, replacing $E'$ and $F'$ by $E$ and $F$. We have $$\label{eq:biratf2}
\pi^*(E)=E,\qquad \pi^*(F)=H+F-\sum_{i=1}^4 X_i,\qquad \pi^*(X_i)=H-\sum_{j=1,\ j\ne i}^4 X_i.$$
We now turn to $\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_2$ with $p\ge 8 > 4$. Since the blowups of the points indexed by $5,\ldots,p$ are spectators in the map $\pi$ above, we can reinterpret $\pi$ as a map $\text{Bl}_p\mathbb{F}_2\to \mathbb{F}_2$. The pullbacks of $E$ and $F$ are still given by (\[eq:biratf2\]) (with $i$ still running from 1 to 4).
We now consider an exceptional curve with class $C=aH+bF-\sum_{i=1}^p m_iX_i$. We reorder the points being blown up if necessary so that the $m_i$ are in nondecreasing order. We assume that $C\ne F-X_i$ for any $i$. Since $C\cdot(F-X_i)\ge0$, it follows that $a\ge m_i$ for each $i$. Let $C'=\pi_*(C)$. We now find the class of $C'$ by computing $$\label{eq:computecp1}
C'\cdot E=C\cdot \pi^*(E)=b,\ C'\cdot F=C\cdot\pi^*(F)=3a+b-\sum_{i=1}^4m_i,$$ and $$\label{eq:computecp2}
C'\cdot X_j = C\cdot Y_j=2a+b-\sum_{i=1,\ i\ne j}^4m_i\ (j\le 4), C'\cdot X_j=m_j\ (j>4).$$ It follows that $$\label{eq:cp}
C'=\left(3a+b-\sum_{i=1}^4m_i\right)H_2+bF_2-\sum_{j=1}^4\left(2a+b-\sum_{i=1,\ i\ne j}^4m_i\right)X_j-\sum_{j=5}^pm_jX_j.$$ We now claim that $3a+b-\sum_{i=1}^4m_i>a$. This will complete the proof of infinitely many exceptional curves. Starting with one of the allowed exceptional curves from (\[eq:f2mori\]), we repeatedly apply $\pi$ and get a sequence of curves whose coefficient of $H_2$ increases without bound.
The proof of the claim is simple. Since $C$ is exceptional we have the $C\cdot K=-1$, or $$\label{eq:ck}
4a+2b-\sum_{i=1}^pm_i=1.$$ Since $4\le p/2$ and the $m_i$ are nondecreasing, (\[eq:ck\]) implies that $$\label{eq:ckcons}
2a+b-\sum_{i=1}^4m_i>0.$$ Adding $a$ to both sides of (\[eq:ckcons\]) gives the claimed result.
For the case of general $n$, we blow up $\mathbb{F}_n$ at $n+2$ points and blow down the $n+2$ exceptional curves $Y_j=H-\sum_{i=1,i\ne j}^{n+2}X_j$. By an argument analogous to the case $n=2$ above, we identify this blowdown map with a map $\pi:\text{Bl}_{n+2}\mathbb{F}_n\to\mathbb{F}_n$. In place of (\[eq:biratf2\]) we have in this situation $$\label{eq:biratfn}
\pi^*(E)=E,\qquad \pi^*(F_2)=H+F-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2} X_i,\qquad \pi^*(X_i)=H-\sum_{j=1,\ j\ne i}^{n+2}X_j.$$
As in the case $n=2$, we consider an exceptional curve with class $C=aH+bF-\sum_{i=1}^p m_iX_i$. We reorder the points being blown up if necessary so that the $m_i$ are in nondecreasing order. We assume that $C\ne F-X_i$ for any $i$ and conclude that $a\ge m_i$ for each $i$ as before. Let $C'=\pi_*(C)$. We compute $$\label{eq:computecp1n}
C'\cdot E=C\cdot \pi^*(E)=b,\ C'\cdot F=C\cdot\pi^*(F)=\left(n+1\right)a+b-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i,$$ and $$\label{eq:computecp2n}
C'\cdot X_j = C\cdot Y_j=na+b-\sum_{i=1,\ i\ne j}^{n+2}m_i\ (j\le n+2), C'\cdot X_j=m_j\ (j>n+2).$$ It follows that $$\label{eq:cp}
C'=\left(\left(n+1\right)a+b-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i\right)H+bF-\sum_{j=1}^{n+2}\left(na+b-\sum_{i=1,\ i\ne j}^{n+2}m_i\right)X_j-\sum_{j=n+3}^pm_jX_j.$$ We only have to show that $(n+1)a+b-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i>a$, or $na+b-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i>0$. We divide into the cases of even and odd $p$. Since the even case is easier, we content ourselves with the odd case and write $p=2k+1$.
Since $C$ is exceptional we have the $C\cdot K=-1$, or $$\label{eq:ckn}
\left(n+2\right)a+2b-\sum_{i=1}^pm_i=1,$$ which implies $$\label{eq:ckn}
\left(\frac{n+2}2\right)a+b-\sum_{i=1}^{k}m_i-\frac{m_{k+1}}2>0,$$ which further implies, since $a\ge m_{k+1}$ $$\label{eq:ckn2}
\left(\frac{n+3}2\right)a+b-\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}m_i>0.$$
We have to replace $\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}m_i$ in (\[eq:ckn2\]) with $\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i$ in verifying the claim, so we compensate and maintain positivity by adding $((n+2)-(k+1))a$ in (\[eq:ckn2\]). We only have to observe that the resulting coefficient of $a$ is at most $n$. The difference between this coefficient and $n$ is $$\label{eq:coa}
n-\left(\left(\frac{n+3}2\right)+ \left(n+2\right)-\left(k+1\right)\right)=
k+1-\left(\frac{n+7}2\right)$$ which is nonnegative since $p\ge n+6$.
However, we are trying to do too much here and can relax the result to $p=n+5$ if $n\ge 4$, by starting with an exceptional curve whose class has $b=0$. For example, we can consider the curve $H-\sum_{i=5}^{n+5}X_i$.
Now (\[eq:ckn\]) simplifies to $$\label{eq:cknsimp}
\left(n+2\right)a-\sum_{i=1}^{n+5}m_i=1$$ and we have to show $$\label{eq:toshow}
\left(n+1\right)a-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i>a,$$ or equivalently $$\label{eq:toshoweq}
na-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}m_i>0.$$ Since the $m_i$ are arranged in nondecreasing order, (\[eq:toshoweq\]) follows from (\[eq:cknsimp\]) by comparing the coefficients of $a$ and the number of $m_i$ terms in these two formulas after noting that $n/(n+2)\ge (n+2)/(n+5)$ for $n\ge 4$. This shows that the number of blowups with finite Mori cone is given by $p_{\text{max}}=7,8$ (for $n=2,3$ by the $p\ge n+6 $ bound) and $ p_{\text{max}}=8,9,10,...$ for $n=4,5,6,..$ by the $p\ge n+5$ bound we established).
### Weyl groups {#app:Weyl}
In this section, we suggest a more conceptual way to show that there are infinitely many Mori cone generators for $\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n$ and large $p$ while leaving details for future work. We exhibit a natural action of a group surjecting onto the Weyl group of an infinte Kac-Moody Lie algebra on $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$ for $p\ge n+2$. See [@kac] for background and the notation we will follow about Kac-Moody algebras.
To begin with, a permutation of the $p$ blowup points induces a corresponding action on $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$, giving an action of the symmetric group $S_p$ on $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$. The symmetric group is a reflection group, generated by transpositions. The induced map on $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$ associated with the transposition $(i,i+1)$ is identified with the reflection in the hyperplane orthogonal to $\rho_i=X_i-X_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\ldots,p-1$. We note that $\rho_i^2=-2$ and $\rho_i\cdot K=0$. These reflections and the symmetric group that they generate preserve the Mori cone generators. As usual, by a reflection in a curve class $\rho$ with $\rho^2=-2$ we mean the automorphism of $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$ given by $$\label{eq:reflection}
C\mapsto C+\left(C\cdot\rho\right)\rho.$$
A simple calculation shows that (\[eq:biratfn\]) can be identified with the reflection in $\rho_p=H-\sum_{i=1}^{n+2}X_i$. We also have $\rho_p^2=-2$ and $\rho_p\cdot K=0$.
Consider the $p\times p$ matrix $A$ with $$\label{eq:cartan}
A_{ij}=-\rho_i\cdot \rho_j,$$ where in (\[eq:cartan\]) the product on the right-hand side is just the intersection product in $H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$. Since $A$ is symmetric with diagonal entries equal to 2 and nonpositive off-diagonal entries, it follows immediately that $A$ is a generalized Cartan matrix.
Now let $\mathfrak{g}_A$ be the Kac-Moody algebra associated with $A$. We proceed to identify $\{\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_p\}$ with a set of roots in the associated root system.
Recall the definition of a realization of a generalized Cartan matrix from [@kac].
[**Definition.**]{} A *realization* of an $n\times n$ generalized Cartan matrix $A$ is a triple $(\mathfrak{h},\Pi,\Pi^*)$, where $\mathfrak{h}$ is a complex vector space, $\Pi=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}\subset\mathfrak{h}^*$, and $\pi^\vee=\{\alpha_1^\vee,\ldots,\alpha_n^\vee\}\subset\mathfrak{h}$ such that $\Pi$ and $\Pi^\vee$ are each linearly independent sets, $\langle \alpha_i^\vee,\alpha_j\rangle=A_{ij}$, and $\dim\mathfrak{h}=2n-\mathrm{rank}(A)$.
Returning to our situation where $A$ is given by (\[eq:cartan\]), we see that $\mathrm{rank}(A)\ge p-1$ since $A$ contains the nonsingular Cartan matrix of $A_{p-1}$ as a submatrix. So $\mathrm{rank}(A)$ is either $p-1$ or $p$.
If $\mathrm{rank}{A}=p$, then $\dim\mathfrak{h}=p$ and we take $\mathfrak{h}=\mathrm{span}(\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_p)\subset H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$. If $\mathrm{rank}{A}=p-1$, then $\dim\mathfrak{h}=p+1$ and we take $\mathfrak{h}=K^\perp\subset H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n)$. In either case, we identify $\mathfrak{h}^*$ with $\mathfrak{h}$ via the negative of the intersection pairing. With these identifications, we let $\alpha_i=\alpha_i^\vee=\rho_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,p$ to obtain a realization of $A$.
The Weyl group $W_A$ of $\mathfrak{g}_A$ is the subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(\mathfrak{h}^*)$ generated by the reflections in the roots, and is infinite if $\mathrm{rank}(A)=p-1$. Consider the subgroup $G\subset\mathrm{Aut}(H^2(\text{Bl}_{p}\mathbb{F}_n))$ generated by the reflections. We have a surjection $G\to W_A$ obtained by restriction to $\mathfrak{h}^*$, so $G$ is also infinite if $\mathrm{rank}(A)=p-1$. We expect that the action of $G$ on the Mori cone generators is effective, which would prove that there are infinitely many Mori cone generators in this case.
We next show that the finiteness of $W_A$ perfectly matches the finiteness of the Mori cone generators as described in Section \[sec:mori\]. Consider the Dynkin diagram encoding the Cartan matrix $A$.
If $p=n+2$, we have an $A_{n+1}\times A_1$ Dynkin diagram with a finite Weyl group.
If $p=n+3$, we have an $A_{n+3}$ Dynkin diagram with a finite Weyl group.
If $p\ge n+4$, the $(n+2)$nd vertex corresponding to $\rho_{n+2}=X_{n+2}-X_{n+3}$ is trivalent, being connected to the vertices corresponding to $\rho_{n+1},\ \rho_{n+3}$, and $\rho_{p}$. If $p=n+4$, we have an $D_{n+4}$ Dynkin diagram with a finite Weyl group.
If $p=n+5$, we have $E_6,E_7,E_8$ for $n=1,2,3$ respectively, with a finite Weyl group. If $n \ge 4$, the Weyl group is infinite.
If $p>n+5$, the Weyl group is infinite.
These results are in perfect agreement with the results of Section \[sec:mori\], including the observation that the pattern for $p_{\text{max}}$ is not followed for $n\le 3$.
As an example, consider $\text{Bl}_9\mathbb{F}_4$. In this case $$\label{eq:cartan94}
A=\left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrr}
2&-1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
-1&2&-1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&-1&2&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-1&2&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&-1&2&-1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&2&-1&0&-1\\
0&0&0&0&0&-1&2&-1&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&-1&2&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&-1&0&0&2\\
\end{array}
\right)$$ This $A$ is singular, so $\mathfrak{g}_A$ and $G$ are infinite. In fact, (\[eq:cartan94\]) is precisely the Cartan matrix of affine $E_8$ after reversing the order of the roots, so $\mathfrak{g}_A$ is just affine $E_8$.
More generally, we list the Dynkin diagrams corresponding to $p=p_{\text{max}}+1$. For convenience, we adopt the notation $T_{p,q,r}$ from the study of triangle singularities. The corresponding Dynkin diagram has one trivalent vertex and three legs, with the lengths of the respectively legs (including the trivalent vertex in each case) are $p,q,r$. For example, with this notation $D_n=T_{2,2,n-2}$, $E_6=T_{2,3,3}$, $E_7=T_{2,3,4}$, and $E_8=T_{2,3,5}$.
For $n=2$, $p_{\text{max}}+1=8$, and we get $T_{2,4,4}$, which is affine $E_7$.
For $n=3$, $p_{\text{max}}+1=9$, and we get $T_{2,4,5}$. This has an infinite Weyl group, but is not the affine Weyl group of any classical group.
For $n=4$, $p_{\text{max}}+1=9$, and we get $T_{2,3,6}$, which is affine $E_8$ as we have explained above.
For $n>4$, $p_{\text{max}}+1=n+5$, and we get $T_{2,3,n+2}$. This has an infinite Weyl group, but is not the affine Weyl group of any classical group.
### Fiber classes {#app:fiber}
For the purpose of identifying gauge theory descriptions of shrinkable 3-folds, one also needs to know the fiber classes corresponding to W-bosons in the 5d spectrum. A fiber class $f \subset \text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_n$ is a rational curve satisfying $f^2 =0$. When $p = 0$, as described above, there is only a single fiber class, namely $f = F \subset \mathbb F_n$. However, when $p>0$, additional fiber classes may appear.
We denote fiber classes by $f = d H + s F - \sum_{i=1}^{p} a_i X_i$ (where $F^2 = 0, H^2 = n$, and $X_i$ are exceptional curves) which we abbreviate as $(d,s;a_1,\dots, a_p)$. Using numerical checks, we believe the full set of fiber classes $f \subset \text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_n$ with $ 2 \leq n \leq 7$ and $p \leq p_{\text{max}}$, organized according to the number $ f \cdot E = s$, are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_2 ~:~ \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l}(1,0;1^2) ~,~ (2,0;2,1^4)~,~(3,0;2^4,1^2)~,~\\
(3,0;3,2,1^5)~,~
(4,0;3^2,2^3,1^2)~,~(5,0;3^5,2,1)~,~\\
(5,0;4,3^2,2^4) ~,~(6,0;4^2,3^4,2)~,~(7,0;4^5,3^2) \end{array} \\ \\ \begin{array}{l} F~,~(1,1;1^4)~,~(2,1;2^2,1^4)~,~(3,1;2^6)~,~ \\
(3,1;3,2^3,1^3)~,~(4,1;3^3,2^3,1)~,~(4,1;4,2^6)~,~\\(5,1;4,3^4,2^2) ~,~
(6,1;4^3,3^4)~,~(7,1;4^7) \end{array} \\ \\ \begin{array}{l} (1,2;1^6) ~,~(2,2;2^3,1^4)~,~(3,2;3,2^5,1)~,~\\
(4,2;3^4,2^3)~,~
(5,2;4,3^6)\end{array} \\
\end{array}\right\}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bl}_{p} \mathbb F_3 ~&:~
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l}
(1,0;1^3) ~,~(2,0;2^2,1^4)~,~(3,0;3,2^4,1^2)~,~(3,0;3^2,2,1^5)~,~ \\
(4,0;3^4,2^3)~,~(4,0;3^5,1^3)~,~(4,0;4,3^2,2^3,1^2)~,~\\
(5,0;4^3,3^2,2^2,1)~,~(5,0;5,3^5,2,1)~,~(5,0;5,4,3^2,2^4)~,~\\
(6,0;5,4^4,3^2,1)~,~(6,0;5^2,4^2,3^2,2^2)~,~(6,0;6,4^2,3^4,2)~,~\\
(7,0;5^5,3^2,2)~,~(7,0;6,5^2,4^3,3,2)~,~(7,0;6,5^3,3^4)~,~\\
(7,0;6^2,4^3,3^3)~,~(7,0;7,4^5,3^2)~,~(8,0;6^2,5^4,4,2)~,~\\
(8,0;6^3,5^2,4,3^2)~,~(8,0;7,5^5,3^2)~,~(8,0;7,6,5^2,4^3,3)~,~\\
(9,0;7,6^4,5,4,3)~,~(9,0;7^2,6,5^4,3)~,~(9,0;7^2,6^2,5,4^3)~,~\\
(9,0;8,6^2,5^3,4^2)~,~(10,0;7^3,6^4,3)~,~(10,0;7^4,6^2,4^2)~,~\\
(10,0;8,7^2,6^2,5^2,4)~,~(10,0;8^2,6^2,5^4)~,~(10,0;9,6^4,5^3)~,~\\
(11,0;8^2,7^3,6^2,4)~,~(11,0;8^3,7,6^2,5^2)~,~(11,0;9,7^4,6,5^2)~,~\\
(11,0;9,8,7,6^4,5)~,~(12,0;9,8^3,7^2,6,5)~,~\\
(12,0;9^2,7^5,5)~,~
(12,0;9^2,8,7^2,6^3)~,~(13,0;9^2,8^5,5)~,~\\
(13,0;9^3,8^3,6^2) ~,~(13,0;9^4,7^3,6)~,~(18,0;12^2,11^4,10^2)~,~\\
(19,0;12^5,11^3)
\end{array} \\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
F~,~(1,1;1^5)~,~(2,1;2^3,1^4)~,~(3,1;3,2^6)~,~(4,1;4^2,2^6)~,~ \\
(3,1;3^2,2^3,1^3)~,~(4,1;4,3^3,2^3,1)~,~(5,1;4^3,3^4,1)~,~\\
(5,1;4^4,3,2^3)~,~(5,1;5,4,3^4,2^2)~,~(6,1;5^2,4^3,3^2,2)~,~\\
(6,1;6,4^3,3^4)~,~(7,1;5^5,4^2,2)~,~(7,1;6,5^3,4^2,3^2)~,~\\
(7,1;6^2,4^5,3)~,~(7,1;7,4^7)~,~(8,1;6^3,5^3,4,3)~,~\\
(8,1;6^4,4^4)~,~(8,1;7,6,5^3,4^3)~,~(9,1;6^7,3)~,~\\
(9,1;7,6^5,4^2)~,~(9,1;7^2,6^2,5^3,4)~,~(9,1;8,6^2,5^5)~,~\\
(10,1;7^4,6^3,4)~,~(10,1;8,7^2,6^3,5^2)~,~(11,1;8^2,7^4,6,5)~,~\\
(11,1;8^3,7,6^4)~,~(11,1;9,7^4,6^3)~,~(12,1;8^6,6^2)~,~\\
(12,1;9,8^3,7^3,6)~,~(13,1;9^3,8^3,7^2)~,~(16,1;10^8)
\end{array} \\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
(1,2;1^7)~,~(2,2;2^4,1^4)~,~(3,2;3^2,2^5,1)~,~ \\
(4,2;3^7,1)~,~(4,2;4,3^4,2^3)~,~(5,2;4^4,3^3,2)~,~\\
(5,2;5,4,3^6)~,~(6,2;5^2,4^4,3^2)~,~(7,2;5^6,4,3)~,~\\
(7,2;6,5^3,4^4)~,~(8,2;6^3,5^4,4)~,~(8,2;7,5^7)~,~\\
(9,2;7,6^5,5^2)~,~(10,2;7^4,6^4)~,~(11,2;8,7^7)
\end{array}
\\
\end{array}\right\}
\\
\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_4 ~&:~
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l} (1,0;1^4)~,~(2,0;2^3,1^4)~,~(3,0;3^2,2^4,1^2)~,~(4,0;4,3^4,2^3)~,~\\
(5,0;4^4,3^4)
\end{array} \\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
F~,~(1,1;1^6)~,~(2,1;2^4,1^4)~,~(3,1;3^2,2^6)~,~(4,1;3^8)
\end{array}\\ \\
(1,2;1^8)
\\
\end{array} \right\}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_ 5 ~ &:~ \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l} (1,0;1^5)~,~(2,0;2^4,1^4)~,~(3,0;3^3,2^4,1^2)~,~ \\
(4,0;4^2,3^4,2^3)~,~(5,0;5,4^4,3^4)~,~(6,0;5^4,4^5) \end{array} \\\\
\begin{array}{l} F~,~(1,1;1^7)~,~(2,1;2^5,1^4)~,~(3,1;3^3,2^6)~,~\\
(4,1;4,3^8) \end{array}\\\\
(1,2;1^9)
\\
\end{array} \right\} \\
\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_6 ~ &:~ \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l}
(1,0;1^6)~,~(2,0;2^5,1^4)~,~(3,0;3^4,2^4,1^2)~,~\\
(4,0;4^3,3^4,2^3)~,~(5,0;5^2,4^4,3^4)~,~(6,0;6,5^4,4^5)~,~\\
(7,0;6^4,5^6)
\end{array}\\ \\
\begin{array}{l} F~,~(1,1;1^8)~,~(2,1;2^6,1^4)~,~(3,1;3^4,2^6)~,~\\
(4,1;4^2,3^8)~,~(5,1;4^{10})
\end{array}
\\ \\
(1,2;1^{10})
\\
\end{array}\right\} \\
\text{Bl}_p \mathbb F_7 ~ &:~\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{l}
(1,0;1^7)~,~(2,0;2^6,1^4)~,~(3,0;3^5,2^4,1^2) ~,~\\
(4,0;4^4,3^4,2^3)~,~(5,0;5^3,4^4,3^4)~,~(6,0;6^2,5^4,4^5)
\end{array} \\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
F~,~(1,1;1^9)~,~(2,1;2^7,1^4)~,~(3,1;3^5,2^6)~,~\\
(4,1;4^3,3^8)~,~(5,1;5,4^{10})
\end{array} \\ \\
(1,2;1^{11}) \\
\end{array}\right\} .
\end{aligned}$$
Numerical bounds {#app:bound}
================
Bound on $n$ for $\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_{n \geq 2} \cup \text{dP}_{p_2}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to place a crude upper bound on $n$ for the Hirzebruch surfaces $\mathbb F_n$ that can appear as irreducible components in the rank 2 surfaces $S= S_1 \cup S_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:nbnd}
n \leq 8.
\end{aligned}$$ This upper bound can be established by exploiting the Calabi-Yau condition on $C = S_1 \cap S_2$, which requires $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dio}
C_{S_2}^2= n-2,
\end{aligned}$$ where we take $C = d \ell - \sum m_i X_i \in \text{dP}_{p_2}$. For the sake of argument, we find it useful to work in terms of the ratio $z \equiv \phi_2/\phi_1$. The positivity condition imposed on the volume of the curve $F \in \mathbb F$ implies $z \leq 2$. Moreover, the positivity condition on the volumes of exceptional divisors $X_i \in \text{dP}_{p_2}$ implies $z \geq m_i$ for all $i$, and hence we have the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mbnd}
m_i \leq z \leq 2~~\implies ~~ m_i \leq 2.
\end{aligned}$$ One can “prove” the bound (\[eqn:nbnd\]) by using a computing tool to attempt to solve the Diophantine equation (\[eqn:dio\]) subject to the condition (\[eqn:mbnd\]) assuming $n \geq 8$, and demonstrating that there are no solutions.
Another strategy is to define vectors $\vec m = (m_1, \dots, m_{p_2}), \vec 1 = (1,\dots,1)$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
n=-K \cdot C= 3 d - \vec 1 \cdot \vec m = d^2 - |\vec m|^2 + 2,
\end{aligned}$$ where we take $$\begin{aligned}
\vec 1 \cdot \vec m = \sqrt{p_2} m \cos \theta,~~ \sqrt{p_2} = \sqrt{ | \vec 1 |^2 },~~ m \equiv \sqrt{|\vec m|^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Solving this system for $n$, one can attempt to find values of the parameters $(\theta, m)$ for all values of $p_2 \leq 8$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
n = \frac{1}{2} \left(3 \sqrt{4 m^2-4 m \sqrt{p_2} \cos \theta +1}-2 m \sqrt{p_2} \cos \theta +9\right) \geq 8,
\end{aligned}$$ for which there are no solutions.
Bound on $n$ for $\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n \cup \mathbb F_0$
---------------------------------------------------------------
**Proposition.** Let $S = \text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n \cup \mathbb F_0$, $J = \phi_1 [ \text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n] + \phi_2[\mathbb F_0]$, and let the gluing curve $C_{\mathbb F_0} = a F + b E$.
1. If $p_1 =0$, then $S$ is not shrinkable for $n > 10$.
2. If $p_1 >0$, then $S$ is not shrinkable for $n > 6$.
**Proof.** For the case $p_1 = 0$, requiring that the Mori generators have non-negative volumes straightforwardly leads to the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:F0cond}
a b + 1 = a+b,~~ 2 ab = n-2,~~\text{max}\left\{ \frac{a}{2}, \frac{b}{2}, \frac{n-2}{n} \right\} \leq 2.
\end{aligned}$$ The first two conditions above have solution $$\begin{aligned}
a= 1 ~~\text{or} ~~ b =1.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $F$ and $E$ may be interchanged freely in $\mathbb F_0$, with no less of generality we set $a=1$. Simplifying the above constraints, we find $2b = n-2$, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
n \leq 10.
\end{aligned}$$ When $p_1 >0$, one can show (cf. Appendix \[app:Mori\]) that the Mori cone of $\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n$ contains as a generator a rational curve of self intersection $-1$ meeting the gluing curve $C_{\text{Bl}_{p_1} \mathbb F_n} =E$ at a single point, and hence the third condition in (\[eqn:F0cond\]) must be adjusted to $\text{max}\{ a/2,b/2,(n-2)/n\} \leq 1$. Again setting $a=1$, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
n \leq 6.
\end{aligned}$$
Bound on $p_1, p_2$ for $\text{dP}_{p_1} \cup \text{dP}_{p_2}$
--------------------------------------------------------------
**Proposition.** Let $S = \text{dP}_{p_1} \cup \text{dP}_{p_2}$, and let $J =\phi_1 [\text{dP}_{p_1}] + \phi_2 [\text{dP}_{p_2}]$.
1. If $p_1, p_2 \geq 2$, then $S$ is not shrinkable for $p_1> 6$ or $p_2 >6$.
2. If $p_1= 1$, then $S$ is not shrinkable for $p_2 > 7$.
**Proof.** For the first case, assume let $C_1 \in \text{dP}_{p_1\geq 2}, C_2 \in \text{dP}_{p_2 \geq 2}$ be Mori generators, and let $D = \text{dP}_{p_1} \cap \text{dP}_{p_2}$. Then, setting $\phi_1 = 1, \phi_2 = z$, we have the following positivity conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{vol}(C_1) = 1 - C_1 \cdot D z \geq 0,~~ \text{vol}(C_2) = z - C_2 \cdot D \geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above conditions, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dpcond}
( C_2 \cdot D ) ( C_1 \cdot D) \leq 1, ~~ \forall C_1 \in \text{dP}_{p_1} ,C_2 \in \text{dP}_{p_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ By explicit computation, one can show that the above condition cannot be satisfied for either $p_1 > 6$ or $p_2>6$.
For the second case, let $p_1 =1$. The Mori generators of $\text{dP}_1$ are $X_1, \ell - X_1$ and have respective volumes $\text{vol}(X_1) = 1, \text{vol}(\ell -X_1) = z -2$, so the condition (\[eqn:dpcond\]) gets modified to $$\begin{aligned}
C_2 \cdot D \leq 2,~~ \forall C_2 \in \text{dP}_{p_2},
\end{aligned}$$ which cannot be satisfied for $p_2 = 8$.
Smoothness of building blocks {#app:smooth}
=============================
In this appendix, we provide some justification for our conjecture that the $S_i$ can be taken to be smooth. If one of the components $S_i$ is singular, the basic idea is that we should be able to find a complex structure deformation which smooths the singularity while preserving the Calabi-Yau embedding. In Section \[sec:consistency\] we gave another conjecture which makes the condition of a Calabi-Yau embedding quite manageable.
This conjecture is natural from the perspective of web diagrams or toric geometry. Consider for example the case of $S=\mathbb{P}(1,1,2)$. This singular geometry is physically equivalent to $\mathbb{F}_2$ in the zero mass limit. Fig. \[fig:cpl\] depicts how the section $E$ in $\mathbb{F}_2$ changes to the singular point in $\mathbb{P}(1,1,2)$ in this limit. Physically, when two parallel external 5-branes coincide, there are extra free massless states charged under the enhanced global symmetry associated to this brane configuration.[^22] The full transition is achieved by giving a vev to these free states. Switching on a vev for these states prevents one from turning on a mass parameter (proportional to the distance between the external 5-branes) and thus leads to a singular configuration $\mathbb{P}(1,1,2)$ that cannot be resolved.
![The red line is the curve of self-intersection $-2$. After the transition $X \rightarrow X'$, we see that two vertical external 5-branes are coincident—this configuration describes an isolated singularity in the corresponding 3-fold $X'$.[]{data-label="fig:cpl"}](cpl-deform.pdf)
We can extrapolate from this example to a more general geometric setting. Suppose that $S$ has an $A_1$ singularity. It is well known in that this singularity is smoothable, either by writing the local equation $x^2+y^2+z^2=t$ with $t$ a deformation parameter, or by first resolving the singularity by a $\IP^1$ with self-intersection $-2$ and then deforming the complex structure so that the $-2$ curve is no longer holomorphic. It is easy to see that this deformation can take place within a family of Calabi-Yau threefolds. A similar deformation can be provided for any ADE singularity. We treat an ADE singularity when all related masses are turned off and the singularity by associated complex structure deformation in the equal footing.
We can have many more kinds of singularities on surfaces contained in a smooth Calabi-Yau threefold. We content ourselves with providing one example and explaining how the singularity can be avoided up to physical equivalence.
A simple example of a singular rank 1 shrinkable surface $S$ is constructed by letting $Y$ be the singular hypersurface defined by the equation $x^3+y^3+z^3=0$ in $\IC^4$. We can blow up the origin to obtain a Calabi-Yau resolution $f:X\to Y$, and the exceptional divisor is the hypersurface $S\subset \IP^3$ defined by $x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3=0$, which is singular at $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(1,0,0,0)$. The fact that $X$ is Calabi-Yau is computed by a standard algebro-geometric computation explained for example in [@GH]. Letting $W$ be the blowup of $\IC^4$ at the origin with $E\simeq\IP^3$ the exceptional divisor, we have $K_W=3E$. Since $Y$ is a hypersurface in $\IC^4$ with a triple point[^23] at the origin, its proper transform $X$ has class $X=-3E$ in $W$. Then by adjunction $K_X=(K_W+[X])|_X=(3E-3E)|_X=0$. This is just a cone in $\IP^3$ over a plane curve which is singular at its vertex $(1,0,0,0)$. This singular surface can be checked to be shrinkable.
The notion of physical equivalence allows us to bypass this difficulty. We can identify $Y$ above with $Y_0$ in the one-parameter family of hypersurfaces $Y_t$ defined by $tw^3+x^3+y^3+z^3=0$. Blowing up the origin gives a family $f_t:X_t\to Y_t$ of Calabi-Yau resolutions, with exceptional divisor $S_t=f_t^{-1}(0)$ defined by $tx_0^3+x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3=0$. However, for $t\ne0$, $S_t$ is a smooth cubic surface, isomorphic to $\text{dP}_6$ in fact. So the 5d SCFT associated with the singular shrinkable surface $S$ is physically equivalent to the well-known $E_6$ theory [@Morrison:1996xf]. In other words, we can safely ignore $S$ in our classification. But the only smooth rational or ruled surfaces are $\IP^2$ or $\text{Bl}_{p} \mathbb P(\mathcal E)_g$ (see Appendix \[app:AG\]). Assuming the above conjecture is true, it is therefore possible to assemble a shrinkable surface $S$ from a concise collection of known “building blocks”, whose smooth components $S_i$ are rational or ruled surfaces or their blowups.
[^1]: Despite the fact that these cases do not admit a Lagrangian description, they can nevertheless be obtained from a gauge theory by passing through phases where some non-perturbative degrees of freedom become massless.
[^2]: Rational and ruled surfaces are equivalent to (respectively) $\mathbb P^2$ and ruled surfaces over genus $g$ curves (which we argue can be restricted to $g=0$)—see Section \[sec:gtrans\] for additional details.
[^3]: We conjecture that all SCFTs admit at least one Coulomb branch parameter at the CFT point. The missing family which is represented by $SU(3)$ at Chern-Simons level $k=8$ has no Coulomb branch parameter at the would-be CFT point and that is why we rule it out. This family would have led to a putative CFT which allows a Coulomb branch deformation only after a mass deformation (i.e. turning on $1/g^2$).
[^4]: This choice of sign is consistent with the description of Kähler classes $J$ on compact CY 3-folds, as the expansion of $J$ (or any other ample divisor class) in terms of $S_i$ will have non-positive coefficients. A simple example illustrating this point is the rank 1 case, for which $S$ is a del Pezzo surface. Since $J\cdot C = \phi K_S \cdot C$, it follows that $J$ has non-positive intersection with all curves $C \in S$. We therefore have to change the sign in order for $J$ to be a limit of Kähler classes on $X$.
[^5]: It would interesting to compare this defintion of shrinkability with the conjecture of [@Xie:2017pfl] that canonical 3-fold singularities give 5d SCFTs, since it is known that the only noncompact 4-cycles in a Calabi-Yau (crepant) resolution of a canonical 3-fold singularity are ADE fibrations. However, we do not need this for the description in our classification.
[^6]: Since four or more surfaces in a threefold cannot intersect nontrivially and transversally, we only need to consider intersections of three surfaces at a time.
[^7]: Requiring $\CS$ to be smooth is not a problem; its local equation near a point of $F$ can be taken as $xy=t$, which is smooth. This is the same local calculation which shows that $\overline{M}_g$ is smooth at the nodal curves (in the orbifold sense).
[^8]: Note that while we consider blowups at special points $F \cap E \subset \mathbb F_n$ here for convenience, since we do not introduce any additional irreducible curves with self intersection less than $-1$, we can without loss of generality view a blowup of $\mathbb F_n$ at $p$ special points as a blowup of $\mathbb F_{n+p}$ at $p$ general points. We explore the distinction between special and general points in more depth in Section \[sec:rank2\].
[^9]: Here and in the sequel, we use the notation $X_i$ to denote the exceptional divisor of the $i$-th blowup, since we reserve the more standard notation $E_i$ for sections of Hirzebruch surfaces.
[^10]: More precisely, the dualizing sheaf of the singular surface $ \text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F^{(g)}_{8-g}$, pulled back to its natural desingularization $ \text{Bl}_{2g} \mathbb F_{8-g}$.
[^11]: As noted earlier, we reserve the more customary notation $E$ for the curves on Hirzebruch surfaces described in Appendix \[app:Mori\].
[^12]: Strictly speaking, we have only written the Mori generators for $n=8$. For $n<8$, we modify (\[eq:moridp\]) by removing those generators which need more than $n$ exceptional divisors to define them. In addition, for $n=1$, we include $(1;1)$ as a generator.
[^13]: For $n=1$, we also check that $K_{\text{dP}_1}\cdot(\ell-X_1)=-2$.
[^14]: For general $n$ we choose $d_1=F-X_i$ if $C_1=X_i$ or $C_2=X_i$, otherwise $d_1=F$. When $n=2$ and $C_1=X_1,C_2=X_2$, we choose $d_1=H-X_1-X_2$.
[^15]: The non-splitting of (\[eq:Atiyah\]) identifies $N_{E/X}$ as the Atiyah bundle on $E$.
[^16]: By “generic point”, we mean a point not contained in any exceptional divisors, i.e. rational curves with self intersection $-1$.
[^17]: We thank Sung-Soo Kim for pointing out that this geometry has no rank-preserving mass deformation
[^18]: In the present discussion, a *fiber* is a rational curve $f$ with self intersection $f^2= 0$.
[^19]: These theories are also called *marginal* theories [@Jefferson:2017ahm].
[^20]: In the standard terminology of algebraic geometry, $E$ is called a *fixed component* of $|-K|$.
[^21]: In the standard terminology of algebraic geometry, $M_n$ is called the *moving part* of $-K$, as it is straightforward to check that $M_n$ has no fixed component itself.
[^22]: Moreover, because the parallel 5-branes are external, these free states can be excited infinitely far away from the 5d SCFT. However, this does not present a problem as first discussed in [@Aharony:1997bh] because the states are decoupled from the 5d sector; see [@Hayashi:2013qwa].
[^23]: The notion of a triple point of hypersurface should not be confused with the notion of the intersection of three surfaces at a triple point which was discussed in Section \[sec:buildingblocks\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study $k$-bonacci substitutions through the point of view of thermodynamic formalism. For each substitution we define a renormalization operator associated to it and examine its iterates over potentials in a certain class. We also study the pressure function associated to potentials in this class and prove the existence of a freezing phase transition which is realized by the only ergodic measure on the subshift associated to the substitution.'
author:
- 'Jordan Emme [^1]'
title: 'Thermodynamic formalism and $k$-bonacci substitutions'
---
Introduction
============
Background
----------
Given a dynamical system $(X,T)$ and a continuous function $V:X\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$ called the potential, we define the pressure function: $$\forall \beta \in {\mathbb{R}}_+,\, P(\beta)=\sup\left\{h_{\mu} - \beta\int_X V d\mu\right\},$$ the sup being taken over all $T$-invariant probability measures on $X$ and $h_{\mu}$ being the Kolmogorov entropy. An interesting question is to determine its regularity. More precisely, a phase transition is a point $\beta_0$ where the pressure function is not analytic. Though a restrictive property, the regularity of the potential can transfer to the pressure function. It is known for example, that in the case of symbolic dynamics, when our dynamical system is a subshift of finite type, having a Hölder potential implies that the pressure function is analytic. Such phase transitions and objects have been studied in [@bowen; @coronel_low_temp; @ruelle; @sarig] for instance.
In our case we are interested in the fullshift on unilateral infinite sequences $(\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}, \sigma)$ where $\mathcal{A}$ is a finite alphabet, and we define our potential depending on a substitution. This potential was already studied in [@bruin_leplaideur13] for Thue-Morse substitution, in [@bruin_leplaideur15] Fibonacci substitution, and then in [@bhl] for a large class of substitutions (which includes Thue-Morse but not Fibonacci). Our main focus is the renormalization of this potential for $k$-bonacci substitutions. The means to that end are essentially word combinatorics on the full-shift and on the subshift associated to the substitution. The renormalization operator was introduced in [@baraviera_renormalization] for constant length substitution, adapted to Fibonacci substitution in [@bruin_leplaideur15] and further to non constant length substitution in [@bhl]. It was introduced for its expected links with phase transition – which we define later– but such links are not understood at the moment.
We are also interested in freezing phase transition, which is a critical $\beta$ after which the pressure function is affine. We show that we can apply a criterion from [@bhl] in the case of $k$-bonacci substitutions in order to get freezing phase transitions.
This paper is inspired by [@bhl], in which the authors treat the case of the existence of freezing phase transitions and of the renormalization of potentials for a certain class of substitutions: $2$-full marked primitive aperiodic substitutions. We recall that a substitution is $2$-full if every word of length $2$ is in its language and marked if both the set of first and last letters of the images of letters by the substitution are the whole alphabet. We adapt their techniques to a family of substitutions that are neither marked nor 2-full. Indeed, $k$-bonacci substitutions not being marked changes the study of the renormalization operator, in particular its first step which consists of Proposition \[p.kbo\_prefix\]. This involves a combinatorial study of $k$-bonacci substitutions, and later, a precise understanding of the ’recognizability’ of these substitutions which is stronger than in the cases studied in [@bhl] and implies a simpler expression for the expression of the renormalization operator.
Results
-------
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a finite set called an alphabet. In particular, let us denote ${\mathcal{A}}_k:=\left\{0,1,..,k-1\right\}$ where $k$ is a positive integer. $\mathcal{A}^*$ denotes the free monoid generated by $\mathcal{A}$ by concatenation. In other words, it is the set of finite words over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ with the operation of concatenation. We denote by $\varepsilon$ the empty word.
For any word $w$ in $\mathcal{A}^*$, $|w|$ is the length of the word $w$. For any letter $a$ in $\mathcal{A}$, $|w|_{a}$ denotes the number of occurrences of $a$ in $w$.
$\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ denotes the set of right-handed sequences over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$. An element of $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ is called a configuration. This set is endowed with the product topology which is compatible with the distance $d$ defined by $d(x,y)=\frac{1}{2^{\min\{n\in {\mathbb{N}}| x_n \neq y_n\}}}$ whenever $x\neq y$.
Let $u=u_0...u_n$ and $v=v_0...v_m$ be two words in $\mathcal{A}^*$. If there exists a non negative integer $k$ such that $u=v_k...v_{k+n-1}$ then we say that $u$ is a subword of $v$ and we write $u \sqsubset v$. Let $x \in \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ and $n$ and $m$ be two positive integers. We denote by $x_{[n...n+m]}$ the word $x_nx_{n+1}...x_{n+m}$.
A substitution is a non erasing morphism of the free monoïd ${\mathcal{A}}^*$. Let us now introduce, for any integer $k$, the $k$-bonacci substitution.
\[def.kbo\] For any integer $k\geq1$, we define the $k$-bonacci substitution $s_k: \mathcal{A}_k^* \to \mathcal{A}_k^*$ on the generators of $\mathcal{A}_k^*$ in the following way: $$\forall a \in \mathcal{A}_k\backslash\{k-1\},\ s_k(a)=0(a+1)$$ and $$s_k(k-1)=0$$
Then, for a continuous function $V: {\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ called the potential, we defined the renormalization operator introduced in [@baraviera_renormalization]:
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}
R&:&\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}})&\rightarrow&\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}})\\
& & V(x) &\mapsto & \displaystyle{\sum_{j=0}^{|s_k(x_0)|-1} V\circ \sigma^j \circ s_k(x)}.
\end{array}$$
Let us also define the attractor $\Sigma_{s_k}$ in the following way:
let $\omega=\lim_{+\infty}s_k^n(0)$, $\Sigma_{s_k}= \overline{\text{Orb}(\omega)}$, the set ${\text{Orb}(\omega)}$ being the orbit of the point $\omega$ under the action of the shift.
Then, for $x \in {\mathcal{A}}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\backslash \Sigma_{s_k}$, define $\delta_{s_k}(x)$ with the following identity $d(x,\Sigma_{s_k})=1/2^{\delta_{s_k}(x)}$. If $x \in \Sigma_{s_k}$, $\delta_{s_k}(x)=+\infty$.
Our first theorem deals with the existence of a fixed point for this renormalization operator.
\[t.renorm\] Let $k \geq 2$, there exists $U \in \mathcal{C}\left(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}}_+\right)$ such that $RU=U$ given by: $$\forall x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},\, U(x)=\log\left(1+\frac{v_{x_0}}{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in\mathcal{A}_k} v_l |x_{[0..\delta_{s_k}(x)-1]}|_l -v_{x_0}}\right)$$ where $\lambda$ is the dominant root of the polynomial $X^k-\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}X^j$ and $$\forall l \in \mathcal{A}_k,\, v_l=\frac{1}{\lambda^{k-1-l}}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1-l}\lambda^j.$$ Moreover, if $V:\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$ is of the form: $$\forall x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},\, V(x)=\frac{g(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha}+\frac{h(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha}$$ with $g$ a positive continuous function, $h$ being $0$ on $\Sigma_{s_k}$ and continuous and $\alpha >0$, then, for any $x$ in $\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\backslash\Sigma_{s_k}$:
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} R^n V (x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 &\text{if}\; \alpha>1\\
+\infty &\text{if}\; \alpha<1\\
\int\, g\, d\mu\, \cdot \, U(x) &\text{if}\; \alpha=1
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\mu$ is the only ergodic probability measure on $\Sigma_{s_k}$.
In particular, let us give the expression of the fixed point $U$ of the renormalization operator for the case $k=3$. Let $\lambda$ be the dominant root of the Tribonacci polynomial $X^3-X^2-X-1$. This root can be computed via Cardan’s method and is $$\lambda=\frac{\sqrt[3]{19+3\sqrt{33}}+\sqrt[3]{19-3\sqrt{33}}+1}{3}.$$
$U$ is given by :
$$\forall x \in {\mathcal{A}}_3^{\mathbb{N}},\ U(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcr}
\log\left(1+\frac{\lambda}{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}+\lambda|w|_0+\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}|w|_1 + |w|_2+\lambda}\right)&\text{if}&x_0=0\\
\log\left(1+\frac{\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}}{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}+\lambda|w|_0+\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}|w|_1 + |w|_2+\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}}\right)&\text{if}&x_0=1\\
\log\left(1+\frac{1}{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}+\lambda|w|_0+\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}|w|_1 + |w|_2+1}\right)&\text{if}&x_0=2
\end{array}\right.$$ where $w$ is the word $x_{[0..\delta_{s_{3}}(x)-1]}$.
Our second theorem deals with the existence of freezing phase transition for a potential in the same family as in Theorem \[t.renorm\].
\[t.fpt\] For any integer $k \geq 2$, for any potential $V:{\mathcal{A}}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$ of the form $V(x)=\frac{g(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}+\frac{h(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}$, then there exists a real number $\beta_c$ such that:
- $P$ is analytic on $[0,\beta_c)$: there is a unique equilibrium state which has full support for every $\beta \in [0,\beta_c)$.
- $P$ is identically zero on $(\beta_c,0]$ and the unique ergodic measure of $(\Sigma_{s_k},\sigma)$ is the unique equilibrium state.
Such a point $ \beta_c$ is called a freezing phase transition.
We recall that, in our settings, a Hölder regularity of the potential would imply the analyticity of the pressure function. We are interested in a potential supported outside the attractor of the substitution and which is not Hölder continuous. The family of potentials on which the previous theorems holds is a large class of examples which satisfy these conditions.
Outline of the paper
--------------------
The general idea is that a substitution generates an attractor in the fullshift (the subshift associated to the substitution). We use the attractor to define a family of potentials on the full shift supported outside the attractor. Then the substitution can generate a renormalization operator for these potentials. Iterating the renormalization over a potential makes it converge towards a fixed point for the renormalization that is still a potential supported outside the attractor.
Then, for any potential in this family, the pressure function has a freezing phase transition and the mesure that realizes the supremum is the only ergodic measure supported on the attractor
The fact that $k$-bonacci substitutions are not left marked gives a different behaviour for the renormalization operator as points of the fullshift tend to converge faster, making, in that precise case, useless the 2-full hypothesis. However we cannot use the property of being marked and so the following techniques also adapt ideas from [@mosse_reco].
Section \[s.substitutions\] introduces the basic definitions for substitutions and their languages, as well as some classical properties of these objects.
Then in Section \[s.kbo\] we prove some crucial properties for our study regarding $k$-bonacci substitutions. We give an explicit formula for the speed of convergence towards the subshift, and further study the effect of applying the shift a “small” number of times. This is very important because it allows us to compute the fixed point for the renormalization operator of Theorem \[t.renorm\].
Section \[s.potential\] is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \[t.renorm\]. In the first subsection we prove a weaker version of the theorem ($\alpha=1$, $g \equiv 1$, $h\equiv 0$). The previous study of combinatorial properties allows us to compute the fixed point with sums very close to being Riemann sum, close enough that the same techniques work. The second subsections finishes the proof for the strong version of the theorem.
Finally, in Section \[s.fpt\] we prove the existence of a freezing phase transition by applying a criterion given in [@bhl] (Theorem 3).
In order to help the reader understanding, notations being quite involved for some propositions, some proofs for the particular example of the Tribonacci substitution ($k=3$) are given at the end of the paper in Appendix \[s.tribo\]. Almost every argument used in the involved proofs of the general case are already used in the proofs for Tribonacci hence this example is almost sufficient to understand the general case.
Generalities on substitutions {#s.substitutions}
=============================
Let us recall the definition of the main object in our article:
A substitution over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is a non-erasing morphism over the monoid $\mathcal{A}^*$.
The Fibonacci substitution defined over $\{0,1\}^*$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \mapsto 01 \\
&1 \mapsto 0
\end{aligned}$$
Given a substitution $s$ over a finite alphabet $\mathcal{A}$, we can define the language of $s$:
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a finite alphabet and $s$ a substitution on this alphabet. The language of $s$ is: $${\mathcal{L}}_s=\{w \in \mathcal{A}^*\ | \ \exists a \in \mathcal{A}, \ \exists k \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ w \sqsubset s^k(a)\}$$ (where $w \sqsubset s^k(a)$ means that $w$ is a subword of $s^k(a)$).
\[r.factlang\] The language ${\mathcal{L}}_s$ of a substitution is factorial i.e. any subword of a word in ${\mathcal{L}}_s$ is in ${\mathcal{L}}_s$. It is also extendable i.e. for any word $w \in {\mathcal{L}}_s$ there exists a pair $(a,b) \in {\mathcal{A}}$ such that $awb \in {\mathcal{L}}_s$.
The language of a substitution also has some special words:
\[d.bispecial\] A word $w \in {\mathcal{L}}_s$ is right-special if there exists two distinct letters $a$ and $b$ such that both $wa$ and $wb$ are in the language. A word $w \in {\mathcal{L}}_s$ is left-special if there exists two distinct letters $a$ and $b$ such that both $aw$ and $bw$ are in the language. A word is bispecial if it is both left-special and right-special.
This notion was first introduced in [@cassaigne_complexite] in order to study the complexity of a language (that is to say the function which counts the number of words of any given size in the language).
Let $s$ be a substitution over an alphabet $\mathcal{A}=\{0,...,k-1\}$. We call incidence matrix the matrix $S \in \mathcal{M}_k({\mathbb{N}})$ defined by: $$\forall (i,j)\in\llbracket0,k-1\rrbracket^2, \ S_{i,j}=|s(j)|_{i}.$$
We say that a substitution is primitive if its incidence matrix is primitive. Namely: $$\exists n \in {\mathbb{N}},\ \forall (i,j)\in\llbracket0,k-1\rrbracket^2, \ \left(S^n\right)_{i,j} >0.$$
The point of asking for a primitive substitution is, mostly, to take advantage of linear algebra and more specifically Perron Frobenius theorem.
Let $s$ be a substitution over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$.
If $\{s(a)_0\,|\, a \in \mathcal{A}\}=\mathcal{A}$, then $s$ is said to be left-marked.
If $\{s(a)_{|s(a)|-1}\,|\, a \in \mathcal{A}\}=\mathcal{A}$, then $s$ is said to be right-marked.
A substitution which is both left-marked and right-marked is marked.
In all that follows, we study a family of primitive right-marked substitution.
Let $s$ be a primitive substitution over a finite alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and assume that there exists a letter $a$ in $\mathcal{A}$ such that $s(a)$ starts by $a$ (which is always the case up to taking a power of $s$).
Then the sequence $(s^n(a))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to a right handed sequence in $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ which is a fixed point for $s$ (if we extend the definition of $s$ to the set $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$).
If a substitution $s$ admits only one fixed point, we note it $\omega^s$.
[@mosse_reco]\[d.circularpoint\] Let us define, for a given substitution $s$ with a unique fixed point $\omega^s$ the following family of sets: $$\forall n \in {\mathbb{N}}^*, D^n_s=\left\{\left|s^n(\omega^s_{[0...k]})\right|, \ k \in {\mathbb{N}}\right\} \cup \{0\}.$$
\[r.circularpoint\] It is obvious to check the following assertion for any substitution $s$ with a unique fixed point: $$\forall n \in {\mathbb{N}}^*, D^{n+1}_s \subset D^n_s.$$
Let $s$ be a substitution over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$. We define the subshift $\Sigma_s \subset \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ associated to the substitution $s$ by: $$\Sigma_s:= \{x \in \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}\ | \forall w \in \mathcal{A}^*,\ w \sqsubset x \implies w \in {\mathcal{L}}_s\}.$$
We are usually interested in primitive substitutions which admit a non periodic fixed point. In these cases we generally study the dynamical system $(\Sigma_s,\sigma)$ where $\sigma$ is the shift on the set of right handed sequences. We recall that the shift $\sigma$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\sigma &: & \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}& \rightarrow &\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}\\
& & x_0x_1...x_n... & \mapsto & x_1x_2...x_{n+1}...
\end{array}$$
For any substitution $s$ which admits a non ultimately periodic fixed point under the action of the shift, $\Sigma_s$ is a Cantor set for the product topology on $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}.$
We also recall the following theorem.
\[t.ergo\] If $s$ is a primitive substitution, then the dynamical system $(\Sigma_s,\sigma)$ is minimal, uniquely ergodic and has topological and Kolmogorov entropy 0.
In this paper however, we are interested in the action of a particular substitution (chosen amongst a family of substitutions) on points in $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$. Namely, we wish to know how fast the orbit of a sequence in $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ gets close to the compact Cantor set $\Sigma_s$.
In order to do that, we introduce the following object:
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a finite alphabet and let $s$ be a primitive substitution on this alphabet. Let us define the following function on $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\delta_s &: & \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}& \to & {\mathbb{N}}\cup\{+\infty\} \\
& & x & \mapsto & \sup \{n \in {\mathbb{N}}\ | \ x_{[0...n-1]} \in {\mathcal{L}}_s\}.
\end{array}$$
We are interested, for any primitive substitution $s$ on $\mathcal{A}$, $x \in \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ and $k>0$, in $\delta_s(s^k(x))$. Such a quantity is interesting because we have the following equality:
$$\forall k \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ \forall x \in \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}, \ \text{dist}(s^k(x),\Sigma_s)=\frac{1}{2^{\delta_s(s^k(x))}}.$$
Hence, knowing precisely the behaviour of the sequence $\left( \delta_s s^n(x) \right)_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ gives precisely the sequence of distances between $s^n(x)$ and the subshift $\Sigma_s$.
The $k$-bonacci substitution {#s.kbo}
============================
In this section, we denote by $\mathcal{A}_k$ the set $\{0,...,k-1\}$ for any integer $k\geq2$. We recall that the $k$-bonacci substitution is given by its images on the generators of by:
$$\forall a \in \mathcal{A}_k\backslash\{k-1\},\ s_k(a)=0(a+1)$$ and $$s_k(k-1)=0$$
In the particular case of $s_3$, the substitution is well know as ‘Tribonacci substitution’. This substitution was first introduced by Rauzy in [@rauzy] and further studied in [@arnoux_rauzy]. It was the first example of a substitution studied for its underlying geometric properties (which introduced Rauzy fractals), though these geometric properties do not play any role in the present paper. The case of $k$-bonacci substitutions is an analogous and they are notable for their complexity function: there is exactly $kn+1$ words of length $n$ in the language of the $k$-bonacci substitution.
Remark that these substitution define uniquely ergodic dynamical systems with zero entropy from Theorem \[t.ergo\].
\[r.reccur\_rel\] For any integer $k\geq2$ we have the following relation: $$\forall n \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ s_k^{n+k}(0)=s_k^{n+k-1}(0)s_k^{n+k-2}(0)...s_k^n(0).$$
Let us prove the following proposition:
\[p.kbo\_prefix\] For any integer $k \geq 2$, for any sequence $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\delta_{s_k}(x)=p \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and for any positive integer $n$, the maximal prefix of $s_k^n(x)$ in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ is: $$s_k^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k(0)0.$$
We recall that a proof of this proposition is provided for the case $k=3$ in the appendix.
Let $k$ be an integer greater than $1$ and $x$ a sequence in $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ and let us note $p=\delta_{s_k}(x)$.
We have $x_{[0...p-1]} \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ but $x_{[0...p]} \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$. As a consequence there exists a letter $a$ in $\mathcal{A}_k$ different from $x_p$ such that $x_{[0...p-1]}a \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$. Hence $s_k(x_{[0...p-1]}a) \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ which implies that $s_k(x_{[0...p-1]})0 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ since evey image of letter starts with $0$. Moreover, the word $s_k(x_{[0...p-1]})0$ is a prefix of $s_k(x)$. It is in fact the maximal prefix in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ because a longer prefix in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ has a preimage containing $x_{[0...p]}$ which would be in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ which is false.
Iterating the substitution $n$ times ends the proof.
Let us state an immediate corollary:
For any integer $k \geq 2$, for any sequence $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\backslash \Sigma_{s_k}$ such that $\delta_{s_k}(x)=p$ and for any positive integer $n$ we have: $$\delta_{s_k}(s_k^n(x))=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{A}}|s_k^n(j)||x_{[0...p-1]}|_j+\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|.$$
Let us now study the effect of the shift action on the function $\delta_{s_k}$ for any integer $k$ greater than $1$.
First, we prove the following proposition:
\[p.recog\_kbo\] For any integer $k$ greater than $1$, for any integer $n\geq k$, for any non negative integer $d$, $$\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}=s_k^n(0)\Leftrightarrow d\in D_{s_k}^n,$$ where $\omega^{s_k}$ denotes the unique fixed point of the $k$-bonacci substitution.
This proposition is an efficient formulation Theorem 3.1bis of [@mosse_reco] for the specific case of the powers of $k$-bonacci substitution. It gives a bound for the recognizability constant and states which words mark points in $D_n$. Indeed it states that, for any $n \geq k$, the only words of length $|s_k^n(0)|$ that can be seen as an $n^{th}$ image of letter in the fixed point of $s_k$ always appear as prefixes of $|s_k^n(0)|$. This allows to “cut” the fixed point of $s_k$ in blocks which are $n^{th}$ images of letters by looking only at words of length $|s_k^n(0)|$ which makes the constant of Theorem 3.1bis of [@mosse_reco] completely explicit. This is however completely dependant on the choice of $k$-bonacci substitution.
We recall that a proof of this proposition is provided for the case $k=3$ in the appendix.
First, let us prove that for any integer $k$ greater than $1$, for any integer $n\geq k$ and for any integer $d$, $$\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}=s_k^n(0)\Leftarrow d\in D_{s_k}^n.$$ If $d$ is in $D_{s_k}^n$ then we have two cases to treat:
- Either $\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}=s_k^n(0)$ in which case the equality is trivialy verified.
- Or there is a letter $a\in \mathcal{A}_k\backslash \{0\}$ such that $\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}$ is prefix of $s_k^n(a)s_k^n(0)$. Let us notice that: $$s_k^n(a)=s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-(k-a)}(0).$$ Moreover, $s_k^{n-(k-a)-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)$ is a prefix of $s_k^n(0)$. Indeed the word $s_k^{n-(k-a)}(0)$ is a prefix of $s_k^n(0)$. This is because $0$ is a prefix of $s_k(0)$. Using Remark \[r.reccur\_rel\], we have that $s_k^n(0)$ is a prefix of $s_k^n(a)s_k^n(0)$. Hence: $$\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}=s_k^n(0).$$
Let us now prove the converse statement:
For any integer $k$ greater than $1$, for any integer $n\geq k$ and for any integer $d$, $$\omega^{s_k}_{[d,...,d+|s_k^n(0)|-1]}=s_k^n(0)\Rightarrow d\in D_{s_k}^n.$$ We prove this implication by induction on $n$.
*Claim:* The property holds for $n=k$. Namely, every occurrence of $s_k^k(0)$ in $\omega^{s_k}$ has starting position in $D_{s_k}^k$. First, let us state that: $$s_k^k(0)=s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)(k-1)s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)$$ since $$s_k^k(0)=s_{k}^{k-1}(0)s_{k}^{k-1}(1).$$ It is then easy to check that $$s_{k}^{k-1}(0)=s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)(k-1)$$ and $$s_{k}^{k-1}(1)=s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0).$$
Let us also remark that for any $a \in \mathcal{A}_k$, $s_k^k(a)$ starts with $ s_{k}^{k-1}(0)$. Hence $s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)(k-1)$ is prefix of every $k^{\textit{th}}$ image of letter. Moreover, it is clear from the equality $s_k^k(0)=s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)(k-1)s_{k-1}^{k-1}(0)$ that every $k^{\textit{th}}$ image of letter contains one and only one occurrence of the letter $k-1$ since $s_{k-1}$ is defined on $\{0,...,k-2\}^*$.
Finally, $s_k^k(0)$ being the image with maximal length, every occurrence of this word has to contain at least one point in $D_{s_k}^k$. The previous remarks imply that we only see this word in $\omega^{s_k}$ starting from a point in $D_{s_k}^k$, thus completing the initialisation of the induction.
Let us now assume that this property is true for a fixed integer $n\geq k$. We wish to prove that it is still true for $n+1$. We write $s_k^{n+1}(0)$ in the following way:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (2.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_k^n(0)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_k^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
By induction hypothesis, $d \in D_{s_k}^n$. Let us now assume that $e$ is also in $D_{s_k}^n$. Then $d$ and $e$ are necessarily two consecutive points of $D_{s_k}^n$. Since images of letters by $s_k$ are of length one or two, two consecutive points of $D_{s_k}^n$ have either one of them or two of them in $D_{s_k}^{n+1}$. Hence $d \in D_{s_k}^{n+1}$ or $e \in D_{s_k}^{n+1}$. Notice that if $e \in D_{s_k}^{n+1}$, writing $s_k^n(0)=s_k^{n+1}(k-1)$ is enough to prove that $d \in D_{s_k}^{n+1}$.
If however $e$ is not in $D_{s_k}^n$, then there exists a letter $a$ in $\mathcal{A}_k$ different from $0$ such that we can write $s_k^{n+1}(0)$ in the following way: $$s_k^{n+1}(0)=s_k^{n}(a)ws_k^n(1).$$
We represent this writing on the following picture:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (3,0.2)–(3,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (1.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_k^n(a)$]{}; (4,0) node \[above\] [$w$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_k^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (3,-0.2) node \[below\] [$f$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
with $f$ in $D_{s_k}^n$. Moreover, $s_k^n(0)=s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)$ and it is easily seen that $s_k^n(a)=s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-(k-a)}(0)$ so we deduce that $w=s_k^{n-(k-a)-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)$. Now let us remark that $s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-(k-a)}(0)$ is prefix of $s_k^n(1)$ whenever $a\neq0$ and $n\geq k$.
Since $f$ is in $D_{s_k}^n$, we should have $$s_k^{n-(k-a)-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-(k-a)}(0)=s_k^n(0)$$ using the converse implication of Property \[p.recog\_kbo\] which is already proved. This is not possible because the last letter is different, since $n-(k-a) \not\equiv n [k]$ if $a\in \mathcal{A}_k\backslash\{0\}$.
The only possible case being $e \in D_{s_k}^n$ which necessarily implies that $d \in D_{s_k}^{n+1}$, the proof is complete.
We can now prove the following property:
\[thm.length\_kbo\] For any integer $k\geq2$, for any sequence $x \in \mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\delta_{s_k}(x)=p$, we have: $$\forall n\geq k, \ \forall j<|s_k^n(x_0)|, \ \delta_{s_k}(\sigma^j(s_k^n(x))=\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}}|s_k^n(l)||x_{[0...p-1]}|_j+\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|-j.$$
First we recall that the maximal prefix of $s_k^n(x)$ in the language is $s_k^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...0$ if $\delta_{s_k}(x)=p$ (see Proposition \[p.kbo\_prefix\]).
Moreover, it is obvious that: $$\forall n \geq k, \ \forall j < |s_k^n(x_0)|, \ \delta_{s_k}(\sigma^js_k^n(x))\geq\delta_{s_k}(s_k^n(x))-j.$$
Moreover we remind that, since $j < |s_k^n(x_0)|$, the action of the shift does not completely erase the image of the first letter. Let us represent $\sigma^js_k^n(x)$ by a semiline:
(0,0)–(2,0); (2,0)–(11,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (2,0.2)–(2,-0.2); (3,0.2)–(3,-0.2); (7,0.2)–(7,-0.2); (10,0.2)–(10,-0.2); (0.1,0)–(2.9,0); (3.1,0)–(6.9,0); (7.1,0)–(9.9,0); (0,-.6)–(2,-.6); (1,-.6) node \[below\] [$j$]{}; (5,.5) node \[above\] [$s_k^n(x_{[1...p-1]})$]{}; (8.5,.5) node \[above\] [$s_k^{n-1}(0)...0$]{}; (1.5,.5) node \[above\] [$s_k^{n}(x_0)$]{}; (10.5,.5) node \[above\] [$a...$]{}; (3,-.3) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (7,-.3) node \[below\] [$f$]{};
where $a \in \mathcal{A}_k$, and $d$ and $f$ are a pair of integers such that $$\omega^{s_k}_{[d..d+f-1]}\omega^{s_k}_{[f...f+|s_k^{n-1}(0)...0|-1]}=s_k^n(x_{[1...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...0.$$ It is enough to remark that for any $n\geq k$ we have: $$s_k^{n-1}(0)...0=s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)s_{k}^{n-k-1}(0)...0$$ and recall that $$s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k^{n-k}(0)=s_k^{n}(0)$$ so we have $s_k^{n-1}(0)...0=s_k^{n}(0)s_k^{n-k-1}(0)...0$ and we can deduce from Proposition \[p.recog\_kbo\] that $f$ is in $D_{s_k}^n$ (regardless of the choice of $f$).
Let $u_0...u_l:=s_k^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...0$. Let $w=u_j...u_l$. Let us assume that $wa \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ which is equivalent to the assumption that $\delta_{s_k}(\sigma^js_k^n(x))>\delta_{s_k}(s_k^n(x))-j$.
The $k$-bonacci substitution being right-marked, and since $f$ is in $D^n$, it is easy to remark that $d$ is also in $D^n$. Then, since $j<|s_k^n(x_0)|$, one can always read on the left of $d$ the last letter of $s_k^n(x_0)$. The substitution $s_k$ (and thus $s_k^n$) being right-marked, we conclude that every occurrence of $w$ in $\omega$ is as a subword of $s_k^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...0$. Hence if $wa$ were in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$, so would $s_k^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_k^{n-1}(0)...0a$ which is a contradiction with Proposition \[p.kbo\_prefix\].
Fixed point of the renormalization operator {#s.potential}
===========================================
For a potential of the form $\frac{1}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}$
-------------------------------------------------------
In all this section, $k$ denotes a fixed integer greater than 2. We remind that the renormalization operator $R$ is defined by:
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}
R&:&\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}})&\rightarrow&\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}})\\
& & V(x) &\mapsto & \displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{|s_k(x_0)|-1} V\circ \sigma^j \circ s_k(x)
\end{array}$$
\[l.ruelle\_power\] For any integer $n$ and for any configuration $x$ in $\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$: $$R^n(V)(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{|s_k^n(x_0)|-1} V\circ \sigma^j \circ s_k^n(x)$$
This is proved by induction in [@bhl] for any substitution.
First, we wish to understand the asymptotic behaviour of $R^n(V)$ as $n$ goes to infinity for the potential $V_0$ defined by: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
V_0 &: & \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}& \rightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& & x & \mapsto & \frac{1}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}.
\end{array}$$
\[r.perron\] From Perron Frobenius Theorem, we know that for any letter $l$ in $\mathcal{A}_k$, there exists a real sequence $r_l(n)$ and a positive real number $\gamma_l$ such that $|s_k^n(l)|= \gamma_l\lambda^n +r_l(n)$ where $\lambda$ is the Perron Frobenius eigenvalue of the incidence matrix of $s_k$ and $r_l(n)$ satisfies: $$\forall n \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ |r_l(n)|\leq C_l\theta^n$$ with $C_l>0$ and $0<\theta<\lambda$.
Notice that $\lambda$ is the dominant root of the polynomial $X^k-\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}X^j$.
\[r.eigenvector\] Remark also that the vector $(\gamma_0,...,\gamma_{k-1})$ is a multiple of the left eigenvector $v=(v_0,...,v_{k-1})$ associated to the eigenvalue $\lambda$. We can write: $$\forall l \in \mathcal{A},\, v_l=\frac{1}{\lambda^{k-1-l}}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1-l}\lambda^j.$$
From this formula, notice that we chose an eigenvector such that $v_0=\lambda$
We prove the following:
\[t.renorm\_baby\_case\] For any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $k\geq2$, there exists $U \in C(\mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},{\mathbb{R}}_+)$, fixed point for the renormalization operator associated to the $k$-bonacci substitution, defined by: $$\forall x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},\, U(x)=\log\left(1+\frac{v_{x_0}}{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in\mathcal{A}_k} v_l |x_{[0..\delta_{s_k}(x)-1]}|_l -v_{x_0}}\right).$$
Moreover, for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$ we have: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty} R^n V_0 (x) = U(x).$$
For any integer $n$, Lemma \[l.ruelle\_power\] yields: $$\forall x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}, \ R^nV_0(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{|s_k^n(x_0)|-1} \frac{1}{\delta_{s_k}(\sigma^j(s_k^n(x))}.$$
Moreover, Proposition \[thm.length\_kbo\] yields $$\forall n \geq k, \ \forall j < |s_k^n(x_0)|, \ \delta_{s_k}(\sigma^js_k^n(x))=\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}|s_k^n(l)||x_{[0...p-1]}|_l+\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|-j.$$
Let us also remark that for any integer $n$: $$\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|=\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}\left(\gamma_0\lambda^l +r_0(l)\right),$$ thus $$\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|=\gamma_0\frac{\lambda^n-1}{\lambda-1} + \sum_{l=0}^{n-1}r_0(l).$$ Let us denote $r'_0(n)=\displaystyle\frac{\gamma_0}{1-\lambda}+ \sum_{l=0}^{n-1}r_0(l)$ to have: $$\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}|s_k^l(0)|=\gamma_0\frac{\lambda^n}{\lambda-1} + r'_0(n).$$
Finally, we have for any integer $n\geq k$, for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$ with $\delta_{s_k}(x)=p$, and for any $j < |s_k^n(x_0)|$: $$\delta_{s_k}(\sigma^js_k^n(x))=\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\left(|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l\left(\gamma_l \lambda^n +r_l(n)\right)\right) +r'_0(n)+\frac{\lambda^n\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}-j$$ which is also equal to: $$\lambda^n\left(\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}\right)-j.$$
So we can write for any integer $n$ greater or equal to $k$ and for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$: $$R^nV(x)= \frac{1}{\lambda^n}\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+r_{x_0}(n)-1}\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{j}{\lambda^n}}.$$ Let us estimate the term: $$Q(x,n):=\frac{1}{\lambda^n}\sum_{j=\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+1}^{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+r_{x_0}(n)-1}\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{j}{\lambda^n}}.$$ Remark that $$\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+r_{x_0}(n)-1}{\lambda^n}>0$$ and that for any integer $j$ in $\llbracket \lfloor \gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+1\rfloor+1, \gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+r_{x_0}(n)-1 \rrbracket$, the quantity: $$\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{j}{\lambda^n}}$$ is at most $$\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{ \gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+1}{\lambda^n}}.$$ So there exists a constant $C_x>0$, not depending on $n$, such that $$Q(x,n)\leq \frac{1}{\lambda^n} \sum_{j=\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+1}^{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n+r_{x_0}(n)-1} C_x,$$ hence $$Q(x,n)\leq \frac{C_x r_{x_0}(n)}{\lambda^n}$$ so, for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$, the term $Q(x,n)$ goes to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity.
So let us write, for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$ and any integer $n$: $$R^nV_0(x)=\frac{1}{\lambda^n}\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n}\frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n)|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\lambda^n}-\frac{j}{\lambda^n}} +Q(x,n).$$
Remark that $\frac{r'_0(n)+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k} r_l(n|x_{[0..p-1]}|_l)}{\lambda^n}$ goes to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity and that the function: $$f:y \mapsto \frac{1}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l +y}$$ is Lipschitz since $\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l>0$. We use now the following lemma from [@bhl].
Let $a,\lambda$ be some positive real numbers and $f$ a Lipschitz function defined on a neighborhood of $[0,a]$. Let $\phi:{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a real sequence such that $|\phi(n)|\leq C\theta^n$ with $C>0$ and $0<\theta<\lambda$. We have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda^n}\sum_{k=0}^{a\lambda^n}f\left( \frac{k+\phi(n)}{\lambda(n)} \right)=\int_{0}^{a}f(x)dx.$$
Thus, for any configuration $x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}}$, the sequence $ (R^n V_0 (x))_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ has the same limit as the Riemann sum $\frac{1}{\lambda^n}\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{\gamma_{x_0}\lambda^n}f\left(\frac{j}{\lambda^n}\right)$: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty} R^n V_0 (x) = \int_0^{\gamma_{x_0}} \frac{dt}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l -t}$$ hence, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty} R^n V_0 (x) = \log\left(\frac{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l}{\frac{\gamma_0}{\lambda-1}+\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}_k}\gamma_l |x_{[0..p-1]}|_l - \gamma_{x_0}}\right).$$ From Remark \[r.eigenvector\] we deduce Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\].
Proof of Theorem \[t.renorm\]
-----------------------------
Let us now define a whole family of potentials in the following way:
$$\forall x \in \mathcal{A}_k^{\mathbb{N}},\, V(x)=\frac{g(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha}+\frac{h(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha},$$ $g$ being a positive continuous function and $h$ being $0$ on $\Sigma_{s_k}$ and $\alpha >0$.
Theorem \[t.renorm\] is an improvement upon Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\] for it extends its results to this whole family of potentials.
Since we know Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\] the only necessary ingredient missing to prove this Theorem is the following technical lemma:
\[l.technical\_abel\] Let $(X,\sigma)$ be a uniquely ergodic subshift whose unique invariant probability measure is denoted $\mu$. Let $f$ be a continous integrable function on $(0,1)$, let $g:X\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a continous function on $X$. Then we have, uniformly in $x \in X$: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac1n\sum_{j=0}^n f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)g(\sigma^k(x))=\int_0^1f(x)dx\, \int_X gd\mu$$
For the proof of this lemma, we refer the reader to Lemma 3.10 in [@bhl].
The cases $\alpha <1$ and $\alpha>1$ can easily be seen from the computations in the proof of Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\]. If $\alpha<1$ then the Riemann sum diverges towards infinity because the exponent on the denominator is to small and if $\alpha >1$ the the Riemann sum is crushed towards $0$.
The only interesting case is when $\alpha =1$, then we apply Lemma \[l.technical\_abel\] to $s_k^n(x)$ which is possible because we have uniform convergence and we use the computations of Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\].
This theorem states that the family of potentials of the form $V(x)=\frac{g(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha}+\frac{h(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)^\alpha}$ is stable under the renormalization operator. Notice that the first order Taylor expansion of $U$ is also of the form $\frac{g(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}+\frac{h(x)}{\delta_{s_k}(x)}$. Hence amongst this family of potentials which is of some interest to us, this particular fixed point for $R$ is the only on to span an attracting “line” which stays in this family of potentials.
Freezing phase transition: proof of Theorem \[t.fpt\] {#s.fpt}
=====================================================
Recall that for a given potential $V$, we define the pressure function for every positive real number $\beta$ by: $$P(\beta)=\sup\left\{h_{\mu} + \beta\int_X V d\mu\right\}.$$ We are interested in points of non analyticity of the pressure function. Such points are called phase transitions. It is also known that the pressure function has an asymptote of the form $-a\beta+b$ with $a$ and $b$ non negative real numbers. If it reaches its asymptote we speak of freezing phase transition. It is obvious that, having $V$ supported on ${\mathcal{A}}_k^{\mathbb{N}}\backslash \Sigma_{s_k}$ and $(\Sigma_{s_k},\sigma)$ being uniquely ergodic of entropy zero, if the pressure function has a freezing phase transition, this function being decreasing and convex, then necessarily the asymptote it reaches is the horizontal axis.
Theorem 3 from [@bhl] gives a set of sufficient conditions to have a freezing phase transition in the case of subshifts. Namely, in order to have a freezing phase transition, it is sufficient for the subshift to satisfy:
- being linear recurrent, which means that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any $x$ in the subshift and for any word $w$ of size $n$ appearing in $x$, two consecutive occurrences of $w$ in $x$ are separated by a word of length at most $Cn$.
- having all bispecial words (see Definition \[d.bispecial\]) of length $c.\lambda^n +o(\lambda^n)$, where $\lambda >1$ and $c$ is chosen in a finite set;
- having only bispecial words not overlapping each other for more than a fixed proportion than the smaller one. We recall that two words $u$ and $v$ overlap (with overlap $u \cap v$ )if we can write:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (4,0.2)–(4,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (6.5,0.2)–(6.5,-0.2); (0.1,0)–(6.4,0)node \[black,midway,yshift=1.4cm\][$u$]{}; (4.1,0)–(6.4,0)node \[black,midway,yshift=.8cm\][$u \cap v$]{}; (4.1,0)–(7.9,0)node \[black,midway,yshift=-.8cm\][$v$]{};
with $u \cap v$ of maximal size and different from $u$ and $v$.
The first condition is true since a subshift associated to a substitution is linearly recurrent [@durand].
We remind the following property for $k$-bonacci substitutions.
For any $k\geq2$, the set of bispecial words words for the $k$-bonacci substitution is exactly: $$\left\{s_k^n(0)s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k(0)0,\, n \in {\mathbb{N}}\right\}.$$
It is an easy check that for any $n$, $s_k^n(0)s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k(0)0$ is bispecial. Indeed, one can check that if $w$ is bispecial, then $s_k(w)0$ is bispecial and notice that $0$ is bispecial. So let us prove that if $w$ is bispecial, then there exists $n$ such that $w=s_k^n(0)s_k^{n-1}(0)...s_k(0)0$. First, notice that for $w$ to be left special, it must start with $0$. For $w$ to be right special, it has to end with $0$. Assume $w\neq 0$, then there is a unique word $v$ in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_k}$ such that $s_k(v)0=w$. Now one can check that $w$ being bispecial implies that $v$ is in turn bispecial, and the length of $v$ being lesser thant the length of $w$, iterating this procedure of “desubstitution” yields the result since the only bispecial word of length two or less is $0$.
Remark \[r.perron\] and the computations in the proof of Theorem \[t.renorm\_baby\_case\] give the length of a bispecial word: $$\sum_{l=0}^{n}|s_k^l(0)|=\gamma_0\frac{\lambda^{n+1}}{\lambda-1} + r'_0(n).$$ This proves that the second property holds.
Finally, to have a freezing phase transition, it is enough to know that there exists $c<1$ such that if $u$ and $v$ are overlapping bispecial words, then $|u \cap v | \leq c \min\{|u|,|v|\}.$ Here $u\cap v$ denotes the word of maximal size that is both a prefix of $v$ and a suffix of $u$.
Let us define, for all $n$, the bispecial word $b_n=s_k^n(0)s_k^{n-1}(0)...s(0)0$. If two bispecials $u$ and $v$ overlap, then necessarily, the overlap $u \cap v$ is a bispecial word. We are not interested in the case where $u \cap v =u$ or $u \cap v =v$. Then let $u=b_n$ for a certain $n$, necessarily, $u \cap v=b_m$ for a certain $m$ smaller than $n$. So $$\frac{|u \cap v|}{|u|}=\frac{|b_m|}{|b_n|}$$ and $$\frac{b_m}{b_n}\leq\frac{|b_m|}{|b_{m+1}|}.$$ Now, applying Perron-Frobenius on the incidence matrix of $k$-bonacci substitution yields: $$\lim_{m\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{|b_m|}{|b_{m+1}|}= \frac{1}{\lambda}$$ where $\lambda$ is the single dominating root of $X^k-\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}X^j$.
The case $ \frac{|u \cap v|}{|v|}$ is treated the same way and yields the same result.
So the third property holds and this proves Theorem \[t.fpt\].
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Example of the Tribonacci substitution {#s.tribo}
======================================
In this section we give the direct proof of Proposition \[thm.length\_kbo\] in the case of the Tribonacci substitution, which is the $k=3$ case.
\[p.tribodesub\] Any word in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ which starts by a $0$ and ends by either $1$ or $2$ has a unique preimage by the Tribonacci substitution.
This is obviously true. Suffices to read from left to right:
- Every $0$ marks the beginning of an image of a letter.
- The letter which comes after a $0$ gives a unique way of desubstituting.
\[p.tribolang\] The only three letters word starting by $00$ in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ is $001$.
$000 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ since it is either equal to $s_3(222)$ or is a prefix of $s_3(220)$ or $s_3(221)$. Either way, $000 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ would imply that $22 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ which is clearly not the case. $002 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ since $s_3(21)=002$ and $21$ is clearly not in the language.
\[r.length\_tribo\] Let us remark right away that for any integer $n$: $$s_3^{n+3}(0)=s_3^{n+2}(0)s_3^{n+1}(0)s_3^{n}(0)$$ which can also be written, for any positive integer $n$ $$s_3^{n+3}(2)=s_3^{n+2}(2)s_3^{n+1}(2)s_3^{n}(2).$$
\[p.delta\_tribo\] Let $x \in \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\delta (x) = p$ then for any $n$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^*$, the maximal prefix of $s_3^n(x)$ in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ is: $$s_3^n(x_{[0...p-1]})s_3^{n-1}(0)...0.$$
Let $x$ be a configuration on the alphabet $\{0,1,2\}$ such that the prefix $x_{[0...p-1]} \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ but $x_{[0...p]} \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$. We only prove the proposition for $n=1$, the general case being an immediate consequence.
We have three cases to treat.
- If $x_p=0$, then $x_{[0...p-1]}0 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ hence $x_{[0...p-1]}1 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ or $x_{[0...p-1]}2 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ because a language defined by a substitution is extendable. Moreover $$s_3(x)=s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})s_3(0)...$$ so $$s_3(x)=s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})01...$$ and $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})0$ is a prefix of $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]}1)$ and $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]}2)$. As a consequence, $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})0 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$. However $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})01 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ because otherwise $x_{[0...p-1]}0$ would be in the language by Proposition \[p.tribodesub\]. Finally the maximal prefix of $s_3(x)$ in the language is $s_3(x_{[0..p-1]})0$.
- We can treat the case $x_p=1$ in a similar way since a word starting by 0 and ending by a $2$ has a unique preimage by Tribonacci substitution.
- If $x_p=2$, then $x_{[0...p-1]}2 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ hence $x_{[0...p-1]}0 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ or $x_{[0...p-1]}1 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$. Moreover $$s_3(x)=s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})s_3(2)s_3(x_{p+1})...$$ so $$s_3(x)=s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})00...$$ and $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})0$ is both a prefix of $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]}0)$ and $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]}1)$, one of which is in the language. As a consequence, $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})0 \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}.$ However, $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})00 \notin {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$. Indeed let us suppose that $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})00$ is in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$. Then, by Proposition \[p.tribolang\], necessarily $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]})001$ would be in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ which is absurd because we can uniquely desubstitute to find out that $s_3(x_{[0...p-1]}20) \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ which is a contradiction because then $x_{[0...p-1]}2$ would be in ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$.
Finally, iterating the application yields that for any positive integer $n$, the maximal prefix in the language ${\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ of $s_3^n(x)$, where $x$ is defined as before, is: $$s_3^n(x_{[0..p-1]})s_3^{n-1}(0)...0.$$
Let us now prove the following lemma:
\[prop.recog\_tribo\] $$\forall n \geq 3,\ \forall d \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ \omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0) \Leftrightarrow d \in D_{s_3}^n.$$ where $\omega^{s_3}$ is the fixed point in $\{0,1,2\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ for the Tribonacci substitution and $t_n$ is the length of $s_2^n(0)$.
Let us first prove the following assertion: $$\forall n \geq 3, \forall d \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ d \in D_{s_3}^n \Rightarrow \omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0) .$$
Let $n$ be an integer greater than 2 and $d$ be in $D_{s_3}^n$. Then $\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}$ is either equal to $s_3^n(0)$ or is a prefix of $s_3^n(1)s_3^n(0)$ or $s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)$ since $ab \in {\mathcal{L}}_{s_3}$ if and only if $a=0$ or $b=0$.
- If $\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0)$ then there is nothing to prove.
- If $\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}$ is a prefix of $s_3^n(1)s_3^n(0)$, then we write: $$s_3^n(1)s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-1}(2)s_3^n(0),$$ which can then be written $$s_3^n(1)s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^n(0),$$ and noticing that $s_3^{n-3}(0)$ is a prefix of $s_3^n(0)$ yields $$\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0).$$
- If $\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}$ is a prefix of $s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)$, then we write: $$s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-1}(1)$$ which can be written as $$s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^{n-2}(1)s_3^{n-1}(1),$$ then again $$s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^{n-3}(0)s_3^{n-3}(2)s_3^{n-1}(1),$$ so finally $$s_3^n(2)s_3^n(0)=s_3^n(0)s_3^{n-3}(2)s_3^{n-1}(1),$$ hence $$\omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0).$$
The first step of the proof is thus complete.
Let us now prove by induction on $n$ that $$\forall n \geq 3,\ \forall d \in {\mathbb{N}}, \ \omega^{s_3}_{[d...d+t_n-1]}=s_3^n(0) \Rightarrow d \in D_{s_3}^n.$$
First, we prove that this is true for the word $s_3^3(0)$. $$s_3^3(0)=0102010$$ Let us also write the other images $$s_3^3(1)=010201, \ s_3^3(2)=0102.$$ Remark that $s_3^3(0)$ is of maximal length amongst the third power images of letters. Hence any occurence of this word contains at least one point in $D_{s_3}^3$, which we will represent by a point before the letter which has coordinate in $D_{s_3}^3$. Remark that all third power images contain one and only one letter $2$. Hence the only possibilities are:
- .0102010.
- .010201.0
- .0102.010
In any case, every occurence of $s_3^3(0)$ has starting position in $D_{s_3}^3$. This completes the initialisation.
Let us now assume that this property is true for a given integer $n \geq 3$ and prove it for $n+1$. We represent the word $s_3^{n+1}(0)$ by a segment.
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (2.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(0)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
By induction hypothesis, $d$ is in $D_{s_3}^n$. We have three cases to treat.
- If $e$ is in $D_{s_3}^n$ then either $d$ or $e$ is in $D_{s_3}^{n+1}$ because they are two consecutive points of $D_{s_3}^n$ and the images of letters by the substitution $s_3$ are either of length 1 or 2.
Moreover, if $e$ is in $D_{s_3}^{n+1}$, then writing $s_3^{n+1}(0)$ in the following way:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (2.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^{n+1}(2)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
is enough to conclude that $d$ is in $D_{s_3}^{n+1}$.
- We can write $s_3^{n+1}(0)$ in the following way:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (3,0.2)–(3,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (1.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(1)$]{}; (4,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^{n-3}(0)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (3,-0.2) node \[below\] [$f$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
and assume that $f$ is in $D_{s_3}^{n}$. But then we would have $s_3^{n-3}(0)s_3^n(1)=s_3^n(0)$ which is impossible because the last letter differs.
- Finally we can write $s_3^{n+1}(0)$ in this way:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (2,0.2)–(2,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (1,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(2)$]{}; (3.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^{n-3}(0)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(1)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (2,-0.2) node \[below\] [$g$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
Or still:
(0,0)–(8,0); (0,0.2)–(0,-0.2); (2,0.2)–(2,-0.2); (5,0.2)–(5,-0.2); (8,0.2)–(8,-0.2); (1,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^n(2)$]{}; (3.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^{n-3}(0)$]{}; (6.5,0) node \[above\] [$s_3^{n-1}(0)s_3^{n-1}(2)$]{}; (0,-0.2) node \[below\] [$d$]{}; (2,-0.2) node \[below\] [$g$]{}; (5,-0.2) node \[below\] [$e$]{};
and assuming that $g$ is in $D_{s_3}^n$ would yield that $$s_3^n(0)=s_3^{n-2}(0)s_3^{n-3}(0)s_3^{n-1}(0)$$ which is impossible.
Finally, only the first case is possible and we always have $d \in D_{s_3}^{n+1}$ which ends the proof.
[10]{}
Pierre Arnoux and G[é]{}rard Rauzy. Représentation géométrique de suites de complexité [$2n+1$]{}. , 119(2):199–215, 1991.
Alexandre Baraviera, Renaud Leplaideur, and Artur O. Lopes. The potential point of view for renormalization. , 12(4):1250005, 34, 2012.
Nicolas Bédaride, Pascal Hubert, and Renaud Leplaideur. Thermodynamic formalism and substitutions. , (arXiv:1511.03322), 2015.
Rufus Bowen. , volume 470 of [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, revised edition, 2008. With a preface by David Ruelle, Edited by Jean-Ren[é]{} Chazottes.
Henk Bruin and Renaud Leplaideur. Renormalization, thermodynamic formalism and quasi-crystals in subshifts. , 321(1):209–247, 2013.
Henk Bruin and Renaud Leplaideur. Renormalization, freezing phase transitions and [F]{}ibonacci quasicrystals. , 48(3):739–763, 2015.
Julien Cassaigne. Complexité et facteurs spéciaux. , 4(1):67–88, 1997. Journ[é]{}es Montoises (Mons, 1994).
Daniel Coronel and Juan Rivera-Letelier. Low-temperature phase transitions in the quadratic family. , 248:453–494, 2013.
Fabien Durand. Linearly recurrent subshifts have a finite number of non-periodic subshift factors. , 20(4):1061–1078, 2000.
Brigitte Moss[é]{}. Puissances de mots et reconnaissabilité des points fixes d’une substitution. , 99(2):327–334, 1992.
Martine Queff[é]{}lec. . Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
G[é]{}rard Rauzy. Nombres algébriques et substitutions. , 110(2):147–178, 1982.
David Ruelle. . Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2004. The mathematical structures of equilibrium statistical mechanics.
Omri M. Sarig. Phase transitions for countable [M]{}arkov shifts. , 217(3):555–577, 2001.
[^1]: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, UMR 7373, 13453 Marseille, France. E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Xiaorui Wu$^{1,2}$'
- Hong Xu$^1$
- Honglin Zhang$^2$
- Huaming Chen$^2$
- |
Jian Wang$^2$\
$^1$Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong\
$^2$Platform and Content Group, Tencent\
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: |
[Saec]{}: Similarity-Aware Embedding Compression\
in Recommendation Systems
---
=1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The identity of the smallest quadrangulation with minimum degree 3 also containing parallel edges is unknown. However, it has already been determined that its order (the number of vertices) is between 11 and 14. This paper narrows this domain by showing that the order is at least 12.'
bibliography:
- 'suh.bib'
- 'mypub.bib'
---
Introduction
============
A *plane graph* is a graph whose vertices are drawn points and edges are arcs on the two dimensional plane such that no two edges meet in a point other than a common endpoint[@Diestel2005]. The edges divide the planar surface into regions called *faces*. A *walk* of length $l$ is a sequence of $l$ adjacent edges, and the walk is *closed* if it ends in the starting vertex. A *plane quadrangulation* (or shortly *quadrangulation*) is a loopless, connected, finite plane graph having every face bounded by a closed walk of length 4. A quadrangulation without parallel edges and without repeated edges on the quadrilateral boundary walks is called a *simple quadrangulation*. We allow parallel edges, and the boundary walk may repeat edges or vertices. If we want to emphasize that a quadrangulation may not be simple, it is called a *multiquadrangulation*, abbreviated as . The of smallest order are shown in .
This paper investigates the smallest with minimum degree 3 which has parallel edges. By *smallest*, we mean smallest *order*, i.e. the minimum number of vertices. illustrates these concepts on the graphs of . Note that though $P_2$ is not parallel, it is not simple either according to the definition above. This paper shows the following:
graph order parallel min. degree
------- ------- ---------- -------------
$P_2$ 3 no 1
$C_4$ 4 no 2
$Q_3$ 4 yes 1
$Q_4$ 4 yes 1
: Illustration of concepts[]{data-label="tab:illus"}
The importance of with minimum degree 3 is related to a mechanical classification system for convex, homogeneous bodies introduced recently[@Domokos2006; @Domokos2012arxiv]. In this system, each body is mapped into its *secondary equilibrium class* determined by the topology of the equilibrium points of the surface. Such a topology is defined by a vertex-coloured . There are particular secondary equilibrium classes called *irreducible ancestors*, from which every other secondary equilibrium class can be generated with specific transformations (detailed in other works[@Domokos2012arxiv; @kapolnai2012periodica]). Such an ancestor class either corresponds to a with minimum degree 3, or to the denoted by $P_2$ on , latter representing the class of the mono-monostatic body called Gömböc[@kapolnai2012periodica]. For this reason, we say a is an *irreducible* (or shortly *irreducible*), if it is isomorphic to $P_2$ or its minimum degree is 3. If an irreducible contains parallel edges, it is called a *parallel irreducible*.
There are efficient methods to exhaustively enumerate simple irreducibles[@Nakamoto1999; @Brinkmann2005]. A highly tuned implementation called *Plantri* is also available[@Brinkmann2007]. However, these enumerations are incomplete as they ignore the ones containing parallel edges. Identifying the smallest parallel irreducible would specify the limit of these incomplete methods regarding the enumeration of all .
We mention that some pieces of the text of this paper can also be found in the submitted dissertation of the first author.
Related Work
============
It has already been determined that the order of the smallest parallel irreducible is between 11 and 14, detailed in this section. First, every irreducible has at least 8 vertices[@Batagelj1989; @kapolnai2012periodica]:
This statement was originally made by Batagelj[@Batagelj1989] for simple irreducibles, and was later generalized by others[@kapolnai2012periodica] to include parallel irreducibles as well. There also exists a primitive implementation[@kapolnai2012periodica] to enumerate every of order at most 10. Observing the generated data[@kapolnai2012periodica], we arrive at
These two are shown in . As there is also an irreducible with parallel edges depicted in , we have an obvious upper bound[@kapolnai2012periodica]:
Prerequisites
=============
In the proof of , we use some concepts and properties of plain graphs. Let us denote the number of vertices, edges and faces, by $n$, $e$ and $f$, respectively. Euler’s formula holds for any plane graph: $n-e+f=2$. Applied to a , as every face has 4 boundary edges and every edge is counted twice, we have $$\label{eq:Euler}
e=2n-4.$$ Consequently, the sum of the degrees of a of order $n$ equals to $4n-8$.
also implies that the minimum degree of a is either 1, 2 or 3, because if it had only vertices of degree at least 4, then it would have at least $2n$ edges.
Let $G(V,E)$ denote a plane graph with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$, where $V$ contains points, $E$ contains arcs on the plane. The plane graph $G(V,E)$ is the *embedded subgraph* of the plane graph $G'(V',E')$ if $V\subseteq V'$ and $E\subseteq E'$.
Proof of
=========
Let $G$ be an irreducible with parallel edges such that it is of minimum order. Suppose $G$ has $k$ parallel edges between vertices $v$ and $w$. The $k$ parallel edges divide the surface into $k$ regions. Let us select a region with the fewest vertices inside. Now let us prepare the embedded subgraph $H$ of the $G$ by selecting the subgraph spanned by the vertices from inside the selected region and the vertices $v$ and $w$, then removing $k-1$ parallel edges between $v$ and $w$. For example, in , if the right hand side is $G$, one of the graphs on the left hand side could be isomorphic to $H$, and $k=2, x=v, y=w$.
It is easy to see that the plane graph $H$ has the following properties:
it is a ,
$v$ and $w$ are still adjacent and there is exactly one edge between them,
\[halfdeg\] every other vertex than $v$ and $w$ has degree at least 3.
We call a plane graph satisfying these three conditions a *half* with marked adjacent vertices $v$ and $w$ throughout this proof. Let $d_K(z)$ denote the degree of vertex $z$ in graph $K$. In addition to these three defining properties, it is easy to see that any $Q$ also has property
: \[halfprop\] $d_Q(x)+d_Q(y)\geq 3$ for any two adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$.
An irreducible with parallel edges can be built from a [half]{} $F$ with marked adjacent vertices $x$ and $y$, supposing there is only one edge between $x$ and $y$, as follows. We clone $F$, rotate the clone by 180 degrees preserving its orientation, and stick together $F$ and the clone by unifying vertex $x$ and the clone image of $y$ denoted $y'$, unifying vertex $y$ and the clone image of $x$ denoted $x'$, and unifying the outer edge $xy$ and its clone image. So the unifications remove the clone vertices $x'$ and $y'$ and the clone of the edge $xy$. Then we duplicate the original edge $xy$ outside in order to restore the quadrilateral property. The process is illustrated in . We need to show that the resulting graph denoted by $P$ is irreducible. Clearly the order of $P$ is at least 4, so irreducibility is equivalent to having minimum degree of 3. It is already a half, so every other vertices than $x$ or $y$ has degree at least 3. After the unification, the vertex $x$ is now connected with the neighbours of $y'$ including $x'$ because of the additional parallel edge, so $d_P(x) = d_F(x)+d_F(y) \geq 3$ from property \[halfprop\] of the halves. Similarly, $d_P(y) = d_F(x)+d_F(y) \geq 3$.
Now we can prove that $H$ is simple. By property \[halfdeg\], $H$ is not isomorphic to the $P_2$. Note that it is easy to see that if a half $H$ with marked adjacent vertices $v$ and $w$ has parallel edges, then it also contains a smaller half. The contained half can be found using a similar method used to define the half $H$ inside the irreducible $G$, although instead of selecting the minimal region, any region can be selected which does not contain $v$ and $w$ (because $d_H(v)$ or $d_H(w)$ can be less than 3). So suppose indirectly that $H$ has parallel edges. Then there is a *half* $F$ contained in $H$, obviously smaller than $H$. So an irreducible with parallel edges could be built from $F$ as described above, but smaller than $G$, contradicting to its minimality.
Now we are going to prove that $d_H(v)+d_H(w)\geq 5$. The minimum degree of a simple quadrangulation is at least 2. If $d_H(v)=d_H(w)=2$ holds in a simple quadrangulation for two adjacent vertices, than it can only be the circle $C_4$ of length 4. However, by property \[halfdeg\], $H$ cannot be isomorphic to $C_4$.
If the half $H$ has $n$ vertices, than the sum of its degrees is $4n-8$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
4n-8 = d_H(v)+d_H(w) + \sum_{z\neq v,w} d_H(z) \geq 5 + 3(n-2),\end{aligned}$$ implying $n\geq 7$. So there are at least 5 vertices in the inside region of $G$, the same outside, plus $v$ and $w$, added up to 12.
Conclusions
===========
means that when the software Plantri generates the simple irreducibles for $n<12$, then it also generates every irreducible. Consequently, the cardinalities of the simple irreducibles of different orders published by Brinkmann et. al.[@Brinkmann2005] (see their Table 2 titled “Simple quadrangulations with minimum degree 3”) does not exclude any parallel irreducible for $n<12$.
Up to the best knowledge of the authors, the identity of the smallest parallel irreducible is still unknown. Although there is a primitive implementation to enumerate every , it is practically unusable for $n\geq 12$ because of its very low efficiency. A better way to find it could be extending Plantri to enumerate efficiently every (not just the simple ones), using extended operations[@kapolnai2012periodica].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Being part of project Bioklíma, the research has been supported the Hungarian Government, managed by the National Development Agency, and financed by the Research and Technology Innovation Fund.
The second author has been supported by OTKA grant 104601.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The forecasting of meteor showers is currently very good at predicting the timing of meteor outbursts, but still needs further work regarding the level of a given shower. Moreover, uncertainties are rarely provided, leaving the end user (scientist, space agency or the public) with no way to evaluate how much the prediction is trustworthy. A confidence index for the forecasting of meteor showers is presented. It allows one to better understand how a specific forecasting has been performed. In particular, it underlines the role of our current knowledge of the parent body, its past orbit and past activity. The role of close encounters with planets for the time period considered is quantified as well. This confidence index is a first step towards better constrained forecasting of future meteor showers.'
address: 'IMCCE, Paris Observatory, PSL, 77 Av Denfert Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France'
author:
- Jeremie Vaubaillon
bibliography:
- 'bibtex.bib'
title: A confidence index for forecasting of meteor showers
---
meteor
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The prediction of meteor showers on Earth has been the topic of much research since the XIXth century. The observation of recurrent outbursts (such as e.g. the Leonids every 33 years more or less) has been the first motivation to conjecture about future events. In addition, the link between meteor showers and comets was established by Schiaparelli [@Romig1966] and shortly later the first forecastings were based on the orbit of the parent comet. One famous failure was however the expected return of the Leonids in 1899, as well as in the three following perihelion returns of comet 55P. It was not before [@KondratevaReznikov85] and later on [@McNaughtAsher1999] that an estimate of the time of a shower outburst was correctly predicted.
If the timing of meteor showers is currently well constrained by todays works, the level of the shower still poses a challenge to astronomers. Failures at predicting a correct level of a shower has consequences for researchers, space agencies and the public. Beside the disappointment aspect of missing on an opportunity which might end up being a waste of time, protection procedures for spacecraft require lots of time and energy.
The success of predicting a shower was enabled by understanding that meteoroids and comets have similar yet independent orbits and orbit evolution. Today methods are more or less all the same and are based on the propagation of the orbit of test particles released from the parent body, from the time of ejection until it passes near the Earth. Refinements include: ejection over an arc of the orbit, massive simulation of test particles, update of the ejection velocity (i.e. taking into account the physics behind the ejection process) . Among the authors performing such forecasting, we find . However, apart from those, no new method has been developed recently.
Surprisingly, in spite of the quality of the work dedicated to meteor shower forecasting, no uncertainty has ever been published to my knowledge. The first reason probably comes from the dynamical approach of the forecasting, which was the Achilles heel until 1999, and the focus of many works. However, seventeen years later this has not improved. The second reason most probably comes from our ignorance in so many physical quantities of the parent body as well as its past dynamical behavior.
The difficulty of providing uncertainties can certainly be overcome, by going through a rigorous analysis of every step leading to a given forecast. However, one might argue that such a refinement might not tell us much, again because of our uncertainty in e.g. the parent body parameters. In other words, it might be hard to define a credible uncertainty of a physical quantity for which even orders of magnitude cannot be estimated.
Because the end user of the forecasting still needs a way to know how much (s)he can trust a given prediction, this paper presents a different approach. The idea is to provide the scientists, space agencies and amateurs some knowledge regarding the circumstances under which the predictions were performed, and inform them regarding the chances of success, especially in terms of the level of the shower. I hope that by doing so every reader of future forecasting can have a proper idea of how much (s)he can trust the forecasting.
The paper first presents in section \[sec:strat\] a reflexion on the way meteor shower predictions are performed today and underlines the location of greatest uncertainties. Then in section \[sec:confidx\] a confidence index is presented that provides the end users with enough information to have an idea of how much one can trust the forecasting. Last but not least in section \[sec:appli\] some confidence indices are listed for past and future showers.
Strategy {#sec:strat}
========
In order to perform the forecasting of the timing (T) of a meteor shower, one needs to know :
1. \[PB\] the parent body
2. \[pastorb\] the past orbit of the parent body
3. \[eject\] how meteoroids are ejected from the parent body
4. \[evolv\] how meteoroids orbits evolve in the Solar System.
In order to perform the forecasting of the level (L) of a meteor shower, one needs to know \[actShw\] or \[actPB\] as well as \[conv\], as explained below :
1. \[actShw\] the past activity of the shower
2. \[actPB\] the past activity of the parent body
3. \[conv\] a way to convert this activity into a ZHR.
Point \[evolv\] is quite well understood today, and point \[eject\] does not matter much, since the knowledge of an order of magnitude is good enough to perform a correct prediction. The reason is that anyway meteoroids are ejected with a distribution of velocities and a distribution of heliocentric distances. The identification of a parent body has recently seen a huge development thanks to multi-years surveys . The accumulation of tens of thousands of meteoroid orbits allows one to better recognize otherwise undetected showers, and dynamical links are based on orbital similarity. In a similar way, the discovery of new thousands of NEOs makes it more likely to find a parent body for a given new shower. In other words, point \[PB\] is being currently revolutionized by huge amounts of data and data mining. Similarly, point \[actShw\] is being currently refined for the same reasons. However, if the basic knowledge of the activity of a shower is poorly constrained, needless to say that any estimate of a future shower cannot be accurate. This is particularly preventing the performance of predictions on other planets as Earth (Mars and Venus being the currently most wanted ones). Point \[conv\] is usually straightforward by converting a 3D particle density into a 2D density, or by comparing the past encounter circumstances (e.g. distance between the center of a trail with the path of the Earth) with the forecasted ones [@McNaughtAsher1999].
What is left are points \[pastorb\] and \[actPB\], forming the source of most uncertainties, in my opinion. The past orbit of famous parent bodies (such as 1P/Halley, 109P/Swift-Tuttle) can be useful by telling us that their orbit is stable enough and that their activity spanned several centuries. However, this might not directly explain the level today of e.g. the Orionids and Perseids if the encountered particles are older than the oldest record of the comet. This is unfortunately indeed the case for 1P and 109P, and the reason why the predictions of the Perseids are mainly performed by the International Meteor Organization and based on past observations of the shower \[actShw\], provided it is stable enough.
In most cases, the past orbit of a parent body is problematic, by lack of past observations. Even if one can dig in historic records, one cannot find anything beyond 5000 years ago, which might not be enough for long period bodies . Fortunately, as long as the orbit of the parent body is stable enough (see comment below regarding this notion), and its cometary activity either non existent or constant from one passage to another, it is easy to find its past returns, yielding to the forecasting of future showers. However, usually the past activity is even less constrained than the orbit of the parent body.
Another problem is the stability of the orbit of the parent body. Even if its orbit today is well constrained, close encounters are prone to dissipate any hope to know its orbit past a certain date. One famous example is comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko , for which it is hard to clearly know its orbit before the 1950s.
Are we therefore doomed in our ignorance of so many important parameters? Several works tend to provide constraints on the origins of meteor showers, which by such enables to better perform the predictions of future events. However this is not always feasible.
In this paper, the approach first considers that in complement to all these research works, it is useful to provide information regarding the way predictions are performed, in order to sense the difficulty and uncertainties considered in a given prediction. The idea is to consider each main source of uncertainty and either label or quantify it. The confidence index is therefore a code providing information on how the ephemeris of a given meteor shower was calculated.
The confidence index {#sec:confidx}
====================
The confidence index is built as a succession of letters and numbers, each having its own meaning and dealing with a specific challenge to perform an accurate forecasting.
First letter: the trail index {#sec:first}
-----------------------------
The first consideration deals with the number of trails the forecasting process is dealing with. In the most usual and simple case, one trail encountered by the Earth results in a single prediction. In such a case, the trail index contributing to the confidence index is set to “S” (as in Single trail).
However such a method is unable to e.g. predict the usual background level of the Perseids, as it consists of the superposition of very old trails ($ > 10 k$ years old), for which the exact origin is unknown. The simulation of such many trails, providing global information of the shower is feasible but needs to be documented to allow the end user to be warned that the exact origin of the trails is not accurately known (beside the knowledge of the parent body). In such a case, the trail index is set to “G”, meaning that the Global level of the shower was computed. The end user can therefore quickly know by examining the first letter that a “G” will a priori provide a less accurate prediction than an “S”. Put it in another way, a “G” means that the background of the shower is forecasted, rather than an outburst. This is of particular use for e.g. the Leonids, known to present rare exceptional outbursts and a low activity otherwise (15/hr).
Second letter: year index {#sec:second}
-------------------------
The second consideration deals with the uniqueness of the time period for which the prediction is performed. Most of the time, meteor shower forecasts are computed by considering the particles approaching the planet during a short time period (usually of a few days . Most of the time a given trail is not perturbed enough to present more than one encounter with the Earth for a given year. In such cases, the “year index”, contributing to the confidence index is set to “Y” (as in Year), meaning that the prediction is valid for a given year and includes only the particles crossing the planet at this time.
Now, in the case of a low level shower and even by considering several tens of thousands of particles in the simulations, there might not be enough test particles to compute a level that really makes any physical sense. One solution is to greatly increase the number of simulated particles . However another solution is possible. In such a case, the idea is to concatenate the contribution of all the particles encountering the planet over several years. This provides us with an idea of the background activity of the shower, and the location of the stream, rather than the individual location of several given trails. Such an approach is useful also for parent bodies for which the orbit is not well constrained. Note that in order to derive a correct timing of the background activity of the shower by following this method, the location of the planet still has to be computed for a short period of time (e.g. several days) and should of course not be concatenated over several years. By doing so, the change of timing from one year to another can be computed. In such a case, the “year index” is set to “B”, as in “Background”.
Third element: observation index {#sec:third}
--------------------------------
The third element of the index deals with points \[pastorb\] and \[actPB\]. It is a measure of the number of observed perihelion passages, versus the number of simulated passages. It also provides us with information regarding our knowledge of the activity of the parent body. Indeed, an observation of a return indicates not only the location of the comet (or asteroid), but also provides us with information regarding its activity. Of particular interest are changes of activity, following either an outburst [@2010Icar..208..276R], a breakup [@2010AJ....139.1491V; @2011ApJ...740L..11I] or the end of a comet activity [@2007AJ....134.1037J]. However the total absence of observation leaves us with any possible scenario, unless the parent body is observed again at a subsequent passage. Given the current and future sky surveys, the task of meteor shower forecasting is usually made easy for recent passages. What is really preventing us to progress is the absence of past observations. Pre-discoveries are still possible thanks to past surveys [@2011AJ....142...28J] or data mining ancient archives [@2006pimo.conf...50N]. Most of the time however it is extremely hard to accurately constrain the orbit and/or the activity of a parent body. Because of the huge influence of such parameters on the forecasting of meteor showers, the least we can do is to tell the user if a given result comes from an observed return, or if it simply comes from numerical integration of the orbit of the body, considering its activity was constant. A good illustration of this paragraph is 17P/Holmes [^1]. It was discovered in 1892, observed for the following two returns and then lost for nearly 60 years (7 returns) before it was recovered. The re-discovery allows us to constrain its orbit, and put a limit on its activity. In 2007 the comet underwent a huge outburst, which completely changed its activity profile. The 1892 discovery was most likely enabled by a similar outburst to 2007. To my knowledge, such a change of activity is rarely considered in modern forecasting of meteor showers. On the other hand, meteor outbursts can help constrain the past activity of a comet .
The third element of the confidence index is composed of the letter “O” (as in Observations), followed by the number of observed passages $no$ versus the number of simulated passages $ns$. For example for 17P, one might indicate: $O 6 /13$ to indicate that all the 13 returns of the XXth century were taken into consideration, but only 6 were actually observed. Most of the time, we have $no < ns$, since it is easy to simulate orbits over several centuries. However the question arises as to the physical meaning of any long term simulations in the absence of any data to check the results. If a thorough check is either not feasible by lack of data (as is usually the case), at least the user is informed. In the extreme case one might consider a newly discovered object for which $no=1$, for which taking $ns=100$ would not make much sense, unless the orbit is very stable and assuming that any past ejection process did not produce significant non-gravitational forces. Needless to say that such a work would produce highly uncertain results, which might be hard to quantify, but again, at least the user is informed of the way the forecasting was performed.
Fourth element: close encounter index {#sec:fourth}
-------------------------------------
The fourth element of the confidence index is a natural following of what was previously mentioned, and deals with the role of close encounters and orbit stability of the parent body (points \[pastorb\]). It is worth mentioning that the $f_{M}$ factor introduced by [@McNaughtAsher1999] also represents a way to quantify the role of close encounters. This quantity is often provided for the given part of the trail that is of interest for a given prediction. In principle, it can also be computed for the whole trail and by such also measures the effect of time on the spread of the meteoroids within a given trail. Here the idea is to provide the user with an idea of how much the orbit of the parent body, at the time of ejection of a given trail, can be trusted, as well as, in a lesser way, its consequences for the trail at the time of the predicted shower. The idea is to compute a “close encounter index” (CE) by summing all the contributions of all close encounters with the planets (the major perturber being Jupiter), for the duration of the considered simulation. In practice we have $CE=\Sigma_{t_{min}}^{t_{max}} M_{pla} / M_{sun} \; 1 / (d V^2) $, with: $t_{min}$ the time of the ejection of the trail, $t_{max}$ the time of the considered shower, $M_{pla}$ the mass of the encountered planet, $M_{sun}$ the mass of the Sun, $d$ the minimum distance of the encounter and $V$ the relative velocity with the planet at the closest distance. This expression is inspired from [@Valsecchi2003] providing the angle of deflection caused by a close encounter $\tan \gamma/2= \frac{M_{pla}}{dV^2}$. The unit of $CE$ is therefore $s^{2} m^{-3}$. In the extreme case, one might have $CE=0.00 \, s^{2} m^{-3}$ if the parent body had no close encounter for the time period considered. This clearly indicates that the orbit of the parent body does not suffer sudden and drastic changes. On the other hand, if one gets e.g. $CE=1.0E+04 \, s^{2} m^{-3}$, this indicates that there are numerous close encounters highly changing the orbit of the parent body. As a consequence, the user can immediately know that such forecasting with such a high close encounter index is a priori much more uncertain than if $CE=0 \, s^{2} m^{-3}$.
However a bit of caution is necessary at this point. Because the orbit of the parent and the meteoroids are independent, the consequences for a given trail are not necessary immediate and definitely not the same as for the parent, sometimes leading to OMSs (orphan meteoroid streams) [@2006MNRAS.370.1841V]. A high CE value still indicates that at least one giant planet (usually Jupiter) is crossing the stream. One has to use the CE index in conjunction with the other parameters, especially the observation index. As an extreme example let us suppose that a new Jupiter family comet has recently been discovered, and found to be the parent body of a weak meteor shower. In order to produce the forecasting of future meteor showers, the past orbit of the comet is computed over 100 years, i.e. $\sim $ 20 returns. We have thus an observation index: “O1/20”. Let us suppose now that, in the past, many close encounters with Jupiter happened, increasing the close encounter index to $CE=200 \, s^{2} m^{-3}$. The combination of those two indices warns the user that the predictions are highly unreliable, mainly by lack of past observations that would have otherwise greatly constrained the orbit of the comet. Let us now suppose that, on the contrary, the comet was well observed, but still crosses the orbit of Jupiter (as it is usually the case with JFCs). We might end up with “O16/20” and “$CE=200$”, but in this case the user can better trust the predictions, since the orbit and activity of the comet are well constrained for most of the considered period.
The problem in such a case is that it is hard to disentangle the observation index and the close encounter index, and to know which has a greater contribution than the other. In a numerical simulation performed to forecast the meteor showers, the effect of close encounters on the parent body as well as on each particle is computed at each time step. In a sense, we can therefore conclude that all close encounters effects are taken into account thanks to the numerical simulations. In order to build a confidence index, the close encounter index should therefore indicate the (cumulative) role of the close encounters that escapes our knowledge. This is why I have chosen to nullify the close encounter index for the time period comprising between the first and last observation of the parent body. By doing so, $CE$ now indeed reflects our ignorance of the effects of close encounters. We therefore have: $CE=\Sigma_{t_{min}}^{t_{max}} M_{pla} / M_{sun} \; 1 / (d V^2) $, with: $t_{min}$ and $t_{max}$ the time period before/after the first/last observation of the parent body.
One last case is possible and has to be discussed here. Let us suppose that a given prediction was performed by considering several trails (trail index: “G”) or considering the contribution of many different years (year index set to “B”). The close encounter index is still computed as the contribution of all the encounters of all the trails and increases rapidly. In this case, in order to warn the user that the sum was performed on may trails or many years, the prefix “CE” of the close encounter index is changed to “CU” (as in “Cumulative”).
Summarizing quality label {#sec:sum}
-------------------------
All the above mentioned indices provide the end user with information regarding the way the forecasting was performed. However the end user might not really fully understand nor even care about all these details. As a consequence, a summarizing quality label is computed.
How to compute such a summarizing quality label? The presence or absence of observations of the parent body usually makes a huge difference in the confidence one can have in forecasting. Similarly, the concatenation of different data to provide a general view or to compute the background of a meteor shower is generally less accurate than the case of an encounter with a single trail.
As a consequence here is the choice made to define the different labels:
- “G”: good quality: the forecasting is provided for a single year, is caused by a single trail ejected by an observed passage of a parent body. Typical case is the Leonids 2001, see sec. \[sec:appli\].
- “F”: fair: all cases that are neither good nor “poor”.
- “P”: poor: the forecasting was performed using the concatenation of several years (background) for a poorly observed parent body, or for highly perturbed trails for which the close encounters happened before/after the first/last observation of the parent body.
Applications to famous showers {#sec:appli}
==============================
The goal of this section is to provide the reader with some direct applications and illustrations of what was briefly presented above. For the purpose of this paper I will focus on a few famous showers. Table \[tab:appli\] includes several post-predictions of these showers, and the comments for each case are as follows.
1. This famous Leonid outburst was correctly predicted. The stability of the parent orbit allowed a great confidence, enhanced by the fact that the comet 55P was observed before and after the simulated trail (1767). Although its activity at this time was not observed it worked very well.
2. Global prediction for the 2001 Leonids: the level is clearly too high, because of the contribution of several trails causing several outbursts. In such a case the predictions are not accurate at all. This method should therefore be used only for years that do not present any outburst.
3. 2003 Leonids caused by the 1499 trail: an outburst of ZHR 100/hr was predicted, but the close encounter index is very high, raising doubts regarding this number. Indeed, an outburst of only $\sim 30$/hr was reported by [@Arlt2004].
4. and 4b: 2011 Draconids outburst from two different trails: one was observed (1900) but not the other (1894). The CE factor is not really different between the two cases, but the absence of observations for the 1894 trail makes the forecasting less confident. The observed level was indeed lower than expected [@Koten2014].
5. 2009 Perseids from a global consideration: only five perihelion returns of the comet were observed, out of 17 simulated.
6. 2009 Perseids outburst caused by the 441 trail, by selecting all the particles crossing the path of the Earth (i.e. ejected at all perihelion passages). The trail is highly perturbed and intersects the Earth at several different times. The level of the shower is computed at the time of maximum. Because the time of maximum is computed as an average (or median) position of the particles (defining an average/median location of the stream), considering all the particles introduces a bias, because of the spread of the location of all the particles. This raises the uncertainties in the timing and level of the shower: see next item as well as Fig \[Fig:PER2009-441\] and \[Fig:PER2009\].
7. 2009 Perseids outburst caused by the 441 trail, by selecting only the particles crossing the path of the Earth (see Fig \[Fig:PER2009-441\]). This time, the particles look less spread. As a consequence the time of maximum better corresponds to the densest part of the stream encountered by the Earth. As a consequence, more particles are taken into account to compute the level. The computed level is slightly higher than previously derived. This case illustrates the importance of point \[evolv\].
8. Expected 2017 Quadrantids: the encounter factor is so high that such a prediction cannot be taken seriously. For recent modeling of the Quadrantids see [@Abedin2015].
Id Planet Shower parent year trail(s) ZHR conf. index Quality label
---- -------- ------------- --------- ------ -------------- ------ --------------- ---------------
1 Earth Leonids 55P 2001 1767 1669 SYO0/1CE0.00 G
2 Earth Leonids 55P 2001 604 to 1998 1500 GYO4/43CU0.39 F
3 Earth Leonids 55P 2003 1499 100 SYO0/1CE10.11 F
4 Earth Draconids 21P 2011 1900 214 SYO1/1CE0.00 G
4b Earth Draconids 21P 2011 1894 141 SYO0/1CE0.90 F
5 Earth Perseids 109P 2009 -68 to 1992 159. GYO5/17CU0.00 F
6 Earth Perseids 109P 2009 441 35. SYO0/1CE0.00 F
7 Earth Perseids 109P 2009 441 40. SYO0/1CE0.00 G
8 Earth Quadrantids 2003EH1 2017 1704 to 2003 7. GYO1/57CU1566 P
![2009 Perseids: the 441 trail.[]{data-label="Fig:PER2009-441"}](./PER-Noeuds-Earth2009.png){width="95.00000%"}
![2009 Perseids: the 441 trail.[]{data-label="Fig:PER2009-441"}](./PER-Noeuds-Earth2009-441.png){width="95.00000%"}
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
Several new methods to perform the forecasting, by concatenating some data are entirely new, and are inherent to the very method used (in my case [@Vaubaillon.et.al2005]). This meteor shower level forecasting confidence index is, to my knowledge, the first attempt to provide the community with a way to better understand how such tasks are performed in a sufficient way that the end user has an idea of how much (s)he can trust the results. In such, this is not perfect, and a thorough calculation might be necessary in the future, though at this point it seems an overkill to me.
An effort of simplification of this index was recently requested to the author, but additional work is needed at this point in order to keep a way to provide a lot of information in a concise way. This was my wish when constructing this index, and I hope future works will be able to bring improvements without taking anything from it.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am especially thankful to G. Valsecchi for his insight and help regarding the quantification of the effect of close encounters with the planets, as well as to D. Asher and the anonymous referee who helped making this paper better. All numerical simulations were performed at CINES supercomputer facility, Montpelier, France.
[^1]: although it does not create any meteor shower at Earth, we take this example to illustrate the use of observed passages
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By making use of the $\phi $-mapping topological current theory, a novel expression of $\nabla \times \vec{V}$ in BEC is obtained, which reveals the inner topological structure of vortex lines characterized by Hopf indices and Brouwer degrees. This expression is just that formula Landau and Feynman expected to find out long time ago. In the case of superconductivity, the decomposition theory of $U(1)$ gauge potential in terms of the condensate wave function gives a rigorous proof of London assumption, and shows that each vortex line should carry a quantized flux. The $\phi $-mapping topological current theory of $\nabla \times \vec{V}$ also provides a reasonable way to study the bifurcation theory of vortex lines in BEC.'
address: |
[*Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou University,* ]{}\
[*Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China*]{}
author:
- 'Yi-Shi Duan, Xin Liu[^1] and Peng-Ming Zhang'
title: 'Novel Theory for Topological Structure of Vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate'
---
It is well known that, as semi-phenomenological scenarios of low dimensional BEC continuum, the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation and the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) equations are of great importance. For neutral superfluid, GP equation is given by [@GPeqn] $$i\hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial t}\psi =-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\partial
_{i}^{2}\psi +V(\vec{x})\psi +\frac{4\pi \hbar ^{2}a}{m}\left| \psi \right|
^{2}\psi , \label{GP}$$and the velocity field coming from the current $J^{i}=\rho V^{i}$ $(\rho
=\left| \psi \right| ^{2})$ is defined as $$V^{i}=\frac{\hbar }{2im}\frac{(\psi ^{\ast }\partial _{i}\psi -\partial
_{i}\psi ^{\ast }\psi )}{\psi ^{\ast }\psi }, \label{vorigin}$$where $i=1,2,3$ denotes the $3$-dimensional space coordinates. For superconductor, the GL equations are known as [@GLeqn], $$\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \partial _{i}-\frac{e}{c}A_{i})^{2}\psi +a\psi +b\left|
\psi \right| ^{2}\psi =0, \label{GLeqn1}$$$$(\nabla \times \vec{B})^{i}=\frac{4\pi }{c}J^{i}, \label{GLeqn2}$$where the current $J^{i}$ is covariant under $U(1)$ gauge transformation $$J^{i}=e\rho V^{i}-\frac{e^{2}}{mc}\rho A_{i}, \label{jvA}$$with $A_{i}$ denoting the external magnetic vector potential. In GL theory the velocity take the same form as Eq.(\[vorigin\]); $m$ and $e$ should be regarded as the effective mass and the effective electric charge (especially for Cooper pair, $m$ and $e$ should be replaced by $2m$ and $2e$ respectively). In all these formulas $\psi $ denotes the order parameter, i.e., the condensate wave-function, which is a section of complex line bundle.
In theoretical and experimental studies, the curl of $\vec{V}$ is paid much attention to. For a long time, up to now, the wave-function is usually expressed in the form $$\psi =\left| \psi \right| e^{i\Theta (\vec{x})}; \label{Euler}$$ then $\vec{V}$ becomes the gradient of a velocity potential $\Theta (\vec{x}%
) $ $(\vec{V}=\frac \hbar m\nabla \Theta )$, which directly leads to a trivial curl-free result: $$\nabla \times \vec{V}=0. \label{curlfree}$$ But nearly half a century ago Onsager and Feynman found that this statement must be modified, and Landau predicted $\delta $-functions in it, namely, $%
\nabla \times \vec{V}$ can be non-zero at a singular line, the core of a quantized vortex line [@OnsFey]. Therefore, it is indispensable to study: [*what is the exact expression for* ]{}$\nabla \times \vec{V}$[*in topology theory?*]{}
In this paper, based on our $\phi $-mapping topological current theory [DuanGe]{} a novel and precise expression for $\nabla \times \vec{V}$ is obtained, which is just the topological current with inside the $\delta $-function of the order parameter. Thus isolated vortices in BEC, i.e., the topological excitation, can be naturally created from the zero points of condensate wave-function, and be characterized by the quantum numbers: Hopf indices and Brouwer degrees of $\phi $-mapping. Using the $U(1)$ gauge potential decomposition theory, the composed intrinsic electromagnetic gauge potential in terms of the wave-function is studied; so a rigorous proof of London assumption ($V_{i}=\frac{e}{mc}A_{i}$) is given, and the essence of this relation is revealed. A step further, the $\phi $-mapping topological current theory also provides a reasonable way to study the spatial bifurcation of the vortex lines, including intersection, splitting and mergence. Being different from the others, the bifurcation theory of this paper does not need to deal with the concrete form of the wave function. At last, it should be pointed out that all the conclusions of this paper do not matter with the concrete form of the nonlinear terms in Eqs.(\[GP\]) and (\[GLeqn1\]); the nonlinearity may even be generalized to a form $f(\left|
\psi \right| ^{2})$ [@DZhLprb], and all the conclusions are the same.
As a matter of fact, by means of the $\phi $-mapping theory great progress has been made in studying the topological invariants and the topological structures in many mathematical and physical topics besides here [DuanGe,DZhLprb,DLnpb,DuanFuprd,DZJijesDYJgrg,DJ,DHLprbpreepj,DHpre,DLsu(n),p-brane]{}.
$\protect\phi -$Mapping Topological Current Theory for $\protect%
\nabla \times \vec{V}$
=================================================================
The basic field of condensate wave-function $\psi (\vec{x})$ is a section of complex line bundle, i.e., a section of $2$-dimensional real vector bundle on $R^3$: $$\psi (\vec{x})=\phi ^1{\bf (}\vec{x})+i\phi ^2{\bf (}\vec{x}).$$ Following $\phi $-mapping theory a $2$-dimensional unit vector is defined as $n^a=\frac{\phi ^a}{\parallel \phi \parallel }\;(a=1,2),$ where $\parallel
\phi \parallel ^2=\phi ^a\phi ^a=\psi ^{*}\psi .\;$Substituting these formulas into Eq.(\[vorigin\]), it is easy to find out $V^i=\frac \hbar m%
\epsilon _{ab}n^a\partial _in^b,$ and the curl of $\vec{V}$ can be expressed in terms of $n^a$: $$(\nabla \times \vec{V})^i=\frac \hbar m\epsilon ^{ijk}\epsilon _{ab}\partial
_jn^a\partial _kn^b. \label{curlofv}$$ Using [$\partial _in^a=\frac{\partial _i\phi ^a}{\Vert \phi \Vert }+\phi
^a\partial _i\frac 1{\Vert \phi \Vert }$ and the Green function relation in ]{}$\phi $-[space, $\frac \partial {\partial \phi ^a}\frac \partial {\partial
\phi ^a}\ln \Vert \phi \Vert =2\pi \delta ^2(\vec{\phi}),$ ]{}one can directly prove a novel expression for ${\nabla \times }\vec{V}\ $[[@DuanGe; @DLnpb]:]{} $$(\nabla \times \vec{V})^i=\frac hm\delta ^2(\vec{\phi})D^i(\frac \phi x)=%
\frac hmj^i, \label{deltav}$$ where[ ]{}${D^i(\frac \phi x)=\frac 12\epsilon }^{ijk}{\epsilon _{ab}\partial
_j\phi ^a\partial _k\phi ^b}$ is the [Jacobian vector,]{} and $$j^i=\frac 1{2\pi }\epsilon ^{ijk}\epsilon _{ab}\partial _jn^a\partial
_kn^b=\delta ^2(\vec{\phi})D^i(\frac \phi x) \label{topcurr}$$ [is just a simple ]{}$2$-dimensional [case of the ]{}$N$-dimensional $\phi $-mapping topological current [@p-brane]. This formula including $\delta
^2(\vec{\phi})$ to describe the singularities of $\vec{\phi}$ is just the precise topological expression for $\nabla \times \vec{V}$ that Landau and Feynman expected to find out long time ago. Therefore an important conclusion is reached: $\nabla \times \vec{V}=0,\;iff\;\vec{\phi}\neq
0;\nabla \times \vec{V}\neq 0,\;iff\;\vec{\phi}=0$.
The implicit function theory shows that [@Goursat], under the regular condition $\vec{D}\left( \frac \phi x\right) \neq 0$, the general solutions of $$\phi ^1(x,y,z)=0,\;\phi ^2(x,y,z)=0 \label{phi12=0}$$ can be expressed as $$x=x_j(s),\;y=y_j(s),\;z=z_j(s),\quad (j=1,2,\cdot \cdot \cdot ,N)
\label{solution}$$ which represent $N$ isolated singular strings $L_j$ with parameter $s$. These strings are just known as the vortex lines.
In $\delta $-function theory [@Schouton], one can prove $$\delta ^{2}(\vec{\phi})=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}\int_{L_{j}}\frac{\delta
^{3}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{j}(s))}{\left| D(\frac{\phi }{u})\right| _{\Sigma _{j}}%
}ds, \label{delta}$$where $D(\frac{\phi }{u})_{\Sigma j}=(\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{jk}\epsilon _{mn}%
\frac{\partial \phi ^{m}}{\partial u^{j}}\frac{\partial \phi ^{n}}{\partial
u^{k}}),$ and $\Sigma _{j}$ is the $j$th planer element transversal to $%
L_{j} $ with local coordinates $(u^{1},u^{2})$. The positive integer $\beta
_{j}$ is the Hopf index of $\phi $-mapping. Meanwhile it can be proved that the direction vector of $L_{j}$ is $$\left( \frac{d\vec{x}}{ds}\right) _{x_{j}}=[\vec{D}(\frac{\phi }{x})/D(\frac{%
\phi }{u})_{\Sigma _{j}}]_{x_{j}}. \label{dx/ds}$$Then from Eqs.(\[delta\]) and (\[dx/ds\]) we find the important inner topological structure of $\nabla \times \vec{V}$: $$\nabla \times \vec{V}=\frac{h}{m}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}\eta
_{j}\int_{L_{j}}\frac{d\vec{x}}{ds}\delta ^{3}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{j}(s))ds,
\label{vortdelta}$$where the positive integer $\beta _{j}$ is the Hopf index of $\phi $-mapping, and $\eta _{j}$ is the Brouwer degree, $\eta _{j}=\pm 1.$ And the winding number of $\vec{\phi}$ around $L_{j}$ is $W_{j}=\beta _{j}\eta _{j}.$ Therefore the vorticity of vortex line $L_{j}$ is $\Gamma _{j}=\int_{\Sigma
_{j}}\nabla \times \vec{V}\cdot d\vec{s}=\frac{h}{m}W_{j},$ where $\Sigma
_{j}$ is the $j$th planer element transversal to $L_{j}$; and the total vorticity on a surface $\Sigma $ should be $$\Gamma =\int_{\Sigma }\nabla \times \vec{V}\cdot d\vec{s}=\frac{h}{m}%
\sum_{j=1}^{N}W_{j}. \label{integerint}$$We stress that there are no hypothesis in the deduction above. Eqs.([deltav]{}) and (\[vortdelta\]) are called the differential forms of the quantization condition, which cannot be derived from the single-valued principle of wave function, and are more essential than the integral form (Eq.(\[integerint\])).
For the GL theory, Eqs.(\[GLeqn2\]) and (\[jvA\]) lead to $$\vec{A}+\lambda ^2\nabla \times \vec{B}=\frac{mc}e\vec{V},$$ where $\lambda $ is the penetration depth, $\lambda ^2=\frac 1\rho \frac{mc^2%
}{4\pi e^2}$. In London approximation, $\rho $ and therefore $\lambda $, are treated as constants; hence when noticing $\vec{B}=\nabla \times \vec{A}$, $%
\nabla \cdot \vec{B}=0$ and Eq.(\[deltav\]), we find a topological equation for $\vec{B}$: $$\vec{B}-\lambda ^2\nabla ^2\vec{B}=\frac{mc}e\nabla \times \vec{V}=\frac{hc}e%
\delta ^2(\phi )\vec{D}(\frac \phi x).$$ This formula directly leads to $$\vec{B}-\lambda ^2\nabla ^2\vec{B}=\Phi _0\sum_{j=1}^NW_j\int_{L_j}\frac{d%
\vec{x}}{ds}\delta ^3(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_j(s))ds, \label{London3}$$ where $\Phi _0$=$\frac{hc}e$ is the unit flux quantum. We see that in simple case $W_j=1$, the above equation is just the so-called modified London equation [@modLondon; @DHLprbpreepj]. This expression says that, when the condensate wave function $\psi $ has no zero values, $\vec{\phi}\neq 0$, i.e., $\delta ^2(\vec{\phi})=0$, and $\vec{B}-\lambda ^2\nabla ^2\vec{B}=0,$ which just corresponds to the Meissner state; while in the case of mixed state, $\vec{\phi}$ possesses $N$ isolated zeros, $\delta ^2(\vec{\phi})\neq
0$, thus a type-II superconductor is penetrated by an array of $N$ vortices, with each one carrying a quantum flux proportional to the winding number $%
W_j $.
Decomposition of $U(1)$ Gauge Potential and The Vortex with Quantized Flux
==========================================================================
[* *]{}The decomposition theory of gauge potential in $SO(N)$ and $SU(N)$ gauge theories is now playing a more and more important role in theoretical studies, because it virtually inputs topological [@DLnpb; @DLsu(n)] and other important informations [@Faddeev] to the gauge potential. In the theory of superconductivity, $\psi $ is a condensate wave function describing the charged continuum, so the covariant derivative in $U(1)$ gauge theory is introduced to describe the interaction between $\psi $ and the electromagnetic field: $$D_i\psi =\partial _i\psi -i\frac e{\hbar c}A_i\psi ,\;(i=1,2,3)$$ where $A_i$ is the magnetic gauge potential vector. The complex conjugate of $D_i\psi $ is $D_i^{*}\psi ^{*}=\partial _i\psi ^{*}+i\frac e{\hbar c}%
A_i\psi ^{*}$. And the magnetic field tensor is given by $$f_{ij}=\partial _iA_j-\partial _jA_i. \label{Fij}$$ Multiplying $D_i\psi $ with $\psi ^{*}$ and $D_i^{*}\psi ^{*}$ with $\psi $ respectively, we can deduce the decomposition formula for $U(1)$ gauge potential: $$A_i(\psi )=\frac{\hbar c}{2ie}\frac 1{\psi ^{*}\psi }[(\psi ^{*}\partial
_i\psi -\partial _i\psi ^{*}\psi )-(\psi ^{*}D_i\psi -D_i^{*}\psi ^{*}\psi
)].$$ The above expression $A_i=A_i(\psi )$ means that the magnetic gauge potential possesses an inner structure in terms of charged condensate wave function $\psi $ and $\psi ^{*}$. The inner structure of $A_i(\psi )$ with Eq.(\[Fij\]) gives a theory that in superconductivity how the stationary motion of condensate wave function creates an intrinsic magnetic field. This is the important physical meaning of decomposition of $U(1)$ gauge potential in quantum mechanics.
Furthermore it has been proved that the covariant derivative part $[-(\psi
^{\ast }D_{i}\psi -D_{i}^{\ast }\psi ^{\ast }\psi )]$ corresponds to the gradient of a phase factor: $(\partial _{i}\lambda )$ [DuanFuprd,DZJijesDYJgrg]{}. Thus this covariant derivative part contributes nothing to the field tensor $f_{ij}$, so it can be ignored, and $$A_{i}(\psi )=\frac{\hbar c}{2ie}\frac{1}{\psi ^{\ast }\psi }(\psi ^{\ast
}\partial _{i}\psi -\partial _{i}\psi ^{\ast }\psi ). \label{u1pracdecom}$$It should be emphasized that the above $U(1)$ gauge potential decomposition theory together with $\phi $-mapping theory has been successfully used to study many other topological problems in physics [@DZJijesDYJgrg].
In $\phi $-mapping theory $A_i(\psi )$ can be rewritten in terms of $n^a$ as $A_i(\psi )=\frac{\hbar c}e\epsilon _{ab}n^a\partial _in^b,$ and $f_{ij}$ becomes $f_{ij}=2\frac{\hbar c}e\epsilon _{ab}\partial _in^a\partial _jn^b.$ Therefore the intrinsic magnetic field vector from $A_i(\psi )$ is expressed as $$B_i(\psi )=\frac 12\epsilon _{ijk}f_{jk}=\Phi _0\frac 1{2\pi }\epsilon
_{ijk}\epsilon _{ab}\partial _jn^a\partial _kn^b.$$ Using Eq.(\[deltav\]) we have $B_i(\psi )=\Phi _0\delta ^2(\vec{\phi})D^i(%
\frac \phi x),$ which gives the topological structure of intrinsic magnetic field $B_i(\psi )$; $B_i(\psi )$ does not matter with the external magnetic field. As before, the zero points of $\vec{\phi}(x)$, i.e., the singular vortex lines in superconductivity contribute to intrinsic magnetic field as $$B_i(\psi )=\Phi _0\sum_{j=1}^NW_j\int_{L_j}\frac{dx^i}{ds}\delta ^3(\vec{x}-%
\vec{x}_j(s))ds.$$ This leads to an important phenomenon that, the magnetic flux coming from the stationary motion of $\psi $ itself is quantized $$\Phi =\int_\Sigma \vec{B}(\psi )\cdot d\vec{s}=\Phi _0\sum_{j=1}^NW_j,
\label{phiB(a)}$$ and each singular vortex line $L_j$ carries a magnetic flux $\Phi _j=W_j\Phi
_0.$
The above decomposition theory of $U(1)$ gauge potential naturally arrives at the conclusion that, in superconductivity continuum, the $N$ isolated singular vortices are just $N$ isolated topological elementary excitations carrying with magnetic fluxoid, while their quantum numbers are characterized by topological numbers $W_j=\beta _j\eta _j$. We see that the $%
\phi $-mapping topological theory in this paper is independent of concrete physical models, that gives a profound understanding to the nature of the creation of the vortex lines and the flux quantization in BEC.
Comparing Eq.(\[u1pracdecom\]) with Eq.(\[vorigin\]) it directly follows a simple relation between $V_{i}$ and $A_{i}$$$V_{i}=\frac{e}{mc}A_{i}, \label{Viai}$$which is just the London’s assumption [@London]. We stress that, the essence and the significance of this relation are not truly realized until now the inner structure of gauge potential is revealed and therefore the stationary motion of condensate wave function is naturally related to the intrinsic magnetic field.
Spatial Bifurcation of Vortex Lines
===================================
The Solution (\[solution\]) of Eq.(\[phi12=0\]) is based on the condition $\vec{D}\left( \phi /x\right) \neq 0$. When it fails, i.e., $$\vec{D}\left( \frac \phi x\right) =0 \label{det-bif}$$ at some points (marked as $\vec{r}_j^{*}$) along $L_j$, the functional relationship between coordinate $x$ and $z$, or $y$ and $z$ is not unique in the neighborhood of $\vec{r}_j^{*}$, because the direction of the zero line expressed by $$\frac{dx}{dz}=D^1\left( \frac \phi x\right) /D^3\left( \frac \phi x\right)
|_{\vec{r}_j^{*}},\;\frac{dy}{dz}=D^2\left( \frac \phi x\right) /D^3\left(
\frac \phi x\right) |_{\vec{r}_j^{*}}$$ is indefinite at $\vec{r}_j^{*}$. Hence this very point $\vec{r}_j^{*}$ is called a bifurcation point of the two-component vector in $3$-dimensional space.
According to the $\phi $-mapping theory, the Taylor expansion of the solution of Eq.(\[phi12=0\]) in the neighborhood of $\vec{r}_{j}^{\ast }$ can be generally expressed as [@DLnpb; @DHLprbpreepj]: $A(x-x_{j}^{\ast
})^{2}+2B(x-x_{j}^{\ast })(z-z_{j}^{\ast })+C(z-z_{j}^{\ast })^{2}+\cdot
\cdot \cdot =0,$ where $A,\;B$ and $C$ are constants. This leads to $$A(\frac{dx}{dz})^{2}+2B\frac{dx}{dz}+C=0\;or\;C(\frac{dz}{dx})^{2}+2B\frac{dz%
}{dx}+A=0. \label{ABC}$$The solutions of Eq.(\[ABC\]) give different branches of the zero lines, i.e., the vortex lines at bifurcation points. In following four main cases in the branch process are simply discussed (the detailed deduction and figures may be found in Ref [@DHLprbpreepj; @DZhLprb]):
Case 1 ($A\neq 0$): For $\Delta =4(B^2-AC)>0$, from Eq.(\[ABC\]) we get two different spatial directions at the bifurcation point $$\frac{dx}{dz}\mid _{1,2}=\frac{-B\pm \sqrt{B^2-AC}}A. \label{case1a}$$ This is the intersection of two vortex lines of different directions.
Case 2 ($A\neq 0$): For $\Delta =4(B^2-AC)=0$, we get only one direction at the point $$\frac{dx}{dz}\mid _{1,2}=-\frac BA, \label{case2a}$$ which includes three sub-cases: (a) Two vortex lines tangentially intersect; (b) Two vortex lines merge into one line; (c) One vortex line splits into two lines.
Case 3 ($A=0,\,C\neq 0$): For $\Delta =4(B^2-AC)>0$, from Eq.(\[ABC\]) we have $$\frac{dz}{dx}\mid _{1,2}=\frac{-B\pm \sqrt{B^2-AC}}C=0,-\frac{2B}C.
\label{case3a}$$ There are two sub-cases: (a) Three vortex lines merge into one line; (b) One vortex line splits into three lines.
Case 4 ($A=C=0$): Eq.(\[ABC\]) gives respectively $$\frac{dx}{dz}=0,\;\frac{dz}{dx}=0. \label{case4a}$$ This case shows that two curves normally intersect at the bifurcation point, which is similar to case 3.
It should be noted that, [noticing ]{}the continuity [of topological current ]{}$%
\vec{j}$ from Eq.(\[topcurr\]) ($\partial _ij^i=0$), at the bifurcation point the sum of the topological charge of final vortex line(s) is required to be equal to that of the initial line(s) for a fixed index $j$: $%
\sum_f\beta _{j_f}\eta _{j_f}=\sum_i\beta _{j_i}\eta _{j_i}.$
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation and the Doctor Education Fund of Educational Department of the People’s Republic of China.
E. P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento [**20**]{}, 454 (1961); L. P. Pitaevskii, JETP [**13**]{}, 451 (1961)
E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, [*Statistical Physics*]{}, Part II (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980); J. R. Schrieffer, [*Theory of Superconductivity*]{} (Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., 1964)
L. Onsager, Nuovo Cimento [**6**]{} (Suppl. 2), 249 (1949); R. P. Feynman, [*Progress in Low Temperature Physics*]{} (ed. C. G. Gorter) vol. I, 17-51 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1955)
Y. S. Duan, M. L. Ge, Sci. Sin. [**11**]{}, 1072 (1979); Y. S. Duan and X. H. Meng, J. Math. Phys. [**34**]{}, 1149 (1993)
Y. S. Duan, P. M. Zhang and X. Liu, accepted by Phys. Rev. B
Y. S. Duan, S. Li and G. H. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**514**]{}, 705 (1998); Y. S. Duan and L. B. Fu, J. Math. Phys. [**39**]{}, 4343 (1998);
L. B. Fu, Y. S. Duan and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 045004 (2000)
Y. S. Duan and S. L. Zhang, Int. J. Eng. Sci. [**30**]{}, 153 (1992); Y. S. Duan, G. H. Yang and Y. Jiang, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**29**]{}, 715 (1997)
Y. S. Duan, Y. Jiang and T. Xu, Phys. Lett. A [**252**]{}, 307 (1999); Y. S. Duan, T. Xu and L. B. Fu, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**101**]{}, 467 (1999); Y. S. Duan, T. Xu and G. H. Yang, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**102**]{}, 785 (1999)
Y. S. Duan, H. Zhang and S. Li, Phys. Rev. B [**58,**]{} 125 (1998); Eur. Phys. J. D [**5**]{}, 47 (1999); H. Zhang,Y. S. Duan and B. B. Hu, Europhys. Lett. [**52,**]{} 101 (2000)
Y. S. Duan, H. Zhang and L. B. Fu, Phys. Rev. E [**59,**]{} 528 (1999); Y. S. Duan and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E [**60,**]{} 2568 (1999)
S. Li, Y. Zhang and Z. Y. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 201 (2000)
Y. S. Duan, L. B. Fu and G. Jia, J. Math. Phys. [**41,**]{} 4379 (2000)
É. Goursat, [*A Course in Mathematical Analysis*]{}, vol. I (translated by Earle Raymond Hedrick, 1904)
J. A. Schouton, [*Tensor Analysis for Physicists* ]{}(Clarendon, Oxford, 1951)
P. G. de Gennes, [*Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys*]{} (Benjamin, New York, 1966); E. G. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1465 (1995)
L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82,**]{} 1624 (1999); Phys. Lett. B [**449,** ]{}214 (1999); Phys. Lett. B [**464,**]{} 90 (1999)
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands, [*Lectures on Physics,* ]{}vol. III (Addison-Wesley, 1965)
[^1]: Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe an ultra-wide-bandwidth, low-frequency receiver (‘UWL’) recently installed on the Parkes radio telescope. The receiver system provides continuous frequency coverage from 704 to 4032MHz. For much of the band ($\sim$60%) the system temperature is approximately 22K and the receiver system remains in a linear regime even in the presence of strong mobile phone transmissions. We discuss the scientific and technical aspects of the new receiver including its astronomical objectives, as well as the feed, receiver, digitiser and signal-processor design. We describe the pipeline routines that form the archive-ready data products and how those data files can be accessed from the archives. The system performance is quantified including the system noise and linearity, beam shape, antenna efficiency, polarisation calibration and timing stability.'
author:
- |
G. Hobbs$^1$[^1], R.N. Manchester$^1$, A. Dunning$^1$, A. Jameson$^2$, P. Roberts$^1$, D. George$^1$, J.A. Green$^3$, J. Tuthill$^1$, L. Toomey$^1$, J.F. Kaczmarek$^{1,4}$, S. Mader$^4$, M. Marquarding$^1$, A. Ahmed$^1$, S. W. Amy$^1$, M. Bailes$^{2,6}$, R. Beresford$^1$, N.D.R. Bhat$^5$, D.C.-J. Bock$^1$, M. Bourne$^1$, M. Bowen$^1$, M. Brothers$^1$, A.D. Cameron$^1$, E. Carretti$^{7}$, N. Carter$^1$, S. Castillo$^1$, R. Chekkala$^1$, W. Cheng$^1$, Y. Chung$^1$, D.A. Craig$^1$, S. Dai$^1$, J.R. Dawson$^8$, J. Dempsey$^{9,10}$, P. Doherty$^1$, B. Dong$^{11}$, P.G. Edwards$^1$, T. Ergesh$^{12}$, X.Y. Gao$^{11}$, J.L. Han$^{11}$, D.B. Hayman$^1$, B.T. Indermuehle$^1$, K. Jeganathan$^1$, S. Johnston$^1$, H. Kanoniuk$^1$, M. Kesteven$^1$, M. Kramer$^{13}$, M. Leach$^1$, V.J. Mcintyre$^1$, V.A. Moss$^{1,14,16}$, S. Os[ł]{}owski$^2$, C.J. Phillips$^1$, N.C. Pope$^1$, B. Preisig$^4$, D.C. Price$^2$, K. Reeves$^4$, L. Reilly$^1$, J.E. Reynolds$^1$, T. Robishaw$^{15}$, P. Roush$^1$, T. Ruckley$^4$, E.M. Sadler$^{1,16}$, J. Sarkissian$^4$, S. Severs$^1$, R.M. Shannon$^{2,6}$, K.W. Smart$^1$, M. Smith$^4$, S.L. Smith$^1$, C. Sobey$^{3}$, L. Staveley-Smith$^{17}$, A.K. Tzioumis$^1$, W. van Straten$^{18}$, N. Wang$^{12}$, L. Wen$^{19}$, M. T. Whiting$^1$\
\
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'An ultra-wide bandwidth (704 to 4032MHz) receiver for the Parkes radio telescope'
---
Instrumentation – Receivers. Radio-astronomy
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
{width="13cm"}
The Parkes 64-m diameter telescope remains a cutting-edge instrument because of the numerous upgrades that have occurred since it was built in 1961 (see, for example, @edw12). Astronomical requirements have continued to push for receivers that have wider fields of view and/or wider observing bandwidths. Multibeam receivers, such as the 13-beam 20cm receiver [@swb+96] and the 7-beam “methanol” receiver [@green2009], have successfully carried out large-scale survey observations. More recently, an Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) phased array feed has been productively trialled at Parkes [@dch+17; @rey17].
A dual-band receiver has been the primary receiver system for the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array project (PPTA; @mhb+13), which carries out high precision timing observations of pulsars in the hunt for ultra-low-frequency gravitational waves. That receiver, installed in 2003, initially covered the 653–717MHz (50cm) and 2.6–3.6GHz (10cm) bands and so was dubbed the ‘10/50’ receiver. As a result of increasing radio-frequency interference (RFI) in the 50cm band, the receiver was re-tuned to cover the 700–764MHz (40cm) band in 2009, and so was renamed the ‘10/40’ receiver. The dual-band nature of the receiver enables accurate determinations of pulsar dispersion measure variations (essential for the detection of low-frequency gravitational waves, e.g., @kcs+13), but misses the key 20cm observing band and leads to incomplete frequency coverage of the pulsar observations (see for example @dhm+15). This gap was partially filled by observations using the central beam of the 13-beam 20cm receiver. The dual-band receiver has also been used for continuum studies [@car10] although low frequency spectroscopic observations have primarily used the 20cm multi-beam (1.2–1.5GHz) and H-OH (1.2–1.8GHz) receivers.
With its frequency coverage of 704 to 4032MHz, the new ultra-wide-bandwidth low-frequency receiver (UWL) described here covers, and extends, the combined frequency ranges of these three existing receiver packages. It is the first in a suite of new receivers planned for Parkes that will provide continuous frequency coverage from $\sim$700MHz to $\sim$24GHz (hence the “low-frequency” qualifier in the name). Although other radio observatories have already installed ultra-wide-bandwidth receivers[^2], none have the large fractional bandwidth and low system temperature of the UWL. A receiver covering from 600 to 3000MHz was installed on the Effelsberg telescope[^3] and demonstrated the requirement for the entire system to remain in a linear operating regime in the presence of strong, out-of-band RFI. The first discoveries [@qian19] made with the Five Hundred Metre Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) were obtained with a receiver of similar design covering from 300MHz to 1.6GHz. However, that receiver system was not cryogenically cooled and provided optimal performance only at the low end of the band.
The primary scientific goals for the UWL were originally envisioned to be tests of theories of relativistic gravitation including the search for gravitational waves (a review is provided in @hd17), probing neutron star interiors (such as @dpr+10) and investigations into the magnetic field structure of our Galaxy (for example, @hmvd18 and @ccs+13). Furthermore, the receiver enables numerous and diverse science projects, including those relating to high precision pulsar timing, studying the broad-band nature of pulsar profiles and discovering new pulsars and transient sources. It enables simultaneous observations of the low (722.49 and 724.79MHz[^4]) and high-frequency (3263.79, 3335.47 and 3349.19MHz) methylidyne radical (CH) transitions, hydroxyl (OH) transitions (1612.23, 1665.40, 1667.36, 1720.53MHz) and a number of recombination lines. The neutral hydrogen (H[i]{}) line at 1420.41MHz is covered at its rest frequency through to a redshift of $\sim$1. Detections of red-shifted H[i]{} absorption in this previously largely inaccessible band with ASKAP have demonstrated the advantages of broad frequency coverage (e.g., @all15). Similarly, the UWL receiver can be used for studies of extra-galactic OH masers [e.g., @2002AJ....124..100D]. Furthermore, the overlapping frequency coverage between the UWL and ASKAP allows Parkes to provide the critical large-angular-scale structure (zero-spacing) data sets to complement the interferometric datasets produced by ASKAP (which has a minimum baseline of 22m). The UWL enables observations requiring Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) in conjunction with a diverse range of national and international telescopes. In this paper, we describe the recent upgrade to the Parkes telescope with the UWL and its various components. The receiver and its associated signal-processing systems were installed on the telescope and commissioned during 2018.
The primary components of the system are shown schematically in Figure \[fg:overview\]. The Parkes telescope is a prime focus system with a focal ratio of 0.41. The focus cabin includes a “translator system” that enables a specific receiver system to be placed on axis. The UWL receiver system is mounted on a plate that also has space available for future high-frequency receivers (that will extend the frequency coverage to $\sim$24 GHz). It includes the cryogenically cooled feed and low-noise amplifiers (LNAs), the noise injection system, the radio-frequency (RF) amplifier chain and, for the first time at Parkes, digitisers that sample the entire RF band for each polarisation and stream this data over high-speed serial links, transported on single-mode optical fibres to the telescope tower. The signal pre-processor system in the tower receives the digitised data and produces critically-sampled data streams for 26 sub-bands, each with a 128MHz bandwidth. The sub-band data streams are passed to an astronomy signal-processor system based on Graphics Processor Units (GPUs) known as “Medusa”[^5] that processes each of the sub-bands separately. The processing can involve forming polarisation products, folding these signals at the known period of a pulsar, producing data streams suitable for pulsar and transient searching, or producing high frequency resolution data sets for the study of spectral lines and the radio-continuum background. The output of the astronomy signal processor is transferred to a data-staging server, known as “Euryale”[^6], that produces archive-ready data products. Astronomers can access the resulting data products from various on-line archives.
The paper is divided into sections describing the receiver system (§\[sec:receiver\]), the signal processing system (§\[sec:signalProcessor\]), the timing and synchronisation system (§\[sec:timing\]), the system performance (§\[sec:systemPerformance\]) and the RFI environment (§\[sec:rfi\]). In the Appendices we define the terms used in our paper, describe the content of a publicly downloadable data collection and provide more details on the parameterisation of the receiver system. Finally we briefly present the author contributions to this work.
{width="17cm"}
THE RECEIVER SYSTEM {#sec:receiver}
===================
The receiver system consists of the feed and LNAs, both of which are cryogenically cooled, and the RF amplifier chain. [@dbb+15] described the basic properties of the feed. The design is shown in the left-hand panel of Figure \[fg:feed\] and is based on a quad-ridged horn. The middle and right-hand panels of this Figure show different visualisations of the complete receiver package. This design provides a wide bandwidth with comparable performance to narrower-band systems by making use of a central dielectric spear to improve the beam properties at high frequencies, and a corrugated skirt to improve the beam properties at low frequencies.
The dielectric spear consists of three layers giving a graded dielectric constant: a central quartz section, a solid polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; more commonly known as Teflon$^{\rm TM}$) section and a slotted PTFE outer section. The feed horn operates over the frequency range $\sim$700MHz to $\sim$4.5GHz and provides two nominally orthogonal linear polarisations, each with symmetric outputs. The exceptionally wide frequency coverage of the feed required the development of cryogenically cooled LNAs with large dynamic range that cover the entire band. The three-stage LNAs are cooled to 20K, the feed horn and the dielectric spear are cooled to 70K and the outer feed rings are at ambient temperature (because of thermal losses, there is a temperature gradient across the dielectric spear; see @sds+19 for more detail). Following the cryogenically cooled LNAs, the signals from the two polarisations are further amplified by ambient-temperature amplifiers before digitisation. To assist with the mitigation of RFI, the UWL band for each polarisation is split into three sub-octave RF bands using a triplexer (created using a power splitter and a diplexer) and band-limiting filters. These bands are separately amplified and digitised. As shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[fg:samplebands\], the three RF bands (labelled Bands 1 to 3) have a relatively flat response over the corresponding digital bands, which cover from 704–1344MHz, 1344–2368MHz and 2368–4032MHz (see §\[sec:signalProcessor\] for more detail on the digital bands). The separate sub-octave RF bands provide protection against inter-modulation products from strong RFI signals affecting other parts of the UWL band. Switchable attenuators allow the choice of signal level for the three RF bands, with RF Band 1 requiring significantly more attenuation than the other two because of the strong RFI in this band. Default attenuator settings ensure that each band normally remains in a linear regime in the presence of RFI[^7].
A key aspect of the design was to digitise the signals at RF in the focus cabin and then to transmit digital signals to the telescope tower that contains the signal-processor instrumentation. The alternative of using analogue RF-over-fibre for the long ($\sim 150$ m) path to the tower was rejected because of potential linearity issues related to the strong RFI, particularly for RF Band 1. Also, analogue transmission over such a long path would be subject to differential delays in the two polarisations with varying ambient conditions, leading to instabilities in derived polarisation parameters.
The UWL cannot be rotated (both software and hardware limits are in place to ensure this) and the linear polarisations have been aligned at $\pm$45$^\circ$ to the elevation axis of the antenna. The UWL feed design precludes the injection of noise into the feed horn. The artificial noise signal is therefore coupled directly to the inputs of the LNAs. Note that the coupling is non-directional; see Section \[sec:systemPerformance\]. We also have a capability to radiate noise directly into the feed from a transmitter on the surface of the dish. However, this is currently not used in any standard observing mode. It is possible to vary the amplitude of the injected signal; for the results presented here, the amplitude was between 1 and 2K across the band.
The noise temperature of the LNAs, $T_{\rm LNA}$, was determined using laboratory measurements in a cryogenic test dewar. The results are shown as the solid, cyan line in the upper panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\] and is close to 5K across the entire band. The system temperature (note that, as we are not attempting a rigorous analysis here, we ignore efficiencies and beam-pattern weightings) is the sum of several components, which are individually defined below: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm sys} &=& T_{\rm rcvr} + T_{\rm atm} + T_{\rm Gal} + T_{\rm CMB} + \\ \nonumber
& & T_{\rm spill} + T_{\rm scatt} + T_{\rm RFI}.\end{aligned}$$\[eq:tsys\] The $T_{\rm rcvr}$ measurements (which include $T_{\rm LNA}$), also shown in the top panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\], were made at the Parkes observatory site with the receiver on the ground facing up, using an ambient-temperature absorber as a hot load and the sky as a cold load. $T_{\rm rcvr}$, which includes contributions from losses in the feed, is $\sim 9$K across most of the band, rising from around 3GHz to $\sim 18$K at $\sim$4GHz.
To determine the expected $T_{\rm sys}$ we assumed an atmospheric contribution ($T_{\rm atm}$) of around 2K at these observing frequencies (@smi82). The contribution of “spill-over” radiation, $T_{\rm spill}$, from the ground entering the feed past the main reflector was estimated by integrating the feed response falling outside the reflector, assuming a ground temperature of 290K. This is shown in Figure \[fg:tsys\] as the green line. The relatively large variations are caused by frequency-dependent fluctuations in outer parts of the feed beam pattern. $T_{\rm scatt}$ is radiation from any source scattered into the feed from the telescope structure (our modelling does not account for scattering). As far as possible, RFI is eliminated from the signal (see §\[sec:rfi\]) and so we do not consider it further in this section.
The sky temperature depends upon the Galactic location being observed. An estimate of $T_{\rm Gal}$ was obtained from the reprocessed [@hssw82] 408MHz image of [@rdb+15] for the approximate sky position relevant to the measurements and assuming a spectral index of $-2.6$ (see range of values in @lmop87 for more details). Note that both the [@hssw82] and [@rdb+15] image scales include the cosmic microwave background contribution, $T_{\rm CMB}$, and so this was subtracted from the image value before scaling to the required frequency. All these contributions have been plotted in the upper panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\] with the summation being shown as the upper, solid, black line.
The measured on-telescope system temperature ($T_{\rm sys}$) as a function of frequency is shown in the top panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\] and tabulated in Table \[tb:subbands\]. These measurements were obtained by comparing spectra obtained with an ambient-temperature absorber over the feed with spectra obtained when observing the sky. The $T_{\rm sys}$ measurements were carried out with the telescope pointed at the zenith when both the Sun and the Galactic centre were below the horizon (between UTC 12:00 and 20:00 each day over the period 2018 October 29 to 31). The $T_{\rm sys}$ values match, or significantly improve on, all current and previous Parkes receivers covering the same observing bands (see horizontal bars in Figure \[fg:tsys\]). The predicted $T_{\rm sys}$ (from Equation \[eq:tsys\]) is within a few Kelvin of the measured value over most of the band, with slightly larger discrepancies at the low and high ends. At the low end, the discrepancy could easily be accounted by a small under-estimation of the spillover. At the high end, it may result from scattered power from various sources, including the telescope structure itself, entering the feed and/or leakage of ground radiation through the outer parts of the reflector. We note that these $T_{\rm sys}$ measurements were determined from the output of the RF-chain and do not include any extra noise contributions from the digitiser and signal processor systems.
The black line in the bottom panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\] shows the expected aperture efficiency for the UWL as installed on the Parkes 64-m telescope. As described by [@sds+19] these were determined using laboratory-based measurements of the feed radiation patterns with a model of the telescope. The calculated efficiency is around 65% over the observing band. We compare these results with the astronomically-measured efficiencies described below. The upper, blue line in the bottom panel of Figure \[fg:tsys\] provides an estimate of the main beam efficiency. These values were also determined from the measured feed patterns using Equation \[eqn:mainBeam\]. Across most of the band, the mean main beam efficiency is $\sim 0.96$, reducing to $\sim 0.92$ at the low-frequency end of the band.
THE SIGNAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS {#sec:signalProcessor}
=============================
The two polarisation channels for each of the three bands are digitised in the focus cabin[^8]. The analogue-to-digital converters (ADCs) provide 12-bit resolution samples that are formatted into serial data streams complying with the JESD204B (Joint Electron Device Engineering Council Standard Document 204 Revision B) protocol for serially connected data converters. These signals are transported to the signal processors in the telescope tower via single-mode optical fibres, with two fibres required per digitiser[^9]. The ADCs operate at one of two separate sampling frequencies, 2560MHz and 4096MHz, to ensure unbroken frequency coverage of the observing band from 704MHz to 4032MHz, as is shown in Figure \[fg:samplebands\].
The six digitiser data streams (nine when the focus cabin RFI reference signal is implemented, see §7) are fed to a pre-processor unit in the telescope tower which utilises Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) to implement polyphase frequency channelisers that produce 26 contiguous sub-bands each 128 MHz wide for each polarisation (see Table \[tb:subbands\]). The pre-processor subsystem is built around a commercial platform with a Xilinx$^{\textregistered}$ Kintex$^{\textregistered}$ Ultrascale$^{\rm TM}$ FPGA and 8 Quad Small Form-factor Pluggable (QSFP) cages for data exchange. Each FPGA board receives data from two ADCs and eight such boards are housed in custom-made enclosures totalling eight rack units. The total designed capacity is 32GHz (256 channels of 128MHz) of real-time processing bandwidth and 1.28Tb/s of Ethernet data output.
Currently, each sub-band delivered by the pre-processor is produced using a critically-sampled polyphase filterbank. To eliminate the effects of aliasing at the sub-band edges, an oversampled polyphase filterbank is planned, but has not yet been implemented. There are two separate versions of the FPGA signal processing firmware to match the two ADC sampling frequencies. The primary differences between the two firmware versions are the number of output sub-bands and the length of the Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter for the polyphase channelisers. For the 4096MHz sample clock firmware, there are 16 output sub-bands and 1024 coefficients in the channeliser filter. For the 2560MHz sample clock there are 10 output sub-bands and 640 coefficients in the channeliser filter. The channeliser FIR filters are carefully designed to achieve the best balance between pass-band flatness and attenuation of out-of-band components while also maintaining steep transition bands to minimise gain loss at the sub-band edges and aliasing between sub-bands. The FIR filters are designed using a least squares algorithm with a Kaiser window function to smooth the resulting impulse response, and have a pass-band ripple of approximately 0.02dB with a transition at the band-edges crossing the adjacent sub-band at $-$6dB. The relationship of the sub-band frequencies to ADC sampling frequencies is illustrated in the top panel of Figure \[fg:samplebands\] and tabulated in Table \[tb:subbands\].
The polyphase filterbank is designed to preserve full numerical precision throughout both the FIR and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) stages. Accordingly, there is “bit-growth” from the input 12 bits from the ADCs to 23 bits at the filterbank sub-band outputs. A number representation of 23 bits is not compatible with a CPU/GPU computational environment and would also require significant additional network infrastructure to transport. For these reasons, a scaling module is implemented for each sub-band output to reduce the number representation down to 16 bits (signed two’s-complement). This scaling operation is an area where dynamic range issues of numerical overflow, underflow or saturation can occur, so the location of the 16bits that are selected from the input 23 can be controlled through software-adjustable fixed gain that has eight settings ranging exponentially from unity gain through to a gain of 128.
The output data streams from the FPGA pre-processor are sent as multicast Ethernet packets as 10Gb/s Ethernet (10 GbE) to a 64-port Cisco$^{\textregistered}$ 3164Q network switch (they are aggregated as 4$\times$10GbE on a 40GbE port on the switch). During observations, the GPU-based Medusa signal processor subscribes to the multicast streams and runs further processing on them to form science data products, as described below. For the UWL RF bands, the FPGA signal processor outputs data as User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets of size 8272B, each containing a single “Data Frame”, as defined in the VLBI Data Interchange Format [@whi09] specification (VDIF; <http://www.vlbi.org/vdif/>). The FPGA pre-processor outputs a total of 52 VDIF UDP streams, one for each polarisation of each sub-band, with 128MHz bandwidth using complex sampling and 16-bit resolution per complex component; the total ingest data rate at the switch is 215Gb/s.
[llcllllllll]{} Sub- & RF& Freq. & Central & Median & Median & $\epsilon_{\rm ap}^{\rm sim}$ & $\epsilon_B$ & FWHM & Band\
band&band & range & Freq. & $T_{\rm sys}$ & $S_{\rm sys}$ & & & & Use\
&& (MHz) & (MHz) & (K) &(Jy) & & & (deg) & (%)\
0 &1& 704–832 & 768 & 39 & 49 & 0.70 & 0.92 & 0.43 & 31\
1 &1& 832–960 & 896 & 31 & 45 & 0.69 & 0.95 & 0.38 & 24\
2 &1& 960–1088 & 1024 & 22 & 38 & 0.66 & 0.96 & 0.35 & 65\
3 &1& 1088–1216 & 1152 & 22 & 38 & 0.60 & 0.97 & 0.32 & 58\
4 &1& 1216–1344 & 1280 & 22 & 38 & 0.64 & 0.96 & 0.27 & 68\
\
5 &2& 1344–1472 & 1408 & 23 & 34 & 0.65 & 0.95 & 0.25 & 91\
6 &2& 1472–1600 & 1536 & 23 & 36 & 0.67 & 0.95 & 0.23 & 79\
7 &2& 1600–1728 & 1664 & 22 & 33 & 0.67 & 0.95 & 0.20 & 85\
8 &2& 1728–1856 & 1792 & 22 & 34 & 0.66 & 0.97 & 0.20 & 67\
9 &2& 1856–1984 & 1920 & 22 & 36 & 0.67 & 0.94 & 0.18 & 75\
10 &2& 1984–2112 & 2048 & 22 & 36 & 0.65 & 0.96 & 0.18 & 92\
11 &2& 2112–2240 & 2176 & 19 & 36 & 0.64 & 0.95 & 0.17 & 76\
12 &2& 2240–2368 & 2304 & 21 & 39 & 0.62 & 0.96 & 0.18 & 62\
\
13 &3& 2368–2496 & 2432 & 21 & 39 & 0.62 & 0.96 & 0.16 & 27\
14 &3& 2496–2624 & 2560 & 21 & 39 & 0.61 & 0.95 & 0.16 & 92\
15 &3& 2624–2752 & 2688 & 21 & 41 & 0.65 & 0.96 & 0.15 & 84\
16 &3& 2752–2880 & 2816 & 20 & 39 & 0.64 & 0.96 & 0.14 & 92\
17 &3& 2880–3008 & 2944 & 20 & 39 & 0.62 & 0.96 & 0.13 & 92\
18 &3& 3008–3136 & 3072 & 21 & 39 & 0.64 & 0.95 & 0.13 & 91\
19 &3& 3136–3264 & 3200 & 20 & 43\* & 0.64 & 0.97 & 0.14 & 92\
20 &3& 3264–3392 & 3328 & 20 & 45\* & 0.62 & 0.96 & 0.13 & 92\
21 &3& 3392–3520 & 3456 & 21 & 44\* & 0.63 & 0.96 & 0.10 & 84\
22 &3& 3520–3648 & 3584 & 23 & 48\* & 0.63 & 0.96 & 0.12 & 79\
23 &3& 3648–3776 & 3712 & 23 & 53\* & 0.61 & 0.96 & 0.10 & 92\
24 &3& 3776–3904 & 3840 & 25 & 70\* & 0.60 & 0.96 & 0.11 & 91\
25 &3& 3904–4032 & 3968 & 27 & 72\* & 0.59 & 0.95 & 0.11 & 78\
The use of multicast Ethernet allows copies of the data to be sent not only to Medusa, but also to the Breakthrough Listen (BL) data recorder [@Price:2018]. Data is transported from the UWL switch to the BL switch via eight 40GbE links, which are configured as an aggregated group using Link Aggregration Control Protocol (LACP).
The Medusa GPU cluster
----------------------
Medusa consists of nine rack-mounted, server-class machines, each equipped with dual Intel Xeon CPUs, 128 GB of random access memory, two 40Gb/s Network Interface Cards (NICs), four NVIDIA Titan X GPUs and an array of Solid State Disks (SSD). The 26 sub-bands are distributed across the nine Medusa servers, with each dual polarisation sub-band being received into a large, shared memory, PSRDADA (<http://psrdada.sourceforge.net/>) ring buffer. The sub-bands are then processed independently on the GPUs to form the desired astronomical data products. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spip</span> (<http://github.com/ajameson/spip>) and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dspsr</span> [@vb11] software libraries are used to form the output data products for pulsar timing, pulsar searching or single-pulse studies, transient searching, spectral line and continuum studies and/or VLBI. These are written to the local file systems, and then transferred via a 40Gb/s NIC to the Euryale data-staging server.
For all astronomy modes and all sub-bands, Medusa first performs signal-processing tasks, such as unpacking the VDIF data streams from the FPGA pre-processor and converting the signals to upper side-band (increasing sky frequency with channel number). Optional functions include the ability to adaptively mitigate RFI if a reference RFI data stream is available, and the formation of calibration spectra if a switched noise source is operating. After this initial processing, each 128-MHz sub-band is passed to the primary signal-processing system, which produces the requested astronomy data products.
Pulsar-related (search and fold mode) processing tasks have been developed around the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dspsr</span> software suite [@vb11]. Coherent de-dispersion can be applied to both pulsar fold and search mode observations. Such de-dispersion removes the intra-channel dispersive delays, but not the inter-channel delays.
The specific astronomical observing modes, which may be independently configured for each of the 26 sub-bands, are as follows:
- [**Pulsar folding:**]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dspsr</span> acquires the pulsar ephemerides from a copy of the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue [@mhth05] and user-generated pulsar parameters and uses the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span> software package [@hem06] to predict the pulse topocentric period and phase. The voltage data are channelised (between 64 and 4096 channels in standard observing modes) with each channel coherently de-dispersed using a convolving filterbank algorithm. The data are then detected (the channelised voltages are converted to power) and polarisation products formed, folded into pulsar phase bins (between 8 and 4096) synchronously with the topocentric pulsar period and integrated to the desired sub-integration length (currently between 8 and 60 seconds). Either one, two or four polarisation products, respectively, AA$^*$+BB$^*$ (pseudo-Stokes I); AA$^*$, BB$^*$; and AA$^*$, BB$^*$, Real(A$^*$B), Imag(A$^*$B), where A and B are the two orthogonal polarisation signals and the $^*$ symbol indicates the complex conjugate, can be formed and recorded. The sub-integration data are then added to a PSRFITS [@hvm04] fold-mode file as 16bit values. A typical observation in this mode would have 128 channels per sub-band, 1024 phase bins, 4 polarisation products and 30 second subintegration lengths. This leads to a data rate of around 27MB per subintegration or $\sim$3GB for a 1hr observation.
- [**Pulsar searching:**]{} The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dspsr</span> package includes <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">digifits</span>, which processes the sub-band voltage data to produce a set of PSRFITS search-mode data files. The data are channelised (8 to 4096 channels) and one, two or four polarisation products formed as for fold mode. These are averaged to a specified sampling interval ($\sim 1 \mu$s to 1s) and then they are rescaled to zero mean and unit variance using a computed scale and offset. These normalised samples are scaled and requantised to 1-, 2-, 4- or 8-bit values [@jen+98]. The offset and scale are retained for each block of samples (typically 4096 samples) and recorded with the time series data allowing for reconstruction of the original signal. The data volume and rate can vary enormously, depending upon the chosen parameters. For instance, for an observation with a sampling rate of 64$\mu$s, 1024 channels/sub-band, 2-bit sampling and 1-polarisation product (typical for recent surveys) the data rate would be 100MB/s or 370GB for a 1hr observation. However, to deal with dispersion smearing an observer may wish to observe with significantly narrower channel bandwidths for the low-frequency sub-bands, and wider bandwidths for the high-frequency sub-bands.
- [**Pulsar single pulse studies and searches at a known dispersion measure (DM)**]{}: if the DM of an observed pulsar is known, or if a pulsar search is being carried out with prior knowledge of the likely DM for any pulsar (or similarly, for searching for repeated fast-radio-burst events), then it is possible to coherently de-disperse the search-mode data stream and to produce PSRFITS search-mode data files. This allows for substantially reduced frequency resolution, which may then be traded for higher time resolution. The data rate in this mode depends upon the chosen number of channels. If the pulsar DM is well known then, in theory, only a few channels are required for each sub-band, but having only a few channels can make RFI flagging challenging. A typical observation mode may have 32$\mu$s sampling, 8-bit samples, four polarisation products and 128 channels for each sub-band. This produces 400MB/sec or 1.5TB in a one hour observation.
- [**Spectral line and continuum observations**]{}: The data are channelised with up to $2^{21}$ = 2097152 channels per sub-band (equivalent to a frequency resolution of 61Hz) forming one, two or four polarisation products as for pulsar modes, with a sampling interval between 0.25 and 60 seconds. These spectra are stored in Single Dish Hierarchical Data Format (SDHDF; see below). If available, calibration spectra may be stored in each output data file. Zoom bands will soon be supported by forming spectra spanning entire sub-bands at the desired frequency resolution and then discarding unwanted channels before the final data product is formed. One restriction of the UWL system is that the digitiser sampling frequencies are fixed. It is therefore not possible to calibrate the bandpass by frequency switching. As above, the data rate can vary enormously, depending on the chosen parameters. With $2^{21}$ channels per sub-band the data rate is 436MB for each spectrum written to disk. If one spectrum is produced each second then this corresponds to 1.6TB/hr.
The switched noise source, used to provide a calibration signal, can be synchronised with the signal processing system with an observer-selected switching frequency. Medusa can then produce separate calibrator-on and calibrator-off spectra, currently implemented for calibration of spectral data. Planned upgrades will enable the user to select the type of injected calibration signal and its frequency, phase and duty-cycle (see Section \[sec:conclusion\]).
Data staging and archiving
--------------------------
The specifications for the data-staging server, Euryale, were defined so that it could receive the incoming data streams, manipulate the data files, interface with databases containing relevant information such as telescope pointing directions, have a disk buffer to store the data files and the ability to transfer the completed data files to the data archives.
To optimise performance, the incoming data streams are balanced between two 40Gb/s network cards, four (non-volatile memory express; NVMe) disks (each $\sim 4$TB in size) and two Intel Xeon CPUs each with eight cores and two threads per core. The data files can be large and the system needs to manipulate (including re-ordering and averaging) large data volumes so the Euryale server has 376GB of random access memory (RAM). The server produces archive-ready data products by combining the data files from each of the sub-bands including calibration data, applying observational metadata, and writing out files in the required data format. The completed data products are temporarily stored on a large Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) storage unit (this RAID provides a usable $\sim$86TB data store). The data files are then sent to the relevant archives.
For the spectral line and continuum data sets we have developed SDHDF, a format based on the Hierarchical Data Format definition (HDF; <https://www.hdfgroup.org/>) initially used for the HIPSR system at Parkes for recording H[i]{} observations using the 20cm multibeam receiver [@psb+16]. The SDHDF format is versatile and extendable, and able to be readily handled by modern computer languages. We are continuing to develop and define this data format and our final definition will be published elsewhere.
All archive-ready data products need to include metadata for the observation. Euryale collects metadata from the observing systems and the GPU cluster and includes these values in the final data product. We normally ensure that no individual pulsar data file becomes larger than $\sim 10$GB by splitting observation data files in time and/or frequency.
Data sets for the majority of observations with the Parkes telescope become publicly available after an 18-month proprietary period. The pulsar data sets are available from CSIRO’s data archive (<https://data.csiro.au>; @hmm+11). The spectral line and continuum data sets will be made available from the Australia Telescope Online Archive (ATOA; <https://atoa.atnf.csiro.au>) or the CSIRO ASKAP Science Data Archive, CASDA [@cha17].
TIMING AND SYNCHRONISATION {#sec:timing}
==========================
An observatory distributed clock system, which is referenced to the observatory’s hydrogen maser frequency standard, is used to derive precise 128MHz and 1Hz reference signals for the data acquistion systems. Phase-locked synchronisation signals at 2.56MHz for the 4096MHz system and 1.6MHz for the 2560MHz system, known as “SYSREF” signals, are required by the ADCs. These are derived from the 128MHz reference signals and distributed with it to the focus cabin over optical fibres. A local synthesiser in the cabin generates the sampling clocks from the 128MHz reference and distributes them to all ADCs along with a copy of the appropriate SYSREF clock. The combination of the sampling clock, SYSREF and a 1Hz gated synchronisation from the FPGA receivers, along with local copies of these signals supplied directly to the FPGA, allows for precise, repeatable synchronisation with deterministic latency. The ADCs are synchronised to a chosen SYSREF edge and therefore the synchronisation error is expected to be sub-nanosecond, relative to the maser standard. Time synchronisation to terrestrial time standards at a level of a few nanoseconds is obtained by measuring the offset between the observatory clock 1-second pulses and those from a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. These are subsequently referenced to International Atomic Time (TAI) or other time standards using time offsets published by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM)[^10].
To illustrate the timing stability of the UWL system, Figure \[fg:timing1909\] shows the pulsar timing residuals for PSR J1909$-$3744 in the 10cm observing band. This is the most stable pulsar observed by the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array project [@mhb+13]. The residuals in black were obtained using the 10cm receiver and the PDFB4 processor. Those in red are for an identical band, but obtained through the UWL system. The rms of the timing residuals (that span around 6 months) obtained with the Medusa system (over this relatively small band) is 145ns and the residuals are dominated by the uncertainty on their measurement. The UWL is clearly adequate for high-precision pulsar timing, but we will continue to test the timing precision and accuracy of the system and to improve our knowledge of the delays between this system and earlier receiver and signal processor combinations. Our intention is to determine the absolute delays required to convert any measured pulse arrival times to the intersection of the axes of the telescope (see @mhb+13 for details on how this was carried out for the PDFB4 signal processor).
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE {#sec:systemPerformance}
==================
Here we describe the system performance as measured through the entire system (from the feed to the final data products). Figure \[fg:spectra\] shows spectra with a frequency resolution of 488Hz across the three RF bands. During this 2-minute observation the telescope was pointed towards the zenith. The sub-band spectral shapes are significantly affected by RFI (see Section \[sec:rfi\]) and quasi-periodic oscillations. For instance the spectrum contains the characteristic small-scale ripple with a periodicity of $\sim 5.7$MHz (see zoomed-region in the Figure), which arises from reflections in the 26m space between the vertex and the underside of the focus cabin. The narrow-band spikes in the spectra are not yet fully understood; many will be externally generated RFI, although those at frequencies related to 1024 and 2560MHz are linked to the timing system and sampling frequencies. Band 3 has a currently uncompensated $\sim$10dB slope across the band which originates in an RF amplifier within the digitiser module. This slope and the sub-band edges are stable and can be calibrated through observations by means of the injected calibration signal.
The system equivalent flux density for the telescope with this receiver system ($S_{\rm sys}$) and the calibrator source ($S_{\rm cal}$) were determined by observing PKS B0407$-$658 and its surroundings (we note that we obtain almost identical results with the calibrator PKS B1934$-$638). Each observation lasted two minutes at positions $1^\circ$ North of PKS B0407$-$658, pointed directly at the source, $1^\circ$ to the South, again pointing at the source, and then again to the North. During each observation the noise injection is switched at a frequency of 11.123Hz. The data were processed using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Psrchive</span> program <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fluxcal</span> to produce flux calibration files for each band. This process assumes that PKS B0407$-$658 has a flux density of 15.4Jy at 1400MHz and a spectral index of $-$1.20 over the entire band (obtained from the Australia Telescope Compact Array calibrator database[^11]). The measured $S_{\rm sys}$ and $S_{\rm cal}$ values as a function of frequency are shown in the upper and lower panels of Figure \[fg:tsys\_ssys\] respectively. The lower red and blue lines in each panel of the Figure show the determinations independently for each polarisation. The upper, black line in the top panel is the more commonly quoted summation of both polarisations. The median $S_{\rm sys}$ values for each sub-band are listed in Table \[tb:subbands\].
Whereas the $T_{\rm sys}$ measurements, described in §\[sec:receiver\], were obtained from the output of the receiver system whilst the telescope was pointing at zenith, the $S_{\rm sys}$ measurements have been determined using an astronomical source through the entire UWL system (including the digitisers, FPGAs and GPU processors). The discontinuous break in the $S_{\rm sys}$ measurements seen between RF bands 1 and 2 in Figure \[fg:tsys\_ssys\] results from the extra attenuation required in Band 1 to avoid saturation effects in the analogue or digital systems which could otherwise occur because of the very strong mobile-phone transmitters in this band[^12]. As Figure \[fg:spectra\] shows, these transmitters can be up to 50 dB above the receiver noise floor. However, this extra attenuation results in a significant digitiser noise contribution, adding an extra $\sim 3$Jy to the measured system equivalent flux density.
The $S_{\rm cal}$ values clearly contain an oscillation with a $\sim 100$MHz periodicity. The noise source is injected into the LNA system, but the coupler is not directional. This oscillation is believed to result from reflection off the tip of the dielectric spear. The oscillation period and structure are stable and, to date, have not affected the calibration of astronomical data sets.
Using Equation \[eqn:eap\] in Appendix A, we can obtain estimates for the aperture efficiency, $\epsilon_{\rm ap}$, from the system equivalent flux density values and the system temperature values (Figure \[fg:tsys\_ssys\]). We note that the T$_{\rm sys}$ measurements were obtained at nighttime, with the telescope pointing at zenith using an independent spectrum analyser and hence do not include extra noise from the digitisers. However, the $S_{\rm sys}$ measurements were obtained with a telescope zenith angle of 40$^\circ$ (elevation angle of 50$^\circ$). We therefore have extra contributions to T$_{\rm sys}$ from the atmosphere, spill-over and from the digitiser system. For a typical sub-band (we have chosen sub-band 5 spanning from 1344 to 1472MHz) we estimate an extra contribution to T$_{\rm sys}$ during the PKS 0407$-$658 observations of $\sim 4$K giving $\epsilon_{\rm ap} \approx 0.7$. From Equation \[eqn:gain\] in Appendix A this converts to a gain of $G_{\rm DPFU} \sim 0.8$KJy$^{-1}$.
The feed has been designed to have a constant beam width across the band [@sds+19]. However, the telescope beam width as measured on the sky remains proportional to the observing wavelength. Theoretical full-width half power beam widths calculated from $1.02\lambda/D$ (where $\lambda$ is the observing wavelength and $D$, the telescope diameter) give 23, 12 and 4 arc minutes for 700, 1400 and 4032MHz respectively. A high dynamic-range measurement of the actual beam shape over the wide-band can be obtained by determining the flux density (Stokes I) of the Vela pulsar (PSR J0835$-$4510) as a function of the angular separation between the known pulsar position and the telescope pointing direction (we define the pointing in azimuth, $A$, and elevation, $E$). We have carried out multiple observations of Vela with the telescope offset in a grid of ($A \cos E$, $E$) positions. Figure \[fg:beam\] shows representative beam shapes (for sub-band 5 and centred on 1408MHz). The complete set of beam shape data files is available for download (see Appendix B). The results from the grid pointings in elevation and in azimuth are not identical. This is primarily caused by the presence of a feed leg in the elevation plane. We overlay predictions of the beam shape obtained from electromagnetic simulations. The blue dashed lines are an ideal case with no attempt to model the effect of the prime-focus cabin. The red, dashed line includes a simplified model of the cabin (assumed to be a circular blockage), but does not include the effect of the feed cabin support legs. We do not expect a perfect match between the observing beam shape and the prediction, but note that they match remarkably well and that the side-lobe structure is dominated by the effect of the focus cabin. Data files containing the predictions are also available as part of our public data collection.
The on-axis polarimetric response of the receiver system is modelled using an updated version of the Measurement Equation Modeling (MEM) technique originally described in [@van04]. The required updates, motivated by [@lck+16], remove the assumption that the system noise has insignificant circular polarisation and enable modelling of an artificial noise source that is coupled after the feed. We have used this updated MEM algorithm to measure the properties of the receiver (including the differential gain, differential phase, and cross-coupling of the receptors; and the Stokes parameters of the artificial calibration signal). As inputs, we observed the bright millisecond pulsar, PSR J0437$-$4715, over a wide range of parallactic angles; we also included both on-source and off-source observations of Hydra A (3C218). The measured receptor ellipticities are close to $0^\circ$ across the whole band, indicating that the degree of mixing between linear and circular polarisation is low. The non-orthogonality of the receptors is also very low, as characterised by the intrinsic cross-polarisation ratio [IXR; @cw11], which varies between 40 and 60dB across the band. This is much greater (noting that larger values of the intrinsic cross-polarisation ratio correspond to lower non-orthonormality) than the minimum recommended by [@fkp+15] of 30dB for high-precision pulsar timing. We also found that, at higher frequencies, the reference signal produced by the artificial noise source deviates from 100% linearly polarised. Up to $\sim30$% circular polarisation has been observed at $\sim$4GHz; therefore the polarisation of astronomical signals must be calibrated using the technique described in Section 2.1 of [@ovhb04].
We provide the set of calibrator parameters as determined using the updated MEM algorithm as part of our publicly-available data collection (see Appendix B).
We have not yet studied the off-axis polarisation properties of the system in detail, but provide theoretical models for the off-axis polarisation purity in our data collection.
Demonstration of astronomical observation modes
-----------------------------------------------
To demonstrate the end-to-end system we show, in Figure \[fg:pulsar\], a wide-bandwidth observation of PSR J1559$-$4438 (B1556$-$44). The observation has been divided into eight frequency channels. The observation has been both flux density and polarisation calibrated. Details of the pulse profile variations with frequency will be published elsewhere, but we note that these results agree, in common observing bands, with previous measurements (e.g., @jkm+08 and @jk18).
An example of the spectral-line observing mode is shown in Figure \[fg:spectrum\]. We observed both NGC 45 (HIPASS J0014$-$23) and an off-source position for 5 minutes. The off source position was 1.2 degrees offset in both azimuth and elevation. We recorded 4096 channels per sub-band and a spectrum was written to disk every second. During both observations the calibration signal was switched at 100Hz and the output data product (available as part of our public data collection) contains lower resolution spectra representing the on and off states of the calibrator as well as the astronomy spectrum. The calibration process for the astronomy spectrum was carried out offline, using the on/off calibration spectra and the on/off source observations. The resulting H[i]{} spectrum (black) is overlaid on the spectrum obtained from the HIPASS survey [@bsb+01] (red line). We note that this source is slightly extended and so we also overlay in the Figure (blue, dotted line) the integrated spectrum obtained after identifying the source in the original HIPASS data cube (H236) using the Duchamp source finder [@whi12]. The spectral shape matches well with the HIPASS result and our flux scale lies between the HIPASS spectrum and Duchamp results.
RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE {#sec:rfi}
============================
All radio-astronomy receiver systems are affected by RFI. Ground-based, aircraft and satellite transmissions are especially problematic for wideband centimetre-wavelength systems such as the UWL. Figure \[fg:spectra\] shows the entire UWL spectrum, with some known RFI sources labelled.
In Australia, licensed ground-based transmitters can be identified through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) website[^13]. These include numerous mobile phone signals including the 3rd generation (3G) networks between 850 and 900MHz and the 4th generation (4G) networks around 760, 780, 1800, 2100 and 2680MHz. National Broadband Network (NBN) transmissions exist around 2.37GHz and 3.56GHz.
As Figure \[fg:spectra\] shows, the strongest persistent RFI bands are mobile-phone transmissions in RF Band 1. These are primarily from transmission towers located 10 to 20km away, both north and south of the telescope. These RFI signals enter the system through far-out sidelobes of the antenna response and hence are quite variable depending on antenna pointing. Despite the low gain of the antenna sidelobes, these signals can be 50dB or more above the local noise floor. Over the full RF Band 1 bandwidth, they typically add up to 35dB of power to the digitised signal. Additional attenuation is required in the RF Band 1 chain to avoid saturation effects and the consequent formation of inter-modulation products across the RF Band 1 spectrum. RF bands 2 and 3 do not suffer from these problems since the RFI signals are much weaker in these bands.
There are also numerous satellites emitting in the UWL band including the various global navigational satellite systems (such as GPS, Beidou, GLONASS and Galileo) as well as communication systems such as the Thuraya (1525 to 1559MHz) and Iridium (1617 to 1627MHz) satellites. The positions of satellites for which public ephemerides are available can be monitored by the observer during an observation. For post-observation analysis of suspect or distorted bandpasses, an online resource exists[^14] permitting the observer to find RFI generating satellites that might have been near the main beam of the telescope at a given time in the past.
Short duration impulsive or transient RFI signals are also common. Because of their typically low duty cycle they are not prominent in spectral plots such as Figure \[fg:spectra\], but can affect astronomical observations. There are two main classes for such signals: a) broad-band signals, mainly from switching transients in local electrical systems or from lightning, and b) highly modulated relatively narrow-band (typically a few MHz) transmissions, from a variety of sources, for example, aircraft navigation systems, mobile phone handsets and many satellite transmissions.
On June 5, 2019, we observed using a modified version of the spectral line/continuum mode that recorded maximum signal powers in 64$\mu$s samples of each 125kHz channel, as well as providing the average power in each channel. The observation lasted for 15 minutes. In Figure \[fg:peakHold\] we have selected three regions that exhibit significant transient RFI. The black line in this Figure gives the mean spectrum and the blue line indicates the peak sample values recorded for each channel in the 15min observation.
Aircraft navigation signals cover a wide band from 962 to 1150MHz and typically consist of sequences of microsecond-duration pulses with a low duty cycle. Consequently, they contain very little power on average but are prominent in the peak-hold spectra. The airport in Parkes has a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) beacon transmitting at 1018MHz with corresponding airborne beacons interrogating on 1081MHz; both are strong signals in the UWL spectrum. Numerous other signals from other DME systems are seen between 1020 and 1150MHz.
Aircraft-borne Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) systems transmit at 1090MHz. In addition, ground-based air traffic control radars send an interrogation signal at 1030MHz. The 1090MHz signals will be visible at ranges of up to hundreds of kilometres for aircraft at cruising altitude and so at any given time signals from many aircraft will be seen. ADS-B transmissions consist of short sequences (lasting $\sim 120$$\mu$s) of digitally-encoded bursts with low duty cycle, where each individual burst is only 0.5$\mu$s in duration.
We know that much of the broad-band impulsive interference that we detect is locally generated. There were initial concerns that our focus cabin digitisation system would generate an unacceptable level of RFI. However, we estimate that the digitiser packaging and the shielded cabinets together provide at least 100dB of RFI attenuation and no such leakage has been detected in the recorded signals. Even though active mobile, Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth devices are not permitted on site, we do observe signals across these bands. We are still investigating the source of these signals, but it is likely that some originate in electronic devices used by the general public at the Telescope Visitors Centre, which is only $\sim 100$m from the telescope.
In Table \[tb:subbands\] we list the fraction of each sub-band that was removed by automatic pulsar data processing scripts in more than 50% of 236 pulsar observations taken on 2019 February 17. In total, such automated processing removes $\sim$814MHz of the band. To reject aliasing effects resulting from the use of critically sampled digital filterbanks we remove $\pm 5$MHz at each sub-band boundary, a total of 260MHz of bandwidth. The planned implementation of over-sampled filterbanks will remove the need to reject these sub-band edges.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSION {#sec:conclusion}
==================================
Iterative improvements will continue to enhance the UWL receiver system. Planned upgrades include a novel, single-dish calibration scheme in which the noise source is modulated in a pseudo-random sequence continuously throughout an observation. The signal-processor system can then use the known pseudo-random sequence to extract the time-dependent calibration solutions.
A further planned upgrade will be to develop over-sampling (replacing critical-sampling) of the input data stream, preventing signal degradation at the sub-band edges and effectively eliminating aliasing effects. This will require updates to the FPGA firmware.
The current UWL system provides a platform to research RFI mitigation techniques. Transmissions from mobile phone and NBN towers are confined in bandwidth and are quasi-continuous. In principle such signals can be removed using adaptive filtering techniques based on having an RFI reference signal that can be correlated with the astronomy signal [@kmbh10]. In practice, this is difficult because of the great strength of the interfering signals, requiring very high S/N in the reference signal, and the fact that multiple sources contribute to the signal in some RFI bands. For example, the 4G band containing 760MHz is transmitted from both Alectown, about 11km north of the telescope, and from a tower near Parkes, about 15km south-west of the telescope. In principle, some satellite signals could also be removed using adaptive filter techniques, but obtaining a reference signal with sufficient S/N is a challenge. Signals that are easily detectable in the peak-hold spectra, but only marginally visible in the average spectra, are best removed in the time domain. Signal processing algorithms to achieve this are currently being evaluated but are not yet implemented in the standard pipeline processing (for instance, @ng10). Localisation and removal of local sources of transient RFI remains an on-going effort.
The telescope control system is currently being upgraded to a web-based system. When complete this will enable a range of observing modes, from almost hands-off scheduled observing, to hands-on control of the telescope and observing system.
The astronomical signal-processing system will also be upgraded to provide (1) commensal observing modes, (2) transient detection capability, (3) the ability to fold multiple pulsars simultaneously, (4) to phase resolve spectra within a pulsar period and much more. We will continue to characterise the system including using holographic measurements to study beam patterns in detail [@igs+19].
The observing system described here is provided to the astronomical community. Teams can propose to observe with the system twice per year using the standard Australia Telescope National Facility proposal system (<https://opal.atnf.csiro.au/>). One of the primary challenges facing users of the system is the massive data volumes. Observation data files can relatively easily become TBs in size. Not only are such files difficult to transfer to local computer systems, our current astronomical software suites for single-dish telescopes are ill-equipped to deal with these data volumes. In addition, traditional calibration procedures such as feed rotation and frequency-switching cannot be applied and new methods will be required to extract the required scientific results from the wide-band data (such as new wide-band timing methods; e.g., @pen19).
In the longer term we plan to upgrade the Parkes receiver suite with higher frequency, single-pixel wide-band receivers and a cryogenically cooled, phased-array-feed. With this suite of receiver systems and versatile signal-processor and control systems, the Parkes telescope will continue to provide cutting edge observations of astronomical sources in the Southern hemisphere for many years to come.
The ultra-wide-band receiver project was primarily funded through an Australian Research Council Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) grant, with additional funding obtained from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Max-Planck-Institut für Radio Astronomie (MPIfR) and National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC). We thank the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array team for providing UWL observations of PSR J1909$-$3744 and Hydra A. Staff at each of the institutions that have made contributions toward this project are acknowledged. We thank everyone who has provided advice, updated their software packages, or helped build, install and/or commission the system. We thank Simon Hoyle for his work in developing the calibration system, Robert Shaw and Simon Mackay for their involvement in the front-end system and Euan Troop for software systems. We acknowledge B. Gaensler, S. Wyithe, Y. Levin and A. Melatos who were involved in obtaining the grant funding, but chose not to be an author on this paper. MB and SO acknowledge Australian Research Council grant FL150100148. Parts of this research were conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav), through project number CE170100004.
The Parkes radio telescope is part of the Australia Telescope National Facility which is funded by the Australian Government for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO.
Definitions
===========
Radio engineers [e.g., @kra66; @stu98] recognise a dimensionless gain $G$ or, equivalently for a lossless antenna, a directivity $D$ which expresses the power transmitted from, or received by, an antenna in a particular direction with respect to an idealised antenna that radiates or receives power isotropically. Antenna gain so defined is frequently specified logarithmically in dB$_{\rm i}$ (“decibels-isotropic”). An alternative metric often used in radio astronomy is the effective area $A_{\rm e}$ of an antenna, relating the power density $p$ (in WHz$^{\rm -1}$) received by the antenna from a radio source of flux density $S$ (in Wm$^{\rm -2}$Hz$^{\rm -1}$) through the defining relation: $$p = A_{\rm e} S$$ where the radio source and antenna are assumed to have matched polarizations and $A_{\rm e}$, like its counterpart $G$, is in general a function of frequency, direction and polarization. As large radio telescopes typically possess an obvious physical or geometric aperture it is natural to define an aperture efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm ap}$, as the ratio of the effective to the physical collecting area: $$\epsilon_{\rm ap} \equiv \frac{A_e}{A_p}$$ where $A_{\rm p}$ is the physical (geometric) aperture of the telescope. It can be shown that $G$ and $A_{\rm e}$ are related thus: $$G = \frac{4\pi}{\lambda^2}A_{\rm e} = \frac{4\pi}{\lambda^2}\epsilon_{\rm ap}A_{\rm p}$$ where $\lambda$ is the observing wavelength.
Another proxy for antenna gain arises from the concept of antenna temperature $T_{\rm a}$, defined as the temperature of a fictitious matched resistor which, if substituted for the antenna, would produce the same increase in power density at the input to the receiver as an unpolarized radio source of flux density $S$. It can be shown (e.g., @kra66) that: $$\frac{T_{\rm a}}{S} = \frac{A_{\rm e}}{2k}$$ where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. Antenna gain expressed in this form is often referred to as “degrees per flux unit” (DPFU). Here we define it thus: $$\label{eqn:gain}
G_{\rm DPFU} \equiv \frac{A_{\rm e}}{2k}$$ to distinguish it from the dimensionless gain $G$ while retaining some consistency with usage elsewhere (particularly in the pulsar literature) where a plain $G$ is often used. This quantity is typically rendered in units of KJy$^{-1}$, where the jansky (Jy) corresponds to $10^{-26}$Wm$^{-2}$Hz$^{-1}$. For the 64-m Parkes telescope $A_{p} = 3217$m$^2$ and so we can write: $$\label{eqn:eap}
\epsilon_{\rm ap} = 0.858[\rm Jy\,K^{-1}]\frac{T_{\rm sys}}{S_{\rm sys}}.$$
Various other parameters relating to the antenna beam pattern can be defined. We define the main beam of the antenna as being out to the first zero and the main beam efficiency as: $$\label{eqn:mainBeam}
\epsilon_B \equiv \frac{\Omega_{MB}}{\Omega_A}$$ where the main beam solid angle, $\Omega_{\rm MB}$, and the beam solid angle, $\Omega_A$: $$\Omega_{\rm MB, A} \equiv \frac{1}{G_{0}}\int_{\rm MB, A} G(\theta,\phi) d\Omega$$ (giving $\Omega_A = 4\pi/G_{\rm 0}$). Here $G_{\rm 0}$ is the peak gain of the antenna. We have presented estimates of the main beam efficiency for the UWL system as a function of frequency in Table \[tb:subbands\].
The wide-band nature of the receiver system makes it difficult to estimate the signal-to-noise (S/N) of a pulsar observation because the pulsar’s flux density, its pulse width, the system temperature and telescope gain all vary with frequency. The narrow-band spectral line sensitivity can be estimated using: $$\sigma_s = \frac{T_{\rm sys}}{G_{\rm DPFU}\sqrt{n_p \tau \Delta\nu}}$$ where $\tau$ is the total on-source integration time, $\Delta\nu$ is the observing bandwidth and $n_p$ is the number of recorded polarisations (1 or 2).
Data collection
===============
A publicly downloadable data collection is available from <https://doi.org/10.25919/5ce76bf409bcf>. This data collection contains a “README" file describing the contents of the data collection and directories that contain data sets relating to beam shapes (measured and simulated), antenna and beam efficiencies, the temperature determinations presented in Figure \[fg:tsys\] and the system equivalent flux densities shown in Figure \[fg:tsys\_ssys\]. We also provide flux and polarisation calibration data files and the data files corresponding to the astronomy examples (as shown in Figures \[fg:spectrum\] and \[fg:pulsar\]).
Author contributions
====================
The author list has an initial non-alphabetical section giving the names of people who have led specific aspects of the project.
The remaining author list is in alphabetical order and includes the authors involved in building, installing and commissioning the receiver system. EC, TE, VM, SO, TR and JS were part of the commissioning team. BI provided input on the RFI sections of the paper. MB, RB, JH, MK, AM, ED, NW, LW and WvS wrote the original funding grants. WvS updated the MEM software and contributed to polarisation and flux calibration data analysis.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: Very large bandwidth receivers exist in relatively high-frequency observing bands and receiving systems with large fractional bandwidth exist at low radio frequencies. Here we discuss cm-wavelength receivers with large fractional bandwidths.
[^3]: <https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/BEACON.html>
[^4]: Unfortunately the 701.68 and 703.98MHz lines lie just below the band edge.
[^5]: So named for the multiple applications the system can provide, akin to many snakes on the mythological Medusa’s head.
[^6]: As a sibling to the main system.
[^7]: Dynamic range measurements show that, in the low band, the 1dB compression point of the RF amplifier chain is about 20dB above the operating power with standard attenuator settings. This is generally sufficient to avoid intermodulation products from strong RFI signals; see Section \[sec:rfi\].
[^8]: The installation includes 12 analogue-to-digital converters (ADCs). However, only nine are used for the UWL system. The two polarisations of each of the three RF bands require six ADCs and a further three will be used in the future to provide a reference RFI signals from one or more reference antennas to be installed on the roof of the focus cabin. The remaining ADCs will be used for higher frequency receivers.
[^9]: It is also possible to select specific frequency bands with up to 900MHz of bandwidth and pass those analogue signals through the Parkes down-conversion system and into the legacy signal-processor systems.
[^10]: https://www.bipm.org
[^11]: <http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/calibrators/calibrator_database.html>
[^12]: For this Figure, the flexible attenuation levels were set to 15, 10 and 7dB in RF bands 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
[^13]: <https://www.acma.gov.au>
[^14]: <https://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/cgi-bin/obstools/sarfis.pl>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the unusual features of the quantum transport in gapped monolayer graphene, which is in a pseudospin symmetry-broken state with a net perpendicular pseudomagnetization. Using these pseudoferromagnets (PFs), we propose a perfect pseudospin valve effect that can be used for realizing pseudospintronics in monolayer graphene. The peculiarity of the associated effects of pseudo spin injection and pseudo spin accumulation are also studied. We further demonstrate the determining effect of the sublattice pseudospin degree of freedom on Andreev reflection and the associated proximity effect in hybrid structures of PFs and a superconductor in S/PF and PF/S/PF geometries. In particular, we find a peculiar Andreev reflection that is associated with an inversion of the $z$ component of the carriers pseudospin vector. Our results show that the gapped normal graphene behaves like a ferromagnetic graphene and the effect of the pseudospin degree of freedom in gapped graphene is as important as the spin in a ferromagnetic graphene.'
author:
- Leyla Majidi
- Malek Zareyan
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Quantum transport of pseudospin-polarized Dirac fermions in gapped graphene nanostructures'
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Graphene, the two dimensional layer of the carbon atoms with honeycomb lattice structure, has attracted a great deal of attention as a new promising material for nanoelectronics, since its experimental realization a few years ago[@Novoselov04; @Novoselov05; @Zhang05]. Graphene has a zero-gap semiconducting band structure in which the charge carriers behave like 2D massless Dirac fermions with a pseudo-relativistic chiral property. The carrier type, \[electron-like ($n$) or hole-like ($p$)\] and its density can be tuned by means of electrical gate or doping of underlying substrate. Most of the peculiar properties of graphene is the result of its massless Dirac spectrum of the low-lying electron-hole excitations, which in addition to the regular spin appear to come endowed with the two quantum degrees of freedom, the so called pseudospin and valley. The pseudospin represents the sublattice degree of freedom of the graphene’s honeycomb structure, and the valley defines the corresponding degree of freedom in the reciprocal lattice[@Novoselov05; @Wallace74; @Slonczewski58; @Haldane88; @Castro09]. The effect of these additional quantum numbers has already been proven to be drastically important in several quantum transport phenomena in graphene, including quantum Hall effect[@Novoselov05; @Zhang05; @Gusynin05; @Du09], conductance quantization[@Peres06], Klein tunneling[@Katsnelson06; @Young09; @Stander09] and quantum shot noise[@Tworzydo06; @Danneau08; @DiCarlo08]. Interestingly, the pseudospin and the valley degrees of freedom in graphene have been proposed separately to be used for the controlling electronic devices in the same way as the electron spin is used in spintronic and quantum computing. Rycerz [*et al.*]{}[@Rycerz07; @Xiao07; @Akhmerov08; @Wu11] demonstrated an electrostatically controlled valley filter effect in graphene nanoribbons with zigzag edge which can be used for realizing valley valve structures in valleytronics (valley-based electronics) applications. On the other hand, a pseudospin-based version of a spin valve has been proposed in monolayer graphene and bilayer graphene[@Jose09; @xia10; @majidi11], which can be used for realizing pseudospintronics in graphene. Also, the possibility of an interaction driven spontaneous breaking of the pseudospin symmetry, which can lead to the realization of pseudomagnetic states in monolayer and bilayer graphene, has been studied recently[@Min08].
Recent experimental progresses in proximity-inducing superconductivity in graphene by fabrication of transparent contacts between a graphene monolayer and a superconductor, has provided a unique possibility to study relativistic-like superconductivity and proximity effect[@Heersche07; @Du08; @Jeong11]. Peculiarity of Andreev reflection (AR)[@Andreev64], conversion of the electron into the hole excitations at a normal metallic-superconducting (N/S) interface, has been studied in graphene-based N/S junctions by Beenakker, who demonstrated that unlike the retro AR for highly doped graphene or a N metal, the dominant process for undoped N graphene is the specular AR[@beenakker06; @beenakker08]. In the case of a graphene ferromagnetic-superconducting (F/S) junction, the situation is dramatically different from common F/S junctions where the subgap Andreev conductance decreases with increasing the exchange energy $h$ from its value for N/S junction and vanishes for a half metallic ferromagnet with $h=\mu$, where all carriers have the same spin[@de; @Jong95]. It has been shown that for the exchange energies higher than the chemical potential $h>\mu$, a peculiar spin-resolved Andreev-Klein process at graphene F/S interface can result in an enhancement of the subgap Andreev conductance by $h$, up to the point at which the conductance at low voltages $eV\ll\Delta_S$ is larger than its value for the corresponding N/S structure[@Zareyan08; @Asano08; @Zhang08]. Also, the corresponding Andreev-Klein bound states in graphene S/F/S structure are responsible for the long-range Josephson coupling of F graphene[@Moghaddam08; @Linder08]. Moreover, specific nonlocal proximity effect takes place in graphene-based superconducting heterostructures mediating purely by a nonlocal process known as crossed Andreev reflection (CAR) which creates a spatially entangled electron-hole pair. While in ordinary nonrelativistic systems the small value of CAR conductance is canceled by the conductance of elastic electron cotunneling (CT) process, it can be enhanced in ballistic graphene N/S/N and F/S/F structures[@Cayssol08; @linder09].
In this paper, we study the effect of the pseudospin degree of freedom on quantum transport in gapped monolayer graphene, that presents a pseudospin symmetry broken ferromagnet (PF), with a finite pseudospin magnetization oriented vertically to the graphene plane. The magnitude of the pseudomagnetization (PM) depends on the chemical potential and its direction can be switched by changing the type of doping (electron $n$ or hole $p$). Based on this observation, we propose a nonmagnetic pseudospin valve structure (PF/N/PF) with remarkably large pseudomagnetoresistance (PMR) in analogy to the giant magnetoresistance (GMR) in magnetic multilayers[@Baibich88], which can be perfect for chemical potentials close to the energy gap ($\mu\simeq\Delta$) and appropriate lengths of the N region. More importantly, we show that the perfect pseudospin valve effect can be reached even in higher chemical potentials $\mu\gg\Delta$ by applying an appropriate bias voltage. We further demonstrate the unusually long-range penetration of the equilibrium and non-equilibrium pseudospin polarization into the N region by proximity to a PF, that is in clear contrast to the induced magnetization in ordinary F/N junctions which decays exponentially within $\lambda_F$[@Zutic04].
Moreover, we study the effect of the pseudospin on AR and the associated proximity effect in hybrid structures of PFs and a superconductor in S/PF and PF/S/PF geometries. We find that in graphene PF, due to the possibility for a small chemical potential $\mu$, a peculiar AR occurs at S/PF interface which is associated with an inversion of the $z$ component of the carriers pseudospin vector, and that this has important consequences for the proximity effect. For an S/PF junction, we find that the Andreev-Klein reflection can enhance the pseudospin inverted Andreev conductance by the energy gap $\Delta_N$ to reach a limiting maximum value for $\Delta_N\gg \mu$, which depends on the bias voltage and can be larger than the value for the corresponding junction with no energy gap ($\Delta_N\ll \mu$). This is similar to the behavior of Andreev conductance with the exchange energy $h$ in a graphene F/S junction and approves that the energy gap $\Delta_N$ in the band structure of normal graphene produces an effect similar to the exchange field in F graphene. We also demonstrate that depending on the energy $\varepsilon$ of the incident electron, $\mu$ and $\Delta_N$, AR can be of retro or specular types, respectively, without or with the inversion of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector. Furthermore, the spatially-damped oscillatory behavior of the proximity density of states in pseudoferromagnetic side of the S/PF contact and the pseudospin switching effect in superconducting graphene pseudospin valve structure (PF/S/PF) confirm the crucial rule of the pseudospin in the gapped normal graphene and its similarity to the rule of spin in an F graphene.
This paper is organized as follows. We introduce pseudoferromagnets (PFs) in Sec. \[sec:level1\], and use them in Sec. \[sec:level2\] to study the pseudospin valve effect in graphene PF/N/PF junction. Sections \[sec:level3\] and \[sec:level4\] are devoted, respectively, to the investigation of the proximity effect and the pseudospin injection in graphene PF/N junctions. In Sec. \[sec:level5\], we investigate AR in graphene S/PF junction and present our main findings for the Andreev conductance and the proximity DOS of the S/PF junction. Section \[sec:level6\] is devoted to the investigation of the CT and CAR processes in superconducting pseudospin valve structure. Finally, we present the conclusion in Sec. \[sec:level7\].
\[sec:level1\]Pseudoferromagnets
================================
One of the interesting features of graphene, that makes it very applicable in semiconductor technology, is the possibility of opening a gap in the energy band structure of graphene. There are several methods to open an energy gap in the band structure of graphene. A scenario is placing graphene on top of an appropriate substrate which breaks the graphene sublattice symmetry and generates a Dirac mass for charge carriers. The band gap opening is observed in epitaxially grown graphene on a SiC substrate[@Zhou07; @Varchon07] and a hexagonal boron nitride crystal[@Giovannetti07]. The energy band gap engineering can be also achieved through doping the graphene with several molecules such as $CrO_3$, $NH_3$, $H_2O$ [@Zanella08; @Ribeiro08].
To study quantum transport in gapped graphene nanostructures within the scattering formalism, we first construct the quasiparticle wave functions that participate in the scattering processes. We adopt the Dirac equation of the form $$\label{DiracFull} H_0\psi=(\varepsilon+\mu)\psi,$$ where $$\label{DiracH}
H_0=v_{F}(\bm{\sigma}\mathbf{}.\bm{p})+\Delta_N \sigma_{z}$$ is the two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian in presence of an energy gap, with $\bm{p}=-i\hbar\bm{\nabla}$ the momentum operator in the $x$-$y$ plane ($v_F=10^6$ m/s represents the Fermi velocity) and $\bm{\sigma}=(\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z)$ the vector of the Pauli matrices operating in the space of two sublattices of the honeycomb lattice[@Divincenzo84; @Ando05]. The two-dimensional spinor has the form $\psi=(\psi_A,\psi_B)$, where the two components give the amplitude of the wave function on the two sublattices and $\varepsilon$ is the quasiparticle energy.
For a uniform gapped graphene region, the solutions of the Dirac equation Eq. (\[DiracFull\]) are two states of the form $$\label{psi_c}
\psi_{c}^{e\pm}=e^{\pm ik_c^{e}x} e^{iqy}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^{\mp i\alpha_c^{e}/2}\\
\pm e^{-\phi_c^{e}} e^{\pm i\alpha_c^{e}/2}
\end{array}
\right),$$ for conduction band electrons of $n$-doped graphene and $$\label{psi_v}
\psi_v^{e\pm}=e^{\mp ik_v^{e}x} e^{iqy}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\alpha_v^{e}/2}\\
\pm e^{\phi_v^{e}} e^{\mp i\alpha_v^{e}/2}
\end{array}
\right),$$ for valance band electrons of $p$-doped graphene, at a given energy $\varepsilon$ and transverse wave vector q with the energy-momentum relation $\varepsilon_{c(v)}^{e}=\pm[-\mu+\sqrt{{\Delta_N}^2+{(\hbar v|{\bm{k}}_{c(v)}^{e}|)}^2}]$. $\alpha_{c(v)}^{e}=\arcsin[{\hbar vq}/{\sqrt{{(\varepsilon\pm\mu)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}]$ is the angle of propagation of electron which has longitudinal wave vector $k_{c(v)}^{e}=(\hbar v_F)^{-1}\sqrt{{(\varepsilon\pm\mu)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}\cos\alpha_{c(v)}^{e}$ and $\phi_{c(v)}^{e}=\operatorname{arcsinh}{[\Delta_N/\sqrt{{(\varepsilon\pm\mu)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}]}$. The two propagation directions of electron along the $x$-axis are denoted by $\pm$ in $\psi_{c(v)}^{e\pm}$.
 (a) Vertical pseudomagnetization per electron $PM_z/N$ of the gapped graphene layer versus chemical potential $\mu$ ( $\mu$ is scaled to the energy gap $\Delta_N$). (b) Schematic illustration of the proposed pseudospin valve in monolayer graphene: The left and right regions are pseudoferromagnets (PFs) and the intermediate region is a normal graphene (N) without a band gap. (c-d) Profile of pseudomagnetization vector $\bm{PM}$ inside the two PFs (blue) and the N region of length $L=\lambda_F$ (pink) for two configurations of (c) parallel and (d) antiparallel, when $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$.](mzfig1.pdf){width="3.3in"}
The pseudospin of such states for conduction (valance) band electrons of $n$- ($p$-)doped graphene is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseudospin}
\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{c(v)}^{e+}&=&\sqrt{1-{(\frac{\Delta_N}{\varepsilon\pm\mu})}^2}\ {(\cos{\alpha_{c(v)}^{e}}\ \hat{x}\pm\sin{\alpha_{c(v)}^{e}}\ \hat{y})}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\Delta_N}{\varepsilon\pm\mu}\ \hat{z}.\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen from the above equation, the existence of a band gap makes the pseudospin to have a component perpendicular to the plane of the graphene sheet. The in-plane and out-of-plane components of the pseudospin depend on $(\varepsilon+\mu)/\Delta_N$, which can be tuned to unity to make the pseudospin vector to be oriented perpendicular to the sheet. Increasing $(\varepsilon+\mu)/\Delta_N$ leads to the decrease of the out-of-plane component such that it goes to zero when $\varepsilon+\mu\gg\Delta_N$.
The total pseudomagnetization (PM) of the gapped graphene can be calculated by summing the expression (\[pseudospin\]) over all the wave vectors $\bm{k}=(k,q)$, $$\label{pseudomagnetization}
\bm{PM}_{n(p)}=\sum_{\bm{k}}\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{c(v)}^{e+},$$ from which we find that PM only has an out-of-plane component which depends on $(\varepsilon+\mu)/\Delta_N$. Fig. \[Fig:1\] (a) shows the behavior of the out-of-plane component of PM per electron $PM_z/N$ as a function of $\mu/\Delta_N$ at zero temperature ($T=0$). It is seen that for $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$, $PM_z/N$ takes its maximum value $PM_z/N=1$, while increasing $\mu/\Delta_N$ leads to the decrease of $PM_z$ such that it goes to zero for highly doped gapped graphene ($\mu\gg\Delta_N$). Also the direction of PM can be switched by changing the type of doping between $n$ and $p$. We note that the pseudospin polarization of a gapped graphene corresponds to a difference in the electronic charge densities of the two triangular sublattices, which in turn produces an in-plane electrical polarization [@majidi11]. This correspondence between the PM vector and the in-plane electrical polarization can be used for an experimental measuring of PM.
So we demonstrate that a monolayer graphene with an energy gap $\Delta_N$ in its electronic band structure behaves as a pseudospin symmetry-broken ferromagnet (PF) with a perpendicular to the plane of graphene PM, whose direction is switched by altering the type of doping between $n$ and $p$.
\[sec:level2\]Pseudospin valve
==============================
Based on the above observation, we propose a nonmagnetic pseudospin valve which consists of two PFs ($x<0$ and $x>L$) with a tunable direction of PM, that are connected through a normal (nonpseudomagnetized) layer of length $L$ \[shown schematically in Fig. \[Fig:1\](b)\]. The configuration of PMs in the pseudospin valve can be changed from parallel to antiparallel by fixing the type of doping of one region and changing the type of the doping in the other region. The size of the pseudospin valve effect is determined by the extent in which the conduction of the antiparallel configuration is suppressed (similar to the spin valve effect). The pseudomagnetoresistance of a pseudospin valve is defined as $$\label{PMR}
PMR=\frac{G_{P}-G_{AP}}{G_{P}},$$ where $G_{P(AP)}$ is the conductance of the parallel (antiparallel) configuration that can be calculated from the Landauer formula[@landauer88], $$\label{G}
G_{P(AP)}=\frac{4 e^2}{h}\int |t_{P(AP)}|^2 \cos\alpha\ d\alpha.$$
 Pseudomagnetoresistance (PMR) of the pseudospin valve versus the length of the N region ($L/\lambda_F$) for (a) different values of $\mu/\Delta_N$, when $eV/\Delta_N= 0$, and (b) different values of the bias voltage $eV/\Delta_N$, when $\mu/\Delta_N = 2$.](mzfig2.pdf){width="3in"}
Here, $t_{P(AP)}$ is the transmission amplitude of electrons through the pseudospin valve in parallel (antiparallel) configuration, which can be calculated by matching the wave functions of three regions at the two interfaces ($x=0$ and $x=L$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t_p}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
\psi_1=\psi_c^{e+}+r\ \psi_c^{e-},\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
\psi_2=a\ {\psi'_c}^{e+}+b\ {\psi'_c}^{e-},\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
\psi_{3,P(AP)}=t_{P(AP)}\ \psi_{c(v)}^{e+}.\end{aligned}$$
The left PF, N region and the right PF are signed by 1,2, and 3, respectively, and $\psi_{c(v)}^{(')e\pm}$ are the wave functions of Dirac equation for incoming and outgoing electrons of $n$- ($p$-)doped graphene sheet with (without) a gap. Figure \[Fig:2\](a) shows the dependence of the resulting PMR on the length of the N region $L/\lambda_{F}$ ($\lambda_F=\hbar v_F/\mu$) for different values of $\mu/\Delta_N$ at zero bias voltage $eV=0$. We have taken $\mu_1=\mu_2=|\mu_3|=\mu$. We observe that the pseudospin valve effect can be perfect ($PMR=1$) for $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$. For these values of $\mu$, PMR shows an oscillatory behavior with $L/\lambda_{F}$, with an amplitude which takes the value 1 for some ranges of the length $L$. We note that this perfect pseudospin valve effect of the monolayer graphene is more robust with respect to an increase of the length of the N region, as compared to the similar effect in a bilayer graphene pseudospin valve structure[@Jose09]. The amplitude of PMR decreases by increasing $\mu/\Delta_N$ and tends to the constant value of $PMR=1/3$ for a highly doped structure with $\mu\gg\Delta_N$. This residual PMR is the difference in the resistance of a $n$-$p$ graphene structure with that of a uniformly ($p$ or $n$) doped graphene with the same $|\mu|$, which is present even in the limit $PM\rightarrow 0$ of a nonpseudomagnetized structure. Also, we have found that the perfect pseudospin valve effect can be resumed by applying an appropriate bias voltage to the valves with higher chemical potentials $\mu>\Delta_N$ \[see Fig. \[Fig:2\](b)\].
\[sec:level3\]Proximity effect in PF/N junctions
================================================
 Equilibrium PM of the PF/N junction when $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$: (a) profile of $\bm{PM}$ in PF (blue) and N region (pink) and (b) the position dependence of the $\bm{PM}$ components. The inset of Fig. \[Fig:3\](b) shows the magnitude of $\bm{PM}$.](mzfig3.pdf){width="3in"}
Let us now study the proximity effect in hybrid structures of PFs and a normal graphene region in PF/N and PF/N/PF junctions. We start with a single PF/N junction in a graphene sheet in the $x$-$y$ plane, where the region $x<0$ (PF) has a uniform PM oriented vertically to the sheet and the region $x>0$ (N region) is in the normal state. We calculate the pseudomagnetization vector $\bm{PM}$ in PF and N region using Eq. (\[pseudomagnetization\]), and by considering the contribution of the pseudospin of all incident electrons from left ($l$) and right ($r$) regions that are scattered from the junction, $$\label{PM_proximity}
\frac{\bm{PM}_i}{N_i}=\frac{1}{2}\{\frac{\bm{PM}_i^{l}}{N_i^{l}}+\frac{\bm{PM}_i^{r}}{N_i^{r}}\},$$ where $\bm{PM}_i^{l(r)}=\sum_{\bm{k}}\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{\psi_{i,l(r)}}$, $N_i^{l(r)}=\sum_{\bm{k}}\psi_{i,l(r)}^*\psi_{i,l(r)}$ and $i$ denotes the PF (N region). The resulting profile of $\bm{PM}$ across the PF/N junction is demonstrated in Fig. \[Fig:3\] for $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$. It is seen that a nonzero $\bm{PM}$ is induced in N region ($\Delta_N=0$) which rotates around the normal to the junction ($x$ axis) with $x$. The perpendicular component $PM_z$ oscillates as a function of $x$ with a period of order $\lambda_F$, and shows only a weak decay in the scale of $\lambda_F$. While the in-plane components $PM_{x,y}$ vanish inside PF, they are produced at the PF/N interface and are penetrated into the N region. $PM_{y}$ shows an oscillatory behavior with $x$ similar to $PM_{z}$. Interestingly, $PM_x$ is uniform inside N, which considering the decay of the other two components, implies that $\bm{PM}$ at the points in N region far from the junction is uniform and oriented perpendicular (along $x$ axis) to the $\bm{PM}$ in the connected PF. This unusual proximity effect can be explained in terms of reflectionless Klein transmission of electrons which incident normally to PF/N interface[@Katsnelson06; @Young09; @Stander09]. We note to the unusually long-range penetration of the proximity induced PM inside the N region, which is in contrast to the ferromagnet/normal-metal junction (F/N), in which the induced magnetization decays over short interatomic distances.
The above analysis of the proximity effect in PF/N junction can be extended to the pseudospin valve geometry of Fig. \[Fig:1\](b). The profile of $\bm{PM}$ orientation in different regions of the PF/N/PF junction is indicated in Fig. \[Fig:1\] for parallel (c) and antiparallel (d) cases when $L=\lambda_F$ and $\mu\simeq\Delta$. $\bm{PM}$ is perpendicular to the $x$ axis and undergoes rotation across the N contact in a way that in parallel and antiparallel cases $PM_y$ and $PM_z$, respectively, shows a change of signs at the middle of N region ($x=L/2$). Also, we obtain that the magnitude of $\bm{PM}$ inside the N region is constant with $x$ for both of parallel and antiparallel configurations. So the strong pseudomagnetic coupling between the two pseudoferromagnetic regions, which itself can be due to the long-range penetration of pseudospin polarization into the N region by proximity to PFs, leads to the strong robustness of the pseudospin valve effect with respect to increasing the length of N contact.
\[sec:level4\]Pseudospin injection in PF/N junctions
====================================================
 Nonequilibrium PM of the PF/N junction when $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$: position dependence of (a-c) the $\bm{PM}$ components and (d) the magnitude of $\bm{PM}$ for three values of the bias voltage $eV/\Delta_N = 0.1, 1, 10$.](mzfig4.pdf){width="3.4in"}
 Position dependence of the $\bm{PM}$ components of PF/N/PF junction with parallel configuration, for different values of the bias voltage $eV/\Delta_N = 0, 0.1, 1, 10$, when $L=\lambda_F$ and $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$.](mzfig5.pdf){width="3.4in"}
In this section, we study the behavior of the injected pseudospin and pseudomagnetization into the nonpseudomagnetized N region of the PF/N junction, by the bias voltage. In a PF/N junction, when a charge current flows across the interface, the pseudospin polarized carriers in PF contribute to the net current of PM entering the nonpseudomagnetized region and lead to the nonequilibrium PM in N region. Figure \[Fig:4\] shows the behavior of the nonequilibrium PM in PF and N sides of the PF/N interface for different values of the bias voltage, when $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$. It is seen that similar to the equilibrium case, a uniform $\bm{PM}$ is induced inside the N region far from the interface, such that its magnitude decreases by increasing the bias voltage. This result is in contrast to the F/N junction, where the nonequilibrium magnetization decays exponentially within $\lambda_F$ [@Zutic04]. Also the magnitude of $\bm{PM}$ inside the PF decreases by increasing the bias voltage. This is due to the reduction of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector for the charge carriers that are going away from the energy band gap, and can be seen from Figs. \[Fig:4\](a-c).
The results of the above analysis for a PF/N/PF structure with parallel configuration of PMs are shown in Fig. \[Fig:5\] for different values of the bias voltage $eV/\Delta_N = 0, 0.1, 1, 10$, when $\mu=\Delta_N$ and $L=\lambda_F$. It is seen that in contrast to the case of equilibrium, the $x$ component of the injected $\bm{PM}$ into the N region has a nonzero constant value and the symmetry of the $y$ and $z$ components $PM_{y,z}$ are broken relative to the middle of the N region. Therefore, in contrast to the constant magnitude of the induced $\bm{PM}$ in equilibrium, the magnitude of the nonequilibrium $\bm{PM}$ depends on $x$ and has a different behavior for different lengths of the N region \[Fig. \[Fig:6\]\].
 Position dependence of the magnitude of $\bm{PM}$ for parallel configuration of the PF/N/PF junction with (a) $L=\lambda_F$ and (b) $L=5 \lambda_F$, when $eV/\Delta_N = 0, 0.1, 1, 10$ and $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$.](mzfig6.pdf){width="3in"}
\[sec:level5\]Andreev reflection in graphene S/PF junction
==========================================================
Now, we consider a wide graphene S/PF junction normal to $x$-axis with highly doped S region for $x<0$ and $n$-doped PF for $x>0$ \[see Fig. \[Fig:7\](a)\]. The S region can be produced by depositing S electrode on top of the graphene sheet[@Heersche07; @Du08; @Jeong11]. In this region $\Delta_N=0$ and the superconducting correlations are characterized by the superconducting pair potential (order parameter) $\Delta_S$ which is taken to be real and constant. To study AR at S/PF interface within the scattering formalism, we first construct the quasiparticle wave functions that participate in the scattering processes. In order to describe the superconducting correlations between relativistic electrons and holes of different valleys, we adopt the Dirac-Bogoliubov-de Gennes (DBdG) equation:[@beenakker06] $$\label{DBdG}
\hspace{-0.5cm}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
H-\mu & \Delta_S \\
\Delta_{S}^{\ast}& \mu-H
\\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u\\
v
\end{array}
\right)
=\varepsilon\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u\\
v
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{H}
H=H_0-U(\bm{r}),$$ where $H_0$ is the two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian with an energy gap (Eq. (\[DiracH\])), $\varepsilon$ is the excitation energy and $U(\bm{r})$ the electrostatic potential is taken to be $U_0\gg \mu$ in S region and $U=0$ in PF. The electron and the hole wave functions, $u$ and $v$, are two-component spinors of the form $(\psi_A,\psi_B)$.
 (a) Schematic illustration of the graphene S/PF junction. (b) The band structure of the $n$-doped PF to explain the two cases of Andreev reflection at S/PF interface: Right (Left) panel shows that an incident electron from the conduction band of PF with a subgap energy $0\leq\varepsilon\leq \mu-\Delta_N$ ($\varepsilon\geq \mu+\Delta_N$) is retro (specular) reflected as a hole in the conduction (valance)band without (with) the inversion of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector at S/PF interface. $\bm{\sigma}_{e-}$ and $\bm{\sigma}_{h+}$ denote the pseudospin vectors of incident electron and reflected hole. $v_{e}$ and $v_{h}$ denote the velocity vectors of the electron and the hole, moving in different directions.](mzfig7.pdf){width="3.3in"}
An incident electron of the conduction band from right to S/PF interface with a subgap energy $\varepsilon\leq\Delta_S$ can be either normally reflected as an electron or Andreev reflected as a hole. The reflected hole can be from the conduction or the valance band, depending on the electron energy $\varepsilon$, $\mu$ and the energy gap $\Delta_N$. As is shown in Fig. \[Fig:7\](b), as long as $0\leq\varepsilon\leq \mu-\Delta_N$ the reflected hole is an empty state in the conduction band and AR is retro (middle panel), while for $\varepsilon\geq \mu+\Delta_N$ it is an empty state in the valance band and AR is specular, if $\Delta_N<\Delta_S$ (right panel). The importance of AR near the Fermi level imposes the condition of $\Delta_N<\Delta_S$ on size of the energy gap $\Delta_N$. The retro reflection dominates if $\mu\gg\Delta_S+\Delta_N$, while the specular reflection dominates if $\mu\ll\Delta_S-\Delta_N$. Using the solutions of Dirac equation for electrons and holes of $n$-doped PF, the pseudospin of the incident electron and the reflected hole of the conduction (valance)band are obtained as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseudospin_e}
&&\hspace{-5mm}\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{c}^{e-}=\sqrt{1-{(\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu+\varepsilon})}^2}\ (-\cos{\alpha_{c}^e}\ \hat{x}+\sin{\alpha_{c}^e}\ \hat{y})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}+\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu+\varepsilon}\ \hat{z},\\
\label{pseudospin_h}
&&\hspace{-5mm}\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{c(v)}^{h+}=\sqrt{1-{(\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu-\varepsilon})}^2}\ (-\cos{\alpha_h}\ \hat{x}\pm\sin{\alpha_h}\ \hat{y})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.5cm}\pm\frac{\Delta_N}{|\mu-\varepsilon|}\ \hat{z}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\alpha_{h}=\arcsin{[{\hbar vq}/{\sqrt{(\mu-\varepsilon)^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}]}$ indicates the angle of propagation of the hole at a transverse momentum $q$ with energy-momentum relation $\varepsilon_{c(v)}^h=\mu\mp\sqrt{{\Delta_N}^2+(\hbar v|{\bm{k}}_{h}|)^2}$ for the hole from the conduction (valance)band. As can be seen from the above equations when an electron from the conduction band is reflected as a hole in the valance band, the sign of the gap-induced $z$ component of the pseudospin vector $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ is changed, while in the case of the conduction band hole, it retains its sign. This is shown schematically in the middle (right) panel of Fig. \[Fig:7\](b) for the case of Andreev reflected hole from the conduction (valance)band without (with) the inversion of $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ upon AR at S/PF interface. Thus, for the incident electron and the reflected hole being from different types of bands, we have an inversion of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector upon AR at S/PF interface. In the following we will show how the pseudospin $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ inversion by AR leads to peculiar properties of S/PF and PF/S/PF systems.
To evaluate the Andreev conductance of an S/PF junction, we use the Blonder-Tinkham-Klapwijk (BTK) formula[@Blonder82]: $$\label{G}
G_{c(v)}=\frac{4e^2}{h}\tilde{N}(eV)\int_{0}^{\alpha_{c}}(1-|r_{c(v)}|^2+|r_{A,c(v)}|^2)\cos\alpha_e\ d\alpha_e,\\$$ where $r_{c(v)}$ and $r_{A,c(v)}$ denote the amplitudes of normal and Andreev reflections, respectively. $\tilde{N}(\varepsilon)={W{(\mu+\varepsilon)}^2}/{\pi\hbar v_F\sqrt{{(\mu+\varepsilon)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}$ is the number of transverse modes in a sheet of gapped graphene of width W and $\alpha_{c}=\arcsin[\sqrt{{{(\mu-\varepsilon)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}/\sqrt{{{(\mu+\varepsilon)}^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}]$ is the critical angle of incidence above which the Andreev reflected waves become evanescent and do not contribute to any transport of charge.
We calculate the amplitudes of normal and Andreev reflections by matching the wave functions of PF and S region at the interface $x=0$. The wave functions inside PF and S region are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pf wave function}
&&\psi_{PF}^{c(v)}=\psi_{c}^{e-}+r_{c(v)}\ \psi_c^{e+}+r_{A,c(v)}\ \psi_{c(v)}^{h+},\\
\label{s wave function}
&&\psi_{S}=a\ \psi^{S+}+b\ \psi^{S-},\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{c(v)}^{e(h)\pm}$ and $\psi^{S\pm}$ are the solutions of DBdG equation for the quasiparticles inside the $n$-doped PF and S region, respectively, and the two cases of the Andreev reflected holes from the conduction (valance)band without (with) the inversion of $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ are denoted by $c(v)$ in $\psi_{PF}^{c(v)}$.
 Dependence of the Andreev conductance of graphene S/PF contact on the gap $\Delta_N/\mu$ (in units of the chemical potential) at three bias voltages $eV/\Delta_S = 0,0.5,1$. Left (Right) inset shows that an incident electron from the conduction band of PF with ${\Delta_N/\mu}\leq{1/(1+eV/\Delta_N)}$ (${\Delta_N/\mu}\geq{1/(eV/\Delta_N-1)}$) is reflected as a hole in the conduction (valance)band without (with) the inversion of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector at S/PF interface.](mzfig8.pdf){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[Fig:8\] shows the Andreev conductance of the graphene S/PF junction as a function of $\Delta_N/\mu$ for $\Delta_N/\Delta_S=0.1$ and different subgap bias voltages. It is seen that for $\Delta_N<{\mu/(1+eV/\Delta_N)}$, the conductance decreases monotonically with $\Delta_N/\mu$. In this interval, the incident electron and the reflected hole are from the conduction band and therefore AR is without the inversion of $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ \[see left inset of Fig. \[Fig:8\]\]. The density of states of the conduction band hole decreases by increasing $\Delta_N/\mu$. Thus, the amplitude of AR and hence the Andreev conductance decreases with $\Delta_N/\mu$ and goes to zero at $\Delta_N={\mu/(1+eV/\Delta_N)}$, where the density of states of the conduction band hole vanishes. The absence of hole states for ${\mu/(1+eV/\Delta_N)}<\Delta_N<{\mu/(eV/\Delta_N-1)}$ causes a gap in conductance, which decreases with $eV/\Delta_S$ and goes towards smaller $\Delta_N/\mu$. For $\Delta_N\geq{\mu/(eV/\Delta_N-1)}$, the pseudospin $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ inverted Andreev conductance increases monotonically with $\Delta_N/\mu$. In this regime, the transport is between the conduction and the valance band and the incident electron of the conduction band is reflected as a hole in the valance band. So the pseudospin $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ of the reflected hole changes sign \[see right inset of Fig. \[Fig:8\]\] and the density of states of the hole increases with $\Delta_N/\mu$, resulting in an enhancing Andreev conductance. Such a peculiar AR is associated with a Klein tunneling of the $n$-type carriers to the $p$-type carriers. The enhancing conductance reaches a limiting maximum value for $\Delta_N\gg \mu$, which depends on the bias voltage and can be larger than the value for the corresponding S/N structure ($\Delta_N\ll \mu$). The limiting value of the Andreev conductance for $\Delta_N\gg \mu$ decreases by increasing $\Delta_N/\Delta_S$ from its value for a specular AR in corresponding S/N structure $\Delta_N\ll\Delta_S$ $(G/G_0 = 4/3)$ and vanishes for $\Delta_N>\Delta_S$, while for $\Delta_N\ll \mu$ it increases by increasing $\Delta_N/\Delta_S$ and tends to the corresponding value of a retro type AR $(G/G_0 = 2)$ as $\Delta_N\rightarrow\Delta_S$ [@majidi12]. So the behavior of the Andreev conductance with $\Delta_N/\mu$ is similar to that of a graphene F/S junction with $h/\mu$, where AR of $n$-$n$ type carriers for $h<\mu$ changes to the Andreev-Klein reflection of the $n$-$p$ type carriers for $h>\mu$[@Zareyan08]. This shows that the energy gap $\Delta_N$ in the band structure of normal graphene behaves like an exchange energy in F graphene and enhances the subgap Andreev conductance of S/PF junction, which is accompanied by the inversion of the $z$ component of the pseudospin vector for the reflected hole relative to the incident electron.
To complete the analysis of the present section, we evaluate the proximity density of states (DOS) inside the pseudoferromagnetic region by using the formula [@Gennes89] $$\label{N}
N(\varepsilon,r)=\sum_{\bm{k}}{|\psi_{\bm{k}}(r)|^2\ \delta(\varepsilon(\bm{k})-\varepsilon)},\\$$ where $\psi_{\bm{k}}(r)$ corresponds to the eigenfunction of energy $\varepsilon(\bm{k})$ and the sum is over all states with the wave vectors $\bm{k}$. Replacing Eq. (\[pf wave function\]) in the above equation, we find the total subgap DOS inside the pseudoferromagnetic region for the case of AR with $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ inversion as, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-20mm}\frac{N(\varepsilon, x)}{N_{0}(\varepsilon)} =\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1- (\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu+\varepsilon})^2}\nonumber\\
&&\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} |{\psi(r)}_{PF}^{v}|^2\ {\cos}^2\alpha_e\ d\alpha_e,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_0(\varepsilon)= {(\mu+\varepsilon)^2}/{(\pi\hbar v_F)^2 \sqrt{(\mu+\varepsilon)^2-{\Delta_N}^2}}$ is the DOS of a pseudoferromagnetic layer.
 The behavior of the proximity density of states (DOS) inside the pseudoferromagnetic region versus $x/\lambda_F$ for different values of $\Delta_N/\mu$, when $\varepsilon/\Delta_S = 0.5$ and $\Delta_N/\Delta_S = 0.1$. ](mzfig9.pdf){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[Fig:9\] shows the behavior of the proximity DOS inside the pseudoferromagnetic region in terms of the dimensionless distance $x/\lambda_F$ for different values of $\Delta_N/\mu$, when $\varepsilon/\Delta_S = 0.5$ and $\Delta_N/\Delta_S = 0.1 $. We see that there are two phenomena to consider in describing the spatial variations of $N(x)$, when an energy gap is present in the band structure of normal graphene. The first phenomenon is the short distance decay at the interface with a slope which increases by increasing $\Delta_N/\mu$. The other important phenomenon is the damped oscillation of $N(x)$, caused by the momentum shift between Andreev correlated electron-hole pair with opposite $\langle{\sigma}_z\rangle$ directions. The period of oscillations is determined by $\hbar v_F/\Delta_N$, which is similar to an S/F structure where the period of DOS oscillations in the ballistic limit is given $\hbar v_F/h$ [@Zareyan01; @Zareyan02; @Buzdin05]. This shows the similarity of the effect of an spin-splitting exchange field $h$ with the energy gap $\Delta_N$, which behaves as a pseudospin-splitting field \[see Eq. (\[DiracH\])\]. We note that the appropriate method to probe the DOS oscillations in S/PF junction is the local scanning of the surface of the pseudoferromagnetic region by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). So the spatially damped oscillatory behavior of the DOS inside the pseudoferromagnetic region confirms that the energy gap $\Delta_N$ in the band structure of normal graphene produces an effect similar to the exchange field in F graphene.
\[sec:level6\]Superconducting pseudospin valve
==============================================
Finally, we study the nonlocal quantum transport in PF/S/PF junction that constitutes a superconducting pseudospin valve structure. We calculate the normal and Andreev reflection amplitudes ($r$ and $r_A$, respectively) in the left PF and the transmission amplitudes of the electron ($t$) and the hole ($t_A$) into the right PF of both parallel and antiparallel configurations, by matching the wave functions of the two PFs and S region at the two interfaces ($x=0$ and $x=L$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pfspf wave function}
&&\psi'_{1}=\psi_{c}^{e+}+r\ \psi_c^{e-}+r_{A}\ \psi_{c}^{h-},\nonumber\\
&&\psi'_{2}=a\ \psi^{S+}+b\ \psi^{S-}+a'\ \psi^{S'+}+b'\ \psi^{S'-}\nonumber,\\
&&\psi'_{3,P(AP)}=t\ \psi_{c(v)}^{e+}+t_{A}\ \psi_{c(v)}^{(')h+}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the left PF, S region, and the right PF are signed by 1,2, and 3, respectively, and $\psi_{c(v)}^{(')h+}$ is the solution of the Dirac equation for conduction (valance)band hole of the $n$- ($p$-)doped PF). Replacing the reflection and transmission amplitudes in BTK formula, we obtain the conductance of AR, CT, and CAR processes for parallel and antiparallel alignments of PMs. In CAR process an electron excitation and a hole excitation at two separate pseudoferromagnetic leads are coupled by means of Andreev scattering processes at two spatially distinct interfaces. We find that for all incoming waves with two bias voltages $eV = \pm (\mu-\Delta_N)$, AR process is suppressed and the cross-conductance in the right PF depends crucially on the configuration of PMs in the two PFs. We find that the transport is mediated purely by CT in parallel configuration and changes to the pure CAR in the low energy regime, by reversing the direction of PM in the right PF. This suggests a pseudospin switching effect between the pure CT and pure CAR in PF/S/PF structure, which can be seen from Eq. (\[pseudospin\_PF/S/PF\]), for the right going conduction (valance)band electron (hole) of $n$- ($p$-)doped PF, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseudospin_PF/S/PF}
&&\hspace{-5mm}\langle\bm{\sigma}(\bm{k})\rangle_{c(v)}^{e(h)+}=\pm\sqrt{1-{(\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu+\varepsilon})}^2}\ (\cos{\alpha_{c}^e}\ \hat{x}+\sin{\alpha_{c}^e}\ \hat{y})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}\pm\frac{\Delta_N}{\mu+\varepsilon}\ \hat{z}.\end{aligned}$$
 Plots of the conductance for CT and CAR processes, respectively, in parallel ($G_{CAR}\rightarrow 0$) and antiparallel ($G_{CT}\rightarrow 0$) alignments of PMs versus the length of the S region for two values of $\Delta_N/\Delta_S=1,10$, when $\mu/\Delta_N= 1.1$ and $eV = \mu - \Delta_N$.](mzfig10.pdf){width="3.4in"}
Figure \[Fig:10\] shows the behavior of the conductance of CT and CAR processes, respectively, in parallel and antiparallel alignments of PMs versus the length of the S region for two values of $\Delta_N/\Delta_S$, when $\mu / \Delta_N = 1.1$ and $eV = \mu - \Delta_N$. It is seen that the CT process is favored for short junctions $L\ll \xi_{s}$, while the CAR process is suppressed in this regime. The CT conductance drops by increasing the length $L$, while the CAR conductance peaks at $L<\xi_{s}$. We see that the conductance of CT and CAR processes have oscillatory behavior with $L / \xi_{s}$ and increase by increasing $\Delta_N/\Delta_S$ from their values for the corresponding graphene N/S/N structure. Also we can see that in contrast to the graphene N/S/N structure, CT and CAR processes are present for long lengths of the S region, respectively, in parallel and antiparallel PM configurations. This effect is similar to graphene F/S/F structure [@linder09] and shows that the gapped normal graphene behaves like an F graphene.
\[sec:level7\]Conclusion
========================
In conclusion, we have demonstrated the unusual features of the pseudospin polarized quantum transport in graphene-based hybrid structures of normal (N) regions, superconductors (S) and gapped regions as pseudoferromagnets (PFs). A gapped graphene is in a sublattice pseudospin symmetry-broken state with a net pseudomagnetization (PM) oriented perpendicularly to the plane of graphene. The magnitude of PM depends on the ratio of the chemical potential to the energy gap $\mu/\Delta_N$ and its direction is switched by changing the type of doping between $n$ and $p$. Based on this observation, we have proposed a perfect pseudospin valve (PF/N/PF junction) with pseudomagnetoresistance $PMR=1$, for $\mu\simeq\Delta_N$ and appropriate contact length $L$, whose magnetization alignments can be controlled by altering the type of their doping. We have shown that this perfect pseudomagnetic valve effect is preserved even for very large lengths $L\gg \lambda_F$. Also, it can be resumed at large chemical potentials by applying an appropriate bias voltage. We have explained this strong robustness of the perfect pseudomagnetic switching with respect to increasing of the contact length, in terms of an unusually long-range penetration of an equilibrium and nonequilibrium pseudospin polarization into the normal region by proximity to a PF. The induced pseudomagnetization vector $\bm{PM}$ undergoes a damped spatial precession around the normal to the PF/N junction and tends to be uniform along the normal at the large distances $x\gg \lambda_F$ from the junction.
Furthermore, we have found that upon a certain condition, Andreev reflection (AR) of an electron from an S/PF interface is associated with an inversion of the perpendicular component of its pseudospin, and that this has important consequences for the proximity effect in S/PF and PF/S/PF geometries. For an S/PF junction system, we have found that the Andreev-Klein reflection can enhance the amplitude of AR and the resulting Andreev conductance by $\Delta_N$. In particular, we have shown that depending on the bias voltage the Andreev conductance of weekly doped PF ($\mu\ll\Delta_N$) can be larger than its value for the corresponding graphene S/N junction. This is similar to the behavior of Andreev conductance with the exchange energy $h$ in a graphene ferromagnet-superconductor junction. We have further studied the proximity density of states (DOS) in pseudoferromagnetic side of the S/PF contact, which exhibit a damped-oscillatory behavior as a function of the distance from the interface. The period of DOS oscillations is found to be inversely proportional to the energy gap $\Delta_N$. The proximity DOS in ferromagnetic graphene shows similar spatial oscillations with a period determined by $1/h$. For a superconducting pseudospin valve (PF/S/PF) structure, we have found that the transport is mediated purely by elastic electron cotunneling process in parallel alignment of PMs and crossed Andreev reflection process in antiparallel configuration, that is accompanied by pseudospin switching effect. This is again similar to the behavior of the corresponding superconducting structure with ferromagnetic graphene and confirms that, in this respect, the effect of the sublattice pseudospin degree of freedom in gapped graphene is as important as the spin in a ferromagnetic graphene.
We gratefully acknowledge support by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS) Research Council under grants No. G2009IASBS110 and No. G2010IASBS110. We thank A. G. Moghaddam for fruitful discussions. L. M. acknowledges the financial support of Marco Polini and the organizers of the school NSPM2011 held in Erice, Italy.
[99]{}
Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K., Morozov, S. V., Jiang, D., Zhang, Y., Dubonos, S. V., Grigorieva, I. V., Firsov, A. A.: Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science [**306**]{}, 666 (2004)
Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K., Morozov, S. V., Jiang, D., Katsnelson, M. I., Grigorieva, I. V., Dubonos, S. V., Firsov, A. A.: Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene. Nature (London) [**438**]{}, 197 (2005)
Zhang, Y., Tan, Y.-W., Stormer, H. L., Kim, P.: Experimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry’s phase in graphene. Nature (London) [**438**]{}, 201 (2005)
Wallace, P. R.: The band theory of graphite. Phys. Rev. [**71**]{}, 622 (1974)
Slonczewski, J. C., Weiss, P. R.: Band structure of graphite. Phys. Rev. [**109**]{}, 272 (1958)
Haldane, F. D. M.: Model for a quantum Hall effect without Landau levels: condensed-matter realization of the “parity anomaly”. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2015 (1988)
Castro Neto, A. H., Guinea, F., Peres, N. M. R., Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K.: The electronic properties of graphene. Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 109 (2009)
Gusynin, V. P., Sharapov, S. G.: Unconventional integer quantum Hall effect in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 146801 (2005)
Du, X., Skachko, I., Duerr, F., Luican, A., Andrei, E. Y.: Fractional quantum Hall effect and insulating phase of Dirac electrons in graphene . Nature (London) [**462**]{}, 192 (2009)
Peres, N. M. R., Castro Neto, A. H., Guinea, F.: Conductance quantization in mesoscopic graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**73**]{}, 195411 (2006)
Katsnelson, M. I., Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K.: Chiral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene. Nat. Phys. [**2**]{}, 620 (2006)
Young, A. F., Kim, P.: Quantum interference and Klein tunnelling in graphene heterojunctions. Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 222 (2009)
Stander, N., Huard, B., Goldhaber-Gordon, D.: Evidence for Klein tunneling in graphene p-n junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 026807 (2009)
Tworzydlo, J., Trauzettel, B., Titov, M., Rycerz, A., Beenakker, C. W. J.: Sub-poissonian shot noise in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 246802 (2006)
Danneau, R., Wu, F., Craciun, M. F., Russo, S., Tomi, M.Y., Salmilehto, J., Morpurgo, A. F., Hakonen, P. J.: Shot noise in ballistic graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 196802 (2008)
DiCarlo, L., Williams, J. R., Zhang, Y., McClure, D. T., Marcus, C. M.: Shot noise in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 156801 (2008)
Rycerz, A., Tworzyd[ł]{}o, J., Beenakker, C. W. J.: Valley filter and valley valve in graphene. Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 172 (2007)
Xiao, D., Yao, W., Niu, Q.: Valley-contrasting physics in graphene: magnetic moment and topological transport. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 236809 (2007)
Akhmerov, A. R., Bardarson, J. H., Rycerz, A., Beenakker, C. W. J.: Theory of the valley-valve effect in graphene nanoribbons. Phys. Rev. B. [**77**]{}, 205416 (2008)
Wu, Z., Zhai, F., Peeters, F. M., Xu, H. Q., Chang, K.: Valley-dependent Brewster angles and Goos-Hänchen effect in strained graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 176802 (2011)
San-Jose, P., Prada, E., McCann, E., Schomerus, H.: Pseudospin valve in bilayer graphene: towards graphene-based pseudospintronics. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 247204 (2009)
Xia, F., Farmer, D. B., Lin, Y.-M., Avouris, P.: Graphene field-effect transistors with high on/off current ratio and large transport band gap at room temperature. Nano Lett. [**10**]{}, 715 (2010)
Majidi, L., Zareyan, M.: Pseudospin polarized quantum transport in monolayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**83**]{}, 115422 (2011)
Min, H., Borghi, G., Polini, M., MacDonald, A. H.: Pseudospin magnetism in graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**77**]{}, 041407(R) (2008)
Heersche, H. B., Jarillo-Herrero, P., Oostinga, J. B., Vandersypen, L. M. K., Morpurgo, A. F.: Bipolar supercurrent in graphene. Nature (London) [**446**]{}, 56 (2007)
Du, X., Skachko, I., Andrei, E. Y.: Josephson current and multiple Andreev reflections in graphene SNS junctions. Phys. Rev. B. [**77**]{}, 184507 (2008)
Jeong, D., Choi, J.-H., Lee, G.-H., Jo, S., Doh, Y.-J., Lee, H.-J.: Observation of supercurrent in PbIn-graphene-PbIn Josephson junction. Phys. Rev. B. [**83**]{}, 094503 (2011)
Andreev, A. F.: Thermal conductivity of the intermediate state of superconductors. Sov. Phys. JETP [**19**]{}, 1228 (1964)
Beenakker,C. W. J.: Specular Andreev reflection in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 067007 (2006).
Beenakker, C. W. J.: Andreev reflection and Klein tunneling in graphene. Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 1337 (2008)
De Jong, M. J. M., Beenakker, C. W. J.: Andreev reflection in ferromagnet-superconductor junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1657 (1995)
Zareyan, M., Mohammadpour, H., Moghaddam, A. G.: Andreev-Klein reflection in graphene ferromagnet-superconductor junctions. Phys. Rev. B. [**78**]{}, 193406 (2008)
Asano, Y., Yoshida, T., Tanaka, Y., Golubov, A. A.: Electron transport in a ferromagnet-superconductor junction on graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**78**]{}, 014514 (2008)
Zhang, Q., Fu, D., Wang, B., Zhang, R., Xing, D. Y.: Signals for specular Andreev reflection. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 047005 (2008)
Moghaddam, A. G., Zareyan, M.: Long-range Josephson coupling through ferromagnetic graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**78**]{}, 115413 (2008)
Linder, J., Yokoyama, T., Huertas-Hernando, D., Sudb[ø]{}, A.: Supercurrent switch in graphene $\Pi$ junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 187004 (2008)
Cayssol, J.: Crossed Andreev reflection in a graphene bipolar transistor. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 147001 (2008)
Linder, J., Zareyan, M., Sudb[ø]{}, A.: Spin-switch effect from crossed Andreev reflection in superconducting graphene spin valves. Phys. Rev. B. [**80**]{}, 014513 (2009)
Baibich, M. N., Broto, J. M., Fert, A., Nguyen Van Dau, F., Petroff, F., Etienne, P., Creuzet, G., Friederich, A., Chazelas, J.: Giant magnetoresistance of (001)Fe/(001)Cr magnetic superlattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2472 (1988)
Zutic, I., Fabian, J., Das Sarma, S.: Spintronics: fundamentals and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 323 (2004)
Zhou, S. Y., Gweon, G.-H., Fedorov, A. V., First, P. N., de Heer, W. A., Lee, D.-H., Guinea, F., Castro Neto, A. H., Lanzara, A.: Substrate-induced bandgap opening in epitaxial graphene. Nat. Mater. [**6**]{}, 770 (2007)
Varchon, F., Feng, R., Hass, J., Li, X., Nguyen, B. N., Naud, C., Mallet, P., Veuillen, J. Y., Berger, C., Conrad, E. H., Magaud, L.: Electronic structure of epitaxial graphene layers on SiC: effect of the substrate. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 126805 (2007)
Giovannetti, G., Khomyakov, P. A., Brocks, G., Kelly, P. J., Van den Brink, J.: Substrate-induced band gap in graphene on hexagonal boron nitride: Ab initio density functional calculations. Phys. Rev. B. [**76**]{}, 073103 (2007)
Zanella, I., Guerini, S., Fagan, S. B., Mendes Filho, J., Souza Filho, A. G.: Chemical doping-induced gap opening and spin polarization in graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**77**]{}, 073404 (2008)
Ribeiro, R. M., Peres, N. M. R., Coutinho, J., Briddon, P. R.: Inducing energy gaps in monolayer and bilayer graphene: Local density approximation calculations. Phys. Rev. B. [**78**]{}, 075442 (2008)
Divincenzo, D. P., Mele, E. J.: Self-consistent effective-mass theory for intralayer screening in graphite intercalation compounds. Phys. Rev. B. [**29**]{}, 1685 (1984)
Ando, T.: Theory of electronic states and transport in carbon nanotubes. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**74**]{},777 (2005)
Landauer, R.: Spatial variation of currents and fields due to localized scatterers in metallic conduction. IBM J. Res. Dev. [**1**]{}, 223 (1957); [**32**]{}, 306 (1988).
Blonder, G. E., Tinkham, M., Klapwijk, T. M.: Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B. [**25**]{}, 4515 (1982)
Majidi, L., Zareyan, M.: Enhanced Andreev reflection in gapped graphene. Phys. Rev. B. [**86**]{}, 075443 (2012)
De Gennes, P. G.: Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys. Addision-Wesley, California (1989)
Zareyan, M., Belzig, W., Nazarov, Yu. V.: Oscillations of Andreev states in clean ferromagnetic films. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 308 (2001)
Zareyan, M., Belzig, W., Nazarov, Yu. V.: Superconducting proximity effect in clean ferromagnetic layers. Phys. Rev. B. [**65**]{}, 184505 (2002).
Buzdin, A. I.: Proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures. Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 935 (2005)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the magnon spin transport in the magnetic insulator yttrium iron garnet (YIG) in a nonlocal experiment and compare the magnon spin excitation and detection for the heavy metal paramagnetic electrodes platinum (Pt$|$YIG$|$Pt) and tantalum (Ta$|$YIG$|$Ta). The electrical injection and detection processes rely on the (inverse) spin Hall effect in the heavy metals and the conversion between the electron spin and magnon spin at the heavy metal$|$YIG interface. Pt and Ta possess opposite signs of the spin Hall angle. Furthermore, their heterostructures with YIG have different interface properties, i.e. spin mixing conductances. By varying the distance between injector and detector, the magnon spin transport is studied. Using a circuit model based on the diffusion-relaxation transport theory, a similar magnon relaxation length of $\sim 10\,\mu$m was extracted from both Pt and Ta devices. By changing the injector and detector material from Pt to Ta, the influence of interface properties on the magnon spin transport has been observed. For Ta devices on YIG the spin mixing conductance is reduced compared with Pt devices, which is quantitatively consistent when comparing the dependence of the nonlocal signal on the injector-detector distance with the prediction from the circuit model.'
author:
- 'J. Liu'
- 'L. J. Cornelissen'
- 'J. Shan'
- 'B. J. van Wees'
- 'T. Kuschel'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 'Nonlocal magnon spin transport in yttrium iron garnet with tantalum and platinum spin injection/detection electrodes'
---
[^1]
Magnons are the quasi-particle representations for collective excitations of spin waves in magnetically ordered systems. Yttrium iron garnet (YIG) is a magnetic insulator with the lowest known magnetic damping at room temperature, which corresponds to the longest magnon lifetime [@cherepanov1993saga; @barker2016thermal]. Magnons can carry spin angular momentum and in a magnetic insulator, such as YIG, this transport is without moving any electron charge.
Since magnons carry spin information, this makes magnon transport promising for long-range information transmission and processing [@chumak2015magnon]. Long-wavelength magnons can be generated by microwave excitation, even as a uniform precession mode with certain GHz-frequency (ferromagnetic resonance, FMR). However, the wavelength of the spin waves limits the size of the smallest devices which can be based on it. In order to develop nano-sized magnon-transport devices, scaling down the wavelength of controllable spin waves becomes attractive for scientists; however, the first step of realizing nano-scaled magnon devices is to use a reliable method to excite and detect short-wavelength magnons in the THz-regime, where exchange interaction dominates.
One possibility is to inject spins from mobile electrons of a metal which have the energy of $\sim$$\, k_{\textrm{B}}T$ (e.g. $300\,$K$\,\sim$$\,6\,$THz). This has been first theoretically predicted [@PhysRevLett.109.096603] by using a ferromagnetic insulator sandwiched by two metallic layers. Here, the spin Hall effect (SHE) [@hoffmann2013spin] converts charge current to a pure spin current, while the inverse SHE (ISHE)[@saitoh2006conversion] transforms the spin current back to a charge current. Nonlocal magnon spin transport was demonstrated by experiments with Pt$|$YIG$|$Pt lateral structure, where both Pt injector and detector are patterned on top of a YIG film [@cornelissen2015long; @goennenwein2015non]. Later on, vertical structures Pt$|$YIG$|$Pt(Ta) as proposed in the theoretical paper have been realized [@wu2016observation; @li2016observation].
So far, different spin current sources have been used to create the spin accumulation at the interface of the YIG, either employing the SHE of heavy paramagnetic metals or by the polarized spin current in a ferromagnetic metal associated with the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) [@das2017spin]. In both cases, the transferring of the spin angular momentum is based on the scattering between mobile electrons in the metal with the localized electrons in YIG[@PhysRevLett.109.096603; @PhysRevLett.108.246601; @cornelissen2015long]. Therefore, we call it electrical injection of magnon spins (the reciprocal process: detection). Besides the electrical excitation of magnon spins, applying a charge current to a metal bar produces Joule heating. The resulting temperature gradient in the magnetic insulator also generates a magnon spin current. This is called the thermal injection via Joule heating [@cornelissen2015long; @PhysRevB.94.174437], also known as nonlocal spin Seebeck effect, in contrast to the electrical injection via SHE. External heaters have also been used to specifically study the thermal generation of the magnon spins, such as laser-heating [@giles2015long; @giles2017thermally]. Here, the nonlocal transport is governed by both magnons and phonons [@giles2015long; @giles2017thermally]. Therefore, one should be careful when analyzing the obtained nonlocal spin Seebeck signals, e.g. when determining the magnon spin diffusion length [@PhysRevB.96.184427].
Platinum is so-far the most commonly used spin-Hall metal for building up the nonlocal devices in order to study the magnon spin transport of magnetic insulators such as YIG[@cornelissen2015long; @goennenwein2015non; @giles2015long; @PhysRevB.93.020403; @wu2016observation; @li2016observation; @ganzhorn2016magnon; @PhysRevB.94.014412; @velez2016competing; @cornelissen2016temperature; @PhysRevB.94.174437; @zhou2017lateral; @liu2017MPHEMAMR; @PhysRevB.96.104441; @ganzhorn2017magnon; @wesenberg2017long; @giles2017thermally; @PhysRevB.96.184427; @das2017spin], nickel ferrite (NiFe$_2$O$_4$, NFO)[@shan2017nonlocal] and gadolinium iron garnet (Gd$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$, GdIG) [@ganzhorn2017non]. The nonlocal magnon spin transport properties have been studied depending on, e.g., magnetic field strength[@PhysRevB.93.020403], temperature[@cornelissen2016temperature], measurement geometries (longitudinal and transverse)[@liu2017MPHEMAMR] as well as thickness of the magnetic insulator and transparency of the contacts[@PhysRevB.96.104441]. Platinum has a large spin Hall angle ($\theta_{\textrm{SH}}$), a large spin mixing conductance to YIG ($G_{\textrm{Pt}\mid \textrm{YIG}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$) and short spin flip time ($\tau_{\textrm{sf}}$) [@PhysRevB.87.174417]. These properties make Pt a spin-Hall metal with high spin and charge current conversion efficiency as well as a relatively “transparent” contact to YIG in terms of spin current. A material with opposite sign of the spin Hall angle, such as Ta, has not been used so far for lateral experiments. For vertical devices, Ta has been used as one of the electrodes [@li2016observation].
![(a,b) Schematic illustration of the typical device measurement configuration and (c,d) corresponding optical microscope images with false colors for (a,c) Ta devices and (b,d) Pt devices. In an xyz-coordinate system as shown in (a) and (b), YIG thin films (dark grey) lie in the xy-plane on top of GGG substrate (green). Ta (blue) and Pt (pink) bars are along the y-axis. Ti/Au leads (bright grey) are used to connect the device to the electronic measurement setup. We used the measurement configuration shown in (a) and (b): the positive sign of the nonlocal voltage $V_{\textrm{nl}}$ corresponds to a higher voltage potential in the upper lead compared to the lower lead. “+” and “-” symbols around the voltmeter indicate the fashion how the voltmeter is connected. The angle between the external magnetic field $\textit{\textbf{H}}_{\textrm{ex}}$ and the positive x-axis is defined as $\alpha$, which is positive when $\textit{\textbf{H}}_{\textrm{ex}}$ rotates anticlockwisely from $\alpha=0$. []{data-label="OM"}](Fig1_Ta_Pt_YIG_OM){width="1\linewidth"}
Here, we present a nonlocal magnon spin transport study with injector and detector both made of Ta on top of YIG. We compare our results with the classical case using Pt. Due to the fact that $\theta_{\textrm{SH}}$ has opposite sign for Pt and Ta[@liu2012spin], we paid special attention to the sign of the SHE-induced nonlocal magnon spin transport and the nonlocal spin Seebeck effect signal. Besides, the influence of the interface properties ($G_{\textrm{Pt}\mid \textrm{YIG}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}>G_{\textrm{Ta}\mid \textrm{YIG}}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ [@PhysRevB.87.174417; @vlietstra2014simultaneous]) on magnon spin transport has been investigated.
The Pt devices with smaller injector-to-detector distance (Series A) are fabricated on 200-nm-thick YIG, which is provided by Universite de Bretagne Occidentale in Brest, France. The Pt devices with longer injector-to-detector distance (Series B) and all Ta devices (Series A1 and B1) are patterned on 210-nm-thick YIG commercially obtained from Matesy GmbH. All the YIG films are grown on gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) substrate by liquid phase epitaxy method. Both Ta and Pt electrodes are patterned by a three-step electron beam lithography and DC-sputtering. The schematic illustration and optical images of the typical nonlocal devices are shown in Fig.$\,$\[OM\]. The dimension parameters of all devices are summarized in Table \[table\_geo\].
[cccc]{} &Length &Width &Thickness\
&($\mu$m)& ($\mu$m)&(nm)\
\
Series A (Pt)&7.5/12.5&0.1-0.15&13\
Series B (Pt)&100&0.3&7\
Series A1 (Ta)&8&0.5/0.6&5\
Series B1 (Ta)&40&1&5\
\[table\_geo\]
In the experiment, a low-frequency (usually $\omega/2\pi\sim17\,\textrm{Hz}$) AC-charge current (typically $[I_{0}]_{\textrm{rms}}=80\,\mu$A) is sent through the injector strip as shown in Fig.$\,$\[OM\]. SHE-generated transverse spin current causes a spin accumulation at the interface between the heavy metal and YIG, which electrically excites magnons in YIG. Simultaneously, the Joule heating of the injector charge current creates a temperature gradient in the YIG, which thermally generates the magnon spin current. The excited magnon spins diffuse towards the detector. By using the lock-in technique, we measured the nonlocal charge voltage at the detector as $V_{\textrm{nl}}$. Then the nonlocal resistances are given by $R_{\textrm{nl}}^{1\omega}=\frac{V_{\textrm{nl}}}{I_{0}}$ and $R_{\textrm{nl}}^{2\omega}=\frac{V_{\textrm{nl}}}{I_{0}^{2}}$ for the first and second harmonic signals, respectively. An in-plane magnetic field $\textbf{\emph{H}}_{\textrm{ex}}$ (typically $\mu_{0}H_{\textrm{ex}}=10\,$ mT) is applied to align the magnetization of the YIG film $\textbf{\textit{M}}$ with an angle $\alpha$ (cf. Fig.$\,$\[OM\]). We vary $\alpha$ by rotating the sample in-plane under a static magnetic field with a stepper motor. All the measurements are carried out at room temperature.
{width="0.99\linewidth"}
Since the electrical magnon injection and detection efficiencies depend on the relative orientation of the electron spin accumulation and the net magnetization of YIG, an angle dependent behavior is expected to be observed as explained in Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\]. Non-equilibrium magnons are generated at the injector, then diffuse towards the detector. For the injection, magnons are excited electrically and thermally. In these two excitation methods, signals scale linearly and quadratically with the excitation current, respectively. For the electrically excited magnons, the SHE-induced electron spin accumulation, i.e. $\mu$, locally introduces the magnons at the heavy metal$|$YIG interface. However, only the eletron spin accumulation parallel to the YIG magnetization, i.e. $\mu_{\parallel \textit{\textbf{M}}}$, can effectively inject magnons. This results in the $\cos\alpha$ angular dependence of the electrical injection via SHE. The non-equilibrium magnon spins with polarization of $\mu_{\parallel \textit{\textbf{M}}}$ diffuse away from the injector under a gradient of the magnon chemical potential[@PhysRevB.94.014412]. At the detector, they are converted back to the electron spin current and measured as a voltage signal under an open circuit condition via the ISHE. However, due to the symmetry of the ISHE only the electron spin accumulation with polarization perpendicular to the voltage detection direction, i.e. $\mu_{\perp \textit{\textbf{V}}}$, contributes to the measured voltage. This gives rise to $\cos\alpha$ angular dependence of the electrical detection via ISHE. Therefore, we expect a $\cos2\alpha$ dependence for the total electrically injected nonlocal magnon spin transport (cf. Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](e,g)). In the case of thermal excitation, a Joule heating caused temperature gradient is used to generate the magnons. This process is independent from the magnetization direction $\alpha$. The thermally excited magnons are converted back to an electron spin accumulation at the detector again by the ISHE (cf. Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](f,h)). Thus, a $\cos\alpha$ dependence is expected for the total thermally injected nonlocal magnon spin transport. The signals produced by electrically and thermally excited magnons can be differentiated by employing the first and second harmonic measurement of a lock-in system, respectively.
{width="0.99\linewidth"}
The results are presented in Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](a)-(d). For both Ta and Pt devices we obtain a $\cos2\alpha$ dependence in case of electrical injection (first harmonic signal, cf. Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](a,c)). The sign of the angular dependencies is the same, although Ta and Pt have opposite spin Hall angle. Since there are two SHE processes during injection and detection of the magnon spins, any negative sign of the spin Hall angle for both injector and detector is canceled out and will not affect the sign of the overall electrically excited nonlocal signal. However, the sign of the $\cos\alpha$ dependence in case of thermal injection (second harmonic signal, cf. Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](b,d)) changes from Ta to Pt. Since the thermal injection is based on Joule heating and not on the SHE, only one SHE process during the detection is part of the thermally excited nonlocal magnon spin transport. Thus, the sign of the spin Hall angle of the detector material governs the sign of the overall angular dependence of the thermal signal in Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](b,d) and the second harmonic signal of the Ta devices is consistently of opposite sign compared to the second harmonic signal of the Pt devices.
We need to mention that we compare the Ta and Pt devices with comparable injector-to-detector distances when we discuss the sign of the signals. In our previous study with Pt$|$YIG structures, we find that the second harmonic signal, such as the one shown in Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\](d), changes sign when the injector and detector being very close to each other due to the contribution of the bulk spin Seebeck effect[@PhysRevB.94.174437]. The injector-detector distance at which the sign of the second harmonic signals reverses can be different for Ta and Pt devices due to different interface properties between Ta$|$YIG and Pt$|$YIG. However, for the distance dependence of the Ta device we investigated devices with injector-to-detector distances up to 18$\,\mu$m and observed only one sign for the second harmonic signals. Therefore, the sign reversal of the Ta devices, which can be found at smaller injector-to-detector distances, is below the distances probed in this study and is beyond the scope of this paper. The results in Fig.$\,$\[angle\_dependent\] from Pt and Ta devices both have injector-to-detector distance above the sign reversal distance.
Distance-dependent behaviors of the first and second harmonic signals for the Pt devices have recently been obtained by Cornelissen et al. [@cornelissen2015long] as shown in Fig.$\,$\[distance\] (insets). From both first and second harmonic signals, two regimes have been observed: diffusion- and relaxation-dominant magnon spin transport in Series A and B, respectively. The 1D diffusion-relaxation model has been employed to discuss the magnon spin transport behavior. The nonlocal resistance $R_{\textrm{nl}}$ is proportional to the magnitude of the output magnon spin current density $j_{\textrm{m}}=-D\frac{\partial{\mu_{\textrm{m}}}}{\partial{x}}$ ($\frac{\partial{\mu_{\textrm{m}}}}{\partial{x}}$ is the gradient of the magnon spin chemical potential c.f. Fig.$\,$\[model\]) and described by $$R_{\textrm{nl}}\sim j_{\textrm{m}}(x=L),$$ $$R_{\textrm{nl}}\sim \frac{C}{\lambda}\frac{e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}}{1-e^{\frac{2L}{\lambda}}},
\label{eq:nonlocalfitting}$$
where $x=L$ indicates $j_{\textrm{m}}$ at the detector, C is a fitting parameter and $\lambda$ is the magnon diffusion length ($\lambda=\sqrt{D\tau}$, $D\,$: the magnon diffusion constant, $\tau\,$: the magnon relaxation time). The measured nonlocal voltage $V_{\textrm{nl}}$ results from the magnon spin current $j_{\textrm{m}}$ being converted via the ISHE at the detector. The nonlocal resistance, $R_{\textrm{nl}}$, is obtained by normalizing $V_{\textrm{nl}}$ with the current we send through the injector strip. By fitting the first and second harmonic data with Eq.$\,$(\[eq:nonlocalfitting\]), similar magnon relaxation lengths have been extracted for the first and second harmonic signals with magnitude of $\lambda^{1\omega}_{\textrm{Pt}}=9.4\pm0.6\,\mu$m and $\lambda^{2\omega}_{\textrm{Pt}}=8.7\pm0.8\,\mu$m. This indicates that the same magnons are excited via electrical and thermal injection, although the injection mechanism (either electrical or thermal) is different.
![Equivalent circuit model for a one-dimensional diffusive magnon spin transport depending on the contact resistance. (a) Schematic illustration of the cross-section for a typical device. We assume that the magnon spin transport is along x-axis from injector to detector in the YIG channel, which is indicated by the square of dashed line in dark blue. The square of the orange dashed lines represent the contact resistance between the heavy metals and YIG. The distance between the injector and detector is $L$. $\mu_{\textrm{in}}$, $j_{\textrm{in}}$, $\mu_{\textrm{out}}$ and $j_{\textrm{in}}$ are the input and output of the magnon spin electrochemical potentials and magnon spin current densities. (b) The corresponding equivalent circuit. $\mu_{\textrm{m}}$ suggests that the magnon chemical potential is built up at the injector, resulting in a magnon chemical potential gradient in the 1D-YIG channel, like a “magnon voltage source”. This gives rise to the magnon spin current. $j_{\textrm{m}}$ represents that at the detector the magnon spin current with densities of $j_{\textrm{m}}$ is measured, working as a “magnon ammeter”. $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ are the resistances associated with the magnon spin diffusion and relaxation process, respectively. (c) The magnitude of output magnon spin current density $j_{\textrm{m}}$ normalized by input electrochemical potential of magnon spin accumulation $\mu_{\textrm{m}}$ as a function of $L/\lambda$ with different relative contact resistances $R_{c}^{0}$. []{data-label="model"}](model_Rc){width="1\linewidth"}
For Ta devices, both injection and detection electrodes are tantalum. In contrast to the distance-dependent behavior of Pt devices shown in the inset of Fig.$\,$\[distance\], the first harmonic signals of the Ta devices do not drop obviously in the short L regime (Series A1) as shown in Fig.$\,$\[distance\](a). The $\frac{1}{L}$ character of the diffusive decay is suppressed. In the large L regime (Series B1), they already start to decay exponentially. Moreover, in terms of the magnitude of the signals, the length-scaled first harmonic signals for Ta devices are comparable with that of Pt devices. However, the magnitude of the length-scaled second harmonic signals for Ta are around 5 times larger than that of Pt. This also points to the influence of the electrode resistance (the resistivity of Ta is almost one order of magnitude larger than that of Pt). Therefore, we expect the Pt$\mid$YIG interface to have a larger spin mixing conductance compared with the Ta$\mid$YIG interface according to the following circuit model.
The one-dimensional diffusion-relaxation model that has been applied to explain the magnon spin transport in YIG for the Pt devices[@cornelissen2015long] is now used to describe the magnon spin transport in YIG for the Ta devices. Therefore, we changed the description of magnon spin injection/detection electrodes from Pt to Ta and introduced a higher spin resistance at the interface of electrode/YIG in the equivalent resistor circuit model, which is described by a contact resistance $R_{\textrm{c}}$ (cf. Fig.$\,$\[model\]). In order to understand the different distance-dependent behavior of Ta and Pt devices, we vary the contact resistance $R_{\textrm{c}}$ in the model as shown in Fig.$\,$\[model\]. The input and output magnon spin current density ($j_{\textrm{in}}$ and $j_{\textrm{out}}$) and the electrochemical potential ($\mu_{\textrm{in}}$ and $\mu_{\textrm{out}}$) are sketched in Fig.$\,$\[model\](a) and represented by the magnon spin transport parameters ($\lambda$, $L$ and $D$): $$\begin{pmatrix}
j_{\textrm{in}} \\
j_{\textrm{out}}
\end{pmatrix}
\\=\frac{D}{\lambda(e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}-e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}})}
\begin{pmatrix}
K & -2 \\
2 & -K)
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mu_{\textrm{in}} \\
\mu_{\textrm{out}}
\end{pmatrix},\label{eqn_physics}$$ where $K=e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}+e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}$. After obtaining the relation between the “voltage” and “current” of the 1D magnon spin transport channel, we build up an equivalent circuit as shown in Fig.$\,$\[model\](b). It consists of two diffusive resistors $R_{1}$ in series and one relaxation-related resistor $R_{2}$ being parallel with one of the diffusive resistors depending on the direction of the magnon spin current. At the injector, a magnon accumulation of $\mu_{\textrm{m}}$ is built up, which is the starting point of the magnon spin transport channel. At the detector, the magnon spin current is measured as $j_{\textrm{m}}$. Here, Kirchhoff’s circuit laws were applied to obtain the relation between the “voltage” and the “current” of the magnon spin transport in terms of the equivalent resistors (first assume $R_{\textrm{c}}=0$): $$\begin{pmatrix}
j_{\textrm{in}} \\
j_{\textrm{out}}
\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{R_{1}^{2}+2R_{1}R_{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
Q & -R_{2} \\
R_{2} & -Q
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mu_{\textrm{in}} \\
\mu_{\textrm{out}}
\end{pmatrix},\label{eqn_circuit}$$ where $Q=R_{1}+R_{2}$. Equalizing Eqs. (\[eqn\_physics\]) and (\[eqn\_circuit\]), equivalent resistors $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ can be expressed by the magnon spin transport parameters as
$$R_{1}=\frac{\lambda}{D}\frac{e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}-e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}}{e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}+e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}+2},
\label{eq_R1}$$
$$R_{2}=\frac{2\lambda}{D}\frac{e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}-e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}}{(e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}+e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}+2)(e^{\frac{L}{\lambda}}+e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}}-2)},
\label{eq_R2}$$
from which we simply take $\lambda/D$ as the unit of the equivalent resistance. Now if we consider contact resistance being non-zero ( $R_{\textrm{c}}\neq0$ ), we obtain
$$\frac{j_{\textrm{m}}}{\mu_{\textrm{m}}}=\frac{R_{2}}{(R_{1}+R_{\textrm{c}})(R_{1}+R_{\textrm{c}}+2R_{2})},
\label{eq_Rc}$$
where we can write the contact resistance as $$R_{\textrm{c}}=\frac{\lambda}{D}R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}$$ with the same unit of $\frac{\lambda}{D}$ as for $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$. We call $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}$ relative contact resistance. In Fig.$\,$\[model\](c), we show the distance dependent behavior of the nonlocal magnon signals predicted by this equivalent circuit model with different magnitude of $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}$. According to the feature of the distance-dependent behavior, we can classify it into three regimes of magnon spin transport in terms of the magnitude of $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}$. Firstly, for the more “transparent” contact in regime I (e.g. $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}=10^{-3}$), a $\frac{1}{L}$-decay is observed in the diffusive regime ($\frac{L}{\lambda}\lesssim1$). In the relaxation regime ($\frac{L}{\lambda}\gtrsim1$), the output signal decays exponentially. This is also what is expected from the fully transparent contact model[@cornelissen2015long]. In this regime (I), increasing $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}$ will decrease the $\frac{1}{L}$-decay character in the diffusive regime, while does not have much effect on the magnon spin transport in the relaxation regime. In regime II with less “transparent” contact, the diffusive decay behavior is significantly suppressed (e.g. $R_{\textrm{c}}^{0}=10^{0}$). Moreover, the overall strength of the signal, $\frac{j_{m}}{\mu_{m}}$, will be suppressed. However, the slope of the exponential decay stays the same, which corresponds to the magnon relaxation length. In regime III with really large $R_{\textrm{c}}$, the $\frac{1}{L}$-decay behavior in the diffusive regime is introduced again. It only appears in this model with confined magnon spin transport channel in between the injector and detector, which is irrelevant to the magnon spin transport with our device geometries.
By comparing the Pt and Ta results with the model, the behavior of the Ta devices is consistent with the equivalent circuit modeling for more “transparent” contacts (cf. Fig.$\,$\[model\](c)), still being less “transparent” than the Pt contacts. Thus, increasing $R_{\textrm{c}}$ by changing the materials from Pt to Ta decreases the $\frac{1}{L}$-decay character while it does not suppress the overall magnitude of the output as shown in the first harmonic signals.
The fitting curve for the Ta devices shown in Fig.$\,$\[distance\](a) is fitted properly to the data. The extracted magnon relaxation length is $\lambda^{1\omega}_{\textrm{Ta}}=9.5\pm1.3\,\mu$m. However, there is a large spread of the data points in Series A1. This might be related to the fact that the first harmonic signals are more sensitive to the interface resistance, since the contact resistance is involved in both injection and detection. More data points with shorter injector-to-detector separation (less than 1 $\mu$m) should be detected in the future to further confirm the magnon spin transport behavior in the diffusive regime for Ta devices.
For the second harmonic signals (cf. Fig.$\,$\[distance\](b)) a magnon spin diffusion lengths of $\lambda^{2\omega}_{\textrm{Ta}}=9.6\pm1.8\,\mu$m is extracted by fitting the data with the same formula. Compared with the first harmonic signals, the $\frac{1}{L}$-diffusive decay character is more notable. This might be owing to the different origin of the first and second harmonic signals. For the first harmonic signals the electrically excited spin current has to pass through the Ta$\mid$YIG interface twice at injection and detection. Nevertheless, in terms of the second harmonic signals, the thermally excited magnons do not need to go across the interface at the injector. Therefore, this might be the reason that the second harmonic signals are less sensitive to the interface resistance.
To conclude, we compare the distance-dependent nonlocal magnon spin transport of Ta$|$YIG$|$Ta and Pt$|$YIG$|$Pt devices. In both case, two regimes of the diffusion and relaxation dominant magnon spin transport are observed. Similar relaxation lengths ($\sim$ 9-10$\mu$m) are extracted for first and second harmonic signals from Ta devices for the electrically and thermally excited magnons, respectively. These results are comparable with their counterpart Pt devices[@cornelissen2015long]. The spin Hall angle of Ta and Pt is of opposite sign. However, the angular dependence of the electrical injection has the same sign for both Ta and Pt devices, because of having two spin Hall processes involved. The angular dependence of the thermal injection changes sign from Ta to Pt devices. Here, only one spin Hall process is involved during the detection of the thermally excited magnon spin transport. By changing the material from Pt to Ta, the spin mixing conductance at the interface reduces. This suppresses the diffusive decay character in the diffusive regime while it does not affect the overall magnon spin output signals. By comparing the magnon spin transport behaviors of Ta and Pt to the equivalent circuit model, we found that the contact resistance of Ta$|$YIG$|$Ta is less “transparent” with respect to Pt$|$YIG$|$Pt. Moreover, compared to the second harmonic signals, first harmonic signals are shown to be more sensitive to the contact resistance introduced by changing the probing material from Pt to Ta. This is attributed to the different magnon excitation origins. So far we study our experimental observation based on the diffusion model; however, new physics models, such as hydrodynamic viscosity theory, can be developed to understand and predict the magnon spin transport in the insulating system in the future as for the electron transport in the conducting system [@scaffidi2017hydrodynamic].
We acknowledge H. M. de Roosz, J. G. Holstein, H. Adema and T. J. Schouten for their technical assistance. This work is part of the research program Magnon Spintronics (MSP) No. 159 financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We also appreciate NanoLab NL and the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials. This research is partly financed by the NWO Spinoza prize awarded to Prof. B.J. van Wees. Further support by EU FP7 ICT Grant No. 612759 InSpin and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the priority program Spin Caloric Transport (SPP 1538, KU3271/1-1) is gratefully acknowledged.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A.-L. Melchior'
- 'F. Combes'
date: 'Received ... ; accepted ... '
title: A cold gas reservoir to fuel M31 nuclear black hole and stellar cluster
---
Introduction
============
M31 is usually described as a quiescent galaxy with little star formation, [ at a level of 0.4M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$]{} and [ with ultra-weak nuclear activity]{} . The presence of a very massive black hole that the main gas reservoir has been accreted and is exhausted, [ although]{} some gas is detected within 1kpc from the [ center ]{}. [ From optical emission lines]{} estimated an [ ionized]{} gas mass [ on]{} the order of 1500M$_\odot$, which can be accounted for by mass loss from evolving [ stars.]{} rely on Herschel data to argue that the dust properties are well accounted for by the stellar heating. [ Small amounts of molecular gas have been detected in directions]{} more than 300pc from the [ center]{}. [ These can be associated with]{} dust features in this area .
Date $\langle$ T$_{sys}$ $\rangle$ t$_{integration}$ $\#$ pixels (scans)
-------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
8 Nov. 2011 320K 276min 36 (144)
10 Nov. 2011 411K 276min 36 (72)
27 Nov. 2011 274K 276min 18 (36)
12 Feb. 2012 251K 144min 36 (144)
24 Feb. 2012 318K 300min 36 (72)
11 Mar. 2012 351K 295min 36 (72)
: Log of observations[]{data-label="table:1"}
While the [ center]{} of M31 hosts a supermassive black hole with a mass of $0.7-1.4 \times 10^8 M_\odot$ , it is one of the most silent [ ones]{} , although [beginning in 2008]{} it started to murmur . Furthermore, it exhibits many coherent structures interpreted as tracers of its merging history: there is a lopsided nuclear disk with two stellar components, P1 and P2 separated by 0.45” in the [center]{}. From the kinematics, the black hole is located in between P1 and P2, but closer to P2. An A-star cluster , detected in a third component (P3) of M31’s double nucleus by , can be [associated with]{} a recent star formation episode. [ This]{} occurred 200Myr ago, [ involved]{} a total mass in the range 10$^4$ – 10$^6 M_\odot$, [ and corresponds]{} to an accretion rate of 10$^{-4}$ – 10$^{-2} M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. Its presence so close to the black hole raises a number of issues: how young stars were formed deeply inside to the tidal field of a supermassive black hole [ and]{} how such stars have formed while there is no cold gas detected in the [ surroundings]{} ? In the Galaxy, SgrA$^*$ has experienced X-ray flares, attributed to the infall of gas, while a cloud of gas identified by is expected to fall onto the black hole in 2013. M31$^*$ is experiencing a similar murmur according to suggesting some gas infall.
Beside the presence of a young star cluster, an ionized gas outflow is detected in X-rays along the minor axis of the galaxy by , perpendicular to the main disc. The relative intensity of the outflow on both sides is compatible with the intensity of the observed B extinction: the NW side is more extinguished than the SE side. As discussed in , the velocity field of the circumnuclear region (40”$\times$40” or 150pc$\times$ 150pc) measured in optical ionized gas does not exhibit any clear rotation pattern: beside a spot at the systemic velocity in M31’s [ center]{}, the whole area is blueshifted with respect to the systemic velocity. This coherent flow of ionized gas is decoupled from the stellar kinematics , and could be connected to the recent star formation activity. [Please note that we assume throughout the paper a distance to M31 of 780kpc , i.e. 1arcsec$=$3.8pc. Most up-to-date results, based on cepheids, quote 752$\pm$27kpc . However, for coherence with previous works we keep 780kpc, which lies within $1\sigma$ uncertainties of these new results.]{}
Some cold gas is expected to feed the black hole, even though [ in contrast with]{} the Milky Way, a general lack of HI in the vicinity of M31’s nucleus has been noted for several decades . In this paper, we present the first molecular detections within 30arcsec from the [center. In Section \[sect:obs\], we present the new observations performed at IRAM-30m near the center of M31. In Section \[sect:ana\], we analyze our molecular gas detections and compare them with other wavelengths. In Section \[sect:int\], we discuss how the interpretation of these data.]{}.
Observations {#sect:obs}
============
[p[0.01]{}p[0.08]{}p[0.04]{}p[0.1]{}p[0.1]{}p[0.1]{}p[0.05]{}p[0.05]{}p[0.08]{}p[0.05]{}p[0.1]{}]{} $\#$ & Offsets & [ R (”)]{}& I$_{CO}$ (K km s$^{-1}$) $=\int T_{mb} dV$& V$_0$ (km s$^{-1}$) & $\sigma$ (km s$^{-1}$) & T$^{\rm peak}_{mb}$ (mK) & baseline rms (mK) & $N_{H_2}$ (cm$^{-2}$) & $\Sigma_{H_2}$ (M$_\odot$pc$^{-2}$) & M$_{beam}$ (M$_\odot$)\
5 & -33.0,-8.33 & [ 34.0]{}& 0.51$\pm$0.12 & -301.7$\pm$4.0 & 30.1$\pm$8.6 & 16.0 & 4.2 &$1.17\times 10^{20}$ & 1.99 & $3.25\times 10^{3}$\
15 & -9.0,-32.3 & [ 33.5]{} &0.60$\pm$0.08 & -248.3$\pm$1.7 & 24.4$\pm$3.9 & 23.0 & 3.2 &$1.38\times 10^{20}$ & 2.35 & $3.84\times 10^{3}$\
17 & -9.0,-8.3 & [ 12.2]{}& 0.76$\pm$0.13 & -137.4$\pm$3.9 & 41.9$\pm$7.3 & 17.1 & 4.0 &$1,75\times 10^{20}$ & 2.97 & $4.85\times 10^{3}$\
17 & -9.0,-8.3 & [ 12.2]{} & 0.26$\pm$0.08 & -32.7$\pm$3.9 & 13.3$\pm$29.1 & 18.4 & 4.0 &$0.60\times 10^{20}$ & 1.02 & $1.67\times 10^{3}$\
18 & -9.0,-3.7 & [ 9.7]{} & 0.35$\pm$0.09 & -355.0$\pm$4.1 & 27.8$\pm$7.0 & 11.7 & 3.5 &$0.81\times 10^{20}$ & 1.37 & $2.24\times 10^{3}$\
19 & -3.0,-56.3 & [ 56.4]{} & 0.13$\pm$0.05 & -341.4$\pm$4.0 & 13.1$\pm$3.9 & 9.2 & 3.8 &$0.30\times 10^{20}$ & 0.51 & $0.83\times 10^{3}$\
[*19*]{} & [*-3.0,-56.3*]{} & [*56.4*]{} & [ *0.10$\pm$0.03*]{} & [*-339.9$\pm$4.0*]{} & [*7.5$\pm$2.2*]{} & [*12.9*]{} &[*5.1*]{} &[$\mathit {0.23\times 10^{20}}$]{} & [*0.39*]{} & [*$\mathit {0.64\times 10^{3}}$*]{}\
21 & 3.0,-32.3 & [ 32.4 ]{}& 0.50$\pm$0.13 & -224.0$\pm$6.9 & 48.1$\pm$11.1 & 9.8 & 3.9 &$1.15\times 10^{20}$ & 1.96 & $3.20\times 10^{3}$\
22 & 3.0,-20.3 & [ 20.5]{} & 0.20$\pm$0.07 & -67.1$\pm$4.0 & 17.2$\pm$6.2 & 11.0 & 3.0 &$0.46\times 10^{20}$ & 0.78 & $1.27\times 10^{3}$\
23 & 3.0,-8.3 & [ 8.8]{} & 0.34$\pm$0.09 & -390.4$\pm$4.0 & 29.5$\pm$8.1 & 10.9 & 3.2 &$0.78\times 10^{20}$ & 1.33 & $2.17\times 10^{3}$\
24 & 3.0,3.7 & [ 4.8]{} & 0.33$\pm$0.09 & -256.6$\pm$5.0 & 28.6$\pm$8.6 & 11.0 & 3.1 &$0.76\times 10^{20}$ & 1.29 & $2.11\times 10^{3}$\
26 & 15.0,-44.3 & [ 46.8]{} & 0.48$\pm$0.14 & -207.8$\pm$5.7 & 39.8$\pm$14.5 & 11.2 & 4.1 &$1.10\times 10^{20}$ & 1.88& $3.07\times 10^{3}$\
26 & 15.0,-44.3 & [ 46.8]{} & 0.45$\pm$0.16 & -121.1$\pm$7.7 & 47.0$\pm$21.9 & 9.1 & 4.1 &$1.03\times 10^{20}$ & 1.76 & $2.87\times 10^{3}$\
28 & 15.0,-20.3 & [ 25.2]{} & 0.36$\pm$0.08 & -190.9$\pm$1.0 & 13.0$\pm$33.1 & 26.1 & 3.8 &$0.83\times 10^{20}$ & 1.41& $2.30\times 10^{3}$\
[*28*]{} & [*15.0,-20.3*]{} & [*25.2*]{} & [*0.22$\pm$0.05*]{} & [*-189.7$\pm$1.9*]{} & [*14.1$\pm$3.1*]{} & [*14.4*]{} &[*5.6*]{} & [*$\mathit {0.51\times 10^{20}}$*]{} &[*0.86*]{} & [*$\mathit {1.40\times 10^{3}}$*]{}\
35 & 27.0,-8.3 & [ 28.2]{} & 0.15$\pm$0.05 & -160.9$\pm$3.3 & 13.0$\pm$4.79 & 10.9 & 3.6 &$0.35\times 10^{20}$ & 0.59 & $0.96\times 10^{3}$\
[*35*]{} & [*27.0,-8.3*]{} & [*28.2*]{} & [*0.064$\pm$0.026*]{} & [*-155.0$\pm$0.8*]{} & [*3.4$\pm$1.8*]{} & [*17.8*]{} & [*5.4*]{} &[*$\mathit {0.15\times 10^{20}}$*]{} & [*0.25*]{} & [*$\mathit {0.41\times 10^{3}}$*]{}\
36 & 27.0,3.7 & [ 27.3]{} & 0.94$\pm$0.16 & -152.8$\pm$4.6 & 52.6$\pm$10.6 & 16.8 & 4.1 &$2.16\times 10^{20}$ &3.68 & $6.01\times 10^{3}$\
36 & 27.0,3.7 & [ 27.3]{} & 0.43$\pm$0.10 & -315.6$\pm$2.8 & 21.9$\pm$5.3 & 18.3 & 4.1 &$0.99\times 10^{20}$ & 1.68 & $2.74\times 10^{3}$\
\[tab:char\]
![Relationship between extinction and the [ position]{} of the dust [ clumps]{} along the line of sight. The [ upper]{} panel displays how the observed extinction A$_{observed}$ relates [to]{} the fraction $f$ of light in front of the dust for different values of real extinction A$_{real}$. The [ lower]{} panels display how the fraction $f$ relates to the [ line of sight distance]{} $z$ with respect to the [ center]{} for different [ projected distances $Y$ to the [ center]{} along the minor axis]{}. [ We detect a near/far side asymmetry, which strengthens the effect of absence of observed extinction on the far side. We rely]{} on the [ modeling]{} of .[]{data-label="fig:ext"}](amelchior-fig3.eps){width="48.00000%"}
[ In the period between November 2011 - March 2012, we used the 1.3mm multibeam HEterodyne Receiver Array (HERA) at the IRAM-30m telescope to do a CO(2-1) survey of M31’s 0.7kpc inner ring. One of the fields of this survey contained the center of M31. We refer to this field as M31-1a and show a 60”x60” map with 12” angular resolution in Figures \[FigVibStab\] and \[fig:maps\].]{} We thus performed a 60” by 60” map with 12” spatial resolution for the CO(2-1) line. Data were acquired in wobbler switching mode, using the Wideband Line Multiple Autocorrelator (WILMA) facility as backend. The [wobbler]{} throw (ranging between 60” to 210” in azimuth) has been adjusted every [ 30min, to]{} avoid extinction areas (and possible associated molecular gas emission). This procedure has been followed as best as possible given the constraints of the Pool observing periods allocated to this project. Some signal in the OFF has been detected in some scans, but as the OFF positions are changing with time, [ on average it]{} disappears in the reduction process. Some signal can be underestimated but this should be included in the global 20$\%$ calibration uncertainties. A total of 540 raw spectra were recorded in 21.5h of telescope time with a spectral resolution of 2.6 . Table \[table:1\] displays the epoch of observations, for each day the average system temperature, the total integration time accounting for two independent polarization measurements and the number of pixels and scans performed. We provide main-beam temperatures throughout this paper with beam and forward efficiencies: B$_{eff}$=63 and F$_{eff}$=94.
Each spectrum was first visually inspected to remove those affected by very unstable baselines. [ They are then processed in order to iteratively correct for the instrumental response: (1) a linear baseline is subtracted for each scan, (2) the scans are averaged for each position and smoothed. (3)]{} For the spectra where there is a clear detection, a higher order polynomial [ is subtracted]{} in order to optimize the baseline subtraction. The typical rms in each final pixel was [ at 1$\sigma$ $T_{mb}= 3.9$mK]{} in 13 channels. 13 of the 36 positions exhibit a detection above 3$\sigma$ (as displayed in Figure \[FigVibStab\]).
[*Upper limit on the continuum.*]{} We have estimated the value of the continuum at 1mm in the field M31-1a. 4$\%$ of the spectra have a mean value outside the range $[$-0.1,0.1$]$mK and have been removed. The remaining spectra are averaged and smoothed over the whole bandwidth (936Mhz). We find a continuum level of $0.041\pm0.043$mK. We thus derive a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of 0.13mK on the continuum emission, corresponding to S$_{\rm
{continuum}}<0.65$mJy.
Analysis
========
Molecular data {#sect:ana}
--------------
Table \[tab:lines\] summarizes the characteristics of the CO(2-1) lines detected in this field. A Gaussian function is fitted to each line to determine its area I$_{CO}$, central velocity $V_0$, width $\sigma$ and peak temperature T$_{peak}$. The baseline rms is provided for each line. We assume a [ standard]{} Galactic X$_{CO}=$N$_{H_2}/$I$_{CO}=$2.3$\times10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$(K)$^{-1}$ following . However, note that different values have been adopted in the literature. [, relying on CO data with a strong signal ($I_{CO}>$1Kkms$^{-1}$), estimate a lower value $X_{CO}=9.66\pm1.33\times 10^{-19}$cm$^{-2} (K\,km\,s^{-1})^{-1}$ for the inner part of M31.]{}
Relying on the CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) line ratios measured by in this area, we assume a line ratio of 1 and thus adopt the previous X$_{CO}$ ratio for the CO(2-1) line. We then convert the N$_{H_2}$ column density to an H$_2$ mass surface density and derive a molecular mass M$_{beam}$ assuming the gas fills the main-beam. [Lastly,]{} when all the positions are averaged a noise level of 0.8mK is achieved, but no signal appears. [This stacking demonstrates that there is no extended emission larger than 2.4mK.]{}
One third of the observed positions exhibit a CO(2-1) detection, as displayed in Figure \[FigVibStab\]. Beside the spectra 18 and 23 (and the second component of spectra 36), all the detected lines are redshifted with respect to the systemic velocity.
Dust extinction and dust emission {#sect:multi}
---------------------------------
In this area devoid of large amounts of gas , we have shown in that in the North-Western part of the bulge of M31, CO is detected where extinction is observed, while it is not detected in areas where no extinction is measured. This supports the dust-gas correlation observed in the Milky Way and other galaxies . is also claiming that the gas in M31 is well traced by dust at a constant metallicity. The optical and near-infrared data displayed in Figure \[fig:maps\] provide complementary information to our CO detection. The left panel displays the observed extinction as computed in . The bulge light is mostly dominant within $R <~1.2$kpc ($\sim 300$arcsec) from the center , where $R$ is the projected distance to the center on the sky plane. We model its photometry with elliptical annuli using the standard surface photometry algorithm developed for [IRAF]{} . This model is intended to reproduce the light profile along the bulge of M31 without extinction. The median intensity over the elliptical annulus sectors is used, in order to avoid areas suffering extinction. Large scale extinction following the elliptical profile could affect this model but it is obviously weak. The observed extinction is defined as $A_\lambda = -2.5 \log_{10}
(\phi_{obs}/\phi_{model})$, where $\phi_{obs}$ is the observed brightness and $\phi_{model}$ the modeled brightness. This provides a lower bound of the true internal extinction, with the following assumptions: (1) the gas lies in front of the bulge and (2) there is only one clump of gas per line of sight. It thus eliminates automatically large scale homogeneous extinction like the one due to the Milky Way. On the one hand, as the resolution of the optical data is close to $ 1$arcsec corresponding to 3.8pc at the distance of M31 (the optical resolution is a factor of 10 better than the one achieved with CO observations), the second assumption is reasonable for most lines of sight given the small masses detected. According to the mass-size relation for molecular clouds first observed by , we expect that the more massive molecular clouds detected here have a size smaller than 3pc . On the other hand, it is most probable that all the gas does not lie in front of the bulge in the Southern part. The observed extinction corresponds to $A_{observed}=-2.5\log_{10}[f+(1-f)\times
exp({-\tau})]$, where $f$ is the fraction of light in front of the dust and $\tau$ the real optical depth at a given wavelength. In principle, if several clumps were present along the line of sight, we could decompose the extinction $A_{observed}$ into several components. In practice, more observational constraints would be necessary to perform such a detailed analysis. It is important to note that the majority of the dust and associated gas is not diluted in the whole bulge and not spread all along the line of sight. It is expected to be relaxed and to lie in a disk-like structure (or ring).
The top panel of Figure \[fig:ext\] displays how the observed extinction relates to the fraction $f$ of light in front of the dust for different values of real internal extinction. For extinction values above 5, it is very difficult to disentangle the real value of the extinction from optical observations. For a given value of observed extinction, it is, however, possible to [put some]{} constraint on the positions of dust clumps. Relying on the modeling of , we estimate how the fraction $f$ of light in front of the dust relates to the position $z$ of the dust clump along the line of sight. The bottom panels of Figure \[fig:ext\] display this relation for different lines of sight along the minor axis $Y$ (projected on the sky plane). If the line of sight crosses the center (where there is a cusp due to the stellar cluster), the fraction $f$ is varying strongly as most of the light comes from an area smaller than 1arcsec ($\sim
3.8$pc). For lines of sight varying from 10pc to 1kpc, the slope of $f(z)$ is decreasing. There are two main effects to be stressed. (1) The observed extinction is very sensitive to the location of the dust clump along the line of sight. In the central region, dust just behind the mid-plane could easily escape optical detection, as the fraction of light in front of the clump can be very important. (2) This effect is further strengthened by the asymmetry due to the inclination: the far side will have a larger fraction of light than the near side.
The real extinction is difficult to measure from optical data, but the observed extinction provides some constraints on the location of the dust along the line of sight as displayed in Figure \[fig:maps\]. For instance, if $A_{observed}=0.2$, the real extinction is larger than 0.25 and the fraction of light $f$ in front of the dust between 0.2 and 0.85. Then as a function of the chosen line of sight, it is possible to constrain the position of the dust clump. For a position at 100pc (resp. 10pc) from the center, the dust clump is expected to lie within 400pc (resp. 150pc) from the plane perpendicular to the line of sight passing through the center. Note that these observations have a resolution of 12arcsec ($\sim$ 45pc), so the gas present very close (in projected distance) to the black hole could lie anywhere between 0 and 150pc on the far side.
The right panel of Figure \[fig:maps\] displays the dust emission at $8\,\mu$m. It is not affected by extinction, but depends on dust grains and their heating. The Southern part exhibits a dust-emission intensity much stronger than the observed extinction, suggesting that the dust clumps lie on the far side.
Characteristics of the dust components {#sect:pn}
--------------------------------------
![Presence of two dust components affecting the sample of planetary nebulae. We consider a complete sample of 99 planetary nebulae distributed into a 15-200arcsec annulus. This annulus has been split into five equal parts as indicated by the colors. The left panel displays the relation between the number $N$ of planetary nebulae detected in each position angle. The color star points (on the left panel) correspond to the color hatched areas displayed on the right panel. The black stars (on the left panel) have been obtained with a running sum for different position angles (PA). The error bars indicated only on the color points correspond to Poisson statistical noise. The line corresponds to the multiplication of two sinusoids of phase PA=37deg and -66deg, as indicated by the ticks at the bottom. The right panel displays the spatial distribution of the planetary nebula sample in the annuli corresponding to the completeness limits (15, 90 and 200arcsec).[]{data-label="fig:pndust"}](amelchior-fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Following the previous discussion on the expected near/far asymmetry expected due to the inclination of M31, one can note that first detected an asymmetry between the near and far sides among the bulge’s planetary nebulae distribution. A similar geometrical effect is also expected in the distribution of microlensing events in M31’s bulge . An asymmetry between the near side and the far side, due to extinction in the main plane, is observed in the distribution of planetary nebulae in the 10kpc ring .
We have reinvestigated the catalog of planetary nebulae of , which samples quite well the bulge area. There is a complete sample of 99 planetary nebulae: it is spatially complete and computed the detection efficiencies with respect to the surface magnitude. As displayed in the right panel of Figure \[fig:pndust\], 29 are present in a 15-90arcsec annulus within a m5007 magnitude smaller than 22.1, and 70 in a 90-200arcsec annulus with a m5007 magnitude smaller than 22.7. This region within 200arcsec from the center is dominated by the bulge, and the planetary nebulae follow the light distribution. In the left panel of Figure \[fig:pndust\], we have counted the number of planetary nebulae in five parts of the 15-200arcsec annulus and displayed them as a function of the position angle. The five points follow a sinusoid. The star points (not independent) have been obtained similarly with a running sum for intermediate position angles.
According to the near/far side asymmetry, one would expect a sinusoidal variation of the number of planetary nebulae with a 2$\pi$ period with respect to the position angle of the main disk 37deg. Surprisingly, the observed period is $\pi$. The overplotted sinusoid is varying as $\sin(PA-37)\times\sin(PA+66)$, which is compatible with the superposition of two dust components whose main axis have respective position angles of 37degrees and -66degrees. This is a new confirmation of the presence of two gas/dust components in this region: the main disc (and mainly the 10kpc ring) seen in projection with a PA of 37degree, and the inner ring seen in the infra-red (e.g. with Spitzer data) with a position angle of -66degree. The amplitude of the effect is similar for both components. There is probably an additional perturbation (at the limit of detection) close to PA=-180/180deg, which might correspond to a non-circular structure. More statistics are required to be more conclusive.
Those two dust components expected to be associated with CO detections have an orientation compatible with our previous discussion: the clumps detected in CO are most probably on the far-side. In addition, one could argue that the few points detected close to the systemic velocity (and blue shifted) could be associated to the main disc (possibly at large scale).
.
Ionized gas
-----------
The middle panel of Figure \[fig:maps\] shows the H$\alpha$ and \[NII\] emission map . As discussed by , it is dominated by \[NII\] excited by shocks. The overall pattern corresponds to the 8$\mu$m map, but there is not an exact correspondence. (1) These wavelengths are affected by extinction. For instance, the position observed in CO by (double circle in Figure \[fig:maps\]) seems affected by extinction. (2) The kinematics of the \[NII\] line measured by exhibit a disc in rotation and the (40”$\times$40”) circumnuclear region is blueshifted with respect to the systemic velocity. In parallel, the velocity field measured in CO is redshifted. It is thus probable that both components are decoupled.
This can be related to the compilation of all gas velocities in the inner 10arcmin of M31 by @1994ApJ...426L..31S. The isovelocity curves are very irregular and chaotic, even involving much larger scales than here.
Bulge light emission
--------------------
![Variations of the position of the centers of the elliptical annuli computed on the 2MASS J image as a function of the semi-major axis.[]{data-label="fig:center"}](amelchior-fig5.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The bulge model computed on photometric images as described in Section \[sect:multi\] provides the ellipse geometry parameters . We performed this modeling on 2MASS J data[^1] and Figure \[fig:center\] displays the position of the centers of each annulus computed. In contrast with B and H$\alpha$/\[NII\] data, we do not expect any bias due to dust obscuration. Interestingly, the center of the annuli is systematically shifting towards the South by about 7pc within 0.78kpc. It is tempting to compare this off-centering of the bulge with the off-centering ($\sim\,350$pc) of the inner dust ring detected by . Under the hypothesis of a coupled $m=1$ motion between the inner bulge and the disk, and given the estimation the mass of M31’s bulge of the order of $4\times 10^{10}
M_\odot$, we can expect a mass of gas in the inner ring of $9\times
10^8 M_\odot$, if the maximum of light corresponds to the barycenter.
As discussed in the Appendix \[sect:triax\] and shown in Figure \[fig:pa\], the bulge is triaxial but we do not expect our results to be affected as the amplitude of the twist is about 10deg.
Interpretation {#sect:int}
==============
As displayed in Figure \[fig:maps\], some detections (7/13) correlate well with the Spitzer dust emission and several positions[^2] (5, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 26) do not. [None of the positions detected in CO correspond to any]{} observed A$^B_{observed}$ extinction. [According to the available kinematics, it is most probable that the ionized component is decoupled from the molecular gas. The]{} observed extinction is smaller than 0.025 in B (see left panel of [Figure \[fig:maps\]). Relying]{} on Figure \[fig:ext\], we can derive that the [typical]{} fraction $f$ of light in front of the average clump is larger than [90$\%$]{}. Following the [modeling]{} of , the average clump lies at a depth between [20 and 200pc]{} from the [center]{} on the far side, depending on its [projected distance]{}. It could be further if the real extinction is significantly larger than 0.25. [Accordingly,]{} the positions with no Spitzer infrared emission could be much further where the radiation field is too weak to heat the dust, except within [4pc]{} of the black hole, where the light of the nuclear star cluster [prevents]{} the detection of any extinction.
The kinematics is complex and do not exhibit a clear pattern. Most of the lines are redshifted with respect to the systemic velocity while 4 are blueshifted. This is surprising as the opposite trend was observed in this field by with the optical ionized gas. The [gas detected]{} in the North-East side was also redshifted, so it is not simply a counter-rotation. In addition, the velocity range is spread between -33 and -390.
These results are compatible with the 0.7kpc inner ring scenario discussed in and initially proposed by : the ring is tilted, which could explain why the gas is here on the far side and the velocities redshifted. It [lies off-center]{}, which could explain why we do not see a regular rotation pattern, [since we are far from the kinematical center]{}. [As supported by the dust components detected with the planetary nebulae in Sect. \[sect:pn\], the 0.7-kpc inner ring is most probably superimposed on the 10-kpc ring in the main disc: this could account for the multiple velocity components together with the clumpiness.]{}
In summary, we have shown the presence of molecular gas close to the black hole. There is no extended diffuse molecular emission but we have detected small dense clumps located on the far side of the bulge. The detected clumps are located [between 20pc and 215pc]{} in projected distance from the [center]{} [(and observed with a resolution of 45pc).]{} Assuming a single dust/gas clump per line of sight [and some modeling assumptions]{}, we show that [clumps corresponding to these lines of sight lie]{} on the far side, at least at [150pc]{} in depth from the [center]{} and [most probably closer than 600pc]{}. [ If some]{} gas [ is present]{} next to the [ center, it is also most probably]{} on the far side but could be very close to the black hole. The kinematics exhibit an unexpected trend: most of the lines are redshifted with respect to the systemic velocity, which could be due to the off-[ centering]{}. Along several lines of sight, there are multiple CO components. [ Our reanalysis of the catalog of planetary nebulae reveals the presence of two components of position angles 37deg and -66deg. In the light of our molecular detections discussed here, we claim that dust and gas from the outer 10-kpc ring superimpose on the inner 0.7-kpc ring in this very central region. The inclination of both components is such that the gas and dust in the Southern area lie mainly on the far side.]{}
This article is based on observations (067-11, 221-11) performed in the IRAM-30m Pool session at Pico Veleta (Spain). We are most grateful to Manuel Gonzalez who monitored this program through the IRAM-30m Pool observing sessions. We also thank the IRAM staff at Pico Veleta for excellent support at the telescope. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain). We thank the anonymous referee for his constructive comments. David Valls-Gabaud is warmly acknowledged for his helpful comments. 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.
Azimlu, M., Marciniak, R., & Barmby, P. 2011, , 142, 139 Bacon, R., Emsellem, E., Combes, F., et al. 2001, , 371, 409 Bajaja, E., & Shane, W. W. 1982, , 49, 745 Barmby, P., Ashby, M. L. N., Bianchi, L., et al. 2006, , 650, L45 Beaton, R., Majewski, S., Patterson, R., et al. 2007, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 39, \#104.17 Bender, R., Kormendy, J., Bower, G., et al. 2005, , 631, 280 Block, D. L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al. 2006, , 443, 832 Bogd[á]{}n, [Á]{}., & Gilfanov, M. 2008, , 388, 56 Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, , 224, 132 Boulesteix, J., Georgelin, Y. P., Lecoarer, E., Marcelin, M., & Monnet, G. 1987, , 178, 91 Braun, R., Thilker, D. A., Walterbos, R. A. M., & Corbelli, E. 2009, , 695, 937 Chemin, L., Carignan, C., & Foster, T. 2009, , 705, 1395 Ciardullo, R., Rubin, V. C., Ford, W. K., Jr., Jacoby, G. H., & Ford, H. C. 1988, , 95, 438 Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G. H., Ford, H. C., & Neill, J. D. 1989, , 339, 53 Courteau, S., Widrow, L. M., McDonald, M., et al. 2011, , 739, 20 del Burgo, C., Mediavilla, E., & Arribas, S. 2000, , 540, 741 Dressler, A. 1984, , 286, 97 Emerson, D. T. 1976, , 176, 321 Foyle, K., Wilson, C. D., Mentuch, E., et al. 2012, , 421, 2917 Garcia, M. R., Hextall, R., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2010, , 710, 755 Gillessen, S., Genzel, R., Fritz, T. K., et al. 2012, , 481, 51 Groves, B., Krause, O., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2012, , 426, 892 Jacoby, G. H., Ford, H., & Ciardullo, R. 1985, , 290, 136 Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, , 226, 747 Kent, S. M. 1989, , 97, 1614 Kerins, E., Carr, B. J., Evans, N. W., et al. 2001, , 323, 13 Kerins, E., Darnley, M. J., Duke, J. P., et al. 2006, , 365, 1099 Kormendy, J. 1982, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 12: Morphology and Dynamics of Galaxies, 113 Kormendy, J., & Bender, R. 1999, , 522, 772 Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Groth, E. J., et al. 1993, , 106, 1436 Lauer, T. R., Bender, R., Kormendy, J., Rosenfield, P., & Green, R. F. 2012, , 745, 121 Leroy, A. K., Bolatto, A., Gordon, K., et al. 2011, , 737, 12 Li, Z., Wang, Q. D., & Wakker, B. P. 2009, , 397, 148 Li, Z., Garcia, M. R., Forman, W. R., et al. 2011, , 728, L10 Loinard, L., Allen, R. J., & Lequeux, J. 1996, , 310, 93 Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2010, , 519, L7 Melchior, A.-L., Viallefond, F., Gu[é]{}lin, M., & Neininger, N. 2000, , 312, L29 Melchior, A.-L., & Combes, F. 2011, , 536, A52 Merrett, H. R., Merrifield, M. R., Douglas, N. G., et al. 2006, , 369, 120 Nieten, C., Neininger, N., Gu[é]{}lin, M., et al. 2006, , 453, 459 Riess, A. G., Fliri, J., & Valls-Gabaud, D. 2012, , 745, 156 Rubin, V. C., & Ford, W. K., Jr. 1971, , 170, 25 Saglia, R. P., Fabricius, M., Bender, R., et al. 2010, , 509, A61 Schuster, K.-F., Boucher, C., Brunswig, W., et al. 2004, , 423, 1171 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163 Smith, M. W. L., Eales, S. A., Gomez, H. L., et al. 2012, , 756, 40 Stark, A. A., & Binney, J. 1994, , 426, L31 Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, , 319, 730 Strong, A. W., Bloemen, J. B. G. M., Dame, T. M., et al. 1988, , 207, 1 Tabatabaei, F. S., & Berkhuijsen, E. M. 2010, , 517, A77 Tamm, A., Tempel, E., Tenjes, P., Tihhonova, O., & Tuvikene, T. 2012, , 546, A4 Tempel, E., Tuvikene, T., Tamm, A., & Tenjes, P. 2011, , 526, A155 Vilardell, F., Ribas, I., & Jordi, C. 2006, , 459, 321
Triaxality of the bulge {#sect:triax}
=======================
[ ]{}
![ Position angles and ellipticities of the centers of the elliptical annuli computed on the 2MASS J image as a function of the semi-major axis. These points correspond to the centers of the annuli presented in Figure \[fig:center\].[]{data-label="fig:pa"}](amelchior-figA1.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:pa\] displays the variation of the position angles and ellipticities computed in the modeling described in Sect. \[sect:multi\]. There is a clear isophot twist which is not due to extinction. The most plausible explanation is the triaxiality of the bulge as discussed by . Our values are similar to those presented by , but they are presented here in linear scale in accordance with Figure \[fig:center\].
The isophot twist is significant but its amplitude does not exceed 10deg and should not affect significantly our results. (1) The bins used to compute the position angle of the dust component from the planetary nebulae distribution are 72deg. (2) This triaxiality could affect the near/far side effect, but it should be a second order effect.
[^1]: Note that the J image has been chosen as it offers a better signal-to-noise ratio than the K image.
[^2]: The Spitzer map seems to exhibit a defect close to the [center]{} at the position of spectrum 17.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[GBK]{}[kai]{}
**Congruences for sequences analogous to Euler numbers**
Zhi-Hong Sun
School of Mathematical Sciences, Huaiyin Normal University,
Huaian 223001, PR China
E-mail: [email protected]
Homepage: http://www.hytc.edu.cn/xsjl/szh
Hai-Yan Wang
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Jiangsu Normal University,
Xuzhou 221116, PR China
E-mail: [email protected]
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
================
The famous Euler numbers $\{E_n\}$ are given by $$E_0=1\q\t{and}\q E_n=-\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom n{2k}E_{n-2k}(n\geq1),$$ where $[x]$ is the greatest integer not exceeding $x$. Euler numbers have many properties and applications. See for example \[1-6\]. In \[7,8\] the first author introduced and studied the similar sequence $\{U_n\}$ given by $$U_0=1\q\t{and}\q U_n=-2\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom n{2k}U_{n-2k}(n\geq1).$$
In this paper, for a given real number $a$ we define the sequence $\{E_{n,a}\}$ by $$E_{0,a}=1\qtq{and}
E_{n,a}=-a\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}\ (n\ge 1).\tag
1.1$$ Since $E_{n,1}=E_n$ and $E_{n,2}=U_n$, $E_{n,a}$ can be viewed as a natural generalization of Euler numbers. Thus, it is interesting to investigate the properties of $\{E_{n,a}\}$.
The first few $E_{n,a}$ are as follows: $$\aligned &E_{2,a}=-a,\ E_{4,a}=-a+6a^2,\
E_{6,a}=-a+30a^2-90a^3,\\& E_{8,a}=-a+126a^2-1260a^3+2520a^4,
\\&E_{10,a}=-a+510a^2-13230a^3+75600a^4-113400a^5\endaligned\tag 1.2$$
In Section 2 we deduce some identities and an inversion formula involving $\{E_{n,a}\}$. In Sections 3-5 we establish congruences for $E_{2n,a}\mod{2^{{\rm ord}_2n+8}}$, $E_{2n,a}\mod{3^{{\rm
ord}_3n+5}}$ and $E_{2n,a}\mod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}$ provided that $a$ is a nonzero integer, where ${\rm ord}_pn$ is the least nonnegative integer $\alpha$ such that $p^{\a}\mid n$ but $p^{\a+1}\nmid n$. See Theorems 3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.1.
In addition to the above notation, throughout this paper we use $\Bbb Z$ and $\Bbb N$ to denote the set of integers and the set of positive integers, respectively.
2. Identities involving $\{E_{n,a}(x)\}$ {#identities-involving-e_nax .unnumbered}
========================================
For any given real number $a$ we define $\{E_{n,a}\}$ and $\{E_{n,a}(x)\}$ by $$E_{0,a}=1, \q
E_{n,a}=-a\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}\ (n\ge 1)$$ and $$E_{n,a}(x)=\s_{k=0}^n\b
nkE_{k,a}x^{n-k}\ (n\ge 0).$$
By the definition, we have $$E_{2n-1,a}=0\qtq{and}\sum_{k=1}^n\b{2n}{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}=-\f
1aE_{2n,a}\qtq{for}a\not=0.\tag 2.1$$
For any real number $a$ we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}E_{n,a}\frac{t^n}{n!}
=\frac1{\frac a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a}\q \t{and}\q
\s_{n=0}^{\i}E_{n,a}(x)\frac {t^n}{n!}=\frac {e^{xt}}{\frac
a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a}.$$Proof. Since $$\aligned&\Big(\frac a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a\Big)\Big(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}E_{m,a}\frac{t^m}{m!}\Big)
\\&=\Big(1+a\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac {t^{2k}}{(2k)!}\Big)\Big(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}E_{m,a}\frac{t^m}{m!}\Big)
\\&=1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Big(a\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}
\frac1{(2k)!}\cdot \f{E_{n-2k,a}}{(n-2k)!}+\f{E_{n,a}}{n!}\Big)t^n
\\&=1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\Big(a\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}+E_{n,a}\Big)\frac{t^n}{n!}
=1,\endaligned$$ we deduce the first result. To complete the proof, we note that $$\s_{n=0}^{\i}E_{n,a}(x)\frac {t^n}{n!}
=\Big(\s_{k=0}^{\i}E_{k,a}\frac
{t^k}{k!}\Big)\Big(\s_{m=0}^{\i}x^m\frac {t^m}{m!}\Big)=\frac1{\frac
a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a}\cdot \t{e}^{tx}.$$ Let $a$ be a real number. Then $$E_{n,a}(1-x)=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk(-1)^{k}E_{k,a}(x).$$ Proof. By Theorem 2.1, $$\aligned\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}E_{n,a}(1-x)\f{(-t)^n}{n!}
&=\f{e^{(1-x)(-t)}}{\f a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a}=e^{-t}\f{e^{xt}}{\f
a2(e^t+e^{-t})+1-a}
\\&=\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k\f{t^k}{k!}\Big)\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}E_{k,a}(x)\f{t^k}{k!}\Big)
\\&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk(-1)^{n-k}E_{k,a}(x)\Big)\f{t^n}{n!}
\endaligned$$ Comparing the coefficients of $t^n$ on both sides we deduce the result. For any real number $a$ and positive integer $n$ we have $$\align&({\rm i})\q\f a2\big(E_{n,a}(x+1)+E_{n,a}(x-1)\big)+(1-a)E_{n,a}(x)=x^n,
\\&({\rm ii})\q\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nkE_{n-k,a}(x)\left\{\frac a
2((y+1)^k+(y-1)^k)+(1-a)y^k\right\}=(x+y)^n,
\\&({\rm iii})\q E_{n,a}(x)=x^n-a\s_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}(x).
\endalign$$ Proof. By Theorem 2.1, $$\aligned&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\f
a2\big(E_{n,a}(x+1)+E_{n,a}(x-1)\big)+(1-a)E_{n,a}(x)\Big)\f{t^n}{n!}
\\&\q=\f{\f a2\big(\te^{(x+1)t}+\te^{(x-1)t}\big)+(1-a)\te^{tx}}
{\f a2(\te^t+\te^{-t})+1-a}
=\te^{xt}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}x^n\f{t^n}{n!}.\endaligned$$ Comparing the coefficients of $x^n$ on both sides yields (i).
Using Definition 2.1 and Theorem 2.1 we see that $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}E_n(x+y)\f{t^n}{n!}
&=\f{\te^{(x+y)t}}{\f a2(\te^t+\te^{-t})+1-a}
=\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}y^k\f{t^k}{k!}\Big)\Big(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
E_m(x)\f{t^m}{m!}\Big) \\&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Big(\sum_{k=0}^n\b
nkE_{n-k}(x)y^k\Big)\f{t^n}{n!}.\endalign$$ Thus, $$E_n(x+y)=\sum_{k=0}^n\b
nkE_{n-k}(x)y^k=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nkE_k(x)y^{n-k}.\tag 2.2$$ This together with (i) yields (ii). Taking $y=0$ in (ii) and applying the fact $E_{2k-1,a}=0$ we deduce (iii). The proof is now complete.
[**Remark 2.1.**]{} In the case $a=2$, Theorem 2.2(i) is known. See \[8, p.427\]. For any real number $a$ and positive integer $n$ we have $$\align &\f a2\sum_{k=1}^n\b{2n}{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}
((x+1)^{2k}+(x-1)^{2k})+(1-a)\sum_{k=1}^n\b{2n}{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}
x^{2k}\\&=x^{2n}-E_{2n,a}.\endalign$$ Proof. Taking $x=0$ and then substituting $n,y$ with $2n,x$ in Theorem 2.2(ii) we obtain $$\f a2\sum_{k=0}^n\b{2n}{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}
((x+1)^{2k}+(x-1)^{2k})
+(1-a)\sum_{k=0}^n\b{2n}{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}x^{2k}=x^{2n}.$$ This yields the result.
Let $a$ be a real number with $a\not=0$ and $n\in\Bbb N$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^n\b {2n}{2k} 2^{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}=\f 2a+\f {2-4a}{a^2}
E_{2n,a}$$ and so $$E_{2n,a}=\frac a {2a-1}-\frac {a^2n}{2(2a-1)}\sum_{k=1}^n\binom{2n-1}{2k-1}
\frac {4^k}kE_{2n-2k,a}\qtq{for}a\not=\f 12.$$ Proof. Taking $x=1$ in Corollary 2.2 and then applying (2.1) and the fact that $\b{2n}{2k}=\f
nk\b{2n-1}{2k-1}$ we deduce the result.
Let $a$ be a real number with $a\not=0$ and $n\in\Bbb N$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^n\b {2n}{2k} 3^{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}
=\f {2^{2n+1}}a+\f{4(a-1)}{a^2}-\f{(3a-2)^2}{a^3}E_{2n,a}.$$ Proof. Taking $x=2$ in Corollary 2.2 and then applying (2.1) and Theorem 2.3 we deduce the result.
Let $a$ be a real number with $a\not=0$ and $n\in\Bbb N$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=1}^n\b {2n}{2k} 4^{2k}E_{2n-2k,a}
\\&=\f {2(3^{2n}-1)}a+\f{8(a-1)^2}{a^3}+\f{2^{2n+2}(a-1)}{a^2}
-8\f{(a-1)^2(2a-1)}{a^4}E_{2n,a}.\endalign$$ Proof. Taking $x=3$ in Corollary 2.2 and then applying Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 we deduce the result.
Let $a$ be a real number with $a\not=0$ and $n\in\Bbb N$. Then $$\align \sum_{k=1}^n\b {2n}{2k}5^{2k} E_{2n-2k,a}
&=\f {2\cdot
4^{2n}}a+\f{(3a^2-8a+4)2^{2n+1}}{a^3}+\f{4(a-1)3^{2n}}{a^2}
\\&\q+\f{8(a-1)(a^2-4a+2)}{a^4}-\f{(5a^2-10a+4)^2}{a^5}E_{2n,a}.\endalign$$ Proof. Taking $x=4$ in Corollary 2.2 and then applying Theorems 2.4 and 2.5 we deduce the result.
Let $a$ be a real number. For two sequences $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ we have the following inversion formula: $$\align &b_n=\s_{k=0}^n\b nk\Big((1-a)(-x)^k+\frac a2\big((1-x)^k+(-1-x)^k\big)\Big)a_{n-k}
\\& \iff a_n=\s_{k=0}^n \b nkE_{k,a}(x)b_{n-k}.\endalign$$ Proof. Clearly $$\align &\frac {1-a+\frac a2(e^t+e^{-t})}{e^{xt}}\Big(\s_{n=0}^{\i}a_n\frac {t^n}{n!}\Big)
\\&\q=\Big((1-a)e^{-xt}+\frac a2 (e^{(1-x)t}+e^{(-1-x)t})\Big)
\Big(\s_{m=0}^{\i}a_m\frac
{t^m}{m!}\Big)
\\&\q=\s_{k=0}^{\i}\frac {t^k}{k!}\Big((1-a)(-x)^k)
+\frac a2\big((1-x)^k+(-1-x)^k\big)\Big)\Big(\s_{m=0}^{\i}a_m
\frac{t^m}{m!} \Big )
\\&\q=\s_{n=0}^{\i}\Big(\s_{k=0}^n\b nk\big((1-a)(-x)^k+\frac
a2\big((1-x)^k+(-1-x)^k\big)a_{n-k}\Big)\frac {t^n}{n!}.
\endalign$$ Thus, using Theorem 2.1 we see that $$\align &b_n=\s_{k=0}^n\b nk\Big((1-a)(-x)^k+\frac a2\big((1-x)^k+(-1-x)^k\big)
\Big)a_{n-k}
\\&\Leftrightarrow
\frac {1-a+\frac a2(e^t+e^{-t})}{e^{xt}}\Big(\s_{n=0}^{\i}a_n\frac
{t^n}{n!}\Big)=\s_{n=0}^{\i}b_n\frac {t^n}{n!}
\\&\Leftrightarrow \s_{n=0}^{\i}a_n\frac
{t^n}{n!}=\Big(\s_{n=0}^{\i}b_n\frac
{t^n}{n!}\Big)\Big(\s_{n=0}^{\i}E_{n,a}(x)\frac {t^n}{n!}\Big)
\\&\Leftrightarrow a_n=\s_{k=0}^n \b nkE_{k,a}(x)b_{n-k}.\endalign$$ This proves the theorem.
Let $a$ be a real number. For two sequences $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ we have the following inversion formula: $$\align &b_n=a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}a_{n-2k}+(1-a)a_n\
(n=0,1,2,\ldots)
\\& \iff a_n=\sum_{k=0}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{2k,a}b_{n-2k}\
(n=0,1,2,\ldots).\endalign$$ Proof. Taking $x=0$ in Theorem 2.7 we derive the result.
[**Remark 2.2.**]{} In the case $a=2$, Corollary 2.3 was given by the first author in \[7\]. Let $a$ be a nonzero real number and $n\in\Bbb N$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{[n/4]}\b n{4k}E_{n-4k,a}(x)(2(1-a)+a(-4)^k)
\\&=\f 12((x+i)^n+(x-i)^n)+\f{1-a}ax^n-\f 1aE_{n,a}(x).\endalign$$ Proof. Taking $y=\pm i$ in Theorem 2.2(ii) we find $$\sum_{k=0}^n\b nkE_{n-k,a}(x)\Big\{\f a2((\pm i+1)^k+(\pm
i-1)^k)+(1-a)(\pm i)^k\Big\}=(x\pm i)^n.$$ Thus, $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^n\b nkE_{n-k,a}(x)\Big\{\f
a2((i+1)^k+(i-1)^k+(-i+1)^k+(-i-1)^k)\\&\q+(1-a)(i^k+(-i)^k)\Big\}
=(x+i)^n+(x-i)^n.\endalign$$ Observe that $$(i+1)^k+(i-1)^k+(-i+1)^k+(-i-1)^k=\cases (-1)^{\f k4}2^{\f k2+2}
&\t{if $4\mid k$,}\\0&\t{if $4\nmid k$}
\endcases$$ and $$i^k+(-i)^k=\cases 2(-1)^{\f k2}&\t{if $2\mid k$,}
\\ 0&\t{if $2\nmid k$.}\endcases$$ We then have $$\align &2a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/4]}\b n{4k}E_{n-4k,a}(x)(-1)^k2^{2k}
+2(1-a)\sum_{k=0}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}(x)(-1)^k
\\&=(x+i)^n+(x-i)^n.\endalign$$ By Theorem 2.2(iii), $$\align &a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}(x)(-1)^k
+x^n-(1-a)E_{n,a}(x)
\\&=a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{n-2k,a}(x)((-1)^k+1)
=2a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/4]}\b n{4k}E_{n-4k,a}(x).\endalign$$ Thus, $$\align &2a\sum_{k=0}^{[n/4]}\b n{4k}E_{n-4k,a}(x)(-4)^k
+2(1-a)\Big(2\sum_{k=0}^{[n/4]}\b
n{4k}E_{n-4k,a}(x)-\f{x^n}a+\f{1-a}aE_{n,a}(x)\Big)\\&=(x+i)^n+(x-i)^n.
\endalign$$ This yields the result. Let $a$ be a real number with $a\not=0$ and $n\in\Bbb
N$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\binom {2n}{4k}E_{2n-4k,
a}\big(a(-4)^k+2(1-a)\big)=(-1)^n-\f 1aE_{2n,a}.$$ Proof. Taking $x=0$ and replacing $n$ with $2n$ in Theorem 2.8 we deduce the result.
[**Remark 2.3.**]{} In the case $a=1$, Corollary 2.4 can be found in \[2, p.643\]. In the case $a=2$, Corollary 2.4 was proved by the first author in \[7, Theorem 2.4(iv)\].
3. A congruence for $E_{2n,a}\mod{2^{{\rm
ord}_2n+8}}$ {#a-congruence-for-e_2namod2rmord_2n8 .unnumbered}
=========================================
Let $a$ be a nonzero integer and $n\in\Bbb N$. By Theorem 2.3, $$E_{2n,a}=\frac a {2a-1}-\frac {a^2n}{2(2a-1)}\sum_{k=1}^n\binom{2n-1}{2k-1}
\frac {4^k}kE_{2n-2k,a}.\tag 3.1$$ Since $E_{2n,a}\in\Bbb Z$, we get $$E_{2n,a}\e a-\f{a^2n}2\cdot (2n-1)4E_{2n-2,a}\e a\mod 2.\tag 3.2$$ From (3.1) and (3.2) we see that $$E_{2n,a}\e \f a{2a-1}-\f{a^2n}{2(2a-1)}(2n-1)\cdot 4a
\e a(1-2n)\mod 4.\tag 3.3$$ As $E_{2m,a}\in\Bbb Z$ and $\f{4^k}{2k}\e 0\mod{2^5}$ for $k\ge 3$, from (3.1) we see that for $n\ge 2$, $$\aligned &E_{2n,a}-\frac a {2a-1}\\&\e -\frac
{a^2n}{2(2a-1)}\Big(\b{2n-1}14E_{2n-2,a}+\b{2n-1}38E_{2n-4,a}\Big)
\\&= -\f{a^2}{2a-1}\Big(2n(2n-1)E_{2n-2,a}
+\f{n(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}68E_{2n-4,a}\Big)\mod {32}.\endaligned\tag
3.4$$ Thus, $$\align E_{2n,a}&
\e \f a{2a-1}-\f{a^2}{2a-1}n(2n-1)2a(1-2(n-1))
\\&=2a^2-a+2a^3(2a-1)n(2n-1)(2n-3)
\e 2a^2-a-2a^3(2a-1)n\\&\e 2a^2-a-(4a^3-2a^3)n \mod 8.\endalign$$ That is, $$E_{2n,a}\e 2a^2-a-2a^3n \mod 8\qtq{for} n\ge 2.\tag 3.5$$ From (3.2), (3.4) and (3.5) we see that for $n\ge 3$, $$\align &E_{2n,a}-\f a{2a-1}\\&\e
-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\Big(2n(2n-1)(2a^2-a-2a^3(n-1))
+\f{n(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}68a\Big)
\\&\e -2n(2n-1)a^3+\f{2a^5}{2a-1}\cdot
2n(n-1)(2n-1)-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\cdot\f{n(n-1)}2\cdot 8a
\\&\e -2n(2n-1)a^3\mod{16}.\endalign$$ This is also true for $n=2$ by (1.2). Thus, $$E_{2n,a}\e \f a{2a-1}-2n(2n-1)a^3\mod{16}\qtq{for}n\ge 2.\tag 3.6$$ From (3.2), (3.4) and (3.6) we see that for $n\ge 3$, $$\align E_{2n,a}-\f
a{2a-1}&\e -\f{a^2}{2a-1}\Big(2n(2n-1)\Big(\f
a{2a-1}-(2n-2)(2n-3)a^3\Big)\\&\q+\f{n(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}68a(1-2(n-2))\Big)
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)-8a^3\cdot
\f{n(n-1)}2-\f{8a^3}{2a-1}(1-2n)\cdot\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e -\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)-8a^3\cdot
\f{n(n-1)}2-8a^3(1-2n)\cdot\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e -a^3(1-4a(a-1))2n(2n-1)-8a^3\cdot \f{n(n-1)}2(1+1-2n)
\\&\e -2a^3n(2n-1)+8a^2n-8a^3n+8a^3n(n-1)^2\\&= 2a^3n(4n^2-10n+1)+8a^2n
\\&\e 8a^3n^3+12a^3n^2+(2a^3+8a^2)n \mod{32}.\endalign$$ As $$E_{4,a}=6a^2-a\e \f a{2a-1}+64a^3+48a^3+2(2a^3+8a^2)\mod{32},$$ we obtain $$E_{2n,a}\e \f
a{2a-1}+8a^3n^3+12a^3n^2+(2a^3+8a^2)n\mod{32}\qtq{for}n\ge 2.\tag
3.7$$ From (3.1) we see that for $n\ge 4$, $$E_{2n,a}\e \f
a{2a-1}+S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4\mod{2^{{\rm ord}_2n+8}},\tag 3.8$$ where $$\aligned &S_1=-\f{a^2n}{2a-1}2(2n-1)E_{2n-2,a},
\\&S_2=-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\cdot\f{n
(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}34E_{2n-4,a},
\\&S_3=-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\cdot\f{n
(n-1)(n-2)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)}{45}16E_{2n-6,a},
\\&\ S_4=-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\cdot\f{n
(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)(2n-7)}{7\cdot5\cdot9}16E_{2n-8,a}.
\endaligned\tag 3.9$$ Thus, using (3.2)-(3.8) we see that for $n\ge 4$, $$\align &E_{2n,a}-\f
a{2a-1}\\&\e-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\Big(2n(2n-1)(\f
a{2a-1}+2a^3(n-1)(4(n-1)^2-10(n-1)+1)+8a^2(n-1))
\\&\q+\f{n(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}68(2a^2-a-2a^3(n-2))
\\&\q+\f{n(n-1)(n-2)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)}{5\cdot9\cdot2}32a\Big)
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)-\f{n(n-1)}2\Big\{\f{8a^5}{2a-1}(2n-1)(4(n-1)^2-2(n-1)+1+32a)
\\&\q-\f{a^2}{2a-1}(-32an+16a^2-8a-16a^3n+32a)-32a(n-2)\Big\}
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)+\f{n(n-1)}2\Big\{\f1{2a-1}(-16a^5n+32a(n-1)
-16a^5(n-1)\\&\q+8a^5+32a) +(32a-8a^3-16a^5n)-32a(n-2)\Big\}
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)+(48a^6-24a^5+32a-8a^3-16a^5n-32an)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)+(48a^2-24a^3+32a-8a^3-16a^3n-32an)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-a^3(1-4a(a-1))2n(2n-1)+(-16a^2-16a^3n-32an)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e 2a^3(4a^2-4a-1)n(2n-1)+16a^2(an-1)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&=8a^3n^3+(16a^5-16a^4-12a^3-8a^2)n^2+(-8a^5+8a^4+2a^3+8a^2)n\mod{64}.\endalign$$ and so $$E_{2n,a}\e \f
a{2a-1}+8a^3n^3+(4a^3-24a^2)n^2+(8a^4-6a^3+8a^2)n\mod{64}\qtq{for}n\ge
4.\tag 3.10$$ As $$\align S_1&\e-\f{a^2}{2a-1}2n(2n-1)\Big(\f a{2a-1}+8a^3(n-1)^3+(4a^3-24a^2)(n-1)^2
\\&\q+(8a^4-6a^3+8a^2)(n-1)\Big)
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}2n(2n-1)-\f a{2a-1}\f{n(n-1)}2(32a^3(2n-1)(n-1)^2
\\&\q+16a^5(2n-1)(n-1)
+32a^2(n-1)(2n-1)+64a(2n-1)-24a^5n(2n-1))
\\&\e-a^3(1-4a(a-1))2n(2n-1)\\&\q-(-32a^3-32a^3n+40a^5-32a^2n+32a^2-64a)
\f1{2a-1}\cdot\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-a^3(1-4a(a-1))2n(2n-1)-(-32a^3(2a-1)-32a^3n(2a-1)\\&\q-40a^5(2a+1)(4a^2+1)
-32a^2n(2a-1)+32a^2(2a-1)-64a)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-4a^3n^2+2a^3n+16a^5n^2-8a^5n-16a^4n^2+8a^4n+(-64a+32a^3-64an+32a^3n\\&\q-64a
-80a^6-32a^3-40a^5-64an+32a^2n+64a-32a^2-64a)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-4a^3n^2+2a^3n+16a^5n^2-8a^5n-16a^4n^2+8a^4n+(-32a^3n-48a^6+40a^5
\\&\q-32a^2n+32a^2)\f{n(n-1)}2\mod{128},\endalign$$ $$\align S_2&\e-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\f{n (n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}68\Big(\f a{2a-1}-2(n-2)(2(n-2)-1)a^3\Big)
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{(2a-1)^2}\f{8(2n-1)(2n-3)}3\f{n(n-1)}2-\f{a^5}{3(2a-1)}(-32n^2
+16n-32)\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e(32a^3n^2+64an+24a^3-32a^2)\f{n(n-1)}2+(32a^3n^2+32a^3+48a^5n)\f1{2a-1}
\\&\e(32a^3n^2+64an+24a^3-32a^2)\f{n(n-1)}2+(32a^3n^2(2a-1)+32a^3(2a-1)
\\&\q-48a^5n(2a+1)(4a^2+1))\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e(-8a^3-32a^2+64a+32a^2n-64an-48a^5n)\f{n(n-1)}2\mod{128},\endalign$$ $$\align S_3&\e-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\f{n
(n-1)(n-2)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)}{5\cdot9\cdot2}32a(1-2(n-3))
\\&\e-\f{a^3}{2a-1}32(n-2)(2n-3)(1-2(n-3))\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e-32a^3(2a-1)(n-2)(2n-3)(1-2(n-3))\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e(-64an+32a^3n-64a)(2n-3)(1-2(n-3))\f{n(n-1)}2
\\&\e(32a^3n+64a)(1-2(n-3))\f{n(n-1)}2
\e(64a+32a^3n)\f{n(n-1)}2\mod{128}\endalign$$ and $$\align S_4&\e-\f{a^2}{2a-1}\f{n
(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)(2n-7)}{7\cdot5\cdot9\cdot2}32a
\\&\e-32a(n-2)(n-3)\f{n(n-1)}2
\e(-32an^2+32an-64a)\f{n(n-1)}2\mod{128},\endalign$$ using (3.8) we deduce that $$\aligned E_{2n,a}&\e\f
a{2a-1}-16an^4-24a^5n^3-(24a^6-60a^5+16a^4+8a^3-48a)n^2
\\&\q+(24a^6-28a^5+8a^4+6a^3-32a)n\mod{128}\qtq{for}n\ge 4.
\endaligned\tag 3.11$$
Let $a$ be a nonzero integer, $n\in\Bbb N$ and $n\ge 5$. Then $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e \f a{2a-1}-96a^3n^5+(16a^5-32a^4-64a^2)n^4+(72a^7-64a^3)n^3
\\&\q-(24a^7-120a^6+92a^5-56a^3+128a)n^2
\\&\q-(80a^7-72a^6-20a^5+104a^4-6a^3+64a^2-128a)n\mod{2^{{\rm
ord}_2n+8}}.\endalign$$ Proof. Set $\alpha={\rm ord}_2n.$ Let $S_1,S_2,S_3$ and $S_4$ be given by (3.9). Since $$\align \f 1{(2a-1)^2}&=\f{1-4a(a-1)}{1-16a^2(a-1)^2}
\e (1-4a(a-1))(1+16a^2(a-1)^2)
\\&\e (1-4a(a-1))(1+32a(a-1))\e 1+28a(a-1)
\mod{128}\endalign$$ we see that
$$\align S_1&\e-\f{a^2n}{2a-1}2(2n-1)(\f a{2a-1}-16a(n-1)^4-24a^5(n-1)^3
\\&\q-(24a^6-60a^5+16a^4+8a^3-48a)(n-1)^2
\\&\q+(24a^6-28a^5+8a^4+6a^3-32a)(n-1))
\\&\e-a^32n(2n-1)(1+28a(a-1))+a^2n(2a+1)
(4a^2+1)(16a^4+1)(32a^5+128a\\&\q+96a^6+48a^4
+28a^3+32an^4+192an^3+96an^2+128an+64a^5n^3+136a^5n^2
\\&\q+120a^5n+80a^6n^2+176a^6n
+192a^4n^2+80a^4n+104a^3n^2+156a^3n+192an^5\\&\q+160a^5n^4+160a^6n^3
+192a^4n^3+224a^3n^3)
\\&\e130a^3n-56a^4n-16a^7n+104a^6n+128an-96n^3a^3+64a^2n+44a^5n^2+112a^4n^2
\\&\q-120a^7n^2-120a^6n^2-32n^4a^3-112a^6n^3-88a^7n^3+32a^4n^4-64n^5a^3
\\&\q+124a^3n^2-64a^2n^2+64a^2n^3-24a^5n^3-96a^4n^3+84a^5n\mod{2^{\alpha+8}},\endalign$$ $$\align S_2&\e-\f{a^2n}{2a-1}\cdot\f{4(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}3\Big(\f
a{2a-1}+8a^3(n-2)^3
\\&\q+(4a^3-24a^2)(n-2)^2+(8a^4-6a^3+8a^2)(n-2)\Big)
\\&\e-a^3n(1+4a(1-a))\f{4(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}3\\&\q+4a^2n(2a+1)(4a^2+1)(16a^4+1)
\f{ (n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)}3\\&\q\times(8a^3(n-2)^3+(4a^3-24a^2)(n-2)^2
+(8a^4-6a^3+8a^2)(n-2))
\\&\e -60a^3n+48a^4n+128an+112n^3a^3-104a^5n^2+16a^4n^2-80a^6n^2+80a^5n^4
\\&\q-48a^6n^3-48n^4a^3-4a^3n^2-64a^2n^2+128an^2-104a^5n^3\mod{2^{\alpha+8}},\endalign$$ $$\align S_3&\e-\f{ a^2(2a-1)(n-1)(n-2)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)}516(2a^2-a-2a^3(n-3))
\\&\e16a^3n^2-96a^3n-112n^3a^3-64a^2n^3+64a^2n^4-64n^4a^3\mod{2^{\alpha+8}}\endalign$$ and $$\align S_4&\e\f {16}5a^2n(2a-1)(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(2n-1)(2n-3)(2n-5)(2n-7)
\\&\q\times(2a^2-a-2a^3(n-4))
\\&\e112a^3n^2+64a^2n^2-64a^2n^4-48n^4a^3-96n^5a^3+32a^3n\mod{2^{\alpha+8}}\endalign$$ Now combining the above with (3.8) yields the result. Let $a$ be a nonzero integer and $n\in\Bbb N$ with $n\ge 5$.
$(\t{\rm i})$ If $2\mid a$, then $$E_{2n,a}\e\f
a{2a-1}+(4a^5-8a^3)n^2+(4a^5-8a^4+6a^3)n\mod{2^{{\rm ord}_2n+8}}.$$
$(\t{\rm ii})$ If $2\nmid a$, then $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\f
a{2a-1}-96(a+a^2-1)n^5+(16a-96a^2)n^4\\&\q+(-104a^3+112a)n^3
+(56a^3-116a+104a^2-112)n^2\\&\q+(62a^3-116a-56a^2+88)n\mod{2^{{\rm
ord}_2n+8}}.\endalign$$
4. A congruence for $E_{2n,a}\mod{3^{{\rm ord}_3n+5}}$ {#a-congruence-for-e_2namod3rm-ord_3n5 .unnumbered}
======================================================
Let $a$ be a nonzero integer and $n\in\Bbb N$. By Theorem 2.4, we have $$E_{2n,a}=\frac 1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(2^{2n+1}a^2+4a(a-1)
-a^3n\sum_{k=1}^n\b{2n-1}{2k-1}\f{3^{2k}}kE_{2n-2k,a}\Big).\tag
4.1$$ Since $E_{2n,a}\in\Bbb Z$ and $2^{2n}=(1+3)^n\e 1+3n\mod 9$, using (4.1)we see that for $n\ge 2$, $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\f 1{2(1-3a)}((1+3n)a^2+2a^2-2a)
\\&\e-4(1+3a)(3a^2-2a+3na^2)\e3a^2-a-3a^2n\mod 9.\tag 4.2
\endalign$$ Let $a$ be a nonzero integer with $3\mid a$, $n\in\Bbb N$ and $n\ge 2$. Then $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e \f{2a}{3a-2}+ 9a^2n^3+9a^2n^2-3a^2n
\mod{3^{{\rm ord}_3n+5}}.\endalign$$ Proof. It is clear that $$\frac 1{(3a-2)^2}=\frac
{(3a+2)^2}{(9a^2-4)^2}\e -5(9a^2+12a+4)\e 21a-20 \mod{81}$$ and $$2^{2n}=(1+3)^n=1+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b {n-1}{k-1}\f{3^k}k.$$ Thus, $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\frac
1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(2a^2(1+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b{n-1}{k-1}\f{3^k}k)+4a(a-1)\Big)
\\&\e\frac 1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(6a^2-4a+2a^2n\big(3+\f 92(n-1)+\f 92(n-1)(n-2)\big)\Big)
\\&\e\frac {6a^2-4a}{(3a-2)^2}+n\big(6a^2\cdot\f 1{4-3a}+9a^2(n-1)+9a^2(n-1)(n-2)\big)
\\&\e \f{2a}{3a-2}+n(6a^2(7+3a)+9a^2+9a^2n^2-18a^2n)
\\&\e \f{2a}{3a-2}+9a^2n^3+9a^2n^2-3a^2n
\mod{3^{{\rm ord}_3n+5}}.
\endalign$$ This proves the theorem.
Let $a$ be a nonzero integer with $3\nmid a$, $n\in\Bbb N$ and $n\ge 3$. Then $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\f{2a}{3a-2}+(54a^3-99a^2+27a-81)n^3-(9a^4-27a^3-63a^2
\\&\q-81a-108)n^2-(117a^4+117a^3+111a^2-54a-108)n\mod{3^{{\rm
ord}_3n+5}}.\endalign$$ Proof. Clearly $(3a-2)^2(7-6a)=135a^2-108a+28-54a^3\e 1\mod{27}$ and $$\align &(3a-2)^2(-27a^3+108a^2-60a-20)\\&=-243a^5+1296a^4-1944a^3+972a^2-80\e
81a^4+163\e 1\mod {3^5}.\endalign$$ Now, using (4.1), (4.2) and the above we deduce that $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e(7-6a)\Big(2\big(1+3n+\f{9n(n-1)}2\big)a^2+4a(a-1)-9an(2n-1)E_{2n-2,a}\Big)
\\&\e(7-6a)\Big((2+6n+9n(n-1))a^2+4a^2-4a+9n(2n-1)\Big)
\\&\e(7-6a)(6a^2+6a^2n+9n-4a)
\\&\e12a^2+15a^2n+9n+26a+18a^3+18a^3n
\\&\e(-12a^2-9a+9)n+12a^2-10a
\mod{27}\endalign$$ and so $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\frac
1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(2a^2\Big(1+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b{n-1}{k-1}\f{3^k}k\Big)
+4a(a-1)\\&\q-a^3n\sum_{k=1}^n\b{2n-1}{2k-1}\f{3^{2k}}kE_{2n-2k,a}\Big)
\\&\e\frac 1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(6a^2-4a+2a^2n\big(3+\f 92(n-1)+\f 92(n-1)(n-2)
\\&\q+\f {27}8(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)\big)
\\&\q-a^3n\Big(9(2n-1)E_{2n-2,a}+\f{27}2(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)E_{2n-4,a}\Big)\Big)
\\&\e\frac 1{(3a-2)^2}\Big(6a^2-4a+2a^2n\big(3+\f 92(n-1)+\f 92(n-1)(n-2)
\\&\q+\f {27}8(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)\big)
\\&\q-a^3n\Big(9(2n-1)\big(-12a^2-9a+9)(n-1)+12a^2-10a\big)
\\&\q+\f{27}2(n-1)(2n-1)(2n-3)(3a^2-a-3a^2(n-2))\Big)
\\&\e \f{2a}{3a-2}+(-27a^3+108a^2-60a-20)(96na^2+117a^2n^2+90a^2n^3
\\&\q+189n^4a^2+54n^3a^5
+189n^2a^5+207a^4n^2+81a^3n^3
\\&\q+216na^5+72a^4n+162na^3+54n^4a^4+162n^5a^5)
\\&\e\f{2a}{3a-2}+24a^2n+90a^2n^2+81an^2-9a^4n^2
-108n^3a^5\\&\q-54na^5-63a^4n -99a^2n^3+81n^2-81n-9na^3+27a^3n^2
\\&\q-81n^3+27a^3n^3 -108n^4a^4-81an^5+108n^4a^2\mod{3^{{\rm
ord}_3n+5}}.
\endalign$$ To see the result, we note that $$\align &a^2\e 1\mod 3,\ a^4=(a^2-1)^2+2a^2-1\e 2a^2-1\mod 9,\\&
a^5=a(a^2-1)^2+2a^3-a\e 2a^3-a\mod 9\endalign$$ and $$\align &-81an^5+(-108a^4+108a^2)n^4+(-108a^5+27a^3)n^3
\\&\e -81an^3+27(1-a^2)n^2+(54a^3
+108a)n^3\mod {3^{{\rm ord}_3n+5}}.\endalign$$
5. A congruence for $E_{2n,a}\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}$ {#a-congruence-for-e_2napmod5rm-ord_5n4 .unnumbered}
=======================================================
Let $a$ be a nonzero integer and $n\in\Bbb N$ with $n\ge 2$. Then $$\align E_{2n,a}&\e\f{2(1+(-1)^n)a^2-4a}
{5a^2-10a+4}\\&\q+(-125a^4+250a^3(-1)^n
+250a^2(-1)^n+250a((-1)^n-1))n^3
\\&\q+((150(-1)^n+100)a^7+300a^6+(275(-1)^n
-25)a^4-25a^3(-1)^n\\&\q-25a^2(-1)^n-125a(1+(-1)^n))n^2+((-200(-1)^n-300)a^7
\\&\q+(25-200(-1)^n)a^6-(275(-1)^n+100)a^5+(30(-1)^n+105)a^4\\&\q+270a^3(-1)^n
-290a^2(-1)^n+250a((-1)^n-1))n\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}.\endalign$$ Proof. By Theorem 2.6, $$\align E_{2n,a}&=\f1{(5(a-1)^2-1)^2}\Big\{2\cdot4^{2n}a^4+(3a^4-8a^3+4a^2)2^{2n+1}
\\&\q+4(a^4-a^3)3^{2n}+8(a^4-5a^3+6a^2-2a)-a^5\s_{k=1}^n\b{2n}{2k}5^{2k}E_{2n-2k}
\Big\}.\tag 5.1\endalign$$ As $$\align
&4^{2n}=(1+15)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk15^k\e 1+15n\mod{25},
\\&2^{2n}=(5-1)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk5^k(-1)^{n-k}\e
(-1)^n(1-5n)\mod{25},
\\&3^{2n}=(10-1)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk10^k(-1)^{n-k}\e
(-1)^n(1-10n)\mod{25},
\\&\f 1{(5a^2-10a+4)^2}=\f 1{(5(a-1)^2-1)^2}=
\f {(5(a-1)^2+1)^2}{(25(a-1)^4-1)^2}\e 10(a-1)^2+1\mod{25},
\endalign$$ we see that $$\align
E_{2n,a}&\e(10(a-1)^2+1)\big(2a^4(1+15n)+2(3a^4-8a^3+4a^2)(-1)^n(1-5n)
\\&\q+4(a^4-a^3)(-1)^n(1-10n)+8(a^2-a)(a^2-4a+2)\big)
\\&\e2a^4(10(a-1)^2+1)+30a^4n+(6a^4-16a^3+8a^2)(-1)^n(10(a-1)^2+1-5n)
\\&\q+4(a^4-a^3)(-1)^n(10(a-1)^2+1-10n)
\\&\q+8(a^2-a)(a^2-4a+2)(10(a-1)^2+1)
\\&\e5a^2((1+(-1)^n)a^2-(-1)^n(a-2))n-10(1+(-1)^n)a^4-5(2+(-1)^n)a^3
\\&\q-2(1+6(-1)^n)a^2-a\mod{25}\endalign$$ and so $$\align E_{2n-2,a}&\e 5a^2((1-(-1)^n)a^2+(-1)^n(a-2))(n-1)
\\&\q-10(1-(-1)^n)a^4-5(2-(-1)^n)a^3
-2(1-6(-1)^n)a^2-a\mod{25}.\endalign$$ This together with (5.1) yields $$\aligned E_{2n,a}&\e \f1{(5(a-1)^2-1)^2}\Big\{2\cdot4^{2n}a^4+(3a^4-8a^3+4a^2)2^{2n+1}
\\&\q+4(a^4-a^3)3^{2n}+8(a^4-5a^3+6a^2-2a)
\\&\q-a^5\b{2n}25^2(5a^2((1-(-1)^n)a^2+(-1)^n(a-2))(n-1)
\\&\q-10(1-(-1)^n)a^4 -5(2-(-1)^n)a^3
-2(1-6(-1)^n)a^2-a)\Big\}\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}.\endaligned\tag 5.2$$ It is clear that $$\align &\f 1{(5(a-1)^2-1)^2}\\&=(1-5(a-1)^2)^{-2}
=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\b{-2}k(-5(a-1)^2)^k
\e \sum_{k=0}^3\b{-2}k(-5(a-1)^2)^k\\&
\e 1+10(a-1)^2+75(a-1)^4-125(a-1)^6\pmod{5^4}.\endalign$$ Also, $$\align4^{2n}&=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk 15^k=1+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b {n-1}{k-1} \f{15^k}k
\\&\e
1+15n+225\f{n(n-1)}2+15^3\f{n(n-1)(n-2)}6\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}\endalign$$ $$\align2^{2n}&=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk 5^k(-1)^{n-k}=(-1)^n+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b {n-1}{k-1}
\f{5^k}k(-1)^{n-k}
\\&\e
(-1)^n\Big(1-5n+25\f{n(n-1)}2-125\f{n(n-1)(n-2)}6\Big)\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}\endalign$$ $$\align3^{2n}&=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk 10^k(-1)^{n-k}=(-1)^n+n\sum_{k=1}^n\b {n-1}{k-1}
\f{10^k}k(-1)^{n-k}
\\&\e
(-1)^n\Big(1-10n+50n(n-1)-500\f{n(n-1)(n-2)}3\Big)\pmod{5^{{\rm ord}_5n+4}}\endalign$$ Now, from (5.2) and the above we deduce the result.
[99]{} K.W. Chen, Congruences for Euler numbers, Fibonacci Quart. [**42**]{}(2004), 128-140. D.H. Lehmer, Lacunary recurrence formulas for the numbers of Bernoulli and Euler, Annals Math. [**36**]{} (1935), 637-649. W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger and R.P. Soni, Formulas and Theorems for the Special Functions of Mathematical Physics $(3rd\ Edition)$, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1966, pp. 25-32. Z.H. Sun, Congruences involving Bernoulli polynomials, Discrete Math. [**308**]{} (2008), 71-112. Z.H. Sun, Congruences involving Bernoulli and Euler numbers, J. Number Theory [**128**]{}(2008), 280-312. Z.H. Sun, Euler numbers modulo $2^n$, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. [**82**]{} (2010), 221-231. Z.H. Sun, Identities and congruences for a new sequence, Int. J. Number Theory[ **8**]{}(2012), 207-225. Z.H. Sun, Some properties of a sequence analogous to Euler numbers, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**87**]{}(2013), 425-440.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We reported a new result of the neutral impurity scattering of holes that has impact on the charge drift mobility in high purity p-type germanium crystals at 77 Kelvin. The charge carrier concentration, mobility and resistivity are measured by Hall Effect system at 77 Kelvin. We investigated the contribution to the total charge drift mobility from ionized impurity scattering, lattice scattering, and neutral impurity scattering with the best theoretical models and experimental data. Several samples with measured Hall mobility from the grown crystals are used for this investigation. With the measured Hall mobility and ionized impurity concentration as well as the theoretical models, we calculated the neutral impurity concentration by the Matthiessen’s rule. As a result, the distributions of the neutral impurity concentrations with respect to the radius of the crystals are obtained. Consequently, we demonstrated that neutral impurity scattering is a significant contribution to the charge drift mobility, which has dependence on the concentration of neutral impurities in a given germanium crystal.'
author:
- 'H. Mei'
- 'D.-M. Mei'
- 'G. Wang'
- 'G. Yang'
title: 'The impact of neutral impurity concentration on charge drift mobility in p-type germanium'
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
The charge drift mobility, depending on electric field, temperature, lattice and field orientation, is a critical parameter in the understanding of the rise time of charge pulses, which are often used to determine the sequence of gamma interactions inside a germanium detector, and to find the origin of gamma tracks for Gamma-Tracking experiments such as AGATA [@agata] and GRETINA [@gretina]. In the germanium-based neutrinoless double-beta decay experiments, such as GERDA [@gerda] and Majorana [@majorana], the charge drift mobility plays a critical role in measuring the charge pulse shape [@cooper; @david; @martin] that distinguishes background events (the multiple-site events from Compton scattering) from signal events (the single-site events from two electrons of neutrinoless double-beta decay process). The digital pulse shape is determined using the rise time of the charge pulse induced by the energy deposition in a given germanium detector. The rise time is proportional to the charge drift velocity, $\nu=\mu E$, where $\mu$ is the charge drift mobility and $E$ is electric field. To ensure that the detector performance of the digital pulse shapes is well understood, it is essential to simulate the digital pulse shapes to compare with the measured ones. In the Monte Carlo simulation, the electric field distribution can be accurately calculated using Poisson equation for an applied voltage and a given geometry of the detector, while the charge drift mobility is often treated as a constant. This can be true only if the charge drift mobility at 77 Kelvin is solely constrained by the lattice scattering, which is a constant at low fields, and for the $<$100$>$ axis for a given temperature. However, the charge drift mobility is usually governed by several scattering mechanisms including ionized impurity scattering, neutral impurity scattering, lattice scattering, and others. It is well known that the charge drift mobility can be impacted by temperature, crystal orientation, impurity concentration, defect concentration, and also electron and hole concentration [@cmnj]. Among them, the scattering mechanisms play a very important role in determining the total charge drift mobility for a given crystal orientation. Traditionally, the lattice scattering and the ionized impurity scattering are used to determine the total charge drift mobility in the Monte Carlo simulation [@cooper; @david]. The neutral impurity scattering has not been considered to be an important contribution to the total charge drift mobility at 77 Kelvin and has been reported in some literature as having no direct impact on the electrical properties of germanium crystals [@dmbr]. In 1994, K. M. Itoh et al. found that the neutral impurity scattering is the dominant component of the charge drift mobility when the temperature is below 20 Kelvin [@km]. Similar to other electrically active impurities, the neutral impurities can also act as scattering centers to impede the drift and diffusion of charge carriers under an electric field. As a result, the charge drift mobility is expected to decrease as the neutral impurities concentration increases [@ce; @tcm]. To demonstrate the variation of the charge drift mobility as a function of the concentration of neutral impurities, one must separate the portion of the charge drift mobility contributed by the ionized impurity scattering, lattice scattering, and other scatterings. This requires a comprehensive study of the contributions to the charge drift mobility due to the ionized impurity scattering, lattice scattering, and neutral impurity scattering, and others. In this work, the calculation of the charge drift mobility due to different scattering processes, and the impact of neutral impurity concentrations on the charge drift mobility are presented in section \[s:mobi\], followed by the experimental results in section \[s:exp\]. Finally, we summarize our conclusions in section \[s:conc\].
Calculation of Charge Drift Mobility {#s:mobi}
====================================
The charge drift mobility of germanium detectors depends on the rate at which charge carriers are scattered by impurity atoms and defects in the crystalline structure. The rate is the reciprocal of the relaxation time, which is the average time between collisions, and will be discussed later in terms of each scattering mechanism. The relationship between the relaxation time and the charge drift mobility is given by [@brn]: $${\mu}=\frac{q\tau}{m^{\ast}},
\label{mu}$$ where $\mu$ is the charge drift mobility, $\tau$ is the relaxation time, $q$ is the elementary charge and $m^{\ast}$ is the effective mass of the charge carrier.
The total charge drift mobility of a charge carrier has contributions from at least five main scattering processes in a germanium detector: ionized impurity scattering, neutral impurity scattering, acoustic phonon scattering, optical phonon scattering and dislocation scattering [@se]. Note that acoustical phonon scattering and optical phonon scattering belong to lattice scattering. The total charge drift mobility is impacted independently by the scattering mechanisms mentioned above and can be determined by using Matthiessen’s rule [@da]: $$\frac{1}{\mu_{T}} = \frac{1}{\mu_{I}}+\frac{1}{\mu_{N}}+\frac{1}{\mu_{A}}+\frac{1}{\mu_{O}}+\frac{1}{\mu_{D}},
\label{e:mu}$$ where $\mu_{T}$ is the total charge drift mobility, $\mu_{I}$, $\mu_{N}$, $\mu_{A}$, $\mu_{O}$ and $\mu_{D}$ are the mobilities contributed by the scattering of ionized impurities, neutral impurities, acoustic phonons, optical phonons and dislocation, respectively. For p-type germanium, the majority charge carriers are holes. Since the existence of heavy and light holes, we have to consider the behaviors for each scattering mechanism by heavy and light holes separately. The effective mass $m^{\ast}$ is taken as $m_{h}^{\ast }$= 0.28 for heavy holes and $m_{ l}^{\ast }$= 0.044 [@sinj] for light holes, respectively. The ratio of heavy holes and light holes concentration $ {p_{h}}/{p_{l}}$ is given by $({m_{h}}/{m_{l}})^{3/2}$=16.05 [@dmbr]. Then by weighing the mobility of heavy holes $\mu_{h}$ and light holes $\mu_{l}$ according to their relative populations, we were able to calculate the individual total hole mobility for each scattering mechanism using the equation: $${\mu}=({\mu_{l}}{p_{l}}+{\mu_{h}}{p_{h}})/({p_{l}}+{p_{h}})=({\mu_{l}}+16.05{\mu_{h}})/17.05
\label{e:com}$$ then the individual contributions are combined using eq. \[e:mu\].
As indicated by eq. \[e:mu\], the mobility due to neutral impurity scattering, $\mu_{N}$, can be evaluated if $\mu_{T}$, $\mu_{I}$, $\mu_{A}$, $\mu_{O}$ and $\mu_{D}$ are known. Furthermore, the neutral impurity concentration, $N_{n}$, can be estimated if the relationship between $N_{n}$ and $\mu_{N}$ can be established.
Ionized impurity scattering
---------------------------
Ionized impurity scattering occurs when a charge carrier deviates from its trajectory by a Coulomb interaction as it gets close to an ionized impurity atom [@dan]. The relaxation time was found by Conwell and Weisskopf using the Rutherford scattering formula [@ec]: $$\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{2\pi N_{i}q^{4}}{(\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0)^{2}m^{\ast 2}\nu ^{3}}ln(1+\frac{(\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0)^{2}m^{\ast 2}\nu ^{4}}{4q^{4}N_{i}^{2}}),$$ where $N_{i}$ is the ionized impurity concentration, $\varepsilon_{r}$=16 is the relative permittivity of germanium, $\varepsilon_0$ is the free-space permittivity, $m^{\ast}$ is the effective mass of the drifting charges in germanium, and $\nu$ is the charge carrier velocity. Then the mobility due to ionized impurity scattering $\mu_{I}$, can be calculated by the CW model [@bh]: $$\mu_{I}=\frac{128\sqrt{2}\pi^{1/2}(\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0)^{2}(k_BT)^{3/2}}{m^{\ast 1/2}N_{i}Z^2q^3}/ln(1+\frac{144{\pi^{2}}(\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0)^{2}k_B^{2}T^{2}}{Z^{2}q^{4}N_{i}^{2/3}}),
\label{e:mui0}$$
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature in Kelvin and $Z=1$ is the effective charge number in germanium. A more accurate model was developed by Brooks and Herring since this CW model cuts off the small angle scattering [@ns], and does not take the effect on the potential of the distribution of space charges around the impurity atoms into account. In the Brooks-Herring theory [@bh] or BH model, $\mu_{I}$, can be expressed as: $$\mu_{I}=\frac{128\sqrt{2}\pi^{1/2}(\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0)^{2}(k_BT)^{3/2}}{m^{\ast 1/2}N_{i}Z^2q^3}/ln\frac{24m^{\ast}\varepsilon_\text{r}\varepsilon_0(k_BT)^2}{N_{i}q^2\hbar^2}.
\label{e:mui1}$$
If we replace all constants in eq. \[e:mui1\] with their corresponding values, eq. \[e:mui1\] is simplified as follows when $T$ = 77 Kelvin: $$\mu_{I}=\frac{5.70\times 10^{20}}{m^{\ast 1/2}\cdot N_{i}}\left [ ln\frac{1.23\times 10^{19}\cdot m^{\ast } }{N_{i}} \right ]^{-1},$$ where $\mu_{I}$ is in cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s) and $N_{i}$ is in /cm$^3$. So for ionized impurity scattering caused by heavy holes with $m_{h}^{\ast }$=0.28, we have $$(\mu _{h})_{I}=\frac{1.08\times 10^{21}}{N_{i}}\left [ ln\frac{3.44\times 10^{18} }{N_{i}} \right ]^{-1},$$ and for the ionized impurity scattering caused by light holes with $m_{l}^{\ast }$=0.044, we have
$$(\mu _{l})_{I}=\frac{2.72\times 10^{21}}{N_{i}}\left [ ln\frac{2.8\times 10^{20} }{N_{i}} \right ]^{-1},$$
so the total hole mobility caused by ionized impurity scattering can be calculated by Eq.\[e:com\]: $$\begin{split}
\mu_{I}&=((\mu _{l})_{I}+16.05(\mu _{h})_{I})/17.05\\
&=\frac{1.59\times 10^{20}}{N_{i}}\left [ ln\frac{2.8\times 10^{20} }{N_{i}} \right ]^{-1}+\frac{1.02\times 10^{21}}{N_{i}}\left [ ln\frac{3.44\times 10^{18} }{N_{i}} \right ]^{-1},
\end{split}
\label{e:mui2}$$
Eq. \[e:mui2\] indicates that $\mu_{I}$ decreases as $N_{i}$ increases at a given temperature. Fig. \[fig:ionized\] shows the relationship between the mobility due to ionized impurity scattering ($\mu_{I}$) and ionized impurity concentration.
![The mobility contributed by ionized impurity scattering ($\mu_{I}$) as a function of the ionized impurity concentration. Note that when the ionized impurity concentration is in the region between 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$ and 10$^{15}$/cm$^3$, the total charge drift mobility contributed by the ionized impurity scattering is very small. []{data-label="fig:ionized"}](fig-1.png){width="8.cm"}
The BH model has been well studied when $N_{i}$ is in the range of 10$^{14}$/cm$^3$-10$^{18}$/cm$^3$. Based on the IEEE Standard [@IEEE], the value of the charge drift mobility is $\mu_{n}$=36000 cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s) and $\mu_{p}$=42000 cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s) for n-type and p-type high-purity germanium crystals, respectively. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ionized\], it is clear that the total charge drift mobility is affected by the ionized impurities only when the ionized impurity concentration is higher than $\sim$10$^{14}$/cm$^{3}$. The ionized impurity concentration in detector-grade germanium crystal must be in the order of a few times 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$ [@EEHA]. With this very low ionized impurity concentration, the mobility due to ionized impurity scattering is in the order of 10$^{9}$ cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s) as indicated in Fig. \[fig:ionized\]. Thus, the contribution from the ionized impurity scattering to the total charge drift mobility is very small in general.
Acoustic phonon scattering
--------------------------
At temperatures above absolute zero, the lattices of a germanium crystal are constantly vibrating, and the vibrations are treated as quasiparticles named phonons. In almost all semiconductors, there are two types of phonons: acoustic phonons (coherent movements of atoms of the lattice) and optical phonons (out-of-phase movements of the atoms in the lattice). The scattering of charge carriers by acoustical phonons is believed to be a very important contribution to the total charge drift mobility in semiconductors [@dmbr]. The relaxation time for acoustic phonon scattering was originally derived by Bardeen and Shockley [@jb] and can be written as: $$\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{\nu E_{ac}^{2}}{\pi \hbar^{4}c_{1}}m^{\ast 2}k_BT,
\label{e:mua}$$ where $E_{ac}$=9.5 eV is the acoustic deformation potential constant and $c_{1}$=1.32$\times$ 10$^{12}$ dyn/cm$^{2}$ is the longitudinal elastic constant of germanium at 77 Kelvin along $<100>$ crystal orientation.
The mobility due to acoustic deformation potential scattering, $\mu_{A}$, can be calculated by the following equation [@jb]: $${\mu}_{A}=\frac{2\sqrt{2\pi } \hbar^{4}c_{1}q}{3E_{ac}^{2}{m^{\ast 5/2}}(k_BT)^{3/2}},
\label{e:mua1}$$ Again, with all constants in eq. \[e:mua1\] replaced by their values, eq. \[e:mua1\] becomes: $${\mu}_{A}=\frac{4.65\times 10^{5}}{m^{\ast 5/2}}\cdot T^{-3/2},$$ where $\mu_{A}$ is in cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s). With $m_{h}^{\ast }$=0.28 and $m_{l}^{\ast }$=0.044, we have $$(\mu _{h})_{A}=1.12\times 10^{7}\cdot T^{-3/2},$$ and $$(\mu _{l})_{A}=1.15\times 10^{9}\cdot T^{-3/2},$$ so the total hole mobility caused by ionized impurity scattering obtained by Eq.\[e:com\] is $$\mu_{A}=7.77\times 10^{7}\cdot T^{-3/2},
\label{e:mua2}$$
Eq. \[e:mua2\] implies that there is a temperature dependence in $\mu_{A}$. With $T$ = 77 Kelvin, one obtains $\mu_{A}$ = 1.15$\times$10$^{5}$cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s). In D. M. Brown and R. Bray’s work [@dmbr], the empirical expression for $\mu_{A}$ is: $${\mu}_{A}=3.37\times 10^{7}\cdot T^{-3/2},$$ which differs about a factor of two from eq. \[e:mua2\]. Basing on their experimental work, they concluded that at low temperatures, acoustical phonon scattering is the main scattering mechanism in the presence of high electric fields. Their work didn’t include the neutral impurity scattering in the analysis, only acoustical and ionized impurity scattering were taken into account. While treating acoustical phonon as sole adjustable parameter, they also pointed out that neutral impurity scattering might be important with high neutral impurity concentration. In this paper, we take into account acoustic phonon scattering, ionized impurity scattering and the neutral impurity scattering to investigate their impacts on the charge drift mobility of high-purity germanium. Fig. \[fig:acoustic\] shows the variation of $\mu_{A}$ with temperature for both theoretical and empirical formulas. From Fig. \[fig:acoustic\], it is clear that the theoretical results of $\mu_{A}$ are larger than the IEEE Standard at 77 Kelvin which indicates that acoustic phonon scattering may not be the sole scattering source of total charge drift mobility at 77K, there must be other scattering mechanisms contributing to the total charge drift mobility. The empirical formula fit the IEEE Standard well at 77 Kelvin if we take both neutral impurity scattering and acoustic phonon scattering into account.
![The mobility due to acoustic phonon scattering ($\mu_{A}$) as a function of temperature.[]{data-label="fig:acoustic"}](fig-2.png){width="8.cm"}
Neutral impurity scattering
---------------------------
Neutral impurity scattering occurs when a charge carrier approaches close to a neutral impurity atom and exchanges its momentum with the atom. During the scattering, the charge carrier is deflected by the short-range interaction. In the literature, some authors consider that neutral impurity scattering may play a significant role in estimating the total charge drift mobility [@co; @nsp]. N. Sclar pointed out that neutral impurity scattering may be the dominant process or can be comparable with other scattering process in determining the total charge drift mobility, when the neutral impurity concentration is equal or greater than the ionized impurity concentration [@nsp]. Therefore, in high-purity germanium crystals with ionized impurity concentration as low as 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$, there is a great possibility that neutral impurity scattering is an important scattering process in the determination of total charge drift mobility.
The neutral impurity scattering due to un-ionized donors or acceptors and neutral defects in a semiconductor were first derived by Erginsoy in 1950 [@ce]. He treated all neutral impurities as hydrogen atoms using the Bohr model. This approximation gave us the relaxation time for the neutral impurity scattering: $$\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{20\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_0 N_{n}h^{3}}{8\pi^{3}m^{\ast2}q^{2}},
\label{e:tau}$$ where ${N}_{n}$ is the neutral impurity concentration. Combining eq. \[e:tau\] and eq. \[mu\], we obtain the mobility in a given direction due to neutral impurity scattering $\mu_{1N}$: $$\mu_{1N}= (\mu_{1N})_{E} = \frac{q^{3}}{20N_{n}\hbar^{3}}\cdot \frac{m^{\ast }}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_0}.
\label{e:mun0}$$ Since the neutral impurity scattering is an isotropic scattering process [@tokm], the charge carriers would be scattered with equal efficiency into all possible directions. Thus, eq. \[e:mun0\] can be modified as [@rk]: $$\mu_N = (\mu_{N})_{E} = \frac{q^{3}}{80\pi N_{n}\hbar^{3}}\cdot \frac{m^{\ast }}{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_0}.
\label{e:mun2}$$ The only difference between eq. \[e:mun0\] and eq. \[e:mun2\] is a factor of 4$\pi$ in the denominator of eq. \[e:mun2\] since the scattering process is isotropic [@tokm]. Again, with all constants in eq. \[e:mun2\] replaced by their corresponding values, eq. \[e:mun2\] is reduced to be: $$\mu_N = (\mu_{N})_{E} =\frac{8.95\times 10^{20}\cdot m^{\ast } }{N_{n}}.
\label{e:mun3}$$ then considering heavy holes, $$(\mu _{h})_{N}=\frac{2.51\times 10^{20} }{N_{n}}$$ and light holes, $$(\mu _{l})_{N}=\frac{3.94\times 10^{19} }{N_{n}}$$ which yields the total hole mobility caused by neutral impurity scattering is
$$\mu_N=(\mu _{N})_E=\frac{2.31\times 10^{18}+2.36\times 10^{20}}{N_{n}}
\label{e:neu100}$$
As shown in Fig. \[fig:neu1\], the mobility due to neutral impurity scattering decreases as the neutral impurity concentration increases. With the neutral impurity concentration in the level between 10$^{14}$/cm$^3$-10$^{16}$/cm$^3$, the mobility due to neutral impurity scattering could be an important contribution to the total charge drift mobility at a level of close to the IEEE standard stated earlier.
![The mobility due to neutral impurity scattering calculated by Erginsoy’s model ($\mu_{N}$) as a function of neutral impurity concentration. []{data-label="fig:neu1"}](fig-3.png){width="8.cm"}
From Erginsoy’s work (eq. \[e:neu100\]), we can see that $\mu_{N}$ is temperature independent. Later on, Sclar [@ns; @tcm] gave another approximation for $\mu_{N}$, which showed that there is a weak dependence of $\mu_N$ on the temperature: $$\mu_N=(\mu _{N})_S=0.82(\mu _{N})_E[\frac{2}{3}(\frac{k_{B}T}{E_{N}})^{1/2}+\frac{1}{3}(\frac{E_{N}}{k_{B}T})^{1/2}],
\label{e:neu111}$$ where $(\mu _{N})_E$ is the temperature-independent mobility given by eq. \[e:neu100\] and $E_{N}$ is the scaled binding energy for the negative ion, $E_{N}$=0.71eV $m^{\ast }$/$m_{e}$($\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_0)^2$.
If we assume the neutral impurity concentration is 2$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^3$ as measured by [@eeh], then eq. \[e:neu100\] becomes a constant, 1.19$\times$10$^{5}$ cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s), and eq. \[e:neu111\] becomes: $$\mu_N=(\mu _{N})_S=9.76\times 10^{4}(0.228T^{1/2}+0.976T^{-1/2}),
\label{e:neu2}$$ which yields that $(\mu _{N})_S$= 2.06$\times$10$^{5}$ cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s) at 77 Kelvin.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:neutral-com\], there is a factor of two difference for the mobility due to neutral impurity scattering among the work by Erginsoy and Sclar at 77 Kelvin. At very low temperature, charge carrier freeze-out occurs in semiconductors and those shallow-level impurities become neutral and act like neutral impurity scattering centers. For germanium, the freeze-out temperature is below 20 Kelvin when the germanium crystal is pure enough [@ppd]. Our calculation shows that the freeze-out temperature of our germanium crystals is around 4 Kelvin shown in Fig. \[fig:neutral-com.1\]. This means all of the neutral impurity scattering centers are from the original neutral impurities at 77 Kelvin. Thus, we followed Erginsoy’s theory in this work, i.e. $\mu_{N}$ has no temperature dependence.
![The comparison among the work by Erginsoy, Sclar, and IEEE standard for mobility due to neutral impurity scattering with the assumption that the neutral impurity concentration is 2$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^3$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral-com"}](fig-4.png){width="8.cm"}
![The calculated freeze-out temperature of our germanium crystals is around 4 Kelvin.[]{data-label="fig:neutral-com.1"}](fig-5.png){width="8.cm"}
Other scatterings
-----------------
For the mobility caused by the scattering of optical phonons in germanium, $\mu_{O}$, it is negligible for two reasons. Firstly, $\mu_{O}$ is temperature dependent and it only becomes important for silicon and germanium above room temperature, 300 Kelvin [@bs]. Therefore, for germanium detectors at 77 Kelvin, $\mu_{O}$ has almost no contribution to the total charge drift mobility and thus can be ignored. Secondly, optical phonon scattering is generally not important for charge carriers in the conduction band along $<100>$ germanium crystal according to the work in [@ssl]. Thus, $\mu_{O}$ can be ignored for our high-purity germanium crystal along the $<100>$ orientation.
For dislocation scattering (also known as defects scattering) in germanium, it is generally known that this has big impact on the total charge drift mobility only when the dislocation density is greater than the order of 10$^{7}$/cm$^2$ [@dt]. However, the dislocation density of germanium crystals for radiation detectors is usually on the level of 300-10,000 /cm$^2$ [@gwy]. With such low dislocation density, dislocations cannot be important scattering centers in comparison with other scattering mechanisms mentioned above. This means the contribution from $\mu_{D}$ to the total mobility ($\mu_{T}$) can be ignored as well.
Experimental Results {#s:exp}
====================
High-purity germanium crystals have been grown on a weekly basis in our labs at the University of South Dakota [@guo1; @gang1; @gang2; @guo3; @gang3; @gang4; @gang5; @guo4]. Several germanium samples obtained from a detector-grade crystal (NO.20 [@gj]) grown in our lab with measured Hall mobility $\mu_{H}$ larger than 36000 cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s) were used for our investigation in this work. The relationship between the Hall mobility $\mu_{H}$ and the total charge drift mobility $\mu$ is defined as [@IEEE]: $$\mu=\frac{\mu _{H}}{r},
\label{e:mun4}$$ where $r$ is a constant near unity. Based on IEEE Standard [@IEEE], $r$ is assumed to be 0.83 and 1.03 for n-type and p-type high-purity germanium crystals, respectively.
Three wafers were cut from the detector-grade crystal mentioned above at different axial positions, denoted by g, the fraction of the melt that has crystallized, as shown in Fig. \[fig:cut1\]. Five square samples were cut from the wafer with g=0.06, seven samples were cut from the wafer with g=0.1 and another seven samples were cut from the wafer with g=0.2 as shown in Fig. \[fig:cut2\]. These samples with area of $\sim$1 cm$^{2}$ and thickness of 1.5mm were etched with etchant (HF: HNO$_{3}$=1:3), rinsed with deionized water and blew dried with nitrogen gas. Then four In-Ga eutectic ohmic contacts are scratched onto the four corners of the samples before we measured their electrical properties, such as ionized impurity concentration, Hall mobility and resistivity, by using the Van der Pauw Hall Effect Measurement System at 77 Kelvin. For uniform samples, the uncertainty is determined to be less than 5% in the resistivity and Hall coefficient measurement [@kab]. In this work, 5% was applied to all data points as the uncertainty for the Hall effect measurements.
![Three wafers were cut from the detector grade crystal NO.20 with the white lines indicating the position. The parameter, $g$, denotes the fraction of original liquid which is frozen. []{data-label="fig:cut1"}](fig-6.png){width="8.cm"}
![Schematic diagram showing the location of the samples cut from the three wafers.[]{data-label="fig:cut2"}](fig-7.png){width="8.cm"}
Fig. \[fig:concentration\] shows the ionized impurity concentration as a function of crystal radius for all germanium samples.
![The net carrier concentration as a function of crystal radius for all germanium samples.[]{data-label="fig:concentration"}](fig-8.png){width="8.cm"}
As indicated by Fig. \[fig:concentration\], the closer the sample to the center of the crystal, the lower ionized impurity concentration it has. The crystal in the central part has a better impurity level than the edge part.
Fig. \[fig:mobility\] and Fig. \[fig:resistivity\] show the radial distribution of Hall mobility and resistivity for all samples, respectively. From Fig. \[fig:mobility\] and Fig. \[fig:resistivity\], we can see that the mobility and resistivity at the edge of the crystal are smaller than that at the central part of the crystal.
![The radial distribution of Hall mobility of the three wafers.[]{data-label="fig:mobility"}](fig-9.png){width="8.cm"}
![The radial distribution of resistivity of the three wafers.[]{data-label="fig:resistivity"}](fig-10.png){width="8.cm"}
According to our Hall Effect measurements shown in Fig. \[fig:mobility\], our Ge crystals have a total charge drift mobility $\mu_{T}$ of $\sim$ 42000 cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s) with an ionized impurity concentration in the range of 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$-10$^{11}$/cm$^3$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:concentration\]. Using eq. \[e:mui2\], the calculated mobility due to this level of the ionized impurity scattering $\mu_{I}$ is in the range of 6.61$\times$10$^{8}$-5.85$\times$10$^{9}$ cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s). Similarly, from eq. \[e:mua2\], when $T$ = 77 Kelvin, the mobility due to acoustic phonon scattering $\mu_{A}$ = 1.15$\times$10$^{5}$cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s). With $\mu_{O}$ as well as $\mu_{D}$ being ignored, the mobility due to neutral impurity scattering $\mu_{N}$ can be deduced using eq. \[e:mu\]. Our deduced results showed that $\mu_{N}$ is almost a constant, 6.6$\times$ 10$^{4}$cm$^{2}$/(V$\cdot$s). Since the deduced $\mu_{N}$ and the calculated $\mu_{A}$ are much smaller than $\mu_{I}$ for a detector-grade crystal at 77 Kelvin, we conclude that the total charge drift mobility ($\mu_{T}$) in our germanium crystals is dominated by both $\mu_{N}$ and $\mu_{A}$, and the neutral impurity concentration has important impact on the charge drift mobility.
![The relationship between the charge carrier concentration and all the scattering processes at 77 Kelvin.[]{data-label="fig:den"}](fig-11.png){width="8.cm"}
Once $\mu_{N}$ is obtained, the neutral impurity concentration, $N_n$, can then be calculated from eq. \[e:neu100\], which yields that $N_n$ is in the range of 2.8$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^3$-5$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^3$ when the ionized impurity concentration is in the range of 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$-10$^{11}$/cm$^3$. This level of neutral impurity concentration agrees with the pioneering work (2$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^{3}$) by W. L. Hansen, E. E. Haller, and P. N. Luke in 1982 [@wlh]. Fig. \[fig:net\] shows the relationship between the calculated neutral impurity concentration ($N_n$) and the crystal radius. Fig. \[fig:net\] implies that there are more neutral impurities at the edge than in the center of the crystal. This is very similar to the case of the radial distribution of ionized impurities, where the neutral impurity is different, the total charge drift mobility can be different.
![The radial distribution of neutral impurity concentration.[]{data-label="fig:net"}](fig-12.png){width="8.cm"}
In D. M. Brown and R. Bray’s work [@dmbr], they also summarized the properties of germanium samples at both 77 Kelvin and 300 Kelvin with carrier concentration larger than 10$^{13}$/cm$^3$. We assume our equations about $\mu_{I}$ and $\mu_{A}$ are correct, then we use their measured ionized impurity concentration to calculate $\mu_{I}$, then $\mu_{N}$ can be determined with the known $\mu_{I}$, $\mu_{A}$ and $\mu_{T}$ from their data. Neutral impurity concentration $N_{n}$ can be calculated by eq. \[e:mun3\] to see a variation of neutral impurity shown in table \[tab:table2\]. The obtained neutral impurity concentration from these measurements are from 3.7$\times$10$^{15}$ to 7.77$\times$10$^{15}$/cm$^3$, which is very close to the calculated neutral impurity concentration in our crystals.
$N_{A}-N_{D}$ (/cm$^{3}$) $\mu_{measured}$ (cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s)) $\mu_{N}$ (cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s)) $N_{n}$ (/cm$^3$)
--------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------------------
1.25$\times$10$^{13}$ (4.12$\pm$0.2)$\times$10$^{4}$ (6.48$\pm$0.32)$\times$10$^{4}$ (3.68$\pm$0.06)$\times$10$^{15}$
1.52$\times$10$^{14}$ (3.03$\pm$0.15)$\times$10$^{4}$ (4.36$\pm$0.22)$\times$10$^{4}$ (5.47$\pm$0.13)$\times$10$^{15}$
1.81$\times$10$^{14}$ (3.40$\pm$0.17)$\times$10$^{4}$ (5.23$\pm$0.49)$\times$10$^{4}$ (4.56$\pm$0.09)$\times$10$^{15}$
2.65$\times$10$^{14}$ (2.99$\pm$0.15)$\times$10$^{4}$ (4.44$\pm$0.36)$\times$10$^{4}$ (5.37$\pm$0.13)$\times$10$^{15}$
9.75$\times$10$^{14}$ (2.26$\pm$0.11)$\times$10$^{4}$ (3.51$\pm$0.23)$\times$10$^{4}$ (6.78$\pm$0.20)$\times$10$^{15}$
1.51$\times$10$^{15}$ (1.95$\pm$0.10)$\times$10$^{4}$ (3.11$\pm$0.19)$\times$10$^{4}$ (7.67$\pm$0.25)$\times$10$^{15}$
2.23$\times$10$^{15}$ (1.83$\pm$0.09)$\times$10$^{4}$ (3.19$\pm$0.18)$\times$10$^{4}$ (7.46$\pm$0.26)$\times$10$^{15}$
There are many sources for the neutral impurities during germanium crystal purification and growth processes. Carbon as the neutral impurity may be introduced into the purified ingot from both the graphite boat and the coating layer of the inside surface of the quartz boat during zone refining process with concentration about 10$^{13}$/cm$^3$ [@eeh]. Additionally, during crystal growth, high-purity germanium crystals are grown in hydrogen atmosphere [@gwy]. The solubility of hydrogen in germanium at its melting temperature is 4$\times$ 10$^{14}$/cm$^3$ [@wlh]. The quartz crucible is used to hold the germanium melt. Silica can react with hydrogen and germanium melt to form silicon and oxygen at the germanium melting temperature. The concentrations of silicon and oxygen in high-purity germanium crystal are at similar level of 10$^{14}$/cm$^3$ [@rjf] which is consistent with our calculation.
Conclusions {#s:conc}
===========
We investigated the scattering mechanisms that contribute to the total charge drift mobility in detector-grade germanium crystals. Using the measured Hall mobility and the calculated mobility due to ionized impurity and acoustic phonon scatterings, we deduced the mobility contributed by the neutral impurity scattering using the Matthiessen’s rule. As a result, the neutral impurity concentration is evaluated. Based on our calculation, we found that for high-purity germanium crystal along $<100>$ direction, with impurity level of 10$^{10}$/cm$^3$-10$^{11}$/cm$^3$ and dislocation density below 10$^{4}$/cm$^2$, the neural impurity scattering is an important scattering mechanism at 77 Kelvin. The neutral impurity concentration has a large impact on the charge drift mobility. There are more neutral and ionized impurity atoms at the edge parts of the crystal than that at the center part, which results in the lower charge drift mobility at the edge part and higher charge drift mobility at the center part.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors wish to thank Christina Keller and David Radford for their careful reading of this manuscript. We also would like to thank Jing Liu and Arun Soma for their useful discussion. This work was supported in part by NSF PHY-0919278, NSF PHY-1242640, NSF OIA 1434142, DOE grant DE-FG02-10ER46709, the Office of Research at the University of South Dakota and a research center supported by the State of South Dakota.
[99]{} S. Akkoyun et al. (AGATA Collaboration), *AGATA-Advanced Gamma Tracking Array*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. Res. A* [**668**]{} (2012) 26-58. S. Paschalis et al. (GRETINA Collaboration), *The performance of the Gamma-Ray Energy Tracking In-beam Nuclear Array GRETINA*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. Res. A* [**709**]{} (2013) 44-55. M. Agostini et al. (GERDA Collaboration), *Results on Neutrinoless Double-$\beta$ Decay of $^{76}$Ge from Phase I of the GERDA Experiment*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**111**]{} (2013) 122503. N. Abgrall et al. (Majorana Collaboration), *The Majorana Parts Tracking Database*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. A* [**779**]{} (2015) 52-62. R. J. Cooper et al., *A Pulse Shape Analysis technique for the MAJORANA experiment*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. A* [**629**]{} (2011) 303-310. R. J. Cooper et al., *A novel HPGe detector for gamma-ray tracking and imaging*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. A* [**665**]{} (2011) 25-32. R. Martin et al., *Determining the drift time of charge carriers in p-type point-contact HPGe detectors*, *Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. A* [**678**]{} (2012) 98-104. C. M. Wolfe, N. Holonyak Jr. and G. E. Stillman, [*Physical Properties of Semiconductors*]{}, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1989). D. M. Brown and R. Bray, *Analysis of Lattice and Ionized Impurity Scattering in p-Type Germanium*, *Phys. Rev.* [**127**]{} (1962) 1593. K. M. Itoh et al., *Carrier scattering by neutral divalent impurities in semiconductors: Theory and experiment*, *Phys. Rev. B* [**56**]{} (1997) 1906. C. Erginsoy, *Neutral Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors*, *Phys. Rev.* [**79**]{} (1950) 1013. T. C. McGill and R. Baron, *Neutral impurity scattering in semiconductors*, *Phys. Rev. B* [**11**]{} (1975) 5208. B. R. Nag, [*Electron Transport in Compound Semiconductors*]{}, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (1980). B. P. Singh and R. Singh, [*Electronic Devices and Integrated Circuits*]{}, Pearson Education Canada (2009). D. A. Anderson and N. Apsley, [*The Hall effect in III-V semiconductors*]{}, [*Semicond. Sci. Technol.*]{} [**1**]{} (1986) 187. Singh J, [*Physics of Semiconductors and Their Heterostructure*]{}, McGraw-Hill (1993). Donald A Neamen, *Semiconductor Physics and Devices*, McGraw Hill, New York (2012). E. Conwell and V. F. Weisskopf, *Theory of Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors*, *Phys. Rev*. [**77**]{} (1950) 388. D. Chattopadhyay and H. J. Queisser, [*Electron scattering by ionized impurities in semiconductors*]{}, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**53**]{} (1981) 745. N. Sclar, *Neutral Impurity Scattering in Semiconductors*, *Phys. Rev.* [**104**]{} (1956) 1559. Sanford Wagner et al., *IEEE Standard Test Procedures for High-Purity Germanium Crystals for Radiation Detectors*, IEEE Std 1160-1993(R2006). E. E. Haller, *Detector Materials: Germanium and Silicon*, [*1981 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium*]{}, San Francisco, CA, November 21-23, 1981. J. Bardeen and W. Shockley, *Deformation Potentials and Mobilities in Non-Polar Crystals*, *Phys. Rev.* [**80**]{} (1950) 72. Clemens Ostermaier et al., *Ultrathin InAlN/AlN Barrier HEMT With High Performance in Normally Off Operation*, *IEEE Electron Device Letters* [**30**]{} (2009) 1030. N. Sclar, *Ionized Impurity Scattering in Nondegenerate Semiconductors*, *Phys. Rev.* [**104**]{} (1956) 1548. T. Ohyama, K. Murase, and E. Otsuka, *Cyclotron resonance study of spin polarized electron scattering in semiconductors*, *Phys. Lett. A* [**28**]{} (1968) 159. R. Karthik, P. Uma Sathyakam and P. S. Mallick, [*Effect of dislocation scattering on electron mobility in GaN*]{}, *Natural Science* [**3**]{} (2011) 812-815. E. E. Haller, W. L. Hansen, P. N. Luke, R. McMurray and B. Jarrett, *Carbon in high-purity germanium*, *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-29* (1982) 745. P. P. Debye and E. M. Conwell, *Electrical Properties of N-Type Germanium*, *Phys. Rev.* [**93**]{} (1954) 693. Chihiro Hamaguhi, [*Basic semiconductor physics*]{}, Springer (2010). Sheng S. Li, [*Semiconductor Physical Electronics*]{}, p.226. F. Seitz and D. Turnbull, [*Solid State Physics. Advances in Research and Applications*]{}, Academic Press, New York and London (1961). G. Wang, Y. Chen, G. Yang, W. Xiang, Y. Guan, D. Mei, C. Keller and Y. Chan, *Development of Large Size High-Purity Germanium Crystal Growth*, *J. Crystal Growth* [**352**]{} (2012) 27. G. Yang, H. Mei, Y. Guan, G. Wang, D.-M. Mei, *High purity germanium crystal growth at the University of South Dakota*, *IOP Science Journal of Physics: Conference Series* [**606**]{} (2015) 012012. G. Yang, H. Mei, Y. Guan, G. Wang, D.-M. Mei and K. Irmscher, *Study on the Properties of High Purity Germanium Crystals*, *IOP Science Journal of Physics: Conference Series*[**606**]{} (2015) 012013. G. Yang, Y. Guan, F. Jian, M. Wagner, H. Mei, G. Wang, S. Howard, D.-M. Mei, A. Nelson, J. Marshai, K. Fitzgerald, C. Tenzin and X. Ma, *Zone Refinement of Germanium Crystals*, *IOP Science Journal of Physics: Conference Series* [**606**]{} (2015) 012014. G. Wang, Y. Guan, H. Mei, D.-M Mei, G. Yang, J. Govani and M. Khizar, *Dislocation density control in high-purity germanium crystal growth*, *J. of Crystal Growth* [**393**]{} (2014) 54-58. G. Yang, J. Govani, H. Mei, Y. Guan, G. Wang, M. Huang and D.-M Mei, *Investigation of influential factors on the purification of zone-refined germanium ingot*, *Crystal Research and Technology* [**49**]{} (2014) 269-275. G. Yang, G. Wang, W. Xiang, Y. Guan, Y. Sun, D.-M. Mei, B. Gray and Y. Chan, *J. of Crystal Growth* [**352 (1)**]{} (2012) 43-46. G. Yang, D.-M. Mei, J. Govani, G. Wang and M. Khizar, *Effect of annealing on contact performance and electrical properties of p-type high purity germanium single crystal*, *Applied Physics A* [**113**]{} (2013) 207. G. Wang, Y. Sun, Y. Guan, D.-M. Mei, G. Yang, A. A. Chiller and B. Gray, *Optical Methods in Orientation of High-Purity Germanium Crystal*, *Journal of Crystallization Process and Technology* [**3**]{} (2013) 60-63. G. Wang, M. Amman, H. Mei, D.-M Mei, K. Irmscher, Y. Guan and G. Yang, *Crystal growth and detector performance of large size high-purity Ge crystals*, *Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process.* [**39**]{} (2015) 54-60. Kasper A. Borup et al., *Measurement of the electrical resistivity and Hall coefficient at high temperatures*, *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* [**83**]{} (2012) 123902. W. L. Hansen, E. E. Haller and P. N. Luke, *Hydrogen concentration and distribution in high-purity Ge crystals*, *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-29* (1982) 738. R. J. Fox, *Lithium drift rates and oxygen contamination in germanium*, *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-13* (1966) 367.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Rather than learning new control policies for each new task, it is possible, when tasks share some structure, to compose a “meta-policy” from previously learned policies. This paper reports results from experiments using Deep Reinforcement Learning on a continuous-state, discrete-action autonomous driving simulator. We explore how Deep Neural Networks can represent meta-policies that switch among a set of previously learned policies, specifically in settings where the dynamics of a new scenario are composed of a mixture of previously learned dynamics and where the state observation is possibly corrupted by sensing noise. We also report the results of experiments varying dynamics mixes, distractor policies, magnitudes/distributions of sensing noise, and obstacles. In a fully observed experiment, the meta-policy learning algorithm achieves 2.6x the reward achieved by the next best policy composition technique with 80% less exploration. In a partially observed experiment, the meta-policy learning algorithm converges after 50 iterations while a direct application of RL fails to converge even after 200 iterations.'
author:
- 'Richard Liaw$^{2}$, Sanjay Krishnan$^{2}$, Animesh Garg$^{2,3}$, Daniel Crankshaw$^{2}$, Joseph E. Gonzalez$^{2}$, Ken Goldberg$^{1,2}$ [^1]'
title: |
Composing Meta-Policies for Autonomous Driving\
Using Hierarchical Deep Reinforcement Learning
---
=1
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sponsors. This research was performed in part in the AUTOLAB at UC Berkeley in affiliation with the AMP Lab, BDD, BAIR, the CITRIS “People and Robots” (CPAR) Initiative: http://robotics.citris-uc.org Multilateral Manipulation by Human-Robot Collaborative Systems and by Google, Cisco, Siemens, Cloudminds.
[^1]: $^{1}\,$IEOR, $^{2}\,$EECS, UC Berkeley, CA USA; $^{3}\,$CS, Stanford University, Stanford CA US; The AUTOLAB at UC Berkeley (automation.berkeley.edu); `{rliaw, sanjaykrishnan, animesh.garg, jegonzal, goldberg}@berkeley.edu, [email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A multi-user multi-armed bandit (MAB) framework is used to develop algorithms for uncoordinated spectrum access. The number of users is assumed to be unknown to each user. A stochastic setting is first considered, where the rewards on a channel are the same for each user. In contrast to prior work, it is assumed that the number of users can possibly exceed the number of channels, and that rewards can be non-zero even under collisions. The proposed algorithm consists of an estimation phase and an allocation phase. It is shown that if every user adopts the algorithm, the system wide regret is constant with time with high probability. The regret guarantees hold for any number of users and channels, in particular, even when the number of users is less than the number of channels. Next, an adversarial multi-user MAB framework is considered, where the rewards on the channels are user-dependent. It is assumed that the number of users is less than the number of channels, and that the users receive zero reward on collision. The proposed algorithm combines the Exp3.P algorithm developed in prior work for single user adversarial bandits with a collision resolution mechanism to achieve sub-linear regret. It is shown that if every user employs the proposed algorithm, the system wide regret is of the order $O(T^\frac{3}{4})$ over a horizon of time $T$. The algorithms in both stochastic and adversarial scenarios are extended to the dynamic case where the number of users in the system evolves over time and are shown to lead to sub-linear regret.'
author:
- 'Meghana Bande, and Venugopal V. Veeravalli, [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'MeghanaRef.bib'
title: 'Multi-user Multi-armed Bandits for Uncoordinated Spectrum Access[^3]'
---
Cognitive radio, multi-armed bandits, dynamic spectrum access.
Introduction
============
The existing spectrum management paradigm treats frequency spectrum as a fixed commodity, which leads to spectrum under-utilization. Cognitive radio has emerged as a useful strategy to increase spectrum utilization. The existing literature on cognitive radio has largely been focused on the primary/secondary user paradigm, where secondary users need to detect vacant spectrum when available and vacate the occupied spectrum when a primary user wants to transmit.
We focus on a different type of spectrum sharing system in which there is no distinction between users, and in which there is no coordination among the users. The collective performance across all users is more important than that of individual users. This is in contrast to the typical primary/secondary user paradigm in which secondary users bear the responsibility for ensuring priority-based spectrum sharing. We model this system using an adversarial multi-user multi-armed bandit (MAB) framework [@bubeck12survey]. Our goal is to design an efficient channel access mechanism by managing interference in the system through a decentralized policy across the users.
Multi-arm bandit formulations in stochastic multi-user cognitive radios without user coordination were considered in [@Zhao10distributed], [@Anand11], [@AvnerM14mega] and [@RosenskiSS15mc]. The algorithm in [@Zhao10distributed] is based on a time-division fair sharing (TDFS) of the best arms between users. Although the algorithm achieves order optimal regret asymptotically, it requires pre-agreement among users and it is assumed that the number of users is fixed and known to all users. The algorithm in [@Anand11] does not require any coordination between users and achieves optimal regret asymptotically, but assumes that the number of users is known. The algorithm in [@AvnerM14mega] combines an $\epsilon$-greedy learning rule with a collision avoidance mechanism, and [@RosenskiSS15mc] considers a musical chairs algorithm. Both of these approaches achieve sub-linear regret and do not require knowledge of the number of users. However, it was assumed that the channel parameters are the same for all the users. A stochastic multi-user MAB with user dependent rewards on channel was considered in [@kalathil2014decentralized]. However, the algorithm considers coordination and communication between users via an auction algorithm.
In this work, we focus on two scenarios that have not been previously studied in the multi-user MAB setting for uncoordinated dynamic spectrum access. We assume that the number of users is unknown and that there is no communication between the users. However, we make the mild assumption that the users have access to a shared clock for time synchronization (see also, [@RosenskiSS15mc; @nieminen2009time; @avner2015learning]).
We first study a stochastic multi-user MAB where the rewards on the channels are not user dependent. In our model, all users are treated equally and the reward obtained by each user largely depends on the actions of the other users. When multiple users access the same channel, we allow for a non-zero reward with the assumption that the reward for each user decreases as the number of users on the channel increases. Thus we include the case where there are more users than channels. This is in contrast to the existing approaches, including [@AvnerM14mega] and [@RosenskiSS15mc], which focus on the primary/secondary user paradigm in the scenario where the reward distribution for a user is unknown but fixed. In particular, when multiple users access the same channel they receive zero reward. Hence, all these approaches fail when the number of users is greater than the number of channels.
We assume that the reward on the channel depends on the number of users on the channel and is drawn i.i.d from a distribution depending on the number of users on the channel. The degradation of the reward as a function of number of users depends on the system, e.g., the distance between the users, the protocol used for transmission (e.g., hybrid ARQ) and is captured through a reward distribution that depends on the number of users on the channel.
We propose an algorithm and show that if each user employs the algorithm, the system wide regret is $O(1)$ in time, with high probability. The algorithm can be used for any number of users or channels. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide sub-linear regret guarantees without user coordination when the number of users is greater than the number of channels.
In the second scenario, we study the adversarial multi-user MAB framework with user-dependent rewards. The adversarial bandit problem is an important variation of the MAB problem, where no stochastic assumption is made on the generation of rewards. The term “adversarial" refers to the mechanism choosing the sequence of rewards on each arm. If this mechanism is independent of the userÕs actions, then the adversary is said to be *oblivious*. If the mechanism may adapt to the users’ past behaviors, then the adversary is said to be *non-oblivious* [@bubeck12survey]. The existing literature on adversarial MABs is focused on the single user case, and a detailed overview of the proposed solutions for the adversarial MAB formulation can be found in [@bubeck12survey]. The proposed algorithms in the single user adversarial setting achieve a sub-linear regret of $O(\sqrt{T})$ over a time horizon $T$.
We consider multi-user dynamic spectrum allocation without any coordination among the users. We also assume that the rewards on each channel are user-dependent and may vary with time. Such a system is captured through a multi-user adversarial MAB model, particularly when the reward distribution for each channel and user may change over time. We propose an algorithm, and show that if each user employs the algorithm, the system wide regret is $O(T^{\frac{3}{4}})$ over a time horizon $T$. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to consider the multi-user setting for adversarial MABs and to provide sub-linear regret guarantees.
System Model and notation
=========================
Let $K$ be the number of users in the system. We initially assume that the users have unlimited data for transmission. In a more realistic setting, users may become active or inactive depending on their transmission needs; our dynamic setting covers this scenario. Each user can choose one among $M$ channels for transmission. With $M$ channels and $K$ users attempting to access the spectrum, we assume that each user has prior knowledge of $M$, but not of $K$. The assumption of known $M$ is reasonable if the spectrum partition is enforced and fixed. On the other hand, it is not realistic to assume the knowledge of $K$ in an uncoordinated network.
We model the system as a multi-user MAB system with $K$ users and $M$ arms (channels). In each time unit $t$, let ${\cal A}^{k}_{t}$ denote the set of channels available to user $k$. User $k$ chooses a channel $a^k_{t}\in {\cal A}^{k}_{t}$ based on the reward history according to a certain policy and receives a reward $g^k_{t}$. We assume that $g^k_{t}\in [0,1]$, and that each user chooses a channel according to the same algorithm. The reward on each arm depends on the number of users who have chosen the arm. Let $f_t = [f_t(1), \ldots,f_t(M)]$ denote the number of users on each channel at time $t$, where $\sum_{m=1}^{M}f_t(m) = K$. Thus, the reward $g^k_{t}(a^k_t,f_t(a^k_t))$ received by user $k$ at time $t$ is a function of the channel chosen $a^k_t$ and the number of users on the channel $f_t(a^k_t)$.
Stochastic setting
------------------
We model the system as a stochastic multi-user MAB system with $K$ users and $M$ arms (channels). Each user can choose one among $M$ channels for transmission, where we allow for the possibility that $K\geq M$. We assume that the reward observed is inversely proportional to the number of users transmitting on the same channel. For example, the reward could be the rate achieved by the user on the channel which reduces due to interference from other users accessing the channel. Let $\mu(m,f(m))$ denote the mean reward on channel $m$ when the number of users on the channel is $f(m)$. We assume that each user chooses a channel according to the same policy. We assume that $\mu(m,f(m))$ becomes negligible for some $f(m)=\beta+1$, where $\beta$ depends on the system. This restricts the number of users in the system as $\frac{K}{M}\leq \beta$.
In order to ensure that one user does not monopolize a channel for an extended period of time, we impose the following condition. For each user, transmission on a particular channel takes place for a maximum of $T_x$ time units, after which the user releases the channel for at least $T_x$ time units before attempting to access the same channel.
We define the expected regret in the system as $$\mathbb{E}[{R(T)}] = T\sum_{i=1}^{M}f^{\ast}(i)\mu(i,f^{\ast}(i)) - \sum_{t,k}\mathbb{E}[g^k_{t}(a^k_t,f_t(a^k_t))]$$ where $f^{\ast}= \text{argmax}_{f}\sum_{i=1}^{M}f(i)\mu(i,f(i))$ corresponds to the optimal number of users on each channel. To estimate the means on each channel as a function of number of users, we need to impose the following separability condition.
For any $m\in[M]$ and $r,s\in [\beta]$ and some $\epsilon_2\in(0,1)$, $$\label{eqn:sep}|\mu(m,r)-\mu(m,s)|\geq 4Mc\exp \left(\frac{K-1}{M-1}\right)\sqrt{\sigma^{2}+\epsilon_{2}},$$ where $\sigma^2$ is the variance of the distributions and $c$ is a constant.
Adversarial setting
-------------------
In this case, we model the system as an adversarial multi-user MAB with $K$ users and $M$ channels. We further restrict attention to the setting where there are more channels than users in the system i.e., $K\leq M$. We assume that each user chooses a channel according to the same algorithm. For user $k\in [K]$, let $p^k_{t} = (p^k_{t+1}(1),...,p^k_{t+1}(M))$ denote the probability vector across the arms, where $p^k_{t}(m)$ is the probability of choosing arm $m$ at time $t$. We assume that the adversary chooses different reward for different users for the same channel. Let $g^k_{t}(a^k_t, f(a^k_t))$ denote the reward observed by user $k$ on choosing channel $a^k_t$ at time $t$. We assume that if more than one user chooses the same channel, they all receive zero reward. In other words, the users observe zero reward on collision. If there is no collision on the channel, the user observes a reward that is chosen by an adversary. Thus, we set $g^k_{t}(a^k_t)=0$ when $f(a^k_t)> 1$.
We adopt the standard notion of pseudo-regret used for adversarial bandits in [@bubeck12survey]. The expected total regret in the system until time $T$ is defined as $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)] = \max_{{\cal K}:{\cal K}\subseteq [M],|{\cal K}|=K}\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{i\in {\cal K}}g^{k}_{t}(i) - \sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{k=1}^{K} g^{k}_{t}(a^k_t)\right].$$
Stochastic setting
==================
In this section, we focus on the stochastic multi-user MAB with user-independent rewards on each channel. We present an algorithm which leads to sub-linear regret with high probability, and extend it to the dynamic case.
Algorithm {#sto:alg}
---------
The algorithm has two phases. The first is an estimation phase during which we estimate the number of users $K$ and $\mu(m,f(m))$, the average mean reward on each channel as a function of the number of users on the channel. The second is an allocation phase where the users arrange themselves in a way that minimizes system regret.
$m\sim U(M)$ co$_m \gets$ co$_m+1$ $x_1(m)\gets x_1(m)+r(t)$ append $r(t)$ to $x(m)$ $\eta_c\gets\eta_c+1$ $\hat{K}\gets \min \{1+\text{round}\left(\frac{\ln (\frac{T_0-\eta_c}{T_0})}{\ln(1-\frac{1}{M})}\right),\beta M$} and $\hat{\mu}(:,1)\gets \frac{x_1}{\text{co}}$ $\hat{\mu}(m,2:\beta)\gets$ Cluster $(x(m))$ for all $m$ Calculate $f^{\ast}$ from $\hat{\mu}(m,f),\hat{K}$ Permute($N_0,T_f+T_x,\infty$) ch = Alloc($\hat{M},T_f+T_x$) where $\hat{M}$ is set of $\hat{K}$ best channels After $T_x$, choose ch+1 in $\hat{M}$ for next $T_x$ time units
We estimate the number of users by keeping track of the number of collisions similar to [@RosenskiSS15mc], with the estimate given by $\hat{K}=\min \{1+\text{round}\left(\frac{\ln (\frac{T_0-\eta_c}{T_0})}{\ln(1-\frac{1}{M})}\right),\beta M$}.
Run an $\alpha$-approximation algorithm for the k-means problem on input $X$, obtain $\beta$ means $\nu_1,\dots,\nu_{\beta}$ $S_r \gets \{i: |x_i-\nu_r |\leq |x_i-\nu_s | \text{ for every } $s$ \}$ Return $g(S_r)=\frac{1}{|S_r|}\sum_{i\in S_r}x_i$
We estimate $\mu(m,n)$ separately for each channel based on the reward $x(m)$ observed on the corresponding channel, by clustering the samples using the k-means algorithm. We employ the algorithm Cluster (see Algorithm \[sto:cluster\]) inspired by [@tang16]. We are interested in finding the centroids of the clusters rather than the correct classification of all the samples. Hence, we use an $\alpha$-approximation algorithm with a run time $T_c$ to find the estimates the centroids of the cluster and show that we get good estimates with high probability. We consider the approximation algorithm in [@kumar2004approx] with a run time $T_c\sim O(T_0)$.
$a_{t}\sim U(A)$ Choose action $a_{\tau}=a_t, \quad \forall \tau\geq t$
$A_1 = [M]$ $q(i)$ = Alloc($A_i,T_f+T_x$); $A_i \gets [M]\backslash \{q(i)\}$ $j = t\mod N_0$ Choose $q(j)$ for next $\min\{T_1,j(T_x+1)-1\}$ rounds
\[alg:permute\]
After obtaining estimates for $\hat{\mu}(m,f)$ and $\hat{K}$, the optimal number of users on each channel $f^{\ast}$ can be calculated. We use Alloc (see Algorithm \[sto:alloc\]) to ensure that each user settles or ‘fixes’ on a channel $m$ , for which the number of users less than $f^{{\ast}}(m)$. That is, on finding a channel $m$ with $\mu(m,f(m))\leq \mu(m,f^{\ast}(m))$, the user keeps transmitting on it for at most $T_x$ time units. The system incurs regret until all users have settled on some channels, and we call this duration the *fixing time*. Once all the users have settled on their channels the system does not incur regret. However in our system model, a user can transmit on a channel for at most $T_x$ time units, after which the user must switch. We assume that $T_x$ is fixed for all the users but can vary with time. We use Permute (see Algorithm \[sto:permute\]) to construct an efficient allocation for which the regret does not grow with time. In order to avoid system-wide regret every time users have to switch, we fix the ordering of each user after $N_0$ epochs; this can be done for any $N_0\geq 2$. Our goal is to have each user transmit on all the channels. This is the coupon collector problem with each user having to collect $M$ channels with the expected number of trials $N_0 \sim O(M\text{log} M)$. When $K\leq M$, in order to have efficient allocation so that the regret does not grow with time, after the first epoch, each user switches to the next channel among the set of $K$ best channels.
We fix the epoch size to be $T_x+T_f$, where $T_f$ is the expected time taken for all the users to fix on a channel. After $N_0$ epochs, we continue with an epoch size of $T_x$. We assume that 2 $\max_{m}f^{{\ast}}(m)\leq \sum_{m}f^{{\ast}}(m)$ to ensure that after every transmitting for $T_x$ time units, each user has other available channels. Note that our algorithm works even when $K\leq M$, in which case it reduces to a version of the algorithm in [@RosenskiSS15mc].
Analysis {#sto:analysis}
--------
We first investigate the case where $K > M$. We show that if all the users in the system use Algorithm \[sto:main\], with high probability, the expected regret is $O(1)$ in $T$.
### Estimation phase
We now show that, with high probability, we have the correct estimates for $\mu(m,f(m))$. More precisely, we find estimates $\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)$ such that $|\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)-\mu(m,n)|\leq \epsilon$ with high probability.
\[sto:mu\] For any fixed $\epsilon, \delta$, user $k$, channel $m$ and number of users on the channel $n\leq \beta$ the estimate $\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)$ obtained after running the algorithm for $T_0 = \left\lceil \frac{32\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})M}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \right\rceil$, and the $\alpha$ approximation algorithm for $T_c\sim O(T_0)$ rounds, we have with probability at least $1-\delta$, $$|\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)-\mu(m,n)|\leq \epsilon.$$
Let $A_1$ denote the event that there is at least one combination $k,m,n$ such that $|\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)-\mu(m,n)|\geq \epsilon$ and $A_2$ denote the event that each player has more than $\frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}$ observations from distribution with mean $\mu(m,n)$ for each $m,n$. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(A_{1}) & = & \Pr(A_{1}|A_{2})\Pr(A_{2})+\Pr(A_{1}|A_{2}^{c})\Pr(A_{2}^{c})\\
& \leq & \Pr(A_{1}|A_{2})+\Pr(A_{2}^{c}).\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to show that $\Pr(A_{1}|A_{2})\leq \frac{\delta}{2}$ and $\Pr(A_{2}^{c})\leq \frac{\delta}{2}$. From Lemma \[thm:num\] in the appendix, we have $\Pr(A_{2}^{c})\leq \frac{\delta}{2}$. $$\Pr(A_{1}|A_{2})\leq\sum_{k,m,n}\Pr(|\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)-\mu(m,n)|\geq \epsilon|A_2),$$ where the inequality follows from union bound. To show that $\Pr(A_{1}|A_{2})\leq \frac{\delta}{2}$, it suffices to show that $\Pr(|\hat{\mu}^k(m,n)-\mu(m,n)|\geq \epsilon|A_2)\leq \frac{\delta}{2MK(\beta+1)}$ which follows from Lemma \[thm:esterr\] in the appendix with $\delta \gets \frac{\delta}{2MK(\beta+1)}$ for $n\geq 2$ and follows from Hoeffding’s inequality for $n=1$.
\[sto:K\] For any $\delta$, if we run the estimation phase of the algorithm for $T_0 \geq \lceil\frac{M^2\exp2(\frac{K-1}{M-1})}{2(0.49)^2}\ln(\frac{2}{\delta})\rceil$ rounds, then with probability at least $1-\delta$, we have $\hat{K}= K$.
Probability of collision for a user at any time is given by $$p=1-\Pr(\text{No collision})=1-\sum_{\text{channels}}\frac{1}{M}(1-\frac{1}{M})^{K-1}=1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{K-1}.$$
Let $\hat{p_{t}}=\frac{\sum_{\tau}1\{\text{collision at time }\tau\}}{t}$. We have $E[\hat{p_{t}}]=p$ and we can use Hoeffdings inequality since collision at each time-slot is independent. Thus if $t\geq\frac{\ln(\frac{2}{\delta})}{2\epsilon_{2}^{2}}$, with probability greater than $1-\delta$, we have $\hat{|p_{t}}-p|\leq\epsilon_{2}.$
We have $\hat{K}=\text{round}(\frac{\ln(1-\hat{p}_{t})}{\ln(1-\frac{1}{M})}+1)$ and $K=\frac{\ln(1-p)}{\ln(1-\frac{1}{M})}$. In order to show $\hat{K}=K$, it suffices to show $$|\hat{K}-K|=|\frac{\ln(\frac{1-\hat{p}_{t}}{1-p})}{\ln(1-\frac{1}{M})}|\leq0.49,$$ which is equivalent to showing $$(1-p)(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{-0.49})\leq\hat{p_{t}}-p\leq(1-p)(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{0.49}).$$ It suffices to show $$\epsilon_{2}\leq(1-p) \min\{|(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{-0.49})|,|(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{0.49})|\}.$$ We have $$|(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{-0.49})|=(1+\frac{1}{M-1})^{0.49}-1\geq\frac{0.49}{M-1})$$ and $$(1-(1-\frac{1}{M})^{0.49})\geq\frac{0.49}{M}$$ where the inequalities follow from the Bernoulli inequality, $(1+x)^r\leq 1+xr$ for $0\leq r\leq 1$ and $x\geq -1$.
We have from $(1-\frac{1}{x})^{x-1}\geq \frac{1}{\exp(1)}$ for $x\geq 1$, $$1-p=(1-\frac{1}{M})^{K-1}\geq\frac{1}{\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})}.$$
Hence, we choose $\epsilon_{2}\leq\frac{0.49}{M\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})}$.
### Allocation phase
We now find bounds on the expected regret during each fixing phase, given that the estimates of $\mu(m,f(m))$ and $K$ are accurate.
\[thm:sto\_fixing\] The expected regret accumulated by the system during a fixing phase is upper bounded by $$K^{2}M\text{exp}\left(\frac{K-1}{M-1}\right).$$
Let ${\cal M}_t$ denote the set of unfixed arms at time $t$. Probability of user $k$ being fixed at time $t$ is given by,
$\Pr(\text{User }k\text{ being fixed})$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = & \sum_{m\in {\cal M}_t}\Pr(\text{Choosing arm }m) \Pr(\text{Being fixed}|\text {arm }m)\\
& = & \sum_{m\in {\cal M}_t}\frac{1}{M} \Pr(\text{At most \ensuremath{f_{m}^{\ast}-1} users choose arm }m)\\
& = & \sum_{m\in {\cal M}_t}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=0}^{\ensuremath{f_{m}^{\ast}-1}}{K-1 \choose i}\left(\frac{1}{M}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)^{K-1-i}\\
& \underset{(a)}{\geq} & \frac{1}{M}\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)^{K-1}=\frac{1}{M}\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)^{(K-1)*(M-1)/(M-1)}\\
& \underset{(b)}{\geq} & \frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{\text{exp}(\frac{K-1}{M-1})}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows because we only consider one term in the each of the summations with $i=0$, and $(b)$ follows from $(1-\frac{1}{x})^{x-1}\geq \frac{1}{\exp(1)}$ for $x\geq 1$. Thus for any user $k$, the expected fixing time is given by $$\mathbb{E}[t^{k}_{f}]=\frac{1}{p(\text{User }k\text{ being fixed})}\leq M\text{exp}\left(\frac{K-1}{M-1}\right)$$ and thus the regret during the fixing phase is given by, $$\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{k}\sum_{t=T_0+1}^{\max_kt^k_f}R^k_{t}\right]\leq \mathbb{E}\left[K\text{max }{t^k_f}\right]\leq\mathbb{E}\left[K\sum_{k=1}^{K}t^k_f\right]\leq K^{2}T_f,$$ where $R^k_{t}$ denotes the regret incurred by user $k$ at time $t$ and we have $R^k_{t}\leq 1$ by our assumption on the reward distribution.
Analysis for $K\leq M$ {#analysis-for-kleq-m .unnumbered}
----------------------
For the case where $K\leq M$, there is no need for clustering. We only need the estimates for $\mu(m,1)$, and all users individually choose the best $K$ channels. This reduces to the “musical chairs" algorithm and the analysis can be found in [@RosenskiSS15mc]. After fixing on a channel during the first allocation time, after every $T_x$ time units, each user switches to the next channel among the $K$ best channels.
### Main Result
We now present the upper bound on the expected regret incurred by the users employing Algorithm \[sto:main\].
\[thm:main\] For any fixed $\epsilon$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$, with probability greater than $ 1 - \delta $, the expected regret for $ K $ users using Algorithm \[sto:main\] with $ M $ arms for $T $ rounds, with parameter $T_0 = \left\lceil \frac{32\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})M}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \right\rceil$, $T_c\sim O(T_0)$ and any $N_0$, is given by $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \leq K(T_0+T_c)+N_0K^{2}M\text{exp}\left(\frac{K-1}{M-1}\right),$$ i.e., $\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \sim O(1)$ in $T$.
The expected regret is due to regret during the estimation phase as well as the allocation phase.
Let $T_f$ denote the time taken for all the users to fix. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)] & \leq & K(T_0+T_c)+KN_0\mathbb{E}[T_f]\\
& \leq & K(T_0+T_c)+N_0K^{2}M\text{exp}\left(\frac{K-1}{M-1}\right)\end{aligned}$$
From Lemmas \[sto:mu\] and \[sto:K\], we have the correct estimates for $\mu(m,f(m))$ and $K$ with high probability, with an estimation phase of $T_0+T_c$ time units. Thus, $K(T_0+T_c)$ corresponds to the regret accumulated system-wide during the estimation phase. Here $T_c$ denotes the time used for running the $\alpha$-approximation algorithm for clustering. In the allocation phase, the regret in the system is accrued only during the $N_0$ number of fixing phases. From Lemma \[thm:sto\_fixing\], the regret in each fixing phase is $K^{2}M\text{exp}(\frac{K-1}{M-1})$.
Dynamic case {#sto:dynm}
------------
We now extend the results to a dynamic system with a changing number of users. The key idea is to run Algorithm 1 repeatedly across epochs. However, in order to obtain a sub-linear regret bound, we need to impose some restrictions on the number of epochs, and on the way users enter or leave the system. It is easy to see that the number of epochs $N_e$ must be sub-linear in time to have sub-linear regret in the system. We restrict the number of users entering and leaving the system until time $t$, which we denote by $\Delta_t$ to be $O(t^{\zeta})$ where $\zeta<\frac{1}{2}$. We note that this is different from [@RosenskiSS15mc] where the time horizon is fixed and known, and there is also a restriction on when users can enter or leave the system. In our model, the dynamic scenario also includes the case where $K_t$ can go from greater than $M$ to less than $M$, and vice-versa.
Let $K_t$ denote the number of active users at time $t$, where $\frac{K_t}{M}\leq \beta$. Note that all the theorems in subsection \[sto:analysis\] follow for the dynamic case with $K_t\leq M\beta$. We choose the starting epoch length $\tau$ to be greater than or equal to $ T_0^{(1)}+T_c^{(1)}+N_0(T_x+T_f)$. We run Algorithm 1 for time $\tau$, $2 \tau$, $3 \tau$, and so on. The resulting algorithm is given below.
Run Algorithm 1 with $\delta^{(r)} \gets \frac{\delta}{2^{r+1}}$.
With a probability greater than $1-\delta$, the expected system-wide regret after running the Algorithm \[sto:dyn\] for $T$ rounds where $\tau\frac{r(r+1)}{2}\leq T \leq \tau\frac{(r+1)(r+2)}{2}$ is $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)]\leq M\beta[N_{e}(T_{0}^{(r)}+T_{c}^{(r)}+M\beta T_{f})+\Delta_T {T}^{\frac{1}{2}}],$$ i.e., $\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \sim O(\Delta_T{T}^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
We have $\tau\frac{r(r+1)}{2}\leq T$ which gives us $r\leq (\frac{2T}{\tau})^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The epoch length is changing with time. The total number of epochs $N_e$ until time $T$ is $N_e\leq(r+1)\sim O({T}^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
We consider Theorem \[sto:main\] with $\delta$ set as in the algorithm Dynamic allocation. Thus we have $T_{0}^{(r)}\sim O(\ln r)\sim O(\ln T)$. Using union bound we show that with a probability at least $1-\delta$, we have good estimates for $\mu$ and $K_t$ over all epochs. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr( \exists \text { epoch with wrong estimate}) & \leq \\
\vspace*{-0.15 in}
\sum_{\text{epochs}}\Pr(\text{wrong estimate})
& \leq & \delta\sum_{i=1}^{r+1}\frac{1}{2^{i}}\leq\delta.
\vspace*{-0.10 in}
$$ In epochs with fixed or static users, the accumulated regret follows from Theorem \[sto:main\], and in epochs with dynamic users, the system incurs regret during the entire epoch. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)] & \leq & N_{e}(\text{Static case regret})+K_t\sum^{\Delta_T}\text{Epoch length}\\
& \leq & M\beta[N_{e}(T_{0}^{(r)}+T_{c}^{(r)}+M\beta T_{f})]+\Delta_T r \tau]\\
& \leq & M\beta[N_{e}(T_{0}^{(r)}+T_{c}^{(r)}+M\beta T_{f})+\Delta_T{T}^{\frac{1}{2}}].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $\Delta_T$ is $O(T^{\zeta})$ where $\zeta<\frac{1}{2}$, we have sub-linear regret.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
-----------
In this section, our goal is to validate the performance of the estimation phase in the algorithm and show that the performance in the allocation phase does not suffer due to use of the estimated values i.e., the regret does not grow with time in the allocation phase.
We consider a system with $K=10$ users and $M=6$ channels and the non dynamic case. We set $T_0=1000$, $T_x = 1000$ time units and $N_0=5$ and repeat the experiment 100 times and consider the average accumulated regret. The value of $\beta$ is set to 3, and the reward distributions are chosen to be uniform with a variance of 0.01, and means between $0$ and $1$ given below, $$\mu=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 &0.49 & 0.1 & 0.005 \\
0.98 & 0.42 &0.13 & 0.002 \\
0.97&0.5&0.12&0.009\\
1&0.48&0.009&0.008\\
0.92&0.43&0.1&0.001\\
0.9&0.44&0.1&0.001
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We compare the performance of Algorithm \[sto:main\] with the estimated values of $\mu$ and $K$ with Algorithm \[sto:main\] with the true parameter values. We also show how the estimates change with number of iterations in the estimation phase $T_0$. We used the in-built MATLAB [kmeans]{} function for clustering.
From Fig. \[fig:sto\_regret\], we see that the accumulated regret grows with time during the estimation phase and remains constant during the allocation phase. Also, there is no noticeable difference between Algorithm \[sto:main\] with the true parameter values and the one with the estimated values. This follows because the estimates of $K$ and the mean converge to the true values within a few iterations as shown in Fig. \[fig:kerr\] and Fig. \[fig:muerr\].
Adversarial setting
===================
In this section, we consider the adversarial multi-user MAB model with user-dependent rewards on each channel. We present an algorithm that leads to sub-linear regret, and extend it to the dynamic case.
Single user MAB {#sec:single}
---------------
We consider the Exp3.P algorithm described in [@bubeck12survey] for a single user MAB in an adversarial setting. We modify the algorithm so that the user chooses an arm and updates the probability vector only in a few time units. This modification is useful in the multi-user case, where the users may not choose an arm in each time unit due to possible collisions. We now present a modified version of the Exp3.P algorithm, in which a new arm is chosen and the probability is updated at time units $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n$ such that $n\leq T$ and $\alpha = \max_{j\in [n-1]} t_{j+1}-t_j$. For each $j\in [n]$, we consider the reward over the time-period $t_{j+1}-t_j$, with the reward being normalized to lie between $0$ and $1$.
$\phi = \sqrt{\frac{\ln M}{Mn}}$,$\eta =0.95 \sqrt{\frac{\ln M}{Mn}}$ and $\gamma = 1.05\sqrt{\frac{M\ln M}{n}}$. Initial probability distribution $p_0=(\frac{1}{M},\ldots,\frac{1}{M})$. $a_{j}\sim p_j$, remain on arm for next $t_{j+1}-t_{j}$ time units Compute reward as $g'_{j}(i)=\frac{\sum_{t_{j}\leq t\leq t_{j+1}} {g}_{t}(i)}{t_{j+1}-t_{j}}$ and the estimated gain for each arm as $$\tilde{g}_{j}(i)=\frac{g'_{j}(i)\mathbbm{1}_{a_j=i}+\phi}{p_{j}(i)}$$ and update the cumulative gain $\tilde{G}_{j}(i)=\sum_{s=1}^{j}\tilde{g}_{s}(i)$ Calculate $p_{j+1} = (p_{j+1}(1),...,p_{j+1}(M))$ where$$p_{j+1}(i)=(1-\gamma)\frac{\exp(\eta\tilde{G}_{j}(i))}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\exp(\eta\tilde{G}_{j}(m))}+\frac{\gamma}{M}$$
\[thm:gen\_ad\] The expected regret of Modified Exp3.P algorithm (Algorithm \[ad:exp3\]) until time $T$ is given by\
$\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T}g_{t}(m) - g_{t}(a_t)\right]$ $$\label{eqn:ad}
\leq \underset{m\in[M]}{\max} \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T}(g_{t}(m) - g_{t}(a_t))\right]\leq\alpha\sqrt{n}h(M)$$ where $h(M)=5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}$, and does not depend on $T$ and $n\leq T$.
We have $$\label{eqn:adproof}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T}(g_{t}(m) - g_{t}(a_t))\right]\leq \alpha \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n}(g'_{j}(m) - g'_{j}(a_j))\right],$$ where $g'_{j}(m) = \frac{\sum_{t_{j}\leq t\leq t_{j+1}} {g}_{t}(m)}{t_{j+1}-t_{j}}$. Using , and noting that until time $T$ we consider $n$ time units, the proof follows from the regret bound for Exp3.P given in [@bubeck12survey].
Multi-user MAB: Algorithm {#ad:alg}
-------------------------
We now consider the multi-user adversarial bandits under a known finite horizon $T$, and propose an algorithm which when employed by all users independently leads to sub-linear regret. In a multi-user adversarial system, every time $t$ that a user $k$ chooses an arm according to a certain probability distribution $p^k_t$ to randomize against the adversary, there is a possibility for collision with other users. Hence there is a need for a collision resolution mechanism, so that the regret does not grow linearly with time. Instead of choosing an arm every time unit, a user chooses an arm only a sub-linear number of times until $T$ ( e.g., $T^y$ where $y<1$). The goal is to randomize sufficient number of times so as to counteract the adversary, while making sure that the regret due to collisions does not become large.
We propose an algorithm (Algorithm \[ad:main\]) that combines the modified Exp3.P algorithm (Algorithm \[ad:exp3\]) with a collision resolution mechanism with $y<1$. In the analysis in Section \[ad:analysis\], we pick $y=\frac{1}{2}$ which is large enough to maintain the sub-linear regret achieved by the modified Exp3.P algorithm but small enough so that the regret due to collisions is sub-linear as well.
In every time-interval of length $T^{1-y}$, we first have a collision resolution phase. Each user chooses a channel with probability $p^k_t$. A user settles or ÔfixesÕ on a channel if at any time the user finds a channel without collision. Once a user settles on a channel, the user keeps transmitting on the channel until the end of the time-interval of length $T^{1-y}$. The system incurs regret until all $K$ users have settled on $K$ channels, and we call this duration the *fixing time*. The remaining part of the algorithm corresponds to each of the $K$ users employing the modified Exp3.P algorithm, where they choose a channel once every $T^y$ time units.
$\phi = \sqrt{\frac{\ln M}{MT^y}}$,$\eta =0.95 \sqrt{\frac{\ln M}{MT^y}}$ and $\gamma = 1.05\sqrt{\frac{M\ln M}{T^y}}$. The initial probability distribution $p^k_0=(\frac{1}{M},\ldots,\frac{1}{M})$ $a^k_{t'}\sim p^k_t$ break Choose action $a^k_{t'}$ for next $T^{1-y}-t'$ time units Compute reward as $g'^k_{t}(i)=\frac{\sum {g}^k_{t}(i)}{T^{1-y}-t'}$ and the estimated gain for each arm as $$\tilde{g}^k_{t}(i)=\frac{g'^k_{t}(i)\mathbbm{1}_{a^k_{t'}=i}+\phi}{p^k_{t}(i)}$$ and update the cumulative gain $\tilde{G}^k_{t}(i)=\sum_{s=1}^{t}\tilde{g}^k_{s}(i)$ Calculate $p^k_{t+1} = (p^k_{t+1}(1),...,p^k_{t+1}(M))$ where $$\label{eqn:p}p^k_{t+1}(i)=(1-\gamma)\frac{\exp(\eta\tilde{G}^k_{t}(i))}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}\exp(\eta\tilde{G}^k_{t}(m))}+\frac{\gamma}{M}$$
Multi-user MAB: Analysis {#ad:analysis}
------------------------
In this subsection, we first consider the regret due to the collision resolution phase, then the regret due to the modified Exp3.P part of Algorithm \[ad:main\], and then combine them to find an upper bound on the system-wide regret incurred when each user independently employs Algorithm \[ad:main\].
### Regret during collision resolution
\[thm:fixing\] The expected regret accumulated by the system during a collision resolution phase is upper bounded by $$\frac{K^{2}M^{K}}{\gamma}\leq\frac{K^{2}M^{K}T^{\frac{y}{2}}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}.$$
We first note from equation that the probability of choosing any channel by any user is at least $\frac{\gamma}{M}$. Let $\rho^k_t = \max_{m}p_{t}^k(m)$, which implies that $\rho^k_t \geq \frac{1}{M}$. Let “maximal" refer to the channel that has the highest probability of being chosen by that particular user. Thus, each user can be associated with one channel such that probability of choosing it is greater than $ \frac{1}{M}$. Since $K\leq M$, for each user, there exists at least one channel such that it not the maximal channel for any of the remaining $K-1$ users. Note that even when some users fix or settle on a channel, and there are both unfixed channels and unfixed users in the system, we can still find an unfixed channel such that it is not the maximal channel for the remaining unfixed users.
Based on the above discussion, we define the event $B_k$ to be the event where all unfixed users except user $k$ choose their maximal arm, and user $k$ chooses an unfixed arm that is not the maximal arm for any other unfixed users.
Let ${\cal M}_{t}$ denote the set of unfixed arms at time $t$. The probability of any user $k$ being fixed at time $t$ is given by,
$\Pr\{\text{User }k\text{ being fixed}\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = & \sum_{m\in {\cal M}_{t}} \Pr\{\text{User $k$ is the only unfixed user on arm }m\}\\
& \geq &\Pr(B_k)\\
& \geq &(\Pi_{i\in [K],i\neq k}\rho^i_t) \underset{m\in {\cal M}{t}}{\min}p^k_{t}(m)\\
& \geq & \frac{\gamma}{M}(\frac{1}{M})^{K-1}= \frac{\gamma}{M^K}.\end{aligned}$$
The remainder of the proof follows in a similar manner as the proof of Theorem \[thm:sto\_fixing\].
### Regret due to Modified Exp3.P
We now bound the regret incurred by the users using Algorithm \[ad:main\] during the time the users are not in the collision resolution phase. This corresponds to each of the $K$ users independently employing the modified Exp3.P algorithm introduced in subsection \[sec:single\].
In Algorithm \[ad:main\], when the users are not in the collision resolution phase, each user employs modified Exp3.P with $n=T^{y}$ and $\alpha =T^{1-y}$. Using the result of Theorem \[thm:gen\_ad\] for $K$ users, for any distinct set ${\cal K} \subseteq [M]$ consisting of $K$ arms, $$\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t\notin \text{coll. phase}}\left(\sum_{i\in {\cal K}}g^{k}_{t}(i) - \sum_{k=1}^{K} g^{k}_{t}(a^k_t)\right)\right]\leq KT^{1-\frac{y}{2}}h(M).$$ Thus, $$\label{eqn:exp}\max_{\cal K}\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{t\notin \text{coll. phase}}\left(\sum_{i\in {\cal K}}g^{k}_{t}(i) - \sum_{k=1}^{K} g^{k}_{t}(a^k_t)\right)\right]\leq h(M)KT^{1-\frac{y}{2}}$$ where $h(M)=5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}$, and does not depend on $T$.
### Main Result
We now present the upper bound on the expected regret incurred by the users employing Algorithm \[ad:main\].
\[thm:main\] The expected regret of $ K $ users using Algorithm \[ad:main\] with $M$ arms for $T $ time units, is given by $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \leq T^{\frac{3}{4}}h'(M,K)$$ where $h'(M,K)= K\left(5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}+\frac{KM^{K}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}\right)$, and does not depend on $T$. Thus, $\mathbb{E}[R(T)]\sim O(T^{\frac{3}{4}})$.
The expected regret is due to collision resolution phase as well as the modified Exp3.P algorithm which is played a sub-linear number of times. Let $T_f$ denote the time taken for all the users to fix. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)] & \leq & T^{y} K\mathbb{E}[T_f]+(T^{1-y}-\mathbb{E}[T_f])h(M)T^{\frac{y}{2}}\\
& \leq & \frac{K^{2}M^{K}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}T^{\frac{3y}{2}}+ KT^{1-\frac{y}{2}}h(M)\\
& \sim & O(T^{{\frac{3y}{2}}}+T^{1-\frac{y}{2}})\end{aligned}$$ where the inequalities follow from Theorem \[thm:fixing\] and equation , and $h(M)=5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}$. If we choose $y$ such that ${\frac{3y}{2}}=1-\frac{y}{2}$, we have $y=\frac{1}{2}$ which gives us $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)]\leq T^{\frac{3}{4}}K\left(\frac{KM^{K}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}+h(M)\right).$$
Unknown time horizon
--------------------
In this subsection, we extend the results to the case of unknown time horizon. Each user considers some known time $\tau$ greater than the expected fixing time for the system and runs Algorithm \[ad:main\]. Once the user reaches the end of time $\tau$, the user continues to use Algorithm \[ad:main\] with a time-period of length $2\tau$. In this way when the user reaches the end of the previous time-period, the user doubles it and continues with Algorithm \[ad:main\]. Let $T$ be such that $\tau+2\tau+\ldots+2^r\tau \leq T\leq \tau+2\tau+\ldots+2^{(r+1)}\tau$, equivalently $2^{(r+1)}\tau\leq T+\tau< 2^{(r+2)}\tau$.
Run Algorithm 1 with time-period $2^{r+1}\tau$
\[thm:inf\] The expected regret from using Algorithm \[ad:dyn\] for $T$ time units where $(2^{(r+1)}-1)\tau\leq T< (2^{(r+2)}-1)\tau$ is $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)]\leq h'(M,K)\frac{(2(T+\tau))^{\frac{3}{4}}}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}$$ where $h'(M,K)= K\left(5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}+\frac{KM^{K}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}\right)$ and does not depend on $T$. Thus, $\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \sim O( {T}^{\frac{3}{4}})$.
We have $2^{(r+1)}\tau\leq T+\tau$. Using Theorem \[thm:main\], the regret up to time $T$ bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)] & \leq & h'(M,K)(\tau^{\frac{3}{4}}+(2\tau)^{\frac{3}{4}}+\ldots +(2^{r+1}\tau)^{\frac{3}{4}})\\
& = & h'(M,K) \tau^{\frac{3}{4}}\frac{(2^{(r+2)\frac{3}{4}}-1)}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}\\
& \leq & h'(M,K) \frac{(2(T+\tau))^{\frac{3}{4}}-\tau^{\frac{3}{4}}}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that each user only needs knowledge of $K$ in order to fix on an initial $\tau$ such that $\tau\geq \mathbb{E}{T_f}$, where ${T_f}$ is the fixing time for all the users in the system. Furthermore, $\tau$ can be chosen even without the knowledge of $K$ by simply replacing $K$ by $M$, and the analysis follows because $K\leq M$.
Dynamic case {#ad:dynm}
------------
In this subsection, we extend the results to a dynamic system with a changing number of users. Consider a system which starts with $K$ users, and in which users leave the system once they are done with their transmission. It is easy to see that Algorithm \[ad:dyn\] in this case leads to system-wide regret of the order $O(T^\frac{3}{4})$ over a time horizon $T$.
Let us now consider a dynamic system where users enter and leave the system over time. In order to use Algorithm \[ad:dyn\] to obtain a sub-linear regret bound, we need to impose some restrictions on the number of users that have entered the system until time $t$, which we denote by $\kappa_t$. It is easy to see that the number of epochs in which users enter the system must be sub-linear in time to have sub-linear regret in the system. We restrict the number of users entering the system $\kappa_t$ to be $O(t^{\zeta})$ where $\zeta<\frac{1}{2}$. We note that this is similar to the dynamic case in [@bande18] where there is a restriction on the number of users entering and leaving the system.
Let $K_t$ denote the number of active users at time $t$. Note that even in the dynamic scenario, we still retain the assumption of having $K_t\leq M$ in the system.
The expected system-wide regret from using Algorithm \[ad:dyn\] for $T$ time units where $(2^{(r+1)}-1)\tau\leq T< (2^{(r+2)}-1)\tau$ with the number of users entering the system $\kappa_T\sim O(T^{\zeta})$, with $\zeta<\frac{1}{2}$, is given by $$\mathbb{E}[R(T)]\leq h'(M,M) \frac{(2(\tau+T))^{\frac{3}{4}}}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}+M\kappa_T {T}^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ where $h'(M,M)= M\left(5.15\sqrt{M\ln M}+\sqrt{\frac{M}{\ln M}}+\frac{M^{M+1}}{\sqrt{M\ln M}}\right)$ and does not depend on $T$. Thus, $\mathbb{E}[R(T)] \sim O( T^{\frac{3}{4}}+\kappa_T T^\frac{1}{2})$.
We have $2^{(r+1)}\tau\leq \tau+T$. In epochs where no users enter the system, the regret can be bound by Theorem \[thm:inf\], and in epochs with new users, the regret accumulates through the entire epoch. The epoch length is upper bounded by $(2^{(r+1)}\tau)^\frac{1}{2}$, since $y=\frac{1}{2}$ from Theorem \[thm:main\]. The regret up to time $T$ bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(T)] & \leq & \text{Static case regret}+K_t\sum^{\kappa_T}\text{Epoch length}\\
& \leq & h'(M,M) \frac{(2(\tau+T))^{\frac{3}{4}}}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}+M \kappa_T (2^{r+1}\tau)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& \leq & h'(M,M) \frac{(2(\tau+T))^{\frac{3}{4}}}{2^{\frac{3}{4}}-1}+M \kappa_T (\tau+T)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $\kappa_T$ is $O(T^{\zeta})$, with $\zeta<\frac{1}{2}$, we have sub-linear regret.
Experiments {#ad:exp}
-----------
In this section, we illustrate the performance of our algorithm in a simple adversarial setting. We consider a non-oblivious adversary, i.e., an adversary whose rewards do not depend on the users’ reward history.
We consider a system with known time-horizon $T$, fixed number of users $K=4$ users and $M=7$ channels. We set $T=160000$, which gives us $T^\frac{1}{2} = 400$ time units, $\phi= 0.026$, $\eta= 0.025$ and $\gamma =0.194$ in Algorithm \[ad:main\]. The reward distributions for the channels are drawn i.i.d from the uniform distribution $[a,1]$ where $a$ for each channel at each time unit is drawn i.i.d from the uniform distribution $[0.2,1]$.
We repeat the experiment 100 times and consider the average accumulated regret with time. From Fig. \[fig:ad\_regret\], we see that the regret grows with time at a rate much lower than $T^\frac{3}{4}$, but higher than $T^\frac{1}{2}$, the expected regret in the single user case.
We note that Algorithm \[ad:main\] can be used for a stochastic multi-user MAB with user-dependent rewards to achieve a sub-linear regret of order $O(T^\frac{3}{4})$. While the regret is much higher than in [@kalathil2014decentralized], our algorithm does not rely on communication between the users and can also deal with a dynamic number of users in the system.
In the adversarial case, there is randomization in the selection of a channel, with $\tau^{\frac{1}{2}}$ being equivalent to $T_x$, and hence each user does not transmit on a channel for a very long time. Thus, fairness is achieved without enforcing a strict duration $T_x$ for each transmission.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We modeled the dynamic spectrum allocation problem as a multi-user MAB with no communication among the users. We first considered a stochastic MAB model with rewards on the channel being the same for all users, and then an adversarial MAB model with user-dependent rewards. We showed that the proposed algorithms in both scenarios achieve sub-linear regret. We provided simulation results to show that the algorithms perform well in practice when the number of users is fixed. We also extended our algorithms to the dynamic case and showed that the algorithms continue to achieve sub-linear regret. It is of interest to develop algorithms in other variants of the multi-user MAB setting. For example, a system with user-dependent rewards, under the stochastic as well as the adversarial settings, without any user communication, when there are more users than channels in the system.
Appendix
========
We present a lemma that ensures a certain number of observations from each distribution during the estimation phase of length $T_0$.
\[thm:num\] If $T_0 = \left\lceil \frac{32\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})M}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \right\rceil$, then all users using Algorithm \[sto:main\] have at least $\frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}$ observations of each reward distribution on each arm with probability greater than $ 1 - \frac{\delta}{2} $.
Let $ A_{k,m,n} (t) = I \left\{ \mbox{player $ k $ observed arm $ m $ with $n$ users at round $ t $} \right\} $. Note that for any round $t $ and any $ k,m,n $ we have that $$\Pr \left(A_{k,m,n} (t)=1 \right) = \frac{1}{M}{K-1\choose n-1} \left(1 - \frac{1}{M} \right)^{K-n} \left(\frac{1}{M} \right)^{n-1}$$ $ \implies \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right] = \frac{1}{M}{K-1\choose n-1} \left(1 - \frac{1}{M} \right)^{K-n} \left(\frac{1}{M} \right)^{n-1}\geq \frac{1}{M} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{M} \right)^{K-1} \geq \frac{1}{M\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})} $ for all $M > 1$.
where the last inequality follows from $(1-\frac{1}{x})^{x-1}\geq \frac{1}{\exp(1)}$ for $x\geq 1$.
We have, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\left(\exists k,m,n\text{ s.t. }\sum_{t=1}^{T_{0}}A_{k,m,n}(t)\leq\frac{1}{2}T_{0}\mathbb{E}[A_{k,m,n}(t)]\right) & \leq & \sum_{k}\sum_{m}\sum_{n}\Pr\left(\sum_{t=1}^{T_{0}}A_{k,m,n}(t)\mbox{\ensuremath{\leq\frac{1}{2} T_{0} \mathbb{E}[A_{k,m,n}(t)\mbox{]}}}\right)\\
& \leq & \sum_{k}\sum_{m}\sum_{n}\exp\left(\frac{-\frac{1}{4}T_{0}\mathbb{E}[A_{k,m,n}(t)]}{2}\right)\\
& = & K(\beta+1) M\exp\left(\frac{-\frac{1}{4}T_{0}\mathbb{E}[A_{k,m,n}(t)]}{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from union bound and the second inequality follows from Chernoff bound. Note that for a particular $k,m$ and $n$, $ A_{k,m,n} $ is i.i.d across $t$, since all users are choosing channels uniformly at random.
In order for this probability to be upper bounded by $ \frac{\delta}{2} $ we need: $$\begin{gathered}
K(\beta+1) M \exp\left(\frac{-\frac{1}{4} T_0 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right] }{2} \right) < \frac{\delta}{2}\\
\implies T_0 > \frac{1}{8 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right]} \ln \left( \frac{2K(\beta+1) M}{\delta} \right).\end{gathered}$$ We have shown that if $ T_0 > \frac{1}{8 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right]} \ln \left( \frac{2K(\beta+1) M}{\delta} \right) $ then w.p. $ \geq 1 - \frac{\delta}{2}$ we have $ \forall k,m,n $ the number of observations player $ k $ has of arm $ m $ with $n$ users, $ \sum_{t=1}^{T_0} A_{k,m,n} \left( t \right) > \frac{1}{2} T_0 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right] $.\
We also need the total number of observations each player has of each arm to be at least $\frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}$, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{t=1}^{T_0} A_{k,m,n} \left( t \right) > \frac{1}{2} T_0 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right] \geq \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \\
\implies T_0 \geq \frac{2}{\mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m,n} (t) \right]} \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}.\end{gathered}$$ So we have two constraints on $ T_0 $, which gives us:\
$$T_0 = \left\lceil \max \left\{ \frac{1}{8 \mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m} (t) \right]} \ln \left( \frac{ 2K(\beta+1) M}{\delta} \right), 2 \frac{1}{\mathbb{E} \left[ A_{k,m} (t) \right]} \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \right\} \right\rceil$$ which can be further simplified to $$T_0 = \left\lceil \frac{32\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})M}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta} \right\rceil$$
Clustering
----------
Let $N$ points $\{x_i,\ldots,x_N\}$ be drawn independently from $\beta$ distributions with mean $\mu_r$ where $r\in [\beta]$. Let number of samples drawn from distribution with mean $\mu_r$ be denoted by $n_r$ and the separability condition is satisfied. Additional notation used is introduced in Table \[tab:not2\].
We now present an additional separability condition which is useful in order to prove some clustering results. For any $m\in[M]$ and $r,s\in [\beta]$, $$\label{eqn:sep_clus}|\mu(m,r)-\mu(m,s)|\geq c\phi_{\ast}(\frac{1}{n_s}+\frac{1}{n_r}),$$ where $\phi_{\ast}=\sum_i |x_i-\mathbb{E}(x_i)|$ and $c$ is a constant.
$\Delta_s$ $|\mu_s-\nu_s|$
-------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\gamma$ $\max_{s,r\neq s}\frac{\Delta_s}{|\mu_r-\mu_s|}$
$\{{\cal T}_s\}_{s\in[\beta]}$ True partition of the samples $X $
$n_s$ $|{\cal T}_s|$
$\phi_{\ast}$ $\sum_i |x_i-\mathbb{E}(x_i)|$
$g(S)$ $\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{i\in S} x_i$
$\rho_{in}^{s}$ Fraction of points misclassified as cluster $s$ $\frac{\sum_{r\neq s} |{\cal T}_r\cap S_s|}{n_s}$
$\rho_{out}^{s}$ Fraction of misclassified points in cluster $s$ $\frac{\sum_{r\neq s} |{\cal T}_s\cap S_r|}{n_s}$
: Notation.[]{data-label="tab:not2"}
We first present the following lemma which describes the relationship between the separability conditions and .
If the separability condition is satisfied and $N=T_0= \frac{32\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})M}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}$, then for any $r,s$, with high probability $$|\mu_r-\mu_s|\geq c\phi_{\ast}(\frac{1}{n_s}+\frac{1}{n_r}),$$ where $\phi_{\ast}=\sum_i |x_i-\mathbb{E}(x_i)|$ and $c$ is a constant.
If suffices to show that with high probability, $$4M\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})\sqrt{\sigma^{2}+\epsilon_{2}}\geq (\frac{1}{n_r}+\frac{1}{n_s})\sum_{i\in[N]}|x_{i}-E[x_{i}]|.$$
From Hoeffdings, we have $$\Pr(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i\in[N]}(x_{i}-E[x_{i}])^{2}-\sigma^{2}\geq\epsilon_{2})\leq\exp(-2N\epsilon_{2}^{2})$$
i.e., with probability greater than $1-\frac{\delta}{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}$, we have $\sum_{i\in[N]}(x_{i}-E[x_{i}])^{2}\leq N(\sigma^{2}+\epsilon_{2})$.
We have $||x||_1\leq \sqrt{N}||x||_2$. $$\begin{aligned}
(\frac{1}{n_r}+\frac{1}{n_s})\sum_{i\in[N]}|x_{i}-E[x_{i}]| & \leq & (\frac{1}{n_r}+\frac{1}{n_s})\sqrt{N}\sqrt{\sum_{i\in[N]}(x_{i}-E[x_{i}])^{2}}\\
& \leq & (\frac{1}{n_r}+\frac{1}{n_s})N\sqrt{\sigma^{2}+\epsilon_{2}}\\
&\leq & 4M\exp(\frac{K-1}{M-1})\sqrt{\sigma^{2}+\epsilon_{2}}\end{aligned}$$
where the last inequality follows because from Lemma \[thm:num\], we have $n_s\geq \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln \frac{2MK\beta(\beta+1)}{\delta}$.
We now present some lemmas that are useful for proving that after clustering, the centroids are closer to the means of the distributions from which they are drawn.
\[thm:esterr\] If the separability condition is satisfied, then after using Cluster algorithm, we have that for any fixed $\epsilon,\delta$ and $n_s\geq N_{\epsilon,\delta}=\lceil\frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln(\frac{\beta}{\delta})\rceil$, with probability greater than $1-\delta$, $$|\hat{\mu}_s-\mu_s|= |g(S_s)-\mu_s | \leq \epsilon.$$
From Lemma \[lem:approx\], after the $\alpha$ approximation algorithm, we have $\Delta_s\leq 2(\alpha+1)\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_s}$ and $\gamma < \frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}$. If we want $\gamma\leq \frac{1}{8}$ which gives $a<\frac{c}{16}-1$. From Lemma \[lem:rho\], $\rho_{in}^{s}+\rho_{out}^{s}\leq \frac{8}{c} $ which we need to be less than $\frac{1}{2}$ this giving us $c>16$. From this and Lemma \[lem:ineq\], the conditions for Lemma \[lem:mean\] are satisfied and $\gamma <\frac{1}{8}$. Thus we have, $$|g(S_s)-\mu_s |\leq 2(1-\rho_{out}^{s})|g(S_s\cap {\cal T}_s)-\mu_s |+4\sum_{r\neq s:\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\neq 0}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)|g(S_s\cap {\cal T}_r)-\mu_r |.$$
For each $r\in [\beta]$, $S_{s}\cap T_{r}$ denotes independently drawn bounded random variables from reward distribution with mean $\mu_r$, we use Hoeffding’s lemma. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\exists r\text{ s. t }|g(S_{s}\cap T_{r})-\mu_{r}| \geq \epsilon)&\leq&\sum_{r\in\beta}\Pr(|g(S_{s}\cap T_{r})-\mu_{r}|\geq\epsilon)\\
& \leq_{(a)} & \exp(-2n_{s}(1-\rho_{out}^{s})(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2})+\sum_{r\neq s:\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\neq 0}\exp(-2n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2})\\
& \leq_{(b)} & \exp(-2n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2})+\sum_{r\neq s:\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\neq 0}\exp(-2n_{s}c_{1}(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2})\\
& \leq_{(c)} & \beta\exp(-2n_{s}c_{1}(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2})\leq\delta,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1 = \min_{r,s}{\rho_{in}^{s}(r):\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\neq 0}$. Inequality $(a)$ follows from Hoeffding’s lemma, inequality $(b)$ from $1-\rho_{out}^{s}\geq \rho_{in}^{s}$ and inequality $(c)$ from the definition of $c_1$.
For $\beta\exp(-2n_{s}c_{1}(\frac{\epsilon}{4})^{2}))\leq\delta$, we need $n_s\geq \frac{8}{c_1\epsilon^2}\ln(\frac{\beta}{\delta}).$ Since $c_1<\frac{1}{2}$, we have $$n_s\geq \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}\ln(\frac{\beta}{\delta}).$$
Thus, with probability greater than $1-\delta$, we have $$|g(S_s)-\mu_s |\leq 2 \frac{\epsilon}{4} +4 \sum_{r\neq s:\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\neq 0}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)\frac{\epsilon}{4}\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \rho_{in}^{s}\epsilon\leq\epsilon.$$
\[lem:approx\] An $\alpha$ approximation algorithm returns the set of centroids $\{\nu_1,\dots,\nu_\beta\}$ where $C(x)$ returns the centroid of the cluster to which $x$ belongs. We have $\forall {\cal T}_s$ $\exists \nu_s$ such that $|\nu_s-\mu_s|\leq2(\alpha+1)\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_s}$ and $\gamma <\frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}$.
We first show that $\forall s$, $\Delta_s\leq(\alpha+1)\frac{\phi_{T}}{n_s}$ where $\phi_T=\sum_{s=1}^{\beta}\sum_{x\in {\cal T}_s}|x-g({\cal T}_s)|$. Assume the contrary that for some ${\cal T}_s$,$|\nu_r-\mu_s|>(\alpha+1)\frac{\phi_{T}}{n_s}$ $\forall r\in [\beta]$. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x\in T_{s}}|x-C(x)| & \geq & \sum_{x\in T_{s}}|C(x)-g(T_{s})|-|x-g(T_{s})|\\
& > & |T_{s}|\frac{(\alpha+1)\phi_{T}}{|Ts|}-\sum_{x\in T_{s}}|x-g(T_{s})|\\
& \geq & (\alpha+1)\phi_{T}-\phi_{T}=a\phi_{T},\end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction. We now show that $\phi_{T}\leq 2\phi_{\ast}$ which proves that $\Delta_s\leq 2(\alpha+1)\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_s}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{T} & = & \sum_{s=1}^{\beta}\sum_{x\in T_{s}}|x-g(T_{s})|\\
& \leq & \sum_{s=1}^{\beta}\sum_{x\in T_{s}}|g(T_{s})-\mu_{s}|+\sum_{s=1}^{\beta}\sum_{x\in T_{s}}|x-\mu_{s}|\\
& = & \sum_{s=1}^{\beta}|T_{s}||g(T_{s})-\mu_{s}|+\phi_{\ast}\\
& = & \sum_{s=1}^{\beta}|\sum_{x\in Ts}x-\mu_{s}|+\phi_{\ast}\\
& \leq & \sum_{s=1}^{\beta}\sum_{x\in Ts}|x-\mu_{s}|+\phi_{\ast}\\
& = & 2\phi_{\ast}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we show that $\gamma \leq \frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}$. For any $s,r$, $$\frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}|\mu_r-\mu_s|\geq \frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}c\phi_{\ast}(\frac{1}{n_s}+\frac{1}{n_r})\geq \Delta_s.$$ Since this is true for all $r,s$, we have $$\gamma \leq \frac{2(\alpha+1)}{c}.$$
\[lem:ineq\] If $\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$, the following results hold $\forall x\in S_r$,
1. $|x-\mu_s|\geq (\frac{1}{2}-2\gamma)|\mu_r-\mu_s|,\quad \forall s\neq r$.
2. $|x-\mu_r|\leq \frac{1}{1-4\gamma}|x-\mu_s|.$
\(1) $$\begin{aligned}
|\nu_{r}-\nu_{s}| & = & |\nu_{r}-\mu_{r}+\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}+\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|\\
& \geq & |\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|-|\nu_{r}-\mu_{r}|-|\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|\\
& \geq & (1-2\gamma)|\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the definition of $\gamma$. $$\begin{aligned}
|x-\mu_{s}| & \geq & |x-\nu_{s}|-|\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|\\
& \geq & \frac{1}{2}|\nu_{r}-\nu_{s}|-|\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|\\
& \geq & (\frac{1}{2}-\gamma)|\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|-|\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|\\
& \geq & (\frac{1}{2}-\gamma)|\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|-\gamma|\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|\\
& = & (\frac{1}{2}-2\gamma)|\mu_{r}-\mu_{s}|,\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from $x\in S_r$ and the last from the definition of $\gamma$.
(2)$$\begin{aligned}
|x-\mu_{r}| & \leq & |\mu_{r}-\nu_{r}|+|x-\nu_{r}|\\
& \leq & |\mu_{r}-\nu_{r}|+|x-\nu_{s}|\\
& \leq & |\mu_{r}-\nu_{r}|+|x-\mu_{s}|+|\mu_{s}-\nu_{s}|.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the first statement with the definition of $\gamma$ also implies for $l=r,s$ $$\frac{1-4\gamma}{2\gamma}|\mu_{l}-\nu_{l}|\leq|x-\mu_{s}|,$$ which gives us $$\begin{aligned}
|x-\mu_{r}| & \leq & (1+\frac{4\gamma}{1-4\gamma})|x-\mu_{s}|\\
& = & \frac{1}{1-4\gamma}|x-\mu_{s}|.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:rho\] If $\gamma<\frac{1}{4}$ and $|\mu_r-\mu_s|\geq c\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_s}$, we have $\rho_{in}^{s}\leq \frac{2}{(1-4\gamma)c}$ and $\rho_{out}^{s}\leq \frac{2}{(1-4\gamma)c}$.
From the separability condition , we have $|\mu_r-\mu_s|\geq c\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_s}$. $$\begin{aligned}
n_{s}\rho_{out}^{s}(\frac{1}{2}-2\gamma)c\frac{\phi_{\ast}}{n_{s}} & \leq & \sum_{r\neq s}|T_{s}\cap S_{r}|(\frac{1}{2}-2\gamma)|\mu_{s}-\mu_{r}|\\
& \leq & \sum_{r\neq s}\sum_{x_{i}\in T_{s}\cap S_{r}}(\frac{1}{2}-2\gamma)|\mu_{s}-\mu_{r}|\\
& \leq & \sum_{r\neq s}\sum_{x_{i}\in T_{s}\cap S_{r}}|x_{i}-\mu_{s}|\\
& \leq & \phi_{\ast},\end{aligned}$$ where the first and second inequalities follow from the separability condition and Lemma \[lem:ineq\] respectively. This gives us $\rho_{out}^{s}\leq\frac{2}{(1-4\gamma)c}$ and similarly we also have $\rho_{in}^{s}\leq\frac{2}{(1-4\gamma)c}$.
\[lem:mean\] If $(a)\rho_{in}^{s}+\rho_{out}^{s}<\frac{1}{2}$ and $(b)|g(S_s\cap {\cal T}_r)-\mu_r |\geq (1-4\gamma)|g(S_s\cap {\cal T}_r)-\mu_s |$ we have, $$|g(S_s)-\mu_s |\leq 2(1-\rho_{out}^{s})|g(S_s\cap {\cal T}_s)-\mu_s |+\frac{2}{1-4\gamma}\sum_{r\neq s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)|g(S_s\cup {\cal T}_r)-\mu_r |.$$
$|g(S_{s})-\mu_{s}|$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = & |\frac{|S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s}|g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s})+\sum_{r\neq s}|S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r}|g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r})}{|S_{s}|}-\mu_{s}|\\
& = & \frac{|n_{s}(1-\rho_{out}^{s})(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s})-\mu_{s})+\sum_{r\neq s}n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r})-\mu_{s})}{|S_{s}|}|\\
& \underset{(a)}{\leq} & 2(1-\rho_{out}^{s})|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s})-\mu_{s})|+2\sum_{r\neq s}n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r})-\mu_{s})|\\
& \leq & 2[(1-\rho_{out}^{s})|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s})-\mu_{s})|+\sum_{r\neq s}n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r})-\mu_{s})|]\\
& \leq_{(b)} & 2(1-\rho_{out}^{s})|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{s})-\mu_{s})|+\frac{2}{1-4\gamma}\sum_{r\neq s}n_{s}\rho_{in}^{s}(r)|(g(S_{s}\cap {\cal T}_{r})-\mu_{r})|.\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: M. Bande and V. V. Veeravalli are with the Coordinated Science Laboratory and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
[^2]: This research was supported by the US NSF WIFiUS Program under grant number CNS 14-57168 and by the US NSF SpecEES under grant number 1730882, through the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
[^3]: Parts of this work were presented at ICNC [@bande19icnc] and submitted to ICASSP.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We propose a definition of computable manifold by introducing computability as a structure that we impose to a given topological manifold, just in the same way as differentiability or piecewise linearity are defined for smooth and PL manifolds respectively. Using the framework of computable topology and Type-2 theory of effectivity, we develop computable versions of all the basic concepts needed to define manifolds, like *computable atlases* and *(computably) compatible* computable atlases. We prove that given a computable atlas $\Phi$ defined on a set $M$, we can construct a computable topological space $(M, \tau_\Phi, \beta_\Phi,
\nu_\Phi)$, where $\tau_\Phi$ is the topology on $M$ induced by $\Phi$ and that the equivalence class of this computable space characterizes the *computable structure* determined by $\Phi$. The concept of *computable submanifold* is also investigated. We show that any compact computable manifold which satisfies a computable version of the $T_2$-separation axiom, can be embedded as a computable submanifold of some euclidean space $\euclidean{q}$, with a computable embedding, where $\euclidean{q}$ is equipped with its usual topology and some canonical computable encoding of all open rational balls.
address:
- |
Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México\
Ciudad Universitaria, México D.F. 04510, México
- |
Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México\
Ciudad Universitaria, México D.F. 04510, México
author:
- 'Marcelo A. Aguilar'
- Rodolfo Conde
bibliography:
- 'bib/biblio.bib'
title: '**Computable structures on topological manifolds**'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Statistical behavior and scaling properties of iso-height lines in three different saturated two-dimensional grown surfaces with controversial universality classes are investigated using ideas from Schramm-Loewner evolution (SLE$_\kappa$). We present some evidence that the iso-height lines in the ballistic deposition (BD), Eden and restricted solid-on-solid (RSOS) models have conformally invariant properties all in the same universality class as the self-avoiding random walk (SAW), equivalently SLE$_{8/3}$. This leads to the conclusion that all these discrete growth models fall into the same universality class as the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation in two dimensions.'
address: |
$^1$School of Physics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O.Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran\
$^2$ Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11155-9161, Tehran, Iran
author:
- 'A.A. Saberi $^1$'
- 'H. Dashti-Naserabadi $^2$'
- 'S. Rouhani $^2$'
title: 'Classification of (2+1)$-$Dimensional Growing Surfaces Using Schramm$-$Loewner Evolution'
---
Nonequilibrium growth processes exhibit nontrivial scaling behavior which are often characterized and classified by three exponents, the roughness exponent $\alpha$, the dynamical exponent $z$ and the growth exponent $\beta$ [@EW; @stanley; @Kardar; @Meakin; @HZ; @Krug]. Analytic results for the values of these exponents are scarce and one has to depend on numerical analysis. In some cases, namely the two-dimensional (2D) Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation, numerical results are not definitive and ambiguities remain. On the other hand it is by no means clear that this set of exponents is exhaustive and other characterizing exponents may exist. In this paper, we propose a new method for analysis of two dimensional rough surfaces based on Schramm-Loewner evolution [@schramm]. In this method iso-height lines in the saturated regime are analyzed as random simple paths in which no self-crossing occurs. This leads to an extra characteristic for a grown surface, namely $\kappa$, the diffusivity coefficient of SLE. Our approach arrives at a sharp conclusion on the universality class of growing surfaces in two dimensions.
The discrete ballistic deposition (BD) [@BD], Eden, and restricted solid-on-solid (RSOS) models [@RSOS] (for a review and definitions of these models see [@stanley]), are believed to be in the same universality class as the KPZ equation [@Kardar] which describes a non-conserved growth.\
The evidence that two models belong to the same universality class can be given in many ways. One of the most direct approaches, as pointed out in [@Schwartz], is to show that the two models correspond to the same fixed point system. In this direction and based on master-equation approach, the KPZ equation has been exactly derived for the RSOS model [@Park], which indicates that these two models belong to the same universality class.\
However, the story for the BD model is more controversial. A continuum equation is derived from the BD microscopic rules in [@Schwartz] which deviates from the KPZ equation (the model which is considered in [@Schwartz] is the next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) BD model, slightly different from the nearest-neighbor (NN) BD model in our present paper). Despite this deviation, the symmetry arguments suggest that the 1D BD system is in the same universality class of the KPZ equation while for the 2D case, the absence of the rotational symmetry in the derived continuum equation violates the *a priori* reason for them belonging to the same universality class. An exact lattice Langevin equation for the BD model has been derived in [@Vvedensky], whose continuum limit is shown to be dominated by the KPZ equation. Although for a 1D substrate the solution of the exact lattice Langevin equation yields the KPZ scaling exponents, but for a 2D substrate its scaling exponents are again different from those obtained from simulations [@Vvedensky].\
Another way to determine the universality class of a rough surface is to compute its exponents $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $z$. Numerical results are consistent with the proposition that RSOS and KPZ models belong to the same universality class, but the situation is more controversial when considering the BD and Eden models.
For the KPZ equation in $d=1$, the exact values $\alpha=1/2$ and $\beta=1/3$ are known [@Kardar]. The estimated values obtained by various numerical works on BD in $d=1$ for roughness exponent and growth exponent range from $\alpha= 0.42$ to $0.506$ and $\beta=
0.3$ to $0.339$ [@FV-85; @Meakin-86; @Baiod; @Ko; @Reis-01]. Among the results, those obtained by Reis [@Reis-01] are close enough to the exact KPZ values. In $d=2$, there is no exact computation of the exponents for the KPZ system, nevertheless, various numerical and theoretical approaches have been applied to measure the exponents. The simulations based on direct numerical integration of the KPZ equation in 2D give $\alpha=0.37$ to $0.4$ [@Amar-90; @Reis2], and the values obtained by various theoretical methods range from $\alpha=0.29$ to $0.4$ [@Katzav; @Canet; @Moore; @Lassig]. Among the theoretical approaches, application of the mode-coupling approximation for the KPZ equation in 2D [@Moore] yielded $\alpha\simeq0.38$, in good agreement with the values found from simulations. However, the result $\alpha\simeq0.29$ obtained by the self-consistent expansion for 2D KPZ equation [@Katzav] displays a discrepancy with the results of simulations.\
The diversity of the obtained values of various simulations for 2D BD model ranging from $0.26$ to $0.38$ for $\alpha$ and $0.21$ to $0.24$ for $\beta$ [@Meakin-86; @Baiod; @Ko; @Reis-01; @Family-90; @Reis-04], does not indeed provide a convincing evidence that it belongs to the same universality class of the KPZ model. The same story holds for the Eden model with scattered reported results for $\alpha$ ranging from $0.20$ to $0.39$ [@stanley] in (2+1) dimensions.
We have carried out extensive simulations of the RSOS, NN-BD, and Eden models to estimate the values of the three exponents $\alpha$, $z$ and $\beta$ in (2+1) dimensions. In some cases our results take values out of the above mentioned ranges (see table \[Tab1\]). Although the two well-known scaling relations $\beta=\alpha/z$ and $\alpha+z=2$ [@Fisher-91] are obeyed, within the statistical errors. Nevertheless, due to the significant difference between the exponent values of these three models, it is not possible to conclude that they belong to the same universality class.
Model $\hspace{1.4cm}$ $\alpha$ $\hspace{0.9cm}$ $z$ $\hspace{0.9cm}$ $\beta$
------- ------------------ ------------- ------------------ ----------- ------------------ --------------
BD $0.28(2) $ $1.70(5)$ $0.15(1) $
Eden $0.36(2)$ $1.65(5)$ $0.205(15) $
RSOS $0.393(10)$ $1.58(3)$ $0.240(5)$
KPZ $0.37(1)$ $1.61(3)$ $0.23(1)$
: Scaling exponents for BD, Eden, RSOS and KPZ [@saberi1] models in two dimensions obtained by our simulations. With the exception of KPZ, the averages were taken over $10^3$ independent simulation runs for different square substrates of size $50\leq L\leq700$.[]{data-label="Tab1"}
A new tool for study of domain walls in critical systems is the theory of Schramm-Loewner Evolution (or SLE$_\kappa$) [@schramm] (for a review see [@SLE]). The diffusivity constant $\kappa$ determines the critical exponents hence the universality class of the system in question. Some authors have argued that SLE may be applied to turbulence [@Bernard] and surface growth phenomena [@WO3; @saberi1; @saberi2] as well. Recently, we have reported some evidence of conformal invariance in the statistical properties of iso-height lines in the saturated growth models including an experimentally grown $WO_3$ surface [@WO3], and numerical study of the KPZ equation done by direct integration of the discretized KPZ equation in (2+1) dimensions [@saberi1; @saberi2]. The mere observation of scale invariance in a 2D physical system does not necessarily imply conformal invariance [@Polchinski; @Riva]. However arguments pointing to conformal invariance of 2D growing surfaces have been attempted [@Moriconi]. This suggests the need for more stringent tests of conformal invariance in such systems.
In this paper, we report the results of extensive simulations on three different discrete growth models i.e., RSOS, NN-BD and Eden models. We present evidence that iso-height lines on saturated surfaces are SLE curves of the same diffusivity $\kappa=8/3$ indicating that in this spirit and within statistical errors, all these models belong to the KPZ universality class.
The growth simulations were undertaken on an anisotropic geometry i.e., strips of size $L_x \times L_y$ with $L_y=L$, $L_x=3L$ and $50\leq L\leq 10^3$ (for Eden model, due to the long CPU time, the simulations were done up to size $L=600$). Periodic boundary conditions were applied in both directions (Strip geometry was chosen for congruence with dipolar SLE). We gathered a number of $5\times10^3$ of saturated samples of each size for each of the three RSOS, BD and Eden models. The samples were obtained from $10^2$ independent simulation runs. During each simulation run, each of the $50$ samples was selected after $10^3$ time steps (in units of the number of lattice sites) after the saturation time.
 The positive-height clusters shown in different colors, and the corresponding spanning iso-height lines (solid lines). ](Fig0.eps)
 The average length $l$ of a spanning iso-height line of the saturated growth models versus the system size $L$, $l\sim L^{d_f}$. The solid line shows the expected result for SAW. The error bars are almost the same size as the symbols.](Fig1.eps)
For each height configuration $\{h_i\}$, a level cut is made at the mean height, say $\bar{h}:=0$. Then the cluster heights were defined as individual sets of connected sites with positive height which were identified by using the Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm [@Hoshen-Kopelman]. All spanning clusters along $y-$direction were marked. For each spanning cluster, a walker algorithm was applied to determine each of its perimeters which connects the lower boundary to the upper one i.e., the spanning iso-height lines (Fig. \[Fig0\]). The iso-height lines were identified uniquely by using the *tie-breaking* rule on the square lattice, described in [@Jstat]. Thereby, an ensemble of contour lines of fixed linear size $L$ was obtained for each surface ensemble of different size.
We base our arguments on four different tests acertaining that the iso-height lines are SLE: the fractal dimension, winding angle statistics, left passage probability and direct SLE test.
i\) *Fractal dimension*. For conformally invariant curves the fractal dimension is related to the diffusivity $\kappa$ by the relation $d_f=1+\kappa/8$. The fractal dimension and the conjectured value of diffusivity for SAW are known to be $d_f=4/3=1.3\bar{3}$ and $\kappa=8/3=2.6\bar{6}$.
 Variance of the winding angle for the spanning iso-height lines of the saturated growth models. The solid lines are set according to the Eq. (\[winding\]) for comparison, with appropriate obtained values of $a$ for each model and $\kappa=8/3$. In the inset, the variance in semilogarithmic coordinates.](Fig2.eps)
In Fig. \[Fig1\] we show our computed results for the fractal dimension of the iso-height lines for different models. The best fit to our data in the whole range of the lattice sizes yields $d_f=1.345(7), 1.330(5)$ and $1.335(4)$ for BD, Eden and RSOS models, respectively. In all of our measurements for BD model, our analysis on slightly larger system sizes $150\leq L\leq10^3$ corresponds to the same results as the Eden and RSOS models. For example we find $d_f=1.337(5)$ for the BD model in this size range. As shown in Fig. \[Fig1\], our results are well compatible with the fractal dimension of SAW and SLE$_{8/3}$.
 Left passage probability computed for the spanning iso-height lines of different models with $\rho=0.1 L$. The solid line shows the prediction of SLE for $\kappa=8/3$. ](Fig3.eps)
ii\) *Winding angle statistics*. The winding angle between two end points of a finite SAW in two dimensions, is studied in [@Duplantier_Saleur] using Coulomb gas methods. They found that the winding angle is Gaussian distributed with a variance of $\sim
(8/g)\ln L$, where $L$ is the distance between the end points and $g$ is Coulomb gas coupling parameter which is related to $\kappa$ by $g=4/\kappa$. They have also shown that the winding angle at a single end point relative to the global average direction of the curve is a Gaussian with variance of $(4/g)\ln L$.\
It is shown in [@Wilson] that the variance in the winding $\langle\theta^2\rangle$ at typical points along the curve is $1/4$ as large as the variance in the winding at the end points, i.e., \[winding\]\^2=a+(/4)L.Using the same definition as in [@Wilson], we measured $\langle\theta^2\rangle$ for different models, results are shown in Fig. \[Fig2\]. Data points compare well with Eq. (\[winding\]) (solid lines), using $\kappa=8/3$ and a suitable value of the parameter $a$ obtained from the best fit to data for each model. The direct measurement of $\kappa$ also obtained from the best fits to the data shown in the inset of the Fig. \[Fig2\]. We find almost the same value $\kappa/4= 0.700(20)$ for BD (again for larger sizes), Eden and RSOS models, within the statistical error.
iii\) *Left passage probability*. The probability $P_\kappa(\varphi)$ that an SLE$_\kappa$ curve, in the upper half-plane, passes to the left of a given point at polar coordinates ($\rho$,$\varphi$), is computed by Schramm [@schramm2] \[Left\_passsage\] P\_()=+\_2F\_1(,;;-\^2())(), where ${}_2F_1$ is the hypergeometric function.\
As another check, we measure this quantity (which should also hold for a dipolar SLE near the starting point i.e., $\rho\ll L$ [@PRB]) for the contour lines of different growth models.\
As shown in Fig. \[Fig3\], our results for the three models are again in good agreement with the prediction for SLE$_{8/3}$.
 The diffusivity $\kappa$ obtained for each contour ensemble versus their linear size $L$. Inset: statistics of the driving function $\{\xi_t\}$ obtained for the contour ensemble of the RSOS model with $L=10^3$. ](Fig4.eps)
iv\) *Direct SLE test*. Using a discrete Loewner evolution and successive appropriate conformal maps, we extracted the Loewner deriving function $\{\xi_t\}$ of each iso-height line represented by the sequences of points $\{z_0, z_1,..., z_N\}$ in the complex half-plane, with $z_0=(0,0)$. We use the function $g_t(z)=\sqrt{(z-\xi_t)+4t}+\xi_t$, with $t=\frac{1}{4}\Im z_1^2$ and $\xi_t=\Re z_1$, to map all of the points except the first one to a shortened renumbered sequence. After each recursive map the first point in the sequence is swallowed and a sequence of $\{\xi_t\}$ can be obtained for each iso-height line. We have also checked the map appropriate for dipolar SLE [@PRB], and found no significant differences.\
We find that the statistics of the deriving function for each curve ensemble of fixed linear size $L$, converges to a Gaussian process with variance $\langle\xi_t^2\rangle=\kappa t$. Finite size effects may be reduced by looking at shorter segments of the curve e.g., when $10\%$ of the total average length of the curves is mapped. An example is shown in the inset of Fig. \[Fig4\], obtained for the contour ensemble of the RSOS model with $L=10^3$. We observe that $\kappa$ shows a slight dependence on system size, but reducing with $L$. We find that the value of the diffusivity $\kappa$ for larger system sizes approaches the expected value for SAW i.e., $\kappa=8/3$, for all three models. As shown in Fig. \[Fig4\], for RSOS model this convergence begins in rather smaller sizes but for Eden and BD models larger system sizes are needed.
The more accurate results obtained here for the BD model is slightly different from that reported in [@WO3], this is due to the considerable difference in the number of averaging samples and reduced finite size effects.
Summing up, although the numerical values of three exponents $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $z$ for BD, Eden, RSOS and KPZ models are scattered, the numerical value found for $\kappa$ is sufficiently sharp to suggest that these models all belong to the same universality class. What remains is the inter-dependence of these exponents and $\kappa$. The existence of two scaling relations $\beta=\alpha/z$ and $\alpha+z=2$, guarantees that there is only one independent exponent e.g., the roughness exponent $\alpha$. On the other hand, this paper introduces a new characteristic value for a rough surface: $\kappa$. How inter-dependent are these two? There is a powerful scaling argument given in [@Kondev] which connects $d_f$ of a contour line to $\alpha$ of the same surface, $d_f=2 -
x_l - \alpha/2$, where $x_l$ is the loop correlation exponent. Although the exact value of $x_l=1/2$ is known only for the limiting cases of $\alpha=0$ and $1$, but it is conjectured that its value is super universal and is independent of $\alpha$ for Gaussian surfaces. This leaves the case of 2D KPZ in ambiguity, since it does not follow a Gaussian distribution. A simple minded value $x_l=1/2$ leads to $d_f=4/3$ giving $\alpha=1/3$ which although elegant [@Canet] but is in conflict with numerical results. Our future efforts will concentrate on revealing the nature of this relationship.
**Acknowledgement.** A.A.S. acknowledges financial support from INSF grant.
S.F. Edwards *et al*, Proc. R. Soc. London A **381**, 17 (1982). A.L. Barabási and H.E. Stanley, Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth (C.U.P., Cambridge, 1995). M. Kardar *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **56**, 889 (1986). P. Meakin, Phys. Rep. **235**, 189 (1993). T. Halpin-Healy *et al*, Phys. Rep. **254**, 215 (1995). J. Krug, Adv. Phys. **46**, 139 (1997). O. Schramm, Isr. J. Math. **118**, 221 (2000). F. Family *et al*, J. Phys. A **18**, L75 (1985); P. Meakin *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **34**, 5091 (1986). J.M. Kim *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 2289 (1989). E. Katzav *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 061608 (2004). K. Park *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **51**, 796 (1995). C.A. Haselwandter *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 040101(R) (2006). F. Family *et al*, J. Phys. A **18**, L75 (1985). P. Meakin *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **34**, 5091 (1986). R. Baiod *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **38**, 3672 (1988). D.Y.K. Ko *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **50**, 1741 (1994). F.D.A.A. Reis, Phys. Rev. E **63**, 056116 (2001). J.G. Amar *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **41**, 3399 (1990). V.G. Miranda *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **77**, 031134 (2008). E. Katzav *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **60**, 5677 (1999). L. Canet *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 150601 (2010). F. Colaiori *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3946 (2001). M. Lässig, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 2366 (1998). F. Family, Physica A **168**, 561 (1990). F.D.A.A. Reis, Phys. Rev. E **69**, 021610 (2004). D.S. Fisher *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **43**, 10728 (1991). J. Cardy, Ann. Physics **318**, 81 (2005); M. Bauer *et al*, Phys. Rep. **432**, 115 (2006). D. Bernard *et al*, Nature Phys. **2**, 124 (2006); Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 024501 (2007). A.A. Saberi *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 044504 (2008). A.A. Saberi *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **77**, 051607 (2008). A.A. Saberi *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **79**, 036102 (2009). J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B **303**, 226 (1988). V. Riva *et al*, Phys. Lett. B **622**, 339-342 (2005). L. Moriconi *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 041105 (2010). J. Hoshen *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **1**, 3438 (1976).
A.A. Saberi, J. Stat. Mech., P07030 (2009). B. Duplantier *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **60**, 2343 (1988). B. Wieland *et al*, Phys. Rev. E **68**, 056101 (2003). O. Schramm, Electron. Commun. Probab. 6, 115 (2001). D. Bernard *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 020403(R) (2007). J. Kondev *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett., **74**, 23, 4580 (1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Adiabatic passage is a standard tool for achieving robust transfer in quantum systems. We show that, in the context of driven nonlinear Hamiltonian systems, adiabatic passage becomes highly *non-robust* when the target is unstable. We show this result for a generic (1:2) resonance, for which the complete transfer corresponds to a hyperbolic fixed point in the classical phase space featuring an adiabatic connectivity strongly sensitive to small perturbations of the model. By inverse engineering, we devise high-fidelity and robust partially non-adiabatic trajectories. They localize at the approach of the target near the stable manifold of the separatrix, which drives the dynamics towards the target in a robust way. These results can be applicable to atom-molecule Bose-Einstein condensate conversion and to nonlinear optics.'
author:
- 'Jing-Jun Zhu'
- Xi Chen
- 'Hans-Rudolf Jauslin'
- Stéphane Guérin
title: 'Robust Control of Unstable Non-linear Quantum Systems'
---
*Introduction.-* Controlling non-linear quantum systems is central in recent applications, such as the ones involving many-particle systems in mean field [@GP], e.g. for conversion of atoms into molecular Bose-Einstein condensates [@Mackie2000; @Carr2009], or non-linear optics [@Boyd; @Agrawal; @Longhi; @Silberberg2008; @NLO3]. Two- and three-level $\Lambda$-type systems with second-order non-linearities have been shown to be non-controllable exactly in the sense that such non-linearities prevent reaching the target state exactly [@Tracking2013; @Dorier]. However, one can approach it as closely as required, and inverse-engineering techniques have been recently developed for that purpose [@Dorier].
Besides high-fidelity requirements, an important issue is the robustness of the process, for instance with respect to imperfect knowledge of the system or to systematic deviations in experimental parameters. For linear problems, various robust techniques have been proposed and demonstrated, such as composite pulses [@Levitt:08; @Genov:14], adiabatic passage [@STIRAP], optimal control [@OC1; @OC2] or single-shot shaped pulses [@Daems:13; @Leo2017] as a variant of shortcut to adiabaticity [@Chen:10; @STA2], as described in the review [@review12; @review].
Their extension to non-linear dynamics is delicate since such dynamics features, in general, instabilities and non-integrability [@Itin2007]. Nonlinear quantum dynamics having the structure of a classical Hamiltonian system, adiabatic passage techniques can be formulated for integrable systems in terms of action-angle variables of the corresponding classical Hamilton equations of motion. The adiabatic trajectory is formed by the instantaneous elliptic fixed points defined at each value of the adiabatic parameters and continuously connected to the initial condition. Obstructions to classical adiabatic passage are given by the crossing of the tracked fixed point with a separatrix, which involves arbitrary small frequencies and instabilities [@Itin2007; @NLAdiab2016]. Adiabatic solutions can be found in two-level systems [@NLAdiab2016] and in three-level systems of $\Lambda$ type [@Dorier] with second- and third-order nonlinearities. Besides optimal control based on Pontryagin’s maximum principle [@Bonnard-Sugny-book; @Chen16], the use of inverse engineering techniques allows one to produce exact and controllable solutions without the need of invoking adiabatic approximations [@Dorier]. Even non-integrability can be circumvented by appropriate design of pulse’s parameters [@chaos].
However, when the target state is itself unstable, e.g. associated to an hyperbolic fixed point in the classical phase space representation, as it is the case for a two-level system with a (1:2) resonance, we show the counterintuitive result that *adiabatic solutions lack robustness*. The existence of robust solutions becomes then questionable. The goal of this letter is to show that one can design partially non-adiabatic trajectories, targeting an unstable state, featuring both high-fidelity and robustness. They are built on the concept of shortcuts to adiabaticity solutions by inverse engineering adapted to non-linear dynamics. *Non-linear (1:2) resonance model and the generalized Bloch sphere.-* We consider a nonlinear driven two-level model including a second-order nonlinearity that corresponds to a (1:2) resonance [@Tracking2013]:
\[eq: ib1-2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: ic1}
i\dot b_{1} & = &-\frac{1}{3}\left[\Delta-\Lambda_a+2\Lambda_{s}|b_{2}|^{2}\right]b_1+\frac{\Omega}{\sqrt{2}}\bar b_{1}b_{2}, \\ \label{eq: ib2}
i\dot b_{2} & = & \frac{1}{3}\left[\Delta-\Lambda_a+2\Lambda_{s}|b_{2}|^{2}\right]b_{2}+\frac{\Omega}{2\sqrt{2}}b_{1}^2,\end{aligned}$$
with the amplitude probabilities $b_1$ and $b_2$ satisfying $|b_1|^2+2|b_2|^2=1$. The time-dependent driving field couples the two states via its Rabi frequency $\Omega \equiv \Omega(t)$ (assumed positive for simplicity and without loss of generality) in a near-resonant way, and a detuning $\Delta \equiv \Delta(t)$. The second-order nonlinearity appears in the coupling term as a (1:2) resonance and the third-order nonlinearities as diagonal terms through the coefficients $\Lambda_{a}$ and $\Lambda_{s}$ (known as Kerr terms). In the language of Bose-Einstein condensation, this system models the transfer from atomic to molecular condensates, where $|b_1|^2$ ($|b_2|^2$) is the probability of atomic (molecular) BEC. The term $\Lambda_a$ can be trivially compensated by a static detuning, while the $\Lambda_{s}$ term can be dynamically compensated by a time-dependent detuning, in a similar way as the one presented in [@Dorier] for the three-state problem.
Similarly to the linear counterpart, the dynamics of this non-linear system can be parametrized by three angles $\theta\in[0,\pi]$, $\alpha\in[0,2\pi[$, $\gamma\in[0,2\pi[$ as [@Tracking2013; @Efstathiou]: $$\label{solgen}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}b_1(t)\\b_2(t)\end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\cos(\theta/2)\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin(\theta/2)\,e^{-i(\alpha+\gamma)}\end{array}\right]e^{-i\gamma},$$ The problem can be reformulated with (complex) Hamilton equations and canonical transformations into the variables $(I=\vert b_2\vert^2,\alpha)$ leads to the coordinates, respectively the opposite of the population inversion, the real and imaginary parts of the generalized coherence:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_z :=& |c_1|^2-2|c_2|^2 &= 1-2p, \\
\Pi_x :=& \null~~2 (c_1^{2}\bar c_2 + \bar c_1^{2}c_2 ) &= 2\sqrt{2}(1-p)\sqrt{p}\cos \alpha, \\
\Pi_y :=& -2i (c_1^{2}\bar c_2 - \bar c_1^{2}c_2 ) &= 2\sqrt{2}(1-p)\sqrt{p}\sin \alpha,\end{aligned}$$
with twice state-2 population $p=2I=2\vert b_2\vert^2=\sin^2(\theta/2)$. For convenience, one can alternatively consider the $z$-coordinate as $p$ instead of $\Pi_z$. The space phase can be reduced to a two-dimensional surface, defined as the generalized Bloch sphere, of equation $\Pi_x^2+ \Pi_y^2 = 8(1-p)^2 p, \ p\in[0,1]$, embedded in the 3-dimensional space of coordinates $\Pi_x,\Pi_y,p$, as shown in Fig. \[Portrait\].
(a)![Portraits of the system on the generalized Bloch sphere in the late part of the dynamics ($t=1.2T$) for adiabatic tracking and robust control (with parameters of Fig. \[Snap\]), and including an additional static detuning (a) $T\Delta_0=-0.6$ and (b) $T\Delta_0=0.6$, the separatrix (thick yellow line), elliptic fixed point (green dot), actual dynamics for adiabatic tracking (cyan dot) and for robust control (magenta dot). At the chosen time, the values of the instantaneous detuning $\Delta(t)$ and of the Rabi frequency $\Omega(t)$ are almost identical in the two techniques, thus leading to the same portraits for each $\Delta_0$. \[Portrait\]](Fig1a.eps "fig:")\
(b)![Portraits of the system on the generalized Bloch sphere in the late part of the dynamics ($t=1.2T$) for adiabatic tracking and robust control (with parameters of Fig. \[Snap\]), and including an additional static detuning (a) $T\Delta_0=-0.6$ and (b) $T\Delta_0=0.6$, the separatrix (thick yellow line), elliptic fixed point (green dot), actual dynamics for adiabatic tracking (cyan dot) and for robust control (magenta dot). At the chosen time, the values of the instantaneous detuning $\Delta(t)$ and of the Rabi frequency $\Omega(t)$ are almost identical in the two techniques, thus leading to the same portraits for each $\Delta_0$. \[Portrait\]](Fig1b.eps "fig:")
The non-linear Schrödinger equation leads to the following system of equations in terms of the angles and the parameters:
\[syst-gam-thet-phi\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{popp}
\dot\theta& = &\Omega\sin\alpha\cos(\theta/2),\quad\hbox{ or }\quad\dot p=\Omega(1-p)\sqrt{p}\sin\alpha \\
\label{phidot}
\dot\alpha& = &\frac{\Omega}{2}\cos\alpha\frac{1-3\sin^2(\theta/2)}{\sin(\theta/2)}+\Delta-\Lambda_a+\Lambda_{s}\sin^{2}(\theta/2),\qquad\\
\label{gamdot}
\dot\gamma& = &\frac{\Omega}{2}\cos\alpha\sin(\theta/2)-\frac{1}{3}\left[\Delta-\Lambda_a+\Lambda_{s}\sin^{2}(\theta/2)\right].\qquad\end{aligned}$$
By Eq. , the population $p(t)$ can be expressed in terms of the angle $\alpha(t)$ as $p(t)=\tanh^2\left[\int_{t_i}^t\frac{\Omega(s)}{2}\sin\alpha(s)ds \right]$, where we have assumed an initial state $b_1(t_i)=1$ at the initial time $t_i$, i.e. $p(t_i)=0$. We consider the target of a complete population transfer $p(t_f)=1$ at the final time $t_f$. This leads to the following conclusions:
\(i) The transfer probability $p$ is always lower than one. It can tend to one only in the limit of an infinite pulse area. This result is consistent with the time-optimal solution calculated by the Pontryagin maximum principle in Ref. [@Chen16].
\(ii) The Rabi model (for $\Delta=\Lambda_a$ and $\Lambda_s=0$ giving $\alpha=\pi/2$) gives a transfer of highest fidelity for a given pulse area $\int_{t_i}^{t_f}\Omega(s)ds$. The condition for a high-fidelity transfer is $\exp[\int_{t_i}^{t_f} \Omega(s)ds]\gg 1$, which makes the Rabi model robust with respect to the pulse area unlike its linear counterpart. We remark that this trajectory evolves on the separatrix associated to the target state $p=1$, which is a hyperbolic fixed point. (iii) The Rabi model is however strongly sensitive to a detuning $\Delta\ne 0$ (or equivalently to a third-order nonlinearity $\Lambda_s$), since it induces oscillations in the integral of $p(t)$, which are more intense for a larger pulse area. This latter feature is shown below to be also the case for adiabatic dynamics.
![Contour plot of the final population transfer $p(+\infty)$ for the adiabatic tracking $\Omega(t)=\Omega_{0}$ sech$(t/T)$ and $p_{\text{track}}(t)= \sin^2 [ \arctan(\sinh(t/T))/2+\pi/4 ]$ with $T\Omega_0=10$ (and $T$ the characteristic duration of the process) with respect to deviations of the detuning by a static quantity $\Delta_0$ (in units of $1/T$) and of the field amplitude by $1+\beta$. \[Robustadiab\]](Fig2.eps)
*Dynamics in the phase space: Non-robustness of adiabatic passage.-* We can limit our study for simplicity to the (1:2) resonance without third-order nonlinearities ($\Lambda_a=\Lambda_s=0$), since this system already features an unstable target. Nonlinear adiabatic passage is expressed in terms of the dynamics of the variables $(p,\alpha)$ of the corresponding classical Hamilton equations of motion with the Hamiltonian [@Tracking2013] $h=-\Delta/3+ \Delta p/2 + (\Omega/2)(1-p)\sqrt{p}\cos\alpha$. The adiabatic trajectory is formed by the instantaneous stable (elliptic) fixed points among the fixed points defined by $\dot p=0,\dot \alpha=0$: $$\label{Delta-last2}
\Delta=- e^{i\alpha}\frac{\Omega}{2\sqrt{p}}(1-3p),\qquad \alpha=0 \text{ or } \pi,$$ at each value of the adiabatic parameters $\Omega\equiv\Omega(t)$ and $\Delta\equiv\Delta(t)$, and continuously connected to the initial condition $p=0$. An adiabatic tracking trajectory is derived by imposing for instance convenient $p(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$, and using $\Delta(t)$ resulting from [@Tracking2013; @NLAdiab2016]. The target $p=1$ is a fixed point of the dynamics, which is hyperbolic for $|\Delta/\Omega|<1$ and elliptic for $|\Delta/\Omega|>1$. The number and the nature of the fixed points change as a function of $\Omega$ and $\Delta$: (i) For $\Omega=0$ and any $\Delta$ there are only two fixed points $p=0$ and $p=1$, which are both elliptic; (ii) For $\Omega\neq0$: if $|\Delta/\Omega| < 1$ there are three fixed points: $p=1$, which is hyperbolic, and two elliptic ones. If $|\Delta/\Omega| \geq 1$ there are two fixed points, both elliptic.
The separatrix associated to the hyperbolic fixed point is the curve of constant $h$ passing by the hyperbolic fixed point $p=1$ of equation $( p_s-1) ( \Delta - \Omega\sqrt{p_s}\cos\alpha_s)=0$, i.e. $ \sqrt{p_s}\cos\alpha_s = \Delta/\Omega=e^{i\alpha}(1-3p_0)/(2\sqrt{p_0})$, $\alpha=0$ or $\pi$, when $ \vert\Delta/ \Omega\vert < 1$ (see Fig. 1a). When $|\Delta/\Omega|$ approaches $1$ from below, the separatrix collapses to a single point and $p=1$ becomes elliptic (see Fig. 1b).
The issue of robustness of a typical adiabatic tracking dynamics with respect to a static detuning $\Delta_0$ and to the Rabi frequency amplitude (by multiplying it by a factor $1+\beta$) is numerically analyzed in Fig. \[Robustadiab\]. This shows that the fidelity dramatically decreases for negative detuning $\Delta_0$ and positive $\beta$, while it is relatively preserved on the other three quadrants. In what follows, we describe the dynamics in the phase space, and provide a qualitative explanation of this global lack of robustness.
(a)![Trajectories with the parameters of Fig. 1 with (a) a static detuning $T\Delta_0=-0.6$ and (b) no static detuning $T\Delta_0=0$; trajectory of the instantaneous fixed points (green curves) associated to the adiabatic tracking dynamics, which connects the initial and target fixed points (green dots) in (b), but does not reach the target in (a); actual trajectory for adiabatic tracking (cyan curves) adiabatically following the green fixed point trajectory \[except at the end of the dynamics in (a), when the adiabatic connectivity fails\] ; actual trajectory for robust control field (magenta curves) reaching the target closely to the separatrix at the approach of the target in both cases. The separatrix (yellow) curve is made by the points of the instantaneous separatrices, each of them having the same latitude $p$ of the actual trajectory. The four trajectories almost merge at the target in (b). \[trajectoriesDm06\]](Fig3a.eps "fig:")\
(b)![Trajectories with the parameters of Fig. 1 with (a) a static detuning $T\Delta_0=-0.6$ and (b) no static detuning $T\Delta_0=0$; trajectory of the instantaneous fixed points (green curves) associated to the adiabatic tracking dynamics, which connects the initial and target fixed points (green dots) in (b), but does not reach the target in (a); actual trajectory for adiabatic tracking (cyan curves) adiabatically following the green fixed point trajectory \[except at the end of the dynamics in (a), when the adiabatic connectivity fails\] ; actual trajectory for robust control field (magenta curves) reaching the target closely to the separatrix at the approach of the target in both cases. The separatrix (yellow) curve is made by the points of the instantaneous separatrices, each of them having the same latitude $p$ of the actual trajectory. The four trajectories almost merge at the target in (b). \[trajectoriesDm06\]](Fig3b.eps "fig:")
In order to reach the target $p=1$ by an adiabatic process, the trajectory must follow continuously the instantaneous elliptic fixed points that connect $p=0$ when $\Omega=0$ (intially) to $p=1$ when $\Omega/\Delta =1$ (finally) without crossing a separatrix [@Itin2007; @Tracking2013], as it is shown in Fig. \[trajectoriesDm06\]b. The initial state $p=0$ corresponds to $\Delta/\Omega\to -\infty$ and the target $p=1$ to $\Delta/\Omega \geq 1$. The intermediate state $p=1/3$ corresponds to $\Delta/\Omega=0$. Thus $\Delta$ necessarily has to go through $0$. In the adiabatic tracking technique $\Delta$ is chosen such that $\Delta/\Omega \to 1$ from below at final time. If $\Delta/\Omega = 1$ at some finite time, the elliptic fixed point collides with the hyperbolic one, and the separatrix collapses to a single point. If there is an additional static detuning $\Delta_0\ne0$ there are two scenarios, depending on the sign of $\Delta_0$. We assume without loss of generality that the initial $\Delta(t_i)<0$ and thus at the approach of the target $\Delta>0$. (i) If $\Delta_0>0$, then $(\Delta+\Delta_0)/\Omega$ goes through $1$ at some finite time, then the elliptic and the hyperbolic points collide, the separatrix collapses and $p=1$ becomes elliptic (see Fig. \[Portrait\]b). Since $\Omega\neq 0$ this implies that the actual trajectory crosses the separatrix at some earlier time (see Fig. \[trajectoriesDm06\]b) and the adiabatic approximation is broken. However, during the crossing the flow goes into the direction of the separatrix which points toward the target, despite broken adiabatic approximation. This explains the relative robustness of the process for $\Delta_0>0$. (ii) If $\Delta_0<0$, since $[\Delta+\Delta_0]/\Omega < 1$, the elliptic fixed point stays at a finite distance from $p=1$, i.e. the elliptic fixed point never reaches the target: the adiabatic connectivity is broken (see Figs. \[Portrait\]a and \[trajectoriesDm06\]a). This is the main explanation of the lack of robustness with respect to a negative static detuning $\Delta_0$. We can state a similar explanation of non-robustness of the Rabi frequency when it is multiplied by a coefficient larger than one. We can thus interpret this lack of robustness by the fact that the adiabatic connectivity is strongly sensitive to small perturbations of the model, which can be interpreted as a direct consequence of the instability of the target state.
We remark that a rough way to improve robustness is to add a static positive detuning $\Delta_s$, typically $\Delta_s=0.5/T$, in order to shift the solution towards a region of good robustness. We show below a more systematic search of a solution in this region, which is fast, robust and of high fidelity.
![Final transfer profile $p(+\infty)$ as a function of the static detuning $\Delta_{0}$ (in units of $1/T$) showing (i) non-robust adiabatic tracking (dashed red line) with the parameters of Fig. \[Robustadiab\] for $\beta=0$ and (ii) robust control (solid blue line) with $C_{1}=-0.5$, $C_{j>1}=0$, and $\epsilon=0.03$, of average transfer fidelity 0.997 in the zone of the figure. Inset: Corresponding pulse shapes of Rabi frequency (upper frame) and detuning (lower frame). \[Robust048\][]{data-label="Snap"}](Fig4.eps)
*Robust control.-* We derive robust alternative solutions on the basis of reverse engineering and shortcut to adiabaticity solutions by adapting the technique developed for linear models in [@Daems:13]. We assume the time variation of $\theta(t)$, for instance $\theta(t)=\frac{\pi}{2}(1-\epsilon)[1+\text{erf}(t/T)]$ (where $\epsilon=0.03 >0$ is introduced in order to take into account that the solution cannot reach the target state exactly), and we define an expansion of the phase $\gamma$ as a function of $\theta$, $\tilde\gamma(\theta)\equiv\gamma(t)$, with $n$ unknown constants, $C_j$, $j=1..n$: $$\label{gamma-exp}
\tilde\gamma(\theta)=\theta+C_1\sin(\theta)+C_2\sin(2\theta)+...+C_n\sin(n\theta).$$ We determine $\alpha$ from and by eliminating $\Delta$ and replacing $\Omega$ using , giving a differential equation for $\alpha$ as a function of $\theta$, $\tilde\alpha(\theta)\equiv\alpha(t)$: $$\frac{d\tilde\alpha}{d\theta} = \frac{1}{\tan\tilde\alpha\sin\theta} - 3\frac{d\tilde\gamma}{d\theta}.$$ We remark that this equation is defined at $\theta=0$ for $\tilde\alpha(0)=\pm\pi/2$. The field shaping is then determined from and , respectively:
\[OmDRobust\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OmRobust}
\Omega(t) & = & \frac{\dot\theta}{\sin\alpha\cos(\theta/2)}, \\
\label{DRobust}
\Delta(t)& = &\frac{3}{2}\cot\alpha\tan(\theta/2)- 3\dot\gamma + \Lambda_a-\Lambda_{s}\sin^{2}(\theta/2).\qquad\end{aligned}$$
We have to determine numerically the coefficients $C_j$’s leading to a desired robust transfer.
Figure \[Snap\] shows the remarkable robustness achieved with respect to the static detuning $\Delta_0$ for $C_1=0.5$ and $C_{j>1}=0$ and the corresponding pulse and detuning shapes. It surpasses the robustness of adiabatic tracking with twice lower Rabi frequency area ($5\pi$ and $10\pi$, respectively). The robustness of this derived trajectory is analyzed in the phase space (see Fig. \[trajectoriesDm06\]). The initial trajectory starts orthogonally to the fixed point curve since the detuning is 0 when $\Omega\ne0$. As a consequence, the adiabaticity is broken at the beginning of the process. When $\Omega$ reaches a sufficiently large value the actual dynamics becomes adiabatic, but in a region that is not close to the elliptic fixed points but rather near the stable manifold $\Pi_y>0$ of the separatrix, which drives all the trajectories in its vicinity towards the target, according to : $\dot p =\Omega \Pi_y/2\sqrt{2}$, thus in a robust way.
One can address robustness also with respect to Rabi frequency. We obtain for $C_1=-2.12$, $C_2=-0.86$, $C_3=0.35$ (leading to the pulse area $8.6\pi$), an average efficiency of 0.972 in the zone $-0.6\le T\Delta_0\le 0.6$, $0.1\le\beta\le0.1$.
*Conclusion.-* We have shown that adiabatic passage in non-linear quantum systems is not robust when the target point is unstable due to the sensitivity to small perturbations of the adiabatic connectivity. We have developed alternative robust trajectories that circumvent the instability. The main difference is that adiabatic tracking tries to follow closely the instantaneous fixed points, while the robust control field method operates quite far away from the fixed points near the separatrix and the stable manifold. In order to do so it breaks adiabaticity at the beginning of the process when the Rabi frequency is small. This is versatile and applicable to stimulated Raman process for $\Lambda$-type nonlinear three-level quantum systems [@Dorier; @chaos], with possible applications in quantum superchemistry [@Superchem; @Superchem2; @Superchem3]. In addition, these results can be immediately transferred to the other scenarios, including frequency conversion beyond the undepleted pump approximation [@NLO3], nonlinear coupled waveguides [@waveguide], and nonlinear Landau-Zener problem for Bose-Einstein condensate in accelerating optical lattice [@BECOL].
Last but not least, the success of inverse engineering and shortcuts to adiabaticity applied for non-linear systems opens the possibility of extending shared concepts such as dynamical or adiabatic invariant, counter-diabatic driving and fast-forward scaling [@review12; @review].
This work was partially supported by NSFC (11474193), SMSTC (18010500400, 18ZR1415500 and 2019SHZDZX01-ZX04), and the Program for Eastern Scholar. XC also acknowledges Ramón y Cajal program of the Spanish MCIU (RYC-2017-22482). SG and HRJ acknowledge additional support by the French “Investissements d’Avenir” programs, project ISITE-BFC / I-QUINS (contract ANR-15-IDEX-03), QUACO-PRC (Grant No. ANR-17-CE40-0007-01), EUR-EIPHI Graduate School (17-EURE-0002) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 765075 (LIMQUET).
[99]{}
L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, *Bose-Einstein Condensation* (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 2003)
M. Mackie, R. Kowalski, and J. Javanainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 3803 (2000). L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems, and J. Ye, New J. Phys. **11**, 055049 (2009). R. W. Boyd, *Nonlinear Optics* (Academic Press, Orlando, 2008)
G. P. Agrawal, *Nonlinear Fiber Optics* (Academic Press, New York, 2007)
S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. **32**, 1791 (2007). Y. Lahini, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, D. N. Christodoulides, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 193901 (2008). H. Suchowski, G. Porat, and A. Arie, Laser Photonics Rev. **8**, 333 (2014). S. Guérin, M. Gevorgyan, C. Leroy, H. R. Jauslin, and A. Ishkhanyan, Phys. Rev. A **88**, 063622 (2013). V. Dorier, M. Gevorgyan, A. Ishkhanyan, C. Leroy, H. R. Jauslin, and S. Guérin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 243902 (2017). M. H. Levitt, *Spin Dynamics: Basics of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance* John Wiley & Sons, (New York, London, Sydney, 2008). G. T. Genov, D. Schraft, T. Halfmann, and N.V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 043001 (2014). N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 015006 (2017). N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrggen, and S. J. Glaser, J. Magn. Reson. **172**, 296 (2005). T. Nöbauer, A. Angerer, B. Bartels, M. Trupke, S. Rotter, J. Schmiedmayer, F. Mintert, and J. Majer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 190801 (2015). D. Daems, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Sugny, and S. Guérin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 050404 (2013). L. Van-Damme, D. Schraft, G. T. Genov, D. Sugny, T. Halfmann, and S. Guérin, Phys. Rev. A **96**, 022309 (2017). X. Chen, I. Lizuain, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 123003 (2010). A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, D. Alonso and J. G. Muga, New J. Phys. **14**, 093040 (2012). E. Torrontegui, S. Ib[á]{}nez, S. Mart[í]{}nez-Garaot and M. Modugno, A. del Campo, D. Gu[é]{}ry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, and J. G. Muga, Advances in atomic, molecular, and optical physics, **62**, 117-169, (2013).
D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Martínez-Garaot, J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys. **91**, 045001 (2019).
A. P. Itin and S. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 223903 (2007). M. Gevorgyan, S. Guérin, C. Leroy, A. Ishkhanyan, and H. R. Jauslin, Eur. Phys. J. D **70**, 253 (2016). B. Bonnard, D. Sugny, Optimal Control with Applications in Space and Quantum Dynamics, AIMS on Applied Mathematics (American Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Springfield, 2012), Vol. 5.
X. Chen, Y. Ban, and G. C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. A **94**, 023624 (2016). A. Dey, D. Cohen, and A. Vardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 250405 (2018). K. Efstathiou, [*Metamorphoses of Hamiltonian Systems with Symmetries*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1864 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2005).
J. Liu, B. Wu, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 170404 (2003).
A. P. Itin and S. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 026218 (2007).
A. P. Itin, A. A. Vasiliev, G. Krishna, and S. Watanabe, Physica D **232**, 108 (2007).
A. P. Itin and P. Törmä, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 055602 (2009).
U. Boscain, G. Charlot, J.-P. Gauthier, S. Guérin, and H. R. Jauslin, J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 2107 (2002).
M. Mackie, R. Kowalski, and J. Javanainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 3803 (2000).
J. J. Hope and M. K. Olsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3220 (2001).
M. G. Moore and A. Vardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 160402 (2002).
R. Khomeriki, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 013839 (2010).
B. Wu and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 023402 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
On the basis of a suggestive definition of a classical extension of quantum mechanics in terms of statistical models, we prove that every such classical extension is essentially given by the so-called Misra-Bugajski reduction map. We consider how this map enables one to understand quantum mechanics as a reduced classical statistical theory on the projective Hilbert space as phase space and discuss features of the induced hidden-variables model. Moreover, some relevant technical results on the topology and Borel structure of the projective Hilbert space are reviewed.\
\
Key words: Statistical model, classical extension of quantum mechanics, Misra-Bugajski map, projective Hilbert space. Running Title: Classical Extensions of Quantum Probability Theory
author:
- |
Werner Stulpe[^1]\
[Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Jülich Campus, D-52428, Germany]{}\
Paul Busch[^2]\
[Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Canada]{}\
[and Department of Mathematics, University of York, UK]{}
title: 'The Structure of Classical Extensions of Quantum Probability Theory[^3] '
---
Introduction
============
Every statistical (probabilistic) physical theory can be based on a set $ {\mathcal{S}}$ of [*states*]{}, a set $ {\mathcal{E}}$ of [*effects*]{}, and a [*probability functional*]{} associating each state $ s \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and each effect $ a \in {\mathcal{E}}$ with a real number $ {\langle {s},{a}\rangle} \in
[0,1] $, the latter being the [*probability for the outcome ‘yes’ of the effect $a$ in the state $s$*]{} [@lud70;85; @lud83; @dav70; @dav76; @gud79]. We summarize these basic concepts of a statistical theory by the pair $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}},{{\mathcal{E}}}\rangle} $; we call $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}},{{\mathcal{E}}}\rangle} $ a [*statistical model*]{} if the following properties are satisfied [@hol82; @hol01; @bel95a;b; @bel97]. Since states can be mixed, $ {\mathcal{S}}$ has to be closed under such mixtures, and the probability functional must be affine in the states (mixture-preserving); moreover, we assume that the states and the effects separate each other (i.e., $ {\langle {s_1},{a}\rangle} = {\langle {s_2},{a}\rangle} $ for all $ a \in {\mathcal{E}}$ implies $ s_1 = s_2 $, and $ {\langle {s},{a_1}\rangle} = {\langle {s},{a_2}\rangle} $ for all $ s \in {\mathcal{S}}$ implies $ a_1 = a_2 $).
Given a statistical model $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $, assume only a subset $ {\mathcal{E}}_2 \subseteq {\mathcal{E}}_1 $ is accessible. In general, $ {\mathcal{E}}_2 $ no longer separates $ {\mathcal{S}}_1 $; call two states $ s,\tilde{s} \in {\mathcal{S}}_1 $ equivalent if $ {\langle {s},{a}\rangle} = {\langle {\tilde{s}},{a}\rangle} $ for all $ a \in {\mathcal{E}}_2 $. Let $ {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ be the set of the equivalence classes and define $$\label{dual1}
{\langle {[s]},{a}\rangle} := {\langle {s},{a}\rangle}$$ where $ [s] \in {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ and $ a \in {\mathcal{E}}_2 $. Then $ {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ is a new set of states and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $ a new statistical model; $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $ is a [*reduction of $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $*]{}, and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $ is an [*extension of $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $*]{}. Let $ R \! : {\mathcal{S}}_1 \to {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ be the canonical projection, i.e., $ R(s) := [s] $, and define the embedding map $ R' \! : {\mathcal{E}}_2 \to {\mathcal{E}}_1 $, i.e., $ R'(a) := a $. Then Eq. (\[dual1\]) can be written as $${\langle {R(s)},{a}\rangle} = {\langle {s},{R'(a)}\rangle}.$$ Note that $R$ is affine and surjective, whereas $R'$ is injective. We call $R$ a [*reduction map*]{}.
Next let $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $ and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $ be two arbitrary statistical models and $ R \! : {\mathcal{S}}_1 \to {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ a surjective affine mapping. Observe that $ s_1 \mapsto {\langle {R(s_1)},{a_2}\rangle} $ is an affine functional on $ {\mathcal{S}}_1 $ with values in the interval $ [0,1] $; assume that, for each effect $ a_2 \in {\mathcal{E}}_2 $, there exists an effect $ a_1 \in {\mathcal{E}}_1 $ such that $$\label{dual2}
{\langle {R(s_1)},{a_2}\rangle} = {\langle {s_1},{a_1}\rangle}$$ holds for all $ s_1 \in {\mathcal{S}}_1 $. Clearly, $ a_1 $ is uniquely determined, and we can define a map $ R' \! : {\mathcal{E}}_2 \to {\mathcal{E}}_1 $ according to $ R'(a_2) := a_1 $. Then Eq. (\[dual2\]) reads $$\label{dual3}
{\langle {R(s_1)},{a_2}\rangle} = {\langle {s_1},{R'(a_2)}\rangle},$$ and one easily shows that $R'$ is injective. Moreover, we can call two states $ s_1,\tilde{s}_1 \in {\mathcal{S}}_1 $ equivalent if $ R(s_1) =
R(\tilde{s}_1) $; for effects of the form $ R'(a_2) $, such equivalent states $ s_1 $ and $ \tilde{s}_1 $ give rise to the same probabilities. Because $R$ is surjective, the states $ s_2 \in S_2 $ can be identified with the equivalence classes $ [s_1] =
R^{-1}(\{s_2\}) $ where $ s_2 = Rs_1 $. Because $ R' $ is injective, we can further identify the effects $ a_2 \in {\mathcal{E}}_2 $ with the effects $ R'(a_2) $, i.e., $ {\mathcal{E}}_2 $ can be considered as a subset of $ {\mathcal{E}}_1 $. By means of these identifications, Eq. (\[dual3\]) coincides with Eq. (\[dual1\]), and $R$ takes the role of the canonical projection. Hence, the relation between the two statistical models of this paragraph is the same as that between the two statistical models of the preceding paragraph.
If $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $ and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $ are two statistical models and $R$ is a surjective affine mapping from $
{\mathcal{S}}_1 $ onto $ {\mathcal{S}}_2 $ for which, in the sense just described, a mapping $R'$ exists, then we call $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $ a [*reduction of $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $*]{}, $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $ an [*extension of $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $*]{}, and $R$ a [*reduction map*]{}. Since statistical models can be embedded into dual pairs of vector spaces (one vector space being a base-norm space and the other one an order-unit norm space, the pair forming a so-called [*statistical duality*]{} [@lud70;85; @lud83; @wer83; @hol82]), the reduction-extension concept for statistical models can be reformulated in this general context. The reduction map $R$ is then a surjective bounded linear map, and $R'$ is the adjoint map of $R$ which is linear, bounded, and injective. We do not consider this reformulation in complete generality, instead we shall study a reduction-extension concept specific to the subject of this paper which concerns the relation between classical and quantum probability.
It is the aim of this paper to revisit a particular classical extension of quantum mechanics defined by what we call the [*Misra-Bugajski reduction map*]{} [@mis74; @ghi76; @hol82; @bug91;93a-d; @bel95a;b; @stu01; @bus04], and to show that this map is essentially the only possible reduction map from a classical statistical model to the quantum statistical model, i.e., essentially the only possible way to obtain a classical extension of quantum probability theory. To this end, we first define the notions of quantum and classical statistical model. In doing so we also introduce most of the notations used in the paper.
Let a complex separable Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{H}}\neq \{0\} $ be given. We denote the real vector space of the self-adjoint trace-class operators by $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and the convex set of the positive trace-class operators of trace $1$ by $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$; the operators of $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ are the density operators and describe the quantum states. The pair $ ({\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}) $ is a base-normed Banach space with closed positive cone, the base norm being the trace norm. We denote the real vector space of all bounded self-adjoint operators by $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and the unit operator by $I$. The pair $ ({\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})},I) $ where $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ is equipped with its order relation, is an order-unit normed Banach space with closed positive cone, the norm being the usual operator norm. The elements of the order-unit interval $ {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}:= [0,I] $ describe the quantum mechanical effects. As is well known, $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ can be considered as the dual space $ ({\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})})' $ where the duality is given by the trace functional $$(V,A) \mapsto {\langle {V},{A}\rangle} := {\mathrm{tr} \, {VA}},$$ $ V \in {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$. The restriction of this bilinear functional to $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}\times {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is the quantum probability functional; $ {\mathrm{tr} \, {WA}} $ is the probability for the outcome ‘yes’ of the effect $ A \in {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$ in the state $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Thus, $
{\langle {{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $ is a dual pair of vector spaces (in fact a statistical duality) and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $ the [*quantum statistical model*]{} [@lud83; @dav76; @bus95; @hol01].
Further we recall that the extreme points of the convex set $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$, i.e., the pure quantum states, are the one-dimensional orthogonal projections $ P = P_{{\varphi}}: = {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|} $, $ {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1 $. We denote the set of these extreme points, i.e., the extreme boundary, by $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. The extreme points of the convex set $ {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$ are all orthogonal projections, these are sometimes called [*sharp*]{} effects whereas the other ones are called [*unsharp*]{} effects.—We also recall that $ {\sigma({{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}})} $ is the weak Banach-space topology of $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, i.e., the coarsest topology on $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ in which the elements of $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, considered as linear functionals on $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, are continuous.
For a general measurable space $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}$ where $ \Omega $ is a nonempty set and $ \Sigma $ an arbitrary $ \sigma $-algebra of subsets of $ \Omega $, let $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ be the real vector space of the real-valued measures on $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}$ (i.e., of the $ \sigma $-additive real-valued set functions on $ \Sigma $). We denote the convex subset of the positive normalized measures by $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$; the elements of $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ are probability measures and describe classical states. The pair $ ({\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}},{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}) $ is a base-normed Banach space with closed positive cone, the base norm being the total-variation norm. By $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ we denote the real vector space of the bounded $ \Sigma $-measurable functions on $ \Omega $ and by $ \chi_E $ the characteristic function of a set $ E \in \Sigma $. The pair $ ({\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}},\chi_{\Omega}) $ together with the order relation of $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ is an order-unit normed Banach space with closed positive cone, the order-unit norm being the supremum norm. The elements of the order-unit interval $ {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}:= [0,\chi_{\Omega}] $ describe the classical effects. By the bilinear functional given by the integral $$(\nu,f) \mapsto {\langle {\nu},{f}\rangle} := \int_{\Omega} fd\nu,$$ $ \nu \in {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, $ f \in {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, the spaces $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ are placed in duality to each other; in particular, $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ can be considered as a norm-closed subspace of the dual space $ ({\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}})' $ where in general the dual space is larger than $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$. The restriction of $ (\nu,f) \mapsto {\langle {\nu},{f}\rangle} $ to $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\times
{\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ is the classical probability functional; $ \int fd\nu $ is the probability for the outcome ‘yes’ of the effect $ f \in {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ in the state $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$. Again, $ {\langle {{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}},{{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}}\rangle} $ is a dual pair of vector spaces (a statistical duality), whereas $
{\langle {{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}},{{\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}}\rangle} $ is the [*classical statistical model*]{} [@dav70; @gud79; @stu86; @sin92; @bug96; @bug98; @gud98].
We remark that the Dirac measures $ {\delta_{\omega}}$, $ \omega \in \Omega $, are extreme points of the convex set $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, but in general there are also other extreme points. The extreme points of the convex set $ {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ are the characteristic functions $ \chi_E $, $ E \in \Sigma
$, these are the [*sharp*]{} classical effects (in the terminology of classical probability theory, the [*events*]{}), the other effects are [*unsharp*]{} or [*fuzzy*]{}.—Finally, we recall that $ {\sigma({{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}},{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}})} $ is the coarsest topology on $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ in which the elements of $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, considered as linear functionals on $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, are continuous.
Now assume that, for the two statistical models $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} = {\langle {{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}},{{\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}}\rangle} $ and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} = {\langle {{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $, a reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is given. It is not hard to show that the surjective affine mapping $R$ can uniquely be extended to a surjective linear map from $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ onto $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ which we also call $R$; the linear map $R$ is automatically positive and bounded. According to Eq. (\[dual3\]) the injective mapping $ R' \! : {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}\to {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ satisfies $$\label{dual4}
{\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\mu)A}} = {\langle {R\mu},{A}\rangle} = {\langle {\mu},{R'A}\rangle} = \int_{\Omega} R'A \, d\mu$$ for all $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and all $ A \in {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$; $R'$ is also affine. Moreover, from (\[dual4\]) it follows that the adjoint map of $R$ w.r.t. the dual pairs $ {\langle {{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}},{{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}}\rangle} $ and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $ exists, this adjoint map $ R' \! : {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\to {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ is a unique linear extension of the affine mapping $ R' \! : {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}\to {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and is also injective.
The existence of the adjoint map $R'$ w.r.t. the considered dual pairs is equivalent to $ R^*{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\subseteq {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ where $ R^* \! :
{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\to ({\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}})' $ is the Banach-space adjoint map of $R$. According to general results in duality theory, the existence of the linear map $R'$ is also equivalent to the $ {\sigma({{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}},{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}})} $-$
{\sigma({{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}})} $ continuity of $R$.—The crucial properties of the linear map $R$ are summarized in the following definition.
[**Definition**]{} We call a linear map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ a [*reduction map*]{} if
1. $ R{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}= {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$;
2. $R$ is $ {\sigma({{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}},{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}})}$-${\sigma({{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}})} $-continuous.
We will say that the linear map $R$ (or its affine restriction) together with the dual map $R'$ constitutes a [*reduction*]{} of the classical statistical model $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}},{{\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}}\rangle} $ to the quantum statistical model $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $. In particular, we will say that $R$ and $R'$ constitute a [*classical extension of quantum mechanics*]{}.
The properties of $R$ stated in this definition imply again that $R$ is bounded, positive, and surjective and that $R'$ exists and is injective. Furthermore, one easily shows that $R'$ is positive and that $ R'I = \chi_{\Omega} $ and $ R'{\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}\subseteq {\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$. The restrictions of $R$ and $R'$ to $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and $
{\mathcal{E}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, respectively, are affine; clearly, the restriction of $R$ to $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ is a reduction map as defined previously in the context of two general statistical models $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_1},{{\mathcal{E}}_1}\rangle} $ and $
{\langle {{\mathcal{S}}_2},{{\mathcal{E}}_2}\rangle} $.
It is not clear that classical extensions of quantum mechanics do exist, in fact, this may be considered surprising. The typical example of a reduction map is the so-called [*Misra-Bugajski map*]{} which we present in Section \[sec:mb\]. In Section \[sec:cextq\] we prove our result that every reduction map giving a classical extension of quantum mechanics is essentially equivalent to the Misra-Bugajski map. Thus, the Misra-Bugajski map is essentially unique and yields a canonical classical extension of quantum mechanics.
Sections \[sec:top\] and \[sec:meas\] provide prerequisite results on the topology and the Borel structure of the projective Hilbert space which will be identified with the extreme boundary $
{\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ of $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$. In Section \[sec:ex\] some examples of reduction maps different from the Misra-Bugajski map are presented. Finally, in Section \[sec:int\] the physical interpretation of the results of Sections \[sec:mb\] and \[sec:cextq\] is discussed.
The Topology of the Projective Hilbert Space {#sec:top}
============================================
In this section we undertake a systematic review and comparison, sketched out in this context previously by Bugajski [@bug94], of the various topologies on the set of the pure quantum states or, alternatively, on the projective Hilbert space associated with a nontrivial separable complex Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{H}}\neq \{0\} $.
Call two vectors of $ {\mathcal{H}}^* := {\mathcal{H}}\setminus \{0\} $ equivalent if they differ by a complex factor, and define the [*projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$*]{} to be the set of the corresponding equivalence classes which are often called [*rays*]{}. Instead of $
{\mathcal{H}}^* $ one can consider only the unit sphere of $ {\mathcal{H}}$, $ S := \{
{\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}\, | \, {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1 \} $. Then two unit vectors are called equivalent if they differ by a phase factor, and the set of the corresponding equivalence classes, i.e., the set of the [*unit rays*]{}, is denoted by $ S/S^1 $ (in this context, $ S^1 $ is understood as the set of all phase factors, i.e., as the set of all complex numbers of modulus $1$). Clearly, $ S/S^1 $ can be identified with the projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Furthermore, we can consider the elements of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ also as the one-dimensional subspaces of $ {\mathcal{H}}$ or, equivalently, as the one-dimensional orthogonal projections $ P = P_{{\varphi}} = {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|} $, $
{\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1 $.
The set $ {\mathcal{H}}^* $ and the unit sphere $S$ carry the topologies induced by the metric topology of $ {\mathcal{H}}$. Using the canonical projections $ \mu \! : {\mathcal{H}}^* \to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ \mu({\varphi}) := [{\varphi}] $, and $ \nu \! : S \to S/S^1 $, $ \nu(\chi) := [\chi]_S $, where $ [{\varphi}] $ is a ray and $ [\chi]_S $ a unit ray, we can equip the quotient sets $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ S/S^1 $ with their quotient topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $. Considering $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $, a set $ O \subseteq S/S^1 $ is called open if $ \nu^{-1}(O) $ is open.
\[thm:ss1\] The set $ S/S^1 $, equipped with the quotient topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $, is a second-countable Hausdorff space, and $ \nu $ is an open continuous mapping.
Analogously, it can be proved that the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $ on $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is separating and second-countable and that the canonical projection $ \mu $ is open (and continuous by the definition of $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $). Moreover, one can show that the natural bijection $ \beta \! : {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\to S/S^1 $, $ \beta([{\varphi}]) := \left[ \frac{{\varphi}}{{\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|}} \right]_S $, $ \beta^{-1}([\chi]_S) = [\chi] $, is a homeomorphism. Thus, identifying $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ S/S^1 $ by $ \beta $, the topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $ are the same.
The above definition of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ S/S^1 $ as well as of their quotient topologies is related to a geometrical point of view. From an operator-theoretical point of view, it is more obvious to identify $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ with $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, the extreme boundary of $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$, and to restrict one of the various operator topologies to $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. A further definition of a topology on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ is suggested by the interpretation of the one-dimensional projections $ P \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ as the pure quantum states and by the requirement that the transition probabilities between two pure states are continuous functions. Next we consider, taking account of $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}\subseteq {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}\subset {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\subseteq {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, the metric topologies on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ induced by the trace-norm topology of $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, resp., by the norm toplogy of $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$. After that we introduce the weak topology on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ defined by the transition-probability functions as well as the restrictions of several weak operator topologies to $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. Finally, we shall prove the surprising result that all the many toplogies on $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\cong S/S^1 \cong {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ are equivalent.
\[thm:esh-dist\] Let $ P_{{\varphi}} = {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|} \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ and $ P_{\psi} = {|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|} \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ where $ {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = {\left\|{\psi}\right\|} = 1 $. Then
1. $$\rho_n(P_{{\varphi}},P_{\psi}) := {\left\|{P_{{\varphi}} - P_{\psi}}\right\|}
= \sqrt{1 - |{\langle {{\varphi}}|{\psi}\rangle}|^2}
= \sqrt{1 - {\mathrm{tr} \, {P_{{\varphi}} P_{\psi}}}}$$ where the norm $ {\left\|{\cdot}\right\|} $ is the usual operator norm;
2. $$\rho_{\mathrm{tr}}(P_{{\varphi}},P_{\psi})
:= {\left\|{P_{{\varphi}} - P_{\psi}}\right\|}_{\mathrm{tr}}
= 2{\left\|{P_{{\varphi}} - P_{\psi}}\right\|},$$ in particular, the metrics $ \rho_n $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{tr}} $ on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ induced by the operator norm $ {\left\|{\cdot}\right\|} $ and the trace norm $ {\left\|{\cdot}\right\|}_{\mathrm{tr}} $ are equivalent;
3. $${\left\|{P_{{\varphi}} - P_{\psi}}\right\|} \leq {\left\|{{\varphi}- \psi}\right\|},$$ in particular, the mapping $ {\varphi}\mapsto P_{{\varphi}} $ from $S$ into $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ is continuous, $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ being equipped with $ \rho_n $ or $ \rho_{\mathrm{tr}} $.
According to statement (b) of Theorem \[thm:esh-dist\], the metrics $ \rho_n $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{tr}} $ give rise to the same topology $ {{\mathcal{T}}}_n = {{\mathcal{T}}}_{\mathrm{tr}} $ as well as to the same uniform structures.
\[thm:esh-sepc\] Equipped with either of the two metrics $ \rho_n $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{tr}} $, $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ is separable and complete.
Next we equip $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ with the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ generated by the functions $$\label{p}
P \mapsto h_Q(P) := {\mathrm{tr} \, {PQ}} = |{\langle {{\varphi}}|{\psi}\rangle}|^2$$ where $ P = {|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|} \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ Q = {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|} \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, and $ {\left\|{\psi}\right\|} = {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1 $. That is, $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ is the coarsest topology on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ such that all the real-valued functions $ h_Q $ are continuous. Note that $ {\mathrm{tr} \, {PQ}} = |{\langle {{\varphi}}|{\psi}\rangle}|^2 $ can be interpreted as the transition probability between the two pure states $P$ and $Q$.
\[lem:esh\] The set $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, equipped with the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $, is a second-countable Hausdorff space. A countable base of $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ is given by the finite intersections of the open sets $$\label{uklm}
\begin{array}{crl}
U_{klm} & := & h_{Q_k}^{-1} \left( \,
\left] q_l - \frac{1}{m},q_l + \frac{1}{m}
\right[ \, \right) \vspace{2mm}\\
& = & \left\{ P \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}\left| \,
\left| {\mathrm{tr} \, {PQ_k}} - q_l \right| < \frac{1}{m}
\right. \right\}
\end{array}$$ where $ \{ Q_k \}_{k \in {\mathbb N}} $ is a sequence of one-dimensional orthogonal projections being $ \rho_n $-dense in $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ \{ q_l \}_{l \in {\mathbb N}} $ is a sequence of numbers being dense in $ [0,1] \subseteq {\mathbb R}$, and $ m \in {\mathbb N}$.
Later we shall see that the topological space $ ({\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{\mathcal{T}}_0) $ is homeomorphic to $ ({\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{\mathcal{T}}_n) $ as well as to $ (S/S^1,{\mathcal{T}}_{\nu})
$. So it is also clear by Theorem \[thm:esh-sepc\] or Theorem \[thm:ss1\] that $ ({\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{\mathcal{T}}_0) $ is a second-countable Hausdorff space. The reason for stating Lemma \[lem:esh\] is that later we shall make explicit use of the particular countable base given there.
The weak operator topology on the space $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ of the bounded self-adjoint operators on $ {\mathcal{H}}$ is the coarsest topology such that the linear functionals $$A \mapsto {\langle {{\varphi}}|{A\psi}\rangle}$$ where $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ {\varphi},\psi \in {\mathcal{H}}$, are continuous. It is sufficient to consider only the functionals $$\label{afun}
A \mapsto {\langle {{\varphi}}|{A{\varphi}}\rangle}$$ where $ {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{H}}$ and $ {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1 $. The topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_w $ induced on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}\subset {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ by the weak operator topology is the coarsest topology on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ such that the restrictions of the linear functionals (\[afun\]) to $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ are continuous. Since these restrictions are given by $$P \mapsto {\langle {{\varphi}}|{P{\varphi}}\rangle} = {\mathrm{tr} \, {PQ}} = h_Q(P)$$ where $ P \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ and $ Q := {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|} \in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_w $ on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ is, according to (\[p\]), just our topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $.
Now we compare the weak topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ with the metric topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $.
\[thm:top-esh\] The weak topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ and the metric topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $ on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ are equal.
It looks surprising that the topolgies $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $ coincide. In fact, consider the sequence $ \{ P_{{\varphi}_n} \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ where the vectors $ {\varphi}_n \in {\mathcal{H}}$ constitute an orthonormal system. Then, w.r.t. the weak operator topology, $ P_{{\varphi}_n} \to 0 $ as $ n \to \infty $ whereas $ {\left\|{P_{{\varphi}_n} - P_{{\varphi}_{n+1}}}\right\|} =1 $ for all $ n \in {\mathbb N}$. However, $ 0 \not\in {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$; so $ \{ P_{{\varphi}_n} \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ is convergent neither w.r.t.$ {\mathcal{T}}_w = {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ nor w.r.t. $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $. Finally, like in the case of the weak operator topology, there is a natural uniform structure inducing $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $. The uniform structures that are canonically related to $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $ are different: $ \{ P_{{\varphi}_n} \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ is a Cauchy sequence w.r.t. the uniform structure belonging to $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ but not w.r.t. that belonging to $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $, i.e., w.r.t. the metric $ \rho_n $.
We remark that besides $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_w $ several further weak topologies can be defined on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. Let $ {\mathcal{C}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ be the Banach space of the compact self-adjoint operators and remember that $ ({\mathcal{C}_s({\mathcal{H}})})' = {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$. So the weak Banach-space topologies of $ {\mathcal{C}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, and $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ as well as the weak-\* Banach-space topologies of $ {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ can be restricted to $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, thus giving the topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_1 := \sigma({\mathcal{C}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}) \cap {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ {\mathcal{T}}_2 := \sigma({\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{C}_s({\mathcal{H}})}) \cap {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ {\mathcal{T}}_3 := \sigma({\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}) \cap {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ {\mathcal{T}}_4 := \sigma({\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}) \cap {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, and $ {\mathcal{T}}_5 := \sigma({\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})},({\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})})') \cap {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. Moreover, the strong operator topology induces a topology $ {\mathcal{T}}_s $ on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$. From the obvious inclusions $${\mathcal{T}}_w \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_1 \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_2 \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_3
\subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}} ,$$ $${\mathcal{T}}_1 = {\mathcal{T}}_4 \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_5 = {\mathcal{T}}_1 ,$$ and $${\mathcal{T}}_w \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_s \subseteq {\mathcal{T}}_n$$ as well as from the shown equality $${\mathcal{T}}_0 = {\mathcal{T}}_w = {\mathcal{T}}_n = {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}}$$ it follows that the topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal{T}}_5 $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_s $ also coincide with $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $.
Finally, we show that all the topologies on $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ are equivalent to the quotient topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $ on $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, resp., $ S/S^1 $.
\[thm:ss1-esh\] The mapping $ F \! : S/S^1 \to {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$, $ F([{\varphi}]_S := P_{{\varphi}} $ where $ {\varphi}\in S $, is a homeomorphism between the topological spaces $ (S/S^1,{\mathcal{T}}_{\nu}) $ and $ ({\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{\mathcal{T}}_0) $.
In the following, we identify the sets $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ S/S^1 $, and $ {\partial_e{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}}$ and call the identified set the [*projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$*]{}. However, we preferably think about the elements of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ as the one-dimensional orthogonal projections $ P = P_{{\varphi}} $. On $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ then the quotient topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mu} $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\nu} $, the weak topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_w $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal{T}}_5 $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_s $, and the metric topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}} $ coincide. So we can say that $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ carries a natural topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$; $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{T}}) $ is a second-countable Hausdorff space.
For our purposes, it is suitable to represent this topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$ as $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $, or $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}} $. As already discussed, the topologies $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $, $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $, and $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}} $ are canonically related to uniform structures. With respect to the uniform structure inducing $ {\mathcal{T}}_0 $, $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is not complete. The uniform structures related to $ {\mathcal{T}}_n $ and $ {\mathcal{T}}_{\mathrm{tr}} $ are the same since they are induced by the equivalent metrics $ \rho_n $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{tr}} $; $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\rho_n) $ and $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\rho_{\mathrm{tr}}) $ are separable complete metric spaces. So $ {\mathcal{T}}$ can be defined by a complete separable metric, i.e., $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{T}}) $ is a polish space.
The Measurable Structure of ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ {#sec:meas}
==========================================================
It is almost natural to define a measurable structure on the projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ by the $ \sigma $-algebra $ \Xi =
\Xi({\mathcal{T}}) $ generated by the $ {\mathcal{T}}$-open sets, i.e., $ \Xi $ is the smallest $ \sigma $-algebra containing the open sets of the natural topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$. In this way $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi) $ becomes a measurable space where the elements $ B \in \Xi $ are the Borel sets of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. However, since the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$ is generated by the transition-probability functions $ h_Q $ according to Eq.(\[p\]), it is also obvious to define the measurable structure of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ by the $ \sigma $-algebra $ \Sigma $ generated by the functions $ h_Q $, i.e., $ \Sigma $ is the smallest $ \sigma
$-algebra such that all the functions $ h_Q $ are measurable. A result due to Misra (1974) [@mis74 Lemma 3] clarifies the relation between $ \Xi $ and $ \Sigma $. Before stating that result, we recall the following simple lemma which we shall also use later.
\[lem:sigt-sigb\] Let $ (M,{\mathcal{T}}) $ be any second-countable topological space, $ {\mathcal{B}}\subseteq {\mathcal{T}}$ a countable base, and $ \Xi = \Xi({\mathcal{T}}) $ the $ \sigma $-algebra of the Borel sets of $M$. Then $ \Xi = \Xi({\mathcal{T}}) = \Xi({\mathcal{B}}) $ where $ \Xi({\mathcal{B}}) $ is the $ \sigma $-algebra generated by $ {\mathcal{B}}$; $ {\mathcal{B}}$ is a countable generator of $ \Xi $.
\[thm:misra\] The $ \sigma $-algebra $ \Xi = \Xi({\mathcal{T}}) $ of the Borel sets of the projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and the $ \sigma $-algbra $ \Sigma $ generated by the transition-probability functions $ h_Q $, $ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, are equal.
We remark that our proof of Misra’s theorem is much easier than Misra’s proof from 1974. The reason is that we explicitly used the countable base $ {\mathcal{B}}$ of $ {\mathcal{T}}$ consisting of $ \Sigma $-measurable sets.
Finally, consider the $ \sigma $-algebra $ \Xi_0 $ in $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ that is generated by all $ {\mathcal{T}}$-continuous real-valued functions on $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, i.e., $ \Xi_0 $ is the $ \sigma $-algebra of the Baire sets of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Obviously, $ \Sigma \subseteq \Xi_0 \subseteq \Xi $; so Theorem \[thm:misra\] implies that $ \Xi_0 = \Xi $. This result is, according to a general theorem, also a consequence of the fact that the topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$ of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is metrizable.
Summarizing, our result $ \Sigma = \Xi_0 = \Xi $ manifests that the projective Hilbert space carries, besides its natural topology $ {\mathcal{T}}$, also a very natural measurable structure $ \Xi $.
The Misra-Bugajski Reduction Map {#sec:mb}
================================
The expression $ {\mathrm{tr} \, {WA}} $ where $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is a density operator and $A$ a self-adjoint operator, plays a central role in quantum mechanics. We are going to show how, for bounded self-adjoint operators $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, this expression can be represented as an integral over the projective Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. This result was first obtained by Misra (1974) [@mis74] and independently by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (1976) [@ghi76], and an elementary construction for the case of a two-dimensional Hilbert space was discussed by Holevo (1982) [@hol82]. The significance of the representation of quantum expectations on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ was elucidated in seminal papers of Bugajski and Beltrametti [@bug91;93a-d; @bel95a;b]. Further discussion can be found in [@stu01; @bus04].
\[thm:qc\] For every probability measure $ \mu $ on $ ({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi) $, there exists a uniquely determined density operator $ W_{\mu} \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ such that, for all $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $${\mathrm{tr} \, {W_{\mu}A}} = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} \ \mu(dP).$$
The next theorem summarizes the properties of the mapping $ \mu \mapsto W_{\mu} $. Remember that the elements of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ are the extreme points of the convex set $ {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$.
\[thm:mb\] The mapping $ R \! : {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}\to {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ R(\mu) = W_{\mu} $, where$ {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ denotes the convex set of all probability measures on $ {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$, has the following properties:
1. $R$ is affine, i.e., for every convex linear combination $ \mu = \alpha \mu_1 + (1-\alpha)\mu_2 $ of $ \mu_1,\mu_2 \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$, $ 0 \leq \alpha \leq 1 $, we have $ W_\mu = \alpha W_{\mu_1} + (1 - \alpha)W_{\mu_2} $;
2. $R$ is surjective, but not injective (provided that $ \dim {\mathcal{H}}\geq 2 $);
3. $ R(\mu) = P $, $ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, holds if and only if $ \mu $ is equal to the Dirac measure $ \delta_P $;
4. $R$ maps the Dirac measures on $ {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$ bijectively onto the pure quantum states $ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and all other probability measures on $ {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$ “many-to-one” onto the mixed quantum states $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$.
Consider now the unique linear extension $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ of the affine mapping $ R \! : {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}\to {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$. The extended map $R$ is determined by $$\label{mb-map}
{\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\nu)A}} = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} \ \nu(dP)$$ where $ \nu \in {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ and $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$. From $${\langle {R\nu},{A}\rangle} = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} \ \nu(dP) = {\langle {\nu},{f_A}\rangle}$$ where $ f_A(P) = {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} $ it follows that the dual map $R'$ of $R$ w.r.t. the considered dualities $ {\langle {{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}},{{\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}}\rangle} $ and $
{\langle {{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $ exists and is given by $ R'A = f_A $. The existence of $R'$ in this sense means that the range of the usual adjoint map $ R^* \! : {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\to ({\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}})' $ is under $ {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$. According to the discussion in the introduction and the definition there, $R$ is a reduction map and $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}},{{\mathcal{E}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}}\rangle} $ a classical extension of the quantum statistical model $ {\langle {{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}},{{\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}}\rangle} $. We call the reduction map $R$ given by (\[mb-map\]) the [*Misra-Bugajski map*]{}. The affine mapping $R$ was introduced by Misra in 1974 [@mis74] who considered it as a new way of defining the notion of quantum state; it was the late S. Bugajski who realized that this map determines a classical extension of the quantum statistical duality and who initiated a research program to elucidate the physical significance of this extension—see, e.g., [@bug91;93a-d; @bel95a;b].
The adjoint $R'$ of the Misra-Bugajski map $R$ associates the quantum mechanical effects $ A \in {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$ with the classical effects $ R'A = f_A \in {\mathcal{E}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$. However, except for the trivial cases $ A =
0 $ or $ A = I $, such a function $ f_A $, $f_A(P)= {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} $, is never the characteristic function $ \chi_B $ of some set $ B \in \Xi
$; that is, the functions $ f_A $ describe unsharp (fuzzy) effects.
The Representation of Classical Extensions of Quantum Mechanics {#sec:cextq}
===============================================================
Now we are going to show that every classical extension of quantum mechanics is essentially given by the Misra-Bugajski reduction map. This result was conjectured in [@bus04], and the proof given here takes up elements of a very rough sketch given there.
Assume a classical extension on a measurable space $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}$ is given by the linear maps $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ R' \! : {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}\to {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$. Then, for $\mu\in{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and $A\in{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, we have $${\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\mu)A}} = {\langle {R\mu},{A}\rangle} = {\langle {\mu},{R'A}\rangle}
= \int_{\Omega} R'A \, d\mu; \label{R-mu}$$ setting $ \mu = {\delta_{\omega}}$ where $ {\delta_{\omega}}$ denotes the Dirac measure of a point $ \omega \in \Omega $, we obtain $$(R'A)(\omega) = {\mathrm{tr} \, {(R{\delta_{\omega}})A}}. \label{R-A}$$ Hence, $${\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\mu)A}} = \int_{\Omega} {\mathrm{tr} \, {(R{\delta_{\omega}})A \ \mu(d\omega)}}. \label{tr-int}$$ To prove our main result, Theorem \[thm10\] below, we need several lemmata.
\[lem1\] For $ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, the set $ \{ \omega \in \Omega \, | \, R{\delta_{\omega}}= P \} $ is measurable. If $P=R\mu$, then $$\mu({\{{\omega\in\Omega} \, | \, {R{\delta_{\omega}}= P}\}}) = 1.$$ In particular, for every $P\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ there exists an $\omega\in\Omega$ such that $R{\delta_{\omega}}=P$.
[ $\square$]{}
\[lem3\] Let $P_n\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $n\in\mathbb N$, and assume that, for some $W_0\in{\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mathrm{tr} \, {W_0P_n}}= 1. \label{W0-lim}$$ Then there exists an element $P\in{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\left\|{P_n-P}\right\|}=0$; moreover, $W_0=P$.
[ $\square$]{}
It can be shown that the norm convergence of a sequence $ \{ P_n
\}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ in $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ P_n = P_{{\varphi}_n}, $ to $ P = P_{\psi}
\in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ entails the existence of a subsequence $\{{\varphi}_{n_j}\}_{j\in\mathbb N}$ of $\{{\varphi}_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ such that $\lim_{j\to\infty}{\left\|{{\varphi}_{n_j}-e^{i\alpha}\psi}\right\|}=0$ with some $\alpha\in\mathbb R$. The example $${\varphi}_n: = e^{in\pi}\psi=(-1)^n\psi, \quad
{\left\|{P_{{\varphi}_n} - P_\psi}\right\|} \to 0 \ {\rm as} \ n \to \infty$$ shows that convergence at the level of vectors can follow only for a subsequence. Concerning the sequences $ \{ {\varphi}_n \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ and $ \{ {\varphi}_{n_j} \}_{j \in {\mathbb N}} $ introduced at the beginning of the preceding proof, it finally turns out that the subsequence $ \{ {\varphi}_{n_j} \}_{j \in {\mathbb N}} $ is even norm-convergent (which is not essential for the proof), however, the restriction of $ \{ {\varphi}_n \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}} $ to a subsequence is essential.
\[lem5\] Let $${\widetilde{\Omega}}:= {\{{\omega \in \Omega} \, | \, {R{\delta_{\omega}}\in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}}\}}
= {\{{\omega \in \Omega} \, | \, {{\mathrm{tr} \, {(R{\delta_{\omega}})P}} = 1 \ {\rm for \ some}
\ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}}\}}.$$ Then ${\widetilde{\Omega}}$ is a measurable subset of $\Omega$.
[ $\square$]{}
Next we shall redefine our reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ w.r.t. the measurable space $ ({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}}) $ where $ {\widetilde{\Sigma}}:= \Sigma \cap {\widetilde{\Omega}}$ (since $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}$ is measurable, we have that $ {\widetilde{\Sigma}}= \{ E \in \Sigma \, | \, E \subseteq {\widetilde{\Omega}}\}
\subseteq \Sigma $). To that end, we introduce $${\mathcal{N}}:= \bigl\{ \nu \in {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\, \bigl| \, \nu(E)=0, \ E \in \Sigma,
\ E \subseteq \Omega \setminus {\widetilde{\Omega}}\bigl\}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}_{{\mathcal{N}}}}& := & {\bigl\{ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\, \bigl| \, \mu(\Omega \setminus {\widetilde{\Omega}})
= 0 \bigl\}}
= \bigl\{ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\, \bigl| \, \mu({\widetilde{\Omega}}) = 1 \bigl\} \\
& = & {\mathcal{N}}\cap {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The set ${\mathcal{N}}$ is a norm-closed subspace of $ {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, and $ {\mathcal{S}_{{\mathcal{N}}}}$ is a norm-closed face of $ {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$. Moreover, $ ({\mathcal{N}},{\mathcal{S}_{{\mathcal{N}}}}) $ is a base-normed Banach space with closed positive cone; we do not need these results here. The spaces $ {\mathcal{N}}$ and $ {{\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathbb R}}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})}$ are canonically related by the linear map $ J \! : {\mathcal{N}}\to {{\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathbb R}}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})}$ defined by $$\nu \mapsto {\tilde{\nu}}= J\nu := \nu\vert_{{\widetilde{\Sigma}}}$$ where $ \nu\vert_{{\widetilde{\Sigma}}} $ denotes the restriction of $ \nu $ to $ {\widetilde{\Sigma}}$; $ J $ is a linear isomorphism preserving norm and order. The inverse $ J^{-1} $ is given by $${\tilde{\nu}}\mapsto \nu = J^{-1}{\tilde{\nu}}, \quad \nu(A) = {\tilde{\nu}}(A \cap {\widetilde{\Omega}})$$ where $ A \in \Sigma $. We shall only use that $J$ is a linear isomorphism.—In the context of the following theorem, $ {\tilde{\delta}_{\omega}}$ denotes the restriction of the Dirac measure $ {\delta_{\omega}}$, defined on $
\Sigma $ and concentrated at $ \omega \in {\widetilde{\Omega}}$, to $ {\widetilde{\Sigma}}$.
\[thm6\] Let a linear map $ {\widetilde R}\! : {{\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathbb R}}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ be defined according to $ {\widetilde R}{\tilde{\nu}}:= R\nu $ where $ J\nu = {\tilde{\nu}}$, i.e., $ {\widetilde R}= RJ^{-1} $. Then
1. $ {\widetilde R}{\mathcal{S}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})}= {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$;
2. $ {\widetilde R}$ is $ {\sigma({{{\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathbb R}}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})},{\mathcal{F}_{{\mathbb R}}({\widetilde{\Omega}},{\widetilde{\Sigma}})}})} $-$ {\sigma({{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})},{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}})}
$-continuous;
3. $ \bigl\{ {\widetilde R}{\tilde{\delta}_{\omega}}\bigl| \, \omega \in {\widetilde{\Omega}}\bigr\}
= {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$.
That is, $ {\widetilde R}$ is a reduction map with the additional property (iii).
[ $\square$]{}
In the sequel we omit the tilde notation and understand by $R:{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to{\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ a linear map with the properties (i)-(iii) of Theorem \[thm6\]. We have again that $${\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\mu)A}} = \int_{\Omega} R'A \, d\mu
= \int_{\Omega} {\mathrm{tr} \, {(R{\delta_{\omega}})A \ \mu(d\omega)}} \label{tr-int2}$$ holds for all $\mu\in{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ and $A\in{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ (cf. Eqs. (\[R-mu\])-(\[tr-int\])). Moreover, now the equality $${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}= \{ R{\delta_{\omega}}| \, \omega \in \Omega \} \label{ph-R}$$ is satisfied.
\[lem7\] Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be the natural topology of ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $\Xi=\Xi({\mathcal{T}})$ the $\sigma$-algebra of the Borel sets of ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. The mapping $ i \! : \Omega \to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ defined by $ i(\omega) := R{\delta_{\omega}}$ is $\Sigma$-$\Xi$-measurable.
[ $\square$]{}
By virtue of Eq. (\[ph-R\]), $i$ is a surjective measurable mapping.
\[thm10\] Any reduction map $R$ with the property $\{ R{\delta_{\omega}}| \, \omega \in \Omega \}={\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ can be represented according to $${\mathrm{tr} \, {(R\mu)A}} = \int_{\Omega} {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} \ (\mu \circ i^{-1})(dP) \label{R-mui}$$ where $\mu\in{\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, $A\in{\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ i \! : \Omega \to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is the mapping $\omega\mapsto i(\omega)=R{\delta_{\omega}}$, and $ \mu \circ i^{-1} $ the image measure.
Given any reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, every density operator $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is the image of some probability measure $
\mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$, i.e., $ W = R\mu $. Theorem \[thm10\] now states that, after removing the redundant $ \omega \in \Omega $ for which $
R {\delta_{\omega}}\not\in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $W$ is the [*weak integral*]{} $$R\mu = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} P \ (\mu \circ i^{-1})(dP) \label{R-muiw}$$ of the elements $ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ (i.e., of the identity map of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$) w.r.t. the probability measure $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$. The classical [*sample space $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}$*]{} can be replaced by the [*phase space $ {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$*]{} (for the interpretation of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ as a phase space, see Section \[sec:int\]), Eqs. (\[R-mui\]) and (\[R-muiw\]) show the central role of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Comparing Eq. (\[R-mui\]) with Eq.(\[mb-map\]), the latter specifying the Misra-Bugajski map $
R_{MB} $, we obtain $$\label{r-rmb}
R\mu = R_{MB}(\mu \circ i^{-1}).$$ If the surjective measurable map $i$ also transforms the measurable sets of $ \Sigma $ into measurable sets of $ \Xi $, then every probability measure $ \mu' \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ is of the form $ \mu' = \mu \circ i^{-1} $. In this case $R$ can be replaced by $ R_{MB} $; in the case where not every $ \mu' $ is of the form $ \mu \circ i^{-1} $, $R$ can be restated as some restriction of $ R_{MB} $. Summarizing, every classical extension of quantum mechanics is essentially given by the Misra-Bugajski reduction map; therefore, $ R_{MB} $ is distinguished under all reduction maps.
However, the examples presented in the next section show that the mapping $i$ is necessary for the statement of Theorem \[thm10\] even if $ \Omega = {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$.
Examples {#sec:ex}
========
The following examples of reduction maps are also of interest by themselves.
\[ex1\]
Let $ {\mathcal{K}}$ be an infinite-dimensional closed subspace of the Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{H}}$, $ V \! : {\mathcal{H}}\to {\mathcal{H}}$ a partial isometry satisfying $ V{\mathcal{K}}= {\mathcal{H}}$ and $ V{{\mathcal{K}}}^{\perp} = \{ 0 \} $, and let $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}:= \{ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\, | \, P = P_{{\varphi}}, \|{\varphi}\| = 1, {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{K}}\} $ ($ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$ can be identified with the projective Hilbert space associated with the Hilbert space $ {\mathcal{K}}$). Using the general information given in the paragraph after the proof of Lemma \[lem3\], one easily proves that $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$ is a norm-closed subset of $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$; therefore, $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$ is $ \Xi $-measurable, and the following integral in (\[W-mu1\]) makes sense. In fact, according to $${\mathrm{tr} \, {W_\mu A}} = \int_{{{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {VPV^* \! A}} \ \mu(dP) \label{W-mu1}$$ where $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, for each probability measure $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ concentrated on $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$, i.e., $ \mu({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}) = 1 $, a density operator $ W_{\mu} \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is defined. We can identify the set of these probability measures with $ {\mathcal{S}}({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})},\Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) $ where $ \Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}} := \Xi \cap {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}=\{ B \in \Xi \, | \, B \subseteq {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}\}
\subseteq \Xi $. Moreover, the affine mapping $ \mu \mapsto W_\mu $ can be extended to a reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}}_{{\mathbb R}}({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})},\Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) \to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$; $R$ maps the Dirac measures of $ {\mathcal{S}}({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})},\Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) $ bijectively onto $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, namely, $ R{\delta_P}= VPV^* $, $ P \in {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$.
Setting $ (\Omega,\Sigma) := ({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})},\Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) $, it follows from Lemma \[lem1\] that, for $ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ and any $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}}({{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})},\Xi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) $, $ R\mu = Q $ if and only if $ \mu = {\delta_P}$ with $ P = V^*QV $. Furthermore, we have for the set $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}$ introduced in Lemma \[lem5\] and for the mapping $ i \! : {\widetilde{\Omega}}\to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ of Lemma \[lem7\] that $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}= \Omega $ and $ i(P) = R{\delta_P}= VPV^* $. In particular, if $ {\mathcal{K}}= {\mathcal{H}}$ (where $ {\mathcal{H}}$ need not be infinite-dimensional) and $V$ is a unitary operator, then $ \Omega = {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}= {\widetilde{\Omega}}$ and $ i(P) = VPV^* $.
\[ex2\]
Letting $ {\mathcal{K}}$, $V$, and $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$ as in the preceding example, then for each probability measure $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ a density operator $ W_\mu \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is defined according to $${\mathrm{tr} \, {W_\mu A}} = \int_{{{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {VPV^* \! A}} \ \mu(dP)
+ \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus{{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {PA}} \ \mu(dP) \label{W-mu2}$$ where $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ and $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$ is the set-theoretical complement of $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$. Note that $ \mu $ is a probability measure on $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ whereas in the preceding example $ \mu $ is a probability measure on $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$. The affine mapping $ \mu \mapsto W_{\mu} $ given by (\[W-mu2\]) can be extended to a reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$; $R$ maps the Dirac measures of $ {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ onto $ {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, partially two-to-one: $$R{\delta_P}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
VPV^* & {\rm if} & P \in {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}\vspace{1mm}\\
P & {\rm if} & P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}.
\end{array} \right.$$ In fact, from $ R{\delta_P}= Q $ it follows that $ P = V^*QV $ if $ Q \in {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$, and $ P = V^*QV $ or $ P = Q $ if $ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$. By Lemma \[lem1\], $ R\mu = Q $ for any $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ is equivalent to $ \mu = \delta_{V^*QV} $ if $ Q \in {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$, resp., to $ \mu = \alpha \delta_{V^*QV} + (1 - \alpha) \delta_Q $, $ 0 \leq \alpha \leq 1 $, if $ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$.
Setting $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}:= {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$, we obtain $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}= \Omega $ and $ i \! : {\widetilde{\Omega}}\to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ i(P) = R{\delta_P}= \chi_{{{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}}(P) \, VPV^* + \chi_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\setminus {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}}(P) \, P $ where $ \chi_{{{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}} $, for instance, is the characteristic function of the set $ {{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}})}$.
\[ex3\]
Now let $ {\mathcal{K}}$ be an infinite-dimensional closed subspace of $ {\mathcal{H}}$ with an infinite dimensional orthocomplement $ {\mathcal{K}}^\perp $ and let $ V_1 $ and $ V_2 $ be partial isometries satisfying $$\begin{array}{lccclcl}
V_1{\mathcal{K}}& = & {\mathcal{H}}, & \quad & V_1{\mathcal{K}}^\perp & = & \{0\} \vspace{1mm}\\
V_2{\mathcal{K}}^\perp & = & {\mathcal{H}}, & \quad & V_2{\mathcal{K}}\ & = & \{0\}.
\end{array}$$ Then each probability measure $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ determines a density operator $ W_\mu \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ according to $${\mathrm{tr} \, {W_\mu A}} = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathrm{tr} \, {(V_1PV_1^* + V_2PV_2^*)A}} \ \mu(dP)
\label{W-mu3}$$ where $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$. The affine mapping $ \mu \mapsto W_{\mu} $ given by (\[W-mu3\]) again extends to a reduction map $ R \! : {\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb R}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}\to {\mathcal{T}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$; $R$ maps the Dirac measures of $ {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ onto the quantum states $$\begin{aligned}
R{\delta_P}& = & V_1PV_1^* + V_2PV_2^*
= {|V_1{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,V_1{\varphi}|} + {|V_2{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,V_2{\varphi}|} \\
& = & {\left\|{\chi_1}\right\|}^2 P_{\frac{\chi_1}{{\left\|{\chi_1}\right\|}}}
+ {\left\|{\chi_2}\right\|}^2 P_{\frac{\chi_2}{{\left\|{\chi_2}\right\|}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $ P = P_{{\varphi}} $, $ \chi_1 := V_1{\varphi}$, $ \chi_2 := V_2{\varphi}$, and $ {\left\|{\chi_1}\right\|}^2 + {\left\|{\chi_2}\right\|}^2 = 1 $. In general, the states $ R{\delta_P}$ are mixed; $ R{\delta_P}\in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is equivalent to $ P = P_{{\varphi}} $ with $ {\varphi}= a{\varphi}_1 + b{\varphi}_2 $, $ {\varphi}_1 \in {\mathcal{K}}$, $ {\varphi}_2 \in {\mathcal{K}}^{\perp} $, $ {\left\|{{\varphi}_1}\right\|} = {\left\|{{\varphi}_2}\right\|} = 1 $, $ a,b \in {\mathbb C}$, $ |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1 $, and $ V_1{\varphi}_1 = V_2{\varphi}_2 $. In particular, for each $ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, there is one unit vector $ {\varphi}_1 \in {\mathcal{K}}$ and one unit vector $ {\varphi}_2 \in {\mathcal{K}}^{\perp} $ such that $ R\delta_{P_{{\varphi}_1}} = R\delta_{P_{{\varphi}_2}} = Q $, $ {\varphi}_1 $ and $ {\varphi}_2 $ are uniquely determined up to phase factors. Let $ {\mathcal{K}}_Q $ be the two-dimensional subspace of $ {\mathcal{H}}$ that is spanned by $ {\varphi}_1 $ and $ {\varphi}_2 $ and let $ {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) := \{ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\, | \,
P = P_{{\varphi}}, {\left\|{{\varphi}}\right\|} = 1, {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{K}}_Q \} $. Then $ R{\delta_P}= Q $ if and only if $ P \in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) $, and by Lemma \[lem1\], $ R\mu = Q $ for any $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ if and only if $ \mu $ is concentrated on $ {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) $, i.e., $ \mu({\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q)) = 1 $.
It follows that $ {\mathcal{K}}_{Q_1} \cap {\mathcal{K}}_{Q_2} = \{ 0 \} $ as well as $ {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_{Q_1}) \cap {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_{Q_2}) = \emptyset $ for $ Q_1 \neq Q_2 $ and that $ \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathcal{K}}_Q \neq {\mathcal{H}}$ as well as $ \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) \neq {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Writing $ {(\Omega,\Sigma)}:= {({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}$, we obtain $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}= \{ P \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\, | \, P \in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) \ {\rm for} \
{\rm some} \ Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\} = \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{K}}_Q) $, $ {\widetilde{\Omega}}\neq \Omega $, and $ i \! : {\widetilde{\Omega}}\to {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ i(P) = R{\delta_P}= V_1PV_1^* + V_2PV_2^* $.
Physical Interpretation {#sec:int}
=======================
Interpreting the bounded self-adjoint operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ as quantum observables with real values, the expectation value of $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$ in the state $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is given by $ {\rm tr} \, WA $. Analogously, if $ \Omega $ is a classical phase space with the Borel structure $ \Sigma $, the states are described by the probability measures on $ \Omega $ and the observables by the (bounded) measurable functions on $ \Omega $; the expectation value of a classical observable $ f \in {\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb R}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ in the state $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{(\Omega,\Sigma)}}$ is $ \int f d\mu $. According to Theorems \[thm:qc\] and \[thm:mb\], each $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ is of the form $ W = R\mu = W
_{\mu} $, $ \mu $ being some probablity measure on $ \Omega = {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. That is, for every $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$ there exists a probability measure $ \mu \in {\mathcal{S}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$ such that for all $ A \in {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ A = A^* $, $$\label{qc}
{\rm tr} \, WA = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} f_A d\mu$$ holds where $ f_A $ is the function $ P \mapsto f_A(P) = {\rm tr} \, PA $ on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Viewing the projective Hilbert space as a classical phase space, this result means that the quantum states can be seen as classical states and the quantum observables as classical ones where the expectation values can be expressed in classical terms. However, the injective map $ A \mapsto f_A $ is not surjective, as is easily seen. That is, not all classical observables on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ represent quantum ones, which is related to the fact that the quantum states $W$ correspond to the equivalence classes $ R^{-1}(\{W\}) $ of classical states, each member of an equivalence class giving the same quantum mechanical expectation values.
Taking up the notion of quantum statistical model reviewed in the introduction, the result (\[qc\]) can, much more fundamentally, be interpreted in terms of probabilities if the operators $A$ are specified to be effects; in that case, $ {\rm tr} \, WA $ is interpreted to be the probability for the occurrence of ‘yes’ of the effect $A$ in the state $W$. Eq. (\[qc\]) then states that the quantum mechanical effects $ A \in {\mathcal{E}({\mathcal{H}})}$ can classically be described by measurable functions taking values between the numbers $0$ and $1$, i.e., by the classical effects $ f_A \in {\mathcal{E}{({\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})},\Xi)}}$. In the context of classical probability theory, such effects can be interpreted as “unsharp” measurements of events, these being the classical analogs of the quantum mechanical effects and extending probability theory to [*operational*]{} or [*fuzzy probability theory*]{} (cf. [@gud79; @stu86; @bug96; @gud98]). Again, the map $ A \mapsto f_A $, $ 0 \leq A \leq 1 $, into the measurable functions $f$ on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ 0 \leq f \leq 1 $, is injective, but not surjective. In particular, the orthogonal projections, describing the ideal quantum mechanical yes–no measurements, are not mapped onto the characteristic functions, except for the trivial cases; the “sharp” classical events do not correspond to any quantum mechanical effects.
In general, quantum observables with values in some space $M$, $ (M,\Upsilon) $ being a measurable space, are operationally described by [*positive operator-valued measures (POVMs)*]{} $ F \! : \Upsilon \rightarrow {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$, $ b \mapsto F(b) $, $ 0 \leq F(b) \leq 1 $; $$b \mapsto {\rm tr} \, WF(b)$$ is the probability distribution of the observable $F$ in the state $ W \in {\mathcal{S}({\mathcal{H}})}$. The analogous classical concept is that of [*fuzzy random variables*]{} which generalizes the usual concept of random variables (cf. [@stu86; @sin92; @bug98; @gud98]). Given a classical sample or phase space $ (\Omega,\Sigma) $ and a space $ (M,\Upsilon) $ of possible measurement results, a fuzzy random variable is a Markov kernel $ K \! : \Omega \times \Upsilon \rightarrow [0,1] $, i.e., for each $ b \in \Upsilon $, $ K( \, . \, ,b) $ is a measurable function on $ \Omega $ and, for each $ \omega \in \Omega $, $ K(\omega, \, . \, ) $ is a probability measure on $ \Upsilon $; $$b \mapsto \int_{\Omega} K(\omega,b) \, \mu(d\omega)$$ is the probability distribution of the observable, resp., fuzzy random variable $K$ in the state $ \mu \in {\cal M}(\Omega) $. Now, in the case of a POVM $F$ on $ (M,\Upsilon) $, Eq. (\[qc\]) can be rewritten according to $$\label{qc-povm}
{\rm tr} \, WF(b) = \int_{{\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}} K(P,b) \, \mu(dP)$$ where the Markov kernel $ K \! : {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\times \Upsilon \rightarrow [0,1] $ is defined by $ K(P,b) := {\rm tr} \, PF(b) $. That is, every quantum observable can be represented by a classical observable; however, there are many more fuzzy random variables $ K \! : {\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}\times \Upsilon \rightarrow [0,1] $ than POVMs $ F \! : \Upsilon \rightarrow {\mathcal{B}_s({\mathcal{H}})}$.
Summarizing, the statistical scheme of quantum mechanics can be reformulated in classical terms by virtue of the Misra-Bugajski map. This reformulation is complete in the sense that all quantum states and quantum effects are represented as probability measures and functions on the phase space ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$, respectively; however, not all classically possible observables are quantum ones. Quantum mechanics can thus be understood as a fuzzy probability theory on ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ with a selection rule for the observables; briefly, quantum mechanics is a [*reduced*]{} fuzzy probability theory. Moreover, the projective Hilbert space is a differentiable manifold carrying a natural symplectic structure which allows one to reformulate quantum dynamics in terms of Hamiltonian mechanics (cf.[@gue77; @kib79; @cir84; @cir90; @bro01; @bje05]). Hence, quantum mechanics can be interpreted to be a reduced classical statistical mechanics on the phase space ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$.
As already observed by Bugajski in 1991, the classical embedding of quantum mechanics induced by the Misra-Bugajski map contains all ingredients of a hidden-variables, or ontological, model of quantum mechanics. In fact, there is a phase space whose points may be taken to play the role of [*ontic*]{} states describing the hypothetical underlying reality of the quantum system. Next, there is the set of probability measures $\mu$ over the phase space, which can be interpreted as [*epistemic*]{} states describing the lack of information about the actual ontic state in a preparation of the system represented by $\mu$. Finally, there is the correspondence (\[qc\]) between quantum and classical expectation values which determines the correspondences $\mu\mapsto W_\mu$ and $A\mapsto f_A$ between the quantum states and observables on the one hand and the classical epistemic states and functions on phase space on the other hand.
This ontological model is noncontextual with respect to measurements since to every quantum effect probabilities are assigned that are independent of the observables to which this effect may belong. However, the model does display contextuality with respect to preparations, in the sense defined by Spekkens [@spe05]: two preparations that are statistically indistinguishable and hence represented by one and the same density operator $W$ are generally represented by different probability measures $\mu$ and $\mu'$ on the phase space ${\mathcal{P}({\mathcal{H}})}$ such that $W=W_\mu=W_{\mu'}$. This was demonstrated in the proof of Theorem \[thm:mb\], part (b).
The function $P\mapsto K(P,b)$ appearing in (\[qc-povm\]) can be interpreted as the probability for the outcome of a measurement of the observable $F$ to lie in the set $b$, given that the ontic state of the system is $P$. This is to say that the present ontological model constitutes a so-called stochastic or non-deterministic hidden-variables model.
An ontological model of quantum mechanics can be said to ascribe reality to the pure quantum states if any change in a pure state must be associated with a corresponding change in the ontic state of the system [@spe05]. The Misra-Bugajski map satisfies this condition since the correspondence between pure quantum states and point measures is given by a map $\delta_P\mapsto R\delta_P=P$.
In [@har04], Hardy has given a proof of the fact that any ontological model that reproduces the quantum mechanical expectations must carry a large amount of “quantum ontological excess baggage"; more precisely, it is shown that even for a finite-dimensional quantum system, any ontological model that accounts for all quantum probabilities is based on a classical phase space with infinitely many points, so that the epistemic states form an infinite-dimensional simplex.
The requirements Hardy stipulates of an ontological model of quantum mechanics are essentially those of our definition of a reduction map $R$. If one accepts, in addition, the seemingly innocent requirement that the adjoint map $R^*$ associates bounded quantum observables with bounded measurable functions on phase space, then Theorem \[thm10\] asserts that, after removing redundant points from the phase space, $R$ is related to the Misra-Bugajski map via the map $i$ according to (\[R-mui\]) and (\[r-rmb\]), so that essentially all ontological models arise from some classical reduction map as defined in the present paper. The uncountable infinity of point measures in the set of epistemic states is now an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm10\].
It is evident that preparation contextuality is necessary for any classical reduction map. As Examples \[ex2\] and \[ex3\] show, the correspondence $\delta_P\mapsto R\delta_P$ may be many-to-one, and there may be point measures (hence ontic states) that are mapped to mixed quantum states. The ontological model induced by the Misra-Bugajski map is thus essentially distinguished (modulo similarity) by a minimality or nonredundancy property in the sense that a bijective correspondence is established between the pure quantum states and the points of the associated classical phase space. As Example 1 shows, this correspondence identifies Dirac measures with pure quantum states up to a similarity transformation.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was completed during W. S.’s visit at Perimeter Institute (July-August 2007). Hospitality and support to both authors during their visiting periods are gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{} Beltrametti, E. G., and S. Bugajski, “A Classical Extension of Quantum Mechanics,” [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**28**]{}, 3329–3343 (1995); “Quantum Observables in Classical Frameworks,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{}, 1221–1229 (1995).
Beltrametti, E. G., and S. Bugajski, “Effect Algebras and Statistical Physical Theories,” [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}, 3020–3030 (1997).
Beltrametti, E. G., and G. Cassinelli, [*The Logic of Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Addison-Wesley, London (1981).
Bjelaković, I., and W. Stulpe, “The Projective Hilbert Space as a Classical Phase Space for Nonrelativistic Quantum Dynamics,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**44**]{}, 2041–2049 (2005).
Brody, D. C., and L. P. Hughston, “Geometric Quantum Mechanics," [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}, 19–53 (2001).
Bugajski, S., “Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics is a Classical Theory,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{}, 961–971 (1991); “Delinearization of Quantum Logic,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**32**]{}, 389–398 (1993); “Classical Frames for a Quantum Theory—A Bird’s-Eye View,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**32**]{}, 969–977 (1993); “On Classical Representations of Convex Descriptions,” [*Z. Naturforsch.*]{} [**48a**]{}, 469–470 (1993).
Bugajski, S., “Topologies on Pure Quantum States,” [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**190**]{}, 5–8 (1994).
Bugajski, S., “Fundamentals of Fuzzy Probability Theory,” [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**35**]{}, 2229–2244 (1996).
Bugajski, S., K.-E. Hellwig, and W. Stulpe, “On Fuzzy Random Variables and Statistical Maps,” [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**41**]{}, 1–11 (1998).
Busch, P., “Less (Precision) Is More (Information): Quantum Information in Terms of Quantum Statistical Models,” quant-ph/0401027 (2004).
Busch, P., M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, [*Operational Quantum Physics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**m31**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1995).
Cirelli, R., and P. Lanzavecchia, “Hamiltonian Vector Fields in Quantum Mechanics,” [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**79 B**]{}, 271–283 (1984).
Cirelli, R., A. Mania, and L. Pizzocchero, “Quantum Mechanics as an Infinite-Dimensional Hamiltonian System with Uncertainty Structure,” Parts I and II, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{}, 2891–2897, 2898–2903 (1990).
Davies, E. B., [*Quantum Theory of Open Systems*]{}, Academic Press, London (1976).
Davies, E. B., and J. Lewis, “An Operational Approach to Quantum Probability,” [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{}, 239–260 (1970).
Ghirardi, G.-C., A. Rimini, and T. Weber, “Reformulation and a Possible Modification of Quantum-Mechanics and EPR Paradox," [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**36B**]{}, 97–118 (1976).
Gudder, S., [*Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, North Holland, New York (1979).
Gudder, S., “Fuzzy Probability Theory,” [*Demonstr. Math.*]{} [**31**]{}, 235–254 (1998).
Günther, C., “Prequantum Bundles and Projective Hilbert Geometries," [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**16**]{}, 447–464 (1977).
Hardy, L., “Quantum Ontological Excess Baggage,” [*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics*]{} [**35**]{}, 267–276 (2004).
Holevo, A. S., [*Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory*]{}, North Holland, Amsterdam (1982).
Holevo, A. S., [*Statistical Structure of Quantum Theory*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**m67**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2001).
Kibble, T. W. B., “Geometrization of Quantum Mechanics," [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{}, 189–201 (1979).
Ludwig, G., [*Deutung des Begriffs “physikalische Theorie” und axiomatische Grundlegung der Hilbertraumstruktur der Quantenmechanik durch Hauptsätze des Messens*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**4**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1970); [*An Axiomatic Basis for Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Vol. I, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1985).
Ludwig, G., [*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York (1983).
Misra, B., “On a New Definition of Quantal States,” in [*Physical Reality and Mathematical Description*]{}, C. P. Enz and J. Mehra (eds.), 455–476, Reidel, Dordrecht (1974).
Singer, M., and W. Stulpe, “Phase-Space Representations of General Statistical Physical Theories,” [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{}, 131–142 (1992).
Spekkens, R. W., “Contextuality for Preparations, Transformations, and Unsharp Measurements,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**71**]{}, 052108-1–17 (2005)
Stulpe, W., [*Bedingte Erwartungen und stochastische Prozesse in der generalisierten Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie – Beschreibung sukzessiver Messungen mit zufälligem Ausgang*]{}, Thesis, Berlin (1986).
Stulpe, W., and M. Swat, “Quantum States as Probability Measures,” [*Found. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**14**]{}, 285–293 (2001).
Werner, R., “Physical Uniformities on the State Space of Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics,” [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{}, 859–881 (1983).
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^3]: Dedicated to Paula and Stan Gudder
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Erdös and Zaremba showed that $ \limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\Phi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2}=e^\g$, $\g$ being Euler’s constant, where $\Phi(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$. We extend this result to the function $\Psi(n)= \sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d}$ and some other functions. We show that $ \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,=\, e^\g$. The proof requires to develop a new approach. As an application, we prove that for any $\eta>1$, any finite sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, $\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \, \frac{\gcd(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell} \le C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K} c_\nu^2(\log\log\log \nu)^\eta \Psi(\nu)
$, where $C(\eta)$ depends on $\eta$ only. This improves a recent result obtained by the author.
address: 'IRMA, UMR 7501, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France.'
author:
- 'Michel J.G. WEBER'
title: An extension of a result of Erdős and Zaremba
---
**Introduction.** {#s1}
=================
Erdös and Zaremba showed in [@EZ] the following result concerning the arithmetical function $\Phi(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$, $$\label{EZ1}\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\Phi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2}=e^\g,$$ where $\g $ is Euler’s constant. This function appears in the study of good lattice points in numerical integration, see Zaremba [@Z]. The proof is based on the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{formule}\Phi(n)
=\sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{\nu_i=1}^{\a_i}\frac{\log p_i^{\nu_i}}{p_i^{\nu_i}}\sum_{\d|n p_i^{-\a_i}}\frac{1}{\d} , \qq\qq ( n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}),\end{aligned}$$ which follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{base} \sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}&=& \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i\log p_i\Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Let $h(n)$ be non-decreasing on integers, $h(n)= o(\log n)$, and consider the slightly larger function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi}\Phi_h(n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )\,h(d)}{d^{}}.\end{aligned}$$
In this case a formula similar to no longer hold, the “log-linearity” being lost due to the extra factor $h(n)$. The study of this function requires to devise a new approach. We study in this work the case $h(n)= \log\log n$, that is the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi}\Psi (n)=\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d^{}}.\end{aligned}$$ We extend Erdős-Zaremba’s result for this function, as well as for the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&=&\sum_{
p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p^{\m_{r}}_{r}|n}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i(\log p_i)(\log\log p_i)}{p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p^{\m_{r}}_{r}}
\cr \Phi_2(n)&=&\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)
\log\, \O(d) }{d},
%\cr \Phi_\eta(n)&=&\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)^\eta }{d},\end{aligned}$$ where $\O(d)$ denotes as usual the number of powers of primes dividing $d$. These functions are linked to $\Psi$. 2 pt Throughout, $\log\log x$ (resp. $\log \log\log x$) equals $1$ if $0\le x \le e^{e}$ (resp. $0\le x \le e^{e^e}$), and equals $\log\log x$ (resp. $\log \log\log x$) in the usual sense if $x> e^{e}$ (resp. $x> e^{e^e}$).
One verifies by using standard arguments that $$\label{phipsi} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g, \qq
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g,$$ and in fact that $$\label{Phi1est} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,= \,e^\g .$$
2 pt By the observation made after , the corresponding extension of this result to $\Psi(n)$ is technically more delicate. It follows from that $$\label{trois} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^3}\, \le \, e^\g.$$ The question thus arises whether the exponent of $\log\log n$ in can be replaced by $2+\e$, with $\e>0$ small.
2 pt We answer this question affirmatively by establishing the following precise result, which is the main result of this paper.
\[t1\] $$\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\, =\, e^\g.$$
An application of this result is given in Section \[s6\]. The upper bound is obtained, via the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec} \Psi(n)\ \le \ \Phi_1(n) + \Phi_2(n),\end{aligned}$$ as a combination of an estimate of $\Phi_1(n)$ and the following estimate of $\Phi_2(n)$. Recall that Davenport’s function $w(n)$ is defined by $w(n)=\sum_{p|n}\frac{\log p}{p}$. According to Theorem 4 in [@D] we have, $$\label{wdavenport}\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{w(n)}{\log\log n}=1.$$
\[t2\]For all even numbers $n$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n)\, \le \, C\, (\log\log\log \o(n))(\log \o(n))w(n)
.\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is an absolute constant.
Here and elsewhere $C$ (resp. $C(\eta)$) denotes some positive absolute constant (resp. some positive constant depending only of a parameter $\eta$). 2 pt The approach used for proving Theorem \[t2\] can be adapted with no difficulty to other arithmetical functions of similar type. 4 pt The paper is organized as follows. Sections \[s4\] and \[s5\] form the main part of the paper, and consist with the proof of Theorem \[t2\], which is long and technical and involves the building of a binary tree (subsection \[subsection4.2.1\]). The proof of Theorem \[t1\] is given in section \[s5\]. Section \[s2\] contains complementary results and the proofs of , . Section \[s6\] concerns the afore mentioned application of Theorem \[t1\]. Additional remarks or results are concluding the paper in Section \[s7\].
2 pt -3 pt
**Proof of Theorem \[t2\].** {#s4}
============================
We use a chaining argument. We make throughout the convention $0\log 0=0$. 6 pt Let $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$ be an even number. We will use repeatedly the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{min}\min_{i=1}^r p_i\ge 3.\end{aligned}$$ 10 pt
We note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{basic}
\Phi_2(n)&=&\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big)
\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\underbrace{\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}}_{\hbox{\small the sum relatively}\atop\hbox{\small to $ \m_i$ is excluded}} \underbrace{\frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}}_{\hbox{\small $ p_i^{\m_i}$}\atop\hbox{\small is excluded}}\ \Big(\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big)
.\end{aligned}$$
As there is no order relation on the sequence $p_1, \ldots, p_r$, it suffices to study the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi_2(r,n)}
\Phi_2(r,n)&:=& \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}\frac{\m_r \log p_r}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The sub-sums in will be estimated by using a recursion argument.
Preparation
-----------
Some technical lemmas are preliminary needed.
\[phivar\] [(i)]{} Let $\p_1(x)=x\big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$, $\p_2(x)=\big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. Then $\p_1(x)$ is non-increasing on $[3, \infty)$ if $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge \log 2$. Further, $\p_2(x)$ is non-increasing on $[1,\infty)$, if $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge 1$.
3 pt Assume that $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge \log 2$. For any integer $m\ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi.intest1}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+m)}e^{-\a m}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-\a m} + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m}
\cr & & + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$
3 pt Assume that $A\ge 1$ and $\a\ge 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intest2}
\int_1^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&\le &\frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} e^{-\a}+\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}.
\end{aligned}$$
\(i) We have $\p_1'(x) = \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}+ \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}
-\a x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. By assumption and since $\p_1'(x)\le 0 \Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{x}+ \frac{1}{(A+x)\log (A+x)}\le \a$, we get $$\frac{1}{x}+ \frac{1}{(A+x)\log (A+x)}\le\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{8\log 2} \le \frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}<\log 2\le \a.$$ Similarly $ \p_2'(x)=\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}-\a \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}$. As $\p_2'(x)\le 0 \Leftrightarrow (A+x)\log (A+x)\ge \frac{1}{\a}$, we also get $$(A+x)\log (A+x)\ge 2\log 2>1\ge \frac{1}{\a}.$$
\(ii) We deduce from (i) that $$\label{49} \a x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}= \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}+ \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}-\big( x (\log A+x) e^{-\a x}\big)' .$$ By integrating, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1int}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&=& \int_m^\infty x\big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \int_m^\infty \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x
\cr & & \quad + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly $$\a \int_m^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x=\int_m^\infty
\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \big(\log (A+m)\big) e^{-\a m}.$$ By combining we get, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{int1}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&=& \frac{1}{\a}\int_m^\infty\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x+ \int_m^\infty \frac{x}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x
\cr & & + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m} + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore,$$\begin{aligned}
\a \int_m^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d}x&\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+m)}e^{-\a m}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-\a m} + \frac{1}{\a}\big(\log (A+m)\big)e^{-\a m}
\cr & & + m(\log A+m) e^{-\a m}.\end{aligned}$$
\(iii) We deduce from (i) that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_1^N \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&=&\frac{1}{\a}\int_1^N\frac{1}{(A+x)}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\cr & & \qq -\frac{1}{\a}\Big(\big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a}-\log (A+N)\big) e^{-\a N}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ As $\frac{1}{\a}\int_1^N\frac{1}{A+x}e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\le
\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}$, letting $N$ tend to infinity gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_1^\infty \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x&\le &\frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} e^{-\a}+\frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}e^{-\a}.\end{aligned}$$
\[E1\] Assume that $A\ge 1$, and $\a \ge 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}\ \le \ \a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a}
\cr & &\qq\qq + \Big\{3\a \log (A+3)+3 \log (A+3)+ \frac{1}{\a} \log (A+3) + \frac{1}{\a}
+ \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}\Big\} e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$
As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}&=&\a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a} \cr & & + 3\a \big(\log (A+3)\big)e^{-3\a}+ \a\sum_{\m=4}^\infty \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}.\end{aligned}$$ by applying Lemma \[phivar\]-(ii), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\a\sum_{\m=4}^\infty \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}&\le &\a\int_{3}^\infty x \big(\log (A+x)\big)e^{-\a x} \hbox{\rm d} x
\cr &\le & \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}e^{-3\a}+ \frac{1}{\a}e^{-3\a } + \frac{\log (A+3)}{\a}e^{-3\a}
+ 3(\log A+3) e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{Est1}
& & \sum_{\m=0}^{\infty}\a \m \big(\log (A+\m)\big)e^{-\a \m}\ \le \ \a \big(\log (A+1)\big)e^{-\a}+ 2\a \big(\log (A+2)\big)e^{-2\a}
\cr & & + \Big\{3\a \log (A+3)+3 \log (A+3)+ \frac{1}{\a} \log (A+3) + \frac{1}{\a}
+ \frac{1}{\a^2(A+3)}\Big\} e^{-3\a}.\end{aligned}$$
\[E3a\] Under assumption we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i +h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}&\le &
\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big) + \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big)
\cr & &\quad +\frac{1}{(1+(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + 2))(\log p_s)^2p_s}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i +h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}} &\le &
\Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}} +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2}\big) \Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+2\big).\end{aligned}$$
As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} &=& \log A + \big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a }+ \sum_{\m=2}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m}
\cr &\le & \log A + \big(\log (A+1)\big) e^{-\a }+ \int_{1}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+x)\big) e^{-\a x}\hbox{\rm d} x\end{aligned}$$ we deduce from Lemma \[phivar\]-(iii), $$\label{sumphi2}\sum_{\m=0}^{\infty} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} \ \le \ \log A + e^{-\a}\Big(\log (A+1)+ \frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} + \frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}\Big) .$$
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}&\le &
\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big)+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big)\cr & &\quad +\frac{1}{(1+(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + 2))(\log p_s)^2p_s}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_s=0}^{\infty} \frac{\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h\big)}{p_s^{\m_s}}
%&\le &
% \Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\big)\Big)\log
%\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+1\big) +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2p_s} \cr
&\le &
\Big(1+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\big) +\frac{1}{3(\log p_s)^2}\Big)\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \m_i + h+2\big) .\end{aligned}$$
\[E2\] Assume that condition is satisfied. 3 pt [(i)]{} If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i\ge 1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }&\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) \le \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1\big)+ \frac{2\log p_r}{p_r^2} \log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 2\big) \cr &+ \frac{1}{p_r^3} \Big(3\log p_r + 3+ \frac{1}{\log p_r} \Big)\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big) + \frac{1}{p_r^3\log p_r}\Big(
1+ \frac{1}{(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3)\log p_r}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)& \le & 5\ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big).\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt [(ii)]{} If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i=0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) &\le & 18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} .\end{aligned}$$
\(i) The first inequality follows from Lemma \[E1\] with the choice $\a =\log p_r$, $A=\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i$, noting that by assumption , $\a >1$. As $p_r\ge 3$, it is also immediate that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}} \log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)
\cr &\ \le \Big\{3 \frac{\log p_r}{p_r} + \frac{\log p_r }{9p_r} \Big(3 + \frac{3}{\log p_r}+ \frac{1}{(\log p_r)^2} \Big)\Big\}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big) + \frac{1}{9p_r\log p_r}\Big(
1+ \frac{1}{4\log p_r}\Big)
\cr &\ \le \ 5\ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\log \big( \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big).\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) If $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i=0$, the sums relatively to $\m_i$, $1\le i\le r-1$, do not contribute. Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big)&=&\sum_{\m_r=2}^{\a_r}\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m_r}}\log \m_r\ =\ \sum_{\m=1}^{\a_r-1}\frac{(\m+1)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m+1}}\log (\m+1)
\cr &\le &\frac{1}{p_{r}}\Big\{\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\m\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)+\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)\Big\} .\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[E1\] applied with $A=1$ and $\a =\log p_{r}$ provides the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\m\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1)
&\le &
\frac{(\log 2)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} + \frac{2(\log 3)\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^2} + \frac{1}{p_{r}^3}\Big\{(6\log 2)(\log p_{r}) \cr & & +6 \log 2+ \frac{2\log 2}{(\log p_{r})} + \frac{1}{(\log p_{r})}
+ \frac{1}{4(\log p_{r})^2}\Big\}
\cr &\le & 8\Big(\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}+\frac{1}{p_{r}^3} \Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Next estimate applied with $A=1$ and $\a =\log p_{r}$, further gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}^{\m}}\log (\m+1) &\le & \frac{1}{p_{r}}\Big(\log 2+ \frac{\log 2}{\log p_{r}} + \frac{1}{2(\log p_{r})^2}\Big) \ \le \ \frac{2}{p_{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $ \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r }\frac{\m_r\log p_{r}}{p_r^{\m_r}}\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + \m_r\big) \le 18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} .$
As $\log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big)\le \log
\big(\O(n)+3\big)$, one can deduce from Corollary \[E2\]-(ii) that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n)
%&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}} \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\log\big(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 3\big)
%\cr&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}\log (\O(n)+3) \prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(\frac{1-p_i^{-\a_i-1}}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
%\cr
&\le &18\ \frac{\log p_{r}}{p_{r}}\log (\O(n)+3) \prod_{i=1}^{r}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
.\end{aligned}$$ So that by the observation made at the beginning of section \[s4\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n)&\le &18\ \big(\log (\O(n)+3)\big)\Big( \sum_{j=1}^r\frac{\log p_{j}}{p_{j}}\Big) \prod_{i=1}^{r}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_i^{-1}}\Big)
.\end{aligned}$$ By combining this with the bound for $\Phi_1(n)$ established in Lemma \[phi1maj\], next using inequality , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec1} \Psi(n)\ \le\ \Big(\prod_{j=1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\bigg\{\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + 18\ \Big( \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_{i}}{p_{i}}\Big)\log (\O(n)+3) )\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ recalling that $r=\o(n)$. Whence by invoking Proposition \[tEZm\], noticing that $\o(n)\le\O(n)\le \log_{2} n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n)&\le & e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2\big(\log\log\log n+ 18 w( n)\big).\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt The finer estimate of $\Psi(n)$ will be derived from a more precise study of the coefficients of $\Psi(r,n)$. This is the object of the next sub-section.
Estimates of $\boldsymbol{ \Phi_2(r,n)}$.
-----------------------------------------
${}$ We define successively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n1}{}\begin{cases} \ \ \ \ \ \m=(\m_1, \ldots, \m_r), \qq (\m_1, \ldots, \m_r)\in \prod_{i=1}^r\big([0,\a_i]\cap \N\big),
% \cr\Sigma_\m(s,h) = \sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h,
\cr p_\m(s)=p_1^{-\m_1}\ldots p_s^{-\m_s}, \quad 1\le s\le r,\cr
\quad \Pi_s=\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_s=0}^{\a_s}p_\m(s)= \prod_{\ell = 1}^s\big(\frac{1-p_\ell^{-\a_\ell -1}}{1-p_\ell^{s -1}}\big) .
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Next, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_s(h)= \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_s=0}^{\a_s}p_\m(s) \log
\big(\sum_{i=1}^{s} \m_i + h\big), \qq \quad 1\le s\le r-1.\end{aligned}$$
We also set
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{n5} \begin{cases}c_1=1, \qq c_2=\frac{2}{p_r},
\qq c_3=\frac{1}{p_r^2}\big(3 + \frac{3}{\log p_r}+ \frac{1}{(\log p_r)^2}\big), \cr c_4=\frac{1}{p_r^3\log p_r}\big(1 + \frac{1}{3\log p_r}\big)\cr
c_0= \frac{\log p_r}{ p_r}, \qq\qq\qq \ c=\sum_{i=1}^3 c_i,\cr b_s=\frac{1}{ p_s}\big( 1+ \frac{1}{ \log p_s}\big), \qq \ \b_s= \frac{1}{2 p_s (\log p_s)^2}. \qq\qq\qq\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
### Recurrence inequality. {#subsection4.2.1}
We deduce from the first part of Lemma \[E3a\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ \frac{1}{p_{s}}\Big( 1 + \frac{1}{ \log p_{s}}\Big)\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+ \frac{1}{2(\log p_s)^2p_s}\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Whence with the previous notation,
\[E3\] Under assumption , we have for $s=2,\ldots ,
r-1$,$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ b_s\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+\b_s\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$
The notation introduced also allows one to rewrite estimate (i) of Lemma \[E2\] in a more condensed form. Under assumption , if $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\m_i\ge 1$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n) &\le & c_0 \underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h \Phi_{r-1}(h)}_{(1)} + c_4 \Pi_{r-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By applying twice the recurrence inequality, we also obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n) &\le & c_0 \underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h \big[\Phi_{r-3}(h)}_{(1)}+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-2}\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)}_{(3)}+c_0c b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-3}
\cr& &+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-1}\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)}_{(2)}+c_0\underbrace{\sum_{h=1}^3 c_h b_{r-1}b_{r-2}\Phi_{r-3}(h+2)}_{(4)}+c_0cb_{r-1}\b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-3}
\cr& &+c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2}+ c_4 \Pi_{r-1}.\end{aligned}$$ One easily verifies (see expressions underlined by (1)) that the coefficient of $\Phi_{r-1}(h)$ is the same as the one of $\Phi_{r-2}(h)$ and $\Phi_{r-3}(h)$. So is also the case for $\Phi_{r-2}(h+1)$, see expressions underlined by (2). New expressions underlined by (3),(4) and linked to $\Phi_{r-3}(h+1)$, $\Phi_{r-3}(h+2)$ appear. 2 pt Each new coefficient is kept until the end of the iteration process generated by the recurrence inequality of Lemma \[E3\]. 2 pt We also verify, when applying this inequality, that we pass from a majoration expressed by $\Phi_{r-1}(h)$, $\Pi_{r-1}$, [ uniquely]{}, to a majoration expressed by $\Phi_{r-2}$ (in $h$ or $h+1$) and $\Pi_{r-2}$, $\Pi_{r-1}$ [uniquely]{}. 2 pt This rule is general, and one verifies that when iterating this recurrence relation, we obtain at each step a bound depending on $\Phi_{r-d}$ and the products $\Pi_{r-d}, \Pi_{r-d+1},\ldots,$ $ \Pi_{r-1}$ only. 4 pt $\underline{\hbox{\cmssqi Binary tree}}$: The shift of length $h$ or $h+1$ generates a binary tree whose branches are at each division (steps corresponding to the preceding iterations), either stationnary: $\Phi_{r-d}(h)\to \Phi_{r-d-1}(h)$, or creating new coefficients: $\Phi_{r-d}(h)\to \Phi_{r-d-1}(h+1)$. One can represent this by the diagram below drawn from Lemma \[E3\]. 5 pt
${}_\downarrow$ ${}_\downarrow$+52 pt
-15 pt $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s}(h)&\le &\Phi_{s-1}(h)+ b_s\Phi_{s-1}(h+1)+\b_s\Pi_{s-1}.\end{aligned}$$
${}^\uparrow$ ${}^\uparrow$ +120 pt
6 pt
Before continuing, we recall that by , $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\m=0}^{\a_s} \big(\log (A+\m)\big) e^{-\a \m} &\le & \log A + e^{-\a}\Big(\log (A+1)+ \frac{\log (A+1)}{\a} + \frac{1}{\a^2(A+1)}\Big) .\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(v)&\le & \sum_{\m_1=0}^\infty p_\m(1)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^v\m_i+1\Big)
%L_\m(1,v)
\ =\ \sum_{\m_1=0}^\infty \frac{\log (v+\m)}{p_1^\m}
\cr &\le & \log v + \frac{1}{p_1}\Big( \log (v+1) +\frac{\log (v+1)}{\log p_1}+ \frac{1}{v(\log p_1)^2}\Big) \qq (v\ge 1).\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(h) &\le & C\log h.\end{aligned}$$ One easily verifies that the $d$-tuples formed with the $b_i$ have all $\Phi_{r-x}(h+d)$ as factor. The terms having $\Phi_{r-\cdot}(h+\cdot)$ as factor are forming the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{somme} c_0\, \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big) \Phi_1(h+d),\end{aligned}$$ once the iteration process achieved, that is after having applied $(r-1)$ times the recurrence inequality of Lemma \[E3\].
This sums can thus be bounded from above by (recalling that $h=1,2$ or $3$) $$\begin{aligned}
c_0\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
. \end{aligned}$$ But, for all positive integers $a_{ 1},\ldots, a_{r}$ and $1\le d\le r$, we have, $$\Big(\sum_{i=1}^r a_i\Big)^d\ge d!
\sum_{ 1\le i_1<\ldots<i_d\le r } a_{i_1}\ldots a_{i_d}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
&\le & \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, \Big( \sum_{i=1}^r b_{i}\Big)^d
. \end{aligned}$$ As moreover, $$b_{i}=\frac{1}{p_{i}}\big(1 + \frac{1}{\log p_{i+1}}\big)\le \frac{1}{p(i)} + \frac{1}{p(i)\log p(i)},$$ one has by means of , $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^r b_{i}&\le & \sum_{i=1}^r\big(\frac{1}{i \log i} + \frac{1}{i (\log i)^2}\big)
\ \le \ \log\log r +C. \end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}(\log d)\, \Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big)
&\le & C \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, (\log\log r +C)^d
%\cr &\le & C \sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,e^{-d(\log d-1 - \log\log\log r)}
. \end{aligned}$$ On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\log d\le 1+\e +\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\,(\log\log r +C)^d&\le & \big(1+\e +\log\log\log r\big) \sum_{d>1}\frac{(\log\log r +C)^{d}}{d!}
\cr &\le &C \big(1+\e +\log\log\log r\big) \log r.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other, utilizing the classical estimate $d\,!\ge C \sqrt d \,d^d\,e^{-d}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\log d> 1+\e+\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{d!}\, (\log\log r)^d&\le &\sum_{\log d> 1+\e+\log\log\log r}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,e^{-d(\log d-1 - \log\log\log r)}
\cr &\le & \sum_{d>1}\frac{(\log d)}{\sqrt d}\,\,e^{-\e d}<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ One thus deduces, concerning the sum in that, $$\label{somme1} c_0\sum_{d=1}^{r-1}\Big( \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{i_1}\ldots b_{i_d}\Big) \Phi_1(h+d)\ \le \ C\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\big(1+\log\log\log r\big)\log r;$$ 4 pt
Coefficients related to $ \Pi_s$.
-----------------------------------
3 pt By applying the recurrence inequality (Lemma \[E3\]), one successively generates $$\begin{aligned}
c_4\Pi_{r-1} \quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\cr
c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2}\quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\quad\ \
\cr c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2} + c_0c\b_{r-2}\big(1 + b_{r-1}b_{r-2} \big)\Pi_{r-3}\quad\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\quad\ \,
\cr c_4\Pi_{r-1} + c_0c\b_{r-1}\Pi_{r-2} + c_0c\b_{r-2}\big(1 + b_{r-1}b_{r-2} \big)\Pi_{r-3} +c_0c\b_{r-3}\big( 1+ b_{r-2} + b_{r-1}+ + b_{r-1} b_{r-2}\Pi_{r-4}. \end{aligned}$$ $\underline{\hbox{\cmssqi Coefficients}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\qq\qq \Pi_{r-1}: c_4\qq\qq \qq\qq \, \Pi_{r-2}: c_0c\b_{r-1} \qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\cr
\Pi_{r-3}: c_0c\b_{r-2}(1+ b_{r-1})\qq \Pi_{r-4}: c_0c\b_{r-3}(1+ b_{r-2}+b_{r-1}+b_{r-1}b_{r-2}).\qq\qq \end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that the coefficients $\Pi_{r-x}$ are exactly those of $\Phi_{r-x+1}(.)$ affected with the factor $c_0c\b_{r-x+1}$. The products form the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumpi} c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By , one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}\b_j= \frac{1}{2 p_j (\log p_j)^2}\le \frac{1}{2 p(j) (\log p(j))^2}\le \frac{1}{2j (\log j)^3},\qq \hbox{si $j\ge 2$,}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, and imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_j= \prod_{\ell =1}^j \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p_\ell}} \Big)&\le &\prod_{\ell =1}^j \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p(\ell)}} \Big)\ \le \ \prod _{p\le j(\log j +\log\log j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1- \frac{1}{p}}\Big)
\cr &\le & C (\log j) \, .\end{aligned}$$ We now note that by definition of $\Pi_j$, we also have $$\Pi_j\le \max_{\ell \le 5}\prod_{p\le p(\ell)} \frac{1}{1 -\frac{1}{p}}= C_0.$$ We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Piest}\Pi_j &\le &C( \log j) ,\qq\qq \hbox{if $j\ge 2$.}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, and imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betapi}\b_{j+1}\Pi_j &\le & \frac{C}{j (\log j)^2} ,\qq\qq \hbox{if $j\ge 2$.}\end{aligned}$$
It is resulting from it that the sum in can be bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estsumpi}
& & c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}
\cr &\le &c_0c \prod _{i=1}^{r-2}\big( 1+b_{r-i}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\, \Pi_{r-d-1}
\ =\ c_0c \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\, \Pi_{r-d-1}
\cr &\le &c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\frac{1}{(r-d)\big(\log (r-d)\big)^2}
\cr &\le &c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big)\cdot \sum_{\d=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\d (\log \d)^2}
\cr &\le & c_0c\, C \prod _{j=2}^{r-1}\big( 1+b_{j}\big). \end{aligned}$$ We recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p\le x }\frac{1}{p}\le \log\log x +C.
\end{aligned}$$ See for instance [@RS], inequality (3.20). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1plusbi} \prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+b_i\big)&\le & C\, \log r.\end{aligned}$$ Now estimate implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estsumpi2}
c_0c \sum_{d=0}^{r-2}\b_{r-d}\Big(1+ \sum_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_d<r} b_{r-i_1}\ldots b_{r-i_d}\Big)\Pi_{r-d-1}&\le & c_0c\, C \log r
\cr &\le & C\, \frac{ \log p_r}{p_r} \log r.\end{aligned}$$ We thus deduce from and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estS2}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\le & C\,\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\big(1+\log\log\log r\big)\log r + C\, \frac{ \log p_r}{p_r} \log r
\cr &\le & C\,\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}(\log r)(\log\log\log r) \, .\end{aligned}$$
As a result, by taking account of the observation made at the beginning of section \[s4\], we obtain $$\label{estS2}
\Phi_2(n) \le C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \log p_i}{p_i}\ =\ C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)w(n)
%\cr &\le & C\, \frac{ \log r}{r\log r} \big( \log r ) \ \hbox{[\ rajout}\ = C\, \frac{ \log r}{r}\ ]
\, .$$ 3 pt By combining with the upper estimate $\Phi_1(n)$ established at Lemma \[phi1maj\] and using inequality , we arrive to $$\label{convexdec1} \Psi(n)\le \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + C\, (\log\log\log r)(\log r)w(n)
,$$ recalling that $p_j\ge 3$ by assumption .
**Proof of Theorem \[t1\].** {#s5}
============================
First we prove inequality . We recall the convention $0\log 0=0$. Inequality is an immediate consequence of the following convexity lemma.
\[lconvexe\] For any integers $\mu_i\ge 0$, $p_j\ge 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\big(\m_i\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big)&\le & \sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)
\cr & &\qq +\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big) .\end{aligned}$$
We may restrict to the case $\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\ge 1$, since otherwise the inequality is trivial. Let $M=\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i$ and write that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big)
%&= & M\ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{M} \log p_i\Big\}\,.\,M\Big)\cr
&= & M\bigg\{ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{M} \log p_i\Big\} \cr & & \quad +\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{M}\big(\log p_i\big)(\log M) \bigg\} .\end{aligned}$$ By using convexity of $\psi(x)=x\log x$ on $\R_+$, we get $$\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i}\big(\log p_i\big) \log \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i} \log p_i\Big\}\le \sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\m_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\m_i}\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log \log p_i\big).$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{r}\big(\m_i\log p_i\big) \log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \log p_i\Big) \le \sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\log \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \m_i \Big) .\end{aligned}$$
The odd case (i.e. condition is satisfied) is obtained by combining with Corollary \[ests1\] and utilizing inequality . Since $r\le \log n$, by taking account of estimate of $w(n)$ given in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convexdec2} \Psi(n)&\le& e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n) + C\, (\log\log\log\log n)(\log\log n)^2
\cr &= & e^\g(1+o(1)) (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n).
\end{aligned}$$ 5 pt To pass from the odd case to the general case is not easy. This step will necessitate an extra analysis of some other properties of $\Psi(n)$. 3 pt We first exclude the trivial case when $n$ is a pure power of $2$, since $\Psi(2^k) \le C$ uniformly over $k$, and $C$ is a finite constant. 3 pt Now if $2$ divides $n$, writing $n=2^vm$, $2 \not| m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n)&=&\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d )(\log\log d)}{d}\ =\ \sum_{k=0}^v\sum_{\d| m}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}.
.\end{aligned}$$ As the function $x\mapsto \frac{(\log x )(\log\log x)}{x}$ decreases on $[x_0,\infty)$ for some positive real $x_0$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\sum_{k=0}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \sum_{k=k_0+1}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \int_{2^{k_0}\d}^{\infty} \frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u^2}\dd u,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_0$ is depending on $x_0$ only. Moreover $$\Big(\frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u}\Big)'\ge - \frac{(\log u )(\log\log u)}{u^2}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sum_{k=0}^v\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0-1}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d} + \frac{(\log (2^{k_0}\d) )(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d))}{2^{k_0}\d},\end{aligned}$$ whence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psik_0}\Psi(n)
&\le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{2^k\d}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $m=p_1^{b_1}\ldots p_{\m}^{b_{\m}}$. We have by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(m)&\le& \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^{\m} \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^{\m} \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le& \Big(\prod_{j =2 }^\m \frac{1}{1-p(j)^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &=& \frac12\, \Big(\prod_{j =1 }^\m \frac{1}{1-p(j)^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \m + \mathcal O(1) \big)\sum_{i=1}^\m \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)-1} + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m),\end{aligned}$$ by using Mertens’ estimate and since $p(\m)\sim \m\log \m$. Furthermore by using estimate , and since $2^\m\le m$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi(m)est} \Psi(m)
&\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \m + \mathcal O(1) \big)(1+\e)(\log \m)(\log\log \m) + C\, (\log\log\log \m)(\log \m)w(m)
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\, \big( \log \frac{\log m}{\log2} + \mathcal O(1) \big)(1+\e)(\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(\log\log \frac{\log m}{\log2}) \cr & &
+ C\, (\log\log\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(\log \frac{\log m}{\log2})(1+o(1))\log\log m
\cr &\le & \frac{ e^{\g}}2\,(1+2\e) (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m),\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large.
Now let $\psi(2^km)=\sum_{\d|m} \frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}$, $1\le k\le k_0$. If $n$ is not a pure power of $2$, then its odd component $m$ tends to infinity with $n$. Thus with , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase} \frac{\Psi(n)}{\big(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}}{ (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
.\end{aligned}$$ But $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencasea}\frac{(\log (2^k\d) )(\log\log (2^k\d))}{\d}&=&\frac{(k(\log 2) )(\log\log (2^k\d))+ (\log \d)(\log\log (2^k\d) }{\d}
\cr &\le &k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log\big(k_0(\log 2)+\log\d\big)}{\d}+ \frac{(\log \d)(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d) }{\d}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we have the inequality: $\log \log (a+x)\le \log (b\log x)$ where $b\ge (a+e)$ and $a\ge 1$, which is valid for $x\ge e$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencaseb}\log\big(k_0(\log 2)+\log\d\big)\le \log (k_0\log 2+ e)+\log \log \d. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase1}
& & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log (k_0(\log 2)+\log\d )}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2)\frac{\log (k_0\log 2+ e)}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & & \quad + \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{k_0(\log 2) \frac{\log\log\d}{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr&\le &2k_0(\log 2)\big(\log (k_0\log 2+ e)\big) \frac{\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & & \quad + \frac{2k_0(\log 2)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}\sum_{\d|m} \frac{\log\log\d}{\d}
\cr&\le &C(k_0)\Big\{\frac{1}{\log \log m(\log\log\log m)}
+ \frac{\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)(\log\log\log m)}\Big\}
\cr&\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m} \quad \to \ 0\quad \hbox{ as $m$ tends to infinity}.\end{aligned}$$ Further $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencase2}\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\frac{\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d)(\log\log (2^{k_0}\d) }{\d}}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
& \le & \sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d)( \log (k_0\log 2+ e)+\log \log \d) }{\d(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{\log (k_0\log 2+ e)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}\,\sum_{k=0}^{k_0} \frac{1}{2^k}\sum_{\d|m}\frac{(\log \d) }{\d}
\cr & &\quad+2\,\frac{\Psi(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{2\log (k_0\log 2+ e)\,\s_{-1}(m)}{(\log \log m)(\log\log\log m)}
\cr & &\quad+2\,\frac{\Psi(m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m}
+2\,\frac{ e^{\g}}2 \,(1+2\e)\,\frac{ (\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}{(\log \log m)^2(\log\log\log m)}
\cr &\le &\frac{C(k_0)}{\log\log\log m}
+ e^{\g} \,(1+2\e)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large, where we used estimate . Plugging estimates and into finally leads, in view of , to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estevencasef} \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le& \frac{C}{\log\log\log m}
+ e^{\g} \,(1+2\e)\,\end{aligned}$$ for $m$ large, where $C$ depends on $k_0$ only. As $\e$ can be arbitrary small, we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evencasef} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}
&\le& e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes Theorem \[t1\].
**Complementary results.** {#s2}
==========================
In this section we prove complementary estimates $\Phi_1$, $\Phi_2$ and $\Psi$, notably estimates and
Upper estimates.
----------------
\[phi1maj\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le&\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi1formula} \Phi_1(n)&\le&\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\underbrace{\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_r=0}^{\a_r}}_{\hbox{\small the sum relatively}\atop\hbox{\small to $ \m_i$ is excluded}} \underbrace{\frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r}^{\m_{r}}}}_{\hbox{\small $ p_i^{\m_i}$}\atop\hbox{\small is excluded}}\ \Big(\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)\cr &=& \sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big] .\end{aligned}$$
Now as $$\sum_{\m=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m}{p_i^\m}\le\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{j}{p_i^j} =\frac{1}{(p_i-1)(1-p_i^{-1})},$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le &\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}}\Big)\,.\,\frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{(p_i-1)(1-p_i^{-1})} \cr
&\le &\Big(\prod_{j =1 }^r \frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}.\end{aligned}$$
\[ests1\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n)} &\le & e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $p(j)$ denote the $j$-th consecutive prime number, and recall that ([@RS (3.12-13)], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p(i)est}
p(i) &\ge& \max(i \log i, 2), \qq\quad\ \ i\ge 1,
\cr p(i)&\le& i(\log i + \log\log i ), \qq \ \! i\ge 6.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\e>0$ and an integer $r_0\ge 4$. If $r\le r_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr1}
\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le &\d\,r_0, \qq \qq \d= \sup_{p\ge 3}\frac{(\log p)\big(\log\log p\big)}{p-1}<\infty\,.\end{aligned}$$ If $r>r_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le & \Big(\max_{i>r_0}\frac{p(i)}{p(i)-1}\Big)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p(i))\big(\log\log p(i)\big)}{p(i)}
\cr &\le & \Big(\max_{i>r_0}\frac{p(i)}{p(i)-1}\Big)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log (i\log i))\big(\log\log (i\log i)\big)}{i\log i}\end{aligned}$$ We choose $r_0=r_0(\e)$ so that $\log r_0 \ge 1/\e$ and the preceding expression is bounded from above by $$(1+\e)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{\log\log i}{i}$$ We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr2}
%& &
\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
%\ \le \ (1+\e)\sum_{i=r_0+1}^r \int_{i-1}^i\frac{\log\log t}{t}\dd t
%\cr
&\le &(1+\e)\int_{r_0}^r\frac{\log\log t}{t}\dd t
% \ =\ (1+\e)\Big\{(\log t)(\log\log t)\Big|_{r_0}^r-\int_{r_0}^r\frac{ \dd t}{t} \Big\}
\cr &\le & (1+\e)(\log r)(\log\log r).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, for some $r(\e)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi1.sumr}
\sum_{i= 1}^r \frac{(\log p_i)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i-1}
&\le & (1+\e)(\log r)(\log\log r), \qq r\ge r(\e).\end{aligned}$$ By using Mertens’ estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prod}\prod_{p\le x}\Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p}}\Big)=e^{\g}\log x + \mathcal O(1)\qq \quad x\ge 2,\end{aligned}$$ we further have $$\label{p(i)estappl}
\prod_{\ell =1}^r \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p_\ell}} \Big)\,\le\, \prod_{\ell =1}^r \Big(\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p(\ell)}} \Big) \le \prod _{p\le r(\log r +\log\log r)}\Big(\frac{1}{1- \frac{1}{p}}\Big)
\,\le \, e^{\g} (\log r) + C\, ,$$ if $r\ge 6$, and so for any $r\ge 1$, modifying $C$ if necessary. As $r=\o(n)$ and $2^{\o(n)}\le n$, we consequently have, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)
%&\le & e^{\g}(1+\e) \big((\log r) + C\big)(\log r) (\log\log r)
%\cr &\le & e^{\g}(1+\e) (1+ C\e)(\log r)^2 (\log\log r)
%\cr
&\le & e^{\g}(1+ C\e)^2 (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n),\end{aligned}$$ si $r>r_0$. If $r\le r_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n)&\le & \d e^{\g}(1+\e) \big((\log r_0) + C\big):=C(\e).\end{aligned}$$ Whence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\le & e^{\g}(1+\e)^2 (\log\log n)^2(\log \log\log n)+ C(\e).\end{aligned}$$ As $\e$ can be arbitrary small, the result follows.
The following lemma is nothing but the upper bound part of . We omit the proof.
\[tEZm\] We have the following estimate, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d} &\le &\prod_{p|n}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p^{-1}}\Big) \ \sum_{p|n}\frac{\log p}{p-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{1}{ (\log\log n)(\log \o(n))}\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d} &\le & e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$
**Lower estimates.** {#s3}
--------------------
We recall that the smallest prime divisor of an integer $n$ is noted by $P^-(n)$.
\[phi1min\] Let $n=p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, $r\ge 1$, $\a_i\ge1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\ge & \Big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\Big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]\end{aligned}$$
By , $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &=&\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i} \frac{\m_i\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i^{\m_i}}\Big]
\cr &\ge &\sum_{i=1}^r\prod_{j =1\atop j \neq i}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[ \frac{\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]
%\cr &= & \prod_{j =1}^r\Big(\frac{1-p_j^{-\a_j -1}}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{(1-p_i^{ -1})\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{(1-p_i^{ -1})\big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n) &\ge & \Big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\Big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big)\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ \big(\log p_i\big)\big(\log\log p_i\big)}{p_i}\Big].\end{aligned}$$
We easily deduce from Lemma \[phi1maj\] and Lemma \[phi1min\] the following corollary.
\[phi1est\] Let $n=p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, $r\ge 1$, $\a_i\ge1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\big(1-\frac{1}{P^-(n)}\big)\prod_{j =1}^r\big(1+p_j^{-1} \big) \ \le \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{ (\log p_i)(\log\log p_i)}{p_i}}\ \le 2\, \prod_{j =1}^r\Big(\frac{1}{1-p_j^{ -1}} \Big).\end{aligned}$$
\[tEZ\] We have the following estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{$\rm a)$}& & \limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{1}{ (\log\log n)} \sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d)}{d }\ \ge \ e^{\g}
\cr \hbox{$\rm b)$} & &\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Phi_1(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g,
\cr \hbox{$\rm c)$} & &\limsup_{n\to \infty}\, \frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log \log n)^2(\log\log\log n)}\,\ge \,e^\g.\end{aligned}$$
Case a) is Erdős-Zaremba’s lower bound of function $\Phi(n)$. Since it is used in the proof of b) and c), we provide a detailed proof for the sake of completion. 3 pt a) Let $n_j=\prod_{p<e^j}p^j$. Recall that $p(i) \ge \max(i \log i, 2)$ if $i\ge 1$. Let $r(j)$ be the integer defined by the condition $p(r(j))< e^j< p(r(j)+1)$.
By using and following Gronwall’s proof [@Gr], we have, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{d|n_j} \frac{\log d}{d} \ =\ \sum_{i=1}^{r(j)}\prod_{\ell=1\atop \ell\neq i}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1-p(\ell)^{-j-1}}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\Big[\sum_{\m=0}^{j}\frac{\m\log p(i)}{p(i)^\m}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} (1-p(i)^{-1})\frac{\log p(i)}{p(i)}\Big[1+ \frac{1}{p(i)}+\ldots +\frac{1}{p(i)^{j-1}}\Big]
\cr &= & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} \frac{\log p(i)}{p(i)}\big(1-p(i)^{-j}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\vartheta(x)=\sum_{p\le x}\log p$ is Chebycheff’s function and that $\vartheta(x)\ge(1-\e(x))x$, $x\ge 2$, where $\e(x)\to 0$ as $x$ tends to infinity. Thus, $\log n_j = j\vartheta(e^j)= je^j(1+ o(1))$, and thus $\log\log n_j
%= j+ \log j(1+ o(1))
= j(1+ o(1))$. 2 pt On the one hand, by , $$\label{prodnj}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\big(1-p(\ell)^{-1}\big)=
\prod_{p<e^j}\big(1-p^{-1}\big)=\frac{e^{-\g}}{j}\big(1+ \mathcal O(\frac{1}{j})\big).$$ And on the other, by Mertens’ estimate $$\label{sumnj}\sum_{p<e^j} \frac{\log p}{p}=j+\mathcal O(1)\ge (1+o(1)) \log \log n_j .$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lbeta1} \sum_{d|n_j} \frac{\log d}{d} &\ge & (1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^{2} \qq\qq j\to \infty\,\end{aligned}$$ since $\zeta(j+1)\to 1$ as $j\to \infty$.
3 pt b) Let $\s'_{1}(n)= \sum_{d|n\,,\, d\ge 3} 1/d$. Let also $X$ be a discrete random variable equal to $\log d$ if $d|n$ and $d\ge 3$, with probability $1/(d\s'_{-1}(n))$. By using convexity of the function $x\log x$ on $[1,\infty)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\E X\log X&=& \sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d\s'_{1}(n) }\ \ge\ (\E X)\log\,(\E X)
\cr &= & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{-1}(n) }\Big)\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{1}(n) }\Big)
\cr &\ge & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d\s'_{-1}(n) }-C\Big)\Big(\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d }-C\Big)-\log \s_{-1}(n)\Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Whence$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d} &\ge & \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d
}-C\s_{-1}(n)\Big)\Big(\log \Big(\sum_{d|n\atop d\ge 1} \frac{(\log d)}{d }-C\Big)
\cr & & - \log \s_{-1}(n)\Big) \end{aligned}$$ Letting $n=n_j$, we deduce from that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(n) &\ge &\sum_{d|n_j\atop d\ge 3} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d} \ \ge \ \Big((1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^{2}
-C\log\log n_j\Big)
\cr & & \qq \times \Big(\log \big\{(1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^2-C\big\}
- \log C \log\log n_j\Big)
\cr & \ge &(1+o(1))e^{\g}(\log\log n_j)^2\log\log\log n_j. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\Psi(n)}{(\log\log n)^2\log\log\log n}%\sum_{d|n} \frac{(\log d)(\log \log d)}{d}
& \ge &e^{\g}.\end{aligned}$$ 3 pt c) We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(n_j) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)}\prod_{\ell=1\atop \ell\neq i}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1-p(\ell)^{-j-1}}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\Big[\sum_{\m=0}^{j}\frac{\m
(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)^\m}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{r(j)}\Big(\frac{1}{1-p(\ell)^{-1}}\Big)\cr & & \quad\times\ \sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} (1-p(i)^{-1})\frac{(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)}\Big[1+ \frac{1}{p(i)}+\ldots +\frac{1}{p(i)^{j-1}}\Big]
\cr &\ge & \frac{1}{\zeta(j+1)}(e^{\g}j)\big(1+ \mathcal O(\frac{1}{j})\big)\sum_{i=1}^{r(j)} \frac{(\log p(i))(\log\log p(i))}{p(i)}\big(1-p(i)^{-j}\big).\end{aligned}$$ by . Let $0<\e <1$. By using , we also have for all $j$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)(\log\log p)}{p} &\ge & \sum_{e^{\e j}\le p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)(\log\log p)}{p}
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))\big(\log(\e j)\big)\sum_{e^{\e j}\le p<e^j} \frac{(\log p)}{p}
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))(1-\e)j\big(\log(\e j)\big)\big(1+ \mathcal O({1}/{j})\big)
\cr &\ge & (1+o(1))(1-\e)(\log \log n_j)\big(\log (\e \log \log n_j)\big).\end{aligned}$$ As $\log (\e \log \log n_j) \sim \log\log \log n_j$, $j\to \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{j\to \infty}\frac{\Phi_1(n_j)}{(\log \log n_j)^2(\log\log \log n_j)} &\ge & e^{\g}(1-\e).\end{aligned}$$ As $\e$ can be arbitrarily small, this proves (c).
\[Phi\_2(r,n)min\] We have the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(n) &\ge & (\log 2)\,\Big(\frac{P^-(n)}{P^-(n)+1}\Big) \,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big).\end{aligned}$$
We observe from that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\ge & \sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\log \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1\Big].\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that the above multiple sum can contribute (is not null) only if $\max_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i \ge 1$, in which case $\log\, [\,\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i + 1]\ge \log 2$. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi2(r,n)min}
\Phi_2(r,n)&\ge & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,
\underbrace{
\sum_{\m_1=0}^{\a_1}\ldots \sum_{\m_{r-1}=0}^{\a_{r-1}}}_{\hbox{$\max_{i=1}^{r-1} \m_i \ge 1$}} \frac{1}{ p_1^{\m_1}\ldots p_{r-1}^{\m_{r-1}}}
\cr &= & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,\prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(1+\sum_{\m_i=0}^{\a_i}\frac{1}{ p_i^{\m_i}}\Big)
\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\big(\frac{ \log p_r}{p_r}\big)\,\prod_{i=1}^{r-1}\Big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi2(rn)min}
\Phi_2(n) &\ge & (\log 2)\,\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big)\,\prod_{i=1\atop i\neq j}^{r}\Big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\Big)
%\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\,\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{ P^-(n)}}\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big)\,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)
\cr &\ge & (\log 2)\,\Big(\frac{P^-(n)}{P^-(n)+1}\Big) \,\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{r}\big(1+\frac{1}{ p_i}\big)\Big)\sum_{j=1}^r\big(\frac{ \log p_j}{p_j}\big).\end{aligned}$$
**An application.** {#s6}
===================
We deduce from of Theorem \[t1\] the following result.
\[t3\] Let $\eta>1$. There exists a constant $C(\eta)$ depending on $\eta$ only, such that for any finite set $K$ of distinct integers, and any sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{approx}\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}&\le & C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K} c_\nu^2
\,\,(\log\log\log n)^\eta\,\Psi (\nu)
.\end{aligned}$$ Further, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{approx1}
\sum_{k,\ell \in K}
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}&\le& C(\eta)\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log \nu)^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^{1+\eta}. \end{aligned}$$
This much improves Theorem 2.5 in [@W1] where a specific question related to Gál’s inequality was investigated, see [@W1] for details. The interest of inequality , is naturally that the bound obtained tightly depends on the arithmetical structure of the support $K$ of the coefficient sequence, while being close to the optimal order of magnitude $(\log\log \nu)^2$. 2 pt Theorem \[t3\] is obtained as a combination of Theorem \[t1\] with a slightly more general and sharper formulation of Theorem 2.5 in [@W1].
\[t5\] Let $\eta >1$. Then, for any real $s$ such that $0<s\le 1$, for any sequence of reals $\{c_k, k\in K\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1m}\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_kc_\ell \frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}&\le & C(\eta) \sum_{\nu\in K}
c_\nu^2(\log\log\log
\nu)^\eta
\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{(\log \d )(\log\log \d)}{\d^{2s-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $C(\eta)$ depends on $\eta$ only.
\[rems\]From Theorem 2.5-(i) in [@W1], follows that for every $s>1/2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{i1}
\sum_{k,\ell\in K} c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s} &\le&\zeta(2s) \inf_{0< \e\le 2s-1} \frac{1+\e}{\e } \, \sum_{\nu \in K}
c_\nu^2 \, \s_{ 1+\e-2s}(\nu) ,
\end{aligned}$$ $\s_{u}(\nu)$ being the sum of $u$-th powers of divisors of $\nu$, for any real $u$. As $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{(\log \d )(\log\log \d)}{\d^{2s-1}}\ll \sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{1}{\d^{2s-1-\e}} =\s_{ 1+\e-2s}(k) ,
\end{aligned}$$ estimate is much better than the one given .
The proof is similar to that one of Theorem 2.5 in [@W1] and shorter. Let $\e>0$ and let $J_\e$ denote the generalized Euler function. We recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jordan}
J_\e(n)= \sum_{d|n} d^\e \m(\frac{n}{d}).
\end{aligned}$$
We extend the sequence $\{c_k, k\in K\}$ to all $\N$ by putting $c_k= 0$ if $k\notin K$. By Möbius’ formula, we have $n^\e =\sum_{d|n} J_\e (d)$. By using Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, we successively obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HS1a}
L&:=& \sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}\ =\ \sum_{k,\ell \in K} \frac{c_k c_\ell }{k^s\ell^s}\Big\{\sum_{d\in F(K)}
J_{2s} (d) {\bf 1}_{d|k} {\bf 1}_{d|\ell}\Big\}
\cr \hbox{($k=ud$, $\ell=vd$)} &\le& \sum_{u,v\in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^sv^s} \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}c_{vd} \Big)
\cr &\le & \sum_{u,v\in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^sv^s} \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}^2 \Big)^{1/2}\Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}} c_{vd}^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\cr &=& \Big[\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^s } \Big(\sum_{d\in F(K)} \frac{J_{2s}
(d)}{d^{2s}}c_{ud}^2 \Big)^{1/2}\Big]^2
\cr &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{u^s\psi(u) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) u^{ s} \psi(u) \Big) , \end{aligned}$$ where $\psi (u)>0$ is a non-decreasing function on $\R^+$. We then choose $$\psi(u) = u^{-s} \psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t),\qq \qq \psi_1(u)= (\log\log\log u)^\eta.$$ Hence,$$\begin{aligned}
L &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) \psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)\Big)
\cr &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2 \psi_1(\nu)
}{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu } J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) \Big) .
\end{aligned}$$ As $\nu \in K$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f}
\sum_{u \in
F(K)\atop u|\nu }
J_{2s}\big( \frac{\nu}{u }\big) \sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)&=& \sum_{u|\nu}\sum_{d|\frac {\nu}u}d^{2s}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{ud}\Big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)
\cr & = &\sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{u|\frac {\nu}d}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{ud}\Big)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)
\cr \hbox{(writing $u=tx$)}
&=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{t|\frac {\nu}d}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\sum_{x|\frac {\nu}{dt}}\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{dtx}\Big)
%\sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{tt'|\frac {\nu}d}f(t)\m \Big(\frac {\nu}{dtt'}\Big)
\cr \hbox{(writing $\frac {\nu}{dt}=x\theta$)}&
=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}\sum_{t|\frac {\nu}d}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\sum_{\theta|\frac {\nu}{dt}}\m (\theta)
\cr&=& \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}(\frac {\nu}d) (\log (\frac {\nu}d))(\log\log (\frac {\nu}d)),
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that $\sum_{d|n}\m(d)$ equals $1$ or $0$ according to $n=1$ or $n>1$.
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
L &\le& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t) } \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} \frac{ c_\nu^2
\psi_1(\nu) }{ \nu^{2s} } \sum_{d|\nu}d^{2s}(\frac {\nu}d) (\log (\frac {\nu}d))(\log\log (\frac {\nu}d)) \Big)
\cr &=& \Big(\sum_{u \in F(K)} \frac{1}{\psi_1(u)\sum_{t|u} t (\log t)(\log\log t)} \Big)\Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 \psi_1(\nu) \sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{1}{\d^{2s}}\,\d (\log \d)(\log\log \d) \Big) .
\end{aligned}$$ 7 pt From the trivial estimate $\sum_{t|u}t (\log t)(\log\log t)\ge u (\log u)(\log\log u)$, it is resulting that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
\sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2s}}{k^s\ell^s}
&\le& \Big(\sum_{u \ge 1 } \frac{1}{u (\log u)(\log\log u) (\log\log\log u)^\eta } \Big)
\cr & &\times \Big(\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{ (\log \d)(\log\log \d) }{\d^{2s-1}} \Big)
\cr & = & C(\eta)\ \sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\sum_{\d|\nu} \frac{ (\log \d)(\log\log \d) }{\d^{2s-1}}
%\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \nu)^\eta\,\sum_{\d|\nu}\d^{2(1-s)}\, \Psi(\d)
.
\end{aligned}$$
Letting $s=1$ in Theorem \[t5\] and using Theorem \[t1\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\sum_{k,\ell=1}^n
c_k c_\ell\frac{(k,\ell)^{2}}{k\ell}
&\le& C(\eta)\,
\sum_{\nu \in K} c_\nu^2 (\log\log\log \d)^\eta \Phi(\nu), \end{aligned}$$ which proves Theorem \[t3\].
3 pt
3 pt
**Concluding Remarks.** {#s7}
=======================
The proof of Theorem \[t2\] can be adapted with no difficulty to similar arithmetical functions. However, a possible extension of Erdős-Zaremba’s result to the function $$\Phi_\eta(n)=\sum_{d|n}\frac{(\log d)^\eta }{d}, \qq \qq \eta>1,$$ is a more delicate task. In particular, the application of the chaining argument used in the proof of Theorem \[t2\] to $\Phi_\eta(n)$, raises serious technical complications. We only indicate partial estimates. By using a convexity argument one shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phietamin}\limsup_{n\to \infty}\ \frac{\Phi_\eta(n)}{ (\log\log n)^{1+\eta}} &\ge&e^{\g} .\end{aligned}$$
For integers $n$ with distant prime divisors, this lower bound is optimal. More precisely, there exists a constant $C(\eta)$ depending on $\eta$ only, such that for any integer $n=\prod_{i=1}^r p_i^{\a_i}$ satisfying the condition $\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i-1}<2^{1-\eta},
$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phietaminmajex}\Phi_\eta(n)\ \le \ C(\eta)(\log\log n)^{\eta} \s_{-1}(n) .\end{aligned}$$ As $\s_{-1}(n)\le C\log\log n$, it follows that $\Phi_\eta(n)\ \le \ C(\eta)(\log\log n)^{1+\eta}$. 7 pt
We conclude with some remarks concerning Davenport’s function $w(n)$. At first, if $p_1,\ldots,p_r$ are the $r$ first consecutive prime numbers and $n=p_1 \ldots p_r$, then $w( n)\sim\log\,\o(n)$. Next, the obvious bound $w( n)\ll\log\log\log n$ holds true when the prime divisors of $n$ are large, for instance when these ones, write them $p_1,\ldots, p_r$, verify for some given positive number $B$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prop.pfinite} \sum_{j=1}^r\frac{\log p_{j}}{p_{j}} \le B \qq \hbox{ and} \qq p_1\ldots p_r\gg e^{e^B}.
\end{aligned}$$ More generally, one can establish the following result. Let $\{p_i, i\ge 1\}$ be an increasing sequence of prime numbers enjoying the following property $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prop.p} p_1\ldots p_s&\le & p_{s+1}\qq\qq s=1,2,\ldots\, .
\end{aligned}$$
Numbers of the form $n=p_1\ldots p_\nu$ with $p_1\ldots p_{i-1}\le p_i$, $2\le i\le \nu$, $\nu=1,2,\ldots$ appear as extremal numbers in some divisors questions, see Erdős and Hall [@EH].
\[b(n)\]Let $\{p_i, i\ge 1\}$ be an increasing sequence of prime numbers satisfying condition . There exists a constant $C$, such that if $p_1\ge C$, then for any integer $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$ such that $\a_i\ge 1$ for each $i$, we have $w( n)\le \log\log\log n$.
We use the following inequality. Let $0<\theta<1$. There exists a number $h_\theta$ such that for any $h\ge h_\theta$ and any $H$ such that $e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}\le H\le h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hH} h&\le &e^h\, \log \frac{\log(H+h)}{\log H}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, note that $\log (1+x) \ge \theta x$ if $0\le x \le (1-\theta)/\theta$. Let $h_\theta$ be such that if $h\ge h_\theta$, then $h\log h \le \theta(\log 2) e^h$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
h& \le & e^h\,\theta\frac{\log 2}{\log h}\le e^h\, \theta\frac{\log 2}{\log H} \le e^h\,\log \Big(1+\frac{\log 2}{\log H}\Big)=e^h\,\log \Big(\frac{\log 2H}{\log H}\Big)\cr&\le& e^h\,\log \Big(\frac{\log H+h}{\log H}\Big) \, .
\end{aligned}$$
We shall show by a recurrence on $r$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lll} \sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_i}{p_i}&\le & \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_r)\, .
\end{aligned}$$ This is trivially true if $r=1$ by the notation made in the Introduction, and since $p\ge 2$. Assume that is fulfilled for $s=1, \ldots , r-1$. Then, by the recurrence assumption, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\log p_i}{p_i}&\le & \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_{r-1} )+ \frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Put $H=\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\log p_i$, $h=\log p_r$. It suffices to show that$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\log p_r}{p_r}\ =\ \frac{h}{e^h} &\le & \log\frac{\log \sum_{i=1}^r\log p_i}{\log \sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\log p_i}\ =\ \, \log\frac{\log H+h}{\log H},
\end{aligned}$$ But $H\le h$, by assumption . Choose $C=e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}$. Then $H\ge \log p_1\ge e^{\frac{\theta}{(1-\theta)\log 2}}$. The searched inequality thus follows from .
Let $n= p_1^{\a_1}\ldots p_r^{\a_r}$, where $\a_i\ge 1$ for each $i$. We have $w( n)\le \log\log\log (p_1\ldots p_r)\le \log\log\log n$. 6 pt
[99]{} I. Berkes and M. Weber, (2012) On series of dilated functions, *Quart. J. Math.* [**65**]{}, no. 1, 25–52. H. Davenport, (1932) On a generalization of Euler’s function $\phi(n)$, *J. London Math. Soc.* [**7**]{}, 290–296. P. Erdös and R. R. Hall, (1978) On some unconventional problems on the divisors of integers, *J. Austral. Math. Soc.* (Series A) [**25**]{}, 479–485. P. Erdös and S. K. Zaremba, (1972) The arithmetical function $\sum_{d|n} \frac{\log d}{d}$, *Demonstratio Math.* [**6**]{}, Part. 2, 575–579. I. S. Gál, (1949) A theorem concerning diophantine approximations, *Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde* [**23**]{}, 13–38. T. H. Gronwall, (1912) Some asymptotic expressions in the theory of numbers, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**8**]{}, 118–122. H. Montgomery and R. Vaughan, *Multiplicative number theory: I. Classical Theory*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math. [**97**]{}, (2006), Cambridge UK. J. B. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld, (1962) Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, *Illinois J. Math.* [**6**]{}(1), 64–94. M. Weber, (2016) An arithmetical approach to the convergence problem of series of dilated functions and its connection with the Riemann Zeta function, *J. Number Th.* [**162**]{}, 137–179. M. Weber, (2011) On systems of dilated functions, *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris*, Sec. 1 [**349**]{}, 1261–1263. S. K. Zaremba, (1974) Good lattice points modulo composite numbers, *Monatshefte für Math.* [**78**]{}, 446–460.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a distributed tracking control scheme with distributed estimators has been developed for a leader-follower multi-agent system with measurement noises and directed interconnection topology. It is supposed that each follower can only measure relative positions of its neighbors in a noisy environment, including the relative position of the second-order active leader. A neighbor-based tracking protocol together with distributed estimators is designed based on a novel velocity decomposition technique. It is shown that the closed loop tracking control system is stochastically stable in mean square and the estimation errors converge to zero in mean square as well. A simulation example is finally given to illustrate the performance of the proposed control scheme.'
address:
- |
School of Automation Engineering,\
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China
- |
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management,\
City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
author:
- Jiangping Hu
- Gang Feng
bibliography:
- 'autosam.bib'
title: 'Distributed tracking control of leader-follower multi-agent systems under noisy measurement '
---
and
Multi-agent systems, leader-follower, velocity decomposition, state estimation, stochastic noises.
Introduction
============
In recent years cooperative distributed control of multi-agent systems has been a research focus in control community. An important control strategy among many others is the leader-following coordination among a team of agents. The leader-follower approach has been widely used in many practical applications such as formation control in robotic systems ([@wang; @das]), unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) formation ([@vane; @anders]), target tracking in sensor network ([@gupta; @hu]), and so on.
The major issues addressed in the study of leader-follower multi-agent systems include the varieties of topological consensus conditions ([@jad; @ren]), the roles of multiple leaders in guiding the followers ([@lin; @shi]), the time-delayed control design ([@hu07; @lin08]), and the distributed estimation strategies ([@fax; @hong06]). A common feature of these existing works on distributed control for leader-follower multi-agent systems is that the measurement noises are not considered. However in practice,the measurements and information communication are always subject to noises and/or perturbations, such as sensor noise, channel fading, quantization errors, etc. More recently consensus control problems with measurement noises have been studied in [@li09] and [@huang] with the fixed and undirected network topology. [@huang] proposed a consensus control for a leaderless multi-agent system with the first order discrete-time dynamics under noisy measurements and proved that the average consensus can be achieved in the sense of mean square by introducing a decreasing gain if the network topology is a strongly connected circulant graph. [@li09] extended the result to the first order continuous-time average consensus problem and obtained a sufficient and necessary condition. To the best of our knowledge, there is no report in open literature on design of distributed control for a leader-follower multi-agent system with measurement noises and time-varying directed interconnection topology.
In this paper, we will consider a distributed control design for a leader-follower multi-agent system under partial and noisy measurements and time-varying directed network topology. A novel velocity decomposition technique, inspired by the stochastic approximation approach ([@neve]), and a distributed estimation algorithm for the velocity of the active leader have been proposed to deal with those partial and noisy measurements. It has been shown that the estimation is convergent in mean square and the resulting closed loop control system is stochastically stable in mean square.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[form\], some concepts in algebraic graph theory are briefly reviewed and a leader-following problem is formulated. In Section \[design\], a tracking control along with a distributed estimation algorithm is firstly designed for the leader-follower multi-agent system based on the velocity decomposition technique. Then the stochastic stability of the closed-loop tracking error system is analyzed under switched directed topology. A numerical example is given to illustrate the distributed tracking control for the leader-follower multi-agent system in Section \[simu\]. Finally, some concluding remarks and future research directions are given in Section \[con\].
Throughout this paper, we will use the following notations. $I$ denotes an appropriate dimensioned identity matrix; $\mathbf{1}$ denotes a column vector with all ones. For a given matrix $A$, $A^T$ denotes its transpose; $tr(A)$ its trace; $\|A\|$ its Frobenius norm; $\lambda_{\rm max}(A)$ and $\lambda_{\rm min}(A)$ its maximum and minimum eigenvalues respectively. For a given set $S$, $\chi_S$ denotes the indicator function of $S$. $E[\cdot]$ is the expectation operator; $col(\cdot)$ denotes the concatenation. For any given real numbers $a$ and $b$, $a\wedge b$ denotes $min\{a,b\}$.
Problem formulation {#form}
===================
Preliminaries
-------------
In order to describe the interconnection topology of a leader-follower multi-agent system, we need to introduce some preliminaries from algebraic graph theory [@cgod].
Let $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ be a **directed graph** (or digraph for simplicity) consisting of a finite set of vertices $\mathcal{V}=\{0,1,...,n\}$ and a finite set of arcs $\mathcal{E}\subseteq \mathcal{V} \times \mathcal{V}$. The order of $\mathcal{G}$ is the number of vertices in $\mathcal{G}$ and denoted by $|\mathcal{G}|$. An arc of $\mathcal{G}$ is denoted by $(i,j)$, which starts from $i$ and ends on $j$ and represents the information flow from agent $j$ to agent $i$. A path in $\mathcal{G}$ is a sequence $i_0, i_1,\cdots,i_q$ of distinct vertices such that $(i_{j-1},i_j)$ is an arc for $j=1,\cdots, q$. If there exists a path from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$, we say that vertex $j$ is reachable from vertex $i$. Furthermore, if there exists a path from every vertex to vertex $j$, then vertex $j$ is **a globally reachable vertex** of $\mathcal{G}$. A digraph $\mathcal{G}$ is strongly connected if there exists a path between any two distinct vertices. A digraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ is a subgraph of $\mathcal{G}$ if its vertex set $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{G}^f)\subseteq \mathcal{V}$, arc set $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{G}^f)\subseteq \mathcal{E}$ and every arc in $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{G}^f)$ has both end-vertices in $\mathcal{V}$. A subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ is an induced subgraph if two vertices of $\mathcal{G}^f$ are adjacent in $\mathcal{G}^f$ if and only if they are adjacent in $\mathcal{G}$. An induced subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ that is strongly connected and maximal (i.e., no more vertices can be added while preserving its connectedness) is called a strong component of $\mathcal{G}$. In this paper we will use the vertex set $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{G}^f)=\{1,\cdots, n\}$ of subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ to label the follower-agents. For a vertex $i$ of $\mathcal{G}^f$, we call $\mathcal{N}_i=\{j:(i,j)\in
\mathcal{E}\}$ the neighbor set of vertex $i$. A nonnegative matrix $A=[a_{ij}]\in \mathbf{R}^{n\times n}$ is called an adjacency matrix of subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ if the element $a_{ij}$ associated with the arc $(i,j)$ is positive, i.e. $a_{ij}=1
\Leftrightarrow (i,j) \in \mathcal{E}$. Moreover, we assume $a_{ii}=0$ for all $i \in \mathcal{V}$. Notice that the adjacency matrix $A$ may not be a symmetric matrix for a digraph. If $\sum\limits_{j=1}^n a_{ij}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n a_{ji}$ for $i=1,\cdots, n,$ then the digraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ is called balanced. A diagonal matrix $D=diag\{ d_1,...,d_n\}\in \mathbf{R}^{n
\times n}$ is called the degree matrix whose diagonal elements $d_i=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n a_{ij}$ for $i=1,...,n$. Then the Laplacian matrix of subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ is defined as $$L=D-A,$$ which may not be a symmetric matrix either. By this definition every row sum of the Laplacian matrix $L$ is zero. Therefore, $L$ always has a zero eigenvalue corresponding to a right eigenvector $\textbf{1}=col(1,\cdots,1)\in \mathbf{R}^n$. Moreover, if subgraph $\mathcal{G}^f$ is balanced, $L$ has a zero eigenvalue corresponding to a left eigenvector $\textbf{1}\in \mathbf{R}^n$.
When the digraph $\mathcal{G}$ is used to describe the interconnection topology of a multi-agent system consisting of one active leader-agent and $n$ follower-agents, we can define a diagonal matrix $B=diag\{a_{10},\cdots, a_{n0}\}\in \mathbf{R}^n$ to be a leader adjacency matrix, where $a_{i0}=1$ if follower $i$ is connected to the leader across the communication link $(i,0)$, otherwise, $a_{i0}=0$.
If we define a new matrix $H=L+B\in \mathbf{R}^n,$ the following lemma plays a key role in sequel.
([@hu07])\[posit\] The following statements are equivalent:
1. Vertex $0$ is a globally reachable vertex of digraph $\mathcal{G}$;
2. $H$ is a positive stable matrix whose eigenvalues have positive real-parts;
3. Furthermore, if $\mathcal{G}^f$ is balanced, $H+H^T$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix.
The topology connectedness in the sense that vertex $0$ is a globally reachable vertex of digraph $\mathcal{G}$ implies that the information of the leader can be propagated over the multi-agent network. Obviously, this notion of connectedness is much weaker than the notion of strong connectedness.
For the purpose of modelling the time-variation of the interconnection topology $\mathcal{G}$ of the leader-follower multi-agent system, we adopt the following general assumptions:
- There exists a switching signal $\sigma: [t_0,\infty)\rightarrow
\mathcal{P}=\{1, 2, \cdots, N\}$, which is piecewise-constant. Here, $N$ denotes the total number of all possible interconnection topologies of the multi-agent system and $t_0$ is the initial time.
- If the time interval $[t_0, \infty)$ is constituted by an infinite sequence of bounded, non-overlapping, contiguous time-intervals $[t_j, t_{j+1})$ for $j=0,1,\cdots$ with $t_0=0$, there exists a positive constant $\tau$ such that $t_{j+1}-t_j\geq \tau$. The number $\tau$ is called a dwell time.
Then during each time-interval $[t_j,t_{j+1})$ the digraph $\mathcal{G}_{\sigma(t)}$ is time-invariant and denoted by $\mathcal{G}_p$ for some $p\in \mathcal{P}$.
Leader-following problem
------------------------
In this paper we will study a distributed control design for a leader-follower multi-agent system with one active leader-agent (just called leader in sequel for simplicity and labeled 0) and $n$ cooperative follower-agents (just called followers in sequel for simplicity). Consider a tracking control problem for a multi-agent system where the followers are moving with the first-order dynamics $$\label{follh}
\dot{x}_i(t)=u_i(t),$$ for $i=1,\cdots, n$, and the dynamics of the leader is described by the second-order differential equation $$\label{leader}
\begin{cases} \dot{x}_0(t)=v_0(t),\\
\dot{v}_0(t)=a_0(t),\\
y_0(t)=x_0(t).
\end{cases}$$
The variables $x_i(t), u_i(t)\in \mathbf{R}^{m}\;(i=1,\cdots, n)$ denote the states and inputs of $n$ followers respectively while $x_0(t), v_0(t)\in \mathbf{R}^{m}$ and $a_0(t)\in \mathbf{R}^{m}$ denote the position, the velocity and the acceleration of the the active leader respectively, and $y_0(t)$ is the only output. Here for notation simplicity let $m=1$.
It was assumed in most existing works that an information exchange between agents is perfect, that is, each agent can obtain the information of its neighbors precisely. In addition, it was assumed that the interconnection topology of the followers are undirected. However, these assumptions are not valid in most practical situations due to various reasons, such as sensor and/or communication constraints, link variations. Measurement noises and time-varying directed graph have to be considered for control of leader-follower multi-agent systems.
Since the velocity $v_0(t)$ of the active leader cannot be measured by followers, then each follower has to make estimation of $v_0(t)$ for control design by using the noisy measurements from its neighbors. Our objective is to design a distributed control for the leader-follower multi-agent system under partial and noisy measurements and time-varying directed interconnection topology so that each follower can track the active leader and the velocity estimation errors are convergent to zero in the sense of mean square, i.e., $$\label{resl}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}
E[(x_i(t)-x_0(t))^2]&=0,\\
\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}
E[(v_i(t)-v_0(t))^2]&=0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $v_i(t)$ is the estimate of $v_0(t)$ for the $i$th follower. In this case, the closed loop system is said to be stochastically stable in mean square.
Distributed control of leader-follower system {#design}
=============================================
In this section we will focus on designing a dynamic tracking control for the leader-follower multi-agent system such that the closed loop control system is stochastically stable in mean square.
The typical information available for each follower is its relative position with its neighbors. However as mentioned in section of introduction, the real information exchange among followers through a communication network is often subject to different kinds of constraints such as sensor noise, quantization errors, etc. In this case, the information available for the $i$th follower with respect to its neighbors can be described as: $$\label{meas}
z_{ij}(t)=a_{ij}(t)(x_i(t)-x_j(t)+\varrho_{ij}\omega_{ij}(t))\in
\mathbf{R},$$ where $j\in\mathcal{N}_i(t)$ with $\mathcal{N}_i(t)$ being the neighbor set of follower $i$ at time $t$, $a_{ij}(t)$ is the connection weight between agent $i$ and agent $j$ at time $t$, $\omega_{ij}(t)$ is an independent normal white noise, $\varrho_{ij}\geq 0$ is the noise intensity.
It is noted that since only the relative noisy position measurements $z_{ij}(t)$ can be used for the $i$th follower, the construction of a distributed estimator and controller turns out to be much more challenging than that in [@hong06]. To address the challenge, a novel decomposition scheme of the velocity $v_0(t)$ of the active leader is proposed as follows: $$\label{deco}
\begin{cases}v_0(t)=\alpha(t) \mathbf{v}_0(t),\\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}_0(t)=\mathbf{a}_0(t),
\end{cases}$$ where $\mathbf{v}_0(t)$ is a continuous differentiable function called nominal velocity and $\alpha(t):[t_0,\infty)\to (0,\infty)$ is a continuous differentiable function satisfying $\int_{t_0}^{\infty}\alpha(s)ds=\infty$ and $\int_{t_0}^{\infty}\alpha^2(s)ds<\infty$. In addition, $\alpha(t)$ has an upper bound $\mu$ in $[t_0, \infty)$. We call $\mathbf{a}_0(t)$ the nominal acceleration. Then the relationship between the acceleration $a_0(t)$ and the nominal one $\mathbf{a}_0(t)$ can be expressed as $$\label{acce}
a_0(t)=\dot{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{v}_0(t)+\alpha(t)\mathbf{a}_0(t).$$ Notice that $\alpha(t)$ in the decomposition (\[deco\]) can be easily found for a continuous differentiable function $v_0(t)$, for example, $\alpha(t)=\frac{1}{t+1}$ with its upper bound $\mu=1$ in time-interval $[0,\infty)$. In sequel we assume $\alpha(t)$ and $\mathbf{a}_0(t)$ are precisely known beforehand.
Let $v_i(t)=\alpha(t)\mathbf{v}_i(t)$ be the estimate of $v_0(t)$ by the $i$th follower. If $\mathbf{v}_i(t)-\mathbf{v}_0(t)\to 0$, one has $v_i(t)-v_0(t)\to 0$ since $\alpha(t)$ has an upper bound $\mu$ during time-interval $[t_0, \infty)$.
On the basis of the decomposition (\[deco\]), for the $i$th follower with dynamics (\[follh\]), we propose the following local dynamic control scheme with an estimator: $$\label{cont}\begin{cases} u_i(t)=-k\alpha(t) \sum\limits_{j\in
\mathcal{N}_i(t)}z_{ij}(t)+\alpha(t) \mathbf{v}_i(t),\\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}_i(t)=\mathbf{a}_0(t)-\gamma k\alpha(t)
\sum\limits_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i(t)}z_{ij}(t),
\end{cases}$$ where $\mathbf{v}_i(t)$ is an estimate of the nominal velocity $\mathbf{v}_0(t)$ for $i=1,\cdots,n,$ $0<\gamma<1,$ the gain constant $k>0$ is to be determined in sequel.
It is noted that the estimator for the nominal velocity $\mathbf{v}_0(t)$ of the active leader is a distributed one based on measurements of relative positions of its neighbors. The rationale for the estimator is to collect the position information of the leader within the neighborhood of the $i$th follower during a time period and then make a tendency prediction of the trajectory of the leader with the gathered historical data through an integrator.
In the dynamic control (\[cont\]) the neighbor set $\mathcal{N}_i(t)$ at time $t$ of the $i$th follower may include the active leader. We divide the neighbor set $\mathcal{N}_i(t)$ into two subsets as follows: $$\label{nebr} \mathcal{N}_i(t)=\mathcal{N}_i^f(t) \cup
\mathcal{N}_i^l(t), i=1,\cdots, n,$$ where $\mathcal{N}_i^f(t)$ denotes the follower-neighbor set and $\mathcal{N}_i^l(t)$ denotes the leader-neighbor set of follower $i$. Then applying the dynamic control scheme (\[cont\]) to system (\[follh\]) yields: $$\label{flexp}
\begin{aligned}
\dot x_i(t)=&-k\alpha(t)\{\sum\limits_{j\in
\mathcal{N}_i^f(t)}a_{ij}(t)(x_i(t)-x_j(t))\\
&+a_{i0}(t)(x_i(t)-x_0(t))\}-k\alpha(t)a_{i0}(t)\varrho_{i0}\omega_{i0}(t)\\
&-k\alpha(t)\sum\limits_{j\in
\mathcal{N}_i^f(t)}a_{ij}(t)\varrho_{ij}\omega_{ij}(t)+\alpha(t) \mathbf{v}_i(t),\\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}_i(t)=&\mathbf{a}_0(t)-\gamma
k\alpha(t)\{\sum\limits_{j\in
\mathcal{N}_i^f(t)}a_{ij}(t)(x_i(t)-x_j(t))\\
&+a_{i0}(t)(x_i(t)-x_0(t))\}-\gamma k\alpha(t)a_{i0}(t)\varrho_{i0}\omega_{i0}(t)\\
&-\gamma k\alpha(t)\sum\limits_{j\in
\mathcal{N}_i^f(t)}a_{ij}(t)\varrho_{ij}\omega_{ij}(t).
\end{aligned}$$ Let $a(i,\cdot)$ denote the $i$th row of the adjacency matrix $A=[a_{ij}]\in \mathbf{R}^{n\times n}$ of digraph $\mathcal{G}^f$. Denote $x=col(x_1,\cdots,x_n)\in\mathbf{R}^{n},
\mathbf{v}=col(\mathbf{v}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{v}_n)\in\mathbf{R}^{n},$ $\omega_0=col(\omega_{10},\cdots,$ $ \omega_{n0})\in\mathbf{R}^{n},$ $\omega_i=col(\omega_{i1},\cdots, \omega_{in})\in\mathbf{R}^{n}$ for $i=1,\cdots, n$ and $\omega=col(\omega_0,\omega_1, \cdots,
\omega_n)\in\mathbf{R}^{n(n+1)}$. Then system (\[flexp\]) can be rewritten in a compact form: $$\label{flc}
\begin{cases}
\dot x=-k\alpha H_{\sigma}x+k\alpha B_{\sigma}\mathbf{1}x_0-k\alpha\Sigma_\sigma \omega+\alpha \mathbf{v},\\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}=\mathbf{a}_0\mathbf{1}-\gamma k \alpha
H_{\sigma}x+\gamma k\alpha B_{\sigma}\mathbf{1}x_0-\gamma
k\alpha\Sigma_\sigma \omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $\sigma$ is the piecewise-constant switching signal, $H_{\sigma}=L_{\sigma}+B_{\sigma}$, $L_{\sigma}$ is the Laplacian matrix associated with the switched subgraph $\mathcal{G}_{\sigma}^f$,$B_{\sigma}$ is the leader adjacency matrix associated with the switched digraph $\mathcal{G}_\sigma$, $\Sigma_0=diag\{\varrho_{10},\cdots, \varrho_{n0}\}, $ $\Sigma_i=diag\{\varrho_{i1},\cdots, \varrho_{in}\}$ for $i=1,
\cdots, n$, and the matrix $\Sigma_{\sigma}$ is defined in equation (\[sigma\]).
$$\label{sigma}
\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{\sigma}=&\begin{pmatrix}a_{10}\varrho_{10}&&&a_{11}\varrho_{11}&\cdots &a_{1n}\varrho_{1n}& & & &\\
&\ddots& & &\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& & &\\
& & a_{n0}\varrho_{n0}& & & & &a_{n1}\varrho_{n1} &\cdots&a_{nn}\varrho_{nn}\end{pmatrix}\in \mathbf{R}^{n\times(n(n+1))}\\
=&[B_{\sigma}\Sigma_0\;\;
diag\{a(1,\cdot)\Sigma_1,\cdots,a(n,\cdot)\Sigma_n\}]\in R^{n\times
n(n+1)}.
\end{aligned}$$
In order to show that all the followers can track the active leader, we firstly make two variable changes $\bar x=x-x_0\textbf{1}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{v}}=\mathbf{v}-\mathbf{v}_0 \textbf{1}$. According to the spectrum properties of graph Laplacian matrix, $L_\sigma
\mathbf{1}=0$ and then $$\begin{aligned}-H_{\sigma}x+ B_{\sigma}\mathbf{1}x_0
=-H_{\sigma}\bar{x}.\end{aligned}$$ With system (\[leader\]) and (\[flc\]), we have $$\label{errs}
\begin{cases}
\dot{\bar x}=-k\alpha H_{\sigma}\bar x-k\alpha\Sigma_{\sigma} \omega+\alpha\bar{\mathbf{v}},\\
\dot{\bar{\mathbf{v}}}=-\gamma k \alpha H_{\sigma}\bar{x}-\gamma k\alpha\Sigma_{\sigma} \omega,\\
\end{cases}$$ which can be rewritten in a compact form: $$\label{errc} \dot{\varepsilon}=F_\sigma \varepsilon +\Omega_\sigma
\omega,$$ where $\varepsilon=\begin{pmatrix}\bar
x\\\bar{\mathbf{v}}\end{pmatrix}, F_{\sigma}=\begin{pmatrix}-k
\alpha H_\sigma & \alpha I\\-\gamma k \alpha H_\sigma &
0\end{pmatrix},$ and $\Omega_\sigma=\begin{pmatrix}-k \alpha \Sigma_{\sigma} \\
-\gamma k \alpha \Sigma_{\sigma}\end{pmatrix}.$
In sequel we will analyze the stochastic stability of system (\[errc\]). Two cases: time-invariant leader-follower topology and time-varying leader-follower topology will be considered.
Time-invariant topology {#fix}
-----------------------
When the leader-follower interconnection topology $\mathcal{G}_{\sigma(t)}$ is time-invariant, the subscript $\sigma(t)$ will be dropped.
Here we give a main result as follows.
\[thm0\] If vertex $0$ is globally reachable in $\mathcal{G}$, then with the dynamic tracking control (\[cont\]) each follower can track the active leader asymptotically in mean square, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}
E[(x_i(t)-x_0(t))^2]=0,\\
&\lim\limits_{t\to \infty} E[(v_i(t)-v_0(t))^2]=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Proof: To facilitate analysis, we write system (\[errc\]) in the form of It$\rm\hat{o}$ stochastic differential equation: $$\label{errci0} d \varepsilon=F \varepsilon dt +\Omega d \rm w,$$ where $\rm w(t)$ is an $n(n+1)$-dimensional standard Brownian motion.
Choose a nonnegative function $$\label{lyap}
V(t)=\varepsilon^T(t) P \varepsilon(t),$$ where $$\label{matrixp0}
P=\begin{pmatrix}\bar{P}&-\gamma \bar{P}\\
-\gamma \bar{P}&\bar{P}\end{pmatrix}$$ and $\bar{P}$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix satisfying $H^T\bar{P}+\bar{P}H=I_n$ which is well defined due to Lyapunov Theorem and Lemma \[posit\].
It follows from the definition of $P$ in (\[matrixp0\]) and $F$ in (\[errc\]) that $$\label{lve0}
\begin{aligned}
&PF+F^TP=:-Q\\
&=-\alpha(t)\begin{pmatrix}
k(1-\gamma^{2})I_n&-\bar{P}\\
-\bar{P}&2\gamma \bar{P}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $$\label{gain0}
k> \frac{\lambda_{\rm max}(\bar{P})}{2\gamma(1-\gamma^{2})},$$ according to Schur complement formula, it can be shown that $Q$ is positive definite.
By It$\rm\hat{o}$ formula, we have $$\label{lv0}
\begin{aligned}
dV(t)|_{(\ref{errci0})}=&[\varepsilon^T(t)(PF+F^TP)\varepsilon(t)+tr(P\Omega \Omega^T)]dt\\
&+2\varepsilon^T(t)P\Omega d\rm w(t)\\
=&[-\varepsilon^T(t)Q\varepsilon(t)+tr(P\Omega \Omega^T)]dt\\
&+2\varepsilon^T(t)P\Omega d\rm w(t)\\
\leq & \frac{-\lambda_{\rm min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm max}(\bar{P})}\alpha(t)V(t)dt+\rho_0 \alpha^2(t)dt\\
&+2\varepsilon^T(t)P\Omega d\rm w(t),\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0= n\lambda_{\rm
max}(\bar{P})k^2(1-\gamma^2)\max\limits_{\sigma\in
\mathcal{P}}\|\Sigma_\sigma\|^2$.
For the third term in the last inequality of (\[lv0\]), we will prove that the mathematical expectation $$\label{intine0} E[\int_{t_0}^{t} \varepsilon^T(s)P\Omega d\rm
w(s)]=0,$$ for all $t \geq t_0$.
For any $t_0\geq 0$, $T\geq t_0$, let $\tau_{\delta}^{t_0}=\inf\{t\geq t_0: V(t)\geq \delta\}$ where $\delta$ is a given positive number if $V(t)\geq \delta$ for some $t\in [t_0,T]$; otherwise, $\tau_{\delta}^{t_0}=T$. From equation (\[lv0\]), one can get $$\label{elv0}
\begin{aligned}
&E[V(t\wedge \tau_{\delta}^{t_0})\chi_{t\leq
\tau_\delta^{t_0}}]-E[V(t_0)]\\
\leq & \frac{-\lambda_{\rm min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm
max}(\bar{P})}\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha(s)V(s\wedge
\tau_{\delta}^{t_0}))\chi_{s\leq \tau_\delta^{t_0}}ds\\
& +\rho_0\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s)ds\\
\leq & \rho_0\int_{t_0}^{T}\alpha^2(s)ds,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies that there exists a constant $\Delta_{t_0,T}$ such that $E[V(t\wedge \tau_{\delta}^{t_0})\chi_{t\leq
\tau_\delta^{t_0}}]\leq \Delta_{t_0,T}, \;\forall t\in [t_0, T]$. Then, by Fatou lemma [@chow], we have $$\sup\limits_{t_0\leq t \leq T}E[V(t)]\leq \Delta_{t_0,T}.$$ Thus, $$E[\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s) V(s)ds] \leq
\sup\limits_{t_0\leq t \leq T}E[V(t)] \int_{0}^{T}\alpha^2(s) ds<
\infty.$$ In addition, we have $$E[\int_{t_0}^{t}\|\varepsilon^T(s)P\Omega_{\sigma} \|^2ds] \leq
\rho_0 E[\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s)V(s)ds].$$
By the It$\rm\hat{o}$ integral formula [@frie], we have the equation (\[intine0\]).
Then based on equations (\[lv0\]) and (\[intine0\]), we have $$\label{elvt}
\begin{aligned}
&E[V(t)]-E[V(t_0)]\\
\leq & \frac{-\lambda_{\rm min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm
max}(\bar{P})}\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha(s)E[V(s)]ds
+\rho_0\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s)ds.
\end{aligned}$$
Then, by the comparison theorem [@mich], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&E[V(t)]\leq E[V(t_0)]\exp\{\frac{-\lambda_{\rm
min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm
max}(\bar{P})}\int_{t_0}^t\alpha(s)ds
\}\\
&+\rho_0 \int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s) \exp\{\frac{-\lambda_{\rm
min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm max}(\bar{P})}\int_{s}^t\alpha(\iota)d\iota\}ds\\
&\leq E[V(t_0)]\exp\{\frac{-\lambda_{\rm
min}(Q)}{(1+\gamma)\lambda_{\rm
max}(\bar{P})}\int_{t_0}^t\alpha(s)ds
\}\\
&+\rho_0 \int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s)ds.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, when $t\to \infty,$ $\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha(s)ds\to \infty,
\int_{t_0}^{t}\alpha^2(s)ds\to 0$, and so $E[V(t)]\to 0$.
Since $V(t)\geq (1-\gamma)\lambda_{\rm
min}(\bar{P})\|\varepsilon(t)\|^2$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}E(x_i(t)-x_0(t))^2=0,\\
\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}E(\mathbf{v}_i(t)-\mathbf{v}_0(t))^2=0.
\end{aligned}$$ It then follows from $0\leq \alpha(t)\leq \mu$ that $\lim\limits_{t\to \infty}E(\alpha(t)\mathbf{v}_i(t)-v_0(t))^2=0$. The proof is thus completed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the proof of Theorem \[thm0\] it can be seen that the introduction of the gain function $\alpha(t)$ can ensure equation (\[intine0\]) and $E[V(t)]\to 0$ as $t \to \infty$. Thus the tracking result presented in this paper is much more improved in comparison with that in [@hong06] for the leader-follower multi-agent system with directed interconnection topology.
Time-varying topology {#swit}
---------------------
Now one is ready to present the following main result about leader-follower tracking control under time-varying interconnection topology.
\[thm\] If vertex $0$ is globally reachable in $\mathcal{G}_\sigma$ and $\mathcal{G}_\sigma^{f}$ is balanced during each time-interval $[t_j, t_{j+1})$, then with the dynamic tracking control (\[cont\]) each follower can track the active leader asymptotically in mean square.
Proof: Take a nonnegative function $V(t)=\varepsilon^T(t) P
\varepsilon(t)$ with symmetric positive definite matrix $$\label{matrixp} P= \left(\begin{array}{cc}I_n&-\gamma I_n\\-\gamma
I_n&I_n\end{array}\right).$$
It follows from the definition of $P$ in (\[matrixp\]) and $F_\sigma$ in (\[errc\]) that $$\label{lve}
\begin{aligned}
&PF_\sigma+F_\sigma^TP=:-Q_\sigma\\
&=-\alpha(t)\begin{pmatrix}
k(1-\gamma^{2}) (H_{\sigma}+H_{\sigma}^T)&-I_n\\
-I_n&2\gamma I_n
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ By assumptions in Theorem \[thm\] and Lemma \[posit\], $H_\sigma
+H_{\sigma}^T$ is positive definite. If we choose $$\label{gain}
k> \frac{1}{2\gamma(1-\gamma^{2})\bar{\lambda}},$$ where $\bar{\lambda}=\min\limits_{\sigma\in
\mathcal{P}}\{\lambda_\sigma: \;\mbox{eigenvalues of}\;
H_\sigma+H_{\sigma}^T \}>0$, according to Schur complement formula, it can be shown that $Q_\sigma$ is positive definite.
The rest of the proof are similar to those in Theorem \[thm0\] by noting that $\mathcal{P}$ is a finite set, and hence omitted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Theorem \[thm\], the condition that $\mathcal{G}_\sigma^f$ is balanced is a sufficient condition. The subsequent numerical example shows that this condition is not necessary for the mean square convergence of the tracking errors.
A simulation example {#simu}
====================
In this section a numerical example is given to illustrate the proposed dynamic tracking control algorithm. Consider a leader-follower multi-agent system with one active leader and three followers. Suppose that the leader-follower interconnection topology $\mathcal{G}_\sigma$ is time-varying with switching rule: $\mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\cdots,$ where $\mathcal{G}_1$ and $\mathcal{G}_2$ are described in Fig. \[fig1\].
Then one has the following Laplacian matrices $$L_1=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1&0\\
-1&1&0\\0&-1&1\end{pmatrix},
L_2=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1&0\\
-1&1&0\\0&0&0\end{pmatrix},$$ and the leader adjacency matrices $B_1=diag\{1,0,0\}$ and $B_2=diag\{1,0,1\}$. It is not difficult to have the minimal eigenvalue $\bar{\lambda}=0.3187$ for $H_1=L_1+B_1$ and $H_2=L_2+B_2$.
In the control (\[cont\]) we choose $\alpha(t)=\frac{1}{t+1}$, $\gamma=0.8$ and $k=6$. In addition, let the intensity $\varrho_{ij}=1$ when $a_{ij}=1$. For system (\[errc\]), the initial value of $\varepsilon(t)$ is taken randomly as $col(2,1,-1,-0.2,-2,0.2)$. Then the tracking errors $\bar{x}_1(t),
\bar{x}_2(t)$ and $\bar{x}_3(t)$ are shown in Fig. \[tracfig\]. It can be seen that the tracking control (\[cont\]) ensures that the followers track the active leader under noisy measurements. Notice that even though digraph $\mathcal{G}_1^f$ is not balanced, the tracking errors still converge in mean square.
![The evolution of tracking errors[]{data-label="tracfig"}](track.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusions {#con}
===========
In this paper we have studied the leader following problem of a multi-agent system with measurement noises and directed interconnection topology. The neighbor-based distributed control scheme with distributed estimators has been developed. Algebraic graph theory and stochastic analysis have been employed to analyze the mean square convergence of the tracking errors. One possible future research topic is to study the leader-following problem in a noisy environment when the dynamics of each agent is described by a more general linear system.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are most grateful to the associate editor and reviewers for their many constructive comments based on which this paper has been significantly improved. This work was partially supported by a grant from City University of Hong Kong under Grant No. 9360131.
[99]{} Wang P. K. C. (1991). Navigation strategies for multiple autonomous mobile robots moving in formation, [*J. Robot. Syst.*]{}, vol. 8, no. 2, 177-195.
Das A. K., Fierro R., $\&$ Kumar V., et al. (2002). A vision-based formation control framework, [*IEEE trans. Robot. Autom.*]{}, vol. 18, no. 5, 813-825.
Vanek B., Peni T., Bokor J., $\&$ Balas G. (2005). Practical approach to real-time trajectory tracking of UAV formations, in [*Proc. of American Control Conference*]{}, Oregon, 122-127.
Anderson B. D. O., Fidan B., Yu C., $\&$ Walle D. (2008). UAV formation control: theory and application, [*Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences*]{}, Springer: Berlin, 371, 15-33.
Gupta H., Cao X., $\&$ Haering N. (2008). Map-based active leader-follower surveillance system, in Proc. of [*ECCV workshop on Multi-Camera and Multi-modal Sensor Fusion Algorithms and Applications*]{}, Marseille, France.
Hu J., $\&$ Hu X. (2008). Optimal target trajectory estimation and filtering using networked sensors. [*Jr. Systems Science $\&$ Complexity*]{}, vol. 21, 325-336.
Jadbabaie A., Lin J., $\&$ Morse A. S. (2003). Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules, [*IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control*]{}, vol. 48, no. 6, 988-1001.
Ren W. $\&$ Beard R. W. (2005). Consensus seeking in multiagent systems under dynamically changing interaction topologies, [*IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control*]{}, vol. 50, no. 5, 655-661.
Lin Z., Francis B., $\&$ Maggiore M. (2005). Necessary and sufficient graphical conditions for formation control of unicycles, [*IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control*]{}, vol. 50, no. 1, 121-127.
Shi G., $\&$ Hong Y. (2009). Global target aggregation and state agreement of nonlinear multi-agent systems with switching topologies, [*Automatica*]{}, vol. 45, no. 5, 1165-1175.
Hu J., $\&$ Hong Y. (2007). Leader-following coordination of multi-agent systems with coupling time delays, [*Physica A*]{}, vol. 374, no. 2, 853-863.
Lin P., Jia Y., Du J., $\&$ Yuan S. (2008). Distributed control of multi-agent systems with second-order agent dynamics and delay-dependent communications, [*Asian J. Control*]{}, vol. 10, no. 2, 254-259.
Fax A., $\&$ Murray R. M., (2004). Information flow and cooperative control of vehicle formations. [*IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control*]{}, vol. 49, no. 9, 1465-1476.
Hong Y., Hu J.,$\&$, Gao L. (2006). Tracking control for multi-agent consensus with an active leader and variable topology, [*Automatica*]{}, vol. 42, no. 7, 1177-1182.
Li T., $\&$ Zhang J. F. (2009). Mean square average consensus under measurement noises and fxed topologies: necessary and sufficient conditions, [*Automatica*]{}, vol. 45, no. 8, 1929-1936.
Huang M., $\&$ Manton J. H. (2009), Coordination and consensus of networked agents with noisy measurement: stochastic algorithms and asymptotic behavior, [*SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*]{}, vol. 48, no. 1, 134-161.
Godsil C., $\&$ Royle G. (2001). [*Algebraic Graph Theory,*]{} New York: Springer-Verlag.
Nevelson M. B.,$\&$ Hasminskii R. Z. (1976). [*Stochastic Approximation and Recursive Estimation*]{}, Providence : American Mathematical Society.
Chow Y. S., $\&$ Teicher H. (1997). [*Probability theory: independence, interchangeability, martingales*]{}, New York: Springer.
Friedman A. (1975). [*Stochastic differential equations and applications: Vol. 1*]{}, New York: Academic Press.
Michel A. N., $\&$ Miller R. K. (1977) [*Qualitative analysis of large scale dynamical systems*]{}, New York: Academic Press.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[Fei Zuo]{}\
University of South Carolina\
[email protected]
- |
[Bokai Yang]{}\
University of South Carolina\
[email protected]
- |
[Xiaopeng Li]{}\
University of South Carolina\
[email protected]
- |
[Lannan Luo]{}\
University of South Carolina\
[email protected]
- |
[Qiang Zeng]{}\
University of South Carolina\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: '**Exploiting the Inherent Limitation of $L_0$ Adversarial Examples**'
---
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank our shepherd, Dr. Zachary Weinberg, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments. This project was supported by NSF CNS-1815144, NSF CNS-1856380, and NSF CNS-1850278.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Continuous variable remote state preparation and teleportation are analyzed using Wigner functions in phase space. We suggest a remote squeezed state preparation scheme between two parties sharing an entangled twin beam, where homodyne detection on one beam is used as a conditional source of squeezing for the other beam. The scheme works also with noisy measurements, and provide squeezing if the homodyne quantum efficiency is larger than $50\%$. Phase space approach is shown to provide a convenient framework to describe teleportation as a generalized conditional measurement, and to evaluate relevant degrading effects, such the finite amount of entanglement, the losses along the line, and the nonunit quantum efficiency at the sender location.'
address:
- |
Quantum Optics $\&$ Information Group, Unitá INFM di Pavia, Italia\
[E-mail address: [email protected]]{}, [URL: www.quantumoptics.it/\~paris]{}
- 'Dipartimento di Fisica and Unitá INFM, Universitá di Milano, Italia'
author:
- 'Matteo G. A. Paris'
- Mary Cola and Rodolfo Bonifacio
title: Remote state preparation and teleportation in phase space
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Let us consider an entangled state described by a density matrix $R$ on a bipartite Hilbert space ${\cal H}_1 \otimes {\cal H}_2$. A measurement performed on one subsystem reduces the other one according to the projection postulate. Each possible outcome, say $x$, occurs with probability $p_x$, and corresponds to a different conditional state $\varrho_x$ $$\begin{aligned}
p_x = \hbox{Tr}_{12} \left[R\: \Pi_x \otimes I_2 \right]\:,
\qquad \varrho_x = \frac1{p_x} \hbox{Tr}_1 \left[ R \: \Pi_x \otimes I_2\right]
\label{cond}\:.\end{aligned}$$ $\Pi_x$ is the probability measure (POVM) of the measurement (acting on the Hilbert space of the first subsystem) and $I_2$ the identity operator on the second Hilbert space. $\hbox{Tr}_{12}\left[...\right]$ denotes full trace, whereas $\hbox{Tr}_j\left[...\right]$, $j=1,2$ denotes partial traces.
Eq. (\[cond\]) shows that entanglement and conditional measurements can be powerful resources to realize (probabilistically) nonlinear dynamics that otherwise would not have been achievable through Hamiltonian evolution in realistic media. Since entanglement may be shared between two distant users (the sender performing the measurement, and the receiver observing the conditional output), the inherent nonlocality of entangled states permits the [*remote preparation*]{} of the conditional states $\varrho_x$, a protocol that may be used to exchange quantum information between the two parties sending only classical bits [@lo]. A different kind of remote state preparation is teleportation [@tel], where the measurement depends on an unknown reference state which may be recovered at the receiver location [*independently*]{} on the outcome of the measurement.
In this paper, we focus our attention on continuous variable (CV) remote state preparation . In particular, we analyze in detail an optical scheme for remote preparation of squeezed states by realistic (noisy) conditional homodyining. Our analysis is based on a phase-space approach, and this is motivated by the following reasons: i) entanglement in optical CV quantum information processing is provided by the so-called twin-beam (TWB) state of two field modes $|\lambda\rangle\rangle=\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}\sum_p \lambda^p
\: |p\rangle |p\rangle$, $0<\lambda<1$; the corresponding Wigner function is Gaussian; ii) trace operation corresponds to overlap integral [@cah], and the Wigner function of (realistic) homodyne POVM is also a Gaussian. By Wigner calculus we will be able to derive simple analytical formulas for conditional outputs, also in the case of noisy measurement at the sender location. In addition, we will show that phase-space approach is a convenient framework to describe CV teleportation as a conditional measurement , and to evaluate relevant degrading effects, such the finite amount of entanglement, the losses along the transmission channel, and the nonunit quantum efficiency at the sender location.
Conditional measurement in phase space {#s:cps}
======================================
TWB is the maximally entangled state (for a given, finite, value of energy) of two modes of radiation. It can be produced either by mixing two single-mode squeezed vacuum (with orthogonal squeezing phases) in a balanced beam splitter [@kim] or, from the vacuum, by spontaneous downconversion in a nondegenerate parametric optical amplifier (NOPA) [@kum0]. The evolution operator of the NOPA reads as follows $U_r =
\exp{\left[r \left(a^\dag b^\dag-ab\right)\right]}$ where the “gain” $r$ is proportional to the interaction-time, the nonlinear susceptibility, and the pump intensity. We have $\lambda=\tanh
r$, whereas the number of photons of TWB is given by $N=2\sinh^2
r=2\lambda^2/(1-\lambda^2)$. In view of the duality squeezing/entanglement via balanced beam-splitter [@joint] the parameter $r$ is sometimes referred to as the squeezing parameter of the twin-beam. Throughout the paper we will refer to mode $a$ as “mode 1” and to mode $b$ as “mode 2”. The Wigner function $W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}](x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2)$ of a TWB is Gaussian, and is given by (we omit the argument) $$W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}]=\left(2\pi \sigma_+^2 \:
2\pi \sigma_-^2\right)^{-1}\:
\exp\left[-\frac{(x_1+x_2)^2}{4\sigma_+^2}
-\frac{(y_1+y_2)^2}{4\sigma_-^2} -\frac{(x_1-x_2)^2}{4\sigma_-^2}
-\frac{(y_1-y_2)^2}{4\sigma_+^2}\right]$$ where the variances are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_+=\frac14\exp\{2r\} \qquad
\sigma^2_-=\frac14\exp\{-2r\}
\label{stwb}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Specializing Eq. (\[cond\]) for $R=|\lambda\rangle\rangle\langle\langle\lambda |$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
p_x &=& \langle\langle \lambda|\Pi_x\otimes I_2
|\lambda\rangle\rangle = (1-\lambda^2) \hbox{Tr}_1 \left[
\lambda^{a^\dag a} \: \Pi_x\right]\nonumber \\
\varrho_x &=& \frac1{p_x} \hbox{Tr}_1 \left[|\lambda\rangle\rangle\langle\langle \lambda|\:
\Pi_x\otimes I_2\right]
\label{cond1}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where, in the expression of $p_x$, we have already performed the trace over the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_2$. In the following, the partial traces in Eq. (\[cond1\]) will be evaluated as overlap integrals in the phase space. The Wigner function of a generic operator $O$ is defined as the following complex Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned}
W[O](\alpha) &=& \int \frac{d^2\gamma}{\pi^2}
e^{\alpha\bar\gamma - \bar\alpha\gamma}\: \hbox{Tr}\left[O\: D(\gamma)\right]
\label{Wigs}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is a complex number, and $D(\gamma)=e^{\gamma a^\dag - \bar\gamma a}$ is the displacement operator. The inverse transformation reads as follows [@msacchi] $$\begin{aligned}
O = \int d^2\alpha \: W[O] (\alpha)\: e^{-2 |\alpha|^2} \: e^{2\alpha a^\dag}
\left(-\right)^{a^\dag a} e^{2\bar\alpha a}
\label{invwig}\;\end{aligned}$$ Using the Wigner function the trace between two operators can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Tr}\left[O_1\: O_2\right] &=& \pi \int d^2\beta\:W[O_1](\beta)\:W[O_2](\beta)
\label{trace}\;.\end{aligned}$$
Remote squeezed states preparation
----------------------------------
Let us consider the optical scheme depicted in Fig. \[f:rsp\]. A TWB is produced by spontaneous downconversion in a NOPA, and then homodyne detection is performed on one of the two modes, say mode $1$. The POVM of the measurement, assuming perfect detection [*i.e.*]{} unit quantum efficiency, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_x = |x\rangle\langle x| \qquad\qquad |x\rangle = \left(\frac2\pi\right)^{1/4}
e^{-2x^2} \sum_p \frac{H_p(\sqrt{2}x)}{\sqrt{2^p p!}} |p\rangle
\label{homod}\;,\end{aligned}$$ $|x\rangle$’s being eigenstates of the quadrature operator $x=1/2
(a + a^\dag)$. The Wigner function of the POVM $\Pi_x$ is a delta function $$\begin{aligned}
W[\Pi_x] (x_1) = \delta (x_1-x)
\label{pomx}\;,\end{aligned}$$ whereas that of the term $\lambda^{a^\dag a}$ in the first of Eqs. (\[cond1\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\lambda^2) W[\lambda^{a^\dag a}] (x_1,y_1) &=& (2\pi\sigma^2)^{-1}
\exp\left\{-\frac{x_1^2+y_1^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\} \label{lam}\:,\end{aligned}$$ where the variance $\sigma$ depends on the number of photons of the TWB $\sigma^2=\frac14 (1+N)$. Using Eqs. (\[pomx\]) and (\[lam\]) it is straightforward to evaluate the probability distribution $$\begin{aligned}
p_x &=& \!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!
dx_1 dy_1 dx_2 dy_2 \: W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}](x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2)
W[\Pi_x] (x_1) \nonumber \\ &=&
(1-\lambda^2) \!\!\int\!\!\int\!\!\ dx_1 dy_1 \:
W[\lambda^{a^\dag a}](x_1,y_1)\:W[\Pi_x] (x_1)
\nonumber \\ &=&
(2\pi\sigma^2)^{-1/2} \exp\left\{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\}
\label{px}\;,\end{aligned}$$ and the Wigner function of the conditional output state $$\begin{aligned}
W[\varrho_x] (x_2,y_2) &=&
\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! dx_1 dy_1 \: W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}](x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2)
W[\Pi_x] (x_1) \nonumber \\ &=& (2\pi\Sigma_1^2 \: 2\pi\Sigma_2^2)^{-1/2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{(x_2-a_x)^2}{2\Sigma_1^2}
-\frac{y_2^2}{2\Sigma_2^2} \right\}
\label{condx}\;.\end{aligned}$$ The parameters in Eq. (\[condx\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_x = \frac{\sqrt{N(N+2)}}{1+N} x\qquad
\Sigma_1^2 = \frac14 \frac1{1+N} \quad
\Sigma_2^2 = \frac14 (1+N)
\label{parsx}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[condx\]) and (\[parsx\]) say that $\varrho_x$ is a squeezed-coherent minimum uncertainty state of the form $\varrho_x = D(a_x) S(r_x) |0\rangle$ [*i.e.*]{} a state squeezed in the direction of the measured quadrature $\overline{\Delta x^2}=1/4 e^{-2 r_x}$, with squeezing parameter given by $r_x = 1/2 \log (1+N)$. Notice that this result is valid for any quadrature $x_\phi=e^{ia^\dag a \phi} x e^{-i a^\dag a \phi}$, and therefore the present scheme, by tuning the phase of the local oscillator in the homodyne detection, is suitable for the remote preparation of squeezed states with any desired phase of squeezing. Of course, we have squeezing for $\varrho_x$ if and only if $N>0$ [*i.e.*]{} if and only if entanglement is present.
A question arises whether or not the remote preparation of squeezing is possible with realistic homodyne detection, [*i.e.*]{} with noisy measurement of the field quadrature. The POVM of a homodyne detector with quantum efficiency $\eta$ is a Gaussian convolution of the ideal POVM $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{x\eta} = \int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_\eta^2}}
\: \exp\{-\frac{(y-x)^2}{2\sigma_\eta^2}\} \: |y\rangle\langle y|
\label{homodeta}\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $\sigma_\eta^2=\frac14 (1-\eta)/\eta$ [@paul]. The corresponding Wigner function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W[\Pi_{x\eta}] (x_1) = (2\pi\sigma_\eta^2)^{-1/2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{(x_1-x)^2}{2\sigma_\eta^2}
\right\}
\label{wighometa}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[wighometa\]) one evaluates the probability distribution and the Wigner function of the conditional output state, one has $$\begin{aligned}
p_{x\eta} = [2\pi(\sigma^2+\sigma_\eta^2)]^{-1/2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{x^2}{2(\sigma^2+\sigma_\eta^2)}\right\} \\
\fl W[\varrho_{x\eta}] (x_2,y_2) =
(2\pi\Sigma_{1\eta}^2 \: 2\pi\Sigma_{2\eta}^2)^{-1/2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{(x_2-a_{x\eta})^2}{2\Sigma_{1\eta}^2}
-\frac{y_2^2}{2\Sigma_{2\eta}^2}
\right\}\label{condxeta0}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\fl a_{x\eta} = \frac{\eta\sqrt{N(N+2)}}{1+\eta N} x\qquad
\Sigma_{1\eta}^2 = \frac14 \frac{1+N(1-\eta)}{1+\eta N} \quad
\Sigma_{2\eta}^2 = \frac14 (1+N)
\label{condxeta1}\;.\end{aligned}$$ As a matter of fact, the conditional output $\varrho_{x\eta}$ is no longer a minimum uncertainty state. However, for $\eta$ large enough, it still shows squeezing in the direction individuated by the measured quadrature [*i.e.*]{} $\overline{\Delta x^2}<1/4$. In order to obtain the explicit form of the conditional output state from the Wigner function $W[\varrho_{x\eta}] (x_2,y_2)$ of Eq. (\[condxeta0\]) we use Eq. (\[invwig\]) arriving at $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho_{x\eta}= D(a_{x\eta})S(r_{x\eta}) \nu_{th} S^\dag(r_{x\eta}) D^\dag (a_{x\eta})
\label{outxeta}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_{th}= (1+n_{th})^{-1} \sum_p [n_{th}/(1+n_{th})]^p \:
|p\rangle\langle p|$ is a thermal state with average number of photons given by $$\begin{aligned}
n_{th} &=& \frac12 \left\{\sqrt{\frac{(1+N)[1+N(1-\eta)]}{1+\eta N}}-1\right\}
\label{ntheta}\;,\end{aligned}$$ and the squeezing parameter is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\\ r_{x\eta} &=& \frac14 \log \frac{(1+N)(1+\eta N)}{1+N(1-\eta)}
\label{rxeta}\;.\end{aligned}$$ We have squeezing in $\varrho_{x\eta}$ if $\Sigma_{1\eta}^2<1/4$, and this happens for $\eta > 50 \%$ independently on the actual value $x$ of the homodyne outcome. The values of efficiency that can be currently realized in a quantum optical lab is far above the $50\%$ limit, and thus we conclude that conditional homodyning on TWB is a robust scheme for the remote preparation of squeezing.
Teleportation as a generalized conditional measurement
------------------------------------------------------
The scheme for optical CV teleportation is depicted in Fig. \[f:tel\]. One part of a TWB is mixed with a given reference state $\sigma$ in a balanced beam splitter, and two orthogonal quadratures $x=1/2 (a+a^\dag)$, $y=i/2 (a^\dag -a)$ are measured on the outgoing beams by means of two homodyne detectors with local oscillators phase-shifted by $\pi/2$. The other part of the TWB is then displaced by an amount $-\alpha=-x-iy$ that depends on the outcome of the measurements, and the resulting state (averaged over the possible outcomes) is the teleported state.
Overall, the measurement performed on the TWB is a generalized double homodyne detection [@tritter; @busch] (equivalent to generalized heterodyne), which can be described by the POVM [@busch; @iccsur] $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_\alpha = D(\alpha) \sigma^T D^\dag (\alpha)
\label{pialpha}\;,\end{aligned}$$ $...^T$ denoting transposition. Therefore, using Eq. (\[cond1\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
p_\alpha &=& \langle\langle \lambda|\Pi_\alpha\otimes I_2
|\lambda\rangle\rangle = (1-\lambda^2) \hbox{Tr}_1 \left[
\lambda^{a^\dag a} \: D(\alpha) \sigma^T D^\dag (\alpha)
\right]\nonumber \\
\varrho_\alpha &=& \frac1{p_\alpha} D(-\alpha)\hbox{Tr}_1
\left[|\lambda\rangle\rangle\langle\langle \lambda|\:
D(\alpha) \sigma^T D^\dag (\alpha)
\otimes I_2\right] D^\dag (-\alpha)
\label{condalpha}\;,\end{aligned}$$ while the teleported state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \varrho = \int d^2\alpha \: p_\alpha \: \varrho_\alpha
= \int d^2\alpha \:
D(-\alpha)\hbox{Tr}_1
\left[|\lambda\rangle\rangle\langle\langle \lambda|\:
D(\alpha) \sigma^T D^\dag (\alpha)
\otimes I_2\right] D^\dag (-\alpha)
\label{teleported}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Using Wigner functions and taking into account that for any density matrix $$\begin{aligned}
W[\varrho^T](x,y) = W[\varrho](x,-y) \\
W[D(\alpha)\varrho D^\dag (\alpha)](x,y) = W[\varrho](x-x_\alpha,y-y_\alpha)
\label{rems}\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $x_\alpha=\hbox{Re} [\alpha]$ and $y_\alpha=\hbox{Im}[\alpha]$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\fl W[\varrho](x_2,y_2) = \nonumber \\
\fl=\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! dx_1 dy_1 \!\!
\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! dx_\alpha dy_\alpha
\: W[\hbox{\footnotesize
TWB}](x_1,y_1;x_2+x_\alpha,y_2+y_\alpha) \: W[\sigma]
(x_1-x_\alpha,-y_1-y_\alpha) \nonumber \\
\fl=\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! dx_1 dy_1\: W[\sigma] (x_1,y_1)
\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! dx_\alpha dy_\alpha
\: W[\hbox{\footnotesize
TWB}](x_1+x_\alpha,-y_1-y_\alpha;x_2+x_\alpha,y_2+y_\alpha)
\nonumber \\
\fl= \!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! \frac{dx_1 dy_1}{\pi \kappa_r^2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{(x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2}{\kappa^2_r}\right\}\:
W[\sigma] (x_1,y_1)
\nonumber \\
\fl= \!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\! \frac{dx_1 dy_1}{\pi \kappa_r^2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{x_1^2+y_1^2}{\kappa^2_r}\right\}\:
W[D(\alpha_1)\sigma D^\dag (\alpha_1)] (x_2,y_2)\label{wigtel}\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha_1=x_1+ iy_1$ and $\kappa_r^2=\exp\{-2 r\}$. From Eqs. (\[wigtel\]) and (\[invwig\]) one has that the teleported state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho = \int \frac{d^2\alpha}{\pi\kappa_r^2}\:
\exp\{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{\kappa_r^2}\}
\: D(\alpha)\sigma D^\dag (\alpha)
\label{tel}\;,\end{aligned}$$ which coincides with the input state only in the limit $r\longrightarrow
\infty$ [*i.e.*]{} for infinite energy of the TWB. Eq. (\[tel\]) shows that CV teleportation with finite amount of entanglement is equivalent to a thermalizing channel with $\kappa_r$ thermal photons: this results has been obtained also with other methods [@ban]. However, the present Wigner approach may be more convenient in order to include other degrading effects such the nonunit quantum efficiency at the sender location and the losses along the transmission channel.
Nonunit quantum efficiency at the homodyne detectors affects the POVM of the sender, which become a Gaussian convolution of the ideal POVM $\Pi_\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha\eta} = \int \frac{d^2\beta}{\pi\Delta_\eta^2}
\: \exp\{-\frac{|\alpha - \beta|^2}{\Delta_\eta^2}\} \: \Pi_\beta
\label{pialfaeta}\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta_\eta^2=(1-\eta)/\eta$ [@paul]. On the other hand, losses along the line degrade the entanglement of the TWB supporting the teleportation. The propagation of a TWB inside optical media can be modeled as the coupling of each part of the TWB with a non zero temperature reservoir. The dynamics can be described in terms of the two-mode Master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
\frac{d\varrho_t}{dt} \equiv {\cal L} \varrho_t =
\Gamma (1+M) L[a] \varrho_t + \Gamma (1+M) L[b] \varrho_t +
\Gamma M L[a^\dag ] \varrho_t + \Gamma M L[b^\dag] \varrho_t
\label{master} \end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho_t\equiv\varrho (t)$, $\Gamma$ denotes the (equal) damping rate, $M$ the number of background thermal photons, and $L[O]$ is the Lindblad superoperator $L[ O ] \varrho_t = O \varrho_t O^\dag - \frac{1}{2} O^\dag O
\varrho_t - \frac{1}{2} \varrho_t OO^\dag\:.$ The terms proportional to $L[a]$ and $L[b]$ describe the losses, whereas the terms proportional to $L[a^\dag]$ and $L[b^\dag]$ describe a linear phase-insensitive amplification process. This can be due either to optical media dynamics or to thermal hopping; in both cases no phase information is carried. Of course, the dissipative dynamics of the two channels are independent on each other. The master equation (\[master\]) can be transformed into a Fokker-Planck equation for the two-mode Wigner function of the TWB Using the differential representation of the superoperators in Eq. (\[master\]) the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation reads as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\fl\partial_\tau W_\tau = \left[ \frac{1}{8}%
\left(\sum_{j=1}^2\partial^2_{x_j x_j} + \partial^2_{y_j y_j}\right)
+ \frac{\gamma}2 \left(\sum_{j=1}^2 \partial_{x_j} x_j+\partial_{y_j} y_j
\right) \right] W_\tau \label{fp}\:, \end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ denotes the rescaled time $\tau=(\Gamma/\gamma)\:t$, and $\gamma= \frac{1}{2M+1}$ the drift term. The solution of Eq. (\[fp\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
W_\tau &=& \int _{}dx^{\prime}_1\int
_{}dx^{\prime}_2 \int _{}dy^{\prime}_1\int _{}dy^{\prime}_2 \;\:
W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}](x^{\prime}_1,y^{\prime}_1;x^{\prime}_2,y^{\prime}_2)\:
\prod_{j=1}^2 G_\tau(x_j|x^{\prime}_j)
G_\tau(y_j|y^{\prime}_j) \:
\label{conv}\end{aligned}$$ where $W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}]$ is initial Wigner function of the TWB, and the Green functions $G_\tau(x_j|x^{\prime}_j)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
G_\tau(x_j|x^{\prime}_j)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi D^2}}\exp\left[-\frac{
(x_j-x^{\prime}_je^{-\frac12 \gamma \tau})^2} {2 D^2}\right]
\;,\quad D^2=\frac{1}{4\gamma }(1-e^{-\gamma \tau}) \;.
\label{green}\end{aligned}$$ The Wigner function $W_\tau$ can be obtained by the convolution (\[conv\]), which can be easily evaluated since the initial Wigner function is Gaussian. The form of $W_\tau$ is the same of $W[\hbox{\footnotesize TWB}]$ with the variances changed to $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_+^2 \longrightarrow \left(e^{-\gamma\tau}\sigma_+^2+D^2\right)\qquad
\sigma_-^2 \longrightarrow \left(e^{-\gamma\tau}\sigma_-^2+D^2\right)
\label{evolvedVar}\:.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the Wigner functions of the blurred POVM $\Pi_{\alpha\eta}$ and of the evolved TWB in Eqs. (\[condalpha\]) and (\[teleported\]) we obtain the teleported state in the general case, which is still given by Eq. (\[tel\]), with the parameter $\kappa_r$ now given by $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_r^2 \longrightarrow e^{-\Gamma t - 2 r} + (2M+1)(1-e^{-\Gamma t}) +
\Delta_\eta^2
\label{kappar}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[tel\]) and (\[kappar\]) summarize all the degrading effects on the quality of the teleported state. In the special case of coherent state teleportation $\sigma=|z\rangle\langle z|$ (which corresponds to original optical CV teleportation experiments [@kim]) the fidelity $F=\langle z|\varrho |z\rangle$ can be evaluated straightforwardly as the overlap of the Wigner functions. Since $W[z](\alpha)=2/\pi\: e^{-2|\alpha -z|^2}$ is the Wigner function of a coherent state we have $$F = \frac{1}{1+e^{-2r-\Gamma t}+(1-e^{-\Gamma t})(2M+1)+(1-\eta)/\eta}\:.$$ The condition on the fidelity, in order to assure that the scheme is a truly nonlocal protocol, is given by $F>1/2$ [@kim], [*i.e.*]{} $$e^{-2r-\Gamma t}+(1-e^{-\Gamma t})(2M+1)+(1-\eta)/\eta <1\:.$$ Therefore, the bound on the quantum efficiency to demonstrate quantum teleportation is given by $$\eta > \frac{1}{2-e^{-2r-\Gamma t}-(1-e^{-\Gamma t})(2M+1)}\:.$$ If the propagation induces low perturbation [*i.e.*]{} if $\Gamma\simeq 0$ and $M\simeq0$ we have $\eta > (2-e^{-2r})^{-1}$, which ranges from $1/2$ to $1$, and represents the range of “useful” values for the quantum efficiency. If $\Gamma$ and $M$ are not negligible then, for the same initial squeezing, we need a larger value of the quantum efficiency. Moreover, since quantum efficiency should be lower or equal to unit $\eta\leq1$, we may derive a bound on the initial squeezing that allows to demonstrate quantum teleportation. This reads as follows $e^{-2r}\leq(2M+1)-2Me^{\Gamma t}$. Remarkably, if the number of thermal photons is zero, [*i.e.*]{} if the TWB is propagating in a zero temperature environment, then any value of the initial squeezing parameter make teleportation possible, of course if the quantum efficiency at the receiver location satisfies $\eta\geq(2 - e^{-2r -\Gamma t}-1+e^{\Gamma
t})^{-1}$.
Conclusions {#s:outro}
===========
A method for the remote preparation of squeezed states by conditional homodyninig on a TWB has been suggested. The scheme has been studied using Wigner function, which is the most convenient approach to describe effects of nonunit quantum efficiency at homodyne detectors. The method is shown to provide remote squeezing if the quantum efficiency is larger than $50\%$. Since downconversion correlates pair of modes at any frequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ satisfying $\omega_1+\omega_2=\omega_P$, $\omega_P$ being the frequency of the pump beam, the present method can be used to generate squeezing at frequencies where no media for degenerate downconversion are available [@tun].
Phase-space approach has been also used to analyze CV teleportation as a conditional generalized double homodyning on a TWB. Also in this case the use of Wigner functions represents a powerful tool to evaluate the degrading effects of finite amount of entanglement, losses along the transmission channel, and nonunit quantum efficiency at sender location. A bound on the value of quantum efficiency needed to demonstrate quantum teleportation has been derived.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been sponsored by the INFM through the project PRA-2002-CLON, by MIUR through the PRIN projects [*Decoherence control in quantum information processing*]{} and [*Entanglement assisted high precision measurements*]{}, and by EEC through the project IST-2000-29681 (ATESIT). MGAP is research fellow at [*Collegio Alessandro Volta*]{}.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[25]{} A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{} (2001) 014302; Hoi-Kwong Lo, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 012313 (2000). C.H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993). A. Furusawa et al., Science [**282**]{}, 706 (1998). O. Aytur, P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1551 (1990). K. Cahill, R. Glauber, Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 1857 (1969); [*ibidem*]{} pag 1882. M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Lett. A [**225**]{}, 28 (1997). G. M. D’Ariano and M. F. Sacchi, N. Cim. B [**112**]{}, 881 (1997). U. Leonhardt and H. Paul, Phys. Rev. A [**48**]{}, 4598 (1993); G. M. D’Ariano et al., Phys. Lett. A [**198**]{}, 286 (1995). M. G. A. Paris, A. Chizhov, O. Steuernagel, Opt. Comm. [**134**]{}, 117 (1997). P. Busch , P. Lahti, Riv. Nuovo Cim. [**18**]{}, 1 (1995). M. G A Paris, in [*VII international conference on squeezed states and uncertainty relations*]{}, E-book [http://www.wam.umd.edu/\~ys/boston.html]{}. H. F. Hofmann et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 062304 (2000); Masashi Ban et qal., preprint quant-ph/0202172. A. Andreoni et al., Eur. Phys. Journ D [**13**]{}, 415 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
-CONF-[02]{}/[016]{}\
SLAC-PUB-[9297]{}\
July 2002\
**Measurement of in**
The Collaboration\
\
July 24, 2002
**Abstract**
Contributed to the 31$^{st}$ International Conference on High Energy Physics,\
7/24—7/31/2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[*Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309*]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work supported in part by Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.
authors\_ICHEP2002.tex
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Recent measurements of the $CP$-violating asymmetry parameter by the [@sin2bold] and Belle [@sin2bbelle] collaborators established $CP$ violation in the $B^0$ system. These measurements, as well as the updated measurement of $\sin2\beta = 0.741\pm 0.067(stat)\pm 0.033(syst)$ by [@sin2bnew] reported at this conference, are consistent with the Standard Model expectation based on measurements and theoretical estimates of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark-mixing matrix [@ckm].
Charmless hadronic $B$ meson decays provide important information for the study of $CP$ violation effects. The charmless $B$ meson decays into final states with a $\phi$ meson are interesting because they are dominated by $b\to s\bar{s}s$ gluonic penguins (Figure \[fig:diagram\]), with a smaller contribution from electroweak penguins, while other Standard Model contributions are highly suppressed. These decays allow the extraction of the $CP$-violating parameter . Comparison of the value of obtained from these modes with that from charmonium modes probe for new physics participating in penguin loops [@grossman; @fleischer]. The predicted deviation of the effective $\stwob$ for the $\phi \KS$ mode from in the Standard Model is smaller than 4% [@grossman; @grossman1]. In this analysis we probe for sizable deviations which are possible in many scenarios beyond the Standard Model.
The decay of neutral $B$ mesons to the $CP$ = -1 final state $\phi \KS$ has been observed by in a sample of about 45 million $B$ mesons with a branching fraction of $BF(B^0\to\phi K^0) = (8.1^{+3.1}_{-2.5}\pm0.8)\times 10^{-6}$ [@oldpub]. The channel $B^+\to \phi K^+$, which is used as control channel for the time-dependent analysis, was also observed with a branching fraction of $(7.7^{+1.6}_{-1.4}\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-6}$ [@oldpub].
The measurement of the time-dependent $CP$ asymmetry in $B^0\to \phi \KS$ is similar to our approach in the charmonium channels [@sin2bprd]. We use an extended parametrization of the likelihood describing the event yield in signal and background which is combined with the likelihood for the decay-time distributions.
The Detector and Data Set {#sec:babar}
==========================
This measurement is based on data recorded with the detector [@Aubert:2001tu] at the 2 energy-asymmetric storage ring at SLAC. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of approximately 80that was collected at the resonance.
The detector consists of a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT), a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH), a detector of internally reflected Cherenkov light (DIRC), an electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), assembled from 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals, all embedded in a solenoidal magnetic field of 1.5 T and surrounded by an instrumented flux return (IFR). The performance of the detector is discussed in [@sin2bprd].
Analysis Method {#sec:Analysis}
===============
Time dependent Analysis
-----------------------
Each candidate event consists of a fully reconstructed neutral $B$ meson, $B_{CP}$, decaying into $\phi \KS$ and a partially reconstructed recoil $B$, $B_{tag}$, which we examine for evidence that it decayed as or (flavor tag). The decay-time distribution of $B$ decays to a eigenstate with a or tag can be expressed in terms of a complex parameter $\lambda$ that depends on both the -oscillation amplitude and the amplitudes describing and decays to this final state [@lambda]. The decay rate ${\rm f}_+({\rm f}_-)$ when the tagging meson is a $\Bz (\Bzb)$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm f}_\pm(\, \deltat) = {\frac{{\rm e}^{{- \left| \deltat \right|}/\tau_{\Bz} }}{4\tau_{\Bz}
}} \times \left[ \ 1 \hbox to 0cm{}
\pm \frac{{2\mathop{\cal I\mkern -2.0mu\mit m}}
\lambda}{1+|\lambda|^2} \sin{( \deltamd \deltat )}
\mp { \frac{1 - |\lambda|^2 } {1+|\lambda|^2} }
\cos{( \deltamd \deltat) } \right],
\label{eq:timedist}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta t = t_{CP} - t_{tag}$ is the difference between the proper decay time of the reconstructed $B$ meson ($B_{CP}$) and the proper decay time of the tagging $B$ meson ($B_{tag}$), $\tau_{\Bz}$ is the lifetime, and is the -oscillation frequency. The sine term in Eq. (\[eq:timedist\]) is due to the interference between direct decay and decay after flavor change, and the cosine term is due to the interference between two or more decay amplitudes with different weak phases. Evidence for violation can be observed as a difference between the distributions of - and -tagged events or as an asymmetry with respect to $\deltat = 0$ for either flavor tag.
In the Standard Model and for the case that the decay proceeds purely via $b\to s\bar{s}s$ gluonic penguin transitions, $\lambda=\eta_f e^{-2i\beta}$, and the angle $\beta$ of the Unitarity Triangle of the three-generation CKM matrix [@ckm1] is given as $\beta = arg \left [ -V_{cd} V_{cb}^\star / V_{td} V_{tb}^\star\right]$.
Thus, the time-dependent $CP$-violating asymmetry is $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\CP}(\deltat) &\equiv& \frac{ {\rm f}_+(\deltat) - {\rm f}_-(\deltat) }
{ {\rm f}_+(\deltat) + {\rm f}_-(\deltat) } = -\eta_f \stwob
\sin{ (\deltamd \, \deltat )} ,
\label{eq:asymmetry}\end{aligned}$$
with $CP$ eigenvalue $\eta_f=-1$ for $\phi\KS$, and $\KS \to \pi^+\pi^-$.
Reconstruction of the Final State
---------------------------------
We fully reconstruct $B$ meson candidates ($B_{CP}$) in the decay mode $\phi \KS$ with $K^0_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\phi\rightarrow K^+K^-$. For the charged tracks belonging to the recoil $B$ and to the $\KS$ we require at least 12 measured drift chamber hits and a minimum transverse momentum of 0.1 GeV/$c$. The kaon tracks of the $\phi$ in addition have to originate within 1.5 cm in the transverse plane and 10 cm in beam direction from the interaction point.
A track is identified as a kaon based on a likelihood ratio combining the $dE/dx$ information from the SVT and DCH below 700 MeV/$c$, and from DCH $dE/dx$ and DIRC Cherenkov angle and measured Cherenkov photon number above this momentum. We define $\phi$ candidates as pairs of tracks with opposite charge which can be combined and fit to a common vertex and whose invariant $K^+K^-$ mass lies within a 20 MeV/$c^2$ mass interval centered at the $\phi$ mass. In case there is no particle identification (PID) information, the kaon hypothesis is assumed for one of the two tracks from the candidate $\phi$ decay. Using a relativistic Breit-Wigner function of fixed mass and width [@pdg] convoluted with a Gaussian we obtain an invariant mass resolution of 1.1 MeV/$c^2$ in the $\phi$ signal.
Analogously to the $\phi$, we construct the $\KS$ from two oppositely charged tracks which are assumed to be pions. The selection of $K^0_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ candidates is based on the angle $\alpha$ between the line connecting $\phi$ vertex and $\KS$-decay vertex and the momentum direction reconstructed from the pions ($\cos\alpha > 0.999$). Furthermore, we use the decay-time significance $t/\sigma_t$ ($t/\sigma_t > 3$).
Event Yield Variables
---------------------
The measurement of $B$ decays at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance provides kinematic constraints for the initial state. Substitution of the measured energy by the beam energy reduces the resolution of kinematic variables substantially.
Energy resolution can be expressed as: $$\Delta E = E_B - E_{bc} \, ,$$ with $E_{bc}$ the beam constrained energy, which for the candidate $B$ meson is derived as follows: $$E_{bc} = \frac{s + 2 \vec{p}_i \cdot \vec{p}_B}{2 E_i}\, ,$$ with $\sqrt{s}$ the total $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass energy. The four momentum of the initial state is represented by $(E_i,\vec{p}_i)$, and $(E_B,\vec{p}_B)$ is the four momentum of the candidate $B$ meson, both measured in the laboratory; $E_{bc}$ results from the assumption that we have particle-antiparticle production. Notice that the $B$-candidate momentum $\vec{p}_B$ is independent of the mass values assigned to the tracks comprising the candidate $B$. Signal events distribute in $\Delta E$ according to a Gaussian with a mean consistent with zero ($\pm 2$ MeV). The observed width is about $17$ MeV. The background shape in $\Delta E$ is parametrized by a linear function. We require $|\Delta E| < 200$ MeV.
The second kinematic quantity in our analysis is the beam-energy substituted mass $m_{ES}$, which is defined as: $$m_{ES} = \sqrt{ E_{bc}^2 - \vec{p}_B^{\,2} }.$$ Signal events are distributed Gaussian-like in $m_{ES}$ with a mean at the $B$ mass and a resolution of about 2.6 MeV/$c^2$, dominated by the beam energy spread. The background shape in $m_{ES}$ is parametrized by a threshold (ARGUS) function [@argus] with a fixed endpoint given by the average beam energy. Our selection requires $m_{ES} > 5.22$ GeV/$c^2$.
The helicity angle $\theta_H$ of the $\phi$ is defined as the angle between the direction of the decay $K^+$ and the parent $B$ direction in the $\phi$ rest frame. For pseudoscalar-vector $B$ decay modes, angular momentum conservation results in a $\cos^2\theta_H$ distribution. In this variable the background is uniformly distributed.
Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that contamination from other $B$ decays is negligible. Possible ($K^+K^-$) S-wave contributions ($f_0(980)$) are not expected to peak under the $\phi$ meson [@scalar] and are suppressed by the helicity angle which distributes uniformly for this background. However, charmless hadronic modes suffer from backgrounds due to random combinations of tracks produced in the quark-antiquark ($\bar{q}q$) continuum, where $q$ is dominantly $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks. The distinguishing feature of such backgrounds is their characteristic event shape resulting from the two-jet production mechanism.
We consider the angle $\theta_T$ between the thrust axis of the $B$ candidate and the thrust axis of the rest of the event, where the thrust axis is defined as the axis that maximizes the sum of the magnitudes of the longitudinal momenta in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ center-of-mass system. This angle is small for continuum events where the $B$-candidate daugthers come from back-to-back $\bar{q}q$ jets, and is uniformly distributed for true $B\bar{B}$ events. In the event preselection we require $|\cos\theta_T| < 0.9$.
Additional shape information comes from the momentum flow around the $B$ thrust axis described through momentum weighted Legendre polynomials, $L_i$. The best separation between the signal and continuum events is achieved with the zeroth order ($L_0=\sum p_i^\star$) and the second order ($L_2=\sum p_i^\star \times \frac{1}{2}(\cos^2{\theta_i^\star}-1) $) polynomials, where $p_i^\star$ and $\theta_i^\star$ are the center-of-mass momentum and angle with respect to the $B_{CP}$ thrust axis and the sum is over all charged tracks and neutrals in the event that are not associated with the $B$-candidate.
The last event shape variable is the $B$ production angle, $\theta_B$, with respect to the beam direction in the center-of-mass frame. In decays of a real into two pseudoscalar $B$ mesons, the production angle follows a $\sin^2 \theta_B$ distribution, while it is approximately uniformly distributed for the continuum events.
The shape variables are strongly correlated and cannot be used independently in the likelihood calculation. A Fisher discriminant is formed as a linear combination of the shape variables $x=|\cos \theta_T|$, $\cos \theta_B$, $L_0$, and $L_2$: $${\mathcal F} = \sum \gamma_i x_i ,$$ where coefficients $\gamma_i$ are chosen such to make the maximum separation between the signal and continuum event distributions. The coefficients are calculated using Monte Carlo signal events and background events from data sidebands ($0.1<\Delta E<0.3$). For the resulting signal Fisher distribution we use a bifurcated Gaussian distribution. The background Fisher shape is described by a sum of two Gaussian distributions.
Tagging and Vertexing
=====================
We use a $B$-tagging algorithm based on multivariate techniques to determine the flavor of $B_{tag}$ [@sin2bnew]. The algorithm relies on the correlation between the flavor of the $b$ quark and the charge of the remaining tracks in the event after removal of the $B_{CP}$ candidate. Separate neural networks are trained to identify primary leptons from semileptonic $B$ decay, kaons, soft pions from $D^*$ decay, and high-momentum charged particles. The outputs of each neural network are combined to produce five hierachical and mutually exclusive tagging categories. Events with an identified electron or muon, and a supporting kaon, if present are assigned to the [Lepton]{} category. Events with an identified kaon and a soft-pion candidate with opposite charges are assigned to the [KaonI]{} category. Events with one or more kaon candidates, and no lepton or soft-pion candidates, are assigned to the [KaonI]{} or [KaonII]{} categories depending on the estimated mistag probability. Events with only a soft-pion candidate are assigned to the [KaonII]{} category as well. The remaining events are assigned to the [Inclusive]{} or [Untagged]{} category based on estimated mistag probability.
The quality of tagging is expressed in terms of the effective efficiency $Q = \sum_c \epsilon_c (1-2w_c)^2$, where $\epsilon_c$ and $w_c$ are the efficiency and mistag probability, respectively, for events tagged in category $c$. Table \[tab:tagging\] summarizes the tagging performance in a data sample of fully reconstructed neutral $B$ decays into $D^{(*)-}h^+\,(h^+ = \pip, \rho^+, a_1^+)$ and $\jpsi K^{*0}\,(K^{*0}\to\Kp\pim)$ flavor eigenstates ( sample). The recoil $B$, $B_{tag}$, is again partially reconstructed. We use the same tagging efficiencies and dilutions for the $\phi \KS$ channel extracted from the statistical dominant flavor sample.
[lrrrr]{} Category & $\epsilon\,(\%)$ & $w\,(\%)$ & $\Delta w\,(\%)$ & $Q\,(\%)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
& $ 9.1 \pm 0.2$ & $3.3 \pm 0.6$ & $-1.5 \pm 1.1$ & $7.9 \pm 0.3$\
[KaonI]{} & $16.7 \pm 0.2$ & $10.0 \pm 0.7$ & $-1.3 \pm 1.1$ & $10.7 \pm 0.4$\
[KaonII]{} & $19.8 \pm 0.3$ & $20.9 \pm 0.8$ & $-4.4 \pm 1.2$ & $6.7 \pm 0.4$\
[Inclusive]{} & $20.0 \pm 0.3$ & $31.5 \pm 0.9$ & $-2.4 \pm 1.3$ & $2.7 \pm 0.3$\
[Untagged]{} & $34.4 \pm 0.5$ & & &\
Total $Q$ & & & & $28.1\pm 0.7$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
The time difference $\deltat$ is obtained from the measured distance between the $z$ positions of the $B_{CP}$ and $B_{tag}$ decay vertices and the known boost of the $\epem$ system. For the $B_{CP}$ we achieve a $z$-vertex position resolution of better than 60 $\mu m$ which compares well to the resolution obtained in the final state $J/\Psi \KS$. The $z$ position of the vertex is determined with an iterative procedure that removes tracks with a large contribution to the total $\chi^2$. An additional constraint is constructed from the three-momentum and vertex position of the $B_{\rm CP}$ candidate, and the average $\epem$ interaction point and boost. For $98\%$ of candidates with a reconstructed vertex the r.m.s. $\deltaz$ resolution is $180\mum\,(1.1\ps)$. We require $\left|\deltat\right|<20\ps$ and $\sigma_{\deltat} < 3.5\ps$, where $\sigma_{\deltat}$ is the event-by-event error on $\deltat$.
The $\Delta t$ resolution is dominated by the tag-side ($B_{tag}$), which is well under control from our flavor sample. The empirical $\Delta t$ resolution function for signal candidates is parametrized by a sum of three Gaussian distributions (see Ref. [@BaBarSin2betaM02]), with parameters determined from a fit to the flavor sample. A common parametrization is used for all tagging categories, and the parameters are determined simultaneously with the parameters in the maximum likelihood fit. The tagging parameters for the untagged events are fixed to $w = 0.5$ and $\Delta w = 0$. The $\deltat$ background in the $\phi\KS$ channel does not show a lifetime component and is parametrized as a sum of two Gaussians, core and tail, with the tail fraction of 2%.
The parametrization of $\deltat$ is checked by measuring the lifetime in the channel $\phi K^+$ (180 signal events) which has a compatible $\deltat$ distribution. The obtained value agrees within 1$\sigma$ with the world average [@pdg].
Maximum Likelihood Fit
----------------------
We use an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to extract yields and $\CP$ parameters from the $\phi \KS$ (CP) sample, and simultaneously $\deltat$ resolution parameters and tagging quantities in the flavor sample. The likelihood for candidate $j$ tagged in category $c$ is obtained by summing the product of event yield $n_{i}$, tagging efficiency $\epsilon_{i,c}$, and probability ${\cal P}_{i,c}$ over the two possible signal and background hypotheses $i$.
$${\cal L}_c = \frac{1}{N!}\exp{\left(-\sum_{i}n_i\epsilon_{i,c}\right)}
\prod_{j}\left[\sum_{i}n_i\epsilon_{i,c}{\cal P}_{i,c}(\vec{x}_j;\vec{\alpha}_i)\right].$$
The probabilities ${\cal P}_{i,c}$ are evaluated as the product of PDFs for each of the independent variables $\vec{x}_j = \left\{\mes, \Delta E, {\cal F}, \cos\theta_H, \deltat\right\}$ in the $CP$ sample, and $\vec{x}_j = \left\{\mes, \Delta E, \deltat\right\}$ in the $\Bflav$ sample. The $\vec{\alpha}_i$ are fixed parameters that describe the expected distributions and are derived from fits to signal Monte Carlo, the $B^+\to\phi K^+$ control channel, on-resonance sidebands, and off-resonance data. The distributions of the $B_{\rm flav}$ sample evolve according to flavor oscillation in $B^0$ mesons. The observed amplitudes for the asymmetry in the $CP$ sample and for flavor oscillation in the flavor sample are reduced by the same factor $1-2\mistag$ due to flavor mistags. The total likelihood ${\cal L}$ is the product of likelihoods for each tagging category and the free parameters are determined by minimizing the quantity $-\ln{\cal L}$ [@minuit].
The total number of $\phi\KS$ candidate events in the fit region is 1352. In order to extract the event yields we perform an initial fit without tagging or $\deltat$ information. Our final $CP$ sample is composed of 51 signal and 1301 background events distributed over the fit range. For our $CP$ fit we fix these yields. The $\Bflav$ sample consists of about 26000 signal events with a purity of better than 80%.
There are 34 free variables in the fit, in agreement with the charmonium $\sin2\beta$ fit [@sin2bnew], where only the parameter $\sin 2\beta$ is solely fit from the signal in $B^0\to \phi\KS$ ($|\lambda| = 1$ fixed). The other parameters are the average mistag fraction $\mistag$ and the difference $\Delta\mistag$ between and mistags for each tagging category (8), parameters for the signal resolution (8), parameters for background time dependence (6), background resolution (3), and mistag fractions (8). The determination of the mistag fractions and resolution function parameters for the signal is dominated by the high-statistics flavor sample. We fix $\tau_{\Bz}=1.542\ps$ and $\deltamd =0.489\ps^{-1}$ [@pdg]. The largest correlation between and any linear combination of the other free parameters is 2%.
The result for the effective $\sin2\beta$ is: $$\sin2\beta = -0.19 ^{+0.52}_{-0.50} (stat) \pm 0.09 (syst)$$
1.0cm
-- --
-- --
Figure \[fig:yield\] shows the event yield variables for all events in the limited ranges $5.27 < m_{ES} < 5.3$ GeV/$c^2$, $|\Delta E| < 0.1$ GeV, $-2 < \mathcal{F} < 3$, and $|\cos\theta_H| > 0.2$, focussing into the signal region. Figure \[fig:b0b0bar\] shows the $\deltat$ distributions for the $B^0$ and the $\bar{B}^0$ tagged subsets of these events with the fit superimposed.
As a consistency check we measure the asymmetry in the final state $B^+\to \phi K^+$. From a sample of 180 signal events we obtain a asymmetry of $\sin 2\beta(\phi K^+) = 0.26\pm 0.27$, which is consistent with the expected value of zero.
Repeating the fit with all parameters except fixed to their values at the maximum likelihood, we attribute a total contribution in quadrature of $0.01$ to the error on due to the combined statistical uncertainties in mistag rates, resolution, and background parameters.
The fit is repeated on generated datasets based on the probability density functions for signal and background shapes. We do not observe a bias in the refit value of $\sin2\beta$.
We consider systematic uncertainties due to the event yield determination in $\phi \KS$ (0.02), limited Monte Carlo statistics (0.02), composition and asymmetry in the background in the events (0.03), the assumed parametrization of the $\Delta t$ resolution function (0.02), due in part to residual uncertainties in the Silicon Vertex Tracker alignment, and the fixed values for $\Delta m_d$ and $\tau_B$ (0.006).
Furthermore, we explore the sensitivity to the parameter $|\lambda|$ in our limited sample. It turns out that the fit is not simultaneously sensitive to both $\sin 2\beta$ and $|\lambda|$. Therefore, we scan for the value of $|\lambda|$ over a wide range ($|\lambda| = 0 ... 3$) but do not observe a strong variation of the central value of $\sin2\beta$. We attribute an additional conservative error of 0.08 to our value of $\sin 2\beta$, which is the maximum variation observed in the scan.
Conclusions {#sec:Physics}
===========
We measure the preliminary effective value of the time-dependent asymmetry $\sin2\beta = -0.19 ^{+0.52}_{-0.50} (stat)$ $\pm 0.09 (syst)$ in the decay of neutral $B^0_d$ mesons into the final state $\phi \KS$, $\KS\to\pi^+\pi^-$. The deviation of this value from the updated value presented at this conference, $\sin2\beta = 0.741 \pm 0.067 (stat) \pm 0.033 (syst)$, is about two standard deviations. The measurement will, for some time, be dominated by the statistical uncertainty.
Acknowledgments {#sec:Acknowledgments}
===============
acknowledgements
[99]{}
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 091801 (2001).
BELLE Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, , 091802 (2001).
Collaboration, [*Measurement of the $CP$-Violating Asymmetry Amplitude $\sin 2\beta$*]{}, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, this conference, BABAR-PUB-02/008, SLAC-PUB-9293, hep-ex/0207042.
See, for example, F.J. Gilman, K. Kleinknecht, and B. Renk, , (2002).
Y. Grossman and M.P. Worah, , 241 (1997).
R. Fleischer, Int. J. Mod.Phys. A[**12**]{}, 2459 (1997).
Y. Grossman, G. Isidori, and M.P. Worah, , 057505 (1998).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 151801-1 (2001).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, -PUB-01/03, SLAC-PUB-9060, hep-ex/0201020, submitted to Phys. Rev. D.
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 1 (2002).
See for example, L. Wolfenstein, [*Review on CP Violation*]{}, , (2002).
N. Cabibbo, , 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, , 652 (1973).
Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, , 010001-1 (2002).
ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht [*et al.*]{}, , 543 (1990).
See for example, [*Review on Scalar Mesons*]{}, , (2002), and references therein.
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, hep-ex/0203007 (2002).
F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**10**]{}, 343 (1975).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The one dimensional symmetric simple exclusion process (SSEP) is one of the very few exactly soluble models of non-equilibrium statistical physics. It describes a system of particles which diffuse with hard core repulsion on a one dimensional lattice in contact with two reservoirs of particles at unequal densities. The goal of this note is to review the two main approaches which lead to the exact expression of the large deviation functional of the density of the SSEP in its steady state: a microscopic approach (based on the matrix product ansatz and an additivity property) and a macroscopic approach (based on the macroscopic fluctuation theory of Bertini, De Sole, Gabrielli, Jona-Lasinio and Landim).'
address: |
Laboratoire de Physique Statistique, Ecole Normale Supérieure,\
UPMC Paris 6, Université Paris Diderot Paris 7, CNRS,\
24, rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
author:
- Bernard Derrida
title: 'Microscopic versus macroscopic approaches to non-equilibrium systems'
---
The Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process {#intro}
=======================================
Understanding the steady state properties of systems in contact with two heat baths at unequal temperatures or two reservoirs of particles at unequal densities is a central question in the theory of non-equilibrium systems [@BLR; @LLP; @EPR1; @ST]. Here I would like to focus on one exact result which was obtained during the last decade on the steady state of one of the simplest models of a non-equilibrium system, the one dimensional symmetric simple exclusion process (SSEP). For the SSEP this exact result, which gives an expression of the large deviation functional of the density, can be derived either from a microscopic description of the steady state [@DLS1; @DLS2; @derrida-phys-rep] or from a macroscopic approach, which was developed by Bertini, De Sole, Gabrielli, Jona-Lasinio and Landim [@BDGJL1; @BDGJL2; @BDGJL2a]. These two approaches are discussed below.
{width="8cm"}
\[ssep\]
The symmetric simple exclusion process (SSEP) describes a gas of particles diffusing on a lattice with an exclusion rule which prevents a particle to move to a site already occupied by another particle [@Richards; @HS; @Liggett; @KL; @SS]. Here we consider the one dimensional version with open boundaries. The lattice consists of $L$ sites, each site being either occupied by a single particle or empty. During every infinitesimal time interval $dt$, each particle has a probability $dt$ of jumping to the left if the neighboring site on its left is empty, $dt$ of jumping to the right if the neighboring site on its right is empty. At the two boundaries the dynamics is modified to mimic the coupling with reservoirs of particles at densities $\rho_a$ for the left reservoir and $\rho_b$ for the right reservoir: at the left boundary, during each time interval $dt$, a particle is injected on site $1$ with probability $ 2 \rho_a dt$ (if this site is empty) and a particle is removed from site $1$ with probability $ 2(1 - \rho_a) dt$ (if this site is occupied). Similarly on site $L$, particles are injected at rate $2 \rho_b$ and removed at rate $2(1-\rho_b)$. (The factors 2 in the boundary rates simplify some expressions below but do not affect the large scale properties).
The SSEP is obviously a model of transport of particles between two reservoirs at densities $\rho_a$ and $\rho_b$. It is also a simple model of heat transport between two heat baths at temperatures $T_a$ and $T_b$, if one interprets each particle as a quantum of energy $\epsilon$, with $$\exp \left[ -{\epsilon \over k T_a}\right] = {\rho_a \over 1-\rho_a} \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \
\exp \left[ -{\epsilon \over k T_b}\right] = { \rho_b \over 1-\rho_b} \; .
\label{TaTbdef}$$
Under the evolution rules of the SSEP, the system reaches, in the long time limit, a steady state. If one divides the system of length $L$ into $n$ boxes of size $l$ (with of course $L= n l$), one can try to determine, in this steady state, the probability of a certain density profile $\left\{ r_1, r_2 .. r_n \right\}$, i.e. the probability of seeing $ l r_1 $ particles in the first box, $l r_2$ particles in the second box, ... $l r_n $ particles in the $n$th box. For large $L$, one expects the following $L$ dependence of this probability $${\rm Pro}_{L}(r_1,... r_n|\rho_a,\rho_b) \sim \exp[ - L {\cal F}_{n}(r_1, r_2, ...r_n |\rho_a,\rho_b)]
\label{finite}$$ where ${\cal F}_{n}(r_1, r_2, ...r_n|\rho_a,\rho_b)$ is called the large deviation function [@Touchette] of the density profile $\left\{ r_1, r_2 .. r_n \right\}$. When the number $n$ of boxes becomes large, keeping the number $l$ of sites in each box also large, one can introduce a continuous variable $x=k/n$, the densities $r_1, r_2 .. r_n $ become a density profile $$\rho(x) = \rho\left({k \over n}\right)= r_k$$ and the large deviation function $ {\cal F}(r_1, r_2, ...r_n |\rho_a,\rho_b)$ becomes a functional ${\cal F}(\{\rho({x})\}|\rho_a,\rho_b)$ of the density profile $\rho({x})$ $${\rm Pro}_{L}(\{\rho({x})\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) \sim \exp[ - L {\cal F}(\{\rho({x})\} |\rho_a,\rho_b)] \; .
\label{continu}$$ The result which was obtained in [@DLS1; @BDGJL2; @DLS2] is that, in the non-equilibrium case, i.e. for $\rho_a \neq\rho_b$, the exact expression of the large deviation function ${\cal F}(\{\rho({x})\}|\rho_a,\rho_b)$ is given by $${\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b)= \int_0^1 dx \ \left[ B(\rho(x),F(x)) + \log{F'(x)
\over \rho_b - \rho_a} \right]
\label{F2}$$ where $B(\rho,r)$ is given by $$B(\rho,r) = (1- \rho) \log {1- \rho \over 1 - r} \ +\ \rho \log {\rho
\over r}
\;
\label{Br}$$ and where the function $F(x)$ is the monotone solution of the differential equation $$\rho(x) = F + {F(1-F) F'' \over F'^2 }
\label{F3}$$ satisfying the boundary conditions $F(0)= \rho_a$ and $F(1)= \rho_b$.
Properties of this large deviation function
===========================================
Before describing the two main approaches which led to (\[F2\],\[Br\],\[F3\]), let us discuss briefly a few properties of the functional ${\cal F}$.
One can solve perturbatively (\[F3\]) for $\rho_a$ close to $\rho_b$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
\fl F = \rho_a - (\rho_a- \rho_b) x
\label{rhoa-rhob-small}
- {(\rho_a - \rho_b)^2 \over \rho_a (1-\rho_a)}
& \left[ (1-x) \int_0^x y \; (\rho(y)- \rho_a) \; dy \right.
\\
& \ \ \ \ \left. + x \int_x^1 (1-y)\; (\rho(y)-
\rho_a)\; dy \right] + O \left((\rho_a-\rho_b)^3\right)
\ .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Therefore in the limit $\rho_b \to \rho_a$, the expression (\[F2\]) reduces to$${\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_a)= \int_0^1 dx \ \left[ B(\rho(x),\rho_a)
\right]
\label{F4}$$ This is not surprising as, when $\rho_a=\rho_b$, the dynamics satisfies detailed balance and in the steady state all the lattice sites are occupied independently with probability $\rho_a$ (Bernoulli measure). In this equilibrium case ${\cal F}$ is a [*local*]{} functional (\[F4\]) of the density profile $\rho(x)$. This is a special case of the much more general fact [@derrida-phys-rep; @BDGJLb] that, for any system (with short range interactions) [*at equilibrium*]{}, in contact with one or several reservoirs at density $\rho_a$, the functional ${\cal F}$ is always [*local*]{} and is given by $${\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_a)= \int_0^1 dx \Big[ f(\rho(x)) - f(\rho_a) - (\rho-\rho_a) f'(\rho_a) \Big]
\label{F7}$$ where $f(\rho)$ is the free energy per unit volume at density $\rho$, defined as $f(\rho)= - \lim_{V\to \infty}\log Z(V,V \rho)/V$ where $Z(V,N)$ is the partition function of a system of $N$ particles at equilibrium in a volume $V$.
In the $\rho_a \neq \rho_b$ case, the large deviation functional ${\cal F}$ can therefore be thought as a possible generalization of the concept of free energy to non-equilibrium systems.
As soon as the system is out of equilibrium ($\rho_b \neq \rho_a$) the large deviation functional ${\cal F}$ becomes [*non-local*]{}. This is already visible in the expansion of ${\cal F}$ in powers of $\rho_a-\rho_b$, obtained by replacing $F(x)$ by its expansion (\[rhoa-rhob-small\]) into (\[F2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\fl {\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) = \int_0^1 dx B( \rho(x),\rho^*(x))
\label{Fab} \\
\fl \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ + {(\rho_a - \rho_b)^2 \over [\rho_a (1- \rho_a)]^2}
\left[\int_0^1 dx \int_x^1 dy\: x(1-y)
\big(\rho(x)-\rho^*(x)\big)
\big(\rho(y)-\rho^*(y)\big) \right]
+ O(\rho_a-\rho_b)^3
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the average profile $\rho^*(x)$ is given by $$\rho^*(x) = (1-x) \rho_a + x \rho_b .
\label{rhostar}$$
The knowledge of the functional ${\cal F}$ allows one to determine all the the correlation functions: if one defines the generating function ${\cal G}$ of the density by $$\exp \left[L {\cal G}(\{\alpha(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) \right] = \left\langle
\exp \left[L \int_0^1 \alpha(x) \rho(x) dx \right] \right\rangle
\label{Gdef}$$ where $\alpha(x)$ is an arbitrary function and $\langle . \rangle$ denotes an average over the profile $\rho(x)$ in the steady state, it is clear from (\[continu\]) that, for large $L$, $\cal G$ is the Legendre transform of $\cal F$ $${\cal G}(\{\alpha(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) = \max_{\{\rho(x)\}} \left[ \int_0^1 \alpha(x)
\rho(x) dx -{\cal F} (\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) \right] \ .
\label{legendre}$$ By taking derivatives of (\[Gdef\]) with respect to $\alpha(x)$ one can then get all the correlation functions. In particular $$\langle \rho(x) \rho(y) \rangle_c \equiv
\langle \rho(x) \rho(y) \rangle
-\langle \rho(x) \rangle \langle \rho(y) \rangle
= {1 \over L} \left. {\delta^2 {\cal G} \over \delta \alpha(x) \; \delta \alpha(y)}\right|_{\alpha(x)=0}
\label{2pt}$$ A direct consequence of (\[Gdef\]) is that all the $k$-point connected correlation functions are long ranged and scale like $L^{1-k}$ (see [@Spohn; @DLS5; @derrida-phys-rep]).
The steady state
=================
From the definition of the SSEP, if $\tau_i$ is a binary variable with $\tau_i=1$ when site $i$ is occupied and $\tau_i=0$ when it is empty, one can write the time evolution of the average occupation $\langle
\tau_i \rangle$ $$\begin{aligned}
{d \langle \tau_1 \rangle \over dt } = & 2 \rho_a - 3
\langle \tau_1 \rangle + \langle \tau_2 \rangle
\nonumber \\
{d \langle \tau_i \rangle \over dt } = &
\langle \tau_{i-1} \rangle -2 \langle \tau_i \rangle + \langle
\tau_{i+1} \rangle \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ \ 2 \leq i
\leq L-1 \label{evolution} \\
{d \langle \tau_L \rangle \over dt } = &
\langle \tau_{L-1} \rangle - 3 \langle \tau_L \rangle +
2 \rho_b \ . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The steady state density profile (obtained by writing that ${d
\langle \tau_i \rangle \over dt } =0$) is [@DLS2] $$\langle \tau_i \rangle = { (L+ 1 - 2 i) \rho_a + (2 i -1) \rho_b
\over 2 L } \; \label{profile}$$ For large $L$, with $i = L x$, one recovers the average density profile (\[rhostar\]).
In a similar way one can then write down the equations which govern the time evolution of the two point function or higher correlations.
The matrix ansatz for the SSEP
==============================
For the SSEP, one can then write down the steady state equations satisfied by higher and higher correlation functions, but solving these equations becomes quickly complicated.
The matrix ansatz [@DEHP; @Der; @BE] gives an algebraic way of calculating exactly the weights of all the configurations in the steady state: in [@DEHP] it was shown that, in the steady state, the probability of a microscopic configuration $\{ \tau_1, \tau_2, ...\tau_L\}$ can be written as the matrix element of a product of $L$ matrices $${\rm Pro}(\{ \tau_1, \tau_2, ...\tau_L\}) = {\langle \rho_a | X_1 X_2 ... X_L |\rho_b
\rangle \over \langle \rho_a | (D+E)^L |\rho_b \rangle }
\label{matrix}$$ where the matrix $X_i$ depends on the occupation number $\tau_i$ $$X_i = \tau_i D + (1 - \tau_i) E \ ,$$ and the matrices $D$, $E$ and the vectors $\langle \rho_a|, |\rho_b \rangle$ satisfy the following algebraic rules $$\begin{aligned}
&& DE-ED= D+E \nonumber \\
&& \langle \rho_a |\; 2 \; [ \rho_a E - (1-\rho_a)D] = \langle \rho_a| \label{algebra} \\
&& 2\; [ (1-\rho_b) D - \rho_b E]\; | \rho_b \rangle = | \rho_b \rangle \; . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
A priori one should construct the matrices $D$ and $E$ (which might be infinite-dimensional) and the vectors $\langle \rho_a|$ and $| \rho_b \rangle$ satisfying (\[algebra\]) to calculate the weights of the microscopic configurations. However these weights do not depend on the particular representation chosen and can be calculated directly [@DEHP; @derrida-phys-rep] from (\[algebra\]).
One can calculate, using (\[algebra\]), the average density profile $$\langle \tau_i \rangle = { \langle \rho_a | (D+E)^{i-1} D (D+E)^{L-i} |\rho_b
\rangle \over \langle \rho_a | (D+E)^{L} |\rho_b
\rangle }
\label{taui}$$ as well as all the correlation functions and recover (\[profile\]). One can also show that $$\frac{\langle\rho_a |(D+E)^L|\rho_b\rangle}
{\langle\rho_a | \rho_b \rangle}=
\frac{L!}{(\rho_a-\rho_b)^L} \ .
\label{norm}$$ (This formula is easy to derive by noticing that, for a system of size $L$, the average current is given, according to (\[profile\]), by $\langle \tau_i - \tau_{i+1} \rangle = (\rho_a - \rho_b)/L$ but is also given, according to (\[taui\],\[algebra\]), by the ratio $ \langle\rho_a |(D+E)^{L-1}|\rho_b\rangle/\langle\rho_a |(D+E)^L|\rho_b\rangle$).
Additivity
==========
As in (\[matrix\]) the weight of each configuration is written as the matrix element of a product of $L$ matrices, one can try to insert at a position $L_1$ a complete basis in order to relate the properties of a lattice of $L$ sites to those of two subsystems of sizes $L_1$ and $L-L_1$.
If one defines, for arbitrary $\rho$, left and right vectors $\langle \rho|$ and $|\rho\rangle$, which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle \rho| \; 2 \; [\rho E-(1-\rho)D]= \langle \rho|
\nonumber \\
&& 2 \; [ (1-\rho ) D- \rho E ] \; | \rho \rangle = | \rho
\rangle \label{eigen}\end{aligned}$$ (note that in general $\langle \rho | \rho' \rangle \neq 0$), it is possible to show, using $DE-ED=D+E$ as in (\[algebra\]) and the property (\[eigen\]), that for $\rho_b <
\rho_a$ $$\frac{\langle \rho_a|Y_1 Y_2|\rho_b\rangle}
{\langle \rho_a| \rho_b\rangle}
=
\oint\displaylimits_{\rho_b<|\rho|<\rho_a} \frac{d\rho}{2i\pi}\:
\frac{(\rho_a-\rho_b)}{(\rho_a-\rho)(\rho-\rho_b)} \:
\frac{\langle \rho_a|Y_1|\rho\rangle}
{\langle \rho_a| \rho\rangle} \:
\frac{\langle \rho|Y_2|\rho_b\rangle}
{\langle \rho| \rho_b\rangle}
\label{fermeture}$$ where $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are arbitrary polynomials of matrices $D$ and $E$. (To prove (\[fermeture\]), one can first prove it, using (\[norm\]), for $Y_1$ of the form $[\rho_a E-(1-\rho_a)D]^{m_1} [D+E]^{n_1}$ and $Y_2$ of the form $[D+E]^{n_2} [ (1-\rho_b ) D- \rho_b E ]^{m_2}$. Then one can show, using $DE-ED=D+E$, that any polynomial $Y_1$ or $Y_2$ can be reduced to a finite sum of such terms).\
By choosing for $Y_1$ the sum over the weights of all configurations with $ l r_1$ occupied sites in the first a box, ... $l r_k$ occupied sites in the $k$th box, and for $Y_2$ the sum over all configurations with $ l r_{k+1} $ occupied sites in the $k+1$th box, ... $l r_n$ occupied sites in the $n$th box, one can show, using (\[matrix\],\[norm\],\[fermeture\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
{\rm Pro}_{L}(r_1,... r_n|\rho_a,\rho_b) =
\oint\displaylimits_{\rho_b<|\rho|<\rho_a} \frac{d\rho}{2i\pi}\: & { L_1! \ (L-L_1)! \over L!} {(\rho_a - \rho_b)^{L+1} \over (\rho_a - \rho)^{L_1+1} \ (\rho - \rho_b)^{L-L_1+1}} \times
\label{PPP}
\\ \nonumber
& \ \ \ {\rm Pro}_{L_1}(r_1,... r_k|\rho_a,\rho)
\times {\rm Pro}_{L-L_1}(r_{k+1},... r_n|\rho,\rho_b) \end{aligned}$$ where $L_1= k l$. This formula, which is exact for arbitrary system sizes, relates the properties of two disconnected subsystems of sizes $L_1$ and $L-L_1$ to those of a single system of size $L$.\
If $L_1=L x$, one then gets (\[finite\]) for large $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
\fl {\cal F}_n(r_1, r_2, ...r_n|\rho_a,\rho_b)
= & \max_{\rho_b < F < \rho_a} \Big[
x{\cal F}_k(r_1, ...r_k|\rho_a,F)
+(1-x){\cal F}_{n-k}(r_{k+1}, ...r_n|F,\rho_b)
\nonumber \\
& +x \log \left({\rho_a -F \over x}\right)
+(1-x) \log \left({F-\rho_b \over 1-x}\right)
-\log(\rho_a-\rho_b) \Big]\end{aligned}$$ which follows from (\[PPP\]) by a saddle point method (as in (\[PPP\]) the integration contour is perpendicular to the real axis, the value $F$ of $\rho$ which maximizes the integrand along the contour becomes a minimum as $\rho$ varies along the real axis). If one repeats the same procedure $n$ times, one gets $$\label{Fn}
\fl {\cal F}_n(r_1, r_2, ...r_n|\rho_a,\rho_b)
=
\max_{\rho_a=F_{0} > .. >F_k > ..> F_n=\rho_b}
{1 \over n}\sum_{k=1}^n{\cal F}_1(r_k|F_{k-1},F_k) + \log \left( {(F_{k-1}-F_k)n \over \rho_a - \rho_b}\right)$$ For large $n$, as $F_k$ is monotone, the difference $F_{k-1}-F_k
$ has to be small for almost all $k$ and one can replace ${\cal F}_1(r_k|
F_{k-1},F_k) $ by its equilibrium value ${\cal F}_1(r_k|F_{k},F_k) = B(r_k,F_k)$ (see (\[F4\])). If one the writes $F_k$ as a function of $k/n$ $$F_k = F\left({k \over n} \right)$$ (\[Fn\]) becomes $${\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b)= \max_{F(x)}\int_0^1 dx \ \left[ B(\rho(x),F(x)) + \log{F'(x)
\over \rho_b - \rho_a} \right]
\label{F5}$$ where the maximun is over all the monotone functions $F(x)$ which satisfy $F(0)=\rho_a$ and $F(1)=\rho_b$. Writing the equation satified by the optimal $F(x)$ in (\[F5\]) leads to (\[F3\]) and this completes the derivation of (\[F2\],\[F3\]).\
\
The macroscopic fluctuation theory {#mft}
==================================
For a general diffusive one dimensional system of length $L$, in contact with a left reservoir at density $\rho_a$ and a right reservoir at density $\rho_b$, the average current and the fluctuations of this current near equilibrium can be characterized by two quantities $D(\rho)$ and $\sigma(\rho)$ defined by $$\lim_{t \to \infty}{\langle Q_t \rangle \over t}= {D(\rho) \over L} (\rho_a - \rho_b)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for \ }
\ (\rho_a - \rho_b) \ \ {\rm small}
\label{Ddef}$$ $$\lim_{t \to \infty}{\langle Q_t^2 \rangle \over t} = {\sigma(\rho) \over L}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for \ }
\ \rho_a = \rho_b
\label{sigmadef}$$ where $Q_t$ is the total number of particles transferred from the left reservoir to the system during time $t$. Starting from the hydrodynamic large deviation theory [@KOV; @Spohn; @KL] Bertini, De Sole, Gabrielli, Jona-Lasinio and Landim [@BDGJL1; @BDGJL2; @BDGJL2a] have developed a general approach, [*the macroscopic fluctuation theory*]{}, to calculate the large deviation functional $\cal F$ of the density (\[continu\]) in the non-equilibrium steady state of a diffusive system in contact with two reservoirs as in figure \[ssep\].
For diffusive systems (such as the SSEP), the density $\rho_i(t)$ near site $i$ at time $t$ and the total flux $Q_i(t)$ flowing through position $i$ between time $0$ and time $t$ are, for a large system of size $L$ and for times of order $L^2$, scaling functions of the form $$\rho_i(t) = \widehat \rho \left( {i\over L}, {t \over L^2} \right) \; ,
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
Q_i(t) = L \widehat Q \left( {i\over L}, {t \over L^2} \right) \;$$ (Note that, due to the conservation of the number of particles $\rho_i(t)-\rho_i(0) = Q_i(t)-Q_{i+1}(t)$, the scaling form of $\rho_i(t)$ implies the scaling form of $Q_i(t)$). If one introduces the instantaneous (rescaled) current defined by $$\widehat j(x,\tau) = {\partial \widehat Q (x,\tau) \over \partial \tau}$$ the conservation of the number of particles implies that $${
\partial \widehat{\rho}(x, \tau) \over \partial \tau}=
-{\partial^2 \widehat{Q} (x,\tau) \over \partial \tau \partial x }
= -{\partial \widehat{j}(x,\tau) \over \partial x } \, .
\label{conservation}$$
The [*macroscopic fluctuation theory*]{} [@BDGJL1; @BDGJL2; @BDGJL2a] starts from the probability of observing a certain density profile $\widehat \rho \left( x, \tau \right)$ and current profile $\widehat j \left( x, \tau \right)$ over the rescaled time interval $\tau_1 < \tau < \tau_2$ $$\label{eq: dev exp}
\fl {\cal P}_{\tau_1,\tau_2} \Big( \{\widehat \rho(x,\tau), \widehat j(x,\tau)\} \Big) \sim \exp
\left[ - L \int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2}
d \tau' \int_0^1 dx {\left[\widehat j(x,\tau') + D({\widehat \rho(x,\tau'}))
{\partial {\widehat \rho(x,\tau')} \over \partial x}\right]^2 \over 2
\sigma(\widehat \rho(x,\tau'))} \right]$$ where the current $\widehat j(x,s)$ is related to the density profile $\widehat \rho(x,s)$ by the conservation law (\[conservation\]) and the functions $D(\rho)$ and $\sigma(\rho)$ are defined by (\[Ddef\],\[sigmadef\]). The physical meaning of (\[eq: dev exp\]) is that the system is [*locally*]{} close to equilibrium and that the fluctuations of the local currents are Gaussian with averages and variances given by (\[Ddef\],\[sigmadef\]).
Then to calculate the probability of observing a density profile $\rho(x)$ in the steady state, at time $\tau$, one has to find how this profile is produced. For large $L$, this probability (\[eq: dev exp\]) is dominated by the optimal path $\{\widehat{\rho}(x,s),\widehat{j}(x,s)\}$ for $-\infty < s < \tau$ in the space of density and current profiles and $${\rm Pro}_L(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b) \sim \max_{ \{\widehat{\rho}(x,s), \widehat{j}(x,s) \} }
{\cal P}_{-\infty,\tau}\Big(\{ \widehat{\rho}(x,s), \widehat{j}(x,s) \}\Big)
\label{ProBertini}$$ which goes from the average steady state profile $\rho^*(x)$ (given by (\[rhostar\]) for the SSEP) to the desired profile $\rho(x)$ $$\widehat{\rho}(x,-\infty) = \rho^*(x) \ \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \
\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau) = \rho(x) \ . \label{bc}$$ This means that the functional ${\cal F}$ of the density (\[continu\]) is given by $$\fl {\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}|\rho_a,\rho_b)= \min_{\{ \widehat{\rho}(x,s), \widehat{j}(x,s) \}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\tau}
d \tau' \int_0^1 dx { \left[\widehat{j}(x,\tau') + D({\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau'}))
{\partial {\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau')} \over \partial x}\right]^2 \over 2
\sigma(\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau'))}
\label{FBertini}$$ where the density and the current profiles satisfy the conservation law (\[conservation\]) and the boundary conditions (\[bc\]).
Finding this optimal path $\widehat{\rho}(x,s), \widehat{j}(x,s)$ with the boundary conditions (\[bc\]) is usually a hard problem. Bertini et al [@BDGJL1] were however able to write an equation satisfied by ${\cal F}$: as (\[FBertini\]) does not depend on $\tau$ (because the probability of producing a certain deviation $\rho(x)$ in the steady state does not depend on the time $\tau$ at which this deviation occurs), one can isolate in the integral (\[FBertini\]) the contribution of the last time interval $(\tau- \delta \tau, \tau)$ and (\[FBertini\]) becomes $$\fl {\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\})= \min_{ \delta \rho(x), j(x)} \left[
{\cal F}(\{\rho(x)-\delta \rho(x)\})
+ \delta \tau \int_0^1 dx { \left[j(x) + D(\rho(x))
\rho'(x) \right]^2 \over 2
\sigma(\rho(x))}
\right]
\label{FBertini-bis}$$ where $\rho(x)-\delta \rho(x)=\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau-d\tau)$ and $j(x) = \widehat{j}(x,\tau)$. Then if one defines $U(x)$ by $$U(x) = {\delta {\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\}) \over \delta \rho(x)}
\label{Udef}$$ and one uses the conservation law $\delta \rho(x)= -{dj(x) \over dx} d \tau$, one should have according to (\[FBertini-bis\]) that the optimal current $j(x)$ is given by $$j(x)= -D(\rho(x)) \rho'(x) + \sigma(\rho(x)) U'(x) \ .
\label{j-bertini}$$ Therefore “starting” with $\widehat{\rho}(x,\tau)=\rho(x)$ at time $\tau$ and using the time evolution (for $-\infty < s < \tau$) $${d \widehat{\rho}(x,s) \over ds} = - {d \widehat{j}(x,s) \over dx}
\label{dyn}$$ with $\widehat{j}$ related to $\widehat{\rho}$ as in (\[j-bertini\]) one should get the whole time dependent optimal profile $\widehat{\rho}(x,s)$ which converges to $\rho^*(x)$ in the limit $s \to
-\infty$. The problem of course is that ${ \cal F}$ is in general not known and so is $U(x)$ defined in (\[Udef\]). One can write from (\[FBertini-bis\]) (after an integration by parts and using the fact that $U(0)=U(1)=0$ if $\rho(0)=\rho_a$ and $\rho(1)=\rho_b$) the equation satisfied by $U'(x)$ $$\int_0^1 dx \left[ \left({D \rho' \over \sigma} - U' \right)^2 - \left({D \rho' \over \sigma }\right)^2 \right] {\sigma \over 2}=0
\label{hamilton-jacobi}$$ which is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of Bertini et al [@BDGJL1]. For general $D(\rho)$ and $\sigma(\rho)$ one does not know how to find the solution $U'(x)$ of (\[hamilton-jacobi\]) for an arbitrary $\rho(x)$ and thus one does not know how to get a more explicit expression of the large deviation function ${\cal F}(\{\rho(x)\})$.
One can however check rather easily whether a given expression of ${\cal F}$ satisfies (\[hamilton-jacobi\]) since $U'(x)$ can be calculated from (\[Udef\]). For the SSEP one gets from (\[F5\],\[Udef\]) $$U(x) = \log \left[ {\rho(x) (1- F(x)) \over (1-\rho(x))F(x)} \right]$$ with $F(x)$ related to $\rho(x)$ by (\[F3\]). One can then check that (\[hamilton-jacobi\]) is indeed satisfied using the known expressions of $D=1$ and $\sigma= 2 \rho(1-\rho)$ for the SSEP [@derrida-phys-rep] (using the fact that $F''(0)=F''(1)=0$ which is a consequence of the fact that $\rho(0)=F(0)=\rho_a$, $\rho(1)=F(1)=\rho_b$, and of (\[F3\])).
In fact when ${\cal F}$ is known, one can obtain the whole optimal path $\widehat{\rho}(x,s)$ from the evolution (\[dyn\]) with $\widehat{j}$ related to $\widehat{\rho}$ by (\[j-bertini\]) which becomes for the SSEP $$\label{j-bertini1}
\widehat{j}(x,s)= - {d \widehat{\rho}(x,s) \over dx} +
\sigma (\widehat{\rho}(x,s)) \log \left[ {\widehat{\rho}(x,s) (1- \widehat{F}(x,s)) \over (1-\widehat{\rho}(x,s)) \widehat{F}(x,s) } \right]$$ where $\widehat{F}$ is related to $\widehat{\rho}$ by (\[F3\]). For (\[F2\],\[F3\]) to coincide with (\[FBertini\]), the optimal profile $\widehat{\rho}$ evolving according to (\[dyn\]) should converge to $\rho^*(x)$ as $s \to -\infty$. One can check that this evolution (\[dyn\]) of $\widehat{\rho}(x,s)$ for this current (\[j-bertini1\]) is equivalent to the following evolution [@BDGJL2] of $\widehat{F}$ $$\label{F-bertini}
{d \widehat{F}(x,s) \over ds} = - {d^2 \widehat{F}(x,s) \over d x^2}$$ where $\widehat{F}$ is related to $\widehat{\rho}$ by (\[F3\]). Clearly (\[F-bertini\]) is a diffusion equation. Because $F(0)=\rho_a$, $F(1)=\rho_b$ and because of the minus sign in (\[F-bertini\]), $\widehat{F}(x,s) \to \rho^*(x)$ as $s \to - \infty$. Therefore, due to (\[F3\]), the density $\widehat{\rho}(x,s)
\to \rho^*(x)$ as $s \to - \infty$. Thus (\[dyn\],\[j-bertini1\]) do give the optimal path in (\[FBertini\]) with the right boundary conditions (\[bc\]) and (\[FBertini\]) coincides for the SSEP with the prediction (\[F2\],\[F3\]) of the matrix approach. From (\[F-bertini\],\[F3\]) one can show that the time evolution of a deviation $\ \widehat{\rho}(x,s)$, when it is produced is given, for small $\rho_a-\rho_b$, by $$\label{rhohat}
\fl
{d \widehat{\rho}(x,s) \over ds} = {d^2 \widehat{\rho}(x,s) \over dx^2} -2{ (\rho_a - \rho_b) \over \rho_a(1-\rho_a)}(1-2 \widehat{\rho}(x,s) ) {d \widehat{ \rho}(x,s) \over ds} + O\left((\rho_a-\rho_b)^2 \right) \ .$$ One can notice that as soon as $\rho_a \neq \rho_b$ this is not the time reversal of the way a deviation relaxes (\[evolution\]) $$\label{rhorel}
{d \rho(x,t) \over dt} = {d^2 \rho(x,t)\over dx^2}
\ .$$ This again is not a surprise as for non-equilibrium systems ($\rho_a \neq \rho_b$), the way a deviation is produced (\[rhohat\]) has no reason to be the time reversal of the way it relaxes (\[rhorel\]).
Conclusion
==========
In addition to the two approaches discussed above to obtain (\[F2\]-\[F3\]), Tailleur Kurchan and Lecomte [@TKL] have developed a third approach based on a non-local change of variables which allows them to map the dynamics of the non-equilibrium case ($\rho_a \neq \rho_b$) onto the dynamics of the equilibrium case ($\rho_a=\rho_b$).
Apart from the SSEP (and zero range processes for which the steady state measure is a product measure), the large deviation function ${\cal F} $ has been determined so far only for few other cases: the Kipnis Marchioro Presutti model [@KMP; @BGL], the weakly asymmetric exlcusion process [@ED; @BLM], the ABC model [@EKKM; @CDE] on a ring for equal densities of the three species, driven systems [@Baha] in particular the asymmetric exclusion process [@DLS3; @DLS4].
An open question is whether one could use the macroscopic fluctuation theory to find the large deviation functional ${\cal F}$ for more general diffusive systems characterized by arbitrary functions $D(\rho)$ and $\sigma(\rho)$ defined in (\[Ddef\],\[sigmadef\]).
More recently, the macroscopic fluctuation theory has become a very powerful tool to calculate the large deviation function of the current in the non-equilibrium steady state of diffusive systems [@BD1; @BD2; @BDGJL5; @BDGJL6; @harris; @ADLV; @hurtado; @HG; @Imparato]. On the other hand exact calculations of the current fluctuations, starting from a microscopic model, are still very difficult to do [@GE; @GE1; @PM; @simon]. What the large deviation functional of the density looks like, for a diffusive system, when conditioned on the current, remains an open question [@PSS].
Looking, by a macroscopic or a microscopic approach, at diffusive systems with an initial condition which is not a steady state as in [@Antoine1; @Antoine2], would be another interesting direction to pursue.
Lastly, one knows [@LLP; @Olla2] that mechanical systems which conserve momentum exhibit an anomalous Fourier’s law in one dimension. What the large deviation functions of the current or of the density become for such systems looks to me another interesting and challenging question.
My interest for the large deviations of the density of diffusive systems started by the works done with Joel Lebowitz and Gene Speer in 2001-2003. We used, as a starting point, the matrix ansatz which was developed in collaboration with Martin Evans,Vincent Hakim, Vincent Pasquier, following an earlier paper with David Mukamel and Eytan Domany at the beginning of the 1990’s. They were pursued by a series of works on diffusive systems, in particular with Thierry Bodineau, Camille Enaud and Antoine Gerschenfeld. It was for me a great pleasure and privilege to work on these problems with them. As the talk, on which this paper is based, was delivered on the occasion of the Boltzmann Medal award, I would like to thank also all my other collaborators or colleagues with whom I had the opportunity to share my interest for Statistical Physics over the past 35 years.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[00]{} Bonetto F, Lebowitz J L, Rey-Bellet L [*Fourier’s law: a challenge to theorists*]{} 2000 Imperial College Press 128-150 (Preprint math-ph/0002052)
Lepri S, Livi R, Politi A [*Thermal conduction in classical low-dimensional lattices*]{} 2003 [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**377**]{} 1-80
Eckmann J P, Pillet C A, Rey-Bellet L [*Entropy production in nonlinear, thermally driven Hamiltonian systems*]{} 1999 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**95**]{} 305-331
Sasa S I, Tasaki H [*Steady state thermodynamics*]{} 2006 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**125**]{} 125-227
Derrida B, Lebowitz J L, Speer E R [*Free energy functional for nonequilibrium systems: an exactly solvable case*]{} 2001 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 150601
Derrida B, Lebowitz J L, Speer E R [*Large deviation of the density profile in the steady state of the open symmetric simple exclusion process*]{} 2002 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**107**]{} 599-634
Derrida B [*Non-equilibrium steady states: fluctuations and large deviations of the density and of the current*]{} 2007 [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P07023
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Fluctuations in stationary non equilibrium states of irreversible processes*]{} 2001 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 040601
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Macroscopic fluctuation theory for stationary non equilibrium states*]{} 2002 [*J. Stat, Phys.*]{} [**107**]{} 635-675
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Large deviation approach to non equilibrium processes in stochastic lattice gases*]{} 2006 [*Bull. Braz. Math. Soc.*]{} [**37**]{} 611-643
Richards P M [*Theory of one-dimensional hopping conductivity and diffusion*]{} 1977 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} B [**16**]{} 1393-1409
Spohn H 1991, [*Large scale dynamics of interacting particles*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin)
Liggett T 1999 [*Stochastic interacting systems: contact, voter and exclusion processes*]{}, 324 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin)
Kipnis C, Landim C 1999 [*Scaling limits of interacting particle systems*]{} Springer
Santos J E, Schütz G M [*Exact time-dependent correlation functions for the symmetric exclusion process with open boundary*]{} 2001 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} E [**64**]{} 036107
Touchette H 2009 [*The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics*]{} [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**478**]{} 1-69
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Towards a nonequilibrium thermodynamics: a self-contained macroscopic description of driven diffusive systems*]{} 2009 [*J. Stat. Phys.* ]{} [**135**]{}, 857-872
Spohn H [*Long range correlations for stochastic lattice gases in a non-equilibrium steady state*]{} 1983 [*J. Phys. A* ]{}[**16**]{} 4275-4291
Derrida B, Lebowitz J L, Speer E R [*Entropy of open lattice systems*]{} 2007 [*J. Stat. Phys.* ]{}[**126**]{} 1083-1108
Derrida B, Evans M R, Hakim V, Pasquier V [*Exact solution of a 1d asymmetric exclusion model using a matrix formulation*]{} 1993 [*J. Phys. A* ]{}[**26**]{} 1493-1517
Derrida B [*An exactly soluble non-equilibrium system: the asymmetric exclusion process*]{} 1998 [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**301** ]{} 65-83
Blythe R A, Evans M R [*Nonequilibrium steady states of matrix-product form: a solver’s guide*]{} 2007 [*J. Phys. A* ]{}[**40**]{} R333-R441
Kipnis C, Olla S, Varadhan S R S, [*Hydrodynamics and large deviations for simple exclusion processes*]{} 1989 [*Commun. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**42**]{} 115-137
Tailleur J, Kurchan J, Lecomte V [*Mapping out-of-equilibrium into equilibrium in one-dimensional transport models*]{} 2008 [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**41**]{} 505001
Enaud C, Derrida B [*Large deviation functional of the weakly asymmetric exclusion process*]{} 2004 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**114**]{} 537-562
Bertini L, Landim C, Mourragui M [*Dynamical large deviations for the boundary driven weakly asymmetric exclusion process* ]{} 2009 [*Ann. Prob.*]{} [**37**]{} 2357-2403
Kipnis C, Marchioro C , Presutti E, [*Heat-flow in an exactly solvable model*]{} 1982 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**27**]{} 65-74
Bertini L , Gabrielli D, Lebowitz J L [*Large deviation for a stochastic model of heat flow*]{} 2005 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**121**]{} 843-885
Evans M R, Kafri Y, Koduvely H M, Mukamel D [*Phase separation in one-dimensional driven diffusive systems*]{} 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **80**]{} 425-429
Clincy M, Derrida B, Evans M R [*Phase transitions in the ABC model*]{} 2003 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**67**]{} 066115
Bahadoran C 2010 A quasi-potential for conservation laws with boundary conditions\
Preprint math-ph/1010.3624
Derrida B, Lebowitz J L, Speer E R [*Exact free energy functional for a driven diffusive open stationary nonequilibrium system*]{} 2002 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**89**]{} 030601
Derrida B, Lebowitz J L, Speer E R [*Exact large deviation functional of a stationary open driven diffusive system: the asymmetric exclusion process*]{} 2003 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**110**]{} 775-810
Bodineau T, Derrida B [*Current fluctuations in nonequilibrium diffusive systems: an additivity principle* ]{} 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} 180601
Bodineau T, Derrida B [*Distribution of current in nonequilibrium diffusive systems and phase transitions*]{} 2005 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**72**]{} 066110
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Current fluctuations in stochastic lattice gases*]{} 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{} 030601
Bertini L, De Sole A, Gabrielli D, Jona–Lasinio G, Landim C [*Non equilibrium current fluctuations in stochastic lattice gases*]{} 2006 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**123**]{} 237-276
Harris R J, Schütz GM [*Fluctuation theorems for stochastic dynamics* ]{} 2007 [*J. Stat. Mech.* ]{} P07020
Appert C, Derrida B, Lecomte V, Van Wijland F [*Universal cumulants of the current in diffusive systems on a ring*]{} 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**78**]{} 021122 Hurtado P I, Garrido P L [*Test of the additivity principle for current fluctuations in a model of heat conduction*]{} 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} 250601
Hurtado P I, Garrido P L [*Current fluctuations and statistics during a large deviation event in an exactly solvable transport model*]{} 2009 [*J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp.*]{} P02032
Imparato A, Lecomte V, van Wijland F [*Equilibriumlike fluctuations in some boundary-driven open diffusive systems*]{} 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**80**]{} 011131
de Gier J, Essler F H [*Bethe ansatz solution of the asymmetric exclusion process with open boundaries*]{} 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{} 240601
de Gier J, Essler F H [*Slowest relaxation mode of the partially asymmetric exclusion process with open boundaries*]{} 2008 [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**41**]{} 485002
Prolhac S, Mallick K [*Cumulants of the current in a weakly asymmetric exclusion process*]{} 2009 [*J. Phys. A* ]{} [**42**]{} 175001
Simon D [*Construction of a coordinate Bethe Ansatz for the asymmetric exclusion process with open boundaries*]{} 2009 [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P07017
Popkov V, Simon D, Schütz G M [*Asymmetric simple exclusion process on a ring conditioned on enhanced flux* ]{} 2010 [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P07017
Derrida B, Gerschenfeld A [*Current fluctuations of the one dimensional symmetric simple exclusion process with step initial Condition*]{} 2009 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**136**]{} 1-15
Derrida B, Gerschenfeld A [*Current fluctuations in one dimensional diffusive systems with a step initial density profile*]{} 2009 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**137**]{} 978-1000
Basile G, Bernardin C, Olla S [*Momentum conserving model with anomalous thermal conductivity in low dimensional systems*]{} 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{}[**96**]{} 204303
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use a sample of galaxies with high-quality rotation curves to assess the role of the luminous component (“baryons”) in the dwarf galaxy rotation curve diversity problem. As in earlier work, we find that the shape of the rotation curve correlates with baryonic surface density; high surface density galaxies have rapidly-rising rotation curves consistent with cuspy cold dark matter halos, slowly-rising rotation curves (characteristic of galaxies with inner mass deficits or “cores”) occur only in low surface density galaxies. The correlation, however, seems too weak in the dwarf galaxy regime to be the main driver of the diversity. In particular, the observed dwarf galaxy sample includes “cuspy” systems where baryons are unimportant in the inner regions and “cored” galaxies where baryons actually dominate the inner mass budget. These features are important diagnostics of the viability of various scenarios proposed to explain the diversity, such as (i) baryonic inflows and outflows; (ii) dark matter self-interactions (SIDM); (iii) variations in the baryonic acceleration through the “mass discrepancy-acceleration relation” (MDAR); or (iv) non-circular motions in gaseous discs. A reanalysis of existing data shows that MDAR does not hold in the inner regions of dwarf galaxies and thus cannot explain the diversity. Together with analytical modeling and cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, our analysis shows that each of the remaining scenarios has promising features, but none seems to fully account for the observed diversity. The origin of the dwarf galaxy rotation curve diversity and its relation to the small structure of cold dark matter remains an open issue.'
bibliography:
- 'archive.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXXX . Received XXXX; in original form XXXX'
title: Baryonic clues to the puzzling diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: dwarf – evolution – formation – haloes cosmology: theory – dark matter
Introduction {#SecIntro}
============
The non-linear structure of dark matter halos is a well-tested prediction of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) paradigm for structure formation. Numerical simulations have consistently shown that the density profiles of LCDM halos are approximately self-similar, so that the full mass profile of a halo depends on a single parameter, such as the virial[^1] mass of the system [@Navarro1996a; @Navarro1997 hereafter, NFW]. This prediction may be contrasted with observation using the rotation curves of dark matter-dominated systems, such as dwarf galaxies.
In LCDM, dwarf galaxy rotation curve shapes are expected to be nearly identical for systems with similar maximum circular velocity, $V_{\rm max}$, which is a reliable proxy for the halo virial mass. Observed rotation curves, however, deviate from this simple prediction, and show great diversity at fixed $V_{\rm max}$. We illustrate this in Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\], where the rotation curves of $4$ galaxies with $V_{\rm max}\sim 80$ km/s are compared with the circular velocity profile of a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) halo with parameters as expected for a Planck-normalized LCDM cosmology [@Ludlow2016].
All of these galaxies are heavily dark matter dominated in the outskirts, where they reach approximately the same $V_{\rm max}$, but the shapes of their rotation curves differ greatly. Although UGC 04278 (top-right panel in Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\]) follows roughly the expected NFW circular velocity profile, the other three deviate from this prediction. Rotation curves that rise more sharply than the NFW curve (UGC 05721; top-left) are not unexpected, and may arise, in principle, from the accumulation of baryons (i.e., stars plus gas) in the inner regions and the ensuing contraction of the halo.
On the other hand, the two galaxies in the bottom panels of Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\] are more problematic, as they have inner velocities well below the expected values. This implies a sizable “inner deficit” of matter relative to LCDM, a feature that is often associated with a constant-density “core” in the dark matter distribution. These two galaxies are thus clear examples of the well-known “cusp-core” controversy [@Moore1994; @Flores1994], which, as argued by @Oman2015, is best characterized as an inner mass deficit relative to the LCDM predictions. Note that this deficit affects only [*some*]{} galaxies, and that others are actually quite consistent with LCDM, at least according to this measure.
The origin of the diversity illustrated in Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\] is still unclear, and has elicited a number of proposals that are being actively debated in the literature. These proposals may be grouped into four broad categories. One is that the diversity is caused by the effects of baryonic inflows and outflows during the formation of the galaxy, which lead to gravitational potential fluctuations that may rearrange the inner dark matter profiles [see; e.g., @Navarro1996b; @Read2005; @Mashchenko2006; @Governato2012; @Pontzen2012; @Chan2015]. In this scenario, “cores” are created by feedback-driven blowouts that remove baryons from the inner regions, leading to a reduction of the inner dark matter content. These cores can, in principle, be reversed, and dark matter cusps may be recreated by subsequent baryonic infall [@Tollet2016; @Benitez-Llambay2019]. This “baryon-induced cores and cusps” mechanism (hereafter BICC, for short) offers in principle an appealing potential explanation for the observed diversity.
A second scenario argues that dark matter self-interactions are responsible for “heating up” the inner regions of a CDM halo into a core, thus reducing the central densities and allowing for slowly-rising rotation curves such as those in the bottom panels of Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\] [@Spergel2000]. Galaxies with rapidly-rising rotation curves are more difficult to accommodate in this self-interacting dark matter scenario (hereafter SIDM), where they are ascribed to either systems that were originally so dense that the resulting core is rather small, or to systems where the central baryonic potential is deep enough to affect the SIDM density profile [e.g., @Rocha2013; @Kaplinghat2016; @Kamada2017; @Ren2019].
A third possibility is that the diversity is generated by variations in the spatial distribution of the baryonic component. Indeed, it has been argued that galaxy rotation speeds at all radii may be inferred directly from the baryonic matter distribution via the “mass discrepancy-acceleration relation” [hereafter, MDAR[^2], @McGaugh2016; @Lelli2016]. In this scenario the radial acceleration associated with circular motion, $g_{\rm obs}(r)=V_{\rm rot}^2(r)/r$, is linked to the baryonic contribution to such acceleration, $g_{\rm bar}=V_{\rm bar}^2(r)/r$, through a simple function, $g_{\rm obs}(g_{\rm bar})$, with rather small scatter. Thus, the diversity in the rotation curve shapes would result simply from the diverse contribution of baryons to the acceleration in the inner regions.
Finally, the possibility has been raised that, at least in part, the diversity may be due to uncertainties in the circular velocities inferred from observations. The recent work of @Marasco2018 and @Oman2019 argues that the triaxiality of the dark matter halo may induce non-circular (i.e., elliptical) closed orbits in gaseous discs. Depending on how the kinematic principal axes of a particular galaxy are aligned relative to the major and minor axes of the orbital ellipses, the inferred velocities may over- or under-estimate the true circular velocity, sometimes by large amounts. This could also, in principle, explain the observed diversity.
How can we tell these scenarios apart? The papers cited in the above discussion have already shown that each of these mechanisms [*can*]{}, in principle, modify the LCDM mass profiles enough to account for the observed diversity. Therefore, assessing the viability of each of these scenarios must rely on a more detailed elaboration of their predictions as well as on the use of ancillary data or diagnostics. This is what we attempt in the present paper, where we use cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation in these scenarios, as well as a more detailed analysis of the role of baryons on different measures of rotation curve diversity to gauge the success of each of the above scenarios.
We begin with a brief description of the observational datasets (Sec. \[SecObs\]), followed by a description of the cosmological simulations adopted for our analysis (Sec. \[SecSims\]). We present our main results in Sec. \[SecRes\], and summarize our main conclusions in Sec. \[SecConc\].
As we were preparing this paper for submission, we became aware of a recent preprint by @Kaplinghat2019, who analyze many of the same issues we address here. Some of our conclusions agree with theirs, others do not. We have added a brief discussion of the similarities and differences in Sec. \[SecConc\].
![ Examples of rotation curves of dwarf galaxies from the SPARC dataset with $V_{\rm max}\sim 80$ km/s. The four galaxies have been chosen to span a range of rotation curve shapes, from fast-rising (top-left) to slow-rising (bottom-right) relative to the LCDM predictions, shown by the black line and gray shaded area. Observed rotation speeds are shown in red; the baryonic contribution (gas+stars) is shown in cyan. Dotted vertical lines indicate $r_{\rm fid}$, the inner fiducial radius adopted in our analysis (see eq. \[EqRfid\]). The red and cyan crosses in the bottom-left panel illustrate two of the characteristic velocities used in our study; the rotation velocity at $r_{\rm fid}$, $V_{\rm fid}\equiv V_{\rm rot}(r_{\rm fid})$, and the baryonic contribution to the circular velocity ar $r_{\rm fid}$, $V_{\rm b,fid}\equiv V_{\rm bar}(r_{\rm fid})$. The total stellar and baryonic masses, as well as the rotation curve shape parameter $\eta_{\rm rot}=V_{\rm fid}/V_{\rm max}$, are given in the legends of each panel. []{data-label="FigRCDiv80"}](RCdiv_sparc_vmax80.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Observational data {#SecObs}
==================
Our compilation of rotation curves from the literature includes datasets from the Spitzer Photometry & Accurate Rotation Curves project [SPARC; @Lelli2016]; from The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey [THINGS; @deBlok2008]; from the Local Irregulars That Trace Luminosity Extremes, The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey [LITTLE THINGS ; @Oh2015]; as well as from the work of @Adams2014 and @Relatores2019.
All rotation curves in this compilation were inferred from high-resolution HI and/or H$\alpha$ velocity fields, and include asymmetric drift corrections when needed. In all cases the velocity field data has been combined with photometry to construct mass models that include the stellar, gaseous, and dark matter components. In particular, the SPARC, THINGS and LITTLE THINGS data make use of *Spitzer* 3.6$\mu$m surface photometry, while @Adams2014 and @Relatores2019 use $r$-band images from a variety of sources. If the same galaxy is common to more than one survey, we adopt the SPARC data, because the majority of galaxies in our sample come from that compilation.
To minimize the inclusion of rotation curves that might be affected by substantial uncertainty we only consider galaxies with inclinations $i>30^{\circ}$, and omit the “grade=3” galaxies of @Relatores2019. (We refer the reader to that paper for details.) Furthermore, as our analysis relies on comparing rotation velocities in the inner and outer regions, we retain only systems whose rotation curves cover a relatively wide radial range. More specifically, we retain only systems where the last measured point of the rotation curve ($r_{\rm last}, V_{\rm last}$) is at least twice as far from the centre as a “fiducial” inner radius, defined as $$r_{\rm fid} = 2 (V_{\rm max}/70\, {\rm km/s}) \, {\rm kpc}.
\label{EqRfid}$$
We note that in most cases $V_{\rm last}\approx V_{\rm max}$, and that the scaling of $r_{\rm fid}$ with $V_{\rm max}$ ensures that the ratio $\eta_{\rm rot}=V_{\rm fid}/V_{\rm max}$ (where $V_{\rm fid}\equiv V_{\rm rot}(r_{\rm fid})$) is a simple but reliable indicator of the shape of the rotation curve for dwarf and massive galaxies alike. Rapidly-rising rotation curves have high values of $\eta_{\rm rot}$, approaching unity for rotation curves that remain approximately flat from the inner to the outermost regions.
Because sharply-rising rotation curves are expected from cuspy dark matter profiles, we shall at times loosely refer to rotation curves with $\eta_{\rm rot}\sim 1$ as “cuspy”. On the other hand, systems with $\eta_{\rm rot} \ll 1$ have very slowly-rising rotation curves, consistent with “cores”. We shall occasionally refer to such systems as having “cored” mass profiles or “cored” rotation curves.
Our compilation retains a total of $117$ galaxies, spanning a wide range in $V_{\rm max}$ (from $\sim 20$ to $\sim 320$ km/s ) and in stellar mass (from $M_{\rm star}\sim 1.6\times 10^6\, M_\odot$ to $\sim 2.1 \times 10^{11} \, M_\odot$). Our analysis makes use of published mass models, which include the combined gravitational effect of gas and stars –which we shall hereafter refer to as “baryons”–, on the rotation curve. In practice, we shall use $V_{\rm bar}^2(r)=V_{\rm gas}^2(r)+V_{\rm stars}^2(r)$, where the latter two terms are the contributions to the circular velocity of gas and stars reported in the literature. We have also computed baryonic half-mass radii, $r_{\rm b,half}$, assuming spherical symmetry (i.e., $M_{\rm bar}(<r)=r V_{\rm bar}^2(r) /G$) and that the baryonic component does not extend beyond $r_{\rm last}$.
When necessary, we estimate virial masses, $M_{200}$, for each system assuming an NFW profile of the same maximum circular velocity and a concentration parameter, $c$, taken from @Ludlow2016’s median $M_{200}(c)$ relation. We list, for each galaxy in our sample, the specific structural and velocity parameters used in our analysis in Table \[TabObsData\]. Although this compilation contains most galaxies with high-quality rotation curves inferred from 2D velocity fields, it is important to note that our sample may be subject to substantial selection biases that are not easy to quantify. We shall hereafter assume that these galaxies are representative of the galaxy population as a whole, but this is an assumption that may require revision once better, more complete datasets become available.
Numerical simulations {#SecSims}
=====================
LCDM simulations: EAGLE/APOSTLE {#SecAPOSTLE}
-------------------------------
The APOSTLE project is a set of twelve zoom-in simulations of “Local Group”-like regions selected from a 100$^3$ Mpc$^3$ “dark-matter-only” (hereafter, DMO) cosmological box run in a WMAP-7 cosmology. These Local Group (LG) regions are defined by the presence of a pair of halos that meet mass, relative velocity, and isolation criteria that match observed constraints on the Milky Way-Andromeda pair [@Fattahi2016; @Sawala2016]. These LG volumes have been run at three different levels of resolution. We shall use for this analysis the highest-resolution set (labelled “AP-L1”), with particle masses $m_{\rm dm}\sim 5\times10^4\,M_\odot$, $m_{\rm gas}\sim 10^4\,M_\odot$ and a maximum physical gravitational softening length of $134$ pc. Our analysis will use isolated (i.e., not satellites) systems found at $z=0$ within $\sim 2.5$ Mpc from the barycentre of the two main galaxies in each volume.
The APOSTLE simulations were run with the EAGLE (Evolution and Assembly of GaLaxies and their Environments) galaxy formation code [@Schaye2015; @Crain2015], which includes radiative cooling, star formation, stellar feedback, black hole growth and active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback (the latter negligible for LG galaxies). In particular, star formation assumes a metallicity-dependent density threshold [@Schaye2004] of the form $$n_{\rm thr} =\rm min\left[ n_{\rm thr,0} \left( {Z/Z_0}\right)^{-\alpha},n_{\rm max} \right],
\label{EqSFThr}$$ where $n_{\rm thr,0}=0.1$ cm$^{-3}$, $n_{\rm max}=10$ cm$^{-3}$, $Z_0=0.002$, and $\alpha=0.64$. Stellar feedback mimicking the effects of stellar winds, radiation pressure and supernova explosions is accounted for using a stochastic, thermal prescription [@DallaVecchia2012].
LCDM simulations: NIHAO {#SecNIHAO}
-----------------------
The NIHAO (Numerical Investigation of a Hundred Astrophysical Objects) project is a set of $\sim$100 cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamical simulations of isolated galaxies performed using the ESF-Gasoline2 code [@Wadsley2004; @Wang2015] and run in a flat LCDM cosmology with parameters from @Planck2014. These simulations span a wide range of halo virial masses, from $\sim 5 \times 10^9$ to $2\times 10^{12} \,M_\odot$. All NIHAO have spatial resolution high enough to resolve the mass profile of all systems reliably down to $1\%$ of the virial radius. Particle masses scale with halo virial mass so that all halos are resolved with similar numbers of particles. As an example, they are $m_{\rm dm}\sim 2\times10^4\,M_\odot$ and $m_{\rm gas}\sim 3.5\times10^3\,M_\odot$ for a 10$^{10}\, M_\odot$ halo.
Subgrid physics include a recipe for star formation that matches the Kennicutt-Schmidt Law in regions with a temperature below $15000$ K and density above a threshold, $n_{\rm thr}> 10.3$ cm$^{-3}$. The algorithm includes stellar feedback from supernovae [implemented through a blast-wave formalism; @Stinson2006] and from massive stars prior to their explosion as SNe .
The star formation and feedback algorithms are such that NIHAO dark matter halos can expand to form cores, with the degree of expansion depending mainly on the stellar-to-halo mass ratio [@Tollet2016; @Dutton2016; @Dutton2019b]. As a result, NIHAO galaxies show a fairly wide diversity of rotation curves, as discussed by @Santos-Santos2018.
LCDM simulations: EAGLE-CHT10 {#SecCHT10}
-----------------------------
This simulation series, first presented in @Benitez-Llambay2019, evolves cosmological boxes $12$ Mpc on a side, and are run with the same code and cosmology as the EAGLE/APOSTLE project (see Sec. \[SecAPOSTLE\]). The main difference is that they adopt a higher threshold for star formation, independent of metallicity. In this paper we consider a run with constant $n_{\rm thr}=10$ cm$^{-3}$, which is roughly $100\times$ higher than that used in APOSTLE. Mass resolution is given by $m_{\rm dm}\sim 4\times10^5\,M_\odot$ and $m_{\rm gas}\sim8\times10^4\,M_\odot$. As reported in @Benitez-Llambay2019, a higher star formation threshold allows gas to collapse and become gravitationally dominant at the centre of a halo. Baryonic outflows driven by supernova feedback are then able to modify the inner DM density profile, just as in the NIHAO simulations, which adopt a similar value of $n_{\rm thr}$.
SIDM simulations: SIDM10 {#SecSIDMSim}
------------------------
We use two re-simulations of one of the APOSTLE volumes [AP01-L1 in the notation of @Fattahi2016]. One re-simulation is dark-matter-only, the other includes the same subgrid physical treatment of star formation and feedback as APOSTLE, except that it uses the EAGLE-Recal model parameters rather than the EAGLE-Ref parameters that were used in the APOSTLE runs (Lovell et al., in prep.). Mass and spatial resolution are the same as in that series (Sec. \[SecAPOSTLE\]). The only difference is that the EAGLE code has been modified to include a collisional term for dark matter particle pairwise interactions in order to model the effects of a $s_{\rm si}=\sigma_{\rm SIDM}/m$=10 cm$^2$/g velocity-independent self-interaction cross section. The code modifications are described in detail in @Robertson2017 [@Robertson2018].
![Rotation speed at the inner fiducial radius vs maximum rotation speed for all galaxies in our observational sample. Galaxies with rapidly-rising rotation curves lie near the 1:1 dotted line. Rotation curves with ($V_{\rm fid}$,$V_{\rm max}$) values consistent with dark matter-only LCDM halos lie along the gray curve and shaded area, computed using the median $M_{200}(c)$ relation (plus 10-90 and 1-99 percentiles) for a Planck-normalized cosmology [@Ludlow2016]. Slowly-rising rotation curves (i.e., “cored” galaxies with a substantial inner mass deficit relative to LCDM) lie below the grey-shaded area. Each galaxy is labelled with its name and colored according to $\eta_{\rm rot}$, which we adopt as a simple measure of rotation curve shape.[]{data-label="FigVfidVmax"}](vrfidvmax_obs_cdm.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![ Rotation curve shape parameter, $\eta_{\rm rot}$, vs effective baryonic surface density, $\Sigma_{\rm bar}$. The correlation between the two reflects the $\eta_{\rm rot}$ dependence on galaxy mass (or $V_{\rm max}$), which in turn correlates strongly with surface density. Massive galaxies (high $\Sigma_{\rm bar}$) do not show evidence for cores, which only occur in dwarfs, which have low $\Sigma_{\rm bar}$. In the dwarf galaxy regime the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\Sigma_{\rm bar}$ is actually quite weak and unlikely to be the cause of the diversity. See text for further discussion. []{data-label="FigEtaRotSB"}](eta_surfdens.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Results {#SecRes}
=======
Rotation curve diversity: Observational results {#SecRCdiv}
-----------------------------------------------
### Rotation curve shape vs mass
The parameter $\eta_{\rm rot}=V_{\rm fid}/V_{\rm max}$ is a useful measure of the shape of a rotation curve. It contrasts the measured rotation speeds in the inner regions of the galaxy ($V_{\rm fid}$) with the maximum rotation speed ($V_{\rm max}$), which is generally similar to the velocity at the outermost measured point, $V_{\rm last}$. We note that in some cases the rotation curve may still be rising at the last measured point, in which case $V_{\rm max}$ may be underestimated. This, however, should have a relatively minor effect on $\eta_{\rm rot}$ because a change in $V_{\rm max}$ would lead to a change in the inner fiducial radius, $r_{\rm fid}$. Recall as well that we only retain systems where $r_{\rm last}>2\, r_{\rm fid}$, which should minimize any bias introduced by this effect.
The scaling of $r_{\rm fid}$ with $V_{\rm max}$ means that our measure of the inner rotation curve adjusts to the total mass of a system. This is preferable to using a fixed physical radius, and allows for a proper comparison of the inner and outer regions of the rotation curve of a galaxy, regardless of mass. For LCDM halos, $r_{\rm fid}$ is in the rising part of the circular velocity curve, and one would expect a roughly constant value of $V_{\rm fid}/V_{\rm max}\sim 0.65$. We plot these two parameters for all galaxies in our sample in Fig. \[FigVfidVmax\].
Fig. \[FigVfidVmax\] illustrates a few interesting points. One is that the evidence for “cores”, defined by an inner mass deficit relative to LCDM at $r_{\rm fid}$, affects only a fraction of all galaxies and is restricted to dwarf systems. Indeed, no galaxy with $V_{\rm max}>150$ km/s is found below the grey shaded band that tracks the expected loci of dark matter halos in LCDM. Most massive galaxies closely hug the 1:1 line, suggesting rotation curves that rise actually more rapidly than expected for LCDM halos and stay flat out to their last measured radius. As we shall discuss below (Sec. \[SecRCBarDom\]), this is due to the effect of baryons, which accumulate at the centre and drive the circular velocity at $r_{\rm fid}$ to higher values than expected from the dark matter alone.
Galaxies with $V_{\rm max}<150$ km/s, on the other hand, show a wide diversity of rotation curve shapes, from rapidly-rising, nearly flat rotation curve galaxies near the dotted 1:1 line, to very slowly-rising curves well below the grey band. The latter are systems where the evidence for an inner mass deficit, or a “core”, is the most compelling.
As discussed in Sec. \[SecIntro\], four different scenarios have been proposed to explain the rotation curve diversity illustrated in Fig. \[FigVfidVmax\]; identifying which one is most consistent with existing data is the main goal of this paper. Since baryons play an important role in several of the proposed scenarios, it is important to check how the diversity correlates with the gravitational contribution of baryons. We discuss this next.
### Rotation curve shape and baryon surface density
The role of baryons in determining the shape of the rotation curve has long been predicated on the basis that the shape of the inner rotation curve seems to correlate with galaxy surface brightness [e.g., @DeBlok1996; @Lelli2013]. We shall use here baryonic surface density rather than (stellar) surface brightness since baryons are mainly in gaseous form in many galaxies of our sample. We explore this in Fig. \[FigEtaRotSB\], where we plot the rotation curve shape parameter, $\eta_{\rm rot}$, as a function of the “effective” baryonic surface mass density, $\Sigma_{\rm bar}=M_{\rm bar}/2\pi r_{\rm b,half}^2$. ($M_{\rm bar}$ and $r_{\rm b,half}$ are the total baryonic mass and half-mass radius of a galaxy, respectively.)
There is indeed a correlation between $\eta_{\rm rot}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm bar}$, but it is largely a reflection of the galaxy mass-surface density relation: massive galaxies (none of which have cores, as discussed in the previous subsection) have higher surface density than dwarfs (some of which have cores and others which do not). Aside from this overall trend, when considering only dwarfs (i.e., $V_{\rm max}<150$ km/s) Fig. \[FigEtaRotSB\] shows that the correlation between $\eta_{\rm rot}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm bar}$ is much weaker. In other words, although all “cored” galaxies (i.e., $\eta_{\rm rot}{\lower.5ex\hbox{{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}}0.55$) are low surface density systems, the converse is not true: there are indeed a number of low surface density galaxies with “cuspy” rotation curves. Baryonic surface density alone is thus not a reliable indicator of the presence of a core or cusp in a dwarf galaxy and, therefore, unlikely to be the origin of the diversity. This is an issue to which we will return repeatedly throughout our discussion below.
![Rotation curve shape parameter, $\eta_{\rm rot}$, as a function of the gravitational importance of the baryonic component at the inner fiducial radius, $\eta_{\rm bar}$. The latter is approximately the ratio between baryonic and total enclosed masses within $r_{\rm fid}$. Galaxies are colored by maximum circular velocity, as indicated by the colorbar. Dark-matter-only LCDM halos have, on average, $\eta_{\rm rot}\sim 0.65$, with $10$:$90$ percentile scatter as indicated by the grey band. The rotation curves of the four galaxies highlighted with black circles are shown in Fig. \[FigRCDiv\]. Systems with $\eta_{\rm bar}<0.09$ are shown at that value for clarity.[]{data-label="FigEtaRotEtaBar"}](vbarvtot_vtotvmax_obs.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
### Rotation curve shape and baryon central dominance {#SecRCBarDom}
Although, overall, dwarf galaxy rotation curve shapes correlate only weakly with the effective baryon surface density, it is possible that baryons shape rotation curves through their role in setting the inner gravitational potential. We explore this in Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\], where we plot $\eta_{\rm rot}$ vs $\eta_{\rm bar}$, where the latter is defined as $\eta_{\rm bar} \equiv (V_{\rm bar}(r_{\rm fid})/V_{\rm fid})^2$. (We hereafter define $V_{\rm b,fid}\equiv V_{\rm bar}(r_{\rm fid})$ for ease of notation.) The (squared) ratio between the baryonic contribution and the measured rotation velocity at $r_{\rm fid}$ is roughly equivalent to the ratio between the enclosed baryonic and total mass within the inner fiducial radius, $r_{\rm fid}$.
Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\] illustrates a few interesting points. The first is that in massive disks (i.e., $V_{\rm max}>150$ km/s) rotation curves are approximately flat (i.e., $\eta_{\rm rot}\sim 1$) and baryons, as expected, play an important role (i.e., $\eta_{\rm bar}{\lower.5ex\hbox{{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}}0.4$-$0.5$). An example of this kind of galaxy (UGC 03205) is shown in the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigRCDiv\]. The rotation curve in this case rises actually more rapidly than expected for an LCDM halo of the same $V_{\rm max}$ (black curve in the same panel) because of the gravitational importance of the baryons at $r_{\rm fid}$.
For less massive systems the interpretation is less clear: most dwarf galaxies (defined as having $V_{\rm max}<150$ km/s) scatter from the top-left to bottom-right corners in Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\], a surprising trend for scenarios that envision the importance of baryons as the main driver of the rotation curve diversity.
Indeed, take, for example, systems at the top-left corner of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\]: these are galaxies with rapidly-rising (“cuspy”) rotation curves but where baryons play a negligible role at the inner fiducial radius $r_{\rm fid}$. An example (NGC 1705) is shown in the top-left panel of Fig. \[FigRCDiv\]. As we shall see below, systems like this are difficult to reproduce in scenarios like BICC and SIDM, where all or most halos have cores and cuspy rotation curves are assumed to occur only in systems where baryons dominate the central potential.
A similar comment applies to galaxies at the bottom-right corner of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\]: these galaxies have the largest “cores”, which, in the BICC scenario, would correspond to systems that have suffered the effects of explosive baryonic outflows, and where few baryons should have remained in the galaxy. An example (IC 2574) is shown in the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[FigRCDiv\]. In this galaxy, as well as in most systems with the largest cores, baryons are actually as dominant at $r_{\rm fid}$ as in massive, high surface brightness disks (i.e., $\eta_{\rm bar}>0.5$).
This discussion illustrates how Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\] provides a useful tool to judge the viability of the various scenarios that aim to explain the rotation curve diversity. In other words, it is not enough to identify a mechanism that may modify the inner regions of a halo to create diversity in the rotation curves of dwarf galaxies; the same mechanism must also allow galaxies to exhibit the observed diversity in the importance of baryons in the inner regions and must reproduce the trends in the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ plane shown in Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\]. This is the key argument of the analysis that follows, where we shall examine, in turn, the successes and shortcomings of each of the four scenarios identified in Sec. \[SecIntro\].
![Rotation curves of four galaxies in different regions of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\], where they are marked with black circles. Symbols, colors, and lines are as in Fig. \[FigRCDiv80\]. The inner fiducial radius, $r_{\rm fid}$, is indicated by the vertical dashed line in each panel. Top panels show galaxies with rapidly-rising rotation curves, where baryons play an important (right) or negligible (left) role at $r_{\rm fid}$. Bottom panels are “cored” galaxies with slowly-rising rotation curves, where, as in top, baryons are gravitationally important (right) or negligible (left) at $r_{\rm fid}$. []{data-label="FigRCDiv"}](RCs_vbarvtot.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Observed radial acceleration at the inner fiducial radius, $g_{\rm obs,fid}=V_{\rm fid}^2/r_{\rm fid}$, vs the baryonic acceleration at the same radius, $g_{\rm b,fid}=V_{\rm b,fid}^2/r_{\rm fid}$ for all galaxies in our observational sample. Each galaxy is colored by the rotation curve shape parameter, $\eta_{\rm rot}$. Note that “cored” galaxies with slowly-rising rotation curves (i.e., $\eta_{\rm rot}{\lower.5ex\hbox{{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}}0.55$) typically fall outside of the MDAR relation proposed by @McGaugh2016, shown by the blue shaded area. The diversity in observed rotation curves is thus not caused by the MDAR through variations in the gravitational acceleration at $r_{\rm fid}$ induced by the baryonic component. []{data-label="FigMDAR"}](g_rfid_mdar.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
Diversity and MDAR
------------------
We begin by exploring whether the observed diversity is due to diversity in the distribution of baryons, via the “mass discrepancy-acceleration relation” (MDAR) proposed by @McGaugh2016. These authors argue that, at all radii, and for all galaxies, observed accelerations, $g_{\rm obs}(r)=V_{\rm rot}^2(r)/r$ are linked through a tight relation to the accelerations expected from the baryonic distribution, $g_{\rm bar}(r)=V_{\rm bar}^2(r)/r$. Could the diversity of rotation curves be due to variations in the baryonic mass distribution, which result in a large spread of inner acceleration values at fixed $V_{\rm max}$?
We test this hypothesis in Fig. \[FigMDAR\], where we compare total and baryonic accelerations at the inner fiducial radius for all galaxies in our sample. The MDAR relation from @McGaugh2016, including scatter, is shown by the light blue shaded region. Galaxies are colored by the shape parameter, $\eta_{\rm rot}$. Note that, at $r_{\rm fid}$, galaxies follow only approximately the MDAR relation. Indeed, the rms scatter in $g_{\rm obs}$ is $0.23$ dex, substantially larger than the $0.11$ dex obtained by @McGaugh2016 by combining data for all galaxies and radii. In addition, most galaxies with large “cores” (i.e. $\eta_{\rm rot}<0.5$) fall systematically off and below the MDAR relation [see also @SantosSantos2016; @Ren2019 who report a similar result].
In other words, the baryonic mass distribution is unable to reproduce, via the MDAR, the inner rotation curves of galaxies with large cores. This is a conclusion already hinted at by @Navarro2017 [@Ludlow2017], who argued that the MDAR relation is actually readily reproduced in LCDM: since “cored” galaxies are unexpected in LCDM, they should also deviate systematically from the MDAR, as seen in Fig. \[FigMDAR\]. We conclude that MDAR is unable to explain the observed diversity of rotation curves.
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
Diversity and BICC (baryon-induced cores/cusps) {#SecDivLCDM}
-----------------------------------------------
We shall use several LCDM cosmological hydrodynamical simulations to compare with observed rotation curves. The first corresponds to simulations from the APOSTLE project [@Sawala2016], which used the code developed for the EAGLE project [@Schaye2015; @Crain2015] to simulate volumes selected to resemble the Local Group.
Rotation curves from these simulations have been analyzed in a number of papers [e.g., @Oman2015; @Sales2017; @Bose2019], who report that the inner cuspy structure of the halos is largely unaltered by the assembly of the galaxy, except for some halo contraction caused by the accumulation of baryons at the centre [see also @Schaller2015]. No dark matter “cores” are formed in APOSTLE, in the sense that there is no obvious reduction in the inner dark matter content compared to what would be expected from a DMO simulation. We shall use galaxies selected from the “high-resolution” APOSTLE volumes, referred to as AP-L1 for short [@Fattahi2016].
The lack of cores in the EAGLE/APOSTLE simulations has been traced to the relatively low (minimum) gas density threshold for star formation adopted in that code (Eq. \[EqSFThr\]). This prevents the gas that condenses at the centres of dark matter halos from dominating gravitationally, minimizing the effects that baryonic inflows and outflows may have on the dark matter [@Pontzen2012]. Cores do form in simulations run with the same EAGLE code but with a raised threshold [@Benitez-Llambay2019]. For that reason, we shall also use here results from a simulation with $n_{\rm thr}=10$ cm$^{-3}$, labelled EAGLE-CHT10.
Dark matter cores have also been reported in simulations from the NIHAO project [@Wang2015], a series of zoom-in resimulations of galaxies spanning a wide range in mass. Like EAGLE-CHT10, these simulations adopt a high star formation threshold, but a rather different implementation of the star formation and feedback algorithms. Details for this and other simulations may be found in Sec. \[SecSims\] and references listed there.
How well do each of these simulation series reproduce the observed diversity and, importantly, the relation between rotation curve shape and baryonic importance? We contrast the $V_{\rm fid}$-$V_{\rm max}$ results with observational data in Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\]. Simulated galaxies are only included if the @Power2003 convergence radius is smaller than $r_{\rm fid}$. Except when otherwise explicitly noted, we shall estimate circular velocities in simulated galaxies assuming spherical symmetry; i.e., $V_{\rm circ}^2(R)=GM(<r)/r$.
The top-left panel reproduces the observational data presented in Fig. \[FigVfidVmax\], colored this time by the baryon importance parameter, $\eta_{\rm bar}$. The same observational data is reproduced in the other panels, for reference, with grey circles. Legends in each panel label the simulation series it corresponds to.
Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\] is similar in concept to Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], but for the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ relation. Observed galaxies are shown in the top-left panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\] and are colored by $V_{\rm max}$. We shall use these two figures to discuss next the results of each simulation series.
### APOSTLE
As expected from the discussion above, APOSTLE galaxies (top-right panel in Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\]) show little diversity in their rotation curve shapes, which track closely the loci of DMO LCDM halos (grey line/shaded band in top-left panel). The upturn relative to the LCDM/NFW line in massive galaxies results from the contribution of baryons in the inner regions. Note that because of the relatively small simulated volume there are few massive galaxies in APOSTLE. The APOSTLE sample contains no slowly-rising, large core dwarf galaxies (i.e., systems well below the grey line), in disagreement with observations.
In terms of rotation curve shape vs baryon importance, we see from the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\] that few APOSTLE galaxies are dominated by baryons in the inner regions. APOSTLE is able to reproduce fairly well rapidly-rising rotation curves in galaxies where baryons are unimportant (i.e., top-left corner of the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ panel); these correspond to NFW-like halos where the initial cusp has been, if anything, slightly strengthened by the accumulation of baryons at the centre.
Slowly-rising rotation curves (i.e., $\eta_{\rm rot}{\lower.5ex\hbox{{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}}0.55$), as well as heavily baryon-dominated galaxies ($\eta_{\rm bar}{\lower.5ex\hbox{{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}}0.4$) are not present in these simulations. This comparison briefly summarizes the known shortcomings of EAGLE/APOSTLE simulations to reproduce the observed diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves [e.g., @Oman2015].
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
### NIHAO {#SecNIHAODisc}
The comparison with NIHAO is shown in the bottom-left panels of Figs. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\] and \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\]. Starting with Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], NIHAO galaxies exhibit more slowly-rising rotation curves than APOSTLE in the $V_{\rm max}$ range $40$-$100$ km/s. This is the result of the cores created by baryonic outflows in these runs. More massive galaxies have rapidly-rising rotation curves, and thus no obvious cores, presumably because baryonic outflows are less efficient in the deep potential wells of these systems. Cores do not form in very low-mass galaxies either (i.e., $V_{\rm max}<40$ km/s), in this case because too few stars form in these systems to power the needed outflows [e.g., @DiCintio2014a; @DiCintio2014b].
The cores in NIHAO help to reconcile LCDM with some of the slowly-rising rotation curve systems that APOSTLE fails to reproduce. Note, however, that because core formation is quite efficient in the $40<V_{\rm max}/$km/s $<100$ range, NIHAO seems unable to reproduce rapidly-rising rotation curves in that range [see also @Santos-Santos2018]. Indeed, judging from the lower-left panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], NIHAO’s result do not seem to capture the full diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves. In addition, there is some evidence for cores at the lowest mass end (i.e., $V_{\rm max}<40$ km/s) again at odds with NIHAO’s results.
These shortcomings are also apparent in the bottom-left panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\], where we see that NIHAO does not reproduce the observed systems with “cuspy” rotation curves and negligible baryon contribution (top-left corner), nor baryon-dominated galaxies with large cores (bottom-right). Regarding the latter (two examples of which, UGC05750 and IC2574, are highlighted with circles in the bottom-left panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\]), @Santos-Santos2018 have suggested that the disagreement may have been caused by the assumption of spherical symmetry when estimating circular velocities in simulations [see also @Dutton2019a].
Indeed, these authors show in their Fig. 6 that the inner circular velocities of two NIHAO galaxies (highlighted with squares in the bottom-left panel of our Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\]) could be substantially reduced by taking into account the actual flattened geometry of the baryons when computing the gravitational potential on the disc plane. This reduction could, in principle, lead to lower values of $\eta_{\rm rot}$, as shown by the cyan dashed lines in the bottom-left panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\]. However, because the NIHAO galaxies are actually dark matter dominated at $r_{\rm fid}$, the reduction in $\eta_{\rm rot}$ is accompanied by an even more substantial reduction in $\eta_{\rm bar}$, shifting the galaxies to the bottom-left corner of the panel, rather than closer to the observed galaxies. In other words, NIHAO galaxies may come close to matching the [*shape*]{} of the rotation curves of UGC05750 and IC2574, but are unable to reproduce, simultaneously, the importance of baryons in the inner regions. This discussion highlights the power of using [*both*]{} $\eta_{\rm rot}$ and $\eta_{\rm bar}$ as diagnostics of the viability of a particular scenario meant to explain the rotation curve diversity.
### EAGLE-CHT10
Finally, we consider an alternative LCDM simulation run with the EAGLE code, but where a higher star formation threshold allows baryonic outflows to transform cusps into cores. The star formation and feedback algorithm is quite different from NIHAO’s so, in principle, we do not expect the same results. However, as may be seen in the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], the results for EAGLE-CHT10 are not too dissimilar to NIHAO’s. There is, again, a shortage of “cuspy” systems in the $70<V_{\rm max}/$km/s$<150$ range. We are unable to check for the presence of cores in $V_{\rm max}<40$ km/s galaxies because of limited numerical resolution. In terms of $\eta_{\rm rot}$ vs $\eta_{\rm bar}$ (Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\]), we see that, as in the case of NIHAO, EAGLE-CHT10 has difficulty reproducing “cuspy” galaxies where the baryon contribution is negligible. EAGLE-CHT10 fares a bit better in terms of the largest cores, especially those with high values of $\eta_{\rm bar}$, but the difference with NIHAO in this respect is small.
### Summary
It is clear that baryonic outflows can produce cores in dwarf galaxies, reconciling in the process LCDM with systems with slowly-rising rotation curves. However, this mechanism, at least as implemented in the NIHAO and EAGLE-CHT10 simulations we analyzed here, is unable to account simultaneously for galaxies with “cuspy” rotation curves where the inner contribution of baryons is negligible.
The observed diversity seems to demand a mechanism that forms cores in [*some*]{} galaxies only, while others retain (or re-form) a cusp, independently of the baryonic mass contribution. This feature seems to elude current simulations of this mechanism. It is unclear whether this signals a fundamental shortcoming of the models, or just a need to “fine tune” the numerical implementations. What is clear, however, is that any successful explanation of the rotation curve diversity should provide a natural explanation for the apparent presence of cusps [*and*]{} cores in dwarfs and for their peculiar relation to the importance of baryons in the inner regions.
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
Diversity and SIDM
------------------
Self-interacting dark matter is a distinct scenario for explaining the rotation curve diversity, where cores in the inner dark matter density profiles form not through baryonic outflows, but, rather, because of the inward “heat transfer” driven by collisions (“self-interactions”) between dark matter particles[^3]. The simplest example for SIDM corresponds to elastic, velocity-independent interactions where the magnitude of the effect is controlled by a single parameter; the self-interacting cross section, $s_{\rm si}$ [see; e.g., @Rocha2013]. This is, in principle, a free parameter, but values between $0.1$ and $1$ cm$^2$/g lead to tangible changes in the inner density profiles of dark matter halos [see; e.g., the recent review by @Tulin2018].
An exploration of all SIDM alternatives is beyond the scope of this paper, where we choose $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g. This is a rather extreme value that, however, allows us to explore the maximal effect of this mechanism without promoting a “core collapse” of the inner regions [e.g., @Elbert2015]. This model, which we shall refer to hereafter as SIDM10, should be regarded as a limiting case where cores are as large as this mechanism may be expected to yield.
We emphasize that more realistic SIDM models would include a velocity-dependent cross section, which would be needed to reduce the effective cross section in galaxy clusters, where a cross section as large as assumed here is clearly ruled out [see; e.g., @Tulin2018 and references therein]. Velocity dependence is indeed generic with light force mediators, as would be expected for large cross sections. We shall ignore these complications in our analysis, which is not meant to rule in or out SIDM as a class, but rather to identify further observational diagnostics useful for assessing the relative performance of different scenarios.
### SIDM10: dark matter only {#SecSIDMDMO}
We begin by exploring the effect of SIDM on the inner mass distribution of dark matter halos in the dark-matter-only case. As discussed above, interactions reduce the inner dark matter density and promote the formation of a constant density core. This has little effect on the maximum circular velocity of a halo, but can reduce substantially the circular velocity at the inner fiducial radius.
We may see the resulting effect on the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\], where we plot the results of the DMO version of the AP-L1 volumes (in red), together with results from the DMO SIDM10 run (blue). Clearly, the values of $V_{\rm fid}$ at fixed $V_{\rm max}$ are substantially lower in the case of SIDM10 than for LCDM (APOSTLE).
We can use the results of the AP-L1 and SIDM10 DMO runs to model the DMO SIDM10 $V_{\rm fid}$-$V_{\rm max}$ relation, as well as its scatter, starting from the LCDM $M_{200}$-concentration relation [and its scatter; @Ludlow2016]. Details of the procedure are given in the Appendix, but we describe it briefly below, for completeness.
The inner mass profile of an SIDM halo is well approximated by a non-singular isothermal sphere, which is fully described by a pair of parameters [see; e.g., p.228 of @BinneyTremaine1987]. These may be taken to be the central density, $\rho_0$, and a scale radius, $r_{\rm 0}$, or, alternatively, a velocity dispersion, $\sigma_0$. For SIDM10, these parameters correlate closely with the corresponding LCDM parameters: for example, there is a close relation between the $V_{\rm max}$ of an LCDM halo and the characteristic $\sigma_0$ of the counterpart halo that forms if the same initial conditions are evolved with self-interactions turned on.
Likewise, there is a strong correlation between $r_{\rm 0}$ and the characteristic radial scale of an LCDM halo, best expressed through $r_1$, the radius where, on average, one interaction per particle is expected per Hubble time. These correlations are sensitive to the value of $s_{\rm si}$ adopted; we show them for $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g in Fig. \[FigCDMSIDMScatter\] for matching halo pairs identified in LCDM and SIDM DMO simulations of one of the AP-L1 volumes.
These same correlations may be used to generate a population of SIDM10 halos that include both the original scatter in the LCDM mass-concentration relation, but also the scatter in the relations that link LCDM and SIDM10. The results of this procedure, in terms of $V_{\rm fid}$ and $V_{\rm max}$ are shown by the blue thick line (and shaded area, which delineate the $10$:$90$ percentiles) in the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\]. To make further progress we need to model the effect of baryons into this population of SIDM10 halos, either through modeling or direct simulation. We pursue this below.
![[*Top:*]{} Same as the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], but including the results of mock HI observations of two simulated galaxies from APOSTLE, analyzed with $^{\rm 3D}$BAROLO [@DiTeodoro2015; @Oman2019]. AP-L1-V6-5-0 is shown in blue, AP-L1-V4-14-0 in red. The results of $24$ different lines of sight at fixed inclination ($i=60^o$) are shown, with different colors for each of the two galaxies. [*Bottom:*]{} Same as the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\], for the same two galaxies as in top panel. The large boxes with a cross indicate the values obtained from the circular velocity curve rather than from $^{\rm 3D}$BAROLO. []{data-label="FigNonCirc"}](vfidvmax_barolo_all.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} ![[*Top:*]{} Same as the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\], but including the results of mock HI observations of two simulated galaxies from APOSTLE, analyzed with $^{\rm 3D}$BAROLO [@DiTeodoro2015; @Oman2019]. AP-L1-V6-5-0 is shown in blue, AP-L1-V4-14-0 in red. The results of $24$ different lines of sight at fixed inclination ($i=60^o$) are shown, with different colors for each of the two galaxies. [*Bottom:*]{} Same as the top-right panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarLCDM\], for the same two galaxies as in top panel. The large boxes with a cross indicate the values obtained from the circular velocity curve rather than from $^{\rm 3D}$BAROLO. []{data-label="FigNonCirc"}](etarot_etabar_barolo_all.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
### SIDM10 + baryons: a model {#SecSIDMmodel}
As baryons accumulate at the center of an SIDM halo, they are expected to deepen the central gravitational potential. This should cause the surrounding dark matter to respond by contracting and, for large enough perturbations, by rebuilding the inner cusp. This process has been explored using analytical techniques and simulations of isolated systems in prior work [@Kaplinghat2014; @Kamada2017; @Ren2019; @Creasey2017], which argues that the effect should be strong enough in practice to produce cuspy and cored rotation curves, and may account for the observed rotation curve diversity.
In this scenario, slowly-rising rotation curves reflect systems where self-interactions have carved a core, and where the baryons are not important enough to rebuild the cusp. At the other extreme, rapidly-rising rotation curves should generally correspond to systems where baryons deepened the central potential and are gravitationally important enough to rebuild the central dark matter cusp. These two features are, at first glance, at odds with the trends for dwarf galaxies highlighted in Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\], where it is clear that there are many “cuspy” systems where baryons are unimportant and, in addition, that baryons actually do play an important role at the centre of systems with the largest cores. Can SIDM models resolve this apparent disagreement?
We explore this by using an analytical model, described in detail in the Appendix, to estimate the response of SIDM halos to the accumulation of baryons at the centre, and to compare the resulting rotation curves with observations. In particular, we use the [ *actual*]{} baryonic mass profile of individual galaxies and place them in randomly selected SIDM halos of the appropriate $V_{\rm max}$ to verify whether the resulting rotation curves reproduce the observed diversity.
Note that this is [*not*]{} the same as asking whether it is [ *possible*]{} to obtain adequate fits to individual rotation curves in SIDM halos by allowing the size of the core to vary as a free parameter, as in, e.g., @Ren2019. Instead, we would like to address whether observed galaxies, if placed in [*average*]{} SIDM halos (and not halos chosen to fit the observed rotation curves), are able to reproduce the diversity. If they do not, then it means that some relation between the baryonic properties of the galaxies and the size of the core must be assumed in order to match the observed diversity [see @Creasey2017 for a similar argument]. While this could be the case, it would reduce, in our opinion, the appeal of the SIDM scenario to explain the diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves.
Our modeling proceeds as follows. For each observed galaxy in our sample, we choose a random SIDM10 halo of matching $V_{\rm max}$ (Sec. \[SecSIDMDMO\]) and compute the change in the inner dark matter distribution expected from the addition of the baryons. The procedure uses the full baryonic distribution of each galaxy (given by $V_{\rm bar}(r)$) to compute the response of the dark matter (see details in Sec. \[SecApp3\]), and results in a new rotation curve for the galaxy. The procedure preserves $V_{\rm max}$ and $V_{\rm bar}(r)$ of each galaxy, but modifies its rotation speed at the inner fiducial radius, $V_{\rm fid}$.
The results of this modeling are presented in the bottom-left panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\]. At first glance, this results in a wider range of rotation curves compared to the LCDM simulations shown in Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxLCDM\]. This is, however, partly a result of the wider diversity of baryonic profiles probed here, which matches, by construction, exactly those of the observed sample.
In particular, the SIDM10 model successfully reproduces the steeply rising rotation curves of massive galaxies (i.e., $V_{\rm max}>150$ km/s), despite the fairly large cores imposed by SIDM. In lower mass systems the diversity is reproduced less well, with fewer systems near the $1$:$1$ line and, despite the extreme value of $s_{\rm si}$ adopted, few cores as large as observed. This is especially true at the very low mass end, where we expect SIDM cores to be too small to affect the rotation curve at $r_{\rm fid}$.
This conclusion is supported by the distribution of galaxies in the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ plane (left-hand panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarSIDM\]) where it is clear that there are few galaxies in the upper-left and bottom-right corners of this plot. Like the BICC models discussed in Sec. \[SecDivLCDM\], SIDM10 has difficulty accounting for both the observed population of sharply-rising rotation curves without a dominant inner baryonic contribution, and for the very slowly-rising rotation curves where baryons play an important role near the centre.
### SIDM10 + baryons: a simulation {#SecSIDMsim}
The results of a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation that includes a self-interaction cross section of $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g and the EAGLE/APOSTLE star formation/feedback implementation are presented in the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\]. (Details of the simulation are given in Sec. \[SecSims\].) Recall that, because of the low star formation density threshold adopted in this model, we do not expect baryonic outflows to effect large changes in the inner dark matter density profile. Indeed, the simulation results show that, in terms of $V_{\rm fid}$-$V_{\rm max}$, the simulated galaxies follow approximately the dark matter-only results (indicated by the blue shaded area). As for the analytic model discussed in the previous subsection, low-mass simulated galaxies fail to populate the rapidly-rising ($1$:$1$) rotation curve regime and to account for the largest observed cores.
These conclusions are again supported by inspection of the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ plane, shown in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarSIDM\]. There is again a clear dearth of “cuspy” systems where the baryons are gravitationally unimportant (upper-left corner), and of “cored” systems where baryons dominate the inner regions (bottom-right corner). Indeed, baryons do not seem to play an important role in any SIDM10 system, although this is likely a result of the particular star formation algorithm adopted in the EAGLE/APOSTLE code. These conclusions echo those of the previous subsection, and highlight the difficulty faced by models where most halos develop cores to explain to rotation curve diversity.
Diversity and non-circular motions {#SecNonCirc}
-----------------------------------
Finally, we consider the effects that non-circular motions may have on the interpretation of the rotation curve diversity. As discussed by @Oman2019 and @Marasco2018, the triaxial potential of LCDM halos may induce non-circular motions in the gaseous discs of dwarf galaxies. In the simplest case, closed orbits in the disc plane become elliptical and the azimuthal speed of the gas varies along the orbit, from maxima along the orbital minor axis (pericentres) of the ellipse to minima along the orbital major axis (apocentres). This may lead to different rotation curves for the [*same*]{} galaxy, depending on how the line of nodes of a particular sky projection aligns with the orbital principal axis. In particular, large underestimates of the inner circular velocity may result when the projected kinematic major axis is aligned with the orbital apocentres, mimicking the effect of a core.
Non-circular motions may affect the inferred values of both $V_{\rm fid}$ and $V_{\rm max}$, introducing scatter in the tight relation between these two parameters expected in LCDM simulations where cores do not form, such as APOSTLE. We show the effect by selecting two dwarf galaxies from the AP-L1 sample and projecting them along 24 different lines of sight at fixed inclination, $i=60^o$. Synthetic HI data cubes are constructed for each projection, which are then modelled using $^{\rm 3D}$BAROLO, a publicly available tilted-ring processing tool [@DiTeodoro2015; @Iorio2017]. Details of the modeling as applied to the APOSTLE galaxies may be found in @Oman2019.
Each of the two galaxies is shown with different colors in Fig. \[FigNonCirc\], illustrating the dramatic impact that non-circular motions may have on the $V_{\rm fid}$-$V_{\rm max}$ and $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ correlations. At least for these two galaxies the effects of non-circular motions are quite substantial. For galaxy AP-L1-V6-5-0 [shown in blue; notation as in @Oman2019], the maximum circular velocity may vary from $70$ km/s to slightly over $100$ km/s and the inferred rotation speed at the inner fiducial radius from $\sim 30$ to $100$ km/s, depending on projection. Non-circular motions of this magnitude can clearly explain much of the observed diversity in the $V_{\rm fid}$-$V_{\rm max}$ plane.
In particular, the [*same*]{} galaxy could end up being classified either as a rapidly-rising rotation curve where baryons are relatively unimportant (top-left corner in the bottom panel of Fig. \[FigNonCirc\]), or as a galaxy with a large core where baryons dominate the inner regions (bottom-right corner of the same panel). This is because non-circular motions tend to scatter galaxies along the same band in the $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ plane traced by dwarf galaxies (see galaxies with $V_{\rm max}<150$ km/s in Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBar\]). Non-circular motions thus provide an appealing explanation for this puzzling trend, which, as we have discussed, is not reproduced well in other scenarios.
Although attractive, the non-circular motion explanation of the diversity also suffers from shortcomings. In particular, it may be argued that the magnitude of non-circular motions required to spread galaxies across the whole $\eta_{\rm rot}$-$\eta_{\rm bar}$ plane is quite substantial, whereas many observed galaxies show quieter velocity fields, without clear obvious distortions [@Trachternach2008]. However, @Oman2019 report that at least two galaxies with obvious “cores” (DDO 47 and DDO 87) show clear signs of non-circular motions and emphasize that these may be difficult to detect because of the large number of free parameters involved in tilted-ring model fits.
A second difficulty refers to our earlier discussion of Fig. \[FigEtaRotSB\], which shows that “cores” are only manifest in low surface brightness/density galaxies. If diversity were due mostly to non-circular motions, why would they only affect low surface brightness galaxies? There is no clear answer to this, but one possibility is that in galaxies with highly-concentrated baryonic components the halo would respond by becoming more spherical, reducing the importance of non-circular motions [e.g., @Abadi2010 and references therein]. For the same reason, we emphasize that non-circular motions of the kind described here would only be expected in LCDM halos that have preserved their original cusp and triaxiality, since mechanisms that erase the cusp are also likely to sphericalize the halo. This is a well known feature of SIDM [e.g., @Miralda-Escude2002] that is likely to apply as well to baryon-induced cores.
A detailed re-analysis of all “cored” galaxies designed specifically to test the non circular-motion hypothesis, together with a concerted effort to infer rotation curves from synthetic 2D velocity fields for more simulated galaxies are clearly needed in order to assess the true viability of this scenario. However, at least from the evidence presented in Fig. \[FigNonCirc\], it would be premature to rule out non-circular motions as one of the driving causes of the observed diversity.
Summary and Conclusions {#SecConc}
=======================
Dwarf galaxy rotation curves are challenging to reproduce in the standard Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) cosmogony. In some galaxies, rotation speeds rise rapidly to their maximum value, consistent with the circular velocity curves expected of cuspy LCDM halos. In others, however, rotation speeds rise more slowly, revealing large “inner mass deficits” or “cores” when compared with LCDM halos [e.g., @DeBlok2010]. This diversity is unexpected in LCDM, where, in the absence of modifications by baryons, circular velocity curves are expected to be simple, self-similar functions of the total halo mass [@Navarro1996a; @Navarro1997; @Oman2015]. We examine in this paper the viability of different scenarios proposed to explain the diversity, and, in particular, the apparent presence of both cusps and cores in dwarfs.
In one scenario the diversity is caused by variations in the baryonic contribution to the acceleration in the inner regions, perhaps linked to rotation velocities through the “mass discrepancy-acceleration relation” [MDAR; @McGaugh2016]. In agreement with previous work, we show here that the inner regions of many dwarf galaxies deviate from such relation, especially those where the evidence for “cores” is most compelling. We conclude that the MDAR does not hold in the inner regions of low-mass galaxies and, therefore, it cannot be responsible for the observed diversity.
A second scenario (BICC; “baryon-induced cores/cusps”) envisions the diversity as caused by the effect of baryonic inflows and outflows during the formation of the galaxy, which may rearrange the inner dark matter profiles: cores are created by baryonic blowouts but cusps can be recreated by further baryonic infall [see; e.g., @Navarro1996b; @Pontzen2012; @DiCintio2014a; @Tollet2016; @Benitez-Llambay2019]. A third scenario (SIDM) argues that dark matter self-interactions may reduce the central DM densities relative to CDM, creating cores. As in BICC, cusps may be re-formed in galaxies where baryons are gravitationally important enough to deepen substantially the central potential [see, e.g., @Tulin2018 for a recent review].
We have analyzed cosmological simulations of these two scenarios and find that, although they both show promise explaining systems with cores, neither reproduces the observed diversity in full detail. Indeed, both scenarios have difficulty reproducing an intriguing feature of the observed diversity, namely the existence of galaxies with fast-rising rotation curves where the gravitational effects of baryons in the inner regions is unimportant. They also face difficulty explaining slowly-rising rotation curves where baryons actually dominate in the inner regions, which are also present in the observational sample we analyze.
We argue that these issues present a difficult problem for [*any*]{} scenario where most halos are expected to develop a sizable core and where baryons are supposed to be responsible for the observed diversity. This is especially so because the relation between baryon surface density and rotation curve shape is quite weak in the dwarf galaxy regime, and thus unlikely to drive the diversity. We emphasize that, strictly speaking, this conclusion applies only to the particular implementations of BICC and SIDM we have tested here. These are by no means the only possible realizations of these scenarios, and it is definitely possible that further refinements may lead to improvements in their accounting of the rotation curve diversity.
Our conclusions regarding SIDM may seem at odds with recent work that reports good agreement between SIDM predictions and dwarf galaxy rotation curves [see; e.g., the recent preprint of @Kaplinghat2019 which appeared as we were readying this paper for submission, and references therein]. That work, however, was meant to address whether observed rotation curves [*can*]{} be reproduced by adjusting the SIDM halo parameters freely in the fitting procedure, with promising results. Our analysis, on the other hand, explores whether the observed galaxies, if placed in average (random) SIDM halos, would exhibit the observed diversity. Our results do show, in agreement with earlier work, that SIDM leads to a wide distribution of rotation curve shapes. However they also highlight the fact that outliers, be they large cores or cuspy systems, are not readily accounted for in this scenario, an issue that was also raised by @Creasey2017. Whether this is a critical flaw of the SIDM scenario, or just signals the need for further elaboration, is still unclear.
We end by noting that the rather peculiar relation between inner baryon dominance and rotation curve shapes could be naturally explained if non-circular motions were a driving cause of the diversity. For this scenario to succeed, however, it would need to explain why such motions affect solely low surface brightness galaxies, the systems where the evidence for “cores” is most compelling. Further progress in this regard would require a detailed reanalysis of the data to uncover evidence for non-circular motions, and a clear elaboration of the reason why non-circular motions do not affect massive, high surface brightness galaxies. Until then, we would argue that the dwarf galaxy rotation curve diversity problem remains, for the time being, open.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the NIHAO collaboration for kindly sharing their simulation data. ISS and AR are supported by the Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute. JFN is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and acknowledges useful discussions with Laura Sales. MRL and AF are supported by a COFUND/Durham Junior Research Fellowship under EU grant 609412 and also by a Grant of Excellence from the Icelandic Research Fund (grant number 173929-051). KO received support from VICI grant 016.130.338 of the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO). AR is supported by the European Research Council (ERC-StG-716532-PUNCA) and the STFC (ST/N001494/1). This work used the DiRAC@Durham facility managed by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). The equipment was funded by BEIS capital funding via STFC capital grants ST/K00042X/1, ST/P002293/1, ST/R002371/1 and ST/S002502/1, Durham University and STFC operations grant ST/R000832/1. DiRAC is part of the National e-Infrastructure. ISS dedicates this work to her Abuelita, who was fascinated by the Universe and outer space.
SIDM Analytical Model
=====================
SIDM transformation of LCDM halos: analytical model {#SecApp1}
---------------------------------------------------
LCDM halos are well-characterized by a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density profile [@Navarro1996a; @Navarro1997], $$\rho(r)={\rho_s \over (r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},
\label{EqNFW}$$ which is fully specified by two parameters; e.g., a scale density, $\rho_s$, and a scale radius, $r_s$ or, alternatively, by a maximum circular velocity, $V_{\rm max}$ and the radius at which it is achieved, $r_{\rm max}$. The two radial scales are related by $r_{\rm max}=2.16\, r_s$. The NFW profile has a $\rho \propto r^{-1}$ central cusp where the velocity dispersion of dark matter particles (assuming isotropy) decreases steadily towards the centre, from a maximum value, $\sigma_{\rm
max}=0.66\, V_{\rm max}$, that occurs at a radius $r_{\rm
\sigma,max}=0.76\, r_s$. The radial dependence of the NFW velocity dispersion has no simple algebraic form, but may be computed numerically by assuming equilibrium and solving Jeans’ equations [see; e.g., eq. 24 in @More2009].
The solid black lines in the top panel of Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\] shows the NFW fit to the density profile of an LCDM halo of virial mass $M_{200}=1.2 \times 10^{11}\, M_\odot$ (solid black circles) selected from the AP-L1 dark-matter-only run. The fit has concentration $c=r_{200}/r_s=17.3$, $r_s=6.06$ kpc, and $\rho_s=5.62\times 10^6\, M_\odot/$kpc$^3$. Assuming isotropy, the NFW fit may be used to predict the velocity dispersion profile, which is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\].
The main effect of self-interactions is to “transfer heat” from the outside in, “thermalizing” in the process the inner velocity dispersion profile. This is demonstrated by the blue circles in the bottom-panel of Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\], which corresponds to the same LCDM halo, but evolved with the dark-matter-only SIDM code (Sec. \[SecSIDMSim\]), with $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g.
The isothermal region of the SIDM halo extends out to roughly $\sim
10$ kpc, which is comparable to $r_1$, the characteristic radius where, for the assumed cross section, the local density in the LCDM halo is such that one interaction is expected per Hubble time; $$\left< s_{\rm si} v_{\rm rel}\right> \rho_{\rm CDM}(r_1)\, t_0=1,
\label{EqR1}$$ where, for the halo shown in Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\] we have assumed $v_{\rm rel}=V_{\rm max}/\sqrt{2}$.
The mass profile of the SIDM halo may be derived (assuming isotropy and spherical symmetry) by solving the hydrostatic equilibrium equation; $${d(\rho \sigma^2) \over dr}=-\rho {d\Phi \over dr}=-\rho {GM(r) \over r^2}=-\rho {V_c^2 \over r},
\label{EqHydro1}$$ which, for $\sigma=\sigma_0=$ constant, may be written as $${d \ln \rho/\rho_0 \over dr}=-{1 \over r} {V_c^2 \over \sigma_0^2},
\label{EqHydro2}$$ where $\rho_0$ is a reference density. Then we can multiply eq. \[EqHydro2\] by $r^2$ and differentiate to get $${d \over dr} \left( r^2 {d\ln \rho/\rho_0 \over dr} \right) = -
{d\over dr} \left( r {V_c^2 \over \sigma_0^2}\right)= -4\pi G
{\rho r^2 \over \sigma_0^2},
\label{EqHydro3}$$ were we have used $(d/dr)(rV_c^2)=4\pi G \rho r^2$.
Differentiating Eq. \[EqHydro3\], and defining $y\equiv
\ln(\rho/\rho_0)$, we have $$r^2 {d^2y \over dr} + 2r {dy \over dr} +{4\pi G\rho_0 \over
\sigma_0^2} e^y r^2=0,
\label{EqHydro4}$$ where $r_{0}^2=4\pi G\rho_0 / \sigma_0^2$ defines a characteristic “core” radius, $r_{0}$. Expressing radii in units of the core, $x=r/r_{0}$, we may rewrite Eq. \[EqHydro4\] as $${d^2y \over dx^2}=-{2\over x}{dy \over dx}-e^y
\label{EqHydro5}$$
Note that, in principle, this equation permits a family of solutions for $\rho(r)$, many of which have cuspy inner profiles. (A simple example is, of course, the singular isothermal sphere.) Integrating eq. \[EqHydro5\] numerically, therefore, requires that appropriate boundary conditions are set.
Motivated by the density profile of the numerical SIDM halo shown in the top panel of Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\], we may set the conditions $y(0)=0$ (i.e., finite central density) and $dy/dx(r=0)=0$ (i.e., a flat density slope at the centre or “constant density core”) to solve for $y(x)$.
This solution gives a unique $\rho(r)$ profile that may be scaled for any particular pair of values chosen from $\rho_0$, $r_{0}$, and $\sigma_0$. The thin blue lines in the top two panels of Fig. \[FigCDMTransf\] show one of these profiles, and demonstrates that it provides an excellent fit to the actual inner density profile of simulated SIDM halos. This analytical model is similar to that of @Kaplinghat2014.
SIDM transformation of LCDM halos: empirical relations {#SecSIDMCDMEmpir}
------------------------------------------------------
As decribed above, describing the inner mass profile of an SIDM halo requires that two parameters be specified. These parameters are expected to be closely related to the NFW parameters of its corresponding LCDM halo. We show this in Fig. \[FigCDMSIDMScatter\] for matching pairs of halos identified in dark-matter-only LCDM and SIDM runs of one of the AP-L1 volumes. The SIDM run assumes $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g.
Fig. \[FigCDMSIDMScatter\] shows the relation between the maximum circular velocity of the LCDM halo and the central velocity dispersion of its SIDM counterpart ($\sigma_0$, left panel), as well as the relation between the LCDM characteristic radius $r_1$ and the corresponding SIDM core radius, $r_{0}$. These two relations, together with their scatter, may be used to generate a population of SIDM halos using the LCDM $M_{200}(c)$ relation (and its scatter), since the mass and concentration of an NFW halo fully specify $r_1$ and $V_{\rm max}$.
The blue bands shown in Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\] were computed this way, after transforming thousands of Planck-normalized LCDM halos with $M_{200}$ and $c$ sampled from the mass-concentration relation of @Ludlow2016. We emphasize that the relations shown in Fig. \[FigCDMSIDMScatter\] are sensitive to the assumed value of $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g.
![Density (top), circular velocity (middle) and radial velocity dispersion (bottom) profiles for a low mass LCDM halo (black) and its SIDM counterpart evolved assuming $s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g (blue). Thin solid black lines correspond to the best NFW fit to the LCDM halo profiles. Thin solid blue lines indicate the best fitting SIDM profile, computed as described in Sec. \[SecApp1\]. Some of the characteristic halo parameters are indicated in the profiles, such the central SIDM density, $\rho_0$, core radius, $r_{0}$, and central velocity dispersion, $\sigma_0$. The characteristic $r_1$ radius (eq. \[EqR1\]) and maximum velocity, $V_{\rm max}$, of the NFW fit are also indicated. The grey area indicates the region inside the @Power2003 convergence radius.[]{data-label="FigCDMTransf"}](4_sidm_model_prof_3panels.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
![ Empirical relations between the characteristic parameters of CDM and SIDM ($s_{\rm si}=10$ cm$^2$/g) matched halo pairs in the APOSTLE L1-V1 simulation. *Left:* Central SIDM velocity dispersion, $\sigma_0$, versus LCDM $V_{\rm max}$. *Right:* Characteristic SIDM core radius $r_{0}$ versus the characteristic LCDM radius, $r_1$, given by Eq. \[EqR1\].[]{data-label="FigCDMSIDMScatter"}](cdmsidm10_empirrel.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Baryon-induced transformation of an SIDM halo, according to the model described in Sec. \[SecApp3\]. Two examples are given, where the baryonic mass profiles of NGC 1075 (left) and IC 2574 (right) are added to randomly selected SIDM halos with matching $V_{\rm max}$ ($73$ km/s for NGC 1075, and $68$ km/s for IC 2574). The dark-matter-only SIDM halo profiles are shown with solid lines. The resulting profiles induced by the baryonic component and the rescaling/normalization procedure described in Sec. \[SecApp3\] are shown with dashed lines. Note that the dark matter profile is less affected in the case of IC 2574 than for NGC 1075 because the baryonic mass distribution is more extended in the former and has a smaller effect on the central gravitational potential.[]{data-label="FigCDMSIDMModel"}](solutions_sidmmodel_vobsbar_4panels.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Including baryons in SIDM halos {#SecApp3}
-------------------------------
The formulation described in Sec. \[SecApp1\] may be easily modified to account for an additional (baryonic) mass component. In this case, the total gravitational potential is modified so that the circular velocity term in Eq. \[EqHydro1\] is split between the dark matter and baryon contributions as $V_c^2=V_{\rm dm}^2+V_{\rm
bar}^2$. Carrying this change through the derivation yields a modified version of Eq. \[EqHydro5\]; $${d^2y \over dx^2}=-{2\over x}{dy \over dx}-e^y-{1\over x^2}{d \over
dx} \left( x{V_{\rm bar}^2 \over \sigma_0^2}\right).
\label{EqHydro6}$$
This allows the mass profile of the baryonic component, specified by $V_{\rm bar}(r)$, to be readily included when computing the dark matter profile of the SIDM halo. In order to set the appropriate boundary conditions, we note that isothermal distributions generally satisfy, from inspection of eq. \[EqHydro1\], that $$\rho \propto e^{-\Phi/\sigma_0^2}.
\label{EqIso}$$ This implies that the deeper the central potential becomes because of the baryonic component, the higher the central dark matter density of the SIDM halo is expected to be.
In practice, our modeling proceeds as follows. Given an SIDM halo, characterized by a central density and core radius, which fully specify its circular velocity profile, $V_{\rm dm}^2(r)$, we would like to compute how it would be modified by the addition of a baryonic component, specified by $V_{\rm bar}^2(r)$ over the radial range ($0$, $r_{\rm last}$), where the rotation curve has been measured. The gravitational potential change between these two radii is given by $$\delta \Phi_{0l}={\Phi(r_{\rm last})-\Phi(0) \over
\sigma_0^2}=\int_0^{r_{\rm last}} {V_{\rm dm}^2+V_{\rm bar}^2 \over
\sigma_0^2} {dr' \over r'},$$ which, in turn, should set the drop in dark matter density from the centre to $r_{\rm last}$; i.e., $\rho_{\rm dm}(0)/\rho_{\rm dm}(r_{\rm last})=\exp({\delta
\Phi_{0l}})$, according to Eq. \[EqIso\].
We impose this condition when solving Eq. \[EqHydro6\] to find the dark matter density profile in the presence of baryons. The final dark matter profile is renormalized by the universal baryon fraction to take into account the fact that the SIDM halo parameters computed as described in Sec. \[SecSIDMCDMEmpir\] were computed from a dark-matter-only simulation. We also make a small adjustment to account for the fact that the potential wells of low mass halos in cosmological hydrodyamical simulations are systematically less deep than in dark-matter-only runs [see; e.g., @Sawala2016]. These adjustments have a minor effect on our results, but help to reconcile our analytical model with the results of the SIDM cosmological hydrodynamical run shown in the bottom-right panels of Fig. \[FigVfidVmaxSIDM\] and Fig. \[FigEtaRotEtaBarSIDM\].
For illustration, we show two examples of our procedure in Fig. \[FigCDMSIDMModel\]. This illustrates the effect on the inner dark matter profile of two rather different baryonic distributions; that of NGC 1075 (left) and that of IC 2574 (right), when added to two randomly drawn SIDM halos with maximum velocities matching the observed values of each of these galaxies. The solid black lines indicate the dark-matter-only SIDM profile; the dashed black lines are the resulting profiles after the baryons have been added. Note that the dashed-line profiles have less dark matter in total because of the baryonic mass renormalization described in the preceding paragraph. The addition of baryons leads, as expected, to dark matter profiles that are denser near the centre and that drop more sharply than their dark-matter-only counterparts.
Name Sample $V_{\rm max}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm b,max}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm fid}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm b,fid}$ \[km/s\] $M_{\rm bar}$ \[$M_\odot$\] $r_{\rm b,half}$ \[kpc\] $M_{200}$ \[$M_\odot$\]
------------- -------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
D512-2 S 37.20 15.82 24.04 11.43 2.70e+08 1.92 8.50e+09
D564-8 S 25.00 9.82 11.17 7.94 5.51e+07 1.16 2.43e+09
DDO154 S 48.20 18.70 27.37 14.40 3.92e+08 2.73 1.92e+10
DDO161 S 67.50 35.26 32.14 25.21 2.11e+09 5.49 5.58e+10
DDO168 S 55.00 26.32 35.00 23.28 6.45e+08 2.05 2.92e+10
DDO170 S 62.20 30.33 27.70 15.79 1.25e+09 5.88 4.31e+10
ESO079-G014 S 178.00 112.97 109.73 69.67 2.97e+10 9.26 1.21e+12
ESO116-G012 S 112.00 52.77 83.47 47.83 3.53e+09 3.95 2.78e+11
ESO444-G084 S 63.10 21.72 52.73 21.40 2.15e+08 1.33 4.51e+10
F563-V1 S 29.50 26.06 12.00 9.10 1.58e+09 4.92 4.10e+09
F565-V2 S 83.10 30.11 38.28 15.75 1.21e+09 6.06 1.08e+11
F568-3 S 120.00 52.15 66.15 29.09 8.42e+09 10.60 3.46e+11
F568-V1 S 118.00 45.16 91.59 29.13 5.23e+09 9.65 3.28e+11
F574-1 S 99.70 46.61 68.23 29.88 7.96e+09 8.73 1.92e+11
F583-1 S 86.90 41.24 44.55 14.68 3.32e+09 10.65 1.24e+11
F583-4 S 69.90 30.19 43.05 23.12 1.71e+09 4.20 6.23e+10
IC2574 S 67.50 31.42 19.54 13.26 1.89e+09 6.61 5.58e+10
KK98-251 S 34.60 20.65 16.35 10.82 1.95e+08 1.78 6.76e+09
NGC0024 S 110.00 52.76 84.55 52.37 2.84e+09 2.55 2.62e+11
NGC0055 S 87.40 54.70 43.53 36.02 4.40e+09 5.63 1.26e+11
NGC0247 S 108.00 53.20 66.63 32.17 5.99e+09 9.00 2.48e+11
NGC1003 S 115.00 59.66 74.39 55.60 1.12e+10 12.43 3.02e+11
NGC1705 S 73.20 35.55 72.84 29.89 4.51e+08 0.94 7.21e+10
NGC2366 S 53.70 27.54 32.98 16.16 9.15e+08 3.39 2.71e+10
NGC2403 S 136.00 81.84 116.11 81.29 9.27e+09 3.93 5.15e+11
NGC2955 S 276.00 221.95 245.59 221.77 1.98e+11 9.89 4.91e+12
NGC2998 S 214.00 157.59 204.14 150.74 1.07e+11 11.13 2.18e+12
NGC3109 S 67.30 21.60 36.06 15.49 7.31e+08 3.75 5.52e+10
NGC3741 S 51.60 14.27 27.05 11.14 2.56e+08 3.79 2.39e+10
NGC3893 S 194.00 152.81 193.30 150.61 3.70e+10 3.75 1.60e+12
NGC3917 S 138.00 80.98 104.05 61.25 1.35e+10 6.22 5.40e+11
NGC3972 S 134.00 78.82 105.02 61.82 8.79e+09 4.75 4.91e+11
NGC4010 S 129.00 77.65 86.12 68.91 1.24e+10 5.15 4.35e+11
NGC4051 S 161.00 140.56 131.17 103.27 5.12e+10 6.33 8.81e+11
NGC4157 S 201.00 181.81 194.60 172.84 6.38e+10 5.03 1.79e+12
NGC4183 S 115.00 66.94 83.39 43.68 1.01e+10 7.12 3.02e+11
NGC5033 S 225.00 197.60 224.72 172.68 7.03e+10 4.48 2.56e+12
NGC5371 S 242.00 213.77 214.79 173.24 1.85e+11 11.10 3.23e+12
NGC6015 S 166.00 106.56 151.16 106.54 2.38e+10 5.04 9.71e+11
NGC6195 S 258.00 213.63 233.45 202.22 2.23e+11 12.50 3.96e+12
NGC6503 S 121.00 102.15 119.67 91.75 8.74e+09 2.14 3.55e+11
NGC6946 S 181.00 159.85 176.12 154.84 4.06e+10 3.97 1.28e+12
NGC7793 S 117.00 73.25 111.11 73.18 4.67e+09 2.46 3.19e+11
NGC7814 S 265.00 177.68 226.72 146.19 3.87e+10 3.04 4.31e+12
PGC51017 S 20.50 17.91 20.27 12.94 3.45e+08 1.88 1.31e+09
UGC00128 S 134.00 56.04 78.98 35.97 1.59e+10 18.32 4.91e+11
UGC00191 S 83.85 42.53 71.49 30.78 2.79e+09 5.21 1.11e+11
UGC00731 S 74.00 37.18 46.52 10.41 2.56e+09 7.27 7.46e+10
UGC00891 S 63.75 26.71 28.75 18.02 7.56e+08 3.44 4.65e+10
UGC02259 S 90.00 37.36 76.15 30.77 1.52e+09 3.70 1.39e+11
UGC02885 S 305.00 194.08 260.15 191.10 2.55e+11 21.15 6.75e+12
UGC02953 S 319.00 242.73 319.00 237.00 1.40e+11 5.37 7.79e+12
UGC03205 S 237.00 167.55 236.00 165.66 6.97e+10 6.21 3.02e+12
UGC03546 S 262.00 214.74 193.03 157.40 5.42e+10 3.20 4.16e+12
UGC04278 S 86.00 42.95 56.51 22.94 2.14e+09 5.64 1.20e+11
UGC04325 S 92.70 44.02 87.71 37.41 1.91e+09 3.14 1.52e+11
UGC04499 S 74.30 39.72 49.06 27.39 2.24e+09 4.62 7.56e+10
UGC05253 S 248.00 210.78 246.00 186.42 1.08e+11 7.24 3.49e+12
UGC05414 S 61.40 33.68 41.04 26.20 1.32e+09 2.52 4.13e+10
\[TabObsData\]
Name Sample $V_{\rm max}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm b,max}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm fid}$ \[km/s\] $V_{\rm b,fid}$ \[km/s\] $M_{\rm bar}$ \[$M_\odot$\] $r_{\rm b,half}$ \[kpc\] $M_{200}$ \[$M_\odot$\]
---------- -------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
UGC05716 S 74.70 31.50 49.52 21.27 1.75e+09 6.87 7.69e+10
UGC05721 S 79.30 33.58 79.26 31.56 1.01e+09 2.48 9.29e+10
UGC05750 S 78.90 36.77 21.94 15.80 3.13e+09 10.31 9.14e+10
UGC05764 S 55.80 22.22 49.25 16.24 2.59e+08 2.08 3.05e+10
UGC05829 S 68.60 37.43 34.69 12.62 1.64e+09 5.10 5.87e+10
UGC05918 S 44.50 19.34 29.16 8.54 5.12e+08 3.23 1.49e+10
UGC05986 S 116.00 56.04 98.38 51.27 5.89e+09 3.44 3.11e+11
UGC06399 S 87.60 38.86 58.74 27.28 2.04e+09 4.54 1.27e+11
UGC06446 S 84.90 38.27 64.44 25.23 2.33e+09 5.85 1.15e+11
UGC06667 S 85.70 30.25 54.81 12.29 1.77e+09 5.12 1.19e+11
UGC06786 S 229.00 146.39 219.00 146.32 4.34e+10 4.88 2.71e+12
UGC06787 S 276.00 184.44 243.26 150.50 5.58e+10 5.32 4.91e+12
UGC06818 S 74.40 32.73 31.86 28.60 2.23e+09 3.73 7.59e+10
UGC06917 S 111.00 56.30 79.59 43.25 6.11e+09 6.44 2.70e+11
UGC06923 S 81.10 47.91 61.65 43.56 2.52e+09 2.88 9.97e+10
UGC06930 S 109.00 60.56 78.67 41.51 8.77e+09 8.06 2.55e+11
UGC06983 S 113.00 51.91 90.67 43.65 6.60e+09 7.81 2.86e+11
UGC07089 S 79.10 42.06 40.58 29.31 3.41e+09 5.01 9.22e+10
UGC07125 S 65.60 44.56 31.20 24.34 7.51e+09 10.46 5.10e+10
UGC07151 S 76.20 44.10 64.66 36.63 1.96e+09 3.54 8.19e+10
UGC07323 S 85.60 51.74 52.58 35.34 3.01e+09 3.91 1.18e+11
UGC07399 S 106.00 33.87 91.53 32.52 1.57e+09 3.27 2.33e+11
UGC07524 S 83.80 43.53 44.96 20.25 3.58e+09 7.26 1.11e+11
UGC07559 S 32.10 19.40 18.91 13.61 2.79e+08 1.68 5.34e+09
UGC07603 S 64.00 28.77 58.22 28.72 5.31e+08 1.44 4.71e+10
UGC07690 S 60.70 36.49 60.65 35.71 9.48e+08 1.59 3.99e+10
UGC07866 S 33.10 18.41 23.18 12.75 2.19e+08 1.53 5.88e+09
UGC08286 S 84.30 35.34 72.65 29.57 1.48e+09 3.94 1.13e+11
UGC08490 S 80.10 36.08 76.29 35.72 1.47e+09 2.91 9.59e+10
UGC08550 S 57.80 24.61 48.45 23.16 5.28e+08 3.96 3.41e+10
UGC09133 S 289.00 227.99 287.52 219.49 1.94e+11 10.69 5.69e+12
UGC10310 S 73.20 41.12 52.31 25.54 2.46e+09 4.65 7.21e+10
UGC11820 S 84.45 38.75 49.23 20.58 3.11e+09 8.68 1.13e+11
UGC12506 S 255.00 134.55 210.25 101.90 1.17e+11 18.78 3.82e+12
UGC12632 S 73.20 35.90 44.04 18.81 2.97e+09 7.01 7.21e+10
UGC12732 S 98.00 46.11 59.03 24.47 5.70e+09 11.81 1.82e+11
UGCA442 S 57.80 24.57 34.31 18.33 4.20e+08 2.15 3.41e+10
UGCA444 S 38.30 16.09 25.38 14.91 9.51e+07 1.14 9.32e+09
U11707 A 103.74 32.33 63.19 22.91 2.24e+09 5.99 2.18e+11
N2552 A 96.10 35.28 68.53 30.81 1.78e+09 3.43 1.71e+11
wlm LT 38.53 14.84 26.93 10.86 1.73e+08 2.22 9.49e+09
ddo87 LT 56.63 18.79 22.83 4.92 5.85e+08 4.68 3.20e+10
ddo50 LT 38.84 33.88 22.29 7.38 1.67e+09 4.62 9.74e+09
ddo52 LT 61.72 22.52 38.71 10.70 6.30e+08 3.80 4.20e+10
ngc1569 LT 39.28 38.68 23.57 20.45 1.12e+09 2.84 1.01e+10
haro29 LT 43.49 12.00 29.82 9.69 1.68e+08 4.36 1.39e+10
cvnidwa LT 26.45 8.89 9.14 8.43 4.53e+07 1.68 2.91e+09
ddo133 LT 46.73 18.84 32.36 11.48 2.87e+08 2.28 1.74e+10
ic1613 LT 21.13 15.29 6.13 5.03 1.47e+08 1.82 1.44e+09
ddo216 LT 18.91 8.45 12.69 6.90 1.73e+07 0.60 1.01e+09
ddo126 LT 38.74 18.70 19.63 10.07 2.91e+08 2.44 9.66e+09
NGC925 TH 114.50 75.56 54.41 46.03 1.73e+10 9.65 2.98e+11
NGC7331 TH 268.10 268.84 259.60 255.73 2.26e+11 7.31 4.48e+12
NGC3621 TH 159.20 118.03 130.41 116.23 3.48e+10 6.38 8.50e+11
ngc4396 R 99.46 30.63 79.58 30.13 1.12e+09 2.71 1.91e+11
ngc6106 R 124.75 68.67 114.06 68.32 5.46e+09 2.58 3.91e+11
ugc4169 R 97.72 46.37 74.84 38.39 3.11e+09 3.65 1.80e+11
ugc3371 R 64.01 15.95 36.79 10.54 3.98e+08 4.26 4.71e+10
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: We define the virial quantities of a system as those defined by a mean density of $200\times$ the critical density for closure. Virial parameters are identified by a “200” subscript.
[^2]: This relation is also known as the “radial acceleration relation", or RAR.
[^3]: In principle, baryonic inflows and outflows may also affect the inner regions of SIDM halos, a complication that we shall ignore in this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[Large rapidity gap diffraction processes are considered in multi-channel eikonal models. It is shown that shadow corrections to over-fast rising contribution of the input supercritical pomeron (with $\alpha(0)>1$), originating from the pomeron rescatterings or, equivalently, accounting survival probability factor, do not solve the Finkelstein-Kajantie problem. Therefore, in our opinion, another methods of unitarization of supercritical pomeron should be developed.]{}'
author:
- 'E. Martynov and G. Tersimonov'
title: |
Multigap diffraction cross sections.\
Problems in eikonal methods for the pomeron unitarization
---
introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Nowadays we are once again witnessing as recent exciting results of the TOTEM experiment on total cross sections of proton-proton interactions at maximal LHC energies [@TOTEM] have inspired the big splash of interest in reviving several pending problems unresolved in past [@MN; @KMR01; @CR; @BGS]. One of those is a notorious problem of unitarizing the pomeron input in various amplitudes of hadronic processes. It has been launched for intensive discussion by studying the BFKL pomeron [@BFKL] having an intercept larger than one in perturbative QCD. Another activity in this scope was waked up by the phenomenological Donnachie-Landshoff model [@DL; @Eik] that successfully describes the data by the simple pomeron j-pole located at $t = 0$ above $j = 1$ but badly violates the Froissart-Martin bound [@FM]. And finally the recent papers devoted to the multi-pomeron-odderon vertices ([@BCV] and references therein) are seriously focused on the pomeron unitarization problem. Obviously, the procedure of calculating some corrections for the input pomeron should be developed to restore an unitarity. In practical QCD such a calculation, unfortunately, is not possible, and therefore more attention was paid to phenomenological approaches to model a pomeron in various physical processes. Recently, for example, a special role of Central Exclusive Production (CEP) was intensively investigated because of a possibility to observe the Higgs boson [@RKMOR] in such a process, and now [@KMR-11] it is investigated to find an experimental confirmation of odderon contribution and to study its properties [@NKMR].
However, there are a lot of problems with unitarity which are still unresolved even for simpler processes like Simple Diffraction Dissociation (SDD), Central Diffraction Production (CDP) and Double Diffraction Dissociation (DDD) as well as their generalizations including an additional production of high mass showers and large rapidity gaps (LRG) between them. Possible distributions of the produced hadrons are illustrated in the Fig. \[fig:sigd-n-1\].
![Distribution of the produced hadrons in the various diffraction processes at rapidity scale. ND means NonDiffraction, MSDP means Multi-Showers Diffraction Production, another abbreviations are explained in the text[]{data-label="fig:sigd-n-1"}](sigD-n){width="0.9\linewidth"}
If the effective masses of produced showers are large enough, then the cross-section of the corresponding processes (together with certain simplifying assumptions) may be be presented (due to the generalized optical theorem) by the diagrams with a triple-pomeron vertices. The corresponding diagrams are shown in the next Sections and the detailed features of the cross-sections are dependent on specific model of pomeron used. It has been shown long time ago that there is a violation of unitarity bounds for the diffraction cross sections even for the ”standard“ simple (in $j$-plane) pomeron pole with intercept $\alpha_P(0) = 1$ provided that the three-pomeron vertex is a nonzero constant at zero transfer momentum. It has been formulated as the Finkelstein-Kajantie problem (FK-problem) [@FK; @BW] that the contribution of $n$ hadron showers production to the total cross section is increasing with energy as $n$-th power of $\ln(s/s_0) (s_0 = 1$ GeV) violating the Froissart-Martin bound and self-consistency of the pomeron model with $\alpha_P(0) = 1$ where $\sigma_{tot}(s) \to const$ at $s\to \infty$.
One of the most popular and phenomenological successful models at present is the so-called supercritical pomeron. In the above mentioned Donnachie-Landshoff model [@DL] pomeron has a trajectory with the intercept $\alpha_{P}(0)=1+\Delta $ with $\Delta\approx 0.08$. The contribution of such a pomeron to the total cross-section rises with energy as a power $\sigma \propto s^{\Delta }$, being in a contradiction with the Froissart-Martin bound $\sigma_{tot}<C \ln^{2}(s/s_{0})$.
The strict and consistent procedure to unitarize pomeron with an intercept larger than one is unknown until now, but there are some simple phenomenological ways to eliminate the rough contradictions with the unitarity. For example, the eikonal, $U$-matrix methods and their generalizations [@Eik; @UM; @CPS] are used to input elastic scattering amplitude.
It is quite obvious that any three-pomeron diagram also needs unitarity corrections, which should remove a too fast-growing contribution of supercritical pomeron to corresponding diffraction cross-section. The input SDD cross section is proportional to $s^{2\Delta }$ up to the $\ln s$-factors). The $3P$-diagram seemed to be unitarized by the most simple way, taking into account multiple pomeron exchanges between the incoming hadrons (initial state interaction). This approach was considered in many old and recent papers Ref. [@AK; @GLM-1; @GLM-2; @GLM-3; @GKLM; @KMR-0; @KMR-1; @KMR-2; @KKMR]. However, we would like to remind here the result of Ref. [@MS]: the asymptotic estimation of $M^2d\sigma^{SDD}/dtdM^2$ in [@GLM-1] is not accurate and has to be corrected.
We will not discuss here other possible approaches to the problem, we concentrate here on the eikonal approach and its modifications. We present here some explicit calculations and high energy estimates within multi-channel eikonal models to check whether the FK-problem is really fixed or not.
To make our arguments more clear we remind in the Section \[sec:elscatt\] some generalities about one-eikonal model and account of rescatterings. We are interested only in an asymptotic cross-section behavior, therefore a contribution of $f$-reggeon is omitted in all expressions. The explicit estimations of corrections to input diffraction cross sections in one-channel eikonal are given in the Section \[sec:diffprod\]. SDD process within a multi-eikonal model is considered in Section \[sec:multieik\].
Elastic Scattering {#sec:elscatt}
==================
Following to the Ref. [@GLM-1] we will work in the impact parameter representation. Normalization of elastic scattering amplitude is $$\label{eq:norm}
\dfrac{d\sigma }{dt} =
\pi|F(s,t)|^{2},\qquad \sigma_{tot} = 4\pi \text{Im}F(s,0)$$ An amplitude in $b$-representation is defined by the transformation $$\label{eq:impactampl}
A(s,b) =\dfrac{1}{2\pi }\int d^2{\vec q}e^{-i{\vec q}\,{\vec b}}F(s,t),\quad
t=-q^{2}$$ and satisfies the unitarity equation $$\label{eq:unitarity-b}
2\text{Im}A(s,b)=|A(s,b)|^2+G_{inel}(s,b)$$ where $G_{inel}(s,b)$ is a contribution of inelastic processes. One can conclude from Eq. that $0<\text{Im}A(s,b)<2$.
Eikonal summation of the high energy elastic pomeron rescatterings can be realized with the input amplitude $a(s,b)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eikonalampl}
A(s,b) &= i(1-e^{-\Omega (s,b)}),\\
\Omega (s,b) &=-ia(s,b)=
-\dfrac{i}{2\pi }\int d^2{\vec q}e^{-i{\vec q}\,{\vec b}}f(s,t)\end{aligned}$$ where $f(s,t)$ is an input elastic amplitude. Starting from a simplified model of supercritical pomeron $$\label{eq:regge-st-ampl}
f(s,t) = ig^2(t)\left (\dfrac{-is}{s_{0}}\right )^{\alpha(t)-1}\approx ig^2(0)e^{\Delta \xi}e^{(2B_0+\alpha'\xi)t}$$ where $$\label{eq:pomtrajct}
\xi=\ln(s/s_0), \qquad \alpha(t)=1+\Delta+\alpha't$$ and $$\label{eq:vertex}
g(t)=g(0)\exp(B_0t)$$ describes the vertex of pomeron–proton interaction.
One can obtain $$\label{eq:omega}
\Omega (s,b)=\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)},$$ $$\label{eq:nu(s)}
\nu (\xi) =\dfrac{2g^2(0)}{R^{2}(\xi)}\biggl(\frac{s}{s_{0}}\biggl)^{\Delta }=
\dfrac{2g^{2}(0)}{R^{2}(\xi)}e^{\Delta \xi},$$ $$\label{eq:radius2}
R^{2}(\xi) = 4(2B_{0} +\alpha'\ln (s/s_{0}))=4(2B_{0} +\alpha'\xi).$$ In this model $if_{0}(s,t)$ and $\Omega (s,b)$ are the real functions. Analyticity and crossing-symmetry are restored by the substitution $s\rightarrow
s\exp(-i\pi /2)$.
It is easy to obtain from the above expressions that at $s\to \infty$ $$\label{eq:stoteik}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{tot}(s)&=2 \int\limits_0^{\infty}d^2\vec{b}(1-e^{-\Omega(s,b)})\\ &\approx 2\pi \Delta \xi R^{2}(\xi)\to 8\pi \alpha' \Delta \xi^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in a supercritical pomeron model the eikonal corrections to one-pomeron exchange remove the explicit violation of unitarity condition for input elastic scattering amplitude .
Diffraction production with LRG, one-channel eikonal model {#sec:diffprod}
==========================================================
We use for all diffraction cross sections normalization of the Ref. [@KTM]. The difference in the normalization of elastic scattering amplitude here and in [@KTM] is taken into account by replacing $g(0)\to g(0)/\sqrt{2}, \quad G_{3P}\to G_{3P}/\sqrt{2}$ in expressions for diffraction cross sections.
Single Diffraction Dissociation {#sec:SDD}
-------------------------------
![Single Diffraction Dissociation, (a) - SDD process, (b) - 3P diagram for SDD without survival factor, (c) - 3P diagram with survival factor[]{data-label="fig:sdd"}](SDD){width="1.\linewidth"}
The input differential SDD cross section pictured in Fig. \[fig:sdd\] is written as (let us notice that factorization in $(s,t)-, (s,b)-$ representations is valid for simple $j$-pole)
$$\label{eq:3P-0}
\begin{aligned}
M^2\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}}{dtdM^2}&=g^2(t)g(0)G_{3P}(0;t,t)\\ &\times \left (\dfrac{s}{M^2}
\right )^{2\alpha_P(t)-2} \left (\dfrac{M^2}{s_0}
\right )^{\alpha_P(0)-1}
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\label{eq:3P-vertex}
G_{3P}(t_0;t_1,t_2)=G_{3P}\exp(r^2(t_0+t_1+t_2)$$ is the triple pomeron vertex.
The expression for an integrated over $t$ cross-section of SDD with shadow corrections (or identically, with survival factor) is written in [@GLM-1]. With our normalization and notations it is $$\label{eq:sdd-dcs}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}}{d\xi_1} & =
2g^{3}(0)G_{3P}
\dfrac{ 2}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}\left [\dfrac{2}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}\right ]^{2}e^{\Delta \xi_1+2\Delta \xi_2}\\
%\nonumber \\
& \times \displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b'}{2\pi}
\exp\biggl(-2\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)} \biggr)\\ &\times
\exp\biggl(-\dfrac{({\vec
b}-{\vec{b'}})^{2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}-2\dfrac{b'^{2}}{\tilde
R^{2}(\xi_2)}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu, R^{2}$ are defined by the Eqs. , , $\xi_1=\ln(M^2/s_0)$, $ \xi_2=\ln(s/M^2)$, $\xi_1+\xi_2=\xi=\ln(s/s_0)$, $$\label{eq:R2(s)}
\tilde R^{2}(\xi_i) = 4(B_{0} +r^{2}+ \alpha'\xi_i).$$ The eikonal corrections due to pomeron rescatterings in initial state (Fig. \[fig:sdd\](b)) were accounted by the insertion of the factor $$\label{eq:S2(b)}
\exp(-2\Omega (s,b))=\exp\biggl(-2\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)}\biggr)$$ in the integrand of Eq. .
After integration over $b$ and $b'$ the differential diffraction dissociation cross-section becomes the following $$\label{eq:sdd-dcs-2}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}}{d\xi_{1}}=2g^{3}(0) G_{3P}\dfrac{e^{\Delta \xi_1+2\Delta \xi_2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}a_1\dfrac{\gamma[a_1,2\nu (\xi)]}
{[2\nu (\xi)]^{a_1}}$$ where $$\label{eq:sdd-a1}
a_1 = \frac{2R^{2}(\xi)}{2\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1) + \tilde
R^{2}(\xi_2)}$$
In the limit under consideration, $s\gg s_{0}$, $M^{2}/s_{0}, s/M^{2}\gg 1,$ the ratio $a_1$ tends to $2$ and $\gamma[a_1,2\nu(\xi)]$ tends to $\Gamma (2)$. Substituting these limits to the expression (\[eq:sdd-dcs-2\]), authors of [@GLM-1] had obtained $$\label{eq:eq:sdd-dcs-3}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SD}}{d\xi_1} \approx \dfrac{G_{3P}R^{4}(\xi)}{4g(0)\tilde R^2(\xi-\xi_1)}e^{-\Delta \xi_1 }.$$ However, this result is wrong. Indeed, one can see using the definitions (\[eq:regge-st-ampl\]),(\[eq:omega\]),(\[eq:radius2\]) and (\[eq:R2(s)\]) that at $s,\,M^{2},\,s/M^{2} \rightarrow \infty$ (here and in what follows it is sufficient to consider the region where $\alpha'\xi \gg 2B_0, \quad \alpha'\xi _i\gg B_0+r^2$) $$\label{eq:sdd-a1-2}
a_1 \approx \frac{2\xi}{2\xi_1+ \xi_2} =2 \dfrac{\xi}{\xi+\xi_1}=2\biggl(1 - \frac{\xi_1}{\xi} + \frac{\xi^2_1}{\xi^2}+o\left (\frac{\xi^2_1}{\xi^2} \right )\biggr).$$ Therefore the factor in the expression that violates the unitarity is transformed as following (we remind here that $\xi_2=\xi-\xi_1$) $$\label{eq:sdd-estmation}
\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{e^{\Delta [\xi_1+2\xi_2]}}{[\nu (\xi)]^{a_1}}&\propto
\xi^{a_1}\exp\biggl \{\Delta \left [\xi_1+2\xi_2-
a_1 \xi \right ] \biggr\}\\
&\approx \xi^2\exp\biggl
\{\Delta \left [\xi_1+2 \xi_2-
2\biggl(1 - \dfrac{\xi_1}{\xi}+ \dfrac{\xi^2_1}{\xi^2}\biggr)\xi \right ]\biggr\}\\
&\\
&=
\xi^2\exp\left \{\Delta\xi_1 [1+O(\xi_1/\xi) ]\right \}\approx \xi^2\exp(\Delta \xi_1),
\end{array}$$ conserving the fast growth of the SDD cross-section at $\xi_1=\ln(M^2/s_0)\to \infty$.
### Another definition of survival probability in one-channel eikonal model {#sect:SP-one-eik}
This subsection reproduces the part of Ref. [@GKLM] concerning the usage of alternative definition of the survival probability (averaged in $b$) for SDD process. We have changed only some notations for some variables in Eq..
The cross section for diffraction dissociation in the region of large $M^2$ can be viewed as a Mueller diagram (Fig. \[fig:3psimple\]) which has been written in Eq. . We denote the corresponding survival probability at given $M^2$ as $S_{3P}(M^2)$.
\[fig:SDD-proc\]\
\
The diagram in Fig. \[fig:3psimple\]. does not take into account a possibility of additional rescatterings of the interacting particles shown in Fig. \[fig:3P+SurvP\]. Contribution of the diagram Fig. \[fig:3psimple\] to differential SDD cross section without shadow corrections is given by Eq. . While the SDD cross section corresponding to Fig. \[fig:3P+SurvP\] can be written [@GKLM] as $$\label{eq:3P-1}
\begin{aligned}
M^2\dfrac{d\sigma^{3p}}{dtdM^2}(\text{Fig.} \ref{fig:3P+SurvP})&=S_{3P}^2(M^2)g^2(t)g(0)G_{3P}(0;t,t)\\
&\times \left (\dfrac{s}{M^2}
\right )^{2\alpha_P(t)-2} \left (\dfrac{M^2}{s_0}
\right )^{\alpha_P(0)-1}
\end{aligned}$$ where the survival probability factor $S_{3P}^2(M^2)$ averaged over $b$ is defined as $$\label{eq:SP-def}
S_{3P}^2(M^2)=\dfrac{\int d^2kM^2\dfrac{d\sigma^{3P}}{d^2kdM^2} (\text{Fig.} \ref{fig:3P+SurvP})}{\int d^2kM^2\dfrac{d\sigma^{3P}}{d^2kdM^2} (\text{Fig.} \ref{fig:3psimple})}, \quad % \text{with}\quad
t=-k^2.$$
The easiest way to calculate the diagram of Fig. \[fig:3P+SurvP\] is at first to transform the diagram of Fig. \[fig:3psimple\] to impact parameter space. This is done by introducing the momentum $q$ along the lowest pomeron in Fig. \[fig:3psimple\]. In this case $$\label{eq:Tb}
\begin{array}{ll}
T(s,M^2;q)&=\displaystyle \int d^2k \dfrac{d\sigma^{3P}}{d^2kd\xi_1} (\text{Fig.} \ref{fig:3psimple})
=g^3(0)G_{3P}\\
&\times \exp((\xi_1+2\xi_2)\Delta)\exp\left (-q^2\tilde R^2(\xi_1)/4\right)\\
&\times \displaystyle \int d^2k \exp\left (-[k^2+(\vec{q}-\vec{k})^2]\tilde R^2(\xi_2)/4\right).
\end{array}$$ Similarly to transformation we find the form of this amplitude in the impact parameter space $$\label{eq:Tin-b}
F(s,M^2;b)= \int \dfrac{d^2q}{2\pi}e^{-i\vec{q}\vec{b}}A(s.M^2;q)$$ Using a linear approximation for the pomeron trajectory and a Gaussian form for all vertices , we obtain $$\label{eq:Tout-b}
\begin{array}{ll}
F(s,M^2;b)&=2g^3(0)G_{3P}\dfrac{\nu_0(\xi_1)\nu_0^2(\xi_2)}{d(\xi_1)+2d(\xi_2)}\\
&\times \exp\left (-2\dfrac{d(\xi_1)[d(\xi_2)]}{d(\xi_1)+2d(\xi_2)}b^2\right ),
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{eq:defvars-c}
\nu_0(y)=\dfrac{2e^{\Delta y}}{\tilde R^2(y)},\quad
d(y)\equiv \dfrac{1}{\bar R^2(y)}.$$
Making use of the Eq. the expression for the survival probability in a simple eikonal model with the rescattering corrections can be written as $$\label{eq:SP-b}
S_{3P}^2(M^2)=\dfrac{\int d^2b F(s,M^2;b)\exp(-\Omega(\xi;b))}{\int d^2b F(s,M^2;b)}$$ where $$%\begin{array}{rl}
\Omega(\xi;b)=2\nu(\xi)\exp\left (-\dfrac{b^2}{R^2(\xi)} \right ), \quad
\nu(\xi)=\dfrac{2g^2(0)}{R^2(\xi)}e^{\Delta \xi}.$$
[**Caculation of $S_{3P}^2(M^2)$ and $M^2\dfrac{d\sigma^{3p}}{dtdM^2}$**]{}
The above defined averaged survival probablityt is presented (with some nonprincipal modifications) in many papers as the unitarization method (or the compensation of the too fast increasing with energy cross section) for the pomeron with $\alpha_{P}((0)-1=\Delta>0$. Let’s check if this procedure indeed compensates too fast growth and really solves the Finkelstein-Kajantie problem.
The averaged survival probability $S_{3P}^2(M^2)$ is easily calculated and estimated in the limit under interest. $$\label{eq:SP-M2}
S_{3P}^2(M^2)\approx \dfrac{e^{\Delta \xi_1+2\Delta \xi_2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}a_1\dfrac{\gamma[a_1,2\nu (\xi)]}
{[2\nu (\xi)]^{a_1}}\Big /\frac{ e^{\Delta \xi_1 }
e^{2\Delta \xi_2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)[\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)]^{2}}$$ where $a_1$ and its asymptotic are determined by Eqs, and . Omitting the constant and logarithmic factors we obtain $$\label{eq:SP-M2-as}
\begin{aligned}
S_{3P}^2(M^2)&\propto (\nu(\xi))^{a_1}\approx \exp(-2(1-\xi_1/\xi)\Delta \xi)\\&=\exp(-2\Delta \xi_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, it follows from that $$\label{eq:sdd-final}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{3p}}{d\xi_1}\propto\exp(\Delta (\xi_1+2\xi_2))\exp(-2\Delta \xi_2)=\exp(\Delta\xi_1)$$ [**Conclusion from the Section \[sec:SDD\]. An over unitarity growth of the input SDD cross section is not compensated by survival probability factor.**]{}
Central Diffraction Production, CDP {#sec:CDP}
-----------------------------------
Let’s consider a process of the central diffraction production shown in Fig. \[fig:cdp\]. $$\label{eq:cdp-0}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{CDP}}{dt_1dt_2d\xi_2}&=\dfrac{1}{4\pi}g^4(0)G^2_{3P}e^{\Delta (2\xi_1+\xi_2+2\xi_3)}\\ &\times \exp(-q_1^2\tilde R^2(\xi_1)/2)\exp(-q_2^2\tilde R^2(\xi_3)/2)
\end{aligned}$$
The differential CDP cross section integrated over $t_1$ and $t_2$ is written in terms of the impact parameters as follows $$\label{eq:cpd-dcs}
\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{CDP}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2}&=
4\pi g^4(0)G^2_{3P}
\left [\dfrac{2e^{\Delta \xi_1}} {\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}\right ]^{2}\dfrac{e^{\Delta \xi_2}} {\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}\left [\dfrac{2e^{\Delta \xi_3}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_3)}\right ]^{2} \\
%\nonumber \\
& \times \displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b_1}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}
\exp\biggl(-2\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)}\biggr)\\
&\times \exp\biggl (-2\dfrac{\vec{b_1}^2}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}-\dfrac{\vec{b_2}^2}{\tilde
R^2(\xi_2)}-2\dfrac{\vec {b_3}^2}{\tilde R^2(\xi_3)} \biggr)
\end{array}$$ where $\xi_2=\xi-\xi_1-\xi_3, \quad \vec{b_2}=\vec{b}-\vec{b_1}-\vec{b_3}$.
![Central Diffraction Production[]{data-label="fig:cdp"}](CDP){width="1.\linewidth"}
Performing the integration in the Eq. (\[eq:cpd-dcs\]) one can obtain $$\label{eq:cpd-dcs-2}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{CDP}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2}&=16\pi g^4(0)G^2_{3P}\dfrac{R^2(\xi)}{\tilde R^2(\xi_1)\tilde R^2(\xi_3)}a_2\\ &\times [2\nu (\xi)]^{-a_2}\gamma(a_2,2\nu(\xi)) e^{2\Delta \xi_1 }
e^{\Delta \xi_2}e^{2\Delta \xi_3 }
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:a-2}
a_2=\frac{2R^{2}(\xi)}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1) +2 \tilde R^{2}(\xi_2) + \tilde R^{2}(\xi_3)}$$ Like to SDD case $a_2\to 2$ at $\xi\to \infty$, however taking into account that $R^2(\xi_i)\approx \alpha'\xi_i$ at $\xi \gg 1$ we have $$\label{eq:a-2estimation}
a_2\approx 2\dfrac{\xi}{\xi_1 + 2\xi_2+ \xi_3}=2\dfrac{1}{1+\xi_2/\xi}\approx 2(1-\xi_2/\xi).$$
As a result we see that the corrected CPD cross section $$\label{eq:cpd-dcs-3}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{CDP}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2}&\propto (\nu(\xi))^{-a_2}e^{2\Delta \xi_1 }e^{\Delta \xi_2}e^{2\Delta \xi_3 }\\ &\approx e^{[\Delta (2\xi-\xi_2-2(\xi-\xi_2))]} =\exp(\Delta\xi_2)
\end{aligned}$$ rises faster than it is allowed by unitarity.
[**Conclusion from the Section \[sec:CDP\]: An over unitarity growth of the input CDP cross section is not compensated by survival probability factor.**]{}
Double Diffraction Dissociation, DDD {#sec:DDD}
------------------------------------
![Double Diffraction Dissociation[]{data-label="fig:dd"}](DD-2){width="0.9\linewidth"}
DDD cross section without rescatterings is calculated by the following expression $$\label{eq:ddd-0}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDD}}{d\xi_1d\xi_3dt}=g^2(0)G^2_{3P}e^{\Delta (\xi_1+2\xi_2+\xi_3)}\exp(-2q^2\tilde R^2(\xi_2))%\exp(-2q_2^2\tilde R^2(\xi_3))$$ The integrated over $t$ DDD cross section with rescatterings has the form $$\label{eq:ddd-dcs}
\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDD}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2} &=
g^2G^2_{3P}
\dfrac{2e^{\Delta \xi_1}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}\left [\dfrac{2e^{\Delta \xi_2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}\right]^2\dfrac{2e^{\Delta \xi_3}}{ \tilde R^{2}(\xi_3)}\\
%\nonumber \\
& \times \displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2 b_1}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b_2}{2\pi}
\exp\biggl(-2\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)}\biggr)\\
&\times
\exp\biggl (-\dfrac{\vec{b_1}^2}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}-2\dfrac{\vec{b_2}^2}{\tilde
R^2(\xi_2)}-\dfrac{\vec {b_3}^2}{\tilde R^2(\xi_3)} \biggr)
\end{array}$$ Similarly to the previous calculations we obtain $$\label{eq:ddd-dcs-2}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDD}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2} &=2g^2G^2_{3P}\dfrac{R^2(\xi)}{\tilde R^2(\xi_2)}a_3\\ &\times[2\nu (\xi)]^{-a_2}\gamma(a_3,2\nu(\xi)) e^{\Delta (\xi_1
+2\xi_2+\xi_3)}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eq:a-3}
\begin{aligned}
a_3&=\frac{2R^{2}(\xi)}{2\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1) + \tilde R^{2}(\xi_2) + 2\tilde R^{2}(\xi_3)}\\ &\approx \dfrac{2}{2\xi_1/\xi + \xi_2/\xi +2 \xi_3/\xi}=\dfrac{2}{1+\xi_1/\xi+\xi_3/\xi}\\ \nonumber
&\approx 2(1-\xi_1/\xi-\xi_3/\xi) \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eq:ddd-dcs-3}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDD}}{d\xi_1d\xi_3}&\propto (\nu(\xi))^{-a_3}e^{\Delta (\xi_1+\xi_2 + \xi_3)}\\ &\approx e^{\Delta [-2(\xi-\xi_1-\xi_3)+2\xi+\xi_1+2\xi_2+\xi_3]}\\ \nonumber
&=\exp(\Delta(\xi_1+\xi_3)).
\end{aligned}$$ Again we have a violation of unitarity. There is no compensation of too fast rising input contribution of the pomeron with intercept $\alpha(0)=1+\Delta>1$.
[**Conclusion from the Section \[sec:DDD\]. An over unitarity growth of the input DDD cross section is not compensated by survival probability factor.**]{} .
### Double Diffraction Dissociation, with additional many LRG showers {#sect:DDD-n}
![Process of diffraction $n$-showers production[]{data-label="fig:dd-n"}](DD-n){width="0.6\linewidth"}
We write differential DDDn cross section (Fig. \[fig:dd-n\]) as follows $$\label{eq:ddd-n-t}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDDn}}{d\xi_1\cdots d\xi_{2n}dt_1\cdots dt_n}&=4\pi g^2(0)\left ( \dfrac{G^2_{3P}}{4\pi}\right )^{n}\\
&\times \exp\left (\Delta \sum\limits_{i=0}^n \xi_{2i+1}+2
\Delta \sum\limits_{i=1}^n\xi_{2i}\right )\\&\times \prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}\exp\left (-q_i^2\tilde R^2(\xi_{2i})/2\right ).
\end{aligned}$$ This cross section integrated over $t_i$ in $b$-representation: $$\label{eq:ddd-n}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDDn}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2\cdots d\xi_{2n}}&=
4\pi g^2(0)\left ( \dfrac{G^2_{3P}}{4\pi}\right )^{n}\\&\times
\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n+1}\dfrac{2e^{\Delta\xi_{2i-1}}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_{2i-1})}\prod\limits_{i=1}^n\left [\dfrac{2e^{\Delta\xi_{2i}}}{[ \tilde R^{2}(\xi_{2i})}\right ]^2\\
&\times \displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b_1}{2\pi}\cdots \dfrac{d^2b_{2n+1}}{2\pi}\delta\left ({\vec b}-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{2n+1}{\vec b_i}\right )\\
&\times(2\pi)^2 \exp\biggl(-2\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)}\biggr)\\&\times
\exp\biggl (-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n+1}\dfrac{\vec{b}^2_{2i-1}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_{2i-1})}-2\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\dfrac{\vec{b}^2_{2i}}{\tilde
R^2(\xi_{2i})}\biggr )
\end{aligned}$$
After integration over all $\vec{b}$-s we have $$\label{eq:ddd-n-2}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDDn}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2\cdots d\xi_{2n}}& =8\pi g^2(0)\left ( \dfrac{G^2_{3P}}{2\pi}\right )^{n}\\ &\times R^2(\xi)\exp\left (\Delta \left (\sum\limits_{i=0}^n \xi_{2i+1}+2
\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\xi_{2i}\right )\right )\\
&\times \dfrac{e^{2\Delta\xi_{2i}}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_{2i})}a_n[2\nu (\xi)]^{-a_n}\gamma(a_n,2\nu(\xi))
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eq:a-n}
\begin{aligned}
a_n\approx 2\dfrac{1}{2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n+1} \xi_{2i-1}/\xi + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{2i}/\xi }\approx 2\left (1-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n+1} \xi_{2i-1}/\xi \right )
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eq:ddd-n-3}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{DDDn}}{d\xi_1d\xi_2\cdots d\xi_{2n}}&\propto (\nu(\xi))^{-a_n}\\&\times \exp\left (\Delta \left (\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n+1} \xi_{2i-1} + 2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\xi_{2i}\right )\right )\\
&\approx \exp\left(\Delta \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n+1} \xi_{2i-1}\right ).
\end{aligned}$$
So, the one-eikonal ”survival probability method“ of unitarity restoration does not work for multi-shower generalization of DDD process. The similar conclusion can be obtained for SDDn and CDPn processes.
[**The general conclusion of the Section \[sec:diffprod\]. We have argued that the FK problem for the main diffraction processes is not fixed by one-channel eikonal survival probability unitarization.**]{}
Diffraction production with LRG in two-channel eikonal model {#sec:multieik}
============================================================
In this Section we consider an unitarization of the SDD cross section in the framework of two-channel eikonal model following the paper [@KMR-0] (similar model is considered in [@GKLM]).
Let us briefly remind the main idea of the method following to the Ref. [@KMR-0].
Authors have used a two-channel eikonal (see also [@AK]) in which, besides the elastic proton channel proton excitation $N^*$, a possible intermediate state in $pp$ elastic scattering, is allowed. This [*effective*]{} $N^*$ channel describes the sum of low mass diffractive proton excitations. For the various $p$ and $N^*$ couplings to the pomeron a common dependence on $t$ is taken $$\label{eq:append1}
\begin{aligned}
\beta_p\rightarrow \left (\begin{array}{ll}
\beta (p \rightarrow p) & \beta (p \rightarrow N^*) \\
\beta (N^*\rightarrow p) & \beta (N^*\rightarrow N^*) \end{array}\right ) \simeq \beta
(p\rightarrow p)\left (\begin{array}{cc} 1&\gamma \\ \gamma &1 \end{array} \right )
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:a12}
\gamma \equiv \frac{V(p\rightarrow N^*)}{V(p\rightarrow p)},$$
Here for asymptotic estimates the simplest choice for the vertex can be used $\beta(t)=\beta_p\exp(B_0t)$ and pomeron trajectory $\alpha(t)=1+\Delta+\alpha't$.
Now each amplitude has two vertices and so, for the amplitudes under consideration we have $$\label{eq:append4}
\begin{aligned}
{\rm Im} A_{\rm el} (b) &=1-\frac{1}{4} \left [ e^{- (1+\gamma)^2
\Omega}+2 e^{-(1-\gamma^2)\Omega}\right .\\&\left . +e^{-(1-\gamma)^2\Omega}\right],\\
{\rm Im} A (pp \rightarrow N^* p) &=\frac{1}{4} \left [ e^{-(1-\gamma)^2 \Omega}-e^{-(1+\gamma)^2 \Omega} \right ],\\
{\rm Im} A (pp \rightarrow N^* N^*)&= \frac{1}{4} \left [ e^{- (1 - \gamma)^2
\Omega} -2 \: e^{- (1 - \gamma^2) \Omega}\right .\\&\left .+e^{- (1 + \gamma)^2
\Omega} \right ].
\end{aligned}$$ $\Omega \equiv \Omega (s, b)$ is defined by Eqs. , , . $$\label{eq:sdd-SP}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}_E}{d\xi_1}&=16 g^{3}_p(0)G_{3P}
\dfrac{ e^{2\Delta \xi_2 }
e^{\Delta \xi_1}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)[\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)]^{2} }\displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b'}{2\pi}\\
&\times
E(\Omega)
\exp\biggl(-\dfrac{({\vec
b}-{\vec{b'}})^{2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)}-2\dfrac{b'^{2}}{\tilde
R^{2}(\xi_2)}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ In the considered two-channel eikonal model [@KMR-0] $$\label{eq:append19}
\begin{aligned}
E(\Omega)=&\frac{1}{8} \left \{ (1+\gamma) \left [(1+ \gamma)e^{-(1+ \gamma)^2 \Omega/2}\right . \right . \\ &\left . \left . +(1 -\gamma) e^{-(1-\gamma^2) \Omega/2} \right ]^2
\right .\\
&+(1-\gamma) \left . \left [ (1-\gamma)e^{-(1-\gamma)^2 \Omega/2}\right . \right .\\&\left . \left . +
(1+\gamma) e^{-(1 -\gamma^2) \Omega/2} \right ]^2 \right \}.\
\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $E(\Omega$) is the sum of similar type terms, that can be written in the form $P_{\gamma}e^{-2p_{\gamma}\Omega}$. Now we can calculate and estimate asymptotic behavior of any term in the differential cross section of SDD . $$\label{eq:sdd-SPa}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}_{part}}{d\xi_1}&=
16 g^{3}_p(0)G_{3P}
\dfrac{ e^{2\Delta \xi_1 }
e^{\Delta \xi_2}}{ \tilde R^{2}(\xi_1)[\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)]^{2}}P_\gamma\\
& \times \displaystyle \int \dfrac{d^2b}{2\pi}\,\dfrac{d^2b'}{2\pi}
e^{-2p_\gamma\nu (\xi)e^{-b^{2}/R^{2}(\xi)}}\\&\times
\exp\biggl(-\dfrac{({\vec
b}-{\vec{b'}})^{2}}{\tilde R^{1}(\xi_1)}-2\dfrac{b'^{2}}{\tilde
R^{2}(\xi_2)}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ Let us note that the Eq. almost coincides with Eq. . Therefore, we have in the two-channel eikonal model for any term of SDD cross section $$\label{eq:sdd-SPb}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\sigma^{SDD}_{part}}{d\xi_{1}}&=2g^{3}_p(0) G_{3P}P_\gamma\dfrac{e^{\Delta \xi_1+2\Delta \xi_2}}{\tilde R^{2}(\xi_2)}a_1\\&\times \dfrac{\gamma[a_1,2p_\gamma\nu (\xi)]}
{[2p_\gamma\nu (\xi)]^{a_1}}\propto \xi^2e^{\Delta\xi_1}
\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1$ is determined by Eq. . SDD cross section rises as $(M^2/s_0)^\Delta$ and violates the unitarity bound at asymptotic energy. This result confirms the conclusions made in the previous Section.
concliusion {#concliusion .unnumbered}
===========
It has been declared in the papers [@GLM-1; @GLM-2; @KMR-1; @KMR-2] that the too fast (like power of energy, if $\alpha(0) > 1$) growth of multi-gap diffraction production cross section can be compensated within the eikonal approach by including shadow corrections to the amplitude (or the pomeron rescatterings in initial state), in other words, due to survival probability factor. It is important that the considered eikonal models realize the BDL when $\text {Im}A(s,b \approx 0) \to 1$ at $s\to \infty$.
If it is so, then well-known Finkelstein-Kajantie problem (multi-gap diffraction cross sections rise with energy beyond the unitarity bound) is resolved. We would like to note, that in all eikonal models considered in the cited papers, the final dependence of diffraction cross-sections on the effective mass of produced showers actually was not calculated except perhaps the Ref. [@GLM-1] where SDD cross section was estimated, however, far from sufficient accuracy as we demonstrated in the Section \[sec:diffprod\].
In fact, we have argued here more accurate estimates of corrections show the opposite trend for the FK compensation. Not only the main eikonalized diffraction cross sections (SDD, CDP, DDD) violate unitarity bounds. The eikonalized cross sections of generalized processes with additional production of any number of hadron heavy showers with LRG between them are running into the same failure. Moreover, we have considered two approaches for survival probability factor and neither one-channel eikonal model, nor two-channel model have showed the same, negative, answer as to the FK problem for diffraction cross sections. One can see that too fast growth of the cross sections is retained in three-channel eikonal approach [@GLM-3]\].
Thus, we conclude that the Finkelstein-Kajantie problem is not solved due to survival probability factor within the BDL eikonal approach.
In our opinion another approach should be developed for unitarization of input supercritical pomeron in multi-gap diffraction processes. Moreover, probably, alternative approach, beyond the eikonal one, should be considered in order to describe multi-gap diffraction processes in case of rising total cross section. This approach will be presented in our forthcoming paper.
[99]{} G. Antchev [*et al.*]{} (TOTEM Collaboration), First determination of the $\rho$ parameter at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV: probing the existence of a colourless C-odd three-gluon compound state, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 785 E. Martynov, B. Nicolescu, Did TOTEM experiment discover the Odderon?, Phys. Lett. B778 (2018) 414;\
Evidence for maximality of strong interactions from LHC forward data, B786 (2018) 207 V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin), M.G. Ryskin, Black disk, maximal Odderon and unitarity, Phys.Lett. B780 (2018) 352 Christine O. Rasmussen, Torbjörn Sjöstrand, Models for total, elastic and diffractive cross sections, Eur.Phys.J. C78 (2018) no.6, 461 M. Broilo, V. P. Goncalves, and P. V. R. G. Silva, A model of diffractive excitation in pp collisions at high energies, arXiv:2003.04768 \[hep-ph\] E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Multiregge processes in the Yang-Mills theory, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 71 (1976) 840-855;\
I.I. Balitsky, L.N. Lipatov, The Pomeranchuk Singularity in Quantum Chromodynamics, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 28 (1978) 822-829;\
L.N. Lipatov, The bare pomeron in quantum chromodynamics, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 90 (1986) 1536-1552 A. Donnachie and P.V. Landshoff, Total cross-sections, Phys. Lett. B296 (1992) 227 P.D.B. Collins, An Introduction to Regge Theory and High Energy Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1977, 445 p.;\
V. Barone, E. Predazzi, High-Energy Particle Diffraction, Springer; 2002, 410 p. M. Froissart, Phys.Rev. 123 (1961) 1053; L. Lukaszuk and A. Martin, Nuovo Cimento, 52 A (1967) 122. J. Bartels, C. Contreras , G.P. Vacca, The Odderon in QCD with running coupling, arXiv:1910.04588 \[hep-th\] A. De Roeck , V.A. Khoze , A.D. Martin, R. Orava, M.G. Ryskin, Ways to detect a light Higgs boson at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 25 (2002) 391-403;\
J.R. Cudell, A. Dechambre, O.F. Hernández, Higgs Central Exclusive Production, arXiv:1011.3653v2 \[hep-ph\] V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Black disk radius constrained by unitarity, Phys.Lett. B787 (2018) 167-170 R. McNulty, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Isolating the Odderon in central production in high energy $pA$ and $AA$ collisions, arXiv:2002.05031v1 \[hep-ph\] (and references therein) J. Finkelstein, K. Kajantie, Total Cross-Section for n-Particle Production in a Multi-Regge Model,\
Multiple Pomeranchuk exchange violates unitarity, Phys. Lett. B 26 (1968) 305 R.C. Brower, J.H. Weis, Pomeron Decoupling Theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 (1975) 605 S.M. Troshin, E.N. Tyurin, Reflective scattering from unitarity saturation, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A22 (2007) 4437 H.I. Miettinen, G.H. Thomas, Evidence that hadronic interiors have a denser matter than charge distribution, Nuclear Physics B166 (1980) 365;\
J.-R. Cudell, E. Predazzi and O.V. Selyugin, New analytic unitarization schemes, Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 034033 A.B. Kaidalov, Diffractive production mechanisms, Phys. Rep. 50 (1979) 157 and earlier references therein E. Gotsman, E.M. Levin and U. Maor, Diffractive Dissociation and Eikonalization in High Energy $pp$ and $\bar pp$ Collisions, Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 4321 E. Gotsman , A. Kormilitzin , E. Levin and U. Maor, Survival Probabilities for High Mass Diffraction, Eur.Phys.J. C52 (2007)295;\
High Energy Elastic and Diffractive Cross Sections, Eur.Phys.J. C74 (2014) 2756 V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Soft diffraction and the elastic slope at Tevatron and LHC energies: a multi-Pomeron approach, Eur.Phys.J. C18 (2000)167; E. Gotsman, E.M. Levin and U. Maor, Effects of Shadowing in Double Pomeron Exchange Processes, Phys.Lett. B353 (1995) 526 V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, High Energy Elastic and Diffractive Cross Sections, Eur.Phys.J. C74 (2014) 2756 V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, Black disk, maximal Odderon and unitarity, Physics Letters B 780 (2018) 352 E. Gotsman, E.M. Levin and U. Maor, The survival probability of large rapidity gaps in a three channel model, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 094011 A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Probabilities of rapidity gaps in high energy interactions, Eur.Phys.J.C21 (2001) 521 E.S. Martynov, B.V. Struminsky, Unitarized model of hadronic diffractive dissociation, Phys.Rev. D53 (1996) 1018 A.B. Kaidalov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, The pomeron-particle total cross section and diffractive production of showers at very high energies, Nucl. Phys. B 75 (1974) 471
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By analyzing the potential energy surface, the shape phase diagram and the energy spectrum of the nucleus in U(5) symmetry in the IBM, we propose that the U(5) symmetry with parameters $(A+B) < 0$ may be a model to describe the rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational phase transition along the yrast line. With such a model, we have described successfully the observed rotation driven shape phase transition along the yrast line of individual nucleus and proposed some other empirical evidences.'
author:
- |
[Yu-xin Liu$^{1,2,3,4}$, Liang-zhu Mu$^{1}$, and Haiqing Wei$^{5,6}$ ]{}\
\
\
\
\
\
\
title: Approach to the Rotation Driven Vibrational to Axially Rotational Shape Phase Transition Along the Yrast Line of a Nucleus
---
PACS No. [21.10.Re, 21.60.Fw, 27.50.+e, 27.60.+j, 27.70.+q]{}
It has been well known that shape phase transition is one of the most significant topics in nuclear structure research. Many evidences of nuclear shape phase transition have been observed. For instance, in several isotopes, there exists shape phase transition from vibration to axial rotation or $\gamma$-unstable rotation with respect to the variation of neutron number[@IA87], and a triple point may appear[@Jolie02; @Warn02]. Even in one mode of collective motion there may involve different characteristics, for example, along the yrast line there exists transition between rotations holding different relations between angular momentum and rotational frequency (referred to as band crossing and exhibiting a backbending)[@SS72]. Very recently it was found that there involves rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition along the yrast line of individual nucleus[@Regan03]. On the theoretical side, the interacting boson model (IBM) has been shown to be successful in describing the shape phase transition along a series of isotopes[@IA87; @Cejn03; @IZ04]. And analytic solutions for the critical points of the phase transitions have been found[@Iac00; @Iac01; @LG03]. The cranked shell model (CSM)[@BRM86] has been known to be able to describe the band crossing very well. However, a theoretical approach to describe the rotation driven shape phase transition from vibration to axial rotation along the yrast line in individual nucleus has not yet been established, even though several attempts have been made (see for example Ref.[@Cejn04]). By analyzing the potential energy surface and the energy spectrum of the U(5) symmetry in the IBM, we will show that the U(5) symmetry with a special choice of parameters can be a model to describe the rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition along the yrast line of individual nucleus.
In the original version of IBM (IBM1), the collective motion of a nucleus is described by the coherent state of $s$- and $d$-bosons, which hold angular momentum 0, 2, respectively. The corresponding symmetry group is U(6), and possesses three dynamical symmetry limits, namely, U(5), O(6) and SU(3). With one- and two-body interactions among the bosons being taken into account, the Hamiltonian of the U(5) symmetry can be written as[@IA87], $$\displaylines{\hspace*{1cm}
\hat{H}_{U(5)}=E_0 + \varepsilon_{d} C_{1U(5)} + A C_{2U(5)} + B
C_{2O(5)}+ C C_{2O(3)} \, , \hfill{(1)} \cr }$$ where $C_{kG}$ is the $k$-rank Casimir operator of group $G$, and the parameters satisfy $C\ll | B | \ll \vert A \vert \ll
\varepsilon_d$. The IBM may be linked to the collective model of Bohr and Mottelson by implementing the coherent state formalism[@IA87; @GK80; @DSI80; @IC81]. In IBM1, the intrinsic coherent state of a nucleus with $N$ bosons is given by $$\displaylines{\hspace*{3cm} \left|
{N;\beta ,\gamma } \right\rangle = \left[ {s^{\dag} +
\sum\limits_\mu {\alpha _\mu d_\mu ^ {\dag} } } \right]^N
\left| 0 \right\rangle \, , \hfill{(2)} \cr }$$ with $$\alpha_0=\beta \cos \gamma, \quad \alpha_{\pm 1}=0,
\quad \alpha_{\pm 2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \beta \sin \gamma \, .$$ It is evident that all components of $d$-bosons can be described by the two parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$, which have been shown proportional to the deformation parameters in the collective model [@IA87]. For instance, the relations $\hat{\beta}_{2} \approx
0.15 \beta$ and $\hat{\gamma} = \gamma$ hold for rare earth nuclei, where $\hat{\beta}_{2}$ and $\hat{\gamma}$ are the quadrupole deformation parameters in collective model. We then refer to the parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$ as deformation parameters in the follows.
It is remarkable that the coherent state of Eq. (2) consists of all possible components of $d$ bosons. As a consequence, it is not an eigenstate of angular momentum, but a superposition of states with all possible values of angular momentum. To investigate the shape phase structure and its transition among the states in ground-state band (or yrast band), we implement the technique of angular momentum projection [@KM88; @Dobes90; @HS95] involving projection operator $$\displaylines{\hspace*{3cm}
P^L_{MK}=\frac{2L+1}{8 \pi ^2} \int
{D^L_{MK}}^*(\Omega)R(\Omega)d\Omega \, , \hfill{(3)} \cr }$$ with $M=K=0$. Then the energy functional ([*i.e.*]{} potential energy surface) of the state with angular momentum $L$ in the ground-state band can be given as $$\displaylines{\hspace*{2cm} E_{gsb}(N,L,\beta ,
\gamma) = \frac{{\left\langle {N;\beta ,\gamma } \right| \hat{H}
P_{00}^L \left| {N;\beta ,\gamma } \right\rangle }}{{\left\langle
{N;\beta ,\gamma } \right|P_{00}^L \left| {N;\beta ,\gamma }
\right\rangle }} \, . \hfill{(4)} \cr }$$ With the rotation operator written explicitly, Eq. (4) becomes $$\displaylines{\hspace*{2cm} E _{gsb}(N,L,\beta , \gamma) =
\frac{{\int^{\pi}_0 {d\beta '\sin \beta 'd_{00}^L (\beta
')\left\langle {N;\beta ,\gamma } \right| \hat{H} e^{ - i\beta
'J_y } \left| {N;\beta ,\gamma } \right\rangle } }}{{\int^{\pi}_0
{d\beta '\sin \beta 'd_{00}^L (\beta ')\left\langle {N;\beta
,\gamma } \right|e^{ - i\beta 'J_y } \left| {N;\beta ,\gamma }
\right\rangle } }} \, , \hfill{(5)} \cr }$$ where $d^L_{mm'}(\beta
')$ is the reduced rotation matrix.
After some derivations, and considering that the deformation parameter $\beta$ should be rather small for the vibrational to axially rotational ($\gamma =0$) shape phase transition of current interest, we can approximate the potential energy surface of Eq. (5) up to $\beta^6$ as $$\displaylines{\hspace*{25mm} E _{gsb}(N,L,\beta ) =
A_0+ \frac{1}{2} \alpha (L - L_0) \beta^2 + \frac{1}{4} A_4
\beta^4 + \frac{1}{6} A_6 \beta^6 \, , \hfill{(6)} \cr }$$ with $$A_0(N,L,\varepsilon_{d},A,B,C) = \frac{1}{4}
\left[ 2 \varepsilon_{d} + 8 A + 6B + 4C + (A + B + 4C) L \right]
L \, ,$$ $$\alpha = \frac{L(2N-L) (A + B) } {2(3+2L)}\, ,$$ $$L _0 = \frac{\varepsilon_{d} + 5A + 4B}{-(A + B )} \, .$$ $A_4$ and $A_6$ are also functions of the interaction parameters $\varepsilon_{d}$, $A$, $B$, $C$ and the state indices $N$, $L$.
It follows from the spectrum generating principle that $L \in [0,
2N]$, $\varepsilon _{d} > 0$, while $A$, $B$ and $C$ may be either positive or negative. If $(A+B)>0$, then $\alpha > 0$ and $L_{0}
<0$, so that $\alpha (L - L_0 )$ remains positive. Otherwise, if $(A + B) < 0$ ( the dynamical symmetry condition guarantees $(\varepsilon_{d} + 5 A + 4B) > 0$ ), then $\alpha<0$ and $L_0>0$, so that $\alpha (L - L_0)$ may change from positive to negative as the angular momentum $L$ increases from under to over $L_0$. Because of the complexity of the $A_{4}$ and $A_{6}$ in terms of the parameters $N$, $L$, $\varepsilon_{d}$, $A$, $B$ and $C$, it is difficult to discuss the variation characteristics analytically. Numerical calculation indicates that, when the parameters in the Hamiltonian are taken as $\varepsilon_{d}>0$, $(A + B) <0 $ and $C >0$, the parameters $A_{4}$, $A_{6}$ in Eq. (6) can be negative, positive, respectively. It becomes then evident that the energy functional of Eq. (6) closely resembles the Landau free-energy [@LL01; @KKbook] in the theory of thermodynamic phase transition, with $L$ and $\beta$ playing the roles of control parameter and order parameter, respectively.
A more quantitative analysis is now in order for the potential energy surface of Eq. (6). If the parameters in the Hamiltonian (1) are chosen as $(A+B)>0$, we have $\frac{\partial^2
E_{gsb}(N,L,\beta)}{\partial\beta^2} \vert_{\beta=0}=\alpha (L -
L_0)>0$. Then the potential energy is minimized only at $\beta=0$. The nucleus with such a potential energy functional would always stay in a vibrational shape phase. If $(A+B)<0$, then $\alpha<0$ and $L_0>0$, so $\frac{\partial ^2 E_{gsb}(N,L,\beta )}{\partial
\beta ^2} \vert _{\beta =0} > 0 $ for $L<L_0$, and $\frac{\partial
^2 E_{gsb}(N,L,\beta )}{\partial \beta ^2} \vert _{\beta =0} < 0 $ for $L > L_0$. The point $\beta=0$ evolves from a local minimum to a local maximum of the potential energy surface when $L$ rises from below to above $L_0$. Furthermore, there exists a critical angular momentum $L_c = L_0 + \frac{3 A_4 ^2}{16 A_{6} \alpha }$, with which the energy surface acquires two and equal minima at $\beta =0$ and $\beta=\sqrt{-3A_4/4A_6}$, respectively. There is another critical value $L_{max}$ for the angular momentum, beyond which a nucleus becomes unstable as the energy functional is no longer lower-bounded. It follows from Eq. (6) that $L_{max}=2N$, the highest angular momentum possible, when $A_6>0$, whereas $L_{max}=L_0 + \frac{A_4^2}{4A_6\alpha}$ when $A_6<0$. In any case, we have $L_{max}>L_0$. For the states with $L\in
(L_{c},L_{max}]$, the energy functional is maximized at $\beta=0$ and minimized at some $\beta\ne 0$. As already mentioned, the energy functional has no minimum for the states with angular momentum $L\in( L_{max},2 N]$. The $\beta$-dependence of the energy surface for some typical values of angular momentum $L$ is illustrated in Fig. 1, where $L_0$ and $L_c$ are calculated as 8 and 6 respectively. It becomes apparent that a nucleus has a stable vibrational shape phase with states around $\beta=0$, if the Hamiltonian parameter $(A+B)<0$ and the angular momentum $L<L_c$. In the regime of $L\in (L_{c}, L_{max}]$, the only stable shape phase is rotational with states around the energy minimum at some $\beta \ne 0$. For $L= L_c$, the energy surface has two degenerate but distinct minima, one of which is localized at $\beta=0$, the other is localized at some $\beta\ne 0$. Under such a condition, the system may undergo a transition from one energy minimum to the other, and when that happens, the symmetry of the system is spontaneously broken. Such transition is of the first order, according to the standard theory of phase transition. The same theory would also predict the coexistence of vibrational and rotational shapes with $L= L_c$ as a precursor of a shape phase transition[@SRJL03; @Heyde04]. When the angular momentum $L>L_{max}$, a nucleus may not be able to maintain a stable structure. Fig. 2 depicts the shape phase diagram of a nucleus in terms of the angular momentum $L$ and the deformation parameter $\beta$, where the same interaction parameters as in Fig. 1 are used, $L_0$ and $L_c$ still are 8 and 6, respectively.
The above discussion has shown explicitly that the potential energy functional derived from the U(5) symmetry with $(A+B)<0$ has the similar mathematical form of the Landau free-energy[@LL01; @KKbook], which puts a U(5)-symmetric nuclear system in the standard theoretical framework of first-order phase transition, so to correctly predict and well describe the vibrational to axially rotational nuclear shape phase transition in the ground-state band (or along the yrast line).
On the phenomenological side, the energy spectrum of a nucleus in U(5) symmetry can be given as $$\displaylines{\hspace*{1cm}
E_{U(5)}=E_0 + \varepsilon _{d} n_d + A \, n_d(n_{d}+4) + B\,
\tau(\tau+3)+ C \, L(L+1) \, . \hfill{(7)} \cr }$$ where $n_d$, $\tau$, and $L$ are the irreducible representations (IRREPs) of the group U(5), O(5) and O(3), respectively.
From the spectrum generating process one can recognize that, if $A>0$ and $B>0$, the states with $\tau = n_{d}$, $L = 2 n_{d}$ form the ground state band and simultaneously the yrast band, and the energy of the state in the ground state band can be given as $$E_{gsb}(n_d) = E_{0} + (A + B ) {n_{d}}^2
+ (\varepsilon_{d} + 4A + 3B ) n_{d} + C L (L +1) \, .$$ The energy spectrum appears as the anharmonic vibrational one with increasing frequency $\hbar\omega= (\varepsilon _{d}+ 4A + 3B ) +
(A + B ) n_{d} $ (if the anharmonic effect induced by the rotation is taken into account, the vibrational frequency increases with $n_{d}$ in the relation $\hbar\omega= (\varepsilon _{d}+ 4A + 3B
+ 2C) + (A + B + 4C) n_{d} $). [*However*]{}, if $(A+B)<0$, the $E_{gsb}(n_d)$ ($E_{gsb}(L)$) is an upper-convex parabola against the $n_d$ ($L$) and appears as the anharmonic vibrational one with decreasing frequency. From these anharmonic vibrational characteristics, one can recognize that, when $(A+B) < 0$, there exists a d-boson number $n^{(c)}_{d}$ and an angular momentum $$\displaylines{\hspace*{1cm}
L_{c}=2n_{d}^{(c)} = - \frac{2(\varepsilon_{d} + 4 A + 3 B )}{A +
B } - 2N_{0} \, , \hfill{(8)} \cr }$$ where $N_0=N$ with $N$ being the total boson number. As the angular momentum $L \geq L_c$, the yrast states are no longer the anharmonic vibrational ones mentioned above, but the quasi-rotational ones with $ n_{d}= N_0$. Recalling the analysis in the coherent state formalism with angular momentum projection, one can conclude that the U(5) symmetry with parameters $(A+B)<0$ can describe the vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition along the yrast line. The $L_c$ given in Eq. (8) is the critical angular momentum. For each yrast state with angular momentum $L < L_{c}$, its energy can be given as $$\displaylines{\hspace*{1cm}
E(L < L_c)=E_0 + \frac{ A + B + 4 C}{4} {L}^{2} +
\frac{\varepsilon_{d} + 4 A + 3 B + 2 C} {2} L \, . \hfill{(9)} \,
\cr }$$ Whereas for the one with angular momentum $L \ge L_{c}$, its energy should be expressed as $$\displaylines{\hspace*{1cm}
E(L \ge L_{c} ) = E_{0} ^{\prime } + C L ( L +1) \, ,
\hfill{(10)} \cr }$$ and can be displayed as a part of an upper-concave parabola. For instance, for a system with $N=15$ and parameters $\varepsilon
_{d}=0.80$ MeV, $A = -0.025$ MeV, $ B = -0.01$ MeV and $ C =
0.004$ MeV, with Eq. (8) we can fix the critical angular momentum $L_c=8 \hbar $. The energy of the yrast states against the angular momentum $L$ can be illustrated in the left panel of Fig. 3. It has been known that the energy of E2 transition $\gamma$-ray over spin (E-GOS) $ R = \frac{E_{\gamma}(L \rightarrow L-2)}{L} $ can be taken as a quite good signature to manifest the vibrational to axially rotational phase transition along the yrast line[@Regan03]. As an auxiliary evidence, we show also the E-GOS of the yrast states with above parameters in the right panel of Fig. 3. The figure indicates apparently that the yrast states involve a vibrational to axially rotational phase transition and the angular momentum $L_c$ is definitely the critical point for the phase transition to take place. Such a transition is quite similar to that between the states with $n_p=0$ and $n_p=N$[@BF02] in the vibron model[@I78] with random interactions.
Reviewing above analysis, one knows that, in the anharmonic vibrational model, there involves competition between vibration and rotation. In the case of that the interaction parameters are taken as $(A + B) < 0$, the vibrational frequency decreases and the rotational effect increases if the angular momentum (or $d$ boson number) increases. As the angular momentum $L$ (or $n_{d}$) reaches the critical value, the vibration disappears, so that only the rotational effect governs the property of state. Simultaneously, a sudden increase happens in the $d$ boson number. Then the structure of the wavefunction changes from the vibrational one to the rotational one, so that the vibrational to the axially rotational shape phase transition takes place. In the microscopic point of view, cranking random phase approximation calculation has shown that the gradual decrease of vibration can induce a backbending, i.e., a shape phase transition[@Naz04]. On phenomenological level, the U(5) symmetry with parameter $A <
0$ has been used to describe the collective backbending of high spin states successfully[@Long97].
As an application of our presently proposed model, we analyze the typical example $^{102}$Ru involving the rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition[@Regan03]. By fitting the experimental data of the yrast band of $^{102}$Ru with Eqs.(9) and (10), we obtain the energy spectrum and the E-GOS plots as shown in Fig. 4. To show the sudden change of the wavefunction, we also list the configuration $(n_{d}, \tau, L)$ of the sates in the yrast band in Fig. 4 and the fitted parameters in Table 1. The figure and the Table show evidently that the shape phase transition happens at angular momentum $L=12$ and our model describes well such a shape phase transition.
band $\varepsilon_{d}$ (MeV) $A$ (MeV) $B$ (MeV) $C$ (MeV) N $L_{c}$
------------ ------------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------ ------ ---------
$^{102}$Ru $0.5281$ $-0.009376$ $-0.008819$ $0.01475$ $20$ $12$
$^{112}$Cd $0.6581$ $-0.007640$ $-0.01327$ $0.01440$ $25$ $10$
$^{114}$Cd $0.5695$ $-0.0003789$ $-0.01586$ $0.01393$ $29$ $10$
$^{114}$Te $0.7747$ $-0.01678$ $-0.01423$ $0.01269$ $17$ $12$
$^{142}$Sm $1.101$ $-0.06263$ $-0.01165$ $0.01713$ $7$ $10$
$^{188}$Hg $0.5957$ $-0.03057$ $-0.002976$ $0.009193$ $9$ $12$
: Fitted parameters of the bands $^{102}$Ru, $^{112}$Cd, $^{114}$Cd, $^{114}$Te, $^{142}$Sm and $^{188}$Hg
We have also analyzed the available experimental energy spectra of the yrast bands of even-even nuclei with $ 30\le Z \le 100$ and simulated the data with least-square fitting in our present model. We find that, besides the yrast bands of nuclei $^{102}$Ru, $^{112}$Cd and $^{114}$Cd identified by Regan and collaborators in Ref.[@Regan03], the yrast bands of nuclei $^{114}$Te, $^{142}$Sm and $^{188}$Hg involve the vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition. The theoretical results of the energy spectra and the E-GOS plots of these bands and the comparison with experimental data are illustrated in Fig. 5. The fitted parameters are listed in Table 1. From Fig. 5 and Table 1, one can infer that our model can describe the rotation driven shape phase transition successfully.
Looking over the fitted boson number listed in Table 1, one may know that, for $^{142}$Sm and $^{188}$Hg, it agrees well with the simple ansatz: boson number is half of the valence nucleons (or holes). However, for the nuclei in $A \sim 110$ mass region, it differs from half of the valence nucleons obviously. Recalling the recent suggestion that the valence neutrons may be in the $h_{11/2}$ orbital[@Regan03; @Regan95], we infer that the microscopic configuration of the nuclei in $A \sim 110$ mass region is so complicated that the boson number of them can not be simply taken as half of the valence nucleons. It means that the effective boson number may be important to the structure of these nuclei. In fact, quite early IBM calculations[@Sam82; @Heyde82; @Scholt83; @Heyde85] had shown that, to describe the spectroscopic property of these nuclei well, effective boson number should be implemented. Then we believe that the fitted boson number is reasonable, even though it is not consistent with half of the valence nucleons for the $A\sim 110$ nuclei. Meanwhile it provides a clue that the structure of the nuclei involving rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition is very complicated and needs sophisticated investigation.
In summary, by analyzing the potential energy surface of the nucleus in U(5) symmetry in the coherent state formalism with angular momentum projection in the IBM, we give a phase diagram of the vibration and the rotation in terms of the angular momentum and the deformation parameter in this letter. We have then proposed that the U(5) symmetry with parameters $(A+B) < 0$ may be a model to describe the rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition along the yrast line. With such a model, we have described successfully the vibrational to axially rotational phase transition along the yrast line in $A \sim 110$ mass region identified by Regan and collaborators[@Regan03]. By analyzing the available experimental spectra of even-even nuclei with $ 30 \le Z \le 100$, we show that, besides the ones in $A \sim 110$ mass region, the yrast band of nuclei $^{114}$Te, $^{142}$Sm and $^{188}$Hg may also be the empirical evidences involving the rotation driven vibrational to axially rotational shape phase transition.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the contract Nos. 10425521, 10075002, and 10135030, the Major State Basic Research Development Program under contract No. G2000077400 and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of under Grant No. 20040001010. One of the authors (Y.X. Liu) thanks the support by the Foundation for University Key Teacher by the Ministry of Education, China, too.
[40]{} F. Iachello, and A. Arima, [*The Interacting Boson Model*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987). J. Jolie, P. Cejnar, R. F. Casten, S. Heinze, A. Linnemann, and V. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 182502. D. Warner, Nature [**420**]{} (2002) 614. F. S. Stephens, and R. S. Simon, Nucl. Phys. [**A 183**]{} (1972) 257. P. H. Regan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 152502. P. Cejnar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 112501. F. Iachello, and N. V. Zamfir, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 212501. F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 3580. F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 052502. A. Leviatan, and J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 212501. R. Bengtsson, S. Frauendorf, and F. R. May, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, [**35**]{} (1986) 15. P. Cejner, and J. Jolie, Phys. Rev. [**C 69**]{} (2004) 011301. J. N. Ginocchio, and M. W. Kirson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{} (1980) 1744. A. D. L. Dieperink, P. Scholten, and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{} (1980) 1747. P. van Isacker, and J. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. [**C 24**]{} (1981) 684. S. Kuyucak, I. Morrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{} (1987) 315; [*ibid*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 36**]{} (1987) 774. J. Dobeš, Phys. Lett. [**B 158**]{} (1985) 96; Phys. Rev. [**C 42**]{} (1990) 2023. K. Hara, and Y. Sun, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**E 4**]{} (1995) 637. L. D. Landau, and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Statistical Physics*]{} (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001), Part 1. C. Kittel, and H. Kroemer, [*Thermal Physics*]{} (W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980), Chapter 10. J. Shu, Y. Ran, T. Ji, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. [**C 67**]{} (2003) 044304. K. Heyde, J. Jolie, R. Fission, S. De Baerdemacker, and V. Hellemans, Phys. Rev. [**C 69**]{} (2004) 054304. R. Bijker, and A. Frank, Phys. Rev. [**C 65**]{} (2002) 044316. F. Iachello, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**78**]{} (1981) 581; F. Iachello, and R. D. Levine, J. Chem. Phys. [**77**]{} (1982) 3046.
J. Kvasil, and R. G. Nazmitdinov, Phys. Rev. [**C 69**]{} (2004) 031304; A. Puente, LI. Serra, and R. G. Nazmitdinov, Phys. Rev. [**B 69**]{} (2004) 125315. G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. [**C 55**]{} (1997) 3163.
P. H. Regan, A. E. Stuchbery, and S. S. Anderssen, Nucl. Phys. [**A 591**]{} (1995) 533. M. Sambataro, Nucl. Phys. [**A 380**]{} (1982) 365. K. Heyde, P. van Isacker, M. Maroquier, G. Wenes, and M. Sambataro, Phys. Rev. [**C 25**]{} (1982) 3160. O. Scholten, Phys. Lett. [**B 127**]{} (1983) 144. K. Heyde, P. van Isacker, R. F. Casten, J. L. Wood, Phys. Lett. [**B 155**]{} (1985) 303.
D. de Frenne and E. Jacobs, Nucl. Data Sheets [**79**]{} (1996) 639. Jean Blachot, Nucl. Data Sheets [**97**]{} (2002) 593. J. K. Tuli, Nucl. Data Sheets [**89**]{} (2001) 641. B. Singh, Nucl. Data Sheets [**95**]{} (2002) 387.
![The theoretically obtained energy spectrum and E-GOS plot of the yrast band of $^{102}$Ru(curve) and the comparison with experimental data (filled squares, taken from Ref.[@Regan03]) ](Ru102.eps)
![The theoretically obtained energy spectrum and E-GOS plot of the yrast bands of $^{112}$Cd, $^{114}$Cd, $^{114}$Te, $^{142}$Sm and $^{188}$Hg (curve) and the comparison with experimental data (filled squares, taken from Refs.[@FJ96; @Blac02; @Tuli00; @Singh02] ) ](expevidence.eps)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Thermally activated flux flow (TAFF) and flux flow Hall effect (FFHE) of Fe(Te,S) single crystal in the mixed state are studied in magnetic fields up to 35 T. Thermally activated energy (TAE) is analyzed using conventional Arrhenius relation and modified TAFF theory which is closer to experimental results. The results indicate that there is a crossover from single-vortex pinning region to collective creep pinning region with increasing magnetic field. The temperature dependence of TAE is different for $H//ab$ and $H//c$. On the other hand, the analysis of FFHE in the mixed state indicates that there is no Hall sign reversal. We also observe scaling behavior $|\rho
_{xy}(H)|=A\rho _{xx}(H)^{\beta }$.
author:
- 'Hechang Lei,$^{1}$ Rongwei Hu,$^{1,\ast }$ E. S. Choi,$^{2}$ and C. Petrovic$^{1}$'
title: 'Thermally activated energy and flux flow Hall effect of Fe$_{1+y}$(Te$_{1-x}$S$_{x}$)$_{z}$'
---
Introduction
============
The discovery of iron based materials has generated enormous interests in the field of superconductivity.[@Kamihara]$^{-}$[@Hsu; @FC] Due to similar layered structure to cuprate oxides and rather high $T_{c}$, iron based superconductors could host rich vortex phenomena in the mixed state.[@Blatter]$^{-}$[@Fisher] Recent work suggests that vortex properties of iron based materials seem to be similar to the cuprate superconductors since magnetic flux collective pinning and creep region as well as fishtail effects (second peak effect) have been observed in LnOFeAs (Ln=rare earth elements, 1111 system) and AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ (A=alkaline earth elements, 122 system).[@Yang; @H]$^{-}$[@Jaroszynski]
Iron based superconductors, FeSe$_{1-x}$, Fe$_{1+y}$Te$_{1-x}$Se$_{x}$, and Fe$_{1+y}$Te$_{1-x}$S$_{x}$ (11 system),[@Hsu; @FC]$^{,}$[@Yeh; @KW]$^{-} $[@McQueen] are of interest both for the technological applications and for the understanding of the vortex properties in the mixed state due to rather simple structure and nearly isotropic upper critical field.[@Fang]$^{-}$[@Lei; @HC] Only a limited amount of information on the vortex behavior in single crystals of 11 system is available until now, mainly focusing on thermally activated flux flow (TAFF) region in Fe(Te,Se).[Yadav]{}$^{,}$[@Yadav2] Normal carriers in the vortex core, which experience a Lorentz force, can lead to normal Hall effect in mixed state. On the other hand, flux flow can also induce Hall effect in the mixed state. In detail, when applying a transport current, the flux lines will experience the Lorentz force, $\mathbf{F}=\frac{1}{c}\mathbf{j}\times \mathbf{B}$, where $\mathbf{j}$ is the supercurrent density and $\mathbf{B}$ is the magnitude of magnetic induction. The motion of magnetic flux lines produces a macroscopic electric field $\mathbf{E}$ which is given by $\mathbf{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}$, where $\mathbf{v}$ is the velocity of vortex motion.[@Josephson] The vortex motion along the Lorentz force (perpendicular to $\mathbf{j}$) gives the dissipative field ($\mathbf{E\Vert
j}$) and generates the flux flow resistivity, whereas the vortex motion along the direction of supercurrent results in the Hall electric field ($\mathbf{E\bot j}$). Therefore the flux flow Hall effect (FFHE) is a sensitive method to study the vortex dynamics.
There are two exotic phenomena in connection with FFHE in cuprate superconductors. One is a sign reversal of the Hall resistivity $\rho
_{xy}(H)$ below $T_{c}$.[@Hagen] This anomaly has also been observed in some conventional superconductors, e.g. amorphous MoSi$_{3}$,[@Smith] and 2H-NbSe$_{2}$.[@Bhattacharya] The sign change is not expected within the classical Bardeen-Stephen[@Bardeen] and Nozières-Vinen[Nozieres]{} theories of vortex motion, which predict that the Hall sign in the superconducting and normal state should be the same. Several models have been proposed for interpreting this anomaly,[@Dorsey]$^{-}$[@Otterlo] however its origin remains a controversy. Another phenomenon is a scaling law between $\rho _{xy}(H)$ and the longitudinal resistivity $\rho _{xx}(H)$ in the superconducting transition region, i.e., $|\rho _{xy}(H)|=A\rho
_{xx}(H)^{\beta }$ with different values of $\beta $ for different materials.[@Luo]$^{,}$[@Samoilov]
In this paper, we study the vortex properties of Fe$_{1.14(1)}$(Te$_{0.91(2)} $S$_{0.09(2)}$)$_{z}$ single crystal via TAFF resistivity and FFHE in the mixed state. The temperature dependence of TAE is different for $H\Vert ab$ and $H\Vert c$. Furthermore, there is a crossover from single-vortex pinning region to collective creep pinning region with increasing magnetic field. On the other hand, there is no sign reveral and we observe scaling behavior for FFHE.
Experiment
==========
Single crystals of Fe(Te,S) were grown by self flux method and their crystal structure was analyzed in the previous report.[@Hu; @RW] The elemental analysis of the crystal used in this study showed the stoichiometry is Fe:Te:S=1.14(1):0.91(1):0.09(2) and we denote it as S-09 in the following for brevity. Electrical transport measurements were performed using a four-probe configuration with current flowing in the ab-plane of tetragonal structure in dc magnetic fields up to 9 T in a Quantum Design PPMS-9 from 1.9 to 200 K and up to 35 T in a He3 cryostat system with resistive magnet down to 0.3 K at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) in Tallahassee, FL. Hall contacts with typical misalignment of less than 0.1 mm were used. At each point the Hall voltage was measured for two directions of the magnetic field, which is always perpendicular to current direction.
Results and Discussions
=======================
Fig. 1(a,b) show the resistivity $\rho (T,H)$ of S-09 near the superconducting transition region for $H\parallel ab$ plane and $H\parallel
c $ axis. With increasing magnetic fields, the resistivity transition widths are broadened gradually. The onset of superconductivity shifts to lower temperatures for both magnetic field directions, but the trend is more obvious for $H\Vert c$ than $H\Vert ab$. According to the TAFF theory, the resistivity in TAFF region can be expressed as,[@Blatter]$^{,}$[Palstra1]{}$^{,}$[@Palstra2]$$\rho =(2\nu _{0}LB/J)exp(-J_{c0}BVL/T)sinh(JBVL/T)$$
where $\nu _{0}$ is an attempt frequency for a flux bundle hopping, $L$ is the hopping distance, $B$ is the magnetic induction, $J$ is the applied current density, $J_{c0}$ is the critical current density in the absence of flux creep, $V$ is the bundle volume and $T$ is the temperature. If $J$ is small enough and $JBVL/T\ll 1$, we obtain$$\rho =(2\rho _{c}U/T)exp(-U/T)=\rho _{0f}exp(-U/T)$$
where $U=J_{c0}BVL$ is the thermally activated energy (TAE) and $\rho
_{c}=\nu _{0}LB/J_{c0}$, which is usually considered to be temperature-independent. For cuprate superconductors, the prefactor $2\rho
_{c}U/T$ is usually assumed as a constant $\rho _{0f}$,[@Palstra1] therefore, $ln\rho (T,H)=ln\rho _{0f}-U(T,H)/T$, where $H$ is the external magnetic field. On the other hand, according to the condensation model,[Palstra2]{} $U(T,H)=H_{c}^{2}(t)\xi ^{n}(t)$, where $H_{c}$ is the thermal critical field, $\xi $ is the coherence length, $t=T/T_{c}$ ($T_{c}$ is the superconducting transition temperature), and $n$ depends on the dimensionality of the vortex system with the range from 0 to 3. Since $H_{c}\propto 1-t$, and $\xi \propto (1-t)^{-1/2}$ near $T_{c}$,[@Brandt] it is obtained that $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)^{q}$, where $q=2-n/2$. It is generally assumed that $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)$, i.e. $n=2$, and the $ln\rho
-1/T$ becomes Arrhenius relation, $ln\rho (T,H)=ln\rho _{0}(H)-U_{0}(H)/T$, where $ln\rho _{0}(H)=ln\rho _{0f}+U_{0}(H)/T_{c}$ and $U_{0}(H)$ is the apparent activation energy. Furthermore, it can be concluded that $-\partial
ln\rho (T,H)/\partial T^{-1}=U_{0}(H)$. Hence, the $ln\rho$ vs. $1/T$ should be linear in TAFF region. The slope is $U_{0}(H)$ and its y-intercept represents $ln\rho _{0}(H)$.
In the Figs. 1(a,b), the solid lines show the Arrhenius relation in TAFF region. Note that the results are shown in the common logarithmic scale in the figures, but we calculate them in the natural one. All linear fits intersect at approximately the same point $T_{cross}$, which is about $8.63$ and $8.34$ K for $H\parallel ab$ and $H\parallel c$, respectively. Assuming the temperature dependences of $\rho _{ab}(T,H)$ at two different magnetic fields ($H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$) can be fitted by Arrhenius relation, according to above discussion, we get $ln\rho (T,H_{1})=ln\rho
_{0f}+U_{0}(H_{1})/T_{c}-U_{0}(H_{1})/T$ and $ln\rho (T,H_{2})=ln\rho
_{0f}+U_{0}(H_{2})/T_{c}-U_{0}(H_{2})/T$. When $\rho (T,H_{1})=\rho (T,H_{2})
$, it can be obtained $T=T_{c}$, therefore, ideally, all the lines at different fields should be crossed into same point, $T_{cross}$, which is equal to $T_{c}$. According to the conventional analysis, the $ln\rho _{0f}$ and $T_{c}$ can be obtained from linear fits $ln\rho _{0}(H)$ and $U_{0}(H)$ using $ln\rho _{0}(H)=ln\rho _{0f}+U_{0}(H)/T_{c}$ (shown in Fig. 1(c)). From the fitting results, values of $\rho _{0f}$ and $T_{c}$ are $27.22\pm
4.77$ $m\Omega \cdot cm$, $8.72\pm 0.82$ K and $5.23\pm 1.42$ $m\Omega \cdot
cm$, $8.32\pm 0.48$ K for $H\parallel ab$ and $H\parallel c$, respectively. The $T_{c}$ is consistent with the values of $T_{cross}$ in the range of errors. It seems that the $\rho (T,H)$ can be fitted with straight lines well. However, close inspection shows that there is rather large fitting errors, especially for $H\parallel ab$. The origin of the large errors is the Arrhenius relation that can only be satisfied in the limited region and this region is narrower for $H\parallel ab$. The effects of prefactor and non-linear relation of $U(T,H)$ lead to $\rho (T,H)$ deviating from Arrhenius relation (vide infra).
Fig. 2(a,b) shows the temperature dependence of $-\partial ln\rho
(T,H)/\partial T^{-1}$ for both field directions. Because the assumptions $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)$ and $\rho _{0f}=const$ lead to $-\partial ln\rho
(T,H)/\partial T^{-1}=U_{0}(H)$, $U_{0}(H)$ should be a set of horizontal lines. We present this in Fig. 2(a,b) over a limited length. Each length covers the temperature interval used for estimating $U_{0}(H)$ in the Arrhenius relation. It can be seen that $-\partial ln\rho (T,H)/\partial
T^{-1}$ increases sharply with decreasing temperature, which was also observed in Bi-2212 thin films.[@Zhang; @YZ1] The center of each $U_{0}(H)$ horizontal line approximately intersects $-\partial ln\rho (T,H)/\partial
T^{-1}$ curve and the overlapping region is increasing with temperature decrease. This shows that each $U_{0}(H)$ is only the average value of its $-\partial ln\rho (T,H)/\partial T^{-1}$ in the fitting temperature region. Hence, the TAE determined from the conventional method does not reflect the true evolution of $U(T,H)$ with the temperature, particularly for $H\parallel ab$. This contradiction originates from two basic assumptions introduced for Arrhenius relation: one is the constant prefactor $\rho
_{0f}=2\rho _{c}U/T$ and another is the linear relation $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)
$. Zhang *et al*[@Zhang; @YZ2] suggested that the temperature-dependent prefactor and nonlinear relation of $U(T,H)-T$ should be considered. In the following section, we will analyze the resistivity results using this more general method.[@Zhang; @YZ2]
Using the relation $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)^{q}$, from eq. (2) it can be derived that
$$ln\rho =ln(2\rho _{c}U_{0})+q\ln (1-t)-\ln T-U_{0}(1-t)^{q}/T$$
and$$-\partial ln\rho /\partial T^{-1}=[U_{0}(1-t)^{q}-T][1+qt/(1-t)]$$
where $\rho _{c}$ and $U_{0}$ are temperature independent and $T_{c}$ derived from Arrhenius relation is used for fitting. Therefore, there are three free parameters, $q$, $\rho _{c}$ and $U_{0}$ in eq. (3). The fitting results are shown in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1(a,b), it can be seen that all fits are in good agreement with experimental data and the results are better than Arrhenius relation. This is more pronounced for $H\parallel ab$. Fig. 2(a,b) clearly shows the advantage of eq. (3) over Arrhenius relation. The TAFF formula (eq. (1)) can effectively capture the upturn trend of $-\partial
ln\rho /\partial T^{-1}$ with decreasing temperature when the (linear or nonlinear) correlations between prefactor as well as $U(T,H)$ and $T$ are considered. In detail, when $T\ll U$ (corresponding to $T\ll U_{0}(1-t)^{q})$, it can be derived that $-\partial ln\rho /\partial
T^{-1}=U_{0}(1-t)^{q}[1+qt/(1-t)]$ and when $q=1$, $-\partial ln\rho
/\partial T^{-1}=U_{0}$, i.e. Arrhenius relation. Because the obtained $U_{0} $ of S-09 is much smaller than that of cuprates superconductors (shown in Fig. 3) and it is comparable with temperature, the assumption $T\ll U$ can not be satisfied and the temperature dependence of prefactor should be considered.
Fig. 3 presents the $U_{0}(H)$ and $q(H)$ obtained from experimental data fits using eq. (3) at different fields. The $U_{0}(H)$ shows a power law ($U_{0}(H)\sim H^{-\alpha }$) field dependence for both directions. For $H\Vert ab$, $\alpha =0.12\pm 0.02$ for $\mu _{0}H<5T$ and $\alpha =1.70\pm
0.30$ for $\mu _{0}H>5T$; For $H\Vert c$, $\alpha =0.21\pm 0.03$ for $\mu
_{0}H<5T$ and $\alpha =1.34\pm 0.16$ for $\mu _{0}H>5T$. The weak field dependence of $U_{0}(H)$ in low field for both orientations suggests that single-vortex pinning dominates in this region.[@Blatter] The vortex spacing becomes significantly smaller than penetration depth in higher fields and we expect a crossover to a collective-pinning regime where the activation energy becomes strongly dependent on the field, i.e., the collective creep dominance.[@Yeshurun] Because $\alpha $ is larger than $1$ at this regime, it is possible that the flux lines are pinned by the collective point defects in the high field region.[@Chin] Similar crossover has been observed in Nd(O,F)FeAs single crystal.[@Jaroszynski2] The values of $q$ change from about $1$ for $H\Vert c$ to $2$ for $H\Vert ab$, independent on the intensity of field for both directions. The value of $q=2$ has also been observed in many cuprates superconductors.[@Zhang; @YZ1]$^{,}$[@Zhang; @YZ2]$^{,}$[@Wang]
It should be noted that although the Fe(Te,S) sample has low volume fraction, it should not have obvious effect on the analysis of TAFF. Due to the inhomogeneity of sample, the conductivity of sample can be expressed as $\sigma =\sigma _{sc}+\sigma _{normal}$, where $\sigma _{sc}$ is the conductivity in superconducting state and $\sigma _{normal}$ is the conductivity of normal state. When $T<T_{c,zero}$, $\sigma _{sc}$ is infinite and thus $\sigma =\sigma _{sc}=\infty $, i.e., $\rho =0$ and the normal state part of sample is short-circuited. On the other hand, the resistivity in the TAFF regime is about one to three orders of magnitude less than normal state[@Palstra1]$^{,}$[@Palstra2]. It means that although the conductivity $\sigma _{sc}$ in this range is finite, it is still much larger than $\sigma _{normal}$, and we can obtain $\sigma
\approx \sigma _{sc}$.
The Hall effect in the mixed state gives important insight in the flux flow. In the following section, we will discuss the vortex dynamics of S-09 in flux flow region. The field dependence of the longitudinal resistivity $\rho
_{xx}(H)$ for $H//c$ is shown in Fig. 4(a). Superconductivity is suppressed by increasing magnetic field up to 35 T and the transition of $\rho _{xx}(H)$ are shifted to lower magnetic fields at higher temperature. At the lowest measuring temperature ($T=0.3K$), normal state is recovered from superconducting state when field is up to 30 T. Fig. 4(b) shows the Hall resistivity at $T\leqslant 10K$. It can be seen that $\rho _{xy}(H)=0$ in low field when temperature is below $T_{c}$. At higher field region close to the superconducting transition, the absolute values of Hall resistivity increase and gradually reach the $\rho _{xy}(H)$ curve obtained in the normal state at temperatures slightly higher than $T_{c}$. The $\rho
_{xy}(H) $ in the mixed state shifts with increasing temperature to lower fields. All of these features are similar to the $\rho _{xx}(H)$ results. On the other hand, the normal state $\rho _{xy}(H)$ curves are very close to linear, except for low field parts where there is slight nonlinearity with negative curvatures that can be ascribed to skew scattering due to excess Fe.[@Lei; @HC2]
The sign of the Hall resistivity is positive in the mixed state as well as in the normal state indicating hole type carriers. There is no sign reversal for $\rho _{xy}(H)$ in the mixed state, which is a typical behavior for hole- and electron-type cuprate superconductors below $T_{c}$.[@Hagen]$^{,}$[@Cagigal] Because Hall conductivity $\sigma _{xy}(H)$ \[$=\rho
_{xy}(H)/(\rho _{xx}(H)^{2}+\rho _{xy}(H)^{2})\cong \rho _{xy}(H)/\rho
_{xx}(H)^{2}$, when $\rho _{xx}(H)\gg |\rho _{xy}(H)|$\] is usually insensitive to disorder by a general argument of the vortex dynamics, it is convenient to discuss the Hall results using $\sigma _{xy}(H)$.[Samoilov]{}$^{,}$[@Vinokur] There are two contributions to the $\sigma
_{xy}(H)$ in the mixed state: $$\sigma _{xy}(H)=\sigma _{xy,n}(H)+\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$$where $\sigma _{xy,n}(H)$ is the conductivity of normal quasiparticles that experience a Lorentz force inside and around the vortex core. This term has the same sign as the normal state and is proportional to H. The second term $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$ is an anomalous contribution due to the motion of vortices parallel to the electrical current density $\mathbf{j}$.
From the theory based on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation, $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)\varpropto 1/H$ and it could have a sign opposite to that of $\sigma _{xy,n}(H)$.[@Dorsey]$^{,}$[@Kopnin] Furthermore, the $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$ is the dominant term at low field but at higher field $\sigma _{xy,n}(H)$ are important and could dominate over $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$. Therefore, if $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$ has a different sign when compared to $\sigma _{xy,n}(H)$, it is possible to observe a sign reversal in the Hall effect in the superconducting state,[@Dorsey]$^{,}$[@Kopnin] as for example in YBCO.[@Ginsberg] On the other hand, it can be easily seen in Fig. 5(a) that the Hall conductivity decreases with increasing field and the field dependence of $\sigma _{xy}(H)$ changes more rapidly than $1/H$. This suggests that $\sigma _{xy}(H)$ is not independent of disorder in the strong pinning regime.[@Matsuda] According to the theory proposed by Fukuyama, Ebisawa, and Tsuzuki (FET),[@Fukuyama] the sign of $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$ is given by the sign of $sgn(e)\partial N(\mu )/\partial \mu |_{\mu =E_{F}}$, where $sgn(e)$ is the sign of the carrier, $N(\mu )$ is the density of states, $\mu $ is the chemical potential, and $E_{F}$ is the Fermi energy. On the other hand, in the phenomenological theory based on Ginsburg-Landau equation and its gauge invariance,[@Aronov] the sign of the $\sigma
_{xy,sc}(H)$ is determined by the signs of $sgn(e)\partial \ln
T_{c}/\partial \mu $. In any case, the sign of the Hall effect in the mixed state depends on the details of the band structure. For a complicated Fermi surface, the signs of $\sigma _{xy,sc}(H)$ may be different from that of $\sigma _{xy,n}(H)$. Therefore, contrary to cuprate superconductors, the difference of Fermi surface may be one origin of absence of sign reversal in Fe(Te,S). On the other hand, cuprate superconductors are d-wave superconductors, whereas, for Fe(Te,S), the gap function is unknown, but is most likely s-wave. This difference could be another origin of different contribution of the vortex cores to the Hall conductivity.[@Nagaoka]
At high magnetic fields, we observe $|\rho _{xy}(H)|=A\rho _{xx}(H)^{\beta }$ scaling (Fig. 4(b)). The values of $\beta $ are in the range of $0.9-1.0$ and increase slightly with temperature. A phenomenological model considering the effect of pinning on the Hall resistivity proposed by Vinokur et al.,[@Vinokur] gives the scaling index $\beta =2$ which, as well as Hall conductivity, is independent on the degree of disorder. This is believed to be a general feature of any vortex state with disorder dominated dynamics. On the other hand, based on the normal core model proposed by Bardeen and Stephen,[@Bardeen] Wang, Dong, and Ting (WDT),[@Wang; @ZD1]$^{,}$[Wang ZD2]{} developed a theory for the Hall effect that includes both pinning and thermal fluctuations. In the WDT theory the scaling behavior is explained by taking into account the backflow current of vortices due to pinning. Thereby $\beta $ changes from 2 to 1.5 as the pinning strength increases.[@Wang; @ZD2] This has been observed in irradiated YBCO samples, where $\beta $ was found to decrease from 1.5 compared to 2 after irradiation,[@Kang] and in HgBa$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{6+x}$ thin films with columnar defects, where $\beta $ changes from 1.0 to 1.2 with increasing the field.[@Kang2] Therefore, small values of $\beta $ in S-09 (inset of Fig. 4(b)) may be connected with the strong pinning strength due to the considerably large concentration of defects in Fe$_{1+y}$(Te$_{1-x}$S$_{x}$)$_{z}$.[@Hu; @RW]
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we investigated the resistive TAFF and flux flow Hall effect of Fe$_{1.14(1)}$(Te$_{0.91(2)}$S$_{0.09(2)}$)$_{z}$ single crystal in high and stable magnetic fields up to 35 T. TAFF behavior could be understood within the framework of modified Arrhenius relation assuming that the prefactor $\rho _{0f}$ is temperature-dependent while $\rho _{c}$ is temperature-independent, and $U(T,H)=U_{0}(H)(1-t)^{q}$, $q$ can be set as a free parameter for fitting not limited to 1. There is a crossover from single-vortex pinning region to collective creep region for both field direction. Furthermore, $q$ changes from 1 to 2 when magnetic field is rotated along ab plane to c axis but it is not sensitive to the magnitude of magnetic field below 35T. Hall and longitudinal resistivity in mixed state indicate that there is no Hall sign change, as opposed to cuprate superconductors. We observed scaling behavior $|\rho _{xy}(H)|=A\rho
_{xx}(H)^{\beta }$ with the scaling exponent $\beta $ about $1$, which may be due to strong pinning strength in considerably disordered in Fe$_{1+y}$(Te$_{1-x}$S$_{x}$)$_{z}$ system.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank T. P. Murphy and J. B. Warren for experimental support at NHMFL and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). This work was carried out at BNL, which is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Brookhaven Science Associates DE-Ac02-98CH10886. This work was in part supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences as part of the Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC), Center for Emergent Superconductivity (CES). A portion of this work was performed at NHMFL, which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-0084173, by the State of Florida, and by the U.S. Department of Energy.
$^{\ast }$Present address: Ames Laboratory US DOE and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
[99]{} Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. **130**, 3296 (2008).
Z. A. Ren, W. Lu, J. Yang, W. Yi, X. L. Shen, C. Z. Li, G. C. Che, X. L. Dong, L. L. Sun, F. Zhou, and Z. X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. Lett. **25**, 2215 (2008).
H.-H. Wen, G. Mu, L. Fang, H. Yang, and X. Y. Zhu, EPL **82**, 17009 (2008).
M. Rotter, M. Tegel, and D. Johrendt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 107006 (2008).
X. C. Wang, Q. Q. Liu, Y. X. Lv, W. B. Gao, L. X. Yang, R. C. Yu, F. Y. Li, and C. Q. Jin, Solid State Commun. **148**, 538 (2008).
F. C. Hsu, J. Y. Luo, K. W. Yeh, T. K. Chen, T. W. Huang, P. M. Wu, Y. C. Lee, Y. L. Huang, Y. Y. Chu, D. C. Yan, and M. K. Wu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **105**, 14262 (2008).
G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys. **66**, 1125 (1994).
K. A. Müller, M. Takashige, and J. G. Bednorz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1143 (1987).
T. T. M. Palstra, B. Batlogg, L. F. Schneemeyer, and J. V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 1662 (1988).
M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 1415 (1989).
H. Yang, C. Ren, L. Shan, and H. H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 092504 (2008).
H. Yang, H. Q. Luo, Z. S. Wang, and H.-H. Wen, Appl. Phys. Lett. **93**, 142506 (2008).
R. Prozorov, N. Ni, M. A. Tanatar, V. G. Kogan, R. T. Gordon, C. Martin, E. C. Blomberg, P. Prommapan, J. Q. Yan, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 224506 (2008).
J. Jaroszynski, S. C. Riggs, F. Hunte, A. Gurevich, D. C. Larbalestier, G. S. Boebinger, F. F. Balakirev, A. Migliori, Z. A. Ren, W. Lu, J. Yang, X. L. Shen, X. L. Dong, Z. X. Zhao, R. Jin, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. K. Christen, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 064511 (2008).
K.-W. Yeh, T. W. Huang, Y. L. Huang, T. K. Chen, F. C. Hsu, P. M. Wu, Y. C. Lee, Y. Y. Chu, C. L. Chen, J. Y. Luo, D. C. Yan, and M. K. Wu, EPL **84**, 37002 (2008).
Y. Mizuguchi, F. Tomioka, S. Tsuda, T. Yamaguchi, and Y. Takano, Appl. Phys. Lett. **94**, 012503 (2009).
B. C. Sales, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, R. Y. Jin, D. Mandrus, and Y. Mozharivskyj, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 094521 (2009).
S. Medvedev, T. M. McQueen, I. A. Troyan, T. Palasyuk, M. I. Eremets, R. J. Cava, S. Naghavi, F. Casper, V. Ksenofontov, G.Wortmann, and C. Felser, Nature Mater. **8**, 630 (2009).
T. Taen, Y. Tsuchiya, Y. Nakajima, and T. Tamegai, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 092502 (2009).
E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, V. Pomjakushin, M. Bendele, and R. Khasanov, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 024517 (2009).
T. M. McQueen, Q. Huang, V. Ksenofontov, C. Felser, Q. Xu, H. Zandbergen, Y. S. Hor, J. Allred, A. J. Williams, D. Qu, J. Checkelsky, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 014522 (2009).
M. H. Fang, J. H. Yang, F. F. Balakirev, Y. Kohama, J. Singleton, B. Qian, Z. Q. Mao, H. D. Wang, and H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 020509 (R) (2010).
R. W. Hu, E. S. Bozin, J. B. Warren, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 214514 (2009).
H. C. Lei, R. W. Hu, E. S. Choi, J. B. Warren, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 094518 (2010).
C. S. Yadav and P. L. Paulose, New J. Phys. **11** 103046 (2009).
C. S. Yadav and P. L. Paulose, arXiv:1002.0248v1 (2010).
B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. **16**, 242 (1965).
S. J. Hagen, A. W. Smith, M. Rajeswari, J. L. Peng, Z. Y. Li, R. L. Greene, S. N. Mao, X. X. Xi, S. Bhattacharya, Qi Li, and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 1064 (1993).
A. W. Smith, T. W. Clinton, C. C. Tsuei, and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 12927 (1994).
S. Bhattacharya, M. J. Higgins, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, 1699 (1994).
J. Bardeen and M. J. Stephen, Phys. Rev. **140**, A1197 (1965).
P. Nozières and W. F. Vinen, Philos. Mag. **14**, 667 (1966).
A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B **46**, 8376 (1992).
N. B. Kopnin, B. I. Ivlev, and V. A. Kalatsky, J. Low Temp. Phys. **90**, 1 (1993).
A. G. Aronov, S. Hikami, and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 3880 (1995).
A. van Otterlo, M. Feigel’man, V. Geshkenbein, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 3736 (1995).
J. Luo, T. P. Orlando, J. M. Graybeal, X. D. Wu, and R. Muenchausen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 690 (1992).
A. V. Samoilov, A. Legris, F. Rullier-Albenque, P. Lejay, S. Bouffard, Z. G. Ivanov, and L.-G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 2351 (1995).
T. T. M. Palstra, B. Batlogg, R. B. van Dover, I. F. Schneemeyer, and J. V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. B **41**, 6621 (1990).
E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **58**, 1465 (1995).
Y. Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. F. Lu, H. H. Wen, J. F. de Marneffe, R. Deltour, A. G. M. Jansen, and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 052502 (2005).
Y. Z. Zhang, H. H. Wen, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 144521 (2006).
Y. Yeshurun and A. P. Malozemoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. **60**, 2202 (1988).
C. C. Chin and T. Morishita, Physica C **207**, 37 (1993).
J. Jaroszynski, F. Hunte, L. Balicas, Y.-J. Jo, I. Raičević, A. Gurevich, D. C. Larbalestier, F. F. Balakirev, L. Fang, P. Cheng, Y. Jia, and H. H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 174523 (2008).
Z. H. Wang and X. W. Cao, Solid State Commun. **109**, 709 (1999).
H. C. Lei, R. W. Hu, E. S. Choi, J. B. Warren, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 184522 (2010).
M. Cagigal, J. Fontcuberta, M. A. Crusellas, J. L. Vicent, and S. Pinol, Physica C **248**, 155 (1995).
V. M. Vinokur, V. B. Geshkenbein, M. V. Feigel’man, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 1242 (1993).
D. M. Ginsberg and J. T. Manson, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 515 (1995).
Y. Matsuda, T. Nagaoka, G. Suzuki, K. Kumagai, M. Suzuki, M. Machida, M. Sera, M. Hiroi, and N. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B **52**, 15749 (1995).
H. Fukuyama, H. Ebisawa, and T. Tsuzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. **46**, 1028 (1971).
T. Nagaoka, Y. Matsuda, H. Obara, A. Sawa, T. Terashima, I. Chong, M. Takano, and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 3594 (1998).
Z. D. Wang and C. S. Ting, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 3618 (1991).
Z. D. Wang, J. Dong, and C. S. Ting, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 3875 (1994).
W. N. Kang, D. H. Kim, S. Y. Shim, J. H. Park, T. S. Hahn, S. S. Choi, W. C. Lee, J. D. Hettinger, K. E. Gray, and B. Glagola, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 2993 (1996).
W. N. Kang, B. W. Kang, Q. Y. Chen, J. Z. Wu, S. H. Yun, and A. Gapud, J. Z. Qu, W. K. Chu, D. K. Christen, R. Kerchner, and C. W. Chu, Phys. Rev. B **59**, R9031 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the strong-coupling (SC) interaction between two like-charged membranes of finite thickness embedded in a medium of higher dielectric constant. A generalized SC theory is applied along with extensive Monte-Carlo simulations to study the image charge effects induced by multiple dielectric discontinuities in this system. These effects lead to strong counterion crowding in the central region of the inter-surface space upon increasing the solvent/membrane dielectric mismatch and change the membrane interactions from attractive to repulsive at small separations. These features agree quantitatively with the SC theory at elevated couplings or dielectric mismatch where the correlation hole around counterions is larger than the thickness of the central counterion layer.'
author:
- 'Y.S. Jho'
- 'M. Kanduč'
- 'A. Naji'
- 'R. Podgornik'
- 'M.W. Kim'
- 'P.A. Pincus'
title: Strong Coupling Electrostatics in the Presence of Dielectric Inhomogeneities
---
Biological macromolecules such as DNA, lipid membranes and proteins are highly charged in water. Electrostatic interactions play a key role in determining structure, phase behavior and specific functioning of these macroions in aqueous biological media [@Andelman]. One particular trait of these systems is that their behavior is dominated, to a large extent, by neutralizing counterions that surround them in a diffuse ionic cloud. When present at higher valencies, these counterions are known to generate strong electrostatic attractions between like-charged macroions as observed in numerous experiments and simulations [@Netz-review]. These observations stand in stark contrast with the traditional mean-field or Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) theories, which predict purely repulsive forces [@Andelman].
Consequently, there have been a number of attempts to assess corrections to the PB theory using, [*e.g.*]{}, correlated density fluctuations around the mean-field distribution or additional non-electrostatic interactions [@refs:fluctuations; @andelman:non-ele]. An alternative approach has been developed recently [@Rouzina; @shklovskii; @Levin; @Netz; @Netz-review; @Netz-review2], which leads to the so-called strong-coupling (SC) theory; it is known to become exact in the limit of high macroion charge, large counterion valency, low medium dielectric constant or low temperature, where the PB theory breaks down.
While the strong-coupling phenomena are well-understood in the framework of the SC theory, it still remains a challenge to predict the behavior of realistic biophysical systems, which, among other things, exhibit highly inhomogeneous dielectric structure. The large difference in static dielectric constants of water ($\varepsilon
\simeq 80$), being the most common solvent, and the non-polar moieties ($\varepsilon \simeq 2-5$), comprising the molecular interiors of proteins, lipid membranes and DNA, leads to substantial differences in interactions between charges in most common biological environments. Moreover, the presence of a combination of both aqueous and hydrocarbon regions in the immediate surrounding (as, [*e.g.*]{}, in the case of two or more interacting lipid membranes) leads to a more complex pattern of [*image charges*]{} that are induced by multiple dielectric discontinuities in the system.
In this Letter, we consider a system of two like-charged membranes of finite thickness in a medium of higher dielectric constant and determine the counterion distribution and the interaction between the membranes by means of both Monte-Carlo simulations and a generalized SC theory. Recent studies show that image interactions in highly charged systems could result in remarkable effects such as in the surface adsorption of flexible polyelectrolytes [@joanny] and the charge inversion of macroions [@shklovskii-image]. In the slab geometry, the dielectric discontinuity effects have been studied in both weak-coupling [@Netz-review2; @bratko-kjellander; @menes2000; @Andre2002; @Ha2005; @Rudi2007] and strong-coupling regimes [@Netz-review2; @Andre2002; @Rudi2007; @joys2007]. These works however deal with one or two semi-infinite slabs and do not consider the finite thickness of the membranes or the multitude of images produced in the two-slab system. While accounting only for the first-order images serves as an accurate approximation at low couplings [@Netz-review2; @bratko-kjellander; @Andre2002], the same approximation as we show breaks down on a qualitative level at elevated couplings, where the higher-order induced images play an essential role. For vanishing membrane thickness (no dielectric discontinuity), the long-range SC attraction mediated by counterions is dominant and leads to a tightly bound state between two like-charged membranes [@Netz; @Netz-review2]. This well-known picture changes as the membrane thickness and the solvent/membrane dielectric mismatch increase, leading to enhanced repulsive (and even change from attractive to repulsive) interaction between membranes at small separations. This SC repulsion depends strongly on the dielectric mismatch contrary to the (repulsive) PB interaction which is not affected by the image charges.
Let us consider two charged parallel membranes of thickness $b$ and dielectric constant $\varepsilon_1$ with their inner surfaces being located at $z=\pm a$ and bearing uniform charge density $-\sigma e $ (Fig. \[fig:schematic\]). The system is immersed in a solution of dielectric constant $\varepsilon_2$ containing $+q$-valent counterions. Apart from the direct contribution from the charged surfaces, the electrostatic potential experienced by each counterion also involves contributions from image charges induced at each solvent/membrane interface. We shall consider the contribution from all image charges in the present geometry. To this end, we have developed a new numerical algorithm that enables one to compute efficiently the electrostatic interactions in the presence of multiple dielectric discontinuities [@joys2008]. Assuming two-dimensional lateral periodicity (in the plane of the membranes), we combine the image charge method with the MMM2D summation technique to obtain fast-converging series for evaluating Coulombic interactions [@Arnold2002; @joys2007].
![Schematic view of two charged membranes and counterions in between. Here $2a$ is the closest-approach distance (leaving out the counterion diameter from the actual distance) and counterion excluded-volume repulsions are neglected. []{data-label="fig:schematic"}](Fig1new.eps){width="5.2cm"}
The state of the system may be described in terms of the following dimensionless parameters: the [*dielectric jump parameter*]{} $\Delta =
(\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_1)/(\varepsilon_2+\varepsilon_1)$, the rescaled half-distance $\tilde a =a/\mu$, the rescaled thickness $\tilde
b=b/\mu$, and the [*electrostatic coupling parameter*]{} $\Xi=q^2\ell_{\mathrm{B}}/\mu$, where $\mu = 1/(2\pi q
\ell_{\mathrm{B}} \sigma)$ is the so-called Gouy-Chapman length and $\ell_{\mathrm{B}}=e^2/(4\pi \varepsilon_2 \varepsilon_0
k_{\mathrm{B}}T)$ is the Bjerrum length [@Andelman; @Netz-review]. The coupling parameter $\Xi$ determines the strength of electrostatic correlations: for dielectrically homogeneous systems, the SC behavior dominates typically for $\Xi > 10$, while the PB description is found to be valid at small couplings $\Xi<1$ [@Netz-review; @Netz; @Netz-review2].
For a typical membrane with $\sigma e\simeq
1\frac{e}{\mathrm{nm}^2}$ in water ($\varepsilon_2\simeq 80$ at room temperature), we have $\Xi\simeq 3, 25, 85$ and 200 by choosing counterion valency as $q=1,\ldots, 4$, respectively. Higher couplings may be obtained by using less dielectric solvents ([*e.g.*]{}, mixtures containing methanol, $\varepsilon_2\simeq 33$) since $\Xi\sim 1/\varepsilon_2^2$. Here we shall focus mainly on the SC regime with large $\Xi$ and vary $\Delta$ (at fixed $\varepsilon_2 = 80$) in the range $\Delta=0$ (no discontinuity, $\varepsilon_1 = 80$) to $\Delta=0.95$ (water/hydrocarbon interface, $\varepsilon_1 = 2$).
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\]a, we show simulated counterion density profiles between two membranes of thickness $b/\mu=100$ and coupling parameter $\Xi=100$ as $\Delta$ varies (symbols). As seen, counterions are strongly depleted from the vicinity of the charged surfaces and accumulate around the mid-plane as the dielectric mismatch is increased–a trend observed also in studies that include only the first induced images [@Netz-review2; @bratko-kjellander]. This behavior is intimately connected with the electrostatic correlations, [*i.e.*]{}, it will be absent in the PB limit $\Xi\rightarrow 0$ (see Fig. \[fig:fig2\]c). Intuitively, for $\varepsilon_2>\varepsilon_1$ counterions have the same sign as their images and the counterion-image repulsion provides the mechanism for the foregoing observation in the SC regime.
In general, the origin of SC phenomena goes back to the fact that at large couplings, $\Xi\gg 1$, counterions strongly repel each other and tend to form a highly correlated quasi-2D layer close to a charged surface. Thus, individual ions become increasingly “isolated” as they are surrounded by a large correlation hole of size $a_\bot^2 \sim q/\sigma$ (or $a_\bot/\mu
\sim \sqrt{\Xi}$) as follows from the local electroneutrality condition [@Netz-review2]. As a result, the single-particle interaction between individual counterions (including their own images) and the charged membranes, $u(\tilde z)$, is expected to dominate and lead to a barometric number density profile, $ \rho_{\mathrm{SC}}( z)$, for counterions; in rescaled units $\tilde \rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(\tilde z) \equiv \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(z)}{4\pi\ell_{\mathrm{B}}\sigma^2} = A(\tilde a)\, e^{-u(\tilde z)}$, where $\tilde z = z/\mu$ and $1/A(\tilde a)=\int_{-\tilde a}^{\tilde a}{\mathrm{d}}\tilde z\,\tilde
\rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(\tilde z)$. For $\Delta=0$, this result indeed follows as an exact limiting ($\Xi\rightarrow \infty$) result from a systematic $1/\Xi$-expansion [@Netz-review; @Netz], giving a [*uniform*]{} profile $\tilde \rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(\tilde z) =
\frac{1}{2\tilde a}$ (with $u(\tilde z)=0$ and $A(\tilde a)=\frac{1}{2\tilde
a}$) in agreement with our simulations (horizontal line in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]a). Higher-order terms in general involve corrections due to counterion-counterion interactions at finite $\Xi$ [@Netz].
For an inhomogeneous system with $\Delta>0$, we generalize the $1/\Xi$-expansion method by taking into account the presence of all four dielectric boundaries (Fig. \[fig:schematic\]) and obtain the leading-order ($\Xi\rightarrow \infty$) SC density profile as $$\tilde \rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(\tilde{z}) = A(\tilde a) ~e^{ -\Xi \int_{0}^{\infty}\!{\mathrm{d}} Q\,
\frac{\cosh 2Q\tilde{z}}
{\Delta_Q^{-1}e^{2Q\tilde a}-\Delta_Q \,e^{-2Q\tilde a}}},
\label{eq:SC_density}$$ where $\Delta_Q =
\Delta\frac{1-\exp(-2Q\tilde b)}{1-\Delta^2\exp(-2Q\tilde b)}$. This result is plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]a (solid lines) and is in excellent agreement with our data (symbols) for all dielectric jump parameters at $\Xi=100$. Qualitatively, the bellshaped profiles may be approximated for large $b$ by the first-image expression $$\tilde \rho_{\mathrm{SC}}(\tilde{z}) \simeq A(\tilde a)\,e^{-\frac{\Delta\Xi}{2}\frac{\tilde a}{\tilde a^2-\tilde z^2}}.
\label{eq:approx_density}$$
{width="16.cm"}
The SC pressure acting on each membrane may be calculated from $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{SC}}\equiv
P_{\mathrm{SC}}/(2\pi\ell_{\mathrm{B}}\sigma^2 k_{\mathrm{B}}T) =-\partial
\tilde{\mathcal F}_{\mathrm{SC}}/\partial \tilde{a}$ by evaluating the SC free energy $\tilde{\mathcal F}_{\mathrm{SC}}$ (per $k_{\mathrm{B}}T$ and number of counterions) using standard SC methods [@Netz-review2; @Rudi2007]; hence $$\tilde{\mathcal F}_{\mathrm{SC}} = \tilde{a} - \ln \int_{0}^{\tilde{a}}\!{\mathrm{d}}\tilde{z}\,\,
e^{ -\Xi \int_{0}^{\infty}{\mathrm{d}} Q
\frac{\cosh 2Q\tilde{z}+\Delta_Q \,e^{-2Q\tilde{a}}}
{\Delta_Q^{-1}e^{2Q\tilde a}-\Delta_Q \,e^{-2Q\tilde a}}}.
\label{eq:SC-free}$$ The first term is the SC energetic attraction induced by single counterions between the two surfaces when there are no images ($\Delta=0$) [@Netz; @Netz-review2]. The second term includes the counterion confinement entropy as well as the image charge contributions. For $\Delta=0$, this second term reduces to the entropic $\ln
\tilde a$ term as expected and the SC pressure follows as $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{SC}} = -1+1/\tilde a$, featuring repulsion at small separation, $a<a_\ast$, and attraction at large separation, $a>a_\ast$, with $a_\ast/\mu=1$ being the stable equilibrium (zero-pressure) half-distance. Upon increasing $\Delta$, the inter-membrane pressure becomes increasingly more repulsive at small separations due to the counterion-image repulsions; it may be increased by up to an order of magnitude as shown by the data in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]b (symbols). This behavior is captured quantitatively by the SC pressure, $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{SC}}$ (solid lines, obtained from Eq. (\[eq:SC-free\])) for high enough couplings at all values of the dielectric jump.
So far, we have considered only small membrane separations $a\sim \mu$, where good agreement with the SC predictions is achieved for $\Xi\sim 100$ and larger couplings. Formally, the SC theory is exact for all separations when $\Xi\rightarrow \infty$. But for finite $\Xi$ as is the case in simulations, this limiting single-particle description is expected to perform poorly at large separations, where the sub-leading counterion-counterion interactions play a more significant role [@Netz]. For $\Delta=0$, the SC validity regime is identified as $a \ll a_\bot$ or $\tilde a\ll \sqrt{\Xi}$ [@Netz-review; @Netz-review2], [*i.e.*]{}, when the surface separation is smaller than the counterion spacing, $a_\bot$, defined above. In the presence of images, counterions are crowded in a thin layer of thickness (or the full width at half maximum) $\delta_z<a$ around the mid-plane (Fig. \[fig:fig2\]a). From Eq. (\[eq:approx\_density\]) the thickness $\delta_z$ may be estimated as $\delta_z = a[1-(1+2a\ln 2/\Xi\Delta)^{-1}]^{1/2}$. The SC theory is expected to hold when $a_\bot$ is larger than $\delta_z$, [*i.e.*]{}, when counterions form a quasi-2D layer. Hence, we find the generalized criterion $\delta_z \ll a_\bot$ or (in rescaled units) $$\tilde a^3 \ll \tilde a\,\Xi + \Delta\,\Xi^2.
\label{eq:criterion}$$ Thus, for the SC theory to be valid at larger $a$, a larger coupling parameter or dielectric mismatch is needed. Moreover, this predicts that the SC theory remains valid for a [*larger*]{} range of separations when $\Delta$ is nonzero.
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\]c we show the mid-plane density $\tilde \rho(0)$ as a function of $\Xi$ for a larger half-distance $a/\mu =7$. The SC theory (solid lines) is no more valid for $\Xi\lesssim 100$, largely overestimating the simulated density (symbols). This reflects the fact that counterion-counterion repulsions absent in the leading-order theory are not negligible and tend to drive the counterions away from the crowded mid-plane toward the surfaces. The same trend also transpires in the pressure data for $a/\mu =7$ (Fig. \[fig:fig3\]a), where good agreement is obtained only for $\Xi\gtrsim 500$.
The theoretical and numerical results are generally found to be in better agreement for larger $\Delta$ as expected from Eq. (\[eq:criterion\]); see Figs. \[fig:fig2\]b (inset), \[fig:fig2\]c and \[fig:fig3\]a (inset). The change from attractive to repulsive interaction upon increasing $\Delta$ is more clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]a.
{width="16.cm"}
In the presence of dielectric inhomogeneities not only the strength of the inter-membrane repulsion becomes larger but also its range increases, pushing the attraction regime and the equilibrium separation, $a_\ast$, to larger distances. When $\Delta=0$, as noted above, $\tilde a_\ast=a_\ast/\mu=1$ in agreement with our simulations in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]b. For $\Delta>0$, $\tilde a_\ast$ shows a monotonic increase with the coupling parameter. While the qualitative trend is reproduced by the SC theory, the quantitative agreement between simulated $\tilde a_\ast$ (symbols) and the theoretical predictions (solid lines) is obtained only for small to intermediate $\Delta$. In general, the SC theory underestimates the $\tilde a_\ast$ values (by $\lesssim 20$% in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]b). This discrepancy reflects the interplay between counterion-image repulsions (included in both theory and simulations) and counterion-counterion repulsions (included only in the simulations): as $\Delta$ increases, the former grows pushing $a_\ast$ to larger values beyond the regime of validity of the SC theory (Eq. (\[eq:criterion\])), where the latter effects need to be accounted for as well. A similar trend is found when membrane thickness is increased.
Note that while the weak-coupling results are less sensitive to the dielectric jump effects, a remarkable dependence on $\Delta$ is found in the SC regime (Figs. \[fig:fig2\]b-c and \[fig:fig3\]a). Since the SC interactions are long-ranged (within the regime defined by Eq. (\[eq:criterion\])), a larger number of induced images are needed to be taken into account in the SC regime. The first-order-image approximation [@Netz-review2; @bratko-kjellander] fails qualitatively at high couplings and particularly for thick membranes as it always predicts a strong attraction and a remarkably different (smaller) $a_\ast$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]c.
In conclusion, we have shown that the generalized SC theory can explain the effects of dielectric inhomogeneity in the two-slab system at elevated couplings (specified by an extended SC criterion), where counterions are strongly depleted from the interfacial regions leading to enhanced repulsive inter-membrane interactions. Thus in contrast to weakly coupled systems, the electrostatics of highly coupled systems can be affected significantly by the image charges. As an experimentally measurable effect, the SC images may lead to swelling of the multilamellar lipid arrays upon changing the solvent dielectric constant. In reality, however, one deals with additional factors such as smooth dielectric profiles and discrete surface charges [@Andre2002; @Ha2005; @joys2007], which offer interesting problems for a more detailed study in the future.
Y.S.J., P.A.P. and M.W.K. acknowledge funds from the National Science Foundation (Grants DMR-0503347, DMR-0710521) and MRSEC NSF DMR-0520415. Y.S.J. and M.W.K. have been supported by the KISTEP (Grant I-03-064) and the Korea Health 21 R&D Project, and M.K. and R.P. by the Agency for Research and Development of Slovenia (Grants P1-0055(C), Z1-7171, L2-7080).
[99]{} W.C.K. Poon and D. Andelman, [*Soft Condensed Matter Physics in Molecular and Cell Biology*]{} (Taylor & Francis, 2006).
H. Boroudjerdi, Y.-W. Kim, A. Naji, R.R. Netz, X. Schlagberger, and A. Serr, Phys. Rep. [**416**]{}, 129 (2005).
R. Podgornik and B. [Ž]{}ek[š]{}, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2 [**84**]{}, 611 (1988); P.A. Pincus and S.A. Safran, Europhys. Lett. [**42**]{}, 103 (1998); see also [@Netz-review; @Netz] and references therein. Y. Burak and D. Andelman, J. Chem. Phys. [**114**]{}, 3271 (2001).
I. Rouzina and V.A. Bloomfield, J. Phys. Chem. [**100**]{}, 9977 (1996).
A.Y. Grosberg, T.T. Nguyen and B.I. Shklovskii, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 329 (2006).
Y. Levin, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**65**]{}, 1577 (2002).
R.R. Netz, Eur. Phys. J. E [**5**]{}, 557 (2001); A.G. Moreira and R.R. Netz, [*ibid*]{} [**8**]{}, 33 (2002).
A. Naji, S. Jungblut, A.G. Moreira and R.R. Netz, Physica A, [**352**]{}, 131 (2005).
R.R. Netz and J.-F. Joanny, Macromolecules [**32**]{}, 9013 (1999); [**32**]{}, 9026 (1999).
T.T. Nguyen, A.Yu. Grosberg and B.I. Shklovskii, J. Chem. Phys. [**113**]{}, 1110 (2000); T.T. Nguyen and B.I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 041407 (2001).
D. Bratko, B. Jönsson and H. Wennerström, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**128**]{}, 449 (1986); R. Kjellander and S. Mar[č]{}elja, [*ibid*]{} [**112**]{}, 49 (1984).
R. Menes, P.A. Pincus and B. Stein, Phys. Rev. E [**62**]{}, 2981 (2000); J. Schmit, R. Menes and P.A. Pincus, [*ibid*]{} [**66**]{}, 061502 (2002).
A.G. Moreira and R.R. Netz, Europhys. Lett. [**57**]{}, 911 (2002).
S. Taheri-Araghi and B.-Y. Ha, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 021508 (2005).
M. Kandu[č]{} and R. Podgornik, Eur. Phys. J. E [**23**]{}, 265 (2007).
Y.S. Jho, G. Park, C.S. Chang, P.A. Pincus and M.W. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 011920 (2007).
Y.S. Jho, F.L.H. Brown, M.W. Kim, P. Pincus, preprint.
A. Arnold and C. Holm, J. Chem. Phys. [**148**]{}, 327 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The bizarre behaviour of the apparent (black hole and cosmological) horizons of the McVittie spacetime is discussed using, as an analogy, the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler spacetime (which is a special case of McVittie anyway). For a dust-dominated “background” universe, a black hole cannot exist at early times because its (apparent) horizon would be larger than the cosmological (apparent) horizon. A phantom-dominated “background” universe causes this situation, and the horizon behaviour, to be time-reversed.'
author:
- Valerio Faraoni
- 'Andres F. Zambrano Moreno'
- Roshina Nandra
title: Making sense of the bizarre behaviour of horizons in the McVittie spacetime
---
Introduction
============
Cosmology and black holes as seen through the eyes of general relativity come together in the investigation of a dynamical black hole embedded in a cosmological background. The interplay between the cosmic dynamics and the black hole gives rise to interesting phenomena and can reveal some unexpected features of the underlying theory of gravity. In this work we restrict our attention, for simplicity, to spherically symmetric systems. The prototypical solution of the Einstein equations representing a black hole embedded in a cosmological spacetime is the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution. This metric is special since it admits a timelike Killing vector and is, therefore, static in the region between the black hole horizon and the de Sitter (cosmological) horizon. A less well known solution is the 1933 McVittie solution [@McVittie], which is a generalization of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution. In this case the black hole is embedded in a general Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) background, so that the region between the black hole horizon and cosmological horizon need not be static. Although it has been studied and celebrated by many authors [@McVittieworks; @Nolan; @Kleban; @Roshina], it has proved surprisingly difficult to understand (see the recent work [@AbdelqaderLake]). A simplifying assumption in the study of this solution, explicitly stated in McVittie’s original paper, is the no-accretion condition $G_0^1=0$ (in spherical coordinates, where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor). This explicitly forbids any radial flow of material, which should otherwise occur whenever a spherically symmetric local inhomogeneity (such as a central black hole) is introduced in the background. When this is modelled however, more general solutions of Einstein’s theory become possible. These include some generalized McVittie solutions [@FaraoniJacques; @Gaoetal1; @Gaoetal2]; solutions such as those derived by Husain-Martinez-Nuñez [@HusainMartinezNunez], Fonarev [@Fonarev], Sultana-Dyer [@SultanaDyer] and McClure-Dyer [@McClureDyer]; the class of solutions found by Szekeres [@Szekeres; @Szafron; @Barrow]; Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi black hole solutions [@LTBblackholes]; and other solutions [@cosmologicalblackholes]. In extended theories of gravity, such as scalar-tensor and $f(R)$ gravity, several other solutions of the relevant field equations (which involve an extra gravitational scalar field or higher derivative terms, respectively) have been found and sometimes discussed [@Barrow; @CliftonMotaBarrow; @Clifton; @myClifton].
The original motivation for McVittie’s work [@McVittie] was the investigation of the effects of the cosmological expansion on local systems. Another approach to this problem later led to the construction of Swiss-cheese models by Einstein and Straus [@EinsteinStraus]. However, although this problem has stimulated much discussion over the years [@expansionpluslocal], the scientific community as a whole is yet to arrive at an agreement about the best approach to it (see the recent review [@CarreraGiulini]). When solutions representing local inhomogeneities in cosmic backgrounds are considered, the scope of the investigation broadens. For example, a problem of current interest is the possible spatial and temporal variation of the gravitational “constant” (which becomes a scalar field in Brans-Dicke and scalar-tensor gravity) [@CliftonMotaBarrow]. We now know several solutions of this kind, but before enlarging the catalog further it is important to fully understand the presently known solutions (for some of them, it is not even known whether the local inhomogeneity is associated with a black hole, a naked singularity, or another kind of object). For this reason, we revisit here the no-accretion McVittie solution, proposing a quick way of locating the associated black hole and cosmological (apparent) horizons and studying their evolution. We extend the type of cosmological background to include phantom universes, which have not been considered before in relation to the McVittie solution.
With the exception of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution, which incorporates only a static background universe, spherically symmetric black holes in more general cosmological backgrounds are dynamical. This significantly complicates their analyses. Since the solutions of Einstein’s equations corresponding to the McVittie metric are highly dynamical, it is not convenient for us to study the event horizons (both black hole and cosmological), which may not even exist. It is more instructive to study the dynamical apparent horizons, the importance of which is being increasingly recognized in the literature [@dynamicalhorizons]. It is known that, for dynamical cosmological black holes, apparent horizons can appear or disappear [@Nolan; @Kleban; @FaraoniJacques; @Gaoetal1], and we would like to shed some light on this bizarre phenomenology.
The plan of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II we briefly review the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution; this (over-)simplified situation will serve us well when attempting to understand the more complicated phenomenology of dynamical apparent horizons. In Sec. III we locate the apparent horizons of the McVittie metric for non-phantom cosmological backgrounds and recover the previous results in certain limits. We then continue with the analysis of phantom background universes. Finally, Sec. IV contains a discussion of our results and our conclusions. Throughout this work we use units in which the speed of light $c$ and Newton’s constant $G$ are unity, and we mostly follow the notations of Ref. [@Wald]. In particular, the metric signature is $-+++$.
The Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler black hole
==============================================
The Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution is the prototypical solution representing a black hole embedded in a cosmological background (for a certain range of parameter values). We will discuss the McVittie metric by using an analogy with the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler metric wherever possible, even though the latter corresponds to a very special situation by admitting only a [*static*]{} black hole in the de Sitter background, and its apparent horizons are also event horizons. Nonetheless, analogies are made possible by the fact that the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution is contained as a special case in the McVittie class of solutions.
The spherically symmetric Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution of the Einstein equations has line element
\[1\] ds\^2=-( 1--H\^2r\^2 ) dt\^2+ ( 1--H\^2r\^2 )\^[-1]{} dr\^2+ r\^2 d\_[(2)]{}\^2 ,\[eq:SDSK\]
where $r$ is the areal radius (of a sphere with surface area $4\pi r^2$), $ d\Omega_{(2)}^2 =d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2$ is the metric on the unit 2-sphere, the constant $H=\sqrt{\Lambda/3} $ is the Hubble parameter of the de Sitter background, $\Lambda>0$ is the cosmological constant and $m>0$ is a second parameter describing the mass of the central inhomogeneity ([*e.g.*]{}, [@Bousso]). In general, the locations of the apparent horizons for a spherically-symmetric system can be calculated from the radial element of the inverse metric $g^{rr}=0$ [@hobson; @nielsen]. Thus the apparent horizons for the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution are defined by the positive roots of the cubic equation \[3\] 1- -H\^2r\^2 =0.\[eq:SDSKhor\] Following the method outlined by Nickalls in [@nickalls], these roots may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
r_1&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}H}\sin\theta,\nonumber\\
r_2&=&\frac{1}{H}\cos\theta-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}H}\sin\theta,\nonumber\\
r_3&=&-\frac{1}{H}\cos\theta-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}H}\sin\theta,\label{eq:horizons}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sin (3\theta)=3\sqrt{3} \, mH$. Since $m$ and $H$ are both necessarily positive (we only consider expanding universes), $r_3$ is negative and therefore unphysical. We thus refer to this spacetime as having only two apparent horizons. We refer to $r_1$ as the black hole apparent horizon, since it reduces simply to the Schwarzschild horizon at $2m$ if there is no background expansion $H\rightarrow 0$, and we refer to $r_2$ as the cosmological apparent horizon, since it reduces to the static de Sitter horizon at $1/H$ if there is no mass present. The metric (\[1\]) is static in the region covered by the coordinates $\left( t, r,
\theta, \varphi \right)$, which is comprised between these two horizons.
A number of interesting observations can be made. First, both apparent horizons only actually exist if $ 0<\sin( 3\theta) < 1$. In this case, since the metric is static between these two horizons, the apparent black hole and cosmological horizons are also event horizons and, therefore, null surfaces. Second, if $\sin (3\theta)=1$ it is easy to show that these horizons then coincide. This case corresponds to the Nariai black hole. Finally, for $\sin (3\theta) >1$ both horizons become complex-valued and therefore unphysical, and one is left with a naked singularity. These results can be summarized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
mH<1/(3\sqrt{3})&\rightarrow&\text{2 horizons }r_1 {\text{ and }} r_2,\nonumber\\
mH=1/(3\sqrt{3})&\rightarrow&\text{1 horizon }r_1=r_2,\nonumber\\
mH>1/(3\sqrt{3})&\rightarrow&\text{no horizons }.\end{aligned}$$
The Hubble parameter for an idealized de Sitter background is a constant, whereas more realistic models incorporate a time-dependent Hubble parameter. With a clear understanding of the static horizons in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler spacetime, we may now study the dynamical horizons which emerge by considering a more realistic time-dependent metric.
Apparent horizons of the McVittie metric
========================================
We now consider the McVittie metric for a black hole embedded in an FLRW background which is expanding with the Hubble flow [@McVittie]. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case in which the background is spatially flat (curvature index $K=0$). The line element can thus be cast in the form [@Roshina] ds\^2=-dt\^2 - dtdr +r\^2d\_[(2)]{}\^2 . \[4\] Here $H(t) \equiv \dot{a}(t)/a(t)$, where $a(t)$ is the scale factor of the FLRW background and an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to the comoving time $t$. Note that for the case of a static background in which $a(t)=\exp(\sqrt{\Lambda/3} \, t)$ and $H=\sqrt{\Lambda/3}$, the McVittie metric actually corresponds to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler metric given by (\[eq:SDSK\]) via a simple transformation of the time coordinate [@arakida]. Assuming a perfect fluid stress energy tensor, we may use Einstein’s equations to calculate forms for the density $\rho(r,t)$ and pressure $P(r,t)$ of the background fluid in McVittie’s metric. The density turns out to correspond to the known FLRW density (t)= H\^2(t) , One may consider arbitrary FLRW backgrounds generated by cosmic fluids satisfying any equation of state (in fact, in the next section, we study a FLRW universe dominated by a phantom fluid). For illustrative purposes however, in this section we restrict our attention to a cosmic fluid which reduces to dust at spatial infinity. This corresponds to an equation of state parameter $w=0$, so the pressure can be shown to be [@Roshina] P(t,r)=(t) ( -1 ) \[5\] .
Other quantities may be calculated from the inverse metric, given by ( g\^ )=(
[cccc]{} - & - & 0 & 0\
&&&\
- & (1- -H\^2r\^2 ) & 0 & 0\
&&&\
0 & 0 & & 0\
&&&\
0 & 0& 0 &
). \[6\] The Misner-Sharp-Hernandez mass $M_{MSH}$ [@MisnerSharpHernandez] contained in a sphere of areal radius $r$ is defined, in the case of spherical symmetry, by 1- =g\^[rr]{}. Thus, we obtain M\_[MSH]{}= r\^3 +m . which is interpreted as the contribution of the energy of the cosmic fluid contained in the ball plus the contribution of the local inhomogeneity. This mass coincides with the Hawking-Hayward quasi-local mass [@HawkingHayward].
Since for the McVittie metric $r$ is an areal radius and the system is spherically symmetric, the apparent horizons can once again be calculated from $g^{rr}=0$, corresponding to \[8\] 1--H\^2(t) r\^2=0 . This is clearly equivalent to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler horizon condition given by (\[eq:SDSKhor\]) but with a time-dependent Hubble parameter. We denote the resulting time-dependent apparent horizons $r_1(t)$ and $r_2(t)$, and these correspond to the solutions $r_1$ and $r_2$ given in equation (\[eq:horizons\]) but with the replacement $H\rightarrow
H(t)$. Since the apparent horizons for the McVittie metric are dynamical, rather than static, their relative locations now depend on the cosmic time.
Dynamics of the apparent horizons
---------------------------------
Analogous to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter Kottler case, the condition for both horizons to exist is $0<\sin
( 3\theta ) <1$, which corresponds to $mH(t)<1/(3\sqrt{3})$ (and $mH(t)>0$ which is always satisfied). However, unlike the former case where the Hubble parameter is a constant, this inequality will only be satisfied at certain times during the cosmological expansion, and not at others. The time at which $mH(t)=1/(3\sqrt{3})$ is unique for a dust-dominated background with $H(t)=2/(3t)$, and we denote it $t_* =2\sqrt{3} \, m$. The three cases may then be characterized as:
- $t<t_*$: at early times $m>\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}
\,H(t)}$, so both $r_1(t)$ and $r_2(t)$ are complex and therefore unphysical. [*There are no apparent horizons.*]{}
- $t=t_*$: at this time $m=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}\,H(t)}$ and the horizons $r_1(t)$ and $r_2(t)$ coincide at a real, physical location. [*There is a single apparent horizon at $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\,H(t)}$*]{}.
- $t>t_*$: at late times $m<\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}\,H(t)}$, so both $r_1(t)$ and $r_2(t)$ are real and therefore physical. [*There are two apparent horizons.*]{}
The qualitative dynamical picture which emerges from this analysis is the following and is illustrated in fig. \[figure1\].
![the behaviour of the McVittie apparent horizons versus time in a dust-dominated background universe. We arbitrarily fix $m=1$, hence time $t$ and radius $r$ are measured in units of $m$ (see text for details).\[figure1\]](Fig1McVL1.eps)
The lack of apparent horizons for $t<t_{*}$ leaves a naked singularity at $r=2m$, where the Ricci scalar and pressure also diverge (see below). This is explained by the divergence of the Hubble parameter $H(t)$ in the early universe, causing the mass $m$ to remain supercritical, [*i.e.*]{} causing $m>\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}\,H(t)}$ to be satisfied. Analogous to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution, a black hole horizon cannot be accommodated in such a small universe.
At the critical time $t_{*}$ a black hole apparent horizon appears and coincides with the cosmological apparent horizon at $r_1(t)=r_2(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\,H(t)}$. For a dust-dominated cosmological background this may be given as $r_1=r_2=3m$. This is the analog of the Nariai black hole in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution, but it is instantaneous.
As time progresses, $t>t_{*}$, the single horizon splits into a dynamical black hole apparent horizon surrounded by a time-dependent cosmological horizon. This solution can progressively constitute a better and better toy model for a spherical, non-accreting astrophysical black hole in the late universe with $mH \ll \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\approx
0.192$. The black hole apparent horizon shrinks, asymptoting to the spacetime singularity at $2m$ from above as $t\rightarrow +\infty$, while the cosmological apparent horizon expands monotonically, tending to $1/H(t)$ in the same limit.
The actual universe is of course not dust-dominated, and is better described by the scale factor for expansion $$a(t)=\left[\frac{(1-\Omega_{\Lambda,0})}{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}
\sinh^2\left(\frac{3}{2}H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}t\right)\right]^{1/3},$$ consistent with the spatially flat concordance model [@hobson]. Here $H_0\approx70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ is the current value of the Hubble parameter and $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}\approx0.7$ is the current dark energy density. Using this we may calculate actual values for $t_{*}$ and apparent horizon locations for black holes in our universe. Considering, for example, the $~ 10^6
M_{\odot}$ black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, we find that a single horizon would have first appeared as early as $t_{*}\approx 17$ secs and at a radius very close to the centre $r_1(t_{*})= r_2(t_{*})\approx
1.4\times10^{-7}$pc. Thereafter, this would have split into two apparent horizons, which would have become increasingly separated. Note that a problem with this calculation is that it neglects mass accretion. The results are therefore purely theoretical and would only truly be valid if this black hole had always existed at its current mass. Although in reality there were no bound structures in the universe at such an early time, this calculation does at least provide some insight into the scales involved.
Let us discuss now the well known singularity [@Nolan; @Roshina; @AbdelqaderLake]. The surface of equation $f(r)
\equiv r-2m =0$ has normal $N_{\mu}=\nabla_{\mu}f=\delta_{1 \mu}$ with norm squared N\_N\^= g\^ N\_N\_ |\_[r=2m]{} .=-4m\^2H\^2(t) <0 . $N^{\mu}$ is timelike and the surface $r=2m $ is spacelike. The Ricci scalar R=-8 T\^\_=8( -3P )=8 (t) ( 4- ) diverges as $r\rightarrow 2m^{+}$. This singularity separates spacetime into two disconnected regions $r<2m$ and $r>2m$ [@Nolan]; the latter region is described by the metric (\[4\]). At the critical time $t_*$, when $r_1(t)=r_2(t)=1/ (\sqrt{3}H(t))$, the normal to the surface of equation ${\cal F}(r) \equiv
r-1/(\sqrt{3}H(t))=0$ is $M_{\mu}=\nabla_{\mu} {\cal
F}=\delta_{1 \mu}$ and M\^M\_ = g\^[11]{}(r=)= ( -mH(t) ) =0. Thus the (cosmological and black hole) apparent horizon is instantaneously null.
By differentiating the cubic equation (\[8\]), one may solve for the rate of change in location of the apparent horizons with respect to the comoving time. Dropping the $t$-dependencies for simplicity, one obtains \_[AH]{}=- . Rearranging this, one can compare the expansion rates of the apparent horizons with that of the cosmic substratum, -H= -H( 1+ ) .\[eq:rateofexp\] This equation shows that the apparent horizons are not comoving except for trivial cases. This explains why the black hole cannot remain static but is instead forced to expand [^1]. In the case of a spatially flat FLRW universe (without the central inhomogeneity), it turns out that even the single cosmological horizon at $r_{AH}(t) \equiv r_c(t)=1/H(t)$ is not comoving, since =- H .
### Horizon entropy
It is widely believed that, in the absence of event horizons, an entropy can be meaningfully ascribed to apparent horizons. The thermodynamics of these horizons has been discussed extensively [@AHthermodynamics]. Therefore, it is interesting to ask whether the total entropy associated with both the black hole and cosmological apparent horizons is a non-decreasing function of time. The area $A_1$ of the black hole apparent horizon is decreasing, but it is bounded from below while this behaviour is more than compensated for by the increase of the area $A_2$ of the cosmological apparent horizon. The total horizon entropy S=S\_1+S\_2 = ( r\_1\^2 +r\_2\^2 ) = , where $A=A_1+A_2$, is plotted in fig. \[figure2\].
![\[figure2\] the total horizon entropy $S$ (in units $\frac{k_Bc^3}{\hbar G}$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant) associated with the apparent horizons as a function of time.](Sr1andr2.eps)
Since the apparent horizons emerge as a pair at $t=t_*$, the horizon entropy $S$ exhibits a discontinuous jump from zero value at this time.
A phantom background
--------------------
We now discuss the situation of a cosmological background dominated by a phantom fluid with equation of state satisfying $P+\rho<0$ ($w=P/\rho<-1$) and violating the weak energy condition. The recent renewed interest in such a field has been motivated by the analysis of data from supernovae Ia [@SN] and the study of the effects of the accelerating universe [@AmendolaTsujikawabook]. The consideration of a phantom background has also led to the prediction of a Big Rip singularity at a finite time in the future $t_{\text{rip}}$ [@Caldwell]. We now consider a phantom background in the context of the McVittie solution. Surprisingly, this is a situation which has not received much attention in previous studies.
One may consider the late time behaviour of the Friedmann equation governing a phantom fluid and solve it to obtain a form for the scale factor in terms of $ t_{\text{rip}}$ and $w<-1$. Indeed the solution has been shown to be [@Caldwell]: a(t)=, where $A$ is a constant. The Hubble parameter may therefore be written concisely as H(t)= . Note the reverse behaviour of this function compared with the Hubble parameter for a dust-dominated universe $H(t)=2/(3t)$. The latter diverges at the big bang singularity and gradually decreases over time, tending to zero. The Hubble parameter for a phantom fluid, however, takes on a finite value at $t=0$ and slowly increases until the Big Rip time, at which point it too diverges. This suggests that the horizons around black holes embedded in a phantom fluid might behave in the opposite way to those in a dust-dominated background with $w>-1$. Indeed this does turn out to be the case, and the discussion in the previous subsection can be repeated. The result is plotted in fig. \[figure3\].
![\[figure3\] the behaviour of the McVittie apparent horizons versus time in a phantom-dominated background universe for the parameter values $w=-1.5$ and $t_{\text{rip}}=0$. ](PhantomMcVL1.eps)
We may summarize our results in an expanding universe dominated by a phantom fluid as follows. In the early universe, both black hole and cosmological apparent horizons exist, and are approximately located at $2m$ and $1/H(t)$, respectively. As time progresses the cosmological horizon shrinks and the black hole horizon expands, until they meet and merge at the critical time $t_*$. Thereafter they disappear, leaving behind a naked singularity. During this evolution the total apparent horizon entropy decreases and has a discontinuous jump to zero value at $t_*$. This behaviour is yet another manifestation of the “weirdness” of the phantom fluid, which seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics in many ways [@phantomthermodynamics].
The behaviour of the apparent horizons for a phantom cosmic background was derived in Ref. [@Gaoetal1] for [ *generalized*]{} McVittie solutions, which are obtained by relaxing the McVittie no-accretion condition and allowing for a radial energy flux onto the black hole [@FaraoniJacques; @Gaoetal1]. For simplicity of modelling, this radial flux density $q^{\mu}$ is necessarily spacelike and violates the energy conditions. The lesson to be learnt by the present discussion of the corresponding McVittie solution with $q^{\mu} \equiv 0$ is that the disappearance of the apparent horizons is not due to the fact that the accreted phantom fluid violates the weak energy condition and the total accreted mass becomes zero: it is due to the phantom character of the fluid which dictates the unusual cosmic expansion leading to the Big Rip, but not to accretion.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
In order to understand the bizarre phenomenology of apparent horizons in the McVittie spacetime, it is useful to first understand the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler solution of the Einstein equations. This is a special case of the McVittie solution. Our study of the simple, static, Schwarzschild-de Sitter-Kottler metric has essentially revealed that a black hole can only fit in a de Sitter universe if its horizon size (determined by its mass) does not exceed the size of the cosmological horizon. Equipped with this clarity, we have then moved on to consider the more complicated McVittie solution, which accounts for a dynamical background and thus better represents reality. Not surprisingly, the condition for the existence of the apparent horizons in this case is analogous to the corresponding one in the static case, with the static Hubble constant replaced by a dynamical Hubble parameter. This follows from the dynamical nature of the apparent horizons themselves in this case, which we are able to locate throughout their period of existence. The absence of any (black hole or cosmological) apparent horizons at early times is now easily understood. At early times the mathematical solutions suggest that the cosmological horizon would be smaller than the black hole horizon, but this is not possible since the universe at this time would be too small to accommodate a black hole apparent horizon at all. One cannot then meaningfully distinguish between the “black hole” and the “universe” in which it is embedded; rather, the mathematical solutions represent neither and do not possess the properties of a black hole or a universe. Thus at early times, not only is there a naked singularity, but the cosmological apparent horizon is also absent. The presence of this naked singularity prevents one from being able to derive the McVittie solution as the development of regular Cauchy data. At some finite time, given by $3m$ for a dust-dominated background, the cosmological solution is able to catch up with the black hole solution and a single black hole/cosmological apparent horizon appears. These then split and continue to diverge thereafter.
The McVittie metric does not account for accretion onto the central mass. Hence the mass parameter $m$ is fixed and the horizon dynamics are wholly determined by the expansion of the universe. If the no-accretion assumption is relaxed however, the black hole mass itself is then also determined by the universe’s expansion (possibly with some residual freedom) and cannot be fixed [*a priori*]{}. Indeed some generalized McVittie solutions, for which $m$ becomes a function of time, have already been derived [@FaraoniJacques; @Gaoetal1]. At late times this class of solutions converges to an attractor with a well-defined mass function $m(t)$ [@Gaoetal2]. Other solutions for cosmological lumps (including black holes) have also been derived and investigated without imposing the no-accretion condition in general relativity and in scalar-tensor and higher derivative gravity [@cosmologicalblackholes; @Barrow; @CliftonMotaBarrow; @Clifton]. In some of these studies, the phenomenology of the apparent horizons appears to be even more bizarre than in the McVittie case and involves the creation or disappearance also of inner black hole apparent horizons [@HusainMartinezNunez; @myClifton; @FaraoniVitaglianoSotiriouLiberati].
Locating the apparent horizons and understanding, at least in principle, their behaviour is not the whole story. The recent work [@AbdelqaderLake] studying the global structure of the McVittie solution has unveiled a new feature which is believed to be generic: radial ingoing null geodesics do not penetrate the black hole apparent horizon to reach the $r=2m$ singularity, but are asymptotic to this horizon. In our opinion, this feature is not too surprising for a solution in which radial flow onto the central black hole is excluded by construction. The property of radial ingoing null geodesics merely reflects the McVittie no-accretion condition. In fact, the ingoing radial null geodesics can be seen as the test-particle limit of a gravitating null dust (which however, would be forbidden by the no-accretion condition and could not fit in the McVittie spacetime). Future work to fully understand this feature, as well as more general solutions representing black holes embedded in cosmological backgrounds, will be presented elsewhere.
VF thanks Bishop’s University and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada ([*NSERC*]{}) for financial support.
[99]{}
G.C. McVittie, [*Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.*]{} [**93**]{}, 325 (1933).
R. Sussman, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**17**]{}, 251 (1985); A. Krasinski, [*Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models*]{} (CUP, Cambridge, 1997).
B.C. Nolan, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**58**]{}, 064006 (1998); [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**16**]{}, 1227 (1999); [**16**]{}, 3183 (1999).
N. Kaloper, M. Kleban and D. Martin, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**81**]{}, 104044 (2010).
R. Nandra, A.N. Lasenby, and M.P. Hobson, arXiv:1104.4447; arXiv:1104.4458.
K. Lake and M. Abdelqader, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**84**]{}, 044045 (2011).
V. Husain, E.A. Martinez, and D. Nuñez, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**50**]{}, 3783 (1994).
O.A. Fonarev, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**12**]{}, 1739 (1995); H. Maeda, arXiv:0704.2731.
J. Sultana and C.C. Dyer, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**37**]{}, 1349 (2005).
M.L. McClure and C.C. Dyer, [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**23**]{}, 1971 (2006); [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**38**]{}, 1347 (2006).
V. Faraoni and A. Jacques, [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 063510 (2007).
C. Gao, X. Chen, V. Faraoni, and Y.-G. Shen, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{}, 024008 (2008).
V. Faraoni, C. Gao, X. Chen, and Y.-G. Shen, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**671**]{}, 7 (2009).
D.A. Szafron and J. Wainwright, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{}, 1668 (1977).
D.A. Szafron, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{}, 1673 (1977).
J.D. Barrow and J. Stein-Schabes, [ *Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**103**]{}, 315 (1984); D.J. Shaw and J.D. Barrow, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**73**]{}, 123505 (2006).
S.N.G. Thakurta, [*Indian J. Phys.*]{} [**55B**]{}, 304 (1981); D. Kastor and J.H. Traschen, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**47**]{}, 5370 (1993); M.L. McClure, K. Anderson, and K. Bardahl, arXiv:0709.3288; [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**77**]{}, 104008 (2008); M. Nozawa and H. Maeda, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [ **25**]{}, 055009 (2008); K. Maeda, N. Ohta and K. Uzawa, [*J. High Energy Phys.*]{} [**0906**]{}, 051 (2009); C.-Y. Sun, arXiv:0906.3783; [*Commun. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**55**]{}, 597 (2011); J.T. Firouzjaee and R. Mansouri, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**42**]{}, 2431 (2010); B.J. Carr, T. Harada, and H. Maeda, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**27**]{}, 183101 (2010); H. Culetu, arXiv:1201.3796.
A. Krasinski and C. Hellaby, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{}, 043502 (2004); P. Jacewicz and A. Krasinski, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**44**]{}, 81 (2012); C. Gao, X. Chen, Y.-G. Shen, and V. Faraoni, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**84**]{}, 104047 (2011).
N. Sakai and J.D. Barrow, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**18**]{}, 4717 (2001); T. Clifton, D.F. Mota, and J.D. Barrow, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc.*]{} [**358**]{}, 601 (2005).
T. Clifton, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**23**]{}, 7445 (2006).
V. Faraoni, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [ **26**]{}, 195013 (2009).
A. Einstein and E.G. Straus, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{}, 120 (1945); [**18**]{}, 148 (1946).
J. Pachner, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**132**]{}, 1837 (1963); [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**137**]{}, 1379 (1965); W.M. Irvine, [*Ann. Phys. (NY)*]{} [**32**]{}, 322 (1965); R.H. Dicke and P.J.E. Peebles, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **12**]{}, 435 (1964); C. Callan, R.H. Dicke, and P.J.E. Peebles, [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{}, 105 (1965); P. D’Eath, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**11**]{}, 1387 (1975); R.P.A. Newman and G.C. McVittie, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**14**]{}, 591 (1982); R. Gautreau, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**29**]{}, 198 (1984); P.A. Hogan, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**360**]{}, 315 (1990); J.L. Anderson, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{}, 3602 (1995); W.B. Bonnor, [*Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.*]{} [**282**]{}, 1467 (1996); A. Feinstein, J. Ibanez, and R. Lazkoz, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**495**]{}, 131 (1998); K.R. Nayak, M.A.H. MacCallum, and C.V. Vishveshwara, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**63**]{}, 024020 (2000); V. Guruprasad, gr-qc/0005090; gr-qc/0005014; G.A. Baker Jr., astro-ph/0003152; A. Dominguez and J. Gaite, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 458 (2001); T.M. Davis and C.H. Lineweaver, AIPC [**555**]{}, 348 (2001); G.F.R. Ellis, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. A*]{} [**17**]{}, 2667 (2002); C. Stornaiolo, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**34**]{}, 2089 (2002); T.M. Davis, C.H. Lineweaver, and J.K. Webb, [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**71**]{}, 358 (2003); L. Lindegren and D. Dravins, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [ **401**]{}, 1185 (2003); C.J. Gao, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**21**]{}, 4805 (2004); T.M. Davis and C.H. Lineweaver, [*Publ. Astr. Soc. Pac.*]{} [**21**]{}, 97 (2004); T.M. Davis, PhD thesis, Univ. of New South Wales (astro-ph/0402278); D.P. Sheehan and V.G. Kriss, astro-ph/0411299; W.J. Clavering, [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**74**]{}, 745 (2006); Z.-H. Li and A. Wang, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**22**]{}, 1663 (2007); O. Gron and O. Elgaroy, astro-ph/0603162; L.A. Barnes, M.J. Francis, J.B. James, and G.F. Lewis, [*Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.*]{} [**373**]{}, 382 (2006); R. Lieu and D.A. Gregory, astro-ph/0605611; P.K.F. Kuhfittig, [*Int. J. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**49**]{}, 577 (2008) \[gr-qc/0608120\]; G.S. Adkins, J. McDonnell, and R.N. Fell, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{}, 064011 (2007); D.L. Wiltshire, [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{}, 377 (2007); M. Sereno and P. Jetzer, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{}, 064031 (2007); P.D. Noerdlinger and V. Petrosian, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [ **168**]{}, 1 (1971); H. Sato and K. Maeda, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**70**]{}, 119 (1983). P.D. D’Eath, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**11**]{}, 1387 (1975); F.I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, and D.N. Vollick, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**503**]{}, 61 (1998); B. Bolen, L. Bombelli, and R. Puzio, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**18**]{}, 1173 (2001); M.T. Busha, F.C. Adams, R.H. Wechsler, and A.E. Evrard, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**596**]{}, 713 (2003); C. Gao and S.N. Zhang, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**595**]{}, 28 (2004).
M. Mizony and M. Lachièze-Rey, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**434**]{}, 45 (2005); D. Izzo and A. Rathke, astro-ph/0504634; F.J. Oliveira, gr-qc/0610029; M. Lachièze-Rey, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{}, 2735 (2007); J. Rosales and J. Sanchez-Gomez, gr-qc/99810085; M. Carrera and D. Giulini, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [ **23**]{}, 7483 (2006); C. Lammerzhal and O. Preuss, gr-qc/0604052; S.G. Turyshev and J.G. Williams, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**16**]{}, 2165 (2007); H.-J. Fahr and M. Siewert, gr-qc/0610034; J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev, and D.H. Boggs, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 059002 (2007); Y.V. Dumin, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 059001 (2007); S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{}, 123529 (2004); R.H. Price, arXiv:gr-qc/0508052; A. Balaguera-Antolinez and M. Nowakowski, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{}, 2677 (2007); B. Mashhoon, N. Mobed, and D. Singh, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{}, 5031 (2007).
M. Carrera and D. Giulini, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{} (2010) 169.
A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **89**]{}, 261101 (2002); [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{}, 104030 (2003); [*Living Rev. Rel.*]{} [**7**]{}, 10 (2004); I. Booth, [*Can. J. Phys.*]{} [**83**]{}, 1073 (2005); A.B. Nielsen, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [**41**]{}, 1539 (2009); M. Visser, arXiv:0901.4365.
R.M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1984).
R. Bousso, in [*Cambridge 2002, The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology*]{}, Workshop in Honor of Steven Hawking’s 60th Birthday, Cambridge, UK, 7-10 January 2002, p. 539 (arXiv:hep-th/0205177).
M.P. Hobson, G. Efstathiou and A.N. Lasenby, [*General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006)
A.B. Nielsen and M. Visser, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**23**]{} (2006) 4637.
R.W.D. Nickalls, [*The Mathematical Gazette*]{} [**77**]{}, 354 (1993).
H. Arakida, [*Phys. Rev. D.*]{} [**81**]{} (2010) 043521.
C.M. Misner and D.H. Sharp, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**136**]{}, 571 (1964); W.C. Hernandez and C.W. Misner, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [ **143**]{}, 452 (1966).
S.W. Hawking, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{}, 589 (1968); S.A. Hayward, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**49**]{}, 831 (1994).
S.V. Sushkov and S.-W. Kim, [*Gen. Rel. Gravit.*]{} [ **36**]{}, 1671 (2004); V. Faraoni and W. Israel, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**71**]{}, 064017 (2005); H. Maeda, T. Harada, and B. J. Carr, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**79**]{}, 044034 (2009); I. Bochicchio and V. Faraoni, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{}, 044040 (2010).
D.R. Brill, G.T. Horowitz, D. Kastor, and J. Traschen, [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**49**]{}, 840 (1994); H. Saida, T. Harada, and H. Maeda, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{}, 4711 (2007); D.N. Vollick, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 124001 (2007); Y. Gong and A. Wang, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}, 211301 (2007); F. Briscese and E. Elizalde, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**77**]{}, 044009 (2008); M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**635**]{}, 7 (2006); P. Wang, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**72**]{}, 024030 (2005); H. Mohseni-Sadjadi, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 104024 (2007); R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and G. Zoccatelli, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**657**]{}, 107 (2007); V. Faraoni, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 104042 (2007); M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**77**]{}, 024047 (2008); S.A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, L. Vanzo, M. Nadalini, and S. Zerbini, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**26**]{}, 062001 (2009); S.A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, and S. Zerbini, [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{} [**1122**]{}, 145 (2009); R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini, G. Zoccatelli, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**657**]{}, 107 (2007); R. Brustein, D. Gorbonos, and M. Hadad, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**79**]{}, 044025 (2009); V. Faraoni, [*Entropy*]{} [ **12**]{}, 1246 (2010).
A.G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**116**]{}, 1009 (1998); [*Astron. J.*]{} [**118**]{}, 2668 (1999); [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**560**]{}, 49 (2001); [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**607**]{}, 665 (2004); S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**391**]{}, 51 (1998); [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**517**]{}, 565 (1999); J.L. Tonry [*et al.*]{}, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**594**]{}, 1 (2003); R. Knop [*et al.*]{}, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**598**]{}, 102 (2003) ; B. Barris [*et al.*]{}, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**602**]{}, 571 (2004).
L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, [*Dark Energy: Theory and Observations*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
R.R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N.N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 071301 (2003).
S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{}, 103522 (2004); I. Brevik, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, and L. Vanzo, [*ibid.*]{} [**70**]{}, 043520 (2004); S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**595**]{}, 1 (2004); E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S.D. Odintsov, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{}, 043539 (2004); S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [ **599**]{}, 137 (2004); K. Lake, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**21**]{}, L129 (2004); P.F. Gonzalez-Diaz and C.L. Siguenza, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**697**]{}, 363 (2004); R.M. Buny and D.H. Hsu, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**632**]{}, 543 (2006); D.H. Hsu, A. Jenskins, and M.B. Wise, [*ibid.*]{} [**597**]{}, 270 (2004); J.A.S. Lima and J.S. Alcaniz, [*ibid.*]{} [**600**]{}, 191 (2004); Y. Gong, B. Wang, and A. Wang, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{}, 123516 (2007); J.A.S. Lima and S.H. Pereira, [*ibid.*]{} [**78**]{}, 083504 (2008); G. Izquierdo and D. Pavon, arXiv:gr-qc/0612092; H.M. Sadjadi, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**73**]{}, 063525 (2006).
V. Faraoni, V. Vitagliano, T.P. Sotiriou, and S. Liberati (unpublished).
[^1]: Similarly, wormholes embedded in cosmological backgrounds must expand [@wormholes].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Training competitive deep video models is an order of magnitude slower than training their counterpart image models. Slow training causes long research cycles, which hinders progress in video understanding research. Following standard practice for training image models, video model training assumes a fixed mini-batch shape: a specific number of clips, frames, and spatial size. However, what is the optimal shape? High resolution models perform well, but train slowly. Low resolution models train faster, but they are inaccurate. Inspired by methods in numerical optimization, we propose to use variable mini-batch shapes with different spatial-temporal resolutions that are varied according to a schedule. The different shapes arise from resampling the training data on multiple sampling grids. Training is accelerated by scaling up the mini-batch size and learning rate when shrinking the other dimensions. We empirically demonstrate a general and robust grid schedule that yields a significant out-of-the-box training speedup without a loss in accuracy for different models (I3D, non-local, SlowFast), datasets (Kinetics, Something-Something, Charades), and training settings (with and without pre-training, 128 GPUs or 1 GPU). As an illustrative example, the proposed multigrid method trains a ResNet-50 SlowFast network 4.5${\times}$ faster (wall-clock time, same hardware) while also improving accuracy (+0.8% absolute) on Kinetics-400 compared to the baseline training method.'
author:
- |
Chao-Yuan Wu$^{1,2}$ Ross Girshick$^2$ Kaiming He$^2$\
Christoph Feichtenhofer$^2$ Philipp Krähenbühl$^1$\
$^1$The University of Texas at Austin $^2$Facebook AI Research (FAIR)
bibliography:
- 'multigrid.bib'
title: A Multigrid Method for Efficiently Training Video Models
---
Introduction
============
Training deep networks (CNNs [@lecun1989backpropagation]) on video is more computationally intensive than training 2D CNN image models, potentially by an order of magnitude. Long training time slows progress in video understanding research, hinders scaling out to real-world data sources, and consumes significant amounts of energy and hardware. Is this slow training unavoidable, or might there be video-specific optimization strategies that can accelerate training?
3D CNN video models are trained using mini-batch optimization methods (, SGD) that process one mini-batch per iteration. The mini-batch shape $B{{\times}}T{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$[^1] (mini-batch size ${\times}$ number of frames ${\times}$ height ${\times}$ width) is typically *constant* throughout training. A variety of considerations go into selecting this input shape, but a common heuristic is to make the $T{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$ dimensions large in order to improve accuracy, , as observed in [@tran2018closer; @wang2018non; @slowfast].
table [ x y name 1.53 71.23 [0.5${\times}$]{} 3.06 75.16 [1.0${\times}$]{} 4.59 76.35 [1.5${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 5.14 68.68 [0.25${\times}$]{} 10.28 73.78 [0.5${\times}$]{} 20.5644 75.5900 [1.0${\times}$]{} 30.8467 75.3800 [1.5${\times}$]{} ]{};
at (axis cs: 20.5644,78.5900) [Baseline\
75.6%]{}; at (axis cs: 5.59,79.5900) [Multigrid\
**4.5**${\times}$ faster, **76.4**%]{};
This heuristic is only one possible choice, however, and in general there are trade-offs. For example, one may use a smaller number of frames and/or spatial size while simultaneously increasing the mini-batch size $B$. With such an exchange, it is possible to process the same number of epochs (passes over the dataset) with lower wall-clock time because each iteration processes more examples. The resulting trade-off is faster training with lower accuracy.
The central idea of this paper is to avoid this trade-off—, to have faster training ** losing accuracy—by making the mini-batch shape ** during training. By viewing the input video clips in a mini-batch as raw video signals that are sampled on a sampling grid (to be defined), we can draw a connection to ** for numerical analysis [@briggs2000multigrid]. These methods exploit coarse-to-fine grids to accelerate optimization. Intuitively, if we use large mini-batches with relatively small time and space dimensions (a ‘coarse grid’) early in training and small mini-batches with large time and space dimensions (a ‘fine grid’) later, then SGD may be able to scan through the data more quickly on average while finally solving for a high accuracy model, akin to how coarse grids enable solving problems on finer grids more rapidly in multigrid numerical solvers [@briggs2000multigrid].
Multigrid training is possible because video models are compatible with input data of variable space and time dimensions due to weight sharing operations (, convolutions). In addition, CNNs are effective at learning patterns at multiple scales, , as observed when training with data augmentation [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @simonyan2014very; @resnet]. We observe similar multi-scale robustness and generalization with multigrid training.
Our proposed multigrid training method is simple and effective. It is easy to implement and typically only requires small changes to a data loader. Empirically, it works with default learning rate schedules and hyper-parameters already in use. No tuning is required. Moreover, multigrid training works robustly out-of-the-box for different models (I3D [@carreira2017quo], non-local [@wang2018non], SlowFast [@slowfast]), datasets (Kinetics-400 [@kay2017kinetics], Something-Something V2 [@ssv2], and Charades [@charades]), initializations (random and pre-trained), and hardware scales (, 128 GPUs or 1 GPU). We observe a consistent speedup and performance gain in all cases without tuning. As an example, we train a SlowFast network ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$4.5${\times}$ faster in wall-clock time on the large-scale Kinetics dataset () while also reaching a higher accuracy (+0.8% absolute). We hope these benefits provided by multigrid training will make research on video understanding more *accessible, scalable, and economical*.
Related Work
============
#### 3D CNN video models
extend 2D CNNs to model both spatial and temporal patterns. They are currently the state of the art for video understanding [@tran2015learning; @carreira2017quo; @xie2018rethinking; @qiu2017learning; @wang2018non; @tran2018closer; @girdhar2019video; @wu2019long; @tran2019video; @piergiovanni2019evolving; @hussein2019timeception; @luo2019grouped; @slowfast; @martinez2019action]. These methods are computationally expensive, both for training and inference [@tran2015learning; @xie2018rethinking]. Some recent studies propose lighter weight models through designing efficient temporal modules [@qiu2017learning; @tran2019video; @lin2018temporal; @chen2018multi; @lee2018motion; @carreira2018massively; @hussein2019timeception; @piergiovanni2019evolving; @sun2015human; @wang2018appearance; @luo2019grouped; @jiang2019stm] and/or exploiting temporal redundancy [@zolfaghari2018eco; @slowfast]. In this paper, we show that the training time of state-of-the-art efficient models [@slowfast] can still be reduced significantly.
#### Efficient training
can also be advanced through, , optimization methods (, [@duchi2011adaptive; @kingma2014adam; @smith2018dontdecay; @qiao2019neural]), pre-training [@carreira2017quo; @ghadiyaram2019large], distributed training [@goyal2017accurate; @you2018imagenet], or advances in hardware [@jouppi2017datacenter] or software/framework design [@chetlur2014cudnn; @chen2018tvm]. In this paper, we propose a complementary direction that exploits variable mini-batch shapes for fast training. Related to our method, Wang [@wang2018non] and Feichtenhofer [@feichtenhofer2016spatiotemporal] initialize larger models with smaller fully-trained ones. These methods can potentially speed up training as well, and (as can be seen later) are a special case of multigrid training.
#### Multi-scale training
in segmentation [@he2017mask] and classification [@simonyan2014very; @resnet] uses multiple image crop sizes. However, the mini-batch shape remains fixed [@he2017mask; @simonyan2014very; @resnet]. Multigrid training on the other hand uses variable mini-batch shapes. He [@he2015spatial] change the input shapes, but fix the mini-batch size. These methods shows that training with variable scales can be beneficial. Multigrid training enjoys the same property.
#### Multigrid methods
were originally proposed for numerical boundary value problems, and later developed into an entire field in computational mathematics [@briggs2000multigrid]. They typically involve iterating through cycles of coarse and fine problems, and exploit the fact that a coarse problem can be solved efficiently to speed up the overall problem solving. He and Xu [@he2019mgnet] connect multigrid methods to deep networks through identifying the correspondence between steps in traditional multigrid methods and operators in a convolutional neural network. In this paper, we take inspiration from multigrid concepts from a more abstract view to accelerate video model training.
Multigrid Training for Video Models
===================================
To develop our multigrid training method we will consider a reference video model (, C3D [@tran2015learning], I3D [@carreira2017quo]) that is trained by a baseline mini-batch optimizer (, SGD) that operates on mini-batches of shape $B{{\times}}T{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$ (mini-batch size ${\times}$ number of frames ${\times}$ height ${\times}$ width) for some number of epochs (, 100). The spatial-temporal shape, $T{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$, arises from resampling source video clips in the training dataset according to a *sampling grid* that is specified by a temporal span, a spatial span, a temporal stride, and a spatial stride (defined in ). These concepts intuitively correspond to a grid’s duration/area (span) and sampling rate (stride). The baseline optimizer holds the mini-batch shape *constant* across all training iterations.
#### Proposed Multigrid Method.
Inspired by multigrid methods in numerical analysis, which solve optimization problems on alternating coarse and fine grids, the core observation in this paper is that the underlying sampling grid that is used to train video models need not be constant during training. In fact, we will show in experiments that by *varying* the sampling grid *and* the mini-batch size during training it is possible to reduce training complexity substantially (in terms of total FLOPs and wall-clock time) while achieving similar accuracy in comparison with the baseline.
The fundamental concept that enables our multigrid training approach is the balance between computation allocated to processing more examples per mini-batch the computation allocated to processing larger time and space dimensions. To control this balance, we will consider temporal and spatial shapes $t{{\times}}w{{\times}}h$ that are formed by resampling source videos with a new sampling grid that has its own spans and strides. When changing the input shape we use a scaled mini-batch size $b$ satisfying the relation $b{\cdot}t{\cdot}h{\cdot}w = B{\cdot}T{\cdot}H{\cdot}W$, or: $$\begin{aligned}
b = B \frac{T}{t} \frac{H}{h} \frac{W}{w},\label{eq:bsscale}\end{aligned}$$ which yields computation (in FLOPs) that is roughly equal to the computation of the aforementioned baseline mini-batch for typical 3D CNNs.[^2]
Our multigrid method uses a *set of sampling grids* and a *grid schedule* that determines which grid to use in each training iteration. If training is run for a similar number of epochs regardless of the choice of grids,[^3] then by making $b{>}B$ on average the entire training process can use fewer total FLOPs and have a lower wall-clock time.
We will experimentally investigate two questions: (i) is there a set of grids with a grid schedule that can lead to faster training without a loss in accuracy? and, (ii) if so, does it robustly generalize to new models and datasets without modification? In the following we will develop the core multigrid training concepts in detail (), provide an implementation (, a set of grids and a grid schedule) that work well in practice (), and then explore ablation and generalization experiments ().
Multigrid Training Concepts {#sec:concepts}
---------------------------
#### Sampling Grids.
Each video in a dataset is a discrete signal that was sampled from an underlying continuous signal generated by the physical world. The video has some number of frames and pixels per frame, which are related to the physical world by the temporal and spatial resolution of the recording device (which depends on a number of camera properties). When using one of these source videos in a training mini-batch, a sampling grid is used to *resample* it.
A sampling grid in one dimension (space or time) is defined by two quantities: a *span* and a *stride*. Their units are defined the source video being resampled.[^4] For the time dimension, the units are frames while for the spatial dimensions the units are pixels. The span is the support size of the grid and defines the duration or area that the grid covers. The stride is the spacing between sampling points. Dividing the span by the stride gives the number of points in the grid, which determines the shape of the input data. Note that different grids can yield the same data shape, which implies that the mini-batch size will only change () if a change in the sampling grid also changes the data shape.
We note that spatial sampling grids already appear in the baseline optimizer if it uses multi-scale *spatial* data augmentation [@simard2003best; @cirecsan2011high; @krizhevsky2012imagenet]. Under our multigrid perspective, multi-scale spatial data augmentation changes the spatial spans and strides of the resampling grid *proportionally* so that the resulting mini-batch always has the same $H{{\times}}W$ spatial shape. In contrast, we will change spans and strides at different rates, which results in a different spatial shape $h{{\times}}w$ for each grid (and likewise for the time dimension).
#### Grid Scheduling.
We use mini-batch optimizers, which have as their most basic scheduling unit a single mini-batch iteration in which one model update is performed. The training schedule consists of some number of mini-batch iterations and is often expressed in terms of epochs. For example, training may consist of 100 or 200 epochs worth of iterations. Within this overall training schedule it is common to let the learning rate vary, such as annealing it according to a schedule defined in terms of iterations or epochs.
Scheduling other training properties is also possible. Central to our multigrid method is the idea of scheduling the sampling grids that are used throughout training. When changing grids, the mini-batch size is always scaled according to so that mini-batch FLOPs are held roughly constant. Grid scheduling is highly flexible, admitting a large design space from simply cycling through a sequence of pre-defined grids to using randomized grids. In we will present a randomized, hierarchical schedule that works well in practice.
#### Multigrid Properties.
Multigrid training relies on two properties of the data and model. First, resampling the data on different grids requires a suitable operator. For video, this operator can be a reconstruction filter applied to the source discrete signal followed by computing the values at the points specified by the grid (, bilinear interpolation).
Second, the model must be compatible with inputs that are resampled on different grids, and therefore might have different shapes during training. Models that are composed of functions that use weight sharing across the dimensions that are resampled, , 2D and 3D convolutions, recurrent functions, and self-attention, are compatible and cover most of the commonly used architectures; fully-connected layers, unless their inputs are pooled to a fixed size, are not compatible.[^5] We will focus on models that use 2D and 3D convolutions, as well as self-attention operations in the form of non-local blocks [@wang2018non]; all models end with global average pooling and a single full-connected layer as the classifier, as is common practice.
#### Training and Testing Distributions.
The focus of this work is on multigrid methods for *training* and therefore we use a standard inference method that uses a single shape for the testing data. This choice, however, may introduce a mismatch between the data distribution used to train the model and the data distribution used at test time. To close this gap, training may be finished with some number of ‘fine-tuning’ iterations that use grids more closely aligned with the testing distribution, , see [@touvron2019FixRes]. We find that fine-tuning gives a small, but consistent improvement.
Implementation Details {#sec:implementation}
----------------------
Multigrid training involves a choice of sampling grids and a grid schedule, which leads to a rich design space. We use a hierarchical schedule that involves alternating between mini-batch shapes at two different frequencies: a *long cycle* that moves through a set of *base shapes*, generated by a variety of grids, staying on each shape for several epochs, and a *short cycle* that moves through a set of shapes that are ‘nearby’ the current base shape, staying on each one for a single iteration. This hierarchical grid schedule is described in more detail shortly and illustrated in .
The remainder of this subsection provides details for this design, which we have found to work well in practice. After presenting these details, we will explore what design decisions are important in ablation experiments.
#### Optimizer.
We use SGD with momentum and a stepwise learning rate decay schedule since these are common choices in practice [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @resnet; @tran2015learning; @slowfast]. Using other learning rate schedules and optimizers is also possible. Specific schedules are given in each experimental section.
#### Long Cycle.
We use sampling grids that result in an ordered sequence of $S{=}4$ base mini-batch shapes of non-decreasing size along each dimension: $8B{{\times}}\frac{T}{4}{{\times}}\frac{H}{\sqrt{2}}{{\times}}\frac{W}{\sqrt{2}}$, $4B{{\times}}\frac{T}{2}{{\times}}\frac{H}{\sqrt{2}}{{\times}}\frac{W}{\sqrt{2}}$, $2B{{\times}}\frac{T}{2}{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$, and $B{{\times}}T{{\times}}H{{\times}}W$. These four shapes cover an intuitive range and work well in practice. The long cycle is synchronized with the stepwise learning rate decay schedule: a full cycle over the $S$ shapes occurs exactly once for each learning rate stage. We train on each shape for the same number of iterations.
We use a simple randomized strategy to generate a mini-batch with the target input shape for each training iteration. For each video to be used in the mini-batch, we select a random span from a specified range and set the stride such that the desired shape is produced when sampling on the resulting grid. For the spatial dimensions, this strategy amounts to resizing a random crop to the desired shape using bilinear interpolation (similar to random cropping used in image classification [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @simonyan2014very; @resnet]). For the temporal dimension, this strategy amounts to selecting a random temporal crop and subsampling its frames. The sampling range for spans is specified in each experimental section.
#### Short Cycle.
The short cycle rapidly moves through a variety of spatial shapes, changing at each iteration. By default, we use the following 3-shape short cycle. For iteration $i$, let $m = i \pmod 3$; if $m{=}0$, then the current base spatial shape from the long cycle is used; if $m{=}1$, then we set the spatial shape to $\frac{H}{\sqrt{2}}{{\times}}\frac{W}{\sqrt{2}}$; otherwise, we use $\frac{H}{2}{{\times}}\frac{W}{2}$.
The short cycle can be applied on its own or in conjunction with the long cycle. The mini-batch size is again scaled using . The same randomized grid strategy is applied to sample data for the target mini-batch shape.
#### Learning Rate Scaling.
When the mini-batch size changes due to the long cycle, we apply the linear scaling rule [@goyal2017accurate] to adjust the learning rate by the mini-batch size scaling factor (thus either 8${\times}$, 4${\times}$, 2${\times}$, or 1${\times}$). We found that this adjustment is harmful if applied to mini-batch size changes due to the short cycle and therefore we only adjust the learning rate when the long cycle base shape changes.
#### Fine-Tuning Phase.
If the baseline optimizer uses $L$ learning rate (LR) stages, then we apply the long and short cycles in the first $L{-}1$ LR stages. We use the corresponding $L$-th stage for fine-tuning to help match the training and testing distributions, similar to [@touvron2019FixRes]. In the first half of the fine-tuning iterations we use the $L{-}1$-st learning rate and in the second half we use the final ($L$-th) learning rate. While fine-tuning we use the short cycle (as data augmentation), but not the long cycle.
#### Batch Normalization.
The behavior of Batch Normalization (BN) [@ioffe2015batch] depends on mini-batch statistics. In traditional trainers, the constant mini-batch size is also a hyper-parameter that impacts BN behaviors (, the noisiness of the statistics). As our multigrid method uses variable mini-batch sizes, it is desirable to *decouple* its impact on BN from that of training speedup. The following heuristic works well in practice: we compute BN statistics with a *sub-mini-batch* of size 8; when the short cycle increases the overall mini-batch size by 2${\times}$ or 4${\times}$, we likewise increase the BN sub-mini-batch size to 16 and 32, respectively.
table [ x y name 1.53 71.23 [0.5${\times}$]{} 3.06 75.16 [1.0${\times}$]{} 4.59 76.35 [1.5${\times}$]{} 6.12 76.20 [2.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 2.59 72.32 [0.5${\times}$]{} 5.18 74.96 [1.0${\times}$]{} 7.77 75.18 [1.5${\times}$]{} 10.36 75.21 [2.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 3.80 70.26 [0.5${\times}$]{} 7.60 75.45 [1.0${\times}$]{} 11.39 76.28 [1.5${\times}$]{} 15.19 77.02 [2.0${\times}$]{} 22.79 76.51 [3.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 0.87 66.15 [0.5${\times}$]{} 1.73 69.10 [1.0${\times}$]{} 2.60 69.90 [1.5${\times}$]{} 3.47 70.00 [2.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 5.14 68.68 [0.25${\times}$]{} 10.28 73.78 [0.5${\times}$]{} 20.5644 75.5900 [1.0${\times}$]{} 30.8467 75.3800 [1.5${\times}$]{} 41.13 74.92 [2.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 1.53 71.23 [0.5${\times}$]{} 3.06 75.16 [1.0${\times}$]{} 4.59 76.35 6.12 76.20 [2.0${\times}$]{} 7.60 75.45 [1.0${\times}$]{} 11.39 76.28 [1.5${\times}$]{} 15.19 77.02 [2.0${\times}$]{} 22.79 76.51 [3.0${\times}$]{} 0.87 66.15 [0.5${\times}$]{} 1.73 69.10 [1.0${\times}$]{} 2.60 69.90 [1.5${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 3.80 70.26 [0.5${\times}$]{} 2.59 72.32 [0.5${\times}$]{} 10.36 75.21 [2.0${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 7.77 75.18 [1.5${\times}$]{} 5.18 74.96 [1.0${\times}$]{} 3.47 70.00 [2.0${\times}$]{} 20.5644 75.5900 30.8467 75.3800 [1.5${\times}$]{} 41.13 74.92 [2.0${\times}$]{} 5.14 68.68 [0.25${\times}$]{} ]{};
table [ x y name 10.28 73.78 [0.5${\times}$]{} ]{};
at (axis cs: 20.5644,74) [Default baseline]{}; at (axis cs: 4.59,78) [Default multigrid]{};
Experiments on Kinetics {#sec:kinetics}
=======================
We conduct ablation studies on the Kinetics-400 dataset [@kay2017kinetics], which requires classifying each video into one of 400 categories. It contains ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$240k training videos and ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$20k validation videos on which we report results. Performance is measured by top-1 and top-5 accuracy.
#### Baseline Model and Training.
We use a ResNet-50 (R50) SlowFast network [@resnet; @slowfast] with a 32-frame fast pathway, speed ratio $\alpha{=}$4, and channel ratio $\beta{=}$1$/$8 as our default model. Input frames are sampled at a temporal stride of 2.
Our baseline training recipe follows Feichtenhofer [@slowfast]. We run synchronous SGD for 112k iterations on 128 GPUs with a mini-batch size of 4 clips per GPU (${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$239 epochs) with initial learning rate of 0.8. (We perform single GPU experiments in .) The learning rate is decreased by 10${\times}$ at iterations 44k, 72k, and 92k.[^6] We use a weight decay of 10$^{-4}$, momentum of 0.9, and a linear learning rate warm-up [@goyal2017accurate] from 0.002 over 16k iterations. Input clips are random 224${\times}$224 spatial crops from clips that are randomly resized such that the shorter side $\in [$256, 340$]$ pixels.
At test time, we sample 10 clips per video with uniform temporal spacing and combine the predictions with average pooling following [@wang2018non; @slowfast; @korbar2019scsampler]. We use 224${\times}$224 center crop testing by default [@korbar2019scsampler; @wu2019long] and present results with other settings in the Appendix.
We select these training and inference procedures based on validation accuracy *using the baseline training method*. We adopt the exact same recipe for multigrid training experiments, aside from multigrid specific changes. This choice may put multigrid training at a disadvantage, but it reflects the realistic scenario in which one wants to apply multigrid training to accelerate an already known training schedule without further tuning.
#### Evaluation.
Speedup factors are wall-clock GPU training time on P100 GPUs with CUDA 9.2 and cuDNN 7.6.3. For fair comparison, the same hardware and software implementation is used for all methods. We note that multigrid training exploits larger mini-batches, which increases data loading throughput requirements. Training may become IO bound if the data loader is not optimized appropriately or if remote data access is used. We verified that with sufficient local disk and an optimized data loader training is typically not IO bound.
#### Multigrid Training Details.
To sample data with spatial shape $h{{\times}}w$ that is smaller than $H{{\times}}W$, we change the default random short-side interval to $[$256$\frac{h}{H}$, 340$]$, noting that $w{=}h$ in our experiments. For the temporal dimension, we take $t$ ($t{<}T$) frames with random stride in $[$2, 2$\frac{T}{t}$$]$.
Main Results
------------
We compare multigrid training to baseline training in . In addition to the default baseline, one could speed up training by using a smaller spatial-temporal shape with a larger mini-batch size and learning rate, so we also compare to this baseline variant. For each method, we experiment with training schedules that range from 0.25${\times}$ to 3${\times}$ the number of baseline epochs ($\sim$239) to study the trade-off between training time and accuracy. Overall, multigrid training always achieves a better trade-off than baseline training. For example, multigrid training with both the long and short cycles can iterate through 1.5${\times}$ more epochs than baseline method, while only requiring 1$/$3.4${\times}$ the number of iterations, 1$/$4.5${\times}$ training time, and achieving higher accuracy (75.6% $\rightarrow$ 76.4%). The wall-clock speedup is greater than the iteration reduction factor, as a larger mini-batch with smaller space/time dimensions is more parallelism-friendly on modern GPUs. Both the long and short cycles improve the trade-off and using both together performs the best.
In we also observe that baseline training suffers a decline in accuracy when training for $\ge$1.5${\times}$ epochs. With either long and/or short cycles, a decrease in accuracy is not observed for schedules up to 2.0${\times}$ epochs, indicating that variable grids can help prevent overfitting.
In the following we use multigrid training with long and short cycles and 1.5${\times}$ more epochs than the baseline as our default since it obtains a good trade-off.
Ablation Experiments {#sec:exp:ablation}
--------------------
#### Long Cycle Design.
By default, we use $S{=}4$ long cycle shapes with a 1.5${\times}$ epoch schedule. In , we explore using fewer shapes, where we take the last $S'{<}S$ shapes, for $S'{\in}\{1,2,3\}$. The short cycle is used in these experiments, and the $S'{=}1$ setting is equivalent to using the short cycle only. We run all variants for the same number of training iterations (to roughly preserve total training FLOPs), noting that methods which use fewer shapes will process fewer epochs due to having smaller mini-batches on average compared to the $S{=}4$ design.
We see that using each additional shape improves accuracy and saturates at $S{=}4$ (default). The improvement in accuracy is possibly due to the more examples seen by the model given the same amount of iterations. Compared with $S{=}1$ (, short cycle only), our default choice improves the top-1 accuracy by absolute 2.4% (74.0% $\rightarrow$ 76.4%), while being slightly faster (4.0${\times}$ $\rightarrow$ 4.5${\times}$). All results use the fine-tuning phase, which we find is beneficial to varying degrees in different settings. With the default schedule, it leads to 0.4% absolute gain (76.0% $\rightarrow$ 76.4%; not shown in table).
#### Short Cycle Design.
Adding each input shape to the short cycle leads to a clear accuracy improvement, . Our default short cycle design (3-shape) improves over 1-shape (, no short cycle / long-cycle only) by absolute 1.9% (74.5% $\rightarrow$ 76.4%) in top-1 accuracy.
Generalization to Different Training Settings {#sec:exp:generalization}
---------------------------------------------
Next we study how multigrid training generalizes to different training settings that are common in practice.
#### Pre-training.
In our main results, we train models from random initialization. We see in that with ImageNet [@Russakovsky2015] pre-training, our multigrid method obtains a similar speedup and performance gain. (We will present more results on ImageNet-pre-trained models in .)
#### Temporal Shape.
Next we show generalization of multigrid training for models of different temporal shapes $T$. We compare models that use 16-frame, 32-frame (default), and 64-frame input clips.[^7] In all cases (), multigrid training achieves a consistent accuracy gain and speedup. The 64-frame model enjoys the largest performance gain (75.9% $\rightarrow$ 77.6%) and the best speedup (5.5${\times}$).
#### Spatial Shape.
We also demonstrate generalization of our method for models of different spatial shapes $H{{\times}}W$. We increase the baseline shape from 224${\times}$224 (default) to 320${\times}$320 and study the impact. Inference for the 320${\times}$320 model is analogous to the 224${\times}$224 case; we resize shorter side to 352 pixels and test on center 320${\times}$320 crops. In , we see that multigrid training leads to an even larger performance gain (75.1% $\rightarrow$ 76.8%) and a more significant speedup (6.5${\times}$) in the 320${\times}$320 case. Also note with the baseline method 320${\times}$320 does not work better than 224${\times}$224, possibly due to overfitting, similar to what is reported in Tan [@tan2019efficientnet]. On the other hand, with multigrid training, spatial scaling brings improvement, possibly due to the data augmentation brought by multigrid training.
Generalization to Different Models {#sec:i3d}
----------------------------------
So far we have focused on state-of-the-art SlowFast network [@slowfast] for analysis. We next demonstrate generalization of multigrid training to different networks by presenting results using a standard R50-I3D model [@resnet; @carreira2017quo] and its extension with non-local blocks (I3D-NL) [@wang2018non].
#### Implementation Details.
Both models are ImageNet-pre-trained with 3D convolutions inflated from 2D convolutions following common practice [@carreira2017quo; @feichtenhofer2016spatiotemporal; @wang2018non]. Each input clip consists of 16 frames, sampled at a stride of 4. I3D-NL additionally contains 5 (dot product) non-local blocks [@wang2018non] in res$_3$ and res$_4$ stages. The exact model specification is given in the Appendix.
The baseline recipe trains for 100k iterations using 128 GPUs, with a mini-batch size of 2 clips per GPU (${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$106 epochs) and a learning rate of 0.04, which is decreased by a factor of 10 at iteration 37.5k and 75k. We do not use learning rate warm-up [@goyal2017accurate] following prior work [@wang2018non]. Other training details are analogous to SlowFast training. We note again that this training recipe is selected to be the best for the baseline training method and we apply multigrid training on top without further tuning.
#### Evaluation.
We summarize the results in . For both I3D and I3D-NL, multigrid training with the default schedule (1.5${\times}$ epoch) obtains similar or better accuracy, while being up to 3.9${\times}$ faster. We also experiment with a shorter baseline schedule (‘baseline $\frac{1}{3.3}$’ in table), which trains for the same number of iterations as the multigrid training. The shorter baseline schedule obtains a lower accuracy (3.7% and 3.2% absolute top-1 lower than multigrid). We also see that I3D-NL has a lower speedup than I3D. This is in part due to the less optimized NL operator than convolution, consuming a large portion of the training time. We observe consistent improvements with larger backbone models (R101); see the Appendix.
[@llx[25]{}x[23]{}x[23]{}@]{} model & & speedup & top-1 & top-5\
I3D& Baseline & - & [74.4]{} & [91.4]{}\
I3D & Baseline $\frac{1}{3.3}$ & 3.3${\times}$ & 71.1 & 89.9\
I3D & **Multigrid** & **3.9**${\times}$ & **74.8** & **91.7**\
I3D-NL & Baseline & - & **75.5** & [92.1]{}\
I3D-NL & Baseline $\frac{1}{3.3}$ & **3.3${\times}$** & 72.3 & 90.6\
I3D-NL & **Multigrid** & **3.3${\times}$** & **75.5** & **92.4**\
Case Study: 1-GPU Training on Kinetics {#sec:casestudy}
======================================
Our experiments thus far use a large number of GPUs (128) in parallel. However, a more common training recipe may use far fewer GPUs (, 1 to 8) and given that one of our goals is to make video research more accessible by reducing computational requirements it is important to explore the application of our multigrid method in the few-GPU regime, without any tuning.
As a case study, we use a *single GPU* to train an I3D model on Kinetics-400 using the quick training recipe from the public repository[^8] of Wang [@wang2018non]. We apply multigrid training on top without further tuning. This schedule trains for 1200k iterations (after adjusting with the linear scaling rule [@goyal2017accurate]) on one GPU with 8 clips (${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$40 epochs). The learning rate is 0.00125, which is decreased by a factor of 10 at iteration 600k and 1000k. Dropout and random scaling are disabled to accelerate convergence given the short schedule. Each input clip consists of 8 frames, sampled at a stride of 8, when using the baseline optimizer. Other training details are the same as the I3D experiments.
shows that multigrid training generalizes well out-of-the-box to a few-GPU, short-schedule setting. With multigrid training we are able to achieve 72.5% (73.1% with 30-crop testing [@wang2018non]) top-1 accuracy *in 2 days using only 1 GPU*, while the baseline method would need nearly 1 week (when using a small model, we observe a smaller wall-clock speedup of ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$3.3${\times}$ compared to a larger model, which typically yields a ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\sim$}}$4.5${\times}$ speedup). We hope the reduced training time with multigrid training will make video understanding research more accessible and economical.
[@lx[63]{}x[22]{}x[22]{}@]{} & training time (days)& top-1 & top-5\
Baseline & 6.7 & 72.5 & 90.4\
**Multigrid** & **2.0** & [72.5]{} & [90.4]{}\
Experiments on Something-Something V2 {#sec:ssv2}
=====================================
We next evaluate multigrid training on the Something-Something V2 dataset [@ssv2], which contains 169k training, and 25k validation videos. Each video shows an interaction with everyday objects. The task is classification with 174 action classes. Performance is evaluated by top-1 and top-5 accuracy. This task is known to require more ‘temporal modeling’ to solve than Kinetics [@xie2018rethinking].
#### Implementation Details.
We use an R50-SlowFast model [@resnet; @slowfast] with 64-frame fast pathway with speed ratio $\alpha{=}$4 and channel ratio $\beta{=}$1$/$8. The model is pre-trained on Kinetics-400 following prior work [@lin2018temporal]. The baseline training recipe trains for 230k iterations on 8 GPUs, with a mini-batch size of 2 clips per GPU and a learning rate of 0.03, which is decreased by a factor of 10 at iteration 150k and 190k. Other training details are analogous to Kinetics experiments; see the Appendix for details.
#### Results.
Similar to what we observe on Kinetics, multigrid training obtains a better trade-off than baseline training on Something-Something V2 (). With the default 1.5${\times}$-epoch training, multigrid training is 5.6${\times}$ faster while obtaining a slightly higher accuracy. Multigrid training behaves consistently for the ‘spatial heavy’ Kinetics dataset and the ‘temporal heavy’ Something-Something V2 dataset.
[@lx[35]{}x[25]{}x[25]{}@]{} & speedup & top-1 & top-5\
Baseline & - & 60.9 & 87.2\
Baseline $\frac{1}{5.2}$& 5.2${\times}$ & 54.6 & 83.0\
**Multigrid** 1.0${\times}$& **8.3**${\times}$ & 60.0 & 86.8\
Baseline $\frac{1}{3.4}$& 3.4${\times}$ & 57.3 & 84.7\
**Multigrid** 1.5${\times}$ (default)& 5.6${\times}$ & 61.2 & 87.4\
Baseline $\frac{1}{2.6}$& 2.6${\times}$ & 58.7 & 85.8\
**Multigrid** 2.0${\times}$& 4.2${\times}$ & **61.7** & **87.8**\
Experiments on Charades {#sec:charades}
=======================
[@lx[35]{}x[35]{}@]{} & speedup & mAP (%)\
Baseline & - & 38.0\
Baseline $\frac{1}{5.3}$& 5.3${\times}$ & 27.5\
**Multigrid** 1.0${\times}$& **8.6**${\times}$ & 36.8\
Baseline $\frac{1}{3.5}$& 3.5${\times}$ & 31.5\
**Multigrid** 1.5${\times}$ (default)& [5.7]{}${\times}$ & **38.2**\
Baseline $\frac{1}{2.6}$& 2.6${\times}$ & 33.6\
**Multigrid** 2.0${\times}$& [4.3]{}${\times}$ & 37.4\
We finally evaluate our method on the Charades dataset [@charades], which is relatively small, consisting of only 9,848 videos in 157 action classes. The task is to predict all actions in a video. Performance is measured by mAP.
#### Implementation Details.
We use the same R50-SlowFast model [@resnet; @slowfast], with the same Kinetics pre-training as the Something-Something experiments. Training details are available in the Appendix.
#### Results.
Overall we observe consistent results compared with Kinetics and Something-Something V2 (). The default multigrid training is 5.7${\times}$ faster, while achieving slightly better mAP. Overall, we see that even for the smaller Charades dataset, with strong large-scale pre-training, multigrid training is beneficial.
Conclusion
==========
We propose a multigrid method for fast training of video models. Our method varies the sampling grid and the mini-batch size during training, and can process the same number of epochs using a small fraction of the computation of the baseline trainer. With a single , it works on multiple datasets and models, and consistently brings a speedup with comparable or higher accuracy. It works across a spectrum of hardware settings from 128 GPU distributed training to training. We hope the reduced training time will make video understanding research more accessible, scalable, and economical.
Appendix
========
Supplementary Experiments
-------------------------
#### R101-SlowFast Results.
We demonstrate generalization of multigrid training to deeper backbones by extending our default R50-SlowFast network to R101-SlowFast. All other designs and training procedures remain unchanged.
[@llx[26]{}x[26]{}x[26]{}@]{} backbone & & speedup & top-1 & top-5\
R50 (default) & Baseline & - & 75.6 & 91.9\
R50 (default) & **Multigrid** & **4.5${\times}$** & **76.4** & **92.4**\
R101 & Baseline & - & 76.5 & 92.4\
R101 & **Multigrid** & **4.4${\times}$** & **77.0** & **92.9**\
As expected, R101-SlowFast outperforms R50-SlowFast and we observe a consistent speedup and accuracy gain over the baseline with multigrid training.
#### Long Cycle Design.
By default we use multiple long cycles that are synchronized with the stepwise learning rate (LR) schedule (, one long cycle period per LR stage). We compare our default design (‘multi-cycle’) with an alternative that uses only a single long cycle period (‘single-cycle’) throughout all of training. Note that the single-cycle design does not use a fine-tuning phase as it is unclear how to incorporate it into this design.
[@llx[26]{}x[26]{}x[26]{}@]{} & long cycle design & speedup & top-1 & top-5\
Baseline & - & - & 75.6 & 91.9\
& single-cycle & 5.2${\times}$ & 74.4 & 91.8\
& **multi-cycle (default)** & 4.5${\times}$ & **76.4** & **92.4**\
We observe that our default, multi-cycle design works better. In the multi-cycle design, the later shapes, which are closer to the final testing distribution, are used with each LR. We conjecture that exposing the model to these shapes with the larger (earlier) LRs is important for generalizing to the testing distribution. In contrast, the single-cycle design only uses the later shapes with relatively low LRs.
#### Cosine Learning Rate Schedule.
We develop multigrid training assuming a stepwise LR schedule. Next we experiment with a cosine LR schedule. We experiment with both the multi-cycle and the single-cycle design for long cycles. *No further modifications* are applied to multigrid training.
[@llx[24]{}x[24]{}x[24]{}@]{} LR schedule & & speedup & top-1 & top-5\
& Baseline & - & 75.6 & 91.9\
& Multigrid & **4.5${\times}$** & **76.4** & **92.4**\
& Baseline & - & 75.8 & 92.0\
& Multigrid (single long cyc.) & **5.2**${\times}$ & 75.4 & 92.1\
& Multigrid (multi long cyc.) & 4.2${\times}$ & 75.3 & 92.1\
We observe that multigrid training on a cosine schedule obtains a slightly lower accuracy than the default stepwise schedule. The lower accuracy is possibly due to the relatively smaller LRs used in larger (later) shapes as the LR is monotonically decreasing in a cosine schedule. However, it still obtains a consistent speedup and a comparable accuracy to baseline, suggesting robustness of the multigrid strategy. The two long-cycle designs obtain a similar accuracy.
#### Testing Settings.
Next we present results with additional test-time settings that are common in the literature. Here we use the 64-frame R50-SlowFast due to its high accuracy. Our multigrid method trains this model 5.5${\times}$ faster than the baseline.
[@lx[20]{}x[20]{}x[20]{}x[20]{}x[20]{}x[20]{}@]{} & & &\
& top-1 & top-5 & top-1 & top-5 & top-1 & top-5\
Baseline & 75.9 & 92.1 & 76.5 & 92.2 & 77.2 & 92.5\
**Multigrid** & **77.6** & **93.2** & **78.1** & **93.5** & **78.1** & **93.4**
As expected, using 3-crop (left-center-right) testing improves accuracy for both baseline and multigrid training.
Supplementary Implementation Details
------------------------------------
The I3D and I3D-NL architectures used in generalization analysis are shown below (assuming 16${\times}$224${\times}$224 inputs):
---------- -- ------------------------------
Layer Output size
conv$_1$ 16${\times}$112${\times}$112
pool$_1$ 16${\times}$56${\times}$56
---------- -- ------------------------------
‘I3D-NL’ additionally uses non-local operators [@wang2018non] after blocks 1 and 3 of res$_\textrm{3}$, and blocks 1, 3, and 5 of res$_\textrm{4}$.
#### Something-Something V2 Training.
We use a linear warm-up [@goyal2017accurate] for 2k iterations from 0.0001 and a weight decay of 10$^{-6}$. As Something-Something V2 requires distinguishing between directions, we disable random flipping during training. Following [@lin2018temporal], we use segment-based input frame sampling, , we split each video into segments, and from each of them, sample one frame to form a clip.
#### Charades Training.
The baseline method trains for 28k iterations with a learning rate of 0.0375, which is decreased by a factor of 10 at iteration 20k and 24k.
[^1]: We omit the channel dimension (3 for RGB) for clarity.
[^2]: In practice, the computation is not exactly equal, because of rounding (, $w$ can be $\frac{W}{\sqrt{2}}$), padding, and, , fully connected or non-local layers. We ignore these subtleties and only use approximate FLOPs as a rough design principle. All speedups are measured by wall-clock time.
[^3]: In practice, a similar number of epochs (, within a factor of 2) are typically used for a given dataset, *even for very different models*.
[^4]: Between two videos these units may have different physical meanings if the videos were captured by cameras with different properties (, a 24 frame span from a 24 FPS video a 24 frame span from a 30 FPS video). These properties may be unknown and therefore we define grid units with respect to source videos, not the physical world.
[^5]: If an appropriate operator exists for ‘resampling’ model *parameters* so that they are compatible with new input shapes, then these parameters may still be usable with multigrid training. This concept can be combined with weight sharing, , by dilating or resizing model filters to mirror the data sampling grid, though preliminary experiments did not improve results.
[^6]: We use the stepwise learning rate schedule rather than the cosine schedule used in Feichtenhofer [@slowfast] because it is still more common. Results with a cosine schedule are available in the Appendix.
[^7]: $\alpha{=}2$ in the 16-frame model to avoid a degenerated slow pathway.
[^8]: <https://github.com/facebookresearch/video-nonlocal-net>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Nathaniel Craig
- and Isabel García García
bibliography:
- 'massivephotonWGC\_refs.bib'
title: Rescuing Massive Photons from the Swampland
---
Introduction
============
The Swampland program aims to identify a well-defined set of conditions that effective field theories need to satisfy in order to be compatible with a UV-completion into a theory of quantum gravity [@Vafa:2005ui; @ArkaniHamed:2006dz; @Adams:2006sv; @Ooguri:2006in; @Brennan:2017rbf]. Some of the best-known conjectures in the list of Swampland criteria are based on arguments regarding extremal black hole decay or absence of black hole remnants, such as e.g. the weak gravity conjecture (WGC) [@ArkaniHamed:2006dz], or the absence of global symmetries [@Kamionkowski:1992mf; @Holman:1992us; @Kallosh:1995hi; @Banks:2010zn]. String theory then provides a playing field to look for counterexamples, gain intuition that allows to sharpen the various versions of these conjectures [@Heidenreich:2015nta; @Heidenreich:2016aqi; @Montero:2016tif; @Andriolo:2018lvp; @Heidenreich:2017sim], or propose new ones.
In [@Reece], two new additions to the list of Swampland criteria were proposed, aimed at effective theories containing $U(1)$ gauge bosons whose mass arises through the Stückelberg mechanism. Specifically, [@Reece] argues that in a theory featuring a vector with a Stückelberg mass $m_\gamma = g f_\theta$, with $g$ the corresponding gauge coupling, the following statements hold:
- *‘Stückelberg cut-off’ conjecture*: there is a cut-off at the scale $\Lambda \lesssim \sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}}$, beyond which the effective field theory description breaks down.
- *‘Radial mode’ conjecture*: there is a dynamical scalar degree of freedom present at the scale $m_\sigma \lesssim f_\theta$.
These are adaptations of conjectures that already exist as applied to fundamental axion fields $\theta$ with period $2 \pi f_\theta$ [@Ooguri:2006in]. The main insight of [@Reece] is to argue that they should also apply to massive vectors when the mass arises through the Stückelberg mechanism, since in such case the longitudinal mode of the vector may be regarded as a compact axion.
Motivation behind conjecture (*1*) rests on the observation that, in known string theory constructions, the point in moduli space at which the period of a compact axion vanishes – and therefore the vector mass in the Stückelberg mechanism – lies infinitely far away from any other point with non-zero period. This, together with conjecture no. $2$ in [@Ooguri:2006in], which states that the low energy effective theory defined around a given point in moduli space only remains consistent within a finite distance of such point, suggest that the limit $f_\theta \rightarrow 0$ should be non-smooth, and that the effective theory should have a cut-off scale that vanishes in that limit. The specific form $\Lambda \lesssim \sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}}$ is obtained by applying the WGC to the theory dual to the scalar $\theta$, namely a $U(1)$ gauge theory with an associated 2-form gauge potential, and it is further motivated by arguments regarding the absence of black hole remnants [@Bowick:1988xh; @Hebecker:2017uix].
Regarding conjecture (*2*), the idea that there must be a radial mode accompanying the axion whose mass is not arbitrarily heavy was first proposed in [@Ooguri:2006in] (conjecture no. 4). Refinements of this conjecture in [@Reece], through arguments based on the expectation that instanton effects will break the continuous shift symmetry of the axion field, further justify the upper bound $m_\sigma \lesssim f_\theta$. Although this may well be the situation *in general* (such as e.g. if the axion couples to the topological term of a non-abelian gauge theory, or in specific string constructions), this precise bound is more a statement about consistent interacting effective field theories than it is about a consistent theory of quantum gravity. In particular, conjecture (*2*) is peculiar as a statement about quantum gravity insofar as, unlike conjecture (*1*), taking the limit $M_{Pl} \rightarrow \infty$ does not decouple the radial mode. Regardless of the precise form that conjecture (*2*) should take [*qua*]{} a consistency condition of quantum gravity, we nevertheless entertain it in the following – not least because we will also be considering Higgs theories, for which the conjecture obviously holds.
The conjectures in [@Reece] lead to (at least) two phenomenologically relevant consequences. First, in conjunction with current experimental upper bounds, they imply that the Standard Model (SM) photon must be completely massless. Second, these conjectures have the potential to significantly constrain the region of parameter space that is realizable for models of dark photon dark matter. Specifically, if the dark matter relic abundance of dark photons is produced through inflationary fluctuations, as proposed in [@Graham:2015rva], the conjectures of [@Reece] imply that dark photon masses below $\sim 10 \ {\rm eV}$ may be inconsistent with a further UV-completion into a theory of quantum gravity. If true, this would wipe out a significant region of the relevant parameter space in such theories, since from a low energy perspective dark photon masses as low as $\sim \mu {\rm eV}$ are consistent with a dark matter abundance generated from inflationary fluctuations.
In this work, we robustly demonstrate that the conjectures in [@Reece], even if true in the UV, need not imply phenomenological consequences in the IR. That is, low energy effective field theories can appear to parametrically violate the conjectures, thereby removing phenomenological constraints. Our counter-example unsurprisingly takes the form of a small modification of the clockwork mechanism of [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy] as applied to vectors [@Saraswat:2016eaz], and for reasons that will become apparent in the following we refer to it as ‘broken clockwork’. Crucially, the broken clockwork constructions we present feature a low energy effective theory with the following properties:
- it contains a massive photon that is parametrically below any other massive degrees of freedom, in particular any radial mode,
- it allows for a decoupling limit in which scalar excitations (and other massive states) become arbitrarily heavy, but a parametric separation of scales remains between the photon mass and any cut-off scale mandated by quantum gravity arguments,
- despite parametrically violating conjectures (*1*) and (*2*), it can be UV-completed into a theory that satisfies them, and the UV-completion can be implemented both through the Higgs and Stückelberg mechanisms, and
- properties ($i$)-($iii$) hold for $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values of the UV parameters.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:review\] we review the clockwork mechanism as applied to vectors, as well as the properties of vector clockwork theories in the context of the WGC (following [@Saraswat:2016eaz]), and show how the vector clockwork construction can also be UV-completed through the Stückelberg mechanism. In section \[sec:massivecw\] we present how these constructions can be modified in order to obtain a theory that satisfies properties ($i$)-($iv$). Section \[sec:pheno\] revisits the phenomenological implications of conjectures (*1*) and (*2*), and discusses how broken clockwork models circumvent the constraints of [@Reece]. We summarize our conclusions in section \[sec:conclusions\].
Vector clockwork, and the WGC {#sec:review}
=============================
We begin by reviewing the original clockwork mechanism of [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy] as applied to abelian gauge theories in section \[sec:vectorCWhiggs\], as well as the status of the WGC in the context of these constructions, following [@Saraswat:2016eaz]. In section \[sec:vectorCWstuck\] we present a Stückelberg UV-completion of vector clockwork.
Vector clockwork through Higgsing {#sec:vectorCWhiggs}
---------------------------------
The discrete version of the clockwork construction as applied to vectors consists of a theory with a gauge group that is a product of $N+1$ independent $U(1)$ factors, $G = \prod_{j=0}^N U(1)_j$, with a low energy effective lagrangian describing the gauge sector of the form [@Saraswat:2016eaz; @Giudice:2016yja] $$\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{j=0}^N F_{j \mu \nu}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} m^2 (A_{j \mu} - q A_{j+1 \mu})^2 \ ,
\label{eq:lagrangiancw0}$$ where $q$ is a dimensionless quantity that needs to be $q \neq 1$ for clockwork to operate, and $m^2$ is a mass-squared parameter that breaks $N$ of the $N+1$ $U(1)$’s. Without loss of generality, here we will consider the case $q > 1$. Compactness requires charge be quantized, and for simplicity we assume the charge quantum $g$ is the same for all $U(1)_j$ factors. A partial UV-completion to Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw0\]) is achieved by introducing $N$ Higgs fields $\phi_j$ carrying charges $1$ and $-q$ under the $U(1)_j$ and $U(1)_{j+1}$ factors. The corresponding lagrangian then reads $$\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{j=0}^N F_{j \mu \nu}^2 + \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left( | D_\mu \phi_j |^2 - V (\phi_j) \right) \ ,
\label{eq:lagrangiancw}$$ where $D_\mu \phi_j = \partial_\mu \phi_j - g (A_{j} - q A_{j + 1})_\mu \phi_j$, and $V (\phi_j)$ denotes a non-trivial potential for each complex scalar such that $\langle |\phi_j| \rangle = v / \sqrt{2}$. Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw0\]) with $m^2 = g^2 v^2$ then corresponds to the effective lagrangian describing the gauge sector of the theory, in unitary gauge. (It is useful to think of this construction in terms of a quiver theory, as depicted in Figure \[fig:quiver\].)
![Quiver diagram for the vector clockwork construction. Circles denote $U(1)$ gauge groups, and lines represent complex scalar fields charged under adjacent groups.[]{data-label="fig:quiver"}](fig_quiver.pdf)
Upon diagonalization, the spectrum of mass eigenstates contains a massless vector, corresponding to the $U(1)$ factor that remains unbroken, which we refer to as $U(1)_{cw}$. In terms of the gauge fields associated to the individual lattice sites, it is given by $$A_\gamma = \frac{1}{\mathcal N} \sum_{j=0}^N q^{N-j} A_j \sim \sum_{j=0}^N \frac{1}{q^j} A_j\ ,$$ where $\mathcal N = \sqrt{q^{2N} + \cdots + q^2 + 1} \sim q^N$. The massless mode $A_\gamma$ is a linear combination involving the $N+1$ gauge bosons of all the original $U(1)$ factors, but with exponentially distributed coefficients. In terms of the quiver theory of Figure \[fig:quiver\], it is exponentially localized towards the $j=0$ site, and has exponentially suppressed overlap with states localized on the site $j=N$.
As discussed in [@Giudice:2016yja], the $N$ massive vectors resulting from this symmetry-breaking pattern are also linear combinations of all the fields in the quiver, but do not exhibit strong localization. Their masses are at the scale $m_{V_i} \sim g q v$, with the lightest massive mode appearing at $m_{V_1} \approx (q-1) g v$, and the heaviest at $m_{V_N} \approx (q+1) g v$. This mass spectrum is characteristic of clockwork theories: a massless mode followed by a band of $\mathcal{O} (gv)$ where the $N$ massive modes lie. In this particular UV-completion, $N$ real scalar fields, corresponding to the radial modes of the $\phi_j$ fields, will also be part of the spectrum, with masses of order $\sim v$ (up to quartic couplings). This is schematically depicted in Figure \[fig:spectrumcw\]. Given the perturbativity constraint $g q \lesssim 1$, the massive vector modes could well lie below the scale $v$. However, we will assume throughout that $gq \sim 1$, and use $m_\sigma \sim v$ as a proxy for the scale at which massive states, both scalars and vectors, are present.
![Typical mass spectrum of vector clockwork constructions. A massless photon remains in the spectrum, followed by $N$ massive vectors at scale $m_{V_i} \sim g q v \lesssim v$. In the Higgs UV-completion of the model, $N$ scalar fields are also present, with masses $m_{h_i} \sim v$.[]{data-label="fig:spectrumcw"}](fig_spectrumcw.pdf)
Further, as a result of charge being quantized, the symmetry breaking pattern of the theory is not quite $U(1)^{N+1} \rightarrow U(1)_{cw}$, but rather $$U(1)^{N+1} \rightarrow U(1)_{cw} \times \left( \mathbb{Z}_{p_1} \times \cdots \times \mathbb{Z}_{p_N} \right) \ ,$$ i.e. $N$ discrete gauge symmetries remain unbroken.[^1] The leftover discrete symmetries are expressed in the spectrum of the theory through the presence of solitonic degrees of freedom: flux tubes, or cosmic strings, inside of which magnetic flux of the broken gauge directions remains confined [@Nielsen:1973cs]. There will be $N$ different types of strings, all with tension $T \sim v^2$. Notice that the presence and properties of these strings can be understood purely from a semi-classical analysis of Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw\]) (see e.g. [@Preskill:1986kp]), and no new degrees of freedom, or any other modification of the theory, need to be introduced at scale $\sqrt{T} \sim v$.
Many of the interesting properties of clockwork theories stem from the exponential localization of its 0-mode. In particular, a matter field $\eta_N$ carrying unit charge $g$ under the gauge group $U(1)_N$ will couple to the massless mode with strength $$g_\gamma = \frac{g}{\mathcal{N}} \sim \frac{g}{q^N} \ll g \ ,
\label{eq:geff}$$ and defines the charge quantum of the unbroken $U(1)$ factor. In general, a state $\eta_j$ carrying unit charge under the $j$-th gauge group, carries charge $q^j$ (in units of $g_\gamma$) under $U(1)_{cw}$. Compactness of the theory in the broken phase is therefore guaranteed by assuming the original $N+1$ $U(1)$ factors are also compact.
As first noted in [@Saraswat:2016eaz], the exponential localization of the 0-mode across the quiver, and specifically Eq.(\[eq:geff\]) as a direct consequence, endows this theory with rather unusual properties in the context of the WGC. In particular, specific versions of the conjecture satisfied by the UV theory (that is, before Higgsing), may be parametrically violated in the IR. For instance, the ‘unit-charge’ version of the conjecture may be satisfied in the UV by demanding all states $\eta_j$ appear at a scale $m_\eta$ satisfying [^2] [^3] $$m_\eta \lesssim \Lambda \sim g M_{Pl} \ ,
\label{eq:WGCUV}$$ where $g$ is subject to the perturbativity constraint $g q \lesssim 1$. For $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values of $q$, this is not a strong constraint, and if $g$ is not very small, $\Lambda$ may not be far below $M_{Pl}$. Thus, the cut-off scale defined by the WGC, below which electrically charged states must be present in the theory, can easily be above all the massive vector and scalar excitations depicted in Figure \[fig:spectrumcw\], and therefore well out of reach of any low energy effective description. [^4]
However, in light of Eq.(\[eq:geff\]) it is clear that imposing this version of the conjecture in the UV does not imply that the same version is satisfied by the IR theory. In the broken phase, a state with mass $m_\eta$ and $U(1)_{cw}$ charge $Q$ (in units of $g_\gamma$) is super-extremal if $$m_\eta \lesssim Q g_\gamma M_{Pl} \sim \frac{Q}{q^N} g M_{Pl} \ .
\label{eq:WGCIR}$$ Eq.(\[eq:WGCUV\]) obviously implies Eq.(\[eq:WGCIR\]) for $Q=q^N$, and therefore the state $\eta_0$, carrying unit charge under $U(1)_0$, is guaranteed to satisfy the super-extremality condition in the IR theory. However, if $m_\eta$ is not too far below $\Lambda$, this may indeed be the only super-extremal state present in the Higgsed phase. As a result, from a UV theory that satisfies the stringent unit-charge version of the conjecture, we recover an IR theory in which the only super-extremal state carries charge $q^N \gg 1$, parametrically violating the version of the conjecture imposed in the unbroken phase. [^5]
The discussion of the magnetic version of the conjecture proceeds along similar lines [@Saraswat:2016eaz]. Assuming the magnetic WGC holds in the unbroken phase, $\Lambda \sim g M_{Pl}$ corresponds to the scale at which the UV theory needs to be modified in order to account for the presence of magnetic monopoles charged under the $U(1)_j$ factors [@ArkaniHamed:2006dz]. Applying the same version of the conjecture to the IR theory would suggest that new physics should therefore be present at a scale $g_\gamma M_{Pl} \sim \Lambda / q^N \ll \Lambda$ to account for monopoles carrying $U(1)_{cw}$ magnetic charge. But no modification of the theory at scale $g_\gamma M_{Pl}$ is required. Instead, IR monopole configurations may be built out of individual monopoles carrying magnetic charge of the $U(1)_j$ factors, connected through flux tubes. In this way, a finite energy configuration carrying $U(1)_{cw}$ magnetic charge can be built, and as shown in [@Saraswat:2016eaz] the unit-charge monopole (that is, with charge $2 \pi / g_\gamma$) is not a black hole. Thus, the IR theory parametrically violates the magnetic form of the WGC, although it is satisfied in the UV.
Vector clockwork through the Stückelberg mechanism {#sec:vectorCWstuck}
--------------------------------------------------
The low energy effective lagrangian of Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw0\]) can also be UV-completed through the Stückelberg mechanism, by introducing $N$ axion fields $\theta_j$, each transforming non-trivially under the gauge transformation corresponding to the linear combination $A_j - q A_{j+1}$.
A compact axion can be dualized into a 2-form gauge field associated with an abelian gauge group. For the case at hand, the Stückelberg UV-completion of the vector clockwork construction requires introducing $N$ such 2-forms, $B_{j}$, and the corresponding lagrangian can be written as $$\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{j=0}^N F_{j \mu \nu}^2 + \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left( \frac{1}{12} H_{j \mu \nu \sigma}^2
+ \frac{g f_\theta}{4} \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} (F_{j \mu \nu} - q F_{j+1 \mu \nu} ) B_{j \rho \sigma} \right) \ ,
\label{eq:lagCWstuck}$$ where $H_j = d B_j$ are the corresponding 3-form field strengths, and are related to the scalars $\theta_j$ through the Hodge dual operation $H_j = * d \theta_j$. The 2-forms $B_j$ couple to fundamental string currents in units of $2 \pi f_\theta$, which coincides with the periodicity of the scalars $\theta_j$. As the $A_j$ and $B_j$ each are associated with compact abelian gauge groups, the parameter $q$ is necessarily quantized in $\mathbb{Z}$. The clockwork form of the $B_j \wedge (F_j - q F_{j+1})$ couplings can be understood simply as the dual of the $(1,-q)$ “charges” dictating shifts of the axion fields $\theta_j$ under gauge transformations of $(A_j, A_{j+1})$.
The $B_j \wedge (F_j - q F_{j+1})$ couplings of Eq.(\[eq:lagCWstuck\]) can be rewritten in terms of the $H_j$, which in turn may be eliminated through the corresponding equations of motion: $$H_j^{\mu \rho \sigma} = g f_\theta \varepsilon^{\mu \rho \sigma \nu} (A_j - q A_{j+1})_\nu \ .
\label{eq:Heom}$$ Plugging Eq.(\[eq:Heom\]) back into Eq.(\[eq:lagCWstuck\]) we precisely recover Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw0\]) with $m^2 = g^2 f_\theta^2$.
Naïvely, the mass spectrum of this UV-completion is as in Figure \[fig:spectrumcw\] except that there are no massive scalars. However, if we accept the ‘radial mode’ conjecture of [@Reece], every $\theta_j$ must be accompanied by a scalar excitation appearing at a scale $m_\sigma$ not far above $f_\theta$. In such case, the spectrum of the theory is then in fact identical to that of Figure \[fig:spectrumcw\], after the obvious replacement $v \rightarrow f_\theta$.
A further consideration stems from applying the WGC to the abelian gauge groups associated to the 2-forms. Using the version of the conjecture appropriate for higher form fields [@ArkaniHamed:2006dz], one concludes that the tension $T$ of fundamental strings coupling to the $B_j$’s must satisfy [^6] $$T \lesssim f_\theta M_{Pl} \ .
\label{eq:tension}$$
Much like the flux tubes present in Higgs theories, these strings will carry magnetic flux of the broken gauge directions. This can be seen by introducing string currents $\Sigma_j$ with couplings of the form $\mathcal{L} \propto 2 \pi f_\theta B_{j \mu \nu} \Sigma_j^{\mu \nu}$. Taking the divergence of the equations of motion obtained by varying with respect to the $B_j$’s, one indeed finds $$\partial_\mu ({\tilde F}_j - q {\tilde F}_{j+1})^{\mu \nu} \propto \frac{2 \pi}{g} \partial_\mu \Sigma_j^{\mu \nu} \ ,$$ where ${\tilde F}_j \equiv * F_j$. However, unlike Higgs cosmic strings which can be understood semi-classically, with no need for extra degrees of freedom beyond those featured in Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw\]), the tension of Stückelberg strings defines a scale at which the field content of the theory needs to be extended. In this sense, $\sqrt{T} \sim \sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}}$ may be regarded as a cut-off scale, as mandated by the WGC [@Hebecker:2017uix].
The discussion of the WGC as applied to the 1-form gauge sector is identical to the situation in the Higgs UV-completion, with fundamental strings now playing the role of flux tubes in building the IR monopoles. Depending on the sizes of $g$ and $f_\theta$, the WGC cut-off as applied to the Stückelberg UV-completion will then be either $$\Lambda \sim g M_{Pl} \quad {\rm or} \quad \sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}} \ .$$
Broken vector clockwork {#sec:massivecw}
=======================
Parametrically light vectors from a broken clockwork {#sec:brokencw}
----------------------------------------------------
We consider a modification of the original clockwork construction by adding to the lagrangian of Eq.(\[eq:lagrangiancw0\]) an extra term of the form: $$\mathcal{L} \supset \frac{1}{2} m^2 A_N^2 \ ,
\label{eq:Lcwbreaking}$$ which breaks the $U(1)_{cw}$ symmetry. This term can be implemented through the addition of an extra Higgs field carrying unit charge under the last gauge group of the quiver, i.e. $$\mathcal{L} \supset |D_\mu \phi_N|^2 - V(|\phi_N|) \ ,$$ with $D_\mu \phi_N = \partial_\mu \phi_N - i g A_{N \mu} \phi_N$, and $V(|\phi_N|)$ a non-trivial potential such that $\langle |\phi_N| \rangle = v / \sqrt{2}$. Or by introducing an additional 2-form field in the Stückelberg case, with couplings: $$\mathcal{L} \supset \frac{1}{12} H_{N \mu \nu \sigma}^2 + \frac{g f_\theta}{4} \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} F_{N \mu \nu} B_{N \rho \sigma} \ .$$ A symmetry breaking term as in Eq.(\[eq:Lcwbreaking\]) arises from either of these choices, with $m^2 = g^2 v^2$ or $g^2 f_\theta^2$, for the Higgs and Stückelberg UV-completions respectively. [^7] In the following, we will use notation appropriate to the Higgs UV-completion of the model, but all our results apply also in the Stückelberg case unless otherwise noted.
For a $2$-site model ($N=1$), the eigenvalues of the modified vector mass-squared matrix can straightforwardly be obtained analytically, and are given by $m^2_{\gamma, V} = (g v)^2 \lambda_{\gamma,V}$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_\gamma & = \frac{1}{2} \left( q^2 + 2 - \sqrt{(q^2 + 2)^2 - 4} \right) = \frac{1}{q^2} \left( 1 + \mathcal {O} \left( q^{-2} \right) \right) \sim \frac{1}{q^2} \ ,\\
\lambda_V & = \frac{1}{2} \left( q^2 + 2 + \sqrt{(q^2 + 2)^2 - 4} \right) = q^2 \left( 1 + \mathcal {O} \left( q^{-2} \right) \right) \sim q^2 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the masses of the two vectors are, parametrically: $$m_\gamma \equiv g v \sqrt{\lambda_\gamma} \sim \frac{g v}{q} \ , \qquad {\rm and} \qquad m_V \equiv g v \sqrt{\lambda_V} \sim g q v \ .$$
The theory no longer contains a massless mode, but otherwise the spectrum of states is very much like in the standard clockwork construction, with a second massive vector at the scale $m_V \sim g q v \lesssim v$, and scalar excitations appearing at the scale $\sim v$. The separation of scales between the light vector and heavier states with mass $m_\sigma \sim v$ (or $f_\theta$), is given by $$\frac{m_\sigma}{m_\gamma} \sim \frac{q}{g} \gtrsim q^2 \ ,
$$ where in the last step we have used the perturbativity requirement $g q \lesssim 1$. However, this separation of scales can only be made parametrically large if one chooses $q \gg 1$, which may seem *ad hoc*, and could potentially frustrate the theory’s embedding into a full UV-completion [@Heidenreich:2015wga; @Ibanez:2017vfl].
Interestingly, the separation of scales increases exponentially by increasing the number of sites. The mass of the lightest vector in the general case containing $N+1$ sites is $$m_\gamma \sim \frac{g v}{q^N} \ ,
\label{eq:mgamma}$$ whereas the heavier vector spectrum is left almost unchanged. While complete analytic expressions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are unilluminating, it is straightforward to see the effect of the mass deformation in Eq.(\[eq:Lcwbreaking\]) on the $(N+1)$-site clockwork spectrum at first order in $m^2/(g q v)^2 \sim 1 / q^2$. The mass-squared eigenvalues to first order in this perturbation are $$m_{V_i}^2 = \hat m_{V_i}^2 + m^2 O_{N i}^2$$ where $\hat m_{V_i}$ denote the unbroken clockwork mass eigenvalues (as in section \[sec:vectorCWhiggs\]), and [@Giudice:2016yja] $$\begin{aligned}
O_{i0} = \frac{q^{N-i}}{\mathcal{N}} \ , \hspace{1cm} O_{ij} = \mathcal{N}_j \left[q \sin \frac{ij \pi}{N+1} -\sin \frac{(i+1) j \pi}{N+1} \right] \\
\mathcal{N} = \sqrt{q^{2N} + \cdots + q^2 + 1} \ , \hspace{1cm} \mathcal{N}_j = \sqrt{\frac{2 g^2 v^2}{(N+1) \hat m_{V_j}^2}}\end{aligned}$$ is the orthogonal matrix relating the gauge and mass eigenbases for the unperturbed clockwork, $\hat A = O \hat V$. In particular, the mass of the lightest eigenstate at this order is precisely that of Eq.(\[eq:mgamma\]), while the perturbations to the heavier mass eigenstates are suppressed by $1/N$. The lightest mass eigenstate remains exponentially localized; to first order in $m^2/(g q v)^2 \sim 1 / q^2$ it is related to the unperturbed clockwork eigenvectors via $$A_\gamma \propto \hat A_\gamma - \sum_i \frac{m^2}{\hat m_{V_i}^2} O_{Ni} O_{N0} \hat V_i \ .$$ In particular, the admixture of the lightest mode with the heavier unperturbed mass eigenstates is suppressed by a factor of $O_{N0} \sim 1/q^N$, preserving the localization of the zero mode observed in the unperturbed theory.
The stated parametric behaviour apparent from perturbation theory can be seen more robustly in Figure \[fig:masses\], which shows the exact numerical spectrum as a function of the number of sites. The eigenvector spectrum also very closely matches that of the unbroken clockwork construction. In particular, the lightest vector exhibits the same strong localization towards one of the sites in the quiver, as expected; this is illustrated in Figure \[fig:profilegamma\].
![Typical mass spectrum of the broken clockwork constructions discussed here. $(a)$ Mass of the lightest vector as a function of $N$. $(b)$ Masses of the $N$ heavier vector modes. As in the standard (unbroken) clockwork model, their masses range from approximately $(q-1)gv$ to $(q+1)gv$ (orange band). In both figures, $q=3$ for illustration.[]{data-label="fig:masses"}](fig_masses.pdf)
![Profile of lightest vector for $N=1$ (red), 3 (green), 6 (orange), and 10 (blue), with $q=3$ for illustration, with $A_\gamma = \sum_{j=0}^N c_j A_j$. Continuous lines correspond to the exponential localization of the standard clockwork construction where $c_j / c_0 = 1/q^{j}$.[]{data-label="fig:profilegamma"}](fig_profilegamma.pdf)
The scaling behaviour in Eq.(\[eq:mgamma\]) allows for a separation of scales between the lightest vector, and all the other massive modes appearing at scale $m_\sigma \sim v$ (or $f_\theta$): $$\frac{m_\sigma}{m_\gamma} \sim \frac{q^N}{g} \gtrsim q^{N+1} \ ,
\label{eq:sigmagammaratio}$$ which may be parametrically large even for $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values of the UV parameters $q$ and $N$.
Status of the WGC
-----------------
In section \[sec:brokencw\] we have discussed how a broken clockwork construction can feature a large separation of scales between the lightest state and any other massive excitations, even for $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values of the underlying UV parameters, as illustrated through Eq.(\[eq:sigmagammaratio\]). However, if we are willing to consider very small parameter values, so long as they are technically natural, we could have just as well considered a theory with a single $U(1)$ and a Higgs field (or Stückelberg axion) carrying the unit of charge. In this case, we would find $$\frac{m_\sigma}{m_\gamma} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{g} \gg 1 \qquad {\rm for} \qquad g \ll 1 \ ,$$ with $\lambda$ a quartic coupling controlling the radial mode mass in the Higgs or Stückelberg constructions, satisfying the perturbativity requirement $\lambda \lesssim 4 \pi$. In fact, what we have done in our broken clockwork construction is first use the standard clockwork mechanism to generate a very small effective gauge coupling, Eq.(\[eq:geff\]), and then break it through a Higgs or Stückelberg axion field that carries the unit of charge under $U(1)_{cw}$. Surely then, the conclusions regarding separation of scales in the two theories cannot be that different, and it is therefore a matter of taste whether one prefers a theory with very small couplings, or one with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ parameters but with an extended field content? It turns out that the two theories are crucially different when considered in the context of the WGC, as we now discuss.
Some of the unusual features of vector clockwork theories with regards to the WGC are expressed also in the broken version of these constructions. Specifically, a parametric separation of scales between the photon mass $m_\gamma$, and any cut-off scale required by WGC-like arguments remains, even in the decoupling limit in which all other massive states are taken arbitrarily heavy. For instance, in either the Higgs or Stückelberg versions of the theory with $\Lambda \sim g M_{Pl}$, we have $$\frac{\Lambda}{m_\gamma} \lesssim \frac{g M_{Pl}}{ g v / q^N} = q^N \frac{M_{Pl}}{v} \xrightarrow{v \rightarrow M_{Pl}} q^N \gg 1 \ ,$$ where $v$ should be replaced by $f_\theta$ in the Stückelberg case.
This result is largely independent of the specific form of the cut-off imposed in the UV theory. For example, if the parameters of the Stückelberg UV-completion are such that $\sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}}$ is below $g M_{Pl}$, we then find $$\frac{\Lambda}{m_\gamma} \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}}}{ g f_\theta / q^N} = \frac{q^N}{g} \sqrt{ \frac{M_{Pl}}{f_\theta} } \gtrsim \xrightarrow{f_\theta \rightarrow M_{Pl}} \frac{q^N}{g} \gtrsim q^{N+1} \gg 1 \ .$$ Different values of $\Lambda$ arising from different versions of the conjecture as applied to the UV theory lead to different parametric dependence of the ratio $\Lambda / m_\gamma$ on the model parameters, but in any case a parametrically large ratio will remain even in the decoupling limit. This is crucially different from the situation that arises from the spontaneous breaking of a single $U(1)$ gauge group through the vev of a Higgs carrying charge $g \ll 1$. In this case, the WGC cut-off–to–photon–mass ratio behaves, parametrically $$\frac{\Lambda}{m_\gamma} \sim \frac{g M_{Pl}}{g v} = \frac{M_{Pl}}{v} \xrightarrow{v \rightarrow M_{Pl}} 1 \ ,$$ i.e. imposing the WGC in the unbroken phase precludes a decoupling limit. This also holds for a Stückelberg construction, and since we are interested in $g$ small and $f_\theta$ large, the above expression trivially applies in this case after the substitution $v \rightarrow f_\theta$.
Phenomenological implications {#sec:pheno}
=============================
Dark photon dark matter
-----------------------
Massive vectors with small couplings to the SM degrees of freedom are ubiquitous in Beyond-the-Standard-Model physics. They are a common occurrence in models of dark matter featuring extended dark sectors, and appear naturally in the context of string compactifications [@Arvanitaki:2009hb]. Moreover, if sufficiently stable, they can be the dark matter [@Nelson:2011sf] (see also [@Arias:2012az]).
In [@Graham:2015rva], an attractive mechanism for generating dark photon dark matter was proposed, in which the correct relic abundance is produced through inflationary fluctuations. The mechanism is minimal, its only necessary ingredients being a massive vector and a period of inflation. Moreover, in order for the dark photon to account for all of the dark matter, its mass must be related to the scale of inflation as follows: $$m_\gamma = 6 \ \mu {\rm eV} \left( \frac{10^{14} \ {\rm GeV}}{H_I} \right)^4 \ ,
\label{eq:mvsH}$$ effectively making the mechanism a single parameter model.
For the mechanism to be successful, there must be no scalar fields with masses below $H_I$ (the Hubble scale during inflation) – if there were, the isocurvature perturbations produced would be incompatible with CMB observations, and the model ruled out [@Fox:2004kb]. Within an effective field theory framework, we would therefore expect the mechanism to be valid only if the mass of the vector is of Stückelberg type, or if the scalar excitation was parametrically decoupled in the Higgs case. The minimality of the mechanism therefore appears as appealing as it is necessary.
In light of the conjectures in [@Reece], however, this minimality may in fact be a curse rather than a blessing. In particular, the conjectured bounds in [@Reece] imply that even if the dark photon mass is of a Stückelberg type, dark photon masses below $\sim 10 \ {\rm eV}$ are challenging to realize in a theory of quantum gravity. If taken at face value, this would significantly compromise a large region of parameter space in which the mechanism presented in [@Graham:2015rva] is applicable, and that will be explored by future experimental proposals [@Chaudhuri:2014dla] (see e.g. Figure 6 in [@Graham:2015rva]). Thankfully, the apparent exponential violation of the conjectures in [@Reece] by effective field theories arising from broken clockwork reconciles this parameter space with UV-completion in a theory of quantum gravity. We now briefly review the logic presented in [@Reece], before showing how the result is modified in the broken clockwork constructions of section \[sec:brokencw\].
Taking the radial mode conjecture of [@Reece] as a reference, and demanding that no scalar excitations be present below the inflationary scale requires $$H_I \lesssim m_\sigma \ ,
\label{eq:radialmodeH}$$ where $m_\sigma \lesssim v$ or $f_\theta$, for the Higgs and Stückelberg scenarios respectively. Since we are interested in the regime of small dark photon mass, where $m_\gamma \ll H_I$, Eq.(\[eq:radialmodeH\]) therefore requires that we take $g \ll 1$. Further, for the calculation in [@Graham:2015rva] to be valid, $H_I$ must be below any cut-off scale beyond which the low energy effective theory breaks down. In the regime of small gauge coupling, [@Reece] considers the Tower WGC cut-off $\Lambda \sim g^{1/3} M_{Pl}$. In this case: $$H_I \lesssim \Lambda \lesssim g^{1/3} M_{Pl} \sim \left( \frac{m_\gamma}{H_I} \right)^{1/3} M_{Pl} \ ,
\label{eq:Hwgc}$$ where in the last step we have used $g \sim m_\gamma / H_I$, saturating Eq.(\[eq:radialmodeH\]) (this is the best case scenario, with the largest possible $H_I$ and so the smallest possible $m_\gamma$). Plugging Eq.(\[eq:Hwgc\]) back into Eq.(\[eq:mvsH\]) translates into the constraint, parametrically: $$m_{\gamma} \gtrsim 10 \ {\rm eV} \ .$$
We can repeat this exercise for the broken clockwork construction. Taking into account the relationship between the mass of the lightest vector and heavier states, as given through Eq.(\[eq:sigmagammaratio\]), and assuming Eq.(\[eq:radialmodeH\]) holds, we then have $g \sim q^N m_\gamma / H_I$. This modifies Eq.(\[eq:Hwgc\]) as $$H_I \lesssim \left( \frac{q^N m_\gamma}{H_I} \right)^{1/3} M_{Pl} \ ,$$ and in turn weakens the lower bound on the dark photon mass: $$m_\gamma \gtrsim \frac{10 \ {\rm eV }}{q^{N/2}} \ ,$$ which is $\sim \mu {\rm eV}$ for, for example, $q=3$ and $N \approx 16$.
Hence, the broken clockwork constructions discussed here allow for dark photon masses in the entire regime in which the dark photon can be the dark matter, all the way down to $m_\gamma \sim \mu {\rm eV}$. Moreover, since the discussion above focused on the radial mode conjecture of [@Reece], our conclusions are valid both in the Stückelberg and Higgs versions of these models.
A mass for the Standard Model photon
------------------------------------
As discussed in [@Reece], experimental constraints on the mass of the photon are stringent (see [@Goldhaber:2008xy] for a review), with kinematic tests placing an upper bound $m_\gamma \lesssim 10^{-14} \ {\rm eV}$ [@Wu:2016brq; @Bonetti:2016cpo; @Bonetti:2017pym]. From a theoretical perspective, engineering such a small, but non-zero, photon mass, while complying with quantum gravity constraints on effective field theories, may turn out to be challenging. Indeed, experimental constraints combined with the conjectures of [@Reece] provide a compelling argument that the photon must be massless.
The argument is roughly as follows: If the SM photon had a mass $m_\gamma \lesssim 10^{-14} \ {\rm eV}$ arising from Higgsing, this would imply a scalar mode at roughly the same scale, coupling to the photon with strength $e \approx 0.3$, a possibility which is clearly ruled out. A Stückelberg mass does not alleviate the problem in light of the conjectures of [@Reece]. If the radial mode conjecture applies, then the obstruction is precisely as in the Higgs case. Even ignoring the radial mode conjecture, the theory would still feature a cut-off at scale $\Lambda \sim \sqrt{f_\theta M_{Pl}} \sim {\rm MeV}$, which is also incompatible with experiment.
As noted in [@Reece], a way out would be to assume that the electromagnetic gauge coupling is in fact quantized in units of $e_\gamma \ll e$, so that a unit-charge Higgs or Stückelberg axion could account for a non-zero SM photon mass, while remaining compatible with experimental constraints. For instance, for $e_\gamma \sim 10^{-14}$, and $v$ (or $f_\theta$) $\sim 1 \ {\rm eV}$, one would have $m_\gamma \lesssim 10^{-14} \ {\rm eV}$, whereas such a light scalar excitation with electric charge $\mathcal{O} (10^{-14})$ remains compatible with current measurements [@Davidson:2000hf; @Vogel:2013raa].
To some extent, the $e_\gamma \ll 1$ scenario proposed in [@Reece] can be realised through the broken clockwork constructions presented here. Specifically, it corresponds to applying the clockwork mechanism as discussed in section \[sec:review\] to the hypercharge gauge group of the SM, and assuming the rest of the SM field content remains localized on the $j=0$ site. In this case the electromagnetic charge quantum would now be $$e_\gamma \sim \frac{e}{q^N} \ll 1 \ ,$$ assuming that the vev of the Higgs (or the period of the Stückelberg axion) fields responsible for the clockwork mechanism is much larger than the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking in the SM. In this construction, SM fermions carry electric charges in units of $q^N e_\gamma$. Moreover, a unit charge Higgs (or Stückelberg axion) localized on the $j=N$ site will lead to a small mass for the photon, of order $$m_\gamma \sim e_\gamma v \sim \frac{e v}{q^N} \ .$$
In this construction, however, $v$ (or $f_\theta$) cannot be taken as low as $\sim 1 \ {\rm eV}$. As discussed in section \[sec:vectorCWhiggs\], a distinctive feature of clockwork constructions is the presence of massive vector modes at scale $m_V \sim g q v \lesssim v$. Since these massive vectors are not strongly localized across the quiver, their coupling to localized matter will be $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Massive copies of neutral SM gauge bosons with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ couplings to SM fermions are highly constrained by experiments, with direct searches putting lower bounds on their masses of order $\sim 4 \ {\rm TeV}$ (see e.g. [@Aaboud:2018bun]). Constraints on clockwork models are likely to be stronger, given the multiplicity of states, so that $v$ (or $f_\theta$) $\gtrsim 10 \ {\rm TeV}$ to remain consistent with current data. Together with the experimental requirement $m_\gamma \lesssim 10^{-14} \ {\rm eV}$, generating a photon mass consistent with all constraints and the conjectures in [@Reece] is possible provided $$q^N \gtrsim 10^{26} \left( \frac{10^{-14} \ {\rm eV}}{m_\gamma} \right) \left( \frac{v}{10 \ {\rm TeV}} \right) \ ,$$ which can be achieved, for instance, for $q = 5$ and $N \approx 38$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Looking for consistency conditions applicable to effective field theories by demanding they remain compatible with a UV embedding into a theory of quantum gravity – the philosophy behind the Swampland program – is a promising enterprise. At a time of much needed guidance in Beyond-the-Standard-Model physics, given the lack of unambiguously positive results from collider and dark matter detection experiments, a well-defined set of conditions would be welcome. However, for the Swampland program to be relevant to the low energy theorist building models to solve the various problems that afflict particle physics today, the conjectures must be sufficiently compelling as applied to four-dimensional effective field theories in the far IR. In particular, the existence of controlled counter-examples that apparently violate Swampland conjectures at low energies, but nevertheless allow for consistent (albeit partial) UV-completions, weakens the extent to which the conjectures provide a meaningful guiding principle for IR phenomenology.
We have shown that the conditions proposed in [@Reece] (conjectures (*1*) and (*2*) in the Introduction), aimed at effective field theories containing light vectors with Stückelberg masses, can be parametrically violated while still remaining compatible with a UV-completion into a theory that satisfies them. Moreover, such UV-completion can be implemented both in the context of the Higgs and Stückelberg mechanisms.
The constructions we have considered here are a small modification of the original clockwork axion models [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy] as applied to vectors. The axion constructions of [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy] were first proposed in order to obtain a low energy effective theory featuring an axion field with an effective decay constant $f \gg M_{Pl}$, but without introducing super-Planckian parameters from the UV perspective. The vector version was first introduced in [@Saraswat:2016eaz], in order to illustrate how versions of the WGC satisfied in the UV may be parametrically violated by the effective theory that remains at low energies. It is of little surprise, then, that a small modification of this construction – namely, through the breaking of the continuous symmetry that the clockwork mechanism leaves unbroken – would serve to circumvent analogous versions of the Swampland conjectures that apply to theories with massive vectors.
An open question remains as to whether a continuum version of clockwork theories (both in their unbroken and broken versions) exists that exhibits the same properties with respect to WGC and more general Swampland arguments. In line with the discussion in [@Craig:2017cda], a continuum version of the standard clockwork constructions discussed here can be obtained by promoting the discrete lattice to a flat extra dimension, and including bulk and brane mass terms. Further breaking of the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry that remains unbroken from the four-dimensional perspective can be obtained, for example, through a Higgs field living on the opposite brane to which the massless field is exponentially localized. It is unclear, however, the extent to which compactness and separation of scales with respect to WGC cut-offs are mimicked in this continuum version, leaving it a topic for future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research of IGG is funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF7392. The research of NC is supported in part by the US Department of Energy under the Early Career Award DE-SC0014129 and the Cottrell Scholar Program through the Research Corporation for Science Advancement. Research at KITP is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY-1748958.
[^1]: For general $N$, $p_1 = p_N = q^{2 N} + \cdots + q^2 + 1$, whereas the order of the other $N-2$ discrete groups will typically be smaller, their exact value depending on the specific choice of $q$ and $N$.
[^2]: For simplicity we assume all states $\eta_j$ have similar mass $\sim m_\eta$.
[^3]: The right-hand-side of Eq.(\[eq:WGCUV\]) should include an extra factor of $1/\sqrt{4 \pi}$, as well as $1/\sqrt{N+1}$ from considering a theory involving several $U(1)$ factors [@Cheung:2014vva]. However, since we will be focused in cases with $N = \mathcal{O}(1)$, these factors are irrelevant for our discussion, and we neglect them in the following.
[^4]: Sublattice and Tower versions of the WGC further suggest that local effective field theory [*completely*]{} breaks down at a scale of order $g^{1/3} M_{Pl}$ [@Heidenreich:2016aqi; @Heidenreich:2017sim]. However, as noted in [@Heidenreich:2017sim], these considerations only strictly apply in dimensions greater than four, and while some version of these conjectures may persist in purely four-dimensional theories, its precise form remains unclear. Since our conclusions are independent of the specific form of the cut-off, we will stick with the unit-charge or magnetic form, $\Lambda \sim g M_{Pl}$, unless otherwise noted.
[^5]: As discussed in [@Saraswat:2016eaz], this state of affairs is however not a problem as far as arguments regarding the decay of extremal black holes are concerned: even though black holes can only lose charge modulo $q^N$, there are no controlled extremal black hole solutions (that is, with mass above $M_{Pl}$) carrying smaller charge.
[^6]: Eq.(\[eq:tension\]) would correspond to the unit-charge version of the conjecture as applied to 2-form abelian gauge theories, up to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factors we are not keeping track of.
[^7]: Choosing the vev of the additional Higgs field $\phi_N$ (the periodicity of the additional Stückelberg axion $\theta_N$) to be different from $v$ ($f_\theta$) by an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ amount makes no qualitative difference to our conclusions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Schrödinger operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ on the half-line with a periodic background potential and a perturbation which consists of two parts: a summable potential and the slowly decaying Wigner–von Neumann potential $\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x^{\gamma}}$, where $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$. The continuous spectrum of this operator has the same band-gap structure as the continuous spectrum of the unperturbed periodic operator. In every band there exist two points, called critical, where the eigenfunction equation has square summable solutions. Every critical point $\nu_{cr}$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ for some value of the boundary parameter $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$, specific to that particular point. We prove that for $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ the spectral density of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ has a zero of the exponential type at $\nu_{cr}$.'
address: |
Dublin Institute of Technology\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Kevin Street, Dublin 8\
Ireland
author:
- Sergey Simonov
title: |
Zeroes of the spectral density of the\
Schrödinger operator with the\
slowly decaying Wigner–von Neumann potential
---
Introduction
============
Wigner–von Neumann potential $\frac{c\sin(2\omega x)}x$ gives probably the simplest example of an eigenvalue embedded into the continuous spectrum of the Schrödinger operator on the half-line. The eigenvalue can appear at the point $\omega^2$ which is called critical or resonance point, and appears for only one boundary condition and only if $|c|>2|\omega|$. At this point a square summable solution of the eigenfunction equation exists, and for one value of the boundary parameter it satisfies the boundary condition. This situation is very unstable: the eigenvalue disappears if one slightly changes the boundary condition or adds a summable perturbation to the potential. This eigenvalue can be related to resonances, which are poles on the unphysical sheet of the analytic continuation of the Green’s function, but may or may not exist. It is meaningful to consider objects that are stable under small perturbations. One can study properties of the Weyl’s $m$-function or the spectral density $\rho'$ of the operator (which is the derivative of the spectral function [@Levitan-Sargsyan-1975]).
In the present paper we study properties of the spectral density of the Schrödinger operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ defined by the differential expression $$\label{L}
L:=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}
+q(x)+q_{WN}(x,\gamma)+q_1(x)$$ on the positive half-line with the boundary condition $$\label{bc}
\psi(0)\cos\alpha-\psi'(0)\sin\alpha=0,$$ which means that $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ acts as $$\label{rule}
\mathcal L_{\alpha}:\psi\mapsto L\psi$$ on the domain $$\label{domain}
\text{dom}\,\mathcal L_{\alpha}=\{\psi\in L_2(\mathbb R_+)\cap H^2_{loc}(\mathbb R_+): L\psi\in L_2(\mathbb R_+), \psi(0)\cos\alpha-\psi'(0)\sin\alpha=0\}$$ in the Hilbert space $L_2(\mathbb R_+)$. We assume that $$\label{conditions}
\begin{array}{l}
\cdot\ q\text{ is periodic with the period }a\text{ and }q\in L_1(0,a),
\\
\cdot\ c,\omega,\delta\in\mathbb R,\gamma\in(\frac12,1],\frac{2a\omega}{\pi}\notin\mathbb Z,
\\
\cdot\ q_{WN}(x,\gamma):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x^{\gamma}},\text{ if }\gamma\in(\frac12,1),
\\
\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x+1},\text{ if }\gamma=1,
\end{array}
\right.
\\
\cdot\ q_1\in L_1(\mathbb R_+),
\\
\cdot\ \alpha\in[0,\pi).
\end{array}$$ Under these assumptions the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ is self-adjoint [@Kurasov-Simonov-2013].
As it was shown by Kurasov and Naboko in [@Kurasov-Naboko-2007], the absolutely continuous spectrum of the operator given by the expression $L$ on the whole real line coincides with the spectrum of the corresponding unperturbed periodic operator on the whole line, $$\label{L-per}
\mathcal L_{per}:\psi\mapsto-\psi''+q\psi,$$ $$\text{dom}\,\mathcal L_{per}=\{\psi\in L_2(\mathbb R)\cap H^2_{loc}(\mathbb R): (-\psi''+q\psi)\in L_2(\mathbb R)\},$$ which means it has a band-gap structure: $$\label{prelim spectrum of periodic operator}
\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})=\bigcup\limits_{j=0}^{\infty}([\lambda_{2j},\mu_{2j}]\cup[\mu_{2j+1},\lambda_{2j+1}]),$$ where $$\label{prelim edges of spectrum}
\lambda_0<\mu_0\le\mu_1<\lambda_1\le\lambda_2<\mu_2\le\mu_3<\lambda_3\le\lambda_4<...$$ In turn, the absolutely continuous spectrum of $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ coincides as a set with the spectrum of $\mathcal L_{per}$, although the latter has multiplicity two, whereas the former is simple. Moreover, Kurasov and Naboko in [@Kurasov-Naboko-2007] showed that in every band $[\lambda_j,\mu_j]$ or $[\mu_j,\lambda_j]$ there exist two critical points $\nu_{j+}$ and $\nu_{j-}$. The type of asymptotics of generalised eigenvectors (solutions of the eigenfunction equation) at these points is different from that type in other points of the absolutely continuous spectrum. At each of the critical points there exists a subordinate solution and hence each of these points can be an eigenvalue of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ as long as this solution belongs to $L_2(\mathbb R_+)$ and satisfies the boundary condition. Locations of the points $\nu_{j\pm}$ are determined by the conditions [@Kurasov-Naboko-2007] $$\label{intro critical points}
k(\nu_{j+})=\pi\left(j+1-\left\{\frac{a\omega}{\pi}\right\}\right),
\
k(\nu_{j-})=\pi\left(j+\left\{\frac{a\omega}{\pi}\right\}\right),
\
j\ge0,$$ where $k$ is the quasi-momentum of the periodic operator $\mathcal L_{per}$ and $\{\cdot\}$ is the standard fractional part function. The condition $\frac{2a\omega}{\pi}\notin\mathbb Z$ ensures that critical points do not coincide with the endpoints of bands and with each other.
In [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] we have studied the asymptotic behaviour of the spectral density of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ near critical points for the case $\gamma=1$. In this paper we consider $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$, and this case differs significantly. Let us state both results right away.
Let $\psi_+(x,\lambda)$ and $\psi_-(x,\lambda)$ be the Bloch solutions of the periodic equation $-\psi''(x)+q(x)\psi(x)=\lambda\psi(x)$ chosen so that they are complex conjugate to each other whenever $\lambda$ is inside a spectral band. Let $\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\lambda)$ be the solution of the Cauchy problem $$\label{phi}
L\varphi_{\alpha}=\lambda\varphi_{\alpha},\ \varphi_{\alpha}(0,\lambda)=\sin\alpha,\ \varphi'_{\alpha}(0,\lambda)=\cos\alpha.$$ Denote by $W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda):=\psi_+'(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda)-\psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-'(x,\lambda)$ the Wronskian of two Bloch solutions. In [@Kurasov-Naboko-2007] Kurasov and Naboko have found the following asymptotics of generalised eigenvectors at critical points.
\[prop Kurasov-Naboko\] Let the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ be defined by and where $L$ is given by , and let the conditions hold. Let $\nu_{j\pm}$ and $\varphi_{\alpha}$ be defined by and , respectively. For every critical point $\nu_{cr}\in\{\nu_{j+},\nu_{j-},j\ge0\}$ there exist $\alpha_{cr}(c,\omega,\delta,\gamma)\in[0,\pi)$, $\beta_{cr}(c,\omega,\delta,\gamma)\ge0$, $\phi_{cr}(c,\omega,\delta,\gamma)\in\mathbb R$ and $d_{cr\pm}(c,\omega,\delta,\gamma)\in\mathbb R\backslash\{0\}$ such that, as $x\rightarrow+\infty$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{intro phi critical - asympt gamma=1}
\varphi_{\alpha_{cr}}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr-}x^{-\beta_{cr}}
\\
\times
(ie^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_-(x,\nu_{cr})-ie^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_+(x,\nu_{cr})+o(1)),\text{ if }\gamma=1,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{intro phi critical - asympt gamma<1}
\varphi_{\alpha_{cr}}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr-}\exp\left(-\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)
\\
\times
(ie^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_-(x,\nu_{cr})-ie^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_+(x,\nu_{cr})+o(1)),\text{ if }\gamma\in\left(\frac12,1\right),\end{gathered}$$ and for every $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{intro phi critical + asympt gamma=1}
\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})x^{\beta_{cr}}
\\
\times
(e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_-(x,\nu_{cr})+e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_+(x,\nu_{cr})+o(1)),\text{ if }\gamma=1,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{intro phi critical + asympt gamma<1}
\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})\exp\left(\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)
\\
\times
(e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_-(x,\nu_{cr})+e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\psi_+(x,\nu_{cr})+o(1)),\text{ if }\gamma\in\left(\frac12,1\right).\end{gathered}$$
In fact, formulae for $\beta_{cr}$ and $\phi_{cr}$ are known: $$\label{beta cr}
\beta_{j\pm}:=\frac{|c|}{2a|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{j\pm})|}
\left|\int\limits_0^a\psi^2_{\pm}(t,\nu_{j\pm})e^{2i\omega t}dt\right|,$$ $$\label{phinotvar}
\phi_{j\pm}:=\pm\left(\delta+\text{arg}\,\int_0^a\psi_{\pm}^2(t,\nu_{j\pm})e^{2i\omega t}dt\right).$$ The expression was found in [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] and the expression for the case $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$ is given by Lemma \[lem reduction\] of the present paper (for the case $\gamma=1$ a slight modification of this lemma is needed).
In [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] we had the following result.
\[thm gamma=1\] Let the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ be defined by and where $L$ is given by , and let the conditions hold with $\gamma=1$. Let $\rho_{\alpha}'$ be the spectral density of $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$, let $\nu_{j\pm}$ and $\varphi_{\alpha}$ be defined by and , respectively. Let $\nu_{cr}\in\{\nu_{j+},\nu_{j-},j\ge0\}$ be one of the critical points and $\alpha_{cr}$ be defined in Proposition \[prop Kurasov-Naboko\]. If $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$, then there exist two non-zero one-side limits $$\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow(\nu_{cr})^{\pm}}\frac{\rho'_{\alpha}(\lambda)}
{|\lambda-\nu_{cr}|^{2\beta_{cr}}},$$ where $\beta_{cr}$ is given by the expression .
This means that the spectral density of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ at a critical point in the generic situation $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ has zeroes of the power type, and the power is twice the rate of decay of the subordinate solution at this critical point. The main result of the present paper is the following theorem.
\[thm gamma<1\] Let the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ be defined by and where $L$ is given by , and let the conditions hold with $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$. Let the potential $q_1$ satisfy the estimate $$\label{restriction on q1}
|q_1(x)|<\frac{c_1}{x^{1+\alpha_1}},\ x\in[0,+\infty)$$ with some $\alpha_1,c_1>0$. Let $\nu_{j\pm}$ and $\varphi_{\alpha}$ be defined by and , respectively. Let $\nu_{cr}\in\{\nu_{j+},\nu_{j-},j\ge0\}$ be one of the critical points and $\alpha_{cr}$ be defined in Proposition \[prop Kurasov-Naboko\]. If $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$, then the spectral density $\rho_{\alpha}'$ of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ has the following asymptotics: $$\label{answer}
\rho'_{\alpha}(\lambda)=\frac{a_{cr}}{d_{cr+}^2\sin^2(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_{cr}}{|\lambda-\nu_{cr}|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}\right)(1+o(1))
\text{ as }\lambda\rightarrow\nu_{cr},$$ where $$\label{c cr}
c_{cr}:=\frac{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}{4\gamma}B\left(\frac32,\frac{1-\gamma}{2\gamma}\right)
\left(\frac{a}{2\pi k'(\nu_{cr})}\right)^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{a cr}
a_{cr}:=\frac1{\pi|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{cr})|}
\exp\Biggl(-\int_0^{\frac{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}
\frac{\gamma\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta_{cr}^2}}\right)}{t\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta_{cr}^2}\right)}dt
\\
+
\int_{\frac{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}^{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}
\frac{\gamma dt}{t\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta_{cr}^2}}}
-\text{v.p.}\int_{\frac{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}^{+\infty}
\frac{\gamma dt}{t\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta_{cr}^2}\right)}\Biggr),\end{gathered}$$ $\beta_{cr}$ is given by the expression , $d_{cr+}$ is defined in , $B$ is the beta function and $k$ is the quasi-momentum of the unperturbed periodic operator $\mathcal L_{per}$.
Note that the subordinate solution at a critical point decays as $\exp\left(-\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)$, while the spectral density vanishes as $$\exp\left(-\frac{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}B\left(\frac32,\frac{1-\gamma}{2\gamma}\right)}{2\gamma}
\left(\frac{a}{2\pi k'(\nu_{cr})|\lambda-\nu_{cr}|}\right)^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}\right).$$ Relation between, on the one hand, the behaviour at infinity of the subordinate solution (whenever it exists) compared to the behaviour of a non-subordinate one and, on the other hand, the normal boundary behaviour of the Weyl’s $m$-function was, in a general situation, established by Jitomirskaya–Last [@Jitomirskaya-Last-1996] and Remling [@Remling-1997]. However, in our case it yields only a trivial result: that for $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ one has $|m_{\alpha}(\nu_{cr}+i\varepsilon)|=O(1)$ and for $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$ one has $|m_{\alpha}(\nu_{cr}+i\varepsilon)|\asymp\frac1{\varepsilon}$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Spectral density is related to the boundary behaviour of the Weyl’s $m$-function, and one can say in these terms that we study $\rho_{\alpha}'(\nu_{cr}+\varepsilon)=\frac1{\pi}{\text{Im\,}}m_{\alpha}(\nu_{cr}+\varepsilon+i0)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$, which, clearly, can behave quite differently to ${\text{Im\,}}m_{\alpha}(\nu_{cr}+i\varepsilon)$.
The case $\gamma=1$ was earlier considered in detail by Hinton–Klaus–Shaw [@Hinton-Klaus-Shaw-1991], Klaus [@Klaus-1991] and Behncke [@Behncke-1991-I; @Behncke-1991-II; @Behncke-1994]. They included no periodic background potentials. Hinton, Klaus and Shaw considered instead an infinite sum of Wigner–von Neumann terms, while Behncke added Dirac operators into consideration. Their methods are specific to the models they study, while in [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] we proposed an approach which is based on reducing the problem to a certain discrete linear system with small parameter which essentially models the behaviour of solutions of the Schrödinger equation (we call it the “model problem”). This allowed for stating the result in certain generality and using it to study a discrete analogue, a Jacobi matrix [@Janas-Simonov-2010; @Simonov-2012].
Condition in the formulation of the result is of technical nature. We would like to note here that in [@Hinton-Klaus-Shaw-1991] for the case $\gamma=1$ an analogous condition was imposed on the summable part $q_1$ of the potential, however, with $\alpha_1=1$. It was left as an open question whether this condition could be weakened to include every $q_1\in L_1(\mathbb R_+)$, see the question (*4*) in the final section of [@Hinton-Klaus-Shaw-1991]. For the case $\gamma=1$ the answer is positive, as our analysis in [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] suggests. For the case $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$ we do not have the answer.
In the case $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$ we reduce the problem to a model linear differential, rather than discrete, system. In fact, it is possible to do the same in the case $\gamma=1$, and then the idea of the method of [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] would work and should lead to the same result as there, but in an easier way (however, on this way we would lose the discrete case). For $\gamma<1$ this idea does not produce the result anymore, but can only be used at one of the stages (in Section \[section I\]). On the whole, the method of the present paper is different from the method of [@Naboko-Simonov-2012], which is insufficient for the situation considered here.
Wigner–von Neumann potentials originally aroused interest as giving an explicit example of an eigenvalue embedded into continuous spectrum [@Wigner-von-Neumann-1929]. Since then they have been studied by many authors (for example, the papers and many more). Embedded eigenvalues created by such potentials have been observed in experiment, see [@Capasso-et-al-1992]. Zeroes of density divide the absolutely continuous spectrum into independent parts and for this reason are sometimes called pseudogaps.
A paper by Kreimer, Last and Simon [@Kreimer-Last-Simon-2009] should be also mentioned as an example of the spectral density analysis (in that case of the discrete Schrödinger operator with slowly decaying potential, near the endpoints of the absolutely continuous spectrum). Results on the behaviour of the spectral density have been recently used by Lukic [@Lukic-2013] to construct test sequences in the proof of higher-order Szegő theorems for CMV matrices.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section preliminaries\] we introduce the Titchmarsh–Weyl formula for the spectral density of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ which was proved in [@Kurasov-Simonov-2013]. The formula expresses $\rho_{\alpha}'(\lambda)$ in terms of asymptotic coefficients of the solution $\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\lambda)$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$. In Section \[section reduction\] we rewrite the eigenfunction equation of $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ as a model system with a small parameter $\varepsilon$ and express the spectral density in terms of a certain solution of that system. In Section \[section the model problem\] we transform the model system to a new form and determine five regions of the positive coordinate half-line where asymptotic analysis of solutions as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$ should be carried out in different ways. In Sections \[section I\]–\[section III\] we consider each of the regions separately and find asymptotics of solutions of the model system. In Section \[section matching\] we match the results in order to obtain the double asymptotics, in the coordinate and in the small parameter, of the solution of the model system in terms of which the spectral density of $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ was earlier expressed. In Section \[section proof\] we prove the main result of the paper, Theorem \[thm gamma<1\].
We denote by $M^{2\times2}(\mathbb R)$ and $M^{2\times2}(\mathbb C)$ matrices of two rows and two columns with real and, respectively, complex entries and use the following notation for two basic vectors in $\mathbb C^2$: $$\label{e +-}
e_+:=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
e_-:=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$
Preliminaries {#section preliminaries}
=============
The spectrum of the periodic Schrödinger operator $\mathcal L_{per}$ consists of infinitely many intervals , see [@Eastham-1973 Theorem 2.3.1], where $ \lambda_j $ and $ \mu_j $ are the eigenvalues of the Sturm–Liouville problem defined by the differential expression $L$ on the interval $[0,a]$ with, respectively, periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions. Let us denote by $\partial$ the set of the endpoints of the spectral bands of $\mathcal L_{per}$, $$\label{prelim boundary of the spectrum}
\partial:=\{\lambda_j,\mu_j,\ j\ge0\},$$ including the case when the endpoints of the neighbouring bands coincide. Spectral properties of the operator $\mathcal L_{per}$ are related to the quasi-momentum $$k(\lambda):=-i\ln\left(\frac{D(\lambda)+\sqrt{D^2(\lambda)-4}}2\right),$$ where the entire function $D$ is the trace of the monodromy matrix of the periodic equation. We can choose the branch of $k$ so that $$\begin{array}{c}
k(\lambda_0)=0,k(\mu_0)=k(\mu_1)=\pi,k(\lambda_1)=k(\lambda_2)=2\pi,...,
\\
\begin{array}{rl}
k(\lambda)\in\mathbb R\text{ and }k'(\lambda)>0,&\text{if }\lambda\in\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})\backslash\partial,
\\
k(\lambda)\in\mathbb C_+,&\text{if }\lambda\in\mathbb C_+,
\end{array}
\end{array}$$ see [@Eastham-1973 Theorem 2.3.1]. The eigenfunction equation of $\mathcal L_{per}$, $$-\psi''(x)+q(x)\psi(x)=\lambda\psi(x),$$ has two solutions $\psi_+(x,\lambda)$ and $\psi_-(x,\lambda)$ (Bloch solutions) which satisfy the quasi-periodic conditions: $$\label{prelim Bloch solutions}
\psi_{\pm}(x+a,\lambda)\equiv e^{\pm ik(\lambda)}\psi_{\pm}(x,\lambda),$$ Each of them is defined uniquely up to multiplication by a coefficient which depends on $\lambda$. It is possible to choose these coefficients so that for every $x\ge0$ the functions $\psi_{\pm}(x,\cdot)$ and $\psi_{\pm}'(x,\cdot)$, and hence their Wronskian $W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\cdot)$, are analytic in $\mathbb C_+$ and continuous up to the set $\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})\backslash\partial$. Moreover, it is possible for every $\lambda\in\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})\backslash\partial$ to have $$\psi_+(x,\lambda)\equiv\overline{\psi_-(x,\lambda)}\text{ and }iW\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)<0.$$ In what follows we assume that such a choice of the coefficients is made. Bloch solutions can be written in another form: $$\psi_{\pm}(x,\lambda)=e^{\pm ik(\lambda)\frac xa}p_{\pm}(x,\lambda),$$ where the functions $p_+(x,\lambda)$ and $p_-(x,\lambda)$ are periodic with the period $a$ in the variable $x$ and have the same properties as $\psi_{\pm}(x,\lambda)$ in the variable $\lambda$.
It is well known that some of spectral properties of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators can be written in terms of the asymptotic behaviour of their generalised eigenvectors (see, for example, [@Gilbert-Pearson-1987]). In particular, the spectral density of the operator can be expressed in terms of the Jost function by the Titchmarsh–Weyl formula. The eigenfunction equation $L\psi=\lambda\psi$ is a small perturbation of the periodic equation $-\psi''(x)+q(x)\psi(x)=\lambda\psi(x)$ in the sense that asymptotically $\varphi_{\alpha}$ is some linear combination of two Bloch solutions.
\[prop Titchmarsh–Weyl formula\] Let the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ be defined by and where $L$ is given by , and let the conditions hold. Let $\rho_{\alpha}'$ be the spectral density of the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$, and $\nu_{j\pm}$, $\varphi_{\alpha}$, $\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})$, $\partial$, $\psi_{\pm}$ be defined by , , , , , respectively. For every fixed $\lambda\in\sigma(\mathcal L_{per})\backslash(\partial\cup\{\nu_{j+},\nu_{j-},j\ge0\})$ there exists $A_{\alpha}(\lambda)$ such that, as $x\rightarrow+\infty$, $$\label{asymptotics of phi-alpha}
\begin{array}{l}
\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\lambda)=A_{\alpha}(\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda)+
\overline{A_{\alpha}(\lambda)}\psi_+(x,\lambda)+o(1),
\\
\varphi_{\alpha}'(x,\lambda)=A_{\alpha}(\lambda)\psi_-'(x,\lambda)+
\overline{A_{\alpha}(\lambda)}\psi_+'(x,\lambda)+o(1),
\end{array}$$ and the following equality (the Titchmarsh–Weyl formula) holds: $$\label{Titchmatsh-Weyl formula}
\rho'_{\alpha}(\lambda)=\frac1{2\pi|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)| \; |A_{\alpha}(\lambda)|^2}.$$
Here $A_{\alpha}$ is essentially the Jost function $M_{\alpha}$ (up to a coefficient: $A_{\alpha}(\lambda)=-\frac{M_{\alpha}(\lambda)}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}$). This result is a generalisation of the classic Titchmarsh–Weyl (or Kodaira) formula [@Kodaira-1949; @Titchmarsh-1946-2]. A variant of this formula for the Schrödinger operator with Wigner–von Neumann potential without the periodic background ($q(x)\equiv0$) follows from results of [@Matveev-1973]. In the case of discrete Schrödinger operator with the Wigner–von Neumann potential an analogous formula is also known, see [@Damanik-Simon-2006; @Janas-Simonov-2010].
Reduction to the model problem {#section reduction}
==============================
In this section we reduce the eigenfunction equation $L\psi=\lambda\psi$ to a specially constructed linear differential system and express the modulus of the coefficient $A_{\alpha}$ from the Titchmarsh–Weyl formula in terms of a certain solution of this new system.
\[lem reduction\] Let the conditions of Theorem \[thm gamma<1\] hold and let $\nu_{cr}\in\{\nu_{j+},\nu_{j-},j\ge0\}$ be one of the critical points.\
*1.* There exist the following objects which are determined by the data of the problem ($q$, $q_1$, $c$, $\omega$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and $\alpha$) and have the following properties:\
$\cdot$ the neighbourhood $U_{cr}$ of the point $\nu_{cr}$ such that its closure lies inside the spectral band and does not contain the second critical point of that band,\
$\cdot$ the bijective real-valued function $\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)$ such that $$\label{epsilon 0}
\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)=\frac{2\pi k'(\nu_{cr})}{a}(\lambda-\nu_{cr})+O((\lambda-\nu_{cr})^2)\text{ as }\lambda\rightarrow\nu_{cr},$$\
$\cdot$ the $M^{2\times2}(\mathbb R)$-valued function $R_{cr}(x,\lambda)$ such that for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$ it is continuous in $U_{cr}$ as a function of $\lambda$, and for every $\lambda\in U_{cr}$ and $x\in[0,+\infty)$ satisfies the estimate $$\|R_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|<c_2\left(|q_1(x)|+\frac1{(x^2+x)^{\gamma}}\right)$$ with some $c_2>0$,\
$\cdot$ the vector $g_{cr,\alpha}\in\mathbb R^2\backslash\{0\}$,\
$\cdot$ the solution $w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)$ of the linear differential system $$\label{system w}
w_{cr}'(x)=
\left(
\frac{\beta_{cr}}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x) & \sin(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x)
\\
\sin(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x) & -\cos(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x)
\end{array}
\right)
+
R_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\right)
w_{cr}(x),$$ where $\beta_{cr}$ is given by , and such that $w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\cdot)$ is a continuous function in $U_{cr}$ and $w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\nu_{cr})=g_{cr,\alpha}$.\
*2.* For every $\lambda\in U_{cr}\backslash\{\nu_{cr}\}$ the limit $\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)$ exists and $$\label{A=eta}
|A_{\alpha}(\lambda)|=\left\|\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)\right\|,$$ where $A_{\alpha}$ is defined in Proposition \[prop Titchmarsh–Weyl formula\].\
*3.* With the same $\alpha_{cr}$, $d_{cr-}$ and $d_{cr+}$ as in Proposition \[prop Kurasov-Naboko\] and with $\phi_{cr}$ given by one has $$\label{asympt w-}
w_{cr,\alpha_{cr}}(x,\nu_{cr})=
d_{cr-}
\exp\left(-\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)
(e_-+o(1))$$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$ and the asymptotics holds. For every $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ one has $$\label{asympt w+}
w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\nu_{cr})=
d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})
\exp\left(\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)
(e_++o(1))$$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$ and the asymptotics holds. Vectors $e_{\pm}$ are defined by .
*1–2.* Let us start with the eigenfunction equation $L\psi=\lambda\psi$ and write it in the vector form, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi(x)
\\
\psi'(x)
\end{array}
\right)'
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\\
q(x)+\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x^{\gamma}}+q_1(x)-\lambda & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi(x)
\\
\psi'(x)
\end{array}
\right).$$ Let us make variation of parameters: $$\label{eta}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\psi(x) \\
\psi'(x) \\
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\psi_-(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-'(x,\lambda) & \psi_+'(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)
\widehat w(x).$$ This leads to the system $$\label{system w hat}
\widehat w\,'(x)=
\frac{\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x^{\gamma}}+q_1(x)}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) & -\psi_+^2(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-^2(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)
\widehat w(x).$$ Denote the summable part of its coefficient matrix as $$\label{R hat}
\widehat R(x,\lambda):=\frac{q_1(x)}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) & -\psi_+^2(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-^2(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right).$$ For the remaining part we use Fourier series decompositions of the periodic functions $p_+p_-,p_+^2$ and $p_-^2=\overline{p_+^2}$ to write the entries of the matrix as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}
\psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda)=\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z}b_n(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n\frac xa},
\\
\psi_+^2(x,\lambda)=\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z}b_n^+(\lambda)e^{2i(\pi n+k(\lambda))\frac xa},
\\
\psi_-^2(x,\lambda)=\sum\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z}\overline{b_{-n}^+(\lambda)}e^{2i(\pi n-k(\lambda))\frac xa}.
\end{array}$$ Now let us choose some band of the spectrum with the index $j$ and one of two critical points in it, $\nu_{cr}=\nu_{j+}$. We give the detailed proof for the choice of the sign “$+$”, and for the sign “$-$” formulae should be modified in a natural way. Take the neighbourhood of the critical point $U_{j+}$ so that its closure lies inside the band with the index $j$ and does not contain the point $\nu_{j-}$. Let $$n_{j+}:=-\left(j+1+\left\lfloor\frac{a\omega}{\pi}\right\rfloor\right),$$ so that $$2i(\pi n_{j+}+k(\lambda))x+2ia\omega x=2i(k(\lambda)+\pi n_{j+}+a\omega)x,$$ and $$\label{n j+}
\pi n_{j+}+a\omega=-\pi\left(j+1-\left\{\frac{a\omega}{\pi}\right\}\right)=-k(\nu_{j+}).$$ Then we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{c\sin(2\omega x+\delta)}{x^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) & -\psi_+^2(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-^2(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda)\psi_-(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)
\\
=\frac{c(e^{2i\omega x+i\delta}-e^{-2i\omega x-i\delta})}{2ix^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-b_n(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n\frac xa}
&
-b_n^+(\lambda)e^{2i(\pi n+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
\\
\overline{b_n^+(\lambda)}e^{-2i(\pi n+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
&
b_n(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n\frac xa}\\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
=\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z}S_{n}(x,\lambda)=S_{j+}^{\,(1)}(x,\lambda)+S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(x,\lambda),\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{S n}
S_{n}(x,\lambda):=\frac{c(e^{2i\omega x+i\delta}-e^{-2i\omega x-i\delta})}{2ix^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-b_n(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n\frac xa}
&
-b_n^+(\lambda)e^{2i(\pi n+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
\\
\overline{b_n^+(\lambda)}e^{-2i(\pi n+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
&
b_n(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n\frac xa}\\
\end{array}
\right),\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{S j+ 1}
S_{j+}^{\,(1)}(x,\lambda):=\frac{c}{2ix^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{j+})}
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
-b_{n_{j+}}^+(\nu_{j+})e^{i\delta}e^{2i\pi(k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{j+}))\frac xa}
\\
-\overline{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\nu_{j+})e^{i\delta}}e^{-2i\pi(k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{j+}))\frac xa}
&
0
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ and $$\label{S j+2}
S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(x,\lambda):=\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z\backslash\{n_{j+}\}}S_{n}(x,\lambda)+(S_{n_{j+}}(x,\lambda)-S_{j+}^{\,(1)}(x,\lambda)).$$ In this notation the system reads as $$\label{system w hat 2}
\widehat w\,'=(S^{\,(1)}_{j,+}+S^{\,(2)}_{j,+}+\widehat R)\,\widehat w.$$ To eliminate the non-resonating term $S^{\,(2)}_{j,+}$ from this system we use the Harris–Lutz transformation based on the matrix $$\label{T w}
\widehat T_{j+}(x,\lambda)=-\int_x^{+\infty}S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(t,\lambda)dt.$$ First we need to see that this integral is convergent.
\[lem reduction estimate of T\] The integral in the definition is convergent, the function $\widehat T_{j+}(x,\lambda)$ is continuous in $\lambda$ for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$ and satisfies the estimate $$\|\widehat T_{j+}(x,\lambda)\|\le\frac{c_3}{(x+1)^{\gamma}}$$ for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$ and $\lambda\in U_{j+}$ with some $c_3>0$.
Coefficients $b_n$ and $b_n^+$ have the same analyticity properties as the function $k$, and satisfy the following estimates (see, for example, [@Kurasov-Simonov-2013]): there exists $c_4>0$ such that for every $\lambda\in U_{j+}$ and $n\in\mathbb Z$ $$\label{estimate for S 1}
|b_n(\lambda)|,|b_n^+(\lambda)|<\frac{c_4}{n^2+1}.$$ One can choose, if necessary, $c_4$ large enough to ensure that for every $\lambda\in U_{j+}$ $$\label{estimate for S 2}
\frac1{|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)|}<c_4.$$ We also need the following rough estimate: if $N_1<N_2$, then $$\label{estimate for S 3}
\left|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|\le\frac{2^{\gamma}\left(\frac2{|\xi|}+\frac1{1-\gamma}\right)}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}.$$ To see this let us consider three cases.\
*1.* If $0\le N_1<N_2\le1$, then $$\left|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|\le\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dt}{t^{\gamma}}
=\frac1{1-\gamma}\le\frac{2^{\gamma}\left(\frac2{|\xi|}+\frac1{1-\gamma}\right)}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}.$$ *2.* If $1\le N_1<N_2$, then $$\left|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|\le\frac2{|\xi|N_1^{\gamma}}
\le\frac{2^{\gamma}\left(\frac2{|\xi|}+\frac1{1-\gamma}\right)}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$$ from integrating by parts.\
*3.* If $0\le N_1<1<N_2$, then $$\left|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|
\le\left|\int_{N_1}^1\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|+\left|\int_{1}^{N_2}\frac{e^{i\xi t}dt}{t^{\gamma}}\right|
\le\frac1{1-\gamma}+\frac2{|\xi|}
\le\frac{2^{\gamma}\left(\frac2{|\xi|}+\frac1{1-\gamma}\right)}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$$ using the intermediate estimates from the first case for the first summand and from the second case for the second.
Using the estimates , and we see that there exists $c_5>0$ such that for every $\lambda\in U_{j+}, n\in\mathbb Z$ and $N_1<N_2$ $$\left\|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}S_{n}(t,\lambda)dt\right\|
\le\frac{c_5}{(n^2+1)(N_1+1)^{\gamma}\min\limits_{\lambda\in U_{j+}}\{|\pi n\pm a\omega|, |k(\lambda)+\pi n\pm a\omega|\}}.$$ This estimate works for $n\neq n_{j+}$, because $$\min\limits_{n\in\mathbb Z\backslash\{n_{j+}\},\lambda\in U_{j+}}\{|\pi n\pm a\omega|, |k(\lambda)+\pi n\pm a\omega|\}>0,$$ while for $n=n_{j+}$ one has $$\min\limits_{\lambda\in U_{j+}}\{|k(\lambda)+\pi n_{j+}\pm a\omega|\}=|k(\nu_{j+})+\pi n_{j+}\pm a\omega|=0.$$ One can choose $c_5$ so large that for every $\lambda\in U_{j+}$ and $N_1<N_2$ the estimate $$\left\|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}S_{n}(t,\lambda)dt\right\|\le\frac{c_5}{(n^2+1)(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$$ holds for every $n\in\mathbb Z\backslash\{n_{j+}\}$, and so with some $c_6>0$ one has $$\label{estimate almost S 2}
\left\|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}\sum_{n\in\mathbb Z\backslash\{n_{j+}\}}S_{n}(t,\lambda)dt\right\|\le\frac{c_6}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}.$$ In order to estimate $S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(x,\lambda)$ consider the difference $$\begin{gathered}
S_{n_{j+}}(x,\lambda)-S_{j+}^{\,(1)}(x,\lambda)
\\
=\frac{ce^{i(2\omega x+\delta)}}{2ix^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-b_{n_{j+}}(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n_{j+}\frac xa}
&
0
\\
\overline{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\lambda)}e^{-2i(\pi n_{j+}+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
&
b_{n_{j+}}(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n_{j+}\frac xa}
\end{array}
\right)
\\
+ \frac{ce^{-i(2\omega x+\delta)}}{2ix^{\gamma}W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
b_{n_{j+}}(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n_{j+}\frac xa}
&
b_{n_{j+}}^+(\lambda)e^{2i(\pi n_{j+}+k(\lambda))\frac xa}
\\
0
&
-b_{n_{j+}}(\lambda)e^{2i\pi n_{j+}\frac xa}
\end{array}
\right)
\\
+\frac{ce^{i\delta}}{2ix^{\gamma}}
\left(\frac{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\nu_{j+})}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{j+})}-\frac{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\lambda)}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}\right)
e^{2i\pi(k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{j+}))\frac xa}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
+\frac{ce^{-i\delta}}{2ix^{\gamma}}
\left(\frac{\overline{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\nu_{j+})}}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{j+})}-\frac{\overline{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\lambda)}}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}\right)
e^{-2i\pi(k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{j+}))\frac xa}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ The first two summands can be estimated using – and added into under the integral with, possibly, a change of $c_6$. The integral of the third and the fourth summands from $N_1$ to $N_2$ can be estimated using and by $$\frac{c_7\left|\frac{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\nu_{j+})}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{j+})}-\frac{b_{n_{j+}}^+(\lambda)}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}\right|}
{|k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{j+})|(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$$ with some $c_7>0$. This can in turn be estimated by $\frac{c_8}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$ with some $c_8>0$, since both functions $\frac{b_n^+}{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}}$ and $k$ are differentiable at the point $\nu_{j+}$ and since $k\,'(\nu_{j+})\neq0$. Combining this and we see that there exists $c_8>0$ such that for every $\lambda\in U_{j+}$ and $N_1<N_2$ we have the estimate $$\label{estimate S 2}
\left\|\int_{N_1}^{N_2}S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(t,\lambda)dt\right\|\le\frac{c_3}{(N_1+1)^{\gamma}}$$ with some $c_3>0$. This means that the integral $\int_{x}^{+\infty}S_{j+}^{\,(2)}(t,\lambda)dt$ exists for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$, the definition of $\widehat T_{j+}$ is correct and that $\widehat T_{j+}(x,\lambda)$ is continuous in $\lambda$ and is estimated in norm by $\frac{c_3}{(x+1)^{\gamma}}$.
From now on we start writing the index “cr” instead of “$j+$”, because all the formulae remain valid if one changes the index to “$j-$”, that is, for the second type of critical points. Let us make the Harris-Lutz transformation by substituting $$\label{eta widehat}
\widehat w(x)=\exp(\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda))\widetilde w_{cr}(x)$$ to the system . This leads, with the use of the equality $\widehat T_{cr}'=S^{\,(2)}_{cr}$, to the system $$\widetilde w_{cr}'=e^{-\widehat T_{cr}}((S^{\,(1)}_{cr}+S^{\,(2)}_{cr}+\widehat R)e^{\widehat T_{cr}}
-(e^{\widehat T_{cr}})')\widetilde w_{cr}=(S^{\,(1)}_{cr}+\widetilde R_{cr})\widetilde w_{cr}$$ with $$\label{R tilde}
\widetilde R_{cr}=e^{-\widehat T_{cr}}(S^{\,(1)}_{cr}+S^{\,(2)}_{cr})e^{\widehat T_{cr}}
-(S^{\,(1)}_{cr}+S^{\,(2)}_{cr})+e^{-\widehat T_{cr}}\widehat Re^{\widehat T_{cr}}
-e^{-\widehat T_{cr}}((e^{\widehat T_{cr}})'-\widehat T_{cr}').$$ Let us estimate this remainder. For every $\lambda\in U_{cr}$ and $x\in(0,+\infty)$ we have $\|S^{\,(1)}_{cr}+S^{\,(2)}_{cr}\|<\frac{c_9}{x^{\gamma}}$ with some $c_9>0$ and $\|\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|<\frac{c_3}{(x+1)^{\gamma}}$. Therefore $$\left\|e^{-\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)}(S^{\,(1)}_{cr}(x,\lambda)+S^{\,(2)}_{cr}(x,\lambda))e^{\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)}
-(S^{\,(1)}_{cr}(x,\lambda)+S^{\,(2)}_{cr}(x,\lambda))\right\|
<\frac{c_{10}}{(x^2+x)^{\gamma}}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\left\|(e^{\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)})'-\widehat T_{cr}'(x,\lambda)\right\|
=\left\|\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{(\widehat T_{cr}^n(x,\lambda))'}{n!}\right\|
\le\left\|\widehat T_{cr}'(x,\lambda)\right\|\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{\|\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}
\\
=\|S^{\,(2)}_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|(e^{\|\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|}-1)
<\frac{c_{11}}{(x^2+x)^{\gamma}}.\end{gathered}$$ Combining all this and the estimate of the summable term we see that there exists $c_{12}>0$ such that for every $\lambda\in U_{cr}$ and $x\in[0,+\infty)$ one has $$\|\widetilde R_{cr}(x,\lambda)\|<c_{12}\left(\frac1{(x^2+x)^{\gamma}}+|q_1(x)|\right).$$ Now we can rewrite $S_{cr}^{\,(1)}$ so that the system on $\widetilde w_{cr}$ reads: $$\label{system w tilde}
\widetilde w\,'_{cr}(x)=\left(\frac1{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & z_{cr}e^{i\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)} \\
\overline{z_{cr}}e^{-i\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+\widetilde R_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\right)
\widetilde w(x),$$ where $$\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda):=\frac{2\pi(k(\lambda)-k(\nu_{cr}))}a$$ and $$\label{z cr}
z_{cr}:=-\frac{cb_{n_{cr}}^+(\nu_{cr})e^{i\delta}}{2iW\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{cr})}.$$ One can check that $$|z_{cr}|=\beta_{cr},\ \text{arg}\,z_{cr}=\phi_{cr},$$ with $\beta_{cr}$ and $\phi_{cr}$ given by and , by substituting the expression for the Fourier coefficient $$b_{n}^+(\lambda)=\frac1a\int_0^a\psi_+^2(t,\lambda)e^{-2i(k(\lambda)+\pi n)\frac ta}dt$$ into and using the relation involving $n_{cr}$.
Let us substitute $\widetilde w_{cr}$ in the form $$\widetilde w_{cr}(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)
w_{cr}(x),$$ into the system . We get for $w_{cr}$ the system , and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R cr}
R_{cr}(x,\lambda)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
\widetilde R_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ This expression for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$ is continuous in $U_{cr}$ as a function of $\lambda$. For every $\lambda\in U_{cr}$ and $x\in[0,+\infty)$ it can be estimated in norm by $c_2\left(|q_1(x)|+\frac1{(x^2+x)^{\gamma}}\right)$ with some $c_2>0$.
Let us check that the matrix $R_{cr}$ has real entries. Fix some $x\in[0,\infty)$ and $\lambda\in U_{cr}$. From the expression for $\widehat R$ using that $q_1(x)\in\mathbb R$ and $iW\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)<0$ we see that the matrix $\widehat R(x,\lambda)$ has the following conjugation property: $$\widehat R_{11}(x,\lambda)=\overline{\widehat R_{22}(x,\lambda)},\ \widehat R_{12}(x,\lambda)=\overline{\widehat R_{21}(x,\lambda)}.$$ This property is preserved for sums or products as well as for real analytic functions of such matrices. As it is clear from the formulae , and , this property holds for the matrices $S_n(x,\lambda)$, $S_{cr}^{\,(1)}(x,\lambda)$ and $S_{cr}^{\,(2)}(x,\lambda)$, and therefore, due to , for $\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)$ as well as for $\exp(\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda))$ and for $(\exp(\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)))'$. Hence it holds for $\widetilde R_{cr}(x,\lambda)$ given by and for $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\widetilde R_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Since for every $a,b\in\mathbb C$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
\overline b & \overline a \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Re\,}}a+{\text{Re\,}}b & {\text{Im\,}}b-{\text{Im\,}}a \\
{\text{Im\,}}a+{\text{Im\,}}b & {\text{Re\,}}a-{\text{Re\,}}b \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ we see from the expression that the entries of $R_{cr}(x,\lambda)$ are real-valued. As a result $R_{cr}(\cdot,\lambda)\in L_1(\mathbb R_+,M^{2\times2}(\mathbb R))$ for every $\lambda\in U_{cr}$.
Consider the solution $w_{cr,\alpha}$ of the system which corresponds to the solution $\varphi_{\alpha}$ of the eigenfunction equation, $$\label{w cralpha}
w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda):=T_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\lambda) \\
\varphi_{\alpha}'(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
T_{cr}(x,\lambda):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\exp(-\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda))
\\
\times
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\psi_-(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-'(x,\lambda) & \psi_+'(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)^{-1}.\end{gathered}$$ The matrix $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\exp(-\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda))$$ has the same conjugation property as the matrix $\widehat R$. The matrix $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\psi_-(x,\lambda) & \psi_+(x,\lambda) \\
\psi_-'(x,\lambda) & \psi_+'(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)^{-1}
=
\frac1{W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\psi_+'(x,\lambda) & -\psi_+(x,\lambda) \\
-\psi_-'(x,\lambda) & \psi_-(x,\lambda) \\
\end{array} \right)$$ has the first row complex conjugate to the second row. Since for every $a,b,c\in\mathbb C$ $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
\overline b & \overline a \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c \\
\overline c \\
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
ac+b\overline c \\
\overline a\overline c+\overline b c \\
\end{array}
\right),
\
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c \\
\overline c \\
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\text{Re\,}}c \\
{\text{Im\,}}c \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ the matrix $T_{cr}(x,\lambda)$ has real entries and therefore $w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)\in\mathbb R^2$ for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$, $\lambda\in U_{cr}$. The initial condition for the solution $w_{cr,\alpha}$ is $$w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\lambda)=T_{cr}(0,\lambda)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\alpha \\
\cos\alpha \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ which is continuous in $\lambda$. In particular, $$w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\nu_{cr})=T_{cr}(0,\nu_{cr})
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\alpha \\
\cos\alpha \\
\end{array}
\right)=:g_{cr,\alpha}.$$ The matrix $T_{cr}(0,\nu_{cr})$ is non-degenerate, and hence the vector $g_{cr,\alpha}$ runs over all the directions in $\mathbb R^2$ as $\alpha$ runs over the interval $[0,\pi)$.
From the asymptotics due to the relation for every $\lambda\in U_{cr}\backslash\{\nu_{cr}\}$ we have $$\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\widehat w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A_{\alpha}(\lambda) \\
\overline{A_{\alpha}(\lambda)} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Since $\widehat T_{cr}(x,\lambda)\rightarrow0$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$, $$\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A_{\alpha}(\lambda) \\
\overline{A_{\alpha}(\lambda)} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ The matrix $\frac1{\sqrt2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i \\
1 & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)$ is unitary. Therefore $$\left\|\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)\right\|
=\frac{|A_{\alpha}(\lambda)|}{\sqrt2}
\left\|
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right\|
=|A_{\alpha}(\lambda)|.$$ In the opposite direction, the relation means that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{varphi via w}
\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\lambda)=(T_{cr}^{-1}(x,\lambda)w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda),e_+)_{\mathbb C^2}
\\
=\left(w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda),\left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\overline{\psi_-(x,\lambda)}+e^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\overline{\psi_+(x,\lambda)}
\\
-ie^{-\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\overline{\psi_-(x,\lambda)}+ie^{\frac i2\phi_{cr}}\overline{\psi_+(x,\lambda)}
\end{array}
\right)+o(1)
\right)_{\mathbb C^2}.\end{gathered}$$ *3.* Consider the system for $\lambda=\nu_{cr}$: $$w_{cr}'(x)=\left(
\frac{\beta_{cr}}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{cr}(x,\lambda)\right)w_{cr}(x).$$ By the asymptotic Levinson theorem [@Coddington-Levinson-1955 Theorem 8.1] this system has two solutions $w_{cr}^{\pm}$ with the asymptotics $$\label{asympt wpm}
w_{cr}^{\pm}(x)=\exp\left(\pm\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_{\pm}+o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ Since the coefficients of the system are real-valued, $w_{cr}^-(x)\in\mathbb R^2$ for every $x\in[0,+\infty)$ (since $\overline{w_{cr}^-(x)}$ is also a solution which has the same asymptotics and hence is proportional to $w_{cr}^-(x)$ with the coefficient one). So there exists the unique $\alpha_{cr}\in[0,\pi)$ such that the vector $g_{cr,\alpha_{cr}}$ is proportional to $w_{cr}^-(0)$: $$g_{cr,\alpha_{cr}}=d_{cr-}w_{cr}^-(0),$$ and hence $$w_{cr,\alpha_{cr}}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr-}w_{cr}^-(x),$$ From this and the asymptotics follows, and from it using the relation we get the asymptotics of the solution $\varphi_{\alpha_{cr}}(x,\nu_{cr})$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$. For every $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$ due to and since $w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\nu_{cr})\nparallel w_{cr}^-(0)$ we have: $$w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\nu_{cr})=d_{cr}(\alpha)\exp\left(\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_++o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ The coefficient $d_{cr}(\alpha)$ is a linear functional on $\mathbb R^2$, the space of initial conditions. Hence it can be expressed in terms of the scalar product with some fixed vector, or in terms of the angle between this vector and the vector $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\alpha \\
\cos\alpha \\
\end{array}
\right)$. Clearly this functional vanishes for $\alpha_{cr}$, therefore it should be $$d_{cr}(\alpha)=d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})$$ with some $d_{cr+}\in\mathbb R$. From this we get the asymptotics , and using the relation the asymptotics of $\varphi_{\alpha}(x,\nu_{cr})$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$. This completes the proof.
The model problem {#section the model problem}
=================
In this section we study the system in the general setting and use only the objects and the properties that are listed in Lemma \[lem reduction\]. We pass from the spectral parameter $\lambda$ to the small parameter $\varepsilon_0$ supposing that the positive constant $\beta$, the remainder matrix $R(x,\varepsilon_0)$ with possibly complex entries and the vector of the initial condition $f\in\mathbb C^2$ are given. In such a setting we are able to establish the asymptotics as $x\rightarrow+\infty$ and then as $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0$ of solutions of the model system $$\label{system model problem}
u'(x)=
\left(
\frac{\beta}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\varepsilon_0x) & \sin(\varepsilon_0x)
\\
\sin(\varepsilon_0x) & -\cos(\varepsilon_0x)
\end{array}
\right)
+
R(x,\varepsilon_0)
\right)
u(x).$$ We consider this system for $\varepsilon_0\in U_0$, where $U_0$ is some interval with the midpoint zero. Let $\alpha_r,c_r>0$ and $$\label{model problem r}
r(x):=\frac{c_r}{(x+1)^{1+\alpha_r}}.$$ We assume the following: $$\label{model problem conditions}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\beta>0,
\\
\gamma\in(\frac12,1),
\\
R(x,\cdot)\text{ for every }x\in[0,+\infty)\text{ is continuous in }U_0,
\\
\|R(x,\varepsilon)\|<r(x)\text{ for every }x\in[0,+\infty)\text{ and }\varepsilon_0\in U_0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let us define for every $\varepsilon_0\in U_0$ and $f\in\mathbb C^2$ the solution $u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ of the Cauchy problem for the system with the initial condition $$\label{model problem initial condition}
u(0,\varepsilon_0,f)=f.$$ First we need to establish asymptotics of this solution as $x\rightarrow+\infty$ for every fixed $\varepsilon_0\in U_0$. We do this in the same way as in Lemma \[lem reduction\].
\[lem model problem individual asymptotics\] Let the conditions and hold, let $f\in\mathbb C^2$ and let $u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ be the solution of the system with the initial condition .\
1. For every $\varepsilon_0\neq 0$ and $f\in\mathbb C^2$ there exists a finite non-zero limit $\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$.\
2. For $\varepsilon_0=0$ and every $f\in\mathbb C^2$ the following asymptotics holds: $$u(x,0,f)=\exp\left(\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(\Phi(f)e_++o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty,$$ where $\Phi$ is a linear functional in $\mathbb C^2$. This functional has a one-dimensional kernel which consists of the vector $f_-$ (and its multiples) such that $$u(x,0,f_-)=\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_-+o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$
*1.* Just as in the previous section we make a Harris–Lutz transformation $u(x)=\exp(\widehat T_u(x,\varepsilon_0))u_1(x)$ with $$\widehat T_u(x,\varepsilon_0):=-\int_x^{+\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\varepsilon_0x') & \sin(\varepsilon_0x')
\\
\sin(\varepsilon_0x') & -\cos(\varepsilon_0x')
\end{array}
\right)
\frac{dx'}{x'^{\gamma}}.$$ For $\varepsilon_0\neq0$ one has $\widehat T_u(x,\varepsilon_0)=O\left(\frac1{x^{\gamma}}\right)$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$ and using the same kind of estimates as in the proof of Lemma \[lem reduction\] we arrive at the system $$u_1'(x)=R_1(x,\varepsilon_0)u_1(x)$$ with $$R_1(x,\varepsilon_0)=O\left(\frac1{x^{2\gamma}}+\frac1{x^{1+\alpha_1}}\right)\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty,$$ which means that $R_1(\cdot,\varepsilon_0)\in L_1(\mathbb R_+,M^{2\times2}(\mathbb C))$. The asymptotic Levinson theorem [@Coddington-Levinson-1955 Theorem 8.1] is applicable to this system and yields the existence of two solutions which have limits $e_+$ and $e_-$ as $x\rightarrow+\infty$. Hence every solution $u_1(x)$ has a non-zero limit as $x\rightarrow+\infty$. The same is true for every solution $u(x)$, because $\widehat T_u(x,\varepsilon_0)$ goes to zero at infinity.\
*2.* If $\varepsilon_0=0$, then the asymptotic Levinson theorem is directly applicable to the system . Using it we conclude that there exists a solution with the asymptotics $$\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_-+o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ Let us take as $f_-$ the value of this solution at zero. Again by the Levinson theorem there exists another solution, with the asymptotics $$\exp\left(\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_++o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ Therefore $$u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)=\exp\left(\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(\Phi(f)e_++o(1))\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ with some coefficient $\Phi(f)$ which depends on $f$ linearly and which is such that $\Phi(f_-)=0$ and $\text{dim}\,\text{ker}\,\Phi=1$. From [@Kurasov-Simonov-2013 Lemma 4.2, case (2)] one can write out the formula for $\Phi$: $$\label{Phi}
\Phi(f)=\left(\left(f+\int_0^{+\infty}\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)R(x,0)u(x,0,f)dx\right),e_+\right)_{\mathbb C^2}.$$ This completes the proof.
The main result concerning the model problem is given by the following theorem which establishes the behaviour of the limit $\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ as $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0$ and which will be proved in Section \[section matching\].
\[thm model problem\] Let the conditions and hold, let $f\in\mathbb C^2\backslash\{0\}$ and let $u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ be the solution of the system with the initial condition . The following asymptotic holds: $$\label{answer u}
\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\|u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)\|
=
C_{mp}(\beta,\gamma)\exp
\left(
\frac1{|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}\int_0^{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)(|\Phi(f)|+o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0$, where $\Phi$ is defined in Lemma \[lem model problem individual asymptotics\] and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{C mp}
C_{mp}(\beta,\gamma):=\frac1{\sqrt2}
\exp\Biggl(\int_0^{\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}
\frac{\gamma\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}d\tau
\\
-
\int_{\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}^{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}
\frac{\gamma d\tau}{2\tau\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}}
+\text{v.p.}\int_{\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2}^{+\infty}
\frac{\gamma d\tau}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}\Biggr).\end{gathered}$$
*1.* The case when $f$ is proportional to $f_-$ is included, and in such a case this is of course an estimate, not an asymptotics.\
*2.* The integral in the exponent in the asymptotics can be expressed in terms of the beta function: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{exponent}
\int_0^{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
=\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}2\int_0^1t_1^{-\gamma}\sqrt{1-t_1^{2\gamma}}dt_1
\\
=\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}{4\gamma}\int_0^1t_2^{\frac1{2\gamma}-\frac32}(1-t_2)^{\frac12}dt_2
=\frac{(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}{4\gamma}B\left(\frac32,\frac{1-\gamma}{2\gamma}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Note that the asymptotics of $\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ contains $\Phi(f)$ which is responsible for the behaviour of solutions for the fixed value of the parameter, $\varepsilon_0=0$. This is explained by the multiscale nature of the problem: $\Phi(f)$ may be considered as the result of development of the solution in the “fast” variable $x$ which then enters the initial condition for the scaled system in the “slow” variable $t$. We consider this scaled system below.
Reformulation
-------------
The system was used in [@Naboko-Simonov-2012] for study of the case $\gamma=1$. Let us see why in the present form it is no longer suitable for the case $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$. Consider $\varepsilon_0>0$. Scaling of the independent variable $x=\frac{t}{\varepsilon_0}$ leads to the system which has in some sense the following limit as $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0^+$: $$v'(t)=
\frac{\beta}{t}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos t & \sin t
\\
\sin t & -\cos t
\end{array}
\right)
v(t),$$ and the convergence is uniform in $t$. This system can be further analysed as $t\rightarrow+\infty$. If we did the same for the case $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$, we would come the system $$\varepsilon_0^{1-\gamma}v'(t)=
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos t & \sin t
\\
\sin t & -\cos t
\end{array}
\right)
v(t),$$ which contains a small parameter at the derivative. This is why the difference between the cases $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma\in(\frac12,1)$ is essential. Moreover, in our case one needs to consider a different scale of the independent variable rather than $x=\varepsilon_0^{-1}t$, namely $x=\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t$. This is not immediately clear: such a substitution does not eliminate the small parameter from the derivative and leads to growing oscillations in the coefficient matrix: $$\varepsilon_0^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}v'(t)=
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\Bigl(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}t\Bigr) & \sin\Bigl(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}t\Bigr)
\\
\sin\Bigl(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}t\Bigr) & -\cos\Bigl(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}t\Bigr)
\end{array}
\right)
v(t).$$
In view of the above let us begin not with scaling, but with getting rid of the oscillations: make the substitution $$u(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\end{array}
\right)
u_1(x),$$ which leads to the system $$u_1'(x)=
\left(
\frac{\beta}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0
\\
0 &-1
\end{array}
\right)
+
\frac{\varepsilon_0}2
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1
\\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
+R_1(x,\varepsilon_0)
\right)
u_1(x),$$ where $$R_1(x,\varepsilon_0)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\end{array}
\right)
R(x,\varepsilon_0)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}2\right)
\end{array}
\right).$$ Now let us scale the independent variable so as to make the first and the second terms in the coefficient matrix of the same order, $$\label{t}
x=\frac{t}{|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac1{\gamma}}},$$ and substitute $$u_1(x)=u_2\left(|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac1{\gamma}}x\right).$$ This leads to two systems $$|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}u_2'(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & \mp\frac12
\\
\pm\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+\frac1{|\varepsilon_0|}R_1\left(|\varepsilon_0|^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t,\varepsilon_0\right)
\right)
u_2(t),$$ for two possible signs of the parameter $\varepsilon_0$: one has to consider the cases $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0^+$ and $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0^-$ separately. Here the signs in $\pm$ and $\mp$ correspond to the sign of $\varepsilon_0$. Now we can define a new small positive parameter $$\label{epsilon}
\varepsilon:=|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}$$ from the set $$\label{U}
U:=\bigl\{|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}, \varepsilon_0\in U_0\bigr\}\backslash\{0\},$$ and write these systems as $$\label{system u 2}
\varepsilon {u_2^+}'(t)=(A_2^+(t)+R_2^+(t,\varepsilon))u_2^+(t)$$ and $$\label{system u 2-}
\varepsilon {u_2^-}'(t)=(A_2^-(t)+R_2^-(t,\varepsilon))u_2^-(t),$$ where $$A_2^{\pm}(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & \mp\frac12
\\
\pm\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R 2 pm}
R_2^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon):=\varepsilon^{-\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}
R_1\left(\varepsilon^{-\frac1{1-\gamma}}t,\pm\varepsilon^{\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}\right)
\\
=
\varepsilon^{-\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
R\left(\varepsilon^{-\frac1{1-\gamma}}t,\pm\varepsilon^{\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ Let us introduce solutions $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ of the system and $u_2^-(t,\varepsilon,f)$ of the system , which correspond to $u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$, by the formula $$\label{u 2 pm}
u_2^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon,f):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{t}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
u\left(\varepsilon^{-\frac1{1-\gamma}}t,\pm\varepsilon^{\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}},f\right),$$ so that they have initial conditions $$\label{u 2 pm initial condition}
u_2^{\pm}(0,\varepsilon,f)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
f.$$
Each of the systems and has an analytic part ($A_2^+$ or $A_2^-$) of the coefficient matrix and a remainder ($R_2^+$ or $R_2^-$) which is small in some sense. We will show that these remainders can be ignored away from zero. If there were no remainders, the well developed analytic theory would work here, see [@Wasow-1965 Chapter VIII]. The eigenvalues of both matrices $A_2^{\pm}(t)$ are the same: $\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}$ and $-\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}$, and $$\label{t 0}
t_0:=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}$$ is the turning point for both systems . At this point eigenvalues of $A_2^{\pm}$ coincide, and each of two matrices is similar to a Jordan block. The behaviour as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ of solutions of both systems has different character in the intervals $(0,t_0)$ and $(t_0,+\infty)$, so one needs to consider these intervals separately. In order to match the results in these two intervals we consider a small neighbourhood of the turning point and introduce a different (now again “fast”) variable $z$ there. However, this is still not enough: we need to consider intermediate regions at both sides of the turning point and use a different method there to treat the remainders $R_2^{\pm}$. Only then matching of all the results can be done to trace the behaviour of $u_2^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ from $t=0$ to $t=+\infty$.
In the statement of Theorem \[thm model problem\] one can rewrite the expression in the following way: $$\label{answer u 3}
\exp
\left(
-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{t_0}\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_2^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon,f)\|
\rightarrow
C_{mp}(\beta,\gamma)|\Phi(f)|$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Note that due to the oscillations in $u_2^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ cannot have limits as $t\rightarrow+\infty$, and only limits of their norms exist. This can be interpreted in the sense that the vector $\Phi(f)e_+$ plays the role of the initial condition for the systems , and the growth of norms of the solutions $u_2^{\pm}$ takes place on the interval $(0,t_0)$ at the rate determined by the positive eigenvalue of the matrices $A_2^{\pm}$.
Regions of the half-line
------------------------
In the next five sections we analyse the asymptotic behaviour of solutions of the system in five different regions of the positive half-line. In each of these regions we need to use appropriate transformations in order to simplify the system. Then we combine the results to match asymptotics, and this gives the asymptotic behaviour of the limit of the norm of the solution $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ at $t=+\infty$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. In Section \[section matching\] we will see that there is no need to perform a parallel study for the second system and the solution $u_2^-$. We take points $t_{I-II}\in(0,t_0)$ and $t_{IV-V}\in(t_0,+\infty)$ sufficiently close to the turning point $t_0$. On the interval $[t_{I-II},t_{IV-V}]$ we use the variable $z=\varepsilon^{-\frac23}\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)$ for which this interval corresponds to $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ (travelled in the opposite direction). We further divide this interval into three regions by the points $\pm Z_0$ which in the variable $t$ correspond to the points $t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)$ and $t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)$. The regions are displayed on the following figure:\
{width="\textwidth"}
In the region $I$ we obtain the asymptotics of the solution $u_2^+$, for the regions $II$ and $IV$ we find bases of solutions with known asymptotics, for the region $III$ we find a matrix solution and its asymptotics, and for the region $V$ we find a family of solutions determined by their behaviour as $t\rightarrow+\infty$ and establish their asymptotics as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
In section devoted to the regions $II$–$V$ we formulate results in a general form, that is for systems of the kind of , imposing different sufficient conditions on remainders of these systems. We as well check that these conditions are satisfied for the remainder $R_2^+$ of the system itself. In notation for each of these systems and for other related objects we use indices which correspond to the region that is considered.
Neighbourhood of the origin (region $I$): hyperbolic case {#section I}
==========================================================
We start with the system $$\label{system u I}
\varepsilon u_2^{+'}(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12
\\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_2^+(t).$$ Let us diagonalise the main term of the coefficient matrix with the transformation $$\label{u I1}
u_2^+(t)=T_I(t)u_{I,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{T I}
T_I(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{t^{\gamma}}{4\beta} \\
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{2\beta\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
&
\frac12\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right) \
\end{array}
\right)$$ (the eigenvector in the second column is chosen so that it does not have a singularity at $t=0$). The substitution gives: $$\label{system u I1}
u_{I,1}'(t)=\left(\frac{\lambda_I(t)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+S_I(t)+R_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon)\right)u_{I,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{lambda I}
\lambda_I(t):=\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14},$$ $$\label{S I}
S_I(t):=\frac{\gamma}{8\beta t^{1-\gamma}\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{\beta\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
&
-1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}
\\
-\frac{4}{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}}
&
\frac{t^{\gamma}\left(1+2\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}{\beta\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{R I1}
R_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon):=\frac{T_I^{-1}(t)R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)T_I(t)}{\varepsilon}.$$
The result for the region $I$ is given by the following lemma.
\[lem I result\] Let the conditions and hold and let for $f\in\mathbb C^2$ the function $u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)$ be the solution of the system with the initial condition . Let $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ be given by with the use of the definitions of $t$ and of $\varepsilon$, and thus be a solution of the system where $R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)$ is given by . For every $t\in(0,t_0)$ and $\varepsilon\in U$ the following asymptotics holds: $$\label{I asymptotics}
u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)
=
T_I(t)\exp\left(
\int_0^t\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\left(
\Phi(f)e_+
+o(1)
\right),$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, where $T_I,\lambda_I,S_I$ and $e_+$ are given by the expressions , , and , respectively, $S_{I,+}$ is the upper-left entry of the matrix $S_I$ and $\Phi$ is defined in Lemma \[lem model problem individual asymptotics\].
First let us prove an a priori estimate.
\[lem I a priori estimate\] Let $t_I\in(0,t_0)$. Under the conditions of Lemma \[lem I result\] there exists $c_{13}>0$ such that for every $t\in[0,t_I]$, $\varepsilon\in U$ and $f\in\mathbb C^2$ $$\label{a priori estimate}
\|u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)\|<c_{13}\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right)\|f\|,$$ where $\lambda_I$ is given by .
Rough estimate of the norm of the coefficient matrix of the system immediately gives: $$\|u_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon,f)\|<\exp\left(\int_0^t\left(\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+\|S_I(\tau)\|+\|R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|\right)d\tau\right)\|f\|.$$ Since $S_I\in L_1((0,t_I),M^{2\times2}(\mathbb C))$, we need the estimate $\int_0^{t_I}\|R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau=O(1)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. To see this first note that $T_I$ and $T_I^{-1}$ are bounded in $[0,t_I]$, and so, with some $c_{14}>0$, $$\int_0^{t_I}\|R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau<\frac{c_{14}}{\varepsilon}\int_0^{t_I}\|R_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau,$$ and so using , the condition on $R$ from and summability of $r$ due to we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^{t_I}\|R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau
<\frac{c_{14}}{\varepsilon}\int_0^{t_I}\|R_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau
=\frac{c_{14}}{\varepsilon_0\varepsilon}\int_0^{t_I}\left\|R\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau,\varepsilon_0\right)\right\|d\tau
\\
<\frac{c_{14}}{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\int_0^{t_I}r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau\right)d\tau
\le c_{14}\int_0^{+\infty}r(x)dx,\end{gathered}$$ which is finite and does not depend on $\varepsilon$. Using again boundedness of $T_I$ and the relation we complete the proof.
Note that the estimate is not valid for $t\ge t_0$, because $S_I\notin L_1(0,t_0)$. Neighbourhood of the turning point requires special attention.
Let us make the variation of parameters $$\label{u I2}
u_{I,1}(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{I,2}(t),$$ which gives $$u_{I,2}'(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
(S_I(t)+R_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon))u_{I,1}(t).$$ Integrating this from $0$ to $t$ and returning to $u_{I,1}$ we get the integral equation for the solution of the system , $$\label{u I1f}
u_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon,f):=T_{I}^{-1}(t)u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f),$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq u I1f}
u_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon,f)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) & 0 \\
0 & -\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
f
\\
+\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
(S_I(\tau)+R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon))u_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ Scaling $$\label{u I3}
u_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f):=\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right)u_{I,1}(t,\varepsilon,f)$$ we come to another integral equation, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{I integral eq}
u_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
f
\\
+\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
(S_I(\tau)+R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon))u_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ Rewrite it as $$\label{I integral eq with kernel}
u_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)=h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)+\int_0^tK_I(t,\tau,\varepsilon)u_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)d\tau,$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{h I3}
h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_0^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
f
\\
+\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)u_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)d\tau\end{gathered}$$ and $$\label{K I}
K_I(t,\tau,\varepsilon):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
S_I(\tau).$$ Define also $$\label{K I(0)}
K_I(t,\tau,0):= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right)
S_I(\tau).$$ Now fix an arbitrary point $t_I\in(0,t_0)$. Consider the equation as an equation in the Banach space $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$ $$\label{I integral eq with operator}
u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)=h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)+\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f),$$ where $\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)$ is the Volterra operator $$\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon):u(t)\mapsto\int_0^tK_I(t,\tau,\varepsilon)u(\tau)d\tau$$ (which makes sense for $\varepsilon=0$ too).
\[lem I convergence of the free term\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem I result\] hold and let $h_{I,3}$ be given by with the use of the relations and .\
1. For every $t\in(0,t_0)$ and $f\in\mathbb C^2$ the following limit exists: $$\label{h I3(0)}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+}h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)=\Phi(f)e_+=:h_{I,3}(t,0,f),$$ where $\Phi$ is defined in Lemma \[lem model problem individual asymptotics\].\
2. There exists $c_{15}>0$ such that for every $t\in(0,t_0)$, $\varepsilon\in U$ and $f\in\mathbb C^2$ one has $\|h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)\|<c_{15}\|f\|$.
Note that there is no convergence $h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)\rightarrow h_{I,3}(0,f)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ in the norm of $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$.
Rewrite the second summand in in the following way: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{I eq free term}
\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)u_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)d\tau
\\
=
\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
T_I^{-1}(\tau)R_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon)T_I(\tau)u_{I,1}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)e^{-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^\tau\lambda_I}\frac{d\tau}{\varepsilon}
\\
=
\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
T_I^{-1}(\tau)R_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon)u_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon,f)e^{-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^\tau\lambda_I}\frac{d\tau}{\varepsilon}
\\
=
\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
T_I^{-1}(\tau)
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\tau}{2\varepsilon}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\tau}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\tau}{2\varepsilon}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\tau}{2\varepsilon}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
R\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau,\varepsilon_0\right)u\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau,\varepsilon_0,f\right)
e^{-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^\tau\lambda_I}\frac{d\tau}{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}}
\\
=
\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
T_I^{-1}(\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x)
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
R(x,\varepsilon_0)u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}\lambda_I\right)dx.\end{gathered}$$ Consider the expression $\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}^t\lambda_I\right)$ which is positive and is less than one. For every fixed $x$ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ it is less then $\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{\frac t2}^t\lambda_I\right)$ which converges to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}\lambda_I\right)
=\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt\right)
\\
=\exp\left(-\varepsilon_0\int_0^x\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{\varepsilon_0^2y^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dy\right)
\rightarrow
\exp\left(-\int_0^x\frac{\beta dy}{y^{\gamma}}\right)=\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Since $T_I(0)=I$ and the functions $R(x,\cdot)$ and $u(x,\cdot,f)$ are continuous in $U_0$, the expression under the integral in the result of the calculation for every fixed $x$ converges to $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R(x,0)u(x,0,f)
\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)dx.$$ Since $$\|u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)\|=\left\|u_2^+\left(\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x,\varepsilon,f\right)\right\|
<c_{13}\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}\lambda_I\right)\|f\|,$$ by Lemma \[lem I a priori estimate\], the estimate $\|R(x,\varepsilon_0)\|<r(x)$ provides a summable majorant for the expression under the integral, and by the Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem we get that for every $t\in(0,t_I]$ there exists a limit of $h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ which equals to $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(f+
\int_0^{+\infty}
R(x,0)u(x,0,f)
\exp\left(-\frac{\beta x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)dx\right)
=\Phi(f)e_+,$$ according to the formula for $\Phi$. The uniform boundedness of the $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$ norm of $h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ also follows from the existence of a summable majorant. This completes the proof.
We denote by $\mathcal B(L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2))$ the Banach space of bounded operators in $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$.
\[lem I operator convergence\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem I result\] hold and $K_I(\varepsilon)$ be given by for $\varepsilon\neq0$ and by for $\varepsilon=0$. Let $h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)$ for $\varepsilon\neq0$ be given by with the use of the relations , , and for $\varepsilon=0$ be defined in Lemma \[lem I convergence of the free term\]. Let $t_I\in(0,t_0)$. Then the following holds.\
1. $\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)\rightarrow\mathcal K_I(0)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ in the norm of $\mathcal B(L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2))$.\
2. $\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)\rightarrow\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(0,f)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ in the norm of $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$.
*1.* It suffices to prove that $$\max\limits_{t\in[0,t_I]}\int_0^t\|K_I(t,\tau,\varepsilon)-K_I(t,\tau,0)\|d\tau\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ or that $$\max\limits_{t\in[0,t_I]}\int_0^t\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right)\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau\rightarrow0
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ On the interval $[0,t_I]$ we can use estimates $\lambda_I(t)>c_{16}$ and $\|S_I(t)\|<\frac{c_{17}}{t^{1-\gamma}}$ with some $c_{16},c_{17}>0$ which can be seen directly from the expressions and . Take an arbitrary small $\Delta>0$. Firstly, there exists $t(\Delta)$ such that $$\int_0^{t(\Delta)}\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau<\frac{\Delta}2.$$ Thus $$\label{I est 1}
\max\limits_{t\in[0,t(\Delta)]}\int_0^t\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right)\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau<\frac{\Delta}2.$$ Secondly, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{I est 2}
\max\limits_{t\in[t(\Delta),t_I]}\int_0^t\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right)\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau
\\
\le
\frac{\Delta}2+\max\limits_{t\in[t(\Delta),t_I]}\int_{t(\Delta)}^t\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right)\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau
\\
\le
\frac{\Delta}2+\frac{c_{17}}{(t(\Delta))^{1-\gamma}}
\max\limits_{t\in[0,t_I]}\int_0^t\exp\left(-\frac{2c_{16}}{\varepsilon}(t-\tau)\right)
\le
\frac{\Delta}2+\frac{c_{17}}{(t(\Delta))^{1-\gamma}}\frac{\varepsilon}{2c_{16}}.\end{gathered}$$ One can choose $\varepsilon(\Delta)>0$ so that for every $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon(\Delta))$ holds $\frac{c_{17}}{(t(\Delta))^{1-\gamma}}\frac{\varepsilon}{2c_{16}}<\frac{\Delta}2$, and so, from the estimates and , $$\max\limits_{t\in[0,t_I]}\int_0^t\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_\tau^t\lambda_I\right)\|S_I(\tau)\|d\tau<\Delta.$$ This proves the convergence.\
*2.* We have: $$\begin{gathered}
\|K_I(0)(h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(0,f))\|_{L_{\infty}(0,t_I)}
\\
\le
\max\limits_{t\in[0,t_I]}\left\|\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
S_I(\tau)(h_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\tau,0,f))d\tau\right\|
\\
\le
\int_0^{t_I}\|S_I(\tau)\|\|h_{I,3}(\tau,\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\tau,0,f)\|d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ In the expression under the integral $S_I$ is summable and $h_{I,3}$ is point-wise convergent to zero and uniformly bounded by Lemma \[lem I convergence of the free term\]. Therefore, by the Lebegue’s dominated convergence theorem, the integral converges to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Now we are able to prove convergence of the solution.
\[lem I convergence of the solution\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem I result\] hold and let $u_{I,3}$ be defined by . For every $t\in(0,t_0)$ there exists the limit $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+}u_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)=:u_{I,3}(t,0,f),$$ which satisfies the following integral equation on the interval $[0,t_0)$ : $$\label{I integral eq in the limit}
u_{I,3}(t,0,f)=h_{I,3}(t,0,f)+\int_0^tK_I(t,\tau,0)u_{I,3}(\tau,0,f)d\tau,$$ where $K_I(0)$ is given by , and $h_{I,3}(0,f)$ is defined in Lemma \[lem I convergence of the free term\].
Note that again, as with $h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)$, there is no convergence in the norm of $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$. However, the difference $u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)$ converges in this norm.
Take some $t_I\in(0,t_0)$. Let us rewrite the equation as $$u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)=\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)+\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)(u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f))$$ and then as $$\label{I eq 1}
u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)=(I-\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon))^{-1}\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f).$$ By Lemma \[lem I operator convergence\], due to the boundedness of $h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)$ in the norm of $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$ provided by Lemma \[lem I convergence of the solution\], we have: $$\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)
=(\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_I(0))h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)+\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)
\rightarrow\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(0,f)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Since $\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)$ are Volterra operators, the norms $\|(I-\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon))^{-1}\|\le\exp(\|\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)\|)$ are bounded as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Therefore $$(I-\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon))^{-1}=(I+(I-\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon))^{-1}(\mathcal K_I(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_I(0)))(I-\mathcal K_I(0))^{-1}\rightarrow(I-\mathcal K_I(0))^{-1}$$ in the norm of $\mathcal B(L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2))$. Hence in the equality there exists the limit $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+}(u_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(\varepsilon,f))=(I-\mathcal K_I(0))^{-1}\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(0,f)$$ in the norm of $L_{\infty}((0,t_I),\mathbb C^2)$ which means that $u_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)-h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ has a limit for every $t\in[0,t_I]$ and uniformly in $t$. Since $t_I$ was chosen arbitrarily, the limit exists for every $t\in(0,t_0)$, however, without uniformity. By Lemma \[lem I convergence of the free term\] for every $t\in(0,t_0)$ the function $h_{I,3}(t,\varepsilon,f)$ has a limit as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, also not uniform in $t$. On the interval $[0,t_I]$ we have the equality $$u_{I,3}(0,f)=h_{I,3}(0,f)+(I-\mathcal K_I(0))^{-1}\mathcal K_I(0)h_{I,3}(0,f).$$ Applying $I-\mathcal K_I(0)$ to both sides we arrive at the formula .
Now we can prove Lemma \[lem I result\].
Equation is in fact simpler than it looks: it is merely an equation for the upper component of $u_{I,3}$ which can be solved explicitly. Indeed, using the formulae and for the initial condition and the kernel we get the equation $$u_{I,3}(t,0,f)=\Phi(f)e_++\int_0^t
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
S_I(\tau)
u_{I,3}(\tau,0,f)d\tau,$$ and the solution is given by the expression $$\label{I asymptotics u I3}
u_{I,3}(t,0,f)=\Phi(f)\exp\left(\int_0^tS_{I,+}(\tau)d\tau\right)e_+.$$ Putting this into and we obtain the asymptotics , which completes the proof.
Neighbourhood of the infinity (region $V$): elliptic case {#section V}
==========================================================
We start with the same system in different notation: $$\label{system u V}
\varepsilon u_{V}'(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12
\\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{V}(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{V}(t).$$ In the same way as in the region $I$ let us diagonalise the main term of the coefficient matrix by the transformation $$\label{u V1}
u_V(t)=T_V(t)u_{V,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{T V}
T_V(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1
&
1
\\
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
&
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Substitution into the system gives: $$\label{system u V1}
u_{V,1}'(t)=\left(\frac{\lambda_V(t)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+S_V(t)+R_{V,1}(t,\varepsilon)\right)u_{I,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{lambda V}
\lambda_V(t):=-\frac i2\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}},$$ $$\label{S V}
S_V(t):=\frac{\beta\gamma}{\left(1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}\right)t^{1+\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
&
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
\\
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
&
-\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{R V1}
R_{V,1}(t,\varepsilon):=\frac{T_V^{-1}(t)R_{V}(t,\varepsilon)T_V(t)}{\varepsilon}.$$
Here we consider solutions which are defined not by their values at zero, but rather by their asymptotics at infinity. Asymptotics of solutions in the region $V$ is given by the following lemma.
\[lem V answer\] Let $\beta>0,\gamma\in(\frac12,1),t_0=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}$ and $g\in\mathbb C^2$. If $$\label{condition R V integral}
\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\|R_V(t,\varepsilon)\|dt=o(\varepsilon)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every $\varepsilon\in U$ there exists a solution $u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)$ of the system on the interval $(t_0,+\infty)$ with the following asymptotics: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{V asymptotics}
u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)
=
T_V(t)
\\
\times
\Biggl(
\exp
\Biggl(
\int_{t_0}^t
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
d\tau
-\int_t^{+\infty}
\text{\emph{diag}}\,
S_{V}(\tau)
d\tau
\Biggr)
g
+o(1)
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, where the convergence of the term $o(1)$ is uniform with respect to $t\in[t_V,+\infty)$ for every $t_V\in(t_0,+\infty)$. Moreover, for every $\varepsilon\in U$ $$\label{V convergence u V t->infty}
\|u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)\|\rightarrow\sqrt2\|g\|\text{ as }t\rightarrow+\infty.$$
Let us rewrite the condition in terms of the remainder $R_{V,1}$.
\[lem V remainder\] Under the conditions of Lemma \[lem V answer\], if for some $t_V\in(t_0,+\infty)$ $$\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|R_V(t,\varepsilon)\|dt=o(\varepsilon)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,
\text{ then }
\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|R_{V,1}(t,\varepsilon)\|dt\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
Since $T_V$ and $T_V^{-1}$ are bounded in $[t_V,+\infty) $, one has with some $c_{18}>0$ using the definition : $$\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|R_{V,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau<\frac{c_{18}}{\varepsilon}\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|R_V(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau,$$ which goes to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Now let us see that the condition is satisfied if we take $R_V=R_2^+$.
\[lem V R 2+ estimate\] Let $R_2^+$ be given by , $r\in L_1(\mathbb R_+)$ and conditions hold. Then $$\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\|R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)\|dt=o(\varepsilon)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
Using the definition , the estimate of $R$ from , the relation and summability of the function $r$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{V estimate R V1}
\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\|R_2^+(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau
=\frac1{\varepsilon_0}\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\left\|R\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau,\varepsilon_0\right)\right\|d\tau
\\
\le\varepsilon\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}\tau\right)d\tau
=\varepsilon\int_{\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t_0}^{+\infty}r(x)dx=o(\varepsilon)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.\end{gathered}$$ This gives the result.
It is more convenient for the later use to reformulate this result in different terms. Making the variation of parameters in the system , $$\label{u V2}
u_{V,1}(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{V,2}(t),$$ we come to the system $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u V2}
u_{V,2}'(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
(S_V(t)+R_{V,1}(t,\varepsilon))
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{V,2}(t).\end{gathered}$$ The following lemma will be used as the result for the region $V$ in Section \[section matching\].
\[lem V result for u V2\] Let $\beta>0,\gamma\in(\frac12,1),t_0=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}},g\in\mathbb C^2$ and $$\label{V condition on R V}
\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\|R_V(t,\varepsilon)\|dt=o(\varepsilon)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ There exists the solution $u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)$ of the system such that the following holds.\
1. For every $\varepsilon\in U$ $$u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)\rightarrow g\text{ as }t\rightarrow+\infty.$$ 2. For every $t\in(t_0,+\infty)$ $$\label{V asymptotics u V2}
u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)\rightarrow\exp\left(-\int_t^{+\infty}\text{\emph{diag}}\,S_V(\tau)d\tau\right)g
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ and the limit is uniform with respect to $t\in[t_V,+\infty)$ for every $t_V\in(t_0,+\infty)$.
We can use directly the asymptotic Levinson theorem. The coefficient matrix of the system is summable near infinity: from it is clear that $S_V\in L_1((t_V,+\infty),M^{2\times2}(\mathbb C))$, and $R_{V,1}$ is summable due to Lemma \[lem V remainder\]. Conditions of the asymptotic Levinson theorem [@Coddington-Levinson-1955 Theorem 8.1] are satisfied which gives the result. We will prove the item *2.* later.
Let us integrate both sides of the equation from $t$ to $+\infty$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{V eq 2}
u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)=g-
\int_t^{+\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(S_V(\tau)+R_{V,1}(\tau,\varepsilon))
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{V,2}(\tau,\varepsilon,g)d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ Rewrite this as $$\label{V integral eq with kernel}
u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)=g+\int_t^{+\infty}K_V(\tau,\varepsilon)u_{V,2}(\tau,\varepsilon,g)d\tau,$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{K V}
K_V(\tau,\varepsilon):=
-
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(S_V(\tau)+R_{V,1}(\tau,\varepsilon))
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right) \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ Define also $$\label{K V(0)}
K_V(\tau,0):=-\text{diag}\,S_V(\tau).$$ Take some $t_V\in(t_0,+\infty)$ and consider as an equation in the Banach space $L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$ $$\label{V integral eq with operator}
u_{V,2}(\varepsilon,g)=g+\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)u_{V,2}(\varepsilon,g),$$ where $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$ is the Volterra operator $$\label{K V operator}
\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon):u(t)\mapsto\int_0^tK_V(\tau,\varepsilon)u(\tau)d\tau,$$ which is also defined by this rule for $\varepsilon=0$.
Until this moment we were following the scheme which was already used for the region $I$. This analogy does not go further: the operators $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$ do not converge in the norm of $\mathcal B(L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2))$, while the solutions $u_{V,2}(\varepsilon,g)$ do converge in the norm of $L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$.
\[lem V convergence of operators\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\] hold, $t_V\in(t_0,+\infty)$ and $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$ be the operator in the space $L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$ defined by with the use of expressions and . Operator $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$ converges in the strong sense to the operator $\mathcal K_V(0)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, and $(I-\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon))^{-1}$ converges in the strong sense to $(I-\mathcal K_V(0))^{-1}$.
Take some arbitrary $u\in L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$. We have: $$\begin{gathered}
\|(\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_V(0))u\|_{L_{\infty}(t_V,+\infty)}
\le
\left\|\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}(K_V(\tau,\varepsilon)-K_V(\tau,0))u(\tau)d\tau\right\|
\\
\le
\left|\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}S_{V,12}(\tau)u_2(\tau)\exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right)d\tau\right|
\\
+
\left|\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}S_{V,21}(\tau)u_1(\tau)\exp\left(\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V\right)d\tau\right|
\\
+
\|u\|_{L_{\infty}(t_V,+\infty)}\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|R_{V,1}(\tau,\varepsilon)\|d\tau,\end{gathered}$$ where $S_{V,12}$ and $S_{V,21}$ are the upper-right and the lower-left entries of the matrix $S_V$, and $u_1$ and $u_2$ are the upper and the lower components of the vector $u$. From the estimate it follows that the third term in the last formula goes to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. For the first term after the change of the variable of integration to $s(\tau)=\int_{t_0}^\tau\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{\tau'^{2\gamma}}}d\tau'$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}S_{V,12}(\tau)u_2(\tau)\exp\left(-\frac 2{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\lambda_V(\tau')d\tau'\right)d\tau
\\
=\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}S_{V,12}(\tau)u_2(\tau)\exp\left(\frac i{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^\tau\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{\tau'^{2\gamma}}}d\tau'\right)d\tau
\\
=
\int_{s(t_V)}^{+\infty}\frac{S_{V,12}(\tau(s))u_2(\tau(s))}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{\tau(s)^{2\gamma}}}}\exp\left(\frac{is}{\varepsilon}\right)ds
\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,\end{gathered}$$ by the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma, because $S_Vu\in L_1((t_V,+\infty),M^{2\times2}(\mathbb C))$ and $$\int_{s(t_V)}^{+\infty}\frac{|S_{V,12}(\tau(s))u_2(\tau(s))|}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{\tau(s)^{2\gamma}}}}ds
=\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}|S_{V,12}(\tau)u_2(\tau)|d\tau<\infty.$$ The second term goes to zero for the analogous reason and the third term by Lemma \[lem V remainder\]. This proves strong convergence of operators $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$.
It remains to prove strong convergence of $(I-\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon))^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)$. This series converges in the norm of $\mathcal B(L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2))$ uniformly in $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$, because for every $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$ and $n\in\mathbb N$ one has $$\|\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty})}\le\frac{(\|\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty})})^n}{n!}
\text{ and }
\|\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty})}\le\int_{t_V}^{+\infty}\|S_{V}(\tau)\|d\tau.$$
Take $u\in L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$. By induction one proves that for every $n\in\mathbb N$ it holds that $\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)u\rightarrow\mathcal K_V^n(0)u$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$: $$\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)u=\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)(\mathcal K_V^{n-1}(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_V^{n-1}(0))u+\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)\mathcal K_V^{n-1}(0)u\rightarrow \mathcal K_V^n(0)u,$$ where the first term goes to zero by the induction hypothesis and the second converges to the result due to the strong convergence of $\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon)$. Take arbitrarily small $\Delta>0$. There exists $N(\Delta)$ such that for every $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$ and $N>N(\Delta)$ one has $$\left\|\sum_{n=N}^{\infty}\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)u\right\|<\frac{\Delta}3.$$ There also exists $\varepsilon(\Delta)>0$ such that for every $\varepsilon<\varepsilon(\Delta)$ it holds that $$\left\|\sum_{n=0}^{N(\Delta)}(\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_V^n(0))u\right\|<\frac{\Delta}3.$$ Therefore for every $\varepsilon<\varepsilon(\Delta)$ we have $$\left\|\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)u-\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal K_V^n(0)u\right\|
<\frac{2\Delta}3+\left\|\sum_{n=0}^{N(\Delta)}(\mathcal K_V^n(\varepsilon)-\mathcal K_V^n(0))u\right\|<\Delta,$$ which proves that $$(I-\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon))^{-1}u\rightarrow(I-\mathcal K_V(0))^{-1}u\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Since $u\in L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$ was arbitrary, this proves the strong convergence and thus completes the proof of the lemma.
Now we are able to prove the remaining part of Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\].
Rewriting the equation as $$u_{V,2}(\varepsilon,g)=(I-\mathcal K_V(\varepsilon))^{-1}g$$ we use Lemma \[lem V convergence of operators\] to conclude that $u_{V,2}(\varepsilon,g)\rightarrow u_{V,2}(0,g)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ in the norm of $L_{\infty}((t_V,+\infty),\mathbb C^2)$, where $$\label{V eq 1}
u_{V,2}(0,g):=(I-\mathcal K_V(0))^{-1}g,$$ which means that for every $g\in\mathbb C^2$ and $t\in[t_V,+\infty)$, $u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)$ converges as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ to $u_{V,2}(t,0,g)$ uniformly with respect to $t$ in this interval. Applying the operator $I-\mathcal K_V(0)$ to both sides of the equality we get: $$u_{V,2}(t,0,g)=g-\int_t^{+\infty}\text{diag}\,S_V(\tau)u_{V,2}(\tau,0,g)d\tau.$$ Solution of this equation is $$u_{V,2}(t,0,g)=\exp\left(-\int_t^{+\infty}\text{diag}\,S_V(\tau)d\tau\right)g,$$ which coincides with the expression in and thus completes the proof.
The proof of Lemma \[lem V answer\] follows.
Convergence in follows from Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\] and substitution of the limit to the relations and . To prove convergence in first note that $u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)$ is bounded as $t\rightarrow+\infty$, because $$\|u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)\|\le\|T_V(t)\|\|u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)\|$$ and $u_{V,2}(t,\varepsilon,g)$ is bounded by Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\]. Then, since $$T_V(t)\rightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)
\text{ as }t\rightarrow+\infty$$ and the matrix $\frac1{\sqrt2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)$ is unitary, by Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\] we have the convergence of the norm: $\|u_V(t,\varepsilon,g)\|\rightarrow\sqrt2\|g\|\text{ as }\rightarrow+\infty.$ This completes the proof.
Intermediate region $II$: hyperbolic case {#section II}
=========================================
Cosider the system $$\varepsilon u_{II}'(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12
\\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{II}(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{II}(t).$$ Let us again, like in the region $I$, diagonalise the main term of the coefficient matrix, this time with the transformation $$\label{u II1}
u_{II}(t)=T_{II}(t)u_{II,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{T II}
T_{II}(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1
&
1
\\
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{2\beta\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
&
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{2\beta\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that the first column is the same as of the matrix $T_{I}(t)$ in . The substitution gives: $$\label{system u II1}
u_{II,1}'(t)=\left(\frac{\lambda_{II}(t)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+S_{II}(t)+R_{II,1}(t,\varepsilon)\right)u_{II,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{lambda II}
\lambda_{II}(t):=\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}=\lambda_{I}(t),$$ $$\label{S II}
S_{II}(t):=\frac{\gamma}{2t\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}
&
-1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}
\\
-1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}
&
1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$R_{II,1}(t,\varepsilon):=\frac{T_{II}^{-1}(t)R_{II}(t,\varepsilon)T_{II}(t)}{\varepsilon}.$$
In the region $I$ our analysis was based on the fact that the term $S_I$ is summable over the whole interval. Since $S_I$ is not summable up to the turning point $t_0=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}$, the integral containing $S_I$ diverges as $t$ approaches $t_0$, so Lemma \[lem I result\] does not work for the interval $(0,t_0]$. In the same way and for the same reason Lemma \[lem V answer\] does not work for the interval $[t_0,+\infty)$. This can be seen as an effect of the interplay between the first and the second terms in the coefficient matrix of the system which should be taken into account. We do this by scaling the independent variable near the turning point. To choose the new scale observe that near the turning point the first term has the order $\frac{\sqrt{t-t_0}}{\varepsilon}$, while the second term has the order $\frac1{t-t_0}$. To match these orders we have to consider the values of $t$ such that $t-t_0\approx\varepsilon^{\frac23}$. Therefore let us take $$\label{z}
z:=\frac{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}.$$ Since $$1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}=\frac{2\gamma(t_0-t)}{(4\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}+O((t-t_0)^2)\text{ as }t\rightarrow t_0,$$ this is almost the same as taking $z'=\frac{2\gamma}{(4\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\frac{t_0-t}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$. These two substitutions lead to different systems, but essentially they are equivalent, because in the limit as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, asymptotically, solutions of these systems behave similarly. The first choice leads to simpler formulae, so we use the variable $z$ defined by . One could also choose the sign differently, $\widetilde z:=\frac{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}=-z$, but our choice of sign will be more natural for the region $III$ where we use the same variable $z$.
Let us take $$\label{u II2}
u_{II,1}(t)=u_{II,2}(z(t,\varepsilon))$$ and substitute this into the system . We come to the system $$\label{system u II2}
u_{II,2}'(z)=(\Lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)+S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)+R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon))u_{II,2}(z)$$ with $$\label{Lambda II2}
\Lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon):=
\lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{lambda II2}
\lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon):=\frac{\lambda_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon))t'(z,\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}=\frac{-c_0\sqrt z}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^\varkappa},$$ $$\label{c_0 kappa}
c_0:=\frac{t_0}{4\gamma},\ \varkappa:=\frac32-\frac1{2\gamma},$$ $$\label{S II2}
S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon):=S_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon))t'(z,\varepsilon)=
-\frac1{4z(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z & -1-\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z \\
-1+\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z & 1+\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\label{R II2}
R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon):=
-\frac{t_0}{2\gamma\varepsilon^{\frac13}}
\frac{T_{II}^{-1}(t(z,\varepsilon))R_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)T_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon))}
{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\frac1{2\gamma}}}.$$ We consider the system on the interval $[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ with $$\label{Z 2}
Z_2(\varepsilon)=\frac1{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}\left(1-\frac{t_{I-II}^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)$$ (so that $t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)=t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}Z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}$), where the constant $Z_0$ should be large enough and the constant $t_{I-II}$ such that the distance $(t_0-t_{I-II})$ is small enough. We will choose these constants later.
Consider for a moment the free system. We need the next lemma to be formulated here, although its statement will automatically follow from our analysis in the proof of Lemma \[lem II result 1st part\], see Remark \[rem proof of Lemma II free system\].
\[lem II free system\] The system $$\label{system v II2}
v_{II,2}'(z)=
\left(
-c_0\sqrt z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)
v_{II,2}(z)$$ has for $z\in[1,+\infty)$ solutions $v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)$ such that $$\label{II asymptotics v II2}
v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left({\mp}\frac{2c_0}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))$$ as $z\rightarrow+\infty$.
The main result for the region $II$ is the following lemma.
\[lem II result\] Let $c_0,\varkappa>0$ and let $R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)$ be given by with the use of the expression and the definition of $z$. There exist $Z_0>0$ and $t_{I-II}\in(0,t_0)$ such that, with $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ given by , if $$\label{condition R II integral}
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_{II}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ has two solutions $u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\label{II answer}
u_{II,2}^{\pm}(Z_2(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=a_{II}^{\pm}\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}
\left(\mp\frac{c_0\sqrt s}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}s)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4s(1\pm\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt s)}\right)
ds\right)(e_{\pm}+o(1)),$$ where $a_{II}^{\pm}$ are positive constants and the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by . Moreover, $u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\ge Z_0$, where $v_{II,2}^{\pm}$ are defined in Lemma \[lem II free system\].
Let us rewrite the condition in terms of the remainder $R_{II,2}$.
\[lem II remainder\] Under the conditions of Lemma \[lem II result\], for every $z_0>0$ and $\nu\in(0,1)$ with $z_2(\varepsilon)=\frac{\nu}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$, if $$\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_{II}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right),
\text{ then }
\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Let $$\label{t nu}
t_{\nu}:=t_0(1-\nu)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}.$$ From the expression for $T_{II}$ it is clear that there exists $c_{19}>0$ such that $\|T_{II}(t)\|<c_{19}$ for every $t\in[t_{\nu},t_0]$ and that $$\text{det}\,T_{II}(t)\sim2\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}=2\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{z(t,\varepsilon)}\text{ as }t\rightarrow t_0,$$ therefore there exists $c_{20}>0$ such that $$\|T_{II}^{-1}(t(z,\varepsilon))\|<\frac{c_{20}}{\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z}
\text{ for every }\varepsilon\in U\text{ and }z\in[z_0,z_2(\varepsilon)].$$ Hence from the definition of $R_{II,2}$ one has that with some $c_{21}>0$ $$\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
<\frac{c_{21}}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds}{\sqrt s}$$ which goes to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ by the hypothesis.
Now let us see that the condition is satisfied, if $R_{II}=R_2^+$.
\[lem II R 2+ estimate\] Let $R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)$ be given by and $t(z,\varepsilon)$ be defined by . Let the conditions and hold. Then for every $z_0>0$ and $\nu\in(0,1)$ with $z_2(\varepsilon)=\frac{\nu}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$, the following estimate holds: $$\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{s}}ds=O\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
Using the equalities and the estimate of the norm of $R$ from the conditions we have $$\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds}{\sqrt s}
<
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}
\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t(s,\varepsilon)\right)\frac{ds}{\sqrt s}.$$ Since the derivative of $z$ is $\frac{dz(t,\varepsilon)}{dt}=-\frac{\gamma t^{2\gamma-1}}{2\beta^2\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$, one has $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t(s,\varepsilon)\right)\frac{ds}{\sqrt s}
<
\frac{\gamma}{2\beta^2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon^{\frac13}}\int_{t_{\nu}}^{t_0}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t\right)\frac{t^{2\gamma-1}dt}{\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}},$$ where $t_{\nu}$ is given by . It follows that there exists $c_{22}>0$ such that $$\frac{\gamma}{2\beta^2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon^{\frac13}}\int_{t_{\nu}}^{t_0}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t\right)\frac{t^{2\gamma-1}dt}{\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}}
<\frac{c_{22}\varepsilon^{\frac23}}{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\int_{t_{\nu}}^{t_0}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t\right)\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t_0-t}}.$$ Using the expression for $r$ we arrive at the estimate $$\int_{z_0}^{z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds}{\sqrt s}
<c_rc_{22}\varepsilon^{\frac23}\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\int_{t_{\nu}}^{t_0}
\frac{dt}{t^{1+\alpha_r}\sqrt{t_0-t}}=O\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\right)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. This completes the proof.
To prove Lemma \[lem II result\] we need to further divide the interval $[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ into two parts by the point $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ such that $Z_1(\varepsilon)\rightarrow+\infty$ and $Z_1(\varepsilon)=o(\varepsilon^{-\frac23})$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ which we will choose later, in . On the first subinterval $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ solutions of the system behave like solutions of the free system which does not contain $\varepsilon$. On the second subinterval $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ one cannot neglect the terms $\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z$ and $\varepsilon^{\frac23}z$, so the free system should depend on $\varepsilon$. Nevertheless, the answer in the second subinterval is even simpler, because $Z_1(\varepsilon)\rightarrow+\infty$ and solutions are already in their asymptotic regime as $z\rightarrow+\infty$.
Since we are interested only in the behaviour as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ we do not need to ensure that the inequality $Z_0<Z_1(\varepsilon)<Z_2(\varepsilon)$ holds for every $\varepsilon\in U$. It is enough if it holds for sufficiently small values of $\varepsilon$.
For both subintervals one has to prove that the remainder $R_{II,2}$ does not affect the asymptotics. Some difficulty in showing this is that the second term of the coefficient matrix has off-diagonal entries. To get rid of them we use the Harris–Lutz transformation, although slightly different for subintervals $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ and $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$. Let us see how it works generally in the hyperbolic case [@Harris-Lutz-1975].
Formulae for the Harris–Lutz transformation {#subsection Harris-Lutz}
-------------------------------------------
Suppose that we start with the linear differential system in $\mathbb C^2$ $$\label{Harris--Lutz given}
u'=(\Lambda+S+R)u,$$ where $\Lambda=\text{diag}\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2\}$ and ${\text{Re\,}}\lambda_1>{\text{Re\,}}\lambda_2$. The aim is to transform it to the system $$\label{Harris--Lutz result}
u_1'=(\Lambda+\text{diag}\,S+R_1)u_1$$ by the substitution $u=(I+\widehat T)u_1$. We suppose that $(I+\widehat T)$ is invertible. This gives $$(I+\widehat T)u'=(\Lambda+\Lambda \widehat T-\widehat T'+S+(S\widehat T+R(I+\widehat T)))u_1$$ and $$u_1'=(\Lambda+\underbrace{[\Lambda,\widehat T]-\widehat T'+S}_{=\text{diag}\,S}+R_1)u_1,$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ is the commutator of matrices and $$R_1=(I+\widehat T)^{-1}((R(I+\widehat T)+S\widehat T)
-\widehat T(\Lambda \widehat T-\widehat T'+S)
+\widehat T^2\Lambda).$$ Let $S_d:=\text{diag}\,S$, $S_{ad}:=S-S_d$. We need the following equality: $$[\Lambda,\widehat T]-\widehat T'=-S_{ad}.$$ This, in particular, implies $$\label{Harris--Lutz R 1}
R_1=(I+\widehat T)^{-1}R(I+\widehat T)+(I+\widehat T)^{-1}(S\widehat T-\widehat T S_d).$$ If one represents $\widehat T$ as $$\widehat T(x)=\exp\left(\int_0^x\Lambda\right)\widetilde T(x)\exp\left(-\int_0^x\Lambda\right),$$ differentiation gives $$\widehat T'=[\Lambda,\widehat T]+\exp\left(\int_0^x\Lambda\right)\widetilde T'\exp\left(-\int_0^x\Lambda\right),$$ and so one needs to solve the equation $$\exp\left(\int_0^x\Lambda\right)\widetilde T'\exp\left(-\int_0^x\Lambda\right)=S_{ad}.$$ Its solution is $$\widetilde T(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
-\int_x^{\infty}S_{12}(x')\exp(\int_0^{x'}(\lambda_2-\lambda_1))dx'
\\
\int_0^xS_{21}(x')\exp(\int_0^{x'}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2))dx'
&
0
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $S_{12}$ and $S_{21}$ are the off-diagonal entries of the matrix $S$ and the choice of the domain of integration is determined by the sign of the real part of the exponent. This eventually gives $$\label{Harris--Lutz T tilde}
\widehat T(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
-\int_x^{\infty}S_{12}(x')\exp(\int_x^{x'}(\lambda_2-\lambda_1))dx'
\\
\int_0^xS_{21}(x')\exp(\int_{x'}^{x}(\lambda_2-\lambda_1))dx'
&
0
\end{array}
\right),$$ where both exponential terms are less than one in modulus. If $R$ is summable and $\Lambda,V$ are such that $\widehat T$ goes to zero at infinity, then $R_1$ can be also summable, which means that the transformation effectively eliminates the off-diagonal terms of $V$.
According to the argument above, for the system we take for $z\in[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ $$\label{T II hat}
\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \widehat T_{II_{12}}(z,\varepsilon) \\
\widehat T_{II_{21}}(z,\varepsilon) & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ with $$\widehat T_{II_{12}}(z,\varepsilon):=
\int_{Z_0}^{z}\frac{ds}{4s(1-\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt s)}
\exp
\left(-\int_{s}^{z}\frac{2c_0\sqrt{\sigma}d\sigma}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}\right),$$ $$\widehat T_{II_{21}}(z,\varepsilon):=
-\int_{z}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{ds}{4s(1+\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt s)}
\exp
\left(-\int_{z}^{s}\frac{2c_0\sqrt{\sigma}d\sigma}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}\right).$$ Note that we have interchanged the domains of integration according to the signs of the entries of $\Lambda_{II}$. Note also that the argument works with $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ in the upper limit instead of $+\infty$ for the lower-left entry.
\[lem II estimate T hat\] There exist $t_{I-II}\in(0,t_0)$ and $c_{II}>0$ such that for every $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$ and $z\in[1,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ with $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ given by the matrix $\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)$ given by satisfies the following estimate: $$\label{II estimate of T hat}
\| \widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)\|<\frac{c_{II}}{z^{\frac32}}.$$
Let us choose the point $t_{I-II}$ so close to $t_0$ that for every $z\in[0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ it holds that $\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z<\frac12$, which is equivalent to $$t_0\left(\frac34\right)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}<t_{I-II}<t_0.$$ So let us take $$\label{t I-II}
t_{I-II}:=t_0\left(\frac45\right)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}.$$ Then $$|\widehat T_{II_{12}}(z,\varepsilon)|
<\int_{Z_0}^z\frac{\exp\left(-\int_s^z2c_0\sqrt\sigma d\sigma\right)ds}{2s}
\\
=\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)\int_{Z_0}^z\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right)\frac{ds}{2s}.$$ The last expression does not depend on $\varepsilon$ and can be estimated for large $z$ using integration by parts. Indeed, for $z>2Z_0$ one has: $$\begin{gathered}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)\int_{Z_0}^z\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right)\frac{ds}{2s}
\\
=\frac{1}{4c_0z^{\frac32}}
-\frac{\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}\left({Z_0}^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32}\right)\right)}{4c_0Z_0^{\frac32}}
+\frac{3}{8c_0}\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)\int_{Z_0}^z\frac{\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right)ds}{s^{\frac52}}
\\
<\frac1{4c_0z^{\frac32}}+
\frac{3}{8c_0}\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{\frac z2}+\int_{\frac z2}^z
\right)
\frac{\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right)ds}{s^{\frac52}}
\\
=\frac1{4c_0z^{\frac32}}
+O\left(\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\left(1-\frac1{2^{\frac32}}\right)\right)+\frac1{z^{\frac32}}\right)
=O\left(\frac1{z^{\frac32}}\right)\end{gathered}$$ as $z\rightarrow+\infty$, and hence we have a uniform estimate for the upper-right entry. For the lower-left entry one has: $$\begin{gathered}
|\widehat T_{II_{21}}(z,\varepsilon)|
<\int_{z}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{ds}{4s}\exp\left(-\int_z^s2c_0\sqrt\sigma d\sigma\right)
\\
<\int_{z}^{+\infty}\frac{ds}{4s}\exp\left(-\int_z^s2c_0\sqrt\sigma d\sigma\right)
=\exp\left(\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)\int_z^{+\infty}\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right)\frac{ds}{4s}
\\
=\frac1{8c_0z^{\frac32}}-\frac3{16c_0}\int_z^{+\infty}\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right)ds}{s^{\frac52}}<\frac1{8c_0z^{\frac32}}\end{gathered}$$ for every $z\in[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ and $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$. Therefore we have the estimate .
On the first part $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ of the region $II$ we treat the system as a perturbation of the free system . Let us see how to choose $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ in order to make this possible. Rewrite as $$u_{II,2}'(z)=\left(
-c_0\sqrt z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+\widetilde R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\right)u_{II,2}(z),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)=R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\\
-c_0\sqrt{z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(\frac1{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{\varkappa}}-1\right)
+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{4\sqrt{z}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac1{1+\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z} & -\frac1{1-\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z} \\
-\frac1{1+\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z} & \frac1{1-\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt z} \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ From this we see that with some $c_{23}>0$ for every $z\in[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ $$\|\widetilde R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|\le\|R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|
+c_{23}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}z^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt z}\right).$$ Since by Lemma \[lem II remainder\] one has $$\int_{Z_0}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ the condition on $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ is the following: $$\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}s^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt s}\right)ds\rightarrow0
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ This is equivalent to the condition $$\varepsilon^{\frac23}(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac52}+\varepsilon^{\frac13}(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac12}\rightarrow0,$$ which in turn is equivalent to $Z_1(\varepsilon)=o\left(\varepsilon^{-\frac4{15}}\right)$. Therefore let us take $$\label{Z 1}
Z_1(\varepsilon):=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\frac15}}.$$ This ensures that $$\label{II remainder estimate 1st part}
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|\widetilde R_{II,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Now we can obtain results for the subintervals $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ and $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$.
\[lem II result 1st part\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem II result\] hold and let $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ be given by . There exists $Z_0>0$ such that if $$\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_{II}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ has two solutions $\widetilde u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\label{II answer 1st part}
\widetilde u_{II,2}^{\pm}(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}
(e_{\pm}+o(1)),$$ where the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by . Moreover, $\widetilde u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\ge Z_0$, where $v_{II,2}^{\pm}$ are defined in Lemma \[lem II free system\].
Let us choose $$\label{Z 0}
Z_0:=\max\{(2c_{II})^{\frac23},(2c_{IV})^{\frac23}\}$$ where $c_{II}$ is defined in Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\] and $c_{IV}$ will be defined in Lemma \[lem IV estimate T hat\] independently. We now only need to know that $Z_0\ge(2c_{II})^{\frac23}$: this ensures that $\|\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)\|<\frac12$ for every $z\in[Z_0,Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ by Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\] and hence $(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))$ is invertible. Take $$\label{u II3}
u_{II,2}(z)=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))u_{II,3}(z).$$ According to the argument for the Harris–Lutz transformation and due to the formula this leads to the system $$\label{system u II3}
u_{II,3}'(z)=\left(
-c_0\sqrt z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}I+Q_{II,3}(z)+R_{II,3}(z,\varepsilon)
\right)u_{II,3}(z)$$ with $$Q_{II,3}(z):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))^{-1}(S_{II,2}(z,0)\widehat T_{II}(z,0)-\widehat T_{II}(z,0) \text{diag}\,S_{II,2}(z,0))$$ and $$\label{R II3}
R_{II,3}(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))^{-1}R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0)).$$ From the expression for $S_{II,2}(z,0)$ and the estimate for $T_{II}(z,0)$ we have $$\label{II estimate Q II3}
Q_{II,3}(z)=O\left(\frac1{z^{\frac52}}\right)\text{ as }z\rightarrow+\infty.$$ Consider the free system $$\label{system v II3}
v_{II,3}'(z)=\left(
-c_0\sqrt z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}I+Q_{II,3}(z)
\right)v_{II,3}(z).$$ Since $\int_1^{\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds<\infty$, the asymptotic Levinson theorem is applicable and yields the existence of two solutions $v_{II,3}^{\pm}$ of the system with the asymptotics $$\label{v II3 pm}
v_{II,3}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))\text{ as }z\rightarrow+\infty.$$
\[rem proof of Lemma II free system\] Now we can easily obtain the proof of Lemma \[lem II free system\].
The following definition of solutions $v_{II,2}^{\pm}$ of the system immediately gives the asymptotics as stated in the lemma: $$\label{v II2 pm def}
v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0)) v_{II,3}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))\text{ as }z\rightarrow+\infty.$$
From the integral estimate of the remainder using Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\] we have the following estimate of $R_{II,3}$ defined in $$\label{II estimate R II3}
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Let us prove that solutions $u_{II,3}$ of the system behave on the interval $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ similarly to solutions $v_{II,3}$ of the free system . This will imply that solutions $u_{II,2}$ of the system behave similarly to solutions $v_{II,2}$ of the free system . To do this make variation of parameters $$\label{u II4}
u_{II,3}(z)=\frac1{z^{\frac14}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{II,4}(z),$$ which turns the system into the system $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u II4}
u_{II,4}'(z)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(z)+R_{II,3}(z,\varepsilon))
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{II,4}(z).\end{gathered}$$ At this point we need to consider separately the “small” and the “large” solutions.\
*“Small” solution.* Consider the following particular solution of the system : $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,4}^+(z,\varepsilon)=e_+-\int_z^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{II,4}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Returning to $u_{II,3}$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,3}^+(z,\varepsilon)=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}e_+
\\
-\int_z^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\left(\frac sz\right)^{\frac14}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
u_{II,3}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Normalising the solution $$\label{u II5}
u_{II,3}^+(z,\varepsilon)=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)$$ we come to the integral equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u II5}
u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)=e_+-\int_z^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
u_{II,5}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Repeating the same manipulations with the system we get $$\label{system v II5}
v_{II,5}^+(z)=e_+-\int_z^{+\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
Q_{II,3}(s)v_{II,5}^+(s)ds$$ with $$\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,+}(z):=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}v_{II,5}^+(z)$$ in place of . Note that we need to formally distinguish this $\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,+}$ from $v_{II,3}^{\,+}$ of , because we have not yet shown that they are the same. Subtracting from we obtain the equality $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 1}
u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)-v_{II,5}^+(z)=
-\int_z^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)u_{II,5}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds
+\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
Q_{II,3}(s)
v_{II,5}^+(s)ds
\\
-\int_z^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(s^{\frac32}-z^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
Q_{II,3}(s)(u_{II,5}^+(s,\varepsilon)-v_{II,5}^+(s))ds.\end{gathered}$$ The following variant of Gronwall lemma helps to obtain an estimate on $u_{II,5}^+-v_{II,5}^+$.
\[lem II tech 1\] Let $-\infty\le N_1<N_2\le+\infty,v\in L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2)$, let $K(z,s)$ be a measurable matrix-valued function defined for $N_1<z<s<N_2$ (or $N_1<s<z<N_2$) and such that for every $z,s$ it satisfies the estimate $\|K(z,s)\|<k(s)$ with some $k\in L_1(N_1,N_2)$. Then the equation $$u(z)=v(z)-\int_z^{N_2}K(z,s)u(s)ds$$ (or the equation $$u(z)=v(z)+\int_{N_1}^zK(z,s)u(s)ds,$$ respectively) has the unique solution in $L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2)$ which satisfies the estimate $$\|u\|_{L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2)}\le\exp\left(\int_{N_1}^{N_2}k(s)ds\right)\|v\|_{L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2)}.$$
One has to consider the operator $\mathcal K$ in $L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2)$ defined as $$\mathcal K:u\mapsto-\int_z^{N_2}K(z,s)u(s)ds\text{ (or }u\mapsto\int_z^{N_2}K(z,s)u(s)ds\text{, respectively) }$$ and to check that $\|\mathcal K\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2))}\le\|k\|_{L_1(N_1,N_2)}$, that $$\|\mathcal K^n\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2))}\le\frac{\|\mathcal K\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2))}^n}{n!}$$ and that hence $$\|(I-\mathcal K^n)^{-1}\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(N_1,N_2))}\le\exp(\|k\|_{L_1(N_1,N_2)}),$$ which completes the proof.
The lemma immediately yields for the equation : $$\label{II estimate u II5}
\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)\|\le\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right),$$ for the equation : $$\label{II estimate v II5}
\sup_{z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),+\infty)}\|v_{II,5}^+(z)\|\le\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds\right),$$ and finally for the equality : $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 2}
\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)-v_{II,5}^+(z)\|
\le\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds\right)
\\
\times
\left(
\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon)\|\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
\right.
\\
\left.
+\sup_{z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),+\infty)}\|v_{II,5}^+(z)\|\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds
\right)
\\
\le\exp\left(2\int_{Z_0}^{+\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds\right)
\left(
\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
\times
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
+\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds
\right)\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ due to the estimate for $Q_{II,3}$ and the integral estimate for $R_{II,3}$. Using again with to estimate the integral in the equation we conclude that $v_{II,5}^+(z)\rightarrow e_+$ as $z\rightarrow+\infty$, and $\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,+}(z)$ has the same exponentially vanishing asymptotics as $v_{II,3}^+(z)$. Therefore $\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,+}(z)=v_{II,3}^+(z)$ and $$\label{v II2 via vII5}
v_{II,2}^{+}(z):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}v_{II,5}^{+}(z).$$
Now, using the formulae and which establish the relation between $u_{II,2},u_{II,3}$ and $u_{II,5}$ we define: $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^+(z,\varepsilon)=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}u_{II,5}^+(z,\varepsilon),$$ and this is a solution of the system . From the convergence in and the equality we conclude that $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^+(z,\varepsilon)=v_{II,2}^+(z)+o(1)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\ge Z_0$. For $z=Z_1(\varepsilon)$ we use the estimate for $\widehat T_{II}(z,0)$ by Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\] and the fact that $u_{II,5}^+(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=e_+$ which follows from . Thus we have $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^+(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}(e_++o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. This proves the part of Lemma \[lem II result 1st part\] concerning the “small” solution.\
*“Large” solution.* Take $$\label{v+}
v^-:=Z_0^{\frac14}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_0)^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_0)^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
v_{II,3}^-(Z_0),$$ where $v_{II,3}^-$ is defined in . Consider the following solution of the system : $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,4}^-(z,\varepsilon)=v^-+\int_{Z_0}^z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}s^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{II,4}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Returning to $u_{II,3}$ by the relation we have $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,3}^-(z,\varepsilon)=\frac1{z^{\frac14}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
v^-
\\
+\int_{Z_0}^z\left(\frac sz\right)^{\frac14}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
u_{II,3}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Normalising the solution $$\label{u II6}
u_{II,3}^-(z,\varepsilon)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)$$ we come to the integral equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u II6}
u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
v^-
\\
+\int_{Z_0}^z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
(Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon))
u_{II,6}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Doing the same transformations with the free system we get the equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system v II6}
v_{II,6}^-(z)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
v^-
\\
+\int_{Z_0}^z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
Q_{II,3}(s)v_{II,6}^-(s)ds.\end{gathered}$$ and define $\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,-}(z):=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}v_{II,6}^-(z)$. Since $$\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,-}(Z_0)=\frac1{(Z_0)^{\frac14}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_0)^{\frac32}\right) & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_0)^{\frac32}\right)\\
\end{array}
\right)
v^-=v_{II,3}^{\,-}(Z_0)$$ and both $\widetilde v_{II,3}^{\,-}$ and $v_{II,3}^-$ satisfy the same system , they coincide. From the asymptotics of $v_{II,3}^-(z)$ we conclude that $v_{II,6}^-(z)\rightarrow e_-$ as $z\rightarrow+\infty$. Subtracting from we get the equality $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 3}
u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)-v_{II,6}^-(z)=
\int_{Z_0}^z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)u_{II,6}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds
\\
+\int_{Z_0}^z
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(-\frac{4c_0}{3}(z^{\frac32}-s^{\frac32})\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
Q_{II,3}(s)(u_{II,6}^-(s,\varepsilon)-v_{II,6}^-(s))ds.\end{gathered}$$ Applying Lemma \[lem II tech 1\] to the equation and the equality we have: $$\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)\|\le\|v^-\|\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{II,3}(s)+R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right),$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 5}
\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)-v_{II,6}^-(z)\|
\le\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds\right)
\\
\times
\sup_{z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon)\|\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
\le\|v^-\|\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
\\
\times\exp\left(2\int_{Z_0}^{+\infty}\|Q_{II,3}(s)\|ds+\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right)\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ due to the estimate of $Q_{II,3}$ and the integral estimate of $R_{II,3}$. Define $\widetilde u_{II,2}^-$ using the formulae and which relate $u_{II,2},u_{II,3}$ and $u_{II,6}$ as $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}u_{II,6}^-(z,\varepsilon),$$ and this is a solution of the system . For $z=Z_1(\varepsilon)$ from the convergence , asymptotics $v_{II,6}^-(z)\rightarrow e_-$ as $z\rightarrow+\infty$ and the estimate for $\widehat T_{II}(z,0)$ by Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\] we have: $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^-(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}(e_-+o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. For every fixed $z\ge Z_0$ convergence in implies that $$\widetilde u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon)
\rightarrow
(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,0))\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_0}{3}z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}v_{II,6}^-(z)=v_{II,2}^-(z)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem II result 1st part\].
The result for the interval $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ is given by the following lemma.
\[lem II result 2nd part\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem II result\] hold, $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ be given by and $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ by with $t_{I-II}$ given by . If $$\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_{II}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ has two solutions $\widehat u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\label{II answer 2nd part}
\widehat u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^z
\left(
\mp\frac{c_0\sqrt s}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}s)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4s(1\pm\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt s)}
\right)ds
\right)
(e_{\pm}+o(1)),$$ where the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by and the remainder $o(1)$ converges uniformly with respect to $z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$.
First let us eliminate the off-diagonal entries of the matrix $V_{II}(z,\varepsilon)$ with the Harris–Lutz transformation $$\label{u II7}
u_{II,2}(z)=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon))u_{II,7}(z)$$ where $\widehat T_{II}$ is given by . On the one hand, in contrast with the interval $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$, the transformation depends on $\varepsilon$, because one cannot ignore the difference between $V_{II}(z,\varepsilon)$ and $V_{II}(z,0)$ anymore. On the other hand, we do not need to prove convergence to solutions of some other system independent of $\varepsilon$ (it is no longer true that there is convergence to solutions of ). With the substitution we come to the system $$\label{system u II7}
u_{II,7}'(z)=(\Lambda_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon)+R_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon))u_{II,7}(z),$$ where, according to , and , $$\label{Lambda II7}
\Lambda_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon):=\Lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)+\text{diag}\, S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda^+_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon) & 0 \\
0 & \lambda^-_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{lambda II7}
\lambda^{\pm}_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon):=\mp\frac{c_0\sqrt{z}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4z(1\pm\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{z})},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R II7}
R_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon))^{-1}R_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon))
\\
+(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon))^{-1}(S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)-\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon)\, \text{diag}\, S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)).\end{gathered}$$ Making variation of parameters $$\label{u II8}
u_{II,7}(z)=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,8}(z),$$ and substituting to the system we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u II8}
u_{II,8}'(z)=\exp\left(-\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon)
\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,8}(z).\end{gathered}$$ Let us now introduce two solutions $u_{II,8}^{\pm}$ of this system which satisfy the following equations: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,8}^+(z,\varepsilon)=e_+-\int_z^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\exp\left(-\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{s}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{s}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,8}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,8}^-(z,\varepsilon)=e_-+\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\exp\left(-\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{s}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{s}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,8}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ For solutions $u_{II,7}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,8}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ these equations read as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,7}^+(z,\varepsilon)=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)e_+
\\
-\int_z^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\exp\left(-\int_{z}^{s}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)u_{II,7}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,7}^-(z,\varepsilon)=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)e_-
\\
+\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}\exp\left(\int_{s}^{z}\Lambda_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)u_{II,7}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ Normalising these solutions by the substitution $$\label{u II9}
u_{II,7}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^z\lambda^{\pm}_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{II,9}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$$ we come to the following equations: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,9}^+(z,\varepsilon)=e_+-\int_z^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\int_z^s(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
u_{II,9}^+(s,\varepsilon)ds\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,9}^-(z,\varepsilon)=e_-+\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\int_s^z(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
u_{II,9}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds.\end{gathered}$$ These can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 8}
u_{II,9}^+(z,\varepsilon)-e_+
\\
=
-\int_z^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\int_z^s(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
e_+ds
\\
-\int_z^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(\int_z^s(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
\\
\times
(u_{II,9}^+(s,\varepsilon)-e_+)ds\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 7}
u_{II,9}^-(z,\varepsilon)-e_-
\\
=
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\int_s^z(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
e_-ds
\\
+
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\exp\left(\int_s^z(\lambda^+_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon))d\sigma\right) & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)
\\
\times
(u_{II,9}^-(s,\varepsilon)-e_-)ds.\end{gathered}$$ From the expression for $S_{II,2}$, the estimate for $T_{II}$ by Lemmas \[lem II estimate T hat\] and \[lem II remainder\] we get: $$\label{II estimate R II7}
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ We also have $$\lambda^+_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon)-\lambda^-_{II,7}(z,\varepsilon)=-\frac{2\sqrt z}{1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z}\left(c_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\varkappa}-\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{4z}\right).$$ Since $1-\varkappa=\frac{1-\gamma}{2\gamma}$ and the values $1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z$ and $z$ are separated from zero for $z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$, the above expression is strictly negative for all $z$ from the interval considered, if $\varepsilon$ is small enough. Hence Lemma \[lem II tech 1\] yields for both and : $$\begin{gathered}
\label{II eq 9}
\sup_{z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]}\left\|u_{II,9}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)-e_{\pm}\right\|
\\
\le
\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right)
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\|R_{II,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Now using the relations and we define functions $$\widehat u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=\exp\left(\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^z\lambda^{\pm}_{II,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)(I+\widehat T_{II}(z,\varepsilon))u_{II,9}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$$ and they are solutions of the system . Lemma \[lem II estimate T hat\], expressions and convergence in imply that these solutions have asymptotics . This completes the proof.
The following trivial lemma helps to match the results in different intervals.
\[lem II tech 2\] Let $g(\varepsilon),f_+(\varepsilon),f_-(\varepsilon)$ be functions of $\varepsilon$ defined in some neighbourhood of the point $\varepsilon=0$ with values in $\mathbb C^2$ and such that $g(\varepsilon)\rightarrow g,f_{\pm}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow f_+$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$, where the vectors $f_+$ and $f_-$ are linearly independent and $g=c_+f_++c_-f_-$. Then in the decomposition $g(\varepsilon)=c_+(\varepsilon)f_+(\varepsilon)+c_-(\varepsilon)f_-(\varepsilon)$ the coefficients converge: $c_{\pm}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow c_{\pm}$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$.
Consider scalar products with the vectors orthogonal to $f_{\pm}$ to immediately see the result.
Combining the results of Lemmas \[lem II result 1st part\] and \[lem II result 2nd part\] we can now prove Lemma \[lem II result\].
Let us first rewrite the formula for the asymptotics from Lemma \[lem II result 1st part\] using that $$\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}
=a^{\pm}_{II}\exp\left(\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\lambda_{II,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds\right)(1+o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, where $a^{\pm}_{II}:=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3Z_0^{\frac32}\right)}{Z_0^{\frac14}}$, which we can do because $$\left|\lambda_{II,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)-
\left(
\mp c_0\sqrt s
-\frac1{4s}
\right)
\right|
<
c_{24}
\left(
\varepsilon^{\frac23}s^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt s},
\right)$$ with some $c_{24}>0$ and $$\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}s^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt s},
\right)ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$$ due to the choice of $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ in . Let us define for $z\in[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ $$\label{u II2-}
u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon):=a_{II}^-\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\lambda_{II,7}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,-}(z,\varepsilon).$$ On the interval $[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ the continuation of the solution $\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,-}(z,\varepsilon)$ has a decomposition with some coefficients in terms of the basis of solutions $\widetilde u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$, and at the point $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ one has: $$\begin{array}{rl}
\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,+}(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=&e_++o(1),
\\
\frac{\widetilde u_{II,2}^{\pm}(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon))}{a_{II}^{\pm}}
\exp
\left(
-\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
=&e_{\pm}+o(1).
\end{array}$$ By Lemma \[lem II tech 2\] we conclude that for $z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ $$\begin{gathered}
\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,+}(z,\varepsilon)=(1+o(1))
\frac{\widetilde u_{II,2}^{+}(z,\varepsilon))}{a_{II}^+}
\exp
\left(
-\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{+}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\\
+o
\left(
\widetilde u_{II,2}^{-}(z,\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
-\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^-(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\right)\end{gathered}$$ and therefore by $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,2}^{\,+}(z,\varepsilon)=(1+o(1))
\widetilde u_{II,2}^{+}(z,\varepsilon)
\\
+o
\left(
\widetilde u_{II,2}^{-}(z,\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}(\lambda_{II,7}^+(s,\varepsilon)-\lambda_{II,7}^-(s,\varepsilon))ds
\right)
\right).\end{gathered}$$ For every fixed $z\ge Z_0$ this means that $$u_{II,2}^{\,+}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{II,2}^+(z)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Asymptotics of $u_{II,2}^{\,+}(z,\varepsilon)$ at $z=Z_2(\varepsilon)$ is due to Lemma \[lem II result 2nd part\].
For the second solution define for $z\in[Z_0,Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ $$\label{u II2+}
u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon):=\widetilde u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon)$$ Analogously, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
\frac{\widetilde u_{II,2}^{-}(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon))}{a_{II}^{-}}
\exp
\left(
-\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{-}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
=&e_-+o(1),
\\
\widehat u_{II,2}^{\pm}(Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=&e_{\pm}+o(1)
\end{array}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Therefore for the continuation of $u_{II,2}^-=\widetilde u_{II,2}^-$ to the interval $[Z_1(\varepsilon),Z_2(\varepsilon)]$ one has $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon)=\widetilde u_{II,2}^-(z,\varepsilon)
\\
=a_{II}^{-}\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{-}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
((1+o(1))\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,-}(z,\varepsilon)+o(\widehat u_{II,2}^{\,+}(z,\varepsilon))).\end{gathered}$$ For $z=Z_2(\varepsilon)$ this means that $$\begin{gathered}
u_{II,2}^-(Z_2(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=a_{II}^{-}
\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{-}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\\
\times
\left(
e_-+o(1)+o
\left(
\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}(\lambda_{II,7}^{+}(s,\varepsilon)-\lambda_{II,7}^{-}(s,\varepsilon))ds
\right)
\right)
\right)
\\
=a_{II}^{-}
\exp
\left(
\int_{Z_0}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}\lambda_{II,7}^{-}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
(e_-+o(1))\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, which is the desired asymptotics . Convergence $$u_{II,2}^{\,-}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{II,2}^{\,-}(z)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$$ for every fixed $z\ge Z_0$ is due to and Lemma \[lem II result 1st part\].
Intermediate region $IV$: elliptic case {#section IV}
=======================================
Once again we start with the system written in the form $$\varepsilon u_{IV}'(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12
\\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{IV}(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{IV}(t)$$ We diagonalise the main term of the coefficient matrix with the transformation $$\label{u IV1}
u_{IV}(t)=T_{IV}(t)u_{IV,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{T IV}
T_{IV}(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1
&
1
\\
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{2\beta\left(1-i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}\right)}
&
\frac{t^{\gamma}}{2\beta\left(1+i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}\right)}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that this matrix coincides with $T_{V}(t)$ given by and with $T_{II}(t)$ given by with one of the possible choices of the branch of the square root. The substitution gives: $$\label{system u IV1}
u_{IV,1}'(t)=\left(\frac{\lambda_{IV}(t)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+S_{IV}(t)+R_{IV,1}(t,\varepsilon)\right)u_{IV,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{lambda IV}
\lambda_{IV}(t):=-i\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}=\lambda_{V}(t),$$ $$\label{S IV}
S_{IV}(t):=\frac{\gamma}{2t\left(\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1\right)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-1-i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}
&
1-i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}
\\
1+i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}
&
-1+i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}
\end{array}
\right)=S_{V}(t),$$ $$R_{IV,1}(t,\varepsilon):=\frac{T_{IV}^{-1}(t)R_{IV}(t,\varepsilon)T_{IV}(t)}{\varepsilon}=R_{V,1}(t,\varepsilon).$$
In the region $IV$ analysis goes along the same lines as in the region $II$. However, there are slight changes and formulae should be written in a different way. To avoid confusion we repeat the argument highlighting differences and omitting details which are the same. Let us take $$\label{u IV2}
u_{IV,1}(t)=u_{IV,2}(z(t,\varepsilon))$$ with $$z(t,\varepsilon)=\frac1{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right),$$ as in , and substitute this into the system . This gives the system $$\label{system u IV2}
u_{IV,2}'(z)=(\Lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)+S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)+R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon))u_{IV,2}(z)$$ with $$\label{Lambda IV2}
\Lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon):=\lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{lambda IV2}
\lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon):=\frac{\lambda_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon))t'(z,\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}=
\frac{ic_0\sqrt{-z}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^\varkappa},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{S IV2}
S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon):=S_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon))t'(z,\varepsilon)
\\
=-\frac1{4z(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z} & -1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z} \\
-1-i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z} & 1-i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z} \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{gathered}$$ and $$\label{R IV2}
R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon):=
-\frac{t_0}{2\gamma\varepsilon^{\frac13}}
\frac{T_{IV}^{-1}(t(z,\varepsilon))R_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)T_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon))}
{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\frac1{2\gamma}}},$$ where $c_0$ and $\varkappa$ are given by . We consider the system on the interval $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ where $Z_0$ is given by and $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ by with $t_{I-II}$ given by . The point $z=-Z_0$ corresponds to the point $t=t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)$, $$\label{t III-IV}
t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon):=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}Z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}},$$ and the point $z=-Z_2(\varepsilon)$ corresponds to the point $t=t_{IV-V}$, $$\label{t IV-V}
t_{IV-V}:=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}Z_2(\varepsilon))^{\frac1{2\gamma}}=(8\beta^2-t_{I-II}^{2\gamma})^{\frac1{2\gamma}}.$$
Consider the free system.
\[lem IV free system\] The system $$\label{system v IV2}
v_{IV,2}'(z)=
\left(
ic_0\sqrt{-z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)
v_{IV,2}(z)$$ has for $z\in(-\infty,1]$ solutions $v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)$ such that $$\label{IV asymptotics v IV2}
v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left({\mp}\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right)}{(-z)^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))$$ as $z\rightarrow-\infty$.
As in the previous section, the proof of this lemma will be given later, see Remark \[rem proof of Lemma IV free system\]. The main result for the region $IV$ is the following.
\[lem IV result\] Let $c_0,\varkappa>0$ and $R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)$ be given by with the use of the expression and the definition . Let $Z_0$ be given by and $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ by with $t_{I-II}$ given by . If $$\label{estimate R IV}
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\frac{\|R_{IV}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ has two solutions $u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IV answer}
u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(-Z_2(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
\\
=a_{IV}^{\pm}
\exp
\left(
-\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}
\left(
\pm\frac{ic_0\sqrt{-s}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}s)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4s(1\mp i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-s})}
\right)
ds
\right)(e_{\pm}+o(1)),\end{gathered}$$ where $a_{IV}^{\pm}$ are complex constants which are conjugate to each other and the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by . Moreover, $u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\le-Z_0$, where $v_{IV,2}^{\pm}$ are defined in Lemma \[lem IV free system\].
The following lemma shows that the condition is satisfied, if $R_{IV}=R_2^+$.
\[lem IV R 2+ estimate\] Let $R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)$ be given by and $t(z,\varepsilon)$ be defined by . Let the conditions and hold. Then for every $z_0>0$ and $z_2(\varepsilon)=-\frac{\nu}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$ with $\nu\in(-\infty,0)$ the following estimate holds: $$\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds
=O\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
Using the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem IV R 2+ estimate\] we have with some $c_{25}>0$ and $t_{\nu}$ given by : $$\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\frac{\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds
<
c_rc_{25}\varepsilon^{\frac23}\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\int_{t_0}^{t_{\nu}}
\frac{dt}{t^{1+\alpha_r}\sqrt{t-t_0}}.$$
Now let us rewrite the estimate in terms of $R_{IV,2}$.
\[lem IV remainder\] Under the conditions of Lemma \[lem IV result\], for every $z_0>0$ and $z_2(\varepsilon)=-\frac{\nu}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$ with $\nu\in(-\infty,0)$, if $$\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\frac{\|R_{IV}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right),
\text{ then }
\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\|R_{IV,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Following the proof of Lemma \[lem II remainder\] we have with some $c_{26}>0$: $$\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\|R_{IV,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
<c_{26}\int_{-z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-z_0}\frac{\|R_{IV}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sqrt{-s}}ds\rightarrow0
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
In the elliptic case the formula for the Harris–Lutz transformation can be simplified. It is not difficult to check that one can take $$\widehat T(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
\int_{-\infty}^xS_{12}(x')\exp(\int_{x'}^{x}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2))dx'
\\
\int_{-\infty}^xS_{21}(x')\exp(\int_{x'}^{x}(\lambda_2-\lambda_1))dx'
&
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ instead of . Therefore let us take for $z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ $$\label{T IV hat}
\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \widehat T_{IV_{12}}(z,\varepsilon) \\
\widehat T_{IV_{21}}(z,\varepsilon) & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ with $$\widehat T_{IV_{12}}(z,\varepsilon):=
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{z}\frac{ds}{4s(1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-s})}
\exp
\left(\int_{s}^{z}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{-\sigma}d\sigma}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}\right),$$ $$\widehat T_{IV_{21}}(z,\varepsilon):=
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{z}\frac{ds}{4s(1-i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-s})}
\exp
\left(-\int_{s}^{z}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{-\sigma}d\sigma}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}\right)=\overline{\widehat T_{IV_{12}}(z,\varepsilon)}.$$
\[lem IV estimate T hat\] There exists $c_{IV}>0$ such that for every $\varepsilon\in U\cup\{0\}$ and $z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-1]$, where $Z_2(\varepsilon)$ is given by with $t_{I-II}$ given by , the matrix $\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)$ given by satisfies the following estimate: $$\label{IV estimate of T hat}
\| \widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)\|<\frac{c_{IV}}{|z|^{\frac32}}.$$
This is the place where the proof for the elliptic case differs from the corresponding proof in the hyperbolic case not only in notation. It is impossible to effectively estimate oscillating exponentials by something which is independent of $\varepsilon$, so one has to pay more attention. Denote $\nu_2:=\varepsilon^{\frac23}Z_2(\varepsilon)$. For $\varepsilon\in U$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\|\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)\|=|\widehat T_{IV_{12}}(z,\varepsilon)|=|\widehat T_{IV_{21}}(z,\varepsilon)|
=\left|
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^z
\frac{\exp
\left(
\int_s^z\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{-\sigma}d\sigma}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}
\right)ds}{4s(1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-s})}
\right|
\\
=\left|
\int_{|z|}^{Z_2(\varepsilon)}
\frac{\exp
\left(
\int_{|z|}^s\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma}d\sigma}{(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}
\right)ds}{4s(1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{s})}
\right|
=
\left|
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}
\frac{\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{s_1}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)ds_1}{4s_1(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right|
\\
=
\varepsilon
\left|
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}
\frac{(1+s_1)^{\varkappa}d\left(\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{s_1}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)\right)}{8c_0s_1^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right|
\\
=
\frac{\varepsilon}{8c_0}
\left|
\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{\nu_2^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{\nu_2})}
\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)
-\frac{(1+\varepsilon^{\frac32}|z|)^{\varkappa}}{\varepsilon |z|^{\frac32}(1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{|z|})}
\right.
\\
\left.
-\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}
\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{s_1}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)
d\left(
\frac{(1+s_1)^{\varkappa}}{s_1^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right)
\right|.\end{gathered}$$ The first two terms can be estimated as follows: $$\left|
\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{\nu_2^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{\nu_2})}
\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)
\right|\le\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{\nu_2^{\frac32}}\le\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{\varepsilon|z|^{\frac32}},$$ $$\left|
\frac{(1+\varepsilon^{\frac32}|z|)^{\varkappa}}{\varepsilon |z|^{\frac32}(1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{|z|})}
\right|
\le\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{\varepsilon|z|^{\frac32}}.$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{gathered}
\left|
\left(
\frac{(1+s_1)^{\varkappa}}{s_1^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right)'
\right|
=
\left|
\left(
\frac{(1+s_1)^{\varkappa}}{s_1^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right)
\left(
\frac{\varkappa}{1+s_1}-\frac3{2s_1}-\frac i{2\sqrt{s_1}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right)
\right|
\\
\le
\frac{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{s_1^{\frac52}}\left(\varkappa+\frac32+\frac{\sqrt{\nu_2}}2\right),\end{gathered}$$ and thus $$\begin{gathered}
\left|
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}
\exp
\left(
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{s_1}\frac{2ic_0\sqrt{\sigma_1}d\sigma_1}{\varepsilon(1+\sigma_1)^{\varkappa}}
\right)
d\left(
\frac{(1+s_1)^{\varkappa}}{s_1^{\frac32}(1+i\sqrt{s_1})}
\right)
\right|
\\
\le(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}\left(\varkappa+\frac32+\frac{\sqrt{\nu_2}}2\right)
\int_{\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|}^{\nu_2}
\frac{ds_1}{s_1^{\frac52}}
\le\frac{2(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}\left(\varkappa+\frac32+\frac{\sqrt{\nu_2}}2\right)}{3\varepsilon|z|^{\frac32}}.\end{gathered}$$ Combining everything we get: $$\|\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)\|
\le
\frac
{(1+\nu_2)^{\varkappa}}{8c_0|z|^{\frac32}}
\left(2+\frac23\left(\varkappa+\frac32+\frac{\sqrt{\nu_2}}2\right)\right).$$ The case $\varepsilon=0$ should be considered separately: $$\begin{gathered}
\|\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)\|
=
\left|\int_{-\infty}^z\frac{\exp\left(\int_s^z2ic_0\sqrt{-\sigma}d\sigma\right)ds}{4s}\right|
=
\left|\int_{|z|}^{+\infty}\frac{\exp\left(\frac{4ic_0}3s^{\frac32}\right)ds}{4s}\right|
\\
=
\left|\frac i{8c_0|z|^{\frac32}}\exp\left(\frac{4ic_0}3|z|^{\frac32}\right)-\frac{3i}{16c_0}\int_{|z|}^{+\infty}
\frac{\exp\left(\frac{4ic_0}3s^{\frac32}\right)ds}{s^{\frac52}}\right|
\\
\le
\frac1{8c_0|z|^{\frac32}}+\frac3{16c_0}\int_{|z|}^{+\infty}\frac{ds}{s^{\frac52}}=\frac1{4c_0|z|^{\frac32}}.\end{gathered}$$ Thus the estimate is proved for both cases.
On the first part $[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ of the region $IV$ we treat the system as a perturbation of the free system . $$u_{IV,2}'(z)=\left(
ic_0\sqrt{-z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+\widetilde R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\right)u_{IV,2}(z),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)=R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\\
+ic_0\sqrt{-z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(\frac1{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{\varkappa}}-1\right)
+\frac{i\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{4\sqrt{-z}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac1{1-i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z}} & -\frac1{1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z}} \\
-\frac1{1-i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z}} & \frac1{1+i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z}} \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ From this we see that with some $c_{27}>0$ for every $z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ $$\|\widetilde R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|\le\|R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|
+c_{27}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}|z|^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt{|z|}}\right).$$ In the same way as in the region $II$ due to Lemma \[lem IV remainder\] and the choice of $Z_1(\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\frac15}}$ one has: $$\label{IV remainder estimate 1st part}
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|\widetilde R_{IV,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Now we can obtain results for the subintervals $[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ and $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]$.
\[lem IV result 1st part\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem IV result\] hold and let $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ be given by . If $$\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\frac{\|R_{IV}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ has two solutions $\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\label{IV answer 1st part}
\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(-Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}
(e_{\pm}+o(1)),$$ where the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by . Moreover, $\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\le-Z_0$, where $v_{IV,2}^{\pm}$ are defined in Lemma \[lem IV free system\].
Take $$\label{u IV3}
u_{IV,2}(z)=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0))u_{IV,3}(z)$$ with $\widehat T_{IV}$ given by . According to the argument of the Subsection \[subsection Harris-Lutz\] and due to the formula this leads to the system $$\label{system u IV3}
u_{IV,3}'(z)=\left(
ic_0\sqrt{-z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}I+Q_{IV,3}(z)+R_{IV,3}(z,\varepsilon)
\right)u_{IV,3}(z)$$ with $$Q_{IV,3}(z):=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0))^{-1}(S_{IV,2}(z,0)\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)-\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)\,\text{diag}\,S_{IV,2}(z,0))$$ and $$R_{IV,3}(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0))^{-1}R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)).$$ From the expression for $S_{IV,2}$ and the estimate for $T_{IV}$ we have $$\label{IV estimate Q IV3}
Q_{IV,3}(z)=O\left(\frac1{|z|^{\frac52}}\right)\text{ as }z\rightarrow-\infty.$$ Consider the free system $$\label{system v IV3}
v_{IV,3}'(z)=\left(
ic_0\sqrt{-z}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
-\frac1{4z}I+Q_{IV,3}(z)
\right)v_{IV,3}(z).$$ Since $\int_{-\infty}^{-1}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds<\infty$, the asymptotic Levinson theorem [@Coddington-Levinson-1955 Theorem 8.1] is applicable and yields the existence of two solutions $v_{IV,3}^{\pm}$ of the system with asymptotics $$\label{v IV3 pm}
v_{IV,3}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right)}{(-z)^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))\text{ as }z\rightarrow-\infty.$$
\[rem proof of Lemma IV free system\] Now the proof of Lemma \[lem IV free system\] follows.
Define solutions $v_{IV,2}^{\pm}$ of the system as $$\label{v IV2 pm def}
v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z):=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)) v_{IV,3}^{\pm}(z).$$ Due to and Lemma \[lem IV estimate T hat\] they have asymptotics $$v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right)}{(-z)^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))\text{ as }z\rightarrow-\infty.$$
From and the integral estimate of the remainder we also have $$\label{IV estimate R IV3}
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Let us make a variation of parameters transformation: denote $$E_1(z):=\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and take $$\label{u IV4}
u_{IV,3}(z)=\frac{e^{-iE_1(z)}}{(-z)^{\frac14}}u_{IV,4}(z),$$ which turns the system into the system $$\label{system u IV4}
u_{IV,4}'(z)=e^{iE_1(z)}(Q_{IV,3}(z)+R_{IV,3}(z,\varepsilon))e^{-iE_1(z)}u_{IV,4}(z).$$ Consider the following particular solutions of the system : $$\label{eq u IV4 pm}
u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=e_{\pm}+\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^ze^{iE_1(s)}(Q_{IV,3}(s)+R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon))e^{-iE_1(s)}u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds.$$ Repeating the same manipulations with the system we get $$\label{eq v IV4 pm}
v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)=e_{\pm}+\int_{-\infty}^ze^{iE_1(s)}Q_{IV,3}(s)e^{-iE_1(s)}v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s)ds.$$ with $$\widetilde v_{IV,3}^{\,\pm}(z):=\frac{e^{-iE_1(z)}}{(-z)^{\frac14}}v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z),$$ instead of . As in the previous section we need to show that $\widetilde v_{IV,3}^{\,\pm}=v_{IV,3}^{\pm}$. Subtracting from we obtain the equality $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq u-v IV4}
u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)-v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)=
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^ze^{iE_1(s)}R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)e^{-iE_1(s)}u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\\
-\int_{-\infty}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}e^{iE_1(s)}Q_{IV,3}(s)e^{-iE_1(s)}v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s)ds
\\
+\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^ze^{iE_1(s)}Q_{IV,3}(s)e^{-iE_1(s)}(u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)-v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(s))ds.\end{gathered}$$ Lemma \[lem II tech 1\] yields for the equation : $$\label{IV estimate u IV4}
\sup_{z\in[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]}\|u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\|\le\exp\left(\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)+R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right),$$ for the equation : $$\label{IV estimate v IV4}
\sup_{z\in(-\infty,-Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)\|\le\exp\left(\int_{-\infty}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds\right),$$ and finally for the equality : $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IV estimate u-v IV4}
\sup_{z\in[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]}\|u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)-v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)\|
\le\exp\left(\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds\right)
\\
\times
\left(
\sup_{z\in[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]}\|u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\|\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
\right.
\\
\left.
+\sup_{z\in(-\infty,-Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\|v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)\|\int_{-\infty}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds
\right)
\\
\times
\le\exp\left(2\int_{-\infty}^{-Z_0}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds\right)
\left(
\exp\left(\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
\times
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\|R_{IV,3}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
+\int_{-\infty}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|Q_{IV,3}(s)\|ds
\right)\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ due to the estimate for $Q_{IV,3}$ and the integral estimate for $R_{IV,3}$. Using with to estimate the integral in the equation we conclude that $$v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z)\rightarrow e_{\pm}\text{ as }z\rightarrow-\infty,$$ and $\widetilde v_{IV,3}^{\,\pm}(z)$ have the same asymptotics as $v_{IV,3}^{\pm}(z)$. Therefore $\widetilde v_{IV,3}^{\,\pm}(z)=v_{IV,3}^{\pm}(z)$ and $$\label{v IV2 via vIV5}
v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0))
\frac{e^{-iE_1(z)}}{(-z)^{\frac14}}
v_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z).$$ Using and we define functions $$\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=
(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,0))\frac{e^{-iE_1(z)}}{(-z)^{\frac14}} u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon),$$ and they are solutions of the system . From the convergence in and the equality we conclude that $$\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ for every fixed $z\le-Z_0$. For $z=-Z_1(\varepsilon)$ we use the estimate for $\widehat T_{IV}(z,0)$ by Lemma \[lem IV estimate T hat\] and the fact that $u_{IV,4}^{\pm}(-Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=e_{\pm}$ which follows from the equation to get $$\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(-Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=(I+o(1))\frac{e^{-iE_1(Z_1(\varepsilon))}}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}e_{\pm}
=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}{3}(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}(e_{\pm}+o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem IV result 1st part\].
The result for the interval $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ is given by the following lemma.
\[lem IV result 2nd part\] Let the conditions of Lemma \[lem IV result\] hold and let $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ be given by . If $$\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\frac{\|R_{IV}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|}{\sqrt{-s}}ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ the system on the interval $[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ has two solutions $\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, $$\label{IV answer 2nd part}
\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)
=\exp
\left(
-\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(
\pm\frac{ic_0\sqrt{-s}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}s)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4s(1\mp i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-s})}
\right)
ds
\right)
(e_{\pm}+o(1)),$$ where the vectors $e_{\pm}$ are given by and the remainder $o(1)$ converges uniformly with respect to $z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]$.
Let us make the Harris–Lutz transformation $$\label{u IV7}
u_{IV,2}(z)=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon))u_{IV,7}(z)$$ where $\widehat T_{IV}$ is given by formula . The substitution gives $$\label{system u IV7}
u_{IV,7}'(z)=(\Lambda_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon)+R_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon))u_{IV,7}(z),$$ where $$\label{Lambda IV7}
\Lambda_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon):=i\left(\frac{c_0\sqrt{-z}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac32}z)^{\varkappa}}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{4\sqrt{-z}(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)}\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
-
\frac1{4z(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)}I,$$ $$\Lambda_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon)=\Lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)+\text{diag}\,S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_{IV,7}^+(z,\varepsilon) & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_{IV,7}^-(z,\varepsilon) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=
\pm\frac{ic_0\sqrt{-z}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{\varkappa}}-\frac1{4z(1\mp i\varepsilon^{\frac13}\sqrt{-z})}$$ and, from , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R IV7}
R_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon))^{-1}R_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon))
\\
+(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon))^{-1}
(S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)-\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)\,\text{diag}\,S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon))\end{gathered}$$ with $S_{IV,2}$ given by . From Lemma \[lem IV remainder\] and the estimate of $T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)$ by Lemma \[lem IV estimate T hat\] we get: $$\label{IV estimate R IV7}
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Variation of parameters $$\label{u IV8}
u_{IV,7}(z)=\exp\left(-\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\Lambda_{IV,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{IV,8}(z),$$ leads to the system $$\begin{gathered}
\label{system u IV8}
u_{IV,8}'(z)=\exp\left(\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\Lambda_{IV,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
\\
\times
R_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon)
\exp\left(-\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\Lambda_{IV,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{IV,8}(z).\end{gathered}$$ Let us denote $$E_2(z,\varepsilon):=\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}
\left(\frac{c_0\sqrt{-\sigma}}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac32}\sigma)^{\varkappa}}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{4\sqrt{-\sigma}(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)}\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)d\sigma,$$ and then $$\exp\left(-\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\Lambda_{IV,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)
=e^{-iE_2(z,\varepsilon)}\exp\left(\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\frac{d\sigma}{4\sigma(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}\sigma)}\right),$$ so that the equation reads $$u_{IV,8}'(z)=e^{iE_2(z,\varepsilon)}R_{IV,7}(z,\varepsilon)e^{-iE_2(z,\varepsilon)}u_{IV,8}(z).$$ Let us now introduce two solutions $u_{IV,8}^{\pm}$ of this system which satisfy the following equations: $$u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=e_{\pm}+\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{z}e^{iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)e^{-iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds.$$ They can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IV eq 7}
u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)-e_{\pm}=\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{z}e^{iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)e^{-iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}e_{\pm}ds
\\
+\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{z}e^{iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)e^{-iE_2(s,\varepsilon)}(u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)-e_{\pm})ds.\end{gathered}$$ For these equalities Lemma \[lem II tech 1\] yields: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IV convergence u IV8}
\sup_{z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]}\left\|u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)-e_{\pm}\right\|
\\
\le
\exp\left(\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\right)
\int_{-Z_2(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\|R_{IV,7}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Now using the relations and we define $$\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=(I+\widehat T_{IV}(z,\varepsilon))
\exp\left(-\int_z^{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}\Lambda^{\pm}_{IV,7}(\sigma,\varepsilon)d\sigma\right)u_{IV,8}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$$ which are solutions of the system . Lemma \[lem IV estimate T hat\], the expression and convergence in imply that these solutions have asymptotics . This completes the proof.
Combining the results of Lemmas \[lem IV result 1st part\] and \[lem IV result 2nd part\] we now come to the proof of Lemma \[lem IV result\].
First let us rewrite the formula for the asymptotics from Lemma \[lem IV result 1st part\] using that $$\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac32}\right)}{(Z_1(\varepsilon))^{\frac14}}
=a^{\pm}_{IV}\exp\left(-\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}
\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds\right)(1+o(1))$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, where $a^{\pm}_{IV}:=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3Z_0^{\frac32}\right)}{Z_0^{\frac14}}$, which is true because $$\left|\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)-
\left(
\pm ic_0\sqrt{-s}
-\frac1{4s}
\right)
\right|
<
c_{28}
\left(
\varepsilon^{\frac23}|s|^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt{|s|}},
\right)$$ with some $c_{28}>0$ and $$\int_{Z_0}^{Z_1(\varepsilon)}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}s^{\frac32}+\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac13}}{\sqrt s},
\right)ds\rightarrow0\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$$ due to the choice of $Z_1(\varepsilon)$ in . Let us define for $z\in[-Z_2(\varepsilon),-Z_1(\varepsilon)]$ $$\label{u IV2-}
u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon):=a_{IV}^{\pm}\exp
\left(-
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}
\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon).$$ Continuations of the solutions $\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ to the interval $[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ have decompositions with some coefficients in terms of the basis of solutions $\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$, and at the point $-Z_1(\varepsilon)$ one has: $$\begin{array}{rl}
\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(-Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=&e_{\pm}+o(1),
\\
\frac{\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(-Z_1(\varepsilon),\varepsilon))}{a_{IV}^{\pm}}
\exp
\left(
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
=&e_{\pm}+o(1).
\end{array}$$ By Lemma \[lem II tech 2\] we conclude that for $z\in[-Z_1(\varepsilon),-Z_0]$ $$\begin{gathered}
\widehat u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=(1+o(1))
\frac{\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon))}{a_{IV}^{\pm}}
\exp
\left(
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\lambda_{IV,7}^{\pm}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\\
+o
\left(
\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\mp}(z,\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
\int_{-Z_1(\varepsilon)}^{-Z_0}\lambda_{IV,7}^{\mp}(s,\varepsilon)ds
\right)
\right)\end{gathered}$$ and, since $\lambda_{IV,7}^+(s,\varepsilon)=\overline{\lambda_{IV,7}^+(s,\varepsilon)}$, by we have $$u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=(1+o(1))
\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)
+o
\left(
\widetilde u_{IV,2}^{\mp}(z,\varepsilon))
\right).$$ For every fixed $z\le-Z_0$ this means that $$u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Asymptotics of $u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)$ at $z=-Z_2(\varepsilon)$ are due to Lemma \[lem IV result 2nd part\].
Neighbourhood of the turning point (region $III$) {#section III}
=================================================
Consider the system $$\label{system u III}
\varepsilon u_{III}'(t)=
\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12
\\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{III}(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{III}(t).$$ The main term of its coefficient matrix is analytic near the turning point $t_0=(2\beta)^{\frac1{\gamma}}$ and degenerates as a matrix at $t_0$. Analytic theory for the case $R_{III}\equiv0$ is well known (see, for example, [@Wasow-1965 Chapter VIII]). It suggests the transformation $$\label{u III1}
u_{III}(t)=T_{III}(t)u_{III,1}(t)$$ with $$\label{T III}
T_{III}(t):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12 \\
1 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-\frac12 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ which makes the structure of the main term simpler: $$\label{system u III1}
\varepsilon u_{III,1}'(t)
=\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\frac{\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+R_{III,1}(t,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{III,1}(t),$$ where $$\label{R III1}
R_{III,1}(t,\varepsilon):=-\frac{\varepsilon\beta\gamma}{t^{1+\gamma}\left(\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12\right)}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+
T_{III}^{-1}(t)R_{III}(t,\varepsilon)T_{III}(t).$$ The problem comes from the remainder $R_{III,1}$ which is by no means analytic (we know that it wildly oscillates), but is small in the integral sense. Analytic theory would proceed with making the change of the variable $\tau(t)\sim\text{const}\cdot(t-t_0)$ as $t\rightarrow t_0$ and considering $$u_{a}(\tau)=P(\tau,\varepsilon)u_{III,1}(t(\tau))$$ with the matrix-valued function $P$ analytic in both variables such that the system is transformed into $$\varepsilon u_{a}'(\tau)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\tau & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{a}(\tau).$$ Using the variable $$\zeta=\frac{\tau}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$$ and the function $u_{a,1}$ defined by the equality $$u_a(\tau)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{a,1}\left(\frac{\tau}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}\right)$$ this system can be further transformed into $$u_{a,1}'(\zeta)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\zeta & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{a,1}(\zeta).$$ Solutions of the latter are expressed in terms of Airy functions: the system has the following matrix solution: $$U_{a,1}(\zeta)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Ai}}(\zeta) & {\text{Bi}}(\zeta) \\
{\text{Ai}}'(\zeta) & {\text{Bi}}'(\zeta) \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ In our case, due to presence of the remainder $R_{III,1}$, such transformations are not possible. Instead, in this section we show that in the scale of the variable $z$ which was used in the regions $II$ and $IV$, on any fixed interval $[-z_0,z_0]$, the presence of the remainder $R_{III}$ does not affect the asymptotics of solutions of the system . In terms of the variable $t$ the interval $[-Z_0,Z_0]$ of the region $III$ corresponds to the interval $[t_{II-III}(\varepsilon),t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)]$ which shrinks to the turning point $t_0$. Analytic method of [@Wasow-1965] gives the result for a fixed neighbourhood of the turning point in the scale of the variable $t$, the result which we do not have here. However, we already know what happens in the regions $II$ and $IV$.
Let consider the variable $z=\frac{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$ and take $$\label{u III2}
u_{III,1}(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_{III,2}(z(t,\varepsilon)).$$ Substituting this to and simplifying the result we have: $$\begin{gathered}
u_{III,2}'(z)=\frac{c_0}{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\Bigg(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\frac{z}{1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
-\frac1{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\varepsilon^{\frac13} & 0 \\
0 & -2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{III,1}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\Bigg)
u_{III,2}(z)\end{gathered}$$ with $c_0$ given by . This system can be written in the form $$\label{system u III2}
u_{III,2}'(z)
=\left(
c_0
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
z & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+
R_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)
\right)
u_{III,2}(z),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R III2}
R_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon):=c_0\left(\frac1{(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\frac{z}{1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
-
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
z & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)
\\
-
\frac{c_0}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{1-\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\varepsilon^{\frac13} & 0 \\
0 & -2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{III,1}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ The following lemma is the main result for the region $III$.
\[lem III main\] Let $c_0,z_0>0$ and $R_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)$ is given by , and . If $$\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_{III}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ then the system has the matrix solution $U_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)$ such that for every $z\in[-z_0,z_0]$ $$\label{U III2 asymptotics}
U_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) & {\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) & c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
First let us estimate the remainder in the system .
\[lem III remainder estimate\] Under the conditions of Lemma \[lem III main\], if $$\label{III eq integral convergence of the remainder}
\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_{III}(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds=o\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right),
\text{ then }
\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_{III,2}(s,\varepsilon)\|ds\rightarrow0$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
From the expression one immediately has: there exists $c_{29}>0$ such that for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ and every $z\in[-z_0,z_0]$ $$\|R_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|\le c_{29}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac23}+\varepsilon^{-\frac23}\|R_{III,1}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|\right).$$ Furthermore, due to , boundedness and bounded invertibility of $T_{III}$ in the neighbourhood of the point $t_0$, one has: $$\|R_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)\|\le c_{30}\left(\varepsilon^{\frac13}+\varepsilon^{-\frac23}\|R_{III}(t(z,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|\right)$$ with some $c_{30}>0$, which converges to zero as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Now let us see that conditions of Lemma \[lem III main\] are satisfied, if $R_{III}=R_2^+$.
\[lem III R 2+ estimate\] Let $z_0>0$, let $R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)$ be given by , $t(z,\varepsilon)$ be defined by and conditions and hold. Then $$\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_2^+(s,\varepsilon)\|ds=O\left(\varepsilon\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$
Since $\frac{dz}{dt}(t)=-\frac{\gamma t^{2\gamma-1}}{2\beta^2\varepsilon^{\frac23}}$, we have with some $c_{31}>0$: $$\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_2^+(s,\varepsilon)\|ds
<\frac{c_{31}}{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}
\int_{t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}^{t_0(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\|R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)\|dt.$$ By equalities and the estimate of the norm of $R$ from conditions we have: $$\frac1{\varepsilon^{\frac23}}
\int_{t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}^{t_0(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\|R_2^+(t,\varepsilon)\|dt=
\frac1{\varepsilon_0\varepsilon^{\frac23}}
\int_{t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}^{t_0(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t\right)dt.$$ Using the expression for $r$ we have: $$\int_{t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}^{t_0(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}
r\left(\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t\right)dt
<c_r\varepsilon_0^{\frac{1+\alpha_r}{\gamma}}
\int_{t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}^{t_0(1+\varepsilon^{\frac23}z_0)^{\frac1{2\gamma}}}
\frac{dt}{t^{1+\alpha_r}}
=O\left(\varepsilon_0^{\frac{1+\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\varepsilon^{\frac23}\right)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Putting everything together we come to the following: $$\int_{-z_0}^{z_0}\|R_2^+(t(s,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)\|ds
=O\left(\varepsilon_0^{\frac{1+\alpha_r}{\gamma}-1}\right)
=O\left(\varepsilon\varepsilon_0^{\frac{\alpha_r}{\gamma}}\right)$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. This completes the proof.
We need the following technical lemma, which is simple and standard.
\[lem III tech\] Let $A(x,\varepsilon)$ be a $n\times n$ matrix-valued function defined for $x\in[a,b]$ and $\varepsilon$ from some neighbourhood of zero. Let $A(\cdot,\varepsilon)\in L_1((a,b),M^{n\times n}(\mathbb C))$ for every $\varepsilon$ and $A(x,\varepsilon)\rightarrow A(x,0)$ in the norm of $L_1((a,b),M^{n\times n}(\mathbb C))$. If $U(x)$ is a non-degenerate matrix solution of the system $$\label{III eq lemma tech}
u'(x)=A(x,\varepsilon)u(x),$$ for $\varepsilon=0$, then there exist non-degenerate solutions $U(x,\varepsilon)$ of this system for all $\varepsilon\neq0$ such that $U(x,\varepsilon)\rightarrow U(x)$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$ uniformly in $x\in[a,b]$.
Let us look for $U(x,\varepsilon)=U(x)Y(x,\varepsilon)$. The system is equivalent to $$Y'(x)=U^{-1}(x)(A(x,\varepsilon)-A(x,0))U(x)Y(x).$$ Function $U$ is bounded on the interval $[a,b]$ and its determinant, $$\text{det}\,U(x)=\text{det}\,U(a)\exp\left(\int_a^x\text{tr}\,A(t,0)dt\right),$$ is separated from zero, since $A(\cdot,0)\in L_1((a,b),M^{n\times n}(\mathbb C))$. Therefore the function $U^{-1}$ is also bounded on $[a,b]$. Take $Y$ as the solution of the following Volterra equation: $$Y(x,\varepsilon)=I+\int_a^xU^{-1}(t)(A(t,\varepsilon)-A(t,0))U(t)Y(t,\varepsilon)dt.$$ Repeating the standard argument on inverting $I-\mathcal K_{III}(\varepsilon)$ where $$\mathcal K_{III}(\varepsilon):Y(x)\mapsto\int_a^xU^{-1}(t)(A(t,\varepsilon)-A(t,0))U(t)Y(t,\varepsilon)dt$$ is a Volterra operator in the space $L_{\infty}((a,b),M^{n\times n}(\mathbb C))$ and estimating the norm of the inverse, we finally come to the estimate $$\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\|Y(x,\varepsilon)-I\|
\le\|\mathcal K_{III}(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(a,b))}\exp(\|\mathcal K_{III}(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(a,b))})$$ and $$\|\mathcal K_{III}(\varepsilon)\|_{\mathcal B(L_{\infty}(a,b))}\le\int_a^b\|U^{-1}(t)(A(t,\varepsilon)-A(t,0))U(t)\|dt\rightarrow0$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. From this the statement of the lemma follows.
Now we are ready to prove Lemma \[lem III main\].
Due to Lemmas \[lem III tech\] and \[lem III remainder estimate\], we only need to check that the system $$v_{III,2}'(z)
=
c_0
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
z & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
v_{III,2}(z)$$ has the solution $$\label{V III2}
V_{III,2}(z)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) & {\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) & c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ This can be verified by the entry-wise direct substitution using the Airy equation $u''(x)=xu(x)$.
Matching of the results in regions {#section matching}
==================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm model problem\] by putting together results of the previous five sections considering $R_{II}=R_{III}=R_{IV}=R_{V}=R_2^+$.
For the regions $II$, $III$ and $IV$ let us, according to Lemmas \[lem II result\], \[lem IV result\] and \[lem III main\], define solutions $u_{II}^{\pm}$, $u_{IV}^{\pm}$ and $U_{III}$ (matrix-valued) of the system in the following way : $$\label{u II pm}
u_{II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon):=T_{II}(t)u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z(t,\varepsilon),\varepsilon),$$ $$\label{u IV pm}
u_{IV}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon):=T_{IV}(t)u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z(t,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)$$ and $$\label{U III}
U_{III}(t,\varepsilon):=T_{III}(t)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)
U_{III,2}(z(t,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)$$ with $T_{II}$, $T_{III}$ and $T_{IV}$ given by , and . These all are solutions of the same system and hence are linearly dependent with coefficients which depend on $\varepsilon$. By matching we mean finding asymptotic behaviour of these coefficients as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. The following lemma matches solutions in the regions $II$ and $IV$ using the results for the region $III$.
\[lem matching II-IV\] Let solutions $u_{II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)$ and $u_{IV}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)$ of the system be defined by and . One has: $$\label{eq u II + via u IV pm}
u_{II}^+(t,\varepsilon)=\left(\frac i{\sqrt 2}+\delta_1(\varepsilon)\right)u_{IV}^+(t,\varepsilon)
+\left(-\frac i{\sqrt 2}+\delta_2(\varepsilon)\right)u_{IV}^-(t,\varepsilon),$$ $$\label{eq u II - via u IV pm}
u_{II}^-(t,\varepsilon)=\left(\frac{1+i\alpha_m}{2\sqrt 2}+\delta_3(\varepsilon)\right)u_{IV}^+(t,\varepsilon)
+\left(\frac{1-i\alpha_m}{2\sqrt 2}+\delta_4(\varepsilon)\right)u_{IV}^-(t,\varepsilon),$$ with some $\alpha_m\in\mathbb C$ and $\delta_1(\varepsilon),\delta_2(\varepsilon),\delta_3(\varepsilon),\delta_4(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Linear dependence of solutions can be written in the following form: $$u_{II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)=U_{III}(t,\varepsilon)\xi_{II}^{\pm}(\varepsilon),$$ $$u_{IV}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)=U_{III}(t,\varepsilon)\xi_{IV}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)$$ with some vector coefficients $\xi_{II}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)$ and $\xi_{IV}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)$, and also in the following form: $$u_{II}^+(t,\varepsilon)=d_+^+(\varepsilon)u_{IV}^+(t,\varepsilon)
+d_-^+(\varepsilon)u_{IV}^-(t,\varepsilon),$$ $$u_{II}^-(t,\varepsilon)=d_+^-(\varepsilon)u_{IV}^+(t,\varepsilon)
+d_-^-(\varepsilon)u_{IV}^-(t,\varepsilon)$$ with some coefficients $d_+^+(\varepsilon),d_-^+(\varepsilon),d_+^-(\varepsilon),d_-^-(\varepsilon)$ which we need to determine. These coefficients should be related as $$\xi_{II}^+(\varepsilon)=d_+^+(\varepsilon)\xi_{IV}^+(\varepsilon)+d_-^+(\varepsilon)\xi_{IV}^-(\varepsilon),$$ $$\xi_{II}^-(\varepsilon)=d_+^-(\varepsilon)\xi_{IV}^+(\varepsilon)+d_-^-(\varepsilon)\xi_{IV}^-(\varepsilon).$$ This can be rewritten in matrix notation as $C_{II}(\varepsilon)=C_{IV}(\varepsilon)D(\varepsilon)$, where $$C_{II}:=\left(\xi_{II}^+|\xi_{II}^-\right), C_{IV}:=\left(\xi_{IV}^+|\xi_{IV}^-\right),
D:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
d_+^+ & d_+^- \\
d_-^+ & d_-^- \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Therefore if we know $\xi_{II}^{\pm}$ and $\xi_{IV}^{\pm}$, we can calculate $d_+^+,d_-^+,d_+^-,d_-^-$ by the formula $$\label{D}
D(\varepsilon)=C_{IV}(\varepsilon)^{-1}C_{II}(\varepsilon).$$ From the expressions , and we can write for any solutions $u_{II,2}$, $u_{IV,2}$ and $u_{III,2}$ of the systems , and : $$\label{eq matching II-III-IV}
u_{III,2}(z)=P_{II}(z,\varepsilon)u_{II,2}(z)=P_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)u_{IV,2}(z)$$ with $$\label{P II}
P_{II}(z,\varepsilon):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
T_{III}^{-1}(t(z,\varepsilon))T_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon)),$$ $$\label{P IV}
P_{IV}(z,\varepsilon):=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 0 \\
0 & -\varepsilon^{\frac13} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
T_{III}^{-1}(t(z,\varepsilon))T_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon)).$$ Using the expressions and for $T_{II}$ and $T_{III}$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
P_{II}(z,\varepsilon)=\frac1{2\varepsilon^{\frac13}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\varepsilon^{\frac13} & 0 \\
0 & -2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12 \\
1 & -\left(\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-\sqrt{\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-1} & \frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\sqrt{\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-1} \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{gathered}$$ with $t=t_0(1-\varepsilon^{\frac23}z)^{\frac{1}{2\gamma}}$. Since $$\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}=1+o(1)\text{ and }\sqrt{\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-1}=\varepsilon^{\frac13}(\sqrt z+o(1))
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,$$ we have $$\label{P II}
P_{II}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow\frac12
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-\sqrt z & \sqrt z \\
\end{array}
\right)
=:P_{II}(z)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Analogously, $$\begin{gathered}
P_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)=\frac1{2\varepsilon^{\frac13}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\varepsilon^{\frac13} & 0 \\
0 & -2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12 \\
1 & -\left(\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+\frac12\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}+i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}} & \frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}-i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\rightarrow
\frac12
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i\sqrt{-z} & -i\sqrt{-z} \\
\end{array}
\right)
=:P_{IV}(z)\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. For the solutions $u_{II,2}^{\pm},u_{IV,2}^{\pm}$ and $U_{III,2}$ this means: $$P_{II}(z,\varepsilon)u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)=U_{III,2}(z,\varepsilon)\xi_{II}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)$$ and, due to Lemmas \[lem II result\], \[lem IV result\] and \[lem III main\], $$\xi_{II}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)=U_{III,2}^{-1}(z,\varepsilon)P_{II}(z,\varepsilon)u_{II,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow V_{III,2}^{-1}(z)P_{II}(z)v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)=:\xi_{II}^{\pm}$$ and $$\xi_{IV}^{\pm}(\varepsilon)=U_{III,2}^{-1}(z,\varepsilon)P_{IV}(z,\varepsilon)u_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z,\varepsilon)\rightarrow V_{III,2}^{-1}(z)P_{IV}(z)v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)=:\xi_{IV}^{\pm},$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, with $V_{III,2}$ given by , $v_{II,2}^{\pm}$ defined in Lemma \[lem II free system\] and $v_{IV,2}^{\pm}$ defined in Lemma \[lem IV free system\].
To find $\xi_{II}^{\pm}$ consider the equation $P_{II}(z)v_{II,2}^{\pm}(z)=V_{III,2}(z)\xi_{II}^{\pm}$ which, due to the expressions for $V_{III,2}$, for $P_{II}$ and Lemma \[lem II free system\], reads as $$\frac12
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-\sqrt z & \sqrt z \\
\end{array}
\right)
\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2c_0}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{z^{\frac14}}(1+o(1))
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) & {\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) & c_0^{-\frac13}{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\xi_{II}^{\pm}.$$ Using the asymptotics of the Airy functions as $z\rightarrow+\infty$, see [@Abramowitz-Stegun-1964], $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_o}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{2\sqrt\pi c_0^{\frac16}z^{\frac14}}(1+o(1)),
&
{\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)=-\frac{c_0^{\frac16}z^{\frac14}\exp\left(-\frac{2c_o}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{2\sqrt\pi}(1+o(1)),
\\
{\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{2c_o}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{\sqrt\pi c_0^{\frac16}z^{\frac14}}(1+o(1)),
&
{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)=\frac{c_0^{\frac16}z^{\frac14}\exp\left(-\frac{2c_o}3z^{\frac32}\right)}{\sqrt\pi}(1+o(1)), \\
\end{array}$$ we conclude that $$\xi_{II}^+=c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt\pi e_+,\ \xi_{II}^-=\frac{c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt\pi}2(e_-+\alpha_me_+)$$ and $$\label{C II}
C_{II}=\frac{c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt\pi}2
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & \alpha_m \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ with some $\alpha_m$.
To find $\xi_{IV}^{\pm}=V_{III,2}^{-1}(z)P_{IV}(z)v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)$ recall that $$P_{IV}(z)=\frac12
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i\sqrt{-z} & -i\sqrt{-z} \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and, since $W\{{\text{Ai}},{\text{Bi}}\}=-\frac1{\pi}$ ([@Abramowitz-Stegun-1964]), $$V_{III,2}^{-1}(z)=\pi
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) & -c_0^{\frac13}{\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
-{\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z) & c_0^{\frac13}{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ therefore $$\begin{gathered}
\xi_{IV}^{\pm}=\frac{\pi}2
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)-i\sqrt{-c_0^{\frac23}z}\,{\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) & {\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)+i\sqrt{-c_0^{\frac23}z}\,{\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z) \\
-({\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)-i\sqrt{-c_0^{\frac23}z}\,{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)) & -({\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)+i\sqrt{-c_0^{\frac23}z}\,{\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
v_{IV,2}^{\pm}(z)\end{gathered}$$ Due to the asymptotics as $z\rightarrow-\infty$ (see [@Abramowitz-Stegun-1964]) $${\text{Ai}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)=\frac1{\sqrt\pi c_0^{\frac16}(-z)^{\frac14}}
\left(\sin\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)
-\cos\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)+o(1)\right),$$ $${\text{Ai}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)=-\frac{c_0^{\frac16}(-z)^{\frac14}}{\sqrt\pi}
\left(\cos\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)
+\sin\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)+o(1)\right),$$ $${\text{Bi}}(c_0^{\frac23}z)=\frac1{\sqrt\pi c_0^{\frac16}(-z)^{\frac14}}
\left(\cos\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)
+\sin\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)+o(1)\right),$$ $${\text{Bi}}\,'(c_0^{\frac23}z)=-\frac{c_0^{\frac16}(-z)^{\frac14}}{\sqrt\pi}
\left(-\sin\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)
+\cos\left(\frac{2c_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}+\frac{\pi}4\right)+o(1)\right)$$ and by Lemma \[lem IV free system\] we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\xi_{IV}^{\pm}=c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}2}(-z)^{\frac14}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-i\exp\left(\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right) & i\exp\left(-\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right) \\
\exp\left(\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right) & \exp\left(-\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3(-z)^{\frac32}\right)}{(-z)^{\frac14}}e_{\pm}
=c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}2}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mp i \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ This means that $$C_{IV}=c_0^{\frac16}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-i & i \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Using the formula for $C_{II}$ and the relation we come to the following convergence as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$: $$D(\varepsilon)\rightarrow C_{IV}^{-1}C_{II}=\frac{i}{2\sqrt2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & \alpha_m-i \\
-2 & -\alpha_m-i \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ which gives and . This completes the proof.
Now we have everything to prove Theorem \[thm model problem\].
Since $$\Lambda_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)+\text{diag}\,S_{II,2}(z,\varepsilon)
=\left(\frac{\lambda_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon))}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
+\text{diag}\,S_{II}(t(z,\varepsilon))\right)t'(z,\varepsilon),$$ and $$\Lambda_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)+\text{diag}\,S_{IV,2}(z,\varepsilon)
=\left(\frac{\lambda_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon))}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)+\text{diag}\,S_{IV}(t(z,\varepsilon))\right)t'(z,\varepsilon),$$ see the formulae , and , , we can, using Lemmas \[lem II result\] and \[lem IV result\], rewrite the asymptotics and at the points $t_{I-II}$ and $t_{IV-V}$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{asympt u II pm}
u_{II}^{\pm}(t_{I-II},\varepsilon)
\\
=a_{II}^{\pm}T_{II}(t_{I-II})
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{I-II}}
\left(\pm\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,\pm}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
(e_{\pm}+o(1))\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{asympt u IV pm}
u_{IV}^{\pm}(t_{IV-V},\varepsilon)
\\
=a_{IV}^{\pm}T_{IV}(t_{IV-V})
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}
\left(\pm\frac{\lambda_{IV}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{IV,\pm}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
(e_{\pm}+o(1))\end{gathered}$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$, where $S_{II,+}$ and $S_{IV,+}$ are upper-left and $S_{II,-}$ and $S_{IV,-}$ lower-right entries of the matrices $S_{II}$ and $S_{IV}$. Rewrite the last formula as $$\exp\left(
\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}
\left(\pm\frac{\lambda_{IV}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{IV,\pm}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)u_{IV}^{\pm}(t_{IV-V},\varepsilon)
\rightarrow a_{IV}^{\pm}T_{IV}(t_{IV-V})e_{\pm}.$$ By Lemma \[lem V answer\] we also have: $$\exp
\left(-
\int_{t_0}^{t_{IV-V}}\pm
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{+\infty}
S_{V,\pm}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t_{IV-V},\varepsilon,e_{\pm})
\rightarrow
T_V(t_{IV-V})e_{\pm}.$$ Since $T_{IV}=T_{V}$, Lemma \[lem II tech 2\] yields: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{relation u IV+V}
u_{IV}^{+}(t,\varepsilon)=\exp\left(
\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}
\left(\frac{\lambda_{IV}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{IV,+}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl((a_{IV}^++\delta_5(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(-
\int_{t_0}^{t_{IV-V}}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{+\infty}
S_{V,+}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_+)
\\
+\delta_6(\varepsilon)
\exp
\left(
\int_{t_0}^{t_{IV-V}}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{+\infty}
S_{V,-}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_-)
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{relation u IV-V}
u_{IV}^-(t,\varepsilon)=\exp\left(
\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}
\left(-\frac{\lambda_{IV}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{IV,-}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl((a_{IV}^-+\delta_7(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
\int_{t_0}^{t_{IV-V}}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{+\infty}
S_{V,-}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_-)
\\
+\delta_8(\varepsilon)
\exp
\left(-
\int_{t_0}^{t_{IV-V}}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{IV-V}}^{+\infty}
S_{V,+}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_+)
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ with some $\delta_5(\varepsilon),\delta_6(\varepsilon),\delta_7(\varepsilon),\delta_8(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$.
Let us now consider the solution $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ for the case $f\nparallel f_-$ and prove the asymptotics . By Lemma , $$u_2^+(t_{I-II},\varepsilon,f)
=
T_I(t_{I-II})\exp\left(
\int_0^{t_{I-II}}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\left(
\Phi(f)e_+
+o(1)
\right).$$ Rewrite this as $$\exp\left(
-\int_0^{t_{I-II}}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)u_2^+(t_{I-II},\varepsilon,f)
\rightarrow
T_I(t_{I-II})\Phi(f)e_+.$$ Rewrite also the asymptotics as $$\exp\left(
\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(\pm\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,\pm}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
u_{II}^{\pm}(t_{I-II},\varepsilon)
\rightarrow
a_{II}^{\pm}T_{II}(t_{I-II})e_{\pm}.$$ Since $T_Ie_+=T_{II}e_+$, by Lemma \[lem II tech 2\] we get that $$\begin{gathered}
u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)=\exp\left(
\int_0^{t_{I-II}}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl(
\left(\frac{\Phi(f)}{a_{II}^+}+\delta_9(\varepsilon)\right)
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,+}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
u_{II}^{+}(t,\varepsilon)
\\
+\delta_{10}(\varepsilon)
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(-\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,-}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
u_{II}^{-}(t,\varepsilon)
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ with some $\delta_9(\varepsilon),\delta_{10}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Using Lemma \[lem matching II-IV\] and the fact that $$\begin{gathered}
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(-\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,-}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
\\
=O\left(
\exp\left(
\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,+}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)
\right)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+,\end{gathered}$$ as well as the identities $\lambda_I=\lambda_{II}$ and $S_{I,+}=S_{II,+}$, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)=\frac{i\Phi(f)}{\sqrt2a_{II}^+}\exp\left(
\int_0^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
((1+\delta_{11}(\varepsilon))u_{IV}^{+}(t,\varepsilon)-(1+\delta_{12}(\varepsilon))u_{IV}^{-}(t,\varepsilon))\end{gathered}$$ with some $\delta_{11}(\varepsilon),\delta_{12}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Since $$\left|\exp\left(
\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}\pm
\frac{\lambda_{IV}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}d\tau\right)\right|=1,$$ the relations and together with the identities $\lambda_{IV}=\lambda_{V}$ and $S_{IV}=S_{V}$ imply that $$\begin{gathered}
u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)=\frac{i\Phi(f)}{\sqrt2a_{II}^+}\exp\left(
\int_0^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl((a_{IV}^++\delta_{13}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(-
\int_{t_0}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
S_{V,+}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_+)
\\
-(a_{IV}^-+\delta_{14}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
\int_{t_0}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
S_{V,-}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_-)
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ with some $\delta_{13}(\varepsilon),\delta_{14}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. By Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\] this means that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq matching 1}
\exp\left(-\int_{t_0}^t\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
d\tau
\right)T_V^{-1}(t)u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)
\\
\rightarrow
\frac{i\Phi(f)}{\sqrt2a_{II}^+}\exp\left(
\int_0^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}\left(
\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+
S_{I,+}(\tau)
\right)d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl((a_{IV}^++\delta_{13}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(-
\int_{t_0}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
S_{V,+}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
e_+
\\
-(a_{IV}^-+\delta_{14}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(
\int_{t_0}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}
\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}
d\tau
+\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
S_{V,-}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
e_-
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$. Let us now simplify the right-hand side. As $$a_{II}^+=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{2c_0}3Z_0^{\frac32}\right)}{Z_0^{\frac14}},
\
a_{IV}^{\pm}=\frac{\exp\left(\mp\frac{2ic_0}3Z_0^{\frac32}\right)}{Z_0^{\frac14}},$$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
Z_0^{\frac14}a_{II}^+\exp\left(-\int_{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}d\tau\right)
=
Z_0^{\frac14}a_{II}^+\exp\left(\int_0^{Z_0}\lambda_{II,2}(s,\varepsilon)ds\right)
\\
=Z_0^{\frac14}a_{II}^+\exp\left(\int_0^{Z_0}(c_0\sqrt s +o(1))ds\right)=1+o(1)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
Z_0^{\frac14}a_{IV}^{\pm}\exp\left(\mp\int_{t_0}^{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}\frac{\lambda_V(\tau)}{\varepsilon}d\tau\right)
=
Z_0^{\frac14}a_{IV}^{\pm}\exp\left(\pm\int_{-Z_0}^0\lambda_{IV,2}(s,\varepsilon)ds\right)
\\
=Z_0^{\frac14}a_{IV}^{\pm}\exp\left(\int_{-Z_0}^0(\pm ic_0\sqrt{-s} +o(1))ds\right)=1+o(1)\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, $$S_{I,+}(t)=
\frac{\gamma t^{\gamma}}{8\beta^2t^{1-\gamma}\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}
=\frac{\gamma\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}{2t\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)},$$ $$S_{V,\pm}(t)=
-\frac{\beta\gamma\left(\frac{2\beta}{t^{\gamma}}\pm i\sqrt{1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}}\right)}
{\left(1-\frac{4\beta^2}{t^{2\gamma}}\right)t^{\gamma+1}}
=\frac{\gamma\left(1\pm i\sqrt{\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}-1}\right)}{2t\left(1-\frac{t^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}.$$ Therefore there exists the limit $$\begin{gathered}
\label{c 32}
c_{vp}(\beta,\gamma):=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+}
\left(
\int_0^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
S_{I,+}(\tau)d\tau
+\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}{\text{Re\,}}S_{V,\pm}(\tau)d\tau\right)
\\
=
\lim_{\Delta\rightarrow0^+}
\left(
\int_0^{t_0-\Delta}
\frac{\gamma\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}d\tau
+\int_{t_0+\Delta}^{+\infty}
\frac{\gamma d\tau}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}\right)
\\
=
\int_0^{\frac{t_0}2}
\frac{\gamma\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}\right)}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}d\tau
-
\int_{\frac{t_0}2}^{t_0}
\frac{\gamma d\tau}{2\tau\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}}}
+\text{v.p.}\int_{\frac{t_0}2}^{+\infty}
\frac{\gamma d\tau}{2\tau\left(1-\frac{\tau^{2\gamma}}{4\beta^2}\right)}.\end{gathered}$$ Then the right-hand side of can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{ie^{c_{vp}(\beta,\gamma)}\Phi(f)}{\sqrt2}
\exp\left(\int_0^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)}{\varepsilon}d\tau\right)
\\
\times
\Biggl((1+\delta_{15}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(i\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
{\text{Im\,}}S_{V,+}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
e_+
\\
-(1+\delta_{16}(\varepsilon))
\exp
\left(i\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{+\infty}
{\text{Im\,}}S_{V,-}(\tau)
d\tau
\right)
e_-
\Biggr)\end{gathered}$$ with some $\delta_{15}(\varepsilon),\delta_{16}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. It follows that $$\|T_V^{-1}(t)u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)\|\rightarrow
\frac{e^{c_{vp}(\beta,\gamma)}|\Phi(f)|}{\sqrt2}\exp\left(\int_0^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)d\tau}{\varepsilon}\right)
\left\|
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1+\delta_{15}(\varepsilon) \\
1+\delta_{16}(\varepsilon) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right\|$$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$. To get rid of $T_V^{-1}$ we recall that $$T_V(t)\rightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)
\text{ as }t\rightarrow+\infty$$ and that the matrix $\frac1{\sqrt2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
i & -i \\
\end{array}
\right)$ is unitary. Besides that, for every $\varepsilon\in U$ the solution $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ is bounded as $t\rightarrow+\infty$, which follows from Lemma \[lem model problem individual asymptotics\] and the relation . Thus we conclude that $$\|u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)\|\rightarrow
\frac{e^{c_{vp}(\beta,\gamma)}|\Phi(f)|}{2}\exp\left(\int_0^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)d\tau}{\varepsilon}\right)
\left\|
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1+\delta_{15}(\varepsilon) \\
1+\delta_{16}(\varepsilon) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right\|\text{ as }t\rightarrow+\infty$$ for every fixed sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$. Now we can take $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ to obtain the asymptotics. With the expressions for $\lambda_I$ and for $C_{mp}(\beta,\gamma)$ this proves the formula , and the assertion of Theorem \[thm model problem\] for $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ follows.
Consider now the solution $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f_-)$. Let us prove the estimate . First use the relations and together with the facts that $\lambda_{IV}=\lambda_V$ are purely imaginary, $S_V$ is summable at infinity and that $\|u_V(t,\varepsilon,e_{\pm})\|\rightarrow\sqrt2$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$ by Lemma \[lem V result for u V2\] to conclude that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_{IV}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)\|=O\left(\exp\left(\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}S_{IV,+}(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ By Lemma \[lem matching II-IV\] this means that $$\label{matching eq 1}
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_{II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)\|=O\left(\exp\left(\int_{t_{III-IV}(\varepsilon)}^{t_{IV-V}}S_{IV,+}(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ Let us define two solutions $u_{I-II}^{\pm}$ of the system as $$u_{I-II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon):=\frac1{a_{II}^{\pm}}\exp\left(\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_{II-III}(\varepsilon)}
\left(\pm\frac{\lambda_{II}(\tau)}{\varepsilon}+S_{II,\pm}(\tau)\right)d\tau\right)u_{II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)$$ On the one hand, from , the equalities $\lambda_I=\lambda_{II}$, $S_I=S_{II}$, $S_{IV}=S_V$ and finiteness of the limit in , we have $$\label{matching eq 2}
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_{I-II}^{\pm}(t,\varepsilon)\|
=O\left(\exp\left(\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)d\tau}{\varepsilon}\right)\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ On the other hand, from the asymptotics $$\label{matching eq 3}
u_{I-II}^{\pm}(t_{I-II},\varepsilon)\rightarrow T_I(t_{I-II})e_{\pm}
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ From this we will now estimate the growth of the norm of the fundamental solution. Define for every $h\in\mathbb C^2$ the solution $u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,h)$ of the system on the interval $[t_{I-II},+\infty)$ with the initial condition $$u_{I-II}(t_{I-II},\varepsilon,h)=T_{I-II}(t_{I-II})h.$$ The fundamental solution $F$ of the system can be written as follows: $$F(t,t_{I-II},\varepsilon)=\left(u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,e_+)|u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,e_-)\right)T_I^{-1}(t_{I-II}),$$ therefore its norm can be estimated by the norms of solutions $u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,e_{\pm})$. For them we have from by Lemma \[lem II tech 2\]: $$u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,e_+)=(1+\delta_{17}(\varepsilon))u_{I-II}^+(t,\varepsilon)+\delta_{18}(\varepsilon)u_{I-II}^-(t,\varepsilon),$$ $$u_{I-II}(t,\varepsilon,e_-)=\delta_{19}(\varepsilon)u_{I-II}^+(t,\varepsilon)+(1+\delta_{20}(\varepsilon))u_{I-II}^-(t,\varepsilon)$$ with some $\delta_{17}(\varepsilon),\delta_{18}(\varepsilon),\delta_{19}(\varepsilon),\delta_{20}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$. Therefore means that $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|F(t,t_{I-II},\varepsilon)\|
=O\left(\exp\left(\int_{t_{I-II}}^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)d\tau}{\varepsilon}\right)\right)
\text{ as }\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+.$$ This estimate together with the estimate of $u_2^+(t_{I-II},\varepsilon,f_-)$ by Lemma \[lem I result\] imply that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f_-)\|\le
\\
\|u_2^+(t_{I-II},\varepsilon,f_-)\|\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|F(t,t_{I-II},\varepsilon)\|
=o\left(\exp\left(\int_0^{t_0}\frac{\lambda_I(\tau)d\tau}{\varepsilon}\right)\right),\end{gathered}$$ which is the desired estimate.
To prove for $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0^-$ consider the solution $u_2^-(t,\varepsilon,f)$ of the system $$u_2^-\,'(t)
=\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & \frac12 \\
-\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
+R_2^-(t,\varepsilon)\right)u_2^-(t).$$ If one takes $u_2^-(t)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
u_2^+(t)$, this system turns into the following: $$\label{system u 2- transformed to +}
u_2^+\,'(t)
=\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} & -\frac12 \\
\frac12 & -\frac{\beta}{t^{\gamma}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
+
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_2^-(t,\varepsilon)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\right)u_2^+(t).$$ If one proves that the asymptotics as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ of the solution $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)u_2^-(t,\varepsilon,f)$$ in the region $I$, namely at the point $t_{I-II}$, coincides with the asymptotics of the solution $u_2^+(t,\varepsilon,f)$ at the same point (which is given by Lemma \[lem I result\]), then the rest follows automatically. This is because Lemmas \[lem V answer\], \[lem II result\], \[lem IV result\] and \[lem III main\] are directly applicable to the system and the matching procedure (or estimating, in the case $f=f_-$) works for the solution $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)u_2^-$ literally as above. Hence the asymptotic behaviour of the norm is the same. In the argument of Section \[section I\] every estimate and convergence remain the same as for the case of $u_2^+$, except the calculation . In an analogue of that calculation one finally arrives at $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{-\frac1{\gamma}}t}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \exp\left(-\frac2{\varepsilon}\int_{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}^t\lambda_I\right) \\
\end{array}
\right)
T_I^{-1}(\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\times
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right) & \sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right)
\\
\sin\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right) & -\cos\left(\frac{\varepsilon_0 x}{2}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
R(x,\varepsilon_0)u(x,\varepsilon_0,f)
\exp\left(-\frac1{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon_0^{\frac1{\gamma}}x}\lambda_I\right)dx,\end{gathered}$$ which differs from the result of the calculation by presence of the matrix $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)$. Since $T_I(t)\rightarrow I$ as $t\rightarrow0$, in the limit as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^+$ this term affects the lower component which goes to zero for the same reason as in the case of $u_2^+$, so the result is still the same. This proves for $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0^-$ and completes the proof of Theorem \[thm model problem\].
Proof of the main result {#section proof}
========================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm gamma<1\] putting together everything that was obtained in the previous sections.
Consider the critical point $\nu_{cr}$ and let $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$. By Lemma \[lem reduction\] there exists the neighbourhood $U_{cr}$, and there the eigenfunction equation for the operator $\mathcal L_{\alpha}$ is equivalent to the system $$w_{cr}'(x)=
\left(
\frac{\beta_{cr}}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x) & \sin(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x)
\\
\sin(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x) & -\cos(\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)x)
\end{array}
\right)
+
R_{cr}(x,\lambda)
\right)
w_{cr}(x).$$ Rewrite this system as $$u'(x)=
\left(
\frac{\beta_{cr}}{x^{\gamma}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\varepsilon_0x) & \sin(\varepsilon_0x)
\\
\sin(\varepsilon_0x) & -\cos(\varepsilon_0x)
\end{array}
\right)
+
R_{cr}(x,\lambda(\varepsilon_0))
\right)
u(x)$$ with $\lambda(\varepsilon_0)=\varepsilon_{cr}^{-1}(\varepsilon_0)$, which means that $\lambda$ is parametrised by $\varepsilon_0$ so that $\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)=\varepsilon_0$. Properties of the remainder provided by Lemma \[lem reduction\] are such that the conditions and are satisfied. By Lemma \[lem model problem individual asymptotics\] there exists $f_{cr-}\in\mathbb C^2\backslash\{0\}$ such that the solution $u_{cr}(x,0,f)$ has the asymptotics $$u_{cr}(x,0,f_{cr-})=\exp\left(-\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(e_-+o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty$$ and for $f\nparallel f_{cr-}$ $$u_{cr}(x,0,f)=\exp\left(\frac{\beta_{cr}x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}\right)(\Phi_{cr}(f)e_++o(1))
\text{ as }x\rightarrow+\infty.$$ In fact, the matrix $R_{cr}$ has real entries, so $f_{cr-}\in\mathbb R^2\backslash\{0\}$. Moreover, comparing these asymptotics with and provided by Lemma \[lem reduction\], we see that $$f_{cr-}=\frac{g_{cr,\alpha_{cr}}}{d_{cr-}}$$ and $$\label{relation Phi to sin}
\Phi_{cr}(f_{cr,\alpha})=d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr}).$$ Since $\alpha\neq\alpha_{cr}$, the vectors $g_{cr,\alpha}$ and $f_{cr-}$ are linearly independent and so, by Lemma \[lem II tech 2\], $$w_{cr,\alpha}(0,\lambda(\varepsilon_0))=(1+\delta_{21}(\varepsilon_0))g_{cr,\alpha}+\delta_{22}(\varepsilon_0)f_{cr-}$$ with some $\delta_{21}(\varepsilon),\delta_{22}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$. Therefore $$\label{relation w u}
w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda(\varepsilon_0))=(1+\delta_{21}(\varepsilon_0))u(x,\varepsilon_0,g_{cr,\alpha})
+\delta_{22}(\varepsilon_0)u(x,\varepsilon_0,f_{cr-}).$$ By Theorem \[thm model problem\] using the relation we have $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_{cr}(x,\varepsilon_0,g_{cr,\alpha})\|
=
C_{mp}(\beta_{cr},\gamma)\exp
\left(
\frac1{|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}\int_0^{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta_{cr}^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)
\\
\times
(|d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})|+o(1)),\end{gathered}$$ and $$\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\|u_{cr}(x,\varepsilon_0,f_{cr-})\|
=
o\left(
\exp
\left(
\frac1{|\varepsilon_0|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}\int_0^{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta_{cr}^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)
\right)$$ as $\varepsilon_0\rightarrow0$. With these asymptotics it follows from that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\|w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)\|
=
C_{mp}(\beta_{cr},\gamma)\exp
\left(
\frac1{|\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}\int_0^{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta_{cr}^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)
\\
\times
(|d_{cr+}\sin(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})|+o(1))
\text{ as }\lambda\rightarrow\nu_{cr}.\end{gathered}$$ Since, by Proposition \[prop Titchmarsh–Weyl formula\] and the equality , $$\rho'_{\alpha}(\lambda)=\frac1{2\pi|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)| \; |A_{\alpha}(\lambda)|^2}
=\frac1{2\pi|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\lambda)| \left\|\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow+\infty}w_{cr,\alpha}(x,\lambda)\right\|^2},$$ using continuity of $W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\cdot)$ we have $$\label{proof eq 1}
\rho'_{\alpha}(\lambda)=\frac{a_{cr}}{d_{cr+}^2\sin^2(\alpha-\alpha_{cr})}
\exp
\left(-
\frac2{|\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}
\int_0^{(2\beta_{cr})^{\frac1{\gamma}}}\sqrt{\frac{\beta_{cr}^2}{t^{2\gamma}}-\frac14}dt
\right)(1+o(1)),$$ where $$a_{cr}=\frac1{2\pi|W\{\psi_+,\psi_-\}(\nu_{cr})|C_{mp}^2(\beta_{cr},\gamma)},$$ which coincides with after substitution of $C_{mp}$ from . Using the property we have $$\frac1{|\varepsilon_{cr}(\lambda)|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}
=
\frac1{|\lambda-\nu_{cr}|^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}}
\left(
\frac a{2\pi k'(\nu_{cr})}
\right)^{\frac{1-\gamma}{\gamma}}
(1+O(|\lambda-\nu_{cr}|^{\frac1{\gamma}}))
\text{ as }\lambda\rightarrow\nu_{cr}.$$ Substituting this and the result of the calculation into we finally arrive at the asymptotics with $c_{cr}$ given by . This completes the proof.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Sergey Naboko for proposing this problem and his interest to this work and to Daphne Gilbert for her constant attention and help. This work was supported by the Irish Research Council (Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship in Science, Engineering and Technology).
[10]{}
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. . Dover publications, 1964.
H. Behncke. . , 111:373–384, 1991.
H. Behncke. . , 71(1):163–181, 1991.
H. Behncke. . , 35(4):1445–1462, 1994.
V. S. Buslaev and V. B. Matveev. . , 2(3):266–274, 1970.
V. S. Buslaev and M. M. Skriganov. . , 19(2):465–476, 1974.
F. Capasso, C. Sirtori, J. Faist, D. L. Sivco, S. N. G. Chu, and A. Y. Cho. . , 358:565–567, 1992.
E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson. . McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955.
J. Cruz-Sampedro, I. Herbst, and R. Martínez-Avendaño. . , 3(2):331–345, 2002.
D. Damanik and B. Simon. . , 165(1):1–50, 2006. arXiv:math/0502486v1.
M. S. P. Eastham. . Edinburgh, 1973.
D. J. Gilbert and D. B. Pearson. . , 128(1):30–56, 1987.
W. A. Harris and D. A Lutz. . , 51:76–93, 1975.
D. B. Hinton, M. Klaus, and J. K. Shaw. . , 3(3):607–646, 1991.
J. Janas and S. Simonov. . , 201(2):167–189, 2010. arXiv: 1003.3319.
S. Y. Jitomirskaya and Y. Last. . , 76(11):1765–1769, 1996.
M. Klaus. . , 32:163–174, 1991.
K. Kodaira. . , 71(4):921–945, 1949.
Y. Kreimer, Y. Last, and B. Simon. . , 157(2):144–171, 2009.
P. Kurasov. . , 25(4):287–297, 1992.
P. Kurasov. . , 12(3):295–307, 1996.
P. Kurasov and S. Naboko. . , 142(01):161–183, 2007.
P. Kurasov and S. Simonov. . , 143A:401–425, 2013. arXiv: 1102.5213.
B. Levitan and I. Sargsyan. . AMS, 1975.
M. Lukic. . , 306(2):485–509, 2011. arXiv:1008.3844, mp\_arc 10-129.
M. Lukic. .
M. Lukic and D. Ong. . , 367(1):707–724, 2015.
V. B. Matveev. . , 15(3):574–583, 1973.
S. Naboko and S. Simonov. . , 153(1):33–58, 2012. arXiv: 1102.5207.
P. N. Nesterov. Averaging method in the asymptotic integration problem for systems with oscillatory-decreasing coefficients. , 43(6):745–756, 2007.
C. Remling. . , 206(2):352–363, 1997.
S. Simonov. . , 73(3):351–364, 2012. arXiv: 1203.1935.
E. C. Titchmarsh. . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946.
J. von Neumann and E. P. Wigner. . , 30:465–467, 1929.
W. Wasow. . Dover Publications, 1965.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Agile methods have gotten a good reputation for managing projects in many different sectors. A challenge among practitioners in the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) domain, is to decide if an agile method is suitable or not for new projects. This study investigates how decision-makers select between agile and plan-driven ERP implementation projects in relation to known factors from previous research. We selected projects that the decision-makers assessed as successful, but borderline, agile and plan-driven projects already implemented and let project managers fill out a survey consisting of key agile or plan-driven characteristics. We found that the assessment made by decision-makers did not differ on any aspects except higher executive buy-in for process change, and the prioritization of low cost in the agile projects. This study highlights the difficulty in selecting implementation strategy for a large part of the ERP implementations, and the data show that the decision-makers could not make such a decision at an early point in time without contextual knowledge.
project management, strategic decision making, empirical study, enterprise resource planning systems
author:
- Lucas Gren
- Alexander Wong
- Erik Kristoffersson
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Choosing agile or plan-driven enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementations\
— A study on 21 implementations from 20 companies
---
Introduction
============
Plan-driven methods encourage detailed planning from the beginning of a project. Its most well known instantiation is the waterfall process. The waterfall process typically enables good performance when requirements are predictable, technologies are feasible, and plans are irrevocable [@royce]. However, when this is not the case, the most logical solution is to simply evolve the product as the client’s needs change along the project development process. This shows the need for a method to be more flexible than a formal waterfall approach. Hence the shifting trend to the more iterative or incremental style of agile methods [@kerzner].
Another reason to why firms adopt agile methods is the rapidly changing market situation of today. Agile methods offer a combination of disciplined execution and innovation. Irrespective if companies are selling products or consulting services, meeting the market’s demand becomes increasingly important. The embedded incremental approach in agile methods makes it easier to meet market demand and adapt to its change. What was set as a requirement a year ago, can become obsolete when it reaches the market. When working with plan-driven project methods one face a risk that time and resources are invested in the wrong things. Agile methods reduce this risk [@holmstrom].
What makes agile methods interesting is that they seem successful. The IT industry is in general enthusiastic about agile methods and it is one of the most important trends. In academic literature agile methods are describes as “examples of apparently major success stories” [@agerfalk]. Qumer et al. [@qumer] claim that the phenomenon has meant “unprecedented changes to the software engineering field”. A recent large empirical study from 2015 including 1002 projects shows that agility does contribute to project success (mainly efficiency and overall stakeholder satisfaction) [@serrador]. At the same time, Agerfalk et al. [@agerfalk] as well as Dingsoyr et al. [@dingso2012], have emphasized that research yet has not answered the questions of how, why and in which contexts agile methods truly work. This creates challenges for managers who shall decide if to apply a plan-driven or agile project method. Research on agile methods is, in general, weak in theory [@dingso2012], hence no dominant theoretical perspective on the understanding of agile methods has been established, such as when to apply an agile project method instead of a traditional plan-driven method, such as Waterfall.
Most companies which claim to manage projects according to an agile method, are in practice applying a mixture of agile and plan-driven methods [@west]. This mixture is not necessarily bad as e.g. organizational context may be less adapted to a pure agile method. There are many factors which impact whether a plan-driven or an agile method is best suited for a certain project, but none of the ones found in the public domain has any empirical validation presented in connection to it.
Agile development processes have spread to most aspects of software engineering and systems development. Also, at a larger company, such as SAP AG, the implementation of agile principles seem to increase customer satisfaction, give better results, and project also report effort savings of up to 20%, according to an internal report [@sean]. The agile method says that smaller teams perform better and should not be more than five to nine members. Just like any big projects, SAP implementations need multiple small teams and interaction that fit the more classical standard SAP implementation milestones around the agile project [@sean]. This means that SAP implementations need more of a Water-Scrum-Fall process and keep their heritage of good architectural planing and rigorous testing. Many companies adapt the “agile methods” to their own context in such a way today [@west].
At SAP AG they have experimented with using the agile method Scrum in the development phase of implementation projects since 2011. SAP divided the project types in three delivery models: 1. Assemble-to-Order Projects, 2. Design-Based Projects, and 3. Industrialized Projects, at the time of this research. The first one used an agile method as default due to the preferences of these types of project. The last one needed a rigorous planned approach and could leverage agile in some enhancements only. The tricky part was to know and navigate through the middle type of project, i.e. the Design-Based ones. The Design-Based projects could be helped by an agile method if the project had emerging requirements and were innovative. It would therefore be interesting to see if/decision-makers distinguish between projects that already have selected an agile method from projects that did not on a set of characteristics defined in previous research. This study put together agile discontinuing factors based on previous research (on agile potential [@datta], discontinuing factors [@sidkyphd], and agile/plan-driven risks [@boehm2003]) together with expert opinions from SAP practitioners involved in the projects, to see if the two types of project are assessed differently by the project managers on any of the items in the measurements. Since the decision of which method to use is at an early stage in the planning process (i.e. on a strategic level), the experts assessed which of the items (and added more if necessary to them) in the tool that could be assessed at the project stage they are in when they are forced make the decision.
Hence, the aim of the research is to investigate if decision-makers can distinguish how agile and plan-driven projects differ in their strategic characteristics in the ERP domain by having the decision-makers assess the projects on a set of typical characteristics taken from previous research, and also let them assess the appropriateness of the selected implementation type.
#### Research Question
- “Can decision-makers separate between how agile and plan-driven good-fit projects differ in their strategic characteristics in the ERP domain?
Agile Project Management {#sec:apm}
========================
Agility – The Strategic Perspective {#sec:backlitagile}
-----------------------------------
Even though the word agile is not present in the traditional management literature the underlying meaning of the concept is not new. The early organizational theorists, such as Taylor, Fayol, and Ford planned on the basis of a fundamental view that the world is predictable and therefore planning is essential [@eriksson]. After their great days of management in the early 1900s, the management literature moved increasingly towards the notion of greater flexibility.
[@mintzberg] argues that strategic planning does not work and advocates strategic thinking for companies who want to be successful. The argument is that the outside world is not possible to predict, i.e., there is no single best way. Instead, the author claims that a strategy that is flexible and adaptable is beneficial. [@weick1993] have congruent ideas and specifies “bricolage” (do-it-yourself) skills as a valuable asset; the belief being that a successful employee should have the ability to act on his/her own, when necessary. In various articles and books Weick (e.g., [@weickbook; @weick1993]) gives examples of people and situations in which this quality proved successful. [@agyris1977] promoted the idea of double-loop learning as a positive, but difficult to achieve, characteristic of an organization. By doing, evaluating, and doing again, an organization can constantly advance in the production and learn from the mistakes made. In the same context a successful Japanese management method in the 1980s was produced, called Kaizen, emphasizing continuous improvement. It was sprung from the successful Japanese automotive industry and had a high impact on later management ideas [@eriksson].
Agile methods emphasize the importance of employees to devote themselves more towards the production and less to the documentation work. Daily meetings and frequent customer contacts replaces a deliberate strategy and careful planning. Congruent to the Kaizen or the double-loop learning methods, the agile method can take different paths through a project. There is an acceptance for changing the plan. Bricolage is valued and strong similarities with autonomous groups can be observed. What possibly is new with the agile ideas is that the product itself may evolve in several directions. Kaizen, autonomous groups and Total Quality Management (TQM) are much about developing methods of production and improve the quality, but do not focus (in the short time perspective) on that the end product itself can take many different forms. In the software industry, where the agile methods were first introduced, this is a fact today [@agilecobb].
The implications for working in an agile way are that you wish to receive usable results quickly; the product should be functional in an early stage and then developed continuously in collaboration with the client. According to [@agilecobb] the agile principles are usable when the project has undefined demands, or when the client does not really know what she or he asks for. The principles are therefore less suitable when the opposite situation occurs; agreements with a firm frame that are extremely specified. [@kotter] write that the biggest challenge for today’s companies is to satisfy the demands of flexibility in a rapidly changing environment. They claim that every company that manages to survive the start-up process is optimized for efficiency rather than strategic flexibility. They compare a company’s management to an operative system (suitable to the agile theme) that is optimized for a “day-to-day business”, but less adapted to the rapidly changing environment. The reason why these types of methods have become so popular in software engineering is probably because companies in that business sector have to be agile or else they will die out and be replaced. In other sectors in the corporate world organizations have not yet met the extreme conditions and environment that exists in software engineering, but they are getting there. That is probably why the “agile” thinking first surfaced in management, were fully adopted by the software industry, and now spread back to management under a different name.
Plan-Driven vs. Agile Method {#sec:planagile}
----------------------------
An agile method description is typically designed as a set of recommended practical arrangements (e.g. roles, meeting procedures, documents and other tangible organizational arrangements) which claims to have a positive impact on the participant’s engagement, flexibility, and productivity. In agile methods, the importance of the development team’s autonomy is stressed. The practical design of roles, meeting procedures etc. should continuously be adapted to local needs, both within the organization and in to the specific project, even during the ongoing project. But without a solid explanation of how the agile arrangements impact the participants, every local adaptation may become a conjecture according to [@dybaa]. The adaptations are often based on fragmented experiences and intuition, and with some bad luck they become ineffective or even counteract their purpose. [@nerur] explain the differences between the two methods in Table \[tradplan\].
[p[0.22]{}||p[0.33]{}||p[0.33]{}]{} **& **Traditional & **Agile\
**Fundamental Assumptions & Systems are fully specifiable, predictable, and can be built through meticulous and extensive planning. & High-quality, adaptive software can be developed by small teams using the principles of continuous design improvement and testing based on rapid feedback and change.\
**Control & Process centric & People centric\
**Management Style & Command-and-control & Leadership-and-collaboration\
**Knowledge Management & Explicit & Tacit\
**Role Assignment & Individual – favors specialization & Self-organizing teams – encourage role interchangeability\
****************
**Communication & Formal & Informal\
**Customer’s Role & Important & Critical\
**Project Cycle & Guided by tasks or activities & Guided by product features\
**Development Model & Life-cycle model (Waterfall, Spiral, or some variation) & The evolutionary delivery model\
**Desired Organizational Form /Structure & Mechanistic (bureaucratic with high formalization) & Organic (flexible and participative encouraging cooperative social action)\
**Technology & No restriction & Favors object-oriented technology\
************
Research on success factors for ERP implementations {#sec:planagile}
===================================================
An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is an information system that today is enterprise-wide. It is a software used to effectively plan and manage all resources of the organization. The initial use of IT in production was to plan and manage material and were therefore initially called material requirements planning (MRP) systems. The demand for integrated information systems and increased competitiveness made ERP vendors extend their software to more aspects of the enterprise and renamed their software to ERPs (enterprise resource planning). An even further demand to also cover supply chain management (SCM), supplier relationship management (SRM) and customer relationship management (CRM) lead to calling the systems ERPII systems [@koh2011drivers].
There has been some studies conducted to explain what factors that make an ERP implementation successful. Koh et al. [@koh2011drivers] conclude that the strategic partnership between the vendor and the customer is the key success factor for any enterprise-wide implementation.
Bradley [@bradley2008management] investigated project success in relation to previously suggested factors in relation to ERP implementations. The factors that differentiated between successful and less successful projects were: (1) choosing the right full time project manager, (2) training of personnel, and (3) the presence of a champion. Unsupported differentiators were (1) the use of consultants, (2) the role of management to reduce user resistance, (3) the use of a steering committee to control the project, (4) integration of ERP planning with business planning, (5) reporting level of the project manager, (6) active participation of the CEO beyond project approvals, (7) resource allocation, and (8) occasional project review.
To summarize, the related work found is in relation to plan-driven project management and we found no rigorous academic studies on the agile approach to ERP projects, only smaller statements on the existing integration of agile ideas into ERP software (see e.g. [@nagpal2015comparative]).
Agile Fit Tools {#sec:related_work}
===============
The following section presents three different tools, that have been suggested by researchers, to evaluate the suitability of an agile approach on a strategic level. The reason for selecting these three tools was that they were the only ones found with a high-level approach to agility included. We looked for overall characteristics to assess the suitable project approach at an early point in time.
Agility Measurement Index {#sub:agility_measurement_index}
-------------------------
Datta [@datta] describes an Agility Measurement Index as an indicator for determining which method of Waterfall, Unified Software Development Process (UP), or eXtreme Programming (XP) should be used. Where Waterfall is plan-driven, UP is considered to be in the middle, and XP is an agile method. The author suggests five dimensions of a software development project that should be taken into account:
- Duration (D): How far ahead the deadline is.
- Risk (R): The impact of the project deliverable when it is in use, and it malfunctions.
- Novelty (N): If it is a brand new context for this type of product.
- Effort (E): Time the customer is willing to put into the project.
- Interaction (I): The amount of interaction between group members and customers during the project.
Each dimension is given a minimum $x$ score and a maximum $y$ score according to how complex the different aspects are in each organization. After this an actual score $a$ is set for the specific project (based on the range between $x$ and $y$). The Agility Measurement Index $\mathrm{AMI}$ is then defined as,
$$\mathrm{AMI} = \frac{\sum a_{i}}{\sum y_{i}}$$
A low score means that the project has short duration, low risk, etc. and thus a Waterfall approach is suggested [@datta].
Using Risk to Balance Agile and Plan-Driven Methods {#sub:risk}
---------------------------------------------------
Another useful way of looking at these different types of projects is to look at the risks of using one or the other for a specific project. Their first step is to apply risk analysis to see if the project fits any of the agile or plan-driven home-grounds [@boehm20]. The dimensions used for this assessment are:
1. $Application$: Primary goals, Size, and Environment.
2. $Management$: Customer relations, Planning and control, and Communications.
3. $Technical$: Requirements, Development, and Tests.
4. $Personnel$: Customers, Developers, and Culture [@boehm20].
Regarding aspect 1 the agile home-ground is rapid value and responding to change. The plan-driven home-ground is in that case predictability, stability, and high assurance. Agile projects should also have smaller teams compared to good plan-driven fits. The environment is also turbulent with a high change rate and more focused on the own project. Aspect 2 includes that the customer relations in agile is intimate and focused on prioritized increments while plan-driven has as-needed customer interactions and focus on contracts. The planning and control mechanisms are more qualitative in agile projects and more quantitative in plan-driven ones. Regarding communications, the agile project is seen to have tacit interpersonal knowledge while the plan-driven has explicit documented knowledge. The technical aspects of point 3 is that requirements are more informal rapidly changing user stories in agile and built on an extensive design with a foreseeable requirements evolution in plan-driven. The development of agile is short increments and under the assumption the re-factoring is cheap. The plan-driven home-ground has documented test plans and procedures, which agile has not. Aspect 4 states that agile projects has collocated customers that are dedicated and the developers are much more technically skilled and a culture of comfort, empowerment with many degrees of freedom. Pure plan-driven project thrive on order and have comfort and empowerment via framework of policies and procedures [@boehm20].
Agile Adoption Framework {#sub:agile_adoption_framework}
------------------------
In order to define which agile methods an organization is ready to use, Sidky [@sidkyphd] suggests a method he calls the Agile Adoption Framework. He motivates its use by arguing that even though there are many success stories in agile development, they are not really generalizable. Sidky [@sidkyphd] then criticizes the framework created by [@boehm20] presented above, since it addresses agility in its generic form and not the actual practices. The transition to agile principles is tricky on a number of aspects, according to Sidky [@sidkyphd]. These are to:
1. Introduce structure in a complex and unpredictable process like that of agile development.
2. Measure and assess agility independent of agile methods.
3. Accommodate project and organizational characteristics influencing agile adoption efforts.
4. Ensure that the framework guides adoption effort in an efficient and effective manner.
Sidky [@sidkyphd] then makes claims that his approach deals with all these points. The approach is based on a tool that has two parts. The first part is called the Agile Measurement Index (it is the same name as Datta [@datta] uses, but it is a different tool) and serves the purpose of being:
- A tool for measuring and assessing the agile potential of an organization independent of any particular agile method.
- A scale for identifying the agile target level.
- Helpful when organizing and grouping the agile practices in a structured manner based on essential agile qualities and business values.
- Able to provide a hierarchy of measurable indicators used to determine the agility of an organization.
The second part is the use of the Agile Measurement Index through a four-stage process that will assess, firstly, if there are discontinuing factors, secondly, an assessment at project level, thirdly, an organizational readiness assessment, and lastly, a reconciliation phase. In this study we are interested in the high-level discontinuing factors.
The discontinuing factors (or deal breakers or showstoppers) are critical overall aspects that need to be in place for agile software development to have a chance at working well. These are:
- Inappropriate Need for Agility
- Historical Project Schedules and Budgets
- Challenges with current software process
- Rate of Change of Project Requirements
- Time to Market Needed for Project
- Lack of Sufficient Funds
- Availability of Funds
- Absence of Executive Support
- Executive Management Buy-in
The three tools suggested in this section were synthesized into the survey used in this study, which is described in more detail in the next section.
Method {#sec:meth}
======
To investigate if decision-makers assess agile or plan-driven projects differently, we used the Agile Fit Tools presented in the previous section to develop a survey to be filled out by project managers for existing implementations, i.e. we collected real project data from current and past agile and plan-driven implementation projects. We were looking at good agile fits or good traditional fits only, i.e. we were only looking for the projects that are ideal at each side of the agile/traditional plan-based spectrum.
Subjects {#sec:ss}
--------
The research subjects, SAP customers, were selected by implementation experts within SAP. The selected companies were appointed by the regional agile implementation responsible from those continents, and the assessments were done by a person with an overview of the project on the SAP-side. The persons responsible for the continents were the ones giving feedback on the first version of the survey, and we received data from 6 organizations in North America, 3 in the Asia-Pacific region, 7 from Europe, and 5 from Latin America. The sample in this study was 21 projects from 20 companies (two project from the same company), and the 10 agile projects in this study were close to the only ones existing in the world within SAP (we know about a few more we did not get any response from). This means that the data in this study reflect almost the whole current population, and the industries represented in out data. Figure \[fig:pieind\] shows the distribution of industries for the given sample.
\[fig:pieind\] 
Data Collection {#sec:dc}
---------------
The initial feedback from the persons responsible for each continent, except Western Asia and Africa, ($N=4$) were either via email or teleconference. The feedback regarded their experience in connection to what to alter or add/remove from the survey. The survey was then sent to the 21 managers involved in each project. Ten of them were stating that their projects were a good agile fit and eleven stated that their project was a good fit for the plan-driven approach. However, they were all design-based projects, which means they were all what was considered the middle-ground by SAP. The surveys were collected via an emailed offline spreadsheet.
Survey {#sec:survey}
------
When creating the survey we first summarized all categories included in the methods presented under the Agile Fit Tools section and the feedback received from the agile experts within SAP (the “agile process” responsible for each continent). We then compared them to each other and made sure all characteristics were covered in our own survey items. After this, the survey questions were tweaked to fit the SAP-specific context. The complete survey is shown in Table \[fig:survey\] shows the items as they are stated in related work and not the SAP-specific version. One critical difference between ERP implementations and many other projects is that they are always carried out at the customer-site. Therefore, critical questions about customer contact were left out due to the fact that these types of projects are always run within the customer organization.
The questions from Sidky [@sidkyphd] regarding Executive management buy-in were initially included but later removed from the discussion because all these items (items 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 seen in Table \[fig:survey\]) included the words “agile” or “agility”. It is evident that traditional projects get lower scores on items including this vocabulary and are therefore not very useful to analyze.
Data Analysis {#sec:da}
-------------
Depending on the type of variable we conducted different analyses. Since we want to test if the survey items are different when it comes to chosen approach (agile or plan-driven) our dependent variable is categorical. Some of our independent variables were also categorical and with such a small sample size we also have the issue of not being able to assume normality, so we can not use Pearson’s $\chi^2$ test for example. Therefore we used a Fisher’s Exact Test or an Exact Contingency Table (i.e. randomization tests) for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for the independent variables measured on an interval scale.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The result of building the survey was to exclude some items due to the feedback received that such items can not be assessed at that strategic and early point in time. They were therefore left out and only the ones stated as possible to assess at an early stage were kept in the survey. Also, the questions regarding the respondents view of agility (items 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22) were expected to be significantly different since these items are about view of agility. These are important to have in the analysis criteria but are not presented here since they were obviously different for the collected samples (our statistical tests also confirmed this).
The wording is slightly changed here to protect the intellectual property of the tool, but the meaning is the same however on a higher level of abstraction than the specific SAP case.
None of the Fisher’s Exact Tests were significant at $\alpha = 0.05$ (two-tailed tests). We used the same method for the variable Priority of Time, Quality, and Cost. This categorical variable has six levels and we therefore used a $2\times6$ Exact Contingency Table (see Table \[exact\]). The sum of the probabilities of “unusual” tables was $p = 0.058$ so we conclude that it is unlikely that we observed such a table randomly, even if the value is slightly higher than 0.05, and we therefore reject the null hypothesis of independence (see e.g. [@everitt] for more details on this statistical method). To get an idea of the effect size, we can see that there is a 100% chance that an agile project would prioritize Cost first (before both Quality and Time) for our sample. We can therefore reject the null hypothesis of Cost being of equal priority with 94.2% probability in favor of the alternative hypothesis of that cost was more of a priority for the agile projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- --
**& **Q1T2C3 & **Q1T3C2 & **Q2T1C3 & **Q2T3C1 & **Q3T1C2 & **Q3T2C1 & Total\
Agile & 1 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 1 & 3 & 10\
Non-Agile & 5 & 2 & 3 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 11\
Total & 6 & 3 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 21\
$p$ for agile & .17 & .33 & .25 & 1 & .5 & 1\
**************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Exact Contingency Table for item the prioritization of quality, time, and cost.[]{data-label="exact"}
Only one of the items in an interval scale were statistically significant, i.e. Insufficient current development process, meaning that the previously used project method was regarded as insufficient by the customers. The mean rank for the agile group was 12.79 and 7.41 in the plan-driven group ($p=0.035$).
We will now discuss the results and draw conclusions.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
This study set out to investigate if decision-makers can distinguish between good agile and plan-driven fit projects on a set of survey items in order to see if such decisions make sense at such an early point in time.
The major finding is that we found little support in our data that the decision-makers can distinguish between agile and traditional projects the design-based category. We found a significant difference in that the projects had chosen an agile approach to cut costs. This is generally not a good idea since a change in process has a learning curve connected to it. An agile approach does not necessarily cut costs, but increases customer satisfaction and project success instead [@serrador]. Nevertheless, the participating agile projects were assessed as having costs as a higher priority then the plan-driven ones, a priority which can be explained by the different commercial setups between plan-driven and agile projects. While plan-based projects typically are fixed-price, and agile projects is more targeted to “pay as you deliver,” the need for cost control increases in agile projects.
A reason for trying a new implementation method could simply be to replace one that is not satisfactory. The question is if a change is inherently good just because it is a change, probably not always. The participating agile projects were assessed as having a higher degree of discontent with the current implementation method, meaning when the choice was made to implement the next one using the agile modifications, which, on the other hand, is a prerequisite for successful change, i.e. to believe the change is necessary [@lenberg2017initial].
This study therefore confirms the conclusion made by Koh et al. [@koh2011drivers] that it is very difficult for management to know, especially at an early stage, what will make an ERP implementation succeed or fail. The only significant differences we managed to find were prioritizing costs over time and quality, and if the customer see a need to change the current process of implementation. These are very general aspects of any change effort and we did not find that decision-makers could assess any real process-related differences between agile and plan-driven design-based projects. Therefore, we conclude that, in the ERP domain, we know which implementation strategy to choose in extreme cases (stable requirements or unknown and/or changing ones), but in the middle, it is very difficult to assess differences when the decisions were actually made.
Of course we have other success factors of an agile method, e.g. team capability, organizational culture, and empowerment of the team are important critical success factors for example [@chow; @sheffield]. A collocated high performing team with good leadership would also most likely have a better chance at succeeding with an agile approach [@grenjss2; @bradley2008management]. However, such information and in-depth analysis was not known by the decision maker in our study that had to select implementation method. Therefore, we conclude that the vendor needs deeper knowledge of the customer in order to select between the agile and plan-driven implementation strategies in many cases.
Validity Threats {#sec:vt}
----------------
The largest threat against this study is the small sample size. Even if it is almost a full coverage of the intended population in the SAP context having data from other software implementations would, of course, be advantageous. However, we believe the interesting aspect in this case is the difference between agile and plan-driven projects as assessed by the decision-makers, not difference in software. From this perspective the given data sample is diverse with 21 different projects from four different continents of the world.
Another threat is that the assessments were conducted by the project responsible on the SAP-side. This means we only investigated the perception of the vendor, which might differ somewhat from the customers’ perception of process and project success. There is also a possibility that the assessment made by the experts were not as informed as we hope. There might be other criteria in the organizations that made the project at hand perceived as a good fit for an agile or plan-driven approach. We also think that some items where we did not find significant differences should be more important for an agile approach, like the stability of the teams, or changing or unknown requirements for example. Perhaps, unstable teams and changing requirements cause as much trouble for both plan-driven and agile middle-ground projects in the ERP context since even the agile alternative should be seen as a hybrid.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusions_and_future_work}
===========================
This paper set out to see if it is possible for decision-makers to assess the difference (on a strategic level) between good-fit middle-ground projects using an agile and plan-driven ERP implementation (i.e. no clear fit for either method) on a set of survey items based on previous research. Through a statistical analysis, we have found that these projects were not assessed as different on most strategic aspects. The only significant differences we found between these types of project were that they were assessed as having an insufficient current development process, and a prioritization of costs over time and quality. We conclude that it is relatively straight-forward which implementation strategy to choose in extreme cases (stable requirements or highly innovative projects), but in the middle, the decision-makers do not know at an early stage of an implementation project. These findings are important contributions to practitioners planning new projects as well as research by showing empirical data on the difficulty of knowing when to leverage agile implementations in the ERP domain. More studies are needed in other businesses to see how the agile and plan-driven middle ground projects might differ on other aspects than found in this study. We also need larger studies with both more in-depth investigation and larger samples (which will hopefully exist in the future).
We would also like to stress that we only looked at how agile and plan-driven projects perceived as successful in the organization differed. However, the usual definition of successful projects within SAP is in relation to the commonly used aspect of organizational impact and on time and on budget project completion [@bradley2008management].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This study was conducted with SAP AG (http://www.sap.com) and we would like to thank all the customers who shared information.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Existing person re-identification (re-id) methods either assume the availability of well-aligned person bounding box images as model input or rely on constrained attention selection mechanisms to calibrate misaligned images. They are therefore sub-optimal for re-id matching in arbitrarily aligned person images potentially with large human pose variations and unconstrained auto-detection errors. In this work, we show the advantages of jointly learning attention selection and feature representation in a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) by maximising the complementary information of different levels of visual attention subject to re-id discriminative learning constraints. Specifically, we formulate a novel Harmonious Attention CNN (HA-CNN) model for joint learning of soft pixel attention and hard regional attention along with simultaneous optimisation of feature representations, dedicated to optimise person re-id in uncontrolled (misaligned) images. Extensive comparative evaluations validate the superiority of this new HA-CNN model for person re-id over a wide variety of state-of-the-art methods on three large-scale benchmarks including CUHK03, Market-1501, and DukeMTMC-ReID.'
author:
- |
Wei Li$^1$ Xiatian Zhu$^2$ Shaogang Gong$^1$\
Queen Mary University of London$^1$ Vision Semantics Ltd.$^2$\
[{wei.li, s.gong}@qmul.ac.uk]{} [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'reid.bib'
title: 'Harmonious Attention Network for Person Re-Identification'
---
Introduction
============
Person re-identification (re-id) aims to search people across non-overlapping surveillance camera views deployed at different locations by matching person images. In practical re-id scenarios, person images are typically automatically detected for scaling up to large visual data [@zheng2015scalable; @li2014deepreid]. Auto-detected person bounding boxes are typically not optimised for re-id due to misalignment with background clutter, occlusion, missing body parts (Fig. \[fig:reid\]). Additionally, people ([uncooperative)]{} are often captured in various poses across open space and time. These give rise to the notorious image matching [*misalignment*]{} challenge in cross-view re-id [@gong2014person]. There is consequently an inevitable need for [*attention selection*]{} within arbitrarily-aligned bounding boxes as an integral part of model learning for re-id.
There are a few attempts in the literature for solving the problem of re-id attention selection within person bounding boxes. One common strategy is local patch calibration and saliency weighting in pairwise image matching [@SalienceReId_CVPR13; @shen2015person; @zheng2015partial; @hanxiao2014GTS]. However, these methods rely on hand-crafted features without deep learning jointly more expressive feature representations and matching metric holistically (end-to-end). A small number of attention deep learning models for re-id have been recently developed for reducing the negative effect from poor detection and human pose change [@li2017learning; @zhao2017deeply; @su2017pose]. Nevertheless, these deep methods implicitly assume the availability of large labelled training data by simply adopting existing deep architectures with high complexity in model design. Additionally, they often consider only coarse region-level attention whilst ignoring the fine-grained pixel-level saliency. Hence, these techniques are ineffective when only a small set of labelled data is available for model training whilst also facing noisy person images of arbitrary misalignment and background clutter.
In this work, we consider the problem of jointly deep learning attention selection and feature representation for optimising person re-id in a more lightweight (with less parameters) network architecture. The [**contributions**]{} of this work are: [**(I)**]{} We formulate a novel idea of jointly learning multi-granularity attention selection and feature representation for optimising person re-id in deep learning. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt of jointly deep learning multiple complementary attention for solving the person re-id problem. [**(II)**]{} We propose a [*Harmonious Attention Convolutional Neural Network*]{} (HA-CNN) to simultaneously learn hard region-level and soft pixel-level attention within arbitrary person bounding boxes along with re-id feature representations for maximising the correlated complementary information between attention selection and feature discrimination. This is achieved by devising a lightweight Harmonious Attention module capable of efficiently and effectively learning different types of attention from the shared re-id feature representation in a multi-task and end-to-end learning fashion. [**(III)**]{} We introduce a cross-attention interaction learning scheme for further enhancing the compatibility between attention selection and feature representation given re-id discriminative constraints. Extensive comparative evaluations demonstrate the superiority of the proposed HA-CNN model over a wide range of state-of-the-art re-id models on three large benchmarks CUHK03 [@li2014deepreid], Market-1501 [@zheng2015scalable], and DukeMTMC-ReID [@zheng2017unlabeled].
Related Work
============
Most existing person re-id methods focus on supervised learning of identity-discriminative information, including ranking by pairwise constraints [@Anton_2015_CoRR; @wang2016pami], discriminative distance metric learning [@KISSME_CVPR12; @PRD_PAMI13; @xiong2014person; @liao2015person; @zhang2016learning; @chen2017person], and deep learning [@qian2017multi; @li2014deepreid; @chen2016multi; @xiao2016learning; @wangjoint; @li2017person]. These methods assume that person images are well aligned, which is largely invalid given imperfect detection bounding boxes of changing human poses. To overcome this limitation, attention selection techniques have been developed for improving re-id by localised patch matching [@shen2015person; @zheng2015partial] and saliency weighting [@hanxiao2014GTS; @SalienceReId_CVPR13]. These are inherently unsuitable by design to cope with poorly aligned person images, due to their stringent requirement of tight bounding boxes around the whole person and high sensitivity of the hand-crafted features.
Recently, a few attention deep learning methods have been proposed to handle the matching misalignment challenge in re-id [@li2017learning; @zhao2017deeply; @su2017pose; @lan2017deep]. The common strategy of these methods is to incorporate a regional attention selection sub-network into a deep re-id model. For example, Su et al. [@su2017pose] integrate a separately trained pose detection model (from additional labelled pose ground-truth) into a part-based re-id model. Li et al. [@li2017learning] design an end-to-end trainable part-aligning CNN network for locating latent discriminative regions (i.e. hard attention) and subsequently extract and exploit these regional features for performing re-id. Zhao et al. [@zhao2017deeply] exploit the Spatial Transformer Network [@jaderberg2015spatial] as the hard attention model for searching re-id discriminative parts given a pre-defined spatial constraint. However, these models fail to consider the noisy information within selected regions at the pixel level, i.e. no soft attention modelling, which can be important. While soft attention modelling for re-id is considered in [@liu2017hydraplus], this model assumes tight person boxes thus less suitable for poor detections.
The proposed HA-CNN model is designed particularly to address the weaknesses of existing deep methods as above by formulating a joint learning scheme for modelling both soft and hard attention in a single re-id deep model. This is the first attempt of modelling multi-level correlated attention in deep learning for person re-id to our knowledge. In addition, we introduce cross-attention interaction learning for enhancing the complementary effect between different levels of attention subject to re-id discriminative constraints. This is impossible to do for existing methods due to their inherent single level attention modelling. We show the benefits of joint modelling multi-level attention in person re-id in our experiments. Moreover, we also design an efficient attention CNN architecture for improving the model deployment scalability, an under-studied but practically important issue for re-id.
\[h\]
Harmonious Attention Network
============================
Given $n$ training bounding box images $\mathcal{I} = \{ \bm{I}_i \}_{i=1}^n$ from $n_\text{id}$ distinct people captured by non-overlapping camera views together with the corresponding identity labels as $\mathcal{Y} = \{y_i\}_{i=1}^n$ (where $y_i \in [1,\cdots, n_\text{id}]$), we aim to learn a deep feature representation model optimal for person re-id matching under significant viewing condition variations. To this end, we formulate a [*Harmonious Attention Convolutional Neural Network*]{} (HA-CNN) that aims to concurrently learn a set of harmonious attention, global and local feature representations for maximising their complementary benefit and compatibility in terms of both discrimination power and architecture simplicity. Typically, person parts location information is not provided in person re-id image annotation (i.e. only weakly labelled without fine-grained). Therefore, the attention model learning is [*weakly supervised*]{} in the context of optimising re-id performance. Unlike most existing works that simply adopting a standard deep CNN network typically with a large number of model parameters (likely overfit given small size labelled data) and high computational cost in model deployment [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @simonyan2014very; @szegedy2015going; @he2016deep], we design a [*lightweight*]{} (less parameters) yet deep (maintaining strong discriminative power) CNN architecture by devising a [*holistic*]{} attention mechanism for locating the most discriminative pixels and regions in order to identify optimal visual patterns for re-id. We avoid simply stacking many CNN layers to gain model depth.
This is particularly critical for re-id where the label data is often sparse (large models are more likely to overfit in training) and the deployment efficiency is very important (slow feature extraction is not scalable to large surveillance video data).
[**HA-CNN Overview**]{} We consider a multi-branch network architecture for our purpose. The overall objective of this multi-branch scheme and the overall architecture composition is to minimise the model complexity therefore reduce the network parameter size whilst maintaining the optimal network depth. The overall design of our HA-CNN architecture is shown in Fig. \[fig:pipline\]. This HA-CNN model contains two branches: [**(1)**]{} One [*local branch*]{} (consisting of $T$ streams of an identical structure): Each stream aims to learn the most discriminative visual features for one of $T$ local image regions of a person bounding box image. [**(2)**]{} One [*global branch*]{}: This aims to learn the optimal global level features from the entire person image. For both branches, we select the Inception-A/B units [@xiao2016learning; @szegedy2017inception] as the basic building blocks[^1].
In particular, we used 3 Inception-A and 3 Inception-B blocks for building the global branch, and 3 Inception-B blocks for each local stream. The width (channel number) of each Inception is denoted by $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_3$. The global network ends with a *global average pooling* layer and a *fully-connected* (FC) feature layer with 512 outputs. For the local branch, we also use a 512-D FC feature layer which fuses the [global average pooling]{} outputs of all streams. To reduce the model parameter size, we share the first conv layer between global and local branches and the same-layer Inceptions among all local streams. For our HA-CNN model training, we utilise the [*cross-entropy classification loss*]{} function for both global and local branches, which optimise person identity classification.
For attention selection within each bounding box of some unknown misalignment, we consider a [*harmonious attention learning*]{} scheme that aims to jointly learn a set of complementary attention maps including hard (regional) attention for the local branch and soft (spatial/pixel-level and channel/scale-level) attention for the global branch.
We further introduce a [*cross-attention interaction learning*]{} scheme between the local and global branches for further enhancing the harmony and compatibility degree whilst simultaneously optimising per-branch discriminative feature representations.
We shall now describe more details of each component of the network design as follows.
\[!ht\] -0.3cm
Harmonious Attention Learning {#sec:method_attention}
-----------------------------
Conceptually, our Harmonious Attention (HA) is a principled union of [hard]{} [*regional*]{} attention [@jaderberg2015spatial], soft [*spatial*]{} [@wang2017residual] and [*channel*]{} attention [@hu2017squeeze]. This simulates functionally the dorsal and ventral attention mechanism of human brain [@vossel2014dorsal] in the sense of modelling soft and hard attention simultaneously. The soft attention learning aims at selecting the [*fine-grained*]{} important pixels, while the hard attention learning is dedicated to searching the [*coarse*]{} latent ([weakly supervised]{}) discriminative regions. They are thus largely complementary with high compatibility to each other in functionality. Intuitively, their combination can relieve the modelling burden of soft attention and resulting in more discriminative and robust model learning from the same (particularly small) training data. We propose a novel [Harmonious Attention joint learning]{} strategy to unite the three distinct types of attention with only a small number of additional parameters. We take a [*block-wise*]{} (module-wise) attention design, that is, each HA module is specifically optimised to attend the input feature representations at its own level alone. In the CNN hierarchical framework, this naturally allows for [*hierarchical*]{} multi-level attention learning to progressively refine the attention maps, in the spirit of the divide and conquer design [@cormen2009introduction]. As a result, we can significantly reduce the attention search space (i.e. the model optimisation complexity) whilst allow multi-scale selectiveness of hierarchical features to enrich the final feature representations. Such progressive and holistic attention modelling is both intuitive and essential for person re-id due to that (1) the surveillance person images often have cluttered background and uncontrolled appearance variations therefore the optimal attention patterns of different images can be highly variable, and (2) a re-id model typically needs robust (generalisable) model learning given very limited training data (significantly less than common image classification tasks). Next, we describe the design of our Harmonious Attention module in details.
[**(I) Soft Spatial-Channel Attention**]{} The input to a Harmonious Attention module is a 3-D tensor $\bm{X}^{l} \in \mathcal{R}^{h \times w \times c}$ where $h$, $w$, and $c$ denote the number of pixel in the height, width, and channel dimensions respectively; and $l$ indicates the level of this module in the entire network (multiple such modules). Soft spatial-channel attention learning aims to produce a saliency weight map $\bm{A}^{l} \in \mathcal{R}^{h \times w \times c}$ of the same size as $\bm{X}$. Given the largely independent nature between spatial (inter-pixel) and channel (inter-scale) attention, we propose to learn them in a [*joint*]{} but [*factorised*]{} way as: $$\bm{A}^{l} = \bm{S}^{l} \times \bm{C}^{l}$$ where $\bm{S}^{l} \!\in\! \mathcal{R}^{h \times w \times 1}$ and $\bm{C}^{l}\! \in \!\mathcal{R}^{1 \times 1 \times c}$ represent the spatial and channel attention maps, respectively. We perform the attention tensor factorisation by designing a two-branches unit (Fig. \[fig:attentions\](a)): One branch to model the spatial attention $\bm{S}^{l}$ (shared across the channel dimension), and another branch to model the channel attention $\bm{C}^{l}$ (shared across both height and width dimensions).
By this design, we can compute [*efficiently*]{} the full soft attention $\bm{A}^{l}$ from $\bm{C}^{l}$ and $\bm{S}^{l}$ with a tensor multiplication. Our design is more efficient than common tensor factorisation algorithms [@kolda2009tensor] since heavy matrix operations are eliminated.
[***(1) Spatial Attention***]{} We model the spatial attention by a tiny (10 parameters) 4-layers sub-network (Fig. \[fig:attentions\](b)). It consists of a global cross-channel averaging pooling layer (0 parameter), a conv layer of $3\times3$ filter with stride 2 (9 parameters), a resizing bilinear layer (0 parameter), and a scaling conv layer (1 parameter). In particular, the global averaging pooling, defined as, $$\bm{{S}_\text{input}}^{l} = \frac{1}{c} \sum_{i=1}^{c} \bm{X}^{l}_{1:h, 1:w, i}$$ is designed especially to compress the input size of the subsequent conv layer with merely $\frac{1}{c}$ times of parameters needed. This cross-channel pooling is reasonable because in our design all channels share the identical spatial attention map. We finally add the scaling layer for automatically learning an adaptive fusion scale in order to optimally combining the channel attention described next.
[***(2) Channel Attention***]{} We model the channel attention by a small ($2\frac{c^2}{r}$ parameters, see more details below) 4-layers squeeze-and-excitation sub-network (Fig. \[fig:attentions\](c)). Specifically, we first perform a [*squeeze*]{} operation via an averaging pooling layer (0 parameters) for aggregating feature information distributed across the spatial space into a channel signature as $$\bm{{C}_\text{input}}^{l} = \frac{1}{h \times w} \sum_{i=1}^{h} \sum_{j=1}^{w} \bm{X}^{l}_{i,j,1:c}
%\in \mathcal{R}^{c \times 1}
\label{eq:squeeze}$$ This signature conveys the per-channel filter response from the whole image, therefore providing the complete information for the inter-channel dependency modelling in the subsequent [*excitation*]{} operation, formulated as $$\bm{{C}_\text{excitation}}^{l} =\texttt{ReLU}(\ \bm{W}_2^\text{ca} \times \texttt{ReLU}(\bm{W}_1^\text{ca} \bm{{C}_\text{input}}^{l}))
%\in \mathcal{R}^{c \times 1}$$ where $\bm{W}_1^\text{ca} \in \mathcal{R}^{\frac{c}{r} \times c}$ ($\frac{c^2}{r}$ parameters) and $\bm{W}_2^\text{ca} \in \mathcal{R}^{c \times \frac{c}{r}}$ ($\frac{c^2}{r}$ parameters) denote the parameter matrix of 2 conv layers in order respectively, and $r$ ($16$ in our implementation) represents the bottleneck reduction rate. Again, this bottleneck design is for reducing the model parameter number from $c^2$ (using one conv layer) to $(\frac{c^2}{r}\!+\!\frac{c^2}{r})$, e.g. only need $\frac{1}{8}$ times of parameters when $r=16$. For facilitating the combination of the spatial attention and channel attention, we further deploy a $1\!\times \!1\!\times c$ convolution ($c^2$ parameters) layer to compute blended full soft attention after tensor multiplication. This is because the spatial and channel attention are not mutually exclusive but with a co-occurring complementary relationship. Finally, we use the sigmoid operation (0 parameter) to normalise the full soft attention into the range between 0.5 and 1.
[***Remarks***]{} Our model is similar to the Residual Attention (RA) [@wang2017residual] and Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE) [@hu2017squeeze] concepts but with a number of essential differences: [**(1)**]{} The RA requires to learn a much more complex soft attention sub-network which is not only computationally expensive but also less discriminative when the training data size is small typical in person re-id. [**(2)**]{} The SE considers only the channel attention and implicitly assumes non-cluttered background, therefore significantly restricting its suitability to re-id tasks under cluttered surveillance viewing conditions. [**(3)**]{} Both RA and SE consider no hard regional attention modelling, hence lacking the ability to discover the correlated complementary benefit between soft and hard attention learning. [**(II) Hard Regional Attention**]{} The hard attention learning aims to locate latent ([*weakly supervised*]{}) discriminative $T$ regions/parts (e.g. human body parts) in each input image at the $l$-th level. We model this regional attention by learning a transformation matrix as: $$\bm{A}^l =
\begin{bmatrix}
s_h & 0 & t_x \\
0 & s_w & t_y \\
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:atheta}$$ which allows for image cropping, translation, and isotropic scaling operations by varying two scale factors ($s_h$, $s_w$) and the 2-D spatial position ($t_x$, $t_y$). We use pre-defined region size by fixing $s_h$ and $s_w$ for limiting the model complex. Therefore, the effective modelling part of $\bm{A}^l$ is only $t_x$ and $t_y$, with the output dimension as $2\!\times\!T$ ($T$ the region number). To perform this learning, we introduce a simple 2-layers ($2\!\times\!T\!\times\!c$ parameters) sub-network (Fig. \[fig:attentions\](d)). We exploit the first layer output (a $c$-D vector) of the channel attention (Eq. ) as the first FC layer ($2\!\times\!T\!\times\!c$ parameters) input for further reducing the parameter size while sharing the available knowledge in spirit of the multi-task learning principle [@evgeniou2004regularized]. The second layer ($0$ parameter) performs a *tanh* scaling (the range of $[-1, 1]$) to convert the region position parameters into the percentage so as to allow for positioning individual regions outside of the input image boundary. This specially takes into account the cases that only partial person is detected sometimes. Note that, unlike the soft attention maps that are applied to the input feature representation $\bm{X}^l$, the hard regional attention is enforced on that of the corresponding network block to generate $T$ different parts which are subsequently fed into the corresponding streams of the [*local*]{} branch (see the dashed arrow on the top of Fig \[fig:pipline\]).
-0.3cm -0.1cm
[***Remarks***]{} The proposed hard attention modelling is conceptually similar to the Spatial Transformer Network (STN) [@jaderberg2015spatial] because both are designed to learn a transformation matrix for discriminative region identification. However, they differ significantly in design: [**(1)**]{} The STN attention is [*network-wise*]{} (one level of attention learning) whilst our HA is [*module-wise*]{} (multiple levels of attention learning). The latter not only eases the attention modelling complexity (divide-and-conquer design) and but also provides additional attention refinement in a sequential manner. [**(2)**]{} The STN utilises a separate large sub-network for attention modelling whilst the HA-CNN exploits a much smaller sub-network by sharing the majority model learning with the target-task network using a multi-task learning design (Fig. \[fig:stns\]), therefore superior in both higher efficiency and lower overfitting risk. [**(3)**]{} The STN considers only hard attention whilst HA-CNN models both soft and hard attention in an end-to-end fashion so that additional complementary benefits are exploited.
[**(III) Cross-Attention Interaction Learning**]{} Given the joint learning of soft and hard attention above, we further consider a cross-attention interaction mechanism for enriching their joint learning harmony by interacting the [*attended*]{} local and global features across branches. Specifically, at the $l$-th level, we utilise the global-branch feature $\bm{X}^{(l, k)}_{G}$ of the $k$-th region to enrich the corresponding local-branch feature $\bm{X}^{(l, k)}_{L}$ by tensor addition as $$\bm{\tilde{X}}^{(l, k)}_{L} = \bm{X}^{(l, k)}_{L} + \bm{X}^{(l, k)}_{G}$$ where $\bm{X}^{(l, k)}_{G}$ is computed by applying the hard regional attention of the $(l\!+\!1)$-th level’s HA attention module (see the dashed arrow in Fig. \[fig:pipline\]). By doing so, we can simultaneously reduce the complexity of the local branch (fewer layers) since the learning capability of the global branch can be partially shared. During model training by back-propagation, the global branch takes gradients from both the global and local branches as
$$\small
\Delta \bm{W}^{(l)}_{G} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{G}}{ \partial \bm{X}^{(l)}_{G}} \frac{\partial \bm{X}^{(l)}_{G}}{ \partial \bm{W}^{(l)}_{G}} + \sum_{k=1}^{T} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{L}}{ \partial \bm{\tilde{X}}^{(l, k)}_{L}} \frac{\partial \bm{\tilde{X}}^{(l, k)}_{L}}{\partial \bm{W}^{(l)}_{G}}$$
Therefore, the global $\mathcal{L}_{G}$ and local $\mathcal{L}_{L}$ loss quantities are concurrently utilised in optimising the parameters $\bm{W}^{(l)}_{G}$ of the global branch. As such, the learning of the global branch is interacted with that of the local branch at multiple levels, whilst both are subject to the same re-id optimisation constraint. [***Remarks***]{} By design, cross-attention interaction learning is subsequent to and complementary with the harmonious attention joint reasoning above. Specifically, the latter learns soft and hard attention from the same input feature representations to maximise their compatibility ([*joint attention generation*]{}), whilst the former optimises the correlated complementary information between attention refined global and local features under the person re-id matching constraint ([*joint attention application*]{}). Hence, the composition of both forms a complete process of joint optimisation of attention selection for person re-id.
Person Re-ID by HA-CNN
----------------------
Given a trained HA-CNN model, we obtain a 1,024-D joint feature vector (deep feature representation) by concatenating the local (512-D) and the global (512-D) feature vectors. For person re-id, we deploy this 1,024-D deep feature representation using [*only*]{} a generic distance metric [*without*]{} any camera-pair specific distance metric learning, e.g. the L2 distance. Specifically, given a test probe image $\bm{I}^p$ from one camera view and a set of test gallery images $\{\bm{I}_i^g\}$ from other non-overlapping camera views: (1) We first compute their corresponding 1,024-D feature vectors by forward-feeding the images to a trained HA-CNN model, denoted as $\bm{x}^p=[\bm{x}_g^p; \bm{x}_l^p]$ and $\{\bm{x}_i^g=[\bm{x}_g^g; \bm{x}_l^g]\}$. (2) We then compute L2 normalisation on the global and local features, respectively. (3) Lastly, we compute the cross-camera matching distances between $\bm{x}^p$ and $\bm{x}_i^g$ by the L2 distance. We then rank all gallery images in ascendant order by their L2 distances to the probe image. The probabilities of true matches of probe person images in Rank-1 and among the higher ranks indicate the goodness of the learned HA-CNN deep features for person re-id tasks.
Experiments {#exp}
===========
\[ht\] -0.1cm
[**Datasets and Evaluation Protocol**]{} For evaluation, we selected three large-scale person re-id benchmarks, Market-1501 [@wang2016highly], DukeMTMC-ReID [@zheng2017unlabeled] and CUHK03 [@li2014deepreid]. Figure \[fig:dataset\] shows several example person bounding box images. We adopted the standard person re-id setting including the training/test ID split and test protocol (Table \[tab:dataset\_stats\]). For performance measure, we use the cumulative matching characteristic (CMC) and mean Average Precision (mAP) metrics.
Dataset [\# ID]{} [\# Train ]{} [\# Test]{} [\# Image]{} Test Setting
--------------- ----------- --------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
CUHK03 1,467 767 700 14,097 SS
Market-1501 1,501 751 750 32,668 SQ/MQ
DukeMCMT-ReID 1,402 702 702 36,411 SQ
: Re-id evaluation protocol. TS: Test Setting; SS: Single-Shot; MS: Multi-Shot. SQ: Single-Query; MQ: Multi-Query.
\[tab:dataset\_stats\]
[**Implementation Details**]{} We implemented our HA-CNN model in the Tensorflow [@abadi2016tensorflow] framework. All person images are resized to $160\!\times\! 64$. For HA-CNN architecture, we set the width of Inception units at the $1^\text{st}$/$2^\text{nd}$/$3^\text{rd}$ levels as: $d_1\!=\!128$, $d_2\!=\!256$ and $d_3\!=\!384$. Following [@li2017person], we use $T\!=\!4$ regions for hard attention, e.g. a total of $4$ local streams. In each stream, we fix the size of three levels of hard attention as $24\times28$, $12\times14$ and $6\times7$. For model optimisation, we use the ADAM [@kingma2014adam] algorithm at the initial learning rate $5\!\times\!10^{-4}$ with the two moment terms $\beta_1=0.9$ and $\beta_2=0.999$. We set the batch size to 32, epoch to 150, momentum to 0.9. Note, we do [***not***]{} adopt any data argumentation methods (e.g. scaling, rotation, flipping, and colour distortion), [***neither***]{} model pre-training. Existing deep re-id methods typically benefit significantly from these operations at the price of not only much higher computational cost but also notoriously difficult and time-consuming model tuning.
Comparisons to State-of-the-Art Methods
---------------------------------------
[**Evaluation on Market-1501**]{} We evaluated HA-CNN against 13 existing methods on Market-1501. Table \[tab:res\_market\] shows the clear performance superiority of HA-CNN over all state-of-the-arts with significant Rank-1 and mAP advantages. Specifically, HA-CNN outperforms the $2^\text{nd}$ best model JLML (pre-defined hard attention based) by $6.1\%$ (91.2-85.1) (SQ) and $4.1\%$ (93.8-89.7) (MQ) in Rank-1; $10.2\%$ (75.7-65.5) (SQ) and $8.3\%$ (82.8-74.5) (MQ) in mAP. Compared to the only soft attention alternative HPN, our model improves the Rank-1 by $14.3\%$ (91.2-76.9) (SQ). This indicates the superiority of our factorised spatial and channel soft attention modelling over HPN’s multi-directional attention mechanism. HA-CNN also surpasses recent hard attention re-id methods (MSCAN, DLPA and PDC), boosting the Rank-1 by $10.9\%$, $10.2\%$ and $7.1\%$, mAP by $18.2\%$, $12.3\%$ and $12.3\%$ (SQ), respectively. These validate the significant advantage of our harmonious soft/hand attention joint and interaction learning over existing methods replying on either hard or soft attention at a single level.
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Query Type
Measure (%) R1 mAP R1 mAP
XQDA[@liao2015person] 43.8 22.2 54.1 28.4
SCS[@chen2016similarity] 51.9 26.3 - -
DNS[@zhang2016learning] 61.0 35.6 71.5 46.0
CRAFT[@chen2017person] 68.7 42.3 77.0 50.3
CAN[@liu2017end] 60.3 35.9 72.1 47.9
S-LSTM[@varior2016siamese] - - 61.6 35.3
G-SCNN[@varior2016gated] 65.8 39.5 76.0 48.4
HPN [@liu2017hydraplus] 76.9 - - -
SVDNet [@sun2017svdnet] 82.3 62.1 - -
MSCAN [@li2017learning] 80.3 57.5 86.8 66.7
DLPA [@zhao2017deeply] 81.0 63.4 - -
PDC [@su2017pose] 84.1 63.4 - -
JLML [@li2017person]
[**HA-CNN**]{}
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: Market-1501 evaluation. $1^\text{st}/2^\text{nd}$ best in red/blue.
\[tab:res\_market\]
[**Evaluation on DukeMTMC-ReID**]{} We evaluated HA-CNN on the recently released DukeMTMC-ReID dataset[^2]. Compared to Market-1501, person images from this benchmark have more variations in resolution and background due to wider camera views and more complex scene layout, therefore presenting a more challenging re-id task. Table \[tab:res\_duke\_reid\] shows that HA-CNN again outperforms all compared state-of-the-arts with clear accuracy advantages, surpassing the $2^\text{nd}$ best SVDNet-ResNet50 (without attention modelling) by $3.8\%$ (80.5-76.7) in Rank-1 and $7.0\%$ (63.8-56.8) in mAP. This suggests the importance of attention modelling in re-id and the efficacy of our attention joint learning approach in a more challenging re-id scenario. Importantly, the performance advantage by our method is achieved at a lower model training and test cost through an much easier training process. For example, the performance by SVDNet relies on the heavy ResNet50 CNN model (23.5 million parameters) with the need for model pre-training on the ImageNet data (1.2 million images), whilst HA-CNN has only 2.7 million parameters with no data augmentation.
Measure (%) R1 mAP
------------------------------------- ------ ------
BoW+KISSME [@wang2016highly] 25.1 12.2
LOMO+XQDA [@liao2015person] 30.8 17.0
ResNet50 [@he2016deep] 65.2 45.0
ResNet50+LSRO [@zheng2017unlabeled] 67.7 47.1
JLML [@li2017person] 73.3 56.4
SVDNet-CaffeNet [@sun2017svdnet] 67.6 45.8
SVDNet-ResNet50 [@sun2017svdnet]
[**HA-CNN**]{}
: DukeMTMC-ReID evaluation. $1^\text{st}/2^\text{nd}$ best in red/blue.
\[tab:res\_duke\_reid\]
[**Evaluation on CUHK03**]{} We evaluated HA-CNN on both manually labelled and auto-detected (more misalignment) person bounding boxes of the CUHK03 benchmark. We utilise the 767/700 identity split rather than 1367/100 since the former defines a more realistic and challenging re-id task. In this setting, the training set is small with only about 7,300 images ([*versus*]{} 12,936/16,522 in Market-1501/DukeMCMT-ReID). This generally imposes a harder challenge to deep models, particularly when our HA-CNN does not benefit from any auxiliary data pre-training (e.g. ImageNet) nor data augmentation. Table \[tab:res\_cuhk03\] shows that HA-CNN still achieves the best re-id accuracy, outperforming hand-crafted feature based methods significantly and deep competitors less so. Our model achieves a small margin (+$0.2\%$ in Rank-1 and +$1.3\%$) over the best alternative SVDNet-ResNet50 on the detected set. However, it is worth pointing out that SVDNet-ResNet50 benefits additionally from not only large ImageNet pre-training but also a much larger network and more complex training process. In contrast, HA-CNN is much more lightweight on parameter size with the advantage of easy training and fast deployment. This shows that our attention joint learning can be a better replacement of existing complex networks with time-consuming model training.
\[!t\]
---------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
R1 mAP R1 mAP
BoW+XQDA [@wang2016highly] 7.9 7.3 6.4 6.4
LOMO+XQDA [@liao2015person] 14.8 13.6 12.8 11.5
IDE-C [@zhong2017re] 15.6 14.9 15.1 14.2
IDE-C+XQDA [@zhong2017re] 21.9 20.0 21.1 19.0
IDE-R [@zhong2017re] 22.2 21.0 21.3 19.7
IDE-R+XQDA [@zhong2017re] 32.0 29.6 31.1 28.2
SVDNet-CaffeNet [@sun2017svdnet] - - 27.7 24.9
SVDNet-ResNet50 [@sun2017svdnet] - -
[**HA-CNN**]{}
---------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: CUHK03 evaluation. The setting is 767/700 training/test split. $1^\text{st}/2^\text{nd}$ best in red/blue.
\[tab:res\_cuhk03\]
Further Analysis and Discussions {#sec:fad}
--------------------------------
[**Effect of Different Types of Attention**]{} We further evaluated the effect of each individual attention component in our HA model: Soft Spatial Attention (SSA), Soft Channel Attention (SCA), and Hard Regional Attention (HRA). Table \[tab:res\_am\] shows that: [**(1)**]{} Any of the three attention [*in isolation*]{} brings person re-id performance gain; [**(2)**]{} The combination of SSA and SCA gives further accuracy boost, which suggests the complementary information between the two soft attention discovered by our model; [**(3)**]{} When combining the hard and soft attention, another significant performance gain is obtained. This shows that our method is effective in identifying and exploiting the complementary information between coarse hard attention and fine-grained soft attention.
-1pt
-------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Dataset
Metric (%) R1 mAP R1 mAP
No Attention 84.7 65.3 72.4 53.4
SSA 85.5 65.8 73.9 54.8
SCA 86.8 67.9 73.7 53.5
SSA+SCA 88.5 70.2 76.1 57.2
HRA 88.2 71.0 75.3 58.4
**All & **91.2 & **75.7 & **80.5 & **63.8\
**********
-------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: Evaluating individual types of attention in our HA model. [*Setting*]{}: SQ. SSA: Soft Spatial Attention; SCA: Soft Channel Attention; HRA: Hard Regional Attention.
\[tab:res\_am\]
[**Effect of Cross-Attention Interaction Learning**]{} We also evaluated the benefit of cross-attention interaction learning (CAIL) between global and local branches. Table \[tab:res\_hi\] shows that CAIL has significant benefit to re-id matching, improving the Rank-1 by $4.6\%$(91.2-86.6) / $6.5\%$(80.5-74.0), mAP by $9.5\%$(75.7-66.2) / $8.4\%$(63.8-55.4) on Market-1501 / DukeMTMC-ReID, respectively. This validates our design is rational that it is necessary to jointly learn the [*attended*]{} feature representations across soft and hard attention subject to the same re-id label constraint.
\[!t\]
------------------ ------------------------------------ ------ ------ ------
Dataset
Metric (%) R1 mAP R1 mAP
[**w/o**]{} CAIL 86.6 66.2 74.0 55.4
[**w/**]{} CAIL **91.2 & **75.7 & **80.5 & **63.8\
********
------------------ ------------------------------------ ------ ------ ------
: Evaluating cross-attention interaction learning (CAIL). [*Setting*]{}: SQ.
\[tab:res\_hi\]
[**Effect of Joint Local and Global Features**]{} We evaluated the effect of joint local and global features by comparing their individual re-id performances against that of the joint feature. Table \[tab:G\_L\] shows: [**(1)**]{} Either feature representation [*alone*]{} is already very discriminative for person re-id. For instance, the global HA-CNN feature outperforms the best alternative JLML [@li2017person] (Table \[tab:res\_market\]) by $4.8\%$(89.9-85.1) in Rank-1 and by $7.0\%$(72.5-65.5) in mAP (SQ) on Market-1501. [**(2)**]{} A further performance gain is obtained by joining the two representations, yielding $6.1\%$(91.2-85.1) in Rank-1 boost and $10.2\%$(75.7-65.5) in mAP increase. Similar trends are observed on the DukeMCMT-ReID (Table \[tab:res\_duke\_reid\]). These validate the complementary effect of jointly learning local and global features in harmonious attention context by our HA-CNN model.
\[!h\]
----------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Dataset
Metric (%) R1 mAP R1 mAP
Global 89.9 72.5 78.9 60.0
Local 88.9 71.7 77.3 59.5
**Global+Local & **91.2 & **75.7 & **80.5 & **63.8\
**********
----------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: Evaluating global-level and local-level features. [*Setting*]{}: SQ.
\[tab:G\_L\]
[**Visualisation of Harmonious Attention**]{} We visualise both learned soft attention and hard attention at three different levels of HA-CNN. Figure \[fig:visa\] shows: [**(1)**]{} Hard attention localises four body parts well at all three levels, approximately corresponding to head+shoulder (), upper-body (), upper-leg () and lower-leg (). [**(2)**]{} Soft attention focuses on the discriminative pixel-wise selections progressively in spatial localisation, e.g. attending hierarchically from the global whole body by the $1^{\text{st}}$-level spatial SA (c) to local salient parts (e.g. object associations) by the $3^{\text{rd}}$-level spatial SA (g). This shows compellingly the effectiveness of joint soft and hard attention learning.
[**Model Complexity**]{} We compare the proposed HA-CNN model with four popular CNN architectures (Alexnet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], VGG16 [@simonyan2014very], GoogLeNet [@szegedy2015going], and ResNet50 [@he2016deep]) in model size and complexity. Table \[tab:base\_nets\] shows that HA-CNN has the smallest model size (2.7 million parameters) and the $2^\text{nd}$ smallest FLOPs ($1.09\!\times\! 10^9$) and yet, still retains the $2^\text{nd}$ deepest structure (39).
\[!h\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model FLOPs PN (million) Depth
----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------- --
AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] **7.25$\times$10$^8$ & 58.3 & 7\
VGG16 [@simonyan2014very] &1.55$\times$10$^{10}$ & 134.2 & 16\
ResNet50 [@he2016deep] & 3.80$\times$10$^9$ & 23.5 & **50\
GoogLeNet [@szegedy2015going] & 1.57$\times$10$^9$ & 6.0 & 22\
JLML &1.54$\times$10$^9$ & 7.2 & 39\
**HA-CNN &1.09$\times$10$^9$ & **2.7 & 39\
********
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Comparisons of model size and complexity. FLOPs: the number of FLoating-point OPerations; PN: Parameter Number.
\[tab:base\_nets\]
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we presented a novel Harmonious Attention Convolutional Neural Network (HA-CNN) for joint learning of person re-identification attention selection and feature representations in an end-to-end fashion. In contrast to most existing re-id methods that either ignore the matching misalignment problem or exploit stringent attention learning algorithms, the proposed model is capable of extracting/exploiting multiple complementary attention and maximising their latent complementary effect for person re-id in a unified [*lightweight*]{} CNN architecture. This is made possible by the Harmonious Attention module design in combination with a two-branches CNN architecture. Moreover, we introduce a cross-attention interaction learning mechanism to further optimise joint attention selection and re-id feature learning. Extensive evaluations were conducted on three re-id benchmarks to validate the advantages of the proposed HA-CNN model over a wide range of state-of-the-art methods on both manually labelled and more challenging auto-detected person images. We also provided detailed model component analysis and discussed HA-CNN’s model complexity as compared to popular alternatives.
[^1]: This choice is independent of our model design and others can be readily considered such as AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], ResNet [@he2016deep] and VggNet [@simonyan2014very].
[^2]: Only a small number of methods (see Table \[tab:res\_duke\_reid\]) have been evaluated and reported on DukeMTMC-ReID.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give complexity analysis of the class of *short generating functions* (GF). Assuming $\ts\not\subseteq$, we show that this class is not closed under taking many intersections, unions or projections of GFs, in the sense that these operations can increase the bit length of coefficients of GFs by a super-polynomial factor. We also prove that *truncated theta functions* are hard in this class.'
author:
- 'Danny Nguyen$^{\star}$'
- 'Igor Pak$^{\star}$'
title: Complexity of short generating functions
---
1.5cm
Introduction
============
Combinatorics and complexity of GFs
-----------------------------------
A *short generating function* (short GF) is a rational generating function written in the form $$(\ast) \qquad f(t) \, = \,
\sum_{i=1}^M \, \frac{c_{i} \. t^{a_i}}{(1-t^{b_{i\ts 1}})\cdots (1-t^{b_{i\ts k_{i}}})}\.,$$ where $c_{i} = p_{i}/q_{i} \in \Q ,\; a_{i},b_{ij} \in \Z$ and $b_{ij} \neq 0$ for all $i,j$. The index$(f) \coloneqq \max \{k_1,\ldots,k_M\}$ is the maximum number of terms in the denominators. This is always assumed to be bounded by some constant. The *length* $\phi(f)$ is defined as the total bit lengths of all constants in $(*)$. Of course, the same generating function can have many presentations as a short GF.[^1] In this paper we initiate the study of complexity of short GFs with bounded index and polynomial lengths. For a finite set $S \ssu \nn$, denote by $f_S(t) = \sum_{n\in S} t^n$ the GF of $S$. We are interested in deciding if it is possible to write $f_S$ as a short GF with polynomial length for a variety of sets $S$ coming from Combinatorics, Number Theory and Discrete Geometry. Showing that some sets do not have short GFs of polynomial lengths turns out to be a surprisingly difficult problem. We are also interested in operations on short GFs and how they affect the short GFs’ lengths.
Our approach is motivated by ideas from the study of integer points in convex polyhedra in fixed dimension (see $\S$\[ss:finrem-bar\]). All such polyhedra turn out to have (multivariate) short GFs of polynomial lengths (see Definition \[def:short GF multi\] and Barvinok’s Theorem \[th:Barvinok\] below). We refer to [@B2; @B3] for a thorough review of past and recent work on short GFs in Discrete Geometry, and to Section \[sec:fin-rem\] for connections to Arithmetic Combinatorics and other areas.
Squares
-------
Define the *truncated theta function* to be the GF over squares $\le 2^\ellR$ : $$\vt_\ellR(t) \, = \, \sum_{n=0}^{2^{\ellR/2}} \. t^{n^2}\,.$$
\[conj:squares-intro\] For every fixed $k\ge 1$, the truncated theta function $\vt_\ellR(t)$ *cannot* be written a short GF of length . $\polyin(\ellR)$ and $(\vt_\ellR)\le k$.
The following result is the most surprising result of this paper:
If .$\sharpP \not\subseteq\FPpo$, then Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\] holds.
In other words, if each truncated theta function can be represented as a short GF of polynomial length and bounded index, then any counting problem can be solved with polynomial size circuits. See $\S$\[ss:finrem-factoring\] for more on the complexity assumption, and Section \[sec:squares-primes\] for the related results on primes.
One variable operations
-----------------------
Recall that we only consider GFs of finite sets. We define operations on GFs based on their supports. For example, taking the union of two GFs $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ means finding another GF $h(t)$ with $\supp(h) = \supp(f) \cup \supp(g)$. We can similarly define other Boolean operations.
Short GFs are known to be very versatile and useful in applications. Notably, given a bounded number of short GFs, all Boolean operations on them can be performed in polynomial time (see [@B3; @BP]). The result is again a short GF with polynomial length. However, when the number of short GFs is large, no such polynomial time procedures are known. The following result gives a strong evidence against such possibility:
\[th:main\_2\] If .$\sharpP \not\subseteq\FPpo$, then taking intersection/union of many short GFs does not preserve polynomiality in length.
This says taking union of many short GFs is hard structurally. It should be compared to an earlier result by Woods, which says that taking union of many short GFs is hard algorithmically, assuming $\poly \ne \NP$ (see Theorem \[th:GF\_NP\_hard\] and the following remark).
Next, define the *Minkowski sum* $f \oplus g$ of two GFs $f(t)$ and $g(t)$, to be the GF $h(t)$ with $\ts \supp(h) = \supp(f) \oplus\supp(g) = \{a+b \mid a\in \supp(f), b \in \supp(g)\}$.
\[th:main\_3\] If .$\sharpP \not\subseteq\FPpo$, then taking Minkowski sum of *two* short GFs does not preserve polynomiality in length.
Giving precise formulations of these results requires some effort, see Section \[sec:int-unions\]. Let us mention that in both theorems we can substitute the complexity assumptions with Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\]. These results show strong limitations of the “short GF technology” from a geometric point of view (see $\S$\[ss:finrem-bar\]). Below we give further evidence of this phenomenon.
Projections
-----------
For multivariate short GFs, taking projections is a key operation. Projection is crucial for applications such as Integer Programming (see e.g. [@E2; @K2; @NP]), and theoretical considerations such as Presburger Arithmetic (see e.g. [@B2; @NP1; @W] and $\S$\[sec:pres\]). In a crucial development, Barvinok and Woods [@BW] showed that given a polytope $P$ in bounded dimension, the projections of its integer points on some subspace have a short GF of polynomial length, which can also be computed in polynomial time (Theorem \[th:BW\]). This result exploited the polytopal structure of $P$ and its convexity in a crucial way. Unfortunately, these are also the reasons that prevent their result to apply on a non-geometric level. In other words, the algorithm by Barvinok and Woods cannot produce a short GF for the projections if the input is presented only as short GF, without a polytope associated to it.
An important negative result by Woods in fact shows that given only a multivariate short GF $f({\mathbf{t}})$, computing its projection is $\coNP$-hard (see Theorem \[th:GF\_NP\_hard\] and the Remark \[rem:Woods-NP\]). The following theorem is the central result of the paper. Roughly speaking, it both weakens the assumptions and strengthens the conclusions of Woods’s theorem.
\[th:main\_1\] If .$\sharpP \not\subseteq\FPpo$, then taking projection of a short GF does not preserve polynomiality in length.
This says that in general not only we cannot *compute* the projection of a short GF in polynomial time, any short GF that represents the projection must have a super-polynomial length. In other words, the barriers of using the “short GF technology” in this case are structural rather than algorithmic. The next result can be viewed as a refinement of the previous theorem, giving a precise characterization of complexity of projections.
\[th:main\_4\] Repeated projections of short GFs can encode every language in the non-uniform polynomial hierarchy $\PH\po$. In fact, they form a hierarchy that coincides with $\PH\po$.
We postpone the precise formulations of these results, especially of Theorem \[th:main\_4\] where the technicalities are unavoidable. Let us also mention Proposition \[prop:partial\_converse\] which can be viewed as a partial converse of Theorem \[th:main\_1\] (cf. $\S$\[t:squares-sharp\]).[^2]
Paper structure
---------------
The results in this paper are largely self-contained and require little more than a few technical lemmas from [@BP], which are all stated in Section \[sec:operations\] and can be treated as black boxes. We do however employ a fair amount of definitions and notations (sections \[sec:notations\] and \[sec:operations\]). We also assume the reader is familiar with basic Computational Complexity, which goes to the heart of this paper. We refer the reader to [@MM; @Pap] for the standard results and notation, and to [@Aar] for a comprehensive recent survey.
Our Section \[sec:short-GF-complexity\] is the key as it describes the connection between languages and short GFs. From this point on, the reader can proceed to the development of the short GF hierarchy, culminating in the proofs of theorems \[th:main\_1\] and \[th:main\_4\] (sections \[sec:nu-hier\]–\[sec:long-proj\]). Alternatively, modulo a few definitions in earlier section, the reader proceed directly to the proof of theorems \[th:main\_2\] and \[th:main\_3\] in Section \[sec:int-unions\]. Similarly, the reader can also proceed to study complexity of squares and primes (Section \[sec:squares-primes\]). In Section \[sec:rel\] we investigate more technical questions on relative complexity of short GFs, and in Section \[s:lemma-proof\] we give a proof of a technical Lemma \[lem:compress\]. We conclude with final remarks and open problems in Section \[sec:fin-rem\].
Notations {#sec:notations}
=========
We use $\nn \ts = \ts \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$.
All constant vectors are denoted as $\a, {{\overline{b}}}, \c, \d, {{\overline{n}}},$ etc. The all $1$ vector is also denoted by $1$.
Matrices are denoted as $A, B, C$, etc.
Single variables are denoted as $x,y,z$, etc.; vectors of variables are denoted as ${\mathbf{x}}, {\mathbf{y}}, {\mathbf{z}}$, etc.
We write ${\mathbf{x}}\le {\mathbf{y}}$ if $x_{j} \le y_{j}$ for all $i$.
For two tuples ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{t}}$ both of length $n$, we denote by ${\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ the monomial $t_{1}^{x_{1}} \dots t_{n}^{x_{n}}$.
GF is an abbreviation for “*generating function*.”
Single-variable GFs are denoted as $f(t), g(t), h(t), p(t), q(t)$, etc.
Multi-variable GFs are denoted as $f({\mathbf{t}}), g({\mathbf{t}}), h({\mathbf{t}}), p({\mathbf{t}}), q({\mathbf{t}})$, etc.
The support of a GF $f({\mathbf{t}})$ is denoted by $\supp(f)$.
The symbols $\lnot, \land$ and $\lor$ denote negation (complement), conjunction and disjunction.
A *polyhedron* is an intersection of finitely many closed half-spaces in $\rr^n$.
A *polytope* is a bounded polyhedron.
Polyhedra and polytopes are denoted as $P, Q, R$, etc.
The function $\phi(\cdot)$ denotes the *bit length* of a number, vector, matrix, GF, or a logical formula when written in binary.
For a polyhedron $Q$ described by a linear system $A{\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}$, we denote by $\phi(Q)$ the total length $\phi(A)+\phi({{\overline{b}}})$.
Polynomial time operations on short GFs {#sec:operations}
=======================================
Preliminaries on short GFs {#sec:prelim}
--------------------------
A power series $f({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ is called a GF if each coefficient $\al_{{\mathbf{x}}}$ is either $0$ or $1$. When needed, we will write $f({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ to emphasize that $f$ is a GF.
\[def:supp\] The support of an $n$-variable GF $g({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ is defined as: $$\supp(g) \coloneqq \{ {\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{n} : [{\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}] g({\mathbf{t}}) = 1\}.$$ Here $[{\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}]$ denotes the coefficient of the monomial ${\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ in $g({\mathbf{t}})$.
\[def:proj\_and\_spec\] Given a multi-variable GF $f({\mathbf{t}},{\mathbf{u}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{u}}^{{\mathbf{y}}}$ with ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{m}, {\mathbf{y}}\in \Z^{n}$, the *${\mathbf{x}}$-projection* $g=\proj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f)$ is the unique GF $g({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ with support satisfying $$\supp(g) = \{{\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{m} : {\exists}\. {\mathbf{y}}\in\Z^{n} \;\; ({\mathbf{x}}, {\mathbf{y}}) \in \supp(f)\}.$$ If $f$ satisfies the extra property that for every ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{m}$ there is at most one ${\mathbf{y}}\in \Z^{n}$ such that $({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}) \in \supp(f)$, then $\proj_{{\mathbf{x}}} (f)$ is called the *${\mathbf{x}}$-specialization* of $f$, denoted by $\spec_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f)$.
Consider two power series $f({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ and $g({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \be_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$. The *Hadamard product* of $f$ and $g$, denoted by $f \star g$, is another GF $h({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \gamma_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ with $$\gamma_{{\mathbf{x}}} = \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} \. \be_{{\mathbf{x}}} \; \text{ for every } {\mathbf{x}}.$$ If $f$ and $g$ are GFs then the above condition is equivalent to $\supp(h) = \supp(f) \cap \supp(g)$.
\[def:short GF multi\] For a rational function in $n$ variables ${\mathbf{t}}= (t_{1},\dots,t_{n})$ of the form $$(\divideontimes) \qquad f({\mathbf{t}}) \, = \,
\sum_{i=1}^M \, \frac{c_{i} \. \bt^{\a_i}}{(1-\bt^{{{\overline{b}}}_{i\ts 1}})\cdots (1-\bt^{{{\overline{b}}}_{i\ts k_{i}}})}\ts,$$ the length $\phi(f)$ of $f$ is defined as $$\phi(f) \, = \,
\sum_{i} \. \lceil\log_2 |p_{i}\. q_{i}|+1\rceil \, + \,
\sum_{i, j} \. \lceil\log_2 a_{i\ts j}+1\rceil \, + \,
\sum_{i,j,m} \. \lceil\log_2 b_{i \ts j \ts m}+1\rceil\ts,$$ where $c_{i}=p_{i}/q_{i} \in \Q ,\; \a_{i},{{\overline{b}}}_{ij} \in \Z^{n} ,\; {{\overline{b}}}_{ij} \neq 0$ and $\ts\bt^{\a} = t_1^{a_{1}}\cdots {}\ts t_n^{a_{n}}\ts$ if $\ts\a = (a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}) \in \zz^{n}$.
For a power series $f({\mathbf{t}})=\sum \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ given in the form $(\divideontimes)$, the *index* of $f$ is defined as $$\text{index}(f) = \max\{k_{i} \;:\; i = 1,\dots,M\},$$ where $k_{i}$ is the number of factors in the denominator of the $i$-th summand.
\[def:GF\_def\] For every number of variables $n$ and integer $s$, we define two classes: $$\label{eq:GF_def}
\GF_{n,s} = \bigl\{ \text{GFs } g({\mathbf{t}}) \text{ given in the form }(\divideontimes)\text{ with } {\text{index}(g)} \le s \bigr\}$$ and $$\GFstar_{n,s} = \bigl\{ \text{power series } g({\mathbf{t}}) \text{ given in the form }(\divideontimes)\text{ with } {\text{index}(g)} \le s \bigr\}.$$ Members of $\GF_{n,s}$ are called *short GFs*, while those of $\GFstar_{n,s}$ are called *short power series*.
We recall the following important results from [@BP] (see also [@BW]):
\[th:BPGF1\] Fix a class $\GF_{m,s}$. Given a short GF $f({\mathbf{t}}) \in \GF_{m,s}$ of finite support. We can compute in time $\polyin(\phi(f))$ the following:
1. The norm $N = \max \{|{\mathbf{x}}| : {\mathbf{x}}\in \supp(f) \}$,[^3]
2. The cardinality $M = |\supp(f)|$, which is equal to $f(1)$,
3. The substitution $q({\mathbf{u}}) = f({\mathbf{t}}({\mathbf{u}}))$, where ${\mathbf{t}}$ is substituted by monomials in some other variables ${\mathbf{u}}= (u_{1},\dots,u_{n})$. Furthermore, we have $q({\mathbf{u}}) \in \GFstar_{n,s}$.
\[th:BPGF2\] Fix two classes $\;\GF_{m,s_{1}}$ and $\;\GF_{m,s_{2}}$. Given $f({\mathbf{t}}) \in \GF_{m,s_{1}} $ and $\;g({\mathbf{t}}) \in \GF_{m,s_{2}}$ of finite supports, we can compute in time $\polyin(\phi(f)+\phi(g))$ the following:
1. A short GF $h({\mathbf{t}})$ with $\supp(h) = \supp(f) \cap \supp(g)$, i.e., $h({\mathbf{t}}) = f({\mathbf{t}}) \star g({\mathbf{t}})$,
2. A short GF $k({\mathbf{t}})$ with $\supp(k) = \supp(f) \cup \supp(g)$.
3. A short GF $p({\mathbf{t}})$ with $\supp(p) = \supp(f) {\backslash}\supp(g)$.
Moreover, we have $h,k,p \in \GF_{m,s_{1} + s_{2}}$.
\[rem:Hadamard\] In fact, a more general version of Theorem \[th:BPGF2\] part 1) was shown in [@BP], which also allows taking $f \star g$ for short power series.
The following is the reason why we emphasized the bounded dimension $n$ and index $s$ in Definition \[def:GF\_def\].
\[prop:supp\_is\_P\] Fix $n$ and $s$. Given a short power series $f({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \be_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ in $\GF_{n,s}$ and a vector $\a_{0} \in \Z^{n}$, the coefficient $\beta_{\a_{0}}$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(f) + \phi(\a_{0}))$.
We let $g({\mathbf{t}}) = {\mathbf{t}}^{\a_{0}}$ and define $h({\mathbf{t}}) = f({\mathbf{t}}) \, \star \, g({\mathbf{t}})$. Clearly, we have $h({\mathbf{t}}) = \be_{\a_{0}} \. {\mathbf{t}}^{\a_{0}}$, which implies $\be_{\a_{0}} = h(1)$. Applying Theorem \[th:BPGF2\], we can compute $h({\mathbf{t}})$ (see also Remark \[rem:Hadamard\]). By Theorem \[th:BPGF1\], we can compute $h(1)$. All can be done in time $\polyin(\phi(f) + \phi(\a_{0}))$.
A similar result for $n$ and $s$ unbounded is unlikely to hold, considering the fact that $\textsc{KNAPSACK}$ is $\NP$-complete. An instance of $\textsc{KNAPSACK}$ asks if an equation $a = {{\overline{b}}}\, {\mathbf{x}}$ is solvable, where ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_{1},\dots,x_{n}) \in \N$ are variables, and $a \in \N, {{\overline{b}}}\in \N^{n}$ are given as input. This is equivalent to checking if $\.[t^{a}]f \neq 0$, where: $$f(t) \. = \. \frac{1}{(1-t^{b_{1}}) \cdots (1-t^{b_{n}})}.$$ Here $n$ is not bounded. Note that $\textsc{KNAPSACK}$ has a polynomial time algorithm if $a$ and ${{\overline{b}}}$ are given in unary. In our case, short GFs are encoded in binary.
If $f$ is a short GF, Proposition \[prop:supp\_is\_P\] allows us to decide in polynomial time whether $\a_{0} \in \supp(f)$. Now one may ask whether is it still easy to decide if a point $\a_{0}$ lies in a projection of $f$ . The answer is still positive:
\[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\] Fix $m,n$ and $s$. Given a short GF $f({\mathbf{t}},{\mathbf{u}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{u}}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \in \GF_{m+n,s}$ of finite support and a vector $\a_{0} \in \Z^{m}$, checking whether $\a_{0}\in\supp(\proj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f))$ can be done in time $\polyin(\phi(f) + \phi(\a_{0}))$. Here ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{m}, {\mathbf{y}}\in \Z^{n}$.
Let $g({\mathbf{t}}) = f({\mathbf{t}}, 1)$. Clearly, we have $\a_{0} \in \supp(\proj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f))$ if and only if the coefficient of $\,{\mathbf{t}}^{\a_{0}}$ in $g({\mathbf{t}})$ is non-zero. By Theorem \[th:BPGF1\], we can compute $g$ in time $\polyin(\phi(f))$. By Proposition \[prop:supp\_is\_P\], we can compute $[{\mathbf{t}}^{\a_{0}}]g$ in time $\polyin(\phi(g) + \phi(\a_{0})) \le \polyin(\phi(f) + \phi(\a_{0}))$.
In order to further study the projections of short GFs, we need a few logical tools.
Presburger arithmetic and short GFs {#sec:pres}
-----------------------------------
*Presburger Arithmetic* ($\Pr$) is the first order theory on the integers that allows only additions and inequalities. Each *atom* (smallest term) in $\Pr$ is an integer inequality of the form $$a_{1} x_{1} + \ldots + a_{n} x_{n} \le b,$$ where ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ are integer variables, and $a_{1},\dots,a_{n},b \in \Z$ are integer constants. A general $\Pr$ formula is formed by taking Boolean combinations (negations, conjunctions, disjunctions) of such atoms, and also applying quantifiers (${\forall}/{\exists}$) over different variables. A sentence in $\Pr$ is a formula with all variables quantified. The length $\phi(F)$ of a $\Pr$ formula $F$ is the total length of all symbols and constants in $F$ written in binary.
Let $P,Q \subseteq \R^{n}$ be two rational polyhedra given by two systems $A_{1} {\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}_{1}$ and $A_{2} {\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}_{2}$. Then the set of integer points in $P \cup Q$ is described by the $\Pr$ formula: $$F \, = \, \bigl\{ {\mathbf{x}}: A_{1}{\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}_{1} \lor A_{2}{\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}_{2} \bigr\}.$$ Here we are identifying the $\Pr$ formula $F$ with the set that it defines.
[The $\Pr$ formula $\ts F = \bigl\{x \. : \. {\forall}y \; \, (5y \ge x+1) \, \lor \, (5y \le x - 1) \bigr\}$ determines the set of non-multiples of $5$. ]{}
For a set $S \subseteq \zz^{n}$, denote by $\GFof(S; {\mathbf{t}})$ the GF $$\GFof(S;{\mathbf{t}}) \, = \, \sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in S} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}.$$
$\Pr$ formulas are very well-suited to capture integer points in polyhedra. The following cornerstone result by Barvinok says that integer points in a polyhedron in bounded dimension can be effectively enumerated by a short GF.
\[th:Barvinok\] Fix $n$. Let $Q \subseteq \R^{n}$ be a rational polyhedron described by $A{\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}$. There exists a short GF $f \in \GF_{n,n}$ with $\GFof(Q \cap \Z^{n};{\mathbf{t}}) = f({\mathbf{t}})$, which can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(Q))$.[^4]
We mention a useful tool about quantifier free $\Pr$ formulas:
\[prop:W\] Fix $n$. Let $\Phi({\mathbf{x}})$ be a Boolean combination of linear inequalities in integer variables ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$. Then we have: $$\Phi({\mathbf{x}}) = \textup{true} \quad \iff \quad \bigvee_{i=1}^{r} {\mathbf{x}}\in P_{i} \cap \Z^{n},$$ where $P_{1},\dots,P_{r} \subseteq \R^{n}$ are disjoint polyhedra and $r \le \polyin(\phi(\Phi))$. The system defining each $P_{i}$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(\Phi))$.
Theorem \[th:Barvinok\] can be generalized to quantifier free $\Pr$ formula in bounded dimension:
\[th:W\] Fix $n$. Let $G = \{{\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{n} : \Phi({\mathbf{x}})\}$ be a $\Pr$ formula with $\Phi$ a quantifier free Boolean combination of linear inequalities in ${\mathbf{x}}$. There exists a short GF $g \in \GF_{n,n}$ with $\GFof(G;{\mathbf{t}}) = g({\mathbf{t}})$, which can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(\Phi))$.
By Proposition \[prop:W\], we can rewrite $\Phi$ as a disjoint union of polyhedra $P_{1},\dots,P_{r}$ with $r \le \polyin(\phi(\Phi))$. The system defining each $P_{i}$ can be computed in polynomial time. Applying Theorem \[th:Barvinok\], we get a short GF $f_{i} \in \GF_{n,n}$ of polynomial length for each $P_{i}$. Summing up all $f_{i}$, we get a short GF $g \in \GF_{n,n}$ of length $\polyin(\phi(\Phi))$ for $G$.
Next, we consider $\Pr$ formulas with quantifiers. In the simplest case, $F$ encodes the projection of integer points in a polyhedron. For this, we have:
\[th:BW\] Fix $m, n \in \nn$. Let $Q \subseteq \R^{m}$ be a rational polyhedron given by a system $A{\mathbf{x}}\le {{\overline{b}}}$, and $T : \Z^{m} \to \Z^{n}$ a linear map. Consider the $\Pr$ formula $$G \. = \. \bigl\{{\mathbf{y}}\in \Z^{n} : {\exists}\, {\mathbf{x}}\in \Z^{m} \; ({\mathbf{x}}\in Q) \land ({\mathbf{y}}= T{\mathbf{x}})\bigr\}\ts.$$ Then there exists a short GF $g$ with $\GFof(G;{\mathbf{t}}) = g({\mathbf{t}})$, which can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(Q) + \phi(T))$. Furthermore, we have $g \in \GF_{n,s}$, where $s=s(m)$ is a constant.
The above theorem was proved in [@BW] for the case when $P$ is a polytope. It was recently extended in [@NP] to all (possibly unbounded) polyhedra.
However, for general ${\exists}$-formulas, finding a short GF for $F$ becomes $\coNP$-hard:
\[th:GF\_NP\_hard\] Let $\Phi(x,y)$ be a quantifier free Boolean combination of linear inequalities in $x$ and $y$ (singletons). Consider $$F = \{y \in \Z : {\exists}x \in \Z \;\; \Phi(x,y)\}.$$ Then computing a short GF for F is $\coNP$-hard.
\[rem:Woods-NP\] By Theorem \[th:W\], we still can find a short GF of length $\polyin(\phi(\Phi))$ for $\Phi(x,y)$. So this result says that projecting a short GF is hard algorithmically. This should be compared to our Theorem \[th:main\_1\], which says that projecting short GF is hard structurally. Actually, by Proposition \[prop:W\], we can also decompose $\Phi(x,y)$ into a union of polynomially many polygons $P_{i} \subseteq \rr^{2}$. By Theorem \[th:BW\], the projection of integer points in each $P_{i}$ on $x$ has a short GF, which can be found in polynomial time. So taking union of these short GFs is again hard algorithmically. This should be compared to Theorem \[th:main\_2\].
Short GFs and the class $\Ppo$ {#sec:short-GF-complexity}
==============================
Encoding languages in $\Ppo$ as short GFs
-----------------------------------------
For technical reasons regarding the convergence of GFs under numerical evaluation, we consider only GFs with support in $\N^{n}$ from this section onwards. Theorem \[th:BPGF2\] still applies to short GFs supported on $\N^{n}$.
\[def:L\_l\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \{0,1\}^{*}$, and every $\ellR > 0$, we denote by ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ the segment $$\label{eq:L_ell}
{\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \coloneqq \bigl\{ \wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR} : \wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}\}.$$ For $\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$, let $x$ be the corresponding integer with binary representation $\wt x$. We will also use ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ to denote the set of all such $x$ with $\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$.
\[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Ppo$, and every $\ellR > 0$, the segment ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ can be characterized in $\Pr$ as: $$\label{eq:Ppo_Pr}
\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \quad \iff \quad x \in [0,2^{\ellR}) \,\land\, \bigl[ {\exists}y \in [0,2^{p}) \; {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \bigr],
$$ where $\Phi_{\ellR}$ is a quantifier free $\Pr$ expression in $x,y \in \N$ and ${\mathbf{z}}\in \N^{3}$. Moreover, we have $p,q,\phi(\Phi_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$.[^5] If in addition ${\mathcal{L}}\in \poly$, then there is an algorithm to compute $p,q$ and $\Phi_{\ellR}$ in time $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$.
By definition of the class $\Ppo$, there is a Boolean circuit $C_{\ellR}$ such that: $${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} = \{\wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR} \,:\, C_{\ellR}(\wt x) = \textup{true}\}.$$ Here the circuit $C_{\ellR}$ has $\ellR$ input gates, and as many as $p \le \textup{poly}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ non-input gates, each with in-degree at most $2$. We encode the values of the non-input gates as a Boolean string $\wt y \in \{0,1\}^{p}$. Let $\wt x = (x_{1},\dots,x_{\ellR})$ and $\wt y = (y_{1},\dots,y_{p})$. By a standard reduction (see e.g. [@MM; @Pap]), we can encode the computation of $C_{\ellR}$ by a Boolean formula $F$ in $3$-Conjunctive Normal Form. Explicitly, we have: $$\label{eq:3SATset}
{\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} = \{\wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR} \,:\, {\exists}\wt y \in \{0,1\}^{p} \; F(\wt x,\wt y) = \text{true}\},$$ where $$\label{eq:3SAT}
F(\wt x, \wt y) \;=\; \bigwedge_{k} (a_{k} \lor b_{k} \lor c_{k}).$$ Here each $a_{k},b_{k},c_{k}$ is a literal in the set $\{x_{i}, \lnot x_{i},\, y_{j}, \lnot y_{j} \,:\, 1 \le i \le \ellR,\, 1 \le j \le p\}$.
Let $x \in [0,2^{\ellR})$ and $y \in [0,2^{p})$ be the integers corresponding to $\wt x$ and $\wt y$, respectively. Every literal $x_{i}$ corresponds to the $i$-th digit in $x$ being $1$, and $\lnot x_{i}$ corresponds that digit being $0$.[^6] In other words, $x_{i}$ is true or false respectively when ${\lfloorx/2^{i-1}\rfloor}$ is odd or even. The same applies to $y_{i}$ and $y$. Observe that $t = {\lfloorx/2^{i-1}\rfloor}$ is the only integer that satisfies $x/2^{i-1} - 1 < t \le x/2^{i-1}$. Let $q = \max(\ellR,p) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Each term $x_{i}$ or $\lnot x_{i}$ can be coded with an extra ${\exists}z$ quantifier as follows:
$$\label{eq:bit}
\aligned
x_{i} &\iff {\exists}z \in [0,2^{q}) :
\begin{Bmatrix}
2z+1 &> &x / 2^{i-1} - 1\\
2z+1 &\le &x / 2^{i-1}
\end{Bmatrix},
\\
\lnot x_{i} &\iff {\exists}z \in [0,2^{q}) :
\begin{Bmatrix}
2z &> &x / 2^{i-1} - 1\\
2z &\le &x / 2^{i-1}
\end{Bmatrix}
.
\endaligned$$
Here $\{\cdot\}$ denotes a system (conjunction) of inequalities. Analogously, each $y_{j}$ or $\lnot y_{j}$ can be coded using ${\exists}z$. Note that the two strict inequalities in can be sharpened by multiplying both sides with $2^{i-1}$ to make all coefficients integer, and add $1$ to the RHS.
Now we show how to code using ${\forall}{\mathbf{z}}$ with ${\mathbf{z}}\in \N^{3}$. For each clause $(a_{k} \lor b_{k} \lor c_{k})$, we consider its negation $(\lnot a_{k} \land \lnot b_{k} \land \lnot c_{k})$. Each term $\lnot a_{k}, \lnot b_{k}, \lnot c_{k}$ is still one of $x_{i},\lnot x_{i}, y_{i}, \lnot y_{i}$. By , we have $$(\lnot a_{k} \land \lnot b_{k} \land \lnot c_{k}) \quad \iff \quad {\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \Phi_{k}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}),$$ where ${\mathbf{z}}\in \N^3$, and $\Phi_{k}$ is a conjunction of $6$ inequalities. Taking negation, we have: $$\aligned
( a_{k} \lor b_{k} \lor c_{k}) \quad &\iff \quad {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \lnot\Phi_{k}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}),
\\
&\iff \quad {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \Psi_{k} (x,y,{\mathbf{z}}),
\endaligned$$ where $\Psi_{k}$ is a disjunction of $6$ inequalities. Taking conjunction over all $k$ in , we have: $$\label{eq:F_Pr}
F(\wt x,\wt y) \quad \iff \quad {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}),$$ where $$\label{eq:Phi_def}
\Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \;=\; \bigwedge_{k} \Psi_{k} (x,y,{\mathbf{z}}).$$ Substituting into , we have . If we assume in addition that ${\mathcal{L}}\in \poly$, then the circuit $C_{\ellR}$ can be built from a Turing Machine in time $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$, so the expression $\Phi_{\ellR}$ can also be found in time $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. This completes the proof.
\[def:complement\] Given $f = \GFof(S; {\mathbf{t}})$, where $S$ is a subset of a finite box $B \subset \N^{n}$. The *finite complement* $B {\backslash}f$ is $\GFof(B {\backslash}S; {\mathbf{t}})$.
\[def:union\_intersection\] Given $f_{1} = \GFof(S_{1};{\mathbf{t}}),\, \dots,\, f_{k} = \GFof(S_{k};{\mathbf{t}})$ with $S_{1},\dots,S_{k} \subseteq \N^{n}$, the *intersection* $f_{1} \cap \dots \cap f_{k}$ is $\GFof(S_{1} \cap\dots\cap S_{k}; {\mathbf{t}})$. The *union* $f_{1} \cup \dots \cup f_{k}$ is $\GFof(S_{1} \cup\dots\cup S_{k}; {\mathbf{t}})$.
\[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Ppo$ and $\ellR > 0$, there exist a finite box $B_{\ellR}$ and short GF $f_{\ellR}(t,u,\v) \in \GF_{5,5}$ with $\supp(f_{\ellR}) \subseteq B_{\ellR}$, so that $$\label{eq:Ppo_GF}
\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR};t) \, = \, \spec_{x}(B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) )$$ and $\,\phi(B_{\ellR}),\, \phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$.[^7] Furthermore, there exist polynomially many short GFs $\.p_{\ellR, 1},\.\dots,\,p_{\ellR, k_{\ellR}} \in \GF_{2,s}$ of finite supports, each of length $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$, so that: $$\label{eq:f_union}
\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) \; = \; p_{\ellR, 1} \cup \dots \cup p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}.$$ Here $\GF_{2,s}$ is some fixed class that does not depend on ${\mathcal{L}}$. If we assume in addition that ${\mathcal{L}}\in \poly$, then there is also an algorithm to compute $B_{\ellR}, f_{\ellR}$ and each $p_{\ellR,i}$ in time $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$.
For the notations $\proj, \spec, \cup$ and ${\backslash}\ts$, we refer back to definitions \[def:proj\_and\_spec\], \[def:complement\] and \[def:union\_intersection\]. By the previous lemma, there is a $\Pr$ expression $\Phi_{\ellR}$ satisfying . First, define $$\aligned
B_{\ellR} &= \{(x,y) : x \in [0,2^{\ellR}),\, y \in [0,2^{p}) \}, \\
D_{\ellR} &= \{(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) : x \in [0,2^{\ellR}),\, y \in [0,2^{p}),\, {\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3\},
\endaligned$$ where $\ellR,p$ and $q$ are from . Define: $$\label{eq:Pr_to_GF}
f_{\ellR}(t,u,\v) \;=\; \sum_{\substack{(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \in D_{\ellR} \\ \lnot\Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \;}} t^{x} \; u^{y} \; \v^{{\mathbf{z}}}.$$ Recall that $\Phi_{\ellR}$ is a quantifier free $\Pr$ expression with length $\textup{poly}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. Applying Theorem \[th:W\] to $\lnot \Phi_{\ellR}$, we can write $f_{\ellR}$ as a short GF in $\GF_{5,5}$ of finite support, which has length $\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\phi(\Phi_{\ellR})) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. For the rest of the proof, we always assume $(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \in D_{\ellR}$. We will simply write ${\exists}{\mathbf{z}}$ instead of ${\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3$. Projecting $f_{\ellR}$ on $(x,y)$, we have: $$\label{eq:ex_GF}
\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) \;=\; \sum_{(x,y) \,:\, {\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\, \lnot \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}})} t^{x} u^{y}.$$ Taking the complement of $\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR})$, which lies within the box $B_{\ellR}$, we have: $$\label{eq:sum_xy}
B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) \;=\; \sum_{(x,y) \,:\, {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\, \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}})} t^{x} \; u^{y}.$$ Recall that in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\], the variable $y$ describes the values of non-input gates in the circuit $C_{\ellR}$, with input gates coming from $x$. Since the values of non-input gates are uniquely determined by the input gates, for every $x$ that satisfies $C_{\ellR}$ we have a unique $y$. Substituting $u \gets 1$, the RHS in becomes $\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR};t)$. We obtain .
We proceed to show . Since $\lnot \Phi_{\ellR}$ is quantifier free with $5$ variables, we can apply Proposition \[prop:W\] on it and get: $$\lnot \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \quad \iff \quad \bigvee_{i=1}^{k_{\ellR}} (x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \in P_{\ellR,i} \cap \N^{5},$$ where $P_{\ellR,1},\.\dots,\,P_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}} \subseteq \R^{5}$ are disjoint polytopes (in the box $D_{\ellR}$) and $k_{\ellR} \le \polyin(\phi(\Phi_{\ellR})) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. Each polytope $P_{\ellR,i}$ also satisfies $\phi(P_{\ellR,i}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Therefore: $$\label{eq:decomp_proj}
{\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\; \lnot \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \quad \iff \quad \bigvee_{i=1}^{k_{\ellR}} {\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\; \bigl[ (x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \in P_{\ellR,i} \cap \N^{5} \bigr].$$ Combined with , we see that $(x,y) \in \supp(\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}))$ if and only if it lies in the projection of some $P_{\ellR,i} \cap \N^{5}$. By Theorem \[th:BW\], for each $i$, we can find a short GF $p_{\ellR,i} \in \GF_{2,s}$ for the projection of $P_{\ellR,i} \cap \N^{5}$. In other words, we have $p_{\ellR,i} \in \GF_{2,s}$ that satisfies: $$\supp(p_{\ellR,i}) = \{(x,y) : {\exists}{\mathbf{z}}\; (x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \in P_{\ellR,i} \cap \N^{5} \}.$$ Here $s$ is an absolute constant because each $P_{\ellR,i}$ has (fixed) dimension $5$. We also have $\phi(p_{\ellR,i}) \le \polyin(\phi(P_{\ellR,i})) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. The union of all short GFs $p_{\ellR,i}$ contains exactly all $(x,y)$ satisfying . From and , we have: $$\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) = p_{\ellR,1} \cup \dots \cup p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}.$$ This proves and completes the proof.
\[eg:squares\] Since $\textsc{SQUARES}$ and $\textsc{PRIMES}$ are both in $\poly$, we can represent all squares or primes up to $2^{\ellR}$ in the form , with $f_{\ellR}$ and $B_{\ellR}$ computable in time $\polyin(\ellR)$.
Even though $\spec_{x}(B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}))$ may seem complicated, the specialization and complement are “inexpensive operations”, which can be performed in polynomial time by theorems \[th:BPGF1\] and \[th:BPGF2\]. The main complexity resides in taking the projection of $f$.
\[rem:UP\] The same representation applies to every language ${\mathcal{L}}$ in the complexity class $\unique\Ppo$. Such a language is characterized as follows. For every $\ellR$, there is a *non-deterministic* polynomial-time Turing machine that accepts only $x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$, each with a unique accepting path. Given ${\mathcal{L}}\in \unique\Ppo$, we can obtain by the same argument as above. In fact, is an equivalent characterization of the class $\unique\Ppo$. Indeed, assume ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ can be represented as . Given $f_{\ellR}$, for any $x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ there should be a unique certificate $y$ such that $(x,y) \in B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR})$, which is checkable in polynomial time by Proposition \[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\].
Compressing short GFs of finite supports
----------------------------------------
We describe a technical tool which will be useful later. This section can be skipped at first reading.
\[def:tau\_map\] Consider $N = 2^{\ellR}$ and a vector ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_{1}, \dots, x_{d}) \in \N^{n}$ with $x_{i} \in [0,N)$ for all $1 \le i \le d$. We define the $\tau_{N}$ map on ${\mathbf{x}}$ as: $$\tau_{N}({\mathbf{x}}) \;=\; x_{1} + N x_{2} + \dots + N^{n-1} x_{d} \; \in [0,N^{n}).$$ For an array of vectors $\ov {\mathbf{x}}= ({\mathbf{x}}_{1},\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_{n})$ with ${\mathbf{x}}_{i} \in [0,N)^{n_{i}}$, we define: $$\tau_{N}(\ov {\mathbf{x}}) \;=\; (\tau_{N}({\mathbf{x}}_{1}),\dots,\tau_{N}({\mathbf{x}}_{k})) \; \in \; [0,N^{n_{1}}) \times \dots \times [0,N^{n_{k}}).$$ Finally, for a set $S \subseteq [0,N)^{n_{1}} \times \dots \times [0,N)^{n_{k}}$, we define $\tau_{N}(S) = \{\tau_{N}(\ov {\mathbf{x}}) : \ov {\mathbf{x}}\in S\}$.
The following technical tool allows us to reduce the number of variables in a short GF of finite support.
\[lem:compress\] Fix $k,s$ and $n_{1},\dots,n_{k} \in \N$. Let $n = n_{1} + \ldots + n_{k}$.
Given a short GF $g(\ov {\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}_{1}^{{\mathbf{x}}_{1}} \dots {\mathbf{t}}_{k}^{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}}$ of finite support in the class $\GF_{n,s}\.$, there exist an $N = 2^{\ellR}$ with $\,\supp(g) \subseteq [0,N)^{n_{1}} \times \dots \times [0,N)^{n_{k}}$ and a short GF $f({\mathbf{u}}) = \sum u_{1}^{z_{1}} \dots u_{k}^{z_{k}}$ in the class $\GF_{k,s}$ so that $$\label{eq:compress}
\supp(f) = \tau_{N}(\supp(g)) \;\subseteq\; [0,N^{n_{1}}) \times \dots \times [0,N^{n_{k}}).$$ Both $f$ and $N$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(g))$ with $\phi(f), \log N \le \polyin(\phi(g))$.
Conversely, given $f({\mathbf{u}}) = \sum u_{1}^{z_{1}} \dots u_{k}^{z_{k}} \in \GF_{k,s}$ and $N = 2^{\ellR}$ such that $$\supp(f) \;\subseteq\; [0,N^{n_{1}}) \times \dots \times [0,N^{n_{k}}),$$ there exists $g(\ov {\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}_{1}^{{\mathbf{x}}_{1}} \dots {\mathbf{t}}_{k}^{{\mathbf{x}}_{k}} \in \GF_{n, n+s}$ with $\supp(g) \subseteq [0,N)^{n_{1}} \times \dots \times [0,N)^{n_{k}}$ which satisfies . The short GF $g$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(f)+\log N)$.
Proof for the lemma is technical and is postponed until Section \[s:lemma-proof\]. We note that the compression map $\tau_{N}$ in Definition \[def:tau\_map\] is similar to that used in the polynomial identity testing algorithm of Klivans and Spielman [@KS]. Using Lemma \[lem:compress\], we can reduce the number of variables of $f_{\ellR}$ in down to $3$.
\[cor:Ppo\_to\_GF\_3\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Ppo$ and $\ellR > 0$, there exist a finite box $B_{\ellR}$ and short GF $f_{\ellR}(t,u,v) \in \GF_{3,5}$ with $\supp(f_{\ellR}) \subseteq B_{\ellR}$, so that holds. The rest is identical to Theorem \[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\].
We have with $f_{\ellR}(t,u,\v) = \sum t^{x} u^{y} \v^{{\mathbf{z}}} \in \GF_{5,5}$ a short GF of finite support in five variables $(t,u,v_{1},v_{2},v_{3})$. Using part a) of Lemma \[lem:compress\], we can compress ${\mathbf{z}}$ into a single-variable $w$, leaving both $x$ and $y$ unchanged. In other words, $t^{x} u^{y} \v^{{\mathbf{z}}}$ becomes $t^{x} u^{y} v^{w}$. Note that $\proj_{x,y}$ is not affected by compression. This gives us a short GF $\wt f_{\ellR} \in \GF_{3,5}$ with $$\proj_{x,y}(\wt f_{\ellR}) \; = \; \proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) \quad \text{and} \quad \phi(\wt f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\phi(f_{\ellR})) \le \polyin(\ellR).$$ So we can substitute $\wt f_{\ellR}$ for $f_{\ellR}$ in .
Short GFs and the non-uniform polynomial hierarchy {#sec:nu-hier}
==================================================
The non-uniform polynomial hierarchy $\PH\po$ starts with $\Ppo = \SigmaP_{0}\po = \PiP_{0}\po$ at the $0$th level. For $k>0$, a language ${\mathcal{L}}$ is in $\SigmaP_{k}\po$ if for every $\ellR > 0$, there is a circuit $C_{\ellR}$ of size $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ so that for every string $\wt x$ of length $\ellR$ we have: $$\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \quad \iff \quad {\exists}\wt y_{1} \; {\forall}\wt y_{2} \dots \; Q_{k} \wt y_{k} : C_{\ellR}(x,y_{1},\dots,y_{k}) = 1.$$ Here $Q_{1},\dots,Q_{k}$ are $k$ alternating quantifiers with $Q_{1}={\exists}$, and $\wt y_{1},\dots, \wt y_{k}$ are binary strings of length polynomial in $\ellR$. For $\PiP_{k}\po$ the alternating quantifiers are reversed ($Q_{1}={\forall}$). We have a the following analogue to Lemma \[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\] for each level in $\PH\po$:
\[lem:PH\_to\_Pr\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaP_{k}\po$ and $\ellR > 0$, there exists a quantifier free $\Pr$ expression in $k+4$ variables $x \in \N$, ${\mathbf{y}}\in \N^{k}$, ${\mathbf{z}}\in \N^{3}$, so that $\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ if and only if: $$\label{eq:PH_Pr}
x \in [0,2^{\ellR}) \,\land\, \Big[ Q_{1} y_{1} \in [0,2^{p_{1}}) \, \dots \, Q_{k} y_{k} \in [0,2^{p_{k}}) \; Q_{k+1} {\mathbf{z}}\in [0,2^{q})^3 : \Phi_{\ellR}(x,{\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{z}}) \Big].$$ Here $Q_{1}, \dots, Q_{k+1}$ are $k+1$ alternating quantifiers with $Q_{1} = {\exists}$. Moreover, we have $p_{1},\dots,p_{k},q,\phi(\Phi_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. For the case ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PiP_{k}\po$, the quantifiers $Q_{i}$ are reversed.
For simplicity, we prove the claim for ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaP_{1} = \NP\po$. The higher levels $\SigmaP_{k}\po$ and $\PiP_{k}\po$ can be argued similarly. Since ${\mathcal{L}}\in \NP\po$, for each $\ellR$, there is a circuit $C_{\ellR}$ of size $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ such that $$\label{eq:NP_cert}
\wt x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \quad \iff \quad {\exists}\, \wt c \in \{0,1\}^{\rCr} \. : \. C_{\ellR}(\wt x,\wt c) = 1\ts ,$$ where $\rCr \le \textup{poly}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ is the certificate length. The circuit $C_{\ellR}$ also has $p$ non-input gates with $p \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. Let $p' = \rCr + p$. Note that the certificate gates $\wt c \in \{0,1\}^{\rCr}$ and the non-input gates $\wt y \in \{0,1\}^{p}$ can be coded by a single integer $y \in [0,2^{p'})$. The argument now proceeds similarly to Lemma \[eq:Ppo\_Pr\] with $p'$ in place of $p$.
In [@G Lemma 5.2], Grädel gave a similar representation to . In his representation, each string $\wt x = (x_{1},\dots,x_{\ellR}) \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$ is not simply mapped to its binary integer value, but to: $$x = p_{1}^{x_{1}} \dots p_{\ellR}^{x_{\ellR}} \, q_{1}^{1 - x_{1}} \dots q_{\ellR}^{1 - x_{\ellR}},$$ where $p_{1},\dots,p_{\ellR}, q_{1},\dots, q_{\ellR}$ are the first $2\ellR$ prime numbers.
From this result, we see that the problem of deciding $\Pr$ sentences of the form ${\exists}{\mathbf{y}}\ts {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\, \Phi({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{z}})\ts $ is at least $\NP$-hard. Schöning [@S] showed that the problem is $\NP$-complete even for the case $\ts {\exists}y \ts {\forall}z \, \Phi(y,z)$, i.e., when both variables are singletons.
\[def:anti-projection\] Let $f = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{u}}^{{\mathbf{y}}} = \GFof(S; {\mathbf{t}},{\mathbf{u}})$, where $S$ is a subset of a finite box $I \times J$. The *anti-projection* $\cproj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f)$ is $F(I; {\mathbf{t}}) - \proj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f)$, where the projection $\proj_{{\mathbf{x}}}(f)$ is from Definition \[def:proj\_and\_spec\]. The box $I \times J$ is always specified before taking the anti-projection.
\[th:PH\_to\_GF\] For every language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaP_{k}\po$ and $\ellR > 0$, there exists a short GF $f_{\ellR} \in \GF_{k+2,k+4}$ of the form $f_{\ellR}(t,u_{1},\dots,u_{k},v) = \sum t^{x} u_{1}^{y_{1}} \dots u_{k}^{y_{k}} v^{z}$ such that $$\label{eq:PH_GF}
\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR};t) \, = \proj_{x}\Big( \cproj_{x,y_{1}} \big( \proj_{x,y_{1},y_{2}} ( \cdots (f_{\ellR}) \cdots ) \big) \Big),$$ where the $k$ alternating projections and anti-projections are taken in a finite box $$B_{\ellR} = [0,2^{\ellR}) \times [0,2^{p_{1}}) \times \dots \times [0,2^{p_{k}}) \times [0,2^{q}).$$ Moreover, we have $p_{1},\dots,p_{k},q,\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. For ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PiP_{k}\po$, the projections and anti-projections are reversed.
By Lemma \[lem:PH\_to\_Pr\], we can represent ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ in the form . Applying the same argument in Theorem \[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\], we get $f_{\ellR}(t,u_{1},\dots,u_{k},\v) = \sum t^{x} u_{1}^{y_{1}} \dots u_{k}^{y_{k}} \v^{{\mathbf{z}}} \in \GF_{k+4,k+4}$ that satisfy . Applying Lemma \[lem:compress\] a), we can compress the last three variables $\v^{{\mathbf{z}}} = v_{1}^{z_{1}} v_{2}^{z_{2}} v_{3}^{z_{3}}$ into just one variable $v^{w}$ without affecting the projections (see the proof of Corollary \[cor:Ppo\_to\_GF\_3\]). This reduces $f_{\ellR}$ to a short GF in $\GF_{k+2,k+4}$.
\[rem:in\_PH\] If in addition $L \in \PH$, then both $\Phi_{\ellR}$ and $f_{\ellR}$ in Lemma \[lem:PH\_to\_Pr\] and Theorem \[th:PH\_to\_GF\] can be computed in time $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. Indeed, if ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PH$, the circuit $C_{\ellR}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ in Lemma \[lem:PH\_to\_Pr\]’s proof can be automatically generated by some polynomial time Turing Machine $M$. We can convert $C_{\ellR}$ to $\Phi_{\ellR}$ in polynomial time, which allows us to find $f_{\ellR}$.
As a consequence, we obtain the following result.
\[cor:2\_proj\_hard\] Assume we are given $a_{0} \in \N$, a short GF $f(t,u,v) = \sum t^{x} u^{y} v^{z} \in \GF_{3,5}$, and a finite box $B \subset \N^{3}$ with $\supp(f) \subseteq B$. Then deciding whether $a_{0} \in \supp(h)$ is $\NP$-complete, where $h = \proj_{x}(\cproj_{x,y}(f))$. Here the projection and anti-projection are taken within $B$.
If $a_{0} \in \supp(h)$, there exists some $b_{0}$ so that $(a_{0},b_{0})$ lies in the support of $\cproj_{x,y}(f)$. Since $\cproj_{x,y}(f)$ is taken within $B$, which is bounded, both $a_{0}$ and $b_{0}$ must have polynomial lengths. Given such a certificate $b_{0}$, we can verify if $(a_{0},b_{0})$ lies in the support of $\proj_{x,y}(f)$ in polynomial time, by applying Proposition \[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\]. Taking a negation, we can also check whether $(a_{0},b_{0})$ lies in the anti-projection $ \cproj_{x,y}(f)$. This shows the problem is in $\NP$.
The problem is also $\NP$-hard. Indeed, let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an $\NP$ language. Applying Theorem \[th:PH\_to\_GF\] for the case ${\mathcal{L}}\in \NP$, we have $\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}; t) \. = \. \proj_{x}\bigl(\cproj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR})\bigr),$ where $f_{\ellR}$ is supported inside a box $B_{\ellR}$. By Remark \[rem:in\_PH\], we can compute $f_{\ellR}$ and $B_{\ellR}$ in polynomial time. So checking $x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ is equivalent to checking $x \in \supp(h_{\ellR})$, where $h_{\ellR} = \proj_{x}(B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}))$.
Compared to Proposition \[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\], we see that it is no longer easy to check for membership after taking two separate projections on a short GF.
A hierarchy of generating functions {#sec:GF}
===================================
We introduce a hierarchy $\GH$ of languages expressible as projections of generating functions. First, we define the lowest level $\Gzero = \SigmaG_{0} = \PiG_{0}$.
\[def:Gzero\] For a language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \{0,1\}^{*}$, we say that ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Gzero$ if there is an $s > 0$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$, we can represent $\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}; t) = f_{\ellR}(t)$ where $f_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ and $\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. In other words, every segment ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ can be represented as a short GF of polynomial length in some fixed class $\GF_{1,s}$.
We define higher classes $\SigmaG_{k}$ and $\PiG_{k}$ by taking repeated projections/anti-projections.
\[def:SigmaG\] For a language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \{0,1\}^{*}$, we say that ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaG_{k}$ if there is an $s > 0$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$, we can represent: $$\label{eq:SigmaG}
\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}; t) \, = \; \proj_{x}\Big( \cproj_{x,y_{1}} \big( \proj_{x,y_{1},y_{2}} ( \cdots (f_{\ellR}) \cdots ) \big) \Big),$$ where $f_{\ellR}(t,u_{1},\dots,u_{k}) = \sum t^{x} u_{1}^{y_{1}} \dots u_{k}^{y_{k}} \in \GF_{k+1, s}$ is supported inside a finite box $B_{\ellR}$, with both $\phi(B_{\ellR}),\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. The $k$ alternating projections/anti-projections are taken within $B_{\ellR}$. The class $\PiG_{k}$ is defined similarly, with the projections/anti-projections in reversed. Alternatively, ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PiG_{k}$ if and only if the complement language $\lnot {\mathcal{L}}$ is in $\SigmaG_{k}$.
\[def:GH\] $\GH$ is the union of all $\SigmaG_{k}$ and $\PiG_{k}$ for all $k \ge 0$.
We list some properties of $\GH$:
- $\SigmaG_{k},\, \PiG_{k} \,\subseteq\, \SigmaG_{k+1} \cap \PiG_{k+1}$ for all $k \ge 0$.
- $\Gzero,\, \SigmaG_{1},\, \PiG_{1} \,\subseteq\, \Ppo$ (propositions \[prop:supp\_is\_P\] and \[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\]).
- $\Ppo \subseteq \unique\PiG_{1}$, the subclass of $\SigmaG_{2}$ with only $\spec_{x}$ and $\cproj_{x,y}$ (Theorem \[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\]).
- In fact, $\unique\PiG_{1} = \unique\Ppo$ (Remark \[rem:UP\]).
- $\SigmaP_{k}\po \subseteq \SigmaG_{k+1},\, \PiP_{k}\po \subseteq \PiG_{k+1}$ for all $k \ge 1$ (Theorem \[th:PH\_to\_GF\]).
The last property can actually be strengthened to:
\[th:GH\_PHpo\] $\SigmaP_{k}\po = \SigmaG_{k+1} $ and $\,\PiP_{k}\po = \PiG_{k+1}$ for every $k \ge 1$. So $\GH = \PH\po$, i.e., $\GH$ is exactly the non-uniform version of $\PH$.
Theorem \[th:PH\_to\_GF\] already showed inclusion in one direction. For the other direction, assume ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaG_{k+1}$. From Definition \[def:SigmaG\], for every $\ellR > 0$, we have: $$ \GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}; t) \, = \, \proj_{x}\Big( \cproj_{x,y_{1}} \big( \proj_{x,y_{1},y_{2}} ( \cdots (f_{\ellR}) \cdots ) \big) \Big),$$ where $f_{\ellR}$ is a short GF of length $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ in some fixed class $\GF_{k+2,s}$. Here we are taking $k+1$ alternating projections and anti-projections on $f_{\ellR}(x,y_{1},\dots,y_{k+1}) = \sum t^{x} u_{1}^{y_{1}} \dots u_{k+1}^{y_{k+1}}$ within some finite box $B_{\ellR}$. Note that by Proposition \[prop:supp\_proj\_is\_P\], we can check in polynomial time if $(x,y_{1},\dots,y_{k})$ lies in the inner most projection/anti-projection. So given $f_{\ellR}$ as an advice string, we can decide if $x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ by calling a $\SigmaP_{k}$ oracle for the remaining $k$ projections/anti-projections. This implies ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaP_{k}\po$. The case ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PiG_{k+1}$ is similar.
Short GFs have long projections {#sec:long-proj}
===============================
Proof of Theorem \[th:main\_1\]
-------------------------------
\[th:weaker\_assumption\] If $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$, then $\Gzero \subsetneq \Ppo$.
We saw in Section \[sec:GF\] that $\Gzero \subseteq \Ppo$. Now we show $\Ppo$ is strictly larger than $\Gzero$. Let $\#{\mathcal{L}}$ be an $\sharpP$-complete problem (e.g. $\textsc{\#3SAT}$), which is outside of $\FPpo$ by the assumption $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$. Associated to $\#{\mathcal{L}}$ is a polynomial time Turing machine $M$. Given $\wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$, $\#{\mathcal{L}}$ asks for the number of certificates $\wt c \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$ that satisfy $M(\wt x, \wt c) = 1$. Define a language: $$\label{eq:M_lang}
\M = \{(\wt x, \wt c) : \text{length}(\wt x) = \text{length}(\wt c) \; \text{ and } \; M(\wt x,\wt c) = 1\}.
\footnote{In general, the instance $\wt x$ and certificate $\wt c$ can have different lengths. However, the Turing Machine $M$ can always be modified to accept only $\wt c$ and $\wt x$ of equal lengths.}$$ Since $M$ runs in polynomial time, we also have $\M \in \Ppo$. We show that $\M \notin \Gzero$.
Assume the contrary, i.e., $\M \in \Gzero$. Then there is a fixed $s$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$, we have $\M_{\ellR} = \supp(f_{\ellR})$, where $f_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ and $\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Let $x,c \in [0,2^{\ellR})$ be the integers corresponding to $\wt x, \wt c \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$. Then the concatenated string $(\wt x, \wt c)$ corresponds to $x + 2^{\ellR} c$. We assumed that there is an $f_{2\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ such that $$\phi(f_{2\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR) \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{(\wt x, \wt c) \in \M_{2\ellR}} t^{x+2^{\ellR}c} = f_{2\ellR}(t).$$ Given $\wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$, we must compute the number of $\wt c \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$ which satisfy $(\wt x, \wt c) \in \M_{2\ellR}$. Define $$\label{eq:sum_c}
g_{x}(t) = \sum_{0 \le c < 2^{\ellR}} t^{x + 2^{\ellR}c} = t^{x} \frac{1-t^{2^{2\ellR}}}{1-t^{2^{\ellR}}}.$$ We have $\phi(g_{x}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. We also have $f_{2\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ and $g_{x} \in \GF_{1,1}$. Therefore, by Theorem \[th:BPGF2\], the short GF $h_{x} = f_{2\ellR} \.\star\. g_{x}$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\phi(f_{2\ellR}) + \phi(g_{x})) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. The number of certificates $\wt c$ for $\wt x$ is simply $h_{x}(1)$. This substitution can be computed in time $\polyin(\ellR)$ by Theorem \[th:BPGF1\].
To summarize, the short GF $f_{2\ellR}$ gives us a polynomial size circuit to solve $\#{\mathcal{L}}$ for all inputs $\wt x \in \{0,1\}^{\ellR}$ in time $\polyin(\ellR)$. We conclude that $\#{\mathcal{L}}\in \FPpo$, a contradiction.
Now we can formulate Theorem \[th:main\_1\] in precise terms:
\[cor:proj\_long\_strong\] If $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$, then $\GH$ does not collapse to its $0$th level $\Gzero$. In other words, there is a sequence $\big\{f_{\ellR}\big\}_{\ellR > 0}$ in some fixed class $\GF_{2,s}$ with $\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$ so that for every $d$, $\proj_{x}(f_{\ellR})$ cannot be written as a short GF $h_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,d}$ with $\phi(h_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
Recall that $\Gzero \subseteq \Ppo \subseteq \GH$ (Section \[sec:GF\]). Now this follows from Theorem \[th:weaker\_assumption\].
A partial converse
------------------
One can ask if the above argument in the proof above can be reversed, i.e., if $\sharpP \subseteq \FPpo$, does it imply that $\GH$ collapses to $\Gzero$? We present below a weaker result.
Recall from Section \[sec:GF\] that $\unique\PiG_{1}$ the subclass of $\SigmaG_{2}$ that uses only $\spec_{x}$ and $\cproj_{x,y}$. In other words, ${\mathcal{L}}\in \unique\PiG_{1}$ if for every $\ellR > 0$, we have $\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR};t) = \spec_{x}(\cproj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}))$ for some $f_{\ellR}$ in some fixed class $\GF_{3,s}$ with $\phi(f_{\ellR}) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. We also know that $\unique\PiG_{1} = \unique\Ppo$.
\[prop:partial\_converse\] If $\sharpP \subseteq \FPpo$, then $\GH$ collapses to $\unique\PiG_{1}$.
Since $\GH = \PH\po$ and $\unique\PiG_{1} = \unique\Ppo$, it equivalent to show $\PH\po = \unique\Ppo$. In fact, we have a stronger collapse, namely $\PH\po = \Ppo$. This follows easily from *Toda’s theorem* (see e.g. [@AB Sec. 9.3]). Indeed, by Toda’s theorem , we have $\PH \subseteq \poly^{\textsc{\#SAT}}$. Replacing the $\textsc{\#SAT}$ oracle by polynomial size circuits, we have $\PH \subseteq \poly^{\Ppo} = \Ppo$. Taking the non-uniform version of $\PH$, we still have $\PH\po \subseteq \Ppo$.
\[rem:hard\] The proposition implies that proving $\GH$ does not collapse to between its 1st and 2nd levels is at least as hard as showing $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$. However, there might still be hope of showing that $\textsf{GH}$ does not collapse to its $0$th level $\Gzero$, e.g., by proving Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\].
\[rem:strong\_collapse\] We do not claim that Proposition \[prop:partial\_converse\] is a new collapse result assuming $\sharpP \subseteq \FP\po$. Here we are only putting things in the context of short GFs. Observe that $\sharpP \subseteq \FP\po$ implies $\NP \subseteq \Ppo$. In turn, $\NP \subseteq \Ppo$ implies $\PH = \textsf{S}_{2}^{\poly}$ (see [@C]), which is the strongest collapse currently known, assuming $\NP \subseteq \Ppo$. Note that the classical *Karp–Lipton theorem* (see e.g. [@AB; @MM; @Pap]), says that $\NP \subseteq \Ppo$ implies $\PH = \SigmaP_{2}$, which is weaker because $\textsf{S}_{2}^{\poly} \subseteq \SigmaP_{2} \cap \PiP_{2}$.
Intersections, unions and Minkowski sums of short GFs {#sec:int-unions}
=====================================================
Proof of Theorem \[th:main\_2\]
-------------------------------
Below is the precise statement of Theorem \[th:main\_2\].
\[th:union\_long\] Assume $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$. Then there is an $s > 0$ and a family of finite subsets $\big\{ S_{\ellR} \big\}_{\ellR > 0}$ with each $S_{\ellR} = \{p_{\ellR,1}, \dots, p_{\ellR, k_{\ellR}}\} \subset \GF_{1,s}$ so than the following hold:
- The total length of all $\,p_{\ellR,i}$ in $S_{\ellR}$ is $\polyin(\ellR)$.
- For every fixed $d$, the intersection/union of all $\,p_{\ellR,i}$ in $S_{\ellR}$ cannot be written as a short GF $h_{\ellR} \in \GF_{2,d}$ with $\phi(h_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
By Theorem \[th:weaker\_assumption\], there exists a language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Ppo$ which is outside of $\Gzero$. By Theorem \[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\], for every $\ellR > 0$, we can represent: $$\GFof({\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}; t) \, = \, \spec_{x}(B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) ) \quad \text{and} \quad \proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) \; = \; p_{\ellR, 1} \cup \dots \cup p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}},$$ where $f_{\ellR} \in \GF_{5,5},\; p_{\ellR,i} \in \GF_{2,s}$ and $\phi(B_{\ellR}),\, \phi(f_{\ellR}),\, \sum \phi(p_{\ellR,i}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Here $s$ is some universal constant.
Let $S_{\ellR} = \{p_{\ellR,1},\dots,p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}\}$. This family $\big\{S_{\ellR}\big\}$ satisfies condition a). We show that the union of $p_{\ellR,i}$ cannot be written as a short GF of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. Indeed, assume there is $d$ for which we can write $\proj_{x,y}(f_{\ellR}) = p_{\ellR, 1} \cup \dots \cup p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}\,$ as $h_{\ellR} \in \GF_{2,d}$ with $\phi(h_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. By Theorem \[th:BPGF2\], the complement $B_{\ellR} {\backslash}h_{\ellR}$ can be written as a short GF $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{2,2d}$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. Taking the specialization $\spec_{x}(g_{\ellR})$, we still have a short GF in $\GF_{2,2d}$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$, which represents ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$. Since this holds for all $\ellR > 0$, we have ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Gzero$, a contradiction. So the family $\big\{S_{\ellR}\big\}$ also satisfies b).
Note that each $p_{\ellR,i}$ still has $2$ variables $x,y$. By Lemma \[lem:compress\] part a), we can compress each $p_{\ellR,i}$ into a single variable short GF $\,\wt p_{\ellR,i} \in \GF_{1,s}$ of polynomial length. Then the new subsets $\wt S_{\ellR} = \{ \wt p_{\ellR,1}, \dots, \wt p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}\} \subset \GF_{1,s}$ still satisfy condition a). We show they still satisfy condition b). Indeed, note that compressing/decompression preserves intersection and union. So if $\,\wt p_{\ellR,i}\,$ has a polynomial length union then Lemma \[lem:compress\] part b) allows us the decompress it into a polynomial length union of $p_{\ellR,i}$. This completes the proof for the case of union. The case of intersection follows by taking complements of $p_{\ellR,i}$.
Proof of Theorem \[th:main\_3\]
-------------------------------
Given two GFs $a = \GFof(S_{1}; {\mathbf{t}})$ and $b = \GFof(S_{2}; {\mathbf{t}})$ with $S_{1},S_{2} \subseteq \N^{n}$, the *Minkowski sum* $a \oplus b$ is $\GFof(S_{1}\oplus S_{2};{\mathbf{t}})$, where $S_{1} \oplus S_{2}$ is the usual Minkowski sum of two point sets.
Given ${{\overline{b}}}= (b_{1},\dots,b_{n}) \in \N^{n}$, the semigroup $\N \langle b_{1}, \dots, b_{n} \rangle$ consists of all non-negative integer combinations of the $b_{j}$’s. Its generating function is given by: $$f_{{{\overline{b}}}}(t) \, = \, \frac{1}{1-t^{b_{1}}} \. \oplus \, \dots \, \oplus \. \frac{1}{1-t^{b_{n}}}.$$ Given such ${{\overline{b}}}\in \N^{n}$ and $a \in \N$, the $\textsc{KNAPSACK}$ problem asks if $a \in \supp(f_{{{\overline{b}}}})$.
Below is the precise statement of Theorem \[th:main\_3\].
\[th:Minkowski\_long\] Assume $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$. Then there is an $s > 0$ and two sequences $\{a_{\ellR}\}_{\ellR > 0},\, \{b_{\ellR}\}_{\ellR > 0} \subset \GF_{1,s}$ such that
- $\phi(a_{\ellR}) + \phi(b_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
- For every fixed $d$, the Minkowski sum $\,a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}\,$ cannot be written as a short GF $h_{\ellR}$ in $\GF_{1,d}$ of length $\phi(h_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
By Theorem \[th:union\_long\], there exists an $s > 0$, and for each $\ellR$ a subset $$S_{\ellR} = \{p_{\ellR,1},\dots,p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}\} \subset \GF_{1,s} \quad \text{with} \quad \sum \phi(p_{\ellR,i}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$$ with the following property. For every fixed $d$, the union $h_{\ellR} = p_{\ellR,i} \cup \dots \cup p_{\ellR,k_{\ellR}}$ cannot be written as a short GF of length $\polyin(\ellR)$ in $\GF_{1,d}$. Define $$\label{eq:a_def}
a_{\ellR}(t,u) \,=\, \sum_{i=1}^{k_{\ellR}} p_{\ellR,i}(t) \. u^{i} \,\in\, \GF_{2,s}.$$ and $$\label{eq:b_def}
b_{\ellR}(t,u) \,=\, \sum_{i=0}^{k_{\ellR}-1} t^{0} u^{i} = \frac{1 - u^{k_{\ellR}}}{1-u} \,\in\, \GF_{1,1} \subset \GF_{2,s}.$$ Since $\sum \phi(p_{\ellR,i}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$, we also have $\phi(a_{\ellR}) + \phi(b_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
Consider the terms $t^{x} u^{k_{\ellR}}$ in the Minkowski sum $a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}$. From and , we have: $$\big\{x : (x,k_{\ellR}) \in \supp(a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}) \big\} \, = \, \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_{\ellR}} \supp(p_{\ellR,i}) \, = \, \supp(h_{\ellR}).$$ In other words, we have $[u^{k_{\ellR}}] (a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}) (t,u) = h_{\ellR}(t)$. Define $$g_{\ellR}(t,u) = \sum_{x \in \N} t^{x} u^{k_{\ellR}} = \frac{u^{k_{\ellR}}}{1-t}.$$ Taking the intersection of $g_{\ellR}$ with $a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}$, we get: $$\label{eq:extract_g}
\big[(a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}) \star g_{\ellR}\big] (t,u) = u^{k_{\ellR}} \. h_{\ellR}(t).$$
Now assume there is $d$ so that $a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}$ can be written as $c_{\ellR} \in \GF_{2,d}$ with $\phi(c_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. By Theorem \[th:BPGF2\], we can compute $h_{\ellR}$ by taking the Hadamard product $c_{\ellR} \star g_{\ellR}$ and substitute $u \gets 1$ in . This would imply that $h_{\ellR}$ is a short GF of length $\polyin(\ellR)$ in the fixed class $\GF_{1,d+1}$, which contradicts our first statement on $h_{\ellR}$.
So the two sequences $\{a_{\ellR}\}_{\ellR > 0}$ and $\{b_{\ellR}\}_{\ellR > 0} \subset \GF_{2,s}$ do not have Minkowski sums of polynomial lengths. Note that each $a_{\ellR}$ and $b_{\ellR}$ still has two variables. By Lemma \[lem:compress\] part a), we can compress $a_{\ellR}, b_{\ellR}$ into single variable short GFs $\wt a_{\ellR}, \wt b_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$. Note that compressing/decompression preserves Minkowski sum. So $\wt a_{\ellR} \oplus \wt b_{\ellR}$ does not have polynomial length, because otherwise we can decompress it to get $a_{\ellR} \oplus b_{\ellR}$ of polynomial length.
Squares, primes, and short GFs {#sec:squares-primes}
==============================
Short GFs and squares
---------------------
Recall the definition of the class $\Gzero$ from Section \[sec:GF\]. We present a candidate for a language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \Ppo$ which is outside of $\Gzero$. Let $\textsc{SQUARES}$ be the language consisting of all square numbers written in binary. Then $$\label{eq:squares_l}
\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR} = \{k^{2} :\; k^{2} < 2^{\ellR}\}.\footnote{Strictly speaking, some numbers in $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ have less than $\ellR$ digits. However, we can always pad them with enough zeroes form a set of strings of the same length.}$$
\[conj:squares\_long\] $\textsc{SQUARES}$ is not in $\Gzero$.
In other words, the conjecture says that for every fixed $s$, the segment $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ cannot be represented as $\supp(g_{\ellR})$ for a short GF $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ of length $\phi(g_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Note that this conjecture is free of complexity assumptions. If true, Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] shows unconditionally that $\Gzero \subsetneq \Ppo$, which implies $\Gzero \subsetneq \GH$. We already know from Example \[eg:squares\] and Section \[sec:GF\] that $\textsc{SQUARES} \in \unique\PiG_{1} \subseteq \GH$. So $\text{SQUARES}$ should be a candidate that separates $\Gzero$ from $\unique\PiG_{1}$ according to this conjecture.
We begin with the following attractive result.
\[th:squares-factoring\] If Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] is false, then $\textsc{INTEGER FACTORING} \in \BPP$.
We build on an argument in Section 6 of [@B2]. Assume there is an $s>0$ so that for every $N = 2^{\ellR}$, we can write $\GFof\big(\text{SQUARES}_{\ellR};t\big) = g_{\ellR}(t)$, where $g_{\ellR}(t)$ is a short GF in $\GF_{1,s}$ with $\phi(g) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Consider: $$h_{\ellR}(t) \. = \. g_{\ellR}(t)^{4} \. = \. \Biggl( \sum_{n^{2} < N} t^{n^{2}} \Biggr)^4 \, = \. \sum_{k \ge 0 } a_{\ellR}(k) t^{k}\ts,$$ where $$a_{\ellR}(k) \. = \. \# \Bigl\{ (n_{1},n_{2},n_{3},n_{4}) : n_{i}^{2} < N, \; \sum n_{i}^{2} = k \Bigr\}\ts.$$ In particular, if $k < N$, then $a_{\ellR}(k)$ is the number of ways to write $k$ as a sum of $4$ squares. Since $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$, we have $h_{\ellR} = g_{\ellR}^4 \in \GF_{1,4s}$ and also $\phi(h) \le \polyin(\phi(g)) \le \polyin(\ellR)$.
Applying Proposition \[prop:supp\_is\_P\], each coefficient $a_{\ellR}(k)$ can be computed in time $\polyin(\ellR)$. By Jacobi’s formula (see e.g. [@HW]), we also have: $$a_{\ellR}(k) \. = \. 8 \sum_{4 \nmid d,\. d | k} d \quad \text{for} \quad k < N\ts.$$ Here $d$ is a divisor of $k$ which is not a multiple of $4$. From this, we can compute in time $\polyin(\ellR)$ the sum of divisors $\sigma(k)$ for every $k < N = 2^{\ellR}$. By a standard argument (see e.g. [@BMS]), given $\sigma(k)$, a factorization of $k$ can be computed in probabilistic polynomial time ($\BPP$).
\[t:squares-sharp\] If Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] is false, then $\sharpP \subseteq \FPpo$.
In [@MA], it is proved that the following problem is $\NP$-complete: Given $\al,\be,\ga \in \N$, decide whether there exists $x \in \N$ such that $$\label{eq:square_congruence}
0 \le x \le \ga \quad \text{and} \quad x^{2} \equiv \al \, (\text{mod}\; \be).$$ The argument in [@MA] actually gave bijection between the set of Boolean strings satisfying a $\textsc{3SAT}$ formula and the set of $x$ satisfying . Here $\al,\be$ and $\ga$ can be computed in polynomial time from the $\textsc{3SAT}$ formula. Since counting the number of $\textsc{3SAT}$ solutions is $\sharpP$-complete, so is counting the number of solutions for .
Now assume Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] fails, then $\textsc{SQUARES} \in \Gzero$. This means there is an $s > 0$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$ we can write $\GFof\big(\text{SQUARES}_{\ellR};t\big) = g_{\ellR}(t)$ for some $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ with $\phi(g_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Given $\al,\be,\ga \in \N$, we define: $$h(t) = \sum_{i=0}^{\ga^{2}} t^{i} = \frac{1-t^{\ga^{2} + 1}} {1-t} \quad \text{and} \quad k(t) = \sum_{x \equiv \al \, (\text{mod}\;\be)} t^{x} = \frac{t^{\al}}{1-t^{\be}}.$$ Let $\ellR = 2 \lceil \log\ga \rceil$. The number of solutions for can be counted by taking $g_{\ellR} \.\star\. h \.\star\. k$ and evaluate at $t = 1$, which are polynomial time operations by theorems \[th:BPGF1\] and \[th:BPGF2\]. So the above $\sharpP$-complete problem can be solved by polynomial size circuits, which are provided by the $g_{\ellR}$ for different $\ellR$. This implies $\sharpP \subseteq \FPpo$.
By Theorem \[th:Ppo\_to\_GF\], we can represent $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ as $\spec_{x}(B_{\ellR} {\backslash}\proj_{y}(f_{\ellR}))$ for some short GF $f_{\ellR}$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] says that it is not possible to do so without using projections. In the domain of $\Pr$ formulas, by Lemma \[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\], we can represent $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ with a ${\exists}{\forall}$-formula of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. A similar question can be asked, i.e., are quantifiers necessary? The following result shows that two quantifiers ${\exists}{\forall}$ are necessary in Lemma \[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\], already in the case of $\textsc{SQUARES}$.
\[prop:ex\_not\_enough\] $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ cannot be represented by an ${\exists}$-formula of length $\polyin(\ellR)$ in a fixed number of variables.
By $\AP_{k}$ we mean a $k$-term arithmetic progression. It is well known that $\textsc{SQUARES}$ does not contain any non-trivial $\AP_{4}$. This was suggested by Fermat in 1640 and proved by Euler in 1780 (see e.g. [@Weil p. 115]). Also, the cardinality of $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ is super-polynomial in $\ellR$. With these two observations, this proposition follows directly from the next theorem when $k=4$.
\[th:ex\_AP\] For every fixed $n$ and $k$, there exists a polynomial $P$ so that the following holds. If an ${\exists}$-formula $$\label{eq:ex_formula}
\{ \ts x \;:\; {\exists}{\mathbf{y}}\in \zz^{n} \;\; \Phi(x,{\mathbf{y}}) \ts \}$$ determines a set of cardinality at least $P(\phi(\Phi))$, then it must contain a non-trivial $\AP_k$.
By Proposition \[prop:W\], we know that there is a constant $c = c(n)>0$ so that any quantifier free expression $\Phi$ in $n$ variables describes a disjoint union of $m$ polyhedra $P_{1},\dots,P_{m} \subseteq \R^{n+1}$ with $\ts m < \phi(\Phi)^{c}$. So the formula can be rewritten as: $$\label{eq:squares_P_i}
S \; = \; \Big\{ x \in \zz \; : \; {\exists}{\mathbf{y}}\in \zz^{n} \;\; \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} (x,{\mathbf{y}}) \in P_{i} \Big\}.$$ Let $\rq(t) = k^{n+1} t^{c}$. Assume that $|S| \ge \rq\bigl(\phi(\Phi)\bigr) > k^{n+1}m$. Select any $(k^{n+1}m + 1)$ different integers from $S$. By the pigeonhole principle, one of the polyhedra, say $P_{1}$, contains in its projection at least $k^{n+1}+1$ of these integers. Denote those integers in the projection of $P_{1}$ by $x_{1},\dots,x_{s}$, where $s=k^{n+1}+1$. For every such $x_{i}$, there exists ${\mathbf{y}}_{i} \in \zz^{n}$ so that $(x_{i}, {\mathbf{y}}_{i}) \in P_{1}$. So we have: $$(x_{1},{\mathbf{y}}_{1}),\dots,(x_{s},{\mathbf{y}}_{s}) \in P_{1} \cap \zz^{n+1}.$$ By the pigeonhole principle, two different pairs $(x_{i},{\mathbf{y}}_{i})$ and $(x_{j},{\mathbf{y}}_{j})$ have coordinates equal mod $k$ pairwise. Since $P_{1}$ is convex, we also have $$(\la x_{i} + (1 - \la) x_{j},\; \la {\mathbf{y}}_{i} + (1 - \la) {\mathbf{y}}_{j}) \,\in\, P_{1} \cap \zz^{n+1} \;, \quad \text{where} \; \la \in \big\{\tfrac{1}{k},\dots,\tfrac{k-1}{k}\big\}.$$ The above points project to $\la x_{i} + (1 - \la)x_{j}$. By , we get a non-trivial $\AP_{k+1}$: $$\Big( x_{i},\; \tfrac{k-1}{k}x_{i} + \tfrac{1}{k}x_{j}, \; \dots,\; \tfrac{1}{k}x_{j} + \tfrac{k-1}{k}x_{i},\; x_{j} \Big),$$ a contradiction.
\[rem:PA\_strict\] Proposition \[prop:ex\_not\_enough\] combined with Lemma \[lem:Ppo\_to\_Pr\] implies that there is a sequence of formulas $\{ x : {\exists}y \. {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\; \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \}$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$ for which there are no equivalent formulas $\{x : {\exists}y \, \Psi_{\ellR}(x,y) \}$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. This implies that the formulas $\{(x,y) : {\forall}{\mathbf{z}}\; \Phi_{\ellR}(x,y,{\mathbf{z}}) \}$ have no equivalent quantifier free formulas in $x$ and $y$ of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. Therefore, quantifier elimination in $\Pr$ necessarily increases the length of formulas by a super-polynomial factor, even in a bounded number of variables ($x,y \in \N,\, {\mathbf{z}}\in \N^{3}$).
\[rem:both\_not\_enough\] From $\textsc{SQUARES}$, one can easily create another a language ${\mathcal{L}}\in \poly$ which ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ be represented neither by ${\forall}$ nor by ${\exists}$ formulas of length $\polyin(\ellR)$. For $\ellR$ odd, we let ${\mathcal{L}}$ contain all squares between $2^{\ellR}$ and $2^{\ellR + 1}$. For $\ellR$ even, we let ${\mathcal{L}}$ contain all non-squares between $2^{\ellR}$ and $2^{\ellR+1}$. It is clear that ${\mathcal{L}}\in \poly$. The above argument shows that ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ cannot be represented by ${\exists}$-formulas of length $\polyin(\ellR)$ when $\ellR$ is odd. Under a negation, the same argument also works for ${\forall}$-formulas when $\ellR$ is even. We denote this language by $\textsc{SQUARES}'$. This will be used in Section \[sec:rel\].
Short GFs and arithmetic progressions
-------------------------------------
Generalizing the above observation on sets with no arithmetic progressions, we suggest another conjecture on short GFs. Again, by $\AP_k$ we mean a *$k$-term arithmetic progression*.
\[def:c-k\] Fix $c > 0$ and $k \ge 3$. A short GF $g$ is said to have the $(c,k)$-property if either $|\supp(g)| < \phi(g)^{c}$ or $\supp(g)$ contains an $\AP_k$.
\[conj:c-k\] For every $s$ and $k$, there exists $c > 0$ so that every short GF $g(t) \in \GF_{1,s}$ has the $(c,k)$-property.
\[prop:c-k\_implies\_squares\] Conjecture \[conj:c-k\] implies Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\].
Assume Conjecture \[conj:c-k\] holds but Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] fails, i.e., $\textsc{SQUARES} \in \Gzero$. So there is an $s>0$ such that $\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}$ can be represented as $\supp(g_{\ellR})$ with $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ and $\phi(g_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Conjecture \[conj:c-k\] applied to $s$ and $k=4$ gives us a $c > 0$ so that all $g \in \GF_{1,s}$ have the $(c,4)$-property. We have $\supp(g_{\ellR}) = |\textsc{SQUARES}_{\ellR}| \gg \ellR^{c}$. So if $\ellR$ is large enough, $g_{\ellR}$ contains an $\AP_4$. This contradicts the fact that $\textsc{SQUARES}$ is $\AP_4$ free.
Short GFs and primes
--------------------
In a similar manner, we ask if primes can be represented by short GFs of polynomial length. Let $\textsc{PRIMES}$ be the language consisting of all primes written in binary. Then $$\label{eq:squares_l}
\textsc{PRIMES}_{\ellR} = \{p \text{ prime} :\; p < 2^{\ellR}\}.$$
\[conj:primes\_long\] $\textsc{PRIMES}$ is not in $\Gzero$.
In other words, the conjecture says that for every fixed $s$, the segment $\textsc{PRIMES}_{\ellR}$ cannot be represented as $\supp(g_{\ellR})$ for a short GF $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ of length $\phi(g_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. This conjecture, if true, would also show $\Gzero \subsetneq \Ppo$ unconditionally.
Let $\pi(n)$ be the number of primes between $1$ and $n$. If Conjecture \[conj:primes\_long\] is false then $\pi(n)$ can be computed by circuits of size $\polyin(\log n)$.
Assume Conjecture \[conj:primes\_long\] is false, i.e., there is an $s > 0$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$ we have $\GFof\big(\textsc{PRIMES}_{\ellR};t\big) \. = \. g_{\ellR}(t)$, where $g_{\ellR} \in \GF_{1,s}$ and $\phi(g_{\ellR}) \le \polyin(\ellR)$. Given $n < 2^{\ellR}$, we have: $$ \GFof\big(\textsc{PRIMES}_{\ellR} \cap [0,n];\, t\big) \;=\; g_{\ellR}(t) \, \star \, \frac{1 - t^{n+1}}{1 - t} \. =\. h_{n}(t)\ts.$$ By Theorem \[th:BPGF2\], we can compute $h_{n}$ in time $\polyin(\ellR)$. Substituting $t \gets 1$, we get $\pi(n)$.
In [@LO], using strong analytic tools, Lagarias and Odlyzko gave an algorithm to compute $\pi(n)$ in time $O(n^{1/2 + \ep})$, which is exponential in $\log n$. If Conjecture \[conj:primes\_long\] is false, then for each $\ellR$, a far better $\polyin(\ellR)$ algorithm exists for computing $\pi(n)$ for all $n < 2^{\ellR}$.
Relative complexity of short GFs {#sec:rel}
================================
In this section, we compare short GFs with $\Pr$ formulas with one quantifier. We refer back to Section \[sec:pres\] for the definition of $\Pr$ formulas.
$\Pr$ complexity classes
------------------------
The most basic PA formulas contain no quantifiers, i.e., only a Boolean combination of inequalities.
The class $\SigmaPA_{0} = \PiPA_{0}$ consists of languages definable by quantifier free PA formulas of polynomial lengths. In other words, a language ${\mathcal{L}}$ is in $\SigmaPA_{0}$ if for every $\ellR > 0$, there is a quantifier free PA expression $\Phi_{\ellR}(x)$ of length $\phi(\Phi) \le \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ so that: $$x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \quad \iff \quad \Phi_{\ellR}(x).$$
By Proposition \[prop:W\], ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaPA_{0}$ if and only if every initial segment ${\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR}$ is a union of polynomially many intervals in $\NN$. By Theorem \[th:W\], we have $\SigmaPA_{0} \subset \Gzero$.
The language $\textsc{EVEN}$ of even integers is not in $\SigmaPA_{0}$. However, $\textsc{EVEN} \in \Gzero$, because: $$\sum_{x \in \textsc{EVEN}_{\ellR}} t^{x} = t^{0} + t^{2} + \dots + t^{2^{\ellR}-2} = \frac{1-t^{2^{\ellR}}}{1-t^{2}}.$$ So we conclude that $\SigmaPA_{0} \subsetneq \Gzero$.
The class $\SigmaPA_{1}$ consists of languages definable by ${\exists}$-formulas of polynomial lengths. In other words, ${\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaPA_{1}$ if there is an $n$ so that for every $\ellR > 0$, we can represent $$x \in {\mathcal{L}}_{\ellR} \quad \iff \quad {\exists}{\mathbf{y}}\in \N^{n} \;\; \Phi_{\ellR}(x,{\mathbf{y}}),$$ where $\Phi_{\ellR}(x,{\mathbf{y}})$ is a quantifier-free PA expression of length $\phi(\Phi_{\ellR}) = \polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$. The class $\PiPA_{1}$ is defined similarly, but with ${\forall}$-formulas. In other words, ${\mathcal{L}}\in \PiPA_{1}$ if and only if $\lnot{\mathcal{L}}\in \SigmaPA_{1}$.
\[conj:short\_in\_ex\] $\Gzero \subseteq \SigmaPA_{1} \cap \PiPA_{1}$.
To rephrase, this conjecture says that for every fixed $s$, there is an $n = n(s)$ so that every $g \in \GF_{1,s}$ of finite support has an ${\exists}$-formula representation: $$\label{eq:SigmaPA1}
G = \{x : {\exists}{\mathbf{y}}\in \N^{n} \;\; \Phi(x,{\mathbf{y}}) \}, \quad \GFof(G;t) = g(t) \quad \text{and} \quad \phi(\Phi) \le \polyin(\phi(g)).$$ Note that it would be enough to show $\Gzero \subseteq \SigmaPA_{1}$, because $\Gzero$ is closed under taking complement of short GFs.
\[prop:best-case\] Conjecture \[conj:short\_in\_ex\] implies Conjecture \[conj:c-k\], which implies Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\].
Assume Conjecture \[conj:short\_in\_ex\] holds. Then for every fixed $s$, we have $n = n(s)$ for which every $g \in \GF_{1,s}$ has an ${\exists}$-formula representation . The last condition means there is a constant $d=d(s)$ such that $\phi(\Phi) < \phi(g)^d$. By Theorem \[th:ex\_AP\], there exists $\ga = \ga(n,k) > 0$ so that $G$ contains an $\AP_k$ whenever $|G| > \phi(\Phi)^{\ga}$. So if $|\supp(g)| \ge \phi(g)^{\ga d}$ then $|G| = |\supp(g)| \ge \phi(g)^{\ga d} > \phi(\Phi)^{\ga}$, which implies that $G$ contains an $\AP_k$. So $c = \ga d$ satisfies Conjecture \[conj:c-k\], which should depend only on $s$ and $k$. By Proposition \[prop:c-k\_implies\_squares\], Conjecture \[conj:c-k\] implies Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\].
The picture below illustrates the relative relations between short GFs and $\Pr$ formulas, assuming Conjecture \[conj:short\_in\_ex\]:
(0,0) ellipse (50pt and 35pt); (-0.35,0) circle (22pt); (0.35,0) circle (22pt); (0,0) ellipse (8pt and 10pt);
(ex) at (-0.75,0) [$\SigmaPA_{1}$]{}; (for) at (0.75,0) [$\PiPA_{1}$]{}; (GF) at (0,0) [$\Gzero$]{}; (P) at (0,0.95) [$\poly\po$]{}; (SQUARES’) at (0,-0.98) [$\textsc{SQUARES}'$]{}; (0,-1.1) circle (.5pt);
One can of course define analogues of $\SigmaPA_{1}$ and $\PiPA_{1}$ with more alternating quantifiers. But it turns out that $\SigmaPA_{k+1} = \SigmaG_{k+1} = \SigmaP_{k}\po$ for every $k \ge 1$. This was implicit in Lemma \[lem:PH\_to\_Pr\] and theorems \[th:PH\_to\_GF\], \[th:GH\_PHpo\]. For the sake of completeness, we call the hierarchy of all classes $\SigmaPA_{k}$ and $\PiPA_{k}$ as $\GPA$. Obviously $\GPA = \GH = \PH\po$.
Complexity classes diagram
--------------------------
The following diagram summarizes various complexity classes that appeared in this paper and their relationships. An arrow $X \to Y$ indicates $X \subseteq Y$. Known strict subset relations are decorated with $\neq$. Dashed arrows and segments denotes conjectural relationships.
$$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=scriptsize]
\GPA \arrow[r, white, "\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\GH \arrow[r, white, "\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\PH\po \\
\SigmaPA_{3} \arrow[u,dotted] \arrow[r, white, "\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\SigmaG_{3} \arrow[u,dotted] \arrow[r, white, "\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\SigmaP_{2}\po \arrow[u,dotted]\\
\SigmaPA_{2} \arrow[u] \arrow[r, white, "\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\SigmaG_{2} \arrow[u] \arrow[r, white, "~~\text{\large =}" {black,description}] & \SigmaP_{1}\po \arrow[u]\\
~ &\unique\PiG_{1} \arrow[u] \arrow[r, white, "~~\text{\large =}" {black,description}] &\unique\poly\po \arrow[u]\\
~ &~ &\Ppo \arrow[u] &\hspace{-3.2em}\ni {\small\textsc{SQUARES}} \arrow[ddlll, dash, bend left=12, "\not\ni"'] \arrow[dddll, dashed, red, dash, bend left=12, "\not\ni?"]\\
~ &\SigmaG_{1} \arrow[uu] \arrow[ur] &~\\
\SigmaPA_{1} \arrow[uuuu, "\text{\rotatebox{90}{$\neq$}}"] \arrow[ur] \\
~ &G \arrow[uu] \arrow[ul, dashed, red, "?"']\\
\SigmaPA_{0} \arrow[uu, "\text{\rotatebox{90}{$\neq$}}"] \arrow[ur, "\text{\rotatebox{29}{$\neq$}}"']
\end{tikzcd}$$
$
\begin{matrix*}[l]
\text{$\SigmaPA_{k+1}=\SigmaG_{k+1}=\SigmaP_{k}\po$, $k \ge 1$: sections~\ref{sec:GF}, \ref{sec:rel}.} & & & \text{$\textsc{SQUARES} \stackrel{?}{\notin} \Gzero$: Conjecture~\ref{conj:squares_long}.}\vspace{.2em}\\
\text{$\unique\PiG_{1}=\unique\Ppo$: Remark~\ref{rem:UP}.} & & & \text{$\textsc{SQUARES} \notin \SigmaPA_{1}$: Proposition~\ref{prop:ex_not_enough}.}\vspace{.2em}\\
\text{$\SigmaG_{1} \subseteq \Ppo$: Proposition~\ref{prop:supp_proj_is_P}.} & & & \text{$\SigmaPA_{0} \subsetneq \SigmaPA_{1} \subsetneq \SigmaPA_{2}$: Remark~\ref{rem:PA_strict}.}\\
& & &\text{$\SigmaPA_{0} \subsetneq \Gzero \stackrel{?}{\subseteq} \SigmaPA_{1}$: Section~\ref{sec:rel}.}
\end{matrix*}
$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:compress\] {#s:lemma-proof}
===============================
Let $\ov {\mathbf{x}}= ({\mathbf{x}}_{1}, \dots, {\mathbf{x}}_{k})$ be the array of multi-variables of dimension $n_{1}, \dots, n_{k}$. We first prove the result when $k=1$, i.e., when $\ov {\mathbf{x}}= {\mathbf{x}}_{1}$, $g(\ov {\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}_{1}^{{\mathbf{x}}_{1}}$ and $f(u) = \sum u_{1}^{z_{1}}$. For convenience, we denote ${\mathbf{t}}_{1},\.{\mathbf{x}}_{1},\.u_{1},\.z_{1}$ by ${\mathbf{t}},\.{\mathbf{x}},\.u$ and $z$ respectively. Also denote by $n$ the dimension of the multi-variable ${\mathbf{x}}$. So $g({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}$ and $$\tau_{N}({\mathbf{x}}) = x_{1} + N x_{2} + \dots + N^{n-1} x_{n}.$$
[**Part a)**]{} Assume we are given $g \in \GF_{n,s}$. By Theorem \[th:BPGF1\], we can find the norm $N$ of $g$ in time $\polyin(\phi(g))$. By rounding $N$ to the next power of $2$, we still have $\ts \log N \le \polyin(\phi(g))\ts$ and $\ts\supp(g) \subseteq [0,N)^{n}$. Let $N = 2^{\ellR}$. We define $f(u)$ be the specialization of $g({\mathbf{t}})$ under the following substitutions: $$t_{1} \gets u, \; t_{2} \gets u^{N}, \ldots, \; t_{n} \gets u^{N^{n-1}},$$ so that $${\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \. = \. u^{x_{1} + N x_{2} + \ldots + N^{n-1} x_{n}} \. = \. u^{\tau_{N}({\mathbf{x}})}.$$ Clearly, we have: $$\supp(f) \,=\, \tau_{N}(\supp(g)).$$ By Theorem \[th:BPGF1\], polynomial substitutions can be performed in polynomial time and gives $f$ as a short GF in $\GF_{1,s}$ with $\phi(f) \le \polyin(\phi(g))$. This proves part a).
[**Part b)**]{} Given two power series $A({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \in \GF_{n,\ts p} \, , \, B(t) = \sum \be_{x} t^{x} \in \GF_{1,\ts q}$ and a linear map $\tau : \Z^{n} \to \Z$, we define their *$\tau$-Hadamard product* as $$\label{tauHadDef}
C({\mathbf{t}}) = A({\mathbf{t}}) \tauHad B(t) \,\coloneqq\, \sum \al_{{\mathbf{x}}} \be_{\tau({\mathbf{x}})} {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}}\..$$ Now assume $f(u) = \sum u^{z} \in \GF_{1,s}$, $N = 2^{\ellR}$, and $\supp(f) \subseteq [0,N)^{n}$. From the above definition, it is clear that such a $g({\mathbf{t}})$ satisfying can be obtained as: $$\label{eq:decompress}
g({\mathbf{t}}) = a({\mathbf{t}}) \star_{\tau_{N}} f(t),$$ where $$a({\mathbf{t}}) \. = \, \sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in [0,N)^{n} } {\mathbf{t}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \, = \, \frac{1-t_{1}^{N}}{1-t_{1}} \. \cdots \.\frac{1-t_{n}^{N}}{1-t_{n}}.$$ with $a \in \GF_{n,n}$ and $\phi(a) \le \polyin(\log N)$.
Here the map $\tau_{N}$ is from Definition \[def:tau\_map\]. So it is enough to show that the $\tau$-Hadamard product of two short GFs is a short GF of polynomial length. The proof follows Barvinok’s argument in [@B2] (see also lemmas 3.4 and 3.6 in [@BW]). First, notice that the $\tau$-Hadamard product is bilinear in $A({\mathbf{t}})$ and $B(t)$. Therefore, we only need to show that $C({\mathbf{t}})$ is a short GF when $A({\mathbf{t}})$ and $B({\mathbf{t}})$ have only $1$ term each, i.e., when: $$\label{singleterm}
A({\mathbf{t}}) \, = \, \frac{{\mathbf{t}}^{\a}}{\prod_{i=1}^{p} (1 - {\mathbf{t}}^{{{\overline{b}}}_{i}})} \ \quad \text{and} \quad B(t) \, = \, \frac{t^{c}}{\prod_{j=1}^{q} (1-t^{d_{j}})}\..$$
Consider an (unbounded) polyhedron $\ts P \subset \R^{p + q}\ts$ with coordinates $\ts (\zeta_{1}, \dots, \zeta_{p}, \xi_{1}, \dots, \xi_{q})$, defined as: $$\label{HadamardPolytope}
P \coloneqq
\begin{Bmatrix}
\zeta_{1},\dots,\zeta_{p},\,\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{q} &\ge &0 \\
\tau(\a + \zeta_{1} {{\overline{b}}}_{1} + \dots + \zeta_{p} {{\overline{b}}}_{p}) &= &c + \xi_{1} d_{1} + \dots + \xi_{q} d_{q}
\end{Bmatrix}.$$ By Theorem \[th:Barvinok\], we can write a short GF for $P \cap \Z^{p+q}$: $$\label{diagonal}
D(\w,\v) \coloneqq \sum_{(\zzeta,\xxi) \in P} \w^{\zzeta} \v^{\xxi} = \sum_{(\zzeta,\xxi) \in P} (w_{1})^{\zeta_{1}} \dots (w_{p})^{\zeta_{p}} (v_{1})^{\xi_{1}} \dots (v_{q})^{\xi_{q}}.$$ Furthermore, we have $D \in \GF_{p+q,\ts p+q}\.$. By , the expansions of $A({\mathbf{t}})$ and $B(t)$ are: $$\label{expansion}
A({\mathbf{t}}) = \sum_{\zzeta \ge 0} {\mathbf{t}}^{\a + \zeta_{1} {{\overline{b}}}_{1} + \dots + \zeta_{p} {{\overline{b}}}_{p}} \quad \text{and} \quad B(t) = \sum_{\xxi \ge 0} t^{c + \xi_{1} d_{1} + \dots + \xi_{q} d_{q}}.$$ We substitute: $$w_{1} \gets {\mathbf{t}}^{{{\overline{b}}}_{1}} , \dots , w_{p} \gets {\mathbf{t}}^{{{\overline{b}}}_{p}}, v_{1} \gets 1 , \dots , v_{q} \gets 1.$$ By , and , we get: $${\mathbf{t}}^{\a} D({\mathbf{t}}^{{{\overline{b}}}_{1}}, \dots , {\mathbf{t}}^{{{\overline{b}}}_{p}}, 1, \dots , 1) = \sum_{(\zzeta,\xxi) \in P} {\mathbf{t}}^{\a + \zeta_{1} {{\overline{b}}}_{1} + \dots + \zeta_{p} {{\overline{b}}}_{p}} = A({\mathbf{t}}) \tauHad B(t) = C({\mathbf{t}}).$$ By Theorem \[th:BPGF1\], substitution can be done in polynomial time, and results in a short GF $C({\mathbf{t}})$ of index at most $p+q$. Hence, we have $C({\mathbf{t}}) \in \GF_{n,p+q}$ and $\phi(C) \le \polyin(\phi(A) + \phi(B))$. Note that by taking the $\tau$-Hadamard product, the index of $C$ is increased to $p+q$. This pushes the index of $g$ in to $n+s$. So we do not get back exactly the index $s$ for $g$. But $n+s$ is still a constant, and $g$ is still a short GF in a fixed class $\GF_{n,n+s}$.
This completes the proof for the case $k=1$. The general case can be handled similarly.
Final remarks and open problems {#sec:fin-rem}
===============================
{#ss:finrem-bar}
As we mentioned in the introduction, much of this work is motivated by Barvinok’s program implicit in his writing. Specifically, we were inspired by the following quote:
“It seems hard to prove that a particular finite, but large, set $S\ssu \zz^d$ does not
admit a short rational generating function: if a particular candidate expression
for $f_S(\bx)$ is not short, one can argue that we have not searched hard enough
and that there is another, better candidate.” [@B2]
In fact, this paper originally began as a followup on [@NP1], aiming to explain why the technology of short GFs was unable to derive the Barvinok–Woods theorem (Theorem \[th:BW\]) (cf. [@NP1]). Our theorems \[th:main\_2\] and \[th:main\_1\] are strong versions of this claim.
Let us also mention Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.11 in [@NP-kannan] which have similar setup of unions and projections of polyhedra, and give strong algorithmic extensions of Woods’s theorem (Theorem \[th:GF\_NP\_hard\]).
Finally, our most recent results in [@NP-hard] say that Presburger Arithmetic with a bounded number of variables and inequalities is complete for every level in $\PH$, which suggests an even deeper obstacle to taking unions and projections. We have yet to fully explore the implications of this result which go beyond the scope of this paper.
{#ss:finrem-AP}
In notations of the introduction, a short GF $f_S(t)$ of a set $S \ssu \nn$ can be viewed as a presentation of $S$ by an alternating sum of generalized ($k$-dimensional) arithmetic progressions. As such, there are many connections between short GFs and Arithmetic Combinatorics, which are yet to be explored (cf. [@TV]). For example, when $k=1$, taking the positive part of these arithmetic progressions corresponds to variants of Erdős’s *covering systems* which received much attention in recent years (see [@Guy; @Hough]).
Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\] has an especially classical feel with its claim that squares and (generalized) arithmetic progression are incompatible. There are of course both classical and recent works on squares in arithmetic progressions, but no known results seem strong enough to apply in this case (see [@BGP; @Sze; @Weil]).
{#ss:finrem-converse}
There are two ways to think of the results in this paper. First and foremost, they provide a very strong evidence in favor of non-polynomiality of projections and other operations with short GFs. In the opposite direction, the apparent connection to arithmetic progressions and a plethora of both analytic and combinatorial tools for working with them suggest a possibility of some lower bounds.
We would like to caution the reader. Initially we were rather optimistic about removing complexity assumptions in Theorem \[th:main\_1\] by finding a direct proof of Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\] or some other similar lower bound. However, Proposition \[prop:partial\_converse\] and Remark \[rem:hard\] seem to suggest that this might be rather difficult. A sufficiently strong argument that shows $\Gzero \subsetneq \GH$ could potentially show $ \unique\Ppo = \unique\PiG_{1} \subsetneq \GH$, which implies $\sharpP \not\subseteq \FPpo$, an important open problem (see $\S$\[ss:finrem-factoring\] below).
On the other hand, the two lowest level $\Gzero$ and $\SigmaG_{1}$ in $\GH$ seems to behave quite differently from higher ones. So an elementary approach to prove $\Gzero \subsetneq \GH$ is not completely ruled out.
{#ss:finrem-rel}
The idea of Section \[sec:rel\] is to characterize all short GFs. Roughly, Conjecture \[conj:short\_in\_ex\] says that every short GF is the projection of a union of polynomially many polyhedra of bounded dimension. This can viewed as a converse of the Barvinok–Woods theorem (Theorem \[th:BW\]).
Conjecture \[conj:short\_in\_ex\] is possibly a wishful thinking. Unfortunately, its validity is hard to judge since we have so few explicit constructions of short GFs other than projections of integer points in polyhedra. If true, Proposition \[prop:best-case\] implies Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\] and removes the complexity assumptions from all theorems in the introduction. Moreover, it implies exponential lower bounds on the length of short GF for squares, projections and other theorems in the introduction.[^8] These are the same bounds the *exponential time hypothesis* (ETH) implies.
{#ss:finrem-factoring}
It is worth comparing theorems \[th:squares-factoring\] and \[t:squares-sharp\] from the computational complexity point of view. Technically speaking, these two results are not comparable. However, one is weaker than the other in the relative sense, as follows.
Recall that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">INTEGER FACTORING</span> $\in\NP \cap\coNP$. While proving it to be in $\BPP$ would be a very strong result beyond the current state of art, it would not directly lead to a collapse of $\PH$. In fact, the experts seem to be split on whether <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">INTEGER FACTORING</span> is in $\Pp$, all the while espousing a deep-seated belief that $\Pp=\BPP$, thus further muddling the subject (see [@Aar; @Gas]). In summary, Theorem \[th:squares-factoring\] gives a relatively weak evidence in favor of Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\].
On the other hand, $\SP$-complete oracles are very powerful by Toda’s theorem, and thus very unlikely to be in $\FPpo$. As mentioned in Remark \[rem:strong\_collapse\], $\SP \subseteq \FPpo$ would lead to a collapse of $\PH$ the second level. In other words, Theorem \[t:squares-sharp\] gives a very strong evidence in favor of Conjecture \[conj:squares\_long\].
.56cm
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We are grateful to Matthias Aschenbrenner, Sasha Barvinok, Boris Bukh, Terry Tao, Kevin Woods, Josh Zahl and the anonymous referees for many helpful remarks on the subject. We are also thankful to Joshua Grochow, Emil Jerábek for help with complexity questions. The second author was partially supported by the NSF.
[211389]{}
S. Aaronson, $\Pp\overset{?}=\NP$, in *Open problems in mathematics*, Springer, New York, 2016, 1–122.
S. Arora and B. Barak, *Computational complexity: a modern approach*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009.
E. Bach, G. Miller and J. Shallit, Sum of divisors, perfect numbers and factoring, *SIAM J. Comput.* [**15**]{} (1986), 1143–1154.
A. Barvinok, A polynomial time algorithm for counting integral points in polyhedra when the fimension is fixed, in *Proc. 34th FOCS*, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1993, 566–572.
A. Barvinok, The complexity of generating functions for integer points in polyhedra and beyond, in *Proc. ICM*, Vol. 3, EMS, Zürich, 2006, 763–787.
A. Barvinok, *Integer points in polyhedra*, EMS, Zürich, 2008.
A. Barvinok and J. E. Pommersheim, An algorithmic theory of lattice points in polyhedra, in *New Perspectives in Algebraic Combinatorics*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999, 91–147.
A. Barvinok and K. Woods, Short rational generating functions for lattice point problems, *Jour. AMS* **16** (2003), 957–979.
E. Bombieri, A. Granville and J. Pintz, Squares in arithmetic progressions, *Duke Math. J.* **66** (1992), 369–385.
J-Y. Cai, $\textsf{S}^{\poly}_{2} \subseteq \textsf{ZPP}^\NP$, *J. Comput. System Sci.* [**73**]{} (2007), 25–35.
F. Eisenbrand, Integer programming and algorithmic geometry of numbers, in *50 years of Integer Programming*, Springer, Berlin, 2010, 505–560.
W. I. Gasarch, The Second P=?NP Poll, *ACM SIGACT News* **43:2** (June 2012), 53–77.
E. Grädel, *The complexity of subclasses of logical theories*, Dissertation, Universität Basel, 1987.
R. K. Guy, *Unsolved problems in number theory* (Third edition), Springer, New York, 2004.
G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, *An introduction to the theory of numbers*, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2008.
B. Hough, Solution of the minimum modulus problem for covering systems, *Ann. of Math.* **181** (2015), 361–382.
R. Kannan, Lattice translates of a polytope and the Frobenius problem, *Combinatorica* **12** (1992), 161–177.
A. Klivans and D. Spielman, Randomness efficient identity testing of multivariate polynomials, in *Proc. 33rd FOCS*, ACM, New York, 2001, 216–223.
J. Lagarias and A. Odlyzko, Computing $\pi(x)$: an analytic method, *J. Algorithms* [**8**]{} (1987), 173–191.
K. Manders and L. Adleman, $\NP$-complete decision problems for binary quadratics, *J. Comput. System Sci.* [**16**]{} (1978), 168–184.
C. Moore and S. Mertens, *The nature of computation*, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2011.
D. Nguyen and I. Pak, Complexity of short Presburger arithmetic, in *Proc. 49th STOC*, ACM, New York, 2017, 812–820.
D. Nguyen and I. Pak, Enumeration of integer points in projections of unbounded polyhedra, in *Proc. IPCO 2017*, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. **10328**, Springer, New York, 2017, 417–429.
D. Nguyen and I. Pak, The computational complexity of integer programming with alternations, in *Proc. 32nd CCC (2017)*, LIPICS, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2017, Art. 6, 18 pp.
D. Nguyen and I. Pak, Short Presburger arithmetic is hard, to appear in *Proc. 58th FOCS (2017)*; .
C. H. Papadimitriou, *Computational complexity*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.
P. Ribenboim, *The new book of prime number records*, Springer, New York, 1996.
U. Schöning, Complexity of Presburger arithmetic with fixed quantifier dimension, *Theory Comput. Syst.* **30** (1997), 423–428.
E. Szemerédi, The number of squares in an arithmetic progression, *Studia Sci. Math. Hungar.* **9** (1974), no. 3-4, 417.
T. Tao and V. H. Vu, *Additive combinatorics*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2006.
A. Weil, *Number theory. An approach through history*, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1984.
K. Woods, *Rational Generating Functions and Lattice Point Sets*, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 2004, 112 pp.
K. Woods, Presburger arithmetic, rational generating functions, and quasi-polynomials, *J. Symb. Log.* **80** (2015), 433–449.
[^1]: We also caution the reader that in general, the word *short* in “short GF” only means that the GF is given in the form ($\ast$). It does not necessarily mean the GF has polynomial length.
[^2]: By itself, Conjecture \[conj:squares-intro\] does not necessarily imply that $\sharpP \not\subseteq\FPpo$, so a stronger assumption is used in Proposition \[prop:partial\_converse\].
[^3]: Here $|{\mathbf{x}}|$ can be any polyhedral norm on ${\mathbf{x}}$, including $|{\mathbf{x}}|_{\infty}$ and $|{\mathbf{x}}|_{1}$.
[^4]: This implies that $\phi(f) \le \polyin(\phi(Q))$.
[^5]: We denote by $\phi(\Phi_{\ellR})$ the total length of all symbols $\Phi_{\ellR}$, written in binary. The notation $\polyin_{{\mathcal{L}}}(\ellR)$ denotes a polynomial in $\ellR$, with the polynomial degree depending on the language ${\mathcal{L}}$.
[^6]: The least significant digit in $x$ corresponds to $x_{0}$ in $\wt x$.
[^7]: Here $\phi(B{\ellR})$ denotes the total bit length of all sides in $B_{\ellR}$, written in binary.
[^8]: In the chain of reductions, the exponential factor appears in the proof of Proposition \[prop:c-k\_implies\_squares\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Study of Gamma-Ray Bursts of energy $E>$10 GeV**
with the ARGO-YBJ detector
[**ARGO-YBJ Collaboration**]{}, presented by S.Vernetto$^{1}$
[*$^1$Istituto di Cosmo-Geofisica del CNR and INFN, Torino, Italy*]{}
[**Abstract\
**]{}
The study of high energy gamma-ray bursts can be performed by large area air shower arrays operating at very high mountain altitudes. ARGO-YBJ is a detector optimized to observe small size air showers, to be constructed at the Yangbajing Laboratory (Tibet, China) at an altitude of 4300 m. One of the goals of the experiment is the study of gamma-ray bursts of energies $E >$ 10 GeV. This can be achieved using the “single particle” technique, more profitable in the energy region $E<50$ GeV, and the “low multiplicity” technique, suitable to observe GRBs at higher energies. The sensitiviy of ARGO-YBJ allows the detection of GRBs with energy fluences in the range 1$\div$100 GeV as low as $F \sim 10^{-6} \div
10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$, depending on the spectral characteristics of the burst.
Introduction
============
The observation of GeV photons by EGRET during few intense gamma-ray bursts suggested the idea that a large part of events could have a high energy component, not observed so far due to the low fluxes (Catelli 1997a). Gamma-ray emission in the GeV-TeV energy range is predicted by some fireball models (see Baring 1997, for a review). The study of the high energy part of the spectrum would be of great importance to investigate the physical conditions of the emitting region, restricting the range of fundamental parameters as the magnetic field, the density and the bulk Lorentz factor.
Unfortunately, due to the cosmological distances of the GRBs sources, the high energy gamma-rays would be absorbed by pair production on starlight photons during their travel towards the Earth. According to Salomon and Stecker (1998), the flux of gamma rays of energy $E>500$ GeV is strongly reduced if the distance of the source is $z>0.1$. Since the minimum redshift so far measured among six host galaxies is $z=0.695$ (Djorgovski 1999), even assuming that GRBs emits gamma rays in the TeV region, most of the spectra observed at Earth would cutoff at energies less than few hundreds GeVs.
Observation of high energy GRBs can be performed by ground based experiments, as air shower arrays, detecting the secondary particles produced in the atmosphere by primary gamma-rays. Their large field of view ($\Omega \sim \pi$ sr) and their duty cycle of almost 100$\%$ make them suitable to observe unpredictable events as GRBs. Due to the absorption of the high energy part of the spectrum, the detectors must be sensitive to gamma-rays of energy as low as 10-100 GeV. This can be achieved with two basic conditions:
[*a)*]{} by operating at very high mountain altitude, in order to increase the number of detectable particles (as an example, the mean number of charged particles produced by a 100 GeV gamma-ray reaching the altitude of 2000 m is $n_c \sim 1.3$, while at 5000 m $n_c \sim 25$).
[*b)*]{} by disposing of a very large and “full-coverage” detection surface, in order to detect the largest number of shower particles.
These conditions are fully satisfied by the ARGO-YBJ air shower detector. In the following we present the sensitivity of ARGO-YBJ to observe gamma-ray bursts as a function of the GRB spectral characteristics.
The ARGO-YBJ detector
=====================
The ARGO-YBJ experiment has been conceived with the aim of detecting small size atmospheric air showers. It is under construction at the Yangbajing High Altitude Cosmic Ray Laboratory (Tibet, China), at an altitude of 4300 m above the sea level. It consists of a central core made by a single layer of Resistive Plate Chambers (RPCs) covering an area of $\sim$71 $\times$ 74 m$^2$, sorrounded by an outer ring of 28 clusters of RPCs of area 42 m$^2$ each, for a total sensitive area $A_d \sim$ 6100 m$^2$. The detector is uniformely covered by a layer of lead 0.5 cm thick, in order to increase the number of charged particles by converting a fraction of the secondary photons, and to reduce the time spread of the shower front.
One of the main field of research of ARGO-YBJ is gamma-ray astronomy in the energy range $E> 100$ GeV and gamma-ray bursts physics above 10 GeV. A detailed description of the experiment, its capabilities and its physics goals are given by Abbrescia (1996) and Bacci (1998).
Detection of gamma-ray bursts
=============================
The detection of high energy gamma-ray bursts can be performed by the ARGO-YBJ detector by using two different modes of operation:
a\) the “single particle” technique;
b\) the “low multiplicity” technique.
In the following we discuss both methods and make a comparison of their sensitivity in the energy range 10 GeV$<E<$1 TeV.
The “single particle” technique (SP).
-------------------------------------
An air shower array can be sensitive to primary energies as low as 10-100 GeV operating in “single particle mode”, i.e. recording all single secondary particles hitting the detector with energy larger than the detection energy threshold $E_{th}$; in this detection mode most of the events are due to solitary muons and electrons of air showers generated by low energy cosmic rays. A gamma-ray burst is detectable if the secondary particles due to the gamma-rays interactions in the atmosphere give a short time excess in the single particle counting rate, of amplitude larger than the statistical fluctuations of the all-sky cosmic rays background. The directions and energies of gamma-rays are not measurable; however this technique could provide a measurement of the total high energy flux and the temporal behaviour of the high energy emission (Vernetto 1999, Aglietta 1999, Cabrera 1999).
The effective area to detect a primary gamma-ray of energy $E$ and zenith angle $\theta$, can be expressed as , where $A_d$=6100 m$^2$ is the sensitive area, $n_e(E,\theta)$ is the mean number of particles reaching the detector level (with an energy larger than the detection threshold) and $f_g$ is the gain factor due to the photons coversion in the lead layer ($f_g \sim 1.1$). The curve A in Fig.1 shows the ARGO-YBJ effective area as a function of the gamma-ray primary energy $E$, for a zenith angle $\theta$=20$^{\circ}$.
Given a GRB with an energy spectrum $dN_{\gamma}/dE$ (photons per unit area per unit energy) and zenith angle $\theta$ the number of events detected is .
The signal is observable if the number of detected particles $N_{SP}$ is significantly larger than the background statistical fluctuations , where $B$ is background rate (events per unit area and unit time) and $\Delta t$ is the GRB duration. The measured single particle background rate at the Yangbajing site is $B \sim 1500$ events m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Requiring for the GRB signal a minimum statistical significance of 4 standard deviations, the number $N_{SP}$ of events in ARGO-YBJ from a GRB of time duration $\Delta t$ = 1 s must be larger than $\sim$1.2 10$^4$.
The low multiplicity technique (LM).
------------------------------------
The low multiplicity technique (LM) consists in the detection of very small air showers, by requiring at least 6 fired pads per shower (a [*pad*]{} is a detection unit of 56 $\times$ 56 cm$^2$, see Abbrescia 1996). The effective area $A_{eff}$ of ARGO-YBJ to detect primary gamma-rays and protons using this technique has been obtained by simulations and it is shown in Fig.1 for primaries with zenith angle 20$^{\circ}$ (curve B for gamma-rays and curve C for protons). The LM effective area for gamma-rays is 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than the “single particle” one (curve A), due to the higher number of particles required to satisfy the trigger condition ($\ge$6 instead of 1). However the possibility to measure the primary arrival directions using the standard reconstruction technique of the shower front, reduces significantly the background, limited to cosmic rays with directions inside the angular error box. The angular resolution for primaries with energy $E \sim$ 10 GeV (defined as the opening angle around the source containing the 70$\%$ of the signal showers) is $r \sim 5^{\circ}$ (Abbrescia 1996). Using the cosmic ray primary proton spectrum measured by Honda (1995), the number of background events with arrival directions in a cone of radius $r=5^{\circ}$ and zenith angle $\theta$=20$^{\circ}$ are expected to be $B_{LM} \sim$ 160 s$^{-1}$. The number of events in ARGO-YBJ due to the burst is: . Requiring for the GRB signal a minimum statistical significance of 4 standard deviations, the number $N_{LM}$ of events in ARGO-YBJ due to a GRB of time duration $\Delta t$ = 1 s and zenith angle $\theta$=20$^{\circ}$ must be larger than $\sim$50.
Sensitivity to detect GRBs
--------------------------
For simplicity we assume a burst giving a gamma-ray flux at the top of the atmosphere as $dN/dE = K E^{-\alpha}$ photons m$^{-2}$ and a power law energy spectrum extending with unchanged slope up to a maximum energy $E_{max}$, with $E_{max}>$10 GeV. This assumption is supported by EGRET observations, which report power law spectra extending with no visible cutoff up to the maximum energy determined by the instrument sensitivity (in some cases above 1 GeV). The average spectral slope observed in the 30 MeV-10 GeV region is $\alpha =
1.95 \pm 0.25$ (Dingus 1997). Obviously a sharp cutoff at $E=E_{max}$ is unrealistic, but for our purposes this simple parametrization can be adopted. The energy cutoff can be due to an intrinsic cutoff at the source or/and to the absorption of gamma-rays in the intergalactic space, as previously mentioned. The latter effect could affect the spectra at relatively low energy: according to Salomon and Stecker (1998), gamma-rays of energy larger than $\sim$ 40 (100) GeV would be strongly absorbed if the GRB distance is $z$=1.0 (0.5).
In order to evaluate the ARGO-YBJ sensitivity, it is convenient to work in terms of $F_{min}$, defined as the minumum energy fluence in the energy range 1 GeV$\div E_{max}$ necessary to make a GRB observable by ARGO-YBJ, assuming that the spectrum extends with unchanged slope up to $E_{max}$. Fig. 2 shows $F_{min}$ as a function of $E_{max}$, with $E_{max}$ in the range 10 GeV$\div$1 TeV, using the SP and the LM techniques. The curves are given for a GRB duration $\Delta t$=1 s and a spectral slope: $\alpha$ = 2.0. The minimum fluence for a different duration $\Delta t$ scales as $\sqrt{\Delta t}$. The minimum required statistical significance of the signal is $\sigma = 4$ standard deviations.
Obviously the sensitivity increases with $E_{max}$. The dependence on $E_{max}$ is stronger for LM than for SP, given the different behaviour of the effective areas as a function of the gamma-ray energy (moreover, the angular resolution improves with the energy, an effect which is not accounted for in the present calculations). This makes the SP technique more profitable when the energy spectrum has a relatively low energy cutoff, in this case, for $E_{max}<$50 GeV. This value ranges between 35 and 70 GeV if the slope $\alpha$ varies from 1.5 to 2.5.
To compare the ARGO-YBJ sensitivity with the fluxes that can be reasonably expected at high energy, in the same figure we report the fluences in the 1$\div$100 GeV energy range obtained extrapolating (with the observed slopes) the spectra measured by EGRET during the 15 events detected by the TASC instrument (Catelli 1997b)(one of the events, showing an unusal steep spectrum with $\alpha$=3.67, is not shown, since the extrapolated fluence $F=10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ falls well out of the plot). As can be seen in the figure, most of the events have an energy fluence larger than the ARGO-YBJ limits.
Conclusions
===========
The ARGO-YBJ detector could observe GRBs in the energy range $E>10$ GeV using the “single particle” technique (SP) and the “low multiplicity” technique (LM). The SP method is more suitable for gamma-ray bursts with energy spectra not extending more than $\sim$ 50 GeV, while the LM method is preferable for more energetic spectra. Adopting both techniques, ARGO-YBJ could detect GRBs with energy fluence in the range 1$\div$100 GeV as low as $F\sim 10^{-6} \div 10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$, if the spectral slope is $\alpha \sim$2.
[**References**]{}
Abbrescia M. et al., Proposal of the ARGO experiment, 1996
(can be downloaded at the URL: http://www1.na.infn.it/wsubnucl/cosm/argo/argo.html)\
Aglietta M. et al., 1999, Proc. Conf. GRBs in the afterglow era, in press\
Bacci C. et al., Addendum to the ARGO Proposal, 1998
(can be downloaded at the URL: http://www1.na.infn.it/wsubnucl/cosm/argo/argo.html)\
R.Cabrera et al., 1999, Proc. Conf. GRBs in the afterglow era, in press\
Catelli J.R., Dingus B.L. and Schneid E.J., 1997, 25$^{th}$ ICRC Proc, 3, 33\
Catelli J.R., Dingus B.L. and Schneid E.J., 1997, AIP Conf.Proc. 428, 309\
Dingus B.L., Catelli J.R. and Schneid E.J., 1997, 25$^{th}$ ICRC Proc, 3, 30\
Djorgovski S.G. et al 1999, GCN Circular 289\
Honda M et al., 1995, Phys.Rev.D 52, 4985\
Salomon M.H. and Stecker F.W., 1998, ApJ 493, 547\
Vernetto S., submitted to Astroparticle Phys, 1999, Astro-ph 9904324\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a complex scalar $\Phi^4 $ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, minimally coupling to perturbatively quantized Einstein gravity which is treated as an effective theory at the energy well below the Planck scale. Both the lowest order pure real scalar correction and the gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector in this model have been investigated. Our results show that the gravitational correction renders the renormalization of the Higgs sector in this model inconsistent while the pure real scalar correction to it leads to a compatible renormalization.'
author:
- 'Hao-Ran Chang'
- 'Wen-Tao Hou'
- Yi Sun
title: 'Gravitational Corrections to $\Phi^{4}$ Theory with Spontaneously Broken Symmetry'
---
[GBK]{}[song]{}
USTC-ICTS-12-10\
\[introduction\]Introduction
============================
It is well known that Einstein’s general relativity quantized on a fixed background is not a renormalizable quantum field theory since the mass dimension of its coupling constant $\kappa=\sqrt{
32\pi G_{N}}$ is negative [@DeWittDuffChrist; @tHooftVeltman-1]. Furthermore, the coupling of the Einstein-Hilbert theory to any type of matter fields leads to nonrenormalizable theories as well [@tHooftVeltman-1; @Deser1; @Deser2]. Provided that our interest is restricted to the physics at the energy well below the Planck scale $M_{Planck}={G_{N}^{-1/2}}\approx10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}$, perturbatively quantized gravity can be treated as an effective field theory, which has been established by Donoghue [@Donoghue]. It can provide the results that should coincide with the results predicted by the underlying fundamental quantum theory of gravitation.
In their initiative paper [@RobinsonWilczek], within the framework of the effective quantum theory of gravity, Robinson and Wilczek presented a calculation that claimed the behavior of running gauge coupling constants in Abelian and non-Abelian gauge theories could be altered by quantum gravitational correction which would render all gauge theories asymptotically free. However, doubts have been cast on their conclusion by some authors and the result has been studied from different approaches. After careful reconsideration of the calculation, Pietrykowski [@Pietrykowski] first showed that Robinson and Wilczek’s result was not gauge condition independent, and that the gravitational correction to the $\beta$ function at one-loop order was absent in the harmonic gauge. Using a gauge condition independent background field method [@VilkoviskyDeWitt], along with dimensional regularization (DR) [@tHooftVeltman-2], Toms [@Toms2007] showed that it did not lead to nonvanishing gravitational contributions to the running of gauge coupling constants. This result has been confirmed by a traditional Feynman diagram approach calculation using standard Feynman rules in Ref.[@Ebert2008], where if a momentum space cutoff was used the quadratic divergences could be made to cancel, leaving a result that was consistent with DR. Subsequent works of Toms *et al*. have investigated the cases with the cosmological constant [@Toms2008; @MackayToms]. Further, various approaches were used to discuss the applications to the gravitational corrections to a series of theories [@WuFeng; @Ebert2009; @RodigastSchuster; @Toms2010; @BhattPatraSarkar; @ShaposhnikovWetterich; @ZZVP; @DaumHarstReuter; @ADE; @Gerwick2010; @EM2010; @Folkerts2011; @FBMN; @CalmetYang; @TangWu; @He2010; @Toms2011].
In Ref.[@ADE], the authors concluded that outside of some special cases, such as the ordinary $\varphi^4$ interaction, the gravitational contribution to the running coupling constant of other theories, such as Yukawa and gauge theories, is not a useful and universal idea in the perturbative regime. So special attention should be paid to the gravitational corrections to the $\varphi^4$ interaction. Moreover, Rodigast and Schuster [@RodigastSchuster] considered gravitational corrections to the ordinary $\varphi^4$ interaction and related the real scalar field to the Higgs boson (hereafter Higgs field is denoted by H). However, since there is not only H$^{4}$ interaction but also H$^{3}$ interaction in the standard model (SM) because of the spontaneous breaking of electroweak SU(2)$_{L}\times$U(1)$_{Y}$ symmetry, a relatively physical SM-like case for the Higgs sector is a model in which the three real scalars interaction as well as the four real scalars interaction should be included. Motivated by this, following the approach of Ref.[@RodigastSchuster], we investigate $\Phi^4 $ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, minimally coupling to perturbatively quantized gravity which is treated as an effective theory. We study the lowest order pure real scalar correction and gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector in this model. It has been found that the gravitational correction renders the renormalization of this model inconsistent while the pure real scalar correction to it leads to a consistent renormalization.
This paper is organized as follows. First, we provide the framework of calculating the quantum corrections to our model in Sec. \[framework\]. Then in Sec. \[corrections\], the pure real scalar correction and the gravitational correction to this model are studied. In Sec. \[comparisonanddiscussion\], the comparison with scalar quantum electrodynamics (SQED) with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry and discussion are presented. Finally, we give our conclusion in Sec. \[conclusion\].
\[framework\]Framework of calculation
=====================================
Before investigating our model, we first sketch the approach of Ref.[@RodigastSchuster]. The full original Lagrangian takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}&=&
\mathcal{L}_{EH}+\mathcal{L}_{gf}+\mathcal{L}_{ghost}
+\mathcal{L}_{gs}.\label{Equ:fulllagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq.(\[Equ:fulllagrangian\]), the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{EH}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{EH}&=&\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\sqrt{-g}~R,\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the determinant of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $R=g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci scalar defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}&=&
\partial_{\mu}\Gamma_{\rho\nu}^{\rho}
-\partial_{\rho}\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\rho}
+\Gamma_{\mu\lambda}^{\rho}\Gamma_{\rho\nu}^{\lambda}
-\Gamma_{\rho\lambda}^{\rho}\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda},\nonumber \\
\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\rho}&=&\frac{1}{2}g^{\rho\sigma}
(\partial_{\mu}g_{\nu\sigma}+\partial_{\nu}g_{\mu\sigma}
-\partial_{\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In order to quantize gravity, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ should be perturbed about the flat Minkowski background $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu}&=&\eta_{\mu\nu}+\kappa h_{\mu\nu},\label{Equ:expasion}\end{aligned}$$ with the symmetric tensor field $h_{\mu\nu}$ being the graviton, the spacetime fluctuations. Note that hereafter indices are raised and lowered with the background metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. The inverse metric becomes $$\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu\nu}&=&\eta^{\mu\nu}-\kappa h^{\mu\nu}+\kappa^{2}
h^{\mu\alpha}h_{\alpha}^{\nu}+\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{3}),
\label{Equ:metricup}\end{aligned}$$ and to $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ the expansion of the measure in terms of $h_{\mu\nu}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{-g}&=&1+\frac{1}{2}\kappa\eta^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}
-\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha\beta} \frac{\kappa^{2}}{2}P^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu},
\label{Equ:measure}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
P^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}&=&
\frac{1}{2}\left(\eta^{\alpha\mu}\eta^{\beta\nu}
+\eta^{\alpha\nu}\eta^{\beta\mu}
-\eta^{\alpha\beta}\eta^{\mu\nu}\right).\end{aligned}$$ General coordinate invariance implies that $\mathcal{L}_{EH}$ is invariant under the infinitesimal transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\xi}h_{\mu\nu}&=&
h_{\sigma\mu}\partial_{\nu}\xi^{\sigma}
+h_{\sigma\nu}\partial_{\mu}\xi^{\sigma}
+\xi^{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma}h_{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\kappa}(\partial_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}
+\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}).\end{aligned}$$ The Faddeev-Popov procedure [@FaddeevPopov] is used to fix this gauge freedom by employing the harmonic (de Donder) gauge fixing condition $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu}&=&\partial^{\nu} h_{\mu\nu}
-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu} h^{\nu}_{\nu},\end{aligned}$$ and this leads to the gauge fixing term Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{gf}$ as well as the corresponding ghost term Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{ghost}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{gf}&=&G_{\mu}G^{\mu},\nonumber\\
\mathcal{L}_{ghost}&=&-\bar{c}^{\mu}
\left(\frac{\delta G_{\mu}}{\delta \xi^{\nu}}\right)c^{\nu}.\end{aligned}$$
![Graviton propagator[]{data-label="Fig:propagator"}](gravitonpropagator.eps){width="3.5cm"}
Then in the harmonic gauge the graviton propagator shown in Fig.(\[Fig:propagator\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(k)&=&
\frac{i}{k^{2}}~P^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$
The graviton-scalar Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{gs}=\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[
\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)(\partial_{\nu}\varphi)
-\frac{1}{2}m^{2}\varphi^{2} -\frac{\lambda}{4!}\varphi^{4}\Bigl].
\label{Equ:varphilagrangian}\end{aligned}$$
Expanding Eq.(\[Equ:varphilagrangian\]) in orders of $\kappa$ leads to an infinite series of interactions involving arbitrary numbers of gravitons, e.g., as shown in Fig.(\[Fig:kappas\]), two scalars can couple to any number of gravitons.
\
(a)(b) (c)(d)
In the calculation, the gravitational ghosts are irrelevant since only one-loop diagrams with no external gravitons are concerned. The remaining thing to do is to calculate the renormalizations of the scalar field and coupling constant using the standard Feynman rules approach in the minimal subtraction scheme and the DR scheme with spacetime dimension $D=4-2\epsilon$, where the one-loop divergences manifest themselves as poles at $D=4$, in which the $Z$ factors contain solely the divergent pole terms proportional to $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$. One subtle issue is that because the squared-momentum-dependent terms appear in the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ correction to the four-point function of the $\varphi^{4}$ interaction there should be one possible higher-derivative counterterm of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{hdc}\sim \sqrt{-g}~g^{\mu\nu}
~(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)(\partial_{\nu}\varphi)\varphi^{2},
\label{Equ:hdct}\end{aligned}$$ to remove the squared-momentum-dependent terms appearing in the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ correction [@schuster2008dpl].
Different from that in Ref.[@RodigastSchuster], we consider a complex scalar $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry. The graviton-scalar Lagrangian for it is taken to be $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{gs}&=&\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[g^{\mu\nu}
(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)^{*}(\partial_{\nu}\Phi)-V(\Phi)\Bigl],
\label{Equ:Philagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ with the potential taking the form $$\begin{aligned}
V(\Phi)&=&\frac{\lambda}{2}(\Phi^{*}\Phi-\frac{v^{2}}{2})^{2},
\label{Equ:potential}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
v&=&\sqrt{\frac{2\mu^{2}}{\lambda}}.\end{aligned}$$
Evidently, this Lagrangian is invariant under the global U(1) transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi\to \Phi^{'}=e^{-i\theta}\Phi,
\label{Equ:transformation}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is independent of spacetime coordinate $x$.
It is straightforward to obtain the vacuum expect value(VEV) of $\Phi$ at tree-level, $$\begin{aligned}
<0|\Phi|0>&=&\pm\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}.
\label{Equ:VEV}\end{aligned}$$
We can express $\Phi$ in terms of the real fields $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi&=&\frac{\Phi_{1}+i\Phi_{2}}{\sqrt{2}},
\label{Equ:decomposion}\end{aligned}$$ and then choose the vacuum, $$\begin{aligned}
<0|\Phi_{1}|0>&=&v,\nonumber\\
<0|\Phi_{2}|0>&=&0.
\label{Equ:vacuum}\end{aligned}$$
By paralleling the procedure carried out in Ref.[@BarinPassarino], after the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry, in the Lagrangian, a tadpole constant $\delta_{t}$ should appear that is zero in the lowest order and must be adjusted in such a way that the VEV of the Higgs field remains zero order by order in perturbation theory, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{1}&=&\phi+v(1+\delta_{t}),\nonumber\\
\Phi_{2}&=&\rho.\label{Equ:barefield}\end{aligned}$$ To $\mathcal{O}(\delta)$, Eq.(\[Equ:Philagrangian\]) can be reexpressed in terms of the Higgs field $\phi$ and Goldstone field $\rho$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{gs}&=&\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[
\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)(\partial_{\nu}\phi)
+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)(\partial_{\nu}\rho)
\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\phi^{4}-\frac{\lambda}{2}v^{2}\phi^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\rho^{4}-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi^{3}
-\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^{2}\rho^{2}\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi\rho^{2}
-\lambda v^{2}\phi^{2}\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi^{3}\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v^{2}\phi^{2}\delta_{t}\nonumber\\&&
-\lambda v^{3}\phi\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi\rho^{2}\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v^{2}\rho^{2}\delta_{t}\Bigl].
\label{Equ:SSBlagrangian}\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, there is no cosmological term in this model, so the expansion of the metric around a flat Minkowski background, as done in Eq.(\[Equ:expasion\]), is valid. In order to investigate the contribution of the gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector in $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, we replace the quantities $\phi$, $\rho$, $\lambda$, and $v$ by the corresponding bare quantities $\phi_{0}$, $\rho_{0}$, $\lambda_{0}$, and $v_{0}$, respectively, but leave the graviton field $h_{\mu\nu}$ and the gravitational coupling $\kappa$ unchanged as done in Ref.[@RodigastSchuster]. This treatment is reasonable since their contributions of gravitational corrections to the renormalization of the quantities $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $\kappa$ are higher order and therefore can be neglected.
It is convenient to introduce the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{0}&=&\sqrt{Z_{\phi}}~\phi,\nonumber\\
\rho_{0}&=&\sqrt{Z_{\rho}}~\rho,\nonumber\\
\lambda_{0}&=&Z_{\phi}^{-2}\lambda Z_{\lambda},\nonumber\\
v_{0}&=&\sqrt{Z_{\phi}}~v Z_{v},
\label{Equ:renormalizations}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\phi}&=&1+\delta_{\phi},\nonumber\\
Z_{\rho}&=&1+\delta_{\rho},\nonumber\\
Z_{\lambda}&=&1+\delta_{\lambda},\nonumber\\
Z_{v}&=&1+\delta_{v}.\label{Equ:relations}\end{aligned}$$
The $Z$ factors (or equivalently $\delta$ factors) and $\delta_{t}$ are used to absorb all the ultraviolet divergences arising from the pure real scalar correction and gravitational correction in the model. Since we are interested only in one-loop diagrams with no external gravitons and the lowest order gravitational corrections to the renormalizations of $\phi$, $\lambda$, and $v$, other terms with both $\delta$’s and $h_{\mu\nu}$ or without $\phi$, $\rho$ in Eq.(\[Equ:SSBlagrangian\]) are omitted, hence to $\mathcal{O}(\delta)$ in terms of renormalized quantities, the part of Eq.(\[Equ:SSBlagrangian\]) relevant for our considerations reads explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{gs}&=&\sqrt{-g}\Bigl[
\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)(\partial_{\nu}\phi)
+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)(\partial_{\nu}\rho)
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\phi^{4}\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v^{2}\phi^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\rho^{4}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi^{3}
-\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^{2}\rho^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi\rho^{2}\Bigl]\nonumber\\&&
-\lambda v^{3}\phi\delta_{t}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}\delta_{\phi}
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v^{2}\phi^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}+2\delta_{v}+3\delta_{t})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi^{3}
(\delta_{\lambda}+\delta_{v}+\delta_{t})
-\frac{\lambda}{8} \phi^{4}\delta_{\lambda}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)^{2}\delta_{\rho}\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v^{2}\rho^{2}\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{4} \phi^{2}\rho^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}-\delta_{\phi}+\delta_{\rho})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi\rho^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}+\delta_{v}-\delta_{\phi}
+\delta_{\rho}+\delta_{t})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{8} \rho^{4}
(\delta_{\lambda}-2\delta_{\phi}+2\delta_{\rho})+\cdots,
\label{Equ:lagrangianfinal}\end{aligned}$$ where the ellipsis represents the terms with both $\delta$’s and $h_{\mu\nu}$, the constant terms without $\phi$, $\rho$ or $h_{\mu\nu}$, and the higher order terms involving scalars as well (e.g., higher-derivative counterterms).
From Eq.(\[Equ:lagrangianfinal\]), the counterterms for one-point, two-point, three-point, and four-point functions of Higgs field $\phi$ listed in Fig.(\[Fig:counterterms\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
i\delta\Gamma^{(1)}&=&-i\lambda v^{3}\delta_{t},\nonumber\\
i\delta\Gamma^{(2)}&=&i[p^{2}\delta_{\phi}-\lambda v^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}+2\delta_{v}+3\delta_{t})],\nonumber\\
i\delta\Gamma^{(3)}&=&-3i\lambda
v\left(\delta_{\lambda}+\delta_{v}+\delta_{t}\right),\nonumber\\
i\delta\Gamma^{(4)}&=&-3i\lambda\delta_{\lambda}.
\label{Equ:counterterms}\end{aligned}$$
\
(a)(b)\
\
(c)(d)\
It should be pointed out that these four counterterms are valid for both pure real scalar correction and gravitational correction. And in our model there is not only $\phi^{4}$ but also $\phi^{3}$ coupling to any number of gravitons, which is one of the main differences from Ref.[@RodigastSchuster].
\[corrections\]Pure real scalar correction VS Gravitational correction
======================================================================
Before considering the gravitational correction part, we should investigate the pure real scalar case, namely, the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{0})$ part, for comparison. Equation(\[Equ:lagrangianfinal\]) reduces to the following pure real scalar case: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{ps}&=&
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\phi^{4}
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v^{2}\phi^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{8}\rho^{4}\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2}v\phi^{3}
-\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^{2}\rho^{2}
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi\rho^{2}
-\lambda v^{3}\phi\delta_{t}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}\delta_{\phi}
\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v^{2}\phi^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}+2\delta_{v}+3\delta_{t})
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi^{3}
(\delta_{\lambda}+\delta_{v}+\delta_{t})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{8} \phi^{4}\delta_{\lambda}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)^{2}\delta_{\rho}
-\frac{\lambda}{4} \phi^{2}\rho^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}-\delta_{\phi}+\delta_{\rho})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v^{2}\rho^{2}\delta_{t}
-\frac{\lambda}{2} v\phi\rho^{2}
(\delta_{\lambda}+\delta_{v}-\delta_{\phi}
+\delta_{\varphi}+\delta_{t})\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{\lambda}{8} \rho^{4}
(\delta_{\lambda}-2\delta_{\phi}+2\delta_{\rho})+\cdots.
\label{Equ:Slagrangianfinal}\end{aligned}$$
It is interesting to note that there is no odd number of Goldstone field(s) in every term of the pure scalar Lagrangian above, namely, the Goldstone field must appear in pairs. Taking into account that groups O(2) and U(1) are locally isomorphic while O(1) and Z$_{2}$ are exactly the same, according to Goldstone theorem [@Goldstone], after spontaneous symmetry breaking, the original U(1) \[or equivalently O(2)\] symmetry is broken, but a residual Z$_{2}$ \[or equivalently O(1)\] symmetry is still respected by the Goldstone field. As a result, terms with not only even but also odd numbers of Higgs fields can survive but terms with odd numbers of Goldstone field(s) are forbidden.
The one-point, two-point, three-point and four-point functions corresponding to the diagrams listed in Fig.(\[Fig:purescalaronepoint\]), Figs.\[Fig:purescalartwopoint\]-\[Fig:purescalarfourpoint\]) are in turn, $$\begin{aligned}
i\Gamma_{s}^{(1)}&=&
\frac{3 i \lambda^{2} v^{2}}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
i\Gamma_{s}^{(2)}&=&
\frac{13 i \lambda^{2}v^{2}}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
i\Gamma_{s}^{(3)}&=&
\frac{10 i\lambda^{2}v}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
i\Gamma_{s}^{(4)}&=&
\frac{10 i\lambda^{2}}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}.
\label{Equ:scalargreenfunctions}\end{aligned}$$
\
(a)(b)\
\
(a)(b)\
\
(c)(d)\
\
(a)(b)\
\
(a)(b)\
From one-point, two-point and three-point functions, it is easy to get $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{t}&=&\frac{3 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{\phi}&=&0,\nonumber\\
\delta_{\lambda}&=&\frac{10 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{v}&=&-\frac{3 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon}.
\label{Equ:purescalarresult-3}\end{aligned}$$
And exactly the same results are easy to reach from one-point, two-point, and four-point functions. To put it differently, the pure real scalar correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector is consistent. The result is natural but nontrivial because both the coupling constants and the interactions of two-point, three-point and four-point pure real scalar interactions after the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry obey some strong constrains which are dictated by the original symmetry. Even though the original global U(1) symmetry is no longer apparent, it is still respected in such a special way. However, if the coupling constants of two-point, three-point, and four-point real scalar interactions are corrected by an alien field which does not carry any information of the original symmetry, one cannot expect it to render the correction consistent.
Using the approach presented in Sec. \[framework\], we consider the lowest order gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector of $\Phi^4$ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry. Below, only the lowest order $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ gravitational correction are listed, and the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{0})$ terms listed in Eqs.(\[Equ:purescalarresult-3\]) are omitted. Since we are interested only in the lowest order gravitational corrections to the renormalization of the Higgs sector, the one-loop one particle irreducible (1PI) Feynman diagrams relevant for our concern must satisfy three conditions. The first is all the external line particles must be Higgs field. The second condition is there must exist and only exist a graviton in the internal lines. And the last one is that the Feynman diagrams must be divergent.
Because of the absence of the interaction vertex as shown in Fig.(\[Fig:gravitononepoint\].a) in this model, there is no such one-loop tadpole diagram corrected by the graviton as listed in Fig.(\[Fig:gravitononepoint\].b), which is the only diagram of $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ that contributes to the one-point function of the Higgs field.
\
(a)(b)\
Hence there is no contribution from the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ one-loop tadpole diagram in the calculation, and then it can be obtained that, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{t}&=&0.\label{Equ:Gonepoint}\end{aligned}$$ The diagrams for two-point, three-point and four-point functions are listed in Figs. \[Fig:gravitontwopoint\]-\[Fig:gravitonfourpoint\], respectively, where the weight factor and permutations of external legs have been taken into account.
As discussed above, there is no odd number of Goldstone field(s) in every term of Lagrangian. Considering in the lowest order gravitational correction there must exist and only exist a graviton in the internal lines, the divergent one-loop 1PI Feynman diagram with one graviton and one Goldstone field as internal lines and Higgs fields as external lines is absent.
The corresponding two-point, three-point and four-point functions are in turn, $$\begin{aligned}
i\Gamma_{g}^{(2)}&=&
\frac{i\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}p^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}
-\frac{i\kappa^{2}\lambda^{2} v^{4}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},
\nonumber\\
i\Gamma_{g}^{(3)}&=&
\frac{i\lambda v \kappa^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}
[-3\lambda v^{2}+\frac{1}{2}(p_{1}^{2}+p_{2}^{2}+p_{3}^{2})],
\label{gravitationgreenfuctions}\\
i\Gamma_{g}^{(4)}&=&
\frac{i\lambda \kappa^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}[-13\lambda v^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}(p_{1}^{2}+p_{2}^{2}+p_{3}^{2}+p_{4}^{2})].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
![$\mathcal{O}(\protect\kappa^{2})$ correction to the two-point function. The diagram is of weight 1 but no permutation, which leads to a factor 1.[]{data-label="Fig:gravitontwopoint"}](gh22.eps){width="2.5cm"}
\
(a)(b)\
\
(a)(b)(c)\
The squared-momentum-dependent terms in the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ gravitational corrections to the three-point and four-point functions of the Higgs field do not contribute to the corresponding three-point and four-point counterterms and are the contributions to the higher-derivative counterterms [@schuster2008dpl], respectively. The only possible higher-derivative counterterms for three-point and four-point functions can be derived from the additional U(1) symmetry preserved term, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{hdct}&\sim&\sqrt{-g}~g^{\mu\nu}~
(\partial_{\mu}\Phi_{0})^{*}(\partial_{\nu}\Phi_{0}) \Phi_{0}^{*}\Phi_{0}.\label{Equ:originalhdct}\end{aligned}$$
After the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry, using Eqs.(\[Equ:metricup\]), (\[Equ:measure\]), (\[Equ:renormalizations\]) and (\[Equ:relations\]) and neglecting the higher order terms and terms with gravitons, it is straightforward to get the high derivative counterterms for Higgs field $\phi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{hdct}&\sim&\phi^{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}
+2v\phi(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}
+v^{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}.\label{Equ:Ghdct}\end{aligned}$$
The three terms in (\[Equ:Ghdct\]) are related to higher-derivative counterterms for four-point, three-point and two-point functions, respectively. Hence part of the correction in the two-point function is removed by the contribution of the third term in (\[Equ:Ghdct\]). These three terms correspond to the following contributions to the four-point, three-point, and two-point functions and should be added to them, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}&\sim&
-\frac{i\lambda \kappa^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}
\frac{1}{2}(p_{1}^{2}+p_{2}^{2}+p_{3}^{2}+p_{4}^{2})
~=~i\delta\Gamma_{g}^{(4)},\nonumber\\
2v\phi(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}&\sim&
-\frac{i\lambda v \kappa^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}
\frac{1}{2}(p_{1}^{2}+p_{2}^{2}+p_{3}^{2})
~=~i\delta\Gamma_{g}^{(3)},
\label{Equ:hdctcontributions}\\
v^{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}&\sim&
-\frac{i\lambda v^{2} \kappa^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}p^{2}
~=~-\frac{3 i\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}p^{2}
~=~i\delta\Gamma_{g}^{(2)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A key point is that after the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry the squared-momentum-dependent terms in the $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ corrections to the three-point and four-point functions are simultaneously removed by the higher-derivative counterterms derived from (\[Equ:originalhdct\]) for four-point and three-point functions, respectively.
Taking into account (\[Equ:hdctcontributions\]), from two-point and three-point functions and Eq.(\[Equ:Gonepoint\]), it is straightforward to get $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\phi}&=&
\frac{\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{\lambda}&=&
-\frac{5\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{v}&=&
\frac{2\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},
\label{Equ:gc3point}\end{aligned}$$ while from two-point and four-point functions and Eq.(\[Equ:Gonepoint\]), one can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\phi}&=&
\frac{\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{2(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{\lambda}&=&
-\frac{13\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{v}&=&
\frac{6\kappa^{2}\lambda v^{2}}{(4\pi)^{2}\epsilon}.
\label{Equ:gc4point}\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to find that the results for $\delta_{\lambda}$ and $\delta_{v}$ obtained from two-point and three-point functions of the Higgs field \[see Eqs.(\[Equ:gc3point\])\] and that from two-point and four-point functions \[see Eq.(\[Equ:gc4point\])\] contradict each other, which indicates that the lowest order gravitational correction to the renormalizations of the Higgs sector in this model is inconsistent.
If we reduce the complex scalar field $\Phi$ to a real scalar field (namely, $\Phi^{*}=\Phi$), the Lagrangian has a Z$_{2}$ symmetry, $\Phi\to-\Phi$, then we arrive at a real scalar $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken Z$_{2}$ symmetry. There is no Goldstone field after the spontaneous breaking of the discrete Z$_{2}$ symmetry. Therefore, compared with the case of the $\Phi^4$ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, all of the Feynman diagrams with Goldstone field $\rho$ in the pure real scalar correction part should be removed here. It is easy to check that the renormalization of the Higgs field $\phi$ self-correction is also consistent, and the result reads $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{t}&=&\frac{3 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{\phi}&=&0,\nonumber\\
\delta_{\lambda}&=&\frac{9 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon},\nonumber\\
\delta_{v}&=&-\frac{3 \lambda}{2(4\pi)^2\epsilon}.
\label{Z2purescalarresult-3}\end{aligned}$$
For gravitational correction to $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken Z$_{2}$ symmetry, the interactions between Higgs field $\phi$ and graviton $h_{\mu\nu}$, hence the related Feynman diagrams, and the high derivative counterterms, do not change compared with the case of $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken U(1) symmetry. On the other hand, as pointed out in Sec. \[corrections\], the Goldstone field does not contribute to the gravitational correction to the Higgs sector in the case of $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken U(1) symmetry. Therefore even though the Goldstone field is absent in the case of $\Phi^{4}$ theory with spontaneously broken Z$_{2}$ symmetry, there is no difference between these two cases for $\mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2})$ gravitational correction to the Higgs sector. The contradiction of the gravitational correction to Higgs field still holds.
\[comparisonanddiscussion\]Comparison and Discussion
====================================================
In order to reveal the reason of the inconsistence of the gravitational correction to the Higgs sector, we make some comparison with SQED with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry, whose Lagrangian takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{SQED}&=&T(\Phi,A_{\mu})-V(\Phi),
\label{SQEDlagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ where the potential $V(\Phi)$ is given by Eq.(\[Equ:potential\]), and the kinetic term is $$\begin{aligned}
T(\Phi,A_{\mu})&=&
(D_{\mu}\Phi)^{*}(D^{\mu}\Phi)-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ with $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+i e A_{\mu}$. The renormalizability of this model with local U(1) transformation had been studied in Ref.[@Appelquist1973]. Here we are interested in the behavior of this model under the global U(1) transformation Eq.(\[Equ:transformation\]). Using Eqs.(\[Equ:VEV\]), (\[Equ:decomposion\]), (\[Equ:vacuum\]) and (\[Equ:barefield\]), and setting $\delta_{t}=0$ in Eq.(\[Equ:barefield\]), one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
T(\Phi,A_{\mu})
&=&\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\rho)^{2}
+e^{2}v \phi A_{\mu}A^{\mu}\nonumber\\&&
+\frac{1}{2}e^{2}\phi^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}
+\frac{1}{2}e^{2}\rho^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}
-e \rho A^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\phi\nonumber\\&&
+e \phi A^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\rho
-\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{2}e^{2}v^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}\nonumber\\&&
+e v A^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\rho.
\label{Equ:SQEDTterm}\end{aligned}$$
In this case, the covariant derivative in the kinetic term $(D_{\mu}\Phi)^{*}(D^{\mu}\Phi)$ consists the gauge field $A_{\mu}$ since the complex scalar field $\Phi$ carries charge. This directly leads to the appearance the mixing between $A_{\mu}$ and $\rho$ (see the last term in Eq.(\[Equ:SQEDTterm\])) after the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry, which is proved to play a crucial role in the renormalization of this model. Because of such mixing term, the gauge field will be massive after eating the Goldstone boson and the mass of the gauge field, which is related to the VEV, is just the reflection of the information from the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry. The reason that the massive gauge field can give a consistent correction to the Higgs field $\phi$ is that the massive gauge field contains not only the original massless gauge field but also the Goldstone field which is a part of the original complex scalar field $\Phi$.
In fact, considering the coupling constants and interactions of three-point and four-point Higgs field self-interactions are not independent after the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry, one cannot expect that an ordinary alien gauge field could give a consistent correction to such model. But only if the parameters in the theory, e.g., mass of gauge boson $m_{A}=e v$, is connected with the VEV of the original complex scalar field by the mixing term between $A_{\mu}$ and $\rho$, and the interactions among the gauge field, the Higgs field, and the Goldstone field are derived from the spontaneous breaking of global U(1) symmetry, the expectation for a consistent correction is reasonable.
But something changes in the case of the gravitational correction to the Higgs sector in our model. When the complex scalar field $\Phi$ couples to gravity, the connection in the covariant derivative of the kinetic term of the field, e.g., $\mathcal{D}_{\mu}\Phi$, vanishes, resulting in $\mathcal{D}_{\mu}\Phi\to\partial_{\mu}\Phi$. This will directly lead to the absence of the two-point mixing terms between the graviton and the Goldstone field. On the other hand, considering the symmetry is spontaneously broken in the internal charged field space, which is different from the external spacetime, one will find this is natural that the Goldstone field can mix with gauge field $A_{\mu}$ but not graviton $h_{\mu\nu}$. Therefore the information of the spontaneous breaking of symmetry puts no influence on the graviton, and the Goldstone field, which appears after the spontaneous breaking of symmetry, no longer contributes to the gravitational correction to the Higgs sector. Actually this inconsistent result is not surprising when we take into account what we considered is the correction of an alien field, which carries no information of the original symmetry, to the Higgs field after the spontaneous breaking of symmetry.
It is also interesting to compare a graviton in this model with a gluon in the quantum chromodynamics. Since the Higgs field is a color singlet, the coupling between the gluon field and the Goldstone field is forbidden. Therefore the two-point mixing term between the gluon and the Goldstone field is also absent. But unlike the fact that the correction of the gluon to the Higgs sector is meaningless, gravity can couple to Higgs field and contribute to the correction of the Higgs field due to the fact that gravity is a reflection of the feature of spacetime and could couple to any kind of energy.
Hence in the SM, every field that contributes to the correction to the Higgs sector will be influenced by the spontaneous breaking of symmetry, specifically speaking, the masses of $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ are related to the VEV of the original complex scalar field, while on the other hand, the gluon and photon, whose couplings with the Higgs field are absent, will not contribute to such a correction. For this reason, the consistence of the gravitational correction to the SM is questionable considering that the gravity, even not influenced by the spontaneous breaking of symmetry, will still contribute to the correction to the Higgs sector in the SM.
\[conclusion\]Conclusion
========================
In summary, in this paper we considered a model in which perturbatively quantized Einstein gravity couples to the $\Phi^4$ theory with spontaneously broken global U(1) symmetry and calculated the lowest order pure real scalar correction and gravitational correction to the renormalizations of the Higgs sector. It is found that there is a contradiction in the gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector while the pure real scalar correction to it leads to a compatible renormalization of such model.
Based on the analysis above, the consistence for the gravitational correction to the renormalization of the Higgs sector in the SM, where the electroweak SU(2)$_{L}\times$U(1)$_{Y}$ symmetry is spontaneously broken, is open to doubt. It is expected that this contradiction will still hold there, which is the subject of future study.
We are grateful to Professor Mu-Lin Yan and Professor Dao-Neng Gao for helpful discussions. Hao-Ran Chang would like to express his special thanks to Professor Jun Yan for favorable correspondence. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No.11075149, No.10975128, and No.11074234.
[99]{} B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. **160**, 1113 (1967); *ibid.* **162**, 1195 (1967); S. M. Christensen and M. J. Duff, Nucl. Phys. B **170**, 480 (1980).
G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. A**20**, 69 (1974).
Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. A20 (1974) 69-94
S. Deser and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D **10** , 411 (1974); **10**, 401 (1974).
S. Deser, H. S. Tsao and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D **10**, 3337 (1974).
J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2996 (1994); Phys. Rev. D **50**, 3874 (1994).
S.P. Robinson and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 231601 (2006).
A. R. Pietrykowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 061801 (2007).
G. A. Vilkovisky, Nucl. Phys. B **234**, 125 (1984); B. S. DeWitt, “*The Effective Action*”, in *Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Statistics*, Vol. 1, edited by I. A. Batalin, C. J. Isham, and G. A. Vilkovisky (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1987).
G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B **44**, 189 (1972).
D. J. Toms, Phys. Rev. D **76**, 045015 (2007).
D. Ebert, J. Plefka, and A. Rodigast, Phys. Lett. B **660**, 579 (2008). arXiv:0710.1002
D. J. Toms, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 131301 (2008). arXiv:0809.3897
P. T. Mackay and D. J. Toms, Phys. Lett. B **684** , 251 (2010). arXiv:0910.1703
F. Wu and M. Zhong, Phys. Lett. B **659**, 694 (2008), Phys. Rev. D **78**, 085010 (2008).
D. Ebert, J. Plefka, and A. Rodigast, JHEP **02**, 028 (2009). arXiv:0809.0624
A. Rodigast, and T. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 081301 (2010).
D. J. Toms, Nature, **468**, 56 (2010)
J. R. Bhatt, S. Patra and U. Sarkar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **25**, 283 (2010). arXiv:0811.3307
M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B **683**, 196 (2010).
O. Zanusso, L. Zambelli, G. P. Vacca and R. Percacci, Phys. Lett. B **689**, 90 (2010).
J. E. Daum, U. Harst and M. Reuter, JHEP **1001**, 084 (2010).
M. M. Anber, J. F. Donoghue, M. El-Houssieny, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 124003 (2011). arXiv:1011.3229
E. Gerwick, Eur. Phys. J. C **71**, 1676 (2011). arXiv:1012.1118
J. Ellis and N. E. Mavromatos, arXiv:1012.4353
S. Folkerts, D. F. Litim and J. M. Pawlowski, arXiv:1101.5552; D. F. Litim, arXiv:1102.4624
J. C. C. Felipe, L. C. T. Brito, M. Sampaio and M. C. Nemes, Phys. Lett. B **700**, 86 (2011). arXiv:1103.5824
X. Calmet, T. -C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 037701 (2011). arXiv:1105.0424
Y. Tang and Y. -L. Wu, Commun. Theor. Phys. **54**, 1040 (2010); **57**, 629 (2012); J. High Energy Phys. **11** (2011) 073.
H. -J. He, X. -F. Wang, Z. -Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 125014 (2011).
D. J. Toms, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 084016 (2011).
L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, Phys. Lett. B **25**, 29 (1967).
T. Schuster, Diploma thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2008, <http://qft.physik.hu-berlin.de/>.
D. Bardin and G. Passarino, *The Standard Model in The Making: Precision Study of the Electroweak Interactions* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999). p. 119
J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento **19**, 154 (1961); J. Goldstone, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. **127**, 965 (1962).
T. Appelquist, J. Carazzone, T. Goldman and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D **8**, 1747 (1973).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a short proof of Klartag’s central limit theorem for convex bodies, using only the most classical facts about log-concave functions. An appendix is included where we give the proof that thin shell implies CLT. The paper is accessible to anyone.'
author:
- 'Daniel J. Fresen[^1]'
title: A simplified proof of CLT for convex bodies
---
Introduction
============
The central limit theorem for convex bodies (Theorem \[CLT conv bodies\] below) was conjectured by Brehm and Voigt [@BrVo] and independently (at about the same time) by Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki [@ABP]. A 1998 preprint of [@ABP] is cited in [@Bo]. It took several years and various partial results before a full proof by Klartag emerged in [@Kl] (see p95 for the history). A different proof was given soon afterwards by Fleury, Guédon, and Paouris [@FGP]. Significantly improved quantitative bounds (from logarithmic to power type) were given by Klartag [@Kl4], followed by improved estimates by various authors on the related ’thin shell property’ [@Fl; @GuMi11; @LeVe17]. More information can be found in [Fl, GuMi11, Kl, Kl4, Kl2, LeVe18]{}.
We present a simple proof that is self-contained (except for very classical results such as the Prékopa-Leindler inequality) and is accessible to anyone. The bounds on $\varepsilon _{n}$ and $\omega _{n}$ that this proof gives are poor; the contribution is simplicity. The methodology is a variation of that in Klartag’s original proof and uses Fourier inversion; the main difference being that we apply concentration directly to the Fourier transform as opposed to the measure of half-spaces. The statement of Theorem \[CLT conv bodies\] below is not identical to Theorem 1.1 in [Kl]{}, however under log-concavity, a uniform estimate on the cumulative distribution gives an estimate on the total variation distance, so we do indeed recover Theorem 1.1 in [@Kl]. The standard Euclidean norm and inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ are denoted as $\left\vert \cdot
\right\vert $ and $\left\langle \cdot ,\cdot \right\rangle $ respectively.
\[CLT conv bodies\]There exist sequences $\left( \varepsilon _{n}\right)
_{1}^{\infty }$ and $\left( \omega _{n}\right) _{1}^{\infty }$ in $\left(
0,\infty \right) $ with $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\varepsilon
_{n}=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\omega _{n}=0$ such that the following is true: Let $n\in \mathbb{N}$, let $X$ be a random vector in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $\mathbb{E}X=0$ and $\mathrm{Cov}\left( X\right) =I_{n}$. Assume that $X $ has a density $f=d\mu /dx$ that is log-concave, i.e. $f=e^{-g}$ where $g:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \left( -\infty ,\infty \right] $ is convex. Then there exists a set $\Theta \subset S^{n-1}$ with $\sigma _{n-1}\left(
S^{n-1}\right) \geq 1-\omega _{n}$ such that for all $\theta \in \Theta $,$$\sup_{t\in \mathbb{R}}\left\vert \mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle X,\theta
\right\rangle \leq t\right\} -\Phi \left( t\right) \right\vert \leq
\varepsilon _{n}$$where $\sigma _{n-1}$ is Haar measure on $S^{n-1}$ normalized so that $\sigma _{n-1}\left( S^{n-1}\right) =1$, and $\Phi \left( t\right) =\left(
2\pi \right) ^{-1/2}\int_{-\infty }^{t}\exp \left( -u^{2}/2\right) du$.
The proof uses two nontrivial properties of log-concave functions (see [Kl, Kl4, Kl2]{} for more details): with $f$ as in Theorem \[CLT conv bodies\],
$\bullet $ If $E\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is any linear subspace of dimension $1\leq k<n$, then the projection $P_{E}f:E\rightarrow \left[
0,\infty \right) $ defined by$$P_{E}f(x)=\int_{E^{\bot }}f\left( x+y\right) dy \label{proj def}$$is log-concave. Here integration is performed with respect to $n-k$ dimensional Lebesgue measure on $E^{\bot }$. This is a consequence of the Prékopa-Leindler inequality. Interpreting a convolution in terms of a projection of $\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^{n}$ onto $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, we see that if $\varphi :\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ is log-concave with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\varphi (x)dx=1$, then the convolution $f\ast \varphi $ is also log-concave.
$\bullet $ If $X$ has the thin shell property, i.e.$$\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{R}-1\right\vert
<\varepsilon ^{\prime }\right\} >1-\varepsilon ^{\prime }$$for some $\varepsilon ^{\prime },R>0$ (here we can take $R=\sqrt{n}$), then the projection of $X$ onto most one dimensional subspaces is approximately Gaussian, with estimates depending on $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$. Quantitative results of this type for log-concave measures can be found in [@ABP; @Bo]. For completeness, we give a precise statement with proof in Section [appendix thin shell implies CLT]{}.
Proof of Theorem \[CLT conv bodies\]
====================================
The proof is in three main steps.
**Step 1: Approximately spherically symmetric projections.** The first step mimics Milman’s proof of Dvoretzky’s theorem [@Milman], see for example [@Sch2], but in a different way to Klartag [@Kl Sections 3 and 4]. Let $Y=X+\sigma Z$ for some $\sigma >0$, where $Z$ has the standard normal distribution and is independent of $X$. The density of $Y$ is $h=f\ast \phi _{\sigma }$, where $\phi _{\sigma }(x)=\left( 2\pi \sigma
^{2}\right) ^{-n/2}\exp \left( -2^{-1}\sigma ^{-2}\left\vert x\right\vert
^{2}\right) $ and $\ast $ denotes convolution. Then $\widehat{h}=\widehat{f}\cdot \widehat{\phi }_{\gamma }$, where $\widehat{\cdot }$ denotes the Fourier transform,$$\widehat{h}\left( \xi \right) =\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\exp \left( -2\pi
i\left\langle \xi ,x\right\rangle \right) h\left( x\right) dx$$and$$\widehat{\phi }_{\sigma }(\xi )=\exp \left( -2\pi ^{2}\sigma ^{2}\left\vert
\xi \right\vert ^{2}\right)$$For any $\xi _{1},\xi _{2}\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$,$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \widehat{f}\left( \xi _{1}\right) -\widehat{f}\left( \xi
_{2}\right) \right\vert &\leq &\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\left\vert \exp \left(
-2\pi i\left\langle \xi _{1},x\right\rangle \right) -\exp \left( -2\pi
i\left\langle \xi _{2},x\right\rangle \right) \right\vert f(x)dx \\
&\leq &\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}2\pi \left\vert \left\langle \xi
_{1},x\right\rangle -\left\langle \xi _{2},x\right\rangle \right\vert f(x)dx
\\
&=&2\pi \left\vert \xi _{1}-\xi _{2}\right\vert \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\left\vert \left\langle \frac{\xi _{1}-\xi _{2}}{\left\vert \xi
_{1}-\xi _{2}\right\vert },x\right\rangle \right\vert f(x)dx \\
&\leq &2\pi \left\vert \xi _{1}-\xi _{2}\right\vert \left( \mathbb{E}\left\vert \left\langle \frac{\xi _{1}-\xi _{2}}{\left\vert \xi _{1}-\xi
_{2}\right\vert },X\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$and we see that $\widehat{f}$ is $2\pi $-Lipschitz on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Let $F\in G_{n,k}$ be any fixed subspace and $U$ a random matrix uniformly distributed in $O(n)$ ($k<n$ to be determined later). Then $E=UF\in G_{n,k}$ is a random $k$-dimensional subspace uniformly distributed in $G_{n,k}$. Let $\varepsilon \in \left( 0,1/2\right) $ and let $\mathcal{N}\subset
S_{F}=S^{n-1}\cap F$ be an $\varepsilon $-dense subset (i.e. for all $\theta
\in S_{F}$ there exists $\omega \in \mathcal{N}$ such that $\left\vert
\theta -\omega \right\vert <\varepsilon $. By considering the volume of disjoint balls, such a subset can be chosen with cardinality $\left\vert
\mathcal{N}\right\vert \leq \left( 3/\varepsilon \right) ^{k}$. Assume that $k\leq c\left( \log \varepsilon ^{-1}\right) ^{-1}\delta n$. By Lévy’s concentration inequality for Lipschitz functions on a sphere, see e.g. [Kl2]{}, and the union bound, with probability at least$$1-\sum_{m=0}^{\infty }\left( \frac{3}{\varepsilon }\right) ^{k}\exp \left(
-\left\{ \sqrt{c\delta ^{2}+\frac{2\ln m}{n}}\right\} ^{2}n\right) \geq
1-C\exp \left( -c\delta ^{2}n\right)$$the following event occurs: for all $m\in \left\{ 0,1,2\ldots \right\} $, and all $\theta \in \mathcal{N}$,$$\left\vert \widehat{f}\left( U\left( 1+\varepsilon \right) ^{m}\sqrt{k}\sigma ^{-1}\theta \right) -M\left( \left( 1+\varepsilon \right) ^{m}\sqrt{k}\sigma ^{-1}\right) \right\vert <C\left( \delta +\sqrt{\frac{\ln m}{n}}\right) \left( 1+\varepsilon \right) ^{m}\sigma ^{-1}\sqrt{k}$$where$$M\left( t\right) =\int_{S^{n-1}}\widehat{f}\left( t\theta \right) d\sigma
_{n-1}\left( \theta \right)$$With the same probability, the same event holds with $\left( 1+\varepsilon
\right) ^{m}$ replaced with $\left( 1+\varepsilon \right) ^{-m}$. Setting $\xi ^{\prime }=\left( 1+\varepsilon \right) ^{\pm m}\sqrt{k}\sigma
^{-1}\theta $, making $m$ the subject of the formula, and using the Lipschitz property of $\widehat{f}$, with high probability, for all $\xi \in
F$,$$\left\vert \widehat{f}\left( U\xi \right) -M\left( \left\vert \xi
\right\vert \right) \right\vert <C\left( \delta +\varepsilon +\sqrt{\frac{\ln \varepsilon ^{-1}}{n}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\ln \ln \max \left\{ \frac{\sigma \left\vert \xi \right\vert }{\sqrt{k}},\frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sigma
\left\vert \xi \right\vert }\right\} }\right) \left\vert \xi \right\vert$$Optimizing over $\varepsilon $ we set $\varepsilon =\sqrt{\left( \ln
n\right) /n}$. Let $P_{E}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow E$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $E$, let $\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}:$ $L^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\right) \rightarrow L^{\infty }\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) $ denote the Fourier transform on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and let $\mathcal{F}_{E}:L^{1}\left( E\right) \rightarrow L^{\infty }\left( E\right) $ denote the Fourier transform on $E$ ($E$ as a Hilbert space in its own right). Recall the definition in (\[proj def\]). By Fubini’s theorem, the function $P_{E}h$ is the density of the random vector $P_{E}X$ (with respect to $k$-dimensional Lebesgue measure in $E$). The Fourier transform works well with orthogonal projections, in particular$$\left( \mathcal{F}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}h\right) |_{E}=\mathcal{F}_{E}\left(
P_{E}h\right)$$where $\left( \mathcal{F}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}f\right) |_{E}$ denotes the restriction of $\mathcal{F}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}f$ to $E$. By Fourier inversion in $E$, for all $x\in E$,$$P_{E}h\left( x\right) =\int_{E}\exp \left( 2\pi i\left\langle x,\xi
\right\rangle \right) \widehat{h}\left( \xi \right) d\xi$$so for all $W\in O\left( E\right) $, (applying a change of variables)$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert P_{E}h\left( x\right) -P_{E}h\left( Wx\right) \right\vert
\nonumber \\
&\leq &\int_{E}\left\vert \widehat{h}\left( \xi \right) -\widehat{h}\left(
W\xi \right) \right\vert d\xi \nonumber \\
&\leq &C\left( 2\pi \sigma ^{2}\right) ^{-(k+1)/2}\int_{E}\left( \delta +\sqrt{\frac{\ln n}{n}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\ln \ln \max \left\{ \frac{\left\vert y\right\vert }{\sqrt{2\pi k}},\frac{\sqrt{2\pi k}}{\left\vert
y\right\vert }\right\} }\right) e^{-\pi \left\vert y\right\vert
^{2}}\left\vert y\right\vert dy \nonumber \\
&\leq &C\left( 2\pi \sigma ^{2}\right) ^{-(k+1)/2}\left( \delta +\sqrt{\frac{\ln n}{n}}\right) \sqrt{k} \label{grape}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2: Behavior of** $t\mapsto P_{E}h\left( t\theta \right) $** **(in the spirit of Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 in [@Kl]). Consider any $x,y\in
S_{E}=E\cap S^{n-1}$ and define $A,B:\left[ 0,\infty \right) \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ by$$P_{E}h\left( tx\right) =e^{-A(t)}\hspace{0.45in}P_{E}h\left( ty\right)
=e^{-B(t)}$$Since $f$ and $\phi $ are log-concave, i.e. $-\log f$ and $-\log \phi $ are convex with values in $\left( -\infty ,\infty \right] $, $h=f\ast \phi $ is also log-concave. It follows from the Prékopa-Leindler inequality (see for example the discussion in [@Kl]) that $P_{E}h$ too is log-concave, and therefore $A$ and $B$ are convex. Since $P_{E}h=\left( P_{E}f\right)
\ast \left( P_{E}\phi _{\sigma }\right) $, $A$ and $B$ are infinitely differentiable. In preparation for an integral over $E$ in polar coordinates, we now study $t\mapsto t^{k-1}e^{-A(t)}$ and $t\mapsto
t^{k-1}e^{-B(t)}$, $t\in \left[ 0,\infty \right) $. These functions are maximized at $t_{x}$,$t_{y}\in \left( 0,\infty \right) $ that satisfy$$A^{\prime }\left( t_{x}\right) t_{x}=k-1\hspace{0.45in}B^{\prime }\left(
t_{y}\right) t_{y}=k-1$$Such numbers exist since $A^{\prime }(t)t$ is continuous with limit $0$ (resp. $\infty $) as $t\rightarrow 0$ (resp. $t\rightarrow \infty $), similarly for $B$. After a possible re-labeling of $x$ and $y$ we may assume that $t_{x}\leq t_{y}$. Our goal is to show that these numbers cannot be too far apart (in the sense that their ratio is close to $1$). If $t_{x}=t_{y}$ there is nothing to show, so assume $t_{x}<t_{y}$. By convexity,$$\begin{aligned}
A\left( t_{y}\right) -A\left( t_{x}\right) &\geq &A^{\prime }\left(
t_{x}\right) \left( t_{y}-t_{x}\right) =\left( k-1\right) \left( \frac{t_{y}}{t_{x}}-1\right) \\
B\left( t_{y}\right) -B\left( t_{x}\right) &\leq &B^{\prime }\left(
t_{y}\right) \left( t_{y}-t_{x}\right) =\left( k-1\right) \left( 1-\frac{t_{x}}{t_{y}}\right)\end{aligned}$$and therefore$$\sup_{t\in \left\{ t_{x},t_{y}\right\} }\left\vert A(t)-B(t)\right\vert \geq
\frac{\left\{ A\left( t_{y}\right) -A\left( t_{x}\right) \right\} -\left\{
B\left( t_{y}\right) -B\left( t_{x}\right) \right\} }{2}=\frac{\left(
k-1\right) \left( t_{y}-t_{x}\right) ^{2}}{2t_{x}t_{y}} \label{no name aae}$$Assume momentarily that there exists $t\in \left\{ t_{x},t_{y}\right\} $ such that $A(t)-B(t)\geq 1$. Since $P_{E}h$ is the log-concave density of a random vector in $E$ with covariance $\left( 1+\sigma ^{2}\right) I$, it follows from Theorem 5.14 in [@LoVe] (see also (\[lower bound at zero\]) here) that $P_{E}h\left( 0\right) \geq 2^{-7k}\left( 1+\sigma ^{2}\right)
^{-k/2}$. By convexity again, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert e^{-A(t)}-e^{-B(t)}\right\vert &=&e^{-B(t)}\left\vert
e^{B(t)-A(t)}-1\right\vert \geq \left( 1-e^{-1}\right) e^{-B(t)} \\
&\geq &\left( 1-e^{-1}\right) \exp \left( -B(0)-tB^{\prime }\left( t\right)
\right) \\
&\geq &\left( 1-e^{-1}\right) P_{E}h\left( 0\right) \exp \left(
-t_{y}B^{\prime }\left( t_{y}\right) \right) \\
&\geq &\left( e-1\right) 2^{-7k}\left( 1+\sigma ^{2}\right) ^{-k/2}\exp
\left( -k\right)\end{aligned}$$However, by (\[grape\]),$$\left\vert e^{-A(t)}-e^{-B(t)}\right\vert =\left\vert P_{E}h\left( tx\right)
-P_{E}h\left( ty\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( 2\pi \sigma ^{2}\right)
^{-(k+1)/2}\left( \delta +\sqrt{\frac{\ln n}{n}}\right) \sqrt{k}$$We will choose the parameters $\delta $, $k$, and $\sigma $ so that the upper bound on $\left\vert e^{-A(t)}-e^{-B(t)}\right\vert $ is less than the lower bound, which implies that we may assume that $B(t)-A(t)>-1$ for all $t\in \left\{ t_{x},t_{y}\right\} $. Now let $t\in \left\{
t_{x},t_{y}\right\} $ such that$$\left\vert A(t)-B(t)\right\vert =\sup_{u\in \left\{ t_{x},t_{y}\right\}
}\left\vert A(u)-B(u)\right\vert$$By (\[no name aae\]),$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert e^{-A(t)}-e^{-B(t)}\right\vert &=&e^{-B(t)}\left\vert
e^{B(t)-A(t)}-1\right\vert \\
&\geq &\exp \left( -B(0)-B^{\prime }(t)t\right) e^{-1}\left\vert
B(t)-A(t)\right\vert \\
&\geq &2^{-7k}\left( 1+\sigma ^{2}\right) ^{-k/2}e^{-k}\frac{\left(
k-1\right) \left( t_{y}-t_{x}\right) ^{2}}{2t_{x}t_{y}}\end{aligned}$$so$$\frac{t_{y}-t_{x}}{t_{y}}\leq \gamma :=Ce^{ck}\left( 1+\sigma ^{2}\right)
^{k/4}\sigma ^{-(k+1)/2}\left( \delta ^{1/2}+\left( \frac{\ln n}{n}\right)
^{1/4}\right)$$For an appropriate choice of parameters this will achieve our goal of showing that $t_{x}$ and $t_{y}$ cannot be too far apart (relatively). What this means is that in any direction $x\in S^{n-1}\cap E$, the function $t\mapsto t^{k-1}P_{E}h\left( tx\right) $ achieves its peak in about the same place. Our next goal is to show that the mass in$$\int_{0}^{\infty }t^{k-1}P_{E}h\left( tx\right) dt$$is concentrated around $t_{x}$. Since $A$ lies above its tangent lines, defining $q$ by$$\begin{aligned}
q(t) &=&t^{k-1}e^{-A(t)}\leq \exp \left( \left( k-1\right) \ln t-A\left(
t_{x}\right) -\left( t-t_{x}\right) A^{\prime }\left( t_{x}\right) \right) \\
&=&\exp \left( -A\left( t_{x}\right) -\left( \frac{t}{t_{x}}-1-\ln \frac{t}{t_{x}}-\ln t_{x}\right) \left( k-1\right) \right) \\
&=&\exp \left( -A\left( t_{x}\right) -\left( -\ln t_{x}+\sum_{j=2}^{\infty
}j^{-1}\left( \frac{t}{t_{x}}-1\right) ^{j}\right) \left( k-1\right) \right)
\\
&\leq &t_{x}^{k-1}e^{-A\left( t_{x}\right) }\exp \left( -\frac{k-1}{3}\left(
\frac{t}{t_{x}}-1\right) ^{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$provided $\left\vert \frac{t}{t_{x}}-1\right\vert <1/2$. We now translate this to tail probabilities. Fix any $t\in \left[ t_{x},3t_{x}/2\right] $ and $s\geq t$. By log-concavity of $q$,$$q\left( s\right) \leq \left[ \left( \frac{q(t)}{q\left( t_{x}\right) }\right) ^{1/\left( t-t_{x}\right) }\right] ^{s-t}q(t)\leq \exp \left( -\frac{\left( k-1\right) \left( s-t\right) \left( t-t_{x}\right) }{3t_{x}^{2}}\right) q(t)$$and therefore$$\int_{t}^{\infty }q(s)ds\leq \frac{3t_{x}^{2}q(t)}{\left( k-1\right) \left(
t-t_{x}\right) }$$On the other hand, for any $s\in \left[ t_{x},t\right] $,$$q\left( s\right) \geq \left[ \left( \frac{q(t_{x})}{q\left( t\right) }\right) ^{1/\left( t-t_{x}\right) }\right] ^{t-s}q(t)\geq \exp \left( \frac{\left( k-1\right) \left( t-s\right) \left( t-t_{x}\right) }{3t_{x}^{2}}\right) q(t)$$so$$\int_{0}^{\infty }q(s)ds\geq \int_{t_{x}}^{t}q(s)ds\geq \frac{3t_{x}^{2}q(t)}{\left( k-1\right) \left( t-t_{x}\right) }\left[ \exp \left( \frac{\left(
k-1\right) \left( t-t_{x}\right) ^{2}}{3t_{x}^{2}}\right) -1\right]$$and$$\int_{t}^{\infty }q(s)ds\leq \left[ \exp \left( \frac{\left( k-1\right)
\left( t-t_{x}\right) ^{2}}{3t_{x}^{2}}\right) -1\right] ^{-1}\int_{0}^{\infty }q(s)ds$$A similar bound holds for the left hand tail. Combining these,$$\int_{(1-u)t_{x}}^{(1+u)t_{x}}q(s)ds\geq \left( 1-C\exp \left(
-cku^{2}\right) \right) \left( \int_{0}^{\infty }q(s)ds\right)
\label{radial conc}$$provided $u\in \left[ 0,1/2\right] $.
**Step 3: Thin shell and small details.** Now fix an arbitrary $x\in
B_{2}^{n}\cap E$. By polar integration,$$\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert \frac{\left\vert P_{E}Y\right\vert }{t_{x}}-1\right\vert <C\left( u+\gamma \right) \right\} \geq 1-C\exp \left(
-cku^{2}\right) \label{first thin shell}$$which is the so called ’thin shell property’ of $P_{E}Y$ in $E$ (see Section \[appendix thin shell implies CLT\] for more details), and by a result of Bobkov [@Bo] (following Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki [@ABP] in the symmetric case) this implies that with probability at least$$1-C\sqrt{k}\exp \left( -ck\left\{ u+\gamma +\exp \left( -cku^{2}\right)
\right\} ^{2}\right)$$a further random projection $P_{\theta ^{\prime }}P_{E}Y$ is approximately Gaussian (with mean zero and variance $1+\sigma ^{2}$), where $\theta
^{\prime }$ is uniformly distributed in $S_{E}$,$$\left\vert \mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime
},P_{E}Y\right\rangle \leq t\right\} -\Phi \left( \frac{t}{\sqrt{1+\sigma
^{2}}}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( u+\gamma +\exp \left( -cku^{2}\right)
\right)$$See Theorem \[thin shell imp CLT\]. Now $\left\langle \theta ^{\prime
},P_{E}Y\right\rangle =\left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}X\right\rangle
+\left\langle \theta ^{\prime },\sigma P_{E}Z\right\rangle $, and $\left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}Z\right\rangle \sim N(0,1)$. Assume that $t\geq 0$ and $\sigma \leq 1$, and consider any $\nu \in \left( 0,1\right) $. Since$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}Y\right\rangle \leq t-\nu
\right\} &\Rightarrow &\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime
},P_{E}X\right\rangle \leq t\right\} \vee \left\{ \left\langle \theta
^{\prime },\sigma P_{E}Z\right\rangle \leq -\nu \right\} \\
\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}X\right\rangle \leq t\right\}
&\Rightarrow &\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}Y\right\rangle
\leq t+\nu \right\} \vee \left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },\sigma
P_{E}Z\right\rangle \geq \nu \right\}\end{aligned}$$by the union bound and (\[log lipschitz\]), $\mathbb{P}\left\{
\left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}X\right\rangle \leq t\right\} $ is bounded below by$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}Y\right\rangle \leq
t-\nu \right\} -\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },\sigma
P_{E}Z\right\rangle \leq -\nu \right\} \\
&\geq &\Phi \left( \frac{t-\nu }{\sqrt{1+\sigma ^{2}}}\right) -C\left(
u+\gamma +\exp \left( -cku^{2}\right) \right) -C\exp \left( -c\sigma
^{-2}\nu ^{2}\right) \\
&\geq &\Phi \left( t\right) -C\left( \nu +\sigma +u+\gamma +\exp \left(
-cku^{2}\right) +\exp \left( -c\sigma ^{-2}\nu ^{2}\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$and above by$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },P_{E}Y\right\rangle \leq
t+\nu \right\} +\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime },\sigma
P_{E}Z\right\rangle \geq \nu \right\} \\
&\leq &\Phi \left( t\right) +C\left( \nu +\sigma +u+\gamma +\exp \left(
-cku^{2}\right) +\exp \left( -c\sigma ^{-2}\nu ^{2}\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$Choosing$$\begin{aligned}
k &=&\frac{c_{1}\ln \left( n+1\right) }{\ln \ln \left( n+2\right) }\hspace{0.65in}\delta =\frac{\ln \left( n+1\right) }{\sqrt{n}}\hspace{0.65in}\sigma =\frac{1}{\ln \left( n+1\right) } \\
u &=&\frac{C_{2}\ln \ln \left( n+2\right) }{\sqrt{\ln \left( n+1\right) }}\hspace{0.45in}\nu =\frac{C_{2}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( n+1\right) }}\end{aligned}$$(a fairly arbitrary choice), where $c_{1}$ is chosen first to be small and then $C_{2}$ is chosen to be appropriately large, we get $\gamma \leq
Cn^{-1/5}$ and the error bound reduces to$$\left\vert \mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ^{\prime
},P_{E}X\right\rangle \leq t\right\} -\Phi (t)\right\vert \leq \delta _{n}:=\frac{C\ln \ln \left( n+2\right) }{\sqrt{\ln \left( n+1\right) }}$$the probability bound (of failure) reduces to$$\omega _{n}\leq C\exp \left( -c\delta ^{2}n\right) +C\sqrt{k}\exp \left(
-ck\left\{ u+\gamma +\exp \left( -cku^{2}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right) \leq
C\left( \log n\right) ^{-C_{3}}$$where $C_{3}$ can be made arbitrarily large by taking $C_{2}$ large enough. The upper and lower bounds for $\left\vert e^{-A(t)}-e^{-B(t)}\right\vert $ earlier in the proof become (respectively) $Cn^{-1/2+0.1}$ and $Cn^{-0.1}$, which achieves the desired contradiction, and the required bound $k\leq
c\delta ^{2}\left( \ln n\right) ^{-1}n$ is satisfied. Note that $P_{\theta
^{\prime }}P_{E}=P_{\theta }$ where $\theta $ is uniformly distributed in $S^{n-1}$, so we have shown that the projection of $X$ onto most one dimensional subspaces is approximately Gaussian, and Theorem \[CLT conv bodies\] follows.
**Note: Radius of the thin shell.** When stating and applying the fact that the thin shell property implies CLT, it is convenient to replace $t_{x}$ with $\sqrt{k}$ in (\[first thin shell\]). Let $W_{\theta }$ ($\theta \in
S^{n-1}\cap E$) be a random variable with density proportional to $q_{\theta
}(t)=t^{k-1}P_{E}h\left( t\theta \right) $, $t\geq 0$. From (\[radial conc\]),$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left\vert W_{\theta }\right\vert ^{2} &=&\left( \mathbb{E}\left\vert W_{\theta }\right\vert \right) ^{2}+\mathrm{Var}\left( W_{\theta
}\right) \leq \left( t_{\theta }+Ck^{-1/2}t_{\theta }\right) ^{2}+\frac{Ct_{\theta }^{2}}{k} \\
&\leq &t_{x}^{2}\left( 1+C\gamma \right) \left( 1+Ck^{-1/2}\right) +\frac{Ct_{x}^{2}}{k}\end{aligned}$$so$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left\vert P_{E}Y\right\vert ^{2} &=&\mathrm{vol}_{k-1}\left(
S^{k-1}\right) \int_{S^{n-1}\cap E}\left( \int_{0}^{\infty }t^{2}q_{\theta
}(t)\frac{dt}{\int_{0}^{\infty }q_{\theta }(s)ds}\right) \left(
\int_{0}^{\infty }q_{\theta }(s)ds\right) d\sigma _{k-1}\left( \theta \right)
\\
&\leq &\left( 1+C\gamma +Ck^{-1/2}\right) t_{x}^{2}\end{aligned}$$The last inequality follows since $\mathrm{vol}_{k-1}\left( S^{k-1}\right)
\int_{S^{n-1}\cap E}\int_{0}^{\infty }q_{\theta }(s)dsd\sigma _{k-1}\left(
\theta \right) =1$. Similarly,$$\mathbb{E}\left\vert P_{E}Y\right\vert ^{2}\geq \left( 1-C\gamma
-Ck^{-1/2}\right) t_{x}^{2}$$But $\mathbb{E}\left\vert P_{E}Y\right\vert ^{2}=k$, so$$\left( 1-C\gamma -Ck^{-1/2}\right) \sqrt{k}\leq t_{x}\leq \left( 1+C\gamma
+Ck^{-1/2}\right) \sqrt{k}$$and (changing the constants involved) we may replace $t_{x}$ with $\sqrt{k}$ in (\[first thin shell\]).
**Note: Lower bound on** $P_{E}f(0)$**.** To simplify notation we work with the original function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty
\right) $, but the corresponding result can then be applied to $P_{E}f:E\rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ by replacing $n$ with $k$. By log-concavity, $\left\{ x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}:f(x)>f(0)\right\} $ is convex and there exists $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ such that $\left\langle \theta
,x\right\rangle >0$ implies $f(x)\leq f(0)$. It is an interesting exercise to show that for any log-concave random variable in $\mathbb{R}$ with zero mean and unit variance, such as $\left\langle \theta ,X\right\rangle $, $\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ,X\right\rangle >0\right\} \geq \beta $ for some universal constant $\beta >0$ (actually for $\beta =e^{-1}$). Now$$n=\mathbb{E}\left\vert X\right\vert ^{2}\geq A^{2}\alpha _{n}^{2}\frac{n}{2\pi e}\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert X\right\vert \geq A\alpha _{n}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi e}}\right\} \geq A^{2}\alpha _{n}^{2}\frac{n}{2\pi e}\left(
\beta -f(0)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{vol}_{n}\left( A\alpha _{n}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi
e}}B_{2}^{n}\right) \right)$$where $\alpha _{n}$ is such that $\mathrm{vol}_{n}\left( \alpha _{n}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\pi e}}\right) =1$ and $\alpha _{n}\rightarrow 1$ as $n\rightarrow
\infty $ (and $B_{2}^{n}=\left\{ x:\left\vert x\right\vert \leq 1\right\} $). Optimizing in $A$ yields$$f(0)\geq Cn^{-3/2}\left( e\sqrt{2\pi }\right) ^{-n}
\label{lower bound at zero}$$In the symmetric case one gets the optimal base $\sqrt{2\pi e}$. The estimate $f(0)\geq 2^{-7n}$ can be found, for example, in [LoVe]{}.
\[appendix thin shell implies CLT\]Appendix: Thin shell implies CLT
===================================================================
For completeness we collect and prove various known results and tailor them to our specific use. We refer the reader to [@Bo Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, Eq. (1.7) Proposition 3.1] and [@ABP] for a more extensive discussion. Our proof of Proposition 3.1 in [@Bo] on the Lipschitz constant of $\theta \mapsto M\left( \theta ,t\right) $ is slightly simplified.
\[thin shell imp CLT\]Let $\varepsilon >0$. Let $\mu $ be a probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ with center of mass $0$, identity covariance, and log-concave density $f=d\mu /dx$. If $\mu $ has the following thin shell property:$$\mu \left\{ x\in \mathbb{R}^{k}:\left\vert \frac{\left\vert x\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}-1\right\vert >\varepsilon \right\} <\varepsilon$$then there exists $\Theta \subset S^{k-1}$ with $\sigma _{n-1}\left( \Theta
\right) \geq 1-C\sqrt{k}\exp \left( -ck\varepsilon ^{2}\right) $ such that for all $\theta \in \Theta $,$$\sup_{t\in \mathbb{R}}\left\vert \Phi \left( t\right) -\mu \left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}^{k}:\left\langle x,\theta \right\rangle \leq t\right\}
\right\vert \leq C\varepsilon$$
Write $M\left( \theta ,t\right) =\mu \left\{ x\in \mathbb{R}^{k}:\left\langle x,\theta \right\rangle \leq t\right\} $. For any $\theta
_{1},\theta _{2}\in S^{k-1}$ that are sufficiently close, say $\left\vert
\theta _{1}-\theta _{2}\right\vert <1/10$,$$\left\vert M\left( \theta _{1},t\right) -M\left( \theta _{2},t\right)
\right\vert =\mu \left( M\left( \theta _{1},t\right) \Delta M\left( \theta
_{2},t\right) \right)$$where $A\Delta B=\left( A\backslash B\right) \cup \left( B\backslash
A\right) $ denotes the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$. By projecting onto $span\left\{ \theta _{1},\theta _{2}\right\} $ and identifying $span\left\{ \theta _{1},\theta _{2}\right\} $ with $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, we conclude that$$\left\vert M\left( \theta _{1},t\right) -M\left( \theta _{2},t\right)
\right\vert =\int_{-\infty }^{t}\int_{\left( 1-x\cos \beta \right) /\sin
\beta }^{\infty }q(x)dydx+\int_{t}^{\infty }\int_{-\infty }^{\left( 1-x\cos
\beta \right) /\sin \beta }q(x)dydx$$where $q$ is the density of the measure projection of $\mu $ into $E$ (identified with $\mathbb{R}^{2}$), see (\[proj def\]), and $\cos \beta
=\left\langle \theta _{1},\theta _{2}\right\rangle $. By the Prékopa-Leindler inequality $q$ is log-concave, and defines a probability measure with mean $0$ and identity covariance. It is an elementary fact that for such a function, $q(x,y)\leq C\exp \left( -cx_{1}-cx_{2}\right) $ with universal constants $C,c>0$. By a change of variables (through translation),$$\left\vert M\left( \theta _{1},t\right) -M\left( \theta _{2},t\right)
\right\vert \leq 2C\int_{-\infty }^{0}\int_{t}^{-y\tan \beta }\exp \left(
-c^{\prime }x-c^{\prime }y\right) dxdy\leq Ce^{-c\left\vert t\right\vert
}\left\vert \theta _{1}-\theta _{2}\right\vert$$This implies that $M\left( \theta ,t\right) $ is $Ce^{-c\left\vert
t\right\vert }$-Lipschitz in $\theta $. Now let $\theta \in S^{k-1}$ be chosen randomly, uniformly distributed on $S^{k-1}$ and let $F(t)=\mathbb{E}M\left( \theta ,t\right) $. By concentration on $S^{n-1}$ (see e.g. [Kl2]{}) and the union bound, with probability at least $1-C\varepsilon
^{-1}\exp \left( -cn\varepsilon ^{2}\right) =1-C\sqrt{k}\left( k\varepsilon
^{2}\right) ^{-1/2}\exp \left( -ck\varepsilon ^{2}\right) $, the following event occurs: for all $1\leq j\leq m$, $\left\vert M\left( \theta
,t_{j}\right) -F(t_{j})\right\vert <\varepsilon $, where $m=\left\lfloor
\varepsilon ^{-1}\right\rfloor $ and $t_{j}=F^{-1}\left( j/m\right) $. Using monotonicity in $t$, we conclude that (with high probability) $\left\vert
M\left( \theta ,t\right) -F(t)\right\vert <C\varepsilon $ for all $t\in
\mathbb{R}$. We now compare $F$ to $\Phi $. Let $\Phi _{k}\left( t\right) =\mathbb{P}\left\{ \sqrt{k}\theta _{1}\leq t\right\} $, where $\theta $ is still uniform on $S^{k-1}$. Let $X$ be a random vector in $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ with distribution $\mu $ and independent of $\theta $. The vector $Y=\left\langle \theta ,k^{1/2}\left\vert X\right\vert ^{-1}X\right\rangle $ is independent of $k^{-1/2}\left\vert X\right\vert $ and has the same distribution as $\theta _{1}$. Using Fubini’s theorem and independence, and assuming $t>0$,$$\begin{aligned}
F(t) &=&\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\langle \theta ,X\right\rangle \leq t\right\}
=\mathbb{P}\left\{ \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}\left\langle
\theta ,\frac{\sqrt{k}X}{\left\vert X\right\vert }\right\rangle \leq
t\right\} =\mathbb{P}\left\{ Y\leq \frac{t\sqrt{k}}{\left\vert X\right\vert }\right\} \\
&=&\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}-1\right\vert <\varepsilon \right\} \mathbb{P}\left\{ Y\leq \frac{t\sqrt{k}}{\left\vert X\right\vert }:\left\vert \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}-1\right\vert <\varepsilon \right\} \\
&&+\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}-1\right\vert >\varepsilon \right\} \mathbb{P}\left\{ Y\leq \frac{t\sqrt{k}}{\left\vert X\right\vert }:\left\vert \frac{\left\vert X\right\vert }{\sqrt{k}}-1\right\vert >\varepsilon \right\} \\
&\leq &1\cdot \Phi _{k}\left( \frac{t\sqrt{k}}{\left( 1-\varepsilon \right)
\sqrt{k}}\right) +\varepsilon \cdot 1\end{aligned}$$A similar lower bound holds. For any $\delta ,x>0$,$$\Phi \left( \left( 1+\delta \right) x\right) -\Phi \left( x\right) \leq \Phi
^{\prime }\left( x\right) \delta x\leq C\delta \label{log lipschitz}$$It follows from rotational invariance of the standard normal distribution and uniqueness of Haar measure that if $Z$ is a standard normal vector in $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ then $\sqrt{k}\left\vert Z\right\vert ^{-1}Z$ is uniformly distributed on $\sqrt{k}S^{k-1}$. Simulating $\theta =\sqrt{k}\left\vert
Z\right\vert ^{-1}Z$,$$\Phi _{k}(t)-\Phi _{k}(-t)=\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert Z_{1}\right\vert
\leq tk^{-1/2}\left\vert Z\right\vert \right\} =\mathbb{P}\left\{ \left\vert
Z_{1}\right\vert \leq t\left( 1-\frac{t^{2}}{k}\right) ^{-1/2}\left( \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=2}^{k}Z_{i}^{2}\right) \right\}$$which (after a bit of fiddling using (\[log lipschitz\]) and Gaussian concentration of $\left\vert Z\right\vert $ about $k^{1/2}$) implies the well known estimate $\left\vert \Phi (t)-\Phi _{k}(t)\right\vert \leq
ck^{-1/2}$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$ (this can also be seen by considering the density $\Phi _{k}^{\prime }$, similar details in [@Fr14 Section 3]). Putting all this together,$$F(t)\leq \Phi _{k}\left( \frac{t}{\left( 1-\varepsilon \right) }\right)
+\varepsilon \leq \Phi \left( \frac{t}{\left( 1-\varepsilon \right) }\right)
+\frac{C}{\sqrt{k}}+\varepsilon \leq \Phi \left( t\right) +C\varepsilon +\frac{C}{\sqrt{k}}$$with a similar lower bound. Similarly, this also holds for $t<0$.
[99]{} Anttila, M., Ball, K., Perissinaki, I.: The central limit problem for convex bodies. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (12), 4723-4735 (2003)
Bobkov, S.: On concentration of distributions of random weighted sums. Ann. Probab. 31 (1), 195-215 (2003)
Brehm, U., Voigt, J.: Asymptotics of cross sections for convex bodies. Beitr. Algebra Geom. 41 (2), 437-454 (2000)
Fleury, B., Guédon, O., Paouris, G.: A stability result for mean width of $L_{p}$-centroid bodies. Adv. Math. 214 (2), 865-877 (2007)
Fleury, B.: Concentration in a thin Euclidean shell for log-concave measures. J. Func. Anal. 259 (4), 832-841 (2010)
Fresen, D. J.: Explicit Euclidean embeddings in permutation invariant normed spaces. Adv. Math. 266, 1-16 (2014)
Guédon, O., Milman, E.: Interpolating thin-shell and sharp large-deviation estimates for isotropic log-concave measures. Geom. Funct. Anal. 21 (5), 1043-1068 (2011)
Klartag, B.: A central limit theorem for convex sets. Invent. Math. 168, 91-131 (2007)
Klartag, B.: Power-law estimates for the central limit theorem for convex sets. J. Funct. Anal. 245 (1), 284-310 (2007)
Klartag, B.: High-dimensional distributions with convexity properties. European Congress of Mathematics, 401-417, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2010.
Lee, Y. T., Vempala, S.: Eldan’s stochastic localization and the KLS hyperplane conjecture: an improved lower bound for expansion. Proc. IEEE FOCS 2017, 998-1007.
Lee, Y. T., Vempala, S.: The Kannan-Lovász-Simonovits conjecture. arXiv:1807.03465.
Lovász, L., Vempala, S.: The geometry of logconcave functions and sampling algorithms. Random Structures Algorithms 30 (3), 307-358 (2007)
Milman, V.: A new proof of A. Dvoretzky’s theorem on cross-sections of convex bodies. Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen. 5 (4) 28-37 (1971). English translation: Functional Anal. Appl. 5, 288-295 (1971)
Schechtman, G.: Euclidean sections of convex bodies. Asymptotic geometric analysis, 271-288, Fields Inst. Commun., 68, Springer, New York (2013)
[^1]: University of Pretoria, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, [email protected] or [email protected]. MSC2010: 52A20, 52A23, 60F05 (Primary), 26B25, 52A38, 62E20 (Secondary). Keywords: central limit theorem for convex bodies, log-concave function.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
harvmac
**Sheldon Lee Glashow**
Department of Physics
Boston University
Boston, MA 02215
.4in
We propose a minimal modification of the standard model, remarkable in its simplicity, which may solve the strong CP problem. It employs three Higgs doublets with interactions taken to be invariant under a flavor symmetry. Both CP and the flavor symmetry are softly broken by Higgs boson mass terms. In tree approximation, quark mass matrices are triangular and $\arg\det M$ vanishes. Radiative corrections lead to a tiny and tolerable value of $\overline\theta$.
The problem is simply stated. The minimal three-family standard model involves two distinct CP-violating phases: the $\delta$ parameter in the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and $\overline \theta$, the measure of strong CP violation, both of which can be generated by complex terms in the quark mass matrices. The former angle is of order unity, whereas the latter is known to be less than $10^{-9}$. The strong CP problem arises if this disparity is regarded as other than coincidental.
There have been many proposed resolutions to this problem of which three classics are: a massless up quark \[\], an invisibilized version of the Peccei-Quinn axion \[\], and the Barr-Nelson implementation of spontaneous CP violation \[\]. Although none of these $\overline \theta$–avoidance mechanisms are decisively excluded, neither is convincingly true. Consequently there have been many other suggested remedies which would be too tedious to enumerate. Some models appeal to supersymmetry \[\], others appeal to technicolor \[\], and still others invoke extra dimensions \[\]. In addition, many solutions have been put forward in which CP is softly broken \[\]. The last-cited models (of which I am a coauthor) are decisively ruled out by currently available experimental data. In this note I present yet another model making use of soft CP violation, one which is both simpler than its predecessors and seemingly compatible with experiment.
We begin by assigning a flavor quantum number $F$ to each quark family. We assign $F=+1$ to the right- and left-handed quarks of a nominal first family, $F=0$ to those of a second family, and $F=-1$ to those of the third family. (Similar $F$ assignments could be made to the leptons.) In addition, we introduce three doublets of Higgs bosons, $h_0$, $h_1$ and $h_2$, where the subscripts indicate their $F$ quantum numbers. Each of these doublets contributes both to the up and down quark mass matrices. Although the Glashow-Weinberg constraint \[\] is not respected, unacceptable flavor-changing effects should be avoidable with a modest degree of fine tuning.
All dimension-4 terms in the Lagrangian are assumed to be both CP and flavor invariant. As a result of this hypothesis, the Yukawa couplings of the $h_i$ to quarks (as well as their quartic self-couplings) must be real and must conserve the flavor quantum number $F$. Furthermore, the CP-violating Chern-Simons term cannot be present in the Lagrangian. Quadratic expressions in the Higgs fields are not constrained by the above hypothesis. These dimension-2 mass terms are permitted to be complex and $F$-violating. This is our proposed mechanism for the explicit but soft violation of both CP invariance and the flavor symmetry.
The parameters of the Higgs portion of the Lagrangian are chosen so that each of the three electrically neutral Higgs bosons develops a complex vacuum expectation value (vev). An appropriate weak-hypercharge rotation lets us choose $\langle h_0\rangle$ to be real with no loss of generality. The sum of the squared magnitudes of the vevs is constrained to take its conventional electroweak value. We assume that all three vevs are similar in magnitude to avoid the appearance of light surviving bosons ([*i.e.,*]{} with masses less than $\sim
100$ GeV) such as are known not to exist. Observed violations of CP invariance are caused by the complexity of the Higgs vevs, which lead to the irremoveable complexity of the quark mass matrices $M_U$ and $M_D$. Furthermore, the $F$ invariance of the Yukawa couplings ensures that in tree approximation $M_D$ is an upper triangular matrix whilst $M_U$ is lower triangular. All diagonal entries of these matrices are real and the phases of the off-diagonal entries are constrained in a manner to be discussed.
The triangular mass matrices we obtain are sufficiently general to produce any spectrum of quark masses and can result in any desired Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Furthermore, the determinants of these mass matrices are evidently real, so that there is no strong CP problem in tree approximation.
With one possible identification of the observed quarks with the flavor quantum number, we obtain: where the $ m_i$ are the quark masses in the absence of mixing. Quark mixing is induced by smaller off-diagonal entries, whose complex phases are constrained as follows: Note that the complexity of the mass matrices is irremoveable except under the coincidental circumstance that
It is illustrative to estimate the Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters in the small-mixing approximation. We obtain: with the $\delta$ parameter assuming any desired value. Note that the KM parameters are essentially determined by the off-diagonal terms of $M_D$, provided that the $\epsilon_{ij}$ with $j>i$ are comparable to those with $i>j$. Putting in numbers for quark masses and mixings, we obtain the rough estimates:
While our model does not suffer a strong CP problem in tree approximation, radiative corrections to quark masses will modify the quark mass matrices and can thereby lead to a non-vanishing value for $\overline\theta$. Are these corrections small enough to avert a problem? An examination of one-loop corrections to the quark mass matrices reveals that the only such terms are those explicitly involving $\chi$, as defined in Eq. . The most threatening term by far is a complex contribution to the up-quark mass mediated by charged Higgs bosons, which may be estimated to yield: where $K$ is a dimensionless integral which could be small for an appropriate choice of the spectrum and mixing pattern of the Higgs bosons. In any case, its prefactor is of order $10^{-9}$.
Several distinctive features of this model may be testable. In particular, it requires the existence of two surviving charged Higgs bosons, which should be readily detectable at a future linear collider. Furthermore, should one or both of these particles lie much below the top quark mass, we should expect a significant (although not readily calculable) branching ratio for the decay $t\rightarrow b+h^+$. The predicted existence of five neutral bosons should offer interesting challenges to experimenters. Although flavor violation via their exchange can be made small, it could be large enough to yield measureable departures from the standard-model description of CP violation.
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, under grant NSF-PHY-0099529.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze idealized sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments with higher spin particles. This analysis serves at least two purposes: The widely discussed spin-$1/2$ case leads to some misunderstandings since the probabilities are always evenly distributed for the sequential orthogonal magnets which does not generalize to higher spins. A detailed discussion of the higher spin case, as is done here, is highly useful. Secondly, the Wigner rotation matrices for generic spins become conceptually more transparent with this physical example. We also give compact formulas for the probabilities in terms of the angle between the sequential SG apparatuses for generic spins. We work out the spin-$1/2$, spin-$1$ and spin-$2$ cases explicitly. Since there are some confusing issues regarding the actual experiment, we also compile a “facts and fiction” section on the Stern-Gerlach experiments.'
author:
- Bayram Tekin
title: 'Stern-Gerlach Experiment with Higher Spins '
---
Introduction
============
We begin with the following concrete problem: [*Given two idealized sequential SG magnets that point in two fixed directions as shown in Figure 1, what are the probabilities of possible outcomes from the second magnet for spin-$s$ particles in terms of $s$ and the angle between the magnets ? *]{}
{width="8"}
In the wording of the problem, the reservation [*idealized*]{} is quite important: As we shall discuss at the end, the actual SG experiment is beautiful but a very complicated one and the final probabilities cannot simply be explained [*exactly*]{} in terms of classical quantities. With this reservation in mind, let us note one of the probabilities here. Suppose we block all but the highest spin (measured in the $\hat{n}_1$ direction) after the first magnet. Let us call this state to be the $ | \hat{n}_1; s \rangle $ state. Then this state enters the second magnet and the probability of getting the $ | \hat{n}_2; s \rangle $ state out of $ | \hat{n}_1; s \rangle $ state is $$P_{s\hbar \rightarrow s\hbar} \equiv | \langle \hat{n}_2; s | \hat{n}_1; s \rangle|^2= \frac{1}{2^{2 s}}\Big(1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 \Big)^{2 s}.
\label{max}$$ A priori, one might have guessed the angular dependence but the dependence on the spin cannot be easily guessed. As we shall see below, in general, when one looks for other probabilities of the form $P_{m_1 \hbar \rightarrow m_2\hbar} $, the problem becomes more involved. Before we start the computations properly, let us say a few words on the history and the importance of the experiment, as well as the people involved and also note what is left somewhat unclear by the canonical case of spin-$1/2$.
A Pinch of History
------------------
Stern-Gerlach (SG) experiment [@SG] is a very useful tool in teaching many aspects of quantum mechanics from the notion of spin of particles (or atoms) to superposition states, the problems of weak and strong measurements, decoherence, entanglement and density matrix formalism etc. Bernstein goes so far as to say “[*... all of quantum mechanics is summarized in the Stern-Gerlach experiments-at least all of quantum mechanics that is really mysterious*]{}”[@Bernstein]. The idea of the experiment is simple: In an inhomogeneous magnetic field, with a sufficient gradient, a mixed collection of neutral atoms are expected to split into various groups due to their possible magnetic dipole moment, which is quantized in quantum mechanics. The actual execution of the experiment and understanding the outcomes in full detail with quantum mechanics is not a straightforward task. After one year of experimentation, Stern and Gerlach published their results in 1922. Even though what they really measured in the experiment was the magnetic dipole moment of the electron up to 10% accuracy, since the notion of electron spin was not known in those days, the correct interpretation of the experiment came only 5 years later [@1927] in a highly interesting paper that established the isotropy of some atoms, namely the existence of $s$-orbital electrons. These $s$-orbitals were thought to be non-existent, or unstable, in the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory. As opposed to the actual experiment, the [*idealized*]{} versions of the experiment serve as a fascinating teaching tool with many sequential SG apparatuses utilized to expound upon the idea of superposition states etc. Many modern books discuss the experiment in varying details; some even start teaching quantum mechanics with the experiment. As an example for undergraduate students, McIntyre’s book [@McIntyre] and for graduate students Sakurai & Napolitano [@Sakurai] can be mentioned.
Many of the books that include the experiment, only discuss the case of the silver atom, being a spin-$1/2$ system, it is the simplest, perhaps the most elegant case to discuss that was used in the original SG experiment that started all. \[Feynman’s Lectures on Physics is an exception: Feynman devotes a chapter for the spin-$1$ case [@feynman3].\] Spin-$1/2$ case elegant in the sense that, it shows the quantization of spin (or more properly the magnetic dipole moment) in the best way possible. But this simple case leaves many issues unclear if one is interested in issues beyond spin quantization such as superposition states etc. as mentioned above. This is because for the sequential SG experiments where two or more magnets are used to describe various overlaps of states (as shown in Figure 1), probabilities are evenly split for the spin-$1/2$ case when the magnets are perpendicular to each other, while this is not the case for higher spins. Let us explain what we mean with an example: Consider the spin up ( $+\frac{ {\hbar}}{2} $ ) silver atoms, described by the state $| S_z;+ \rangle $, coming out of the SG magnets placed along the $\hat{z}$-axis as shown in Figure 2. Take these states and block the spin-down ones. Then, let these spin-up states pass through a second set of magnets in the $\hat{x}$-direction, then one expects to find half of the atoms to be in the state $|S_x; + \rangle $ and half in the state $|S_x; - \rangle $. (Of course due to symmetry between the $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ axes, the probabilities would be again evenly split if one had the second set of magnets lie along the $\hat{y}$-axis.) Most students do not have much trouble in understanding this.
{width="10"}
But for the (massive) spin-$1$ case, when they see the following probabilities (some are shown in Figure 3), most of the students feel uneasy: $$| \langle S_x; \pm 1 | S_z ;1 \rangle |^2 = \frac{1}{4}, \hskip 0.5 cm | \langle S_x;0 | S_z ;1 \rangle |^2 = \frac{1}{2}, \hskip 0.5 cm | \langle S_x;0 | S_z ;0 \rangle |^2 = 0.$$
{width="10"}
In the next section we will see how these probabilities are computed, but before that let me note a couple of things about the SG experiment as a teaching tool. Both in my undergraduate and graduate quantum mechanics courses, I spend a fair amount of time discussing various facets of the experiment for the original silver atoms as well as gedanken higher spin systems. I found that the students feel much more comfortable with the discussion of rotations, Wigner matrices etc. when these issues are discussed in the SG context, or at least higher spin SG experiment is given as an example where, for example Wigner matrices appear. I also found that the history of the original SG experiment with serendipitous events and the fascinating lives of the people involved is so rich that it is one of the best “baits” to attract the students to think about quantum mechanics. Before the lectures on the SG experiment, I assign students to read the dramatic account of the experiment from the article [@cigar]. History of the experiment is not our intention to discuss here, but let us say a few words. Stern and Gerlach’s low salaries played an interesting role: they could afford only cheap cigars with high sulfur content which helped the split-silver atoms appear in the deposited plates. Born even gave a paid lecture on relativity to help the experiment and solicited funds from a businessman in the States. Long after the experiment, the lives of Stern and Gerlach diverge in such a dramatic way: Gerlach worked for the Germany’s war effort, in particular, he became the director of the nuclear energy programme (possibly intending to develop an atomic bomb) and got detained with nine other German scientists, the likes of W. Heisenberg, O. Hahn, M. von Lue, C. F. Von Weizsacker in a house in Cambridge for 6 months after they got captured in operation epsilon whose scientific advisor was none other than S. Goudsmit, who was one of the originators of the idea of spin. Stern on the other hand was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 1943 with a citation which did not mention the SG experiment but cited Stern’s measurement of the magnetic dipole moment of the proton. Let us now turn to the bulk of the paper where we study idealized SG experiments with higher spins.
Idealized SG experiments with all spins
========================================
With two sequential SG magnets, the most general probability one needs to compute is the probability of finding the state $|\hat{n}_2; m_2 \rangle $ in the state $|\hat{n}_1; m_1 \rangle$, where of course $m_{1,2}$ being the components of the spin in the $\hat{n}_{1,2}$ directions, take values from the set $ \{ -s, -s +1 , ..., s-1, s \}$. So we need to find the result of $$P_{m_1\hbar \rightarrow m_2\hbar } = | \langle \hat{n}_2; m_2 | \hat{n}_1; m_1 \rangle |^2,$$ in terms of the vectors $\hat{n}_i$ and $s$ as well as $m_{1,2}$. Before we present the general spin case, let us adopt a very naive approach and carry out the computation for several lower spin cases by brute force, namely by finding the states $|\hat{n}; m \rangle $, say in vector representation, and directly computing the probability.
Spin-$1/2$ case
----------------
To compute the probability outcomes from the theory what do we need to know? The answer is: We need to know the angular momentum, in this case, the spin algebra. So, for the rest of the work this is assumed to be the case. Since this is discussed in almost all textbooks, we shall not dwell on this much. It is also sort of self-evident: Classical 3 dimensional spatial rotations as applied to a quantum system lead to the commutation relations $$[ \hat{S}_i, \hat{S}_j] = i \hbar \,\epsilon_{ ij k} \hat{S}_k,$$ which are satisfied by $2 s+1$-dimensional matrices with $ s=0,1/2,1,3/2,...$ and the corresponding states are labeled by the eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operator $\hat{S}^2$ together with the eigenvalue of our favorite spin component $\hat{S}_z$. Then without further ado, let us note that the eigenket of $\hat{S}_{n}= \hat{S}\cdot \hat{n}$ with eigenvalue $ \hbar/2$ is easily found as $$|\hat{n}; + \rangle = \cos \frac{\theta}{2} |\hat{z}; + \rangle + \sin \frac{\theta}{2} e^{i \phi },|\hat{z}; - \rangle$$ where $\theta$ is the angle measured from the $\hat{z}$ axis in the clockwise direction and $\phi$ is the angle measured from the $\hat{x}$ axis in the counterclockwise direction. Then, given the vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{n}_i = \sin\theta_i \cos \phi_i \,\hat{x} + \sin\theta_i \sin\phi_i \,\hat{y} + \cos \theta_i \,\hat{z},\end{aligned}$$ it is easy to show that one has the following probability $$P_{\frac{\hbar}{2} \rightarrow \frac{\hbar}{2} } = | \langle \hat{n}_2; + | \hat{n}_1; + \rangle |^2= \frac{1}{2} ( 1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )$$ Needless to say, one can choose one of the directions , say $\hat{n}_1$, to be in the $\hat{z}$ direction. Without a surprise, the “other” probability also follows as (See Figure 4) $$P_{\frac{\hbar}{2} \rightarrow -\frac{\hbar}{2} } = | \langle \hat{n}_2; - | \hat{n}_1; + \rangle |^2= \frac{1}{2} ( 1- \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 ),$$ happily yielding $ P_{\frac{\hbar}{2} \rightarrow \frac{\hbar}{2} } +P_{\frac{\hbar}{2} \rightarrow -\frac{\hbar}{2} } =1$. Let us note that we can define the angle between the two vectors as $$\cos \varphi \equiv \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 = \sin\theta_1 \sin\theta_2 \cos (\phi_1 - \phi_2 ) + \cos \theta_1 \cos \theta_2.$$
{width="10"}
This simple discussion was to set the stage, let us now consider the massive spin-1 case (a massless one would have only 2 helicity modes, which we do not discuss here)
Spin-$1$ case
--------------
For this case $\hat{S}_n $, is a $3 \times 3$ Hermitian operator with the following eigenkets (up to a phase, as usual) $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\hat{n}; 1 \rangle = \cos^2 ( \frac{\theta}{2} ) e^{ - i \phi} |\hat{z}; 1 \rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \theta \,|\hat{z}; 0 \rangle + \sin^2 ( \frac{\theta}{2} ) e^{ i \phi}|\hat{z}; -1 \rangle, \nonumber \\
&&|\hat{n}; 0 \rangle = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin \theta e^{ - i \phi} |\hat{z}; 1 \rangle + \cos \theta \,|\hat{z}; 0 \rangle +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \theta \, e^{ i \phi}|\hat{z}; -1 \rangle, \nonumber \\
&&|\hat{n}; -1 \rangle = \sin^2 ( \frac{\theta}{2} ) e^{ - i \phi} |\hat{z}; 1 \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin \theta \,|\hat{z}; 0 \rangle + \cos^2 ( \frac{\theta}{2} ) e^{ i \phi}|\hat{z}; -1 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The probabilities can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{\hbar \rightarrow \hbar} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; 1 | \hat{n}_1; 1 \rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{4}(1 + \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2 , \hskip 0.5 cm P_{\hbar \rightarrow -\hbar} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; -1 | \hat{n}_1; 1 \rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{4}(1 - \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2, \nonumber \\
&&P_{\hbar \rightarrow 0} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; 0 | \hat{n}_1; 1 \rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{2}(1 -(\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2 ) , \hskip 0.5 cm P_{0 \rightarrow 0} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; 0 | \hat{n}_1; 0 \rangle|^2 = (\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2.
\label{spin1}\end{aligned}$$ The others simply follow from these due to symmetry. Observe that probabilities for each given initial state ending to a sum of final states add up to one, $\sum_{f} P_{i \rightarrow f} =1 $, as needed. Probabilities noted in Figure 3 follow from (\[spin1\]) as a simple example. Leaving the spin-$3/2$ case to the reader as a useful exercise, let us move on to the spin-$2$ case.
Spin-$2$ case
--------------
In this case let us give some more details of the computation, just to show that for arbitrary spin-$s$, this brute force method is simply not practical. For spin-$2$, the relevant component of the spin operator in generic $\hat{n}$ direction can be computed from $\hat{S}_n = \hat{S} \cdot \hat{n}$ to get $$\hat{S}_n=\hbar \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
2 \cos \theta & e^{-i \phi } \sin \theta & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
e^{i \phi } \sin \theta & \cos \theta & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} e^{-i \phi } \sin \theta & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} e^{i \phi } \sin \theta & 0 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} e^{-i \phi } \sin \theta & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} e^{i \phi } \sin \theta & -\cos \theta & e^{-i \phi } \sin \theta \\
0 & 0 & 0 & e^{i \phi } \sin \theta & -2 \cos \theta \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ with, of course, eigenvalues $\{ 2,1,0,-1,-2 \}\hbar$. Let us not write all the eigenvectors, since they are somewhat cumbersome, but give only two of them as examples $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\hat{n}; 2 \rangle = \Bigg(e^{-2 i \phi } \cos ^4\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right),e^{- i \phi } \sin \theta \cos ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right),\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \sin ^2 \theta,e^{i \phi } \sin ^2\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right) \sin\theta ,e^{2 i \phi }\sin ^4\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&&|\hat{n}; 0 \rangle = \Bigg(\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} e^{-2 i \phi } \sin ^2 \theta,-\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} e^{-i \phi } \sin 2 \theta,\frac{1}{4}(3 \cos 2 \theta+1),\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} e^{i \phi } \sin 2 \theta , e^{2 i \phi }\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \sin ^2 \theta\Bigg). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As a specific case, as shown in Figure 5, let us block all the states except $|\hat{n}_1; 0 \rangle$ after the first magnet and compute the probability of obtaining various states for this particular experiment for the second magnet.
{width="10"}
Using the explicit forms of the state vectors one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{0 \hbar \rightarrow \pm 2\hbar} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; \pm 2 |\hat{n}_1; 0 \rangle|^2 = \frac{3}{8}\Big (1- (\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2 \Big)^{2} \nonumber \\
&& P_{0\hbar \rightarrow 0\hbar} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; 0 |\hat{n}_1; 0 \rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{4}\Big (1- 3(\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2 \Big)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ One can also easily show , due to symmetry and the fact that the total probability is unity that $$P_{0\hbar \rightarrow \pm\hbar} \equiv |\langle \hat{n}_2; \pm 1 |\hat{n}_1; 0 \rangle|^2 = \frac{3}{2}(\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2)^2\Big (1- (\hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^2 \Big).$$
We now turn our attention to the general spin case and answer the question posed in the beginning of the paper.
Spin-$s$ case
--------------
Our task now is to compute the following probability $$P_{m_1\hbar \rightarrow m_2\hbar } = | \langle \hat{n}_2; m_2 | \hat{n}_1; m_1 \rangle |^2,$$ whose meaning is clear when referred to Figure 1. Not to clutter the notation, and since the final result is independent of the choice of coordinates anyway, let us choose $ \hat{n}_1 = \hat{z}$, which then reduces our task to the following computation $$P_{m_1\hbar \rightarrow m_2\hbar } = | \langle \hat{n}_2; m_2 | \hat{z}; m_1 \rangle |^2.$$ This is all rather obvious, the crucial step is the next one: We can obtain $| \hat{n}_2; m_2 \rangle$ from $| \hat{z}; m_2 \rangle$ by two rotations: First rotate about the $\hat{y}$ axis by an angle $\theta$, then rotate about the $\hat{z}$ axis by an angle $\phi$ (both in the counter-clockwise direction) as $$| \hat{n}; m_2 \rangle = e^{ -\frac{i}{\hbar} \hat{J}_z \phi }\, e^{ -\frac{i}{\hbar} \hat{J}_y \theta} | \hat{z}; m_2 \rangle,$$ which further reduces our computation to $$P_{m_1\hbar \rightarrow m_2\hbar } = | \langle \hat{z}; m_2 | e^{ \frac{i}{\hbar} \hat{J}_y \theta}\, e^{ \frac{i}{\hbar} \hat{J}_z \phi } | \hat{z}; m_1 \rangle |^2 \equiv | d^{(s)}_{m_2, m_1} (-\theta) |^2,$$ where the angle $\phi$ drops out and we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
d^{(s)}_{m_2, m_1} (\theta) \equiv \langle \hat{z}; m_2 | e^{ -\frac{i}{\hbar} \hat{J}_y \theta} | \hat{z}; m_1 \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which are the elements of little-$d$ (Wigner) rotation matrices. Since, the computations of these objects are well covered in many books (for example, see [@Sakurai]), I just quote the final result here $$\begin{aligned}
d^{(s)}_{m_2, m_1} (\theta) =\sum_k (-1)^{ k-m_1 + m_2} \Gamma^s_ { m k} \times \Big (\cos \frac{ \theta}{2} \Big)^{ 2 s - 2k +m_1 - m_2} \Big (\sin \frac{ \theta}{2} \Big)^{ 2k -m_1 + m_2},\end{aligned}$$ where the capital gamma stands for $$\Gamma^s_ { m k} \equiv \frac{\sqrt{ (s+m_1)! (s-m_1)! (s+m_2)! (s-m_2)!}}{ k! (s+m_1-k)!(s-k-m_2)! (k-m_1+m_2)!},$$ and the sum runs over all possible integer $k$ values that do not yield negative arguments of the factorials. Since in this choice of coordinates, $\theta$ is the angle between the two magnets, we can write the final result in a coordinate-independent way as $$\begin{aligned}
d^{(s)}_{m_2, m_1} (\theta) = \frac{1}{2^s} (1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 )^{s} \Big (\frac{1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 }{1- \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 } \Big )^{\frac{m_1-m_2}{2}}
\sum_k (-1)^{ k-m_1 + m_2} \Gamma^s_ { m k} \Big (\frac{ 1- \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 }{1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 } \Big)^{k}.\end{aligned}$$ This is the amplitude of measuring the spin component to be $m_2 \hbar$ in the second magnet oriented along $\hat{n}_2$ if we allow only $m_1 \hbar$ spins from the first magnet oriented along $\hat{n}_2$ as depicted in Figure 1. From this amplitude one computes the desired probability, such as the expression (\[max\]). When $m_1 = m_2 = s$, one has $\Gamma^s_ { m 0} =1 $ and one obtains the amplitude as $$d^{(s)}_{s, s} (\theta) = \frac{1}{2^s} \Big (1+ \hat{n}_1 \cdot \hat{n}_2 \Big )^{s}.$$ Furthermore, as this amplitude is the most general one needed, one can put as many sequential SG magnets as one desires to compute the various probability out comes. Let us now collect some facts and fiction regarding the SG experiments and conclude.
Facts and Fiction in the SG experiments
========================================
- [*Stern and Gerlach were trying to prove the quantization of the spin of the electron.*]{} No, they knew nothing about the spin of the electron. They were trying to (dis)-prove “space quantization”, that is the quantization of the orbital angular momentum as suggested by the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory, which was then the theory of the atom in old quantum mechanics. In fact, when they observed the splitting, they celebrated Bohr with, now a famous postcard, that shows the photo of the splitting. Of course, from today’s vantage point, they had the wrong theory in their hands, because the lowest non-trivial angular momentum is $\ell =1$ which would lead to 3 lines instead of the 2 they observed. Why then, did they celebrate Bohr? Because, Bohr as well as others did not think that zero angular momentum was stable, so, they eliminated the $m_\ell =0$ component [@Bernstein].
- [*After the SG experiment, surely, people must have realized that there should be another quantum number in the atom besides the 3 already known at the time?*]{} This is also not correct, as partially answered above. The experiment did not actually play much role in the introduction of the notion of the spin quantum number. What played role is the spectrum of the atoms in a magnetic field. More specifically the duplexity of the lines due to the (anomalous) Zeeman effect. Pauli suggested that there must be a fourth quantum number without giving a related motion to the electron, Kronig (as a graduate student ) noted that the duplexity could be due to the spinning motion of the electron, but he was scared off the idea by the “elders”, who earlier entertained the idea of a rotating electron about an axis passing through its center only to find that such a motion is inconsistent with special relativity as some points on the electron must rotate with speeds two orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit (also graduate students) suggested the same notion of spinning electron to explain the duplexity of the spectrum. They were also scared off, but their paper was already published by the time they wanted to retract. What was Pauli and Bohr thinking about the fourth quantum number?. What kind of physical motion or phenomenon did they attach to it ? This is actually an important point: They thought that the electron does not have an independent, intrinsic property, call it spin or some other number, the fourth quantum number arises, just like the other 3 (quantized energy, quantized angular momentum and quantized component of angular momentum), according to them, when the electron is bound to the atom. Who could blame them? Nobody has attached a physical intrinsic quantity to an electron besides its mass and charge at the time. Dirac’s discovery of the relativistic equation for the electron and his prediction of the duplexity and the gyromagnetic factor supported Bohr and Pauli, because, if the notion of spin were intrinsic why should it appear in the relativistic theory which has something to the motion [@flying]? Hence comes the topic of next item.
- [*There is no way to measure the spin of an electron in a SG type experiment*]{} No this is not correct, even though this has become somewhat of a folklore because of the obvious dominance of the Lorentz force over the force on the magnetic dipole moment of the electron. But it is a rather interesting issue, with a remarkable history [@flying]: Bohr always maintained that due to uncertainty there is no way to measure the spin of an isolated electron and Pauli agreed and in fact wrote a review trying to argue against the published suggestions for experiments, such as the longitudinal SG experiments where electrons are basically expected to split in a race according their dipole moment in a magnetic field which is inhomogeneous along the direction of their motion. In principle this is doable as was suggested in [@electrons] with the methods invented by the Nobel prize winner H. Dehmelt. See also the related notion of “continuous SG experiments” [@cont] that lead to a very accurate determination of the gyromagnetic factor of the electron.
- [*The strength of the gradient of the magnetic field is not important.*]{} This is not correct at all. Unfortunately, this wrong view comes from utilizing the idealized version of the experiment as a teaching tool, as we did above. An honest computation of the predictions of probabilities must make use of the multi-component Schrödinger equation and its wave-packet solutions. Consider just the case of the silver atom (that is the spin-$1/2$ case). The atoms coming out of the oven,which is around 1000 Celsius, have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with velocities centered around 1km/s. They form an unpolarized ensemble even after they are collimated. We must then, consider a mixed ensemble of particles, interacting with a SG magnet for about $10^{-4}$ seconds (as was the case in the original SG experimental set up) and getting detected at the screen. Of course, this is quantum mechanics and one does not really have trajectories. What happens is that the initial superposition states that form the wave packet evolve in time in such a way that spin-up and spin down parts of the amplitude are peaked around different points in the $\hat{z}$ direction, due to the magnetic field-dipole interactions. Of course, depending on the gradient of the magnetic field, this splitting may not lead to a measurement. In fact, the notion of weak measurement is essentially realized by this idea of having magnetic dipoles interact with magnetic fields with weak gradients [@ahar]. I suggest the reader to work out how the centers of the wave-packet will change in the lowest order approximation (namely, assuming that the magnetic field can be expanded in Taylor series and the resulting spinor Schrödinger equation splits into two equations, where the problem reduces to the analogous problem of motion under constant “gravity” ). The reader will also notice that the lip-like structure in the actual experiment can be explained with the help of two things: for the consistency of the the no monopole condition $\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0$ , the magnetic field must change in another direction, hence for some atoms, the measurement is actually not in the intended direction but in the perpendicular direction. Also, as noted there are no clean-cut trajectories, smearing out is expected.
- [ *Silver atom was a random choice in the experiment*]{} Yes and no. Stern was the first person to measure directly the speed of gas molecules in 1920 using the silver vapor [@beams]. (It is amazing that it took such a long time to realize this mid 18th century idea.) Of course heavier atoms go slower and so their speeds are easier to measure. So, Stern was already familiar with the silver atom. The fact that silver has 46 electrons forming a closed shell with zero angular momentum and the 47th electron in the $5s$ state with zero orbital angular momentum worked well for Stern and Gerlach. But, in retrospect, with their beautiful experiment they lent support for the wrong theory [@wrong]
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the Stern-Gerlach experiment for generic spin-$s$ particles in the idealized setting to hopefully remove some of the possible misunderstandings introduced in the canonically-discussed spin one-half case. We have also given compact formulas for the probability outcomes which boil-down to the elements of the Wigner rotation matrices. As explicit examples, we have worked out the details of spin-$1/2$, spin-$1$ and spin-$2$ for generic orientations of two sequential SG magnets. Of course this discussion could be extended to any number of sequential magnets. We have compiled a facts and fiction section which we hope would serve to remove some unclear points in the idealized version of the SG experiments.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work is partially supported by TÜBİTAK grant 113F155. I would like to thank Nur Ünal and Deniz Tekin for their kind help with the figures.
[10]{}
W. Gerlach and O. Stern, “ [*Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld* ]{}”, Zeitschrift für Physik [**9**]{}, 349 (1922).
J. Bernstein, “ [*The Stern Gerlach Experiment* ]{}”, arXiv:1007.2435 \[physics.hist-ph\].
R. G. J. Fraser “ [*The Effective Cross Section of the Oriented Hydrogen Atom* ]{} ”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A.[**114**]{}, 212 (1927).
D. H. McIntyre, [ *Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach*]{}, Pearson, 2012.
J.J. Sakurai and J. J. Napolitano, [*Modern quantum mechanics*]{}, Pearson Higher Ed, 2014.
R. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands, [*The Feynman Lectures on Physics* ]{} Volume 3, Addison-Wesley; 1st edition (1966) B. Friedrich and H. Dudley, “ [*Stern and Gerlach: How a bad cigar helped reorient atomic physics.*]{}” Physics Today [ **56** ]{} 12, 53 (2003).
B. M. Garraway and S. Stenholm, “[*Does a flying electron spin?*]{},” Contemporary Physics [**43**]{}, 3, 147 (2002).
H. Batelaan, J.G. Timothy and J. J. Schwendiman, “ [*Stern-Gerlach effect for electron beams*]{}”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4517 (1997).
Y.Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, “[*How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-$1/2$ particle can turn out to be 100*]{},” Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **60**]{}, 1351 (1988).
N. Hermanspahn, et al. “ [*Observation of the continuous Stern-Gerlach effect on an electron bound in an atomic ion*]{},” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} ,427 (2000).
O. R Frisch, “ [*Molecular beams*]{}”, Sci. American [ **212**]{} 58, 32 (1965).
F. Weinert, “ [*Wrong theory-right experiment: The significance of the Stern-Gerlach experiments*]{}”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 26B: 75 (1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we develop the theory of quantum reverse hypercontractivity inequalities and show how they can be derived from log-Sobolev inequalities. Next we prove a generalization of the Stroock-Varopoulos inequality in the non-commutative setting which allows us to derive quantum hypercontractivity and reverse hypercontractivity inequalities solely from $2$-log-Sobolev and $1$-log-Sobolev inequalities respectively. We then prove some tensorization-type results providing us with tools to prove hypercontractivity and reverse hypercontractivity not only for certain quantum superoperators but also for their tensor powers. Finally as an application of these results, we generalize a recent technique for proving strong converse bounds in information theory via reverse hypercontractivity inequalities to the quantum setting. We prove strong converse bounds for the problems of quantum hypothesis testing and classical-quantum channel coding based on the quantum reverse hypercontractivity inequalities that we derive.'
author:
- Salman Beigi
- Nilanjana Datta
- Cambyse Rouzé
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Quantum reverse hypercontractivity: its tensorization and application to strong converses'
---
Introduction
============
Let $\{T_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ be a continuous semigroup of stochastic maps (a Markov semigroup) with a unique stationary distribution $\pi$. Defining the $p$-norm, for $p\geq 1$, of a function $f$ by $\|f\|_p:=({\mathbb{E}}|f|^p)^{1/p}$, where the expectation is with respect to $\pi$, a simple convexity-type argument verifies that $\|T_tf\|_p\leq \|f\|_p$. That is, $T_t$, for all $t\geq 0$, is a contraction under $p$-norms. Since $p\mapsto \|f\|_p$ is non-decreasing, a stronger contractivity inequality is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T-HC1}
\|T_tf\|_p\leq \|f\|_q,\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq q\le p$ and $t=t(p)$ a function of $p$ satisfying $t(q)=0$. Thus an inequality of this form is called a *hypercontractivity inequality*. Since $T_0$ equals the identity map,[^1] the inequality for $p=q$ reduces to an equality. Thus its infinitesimal version around $t=0$ must also hold. This infinitesimal version is derived from the derivative of the left hand side of and is called a *$q$-log-Sobolev inequality*[^2]. Such an inequality involves two quantities: the *entropy function* and the *Dirichlet form*. A log-Sobolev inequality guarantees the existence of a positive constant, called a *log-Sobolev constant*, up to which the entropy function is dominated by the Dirichlet form. Not only can one derive log-Sobolev inequalities from hypercontractivity ones, but a collection of the former inequalities can also be used to prove hypercontractivity inequalities through integration. Thus log-Sobolev inequalities and hypercontractivity inequalities are essentially equivalent.
A fundamental tool in the theory of log-Sobolev inequalities is the *Stroock-Varopoulos inequality*. This inequality enables us to compare the Dirichlet forms associated to different values of $q$, using which a log-Sobolev inequality for $q=2$ can be used to derive a log-Sobolev inequality for any $q$. Indeed, the Stroock-Varopoulos inequality allows us to derive a collection of log-Sobolev inequalities from a single one, from which hypercontractivity inequalities can be proven by integration.
Hypercontractivity inequalities were first studied in the context of quantum field theory [@G75b; @N66; @SH-K72], but later found several important applications in different areas of mathematics, e.g., concentration of measure inequalities [@BLM13; @RS13], transportation cost inequalities [@GL10], estimating the mixing times [@DSC96], analysis of Boolean functions [@deWolf08] and information theory [@AG76; @KA12]. One of the main ingredients of most of these applications is the so called *tensorization property*. It states that the hypercontractivity inequality $$\|T_t^{\otimes n} f\|_p\leq \|f\|_q,$$ is satisfied for every $n\geq 1$ if and only if it holds for $n=1$. That is, the hypercontractivity of $T_t$ is equivalent to the hypercontractivity of its tensor powers. Proof of the tensorization property is not hard, and can be obtained using the multiplicativity of the operator $(q\to p)$-norm. Another proof uses subadditivity of the entropy function and the equivalence of log-Sobolev and hypercontractivity inequalities.
Hypercontractivity inequalities can also be studied for $ p, q<1$. Although $\|\cdot\|_p$ for $p<1$ is not a norm, it satisfies the *reverse Minkowski inequality* from which one can show that $\|T_tf\|_p\geq \|f\|_p$ when $p<1$. Thus it is natural to consider inequalities of the form for $ p, q<1$ in the reverse direction. Such inequalities are called *reverse hypercontractivity inequalities*. The theory of log-Sobolev inequalities for the range of $q<1$ is developed similarly and can be used for proving reverse hypercontractivity inequalities as well [@MOS12].
#### Quantum hypercontractivity inequalities:
The theory of hypercontractivity and log-Sobolev inequalities in the quantum (non-commutative) case has been developed by Olkiewicz and Zegarlinski [@OZ99]. Here the semigroup of stochastic maps is replaced by a semigroup of quantum superoperators representing the time evolution of an open quantum system under the Markovian approximation in the Heisenberg picture. Kastoryano and Temme in [@KT13] used log-Sobolev inequalities to estimate the mixing time of quantum Markov semigroups. The study of quantum reverse hypercontractivity was initiated in [@CMT15], where following [@MOS12] some applications were discussed. For other applications of hypercontractivity inequalities in quantum information theory see [@M12; @DB14; @MSFW]. See also [@BK16] for the theory of hypercontractivity and log-Sobolev inequalities for completely bounded norms.
Due to the non-commutative features of quantum physics, hypercontractivity and log-Sobolev inequalities in the quantum case are much more complicated. Therefore, despite the apparent analogy with the classical (i.e. commutative) case, several complications arise. In particular, one of the main drawbacks of the theory in the non-commutative case is the lack of a general quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality. That is, in the quantum case, one cannot derive hypercontractivity inequalities solely from a $2$-log-Sobolev one. Weaker versions of the quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality, called *regularity* and *strong regularity* properties, were considered in the literature and proved for certain examples [@OZ99; @KT13]. The most general result in this direction is a proof of the strong regularity property for a wide class of quantum Markov semigroups obtained in [@BarEID17].
Even more problematic is the issue of tensorization. As mentioned before, the proof of the tensorization property in the commutative case is quite easy and can be done with at least two methods, yet none of them generalize to the non-commutative case; The superoperator norm is not multiplicative in general, and the subadditivity of entropy employed in the commutative case does not hold in the quantum one. Thus far, the tensorization property has been proven only for a few special examples of quantum Markov semigroups. In particular, it was proven for the *qubit* depolarizing semigroup in [@MO10; @KT13] and is generalized for all unital qubit semigroups in [@King14]. Moreover, in [@TPK14] some techniques were developed for bounding the log-Sobolev constants associated to the tensor powers of quantum Markov semigroups, which can be considered as an intermediate resolution of the tensorization problem.
Our results
-----------
In this paper we first develop the theory of quantum *reverse* hypercontractivity inequalities beyond the unital case. This is done almost in a manner analogous to the (forward) hypercontractivity inequalities. Here, in contrast to [@OZ99; @KT13], we need to use different normalizations for the entropy function as well as the Dirichlet form to make them non-negative even for parameters $p<1$. Our results in this part are summarized in Theorem \[thm:gen-hyper\].
Our next result is a quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality for both the forward and reverse cases. We prove this inequality under the assumption of *strong reversibility* of the semigroup. We provide two proofs for the quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality. The first proof is based on ideas in [@CM16] and [@KT13]. The second proof is based on ideas in [@BarEID17] in which the strong regularity is proven under the same assumption. Indeed, our quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality is a generalization of the strong regularity property established in [@BarEID17]. Theorem \[thm:QSVineq\] states our result in this part.
We then prove some tensorization-type results. The first one, Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-1\], provides a uniform bound on the $1$-log-Sobolev constant of *generalized depolarizing semigroups* and their tensor powers. The proof of this result is a generalization of the proof of a similar result in the classical case [@MOS12]. This tensorization result together with our Stroock-Varopoulos inequality gives a reverse hypercontractivity inequality which is used in the subsequent section. The second tensorization result, Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\], shows that the $2$-log-Sobolev constant of the $n$-fold tensor power of a *qubit* generalized depolarizing semigroup is independent of $n$. Next, in Theorem \[thm:LSC-2-simple\] we explicitly compute this $2$-log-Sobolev constant. Finally, in Corollary \[cor:2-LSC-general\] we use these results to establish a uniform bound on the $2$-log-Sobolev constant of *any* qubit quantum Markov semigroup and its tensor powers. We note that the latter bound improves over the bounds provided in [@TPK14].
Let us briefly explain the ideas behind the latter tensorization results. Previously, Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\] was known in the unital case (the usual depolarizing semigroup), the proof of which was based on an inequality on the norms of a $2\times 2$ block matrix and its submatrices from [@King03]. Our proof of Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\] is based on the same inequality. First in Lemma \[lem:entropy-inequality\] we derive an infinitesimal version of that inequality in terms of the entropies of a $2\times 2$ block matrix and its submatrices, and then use it to prove Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\]. To prove Theorem \[thm:LSC-2-simple\] we need to show that a certain function of qubit density matrices is optimized over diagonal ones. Once we show this, the explicit expression for the $2$-log-Sobolev constant is obtained from the associated classical log-Sobolev constant derived in [@DSC96]. Finally, Corollary \[cor:2-LSC-general\] is a quantum generalization of a classical result from [@DSC96] with an essentially similar proof except that we should take care of tensorization separately.
Finally, we apply the quantum reverse hypercontractivity in proving strong converse bounds for the tasks of quantum hypothesis testing and classical-quantum channel coding. In the next section, we briefly explain the key idea behind the application of reverse hypercontractivity to the problem of classical hypothesis testing.
Application to hypothesis testing problem
-----------------------------------------
Recently, the authors of [@LHV17] introduced a new technique to prove strong converse results in information theory using reverse hypercontractivity inequalities. In the following we briefly explain the ideas via the problem of hypothesis testing.
Suppose that $n$ samples independently drawn from a probability distribution on some sample space $\Omega$ are provided, and the task is to distinguish between two possible hypotheses which are given by the distributions $P$ and $Q$ on $\Omega$. In this setting, we apply a test function[^3] $f:\Omega^n\to \{0, 1\}$ to make the decision; Letting $(x_1, \dots, x_n)\in \Omega^n$ be the observed samples, if $f(x_1, \dots, x_n)$ equals $1$, we infer the hypothesis to be $P$, and otherwise infer it to be $Q$. The following two types of error may occur: the error of Type I of wrongly inferring the distribution to be $Q$ given by $\alpha_n(f):=P^{\otimes n}(f=0)$, and the error of Type II of wrongly inferring the distribution to be $P$ given by $\beta_n(f):=Q^{\otimes n}(f=1)$. In the *asymmetric* regime, we further assume that $\alpha_n(f)$ is uniformly bounded by some fixed error $\eps\in (0,1)$, and we are interested in the smallest possible achievable error $\beta_n(f)$.
The idea in [@LHV17] is to use the following variational formula for the relative entropy between $P$ and $Q$ (see, e.g., [@RS13]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5}
nD(P\|Q)=D(P^{\otimes n}\| Q^{\otimes n})=\sup_{g>0} {\mathbb{E}}_{P^{\otimes n}}[\log g]-\log {\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}}[g], \end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbb{E}}_{P^{\otimes n}}$ stands for the expectation with respect to the distribution $P^{\otimes n}$, and the maximum is over functions $g$ on $\Omega^n$. This formula is indeed used for $g$ being a *noisy version* of $f$. To get this noisy version a Markov semigroup is employed.
For any function $h:\Omega\to \mathbb R$ define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Tt-simple}
T_t(h):= \e^{-t}h +(1-\e^{-t}) {\mathbb{E}}_P[h],
\end{aligned}$$ That is, for every $x\in \Omega$, we have $T_t(h)(x) = \e^{-t}h(x) + (1-\e^{-t}) {\mathbb{E}}_P[h]$. Then $\{T_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ forms a semigroup that satisfies the following reverse hypercontractivity inequality [@MOS12]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
\|T_t(h)\|_{q}\ge \|h\|_{p}, \qquad \quad \forall p, q, t , \quad 0\leq q<p<1,~~~ t\ge \log\left( \frac{1-q}{1-p}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the norms are defined with respect to the distribution $P$, i.e., $\|h\|_p = \big( {\mathbb{E}}_P[|h|^p] \big)^{1/p}$. Now the idea is to use for $g=T_t^{\otimes n} f$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nD-Tt-f}
nD(P\| Q) \geq {\mathbb{E}}_{P^{\otimes n}}[\log T_t^{\otimes n}f]-\log {\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}}[T_t^{\otimes n} f].\end{aligned}$$ Bounding the second term on the right hand side is easy. Letting $\gamma=\left\| \frac{dP}{dQ} \right\|_\infty$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}}[T_t^{\otimes n}(f)]&={\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}}\big[\big(\e^{-t}+(1-\e^{-t}){\mathbb{E}}_P \big)^{\otimes n}f \big]\nonumber\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}}\big[\big(\e^{-t}+\gamma(1-\e^{-t}){\mathbb{E}}_Q \big)^{\otimes n}f \big]\nonumber\\
&= \left(\e^{-t}+\gamma(1-\e^{-t})\right)^n {\mathbb{E}}_{Q^{\otimes n}} [f]\nonumber\\
&= \left(\e^{-t}+\gamma(1-\e^{-t})\right)^n \beta_n(f)\nonumber\\
&\le \e^{\left(\gamma-1\right)nt} \beta_n(f),\label{eq7}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from $\e^{\gamma t}-1\ge \gamma(\e^t-1)$ for $\gamma\geq 1$.
Now we need to bound the first term in terms of $\alpha_n(f)$. The crucial observation here is that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:norm-0-ln}
\|h\|_0 = \lim_{r\rightarrow 0} \|h\|_r = \e^{{\mathbb{E}}_p[\log |h|]}.\end{aligned}$$ It is then natural to use the reverse hypercontractivity inequality for $q=0$. In fact, using the tensorization property, that also holds for $T_t^{\otimes n}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_{P^{\otimes n}}[\log T_t f]&=\log \|T_t^{\otimes n}(f)\|_{0}\nonumber\\
&\ge \log \|f\|_{1-\e^{-t}}\nonumber\\
&\ge\frac{1}{1-\e^{-t}}\log {\mathbb{E}}_{P^{\otimes n}}[f]\nonumber\\
&\ge \left(\frac{1}{t}+1\right)\log (1-\alpha_n(f)),\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ where the second line follows from the reverse hypercontractivity inequality, the third line follows from the fact that $T_t^{\otimes n}(f)$ takes values in $[0,1]$, and the last line follows from $\e^{-t}\ge 1-t$. Now using and in , using $\alpha_n(f)\leq \eps$ and optimizing over the choice of $t> 0$ we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq8}
\beta_n(f)\ge (1-\eps)\e^{-nD(P\|Q) -2\sqrt{n \left\| \frac{dP}{dQ} \right\|_\infty \log\frac{1}{1-\eps} } }.\end{aligned}$$
In the present work, we show that the above analysis can be carried over to the quantum setting. Let us explain the similarities with the classical case as well as difficulties we face in doing this. Firstly, a variational expression for the quantum relative entropy similar to is already known [@Petz88]. Secondly, the semigroup is easily generalized to the generalized depolarizing semigroup in the quantum case. Thirdly, the reverse hypercontractivity inequality is derived in the quantum case from our theory of quantum reverse hypercontractivity as well as our quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality. However we need this inequality in its $n$-fold tensor product form, for which we use our tensorization-type result. Also, generalizing the computations in to the quantum case is straightforward. Nevertheless, we face a problem in the next step; The crucial identity no longer holds in the non-commutative case. To get around this problem, instead of a variational formula similar to , we use our quantum reverse hypercontractivity inequality together with a variational formula for $p$-norms (obtained from the *reverse Hölder inequality*). Then we derive an inequality of the form by taking an appropriate limit.
Section \[sec6\] contains our results on applications of reverse hypercontractivity inequalities to strong converse of the quantum hypothesis testing as well as the classical-quantum channel coding problems.
Notations {#sec:notation}
=========
For a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$, the algebra of (bounded) linear operators acting on ${\mathcal{H}}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$. The adjoint of $X\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is denoted by $X^\dagger$ and $$|X|:=\sqrt{X^\dagger X}.$$ The subspace of self-adjoint operators is denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}_{sa}({\mathcal{H}}) \subset {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$. When $X\in {\mathcal{B}}_{sa}({\mathcal{H}})$ is positive semi-definite (positive definite) we represent it by $X\geq 0$ ($X> 0$). We let ${\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}})$ be the cone of positive semi-definite operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_{+}({\mathcal{H}}) \subset {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}})$ the set of (strictly) positive operators. Further, let ${\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{H}}):=\lbrace\rho\in{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}})\mid {\text{\rm tr}}\rho=1\rbrace$ denote the set of density operators (or states) on ${\mathcal{H}}$, and ${\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}}):={\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{H}})\cap {\mathcal{P}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ denote the subset of *faithful* states. We denote the support of an operator $A$ by ${\mathrm{supp}}(A)$. We let $\mathbb{I}\in{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ be the identity operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$, and ${\mathcal{I}}:{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\mapsto {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ be the identity superoperator acting on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$.
We sometimes deal with tensor products of Hilbert spaces. In this case, in order to keep track of subsystems, it is appropriate to label the Hilbert spaces as ${\mathcal{H}}_A, {\mathcal{H}}_B$ etc. We also denote ${\mathcal{H}}_A\otimes {\mathcal{H}}_B$ by ${\mathcal{H}}_{AB}$. Then the subscript in $X_{AB}$ indicates that it belongs to ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}_{AB})$. We also use ${\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n} = {\mathcal{H}}_{A_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {\mathcal{H}}_{A_n}$ where ${\mathcal{H}}_{A_i}$’s are isomorphic Hilbert spaces. Moreover, for any $S\subseteq \{1, \dots, n\}$ we use the shorthand notations $A_S:=\{A_j: \, j\in S \}$, and ${\mathcal{H}}_{A_S}$ for $\bigotimes_{j\in S}{\mathcal{H}}_{A_j}$. We also identify $A_{\{1, \dots, n\}}$ with $A^n$.
A superoperator $\Phi:{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is called *positive* if $\Phi(X)\geq 0$ whenever $X\geq 0$. It is called *completely positive* if ${\mathcal{I}}\otimes \Phi$ is positive where ${\mathcal{I}}:{\mathbf{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')\rightarrow {\mathbf{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ is the identity superoperator associated to an arbitrary Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}'$. Observe that a positive superoperator $\Phi$ is hermitian-preserving meaning that $\Phi(X^\dagger) =\Phi(X)^\dagger$. A superoperator is called *unital* if $\Phi(\II)=\II$, and is called trace-preserving if ${\text{\rm tr}}\,\Phi(X)={\text{\rm tr}}X$ for all $X$. The adjoint of $\Phi$, denoted by $\Phi^*$ is defined with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:adj-HS}
{\text{\rm tr}}\left(X^\dagger\Phi(Y)\right) = {\text{\rm tr}}\left(\Phi^*(X)^\dagger Y\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the adjoint of a unital map is trace-preserving and vice versa.
Non-commutative weighted $L_p$-spaces
-------------------------------------
Throughout the paper we fix $\sigma\in \mathcal D_+({\mathcal{H}})$ to be a positive definite density matrix. We define $$\Gamma_\sigma(X):= \sigma^{\frac12}X\sigma^{\frac12}.$$ Then ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is equipped with the inner product $$\langle X, Y\rangle_\sigma:= {\text{\rm tr}}\left(X^\dagger \Gamma_\sigma(Y)\right)= {\text{\rm tr}}\left(\Gamma_\sigma(X^\dagger)Y\right).$$ Note that if $X, Y\geq 0$ then $\langle X, Y\rangle_\sigma\geq 0$. This inner product induces a norm on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2-norm-0}
\|X\|_{2, \sigma} := \sqrt{\langle X, X\rangle_\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ This $2$-norm can be generalized for other values of $p$. For every $p\in \mathbb R\setminus\{0\}$ we define
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{normp}
\|X\|_{p, \sigma}:= {\text{\rm tr}}\left[\big|\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac1p}(X)\big|^p\right]^{\frac1p} = {\text{\rm tr}}\left[\big|\sigma^{\frac1{2p}}X\sigma^{\frac1{2p}}\big|^p\right]^{\frac1{p}}\equiv \big\|\Gamma^{\frac{1}{p}}_\sigma(X)\big\|_p ,
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\|X\|_p:=\left( {\text{\rm tr}}\,|X|^p\right)^{1/p},$$ denotes the (generalized) Schatten norm of order $p$. In particular, if $X> 0$ then $\|X\|_{p, \sigma}^p={\text{\rm tr}}\big[\Gamma_\sigma^{1/p}(X)^p\big]$. Note that this definition reduces to when $p=2$. The values of $\|X\|_{p, \sigma}$ for $p\in \{0, \pm\infty\}$ are defined in the limits. Observe that $\|X\|_{p, \sigma} = \|X^{\dagger}\|_{p, \sigma}$ for all $X$. Moreover, $\|\cdot\|_{p, \sigma}$ for $1\leq p\leq \infty$ satisfies the triangle inequality (the Minkowski inequality) and is a norm. The dual of this norm is $\|\cdot\|_{\hat p, \sigma}$ where $\hat p$ is the Hölder conjugate of $p$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:holder-conj}
\frac{1}{p} +\frac{1}{\hat p}=1.\end{aligned}$$ We indeed for $1\leq p\leq \infty$ and arbitrary $X$ have [@OZ99] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:holder-1}
\|X\|_{p, \sigma} = \sup_Y \frac{|\langle X, Y\rangle_\sigma|}{\|Y\|_{\hat p, \sigma}}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $-\infty\leq p<1$ and *positive definite* $X$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:holder-2}
\|X\|_{p, \sigma}= \inf_{Y>0} \frac{\langle X, Y\rangle_\sigma}{\|Y\|_{\hat p, \sigma}}.
\end{aligned}$$ This inequality is a consequence of the *reverse Hölder inequality*:
\[RHolder\] Let $X\ge0$ and $Y>0$. Then, for any $p< 1$ with Hölder conjugate $\hat{p}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X,Y\rangle_\sigma \ge \|X\|_{p,\sigma}\|Y\|_{\hat{p},\sigma}.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof is a direct generalization of equation (32) of [@TBH14] (see also Lemma 5 of [@CMT15]): for any $A\ge 0$ and $B>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm tr}}(AB)\ge \|A\|_p\|B\|_{\hat{p}}.
\end{aligned}$$ From there, choosing $A:=\Gamma_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p}}(X)$ and $B:=\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac{1}{\hat{p}}}(Y)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X,Y\rangle_{\sigma}={\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma^{1/p}X\sigma^{1/p}\sigma^{1/\hat{p}}Y\sigma^{1/\hat{p}}\big)={\text{\rm tr}}(AB)\ge \|A\|_p\|B\|_{\hat{p}}=\|X\|_{p,\sigma}\|Y\|_{\hat{p},\sigma}.
\end{aligned}$$
Another property of $\|\cdot\|_{p, \sigma}$ for $-\infty\leq p<1$ is the *reverse Minkowski inequality*. As mentioned above, when $p\geq 1$, the triangle inequality is satisfied due to the Minkowski inequality. When $p<1$ we have the inequality in the reverse direction: $$\|X\|_{p, \sigma} + \|Y\|_{p, \sigma}\geq \|X+Y\|_{p, \sigma}.$$ Again this inequality in the special case of $\sigma$ being the completely mixed state is proven in [@CMT15] but the generalization to arbitrary $\sigma$ is immediate.
For arbitrary $p, q$ define the *power operator* by $$I_{q, p}(X) := \Gamma_\sigma^{-\frac1q }\left( \big|\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1 p}(X)\big|^{\frac pq}\right).$$ Here are some immediate properties of the power operator.
[[@OZ99; @KT13]]{}
1. $\|I_{q, p}(X)\|_{q, \sigma}^q =\|X\|_{p, \sigma}^p$. In particular we have $\|I_{p, p}(X)\|_{p, \sigma} = \|X\|_{p, \sigma}$.
2. $I_{q, r}\circ I_{r, p} = I_{q, p}$.
3. For $X\geq 0$ we have $I_{p, p}(X)=X$.
\[prop:power\]
Entropy
-------
For a given $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ and arbitrary $p\neq 0$ we define the *entropy* function[^4] for $X> 0$ by $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X):= {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[
\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X)\big)^p\cdot \log \big(\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X)\big)^p \Big] -{\text{\rm tr}}\Big[\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X)\big)^p\cdot \log \sigma\Big]- \|X\|_{p, \sigma}^p\cdot \log \|X\|_{p, \sigma}^p.$$ As usual, the entropy function for $p\in \{0, \pm\infty\}$ is defined in the limit.
When $p> 0$, in the definition of the entropy we can take $X$ to be positive semi-definite. However, when $p<0$, we need to consider $X$ to be positive definite in order to avoid difficulties. For this reason, in the rest of the paper we state our definitions and results for positive definite $X$, keeping in mind that when $p, q>0 $ they can easily be generalized to positive semi-definite $X$ (say, by taking an appropriate limit).
The significance of the entropy function is its relation to the derivative of the $p$-norm.
[[@OZ99; @KT13]]{} For an arbitrary map $p\mapsto X_p$ we have $$\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|X_p\|_{p,\sigma} = \frac{1}{p^2}\|X_p\|_{p, \sigma}^{1-p}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}\big(I_{p, p}(X_p)\big) +\frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}\big(I_{p, p}(X_p^{\dagger})\big) + \gamma \right).$$ Here $\gamma$ is given by $$\gamma=\frac{p^2}{2}\left( {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(Z_p^{\dagger})\cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1 p}(X_p)\cdot \big| \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X_p) \big|^{p-2}\Big] +{\text{\rm tr}}\Big[\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X_p^{\dagger})\cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1 p}(Z_p)\cdot \big| \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X_p) \big|^{p-2}\Big]\right),$$ where $Z_p := \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}X_p$. \[prop:norm-derivative\]
We will be using two special cases of this proposition. First, if $X_p> 0$ for all $p$, we have $$\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|X_p\|_{p,\sigma} = \frac{1}{p^2}\|X_p\|_{p, \sigma}^{1-p}\cdot \left( {\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X_p) + p^2{\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(Z_p) \cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p} (X_p)^{p-1} \Big] \right).$$ Second, if $X_p=X$ is independent of $p$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:norm-derivative-ind}
\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|X\|_{p,\sigma} = \frac{1}{p^2}\|X\|_{p, \sigma}^{1-p}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}\big(I_{p, p}(X)\big) +\frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}\big(I_{p, p}(X^{\dagger})\big) \right).\end{aligned}$$
We will also use the following properties of the entropy function that are easy to verify.
[[@KT13]]{}
1. ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(I_{p, 2}(X)) = {\text{\rm Ent}}_{q, \sigma}(I_{q, 2}(X))$ for all $p, q$ and $X$.
2. ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(cX) = c^p {\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X)$ for all $X> 0$ and constants $c> 0$.
3. For any density matrix $\rho$ we have $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{-\frac 1 2}(\sqrt \rho)\big) = D(\rho\|\sigma),$$ where $D(\rho\|\sigma) = {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho\log \rho) - {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho\log \sigma)$ is Umegaki’s relative entropy.
4. For any density matrix $\rho$ we have $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{-1}(\rho)\big) = D(\rho\| \sigma).$$
\[prop:ent\]
\[corol:ent-positive\]
1. For all $X> 0$ and arbitrary $p$ we have ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X)\geq 0$.
2. For all $X$, the map $p\mapsto \|X\|_{p, \sigma}$ is non-decreasing.
3. $X\mapsto {\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}(X)$ is a convex function on positive semidefinite matrices.
\(a) By part (i) of the previous proposition it suffices to prove the theorem for $p=1$. Moreover, by part (ii) we may assume that $X$ is of the form $X=\Gamma_\sigma^{-1}(\rho)$ for some density matrix $\rho$. Then by part (iv) we have ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}(X) = D(\rho\| \sigma)\geq 0$.
\(b) By (a) both ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(I_{p,p}(X))$ and ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(I_{p,p}(X^\dagger))$ are non-negative. Thus using the derivative of $p\mapsto \|X\|_{p, \sigma}$ is non-negative, and this function is non-decreasing.
\(c) Given $X, Y\geq 0$ define $$f(p) = \frac{1}{2}\big( \|X\|_{p, \sigma} + \|Y\|_{p, \sigma}\big)-\Big\|\frac 12(X+Y)\Big\|_{p, \sigma}.$$ Using Proposition \[prop:norm-derivative\] we have $$f'(1) = \frac 12\big({\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}(X)+{\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}(Y)\big) - {\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma}\big(\frac 12(X+Y)\big).$$ On the other hand by the Minkowski inequality $f(p)\geq 0$ for all $p\geq 1$. Moreover, $f(1)=0$. Therefore, $f'(1)\geq 0$ which gives the desired result.
Quantum Markov semigroups
-------------------------
A quantum Markov semigroup (QMS) is the basic model for the evolution of an open quantum system in the Markovian regime. Such quantum Markov semigroup (in the Heisenberg picture) is a set $\{\Phi_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ of completely positive unital superoperators $\Phi_t: {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ of the form $$\Phi_t = \e^{-t{\mathcal{L}}},$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}: {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ is a superoperator called the Lindblad generator of the semigroup. The general form of such a Lindblad generator is characterized in [@Lind; @GKS76]. We note that $\Phi_0={\mathcal{I}}$ and $\Phi_{t+s}=\Phi_s\circ\Phi_t$. Moreover, for any $X$ we have $$\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}t}\Phi_t(X) = -{\mathcal{L}}\circ \Phi_t(X) = -\Phi_t\circ {\mathcal{L}}(X).$$ In particular, since $\Phi_t$ is assumed to be unital, we have $${\mathcal{L}}(\II)=0.$$ Throughout the paper we assume that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is *primitive*, which means that $\II$ is the unique (up to scaling) element in the kernel of ${\mathcal{L}}$.
The dual of ${\mathcal{L}}$ generates the associated Markov semigroup in the Schrödinger picture: $\Phi_t^* = \e^{-t{\mathcal{L}}^*}$ where ${\mathcal{L}}^*$ is adjoint of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product defined in . We say that the quantum Markov semigroup is $\sigma$-*reversible* or satisfies the *detailed balanced* condition with respect to some positive definite density matrix $\sigma$ if $$\Gamma_\sigma\circ {\mathcal{L}}\circ \Gamma_\sigma^{-1}= {\mathcal{L}}^*.$$ From this equation it is clear that $${\mathcal{L}}^*(\sigma)=0,$$ and that $\sigma$ is a fixed point of $\Phi_t^*$. Observe that, by the primitivity assumption, $\sigma$ is the unique fixed point of $\Phi_t^*$ up to scaling.
We will frequently use the following immediate consequence of reversibility.
\[lem:reversible\] If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is $\sigma$-reversible if and only if both ${\mathcal{L}}$ and $\Phi_t$ are self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_\sigma$, which means that for all $X, Y$ we have $$\langle X, {\mathcal{L}}(Y)\rangle_\sigma = \langle {\mathcal{L}}(X), Y\rangle_\sigma, \qquad \langle X, \Phi_t(Y)\rangle_\sigma = \langle \Phi_t(X), Y\rangle_\sigma.$$
A reversible quantum Markov semigroup is called $p$-*contractive* if it is a contraction under the $p$-norm, that is, for all $t\geq 0$ and $X> 0$ we have $$\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p,\sigma}\leq \|X\|_{p, \sigma}, \quad \text{if }\quad p\geq 1,$$ and $$\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p,\sigma}\geq \|X\|_{p, \sigma}, \quad \text{if}\quad p< 1.$$ We say the the semigroup is contractive if it is $p$-contractive for all $p$.
Two remarks are in line. Firstly, as mentioned before, when $p>0$ in the above definition we may safely take $X\geq 0$ (instead of $X>0$). For uniformity of presentation we prefer to take $X>0$ in order to jointly consider the cases $p>0$ and $p\leq 0$ in the definitions. Of course in the former case by taking an appropriate limit, a contractivity inequality for $X\geq 0$ can be derived once we have one for $X>0$. Secondly, in the above definition we restrict to positive definite (or positive semidefinite) $X$ since here $\Phi_t$ is a completely positive map, and the superoperator norm of completely positive maps (at least for $p\geq 1$) is optimized over positive semidefinite operators (see e.g. [@DJKR16] and reference therein).
\[prop:contraction\]
1. Any $\sigma$-reversible quantum Markov semigroup is $p$-contractive for $p\in (-\infty, -1]\cup [1/2, +\infty)$.
2. A $\sigma$-reversible quantum Markov semigroup with $\sigma=\II/d$ being the completely mixed state, is $p$-contractive for all $p$.
The reader familiar with the notion of *sandwiched Rényi relative entropy* [@MDSFT13; @WWY14] would notice that $p$-contractivity is related to [@Beigi13] the data processing inequality of sandwiched $p$-Rényi relative entropy, which is known to hold [@FL13; @Beigi13; @MDSFT13] for $p\geq 1/2$. In Appendix \[app:contraction\] we give a proof of part (i) for the range $p\in (-\infty, -1]\cup [1/2, 1)$ based on new ideas which may be of independent interest. Moreover, later in Corollary \[cor:NN-Dirichlet\], under a stronger assumption than $\sigma$-reversibility we will prove $p$-contractivity for all $p$.
An important example of classical semigroups is generated by the map $f\mapsto f-{\mathbb{E}}f$, where the expectation is with respect to some fixed distribution. This generator is sometimes called the *simple* Lindblad generator [@MOS12]. The quantum analog of simple generators is $${\mathcal{L}}(X):=X - {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X) I,$$ for some positive definite density matrix $\sigma$. Observe that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is primitive, and ${\mathcal{L}}^*(X) =X-{\text{\rm tr}}(X)\sigma$ satisfied the detailed balanced condition with respect to $\sigma$. The quantum Markov semigroup associated to this Lindblad generator is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-Phi}
\Phi_t(X)=\e^{-t} X + (1-\e^{-t}) {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X) \II.\end{aligned}$$ In the special case where $\sigma$ is the completely mixed state, $\Phi_t$ and $\Phi_t^*$ coincide and become depolarizing channels. Indeed, is a *generalized depolarizing channel* in the Heisenberg picture.
Having two Lindblad generators ${\mathcal{L}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ associated to two semigroups $\{\Phi_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ and $\{\Psi_t:\, t\geq 0\}$, respectively, we may consider a new Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}+{\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}}$. This Lindblad generator generates the semigroup $\{\Phi_t\otimes \Psi_t:\, t\geq 0\}$. Moreover, letting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-hat-L}
\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i:= {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (i-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-i)},\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\Phi_t^{\otimes n} = \e^{-t\sum_{i=1}^n \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i}.$$ Note that, if ${\mathcal{L}}$ is primitive and reversible with respect to $\sigma$, then $\sum_{i=1}^n \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i$ is also primitive and reversible with respect to $\sigma^{\otimes n}$.
Dirichlet form
--------------
We now define the *Dirichlet form*[^5] associated to a $\sigma$-reversible Markov semigroup by $${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X) = \frac{p\hat p}{4}\langle I_{\hat p, p}(X), {\mathcal{L}}(X)\rangle_\sigma,$$ where $\hat p$ is the Hölder conjugate of $p$. Verification of the following properties of the Dirichlet form is easy.
\[prop:dirichlet\]
1. ${\mathcal{E}}_{\hat p, {\mathcal{L}}}(I_{\hat p, 2}(X)) ={\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(I_{p, 2}(X))$ for all $p$ and $X$.
2. ${\mathcal{E}}_{ p, {\mathcal{L}}}(cX)=c^p{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ for $X\geq 0$ and constant $c\geq 0$.
3. ${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}} (X) = \langle X, {\mathcal{L}}(X)\rangle_\sigma$ for all $X> 0$.
4. ${\mathcal{E}}_{1, {\mathcal{L}}}(X) = \frac{1}{4} {\text{\rm tr}}\left[\Gamma_\sigma\big({\mathcal{L}}(X)\big)\cdot\big(\log \Gamma_\sigma(X) - \log \sigma \big) \right].$
The non-negativity of the Dirichlet form is not clear from its definition. Here we prove the non-negativity assuming that the semigroup is $p$-contractive. According to Proposition \[prop:contraction\] we then conclude the non-negativity of ${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ for $p\notin(-1, 1/2)$. Later on, based on an stronger assumption than $\sigma$-reversibility, we will prove ${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)\geq 0$ for all values of $p$.
\[prop:dirichlet-positive\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is $\sigma$-reversible and generates a $p$-contractive semigroup. Then ${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)\geq 0$ for all $X> 0$.
Define $$g(t) :=\hat p\big\| \Phi_t(X) \big\|^{p}_{p, \sigma}-\hat p\|X\|^{p}_{p, \sigma} .$$ By assumption, for all $t\geq 0$ we have $g(t)\leq 0$. We note that $g(0)=0$. Therefore, $g'(0)\leq 0$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
g'(0) & = \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}t}\, \hat p\,\big\| \Phi_t(X) \big\|^{p}_{p, \sigma}\Big|_{t=0}\\
& = \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}t} \,\hat p\,{\text{\rm tr}}\Big( \Gamma_{\sigma}^{\frac 1p}\circ\Phi_t(X)^p\Big)\Big|_{t=0}\\
& = -p\hat p \,{\text{\rm tr}}\Big( \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}\circ {\mathcal{L}}(X) \cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p} (X)^{p-1} \Big)\\
& = -p\hat p \,{\text{\rm tr}}\Big( {\mathcal{L}}(X) \cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p} (X)^{p-1}\big) \Big)\\
& = -p\hat p \langle I_{\hat p, p}(X), {\mathcal{L}}(X)\rangle_\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ This gives ${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)\geq 0$.
Hypercontractivity and logarithmic-Sobolev inequalities
-------------------------------------------------------
We showed in Proposition \[prop:contraction\] that $\Phi_t$ belonging to a Markov semigroup is contractive, at least for certain values of $p$. That is, $\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}$ is bounded (from above or below depending on whether $p\geq 1$ or $p<1$) by $\|X\|_{p, \sigma}$. On the other hand, By part (b) of Corollary \[corol:ent-positive\] bounding $\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}$ by $\|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ when $1\leq q<p$ or $p<q<1$ is a stronger inequality than contractivity. Such inequalities are called *hypercontractivity inequalities* or *reverse hypercontractivity inequalities* depending on whether $1\leq q<p$ or $p<q<1$ respectively. These inequalities have found a wide range applications in the literature.
It is well-known that quantum hypercontractivity inequalities stem from quantum *logarithmic-Sobolev* (log-Sobolev) inequalities. They are essentially equivalent objects, so proving log-Sobolev inequalities gives hypercontractivity ones. The theory of reverse hypercontractivity inequalities have been generalized to the non-commutative case for unital semigroups in [@CMT15]. Here we generalize the theory for general Markov semigroups.
Given a primitive Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ that is reversible with respect to a positive definite density matrix $\sigma$, a $p$-*log-Sobolev* inequality is an inequality of the form $$\beta {\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X)\leq {\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X), \qquad \forall X> 0.$$ The best constant $\beta$ satisfying the above inequality is called the $p$-*log-Sobolev constant* and is denoted by $\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$. That is, $$\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}}) : = \inf \frac{{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)}{{\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X)},$$ where the infimum is taken over $X> 0$ with ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X)\neq 0$.
By the following proposition we can restrict ourselves to log-Sobolev constants for values of $p\in [0, 2]$.
\[prop:LS-const\] $\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})=\alpha_{\hat p}({\mathcal{L}})$ for all Lindblad generators ${\mathcal{L}}$.
Identifying $X$ with $I_{p, 2}(Y)$, for some arbitrary $Y> 0$, this is an immediate consequence of part (i) of Proposition \[prop:ent\] and part (i) of Proposition \[prop:dirichlet\].
We can now state how log-Sobolev inequalities are related to hypercontractivity and reverse hypercontractivity inequalities. As mentioned above the first part of the following theorem is already known [@OZ99; @KT13].
\[thm:gen-hyper\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a primitive Lindblad generator that is reversible with respect to positive definite density matrix $\sigma$. Then the following holds:
- [(Hypercontractivity)]{} Suppose that $\beta_2 = \inf_{p\in [1, 2]} \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}}) >0$. Then for $1\leq q\leq p$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-t-1}
t\geq \frac{1}{4\beta_2}\log\frac{p-1}{q-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $\| \Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}\leq \|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ for all $X> 0$
- [(Reverse hypercontractivity)]{} Suppose that $\beta_1 = \inf_{p\in [0, 1]} \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}}) >0$. Then for $p\leq q<1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-t-2}
t\geq \frac{1}{4\beta_1}\log\frac{p-1}{q-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $\| \Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}\geq \|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ for all $X> 0$.
The proof strategy of this theorem is quite standard. Here we present a proof for the sake of completeness.
It suffices to prove the theorem when $t= \frac{1}{4\beta} \log \frac{p-1}{q-1}$ for $\beta$ being either $\beta_2$ or $\beta_1$ depending on whether we prove the hypercontractivity part or the reverse hypercontractivity part. Thus, fix $q$ and define $$t(p):= \frac{1}{4\beta} \log \frac{p-1}{q-1}.$$ Define $$f(p):=\|\Phi_{t(p)}(X)\|_{p, \sigma} -\|X\|_{q, \sigma} = \|X_p\|_{p, \sigma} - \|X\|_{q, \sigma},$$ where $X_p:= \Phi_{t(p)}(X)> 0$. To continue the proof we compute the derivative of $f(p)$ using Proposition \[prop:norm-derivative\]. $$\begin{aligned}
f'(p) & = \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p} \|X_p\|_{p, \sigma} = \frac{1}{p^2}\|X_p\|_{p, \sigma}^{1-p}\cdot\left({\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X_p) + p^2 {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(Z_p)\cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 1p}(X_p)^{p-1} \Big]\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$Z_p= \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p} X_p = -t'(p){\mathcal{L}}(X_p)= -\frac{1}{4\beta (p-1)} {\mathcal{L}}(X_p).$$ Therefore, $$f'(p) = \frac{1}{p^2}\|X_p\|_{p, \sigma}^{1-p}\cdot\Big({\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X_p) - \frac{1}{\beta} {\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X_p) \Big).$$
Now suppose that $q\geq 1$ and $\beta\leq \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ for all $p\in [1, 2]$. Then for $p\geq q$ we have $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X_p)\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})}{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X_p)\leq \frac{1}{\beta}{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X_p).$$ As a result, $f'(p)\leq 0$ for all $p\geq q$. Since $f(q)=0$ we conclude that $f(p)\leq 0$ for all $p\geq q$. This gives the hypercontractivity part of the theorem.
For the reverse hypercontractivity part, assume that $q< 1$ and $\beta\leq \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ for all $p\in [0, 1]$. Then for $p\leq q$ we have $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{p, \sigma}(X_p)\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})}{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X_p)\leq \frac{1}{\beta}{\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X_p),$$ where the second inequality holds since $p<1$, so either $p$ or its Hölder conjugate belongs to $[0,1]$. Therefore, $f'(p)\leq 0$ for all $p\leq q< 1$, and since $f(q)=0$, $f(p)\geq 0$ for all $p<q$.
Quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality
=====================================
In the previous section we developed the basic tools required to understand quantum hypercontractivity and reverse hypercontractivity inequalities and log-Sobolev inequalities. By Theorem \[thm:gen-hyper\] to obtain hypercontractivity and reverse hypercontractivity inequalities we need to find bounds on log-Sobolev constants in ranges $p\in [1, 2]$ or $p\in [0, 1]$. Now the question is how such bounds can be found.
In the classical (commutative) case, the most relevant $p$-log-Sobolev constants are $\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})$ and $\alpha_1({\mathcal{L}})$. Indeed, $p\mapsto \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ is a non-increasing function on $p\in [0, 2]$, so in Theorem \[thm:gen-hyper\] the parameters $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ can be replaced with $\alpha_1({\mathcal{L}})$ and $\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})$ respectively. This result is proven via comparison of the Dirichlet forms, an inequalities that is sometimes called the Stroock-Varopoulos inequality.
In this section we prove a quantum generalization of the Stroock-Varopoulos inequality, and conclude that in Theorem \[thm:gen-hyper\] we can take $\beta_p=\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ for $p=1, 2$. We should point out that a quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality in the special case of $\sigma$ being the completely mixed state is proven in [@CMT15]. Also, a weaker version of the Stroock-Varopoulos inequality (called *strong $L_p$-regularity*) for certain Lindblad generators is proven in [@KT13]. A strong $L_p$ regularity is also proven in [@BarEID17] which we generalize to a quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality.
The assumption of $\sigma$-reversibility is not enough for us for proving the quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality. We indeed need ${\mathcal{L}}$ to be self-adjoint with respect to an inner product different from $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_\sigma$ defined above (see Lemma \[lem:reversible\]). In the following we first define this new inner product, state some of its properties and then go to our quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality.
A new inner product
--------------------
Define the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{1, \sigma}$ on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner-product-1-sigma}
\langle X, Y\rangle_{1, \sigma} := {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X^\dagger Y).\end{aligned}$$ We note that this inner product coincides with $\langle X, Y\rangle_\sigma = {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma^{1/2}X^\dagger \sigma^{1/2}Y)$ when, e.g., $X$ and $\sigma$ commute. But in general $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{1, \sigma}$ is different from $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_\sigma$.
The following lemma is first proven in [@CM16]. We will give a prove here for the sake of completeness.
\[lem:modular\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a Lindblad generator that is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{1, \sigma}$ defined above. Then the followings hold.
- ${\mathcal{L}}$ commutes with the superoperator $\Delta_{\sigma}(X) := \sigma X\sigma^{-1}.$
- ${\mathcal{L}}$ is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{\sigma}$.
Based on part (ii) of this lemma (see also Lemma \[lem:reversible\]) we say that a Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ is *strongly $\sigma$-reversible* if it is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{1, \sigma}$.
\(i) Using the fact the ${\mathcal{L}}(Y)^{\dagger} = {\mathcal{L}}(Y^{\dagger})$, for all $X, Y$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X, \Delta_\sigma\circ {\mathcal{L}}(Y)\rangle_{1, \sigma} & = {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X^{\dagger}\sigma {\mathcal{L}}(Y)\sigma^{-1}) \\
& = {\text{\rm tr}}( X^{\dagger}\sigma {\mathcal{L}}(Y)) \\
& = \langle {\mathcal{L}}(Y)^{\dagger}, X^{\dagger}\rangle_{1, \sigma}\\
&= \langle {\mathcal{L}}(Y^\dagger), X^{\dagger}\rangle_{1, \sigma}\\
&= \langle Y^\dagger, {\mathcal{L}}(X^{\dagger})\rangle_{1, \sigma}\\
& = {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma Y {\mathcal{L}}(X)^{\dagger})\\
&= {\text{\rm tr}}(\Delta_{\sigma}(Y) \sigma {\mathcal{L}}(X)^\dagger)\\
& = \langle {\mathcal{L}}(X), \Delta_\sigma(Y)\rangle_{1, \sigma}\\
& = \langle X, {\mathcal{L}}\circ\Delta_\sigma(Y)\rangle_{1, \sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives $\Delta_\sigma\circ {\mathcal{L}}= {\mathcal{L}}\circ\Delta_\sigma$.
\(ii) Follows easily from (i) and the fact that $$\langle X, Y\rangle_{\sigma} = \langle Y^{\dagger}, \Delta_{\sigma}^{1/2}(X^{\dagger})\rangle_{1, \sigma}.$$
The following lemma is indeed a consequence of Theorem 3.1 of [@CM16]. Here we prefer to present a direct proof.
\[lem:choi\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a strongly $\sigma$-reversible Lindblad generator. Then for every $t\geq 0$ there are operators $R_k\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ and $\omega_k\geq 0$ such that $\sigma R_k = {\omega_k} R_k \sigma$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi-Kraus}
\Phi_t(X) = \sum_k R_k XR_k^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ and $\sum_k R_k R_k^{\dagger}=I$.
By Lemma \[lem:modular\] the Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ and then $\Phi_t=\e^{-t{\mathcal{L}}}$ commute with $\Delta_\sigma$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi-delta-commute}
\Phi_t\circ \Delta_\sigma = \Delta_\sigma\circ \Phi_t.\end{aligned}$$ Fix an orthonormal basis $\{{|i\rangle}\}_{i=1}^d$ for the underlying Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathcal{H}}_A$ and define $${|\Upsilon\rangle} := \sum_{i=1}^d {|i\rangle}_A{|i\rangle}_B \in {\mathcal{H}}_{AB},$$ where ${\mathcal{H}}_B$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{H}}_A$. It is not hard to verify that for any matrix $M$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M-transpose}
M_A\otimes I_B{|\Upsilon\rangle} = \II_A\otimes M_B^T{|\Upsilon\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where the transpose is with respect to the basis $\{{|i\rangle}\}_{i=1}^d$.
The Choi-Jamiolkowski representation of $\Phi_t$ is $$J_{AB} : = \Phi_t \otimes {\mathcal{I}}_B({|\Upsilon\rangle}{\langle\Upsilon|}).$$ Then using it is not hard to verify that translates to $$\sigma_A^{-1}\otimes \sigma_B^T J_{AB} = J_{AB} \sigma_A^{-1}\otimes \sigma_B^T.$$ That is, $J_{AB}$ and $\sigma_A^{-1}\otimes \sigma_B^{T}$ commute. On the other hand, $J_{AB}$ is positive semidefinite since it is the Choi-Jamiolkowski representation of a completely positive map. Therefore, $J_{AB}$ and $\sigma_A^{-1}\otimes \sigma_B^{T}$ can be simultaneously diagonalized in an orthonormal basis, i.e., there exits an orthonormal basis $\{{|v_k\rangle}_{AB}\}_{k=1}^{d^2}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{AB}{|v_k\rangle}&= \lambda_k {|v_k\rangle}\label{eq:eigen-J}\\
\sigma_A^{-1}\otimes \sigma_B^{T}{|v_k\rangle}&= \omega_k^{-1}{|v_k\rangle},\label{eq:eigen-sigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_k, \omega_k\geq 0$. Define the operator $V_k$ by $$V_k\otimes I_B{|\Upsilon\rangle}_{AB} = {|v_k\rangle}_{AB}.$$ Then again using , equation translates to $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{-1}V_k \sigma = \omega_k^{-1} V_k.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, equation means that $$\Phi_t\otimes {\mathcal{I}}_B({|\Upsilon\rangle}{\langle\Upsilon|})=J_{AB}=\sum_k \lambda_k {|v_k\rangle}{\langlev_k|} = \sum_k \lambda_k (V_k\otimes I_B) {|\Upsilon\rangle}{\langle\Upsilon|} (V_k^{\dagger}\otimes I_B),$$ which gives $$\Phi_t(X) :=\sum_k \lambda_k V_kXV_k^{\dagger}.$$ Then letting $R_k:= \sqrt{\lambda_k} V_k$ we have $\sigma R_k= \omega_kR_k \sigma$ and holds. The other equation comes from $\Phi_t(\II)=\II$.
Comparison of the Dirichlet forms
---------------------------------
We can now state the main result of this section.
\[thm:QSVineq\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a strongly $\sigma$-reversible Lindblad generator, which means that it is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{1, \sigma}$ defined in . Then for all $X> 0$ we have $${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}\big(I_{p, 2}(X)\big)\geq {\mathcal{E}}_{q, {\mathcal{L}}}\big(I_{q, 2}(X)\big), \qquad 0\leq p\leq q\leq 2.$$
We have two proofs for this theorem. The first one, that we present here, is based on ideas in [@OZ99; @KT13]. The second one, that is moved to Appendix \[app:qSV\], is based on ideas in [@BarEID17]. We present both the proofs in this paper since they are different in nature and whose ideas can be useful elsewhere.
For any $t\geq 0$ define the function $h_t$ by $$h_t(s):= \big\langle I_{2/(2-s), 2}(X) , \Phi_t \circ I_{2/s, 2}(X)\big\rangle_\sigma.$$ Since by part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:modular\], $\Phi_t=\e^{-t{\mathcal{L}}}$ is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_\sigma$, we have $h_t(2-s)=h_t(s)$ and $h_t$ is symmetric about $s=1$. Therefore, all the the odd-order derivatives of $h_t$ at $t=1$ vanish, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hts}
h_t(s) = h_t(1) + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{c_j}{(2j)!} (s-1)^{2j},\end{aligned}$$ where $$c_j = \frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}^{2j}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}s^{2j}} h_t(s)\Big|_{s=1}.$$ We claim that all the even-order derivatives of $h_t$ at $t=1$ are non-negative, i.e., $c_j\geq 0$. We use Lemma \[lem:choi\] to verify this. Let $R_k$’s be matrices such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R-k-commute}
\sigma R_k\sigma^{-1} = \omega_kR_k,\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_k\geq 0$ and holds. Then letting $Y:= \Gamma_\sigma^{1/2}(X)$ and using we compute $$\begin{aligned}
h_t(s) & = {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac s 2}(Y^{2-s})\cdot \Phi_t\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{-\frac s 2}(Y^s)\big) \Big] \\
& = \sum_k {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ Y^{2-s} \sigma^{\frac s4} R_k \sigma^{-\frac s4} Y^s \sigma^{-\frac s4} R_k^{\dagger} \sigma^{\frac s4} \Big]\\
& =\sum_k \omega_k^{\frac{s}{2}}{\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ Y^{2-s} R_k Y^s R_k^{\dagger} \Big].\end{aligned}$$ Now diagonalizing $Y$ in its eigenbasis: $Y=\sum_\ell \mu_\ell{| \ell\rangle}{\langle \ell|}$, we find that $$h_t(s) = \sum_{k, \ell, \ell'} \mu_\ell^2 \, \big| {\langle\ell|} R_k{|\ell'\rangle} \big|^2\Big(\frac{\sqrt{\omega_k}\,\mu_{\ell'}}{\mu_\ell}\Big)^s .$$ Therefore, $h_t(s)$ is a sum of exponential functions with positive coefficients. From this expression it is clear that $c_j$’s are all non-negative.
Let us define $$g_t(s):= \frac{h_t(s)-h_t(0)}{(s-1)^2-1} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{c_j}{(2j)!}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (s-1)^{2i} \right).$$ From this expression it is clear that $g_t(s)$ is non-decreasing on $[1, +\infty)$. Therefore, $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0^+} g_t(s)/t$ is non-decreasing on $[1, +\infty)$. On the other hand, we have $h_t(0) ={\text{\rm tr}}(Y^2) = h_0(s)$. We thus can compute $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{g_t(s)}{t} & =\frac{1}{(s-1)^2-1} \lim_{t\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{h_t(s)-h_t(0)}{t} \\
& =\frac{1}{(s-1)^2-1} \lim_{t\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{h_t(s)-h_0(s)}{t} \\
& =\frac{1}{(s-1)^2-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} h_t(s)\Big|_{t=0} \\
& =-\frac{1}{(s-1)^2-1} \big\langle I_{2/(2-s), 2}(X) , {\mathcal{L}}\circ I_{2/s, 2}(X)\big\rangle_\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$s\mapsto -\frac{1}{(s-1)^2-1} \big\langle I_{2/(2-s), 2}(X) , {\mathcal{L}}\circ I_{2/s, 2}(X)\big\rangle_\sigma,$$ is non-decreasing on $[1, +\infty)$. Now the desired result follows once we identify $2/s$ with $p$ (and $2/(2-s)$ with $\hat p$, its Hölder conjugate).
Here are some important consequences of the above theorem.
\[cor:NN-Dirichlet\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a strongly $\sigma$-reversible Lindblad generator. Then the followings hold:
- For all $p\in \mathbb R$ and $X> 0$ we have $${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)\geq 0.$$
- The associated quantum Markov semigroup is $p$-contractive for all $p$.
As mentioned before, $p$-contractivity of $\Phi_t$ implies that Sandwiched $p$-Rényi relative entropy is monotone under $\Phi_t$. Therefore, when $\Phi_t$ comes from a Markov semigroup satisfying the above strong reversibility condition, $p$-Rényi relative entropy is monotone under $\Phi_t$ not only for $p\geq 1/2$ but *all* values of $p$.
\(i) By Theorem \[thm:QSVineq\] (and part (i) of Lemma \[prop:dirichlet\]) for every $p$ we have $${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(I_{p, 2}(X))\geq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(X).$$ On the other hand, by Proposition \[prop:dirichlet-positive\] and Proposition \[prop:contraction\], we have ${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)\geq 0$. Therefore, ${\mathcal{E}}_{p, {\mathcal{L}}}(I_{p, 2}(X))\geq 0$.
\(ii) Define $g(t)$ as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:dirichlet-positive\]. By part (i) we have $g'(t)\leq 0$ for all $t\geq 0$ and $g(0)=0$. Therefore, $g(t)\geq 0$ for all $t\geq 0$. This gives $p$-contractivity.
The following corollary is an immediate consequence of the quantum Stroock-Varopoulos inequality as well as part (i) of Proposition \[prop:ent\]
\[eq:mon-LS-constant\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a strongly $\sigma$-reversible Lindblad generator. Then $p\mapsto \alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ is non-increasing on $[0, 2]$
Now we can state an improvement over Theorem \[thm:gen-hyper\].
\[cor:gen-hyper-1\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a strongly $\sigma$-reversible Lindblad generator. Then the following holds:
- [(Hypercontractivity)]{} For $1\leq q\leq p$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-t-1}
t\geq \frac{1}{4\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})}\log\frac{p-1}{q-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $\| \Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}\leq \|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ for all $X\geq 0$
- [(Reverse hypercontractivity)]{} For $p\leq q<1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def-t-2}
t\geq \frac{1}{4\alpha_1({\mathcal{L}})}\log\frac{p-1}{q-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $\| \Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma}\geq \|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ for all $X> 0$.
Before ending this section, we state a result that will play an important role in .
\[RHolderHC\] Let $\{\Phi_t:\, t\ge 0\}$ be a a primitive quantum Markov semigroup that is strongly $\sigma$-reversible. Let $X,Y>0$ and $-\infty\le q, p\le 1$. Then, for any $t\ge 0$ such that $(1-p)(1-q)\ge\e^{-4\alpha_1({\mathcal{L}}) t}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X,\Phi_t(Y)\rangle_\sigma \ge \|X\|_{p,\sigma}\|Y\|_{q,\sigma}
\end{aligned}$$
The result follows by a direct application of together with the reverse hypercontractivity inequality in .
Tensorization
=============
Our goal in this section is to prove hypercontractivity (or reverse hypercontractivity) inequalities of the form $\|\Phi_t^{\otimes n}(X)\|_{p, \sigma^{\otimes n}} \leq \|X\|_{p, \sigma^{\otimes n}}$ (or $\|\Phi_t^{\otimes n}(X)\|_{p, \sigma^{\otimes n}} \geq \|X\|_{p, \sigma^{\otimes n}}$) for certain ranges of $t, p, q$ that are *independent of $n$*. Indeed, so far we have a theory of using log-Sobolev inequalities to prove such inequalities when $n=1$, but in some applications, e.g., those we present later in this paper, we need such inequalities for arbitrary $n$. We need some notations to state the problem more precisely.
For a Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hat-L-i}
\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i:= {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (i-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-i)},\end{aligned}$$ as an operator acting on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$. We also let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:K-n}
{\mathcal{K}}_n:= \sum_{i=1}^n \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that if ${\mathcal{L}}$ is (strongly) $\sigma$-reversible, then ${\mathcal{K}}_n$ is (strongly) reversible with respect to $\sigma^{\otimes n}$. Moreover, $\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i$’s commute with each other and $$\e^{-t{\mathcal{K}}_n} = \Phi_t^{\otimes n}.$$ That is, ${\mathcal{K}}_n$ is a (strongly) $\sigma^{\otimes n}$-reversible Lindblad generator which generates the quantum Markov semigroup $\big\{\Phi_t^{\otimes n}:\, t\geq 0\big\}$. Now we can ask how the (reverse) hypercontractivity inequalities associated to $\Phi_t$ are related to those for $\Phi_t^{\otimes n}$. Equivalently, what is the relation between the log-Sobolev constants $\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ to $\alpha_p({\mathcal{K}}_n)$? In the commutative (classical) case the answer is easy; $\alpha_p({\mathcal{K}}_n)$ equals $\alpha_p({\mathcal{L}})$ for all $n$, and having a (reverse) hypercontractivity inequality for $\Phi_t$ immediately gives one for $\Phi_t^{\otimes n}$. This is because in the classical case operator norms are multiplicative, or because the entropy function satisfies a certain subadditivity property (see e.g., [@MOS12]). The aforementioned property that, in the classical case, $\alpha_p({\mathcal{K}}_n)$ is independent of $n$, is usually called the *tensorization* property.
Tensorization property of log-Sobolev constants of quantum Lindblad generators, unlike its classical counterpart, is highly non-trivial. Thus proving (reverse) hypercontractivity inequalities that are independent of $n$ is a hard problem in the non-commutative case. There are some attempts in this direction. Montanaro and Osborne in [@MO10] proved such hypercontractivity inequalities for the qubit depolarizing channel (see also [@KT13]). King [@King14] generalized this result for all unital qubit Markov semigroups. Cubit *et al.* developed the theory of quantum reverse hypercontractivity inequalities in the unital case in [@CMT15] and proved some tensorization-type results. Also, Cubit *et al.* [@TPK14] developed some techniques for proving bounds on log-Sobolev constants $\alpha_p({\mathcal{K}}_n)$ that are independent of $n$. Beigi and King [@BK16] took the path of developing the theory of log-Sobolev inequalities not for the superoperator norm, but for the completely bounded norm. The point is that completely bounded norms are automatically multiplicative [@DJKR16], so there is no problem of tensorization for the associated log-Sobolev constants.
In this section we prove two tensorization-type results, one for $1$-log-Sobolev constants which will be used for reverse hypercontractivity inequalities, and the other for $2$-log-Sobolev constants which would be useful for hypercontractivity inequalities.
\[thm:tensorization-alpha-1\] Let $\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n$ be arbitrary positive definite density matrices. Let ${\mathcal{L}}_i(X) = X-{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_i X) \II$ be the simple generator associated to the state $\sigma_i$. Let $$\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i:= {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (i-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}_i\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-i)},$$ and define ${\mathcal{K}}_n$ by . Then we have $\alpha_1({\mathcal{K}}_n) \geq \frac 14.$
Letting $\sigma_i$’s to be equal in the above theorem, we obtain the promised tensorization-type result for the $1$-log-Sobolev constant.[^6]
We need to show that for all $X_{A^n}\in {\mathcal{P}}_+({\mathcal{H}}_{A^n})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4} {\text{\rm Ent}}_{1, \sigma_{A^n}}(X_{A^n})\leq {\mathcal{E}}_{1, {\mathcal{K}}_n}(X_{A^n}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{A_i} =\sigma_i$ and $$\sigma_{A^n} = \sigma_1\otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_n.$$ Using parts (ii) of Proposition \[prop:ent\] and Proposition \[prop:dirichlet\], without loss of generality we can assume that $X_{A^n}= \Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}^{-1}(\rho_{A^n})$ where $\rho_{A^n}\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}}_{A^n})$ is a density matrix. Then, using parts (iv) of Proposition \[prop:ent\] and Proposition \[prop:dirichlet\], we need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dd1}
D(\rho_{A^n}\|\sigma_{A^n})\leq \sum_{i=1}^n {\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ \Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}\circ \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i\circ \Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}^{-1} (\rho_{A^n})\cdot \big( \log \rho_{A^{n}} - \log(\sigma_{A^n}) \big)\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}\circ \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i\circ \Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}^{-1} & = {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (i-1)}\otimes \big(\Gamma_{\sigma_i}\circ{\mathcal{L}}\circ\Gamma_{\sigma_i}^{-1}\big)\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-i)}
= {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (i-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{L}}^*_i\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-i)},\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathcal{L}}^*_i (Y) = Y- {\text{\rm tr}}(Y)\sigma_i$. Therefore, $$\Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}\circ \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i\circ \Gamma_{\sigma_{A^n}}^{-1} (\rho_{A^n}) = \rho_{A^n} - \rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i},$$ where $A^{\sim i} = (A_1, \dots, A_{i-1}, A_{i+1}, \dots, A_n)$ and $\rho_{A^{\sim i}} = {\text{\rm tr}}_{A_i}(\rho_{A^n})$ is the partial trace of $\rho_{A^n}$ with respect to the $i$-th subsystem. Therefore, is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
D(\rho_{A^n}\|\sigma_{A^n}) &\leq \sum_{i=1}^n{\text{\rm tr}}\Big[ \big(\rho_{A^n} - \rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i} \big)\cdot \big( \log \rho_{A^{ n}} - \log(\sigma_{A^n}) \big)\Big]\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n\Big[ D(\rho_{A^n}\|\sigma_{A^n}) + D(\rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i}\| \rho_{A^n}) - D(\rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i}\| \sigma_{A^n})\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Now since $D(\rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i}\| \rho_{A^n})\geq 0$, it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
D(\rho_{A^n}\|\sigma_{A^n}) &\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\Big[ D(\rho_{A^n}\|\sigma_{A^n}) - D(\rho_{A^{\sim i}}\otimes \sigma_{A_i}\| \sigma_{A^n})\Big].
\label{eq:dd2}\end{aligned}$$ We note that $D(\xi_B\| \tau_B) = -H(B)_\xi -{\text{\rm tr}}(\xi\log \tau)$ where $H(B)_\xi = -{\text{\rm tr}}(\xi\log \xi)$ is the von Neumann entropy. Moreover, $\log (\xi\otimes \tau) = \log \xi\otimes I + I\otimes \log \tau$. Therefore, is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
-H(A^n)_{\rho} - \sum_{i=1}^n {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_{A_i}\log \sigma_i) &\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\Big[ -H(A^n)_\rho -\sum_{j=1}^n {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_{A_j}\log \sigma_i)+ H(A^{\sim i})_\rho + \sum_{j\neq i} {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_{A_j}\log \sigma_i) \Big]\\
& =\sum_{i=1}^n\big[ - H(A^n)_\rho - {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_{A_i}\log \sigma_i)+ H(A^{\sim i})_\rho \big]\\
& =\sum_{i=1}^n\big[ - H(A_i| A^{\sim i})_\rho - {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_{A_i}\log \sigma_i) \big].\end{aligned}$$ This is itself is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
H(A^n)_{\rho} &\geq\sum_{i=1}^n H(A_i| A^{\sim i})_\rho, \end{aligned}$$ which is an immediate consequence of the data processing inequality (i.e., $H(B|C)_\xi\geq H(B|CD)_\xi$) once we use the chain rule $$H(A^n)_{\rho} = \sum_{i=1}^n H(A_i| A_1, \dots, A_{i-1})_{\rho}.$$ We are done.
We can now use Corollary \[cor:gen-hyper-1\] and the fact that the simple generator is strongly reversible to conclude the following.
\[cor:reverse-HC-depolarizing\] Let $\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n$ be an arbitrary positive definite density matrices. Let ${\mathcal{L}}_i(X) = X-{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_i X) \II$ be the simple generator associated to the generalized depolarizing channel $\Phi_{t, i}(X)=\e^{-t} X + (1-\e^{-t}) {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_i X) \II$. Define $\sigma^{(n)} = \sigma_1\otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_n$ and $\Phi_t^{(n)} = \Phi_{t, 1}\otimes \cdots \otimes \Phi_{t, n}$. Then for $p\leq q<1$ and $t\geq \log\frac{p-1}{q-1}$ we have $$\big\| \Phi_t^{(n)}(X)\big\|_{p, \sigma^{(n)}}\geq \|X\|_{q, \sigma^{(n)}}, \qquad \forall n\geq 1,$$ where $X\in {\mathcal{P}}_+({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$ is arbitrary.
We now state the second tensorization result which is about the $2$-log-Sobolev constant.
\[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\] Let $\dim {\mathcal{H}}=2$ and ${\mathcal{L}}(X) = X-{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X) \II$ for some positive definite density matrix $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$. Then we have $$\alpha_2({\mathcal{K}}_n)= \alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}), \qquad \forall n,$$ where ${\mathcal{K}}_n$ is defined in .
Our main tool to prove this theorem is the following entropic inequality that is interesting on its own and can be useful elsewhere.
\[lem:entropy-inequality\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}'$ be Hilbert spaces with $\dim {\mathcal{H}}=2$. Let $X\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}\otimes {\mathcal{H}}')$ be a positive semidefinite matrix with the block form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:X-block}
X=\begin{pmatrix}
A & C\\
C^{\dagger} & B
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $A, B, C\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}')$. For a density matrix $\rho\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}}')$, the matrix $M$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M-block}
M= \begin{pmatrix}
\|A\|_{2, \rho} & \|C\|_{2, \rho}\\
\|C^{\dagger}\|_{2, \rho} & \|B\|_{2, \rho}
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ is positive semidefinite. Moreover, let $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ be a density matrix of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma-diag}
\sigma = \begin{pmatrix}
\theta & 0\\
0 & 1-\theta
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta\in (0,1)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}(X)\leq &~ {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(M) + \theta {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(A) +(1-\theta){\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(B)\nonumber\\
& ~+ \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(I_{2, 2}(C)) + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)).\end{aligned}$$
For any $p\geq 2$ define $$M_p := \begin{pmatrix}
\|A\|_{p, \rho} & \|C\|_{p, \rho}\\
\|C^{\dagger}\|_{p, \rho} & \|B\|_{p, \rho}
\end{pmatrix},$$ so that $M_2=M$. Since $X\geq 0$, both $A$ and $B$ are positive semidefinite. Moreover, we have $$\Gamma_{\II\otimes \rho}^{\frac 1p}(X)= \begin{pmatrix}
\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A) & \Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(C)\\
\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(C^{\dagger}) & \Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)
\end{pmatrix}\geq 0.$$ As a result, according to Theorem IX.5.9 of [@Bhatia15] there exists a *contraction* $R\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ such that $\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(C) = \big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A)\big)^{\frac 12} R \big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)\big)^{\frac 12}$. Therefore, by Hölder’s inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(C)\big\|_{p} & =\big\|\big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A)\big)^{\frac 12} R \big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)\big)^{\frac 12}\big\|_{p} \\
& \leq \big\|\big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A)\big)^{\frac 12}\big\|_{ 2p} \cdot \|R\|_{\infty}\cdot\big\|\big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)\big)^{\frac 12}\big\|_{ 2p}\\
& \leq \big\|\big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A)\big)^{\frac 12}\big\|_{ 2p} \cdot \big\|\big(\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)\big)^{\frac 12}\big\|_{ 2p}\\
& = \big\|\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(A)\big\|^{\frac 12}_{ p} \cdot \big\|\Gamma_\rho^{\frac 1p}(B)\big\|^{\frac12}_{ p}.\end{aligned}$$ Then using $\|Y\|_{p, \rho} = \|\Gamma_\rho^{1/p}(Y)\|_{p}$, we find that $$\|C\|_{p, \rho} \leq \|A\|_{p, \rho}^{\frac 12}\cdot\|B\|_{p, \rho}^{\frac 12},$$ and hence $M_p\geq 0$. In particular, $M_2=M\geq 0$ and ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(M)$ makes sense.
Define $\psi(p):= \|M_p\|_{p, \sigma} - \|X\|_{p, \sigma\otimes \rho}$. It is shown by King [@King03] that $\psi(p)\geq 0$ for all $p\geq 2$. Indeed, this inequality is proven in [@King03] in the special case where $\sigma$ and $\rho$ are the identity operators on the relevant spaces. Nevertheless, we have $$\|X\|_{p, \sigma \otimes \rho} = \left\|
\begin{pmatrix}
\theta^{\frac 1p}\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(A) & \big(\theta(1-\theta)\big)^{\frac 1{2p}}\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(C)\\
\big(\theta(1-\theta)\big)^{\frac 1{2p}}\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(C^{\dagger}) & (1-\theta)^{\frac 1p}\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(B)
\end{pmatrix}\right\|_{p},$$ and $$\|M_p\|_{p, \sigma} = \left\|
\begin{pmatrix}
\theta^{\frac 1p}\|\big\|\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(A)\big\|_{p} & \big(\theta(1-\theta)\big)^{\frac 1{2p}}\big\|\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(C)\big\|_{p}\\
\big(\theta(1-\theta)\big)^{\frac 1{2p}}\big\|\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(C^{\dagger})\big\|_{p} & (1-\theta)^{\frac 1p}\big\|\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 1p}(B)\big\|_{p}
\end{pmatrix}\right\|_{p},$$ Thus, King’s result holds for arbitrary $\rho$ and diagonal $\sigma$ as well, and we have $\psi(p)\geq 0$ for all $p\geq 2$. On the other hand, a straightforward computation verifies that $\psi(2)=0$. This means that $\psi'(2)\geq 0$, i.e., $$\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p} \big(\|M_p\|_{p, \sigma} - \|X\|_{p, \sigma\otimes \rho}\big) \bigg|_{p=2}\geq 0.$$ The derivatives can be computed using Proposition \[prop:norm-derivative\]. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:der-X}
\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|X\|_{p,\sigma\otimes \rho} \bigg|_{p=2}= \frac{1}{4}\|X\|_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}^{-1}\cdot {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}(X),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|M_p\|_{p,\sigma} \bigg|_{p=2}= \frac{1}{4}\|M\|_{2, \sigma}^{-1}\cdot \Big( {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(M) + 4{\text{\rm tr}}\big[ \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 12}(M'_2) \cdot \Gamma_\sigma^{\frac 12} (M) \big] \Big),$$ where $$M'_2=\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}M_p\bigg|_{p=2}=\frac{1}{4}\begin{pmatrix}
\|A\|_{2, \rho}^{-1}\cdot {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(A) & w\\
w & \|B\|_{2, \rho}^{-1}\cdot {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(B)
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $w =\|C\|_{2, \rho}^{-1}\cdot \left( \frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}\big(I_{2, 2}(C)\big) +\frac{1}{2}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}\big(I_{2, 2}(C^{\dagger})\big)\right)$. We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\text{\rm{d}}}}{{\text{\rm{d}}}p}\|M_p\|_{p,\sigma} \bigg|_{p=2}= \frac{1}{4}\|M\|_{2, \sigma}^{-1}\cdot \Big(& {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(M) + \theta {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(A) +(1-\theta) {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(B) \\
&\, +\sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}\big(I_{2, 2}(C)\big)+\sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}\big(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)\big) \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Comparing to and using $\|M\|_{2, \sigma}=\|X\|_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}$ the desired inequality follows.
We need yet another lemma to prove Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\].
\[lem:2-positive\] For any Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{K}}$ that is $\rho$-reversible for some positive definite density matrix $\rho$ we have $${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}\big(I_{2, 2}(C)\big) +{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}\big(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)\big) \leq \langle C, {\mathcal{K}}(C)\rangle_\rho+\langle C^\dagger, {\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger)\rangle_\rho.$$ for any $C$.
Define $D:=\Gamma_{\rho}^{\frac 12}(C)$. Then for $j\in \{0,1\}$ $$Y_{j}:= \begin{pmatrix}
|D| & (-1)^j D^\dagger\\
(-1)^j D & |D^\dagger|
\end{pmatrix}\geq 0,$$ is positive semidefinite [@Bhatia15]. Since $\Gamma_{\rho}^{-1/2}$ is completely positive we have $$Z_{j}:={\mathcal{I}}\otimes \Gamma_{\rho}^{-1/2}(Y_j) = \begin{pmatrix}
I_{2, 2}(C) & (-1)^j C^\dagger\\
(-1)^j C & I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)
\end{pmatrix}\geq0.$$ On the other hand, $\Psi_t= \e^{-t{\mathcal{K}}}$ is completely positive. Therefore, $${\mathcal{I}}\otimes \Psi_t (Z_0) = \begin{pmatrix}
\Psi_t(I_{2, 2}(C)) & \Psi_t(C^\dagger)\\
\Psi_t(C) & \Psi_t(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger))
\end{pmatrix}\geq 0,$$ is positive semidefinite. Putting these together we find that $$g(t):=\langle Z_1, {\mathcal{I}}\otimes \Psi_t (Z_0)\rangle_{\II\otimes \rho}\geq 0, \qquad \forall t\geq 0.$$ We note that $$\begin{aligned}
g(t) & = \big\langle I_{2, 2}(C), \Psi_t(I_{2, 2}(C))\big\rangle_{\rho} + \big\langle I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger), \Psi_t(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger))\big\rangle_{\rho} - \big\langle C, \Psi_t(C)\big\rangle_{\rho}- \big\langle C^\dagger, \Psi_t(C^\dagger)\big\rangle_{\rho}.\end{aligned}$$ From this expression it is clear that $$g(0)= \|I_{2, 2}(C)\|_{2, \rho}^2 + \|I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)\|_{2, \rho}^2 - \|C\|_{2, \rho}^2 -\|C^\dagger\|_{2, \rho}^2 =0.$$ Therefore, we must have $g'(0)\geq 0$ which is equivalent to the desired inequality.
Now we have all the required tools for proving Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\]. Indeed, we can prove a stronger statement out of which Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\] is implied by a simple induction.
\[thm:tensorization-alpha-2-stronger\] Let $\dim {\mathcal{H}}=2$ and ${\mathcal{L}}(X) = X-{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X) \II$ for some positive definite density matrix $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$. Also let ${\mathcal{K}}$ be a Lindblad generator associated to a primitive semigroup that is reversible with respect to some positive definite state $\rho\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}}')$. Then we have $$\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}' + {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}})= \min\{\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}), \, \alpha_2({\mathcal{K}})\},$$ where ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}'$ denote the identity superoperators acting on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ and ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ respectively.
Let $\alpha=\min\{\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}), \, \alpha_2({\mathcal{K}})\}$. By restricting $X$ in the $2$-log-Sobolev inequality to be of the tensor product form and using $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}(Y\otimes Y') = {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(Y)+{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(Y'),$$ we conclude that $\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}+ {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}})\leq \alpha$. To prove the inequality in the other direction we need to show that for any $X\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}\otimes {\mathcal{H}}')$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:des-09a}
\alpha\, {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho} (X) \leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}' + {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}}} (X).\end{aligned}$$ Assume, without loss of generality, that $\sigma$ is diagonal of the form , and that $X\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}\otimes {\mathcal{H}}')$ has the block form . Define $M$ by . Then by Lemma \[lem:entropy-inequality\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}(X)\leq &~ {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(M) + \theta {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(A) +(1-\theta){\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(B)\\
& ~+ \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(I_{2, 2}(C)) + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger)).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand by the definition of $\alpha$ we have $$\alpha\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(M) \leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(M),$$ and $$\alpha\, {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \rho}(Y) \leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(Y),$$ for all $Y\in \big\{ A, B, I_{2, 2}(C), I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger) \big\}$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\,{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho}(X)&\leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(M) + \theta {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(A) +(1-\theta){\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(B)\nonumber\\
& \quad+ \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(I_{2, 2}(C)) + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(I_{2, 2}(C^\dagger))\nonumber\\
&\leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(M) + \theta {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(A) +(1-\theta){\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(B)\nonumber\\
& \quad+ \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,\langle C, {\mathcal{K}}(C)\rangle + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\,\langle C^\dagger, {\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger)\rangle, \label{eq:7yua}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second inequality we use Lemma \[lem:2-positive\]. We now have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}}_{2, \,{\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}' + {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}}} (X) & = \langle X, ({\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}' + {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}})(X)\rangle_{\sigma\otimes \rho}\\
& = \langle X, {\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}'(X)\rangle_{\sigma\otimes \rho} + \Bigg\langle \begin{pmatrix}
A & C\\
C^\dagger & B
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathcal{K}}(A) & {\mathcal{K}}(C)\\
{\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger) & {\mathcal{K}}(B)
\end{pmatrix}\Bigg\rangle_{\sigma\otimes \rho}.\end{aligned}$$ We compute each term in the above sum separately. $$\begin{aligned}
\big\langle X, \,{\mathcal{L}}\,\otimes\, &\,{\mathcal{I}}'(X)\big\rangle_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho} \\
& = \Bigg\langle \begin{pmatrix}
A & C\\
C^\dagger & B
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
(1-\theta)(A-B) & C\\
C^\dagger & \theta(B-A)
\end{pmatrix}\Bigg\rangle_{2, \sigma\otimes \rho} \\
& = \theta(1-\theta)\langle A, A-B\rangle_\rho +\theta(1-\theta)\langle B, B-A\rangle_\rho + 2\sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\langle C, C\rangle_\rho\\
& = \theta(1-\theta)\|A\|_{2,\rho}^2 +\theta(1-\theta)\|B\|_{2,\rho}^2 -2\theta(1-\theta)\langle A, B\rangle_\rho+ 2\sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\|C\|_{2, \rho}\\
& \geq \theta(1-\theta)\|A\|_{2,\rho}^2 +\theta(1-\theta)\|B\|_{2,\rho}^2 -2\theta(1-\theta)\|A\|_{2, \rho}\cdot \|B\|_{2, \rho}+ 2\sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)}\|C\|_{2, \rho}\\
& = \langle M, {\mathcal{L}}(M)\rangle_\sigma\\
& = {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(M).\end{aligned}$$ For the second term we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg\langle \begin{pmatrix}
A & C\\
C^\dagger & B
\end{pmatrix}, & \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathcal{K}}(A) & {\mathcal{K}}(C)\\
{\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger) & {\mathcal{K}}(B)
\end{pmatrix}\Bigg\rangle_{\sigma\otimes \rho} \\
& = \theta \langle A, \,{\mathcal{K}}(A)\rangle_\rho + (1-\theta) \langle B, {\mathcal{K}}(B)\rangle_\rho \\
&\quad + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C, {\mathcal{K}}(C)\rangle_\rho + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C^\dagger, {\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger)\rangle_\rho\\
& = \theta {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(A) + (1-\theta) {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(B) \\
&\quad + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C, {\mathcal{K}}(C)\rangle + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C^\dagger, {\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}' + {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{K}}}(X)& \geq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(M) +\theta {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(A) + (1-\theta) {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{K}}}(B)\\
& \quad + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C, {\mathcal{K}}(C)\rangle + \sqrt{\theta(1-\theta)} \langle C^\dagger, {\mathcal{K}}(C^\dagger)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this to we arrive at the desired inequality .
We now give the exact expression of the $2$-log-Sobolev constant of the simple Lindblad generator (in any dimension).
\[thm:LSC-2-simple\] Let $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ be arbitrary and let ${\mathcal{L}}(X) = X-{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X) \II$ be the simple Lindblad generator. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exact-LSC-2-simple}
\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})= \frac{1-2s_{\min}(\sigma)}{\log\big(1/s_{\min}(\sigma)-1\big)},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{\min}(\sigma)$ is the minimum eigenvalue of $\sigma$.
Since both ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(X)$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ are homogenous of degree two, to prove a log-Sobolev inequality, without loss of generality we can assume that $X$ is of the form $X=\Gamma_\sigma^{-1/2}(\sqrt \rho)$ where $\rho$ is a density matrix. In this case $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(X) = D(\rho\| \sigma), \qquad \langle X, {\mathcal{L}}X\rangle_\sigma = 1- \big[{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sqrt \sigma \sqrt \rho\big)\big]^2.$$ Let $\sigma= \sum_{i=1}^d s_i{|i\rangle}{\langlei|}$ and $\rho=\sum_{k=1}^d r_k {|\tilde k\rangle}{\langle\tilde k|}$ be the eigen-decompositions of $\sigma$ and $\rho$. Then $${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(X) = \sum_{k=1}^d r_k \log r_k - \sum_{i, k=1}^d |\langle i| \tilde k\rangle |^2r_k \log s_i,$$ and $$\langle X, {\mathcal{L}}X\rangle_\sigma = 1- \Big( \sum_{i, k=1}^d |\langle i| \tilde k\rangle|^2 \sqrt{s_i r_k} \Big)^2.$$ Let $A=(a_{ik})_{d\times d}$ be a $d\times d$ matrix whose entries are given by $$a_{ik} = |\langle i| \tilde k\rangle |^2.$$ Observe that, fixing the eigenvalues $s_i$’s and $r_k$’s, the entropy ${\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma}(X)$ is a linear function of $A$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ is concave function of $A$. On the other hand, since both $\{{|1\rangle}, \dots, {|d\rangle}\}$ and $\{{|\tilde 1\rangle}, \dots, {|\tilde d\rangle}\}$ form orthonormal bases, $A$ is a doubly stochastic matrix. Then by Birkhoff’s theorem, $A$ can be written as a convex combination of permutations matrices. We conclude that if an inequality of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \Big(\sum_{k=1}^d r_k \log r_k - \sum_{i, k=1}^d a_{ik}r_k \log s_i\Big)\leq 1- \Big( \sum_{i, k=1}^d a_{ik} \sqrt{s_i r_k} \Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$ holds for all permutation matrices $A$, then it holds for all doubly stochastic $A$, and then for all $\sigma, \rho$ with the given eigenvalues. We note that $A$ is a permutation matrix when $\{{|1\rangle}, \dots, {|d\rangle}\}$ and $\{{|\tilde 1\rangle}, \dots, {|\tilde d\rangle}\}$ are the same bases (under some permutation) which means that $\sigma$ and $\rho$ commute. Therefore, a log-Sobolev inequality of the form $$\beta {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma} \big( \Gamma_{\sigma}^{-1/2}(\rho) \big) \leq {\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{-1/2}(\rho)\big),$$ holds for all $\rho$ if and only if it holds for all $\rho$ that commute with $\sigma$. That is, to find the log-Sobolev constant $$\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}}) = \inf_{\rho} \frac{{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}\big(\Gamma_\sigma^{-1/2}(\rho)\big)}{{\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma} \big( \Gamma_{\sigma}^{-1/2}(\rho) \big) },$$ we may restrict to those $\rho$ that commute with $\sigma$. This optimization problem over such $\rho$ is equivalent to computing the $2$-log-Sobolev constant of the *classical* simple Lindblad generator, and has been solved in Theorem A.1 of [@DSC96].
We can now derive a tensorization-type result for a wide class of Lindblad generators. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a $\sigma$-reversible and primitive Lindblad generator. Recall that the *spectral gap* of ${\mathcal{L}}$ is defined by $$\lambda({\mathcal{L}}) = \inf_{X} \frac{{\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}(X)}{{\text{\rm{Var}}}_\sigma(X)},$$ where ${\text{\rm{Var}}}_\sigma(X) =\langle X, X\rangle_\sigma - \langle X, \II\rangle_\sigma^2 =\|X\|_{2, \sigma}^2 -\langle X, \II\rangle_\sigma^2$, see e.g. [@KT13]. Observe that ${\text{\rm{Var}}}_\sigma(X)$ is the squared length of the projection of $X$ onto the subspace orthogonal to $\II \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ with respect to the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_\sigma$. On the other hand, $\II$ is the sole[^7] $0$-eigenvector of ${\mathcal{L}}$ which is self-adjoint with respect to this inner product. Therefore, $\lambda({\mathcal{L}})$ is the minimum non-zero eigenvalue of ${\mathcal{L}}$. Note that by Proposition \[prop:contraction\] and Proposition \[prop:dirichlet-positive\] the Dirichlet form ${\mathcal{E}}_{2, {\mathcal{L}}}$ is non-negative, so $\lambda({\mathcal{L}})>0$. Indeed, $\lambda({\mathcal{L}})$ is really the spectral gap of ${\mathcal{L}}$ above the zero eigenvalue.
The spectral gap satisfies tensorization property. Observe that $${\mathcal{K}}_n= \sum_{i=1}^n \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i,$$ is a sum of mutually commuting operators. Then the eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{K}}_n$ are summations of eigenvalues of individual $\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i$’s. Since each $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i$ is a tensor product of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with some identity superoperator, the set of its eigenvalues is the same as that of ${\mathcal{L}}$. Using these we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lambda-tensorization}
\lambda({\mathcal{K}}_n) = \lambda({\mathcal{L}}), \qquad \forall n.\end{aligned}$$
It is well-known that $\lambda({\mathcal{L}})\geq 2\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})$. The following corollary gives a lower bound on $\alpha_2({\mathcal{L}})$ in terms of $\lambda({\mathcal{L}})$.
\[cor:2-LSC-general\] Let $\dim {\mathcal{H}}=2$ and $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$. For any $\sigma$-reversible primitive Lindblad generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ we have $$\alpha_2({\mathcal{K}}_n) \geq \frac{1-2s_{\min}(\sigma)}{\log\big( 1/s_{\min}(\sigma)-1\big) } \lambda({\mathcal{L}}).$$
This corollary is a non-commutative version of Corollary A.4 of [@DSC96] and gives a stronger bound comparing to Corollary 6 of [@TPK14]. It would be interesting to compare this corollary with the result of King [@King14] who generalized the hypercontractivity inequalities of [@MO10] for the unital qubit depolarizing channel to all unital qubit quantum Markov semigroups. Here, having a bound on the 2-log-Sobolev constant of the $\sigma$-reversible generalized qubit depolarizing channel (and its tensorization property), we derive a bound on the 2-log-Sobolev constant of all qubit $\sigma$-reversible semigroups.
Let ${\mathcal{L}}'$ be the simple Lindblad generator that is $\sigma$-reversible, and let $X\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$ be arbitrary. Then by Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-2\] and Theorem \[thm:LSC-2-simple\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lambda-s-min-2}
\frac{1-2s_{\min}(\sigma)}{\log\big( 1/s_{\min}(\sigma)-1\big) } \, {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma^{\otimes n}} \leq \sum_{i=1}^n \big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}'_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal W_i\subset {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$ be the subspace spanned by operators of the form $A_1\otimes \cdots \otimes A_n \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$ with $A_i=\II\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$. In other words, $\mathcal W_i = \ker(\widehat {\mathcal{L}}'_i)$. Then $\big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}'_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}$ equals the squared length of the projection of $X$ onto $\mathcal W_i^{\perp}$. On the other hand, since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is primitive and $\sigma$-reversible, we also have $\mathcal W_i=\ker \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i $ and $\mathcal W_i^{\perp}$ is invariant under $\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i$. Moreover, by definition $\lambda(\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i)$ is the minimum eigenvalue of $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i$ restricted to $\mathcal W_i^{\perp}$ (i.e., the minimum non-zero eigenvalue). We conclude that $$\lambda(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i)\big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}'_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}\leq \big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}.$$ On the other hand since $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i$ equals the tensor product of ${\mathcal{L}}$ with some identity superoperators, $\lambda(\widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i) = \lambda({\mathcal{L}})$. Therefore, $$\lambda({\mathcal{L}})\big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}'_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}\leq \big\langle X, \widehat {\mathcal{L}}_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}.$$ Using this in we arrive at $$\lambda({\mathcal{L}})\frac{1-2s_{\min}(\sigma)}{\log\big( 1/s_{\min}(\sigma)-1\big) } \, {\text{\rm Ent}}_{2, \sigma^{\otimes n}} \leq \sum_{i=1}^n \big\langle X, \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_i(X)\big\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}} = \langle X, {\mathcal{K}}_n(X)\rangle_{\sigma^{\otimes n}}.$$ This gives the desired bound on $\alpha_2({\mathcal{K}}_n)$.
\[cor:tensor\] Let $\dim {\mathcal{H}}=2$ and $\sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a $\sigma$-reversible primitive Lindblad generator. Then for any $1\leq q\leq p$ and $t\geq 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
t\geq \frac{\log\big( 1/s_{\min}(\sigma)-1\big)}{4\lambda({\mathcal{L}}) \, \big(1-2s_{\min}(\sigma)\big)}\log\frac{p-1}{q-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $\| \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(X)\|_{p, \sigma}\leq \|X\|_{q, \sigma}$ for all $X> 0$
Application: optimal second-order converses {#sec6}
===========================================
One of the primary goals of information theory is to find optimal rates of information-theoretic tasks. For instance, for the task of information transmission over a noisy channel, this optimal rate is the capacity. The latter is said to satisfy the *strong converse property* if any attempt to transmit information at a rate higher than it fails with certainty in the limit of infinitely many uses of the channel. In this section, we show how reverse hypercontractivity inequalities can be used to derive finite sample size strong converse bounds in the tasks of asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing and classical communication through a classical-quantum channel.
Quantum hypothesis testing
--------------------------
Binary quantum hypothesis testing concerns the problem of discriminating between two different quantum states, and is essential for various quantum information-processing protocols. Suppose that a party, Bob, receives a quantum system, with the knowledge that it is prepared either in the state $\rho$ (the null hypothesis) or in the state $\sigma$ (the alternative hypothesis) over a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. His aim is to infer which hypothesis is true, i.e., which state the system is in. To do so he performs a measurement on the system that he receives. This is most generally described by a POVM $\{T,\II - T\}$ where $0 \le T \le \II$; When the measurement outcome is $T$ he infers that the state is $\rho$, and otherwise it is $\sigma$. Adopting the nomenclature from classical hypothesis testing, we refer to $T$ as a test. The probability that Bob correctly guesses the state to be $\rho$ is then equal to ${\text{\rm tr}}(T \rho)$, whereas his probability of correctly guessing the state to be $\sigma$ is ${\text{\rm tr}}((\II -T)\sigma)$. Bob can erroneously infer the state to be $\sigma$ when it is actually $\rho$ or vice versa. The corresponding error probabilities are referred to as the Type I error and Type II error, respectively, and are given as follows: $$\alpha(T) := {\text{\rm tr}}((\II - T)\rho),~~~~~~~ \beta(T) := {\text{\rm tr}}(T \sigma),$$ Correspondingly, if multiple (say, $n$) identical copies of the system are available, and a test $T_n \in {\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes n})$ is performed on the $n$ copies, then the Type I and Type II errors are given by $$\alpha_n(T_n) := {\text{\rm tr}}((\II_n - T_n)\rho^{\otimes n}),~~~~~~~ \beta_n(T_n) := {\text{\rm tr}}(T_n \sigma^{\otimes n}),$$ where $\II_n$ denotes the identity operator in ${\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes n})$. There is a trade-off between the two error probabilities and there are various ways to optimize them. In the setting of *asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing*, one minimizes the Type II error under the constraint that the Type I error stays below a threshold value $\eps \in (0,1)$. In this case one is interested in minimizing the following quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{n, \eps} := \min \{\beta_n(T_n) \, : \, \alpha_n(T_n) \leq \eps, ~ 0\leq T_n\leq \II_n\},
\label{bne}\end{aligned}$$ where the infimum is taken over all possible tests $T_n \in {\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes n})$. The quantum Stein lemma [@hiai1991; @ON00] states that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(-\frac{1}{n}\log \beta_{n, \eps}\right) = D(\rho||\sigma).$$
The *asymptotic strong converse rate* $R_{sc}$ of the above quantum hypothesis testing problem is defined to be the smallest number $R$ such that if $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \beta_n(T_n) \leq - R,$$ for some sequence of tests $\{T_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$, then $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \alpha_n(T_n) = 1.$$ This quantity has been shown to be equal to Stein’s exponent $D(\rho||\sigma)$. In this section we are interested in obtaining a bound on the strong converse rate in the finite blocklength regime, that is when Bob receives a finite number of identical copies of the quantum system. We use reverse hypercontractivity in order to obtain our bound. Before stating and proving the main theorem of this section, we recall the following important inequality that will be used in the proof.
\[ALT\] For any $A,B\in{\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}})$, and $r\in[0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm tr}}(B^{r/2}A^r B^{r/2} )\le {\text{\rm tr}}(B^{1/2} A B^{1/2})^r.\end{aligned}$$
Our main result, from which a bound for the finite blocklength strong converse rate follows directly as a corollary, is given by .
\[thm:QHT\] Let $\rho,\sigma\in{\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ being faithful density matrices.[^8] Then for any test $0\le T_n\le \II_n$, where $T_n \in {\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes n})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-state}
\log {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma^{\otimes n} T_n ) &\geq -nD(\rho\|\sigma) - 2
\sqrt{{n \|\rho\sigma^{-1}\|_\infty \log\frac{1}{{\text{\rm tr}}(\rho^{\otimes n} T_n)}}} +\log{\text{\rm tr}}(\rho^{\otimes n} T_n). \end{aligned}$$
For simplicity of notation we will use $\sigma_n:=\sigma^{\otimes n}$ and $\rho_n:=\rho^{\otimes n}$. Let $0\le p,q\le 1$ and let $t \geq 0$ be such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond1}
(1-p)(1-q) &=\e^{-t}.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\cal L}$ denote the generator of a generalized depolarizing semigroup $\{\Phi_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ with invariant state $\rho$, i.e., $\Phi_t(X)=\e^{-t} X + (1-\e^{-t}) {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho X) \II$. By Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-1\] the $1$-log-Sobolev constants of this semigroup and its tensor powers are lower bounded by $1/4$. Then using for $Y=T_n$ and $X=\Gamma_{\rho_n}^{-1}(\sigma_n)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12}
{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma_n \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(T_n)\big)\ge \big\|\Gamma_{\rho_n}^{-1}(\sigma_n)\big\|_{p,\rho_n}\|T_n\|_{q,\rho_n}.
\end{aligned}$$ An application of the Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality, , with $A=\sigma_n$, $B=\rho_n^{(1-p)/p}$ and $r=p\in [0,1]$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\Gamma_{\rho_n}^{-1}(\sigma_n)\big\|_{p,\rho_n}=\left[{\text{\rm tr}}\Big( \rho_n^{(1-p)/2p}\sigma_n\rho_n^{(1-p)/2p}\Big)^p\right]^{1/p}\ge \left[{\text{\rm tr}}\big( \rho_n^{1-p}\,\sigma_n^{p}\,\big)\right]^{1/p} =\exp\left( - D_{1-p}(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$D_{1-p}(\rho\|\sigma):=\frac{1}{-p}\log{\text{\rm tr}}\left(\sigma^p\,\rho^{1-p}\right),$$ denotes the quantum Rényi divergence between $\rho$ and $\sigma$. A very similar application of for $A=T_n$ and $B=\rho_n^{1/q}$ and $r=q\in [0,1]$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|T_n\|_{q,\rho_n}=\left[{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_n^{1/2q} T_n\rho_n^{1/2q} \big)^q\right]^{1/q}\ge \left[{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_n T_n^q\big)\right]^{1/q}\ge \left[{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_n T_n\big)\right]^{1/q},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality, we used that $0\le T_n\le \II$, so that $T_n^q\ge T_n$. Using the last two bounds in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_n \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(T_n))\ge \left[{\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n)\right]^{1/q}\exp\left( -D_{1-p}(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $p \to 0$ (and $q\to 1-\e^{-t}$) on both sides of the above inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq15}
{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_n \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(T_n)) &\geq
\left[{\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n)\right]^{1/(1-\e^{-t})}\exp\left( -D(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) \right).\end{aligned}$$
Let $\gamma:=\|{\rho}\sigma^{-1}\|_{\infty}$ and define the superoperator $\Psi_t$ by $$\Psi_t(X) = \e^{-t} {\mathcal{I}}+\gamma(1-\e^{-t}){\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma X)\,\II.$$ Then by induction on $n$ it can be shown that $\Psi_t^{\otimes n} -\Phi_t^{\otimes n}$ is a completely positive superoperator. This is clear from definitions for $n=1$, and for every $Y\in {\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n}\otimes {\mathcal{H}}')$, where ${\mathcal{H}}'$ is an arbitrary Hilbert space, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_t^{\otimes n}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y) & = \big(\Psi^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\big) \big({\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes \Psi_t\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y)\big)\\
& \geq \big(\Phi^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\big) \big({\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes \Psi_t\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y)\big)\\
& =\big({\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes \Psi_t\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\big) \big(\Phi^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y)\big)\\
& \geq\big({\mathcal{I}}^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes \Phi_t\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\big) \big(\Phi^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y)\big)\\
&= \Phi_t^{\otimes n}\otimes {\mathcal{I}}(Y),\end{aligned}$$ where in the inequalities come from the induction hypothesis and the base of induction. Therefore, $\Psi_t^{\otimes n} -\Phi_t^{\otimes n}$ is a completely positive. On the other hand, for every $Y\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}^{\otimes n})$ we have $${\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma_n\Psi_t^{\otimes }(Y)\big) = \big(\e^{-t}+ \gamma(1-\e^{-t})\big)^n\,{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_n Y).$$ This equation is immediate for $n=1$, and for arbitrary $n$ can be proven by first observing that it holds for $Y=Y_1\otimes\cdots \otimes Y_n$ being of a tensor product form, and then using linearity. Putting these together we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma_n \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(T_n)\big)&\leq {\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma_n \Psi_t^{\otimes n}\,(T_n)\big ) \\
&= \big(\e^{-t}+ \gamma(1-\e^{-t})\big)^n\,{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_n T_n).\end{aligned}$$ Next using $\gamma\geq 1$, the convexity of $h(x)=x^\gamma$ implies $(h(x)-h(1))/(x-1)\geq h'(1)$ for every $x\geq 1$. Therefore, $\e^{\gamma t}-1\ge \gamma(\e^t-1)$ for every $t\geq 0$, and $\e^{-t}+ \gamma(1-\e^{-t})\leq \e^{(\gamma-1)t}$. As a result $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\sigma_n \Phi_t^{\otimes n}(T_n)\big)&\leq
\e^{(\gamma-1)nt}\,{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_n T_n).\label{eq14}\end{aligned}$$ Then from and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left[{\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n)\right]^{1/(1-\e^{-t})}\exp\left( -D(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) \right)\le \e^{(\gamma-1)nt}{\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_nT_n ).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the logarithm of both sides yields $$\begin{aligned}
\log {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_nT_n ) &\geq -D(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) -
(\gamma -1)nt + \frac{1}{1-\e^{-t}} \log {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n)\nonumber\\
&\geq -D(\rho_n\|\sigma_n) - \gamma nt + \left(1+ \frac{1}{t}\right) \log {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n),
\label{eq:opt}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from $\e^t \geq 1+ t$ and $$\frac{1}{1-\e^{-t}} = 1+ \frac{1}{\e^t-1}\leq 1+\frac 1 t.$$ Optimizing over the choice of $t$ and letting $$t=\left(\frac{-\log {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_nT_n)}{\gamma n } \right)^{1/2},$$ we obtain the desired inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\log {\text{\rm tr}}(\sigma_nT_n ) &\geq -nD(\rho\|\sigma) - 2 \sqrt{-\gamma n\log {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_nT_n)}+ \log {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_n T_n).\end{aligned}$$
\[corr-QHTstrong\] Let $\rho,\sigma\in{\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$ and $\gamma=\|\rho\sigma^{-1}\|_\infty$. Then for any test $0\le T_n\le \II_n$, where $T_n \in {\cal B}({\cal H}^{\otimes n})$, if the Type II error satisfies the inequality $\beta_n(T_n) \leq \e^{-nr}$ for $r > D(\rho||\sigma)$, then the Type I error satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-state}
\alpha_n(T_n) &\geq 1 - \e^{-nf},\end{aligned}$$ where $$f = \left( \sqrt{\gamma + (r-D(\rho||\sigma))} - \sqrt{\gamma}\right)^2,$$ tends to zero in the limit of $r \to D(\rho||\sigma)$.
From and the condition $\beta_n(T_n) \leq \e^{-nr}$ for $r > D(\rho||\sigma)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
-nr &\geq -n D(\rho||\sigma) - 2\, \sqrt{n\gamma \log \frac{1}{1 - \alpha_n(T_n)}} - \log \frac{1}{1-\alpha_n(T_n)}. \end{aligned}$$ Defining $x_n^2 := \log \frac{1}{1-\alpha_n(T_n)}$ this is equivalent to $$x_n^2 + 2 \,\sqrt{n\gamma}\, x_n \,-\, n\, (r- D(\rho||\sigma)) \geq 0,$$ solving which directly leads to the statement of the corollary.
also leads to the following finite blocklength second order lower bound on the Type II error when the Type I error is less than a threshold value.
\[corr-soa\] Let $\rho,\sigma\in{\mathcal{D}}_+({\mathcal{H}})$. Then for any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\eps>0$ the Type II error satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{n, \eps} \geq (1-\eps) \exp\left( - nD(\rho||\sigma) - 2\, \sqrt{n\gamma \log\left(\frac{1}{1-\eps}\right)}\,\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma= \|\rho\sigma^{-1}\|_\infty$.
A lower bound on $\beta_{n, \eps}$ was also obtained by different means by Audenaert, Mosonyi and Verstraete in Theorem 3.3 of [@AMV12].
Classical-quantum channels
--------------------------
The strong converse property of the capacity of a c-q channel was proved independently in [@796386; @796385]. In this section, we use the quantum reverse hypercontractivity inequality to obtain a finite blocklength strong converse bound for transmission of information through classical-quantum (c-q) channels. Suppose Alice wants to send classical messages belonging to a finite set ${\cal M}$ to Bob, using a memoryless c-q channel: $${\cal W}: {\cal X} \to {\cal D}({\cal H_B}),$$ where ${\cal X}$ denotes a finite alphabet, and ${\cal H_B}$ is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space with dimension $d$. Thus the output of the channel under input $x\in \mathcal X$ is some quantum state $\rho_x=\mathcal W(x)\in {\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{H}}_B)$. To send a message $m \in {\cal M}$, Alice encodes it in a codeword $${\cal E}^n(m) = x^n(m)\equiv x^n := (x_1, x_2, \ldots x_n) \in {\cal X}^n,$$ where ${\cal E}^n$ denotes the encoding map. She then sends it to Bob through $n$ successive uses of the channel ${\cal W}^{\otimes n}$, whose action on the codeword $x^n$ is given by $${\cal W}^{\otimes n}(x^n) = \rho_{x_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \rho_{x_n} \equiv \rho_{x^n} .$$ In order to infer Alice’s message, Bob applies a measurement, described by a POVM $\Pi^n:= \{\Pi^n_{m'}\}_{m' \in {\cal M}}$ on the state ${\cal W}^{\otimes n}(x^n)=\rho_{x^n}$ that he receives. The outcome of the measurement would be Bob’s guess of Alice’s message. See Figure \[fig:c-q-channel\].
The triple $(|\mathcal{M}|,\mathcal{E}^n,\Pi^n)$ defines a code which we denote as $\mathcal{C}_n$. The *rate* of the code is given by $\log|\mathcal{M}|/n$, and its *maximum probability of error* is given by $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\max}({\cal C}_n; {\cal W}):=\max_{m\in\mathcal{M}} 1-{\text{\rm tr}}\big(\,\Pi^n_m\,\mathcal{W}^{\otimes n}\circ{\mathcal{E}}^n(m)\big).\end{aligned}$$ We let $C_{n, \eps}(\mathcal W)$ be the maximum rate $\log|\mathcal M|/n$ over all codes $\mathcal C_n=(|\mathcal M|, \mathcal E^n, \Pi^n)$ with $p_{\max}(\mathcal C_n; \mathcal W)\leq \eps$. Then the (asymptotic) capacity of the channel is defined by $$C(\mathcal{W}):=\lim_{\eps\to0}\liminf_{n\to\infty} C_{n, \eps}(\mathcal{W}).$$ For c-q channels, the capacity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C(\mathcal W) = \max_{P_X} I(X; B)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ Here the maximum is taken over all probability distributions $P_X$ on $\mathcal X$, the bipartite state $\rho_{XB}$ is given by $$\rho_{XB} = \sum_{x\in \mathcal X} P_X(x) {|x\rangle}{\langlex|}\otimes \rho_x,$$ and $I(X; B)_\rho = D(\rho_{XB}\| \rho_X\otimes \rho_B)$ is the mutual information function. The fact that the capacity is given by maximum mutual information is indeed implied by its *additivity* [@Shor]. That is, the maximum mutual information associated to the channel $\mathcal W^{\otimes n}$ equals $n$ times the maximum mutual information of $\mathcal W$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c-q-additivity}
\max_{P_{X^n}} I(X^n; B^n) = n \max_{P_X} I(X; B) = nC(\mathcal W).\end{aligned}$$
\[theo2\] Let $\mathcal{W}:\mathcal{X}\to{\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{H}}_B)$ be a c-q channel with $\mathcal W(x)=\rho_x$ being faithful for all $x\in \mathcal X$. Then, for any code ${\cal C}_n:=(|\mathcal{M}|,{\mathcal{E}}^n,\Pi^n)$ with $p_{\max}(\mathcal C_n; \mathcal W)\leq \eps$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
I(X^n; B^n)\geq \log |\mathcal M| -2\sqrt{dn\log \frac{1}{1-\eps}} - \log \frac{1}{1-\eps}, \end{aligned}$$ where $d=\dim {\mathcal{H}}_B$ and the mutual information is computed with respect to $$\rho_{X^nB^n} = \frac{1}{|\mathcal M|}\sum_{m} {|x^n(m)\rangle}{\langlex^n(m)|}\otimes \rho_{x^n(m)}.$$
This theorem together with the additivity result directly imply that for any code of rate larger than $C(\mathcal{W})$, the maximum probability of error goes to one, as $n\to\infty$.
For every $x^n=(x_1, \dots, x_n)\in \mathcal X^n$ let $\Phi_{t, x^n}=\Phi_{t, x_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes \Phi_{t, x_n}$ with $$\Phi_{t, x}(X) = \e^{-t}X +(1-\e^{-t}) {\text{\rm tr}}(\rho_x X)\II.$$ Then following similar steps as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:QHT\], using Theorem \[thm:tensorization-alpha-1\], and the Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality, for every $\Pi_m^n$ we have $${\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_{B^n} \Phi_{t, x^n}(\Pi^n_m)\big) \geq \big[{\text{\rm tr}}\big( \rho_{x^n} \Pi_m^n \big)\big]^{1/(1-e^{-t})} \e^{-D(\rho_{x^n}\| \rho_{B^n})}.$$ Letting $x^n=x^n(m)$, using ${\text{\rm tr}}\big( \rho_{x^n(m)} \Pi_m^n \big)\geq 1-\eps$, taking logarithm of both sides and averaging over the choice of $m\in \mathcal M$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal M|} \sum_{m\in \mathcal M} \log {\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_{B^n} \Phi_{t, x^n(m)}(\Pi^n_m)\big) & \geq -\frac{1}{|\mathcal M|} \sum_{m\in \mathcal M} D(\rho_{x^n(m)} \| \rho_{B^n}) + \frac{1}{1-\e^{-t}} \log(1-\eps) \\
&= -I(X^n; B^n) + \frac{1}{1-\e^{-t}} \log(1-\eps)\\
&\geq -I(X^n; B^n) + \big(1+\frac{1}{t}\big) \log(1-\eps).\end{aligned}$$ Now define $\Psi_t(X) = \e^{-t}X + (1-\e^{-t}){\text{\rm tr}}(X)\II $. Following similar steps as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:QHT\], using $\rho_{x} \leq \II$ it can be shown that $\Psi_t^{\otimes n} - \Phi_{t, x^n(m)}$ is complexity positive. Therefore, $\Phi_{t, x^n(m)}(\Pi^n_m)\leq \Psi_t^{\otimes n}(\Pi_m^n)$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
-I(X^n; B^n) + \big(1+\frac{1}{t}\big) \log(1-\eps) & \leq \frac{1}{|\mathcal M|} \sum_m \log {\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_{B^n} \Psi_t^{\otimes n} (\Pi_m^n)\big)\\
&\leq \log \Big(\frac{1}{|\mathcal M|} \sum_m {\text{\rm tr}}\big(\rho_{B^n} \Psi_t^{\otimes n} (\Pi_m^n)\Big)\\
& = \log \Big( \frac{1}{|\mathcal M|} {\text{\rm tr}}\big( \rho_{B^n} \Psi_t^{\otimes n}(\II^{\otimes n}_B) \big) \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where the second line follows from the concavity of the logarithm function and in the third line we use the fact that $\{\Pi^n_m:\, m\in\mathcal M\}$ is a POVM. On the other hand, $$\Psi_t^{\otimes n}(\II^{\otimes n}_B) = \big( \e^{-t} + (1-\e^{-t}) d \big)^n \II^{\otimes n}_B\leq \e^{(d-1)nt}\II^{\otimes n}_B$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
-I(X^n; B^n) + \big(1+\frac{1}{t}\big) \log(1-\eps) \leq -\log|\mathcal M| + dnt.\end{aligned}$$ Optimizing over the choice of $t> 0$, the desired result follows.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:contraction\] {#app:contraction}
=========================================
[(i)]{} As mentioned in [@DB14] (and explicitly worked out in [@Beigi13]) for $p\geq 1$, contractivity can be proven using the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem. So we focus on $p\in (-\infty, -1]\cup [1/2, 1)$. First let $p=-q\in (-\infty, -1]$, and $X> 0$. We note that $$\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma} = \|\Phi_t(X)^{-1}\|_{q, \sigma}^{-1}.$$ On the other hand, $\Phi_t$ is completely positive and unital, and $z\mapsto z^{-1}$ is operator convex. Therefore, $\Phi_t(X^{-1})\geq \Phi_t(X)^{-1}$ and $\|\Phi_t(X)^{-1}\|_q \leq \|\Phi_t(X^{-1})\|_q$. We conclude that $$\|\Phi_t(X)\|_{p, \sigma} \geq \|\Phi_t(X^{-1})\|_{q,\sigma}^{-1} \geq \|X^{-1}\|_{q, \sigma}^{-1} = \|X\|_{p, \sigma},$$ where for the second inequality we use $q$-contractivity of $\Phi_t$ for $q\geq 1$.
Now suppose that $p\in [1/2, 1)$. We note that $\hat p\in (-\infty, -1]$, and that $\Phi_t$ is $\hat p$-contractive. Then using Hölder’s duality, for $X>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi_t(X)\|_p& = \inf_{Y>0: \|Y\|_{\hat p, \sigma}\geq 1} \langle Y, \Phi_t(X)\rangle_\sigma\\
& = \inf_{Y>0: \|Y\|_{\hat p, \sigma}\geq 1} \langle \Phi_t(Y), X\rangle_\sigma\\
& \geq \inf_{Z>0: \|Z\|_{\hat p, \sigma}\geq 1} \langle Z, X\rangle_\sigma\\
& = \|X\|_{p, \sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the first equality follows from Lemma \[lem:reversible\], and the inequality follows from the $\hat p$-contractivity of $\Phi_t$, i.e, $\|\Phi_t(Y)\|_{\hat p, \sigma} \geq \|Y\|_{\hat p, \sigma} \geq 1$.
\(ii) As worked out in [@CMT15] this is an immediate consequence of the operator Jensen inequality.
Second proof of Theorem \[thm:QSVineq\] {#app:qSV}
=======================================
The proof is very similar to the one used in [@BarEID17] to prove the strong $L_p$-regularity of the Dirichlet forms. Before stating the proof we need some definitions.
For a compact set $I$ we let $C(I)$ to be the Banach space of continuous, complex valued functions on $I$ (equipped with the supremum norm). Then the Banach space $C(I\times I)$ becomes a $*$-algebra when endowed with the natural involution $f\mapsto f^*$ with $f^*(x,y)=\overline{f(x,y)}$. Thus $C(I\times I)$ is a $C^*$-algebra.
We endow ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ with a Hilbert space structure by equipping it with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product: $$\langle X, Y\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}:= {\text{\rm tr}}(X^\dagger Y).$$ Fix $X,Y\in{\mathcal{B}}_{sa}({\mathcal{H}})$, and let $I$ be a compact interval containing the spectrum of both $X$ and $Y$. We define a $*$-representation $\pi_{X,Y}: C(I\times I)\rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}\big({\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\big)$ that is uniquely determined by its action on tensor products of functions as follows. For $f, g\in C(I)$ we define $\pi_{X, Y}(f\otimes g)\in {\mathcal{B}}\big( {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}) \big)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{X,Y}(f\otimes g) (Z)=f(X) Zg(Y),\qquad Z\in{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}).\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma can be found in [@BarEID17] (see Lemma 4.2):
\[lemma4.1\] $\pi_{XY}$ is a $*$-representation between $C^*$-algebras. That is,
- $\pi_{XY}(1)=\mathcal{I}$, where $1$ is the constant function on $I\times I$ equal to $1$.
- $\pi_{XY}(f^*g)=\pi_{XY}(f)^*\pi_{XY}(g)$ for all $f,g\in C(I\times I)$.
- If $f\in C(I\times I)$, is a non-negative function, then $\pi_{XY}(f)$ is a positive semi-definite operator on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ for the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, i.e., $\pi_{X, Y}(f)\in {\mathcal{P}}\big( {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}) \big)$.
Now, for any function $f\in C(I)$, define $\tilde{f}$ to be the function in $C(I\times I)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqftilde}
\tilde{f}(s,t)=\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\frac{f(s)-f(t)}{s-t}\qquad s\ne t\\
&f'(s)\qquad~~~~~~~~~ s=t.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma, proved in [@BarEID17] (see Lemma 4.2), gives a generalization of the chain rule formula to a derivation.
\[lemma4.2\] Let $X, Y\in {\mathcal{B}}_{sa}({\mathcal{H}})$ and let $I$ be a compact interval containing the spectrums of $X, Y$. Let $f\in C(I)$ be a continuously differentiable function such that $f(0)=0$. Then for all $V\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
Vf(Y)-f(X)V=\pi_{XY}(\tilde{f})(VY-XV),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{f}$ is defined .
We can now prove the theorem. By the result of [@CM16] (an extension of Lemma \[lem:choi\]), there are superoperators $\partial_j:{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})\rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$ of the form $$\partial_j(X)= [V_j, X] = V_j X- XV_j,$$ where $V_j\in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}})$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3.3}
\langle X,{\mathcal{L}}(Y)\rangle_\sigma = \sum_{j}\langle \partial_jX,\partial_j Y\rangle_{\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $V_j$’s are such that there are $\omega_j\geq 0$ with $$\sigma V_j = \omega_j V_j \sigma.$$ Using the above equation one can show [@BarEID17] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:220}
&\partial_j\big(I_{q,p}(X)\big)=\Gamma_\sigma^{-\frac{1}{q}}\bigg(V_j \Big(\Gamma_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p}}\big(\omega_j^{-\frac{1}{2p}}X\big)\Big)^{\frac{p}{q}}-\Big(\Gamma^{\frac{1}{p}}_\sigma\big(\omega_j^{\frac{1}{2p}}X\big)\Big)^{\frac{p}{q}}V_j\bigg).\end{aligned}$$
For arbitrary $X> 0$ define $Y_j:= \omega_j^{-1/4}\, \Gamma_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}(X)$ and ${Z}_j:= \omega_j^{1/4}\,\Gamma_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}(X)$. Using we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{q,\mathcal{L}}\big(I_{q,2}(X)\big)&=\frac{q\hat q}{4}\big\langle I_{\hat{q},q}\big(I_{q,2}(X)\big),\mathcal{L}\big(I_{q,2}(X)\big)\big\rangle_\sigma\nonumber\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4}\big\langle I_{\hat{q},2}(X),\mathcal{L}\big(I_{q,2}(X)\big)\big\rangle_\sigma\nonumber\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4} \sum_{j} \langle \partial_j I_{\hat{q},2}(X),\partial_j I_{q,2}(X)\rangle_\sigma\label{eq:app-03}\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4} \sum_{j} \Big\langle \Gamma_\sigma^{-\frac{1}{\hat{q}}} \Big(V_j {Y_j}^{2/\hat{q}}-{Z}_j^{2/\hat{q}}V_j\Big), \Gamma^{-\frac{1}{q}} \Big(V_jY_j^{2/q}-{Z}_j^{2/q}V_j\Big)\Big\rangle_\sigma\label{eq:app-04}\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4} \sum_{j} \Big\langle V_j {Y_j}^{2/\hat{q}}-{Z}_j^{2/\hat{q}}V_j, V_j{Y}_j^{2/q}-{Z}_j^{2/q}V_j\Big\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4}\sum_{j} \Big\langle \pi_{{Z}_j,{Y}_j}\big(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{q}}\big)(V_j{Y}_j-{Z}_jV_j),\pi_{{Z}_j,{Y}_j}\big(\tilde{f}_{2/q}\big)(V_j{Y}_j-{Z}_jV_j)\Big\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}\label{eq:app-06}\\
&=\frac{q\hat q}{4}\sum_{j} \Big\langle V_j{Y}_j-{Z}_jV_j, \pi_{{Z}_j,{Y}_j}\big(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{q}}\big)^*\pi_{{Z}_j,{Y}_j}\big(\tilde{f}_{2/q}\big)(V_j{Y}_j-{Z}_jV_j)\Big\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}\nonumber\\
&= \frac{q\hat q}{4} \sum_{j} \Big\langle V_j {Y}_j-Z_jV_j,\pi_{Z_j,Y_j}\big(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{q}}^*\tilde{f}_{2/q}\big)(V_jY_j-Z_jV_j)\Big\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}, \label{eq:app-08}\end{aligned}$$ where in we used , in we used , and in we used the chain rule formula of Lemma \[lemma4.2\] for the functions $f_\alpha$ with $f_\alpha(x)=x^{\alpha}$. Finally, in we used part (ii) of Lemma \[lemma4.1\].
Now, using the proofs of Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.4 of [@MOS12], for any $x,y\geq 0$ and $0\leq p\leq q\leq 2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
q\hat{q}(x^{1/\hat{q}}-y^{1/\hat{q}})(x^{1/q}-y^{1/q})\le p\hat{p}(x^{1/\hat{p}}-y^{1/\hat{p}})(x^{1/p}-y^{1/p}). \end{aligned}$$ This means that for all $x, y$ we have $$q\hat q \big(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{q}}^*\tilde{f}_{2/q}\big)(x, y) \leq p\hat p \big(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{p}}^*\tilde{f}_{2/p}\big)(x, y).$$ Hence, by part (iii) of Lemma \[lemma4.1\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{q,\mathcal{L}}(I_{q,2}(X))&\le \frac{p \hat{p}}{4} \sum_{j} \Big\langle V_j Y_j-Z_jV_j,\pi_{Z_j,Y_j}(\tilde{f}_{2/\hat{p}}^*\tilde{f}_{2/p})(V_jY_j-Z_jV_j)\Big\rangle_{{\text{\rm HS}}}\\
&=\mathcal{E}_{p,\mathcal{L}}(I_{p,2}(X)).\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: Recall that $\{T_t:\, t\geq 0\}$ forms a semigroup.
[^2]: For sake of brevity, we refrain from defining the phrases shown in italics throughout this introduction. Please refer to the main text and references therein for details
[^3]: The test could be probabilistic, but for simplicity of presentation we restrict to deterministic tests.
[^4]: Our entropy function here is different from the one in [@KT13] by a factor of $p$. This modification ensures us that if $X$ and $\sigma$ commute, we get the usual entropy function in the classical case. Moreover, this extra factor makes the entropy function non-negative even for $p<0$.
[^5]: Again, our definition of the Dirichlet form is different from that of [@KT13] by a factor of $ p/2$.
[^6]: After finishing this work we came to know that this theorem in the special case when $\sigma$ is the completely mixed state was already proved in [@MFW16].
[^7]: This $0$-eigenvector is unique since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is assumed to be primitive.
[^8]: What we really need is that the supports of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ being the same (and not being the whole ${\mathcal{H}}$) since in this case we may restrict everything to this support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ground-state structure is found and pressure-induced phase transitions up to 210 kbar are studied in mercury titanate from first principles within the density functional theory. It is established that the $R3c$ structure experimentally observed in HgTiO$_3$ is metastable at ambient pressure. With increasing the hydrostatic pressure, the ground-state structure changes following the $R{\bar 3} \to R3c \to Pbnm$ sequence. It is shown that the appearance of ferroelectricity in HgTiO$_3$ at $P = 0$ is associated with an unstable phonon mode. Optical and elastic properties of different phases of mercury titanate are calculated. The quasiparticle band gap calculated in the *GW* approximation ($E_g = 2.43$ eV) agrees with experimental data better than the value obtained in the LDA approximation (1.49 eV). Analysis of the thermodynamic stability explains why the synthesis of mercury titanate is possible only at high pressures.'
author:
- 'Alexander I. Lebedev'
title: |
First-principles study of ferroelectricity and pressure-induced\
phase transitions in HgTiO$_3$
---
Introduction
============
The strain engineering has already become an important technological approach which enables to enhance the properties of many electronic materials. In ferroelectrics, due to the large strain–polarization coupling, the strain effects are especially important. For example, in ferroelectric thin films and superlattices, the biaxial strain can be used to finely tune the ferroelectric, dielectric, and piezoelectric properties of these materials. [@CurrOpinSolidStateMaterSci.9.122; @AnnuRevMaterSci.37.589; @PhysSolidState.51.2324]
The influence of hydrostatic pressure on displacive phase transitions was first analyzed by Samara *et al.*, [@PhysRevLett.35.1767] who explained why an increase in pressure usually decreases the temperature of phase transitions associated with soft optical phonons at the center of the Brillouin zone and increases the temperature of phase transitions associated with soft phonons at the boundary of the Brillouin zone. Recently, a very different behavior of the ferroelectric properties was discovered in PbTiO$_3$ at high pressures; the observed enhancement of the ferroelectric instability with increasing pressure was explained by the original electronic mechanism of ferroelectricity. [@PhysRevLett.95.196804] The enhancement of ferroelectricity at high pressures was predicted for many oxides with the perovskite structure. [@PhaseTransitions.80.385] These interesting findings necessitate further studies of the pressure effects on the ferroelectric properties.
Despite limited experimental data on mercury titanate, this material exhibits interesting but contradictory ferroelectric properties. Mercury titanate HgTiO$_3$ can be prepared from HgO and TiO$_2$ at pressures of 60–65 kbar. [@JSolidStateChem.6.509; @Ferroelectrics.326.117] The obtained crystals have a rhombohedrally distorted perovskite structure. The observation of second harmonic generation (SHG) in HgTiO$_3$ at 300 K [@JSolidStateChem.6.509] enabled to propose that mercury titanate is non-centrosymmetric and its space group is $R3c$. However, because of limited accuracy, the atomic coordinates in Ref. were determined only for centrosymmetric structure $R{\bar 3}c$. Subsequent studies of dielectric properties of mercury titanate [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] did not found sharp dielectric anomalies: a strongly asymmetric broad peak with a maximum dielectric constant of $\sim$800 at about 220 K and a noticeable hysteresis in the heating–cooling cycle as well as weak narrow peak at about 515 K were observed. At 300 K no dielectric hysteresis loops were observed in electric fields up to 10$^6$ V/m. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] Scanning calorimetry revealed weak anomalies in the 420–480 K temperature range, [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] but their temperatures differed from the temperatures of maximums in dielectric measurements.
X-ray diffraction studies of HgTiO$_3$ under hydrostatic pressure [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] revealed non-monotonic behavior of the $d_{024}$ interplanar distance and of the (104)–(110) doublet splitting at $P \approx 20$ kbar, which was explained by a phase transition from the rhombohedral to the cubic phase. Studies of the electronic structure [@JPhysCondensMatter.22.045504] of rhombohedral and cubic modifications of HgTiO$_3$ using the full-potential linearized augmented plane wave (FP-LAPW) method showed that the rhombohedral $R{\bar 3}c$ phase is a direct-gap semiconductor with the band gap energy of $\sim$1.6 eV, whereas the cubic phase is a metal.
To resolve the inconsistency of the ferroelectric properties of HgTiO$_3$ and predict other properties of this material, first-principles calculations of the ground-state structure, phonon spectra, optical and elastic properties of mercury titanate at hydrostatic pressures up to 210 kbar were performed in this paper.
Calculation details
===================
Atom Configuration $r_s$ $r_p$ $r_d$ $q_s$ $q_p$ $q_d$ $r_{\rm min}$ $r_{\rm max}$ $V_{\rm loc}$
------ ----------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Hg $5d^{10} 6s^0 6p^0$ 1.78 2.00 1.78 7.37 7.07 7.37 — — —
Ti $3s^2 3p^6 3d^0 4s^0$ 1.48 1.72 1.84 7.07 7.07 7.07 0.01 1.41 2.65
O $2s^2 2p^4 3d^0$ 1.40 1.55 1.40 7.07 7.57 7.07 — — —
The calculations were performed within the first-principles density-functional theory (DFT) using pseudopotentials and a plane-wave expansion of wave functions, as implemented in `ABINIT` software. [@abinit3] The local density approximation (LDA) for the exchange-correlation functional was used. Optimized separable nonlocal pseudopotentials [@PhysRevB.41.1227] were constructed using the `OPIUM` program. [@OPIUM] The parameters used for the construction of pseudopotentials are given in Table \[table1\] (for meaning of the parameters see Ref. ); for Ti atom the local potential correction [@PhysRevB.59.12471] was added.
The pseudopotentials for Ti and O atoms were non-relativistic (they have been already tested and used in Ref. ), the pseudopotential for Hg was constructed using scalar-relativistic generation scheme. The plane-wave energy cut-off used in the calculations was 30 Ha (816 eV). Integration over the Brillouin zone was performed on 8$\times$8$\times$8 Monkhorst–Pack mesh for the dielectric phases and 12$\times$12$\times$12 mesh for the metallic phases with one formula unit in the unit cell. For larger unit cells, equivalent $\mathbf{k}$-point density was used. The total energy was converged to less than 10$^{-10}$ Ha. The structure relaxation was stopped when the Hellmann–Feynman forces were below $5 \times 10^{-6}$ Ha/Bohr (0.25 meV/[Å]{}).
The convergence tests with a number of irreducible $\mathbf{k}$-points increased by 2–4 times have shown that the changes in the calculated total energies did not exceed 0.05 meV for the dielectric phases and 0.35 meV for the metallic phases. The changes in the phonon frequencies were less than 0.01 cm$^{-1}$ for hard modes and less than 1 cm$^{-1}$ for soft modes. An increase in the energy cut-off also had a little effect on the calculated data: the change in the relative energies of different phases was less than 0.15 meV when the cut-off energy was increased to 35 Ha.
To test the quality of pseudopotential for Hg, the calculations for orthorhombic and rhombohedral polymorphs of HgO were performed. Among them the orthorhombic modification (the montroydite mineral) had the lowest total energy. The calculated lattice parameters of these phases ($a = 3.4663$ [Å]{}, $b = 6.6253$ [Å]{}, $c = 5.3013$ [Å]{} for the orthorhombic phase and $a = 3.5092$ [Å]{}, $c = 8.5417$ [Å]{} for the rhombohedral phase) were in reasonable agreement with experiment [@SpringerMaterials] ($a = 3.5215$ [Å]{}, $b = 6.6074$ [Å]{}, $c = 5.5254$ [Å]{}; $a = 3.577$ [Å]{}, $c = 8.681$ [Å]{}). Phonon spectra were calculated with the same interpolation scheme as was used for other titanates of group II elements in the periodic table. [@PhysSolidState.51.362]
The quasiparticle band gap in HgTiO$_3$ was calculated using the so-called one-shot *GW* approximation. [@RevModPhys.74.601; @PhysStatSolidiB.246.1877] The Kohn–Sham wave functions and energies calculated within DFT-LDA were used as a zeroth-order approximation. The dielectric matrix $\epsilon_{\mathbf{GG'}}(\mathbf{q},\omega)$ was computed for 4$\times$4$\times$4 $\mathbf{q}$-mesh from the independent-particle polarizability matrix $P^0_{\mathbf{GG'}}(\mathbf{q},\omega)$ calculated for 4285 reciprocal-lattice vectors $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{G'})$, 42 occupied and 158 unoccupied bands. The contribution of higher-lying bands was taken into account using the approach proposed in Ref. . The dynamic screening was described using the Godby–Needs plasmon-pole model. The components of wave functions with kinetic energy below 24 Ha were used in these calculations. The energy correction to the DFT-LDA solution was computed as diagonal matrix elements of $\Sigma - E_{xc}$ operator, where $\Sigma = GW$ is the self-energy operator, $E_{xc}$ is the exchange-correlation energy operator, $G$ is the Green’s function, and $W = \epsilon^{-1}v$ is the screened Coulomb interaction. In the calculations of $\Sigma$, the components of wave functions with kinetic energy below 24 Ha for both exchange and correlation parts of $\Sigma$ were used.
Results
=======
Ground-state structure at $P = 0$
---------------------------------
![Phonon dispersion curves for HgTiO$_3$ in the cubic $Pm3m$ phase. The labels near the curves denote the symmetry of unstable modes. The absence of LO–TO-splitting at the $\Gamma$ point is caused by metallic character of this phase.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.ps)
The calculated phonon spectrum of HgTiO$_3$ in the perovskite cubic phase (space group $Pm3m$) is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. It is seen that two types of instability appear simultaneously in this phase: the stronger one associated with the deformation and rotation of the oxygen octahedra (the $\Gamma_{25}$–$X_3$–$M_3$–$\Gamma_{25}$–$R_{25}$–$M_3$ branch) and the weaker one associated with the ferroelectric (antiferroelectric at the boundary of the Brillouin zone) instability (the $\Gamma_{15}$–$X^{\prime}_5$–$M^{\prime}_3$–$\Gamma_{15}$ branch). The absence of LO–TO-splitting at the $\Gamma$ point is caused by the metallic band structure of cubic HgTiO$_3$.
------------------------------ --------------- ------------- ------------
Unstable Space Energy, Volume,
mode group meV [Å]{}$^3$
— $Pm3m$ 0 57.573
$X_3$ $P4_2/mmc$ $-$88 57.275
$\Gamma_{15}$ $R3m$ $-$94 58.923
$\Gamma_{15}$ $P4mm$ $-$122 59.444
$\Gamma_{25}$ $P{\bar 4}m2$ $-$139 57.088
$\Gamma_{15}$, $\Gamma_{25}$ $Amm2$ $-$151 59.749
$X_5$ $Pmma$ $-$202 57.916
$X_5$ $Cmcm$ $-$306 57.867
$\Gamma_{25}$ $R32$ $-$467 56.956
$R_{25}$ $I4/mcm$ $-$778 56.188
$M_3$ $P4/mbm$ $-$809 56.195
$R_{25}+M_3$ $Pbnm$ $-$936 **55.853**
$R_{25}$ $Imma$ $-$940 56.099
$R_{25}$ $R{\bar 3}c$ $-$974 56.336
$A_{2u}$ $R3c$ $-$982 56.632
— $R{\bar 3}$ **$-$1059** 60.140
------------------------------ --------------- ------------- ------------
: \[table2\]Energies and volumes per one formula unit for different distorted phases of HgTiO$_3$ at $P = 0$. The energy of the cubic phase is taken as the energy reference. The phase with a minimum specific energy and minimum specific volume are denoted by bold values.
[cccccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase & $a$, [Å]{} & $\alpha$, deg. & Atom & Position & $x$ & $y$ & $z$\
$R3c$ & 5.4984 & 58.4093 & Hg & 2a & 0.24904 & 0.24904 & 0.24904\
& & & Ti & 2a & $-$0.00333 & $-$0.00333 & $-$0.00333\
& & & O & 6b & 0.66598 & $-$0.15240 & 0.25846\
$R{\bar 3}c$ & 5.4881 & 58.4252 & Hg & 2a & 0.25000 & 0.25000 & 0.25000\
(calc.) & & & Ti & 2b & 0.00000 & 0.00000 & 0.00000\
& & & O & 6e & 0.65983 & $-$0.15983 & 0.25000\
$R{\bar 3}c$ & 5.4959 & 58.59 & Hg & 2a & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25\
(exp.)$^a$ & & & Ti & 2b & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0\
& & & O & 6e & 0.665 & $-$0.165 & 0.25\
$R{\bar 3}$ & 5.8304 & 53.9320 & Hg & 2c & 0.36869 & 0.36869 & 0.36869\
& & & Ti & 2c & 0.84974 & 0.84974 & 0.84974\
& & & O & 6f & 0.55966 & $-$0.03220 & 0.19275\
$Pbnm$ & 5.2678 ($a$) & — & Hg & 4c & $-$0.00445 & 0.03190 & 0.25000\
& 5.2983 ($b$) & & Ti & 4b & 0.50000 & 0.00000 & 0.00000\
& 7.5501 ($c$) & & O & 4c & 0.08502 & 0.47264 & 0.25000\
& & & O & 4d & 0.69594 & 0.30216 & 0.04431\
[$^a$ The experimental data taken from Ref. were recalculated for rhombohedral setting. ]{}
To determine the structure of the ground state, the energies of different distorted phases originating from the cubic structure were calculated for each of the above-mentioned unstable modes taking into account their degeneracy. As follows from Table \[table2\], the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase has the lowest energy among these phases. This phase is derived from the $Pm3m$ structure by out-of-phase rotations of the oxygen octahedra around three cubic axes as a result of condensation of triply degenerate $R_{25}$ mode at the boundary of the Brillouin zone ($a^-a^-a^-$ tilt system according to Glazer’s notation). The energy of this phase is even lower than that of the $Pbnm$ phase, in contrast to other titanates of group II elements in the periodic table. [@PhysSolidState.51.362] It should be noted that the overlapping of the conduction and valence bands disappears as the structural distortions become larger, and all phases with the energy lower than $-$300 meV are semiconductors.
[ccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pair of & & Number\
atoms & & Ref. & of bonds\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $R3c$ & $R{\bar 3}c$ &\
Hg–O & 2.198 & 2.195 & 2.20(4) & 3\
Hg–O & 2.698, 2.888 & 2.786 & 2.77(4) & 3+3\
Hg–O & 3.172 & 3.162 & — & 3\
Ti–O & 1.906, 2.064 & 1.977 & 1.96(4) & 3+3\
The ferroelectric instability specific for the reference $Pm3m$ structure of HgTiO$_3$ still exists in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase. The calculations show that two unstable modes with $A_{2u}$ and $E_u$ symmetry and frequencies of 135$i$ and 21$i$ cm$^{-1}$ are observed at the $\Gamma$ point in the phonon spectrum of this phase. Among the corresponding ferroelectrically distorted phases, the $R3c$ phase has the lowest energy. All phonon frequencies at the center and at $A$, $D$, and $Z$ points on the boundary of the Brillouin zone in this phase are positive, the matrix of elastic moduli (Sec. \[sec3c\]) is positive-definite, and so the $R3c$ phase is the ground-state structure. The calculated lattice parameters and atomic coordinates in $R{\bar 3}c$ and $R3c$ phases are given in Table \[table3\]. For comparison, the experimental data for the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase [@JSolidStateChem.6.509] are also included into this table. It is seen that the calculated data for the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase agrees well with the experimental data. The calculated interatomic distances for the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase and calculated mean distances for the $R3c$ phase agree with interatomic distances determined from X-ray diffraction [@JSolidStateChem.6.509] too (Table \[table4\]).
Along with the phases originating from the perovskite structure, other possible structures, in particular, the ilmenite one characteristic for titanates of group II elements—MgTiO$_3$, ZnTiO$_3$, and CdTiO$_3$ [@SpringerMaterials]—should be tested. The calculation showed that at ambient pressure ($P = 0$) the ilmenite structure of HgTiO$_3$ with $R{\bar 3}$ space group has the lowest energy among all considered phases (Table \[table2\]). The fact that $R3c$ or $R{\bar 3}c$ structures are observed in X-ray diffraction enables to suppose that these phases are metastable. This metastability is evidently associated with large difference between $R3c$ ($R{\bar 3}c$) and $R{\bar 3}$ structures, both in the lattice parameter and in the rhombohedral angle (Table \[table3\]). The phase transition between so different structures should be of the first order, for which a wide region of metastability is characteristic. The reason why all investigated samples had the metastable $R3c$ ($R{\bar 3}c$) structure is that the samples have been prepared at 60–65 kbar, at which the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase is thermodynamically stable (Sec. \[sec3d\]). The energies of two more possible hexagonal phases, one with the 2H BaNiO$_3$ structure and other with 6H BaTiO$_3$ structure (both have $P6_3/mmc$ space group), are, respectively, by 269 meV and 73 meV higher than the energy of the cubic $Pm3m$ phase.
Origin of ferroelectric instability
-----------------------------------
We now discuss the ferroelectric properties and nature of the ferroelectric phase transition in HgTiO$_3$. As the changes in the Hg–O bond lengths accompanying the ferroelectric phase transition do not exceed 0.1 [Å]{} and the difference in energy of the $R3c$ and $R{\bar 3}c$ phases is only 8.1 meV, the Curie temperature in HgTiO$_3$ cannot be too high and will not exceed 300 K. Therefore we can associate the Curie temperature with the temperature of the first maximum in the dielectric constant, which was observed at 220 K. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] This interpretation is confirmed by the absence of dielectric hysteresis loops at 300 K. The fact that SHG signal was observed in Ref. at 300 K can be explained by the presence of defects; the cause of the defect formation in HgTiO$_3$ will be discussed in Sec. \[sec3e\].
Calculation of the dynamical matrix for the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase shows that the $zz$-element of the on-site force constant for Hg atoms is small but positive (0.0263 Ha/Bohr$^2$), and so these atoms cannot be considered as off-center ions. The analysis of the eigenvector of the ferroelectric $A_{2u}$ mode in this phase shows that the displacements of Hg atoms in this mode is 22 times smaller than that of Ti atoms. This means that collective displacements of titanium atoms against oxygen atoms are responsible for the ferroelectric instability. Weak ferroelectric activity of Hg atoms is confirmed by small values of their Born effective charges: $Z^*_{xx} = Z^*_{yy} = 3.20$, $Z^*_{zz} = 2.42$; they slightly exceed the nominal charge of the ion. For Ti atoms the corresponding values are $Z^*_{xx} = Z^*_{yy} = 7.85$, $Z^*_{zz} = 7.92$.
The calculated static dielectric constant at 0 K in the $R3c$ phase is almost isotropic ($\varepsilon_{xx} = 97$, $\varepsilon_{zz} = 101$). [^1] Its value is compatible with a maximum dielectric constant of $\sim$800 observed in the experiment at 220 K. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] The calculated spontaneous polarization in the $R3c$ phase turns out unexpectedly large, $P_s = 0.37$ C/m$^2$. Apparently, this is a result of large effective charge of the $A_{2u}$ mode in the paraelectric $R{\bar 3}c$ phase ($Z^*_{\rm eff} = {}$12.66).
\[sec3c\]Optical and elastic properties of HgTiO$_3$
----------------------------------------------------
The electronic structure calculations performed in this work within the DFT-LDA approach confirm earlier result [@JPhysCondensMatter.22.045504] obtained in the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) that the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase is a direct-gap semiconductor with the band gap of 1.6 eV and the band extrema located at the $\Gamma$ point. In our calculations, the band gap of HgTiO$_3$ at $P = 0$ is $E_g^{\rm LDA} = 1.49$ eV and its pressure coefficient is $dE_g^{\rm LDA}/dP = +0.44$ meV/kbar. However, both these results disagree with the experimental fact that HgTiO$_3$ crystals are of light yellow color. [@JSolidStateChem.6.509]
It is well known that the DFT always underestimates the energy band gap. The *GW* approximation [@RevModPhys.74.601; @PhysStatSolidiB.246.1877] based on the many-body perturbation theory is an approach that enables to obtain $E_g$ values in good agreement with the experiment. The calculations carried out in this work in this approximation gave the band gap energy $E_g^{GW} \approx 2.43$ eV for the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase of HgTiO$_3$. This value agrees with the color of the samples much better than the $E_g$ values calculated in the LDA (1.49 eV, this work) and GGA (1.6 eV, Ref. ) approximations. The optical dielectric constant of HgTiO$_3$ which takes into account the local field effects is $\epsilon_\infty = 9.29$.
------- ------------------ ------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------
Mode $\nu$, cm$^{-1}$ Mode $\nu$, cm$^{-1}$ Mode $\nu$, cm$^{-1}$ Mode $\nu$, cm$^{-1}$ Mode $\nu$, cm$^{-1}$
$A_1$ 78 $E$ 81 $A_g$ 68 $B_{1g}$ 439 $B_{1u}$ 530
181 121 113 502 $B_{2u}$ 38
379 139 144 782 86
476 165 277 $B_{2g}$ 104 141
$A_2$ 62 274 417 266 190
347 312 462 450 345
355 443 559 542 356
417 495 $A_u$ 65 819 431
753 515 74 $B_{3g}$ 118 496
108 226 524
$A_g$ 73 $E_g$ 94 141 353 $B_{3u}$ 58
204 189 303 539 114
306 311 375 732 165
440 442 498 $B_{1u}$ 38 246
651 565 539 84 301
$A_u$ 133 $E_u$ 148 $B_{1g}$ 80 134 380
348 256 103 243 403
477 371 139 387 448
647 452 350 475 547
------- ------------------ ------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------
To interpret experimental data of infrared (IR) and Raman studies, the phonon frequencies calculated at the $\Gamma$ point for different phases of HgTiO$_3$ may be useful. The data for $R3c$ and $R{\bar 3}$ phases at ambient pressure as well as for the $Pbnm$ phase at 147 kbar are presented in Table \[table5\]. In the low-temperature ferroelectric $R3c$ phase, $A_1$ and $E$ modes are active both in IR and Raman spectra. In the $R{\bar 3}$ phase, $A_u$ and $E_u$ modes are IR active, whereas $A_g$ and $E_g$ modes are Raman active. In the high-pressure $Pbnm$ phase (Sec. \[sec3d\]), the $B_{1u}$, $B_{2u}$, and $B_{3u}$ modes are IR active, whereas $A_g$, $B_{1g}$, $B_{2g}$, and $B_{3g}$ are Raman active.
The elastic moduli tensor in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase is presented by seven independent components: $C_{11} = C_{22} = 348.0$ GPa, $C_{33} = 260.3$ GPa, $C_{12} = 178.5$ GPa, $C_{13} = C_{23} = 149.9$ GPa, $C_{44} = C_{55} = 76.3$ GPa, $C_{66} = 84.8$ GPa, and $C_{14} = -C_{24} = C_{56} = 18.3$ GPa. The bulk modulus calculated from these data is $B = 205.8$ GPa, which is slightly higher than the 178 GPa value obtained in Ref. without taking into account the relaxation of internal degrees of freedom.
In the $R3c$ phase, seven independent components of the elastic tensor are: $C_{11} = C_{22} = 293.9$ GPa, $C_{33} = 224.4$ GPa, $C_{12} = 159.7$ GPa, $C_{13} = C_{23} = 117.1$ GPa, $C_{44} = C_{55} = 53.7$ GPa, $C_{66} = 67.1$ GPa, and $C_{14} = -C_{24} = C_{56} = 0.82$ GPa. The bulk modulus in this phase is $B = 171.3$ GPa.
\[sec3d\]Pressure-induced phase transition
------------------------------------------
To discuss the experimental data on the influence of hydrostatic pressure on the structure of HgTiO$_3$, [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] calculations of the pressure effect on the properties of these crystals were performed. At pressure $P \ne 0$, the thermodynamically stable phase is the phase which has the lowest enthalpy $H = E_{\rm tot} + PV$, not the lowest total energy $E_{\rm tot}$. To compare the phases with different number of atoms in the unit cell, we use the specific energy and the specific volume defined per one formula unit. The calculations show that with increasing pressure, the contribution of the $PV$ term gives about 95% of the change in $H$ in our crystals, and so at high pressures the phase with a minimum specific volume becomes more stable. As follows from Table \[table2\], at $P = 0$ the $Pbnm$ phase has the minimum specific volume. Other phases, arranged in order of increasing their specific volumes, form the following sequence: $Imma$, $I4/mcm$, $P4/mbm$, $R{\bar 3}c$, $R3c$. The ilmenite structure $R{\bar 3}$, which has the minimum total energy at $P = 0$, is characterized by the largest specific volume. This enables to expect that as the pressure is increased, the ground-state structure will change in the following sequence: $R{\bar 3} \to R3c \to Pbnm$. Moreover, with increasing pressure, the suppression of ferroelectricity should be observed (the $R3c \to R{\bar 3}c$ phase transition).
![The enthalpy differences between $R{\bar 3}$, $R3c$, $Imma$, and $Pbnm$ phases and the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase of HgTiO$_3$ as a function of hydrostatic pressure.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.ps)
The enthalpy differences between the phases under consideration and the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase as a function of pressure are plotted in Fig. \[fig2\]. It is seen that HgTiO$_3$ should undergo the $R{\bar 3} \to R3c$ phase transition at $P = 38$ kbar and the $R3c \to Pbnm$ one at 141 kbar. As both phase transitions are accompanied by abrupt changes in the volume of the unit cell at the transition pressure (6% and 0.71%, respectively), they should be of the first order. The $Imma$ phase, whose enthalpy at $P = 0$ is lower than that of the $Pbnm$ phase, at higher pressure becomes thermodynamically less stable and so can be excluded from consideration. Similar behavior, when stable $R{\bar 3}$ phase transformed under high pressure and temperature to the pressure-stabilized $Pbnm$ phase, from which the metastable $R{\bar 3}c$ phase appeared after releasing the pressure, was observed in MnTiO$_3$, [@PhysChemMinerals.16.621] FeTiO$_3$, [@PhysChemMinerals.18.244] and ZnGeO$_3$. [@PhysChemMinerals.33.217] Ferroelectric LiTaO$_3$ also exhibited the $R3c \to Pbnm$ phase transition at high pressures. [@JApplPhys.102.083503]
![The square of the $A_{2u}$ mode frequency in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase of HgTiO$_3$ as a function of hydrostatic pressure.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.ps)
To determine the pressure of the $R3c \to R{\bar 3}c$ phase transition accurately, the square of the $A_{2u}$ phonon frequency in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase was plotted as a function of hydrostatic pressure (Fig. \[fig3\]). It turned out that this dependence is non-monotonic and the pressure of the phase transition is $\sim$152 kbar. This means that in the whole pressure range before the phase transformation to the $Pbnm$ phase at 141 kbar the ground state at $T = 0$ is ferroelectric (the $R3c$ phase). In the $Pbnm$ phase, the ferroelectric instability is absent.
An interesting feature which is seen in Fig. \[fig3\] is the reentrance of the ferroelectric instability in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase at pressures above 290 kbar. Similar behavior of the ferroelectric mode frequency with increasing pressure was predicted for a number of oxides with the cubic perovskite structure [@PhysRevLett.95.196804; @PhaseTransitions.80.385] and explained by an increased mixing of the Ti $3d$ and the O $2s$ orbitals at high pressures. The effect observed in HgTiO$_3$ needs further investigation, but it should be noted that it is observed in a crystal in which the oxygen environment around the Ti atom is different from that in cubic perovskites.
The obtained results enable to propose new interpretation of the phase transition observed in high-pressure X-ray experiments. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] The specific energy of the cubic ($Pm3m$) phase, which was considered in Refs. as a high-pressure phase, is about 1 eV higher than the specific energy of the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase, and its specific volume is higher than that of the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase (Table \[table2\]). This means that the large difference in enthalpies of these phases will only increase with increasing pressure. Therefore, the $Pm3m$ phase should not be considered as a high-pressure phase. According to our calculations, the pressure coefficient of the rhombohedral angle in the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase is $d\alpha / dP = +0.0054$$^\circ$/kbar, and so at $P = 20$ kbar the structure remains strongly distorted, with a relative decrease of interplanar distance of about $P/3B \approx 0.32$%. This value is several times smaller than the relative decrease of interplanar distance observed at the transition pressure.
However, if one assumes that in Refs. the pressure was measured incorrectly (according to our estimates, it was underestimated by 5–7 times), and one takes the relative change of the $d_{024}$ interplanar distance [^2] as a measure of pressure, the agreement between our calculations and experiment becomes satisfactory. Indeed, at the $R{\bar 3}c \to Pbnm$ phase-transition pressure (141 kbar) the calculated decrease of the $d_{024}$ interplanar distance (compared to $P = 0$) is 2.0%, whereas in experiment it is 2.3%. The calculated drop in mean interplanar distance [^3] at the phase transition (0.054%) is also close to that observed in the experiment ($\sim$0.05%).
![Calculated diffraction patterns for $R{\bar 3}c$ and $Pbnm$ phases of HgTiO$_3$ at $P = 141$ kbar (for Cu $K_{\alpha}$-radiation).[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.ps)
The lattice parameters and atomic coordinates for the $Pbnm$ structure at 141 kbar are given in Table \[table3\]. The calculated diffraction patterns for the $R{\bar 3}c$ and $Pbnm$ phases at 141 kbar are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. The pattern for the $Pbnm$ phase is really close to that observed in the high-pressure experiment. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] When transforming to the high-pressure phase, the (012) line becomes broader because in the orthorhombic phase a pair of close lines with indices (002) and (110) appears. The (021) line characteristic for the orthorhombic phase is clearly seen in experimental diffraction patterns obtained during releasing the pressure. [@Ferroelectrics.326.117; @Ferroelectrics.337.71] The most serious disagreement between our calculation and experiment consists in the absence of (111) line of the orthorhombic phase in the diffraction patterns at high pressure. Possibly, this is due to the incompleteness of structural transformation. We think that new high-pressure experiments are needed to check the proposed interpretation of the high-pressure phase transition in HgTiO$_3$.
\[sec3e\]Thermodynamic stability of HgTiO$_3$
---------------------------------------------
As was mentioned in Sec. \[sec3c\], the inconsistency between the observation of SGH signal and the absence of dielectric hysteresis loops in HgTiO$_3$ at 300 K can be explained by easiness of the defect formation. Indeed, according to Ref. , the samples darkened when exposed to light. The absence of a sharp peak on the temperature dependence of dielectric constant at the Curie temperature can also be explained by the existence of defects. To clarify why the defect formation in HgTiO$_3$ is so easy, first-principles calculations of the thermodynamic stability of mercury titanate were performed.
To check the thermodynamic stability of HgTiO$_3$, the enthalpy of the $R{\bar 3}c$ phase was compared with that of the mixture of starting components, orthorhombic HgO and rutile TiO$_2$. The calculations showed that at $P = 0$ the enthalpy of mercury titanate is 150 meV (per formula unit) higher than the sum of enthalpies of HgO and TiO$_2$. This means that at $P = 0$ mercury titanate is thermodynamically unstable against its decomposition into starting components. However, because the specific volume of the HgTiO$_3$ unit cell is significantly lower than the sum of specific volumes of HgO and TiO$_2$, the stability of HgTiO$_3$ increases with increasing pressure. For example, at 58.8 kbar the enthalpy of HgTiO$_3$ is 75 meV lower than the sum of enthalpies of HgO and TiO$_2$. This explains why the synthesis of mercury titanate is possible only at high pressures.
Conclusions
===========
First-principles calculations within the density functional theory have revealed that the $R3c$ structure experimentally observed in HgTiO$_3$ is metastable at ambient pressure. With increasing hydrostatic pressure, the ground-state structure changes following the $R{\bar 3} \to R3c \to Pbnm$ sequence, and so a new interpretation of the phase transition observed at high pressure is proposed. It is shown that the appearance of ferroelectricity in HgTiO$_3$ at $P = 0$ is associated with an unstable phonon mode. Optical and elastic properties of different phases of mercury titanate are calculated. The band gap obtained in the *GW* approximation ($E_g = 2.43$ eV) agrees with the experimental data better than the value obtained in the LDA approximation (1.49 eV). Analysis of the thermodynamic stability explains why the synthesis of mercury titanate is possible only at high pressures.
The calculations presented in this work have been performed on the laboratory computer cluster (16 cores).
[26]{}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 10.1016/j.cossms.2006.06.003) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1146/annurev.matsci.37.061206.113016) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1134/S1063783409110225) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1767) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.196804) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/01411590701228117) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0022-4596(73)80007-6) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00150190500318685) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00150190600716234) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/22/4/045504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016j.cpc.2009.07.007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.1227) [“,” ](http://opium.sourceforge.net/) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.12471) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1134/S1063783409020279) [“” ](http://www.springermaterials.com/navigation/) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.200945074) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.085125) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00223309) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/BF00202576) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s00269-006-0070-5) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.2794721)
[^1]: In the $R{\bar 3}$ phase, the dielectric constant is considerably lower: $\varepsilon_{xx} = 28$, $\varepsilon_{zz} = 27$.
[^2]: Absolute values of $d_{024}$ at $P = 0$ shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. disagree with the lattice parameters given in this paper for the same pressure (the deviation is about 5%).
[^3]: At the $R{\bar 3}c \to Pbnm$ phase transition the (012) peak splits into two components with (110) and (002) indices.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a simple one-dimensional Cellular Automaton (CA) which has the property that an initial state composed of two binary numbers evolves quickly into a final state which is their sum. We call this CA the Adding Cellular Automaton (ACA). The ACA requires only $2N$ two-state cells in order to add any two $N-1$ bit binary numbers. The ACA could be directly realized as a wireless nanometer-scale computing device - a possible implementation using coupled quantum dots is outlined.'
address: 'Physics Department, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3PU, England'
author:
- 'Simon C. Benjamin$^{a)}$ and Neil F. Johnson'
title: 'A Possible Nanometer-scale Computing Device Based on an Adding Cellular Automaton'
---
0.2in
PACS numbers: 89.80, 85.42, 02.40.S $^{a)}$ correspondence to: [email protected]
For more than thirty years the processing power associated with a single silicon chip has increased exponentially. This growth results from the continual increase in the number of transistors integrated into the chip. State-of-the-art chips now have features of the order of 1000 atoms wide. Before this number is reduced by a single order, we may expect quantum effects to become sufficiently strong that they must be explicitly allowed for in the design.
One is naturally led to ask the question, may there not be some wholly different computational architecture that is more efficient (in some sense more ‘natural’) in the quantum mechanical regime? A number of theoretical studies (e.g. [@domino; @lines; @Obermayer; @parametron]) have proposed novel processing systems of this kind. These structures have a certain feature in common: they consist of a large number of identical cellular units. Systems of this kind are related to the mathematical idea of cellular automata.
The basic cellular automaton [@vonN] is a $D$-dimensional lattice of identical cells, each of which is in one of a finite set of possible internal states (called the ‘state alphabet’). The entire lattice, which may be infinite or periodic, is updated in discrete time steps. On each update, each cell assumes a new state determined by its own present state, and the state of a certain set of local cells (the cell’s ‘neighborhood’). For example, in a one-dimensional CA a cell’s neighborhood might consist of just the cell itself and its immediate neighbors. The update rule, which specifies what internal state to assume for each possible arrangement of states in the neighborhood, is referred to as the ‘table’. The neighborhood, and the ‘table’, are the same for all the cells.
In the first part of this letter we introduce a one-dimensional CA designed to have the property that an initial state composed of two binary numbers evolves into a final state which is their sum. We call this CA the Adding Cellular Automaton (ACA). We have designed the ACA to include certain features that make direct physical realization possible. We expect that there are many physical systems capable of implementing the ACA scheme. In the second part of the letter we provide one example, a modified version of the quantum dot architecture proposed in Ref. [@Obermayer].
The ACA has excellent efficiency; the addition of two $N-1$ bit numbers requires only $2N$ cells (with an alphabet of just two states) and a maximum of $2N$ updates. Furthermore, the final state is such that a third number may be encoded onto the ACA, and the addition process repeated. Hence the ACA may sum a whole sequence of numbers.
There are two possible geometries for the ACA, a simple line of cells and a closed circle. Figure 1 shows the states through which a 10 cell ACA passes as it performs an addition; a circular geometry is assumed so that the right-most cell of each line is adjacent to the left-most cell. The figure indicates how two numbers, $A$ and $B$, must be encoded to form the ACA’s initial state. The subscripts indicate a particular bit in the binary representation of the number, $A=\sum_{i=0} A_i 2^i$, and similarly for $B$ and the output $C=A+B$. The ACA is unusual in that it has two different tables (update rules), the ‘add’ and the ‘carry’ table, which are applied alternately. There are also two interlaced subsets of cells, the $\alpha$ set and the $\beta$ set; whilst one set is being updated the other remains static. The two update tables are defined in Figure 1, and the grid shows that ‘carry’ and ‘add’ are applied to first one cell subgroup and then the other. This pattern is repeated until a total of $2N$ individual updates have been performed (for a system with $2N$ cells). The sum is then in the indicated cells; note that it is rotated (by $N$ cells) with respect to the input $A$. It is because of this rotation that the circular geometry has an advantage over the linear design; the latter would require an additional $N$ cells so that the answer should not ‘fall off the end’. Regardless of the choice of input numbers, the answer $A+B$ always occupies the same cells after all $2N$ steps have been performed. This assertion can easily be proved for an ACA of reasonable size ($\sim 30$ cells or less) by exhaustive computer simulation for all possible $A$ and $B$. Readers can verify the validity for any specific $A$ and $B$ using the interactive version of Fig. 1 [@web].
From the grid in Fig. 1 it is clear why the division into two subsets of cells is useful. On any single update the new state of a cell depends only on its own current state and the state of a neighboring [*static*]{} cell, i.e. one which is not subject to the current update. Thus the cells that are to be updated on a given step are independent of one-another. This means that in the physical system, each cell may change its state at a random instant within some given time interval (this would occur for a system driven by photonic excitation, for example). Clearly, this spread of instants would randomize the behavior of a simple CA in which inter-dependent cells are updated together.
The physical implementation of the ACA requires an array of cells, each cell having at least two stable states and being sensitive to the state of its neighbors. One possible cell would be the bistable double-quantum-dot, driven through its internal states by laser pulses [@Obermayer]. The beam would encompass the whole ACA and update all cells that respond to its frequency; a single laser could drive a large number of independent ACA devices. The potential for such structures as a realization of a CA has been considered in some detail in Ref. [@Obermayer] and will be briefly summarized here. We use the notation x-[**y**]{}-z to refer to a cell in state y whose left and right neighbors are in states x and z respectively (for a circular CA, the sequence of cells x-[**y**]{}-z runs clockwise).
Consider the basic cell as comprising a coupled pair of quantum dots as suggested above; the low-lying single particle states are those for which the electron is localized on one or other of the dots. The lowest energy state within each of the two localizations are the physical representations of ‘1’ and ‘0’. One dot is assumed to be slightly smaller than the other, so that the two localizations are non-degenerate. The energy difference is slight and the wavefunction overlap is very small so that the rate of spontaneous decay from one dot to the other is much slower than the total computation time. The CA is built up from such cells simply by producing a string of them (see e.g. the upper part of Fig. 2). There is no tunneling allowed between the cells; they ‘feel’ the states of their neighbors via the Coulomb interaction. The Coulomb repulsion is greater for a pair of cells in the same state than for a pair in opposite states; the energy difference has a $r^{-3}$ dipole-like form, where $r$ is the cell-cell separation. If the distance to a cell’s neighbor on the right is not equal to the distance to its left neighbor, then the two stable energy levels for an isolated cell split into eight levels, one for each combination of neighbor states. This is shown in Figure 3. The idea of having two species of cell and updating them alternately is realized by using two different sizes of double-dot. The size difference shifts the double-dot’s energy levels and thus makes it possible to address one type at a time.
In order to produce the desired updates of the CA, a third transient state is employed. This is a single-particle state in which the electron probability distribution is spread over both dots. The transient state spontaneously decays very quickly into one of the stable states. As shown in Fig. 3, an update is produced by pumping the system with light of a frequency that will excite cells of one size from a given stable state (say 1-[**0**]{}-0) into the transient state. The cell may decay from the transient state into either the original state (1-[**0**]{}-0) or the flip state (1-[**1**]{}-0). However, if the former occurs the electron will be re-excited by the pump, so that we can flip the state with any desired certainty ($<1$) simply by using a pulse of sufficient duration. Note that the frequency width of the pulse must be sufficiently narrow to excite from only one of the levels shown in Fig. 3, yet sufficiently broad to cover the sub-splitting (shown shaded gray) due to non-neighboring cells.
A difficulty arises with the above system which is associated with the bottom two lines in the ‘add’ table of Fig. 1. The states X-[**1**]{}-0 and X-[**1**]{}-1 (where $X=0$ or $1$) transform [*into each other*]{}; this swap cannot be directly translated into a sequence of pulses, as required by the physical process described above [@Ober_noted]. We must make one of the following modifications: use $N$ extra cells of a third size, use triple rather than double dots, employ next-nearest neighbor interactions, or use a coherent switching process. These possibilities will be elaborated upon elsewhere [@full_analysis]. Here we will focus on the first solution as it seems the least difficult experimentally.
We will modify the system proposed in Ref. [@Obermayer] by using three rather than two sizes of cell and correspondingly three inter-cell distances. A system of this kind is shown schematically in Fig. 2. We will also need a third update rule; this rule is ‘shift’. Its effect is simply to make the target cell’s state equal to the state of its immediate clockwise neighbor. In the lower part of Fig. 2 we tabulate the stages the ACA evolves through in terms of the light pulses to which it is subjected. The notation $\omega_{7\ 5}^\alpha$ denotes a pulse of the correct frequency to pump the cells of size $\alpha$ from the state “7"$=1-{\bf 1}-1$, via the transient state to “5"$=1-{\bf 0}-1$. The letters C, S, and A denote ‘carry’, ‘shift’ and ‘add’ operations respectively. At first glance the grids in Figs. 1 and 2 seem quite different, however the latter actually contains the former. Removing the shaded squares in Fig. 2 recovers the grid in Fig. 1 (excluding the first line). Thus $2N$ update steps in the abstract ACA correspond to $8N$ light pulses in this chosen physical implementation. If we assume a pulse duration of $100\omega^{-1}$ [@Obermayer], then a few picoseconds would be required to add two 8 bit numbers. It is important to note that the proposed device, being composed of bistable units, is a nanometer-scale classical computer rather than a true quantum computer. It does not need to maintain wavefunction coherence, and is therefore far less delicate than a quantum computer.
Possible methods exists for reading and writing the states on the cells in parallel. One might exploit recent experimental work [@cambridge] in which fluctuations of $\pm 1$ in the number of electrons on a quantum dot were measured using the pico-amp current flowing through a nearby constriction. Alternatively one might employ single-electron transistors; these devices have recently been made to work at room temperature [@matsumoto]. We expect it will prove possible to use one such technique to read all the states in the ACA at once (by having one current probe for each ACA cell, as shown in Fig. 2). By careful manipulation of the potential in the probe elements, it should prove possible to use them to write data onto the ACA device as well [@full_analysis]. We stress again that the the double quantum dot system described above represents only one possible implementation; quite different systems (for example, the Single-Electron Parametron [@parametron]) could prove equally well suited.
A modest structure of just two or three cells and probe elements would suffice to test the principles upon which the full ACA is based. In particular, it is important to experimentally measure the various time scales involved. If unwanted spontaneous decay should prove to be an obstacle, a solution would be to embed the ACA device in a photonic band gap material [@photonic]. The ACA may also be kept ‘on-course’ through the addition process by making measurements of the ACA’s state [*during*]{} the computation. Each measurement collapses the quantum state of the cells into ‘1’ or ‘0’, thus preventing a slow drift from the intended evolution [@zeno].
This work was funded by an EPSRC Photonic Materials Grant.
[99]{}
P. D. Tougaw and C. S. Lent, J. Appl. Phys., [**75**]{} 1818 (1994). A. N. Korotkov, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**67**]{} 2412 (1995). K. Obermayer, W. G. Teich and G. Mahler, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{} 8096 and 8111 (1988). K. K. Likharev and A. N. Korotkov, Science [**273**]{} 763 (1996). J. von Neumann, [*Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata*]{}, Univ. of Illinois Press (1966). The web page “http://cm-th.physics.ox.ac.uk/SimonB/adder/add.html" allows Java enabled browsers to generate Fig.1 with any desired $A$ and $B$. This restriction was noted in Ref. [@Obermayer]. S. C. Benjamin and N. F. Johnson, (unpublished). M. Field, C.G. Smith, M. Pepper, D.A. Ritchie, J.E. Frost, G.A.C. Jones and D.G. Hasko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} 1311 (1993). K.Matsumoto, M. Ishii, K. Segawa, and Y. Oka, App. Phys. Lett. [**68**]{} 34 (1996). P.M. Hui and N.F. Johnson, [*Solid State Physics Vol.49*]{}, edited by H. Ehrenreich and F. Spaepen (Academic Press, New York, 1995) p.151. B. Misra and E.C.G. Sudershan, J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{} 756 (1977).
**Figure Captions**
Figure 1. The ‘add’ and ‘carry’ tables for the ACA, together with a grid showing the example of $15+3$. Circular geometry is assumed, hence right-most column is adjacent to the left-most column. See Ref. [@web] for an interactive version.
Figure 2. Above: Possible physical realization of the circular ACA using double quantum dots. Radial lines represent channels for a probe current, with a quantum constriction near each double-dot. Table: Second line shows how two 4-bit numbers, $A$ and $B$, must be loaded into initial state of ACA. Body of table shows the example $A=15$, $B=3$. Deleting the shaded squares recovers fundamental ACA table in Fig. 2.
Figure 3. Left side: Energies of the ‘0’ and ‘1’ states of the double quantum dot, and of the transient state ‘T’ (electron localization is shown schematically). Middle: Splitting of the levels as the states of the neighboring cells are resolved. Right side: Shaded bands show splitting due to non-adjacent cells. Vertical lines show implementation of ‘add’ operation; straight lines: excitation by laser, wiggly lines: spontaneous decay.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Shira Chapman,'
- 'Dongsheng Ge,'
- 'Giuseppe Policastro,'
bibliography:
- 'bibCD.bib'
date:
-
-
title: Holographic Complexity for Defects Distinguishes Action from Volume
---
Introduction
============
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
Holographic Complexity with a Defect {#sec:CVCA}
====================================
Holographic Complexity for Subregions {#sec:subregion}
=====================================
Complexity in QFT {#sec:QFT}
=================
Discussion {#Discussion}
==========
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Alex Belin, Jan de Boer, Horacio Casini, Alejandra Castro, Bartek Czech, Lorenzo Di Pietro, Ben Freivogel, Damian Galante, Andreas Karch, Marco Meineri, Juan Pedraza, Jan Troost and Erik Verlinde for many useful discussions. We would especially like to thank Davide Gaiotto, for suggesting this question to us, and Costas Bachas and Rob Myers, for many useful discussions and suggestions at various stages of this work and for sending us their comments on the manuscript. DG and GP would like to thank the hospitality of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics where part of this work was carried out. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. All the authors would like to thank the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality during the workshop “Entanglement in Quantum Systems” where part of this work was carried out. SC would also like to thank the INFN for partial support during the workshop. SC acknowledges funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under starting grant No. 715656 (GenGeoHol) awarded to Diego M. Hofman.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has been shown that the communities of complex networks often overlap with each other. However, there is no effective method to quantify the overlapping community structure. In this paper, we propose a metric to address this problem. Instead of assuming that one node can only belong to one community, our metric assumes that a maximal clique only belongs to one community. In this way, the overlaps between communities are allowed. To identify the overlapping community structure, we construct a maximal clique network from the original network, and prove that the optimization of our metric on the original network is equivalent to the optimization of Newman’s modularity on the maximal clique network. Thus the overlapping community structure can be identified through partitioning the maximal clique network using any modularity optimization method. The effectiveness of our metric is demonstrated by extensive tests on both the artificial networks and the real world networks with known community structure. The application to the word association network also reproduces excellent results.'
author:
- 'Hua-Wei Shen'
- 'Xue-Qi Cheng'
- 'Jia-Feng Guo'
title: Quantifying and identifying the overlapping community structure in networks
---
Introduction
============
Many complex systems in nature and society can be described in terms of networks or graphs. The study of networks is crucial to understand both the structure and the function of these complex systems [@Albert2002; @Newman2003]. A common feature of complex networks is community structure, i.e., the existence of groups of nodes such that nodes within a group are much more connected to each other than to the rest of the network. Communities reflect the locality of the topological relationships between the elements of the target systems [@Cheng2009], and may shed light on the relation between the structure and the function of complex networks. Take the World Wide Web as an example, closely hyperlinked web pages form a community and they often talk about related topics [@Flake2002].
The identification of community structure has attracted much attention from various scientific fields. Many methods have been proposed and applied successfully to some specific complex networks [@Girvan2002; @Newman2004a; @Newman2004b; @Clauset2004; @Guimera2005; @Duch2005; @Newman2006; @Raghavan2007; @Sales-Pardo2007; @Blondel2008]. In order to quantify the community structure of networks, Newman and Girvan [@Newman2004a] proposed the modularity as a measure of a partition of network, in which each node only belongs to one community. The proposal of modularity has prompted the detection of community structure. However, the modularity faces several problems. For example, the modularity suffers a resolution limit problem [@Fortunato2007; @Kumpula2007]. Furthermore, the modularity-based methods cannot tackle overlapping community structure, in which one node may belong to more than one community. Figure \[fig1\] shows an example network with overlapping community structure. Intuitively, overlapping community structure can be represented by a cover of network. A cover of network is defined as a set of clusters such that each node is assigned to one or more clusters and no cluster is a proper subset of any other cluster. As to the network in figure \[fig1\], the overlapping community structure can be represented by the cover $\{$$\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$, $\{3,7,8,9,10,11,12,13\}$, $\{10,11,12,14,15,16,17\}$,$ \{18,19,20,21,22,23,24\}$$\}$.
![A schematic network with overlapping community structure. Communities are differentiated by colors and the overlapping regions are emphasized in red. The edges between communities are colored in gray.[]{data-label="fig1"}](schematic.eps){width="6cm"}
Overlapping community structure has been widely studied [@Palla2005; @Baumes2005; @Zhang2007; @Palla2007; @Farkas2007; @Shen2009; @Lancichinetti2009a; @Nicosia2009; @Evans2009]. In [@Palla2005], the community structure is uncovered by $k$-clique percolation and the overlaps between communities are guaranteed by the fact that one node can participate in more than one clique. However, the $k$-clique method gives rise to an uncomplete cover of network, i.e., some nodes may not belong to any community. In addition, the hierarchical structure can not be revealed for a given $k$. In [@Nicosia2009], by introducing the concept of the belonging coefficients of each node to its communities, the authors proposed a general framework for extending the traditional modularity to quantify overlapping community structure. The method provides a new idea to find overlapping community structure. However, the physical meaning of the belonging coefficient lacks a clear explanation. Furthermore, the framework is hard to extend to large scale networks since it is difficult to find an efficient algorithm to search the huge solution space. Recently, Evans et al [@Evans2009] proposed a method to identify the overlapping community structure by partitioning a line graph constructed from the original network. This method only allows the communities to overlap at nodes.
In this paper, a measure for the quality of a cover is proposed to quantify the overlapping community structure referred as $Q_c$ (quality of a cover). With the measure $Q_c$, the overlapping community structure can be identified by finding an optimal cover, i.e., the one with the maximum $Q_c$. The $Q_c$ is based on a maximal clique view of the original network. A maximal clique is a clique (i.e. a complete subgraph) which is not a subset of any other clique in a graph. The maximal clique view is according to a reasonable assumption that a maximal clique cannot be shared by two communities due to that it is highly connective. To find an optimal cover, we construct a maximal clique network from the original network. We then prove that the optimization of $Q_c$ on the original network is equivalent to the optimization of the modularity on the maximal clique network. Thus the overlapping community structure can be identified through partitioning the maximal clique network with an efficient modularity optimization algorithm, e.g., the fast unfolding algorithm in [@Blondel2008]. The effectiveness of the measure $Q_c$ is demonstrated by extensive tests on both the artificial networks and the real world networks with known community structure and the application to the word association network.
The quantifying and identifying methods {#method}
=======================================
In this section, we first propose a measure $Q_c$ to quantify the overlapping community structure of networks. Then the overlapping community structure of a network is identified by partitioning a maximal clique network constructed from the original network using a modularity optimization algorithm. Finally, some discussions about our method are given.
Quantifying the overlapping community structure
-----------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, the overlapping community structure can be represented as a cover of network instead of a partition of network. Therefore, the overlapping community structure can be quantified through a measure of a cover of network.
As well known, the modularity was used to measure the goodness of a partition of network. Given an un-weighted, undirected network $G(E,V)$ and a partition $P$ of the network $G$, the modularity can be formalized as $$\begin{aligned}
Q = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{c\in
P}{\sum_{vw}{\delta_{vc}\delta_{wc}\left(A_{vw}-\frac{k_v
k_w}{L}\right)}},\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is the adjacency matrix of the network $G$, $L=\sum_{vw}A_{vw}$ is the total weight of all the edges, and $k_v =
\sum_{w}A_{vw}$ is the degree of the vertex $v$.
In equation (\[eq1\]), $\delta_{vc}$ denotes whether the vertex $v$ belongs to the community $c$. The value of $\delta_{vc}$ is $1$ when the vertex $v$ belongs to the community $c$ and $0$ otherwise. For a cover of network, however, a vertex may belong to more than one community. Thus $\delta_{vc}$ needs to be extended to a belonging coefficient $\alpha_{vc}$, which reflects how much the vertex $v$ belongs to the community $c$.
With the belonging coefficient $\alpha_{vc}$, the goodness of a cover $C$ can be measured by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_c = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{c\in
C}{\sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vc}\alpha_{wc}\left(A_{vw}-\frac{k_v
k_w}{L}\right)}}.\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$
The idea of the belonging coefficient was proposed in [@Nicosia2009]. Its authors also pointed out that the belonging coefficient should satisfy a normalization property. This property is formally written as $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq \alpha_{vc} \leq 1, \qquad \forall v\in V, \forall c\in
C\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{c\in C}{\alpha_{vc}}=1\label{eq4}.\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[eq3\]) and equation (\[eq4\]) only give the general constraints on $\alpha_{vc}$, which lead to such a huge solution space that the enumeration of all the solutions is impractical. To reduce the solution space and make the problem tractable, we introduce an additivity property for the belonging coefficient: the belonging coefficient of a vertex to a community $c$ is the sum of the belonging coefficients of the vertex to all of $c$’s sub-communities.
For example, we assume that $C=\{c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{r-1},$ $c_{r},
\ldots, c_{s}, c_{s+1}, \ldots, c_n\}$ is a cover of the network $G$ and $C'=\{c_1, c_2, \ldots,c_{r-1}, c_{u}, c_{s+1}, \ldots, c_n\}$ is another cover of $G$. The difference between $C'$ and $C$ is that the community $c_u$ is the union of the communities $c_r, \ldots,
c_s$. The additivity property of belonging coefficient can then be formally denoted as $$\alpha_{vc_u} = \sum_{i=r}^{s}{\alpha_{vc_i}}. \label{eq5}$$
The belonging coefficient $\alpha_{vc}$ reflects how much a vertex $v$ belongs to a community $c$. Intuitively, it is proportional to the total weight of the edges connecting the vertex $v$ to the vertices in the community $c$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{vc} \propto \sum_{w\in V(c)}A_{vw},\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ where $V(c)$ denotes the set of vertices belonging to community $c$. Note that the additivity property of belonging coefficient requires that communities are disjoint from a proper view of the network. Therefore, we introduce the maximal clique view to achieve this purpose. We define $\alpha_{vc}$ as the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{vc} = \frac{1}{\alpha_v}\sum_{w\in
V(c)}\frac{O^{c}_{vw}}{O_{vw}}A_{vw},\label{eq7}\end{aligned}$$ where $O_{vw}$ denotes the number of maximal cliques containing the edge $(v,w)$ in the whole network, $O^{c}_{vw}$ denotes the number of maximal cliques containing the edge $(v,w)$ in the community $c$, and $\alpha_v$ is a normalization term denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_v = \sum_{c\in C}{\sum_{w\in
V(c)}\frac{O^{c}_{vw}}{O_{vw}}A_{vw}}.\label{eq8}\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, the definition in equation (\[eq7\]) satisfies the normalization property. It also satisfies the additivity property if we assume that each maximal clique only belongs to one community. This assumption is reasonable since a maximal clique is highly connective that any two communities sharing a maximal clique should be combined into a single one.
With equation (\[eq2\]) and equation (\[eq7\]), we obtain the detailed form of $Q_c$ as a measure to the quality of a cover of network. Note that when a cover degrades to a partition, $Q_c$ becomes the modularity $Q$ in [@Clauset2004] accordingly. In addition, $Q_c=0$ when all vertices belong to the same community, and it will be shown later in section \[sec3\] that a high value of $Q_c$ indicates a significant overlapping community structure.
Identifying the overlapping community structure
-----------------------------------------------
With the measure $Q_c$, the overlapping community structure of network can be identified by finding the optimal cover with maximum $Q_c$. To find the optimal cover, we construct a maximal clique network from the original network. Then the overlapping community structure can be identified through partitioning the maximal clique network.
### Construction of the maximal clique network
Given an un-weighted, undirected network $G$, a corresponding maximal clique network $G'$ can be constructed through the following method.
The maximal clique network $G'$ is constructed by defining its nodes and edges. We first find out all the maximal cliques in $G$. We can simply take all these maximal cliques as nodes of $G'$. In practice, however, we observe that some maximal cliques would not be so highly connective if their sizes are too small. Such a maximal clique either lies between different communities (e.g., the maximal cliques $\{4,23\}$ and $\{5,22\}$ in the network shown in figure \[fig1\]) or connects a node to the whole network (e.g., the maximal clique $\{8,11\}$ in the network shown in figure \[fig2\](a)). To deal with these small maximal cliques, we introduce a threshold $k$. Specifically, given the parameter $k$, we only refer to those maximal cliques with the size no smaller than $k$ as the maximal cliques, and refer to those with the size smaller than $k$ as subordinate maximal cliques. We then denote the vertices only belonging to subordinate maximal cliques as subordinate vertices. In this way, each maximal clique or subordinate vertex in the original network $G$ is taken as one node of $G'$.
Note that all the subordinate vertices and the maximal cliques form a cover $C$ of the original network $G$. For a subordinate vertex $v$ and a cluster $c$ in the cover $C$, the value of $\alpha_{vc}$ is defined to be $1.0$ when $v$ belongs to the cluster $c$ and $0.0$ otherwise. As to other vertices, $\alpha_{vc}$ can be obtained according to equation (\[eq7\]).
Now we can define the edge of the maximal clique network $G'$ by defining its adjacency matrix $B$. Let $m_x$ denote the set of the original network’s vertices corresponding to the $x$-th node in $G'$. The element of $B$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{xy} = \sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vm_x}\alpha_{wm_y}A_{vw}} \label{eq9}\end{aligned}$$ and the strength (degree) of the $x$-th node $$\begin{aligned}
s_x = \sum_{y}{B_{xy}}=\sum_{v}{\alpha_{vm_x}k_v}.\label{eq10}\end{aligned}$$
{width="14cm"}
For clarity, figure \[fig2\] illustrates the construction process of the maximal clique network from an example network with the parameter $k=3$. Figure \[fig2\](b) shows the subordinate vertices and the maximal cliques. Each of them becomes a node in the resulting maximal clique network. For example, the maximal clique {1,2,4} corresponds to the node $a$ and the subordinate vertex {5} corresponds to the node $d$. Each of these maximal cliques or subordinate vertices is a cluster in a cover $C$ of the original network. Their belonging coefficients corresponding to the cover $C$ are shown in figure \[fig2\](c). According to these belonging coefficients and equation (\[eq9\]), the weight of each edge of the maximal clique network is obtained. Take the edge connecting the nodes $a$ and $b$ as an example. As known, the node $a$ corresponds to the maximal clique {1,2,4} and the node $b$ corresponds to the maximal clique {1,3,4}. Using the equation (\[eq9\]), the weight of this edge is $\alpha_{1a}$$\alpha_{3b}$+$\alpha_{1a}\alpha_{4b}$+$\alpha_{2a}\alpha_{1b}$+$\alpha_{2a}\alpha_{4b}$+$\alpha_{4a}\alpha_{1b}$+$\alpha_{4a}\alpha_{3b}$=$0.5$ +$0.25$+$0.5$+$0.5$+$0.25$+$0.5$=$2.5$.
The constructed maximal clique network is a weighted network though the original network is un-weighted. The total weight $L'$ of all the edges in the maximal clique network is equal to the total weight (number) $L$ of edges in the original network. The proof is $$\begin{aligned}
L' &=& \sum_{xy}B_{xy} \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{xy}{\sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vm_x}\alpha_{wm_y}A_{vw}}} \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{vw}{A_{vw}\sum_{x}{\alpha_{vm_x}}\sum_{y}{\alpha_{wm_y}}} \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{vw}{A_{vw}} \nonumber \\
&=& L.\label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$
Each vertex in the original network corresponds to more than one node in the maximal clique network. For example, in figure \[fig2\], the vertex $1$ corresponds to two nodes $a$ and $b$ in the maximal clique network. Thus, a partition of the maximal clique network can be mapped to a cover of the original network, which holds the information about the overlapping community structure of the original network.
### Finding the overlapping community structure
Now we investigate the overlapping community structure of the original network through partitioning its corresponding maximal clique network. To find the natural partition of a network, the optimization of modularity is the widely used technique. The partition with the maximum modularity is regarded as the optimal partition of network. We employ the algorithm proposed in [@Blondel2008] to partition our maximal clique network. As an example, figure \[fig3\] shows the partition of a maximal clique network. Different parts of the partition are differentiated by shapes or colors.
![The maximal clique network constructed from the schematic network in figure \[fig1\]. The label near each node shows its corresponding vertices in the original network. The width of line indicates the weight of the corresponding edge. The self-loop edge of each node is omitted and its width is reflected by the volume of the associated circles, squares or triangles. In addition, the optimal partition of the maximal clique network is also depicted. The communities in this partition are differentiated by shapes. Furthermore, the circle-coded community can be partitioned into two sub-communities. The four communities are shown in different colors, which are identical to the communities depicted in figure \[fig1\]. Here $k$ is $4$. []{data-label="fig3"}](maximal_clique_network.eps){width="7cm"}
As mentioned above, each partition of the maximal clique network corresponds to a cover of the original network and the cover tells us the overlapping community structure. The key problem lies in that whether the optimal partition of the maximal clique network corresponds to the optimal cover of the original network. To answer this question, we analyze the relation between the modularity of the maximal clique network and the $Q_c$ of the original network.
Let $\mathcal {P}=\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_l\}$ be a partition of the maximal clique network and $\mathcal{C}=\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_l\}$ be the corresponding cover of the original network. Here, $l$ is the size of $\mathcal{P}$ or $\mathcal{C}$, i.e., the number of communities. Using modularity, the quality of the partition $\mathcal{P}$ can be measured by $$\begin{aligned}
Q &=& \frac{1}{L'} \sum_{i}{\sum_{x,y\in p_i}{\left(B_{xy}-\frac{s_x
s_y}{L'}\right)}}.\label{eq12}\end{aligned}$$
Using equations (\[eq9\]) and (\[eq10\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
%Q &=& \frac{1}{L'} \sum_{i}{\sum_{x,y\in
%p_i}{\left(\sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vm_x}\alpha_{wm_y}A_{vw}} - \frac{1}{L'}\sum_{v}{\alpha_{vm_x}k_v}\sum_{w}{\alpha_{wm_y}k_w} \right)}} \nonumber \\
Q &=& \frac{1}{L'} \sum_{i}{\sum_{x,y\in p_i}{\left(\sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vm_x}\alpha_{wm_y}A_{vw}}\right.}} \nonumber \\
&&\qquad \qquad- \left.
\frac{1}{L'}\sum_{v}{\alpha_{vm_x}k_v}\sum_{w}{\alpha_{wm_y}k_w} \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{L'} \sum_{i}{\sum_{x,y\in
p_i}{\sum_{vw}{\alpha_{vm_x}\alpha_{wm_y}\left(A_{vw}-\frac{k_v
k_w}{L'}\right)}}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{L}
\sum_{i}{\sum_{vw}\alpha_{vc_i}\alpha_{wc_i}\left(A_{vw}-\frac{k_v
k_w}{L}\right)} \nonumber \\
&=& Q_c .\label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[eq13\]) tells us that the optimization of the $Q_c$ on the original network is equivalent to the optimization of the modularity on the maximal clique network. Thus we can find the optimal cover of the original network by finding the optimal partition of the corresponding maximal clique network. The optimal cover reflects the overlapping community structure of the original network.
Discussions
-----------
As to our method, it is important to select an appropriate parameter $k$. On one hand, the parameter $k$ affects the constituent of the overlapping regions between communities. According to the definition to subordinate vertices, they are excluded from the overlapping regions. Thus the larger the parameter $k$, the less the number of vertices which can occur in the overlapping regions. When $k\rightarrow \infty$, the maximal clique network is identical to the original network and no overlap is identified. On the other hand, since the subordinate maximal cliques are not so highly connective, the parameter $k$ should not be too small in practice. The choice of the parameter $k$ depends on the specific networks. Observed from many real world networks, the typical value of $k$ is often between $3$ and $6$. Additionally, as to the networks where larger cliques are rare, our method is close to the traditional modularity-based partition methods. In this case, rare overlaps will be found.
Both the traditional modularity and the $Q_c$ are based on the significance of link density in communities compared to a null-model reference network, e.g., the configuration model network. However, differently from the traditional modularity which requires that each node can only belong to one community, $Q_c$ requires that each maximal clique can only belong to one community. In this way, $Q_c$ takes advantage of both the local topological structure (i.e., the maximal clique) and the global statistical significance of link density.
The same to the traditional modularity, however, the measure $Q_c$ also suffers the resolution limit problem [@Fortunato2007], especially when applied to large scale complex networks. Recently, some methods [@Arenas2008] have been proposed to address the resolution limit problem of modularity. These methods are also appropriate to the measure $Q_c$.
Now we turn to the efficiency of our method. It is difficult to give an analytical form of the computational complexity of our method. Here we only discuss what influences the efficiency of our method. Our method consists of three stages, finding out the maximal cliques, constructing the maximal clique network and partitioning the maximal clique network. As to the first stage, we need to find out all the maximal cliques in the network. It is widely believed to be a non-polynomial problem. However, for real world networks, finding all the maximal cliques is easy due to the sparseness of these networks. The computational complexity of the second stage depends on the number of edges in the original networks. Finally, the partition stage rests with the number of the maximal cliques and subordinate vertices. Taken together, our method is very efficient on real world networks.
In addition, as mentioned above, the overlapping community structure can be identified by the optimization of $Q_c$. Similarly, iteratively applying this method to each community, we can investigate the sub-communities correspondingly. In this way, a rigid hierarchical relation of overlapping communities can be identified from the whole network.
Results {#sec3}
=======
In this section, we extensively test our method on the artificial networks and the real world networks with known community structure. Then we apply our method to a large real world complex network, which has been shown to possess overlapping community structure.
Tests on artificial networks
----------------------------
![Test of our method on the benchmark networks. The parameter $k$ in the legend corresponds to the parameter $k$ in our method. The threshold $\mu=0.5$ (dashed vertical line in the figure) marks the border beyond which communities are no longer defined in the strong sense [@Radicchi2004], i.e., such that each node has more neighbors in its own community than in the others. Each point corresponds to an average over $100$ graph realization.[]{data-label="fig4"}](benchmark.eps){width="8cm"}
To test our method, we utilize the benchmark proposed in [@Lancichinetti2009b]. It provides benchmark networks with heterogenous distributions of node degree and community size. In addition, it allows for the overlaps between communities. This benchmark poses a much more severe test to community detection algorithms than Newman’s standard benchmark [@Newman2004a]. There are many parameters to control the generated networks in this benchmark, the number of nodes $N$, the average node degree $\langle
k \rangle$, the maximum node degree $maxk$, the mixing ratio $\mu$, the exponent of the power-law node degree distribution $t1$, the exponent of the power-law distribution of community size $t2$, the minimum community size $minc$, the maximum community size $maxc$, the number of overlapped nodes $on$, and the number of memberships of each overlapped node $om$. In our tests, we use the default parameter configuration where $N=1000$, $\langle k \rangle=15$, $maxk=50$, $t1=2$, $t2=1$, $mic=20$, $maxc=50$, $on=50$ and $om=2$. By tuning the parameter $\mu$, we test the effectiveness of our method on the networks with different fuzziness of communities. The larger the parameter $\mu$, the fuzzier the community structure of the generated networks is.
To evaluate the effectiveness of an algorithm for the identification of overlapping community structure, a measure is needed to compare the cover found by the algorithm with the ground truth. In [@Lancichinetti2009a], a measure is proposed to compare two covers, which is an extension form of *variation of information*. The more similar two covers are, the higher the value of the measure is. In this paper, we adopt it to compare the overlapping community structure found by our method and the known overlapping community structure in the benchmark networks.
Figure \[fig4\] shows the results of our method with $k=4,5,6$ on the benchmark networks. Our method gives rather good results when the $\mu$ is smaller than $0.5$. All of the values of the variation of information are above $0.8$. Note that in these cases, communities are defined in the strong sense [@Radicchi2004], i.e., each node has more neighbors in its own community than in the others. We also test other settings of $k$ which are larger than $6$, and find similar results.
Tests on real world networks
----------------------------
Our first real world network for test is Zachary’s karate club network [@Zachary1977], which is widely used as a benchmark for the methods of community identification. This network characterizes the social interactions between the individuals in a karate club at an American university. A dispute arose between the club’s administrator and its principal karate teacher and as a result the club eventually split into two smaller clubs, centered around the administrator and the teacher respectively. The network and its fission is depicted in figure \[fig5\]. The administrator and the teacher are represented by nodes $1$ and $33$ respectively.
![The network of the karate club studied by Zachary [@Zachary1977]. The real social fission of this network is represented by two different shapes, circle and square. The different colors show the partition obtained by our method with the parameter $k=4$. []{data-label="fig5"}](zachary.eps){width="7cm"}
{width="13cm"}
Feeding this network into our method with the parameter $k=4$, we obtain the result shown in figure \[fig5\]. Similar to many existing community detection methods, our method partitions the network into four communities. This partition corresponds to the modularity with the value $0.417$, while the real partition into two sub-networks has a modularity $0.371$. Actually, no vertex is misclassified by our method. The real split of the network can be obtained exactly by pair-wise merge of the four communities found by our method.
We also note that no overlaps are found when $k=4$. Actually, no overlaps can be found when $k$ is no smaller than $4$ as to this network. Overlaps between communities emerge when the parameter $k$ is set to $3$. The value of $Q_c$ corresponding to the resulting cover is $0.385$ and in total three overlapped communities are found by our method. They are {$1$, $5$, $6$, $7$, $11$, $17$}, {$1$, $2$, $3$, $4$, $8$, $9$, $12$, $13$, $14$, $18$, $20$, $22$} and {$3$, $9$, $10$, $15$, $16$, $19$, $21$, $23$, $24$, $25$, $26$, $27$, $28$, $29$, $30$, $31$, $32$, $33$, $34$}. The overlapping regions consist of three vertices, being $1$, $3$ and $9$. Each of them is shared by two communities. Such vertices are often misclassified by traditional partition-based community detection methods. Except the vertices occurring in the overlapping regions, other vertices reflects the real split of the network.
We also test our method on another real world network, a social network of $62$ bottlenose dolphins living in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. The network was constructed by Lusseau [@Lusseau2003] with ties between dolphin pairs being established by observation of statistically significant frequent association. The network splits naturally into two groups, represented by the squares and circles in figure \[fig6\].
[c|p[2cm]{}|p[15cm]{}]{} No. & Description & Words in each community\
1 & theater & act actor actress bow character cinema curtsey dance director do drama entertain entertainment film guide involve juggler lead movie participate perform performance **play** portray producer production program scene screen show sing stage television theater\
2 & musical instrument & alto band banjo bass beep blues brass bugle cello clarinet clef compose concert conductor country drum faddle fiddle flute guitar harp honk horn instrument jazz keyboard loud music oboe orchestra piano **play** rock saxophone symphony tenor treble trombone trumpet tuba tune viola violin woodwind\
3 & children & adults balls children family friends **fun** grown-ups guardians kids love mischief nursery parents **play** playground play
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dough prank putty **toy** **toys** tricycle\
4 & sports & active arena athlete athletic baseball basketball black
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
------------------------------------------------------------------------
white field football **fun** **game** illustrated inactive jock pigskin **play** recreation referee soccer sports stadium umpire\
5 & toys & board boardwalk checkers chess **fun** **game** games monopoly nintendo **play** plaything strategy **toy** **toys** vcr video winning yo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
yo\
By applying our method with $k=4$ to this network, four communities are obtained, denoted by different colors in figure \[fig6\]. The green community is connected loosely to the other three ones. Regarding the three circle-denoted communities as a sole community, it and the green community correspond to the known division observed by Lusseau [@Lusseau2003]. Furthermore, the three circle-denoted communities also correspond to a real division among these dolphins. The further division appears to have some correlation with the gender of these animals. The blue one consists mainly of females and the other two almost entirely of males.
Alike to the Zarchay’s karate network, the overlaps between communities cannot be detected when the parameter $k$ is not less than $4$. When $k=3$, overlaps between the circle-denoted communities emerge while the green community keeps almost intact. The $Q_c$ is $0.490$ as to the resulting cover. The vertices occurring in overlapping regions are $Beak$, $Kringel$, $MN105$, $Oscar$, $PL$, $SN4$, $SN9$ and $TR99$ among which the vertices $Beak$ and $Kringel$ are shared by all the three circle-denoted communities. Again these overlapping vertices are often misclassified by traditional partition-based methods.
Application to the word association network
-------------------------------------------
Now we apply our method to a large real world complex network, namely the word association network.
The data set for the word association network is from the demo of the software [*CFinder*]{} [@Adamcsek2006]. This network consists of $7207$ vertices and $31784$ edges, and has been shown to possess overlapping community structure [@Palla2005]. It is constructed from the South Florida Free Association norms list [@Nelson1998]. Initially, the network is a directed, weighted network. The weight of a directed edge from one word to another indicates the frequency that the people in the survey associated the end point of the edge with its start point. These directed edges were replaced by undirected ones with a weight equal to the sum of the weights of the corresponding two oppositely directed edges. Furthermore, the edges with the weight less than $0.025$ were deleted. In this way, an un-weighted, undirected network is obtained, and it is the network we deal with.
![Part of the hierarchy of communities extracted from the word association network. The dark-filled circles correspond to the five communities shown in table \[tab1\].[]{data-label="fig7"}](play_hierarchy.eps){width="7cm"}
Applying our method to the word association network, we obtain in total $20$ communities which overlap with each other. The value of the corresponding $Q_c$ is as high as $0.503$, indicating a strong overlapping community structure. The size of these found communities are very large that there is no specific semantic meaning for each community. To investigate what is correlated to the overlapping community structure, we apply our method to these communities iteratively and a hierarchy of overlapping communities is obtained. We find that the sub-communities have certain correlation with semantic meaning of words. As an example, table \[tab1\] shows us the communities around the word $play$. The five overlapping communities represent different meanings of the word $play$, respectively related to [*theater*]{}, [*musical instruments*]{}, [*children*]{}, [*sports*]{} and [*toys*]{}. Except the common-shared word [*play*]{}, four other words are shared by some of these communities. They are [*fun*]{}, [*game*]{}, [*toy*]{} and [*toys*]{}. The overlap between these communities characterizes the direct, local relationship between them through sharing members. However, the extent of closeness between communities is sometimes reflected by the indirect, global relationship between them. One of this kind of relationship is the “genealogical” relationship between communities, which can be illustrated by the hierarchy of overlapping communities. Figure \[fig7\] is an example for hierarchy of communities. As shown in figure \[fig7\], the communities $1$ and $2$ are in the same branch of the hierarchy, indicating that the meanings represented by them are closer. This can be validated by examining the words contained in these two communities. Similarly, the communities $4$ and $5$ are also closely related. However, the distance between the communities $3$ and $5$ is larger although they share as many as $4$ words. The overlaps between communities and the hierarchy of these communities provide us a more complete understanding to the relationship between communities.
Conclusions
===========
This paper focuses on the problem of quantifying and identifying the overlapping community structure of networks. There are two main contributions. Firstly, a measure $Q_c$ for the quality of a cover of network is proposed to quantify the overlapping community structure. The effectiveness of the measure $Q_c$ is demonstrated by the experimental results that networks with significant overlapping community structure have a cover with a high $Q_c$. Secondly, a maximal clique network is constructed from the original network, and then the overlapping community structure can be identified using any modularity optimization method on the maximal clique network.
The $Q_c$ is an extension of traditional modularity with the consideration that the maximal clique instead of a single node can only belong to one community. In this way, $Q_c$ takes advantage of both the local topological structure (i.e., the maximal clique) and the global statistical significance of link density compared with a null-model reference network. In addition, $Q_c$ can be naturally used to simultaneously identify the overlapping and hierarchical community structure of networks. Such a method is helpful to more completely understand the functional and structural properties of networks.
As the further work, we will consider the generalization to the weighted and/or directed networks. It is also an interesting problem about the selection of the parameter $k$ in our method. We will further investigate how to determine an appropriate $k$ for a given network later.
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number $60873245$, the National High-Tech R&D Program of China (the $863$ program) under grant number $2006AA01Z452$, and the National Basic Research Program of China (the $973$ program) under grant number $2004CB318109$. The authors gratefully acknowledge S. Fortunato and A. Lancichinetti for providing the test benchmark and useful discussions on it. The authors thank Mao-Bin Hu for helpful suggestions.
[32]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Albert R and Barabási A-L, 2002 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} 74 47
Newman M E J, 2003 [*SIAM Rev.*]{} 45 167
Cheng X Q, Ren F X, Zhou S and Hu M B, 2009, [*New J. Phys.*]{} 11 033019
Flake G W, Lawrence S, Giles C L and Coetzee F M, 2002 [*IEEE Comput.*]{} 35 66
Girvan M and Newman M E J, 2002 [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 99 7821
Newman M E J and Girvan M, 2004 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 69 026113
Newman M E J, 2004 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 69 066133
Clauset A, Newman M E J and Moore C, 2004 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 70 066111
Guimerà R and Amaral L A N, 2005 [*Nature*]{} 433 895
Duch J and Arenas A, 2005 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 72 027104
Newman M E J, 2006 [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 103 8577
Raghavan U N, Albert R and Kumara S, 2007 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 76 036106
Sales-Pardo M, Guimerà R, Moreira A A and Amaral L A N, 2007 [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 104 15224
Blondel V D, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R and Lefebvre E, 2008 [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P10008
Fortunato S and Barthélemy M, 2007 [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 104 36
Kumpula J M, Saramaki J, Kaski K and Kertesz J, 2007 [*Eur. Phys. J. B*]{} 56 41
Palla G, Derényi I, Farkas I and Vicsek T, 2005 [*Nature*]{} 435 814
Baumes J, Goldberg M K, Krishnamoorthy M S, Magdon-Ismail M and Preston N, 2005 [*Proc. IADIS Applied Computing*]{} 97
Zhang S, Wang R S and Zhang X S, 2007 [*Physica A*]{} 374 483
Palla G, Farkas I J, Pollner P, Derényi I and Vicsek T, 2007 [*New J. Phys.*]{} 9 186
Farkas I J, Ábel D, Palla G and Vicsek T, 2007 [*New J. Phys.*]{} 9 180
Shen H W, Cheng X Q, Cai K and Hu M B, 2009 [*Physica A*]{} 388 1706
Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S and Kertész J, 2009 [*New J. Phys.*]{} 11 033015
Nicosia V, Mangioni G, Carchiolo V and Malgeri M, 2009 [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P03024 Evans T S and Lambiotte R, 2009 [arXiv:]{}0903.2181
Arenas A, Fernández A and Gómez S, 2008 [*New J. Phys.*]{} 10 053039
Lancichinetti A and Fortunato S, 2009 [arXiv:]{}0904:3940
Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V and Parisi D, 2004 [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 101 2658
Zachary W W, 1977 [*J. Anthropol.*]{} 33 452
Lusseau D, Schneider K, Boisseau O J, Haase P, Slooten E and Dawson S M, 2003 [*Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.*]{} 54 396
Adamcsek B, Palla G, Farkas I J, Derényi I and Vicsek T, 2006 [*Bioinformatics*]{} 22 1021
Nelson D L, McEvoy C L and Schreiber T A, 1998 [*http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an efficient approach to continuous-time quantum error correction that extends the low-dimensional quantum filtering methodology developed by van Handel and Mabuchi \[quant-ph/0511221 (2005)\] to include error recovery operations in the form of real-time quantum feedback. We expect this paradigm to be useful for systems in which error recovery operations cannot be applied instantaneously. While we could not find an exact low-dimensional filter that combined both continuous syndrome measurement and a feedback Hamiltonian appropriate for error recovery, we developed an approximate reduced-dimensional model to do so. Simulations of the five-qubit code subjected to the symmetric depolarizing channel suggests that error correction based on our approximate filter performs essentially identically to correction based on an exact quantum dynamical model.'
author:
- 'Bradley A.'
- 'Andrew J.'
- JM
title: 'Efficient feedback controllers for continuous-time quantum error correction'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum error correction is inherently a feedback process where the error syndrome of encoded qubits is measured and used to apply conditional recovery operations [@Gottesman:1997a]. Most formulations of quantum error correction treat this feedback process as a sequence of discrete steps. Syndrome measurements and recovery operations are performed periodically, separated by a time-interval chosen small enough to avoid excessive accumulation of errors but still comparable to the time required to implement quantum logic gates [@Gottesman:1997a; @Nielsen:2000a]. There is, however, mounting evidence from the field of real-time quantum feedback control [@Wiseman:1994a; @Armen:2002a; @Bouten:2006a; @Cook:2007a] that continuous observation processes offer new, sometimes technologically advantageous, opportunities for quantum information processing.
Toward this end, Ahn, Doherty and Landahl (ADL) [@Ahn:2002a] devised a scheme to implement general stabilizer quantum error correction [@Gottesman:1997a] using continuous measurement and feedback. Unfortunately an exact implementation of the ADL scheme is computationally demanding. For an $n$-qubit code, the procedure requires one to time-evolve a $2^n$-dimensional density matrix for the logical qubit alongside the quantum computation [@Ahn:2002a]. This classical information-processing overhead must be performed to interpret the continuous-time error syndrome measurement data and determine how recovery operations, in the form of a time-dependent feedback Hamiltonian, should be applied. While $n$ is a constant for any particular choice of code, even modest codes such as the five-qubit code [@Bennett:1996a; @Laflamme:1996a] and the seven-qubit Steane code [@Steane:1996a] push classical computers to their limits. Despite state-of-the art experimental capabilities, it would be extremely difficult to implement the ADL bit-flip code in practice. Consequently, Ahn and others have devised alternate feedback protocols which are less demanding [@Sarovar:2004a; @Ahn:2004a], but perform worse than the the original ADL scheme.
Recently, van Handel and Mabuchi addressed the computational overhead of continuous-time error syndrome detection [@VanHandel:2005a] using techniques from quantum filtering theory [@Belavkin:1999a; @VanHandel:2004a; @Bouten:2005a]. They developed an exact, low-dimensional model for continuous-time error syndrome measurements, but did not go on to treat continuous-time recovery. The complication is that any feedback Hamiltonian suitable for correcting errors during the syndrome measurements violates the dynamical symmetries that were exploited to obtain the low-dimensional filter in Ref. [@VanHandel:2005a]. While one might address this complication by simply postponing error recovery operations until a point where the measurements can be stopped, there may be scenarios where it would be preferable to perform error recovery in real-time. For example, if the recovery operation is not instantaneous, responding to errors as they occur might outperform protocols where there are periods without any error correction.
In this paper, we extend the quantum filtering approach developed by van Handel and Mabuchi to include recovery operations. We consider an error-correcting feedback Hamiltonian of the form devised by Ahn, Doherty and Landahl, but our approach readily extends to other forms for the feedback. While an exact low-dimensional model for continuous-time stabilizer generator measurements in the presence of feedback does not appear to exist, we devise an approximate filter that is still low-dimensional, yet sufficiently accurate such that high-quality error correction is possible.
Continuous-Time Quantum Error Correction
========================================
For our purposes, a quantum error correcting code is a triple $(E,
\mathcal{G}, R)$. The quantum operation $E:\mathbb{C}^{2k} \mapsto
\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ *encodes* $k$ logical qubits in $n$ physical qubits. $\mathcal{G}$ is a set of $l=n-k$ stabilizer generator observables with outcomes $\pm 1$ that define the *error syndrome*. $R:\{\pm
1\}^{\otimes l}\mapsto \mathbb{C}^{2n\times 2n}$ is the *recovery operation*, which specifies what correction should be applied to the physical qubits in response to the syndrome measurement outcomes.
The particular choice of code $(E, \mathcal{G},R)$ is usually made with consideration for the nature of the decoherence affecting the physical qubits [@Knill:2000a]. For example, the bit-flip code (considered by both ADL and van Handel and Mabuchi) improves protection against an error channel that applies the Pauli $\sigma_x$ operator to single qubits at a rate $\gamma$. Here, we adopt the notation that $X_n$ represents the Pauli $\sigma_x$ operator on qubit $n$, and similarly for $Y_n$ and $Z_n$. In the bit-flip code, $E$ encodes $k=1$ qubits in $n=3$ qubits by the map $\alpha{\lvert0\rangle}+\beta{\lvert1\rangle} \mapsto \alpha{\lvert000\rangle} +
\beta{\lvert111\rangle}$. The $l=2$ stabilizer generators are $g_1 = ZZI :=
\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z\otimes I$ and $g_2 = IZZ := I \otimes \sigma_z
\otimes \sigma_z$; each extracts the parity of different qubit pairs. The recovery $R$, given the outcomes of measuring $(g_1,g_2)$, is defined by $(+1,+1)\mapsto I $, $(+1,-1)\mapsto X_3$, $(-1,+1)\mapsto X_1$ and $(-1,-1)\mapsto X_2$.
In this paper, we focus primarily on the five-qubit-code ($n = 5, k = 1$) that increases protection against general separable channels, and in particular the continuous-time symmetric depolarizing channel that applies all three Pauli operators to each of the physical qubits at the same rate $\gamma$. The five-qubit code has $l=4$ stabilizer generators $\{XZZXI,IXZZX,XIXZZ,ZXIXZ\}$. It is also a *perfect* code in that all 16 distinct syndrome outcomes indicate distinct errors: one corresponding to the no-error condition, and one syndrome for each of the three Pauli errors on each of the five qubits. We defer to [@Nielsen:2000a; @Gottesman:1997a] for the encoding and recovery procedures for this code.
Continuous-time Stabilizer Generator Measurements
-------------------------------------------------
Quantum error correction can be extended to continuous time by replacing discrete measurements of the stabilizer generators $g_1, \ldots, g_l$ with a set of $l$ continuous observation processes [@Ahn:2002a]. This creates $i=1,\ldots, l$ measurement records $$dQ_t^{(i)} =
2\sqrt{\kappa} {\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[g_i \rho_t\bigr]}dt + dW_t^{(i)}$$ obtained from the encoded qubit with state $\rho_t$ at time $t$. Here, $\kappa$ is a constant called the measurement strength that depends upon the physical implementation of the continuous measurement and the $dW^{(i)}_t$ are independent Wiener processes, each with $\mathbbm{E}[dW_t] = 0$ and $dW_t^2 = dt$ [@Wiseman:1993a; @VanHandel:2004a]. We do not consider here how one might implement the set of $l$ simultaneous stabilizer generator observations other than to comment that doing so in an AMO technology would likely involve coupling the $n$ physical qubits to a set of electromagnetic field modes and then performing continuous photodetection on the scattered fields. While this model is rather general, we take the same $\kappa$ for each qubit, implying symmetric coupling of the qubits.
By itself, the continuous measurement record is too noisy to permit quantum error correction—one must first process the measurement data to deal with the presence of the noises $dW_t^{(i)}$. The most straightforward approach toward filtering the noise is via an estimate of the full logical qubit density operator $\rho_t$. Generating a full state estimation based on the evolving syndrome measurement data is accomplished by the quantum filtering equation (in its adjoint form with $\hbar=1$) [@Bouten:2005a] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BelavkinFilter}
d\rho_t & = &
\gamma \sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{j}\mathcal{D}[\sigma_{j}^{(m)}]\rho_t dt
+ \kappa \sum_{i=1}^{l}\mathcal{D}[g_i]\rho_t dt \nonumber \\
& & + \sqrt{\kappa}\sum_{i=1}^l \mathcal{H}[g_i]\rho_t \left( dQ_t^{(i)}
- 2 \sqrt{\kappa}\, \mathrm{Tr}[ g_i \rho_t ] dt \right) \nonumber \\
& &
- i [ H_t, \rho_t ] dt\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j\in \{ x, y, z\}$ and the superoperators are defined as: $\mathcal{D}[\sigma]\rho = \sigma\rho \sigma-\rho$ and $\mathcal{H}[g_l]\rho
= g_l\rho + \rho g_l - 2{\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[g_l\rho \bigr]}\rho $. The first term in the filtering equation accounts for the action of the continuous-time symmetric depolarizing channel while the second accounts for the effect of coupling the logical qubit to the field used to implement the continuous measurements. Conditioning the quantum state $\rho_t$ on the continuous measurement occurs via the third term, which is driven by the innovations processes $ dQ_t^{(i)} - 2 \sqrt{\kappa}\, \mathrm{Tr}[ g_i \rho_t ] dt$. The time evolution $\rho_t$ generated by a particular noise realization is generally called a *trajectory*.
The final term in Eq. (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]) describes the action of the time-dependent feedback Hamiltonian used to implement error recovery. Following Ahn, Doherty and Landahl, we choose the feedback Hamiltonian to be of the form $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H_t = \sum_{m=1}^{n} \sum_j \lambda_{j,t}^{(m)} \sigma_{j}^{(m)},$$ which corresponds to applying Pauli operators $\sigma^{(m)}_j$ to each qubit with a controllable strength $\lambda_{j,t}^{(m)}$. The policy for determining the feedback strengths $\lambda_{j,t}^{(m)}$ at each point in time should be chosen optimally. Ahn, Doherty, and Landahl obtained their feedback policy by defining the *codespace projector* $\Pi_0$ onto the no error states (states which are $+1$ eigenvectors of all stabilizers) and then maximizing the *codespace fidelity* ${\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_0\rho_t\bigr]}$. Assuming a maximum feedback strength $\lambda_{\text{max}}$, the resulting feedback policy is given by setting $$\label{eq:FeedbackPolicy}
\lambda_{j,t}^{(m)} = \lambda_{\text{max}} \operatorname{sgn}\bigl({\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[-i[\Pi_0,\sigma_{j}^{(m)}] \rho_t\bigr]}\bigr) \, .$$
### Computational Expense
Because this is a closed-loop strategy, the feedback controller must determine each $\lambda_{j,t}^{(m)}$ from the evolving measurement in real time. The utility of feedback in any real setting then relies greatly upon the controller’s ability to integrate the filtering equation rapidly enough to maintain pace with the quantum dynamics of the qubits. For the five-qubit code, $1024-1$ real parameters are needed to represent the density matrix. We found that stable numerical integration [@Kloeden:1992a] of even a single trajectory required approximately 36 seconds on a 2.1 GHz desktop computer ($\gamma dt \approx 10^{-5}$ over a timespan $[0,0.25\gamma]$). This is far from adequate for use in an actual feedback controller even in state-of-the-art experiments.
Moreover, Eq. (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]) is a nonlinear filter, and for such filters it is rarely possible to evaluate even qualitative properties analytically. One must then average over an appreciable number of trajectories to find the expected behavior of quantities such as the codespace fidelity as a function of time. For the five-qubit code, our integrator requires approximately 10 hours to simulate 1000 trajectories.
Reduced-Dimensional Filters
---------------------------
Considering that the syndrome measurements yield information about correlations between qubits and not information about the individual states of the qubits, one can imagine that propagating the full density matrix is excessive. Indeed, the ADL scheme only makes use of the projection of $\rho_t$ onto the codespace, generating the same feedback policy regardless of which state $\rho_0$ in the codespace is initially chosen. It is reasonable to expect that a lower dimensional model could track solely the information extracted from the syndrome measurements. This is exactly the premise used by van Handel and Mabuchi to obtain a low-dimensional model of continuous-time stabilizer generator measurements (in the absence of feedback) [@VanHandel:2005a]. They formulate the problem as a graph whose vertices correspond to syndromes and whose edges reflect the action of the error model. The filtering problem is then reduced to tracking the node probabilities, i.e., the likelihoods for the qubit to be described by each of the various syndrome conditions. Dynamical transitions occur between the syndromes due to the error channel, and the filter works to discern these transitions from the stabilizer measurement data.
For an $(E, \mathcal{G}, R)$ code, van Handel and Mabuchi define a set of projectors onto the distinct syndrome spaces. For the five-qubit code, there are 16 such projectors; $\Pi_0$ is the codespace projector as before and $\Pi_{j}^{(m)}=\sigma_j^{(m)}\Pi_0\sigma_j^{(m)}$ are projectors onto states with a syndrome consistent with a $\sigma_j$ error on qubit $m$. Forming the probabilities $$p_{j,t}^{(m)}={\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_{j}^{(m)} \rho_t\bigr]}$$ into a vector $\mathbf{p}_t$ and computing $dp_{j,t}^{(m)}$ from the full dynamics leads to the reduced filter $$\label{eq:BasicWonham}
d\mathbf{p}_t = \Lambda\mathbf{p}_t \, dt
+ 2\sqrt{\kappa}\sum_{k=1}^{l}(H_l - \mathbf{h_l}^T\mathbf{p}_t \, I) \mathbf{p}_t \,
dW_t$$ with $\Lambda_{rs} = \gamma(1-16\delta_{rs})$, $h_l^{j,m}$ the outcome of measuring $g_l$ on $\Pi_{j}^{(m)}$ and $H_l =
\operatorname{diag}\mathbf{h}_l$ (Eq. (4) in Ref. [@VanHandel:2005a]). The equations for $p_{j,t}^{(m)}$ are closed and encapsulate all the information that is gathered from measuring the stabilizer generators. Equation (\[eq:BasicWonham\]) is an example of a *Wonham filter*, which is the classical optimal filter for a continuous-time finite-state Markov chain with an observation process driven by white noise [@Wonham:1965a]. Further discussion of the Wonham filter and its use in conjunction with discrete-time error correction can be found e.g., in Ref. [@VanHandel:2005a].
Continuous-Time Quantum Filtering with Feedback
===============================================
We now extend Eq. (\[eq:BasicWonham\]) to include a feedback Hamiltonian suitable for error recovery. Following van Handel and Mabuchi’s lead, we see that Eq. (\[eq:BasicWonham\]) was derived by taking $dp_{j,t}^{(m)} = {\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_{j}^{(m)} d\rho_t\bigr]}$ for a basis which closed under the dynamics of the continuous syndrome measurement. One hope is that simply adding the feedback term in by calculating ${\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[-i\lambda_{k,t}^{(r)}\Pi_{j}^{(m)}[\sigma_k^{(r)},\rho_t]\bigr]}$ also results in a set of closed equations. However, that is not the case when using the basis of the sixteen syndrome space projectors $\Pi_{j}^{(m)}$. Specifically, $[\Pi_{j}^{(m)},\sigma_k^{(r)}]$ cannot be written as a linear combination of syndrome space projectors. This is not surprising as the feedback Hamiltonian term under consideration is the only term which generates unitary dynamics.
Inspired by the form of the commutator between the feedback and the syndrome space projectors, we define feedback coefficient operators $$\label{eq:FeedbackCoefficient}
\Pi_{j,c}^{(m)} = (+i\text{ or } +1)\sigma^{\otimes 5}\Pi_{j}^{(m)}\sigma^{\otimes 5}\, ,$$ where $c$ is an arbitrarily chosen index used to distinguish the $i$ or 1 prefactor and combination of Pauli matrices which sandwich the syndrome space projector $\Pi_{j}^{(m)}$. For the five-qubit code, the syndrome projectors are simply those operators which have the 1 prefactor and 10 identity matrices. The corresponding feedback coefficient is $p_{j,c}^{(m)}={\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_{j,c}^{(m)}\rho_t\bigr]}$. If we then iterate the dynamics of the filter (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]) by calculating $p_{j,c}^{(m)}$ starting from the syndrome space projectors, we find that each feedback Hamiltonian term generates pairs of feedback coefficient terms. For example, calculating the dynamics due to feedback $X_1$ on $\Pi_0$ generates two feedback coefficient operators: $\Pi_{0,0}=i\Pi_0X_1$ and $\Pi_{0,1}=iX_1\Pi_0$. We must then determine the dynamics for these first level feedback coefficients. This will include calculating the $Y_5$ feedback on $\Pi_{0,1}$, which generates second level feedback coefficients $\Pi_{0,2}=X_1Y_5\Pi_0$ and $\Pi_{0,3}=X_1\Pi_0Y_5$. Continuing to iterate feedback coefficient terms, we find that an additional 1008 distinct $p_{j,c}^{(m)}$ terms are needed to close the dynamics and form a complete basis. Adding in the initial 16 syndrome space projectors gives a 1024 dimensional basis—clearly no better than propagating the full density matrix. However, it is now relatively easy to calculate the feedback strengths, which depend only on pairs of first-level feedback coefficients. For example, from Eq. (\[eq:FeedbackPolicy\]) we find that $\lambda_{0,t}^{(1)}=\lambda_{\text{max}}\operatorname{sgn}\left(-p_{0,0}+p_{0,1}\right)$, where $p_{0,0}={\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_{0,0}\rho_t\bigr]}$ and $p_{0,1}={\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\Pi_{0,1}\rho_t\bigr]}$ are first-level coefficients developed earlier in the paragraph.
Approximate Filter for the Five-Qubit Code
------------------------------------------
Although the dimension of the alternate basis is no smaller than the dimension of the full density matrix, the structure of the filter represented in the alternate basis provides a manner for interpreting the relative importance of the $p_{j,c}^{(m)}$ feedback coefficients. This is best seen graphically in Fig. \[fig:annotatedMatrix\](a), which superimposes the non-zero matrix elements coming from the noise, measurement and feedback terms. Both measurement and noise are block diagonal as expected; it is the feedback that couples blocks together in a hierarchical fashion. This hierarchy can be parameterized by the number of “feedback transitions” which connect a given feedback coefficient to the syndrome space block. For example, the upper left block, which corresponds to the syndrome space projectors, is connected via feedback terms to the first level feedback block, whose feedback coefficients are each one feedback transition away from the syndrome space block. In turn, the first level block is then connected to a second level feedback block, whose feedback coefficients are two feedback transitions away from the syndrome block.
Given that the initial state starts within the codespace and given that feedback is always on, the feedback coefficients that are more than one feedback transition from the syndrome space block should be vanishingly small. Limiting consideration to these first two blocks, we also find that pairs of feedback coefficients couple identically to the syndrome space block. For example, we find that $-iX_1\Pi_0$ and $i\Pi_0X_1$ couple to syndrome space projectors identically. This is not surprising, as these two terms comprise the commutator that results from the $X_1$ feedback Hamiltonian. However, outside the first level of feedback transitions, the matrix elements of these feedback coefficients differ. Additionally, feedback coefficients involving feedback Hamiltonians which correspond to a syndrome error on the codespace projector are related as $$\label{eq:PauliRelation}
-i\sigma_j^{(m)}\Pi_0+i\Pi_0\sigma_j^{(m)} = -i\Pi_{j}^{(m)}\sigma_j^{(m)}+i\sigma_j^{(m)}\Pi_j^{(m)}\, .$$ For the feedback coefficient examples just mentioned, this relation is $-iX_1\Pi_1^{(1)} + i\Pi_1^{(1)}X_1 = -i\Pi_0X_1 + iX_1\Pi_0$. Truncating the dynamics to include only the first level of feedback and combining distinct feedback coefficients which act identically within this block results in the matrix of Fig. \[fig:annotatedMatrix\](b) over only 136 basis elements. Note that the controller now only needs to reference a single basis element for calculating a given feedback strength $\lambda_{j,t}^{(m)}$.
Approximate Filter for General Codes
------------------------------------
Our truncation scheme generalizes for reducing the dimensionality of the quantum filter for an arbitrary $(E,\mathcal{G},R)$ code. Such a filter for an $[\![n,k]\!]$ quantum error-correcting code [@Nielsen:2000a] has the same form as Eq. (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]), but involves $n$ physical qubits and $l = n-k$ continuous-time stabilizer generator measurements. In the following, we assume the continuous-time symmetric depolarizing channel, though it should be straightforward to extend to other noise models. For a non-perfect, non-degenerate code, there are a total of $2^{n-l}$ stabilizer generator measurement outcomes, but only $3n+1$ will be observed for the given noise channel. For a perfect, non-degenerate code ($2^{n-l}=3n+1$), all possible syndrome outcomes are observed. In either case, given the observable syndrome outcomes, we can define $3n+1$ syndrome space projectors and $3n$ feedback parameters needed for recovery. Degenerate codes require fewer than $3n$ recovery operations, as distinct actions of the noise channel give rise to identical errors and recovery operations. The degeneracy depends greatly on the particular code, so we merely note that degenerate codes will require *fewer* syndrome space projectors and feedback parameters than their non-degenerate relatives.
Once we determine the syndrome space projectors and feedback parameters for the code, we can introduce feedback coefficient operators of the form of (\[eq:FeedbackCoefficient\]) but over $n$ qubits. A truncated filter is constructed as follows.
1. Close the dynamics of the $3n+1$ syndrome space projectors by introducing $6n(3n+1)$ first-level feedback terms (2 feedback coefficients per commutator in each of the $3n$ feedback Hamiltonians).
2. Close the dynamics of the first-level feedback terms, truncated to a basis of syndrome space and first-level feedback terms, i.e. ignore any second-level terms which were not defined in step 1. The procedure involves $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ steps, since one must at least examine each of the $6n$ feedback commutator terms for all first-level feedback coefficients.
3. Each of the $3n+1$ syndrome space projectors is related to pairs of first-level feedback coefficients that comprise a commutator. There is an additional factor of degeneracy between syndrome space projectors and feedback coefficients which involve the same Pauli matrix \[c.f., Eq. (\[eq:PauliRelation\])\]. A similarity transform is used to eliminate these redundancies, leaving $(3n+1)+(3n+1)6n/4=\frac{1}{2}\left(2+9n(n+1)\right)$ basis elements in the fully truncated filter.
The truncated filter requires only $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ basis elements, as compared to the $4^n$ parameters for the full density matrix. Additionally, the feedback strengths in Eq. (\[eq:FeedbackPolicy\]) are readily calculated from the combined first-level feedback coefficients. The truncation process is depicted schematically in the left half of Fig. \[fig:hierarchy\]. The right half of the figure gives examples of a few of the 1024 terms involved in the truncation procedure for the five-qubit code.
![On the left, a schematic diagram of truncating the filter to only syndrome space and first level feedback blocks. On the right, just a few of the 1024 feedback coefficients of the five-qubit code representing the different feedback block levels.[]{data-label="fig:hierarchy"}](combinedHierarchyAlt.pdf)
Numerical Simulation
--------------------
Since the truncated filter is also nonlinear, it is difficult to provide analytic bounds on possible degradation in performance. However, we can easily compare numerical simulation between feedback controllers which use the full or truncated filter. In fact, the dynamics should be close for the same noise realizations, indicating that they should be close per trajectory.
In order to analyze the feedback controller’s performance, the full filter Eq. (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]) is used to represent the underlying physical system. The feedback controller was modeled by simultaneously integrating the truncated filter, driven by the measurement current from the full filter. The feedback controller then calculated the feedback strengths which were fed back into the full filter. The dynamics described by the full filter were then used to compute the codespace fidelity. Using a predictor-corrector stochastic differential equation (SDE) integrator [@Kloeden:1992a] and varying $\kappa$ and $\lambda_{\text{max}}$ over a wide range, we found essentially indistinguishable performance between the full and truncated filters. Using $\kappa=100\gamma$ and $\lambda_{\text{max}}=200\gamma$ as representative parameters, Figure \[fig:codewordPlots\](a) demonstrates this general behavior by comparing the average codespace fidelity of a handful of trajectories using the different filters. Integrating an individual trajectory takes approximately 39.5 seconds using a 2.1 GHz PowerPC processor. Integrating the full filter alone takes approximately 36 seconds, while integrating the truncated filter alone takes approximately 3.5 seconds.
In addition to showing the identical performance of the full and truncated filters, Fig. \[fig:codewordPlots\](a) also shows the loss in performance if one were to truncate further. The 31 dimensional filter is comprised of the 16 syndrome projectors and the 15 feedback coefficients which have non-zero feedback matrix elements with the codespace $\Pi_0$. These are the only elements explicitly needed to calculate the feedback strengths in Eq. \[eq:FeedbackPolicy\]. This filter fails because it tacitly assumes the action of feedback on the codespace is more “important” than on the other 15 syndrome spaces. Since feedback impacts all syndrome spaces equally, we need to retain those terms in order to properly maintain syndrome space probabilities. Intuitively, this suggests that the 136 dimensional filter is the best we can do using this heuristic truncation strategy. For reference, Fig. \[fig:codewordPlots\](b) shows the average codespace fidelity of 2000 trajectories when using the truncated filter.
### Comparison with Discrete Error Correction
Given the success of the truncation scheme, we now compare the performance of feedback-assisted error correction to that of discrete-time error correction for the five-qubit code. The discrete model considers qubits exposed to the depolarizing channel $$d\rho_{\text{discrete}} = \gamma\sum_{j=x,y,z}\sum_{m=1}^{n=5}\mathcal{D}[\sigma_j^{(m)}]\rho_{\text{discrete}}dt$$ up to a time $t$, after which discrete-time error correction is performed. The solution of this master equation can be explicitly calculated using the ansatz $$\rho_{\text{discrete}}(t) = \sum_{e=0}^5\sum_{P; pw(P) = e}a_e(t)P\rho_0P ,$$ where $P$ is a tensor product of Pauli matrices and the identity. The function $pw(P)$ gives the Pauli weight of a matrix, defined as the number of $\sigma_x, \sigma_y,$ and $\sigma_z$ terms in the tensor representation. Thus, $a_0(t)$ is the coefficient of $\rho_0$ and similarly $a_1(t)$ is the coefficient of all single qubit errors from the initial state, e.g., $XIIII(\rho_0)XIIII, IIZII(\rho_0)IIZII$.
The codespace fidelity considered earlier is not a useful metric for comparison, as discrete-time error correction is guaranteed to restore the state to the codespace. Following Ahn, Doherty and Landahl, we instead use the *codeword fidelity* $F_{cw}(t) := {\operatorname{Tr}\bigl[\rho_0\rho(t)\bigr]}$, which is a measure relevant for a quantum memory. Since error correction is independent of the encoded state, we choose the encoded ${\lvert0\rangle}$ state as a fiducial initial state. Given that the five-qubit code protects against only single qubit errors, we find that after error correction at time $t$, the codeword fidelity for discrete-time error correction is $$\begin{gathered}
F_{cw}^{\text{discrete}} = a_0(t) + a_1(t) \\= \frac{1}{256} e^{-20 t \gamma } \left(3+e^{4 t \gamma }\right)^4 \left(-3+4 e^{4 t \gamma }\right)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ which asymptotes to $1/64$. This limit arises because prior to the stabilizer generator measurements, the noise pushes the state to the maximally mixed state, which is predominately composed of the $a_2(t)$ through $a_5(t)$ terms.
The feedback codeword fidelity $F_{cw}^{\text{feedback}}$ was calculated by integrating both the full quantum filter (\[eq:BelavkinFilter\]), representing the underlying system of qubits, and the truncated filter, representing the feedback controller. Again, we chose $\kappa = 100\gamma$, $\lambda_{\text{max}}=200\gamma$ and $dt = 10^{-5}\gamma$ and used the same SDE integrator described above. Figure \[fig:fiveQubitPerformance\] shows the average of $F_{cw}^{\text{feedback}}$ over 2000 trajectories, demonstrating that there are regimes where feedback-assisted error correction can significantly outperform discrete-time error correction. Feedback-assisted error correction appears to approach an asymptotic codeword fidelity greater than what would be obtained by decoherence followed by discrete-time error correction. Due to the nonlinear feedback, we were unable to calculate an analytic asymptotic expression for the continuous-time strategy.
![Comparison between continuous-time and discrete-time error correction for the five-qubit code. For the continuous-time error correction simulations, the codeword fidelity was averaged over 2,000 trajectories with $\kappa = 100 \gamma$ and $\lambda_\text{max}=200 \gamma$. (Color online.) \[fig:fiveQubitPerformance\]](codewordFidelity.pdf)
Nonetheless, the improved performance for the timespan considered suggests that better quantum memory is possible using the feedback scheme.
Conclusion
==========
Extending control theory techniques introduced by van Handel and Mabuchi [@VanHandel:2005a], we have developed a computationally efficient feedback controller for continuous-time quantum error correction. For our truncation scheme, the dimension of the filtering equations grows as $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ in the number of physical qubits $n$, rather than $\mathcal{O}(4^n)$ for the original Ahn, Doherty and Landahl procedure [@Ahn:2002a]. By numerical simulation of the five-qubit code, we have demonstrated the viability of such a filter for a quantum memory protecting against a depolarizing noise channel. Moreover, in all our simulations, this performance is indistinguishable from that of the computationally more demanding filter of the ADL style.
In systems where recovery operations are not instantaneous relative to decoherence, consideration suggests that it is desirable to perform syndrome measurement, recovery, and logic gates simultaneously. However, it is not immediately clear how gates impact the feedback controller. Indeed, if a Hamiltonian is in the code’s normalizer, the continuous-time feedback protocol and its performance are unchanged. Though a universal set of such Hamiltonians can be found, it might be desirable to find universal gates which have physically simple interactions. Future work involves finding such gate sets and developing a framework for universal quantum computing. Additional issues of fault-tolerance and robustness could then be explored within such a universal setup. Exploring feedback error correction in the context of specific physical models will provide opportunities to tailor feedback strategies to available control parameters and salient noise channels. Such systems might allow the calculation of globally optimal feedback control strategies.
We thank Ramon van Handel for helpful comments on the manuscript and Daniel Lidar for his input on how one might combine continuous-time stabilizer generator measurements and quantum gates. This work was supported by the DOE NINE program under a contract with Sandia National Laboratory (60071-699182). AJL was also supported in part by the NSF under grant (PHY-0555573). JMG was also supported in part by the AFOSR under grant (FA9550-06-1-0178).
[20]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, Ph.D. thesis, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
(), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
(), .
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, ), .
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper draws attention to a hardware system which can be engineered so that its intrinsic physics is described by the generalized Ising model and can encode the solution to many important NP-hard problems as its ground state. The basic constituents are stochastic nanomagnets which switch randomly between the $\pm 1$ Ising states and can be monitored continuously with standard electronics. Their mutual interactions can be short or long range, and their strengths can be reconfigured as needed to solve specific problems and to anneal the system at room temperature. The natural laws of statistical mechanics guide the network of stochastic nanomagnets at GHz speeds through the collective states with an emphasis on the low energy states that represent optimal solutions. As proof-of-concept, we present simulation results for standard NP-complete examples including a 16-city traveling salesman problem using experimentally benchmarked models for spin-transfer torque driven stochastic nanomagnets.'
author:
- Brian Sutton
- Kerem Yunus Camsari
- 'Behtash Behin-Aein'
- Supriyo Datta
date: 'March 25, 2017'
title: Intrinsic optimization using stochastic nanomagnets
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction {#secintrointroduction .unnumbered}
=========================
The use of Ising computers to solve NP-hard problems has a rich heritage in both theory[@barahona_computational_1982] and practice. These computers seek to solve a wide range of optimization problems by encoding the solution to the problem as the ground-state of an Ising energy expression. Many diverse systems have been proposed to solve NP-hard optimization problems such as those based on simulated annealing [@kirkpatrick_optimization_1983], DNA[@adleman_molecular_1994; @ouyang_dna_1997], quantum annealing [@johnson_quantum_2011; @perdomo-ortiz_finding_2012], Cellular Neural Networks [@chua_cellular_1988; @chua_cnn_1993; @ercsey-ravasz_cellular_2009], CMOS [@yamaoka_20k-spin_2016], trapped ions [@kim_quantum_2010], electromechanics [@mahboob_electromechanical_2016], optics [@shaked_optical_2007; @oltean_solving_2008; @utsunomiya_mapping_2011; @wu_optical_2014; @wang_coherent_2013; @marandi_network_2014; @mcmahon_fully-programmable_2016; @inagaki_coherent_2016], and magnets [@bhanja_non-boolean_2015; @arnalds_new_2016; @behin-aein_building_2016]. A common objective of many of the Ising-based approaches is the identification of hardware configurations that can efficiently solve optimization problems of interest.
In this letter, we demonstrate the possibility of a hardware implementation that does not just mimic the Ising model, but embodies it as a part of its natural physics[@bhanja_non-boolean_2015; @arnalds_new_2016; @behin-aein_building_2016]. It uses a network of $N$ “soft” nanomagnets operating in a stochastic manner[@locatelli_spin-torque_2014], each with an energy barrier $\Delta$ comparable to $k_{\text B}T$ so that they switch between the two Ising states, $\pm 1$, on time scales $\tau \sim \tau_0 \exp(\Delta/k_{\text B}T)$ where $\tau_0 \sim 0.1-1$ ns. The natural laws of statistical mechanics guide the network through the $2^N$ collective states at GHz rates, with an emphasis on low energy states. We show how an optimization problem of interest is solved by engineering the spin-mediated magnet-magnet interactions to encode the problem solution and to simulate annealing without any change in temperature simply by continuously adjusting their overall strength. As proof-of-concept for the potential applications of this natural Ising computer, we present detailed simulation results for standard NP-complete examples, including a 16-city traveling salesman problem. This involves using experimentally benchmarked modules to simulate a suitably designed network of 225 stochastic nanomagnets and letting the hardware itself rapidly identify solutions within the $2^{225}$ possibilities. It should be possible to integrate such hardware into standard solid state circuits, which will govern the scalability of the solution.
The Ising Hamiltonian for a collection of spins, $S_i$, which can take on one of two values, $\pm 1$, $$\label{eq:ising} H = -\sum_{i,j} J_{ij} S_i S_j - \sum_i h_i S_i$$ was originally developed to describe ferromagnetism where the $J_{ij}$ are positive numbers representing an exchange interaction between neighboring spins $S_i$ and $S_j$, while $h_i$ represents a local magnetic field for spin $S_i$. Classically, different spin configurations $\sigma\{S_i\}$ have a probability proportional to $\exp(-H(\sigma)/k_{\rm B}T)$, $T$ being the temperature, and $k_{\text B}$, the Boltzmann constant. At low temperatures, the system should be in its ground state $\sigma_\text{G}$, the state with the lowest energy $H(\sigma)$. With $h_i = 0$, and positive $J_{ij}$, it is easy to see that the ground state is the ferromagnetic configuration $\sigma_{\text F}$ with all spins parallel.
Much of the interest in the Ising Hamiltonian arises from the demonstration of many direct mappings of NP-complete and NP-hard problems to the model [@barahona_computational_1982; @lucas_ising_2014; @de_las_cuevas_simple_2016] such that the desired solution is represented by the spin configuration $\sigma$ corresponding to the ground state. However, in general this mapping may require a large number of spins, and may require the parameters $J_{ij}$ and $h_i$ to take on a wide range of values, both positive and negative. Finding the ground state of this artificial spin glass is the essence of Ising computing, and broadly speaking it involves abstractly representing an array of spins, their coupling, and thermal noise through software and hardware that attempts to harness the efficiencies of physical equivalence
[@khasanvis_physically_2015]. These representations may take the form of abstract models of the spins, the use of random number generators to produce noise, and logical or digital adders for the weighted summing. If enough layers of abstraction can be eliminated, the underlying hardware will inherently solve a given problem as part of its natural, intrinsic operation and this should be reflected in increased speed and efficiency.
\[sec:exchange\]Engineering Correlations Through Spin Currents {#secexchangeengineering-correlations-through-spin-currents .unnumbered}
==============================================================
Here we describe a natural hardware for an Ising computer based on the representation of an Ising spin $S_k$ by the magnetization $m$ of a stochastic nanomagnet(SNM), which we believe will compare well with other alternative representations. These SNMs are in the “telegraphic” switching regime[@locatelli_spin-torque_2014; @bapna_magnetostatic_2016] requiring the existence of a small barrier in the magnetic energy ($\Delta \approx k_{\rm B}T $), that gives a small, but definite preference for a given axis, with two preferred states $\pm 1$. In the absence of currents, these SNMs continually switch between $+1$ and $-1$ on the order of nanoseconds, and can be physically realized by a reduction of the magnetic grain volume[@locatelli_noise-enhanced_2014] or by designing weak perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) magnets[@cowburn1999single]. Figure \[fig:fig1\] shows the response of such a monodomain PMA magnet in the presence of an external spin current in the direction of the magnet’s easy axis.
How do we couple the SNMs to implement the Ising Hamiltonian of Equation ? The usual forms of coupling involve dipolar or exchange interactions that are too limited in range and weightability. Instead, one possibility is an architecture[@behin-aein_building_2016] that uses charge currents which can be readily converted locally into spin currents through the spin Hall effect (SHE). These charge currents can be arbitrarily long-range and the total number of cross-couplings is only limited by considerations of routing congestion and delay. The couplings may also be confined to nearest-neighbors, simplifying the hardware design complexity while promoting scalability and retaining universality[@de_las_cuevas_simple_2016].
The Ising Hamiltonian of Equation can be implemented by exposing each SNM $m_k$ to a spin current $I_k$ $$\label{eq:per_magnet_current} I_k(\{m_j\}) = \frac{2q\alpha}{\hbar} \left(h_k + \sum_j 2J_{kj} m_j\right)$$ which has a constant bias determined by $h_k$ together with a term proportional to the magnetization of the $j^{\text{th}}$ SNM $m_j$. The future state of magnet $m_k$ at time $(t+\Delta t)$ is related to the state of the other magnets at time $t$ through the current $I_k$. This expression is derived analytically in the following section using the Fokker-Planck equation for the system[@butler_switching_2012].
The spin current $I_k$ can be generated using well-established phenomena and the prospects for physical realization of such a system are discussed later in this paper. The distinguishing feature of the present proposal arises from the intrinsic stochasticity of SNMs and their biasing through the use of weighted spin currents (Figure \[fig:fig1a\]). How the SNMs are interconnected to implement Equation can evolve as the field progresses.
Getting a large system to reach its true ground state is non-trivial as it tends to get stuck in local minima[@aaronson_guest_2005]. It is common to guide the system towards the ground state through a process of “annealing”[@kirkpatrick_optimization_1983] which is carried out differently in different hardware implementations. For example, systems based on superconducting flux qubits make use of quantum tunneling, which is referred to as quantum annealing[@kadowaki_quantum_1998], whereas classical CMOS approaches make use of random number generators[@cheemalavagu_probabilistic_2005] to produce random transitions out of local minima.
For our system of coupled SNMs, random noise is naturally present and can be easily controlled (Figure \[fig:fig1a\]
), causing the system of SNMs coupled according to Equation to explore the configuration space of the problem on a nanosecond timescale. Annealing could be performed through a controlled lowering of the actual temperature, or equivalently through a controlled increase in the magnitude of the current $I_k$, even at room temperature. It has been noted that certain annealing schedules can guarantee convergence to the true ground state, but these schedules may be too slow to be used in practice[@geman_stochastic_1984]. This paper only presents a straightforward annealing process and does not seek out optimal annealing schedules. Consequently, as we show in one of our combinatorial optimization examples, we may find only an approximate solution which, however, may be adequate for many practical problems.
\[sec:fokker\]Steady-State Fokker-Planck Description {#secfokkersteady-state-fokker-planck-description .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------
Our goal is to interconnect magnets such that their equilibrium state is governed by Boltzmann statistics with thermal noise as an inherent characteristic of the system. To see that this is possible, consider a system of $N$ magnets where we want $$\label{eq:app_a1}\rho(m_1,\cdots, m_N) = \rho_0 e^{-E(m_1,\cdots, m_N)/k_B T}$$ and $$\label{eq:app_a13} E(m_1,\cdots, m_N) = \sum_i \left(A_i m_i^2 + h_i m_i\right) + \sum_{i,j} J_{ij}m_i m_j$$ where $m_k$ represents the z-component of the magnets.
Suppose each magnet is driven by a spin current derived from the others. We start with the Fokker-Planck equation [@butler_switching_2012] for the $N$-magnet system: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:app_a3} \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial \tau} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial m_k} \left\{(1-m_k^2)\left[(i_k - m_k)\rho + \frac{1}{2\Delta_k}\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial m_k}\right] \right\}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_k = \mu_0 H_k M_s V / 2k_\text{B} T$ and $i_k = I_k/I_0$ with $I_0$ as the critical switching spin current $I_0 = (2q\alpha/\hbar) 2\Delta_k k_\text{B}T$. At equilibrium, $\partial \rho/ \partial \tau = 0$ yielding from and : $$\label{eq:app_a14} \frac{\partial (\ln \rho)}{\partial m_k} = - 2 \Delta_k (i_k-m_k)$$ $$\label{eq:app_a15} \frac{\partial (\ln \rho)}{\partial m_k} = -\frac{1}{k_B T} \left(2A_km_k + h_k + \sum_j (J_{kj} + J_{jk})m_j\right)$$ respectively. Comparing equations and while assuming symmetric coupling, $J_{kj} \equiv J_{jk}$, for the system we find $$\Delta_k = -A_k/k_BT$$ and arrive at : $$\notag i_k = \frac{h_k + \sum_j 2J_{kj}m_j}{\mu_0 H_K M_S V}$$
\[sec:modeling\]Stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) Model {#secmodelingstochastic-landau-lifshitz-gilbert-llg-model .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we briefly describe the simulation framework and stochastic LLG model used throughout this paper. We start with the LLG equation [@butler_switching_2012] for a monodomain magnet with magnetization $m_i$ in the presence of a spin current ($\vec{I}_s = I_0 \hat z)$ $$(1+\alpha^2)\frac{d\hat m_i}{dt} = -|\gamma|{\hat m_i \times \vec{H}_i} - \alpha |\gamma| (\hat m_i \times \hat m_i \times \vec{H}_i) + \frac{1}{q N_i}(\hat m_i \times \vec{I}_{Si} \times \hat m_i) + \left(\frac{\alpha}{q N_i} (\hat m_i \times \vec{I}_{Si})\right)
\label{eq:llg}$$ The magnetic thermal noise enters the equation through the effective field of the magnet, $H_i = H_0 + H_n$, as an uncorrelated external magnetic field in three dimensions with the following mean and variance: $$\label{eq:app_b2} \langle {H_n^{\vec{r}}} \rangle = 0\text{, } \quad \langle |H_n^{\vec{r}}|^2 \rangle = \frac{2\alpha \rm kT}{|\gamma| \rm M_s Vol.}$$ The numerical model is implemented as an equivalent circuit for SPICE-like simulators and reproduces the equilibrium (Boltzmann) distribution from a Fokker-Planck Equation [@butler_switching_2012].
A given system of magnets is simulated using a collection of independent, though current-coupled, stochastic LLG models. Delays associated with the communication from one magnet to the next are neglected assuming that the response time of the nanomagnets is much greater than associated wire-delays. Presently, the attempt time $\tau$ of experimental nanomagnets is on the order of $\sim\mu$s to $\sim$ms [@koch_thermally_2000; @locatelli_noise-enhanced_2014; @bapna_magnetostatic_2016]. With additional scaling, the response times of these magnets will continue to improve [@urazhdin_current-driven_2003] and should approach the $\sim$ns times discussed in this paper. With response times $\sim$ns, our simulations show that even routing delays on the order of 100s of ps do not affect the results materially. Using nearest-neighbor Ising approaches or other constraining design decisions it should be possible to limit routing delays to shorter values. However, if the routing delay is comparable to the intrinsic response time of the nanomagnets then it would be important to include their effect in the simulation.
Many options exist, please see the final section, for physical realization of the proposed system of stochastic nanomagnets. For the simulations in this paper we simply use Equation without assuming any specific hardware to implement it, since it is likely that better alternatives will emerge in the near future, given the rapid pace of discovery in the field of spintronics, see for example[@camsari2015modular; @liu_spin-torque_2012; @heron2014deterministic; @sanchez2013spin].
\[sec:comb\_opt\]Combinatorial Optimization {#seccomb_optcombinatorial-optimization .unnumbered}
===========================================
We will focus on two specific examples to demonstrate the ability of such an engineered spin glass to solve problems of interest[@karp_reducibility_1972]: an instructive example based on the satisfiability problem (SAT), and a representative example based on the traveling salesman problem (TSP). The first known NP-complete problem is the problem of Boolean satisfiability[@cook_complexity_1971], namely, deciding if some assignment of boolean variables $\{x_i\}$ exists that satisfies a given conjunctive normal form (CNF) expression. Finding the collection of inputs that makes the clauses of the CNF expression true is computationally difficult, but easy to verify.
It is known that any given CNF expression can be mapped to a collection of Ising contraints using the fundamental building blocks of NOT ($m_1 = \bar{m_2}$), AND ($m_1 = m_2 \wedge m_3$), and OR ($m_1 = m_2 \vee m_3$) each subject to the Ising constraints given by [@bian_ising_2010]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hnot} H_\text{NOT} &= 1-(-m_1 m_2)\\
\label{eq:Hand} H_\text{AND} &= 3-(-m_2m_3 + 2m_1m_2 + 2m_1m_3) - (-2m_1 + m_2 + m_3) \\
\label{eq:Hor} H_\text{OR} &= 3-(-m_2m_3 + 2m_1m_2 + 2m_1m_3) - (2m_1 - m_2 - m_3) \end{aligned}$$ Using these building blocks, a network capable of finding the truth table for XOR ($m_1 = (m_2 \vee m_3) \wedge \overline{(m_2 \wedge m_3)}$) was prepared (Figure \[fig:fig2\]). For simplicity, the solution uses a naive method to construct the network and leverages the use of ancillary spins to represent $(m_2 \vee m_3)$ and $(m_2 \wedge m_3)$ respectively (note that four spins could have been used [@biamonte_nonperturbative_2008]). The array of spins from Figure \[fig:fig2b\] are connected as specified by \[eq:Hnot,eq:Hand,eq:Hor\], driven by a reference current $I_0$. As the magnets explore the configuration space, their outputs are digitized and used to compute the overall energy of the system (Figure \[fig:fig2c\]). The regions of zero energy correspond to solutions of the problem. The digitized outputs are aggregated to determine their probability of occurrence. By looking at the first three bits of the most probable outputs, the solution to the problem can be directly found (Figures \[fig:fig2d\] and \[fig:fig2e\]). While this problem helps convey the essence of the approach, a more demonstrative application is worth considering.
The decision form of the TSP is NP-complete, that is, for a collection of $N$ cities, does there exist a closed path for which each city is visited exactly once that has a tour length less than some value $d$? Finding tours that satisfy this problem is computationally challenging and also of great practical interest. There are well-known mappings that translate the TSP to the Ising model [@schneider_stochastic_2006; @lucas_ising_2014]. Here we adopt the following:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Htsp} H &= \sum_{v=1}^N\left(1-\sum_{j=1}^N x_{v,j}\right)^2 + \sum_{j=1}^N\left(1-\sum_{v=1}^N x_{v,j}\right)^2 + \lambda \sum_{uvj}W_{(uv)}x_{u,j}x_{v,j+1}\end{aligned}$$
where $x_{i,j}$ is a Boolean variable that is TRUE when city $i$ is stop number $j$ and FALSE otherwise, and $W_{(uv)}$ are directed weights based on the distance between cities $u$ and $v$. This Hamiltonian is mapped to a spin system by replacing each $x_{ij}$ with $1/2 (m_{ij}+1)$ and weights $W_{(uv)}$ with $i_{(uv)}$ given by Equation .
If the interconnections between each city are symmetric, then a Boltzmann machine[@ackley_learning_1985] with each of the $2^{N\times N}$ states associated with an effective energy $H$ is realized, and the probability of the system visiting a particular state is proportional to $\exp(-H/k_{\rm B}T)$. In order to find low-energy, optimized states, direct annealing of the glass can be performed. Using the ulysses16 reference dataset[@reinelt_tsplib--_1991], annealing of a problem specific magnetic array through control of the effective temperature was performed (Figure \[fig:fig3\]). Two specific traits of interest arise, namely the energy decays in a sigmoidal relationship with the $\ln T$, and the specific heat of the system, $C(T) = (\langle E(T)^2\rangle - \langle E(T)\rangle^2)/k_{\rm B}T^2$, shows a defined peak about a critical temperature. At high temperatures, the system is disordered and corresponds to high energy states (Figure \[fig:fig3c\]). As the temperature is reduced, the system continues to explore the energy landscape on a nanosecond timescale while gradually converging to a low-energy solution. For the given annealing profile and simulation duration, a low-energy, though not ideal, solution is found to the problem, highlighting the heuristic nature of the optimization[@schneider_stochastic_2006]. Note that in principle these simulation results could be obtained directly from actual hardware. For example, Figures \[fig:fig2d\] and \[fig:fig3d\] could be obtained by continuously monitoring the states of the individual SNMs using spin valves.
\[sec:phys\_rel\]Considerations for Physical Realization {#secphys_relconsiderations-for-physical-realization .unnumbered}
========================================================
Physical realization of these engineered spin glasses requires the integration of multiple functional elements as highlighted in Figure \[fig:fig2a\]. The magnetization of each magnet $m_i$ is first sensed with a read unit. The signal produced by this read unit is then propagated to all of the magnets with couplings dependent on the read magnetization $m_i$. Each of these connections is independently weighted with weights $W_{(ij)}$ and provided as input, along with an on-site bias $B_i$ to the write units. The write units in turn influence and control the state of magnet $m_j$.
There are a number of design options available for each functional unit as shown in Table \[tab:phys\]. Write-control of the magnets can be affected through a number of means including the spin Hall effect (SHE)[@liu_spin-torque_2012] or perhaps through voltage control[@heron2014deterministic]. The use of the SHE effect provides a convenient mechanism with which to sum several, independently weighted, input currents. Readout of the magnetization can be accomplished using well-established tunnel junctions [@parkin_magnetically_2003] which have been demonstrated for stochastic nanomagnets [@locatelli_noise-enhanced_2014]. Alternatively, readout could perhaps be accomplished using the inverse SHE [@liu_spin-torque_2012]. Assuming the use of a SHE material and tunnel junction stack, care must be given to accomodate the simultaneous use of write and read currents. One approach would be to introduce the use of a time-multiplexed scheme that disassociates the write and read operations[@sengupta_probabilistic_2016]. Alternatively, structures that provide write and read isolation may be used [@datta2012non].
The ability to write and read the magnetization is of fundamental importance, however, once read, the likely weak signal must be amplified to satisfy the fanout requirements of the network. This transistor-like gain can be realized using all-spin based approaches [@datta2012non; @behin-aein_building_2016] or perhaps with the use of a hybrid-CMOS design[@tangel_cmos_2004; @sengupta_spin_2015]. These proposed approaches may introduce power dissipation challenges during the read operation, e.g. the short-circuit current produced with the use of amplifying inverters. Power dissipation considerations must be carefully evaluated to assess the viability of scaling the proposed system.
The output from the amplification stage can be selectively weighted so that a wide range of problems based on can be encoded onto the network. The weighting of inputs can be based on an approach using re-programmable floating-gate voltages[@diep_spin_2014] that would enable the use of analog weights for the circuit. While floating-gate regulation would enable convenient re-programmability, the design would be complicated with the requirement for peripheral drivers to control the floating-gate array. Others proposals have suggested the use of memristors [@locatelli_spin-torque_2014; @yang_memristive_2013; @sengupta_spin_2015] or other programmable elements in a cross-bar like configuration [@sengupta_proposal_2016; @sengupta_probabilistic_2016], though with constrained fanout. Note that one weighting scheme that still retains the ability to encode NP-hard problems onto the network is with the use of $\{-1,0,1\}$ weights[@barahona_computational_1982]. Using this simple approach removes the necessity for tunable weights and instead relegates the problem to one of routing, connectivity, and area.
All of the simulations used in this paper assume a fully connected network of magnets in which each magnet talks to all other magnets. For small networks this is reasonable, however, such an assumption is invalid for large networks as the number of routes grows rapidly. Instead, different topologies[@bunyk_architectural_2014] and routing considerations must be made to account for congestion and long-distance communication. By limiting the connections to local-neighbors [@ercsey-ravasz_cellular_2009; @yamaoka_20k-spin_2016], the network may still be used to perform NP-hard optimization while also simplifying routing complexity. One design possibility is to leverage the lessons learned from the advances in the design of Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) interconnects[@lemieux_design_2004]. FPGAs are designed with routing topologies that facilitate both short and long-range interconnections while also providing re-programmability.
The fidelity of the programmed weights and number of high-fanout signals needed for robust solutions may impose challenges on the selected weighting and routing schemes. Additionally, the propagation delay of these high-fanout signals must be balanced with the response time of the magnets in order for the system to be governed by . While flexibility in the allowed weights and number of couplings is convenient for encoding problems onto the model[@lucas_ising_2014], it is important to note that discrete nearest-neighbor couplings still retain NP-hardness[@barahona_computational_1982] and may greatly simplify the hardware design, improving scalability at the expense of increased encoding complexity and area.
The main point of this paper is the remarkable high-speed search through Fock space enabled by the intrinsic physics of a network of stochastic nanomagnets interacting via spin-mediated interactions. We hope this work fosters an interest in the physical realization and exploration of stochastic nanomagnets as a viable Ising computer.
[10]{}
Barahona, F. On the computational complexity of [Ising]{} spin glass models. **15**, 3241–3253 (1982).
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D. & Vecchi, M. P. Optimization by simulated annealing. **220**, 671–680 (1983).
Adleman, L. M. Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems. **266**, 1021–1024 (1994).
Ouyang, Q., Kaplan, P.D., Liu, S. & Libchaber, A. DNA solution of the maximal clique problem. **278**, 446–449 (1997).
Johnson, M. W. *et al*. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. **473**, 194–198 (2011).
Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Dickson, N., Drew-Brook, M., Rose, G. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models by quantum annealing. **2**, 571 (2012).
Chua, L. O. & Yang L. Cellular neural networks: applications. **35**, 1273–1290 (1988).
Chua, L. O. & Roska, T. The [CNN]{} paradigm. **40**, 147–156 (1993).
Ercsey-Ravasz, M., Roska, T. & Néda Z. Cellular [Neural]{} [Networks]{} for [NP]{}-hard optimization. . **2009**, 2:1–2:7 (2009).
Yamaoka, M. *et al*. A 20k-spin ising chip to solve combinatorial optimization problems with CMOS annealing. **51**, 303–309 (2016).
Kim, K. *et al*. Quantum simulation of frustrated [Ising]{} spins with trapped ions. **465**, 590–593 (2010).
Mahboob, I., Okamoto, H. & Yamaguchi, H. An electromechanical [Ising]{} [Hamiltonian]{}. **2**, e1600236 (2016).
Shaked, N. T., Messika, S., Dolev, S. & Rosen, J. Optical solution for bounded [NP]{}-complete problems. **46**, 711–724 (2007).
Oltean, M. Solving the [Hamiltonian]{} path problem with a light-based computer. . **7**, 57–70 (2008).
Utsunomiya, S., Takata, K. & Yamamoto, Y. Mapping of [Ising]{} models onto injection-locked laser systems. **19**, 18091–18108 (2011).
Wu, K., García de Abajo, J., Soci, C., Ping Shum, P. & Zheludev, N.I. An optical fiber network oracle for [NP]{}-complete problems. **3**, e147 (2014).
Wang, Z., Marandi, A., Wen, K., Byer, R.L. & Yamamoto, Y. Coherent [Ising]{} machine based on degenerate optical parametric oscillators. **88**, 063853 (2013).
Marandi, A., Wang, Z., Takata, K., Byer, R. L. & Yamamoto, Y. Network of time-multiplexed optical parametric oscillators as a coherent [Ising]{} machine. **8**, 937–942 (2014).
McMahon, P. L. *et al*. A fully-programmable 100-spin coherent [Ising]{} machine with all-to-all connections. . aah5178 (2016).
Inagaki, T. *et al*. A coherent [Ising]{} machine for 2000-node optimization problems. **354**, 603–606 (2016).
Bhanja, S., Karunaratne, D. K., Panchumarthy, R., Rajaram, S. & Sarkar, S. Non-[Boolean]{} computing with nanomagnets for computer vision applications. **11**, 177–183 (2015).
Arnalds, U.B. *et al*. A new look on the two-dimensional [Ising]{} model: thermal artificial spins. **18**, 023008 (2016).
Behin-Aein, B., Diep, V. & Datta, S. A building block for hardware belief networks. **6** 29893 (2016).
Locatelli, N., Cros, V. & Grollier, J. Spin-torque building blocks. **13**, 11–20 (2014).
Lucas, A. Ising formulations of many [NP]{} problems. **2**, 5 (2014).
De las Cuevas, G. & Cubitt, T. S. Simple universal models capture all classical spin physics. **351**, 1180–1183 (2016).
Khasanvis, S. *et al*. Physically equivalent magneto-electric nanoarchitecture for probabilistic reasoning, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures ([NANOARCH]{}), pp. 25–26 (2015).
Bapna, M. *et al*. Magnetostatic effects on switching in small magnetic tunnel junctions. . **108**, 022406 (2016).
Locatelli, N. *et al*. Noise-enhanced synchronization of stochastic magnetic oscillators. **2**, 034009 (2014).
Cowburn, R. P., Koltsov, D. K., Adeyeye, A. O., Welland, M. E. & Tricker, D. M. Single-domain circular nanomagnets. **83**, 1042–1045 (1999).
Butler, W. H. *et al*. Switching distributions for perpendicular spin-torque devices within the macrospin approximation. **48**, 4684–4700 (2012).
Aaronson, S. Guest column: [NP]{}-complete problems and physical reality. **36**, 30–52 (2005).
Kadowaki, T., Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse [Ising]{} model. **58**, 5355–5363 (1998).
Cheemalavagu, S., Korkmaz, P., Palem, K. V., Akgul. B. E. S. & Chakrapani, L. N. A probabilistic [CMOS]{} switch and its realization by exploiting noise, [Proceedings]{} of the [IFIP]{} international conference on very large scale integration, (2005).
Geman, S. & Geman, D. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. **6**, 721–741 (1984).
Koch, R. H. *et al*. Thermally assisted magnetization reversal in submicron-sized magnetic thin films. **84**, 23 (2000).
Urazhdin, S., Birge, N. O., Pratt, W. P. & Bass, J. Current-driven magnetic excitations in permalloy-based multilayer nanopillars. **91**, 14 (2003).
Camsari, K. Y., Ganguly, S. & Datta, S. Modular approach to spintronics. **5**, 10571 (2015).
Liu, L. *et al*. Spin-torque switching with the giant spin Hall effect of tantalum. **336**, 555–558 (2012).
Heron, J. T. *et al*. Deterministic switching of ferromagnetism at room temperature using an electric field. **516**, 370–373 (2014).
Rojas S[á]{}nchez J. C. *et al*. Spin-to-charge conversion using Rashba coupling at the interface between non-magnetic materials. **4**, 2944 (2013).
Karp, R. M. Reducibility among combinatorial problems, in *Complexity of Computer Computations* (eds. Miller, R. E. & Thatcher, J. W.) pp. 85–103 (Plenum Press, New York, 1972).
Cook, S. A. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, in *Proc. 3rd Ann. Symp. on Theory of Computing* 151-158 (ACM, 1971).
Bian, Z., Chudak, F., Macready, W. G. & Rose, G. The [Ising]{} model: teaching an old problem new tricks. **2** (2010).
Biamonte, J. D. Nonperturbativ $k$-body to two-body commuting conversion Hamiltonians and embedding problem instances into Ising spins. **77**, 052331 (2008).
Schneider, J. J. & Kirkpatrick, S. *Stochastic Optimization* (Springer, 2006).
Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E. & Sejnowski, T. J. A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines. *Cognitive Sci.* **9**, 147–169 (1985).
Reinelt G. –A traveling salesman problem library. **3**, 376 (1991).
Parkin, S. *et al*. Magnetically engineered spintronic sensors and memory. . **91**, 661–680 (2003).
Sengupta, A., Parsa, M., Han, B. & Roy, K. Probabilistic deep spiking neural systems enabled by magnetic tunnel junction. **63**, 2963–2970 (2016).
Datta, S., Salahuddin, S. & Behin-Aein, B. Non-volatile spin switch for Boolean and non-Boolean logic. **101**, 252411 (2012).
Tangel, A., & Choi, K. “[The]{} [CMOS]{} [Inverter]{}” as a comparator in ADC designs. **39**, 147–155 (2004).
Sengupta, A., Choday, S.H., Kim, Y. & Roy, K. Spin orbit torque based electronic neuron. . **106**, 143701 (2015).
Diep, V. Q., Sutton, B., Behin-Aein, B. & Datta, S. Spin switches for compact implementation of neuron and synapse. . **104**, 222405 (2014).
Yang, J. J., Strukov, D. B. & Stewart, D. R. Memristive devices for computing. **8**, 13–24 (2013).
Sengupta, A., Shim, Y. & Roy, K. Proposal for an all-spin artificial neural network: emulating neural and synaptic functionalities through domain wall motion in ferromagnets. **99**, 1–9 (2016).
Bunyk, P. I. *et al*. Architectural considerations in the design of a superconducting quantum annealing processor. **24**, 1–10 (2014).
Lemieux, G. & Lewis, D. *Design of interconnection networks for programmable logic.* ([Springer, Boston]{}, 2004).
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Simulations based on the modular framework for spintronics[@camsari2015modular] were used to produce the results in this work. Within the framework, a stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) model was used to simulate each nanomagnet. The magnetic parameters for the telegraphic PMA magnets used in the simulations are: effective anisotropy of PMA, $H_K^{\rm eff}=600 \ \rm Oe$, saturation magnetization, $M_s=300 \ \rm emu/cc$, damping coefficient, $\alpha=0.01$, and PMA diameter, $\Phi=45 \ \rm nm$, amounting to a barrier height of $\Delta=1 \ \rm kT$. In all simulations, the initial state of the magnetic array was randomly selected. Figure \[fig:fig1\] was produced using a modular stochastic LLG simulation element with the input current swept from $-2 \mu$A to $2 \mu$A in increments of 800 nA. At each current, the response of the magnet is observed for 10 $\mu$s. Figure \[fig:fig2\] was simulated for 100 $\mu$s using the coupling depicted in the Figure and a reference current $I_0$ of $2 \mu$A. Figure \[fig:fig3\] used an annealing schedule of $T_{i+1} = 0.9 T_i$ and Lagrange multiplier of $\lambda = 0.9/\text{max}(W_{(uv)})$. At each temperature the magnets were allowed to randomly walk for 1 $\mu$s and were measured every $200$ ps. The SAT and TSP magnetic networks were simulated using coupled stochastic LLG models with the intermagnet-coupling and on-site biases produced via the spin current term of the LLG equation. The magnetization of each magnet was digitized using Schmitt Trigger based thresholds. HSPICE was used to solve the simultaneous coupled differential equations of the magnetic network.
This work was supported in part by C-SPIN, one of six centers of STARnet, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program, sponsored by MARCO and DARPA and in part by the National Science Foundation through the NCN-NEEDS program, contract 1227020-EEC.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="70.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
[**Function**]{} [**Technique**]{}
------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spin-Orbit Torque [@liu_spin-torque_2012; @sanchez2013spin]
Voltage Control [@heron2014deterministic]
Spin-Valves/Tunnel Junctions [@parkin_magnetically_2003]
Inverse Spin-Hall Effect [@liu_spin-torque_2012]
Spin-Switches [@datta2012non]
CMOS [@tangel_cmos_2004]
Floating-gate Regulators [@diep_spin_2014]
Memristive Elements [@locatelli_spin-torque_2014; @yang_memristive_2013; @sengupta_spin_2015]
Digital Logic [@yamaoka_20k-spin_2016]
Fixed Voltages
Tailored Topologies [@bunyk_architectural_2014]
FPGA-Like Interconnect [@lemieux_design_2004]
: \[tab:phys\] [**Options for Physical Realization:**]{} Many options exist for physical realization of the proposed system of stochastic nanomagnets. These magnets must be written, read, possibly amplified, weighted, and routed for the network to form a Boltzmann machine. The design options shown in this table reflect various approaches that can be used to perform each of these functions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
**Abstract**: By analyzing the large-angle Bhabha scattering events $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and diphoton events $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ for the data sets collected at center-of-mass (c.m.) energies between 2.2324 and 4.5900 GeV (131 energy points in total) with the upgraded Beijing Spectrometer (BESIII) at the Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPCII), the integrated luminosities have been measured at the different c.m. energies, individually. The results are the important inputs for R value and $J/\psi$ resonance parameter measurements.
**Key words**: luminosity, Bhabha, diphoton, R value
title: Luminosity measurements for the $R$ scan experiment at BESIII
---
plus 1pt minus 1pt
INTRODUCTION
============
Hadron production in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation is one of the most valuable testing grounds for Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), and is an important input for precision tests of the Standard Model (SM). The R value, which is defined as the lowest level hadronic cross section normalized by the theoretical $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ production cross section in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation, is an indispensable input for the determination of the non-perturbative hadronic contribution to the electromagnetic coupling constant evaluated at the Z pole ($\alpha(M_{Z}^{2})$) [@R_cal1; @R_cal2], and the anomalous magnetic moment $a_{\mu}$ $=$ $(g-2)/2$ of the muon [@R_cal3]. The dominant uncertainties in both $\alpha(M_{Z}^{2})$ and $a_{\mu}$ measurements are due to the effects of hadronic vacuum polarization, which cannot be reliably calculated in the low energy region. Instead, with the application of dispersion relations, experimentally measured R values can determine the effect of vacuum polarization.
In experiment, the R value is determined by $${\rm R} = \frac{N_{\rm had}^{\rm obs}-N_{\rm had}^{\rm bkg}}{\sigma_{\mu\mu}^{0}\cdot\mathcal{L}\cdot\varepsilon_{\rm had}\cdot\varepsilon_{\rm had}^{\rm trig}\cdot(1+\delta)},$$ where $N_{\rm had}^{\rm obs}$ is the number of observed hadronic events, $N_{\rm had}^{\rm bkg}$ is the number of background events, $\mathcal{L}$ is the integrated luminosity, $\varepsilon_{\rm had}$ is the detection efficiency for the hadron event selection, $\varepsilon_{\rm had}^{\rm trig}$ is the trigger efficiency, $1+\delta$ is the initial state radiation (ISR) correction factor, and $\sigma_{\mu\mu}^{0}$ is the Born cross section of $e^{+}e^{-} \to \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$. Therefore, the measurement of integrated luminosity plays an important role in the R value measurement.
Quantum electrodynamics (QED) processes can usually be used to determine the integrated luminosity due to larger production rates, simpler final state topologies and more accurate cross section calculation in theory relative to the other processes. The integrated luminosity is measured by $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{N_{\rm QED}^{\rm obs}-N_{\rm QED}^{\rm bkg}}{\sigma_{\rm QED} \cdot \varepsilon_{\rm QED} \cdot \varepsilon_{\rm QED}^{\rm trig}},$$ where $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm obs}$ is the number of the QED events observed in the experimental data, $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm bkg}$ is the number of background events, $\sigma_{\rm QED}$ is the cross section of the selected QED process, $\varepsilon_{\rm QED}$ is the detection efficiency and $\varepsilon_{\rm QED}^{\rm trig}$ is the trigger efficiency.
In this paper, we present the measurements of lumonisities of the R scan data samples taken at BESIII from 2012 to 2014. The measurements are performed by analyzing two QED processes $e^{+}e^{-}\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma\gamma$. For energy points near the $J/\psi$ resonance, only the $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ process is used, because $J/\psi$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ events can not be distinguished from $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ events experimentally.
DETECTOR
========
BEPCII [@NIM:DET] is a double-ring $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider designed to provide a peak luminosity of $10^{33}$ $\rm cm^{-2}\rm s^{-1}$ at the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy ($\sqrt{s}$) of $3770$ MeV. The BESIII [@NIM:DET] detector has a geometrical acceptance of $93\%$ of $4\pi$ and has four main detector sub-components: (1) A small-cell, helium-based ($60\%$ He, $40\%$ C$_{3}$H$_{8}$) main drift chamber (MDC) with $43$ layers providing an average single-hit resolution of $135$ $\mu$m, and charged-particle momentum resolution in a $1$ T magnetic field of $0.5\%$ at $1$ GeV$/c$. (2) An electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) consisting of 6240 CsI(Tl) crystals in cylindrical structure arranged in a barrel and two end-caps. The energy resolution at $1.0$ GeV$/c$ is $2.5\%$ ($5\%$) in the barrel (endcaps), and the position resolution is $6$ mm ($9$ mm) in the barrel (endcaps). (3) A time-of-flight (TOF) system for particle identification composed of a barrel part made of two layers with 88 pieces of 5 cm thick, 2.4 m long plastic scintillators in each layer, and two endcaps with 96 fan-shaped, 5 cm thick, plastic scintillators in each endcap. The time resolution of $80$ ps ($110$ ps) for barrel (endcap) prodvides $2\sigma$ $K/\pi$ separation for momenta up to $\sim 1.0$ GeV$/c$. (4) A muon system (MUC) consisted of $1000$ m$^{2}$ of resistive plate chambers in nine (eight) layers of barrel (endcap) provides $2$ cm position resolution.
DATA SAMPLE AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
======================================
The measurements of luminosities are performed for 131 data samples, including 4 energy points at 2.2324, 2.4000, 2.8000, 3.4000 GeV taken at the 2012 run, 104 energy points from 3.8500 to 4.5900 GeV taken at the 2013–2014 runs, 15 energy points near the $J/\psi$ production threshold, 4 energy points during the $\tau$ mass measurement and 4 energy points for charmonium studies. The $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}$$e^{-}$, $\gamma$$\gamma$ and ($\gamma$)$\mu^{+}$$\mu^{-}$ events are simulated with the generator Babayaga v$3.5$ [@babayaga]. The background process of $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ $\to$ $\tau^{+}$$\tau^{-}$ is generated with the KKMC [@KKMC], while the $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ $\to$ hadrons and $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ $\to$ $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ + X (X can be hadrons or leptons) events are generated with LUARLW [@LUND2] and BesTwogam [@bestwogam], respectively.
ANALYSIS
========
The $e^{+}$$e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}$$e^{-}$ events are required to have two good charged tracks with opposite charge. Each charged track is required to be within $\pm$10 cm of the interaction point in the beam direction and 1 cm in the plane perpendicular to the beam. In addition, the charged tracks are required to be within $|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.8, where $\theta$ is the polar angle, in the MDC. Without applying further particle identification, the tracks are assigned as electron and positron depending on their charges. The deposited energies of electron and positron ($E_{e^{\pm}}$) in the EMC are required to be larger than $0.65$ $\times$ $E_{\rm beam}$ to suppress backgrounds, where $E_{\rm beam}$ is the beam energy. To make sure the the selected charged tracks are back-to-back in the c.m. system, $|\Delta\theta_{e^{\pm}}|$ $=$ $|\theta_{1}+\theta_{2}-180^{\circ}|$ $<$ $10.0^{\circ}$ and $|\Delta\phi_{e^{\pm}}|$ $=$ $||\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}|-180^{\circ}|$ $<$ $5.0^{\circ}$ are required, where $\theta_{1/2}$ and $\phi_{1/2}$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the two charged tracks, respectively. Figure \[compare\_bhabha\] shows the comparisons of the momentum and polar angle distributions of electron and positron between experimental data and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 GeV, the good agreements are observed.
[momentum\_em\_bhabha.eps]{} (50,30)
[momentum\_ep\_bhabha.eps]{} (50,30)
[costhetam\_bhabha.eps]{} (50,40)
[costhetap\_bhabha.eps]{} (50,40)
To select $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma\gamma$ events, the number of good charged tracks is required to be zero. Two neutral clusters are required to have a polar angle $|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.8 with the deposited energy $E_\gamma$ satisfied $0.7$ $<$ $E_\gamma$/$E_{\rm beam}$ $<$ $1.16$. The two selected photon candidates are further required to be back to back by applying the requirement $|\Delta\phi_{\gamma}|=|\phi_{\gamma1}-\phi_{\gamma2}|<2.5^{\circ}$, where $\phi_{\gamma1/2}$ are the azimuthal anlge of the photons. Figure \[compare\_digamma\] shows the comparisons of the enegy deposition, polar angle and $\Delta\phi_{\gamma}$ distributions of two selected photons between experimental data and MC simulation at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 GeV.
The numbers of observed QED events, $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm obs}$, are obtained by event-counting after applying the event selection requirements on experimental data at different c.m. energies, individually. The detection efficiencies of signals, $\varepsilon_{\rm QED}$, are obtained by analyzing the corresponding signal MC events as done in data analysis. The cross sections of selected QED processes are calculated with the Babayaga v$3.5$ generator and the trigger efficiencies are quoted from Ref. [@trigger].
To estimate the numbers of background events, $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm bkg}$, two different methods are applied for $e^{+}e^{-}\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma\gamma$ processes, individually. In $e^{+}e^{-}\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ process, the numbers of background events are estimated by performing the same requirements on the background MC samples, which yields a background level of $10^{-5}$ after normalization. In $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma\gamma$ process, the background level is relatively large due to the hadronic process contamination. The normalized numbers of background events from $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma\gamma$ are estimated from the $\Delta\phi_{\gamma}$ sideband region, defined as $2.5^{\circ}$ $<$ $|\Delta\phi_{\gamma}|$ $<$ $5.0^{\circ}$. The distributions of the $\Delta\phi_{\gamma}$ sideband is supposed to be flat by analyzing the background MC samples.
Table \[bkg-digam\] shows input numbers used to calculate the luminosities at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 and 3.0969 GeV.
[e22324\_gg\_emax\_com.eps]{} (60,60)
[e22324\_gg\_emin\_com.eps]{} (60,60)
[e22324\_gg\_ctheta\_com.eps]{} (65,60)
[e22324\_gg\_dltphi\_com.eps]{} (70,60)
------------ ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------
$\sqrt{s}$ QED $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm obs}$ $N_{\rm QED}^{\rm bkg}$ $\sigma_{\rm QED}$ $\varepsilon_{\rm QED}$ $\varepsilon_{\rm QED}^{\rm trig}$ $\mathcal{L}$
(GeV) process (nb) (%) (%) (pb$^{-1}$)
2.2324 ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ 728522 8 1476.5 18.74 100 2.645
2.2324 $\gamma\gamma$ 86974 1138 70.26 46.50 100 2.627
3.0969 $\gamma\gamma$ 36083 1062 36.59 46.25 100 2.069
------------ ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------
: Summaries of the input numbers in luminosity calculation at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 and 3.0969 GeV.
\[bkg-digam\]
SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY
======================
The main systematic uncertainties of the integrated luminosity are originated from the uncertainties related to the requirements on the kinematic variables, tracking efficiency, cluster reconstruction efficiency, c.m. energy, MC statistics, background estimation, trigger efficiency and generators.
For the systematic uncertainty from requirements on each kinematic variable, we re-measure the luminosity by altering the required values, $i.e.$, $|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.8, $|\Delta\theta_{e^{\pm}}|$ $<$ $10^{\circ}$, $|\Delta\phi_{e^{\pm}}| < 5^{\circ}$, $|\Delta\phi_{\gamma}| < 2.5^{\circ}$, $E_{e^{\pm}}/E_{\rm beam}$ $>$ 0.65 and $0.7$ $<$ $E_\gamma$/$E_{\rm beam}$ $<$ $1.16$, individually. The resultant differences of measured luminosity with respective to the nominal value are taken as the systematic uncertainty.
To study the uncertatinty of tracking efficiency, a Bhabha event sample is selected with only EMC information [@3770]. The candidate events are selected by requiring the two clusters registered in the EMC with the deposited energy larger than $0.65$ $\times$ $E_{\rm beam}$ and lied within the polar angle $|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.8, corresponding to the angular coverage of the barrel EMC. Since the two clusters originated from $e^{\pm}$ in the $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ candidate events are bent in the magnetic field, the two shower clusters in the $xy$-plane of the EMC are not back-to-back. $\Delta\phi_{e^{\pm}}$ is required to be in the range of $[-40^{\circ},-5^{\circ}]$ or $[5^{\circ},40^{\circ}]$ to remove the $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ events. We further apply the MDC information on the selected candidates, and the ratio of survived events is regarded as the tracking efficiency. The average difference on the tracing efficiency between data and signal MC simulation, 0.41%, is taken as the systematic uncertainty.
The systematic uncertainty due to the cluster reconstruction efficiency in the EMC is determined to be $0.05\%$ for $e^{\pm}$ by comparing the cluster reconstruction efficiencies between data and signal MC (both for $e^{+}$ and $e^{-}$). Since high-energy $\gamma$ and $e^{\pm}$ behave in good approximation in the EMC, the value of $0.05\%$ is also taken as the systematic uncertainty due to the cluster reconstruction efficiency in the EMC for a single $\gamma$.
The uncertainty of c.m. energy is estimated to be 2 MeV [@gaoqing]. For each energy point, an alternative MC simulation sample of 1 million events with a c.m. energy of 2 MeV above the nominal value are generated to re-estimate the detection efficiency, the results difference is regarded as the systematic uncertainty from c.m. energy.
The uncertainty of MC statistics is $0.17\%$ for the $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ process and $0.15\%$ for the $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ process, which is estimated by $$\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\cdot{\sqrt{\frac{(1-\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}}},$$ where $N$ is the number of signal MC events, and $\varepsilon$ is the detection efficiency.
The rate of background events in the selected $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ candidate events is very small $(10^{-5})$. Therefore, the uncertainty due to background contamination is neglected. For $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ events, the rate of background events is the normalized number of selected background events in the sideband region divided by the number of signal events, which are (1.53$\pm$0.03)% and (1.31$\pm$0.04)% for experimental data and the MC simulation, respectively. Therefore, the difference $0.23\%$ is taken as uncertainty from background contamination.
The trigger efficiencies for barrel $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ events and $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ events are $100\%$ with an uncertainty of less than $0.1\%$ [@trigger].
The uncertainty due to the Babayaga generator v$3.5$ is $0.5\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$, while $1.0\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ [@babayaga].
Systematic uncertainties at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 GeV for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ are listed in Table \[errors1\]. Assuming all sources of systematic uncertainties are uncorrelated, the total uncertainty is calculated to be $0.7\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and $1.1\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ by adding all the contributions in quadrature. The uncertainties related with the tracking efficiency, cluster reconstruction efficiency, trigger efficiency and generators are common between the different c.m. energy points, while others are c.m. energy dependent and are determined for the different c.m. energy points, individually.
Source $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.8 $0.12$ $0.18$
$|\Delta\theta_{e^{\pm}}|$ $<$ $10^{\circ}$ $0.05$ -
$|\Delta\phi_{e^{\pm}}| < 5^{\circ}$ $0.01$ -
$|\Delta\phi_{\gamma}| < 2.5^{\circ}$ - $0.07$
$E_{e^{+}}/E_{\rm beam}$ $>$ 0.65 $0.04$ -
$E_{e^{-}}/E_{\rm beam}$ $>$ 0.65 $0.05$ -
$0.7$ $<$ $E_\gamma$/$E_{\rm beam}$ $<$ $1.16$ - $0.10$
Tracking efficiency $0.41$ -
Cluster reconstruction $0.10$ $0.10$
Beam energy $0.09$ $0.09$
MC statistics $0.17$ $0.15$
Background estimation $0.00$ $0.23$
Trigger efficiency $0.10$ $0.10$
Generator $0.50$ $1.00$
Total $0.70$ $1.10$
: Summary of systematic uncertainties at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.2324 GeV.
\[errors1\]
SUMMARY
=======
By using the QED processes $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ and $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$, the integrated luminosities have been measured for 131 data samples with c.m. energy between 2.2324 and 4.5900 GeV. The precision of integrated luminosity is around $0.7\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$, while around $1.1\%$ for $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$. The total luminosity is 1036.3 pb$^{-1}$, and the luminosities at the individual c.m. energy point are summarized in Table \[lumi-3processes\]. The ratio of the measured luminosity from two process is illustrated in Fig. \[compare\_all\_ecm\]. The ratios are closed to 1 within the uncertainties, which indicates the results from the two measurements are consistent well with each other. For each energy point out of the $J/\psi$ resonance region, the luminosity measured by $e^{+}e^{-} \to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ is more precise and thus is recommended. For energy points around $J/\psi$ (from 3.0930 to 3.1200 GeV), only the luminosities measured by $e^{+}e^{-} \to \gamma\gamma$ are obtained. The measured results are the important inputs for the physics studies, $e.g.$, R value measurement and $J/\psi$ resonance parameter measurement.
[c|c|c]{}
\
\
$\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) & $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ (pb$^{-1}$) & $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ (pb$^{-1}$)\
$\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) & $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ ($\gamma$)$e^{+}e^{-}$ (pb$^{-1}$) & $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ (pb$^{-1}$)\
2.2324 & 2.645$\pm$0.006$\pm$0.020 & 2.627$\pm$0.009$\pm$0.028\
2.4000 & 3.415$\pm$0.007$\pm$0.024 & 3.428$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.040\
2.8000 & 3.753$\pm$0.008$\pm$0.026 & 3.766$\pm$0.014$\pm$0.042\
3.0500 & 14.893$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.103 & 14.919$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.158\
3.0600 & 15.040$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.131 & 15.060$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.158\
3.0800 & 31.019$\pm$0.060$\pm$0.189 & 30.942$\pm$0.044$\pm$0.338\
3.0830 & 4.740$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.029 & 4.769$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.052\
3.0900 & 15.709$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.099 & 15.558$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.162\
3.0930 & – & 14.910$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.157\
3.0943 & – & 2.143$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.023\
3.0952 & – & 1.816$\pm$0.010$\pm$0.019\
3.0958 & – & 2.135$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.023\
3.0969 & – & 2.069$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.024\
3.0982 & – & 2.203$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.023\
3.0990 & – & 0.756$\pm$0.007$\pm$0.008\
3.1015 & – & 1.612$\pm$0.010$\pm$0.018\
3.1055 & – & 2.106$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.022\
3.1120 & – & 1.720$\pm$0.010$\pm$0.019\
3.1200 & – & 1.264$\pm$0.009$\pm$0.013\
3.4000 & 1.733$\pm$0.005$\pm$0.014 & 1.754$\pm$0.012$\pm$0.020\
3.5000 & 3.633$\pm$0.009$\pm$0.025 & 3.643$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.040\
3.5424 & 8.693$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.060 & 8.711$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.098\
3.5538 & 5.562$\pm$0.013$\pm$0.034 & 5.593$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.059\
3.5611 & 3.847$\pm$0.009$\pm$0.028 & 3.894$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.043\
3.6002 & 9.502$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.076 & 9.620$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.108\
3.6500 & 48.385$\pm$0.094$\pm$0.300 & 48.618$\pm$0.065$\pm$0.538\
3.6710 & 4.628$\pm$0.011$\pm$0.028 & 4.603$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.052\
3.8500 & 7.967$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.055 & 7.962$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.088\
3.8900 & 7.758$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.799$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.087\
3.8950 & 7.567$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.626$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.085\
3.9000 & 7.575$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.631$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.085\
3.9050 & 7.596$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.625$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.085\
3.9100 & 7.240$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.050 & 7.267$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.082\
3.9150 & 7.454$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.052 & 7.533$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.088\
3.9200 & 6.806$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.048 & 6.903$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.076\
3.9250 & 6.694$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.046 & 6.763$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.075\
3.9300 & 6.735$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.047 & 6.825$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.076\
3.9350 & 7.161$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 7.144$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.079\
3.9400 & 7.228$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.050 & 7.256$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.082\
3.9450 & 7.590$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.608$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.086\
3.9500 & 7.714$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.055 & 7.739$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.086\
3.9550 & 8.124$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.056 & 8.141$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.090\
3.9600 & 8.489$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.061 & 8.548$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.095\
3.9650 & 7.768$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.770$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.086\
3.9700 & 7.321$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 7.368$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.082\
3.9750 & 8.062$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.057 & 8.050$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.089\
3.9800 & 7.851$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.059 & 7.808$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.087\
3.9850 & 7.969$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.057 & 7.992$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.089\
3.9900 & 8.024$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.056 & 8.104$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.091\
3.9950 & 7.985$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.057 & 7.984$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.084\
4.0000 & 7.732$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.056 & 7.805$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.088\
4.0050 & 7.537$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.567$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.085\
4.0100 & 7.183$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.050 & 7.164$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.079\
4.0120 & 6.907$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 6.951$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.079\
4.0140 & 6.694$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.048 & 6.716$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.075\
4.0160 & 6.544$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.045 & 6.582$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.074\
4.0180 & 6.968$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.049 & 6.996$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.078\
4.0200 & 6.726$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.047 & 6.735$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.075\
4.0250 & 6.538$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.047 & 6.583$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.073\
4.0300 & 16.451$\pm$0.036$\pm$0.115 & 16.526$\pm$0.042$\pm$0.187\
4.0350 & 6.706$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.047 & 6.687$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.074\
4.0400 & 6.564$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.046 & 6.640$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.073\
4.0500 & 6.567$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.047 & 6.620$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.076\
4.0550 & 6.927$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.052 & 6.934$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.077\
4.0600 & 6.338$\pm$0.015$\pm$0.045 & 6.344$\pm$0.026$\pm$0.071\
4.0650 & 7.022$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.050 & 6.980$\pm$0.027$\pm$0.077\
4.0700 & 7.271$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.052 & 7.292$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.079\
4.0800 & 7.721$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.686$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.085\
4.0900 & 7.611$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.647$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.084\
4.1000 & 7.254$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 7.333$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.085\
4.1100 & 7.146$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.050 & 7.219$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.080\
4.1200 & 7.648$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.728$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.085\
4.1300 & 7.207$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 7.187$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.079\
4.1400 & 7.268$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.051 & 7.296$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.082\
4.1450 & 7.774$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.057 & 7.837$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.092\
4.1500 & 7.662$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.699$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.087\
4.1600 & 7.954$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.056 & 7.982$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.090\
4.1700 & 18.008$\pm$0.039$\pm$0.130 & 18.012$\pm$0.045$\pm$0.197\
4.1800 & 7.309$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.051 & 7.366$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.082\
4.1900 & 7.560$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.052 & 7.571$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.084\
4.1950 & 7.503$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.535$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.084\
4.2000 & 7.582$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.053 & 7.640$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.084\
4.2030 & 6.815$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.048 & 6.838$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.080\
4.2060 & 7.638$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.055 & 7.660$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.088\
4.2100 & 7.678$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.764$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.089\
4.2150 & 7.768$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.054 & 7.780$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.087\
4.2200 & 7.935$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.055 & 7.963$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.088\
4.2250 & 8.212$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.061 & 8.216$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.092\
4.2300 & 8.193$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.057 & 8.249$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.093\
4.2350 & 8.273$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.057 & 8.365$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.097\
4.2400 & 7.830$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.054 & 7.858$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.087\
4.2430 & 8.571$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.550$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.096\
4.2450 & 8.487$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.523$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.095\
4.2480 & 8.554$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.059 & 8.603$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.096\
4.2500 & 8.596$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.599$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.095\
4.2550 & 8.657$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.611$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.095\
4.2600 & 8.880$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.063 & 8.905$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.099\
4.2650 & 8.629$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.061 & 8.639$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.099\
4.2700 & 8.548$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.571$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.096\
4.2750 & 8.567$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.571$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.099\
4.2800 & 8.723$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.060 & 8.747$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.097\
4.2850 & 8.596$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.059 & 8.627$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.097\
4.2900 & 9.010$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.062 & 9.068$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.102\
4.3000 & 8.453$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.064 & 8.456$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.095\
4.3100 & 8.599$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.063 & 8.598$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.100\
4.3200 & 9.342$\pm$0.022$\pm$0.065 & 9.336$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.109\
4.3300 & 8.657$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.063 & 8.625$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.095\
4.3400 & 8.700$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.061 & 8.680$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.097\
4.3500 & 8.542$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.064 & 8.521$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.094\
4.3600 & 8.063$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.057 & 8.084$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.090\
4.3700 & 8.498$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.061 & 8.475$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.095\
4.3800 & 8.158$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.060 & 8.189$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.092\
4.3900 & 7.460$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.052 & 7.547$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.086\
4.3950 & 7.430$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.052 & 7.364$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.083\
4.4000 & 7.178$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.050 & 7.095$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.084\
4.4100 & 6.352$\pm$0.016$\pm$0.045 & 6.390$\pm$0.028$\pm$0.071\
4.4200 & 7.519$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.054 & 7.532$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.085\
4.4250 & 7.436$\pm$0.018$\pm$0.052 & 7.443$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.083\
4.4300 & 6.788$\pm$0.017$\pm$0.047 & 6.778$\pm$0.029$\pm$0.075\
4.4400 & 7.634$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.053 & 7.622$\pm$0.030$\pm$0.087\
4.4500 & 7.677$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.054 & 7.746$\pm$0.031$\pm$0.087\
4.4600 & 8.724$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.072 & 8.731$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.101\
4.4800 & 8.167$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.062 & 8.145$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.093\
4.5000 & 7.997$\pm$0.019$\pm$0.056 & 7.954$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.088\
4.5200 & 8.674$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.061 & 8.550$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.096\
4.5400 & 9.335$\pm$0.022$\pm$0.077 & 9.263$\pm$0.034$\pm$0.102\
4.5500 & 8.765$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.066 & 8.719$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.098\
4.5600 & 8.259$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.068 & 8.117$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.090\
4.5700 & 8.390$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.062 & 8.311$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.093\
4.5800 & 8.545$\pm$0.021$\pm$0.060 & 8.491$\pm$0.033$\pm$0.094\
4.5900 & 8.162$\pm$0.020$\pm$0.056 & 8.076$\pm$0.032$\pm$0.090\
[compare\_all\_ecm\_new.eps]{} (70,50)
The BESIII collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII and the IHEP computing center for their strong support. This work is supported in part by National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 10935007, 11121092, 11125525, 11235011, 11322544, 11335008, 11375170, 11275189, 11079030, 11475164, 11475169, 11005109, 10979095, 11275211; the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program; Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contracts Nos. 11179007, U1232201, U1332201, U1532102; CAS under Contracts Nos. KJCX2-YW-N29, KJCX2-YW-N45; 100 Talents Program of CAS; INPAC and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; German Research Foundation DFG under Contract No. Collaborative Research Center CRC-1044, FOR 2359; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470; Russian Foundation for Basic Research under Contract No. 14-07-91152; U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-04ER41291, DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-FG02-94ER40823, DESC0010118; U.S. National Science Foundation; University of Groningen (RuG) and the Helmholtzzentrum fuer Schwerionenforschung GmbH (GSI), Darmstadt; WCU Program of National Research Foundation of Korea under Contract No. R32-2008-000-10155-0.
[999]{} K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{} J. Phys. G [**38**]{}, 085003 (2011).
M. Davier [*et al.*]{} Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1515 (2011).
Fred Jegerlehner arXiv:1511.04473v2 \[hep-ph\] (2015).
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} (BESIII Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**614**]{}, 345 (2010).
G. Balossini [*et al.*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**758**]{}, 227 (2006).
S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward and Z. Was, Comp. Phys. Commun. [**130**]{}, 260 (2000); Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 113009 (2001).
B. Andersson, The Lund Model, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
S. Nova, A. Olchevski and T. Todorov (DELPHI collaboration), DELPHI 90-35 PROG [**152**]{} (1990).
N.Berger, K. Zhu et al. Chin. Phys. C [**34**]{}, 1779 (2010).
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C [**37**]{}, 123001 (2013).
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C [**39**]{}, 093001 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a mean field (MF) theory for a homogeneously driven granular gas of inelastic particles with Coulomb friction. The model contains three parameters, a normal restitution coefficient $r_n$, a maximum tangential restitution coefficient $r_t^m$, and a Coulomb friction coefficient $\mu$. The parameters can be tuned to explore a wide range of physical situations. In particular, the model contains the frequently used $\mu \rightarrow \infty$ limit as a special case. The MF theory is compared with the numerical simulations of a randomly driven monolayer of spheres for a wide range of parameter values. If the system is far away from the clustering instability ($r_n \approx 1$), we obtain a good agreement between mean field and simulations for $\mu=0.5$ and $r_t^m=0.4$, but for much smaller values of $r_n$ the agreement is less good. We discuss the reasons of this discrepancy and possible refinements of our computational scheme.'
address:
- 'P.M.M.H., Ecole Supèrieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles (ESPCI), 10, rue Vaquelin-75251 Paris cedex 05, FRANCE'
- 'Institute for Computer Applications 1, Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart, GERMANY'
author:
- Raffaele Cafiero
- Stefan Luding
title: Mean Field Theory for a driven Granular Gas of Frictional Particles
---
Kinetic and transport theory of gases, Computational methods in fluid dynamics PACS: 47.50+d, 51.10.+y, 47.11.+j
Introduction
============
-0.5cm Granular gases [@herrmann98] are usually described as collections of macroscopic particles with rough surfaces and dissipative interactions. In order to study them, kinetic theories [@jenkins85b; @huthmann97; @noije98] and numerical simulations [@luding95b] were applied for special boundary conditions. The dynamics of the system is assumed to be dominated by two-particle collisions, modeled by their asymptotic states: A collision is characterized by the velocities before and after the contact, and the contact is assumed to be instantaneous. In the simplest model, one describes inelastic collisions by normal restitution $r_n$ only. However, surface roughness is important [@huthmann97; @luding95b], since it allows for an exchange of translational and rotational energy. Here we briefly sketch a study of a model where a Coulomb friction law with coefficient $\mu$ and a tangential restitution coefficient $r_t$ account for tangential inelasticity and friction [@luding95b; @walton93]. We first introduce the model, then we describe a MF theory for the driven granular gas of rough spheres, and finally, we compare analytical results and numerical simulations. In the conclusions we discuss possible future refinements of the computational scheme.
The Model
=========
-0.5cm We consider $N$ $3$-dimensional spheres of mass $m$ and diameter $2a$ interacting via a hard-core potential, confined on a $2$-dimensional (2D) layer of linear size $L$, with periodic boundary conditions. Inelasticity and roughness are described by a normal restitution $r_n$, a Coulomb friction law with friction $\mu$, and a tangential restitution $r_t$ which depends on $r_n$, $\mu$ and the collision angle $\gamma_c$ for sliding contacts and on a maximum tangential restitution $r_t^m$ for sticking contacts, when the tangential elasticity becomes important. When two particles $1$ and $2$ collide, their velocities after collision depend on the velocities before collision through a collision matrix whose elements depend on $r_n$, $\mu$, $\gamma_c$, and $r_t^m$. Thus we calculate the momentum change using a model that is consistent with experimental measurements [@walton93]. From the momentum conservation laws for linear and angular direction, energy conservation, and Coulomb’s law we get the change of linear momentum of particle $1$ as a function of $r_n$, $\mu$, and $r_t$ [@luding95b]. The change of the normal component of the relative velocity depends on the normal restitution $r_n$, which is a tunable parameter, while the change of the tangential component of the relative velocity depends on by the tangential restitution coefficient $r_t= \min \left [ r_t^C, r_t^m \right ]$, where $r_t^m$ is the coefficient of maximum tangential restitution, $-1\leq \! r_t^m \! \leq \! 1$.The quantity $r_t^C$ is determined using Coulomb’s law such that for solid spheres $r_t^C = - 1 - (7/2) \mu (1+r_n)
\cot \gamma_c$ with the collision angle $\pi/2 < \gamma_c \le \pi$ [@luding95b]. Here, we simplified the tangential contacts in the sense that exclusively Coulomb-type interactions, i.e. $%
\Delta P^{(t)}$ is limited by $\mu \Delta P^{(n)}$, or sticking contacts with the maximum tangential restitution $r_t^m$ are allowed [@luding95b].
The mean field Theory
=====================
-0.5cm We start from the results of Huthmann and Zippelius [@huthmann97] for a freely cooling gas of infinitely rough particles. Here we apply their MF theory to the case of a driven gas of rough particles, which is the most common experimental situation [@experiments]. The MF kinetic theory of Huthmann and Zippelius is formulated for a gas of rough particles with [*constant*]{} tangential restitution $r_t$, corresponding to the limit $\mu\!=\!\infty$ in our model. It is based on a pseudo–Liouville–operator formalism and on the assumption of a homogeneous state, with a Gaussian probability distribution of translational and rotational energies. The main outcome of this approach is a set of coupled evolution equations for the translational and rotational temperatures $T_{tr}$ and $T_{rot}$ [@huthmann97]. Here, we write down and solve the MF equations for $T_{tr}$ and $T_{rot}$ for a granular gas of rough particles in which the translational velocities are subjected to a random uncorrelated Gaussian driving of variance $\xi_0^2$. These equations read for a 2D layer of spheres $$\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{d}{dt} T_{tr}(t) = \frac{2}{D}\left[
- G A T_{tr}^{3/2} + G B T_{tr}^{1/2} T_{rot}\right] +m \xi_0^2 \\
\frac{d}{dt} T_{rot}(t) = \frac{2}{2D-3}\left[
G B T_{tr}^{3/2} - G C T_ {tr}^{1/2} T_{rot}\right]\\
G = 4 a n \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{m}} \chi\;,\;
A =\frac{1-r_n^2}{4}+\frac{\eta}{2}(1-\eta) \\
B = \frac{\eta^2}{2q}\;,\;
C = \frac{\eta}{2q} \left (1-\frac{\eta}{q} \right )~,
\end{array}
\label{mfrp}$$ \
where $\eta\! =\! {q(1+r_t)}/{(2q+2)}$, $q\!=\!2/5$ for spheres, $n$ is the gas density and $\chi$ is the pair correlation function at contact.\
We can use the Verlet-Levesque [@verlet82] approximation in 2D $\chi\!=\!(1-7\phi/16)/(1-\phi)^2$ where $\phi$ is the volume fraction of the gas. For long times the system approaches a steady state. By imposing $\frac{d}{dt} T^{eq}_{tr}\!=\!0,
\frac{d}{dt} T^{eq}_{rot}\!=\!0$ we get the equilibrium temperatures $$T_{tr}^{eq}= m \left(\frac{\xi_0^2 \sqrt{\pi}}
{2 \gamma \Omega_D \chi n a^{D-1}}\right)^{2/3}
%
~~{\rm and }~~
%
\frac{T_{rot}^{eq}}{T_{tr}^{eq}}=R=\frac{2(1+r_t)}{9-5r_t}\,\,,\,\,$$ \
where $\Omega_D=2 \pi^{D/2} / \Gamma (D/2) =2 \pi$ for $D=2$ and $\gamma=\frac{1-r_n^2}{4}+\frac{1}{49}(1+r_t)\left(6-r_t \right)-
{(5/49)(1+r_t)^3}/{(9-5r_t)}$ for spherical particles. By linearizing the set of Eqs. (\[mfrp\]) around $T_{tr}^{eq}$ and $T_{rot}^{eq}$ we get the final approach to the steady state: $\delta T_{rot}(t) \simeq R \delta T_{tr}(t)$ and $T_{tr}(t)\!-\!T_{tr}^{eq}\!=\!\delta
T_{tr}(t)\simeq \delta T_{tr}(0) \exp[-3 \gamma \omega t]$. The quantity $\omega=\Omega_D\chi n a^{D-1}\sqrt{\frac{T^{eq}_{tr}}{\pi m}}$ is the Enskog collision frequency for elastic particles at the temperature $T^{eq}_{tr}$, and $t_c=(3 \gamma \omega)^{-1}\propto \gamma^{-2/3}$ is a characteristic relaxation time [@noije98]. The MF Eqs. (\[mfrp\]) can be applied to the three parameter model in the limit $\mu=\infty$, see Fig. \[fig1\].\
However, experimental measurements are well reproduced by this model only for finite $\mu$. Here we investigate the possibility to describe the effect of finite friction $\mu$ by replacing $r_t$ in the Eqs.(\[mfrp\]) with its average $\langle{r_t}\rangle$ over the probability density $P[\sin(\gamma_t)]$ of the normalized impact parameter $b/(2a)=\sin( \gamma_t)$, with the condition $r_t \leq r_t^m$. The used simplifying approach ($\gamma_c \approx
\gamma_t$) ignores the fluctuations of $r_t$ due to its dependence on the rotational degree of freedom, and we expect that it is correct only in some trivial limiting cases. Nevertheless, this simple approximation allows us to realize that for $r_t^m=0.4, \mu=0.5, r_n\approx0.9$, corresponding to many experiments, simulations fit well with the modified MF theory, as we will se below. If the molecular chaos hypothesis is valid $P[\sin(\gamma_t)]=1$, and we get $\langle{r_t}\rangle\!=\!-\!1\!+\!\frac{7}{2} \mu (1+r_n)\!\!
~\ln\!\left(\!{\sqrt{1+c^2}}\!+\!{c}\!\right)$, with $c\!=\!{\frac{2}{7}(1+r_t^m)}/({\mu(1+r_n)})$.
The simulations
===============
-0.5cm Here we compare numerical simulations of a randomly driven monolayer of spheres, performed by using an Event Driven (ED) algorithm [@luding95b], with the MF predictions (for details see [@noije98; @luding95b; @mazighi94mcnamara94; @cafiero99]). Every simulation is equilibrated without driving with $r_n=1$ and $r_t^m=-1$. Then inelasticity and driving are switched on. We used a fixed volume fraction $\phi=0.34$, $N=11025$ and different values of $r_n$, $r_t^m$, $\mu$. In Fig. \[fig1\]a-d, the translational and rotational temperatures for fixed $r_n=0.95$, $\mu=10^7$ and different values of $r_t^m$ are rescaled with the MF equilibrium temperatures and plotted versus the rescaled time $t/t_c\propto t \gamma^{2/3}$. The high value of $\mu$ allows to decouple normal and tangential momentum ($r_t=r_t^m$). The agreement is good, even for low positive values of $r_t^m$.
\
\
\
\
For negative $r_t^m$, agreement with MF is observed for the translational temperature, while the rotational temperature shows deviations from scaling in the transient phase, although the equilibrium value fits well with MF, for $r_t^m \sim -1$. This is due to a failure of the approximation $\delta T_{rot}(t) \simeq R \delta T_{tr}(t)$ for weak coupling between rotational and translational degrees of freedom and finite time. In Fig. \[fig2\]a-b we plot the same quantities as in Fig. \[fig1\] but for $r_n=0.95$, $\mu=0.5$. We obtain for $r_t^m$ near to unity significant deviations from mean field theory, while for negative $r_t^m$ the agreement with mean field theory is very good. The explanation for this results is that for $r_t^m\sim -1$ and high enough $\mu$, one has $\langle{r_t}\rangle \sim r_t^m$, and this correspond to have $\mu\to\infty$. In Fig. \[fig3\]a-b we show simulation results for $r_n=0.95$ and variable $\mu$ for $r_t^m=0.4$. These simulations confirm the previous interpretation. Finally, in Fig.\[fig3\]c-d we show simulation results for $\mu=0.5$, $r_t^m=0.4$ and different $r_n$. In this case the data collapse is very good although deviations from MF are observed. This is a coincidence, since $\langle{r_t}\rangle\simeq0.363\sim r_t^m$. To improve the MF theory for the finite $\mu$ case, the effect of a random $r_t$ must be fully taken into account. We actually are studying the possibility to include a collision angle dependent $r_t$ in the ensemble average of the energy variation due to collisions [@huthmann97]. The MF theory we obtain seems to be very promising and gives a good qualitative agreement with simulations. A paper is in preparation with the results of this study [@cafiero99] and also a three-dimensional analysis is in progress [@herbst99]. \
-0.5cm We thank H. J. Herrmann for inspiring discussions and acknowledge financial support under the European network project FMRXCT980183 and of the German Science Foundation (DFG).
\
[99]{} -0.7cm H. J. Herrmann, J.-P. Hovi, and S. Luding, eds., [*Physics of dry granular media*]{}, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1998. J. T. Jenkins and M. W. Richman, Phys. of Fluids [**28**]{}, 3485 (1985). M. Huthmann and A. Zippelius, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, R6275 (1997); S. Luding, M. Huthmann, S. McNamara and A. Zippelius, Phys. Rev. E 58, 3416-3425, (1998). T. P. C. van Noije et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**79**]{}, 411 (1997); T. P. C. van Noije and M. H. Ernst [Granular Matter]{} [**1**]{}/2, 57-64 (1998); T. P. C. van Noije et al. cond-mat/9810251. S. Luding, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 4442 (1995); S. Luding, Collisions & Contacts between two particles, in Ref. [@herrmann98]; S. Luding, E. Clément, J. Rajchenbach, and J. Duran, Europhys. Lett. [**36**]{}, 247 (1996). S. F. Foerster and M. Y. Louge and H. Chang and K. Allia, Phys. Fluids [**6**]{}, 1108 (1994); O. R. Walton in [*Particulate Two-Phase Flow*]{}, ed. M. C. Roco, Butterworth, London 1993, p. 884. A. Kudrolli, M. Wolpert and J. P. Gollub, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1383 (1996); J. S. Olafsen and J. S. Urbach, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**81**]{}, 4369 (1998); W. Losert et al., cond-mat/9901203. L. Verlet, D. Levesque, Mol. Phys. [**46**]{}, 969 (1982). R. Mazighi, B. Bernu, and F. Delyon, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 4551 (1994); S. McNamara and W. R. Young, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, R28 (1994). R. Cafiero, S. Luding and H. J. Herrmann, in preparation. O. Herbst, M. Huthmann, and A. Zippelius, preprint, submitted to Granular Matter.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
San Francisco State University\
San Francisco, CA 94132\
USA
- |
Fachbereich Mathematik & Informatik\
Freie Universität Berlin\
14195 Berlin\
Germany
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Texas A&M University\
College Station\
TX 77843\
USA
author:
- Matthias Beck
- Christian Haase
- Frank Sottile
title: |
$\raisebox{2pt}{\includegraphics[height=29pt]{figures/angle1}}
\ \raisebox{9pt}{+}\ \raisebox{2pt}{\includegraphics[height=29pt]{figures/angle3}}
\ \raisebox{9pt}{+}\ \includegraphics[height=27pt]{figures/angle2}
\ \raisebox{9pt}{=}\ \raisebox{3pt}{\includegraphics[height=24pt]{figures/triangle}}$\
(Formulas of Brion, Lawrence, and Varchenko on rational generating functions for cones)
---
Our aim is to illustrate two gems of discrete geometry, namely formulas of Michel Brion [@Br88] and of James Lawrence [@La91] and Alexander N. Varchenko [@varchenko], which at first sight seem hard to believe, and which—even after some years of studying them—still provoke a slight feeling of mystery in us. Let us start with some examples.
Suppose we would like to list all positive integers. Although there are many, we may list them compactly in the form of a generating function: $$\label{1dray1}
x^1 + x^2 + x^3 + \cdots\ =\ \sum_{ k>0 } x^k\ =\ \frac{ x }{ 1-x } \ .$$ Let us list, in a similar way, all integers less than or equal to $5$: $$\label{1dray2}
\cdots + x^{ -1 } + x^0 + x^1 + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + x^5\
=\ \sum_{ k \le 5 } x^k\
=\ \frac{ x^5 }{ 1-x^{-1} } \ .$$ Adding the two rational function right-hand sides leads to a miraculous cancellation $$\label{1dpolytope}
\frac{ x }{ 1-x } + \frac{ x^5 }{ 1-x^{-1} }\
=\ \frac{ x }{ 1-x } + \frac{ x^6 }{ x-1 }\
=\ \frac{ x - x^6 }{ 1-x }\
=\ x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + x^5 \,.$$ This sum of rational functions representing two *infinite* series collapses into a polynomial representing a *finite* series. This is a one-dimensional instance of a theorem due to Michel Brion. We can think of as a function listing the integer points in the ray $[1,\infty)$ and of as a function listing the integer points in the ray $(-\infty,5]$. The respective rational generating functions add up to the polynomial that lists the integer points in the interval $[1,5]$. Here is a picture of this arithmetic. $$\begin{picture}(320,65)
\put(0,15){\includegraphics{figures/Interval}}
\put(73,38){$+$} \put(73,15){$=$}
\put(92,0){$1$} \put(123,0){$2$} \put(154,0){$3$}
\put(185,0){$4$} \put(216,0){$5$}
\end{picture}$$
Let us move up one dimension. Consider the quadrilateral ${{\mathcal Q}}$ with vertices $(0,0)$, $(2,0)$, $(4,2)$, and $(0,2)$. $$\begin{picture}(176,88)
\put(24,10){\includegraphics{figures/Q}}
\put(138,49){${{\mathcal Q}}$}
\put(-1,80){$(0,2)$} \put(155,80){$(4,2)$}
\put( 0, 0){$(0,0)$} \put( 90, 0){$(2,0)$}
\end{picture}$$ The analog of the generating functions and are the generating functions of the cones at each vertex generated by the edges at that vertex. For example, the two edges touching the origin generate the nonnegative quadrant, which has the generating function $$\sum_{ m, n \ge 0 } x^m y^n\ =\
\sum_{ m \ge 0 } x^m \;\cdot\; \sum_{ n \ge 0 } y^n
\ =\ \frac{ 1 }{ (1-x) }\cdot \frac{ 1 }{ (1-y) } \ .$$ The two edges incident to $(0,2)$ generate the cone $(0,2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (0,-2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (4,0)$, with the generating function $$\sum_{ m \ge 0 , n \le 2 } x^m y^n = \frac{ y^2 }{ (1-x) (1-y^{-1}) } \ .$$ The third such *vertex cone*, at $(4,2)$, is $(4,2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (-4,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (-2,-2)$, which has the generating function $$\frac{ x^4 y^2 }{ (1-x^{-1}) (1-x^{-1}y^{-1})} \ .$$ Finally, the fourth vertex cone is $(2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (2,2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (-2,0)$, with the generating function $$\frac{ x^2 }{ (1-xy) (1-x^{-1}) } \ .$$ Inspired by our one-dimensional example above, we add those four rational functions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{ 1 }{ (1-x)(1-y) } + \frac{ y^2 }{ (1-x)(1-y^{-1}) } +
\frac{ x^4 y^2 }{ (1-x^{-1}) (1-x^{-1}y^{-1}) } + \frac{ x^2 }{ (1-xy) (1-x^{-1}) }
\\
=& \makebox[1em][l]{}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$y^2$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x y^2$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 y^2$} + x^2 y^2 + x^4 y^2 \rule{0pt}{14pt}\\
& \makebox[1em][l]{$+$}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$y$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x y$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 y $} + x^3 y \\
& \makebox[1em][l]{$+$}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$1$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 $}.
\end{aligned}$$ The sum of rational functions again collapses to a polynomial, which encodes precisely those integer points that are contained in the quadrilateral ${{\mathcal Q}}$.
Brion’s Theorem says that this magic happens for any polytope ${{\mathcal P}}$ in any dimension $d$, provided that ${{\mathcal P}}$ has rational vertices. (More precisely, the edges of ${{\mathcal P}}$ have rational directions.) The vertex cone ${{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathbf{v}}}$ at vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ is the cone with apex ${\mathbf{v}}$ and generators the edge directions emanating from ${\mathbf{v}}$. The generating function $$\sigma_{ {{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathbf{v}}} } (x)\ :=\ \sum_{ {\mathbf{m}}\in {{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathbf{v}}} \cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d } x^{\mathbf{m}}$$ for such a cone is a rational function (again, provided that ${{\mathcal P}}$ has rational vertices). Here we abbreviate $x^{\mathbf{m}}$ for $x_1^{ m_1 }
x_2^{ m_2 } \cdots x_d^{ m_d }$. Brion’s Formula says that the rational functions representing the integer points in each vertex cone sum up to the polynomial $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ encoding the integer points in ${{\mathcal P}}$: $$\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\textrm{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}}
\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\ .$$ A second theorem, which shows a similar collapse of generating functions of cones, is due (independently) to James Lawrence and to Alexander Varchenko. We illustrate it with the example of the quadrilateral ${{\mathcal Q}}$. Choose a direction vector $\xi$ that is not perpendicular to any edge of ${{\mathcal Q}}$, for example we could take $\xi = (2,1)$. Now at each vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ of ${{\mathcal Q}}$, we form a (not necessarily closed) cone generated by the edge directions $m$ as follows. If ${\mathbf{w}}\cdot\xi>0$, then we take its nonnegative span, and if ${\mathbf{w}}\cdot\xi<0$, we take its negative span. $$\begin{picture}(370,122)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/Lawrence}}
\put(40,35){$\xi$}
\put(110,40){${{\mathcal Q}}$}
\end{picture}$$
For example, the edge directions at the origin are along the positive axes and so this cone is again the nonnegative quadrant. At the vertex $(2,0)$ the edge directions are $(-2,0)$ and $(2,2)$. The first has negative dot product with $\xi$ and the second has positive dot product, and so we obtain the half-open cone $(2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{< 0} (-2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge 0} (2,2) = (2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{> 0} (2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge 0} (2,2)$. At the vertex $(4,2)$ both edge directions have negative dot product with $\xi$ and we get the open cone $(4,2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ > 0 } (0,4) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ > 0 } (2,2)$, and at the vertex $(0,2)$ we get the half-open cone $(0,2) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0 } (2,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{ > 0 } (0,2)$. The respective generating functions are $$\frac{ 1 }{ (1-x)(1-y) } \ , \
\frac{ x^3 }{ (1-x)(1-xy) } \ , \
\frac{ x^6 y^3 }{ (1-xy) (1-y) } \ , \ \text{ and } \
\frac{ y^3 }{ (1-x) (1-y) } \ .$$ Now we add them with signs according to the parity of the number of negative $({\mathbf{w}}\cdot\xi<0)$ edge directions ${\mathbf{w}}$ at the vertex. In our example, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{ 1 }{ (1-x)(1-y) }
- \frac{ x^3 }{ (1-x) (1-xy) }
+ \frac{ x^6 y^3 }{ (1-xy) (1-y) }
- \frac{ y^3 }{ (1-x) (1-y) } \\
=& \makebox[1em][l]{}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$y^2$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x y^2$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 y^2$}
+ x^2 y^2 + x^4 y^2 \rule{0pt}{14pt}\\
& \makebox[1em][l]{$+$}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$y$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x y$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 y $} + x^3 y \\
& \makebox[1em][l]{$+$}\makebox[1.1em][l]{$1$}
\makebox[2.5em][l]{$+\, x$}\makebox[2.7em][l]{$+\,x^2 $}.
\end{aligned}$$ This sum of rational functions again collapses to the polynomial that encodes the integer points in ${{\mathcal Q}}$. This should be clear here, for the integer points in the nonnegative quadrant are counted with a sign $\pm$, depending upon the cone in which they lie, and these coefficients cancel except for the integer points in the polytope ${{\mathcal Q}}$.
The identity illustrated by this example works for any *simple* polyope—a $d$-polytope where every vertex meets exactly $d$ edges. Given a simple polytope, choose a direction vector $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^d$ that is not perpendicular to any edge direction. Let $E^+_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi)$ be the edge directions ${\mathbf{w}}$ at a vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ with ${\mathbf{w}}\cdot \xi>0$ and $E^-_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi)$ be those with ${\mathbf{w}}\cdot \xi<0$. Define the cone $${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}} :=
{\mathbf{v}}\ +\ \sum_{{\mathbf{w}}\in E^+_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi)} {{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0} {\mathbf{w}}\ \
+\ \sum_{{\mathbf{w}}\in E^-_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi)} {{\mathbb R}}_{<0} {\mathbf{w}}\,.$$ This is the analogue of the cones in our previous example. The Lawrence–Varchenko Formula says that adding the rational functions of these cones with appropriate signs gives the polynomial $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ encoding the integer points in ${{\mathcal P}}$: $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\textrm{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}}
(-1)^{|E^-_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi)|} \, \sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\ .$$Here, $\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)$ is the generating function encoding the integer points in the cone ${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}$. An interesting feature of this identity, which also distinguishes it from Brion’s Formula, is that the power series generating functions have a common region of convergence. Also, it holds without any restriction that the polytope be rational. In the general case, the generating functions of the cones are holomorphic functions, which we can add, as they have a common domain (the common region of convergence).
Proofs {#proofs .unnumbered}
======
Brion’s original proof of his formula [@Br88] used the Lefschetz–Riemann–Roch theorem in equivariant $K$-theory [@BFQ] applied to a singular toric variety. Fortunately for us, the remarkable formulas of Brion and of Lawrence–Varchenko now have easy proofs, based on counting.
Let us first consider an example based on the cone ${{\mathcal K}}={{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0}(0,1)+{{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0}(2,1)$. The open circles in the picture on the left in Figure \[F:Tiling\]
$$ \begin{picture}(145,65)(-15,0)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/P}}
\put(-15,24){${{\mathcal K}}$}
\end{picture}
\qquad \qquad
\begin{picture}(145,65)(-15,0)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/PT}}
\put(-15,24){${{\mathcal K}}$}
\put(40,3){${{\mathcal P}}$} \put(37,7){\vector(-4,1){25}}
\end{picture}$$
represent the semigroup ${{\mathbb N}}(0,1)+{{\mathbb N}}(2,1)$, which is a proper subsemigroup of the integer points ${{\mathcal K}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^2$ in ${{\mathcal K}}$. The picture on the right shows how translates of the fundamental half-open parallelepipied ${{\mathcal P}}$ by this subsemigroup cover ${{\mathcal K}}$. This gives the formula $$\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}(x)\ =\ \sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)\cdot
\sum_{ m,n \ge 0} x^m (x^2y)^n\ =\
\frac{1+xy}{(1-x)(1-x^2y)}\ ,$$ as the fundamental parallelepiped ${{\mathcal P}}$ contains two integer points, the origin and the point $(1,1)$.
A simple rational cone in ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ has the form $${{\mathcal K}}\ :=\ \left\{ {\mathbf{v}}+\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i{\mathbf{w}}_i\mid \lambda_i\in{{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0}\right\}
\ =\ {\mathbf{v}}+ \sum_{ i=1 }^d {{\mathbb R}}_{\geq 0} {\mathbf{w}}_i\ ,$$ where ${\mathbf{w}}_1,\dotsc,{\mathbf{w}}_d\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ are linearly independent. This cone is tiled by the $({{\mathbb N}}{\mathbf{w}}_1+\dotsb+{{\mathbb N}}{\mathbf{w}}_d)$-translates of the half-open parallelepiped $${{\mathcal P}}\ :=\ \left\{{\mathbf{v}}+ \sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i{\mathbf{w}}_i\mid 0\leq \lambda_i<1\right\}\ .$$ The generating function for ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the polynomial $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in{{\mathcal P}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d} x^{{\mathbf{m}}}\ ,$$ and so the generating function for ${{\mathcal K}}$ is $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}{\mathbf{w}}_1+\dotsb+{{\mathbb N}}{\mathbf{w}}_d}
x^{\alpha}\cdot \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)
\ =\ \frac{\sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)}{(1-x^{{\mathbf{w}}_1})\dotsb(1-x^{{\mathbf{w}}_d})}\ ,$$ which is a rational function. This formula and its proof do not require that the apex ${\mathbf{v}}$ be rational, but only that the generators ${\mathbf{w}}_i$ of the cone be linearly independent vectors in ${{\mathbb Z}}^d$.
A rational cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ with apex ${\mathbf{v}}$ and generators ${\mathbf{w}}_1,\dotsc,{\mathbf{w}}_n\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ has the form $${{\mathcal K}}\ =\ {\mathbf{v}}+ {{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0}{\mathbf{w}}_1+\dotsb+{{\mathbb R}}_{\geq0}{\mathbf{w}}_n\ .$$ If there is a vector $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^d$ with $\xi\cdot{\mathbf{w}}_i>0$ for $i=1,\dotsc,n$, then ${{\mathcal K}}$ is [*strictly convex*]{}. A fundamental result on convexity [@barvinokBook Lemma VIII.2.3] is that ${{\mathcal K}}$ may be decomposed into simple cones ${{\mathcal K}}_1,\dotsc,{{\mathcal K}}_l$ having pairwise disjoint interiors, each with apex ${\mathbf{v}}$ and generated by $d$ of the generators ${\mathbf{w}}_1,\dotsc,{\mathbf{w}}_n$ of ${{\mathcal K}}$. We would like to add the generating functions for each cone ${{\mathcal K}}_i$ to obtain the generating function for ${{\mathcal K}}$. However, some of the cones may have lattice points in common, and some device is needed to treat the subsequent overcounting.
An elegant way to do this is to avoid the overcounting altogether by translating all the cones [@BS05]. We explain this. There exists a short vector ${\mathbf{s}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^d$ such that $$\label{Eq:integer_shift}
{{\mathcal K}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d\ =\ ({\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}})\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d\ ,$$ and no facet of any cone ${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1,\dotsc,{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_l$ contains any integer points. This gives the disjoint [*irrational decomposition*]{} $${{\mathcal K}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d\ =\
({\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1)\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d \sqcup\dotsb\sqcup ({\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_l)\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d \ ,$$ and so $$\label{Eq:sigma_calK}
\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in{{\mathcal K}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d} x^{{\mathbf{m}}}\ =\
\sum_{i=1}^l \sigma_{{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_i}(x)$$ is a rational function.
For example, suppose that ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the cone in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ with apex the origin and generators $${\mathbf{w}}_1\ =\ (1,0,1),\quad
{\mathbf{w}}_2\ =\ (0,1,1),\quad
{\mathbf{w}}_3\ =\ (0,-1,1),\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\mathbf{w}}_4\ =\ (-1,0,1)\,.$$ If we let ${{\mathcal K}}_1$ be the simple cone with generators ${\mathbf{w}}_1,{\mathbf{w}}_2,{\mathbf{w}}_3$ and ${{\mathcal K}}_2$ be the simple cone with generators ${\mathbf{w}}_2,{\mathbf{w}}_3,{\mathbf{w}}_4$, then ${{\mathcal K}}_1$ and ${{\mathcal K}}_2$ decompose ${{\mathcal K}}$ into simple cones. If ${\mathbf{s}}=(\frac{1}{8},0,-\frac{1}{3})$, then holds, and no facet of ${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1$ or of ${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_2$ contains any integer points. We display these cones, together with their integer points having $z$-coordinate 0, 1, or 2. $$\begin{picture}(240,130)(-28,0)
\put(15,0){\includegraphics[height=130pt]{figures/Cone_Decomposition}}
\put(-28,92){${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1$} \put(9,88){\vector(4,-1){35}}
\put(177,86){${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_2$}\put(173,89){\vector(-1,0){35}}
\put(135,21){${\mathbf{s}}$}\put(133,23){\vector(-2,-1){35}}
\put(35,117){${\mathbf{w}}_3$} \put(150,117){${\mathbf{w}}_4$}
\put( 5, 68){${\mathbf{w}}_1$} \put(160, 65){${\mathbf{w}}_2$}
\put(41,7){$x$} \put(141,5){$y$} \put(80,120){$z$}
\end{picture}$$ The cone ${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1$ contains the 5 magenta points shown with positive first coordinate, while ${\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_2$ contains the other displayed points. Their integer generating functions are $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1}(x)&=&\frac{x+xz}{(1-yz)(1-y^{-1}z)(1-xz)}\,,\\
\sigma_{{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_2}(x)&=&\frac{1+z}{(1-yz)(1-y^{-1}z)(1-x^{-1}z)}\,,\quad\mbox{and}\\
\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}}(x)&=&\frac{(1+x)(1-z^2)}{(1-yz)(1-y^{-1}z)(1-xz)(1-x^{-1}z)}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Then $\sigma_{{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_1}(x)+\sigma_{{\mathbf{s}}+{{\mathcal K}}_2}(x)=\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}}(x)$, as $$(x+xz)(1-x^{-1}z) + (1+z)(1-xz)\ =\
1+x-z^2-xz^2\ =\ (1+x)(1-z^2)\,.$$
While the cones that appear in the Lawrence–Varchenko formula are all simple, and those in Brion’s formula are strictly convex, we use yet more general cones in their proof. A rational (closed) halfspace is the convex subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ defined by $$\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^d\mid {\mathbf{w}}\cdot x\geq b\}\,,$$ where ${\mathbf{w}}\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ and $b\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Its boundary is the rational hyperplane $\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^d\mid{\mathbf{w}}\cdot x=b\}$. A (closed) cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the interection of finitely many closed halfspaces whose boundary hyperplanes have some point in common. We assume this intersection is irredundant. The [*apex*]{} of ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the intersection of these boundary hyperplanes, which is an affine subspace.
The generating function for the integer points in ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the formal Laurent series $$\label{Eq:FGS}
S_{{{\mathcal K}}}\ :=\ \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in{{\mathcal K}}} x^{{\mathbf{m}}}\ .$$ This formal series makes sense as a rational function only if ${{\mathcal K}}$ is strictly convex, that is, if its apex is a single point. Otherwise, the apex is a rational affine subspace $L$, and the cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ is stable under translation by any integer vector ${\mathbf{w}}$ that is parallel to $L$. If ${\mathbf{m}}\in{{\mathcal K}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, then the series $S_{{{\mathcal K}}}$ contains the series $$x^{{\mathbf{m}}}\cdot \sum_{n\in{{\mathbb Z}}} x^{n{\mathbf{w}}}$$ as a subsum. As this converges only for $x=0$, the series $S_{{{\mathcal K}}}$ converges only for $x=0$.
We relate these formal Laurent series to rational functions. The product of a formal series and a polynomial is another formal series. Thus the additive group ${{\mathbb C}}[[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x^{\pm1}_d]]$ of formal Laurent series is a module over the ring ${{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$ of Laurent polynomials. The space ${\operatorname{PL}}$ of [*polyhedral Laurent series*]{} is the ${{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$-submodule of ${{\mathbb C}}[[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x^{\pm1}_d]]$ generated by the set of formal series $$\{S_{{\mathcal K}}\mid {{\mathcal K}}\textrm{ is a simple rational cone}\}\,.$$ Since any rational cone may be triangulated by simple cones, ${\operatorname{PL}}$ contains the integer generating series of all rational cones.
Let ${{\mathbb C}}(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)$ be the field of rational functions on ${{\mathbb C}}^d$, which is the quotient field of ${{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$. According to Ishida [@Is90], the proof of the following theorem is due to Brion.
\[T:unique\] There is a unique homomorphism of ${{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$-modules $$\varphi\ \colon\ {\operatorname{PL}}\ \longrightarrow {{\mathbb C}}(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)\,,$$ such that $\varphi(S_{{\mathcal K}})=\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}$ for every simple cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^d$.
[*Proof.* ]{} Given a simple rational cone ${{\mathcal K}}= v + \langle {\mathbf{w}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{w}}_d\rangle$ with fundamental parallelepiped ${{\mathcal P}}$, we have $$\prod_{i=1}^d (1-x^{{\mathbf{w}}_i}) \cdot S_{{\mathcal K}}\ =\ \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)\,.$$ Hence, for each $S\in {\operatorname{PL}}$, there is a nonzero Laurent polynomial $g\in{{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$ such that $g S = f \in {{\mathbb C}}[x_1^{\pm1},\dotsc,x_d^{\pm1}]$. If we define $\varphi(S):= f/g\in {{\mathbb C}}(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)$, then $\varphi(S)$ is independent of the choice of $g$. This defines the required homomorphism.[$\Box$]{}
The map $\varphi$ takes care of the nonconvergence of the generating series $S_{{{\mathcal K}}}$ when ${{\mathcal K}}$ is not strictly convex.
\[L:Zero\] If a rational polyhedral cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ is not strictly convex, then $\varphi(S_{{\mathcal K}})=0$.
[*Proof.* ]{} Let ${{\mathcal K}}$ be a rational polyhedral cone that is not strictly convex. Then there is a nonzero vector ${\mathbf{w}}\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ such that ${\mathbf{w}}+{{\mathcal K}}={{\mathcal K}}$, and so $x^{{\mathbf{w}}}\cdot S_{{\mathcal K}}=S_{{\mathcal K}}$. Thus $x^{{\mathbf{w}}} \varphi(S_{{\mathcal K}})=\varphi(S_{{\mathcal K}})$. Since $1-x^{{\mathbf{w}}}$ is not a zero-divisor in ${{\mathbb C}}(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)$, we conclude that $\varphi(S_{{\mathcal K}})=0$. [$\Box$]{}
We now establish Brion’s Formula, first for a simplex, and then use irrational decomposition for the general case. (A $d$-dimensional simplex is the intersection of $d{+}1$ halfspaces, one for each facet.)
For a face $F$ of the simplex ${{\mathcal P}}$, let ${{\mathcal K}}_F$ be the tangent cone to $F$, which is the intersection of the halfspaces corresponding to the $d-\dim(F)$ facets containing $F$. Let $\emptyset$ be the empty face of ${{\mathcal P}}$, which has dimension $-1$. Its tangent cone is ${{\mathcal P}}$.
\[T:simplex\] If $P$ is a simplex, then $$\label{E:simplex}
0\ =\ \sum_{F} (-1)^{\dim(F)} S_{{{\mathcal K}}_F}\,,$$ the sum over all faces of $P$.
[*Proof.*]{} Consider the coefficient of $x^{{\mathbf{m}}}$ for some ${\mathbf{m}}\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ in the sum on the right. Then ${\mathbf{m}}$ lies in the tangent cone ${{\mathcal K}}_F$ to a unique face $F$ of minimal dimension, as $P$ is a simplex. The coefficient of $x^{{\mathbf{m}}}$ in the sum becomes $$\sum_{G\supseteq F} (-1)^{\dim(G)}\,.$$ But this vanishes, as every interval in the face poset of $P$ is a Boolean lattice.[$\Box$]{}
Now we apply the evaluation map $\varphi$ of Theorem \[T:unique\] to the formula . Lemma \[L:Zero\] implies that $\varphi(S_{{{\mathcal K}}_F})= 0$ except when $F=\emptyset$ or $F$ is a vertex, and then $\varphi(S_{{{\mathcal K}}_F})=\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_F}(x)$. This gives $$0\ =\ - \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}} (x) +
\sum_{ {\mathbf{v}}\text{ a vertex of } {{\mathcal P}}} \sigma_{ {{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathbf{v}}} } (x) \,,$$ which is Brion’s Formula for simplices.
Just as for rational cones, every polytope ${{\mathcal P}}$ may be decomposed into simplices ${{\mathcal P}}_1, \dots, {{\mathcal P}}_l$ having pairwise disjoint interiors, using only the vertices of ${{\mathcal P}}$. $${{\mathcal P}}\ =\ {{\mathcal P}}_1 \cup \dotsb\cup {{\mathcal P}}_l\ .$$ Then there exists a small real number $\epsilon>0$ and a short vector ${\mathbf{s}}$ such that if we set $${{\mathcal P}}'\ :=\ {\mathbf{s}}+(1+\epsilon){{\mathcal P}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{{\mathcal P}}'_i\ :=\ {\mathbf{s}}+(1+\epsilon){{\mathcal P}}_i\quad\mbox{for}\ i=1,\dotsc,l\,,$$ then ${{\mathcal P}}'\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d={{\mathcal P}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, and no hyperplane supporting any facet of any simplex ${{\mathcal P}}'_i$ meets ${{\mathbb Z}}^d$. If we write ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal Q}})_{{\mathbf{w}}}$ for the tangent cone to a polytope ${{\mathcal Q}}$ at a vertex ${\mathbf{w}}$, then for ${\mathbf{v}}$ a vertex of ${{\mathcal P}}$ with ${\mathbf{v}}'=(1+\epsilon){\mathbf{v}}+{\mathbf{s}}$ the coresponding vertex of ${{\mathcal P}}'$, we have ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}}')_{{\mathbf{v}}'}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d = {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}})_{{\mathbf{v}}}\cap{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ and so this is an irrational decomposition. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\text{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}}\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}})_{{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)&=&
\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\text{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}'}\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}}')_{{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^l\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\text{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}'_i }\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}}'_i)_{{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^l \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}_i}(x)\ =\ \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}'}(x)\ =\ \sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)\ .\end{aligned}$$ The second equality holds because the vertex cones ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}}'_i)_{{\mathbf{v}}}$ form an irrational decomposition of the vertex cone ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal P}}')_{{\mathbf{v}}}$, and because the same is true for the polytopes. This completes our proof of Brion’s Formula.
Consider the quadrilateral ${{\mathcal Q}}$, which may be triangulated by adding an edge between the vertices $(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$. Let $\epsilon=\frac{1}{4}$ and ${\mathbf{s}}=(-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{4})$. Then $(1+\epsilon){{\mathcal Q}}+{\mathbf{s}}$ has vertices $$({\textstyle -\frac{1}{2}},{\textstyle -\frac{1}{4}}), \quad
(2,{\textstyle -\frac{1}{4}}), \quad
({\textstyle -\frac{1}{2}},2+{\textstyle \frac{1}{4}}), \quad
(4+{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}},2+{\textstyle \frac{1}{4}})\ .$$ We display the resulting irrational decomposition. $$\begin{picture}(130,73)(26,7)
\put(24,10){\includegraphics{figures/QT}}
\put(138,46){${{\mathcal Q}}'$}
\end{picture}$$
We use the map $\varphi$ to deduce a very general form of the Lawrence–Varchenko formula. Let ${{\mathcal P}}$ be a simple polytope, and for each vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ of ${{\mathcal P}}$ choose a vector $\xi_{{\mathbf{v}}}$ that is not perpendicular to any edge direction at ${\mathbf{v}}$. Form the cone ${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi_{{\mathbf{v}}}, {\mathbf{v}}}$ as before. Then we have $$\label{E:LV}
\sigma_{{{\mathcal P}}}(x)\ =\ \sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\textrm{ a vertex of }{{\mathcal P}}}
(-1)^{|E^-_{{\mathbf{v}}}(\xi_{{\mathbf{v}}})|} \, \sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi_{{\mathbf{v}}},{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\ .$$ Brion’s formula is the special case when each vector $\xi_{\mathbf{v}}$ points into the interior of the polytope. We establish by showing that the sum on the right does not change when any of the vectors $\xi_{{\mathbf{v}}}$ are rotated.
Pick a vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ and vectors $\xi,\xi'$ that are not perpendicular to any edge direction at ${\mathbf{v}}$ such that $\xi\cdot {\mathbf{w}}$ and $\xi\cdot {\mathbf{w}}'$ have the same sign for all except one edge direction ${\mathbf{m}}$ at ${\mathbf{v}}$. Then ${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}$ and ${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi',{\mathbf{v}}}$ are disjoint and their union is the (possibly) half-open cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ generated by the edge directions ${\mathbf{w}}$ at ${\mathbf{v}}$ such that $\xi\cdot{\mathbf{w}}$ and $\xi'\cdot{\mathbf{w}}$ have the same sign, but with apex the affine line ${\mathbf{v}}+{{\mathbb R}}{\mathbf{m}}$. Thus we have the identity of rational formal series $$S_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}} - S_{{{\mathcal K}}}\ =\ -S_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi',{\mathbf{v}}}}\ .$$ Applying the evaluation map $\varphi$ gives $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\ =\ -\sigma_{{{\mathcal K}}_{\xi',{\mathbf{v}}}}(x)\ ,$$ which proves the claim, and the generalized Lawrence–Varchenko formula .
Valuations {#valuations .unnumbered}
==========
Valuations provide a conceptual approach to these ideas. Once the theory is set up, both Brion’s Formula and the Lawrence–Varchenko Formula are easy corollaries of duality being a valuation. We are indebted to Sasha Barvinok who pointed out this correspondence to the second author during a coffee break at the 2005 Park City Mathematical Institute. Let us explain.
Consider the vector space of all functions ${{\mathbb R}}^d \to {{\mathbb R}}$. Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be the subspace that is generated by indicator functions of polyhedra: $$[{{\mathcal P}}]\ \colon\ x\ \mapsto\
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } x \in {{\mathcal P}}, \\
0 & \text{ if } x \not\in {{\mathcal P}}.
\end{cases}$$ We add these functions point-wise. For example, if $d=1$, and ${{\mathcal P}}=[0,2]$, ${{\mathcal Q}}=[1,3]$, then $[{{\mathcal P}}]+[{{\mathcal Q}}]$ takes the value $1$ along $[0,1)$ and $(2,3]$, the value $2$ along $[1,2]$, and vanishes everywhere else. $$\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V02}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}
\quad \raisebox{10mm}{+} \quad
\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V13}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}
\quad \raisebox{10mm}{=} \quad
\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V0123}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}$$ Already this simple example shows that our generators do not form a basis: they are linearly dependent. For ${{\mathcal P}}'=[0,3]$ and ${{\mathcal Q}}'=[1,2]$, we get the same sum. $$\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V03}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}
\quad \raisebox{10mm}{+} \quad
\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V12}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}
\quad \raisebox{10mm}{=} \quad
\begin{picture}(120,65)(2.5,0)
\put(2.5,11){\includegraphics{figures/V0123}}
\put(25,0){$0$} \put( 50,0){$1$}
\put(75,0){$2$} \put(100,0){$3$}
\end{picture}$$ But this is the only thing that can happen.
The linear space of relations among the indicator functions $[{{\mathcal P}}]$ of convex polyhedra is generated by the relations $[{{\mathcal P}}]+[{{\mathcal Q}}]=[{{\mathcal P}}\cup {{\mathcal Q}}]+[{{\mathcal P}}\cap {{\mathcal Q}}]$ where ${{\mathcal P}}$ and ${{\mathcal Q}}$ run over polyhedra for which ${{\mathcal P}}\cup {{\mathcal Q}}$ is convex.
A [*valuation*]{} is a linear map $\nu\colon{\mathcal{V}}\to V$, where $V$ is some vector space. Some standard examples are
[|l||c|]{} $V$ & $\nu({{\mathcal P}})$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
${{\mathbb R}}^d$& $\operatorname{vol}({{\mathcal P}})$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
${\operatorname{PL}}$ & $S_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
${{\mathbb C}}(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)$ &$\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
${{\mathbb R}}^d$& 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
.
That $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ is a valuation is a deep result of Khovanskii-Pukhlikov [@KhPu] and of Lawrence [@La88]. The last example is called the Euler characteristic. This valuation is surprisingly useful. For example, it can be used to prove Theorem \[thm:polarity\] below.
The most interesting valuation for us comes from the polar construction. The [*polar*]{} ${{\mathcal P}}^\vee$ of a polyhedron ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the polyhedron given by $${{\mathcal P}}^\vee\ :=\ \{ x \mid \langle x, y \rangle \le 1 \text{ for all }
y \in {{\mathcal P}}\}\,.$$
It is instructive to work through some examples.
1. -------------------------- ----- -----------------------------
 
The polar of the square … is the diamond.
-------------------------- ----- -----------------------------
2. [ccc]{}
(85,65)(-10,0) (0,0)[]{} (-10,50)[$(1,2)$]{} (50,0)[$(1,0)$]{}
&&
(130,75)(-35,0) (0,0)[]{} (-35,60)[$(-2,1)$]{} (62,5)[$(0,-1)$]{}
\
The polar of a cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ & … & is the cone ${{\mathcal K}}^\vee := \{ x \mid \langle x, y \rangle \le 0 \text{ for all }
y \in {{\mathcal K}}\}$ .
3. Suppose that ${{\mathcal P}}$ is a polytope whose interior contains the orign and ${{\mathcal F}}$ is a face of ${{\mathcal P}}$. Then
[ccc]{}
(100,94) (0,0)[]{} (82,73)[${{\mathcal F}}$]{}
&&
(90,94) (0,10)[]{} (54,68)[${{\mathcal F}}^\vee$]{}
\
the polar of the tangent cone ${{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathcal F}}$ & …& is the convex hull of the origin\
&& together with the dual face\
&& ${{\mathcal F}}^\vee := \{ x \in {{\mathcal P}}^\vee \mid \langle x, y \rangle = 1
\}$,\
&& which is a pyramid over ${{\mathcal F}}^\vee$.
For this last remark, note that if $x \in {{\mathcal F}}^\vee$ and $y \in {{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathcal F}}$, then $\langle x,y \rangle \le \langle {{\mathcal F}}^\vee, {{\mathcal F}}\rangle = 1$. Conversely, if $x \in {{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathcal F}}^\vee$, then $\langle x, \mbox{{\Large .}} \rangle$ is maximized over ${{\mathcal K}}_{{\mathcal F}}$ at ${{\mathcal F}}$ by example (2), and it is at most $1$ there.
In these examples, the polar of the polar is the original polyhedron. This happens if and only if the original polyhedron contains the origin.
4. The polar of the interval $[1,2]$ is the interval $[0,1/2]$, but the polar of $[0,1/2]$ is $[0,2]$.
Now, we come to the main theorem of this section.
\[thm:polarity\] The assignment $[{{\mathcal P}}] \mapsto [{{\mathcal P}}^\vee]$ defines a valuation.
This innocent-looking result has powerful consequences. Suppose that ${{\mathcal P}}$ is a polytope whose interior contains the orign. Then we can cover ${{\mathcal P}}^\vee$ by pyramids ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee)$ over the codimension-one faces ${{\mathcal F}}^\vee$ of ${{\mathcal P}}^\vee$. The indicator functions of ${{\mathcal P}}$ and the cover differ by indicator functions of pyramids of smaller dimension. $$\label{eq:BGpolar}
[{{\mathcal P}}^\vee]\ =\ \sum_{{{\mathcal F}}^\vee} [{\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee)] \pm \text{
lower dimensional pyramids} .$$ The Euler–Poincaré formula for general polytopes organizes this inclusion-exclusion, giving the exact expression $$[{{\mathcal P}}^\vee]\ =\ \sum (-1)^{{\operatorname{codim}}{{\mathcal F}}^\vee+1}
[{\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee)]\,.$$ We illustrate this when ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the square. $$\begin{picture}(80,80)
\put(0,7.5){\includegraphics{figures/Diamond}}
\end{picture}
\quad\raisebox{42pt}{$=$}\qquad
\begin{picture}(90,90)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/DiamondDecomp}}
\put(22,59.6){\Red{$+$}}\put(40.3,59.6){\Red{$-$}}\put(58.4,59.6){\Red{$+$}}
\put(22,41.9){\Red{$-$}}\put(40.3,41.9){\Red{$+$}}\put(58.4,41.9){\Red{$-$}}
\put(22,23.8){\Red{$+$}}\put(40.3,23.8){\Red{$-$}}\put(58.4,23.8){\Red{$+$}}
\end{picture}
$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\includegraphics{figures/DiamondAxes}
&\raisebox{24.4pt}{=}&
\includegraphics{figures/DecompPP}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$+$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompMP}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$+$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompPM}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$+$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompMM}
\\
&\raisebox{24.4pt}{$-$}&
\includegraphics{figures/DecompPO}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$-$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompMO}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$-$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompOP}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$-$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompOM}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$+$}\
\includegraphics{figures/DecompOO}\ \raisebox{24.4pt}{$.$}\end{aligned}$$
If we apply polarity to , we get the Brianchon–Gram Theorem [@Br1837; @Gr1874]. $$\label{eq:BG}
[{{\mathcal P}}]\ =\ \sum_{v \text{ vertex}} [{{\mathcal K}}_v] \pm \text{ tangent cones
of faces of positive dimension} .$$ This is essentially the indicator function version of Theorem \[T:simplex\], but for general polytopes. If we now apply the valuation $\sigma$, and recall that $\sigma$ evaluates to zero on cones that are not strictly convex, we obtain Brion’s Formula.
Next, suppose that we are given a generic direction vector $\xi$. On a face ${{\mathcal F}}$ of ${{\mathcal P}}$, the dot product with $\xi$ achieves its maximum at a vertex $v_\xi({{\mathcal F}})$. For a vertex $v$ of ${{\mathcal P}}$, we set $${{\mathcal F}}^\vee_\xi(v)\ :=\ \bigcup_{{{\mathcal F}}\colon v_\xi({{\mathcal F}}) = v}
{\operatorname{relint}}{{\mathcal F}}^\vee .$$ (The relative interior, ${\operatorname{relint}}({{\mathcal P}})$, of a polyhedron ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the topological interior when considered as a subspace of its affine hull.) In words, we attach the relative interior of a low-dimensional pyramid ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee)$ to the full-dimensional pyramid ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,v^\vee)$ which we see when we look in the $\xi$-direction from ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee)$. In this way, we obtain an honest decomposition $$\label{eq:LVpolar}
[{{\mathcal P}}^\vee]\ =\ \sum_{v} \ [{\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee_\xi(v))]\,.$$ For the polar of the square, this is
 \
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To compute the polar of the half-open polyhedron ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee_\xi(v))$, we have to write its indicator function $[{\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee_\xi(v))]$ as a linear combination of indicator functions of (closed) polyhedra. If ${{\mathcal P}}$ is a simple polytope, then all the dual faces ${{\mathcal F}}^\vee$ are simplices. It turns out that the polar of ${\operatorname{conv}}(0,{{\mathcal F}}^\vee_\xi(v))$ is precisely the forward tangent cone ${{\mathcal K}}_{\xi,v}$ at the vertex $v$. So the Lawrence–Varchenko formula is just the polar of .
This gives a fairly general principle to construct Brion-type formulas: Choose a decomposition of (the indicator function of) ${{\mathcal P}}^\vee$, and then polarize. We invite the reader to set up their own equations this way.
An Application {#an-application .unnumbered}
==============
Brion’s Formula shows that certain data of a *polytope*—the list of its integer points encoded in a generating function—can be reduced to *cones*. We have already seen how to construct the generating function $\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}(x)$ for a simple cone ${{\mathcal K}}$. General cones can be composed from simple ones via triangulation and either irrational decomposition or inclusion-exclusion. Given a rational polytope ${{\mathcal P}}$, Brion’s Formula allows us to write the possibly huge polynomial $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ as a sum of rational functions, which stem from (triangulations of) the vertex cones. [*A priori*]{} it is not clear that this rational-function representation of $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ is any shorter than the original polynomial. That this is indeed possible is due to the *signed decomposition* theorem of Barvinok [@barvinok].
To state Barvinok’s Theorem, we call a rational $d$-cone ${{\mathcal K}}= {\mathbf{v}}+ \sum_{ i=1 }^d {{\mathbb R}}_{\geq 0} {\mathbf{w}}_i$ *unimodular* if ${\mathbf{w}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{w}}_d \in {{\mathbb Z}}^d$ generate the integer lattice ${{\mathbb Z}}^d$. The significance of a unimodular cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ for us is that its fundamental (half-open) parallelepiped contains precisely one integer point ${\mathbf{p}}$, and so the generating function of ${{\mathcal K}}$ has a very simple and short form $$\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}(x)\ =\ \frac{ x^{\mathbf{p}}}{ \left( 1-x^{ {\mathbf{w}}_1 } \right)
\cdots \left( 1-x^{ {\mathbf{w}}_d } \right) } \ .$$ In fact, the description length of this is proportional to the description of the cone ${{\mathcal K}}$.
\[T:Barv2\] For fixed dimension $d$, the generating function $\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}$ for any rational cone ${{\mathcal K}}$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ can be decomposed into generating functions of unimodular cones in polynomial time; that is, there is a polynomial-time algorithm and (polynomially many) unimodular cones ${{\mathcal K}}_j$ such that $\sigma_{{\mathcal K}}(x) = \sum_j \epsilon_j \sigma_{ {{\mathcal K}}_j
}(x)$, where $\epsilon_j \in \{ \pm 1 \}$.
Here *polynomial time* refers to the input data of ${{\mathcal K}}$, that is, the algorithm runs in time polynomial in the input length of, say, the halfspace description of ${{\mathcal K}}$.
Brion’s Formula implies that an identical complexity statement can be made about the generating function $\sigma_{{\mathcal P}}(x)$ for any rational polytope ${{\mathcal P}}$. From here it is a short step (which nevertheless needs some justification) to see that one can *count* integer points in a rational polytope in polynomial time.
We illustrate Barvinok’s short signed decomposition for the cone ${{\mathcal K}}:=(0,0)+{{\mathbb R}}_{\ge0}(1,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge0}(1,4)$, ignoring cones of smaller dimension. $$\begin{picture}(95,128)(-6,-12)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4}}
\put(-7,87){$(1,4)$} \put(55,-10){$(3,0)$}
\end{picture}
\quad\raisebox{55 pt}{$=$}\quad
\begin{picture}(130,128)(-26,-12)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4a}}
\put(-28,87){$(0,4)$} \put(55,-10){$(3,0)$}
\end{picture}
\ \raisebox{55 pt}{$-$}\
\begin{picture}(70,128)(-26,-12)
\put(0,1.5){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4b}}
\put(-28,87){$(0,4)$} \put(27,87){$(1,4)$}
\end{picture}$$ While ${{\mathcal K}}$ is the difference of two unimodular cones, it has a unique decomposition as a sum of [*four*]{} unimodular cones. $$\begin{picture}(95,128)(-6,-12)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4}}
\put(-7,87){$(1,4)$} \put(55,-10){$(3,0)$}
\end{picture}
\quad\raisebox{55 pt}{$=$}\quad
\begin{picture}(88,128)(0,-12)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4c}}
\put(35,70){$(3,3)$} \put(55,-10){$(3,0)$}
\end{picture}
\ \raisebox{55 pt}{$+$}\
\begin{picture}(80,128)(5,-12)
\put(0,1.5){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4d}}
\put(15,87){$(2,4)$} \put(60,53){$(3,3)$}
\end{picture}
\ \raisebox{55 pt}{$+$}\
\begin{picture}(58,128)(0,-12)
\put(0,1.5){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4e}}
\put(-7,65){$(1,3)$} \put(27,42){$(1,2)$}
\end{picture}
\ \raisebox{55 pt}{$+$}\
\begin{picture}(47,128)(3,-12)
\put(0,1.5){\includegraphics{figures/Cone4f}}
\put(-7,87){$(1,4)$} \put(27,60){$(1,3)$}
\end{picture}$$ In general the cone $(0,0)+{{\mathbb R}}_{\ge0}(1,0) + {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge0}(1,n)$ is the difference of two unimodular cones, but it has a unique decomposition into $n$ unimodular cones.
Arguably the most famous consequence of Barvinok’s Theorem applies to *Ehrhart quasipolynomials*—the counting functions $L_{{\mathcal P}}(t) := \# \left( t {{\mathcal P}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d \right)$ in the positve-integer variable $t$ for a given rational polytope [@beckrobins] ${{\mathcal P}}$. One can show that the generating function $\sum_{ t \ge 1 } L_{{\mathcal P}}(t) \, x^t$ is a rational function, and Barvinok’s Theorem implies that this rational function can be computed in polynomial time. Barvinok’s algorithm has been implemented in the software packages [barvinok]{} [@verdoolaege] and [LattE]{} [@lattemanual]. The method of irrational decomposition has also been implemented in [LattE]{}, considerably improving its performance [@Koeppe].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Research of Haase supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0200740 and DFG Emmy Noether fellowship. Research of Sottile supported in part by the Clay Mathematical nstitute and NSF CAREER grant DMS-0538734.
\[2\][ [\#2](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1) ]{} \[2\][\#2]{}
[10]{}
A.I. Barvinok, *A polynomial time algorithm for counting integral points in polyhedra when the dimension is fixed*, Math. Oper. Res. **19** (1994), 769–779.
, *A course in convexity*, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 54, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002.
P. Baum, Wm. Fulton, and G. Quart, *Lefschetz-[R]{}iemann-[R]{}och for singular varieties*, Acta Math. **143** (1979), no. 3-4, 193–211.
M. Beck and S. Robins, *Computing the continuous discretely*, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2007.
M. Beck and F. Sottile, *Irrational proofs of three theorems of [S]{}tanley*, 2005, European J. Combin. **28** (2007), 403–409.
C.J. Brianchon, *Théorème nouveau sur les polyèdres*, J. Ecole (Royale) Polytechnique **15** (1837), 317–319.
M. Brion, *Points entiers dans les polyèdres convexes*, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. **21** (1988), no. 4, 653–663.
J.A. De Loera, D. Haws, R. Hemmecke, P. Huggins, and R. Yoshida, *A user’s guide for [LattE]{} v1.1*, software package [LattE]{} (2004), electronically available at [http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/$\sim$latte/]{}.
J.P. Gram, *Om rumvinklerne i et polyeder*, Tidsskrift for Math. (Copenhagen) **4** (1874), no. 3, 161–163.
H. Groemer, *On the extension of additive functionals on classes of convex sets*, Pacific J. Math. **75** (1978), no. 2, 397–410.
M.-N. Ishida, *Polyhedral [L]{}aurent series and [B]{}rion’s equalities*, Internat. J. Math. **1** (1990), no. 3, 251–265.
A.G. Khovanskii and A.V. Pukhlikov, *The Riemann-Roch theorem for integrals and sums of quasipolynomials on virtual polytopes*, Algebra i Analiz **4** (1992), 188–216.
M.Koeppe, *A primal Barvinok algorithm based on irrational decompositions*, SIAM J. Discrete Math. **21** (2007), no. 1, 220–236.
J. Lawrence, *Valuations and polarity*, Discrete Comput. Geom. **3** (1988), no. 4, 307–324.
, *Polytope volume computation*, Math. Comp. **57** (1991), no. 195, 259–271.
A.N. Varchenko, *Combinatorics and topology of the arrangement of affine hyperplanes in the real space*, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. **21** (1987), no. 1, 11–22.
S. Verdoolaege, software package [barvinok]{} (2004), electronically available at [http://freshmeat.net/projects/barvinok/]{}.
W. Volland, *Ein [F]{}ortsetzungssatz für additive [E]{}ipolyederfunktionale im euklidischen [R]{}aum*, Arch. Math. **8** (1957), 144–149.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An overview on recent applications of the finite-element method Maxwell-solver [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}to simulation tasks in nanooptics is given. Numerical achievements in the fields of optical metamaterials, plasmonics, photonic crystal fibers, light emitting devices, solar cells, optical lithography, optical metrology, integrated optics, and photonic crystals are summarized.'
author:
- |
Sven Burger, Lin Zschiedrich, Jan Pomplun, Mark Blome, Frank Schmidt JCMwave GmbH, [Bolivarallee]{} 22, D–14050 Berlin, Germany\
Zuse Institute Berlin(ZIB), [Takustra[ß]{}e]{} 7, D–14195 Berlin, Germany
bibliography:
- '/home/numerik/bzfburge/texte/biblios/phcbibli.bib'
- '/home/numerik/bzfburge/texte/biblios/my\_group.bib'
- '/home/numerik/bzfburge/texte/biblios/lithography.bib'
- '/home/numerik/bzfburge/texte/biblios/jcmwave\_third\_party.bib'
title: 'Advanced finite-element methods for design and analysis of nanooptical structures: Applications'
---
This paper will be published in Proc. SPIE Vol. [**8642**]{} (2013) 864205, (DOI: 10.1117/12.2001094), and is made available as an electronic preprint with permission of SPIE. One print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic or multiple reproduction, distribution to multiple locations via electronic or other means, duplication of any material in this paper for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the paper are prohibited. Please see original paper for images at higher resolution.
![ Light intensity distribution of a leaky mode in a twisted photonic crystal fiber (pseudo-color representation). From left to right: intensity (linear color-scale), real part of one of the radial electric-field vector components (linear color-scale), intensity of the same component (logarithmic color scale). []{data-label="fig_pcf"}](epse/pcf_t.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Introduction
============
Optical elements with nanometer dimensions are of great importance in many technological and scientific research fields. Examples are semiconductor device manufacturing (e.g., optical nanolithography), new light sources (e.g., VCSELs), diffractive optical elements (DOEs), photovoltaics (e.g., thin-film solar cells), sensing (e.g., plasmonic bio-sensors), optical communication systems (e.g., integrated optics). The functionalities of nanooptical elements critically depend on geometrical and material properties of the experimental arrangement. For understanding and designing properties of materials and devices numerical simulations of Maxwell’s equations are very helpful. However, rigorous and accurate simulations of such setups can be challenging because:
- structures and field distributions are defined on multi-scale geometries (e.g., nanometer layers extending over microns),
- material properties (e.g., permittivity of metal) lead to high field enhancements or singularities at edges and corners of the objects,
- typical regions of interest are 3D and large in scales of cubic wavelengths,
- structures often are embedded into inhomogeneous exterior domains (e.g., plasmonic particles embedded into the material stack of a solar cell).
For approaching simulation tasks in nanooptics we develop and use finite-element methods [@monk2003finite] (FEM). Main features of FEM are the capability of exact geometric modeling (by using unstructured meshes) and high accuracy at low computational cost (due to superior convergence properties of higher-order finite elements). The finite element method offers great flexibility to approximate the solution: different mesh refinement levels and polynomial ansatz functions of varying degree can be combined to obtain high convergence rates. As a result, very demanding problems can be solved on standard personal computers and workstations. We demonstrate that the FEM solver [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}equipped with higher-order finite elements, adaptive meshing techniques and a rigorous implementation of transparent boundary conditions is a powerful method for simulating a variety of settings in nanooptics. Here we summarize applications of our FEM developments for simulations of several nanooptical devices and applications, ranging from fundamental research to industrial development topics.
![ Angular emission spectra of dipoles placed in the emitting layer of an OLED with periodically arranged scatterers for improved outcoupling efficiency. From left to right: Three different lateral dipole placement positions. (Intensity, pseudo-color representation, logarithmic color scale). []{data-label="fig_oled"}](epse/figure.eps){width="99.00000%"}
This paper is structured as follows: Information on the background of the FEM implementation in [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is given in Section \[section\_background\]. Applications of [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}to optical metamaterials, plasmonics, photonic crystal fibers, light emitting devices, solar cells, optical lithography, optical metrology, integrated optics, and photonic crystals are summarized in Section \[section\_applications\]. The main purpose of this paper is to give an overview on the variety of application fields of FEM in nanooptics.
Background and Methods {#section_background}
======================
The linear Maxwell’s equations in frequency domain are an appropriate model to simulate optical properties of many technologically relevant devices and experiments in fundamental research in the field of nanooptics [@Novotny2006a]. Three main problem classes can be derived: light scattering problems (including sources like plane waves, point sources, or waveguide modes), waveguide mode problems (for geometries which are inviariant in one or more space variables), and resonance mode problems [@Pomplun2007pssb; @Burger2012springer]. Depending on the geometry of the device to be modeled, different coordinate systems are used, e.g., 1D, 2D, 3D cartesian coordinates (with periodic, transparent, and/or fixed boundary conditions), cylindrically symmetric, or even twisted coordinate systems. For computing the electromagnetic near fields in the respective settings we develop and use the finite-element (FEM) Maxwell solver [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{} [@Zschiedrich2005a; @Burger2008ipnra; @Pomplun2007pssb]. This solver incorporates higher-order edge-elements, self-adaptive meshing, and fast solution algorithms for solving time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations. Also, automatic computation of first- and higher-order parameter derivatives is implemented in the software. Infinite exterior domains are treated using transparent boundary conditions (using an adaptive perfectly matched layer method, PML [@Hohage03b; @Zschiedrich2006pml; @Zschiedrich2006a]). Further, domain-decomposition (DD) methods are implemented for efficient simulations of large 3D computational domains [@Zschiedrich2005b; @Schaedle_jcp_2007; @Zschiedrich2008al], reduced-basis methods (RBM) have been developed for an online-offline decomposition of parameterized simulation setups [@PomplunSCEE2010; @Pomplun2010SIAM], and goal-oriented error-estimation is implemented [@zschiedrich2007goaloriented].
![ Left: Tetrahedral 3D mesh discretizing the geometry of a thin-film, multi-junction solar cell with rough interfaces. Center: Corresponding visualization of a monochromatic light field distribution in the solar cell. Right: Prismatoidal 3D mesh discretizing the geometry of a circular-grating resonator and corresponding visualization of the excited fundamental mode. []{data-label="fig_solar"}](epse/solar_pic.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Applications {#section_applications}
============
This section summarizes recent applications of our FEM implementation to simulation tasks in nanooptics. Results have been obtained in different academic and industrial research groups and collaborations, worldwide. Figures \[fig\_pcf\], \[fig\_oled\], \[fig\_solar\] show some exemplary applications: Specific properties of a field distribution of a guided mode in a twisted photonic crystal fiber [@wong2011strongly; @wong2012excitation] are visualized in Figure \[fig\_pcf\], c.f., Section \[section\_pcf\]. Angular emission spectra of light emitting diode with a nano-structured cathode [@zschiedrich2013pw] are displayed in Figure \[fig\_oled\], c.f., Section \[section\_emitters\]. Geometry discretizations and field distributions from solar cell optimization and for an integrated optical resonator are shown in Figure \[fig\_solar\]: c.f., Section \[section\_solar\] for solar cells [@lockau2011rigorous], c.f., Section \[section\_integrated\] for Silicon optics simulations [@Burger2010pw2].
Optical metamaterials {#section_metamaterials}
---------------------
Optical metamaterials are nano-structured materials which can exhibit non-intuitive optical properties, like, e.g., a negative refractive index [@Cai2009metamaterials]. In this context, the [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}FEM solver is used to investigate metamaterial building blocks like split-ring resonators with resonances at visible frequencies [@Enkrich2005a; @Burger2005srr], magnetic metamaterial properties[@Dolling2006a; @Linden2006a; @Decker2009a; @tsakmakidis2010negative], refractive index properties [@Dolling2007a], specific resonance properties [@Gansel2010oe; @Zhao2011ACS; @wong2011strongly], and other effects.
Plasmonics
----------
Plasmonics, or [*nanoplasmonics*]{}, is the general field of optical phenomena related to the electromagnetic response of metals [@Novotny2006a]. This includes typical optical metamaterial phenomena, as summarized in the previous Section \[section\_metamaterials\]. However, in the field of [*plasmonics*]{} typically resonances near metal surfaces are the main focus of investigation. The sub-wavelength localization of these resonances gives rise to new physical effects and applications. Examples are nanoscale lasers and optical sensing at sub-wavelength resolution. In this context, [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used to investigate new physical effects [@Kalkbrenner2005a; @lee2008polarization; @Burger2009a; @Zhao2011ACS; @lee2012excitation], to design plasmonic devices [@unger2009sensitivity; @klein2009electron; @Lockau2009a; @Lockau2009plasmon; @Burger2010pw1; @burger2010fem; @mohammadi2011manipulating; @benkenstein2011effects; @paetzold2011design; @paetzold2011plasmonic; @fischer2011plasmon; @husakou2011polarization; @Paetzold2012; @Richter2012PRB; @kewes2013design; @Yan2012CP] and to test theoretical approaches [@Hoffmann2009spie; @husakou2011theory; @Babicheva2012JOSAB; @hiremath2012numerical].
Photonic crystal fibers {#section_pcf}
-----------------------
Photonic crystal fibers (PCF) [@Russell2003a], or more generally microstructured fibers, are a class of optical fibers with specific guiding properties which can be engineered by defining the fiber cross section geometry and the used optical materials. This enables a variety of scientific and industrial fields, e.g., frequency-comb-generation, supercontinuum-generation, guidance of ultrashort pulses, advanced fiber lasers, and others. In this field, [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used to investigate new physical effects in PCFs [@Pearce2007oe; @lee2008polarization; @tyagi2008optical; @travers2011ultrafast; @wong2011strongly; @wong2012excitation], to design PCF for specific functionalities [@Holzloehner2006a; @couny2007generation; @PoZsKlx07; @laegsgaard2008dispersive; @Bethge2009jlt; @im2009guiding; @nold2010pressure; @weirich2010liquid; @wang2011low; @jones2011mid; @laurila2011spatial; @laurila2011modal], and for further applications.
Light emitting devices {#section_emitters}
----------------------
Laser diodes and light emitting diodes rely on light emission in the p-n junction of a semiconductor diode, excited by an electric current. Applications range from miniaturized light sources to energy-efficient lighting. In this field, [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used to investigate and design optical properties of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSEL) [@Rozova2012spie], light emitting diodes (LED, OLED) [@Zschiedrich2012SOLED; @zschiedrich2013pw], edge emitters [@Pomplun2010pssb; @wenzel2011theoretical; @wenzel2013basic], plasmon lasers [@Burger2010pw1; @burger2010fem], and other concepts [@Karl2009OE; @grossmann2010low; @grossmann2010high; @grossmann2011strongly; @karl2010reversed; @jones2011mid; @beck2011pmma]. In the case of high-power devices, analysis should also include thermo-optical effects [@Rozova2012spie; @Pomplun2012thermo; @wenzel2013basic].
Solar cells {#section_solar}
-----------
Solar cells can convert light to electrical energy. For large-scale electrical power generation, thin-film solar cells are advantageous. Microstructures in the different layers of these devices are used to increase light conversion efficiency. Different concepts for so-called [*light-trapping*]{} rely on regular or rough, metal or dielectric nanostructures. In this field, [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used to design solar cells for increased conversion efficiency, e.g., by optimizing light trapping effects [@Lockau2009plasmon; @lockau2011rigorous; @benkenstein2011effects; @paetzold2011design; @paetzold2011plasmonic; @Paetzold2012; @blome2012back; @becker2012large; @lockau2013nanophotonic; @hammerschmidt20123d].
Optical lithography
-------------------
Photolithography (typically at deep ultraviolet (DUV) and extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelengths) is used for fabrication of patterns on a nanometer scale, with applications especially in microelectronics. The field of numerical simulations in this engineering- and research-area is termed [*Computational lithography*]{} [@Lai2012aot]. Numerically optimized resolution enhancement techniques (RET), optical proximity correction (OPC), and source mask optimization (SMO) help to push the resolution limits of nanofabrication further towards smaller structures. The technological framework of this field translates to challenging requirements on numerical accuracy and computation time. In this field, [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used in various industrial collaborations [@Burger2005bacus; @Burger2006c; @Burger2007bacus; @Tezuka2007spie; @Burger2008bacus; @Pomplun2010bacus; @Burger2011eom1_; @Tyminski2012al].
Optical metrology
-----------------
In optical metrology of nanostructures accurate simulation of light propagation is an essential component [@Pang2012aot]. A challenge consists in reducing computation times for simulation results matching predefined accuracy requirements such that the inverse problems arizing in metrological measurements can be solved [*online*]{}. This is especially important when real-world structures of complex geometry are considered, as it is the case in process control and characterization. In this field [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is mainly used in projects regarding optical metrology of nanostructures of interest to the semiconductor industry [@Scholze2007a; @Scholze2008a; @potzick2008international; @Pomplun2008pmj; @quintanilha2009critical; @Pomplun2009bacusrbm; @Burger2011eom1_; @Burger2011pm1; @Bodermann2011AIP; @Bodermann2012op; @Kleemann2011eom3; @Kato2012a; @zang2011structural]. The FEM implementation is also used by national metrology institutes (PTB, NIST) for critical dimension metrology and other purposes [@potzick2008international; @quintanilha2009critical; @Bodermann2012op; @bodermann2012quantitative].
Integrated optics {#section_integrated}
-----------------
Integrated optical devices ([*integrated optical circuits*]{}, [Si-optics]{} devices) integrate several photonic functions into one element. This allows for decreasing footprints and in principle for higher performance of standard optical components, e.g., in optical telecommunications, and for new functionalities, e.g., for sensing (so called [*lab-on-a-chip*]{} devices). In this field [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is mainly used to investigate devices like high-Q resonators, waveguide couplers, splitters, or add-drop filters [@Burger2010pw2; @Burger2010pw3; @Burger2011pw1; @warm2011cross; @Petracek2012ICTON].
Photonic crystals
-----------------
Photonic crystals are materials with periodic arrangements of the refractive index. The specific (periodic or quasi-periodic) arrangements can lead to special properties like the opening of photonic band-gaps. Photonic-crystal fibers (see Section \[section\_pcf\]) are a sub-class of photonic bandgap materials. Apart from applications to PCF, in this field [[*JCMsuite *]{}]{}is used to investigate properties of photonic bandgap material and devices composed of photonic crystals [@NeveOz2010jap; @Burger2005a; @Burger2010pw2; @Burger2010pw3; @Burger2011pw1; @Petracek2012ICTON].
Conclusion
==========
Adaptive finite-elements prove to be a versatile method for generating accurate results to state-of-the-art simulation challenges in nanooptics. We have summarized results on analysis, design and optimization of nano-structured materials and devices, ranging from fundamental research topics like metamaterials and plasmonics to industrial nanooptic applications like microlithography, photonic crystal fibers and solar cells.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by BMBF within project [Mosaic]{} (FKZ 13N12438), by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within DFG research center [Matheon]{}, and by the European Union within EMRP Joint Research Project [Ind17 Scatterometry]{}.\
{width=".2\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The Statistical Model of the Early Stage, SMES, describes a transition between confined and deconfined phases of strongly interacting matter created in nucleus-nucleus collisions. The model was formulated in the late 1990s for central Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN SPS energies. It predicted several signals of the transition (onset of deconfinement) which were later observed by the NA49 experiment. The grand canonical ensemble was used to calculate entropy and strangeness production. This approximation is valid for reactions with mean multiplicities of particles carrying conserved charges being significantly larger than one.
Recent results of NA61/SHINE on hadron production in inelastic p+p interactions suggest that the deconfinement may also take place in these reactions. However, in this case mean multiplicity of particles with non-zero strange charge is smaller than one. Thus for the modelling of p+p interactions the exact strangeness conservation has to be implemented in the SMES. This extension of the SMES is presented in the paper.
author:
- 'R. V. Poberezhnyuk'
- 'M. Gazdzicki'
- 'M. I. Gorenstein'
title: |
Statistical Model of the Early Stage of nucleus-nucleus collisions\
with exact strangeness conservation
---
Introduction {#sec-intr}
============
Strongly interacting matter at sufficiently high energy density is predicted to exist in a phase of quasi-free quarks and gluons, the quark gluon plasma (QGP). Relativistic nucleus-nucleus (A+A) collisions provide a unique opportunity to check this prediction and study properties of the transition to the QGP as well as the QGP itself. This is because the system created in A+A collisions is close to (at least local) equilibrium. The conclusion is based on the success of statistical and hydrodynamical models of particle production at high energies (see e.g. Ref. [@Fl]). Consequently, properties of the system (matter) can be characterized by its equation of state which should include different phases and transitions between them. It is important to note that nowadays there is no dynamical understanding of the observed equilibrium properties of particle production in A+A collisions.
With increasing collision energy the energy density of matter created at the early stage of A+A collisions increases. Thus, at a sufficiently high collision energy the matter is expected to be created in the QGP phase. The beginning of the QGP creation with increasing collision energy is referred to as the onset of deconfinement. The experimental search for the onset of deconfinement in central Pb+Pb collisions was performed by the NA49 experiment at the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) about 15 years ago. The study was motivated [@Afanasev:2000dv] by predictions of the Statistical Model of the Early Stage (SMES) [@GG] of A+A collisions. According to the model the onset of deconfinement in central A+A collisions should lead to rapid changes of the energy dependence of several hadron production properties, all located in a common energy domain. In particular, a non-monotonic dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio as a function of the collision energy (the [*horn*]{}) was predicted [@GG] as an important signal of the transition. This and other predictions of the SMES were confirmed by NA49 [@:2007fe; @:2007fe1]. Moreover, following results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN agree with the NA49 results and their interpretation (see Ref. [@rustamov]). The SMES predictions and the experimental evidence for the onset of deconfinement are presented in recent reviews [@review].
The SMES is probably the simplest model of the onset of deconfinement. This leads to a number of advantages and disadvantages. In particular, the SMES is frequently criticized for being based on simple assumptions which can not be justified within popular dynamical approaches to A+A collisions.
In this paper we concentrate on a single aspect of the SMES which concerns the finite size effects for strange hadron production. The SMES predictions for strangeness production were calculated within the grand canonical ensemble (GCE). This approximation is valid for central Pb+Pb collisions at the SPS energies in which mean multiplicity of particles with non-zero strange charge is significantly larger than one. However, this is not the case for inelastic p+p interactions at the SPS energies. Here the exact strangeness conservation has to be imposed using the canonical ensemble (CE) [@CE; @CE1; @CE2; @CE3].
Recently, the NA61/SHINE Collaboration at the CERN SPS published results on hadron production in p+p interactions [@NA61; @NA61-s]. They suggest that in these reactions the strangeness to entropy ratio (experimentally replaced by the $K^+$ to $\pi^+$ ratio) also changes rapidly in the SPS energy range, see Fig. \[fig:onset\]. However, the ratio and its energy dependence are significantly different from the [*horn*]{} measured in central Pb+Pb collisions. Can these results be explained by the onset of deconfinement as modelled by the SMES? The first step towards an answer to this question is taken in this paper by introducing the exact strangeness conservation. In order to allow for a direct comparison with the previously published predictions, the remaining SMES assumptions, parameters and notations are kept unchanged.
![\[fig:onset\] The [*horn*]{} structure in the energy dependence of the K$^+/\pi^+$ ratio is interpreted as evidence for the onset of deconfinement located at low CERN SPS energies. The structure was first discovered by NA49 in central Pb+Pb collisions. Surprisingly its shadow is visible in inelastic p+p interactions as indicated by the new NA61/SHINE data. ](hornKP.pdf){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec-GCE\] the GCE formulation of the SMES is briefly recapitulated. The exact strangeness conservation is introduced in the SMES in Sec. \[sec-CE\] and results for p+p interactions and collisions of small nuclei are presented. A summary in Sec. \[sec-sum\] closes the article.
The SMES model in brief {#sec-GCE}
=======================
The SMES model was formulated almost 20 years ago. Its basic assumptions, parameters and results are summarized in this section. Together with the notation used in the original paper they are here kept unchanged as much as possible in order to allow for a direct comparison with the previously published results.
The SMES assumes that the matter created at the early stage of collisions has zero conserved charges. Consequently, its properties are entirely defined by the available energy and the volume in which production takes place. In central A+A collisions this volume is chosen as the Lorentz contracted volume occupied by the colliding nucleons (participant nucleons) from a single nucleus: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{volume}
V=\frac{4 \pi r^3_0 A_p/3}{\sqrt{s_{NN}}/2m_N}~,~~
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $m_N$ is the nucleon mass, $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ is the center of mass energy of the nucleon pair, $A_p$ is the number of participant nucleons from a single nucleus. The $r_0$ parameter is taken to be 1.30 fm in order to fit the mean baryon density in the nucleus, $\rho_0 = 0.11$ fm$^{-3}$.
Only a fraction, $\eta$, of the total energy in A+A collisions is transformed into the energy of new degrees of freedom created at the early stage. This is because a part of the energy is carried by the net baryon number. The released (inelastic) energy is expressed as [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{E}
E~=~\eta \,(\sqrt{s_{NN}}~-~2m_N)\,A_p~,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where the parameter $\eta$ is assumed to be independent of the collision energy and the system size. The value of $\eta$ used for numerical calculations is 0.67 [@GG].
Assumptions (\[volume\]) and (\[E\]) with $\eta = 1$ correspond to the Landau hydrodynamical model [@landau]. Similarly to this model, in the SMES we do not consider dynamical mechanisms leading to a fast thermalization of the matter. The SMES model postulates that the creation of new particles at the early stage of collision is a statistical process, namely, all microscopic states allowed by conservation laws is equally probable.
The SMES predictions for the pion multiplicities are based on the assumption that the entropy generated at the early stage of collision is (approximately) conserved during the expansion of produced matter. It was indeed observed that the dissipative effects estimated by the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy density are small for the strongly interacting matter, especially in a region of the deconfinement transition (see, e.g., [@eta] and references therein). It should be also noted that particle interactions play rather different role for the equilibrium properties (e.g., the equation of state) and the kinetic coefficients (e.g., the shear viscosity). This is clearly demonstrated by a simple example of the hard balls system [@eta1]. The hard core particle radius $r$ leads to small corrections to the ideal gas equation of state due to the excluded volume effects, but the shear viscosity as it behaves as $\propto r^{-2}$ and thus it is strongly dependent on $r$.
The elementary particles of strong interactions are quarks and gluons. The deconfined state is considered to be composed of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks and the corresponding anti-quarks each with internal number of degrees of freedom equal to 6 (3 color states and 2 spin states). The contribution of $c$, $b$ and $t$ quarks is neglected due to their large masses. The internal number of degrees of freedom for gluons is 16 (8 color states and 2 spin states). The masses of gluons and non-strange (anti)quarks are taken to be 0. The strange (anti)quark mass is taken to be 175 MeV [@GG]. The properties of equilibrated matter are characterized by an equation of state (EoS). For the case of quarks and gluons the bag model EoS is used [@bag], i.e., the ideal gas EoS modified by a bag constant $B$. This equilibrium state of quarks and gluons is called the Quark Gluon Plasma or Q state.
The SMES uses an effective parametrization of the confined hadron state, denoted as W state. The non-strange degrees of freedom which dominate the entropy production are taken to be massless bosons. Their internal number of degrees of freedom is taken to be 16 i.e., about 3 times lower than the internal number of effective degrees of freedom in the QGP. The mass of strange degrees of freedom is assumed to be 500 MeV, equal to the kaon mass. The internal number of strange degrees of freedom is assumed to be 14. For the W-state the ideal gas EoS is selected. Clearly, this description of the confined state should only be treated as an effective parametrization. The numerical values of the parameters are fixed by fitting A+A data at the AGS, see for details Ref. [@GG]. The model assumes that always the maximum entropy state is created at the early stage of A+A collisions. In the model with two different states (W and Q) the form of maximum state changes with the collision energy. The regions in which the equilibrium state is in the form of a pure W or a pure Q state, are separated by the region in which both states coexist (the mixed phase). The maximum entropy condition is equivalent to the assumption of the first order phase transitions with the Gibbs criterion for the mixed phase (see Appendix B in Ref. [@GG]). Namely at a given temperature $T$ the system occupies a pure phase W or Q whose pressure is larger, the mixed phase is formed if both pressures are equal $p_W=p_Q$. The transition temperature between the W and Q phases is assumed to be $T_c=200$ MeV.
Using the assumptions and parameters defined above predictions of the SMES can be calculated. The early stage energy density reads: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsilon}
\varepsilon~\equiv~\frac{E}{V}=\frac{\eta \rho_0 (\sqrt{s_{NN}}-2 m_N) \sqrt{s_{NN}}}{2 m_N}~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The pressure and energy density functions in the W-phase and Q-phase are equal to: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p-W}
&
p_W(T)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_W}{90}T^4~+~
\frac{g^s_W}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 \frac{dk\,k^4}{3(k^2+m_W^2)^{1/2}}\exp\left[{-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_W)^{1/2}}{T}}\right]~,\\
& \varepsilon_W(T)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_W}{30}T^4+\frac{g^s_W}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 dk\, k^2 (k^2+m_W^2)^{1/2}\exp\left[{-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_W)^{1/2}}{T}}\right]~,\label{e-W}\\
&p_Q(T)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_Q}{90}T_c^4~+~
\frac{g^s_Q}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 \frac{dk~k^4}{3(k^2+m_Q^2)^{1/2}}\exp\left[{-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_Q)^{1/2}}{T}}\right]~
-~B~,
\label{p-Q}\\
&\varepsilon_Q(T)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_Q}{30}T^4~+~
\frac{g^s_Q}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 dk\, k^2 (k^2+m_Q^2)^{1/2}\exp\left[{-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_Q)^{1/2}}{T}}\right]
~+~B~.\label{e-Q}
\end{aligned}$$]{} The strange particle contribution to thermodynamical functions (\[p-W\]-\[e-Q\]) are taken within the Boltzmann approximation. This simplification is important for the CE treatment which will be discussed in the next section. Note that in Ref. [@GG] the Fermi distribution with $m^*_Q=175$ MeV was used for the strange quarks. In order to minimize differences to the previous results we choose here a larger value of $m_Q = 216.5$ MeV which leads to the same number of strange quarks at the phase transition temperature ($T_c=200$ MeV): [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fermi}
\int_0^{\infty} k^2dk\,\exp \left(-\,\sqrt{k^2+m_Q^2}/T_c\right)~=~
\int_0^{\infty} k^2dk\,\left[\exp \left(\sqrt{k^2+m_Q^{*2}}/T_c\right)~+~1\right]^{-1}~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Then the bag constant $B=570$ MeV/fm$^{3}$ is calculated using the Gibbs criterion of equal pressures: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{G}
p_W(T_c)~=~p_Q(T_c)~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The entropy densities in the pure phases ($i=$W, Q) read: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
s_i(T)~=~\frac{p_i(T)~+~\varepsilon_i (T)}{T}~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} In the mixed phase the W and Q phases coexist. The fraction of volume occupied by the Q phase is denoted as $\xi$. The energy and entropy densities in the mixed phase are [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-mix}
&\varepsilon_{\rm mix}(T_c)~=~\xi\,\varepsilon_Q (T_c)~+~(1-\xi)\,\varepsilon_W (T_c)~,\\
&s_{\rm mix}(T_c)~=~\xi\,s_Q (T_c)~+~(1-\xi)\,s_W (T_c)~.\label{s-mix}
\end{aligned}$$]{}
![The temperature ($left$) and pressure ($right$) of the matter created at the early stage of A+A collisions as function of collision energy. \[fig-T-GCE\] ](xt1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![The temperature ($left$) and pressure ($right$) of the matter created at the early stage of A+A collisions as function of collision energy. \[fig-T-GCE\] ](xp1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![$Left$: The ratio of entropy densities $s_i/s_Q$ with $i$ referring to the W (solid line), Q (horizontal solid line), and mixed (dashed line) phases, as a function of collision energy. The full circles correspond to the beginning and end of the mixed phase given by Eq. (\[s1s2\]). $Right$: The strangeness to entropy ratio $n^s/s$ as a function of collision energy. \[fig-smix-GCE\] ](entr1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![$Left$: The ratio of entropy densities $s_i/s_Q$ with $i$ referring to the W (solid line), Q (horizontal solid line), and mixed (dashed line) phases, as a function of collision energy. The full circles correspond to the beginning and end of the mixed phase given by Eq. (\[s1s2\]). $Right$: The strangeness to entropy ratio $n^s/s$ as a function of collision energy. \[fig-smix-GCE\] ](xy21.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The temperature $T$ and pressure $p$ are shown as a functions of the collision energy in Figs. \[fig-T-GCE\] $left$ and $right$, respectively. The mixed phase starts at collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN,1}}$ and ends at $\sqrt{s_{NN,2}}$: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{s1s2}
\sqrt{s_{NN,1}}~=~7.42~{\rm GeV},~~~~\sqrt{s_{NN,2}}~=~10.83~{\rm GeV}~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The equivalence of the Gibbs criterion and the maximum entropy condition is illustrated in Fig. \[fig-smix-GCE\] $left$, where the ratios $R_i=s_i/s_Q$ are presented for $i=$W, mix, and Q.
The number density of the sum of strange and anti-strange particles in the GCE can be calculated as [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{nW-s}
& n^s_W(T)~=~\frac{g^s_W}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 dk\,k^2 \exp\left[-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_W)^{1/2}}{T}\right] \\
& n^s_Q(T)~=~ \frac{g^s_Q}{2 \pi^2} \int^{\infty}_0 dk\,
k^2 \exp\left[-~\frac{(k^2+m^2_Q)^{1/2}}{T}\right]~,\label{nQ-s}\\
& n^s_{mix}(\xi)~=~\xi\,n^s_Q (T_c)~+~(1-\xi)\,n^s_W (T_c)~.\label{n-mix}
\end{aligned}$$]{} In Fig. \[fig-smix-GCE\] $right$ the strangeness to entropy ratio, $n_s/s$, is shown as a function of the collision energy.
phase transition with exact strangeness conservation {#sec-CE}
====================================================
In p+p interactions at the CERN SPS energies mean multiplicity of produced strange and anti-strange particles is smaller than one. Thus in this case the exact strangeness conservation should be taken into account. In the statistical models this is done within the CE formulation. The CE partition function of strange particles assures an equal number of strange and anti-strange charges, $N_s=N_{\overline{s}}$, in each microscopic state of the system. For the W and Q phases it has a similar form and reads [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z-CE}
Z_{ce}(T,V,\lambda)=
\sum_{N_s=0}^{\infty}\sum_{N_{\overline{s}}=0}^\infty
\frac{z^{N_{s}}}{N_s!}\,
\frac{z^{N_{\overline{s}}}}{N_{\overline{s}}!}\,
\delta(N_s-N_{\overline{s}})
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi\,
\exp\Big[z\left(e^{i\phi}+ e^{-i\phi}\right)\Big]=I_0(2z)~,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{z}
z~=~z_{W,Q}~=~\lambda~\frac{1}{2}\,V\,n^s_{W,Q}(T)~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The auxiliary $\lambda$ parameter in Eq. (\[z\]) is introduced to calculate the total strangeness density in the CE: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ns-CE}
n_{W,Q}^{s(CE)}(T,V)~=~\frac{1}{V}\,
\Big[\frac{\partial \ln Z_{ce}}
{\partial \lambda}\Big]_{\lambda=1}~
=~~n^{s}_{W,Q}(T) ~\frac{I_1\left[V n^{s}_{W,Q}(T)\right]}{I_0\left[V n^{s}_{W,Q}(T) \right]}~.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The ratio of Bessel functions $I_1$ and $I_0$ in Eq. (\[ns-CE\]) quantifies the strangeness suppression (relatively to the GCE yield) due to the conservation of net strangeness in each microscopic state of the CE.
In order to take into account the exact strangeness conservation for thermodynamical functions it is convenient to rewrite them as following: [$$\begin{aligned}
& p^{({\rm CE})}_W(T,V)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_W}{90}T^4~+~T\, n^{s({\rm CE})}_W (T,V)~, \label{pW-CE}\\
& \varepsilon^{({\rm CE})}_W(T,V)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_W}{30}T^4~+~\omega_W(T,V)\, n^{s({\rm CE})}_W (T,V)~, \label{eW-CE}\\
& p^{({\rm CE})}_Q(T,V)~=~\frac{\pi^2 g_Q}{90}T^4~+~T\, n^{s({\rm CE})}_Q (T,V)~-~B~,\label{pQ-CE}\\
& \varepsilon^{({\rm CE})}_Q(T,V)~ =~\frac{\pi^2 g_Q}{30}T^4~+~\omega_Q(T)\, n^{s({\rm CE})}_Q (T,V)~+~B~, \label{eQ-CE}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $n^{s({\rm CE})}_{W,Q} (T,V)$ is given by Eq. (\[ns-CE\]), and $\omega_{W,Q}(T)$ is average energy of strange particle: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{omega}
\omega_{W,Q}(T)~=~\frac{\int^{\infty}_0 dk\, k^2 (k^2+m_{W,Q}^2)^{1/2}
\, \exp\left[-~(k^2+m_{W,Q}^2)^{1/2}/T\right] }
{ \int^{\infty}_0 dk\, k^2
\exp\left[-~(k^2+m_{W,Q}^2)^{1/2}/T\right] }~,
\end{aligned}$$]{} with $m_W$ taken in the W phase, and $m_Q$ in the Q phase. The entropy density is given by Eq. (\[s\]). For $A_p\gg 1$ the system volume (\[volume\]) is large, and $Vn_{W,Q}^s\gg 1$. Then one finds that $I_1\left[V n^{s}_{W,Q}\right]/I_0\left[V n^{s}_{W,Q}\right] \rightarrow 1$ and, therefore, $n^{s({\rm CE})}_{W,Q}\rightarrow n^{s}_{W,Q}$. The results for the CE and GCE become equivalent in this thermodynamical limit, and Eqs. (\[pW-CE\]-\[eQ-CE\]) coincide with Eqs. (\[p-W\]-\[e-Q\]).
In the mixed phase, Eq. (\[ns-CE\]) should be replaced by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ns-CE-mix}
n^{s,{\rm mix}}_{W,Q}(T,V,\xi)~=~n^{s}_{W,Q}(T) ~\frac{I_1[X]}{I_0[X]}~,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{X}
X~=~X(T,V,\xi)~ =~\xi\,V\, n^{s}_{Q}(T)~+~(1-\xi)\,V\, n^{s}_{W}(T)~
\end{aligned}$$]{} is the total GCE number of strange and anti-strange particles (both hadrons and quarks) in the mixed phase. This is because the CE condition of zero net strangeness in the mixed phase should be obeyed by the whole system and not by its phases separately.
At each $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ one calculates $V$ and $\varepsilon$ according to Eqs. (\[volume\]) and (\[epsilon\]), respectively. The CE Eqs. (\[ns-CE\]-\[eQ-CE\]) are used to obtain results for the pure W and Q phases. In the mixed phase, the temperature $T$ and the parameter $\xi$ are obtained by solving the equations: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-CE-mix}
& \xi\,\varepsilon_Q^{\rm mix}[T,X]~+~(1-\xi)\,\varepsilon_W^{\rm mix}[T,X]~
=~\varepsilon(\sqrt{s_{NN}})~,\\
& p^{\rm mix}_Q[T,X]~=~p_W^{\rm mix}[T,X]~,\label{p-CE-mix}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\varepsilon_{W,Q}^{\rm mix}$ and $p_{W,Q}^{\rm mix}$ are given by Eqs. (\[pW-CE\]-\[eQ-CE\]) with $n^{s,{\rm mix}}_{W,Q}$ (\[ns-CE-mix\]) instead of $n^{s,{\rm (CE)}}_{W,Q}$ (\[ns-CE\]).
The collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN,1}}$ and temperature $T_1$, where the mixed phase starts, and $\sqrt{s_{NN,2}}$ and $T_2$, where the mixed phase ends, are obtained as solutions of Eqs. (\[e-CE-mix\],\[p-CE-mix\]) for $\xi=0$ and $\xi=1$, respectively. One finds: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{mix-CE-1}
& T_1~=~203.4~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~\sqrt{s_{NN,1}}~=~7.20~{\rm GeV}~, \\
& T_2~=~202.9~{\rm MeV}~,~~~~~~\sqrt{s_{NN,2}}~=~10.75~{\rm GeV}~.\label{mix-CE-2}
\end{aligned}$$]{}
![The CE temperature ($left$) and pressure ($right$) as function of collision energy are shown by the solid lines. The dashed lines correspond to the GCE result presented in Fig. \[fig-T-GCE\]. \[fig-T-CE\] ](zt2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![The CE temperature ($left$) and pressure ($right$) as function of collision energy are shown by the solid lines. The dashed lines correspond to the GCE result presented in Fig. \[fig-T-GCE\]. \[fig-T-CE\] ](zp2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The collision energy dependence of $T$ and $p$ obtained within the CE is shown by the solid lines in Fig. \[fig-T-CE\] $left$ and $right$, respectively. The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig-T-CE\] correspond to the GCE results presented in Fig. \[fig-T-GCE\]. The CE and GCE curves are similar. A slightly larger value of $T$ in the CE than in the GCE is needed to compensate the CE suppression of energy density. Note that $\varepsilon$ as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ is given by Eq. (\[epsilon\]) and, thus, it is independent of the system size. The entropy density is given by Eq. (\[s\]) in terms of $p$, $\varepsilon$, and $T$. Therefore, the entropy density $s$ is weakly affected by the exact strangeness conservation imposed in the CE.
![ (a): The CE ($A_p = 1$) ratio of entropy densities $s_i/s_Q$ with $i$ referring to the W (solid line), Q (horizontal solid line), and mixed (dashed line) phases as a function of the collision energy. The full circles correspond to the beginning and end of the mixed phase given by Eq. (\[mix-CE-1\]) and Eq. (\[mix-CE-2\]), respectively. (b): The CE strangeness to entropy ratio as a function of the collision energy. The solid line corresponds to $A_p=1$ and the dashed line to $A_p\gg 1$ which coincides with the GCE results presented in Fig. \[fig-smix-GCE\] (b). The dashed-dotted and dotted lines show the CE results for $A_p=3$ and 5, respectively. \[fig-horn-pp\] ](entr2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ (a): The CE ($A_p = 1$) ratio of entropy densities $s_i/s_Q$ with $i$ referring to the W (solid line), Q (horizontal solid line), and mixed (dashed line) phases as a function of the collision energy. The full circles correspond to the beginning and end of the mixed phase given by Eq. (\[mix-CE-1\]) and Eq. (\[mix-CE-2\]), respectively. (b): The CE strangeness to entropy ratio as a function of the collision energy. The solid line corresponds to $A_p=1$ and the dashed line to $A_p\gg 1$ which coincides with the GCE results presented in Fig. \[fig-smix-GCE\] (b). The dashed-dotted and dotted lines show the CE results for $A_p=3$ and 5, respectively. \[fig-horn-pp\] ](zy23.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The Gibbs criterion (\[p-CE-mix\]) used in the CE is again equivalent to the maximum entropy condition. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig-horn-pp\] $left$, where the ratios $R_i=(s_i/s_Q)_{\rm CE}$ calculated in the CE are presented for entropies $s_H$, $s_Q$ and $s_{mix}$ for $A_p = 1$.
Figure \[fig-horn-pp\] $right$ presents energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio, $n^s/s$, calculated within the CE for $A_p =1, 3$ and 5 as well as the result for the GCE ($A_p\gg 1$).
![ The CE strangeness to entropy ratio divided by the corresponding ratio in the GCE is shown as a function of $A_p$. The double ratio (Eq. (\[r\])) is calculated at the beginning of the mixed phase $\sqrt{s_{NN}} \approx 7.3$ GeV (solid line), below the mixed phase region $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5$ GeV (dotted line), and above the mixed phase region $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=20$ GeV (dashed line). \[fig-r\] ](zr.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig-r\] the ratio [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{r}
r~\equiv~ \frac{[n^s/s]_{\rm CE}}{[n^s/s]_{\rm GCE}}
\end{aligned}$$]{} is shown as a function of $A_p$ at three collision energies in the vicinity of the transition region. It is seen that the CE suppression of the strangeness to entropy ratio depends strongly on the number of participants $2A_p$. With increasing $A_p$ the CE suppression decreases. At $\sqrt{s_{NN}}>10$ GeV the suppression parameter (\[r\]) is close to unity already for $A_p>10$. The CE suppression increases with decreasing collision energy, when the total number of strange particles is small. This is indicated by the dotted line in Fig. \[fig-r\] which is calculated for collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5$ GeV.
Finally, the strangeness to entropy ratio calculated for central Pb+Pb collisions (the GCE result) and inelastic p+p interactions (the CE with $A_p = 1$ result) is plotted in Fig. \[fig-horn-lhc\] as a function of collision energy up to the LHC energies. The left plot shows the two ratios separately, whereas the right one presents their ratio. The energy dependence predicted by the SMES is only qualitatively similar to the measured one (Fig. \[fig:onset\]). Clearly the SMES, the simplest model of the onset of deconfinement, has to be significantly modified in order to reach a quantitative agreement with the data.
![ $Left$: Collision energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio calculated within the SMES for central Pb+Pb collisions (the GCE result) and inelastic p+p interactions (the CE result for $A_p = 1$). The ratio is plotted up to the LHC energies. $Right$: The ratio of strangeness to entropy ratios calculated for central Pb+Pb collisions and inelastic p+p interactions with the SMES as a function of collision energy. \[fig-horn-lhc\] ](zy24_5.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ $Left$: Collision energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio calculated within the SMES for central Pb+Pb collisions (the GCE result) and inelastic p+p interactions (the CE result for $A_p = 1$). The ratio is plotted up to the LHC energies. $Right$: The ratio of strangeness to entropy ratios calculated for central Pb+Pb collisions and inelastic p+p interactions with the SMES as a function of collision energy. \[fig-horn-lhc\] ](zr21.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Summary {#sec-sum}
=======
This paper introduces the exact strangeness conservation in the Statistical Model of the Early Stage [@GG] of nucleus-nucleus collisions. This allows to calculate the energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio for collisions of protons and small nuclei at the CERN SPS energies. The extension of the model is motivated by the recent results of the NA61/SHINE experiment at the CERN SPS on hadron production in inelastic p+p interactions [@NA61-s], which suggest that the deconfinement may take place also in this reaction.
The CE treatment of the strangeness production leads to the well known effect - the total number of strange and anti-strange particles is reduced in comparison to that obtained within the GCE at the same values of volume and energy density. However, the calculations show only small modifications of the system temperature, pressure, and entropy density. Thus, the strangeness to entropy ratio is significantly reduced in small systems. The smaller the collision energy, the smaller is the total number of strange particles, and, thus, the stronger is the CE strangeness suppression. In the region of the mixed phase, $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7-11$ GeV, the strangeness to entropy ratio in p+p interactions is found to be approximately two times smaller than in central Pb+Pb collisions. Note that the CE suppression becomes quite small already for central collisions of intermediate size nuclei and it is negligible for central Pb+Pb collisions. The calculated collision energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio in p+p interactions is qualitatively similar to the one measured by the NA61/SHINE collaboration [@NA61; @NA61-s] for the $K^+$ to $\pi^+$ ratio (see Fig. \[fig:onset\]). However, a quantitative comparison between the model and the data requires further modifications of the model and thus being beyond the scope of this paper.
We would like to thank Marysia Gazdzicka for corrections to the paper. This work was supported by the National Science Centre of Poland (grant UMO-2012/04/M/ST2/00816), the German Research Foundation (grant GA 1480/2-2) and and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Research Grant ZO-2-1/2015.
[105]{}
W. Florkowski, [*Phenomenology of Ultra-Relativistic Heavy–Ion Collisions*]{} World Scientific, ISBN: 9814280666, 436 pages, 2010. S. V. Afanasev [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], CERN-SPSC-2000-035, CERN-SPSLC-P-264-ADD-7.
M. Gazdzicki and M. I. Gorenstein, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B30**]{}, 2705 (1999).
C. Alt [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 024903 (2008).
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 054902 (2002).
A. Rustamov, Central Eur. J. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1267 (2012).
M. Gazdzicki, M. I. Gorenstein, and P. Seyboth, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**42**]{}, 307 (2011);\
M. Gazdzicki, M. I. Gorenstein, and P. Seyboth, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**23**]{}, 1430008 (2014). J. Baacke, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**8**]{}, 625 (1977);\
E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rept. [**61**]{}, 71 (1980);\
J. Cleymans, R. V. Gavai and E. Suhonen, Phys. Rept. [**130**]{}, 217 (1986).
N. Abgrall [*et al.*]{} \[NA61 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2794 (2014).
N. Abgrall [*et al.*]{}, CERN-SPSC-2014-031, SPSC-SR-145.
L. D. Landau, Izv. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. [**17**]{}, 51 (1953); S. Z. Belenkij and L. D. Landau, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. [**3S10**]{}, 15 (1956) \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**56**]{}, 309 (1955)\].
L. P. Csernai, J. I. Kapusta, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 152303 (2006).
M. I. Gorenstein, M. Hauer, and O. N. Moroz, Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 024911 (2008).
J. Rafelski and M. Danos, Phys. Lett. B [**97**]{}, 279 (1980).
J. Clymans, K. Redlich, and E. Suhonen, Z. Phys. C [**51**]{}, 137 (1991).
F. Becattini, Z. Phys. C [**69**]{}, 485 (1996) and Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**92**]{}, 137 (2001);\
F. Becattini and U. Heinz, Z. Phys. C [**76**]{}, 269 (1997).
M.I. Gorenstein, M. Gaździcki, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B [**483**]{}, 60 (2000);\
M.I. Gorenstein, A. P. Kostyuk, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B [**509**]{}, 277 (2001);\
M.I. Gorenstein, W. Greiner, and A. Rustamov, Phys. Lett. B [**731**]{}, 302 (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In our paper \[Ann. Phys. (NY) [**395**]{}, 326 (2018)\] we calculate the Casimir stress on a sphere immersed in a homogeneous background, assuming dispersionless dielectrics. Our results appear to challenge the conventional picture of Casimir forces. The paper \[arXiv:1909.05721\] criticises our approach without offering an alternative. In particular, the paper \[arXiv:1909.05721\] claims that we have made an unjustified mathematical step. This brief comment clarifies the matter.'
author:
- |
Ulf Leonhardt\
Department of Physics of Complex Systems,\
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
title: ' Comment on Self-Stress on a Dielectric Ball and Casimir-Polder Forces'
---
The point in question is the following. The force density $\bm{f}$ is calculated as the divergence of Maxwell’s stress tensor $\sigma$ evaluated in the vacuum state and renormalized according to standard Lifshitz theory [@LL9]. It is clear from symmetry considerations that the force density on the sphere can only point in radial direction. However, in spherical coordinates, there are two contributions to the divergence, one from the radial stress $\sigma_r^r$ and another one from the transversal stress $\sigma_\theta^\theta=\sigma_\phi^\phi$ according to the formula $$f_r = \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{d} (r^2 \sigma_r^r)}{\mathrm{d} r} - \frac{2}{r}\,\sigma_\theta^\theta \,.
\label{div}$$ It is also clear that the force density is concentrated at the interface of the sphere. With $a$ being the radius of the sphere, the total force must be given by $$4\pi a^2 f_r= F \delta(r-a) \,.
\label{delta}$$ In our paper [@Yael] we verify by exact calculation that the force density vanishes inside and outside the sphere. In order to determine the force at the interface, we expand $r^2\sigma_r^r$ as Laurant and logarithmic series of the distance $\Delta$ from the interface, one for $r<a$ and one for $r>a$. Note that these two series are different. Otherwise the divergence cannot produce a delta–function singularity — the delta function is the derivative of the step function, and so the differentiation of a discontinuous function is required in Eq. (\[div\]) for generating the surface force of Eq. (\[delta\]). From this follows another mathematical fact. While the transversal stress $\sigma_\theta^\theta$ compensates for the contribution of the radial stress $\sigma_r^r$ such that the force vanishes for $r\neq a$, it is solely the radial stress that can contribute to the delta–function singularity at $r=a$, as only $r^2\sigma_r^r$ is differentiated in Eq. (\[div\]).
Paper [@Milton] claims that the transversal contribution is “mysteriously omitted” and regards this as the main mathematical reason why our paper is allegedly wrong. But there is no mystery, just logic. Admittedly, that logic was not sufficiently clearly expressed in our paper [@Yael]. Hence there is a need for this comment to clarify the matter.
There are also other incorrect claims that are worth correcting. We do not, as claimed [@Milton], omit the divergent terms in the renormalized stress. Instead, we give them a physical meaning as the conventional surface tension. Here microscopic details, in particular the sizes of molecules, will make these forces finite. We calculate what can be calculated with macroscopic electromagnetism: a Casimir contribution to the surface tension. We are aware, and state this in our paper, that the separation between converging and diverging components is not unique for the logarithmic part of the series expansion, but we have found that this does not affect the most surprising consequence of our paper [@Yael]: the linear dependence of the force on density in the dilute limit. This puzzling behaviour puts the conventional picture of Casimir forces into question. It has been believed that Casimir forces should be reduced to intermolecular forces in the dilute limit, which would imply that the force always depends quadratically on density. Our paper [@Yael] shows that this is not the case.
So far, this has been theory, and the critics [@Milton] do not even offer an alternative, but there are indications from a related experiment [@Matzliah] hinting at a linear density dependence. Here a dilute cloud of ultracold atoms is illuminated with light interacting with the atoms. The light perceives the atoms as a dielectric medium and their cloud as a lens, it is getting focused and hence changes momentum. Meanwhile the atoms pick up the recoil via the optical forces they experience. These forces are fundamentally the same as the Casimir force, except that they are not driven by vacuum fluctuations alone, but by the macroscopic electromagnetic field of the incident light. The measurements [@Matzliah] clearly show that the force on the atoms depends linearly on density, not quadratically, as most theorists had expected.
This experiment [@Matzliah] and the agreement of our theory with previous special cases [@Yael] give us some confidence. We do not claim to understand the whole story of the Casimir stress in a sphere and we agree that our results are surprising, but they come from physically justified and mathematically correct calculations.
[99]{} L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Statistical Physics, Part 2*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980). Y. Avni and U. Leonhardt, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**395**]{}, 326 (2018). K. A. Milton, P. Parashar, I. Brevik, and G. Kennedy, arXiv:1909.05721. N. Matzliah, H. Edri, A. Sinay, R. Ozeri, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, 163201 (2017).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In human crowds, interactions among individuals give rise to a variety of self-organized collective motions that help the group to effectively solve the problem of coordination. However, it is still not known exactly how humans adjust their behavior locally, nor what are the direct consequences on the emergent organization. One of the underlying mechanisms of adjusting individual motions is the stepping dynamics. In this paper, we present first quantitative analysis on the stepping behavior in a one-dimensional pedestrian flow studied under controlled laboratory conditions. We find that the step length is proportional to the velocity of the pedestrian, and is directly related to the space available in front of him, while the variations of the step duration are much smaller. This is in contrast with locomotion studies performed on isolated pedestrians and shows that the local density has a direct influence on the stepping characteristics. Furthermore, we study the phenomena of synchronization –walking in lockstep– and show its dependence on flow densities. We show that the synchronization of steps is particularly important at high densities, which has direct impact on the studies of optimizing pedestrians flow in congested situations. However, small synchronization and antisynchronization effects are found also at very low densities, for which no steric constraints exist between successive pedestrians, showing the natural tendency to synchronize according to perceived visual signals.'
author:
- Asja Jelić
- 'Cécile Appert-Rolland'
- Samuel Lemercier
- Julien Pettré
title: 'Properties of pedestrians walking in line: Stepping behavior '
---
Introduction
============
As in many biological systems, such as fish schools, flocks of birds, or ant colonies, the dynamics of large pedestrian groups are governed by local interactions between individuals which give rise to a variety of collective motions occurring on a macroscopic scale [@vicsek_z2012; @cividini_a_h2012]. Such self-organized behaviors of large pedestrian groups are studied for practical and safety reasons –improving pedestrians facilities and preventing accidents in emergency regimes– but also as an intriguing problem of out-of-equilibrium physics.
When pedestrians are separated by a small distance, they cannot walk freely. It is an open question how they adapt to large densities. Indeed, it is known that large density pedestrian flows give rise to increasing fluctuations in the individual motions, that can eventually lead to the so-called “crowd turbulence” [@helbing_j_a2007] known to be responsible for crowd disasters. A careful analysis of the behavior of pedestrians at relatively high densities can give information on the individual behaviors that could lead to such transitions.
When pedestrians are very close to each other, the distance between them can become of the same order as the longitudinal displacement due to steps. Besides, accelerations and decelerations occur on time scales similar to the stepping period. Thus, steps cannot be ignored when dealing with high density flows. In fact, it was observed in the videos of the experiments reported in [@seyfried2005] that at high densities, people were walking in lockstep (which we term here also “synchronization” of steps) in order to optimize the use of the available space.
Interactions between pedestrians usually take place in a two-dimensional space and produce velocity changes in direction and modulus. However, there are situations where interactions are mostly longitudinal, for example, when people are walking along a narrow corridor. It is also known that counterflows –pedestrian flows of opposite direction– induce lane formation [@kretz2006; @moussaid2012], and within these lanes longitudinal interactions should dominate. Indeed, some previous experiments have suggested that the adaptations of velocity in angle and in modulus could be decoupled to some extent [@ondrej2010b]. This decoupling has already been used in some models [@ondrej2010b; @moussaid_h_t2011].
As one-dimensional pedestrian flows involve purely longitudinal interactions which induce only changes in the velocity modulus [^1], a lot of interest has been shown recently in studying how pedestrians follow each other in such settings. From the point of view of modeling, one-dimensional flows can serve as a simple test of a model’s ability to produce following behavior. The experiment is easier to interpret if periodic boundary conditions are used, i.e. pedestrians walk on a closed line. Indeed, the transients that may occur when pedestrians enter or exit an experimental set-up are then avoided. Besides, the global density is constant in a closed system, while it is more difficult to control it in an open system. Such experiments have been already conducted in recent years. Seyfried et al. [@seyfried2005; @chattaraj_s_c2009; @seyfried2010] have performed experiments with pedestrians following an oval path. Similar studies have been reported in references [@jezbera2010; @yanagisawa_t_n2012]. These experiments have been performed either by using video analysis of the individual trajectories along one straight portion of the set-up [@seyfried2010], or by measuring times at which each participant passes a given measuring point [@yanagisawa_t_n2012].
We have reported in [@jelic2012a] new experiments where pedestrians were asked to follow circular paths. Pedestrians were tracked with a high precision motion capture device. As a result of being able to cover a larger range of densities than in previous experiments, we found that the behavior of a pedestrian following another one was exhibiting two transitions, when the distance between the pedestrians was becoming respectively less than $1.1$ and $3$ meters [@jelic2012a; @appert-rolland2012]. Beyond this first result, as our experiments provide high precision tracking of all the individual trajectories during the whole duration of the experiment, we could access other features, either at more macroscopic scales (e.g. forming of jams) or microscopic scales (e.g. stepping dynamics), which were not accessible in previous experiments.
In this paper, we focus on the stepping dynamics in the one-dimensional pedestrian flow experiment presented in [@jelic2012a]. We perform the first quantitative analysis of the stepping dynamics in large pedestrians groups. We show that the size of steps is directly related to the space available in front of the pedestrian, and that the step frequency is far less sensitive to the local density. Furthermore, we examine the effect of the flow densities on the synchronization of steps among the consecutive pairs of pedestrians. We find as expected that a certain amount of synchronisation occurs at high densities. However, more surprinsingly, we also find some synchronisation at lower densities. Besides, at lower densities we also found occurrence of an “antisynchronization” phenomenon, i.e. a consecutive pair of pedestrians can be synchronized in such a way that when one of them is stepping with the left leg, the other is stepping with the right leg, and vice versa. This natural tendency to synchronize could actually be exploited to improve the flow in a congested situation, for example using the effect of rhythm and music on the stepping behavior [@yanagisawa_t_n2012; @styns2007].
{height="30.00000%"} {height="30.00000%"}
First we shall summarize the experimental protocol (section \[sect\_exp\]). Step measurements are described in section \[sect\_step\_mes\]. In section \[sect\_law\] we present results showing that step length and duration obey simple laws. Section \[sect\_synchro\] is devoted to the study of step synchronization.
The experiment {#sect_exp}
==============
The aim of the experiment was to study the longitudinal interactions between pedestrians walking in line, without overpassing each other, along a circular path. While the study of the fundamental diagrams and velocity-spatial headway relation was presented in [@jelic2012a], here we focus on the extraction of the stepping behavior in the various dynamic regimes (free flow, jammed, etc.).
As detailed in [@jelic2012a], the experiment was performed inside a ring corridor formed by inner and outer circular walls of radii $2$ and $4.5$ m, respectively (see figure \[fig:ring\]). Participants were told to walk in line along either the inner or outer wall, without passing each other. As a result, we obtained two types of pedestrians trajectories: along the inner circular path the observed average radius of the trajectories was $2.4$ m, and along the outer circular path, the observed radius was $4.1$ m.
Pedestrians were volunteers, unaware of the goal of the experiment. In order to capture their most natural (real situation) behavior, even though in laboratory conditions, they were asked to walk in a “natural way”, as if they were walking alone in the street (and without talking to each other). Up to 28 pedestrians (20 males and 8 females) were involved in the experiment. The average global density was varied from $0.31$ to $1.86$ ped/m [^2] by varying both the number of participants involved, and the length of the circular trajectory.
Each participant was equipped with $4$ markers (one on the left shoulder, two on the right shoulder, and one on top of head). Motion was tracked by 12 infra-red cameras (VICON MX-$40$ motion capture system). The raw data were turned into 3D markers trajectories using the reconstruction software VICON IQ, with a frequency of 120 frames per second (for more details see [@lemercier2011b]).
The trajectories of the markers belonging to the same pedestrian were aggregated [^3] in order to give one single three-dimensional trajectory for each pedestrian: its radial, angular and height coordinates are given as a function of time during the whole duration of experiment. The corresponding velocities are easily calculated.
Step measurements {#sect_step_mes}
=================
In our previous paper on these experimental data [@jelic2012a], we were interested in properties like fundamental diagrams and velocity-spatial headway relations, and therefore we used filtering in order to eliminate the oscillations of the trajectories due to stepping. Here, on the contrary, we focus on these oscillations.
The whole body of a pedestrian is swaying when the body weight is shifted from one leg to the other. This swaying results in oscillations that can be seen on the three coordinates of a given pedestrian. However, the angular coordinate oscillations are entangled with the average forward motion of pedestrians, and the height data can be spoiled with spurious motion of the pedestrian head. Therefore, we found that the radial coordinate is the one yielding the best signal for the detection of the stepping cycles (see Fig. \[fig:steps-determination\]). Indeed, stepping induces some lateral body movement clearly visible on the radial coordinate. Besides, as pedestrians are walking along circular paths, the radial coordinate is decoupled from the forward motion.
The high precision of our experimental measurements allowed to extract information on the step length, step duration, and also to analyze the synchronization phenomena between two successive pedestrians.
![(Color online) The full (blue) line is the non-filtered radial coordinate of one participant (in mm), walking along the inner circle trajectory of average radius $2.4$ m, with clearly visible oscillations due to the consecutive steps. The dashed (red) line is the filtered radial coordinate (we used a 2nd order low pass butterworth filter). Thin vertical lines ($..$) mark the local extrema –local maxima (magenta circles) and minima (green diamonds)– which are used in our definitions of step characteristics. []{data-label="fig:steps-determination"}](steps){width="45.00000%"}
We define step duration as the time $\Delta t_s$ passed between two consecutive local extrema in the radial coordinate (consecutive local minimum and maximum of oscillations). The step length is then the distance that a participant has traveled along the circle during this time. It is defined as $l_s=\Delta\theta_s\left<R\right>_{s}$, where $\Delta \theta_s$ is the angle covered during time $\Delta t_s$, and $\left<R\right>_{s}$ the average of the radius of a circular trajectory along which pedestrian is walking during step duration $\Delta t_s$.
One may argue that, as we do not track directly the foot motion, the oscillations that we detect on the radial coordinate could not rigorously coincide with the feet cycles. However, on average the step length and step duration values should be the same.
We performed analysis on the set of all steps made by each participant during all of our $52$ experiments, each lasting about $1$ minute. On average, step duration is estimated to be of the order of $1$ s, meaning each participant made approximately $60$ steps during one experiment. We kept only data with at least $2$ visible markers at each time frame between two steps (two local extrema), the rejection ratio being around $10\%$.
![(Color online) Dependence of the step length (left) and duration (right) as a function of the instantaneous velocity (top) and density (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:steps_all"}](steps-length-velocity-Ns2-INOUT "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Dependence of the step length (left) and duration (right) as a function of the instantaneous velocity (top) and density (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:steps_all"}](steps-duration-velocity-Ns2-INOUT "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}\
![(Color online) Dependence of the step length (left) and duration (right) as a function of the instantaneous velocity (top) and density (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:steps_all"}](steps-length-density-Ns2-INOUT "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Dependence of the step length (left) and duration (right) as a function of the instantaneous velocity (top) and density (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:steps_all"}](steps-duration-density-Ns2-INOUT "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
Stepping laws {#sect_law}
=============
In figure \[fig:steps\_all\] we show the results for the relationship between the step length (respectively step duration) and the instantaneous velocity (top) and density (bottom). The values of velocity and density were obtained as averages of the instantaneous velocity and density during the duration of a given step. For two successive pedestrians, instantaneous density for the pedestrian in the back is obtained as the inverse of the distance that is available in front of him, i.e. to his predecessor.
The most striking feature is that the step length is overall proportional to the velocity, up to velocities very close to zero (see Fig. \[fig:steps\_all\] (a)). Of course, the step length decreases when the velocity decreases. Having a vanishing step length for vanishing velocities means that, within a jammed regime, when pedestrians are forced to come almost to a stop, they continue to sway and shift their body weight from one leg to the other without moving forward. A linear fit for velocities between $0.2$ to $1.1$ m/s gives $$l_s = 0.065m + 0.724 v.$$ This differs from the expression given in [@weidmann1993] and used in [@seyfried_p_s2010] ($l_s = 0.235 m + 0.302 v$) for which a residual length of 0.235 m was found at vanishing velocity. However the details of the measurements were not given in these references.
As the velocity of a pedestrian is mechanically produced by the steps, we have that $v=l_s/\Delta t_s$. As a first approximation, one can state from figure \[fig:steps\_all\] (a) that the velocity is proportional to the step length, and, as a consequence, the step duration should be constant. This is indeed what we find in Fig. \[fig:steps\_all\] (b) when the velocity is large enough (larger than $0.6$ m/s): the step duration is then mostly constant and takes a value around $0.8$ s. Even for velocities below $0.6$ m/s, the variations in the step duration are only of 30%, to be compared with the 100% variation in the velocity. In a more accurate description, this increase of the step duration when the velocity of the participants decreases should be taken into account, yielding a more complex relationship between velocity and step duration.
At first sight, our results could seem in contradiction with those obtained in the field of locomotion studies: Inman’s law [@inman_r_t1981] states that the step length [@curtis_m2012; @boulic_t_t1990] or step frequency [@glardon2005] both vary as the square root of the velocity. This law has been indeed verified in locomotion experiments [@glardon2005; @dean1965]. Note that Inman’s law requires to normalize data either by the hip joint height, or total height of the pedestrian, an information that is not available in our case, but that could be measured in future experiments. However, this renormalization cannot explain the difference with our result.
In fact, it must be noted that locomotion experiments are always performed with [*isolated*]{} pedestrians. The pedestrian makes a conscious decision to walk slowly, and knows that he will keep this slow pace for a while. In our experiment, participants walk slowly only because they are prevented to walk faster by other participants. Besides, they expect to be able to walk faster in a near future. As a consequence of these features, our pedestrians keep a constant pace (to enable a quick restart), and rather adopt small step lengths (to comply with steric constraints).
We have observed that pedestrians continue to take step even for vanishing velocities. In order to interpret this result, it should be underlined that the vanishing velocities measured in Fig. \[fig:steps\_all\] (a) are transients: pedestrians perform one or two steps with vanishing amplitude and then start again moving forward. In the case where pedestrians would be standing for a longer time, one could expect pedestrians to be more reluctant to use their energy in swaying when they cannot move forward. It is also the transient nature of the flow that could explain that the step duration is bounded within a 30% variation: pedestrians probably do not like rapid modifications of their stepping pace.
As a conclusion, we observe that in a constrained environment, pedestrians rather adapt their velocity through their step length rather than step frequency. Note that, in Figs. \[fig:steps\_all\] (a) and (b), the data obtained both along the inner and outer circle fall on top of each other. This seems to indicate that there is little influence of geometry on the stepping behavior.
Let us now consider the dependance of the steps characteristics with the density. The behavior of the step length as a function of density (see Fig. \[fig:steps\_all\] (c)), is exactly of the same form as the fundamental diagram found in [@jelic2012a]. Indeed, this is a direct consequence of the above result that the step length is being proportional to velocity. As the average velocity converges towards a finite non zero value when the density becomes large, the average step length saturates around $0.1m$ at large densities. By contrast, the step duration changes much less within different walking regimes. The step duration varies only for around $20\%$ as a function of density (see Fig. \[fig:steps\_all\] (d)). The saturation of step frequency at low densities (or high velocities) could indicate that increasing the step frequency beyond a certain value is not comfortable for pedestrians.
We had previously found in [@jelic2012a] that for local density fluctuations far away from the average global density the velocity could be quite different from the average behavior. We recover here (Figs. \[fig:steps\_all\] (c) and (d)) these atypical behaviors. Indeed, global densities in experiments performed on the outer (inner) circle are always below (above) $1$ ped/m, and thus the tails (’inner and outer circle data’) diverging from the average behavior (’all data’) in Figs. \[fig:steps\_all\] (c) and (d) correspond to large fluctuations. Still, for the mean behavior, no discontinuity is seen when going from the inner to the outer circle data.
Step synchronization {#sect_synchro}
====================
It was already noticed in [@seyfried2005] that at high densities, as pedestrians do not have much space to walk, they tend to synchronize their steps, so as to squeeze the front leg into the hole left by the front leg of the predecessor. The authors refer to this phenomenon as walking in lockstep. In the following, we want to see whether this tendency is confirmed in our experiments, and to quantify this effect.
First we have to define synchronization. Full synchronization is obtained when two successive pedestrians walk with the same step frequency and in phase.
If all pedestrians were walking very regularly, so that their radial coordinate would be a perfectly periodic signal with the same frequency for all pedestrians, it would be quite easy to measure the phase between two successive pedestrians. However, in the experiments, and especially at high densities, the shape of the oscillations and the oscillation frequencies can vary from one pedestrian to another, and for the same pedestrian from time to time.
Thus, our measurements included two stages that we will detail below. In a first stage, we have analyzed the data to select pairs of successive pedestrians for which the stepping frequencies were not too different. Then, for this subset, we have measured the phase shift between close minima (maxima) of the stepping cycles of the two successive pedestrians. More precisely, for each detected minimum (maximum) on the radial coordinate of the predecessor (occurring at time $t_0$) our analysis consists of the following steps:
- We measure the ’individual and local’ frequency of the leader over 3 periods, defined from the two maxima (minima) just before and after the given minimum (maximum). Let $T$ be the average period over these three cycles.
- We determine whether there is a minimum (maximum) in the radial coordinate of the follower within the time range $[ t_0 - T/4, t_0 + 3 T/4]$. This minimum occurs at time $t_1$.
- We evaluate the ’individual and local’ frequency $1/T^\prime$ for the follower, exactly as it was done for the leader.
- If $T^\prime$ and $T$ differ less than $25\%$, we select the current steps of this pair of pedestrians. The rejection ratio due to too large difference in frequencies is up to $20\%$. This underlines that at least $20\%$ of the pedestrians are not synchronized with their leader - as synchronization requires first to have the same frequency.
- Then we measure the phase $$\phi = 2\pi (t_1-t_0)/T.$$ In a similar way, we also measure the phase $\psi$ separating a minimum (maximum) in the radial coordinate of the leader, from a maximum (minimum) in the radial coordinate of the follower. In this way, we expect to obtain more precise measurements for the antisynchronization phenomena.
- Finally, we measure the instantaneous density. It is defined as the inverse of the distance between the centers of mass of the two pedestrians. As this distance oscillates with the steps, we found more relevant to evaluate it on the filtered data. However, the results presented in Fig. \[fig\_phi\] are similar when non-filtered data are used.
Figure \[fig\_phi\] shows the normalized histograms of $\phi$ obtained for various local density ranges.
![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\phi$, for various density ranges. Synchronization corresponds to $\phi=0$. []{data-label="fig_phi"}](synhro_1.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\phi$, for various density ranges. Synchronization corresponds to $\phi=0$. []{data-label="fig_phi"}](synhro_2.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\phi$, for various density ranges. Synchronization corresponds to $\phi=0$. []{data-label="fig_phi"}](synhro_3.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\phi$, for various density ranges. Synchronization corresponds to $\phi=0$. []{data-label="fig_phi"}](synhro_4.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
At large densities (beyond $1.25$ ped/m), we observe a peak around phase $\phi=0$, that clearly indicates existence of the synchronization phenomenon. This must correspond to the pedestrians walking in lockstep, as for these densities the steric constraints become important.
When the density is lower, the peak around zero is still observed, though it is smaller than for higher densities. Surprisingly, another peak appears around $\phi=\pi$. This second peak corresponds to antisynchronization, i.e. walking in phase with the opposite legs. When antisynchronization occurs at high densities, we could expect that pedestrians would be located at different distances from the wall, so that the left leg of one pedestrian is more or less aligned with the right leg of the other. However, we did not observe any visible effect of this type in the data. Besides, antisynchronization mostly disappears when the density is large, while it survives at densities as large as $\rho<0.5$ ped/m, for which there are clearly no steric constraints between the pedestrians.
As the pedestrians may not have exactly the same frequency, in Fig. \[fig\_psi\] we checked if the antisynchronization is also visible when we measure the phase shift $\psi$ between the local extrema of the opposite kind (minimum and maximum) in the radial coordinate. This corresponds to the steps made by the left leg of one and the right leg of the other of the two consecutive pedestrians. In this case, antisynchronization should appear as a peak around zero – and there is indeed a second peak located around $\psi=0$ for the lowest densities as seen in Fig. \[fig\_psi\]. On the other hand, synchronization can be seen again, but this time as a peak around $\psi=\pi$.
![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\psi$, for various density ranges. Antisynchronization corresponds to $\psi=0$. []{data-label="fig_psi"}](antisynhro_1.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\psi$, for various density ranges. Antisynchronization corresponds to $\psi=0$. []{data-label="fig_psi"}](antisynhro_2.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\psi$, for various density ranges. Antisynchronization corresponds to $\psi=0$. []{data-label="fig_psi"}](antisynhro_3.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![(Color online) Normalized distributions of $\psi$, for various density ranges. Antisynchronization corresponds to $\psi=0$. []{data-label="fig_psi"}](antisynhro_4.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
These results, showing both synchronization and antisynchronization at low enough densities where the pedestrians are not bound by the steric constraints, suggest that pedestrians are sensitive to the stepping oscillations that they perceive visually when watching their predecessor, and that they naturally synchronize. It is still an open question to determine precisely to which visual signal pedestrians are most sensitive. Rather than lateral or vertical oscillations of the body, pedestrians probably perceive more easily the motion of arms and legs [@curtis].
Discussion and conclusion {#sect_conclusion}
=========================
In this paper, we have presented new experimental results about steps characteristics of pedestrians following each other along a one-dimensional trajectory. We have obtained for a large range of velocities several simple laws for step length and duration, namely that step length is proportional to velocity, while variations in step duration are much smaller.
This result is in contrast with the hypothesis used in [@johansson2009] that at high densities, when it is no longer possible to take normal steps, pedestrians would rather completely stop until they gain enough space to make a step. Indeed our observation is that pedestrians are not reluctant to take very short steps and continue to shift their body weight from one foot to the other, even when they can almost not move forward, as this is the case at very high densities.
Our results also highlight that the stepping behaviors in a crowd can be quite different from those measured in locomotion experiments with isolated pedestrians [@inman_r_t1981], though for the same range of walking speeds.
This raises some questions that would be interesting to tackle in the future. Indeed, several effects can be responsible for the change of walking behavior in a crowded environment. Walking very close to other pedestrians induces physical constraints that obviously have to be taken into account in the stepping strategy. However, at high densities, another effect comes from the presence of stop-and-go waves: pedestrians may have different steps characteristics depending on whether they are accelerating, decelerating, or walking at constant pace. Even the anticipation that the pedestrian will have to accelerate in the near future could modify his behavior. It would be interesting to design new experiments to discriminate between these various effects, taking also into account the relative height of interacting pedestrians, and distinguishing the inter- and intra-pedestrian variations.
Another question that we have addressed in this paper is whether pedestrians walk in lockstep at high densities [@seyfried2005]. Indeed, at high densities, beyond $1.25$ ped/m, we have observed some synchronization between the step cycles of successive pedestrians. This can be easily explained by the strong steric constraints that occur at these densities. Surprisingly, synchronization is still observed –though less frequently– at much lower densities. It seems that even when pedestrians are more than $2$ m apart, they still have the tendency to synchronize their rhythm, probably as a consequence of the visual stimulus given by the pedestrian ahead. Besides, in the absence of steric constraint, we observed that synchronization and antisynchronization are both observed at such low densities.
Interest in the synchronization phenomena also stems from the observations that music can induce particular stepping behaviors. In [@styns2007], experiments in which pedestrians were asked to synchronize their steps with the indicated rhythm were reported. It was shown that it was more efficient to indicate the rhythm with music than with a simple metronome [@styns2007]. In Ref. [@yanagisawa_t_n2012], it was found in an experiment that when pedestrians walking in line are asked to walk with a rhythm (given by a metronome) slower than the natural pace of pedestrians, the flow in the congested regime is improved, as a result of the synchronization of steps. It would be interesting to investigate this further, and in particular to determine the relation between the improvement of the flow and the fraction of the pedestrians ‘synchronized’ with the rhythm.
There would be a practical interest in knowing whether such synchronization would occur when the music is just used as a background, without any special assignment, and also what would be the consequence on the macroscopic characteristics of the flow. Further investigations are needed. It would be necessary to perform new experiments with tracking methods such as the one described in this paper, to measure in particular the amount of step synchronization between pairs of successive pedestrians. If it was shown that a musical background can improve the flow, this could be used in particular as a strategy to improve evacuation.
This work has been performed within the [PEDIGREE]{} project, financed by the French ANR (Contract No. ANR-08-SYSC-015-01), and involves four research teams in Rennes (INRIA), Toulouse (IMT, CRCA), and Orsay (LPT). Experiments were organized and realized by the [PEDIGREE]{} partnership [@pedigree_info] at University Rennes 1, with the help of the laboratory M2S from Rennes 2. We are in particular grateful to Armel Crétual, Richard Kulpa, Antoine Marin, and Anne-Hélène Olivier for their help during the experiments. A.J. acknowledges support from the RTRA Triangle de la physique (Project 2011-033T). We thank Sean Curtis and Ronan Boulic for helpful discussions about locomotion results. We are especially grateful to S. Curtis for his careful reading of our paper and his useful remarks.
[80]{}
T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, [*Collective motion*]{}, ArXiv e-prints (2010), arXiv:1010.5017 \[cond-mat.stat-mech\].
J. Cividini, C. Appert-Rolland, and H.J. Hilhorst, [*Diagonal patterns and chevron effect in intersecting traffic flows*]{}, ArXiv e-prints (2012), arXiv:1209.1529, submitted.
D. Helbing, A. Johansson, and H.Z. Al-Abideen, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 046109 (2007).
A. Seyfried, B. Steffen, W. Klingsch, and M. Boltes, J. Stat. Mech. P10002 (2005).
T. Kretz, A. Gr[ü]{}nebohm, M. Kaufman, F. Mazur, and M. Schreckenberg, J. Stat. Mech. P10001 (2006).
M. Moussa[ï]{}d, E. Guillot, M. Moreau, J. Fehrenbach, O. Chabiron, S. Lemercier, J. Pettré, C. Appert-Rolland, P. Degond, and G. Theraulaz, PLoS Comput. Biol. [**8**]{}, e1002442 (2012).
J. Ondrej, J. Pettré, A.-H. Olivier, and S. Donikian, ACM Trans. Graphics [**29**]{}, 123 (2010).
M. Moussa[ï]{}d, D. Helbing, and G. Theraulaz, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci U.S.A. [**108**]{}, 6884 (2011).
U. Chattaraj, A. Seyfried, and P. Chakroborty, Adv. Complex Syst. [**12**]{}, 393 (2009).
A. Seyfried, M. Boltes, J. Kahler, W. Klingsch, A. Portz, T. Rupprecht, A. Schadschneider, B. Steffen, and A. Winkens, in [*Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2008*]{}, edited by W.W.F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A Schadschneider, and M Schreckenberg (Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2010).
D. Jezbera, D. Kordek, J. Kríz, P. Seba, and P. Sroll, J. Stat. Mech. L01001 (2010).
D. Yanagisawa, A. Tomoeda, and K. Nishinari, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 016111 (2012).
A. Jelić, C. Appert-Rolland, S. Lemercier, and J. Pettré, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 036111 (2012).
C. Appert-Rolland, A. Jelic, P. Degond, J. Fehrenbach, J. Hua, A. Crétual, R. Kulpa, A. Marin, A.-H. Olivier, S. Lemercier, and J. Pettré, [Experimental study of the following dynamics of pedestrians]{}, to appear in [*6th International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics - PED 2012*]{} (Springer).
F. Styns, L. van Noorden, D. Moelants, and M. Leman, Human Movement Sci. [**26**]{}, 769 (2007).
S. Lemercier, M. Moreau, M. Moussa[ï]{}d, G. Theraulaz, S. Donikian, and J. Pettré, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. [**7060**]{}, 365 (2011).
U. Weidmann, [*Transporttechnik der Fu[ß]{}g[ä]{}nger*]{}, (Schriftenreihe des IVT 90, ETH Z[ü]{}rich, 1993), in [G]{}erman.
A. Seyfried, A. Portz, and A. Schadschneider, in [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, edited by S. Bandini, S. Manzoni, H. Umeo, and G. Vizzari (Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2010).
V.T. Inman, H.J. Ralston, and F. Todd, [*Human walking*]{}, (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1981).
S. Curtis and D. Manocha, [Pedestrian simulation using geometric reasoning in velocity space]{}, to appear in [*6th International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics - PED 2012*]{} (Springer).
R. Boulic, N.M. Thalmann, and D. Thalmann, The Visual Computer [**6**]{}, 344 (1990).
P. Glardon, [*On-line locomotion synthesis for virtual humans*]{}, page 75, EPFL PhD Thesis, no 3431, (2005).
G.A. Dean, Ergonomics [**8**]{}, 31(1965).
A. Johansson, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 026120 (2009).
Sean Curtis, private discussion.
More information can be found at http://www.pedigree-project.info.
[^1]: Of course a one-dimensional paths may not be straight and pedestrians may have to change their velocity orientation to follow the path. However, if direction changes are not too abrupt, they should have no influence on the velocity modulus.
[^2]: For bi-dimensional pedestrian crowds, densities are expressed in ped/m${}^2$. An attempt to make a connection between one- and bi-dimensional densities was proposed in [@seyfried2005]. It is based on the assumption that the lateral width required by the one-dimensional flow increases with the velocity. If we use a transformation such as suggested in [@seyfried2005], namely $\rho_{1D\rightarrow 2D} = \rho_{1D} / (0.46 + 0.2 v)$, then the estimate for the density range covered by our experiment would extend from $0.4$ to $3.7$ ped/m${}^2$ (using the velocity-density relation measured in [@jelic2012a]). But of course these figures should be taken only as a rough estimate.
[^3]: Some special care was necessary at this stage, since markers may be temporarily hidden by the walls or participants’ bodies. We kept only data for which at least two markers per pedestrian were visible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The large $N_c$ limit provides relations that can be used to calculate the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole form factors at low and intermediate $Q^2$ under the assumption of the pion cloud dominance. There are two limitations in those parametrizations. First, the parametrization of the Coulomb quadrupole form factor underestimate the low $Q^2$ data. Second, when extrapolated for the timelike region, the form factors violate Siegert’s theorem by terms of the order $1/N_c^2$. We propose here corrections to the parametrization of the electric quadrupole form factor, which violate Siegert’s theorem only by terms of the order $1/N_c^4$. Combining the improved large $N_c$ pion cloud parametrizations with the valence quark contributions based on a covariant quark model for the quadrupole transition form factors, we obtain an extrapolation to the timelike region consistent with Siegert’s theorem, and accomplish also a very good description of the data.'
author:
- 'G. Ramalho'
title: |
**Parametrizations of the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole form factors\
and Siegert’s theorem**
---
Introduction
============
The $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ transition is characterized by the dominant dipole form factor ($G_M$) and two sub-leading quadrupole form factors: the electric ($G_E$) and the Coulomb ($G_C$) form factors [@Jones73; @Pascalutsa07b; @NDeltaD; @NSTAR]. The nonzero results for the quadrupole form factors are a consequence of the deviation of the $\Delta(1232)$ from a spherical shape [@Pascalutsa07b; @Deformation; @Quadrupole].
Calculations based on the limit of a large number of colors ($N_c$) and $SU(6)$ quark models with symmetry breaking suggest that, in the low $Q^2$ region the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole form factors are dominated by pion cloud effects [@Pascalutsa07b; @Pascalutsa07a; @Buchmann97a; @Grabmayr01; @Buchmann04; @Buchmann02; @Buchmann09a]. Estimates based exclusively on valence quarks underestimate the data by about an order of magnitude [@Capstick90; @JDiaz07; @Stave08; @NDeltaD; @NSTAR]. Although small comparative to the leading order pion cloud contributions, the valence quark contributions can nevertheless help to improve the description of the data [@LatticeD; @JDiaz07; @Kamalov99]. The large $N_c$ parametrizations of the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ electric and Coulomb quadrupole form factors have, however, a problem: they are in conflict with Siegert’s theorem [@Buchmann98; @Drechsel2007; @SiegertD; @Siegert].
In the form factors representation, Siegert’s theorem is expressed by the identity at the pseudo-threshold: $G_E =\frac{M_\Delta -M}{2 M_\Delta} G_C$ [@SiegertD; @Siegert; @Jones73] ($M$ and $M_\Delta$ are respectively the nucleon and the $\Delta$ masses). The pseudo-threshold is the limit where the magnitude of the photon three-momentum, $|{\bf q}|$, vanishes, and $Q^2= Q_{pt}^2= -(M_\Delta - M)^2$. A test for the validity of Siegert’s theorem is the value of \_[pt]{}= G\_E(Q\_[pt]{}\^2) - G\_C( Q\_[pt]{}\^2), \[eqR\] where = . When ${\cal R}_{pt}=0$, Siegert’s theorem is verified. When ${\cal R}_{pt} \ne 0$, the form factors are inconsistent with Siegert’s theorem.
The combination of $SU(6)$ quark models with two-body exchange currents and the large $N_c$ limit provides a connection between the neutron charge distribution and the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole form factors [@Buchmann09a; @Buchmann04]. In an exact $SU(6)$ quark model, the neutron electric form factor vanishes and the electric and Coulomb quadrupole moments of the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ transition are both zero. When the $SU(6)$ symmetry is broken we can relate the quadrupole moments with the neutron square charge radius $r_n^2$ [@Pascalutsa07a; @Buchmann97a; @Grabmayr01; @Buchmann04; @Buchmann09a; @Buchmann02]. We can then conclude that the $SU(6)$ symmetry breaking induces an asymmetric distribution of charge in the nucleon, which generates nonzero results for the neutron electric form factor $G_{En}$, and for the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole transition form factors, $G_E$ and $G_C$ [@Buchmann97a; @Grabmayr01; @Buchmann09a].
Moreover, based on the low $Q^2$ expansion of the neutron electric form factor, $G_{En} \simeq - \frac{1}{6} r_n^2 Q^2$, we can extrapolate the $Q^2$ dependence of the quadrupole form factors to [@Grabmayr01; @Buchmann04; @Pascalutsa07a; @Buchmann09a] & & G\_E (Q\^2)= ( )\^[3/2]{} G\_[En]{} (Q\^2) \[eqGE\]\
& & G\_C (Q\^2)= ( )\^[1/2]{} M M\_G\_[En]{} (Q\^2), \[eqGC\] where $\tilde G_{En}= G_{En}/Q^2$. Hereafter we refer those results as large $N_c$ relations, since they can be derived exclusively in the large $N_c$ limit [@Pascalutsa07a].
In this work we present improved large $N_c$ pion cloud parametrizations for the quadrupole form factors in order to obtain a parametrization consistent simultaneously with Siegert’s theorem and with the empirical data of the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ quadrupole form factors.
We conclude first that the relations (\[eqGE\])–(\[eqGC\]) implies that Siegert’s theorem is violated by terms ${\cal R}_{pt} = {\cal O}(1/N_c^2)$, which may be a sizable error in the case $N_c=3$. Since the relations (\[eqGE\])-(\[eqGC\]) are extrapolated from large $N_c$ they can have relative deviations of the order $1/N_c^2$. We then use the constraints of Siegert’s theorem to modify the relation for $G_E$. We obtain parametrizations for the quadrupole form factors that violate Siegert’s theorem only by terms ${\cal R}_{pt} = {\cal O}(1/N_c^4)$. This result is thus compatible with Siegert’s theorem apart from higher-order corrections in $1/N_c^2$.
We look also for additional contributions for the transition form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$, namely the contributions from the valence quarks from the nucleon and $\Delta(1232)$ systems. As mentioned, those contributions are small in the context of quark models but combined with the parametrizations of the pion cloud contributions they can reduce the gap between theory and data. An interesting propriety of the valence quark contributions for the electromagnetic form factors is that they vanish in the pseudo-threshold limit, as consequence of the orthogonality between the nucleon and $\Delta(1232)$ wave functions. As a consequence, the test of Siegert’s theorem condition ${\cal R}_{pt}=0$ needs to be tested only for the pion cloud contribution of the transitions form factors.
At the end, we combine valence and pion cloud contributions using a model compatible with Siegert’s theorem apart from higher-order corrections in $1/N_c^2$. The results are then compared with the empirical data for $G_E$ and $G_C$, showing a fair description of the overall data.
Pion cloud contributions
========================
We can test the quality of the relations (\[eqGE\])–(\[eqGC\]) comparing those functions with the data based on some parametrization for $G_{En}$. To represent the electric form factor of the neutron, we considers the Galster parametrization [@Galster71] G\_[En]{}(Q\^2) = - \_n G\_D, \[eqGEnX\] where $\mu_n = -1.913$ is the neutron magnetic moment, $\tau_N= \frac{Q^2}{4M^2}$, $G_D= 1/(1 + Q^2/0.71)^2$ is the dipole factor, and $a,d$ are two dimensionless parameters.
The quadrupole form factors obtained with the parameters $a=0.9$ and $d=2.8$ [@Buchmann09a] are presented in Fig. \[figModel0\]. For a better test of Siegert’s theorem we multiply the function $G_C$ and the data for $G_C$ by $\kappa$. The calculations are compared with the data from Mainz [@Stave08], MIT-Bates [@MIT_data] and Jefferson Lab [@Jlab_data] for finite square momentum transfer, $Q^2$, and the world average from the Particle Data Group for $Q^2=0$ [@PDG]. The data are compiled in Ref. [@MokeevDatabase].
It is clear in Fig. \[figModel0\] that, the difference between the parametrizations for $G_E$ and $\kappa G_C$ is not zero in the pseudo-threshold limit, when $Q^2 \simeq -0.1$ GeV$^2$. This result implies that Siegert’s theorem is violated, because ${\cal R}_{pt} \ne 0$. The explicit calculation of the deviation using $G_{En}(Q_{pt}^2) \simeq - \frac{1}{6} r_n^2 Q_{pt}^2$, gives \_[pt]{} - ( )\^[3/2]{} Q\_[pt]{}\^2. Since $Q_{pt}^2 = -(M_\Delta -M)^2$ and $M_\Delta - M = {\cal O}(1/N_c)$ we can conclude that ${\cal R}_{pt}= {\cal O}(1/N_c^2)$. Although a result ${\cal O}(1/N_c^2)$ may be seen as a small quantity, the numerical value is still sizable, as we can see in the graph for ${\cal R}= G_E - \kappa G_C$ at the pseudo-threshold (${\cal R}_{pt}$).
Valence quark contributions
===========================
Before discussing how to improve the pion cloud parametrization of the quadrupole form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$, we may question if Siegert’s theorem can in fact be verified for the valence quark sector.
We look then for the results obtained within valence quark models. We consider, in particular, the covariant spectator quark model developed in Refs. [@Nucleon; @NDelta; @NDeltaD; @LatticeD; @Omega] for the nucleon and $\Delta(1232)$ systems. The basic assumptions of the model are that: (i) in the electromagnetic interaction the photon couples with the single quark (impulse approximation) while the other two quarks can be interpreted as an effective diquark, (ii) the quarks have their own internal structure (dressed by gluons and quark-antiquark states), and (iii) the radial quark-diquark wave functions are calibrated in terms of momentum range parameters that can be estimated by physical or lattice QCD data.
Concerning the nucleon and $\Delta(1232)$ systems the model is quite successful in the description of the data. The parameters associated with the quark structure (quark electromagnetic form factors) were first fixed by the nucleon elastic form factor data [@Nucleon]. After that the model was used to estimate the valence quark contribution for the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta$ magnetic dipole form factor [@NDelta]. The results are compatible simultaneously with estimates from dynamical reactions models [@JDiaz07] and with lattice QCD simulations [@NDelta; @NDeltaD; @Lattice; @LatticeD]. The model for the $\Delta(1232)$ was then extended with the inclusion of $D$ states in the wave function [@NDeltaD; @LatticeD].
We consider, in particular, the parametrization from Ref. [@LatticeD]. In that work the $\Delta(1232)$ system is described by a combination a $S$-wave and two $D$-wave quark-diquark states. The $D$ states can be labeled as $D3$ (quark total spin 3/2) and $D1$ (quark total spin 1/2) [@NDeltaD; @NDelta]. The nucleon system is represented just by a $S$ state [@Nucleon]. In the limit where the $D$-state mixtures vanish, we obtain $G_E \equiv 0$ and $G_C \equiv 0$. The $D$-state mixtures and the $D$-radial wave functions are determined by a fit to the lattice QCD data from Ref. [@Alexandrou08] and then extrapolated to the physical point. The admixture of $D$ states is about 0.72% for both states. The extrapolation from lattice QCD for the physical regime is performed using a vector meson parametrization of the quark current (quark electromagnetic form factors). More details can be found in Refs. [@LatticeD; @Omega; @Lattice].
The valence quark contributions to the quadrupole form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$ from Ref. [@LatticeD] are presented in Fig. \[figVal\]. In the figure, we again compare $G_E$ with $\kappa G_C$. The more interesting aspect of the figure is that Siegert’s theorem is exactly verified, as we can see from the result ${\cal R}= G_E - \kappa G_C=0$ at the pseudo-threshold. This result is a consequence of $G_E=G_C=0$ at the same point.
In the covariant spectator quark model, the quadrupole form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$ are calculated in terms of angular integrals of a function $b(k,q)$, where $k$ and $q$ are, respectively, the diquark and the photon momenta. In the pseudo-threshold limit ($|{\bf q}|=0$), the function $b(k,q)$ reduces to the spherical harmonic $Y_{20}(\hat {\bf k})$ [@NDeltaD]. The presence of the function $Y_{20}(\hat {\bf k})$ is then the consequence of the overlap between the $\Delta(1232)$ $D$ states and the nucleon $S$ state. Since in the pseudo-threshold limit there is no dependence in the photon momentum $|{\bf q}|$, the angular integrals are reduced to the angular integration of $Y_{20}(\hat {\bf k})$, which vanishes. Consequently the form factors vanish too. The result $G_E= G_C=0$ at the pseudo-threshold is then the corollary of the orthogonality between $S$ and $D$ states.
In Fig. \[figVal\], we can notice the turning of the functions $G_E$ and $G_C$ near $Q^2 = 0.15$ GeV$^2$, just above the photon point $Q^2=0$ and a soft convergence to zero at the pseudo-threshold. The reduction of the quadrupole form factors near $Q^2=0$ can also be seen in the lattice QCD data [@LatticeD; @Alexandrou08]. As we will see next, the presence of the maximum for $G_C$ near $Q^2=0.15$ GeV$^2$, instead at $Q^2=0$, has implications in the values of $G_C$ at small $Q^2$.
Another interesting aspect concerning Fig. \[figVal\] is the function ${\cal R}= G_E - \kappa G_C$ for finite $Q^2$. We can see that the function ${\cal R}$ is very small compared with $G_E$ or $\kappa G_C$. We then concludes, that in the covariant spectator quark model, the results $G_E$ and $\kappa G_C$ are very similar. It is possible that the relation $G_E \simeq \kappa G_C$ is also valid for other quark models. We note, in particular, that the estimate of the quark core contribution used in the Sato-Lee model assumes $G_E = \kappa \frac{M_\Delta + M}{2 M_\Delta} G_C
\simeq \kappa G_C$ [@JDiaz07].
Siegert’s theorem
=================
We can now discuss if, as for the valence quark sector, the pion cloud parametrization is also consistent with Siegert’s theorem.
In the large $N_c$ limit the baryons are infinitely heavy and can be treated as static. For this reason large $N_c$ is mostly used to calculate static proprieties of the baryon and transition between baryon states [@Jenkins02; @Dashen94]. In particular, the relations (\[eqGE\])-(\[eqGC\]) are extensions of large $N_c$ relations for $G_E$ and $G_C$ at $Q^2=0$ for finite $Q^2$ [@Pascalutsa07a]. Those relations are not derived explicitly from large $N_c$, but, since they derivation for $Q^2=0$ is based on large $N_c$, one can infer that they are also limited by the accuracy from the large $N_c$ analysis, and can therefore be affected by relative corrections of the order $1/N_c^2$ [@Pascalutsa07a; @Grabmayr01; @Buchmann02; @Buchmann09a; @Jenkins02].
Instead of using the $1/N_c$ expansion to calculate possible $1/N_c^2$ relative corrections, one can use Siegert’s theorem to check if there are corrections that are consistent with the theorem. One notes that the use of constraints external to the $SU(6)$ and large $N_c$ formalisms were used already in the calculation of coefficients associated with physical quantities as the charge radius, quadrupole moments and others [@Buchmann02; @Dillon89; @Buchmann00a; @Buchmann02b].
In a first attempt we checked if we can have an exact description of Siegert’s theorem, modifying the functions $G_E$ or $G_C$ keeping at the same time the results for $Q^2=0$, derived from large $N_c$. Considering the replacement $G_E \to (1 + \alpha Q^2)G_E$, we can preserve the result from large $N_c$ at $Q^2=0$, if we calculate $\alpha$ in order to obtain ${\cal R}_{pt}=0$ at the pseudo-threshold. The solution for this condition is $\alpha= - \frac{1}{M_\Delta^2 -M^2}$. We obtain the same effect if we replace $G_C \to G_C/(1+ \alpha Q^2)$. The problem of the new form for $G_E$ is that it vanishes when $Q^2= M_\Delta^2 - M^2$, in conflict with the data.
We then try an approximated solution, replacing $G_E \to G_E/(1 + Q^2/(M_\Delta^2 - M^2))$, which induces no zeros for $Q^2 > 0$. One obtain in this case & & G\_E (Q\^2)= ( )\^[3/2]{} . \[eqGE2\] The previous relation differs from Eq. (\[eqGE\]) at the pseudo-threshold only by a term ${\cal O}(1/N_c^2)$.
With the new form for $G_E$, one obtains \_[pt]{} ( )\^[3/2]{} Q\_[pt]{}\^2, which is now a term ${\cal O}(1/N_c^4)$, since $M_\Delta-M= {\cal O}(1/N_c)$ and $M = {\cal O}(N_c)$.
The expected falloff for large $Q^2$ of the pion cloud contributions for the form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$ given by Eqs. (\[eqGC\]) and (\[eqGE2\]) are $G_E \propto 1/Q^8$ and $G_C \propto 1/Q^6$ respectively. One recall however those contributions are derived from the low $Q^2$ expansion of the neutron electric form factor and its application is in principle limited to intermediate values of $Q^2$ [@Pascalutsa07a]. The high $Q^2$ region is expected to be dominated by the valence quark degrees of freedom [@Carlson98] as discussed later.
To summarize, we use Siegert’s theorem to find a correction for the form factor $G_E$ that minimizes the violation of Siegert’s theorem. The solution proposed, given by Eq. (\[eqGE2\]) is not exact, but reduces the violation of Siegert’s theorem to a term of the order $1/N_c^4$, The proposed function preserves the result for $G_E(0)$ obtained in the large $N_c$ framework, and correspond to a relative correction of $1/N_c^2$ to the result of $G_E$ at the pseudo-threshold.
Combination of pion cloud and valence quark contributions
=========================================================
Since, as discussed, the pion cloud component represents only the leading order effect in $G_E$ and $G_C$, we combine the new pion cloud parametrizations with the valence quark contributions of the covariant spectator quark model (consistent with Siegert’s theorem). The sum of the two contributions is presented in Fig. \[figModel2\].
From Fig. \[figModel2\], we conclude that, apart from the results for $G_C$ below 0.2 GeV$^2$, to be discussed later, we obtain a very good description of the overall data. This represents a considerable improvement comparative to the previous pion cloud parametrizations (see Fig. \[figModel0\]). In addition, the form factors are now compatible with Siegert’s theorem, within an error of the order $1/N_c^4$. The smallness of the error can be visualized in the figure if we look for ${\cal R}= G_E - \kappa G_C$ at the pseudo-threshold.
For future reference we call the attention for the fact that, the nonzero results for the form factors $G_E$ and $G_C$ are a direct consequence of the pion cloud contributions, since as discussed, the valence quark contribution vanishes at the pseudo-threshold.
For a final discussion of the results, we need to take into account that the pion cloud contributions for $G_E$ and $G_C$ can have relative deviations of the order $1/N_c^2$ from Eqs. (\[eqGC\]) and (\[eqGE2\]), as discussed previously. To represent those deviations we include a band of $\pm 10\%$ in the graphs for $G_E$ and $\kappa G_C$ to represent the possible relative deviation (term of order $1/N_c^2$) from the estimate of the pion cloud contribution. Note that the $\pm 10\%$ deviation is more relevant for the discussion of the spacelike region, where the data are available, than near the pseudo-threshold. The final results for $G_E$ and $G_C$ including the variation band are presented in Fig. \[figModel3\]. In the figure we compare also the results with the MAID-SG2 parametrization from Ref. [@SiegertD], in order to better visualize the difference between our model and the data at low $Q^2$. The MAID-SG2 gives a high quality description of the data, and it is compatible with Siegert’s theorem.
From the graph for $G_C$, we can conclude that, the gap between the present model and the data for $Q^2 < 0.2$ GeV$^2$ may not be explained by the pion cloud contribution, since the data are out of the band. We tested unsuccessfully if the quality of the description at low $Q^2$ could be improved considering a parametrization of the $G_{En}$ data more complex than the Galster parametrization (\[eqGEnX\]). Those results are an indication that the gap between model and data may be a consequence of the valence quark contributions. Parametrizations of the quark core contributions closer to a dipole form as in the Sato-Lee and DMT models from Ref. [@JDiaz07; @Kamalov99] are more appropriate to describe the data measured at low $Q^2$. Those parametrizations, however, differ in shape, from the estimates presented in Fig. \[figVal\], and are not compatible with the shape required by Siegert’s theorem and the soft convergence to zero at the pseudo-threshold. A comparison between the results from the covariant spectator quark model and the parametrization from Ref. [@JDiaz07] can be found in Ref. [@LatticeD]. As discussed in the context of the covariant spectator quark model, the convergence to zero at the pseudo-threshold is a consequence of the orthogonality between the nucleon and the $\Delta(1232)$ states.
The shape of the valence quark contributions in the region $Q^2=0$–0.2 GeV$^2$ can in principle be tested with the help of lattice QCD simulations. With the advent of the lattice QCD simulations near the physical point, it is expected that in the near future the lattice QCD simulations approaches the physical point. In those conditions, lattice simulations in quenched QCD and partially quenched QCD approximations may be compared with our estimate of the valence quark contributions. Also, the pion cloud contributions can be estimated from the comparison between full QCD and quenched QCD. An indication that the low $Q^2$ data for $G_C$ are reliable comes from the chiral effective-field theory, which connects the lattice QCD data with large pion masses with the physical regime [@Pascalutsa05].
Independent of the source of the discrepancy of $G_C$ for $Q^2 < 0.2$ GeV$^2$, the shape of the form factor $G_C$ has implications in the Coulomb quadrupole square radius. Some authors argue that the low $Q^2$ behavior of $G_C$ is a consequence of the long extension of the pion cloud [@Buchmann09a]. Other works suggest instead, that, as a consequence of Siegert’s theorem, $G_C$ becomes smoother near $Q^2=0$ [@SiegertD], which according with the present analysis may be a consequence of the valence quark contributions, since the pion cloud contribution is sharper near $Q^2=0$.
In the range of the data presented $Q^2 < 2$ GeV$^2$ the pion cloud contributions are still sizable (see Fig. \[figModel0\]). As discussed the pion cloud parametrization are in principle valid for low $Q^2$ and may be modified for larger values of $Q^2$. For $G_E$ the valence quark component falls as $1/Q^4$, as expected from a quark model [@NDeltaD; @LatticeD], and dominates over the pion cloud component ($1/Q^6$). As for $G_C$ the valence quark component falls as $1/Q^6$, as the pion cloud component. The final falloff is then $G_E \propto 1/Q^4$ and $G_C \propto 1/Q^6$, respectively, consistent with pQCD [@Carlson98]. We conclude then that, for very large $Q^2$, the present model is compatible with the expected pQCD falloff. Recall that the pQCD falloff is the consequence of the dominance of the valence quark contributions [@Carlson98]. Another pQCD prediction is that, $G_E \simeq - G_M$, for very large $Q^2$ [@Carlson98; @Carlson86]. Experimentally we are nowadays far away from this result [@NSTAR; @Carlson98].
Overall, our calculations support the idea that the physics associated with the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ transition can be described by adding pionic degrees of freedom to the quark models [@NSTAR; @QpionCloud1; @QpionCloud2]. Dynamical reaction models such as the Sato-Lee model [@JDiaz07] and the DMT model [@Drechsel2007; @Kamalov99], which calculate the pion cloud dynamically, are also in qualitative agreement with the data. In those models the bare core contributions are estimated phenomenologically as already discussed for the case of Ref. [@JDiaz07].
Summary and conclusions
=======================
In conclusion, we have proposed a new pion cloud parametrization for the $\gamma^\ast N \to \Delta(1232)$ electric quadrupole form factor. The new form for $G_E$ is consistent with Siegert’s theorem, $G_E = \kappa G_C$, at the pseudo-threshold, within an error of $1/N_c^4$.
We have also discussed the implications of Siegert’s theorem to the bare core contribution of the quadrupole form factors. Contrary to the pion cloud contributions, the valence quark contributions vanish at the pseudo-threshold.
Combining the new parametrizations of pion cloud contributions with the valence quark contributions for the same form factors, we have obtained a very accurate description of the quadrupole form factors data, apart from a small underestimation of the $G_C$ data in the region $Q^2=0$–0.15 GeV$^2$.
Future developments in lattice QCD may help to clarify if the the gap between theory and data at low $Q^2$ is a consequence of the underestimation of the valence quark component or of the pion cloud component.
The author thanks João Pacheco B. C. de Melo and Kazuo Tsushima for the hospitality at Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, where this work started, and Pulak Giri for useful suggestions. This work is supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and by the project “Science without Borders” from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) 400826/2014-3.
[00]{}
H. F. Jones and M. D. Scadron, Annals Phys. [**81**]{}, 1 (1973).
V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. [**437**]{}, 125 (2007) \[hep-ph/0609004\].
G. Ramalho, M. T. Peña and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 114017 (2008) \[arXiv:0810.4126 \[hep-ph\]\].
I. G. Aznauryan [*et al.*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**22**]{}, 1330015 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.4891 \[nucl-th\]\].
G. Ramalho, M. T. Peña and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 093022 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.4392 \[nucl-th\]\]. G. Ramalho, M. T. Peña and F. Gross, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 355 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.4212 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Ramalho, M. T. Pena and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 113011 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4170 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 111501 (2007) \[arXiv:0711.0147 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. J. Buchmann, E. Hernandez and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 448 (1997) \[nucl-th/9610040\].
P. Grabmayr and A. J. Buchmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2237 (2001) \[hep-ph/0104203\].
A. J. Buchmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 212301 (2004) \[hep-ph/0412421\].
A. J. Buchmann, Can. J. Phys. [**87**]{}, 773 (2009) \[arXiv:0910.4747 \[physics.atom-ph\]\].
A. J. Buchmann, J. A. Hester and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 056002 (2002) \[hep-ph/0205108\].
S. Stave [*et al.*]{} \[A1 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{}, 025209 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.2476 \[hep-ex\]\].
S. Capstick and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 2767 (1990).
B. Julia-Diaz, T.-S. H. Lee, T. Sato and L. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 015205 (2007) \[nucl-th/0611033\].
G. Ramalho and M. T. Peña, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 013008 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.4310 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. S. Kamalov and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4494 (1999) \[nucl-th/9904072\].
D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A [**34**]{}, 69 (2007) \[arXiv:0710.0306 \[nucl-th\]\].
G. Ramalho, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 113012 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.03832 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Ramalho, Phys. Lett. B [**759**]{}, 126 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.03444 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. J. Buchmann, E. Hernandez, U. Meyer, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 2478 (1998).
S. Galster, H. Klein, J. Moritz, K. H. Schmidt, D. Wegener and J. Bleckwenn, Nucl. Phys. B [**32**]{}, 221 (1971).
N. F. Sparveris [*et al.*]{} \[OOPS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 022003 (2005) \[nucl-ex/0408003\].
J. J. Kelly [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 025201 (2007) \[nucl-ex/0509004\]; I. G. Aznauryan [*et al.*]{} \[CLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 055203 (2009) \[arXiv:0909.2349 \[nucl-ex\]\].
K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{}, 090001 (2014).
V. I. Mokeev, <https://userweb.jlab.org/~mokeev/>\
[resonance\_electrocouplings/](resonance_electrocouplings/)
G. Ramalho, M. T. Peña and F. Gross, Eur. Phys. J. A [**36**]{}, 329 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3034 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. Gross, G. Ramalho and M. T. Peña, Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 015202 (2008) \[nucl-th/0606029\].
G. Ramalho, K. Tsushima and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 033004 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.1060 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Ramalho and M. T. Peña, J. Phys. G [**36**]{}, 115011 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.0187 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, H. Neff, J. W. Negele, W. Schroers and A. Tsapalis, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 085012 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.4621 \[hep-lat\]\].
E. E. Jenkins, X. Ji and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 242001 (2002) \[hep-ph/0207092\].
R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4713 (1994) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 2489 (1995)\] \[hep-ph/9310379\].
G. Dillon and G. Morpurgo, Phys. Lett. B [**448**]{}, 107 (1999).
A. J. Buchmann and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 096005 (2000) \[hep-ph/0003167\].
A. J. Buchmann and E. M. Henley, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 073017 (2002).
C. E. Carlson and N. C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2646 (1998) \[hep-ph/9804356\].
V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 232001 (2005) \[hep-ph/0508060\].
C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 2704 (1986).
M. Fiolhais, B. Golli and S. Širca, Phys. Lett. B [**373**]{}, 229 (1996).
D. H. Lu, A. W. Thomas and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 3108 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we provide a Hodge-theoretic interpretation of Laurent phenomenon for general skew-symmetric quantum cluster algebras, using Donaldson-Thomas theory for a quiver with potential. It turns out that the positivity conjecture reduces to the certain statement on purity of monodromic mixed Hodge structures on the cohomology with the coefficients in the sheaf of vanishing cycles on the moduli of stable framed representations.
As an application, we show that the positivity conjecture (and actually a stronger result on Lefschetz property) holds if either initial or mutated quantum seed is acyclic. For acyclic initial seed the positivity has been already shown by F. Qin [@Q] in the quantum case, and also by Nakajima [@Nak] in the commutative case.
address: 'Steklov Mathematical Institute of RAS, Gubkin str. 8, GSP-1, Moscow 119991, Russia'
author:
- 'Alexander I. Efimov'
title: Quantum cluster variables via vanishing cycles
---
Introduction
============
Cluster algebras were introduced in [@FZ02]. They form a certain class of commutative algebras with a distinguished set of generators, which are called [*cluster variables.*]{} If the cluster algebra has rank $n,$ then the set of generators is a union of distinguished $n$-element subsets called [*clusters.*]{} There is a rule of mutation of such clusters, when one cluster variable is replaced by some very simple rational function in the variables of the same cluster: $$xx'=M_1+M_2,$$ where $x$ is the cluster variable, $x'$ is its replacement, and $M_1$ and $M_2$ are monomials in the other cluster variables in the same cluster. Moreover, all clusters are obtained by such mutations from any given cluster.
The most surprising property of cluster algebras is [*Laurent phenomenon:*]{} any cluster variable is actually a Laurent polynomial in the variables of any given cluster. It leads to the well-known [*positivity conjecture:*]{} all such Laurent polynomials have non-negative integer coefficients.
We suggest [@Ke1], [@Ke2] as nice survey articles on cluster algebras and their categorification.
In [@P1], Plamondon obtains uses certain categorification of cluster algebras to obtain a general formula for cluster monomials for skew-symmetric cluster algebras. The same formulas are actually obtained in [@DWZ2], the coincidence is shown in [@P2]. The resulting coefficients are Euler characteristics of some quiver Grassmannians. However, this does not imply the positivity conjecture, since a priori Euler characteristic can be negative.
Another approach to categorification is studied by Nakajima [@Nak]. He uses it to prove positivity conjecture (w.r.t. all seeds) for cluster algebras coming from bipartite quivers. In the Appendix of [@Nak] the positivity conjecture is proved for acyclic initial seed. It was announced by Y. Kimura and F. Qin [@KQ] that they have a generalization of Nakajima’s results on categorification for all acyclic [*quantum*]{} cluster algebras (see below the definition of quantum cluster algebras), which implies positivity conjecture w.r.t. all quantum seeds which are mutationally equivalent to an acyclic seed.
Our approach is very close to the paper of K. Nagao [@N]. He uses Donaldson-Thomas theory (in a framework different from our paper) for quivers with potentials to obtain the same formulas for cluster variables (which can be easily generalized for cluster monomials), under certain assumptions on the quiver with potential: the potential should be polynomial and this property should be preserved under a finite sequence of mutations. The reason for such restrictive assumption is that the Donaldson-Thomas theory is not well-developed at the moment for the case of formal potential (see below).
The goal of this paper is to obtain the formulas for quantum cluster monomials, using the approach of [@N], for arbitrary skew-symmetric quantum cluster algebras. Also, our results can be viewed as a generalization of quantum cluster character [@Q]. We use the framework of mixed Hodge modules for Donaldson-Thomas theory, which is developed in [@KS], and has first been considered in [@DS] in the geometric situation. Positivity conjecture does not follow automatically from our results (as it does in [@Q] for acyclic initial seed), but it reduces to a certain conjecture on purity of monodromic mixed Hodge structures (see below).
We will deal with skew-symmetric quantum cluster algebras, as introduced in [@BZ]. Every skew-symmetrizable cluster algebra can be quantized in the sense of [@BZ]. Here the algebra is non-commutative: it is contained in the skew-field of fractions of a quantum torus. If $L\cong\Z^m$ is some free finitely generated abelian group, and $$\Lambda:L\times L\to\Z$$ a non-degenerate pairing, then the quantum torus ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}$ is an algebra over $\Z[q^{\pm\frac12}],$ with a distinguished basis $X^e,$ $e\in L,$ satisfying $$X^e\cdot X^f=q^{\frac12\Lambda(e,f)}X^{e+f}.$$ The algebra ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}$ is an Ore domain, and we have its skew-field of fractions ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}.$ A cluster is assigned to the quantum seed $(M,\tilde{B}),$ where $M:\Z^m\to{{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ is a map of special kind, the so-called toric frame (the analogue of transcendence basis, generating ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$), and $\tilde{B}\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{m\times n}(Z)$ (where $n$ is the rank of quantum cluster algebra), satisfying some compatibility condition (see Subsections \[ss:TF\], \[ss:SSQS\]). There is a rule of mutation of such quantum seeds (see Subsection \[ss:MSSQS\]).
The cluster variables are $M(e_i),$ $1\leq i\leq n\leq m,$ the cluster monomials are $M(\lambda),$ $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ and the elements $M(e_i),$ $n+1\leq m,$ are called [*coefficients,*]{} they do not change under mutations. Taking the $\Z[q^{\pm\frac12}]$subalgebra ${{\mathcal A}}_S\subset{{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ generated by all cluster variables, coefficients and their inverses in a given mutation-equivalence class $S$ of quantum seeds, we obtain the [*quantum cluster algebra*]{} (Definition \[def:QCA\]).
Again, the Laurent phenomenon holds: if $L=\Z^m,$ and there is some quantum seed $(M,\tilde{B})$ in $S,$ with $M(c)=X^{c},$ then $${{\mathcal A}}_S\subset{{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}$$ (Theorem \[LP\]). We also have positivity conjecture: all cluster monomials have positive coefficients as elements of ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}.$
We will obtain a Hodge-theoretic interpretation of quantum Laurent phenomenon for all cluster monomials, using Donaldson-Thomas theory for a quiver with potential, developed in [@KS]. First, we replace the base ring $\Z[q^{\frac12}]$ by $\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}],$ where $\hat{R}$ is the completion of $R=K_0(MMHS),$ where $MMHS$ is the abelian category of so-called monodromic mixed Hodge structures with Thom-Sebastiani product $\star_+,$ and $T$ is the class of $\Q(-1)$ (see Subsection \[ss:MMHS\]).
For any smooth algebraic variety $X,$ with a regular function $f:X\to\C$ and a locally closed subset $X^{sp}\subset f^{-1}(0),$ one defines (Definition \[critical\_cohomology\]) the critical cohomology with compact support $$H^{i,crit}_c(X^{sp},f)\in MMHS.$$
We have the motivic quantum torus $${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot}:={{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}\otimes_{\Z[q^{\pm\frac12}]}\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}],$$ and motivic cluster monomials $M'^{mot}(\lambda)=M'(\lambda)\otimes 1\in{{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot}.$
For any quiver $Q,$ polynomial potential $W$ on $Q,$ a central charge $Z:\Z^{V(Q)}\to\C$ (given by some map $V(Q)\to{{\mathcal H}}_+$) an angle $0<\phi<\pi,$ and a vector $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}$ one associates the moduli space of stable framed representations ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr},$ which is a smooth algebraic variety with a regular function $$W_{\gamma}={\operatorname{Tr}}(W):{{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}\to\C$$ (Subsection \[ss:SFR\]). We have a closed subset $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\subset {{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}$$ which consists of stable framed representations which are nilpotent and are critical points of $W_{\gamma}.$
Now suppose that $L=\Z^m,$ the initial seed is of the form $(M(c)=X^c,\tilde{B}),$ and we have the mutated seed $$(M_r,\tilde{B}_r)=\mu_{k_r}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(M,\tilde{B}))).$$ One can associate to the matrix $\tilde{B}$ a (non-unique) quiver $Q$ with the set of vertices $\{1,\dots,m\},$ and define the mutations for quivers (Subsection \[ss:MSSQS\]).
Let $Q$ be the quiver corresponding to $\tilde{B},$ and $$Q_r=\mu_{k_r}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(Q))\dots).$$
The notion of mutation can be extended to quivers with formal potentials (QP’s) [@DWZ], see Subsection \[ss:MQFP\]. Suppose that the polynomial QP $(Q_r,W_r)$ is obtained by a sequence of mutations from a formal QP $(Q,W):$ $$(Q_r,W_r)=\mu_{k_r}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}((Q,W)))\dots).$$ We have Ginzburg DG algebras [@G] $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W},$ $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r},$ inclusions $$\iota:D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\hookrightarrow {\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\subset D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),$$ natural isomorphisms $$K_0({\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\cong\Z^m,\quad K_0(D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\cong\Z^m,$$ and similarly for $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r}$ (Subsection \[ss:GDGA\]). We have a natural choice of equivalence $$\Phi(r):D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r})$$ coming from Nagao’s result [@N] (Theorem \[Nagao\] below). Also, put $$\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}:=\Phi(r)^{-1}(\bigoplus\limits_{j=1}^m\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r,j}^{\lambda_j}),\quad\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$$ where $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r,j}$ are indecomposable projective DG modules.
As usual, for any finite quiver $Q$ with the set of vertices $V(Q),$ we denote by $\chi_Q$ the Euler form on $\Z^{V(Q)}:$ $$\chi_Q(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=\sum\limits_{i\in V(Q)}\gamma_1^i\gamma_2^j-\sum\limits_{i,j\in V(Q)}a_{ji}\gamma_1^i\gamma_2^j,$$ where $a_{ij}$ is the number of arrows from $i$ to $j.$
\[LP\_by\_sfr\_intro\] There exist a central charge $Z$ on $Q_r,$ and an angle $0<\phi<\pi,$ such that for $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m$ $$M_r^{mot}(\lambda)=X^{[\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}]}\cdot\sum\limits_{\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma}))]\cdot T^{-\frac12\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)}X^{\iota(\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))},$$ where we view $\gamma$ as an element of $K_0(D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r})).$ In particular, we have that $$[H^{\bullet,crit}_{c}({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma}))]\in\Z[T^{\pm 1}]\subset R.$$
More precise formulation is Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\].
In the terminology of [@FZ07], the vectors $[\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}]$ are $g$-vectors, and the polynomials $$\sum\limits_{\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma}))]\cdot T^{-\frac12\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)}y^{\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma)}$$ are motivic quantum $F$-polynomials.
In the assumptions of the above Theorem, suppose that for some $\lambda$ and for all $\gamma$ we have that $H^{i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})\in MMHS$ is pure of weight $i.$ Then the cluster monomial $M_r(\lambda)$ is a positive element in ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}.$
For any quiver $Q$ with the set of vertices $\{1,\dots,m\},$ denote by $Q_{[1,\dots,n]}$ its full subquiver on the vertices $1,\dots,n.$
The quantum seed $(M,\tilde{B})$ is called acyclic, if the quiver $Q_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic.
As a consequence, we obtain the following result.
\[acyclic\_intro\]In the above notation, suppose that either $(M,\tilde{B})$ or $(M_r,\tilde{B}_r)$ is acyclic quantum seed. Then for any $\lambda\in \Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ we have that $H^{i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ is pure of weight $i.$ In particular, by the above Corollary, we have that all cluster monomials $M_r(\lambda)$ are positive elements of ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}.$
Actually, below we formulate a Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\], which is stronger than positivity conjecture, and prove it under the assumptions of Theorem \[acyclic\_intro\] (Theorem \[positivity\_for\_acyclic\]).
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section \[s:QCA\] we recall the definition of skew-symmetric quantum cluster algebras (Definition \[def:QCA\]), formulate Laurent Phenomenon (Theorem \[LP\]) and Positivity Conjecture (Conjecture \[positivity\_conj\]). Here we also propose a stronger conjecture (for skew-symmetric case) about Lefschetz property (Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\]).
Section \[s:DTQPP\] is devoted mostly to an overview of DT theory for a quiver with polunomial potential, in the framework of mixed Hodge modules. Following [@KS], we recall moduli of quiver representations (Subsection \[ss:GN\]), the category of monodromic mixed Hodge structures (Subsection \[ss:MMHS\]), Donaldson-Thomas series (Subsection \[ss:DTS\]) and factorization theorem for them (Theorem \[factorization\_polynomial\]). Here we also recall stable framed representations (Subsection \[ss:SFR\]), and obtain a formula relating them to DT series (Theorem \[conj\_and\_sfr\]). Result of this kind is actually standard in Donaldson-Thomas theory.
In Section \[s:CQCA\] we recall various notions and results on categorification of (quantum) cluster algebras: Ginzburg DG algebras (Subsection \[ss:GDGA\]), mutations of quivers with potentials and decorated representations (Subsections \[ss:MQFP\], \[ss:DRM\]), derived equivalences of Keller and Yang between Ginzburg DG algebras of two QP’s related by a mutation (Subsection \[ss:DE\]). We recall the tilting of t-structures using torsion pairs (Subsection \[ss:Tilting\]), also the theorem of Nagao (Theorem \[Nagao\]) about the natural derived equivalence arising from the sequence of mutations. In Subsection \[ss:Plamondon\] we recall the result of Plamondon (Theorem \[Plamondon\]), and explain how it is related to the theorem of Nagao (Lemma \[Nagao\_Plamondon\]).
We also recall $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-categories associated with quivers with potentials (Subsection \[ss:3CY\]) and explain how they can be used to extend DT theory to some quivers with formal potentials, in particular, to QP’S which are mutation equivalent to polynomial QP’s (Subsection \[ss:DTQFP\]). We end this section with explaining that torsion pairs arising naturally from a sequence of mutations (from Theorem \[Nagao\]) actually come from some central charges and decompositions of the upper half-plane into disjoint union of two sectors (Theorem \[torsion\_pairs\_via\_Z\]).
Section \[s:LPSFR\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\_intro\], the more precise formulation is Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\]. The central charge and the angle $\phi$ come from Theorem \[torsion\_pairs\_via\_Z\]. First, we obtain a formula for cluster monomials using conjugation by certain DT series (Theorem \[cluster\_var\_via\_conj\]) and then, using Theorem \[conj\_and\_sfr\], we obtain the desired expression in terms of stable framed representations.
In Section \[s:PCVP\] we explain that the positivity conjecture reduces to a conjecture on purity of critical cohomology (the first half of Conjecture \[purity\_conj\]), and the stronger conjecture on Lefschetz property (Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\]) reduces to the (conjectural) existence of Lefschetz operator on critical cohomology (the second half of Conjecture \[purity\_conj\]). We easily show that purity and existence of Lefschetz operator holds in the case when either initial or mutated seed is acyclic (Theorem \[positivity\_for\_acyclic\]), in particular proving Theorem \[acyclic\_intro\]. We also give an example when the relevant mixed Hodge module of vanishing cycles is not pure, but the critical cohomology is however pure.
In Section \[s:conj\_on\_exc\] we conjecture that for the relevant moduli of stable framed representations, there exists an exceptional collection in (the Karoubian completion of) the homotopy category of matrix factorizations. This conjecture implies the first half of conjecture \[purity\_conj\], namely the purity.
In Appendix we prove Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\], which allows to use DT theory for some quivers with formal potentials.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} I am grateful to Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman for useful discussions.
Quantum cluster algebras {#s:QCA}
========================
In this section we introduce skew-symmetric quantum cluster algebras, formulate the Laurent Phenomenon and the Positivity conjecture, following [@BZ].
Quantum torus {#ss:QT}
-------------
Let $L\cong\Z^m$ be a free abelian group of rank $m,$ and $\Lambda:L\times L\to\Z$ be a skew-symmetric form. We associate to the pair $(L,\Lambda)$ the based quantum torus ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}.$ It is a $\Z[q^{\pm \frac12}]$-algebra, with the $\Z[q^{\pm \frac12}]$-basis $X^e,$ $e\in L.$ The product is given by the formula $$X^e\cdot X^f=q^{\frac{\Lambda(e,f)}2}X^{e+f}.$$ Clearly, we have commutation relations $$X^eX^f=q^{\Lambda(e,f)}X^fX^e.$$
Associativity is obvious. Further, we have that the ring ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}$ satisfies (left and right) Ore condition, hence we have its skew-field of fractions ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda},$ which contains central subfield $\Q(q^{\frac12}).$
Toric frames {#ss:TF}
------------
A toric frame is a map $M:\Z^m\to {{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda},$ which is of the form $$M(c)=\varphi(X^{\eta(c)}),$$ where $\eta:\Z^m\to L$ is an isomorphism of lattices, and $\varphi\in{\operatorname{Aut}}_{\Q(q^{\frac12})}({{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}).$
Consider the skew-symmetric integral form $\Lambda_M=\Lambda_{\eta}$ on $\Z^m,$ transferred from $L$ by $\eta.$ It is clear that we have $$M(c)M(d)=q^{\frac{\Lambda_{\eta}(c,d)}2}M(c+d),\quad M(c)M(d)=q^{\Lambda_{\eta}(c,d)}M(d)M(c).$$ In particular, $M$ is uniquely defined by $X_i=M(e_i),$ where $e_i\in\Z^m$ are standard basis elements.
On the other hand, given $\eta$ (and hence $\Lambda_{\eta}$) we can formulate necessary and sufficient conditions on elements $X_1,\dots,X_m\in{{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ to give rise to a toric frame:
$(i)$ elements $X_1,\dots,X_m$ are invertible and we have $$X_iX_j=q^{\Lambda_{\eta}(e_i,e_j)}X_jX_i;$$
$(ii)$ the induced map ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda_{\eta}}\to {{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda},$ $$X^c\mapsto (q^{-\frac12})^{\sum\limits_{1\leq i<j\leq m}\Lambda_{\eta}(e_i,e_j)c_ic_j}X_1^{c_1}\dots X_m^{c_m},$$ is injective;
$(iii)$ elements $X_1,\dots,X_m$ generate the skew-field ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ over $\Q(q^{\frac12}).$
Then $$M(c)=(q^{-\frac12})^{\sum\limits_{1\leq i<j\leq m}\Lambda_{\eta}(e_i,e_j)c_ic_j}X_1^{c_1}\dots X_m^{c_m}$$ is a toric frame.
Skew-symmetric quantum seeds {#ss:SSQS}
----------------------------
Fix an integer $1\leq n\leq m.$ A skew-symmetric quantum seed is a pair $(M,\tilde{B}),$ where $M$ is a toric frame for ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda},$ and $\tilde{B}\in {\operatorname{Mat}}_{m\times n}(\Z)$ is a matrix such that $$\tilde{B}^t\Lambda_M=\widetilde{I_n},$$ where $\widetilde{I_n}\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{n\times m}(\Z)$ is a matrix with identity block $n\times n$ and zero block $n\times (m-n).$ Note that the upper $n\times n$ submatrix $B$ of $\tilde{B}$ is necessarily skew-symmetric, since $$B=\widetilde{I_n}\tilde{B}=\tilde{B}^t\Lambda_M\tilde{B}.$$
For a quantum seed $(M,\tilde{B}),$ we have the set ${\bf\tilde{X}}=\{X_1,\dots,X_m\},$ where $X_i=M(e_i).$ The subset ${\bf X}=\{X_1,\dots,X_n\}$ is called a [*cluster*]{} associated to $(M,\tilde{B}),$ and the elements of ${\bf X}$ are called [*cluster variables*]{}. The elements $M(\lambda),$ $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ are called [*cluster monomials*]{}. The elements of ${\bf C}={\bf \tilde{X}}\setminus {\bf X}$ are called [*coefficients*]{}.
Mutations of skew-symmetric quantum seeds {#ss:MSSQS}
-----------------------------------------
Let $(M,\tilde{B})$ be a skew-symmetric quantum seed as above, and choose an integer $1\leq k\leq n.$ We recall that mutation $\mu_k(M,\tilde{B})=(M',\tilde{B}')$ is defined as follows. First, $$b'_{ij}:=\begin{cases}-b_{ij} & \text{if }i=k\text{ or }j=k;\\
b_{ij}+\frac{|b_{ik}|b_{kj}+b_{ik}|b_{kj}|}2.\end{cases}$$ Second, in order to define $M'$ it suffices to define $M'(e_i),$ $1\leq i\leq m.$ Put $$M'(e_i)=\begin{cases}M(e_i) & \text{for }i\ne k;\\
M(\sum\limits_{b_{ik}>0}b_{ik}e_i-e_k)+M(-\sum\limits_{b_{ik}<0}b_{ik}e_i-e_k) & \text{for }i=k.\end{cases}$$
Note that the set of coefficients ${\bf C}$ is invariant under mutations.
\[def:QCA\]Let $S$ be some equivalence class of skew-symmetric quantum seeds under mutations. Then the cluster algebra ${{\mathcal A}}_S$ is the $\Z[q^{\pm\frac12}]$-subalgebra of ${{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ generated by the union of all clusters associated to quantum seeds in $S,$ the coefficients and their inverses.
We will use the following replacement of matrices $\tilde{B}.$ Namely, first, skew-symmetric integral matrices $B\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{n\times n}(\Z)$ are in bijection with quivers $Q$ such that the vertex set $V(Q)$ is identified with $\{1,\dots,n\},$ and there are no loops or oriented $2$-cycles in $Q.$ The mutation of matrices corresponds to natural mutations of quivers. Further, for a matrix $\tilde{B}\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{m\times n}(\Z)$ such that the upper submatrix $B\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{n\times n}(\Z)$ is skew-symmetric, we can take a (non-unique) quiver $\tilde{Q}$ with $V(\tilde{Q})=\{1,\dots,m\},$ without loops and $2$-cycles, such that the corresponding matrix of the numbers of arrows $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq m}$ is related to $\tilde{B}$ by the formula $$a_{ji}-a_{ij}=b_{ij},\quad 1\leq i\leq m,\,1\leq j\leq n.$$
The mutations of $\tilde{B}$ correspond to mutations of $\tilde{Q}$ at the vertices $1,\dots,n.$ We denote by $\tilde{Q}_{[1,\dots,n]}$ the full subquiver of $\tilde{Q}$ on the vertices $1,\dots,n.$
The quantum seed $(M,\tilde{B})$ is called acyclic if the quiver $\tilde{Q}_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic.
Laurent phenomenon and positivity conjecture {#ss:LPPC}
--------------------------------------------
The following result was proved by Berenstein and Zelevinsky [@BZ] for a more general class of skew-symmetrizable quantum cluster algebras.
\[LP\]Assume that $L=\Z^m,$ and suppose that equivalence class $S$ of skew-symmetric quantum seeds contains a representative (initial quantum seed) $(M,\tilde{B}),$ where $M(c)=X^c,$ $c\in\Z^m.$ Then the quantum cluster algebra ${{\mathcal A}}_S$ is contained in ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}.$
\[positivity\_conj\]In the assumptions of the above theorem, all cluster monomials are positive, i.e. of the form $\sum\limits_{c}P_c(q^{\frac12})X^c,$ where $P_c(q^{\frac12})\in\Z[q^{\pm \frac12}]$ are Laurent polynomials with non-negative coefficients.
Of course, positivity conjecture reduces to cluster variables, but it is more natural to consider all cluster monomials.
We would like to propose a stronger conjecture. Namely, we say that the polynomial $P(q^{\frac12})\in \Z[q^{\pm 12}]$ satisfies [*Lefschetz property*]{}, if there is some $N\in\Z$ such that $P$ is the non-negative linear combination of polynomials $$P=\sum\limits_{k\in\Z}c_k P(N,k)=q^{\frac{N}2}(q^{\frac{-k}2}+q^{\frac{2-k}2}+\dots+q^{\frac{k-2}2}+q^{\frac{k}2}),$$ where all the numbers $k\in\Z_{\geq 0},$ for which $c_k$ is non-zero, have the same parity.
\[conj\_Lefschetz\]In the notation of the Conjecture \[positivity\_conj\], the polynomials $P_c(q^{\frac12})$ satisfy Lefschetz property.
Below we will obtain the following result (see Theorem \[positivity\_for\_acyclic\]) as an application of the general formula (Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\]) for quantum cluster monomials.
Suppose that either initial quantum seed $(M(c)=X^c,\tilde{B})$ or the mutated (by a sequence of mutations) quantum seed $(M',\tilde{B}')$ is acyclic. Then the statement of Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\] holds for all cluster monomials $M'(\lambda),$ $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m.$
Donaldson-Thomas theory for a quiver with polynomial potential {#s:DTQPP}
==============================================================
In this section we recall the Donaldson-Thomas theory for a polynomial QP (quiver with potential), mostly following Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS].
General notions {#ss:GN}
---------------
Let $Q$ be a finite quiver with a set of vertices $V(Q),$ and $a_{ij}\in\Z_{\geq 0}$ arrows from $i$ to $j.$ Denote by $E(Q)$ the set of arrows (edges).
We will always consider representations as [*right*]{} modules over the path algebra $\C Q$. Take some dimension vector $\gamma=(\gamma^i)_{i\in V(Q)}\in\Z_{\geq 0}^I.$ We have an affine space of complex representations in coordinate spaces $\C^{\gamma^i}:$ $$M_{\gamma}=\prod\limits_{i,j\in V(Q)}\Hom(\C^{\gamma^j},\C^{\gamma^i})^{a_{ij}}=\C^{\sum\limits_{i,j\in V(Q)}a_{ij}\gamma^j\gamma^i}.$$ Further, we have an algebraic group $G_{\gamma}=\prod\limits_{i\in I}GL(\gamma^i,\C)$ acting on $M_{\gamma}$ by conjugation.
Now, take some polynomial potential on $Q,$ i.e. an element $$W\in HH_0(\C Q)=\C Q/[\C Q,\C Q].$$ In other words, $W$ is finite linear combination of cyclic paths $$W=\sum\limits_{\sigma}c_{\sigma}\sigma.$$ We assume that $c_{\sigma}=0$ if $\sigma$ is a path of length zero. In particular, if the quiver $Q$ is acyclic, then $W=0.$
Then, $W$ defines a regular function on $M_{\gamma}:$ $$W_{\gamma}=Tr(W):M_{\gamma}\to\C.$$ Clearly, we have $W_{\gamma}\in\C[M_{\gamma}]^{G_{\gamma}}.$
Now, take the Jacobi algebra of $(Q,W):$ $$J_{Q,W}=\C[Q]/\langle \partial_aW,\,a\in E(Q)\rangle,$$ where we take the quotient by the two-sided ideal generated by partial cyclic derivatives of $W$ by all edges $a.$
We have a closed $G_{\gamma}$-invariant subset ${\operatorname{Rep}}(J_{Q,W})_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}$ which consists of all representations on which cyclic derivatives of $W$ act by zero. It is easy to check that $${\operatorname{Rep}}(J_{Q,W})_{\gamma}={\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})=\{dW_{\gamma}=0\}.$$
Also, we have a closed $G_{\gamma}$-invariant subset ${\operatorname{Nilp}}_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}$ which consists of nilpotent representations. Recall that a representation $E$ of a quiver $Q$ is called nilpotent if all sufficiently long paths of $Q$ act by zero on $E.$ The intersection $${\operatorname{Nilp}}_{\gamma}\cap {\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})\subset {\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})\cap W_{\gamma}^{-1}(0).$$ is precisely the set of representations of the complete Jacobi algebra $$\hat{J}_{Q,W}=\widehat{\C Q}/\widehat{\langle \partial_aW,\,a\in E(Q)\rangle}$$ (in coordinate spaces $\C^{\gamma^i}$) with dimension vector $\gamma.$ Here we complete w.r.t. the length of paths.
Let us define the degree of the polynomial potential $W$ to be the maximal length of the cycle which contributes to $W.$ Let us say that some property holds for a generic potential $W$ if for sufficiently large $N$ there is a dense open subset in the affine space of potentials of degree $\leq N$ for which the property holds. The following observation was suggested to me by M. Kontsevich.
\[Bertini\]For a generic polynomial potential $W,$ we have an equality $${\operatorname{Nilp}}_{\gamma}\cap {\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})={\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})\cap W_{\gamma}^{-1}(0).$$
We claim that we can find a collection of cyclic paths $\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_l$ such that the subset ${\operatorname{Nilp}}_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}$ is given by equations ${\operatorname{Tr}}(\sigma_1)=\dots={\operatorname{Tr}}(\sigma_l)=0.$ Indeed, since $M_{\gamma}$ is Noetherian, it suffices to show that if $E\in M_{\gamma},$ and ${\operatorname{Tr}}_{E}(\sigma)=0$ for any cyclic path $\sigma,$ then $E$ is nilpotent.
We show this as follows. Take any vertex $i\in V(Q),$ and let $B_i\subset \End(E_i)$ be anon-unital subalgebra, which is the image of $(e_i(\C Q)e_i)\cap (\C Q)_+,$ where $e_i\in\C Q$ is the idempotent at the vertex $i,$ and $(\C Q)_+\subset \C Q$ is the ideal generated by arrows. Then we have ${\operatorname{Tr}}_{E_i}(b)=0$ for any $b\in B_i.$ Hence, by Engel’s Theorem, $B_i$ is contained in the subalgebra of strictly upper triangular matrices w.r.t. some basis of $E_i.$ It follows by Dirichlet’s principle that any path in $Q$ of length at least $\sum\limits_{i\in I}\gamma^i$ acts by zero on $E,$ therefore $E$ is nilpotent.
Hence, there is a finite collection of cycles $\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_l$ with the required property. Now, put $$N_0=\max(\deg(\sigma_1),\dots,\deg(\sigma_l)).$$ The statement of the Proposition follows from Bertini’s Theorem, applied to the linear systems $$\PP(V_N),\quad V_N=\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}(\sigma),\,1\leq \deg(\sigma)\leq N\rangle\subset H^0(M_{\gamma},{{\mathcal O}}),\quad N\geq N_0.$$
Now take some central charge on $Q,$ i.e. a homomorphism of abelian groups $$Z:\Z^{V(Q)}\to\C,$$ given by a map $$V(Q)\to {{\mathcal H}}_+=\{{\operatorname{Im}}z>0\}\subset\C.$$ Then, for any non-zero dimension vector $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}\setminus\{0\}$ we have $Z(\gamma)\in{{\mathcal H}}_+,$ thus we have ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(\gamma))\in (0,\pi).$ Now, for any non-zero finite-dimensional representation $E$ of $Q$ we define its [*slope*]{} $$\phi(E):={\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(E))\in (0,\pi),\quad Z(E):=Z({\underline}{\dim}\, E).$$
A non-zero finite-dimensional representation $E$ of $Q$ is called stable (resp. semi-stable) w.r.t. $Z$ if for any of its proper non-zero subrepresentation $E'\subset E$ we have $\phi(E')<\phi(E)$ (resp. $\phi(E')\leq\phi(E)$).
The following is well-known:
For any finite-dimensional representation $E$ of $Q$ we have a unique increasing filtration $0=E_0\subset E_1\subset\dots E_n=E,$ such that all subquotients $E_i/E_{i-1}$ are semi-stable, and $$\phi(E_1)>\phi(E_2/E_1)>\dots>\phi(E_n/E_{n-1}).$$ This filtration is called Harder-Narasimhan filtration.
Take some sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+,$ i.e. $V$ is closed under summation and multiplication by positive reals (for example $V$ may be just a ray). Then the open (but possibly empty) $G_{\gamma}$-invariant subset $$M_{\gamma,V}\subset M_{\gamma}$$ consists of representations $E$ such that for the Harder-Narasimhan filtration $E_{\bullet}$ on $E$ we have $Z(E_i/E_{i-1})\in V.$
To see that $M_{\gamma,V}\subset M_{\gamma}$ is indeed open, note that its complement consists of representations $E\in M_{\gamma},$ such that either there exists a non-zero subrepresentation $E'\subset E$ with ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(E'))>{\operatorname{Arg}}(V),$ or there exists a non-zero quotient representation $E''$ of $E$ such that ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(E''))<{\operatorname{Arg}}(V).$ Both of these conditions are clearly closed.
Monodromic mixed Hodge structures {#ss:MMHS}
---------------------------------
We refer the reader to [@S], [@PS] for the introduction to M. Saito’s theory of mixed Hodge modules.
Recall the category $EMHS$ of exponential mixed Hodge structures, which was used by Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS]. It is defined as some full subcategory $EMHS\subset MHM_{\A^1}$ of the category of mixed Hodge modules on the affine line. Namely, $$EMHS=\{M\in MHM_{\A^1}\mid \bR\Gamma({\operatorname{rat}}(M))=0\},$$ where ${\operatorname{rat}}:MHM_{\A^1}\to{\operatorname{Perv}}(\A^1,\Q)$ is the Betti realization functor.
The category $EMHS$ is closed under the Thom-Sebastiani product $\star_+$ on $D^b(MHM_{\A^1})$: $$M\star_+ N=sum_*(M\boxtimes N),$$ where $sum:\A^1\times\A^1\to \A^1$ is the summation morphism.
Now, the inclusion functor $i:EMHS\to MHM_{\A^1}$ has left adjoint $p:MHM_{\A^1}\to EMHS,$ such that $p\circ i={\operatorname{id}},$ and the composition $i\circ p=:\Pi$ is given by the formula $$\Pi(M)=M\star_+ (j_!\Q_{G_m}(0)[1]),$$ where $j:G_m\hookrightarrow\A^1$ is the embedding.
The category $EMHS$ carries the weight filtration: for $E\in EMHS,$ put $$W_n^{EMHS} E=\Pi(W_{n+1}E),$$ where $W_{\bullet}E$ is the usual weight filtration on $MHM_{\A^1}.$ In particular, if $S$ is an admissible variation of mixed Hodge structures on $G_m,$ then we have the object $$E=j_! S[1]\in EMHS,\quad W_n^{EMHS}E=j_!(W_n S)[1].$$
Objects of $EMHS$ of this kind form the subcategory $$MMHS=\{M\in EMHS\mid M\text{ is unramified over }G_m\subset\A^1\}\subset EMHS,$$ closed under Thom-Sebastiani product $\star_+.$
\[critical\_cohomology\]Let $X$ be a smooth algebraic variety, $f:X\to\C$ a regular function, and $X^{sp}\subset X^0:=f^{-1}(0)$ a locally closed subset, and let $u$ be the coordinate on $G_m.$ Then the critical cohomology with compact support $H^{\bullet,crit}_c(X^{sp},f)$ is defined by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
H^{i,crit}_c(X^{sp},f)=\\H^{i+1}((G_m\to\A^1)_!(X^{sp}\times G_m\to G_m)_!(X^{sp}\times G_m\to X^0\times G_m)^*\phi_{\frac{f}{u}}\Q_{X\times G_m}(0))\in MMHS.\end{gathered}$$
Here we take the vanishing cycles functor $\phi_{\frac{f}{u}}:D^b(MHM_{X\times G_m})\to D^b(MHM_{X^0\times G_m}),$ preserving the t-structure.
If the variety $X$ equipped with the action of some affine algebraic group $G\subset GL(N),$ and $f$ and $X^{sp}$ are $G$-invariant, then the equivariant critical cohomology $H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G}(X^{sp},f)$ is defined in the standard way.
Donaldson-Thomas series {#ss:DTS}
-----------------------
Now, for any central charge $Z:\Z^{V(Q)}\to\C,$ the sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+,$ and the dimension vector $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)},$ we have the closed $G_{\gamma}$-invariant subset $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp}:={\operatorname{Nilp}}_{\gamma}\cap {\operatorname{Crit}}(W_{\gamma})\cap M_{\gamma,V}.$
We have the Euler form $\chi:\Z^I\times\Z^I\to\Z,$ $$\chi(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=\sum\limits_{i\in I}\gamma_1^i\gamma_2^i-\sum\limits_{i,j\in I}a_{ji}\gamma_1^i\gamma_2^j.$$
Put $R=K_0(MMHS).$ This is a commutative ring via the Thom-Sebastiani product $\star_+.$ We have the decreasing filtration $$F^pR=\sum\limits_{\substack{E\in MMHS,\\W_{p-1}^{EMHS}E=0}}\Z\cdot [E]\subset R.$$ Put $$\hat{R}:=\lim\limits_{\substack{\leftarrow\\p}}R/F^pR.$$
We have the object $T=j_!\Q_{G_m}(-1)[1]\in MMHS.$ We denote by the same letter its class in $\hat{R}.$
Further, let $H^{\bullet}$ be some graded object of $MMHS,$ satisfying the assumption that for each $p\in\Z,$ $W_p^{EMHS}H^{i}=0$ for all but finitely many $i.$ Then its class in $\hat{R}$ is defined by the formula $$[H^{\bullet}]=\sum\limits_{i\in\Z}(-1)^i[H^i]\in\hat{R}.$$
The [*motivic quantum torus*]{} ${{\mathcal T}}_Q^{mot}$ is the algebra over $\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}],$ with the $\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}]$-basis $w_{\gamma},$ $\gamma\in\Z^I.$ The multiplication is given by the formula $$w_{\gamma_1}w_{\gamma_2}=T^{-\chi(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)}w_{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}.$$
We will use the modified monomials $$\hat{w}_{\gamma}:=T^{-\frac{\chi(\gamma,\gamma)}2}w_{\gamma}\in {{\mathcal T}}_Q^{mot},\quad \gamma\in\Z^{V(Q)}.$$ They satisfy the relations: $$\label{motivic_mult}\hat{w}_{\gamma_1}\cdot\hat{w}_{\gamma_2}=T^{\frac{-\chi(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)+\chi(\gamma_2,\gamma_1)}2}\hat{w}_{\gamma_1+\gamma_2},
\quad \hat{w}_{\gamma_1}\cdot\hat{w}_{\gamma_2}=T^{-\chi(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)+\chi(\gamma_2,\gamma_1)}
\hat{w}_{\gamma_2}\cdot\hat{w}_{\gamma_1}.$$
For any strict convex cone $C\subset \R^I$ (not necessarily closed) one defines the completion $\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C}^{mot}$ of ${{\mathcal T}}_Q$ by the formula $$\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C}=\sum\limits_{\gamma\in\Z^I}\prod\limits_{\gamma'\in\Z^I\cap C}\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}]\cdot \hat{w}_{\gamma+\gamma'}\subset\prod\limits_{\gamma\in\Z^I}\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}]\cdot e_{\gamma}.$$ The product on $\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C}$ comes from the formula .
Now, the sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+$ defines the cone $$C_V=\{\gamma\in\R_{>0}^I\mid Z(\gamma)\in V\}.$$ One defines the critical DT series $A_V$ by the formula $$\label{formula_for_A_V}A_V=1+\sum\limits_{\gamma\in C_V}[D(H_{c,G_{\gamma}}^{\bullet,crit}(M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},W_{\gamma}))]\cdot
T^{-\frac{\chi(\gamma,\gamma)}2}\hat{w}_{\gamma}\in\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C_V}^{mot},$$ where $D$ is the duality functor on $MMHS.$
Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS] proved the following result:
\[factorization\_polynomial\]Suppose that the sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+$ is the disjoint union of two sectors $V_1,V_2\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+,$ in the clockwise order. Then we have $$A_V=A_{V_1}A_{V_2}.$$
Stable framed representations {#ss:SFR}
-----------------------------
Fix some $0<\phi<\pi,$ and define the sector $$V_{\leq \phi}:=\{z\in{{\mathcal H}}_+\mid {\operatorname{Arg}}(z)\leq \phi\}\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+,$$ and analogously $V_{<\phi},V_{\geq \phi},V_{>\phi}\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+.$
Take any vector $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}\setminus\{0\}.$ Take the projective $\C Q$-module $P_{\lambda}=\bigoplus\limits_{i\in I}P_i^{\oplus\lambda^i},$ where $P_i$ is indecomposable projective module in the $i$-th vertex. Define smooth variety $$M_{\gamma,\leq \phi,\lambda}^{sfr}=\{(E\in M_{\gamma,V_{\leq \phi}},\,u:P_{\lambda}\to E)\mid {\operatorname{Coker}}(u)\in M_{\gamma',V_{>\phi}}\text{ for some }\gamma'\},$$ and analogously $M_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr},$ both equipped with $G_{\gamma}$-action. Clearly, we have $G_{\gamma}$-equivariant closed subsets $$M_{\gamma,\leq \phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\subset M_{\gamma,\leq \phi,\lambda}^{sfr},\quad M_{\gamma,< \phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\subset M_{\gamma,< \phi,\lambda}^{sfr}$$
Take the lattice $L_{\lambda}=\Z^{V(Q)}\times\Z,$ and extend the form $\chi$ onto $L_{\lambda}$ by the formula $$\chi((\gamma,0),(0,1))=0,\,\, \chi((0,1),(\gamma,0))=-\sum\limits_{i\in I}\lambda^i\gamma^i,\,\,\chi((0,1),(0,1))=1.$$ We have the corresponding motivic quantum torus ${{\mathcal T}}_{L_{\lambda}}^{mot}$ and its completion $\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{L_{\lambda},C_{V_{\leq \phi}\times \R_{>0}}}^{mot}$ (resp. $\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{L_{\lambda},C_{V_{<\phi}\times \R_{>0}}}^{mot}$).
\[conj\_and\_sfr\]1) The action of $G_{\gamma}$ on $M_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}$ (resp. $M_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}$) is free, so that we have an algebraic variety $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}:=M_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}/G_{\gamma}\text{ (resp. } {{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}=M_{\gamma,<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}/G_{\gamma}).$$ Put $$A_{\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}=\sum\limits_{\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}}
[D(H^{\bullet,crit}({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},W_{\gamma}))]\cdot T^{-\frac{\chi(\gamma,\gamma)}2}\hat{w}_{\gamma}\in\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C_{V_{\leq\phi}}}^{mot},$$ and analogously for $A_{<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}.$
2\) We have the following identity in $\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{L_{\lambda},C_{V_{\leq \phi}\times \R_{>0}}}^{mot}$: $$\label{conjugation}A_{V_{\leq\phi}}\hat{w}_{(0,1)}A_{V_{\leq\phi}}^{-1}=
\hat{w}_{(0,1)}\cdot A_{\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr},$$ and analogously for $A_{<\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}.$
1\) is standard. We present its proof for completeness, for the case of $M_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}.$ The case $<\phi$ is analogous.
Suppose that $g\in G_{\gamma},$ $g\ne 1,$ and $g\cdot(E,u)=(E,u)$ for some $(E,u)\in M_{\gamma,\leq\phi,\lambda}^{sfr}.$ Then we have a non-trivial automorphism $g:E\to E$ in ${\operatorname{Mod}}\C Q,$ such that $g\circ u=u.$ Then $(g-{\operatorname{id}})_{\mid {\operatorname{Im}}(u)}=0,$ hence $(g-{\operatorname{id}})$ defines a morphism ${\operatorname{Coker}}(u)\to E.$ But $E\in M_{\gamma,V_{\leq\phi}},$ and ${\operatorname{Coker}}(u)\in M_{\gamma',V_{>\phi}},$ hence $\Hom_{\C Q}({\operatorname{Coker}}(u),E)=0.$ Thus, $g={\operatorname{id}}.$
2\) We consider only the case $\leq\phi.$ The case $<\phi$ is analogous.
Consider the quiver $Q_{\lambda},$ such that $V(Q_{\lambda})=V(Q)\sqcup \{v\},$ the arrows between the vertices from $V(Q)$ are the same as in $Q,$ there are exactly $\lambda^i$ arrows from $i$ to $v,$ and no other arrows. Clearly, we have the natural identification $$M_{(\gamma,1)}\cong\{(E\in M_{\gamma},u\in\Hom_{\C Q}(P_{\lambda},E))\}.$$
We define two kinds of extensions of the central charge $Z:\Z^{V(Q)}\to\C$ to $\Z^{V(Q)}\times\Z.$ First, choose $0<\alpha<\min_{i\in V(Q)}{\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(e_i)),$ where $\{e_i,i\in V(Q)\}$ is the standard basis. Put $$\tilde{Z}_{1}((\gamma,0))=Z(\gamma),\quad \tilde{Z}_1((0,1))=\exp(\alpha \sqrt{-1}).$$ If $\widetilde{A}_V^{1}$ are DT series for $Q_{\lambda}$ with central charge $\tilde{Z}_1,$ then $$\widetilde{A}_{V_{>\alpha}}^{1}=A_{{{\mathcal H}}_+},\quad \widetilde{A}^1_{V_{\leq \alpha}}=
\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}.$$ In particular, we have $$\label{A_H_+}\widetilde{A}_{{{\mathcal H}}_+}=A_{{{\mathcal H}}_+}\cdot \sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}=A_{V_{>\phi}}A_{V_{\leq\phi}}\cdot\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}.$$
Another choice of the central charge is the following. Choose some $0<\epsilon<\frac{\pi-\phi}2,$ and $t>0.$ Put $$\tilde{Z}_{\epsilon,t}((\gamma,0))=Z(\gamma),\quad \tilde{Z}_{\epsilon,t}((0,1))=t\exp((\phi+\epsilon)\sqrt{-1}).$$ Again, we denote by $\widetilde{A}_V^{\epsilon,t}$ the DT series for $Q_{\lambda}$ with central charge $\tilde{Z}_{\epsilon,t}.$ First, we have $$\label{A_V_-}\widetilde{A}^{\epsilon,t}_{V_{>(\phi+2\epsilon)}}=A_{V_{>(\phi+2\epsilon)}}.$$
Second, for a fixed $\epsilon$ we have $$\label{A_V_+}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\widetilde{A}^{\epsilon,t}_{V_{\leq\phi}}=A_{V_{\leq\phi}}.$$ Finally, we claim that $$\label{middle_sector}\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\widetilde{A}_{\phi<{\operatorname{Arg}}(z)\leq \phi+2\epsilon}=
\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}\cdot A^{sfr}_{\leq\phi,n\lambda}.$$
Indeed, take any $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^I,$ and $n\geq 0.$ Choose sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ in such a way that for any non-zero dimension vector $\gamma'\leq\gamma$ with ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(\gamma'))>\phi$ one has ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z(\gamma'))>\phi+2\epsilon.$ Then, choose sufficiently large $t>0$ in such a way that for any dimension vector $\gamma''\leq\gamma$ we have $$\phi<{\operatorname{Arg}}(t\exp((\phi+\epsilon)i)+Z(\gamma''))\leq \phi+2\epsilon.$$ Then, it is easy to see that for the central charge $\tilde{Z}_{\epsilon,t}$ we have the $G_{\gamma}$-equivariant identification $$M_{(\gamma,n),\phi<{\operatorname{Arg}}(z)\leq \phi+2\epsilon}\cong M_{\gamma,\leq\phi,n\lambda}^{sfr}.$$ This implies the formula .
Compairing with , and , and applying Theorem \[factorization\_polynomial\] we get the following chain of equalities: $$\begin{gathered}
A_{V_{>\phi}}A_{V_{\leq\phi}}\cdot\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}=\tilde{A}_{{{\mathcal H}}_+}^1=
\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\tilde{A}_{{{\mathcal H}}_+}^{\epsilon,t}=\\
(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\tilde{A}^{\epsilon,t}_{V_{>\phi+2\epsilon}})\cdot
(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\tilde{A}^{\epsilon,t}_{\phi<{\operatorname{Arg}}(z)\leq \phi+2\epsilon})\cdot (\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim\limits_{t\to+\infty}\tilde{A}^{\epsilon,t}_{V_{\leq\phi}})=\\
A_{V_{>\phi}}\cdot(\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{T^{\frac{n^2}2}}{(1-T)\dots(1-T^n)}\hat{w}_{(0,n)}\cdot A^{sfr}_{\leq\phi,n\lambda})\cdot A_{V_{\leq\phi}}.\end{gathered}$$
Now, multiplying on the left by $A_{V_{>\phi}}^{-1},$ on the right by $A_{V_{\leq\phi}}^{-1},$ and compairing the coefficients for $\hat{w}_{(\gamma,1)},$ we obtain the desired formula .
Categorification of quantum cluster algebras {#s:CQCA}
============================================
In this section we mostly recall various notions and results related to categorification of (quantum) cluster algebras. We also explain in Subsections \[ss:3CY\] and \[ss:DTQFP\] how the Donaldson-Thomas theory can be extended to some quivers with formal potentials.
Ginzburg DG algebras {#ss:GDGA}
--------------------
The notion of Ginzburg DG algebra for a quiver with formal potential is due to Ginzburg, see [@G].
Let $Q$ be any quiver and $W$ a formal potential on $Q,$ i.e. an infinite linear combination of cyclic paths of positive length. The (complete) Ginzburg DG algebra $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}$ is defined as follows. Define the graded quiver $\hat{Q}$ as follows. The vertex set of $\hat{Q}$ is the same as of $Q.$ Further, the edges of $\hat{Q}$ are:
1\) The edges of $Q$ of degree zero;
2\) The edges $a^*:j\to i$ for any arrow $a:i\to j$ in $Q,$ $\deg(a^*)=-1;$
3\) For each vertex $i,$ the loop $t_i$ at $i,$ $\deg(t_i)=-2.$
As a graded algebra $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}$ is the complete path algebra of $\hat{Q}$ (w.r.t. the length of paths). Further, the differential $d$ on $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}$ is continuous, and on the arrows we have $$d(a)=0,\, d(a^*)=\partial_aW\text{ for all edges }a\in E(Q),\quad d(t_i)=e_i(\sum\limits_{a}[a,a^*])e_i.$$
We have the derived category $D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),$ and the subcategories $$D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\subset{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\subset D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),$$ where ${\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$ denotes the subcategory of perfect DG modules, and $D^b$ stands for DG modules with finite-dimensional total cohomology. Denote by $\iota$ the natural embedding $$\iota:D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\hookrightarrow {\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),$$ see [@KY].
Since the DG algebra $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees, we have the natural t-structures on $D(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$ (resp. $D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$) with the heart being the category of modules (resp. finite-dimensional modules) over $H^0(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}).$ Clearly, we have $$H^0(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\cong \hat{J}_{Q,W}:=\widehat{\C Q}/\widehat{\langle\partial_aW,a\in E(Q)\rangle}.$$
We have isomorphisms $$K_0({\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\cong\Z^{V(Q)},\quad K_0(D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\cong\Z^{V(Q)},$$ where the basis for $K_0({\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))$ is given by classes $[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}]=[e_i\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}],$ $i\in V(Q),$ and the basis for $K_0(D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))$ is given by the classes $[S_i],$ $i\in V(Q),$ where $S_i$ is the simple module at the vertex $i.$ Moreover, the Euler pairing $$\chi:K_0({\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\times K_0(D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\to\Z,\quad \chi([E],[F])=\sum\limits_{n\in\Z}\dim\Hom^n(E,F),$$ is perfect since $$\chi([\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}],[S_j])=\delta_{ij}.$$
Also, the following is well-known, see [@G] or [@KY].
\[Koszul\_res\]1) For $E,F\in D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$ We have $$\chi([\iota(E)],[F])=\chi_Q([E],[F])-\chi_Q([F],[E]).$$
2\) We have the Koszul resolution $$\{0\to \hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,k}\to\bigoplus\limits_{\beta:k\to j}\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,j}\to \bigoplus\limits_{\alpha:i\to k}\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}\to \hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,k}\to 0\}\cong \iota(S_k),$$ hence $$[\iota(S_k)]=\sum\limits_{i\in V(Q)}(a_{ki}-a_{ik})[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}].$$
Mutations of quivers with formal potentials {#ss:MQFP}
-------------------------------------------
The notion of mutation for a quiver with formal potential is due to Derksen, Weyman and Zelevinsky [@DWZ].
Let $Q$ be a finite quiver, and $W$ a formal potential on $Q.$ Take some vertex $k\in V(Q),$ and assume that there are no loops at $k.$ We recall the mutation $\mu_k(Q,W).$
First, the pre-mutation $\mu_k^{pre}(Q,W)$ is defined as follows. The set of vertices of $\mu_k^{pre}(Q)$ is the same as that of $Q.$ Further, each edge $a:i\to k$ in $Q$ is replaced by the edge $\bar{a}:k\to i,$ and similarly for each edge $b:k\to j.$ Further, for each pair of edges $a:i\to k,$ $b:k\to j,$ we add a new edge $[ba]:i\to j.$
The potential $\mu_k^{pre}W$ on $\mu_k^{pre}Q$ is defined as the sum $W_1+W_2,$ where $$W_1=\sum\limits_{\substack{a:i\to k,\\ b:k\to j}}[ba]\bar{a}\bar{b},$$ and $W_2$ is obtained from $W$ by replacing each occurrence of $ba$ (in the cyclic paths of $Q$) by $[ba],$ $b:k\to j,$ $a:i\to k.$
Now, two QP’s $(Q,W)$ and $(Q',W'),$ with the same set of vertices $V(Q)=V(Q'),$ are called equivalent if there is a continuous isomorphism $\psi:\widehat{\C Q}\to \widehat{\C Q'},$ preserving the idempotents in the vertices, such that $\psi(W)=W'.$ The QP $(Q,W)$ is called trivial if its Jacobi algebra $\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ is zero. Further, the potential $W$ on $Q$ is called reduced if no loops or $2$-cycles contribute to $W.$ The property to be trivial or reduced is preserved under equivalences.
If $(Q_1,W_1)$ and $(Q_2,W_2)$ are QP’s with $V(Q_1)=V(Q_2),$ then the direct sum $$(Q,W)=(Q_1,W_1)\oplus (Q_2,W_2)$$ is defined by putting $$V(Q):=V(Q_1)=V(Q_2),\quad E(Q):=E(Q_1)\sqcup E(Q_2),\quad W:=W_1\oplus W_2.$$
The following is proved in [@DWZ].
Any QP $(Q,W)$ is equivalent to the direct sum of the reduced one and the trivial one: $$(Q,W)\sim (Q,W)_{red}\oplus (Q,W)_{triv}.$$ Both $(Q,W)_{red}$ and $(Q,W)_{triv}$ are determined uniquely up to equivalence, and their equivalence classes are determined by the equivalence class of $(Q,W).$
Now, one defines $$\mu_k(Q,W)=\mu_k^{pre}(Q,W)_{red}.$$ Hence, mutation is well-defined up to equivalence.
Decorated representations and their mutations {#ss:DRM}
---------------------------------------------
The notion of a decorated representations and the construction of their mutations appeared in [@DWZ].
Let $(Q,W)$ be a formal QP. Put $R_Q=\C^{V(Q)},$ considered as semi-simple commutative algebra.
A decorated representation ${{\mathcal M}}=(M,V)$ of $(Q,W)$ is a pair of finite-dimensional $\hat{J}_{Q,W}$-module $M$ and the finite-dimensional $R_Q$-module $V.$
If $(Q',W')$ is another QP with $V(Q')=V(Q),$ and ${{\mathcal M}}'=(M',V')$ is a decorated representation of $(Q',W'),$ then ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal M}}'$ are said to be equivalent if there exist a triple $(\psi,\phi,\eta),$ where:
1\) $\psi:\widehat{\C Q}\to \widehat{\C Q'}$ is a continuos isomorphism of algebras, such that $\psi(W)=W'$
2\) $\phi:M\to M'$ is an isomorphism of $\widehat{\C Q}$-modules, where the $\widehat{\C Q}$-module structure on $M'$ comes from $\psi;$
3\) $\eta:V\to V'$ is an isomorphism of $R_Q$-modules.
Now, for any decorated representation ${{\mathcal M}}=(M,V)$ of the QP $(Q,W),$ we can choose an equivalence $$(Q,W)\sim (Q,W)_{red}\oplus (Q,W)_{triv}$$ as above, giving an isomorphism $\hat{J}_{Q,W}\cong\hat{J}_{(Q,W)_{red}},$ and treat $M$ as a $\hat{J}_{(Q,W)_{red}}$-module. Hence, we get a decorated representation ${{\mathcal M}}_{red}$ of $(Q,W)_{red},$ defined up to equivalence.
Now, assume that there are no loops at the vertex $k\in V(Q).$ We define the pre-mutation $\mu_k^{pre}({{\mathcal M}})=(\bar{M},\bar{V}),$ which is a decorated representation of $\mu_k^{pre}(Q,W).$ Put $$M_{in}:=\bigoplus\limits_{k\to j}M_j,\quad M_{out}:=\bigoplus\limits_{i\to k}M_i.$$ We have natural maps $\alpha:M_{in}\to M_k,$ $\beta:M_k\to M_{out}.$ Further, we have a natural map $$\gamma:M_{out}\to M_{in},$$ with the components $\partial_{[ba]}W_2,$ where $a:i\to k,$ $b:k\to j,$ and $W_2$ is the above component of the potential $\mu_k^{pre}(W),$ obtained from $W$ by replacing each peace $ba$ by the edge $[ba].$ Here we treat $\partial_{[ba]}W_2$ as elements of $\widehat{\C Q},$ replacing each arrow of the kind $[b'a']$ by the product $b'a'.$
A straightforward checking shows that $\alpha\gamma=0,$ $\gamma\beta=0.$ We define $$\bar{M}_i:=M_i,\quad \bar{V}_i:=V_i\quad\text{for }i\ne k,$$ and $$\bar{M}_k:=\frac{\ker \gamma}{{\operatorname{Im}}\beta}\oplus{\operatorname{Im}}\gamma\oplus\frac{\ker\alpha}{{\operatorname{Im}}\gamma}\oplus V_k,\quad \bar{V}_k:=\frac{\ker\beta}{\ker\beta\cap{\operatorname{Im}}\alpha}.$$
We need to define the action of arrows of $\mu_k^{pre}(Q)$ on $\bar{M}_i.$ If $c$ is an arrow of $Q,$ not incident to $k,$ then $c$ acts on $\bar{M}$ in the same way as on $M.$ further, if $a:i\to k,$ $b:k\to j$ are arrows in $Q,$ then $[ba]$ acts on $\bar{M}$ in the same way as the product $ba$ acts on $M.$ We need to define the action of arrows $\bar{a},$ $\bar{b}.$ Their action is given by the maps $$\bar{\alpha}:M_{out}\to\bar{M}_k\quad\bar{\beta}:\bar{M}_k\to M_{in},$$ defined as follows. Choose some projection $\rho:M_{out}\to\ker\gamma,$ i.e. $\rho_{\mid\ker\gamma}={\operatorname{id}}.$ Also, choose a splitting $\sigma:\ker\alpha/{\operatorname{Im}}\gamma\to\ker\alpha.$
The non-zero components of $\bar{\alpha}$ are $\gamma:M_{out}\to{\operatorname{Im}}\gamma,$ and $\pi\rho:M_{out}\to \ker\gamma/{\operatorname{Im}}\beta,$ where $\pi:\ker\gamma\to\ker\gamma/{\operatorname{Im}}\beta$ is the natural projection.
The non-zero components of $\bar{\beta}$ are the inclusion ${\operatorname{Im}}\gamma\hookrightarrow M_{in},$ and $\iota\sigma:\ker\alpha\to{\operatorname{Im}}\gamma/M_{in},$ where $\iota:\ker\alpha\to M_{in}$ is the inclusion.
One can check that the defined action of $\C \mu_k^{pre}(Q)$ on $\bar{M}$ actually defines the structure of $\hat{J}_{\mu_k^{pre}(Q,W)}$-module structure on $\hat{M}.$ We put $$\mu_k({{\mathcal M}})=\mu_k^{pre}({{\mathcal M}})_{red}.$$
Again, the decorated representation $\mu_k({{\mathcal M}})$ is defined up to equivalence.
Derived equivalences {#ss:DE}
--------------------
The following is the result of Keller and Yang [@KY]:
\[Keller\_Yang\]1) If $$(Q,W)\sim (Q',W')\oplus (Q'',W''),$$ where $(Q'',W'')$ is trivial QP, then the Ginzburg DG algebras $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}$ and $\hat{\Gamma}_{Q',W'}$ are quasi-isomorphic.
2\) Let $\Gamma=\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W},$ $\Gamma'=\hat{\Gamma}_{\mu_k(Q,W)}.$ We have two equivalences $$\Phi_{k,+},\Phi_{k,-}:D(\Gamma)\to D(\Gamma'),$$ such that
$\bullet$ We have $\Phi_{k,\pm}^{-1}(\Gamma_i')=\Gamma_i,$ $i\ne k;$
$\bullet$ We have exact triangles
$$\Phi_{k,+}^{-1}(\Gamma_k')\to \bigoplus\limits_{i\to k}\Gamma_i\to \Gamma_k\to \Phi_{k,+}^{-1}(\Gamma_k')[1];$$ $$\Gamma_k\to \bigoplus\limits_{k\to j}\Gamma_j\to \Phi_{k,-}^{-1}(\Gamma_k')\to \Gamma_k[1].$$
Tilting {#ss:Tilting}
-------
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be any triangulated category, and $({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0},{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1})$ a t-structure on ${{\mathcal D}},$ with the heart ${{\mathcal A}}={{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}\cap{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 0}.$ Let $(T,F)$ be a torsion pair in ${{\mathcal A}},$ i.e. $T,F\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ are full subcategories, $\Hom(T,F)=0,$ and for any object $E$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ there is a short exact sequence $$0\to E_{T}\to E\to E_{F}\to 0$$ with $E_{T}\in T,$ $E_{F}\in F.$ Then, the tilted t-structure $({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{T[-1],F},{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1}^{T[-1],F})$ is defined by the formulas $${{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T[-1],F)}=\{X\in{{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 1}\mid H^1_{{{\mathcal A}}}(X)\in T,\},$$ $${{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1}^{T[-1],F}=\{X\in{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1}\mid H^1_{{{\mathcal A}}}(X)\in F\}.$$ Also, put ${{\mathcal A}}^{(T[-1],F)}:={{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T[-1],F)}\cap {{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 0}^{(T[-1],F)}.$
Shifting by $1,$ we get the t-structure $({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T,F[1])},{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1}^{(T,F[1])}),$ with the heart ${{\mathcal A}}^{(T,F[1])}.$
The following was proved by Keller and Yang [@KY]:
With the above notation, $$\Phi_{k,+}^{-1}({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{\mu_k(Q,W)})=
({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})^{(S_{k}^{\oplus}[-1],S_k^{\perp})},$$ $$\Phi_{k,-}^{-1}({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{\mu_k(Q,W)})=
({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})^{({}^{\perp}S_k,S_{k}^{\oplus}[1])}.$$ Here $S_k^{\oplus}$ is the subcategory of all direct sums of copies of $S_k.$
From this moment we assume that the quiver $Q$ does not have loops and $2$-cycles. We say that QP $(Q,W)$ is well-mutatable at $k$ if the quiver $\mu_k(Q,W)$ does not contain $2$-cycles (it cannot contain loops). If ${\underline}{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_r)$ is the sequence of vertices of $Q,$ $k_i\ne k_{i-1},$ then the property to be well-mutatable with respect to the sequence ${\underline}{k}$ is defined inductively.
Let ${\underline}{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_r)$ be the sequence of vertices, and suppose that the QP $(Q,W)$ is well-mutatable with respect to the sequence ${\underline}{k}.$ For $1\leq i\leq r,$ put $(Q_i,W_i)=\mu_{k_i}(\dots\mu_{k_1}(Q,W)).$ The following result was proved by K. Nagao [@N].
\[Nagao\]There exists a unique sequence of signs $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r\in\{\pm\}$ such that for each $1\leq i\leq r$ we have $$(\Phi_{k_i,\epsilon_i}\circ\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1})^{-1}({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i})=({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})^{(T_i[-1],F_i)},$$ for some torsion pair $(T_i,F_i)$ in ${\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}.$
We present the proof here for completeness. For convenience, for two strictly full subcategories ${{\mathcal C}}_1,{{\mathcal C}}_2$ of an abelian or triangulated category, denote by ${{\mathcal C}}_1\star{{\mathcal C}}_2$ the subcategory of all extensions of the objects of ${{\mathcal C}}_2$ by the objects of ${{\mathcal C}}_1.$
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a triangulated category, and $({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0},{{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1})$ a t-structure with the heart ${{\mathcal A}}.$ Let $(T,F)$ be a torsion pair in ${{\mathcal A}},$ and $(T',F')$ a torsion pair in ${{\mathcal A}}^{(T[-1],F)}$ such that $T'\subset F[0]$ (resp. $F'\subset T[-1]$). Then we have $$({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T[-1],F)})^{(T'[-1],F')}={{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T''[-1],F'')}\text{ (resp. }({{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T[-1],F)})^{(T',F'[1])}={{\mathcal D}}_{\leq 0}^{(T''[-1],F'')})$$ (and hence the same for ${{\mathcal D}}_{\geq 1}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$), where $T''=T\star T',$ $F''=F\cap T'^{\perp}.$ (resp. $T''=T\cap{}^{\perp}(F'[1]),$ $F''=(F'[1])\star F$).
Straightforward.
Now define the sequence $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r$ inductively. The unique choice for $\epsilon_1$ is $"+"$. If the signs $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_i$ are already defined, for some $1\leq i\leq r-1,$ then consider two cases.
1\) The simple $\hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i}$-module $S_{k_{i+1}}$ is contained in $\Phi_{k_i,\epsilon_i}\circ\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1}(F_i).$ Then we put $\epsilon_{i+1}=+.$
2\) The simple $\hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i}$-module $S_{k_{i+1}}$ is contained in $\Phi_{k_i,\epsilon_i}\circ\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1}(T_i[-1]).$ Then we put $\epsilon_{i+1}=-.$
It follows from the above Lemma that the constructed sequence satisfies the required properties. It is easy to see that it is unique with the required properties.
Connection with Plamondon’s results {#ss:Plamondon}
-----------------------------------
Plamondon [@P1] constructed cluster character for arbitrary quiver with potential. For any triangulated category ${{\mathcal D}},$ and any rigid object $E\in{{\mathcal D}}$ (i.e. $\Hom^1(E,E)=0$), he defines the subcategory $${\operatorname{pr}}_{{{\mathcal D}}}E:=\{Cone(E^{1}\to E^0)\mid E^0,E^1\in{\operatorname{Add}}(E)\},$$ where ${\operatorname{Add}}(E)$ is the full subcategory of finite direct sums of direct summands of $E.$ Further, he proves that the natural projection $$\pi:{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\to{{\mathcal C}}:={\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})/D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$$ yields an equivalence $${\operatorname{pr}}_{{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\stackrel{\sim}{\to}{\operatorname{pr}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(\pi(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})).$$ Further, Plamondon defines a suitable subcategory of the later category, and constructs the so-called cluster character, describing all cluster monomials via Euler characteristics of quiver Grassmannians. For the details, we refer the reader to [@P1].
We will need the following result which is analogous to Plamondon’s Theorem ([@P1], Theorem 2.18).
\[Plamondon\]Suppose that the QP $(Q,W)$ is well-mutatable with respect to the sequence ${\underline}{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_r),$ and $$(Q_r,W_r)=\mu_{k_r}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(Q,W))\dots).$$ Then there is a sequence of signs $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r$ such that for $1\leq i\leq r$ such that $$(\Phi_{k_r,\epsilon_r}\circ\dots\circ\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1})^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r})\in{\operatorname{pr}}_{{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})}
(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}[-1]).$$
The next Lemma shows that this sequence of signs is actually the same as in Theorem \[Nagao\].
\[Nagao\_Plamondon\]In the assumptions of the Theorem \[Plamondon\], the sequence of signs is actually unique and satisfies the property of Theorem \[Nagao\].
For convenience, put $$\hat{\Gamma}:=\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W},\quad\hat{\Gamma}(i):=\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_i,W_i},\quad (Q_i,W_i)=\mu_{k_i}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(Q,W))\dots),\quad 1\leq i\leq r.$$
The statement of the lemma essentially follows from the fact that $$\label{descr_of_pr}{\operatorname{pr}}_{{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma})}(\hat{\Gamma}[-1])=D(\hat{\Gamma})_{\leq 1}\cap {}^{\perp}D(\hat{\Gamma})_{\leq(-1)}\cap{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}),$$ which is proved in [@P1].
Now, let $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r$ be some sequence of signs from Theorem \[Plamondon\], and $\epsilon_1',\dots,\epsilon_r'$ the unique sequence from Theorem \[Nagao\]. Suppose that for some $0\leq i<r$ we have $$\epsilon_j=\epsilon_j',\,1\leq j\leq i,\quad \epsilon_{i+1}\ne\epsilon_{i+1}'.$$ Put $$\Phi(i+1):=\Phi_{k_{i+1},\epsilon_{i+1}}\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1}.$$ It follows from the proof of Theorem \[Nagao\] that one of the following holds:
\(1) $\Phi(i+1)^{-1}(S_{k_{i+1}})\in ({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})[-2];$
\(2) $\Phi(i+1)^{-1}(S_{k_{i+1}})\in ({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})[1].$
But we have that $$\Hom_{D(\hat{\Gamma})}(\Phi(i+1)^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}(i+1)),\Phi(i+1)^{-1}(S_{k_{i+1}}))=\Hom_{D(\hat{\Gamma}(i+1))}(\hat{\Gamma}(i+1),S_{k_{i+1}})\ne 0,$$ which contradicts to $\Phi(i+1)^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}(i+1))\in{\operatorname{pr}}_{{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma})}(\hat{\Gamma}[-1]),$ by .
Hence, we have $\epsilon_j=\epsilon_j',$ $1\leq j\leq r.$
Taking the signs $\epsilon_i$ as in Theorem \[Nagao\], put $$\Phi(r):=\Phi_{k_{r},\epsilon_{r}}\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1}.$$ Combining Lemma \[Nagao\_Plamondon\] and the results of [@P2], we get the following Corollary.
\[fin\_dim\_of\_H\^1\]In the assumptions of Theorem \[Nagao\], each representation $H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r,j})),$ $j\in V(Q),$ is either zero, or the decorated representation $(H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_r,W_r,j})),0)$ of the QP $(Q,W)$ is obtained by the inverse sequence of mutations from the trivial decorated representation $(0,e_jR_{Q_r})$ of the QP $(Q_r,W_r).$ In particular, we have $$\dim H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{\Gamma}))<\infty.$$
$3$CY $A_{\infty}$-categories {#ss:3CY}
-----------------------------
We refer to [@KS08], [@Kaj], [@C], [@CL1], [@CL2] for cyclic $A_{\infty}$-categories and potentials.
First, we recall the definition of an $A_{\infty}$-category with scalar product. Below we use Quillen notation $\pm$ meaning that the signs come from Koszul sign rule.
A $\C$-linear $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal C}}$ with finite-dimensional graded spaces of morphisms is called an $A_{\infty}$-category with scalar product of degree $d$ if there are fixed perfect pairings $$\langle,\rangle:\Hom^i(X,Y)\otimes\Hom^{d-i}(Y,X)\to\C,$$ which are super-symmetric, and $$\langle m_n(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1}),a_n\rangle=\pm \langle m_n(a_1,\dots,a_n),a_0\rangle$$ for homogeneous $\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_n$ with $$\deg(\alpha_0)+\dots+\deg(\alpha_n)=n+d-2.$$ We call such $A_{\infty}$-categories $d$-dimensional Calabi-Yau (or just $d$CY, or cyclic).
Further, an $A_{\infty}$-functor $F:{{\mathcal C}}_1\to{{\mathcal C}}_2$ between $d$CY $A_{\infty}$-categories is said to be compatible with $d$CY structure (or just cyclic) if $$\langle f_1(\alpha),f_1(\beta)\rangle=\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle,\quad \deg(\alpha)+\deg(\beta)=d;$$ $$\sum\limits_{i=0}^{n-1} \langle f_{i+1}(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_i), f_{n-i}(\alpha_{i+1},\dots,\alpha_n),\rangle$$ for homogeneous $\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_n,$ $n\geq 2.$
Recall the definition of the $A_{\infty}$-category $Tw\, {{\mathcal C}}$ for an $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal C}}.$ First, take the $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal C}}'$ obtained from ${{\mathcal C}}$ by adding all the shifts. Now, let $S$ be some sequence of objects $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ in ${{\mathcal C}}'.$ We have the $A_{\infty}$-algebra $$\End_+(S)=\bigoplus\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\Hom(X_i,X_j),$$ and its nilpotent $A_{\infty}$-subalgebra $$\End_+(S)=\bigoplus\limits_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\Hom(X_i,X_j).$$
Then the twisted complex is a pair $(S,\alpha),$ where $\alpha\in\End_+(S)^1$ is the solution of the MC equation $$\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}m_n(\alpha,\dots,\alpha)=0.$$ For a pair $((S_1,\alpha_1),(S_2,\alpha_2))$ of objects in $Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}$ put $$\Hom((S_1,\alpha_1),(S_2,\alpha_2))=\bigoplus\limits_{X\in S_1,Y\in S_2}\Hom(X,Y).$$ For a sequence, $((S_0,\alpha_0),\dots,(S_n,\alpha_n))$ of objects in $Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}$ and homogeneous morphisms $x_i\in
\Hom((S_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}),(S_i,\alpha_i))$ we put $$m_n(x_n,\dots,x_1)=\sum\limits_{k_0,\dots,k_n\geq 0}(-1)^{\epsilon}
m_{n+k_0+\dots+k_n}(\alpha_n^{k_n},x_n,\alpha_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}},\dots,x_1,\alpha_0^{k_0}),$$ where $\epsilon=\sum\limits_{n\geq i>j\geq
0}(\deg(x_i)+k_i)k_j+\sum\limits_{i=0}^n
\frac{k_i(k_i+1)}2+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n ik_i.$
If ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a $d$CY $A_{\infty}$-category, then so is $Tw\,{{\mathcal C}},$ with the obvious scalar product.
Let us take any formal QP $(Q,W).$ Then one can associate to it a $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}$ with $Ob({{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W})=V(Q),$ such that we have $${\operatorname{Ho}}(Tw\, {{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W})\cong D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}).$$
Namely, we denote the objects of ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}$ simply by $S_i,$ $i\in V(Q),$ and put $$\Hom^0(S_i,S_i)=\Hom^3(S_i,S_i)=\C,\quad\Hom^1(S_i,S_j)=\C^{a_{ji}}=\Hom^2(S_j,S_i),\quad i,j\in V(Q);$$ $$\Hom^{<1}(S_i,S_j)=0=\Hom^{>2}(S_i,S_j),\quad i\ne j,\quad\Hom^{<0}(S_i,S_i)=0=\Hom^{>3}(S_i,S_i).$$
The higher products and the pairing are the following. First, units $1\in\C=\Hom^0(S_i,S_i)$ are strict identity morphisms. Second, the products $$m_2:\Hom^1(S_i,S_j)\otimes\Hom^2(S_j,S_i)\to\Hom^3(S_j,S_j)=\C,$$ $$m_2:\Hom^2(S_i,S_j)\otimes\Hom^1(S_j,S_i)\to\Hom^3(S_j,S_j)=\C$$ are just standard perfect pairings. They define the pairing $\langle,\rangle$ of degree $3$ on ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}.$ Further, the higher products $$m_n:\Hom^1(S_{i_{n-1}},S_{i_n})\otimes\dots\otimes\Hom^1(S_{i_0},S_{i_1})\to\Hom^2(S_{i_0},S_{i_n})$$ are given by the elements of the spaces $$\Hom^1(S_{i_n},S_{i_0})^{\vee}\otimes\Hom^1(S_{i_{n-1}},S_{i_n})^{\vee}\otimes\dots\otimes\Hom^1(S_{i_0},S_{i_1})^{\vee},$$ which are the components of the potential $W.$ All the other higher products are zero.
The following is well-known, see [@KS08] and [@KY]
\[3CYlifting\]We have natural equivalences of triangulated categories $${\operatorname{Ho}}(Tw\, {{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W})\cong{\operatorname{Perf}}({{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W})\cong D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),\quad D^b({{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W})\cong {\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}).$$ The equivalences $\Phi_{k,\pm}$ of Theorem \[Keller\_Yang\] are induced by $A_{\infty}$-functors $$\phi_{k,\pm}:{{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}\to Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{\mu_k(Q,W)},$$ compatible with the $3$CY structures.
If $A$ is a $3$CY algebra, then we have a formal power series on $A^1:$ $$W_A(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^N\frac{\langle m_n(\alpha,\dots,\alpha),\alpha\rangle}{n+1}.$$ If $f:A\to B$ is an $A_{\infty}$-morphism compatible with $3$CY structures, then we have formal map $\hat{f}:A\to B,$ $$\hat{f}(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}f_n(\alpha,\dots,\alpha),$$ and we have $$\hat{f}^*(W_B)=W_A.$$
We would like to point out the relation of this potential with the potentials on the moduli of quiver representations. Namely, let $(Q,W)$ be a polynomial QP take the Calabi-Yau $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}$ defined above, and take the twisted complex $S_{\gamma}:=\bigoplus\limits_{i\in V(Q)}S_i^{\oplus\gamma^i}.$ Then we have natural identification $$\End^1(S_{\gamma})\cong M_{\gamma},$$ and the potential $W_{\End(S_{\gamma})}$ corresponds to the potential $W_{\gamma}.$ More generally, if $W$ is a formal potential, then we also have such an identification, but $W_{\gamma}$ is a function on the formal neighborhood of $Nilp_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}.$ Moreover, if $\alpha\in\End^1(S_{\gamma})$ is an MC solution corresponding to the representation of $\hat{J}_{Q,W},$ then the potential on $\End^1(S_{\gamma},\alpha)$ is just given by the formula $$W_{\alpha}(z)=W_{\gamma}(\alpha+z).$$
We will need the following result of [@Kaj].
\[Kajiura\]For any $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-algebra, there is a $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-isomorphism $$A\cong A_{min}\oplus A_{triv}$$ where $A_{min}$ is minimal (i.e. $m_1=0$) and $A_{triv}$ is trivial (i.e. $H^{\bullet}(A_{triv},m_1)=0,$ $m_{>1}=0$) $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-algebras. Moreover, both $A_{min}$ and $A_{triv}$ are defined uniquely up to a cyclic $A_{\infty}$-automorphism. In particular, we have that after a formal change of coordinates, $W_A$ has the form $$W^{min}\oplus Q_A\oplus N_A,$$ where $W^{min}$ is the potential on $A_{min}^1\cong H^1(A,m_1),$ and $Q_A$ is the quadratic form on the space $A^1/\ker(m_1)$ given by the formula $$Q_A(\alpha,\alpha)=\frac12\langle m_1(\alpha),\alpha\rangle,$$ and $N_A$ is the zero function on ${\operatorname{Im}}(m_1:A^0\to A^1).$
DT theory for a quiver with formal potential {#ss:DTQFP}
--------------------------------------------
Take some formal QP $(Q,W).$ In general (if $W$ is not polynomial) we do not have regular functions $W_{\gamma}$ on $M_{\gamma}.$ However, we have well-defined functions $W_{\gamma}$ on the formal neighborhoods of $Nilp_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}.$ Suppose that we have some central charge $Z$ on $Q.$ Then for any sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+$ we have a well-defined $G_{\gamma}$-equivariant closed subset $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp}\subset M_{\gamma,V},$ which parameterizes representations of $\hat{J}_{Q,W}.$ Define the extension-closed subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}_V\subset{\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J_{Q,W}}\subset D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$ as a full subcategory consisting of isomorphism classes of representations in $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},$ $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}.$
Note that in general we do not have well-developed DT theory for a quiver with formal potential (see the discussion in [@KS], Subsection 7.1). However, in Appendix we will prove the following result.
\[DT\_for\_formal\]Suppose that for some formal QP $(Q,W)$ and polynomial QP $(Q',W')$ we have a cyclic $A_{\infty}$-functor $\phi:{{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}\to Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'},$ inducing an equivalence $\Phi:D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q',W'}).$ Let $Z$ be a central charge on $Q.$ Then one can define the classes $$[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]\in\hat{R},$$ for all sectors $V\subset {{\mathcal H}}_+,$ and $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)},$ such that the following holds.
1\) Suppose that there is only one $G_{\gamma}$-orbit in $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},$ and for the corresponding representation $E$ of $\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ we have $${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(E,E)=0,\quad \chi_Q(\gamma,\gamma)\equiv \dim{\operatorname{Ext}}^0(E,E)\text{ mod }2.$$ Then we have $$\label{crit_cohom_formal}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]=[H^{\bullet}({\operatorname{B}}{\operatorname{Aut}}(E))]\cdot T^{\dim_{\C}{\operatorname{Aut}}(E)}.$$
2\) Define the DT series $A_V$ using the classes $[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]\in\hat{R},$ as in the formula .
Suppose that we have a central charge $Z'$ on $Q',$ and for some sectors $V,V'\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+$ we have that $$\Phi({{\mathcal C}}_V)={{\mathcal C}}_{V'},\quad {{\mathcal C}}_V\subset D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),\,{{\mathcal C}}_{V'}\subset D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q',W'}),$$ and assume that $$\label{parity_preserved}\chi_{Q'}([\Phi](\gamma),[\Phi](\gamma))\equiv \chi_Q(\gamma,\gamma)\text{ mod }2,\quad\gamma\in\Z^{V(Q)}.$$ Then we have $$A_{V'}=[\Phi](A_V),$$ where in the last formula $[\Phi]$ denotes the induced map on completions of motivic quantum tori.
3\) If the sector $V$ is the disjoint union of two sectors $V_1\sqcup V_2$ (in the clockwise order), then we have factorization: $$A_V=A_{V_1}A_{V_2}.$$
\[parity\_for\_mutations\]It is well-known (and is easy to check) that the assumption holds for equivalences $\Phi$ coming from a single mutation, and hence from the sequence of mutations.
Torsion pairs and stability {#ss:TPStab}
---------------------------
If ${{\mathcal H}}_+=V_-\sqcup V_+$ is the decomposition into the disjoint union of two sectors (in the clockwise order). Then we have a torsion pair $({{\mathcal C}}_{V_-},{{\mathcal C}}_{V_+})$ in the category ${\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}.$ In the paper [@N] it is shown that the torsion pairs on ${\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ which appear in Theorem \[Nagao\], are actually obtained in this way.
Now let ${\underline}{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_r)$ be a sequence of vertices, and $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r$ a sequence of signs from Theorem \[Nagao\]. Again, put $$(Q_i,W_i)=\mu_{k_i}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(Q,W))\dots),\quad \Phi(i):=\Phi_{k_i,\epsilon_i}\circ\dots\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1},\quad 0\leq i\leq r.$$ and $$S(i):=\begin{cases}\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_{k_i}) & \text{if }\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_{k_i})\in F_{i-1};\\
\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_{k_i})[1] & \text{if }\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_{k_i})\in T_{i-1}[-1].\end{cases}$$
By Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\] and Proposition \[3CYlifting\], if the potential $W_r$ is polynomial, then we have DT theory for QP $(Q,W).$
\[torsion\_pairs\_via\_Z\] 1)With the above notation, there exist central charges $Z_i$ on $Q,$ and angles $0<\phi_i<\pi,$ such that $${{\mathcal C}}_{V_{>\phi_i}}=T_i\cap({\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}),\quad {{\mathcal C}}_{V_{<\phi_i}}=F_i\cap({\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}).$$
2\) Assume that the potential $W_r$ is polynomial. Then, we have $$A^{Z_i}_{V_{>\phi_i}}=(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(1)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_1}\dots (-T^{\frac 12}\hat{w}_{[S(i)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_i},$$ where $(z;q)_{\infty}=\prod\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}(1-q^nz)$ is the $q$-Pochammer symbol.
1\) This result is proved in [@N], however, we propose a different and simpler proof. First we note that the required properties for $Z_i$ and $\phi_i$ are equivalent to the following: for all non-zero $E\in T_i\cap({\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})$ (resp. $E\in F_i\cap({\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})$) we have ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z_i([E]))>\phi_i$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z_i([E]))<\phi_i$). Further, this is equivalent to the inequality $${\operatorname{Im}}(\exp((\pi-\phi_i)\sqrt{-1})Z_i([\Phi(i)^{-1}(F)]))>0$$ for any non-zero $F\in{\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i}.$ Since any $F\in \hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i}$ is an iterative extension of $S_j$’s, we just need the inequalities $${\operatorname{Im}}(\exp((\pi-\phi_i)\sqrt{-1})Z_i([\Phi(i)^{-1}(S_j)]))>0,\quad j\in V(Q_i)=V(Q).$$ Put $$\phi_i:=\frac{\pi}2,\quad{\operatorname{Im}}(Z_i(e_j)):=1,\quad{\operatorname{Re}}(Z_i([\Phi(i)^{-1}(S_j)])):=1,\quad j\in V(Q)=V(Q_i).$$ This determines $Z_i$ uniquely, and it satisfies the required properties.
It is also clear that for any fixed $\phi_i,$ the set of central charges $Z_i,$ satisfying the required properties, is in bijection with the set $$\R_{>0}^{V(Q)}\times\R_{>0}^{V(Q_i)}.$$
2\) First, the series $A^{Z_i}_{V_{>\phi_i}}$ do not depend on $Z_i$ and $\phi_i$ (satisfying the required properties) so we can choose $Z_i$ and $\phi_i$ as we want. We proceed by induction on $i.$ For $i=1,$ we have that all non-zero representations in $M^{Z_1}_{\gamma,V_{>\phi_i}}$ are finite direct sums of copies of $S_{k_1}=S(1),$ hence by Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\], 1), and Remark \[parity\_for\_mutations\] we have $$A^{Z_1}_{V_{>\phi_i}}=\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}[H^{\bullet}(BGL(n))]T^{\frac{n^2}2}\hat{w}_{n[S(1)]}=(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(1)]};T).$$ We are left to prove that $$\label{inductive}A^{Z_i}_{V_{>\phi_i}}=A^{Z_{i-1}}_{V_{>\phi_{i-1}}}\cdot (-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(i)]};T)^{\epsilon_i},\quad 1<i\leq r.$$
We will consider the case $\epsilon_i=+$ (the case $\epsilon_i=-$ is analogous). Then we have $S(i)=\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_{k_i}).$ It is clear from the proof of 1) that we can choose $Z_{i-1}$ and $\phi_{i-1}$ in such a way that $${\operatorname{Arg}}(Z_{i-1}([S(i)])\exp((\pi-\phi_{i-1})\sqrt{-1}))>{\operatorname{Arg}}(Z_{i-1}([\Phi(i-1)^{-1}(S_j)])\exp((\pi-\phi_{i-1})\sqrt{-1}))$$ for $j\ne k_i.$ Then, for sufficiently small $\delta>0,$ the pair $(Z_i=Z_{i-1},\phi_i={\operatorname{Arg}}(Z_{i-1}([S(i)]))-\delta)$ satisfies the required properties. We have (again by Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\], 1), and Remark \[parity\_for\_mutations\]) $$A^{Z_i}_{\phi_{i}<{\operatorname{Arg}}(z)\leq\phi_{i-1}}=\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}[H^{\bullet}(BGL(n))]T^{\frac{n^2}2}\hat{w}_{n[S(i)]}=(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(i)]};T),$$ which (together with Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\], 3)) implies . This proves 2).
Laurent phenomenon via stable framed representations {#s:LPSFR}
====================================================
Let now $L=\Z^m,$ $\Lambda:L\times L\to\Z$ a skew-symmetric form, and $${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot}:={{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}\otimes_{\Z[q^{\pm\frac12}]}\hat{R}[T^{\frac12}],\quad q^{\frac12}\mapsto T^{\frac12},$$ the associated motivic quantum torus. Fix some $1\leq n\leq m,$ and suppose that $$(M(c)=X^c,\tilde{B})$$ is the skew-symmetric quantum seed. Let $S$ be its mutation-equivalence class, and ${{\mathcal A}}_S\subset{{\mathcal F}}_{\Lambda}$ the associated quantum cluster algebra.
If $(M',\tilde{B}')$ is some quantum seed, mutation-equivalent to $(M,\tilde{B}),$ then by Laurent phenomenon, for each $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m$ we have that $M'(\lambda)\in{{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda},$ so we have a well-defined element $$M^{'mot}(\Lambda):=M'(\lambda)\otimes 1\in{{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot}.$$
Take the quiver $Q$ as in Subsection \[ss:MSSQS\]. Namely, $V(Q)=\{1,\dots,m\},$ and $Q$ is without loops and 2-cycles, so that $$a_{jj}-a_{ij}=b_{ij},\quad 1\leq i\leq m,\,1\leq j\leq n.$$ We do not impose any restrictions for the numbers $a_{ij}$ for $n+1\leq i,j\leq m.$
Let $W$ be some formal potential on $Q.$ We have an identification $K_0({\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}))\cong\Z^m,$ and for the embedding $\iota:D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{\tilde{Q},W})\hookrightarrow{\operatorname{Perf}}(\hat{\Gamma}_{\tilde{Q},W})$ we have $$\iota([S_j])=(b_{1j},\dots,b_{mj}),\quad 1\leq j\leq n,$$ by Proposition \[Koszul\_res\]. It follows from the compatibility condition on $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{B}$ that $$\label{compatibility}\Lambda([\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}],[\iota(S_j)])=-\chi([\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W,i}],[\iota(S_j)])=-\delta_{ij},\quad 1\leq i\leq m,\,1\leq j\leq n.$$
Let ${{\mathcal C}}_{[1,\dots,n]}\subset {\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ be the subcategory of representations supported on the vertices $1,\dots,n.$ It follows from and Proposition \[Koszul\_res\] that for any two objects $E,F\in{{\mathcal C}}_{[1,\dots,n]}$ we have $$\Lambda([\iota(E)],[\iota(F)])=-\chi_Q([E],[F])+\chi_Q([F],[E]).$$ Therefore, the coordinate sublattice $\Z^n=K_0({{\mathcal C}}_{[1,\dots,n]})\subset K_0({\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})=\Z^m$ defines the motivic quantum torus ${{\mathcal T}}_{[1,\dots,n]}^{mot},$ equipped with the natural injective morphism $${{\mathcal T}}_{[1,\dots,n]}^{mot}\hookrightarrow {{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot},\quad ,\hat{w}_{[E]}\mapsto X^{[\iota(E)]}.$$ From now on, we identify the elements of ${{\mathcal T}}_{[1,\dots,n]}^{mot}$ with their images in ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot},$ and similarly for various completions.
Now, let ${\underline}{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_r)$ be any sequence of vertices, $1\leq k_i\leq n,$ $k_i\ne k_{i+1}.$ We assume that $W$ is well-mutatable with respect to ${\underline}{k}.$ As above, we put $$(Q_i,W_i)=\mu_{k_i}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(\tilde{Q},W))\dots),\quad 1\leq i\leq r.$$
[[**Assumption.** ]{}]{}We may and will assume that $W_r$ is a polynomial potential on $Q_r.$
We have a sequence of signs $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_r\in\{\pm\}$ as in Theorem \[Nagao\]. Again, we put $$\Phi(i)=\Phi_{k_i,\epsilon_i}\circ\dots\circ\Phi_{k_1,\epsilon_1},\quad 0\leq i\leq r,$$ so that $$\Phi(i)^{-1}({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q_i,W_i})=({\operatorname{Mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W})^{(T_i[-1],F_i)}.$$ Note that we have an inclusion $$\label{eq:inclusion}T_i\cap{\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{\tilde{Q},W}\subset {{\mathcal C}}_{[1,\dots,n]},$$ which follows from the proof of Theorem \[Nagao\].
Take the central charge $Z_r$ on $Q,$ and an angle $\phi_r$ from Theorem \[torsion\_pairs\_via\_Z\]. Then, the DT series $A^{Z_r}_{V_{>\phi_r}}$ is well-defined, and it belongs to the completion of ${{\mathcal T}}_{[1,\dots,n]}^{mot},$ hence we may and will treat it as an element of the completion of ${{\mathcal T}}_{\Lambda}^{mot}.$
For convenience, we put $$\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}=\bigoplus_{j=1}^m\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},j}^{\oplus\lambda^j},\quad \hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},j}=\Phi(r)^{-1}(\Gamma_{Q_r,W_r,j}).$$
\[cluster\_var\_via\_conj\]Let $M_i=\mu_{k_i}(\dots(\mu_{k_1}(M))\dots):\Z^m\to{{\mathcal F}}_{\lambda}$ be the mutated toric frame. Then, for any $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ we have the equality $$M_r^{mot}(\lambda)=A^{Z_r}_{V_{>\phi_r}}\cdot X^{[\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}]}\cdot (A^{Z_r}_{V_{>\phi_r}})^{-1}.$$
First, the statement reduces to the case when $\lambda_j=\delta_{kj}$ for some $1\leq k\leq m.$ So, we will assume that this is the case. By Theorem \[torsion\_pairs\_via\_Z\], we have that $$A^{Z_r}_{V_{>\phi_r}}=(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(1)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_1}\dots (-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(r)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_r}.$$ We will prove by induction on $0\leq i\leq r$ that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cluster_conj}M_i^{mot}(e_k)=(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(1)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_1}\dots (-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(i)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_i}\cdot\\
\cdot X^{\Phi(i)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_i,W_i,k}])}\cdot
(-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(i)]};T)_{\infty}^{-\epsilon_i}\dots (-T^{\frac12}\hat{w}_{[S(1)]};T)_{\infty}^{-\epsilon_1}.\end{gathered}$$
For $i=0,$ there is nothing to prove. Suppose that is proved for some $i=l,$ $0\leq l<r.$ Then holds for $i=l+1,$ $k\ne k_{l+1},$ since $$M_l(e_k)=M_{l+1}(e_k),\quad [\hat{w}_{[S(l+1)]},X^{\Phi(l+1)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_{l+1},W_{l+1},k}])}]=[\hat{w}_{[S(l+1)]},X^{\Phi(l)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_l,W_l,k}])}]=0.$$ just because $$\Lambda(\Phi(l)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_l,W_l,k}]),[\iota(S(l+1))])=
\chi(\Phi(l)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_l,W_l,k}]),[S(l+1)])=\pm\delta_{k,k_{l+1}}=0.$$ Now, for the case $k=k_{l+1},$ we need the following Lemma.
Let $x,y$ be some formal variables, satisfying $$xy=q^{\epsilon}yx,\quad\epsilon=\pm 1.$$ Then we have $$(-q^{\frac12}x;q)_{\infty}^{-\epsilon}y (-q^{\frac12}x;q)_{\infty}^{\epsilon}=y(1+q^{\frac{\epsilon}2}x).$$
Indeed, it suffices to note that $$(1+q^{\frac{d}2}x)y=y(1+q^{\frac{d}2-\epsilon}x).$$
Applying the above Lemma to $x=\hat{w}_{[S(l+1)]},$ $y=X^{\Phi(l+1)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_{l+1},W_{l+1},k_{l+1}}])},$ and $q^{\frac12}$ replaced by $T^{\frac12},$ we obtain the following equality: $$\begin{gathered}
(-\hat{w}_{[S(l+1)]};T)_{\infty}^{\epsilon_i}X^{\Phi(l+1)^{-1}([\hat{\Gamma}_{\Q_{l+1},W_{l+1},k_{l+1}}])}
(-\hat{w}_{[S(l+1)]};T)_{\infty}^{-\epsilon_i}=\\
X^{\Phi(l)^{-1}(-[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_l,W_l,k_{l+1}}]+\sum\limits_{(\tilde{B}_l)_{j,k_{l+1}}>0}(\tilde{B}_l)_{j,k_{l+1}}[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_l,W_l,j}])}+\\
X^{\Phi(l)^{-1}(-[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_l,W_l,k_{l+1}}]-\sum\limits_{(\tilde{B}_l)_{j,k_{l+1}}<0}(\tilde{B}_l)_{j,k_{l+1}}
[\hat{\Gamma}_{Q_l,W_l,j}])}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, applying the inductive assumption, we conclude that holds for $i=l+1,$ $k=k_{l+1}.$ This proves Theorem.
The central charge $Z_r$ on $Q$ defines the central charge $Z_r'$ on $Q_r,$ namely $$Z_r'(\gamma)=\exp((\pi-\phi_r)\sqrt{-1})Z([\Phi(r)]^{-1}(\gamma)).$$
\[LP\_by\_sfr\]For any $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m$ we have $$\label{LP_via_sfr}M_r^{mot}(\lambda)=X^{[\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}]}\sum\limits_{\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{m}}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma}))]\cdot T^{-\frac12 \chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)}\cdot
X^{\iota(\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))}.$$ Moreover, the RHS is actually a finite sum.
In particular, we have that $$\label{Tate_type}[H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})]\in \Z[T^{\pm 1}]\subset R$$ for all $\gamma.$
First we show that the sum in the RHS is finite. Take the projective $\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r}$-module $\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,\lambda}=\bigoplus\limits_{j=1}^m \hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,j}^{\oplus\lambda_j}.$ Then the pair $((E\in M^{sp}_{\gamma,V_{<(\pi-\phi_r)}},u:\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,\lambda}\to E))$ defines a point in $M^{sp,sfr}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}$ iff the map $$H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(u)):H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,\lambda}))\to \Phi(r)^{-1}(E)[1]$$ is surjective. By Corollary \[fin\_dim\_of\_H\^1\], $H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,\lambda}))=H^1(\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda})$ is finite-dimensional. In particular, $M^{sp,sfr}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}$ can be non-empty only if $$0\leq{\underline}{\dim}(\Phi(r)^{-1}(E)[1])\leq {\underline}{\dim}\,H^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}(\hat{J}_{Q_r,W_r,\lambda})).$$
This implies that the sum in the RHS of is finite. By , we have that $$\Phi(r)^{-1}(E)[1]\in{{\mathcal C}}_{[1,\dots,n]}.$$ Hence, for all $\gamma$ which contribute to the RHS of , we have that $$\Lambda([\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}],\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))=
\sum\limits_{i=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i.$$
Thus, follows immediately from Theorem \[cluster\_var\_via\_conj\], Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\], 2), Remark \[parity\_for\_mutations\] and Proposition \[conj\_and\_sfr\].
Further, it follows that $$[H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})]\in\Z[T^{\pm \frac12}]\cap\hat{R}=\Z[T^{\pm 1}]\subset \hat{R}[T^{\frac12}],$$ so holds.
Positivity conjecture via purity {#s:PCVP}
================================
A graded object $H^{\bullet}$ in the category $MMHS$ (with $H^n=0$ for $|n|>>0$) is said to admit a Lefschetz operator centered at $N,$ if there is a morphism $$L:H^{\bullet}\to H^{\bullet}(1)[2]$$ which induces isomorphisms $$L^k:H^{N-k}\to H^{N+k}(k)$$ for all $k\in\Z_{>0}.$
\[purity->positivity\]In the assumptions of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\], suppose that for some $\lambda$ and for all $\gamma$ we have that $H^{i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ is pure of weight $i.$ Then the positivity conjecture holds for $M_r(\lambda)$.
Suppose that, moreover, that for some $\lambda$ and for all $\gamma$ the graded object $H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ admits a Lefschetz operator. Then Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\] holds for $M_r(\lambda).$
Our assumption, together with , immediately implies that $$H^{2i-1,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})=0,$$ $$H^{2i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})=\Q(-i)^{\oplus a_{i,\gamma}},\,a_{i,\gamma}\geq 0,$$ hence $$M_r^{mot}(\lambda)=X^{[\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}]}\cdot\sum\limits_{i,\gamma}a_{i,\gamma}T^{-i-\frac12\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)} X^{\iota(\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))},\quad a_{i,\gamma}\in\Z_{\geq 0.}$$
The second assertion is then clear.
For any representation $E$ of a quiver $Q,$ and a dimension vector $\gamma\in\Z^{V(Q)},$ the quiver Grassmannian ${\operatorname{Gr}}(E,\gamma)$ is the scheme of subrepresentations $E'\subset E$ with ${\underline}{\dim}(E/E')=\gamma.$ Clearly, ${\operatorname{Gr}}(E,\gamma)$ is a projective scheme.
\[projectivity\] In the assumptions of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\], Assume that the subvariety $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\subset {{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sfr}$$ is a union of connected components of the subvariety $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma}).$ Then we can treat ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr}$ as a union of connected components of the scheme $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma}).$ Then there is an isomorphism of schemes $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\cong {\operatorname{Gr}}(H^1(\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma)).$$ In particular, the scheme ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr}$ is projective.
We have already seen in the proof of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\] that there is a bijection between closed points of these schemes. It is easy to show that it is induced by an isomorphism of schemes.
In [@P1], Plamondon obtains a general formula for cluster monomials in commutative cluster algebras. The same formulas are actually obtained in [@DWZ2], the coincidence is shown in [@P2]. The resulting coefficients are Euler characteristics of some quiver Grassmannians. By Corollary \[fin\_dim\_of\_H\^1\], these quiver Grassmannians are precisely ${\operatorname{Gr}}(H^1(\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma)).$ On the other hand, the Euler characteristics of critical cohomology (under the assumption of Proposition \[projectivity\]) coincides with Behrend’s weighted Euler characteristics [@Be] $$\tilde{\chi}({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr})=\tilde{\chi}({\operatorname{Gr}}(H^1(\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))),$$ where for any scheme $X$ the weighted Euler characteristics is defined using constructible function (Behrend’s function) $$\nu_X:X\to\Z.$$ This motivates the following question.
[[**Question.** ]{}]{}[*Let $(Q,W)$ be a formal QP, and $M\in{\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ is such that the decorated representation $(M,0)$ has $E$-invariant zero (see [@DWZ],[@P2]). Is it true that for all $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)}$ the Behrend’s function $$\nu:{\operatorname{Gr}}(E,\gamma)\to\Z$$ is identically equal to $1$?*]{}
\[purity\_of\_MHM\]In the assumptions of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\], suppose that for all $\gamma$ and for generic $W_r$ (possibly depending on $\gamma$) the subvariety $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\subset {{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,<(\pi-\phi_r),\lambda}^{sfr}$$ is a union of connected components of $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma}),$ and assume that the restriction of $$\phi_{\frac{(W_r)_{\gamma}}u}\Q_{({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr})\times G_m}(0)[\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1]$$ onto ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}$ is a pure Hodge module of weight $\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1.$ Then the critical cohomology $H^{i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ is pure of weight $i,$ and the graded object $H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ admits a Lefschetz operator centered at $\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma).$
In particular, in this case the Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\] holds for $M_r(\lambda).$
Indeed, by the general theory of M. Saito, the direct image for a proper morphisms preserves weights (for objects of the derived category), and the cohomology of the direct image by a projective morphism of a pure Hodge module admits a Lefschetz operator, see [@PS].
\[positivity\_for\_acyclic\]In the assumptions of Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\], suppose that either $Q_{[1,\dots,n]}$ or $(Q_r)_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic quiver. Then for any $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^n,$ we have that the assumptions of Proposition \[purity\_of\_MHM\] hold. In particular, Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\] holds for all the cluster monomials $M_r(\lambda).$
First, consider the case when the quiver $(Q_r)_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic. Then for $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^n\subset\Z_{\geq 0}^m$ we have $(W_r)_{\gamma}=0,$ hence $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}={{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr},$$ and we have that $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_{\frac{(W_r)_{\gamma}}u}\Q_{({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr})\times G_m}(0)[\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1]=\\\Q_{({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr})\times G_m}(0)[\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1],\end{gathered}$$ is certainly a pure Hodge module. The resulting critical cohomology is just the cohomology of a smooth projective variety, which is Hodge-Tate by .
Now, consider the case when $Q_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic. First, we claim that the variety $M_{\gamma}^{sp}$ is always a union of connected components of $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma})\cap (W_r)_{\gamma}^{-1}(0),$ if $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^n\subset\Z_{\geq 0}^m.$ Indeed, this holds for generic polynomial potential $W_r$ by Proposition \[Bertini\]. Further, since there are no non-trivial potentials on $Q_{[1,\dots,n]},$ all possible potentials $W_r$ are equivalent when restricted to $(Q_r)_{[1,\dots,n]}.$ Hence, the corresponding functions $(W_r)_{\gamma}$ are obtained from each other by an automorphism of the formal neighborhood of $Nilp_{\gamma}\subset M_{\gamma}.$ It follows that for any possible potential $M_{\gamma}^{sp}$ is a union of connected components of $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma})\cap W_{\gamma}^{-1}(0).$
We have that locally at each point $p\in {{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}$ the function $W_{\gamma}$ is analytically equivalent to a quadratic form of even rank $$\chi_{Q}(\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma))-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma).$$ Indeed, if the point $p$ is given by $(E,u),$ then the minimal potential on $${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](E),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](E))\cong{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(E,E)$$ equals to zero by Theorem \[Kajiura\], and from the same Theorem it follows that $W_{\gamma}$ in the neighborhood of $p$ is formally, hence analytically, equivalent to a quadratic form of rank as in the above formula. The rank is even by Remark \[parity\_for\_mutations\].
Therefore, the restriction of the mixed Hodge module $\phi_{\frac{(W_r)_{\gamma}}u}\Q_{({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr})\times G_m}(0)[\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1]$ onto ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}\times G_m$ is a pure Hodge module of weight $\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma).$
In the case when $Q_{[1,\dots,n]}$ is acyclic, the positivity conjecture (and also Conjecture \[conj\_Lefschetz\]) has already been shown by F. Qin [@Q]. He interprets quantum cluster monomials via Serre polynomials of quiver Grassmannians, and these quiver Grassmannians are actually ${\operatorname{Gr}}(H^1(\hat{\Gamma}_{{\underline}{k},\lambda}),\Phi(r)^{-1}[1](\gamma)).$ The cohomology of these Hodge-Tate smooth projective varieties actually coincide (up to a twist and a shift) with our critical cohomology.
The following conjecture was suggested to me by M. Kontsevich.
\[purity\_conj\]In the above notation, for the generic potential $W_r$ (possibly depending on $\gamma$) the critical cohomology $H^{i,crit}_c({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr},(W_r)_{\gamma})$ is pure of weight $i,$ and admits a Lefschetz operator.
We remark that even if the set ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sp,sfr}$ coincides with $Crit((W_r)_{\gamma})\cap(W_r)_{\gamma}^{-1}(0),$ the mixed Hodge module $\phi_{\frac{(W_r)_{\gamma}}u}\Q_{({{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr})\times G_m}(0)[\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\lambda^i\gamma^i-\chi_{Q_r}(\gamma,\gamma)+1]$ is not always pure.
Namely, consider the case $n=3,$ and take the initial quiver $Q$ such that the coefficient-free part $Q_{[1,2,3]}$ is just a cycle of length $3,$ i.e. $$a_{12}=a_{23}=a_{31}=1, a_{11}=a_{22}=a_{33}=a_{21}=a_{32}=a_{13}=0,$$ with the potential $W,$ when restricted to $Q_{[1,2,3]}$ equal to this cyclic path. Then, taking the sequence of mutations ${\underline}{k}=(1,2,3,1),$ we obtain the quiver $Q_4,$ for which $(Q_4)_{[1,2,3]}$ is again a cycle of length $3,$ but in the opposite direction, and the potential $W_4$ (again, restricted to $(Q_4)_{[1,2,3]}$) is again this cyclic path. It is easy to check that the resulting torsion pair in ${\operatorname{mod}}\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ is precisely $$({{\mathcal C}}_{[1,2,3]},{{\mathcal C}}_{[1,2,3]}^{\perp}).$$ This means that for $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^3\subset\Z_{\geq 0}^m,$ $\lambda\in\Z_{\geq 0}^m$ we have $${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr}=\{(E\in M_{\gamma},u:P_{\lambda}\to E)\mid u\text{ is surjective}\}/G_{\gamma}.$$
Let us describe this variety in the case $$\lambda=\gamma=(1,1,1,0,\dots,0).$$ In this case it is a toric variety $$X=U/(\C^*)^3,$$ where $U\subset \A^6_{u_1,u_2,u_3,x_{12},x_{23},x_{31}}$ is an open subset given by $$(u_1,x_{31})\ne (0,0),\quad (u_2,x_{12})\ne (0,0),\quad (u_3,x_{23})\ne (0,0),\quad (u_1,u_2,u_3)\ne (0,0,0).$$ The action of $(\C^*)^3$ is described by the formula $$(t_1,t_2,t_3)\cdot (u_1,u_2,u_3,x_{12},x_{23},x_{31})=(t_1u_1,t_2u_2,t_3u_3,t_2x_{12}t_1^{-1},t_3x_{23}t_2^{-1},t_1x_{31}t_3^{-1}).$$ The potential $f:X\to\C$ is given by the formula $$f=x_{12}x_{23}x_{31}.$$ We have $$X^{sp}=Crit(f)\cap f^{-1}(0)=Crit(f)=\{x_{23}=x_{31}=0\}\cup\{x_{31}=x_{12}=0\}\cup\{x_{12}=x_{23}=0\}$$ — a union of three projective lines intersecting at one point $$p=((\C^*)^3\times(0,0,0))/(\C^*)^3.$$
Since the weight filtration is the subject of Betti realization, we can consider the perverse sheaves of $\Q$-vector spaces, and take the vanishing cycles functor $\phi_f$ without multiplying by $G_m.$ Then, the perverse sheaf $\phi_f\Q_X[3]\in{\operatorname{Perv}}(X^{sp})$ has three non-zero subquotients in the weight filtration: $$\gr^{W}_2\phi_f\Q_X[3]\cong \gr^{W}_4\phi_f\Q_X[3]\cong\Q_p,\quad \gr^{2}_3\phi_f\Q_X[3]\cong IC(X^{sp}),$$ $$\gr^{W}_n\phi_f\Q_X[3]=0\text{ for }n\ne 2,3,4.$$ where $Q_p$ is the skyscraper sheaf at the point $p,$ and $IC(X^{sp})$ is the intersection cohomology (perverse) sheaf. In particular, the sheaf $\phi_f\Q_X[3]$ is not pure. However, the critical cohomology is pure: $$H^{2,crit}_c(X^{sp},W)\cong\Q(-1)^{\oplus 2},\quad H^{4,crit}_c(X^{sp},W)\cong\Q(-2)^{\oplus 2},$$ $$H^{n,crit}_c(X^{sp},W)=0\text{ for }n\ne 2,4.$$
Our example of non-purity of the MHM of vanishing cycles is similar to (and much simpler than) [@DS]. In both cases the weight filtration has three subquotients, two beeing skyscraper sheafs and the third one is the intersection cohomology sheaf on the subscheme of singularities of the zero fiber.
A conjecture on exceptional collections {#s:conj_on_exc}
=======================================
In this section we propose a conjecture on existence of exceptional collection in certain $2$-periodic triangulated categories related to the moduli of stable framed representations.
A triangulated $k$-linear category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called $2$-periodic if there is a fixed isomorphism of functors $${\operatorname{id}}\cong [2].$$
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a $2$-periodic category with finite-dimensional $\Hom$-spaces. An object $E\in{{\mathcal C}}$ is called exceptional if $$\Hom^1(E,E)=0,\quad \Hom^0(E,E)=k.$$
A sequence $(E_1,\dots,E_n)$ of exceptional objects in a $2$-periodic triangulated category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called an exceptional collection if $$\Hom^{\bullet}(E_i,E_j)=0,\quad i>j.$$ An exceptional collection is called full if it generates the triangulated category ${{\mathcal C}}$
Let $(X,f)$ be a smooth algebraic variety with a regular function. Then one can associate with $(X,f)$ two equivalent $2$-periodic triangulated categories. The first one is the category of singularities [@Or1] of the zero fiber $X^0=f^{-1}(0):$ $$D_{sg}(X^0):=D^b_{coh}(X^0)/{\operatorname{Perf}}(X^0).$$ The second one is the homotopy category of the D($\Z/2$-)G category of matrix factorizations $MF(X,f)$ [@Or2], [@PV], [@LP], [@Pos].
By the theorem of Orlov [@Or2], we have an equivalence $$D_{sg}(X^0)\cong{\operatorname{Ho}}(MF(X,f)).$$ This in particular explains that the category $D_{sg}(X^0)$ is $2$-periodic. In general these (equivalent) categories are not Karoubi complete, and we consider the Karoubian completion $D_{sg}(X^0)^{\kappa}.$
Let $X$ be some moduli space of stable framed representations ${{\mathcal M}}_{\gamma,\pi-\phi_r,\lambda}^{sfr}$ which arise in Theorem \[LP\_by\_sfr\], and let $f=(W_r)_{\gamma}:X\to\C,$ where $W_r$ is generic polynomial potential. Then the category $D_{sg}(X^0)^{\kappa}$ admits a full strong exceptional collection.
This conjecture implies the purity conjecture, i.e. the first half of Conjecture \[purity\_conj\], and hence the positivity conjecture.
Appendix {#s:Appendix}
========
In this Appendix we prove Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\].
Let us consider the following situation. Let $A$ be a $3$CY algebra, i.e. an $A_{\infty}$-algebra with scalar product of degree $3.$ Let us assume that $$m_n=0\text{ for }n> N.$$ Then the potential defined above is the well-defined polynomial function, $$W_A:A^1\to\C.$$ The set of its critical points is precisely the set of Maurer-Cartan solutions: $$Crit(W_A)=\{dW_A=0\}=\{\sum\limits_{n=1}^N m_n(\alpha,\dots,\alpha)=0\}=MC(A)\subset A.$$ The points of this set are objects of the $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-category, which we denote by ${{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A)_{\infty}$ (and which is defined exactly as the $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-category of twisted complexes).
Suppose that we are given with some full $A_{\infty}$ subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A)_{\infty},$ such that
$(\star)$ the subset $Ob({{\mathcal C}})\subset Ob({{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A)_{\infty})\cap W_A^{-1}(0)$ is constructible.
We would like to define the class $$[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}},W_A))].$$ This is done as follows. Choose some constructible subset $$\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^m Y_i\subset Ob({{\mathcal C}}),$$ with locally closed $Y_i,$ such that:
$(i)$ Each isomorphism class of objects in ${\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})$ contains exactly one representative in $\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^m Y_i;$
$(ii)$ For a fixed $1\leq i\leq m,$ and for $X\in Y_i,$ we have $$\Hom^0_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})}(X,X)/J(X)\cong\bigoplus_{j=1}^t {\operatorname{Mat}}_{n_j}(\C),$$ where $J(X)$ is the Jacobson radical of the algebra $\Hom^0_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})}(X,X),$ and the numbers $t,$ $n_1,\dots,n_t,$ and $\dim J(X)$ do not depend on $X\in Y_i.$ In particular, the class $[H^{\bullet}_c({\operatorname{Aut}}_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})}(X))]\in K_0(MHS)$ does not depend on $X\in Y_i.$
This allows us to define the class $$\label{H^crit}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}},W_A))]=\sum\limits_{i=1}^m\frac{[D(H^{\bullet,crit}(Y_i,W_A))]}{[D(H^{\bullet}_c({\operatorname{Aut}}_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})}(X_i)))]}
\in \hat{R},$$ where $X_i\in Y_i$ is some object.
For convenience, for the finite-dimensional graded vector space $V,$ put $$\chi_{\leq d}(V)=\sum\limits_{i\leq d}(-1)^i\dim V^i.$$
\[well-defined\_class\]The class does not depend on the choice of the constructible subset $\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^m Y_i\subset Ob({{\mathcal C}}).$
This class is actually dual to the Hodge realization of the motivic Milnor fiber used in [@KS08]. Namely, for any smooth complex algebraic variety $X$ with a regular function $W$ Denef and Loeser ([@DL1],[@DL2]) define the element $S_W\in M^{\mu}(X^0),$ where $X^0=W^{-1}(0),$ $\mu=\lim\limits_{\leftarrow}\mu_n,$ and for a scheme $Y$ one defines $M^{\mu}(Y)$ to be the localized Grothendieck group of $Y$-schemes with good action of $\mu.$ Further, for any locally closed embedding $\iota:Z\hookrightarrow X_0,$ denoting by $p:Z\to pt$ the projection we get the element $$S_{W,Z}:=p_{!}\iota^* S_W\in M^{\mu}_{\C}:=M^{\mu}({\operatorname{Spec}\,}\C).$$
There is a natural map $$F:M^{\mu}_{\C}\to K_0(MMHS).$$ If $X$ is an algebraic variety with good action of some $\mu_n,$ then one puts $$F([X])=(G_m\to\A^1)_{!}((X\times G_m)/\mu_n\stackrel{g}{\to}G_m)_!\Q_{(X\times G_m)/mu_n}(0).$$ The map $F$ is actually a homomorphism, where one considers the Thom-Sebastiani product on $M^{\mu}_{\C}$ [@DL3]. According to [@KS08], we have the equality $$F(1-S_{W,Z})=[H^{\bullet,crit}_c(Z,W)].$$
Kontsevich and Soibelman [@KS08] use more general motivic Milnor fibre for formal power series. Put $\sqrt{\bL}:=1-S_{z^2,0}.$ Let$\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^m Y_i\subset Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ be some constructible subset as above, and fix some $Y_i.$ Then for $\alpha\in Y_i$ the potential on $\End^1(\alpha)\cong A^1$ equals to $W_{\alpha}(z)=W_A(z+\alpha).$ It follows from Theorem \[Kajiura\] and the Thom-Sebastiani Theorem [@DL3] that we have $$S_{W_A,Y_i}=\int\limits_{\alpha\in Y_i}(S_{W_{\alpha}^{min},0}\cdot\sqrt{\bL}^{\dim \End^1(\alpha)/\ker(m_1:\End^1(\alpha)\to\End^2(\alpha))}).$$ Since the potential $W_{\alpha}^{min}$ depends only on the isomorphism class of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}}),$ and we have $$\dim \End^1(\alpha)/\ker(m_1:\End^1(\alpha)\to\End^2(\alpha))=\chi_{\leq 1}(\Hom^{\bullet}_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal C}})}(\alpha,\alpha))-\chi_{\leq 1}(A),$$ we conclude that the element $S_{W,Y_i}$ depends only on the set of homotopy equivalence classes of objects in $Y_i.$ Hence, the class $[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}},W_A))]$ is well-defined.
Now, suppose that we have some $3$CY $A_{\infty}$-category ${{\mathcal A}}$ with two objects $U_1,U_2,$ with $\End(U_i)=A_i,$ and again only finitely many of $m_n$ are non-zero on ${{\mathcal A}}.$ Then, we have full $A_{\infty}$-subcategories ${{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A_1)_{\infty},{{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A_2)_{\infty}\subset{{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}})_{\infty}.$ Assume that ${{\mathcal C}}_i\subset{{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}(A_i)_{\infty}$ are $A_{\infty}$-subcategories satisfying $(\star).$ Moreover, let us assume that $$\Hom^{\leq 0}_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}})_{\infty})}(X_1,X_2)=0,\quad \Hom^{<0}_{{\operatorname{Ho}}({{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}})_{\infty})}(X_2,X_1)=0,\quad X_1\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}_1),\,X_2\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}_2).$$
Then define the subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}_{1,2}\subset{{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}})_{\infty},$ $${{\mathcal C}}_{1,2}=\{\alpha=(\alpha_{11},\alpha_{12},\alpha_{21},\alpha_{22})\in MC({{\mathcal A}})\mid \alpha_{12}=0,\alpha_{11}\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}_1),\alpha_{22}\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}_2)\}.$$
\[factorization\]We have that $$[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{1,2}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}})]=[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{1}),W_{A_1})]\cdot [D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{2}),W_{A_2})]\cdot T^{\sum\limits_{i\leq 1}\dim\Hom_{{{\mathcal C}}}(U_2,U_1)}.$$
This follows from the Integral Identity proved by in [@KS], Subsection 7.8. The implication is similar to [@KS], Subsection 7.7.
We formulate once again Theorem \[DT\_for\_formal\].
Suppose that for some formal QP $(Q,W)$ and polynomial QP $(Q',W')$ we have a cyclic $A_{\infty}$-functor $\phi:{{\mathcal C}}_{Q,W}\to Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'},$ inducing an equivalence $\Phi:D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})\stackrel{\sim}{\to} D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q',W'}).$ Let $Z$ be a central charge on $Q.$ Then one can define the classes $$[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]\in\hat{R},$$ for all sectors $V\subset {{\mathcal H}}_+,$ and $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)},$ such that the following holds.
1\) Suppose that there is only one $G_{\gamma}$-orbit in $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},$ and for the corresponding representation $E$ of $\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ we have $${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(E,E)=0,\quad \chi_Q(\gamma,\gamma)\equiv \dim{\operatorname{Ext}}^0(E,E)\text{ mod }2.$$ Then we have $$\label{crit_cohom_formal2}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]=[H^{\bullet}({\operatorname{B}}{\operatorname{Aut}}(E))]\cdot T^{\dim_{\C}{\operatorname{Aut}}(E)}.$$
2\) Define the DT series $A_V$ using the classes $[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V})^{sp},W_{\gamma})]\in\hat{R},$ as in the formula .
Suppose that we have a central charge $Z'$ on $Q',$ and for some sectors $V,V'\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+$ we have that $$\Phi({{\mathcal C}}_V)={{\mathcal C}}_{V'},\quad {{\mathcal C}}_V\subset D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W}),\,{{\mathcal C}}_{V'}\subset D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q',W'}),$$ and assume that $$\label{parity_preserved2}\chi_{Q'}([\Phi](\gamma),[\Phi](\gamma))\equiv \chi_Q(\gamma,\gamma)\text{ mod }2,\quad\gamma\in\Z^{V(Q)}.$$ Then we have $$A_{V'}=[\Phi](A_V),$$ where in the last formula $[\Phi]$ denotes the induced map on completions of motivic quantum tori.
3\) If the sector $V$ is the disjoint union of two sectors $V_1\sqcup V_2$ (in the clockwise order), then we have factorization: $$A_V=A_{V_1}A_{V_2}.$$
We have the objects $\phi(S_i)\in Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'},$ $i\in V(Q).$ For any $\gamma\in\Z_{\geq 0}^{V(Q)},$ put $$X_{\gamma}:=\bigoplus\limits_{i\in V(Q)}\phi(S_i)^{\oplus\gamma^i}\in Tw\, {{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}.$$ Put $${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}:=\End_{Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}}(X_{\gamma}).$$ For any central charge $Z$ on $Q,$ and a sector $V\subset{{\mathcal H}}_+,$ take the subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma,V}\subset{{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma})_{\infty},$ corresponding to MC solutions $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}^1,$ which are strictly upper-triangular with respect to some order of direct summands of $X_{\gamma},$ and such that the corresponding object of $D^b(\hat{\Gamma}_{Q,W})$ (under the preimage $\Phi^{-1}$) is a representation of $\hat{J}_{Q,W}$ from $M_{\gamma,V}^{sp}.$ Define $$[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_{c,G_{\gamma}}(M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},W))]:=[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma,V}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}})]\cdot\sqrt{T}^{\chi_{Q}(\gamma,\gamma)- \chi_{\leq 1}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma})}.$$
The property 1) follows directly from the definition.
To show 2), first put $$A_V=1+\sum\limits_{\gamma\in C_V}[D(H_{c,G_{\gamma}}^{\bullet,crit}(M_{\gamma,V}^{sp},W_{\gamma}))]\cdot
T^{-\frac{\chi(\gamma,\gamma)}2}\hat{w}_{\gamma}\in\hat{{{\mathcal T}}}_{Q,C_V}^{mot}.$$
Note that the DT series defined in [@KS] for polynomial potential (see formula \[formula\_for\_A\_V\] above) are actually obtained in the same way, replacing $\phi$ by the inclusion ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}\to Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}.$ Indeed, denote the objects of ${{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}$ by $S_i',$ and put $$X_{\gamma'}':=\bigoplus\limits_{i\in V(Q)}\phi(S_i')^{\oplus\gamma'^i}\in Tw\, {{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'},$$ $${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}':=\End_{Tw\,{{\mathcal C}}_{Q',W'}}(X_{\gamma'}'),$$ and define${{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma',V'}\subset {{\mathcal M}}{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}')_{\infty}$ in the same way as above. Then we have $$\begin{gathered}
=[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma',V'}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}'})]=\\
[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma',V'}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}'})]\cdot\sqrt{T}^{\chi_{Q'}
(\gamma',\gamma')- \chi_{\leq 1}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}')}.\end{gathered}$$
Now assume that $\gamma'=[\Phi](\gamma).$ We need to show that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equality_of_crit_cohom}[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma',V'}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}'})]\cdot\sqrt{T}^{\chi_{Q'}
(\gamma',\gamma')- \chi_{\leq 1}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma'}')}\cdot T^{-\frac{\chi_{Q'}(\gamma',\gamma')}2}=\\
[D(H^{\bullet,crit}_c({{\mathcal C}}_{\gamma,V}),W_{{{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}})]\cdot\sqrt{T}^{\chi_{Q}(\gamma,\gamma)- \chi_{\leq 1}({{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma})}\cdot T^{-\frac{\chi_{Q}(\gamma,\gamma)}2}.\end{gathered}$$
By , we may replace $T^{\frac12}$ by $\sqrt{T}$ in . Then, arguing as in Proposition \[well-defined\_class\], we express LHS and RHS of using motivic Milnor fibres, and obtain the desired equality.
The property 3) follows from Proposition \[factorization\], similarly to [@KS].
[KS08]{}
K. Behrend, Donaldson-Thomas type invariants via microlocal geometry, Ann. of Math. (2) 170 (2009), no. 3, 1307-1338.
A. Berenstein, A. Zelevinsky, Quantum cluster algebras, Advances in Math. 195 (2005), No. 2, 405-455.
C.-H. Cho, Strong homotopy inner products of an $A_{\infty}$-algebra, IMRN. ID 41. (2008).
C.-H. Cho, S.-W. Lee, Potentials of homotopy cyclic $A_{\infty}$-algebras, arXiv:1001.0255 (preprint).
C.-H. Cho, S.-W. Lee, Notes on Kontsevich-Soibelman’s theorem on cyclic $A_{\infty}$-algebras, IMRN. (2010).
J. Denef, F. Loeser, Motivic Igusa zeta functions, J. Alg. Geom., 7 (1998), 505-537.
J. Denef, F. Loeser, Geometry on arc spaces of algebraic varieties, Progr. Math., 201 (2001), 327-348.
J. Denef, F. Loeser, Motivic exponential integrals and a motivic Thom-Sebastiani theorem, Duke Math. J. 99 (1999), no. 2, 285-309.
A. Dimca, B. Szendroi, The Milnor fibre of the Pfaffian and the Hilbert scheme of four points on $\C^3,$ arXiv:0904.2419 (preprint).
H. Derksen, J. Weyman, A. Zelevinsky, Quivers with potentials and their representations I: Mutations, Selecta Math. 14 (2008), no. 1, 59-119.
Quivers with potentials and their representations II: Applications to cluster algebras, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), 749-790.
S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, Cluster algebras. I. Foundations, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002), no. 2, 497-529 (electronic).
S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, Cluster algebras. IV. Coefficients. Compos. Math. 143 (2007), no. 1, 112-164.
V. Ginzburg, Calabi-Yau algebras, arXiv:math/0612139v3 (preprint).
H. Kajiura, Noncommutative homotopy algebras associated with open strings, Reviews in Mathematical Physics. 1 (2007), 1-99.
B. Keller, Cluster algebras, quiver representations and triangulated categories; Triangulated categories, 76-160, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 375, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010.
B. Keller, On cluster theory and quantum dilogarithm identities, arXiv:1102.4148v4 (preprint).
Y. Kimura, F. Qin, Quiver varieties and quantum cluster algebras, in preparation.
M. Kontsevich, Y. Soibelman, Cohomological Hall algebra, exponential Hodge structures and motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants, arXiv:1006.2706 (preprint).
M. Kontsevich, Y. Soibelman, Stability structures, motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants and cluster transformations, arXiv:0811.2435 (preprint).
B. Keller, D. Yang, Derived equivalences from mutations of quivers with potential, Advances in Mathematics Volume 226, Issue 3, 15 February 2011, Pages 2118-2168.
K. Lin, D. Pomerleano, Global matrix factorizations, arXiv:1101.5847 (preprint).
K. Nagao, Donaldson-Thomas theory and cluster algebras, arXiv:1002.4884 (preprint).
H. Nakajima, Quiver varieties and cluster algebras, Kyoto J. Math. 51 (2011), no. 1, 71–126.
D. Orlov, Triangulated categories of singularities and D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models. (Russian) Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova 246 (2004), Algebr. Geom. Metody, Svyazi i Prilozh., 240–262; translation in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 2004, no. 3 (246), 227-248
D. Orlov, Matrix factorizations for nonaffine LG-models, arXiv:1101.4051v2 (preprint).
P.-G. Plamondon, Cluster characters for cluster categories with infinite-dimensional morphism spaces, Adv. Math. 227 (2011), no. 1, 1-39.
P.-G. Plamondon, Cluster algebras via cluster categories with infinite-dimensional morphism spaces, Compositio Mathematica November 2011 147 : pp 1921-1954.
L. Positselski, Coherent analogues of matrix factorizations and relative singularity categories, arXiv:1102.0261v6 (preprint).
C.A. Peters, J.H. Steenbrink, Mixed Hodge Structures, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) 52, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
A. Polishchuk, A. Vaintrob, Matrix factorizations and singularity categories for stacks, arXiv:1011.4544v1 (preprint).
F. Qin, Quantum Cluster Variables via Serre Polynomials, arXiv:1004.4171v2.
M. Saito, Introduction to mixed Hodge modules, Ast´erisque 179-180,(1989) 145-162.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Daniel Dadush[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'lattices.bib'
- 'acg.bib'
- 'cg.bib'
title: 'A $O(1/\eps^2)^n$-time Sieving Algorithm for Approximate Integer Programming'
---
**Keywords.** Integer Programming, Shortest Vector Problem, Closest Vector Problem.
[^1]: H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 765 Ferst Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The ISOGAL project is a survey of the stellar populations, structure, and recent star formation history of the inner disk and bulge of the Galaxy. ISOGAL combines 15 $\mu$m and 7 $\mu$m ISOCAM observations with DENIS IJK$_s$ data to determine the nature of a source and the interstellar extinction. In this paper we report an ISOGAL study of a small field in the inner Galactic Bulge ($\ell$ = 0.0$^{\circ}$, $b$ = 1.0$^{\circ}$, area = 0.035 deg$^2$) as a prototype of the larger area ISOGAL survey of the inner Galaxy. The ISOCAM data are two orders of magnitude more sensitive than IRAS ones, and its spatial resolution is better by one order of magnitude, allowing nearly complete and reliable point-source detection down to $\sim$ 10 mJy with the LW3 filter (12-18 $\mu$m) and $\sim$ 15 mJy with the LW2 filter (5.5-8 $\mu$m). More than 90% of the ISOCAM sources are matched with a near-infrared source of the DENIS survey. The five wavelengths of ISOGAL+DENIS, together with the relatively low and constant extinction in front of this specific field, allow reliable determination of the nature of the sources.
While most sources detected only with the deeper 7 $\mu$m observation are probably RGB stars, the primary scientific result of this paper is evidence that the most numerous class of ISOGAL 15 $\mu$m sources are Red Giants in the Galactic bulge and central disk, with luminosities just above or close to the RGB tip and weak mass-loss rates. They form loose sequences in the magnitude-colour diagrams \[15\]/$K_s$-\[15\] and \[15\]/\[7\]-\[15\]. Their large excesses at 15 $\mu$m with respect to 2 $\mu$m and 7 $\mu$m is due to circumstellar dust produced by mass-loss at low rate ($\dot M_{dust}~\sim10^{-11}$–a few $10^{-10}M_{\odot}$/yr). These ISOGAL results are the first systematic evidence and study of dust emission at this early stage (Intermediate AGB and possibly RGB-Tip), before the onset of the large mass-loss phase ($\dot M~\ge~10^{-7}M_{\odot}$/yr). It is thus well established that efficient dust formation is already associated with such low mass-loss rates during this early phase.
About twenty more luminous stars are also detected with larger excess at 7 and 15 $\mu$m. Repeated ISOGAL observations suggest that the majority of these are long period variables with large amplitude, probably in the large mass-loss stage with $\dot M~\ge~10^{-7}M_{\odot}$/yr.
author:
- 'A. Omont'
- 'S. Ganesh'
- 'C. Alard'
- 'J.A.D.L. Blommaert'
- 'B. Caillaud'
- 'E. Copet'
- 'P. Fouqué'
- 'G. Gilmore'
- 'D. Ojha'
- 'M. Schultheis'
- 'G. Simon'
- 'X. Bertou'
- 'J. Borsenberger'
- 'N. Epchtein'
- 'I. Glass'
- 'F. Guglielmo'
- 'M.A.T. Groenewegen'
- 'H.J. Habing'
- 'S. Kimeswenger'
- 'M. Morris'
- 'S.D. Price'
- 'A. Robin'
- 'M. Unavane'
- 'R. Wyse'
date: 'Received February; accepted May, 1999'
title: 'ISOGAL-DENIS detection of red giants with weak mass loss in the Galactic Bulge[^1][^2] [^3] '
---
0.3true cm
Introduction
============
The ISOGAL project is a multi-wavelength survey at high spatial resolution of the inner Galaxy. The general scientific aims are to quantify the spatial distributions of the various stellar populations in the inner Galaxy, together with the distribution of the warm interstellar medium (ISM). Optical, near-IR and mid-IR (to 15 $\mu$m) data with near arcsec spatial resolution are being obtained covering the central Galactic bulge, and sampling the obscured disk within the Solar circle. Complementary data at other wavelengths are being obtained in regions of specific interest. To date, most ISOGAL effort has focussed on a large area broad-band imaging survey at 7 $\mu$m and 15 $\mu$m with ISOCAM on the ISO satellite, and on complementary DENIS IJK$_s$ observations of the central Galaxy. A full description of the ISOGAL project will be published elsewhere (Omont et al, in preparation). First imaging results are available (Pérault et al [@Perault96]), as is a complementary paper to this, discussing late type giants at somewhat higher Galactic latitudes (Glass et al [@Glass99]). In this paper we discuss first results on the luminous AGB stellar population in the previously unobserved inner bulge (see also Frogel et al [@Frogel99]), from observations of a field whose line of sight projects some 140pc above the Galactic centre, on the minor axis.
The AGB stage is one of the most complex phases of stellar evolution, while at the same time being of crucial importance for nucleosynthesis and galactic chemical evolution. Although it is clear that mass-loss dominates the final evolution of AGB stars, the detailed physics of this process remains rather uncertain. Theoretical progress in the past years has emphasized the relationship between mass-loss and luminosity and hence thermal pulses, radiation pressure on dust and stellar pulsations of long period variables (LPV). The status of recent modelling and the observational data are fully reviewed by Habing ([@Habing96]) \[see also the proceedings of IAU Symposium 191 edited by Le Bertre et al. ([@LeBertre99])\]. Observationally, rates of mass loss are relatively well documented, especially from millimeter CO studies, far infrared IRAS results and near infrared studies. However, this direct knowledge of AGB mass-loss is mostly limited to the solar neigbourhood. In particular, in the galactic bulge and central disk, IRAS was able to detect only the relatively few AGB stars with the largest mass-loss rates $\geq$ 10$^{-6}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr. We are indeed still lacking the observational information to characterize the influence of metallicity and initial mass on the properties of mass-loss on the AGB. Near infrared observations, and in particular the DENIS (Epchtein et al. [@Epchtein97]) and 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. [@Skrutskie97], Cutri [@Cutri98]) surveys, can detect practically all the AGB stars in the Galaxy. However, it is extremely difficult to both identify an AGB star, and to distinguish between small to moderate mass-loss rates and patchy interstellar extinction, solely from near-infrared data in regions of high extinction. Data at longer wavelengths, which are more sensitive to the infrared excess that is a consequence of mass loss, and less sensitive to interstellar reddening, are required. Mid-infrared post-IRAS space surveys, such as the present surveys with ISOCAM and MSX (Price et al. [@Price97], Egan et al. [@Egan98]) are thus uniquely suited for carrying out a census of mass-losing AGB stars in the inner Galaxy and for quantifying the distribution function of mass loss-rates.
Our ISOGAL survey of selected regions of the inner Galaxy, at 15 and 7 $\mu$m (Pérault et al. [@Perault96], Omont et al. [@Omont99a],[@Omont99b]) has a sensitivity two orders of magnitude better than IRAS, and their spatial resolution is better by one order of magnitude. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the ISOGAL data, which combine ISOCAM mid-infrared observations with near-infrared DENIS data, are ideal to identify bulge mass-losing AGB stars, even with dust mass-loss rates as small as 10$^{-11}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr.
We analyse here the ISOGAL/DENIS data of a small field (area 0.035 deg$^2$) centered at $\ell$ = 0.0$^{\circ}$, $b$ = 1.0$^{\circ}$ in the inner bulge. This field is approximately one-half a bulge scale height down the minor axis, in a previously poorly studied region mid-way (in $|b|$) between the innermost optical “windows” (Glass et al. [@Glass99]) and the Galactic centre.
The very high stellar density in this field leads to a near confusion-limited survey, thus providing a maximum number of detected sources, the majority of them in the bulge and central disk. The relatively low and well behaved extinction allows reliable identification of mass-losing AGB stars down to the RGB tip (K$_0$ $\sim$ 8.2 for D = 8.0 kpc, Tiede et al [@Tiede96]). It permits also easier comparisons with earlier works on (apparently fainter) stars of the red giant branch (RGB), LPVs and IRAS sources in the more outer bulge (see e.g. Frogel & Whitford [@Frogel87], Frogel et al. [@Frogel90], Tiede et al. [@Tiede96], Glass et al. [@Glass95], van der Veen & Habing [@Veen90] and references therein). We can also compare the data with those of the companion paper (Glass et al. [@Glass99]) on ISOGAL observations in two fields of the Baade Windows. The analysis of the stellar sources is made easier in the latter by the smaller extinction, the greater distance from the galactic disk and previous identifications of LPVs from optical surveys.
Observations; Data Reduction and Quality; Cross-Identifications.
================================================================
ISOGAL Observations
-------------------
Identification Filter Pixel Size Julian Date Remarks
------------------ ----------- ------------------------------ ------------- ----------------
13600327$^{(b)}$ LW3 $6\arcsec$ 2450174 12-18$~\mu$m
32500256$^{(b)}$ LW2 $6\arcsec$ 2450363 5.5-8.5$~\mu$m
83600417$^{(a)}$ LW2 $3\arcsec$ 2450873
83600418$^{(b)}$ LW2 $6\arcsec$ 2450873
83600522$^{(a)}$ LW3 $3\arcsec$ 2450873
83600523$^{(b)}$ LW3 $6\arcsec$ 2450873
DENIS 96$^{(a)}$ I,J,K$_s$ $1\arcsec,3\arcsec,3\arcsec$ 2450184
DENIS 98$^{(b)}$ I,J,K$_s$ $1\arcsec,3\arcsec,3\arcsec$ 2450951
\[table1\]
: Journal of ISOCAM and DENIS observations in the $\ell$ = 0.0$^{\circ}$, $b$ = 1.0$^{\circ}$ field
[*Notes.*]{}$^{(a)}$ Data used in the present paper.\
$^{(b)}$ These observations have only recently become available and are not fully used in the present paper.
This field, $\ell$ = 0.0$^{\circ}$, $b$ = 1.0$^{\circ}$, is one of the fields used to quantify the reliability of ISOGAL data. We have thus at our disposal repeated observations at different dates as detailed in Table \[table1\]. This allows us to check reliability of detected sources, and additionally to identify (long period) variables. Our usual ISOGAL ISOCAM data use $6\arcsec$ pixels. Here we also have observations with $3\arcsec$ pixels (7 & 15 $\mu$m), allowing deeper photometry since confusion rather than photon noise limits the detections. A detailed evaluation will be presented elsewhere in a general assessment of the quality of the ISOGAL data. We will summarise here a few conclusions relevant for the present state of data reduction and the scientific case of this paper.
The $3\arcsec$ ISOCAM [^4] observations mainly used in this paper were performed in revolution 836 (28 February 1998) at 15 $\mu$m (filter LW3, 12-18 $\mu$m) and at 7 $\mu$m (filter LW2, 5.5-8.5 $\mu$m). The two year delay with respect to the IJK$_s$ DENIS observations should be taken into consideration for the few strongly variable stars. However, we have another 15 $\mu$m observation at a date reasonably well matched with that of the DENIS observations.
In addition to the usual problems with the ISOCAM data (glitches, dead column, time dependant behavior of the detectors), the difficulties of reduction of the ISOGAL data are more severe for several reasons: crowding of the fields which is often close to the confusion limit, highly structured diffuse emission, high density of bright sources which induce long-lasting pixel-memory effects, integration times per raster position short compared to detector stabilisation times, etc. Therefore, a special reduction pipeline was devised (Alard et al. in preparation) which is more sophisticated than the standard treatment applied to the ISOCAM data. A detailed discussion of data quality is given in Appendix B.
The histograms of the 7 and 15 $\mu$m source counts derived from the $3\arcsec$ ISOGAL observations are displayed in Figure \[ISO\_CMPL\]. In order to ensure a reasonable level of reliability, completeness and photometric accuracy, we presently limit the discussion of ISOGAL data to sources brighter than 8.5 mag (8 mJy) for LW3 sources and 9.75 mag (11 mJy) for LW2 sources (the fluxes and magnitudes used are defined in Appendix A). The source counts in this field are thus 599 and 282 respectively in LW2 and LW3.
The source density is relatively close to the confusion limit for LW2 sources (85 pixels \[$3\arcsec \times 3\arcsec$\] per source). However, the LW3 observations are farther from confusion since their density is twice smaller than for LW2 sources.
DENIS Observations
------------------
The near infrared data were acquired in the framework of the DENIS survey, in a dedicated observation of a large bulge field (Simon et al. in preparation), simultaneously in the three usual DENIS bands, K$_s$ (2.15 $\mu$m), J (1.25 $\mu$m) and Gunn-I (0.8 $\mu$m). Following the general reduction procedures for DENIS data (Borsenberger et al. in preparation), and after the preliminary analysis of the same data by Unavane et al. ([@Unavane98]), we optimised the source extraction for crowded fields (Alard et al. in preparation). Since for the majority of the ISOGAL sources in this particular field (giants with little dust and small reddening), the DENIS sensitivity is much better than that of ISOGAL (by typically 3 magnitudes), consideration of the faintest DENIS sources is not critical for our purposes. The histograms of the DENIS K$_s$, J, I sources are shown in Figure \[DENIS\_HIST\]. The quality of this DENIS data is briefly discussed in Appendix B. The sensitivity is mostly limited by confusion in the K$_s$ and J bands. The completeness limit is thus probably close to 11.5 in the K$_s$ band and 13.5 in the J band (i.e. about two magnitudes lower than in “normal” uncrowded DENIS fields).
One problem with the DENIS data is the saturation of the detectors for very bright sources. We thus presently do not use the DENIS data for the 12 sources with K$_s$ $<$ 7, not only for the K$_s$ band, but also for the I and J bands where the signal is saturated as well. For slightly fainter sources the corrections for saturation are not yet optimised and the DENIS photometry will be improved in the future.
The catalog used to make the DENIS astrometry is the PMM catalog, referenced as the “USNO-A2.0” catalog. The absolute astrometry is then presently fixed by the accuracy of this catalog (namely $2\arcsec$, with an rms of $1\arcsec$). The internal accuracy of DENIS observations, derived from the identifications in the overlaps, is of the order of $0.5\arcsec$. This excellent astrometry is of course used to improve that of ISOGAL sources. The DENIS data are also extremely useful to derive the interstellar extinction toward ISOGAL sources (see Section 3).
Cross-identification of ISO and DENIS sources
---------------------------------------------
No. Name $I$ $J$ $K_s$ $[7]$ $[15]$ Cross-identifications and comments
------------ --------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------------------------------------
14 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174116.3-282957 10.75 8.00 7.23 5.86
23 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174117.5-282957 15.87 9.78 S 6.44 5.12
61 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174122.6-283148 4.17 2.30 V, IRAS17382-2830
94 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174126.3-282538 11.32 8.41 7.13 5.93
99 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174126.6-282702 17.27 10.41 7.37 6.00 4.47 V
108 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174127.3-282851 16.01 10.03 7.43 6.31 5.01 V
119 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174127.9-282816 15.30 9.63 7.14 6.66 5.67
124 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174128.5-282733 15.47 9.80 7.27 6.73 5.96 V
134 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174129.4-283113 14.78 10.19 7.98 7.33 6.68
148 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174130.4-283225 S 8.14 S 6.57 6.67 F
158 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174131.2-282815 15.06 9.89 7.51 7.01 6.51
212 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174134.4-283349 10.22 8.01 S 6.52 6.67 F
213 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174134.4-282922 S S S 4.76 3.79
218 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174134.6-282431 16.76 10.53 7.96 6.51 5.57 V
220 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174134.7-282313 15.12 10.61 8.34 7.49 7.73
252 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174137.2-282904 15.82 10.79 8.29 7.45 6.33
255 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174137.4-282630 15.62 10.59 8.17 7.46 6.93
270 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174138.3-282447 15.37 10.35 8.11 7.46 6.74
272 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174138.3-282338 15.35 10.15 7.96 7.41 6.70
275 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174138.6-282743 16.44 10.76 8.28 7.00 6.14
289 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174139.1-282644 10.31 7.55 6.65 5.68
296 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174139.5-282428 15.49 9.67 S 5.98 4.72 V
304 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174139.9-282520 15.21 9.69 7.31 6.68 4.80
310 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174140.1-282220 11.99 9.02 7.31 7.22 7.30 F
334 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174141.5-282540 16.46 10.44 8.00 7.28 6.17
335 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174141.5-281930 14.36 9.74 7.60 7.06 7.11 F
349 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174142.1-283049 15.68 11.01 8.55 7.34 6.71
362 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174142.6-282641 17.59 11.11 8.18 6.61 5.21 V
363 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174142.7-283116 11.62 8.61 6.62 5.26
391 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174144.5-282034 10.15 8.04 7.15 6.21
414 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174145.4-282824 15.28 10.44 8.15 7.41 6.40
433 ISOGAL-P J174146.5-282259 5.08 3.83
442 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174147.3-282506 16.21 10.46 8.15 7.33 6.29
511 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174151.4-281739 16.38 10.13 7.47 7.00 6.07
522 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174151.8-282455 S S S 4.72 4.88 F, V
529 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174152.1-281839 16.72 10.57 8.07 7.44 6.65
533 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174152.2-281601 13.58 10.00 7.76 6.63 6.33 V
537 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174152.6-282015 16.30 10.63 8.06 7.38 6.21
539 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174152.8-281720 14.79 10.05 7.74 7.20 6.72
548 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174153.2-282621 15.05 9.75 7.36 6.85 6.04
550 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174153.3-282535 13.76 9.80 7.69 7.34 7.31 F
552 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174153.4-282027 13.95 9.75 7.68 7.30 7.31 F
559 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174153.8-282739 17.23 11.24 8.63 7.30
576 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174154.6-282133 16.20 10.54 8.29 7.45 6.29
579 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174154.7-282659 15.05 9.26 S 5.75 4.47 V
581 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174154.8-281731 16.40 9.98 7.32 6.37 5.39 V
595 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174155.3-281638 15.66 9.59 S 5.99 4.49
606 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174155.9-282358 14.12 10.09 8.05 7.44 6.85
642 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174157.5-282237 15.39 9.91 7.60 6.94 5.86
660 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174158.7-281849 10.13 7.41 5.92 4.52
668 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174159.3-282554 11.60 8.86 S 6.99 6.79 V
674 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174159.8-281901 16.80 10.71 8.17 7.49 6.45
682 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174200.3-282303 12.20 8.16 S 5.67 4.93 F?, V
701 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174201.9-281802 16.76 10.58 8.01 7.37 6.35
716 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174202.8-282124 16.16 10.39 8.10 6.41 5.75 V, Terzan V 3126
723 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174203.2-282107 12.09 8.36 S 6.43 6.32 F
725 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174203.7-281729 16.98 10.52 7.61 5.89 4.58 V
732 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174204.3-282137 13.52 9.33 7.33 6.79 6.92 F
753 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174206.8-281832 17.59 10.68 7.65 5.49 3.87 V
791 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174213.8-281827 12.85 8.65 S 6.11 5.63 F
794 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174215.1-281850 16.34 10.37 7.78 6.86 5.85
799 ISOGAL-DENIS-P J174216.3-281947 15.49 10.34 8.05 7.18 6.71
\[table2\]
\
Cross-identifications of LW3 and LW2 sources, between themselves and with DENIS sources, provide the multi-colour data which allow discussion of the nature and properties of individual sources which makes up the bulk of this paper (Figures \[K\_JK\_DEN\] to \[7\_K7\] discussed below). The cross-identification process is also useful for determining data quality. We have now routine standard procedures for ISOGAL-ISOGAL and DENIS-ISOGAL cross-identifications (see Appendix B). A substantial fraction of the ISO sources have thus been identified with DENIS sources (93% and 84% for LW2 and LW3 sources respectively).
Cross-identifications are essential to establish the reliability of the ISOGAL detections. Indeed, because of possible residual artifacts, mainly due to pixel memory or of noise peaks simulating sources, we consider that the reality of a weak ISOGAL source is not yet well warranted here if it is not confirmed by another detection, either in the other ISOGAL band, or in the K$_s$ band. Only 9% of LW3 sources are not associated with an LW2 or a K$_s$ source. The proportion of unassociated LW2 sources is slightly smaller, 5%.
In order to check the completeness of LW3 sources, we can use the more sensitive LW2 observations; DENIS K$_s$ detections can be used in a similar way to estimate the completeness of LW2 sources (see Appendix B and Figure \[ISO\_CMPL\]). The completeness is probably close to 80% at least, for $[7]~<~9.5$ and for $[15]~<~8.5$. A more detailed analysis of the source surface density, and its implications for the structure of the Galactic bulge, will appear elsewhere, following more sophisticated modelling of source incompleteness as a function of position in this and other fields. For present purposes such an incompleteness is not a limiting factor.
The quality of ISOGAL photometry has been checked in this field and others by repeated observations (see Appendix B and Ganesh et al. in preparation). The uncertainty thus proved to be better than $\sim 0.2$ mag rms above $\sim 15$ mJy in both bands. However, there is not yet a good standard procedure to fully correct for the detector time behaviour effects for fields such as ISOGAL ones with strong sources and background. Because of that and of confusion, our photometry is thus still uncertain by a few tenths of a magnitude systematically.
In conclusion, we consider the reliability of the existence of most of the sources discussed to be well established. The completeness is also well characterised. However, the photometric accuracy can still be improved.
Table \[table2\] gives a catalogue of bright ISOGAL sources ($[7]~<~7.5$), with three-band DENIS associations and identification of foreground sources and of candidate variable stars. A complete catalogue of all ISOGAL sources will be available at CDS by October 1999, when the data reduction is improved.
Near infrared data and interstellar extinction
==============================================
The data at five wavelengths available for most of the sources allow in most cases a good characterisation of the ISOGAL sources, with some redundancy, as well as of their interstellar reddening. The very large stellar density in the inner bulge and central disk brings a considerable simplification by ensuring that the majority of the sources are located within it. In addition, it happens that the interstellar extinction is relatively small on this line of sight and nearly constant for this whole small field. The discussion of the nature of the sources and of their properties, such as mass-loss, is thus much easier.
The multi-dimensional analysis of magnitude-colour space defined by these data allows one to visualise and to determine the source properties. Deferring detailed discussions to the next sections, we limit this section to a general presentation of these diagrams and of the general information they provide about interstellar extinction, circumstellar dust emission and circumstellar absorption.
The K$_s$/J-K$_s$ magnitude-colour diagram of all DENIS sources in our field (Figure \[K\_JK\_DEN\]) shows a remarkably well-defined bulge red giant sequence shifted by fairly uniform extinction of A$_{\rm
V}$=5.8$\pm$1 mag. with respect to the reference K$_s$$_o~vs~{(J-K_s)}_o$ of Bertelli et al. ([@Bertelli94]) [^5] with Z = 0.02 and a distance modulus of 14.5 (distance to Galactic Centre 8 kpc; we have assumed that \[A$_{J}$-A$_{K_s}$\]/A$_{\rm V}$ = 0.167). Most of the extinction should thus be associated with interstellar matter outside of the bulge. We have checked from the individual values of A$_{\rm V}$ and the DENIS source counts that there is apparently no strong spatial variation of the extinction in this field. The ISOGAL sources with anomalously low values of A$_{\rm
V}$ are probably foreground. They are visible in Figure \[K\_JK\_ISO\], which shows the subset of the K$_s$/J-K$_s$ sources of Figure \[K\_JK\_DEN\] which were also detected at longer wavelengths. There is of course some uncertainty for the marginal cases: for bright sources with good photometry (K$_s$ $<$ 10), those located left of line A (A$_{v}~<~4$) are almost certainly foreground, while those to the right of line B (A$_{v}~>~4.5$) are very probably in the “bulge”, and the case is uncertain for those between lines A and B. The case of foreground ISOGAL sources will be further discussed below. Those with A$_{v}~<~4$ and with consistent data in the other diagrams are identified by special symbols in the various diagrams.
The distribution of sources about line C is dominated by photometric errors, and residual extinction variations. There is no evidence for a significant background population, more highly reddened, in the disk beyond the Galactic centre, though a few such sources may be present. Similarly, it is difficult from just these data to identify any intrinsic red J-K$_s$ excess in sources below the RGB-tip, which is near K$_{s,0}~=~8.2$ (Tiede et al [@Tiede96]). The J-K$_s$ excess of the six bright sources much redder than line D is very probably related to an intrinsic J-K$_s$ excess generated by a relatively thick dusty circumstellar shell, as confirmed by the very large value of K$_s$-\[15\] for these sources (see Section 6). A few other sources, just redder than line D in Figure \[K\_JK\_ISO\], might also have an intrinsic J-K$_s$ excess. Only in the situation of relatively small, foreground, and uniform interstellar extinction, could even a fraction of the AGB stars with high mass-loss be identified, and their mass-loss characterised, from the near-infrared DENIS (or 2MASS) data alone. In general, longer wavelength data are critical.
The I band data, when they exist, can provide additional interesting constraints. However, the much larger spread of intrinsic I-J values in the bulk of the distribution, compared to J-K$_s$ complicates the identification of foreground sources from I-J data alone. While (J-K$_s$)$_{\rm o}$ is confined to a very small range ($\sim~$0.5 mag) for most sources, it is well known (see, e.g., Frogel & Whitford [@Frogel87], Appendix A) that there is a large spread in the I magnitudes of bulge AGB giants and hence in (I-J)$_{\rm
o}$, that we find ranging over more than 2 magnitudes. Such a spread is certainly related to the behaviour of the TiO absorption bands, and hence probably to the metallicity. However, there is as yet no very detailed modelling of this behaviour.
The average value of I-J increases by about 1.5 mag. along the intermediate-AGB sequence defined in Section 5.
The Nature of the ISOGAL Sources
================================
As discussed below, the most numerous classes of sources detected both at 7 & 15 $\mu$m in the ISOGAL survey are probably “bulge” intermediate AGB stars or RGB tip stars with low mass-loss, and high mass-loss rate AGB stars ($\dot M~\ge~10^{-7}M_{\odot}$/yr). These are discussed in detail below. In this section we consider first minor populations in the survey.
There are practically no good young star candidates among ISOGAL sources in this field. They should be found among sources with large 15$\mu$m excess that are too faint to be AGB stars with large mass-loss. There are no really convincing cases in the diagrams of Figures \[15\_K15\] & \[15\_715\] ( however, see Section 5). This is consistent with the relatively small value of A$_v$, indicating that there is no very thick molecular cloud on the line of sight.
Foreground stars with little or no reddening
--------------------------------------------
Some 40 stars ($\sim7\%$ of ISOGAL sources with DENIS counterparts) which lie to the left of line A (A$_{\rm V}$$\sim$4) in Figure \[K\_JK\_ISO\] are probably foreground stars, in front of the main line of sight extinction. This is independently confirmed by another colour for most of them. The brightest 19 stars, with K$_s$$ \la$ 9, are detected in LW3 with colours 0.1$ < $K$_s$-\[15\]$ < $0.5 and apparent magnitudes consistent with their being foreground disk giants. The fainter sources are consistent with being either M giants with very low reddening, or moderately reddened disk K giants.
One should add to these probable foreground stars, a few very bright sources saturated in the DENIS data. Seven such stars are thus tentatively identified in the ISO data. Let us stress that the identification of foreground stars is more difficult for bright sources (K $\la$ 8) because the intrinsic colour (J-K$_s$)$_0$ is more uncertain. Altogether, we have thus identified about 8% of the ISOGAL sources as foreground stars. They are distinguished by special symbols in Figures \[K\_JK\_ISO\] to \[7\_K7\].
7$\mu$m sources without 15$\mu$m detections
-------------------------------------------
As described above, the ISOGAL sensitivity is much greater in the LW2 band than in the LW3 band for red giants with no or little dust. The number of sources detected in LW2 is more than twice that in LW3. Most sources detected with LW2 and not with LW3 are fainter in the LW2 and K$_s$ bands than are the detected LW3 sources (see Figure \[7\_K7\]).
We are able to define the nature of these sources reliably, since the interstellar extinction is well characterised on this line of sight. Few, if any, of the sources detected only at 7 $\mu$m can have intrinsic infrared excess, from circumstellar dust, or they would have been readily detected at 15 $\mu$m. The foreground sources are identifiable from combination of the DENIS and 7 $\mu$m flux. Thus, one may isolate those sources which are predominately bulge RGB sources, below the RGB tip (see Figure \[7\_K7\]). An analysis of the bulge density distribution of both AGB and RGB stars, based on their surface density distribution, will be provided elsewhere. This analysis however requires very careful modelling, as the faint source counts are strongly affected by incompleteness (see e.g. Unavane et al [@Unavane98]).
Mid-Infrared Data and Intermediate AGB stars
============================================
The main additional information in the ISO mid-infrared bands with respect to the shorter wavelength data solely from DENIS, is the much increased sensitivity to emission from cold circumstellar dust. This is well exemplified by the J-K$_s$/K$_s$-\[15\] colour-colour diagram of Figure \[JK\_K15\]. While the range of J-K$_s$ values is restricted to $\sim$0.5 mag for most sources (with another 0.5 mag for a few sources), K$_s$-\[15\] ranges from 0 to 2.2 for the bulk of the sources (with an extension up to 4 magnitudes for a few sources). The colours \[7\]-\[15\] and K$_s$-\[7\] (Figures \[15\_715\] & \[7\_K7\]) also display large ranges of excess, although somewhat smaller than for K$_s$-\[15\].
As we discuss now, only the presence of circumstellar dust can explain such a large excess; only a portion of it can be attributed to the very cold photosphere.
\[Table3\]
[lccccccccc]{}\
\
& & & & & & & & &\
\
\
Tip & 2.2 & 1.4 & 5.8 & 8.0 & 1.8 & 7.5 & -7.0 & -4.0 & 3200\
Base & 0.4 & 0.0 & 8.5 & 8.9 & 0 & 8.4 & -6.1 & -3.1 & 1400\
\
[*Notes.*]{} $^{(a)}$ with a distance modulus of 14.5 (D = 8 kpc)\
$^{(b)}$ with the K bolometric correction M$_{bol}$ - M$_{\rm
Ks}$ = 3.0 (Groenewegen [@Groenewegen97]), which yields M$_{bol}$$\sim$K$_s$-12 in this field.
In the magnitude-colour diagrams \[15\]/K$_s$-\[15\] and \[15\]/\[7\]-\[15\] (Figures \[15\_K15\] & \[15\_715\], respectively), the majority of the sources follow a loose linear sequence. Characteristic values of the colours and magnitudes corresponding to the two ends of this sequence are given in Table 3. The magnitude of the lower end of the sequence accidently coincides with the ISOGAL sensitivity at 15$\mu$m. It is almost exactly that of the tip of the bulge RGB ( $K_{\rm
o} \sim$ 8.2, Tiede et al [@Tiede96], $K_{\rm
o} \sim$ 8.0, Frogel et al [@Frogel99]) [^6].
Since there is some uncertainty about the position of the base of the sequence with respect to the RGB tip, it is difficult to know whether the 15$\mu$m sources with the smaller infrared excess (K$_s$-\[15\]$~\la~1$) are intermediate-AGB or RGB-tip stars. However , most of the sequence with larger 15 $\mu$m excess (K$_s$-\[15\]$~\ga 1$) seems to correspond to AGB stars up to $\sim$1 mag in K$_s$ brighter than the RGB tip. This K$_{s0}$ magnitude range, 7.5 - 8.5, corresponds to M spectral types from M6 to M9 (see Table 3A of Frogel & Whitford [@Frogel87] and Figs 10 and 12 of Glass et al. [@Glass99]). Since these stars are fainter by one or two magnitudes in K$_s$$_{\rm o}$ or M$_{bol}$ than the few very luminous AGB stars discussed in Section 6, we propose to describe this sequence as “the intermediate-AGB mass-loss sequence”.
There are also some stars with large 15$\mu$m excess (K$_s$-\[15\]$~>~1$) apparently significantly below the RGB tip (see Figure \[K\_K15\]). However, we have checked that the majority (8 out of 13) have very poor photometry because of blends. The nature of the few remaining cases is unclear: photometry or association problems, background AGBs, young stars or red giants below the RGB tip (AGB or RGB) with mass-loss?
In order to explore the amount of circumstellar dust involved and its properties, we have used the models developed by one of us (MG) which calculate absolute magnitudes within the relevant ISOCAM and DENIS filters. The most robust conclusion from the models is confirmation of the need for circumstellar dust to achieve such large infrared excess with respect to photospheric emission. Without dust the K$_s$-\[15\] colours for giant spectral types M5, M8 and M10 are only 0.15, 0.55 and 1.07, respectively. As concerns the specific dust model, in the absence of detailed information, the simplest assumption is a time-independent dust mass-loss rate $\dot M_{dust}$. Of course the value of $\dot M_{dust}$ inferred from the DENIS-ISOGAL colours strongly depends on the assumed intrinsic dust properties. Depending on these properties, the dust mass-loss rate of the tip of the intermediate AGB sequence ranges from $\dot M_{dust}$ = $\sim$10$^{-10}~M_{\odot}$/yr to $\sim$5 10$^{-10}~M_{\odot}$/yr. The infrared colours of the beginning of the intermediate AGB sequence imply mass-loss rates 10-30 times smaller than for the tip.
An appropriate value of the dust-to-gas ratio during mass loss remains an open question. The range of spectral type and of mass-loss rate discussed above is typically the domain of validity of the Reimers formula (1975) for the total mass-loss rate $\dot M$. For M$_{bol}$ = $-$4, this formula gives $\dot M \sim 6~10^{-8}$M$_{\odot}$/yr. If one assumes that this result, derived in the solar neighbourhood, can still be applied to bulge stars with the same luminosity, it yields a gas-to-dust ratio in the range $\sim$100-500, depending on the dust properties. However, the gas-to-dust ratio should be significantly smaller at the base than at the tip of the “intermediate-AGB sequence” of Figure \[15\_K15\].
The nature of the dust of bulge stars with weak mass-loss will be discussed in a forthcoming paper (Blommaert et al. in preparation) from the ISOCAM-CVF spectral observation (5-16.5 $\mu$m) of a few $3\arcmin \times 3\arcmin$ ISOCAM fields in the bulge.
Let us stress that the intermediate AGB stars in the central Galactic bulge with low mass-loss rates (several 10$^{-9}$ to close to 10$^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr) seem rather similar in their properties to Solar Neighbourhood IRAS AGB stars with typical \[12\]-\[25\] colours in the range 0.2-1 (Guglielmo 1993, unpublished PhD thesis, Hacking et al. [@Hacking85]).
Luminous Bulge AGB Stars
========================
The apparently brightest stars detected by ISO at mid-infrared wavelengths form a loose group of $\sim$ 30 sources (see Figure \[15\_715\]) taking into account those saturated in DENIS bands, in the various magnitude-colour diagrams. They are brighter than the tip of the sequence of “intermediate-AGB” sources, which we have shown are AGB stars with low mass-loss rates. These stars have \[15\]$ \la$ 6, \[7\]$ \la$ 7, and K$_s$$ \la$ 8 in the various figures. Note that with conversion between K$_s$ and M$_{bol}$ (Table 3), this limit corresponds to M$_{bol}
$$ \la$ -4.
A large proportion ($\sim$$2/3$) have at least two very red colours among K$_s$-\[15\]$ > $2.0, \[7\]-\[15\]$ > $1.2, K$_s$-\[7\]$ > $1.0 and J-K$_s$ $ > $2.8, characteristic of larger mass-loss than for the intermediate-AGB sequence. It is tempting to identify them with the onset of the AGB “large mass loss” at $\dot
M$$ \sim $10$^{-7}~M_{\odot}$/yr. It is known that such a strong wind is classically associated with long period variability (LPV, see, e.g. Habing [@Habing96] and references therein). From the SIMBAD data base, we have found two LPV stars previously identified in this field, and (Terzan & Gosset [@Terzan91]). IRAS17382-2830 is an OH/IR star with S$_{25\mu
m}$/S$_{12\mu m}$ = 2.12. It is denoted by “I” in Figure \[15\_715\]. Remarkably, this source (together with two other very bright 15$\mu$m sources) is not detected in our 1996 DENIS observations. Its derived colours are extremely red: K$_s$-\[7\]$ > $7, K$_s$-\[15\]$ > $9. Such very red colours are confirmed by the 1998 DENIS observations (see Table 1) where the source is detected, giving K$_s$ = 11.7, K$_s$-\[7\]$ = $7.56 and K$_s$-\[15\]$ = $9.43 (Schultheis et al, in preparation). These extreme near-IR colours are consistent with its very cold 12/25$\mu$m IRAS colour (see, e.g., Blommaert et al. [@JBlommaert98]).
In order to investigate variability in this field we compared the observations performed with $6\arcsec$ pixels, at two different dates (see Table 1) with both LW2 and LW3 filters. We consider that a bright source is a candidate to be considered for variability, when there is a 3$
\sigma$ difference in one band, or consistent weaker indications in both bands. The sources selected in this way are displayed with special symbols in Figures \[K\_JK\_ISO\] to \[7\_K7\]. We emphasise that this is just a positive indication in favor of variability, but without any rigorous statistical meaning. In particular, the significance of the candidate variables on the intermediate AGB sequence (Figure \[15\_K15\]) is unclear, since they are not confirmed by variability in DENIS data (Schultheis et al. in preparation), and it is known that there is no strong variables on this sequence in Baade’s Window (Glass et al [@Glass99]). On the other hand, with observations at only three epochs, we can miss a few variables. This is the case for example for the known variable Terzan V 3126.
A first striking feature in the distribution of these suspected variables is their high proportion in the regions of the magnitude-colour diagrams corresponding to the high mass-loss AGB stars defined above ($\dot M$$ \ga $10$^{-7}M_{\odot}$/yr) and delimited in Figures \[K\_JK\_ISO\], \[JK\_K15\], \[15\_K15\], \[15\_715\] and \[7\_K7\]. In all cases these candidate variables are at least 50$\%$ of the stars found there. Their proportion exceeds 80$\%$ in Figure \[7\_K7\] (\[7\]$ < $7.0, \[7\]-\[15\]$~>~$1.0. This region of the \[7\] $vs$ \[7\]$~-~$\[15\] plane has been shown from analysis of ISOGAL data by Glass et al. ([@Glass99]) to be best correlated with the LPV phenomenon in Baade Window fields. This identification of luminous variable stars using ISO photometry has been confirmed by preliminary comparisons of DENIS data at two epochs (Schultheis et al, in preparation), in particular for most individual stars of this field. Altogether, we have 16 candidate LPVs among the 33 brightest stars (\[7\] $ < $ 7.0).
Most of the sources with \[7\] $ < $ 7 which are not candidate LPVs are grouped in the region 6.4 $ < $ \[7\] $ < $ 7, 0.4 $ < $ K$_s$ - \[7\] $ < $ 1. Out of 12 sources there, only two are candidate variables. Of course, we have not enough data to claim with any certainty that any given star among the 10 other is not a variable. However, it is clear, from comparison with the similar group with K$_s$ - \[7\] $ > $ 1 where almost all stars are candidate variables, that the majority of these 10 stars are not strong variables. The relationship of this apparently non-variable group with AGB stars of similar K magnitude which are LPVs, and the relationship with less bright AGBs with however similar colours is still unclear (see also Glass et al [@Glass99]). It will be interesting to check in particular whether the difference between variable and non variable AGB stars in apparently similar evolutionary states is related to differences in metallicity or initial mass, or to a difference in mass loss history on the AGB. Another possibility is that most of the “non variable” bright stars are in the inner disk with $D~<~8~kpc$, since their values of J-K$_s$ are smaller than the average value (curve C in Figure \[K\_JK\_ISO\]) for most of them.
Conclusion
==========
ISOGAL, combining ISOCAM and DENIS data, is providing the first detailed and systematic mid-infrared study of an inner bulge field with sufficient sensitivity to isolate the entire AGB population. The ISOGAL performance allows a breakthrough in the analysis of infrared stellar populations, with an improvement of two orders of magnitude with respect to IRAS. The density of detected sources is close to the confusion limit with 3$\arcsec$ pixels at 7 $\mu$m. As expected, most of the sources are M giants of the bulge or central disk. In the low reddening fields analysed to date practically all bulge giants have near-infrared DENIS counterparts. This high proportion of associations is possible only because of the very good DENIS astrometry and the relatively good astrometry with ISOCAM. Sources detected above our completeness limit at 15 $\mu$m are mainly just above the RGB tip; they are thus mostly AGB stars. Sources detected only at 7 $\mu$m are mainly normal bulge red giants just below the RGB tip.
The completeness and reliability of detection at 7 $\mu$m and 15 $\mu$m of point sources are high and well quantified down to $\sim~$15 mJy and $\sim~$10 mJy respectively. The photometric accuracy is reduced by a variety of effects: by the complex time- and illumination history-dependant behaviour of ISOCAM pixels, especially in regions with a very high density of bright sources, and also by the integration time available for a wide-area survey. However, the photometric accuracy we have achieved is good enough to be able to take advantage of the rich information provided by the combination of the five wavelength data of ISOGAL+DENIS. Of particular importance is our ability to detect reliably quite small reddening-corrected 15 $\mu$m excesses. A detailed analysis of the stellar populations is also much eased by the overwhelming preponderance of bulge or central disk stars with a well defined distance, and, in the present field, by the relatively low and constant interstellar reddening in front of the whole field studied. We have shown here that our ISOGAL survey is ideal (though not unique) for analysis of AGB stars with large mass-loss rates ($\dot M~\ge~10^{-7}M_{\odot}$/yr), by providing a complete census in the field, independent of large amplitude variability.
The most important conclusion for future analyses from the present analysis is our demonstration that the combination of near-IR (DENIS) and mid-IR (7 $\mu$m and 15 $\mu$m) ISOGAL data allows reliable detection of circumstellar dust and low rates of mass-loss in bulge AGB stars not deducible from near-infrared data alone. ISOGAL is uniquely suitable for systematic studies of AGB stars with low rates of mass-loss in the whole inner Galaxy, especially in the bulge. The very small amounts of dust associated with low rates of mass loss are undetectable in the near-infrared, both in absorption and in emission, while being readily detectable at 15 $ \mu$m. Stars with low rates of mass loss are too faint to have been detectable by IRAS, except in the solar neighbourhood; most of them will escape detection by MSX because of the confusion limit arising from the 18$\arcsec$ MSX pixels, which have areas almost an order of magnitude larger than those used for ISOGAL. Although mid-infrared evidence for dust emission corresponding to low rates of mass loss is seen in the IRAS data for AGB stars in the solar neighbourhood, inevitable distance uncertainties make the analysis of such IRAS data for mass-loss rates and AGB evolution much less clear-cut.
The most important immediate scientific conclusion of this paper is our detection of low rates of mass loss which are ubiquitous for red giants with luminosities just above or possibly close to the RGB tip, and thus still in relatively early stages. The most luminous of these stars, that we defined as “intermediate” AGB (in the early AGB thermal pulse phase), form a well defined sequence in the \[15\]/K$_s$-\[15\] and \[15\]/\[7\]-\[15\] magnitude-colour planes. In order to explain the colours the presence of dust is required, with (model-dependant) dust mass-loss rates of a few 10$^{-11}~M_{\odot}$/yr. It is thus well established that dust formation is already associated with weak mass-loss during the early TP-AGB phase, This obviously puts important constraints on the physics of dust formation.
These first results can obviously be improved and exploited in several ways. For the data presented for this specific field, we still hope to improve the photometry and the reliability of the ISOGAL data, in particular by including the verification observations not yet fully exploited. The study of mass-losing red giants will be extended to the other 200 ISOGAL fields : i) in a straightforward way to the other ISOGAL bulge fields with $ |b|~>~1^{0}$, as already done for the ISOGAL observations of two Baade Window fields (Glass et al. [@Glass99]); ii) to the bulk of the ISOGAL fields closer to the Galactic plane, where there is large and variable extinction, and where the uncertainty on the distance and the mixing with young stars somewhat complicate the analysis. We are currently analysing the surface density of the various classes of AGB stars to characterize the structure and stellar populations of the bulge, to determine to what extent it is meaningful to consider the various structures: bulge, central disk, bar, central cluster, and so on.
As concerns the theoretical interpretation, much work is still needed in order to:
i\) Improve the models of red giants with weak mass-loss both for photospheric and for dust emission. Many questions can be addressed: what is the chemical nature of the dust, considering silicates and possible other components; is the base of the large spread we have observed in I-J colours at fixed luminosity a metallicity effect; and more generally, how can we disentangle the effects due to initial mass, age and metallicity?
ii\) Use our ISOGAL results to further constrain the models of dust formation and of TP-AGB evolution, and in particular: determine whether dust formation can begin in RGB stars close to the RGB tip, or whether it is specific of AGB stars; and explain dust formation in the context of very weak mass-loss.
[*Acknowledgements*]{}\
This work was carried out in the context of EARA, the European Association for Research in Astronomy. We would like to thank M. Pérault, P. Hennebelle, S. Ott, R. Gastaud, H. Aussel, and F. Viallefond for useful discussions during the course of the reduction of the ISO data. We thank the referees, especially, J.A. Frogel, for their very constructive and useful suggestions. SG was supported by a fellowship from the Ministere des Affaires Etrangères, France. MS acknowledges the receipt of an ESA fellowship. The DENIS project is partially funded by European Commission through SCIENCE and Human Capital and Mobility plan grants. It is also supported, in France by the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers, the Education Ministry and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, in Germany by the State of Baden-Würtemberg, in Spain by the DG1CYT, in Italy by the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, in Austria by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung und Bundesministerium für Wissenshaft und Forschung, in Brazil by the Foundation for the development of Scientific Research of the State of Sao Paulo (FAPESP), and in Hungary by an OTKA grant and an ESOC&EE grant.
Definition of ISOGAL Fluxes and Magnitudes
==========================================
The fluxes and magnitudes used were defined in the following way (Blommaert [@Blommaert98]). The ISOCAM units of ADU/gain/sec were first converted into mJy/pixel units within CIA, with the conversion factors:
$$F(mJy) = (ADU/G/s)/2.33
\label{eq:cnv1}$$
for LW2 and
$$F(mJy) = (ADU/G/s)/1.97
\label{eq:cnv2}$$
for LW3. These are correct for a F$_{\lambda}$ $\sim$ $\lambda$$^{-1}$ power spectrum at wavelengths 6.7 $\mu$m and 14.3 $\mu$m respectively.
Magnitudes are defined by $$mag(LW2) = [7] = 12.39 - 2.5 \times log[F_{LW2}(mJy)]
\label{eq:cnv3}$$
$$mag(LW3) = [15] = 10.74 - 2.5 \times log[F_{LW3}(mJy)]
\label{eq:cnv4}$$
where the zero point has been chosen to provide zero magnitude for a Vega model flux (A0V star, not including the infrared excess emission of the circumstellar disk) at the respective wavelengths mentioned earlier.
Details of Data Reduction and Quality; Cross-Identifications
============================================================
ISOGAL
------
The special procedure for ISOGAL source extraction, developed by Alard et al ( in preparation), uses several “CIA” [^7] procedures not yet implemented in the standard (auto-analysis) treatment (corrections for distortion of the ISOCAM field, and for time behaviour \[“vision” and “ inversion” methods\]). It also includes a sophisticated source extraction, after a regularisation of the point-spread-function (PSF). Indeed, there is not yet a good standard procedure to fully correct for the time behaviour effects for fields such as ISOGAL ones with strong sources and background. Here we have used the fluxes given by the “inversion” method, which provides better photometry, but we have used the “vision” method to identify and drop the false sources generated by the detector “memory” of bright sources previously observed at a different location on the sky, but in the same pixel.
After the elimination of the false replication sources, the source counts in this field are 599 and 282 respectively in LW2 (\[7\] $ < $ 9.75) and LW3 (\[15\] $ < $ 8.5) . This is indeed close to the confusion limit for LW2 sources (85 pixels \[$3\arcsec \times 3\arcsec$\] per source, density 1.7 10$^4$ deg$^{-2}$), but farther from this limit for LW3 ones (8.1 10$^3$ deg$^{-2}$).
DENIS
-----
For DENIS sources, the sensitivity is mostly limited by confusion in the K$_s$ and J bands ($\sim 7.7 \times 10^4~deg^{-2}$ \[for K$_s$ $<$ 12 and J $<$ 14\], giving $\sim$19 pixels $(3\arcsec \times 3\arcsec)$ per source). The completeness limit is thus probably close to 11.5 in the K$_s$ band and 13.5 in the J band. The density at the sensitivity limit in the I band, $\sim18$ , is farther from confusion (density $\sim 1.3~10^5 deg^{-2}$ with $1\arcsec
\times 1\arcsec$ pixels).
Independent magnitudes are available for many DENIS sources in the overlap region between adjacent observations. Analysis of these repeated observations shows that the internal dispersion in the photometry, in this crowded region, is less than 0.1 mag for K$_s$ $<$ 11, J $<$ 13.5 and I $<$ 16.5 (it rises to 0.18 mag for K$_s$ $<$ 13, 0.13 mag for J $<$ 14.5 and 0.2 for I $<$ 17.5). For the determination of the zero point all standard stars observed in this night have been used. We derived the following zero points: $\rm I = 23.45$, $\rm J = 21.59$ and $\rm K_{s} = 19.85$, respectively. The internal rms in the zero-points is found to be 0.03, 0.07 and 0.04 mag in the K$_s$, J and I bands respectively.
Cross-Identifications
---------------------
We have now routine standard procedures for ISOGAL-ISOGAL and DENIS-ISOGAL cross-identifications (Copet et al. in preparation). The good quality of the pointing of ISO and of the correction of the ISOCAM field distortions permits, after optimisation of a small rotation-translation of the fields, a reduction of the rms of the nominal offsets of matched sources to $\sim 0.6\arcsec$ and $\sim 1.1\arcsec$ for LW3/LW2 and ISOGAL/DENIS respectively. However, the search radius was fixed at a large value, 2.7$\arcsec$, for LW3/LW2 associations in order not to miss associations. The chance of spurious association with an LW2 source is then $\sim 4\%$. Because of the very high density of DENIS sources, the search radius was reduced to 2.1$\arcsec$ for the DENIS/ISOGAL associations. Nevertheless, the density of the DENIS sources is so high that the chance of spurious associations remains $\sim~10\%$ for K$_s$ sources with K$_s$ $<$ 12. The chance of spurious association is reduced to $5\%$ when one limits the associations to K$_s$ = 11. A substantial fraction of the ISO sources have thus been identified with DENIS sources. Out of a total number of 599 LW2 sources, 557 ($93\%$) are matched with a K$_s$ $<$ 12 source, 552 with a JK$_s$ source and 522 with an IJK$_s$ source. Out of 282 LW3 sources, 248 ($86\%$) are matched with an LW2 source, 237 ($84\%$) with a JK$_s$/LW2, and 221 (78$\%$) with an IJK$_s$/LW2 source. The number of LW2/LW3 sources without K$_s$ or LW3/K$_s$ sources without LW2 is very small, 10 in both cases .
ISOGAL Completeness and Photometry
----------------------------------
In order to check the completeness of LW3 sources, we can use the more sensitive LW2 observations. One can check, for instance, that only 13 LW2 sources with \[7\] $<$ 8.3, among 183 in total, are missing in LW3. From the known range of values of \[7\] - \[15\], we can conclude from Figure \[ISO\_CMPL\] that the completeness of LW3 sources is close to $100\%$ for \[15\] $<$ 7.5 ($\sim20$ mJy) and $\sim65-90\%$ in the range 7.5 $<$ \[15\] $<$ 8.5 ($\sim8-20$ mJy).
DENIS K$_s$ detections can be used in a similar way to estimate the completeness of LW2 sources. Figure \[ISO\_CMPL\] compares the number of LW2 sources detected per half magnitude bin with an approximate estimate of the number expected from K$_s$ sources with typical colours. It is seen that the detections are practically complete for \[7\] $<$ 8.5 ($\sim 35$ mJy) and that they remain more than 80$\%$ complete for 8.5 $<$ \[7\] $<$ 9.5 ($\sim 15 - 35$ mJy); however, the completeness rapidly decreases below $\sim~15$ mJy. This incompleteness is mainly due to confusion.
The quality of ISOGAL photometry has been checked in this field (Table 1) and others by repeated observations both with 6$\arcsec$ pixels (Ganesh et al. in preparation). The uncertainty thus proved to be better than $\sim 0.2$ mag rms above $\sim 15$ mJy in both bands. It is poorer for weaker sources, especially in the LW3 band. One can expect a similar repeatibility accuracy with 3$\arcsec$ pixels. However, this does not take into account systematic errors. In particular, the comparison of the 3$\arcsec$ and 6$\arcsec$ pixels measurements which were performed on this field shows a small systematic difference in the fluxes, with average differences up to 0.1-0.2 mag rms. Further work is in progress to understand these details, but the effect may be explained by the source confusion as is discussed in DePoy et al ([@Depoy93]). Our photometry is thus still uncertain by a few tenths of a magnitude systematically.
The photometry is expected to be poorer on the edges of the ISOGAL image: in such a small raster (4 $\times$ 7 pointings), $\sim 40\%$ the image is observed with a single exposure instead of the double exposure on average for the points of the central part. In addition, the source extraction is not able to recover the full intensity of sources very close to the edges within a few pixels.
Bertelli, G., et al., 1994 A&AS, 106, 275\
Binney, J.J., Gerhard, O.E., and Spergel D.N., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 365\
Blommaert, J.A.D.L, 1998: ISOCAM Photometry Report, http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/users/expl\_lib/CAM\_list.html\
Blommaert, J.A.D.L., van der Ween, W.E.C.J., van Langevelde, H.J., Habing, H.J., Sjouwerman, L.O., 1998, A&A 329, 991\
Cesarsky, C., et al. 1996 A&A, 315L, 32\
Cutri, R. M. 1998, BAAS, 30, No. 2,$\#$64.02.\
Depoy, D.L., Terndrup, D.M., Frogel, J.A., Atwood, B., Blum, R., 1993,AJ 105,2121\
Egan, M.P., Shipman, R.F., Price, S.D., Carey, S.J., Clark, F.O., Cohen, M., 1998, ApJ 494, 199\
Epchtein N., et al., 1997, Messenger 87, 27\
Frogel, J.A., Whitford, A.E., 1987, ApJ 320, 199 (FW)\
Frogel, J.A., Terndrup, D.M., Blanco, V.M., Whitford, A.E., 1990, ApJ 353, 494\
Frogel, J.A., Tiede, G.P., Kuchinski, L.E., 1999, AJ in press (astro-ph/9901328)\
Glass, I.S., Whitelock, P.A., Catchpole, R.M., Feast, M.W., 1995, MNRAS 273, 383\
Glass, I.S., Ganesh, S., Alard, C., Blommaert, J.A.D.L., Gilmore, G., Lloyd Evans, T., Omont, A., Schultheis, S., Simon, G., 1999, MNRAS in press (astro-ph/9904010)\
Groenewegen, M.A.T., 1997, in “The Impact of Large Scale Near-IR Sky Surveys”, F. Garzon et al. (eds). Kluwer. Page 165\
Guglielmo, F., 1993, Thesis, Universite Paris VII\
Habing, H.J., 1996, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 7, 97\
Hacking, P., et al., 1985, PASP 97, 616\
Le Bertre, T., Lebre, A., Waelkens, C. 1999, eds, Proceedings of IAU Symposium 191\
Omont A. & The ISOGAL Collaboration 1999, in “Astrophysics with Infrared Surveys: A Prelude to SIRTF”, Pasadena, ASP Conference Series, in press\
Omont A. et al. 1999b, to appear in ’The Universe as seen by ISO’, eds. P. Cox and M.F. Kessler, ESA Special Publications series (SP-427)\
Pérault M., Omont A., Simon G., Séguin P., Ojha D., Blommaert J., Felli M., Gilmore G., Guglielmo F., Habing H., Price S., Robin A., de Batz B., Cesarsky C., Elbaz D., Epchtein N., Fouqué P., Guest S., Levine D., Pollock A., Prusti T., Siebenmorgen R., Testi L., Tiphène D., 1996, A&A 315, L165\
Persson, S.E., Murphy, D.C., Krzeminski, W., Roth, M., Rieke, M.J., 1998, AJ 116, 2475\
Price, S.D., Tedesco, E.F., Cohen, M., Walker, R.G., Henry, R.C., Moshir, M., Paxton, L.J., Witterborn, F.C., 1997, IAU Symp. 179, p115\
Reimers, D., 1975, in “Problems in Stellar Atmospheres and Envelopes” B. Baschek , W.H. Kegel, G. Traving (eds), Springer, Berlin, p 229\
Skrutskie, M.F. et al. 1997, in “The Impact of Large Scale Near-IR Sky Surveys,” p187-195, F. Garzon et al. (eds.), Kluwer (Netherlands).\
Terzan, A. , Gosset E., 1991, A&AS 90, 451\
Tiede, G.P., Frogel, J.A., Terndrup, D.M., 1996, AJ 110, 2788\
Unavane, M., Gilmore, G., Epchtein, N., Simon, G., Tiphene, D., de Batz, B., 1998, MNRAS 295, 119\
van der Veen, W.E.C.J., Habing, H.J., 1990, A&A 231, 404\
[^1]: This is paper no. 4 in a refereed journal based on data from the ISOGAL project
[^2]: Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA
[^3]: Partly based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla Chile
[^4]: see Cesarsky et al. [@Cesarsky96] for a general reference to ISOCAM operation and performances
[^5]: The isochrones by Bertelli et al. have been computed in the ESO system using the ESO filter curves. From NIR spectra for a sample of oxygen-rich M stars and carbon stars, K-K$_s$ values have been computed. The differences are very small (on average about 0.04 mag for the M giants), so concerning the internal dispersion in K we can neglect it. This result is in agreement with Persson et al. ([@Persson98]) who presented a new grid of infrared standard stars in J, H, K and K$_s$.
[^6]: The magnitude spread from the line of sight effect of the bulge is very model-dependant. Perhaps the most reliable first estimate can be derived from recent models of the COBE photometry (Binney et al. [@Binney97]), which Glass et al ([@Glass99]) show are reasonably consistent with the ISOGAL source counts in the inner Galaxy. These analyses derive a bulge density profile which is approximately exponential with scale length smaller than 300pc. For an adopted galacto-centric distance of 8kpc, this introduces a width of $\sim$ 0.1mag per scale length. In their study of Sgr I Miras, Glass et al 1995 have found a dispersion sigma of 0.35 mag from the regression line in the K logP diagram. This gives an upper limit for the dispersion caused by front-to-back spread, at least in the Sgr I region. Thus, line of sight spreads in the photometry, for fields near the minor axis where systematic bar-induced effects are unimportant, are probably small compared to other uncertainties. Of course, the magnitude spread is much larger for the minor, but non negligible, number of sources of the central disk: $\sim$0.9 mag per 2.7 kpc scale length
[^7]: “CIA” is a joint development by the ESA Astrophysics Division and the ISOCAM Consortium.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we consider a control problem of a linear Euler-Bernoulli damped beam equation with potential in dimension one with periodic boundary conditions. We derive a new Carleman estimate for an adjoint of the equation under consideration. Then using a well known duality argument we obtain explicitly the control function which can be used to drive the solution trajectory of the control problem to zero state.'
address: 'Sourav Mitra, Institute of Mathematics, University of Würzburg, 97074, Germany'
author:
- Sourav Mitra
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Carleman estimate for an adjoint of a damped beam equation and an application to null controllability
---
[^1]
[**[Key words]{}.**]{} Euler-Bernoulli damped beam equation, potential, Carleman estimate, null controllability.\
[**[AMS subject classifications]{}.**]{} 35K41, 93B05, 93B07, 35E99, 74D99.
Introduction
============
Statement of the problem
------------------------
Let $d$ and $L$ are positive constants and ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}$ is the one dimensional torus identified with $(-L,d+L)$ with periodic conditions. In this article we consider the following control problem corresponding to the Euler-Bernoulli damped beam equation: $$\label{dampedbeam}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\partial_{tt}\beta-\partial_{txx}\beta+\partial_{xxxx}\beta+a\beta=v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega} \,& \mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,T),
\vspace{1.mm}\\
\displaystyle\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{0}\quad \mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t}\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{1}\, &\mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $a=a(x,t)\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))$ is a potential, $$\label{controlzone}
\begin{array}{l}
\omega=(-L,0)\cup(d,d+L)
\end{array}$$ and $\chi_{\omega}$ represents the characteristics function corresponding to the set $\omega.$ The set $\omega$ will correspond to the boundary control zone for the damped beam equation.\
The central theorem of the present article is based on proving a new Carleman estimate for the formal adjoint to the differential operator $$\label{formaloperator}
\begin{array}{l}
(\partial_{tt}-\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}),
\end{array}$$ with an observation on the set $\omega\times(0,T).$ As an application of this Carleman estimate we then construct a suitable boundary control function $v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega}$ such that the unknowns $\beta,$ the beam displacement and $\partial_{t}\beta,$ the beam velocity satisfy the following controllability requirement $$\label{controlrequirement}
\begin{array}{l}
(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)(\cdot,T)=0,
\end{array}$$ for some positive time $T>0.$ There is no restriction over the controllability time $T.$\
To state the central result of the present article we have to introduce some suitable weight functions.
Construction of the weight functions {#Conw8fn}
------------------------------------
Let $s (\geqslant 1)$ and $\lambda(\geqslant 1)$ be two positive parameters.\
$1.$ We first introduce a function $\eta$ on ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}$ such that $$\label{eta*}
\begin{array}{l}
\eta\in C^{6}({\mathbb{T}}_{L}),\,\, \eta(x)>0\,\,\mbox{in}\,\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}},
\\
\mbox{inf} \left\{|\nabla\eta(x)|
{\;\ifnum\currentgrouptype=16 \middle\fi|\;}x\in{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}
\setminus\omega\right\}
>0.
\end{array}$$ $2.$ Next we will define a weight function in the time variable. Let $T_{0}>0,$ $T_{1}>0,$ are such that $$\label{relT01ep}
\begin{split}
2T_{0}+2T_{1}<T.
\end{split}$$ Now we choose a weight function $\theta(t) \in C^4(0,T)$ such that $$\label{theta}
\theta(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
&\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{2}},\,\,&\forall\,\, t\in[0,T_{0}],\smallskip\\
&\theta\, \mbox{is strictly decreasing}\,\,&\forall\,\, t\in[T_{0}, 2T_0],\\
& 1\,\,&\forall\,\, t\in[2 T_{0},T-2T_{1}],\\
& \theta\, \mbox{is strictly increasing}\,\,&\forall\,\, t\in[T-2T_{1},T-T_{1}],\\
& \displaystyle \frac{1}{(T-t)^{2}},\,\,&\forall\,\, t\in[T-T_{1},T].
\end{array}\right.$$ Observe that $\theta(t)$ blows up at the terminal points $\{0\}$ and $\{T\}$ of the interval $(0,T).$\
$3.$ In view of $\eta$ and $\theta(t)$ we finally introduce the following weight functions in ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T],$ $$\label{w8fn}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\phi(x,t)=\theta(t)(e^{6\lambda\|\eta\|_{\infty}}-e^{\lambda(\eta+4\|\eta\|_{\infty})}),\\
{\xi}(x,t)=\theta(t)e^{\lambda(\eta+4\|\eta\|_{\infty})}.
\end{array}\right.$$ From now on until the end of this article we will denote by $c,$ a generic strictly positive small constant and by $C,$ a large constant, where both of them are independent of the parameters $s$ (${\geqslant}1$) and $\lambda$ (${\geqslant}1$).\
Note that the weight functions defined above closely relates with the weight functions used in proving Carleman estimate for adjoint heat equation. The choice that $\theta(t)$ equals one in a subinterval of $(0,T)$ is done to apply the Carleman estimate in studying the controllability of coupled PDE problems (especially parabolic hyperbolic coupling) in further works. For similar issues of controllability of coupled parabolic hyperbolic system one can consult the articles [@ervgugla] and [@ervbad]. One can also look into [@phdthesis Chapter 4] for the application of the Carleman estimate proved in this article to study the observability property of a compressible fluid structure interaction problem.\
Now let us state the following result corresponding to the Carleman estimate of the formal adjoint to the operator .
\[Carlbeamthm\] There exist a constants $C>0,$ $s_{0}\geqslant 1$ and $\lambda_{0}\geqslant 1$ such that for all smooth functions $\psi$ on ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T],$ for all $s\geqslant s_{0}$ and $\lambda\geqslant\lambda_{0},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crlestbmthm}
& \displaystyle s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{5}|{\partial_{x}{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\notag
\\
&\displaystyle+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{3} ( |{\partial_{xx}{\psi}}|^{2}+ |{\partial_{t}{\psi}}|^{2}) e^{-2s\phi}+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}( |{\partial_{tx}{\psi}}|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxx}{\psi}}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}\notag \\
&+
\displaystyle\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} \frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}{\psi}}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}\psi|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}{\psi}}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\\
&
\displaystyle\leqslant
C\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} |(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx})\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+Cs^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\omega} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},\notag
\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $\omega$ was introduced in .
The next theorem corresponds to a null controllability result for a damped beam equation with potential which is derived as an application of the Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\]. We will use in particular a Corollary \[corpotential\] of Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\] to prove the following result.
\[Centraltheoremnullcont\] Let $T>0,$ $a\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))$ be a potential and the initial datum satisfy the following regularity assumptions: $$\label{regularityinitial}
\begin{array}{l}
\beta_{0}\in H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}),\quad\mbox{and}\quad \beta_{1}\in H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}).
\end{array}$$ There exists a control $v_{\beta}\in L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})),$ such that the solution to the system satisfies the null controllability requirement and the controlled trajectory $\beta$ has the following regularity $$\label{regularitytrajectory}
\begin{array}{l}
\beta\in L^{2}(0,T;H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,T;H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{2}(0,T;L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})).
\end{array}$$
The equation $_{1}$ we consider is of parabolic nature. In other words the operator $$\label{operatorA}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{A}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & I\\
-\partial_{xxxx} & \partial_{xx}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}$$ (the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is without potential) defined in $H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})$ with the domain $$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})=H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}),$$ is the generator of an analytic semigroup. For details we refer the readers to [@chen]. The well posedness of the system with $a=0$ is well studied in the literature and we will comment more on that afterwards. In our case since the system is with potential, we state the following result for the well posedness and regularity of system .
\[existencepotential\] Let, $a=a(x,t)\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,{T}))$ be a potential. Let $$(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\in H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}),$$ and the control function, $v_{\beta}\in L^{2}(0,T;\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})$ satisfies $$\label{boundvbeta}
\begin{array}{l}
\|v_{{\beta}}\|_{L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C.$ Then the system admits a unique solution in the functional framework . Besides, there exists a positive constant $C,$ such that the following holds $$\label{inequalityexistence2}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{T};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{T};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}\leqslant\displaystyle C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}.
\end{array}$$
We will recall the proof of Lemma \[existencepotential\] in Section \[appendix\].\
To the best of our knowledge our article is the first one proving a Carleman estimate for the adjoint of the damped beam equation . The null controllability problem without the potential term is already studied in the articles [@lasieckadampedbeam], [@millerbeam] and [@julienedward] using spectral methods. Their technique is completely different from ours which is based in proving a Carleman estimate for the adjoint to the system . In [@lasieckadampedbeam] the authors consider a more general controllability problem: $$\displaystyle w_{tt} + Sw + \rho S^{\alpha}w_{t} = u;\quad w(0) = w_0;\quad w_t (0) = w_1;\quad \rho> 0;\quad 1/2 \leqslant \alpha \leqslant 1,$$ where for some Hilbert space $\mathcal{X},$ $S:\mathcal{D}(S)(\subset \mathcal{X})\longrightarrow \mathcal{X}$ is a positive, self-adjoint, unbounded operator with compact resolvent. The control $u$ is not localized and is assumed to be distributed over the whole domain. In [@julienedward] the authors consider a one dimensional damped beam (similar to the one $_{1}$ but without the potential) with hinged ends and with a positive parameter $\rho$ appearing as the coefficient of $\partial_{txx}\beta.$ They study the null controllability of the system with a localized interior control by proving an observability inequality uniformly with respect to $\rho.$ The approach of both the articles [@lasieckadampedbeam] and [@julienedward] is based on proving an observability estimate by using Fourier decomposition and suitably using Bassel’s inequality and Ingham-type inequalities for complex frequencies. In [@millerbeam] the author explicitly obtains the cost of the control as $T\longrightarrow 0,$ by tracking the constants in the observability estimate using spectral methods.\
The main focus of the present article is to derive a new Carleman estimate for the dual to the problem . Then using a duality argument we prove the null controllability of the primal problem . The duality argument used in this article is motivated from [@farnan] and [@ervbad]. In fact the concept of duality between controllability and observability dates back to the celebrated Hilbert Uniqueness method (HUM), introduced in the article [@JLLionscontexact], which reduces the question of exact controllability problem of a partial differential equation into proving the observability estimate of the corresponding adjoint problem.\
The Carleman estimate obtained in this article can be used to prove controllability results corresponding to more complicated coupled dynamical systems, like the ones considered in [@raymondbeam] and [@Mitraexistence]. In fact the two main advantages of using Carleman estimate in studying the controllability properties of a PDE are: $(i)\,$ Using suitably large Carleman parameter $s$ one can readily incorporate lower order terms especially a $L^{\infty}$ potential in a linear PDE model to study the controllability. Whereas spectral methods can not be applied in analyzing the controllability properties of a linear PDE model with potential (or with other lower order terms). This specific advantage of Carleman estimate is often exploited to deal with the controllability issues of semi linear PDE models.\
$(ii)\,$ Moreover, to track the behavior of the spectrum of coupled PDE models is often very complicated. For example of such models one can have a look in the fluid structure interaction problems (with an elastic structure at the boundary) considered in [@phdthesis Chapter 4] and [@raymondbeam]. Carleman estimate can prove to be a very useful tool for studying controllability issues of such coupled problems. In connection with this discussion we would like to refer to [@phdthesis Chapter 4] where the author obtains an observability inequality for a compressible fluid structure interaction problem using Carleman estimates for some decoupled equations.\
\[2.mm\] Let us briefly discuss the strategy of the present article in the following.
Comments on the Strategy
------------------------
(i)$\mathit{The\,\, Carleman\,\, estimate}$: The proof of the controllability result Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\] relies on studying the observability of the corresponding adjoint system. This observability is the consequence of the Carleman estimate stated in Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\], more specifically Corollary \[corpotential\]. In fact we prove a Carleman estimate for all smooth functions defined in ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T]$ with an observation in the set $\omega\times(0,T).$ Roughly speaking the Carleman estimate is a way to bound the weighted energy of a PDE system by just using the energy localized on the observation set $\omega\times(0,T).$ Thanks to the parabolic nature of the equation , we are able to prove a Carleman estimate by using similar weight functions which are used in the literature in deriving Carleman estimate for heat equation (for instance one can look into the articles [@fursikov], [@farnan] and [@ervbad]). Unlike the heat equation in our case the damped beam equation consists of second order derivative in time and fourth order derivative in space and this makes the proof of the Carleman estimate very involved and tricky. The weight function $\phi(x,t)$ we use roughly equals to $\theta(t)e^{6\lambda\|\eta\|_{\infty}},$ where the weight $\theta(t)$ in time blows up at terminal points $\{0\}$ and $\{T\},$ $\lambda$ is a positive parameter and $\eta(x)$ is sufficiently smooth positive valued function defined on ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}$ with all its critical points in the set $\omega.$\
Now to derive a Carleman estimate solved by a smooth function $\psi,$ the trick is to perform a change of unknown $w=e^{-s\phi}\psi,$ and introduce a new quantity $$P_{\phi}w=e^{-s\phi}({\partial_{tt}{\psi}}+{\partial_{txx}{\psi}}+{\partial_{xxxx}{\psi}})=e^{-s\phi}(\partial_{tt}(e^{s\phi}w)+\partial_{txx}(e^{s\phi}w)+\partial_{xxxx}(e^{s\phi}w)).$$ Next the most important part of the analysis is to suitably decompose $P_{\phi}w$ as $$P_{\phi}w=P_{1}w+P_{2}w+\mathit{R}w,$$ where $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ roughly corresponds to the formally computed symmetric and anti symmetric part of the operator $P_{\phi},$ whereas $\mathit{R}$ corresponds to the lower order terms. We have managed to incorporate a lower order term in the expression of $P_{2}w$ and show that the product term $\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} P_{1}wP_{2}w$ admits of positive coefficients except possibly on the observation set $\omega\times(0,T).$ This in turn is used to prove the claimed Carleman estimate. Consequently one can easily obtain a Carleman estimate of the adjoint of a damped beam equation with potential. For details we refer the readers to Corollary \[corpotential\].\
An alternative way to obtain a Carleman estimate corresponding to the operator $(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx})$ (which is without the potential term) is to factorize the adjoint operator as follows: $$(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx})\psi=(\partial_{t}+\frac{1\pm \sqrt{3}i}{2}\partial_{xx})(\partial_{t}+\frac{1\mp \sqrt{3}i}{2}\partial_{xx})\psi,$$ and then use the Carleman estimate for parabolic equations with complex coefficients, for instance one can use the result form [@Xiaoyufu]. But in that case we can only obtain bound over $s^{6}\lambda^{8}\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\xi^{6}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},$ where $s$ and $\lambda$ are Carleman parameters and $\xi=\theta(t)e^{\lambda(\eta(x,t)+4\|\eta\|_{\infty})},$ but this result is not optimal. On the other hand the Carleman estimate stated in Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\] derives a bound on $s^{7}\lambda^{8}\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\xi^{7}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},$ which seems to be optimal in the sense that the exponents of the parameters $s$ and $\lambda$ can not be improved. The optimality of exponents of Carleman parameters can play a crucial role while dealing with coupled PDE systems with strong coupling. One can for instance look into [@phdthesis Chapter 4] where a bound over $s^{6}\lambda^{8}\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\xi^{6}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},$ is not enough and one needs a bound over $s^{7}\lambda^{8}\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\xi^{6}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},$ to prove the observability properties of a compressible fluid structure interaction problem where a damped beam of the form appears at the fluid boundary.\
(ii)$\mathit{Null-controllability\,\,of\,\,\eqref{dampedbeam}}$: Next in Section \[Nullcontrollability\] we prove Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\] by a duality argument. In fact we introduce a cutoff function in time and using this we reduce the control problem - into a homogeneous initial value null controllability problem. To prove the null controllability of the new problem we write it in a weak form and introduce a functional whose Euler-Lagrange equation coincides with the obtained weak formulation. This strategy is inspired from [@fursikov], [@farnan] and [@ervbad] where the authors treat the null controllability problem of heat type equations using this technique. Then thanks to the Carleman estimates derived in Section \[Carlemanestimate\], we show that the functional admits of a unique minimizer in a suitable Hilbert space. This minimizer is eventually used to obtain an explicit expression of a control function and an expression of the controlled trajectory. We further obtain an estimate on the $L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,T))$ norm of the control function which is eventually used to show that the controlled trajectory satisfies the regularity as a consequence of Lemma \[existencepotential\].\
Since we are considering a one dimensional beam with periodic boundary conditions one may use spectral methods to prove the null controllability of the system when the potential $a=0$. For instance taking the Fourier transform of $_{1}$ with potential $a=0$ it is not hard to compute the following expression of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions corresponding to the operator $\mathcal{A}$ (given by ): $$\label{eigenvaluevector}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\lambda_{k}=\frac{-k^{2}\pm\sqrt{3}ik^{2}}{2},\quad \delta_{k}=\begin{pmatrix}
e^{ikx}\\
\lambda_{k}e^{ikx}
\end{pmatrix},\quad\mbox{for\,\,all}\quad k\in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{array}$$ It can be checked that $\mathcal{A}^{*},$ the adjoint of $\mathcal{A}$ with $a=0$ computed in the inner product of $L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}),$ admits of same eigenvalues and eigenvectors as of $\mathcal{A}$ with $a=0$ given by . Next one can exploit the gap property in between two consecutive eigenvalues in order to apply spectral methods to prove null controllability of the system with $a=0$. For details we refer to the articles [@julienedward], [@lasieckadampedbeam] and [@millerbeam]. In the present article we will further not discuss about the spectral methods and will rely on a new Carleman estimate which is the base of our analysis. Due to the strength of the Carleman parameters it is possible to handle the null controllability of a damped beam equation with a non trivial potential. Generalizing the Carleman estimate obtained in this article to dimension greater than one and to more general damped beam with general Lamé coefficients is a matter of future research. Nevertheless due to its plethora of applications (unique continuation, inverse problems etc.), Carleman estimate has its own interest.
Bibliographical Comments
------------------------
The well posedness of the system with $a=0$ in the framework of Hilbert space is well studied in the literature. In our case we have used the fact that the operator associated with $_{1}$ and $a=0$ is the generator of an analytic semigroup, for instance one can see Lemma \[lemmaexistence\]. The result corresponding to the analyticity of the associated semigroup follows from [@chen] and [@chen2]. We further used this result to obtain a existence and regularity result for a damped beam equation with potential in Lemma \[existencepotential\]. Maximal regularity in the $L^{p}-L^{q}$ regularity framework for a structurally damped beam with inhomogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann boundary condition is studied in the article [@denk]. The approach of [@denk] is mainly based on $\mathcal{R}-$ boundedness and Fourier multiplier theorems. An unified approach to the existence, uniqueness and regularity of solutions to problems belonging to a class of second order in time semilinear partial differential equations in Banach spaces can be found in [@Carvalho]. In [@Carvalho], the authors study the analyticity of semigroups generated by a class of operators in the $L^{p}$ framework and obtained local existence and regularity results for some second order (wave like) semilinear problems of parabolic nature. We also refer the readers to [@fanli] for the existence and exponential stability issues for elastic systems with structural damping in Banach spaces. For further references regarding the well posedness issues of damped plate equation we refer to [@ebert] and [@veraar]. The readers can also consult [@Mitraexistence], [@raymondbeam] and [@veiga] for the application of the regularity results of the damped Euler-Bernoulli beam equation in studying the well posedness of coupled dynamical systems and more particularly fluid structure interaction problems.\
To the best of our knowledge the present article is the first one in the literature obtaining a Carleman estimate for the adjoint of the operator . Using spectral methods the null controllability of the system with $a=0$ is studied in [@lasieckadampedbeam], [@julienedward] and [@millerbeam]. There exist several articles dealing with the controllability of undamped plate equation. The exact controllability problem using boundary controls of an undamped Euler-Bernoulli beam equation is considered in [@lasieckabeam]. In [@lasieckabeam] the authors prove the exact controllability result by proving an observability inequality for the homogeneous boundary value adjoint system using multiplier method. Exact controllability of a Euler-Bernoulli beam with variable coefficients with semi internal control is studied in [@JUKIM]. For controllability results of thin plate and beam equations one can also consult [@lagnese]. For the controllability issues of a coupled parabolic-hyperbolic dynamics involving an elastic structure, for instance thermoelastic systems, one can look into the articles [@lebeauzuazua] and [@avalos2].\
We would also like to quote the articles [@zhangxu] and [@fuxiaoyu] for the use of Carleman estimates in order to prove controllability results for plate equations. In [@zhangxu] the author considers the exact controllability problem of a semilinear plate equation with superlinear nonlinearity while in [@fuxiaoyu] the author deals with a linear plate equation with potential. In [@zhangxu] the author obtains a Carleman estimate by decomposing the plate operator into two Schrödinger operators while in [@fuxiaoyu] the author derives a Carleman estimate directly without using Schrödinger operators. We would like to point out that the Carleman weights used in [@zhangxu] and [@fuxiaoyu] completely differ from that of ours, introduced in Section \[w8fn\]. This is because the linearized operators in [@zhangxu] and [@fuxiaoyu] are of hyperbolic nature whereas due to the structural damping the system is parabolic.\
The study of Carleman estimate for a parabolic equation involving fourth order space derivative is quite recent in the literature. The article [@cerpamercado] establishes the first Carleman estimate for a parabolic equation in dimension one involving fourth order derivative in space. In [@cerpamercado] the authors study the local exact controllability to the trajectories of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation with boundary controls using Carleman estimate. For Carleman estimate and its application to the controllability of similar fourth order parabolic equations in dimension one we also refer the readers to [@zhouobsinq4thorder] and [@Carrenocerpa]. In dimension $N\geqslant 2,$ Carleman estimate for a fourth order parabolic equation is established in a very recent article [@GuerrKb1]. Our system is fourth order in space, second order in time and further involves a damping term $\partial_{txx}\beta$ and hence it is quite different from the models considered in [@GuerrKb1], [@Carrenocerpa], [@zhouobsinq4thorder] and [@cerpamercado] which are first order in time. To the best of our knowledge the present article is the first one proving a Carleman estimate for a parabolic equation which is fourth order in space and second order in time.
Outline
-------
In Section \[Carlemanestimate\] we prove Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\], the central result of this article and further state a Corollary \[corpotential\] which can be readily obtained as a consequence of Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\]. Next in Section \[Nullcontrollability\] we prove Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\] as an application of the Carleman estimate proved in Corollary \[corpotential\]. In Section \[appendix\] we include the proof of Lemma \[existencepotential\].
Proof of Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\] and a corollary {#Carlemanestimate}
================================================
From now on until the end of this article we fix the controllability time $T.$\
At this moment we can recall the definition of the weight functions $\phi$ and $\xi$ which were introduced in \[w8fn\]. In our computations afterwards we will frequently use the following estimates, valid on ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}} \times (0,T)$: $$\label{prilies}
\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}|\partial^{(i)}_{x}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda^{i}{\xi} \quad \mbox{for all}\,i\in\{1,2,3,4\},
\\
{\displaystyle}|\partial_{t}\phi|\leqslant C{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{tt}\phi|\leqslant C{\xi}^{2},\quad
|\partial_{tx}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{txx}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda^{2}{\xi}^{3/2},
\\
{\displaystyle}|\partial_{txxx}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda^{3}{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{ttx}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda{\xi}^{2}\quad \mbox{and}\quad|\partial_{ttxx}\phi|\leqslant C\lambda^{2}{\xi}^{2},
\end{array}
$$ and $$\label{prilies*}
\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}|\partial^{(i)}_{x}{\xi}|\leqslant C\lambda^{i}{\xi}\quad\mbox{for all}\,\, i\in\{1,2,3,4\},\\
{\displaystyle}|\partial_{t}{\xi}|\leqslant C{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{tt}{\xi}|\leqslant C{\xi}^{2},\quad
|\partial_{tx}{\xi}|\leqslant C\lambda{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{txx}{\xi}|\leqslant C\lambda^{2}{\xi}^{3/2}
\\
{\displaystyle}|\partial_{txxx}{\xi}|\leqslant C\lambda^{3}{\xi}^{3/2},\quad
|\partial_{ttx}\xi|\leqslant C\lambda{\xi}^{2}\quad
\mbox{and}\quad |\partial_{ttxx}\xi|\leqslant C\lambda^{2}{\xi}^{2},
\end{array}
$$ and, for $\lambda$ large enough, for all $(x,t) \in [0,d] \times (0,T)$ and $i \in \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$, $$\label{Positivity-Weights}
-\partial^{(i)}_{x}\phi = \partial^{(i)}_{x}\xi \geqslant c\lambda^{i}{\xi}.$$
Carleman estimate for an adjoint damped beam equation {#Carldbeam}
-----------------------------------------------------
In the following we prove Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\] which corresponds to the Carleman estimate for the adjoint of the damped beam equation.
In the proof for simplicity of notations we will write: $$\label{adjbeam1}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle f_{\psi}=\partial_{tt}\psi+\partial_{txx}\psi+\partial_{xxxx}\psi.
\end{array}$$ We introduce the change of unknown $$w=e^{-s\phi}{\psi}.$$ In view of , $w$ satisfies: $$\label{eqw}
\begin{split}
e^{-s\phi}{f_{\psi}}&=e^{-s\phi}({\partial_{tt}{\psi}}+{\partial_{txx}{\psi}}+{\partial_{xxxx}{\psi}}+a\psi)\\
&=e^{-s\phi}(\partial_{tt}(e^{s\phi}w)+\partial_{txx}(e^{s\phi}w)+\partial_{xxxx}(e^{s\phi}w))=P_{\phi}w.
\end{split}$$ We write $P_{\phi}w$ in the form: $$\label{}
\begin{array}{l}
P_{\phi}w=P_{1}w+P_{2}w+\mathit{R}w,
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{p12r}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
P_{1}w=&s^{4}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}w
+6 s^{2}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}w+\partial_{xxxx}w
+ 2 s\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xt}w
+\partial_{tt}w,\\
P_{2}w=&4s^{3}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{x}w+4 s\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xxx}w+\partial_{xxt}w+ s^{2}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{t}w\\
&+6(1+\zeta)s^{3}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi w,\\
\mathit{R}w=& s^{2}(\partial_{t}\phi)^{2}w+s\partial_{t}\phi\partial_{xx}w
+ s^{3}\partial_{t}\phi(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}w+s\partial_{t}\phi\partial_{t}w+2s^{2}\partial_{t}\phi\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{x}w\\
&+\frac{s}{2}\partial_{tt}\phi w-s\partial_{xxt}\phi w+2 s\partial_{xt}\phi\partial_{x}w+4s^{2}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w + s\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{t}w\\
&+12s^{2}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w+3 s^{2}(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{2}w+\frac{s}{2}\partial_{tt}\phi w+2 s^{2}\partial_{xt}\phi\partial_{x}\phi w\\
&+s^{2}\partial_{t}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi w+6 s\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xx}w+ s\partial_{xxxx}\phi w + 4s\partial_{xxx}\phi\partial_{x}w\\
&-6\zeta s^{3}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi w,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\zeta$ is a free parameter which will be fixed later.\
Based on the identity $$P_{1}w+P_{2}w={f_{\psi}}e^{-s\phi}-\mathit{R}w,$$ we obtain $$\label{trieq}
\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|P_{1}w|^{2}+\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|P_{2}w|^{2}&+2\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} P_{1}wP_{2}w=\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}e^{-s\phi}-\mathit{R}w|^{2}\\
&\leqslant 2\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} |{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+2\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|\mathit{R}w|^{2}.
\end{split}$$ The crucial point is to obtain suitable estimates for the product term $\displaystyle \int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} P_{1}wP_{2}w.$ We will denote by $I_{i,j}$ the cross product of the $i$-th term of $P_1 w$ and of the $j$-th term of $P_2 w$, so that $$\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}P_{1}wP_{2}w=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{i=5,j=5}I_{ij}.$$ In the following estimates to make the presentation simpler we will write L.O.T (lower order terms) for the terms which are small (for large values of the parameters $s$ and $\lambda$) with respect to the left hand side of , i.e. for which there exists a constant $C$ independent of $s$ and $\lambda$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
| L.O.T |
{\leqslant}C \left(\frac{1}{s} + \frac{1}{\lambda}\right)
\left(
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} {\xi}^{5}|{\partial_{x}{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
\right.\\
\left.
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} {\xi}^{3} ( |{\partial_{xx}{\psi}}|^{2}+ |{\partial_{t}{\psi}}|^{2}) e^{-2s\phi}
\displaystyle+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} {\xi}( |{\partial_{tx}{\psi}}|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxx}{\psi}}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\right).
\end{gathered}$$ In particular, note that we immediately get that $$\label{R-is-LOT}
\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} | R w|^2 \leqslant L.O.T.$$
We list below the computations of each $I_{ij}$. $$\label{I11}
\begin{split}
I_{11}=4s^{7}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{7}w\partial_{x}w
=-14s^{7}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{6}\partial_{xx}\phi w^{2}.
\end{split}$$ $$\label{I12}
\begin{split}
I_{12}&=4s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{5}w\partial_{xxx}w
=-120s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{3}w^{2}
\\
&\quad -80s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w^{2}-40s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w^{2}
\\
&
\quad-10s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xxxx}\phi w^{2}+30s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}
\\
&
=L.O.T+30s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}.
\end{split}$$ $$\label{I13}
\begin{split}
I_{13}&= s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}w\partial_{xxt}w
\\
&=-12s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)\partial_{xt}\phi(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{2}w^{2}-12s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxt}\phi w^{2}\\
&\quad-6s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xt}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w^{2}
\quad -2s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{txxx}\phi w^{2}\\
&\quad+2s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{tx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}
+4s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w\\
&=L.O.T+4 s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{14}=3 s^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{5}\partial_{tx}\phi w^{2}=L.O.T.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{15}=6(1+\zeta)s^{7}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{6}\partial_{xx}\phi w^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{21}=-60s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{22}=-36s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{23}=-12 s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)\partial_{xt}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}=L.O.T.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{24}&=6 s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}w\partial_{t}w\\
&=-24s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w+12s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xt}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}\\
&=L.O.T-24s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{25}&=36(1+\zeta)s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi w\partial_{xx}w
= (1+\zeta)\left(216s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{3}w^{2}
\right.\notag
\\
& \left. +144s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w^{2}
\right.
\left. +72s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}\phi w^{2}
\right.
\\
&
\left.
+18s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xxxx}\phi w^{2} -36s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^4\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}\right)\notag\\
&=L.O.T-36(1+\zeta)s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}.\notag
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{31}&=4s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{x}w\partial_{xxxx}w\\
&=-12s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{xxx}w-4s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}w\partial_{xxx}w\\
&=L.O.T+18s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{32}=-2s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xxx}w)^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{33}=\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xxxx}w\partial_{xxt}w=0.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{34}&=s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xxxx}w\partial_{t}w\\
&=-2s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}w\partial_{t}w-s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} (\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xxx}w\partial_{tx}w\\
&=L.O.T+4s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xx}w\partial_{tx}w.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{35}&=6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxxx}ww\notag\\
&=-12(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L} \partial_{x}\phi(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xxx}ww
-6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xxx}\phi\partial_{xxx}ww\notag\\
&-6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xxx}w\partial_{x}w\\
&=L.O.T+6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}.\notag
\end{aligned}$$
$$I_{41}=-16s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{tx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}=L.O.T.$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{42}&=8s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xt}w\partial_{xxx}w\\
&=-16s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xt}w\partial_{xx}w+8s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xt}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}\\
&=L.O.T-16s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xt}w\partial_{xx}w.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{43}=-s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{44}=-3s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{45}&=12(1+\zeta)s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xt}ww\notag\\
&=(1+\zeta)\left(-36s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}(\partial_{xx}\phi)^{2}\partial_{t}ww
-12s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xxx}\phi\partial_{t}ww
\right.\notag
\\
&\quad
\left.
-12s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{t}w\partial_{x}w\right)\\
&=L.O.T-12(1+\zeta)s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{t}w\partial_{x}w.\notag
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{51}&=4s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{x}w\partial_{tt}w\\
&=-12s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xt}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w-4s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xt}w\partial_{t}w\\
&=L.O.T+6s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{split}
I_{52}&=4s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xxx}w\partial_{tt}w\\
&=-4s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xt}\phi\partial_{xxx}w\partial_{t}w-4s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xxxt}w\partial_{t}w\\
&=L.O.T-6s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
I_{53}=\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{tt}w\partial_{xxt}w=\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{t}(\partial_{tx}w)^{2}=0.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
I_{54}&=s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{t}w\partial_{tt}w\\
&=-s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{tx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}=L.O.T.
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{55}&=6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{tt}ww =(1+\zeta)\left(-6s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{tx}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{t}(w^{2})
\right.\nonumber
\\
&\left. -3s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{txx}\phi\partial_{t}(w^{2})
-6s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}\right)\\
&=L.O.T-6(1+\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}.\notag
\end{aligned}$$
Hence we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estsum}
&\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}P_{1}wP_{2}w
=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{i=5,j=5}I_{ij}\notag
\\
&=(-8+6\zeta)s^{7}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{6}\partial_{xx}\phi w^{2}
+(-66-36\zeta)s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}\notag
\\
&
+(-12+6\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}
+(-3-6\zeta)s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}\notag
\\
&
-2s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xxx}w)^{2}
-7s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}
\\
&
+ (-32-12\zeta)s^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w
-12s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xt}w\partial_{xx}w+L.O.T\notag\\
&=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{8}E_{n}+L.O.T.\notag
\end{aligned}$$ Now, we adjust the parameter $\zeta$ such that all the coefficients of $E_n$ for $n \in \{1, \cdots, 6\}$ are negative and the terms $E_{7}$ and $E_{8}$ can be absorbed by using $E_{n}$ for $n\in\{1,...,6\}.$\
In that direction we observe that, according to Young’s inequality, for $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ positive, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E7}
|E_{7}|&=(32+12\zeta)s^{4}|\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{x}w\partial_{t}w|\notag\\
&\leqslant\frac{(32+12\zeta)}{2\alpha_{1}}s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}|
+\frac{(32+12\zeta)\alpha_{1}}{2}s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}|\notag
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{(32+12\zeta)}{2\alpha_{1}|66 + 36 \zeta|} |E_2|
+
\frac{(32+12\zeta)\alpha_{1}}{2 |3 + 6 \zeta|} |E_4|
,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{E8}
\begin{split}
|E_{8}| &=12s^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xx}\phi\partial_{xt}w\partial_{xx}w|
\\
& \leqslant \frac{12\alpha_{2}}{2}s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}|
+\frac{12}{2\alpha_{2}}s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}|
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{12\alpha_{2}}{14} |E_6| + \frac{12}{2\alpha_{2} |12- 6 \zeta| } |E_3| ,
\end{split}$$ We then choose $\zeta,$ such that $$\mbox{max}\{-8+6\zeta,-66-36\zeta,-12+6\zeta,-3-6\zeta\}<0,$$ which imposes $\zeta \in (-1/2, 4/3)$, and such that there exist $\alpha_1>0$ and $\alpha_2>0$ such that $$\label{zetachp3}
\mbox{max}
\left\{
\frac{(32+12\zeta)}{2\alpha_{1}|66 + 36 \zeta|},
\frac{(32+12\zeta)\alpha_{1}}{2 |3 + 6 \zeta|},
\frac{12\alpha_{2}}{14} ,
\frac{12}{2\alpha_{2} |12- 6 \zeta| }
\right\}
< 1.$$ This can be done provided $\zeta \in (-1/2, 4/3)$ satisfies $$\frac{8+3\zeta}{33+18\zeta} <\frac{3+6\zeta}{16+6\zeta},
\quad \hbox{and} \quad
\frac{1}{2-\zeta}<\frac{{7}}{6}.$$ These conditions can be easily satisfied by taking $$\label{fixzeta}
\zeta = 1.$$ At this point in view of the choice , we fix $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ such that they satisfy .\
Hence from we get that there exist positive constants $K_{1},$ $K_{2},$ $K_{3},$ $K_{4},$ $K_{5}$ and $K_{6}$ such that $$\label{ultest}
\begin{split}
\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}P_{1}wP_{2}w
& {\geqslant}-K_{1}s^{7}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{6}\partial_{xx}\phi w^{2}-K_{2}s^{5}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{x}w)^{2}\\
&-K_{3}s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xx}w)^{2}
-K_{4}s^{3}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{t}w)^{2}
\\
&
-K_{5}s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xxx}w)^{2}
-K_{6}s\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\partial_{xx}\phi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}+L.O.T.
\end{split}$$ Hence in view of and one obtains that $$\label{postvty}
\begin{split}
&\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}P_{1}wP_{2}w \geqslant c\left(
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}
\right.\\
&+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
\\
&\left.+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2} \right)
-C\left(s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}\right. \\
&+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}\\
&\left. +s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\omega^2_T = (\mathbb{T}_L \setminus [- \frac{L}{2},d+\frac{L}{2}]) \times (0,T).$$ Now in view of and , furnishes that for large enough values of the parameter $s$ and $\lambda$ the following holds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{precarl}
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\\
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\\
\leqslant C\left(\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}
\right. \\
\left.
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\right).
\end{gathered}$$ Now, our goal is to estimate $\partial_{tt} w$, $\partial_{txx} w$ and $\partial_{xxxx} w$. In order to do that, we set $$\label{tau}
\tau=\frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}w.$$ Using , let us observe that (since $e^{-s\phi}$ vanishes at time $T$) the new unknown $\tau$ solves the following set of equations $$\label{adjbeam*}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
{\partial_{tt}\tau} + {\partial_{txx}\tau} + {\partial_{xxxx}\tau}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}f_{\psi}e^{-s\phi}+(\mathcal{F}_{1}+\mathcal{F}_{2}+\mathcal{F}_{3}) -\mathcal{F}_{4}\,\,& \mbox{in}\,\, \mathbb{T}_{L}\times(0,T),\\
\displaystyle\tau(.,T)=0,\quad{\partial_{t}\tau}(.,T)=0\,\,&\mbox{in}\,\, \mathbb{T}_{L},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$\nonumber
\begin{array}{llll}
\mathcal{F}_1 &= \partial_{tt}\tau - \frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}{\partial_{tt}w},
\qquad
\mathcal{F}_2 &=\partial_{txx}\tau - \frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}} {\partial_{txx}w},
\qquad
\mathcal{F}_3 &=\partial_{xxxx}\tau - \frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}{\partial_{xxxx}w},\\
&=\left[\partial_{tt},\frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}\right]w, & =\left[\partial_{txx},\frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}\right]w, & =\left[\partial_{xxxx},\frac{1}{\sqrt{s\xi}}\right]w.\\
\end{array}$$ and $\mathcal{F}_4$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\sqrt{s \xi} \mathcal{F}_4 = R w
+ s^{4}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{4}w
+6 s^{2}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}w
+ 2 s\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xt}w
+ 4s^{3}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{3}\partial_{x}w
\\
+4 s\partial_{x}\phi\partial_{xxx}w
+ s^{2}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{t}w
+6(1+\zeta)s^{3}(\partial_{x}\phi)^{2}\partial_{xx}\phi w.
\end{gathered}$$ It is then easy to check that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\left(|\mathcal{F}_{1}|^{2}+ |\mathcal{F}_{2}|^{2}+ |\mathcal{F}_{3}|^{2}+ |\mathcal{F}_{4}|^{2} \right)
\\
{\leqslant}C
\left( s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\right.
\\
\left.
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}\right).
\end{gathered}$$ Hence the maximal parabolic regularity (we refer to Lemma \[lemmaexistence\] for details) result for the system furnishes the following $$\label{maxpra}
\tau \in L^{2}(0,T;H^{4}(\mathbb{T}_{L})) \cap H^{2}(0,T; L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_{L})).$$ Besides one has the following inequality $$\begin{gathered}
\label{energyin}
\|\tau \|^{2}_{L^{2}(0,T;H^{4}(\mathbb{T}_{L})) \cap H^{2}(0,T; L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_{L}))}
\leqslant C(\|{f_{\psi}}e^{-s\phi}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}+\|\mathcal{F}_{1}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}
\\+\|\mathcal{F}_{2}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}
+\|\mathcal{F}_{3}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}+\|\mathcal{F}_{4}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}).
\end{gathered}$$ This then yields the following estimate: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{hoddr}
\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}w}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}w|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}w}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\leqslant C(\|{f_{\psi}}e^{-s\phi}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}+\|\mathcal{F}_{1}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}
\\+\|\mathcal{F}_{2}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}
+\|\mathcal{F}_{3}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}+\|\mathcal{F}_{4}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}_L \times (0,T))}).
\end{gathered}$$ Combining the inequalities and one obtains the following $$\begin{gathered}
\label{carlmobs}
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\\
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\\
+\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}w}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}w|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}w}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\\
\leqslant C\left(\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
\right. \\
\left.
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^{2}_{T}}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\right).
\end{gathered}$$
Now, we need to suitably absorb the third to seventh observability terms appearing in the R.H.S of . This is rather standard and such arguments can be found for instance in [@farnan p. 461] and [@ervbad p. 565]. We absorb it in a reverse way, starting from the last terms.
We introduce a smooth cut-off function $\Upsilon_2$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{definitionUpsilon2}
\Upsilon_{2}\in C^{\infty}_{c}(\mathbb{T}_L; [0,1]),
\quad
\Upsilon_{2}(x)=1\,\mbox{in}\, \omega^{2},
\quad
\Upsilon_2(x) = 0\, \mbox{for} \, x \notin \omega^3,
\\
\hbox{ where } \omega^2 = \mathbb{T}_L \setminus [-\frac{L}{2},d+\frac{L}{2}],
\hbox{ and } \omega^3 = \mathbb{T}_L \setminus [-\frac{L}{4},d+\frac{L}{4}].
\end{gathered}$$ In the following, we shall also use the notation $\omega^3_T = \omega^3 \times (0,T)$.
Using Young’s inequality, we have, for all $\varepsilon >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \displaystyle s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^2_T}
\xi(\partial_{xt}w)^{2}
\displaystyle \leqslant s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi(\partial_{xt}w)^2 = s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi \partial_{xx}w \partial_{tt} w + L.O.T.
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon}{2s} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi^{-1}(\partial_{tt} w)^2
+ \frac{s^3 \lambda^4}{2 \varepsilon} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi^{3}(\partial_{xx} w)^2 + L.O.T.
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon}{2s} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \xi^{-1}(\partial_{tt} w)^2
+ \frac{s^3 \lambda^4}{2 \varepsilon} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \xi^{3}(\partial_{xx} w)^2 + L.O.T.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \displaystyle s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^2_T} \xi(\partial_{xxx}w)^2
\leqslant s\lambda^{2}\iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi(\partial_{xxx}w)^2
= - s \lambda^2 \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \Upsilon_{2}\xi\partial_{xxxx} w \partial_{xx}w + L.O.T.
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon}{2s} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \xi^{-1} (\partial_{xxxx} w)^2 + \frac{s^3 \lambda^4}{2 \varepsilon} \iint\limits_{\omega^3_T} \xi^{3} (\partial_{xx} w)^2 + L.O.T.
\end{aligned}$$ We then choose $\varepsilon >0$ small enough so that $C \varepsilon <1$, where $C$ is the constant in , and we plug these two estimates in . We obtain that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $s$ and $\lambda$ large enough, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{carlmobs-2}
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\\
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\\
+\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}w}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}w|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}w}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\leqslant C\left(\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
\right.
\\
\left.
+s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+L.O.T. \right).
\end{gathered}$$
We now introduce a smooth cut-off function $\Upsilon_3$ such that $$\Upsilon_{3}\in C^{\infty}_{c}(\mathbb{T}_L; [0,1]),
\quad
\Upsilon_{3}(x)=1\,\mbox{in}\, \omega^{3},
\quad
\Upsilon_3(x) = 0\, \mbox{in}\, [0,d],$$ and we use the notation $\omega_1 = \mathbb{T}_L\setminus[0,d]$, and $\omega_1^T = \omega_1 \times (0,T)$.\
Now, as before we can write, for $\varepsilon_1 >0$ to be fixed later, $$\begin{aligned}
s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
& {\leqslant}s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
= - s^3 \lambda^4 \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{3} {\partial_{tt}w} w + L.O.T
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon_1}{2s} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}} \xi^{-1} (\partial_{tt} w)^2
+ \frac{s^7 \lambda^8}{2 \varepsilon_1} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2} +L.O.T,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
& {\leqslant}s^{3}\lambda^{4}\iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}
= s^3 \lambda^4 \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{3} {\partial_{xxxx}w} w + L.O.T
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon_1}{2s} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}} \xi^{-1} (\partial_{xxxx} w)^2 + \frac{s^7 \lambda^8}{2 \varepsilon_1} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2} +L.O.T.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
&
s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{3}_{T}}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}
{\leqslant}s^{5}\lambda^{6}\iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}
= - s^5 \lambda^6 \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}\Upsilon_3 {\xi}^{5} {\partial_{xx}w} w + L.O.T.
\\
& {\leqslant}\frac{\varepsilon_1 s^3 \lambda^4 }{2} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}} \xi^{3} (\partial_{xx} w)^2 + \frac{s^7 \lambda^8}{2 \varepsilon_1} \iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2} +L.O.T.
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing now $\varepsilon_1>0$ small enough so that $C \varepsilon_1 < 1$ where $C$ is the constant in , we deduce the following inequality from : for all $s$ and $\lambda$ large enough, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{carlmobs-2-bis}
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\\
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\\
+\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}w}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}w|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}w}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\\
\leqslant C\left(\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
+L.O.T. \right).
\end{gathered}$$ Now, the lower order terms $L.O.T$ can be absorbed by taking $s$ and $\lambda$ large enough, so that from , we obtain that for all $s$ and $\lambda$ large enough, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{carlmobs**}
s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{5} ({\partial_{x}w})^{2}+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{xx}w})^{2}\\
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xxx}w})^{2}
+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi}^{3} ({\partial_{t}w})^{2}
+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}{\xi} ({\partial_{xt}w})^{2}
\\
+\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}\frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}w}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}w|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}w}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\\
\leqslant C\left(\int_0^T \int_{\mathbb{T}_L}|{f_{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+s^{7}\lambda^{8}\iint\limits_{\omega^{1}_{T}}{\xi}^{7} w^{2}
\right).
\end{gathered}$$ To obtain from we just need to recall that $w = e^{-s\phi}\psi$, or equivalently that $\psi = w e^{s \phi}$. This argument is very standard and is left to the reader.
The following corollary corresponds to a Carleman estimate with potential is a direct consequence of Theorem \[Carlbeamthm\].
\[corpotential\] Let the potential $a\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,T)).$ There exist a constant $\lambda_{1}>1,$ independent of $\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))}$and constants $C=C(\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))})>0$ and $s_{1}=s_{1}(\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))})> 1$ such that for all smooth functions $\psi$ on ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T],$ for all $s\geqslant s_{1}$ and $\lambda\geqslant\lambda_{1},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crlestbmcor}
& \displaystyle s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+s^{5}\lambda^{6}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{5}|{\partial_{x}{\psi}}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\notag
\\
&\displaystyle+s^{3}\lambda^{4}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{3} ( |{\partial_{xx}{\psi}}|^{2}+ |{\partial_{t}{\psi}}|^{2}) e^{-2s\phi}+s\lambda^{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}( |{\partial_{tx}{\psi}}|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxx}{\psi}}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}\notag \\
&+
\displaystyle\frac{1}{s}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} \frac{1}{{\xi}}(|{\partial_{tt}{\psi}}|^{2}+|\partial_{txx}\psi|^{2}+|{\partial_{xxxx}{\psi}}|^{2})e^{-2s\phi}
\\
&
\displaystyle\leqslant
C\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} |(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}
+Cs^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{\omega} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi},\notag
\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $\omega$ was introduced in .
We observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} |(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\leqslant C&\left( \int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} |(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx})\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\right.\\
&\left.+\|a\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $a.$ Now one can readily use the inequality and choose $s_{1}=s_{1}(\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))})$ large enough such that if $s\geqslant s_{1},$ the term $\displaystyle\|a\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}$ can be absorbed by the term $\displaystyle s^{7}\lambda^{8}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}} {\xi}^{7}|{\psi}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}$ appearing in the left hand side on . Consequently one obtains .
The Corollary \[corpotential\] will be used in next section to prove Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\].
Proof of Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\] {#Nullcontrollability}
============================================
This section is dedicated to the proof of the Theorem \[Centraltheoremnullcont\]. The proof will be based on a duality approach.
We fix the parameters $s$ and $\lambda$ in the Carleman inequality .\
The idea is to write the control problem as the sum of a problem with inhomogeneous initial conditions and a different control problem with homogeneous initial conditions. We will only control the homogeneous initial value problem and show that the same control is sufficient to drive the state $\beta,$ the solution to to zero.\
In that direction let us first introduce a cut-off function $\theta_{1}(t)$ in time as follows: $$\label{cutofftheta}
\begin{array}{l}
\theta_{1}(t)\in C^{\infty}\,\,\mbox{in a neighborhood of}\,\,(0,T)\,\, \mbox{such that},\\
\theta_{1}(t)=0\,\,\mbox{in a neighborhood of}\,\, \{T\},\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\theta_{1}(t)=1\,\,\mbox{in a neighborhood of}\,\,\{0\}.
\end{array}$$ We decompose $\beta,$ the solution of as follows: $$\label{decomposebeta}
\begin{array}{l}
\beta(x,t)=\theta_{1}(t)q(x,t)+g(x,t),
\end{array}$$ where $q$ solves $$\label{dampedbeamq}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\partial_{tt}q-\partial_{txx}q+\partial_{xxxx}q+aq=0 \,& \mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,T),
\vspace{1.mm}\\
\displaystyle q(\cdot,0)=\beta_{0}\quad \mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t} q(\cdot,0)=\beta_{1}\, &\mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}
\end{array}\right.$$ and $g$ satisfies the following system $$\label{dampedbeamw}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\partial_{tt}g-\partial_{txx}g+\partial_{xxxx}g+ag=v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega}+f_{\theta_{1},q} \,& \mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,T),
\vspace{1.mm}\\
\displaystyle g(\cdot,0)=0\quad \mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t} g(\cdot,0)=0\, &\mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$\label{fbetaq}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle f_{\theta_{1},q}=-\theta_{1}''(t)q-2\theta_{1}'(t)\partial_{t}q+\theta_{1}'(t)\partial_{xx}q.
\end{array}$$ Since $\theta_{1}$ vanishes near $\{T\},$ we observe that the control $v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega}$ which drives $g,$ the solution of to zero also gives the null controllability of $\beta,$ the solution to . Hence we will focus in constructing $v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega}$ such that $g$ satisfies the following null controllability requirement $$\label{nullcontrolrequirementw}
\begin{array}{l}
(g,\partial_{t}g)(\cdot,T)=(0,0).
\end{array}$$ In that direction we first write the control problem under a weak form.\
We multiply the equation by smooth functions $\psi$ on $\overline{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\times[0,T].$ We obtain: $$\label{weakformulation}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle
\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{tt}\psi-\int\limits_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\partial_{t}\psi(T)g(T)+\int\limits_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\psi(T)\partial_{t}g(T)
\displaystyle +\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{txx}\psi-\int\limits_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g(T)\partial_{xx}\psi(T)\\
&\displaystyle+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{xxxx}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}a\psi
=\int_0^T \int_{\omega}v_{\beta}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi.
\end{array}$$ In view of , the null controllability requirement is satisfied if and only if the following holds for all smooth functions $\psi$ on $\overline{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\times[0,T]:$ $$\label{weakformulationaftercontrol}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{tt}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{txx}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}g\partial_{xxxx}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}a\psi\\
&\displaystyle=\int_0^T \int_{\omega}v_{\beta}\psi+\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi.
\end{array}$$ The trick now is to introduce a functional $J$ whose Euler Lagrange equation coincide with : For smooth functions $\psi$ on $\overline{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\times[0,T],$ we define $$\label{thefunctioanl}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \displaystyle J(\psi)&\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+\frac{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\\
&\displaystyle-\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi.
\end{array}$$ But the set of smooth functions on $\overline{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T]$ is not a Banach space. This leads us to define $$H_{obs}=\overline{\{\psi\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T])\}}^{\|\cdot\|_{obs}},$$ where the over line refers to the completion with respect to the Hilbert norm $\|\cdot\|_{obs}$ defined by $$\label{Hilbertnorm}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\|\psi\|^{2}_{obs}=\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}.
\end{array}$$ In view of the Carleman estimate , we conclude that $\|\cdot\|_{obs}$ defines a norm indeed.\
Let us show that $J(\psi)$ can be extended as a continuous function on $H_{obs}.$\
First of all we observe that since $f_{\theta_{1},q}$ vanishes in a neighborhood of $0$ and $T$ and the parameters $s$ and $\lambda$ are fixed, hence from one furnishes $$\label{boundftheta1q}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|f_{\theta_{1},q}|^{2}e^{2s\phi}\leqslant C\|(q,\partial_{t}q)\|^{2}_{L^{2}(0,T;H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\times L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|^{2}_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C.$ The second inequality of follows by using Lemma \[existencepotential\] (with $v_{\beta}=0$) in view of the initial regularity assumption .\
We observe that for a smooth function $\psi$ on $\overline{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times[0,T]$ the following holds as a consequence of the Carleman estimate $$\label{Holder}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi\leqslant C\|\psi\|_{obs}\left(\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|f_{\theta_{1},q}|^{2}e^{2s\phi}\right)^{1/2}\leqslant C\|\psi\|_{obs}\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$. The second inequality of follows from .\
In view of the following map $$\label{contextension}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\psi\longmapsto \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi,
\end{array}$$ admits of a continuous extension on the space $H_{obs}.$ This further implies our claim, $i.e$ $J(\psi)$ can be extended as a continuous function on $H_{obs}.$\
Now we claim that $J(\psi)$ on $H_{obs}$ is coercive. In view of the definition of $J(\psi)$ and the inequality , one furnishes the following $$\label{coercivitystp1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle J(\psi)\geqslant &\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a )\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+\frac{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\\[3.mm]
& \displaystyle -C\|\psi\|_{obs}\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}\\[3.mm]
&\displaystyle
\geqslant\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a )\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+\frac{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\\[3.mm]
&\displaystyle -C\left(\frac{\epsilon}{2}\|\psi\|_{obs}+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}\right)
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ and a positive parameter $\epsilon.$ Choosing $\epsilon$ to be sufficiently small and making use of the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{obs},$ one furnishes from that $J(\psi)\rightarrow +\infty$ as $\|\psi\|_{obs}\rightarrow +\infty.$ This furnishes the coercivity of $J(\psi)$ on $H_{obs}.$\
On the other hand it is easy to verify that $J(\psi)$ is convex.\
So far, we have seen that $J(\psi)$ is convex and coercive on $H_{obs}.$ Therefore it admits of a unique minimizer $\psi_{\min}$ on $H_{obs}.$ Let us set $$\label{expressionsolutioncontrol}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\widetilde{g}=e^{-2s\phi}(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi_{\min},\quad {v}_{\widetilde\beta}=-s^{7}\lambda^{8}\xi^{7}\chi_{\omega}\psi_{\min}e^{-2s\phi}.
\end{array}$$ Now we write the Euler Lagrange equation of $J$ at $\psi_{min},$ for all smooth function $\psi$ on $\overline{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\times[0,T]$ $$\label{EulerLagrange}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\widetilde{g}(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi-\int_0^T \int_{\omega}v_{\widetilde\beta}\psi-\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi=0,
\end{array}$$ which coincides with .\
In particular, holds for all smooth functions $\psi$ on $\overline{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\times[0,T]$ with $(\psi,\partial_{t}\psi)(\cdot,T)=0,$ which implies that $\widetilde{g}$ with $v_{\beta}=v_{\widetilde{\beta}}$ solves in the sense of transposition. Hence comparing and and using the uniqueness of transposition solution we have shown that there exists a control $v_{\widetilde{\beta}}$ which drives the solution of the system to the null state at time $T.$\
Now we aim to show that the control function $v_{\beta}=v_{\widetilde{\beta}}\in L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})).$ In that direction we first observe that $$J(\psi_{\min})\leqslant J(0)=0.$$ This gives $$\label{usingminimization}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\|\psi\|^{2}_{obs}=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}|(\partial_{tt}+\partial_{txx}+\partial_{xxxx}+a)\psi_{\min}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}+\frac{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}{2}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi_{\min}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\\
&\displaystyle\leqslant \int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}f_{\theta_{1},q}\psi_{\min}\\
&\displaystyle \leqslant C\|\psi_{\min}\|_{obs}\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}\\
& \displaystyle \leqslant C\left(\frac{\epsilon}{2}\|\psi_{\min}\|^{2}_{obs}+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|^{2}_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}\right).
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ and a positive parameter $\epsilon.$ The expression $_{3}$ from $_{2}$ is obtained since the map admits of a continuous extension on $H_{obs}$ defined by .\
Choosing small enough value of the positive parameter $\epsilon,$ one obtains the following from $$\label{boundcontrol}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{s^{7}\lambda^{8}}\int_0^T \int_{{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}}\chi_{\omega}^{2}\xi^{7}|\psi_{\min}|^{2}e^{-2s\phi}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|^{2}_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C.$\
Using the fact that $$\xi^{7}e^{-2s\phi}<C\quad\mbox{on}\quad {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times (0,T),$$ for some positive constant $C,$ and the estimate , one establishes the following bound on the control function $v_{\widetilde{\beta}},$ defined in $$\label{finalboundcontrol}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\|v_{\widetilde{\beta}}\|_{L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C.$ This proves our claim.\
In view of the decomposition we conclude that the system is null controllable and there exists a control $v_{\beta}\in L^{2}(0,T;L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))$ which drives the solution of to the zero state. Finally using the regularity result from Lemma \[existencepotential\] we conclude that the controlled trajectory $\beta$ satisfies the regularity .
Proof of Lemma \[existencepotential\] {#appendix}
=====================================
The proof of Lemma \[existencepotential\] will be a consequence of the following result on the analyticity of a damped beam semigroup:
\[lemmaexistence\] Let $$(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\in H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})$$ and $f\in L^{2}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})).$ Then the following system $$\label{dampedbeamgeneral}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\partial_{tt}\beta-\partial_{txx}\beta+\partial_{xxxx}\beta=f \,& \mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,{\kappa}),
\vspace{1.mm}\\
\displaystyle\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{0}\quad \mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t}\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{1}\, &\mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}},
\end{array}\right.$$ admits a unique solution in the following functional framework $$\label{functionalframework}
\begin{array}{l}
\beta\in L^{2}(0,{\kappa};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{2}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})).
\end{array}$$ Let us fix a positive constant $\overline{{\kappa}}>{\kappa}>0.$ There exists a positive constant $C=C(\overline{{\kappa}})>0,$ independent of ${\kappa},$ such that the following holds $$\label{inequalityexistence}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}+\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}\\
&\leqslant\displaystyle C(\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}
\displaystyle+\|f\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}).
\end{array}$$
We write in the following form: $$\label{matrixform}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\begin{pmatrix}
\beta\\
\partial_{t}\beta
\end{pmatrix}-\begin{pmatrix}
0 & I\\
-\partial_{xxxx} & \partial_{xx}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\beta\\\partial_{t}\beta
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
\beta\\
\partial_{t}\beta
\end{pmatrix} & \quad\mbox{in}\,\,{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,{\kappa}),\\
\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{0}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t}\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{1}&\quad\mbox{in}\,\,{\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Since we are on a one dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}},$ it is easy to see that the operator $$\mathcal{A}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & I\\
-\partial_{xxxx} & \partial_{xx}
\end{pmatrix}$$ is defined in $H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})$ with the domain $$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})=H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}).$$ Further it follows from [@chen] that the operator $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}))$ generates an analytic semigroup on $H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}).$\
Hence one can apply the isomorphism theorem [@ben Theorem 3.1, p. 143] to obtain . In order to furnish the inequality with a constant $C=C(\overline{{\kappa}}),$ independent of ${\kappa},$ one can use the technique from the proof of [@Mitraexistence Theorem 2.7] which involves in extending the non homogeneous term $f$ by zero in a time interval $({\kappa},\overline{{\kappa}})$ and solving in $(0,\overline{{\kappa}}).$ In particular the bound on $\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}$ in can be obtained by a priori estimate in the spirit of [@Mitraexistence Eq. 2.36].
It might seem surprising to include an estimate of $\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}$ in , since it can be obtained by interpolation from the estimate of\
$\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})
\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}.$ Using interpolation argument might yield a constant depending on $\kappa$ but for our purpose of obtaining a existence result we need a bound on\
$\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}$ where the constant $C$ must be independent of $\kappa.$ This is the reason why we separate the estimate of $\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}$ in .
Now based on Lemma \[lemmaexistence\], we will prove Lemma \[existencepotential\] in two steps $i.e$ (1) a local in time existence result and (2) an iteration argument.\
$Step\,\,1.$ Local in time existence: This step is based on a fixed point argument which is performed in a sufficiently small time interval.\
Let $\widehat{\beta}\in L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})).$ Let us consider $$\label{dampedbeamgeneral3}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\partial_{tt}\beta-\partial_{txx}\beta+\partial_{xxxx}\beta=-a\widehat{\beta}+v_{\beta}\chi_{\omega} \,& \mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\times(0,{\kappa}),
\vspace{1.mm}\\
\displaystyle\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{0}\quad \mbox{and}\quad \partial_{t}\beta(\cdot,0)=\beta_{1}\, &\mbox{in}\, {\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}.
\end{array}\right.$$ From Lemma \[lemmaexistence\] we know that the problem admits of a unique solution in the functional framework and using the solution satisfies the following bound $$\label{inequalityexistence3}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}+\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}\\
&\leqslant\displaystyle C(\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}
\displaystyle+\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,{\kappa}))}\|\widehat{\beta}\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}),
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of ${\kappa}.$ Further in view of the inequality $$\|\widehat{\beta}\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}\leqslant {{\kappa}^{1/2}}\|\widehat{\beta}\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))},$$ one furnishes the following $$\label{inequalityexistence4}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}+\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}\\
&\leqslant\displaystyle C(\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})}
\displaystyle+{{\kappa}}^{1/2}\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,{\kappa}))}\|\widehat{\beta}\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}),
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $\kappa.$ We will solve the system by proving that the map $\widehat{\beta}\longrightarrow\beta$ from $L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))$ to itself is a contraction for a sufficiently small time ${\kappa}.$ In that direction let us consider $\widehat{\beta}_{i}$ and $\widehat{\beta}_{j}$ in the space $L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})).$ Let $\beta_{i}$ and $\beta_{j}$ be the solutions of the problem corresponding to the potentials $a\widehat{\beta}_{i}$ and $a\widehat{\beta}_{j}$ respectively. Using the linearity it is easy to observe that $(\beta_{i}-\beta_{j})$ solves system with the potential term $a(\widehat{\beta}_{i}-\widehat{\beta}_{j})$ and initial condition $$((\beta_{i}-\beta_{j}),\partial_{t}(\beta_{i}-\beta_{j}))(\cdot,0)=(0,0).$$ Using for $(\beta_{i}-\beta_{j})$ one in particular furnishes the following $$\label{inequalityexistence5}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\|(\beta_{i}-\beta_{j})\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}
\leqslant\displaystyle C{{\kappa}}^{1/2}\|a\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,{\kappa}))}\|(\widehat{\beta}_{i}-\widehat{\beta}_{j})\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $\kappa.$ In view of we can readily conclude that there exists $$\kappa^{*}<\frac{1}{C^{2}\|a\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}\times(0,T))}},$$ where $C$ is the constant appearing in and (one can observe that $C$ is the same constant in both of these inequalities), such that the map $\widehat{\beta}\longrightarrow\beta$ from $L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa}^{*};L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))$ to itself is a contraction. Hence by Banach fixed point theorem there exists a unique solution $\beta$ of in the time interval $(0,\kappa^{*})$ and further the choice of $\kappa^{*}$ and the inequality together furnish that $$\label{inequalityexistence6}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}+\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}\\
&\displaystyle \leqslant\displaystyle C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C,$ independent of $\kappa^{*}.$\
$Step\,\,2$ Iteration: Using interpolation and the regularity of $\beta$ in $(0,\kappa^{*})$ one obtains that $$(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)(\cdot,\frac{\kappa^{*}}{2})\in H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}),$$ and further from one obtains the following $$\label{boundk*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)(\cdot,\frac{\kappa^{*}}{2})\|_{H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $\kappa^{*}.$ Since the constant $C$ in inequality does not depend on the final time $\kappa^{*}$ and the local in time existence result proved in $Step\,\,1,$ is independent of the size of the given data $(\beta_{0},\beta_{1}),$ hence we can once again solve in $(\frac{\kappa^{*}}{2},\frac{3\kappa^{*}}{2})$ with datum $(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)(\cdot,\frac{\kappa^{*}}{2})$ and obtain $$\label{inequalityexistence7}
\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{2}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{4}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))\cap H^{1}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}))}+\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0,{\kappa^{*}};H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}))}\\
&\displaystyle \leqslant\displaystyle C\|(\beta,\partial_{t}\beta)(\cdot,\frac{\kappa^{*}}{2})\|_{H^{3}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L})\times H^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}}\leqslant C\|(\beta_{0},\beta_{1})\|_{H^{3}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})\times H^{1}({\mathbb{T}^{d}_{L}})},
\end{array}$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $\kappa^{*}.$ In the last line of we have used . One can iterate this argument finitely many times to show that the system renders a unique solution in the time interval $(0,\kappa)$ and the inequality holds in the time interval $(0,\kappa)$. Since $\kappa$ is arbitrary we can have the existence result in time interval $(0,T).$ Hence we are done with the proof of Lemma \[existencepotential\].
[^1]: [Acknowledgments]{}: The work was done as a part of the PHD thesis of the author in Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse. The author wishes to thank the ANR project ANR-15-CE40-0010 IFSMACS as well as the Indo-French Centre for Applied Mathematics (IFCAM) for the funding provided during this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Frieder Kleefeld
title: 'COULOMB-SCATTERING AND $\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ MIXING ANGLE '
---
[Centro de Física das Interacções Fundamentais (CFIF), Instituto Superior Técnico,\
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal ]{}
Coulomb-Scattering and $pp\rightarrow pp X$ with $X=\pi^0,\;\eta,\;\eta^\prime,\;\ldots$
========================================================================================
Due to their large threshold enhancement (TE) over phasespace [@Moskal:2002jm; @Moskal:2003gt] strong attention has been devoted to the cross sections of $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ and $pp\rightarrow pp\eta^\prime$. Despite early theoretical claims that the TE is to be understood by final state interactions (FSI) the conclusive quantitative theoretical explanation of this TE is still awaiting. As long as there is lacking the cross section measurement of “Coulomb-free” reaction channels $pn\rightarrow pn\eta$ and $pn\rightarrow pn\eta^\prime$ at excess energies where TE is seen in $pp\rightarrow ppX$ with $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$, it is difficult to say — lacking also a satisfactory quantitative theoretical description of Coulomb-interactions (CI) in FSI —, whether the seen TE is solely due to short-ranged strong interactions or whether there is some component of the TE also due to infinite-ranged CI. Without settling these questions it will be therefore close to impossible to learn something quantitatively about the physics underlying $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ mesons on the basis of these reaction processes. Before entering specific open questions with respect to CI in the context of $pp\rightarrow ppX$ with $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$ we shortly want to recall the respective present theoretical situation concerning FSI: Present theoretical approaches to the treatment of initial state interactions (ISI) and FSI are typically based on a “two-potential formalism” (TPF), where the overall interaction potential $V$ decomposes according to $V=V_S+V_L$ into a sum of a short-ranged ($V_S$) and a long-ranged ($V_L$) interaction potential, while $V_S$ leads to production of meson $X$ and $V_L$ dominiates ISI and FSI.[^1] Despite its simple philosophy the technical implementation of the TPF gets rather cumbersome and requires particular care, when $V_L$ happens to be of infinite range like in the case of CI. The technical challenge related e.g. to CI has been a combination of several aspects. First of all one is in the need to be able to describe theoretically elastic scattering (ES) of any two charged particles occuring in either the initial or the final state.[^2] The second level of complication has been to put either incoming or outgoing particles of the non-relativistic Coulomb-scattering (CS) problem off the mass shell and to calculate corresponding “half-shell” [@Kowalski:1965] Green’s functions [@Ford:1964; @Kok:1982; @Talukdar:1984; @VanHaeringen:1985tp; @Katsogiannis:1994] or off-shell Jost functions [@Kok:1982; @Talukdar:1984; @VanHaeringen:1985tp; @Katsogiannis:1994] for the non-relativistic CS problem. The surprising observation of related studies is [@Ford:1964; @Chen:1971; @Kok:1981; @Kok:1982; @VanHaeringen:1985tp; @Alston:1988; @Katsogiannis:1994] that the half-shell Green’s function of non-relativistic CS is not related to the respective on-shell Green’s function by a smooth limiting procedure.[^3] This implies in particular that the on-shell unitarity relation for the non-relativistic Coulomb Green’s function is not well defined [@Chen:1971]. The third challenge has been then to be able to describe half-shell non-relativistic CS in the presence of short-ranged nuclear interactions [@Dolinskii:1966; @Kok:1981; @Katsogiannis:1994]. As half-shell Green’s functions for $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering processes determine merely EFs for interacting two-particle subsystems in the initial or final state, there arises the final — yet unresolved — challenge to determine EFs for $2\rightarrow 3$ production processes for the case of infinite ranged FSI involving three scattering particles. The most popular, yet — as we will argue below — incorrect assumption in the spirit of the distorted wave impulse approximation for short ranged interaction potentials is that even infinite range Coulomb FSI corrections are factorizable. In the context of quasi-free processes with two or three charged particles in the final state factorization of Coulomb FSI has been promoted e.g. in Refs. [@Bajzer:1987]. The authors of Ref. [@Moalem:1995] tried to achieve factorization by performing an on-shell approximation in the three particle final state. The authors of Ref. [@Alt:2004fi] seem to make the strongest case for factorization by performing a so-called “Coulomb Fourier Transform”. Unfortunately their calculations require regularization and are therefore in the end regularization scheme dependent. As pointed out in Ref. [@Mukhamedzhanov:2005xc] the regularization of CI for systems of two charged particles by a screening technique [@Alt:1978yd] being based on foregoing ideas [@Dollard:1968] is “successfully implemented”. Yet also here it is quite rewarding a challenge [@Deltuva:2005wx] to remove the inherent regulator dependence. Parallely to the aforementioned theoretical machinery with all its difficulties there appeared [^4] in 2003 a surprisingly simple and seemingly successful formalism by A. Deloff [@Deloff:2003te] who not only constructed final state EFs on the basis of 3-body wavefunctions, yet also invoked in such 3-body EFs gross features of CI. His method applied to $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ allowed him [@Deloff:2003te] — assuming still a constant meson production amplitude — to obtain already at leading order of the partial wave expansion a quite impressive near to quantitative description of the Dalitz-plot $\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma}{\mathrm{d}s_{pp} \mathrm{d}s_{p\eta}}$ close to threshold. In normalizing the results at small values of the outgoing proton invariant mass square $s_{pp}$ to experimental data he observed that theoretical predictions are too small compared to experiment at higher values of $s_{pp}$, where the outgoing $\eta$-meson is approximately at rest. Although this deviation of theory from experiment for $s_{pp}$ large is presently believed to be due to an insufficient theoretical description of short-ranged strong interactions, we want to point here out that that discrepancy between theory and experiment may be also [*due to an insufficient treatment of Coulomb FSI*]{} in $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$. A first way to understand this conjecture is to recall that the radius of convergence of the partial wave expansion in the very vincinity of a Coulomb-singularity is very small. This implies for a reaction like $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ that already at energies very close to threshold a very large number of partial waves even of large $pp$ orbital momenta have to be taken into account [@Ahmed:2003; @Deltuva:2005wx] to obtain an accurate description of the reaction amplitude in the complete Dalitz plot. Another way of understanding the conjecture is achieved by looking at $pp$ ES, where the total cross section $\sigma$ is naively believed to diverge due to a non-integrable singularity of the Rutherford differential cross section $\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\simeq \frac{\alpha^2}{(2 m v^2 )^2}\frac{1}{\sin^4(\theta/2)}$ at $\theta\rightarrow 0$. This paradox is resolved [@Baryshevskii:2004; @Mukhamedzhanov:2005xc] by taking into account in calculations for $\sigma$ not only the divergent asymptotic part of outgoing pp-wavefunction, yet the [*finite*]{} full wavefunction $\psi_{\vec{k}}(r)$ of the ES problem containing also the divergence contained in the incoming $pp$-system. The *finite* total cross section is then calculated on the basis of the current density $\vec{j} = \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}m} (\psi^\ast_{\vec{k}}(r) \vec{\nabla} \psi_{\vec{k}}(r) - \psi_{\vec{k}}(r) \vec{\nabla} \psi^\ast_{\vec{k}}(r))$ (with $\vec{j}\rightarrow \frac{\vec{k}}{m} \equiv \vec{j}_0$ for $\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}\rightarrow -\infty$ and $\vec{j} \rightarrow j_e \frac{\vec{k}}{k} + j_{sc} \frac{\vec{r}}{r}$ for $r\rightarrow\infty$) as [@Baryshevskii:2004] $\sigma = \int \mathrm{d}\Omega \,r^2 \frac{j_{sc}}{j_0} = \frac{2\pi r}{k} \, \xi^2 I_-(\xi)$ with $I_-(\xi)\equiv \exp(\pi \xi) \int^\infty_0dz \, |U_1(1-\mathrm{i}\xi,1,\mathrm{i}z)|^2$ and $\xi\equiv\frac{\alpha}{v}$. $\sigma$ shows here up to be not only energy- yet also *volume-dependent*, and diverges only for an infinite reaction volume, i.e. $r\rightarrow \infty$! [^5] The correct calculation of $\sigma$ required — contrary to what is assumed in the TPF — a *knowledge of the $pp$-wavefunction in the reaction point*. These observations on $pp$ ES get relevant for the discussion of FSI/ISI in $pp\rightarrow ppX$ with $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$ when taking into account most recent conclusions of Ref. [@Mukhamedzhanov:2005xc] studying $3\rightarrow 3$ scattering of three charged particles: [*“…If any of the particles is neutral, then the resulting asymptotic solution becomes the plane wave for the neutral particle and the exact two-body scattering wavefunction for the charged pair …”*]{}. This implies that due to the neutrality of $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$ the protons in $pp\rightarrow ppX$ should show in particular for the meson $X$ at rest (i.e. $s_{pp}$ large) some features observed also in $pp$ ES. By the foregoing considerations one might understand now, why with $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$ is — [*despite*]{} the influence of CI — finite at all and why the experimental Dalitz-plot $\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma}{\mathrm{d}s_{pp} \mathrm{d}s_{p\eta}}$ is showing — eventually [*due*]{} to CI — some enhancement beyond naive theoretical expectations for large $s_{pp}$. Further we expect some [*reaction-volume dependence*]{} of total cross sections in the presence of CI, which might be different for $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ and $pp\rightarrow pp\eta^\prime$ and experimentally explored by correlation functions like the one proposed by Paweł Klaja [@Klaja:2005a] during the Eta’05 workshop in Cracow. We are left with the puzzling observation that angular distributions in $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ seem to be flat [@Moskal:2003gt], contrary to what is observed in $pp$ ES. During the same Eta’05 workshop it has been also argued on the basis of Ref. [@Gasparyan:2005fk] that CI in $pp\rightarrow pp\eta$ are fully understood. We cannot share this belief due to the fact, that the dispersive method displayed in Ref. [@Gasparyan:2005fk] being based on analyticity assumptions to be yet justified is used only to calculate effective range parameters for systems of charged particles with different mass, and NOT complete $2\rightarrow 3$ production cross sections for the more pathologic situation of two charged initial and final state particles of [*equal mass*]{} like it is the case for $pp\rightarrow ppX$ with $X=\eta,\eta^\prime$. Also the method does NOT provide any solution to what has been summarized in Ref. [@Kadyrov:2005xm] as follows: [*“$\ldots$ For the charged particles with the long-range Coulomb interaction the theory has faced apparently insurmountable difficulties. The problem is that the Faddeev equations are not compact in the presence of Coulomb interactions. $\ldots$”*]{}
$\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ Mixing Angle
=================================
“Traditional” $U(3)\times U(3)$ Linear $\sigma$ Model Approach to $\eta\,$-$\,\eta^\prime$ Mixing {#seclinsig1}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We want to recall here some “traditional” one-mixing-angle approach to $\eta\,$-$\,\eta^\prime$ and $\sigma$-$f_0$ mixing in the context of the $U(3)\times U(3)$ Linear $\sigma$ Model (L$\sigma$M) (For $\pi^0$-$\eta$ mixing in the $U(2)\times U(2)$ L$\sigma$M see ’t Hooft (1986)[@Levy:1967a]). For later convenience we define $\Sigma_\pm (x) \equiv S(x) \pm i P(x)$ and the following $U(3)\times U(3)$ scalar and pseudoscalar meson field matrices $$S = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc} \sigma_{u\bar{u}} & a^+_0 & \kappa^+ \\[1mm]
a^-_0 & \sigma_{d\bar{d}} & \kappa^0 \\[1mm]
\kappa^- & \bar{\kappa}^0 & \sigma_{s\bar{s}}
\end{array}\right) \; , \quad P = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc} \eta_{u\bar{u}} & \pi^+ & K^+ \\[1mm]
\pi^- & \eta_{d\bar{d}} & K^0 \\[1mm]
K^- & \bar{K}^0 & \eta_{s\bar{s}}
\end{array}\right) \; ,$$ and $\sigma_{n\bar{n}}\equiv (\sigma_{u\bar{u}} + \sigma_{d\bar{d}})/\sqrt{2}$, $\sigma_{3}\equiv (\sigma_{u\bar{u}} - \sigma_{d\bar{d}})/\sqrt{2}\simeq a^0_0$, and $\eta_{n\bar{n}}\equiv (\eta_{u\bar{u}} + \eta_{d\bar{d}})/\sqrt{2}$, $\eta_{3}\equiv (\eta_{u\bar{u}} - \eta_{d\bar{d}})/\sqrt{2}\simeq \pi^0$. The Lagrangean of the $U(3)\times U(3)$ L$\sigma$M before spontaneous symmetry breaking — for simplicity without (axial) vector mesons — is given by [@Levy:1967a; @Delbourgo:1998kg; @Scadron:2006mq]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} & = & \frac{1}{2} \, \mbox{tr} [(\partial_\mu \Sigma_+)(\partial^\mu \Sigma_-)] - \frac{1}{2} \, \mu^2 \, \mbox{tr} [ \Sigma_+ \Sigma_-] - \frac{\lambda}{2} \, \mbox{tr} [ \Sigma_+ \Sigma_- \Sigma_+ \Sigma_-] \nonumber \\
& & - \frac{\lambda^\prime}{4} \, \Big( \mbox{tr} [ \Sigma_+ \Sigma_-]\Big)^2 + \frac{\beta}{2} \Big( \mbox{det} [ \Sigma_+] + \mbox{det} [ \Sigma_-]\Big) + \mbox{tr} [ C S] \; . \label{eqlsm1}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) containing direct chiral symmetry breaking due to the term $\mbox{tr} [C S]$ with $C$ being a constant diagonal $3\times 3$-matrix and containing $U_A(1)$-symmetry breaking due to the ’t Hooft determinant term [@Levy:1967a] proportional to $\beta$ being — as we shall see below — responsible for $\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ mixing is stabilized by performing spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. by performing a (here approximately isospin symmetric) shift $S\rightarrow S-D$ with $D\simeq\mbox{diag} (a,a,b)$ such that ${\cal L}_1 = \mbox{tr} [S (2\lambda D^3 + \beta D^2 + (\mu^2 + \lambda^\prime \, \mbox{tr}[D^2]-\beta \, \mbox{tr} D )D + \frac{\beta}{2} ((\mbox{tr} D)^2 -\mbox{tr} [D^2] ) + C)]$ vanishes. $f_\pi = \sqrt{2}\, a = 92.4$ MeV and $f_K=(a+b)/\sqrt{2}$ are the pion and kaon decay constants. The (isospin symmetric) mass Lagrangean of the spontaneously broken $U(3)\times U(3)$ L$\sigma$M is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_2 & = & - \frac{1}{2} \,\Big( m^2_{a_0} \, (2 \, a^+_0 a^-_0 + \sigma^2_3 ) + 2 \, m^2_\kappa\,(\kappa^+ \kappa^- + \kappa^0 \bar{\kappa}^0) + m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}} \sigma^2_{n\bar{n}} + m^2_{\sigma_{s\bar{s}}} \sigma^2_{s\bar{s}}\nonumber \\
& & \quad\;\; + m^2_\pi \, (2 \, \pi^+ \pi^- + \eta^2_3 )\; + 2\,m^2_K \, (K^+ K^- + K^0 \bar{K}^0) + m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}} \eta^2_{n\bar{n}} \,+ m^2_{\eta_{s\bar{s}}} \eta^2_{s\bar{s}} \nonumber \\
& & \quad\;\; + 2 \sqrt{2}\,a\, (\beta + 2\lambda^\prime b) \,\sigma_{n\bar{n}} \sigma_{s\bar{s}} - 2 \sqrt{2}\,a\, \beta \,\eta_{n\bar{n}} \eta_{s\bar{s}} \Big) \; , \label{eqlsm2} \end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{\mu}^2 \equiv \mu^2 + \lambda^\prime (2a^2 + b^2)$ and $m^2_{a_0} = \bar{\mu}^2 + 6\lambda a^2 - \beta b$, $m^2_\kappa = \bar{\mu}^2 + 2\lambda (a^2+b^2+ab) - \beta a$, $m^2_\pi = \bar{\mu}^2 + 2\lambda a^2 + \beta b$, $m^2_K= \bar{\mu}^2 + 2\lambda (a^2+b^2-ab) + \beta a$, $m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}}= \bar{\mu}^2 + (6\,\lambda + 4 \lambda^\prime ) a^2 + \beta b$, $m^2_{\sigma_{s\bar{s}}} = \bar{\mu}^2 + (6\,\lambda + 2 \lambda^\prime ) b^2$, $m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}} =\bar{\mu}^2 + 2\,\lambda a^2 - \beta b$, $m^2_{\eta_{s\bar{s}}} = \bar{\mu}^2 + 2\,\lambda b^2$. Eq. (\[eqlsm2\]) is diagonalized by $\sigma(600) = \sigma_{n\bar{n}} \cos \phi_S - \sigma_{s\bar{s}} \sin \phi_S$, $f_0(980) = \sigma_{n\bar{n}} \sin \phi_S + \sigma_{s\bar{s}} \cos \phi_S$, and $\eta(548) = \eta_{n\bar{n}} \cos \phi_P - \eta_{s\bar{s}} \sin \phi_P$, $\eta^\prime(958) = \eta_{n\bar{n}} \sin \phi_P + \eta_{s\bar{s}} \cos \phi_P$. The observation of an empirical “Equal Splitting Law” $m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}} - m^2_\pi \simeq m^2_{a_0} - m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}}$ yielding $\lambda^\prime a^2 \simeq 0$ and therefore $\lambda^\prime \simeq 0$ for $a\not=0$ allowed Scadron *et al.* [@Klabucar:2001gr; @Delbourgo:1998kg] to determine $m_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}}\simeq 757.9$ MeV from $m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}} - m^2_\pi \simeq (2\hat{m})^2$ assuming $m_{a_0} \simeq 984.8$ MeV and $\hat{m}= \sqrt{\lambda a^2}$ being the nonstrange quark-mass obtained aproximately as one third of the nucleon mass, i.e. $\hat{m} \simeq m_N / 3 \simeq 315\,\mbox{MeV}/3$. This result led [@Klabucar:2001gr] on the basis of $m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}} = m^2_\eta \cos^2\phi_P + m^2_{\eta^\prime} \sin^2\phi_P$ and $m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}} = m^2_\sigma \cos^2\phi_S + m^2_{f_0} \sin^2\phi_S$ to pseudoscalar and scalar mixing angles in the nonstrange-strange (“ideal”) basis $\phi_P=\arctan ((m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}} - m^2_\eta)/(m^2_{\eta^\prime} - m^2_{\eta_{n\bar{n}}}))^{1/2} \simeq 41.84^\circ$ [@Klabucar:2001gr] and $\phi_S=\arctan ((m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}} - m^2_{\sigma})/(m^2_{f_0} - m^2_{\sigma_{n\bar{n}}}))^{1/2} \simeq \pm 18^\circ$ [@Klabucar:2001gr; @Kleefeld:2001ds]. The obtained value for $\phi_P$ is very consistent with newer [@Kroll:2005sd; @Escribano:2005qq; @Scadron:2006mq] and compatible with older [@Bramon:1997mf] experimental and theoretical findings. Most recent KLOE experimental data suggest [@Kroll:2005sd] e.g. $\phi_P= \, (41.2\pm 1.1)^\circ$.
$(K\pi,K\eta,K\eta^\prime,\ldots)\rightarrow (K\pi,K\eta,K\eta^\prime,\ldots)$ Scattering and the $\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ Mixing Angle {#seccoupled1}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the predictive power of a Lagrangean approach like in Section \[seclinsig1\] related “tree-level” results should be interpreted with great precaution due to “unitarization effects” [@Truong:1991gv] relating a “tree-level” Lagrangean and the (non-perturbative) effective action.[^6] Certainly, a tentative Lagrangean like Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) may be for some fields contained already very close to the effective action corresponding to specific poles of the scattering matrix. In this “bootstrapping” situation unitarization effects are — up to generation of extra poles — very small due to an at least approximate cancellation of all non-tree-level diagrams related to these fields. This is why in Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) resonances like $\sigma(600)$ and $f_0(980)$ are described already close to tree-level, even if we have to be aware that unitarization leads to extra “particles” with equal quantum numbers like $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$, $f_0(1700)$, $\ldots$. Hence, we want to understand below, whether the conclusions of Section \[seclinsig1\] survive within a fully unitarized framework and how “mixing” between short-lived “particles” like in the $\sigma$-$f_0$ system or much more long-lived “particles” like in the $\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ system parametrized by (eventually complex-valued) mixing angles expresses itself as a consequence of unitarization in experimental observables. An instructive way to study unitarization effects and $\eta$-$\eta^\prime$ “mixing” is scattering of pseudoscalar mesons with total isospin $I=1/2$ and angular momentum $J=0$, probing directly the resonances like $K^\ast_0(800)$ and $K^\ast_0(1430)$. For energies of our interest it appears (naively) sufficient to take into account the 3 lowest lying thresholds, i.e. to consider unitarized scattering of 3 coupled channels $K\pi$, $K\eta$, and $K\eta^\prime$, which will be here described by the so-called “Resonance Spectrum Expansion” (RSE) [@vanBeveren:2001kf; @Kleefeld:2003bw] $\bar{g}(E) = (\lambda^2/a) \sum_n B_n/(E-E_n)$ inspired by the “Nijmegen Unitarized Meson Model” [@ruppthesis1; @VanBeveren:1986ea] (NUMM). Within the framework of the RSE we determine the S-matrix of the radial meson-meson-scattering Schrödinger equation $(\frac{d^2}{dr^2} + {\cal K}^2) \vec{\psi}(r) = 2\mu_S \,\bar{G} (E)\, \delta(r-a) \vec{\psi}(r)$ with $\vec{\psi}(r)=(\psi_{K\pi}(r),\psi_{K\eta}(r),\psi_{K\eta^\prime}(r))^T$, $2\mu_S=\mathrm{diag}(\mu_{K\pi},\mu_{K\eta},\mu_{K\eta^\prime})$, ${\cal K}=\mathrm{diag}(k_{K\pi},k_{K\eta},k_{K\eta^\prime})$, $M_{ij}\equiv m_i + m_j$, $\mu_{ij}\equiv m_im_j/M_{ij}$, $E=(k^2_{ij}+m^2_i)^{1/2} + (k^2_{ij}+m^2_j)^{1/2}$ and $i,j\in \{K,\pi,\eta,\eta^\prime\}$. The $E$-dependent symmetric coupling matrix $\bar{G}(E)$ of the $\delta$-shell transition potential of range $a$ between the meson-meson scattering continuum and the 1-channel confining quark-antiquark ($q\bar{q}$) system is given by $\bar{G}(E) = \sqrt{2\mu(E)/(2\mu_S)} \;\, \vec{V} \, \bar{g}(E) \, \vec{V}^+ \! \sqrt{2\mu(E)/(2\mu_S)}$ with $\vec{V}=(V_{K\pi},V_{K\eta},V_{K\eta^\prime})^T$, $2\mu(E)=\mathrm{diag}(\mu_{K\pi}(E),\mu_{K\eta}(E),\mu_{K\eta^\prime}(E))$, $\mu_{ij}(E)\equiv (E^4 - (m^2_i - m_j^2)^2)/(2 E^3)$ and $i,j\in \{K,\pi,\eta,\eta^\prime\}$ [@Kleefeld:2003bw]. The flavour blind meson-quark recoupling constants are taken from [@VanBeveren:1986ea] as $V_{K\pi} = 1/\sqrt{16}$, $V_{K\eta} = (\cos\phi_P - \sqrt{2} \, \sin\phi_P)/\sqrt{48}$, $V_{K\eta^\prime} = (\sin\phi_P + \sqrt{2} \, \cos\phi_P)/\sqrt{48}$. As scattering proceeds through [*one*]{} $q\bar{q}$ channel only, the resulting $3\times 3$ scattering matrix ${\cal S}(E)=1-{\cal P}(E) + {\cal P}(E) \exp(2\mathrm{i}\delta(E))$ is characterized by [*one*]{} “eigenphase” $\delta(E)$ only, while ${\cal P}(E)=\vec{\gamma}(E) \vec{\gamma}(E)^T$ is a rank 1 projector with effective $E$-dependent recoupling constants $\vec{\gamma}(E)=(\gamma_{K\pi}(E),\gamma_{K\eta}(E),\gamma_{K\eta^\prime}(E))$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]) which for [*real*]{} $E$ are real and normalized according to $\vec{\gamma}(E)\cdot \vec{\gamma}(E)=1$. Up to an overall normalization we obtain $\gamma_{ij}(E)\propto \theta (E-M_{ij}) V_{ij} \sin(a k_{ij}) \sqrt{2\mu_{ij}(E)/(a k_{ij})}$ with $i,j\in \{K,\pi,\eta,\eta^\prime\}$ being obviously [*independent*]{} of the RSE $\bar{g}(E)$! After choosing for the RSE the reasonable ansatz with two confinement bare states and one background term ($E_{-1}=0$), i.e. $a\,\bar{g}(E) \simeq \frac{\bar{B}_{-1}}{E} + \frac{\bar{B}_0}{E-E_0} + \frac{\bar{B}_1}{E-E_1}$ with $\bar{B}_j\equiv \lambda^2 B_j$ ($j=0,\pm 1$), we perform a fit (see Fig. \[fig2\]) of the modulous $|a^{I=1/2}_{J=0}(E)|=|\sin\delta^{I=1/2}_{J=0}(E)|$ of the $I=1/2$ scalar $K\pi\rightarrow K\pi$ amplitude measured at the LASS-spectrometer in 1988 [@Aston:1987ir].[^7] Starting from parameters $a=2.55\;\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$, $\bar{B}_{-1} = -17.49$, $\bar{B}_{0} = 3.5$, $\bar{B}_{1} = 1$, $E_0=1.46\;\mbox{GeV}$, $E_1=1.85\;\mbox{GeV}$ guessed in the elastic region of the data a fit with the help of the [*Mathematica*]{} fit function returns the result $a \simeq 2.5497\;\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$, $\bar{B}_{-1} \simeq -12.7387$, $\bar{B}_{0} \simeq 4.6931$, $\bar{B}_{1} \simeq 3.1380$, $E_0 \simeq 1.5173$ GeV, $E_1 \simeq 1.8178$ GeV. The fit being performed at a mixing angle $\phi_P = 39.40^\circ$ compatible with Ref. [@Escribano:2005qq] yields a S-matrix pole for the $K^\ast_0(800)$-meson at $(736.10-\mathrm{i}257.83)$ MeV (to be compared to [@Bugg:2003kj; @Scadron:2006mq]). Fig. \[fig3\] shows that $\phi_P = 39.40^\circ$ is still compatible with the experimental nil-result that — using the words of Törnqvist (1995) [@vanBeveren:2002gy] — *“…the $K\eta$ threshold essentially decouples because of the small coupling constant …”*. Had we exactly decoupled the $K\eta$-channel by choosing $V_{K\eta}=0$, then the resulting mixing angle would have been obviously $\phi_P=\arctan (1/\sqrt{2})=35.26^\circ$. Note from Fig. \[fig1\] that — despite constant $\phi_P$ — the effective couplings $\vec{\gamma}(E)$ vary strongly with $E$! Sections \[seclinsig1\] and \[seccoupled1\] are intimately related: on one hand mesons in the NUMM/RSE interact only [*indirectly*]{} by coupling to confining $q\bar{q}$ channels, on the other hand Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) is obtained by allowing mesons to couple to $q\bar{q}$ only [@Kleefeld:2005hd].
![RSE fit for $\delta^{I=1/2}_{J=0}(E)$ (solid line) and eigenphase $\delta(E)$ (dotted line) versus LASS-data. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig1.eps "fig:"){width="1.7in"}\
![RSE fit for $\delta^{I=1/2}_{J=0}(E)$ (solid line) and eigenphase $\delta(E)$ (dotted line) versus LASS-data. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig2.eps "fig:"){width="1.7in"}\
![RSE fit for $\delta^{I=1/2}_{J=0}(E)$ (solid line) and eigenphase $\delta(E)$ (dotted line) versus LASS-data. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.eps "fig:"){width="1.7in"}\
This work summarizes our oral contribution at the Eta’05 workshop on “Production and Decay of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ Mesons”, 15-18.9.2005, Cracow, Poland. We are most grateful to Paweł Moskal, the Research Centre in Jülich and the EtaMesonNet for financial support, kind invitation to and hospitality during this workshop! The work has been supported by the [*Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia*]{} (FCT) of the [*Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior*]{} of Portugal, under Grants no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/20186/99, SFRH/BDP/9480/2002, POCTI/FNU/49555/2002, and POCTI/FP/FNU/50328/2003.
[99]{} ; P. Moskal: habilitation thesis, Jagellonian Univ., Cracow, Poland, 2004, ISBN 83-233-1889-1 \[hep-ph/0408162\]; ; J. Przerwa [*et al.*]{}: hep-ex/0507076; \[nucl-th/0108064\] ; ; ; ; \[ \]; ; A. Sommerfeld: [*Atombau und Spectrallinien*]{}, F. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 1939, volume II; ; ; ; ; ; H. van Haeringen: [*Charged Particle Interactions*]{}, Coulomb Press Leyden, Leiden, 1985 Z. Ahmed: quant-ph/0310019; A.M. Mukhamedzhanov, M. Akin: nucl-th/0602006 ; ; ; \[[*J. Nucl. Phys. (U.S.S.R.)*]{} [**3**]{} (1966) 252\]; ; A. Moalem, L. Razdolskaya, E. Gedalin: hep-ph/9505264. A.M. Mukhamedzhanov, A.S. Kadyrov, F. Pirlepesov: nucl-th/0509012 ; E.O. Alt, W. Sandhas: pp. 1-95 in [*Coulomb Interactions in Nuclear and Atomic Few-Body Collisions*]{}, eds. F.S. Levin, D. Micha, Plenum, New York, 1996
; , [**72**]{} (2005) 054004 \[Erratum [**72**]{} (2005) 059903\] ; \[nucl-th/9910010\]; ; ; ; \[nucl-th/0406069\] \[quant-ph/040305\] ( see also )
P. Klaja [*et al.*]{}: [*Correlation femtoscopy for studying $\eta$ meson production mechanism*]{}, submitted for publication in [*Acta Physica Slovaca*]{}
; ; ; \[Erratum [**8**]{} (1973) 987\]; ; ; M. Napsuciale: hep-ph/9803396; ; ; G. ’t Hooft: hep-th/9903189; \[hep-ph/9807504\] M. D. Scadron, F. Kleefeld, G. Rupp: hep-ph/0601196 , [**26**]{} (2000) 1335 P. Kroll: hep-ph/0509031; \[hep-ph/0501072\]; ; , [**503**]{} (2001) 271; C. Amsler: [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**70**]{} (1998) 1293; ; F. Kleefeld: PoS(HEP2005)108 \[hep-ph/0511096\]
; ; E. van Beveren [*et al.*]{}: hep-ph/0509351; ; G. Rupp: doctoral thesis, Catholic Univ. of Nijmegen, 1982; , [**22**]{} (1980) 787, [**27**]{} (1983) 1527; \[Erratum [**595**]{} (2004) 556\]; [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**397**]{} (2004) 257 \[hep-th/0506140\]
[^1]: Accordingly the unitary scattering matrix is assumed to decompose as [@Kleefeld:2001gz] $S = (S^{-1})^+ =\exp(2\mathrm{i} (\Delta_S + \Delta_L)) = \exp(\Delta_L \frac{\delta}{\delta\Delta_S}) \exp(2\mathrm{i} \Delta_S)\exp(-\Delta_L \frac{\delta}{\delta\Delta_S})\equiv T_{FSI}\exp(2\mathrm{i} \Delta_S)T_{ISI}$. Here $\Delta_S$ and $\Delta_L$ are Hermitian symmetric phaseshift “matrices” constrained by the (functional) commutator $[\delta/(\delta\Delta_S),\Delta_S]=1$. The “Enhancement Factors” (EFs) $T_{FSI}$ and $T_{ISI}$ [*are not independent*]{} due to $T_{ISI}=T^{-1}_{FSI}$, while the unitarity condition $T^{-1}_{FSI}=T^+_{FSI}$ implies $[\delta/(\delta\Delta_S),\Delta_L]=0$ showing that EFs [*depend on the short ranged interactions*]{} [@Baru:2000vd]. The TPF goes back to work by [@Brueckner:1951] Brueckner, Chew, Hart (1951), Watson (1951,1952), Gell-Mann, Goldberger (1953), Migdal (1955), Fermi (1955). The TPF for ISI/FSI in $2\rightarrow 3$ processes for finite range interactions was worked out already in detail as early as 1968 [@Aitchison:1969tq].
[^2]: The determination of required wave functions or on-shell Green’s functions (and related integrals) for non-relativistic two-particle Coulomb ES has a long tradition (e.g. [@Gordon:1928; @VanHaeringen:1985tp; @Ahmed:2003]) and has been known to be quite a rewarding technical task which is performed for on-shell Green’s functions most conveniently in momentum space [@Okubo:1960b; @Ford:1964].
[^3]: Similarly, half-shell Green’s functions of Hulthén-like potentials [@Ford:1964; @Kok:1982] display a rapid change at the on-shell limit.
[^4]: Unaware of the existence of a worked out formalism of 1968 [@Aitchison:1969tq] for ISI/FSI in $2\rightarrow 3$ processes for finite-ranged interactions theoreticians involved in nucleon-induced threshold meson production tried around 1997 [@Faldt:1997jm; @Kleefeld:2001gz; @Baru:2000vd] to re-develop a formalism for the theoretical description of ISI/FSI, yet without managing to handle infinite-ranged CI quantitatively.
[^5]: Also Ref. [@Pineda:2004mx] observed that the definition of the proton charge radius depends on some reaction dependent length.
[^6]: Unitarization leads for one field in a tentative Lagrangean typically to several distinct poles of the scattering matrix (S-matrix) [@Kleefeld:2003bw; @vanBeveren:2002gy]. Therefore one field in a tentative Lagrangean like Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) typically corresponds to several experimental “particles”, the pole parameters of which can be very different from the mass parameters of the original tentative Lagrangean, if unitarization effects are large. Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) provides us with a gold-plated example for large unitarization effects: the $\kappa$-field in Eq. (\[eqlsm1\]) is typically described by a mass parameter of approximately $m_\kappa \simeq 1150$ MeV (e.g. Törnqvist (1999) [@Levy:1967a]), while unitarization then yields at least two known experimental mesons $K^\ast_0(800)$ and $K^\ast_0(1430)$, the pole parameters of which are obviously very different from the Lagrangean parameter $m_\kappa$.
[^7]: We are aware of strong unitarity violations of considered LASS data for energies higher than $E\approx 1.5$ GeV which should be seriously taken into account when interpreting our results for $E\ge 1.5$ GeV!
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by recent developments in Cosmology we would like to consider an extension of the Ghost DE which we will call as varying Ghost DE. Ghost DE like other models was introduced recently as a possible way to explain accelerated expansion of the Universe. For the phenomenological origin of the varying Ghost dark energy in our Universe we can suggest an existence of some unknown dynamics between the Ghost Dark energy and a fluid which evaporated completely making sense of the proposed effect. Moreover, we assume that this was in the epochs and scales which are unreachable by nowadays experiments, like in very early Universe. In this study we will investigate the model for cosmological validity. We will apply observational and causality constraints to illuminate physically correct behavior of the model from the phenomenological one. We saw that an interaction between the varying Ghost DE and cold DM (CDM) also provides a solution to the cosmological coincidence problem. And we found that the Ghost DE behaves as a matter like fluid in early Universe.'
author:
- 'Martiros Khurshudyan[^1]'
- 'Amalya Khurshudyan[^2]'
title: Interacting varying Ghost Dark energy models in General Relativity
---
The observations of high redshift type SNIa supernovae [@Riess] - [@Riess2] reveal the speeding up expansion of our Universe. The surveys of clusters of galaxies showed that the density of matter is very much less than critical density [@Pope], observations of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies indicate that the Universe is flat and the total energy density is very close to the critical $\Omega_{\small{tot}} \simeq1$ [@Spergel]. In order to explain experimental data concerning to the nature of the accelerated expansion of the Universe several hypothesis were proposed. For instance, in General Relativity framework, the desirable result could be achieved by dark energy: an exotic and mysterious component of the Universe, with negative pressure and negative EoS parameter $\omega<0$. Dark energy occupies about 73$\% $ of the energy of our Universe, other component, Dark matter, about 23$\%$, and usual baryonic matter occupies about 4$\%$. The simplest model for the dark energy is the cosmological constant $\omega_{\Lambda}=-1$ introduced by Einstein, but with absence of a fundamental mechanism which sets the cosmological constant zero or very small value. This problem known as fine-tuning problem, because in the framework of quantum field theory, the expectation value of the vacuum energy is 123 order of magnitude larger than the observed value of the $\Lambda$ [@Steinhardt]. The second problem known as cosmological coincidence problem, which asks why are we living in an epoch in which the densities of dark energy and matter are comparable? Alternative models of dark energy suggest a dynamical form of dark energy, which at least in an effective level, can originate from a variable cosmological constant [@Sola], or from various fields [@Ratra] - [@Ratra6], [@Caldwell] - [@Caldwell9], [@Feng] - [@Feng13] and could alleviate these problems. Finally, an interesting attempt to probe the nature of dark energy according to some basic quantum gravitational principles are the holographic dark energy paradigm [@Hsu] - [@Hsu11] and agegraphic dark energy models [@Cai1] - [@Cai13]. New model of dark energy called Veneziano ghost dark energy has been recently proposed, which supposed to solve the $U(1)_{A}$ problem in low-energy effective theory of QCD [@Ghost1] - [@Chao-Jun2]. Indeed, the contribution of the ghosts field to the vacuum energy in curved space or time-dependent background can be regarded as a possible candidate for the dark energy. Veneziano ghost exhibits non trivial physical effects in the expanding Universe and these effects give rise to a vacuum energy density $\rho_{D}\sim \Lambda^{3}_{QCD}H\sim (10^{-3}eV)^{4}$. With $H\sim 10^{-33}eV$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}\sim 100 eV$ we have the right value for the force accelerating the Universe today. Energy density of the Ghost Dark energy reads as $$\label{eq:GDE}
\rho_{\small{G}}=\alpha H,$$ where $H$ is Hubble parameter $H=\dot{a}/a$ and $\alpha$ is a constant parameter of the model, which should be determined. A generalization of the model [@Cai] also was proposed for which energy density reads as $$\label{eq:GDEgen}
\rho_{\small{G}}=\alpha H+\beta H^{2},$$ with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ constant parameters of the model. In this work we would like to suggest a phenomenological modification of the Ghost DE and investigate cosmological consequences of such modification. Let suppose that our Universe with FRW metric contains a mixture of a varying Ghost DE and a barotropic fluid with $$P_{m}=\omega\rho_{m},$$ EoS. We know that the energy conservation for the composed fluid reads as $$\label{eq:energy}
\dot{\rho}+3H(\rho+P)=0,$$ with total energy density and pressure of composed fluid given as $$\label{eq:fluid}
\rho=\rho_{\small{VG}}+\rho_{m} ~~~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~~ P=P_{\small{VG}}+P_{m}.$$ Field equations with FRW metric read as $$\label{eq: Fridmman vlambda}
H^{2}=\frac{\dot{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3},$$ $$\label{eq:fridman2}
\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho+3P).$$ We suppose, that the cosmological constant $\Lambda=0$, the gravitational constant $G$ and $c$ are constants with $c=8\pi G=1$. In modern cosmology an interaction between fluid components plays an important role and mathematically means $$\label{eq:firstfluid}
\dot{\rho}_{m}+3H(\rho_{m}+P_{m})=Q$$ and $$\label{eq:secondfluid}
\dot{\rho}_{\small{G}}+3H(\rho_{\small{G}}+P_{\small{G}})=-Q,$$ where $Q$ denotes the phenomenological interaction. From the thermodynamical point of view, it is argued that the second law of thermodynamics strongly faviours dark energy decaying into dark matter. Usually, considered forms for the interaction term $Q$ are $$\label{eq:Q1}
Q=3Hb\rho_{d},$$ $$\label{eq:Q2}
Q=3Hb(\rho_{d}+\rho_{m}),$$ and $$\label{eq:Q2}
Q=3Hb\rho_{m},$$ where $b>0$ is a coupling constant. Mentioned interaction terms are either positive or negative and can not change the sign during the evolution of the Universe. However, recently by using a model independent method to deal with the observational data was found that the sign of the interaction term $Q$ in the dark sector changed in the redshift range of $0.45 \lesssim z \lesssim 0.9$. Hereafter, a sign-changeable interaction [@Hao] - [@Hao2], were introduced $$\label{eq:signcinteraction}
Q=q(\alpha\dot{\rho}+3\beta H\rho).$$ and considered within various cosmological models to reveal some cosmological consequences [@Martiros2]-[@Martiros5] of it. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are dimensionless constants, the energy density $\rho$ could be $\rho_{m}$, $\rho_{\small{de}}$, $\rho_{tot}$. $q$ is the deceleration parameter $$\label{eq:decparameter}
q=-\frac{1}{H^{2}} \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-1-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^{2}}.$$ This new type of interaction can change its sign when our Universe changes from the deceleration $q>0$ to the acceleration $q<0$ Universe. It should be noted that the sign changeability for the interaction other approaches also could be used. Recently, other tendency concerning to the phenomenological modification of the interaction terms was observed, for instance, such that the constants $b$ and $\gamma$ from interaction terms $Q$ assumed to be function of the scale factor $b(a)=b_{0}a^{\zeta}$ [@Saridakis], which is also an interesting modification with its wide interesting consequences. In this work as a first and a simple model we will consider an Universe with a single component fluid. Then as a generalization of the model we will consider a composed fluid model with different couplings between the fluid components. Examples for the interaction term $Q$ considered in this work could be presented as a particular forms of more general form given as $$\label{eq:generalQ}
Q = q^{n}(3 b a^{\chi} H \rho + \gamma a^{\epsilon}\dot{\rho}),$$ where $q$ is the deceleration parameter, $H$ is the Hubble parameter, $a$ is the scale factor and $\rho$ is the energy density of the Universe, while $n$, $b$ and $\gamma$ are constants and should be determined from the observations.\
\
The paper is organized as followed. After introduction, in the next section we consider a model of the Universe with varying Ghost DE. We will consider composed fluid models in the next section. One of the sections devoted to the observational constraints on the models with the causality issue to eliminate phenomenology from the models where we include analysis of the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics. Discussion of obtained results presented in last section.
Modeling the dark sector of the Universe within a varying Ghost DE could be a good starting point to understand some aspects of the phenomenological modification, therefore we would like to start our analysis of the dynamics of the Universe with a single fluid content. Phenomenological dark energy model of our interest which results from the modification of the energy density of the Ghost DE refers as a varying Ghost DE. Our first attempt is an assumption that the energy density of the DE is given as $$\label{eq:singlemodel}
\rho =\alpha a(t)^{\xi} H(t)+ \beta H(t)^{2},$$ where ${\xi}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants and $\xi = 0$ will reduce our new model to the original Ghost DE. The pressure of the De model can be found from the energy conservation equation $$\dot{\rho} + 3H(\rho+P) = 0,$$ and reads as $$\label{eq:psinglemodel}
P = -\frac{\dot{H}}{3} \left [ \frac{\alpha a^{\xi}}{H} +2\beta \right ] -\frac{(\xi+3)\alpha a^{\xi}H}{3} -\beta H^{2}.$$ Taking into account last two equation as well as Eq. (\[eq:fridman2\]) we will have a complete set of equations allowing us to study the behavior of the Universe. If the dynamics of the Universe is controlled via varying Ghost DE suggested in this work, then we can have two different scenarios either we have ever accelerated expansion for the whole history or we have the Universe where $q \geq 0$. For the models with $\xi > 0$ for the later stages of the evolution $q \approx 0$. Similar situation can be seen also for the models with negative $\xi$ (Fig. (\[fig:single\_q\])).
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{single_q_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{single_q_xi_pos.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
With the analysis of the behavior of the $\Omega = \frac{\rho}{3H^{2}}$ we conclude that the models with $\xi > 0$ are not possible scenarios, because in such models we have continuously increasing $\Omega$, while due to the observational results we have a well known fact that $\Omega \approx 1$. While the models with negative $\xi$ could work well, because we can obtain $\Omega \approx 1$ (Fig. (\[fig:single\_Omega\])). Further analysis reveals that a small positive values for $\xi$ also can provide reasonable results. Next, according to the well accepted fact to model dark sector of the Universe with a DE and DM, where usually DM interpreted as a cold dark matter (CDM) with $\omega_{m} = 0$. It is also well known that introduction of an interaction between DE and DM can solve cosmological coincidence problem. Therefore in the next section we will discuss the models involving CDM and an interaction and possible solutions for the cosmological coincidence problem within a particular model of the varying Ghost DE.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=63 mm]{single_omega_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{single_omega_xi_pos.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
The analysis and the results of this section involves models where we have interacting DE and CDM. Cosmography and a possible solution of the cosmological coincidence problem will be under our attention. If we consider non-interacting DE models practically we can handle the problem analytically (for some models), when we have an interaction, then the analysis could be complicated and numerical analysis will be the right tool to understand the behavior of the models in different regimes. Mathematically, in our models when there is not an interaction between the components we will write the energy conservation for the effective fluid with $\rho = \rho_{m} + \rho_{VG}$ and $P=P_{m} + P_{VG}$ as $$\label{eq:nfirstfluid}
\dot{\rho}_{m}+3H(\rho_{m}+P_{m})=0,$$ and $$\label{eq:nsecondfluid}
\dot{\rho}_{\small{VG}}+3H(\rho_{\small{VG}}+P_{\small{VG}})=0,$$ and for the pressure of the varying Ghost Dark energy to have $$\label{eq:PGDe}
P_{\small{VG}}=\frac{-\dot{\rho}_{\small{VG}}}{3H}-\rho_{\small{VG}}.$$ With our modification for the Ghost DE, as we observed, there is a possibility to obtain a transit Universe, where the deceleration parameter changed its sign from the positive to negative providing accelerated expansion observed in the old Universe. This transition becomes apparent with the decreasing the $\xi$ parameter. Another interesting outcome of our phenomenological suggestion is that that with the decreasing of the $\xi$ we are able to change the nature of the Ghost DE in the early Universe. With the decreasing the $\xi$ we will transform DE to a matter like fluid. While independent from the values of the $\xi$ the EoS parameter of the varying Ghost DE will tend to $-1$ (Fig (\[fig:effective\_nonint\])).
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{nonint_q_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{nonint_omega_xi.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
\
\
Consideration of the interaction $Q$ between the components provide some changes in the mathematics of the problem, particularly the pressure of the varying Ghost DE could be found from $$\label{eq:intPGDe}
P_{\small{VG}}=\frac{-Q-\dot{\rho}_{\small{VG}}}{3H}-\rho_{\small{VG}},$$ with appropriate changes in Eq. ([\[eq:nfirstfluid\]]{}). One of the forms of the interaction term $Q$ intensively considered in the physical literature is of the form $$\label{eq:classical_int}
Q=3Hb\rho,$$ where $H$ is the Hubble parameter, $b$ is the constant and $\rho$ is the energy density of the effective fluid. When we have ever accelerated Universe with the interaction between Ghost DE and CDM given by Eq. (\[eq:classical\_int\]), then with the proposed varying Ghost DE we can see a possibility to have a transit Universe i.e. the transition from the $q > 0$ to $q<0$.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_q_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_q_b.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
This transition corresponds to the decreasing of $\xi$ parameter. However, we should note that the increasing the value of the interaction parameter $b$ for a fixed value of $\xi$ can provide us an Universe which is also ever accelerated (Fig. \[fig:effective\_q\]), therefore, eventually we should apply observational constraints on the models to illuminate correct values of the parameters. Such behavior was obtained for the fixed values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In such Universes EoS parameter of the effective fluid described by $$\label{eq:EOS_eff}
\omega_{tot} = \frac{P_{VG} }{\rho_{m} + \rho_{VG}},$$ behaves as a cosmological constant $\omega_{tot}\to 1$ in later stages of the evolution. Decreasing $\xi$ will give usual matter properties to the varying Ghost DE in the early stages of the evolution, but for the latter stages of the evolution independent of the values of the main parameter $\xi$ varying Ghost DE will mimic the cosmological constant with $\omega = -1$. The interaction under our consideration has another interesting effect on the behavior of the EoS parameter $\omega$ of the varying Ghost DE. From the left plot of the Fig. (\[fig:effective\_omega\]) it becomes clear that with the fixed value of $\xi$ and with increasing the value of $b$ varying Ghost DE can be interpreted as a phantom DE.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_omega_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_omega_b.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
Long standing puzzle known as the cosmological coincidence problem can be solved using different approaches. One of the approaches is the consideration of the interaction between dark sector of the Universe. We need another analysis for the deep understanding of the differences between our suggested model and original Ghost DE model, which involves the analysis of the $$r=\frac{\rho_{m}}{\rho_{VG}},$$ which shows us that without interaction this model is not able to solve the cosmological coincidence problem, while with the interaction $Q=3Hb\rho$ we have a solution.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_r_xi.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{classic_r_b.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
Moreover we observed that with increasing interaction parameter $b$ evidence of the solution in the form of the scaling solutions is appears with $r\to r_{0}$, where $r_{0}$ is a constant. In the last part of this section we would like to discuss impact of the different forms of the interaction terms $Q$ on our model. We see that with great accuracy obtained results for the different forms for $Q$ given by Eq.(\[eq:generalQ\]) with $n=0$ are coincide with the results obtained for the interaction term of the $Q = 3Hb\rho$ (Fig. (\[fig:general\])) form.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{general_q_b.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{general_r_b.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{general_omegatot_b.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=60 mm]{general_omega_b.pdf} \\
\end{array}$
Comparison of a theoretical model with observational data is a good way to understand the validity of the theoretical model as well as it is a powerful tool to illuminate physical aspects of the model from the phenomenological one. Besides finding best fit of the model with the observations another simply way exist which allows to reject or accept the models and it is the square of the sound speed defined as $$\label{eq:soundspeed}
C_{s}^{2} = \frac{\partial{P}}{\partial{\rho}},$$ where in our case $P$ is the pressure of the effective fluid and $\rho$ is the energy density of the same effective fluid. We have well defined range for the square of the sound speed which is $$\label{eq:CS2range}
0 \leq C_{s}^{2} \leq 1,$$ either to accept or reject the theoretical models. In our models we saw that with $C_{s}^{2} \to 0$ in the latter stages of the evolution, therefore our models could be appropriate models of the old Universe if we follow to the widespread accepted opinion. But if we follow to the ideas challenging Eq. (\[eq:CS2range\]) then we have good chances to extend proposed models of this work and obtain other interesting behaviors differ than presented in this work. Comparing theoretical models with observational data we found a good fit of the models up to $z \approx 0.9$ (Fig. (\[fig:modelobs\]))
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=70 mm]{nonint_mu_2.pdf}
\end{array}$
$Model$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $b$ $\xi$
--------------- ----------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -- -- --
$Q = 3Hb\rho$ $0.5^{+0.25}_{-0.15}$ $1.3^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ $ 0.02^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ $ 0.01^{+0.03}_{-0.28}$
: Values of the model parameters obtained from the $SneIa + BAO + CMB$ data for distance modulus versus theoretical results for the two-component fluid universe with varying Ghost DE. []{data-label="tab:2Table"}
Another important question is also the validity of the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foundation of GSL required the Gibb’s equation of thermodynamics is $$\label{Gibs}
T_{X}dS_{IX}= PdV_{X} + dE_{IX}$$ where $S_{IX}$ and $E_{IX}=\rho V_{X}$, are internal entropy and energy within the horizon, while $V_{X}=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^{3}_{X}$ be the volume of sphere with horizon radius $$R_{X}=\left(\sqrt{H^{2}+\frac{k}{a^{2}}}\right)^{-1}.$$. In order the GSL to be hold it is required that $\dot{S}_{X}+\dot{S}_{IX}\geq0$ i.e. the sum of entropy of matter enclosed by horizon must be not be a decreasing function of time. Following the work [@Ujjal]where was considered validity of the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics for the Universe bounded by the Hubble horizon $$\label{eq:Habblehor}
R_{H}=\frac{1}{H},$$ cosmological event horizon $$\label{eq:cosevhor}
R_{E}= a\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{a},$$ and the particle horizon $$\label{eq:particlehor}
R_{P}=a\int_{0}^{t}\frac{dt}{a},$$ we found that the validity of the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics for our Universe bounded by the Hubble horizon is also satisfied. Recall that GSL with First Law for the time derivative of total entropy gives $$\label{eq:UF}
\dot{S}_{X}+\dot{S}_{IX}=\frac{R^{2}_{X}}{GT_{X}}\left(\frac{k}{a^{2}}-\dot{H}\right)\dot{R}_{X}.$$ while in case without First Law used we get $$\label{eq:UNUF}
\dot{S}_{X}+\dot{S}_{IX}= \frac{2\pi R_{X}}{G}\left[ R^{2}_{X}\left(\frac{k}{a^{2}}-\dot{H}\right)(\dot{R}_{X}-HR_{X})+\dot{R}_{X} \right].$$ Under the notations used above we understood that $T_{X}=\frac{1}{2\pi R_{X} }$ and $R_{X}$ is temperature and Radius for a given horizon under equilibrium thermodynamics respectively, $S_{X}$ is the horizon entropy and $\dot{S}_{IX}$ as the rate of change of internal entropy.
{#section-4 .unnumbered}
In this article we proposed and considered a varying Ghost Dark energy. In base of the generalized Ghost dark energy with energy density $\rho_{\small{GDe}}=\alpha H + \beta H^{2}$ we assume that $\alpha$ can be a function of the scale factor, for instance, $\alpha(a)=a^{\xi}$ of the form. The origin of such fluid assumed to be phenomenological. We analyzed the behavior of the Universe modeling the dark sector of it within proposed fluid and observed that having negative values of the parameter $\xi$ is favorable due to the fact that only in that case we have $\Omega \approx 1$. The modeling of the dark sector of the Universe via interacting varying Ghost DE and cold DM is considered as a realistic scenario, therefore we investigated the dynamics of the Universe from this part also. In this case we observed a transit Universe, we observed also that varying Ghost Dark energy behaves as a matter like fluid in the early Universe, while it can be either a cosmological constant or phantom like DE depends on the interplay between parameters $\xi$and $b$. The effective fluid is always a cosmological constant with $\omega \to -1$ with $t \to \infty$. We also studied the behavior of the Universe in case of different interactions between varying Ghost DE and CDM and conclude that with great accuracy obtained results interpret the results obtained of the interaction of the form $Q=3Hb\rho$. From the observational data we found the values of the parameters giving us the best fit of our theoretical results with observations. We also found that the causality issue is satisfied for our models. As the last step we check the validity of the Generalized Second Law of the Thermodynamics for the Universe bounded by the Hubble horizon and found it to be satisfied. We also saw that the proposed modification is also a way to solve the cosmological coincidence puzzle.
[1]{}
A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116 1009 (1998)
S Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)
R. Amanullah et al., Astrophys. J. 716, 712 (2010)
A.C. Pope et al. Astrophys. J. 607 655 (2004)
D.N. Spergel et al. Astrophys. J. Supp. 148 175 (2003)
P.J. Steinhardt, Critical Problems in Physics, Prinston University Press (1997)
J. Sola and H. Stefancic, Phys. Lett. B 624, 147 (2005)
B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)
C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988)
A. R. Liddle and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 59, 023509 (1999) I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999) Z. K. Guo, N. Ohta and Y. Z. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 883 (2007) S. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 79, 103005 (2009) E. N. Saridakis and S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083510 (2010)
R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071301 (2003) R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002) S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 562, 147 (2003) P. Singh, M. Sami and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023522 (2003) J. M. Cline, S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043543 (2004) V. K. Onemli and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D 70, 107301 (2004) W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047301 (2005) M. R. Setare and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 0903, 002 (2009) E. N. Saridakis, Nucl. Phys. B 819, 116 (2009) S. Dutta and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Lett. B 676, 12 (2009)
B. Feng, X. L. Wang and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607, 35 (2005) E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043539 (2004) Z. K. Guo, et al., Phys. Lett. B 608, 177 (2005) M.-Z Li, B. Feng, X.-M Zhang, JCAP, 0512, 002 (2005) B. Feng, M. Li, Y.-S. Piao and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 634, 101 (2006) S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 632, 597 (2006) W. Zhao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123509 (2006) Y. F. Cai, T. Qiu, Y. S. Piao, M. Li and X. Zhang, JHEP 0710, 071 (2007) E. N. Saridakis and J. M. Weller, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123523 (2010) Y. F. Cai, T. Qiu, R. Brandenberger, Y. S. Piao and X. Zhang, JCAP 0803, 013 (2008) M. R. Setare and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 668, 177 (2008) M. R. Setare and E. N. Saridakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 549 (2009) Y. F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare and J. Q. Xia, Phys. Rept. 493, 1 (2010) T. Qiu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25, 909 (2010).
S. D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B 594, 13 (2004) M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603, 1 (2004) Q. G. Huang and M. Li, JCAP 0408, 013 (2004) M. Ito, Europhys. Lett. 71, 712 (2005) X. Zhang and F. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043524 (2005) D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. B 628, 206 (2005) S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 1285 (2006) E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 71, 103504 (2005) H. Li, Z. K. Guo and Y. Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 869 (2006) E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 660, 138 (2008) E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 0804, 020 (2008) E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Lett. B 661, 335 (2008)
R.G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 657, 228 (2007) H. Wei and R.G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 660, 113 (2008) H. Wei and R.G. Cai, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 99 (2009)
F.R. Urban, A.R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063001 (2009) F.R. Urban, A.R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 09, 018 (2009) F.R. Urban, A.R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Lett. B 688, 9 (2010) F.R. Urban, A.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 835, 135 (2010) N. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B 695, 41 (2011) R.G. Cai, Z.L. Tuo, H.B. Zhang, arXiv:1011.3212
A. Sheykhi, A. Bagheri, Europhys. Lett. 95, 39001 (2011) E. Ebrahimi, A. Sheykhi, Phys. Lett. B 705, 19 (2011) E. Ebrahimi, A. Sheykhi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 2369 (2011) A. Sheykhi, M. Sadegh Movahed, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. \[DOI:10.1007/s10714-011-1286-3\]
Chao-Jun Feng, Xin-Zhou Li, Ping Xi, JHEP 1205, 046 (2012) Chao-Jun Feng, Xin-Zhou Li, Xian-Yong Shen, Phys.Rev. D87, 023006 (2013) Chao-Jun Feng, Xin-Zhou Li, Xian-Yong Shen, Mod.Phys.Lett. A27, 1250182 (2012)
R.G. Cai, Z.L. Tuo, Y.B. Wu, Y.Y. Zhao, Phys Rev. D 86, 023511 (2012)
WEI Hao, Common. Theory. Phys. 56, 972-980 (2011)
H.Wei, Nucl. Phys. B 845, 381 (2011)
Martiros Khurshudyan, arXiv:1302.1220, (2013) Martiros Khurshudyan, arXiv:1301.4990, (2013) Martiros Khurshudyan, arXiv:1301.1021, (2013) Martiros Khurshudyan, arXiv:1301.0005, (2013)
Xi-ming Chen, Yungui Gong and Emmanuel n. Saridakis, arXiv:1111.6743v2, (2012)
Arundhati Das, Surajit Chattopadhyay, Ujjal Debnath, Found Phys 42, 266-283 (2012)
[^1]: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report a molecular dynamics simulation study of a model gel whose interaction potential is obtained by modifying the three body Stillinger-Weber model potential for silicon. The modification reduces the average coordination number, and suppresses the liquid-gas phase coexistence curve. The low density, low temperature equilibrium gel that can thus form exhibits interesting dynamical behavior, including compressed exponential relaxation of density correlations. We show that motion responsible for such relaxation has ballistic character, and arises from the motion of chain segments in the gel without the restructuring of the gel network.'
author:
- 'Shibu Saw$^{1}$, Niels L. Ellegaard$^{1}$, Walter Kob$^{2}$, Srikanth Sastry$^{1}$'
title: Structural Relaxation of a Gel Modeled by Three Body Interactions
---
Gels are low density disordered networks of interacting molecules that are structurally arrested and capable of sustaining weak stresses. They are ubiquitous in nature and among man-made materials and are composed of a diverse range of materials such as polymers, silica, or colloidal particles. Depending on the life time of the bonds between the basic units of the network, they can either be chemical gels, or reversible, physical gels, the latter displaying complex dynamics. In particular, colloidal gel formers exhibit intricate dynamic behavior in equilibrium, as well as in nonequilibrium aging conditions, can form arrested states, and have been the subject of a considerable number of experimental, theoretical and simulation studies [@Zacca; @Cip04a; @bibette; @Cipelletti-PRL-2000; @Manley-2005-PRL; @Bandyopadhyay; @soga; @Bergenholtz-1999-PRE; @ZacPRL2005; @bianchi; @Sastry-JSM; @delgado; @cates; @Zac04b; @KobEuro; @KobPRL; @hurtado; @hurtado2; @suarez; @pitard].
One reason for the interest in colloidal gels is that these systems permit access to the glassy state via several mechanisms: Cluster aggregation [@bibette; @suarez], structural arrest in the dense phase following phase separation [@Zac04b; @Manley-2005-PRL], or crossing of a glass transition line from an equilibrium fluid to an arrested state [@Bergenholtz-1999-PRE; @KobEuro]. For the occurrence of this latter scenario it is necessary that upon cooling the system does not enter the liquid-gas coexistence region [@Sastry-2000-PRL; @ZacPRL2005; @bianchi; @Sastry-JSM; @KobEuro], i.e. one seeks systems for which the coexistence region is at low temperatures, $T$, and densities, $\rho$. One possibility to achieve this is to choose a “maximum valency” interaction, in which each particle can interact only with a restricted (small) number of particles [@ZacPRL2005; @bianchi; @Sastry-JSM]. In the following we will show that a very simple model involving three body interactions is also able to generate a coexistence region that is located at low $T$ and $\rho$ and which therefore allows one to probe easily the interplay of phase transformations and dynamics in molecular dynamics simulations in such systems.
A further intriguing property of colloidal gels is the fact that their relaxation dynamics can be compressed [@Cipelletti-PRL-2000; @Bandyopadhyay], i.e. the time correlation functions decay faster than an exponential, in stark contrast to structural glasses at higher densities for which one usually finds a stretched exponential relaxation. The microscopic origin of this fast relaxation is not well understood, and various mechanisms have been proposed to explain it [@Cip04a; @KobPRL; @pitard]. We present analysis that shows that for our model, compressed exponential relaxation arises from the ballistic motion of chain segments in the gel without restructuring the gel network.
The model we consider is a modification of the potential proposed by Stillinger and Weber (SW) for the description of silicon [@SW]. Particles interact via a sum of two and three body interaction terms, $v = v_2(r) + \lambda v_3(r,\theta)$ [@swfootnote], where $r$ denotes interparticle distances and $\theta$ the angle formed by three particles. $\lambda$ determines the strength of the three body interaction which depends on the angle $\theta$ via a term proportional to $(\cos\theta+\alpha)^{2}$ with $\alpha$ determining the most preferred angle. Thus by varying $\lambda$ [@molinero] and $\alpha$ we can tune the locally preferred arrangement of the particles.
We have performed constant temperature, volume molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (using a constraint that conserves kinetic energy) with 4000 particles, using the method proposed in [@W-S1993; @Makhov-Lewis; @shibu2] to efficiently compute three body interactions. Gibbs-Ensemble-Monte-Carlo (GEMC) simulations [@Panagiotopoulos-gemc] are performed to obtain liquid-gas coexistence curves have been performed with $2000$ particles. All results are reported in reduced units for the Stillinger-Weber potential [@SW].
![ Phase coexistence curves calculated from GEMC simulations for (a) $\lambda$=21, $\alpha$=1/3, (b) $\lambda$=25, $\alpha$=1/3, (c) $\lambda$=25, $\alpha$=1/2, (d) $\lambda$=10, $\alpha$=1.00 and (e) $\lambda$=10, $\alpha$=1.10. With the increase of value $\lambda$ or $\alpha$ the phase coexistence curve is suppressed. The shaded area indicates the expected coexistence region for $\lambda=10.0$ and $\alpha=1.49$. Also shown is the percolation line for these values of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$. []{data-label="phase-coex"}](./SEKS-Fig1.eps)
Figure \[phase-coex\] shows the coexistence curves obtained for various combinations of $\lambda$ and $\alpha$. We see that with increasing $\lambda$ or $\alpha$, liquid-gas phase coexistence gets shifted to smaller temperature and density ranges, analogous to the observations in [@ZacPRL2005; @bianchi; @Sastry-JSM]. In the following we will fix $\lambda=10.0$ and $\alpha=1.49$. For this choice the structure of the system at low $T$ and $\rho$ is given by quasi-one-dimensional chains of particles, interconnected by three coordinated junctions. At low $T$ bond breaking becomes extremely difficult and consequently a reliable estimate of the coexistence curve via GEMC is no longer possible. Based on MD runs where we observe signatures of phase separation, we indicate in Fig. \[phase-coex\] the region where we expect phase separation (shaded area). Also included in the graph is the percolation line which indicates the density and temperature range (to the lower right of the percolation line) where we may expect gel-like structural arrested states. (The bend in the percolation line at low temperature is due to phase separation [@shibu2].) In the following we will study the relaxation dynamics of the system for $\rho=0.06$ and from Fig. \[phase-coex\] it is clear that at this density phase separation will not play a role.
![ The collective intermediate scattering function $F(k,t)$ (left panel) and self intermediate scattering function $F_s(k,t)$ (right panel) at $T = 0.03$, for a range of wave-vectors $k$. []{data-label="FktFskt"}](./SEKS-Fig2.eps)
In order to characterize the relaxation dynamics of the system we consider the normalized collective, and self intermediate scattering functions, defined as $F(k,T) = S(k)^{-1} \sum_{j,l} \langle \exp[-i
{\bf k} \cdot ({\bf r}_j(t) - {\bf r}_l(0))] \rangle$, where $S(k)$ is the static structure factor, and $F_s(k,T) = N^{-1} \sum_{j}
\langle \exp[-i {\bf k}\cdot ({\bf r}_j(t) - {\bf r}_j(0))] \rangle$, respectively. The time dependence of these correlators is shown, in semi-log plots, in Fig. \[FktFskt\], for the low temperature $T =
0.03$, i.e. well below the percolation line, and various values of the wave-vector $k$. At this $T$ the relaxation dynamics of the system is already very sluggish and hence we deal here indeed with a glass-forming system (see Fig. \[tau-area\] in which one observes a strong change of the relaxation times with temperature, and Ref. [@shibu2] for a detailed discussion). Since we look for compressed exponentials, we plot the data as a function of $t/\tau$ and $t/\tau_s$, where $\tau$ and $\tau_s$ are the relaxation times defined by requiring that the correlator has decayed to $e^{-1}$ of its initial value. We see that the two time correlation functions display remarkably different behavior: For intermediate wave-vectors $F(k,t)$ curves downward and can be fitted well by the Kohlrausch-Williams-Watts (KWW) function $A\exp(-(t/\tau)^{\beta})$ with $\beta \approx 3/2$, the so-called compressed exponential (CE). \[If $k$ is very small or very large the decay is even faster, i.e. $\beta \geq 1.5$ (not shown)\]. Such a behavior ($\beta \approx 3/2$) has been observed in experiments of slowly relaxing gels [@Cipelletti-PRL-2000; @Bandyopadhyay], and analyzed theoretically using a stress relaxation model [@pitard]. On the other hand $F_s(k,t)$ shows, like most other glass-forming systems, a stretched exponential, i.e. $\beta \leq 1.0$ for small and intermediate wave-vector, and a compressed exponential at large wave-vectors. Such a behavior has also been observed in [@KobPRL], and interpreted as arising from the averaging of ballistic motion of particles which form a part of chain segments of varying lengths in the disordered percolating network.
![ Wave-vector dependence of the KWW exponent $\beta$ for $F(k,t)$ and $\beta_s$ for $F_s(k,t)$ for four different temperatures.[]{data-label="beta"}](./SEKS-Fig3.eps)
To analyze further the nature of the relaxation, we determined the KWW-exponent $\beta$ by fitting the correlators to a KWW-function. Since the time correlators exhibit different regimes of decay, it is necessary to choose a meaningful and consistent procedure for obtaining $\beta$ and we choose to fit the curve in the time window in which the correlator is between $0.9$ and $0.1$. This choice avoids the (trivial) ballistic regime at very short times and instead focuses on the relaxation regime seen at intermediate times. The wave-vector dependence of the so obtained KWW-exponents is shown in Fig. \[beta\] for four different temperatures. The $\beta$ values for $F(k,t)$, shown in the top panel, are seen to be always $2.0$ for $T=5.0$, indicating that ballistic motion dominates the decay (as discussed in the context of gels in [@KobPRL]) at all wavelengths. While this is expected for large $k$, we note that the behavior at small $k$ is a result of the low density of our system which leads to significant decay of collective density fluctuations even on large wavelengths through non-diffusive motion of particles. If $T$ is decreased $\beta$ shows a minimum at intermediate values of $k$ and the width of this minimum broadens with decreasing $T$, suggesting that on intermediate length scales the decay mechanism is distinct. The typical values of $\beta$ in this minimum are around $1.3-1.6$, [*i.e.*]{} similar to the values that have been found in the experimental systems or in the theoretical calculations.
The $\beta_s$ values for $F_s(k,t)$, shown in the bottom panel, are found, for the highest temperature $T = 5.0$, to change from $2.0$ at large $k$ towards $1.0$ at small $k$, which we interpret as the expected crossover from ballistic to diffusive decay. Again, for low temperatures, we find superposed on this overall trend an intermediate regime, in which the dynamics becomes “stretched”, [*i.e.*]{}, the decay of the self motion becomes slower than exponential. Thus from this figure we can conclude that the self and collective density correlation functions exhibit complex behavior, that is non-trivial, and different from dense fluids.
![ The wave-vector dependence of relaxation time from the area of $F(k,t)$ and $F_s(k,t)$ for temperature $0.028$, $0.06$ , $0.30$ and $5.00$ at density $0.06$. The filled symbols are for $\tau_s$ and opaque symbols indicates $\tau$. []{data-label="tau-area"}](./SEKS-Fig4.eps)
The relaxation times, $\tau^{\rm A}(k)$ and $\tau_s^{\rm A}(k)$, obtained from calculating the area under $F(k,t)$ and $F_s(k,t)$, are shown in Fig. \[tau-area\] as a function of $k$ for different temperatures. Since for ballistic motion one expects the relaxation time to be proportional to $k^{-1}$, we show $\tau^{\rm A}(k)$ and $\tau_s^{\rm A}(k)$ multiplied by $k$. From the figure we recognize that at high and intermediate $T$ this scaling gives indeed horizontal line, showing that the motion can be interpreted as ballistic. Furthermore we see that the self and collective relaxation times track each other for all $k$. At low $T$ and small $k$ the curves are no longer horizontal, indicating that there is a significant non-ballistic component. As we shall see below, at these low temperatures, $F(k,t)$ has a significant long time relaxation that is clearly distinguishable from an intermediate relaxation process which we shall identify with CE behavior. Furthermore there is a strong decoupling at low $k$ in that $\tau_s^{\rm A}$ exceeds $\tau^{\rm
A}$ by a large factor.
![(a) The $F(k,t)$ from molecular dynamics (MD), and Langevin dynamics (LD) for different damping constants $\gamma$. Also shown is $F(k,t)$ from constrained MD simulation described in the text, and the KWW fit to the MD curve for intermediate times. (b) $\tau$k $vs$ wave-vector, $k$ for a range of temperatures, showing that at low $k$, $\tau \sim 1/k$.[]{data-label="tauk-LD"}](./SEKS-Fig5a.eps "fig:") ![(a) The $F(k,t)$ from molecular dynamics (MD), and Langevin dynamics (LD) for different damping constants $\gamma$. Also shown is $F(k,t)$ from constrained MD simulation described in the text, and the KWW fit to the MD curve for intermediate times. (b) $\tau$k $vs$ wave-vector, $k$ for a range of temperatures, showing that at low $k$, $\tau \sim 1/k$.[]{data-label="tauk-LD"}](./SEKS-Fig5b.eps "fig:")
We now investigate the nature of the compressed exponential relaxation of $F(k,t)$ (shown for $T = 0.04, k = 0.15$ in Figure 5(a)), which we observe on intermediate time scales. At low temperatures, CE relaxation accounts for a substantial part of the decay of $F(k,t)$ for a wide range of intermediate $k$ values. Since at these low temperatures the average life time of the bonds is longer than the decay time of $F(k,t)$ in the CE regime [@shibu2], we expect the CE to be associated with the floppy dynamics of chain segments in the transient gel network, without network restructuring playing any role. In order to analyze the motions that are relevant, we therefore compare the $F(k,T)$ obtained in MD simulations to: (a) MD simulations with the imposition of a constraint that prevents bond breaking and formation of new bonds. This is accomplished by identifying bonded neighbors in the initial configuration we consider, and adding a suitably parametrized barrier potential of gaussian form to the two body part of the S-W potential. (b) Langevin dynamics simulations, to study the role of microscopic dynamics. For the Langevin dynamics we have used a predictor-corrector integrator [@Beard-JCP-2003], and the damping coefficient is tuned to span the range from very small damping, $\gamma = 0.004$ (corresponding to MD) to strong damping, $\gamma=0.4$. In Fig. \[tauk-LD\] (a) we show $F(k,t)$ from these different simulations.
Comparing MD with the constrained MD results, we see that the regime of CE dynamics is essentially unaltered by the imposition of the constraint not to break or form bonds. This shows clearly that the CE dynamics arises from the dynamics of the non-restructuring gel network. However, at longer times the relaxation dynamics of the constrained MD is essentially frozen, indicating that long time relaxation in the MD, cleanly separated from the compressed exponential decay, arises from network restructuring, a result that is also confirmed by the time dependence of the mean squared displacement of the particles (not shown) [@shibu2].
In Fig. \[tauk-LD\] (b) we show $\tau \times k$ where $\tau(k)$ is obtained by fitting $F(k,t)$ by a KWW function in the intermediate time window displaying CE relaxation, as shown in Figure 5 (a) (note that these $\tau$ values are different from those shown in Fig. \[tau-area\] which are obtained from the area under $F(k,t)/S(k)$). The near constant value of $\tau \times k$ for small $k$ corroborates the [*ballistic*]{} origin of the compressed exponential relaxation, consistent with predictions [@Cipelletti-PRL-2000; @pitard].
For the Langevin dynamics we see that for small and intermediate values of the damping coefficient $\gamma$, the correlator tracks the one from the MD and thus a CE will be observed. However, for large damping the shape of the curve is very different from the one of the MD and no CE is seen anymore. Thus we see that the dissipative dynamics, relevant for example for real colloidal gels, will not show a CE dynamics. Therefore we can conclude that the CE seen in those systems is likely due to the aging dynamics.
In conclusion, we have proposed a model system which allows the simulation and study of gel forming fluids under equilibrium conditions, by suppressing the liquid-gas phase coexistence curve to an arbitrarily small temperature and density window. At low densities and temperatures the structural and dynamical features show many similarities to the one of experimental systems. In particular we find an intricate behavior of the density correlation functions, including compressed exponential relaxation of the collective intermediate scattering function with a compressing exponent that depends on temperature and wave-vector considered. The motion responsible for the compressed relaxation is found to have ballistic character and to arise due to the motion of chain segments in the gel without the restructuring of the gel network.
We thank D. Weitz, L. Cipelletti, S. Ciliberto and F. Sciortino for fruitful discussions. We thank Indo-French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced Research - IFCPAR for financial support and CCMS, JNCASR for computational facilities.
[99]{}
E. Zaccarelli, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**19**]{}, 323101 (2007).
L. Cipelletti and L. Ramos, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**17**]{}, R253 (2005).
J. Bibette [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{}, 981 (1992).
L. Cipelletti [*et. al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 2275 (2000).
R. Bandyopadhyay [*et. al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{}, 228302 (2004).
K. G. Soga, J. R. Molrose and R. C. Ball, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**108**]{}, 6026 (1998).
J. Bergenholtz and M. Fuchs, [*Phys. Rev. E.*]{} [**59**]{}, 5706 (1999).
E. Zaccarelli [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 218301 (2005).
E. Bianchi [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 168301 (2006).
S. Sastry, E. La Nave, and F. Sciortino, [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{} P12010, (2006).
E. Del Gado [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**69**]{}, 051103 (2004).
M. E. Cates [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**16**]{}, S4861 (2004).
E. Zaccarelli, F. Sciortino, S. V. Buldyrev and P. Tartaglia, in [*Unifying Concepts in Granular Media and Glasses*]{}, edited by A. Coniglio, A. Fierro, H.J. Herrmann, M. Nicodemi (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 181.
E. Del Gado and W. Kob, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{}, 1032 (2005).
E. Del Gado and W. Kob, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 028303 (2007).
P. I. Hurtado, L. Berthier and W. Kob, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 135503 (2007).
P. I. Hurtado, P. Chaudhuri, L. Berthier, W. Kob, http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.1447
M-A. Suarez, N. Kern, E. Pitard, and W. Kob, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**130**]{}, 194904 (2009).
J.-P. Bouchaud and E. Pitard, [*Eur. Phys. J. E*]{} [**9**]{}, 287 (2002).
S. Sastry, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 590 (2000).
F.H.Stillinger and T.A. Weber, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**31**]{}, 5262 (1985).
The SW potential is written as $u_{SW} = \sum_{i<j}u^{(2)}(r_{ij}) + \sum_{i<j<k} u^{(3)}({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,{\bf r}_k).$ The two-body potential is short-ranged and has the form $u^{(2)}(r_{ij}) = \epsilon f^{(2)} (r_{ij}/\sigma)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(2)}(r) &=&
\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
A (B r^{-4}-1)e^{\left(\frac{1}{r-a}\right)} & r <a \nonumber \\
0 & \geq a \nonumber
\end{array}
\right .\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ = 7.049 556 277, $B$ = 0.602 224 558 4, and $a$ = 1.8. The repulsive three-body potential is also short-ranged, and has the form $ u^{(3)}({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,{\bf r}_k) = \epsilon f^{(3)}({\bf r}_i/\sigma,{\bf r}_j/\sigma,{\bf r}_k/\sigma)$ with $f^{(3)}$ given by $f^{(3)}({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,{\bf r}_k) \equiv h(r_{ij}, r_{ik},\theta_{jik}) + h(r_{ij}, r_{jk},\theta_{ijk})
+ h(r_{ik}, r_{jk},\theta_{ikj}),$ where $\theta_{jik}$ is the angle formed by the vectors ${\bf r_{ij}}$ and ${\bf r_{ik}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
h(r_{ij}, r_{ik},\theta_{jik}) = \lambda e^{(\frac{\gamma}{r_{ij}-a} +
\frac{\gamma}{r_{ik}-a})} \left(\cos\theta_{jik}+\alpha \right)^{2} \nonumber \\
\times H(a-r_{ij}) H(a-r_{ik}) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma = 1.20$, $\lambda = 21.0$, $\alpha = \frac{1}{3}$ in the original parametrization[@SW], and $H(r)$ is the Heaviside function. Reduced units for computations are specified in terms of potential parameters $\epsilon,\sigma$ and the mass $m$ of particles.
V. Molinero, S. Sastry and C. A. Angell, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 075701 (2006).
T. A. Weber and F.H. Stillinger, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**48**]{}, 4351 (1993).
D.V. Makhov and L.J. Lewis, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**67**]{}, 153202 (2003).
S. Saw, N. Ellegaard, W. Kob and S. Sastry (in preparation).
A. Z. Pangiotopolous, [*Molecular Physics*]{} [**61**]{}, 813 (1987).
D. A. Beard and T. Schlick, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**112**]{}, 7313 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
I.C.R.A. International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, I-00185 Rome, Italy\
Institut d’Astrophysique, F-75014 Paris, France\
Department of Astrophysics, University of Oxford, NAPL, Oxford OX13RH, UK\
E-mail: [email protected]
- |
I.C.R.A. International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics and Physics Department, University “La Sapienza” , I-00185 Rome, Italy\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Gianfranco Bertone
- Remo Ruffini
title: 'Relativistic Thomas-Fermi Model at Finite Temperatures'
---
Introduction
============
The Thomas-Fermi statistical model of the atom has been extensively used, since its early formulation in 1927 [@fermi; @thomas], to evaluate the equation of state of compressed matter and in general in the description of the electronic structure of atoms and solids under different physical conditions [@lund]. In our previous work [@berto] we applied a relativistic generalisation of this model [@ruffini; @ferre] to the evaluation of the equation of state and the equilibrium configurations of cold white dwarfs, whereas “cold” means that the temperature of the star is much smaller than the Fermi energy of the degenerate electron gas. We are now interested in the finite temperature effects on the equation of state and we thus derive a temperature dependent formulation of the relativistic Thomas-Fermi model. The paper is organised as follows: first (section 2) we briefly describe the classical Thomas-Fermi model, i.e. the non-relativistic and completely degenerate case. Then (section 3) we’ll review the finite temperature formulation of this problem , giving the corresponding exact equation and its approximated version. We’ll thus pass to the relativistic theory in the completely degenerate case (section 4) and finally to the new relativistic model at finite temperature (section 5).
Classical Thomas-Fermi model
============================
We first consider the simple Thomas-Fermi model. Let us consider the spherically symmetric problem of a nucleus with Z protons and A nucleons interacting with a fully degenerate gas of Z electrons.
The fundamental equation of electrostatics for this problem is $$\Delta V(r)=4 \pi e n_e(r)
\label{elettro}$$ where $V(r)$ is the electrostatic potential and $n_e(r)$ is the number density of electrons.
The electrostatic potentialis related to the Fermi momentum (and thus to the number density of electrons) by the equilibrium condition (see [@lali]) $$p_{F}^{2}(r)/2m-eV(r) = \mbox{const} \equiv E_F
\label{equili}$$ where the name $E_F$ stands for *Fermi-Thomas chemical potential* or *Fermi Energy* of the electrons.
To put the equation \[elettro\] in adimensional form we introduce the new function $\Phi(r)$, related to the coulomb potential by $$\Phi(r)=V(r)+E_F/e
\label{4}$$ and the corresponding adimensional function $\chi$, implicitly defined by $$\Phi(r)=\frac{Ze\chi}{r}
\label{6}$$
Furthermore we introduce the new independent variable x, related to the radius r by the relation $r=bx$, where $$b=(3\pi)^{2/3}\frac{\hbar^2}{me^2}\frac{1}{2^{7/3}}\frac{1}{Z^{1/3}}
\label{eq:6}$$
It is easy to show that in this case one can write eq.\[elettro\] in the form $$\frac{d^2 \chi}{dx^2}=\frac{\chi^{3/2}}{x^{1/2}}
\label{thomfer}$$ which is the classical adimensional form of the Thomas-Fermi equation.
The first initial condition for this equation follows from the request that approaching the nucleus one gets the ordinary Coulomb potential $$\chi(0)=1
\label{con}$$
The second condition comes from the normalisation condition $$N=\int_0^{r_0} 4 \pi n_e r^2 dr$$ which gives $$N=Z\left[x_0\chi'(x_0)-\chi(x_0)+1 \right]
\label{coni}$$ and for neutral atoms ($N=Z$) $$x_0\chi'(x_0)=\chi(x_0)
\label{cono}$$
Temperature Dependent Non-relativistic Model
============================================
We introduce now the finite temperature effects in the model. This was already done in 1940 by Marshack and Bethe [@marsha] through a perturbation treatment, while the full adimensional equation is discussed in a successive work of Feynman, Metropolis and Teller [@feyn].
The density of an electron gas at temperature T can be written as $$n_e=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_e^{3/2}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3} \int_0^\infty
\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}}{e^\frac{\epsilon-\mu}{kT} +1} d \epsilon =
\frac{\sqrt{2}m_e^{3/2}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3} (KT)^{3/2} I_1\left(\frac{\mu}{kT}
\right)
\label{nonrelT}$$ where $$I_1(x) = \int_0^\infty \frac{\sqrt{y}}{e^{y-x} +1} dy$$
Using the same adimensional variables introduced in the previous section and introducing the temperature parameter $\tau$ as $$\tau = \frac{b}{Ze^2} KT$$ we can rewrite the electron density in adimensional form $$n_e=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_e^{3/2} Z^{3/2}e^3 \tau^{3/2}}{\pi^2 \hbar^3
b^{3/2}} I_1\left(\frac{\chi}{\tau x} \right)$$
We can thus express the electrostatic equation in the following adimensional form $$\frac{d^2 \chi}{dx^2}=\frac{3}{2} \tau^{3/2} x I_1\left(\frac{\chi}{\tau
x} \right)$$
This equation is formally different from the one obtained in the case of complete degeneracy, nevertheless it can be easily shown that if one develops the integral which appears in eq. \[nonrelT\] for small temperatures (see appendix for details) one gets the following formula at the first order $$\frac{d^2 \chi}{dx^2}=\frac{\chi^{3/2}}{x^{1/2}} \left[ 1+
\frac{\pi^2}{8}\frac{\tau^2 x^2}{\chi^2} + ... \right]$$ where we neglect terms of the order $O(\tau^4)$.
Relativistic model at T=0
=========================
When considering a relativistic extension of the model the finite size of the nucleus must be taken in account to avoid the central singularity (see e.g. [@berto]). In this case we have thus to introduce a new term into the fundamental equation of electrostatics, representing the positive distribution of charges in the interior of the nucleus $n_p(r)$
$$\Delta V(r)=4 \pi e n_e(r)-4 \pi e n_p(r)
\label{elettro2}$$
The quantities V(r) and n(r) are in this case related by $$c\sqrt{p_{F}^{2}+m^2c^2}-eV(r) = \mbox{const} \equiv E_F
\label{equili2}$$
Using eq.\[4\] it is possible to put eq. \[equili2\] in the form $$p^2_F=\frac{e^2}{b} \Phi^2+ 2me \Phi$$ which, using \[6\],becomes $$p_F=2mc\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{\chi}{x}\right)^{1/2}\left[1+
\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^{4/3}\frac{\chi}{x} \right]^{1/2}
\label{impu}$$ where $$Z_{cr}=\left(\frac{3\pi}{4}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\hbar
c}{e^2}\right)^{3/2}\approx 2462.4$$
Remembering the relation between the Fermi momentum and the number density of a fermion gas $$n_e=\frac{p_{F}^{3}}{3\pi^2\hbar^3}
\label{2}$$ we obtain the following expression $$n_e=\frac{Z}{4\pi b^3}\left(\frac{\chi}{x}\right)^{3/2}\left[1+
\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^{4/3}\frac{\chi}{x} \right]^{3/2}
\label{adens}$$
We can also express the second term of the right-hand side of eq.\[elettro\] in terms of adimensional quantities: we assume here an homogeneous spherical nucleus, with a radius given by the approximate formula $$r_{nuc}=1.2A^{1/3} \: fm$$
The number density of protons is therefore $$n_{p}=\frac{3Z}{4\pi r_{nuc}^3}\Theta\left(x_{nuc}-x \right)$$
Finally we can write eq.\[elettro2\] in the form $$\frac{d^2 \chi}{dx^2}=\frac{\chi^{3/2}}{x^{1/2}} \left[1+
\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^{4/3}\frac{\chi}{x}
\right]^{3/2}-\frac{3x}{{x_{nuc}}^3}\Theta\left(x_{nuc}-x \right)
\label{thomfer2}$$ where $x_{nuc}$ is the adimensional size of the nucleus ($r_{nuc}=bx_{nuc}$).
Equation \[thomfer\] is what we call *Generalised adimensional Fermi-Thomas equation*.
The first initial condition for this equation follows from the fact that $ \chi \propto r \Phi $ and therefore $\chi
\stackrel{r{\rightarrow}0}{\longrightarrow}0$, and so $$\chi(0)=0
\label{con1}$$
The second condition comes from the normalisation condition $$N=\int_0^{r_0} 4 \pi n_e r^2 dr= Z \int_0^{x_0}
\frac{\chi^{3/2}}{x^{1/2}} \left[1+
\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^{4/3}\frac{\chi}{x} \right]^{3/2}\;\; x
\;\; dx$$ with $r_0=bx_0$ atom size. Developing this formula we have $$N = Z \int_0^{x_{nuc}} x \chi'' \;\; dx + \frac{3Z}{x_{nuc}^3}
\int_0^{x_{nuc}} x^2 \;\; dx + Z \int_{x_{nuc}}^{x_0} x \chi'' \;\; dx$$ which gives again the relation $$N=Z\left[x_0\chi'(x_0)-\chi(x_0)+1 \right]
\label{con2}$$
Note that the physical quantities such as the coulomb potential and the density of electrons do not show any singularity in the center, neither on the border of the nucleus, being dependent just on the function $\chi$ and his first derivative. The only discontinuity appears in the second derivative of $\chi$ due to our rough assumption of homogeneous spherical nucleus.
It is also evident that the scaling properties of the classical Thomas-Fermi equation are lost in this case, where one has to integrate the adimensional equation separately for each value of Z and different values of $x_0$, i.e. for different states of compression.
In figg.1 and 2 we show an example of the applications of this model to the study of equilibrium configurations of cold White Dwarfs. For more details see ref. [@berto].
Temperature Dependent Relativistic Model
========================================
We consider now the complete problem of a relativistic and degenerate gas of electrons at temperature T surrounding a positively charged nucleus.
The number density of such a gas is $$n_e=\frac{1}{\pi^2 (c \hbar)^3} \int_{m c^2}^\infty
\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon^2 - m^2 c^4}\epsilon}{e^\frac{\epsilon-\mu}{kT} +1}
d \epsilon = \frac{(KT)^3}{\pi^2 (c\hbar)^3} I_2\left(\frac{\mu}{KT}
\right)
\label{relT}$$ where $$I_2(x) = \int_a^\infty \frac{y \sqrt{y^2-a^2}}{e^{y-x} +1} dy$$ and a is the fixed parameter $a=m c^2/(KT)$.
Introducing adimensional variables and the temperature parameter $\tau$ we can write now $$n_e=\frac{1}{b^3}\frac{Z^3}{\pi^2}\left( \frac{e^2}{c \hbar}\right)^3
\tau^3 I_2\left(\frac{\chi}{\tau x} \right)$$ and inserting the previously defined quantity $Z_{cr}$ we find $$n_e=\frac{3Z}{4 \pi b^3} \left( \frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^2 \tau^3
I_2\left(\frac{\chi}{\tau x} \right)$$
The final and more general expression of the Thomas-Fermi equation is thus found to be $$\frac{d^2 \chi}{dx^2}= 3 \tau^{3} x \left( \frac{Z}{Z_{cr}}\right)^2
I_2\left(\frac{\chi}{\tau x}
\right)-\frac{3x}{{x_{nuc}}^3}\Theta\left(x_{nuc}-x \right)$$
This formula is the main result of this paper and will be the point of departure for the evaluation of the equation of state of compressed matter in extreme conditions of high temperatures in a relativistic regime.
We will present elsewhere the numerical integration of this equation and
the corresponding equilibrium configurations of hot relativistic white dwarfs.
Conclusions
===========
We have first discussed the classical Thomas-Fermi method and the corresponding generalisation to finite temperature $or$ to the relativistic regime. A finite nucleus treatment including both effects has then been presented. This work must be considered as propedeutical to the evaluation of the equilibrium configurations of relativistic hot white dwarfs. The numerical integration of the highly non-linear equation obtained and the application to the equation of state of white dwarfs matter will be presented elsewhere.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Following Landau and Lifshitz [@lali] we recall here how to approximate for low temperatures integrals of the form $$I= \int_0^\infty \frac{f(\epsilon)}{e^\frac{\epsilon-\mu}{KT} +1} d
\epsilon$$ appearing in the statistical treatment of fermions.
Without going into details, we just recall that using the fact that $\mu/T>>1$ one can put the former integral in the form $$I=\int_0^\mu f(\epsilon) d \epsilon + 2(KT)^2 f'(\mu) \int_0^\infty
\frac{z}{e^z +1} dz + \frac{1}{3}(KT)^4 f'''(\mu) \int_0^\infty
\frac{z^3}{e^z +1} dz + ...$$
These integrals can be evaluated as $$\int_0^\infty \frac{z^{x-1}}{e^z +1} dz= (1 -2^{1-x})\Gamma(x)
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^x}$$
We thus obtain our approximate result $$I=\int_0^\mu f(\epsilon) d \epsilon + \frac{\pi^2}{6} (KT)^2 f'(\mu) +
\frac{7 \pi^4}{360} (KT)^4 f'''(\mu)+...$$
[99]{}
E. Fermi,
L. H. Thomas,
Lundqvist S. & March N., Theory of the Inhomogeneous Electron Gas (New York, Plenum 1983)
G. Bertone and R. Ruffini, [*Proceedings of the 3rd Icra Network Workshop, C.Cherubini and R.Ruffini eds., SIF 2000.*]{}
R. Ruffini and L. Stella,
J. Ferreirinho, R. Ruffini and L. Stella,
Bethe & Marshak,
Feynman, Metropolis and Teller ,
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Statistical Physics*]{}, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachussets (1969)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Friedrichs-Faddeev model in the case where the kernel of the potential operator is holomorphic in both arguments on a certain domain of $\mathbb{C}$. For this model we, first, study the structure of the $T$- and $S$-matrices on unphysical energy sheet(s). To this end, we derive representations that explicitly express them in terms of these same operators considered exclusively on the physical sheet. Furthermore, we allow the Friedrichs-Faddeev Hamiltonian undergo a complex deformation (or even a complex scaling/rotation if the model is associated with an infinite interval). Isolated non-real eigenvalues of the deformed Hamiltonian are called the deformation resonances. For a class of perturbation potentials with analytic kernels, we prove that the deformation resonances do correspond to the scattering matrix resonances, that is, they represent the poles of the scattering matrix analytically continued to the respective unphysical energy sheet.'
author:
- 'Alexander K. Motovilov'
title: 'Unphysical energy sheets and resonances in the Friedrichs-Faddeev model[^1] '
---
*Dedicated to the memory of Ludwig Dmitrievich Faddeev*
Introduction
============
In 1938, Kurt Friedrichs [@Fr1938] considered a model Hamiltonian of the form $$H_\epsilon=H_0+\epsilon V$$ with $H_0$, the multiplication by the independent variable $\lambda$, [$$(H_0 f)(\lambda) =\lambda f(\lambda), \quad\quad \lambda\in(-1,1)\subset{{\mathbb R}}, \quad\quad f\in L_2(-1,1),$$]{} $\epsilon>0$, and $V$, an integral operator, [$$(Vf)(\lambda)=\int_{-1}^1 V(\lambda,\mu)f(\mu) d\mu,$$]{}where the kernel $V(\lambda,\mu)$ is a continuous function in $\lambda,\mu\in[a,b]$ of a Hölder class. Furthermore, he assumed that $V(-1,\mu)=V(1,\mu)=V(\lambda,-1)=V(\lambda,1)=0$ for any $\lambda,\mu\in[-1,1]$.
The Hermitian (self-adjoint) operator $H_0$ has absolutely continuous spectrum that fills the segment $[-1,1]$. Friedrichs studied what happens to the continuous spectrum of $H_0$ under the perturbation $\epsilon V$. He has proven that if $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small then $H_\epsilon$ and $H_0$ are similar, which means that the spectrum of $H_\epsilon$ is also absolutely continuous and fills $[-1,1]$.
In a 1948 paper [@Fr1948], Friedrichs has extended this result to the case where the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$ is the multiplication by independent variable in the Hilbert space ${\mathfrak{H}}=L_2(\Delta,{\mathfrak{h}})$ of square-integrable vector-valued functions $f:\,\Delta\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ where $\Delta$ is a finite or infinite interval on the real axis, $\Delta=(a,b)$, with $-\infty\leq a < b \leq
+\infty$, and ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is an auxiliary Hilbert space (finite- or infinite-dimensional). In this case, it is assumed that for every [$\lambda,\mu\in\Delta$]{} the quantity [$V(\lambda,\mu)$]{} [is a bounded linear operator on]{} [${\mathfrak{h}}$]{}, that $V(\lambda,\mu)=V(\mu,\lambda)^*$, and that $V$ is a Hölder continuous operator-valued function of $\lambda,\mu$. Friedrichs proved that for sufficiently small $\epsilon$ the perturbed operator $H_\epsilon=H_0+\epsilon V$ is unitarily equivalent to the unperturbed one, $H_0$, and thus the spectrum of $H_\epsilon$ is absolutely continuous and fills the set $\overline{\Delta}$.
In 1958, O.A.Ladyzhenskaya and L.D.Faddeev [@LaF1958] have completely dropped the smallness requirement on $V$ and considered the model operator
\[FF\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{FF}\,\textrm{a}}\label{FF:a}
H&=H_0+V, \\
\tag{\ref{FF}\,\textrm{b}}\label{FF:b}
(H_0 f)(\lambda)=\lambda f(\lambda),&\quad (Vf)(\lambda)=\int_\Delta V(\lambda,\mu)f(\mu) d\mu,\\
f\in & L_2(\Delta,{\mathfrak{h}}), \quad \Delta=(a,b), \nonumber
$$
with NO small $\epsilon$ in front of $V$. Instead, they require compactness of the value of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ as an operator in ${\mathfrak{h}}$ for any $\lambda,\mu\in\overline{\Delta}$.
Proofs of the results in [@LaF1958] (and their extension) are given in a Faddeev’s 1964 work [@Fa1964]. In fact, this work presents a complete version of the scattering theory for the model . The 1964 paper may also be viewed as a relatively simple introduction to the methods and ideas Faddeev used in his celebrated analysis [@Fa1963] of the three-body problem.
Faddeev’s detail study of the Hamiltonian is the first reason why this Hamiltonian is sometimes called the Friedrichs-Faddeev model. One more reason is related to the fact that the 1948 Friedrichs’ paper contains another important ($2\times 2$ block matrix) operator model that is called “simply” Friedrichs’ model. The second model works, in particular, for the Feshbach resonances (see, e.g., [@GPr2011; @AM2017] and references therein). For later developments concerning the Friedrichs-Faddeev model proper and its generalizations see [@PaPe1970; @La1986c; @La1989; @DNY1992; @IsRi2012].
Notice that the typical two-body Schrödingrer operator may be viewed as a particular case of the Friedrichs-Faddeev model with [$a=0$]{} and [$b=+\infty$]{} (see [@Fa1964]). Simply consider the c.m. two-body Hamiltonian in the momentum $({\bm{k}})$ space and make the variable change [$|{\bm{k}}|^2\to \lambda$]{}; in this case the internal (auxiliary) space is ${\mathfrak{h}}=L_2(S^2)$, i.e. the space of square-integrable functions on the unit sphere $S^2$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$.
It turned out that there is a certain gap in the study of analytical properties and structure of the Friedrichs-Faddeev $T$- and $S$-matrices on uphysical sheets of the energy plane. We fill this gap by using the ideas and approach from the author’s works [@Mo1993], [@Mo1997]. Namely, we derive representations for the $T$- and $S$-matrices on uphysical sheets that explicitly express them in terms of these same operators considered exclusively on the physical sheet (see Proposition \[ProT\] and Corollary \[corol\]). These representations show that the resonances correspond, in fact, to the energies $z$ in the physical sheet where the scattering matrix has eigenvalue zero.
Furthermore, we perform a [*complex deformation*]{} (a generalization of the complex scaling) of the Friedrichs-Faddeev Hamiltonian. Discrete spectrum of the complexly deformed Hamiltonian contains the [“complex scaling resonances”]{}. We show that these resonances are simultaneously the [scattering matrix resonances]{}. In the case of the Friedrichs-Faddeev model this is done quite easily and illustratively. Recall that, in general, to prove the equivalence of scaling resonances and scattering matrix resonances is rather a hard job (see [@Ha1979]).
Few words about notation used throughout the article. By $\sigma(T)$ we denote the spectrum of a closed linear operator $T$. Notations $\sigma_p(T)$ and $\sigma_c(T)$ are used for the point spectrum (the eigenvalue set) and continuous spectrum of $T$. By $I_{\mathfrak{K}}$ we denote the identity operator on a Hilbert (or Banach) space $\mathfrak{K}$; the index $\mathfrak{K}$ may be omitted if no confusion arises.
Structure of the *T*- and *S*-matrices on unphysical energy sheets {#Sec2}
==================================================================
First, let us recollect the description of the Friedrichs-Faddeev model. We assume that [${\mathfrak{h}}$]{} is an auxiliary (“internal”) Hilbert space and [$\Delta=(a,b)$]{}, an interval on [${{\mathbb R}}$]{}, $${-\infty\leq a<b\leq+\infty}.$$ Hilbert space of the problem is the space of square-integrable [${\mathfrak{h}}$]{}-valued functions on [$\Delta$]{}, ${\mathfrak{H}}=L_2(\Delta,{\mathfrak{h}})$, with the scalar product $${{\langle}}f,g{{\rangle}}=\int_a^b d\lambda {{\langle}}f(\lambda),g(\lambda){{\rangle}}_{\mathfrak{h}},$$ where [${{\langle}}\cdot,\cdot{{\rangle}}_{\mathfrak{h}}$]{} denotes the inner product in ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Surely, the norm on [${\mathfrak{H}}$]{} is given by $$\|f\|=\left(\int_a^b d\lambda \|f(\lambda)\|_{\mathfrak{h}}^2\right)^{1/2},$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathfrak{h}}$ stands for the norm on ${\mathfrak{h}}$.
Unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$ and perturbation potential $V$ are given by where for each $\lambda,\mu\in(a,b)$ the value of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ is a compact operator in ${\mathfrak{h}}$. We assume that the function $V(\lambda,\mu)$ admits analytic continuation both in $\lambda$ and $\mu$ into some domain [$\Omega\subset{{\mathbb C}}$]{} containing $\Delta$. More precisely, we assume that $$\label{Vhol}
V(\lambda,\mu) \quad \text{is holomorphic in both}\quad
\lambda,\mu\in\Omega,\quad (a,b)\subset\Omega.$$ In addition, we suppose that $V(\lambda,\mu)=V(\mu,\lambda)^*$ for real $\lambda,\mu \in\Delta$ (for Hermiticity of $V$). This automatically implies $V(\lambda,\mu)=V(\mu^*,\lambda^*)^*$ for any $\lambda,\mu\in\Omega$ such that their conjugates $\lambda^*,\mu^*\in\Omega$ and, hence, the domain $\Omega$ should be mirror symmetric with respect to the real axis. Following Friedrichs [@Fr1948] and Faddeev [@Fa1964] we also require $$\label{Vab}
V(a,\mu)=V(b,\mu)=V(\lambda,a)=V(\lambda,b)=0,\quad \text{ in case of finite $a$ or/and $b$}$$ or impose suitable requirements on the rate of decreasing of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ as $|\lambda|,|\mu|\to\infty$, in case of infinite $a$ or/and $b$. To simplify consideration, in the latter case we assume that $\Omega$ and $V$ are such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C1}
\|V(\lambda,\mu)\|&\leq K (1+|\lambda|+|\mu|)^{-(1+\eta_1)}, \quad \eta_1>0;\\
\label{C2}
\|V(\lambda+\alpha,\mu+\beta)-V(\lambda,\mu)\| &\leq K (1+|\lambda|+|\mu|)^{-(1+\eta_1)}
(|\alpha|^{\eta_2}+|\beta|^{\eta_2}), \quad \eta_2>1/2,\end{aligned}$$ for some $K>0$ and for any $\lambda,\mu\in\Omega$ and any $\alpha$, $\beta$ such that $\lambda+\alpha\in\Omega$, $\mu+\beta\in\Omega$. Since $V(\lambda,\mu)$ is holomorphic in $\Omega$ both in $\lambda$ and $\mu$, the requirement with $\eta_2<1$ is responsible for the behavior of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ in the neighborhoods of the (finite) end points $a$ and/or $b$. Otherwise, one can replace $\eta_2$ with unity.
As usually, the total Hamiltonian is $H=H_0+V$. Also we use the standard notation for the resolvents and for the transition operator: For $z$ lying outside the corresponding spectrum $\sigma(H_0)$ or $\sigma(H)$, we introduce $$R_0(z)=(H_0-z)^{-1}, \quad R(z)=(H-z)^{-1},\quad\text{and}\quad T(z)=V-VR(z)V.$$ Recall that, at least, for $z\not\in\sigma(H_0)\cup\sigma(H)$ $$\label{RTR}
R(z)=R_0(z)-R_0(z)T(z)R_0(z).$$ Thus, the spectral problem for the Hamiltonian $H$ is reduced to the study of the transition operator $T(z)$, the kernel of which is less singular than that of $R(z)$.
From Faddeev’s work [@Fa1964] we know that $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ is well-behaved function of $\lambda,\mu\in\Delta$ and $z$ on the complex plane ${{\mathbb C}}$ punctured at $\sigma_p(H)$ and cut along $(a,b)$. More precisely (see [@Fa1964 Theorem 3.1]), $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ is of the same class , as $V(\lambda,\mu)$ but with $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ replaced by positive $\eta'_1<\eta_1$ and $\eta'_2<\eta_2$ which may be chosen arbitrary close to $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$, respectively. Furthermore, the kernel $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ has limits $$T(\lambda,\mu,E\pm i0), \quad E\in\Delta\setminus\sigma_p(H),$$ that are (in our case) smooth in $\lambda,\mu\in\Delta\setminus\sigma_p(H)$. The scattering matrix for the pair $(H_0,H)$ is given by $$S_+(E)=I_{\mathfrak{h}}-2\pi{{\rm i}}\, T(E,E,E+{{\rm i}}0),\quad E\in(a,b)\setminus\sigma_p(H).$$ Notice that due to the condition and requirement the eigenvalue set $\sigma_p(H)$ of $H$ consists of finite number of eigenvalues having finite multiplicities (see [@Fa1964]; cf. [@DNY1992]).
Now take a look of the Lippmann-Schwinger equations for the kernel $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ of the transition operator $T(z)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS1}
{T}({\lambda},\mu,z)&=V({\lambda},\mu)-\int_a^b d\nu\quad
\frac{V({\lambda},\nu){T}(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},
\\
\label{TLS2}
{T}(\lambda,{\mu},z)&=V(\lambda,{\mu})-\int_a^b d\nu\quad
\frac{{T}(\lambda,\nu,z)V(\nu,{\mu})}{\nu-z},
\\
\nonumber
&\qquad z\not\in(a,b),\quad \lambda,\mu\in(a,b)\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, since $V(\lambda,\mu)$ is analytic in $\lambda\in\Omega$, equality implies the same analyticity of $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$. Analogously, equality yields the holomorphy of [$T(\lambda,\mu,z)$]{} in [$\mu\subset\Omega$]{}. Thus we arrive at the following statement.
\[P1\] If $z\not\in(a,b)\cup\sigma_p(H)$, the kernel $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ is holomorphic in both $\lambda\in\Omega$ and $\mu\in\Omega$. Furthermore, one can replace [$(a,b)$]{} in and by arbitrary piecewise smooth Jordan contour [$\gamma\subset\Omega$]{} obtained by continuous deformation from [$(a,b)$]{} provided that the end points are fixed and the point [$z$]{} is avoided during the transformation $(a,b)\to\gamma$.
In the following [${{\mathbb C}}^+=\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}\,|\,\, {\mathop{\rm Im}}z>0\}$]{} ([${{\mathbb C}}^-=\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}\,|\,\, {\mathop{\rm Im}}z<0\}$]{}) stands for the upper (lower) halfplane of [${{\mathbb C}}$]{}.
![Holomorphy domain $\Omega$ for the kernel $V(\lambda,\mu)$. The set $\Omega_\gamma$ is bounded by (and contains both) the segment $[a,b]$ and Jordan contour $\gamma$. []{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1times.eps){width="5.cm"}
To simplify the presentation, in the remainder of this note we usually assume that the real numbers $a$ and $b$ are finite.
Suppose that $\gamma\subset\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^\pm$ is a smooth Jordan contour obtained from the interval $(a,b)$ by continuous transformation with fixed end points $a$ and $b$. Then Proposition \[P1\] implies that one can equivalently rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS3}
T(\lambda,\mu,z)=&V(\lambda,\mu)-\int_\gamma d\nu\quad
\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},\\
\nonumber
& \lambda,\mu\in\Omega,\quad z\in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus{\Omega_\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where the set $\Omega_\gamma\subset{{\mathbb C}}$ is confined by (and containing) the segment [$[a,b]$]{} and the curve [$\gamma$]{} (see Figure \[Fig1\]). One may almost literally repeat for the analysis of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation performed by Faddeev in [@Fa1964]. By applying to the analytic Fredholm theorem [@RSI Theorem VI.14] one then concludes that the solution $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$, in the appropriate class of Hölder continuous kernels, exists (and is unique) except for a discrete set of points that consists of the original point spectrum $\sigma_p(H)$ of $H$ and an additional discrete set $\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma)$ located inside $\Omega_\gamma$. Moreover, the solution $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ to is analytic in $z$ for $$\label{zgam}
z\not\in\sigma_p(H)\cup\overline{\gamma}\cup\sigma_{\rm
res}(\gamma),$$ where the overlining in $\overline{\gamma}$ means the closure, that is, $\overline{\gamma}=\gamma\cup\{a\}\cup\{b\}$. Again, because of the holomorphy of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ in $\lambda,\mu\in\Omega$ the solution $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ remains analytic in $\lambda,\mu\in\Omega$ for any $z\in{{\mathbb C}}$ satisfying . This is proven by the same reasoning as in the proof of the first statement of Proposition \[P1\]. The points of $\sigma_{\rm
res}(\gamma)$ give to the solution $T(z)$ poles, residues at which are finite rank operators. Thus, the equation gives us an opportunity to pull the argument $z$ of $T(z)$ from the upper half-plane ${{\mathbb C}}^+$ to the lower one, at least into the interior of the set $\Omega_\gamma$. Surely, during this procedure one should avoid the points of the discrete set $\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma)$!
However, if, after such a pulling of $z$, one tries to re-establish in the original integration over the interval $(a,b)$, it is necessary to compute the residue at the pole $z$. That is, the Lippmann-Schwinger equation changes its form and, hence, for $z\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-$ the solution $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ is taken, in fact, on an unphysical sheet of the Riemann energy surface of $T$. We denote this unphysical sheet by $\Pi_-$; it is attached to the physical sheet via the upper rim of the cut along $(a,b)$. Thus, we are forced to use a different notation, say $T'(\lambda,\mu,z)$ for the continuation of the kernel of $T$ to $\Pi_-$. However for $z$ outside $\Omega_\gamma$ this kernel coincides with the original one, that is, $T'(\lambda,\mu,z)=T(\lambda,\mu,z)$, provided $z\in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus\bigl(\Omega_\gamma\cup\sigma_p(H)\bigr)$.
In fact we can solve the continued Lippmann-Schwinger equation explicitly! To this end assume that $z\in\Omega_\gamma$ but $z\not\in\overline{\gamma}\cup\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma)$, and perform a reverse two-step transformation of the contour $\gamma$ (see Figure \[Fig1\]) back to the interval $\Delta=(a,b)$ in the way shown in Figure \[Fig2\].
[![Two steps in deformation of the contour $\gamma$.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2times.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{}
After such a transformation and computing the residue at [$\nu=z$]{}, equation (written already for the unphysical-sheet values $T'(\lambda,\mu,z)$) turns into the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS5}
& T'(\lambda,\mu,z)=V(\lambda,\mu)-2\pi{{\rm i}}\,\, V(\lambda,z)T'(z,\mu,z)-\int_a^b d\nu\quad
\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T'(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},\\
\nonumber
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \lambda,\mu\in\Omega, \quad \quad z\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-.\end{aligned}$$ The points forming $\sigma_p(H)$ and $\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma)$ for various $\gamma$ will manifest themselves as singular points of the equation . (We will discuss the independence of the common part $\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma_1)\cap\sigma_{\rm
res}(\gamma_2)$ of the sets $\sigma_{\rm res}(\gamma_1)$ and $\sigma_{\rm
res}(\gamma_2)$ for different $\gamma_1\neq\gamma_2$ later, in Section \[Sec3\].)
Following the standard terminology of scattering theory in momentum space we call the kernel $T'(z,\mu,z)$ “half-on-shell” since its first argument equals the spectral parameter (energy) $z$. The kernel $T'(z,z,z)$ is called “on-shell” since both the first and second arguments are equal to the energy $z$. Finally, the kernel $T'(\lambda,\mu,z)$ with arbitrarily chosen admissible values of the arguments $\lambda$ and $\mu$ is called “off-shell”. The terms “off-shell”, “half-on-shell”, and “on-shell” may be applied to any function of the three (complex) arguments $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $z$.
Let us transfer in all the entries with the off-shell $T'$ to the left-hand side and then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS6}
&T'(\lambda,\mu,z)+\int_a^b d\nu\quad
\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T'(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z}=
V(\lambda,\mu)-2\pi{{\rm i}}\, V(\lambda,z)T'(z,\mu,z),\\
\nonumber
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \lambda,\mu\in\Omega, \quad z\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-.\end{aligned}$$ Equation allows us to express the off-shell $T'$ exclusively through the half-on-shell $T'$ by taking into account that, on the physical sheet, $${(I+VR_0(z))}T(z)=V \quad \Longrightarrow \quad {(I+VR_0(z))^{-1}}V=T(z),\qquad z\not\in\sigma_p(H).$$ Thus, implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS7}
& T'(\lambda,\mu,{z})=
T(\lambda,\mu,z)-2\pi{{\rm i}}\, T(\lambda,{z},{z})T'({z},\mu,{z}),\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $T(\cdot,\mu,z)$ with no prime means that this entry is taken for $z$ on the physical sheet of the energy plane.
By setting $\lambda=z$ in we get ${T'({z},\mu,{z})=
T({z},\mu,z)-2\pi{{\rm i}}\, T({z},{z},{z})T'({z},\mu,{z})}$, which yields $$\label{STT}
{S_-(z)T'({z},\mu,{z})=T({z},\mu,z)},$$ where $$\label{Sz}
S_-({z}):=
I_{\mathfrak{h}}+2\pi{{\rm i}}\, T({z},{z},{z}),\quad z\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-,$$ is nothing but the scattering matrix for $z$ in the lower complex half-plane. We underline that the argument $z$ of $S_-(z)$ in , $z\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-$, lies on the physical sheet. From it follows that $$\label{TST}
T'({z},\mu,{z})=S_-(z)^{-1}T(z,\mu,z),$$ provided $z$ is not a point where $S_-(z)$ has an eigenvalue zero. Finally, the relations and yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TLS8} &
T'(\lambda,\mu,{z})= T(\lambda,\mu,z)-2\pi{{\rm i}}\,
T(\lambda,{z},{z}){S_-(z)^{-1}}T({z},\mu,{z}).\end{aligned}$$ All the entries on the r.h.s. part of are taken on the physical sheet.
In a similar way we perform the continuation of $T(\lambda,\mu,z)$ from the lower half-plane ${{\mathbb C}}^-$ to the part $\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^+$ of the unphysical energy sheet [$\Pi_+$]{} attached to the physical sheet along the lower rim of the cut $(a,b)$. As a result, we arrive with the following combined statement (for both the sheets $\Pi_\ell$ where the symbol $\ell=\pm1$ is identified with the respective sign $\pm$ in the previous notation $\Pi_\pm$).
\[ProT\] The transition operator $T(z)$ admits meromorphic continuation (as a ${{\mathcal B}}({\mathfrak{H}})$-valued function of the variable $z$) through the cut along $(a,b)$ from both the upper, ${{\mathbb C}}^+$, and lower, ${{\mathbb C}}^-$, half-planes to the respective parts $$\text{$\Omega_{-1}:={{\mathbb C}}^-\cap\Omega$ and $\Omega_{+1}:={{\mathbb C}}^+\cap\Omega$}$$ of the unphysical sheets $\Pi_{-1}$ and $\Pi_{+1}$ adjoining the physical sheet along the upper and lower rims of the mentioned cut. The kernel of the continued operator $T(z)\bigr|_{\Pi_\ell\cap\Omega_\ell}$, $\ell=\pm1$, admits the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TPl}
T(\lambda,\mu,{z})\bigr|_\text{{$z\in\Pi_\ell\cap\Omega_\ell$}}&=
\bigl(T(\lambda,\mu,z)+2\pi{\rm i}\,\ell\,\,
T(\lambda,{z},{z}){S_\ell(z)^{-1}}
T({z},\mu,{z})\bigr)\bigr|_\text{$z\in{\Omega_\ell}$},\\
&\qquad z\in\Omega_\ell\setminus\sigma^\ell_{\rm res},\end{aligned}$$ where all the terms on the r.h.s. part, including the scattering matrix $$\label{Spm}
S_\ell({z})=
I_{\mathfrak{h}}- 2\pi\mathrm{i}\ell\, T({z},{z},{z}),$$ are taken for $z$ on the physical sheet, and $\sigma^\ell_{\rm res}$ denotes the set of all those points $\zeta\in\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^\ell$ for which $S_\ell({\zeta})$ has eigenvalue zero.
Whether [$\Pi_-$]{} and [$\Pi_+$]{} represent the same (“second”) unphysical sheet, depends on the analytical properties of [$V(\lambda,\mu)$]{} outside [$\Omega$]{} (if available, cf. [@Mo1993]).
Continuation formula for $T(z)$ implies the following important consequence.
\[corol\] Analytic continuation of the scattering matrix $S_{-\ell}(z)$, $\ell=\pm1$, to the unphysical sheet $\Pi_{\ell}$ is described by the equality $$\label{SlS}
S_{-\ell}({z})\bigr|_{z\in\Pi_{\ell}\,\cap\Omega_\ell}=
S_{\ell}(z)^{-1}\bigr|_{z\in\Omega_\ell},\qquad z\not\in\sigma^{\ell}_{\rm res},$$ where the r.h.s. part is taken for $z$ on the physical sheet.
Complex scaling and Friedrichs-Faddeev model {#Sec3}
============================================
Let $\Delta_{{\bm{r}}}$ denote the Laplacian in the variable ${{\bm{r}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^3$. In the coordinate space, the standard complex scaling [@Lo1964], [@BaC1971] means the replacement of the original c.m. two-body Hamiltonian $$\label{HS}
H=-\Delta_{{\bm{r}}} + \widehat{V}({\bm{r}})$$ by the non-Hermitian operator $$\label{Htet}
H(\theta)=-{\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}\Delta_{{\bm{r}}}+\widehat{V}({\rm e}^{{{\rm i}}\theta}{\bm{r}}),$$ for a non-negative $\theta\leq\pi/2$, provided that the local potential $\widehat{V}({\bm{r}})$ admits analytic continuation to a domain of complex ${{\mathbb C}}^3$-arguments ${\bm{r}}$. Location of the spectrum of $H(\theta)$ is shown schematically in Fig. \[Fig3\].
[![Spectrum of the complexly “rotated” Hamiltonian $H(\theta)$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3times.eps "fig:"){width="9.cm"}]{}
Having performed the Fourier transform of and then making the change $|{\bm{k}}|^2\to\lambda$ one arrives at the complex version of the Friedrichs-Faddeev model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FF1}
(H(\theta)f)(\lambda)& ={\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}\lambda f(\lambda)+
{\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}\int_0^\infty {V}({\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}\lambda,
{\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}\mu)f(\mu)d\mu,\\
\nonumber
& f\in L_2\bigl({{\mathbb R}}^+,L_2(S^2)\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ The operator-valued function ${V}(\lambda,\mu)$ is explicitly expressed through the Fourier transform of $\widehat{V}$. For every admissible $\lambda,\mu\in{{\mathbb C}}$ the value of ${V}(\lambda,\mu)$ is an operator (typically, compact) in ${\mathfrak{h}}=L_2(S^2)$.
The Hamiltonian may be interpreted as an analogue of the Friedrichs-Faddeev model for a contour in the complex plane, $$\label{Hgf}
(H_\gamma f)(\lambda)=\lambda f(\lambda)+
\int_\gamma {V}(\lambda,\mu)f(\mu)d\mu,\qquad \lambda\in\gamma,$$ where $$\gamma={\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}{{\mathbb R}}^+:=\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}\,|\,\,z={\rm e}^{-2{{\rm i}}\theta}x,\,0\leq x<\infty\}$$ and $f\in L_2\bigl(\gamma,L_2(S^2)\bigr)$.
Surely, in the two-body problem case, one has to assume that ${V}(\lambda,\mu)$ is analytic in both $\lambda$ and $\mu$ on some domain $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb C}}$ containing the positive semiaxis ${{\mathbb R}}^+$. In addition, $\|{V}(\lambda,\mu)\|$ should decrease sufficiently rapidly as $|\lambda|\to\infty$ and/or $|\mu|\to\infty$ (in order to ensure that the integral on the right-hand side of defines a reasonable operator in $L_2\bigl(\gamma,L_2(S^2)\bigr)$).
Equivalence of the complex rotation resonances and scattering resonances in the Friedrichs-Faddeev model {#Sec4}
========================================================================================================
In the following we consider a family of the Friedrichs-Faddeev Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
{H_\gamma}&{=H_{0,\gamma}+V_\gamma}\end{aligned}$$ associated with smooth Jordan curves $\gamma \subset\Omega$ originating in $(a,b)$. As before, notation $\Omega$ is used for the holomorphy domain of $V(\lambda,\mu)$ in the variables $\lambda$ and $\mu$; $\Omega$ may or may not include $a$ and/or $b$; $$\begin{aligned}
{\bigl(H_{0,\gamma}f\bigr)(\lambda)}&{=\lambda\,f(\lambda)}\quad
\text{ and }\quad
{\bigl(V_\gamma f\bigr)(\lambda)=\int_\gamma
{V}(\lambda,\mu)f(\mu)d\mu,\quad \lambda\in\gamma}.
$$ Here, $f$ is taken from the the Hilbert space ${\mathfrak{H}}_\gamma=L_2(\gamma ,{\mathfrak{h}})$ by which one understands the space of ${\mathfrak{h}}$-valued functions of the variable $\lambda\in\gamma$ with the scalar product $${{\langle}}f,g{{\rangle}}_\gamma=\int_\gamma |d\lambda| {{\langle}}f(\lambda),g(\lambda){{\rangle}}_{\mathfrak{h}}.$$
Again assume that both $a$ and $b$ are finite and let $V(\lambda,\mu)$ be as in Section \[Sec2\]. Introduce the transition operator for the pair $(H_{0,\gamma},H_\gamma)$: $$\label{Tgz}
T_\gamma(z)=V_\gamma-V_\gamma (H_\gamma-z)^{-1}V_\gamma, \quad z\not\in\sigma(H_\gamma).$$ For $R_\gamma(z)=(H_\gamma-z)^{-1}$ we have $$\label{RgT0}
{R_\gamma(z)=R_{0,\gamma}(z)-R_{0,\gamma}(z){T_\gamma(z)}R_{0,\gamma}(z)},$$ with $R_{0,\gamma}(z)=(H_{0,\gamma}-z)^{-1}$, $z\not\in\sigma(H_{0,\gamma})$.
Notice that $H_{0,\gamma}$ is a normal operator on ${\mathfrak{H}}_\gamma$ and it has only absolutely continuous spectrum that coincides with the curve $\overline{\gamma}$. Thus, from it follows that the discrete eigenvalues of $H_\gamma$ are nothing but the poles of the operator-valued function $T_\gamma(z)$.
Assume that the above Jordan curve $\gamma$ lies completely in $\Omega_-=\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^-$ (or completely in $\Omega_+=\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}^+$). Let again $\Omega_\gamma$ denote the set in the complex plane ${{\mathbb C}}$ confined by (and containing) the interval $[a,b]$ and the contour $\gamma$.
\[Pfin\] The part of the spectrum of $H_\gamma$ lying outside $\Omega_\gamma$ is purely real and coincides with $\sigma_p(H)\setminus\overline\Delta$. Furthermore, $\sigma_p(H_\gamma)\cap\Delta=\sigma_p(H)\cap\Delta$, that is, the point spectrum eigenvalues of $H_\gamma$ lying on $\Delta$ do not depend on the (smooth) Jordan contour $\gamma$. The spectrum of [$H_\gamma$]{} inside [$\Omega_\gamma$]{} represents the scattering-matrix resonances.
Already from one may conclude that, for any fixed $z\not\in\sigma(H_\gamma)$, the kernel $T_\gamma(\lambda,\mu,z)$ is holomorphic in the variables $\lambda,\mu\in\Omega$ (since $V$ is holomorphic). Indeed, means $${T_\gamma({\lambda,\mu},z)=V({\lambda,\mu})+\int_{\gamma}d\mu'\int_\gamma d\lambda'\,\,
V({\lambda},\mu')R_\gamma(\mu',\lambda',z)V(\lambda',{\mu})}.$$ One may pull $\lambda$ and $\mu$ anywhere in $\Omega$. And this will be true after analytic continuation of $R_\gamma(\mu',\lambda',z)$ in $z$ through $\gamma$.
Now look at the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for $T_\gamma$, $$\label{TLSg}
T_\gamma(\lambda,\mu,z)=V(\lambda,\mu)-\int_\gamma d\nu\quad\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T_\gamma(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},
\quad z\not\in\overline{\gamma},\quad \lambda,\mu\in\gamma.$$ Assume that $z\in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus\Omega_\gamma$ and consider for such a $z$ also the Lippmann-Shwinger equation for the “original” $T$-matrix — it is associated with the interval $\Delta$: $$\label{TLS}
T(\lambda,\mu,z)=V(\lambda,\mu)-\int_a^b d\nu\quad\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},
\quad z\not\in\Omega_\gamma,\quad \lambda,\mu\in(a,b).$$ Since both the kernels $V(\lambda,\cdot,z)$ and $T(\lambda,\cdot,z)$ for fixed $z\not\in \Omega_\gamma (\cup\sigma_p(H))$ are holomorphic in $\lambda\in\Omega$, one may transform the interval $[a,b]$ into the contour $\gamma$ and obtain: $$\label{TLSgn}
T(\lambda,\mu,z)=V(\lambda,\mu)-\int_\gamma d\nu\quad\frac{V(\lambda,\nu)T(\nu,\mu,z)}{\nu-z},
\quad z\not\in\Omega_\gamma,\quad \lambda,\mu\in(a,b).$$ Pull $\lambda,\mu$ on $\gamma$ and then compare and . The uniqueness theorem for the solution to implies: $$\text{{{$T_\gamma(\lambda,\mu,z)=T(\lambda,\mu,z) \quad \text{whenever}
\quad \lambda,\mu\in\gamma,\,\, z\in\Omega\setminus\Omega_\gamma$}}}
\text{ (and } z\not\in \sigma_p(H)).$$
[![The closed set $\Omega_{12}$ bounded by the Jordan contours $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4times.eps "fig:"){width="7.cm"}]{}
Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\gamma_1}(\lambda,\mu,z)&=T_{\gamma_2}(\lambda,\mu,z)
\quad \text{whenever } \lambda,\mu\in\Omega \text{ and }
z\not\in\Omega_{12}\cup\sigma_p(H_{\gamma_1}),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{12}$ is the closed set bounded by the curves $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ (see Figure \[Fig4\]). This also means that $$\sigma_p(H_{\gamma_1})\setminus\Omega_{12}=\sigma_p(H_{\gamma_2})\setminus\Omega_{12}.$$ Finally, by the uniqueness principle for analytic continuation, for [$z$]{} inside [$\Omega_\gamma$]{} the kernel [$T_\gamma(\lambda,\mu,z)$]{} represents just the analytic continuation of [$T(\lambda,\mu,\cdot)$]{} to the interior of [$\Omega_\gamma$]{} lying in the unphysical sheet. Hence, the poles of [$T_\gamma(z)$]{} within [$\Omega_\gamma$]{} represent resonances of the original Friedrichs-Faddeev Hamiltonian (the one that was introduced for the interval $(a,b)$). This also means that the positions of the resonances inside $\Omega_\gamma$ do not depend on [$\gamma$]{}. The proof is complete.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
For the (analytic) Friedrichs-Faddeev model, we have derived representations that explicitly express the transition operator and scattering matrix on unphysical energy sheets in terms of these same operators considered exclusively on the physical sheet. A resonance on a sheet [$\Pi_\ell$]{}, $\ell=\pm1$, or, more precisely, in the domain $\Pi_\ell\cap\Omega_\ell$ is just a point, for the copy $z$ of which on the physical sheet the corresponding scattering matrix [$S_{\ell}(z)$]{} has eigenvalue zero, that is, $$\label{Slz}
{S_\ell(z)\mathcal{A}=0}\quad\text{for a non-zero vector \,}{\mathcal{A}\in{\mathfrak{h}}}.$$ Furthermore, we have shown that, for the Friedrichs-Faddeev model, the deformation resonances are exactly the scattering matrix resonances.
[00]{}
K.Friedrichs, . Math. Ann. **115**, 249–272 (1938).
K.O.Friedrichs, . Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **1**, 361-406 (1948).
O.A.Ladyzhenskaya, L.D.Faddeev, , Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **120**, 1187–1190 (1958).
L.D.Faddeev, . Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. **73**, 292–313 (1964) \[English translation in: Am. Math. Soc. Transl. **62**:2, 177–203 (1967)\].
L.D.Faddeev, . Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. **69**, 3–122 (1963) \[English translation in: *Mathematical Aspects of the Three Body Problem in Quantum Scattering Theory* (Israel Program of Sci. Transl., Jerusalem, 1965)\].
M.Gadella, G.P.Pronko, . Fortschr. Phys. **59**:9, 795–859 (2011).
S.Albeverio, A.K.Motovilov, . Math. Notes (to appear); arXiv:1712.05770.
B.S.Pavlov, S.B.Petras, . Funct. Anal. Appl. **4**:2, 136–142 (1970).
S.N. Lakajev, . Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae **27**, 341–357 (1986).
S.N.Lakaev, . J. Soviet Math. **45** (1989), 1540–1563.
E.M.Dyn’kin, S.N.Naboko, S.I.Yakovlev, . St. Petersburg Math. J. **3**:2, 299–313 (1992).
H.Isozaki, S.Richard, . Ann. Henri Poincaré **13**, 1469–1482 (2012).
A.K.Motovilov, . Theor. Math. Phys. **95**, 692–699 (1993).
A.K.Motovilov, . Math. Nachr. **187**, 147–210 (1997); arXiv:funct-an/9708001.
M.Reed, B.Simon, *Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis* (Academic Press, 1980).
C.Lovelace, . Phys. Rev. **135**:5B, 1225–1249 (1964).
E.Balslev, J.M.Combes, . Commun. Math. Phys. **22**, 280–294 (1971).
G.A.Hagedorn, . Commun. Math. Phys. **65**, 181–188 (1979).
[^1]: This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 16-01-00706).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, P. Di Matteo,\'
- 'P. Miocchi'
title: 'Super computers in astrophysics and High Performance simulations of self-gravitating systems '
---
Introduction
============
The question “What is a supercomputer?” has a surprisingly trivial answer in the CRAY web site: “A supercomputer is defined simply as the most powerful class of computers at any point in time.” Actually, what modernly distinguishes a supercomputer from normal computers is its more or less complex [*architecture*]{} that determines its effective power. Usually, the performances of the high-class processors are quite similar and so producers, in order to increase significantly computing speed, assemble an enormous number of processors linked in the most efficient way. In many cases a relatively cheap solution is that called “Beowulf”, i.e. the collection of a certain number of, say, commercial Intel processors linked each other with fast Ethernet. A standard type of “Beowulf” is the so-called Linux cluster. These systems, are well suited to a wide range of applications that not require top-performances but, rather,for them suffices a machine whose use is reliable and, possibly, dedicated. Whoever is experienced in numerical simulations knows very well that the largest quantity of time is spent in testing the code in conditions as similar as possible to the ones of the real “long lasting” scientific runs. It is, thus, evident the advantage of having the full compatibility between the [*testing*]{} machine and the [*running*]{} machine that is guaranteed by using the same machine. Moreover, in this way all the problems of large data file remote downloading is avoided.
In spite of these considerations, the “personal” Beowulf solution is far from being exhaustive. Many scientific problems (I would say the highest-level ones, i.e .the most interesting) require, to be approached with an acceptable level of approximation, higher performances than those reached by “Beowulfs”, both in terms of computing speed and memory (Linux clusters, also when composed by an assembly of bi-processor machines, are limited in the shared memory storage). For this class of problems, where I pose many astrophysical problems, the availability of huge parallel main frames is essential. A clear example of this is given by the recent construction of the Japanese “Earth simulator”, a supercomputer explicitly aimed at the detailed simulation of wheather evolution over a wide space and time domain with an unprecedented resolution. This computer (resulting first for the second consecutive year in the Top 500 international ranking list http://www.top500.org) is composed by 640 nodes of 8 vector processors each giving a total peak power of 35.8 Teraflops/s. This enormous power is largely due to the use of vector processors, which represents a constructive choice different from that, most widely used in U.S., of assembling as many “commercial” processors as possible.
In any case, whichever the supercomputers, it is ascertained that science of excellence in general, and astrophysics and cosmology in particular, requires them. .
Supercomputing and astrophysics
===============================
Modern astrophysics and cosmology are characterized by dealing with complex problems whose dynamical range covers extended space-time scales. Some specific topics where this happens are (from small to larger systems):
$\bullet$ stability of solar system,
$\bullet$ star formation,
$\bullet$ final phases of stellar evolution,
$\bullet$ dynamics of galaxies and stellar systems,
$\bullet$ physics of AGNs and Quasars (mass accretion onto compact objects),
$\bullet$ large scale structure.
A correct comprehension of these topics requires the analysis of the contribution of the many processes involved, acting from the micro space-time scales (e.g. atomic and molecular heating and cooling processes in star formation or relativistic supersonic accretion of matter onto black holes in galactic nulcei activity, etc.) up to the macro structure of the system mainly governed by gravity which is, in addition, the main engine of activity also on the micro-scales, due to the irreversible transformation of gravitational energy into thermal.
It is nowadays absolutely clear that firm conclusions about the mentioned open problems cannot be reached by means of simplified models. Consequently, the only way to follow in detail the mutual interaction among phenomena acting on different space-time scales up to the clear vision of the overall evolution of the system relies on the production of sophisticated numerical modelizations. Due to the complexity of problems, running these models require indeed high performance computers, i.e. supercomputers.
stellar system: open cluster glob. clus., gal. nucleus galaxy, clus. of gal.
--------------------- -------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------
N: $<10,000$ $10^5\div 10^9$ $>10^{10}$
gravity: newtonian newtonian,gen. rel. newtonian,gen. rel.
time scale ordering $t_{rel}<t_{cr}<t$ $t_{cr}<<t_{rel}<t$ $t_{cr}<<t<t_{rel}$
regime: collisional secularly collisional collisionless
technique: gas+direct N-body F-P,direct N-body,tree-c. tree-c.,PM,P3M
The role of gravity in numerical astrophysics
---------------------------------------------
By the point of view of computational weight, the most important difference between astrophysical and terrestrial fluid-dynamics is the presence of self-gravity. This implies the substitution in the equations of motion of the self-gravity body force to the simple fixed force field. Computationally, this causes an enormous overcharge, due to the long range character of gravity. This problem is not just a prerogative of collision-dominated systems (fluids, where the relaxation time scale is much shorter than any other dynamical time scale) but typical also of collisionless or partially collisional systems, like galaxies and/or stellar clusters. The long-range behaviour of gravity implies that one cannot neglect the interaction with distant bodies, simply because their number at a fixed distance increases, and this corresponds to an obvious heavy computational weigth at any time step. Things are even more complicated because of the divergence of the newtonian gravitational potential for mutual distances approaching to zero. This is a serious problem whenever fluctuations over the mean field are large in small stellar systems; the short-range behaviour of gravity may induce a dramatic reduction of time stepping when a close encounter between two, or more, “particles” makes their acceleration to increase up to values such that an acceptable error in the integration of their trajectories requires a much finer time advancing.
From few- to many- body systems
-------------------------------
The study of the stability of solar system is a typical few-body classical gravitational problem.
The number of bodies (planets, asteorids, etc.) is small and the initial conditions relatively well known so to avoid the problems caused by the double singularity described above. By the way, the secular stability of the solar system is still an unanswered problem due to the intrinsic difficulty in evaluating the role of the resonances that determine the long time behaviour of the system. A correct treatment cannot neglect the planet structure, because tides favour resonances among planets and satellites. So, powerful computers are needed to follow the time evolution of a system over very many orbital periods of the components with an accuracy such that one can trust into results that are heavily affected by numerical error accumulation. It is intriguing, in this context, that the 3:2 Neptune-Pluto orbital resonance has been found as a result of [*primitive*]{} supercomputing by [@cohen].
The actual check of the validity of the results obtained by [@sussman1], [@laskar] and [@sussman2], that suggest the solar system being chaotic, will probably require the next generation of specifically dedicated supercomputers.
Let us say few words about larger N-body problems.
By “intermediate” N-body systems we intend stellar systems composed by up to few times $10^6$ stars, i.e. open and globular clusters and clusters of galaxies (in this case, of course, the individual body is a galaxy). The study of the evolution of these systems is a typical “multiple time scale” problem, where the [*fine*]{} grain of the system determines a multiplicity of individual time scales (the two-body fly-by characteristic times $\Delta t_{ij}$) that combine with the crossing time $t_{cr}$, which, in its turn, depends on the [*coarse*]{} grain structure. The dynamic range of an accurate time-stepping would span about $5$ orders of magnitude. The use of time step as the minimum over this range would cause a CPU time requirement excessively large when the aim is to simulate the dynamical evolution of the system for a sufficiently long physical time (moreover, the error cumulation would be a great problem). The way commonly adopted to keep accuracy within an acceptable CPU time consumption is the use of individual (and variable in time) time stepping with accurate sinchronization.
Individual time stepping, inserted in a clever “tree algorithm”, i.e. such that the treatment of small scale fluctuations of the force field is done by mean of “local” direct summation has a great power in dealing with star cluster dynamics.. Actually, both high accuracy and speed are guaranteed making possible reliable simulations of stellar systems of the size of real globular clusters, with a 1:1 representation of real stars with simulating particles (that means using $N$ up to $10^6$ in the code). Such performances are reached, of course, by mean of parallel implementations (see [@miocchi]. It may be worth stressing that at present, globular clusters are the [largest]{} systems that can be studied with a 1:1 representation, i.e. with an almost complete reliability of the results, contrarily to what happens with cosmological and large scale simulations, where the ratio between the number of real objects (stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies) and simulating particles ($N$) is still very large, making the results, that are also affected by finite size effects and by the smoothing length of the interaction potential, not yet completely reliable and of not easy interpretation.
Globular cluster-galaxy interaction
===================================
While the study of the very long-term evolution of a popolous globular cluster is not yet feasible, because it requires an integration over a time of the order of the evaporation time, i.e. about one hundred times the 2-body relaxation time, that is $t_{rel}\sim 1,500 t_{cr}$ for a $10^6$ stars cluster, it is nowadays possible to examine with good accuracy the evolution of a globular cluster in motion in the galactic field.
Actually, useful information on the mutual feedback of the cluster with the galactic environment is obtained by simulations which cover an interval of time of 10 orbital times.
We are presently working in the program of studying the coupled orbital and internal evolution of massive globular clusters in the field of an elliptical galaxy, modeled with a self-consistent triaxial galactic model [@dolcetta2]. The main aims of this program are: 1) to understand why and how tidal tails are formed behind globular cluster moving in the galactic field; 2) to evaluate the amount of mass loss from clusters to the halo-bulge; 3) to check, in a straightforward way, the hypothesis raised time ago by [@dolcetta] that a compact object at the galactic centre may accrete a significant quantity of mass by mean of orbitally decayed globular clusters.
Here we report just few preliminary results concerning point 1) (they will be extensively presented in [@dolcetta1]). Figure \[tidaltorque\] shows the time evolution of a $3\times 10^5$ solar masses globular cluster made by $N=165,000$ stars whose masses are distributed according to a Salpeter’s mass function, with lower and upper mass cutoffs $0.1$ M$_\odot$ and $1.2$ M$_\odot$, respectively. The cluster moves on a quasi-circular orbit of 500 pc radius in the (y,z) plane of the [@schwa] triaxial galactic model of axial ratios 2:1.25:1. It is well evident the development of tidal tails along the orbit, that stabilize their pattern in the direction of the (clockwise) motion after less than one orbital period (about 7 Myr). Note that the front arm points in the direction of motion, exactly as it is seen in the globular cluster Palomar 5 obtained by [@odenkirchen2] by mean of wide-field photometric data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (Fig. \[pal5\]). Another interesting feature that has an observational counterpart in the same cluster is the formation of clumps along the tails (see Fig. \[tidaltorque\], right panel). Clumps correspond to zones where the tails change directions, probably due to a non-linear cumulative effect of the tidal field. On another side, with regard to the inner stellar distribution, we see that inner relaxation is speeded up by the external field, in the sense that mass segregation is enhanced, thus inducing a decrease of the velocity dispersion in the inner region in agreement with kinematic data of Palomar 5 [@odenkirchen1] that show that Palomar 5 is a “cold” system.
All these results are preliminary and deserve a careful confirm and generalization; by the way we are convinced that these types of numerical simulations are of fundamental importance to give answers to the initial evolution of galaxies as due to mutual feedback among the various primordial stellar populations and also to the still unknown mechanisms of mass accretion onto the AGN engines.
Part of this work was done thanks to CPU resources in the framework of the INAF-CINECA agreement. We thanks A. Vicari for useful discussions and comments about the orbital evolution of clusters in triaxial galaxies.
Capuzzo–Dolcetta, R. 1993, ApJ 415, 616 Capuzzo–Dolcetta ,R., Di Matteo, P. & Miocchi, P. 2003, in preparation Capuzzo–Dolcetta, R. & Vicari, A. 2003, submitted to MNRAS Cohen, D.G. & Hubbard, E.C. 1965, AJ 70, 10 Laskar, J. 1989, Nature 338, 237 Miocchi, P. & Capuzzo–Dolcetta, R. 2002, A&A 382, 758 Odenkirchen, M. Grebel, E.K. Dehnen, W. Rix, H. & Cudworth, K.M. et al. 2001 ApJ, 548, L165 Odenkirchen et al 2002, SDSS Press release, june 3, 2002 Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ 232, 236 Sussman, G.J.& Wisdom, J. 1988, Sci. 241, 433 Sussman, G.J. & Wisdom, J. 1992, Sci.257, 56
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. Samadi'
- 'K. Belkacem'
- 'M.-A. Dupret'
- 'H.-G. Ludwig'
- 'F. Baudin'
- 'E. Caffau'
- 'M.-J. Goupil'
- 'C. Barban'
subtitle: 'Evidence for non-adiabatic effects using CoRoT observations'
title: 'Amplitudes of solar-like oscillations in red giant stars'
---
Introduction
============
Before CoRoT (launched in December 2006), solar-like oscillations had been detected for a dozen of bright red giant stars either from the ground or from space with MOST [e.g., @Barban07]. Thanks to CoRoT and [*Kepler*]{}, it is now possible to detect and measure solar-like oscillations in many more (several thousands) red giant stars [e.g., @deRidder09; @Huber10; @Bedding10; @Kallinger10; @Stello11; @Mosser12]. With such a large set of stars, it is possible to perform ensemble asteroseismology by deriving scaling relations that relate seismic parameters to a few fundamental stellar parameters (e.g. masses, radii, luminosities etc). These approaches are now commonly applied to global seismic parameters, such as the cutoff-frequency or peak frequency [e.g., @Miglio09; @Stello09; @Kallinger10; @Mosser10]. However, scaling relation is used only infrequently for mode amplitudes. The main reason for this is our poor theoretical understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms for mode driving and damping.
Using a large set of red giant stars observed by CoRoT, @Baudin11 have derived scaling relations in terms of mode lifetimes and amplitudes. These authors have found that the scaling relation proposed by @Samadi07a for the mode amplitude significantly departs from the measured one. This result was recently confirmed by @Huber11, @Stello11 and @Mosser12 with [*Kepler*]{} observations, and is easily understood by noting that @Samadi07a established the scaling for *for main-sequence stars* only, and only for *mode surface velocity*. Indeed, those results point out that a dedicated theoretical investigation of mode amplitudes in intensity for red giants is needed to provide an adequate theoretical background.
Towards the end of their lives, low-mass stars greatly expand their envelope to become red giant stars. As a consequence, the low density of the envelope favours a vigorous convection such that excitation of solar-like oscillations occurs in a medium with very different physical conditions than encountered in the Sun. This introduces new problems about the physical mechanism related to mode driving. For instance, the higher the turbulent Mach number, the more questionable the assumptions involved in the theory [@GK77; @GMK94; @Samadi00I; @Chaplin05; @Kevin10].
In addition, red giant stars are characterised by high luminosities and hence have relatively short convective thermal time-scales at the upper most part of their convective envelope. One can therefore expect a stronger departure from adiabatic oscillations because the perturbation of entropy fluctuations related to the oscillations dimensionally depends on the ratio $L/M$ (where $L$ is the luminosity and $M$ the mass). Thus, extreme physical conditions in the uppermost convective regions of red giants raise new questions about the energetic aspects of damped stochastically excited oscillations (more precisely mode driving and damping). In the present paper, we focus on modelling mode driving. We derive scaling relations for red giant stars in terms of mode amplitude (in velocity and intensity) and compare them with the available CoRoT observations.
This paper is organised as follows: from a grid of 3D hydrodynamical models representative for the upper layers of red giant stars, we derive in Sect. \[scaling\_laws\] theoretical scaling laws for the mode amplitudes in velocity (Sect. \[velocity\]) and in intensity (Sect. \[intensity\]). These scaling laws are then compared in Sect. \[comparison\] with seismic data. Finally, Sect. \[conclusion\] is dedicated to conclusions.
Theoretical scaling relations for mode amplitudes {#scaling_laws}
=================================================
In this section our objective is to compute theoretical scaling relations of mode amplitudes both in terms of surface velocity and intensity. To this end, the mode amplitude will be computed with the help of hydrodynamical 3D numerical simulations.
Surface velocity mode amplitude, $v$ {#velocity}
------------------------------------
The mean-squared surface velocity for each *radial* mode is given by [e.g. @Samadi10 and references therein] $$\label{v}
v^2 (\nu,r) = {\tau(\nu) \over 2} \, \frac{ {\cal P}(\nu) }{ \mathcal{M}(\nu,r) } \; ,$$ where $\nu$ is the mode frequency, ${\cal P}$ the mode excitation rate, $\tau$ the mode life-time (which is equal to the inverse of the mode damping rate $\eta$), $\mathcal{M}$ the mode mass, and $r$ the radius in the atmosphere where the mode velocity is evaluated. The mode mass $\cal M$ is defined for radial modes as $$\mathcal{M}(\nu,r) = { 1 \over { \vert \xi_r(\nu,r) \vert^2 }} \, \int_{0}^{M} \vert \xi_r(\nu,m) \vert^2 \, {\rm d} m \;,
\label{MM}$$ where $\xi_r$ is the radial component of the mode eigendisplacement. The quantities $v$, $\cal M$ and $\xi_r$ are evaluated at two relevant layers:
- the photosphere, *i.e.* at $r=R_{*}$ where $R_*$ is the stellar radius;
- at a layer where spectrographs dedicated to stellar seismology are the most sensitive. According to @Samadi08, for the Sun and solar-type stars, this layer is close to the depth where the potassium (K) spectral line is formed, that is at the optical depth $\tau_{\rm~500~nm} \simeq 0.013$. For stars with different spectral type this layer may vary, but by an as yet unknown manner [see the discussion in @Samadi08]. By default we therefore adopt this reference optical depth to be representative for the Doppler velocity measurements for red giant stars. This assumption is discussed in Sect. \[comp\_velocity\].
In [Eq. (\[v\])]{}, ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal M}$ are computed in the manner of @Samadi08 using a set of 3D hydrodynamical models of the upper layers of sub- and red giant stars. However, this calculation differs from @Samadi08 in two aspects. First, instead of adopting a pure Lorentzian function for the eddy-time correlation in the Fourier domain, we introduce, following @Kevin10, a cut-off frequency derived from the sweeping assumption. Second, the 3D models at our disposal have a limited vertical extent that results in an under-estimation by up to $\sim 10$% of the maximum of ${\cal P}$. To take into account the driving that occurs at deeper layers we extend the calculation to deeper layers using standard 1D stellar models (see below).
The 3D hydrodynamical models were built with the CO$^5$BOLD code [@Freytag02; @Wedemeyer04; @Freytag12]. All 3D models have a solar metal abundance. The chemical mixture is based on @Asplund05. The characteristics of these 3D models are given in Table \[tab:3Dmodels\]. All models have a helium abundance of $Y=0.249$ and a metal abundance of $Z=0.0135$. The 3D models S1, S2, S3, and S7 correspond to red giant stars while S4, S5 and S6 to sub-giants stars.
For each 3D model, an associated complete 1D model (interior+surface) is computed in such a way that the outer layers are obtained from the 3D model [see @Samadi08 for details] while the interior layers are computed using the CESAM2K code [@Morel08]. In these 1D models, convection is treated according to the @Canuto96 local formulation of convection. This formulation requires a prescription for the size $\Lambda$ of the strongest eddies. We assume that $\Lambda = \alpha \, H_p$ where $H_p$ is the pressure scale height and $\alpha$ a parameter adjusted such that the interior model matches the associated 3D model as detailed in @Samadi08. The complete models (interior+surface) are from now on referred to as *patched* models.
The characteristics of the patched models are given in Table \[tab:1Dmodels\]. We then computed the global acoustic modes associated with each of the patched models using the adiabatic pulsation code ADIPLS [@ADIPLS08]. Finally, the mode lifetimes $\tau$ are evaluated using the measurements performed by @Baudin11 [see Sect. \[corot\_data\]].
------- ---------- ---------------
Label $\log g$ $\teff$
\[K\]
S1 2.50 $4964~\pm~22$
S2 2.50 $4475~\pm~10$
S3 2.00 $4551~\pm~16$
S4 3.50 $4931~\pm~20$
S5 3.50 $5431~\pm~23$
S6 3.50 $5885~\pm~16$
S7 3.00 $5039~\pm~11$
------- ---------- ---------------
: Characteristics of the 3D models. $\teff$ is the effective temperature, and $g$ the surface gravity.[]{data-label="tab:3Dmodels"}
------- --------------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------
Label $M$ $\alpha$ $\log g$ $\teff$ $L$ $\Delta \nu$ $ \nu_c$
\[$M_\odot$\] \[K\] \[$L_\odot$\] \[$\mu$Hz\] \[$\mu$Hz\]
M1 $3.74$ $0.565$ $2.51$ $4962$ $172.5$ 3.43 63
M2 $0.98$ $0.621$ $2.50$ $4463$ $30.4$ 4.77 67
M3 $4.20$ $0.610$ $1.99$ $4551$ $444$ 1.40 21
M4 $1.39$ $0.636$ $3.53$ $4927$ $5.86$ 25.11 637
M5 $1.74$ $0.596$ $3.50$ $5392$ $11.5$ 23.30 607
M6 $1.73$ $0.576$ $3.51$ $5856$ $15.9 $ 23.30 583
M7 $2.49$ $0.615$ $3.00$ $5040$ $39.3 $ 9.00 199
------- --------------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------
: Characteristics of the 1D “patched” models. $L$ is the luminosity, $M$ the mass, $\Delta \nu$ the large separation, and $\nu_c$ the acoustic cutoff-frequency.[]{data-label="tab:1Dmodels"}
Our objective is to establish a scaling for the maximum of $v$ (Eq. \[v\], $\vmax$ hereafter) as a function of stellar parameters and assuming that the mode lifetime $\tau$ is known. As shown by @Kevin11, the mode lifetime $\tau$ is expected to reach a plateau at a characteristic frequency, $\nu_{\rm max}$. As we will see in Sect. \[sec:pmax\], the maximum of $\left ({\cal P}/{\cal M} \right )$ also peaks at $\nu_{\rm max}$. Accordingly, to derive a scaling law for $\vmax$, one needs to determine how the ratio $\left ({\cal P} / {\cal M} \right )_{\rm max}$ scales with stellar parameters (see Sect. \[sec:pmax\]).
Among these parameters, apart from the classical fundamental parameters (luminosity $L$, mass $M$, effective temperature $\teff$, gravity $g$, etc), we in addition considered the acoustic cut-off frequency $\nu_{\rm c}$ and the large frequency separation $\Delta \nu$ [see e.g. @JCD82], since the former is related to the properties of the surface and the latter to the mean density of the star. These parameters scale as [ $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_c & =& \nu_{c,\odot} \, { {g \over g_\odot} \, \sqrt{ T_{{\rm eff},\odot} \over \teff}} \label{nuc_scaling} \\
\Delta \nu &= & \Delta \nu_{\odot} \, \sqrt{ {M \over M_\odot } \, \left ({R_\odot \over R} \right ) ^3} \;, \label{deltanu_scaling}\end{aligned}$$]{} where quantities labelled with the symbol $\odot$ refer to solar values, $\nu_{c,\odot} = 5 100\,\mu$Hz [see @Jimenez06 and references therein], and $\Delta \nu_{\odot} = 134.9\,\mu$Hz [@Toutain92]. The values of $\nu_c$ and $\Delta \nu$ associated with each model are given in Table\[tab:1Dmodels\].
Finally, we stress that the characteristic frequency $\nu_{\rm max}$, at which $\tau$ reaches a plateau and ${\cal P}/ {\cal M}$ is maximum, is related to a resonance in the uppermost layers of solar-like stars between the thermal time-scale and the modal period [see @Kevin11 and reference therein]. This is why it scales as the acoustic cut-off frequency $\nu_{\rm c}$ in very good approximation: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{\rm max } = \nu_{{\rm max},\odot} \, { \nu_c \over \nu_{c,\odot} } \;,
\label{numax_scaling}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\nu_{{\rm max},\odot} = 3 101\,\mu$Hz.
Scaling relation for $\left ({\cal P}/{\cal M} \right )_{\rm max}$ {#sec:pmax}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum of ${\cal P}$ is plotted in Fig. \[pmax\] (top) as a function of the ratio $L/M \propto \teff^4/ g$. This dependence with $\teff$ and $g$ was already highlighted and explained by @Stein04 and @Samadi07a [see also the review by @Samadi10], and is nicely confirmed by Fig. \[pmax\] (top). Indeed, ${\cal P}_{\rm max}$ follows a power law of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pmax}
{\cal P}_{\rm max} = {\cal P}_{\rm max}^0 \, \left({L \over L_\odot} \, { M_\odot \over M}\right)^s \quad {\rm with} \quad s=2.60 \pm 0.08 \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\pmax^0 = \left ( 4.2 ^{+1.0}_{-0.8} \right )\, \times 10^{15} $J/s. The maximum of ${\cal P}$ is found to peak at a frequency close to $\nu_{\rm max}$. We note also that the value of the exponent and the constant $\pmax^0$ in [Eq. (\[eq:pmax\])]{} are compatible with the results of @Samadi07a established on the basis of a small set of 3D models of the surface layers of main-sequence (MS) stars. We thus confirm the validity of this relation from MS to red giant stars.
We turn now to the mode mass, ${\cal M}$. Because we aim to compare theoretical mode velocities with measurements made from the ground with spectrographs dedicated to stellar seismology, we evaluate ${\cal M}$ at the optical depth $\tau_{\rm~500~nm} = 0.013$ (see Sect. \[velocity\] and @Samadi08). For a given model, the mode mass (${\cal M}$) decreases rapidly with $\nu$, but above a characteristic frequency close to $\nu_{\rm max}$ it decreases more slowly. Although ${\cal M}$ does not have a minimum, we found that, as ${\cal P} $, the ratio $\left ({\cal P} / {\cal M} \right )$ reaches a maximum close to $\nu_{\rm max}$, which scales as given by [Eq. (\[nuc\_scaling\])]{} and [Eq. (\[numax\_scaling\])]{}. Therefore, we evaluate ${\cal M}$ at $\nu = \nu_{\rm max}$. From now on we label this quantity as ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$.
Among the different stellar parameters mentioned in Sect. \[velocity\], a clear correlation of ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$ is found with $g$, $(L/M)$, $\nu_c$ or $\Delta \nu$. However, the more pronounced correlation is found with $\Delta \nu$. We therefore adopt the scaling with $\Delta \nu$. The variation of ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$ with $\Delta \nu$ is shown in Fig. \[pmax\] (bottom). ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$ can be nicely fitted by a power law of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_min}
{\cal M}_{\rm max} = {\cal M}_{\rm max}^0 \, \left({\Delta \nu \over {\Delta \nu } _{\odot}}\right)^{-p} \quad {\rm with} \quad p = 2.1 \pm 0.1 \;,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal M}_{\rm max}^0= \left (4.5 ^{+1.8}_{-1.3} \right )\, \times \,10^{21}$ kg, and $\Delta \nu$ is given by the scaling relation of [Eq. (\[deltanu\_scaling\])]{}.
By using [Eq. (\[eq:pmax\])]{} and [Eq. (\[M\_min\])]{}, the maximum of the ratio ${\cal P}/{\cal M}$ then varies according to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scaling_PM}
\left( {\cal P}/{\cal M} \right)_{\rm max} = (\pmax^0/{\cal M}_{\rm max}^0) \,\left({L \over L_\odot} { M_\odot \over M} \right)^s \, \left ( { {\Delta \nu} \over {\Delta \nu}_{\odot} } \right )^{p} \;.\end{aligned}$$
\
Scaling relation for $\vmax$ {#sec:vmax}
----------------------------
Equation (\[scaling\_PM\]) now permits us to proceed by considering the scaling law for mode amplitudes, in terms of surface velocities. The maximum of the mode surface velocity, by using [Eq. (\[scaling\_PM\])]{} together with [Eq. (\[v\])]{}, reads $$\vmax = v_0 \, \sqrt{ {{\tau_{\rm max} } \over { \tau_{0}}} \, \left ( {L \over L_\odot} { M_\odot \over M} \right )^{s} \, \left ({ {\Delta \nu} \over {\Delta \nu}_{\odot}} \right )^{p} } \; .
\label{eq:vmax}$$ where $\tau_{\rm max}$ is the characteristic lifetime at $\nu = \numax$, and $$v_0= \sqrt{{\displaystyle}{\tau_0 \over 2} \, \left ({\pmax^0} \over {{\cal M}_{\rm max}^0} \right ) } \, ,$$ with $\tau_0$ a reference mode lifetime whose values are arbitrary fixed to the lifetime of the solar radial modes at the peak frequency, that is $\tau_0= 3.88$ days. Accordingly, we have $v_0= 0.41~$m/s.
It is worthwhile to note that our scaling relation (Eq. \[eq:vmax\]) differs from the result of [@Kjeldsen11]. This is explained by the fact that the postulated relation of [@Kjeldsen11] for mode amplitudes in velocity (their equation 16) does not take the mode masses into account, while this is definitively necessary as seen in [Eq. (\[v\])]{}.
Scaling relation for bolometric amplitude {#intensity}
-----------------------------------------
The instantaneous bolometric mode amplitude is deduced at the photosphere according to [@Dziembowski77a; @Pesnell90] $$\frac{\delta L (t)}{L} = 4\, \frac{\delta \teff(t)}{\teff}
+ 2\, \frac{\delta R_* (t)}{R_*} \;,
\label{dL}$$ where $\delta L(t)$ is the mode Lagrangian (bolometric) luminosity perturbation, $\delta \teff(t)$ the effective temperature fluctuation, and $\delta R_*(t)$ the variation of the stellar radius.
Since the second term of [Eq. (\[dL\])]{} is found negligible in front of $\delta \teff(t)$, one obtains the rms bolometric amplitudes according to $$\left( {{\delta L} \over {L }} \right )_{\rm rms} = 4 \left ({\displaystyle}\frac{\delta \teff}{\teff} \right )_{\rm
rms} \label{dLrms0} \;,$$ where the subscript rms denotes the root mean-square.
We now need a relation between $\left( {{\delta \teff } / \teff } \right )_{\rm rms}$ (or equivalently $\dLrms$) and the rms mode velocity $\vmax$. For convenience we introduce the dimensionless coefficient $\zeta$ defined according to [ $$\begin{aligned}
\dLrms = 4 \left ({\displaystyle}\frac{\delta \teff}{\teff} \right )_{\rm
rms} = \zeta \, \dLrms^\odot \, \left ( { v_{\rm rms} \over v_\odot } \right ) \;,
\label{dLrms}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\dLrms^\odot = 2.53$ $\pm$0.11 ppm is the maximum of the solar bolometric mode amplitude [@Michel09], $\teff^\odot=5777$ K the effective temperature of the Sun, and $v^\odot_{\rm rms}=18.5~\pm~1.5$ cm/s the maximum of the solar mode (intrinsic) surface velocity evaluated at the photosphere as explained in @Samadi09b.
The quantity $\zeta$ in [Eq. (\[dLrms\])]{} is defined at an arbitrary layer, which is generally the photosphere (i.e. at $r=R_{*}$). Accordingly, we must evaluate the velocity and hence the mode mass $\cal M$ at that layer. This implies the following scaling for $\cal M_{\rm max}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_min_photo}
{\cal M}_{\rm max,*} = {\cal M}_{\rm max,*}^0 \, \left({\Delta \nu \over \Delta \nu^{\odot}}\right)^{-p_*} \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $ p_* = 2.0 \pm 0.10$ , ${\cal M}_{\rm max,*}^0= \left ( 8.0^{+2.8}_ {-2.1} \right ) \times 10^{21}$ kg and $\Delta \nu$ is given by the scaling relation of [Eq. (\[deltanu\_scaling\])]{}.
Combining [Eq. (\[dLrms\])]{} with [Eq. (\[eq:vmax\])]{} gives the scaling for the bolometric amplitude [ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\delta L}{L}\right)_{\rm max}& = & \zeta \, \left(\frac{\delta L}{L}\right)^\odot_{\rm rms} \nonumber \left ( {v_{0,*} \over v^\odot_{\rm rms} } \right ) \,\\ & & \times \sqrt{ {{\tau_{\rm max} } \over { \tau_{0}}} \, \left ( {L \over L_\odot} { M_\odot \over M} \right )^{s} \, \left ({ \Delta \nu \over \Delta \nu^{\odot}} \right )^{p_*} } \;,
\label{dLmax}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $v_{0,*} \equiv \sqrt{{\displaystyle}{\tau_0 \over 2} \, \left ({\pmax^0} \over {{\cal M}_{\rm max,*}^0} \right ) } = 0.31 $ m/s.
### Adiabatic case
Within the adiabatic approximation, it is possible to relate the mode surface velocity to intensity perturbations [e.g., @Kjeldsen95]; this give: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\rm K95} = \sqrt{ \teff^\odot \over \teff } \;,
\label{zeta_K95}\end{aligned}$$]{} which assumes that the modes are quasi-adiabatic, but not only. It supposes that the modes propagate at the surface where they are measured. This approximation is not valid in the region where the modes are measured since in this region they are evanescent. Furthermore, it assumes an isothermal atmosphere. A more sophisticated quasi-adiabatic approach has been proposed by @Severino08. The authors went beyond the approximation of isothermal atmosphere by taking into account the temperature gradient as well as the fact that the intensity is measured at constant instantaneous optical depth. Both effects are taken into account by the method described in Sect. \[nad\], which in addition considers non-adiabatic modes.
We present in Fig. \[intensity-velocity\] $\zeta_{\rm K95}$ as a function of $(L/M)$. The adiabatic coefficient remains almost constant for the type of stars investigated here (sub- and red giant stars). This is obviously because $\zeta_{\rm K95}$ varies as the inverse of the square root of $\teff$.
### Non-adiabatic case {#nad}
We also computed $\zeta$ using the MAD non-adiabatic pulsation code [@Grigahcene05]. This code includes the time-dependent convection (TDC) treatment described in [@Grigahcene05].
This TDC formulation involves a free parameter $\beta$, which takes complex values and enters the perturbed energy equation. This parameter was introduced to prevent the occurrence of non-physical spatial oscillations in the eigenfunctions [see @Grigahcene05 for details]. To constrain this parameter we used the scaling relation between the frequency of the maximum height in the power spectrum ($\nu_{\max}$) and the cut-off frequency ($\nu_{\rm c}$). When scaled to the Sun, one can use this scaling to infer $\nu_{\rm max}$ for the models we used and the parameter $\beta$ is then adjusted so that the plateau (or depression) of the computed damping rates coincides [see @Kevin12].
Note also that TDC is a non-local formulation of convection and is based on the [@Gabriel96] formalism as explained in @MAD06b and @MAD06c. In this framework, non-local parameters related to the convective flux ($a$) and the turbulent pressure ($b$) are chosen in the same way as in @MAD06b [see their Eqs. (17) and (18), see also @MAD06a] so that it fits the solar 3D numerical simulation. This calibration results in $a=10.4$ and $b=2.9$ (assuming a mixing-length parameter $\alpha=1.62$)
For sub- and red giant stars ($L/M \gtrsim 10 \, L_\odot/M_\odot$), the non-adiabatic intensity-velocity relation obtained with the MAD code can quite well be fitted by a power law of the form [ $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\rm nad} = \zeta_0 \, \left ( {L \over L_\odot} \, { M_\odot \over M} \right )^k \;,
\label{zeta_nad}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $k = 0.25 \pm 0.05$ and $\zeta_0=0.59 \pm 0.07$. For main-sequence stars ($L/M \lesssim 10 \, L_\odot/M_\odot$), $\zeta_{\rm nad}$ remains almost constant (not shown). For the Sun, we find $\zeta_{\rm nad} \simeq 0.95$, which is close to the value expected by definition for the Sun. Therefore, we are then led to multiply $\zeta_{\rm nad}$ by only a factor 1.05 so that, for the Sun, theoretical $\dLmax$ matches the helioseismic measurements. The result is shown in Fig. \[intensity-velocity\] for the sub- and red giant stars ($L/M \gtrsim 10\, (L_\odot/M_\odot)$). The non-adiabatic coefficient increases rapidly with increasing $(L/M)$ while $\zeta_{\rm K95} $ remains almost constant. Hence, the higher $(L/M)$, the larger the difference between the non-adiabatic and the adiabatic coefficient ($\zeta_{K95}$).
\
Comparison with the observations {#comparison}
================================
We compare in this section theoretical mode amplitudes with seismic measurements made from the ground in terms of Doppler velocity (Sect. \[comp\_velocity\]) and from space by CoRoT in terms of intensity (Sect. \[comp\_intensity\]). We recall that computing the theoretical mode amplitudes requires knowledge of $\tau_{\rm max}$ (see Eqs. \[eq:vmax\] and \[dLmax\]), which is obtained from a set of CoRoT targets as explained in Sect. \[corot\_data\].
The CoRoT data set {#corot_data}
------------------
@Baudin11 have measured the mode amplitudes for $360$ CoRoT red giant targets. Among those targets, many show very narrow peaks, close to the frequency resolution of the spectrum, while the others have resolved peaks. About 65% of those targets have a highest mode whose width is sufficiently broad to be fitted with a Lorentzian profile. For those targets, the height of the highest mode, $H_{\rm max}$, and its lifetime $\tau_{\rm max}$ are thus derived from the fit procedure. However, it is not excluded that some modes with a width more narrow than the frequency resolution may have been fitted with a Lorentzian profile because of the low signal-to-noise ratio. To exclude those modes, we only considered modes with a width $\Gamma_{\rm max} = 1/(\pi \tau_{\rm max})$ broader than twice the frequency resolution of the spectra (which is $0.081~\mu$Hz). This subset represents about 170 targets for which we have an estimate of the mode lifetime ($\tau_{\rm max}$) at the peak frequency. For each target of this subset, the maximum of the mode amplitude in intensity ($A_{\rm max}$) was obtained according to the relation $A_{\rm max}= {{\displaystyle}\sqrt{ H_{\rm max} / \tau_{\rm max}}}$. Finally, a bolometric correction was applied in the manner of [@Michel09] to convert the apparent intensity fluctuation $A_{\rm max}$ into a bolometric amplitude $(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$.
Maximum velocity amplitude ($\vmax$) {#comp_velocity}
------------------------------------
The mode amplitude in terms of velocity is given by [Eq. (\[eq:vmax\])]{}. Calculating $\vmax$ requires to know the mode life time $\tau_{\rm max}$ at the peak frequency. We used the values of $\tau_{\rm max}$ available for our set of CoRoT targets (see Sect. \[corot\_data\]). We also determined the ratio ${L / M}$ as well as $\Delta \nu$. The luminosity and mass of these targets are unknown. However, @Baudin11 have proposed to derive an estimate of the ratio $L/M$ using the following scaling: [ $$\begin{aligned}
{L \over M} \propto { {\teff^{7/2}} \over {\nu_{\rm max}} } \;,
\label{L_M}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\nu_{\rm max}$ is the frequency of the maximum mode height $H_{\rm max}$ and $\teff$ is determined from photometric broad-band measurements as explained in @Baudin11. Note that the scaling law of [Eq. (\[L\_M\])]{} assumes that $\nu_{\rm max}$ scales as $\nu_c$, which scales as $g/\sqrt{\teff}$ (see Eq. \[nuc\_scaling\]). Concerning $\Delta \nu$, as first established by @Stello09, @Hekker09 and @Kallinger10, there is a clear scaling relation between this quantity and $\numax$. We derived this quantity here according to the relation derived by @Mosser10 from a large set of CoRoT red giant stars: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu = 0.280 \, \nu_{\rm max}^{0.747} \; .\end{aligned}$$]{}
Theoretical values of $\vmax$ were compared with the stars whose $\vmax$ has been measured so far in Doppler velocity from the ground. We considered the different measurements published in the literature [@Frandsen02; @Barban04; @Bouchy05; @Carrier05; @Carrier05b; @Mosser05; @Arentoft08; @Kjeldsen08; @Mosser08; @Teixeira09; @Ando10]. The values quoted in the literature are generally given in terms of peak amplitudes. In that case they were converted into *root-mean-square* (rms) amplitudes. Furthermore, we rescaled all amplitudes into *intrinsic* (by opposition to observed) amplitudes. Measured values of $\vmax$ are shown in Fig. \[scaling\_v\] (top panel) as a function of $L/M$. We have an estimate of the ratio $L/M $ for only a few stars while for almost all of them we have a seismic measure of $\nu_{\rm max}$, which is typically more accurate than the determination of the ratio $L/M$. Therefore, we also show $\vmax$ in Fig. \[scaling\_v\] (bottom) as a function of $\nu_{\rm max}$. The theoretical values of $\vmax$ obtained for our subset of red giants are found to be close to the measurements obtained for the red giant stars observed in Doppler velocity from the ground. Note that the considerable dispersion seen in the theoretical values of $\vmax$ comes from the dispersion in the measured value of $\tau_{\rm max}$. Furthermore, we point out that the parameters $p$, $s$, ${\cal P}_0$, and ${\cal M}_0$, which appear in [Eq. (\[scaling\_PM\])]{}, are mostly determined with quite a large error. The errors associated with the parameters introduce a bias on the theoretical $\vmax$, which is shown in Fig. \[scaling\_v\] by a red vertical bar. As seen in Fig. \[scaling\_v\], the theoretical $\vmax$ are found, on average, to be about 30% lower than the measurements.
Using several 3D simulations of the surface of main-sequence stars, @Samadi07a have found that $\vmax$ scales as $(L/M)^{sv}$ with $sv=0.7$. As seen in Fig. \[scaling\_v\], this scaling law reproduces the MS stars quite well. When extrapolated to the red giant domain ($L/M \gtrsim 10 ~ L_\odot/M_\odot$), this scaling law results for $\vmax$ in values very close to our present theoretical calculations.
The mode masses ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$ were so far evaluated a the reference optical depth $\tau_{\rm~500~nm} = 0.013$ (see Sect. \[velocity\]). We now discuss the sensitivity ${\cal M}_{\rm max}$ to the optical depth at which they are computed. To evaluate our sensitivity to this choice, we alternatively computed the theoretical $\vmax$ at the photosphere and at an optical depth ten times lower than our reference level, that is at $\tau_{\rm~500~nm} = 10^{-3}$. Theoretical $\vmax$ are found to be $\sim $ 30% lower at the photosphere and higher by $\sim 20\,\%$ at the optical depth $\tau_{\rm~500~nm} = 10^{-3}$. This result illustrates at which level $\vmax$ is sensitive to the depth where the acoustic modes are supposed to be measured. This depth is not well known, however, but we believe that it should be located between the photosphere and our reference optical depth.
Maximum bolometric amplitude ($(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$) {#comp_intensity}
-------------------------------------------------------
### Adiabatic case {#comp_intensity_ad}
We computed $(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$ according to [Eq. (\[dLmax\])]{} using the scaling law given by [Eq. (\[eq:vmax\])]{} for $v$ and assuming the adiabatic coefficient $\zeta_{\rm K95}$ ([Eq. (\[zeta\_K95\])]{}). Fig. \[scaling\_dL\] (top) shows $(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$ as a function of ratio $(L/M)$, where this ratio is estimated according to [Eq. (\[L\_M\])]{}. We also plotted the mode amplitudes measured for a small sample of CoRoT main-sequence stars [see @Baudin11 and references therein]. Theoretical $(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$ under-estimates the amplitudes measured on the CoRoT red giant stars by a factor of about 2.5.
### Non-adiabatic case {#comp_intensity_nad}
We computed $(\delta L/L)_{\rm max}$ according to [Eq. (\[dLmax\])]{} assuming the non-adiabatic scaling law established in Sect. \[nad\] (see [Eq. (\[zeta\_nad\])]{}) for $\zeta$. The result is shown in Fig. \[scaling\_dL\] (bottom). Using the non-adiabatic coefficient results in an increase of the bolometric amplitude by a factor $\sim 1.5$ compared to the calculations based on the adiabatic coefficient. This renders the theoretical bolometric amplitude closer to the observations.
We have plotted in Fig. \[diff\_dL\] the histogram of the relative difference between observed and theoretical $\dLmax$, that is, the histogram of the quantity $\gamma \equiv (A^{obs}-A)/A$, where $A$ is the theoretical amplitude and $A^{obs}$ the observed one. The dispersion seen in the histogram is due both to the errors associated with the data and the fact that we observe a heterogeneous population of stars with different chemical abundance.
The red horizontal bar shows the bias introduced by the 1-$\sigma$ errors associated with the determination of the parameters $p_*$, $s$, ${\cal P}_0$, ${\cal M}_{0,*}$, $k$, and $\zeta_0$ as well the measurement of $\dLrms^\odot$ and $v_{\rm rms}^\odot$ (see [Eq. (\[dLrms\])]{}). The median of $\gamma$ is close to 0.8 (the vertical dashed line). This means that theoretical amplitudes remains, on average, $\sim$40% below the CoRoT measurements.
Conclusion
==========
Theoretical scaling relation for the velocity mode amplitude
------------------------------------------------------------
We have extended the calculations performed by @Samadi07a for main-sequence stars to sub- and red giant stars. We found that the maximum of the mode excitation rate, $\cal P_{\rm max}$, scales approximately as $(L/M)^s$ with $s = 2.60 \pm 0.08$. Accordingly, for sub- and red giant stars, theoretical $\cal P_{\rm max}$ scales in same way as for the main-sequence stars.
We also found that the mode mass at the peak frequency, $\cal M_{\rm max}$, which was evaluated at a reference level in the atmosphere, scales as $ \Delta \nu^{-p}$ where $\Delta \nu \propto (M/R^3)^{1/2}$, with $ p = 2.1 \pm 0.1 $. Since $ (M/R^3)$ represents also the mean density, we have that $\cal M_{\rm max}$ scales almost linearly as the inverse of the star mean density. This tight relation still remains to be understood, however.
From the scaling laws for $\cal M_{\rm max}$ and $\cal P_{\rm max}$, we finally derived a scaling law for the maximum of the mode velocity, which has the following form: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\vmax \propto \left ( \tau_{\rm max} \right ) ^{1/2} \, \left ( {L} \over {M} \right )^{s/2} \, \left ( M \over R^3 \right )^{p/4} \, ,
\label{eq:vmax:2}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\tau_{\rm max}$ is the mode lifetime at the peak frequency.
Using CoRoT data, @Baudin11 have found that $ \tau_{\rm max}$ scales approximately as $\teff^{-m}$ where $m = 16.2 \pm 2 $ for the main-sequence and sub-giant stars. Recently, @Appourchaux12 have found a slope $m = 15.5 \pm 1.6 $ with [*Kepler*]{} data, which is hence compatible with that of @Baudin11. Such a power law is also supported by the theoretical calculations of @Kevin12 performed for main-sequence, sub- and red giant stars. Furthermore, although $\cal M_{\rm max}$ scales better with $ \Delta \nu$, it also scales well as $g^{-p^\prime}$ with $p^\prime = 1.66 \pm 0.15$ (note the larger uncertainty for $p^\prime$ compared to $p$). Accordingly, since $L/M \propto \teff^4/g$, we can rewrite the scaling for $\vmax$ (Eq. \[eq:vmax:2\]) as a function of the star spectroscopic parameters only: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\vmax \propto \teff ^{\left (2 s -m/2 \right ) } \, g ^{\left ( p^\prime/2-s/2 \right )} \; .
\label{eq:vmax:3}\end{aligned}$$]{}
Using a set of CoRoT red giant stars for which the mode lifetimes have been measured [@Baudin11], we derived from the scaling law of Eq. (\[eq:vmax:2\]) theoretical values of $\vmax$. These values were found to be close to the measurements made from the ground in terms of Doppler velocity for red giant stars. However, the Doppler measurements remain on average under-estimated by a about $30$%. We discuss in Sect. \[discussion\] possible reasons for this under-estimation.
Theoretical scaling relation for the bolometric mode amplitude
--------------------------------------------------------------
When converted in terms of intensity using the @Kjeldsen95 adiabatic relation, the theoretical amplitudes under-estimate the bolometric mode amplitudes measured by @Baudin11 on a set of CoRoT red giant stars by a factor about 2.5. Alternatively, we have considered the MAD non-adiabatic pulsation code [@Grigahcene05] to establish a non-adiabatic relation between intensity and velocity. We found that this relation scales as $(L/M)^k$ with $k = 0.25 \pm 0.05$. We finally established for the mode amplitude in *intensity* the following scaling law: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\dLmax \propto \, \left ( \tau_{\rm max} \right ) ^{1/2} \, \left ( {L} \over {M} \right )^{s/2 + k} \, \left ( M \over R^3 \right )^{p_*/4} \, ,
\label{dLmax:2}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $p_* = 2.0 \pm 0.1 $. As for the scaling relation for $\vmax$, the one for $\dLmax $ can be rewritten as a function of the star spectroscopic parameters only: [ $$\begin{aligned}
\dLmax \propto \, \teff ^{\left (2 s -m/2 + 4 k \right )} \, g ^{\left ( p_*^\prime/2-s/2 -k\right )} \;,
\label{dLmax:3}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $p_*^\prime = 1.63 \pm 0.15$.
Using the non-adiabatic scaling law for $\dLmax$ reduces the difference between theoretical and measured amplitudes by a factor $\sim$ 1.5. Our analysis hence explains qualitatively the recent results obtained for red giant stars using photometric CoRoT and [*Kepler*]{} observations [@Baudin11; @Huber11; @Stello11; @Mosser12]. Indeed, we stress that theoretical relation obtained for mode amplitudes in velocity *cannot* be simply extrapolated into photometry because non-adiabatic effects dominate the relation between mode amplitude in velocity and intensity.
However, while the non-adiabatic treatment implemented in the MAD code [@Grigahcene05] reduces the discrepancy with the CoRoT measurements, the latter are still underestimated on average by about 40%. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed in Sect. \[discussion\].
Discussion
==========
The mode masses are sensitive to the layer at which they are evaluated, which must in principle correspond to the height in the atmosphere at which spectrographs dedicated to stellar seismology are the most sensitive [See Sect. \[velocity\], Sect. \[comp\_velocity\], and @Samadi08]. However, the uncertainty associated with the lack of knowledge of this layer introduces an uncertainty on the computed amplitudes that should not exceed $\sim$30% (see Sect. \[comp\_velocity\]).
The discrepancy with the velocity measurements can also be attributed to the under-estimation of the mode driving. It is not clear which part of the excitation model might be incorrect or incomplete. Nevertheless, we believe that a possible bias can arise from the way oscillations are currently treated in the region where the driving is the most efficient (i.e. the uppermost part of the convective region). Indeed, in this region the oscillation period, the thermal time-scale and the dynamical time-scale are of the same order, making the coupling between pulsation and convection stronger and energy losses more significant [see e.g. @Kevin11 and references therein]. We have compared non-adiabatic and adiabatic eigenfunctions computed for the global standard 1D model. The non-adiabatic eigenfunctions obtained with the MAD pulsation code differ from the adiabatic ones only in a small fraction of the excitation region. We found a negligible difference between excitation rates computed with non-adiabatic eigenfunctions and those computed with adiabatic eigenfunctions. However, we point out that the underlying theory is based on a time-dependent version of the mixing-length theory, which is well known to be a crude formulation of convection. Therefore a more realistic and consistent non-adiabatic approach that does not rely on free parameters and that includes constraints from 3D hydrodynamical models is required.
Finally, part of the differences with amplitudes $\dLmax$ measured by CoRoT can be attributed to the intensity-velocity relation. Indeed, if we suppose that the mode masses are correct, then we must multiply the mode excitation rates $\pmax$ by a factor $\sim 1.5^2 = 2.25 $ to match the velocity measurements. In that case only a difference of about 20% with the observed $\dLmax$ remains, which must then be attributed to the intensity-relation. The intensity-relation strongly depends on the way non-adiabatic effects are treated, and as mentioned above, the current non-adiabatic treatment is based on a crude description of the convection and its inter-action with pulsation.
The CoRoT space mission, launched on December 27 2006, has been developed and is operated by CNES, with the contribution of Austria, Belgium, Brasil, ESA, Germany and Spain.
[58]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, H., [Tsuboi]{}, Y., [Kambe]{}, E., & [Sato]{}, B. 2010, , 62, 1117
, T., [Benomar]{}, O., [Gruberbauer]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 537, A134
, T., [Kjeldsen]{}, H., [Bedding]{}, T. R., [et al.]{} 2008, , 687, 1180
, M., [Grevesse]{}, N., & [Sauval]{}, A. J. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 336, Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ed. T. G. [Barnes]{}, III & F. N. [Bash]{}, 25
, C., [de Ridder]{}, J., [Mazumdar]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2004, in Proceedings of the SOHO 14 / GONG 2004 Workshop (ESA SP-559). “Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future”. 12-16 July, 2004. New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Editor: D. Danesy., 113
, C., [Matthews]{}, J. M., [de Ridder]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2007, , 468, 1033
, F., [Barban]{}, C., [Belkacem]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2011, , 529, A84
, T. R., [Huber]{}, D., [Stello]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2010, , 713, L176
, K., [Dupret]{}, M. A., [Baudin]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2012, , 540, L7
, K., [Goupil]{}, M. J., [Dupret]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 530, A142
, K., [Samadi]{}, R., [Goupil]{}, M. J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 522, L2
, F., [Bazot]{}, M., [Santos]{}, N. C., [Vauclair]{}, S., & [Sosnowska]{}, D. 2005, , 440, 609
, V. M., [Goldman]{}, I., & [Mazzitelli]{}, I. 1996, , 473, 550
, F., [Eggenberger]{}, P., & [Bouchy]{}, F. 2005, , 434, 1085
, F., [Eggenberger]{}, P., [D’Alessandro]{}, A., & [Weber]{}, L. 2005, , 10, 315
, W. J., [Houdek]{}, G., [Elsworth]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2005, , 360, 859
, J. 1982, , 199, 735
, J. 2008, , 316, 113
, J., [Barban]{}, C., [Baudin]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2009, , 459, 398
, M. A., [Barban]{}, C., [Goupil]{}, M.-J., [et al.]{} 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 624, Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun
, M.-A., [Goupil]{}, M.-J., [Samadi]{}, R., [Grigahc[è]{}ne]{}, A., & [Gabriel]{}, M. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 624, Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun
, M.-A., [Samadi]{}, R., [Grigahcene]{}, A., [Goupil]{}, M.-J., & [Gabriel]{}, M. 2006, Communications in Asteroseismology, 147, 85
, W. 1977, Acta Astronomica, 27, 95
, S., [Carrier]{}, F., [Aerts]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2002, , 394, L5
, B., [Steffen]{}, M., & [Dorch]{}, B. 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 213
, B., [Steffen]{}, M., [Ludwig]{}, H.-G., [et al.]{} 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 919
, M. 1996, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 24, 233
, P. & [Keeley]{}, D. A. 1977, , 212, 243
, P., [Murray]{}, N., & [Kumar]{}, P. 1994, , 424, 466
, A., [Dupret]{}, M.-A., [Gabriel]{}, M., [Garrido]{}, R., & [Scuflaire]{}, R. 2005, , 434, 1055
, S., [Kallinger]{}, T., [Baudin]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2009, , 506, 465
, D., [Bedding]{}, T. R., [Stello]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2011, , 743, 143
, D., [Bedding]{}, T. R., [Stello]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2010, , 723, 1607
, A. 2006, , 646, 1398
, T., [Weiss]{}, W. W., [Barban]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2010, , 509, A77
, H. & [Bedding]{}, T. R. 1995, , 293, 87
, H. & [Bedding]{}, T. R. 2011, , 529, L8
, H., [Bedding]{}, T. R., [Arentoft]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2008, , 682, 1370
, E., [Samadi]{}, R., [Baudin]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2009, , 495, 979
, A., [Montalb[á]{}n]{}, J., [Baudin]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2009, , 503, L21
, P. & [Lebreton]{}, Y. 2008, , 316, 61
, B., [Belkacem]{}, K., [Goupil]{}, M.-J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 517, A22
, B., [Bouchy]{}, F., [Catala]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2005, , 431, L13
, B., [Deheuvels]{}, S., [Michel]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2008, , 488, 635
, B., [Elsworth]{}, Y., [Hekker]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2012, , 537, A30
, W. D. 1990, , 363, 227
, R. 2011, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 832, The Pulsations of the Sun and the Stars, ed. J.-P. [Rozelot]{} & C. [Neiner]{}
, R., [Belkacem]{}, K., [Goupil]{}, M. J., [Dupret]{}, M.-A., & [Kupka]{}, F. 2008, , 489, 291
, R., [Georgobiani]{}, D., [Trampedach]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2007, , 463, 297
, R. & [Goupil]{}, M. J. 2001, , 370, 136
, R., [Ludwig]{}, H.-G., [Belkacem]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2010, , 509, A16
, G., [Straus]{}, T., & [Steffen]{}, M. 2008, , 251, 549
, R., [Georgobiani]{}, D., [Trampedach]{}, R., [Ludwig]{}, H.-G., & [Nordlund]{}, [Å]{}. 2004, , 220, 229
, D., [Chaplin]{}, W. J., [Basu]{}, S., [Elsworth]{}, Y., & [Bedding]{}, T. R. 2009, , 400, L80
, D., [Huber]{}, D., [Kallinger]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2011, , 737, L10
, T. C., [Kjeldsen]{}, H., [Bedding]{}, T. R., [et al.]{} 2009, , 494, 237
, T. & [Froehlich]{}, C. 1992, , 257, 287
, S., [Freytag]{}, B., [Steffen]{}, M., [Ludwig]{}, H.-G., & [Holweger]{}, H. 2004, , 414, 1121
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove an algebraic preservation theorem for positive Horn definability in $\aleph_0$-categorical structures. In particular, we define and study a construction which we call the *periodic power* of a structure, and define a *periomorphism* of a structure to be a homomorphism from the periodic power of the structure to the structure itself. Our preservation theorem states that, over an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure, a relation is positive Horn definable if and only if it is preserved by all periomorphisms of the structure. We give applications of this theorem, including a new proof of the known complexity classification of quantified constraint satisfaction on equality templates.'
address:
- '[a]{}Departamento LSI, Facultad de Informática, Universidad del País Vasco, E-20018 San Sebastián, Spain; and IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, E-48011 Bilbao, Spain '
- '[b]{}Kurt Gödel Research Center, Universität Wien, Austria'
author:
- Hubie Chena
- Moritz Müllerb
bibliography:
- 'moritzbib.bib'
- 'hubiebib.bib'
title: 'An Algebraic Preservation Theorem for aleph0-Categorical Quantified Constraint Satisfaction'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Model checking – deciding if a logical sentence holds on a structure – is a basic computational problem which is in general intractable; for example, model checking first-order sentences on finite structures is well-known to be PSPACE-complete. In the context of model checking, fragments of first-order logic based on restricting the connectives $\{ \wedge, \vee, \neg \}$ and quantifiers $\{ \exists, \forall \}$ have been considered in a variety of settings. For instance, the problem of model checking *primitive positive* sentences, sentences formed using $\{ \wedge, \exists \}$, is a NP-complete problem that is a formulation of the *constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)*, and admits a number of other natural characterizations, as shown in the classical work of Chandra and Merlin [@ChandraMerlin77-optimal]. The problem of model checking *positive Horn* sentences, sentences formed using $\{ \wedge, \exists, \forall \}$, is known as the *quantified constraint satisfaction problem (QCSP)*, and is PSPACE-complete; indeed, certain cases of this problem are canonical complete problems for PSPACE [@Papadimitriou95-complexity Chapter 19]. Another natural fragment consists of the *existential positive* sentences, which are formed from $\{ \wedge, \vee, \exists \}$.
Such syntactically restricted fragments of first-order logic can be naturally parameterized by the structure [@Martin08-FOparameterizedbymodel]. As examples, consider the following problems for a structure $\A$:
- ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\A)$: decide the primitive positive theory of $\A$.
- ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$: decide the positive Horn theory of $\A$.
- ${\mathsf{EXPOS}}(\A)$: decide the existential positive theory of $\A$.
- ${\mathsf{EFPOS}}(\A)$: decide the equality-free positive theory of $\A$.
Via this parameterization, one obtains four *families* of problems, and is prompted with classification programs: for each of the families, classify the problems therein according to their computational complexity. On finite structures, comprehensive classifications are known for the families ${\mathsf{EXPOS}}(\A)$ and ${\mathsf{EFPOS}}(\A)$. Each problem ${\mathsf{EXPOS}}(\A)$ is either in L or NP-complete [@BodirskyHermannRichoux09-existentialpositive], and each problem ${\mathsf{EFPOS}}(\A)$ is either in L, NP-complete, coNP-complete, or PSPACE-complete [@MadelaineMartin11-tetrachotomyPFOwithouteq]. Moreover, each of these two classifications is effective in that for each, there exists an algorithm that, given a finite structure, tells what the complexity of the corresponding problem is. For the family of problems ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\A)$, Feder and Vardi [@FederVardi99-structure] famously conjectured that there is a dichotomy in the finite: for each finite structure $\A$, the problem ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\A)$ is either polynomial-time tractable or NP-complete. Investigation of the complexity-theoretic properties of the problem families ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\A)$ and ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$, on finite structures, is a research theme of active interest [@Chen08-collapsibility; @ABISV09-refining; @LaroseTesson09-hardness; @BartoKozik09-boundedwidth; @BBCJK09-qcsp; @IMMVW10-tractabilityfewsubpowers; @Chen11-qcspandpgp; @Chen12-meditations].
At the heart of the work on these classification programs are *algebraic preservation theorems* which state that, relative to a finite structure, the relations definable in a given fragment are precisely those preserved by a suitable set of operations. As an example, one such theorem states that a relation is primitive positive definable on a finite structure $\A$ if and only if all polymorphisms of $\A$ are polymorphisms of the relation [@Geiger68-closed; @BKKR69-galois]. (A polymorphism of a structure $\A$ is a homomorphism from a finite power $\A^k$ to $\A$ itself.) On finite structures there are analogous preservation theorems connecting positive Horn definability to surjective polymorphisms [@BBCJK09-qcsp], existential positive definability to endomorphisms [@Krasner68-endomorphisms], and equality-free positive definability to so-called surjective hyper-endomorphisms [@MadelaineMartin09-complexityPFOwithouteq]. For the purposes of complexity classification, these preservation theorems are relevant in that they allow one to pass from the study of structures to the study of algebraic objects. For instance, it follows from the preservation theorem for primitive positive definability that two finite structures $\A, \B$ having the same polymorphisms are primitive positively interdefinable, from which it readily follows that the problems ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\A)$ and ${\mathsf{CSP}}(\B)$ are interreducible and share the same complexity (under many-one logspace reduction); thus, insofar as one is interested in CSP complexity, one can focus on investigating the polymorphisms of structures.
Given the import and reach of these algebraic preservation theorems for finite structures, a natural consideration is to generalize them to infinite structures. Although it is known that these preservation theorems do not hold on *all* infinite structures (see the discussion in [@BodirskyHilsMartin10-scopeunivalg] as well as [@Bodirsky04-thesis Theorem 4.7]), Bodirsky and Nešetřil [@BodirskyNesetril06-homogeneous Theorem 5.1] established that the preservation theorem characterizing primitive positive definability via polymorphisms does hold on $\aleph_0$-categorical structures, which have countably infinite universes. An $\aleph_0$-categorical structure is “finite-like” in that for each fixed arity, there are a finite number of first-order definable relations; indeed, this is one of the characterizations of $\aleph_0$-categoricity given by the classical theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski. The class of $\aleph_0$-categorical structures includes many structures of computational interest, including those whose relations are first-order definable over one of the following structures: equality on a countable universe, the ordered rationals $(\mathbb Q, <)$, and the countable random graph; see [@bodsurvey] for a survey.
In this paper, we present an algebraic preservation theorem for positive Horn definability on $\aleph_0$-categorical structures. This theorem characterizes positive Horn definability by making use of a construction which we call the *periodic power*. In particular, we define a *periomorphism* of a structure $\A$ as a homomorphism from the periodic power of $\A$ to $\A$ itself, and show that a relation is positive Horn definable over an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure $\A$ if and only if all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$ are periomorphisms of the relation.
The periodic power of a structure $\A$ is the substructure of $\A^{\mathbb N}$ whose universe is the set of all periodic tuples in $\A^{\mathbb N}$; a tuple $(a_0, a_1, \ldots)$ is periodic if there exists an integer $k \geq 1$ such that the tuple *repeats mod $k$*, by which is meant $a_n = a_{n { \ \textup{mod}\ }k}$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$. As we discuss in the paper, the periodic power arises as the direct limit of an appropriately defined system of embeddings. Despite the extremely natural character of the periodic power, we are not aware of previous work where this construction has been explicitly considered. We believe that it could be worthwhile to seek applications of the periodic power in other areas of mathematics. One basic fact that we demonstrate is that the positive Horn theory of a structure holds in the structure’s periodic power; this readily implies that the class of groups is closed under periodic powers, and likewise for other classes of classical algebraic structures such as rings, lattices, and Boolean algebras. Our introduction and study of the periodic power also forms a contribution of this paper.
A direct corollary of our preservation theorem is that for two $\aleph_0$-categorical structures $\A,\B$ with the same universe, if $\A$ and $\B$ have the same surjective periomorphisms, then the structures $\A$ and $\B$ are positive Horn interdefinable, and the computational problems ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ and ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\B)$ are interreducible (under many-one logspace reductions). This permits the use of surjective periomorphisms in the study of the complexity of the QCSP on $\aleph_0$-categorical structures. As an application of our preservation theorem and the associated theory that we develop, we give a new proof of the known complexity classification of *equality templates*, which are structures whose relations are first-order definable over the equality relation on a countable set.
Related work {#related-work .unnumbered}
------------
An algebraic preservation theorem for positive Horn definability via surjective polymorphisms was shown for the special case of equality templates [@BodirskyChen10-equality]. The presented proof crucially depends on results on the clones of equality templates given there and in [@BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts].
In model theory, there are *classical preservation theorems* that show that a sentence is equivalent to one in a given fragment if and only if its model class satisfies some suitable closure properties. Such theorems have been shown for positive Horn logic. A well-known instance is Birkhoff’s HSP theorem characterizing universally quantified equations. And in 1955, Bing [@bing] showed that a positive sentence is preserved by direct products if and only if it is equivalent to a positive Horn sentence. Later, assuming the continuum hypothesis (CH), Keisler proved[^3] that a sentence is equivalent to a positive Horn sentence if and only if it is preserved (in the parlance of [@vogler; @flum]) by the following binary relation: relate $\A$ to $\B$ when $\B$ is a homomorphic image of $\A^{\mathbb N}$ [@a Corollary 3.8] (see also [@keisler Section 6.2]). Absoluteness considerations can be used to eliminate the assumption of CH when one has ZFC provability of the stated closure property. More recently, Madelaine and Martin [@mm Theorem 1] showed, without relying on CH, that Keisler’s result holds when one considers preservation under the relation defined as above, but where $\B$ is required to be finite.
In some cases, an algebraic preservation theorem can be derived from a corresponding classical preservation theorem. Such a derivation has been given for Bodirsky and Nesetril’s theorem in [@bodsurvey], and Bodirsky and Junker [@junker] derived algebraic preservation theorems for existential positive definability and positive definability in $\aleph_0$-categorical structures from well-known classical preservation theorems of Lyndon. Roughly speaking, these methods need the preservation relation to be $\textit{PC}_\Delta$ (cf. [@flum] or [@vogler p.103]) and thus cannot be applied to Keisler’s classical preservation theorem mentioned above. To the best of our knowledge, prior to this work no algebraic preservation theorem for positive Horn formulas on $\aleph_0$-categorical structures has been known (neither in the presence nor absence of CH).
Preliminaries from model theory
===============================
First-order logic
-----------------
Throughout the paper, $L$ will denote a countable first-order language. If not explicitly stated otherwise, by a structure (formula) we always mean an $L$-structure (first-order $L$-formula). Throughout, we use the letters $\A$, $\B$, etc. to denote structures with universes $A, B$, etc.; we use $\varphi,\psi,\chi,$ etc. to denote formulas. For a structure $\A$ and a (finite) tuple $\bar a$ from $A$, by $(\A,\bar a)$ we denote, as usual, the expansion of $\A$ interpreting new constants by the components of $\bar a$. We do not distinguish between constants outside $L$ and variables. For a formula $\varphi=\varphi(\bar x)$ and a structure $\A$, writing $(\A,\bar a)\models\varphi(\bar x)$ or $\A\models\varphi(\bar a)$ (with $\bar x$ clear from context) means that $\A$ satisfies $\varphi(\bar x)$ under the assignment $\bar a$ to $\bar x$. By $\varphi(\A)$ we denote the relation $\{\bar a\mid \A\models\varphi(\bar a)\}$ on $A$; this relation is said to be [*defined by $\varphi$ in $\A$*]{}. A relation is [*first-order (positive Horn, primitive positively) definable in $\A$*]{} if it is defined by some first-order (positive Horn, primitive positive) formula $\varphi$ in $\A$ (see Section \[subsec:ph\] for definitions of positive Horn and primitive positive).
Let $L'$ be another first-order language, $\B$ an $L'$-structure and $\A$ an $L$-structure such that $A=B$. Then $\B$ is [*first-order (positive Horn, primitive positively) definable in $\A$*]{} if for every atomic $L'$-formula $\varphi$ the relation $\varphi(\B)$ is (positive Horn, primitive positively) definable in $\A$.
Direct products
---------------
For a family of ($L$-)structures we denote its direct product by $\prod_{i\in I}\A_i$. Recall that this structure
1. has universe $\prod_{i\in I}A_i$, which is the set of functions mapping each $i\in I$ into the universe $A_i$ of $\A_i$;
2. interprets a $k$-ary relation symbol $R\in L$ by those $k$-tuples $(\vec a_0,\ldots, \vec a_{k-1})$ from $\prod_{i\in I} A_i$ such that $\A_i\models R\vec a_0(i)\cdots\vec a_{k-1}(i)$ for all $i\in I$; and
3. interprets a $k$-ary function symbol $f\in L$ by the function mapping a $k$-tuple $(\vec a_0,\ldots, \vec a_{k-1})$ from $\prod_{i\in I} A_i$ to the element $\vec a\in\prod_{i\in I}A_i$ having the property that $\A_i\models f(\vec a_0(i),\ldots, \vec a_{k-1}(i))=\vec a(i)$ for all $i\in I$.
We write $\A^I$ for $\prod_{i\in I}\A_i$ with all $\A_i=\A$; we write $\A^k$ to indicate $\A^I$ when $I=\{0,\ldots,k-1\}$ for $k\in\mathbb N,k>0$. We consider $\A^k$ to have universe $A^k$, the set of $k$-tuples over $A$. We do not distinguish between 1-tuples and elements, that is, $\A^1=\A$. The direct product of two structures $\A$ and $\B$ is denoted $\A\times \B$ and considered to have universe $A\times B$.
Direct limits
-------------
We recall the definitions associated with direct limits. Let $(I,\prec)$ be a strict partial order that is directed: every two elements in $I$ have a common upper bound. An [*$(I,\prec)$-system of embeddings (homomorphisms)*]{} is a family of embeddings (homomorphisms) $e_{(i,j)}:\A_i\to\A_j$ for $i\prec j$ such that $e_{(i,k)}=e_{(j,k)}\circ e_{(i,j)}$ for all $i\prec j\prec k$. A [*cone*]{} of the system is a family of [*limit embeddings (homomorphisms)*]{} $e^*_i:\A_i\to\A^*$ such that $e^*_j\circ e_{(i,j)}=e^*_{i}$. It is known that, for a system, there exists a cone satisfying the following universal property: for every other cone, say given by $\tilde\A $ and $ (\tilde e_i)_{i\in I}$, there exists a unique embedding (homomorphism) $e:\A^*\to\tilde\A$ such that $e\circ e^*_i=\tilde e_i$. A structure $\A^*$ with this universal property is unique up to isomorphism and called the [*direct limit*]{} of the system; if $(I,\prec)$ and the $e_{(i,j)}$s are clear from context, it is denoted by $\lim_i \A_i$.
$\aleph_0$-categoricity {#subsec:cat}
-----------------------
A structure $\mathfrak A$ is [*$\aleph_0$-categorical*]{} if it is countable and every countable structure $\B$ that satisfies the same first-order sentences as $\mathfrak A$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak A$. We assume basic familiarity with $\aleph_0$-categoricity as covered by any standard course in model theory (see for example [@keisler]). Here, we briefly recall some facts that we are going to use.
The theorem of [*Ryll-Nardzewski*]{} states that a countable structure $\mathfrak A$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical if and only if for every $k\in\mathbb N$ there are at most finitely many $k$-ary relations that are first-order definable in $\A$. It is straightforward to verify that this implies that for an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure $\A$, when $\bar a$ is an arbitrary finite-length tuple from $A$, the structure $(\A,\bar a)$ is also $\aleph_0$-categorical. Further, it implies that for an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure $\A$, the structure $\A^k$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical for any $k\in\mathbb N$; in fact, every structure that is first-order interpretable in an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure is also $\aleph_0$-categorical.
Another easy consequence of this theorem is that $\aleph_0$-categorical structures are [*$\aleph_0$-saturated*]{}, by which is meant that for every finite tuple $\bar a$ from $A$ and every set of formulas $\Phi=\Phi(x)$ in the language of $(\A,\bar a)$ (that is, having constants for $\bar a$) one has: if every finite subset of $\Phi(x)$ is satisfiable in $(\A,\bar a)$, then so is $(\A,\bar a)$. Finally, we mention the fact that for an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure $\A$, a relation over $A$ is first-order definable if and only if it is preserved by all automorphisms of $\A$ (see Section \[subsec:pres\] for the definition of preservation).
Preliminaries from constraint satisfaction {#subsec:ph}
==========================================
Positive Horn formulas
----------------------
As noted in the introduction, a [*positive Horn*]{} formula is a first-order formula built from atoms, conjunction, and the two quantifiers. Existential such formulas are [*primitive positive*]{}. For simplicity, we assume that first-order logic contains a propositional constant $\bot$ for falsehood; formally, $\bot$ is a 0-ary relation symbol always interpreted by $\emptyset$. Note that $\bot$ is a positive atomic sentence. If any positive Horn sentence true in $\A$ is also true in $\B$, we write $\A\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}\B$.
A formula $\varphi(\bar x)$ is [*preserved by direct products*]{} if it holds in $(\A,\bar a)\times(\B,\bar b)$ whenever it holds in both $(\A,\bar a)$ and $(\B,\bar b)$. Positive Horn formulas are preserved by direct products, in fact, the following is straightforward to verify.
\[lem:basic\] Let $(\A_i)_{i\in I}$ be a family of structures. A positive Horn sentence holds in $\prod_{i\in I}\A_i$ if and only if it holds in every $\A_i,i \in I$.
Quantified constraints
----------------------
The quantified constraint satisfaction problem (QCSP) on a structure $\A$, denoted by ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$, is the problem of deciding the positive Horn theory of $\A$. The following proposition relates positive Horn definability to the complexity of the QCSP.
\[prop:qcsp-reduction\] Let $\A$ be an $L$-structure and $\B$ be an $L_0$-structure for some finite first-order language $L_0$. If $\B$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$, then the problem ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\B)$ many-one logspace reduces to ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$.
For every function symbol $f\in L_0$, constant $c\in L_0$ and relation symbol $R\in L_0$ choose some fixed positive Horn $L$-formulas $\psi_f(\bar x,y), \psi_c(x), \psi_R(\bar x)$ that respectively define, in $\A$, the relations given by the formulas $f(\bar x)=y, x=c,R\bar x$ interpreted over $\B$. Let $\varphi$ be an instance of ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\B)$, that is, a positive Horn sentence in the language $L_0$. In a first step, compute in logspace an equivalent sentence $\varphi^*$ in which every atomic subformula contains at most one symbol from $L_0$, that is, has the form $x=y,f(\bar x)=y$ or $R\bar x$. This can be done by successively replacing atomic subformulas of $\varphi$, for example, replacing $Rxcf(f(x))$ by $$\exists y_0y_1y_2(Rxy_0y_2\wedge y_0=c\wedge f(y_1)=y_2\wedge f(x)=y_1)$$ In a second step, replace in $\varphi^*$ every atomic subformula that mentions $s\in L_0$ by the formula $\psi_s$ (with the right choice of variables). This can also be done in logspace: note that we may hardwire the finite list of the formulas $\psi_s$ into the algorithm. Finally, recall that the composition of two logspace algorithms can be implemented in logspace.
In the literature, the CSP and QCSP are typically defined in *relational* first-order logic. We take a more general stance and allow the language to contain function symbols if not explicitly stated otherwise. In particular, our preservation theorem (Theorem \[theo:pres\]) holds in the presence of function symbols.
Preservation {#subsec:pres}
------------
Let $A$ be a set, $I$ a nonempty set and $h$ a partial function from $A^I$ to $A$. If $h$ is defined on all of $A^I$ (and $I$ is finite), it is called a [*(finitary) operation*]{} on $A$. Then $h$ is said to [*preserve*]{} an $r$-ary relation $R\subseteq A^r$ if it is a partial homomorphism from $(A,R)^I$ to $(A,R)$. This means the following: whenever $\vec a_0,\ldots,\vec a_{r-1}$ are in the domain of $h$ and $(\vec a_0(i),\ldots,\vec a_{r-1}(i))\in R$ for all $i\in I$, then $(h(\vec a_0),\ldots,h(\vec a_{r-1}))\in R$. Further, relative to a structure $\A$ with universe $A$, we say that $h$ preserves a formula $\varphi$ if it preserves the relation $\varphi(\A)$.
Clones and Polymorphisms {#subsec:poly}
------------------------
A [*clone on $A$*]{} is a set of finitary operations on $A$ that is closed under composition and contains all projections. A set $F$ of operations on $A$ [*interpolates*]{} an operation $g$ on $A$ if for all finite sets $B$ there exists an operation $f\in F$ such that $f\upharpoonright B=g\upharpoonright B$. A set of operations is [*locally closed*]{} if it contains every operation that it interpolates.
A [*polymorphism of $\A$*]{} is a homomorphism from $\A^k$ to $\A$ where $k$ is a positive integer called the [*arity*]{} of the polymorphism. Equivalently, a polymorphism of $\A$ is a finitary operation on $A$ that preserves each $\A$-relation, $\A$-constant, and graph of an $\A$-function; or, a polymorphism of $\A$ is a finitary operation on $A$ that preserves all atomic formulas. It is straightforward to verify that the set of polymorphisms of any structure $\A$ forms a locally closed clone on $A$.
An operation $h: A^k \rightarrow A$ is a polymorphism of a relation $R \subseteq A^{\ell}$ if $h$ is a polymorphism of the structure $(A, R)$. In a picture, this means the following. If every column of $$\begin{array}{llll}
a_{0}^0&a_{1}^0&\cdots&a_{k-1}^0\\
a_{0}^1&a_{1}^1&\cdots&a_{k-1}^1\\
\ \ \vdots&\ \vdots&\ddots&\ \vdots\\
a_{0}^{\ell-1}&a_{1}^{\ell-1}&\cdots&a_{k-1}^{\ell-1}
\end{array}$$ is a tuple contained in $R$, then so is the $\ell$-tuple obtained by applying $h$ to each row.
We have the following polymorphism-based characterization of primitive positive definability.
\[theo:inv-pol\] Let $\A$ be $\aleph_0$-categorical. A relation $R$ over $A$ is primitive positively definable in $\A$ if and only if it is preserved by all polymorphisms of $\A$.
Periodic powers {#sec:periodicpower}
===============
In this section, we present the notion of the *periodic power* of a structure, and identify some basic properties thereof. We also discuss how the periodic power arises as the direct limit of a system of embeddings. Throughout this section, we use $\A,\B$ to denote structures.
A function $\vec a:\mathbb N\to A$ is [*periodic*]{} if there exists $k\in\mathbb N, k > 0$ such that for all $i \in \mathbb N$, it holds that $\vec a(i)=\vec a(i{ \ \textup{mod}\ }k)$; in this case the function $\vec a$ is said to be [*$k$-periodic*]{}, and we write $\langle \vec a(0)\cdots\vec a(k-1)\rangle$ to denote $\vec a$. The set of periodic functions $A^{\textup{per}}$ carries a substructure in $\A^{\mathbb N}$: the set $A^{\textup{per}}$ is nonempty and closed under all $\A^{\mathbb N}$-interpretations of function symbols. We define the [*periodic power*]{} of $\A$, denoted $\A^{\textup{per}}$, to be the substructure of $\A^{\mathbb N}$ induced on $A^{\textup{per}}$.
When $\bar{\vec a}=\vec a_0\cdots\vec a_{\ell-1}$ is a tuple from $A^{\textup{per}}$ and $i\in\mathbb N$, we let $\bar{\vec a}(i)$ denote the tuple $\vec a_{0}(i)\cdots\vec a_{\ell-1}(i)$ from $A$.
\[lem:basic2\] Assume that $\varphi(\bar x)$ is a positive Horn formula. Then $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})\models\varphi(\bar x)$ if and only if $(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i))\models\varphi(\bar x)$ for all $i\in\mathbb N$.
Call a formula $\varphi$ [*good*]{} if it satisfies the claimed equivalence. Clearly, conjunctions of atoms are good. Assume $\varphi(\bar x,y)$ is good. It is easy to see that also $\forall y\varphi(\bar x,y)$ is good. We show that $\exists y\varphi(\bar x,y)$ is good, via the following equivalences. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})\models\exists y\varphi(\bar x,y)\\\nonumber
&\Longleftrightarrow
\exists\vec b\in A^{\textup{per}}: \ (\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a},\vec b)\models\varphi(\bar x,y)
\\\label{eq:2}
&\Longleftrightarrow \exists\vec b\in A^{\textup{per}} \ \forall i\in\mathbb N: \ (\A,\bar{\vec a}(i),\vec b(i))\models\varphi(\bar x,y)
\\\label{eq:3}
&\Longleftrightarrow \forall i\in\mathbb N \ \exists b\in A: \ (\A,\bar{\vec a}(i), b)\models\varphi(\bar x,y)
\\\nonumber
&\Longleftrightarrow \forall i\in\mathbb N : \ (\A,\bar{\vec a}(i))\models\exists y \varphi(\bar x,y).\end{aligned}$$
The second equivalence follows from $\varphi(\bar x,y)$ being good. The rest being trivial, we show that implies . By there is a function $\vec b:\mathbb N\to A$ such that $(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i),\vec b(i))\models\varphi(\bar x,y)$ for all $i\in\mathbb N$. For every component $\vec a$ of $\bar{\vec a}$ choose $n_{\vec a}\in\mathbb N$ such that $\vec a$ is $n_{\vec a}$-periodic, and let $n\in\mathbb N$ be a common multiple of the $n_{\vec a}$s. Then any component of $\bar{\vec a}$ is $n$-periodic and, in particular, $$\bar{\vec a}(i)=\bar{\vec a}(i{ \ \textup{mod}\ }n)$$ for all $i\in\mathbb N$. Define $\vec b^*:\mathbb N\to A$ by $$\vec b^*(i):=\vec b(i { \ \textup{mod}\ }n).$$ Then $\vec b^*\in A^{\textup{per}}$ and $(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i), \vec b^*(i))\models\varphi(\bar x,y)$ for all $i\in\mathbb N$; this is .
Consider the following embeddings.
1. The function $e_1:\A\to\A^{\textup{per}}$ defined by $e_1(a):=\langle a\rangle$, that is, the function mapping each $a \in A$ to the constant sequence $(a)_{i\in\mathbb N}$, is a canonical embedding of $\A$ into $\A^{\textup{per}}$.
2. More generally, for each $k > 0$, the function $e_k:\A^k\to\A^{\textup{per}}$ defined by $e_k((a_0,\ldots,a_{k-1})):=\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle$ is a canonical embedding from $\A^k$ into $\A^{\textup{per}}$.
In the following proposition we identify $a\in A$ with $e_1(a)\in A^{\textup{per}}$ for notational simplicity. We use $\A\preceq_{\textup{pH}}\B$ to indicate that $\A\subseteq \B$ (i.e. $\A$ is a substructure of $\B$) and that for every positive Horn formula $\varphi(\bar x)$ and all tuples $\bar a$ from $A$, it holds that $$(\A,\bar a)\models\varphi(\bar x)\Longleftrightarrow(\B,\bar a)\models\varphi(\bar x).$$ Lemmas \[lem:basic\] and \[lem:basic2\] imply:
\[prop:el\] $\A\preceq_{\textup{pH}} \A^{\textup{per}}\preceq_{\textup{pH}} \A^{\mathbb N}$.
The next two propositions explain how the periodic power relates to finite powers.
\[prop:iso\] Let $k\in\mathbb N,k>0$. Then $\A^{\textup{per}}\cong (\A^k)^{\textup{per}}$ via an isomorphism that maps $\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle$ to $\langle (a_0,\ldots,a_{k-1})\rangle$ for all $a_0,\ldots,a_{k-1}\in A$.
To make clear the notation used in the statement of this proposition, let us look at an example: the notation $\langle ab \rangle$ denotes the 2-periodic sequence $ababab\cdots\in A^{\textup{per}}$, whereas the notation $\langle (a,b) \rangle$ denotes the constant, 1-periodic sequence $(a,b)\ (a,b)\ (a,b)\cdots\in (A^2)^{\textup{per}}$.
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop:iso\].*]{} Define the map $f:\A^{\textup{per}}\to(\A^k)^{\textup{per}}$ to map $\vec a\in \A^{\textup{per}}$ to $$i\mapsto (\vec a(ik),\ldots,\vec a((i +1)k-1))$$ The map $f$ is clearly injective. For $j<k$ let $\pi^k_j$ denote the projection of $k$-tuples to their $(j+1)$th component. An element $\vec b\in(\A^k)^{\textup{per}}$ has $$i\mapsto \pi^k_{i{ \ \textup{mod}\ }k} (\vec b(\lfloor i/k\rfloor) )$$ as preimage under $f$, so $f$ is surjective. It is straightforward to verify that $f$ is an isomorphism.
\[prop:iso2\] Let $k\in\mathbb N,k>1$. Then $\A^{\textup{per}}\cong (\A^{\textup{per}})^k$.
The proof relies on the following observation.
\[lem:prod\] $\A^{\textup{per}}\times \B^{\textup{per}}\cong (\A\times\B)^{\textup{per}}$.
Map a pair of functions $(\vec a,\vec b)\in A^{\textup{per}}\times B^{\textup{per}}$ to $((\vec a(i),\vec b(i)))_{i\in\mathbb N}$; note this function is $nm$-periodic whenever $\vec a$ and $\vec b$ are $n$- and $m$-periodic respectively. The map is clearly injective. It is surjective as $((a_i,b_i))_{i\in\mathbb N}\in (A\times B)^{\textup{per}}$ has preimage $((a_i)_{i\in \mathbb N},(b_i)_{i\in\mathbb N})\in A^{\textup{per}}\times B^{\textup{per}}$. To see that it is an isomorphism, let $\alpha$ be an atom. For simplicity assume $\alpha=\alpha(x,y)$, and let $(\vec a,\vec b),(\vec a',\vec b')\in A^{\textup{per}}\times B^{\textup{per}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&(\A^{\textup{per}}\times \B^{\textup{per}},(\vec a,\vec b),(\vec a',\vec b'))\models\alpha(x,y) \\
&&\Longleftrightarrow
(\A^{\textup{per}},\vec a,\vec a')\models\alpha(x,y)\textup{ and } ( \B^{\textup{per}},\vec b,\vec b')\models\alpha(x,y)
\\
&&\Longleftrightarrow \forall i\in\mathbb N:\ (\A,\vec a(i),\vec a'(i))\models\alpha(x,y)
\textup{ and } ( \B,\vec b(i),\vec b'(i))\models\alpha(x,y)
\\
&&\Longleftrightarrow \forall i\in\mathbb N :\ (\A\times\B, (\vec a(i),\vec b(i)),(\vec a'(i),\vec b'(i)))\models\alpha(x,y)
\\
&&\Longleftrightarrow ((\A\times\B)^{\textup{per}}, (\vec a(i),\vec b(i))_{i\in\mathbb N}, ((\vec a'(i),\vec b'(i)))_{i\in\mathbb N})\models\alpha(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ where the first and third equivalence hold by definition of direct products, and the second and fourth equivalence hold by Lemma \[lem:basic2\].
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop:iso2\]*]{} by induction on $k$: we have the isomorphisms $$(\A^{\textup{per}})^{k+1}=(\A^{\textup{per}})^k\times \A^{\textup{per}} \cong \A^{\textup{per}}\times \A^{\textup{per}} \cong (\A^2)^{\textup{per}}
\cong \A^{\textup{per}}$$ by induction, the previous lemma and Proposition \[prop:iso\].
Observe that for $n,m>0$ there is a natural embedding $e_{(n,m)}:\A^n\to\A^{m}$ whenever $n<m$ and $n$ divides $m$, namely the embedding that maps the $n$-tuple $\bar a\in A^n$ to the $m$-tuple $$e_{(n,m)}(\bar a)=\underbrace{\bar a\bar a\cdots\bar a}_{m/n\text{ times}}\in A^m.$$ Clearly, these embeddings are compatible in the sense that $e_{(\ell,m)}\circ e_{(n,\ell)}=e_{(n,m)}$ whenever $n<\ell<m$, $n$ divides $\ell$ and $\ell$ divides $m$. In other words, the $e_{(n,m)}$s determine an $(I,\prec)$-system of embeddings where $I=\mathbb N_{>0}$ and $\A_n:=\A^n$ and $\prec $ denotes divisibility.
\[prop:lim\] $\A^{\textup{per}}\cong \lim_n \A^{n}$.
Let $(e^*_n)_{n>0}$ denote the limit homomorphisms into the direct limit $\lim_n \A^n$ of the directed system of embeddings given by the embeddings $e_{(n,m)}$ (for $n<m$ and $n$ divides $m$). Observe that the embeddings $e_n$ from $\A^n$ into $\A^{\textup{per}}$ satisfy the requirement for limit embeddings, so these embeddings $e_n$ are also a cone of the directed system. By the universal property of $\lim_n \A^n$ there is an embedding $e:\lim_n \A^n\to\A^{\textup{per}}$ such that $e\circ e^*_n=e_n$ for all $n>0$. But every element of $ A^{\textup{per}}$ is in the image of some $e_n$, so $e$ has to be surjective and thus is an isomorphism.
Recall, an $\forall\exists$-sentence is a sentence of the form $\forall\bar x\exists \bar y\psi$ with $\psi$ quantifier free. Propositions \[prop:el\] and \[prop:lim\] imply:
Every positive Horn sentence true in $\A$ and every $\forall\exists$-sentence true in all finite powers of $\A$, is true in $\A^{\textup{per}}$.
Periomorphisms {#sec:periomorphisms}
==============
In this section, we introduce and study the notion of *periomorphism*. Throughout this section, let $\A$ be a structure.
A [*periomorphism of $\A$*]{} is a homomorphism from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ to $\A$.
In other words, a periomorphism of $\A$ is a partial function from $A^{\mathbb N}$ to $A$ with domain $A^{\textup{per}}$ that preserves all atomic formulas. The following lemma follows straightforwardly from the definitions.
\[lem:boff\] A periomorphism $h$ of $\A$ preserves a relation $R \subseteq A^{\ell}$ if and only if for any choice of finitely many tuples $\bar a_0= (a_{0}^0,\ldots, a_{0}^{\ell-1}),\ldots, \bar a_{k-1}=(a_{k-1}^0,\ldots, a_{k-1}^{\ell-1})$ from $R$, we have $$\big(h(\langle a_{0}^0 a_{1}^0 \cdots a_{k-1}^0\rangle),\ldots,h(\langle a_{0}^{\ell-1} a_{1}^{\ell-1} \cdots a_{k-1}^{\ell-1}\rangle)\big) \in R.$$
[*Proof:*]{} The forward direction is trivial. Conversely assume the right hand side of the claimed equivalence and let $\vec a_0,\ldots,\vec a_{\ell-1}\in \A^{\textup{per}}$ be such that for all $i\in\mathbb N$, $(\vec a_0(i),\ldots \vec a_{\ell-1}(i))\in R$. We claim $h(\vec a_0)\cdots h(\vec a_{\ell-1})\in R$. Choose a sufficiently large $k\in\mathbb N$ such that all $\vec a_j$ are $k$-periodic, that is, $\vec a_{j}=\langle\vec a_j(0)\cdots \vec a_j(k-1)\rangle$ for all $j<\ell$. Applying the assumption yields the claim.
To see the lemma’s statement with a picture, let $h$ be a periomorphism of $\A$, and consider the following. $$\begin{array}{llll}
\langle a_{0}^0&a_{1}^0&\cdots&a_{k-1}^0\rangle\\
\langle a_{0}^1&a_{1}^1&\cdots&a_{k-1}^1\rangle\\
\ \ \vdots&\ \vdots&\ddots&\ \vdots\\
\langle a_{0}^{\ell-1}&a_{1}^{\ell-1}&\cdots&a_{k-1}^{\ell-1}\rangle
\end{array}$$ The right hand side of the lemma states that if the columns $\bar a_i= (a_{i}^0,\ldots,
a_{i}^{\ell-1})$ are contained in $R$ for all $i < k$, then so is the $\ell$-tuple $\bar b$ obtained by applying $h$ to each row.
For later use we introduce the following mode of speech.
\[defn:image\] In the situation above, if $h$ is a *surjective* periomorphism of the structure under study, then we call $\bar b$ [*a surjective periomorphic image of the tuples $(\bar a_i)_{i<k}$*]{}.
\[prop:pres\] Every positive Horn formula is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$.
[*Proof:*]{} Let $\varphi(\bar x)$ be a positive Horn formula and $h$ be a surjective periomorphism of $\A$. For notational simplicity assume $\bar x=xx'$ and let $a_0a_0', \ldots, a_{k-1}a_{k-1}'$ be any finitely many pairs in $\varphi(\A)$. We have to show that $\varphi(xx')$ is true in $(\A,h(\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle),h(\langle a_0'\cdots a'_{k-1}\rangle))$; see the previous lemma. But $\varphi(xx')$ is true in $(\A^{\textup{per}},\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle,\langle a_0'\cdots a'_{k-1}\rangle)$ by Lemma \[lem:basic2\], and, being positive, is preserved by surjective homomorphisms.
The periomorphisms and the polymorphisms of a structure contain the same information. If one knows the periomorphisms of a structure, then one also knows its polymorphisms – and vice-versa. Why is this? For $k\in\mathbb N,k>0$ define $\pi_{<k}:A^{\textup{per}} \to A^k$ by $$\pi_{<k}(\vec a):= (\vec a(0),\ldots,\vec a(k-1)).$$ This operation is clearly a homomorphism from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ to $\A^k$. Now, if someone hands us an operation $h: A^k \to A$, we can decide if it is a polymorphism of $\A$ by checking if $$h^{\textup{per}}:=h\circ\pi_{<k}.$$ is a periomorphism of $\A$. For, if $h$ is a polymorphism of $\A$, then by composing homomorphisms, we have that $h^{\textup{per}}$ is a periomorphism of $\A$; and, if $h^{\textup{per}}$ is a periomorphism of $\A$, by composing homomorphisms, we have that $h^{\textup{per}} \circ e_k$, which is equal to $h$, is a homomorphism from $\A^k$ to $\A$.
Going the other way, suppose that someone places in our hands an operation $h: A^{\textup{per}} \to A$. It can be seen from Lemma \[lem:boff\] that $h$ is a periomorphism of $\A$ if and only if each of the operations $$\label{eq:fk}
h_{<k}:= h\circ e_k.$$ is a polymorphism of $\A$.
It is thus no surprise that preservation by periomorphisms coincides with preservation by polymorphisms. Preservation by [*surjective*]{} periomorphisms, however, is an a priori stronger property than preservation by surjective polymorphisms.
\[prop:polyper\] Let $\varphi$ be a formula. Then
1. $\varphi$ is preserved by all periomorphisms of $\A$ if and only if $\varphi$ is preserved by all polymorphisms of $\A$;
2. if $\varphi$ is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$, then $\varphi$ is preserved by all surjective polymorphisms of $\A$.
To see the forward directions, observe that if $h$ is a (surjective) polymorphism of $\A$ that does not preserve $\varphi$, then $h^{\textup{per}}$ is a (surjective) periomorphism of $\A$ that does not preserve $\varphi$. For the converse direction in (1) assume $h$ is a periomorphism that does not preserve $\varphi=\varphi(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1})$. Then by Lemma \[lem:boff\] we have that there are $k\in\mathbb N$ and $(a_{0}^0,\ldots, a_{0}^{\ell-1}),\ldots, (a_{k-1}^0,\ldots, a_{k-1}^{\ell-1})\in \varphi(\A)$ such that $$(h(\langle a_{0}^0 a_{1}^0 \cdots a_{k-1}^0\rangle),\ldots,h(\langle
a_{0}^{\ell-1} a_{1}^{\ell-1} \cdots
a_{k-1}^{\ell-1}\rangle))\notin\varphi(\A),$$ that is, $$\big(h(e_k(a_{0}^0, a_{1}^0, \ldots a_{k-1}^0)),\ldots,h(e_k(a_{0}^{\ell-1}, a_{1}^{\ell-1}, \ldots a_{k-1}^{\ell-1}))\big)\notin\varphi(\A).$$ Hence, $h_{<k}$ is a $k$-ary polymorphism of $\A$ that does not preserve $\varphi$.
The converse of (2) is true in case $\A$ satisfies the following condition: for every surjective periomorphism $h$ of $\A$ there exists $k\in\mathbb N$ such that $h_{<k}$ is surjective. For example, finite structures satisfy this condition.
We saw that a periomorphism $h$ gives rise to a sequence of polymorphisms $(h_{<k})_{k>0}$. In fact, this gives a one-to-one correspondence with those polymorphism sequences that satisfy the following property.
A sequence $(g_k)_{k>0}$ is a [*cone of polymorphisms of $\A$*]{} if every $g_k$ is a $k$-ary polymorphism of $\A$ and $g_{\ell}=g_{k}\circ e_{(\ell,k)}$ whenever $\ell< k$ and $\ell$ divides $k$.
\[prop:polycone\] A sequence $(g_k)_{k>0}$ is a cone of polymorphisms of $\A$ if and only if there is a periomorphism $h$ of $\A$ such that $h_{<k}=g_k$ for all $k>0$.
For the backward direction, let $h$ be a periomorphism of $\A$. Clearly, $(h_{<k})_{k>0}$ is a sequence of polymorphisms of $\A$ – and it is a cone: $$h_{<\ell}=h\circ e_\ell=h\circ (e_{k}\circ e_{(\ell,k)}) =h_{<k}\circ e_{(\ell,k)}.$$ Here, the second equality follows from the $e_\ell$s being limit embeddings (see the previous section).
Conversely, assume that $(g_k)_{k>0}$ is a cone of polymorphisms of $\A$. Then this is a cone of the directed system given by the $e_{(n,m)}$s (viewed as a directed system of homomorphisms). By the universal property of limits we get a homomorphism $h$ from $\A^{\textup{per}}\cong \lim_n\mathfrak A^n$ into $\A$ such that $h\circ e_k=g_k$.
Intuitively speaking, just as the periodic power is a cone of finite powers, any periomorphism “is” a cone of (finitary) polymorphisms.
Preservation theorem
====================
\[theo:pres\] Let $\A$ be an $\aleph_0$-categorical structure. A relation $R$ over $A$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$ if and only if it is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$.
The following is a straightforward generalization of Proposition \[prop:pres\].
\[prop:gpres\] If $\A$ and $\B$ are structures such that there is a surjective homomorphism from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ onto $\B$, then $\A\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}\B$.
The main lemma in the proof of Theorem \[theo:pres\] states that a converse of this proposition holds true in the $\aleph_0$-categorical case:
\[lem:main\] If $\A$ and $\B$ are $\aleph_0$-categorical structures such that $\A\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}\B$, then there is a surjective homomorphism from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ onto $\B$.
[*Proof:*]{} Let $I$ be the set of finite partial functions $f$ from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ to $\B$ such that $$\label{eq:afbf1}
(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}(\B,\bar b).$$ where $\bar{\vec a}$ is a (finite) tuple from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ listing all elements of the domain of $f$ and $\bar b$ is a tuple from $\B$ such that $f$ maps $\bar{\vec a}$ to $\bar b$.
Observe that $\A^{\textup{per}}$ is countable. Hence, by a standard back and forth argument, it suffices to verify the following two claims.
[*Claim 1.*]{} For all $f\in I$ and $\vec a\in A^{\textup{per}}$ there is $b\in B$ such that $f\cup\{(\vec a,b)\}\in I$.
[*Claim 2.*]{} For all $f\in I$ and $b\in B$ there is $\vec a\in A^{\textup{per}}$ such that $f\cup\{(\vec a,b)\}\in I$.
[*Proof of Claim 1.*]{} Given $f\in I$ choose a tuples $\bar{\vec a}$ and $\bar b$ as above. Let $\vec a\in A^{\textup{per}}$ be arbitrary. It sufficies to find $b\in B$ such that $$\label{eq:horn}
(A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a},\vec a)\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}(\B,\bar b,b)$$ Note in particular that $x=y$ is positive Horn, so implies that $f\cup\{(\vec a,b)\}$ is a function. To find such $b$ consider the set $\Delta(x)$ of all positive Horn formulas $\psi(x)$ (in the language of $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a}$)) satisfied by $\vec a$ in $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})$. It suffices to show this set is satisfiable in $(\B,\bar{b})$. Since $\B$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical, it is $\aleph_0$-saturated (recall Section \[subsec:cat\]), and hence it suffices to show that every finite subset of $\Delta(x)$ is satisfiable in $(\B,\bar b)$. But for a finite $\Delta_0(x)\subseteq\Delta(x)$ the positive Horn sentence $\exists x\bigwedge\Delta_0(x)$ is true in $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})$, so it is also true in $(\B,\bar b)$ by . Hence $(\B,\bar b)$ contains some $b$ satisfying $\Delta_0(x)$. $\dashv$
[*Proof of Claim 2.*]{} Let $f\in I$ and again choose $\bar{\vec a}$ and $\bar b$ as above; let $k$ denote the length of these tuples. Again, it suffices given any $b\in B$ to find some $\vec a\in A^{\textup{per}}$ such that holds. As $\A$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical by Ryll-Nardzewski there are up to equivalence in $\A$ only finitely many formulas in the variables $\bar yx$ where $\bar y$ is a tuple of $k$ variables. Let $$\psi_0(\bar y,x),\ldots,\psi_{m-1}(\bar y,x)$$ list, up to equivalence in $\A$, all positive Horn formulas $\psi(\bar y,x)$ such that $$\label{eq:bfalse}
\B\not\models\psi(\bar b,b).$$
In particular, for every $j<m$ we have $(\B,\bar b)\not\models\forall x\psi_j(\bar y,x)$ and because $f\in I$ also $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})\not\models\forall x\psi_{j}(\bar y,x)$. By Lemma \[lem:basic2\] there are $i_0\in\mathbb N$ and $a_0\in A$ such that $$(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i_0))\not\models\psi_{0}(\bar y,a_0).$$ Similarly, there are $i_1\in\mathbb N$ and $ a_1\in A$ such that $$\label{eq:i1}
(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i_1))\not\models\psi_{1}(\bar y, a_1).$$ Moreover, we can choose $i_1$ such that $i_1>i_0$ by periodicity: if $i_1\le i_0$ replace it by $i_1+i_0\cdot n$ where $n\in\mathbb N$ is large enough such that all components of $\bar{\vec a}$ are $n$-periodic; then $\bar{\vec a}(i_1)=\bar{\vec a}(i_1+i_0\cdot n)$ and remains true.
Continuing in this manner we get sequences $i_0<i_1<\cdots<i_{m-1}$ and $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{m-1}$ such that for all $j<m$ $$\label{eq:con}
(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i_j))\not\models\psi_{j}(\bar y,a_j).$$ Choose a periodic $\vec a:\mathbb N\to A $ such that for all $j<m$ $$\label{eq:defa}
\vec a(i_j)=a_j.$$
We verify for this $\vec a$: let $\psi(\bar y,x)$ be a positive Horn formula such that $(\B,\bar b)\not\models\psi(\bar y,b)$. Then there exists $j<m$ such that $\psi(\bar y,x)$ is in $\A$ equivalent to $\psi_j(\bar y,x)$. By and we get $(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i_j))\not\models\psi_{j}(\bar y,\vec a(i_j))$ and hence $(\A,\bar{\vec a}(i_j))\not\models\psi(\bar y,\vec a(i_j))$. By Lemma \[lem:basic2\] we conclude $(\A^{\textup{per}},\bar{\vec a})\not\models\psi(\bar y,\vec a)$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[theo:pres\]:*]{} The forward direction follows from Proposition \[prop:pres\] (note the $\aleph_0$-categoricity of $\A$ is not needed).
Conversely, assume that a relation $R\subseteq A^\ell$ is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$. By Proposition \[prop:polyper\] (2) it is preserved by all surjective polymorphisms, and in particular by all automorphisms of $\A$. Since $\A$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical, $R$ is first-order definable in $\A$ (recall Section \[subsec:cat\]). Let $\varphi_R(\bar x)=\varphi_R(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1})$ be a formula such that $R=\varphi_R(\A)$.
By Ryll-Nardzewski there is a finite list of positive Horn formulas $$\psi_0(\bar x),\ldots,\psi_{m-1}(\bar x)$$ in the free variables $\bar x=x_0\cdots x_{\ell-1}$ such that every such formula is in $\A$ equivalent to one from the list. Some of these formulas are implied by $\varphi_R(\bar x)$ (in $\A$) and others not, and we may suppose that precisely the first $k$ are not: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:choicetuples}
&&\forall i<k\ \exists \bar a_i\in A^\ell\ : \ \bar a_i\in\varphi_R(\A)\setminus\psi_i(\A);\\\nonumber
&&\forall k\le j<m\ :\ \varphi_R(\A)\subseteq\psi_j(\A).\end{aligned}$$ We can assume that $k\neq 0$ as otherwise $(\varphi_R\leftrightarrow\bot)$ holds in $\A$ and then we are done. We claim that the positive Horn formula $\bigwedge_{k\le j< m}\psi_j(\bar x)$ is equivalent to $\varphi_R(\bar x)$ in $\A$. Therefore, it suffices to show $$\begin{array}{c}
\A\models\forall\bar x\big(\bigwedge_{k\le j< m}\psi_j(\bar x)\to\varphi_R(\bar x)\big).
\end{array}$$ So we assume that $\bar b$ satisfies $\bigwedge_{k\le j< m}\psi_j(\bar x)$ in $\A$ and have to show that $\bar b\in\varphi_R(\A)$.
Choose for $i<k$ a tuple $\bar a_i\in A^\ell$ according to .
[*Claim.*]{} $\prod_{i<k}(\A,\bar a_{i})\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}}(\A,\bar b)$.
[*Proof of the claim.*]{} Let $\psi(\bar x)$ be a positive Horn formula that is not satisfied by $\bar b$ in $\A$. Choose $i<m$ such that $\psi_i(\bar x)$ is equivalent to $\psi(\bar x)$ in $\A$. Then $\bar b$ does not satisfy $\psi_i(\bar x)$ in $\A$, so $i<k$. But then $(\A,\bar a_{i})\not\models\psi_i(\bar x)$ by and thus $(\A,\bar a_{i})\not\models\psi(\bar x)$. As $\psi(\bar x)$ is positive Horn, $\prod_{i<k}(\A,\bar a_{i})\not\models\psi(\bar x)$ by Lemma \[lem:basic\].$\dashv$
Write $\bar a_i=a^0_i\cdots a^{\ell-1}_i$ for $i<k$. Then $\prod_{i<k}(\A,\bar a_{i})$ equals $$\big(\A^k, (a^0_{0},\ldots, a^{0}_{k-1})(a^1_{0},\ldots, a^{1}_{k-1})\cdots (a^{\ell-1}_{0},\ldots, a^{\ell-1}_{k-1}) \big).$$ With $\A$ also $(\A,\bar b)$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical. Further, the structure $\big(\A^k, (a^0_{0},\ldots, a^{0}_{k-1})\cdots\big)$ is $\aleph_0$-categorical, because $\A^k$ is (see Section \[subsec:cat\]). By the claim we can thus apply Lemma \[lem:main\] and conclude that there is a surjective homomorphism $$h:\big(\A^k, (a^0_{0},\ldots, a^{0}_{k-1})\cdots(a^{\ell-1}_{0},\ldots, a^{\ell-1}_{k-1})\big)^{\textup{per}}\twoheadrightarrow (\A,\bar b).$$ By Proposition \[prop:iso\] there is an isomorphism $g$ from the left hand side structure onto $$\big(\A^{\textup{per}},\langle a^0_{0}\cdots a^{0}_{k-1}\rangle\cdots\langle a^{\ell-1}_{0}\cdots a^{\ell-1}_{k-1}\rangle\big).$$ Then $h\circ g^{-1}$ is a surjective homomorphism from $\A^{\textup{per}}$ onto $\A$, i.e. a surjective periomorphism of $\A$, such that $$h\circ g^{-1}(\langle a^0_{0}\cdots a^{0}_{k-1}\rangle)\cdots h\circ g^{-1}(\langle a^{\ell-1}_{0}\cdots a^{\ell-1}_{k-1}\rangle)=\bar b.$$ By we have $\bar a_i\in\varphi_R(\A)$ for all $i<k$. By Lemma \[lem:boff\] and the assumption that $R$ and hence $\varphi_R(\bar x)$ is preserved by surjective periomorphisms of $\A$, we conclude $\bar b\in\varphi(\A)$, as was to be shown.
\[cor:surjperio-reduction\] For a finite language $L_0$, let $\B$ be an $L_0$-structure and $\A$ an $L$-structure on the same universe. If every surjective periomorphism of $\A$ is a periomorphism of $\B$, then the problem ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\B)$ many-one logspace reduces to ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$.
[*Proof:*]{} If $\varphi(\bar x)$ is an atomic $L_0$-formula, then $\varphi(\B)$ is preserved by all polymorphisms of $\B$, hence also by all periomorphisms of $\B$ (by Proposition \[prop:polyper\] (1)), and hence by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$ (by assumption). By the Main Theorem \[theo:pres\] the relation $\varphi(\B)$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$. Hence $\B$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$. Now apply Proposition \[prop:qcsp-reduction\].
Characterization of the pH-hull
===============================
A central tool in constraint complexity is the description of the smallest primitive positive definable relation containing a given relation $R$ as the smallest relation that contains all polymorphic images of $R$; this description follows readily from Theorem \[theo:inv-pol\]. Here we provide a similar tool for quantified constraint complexity. The proof of this uses most of the results we established so far.
Recall Definition \[defn:image\].
Let $\A$ be $\aleph_0$-categorical and let $R$ be a relation over $A$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\{\bar a\mid\ & \exists k\in\mathbb N\ \exists \bar a_0,\ldots \bar a_{k-1}\in R: \bar a \text{ is a surjective periomorphic image of } (\bar a_i)_{i<k} \}\end{aligned}$$ is the smallest positive Horn definable relation containing $R$.
[*Proof:*]{} For notational simplicity, we assume that $R$ is binary. It is easy to see that the displayed relation $\tilde R$ contains $R$. We have to show
(i) $\tilde R\subseteq\psi(\A)$ for any positive Horn formula $\psi$ such that $R\subseteq\psi(\A)$;
(ii) $\tilde R$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$.
To show (i) let $aa'\in \tilde R$. Choose $a_ia'_i,i<k,$ in $R$ such that some surjective periomorphism of $\A$ maps $\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle\langle a'_0\cdots a'_{k-1}\rangle$ to $aa'$. Then $a_ia'_i\in\psi(\A)$ as $R\subseteq\psi(\A)$, so $aa'\in\psi(\A)$ by Proposition \[prop:pres\] as $\psi$ is positive Horn.
We now prove (ii). By Theorem \[theo:pres\] it suffices to show that $\tilde R$ is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$. We use Lemma \[lem:boff\], so let $a_ia'_i,i<k,$ be $k$ tuples in $\tilde R$ and $h$ be a surjective periomorphism that maps $\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle\langle a'_0\cdots a'_{k-1}\rangle$ to $aa'$. We have to show that $aa'\in \tilde R$.
For $i<k$ choose $\ell_i$ pairs $b_{ij}b'_{ij},j< \ell_i,$ in $R$ such that there is a surjective periomorphism $h_i$ that maps $\langle b_{i0}\cdots b_{i(\ell_i-1)}\rangle\langle b'_{i0}\cdots b'_{i(\ell_i-1)}\rangle$ to $a_ia'_i$. Letting the $h_i$s act componentwise we get a surjective homomorphism $$\label{eq:trans}\textstyle
h':\prod_{i<k}(\A^{\textup{per}},\langle b_{i0}\cdots
b_{i(\ell_i-1)}\rangle\langle b'_{i0}\cdots
b'_{i(\ell_i-1)}\rangle)\twoheadrightarrow\prod_{i<k}(\A,a_ia'_i).$$ By Proposition \[prop:iso\] the left hand side structure is isomorphic to $$\textstyle
\prod_{i<k}(\A^{\ell_i},(b_{i0}\cdots b_{i(\ell_i-1)})(b'_{i0}\cdots b'_{i(\ell_i-1)}))^{\textup{per}}$$ and thus by Lemma \[lem:prod\] to the periodic power of $$\B:=\left(\A^{\sum_{i<k}\ell_i},(b_{00}\cdots b_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)}),(b'_{00}\cdots b'_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)})\right).$$ By and Proposition \[prop:gpres\] we get $$\label{eq:to1}\textstyle
\B\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}} \prod_{i<k}(\A,a_ia'_i).$$ By Proposition \[prop:iso\] the structure $(\prod_{i<k}(\A,a_ia'_i))^{\textup{per}}$ is isomorphic to the structure $$(\A^{\textup{per}},\langle a_0\cdots a_{k-1}\rangle,\langle a'_0\cdots a'_{k-1}\rangle)$$ which maps surjectively onto $(\A,aa')$ by $h$. Hence, by Proposition \[prop:gpres\] again, $$\label{eq:to2}\textstyle
\prod_{i<k}(\A,a_ia'_i)\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}} (\A,aa').$$ By and we conclude $\B\Rrightarrow_{\textup{pH}} (\A,aa')$. But these two structures are $\aleph_0$-categorical (by Ryll-Nardzewski), so Lemma \[lem:main\] applies and there is a surjective homomorphism $$h'':\B^{\textup{per}}\twoheadrightarrow (\A,aa').$$ By Proposition \[prop:iso\], $\B^{\textup{per}}$ is isomorphic to $$\big(\A^{\textup{per}},\langle b_{00}\cdots b_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)}\rangle\langle b'_{00}\cdots b'_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)}\rangle\big),$$ so $aa'$ is a surjective periomorphic image of the $\sum_{i<k}\ell_i$ many pairs $$b_{00}b'_{00},\ldots, b_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)}b'_{(k-1)(\ell_{k-1}-1)}\in R.$$ Thus $aa'\in \tilde R$, as was to be shown.
Equality templates
==================
Fix a countably infinite set $A$ and define an *equality template* to be a relational structure $\A$ that is first-order definable in $(A)$, the structure interpreting the empty language; that is, every relation of $\A$ is definable by a pure equality formula. A complexity classification of the QCSPs of equality templates was given in previous work [@BodirskyChen10-equality] (see Theorem \[theo:class\] below): it was shown that each such QCSP is either in L, NP-complete or coNP-hard. In this section, we re-examine this classification theorem. Based on our Main Theorem \[theo:pres\] we give a new proof of this classification which is, in our view, shorter, more modular, and conceptually cleaner than the original proof.
Clone analysis
--------------
Our proof follows the algebraic approach to constraint complexity and thereby relies on an analysis of the polymorphism clones of equality templates. Such clones are locally closed and contain all permutations, as every permutation of $A$ is an automorphism of $\A$. Bodirsky, Chen, and Pinsker [@BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts], building on the work of Bodirsky and Kara [@BodirskyKara08-equality], performed a study of these clones. Here we state only what we shall need from their analysis.
We define an operation to be *elementary* if it is contained in the smallest locally closed clone containing all permutations; a set of operations is *elementary* if each of its operations is elementary. Let us say that an operation $f$ [*generates*]{} another operation $g$ if $g$ is contained in the smallest locally closed clone that contains $f$ and all permutations of $A$. Note, an operation is elementary if and only if it is generated by the identity on $A$. Finally, recall that an [*essentially unary*]{} operation is one that can be written as the composition of a unary operation and a projection; and, an [*essential*]{} operation is one that is not essentially unary.
\[lem:clone\]
1. A non-elementary operation generates either a binary injective operation or a unary constant operation.
2. An operation with infinite image that does not preserve $\neq$ generates all unary operations.
3. Let $k\ge 3$. An essential operation with image size $k$ generates all operations with image size at most $k$.
The lemma can be derived from results in [@BodirskyKara08-equality; @BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts] as follows. To prove (1), let $f$ be a non-elementary operation. If $f$ is essentially unary, then $f$ generates a unary non-elementary operation $h$. The operation $h$ is not injective, since all unary injective operations can be interpolated by permutations. By the proof of [@BodirskyKara08-equality Lemma 10], $h$ generates a unary constant operation.
Now suppose that $f$ is essential. By [@BodirskyKara08-equality Lemma 12], $f$ generates an essential binary operation. By [@BodirskyKara08-equality Theorem 13], $f$ generates either a unary constant operation or a binary injective operation.
Statement (2) follows from [@BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts Lemma 38] and statement (3) is [@BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts Lemma 36].
Classification
--------------
We now start the proof of the classification theorem for equality templates.
\[theo:constant-paste\] Let $\A$ be an equality template such that $\neq$ is not positive Horn definable in $\A$. Then every unary operation on $A$ is a polymorphism of $\A$.
[*Proof:*]{} If $\neq$ is not positive Horn definable in $\A$, then, by our Main Theorem \[theo:pres\], the relation $\neq$ is not preserved by some surjective periomorphism $h$ of $\A$. Recall that according to with $h$ there is a naturally associated sequence of polymorphisms $(h_{<k})_{k\ge 1}$. Because $h$ does not preserve $\neq$, there exists $k_0$ such that $h_{<k_0}$ does not either. Suppose there exists some $k_1$ such that $h_{<k_1}$ has infinite image. Then $h_{<k_0\cdot k_1}$ does not preserve $\neq$ and has infinite image. Then our claim follows from Lemma \[lem:clone\] (2). We thus assume that all $h_{<k}$ have finite image. By local closure it suffices to show:
[*Claim.*]{} For every $k \in\mathbb N$ every partial unary operation $g: A \rightarrow A$ that is defined on $k$ points can be extended to a (unary) polymorphism of $\A$.
We prove the claim by induction on $k$. For $k = 0$ there is nothing to show. Suppose that the claim is true for $k$ and let $g$ be a unary operation defined on $k+1$ points. If $g$ has image size $k+1$, then there exists a permutation $g'$ extending $g$, and the claim follows; recall that all permutations are automorphisms of $\A$. So suppose that $g$ has image of size at most $k$.
It suffices to show that the polymorphism clone of $\A$ contains a unary operation that has finite image of size $\geq k$, for this implies that the clone contains a unary operation that maps $k+1$ points to $k$ points; by composing this unary operation with itself and suitable permutations, one obtains the claim.
Since $h$ has infinite image, there exists $\ell > 0$ such that $h_{<\ell}$ has image size $\geq k$. Let $\bar a_0, \ldots, \bar a_{k-1} \in A^\ell$ be $k$ many $\ell$-tuples on which $h_{<\ell}$ is injective. Assume for the sake of notation that $0, \ldots, k-1 \in A$. Consider the maps $u_0, \ldots, u_{\ell-1}$ defined on $\{ 0, \ldots, k-1 \}$ such that $u_j$ maps each $i<k$ to the $j$th component of $\bar a_i$. Note that $u_0(i)\cdots u_{\ell-1}(i)=\bar a_i$. By induction every $u_j$ can be extended to a polymorphism $u'_j$ of $\A$. Define $u: A \rightarrow A$ to map $a\in A$ to $h_{<\ell}(u'_0(a), \ldots, u'_{\ell-1}(a))$. Then $u(i) = h_{<\ell}(\bar a_i)$ for every $i <k$, so $u$ is injective on the set $\{ 0, \ldots, k-1 \}$. Thus the image of $u$ has size $\geq k$ and is finite because it is contained in the image of $h_{<\ell}$.
The following simple lemma will be useful. It appears as Lemma 11 in [@BodirskyKara08-equality]; we supply a proof for self-containment.
\[lem:constant-or-neq\] Let $\A$ be an equality template. Either $\A$ has a constant polymorphism, or the relation $\neq$ is primitive positively definable in $\A$.
Suppose that $\A$ does not have a constant polymorphism. Then there is a relation $R^{\A}$ that is non-empty and does not contain the constant tuple. Let $k$ be the arity of $R^{\A}$. Let us say that an equivalence relation $\sigma$ on $\{ 0, \ldots, k-1\}$ is *realized* if there exists a tuple $(a_0 \ldots, a_{k-1})\in R^{\A}$ such that $a_i = a_j$ if and only if $(i, j) \in \sigma$. (Note that if there exists one tuple in $R^{\A}$ satisfying the given condition, then all tuples satisfying the given condition are in $R^{\A}$.) Let $\tau$ be a coarsest realized equivalence relation. Consider the relation defined in $\A$ by the primitive positive formula $$\begin{array}{c}
\varphi(x_0, \ldots, x_{k-1}) := Rx_0 \cdots x_{k-1} \wedge \bigwedge_{(i, j) \in \tau} x_i = x_j;
\end{array}$$ in this relation, $\tau$ is realized, and it is the only equivalence relation that is realized. Since $R^{\A}$ does not contain the constant tuple, $\tau$ contains more than one equivalence class. Fix $i, j \in \{ 0, \ldots, k-1 \}$ to be values such that $(i, j) \notin \tau$. The formula $\psi(x_i, x_j)$ derived from $\varphi$ by existentially quantifying all variables other than $x_i$ and $x_j$ defines the relation $\neq$.
Let us say that a relation over $A$ is *negative* if it is definable as the conjunction of *(i)* equalities and *(ii)* disjunctions of disequalities; by a disequality, we mean a formula of the form $\neg x = y$. Let us say that a relation is *positive* if it is definable using equalities and the binary connectives $\{ \wedge, \vee \}$. We call an equality template *negative* or *positive* if each of its relations is negative or positive respectively.
The ternary relation $P\subseteq A^3$ defined by the formula $\varphi_P(x,y,z):= (x=y\vee y=z)$ in $(A)$ is positive; it can be verified from the definition that it is not negative.
The ternary relation $I\subseteq A^3$ defined by the formula $\varphi_I(x,y,z):= (x=y\to y=z)$ in $(A)$ is neither positive not negative; this can be verified from the definitions.
Positivity can be characterized algebraically as follows. This has been shown in [@BodirskyChen10-equality Proposition 7.3].
\[prop:char\] Let $\A$ be an equality template, and fix $f$ to be any non-injective surjective unary operation on $A$. The following are equivalent:
1. $\A$ is positive.
2. Every unary operation is a polymorphism of $\A$.
3. The operation $f$ is a polymorphism of $\A$.
We have the following fact.
\[cor:closure-under-phdef\]
1. If $\A$ is a positive equality template, then every positive Horn definable relation in $\A$ is positive.
2. If $\A$ is a negative equality template, then every positive Horn definable relation in $\A$ is negative.
By Proposition \[prop:char\] we have that for any fixed non-injective surjective unary operation $f$, a relation is positive if and only if it is preserved by $f$; this characterization of positivity implies (1).
Likewise, (2) follows from the fact that negativity can be characterized by preservation by a surjective operation (see [@BodirskyChenPinsker10-reducts Proposition 68]).
The following is known ([@BodirskyChen10-equality Lemma 8.8]):
\[lem:negorI\] If $R$ is a relation over $A$ that is not negative and is preserved by a binary injective operation, then $I$ is primitive positively definable in $(A,R,\neq)$.
We are ready to state and prove the classification.
\[theo:class\] Let $\A$ be an equality template.
1. If $\A$ is negative, then ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ is in $\textup{L}$.
2. If $\A$ is not negative but positive, then the relation $P$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$ and ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ is $\textup{NP}$-complete.
3. If $\A$ is neither negative nor positive, then the relation $I$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$ and ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ is $\textup{coNP}$-hard.
[*Proof:*]{} We take as given the following complexity results: it is shown in [@BodirskyChen10-equality] that a negative template $\A$ has ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ in L, that ${\mathsf{QCSP}}((A ,P))$ is NP-hard, and that ${\mathsf{QCSP}}((A, I))$ is coNP-hard; and, it follows from [@Kozen81-positive] that a positive template $\A$ has ${\mathsf{QCSP}}(\A)$ in NP. By Proposition \[prop:qcsp-reduction\] and Corollary \[cor:closure-under-phdef\], it thus suffices to show that for an equality template $\A$ one of the following three conditions holds:
(i) $\A$ is negative.
(ii) $\A$ is positive and $P$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$.
(iii) $I$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$.
Let $\A$ be an equality template and let $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ denote its expansion by all relations that are positive Horn definable in $\A$. Further, let $C$ denote the clone of polymorphisms of $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$. By Lemma \[lem:clone\] (1), the following three cases are exhaustive.
[*Case 1:*]{} $C$ is elementary. Then $C$ preserves $I$, so this relation is primitive positively definable in $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ by Theorem \[theo:inv-pol\] and hence positive Horn definable in $\A$.
[*Case 2:*]{} $C$ contains a constant operation. Then $\neq$ is not contained in $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$, since $\neq$ is not preserved by a constant operation. Applying Theorem \[theo:constant-paste\] to $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$, we obtain that $C$ contains all unary operations. Proposition \[prop:char\] implies that $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ (and hence $\A$) is positive. We claim that either $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ (and hence $\A$) is negative or $P$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$.
[*Case 2.1:*]{} Suppose that there exists a surjective periomorphism $h$ of $\A$ and a $k>0$ such that the polymorphism $h_{<k}$ is essential. We claim that in this case $C$ contains all operations. It is known (and easy to verify) that each relation preserved by this clone can be defined by a conjunction of equalities, so then $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ will be negative. By local closure, it suffices to show that $C$ contains all finite image operations. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:clone\] (3), it suffices to show that $C$ contains a sequence of polymorphisms that is *desirable* in the sense that each polymorphism is essential and has finite image, and that the sequence has unbounded image size. Now, $(h_{< \ell\cdot k})_{\ell >0}$ is such a desirable sequence in case each $h_{<\ell\cdot k}$ has finite image. And otherwise there is $\ell_0>0$ such that $h_{< \ell_0\cdot k}$ has infinite image, and then one obtains a desirable sequence $(u_i\circ h_{< \ell_0\cdot k})_{i>0}$ for suitable unary operations $u_i$ (recall that all unary operations are in $C$).
[*Case 2.2:*]{} Suppose otherwise that for every surjective periomorphism $h$ and all $k>0$ the polymorphism $h_{<k}$ is essentially unary. We claim that then the relation $P$ is positive Horn definable in $\A$. By our Main Theorem \[theo:pres\] it suffices to show that $P$ is preserved by all surjective periomorphisms of $\A$. But if a surjective periomorphism $h$ of $\A$ does not preserve $P$, then there exists $k>0$ such that $h_{<k}$ does not preserve $P$. Since $h_{<k}$ is essentially unary, this is impossible.
[*Case 3:*]{} $C$ contains a binary injective operation and does not contain a constant operation. In this case, $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ contains $\neq$ by Lemma \[lem:constant-or-neq\]. It follows immediately from Lemma \[lem:negorI\] that either $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ (and hence $\A$) is negative or $I$ is primitive positively definable in $[\A]_{\textup{pH}}$ and hence positive Horn definable in $\A$.
Discussion
==========
Bing’s theorem [@bing] involves a clever, technical argument that allows us to strengthen our main preservation theorem for structures that are isomorphic to their finite powers. Such structures have gained some attention in constraint complexity [@BCKV09-maximal; @BodirskyHilsMartin10-scopeunivalg]. We have the following theorem.
\[theo:ae\] Let $\A$ be a countable $\aleph_0$-categorical structure such that $\A\cong\A^2$. Then a formula $\varphi(\bar x)$ is equivalent to a positive Horn formula in $\A$ if and only if it is preserved by all surjective polymorphisms of $\A$.
Let $\A$ accord the assumption of the theorem. We only prove the backward direction. Assume $\varphi(\bar x)$ is preserved by all surjective polymorphisms of $\A$. In particular, $\varphi(\bar x)$ is preserved by all surjective homorphisms from $\A$ to $\A$. It is not hard to see that Lyndon’s Theorem implies that there exists a positive formula $\varphi^+(\bar x)$ such that $\varphi(\A)=\varphi^+(\A)$ (see [@junker Proposition 2 (c)] for details). We can assume that $\varphi^+$ has the form of some quantifier prefix followed by a quantifier free formula $$\textstyle
\psi=\bigwedge_{i\in I}\bigvee_{j\in J}\alpha_{ij},$$ where the $\alpha_{ij}$s are atoms. For each $f\in J^{I}$ write $$\textstyle
\psi_f:=\bigwedge_{i\in I}\alpha_{if(i)}.$$
[*Bing’s argument.*]{} Let $\bar Q\bar y$ be an arbitrary quantifier prefix. Assume for every $f\in J^{I}$ the tuple $\bar a_f$ in $\A$ is an assignment to the free variables in $\bar Q\bar y\psi$ such that $\prod_{f\in J^{I}}(\A,\bar a_f)\models\bar Q\bar y\psi$. Then there exists $f\in J^{I}$ such that $(\A,\bar a_f)\models\bar Q\bar y \psi_f$.
[*Proof of Bing’s argument.*]{} This can be proved by a straightforward induction on the length of $\bar Q\bar y$. See [@bing Lemma 3] for details.$\dashv$
Write $\varphi^+(\bar x)=\bar Q\bar y\psi(\bar y,\bar x)$.
[*Claim.*]{} There exists $f\in J^{I}$ such that $\A\models\forall\bar x(\varphi^+(\bar x)\to\bar Q\bar y\psi_f(\bar y, \bar x))$.
[*Proof of Claim.*]{} Otherwise we find for every $f\in J^{I}$ an $\bar a_f\in\varphi^+(\A)$ such that $$(\A,\bar a_f)\not\models \bar Q\bar y\psi_f(\bar y, \bar x).$$ Then $\prod_{f\in J^{I}}(\A,\bar a_f)\not\models\varphi^+(\bar x)$ by Bing’s argument. As $\A\cong\A^2$, there is an isomorphism $$h: \A^{J^{I}}\cong \A.$$ Write $\bar x=x_0\cdots x_{\ell-1}$ and $\bar a_f=a_f^{0}\cdots a_{f}^{\ell-1}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle
h:\prod_{f\in J^{I}}(\A,\bar a_f)&=\big(\A^{J^{I}},(a_f^{0})_{f\in J^{I}},\ldots,(a_f^{\ell-1})_{f\in J^{I}} \big)\\
&\cong\big(\A, h((a_f^{0})_{f\in J^{I}}),\ldots,h((a_f^{\ell-1})_{f\in J^{I}})\big).\end{aligned}$$ Since $h$ is an isomorphism, $\varphi^+(\bar x)$ is false in the right hand side structure. Hence $h$ is (up to a renaming of indices) a surjective polymorphism of $\A$ that does not preserve $\varphi(\bar x)$, a contradiction.$\dashv$
Since $(\bar Q\bar y\psi_f\to\varphi^+)$ is logically valid, the claim implies that $\varphi^+$ is equivalent in $\A$ to the positive Horn formula $\bar Q\bar y\psi_f$.
An example of a structure satisfying the assumption of the theorem is the countable atomless Boolean algebra (cf. [@bodsurvey Section 5.2]). This template is of central importance for spatial reasoning in artificial intelligence. Another example is an infinite dimensional vectorspace over some finite field (cf. [@BBCJK09-qcsp Example 2.10], [@bodsurvey Section 5.3]). More generally, it is easy to see that every countable $\aleph_0$-categorical structure $\A$ whose theory is Horn axiomatizable satisfies $\A\cong\A^2$.
We conclude with some remarks and questions.
$\bullet$ Very recently, Bodirsky, Hils and Martin [@BodirskyHilsMartin10-scopeunivalg] explored the possibilities to extend the algebraic machinery for constraint satisfaction to structures that are not necessarily $\aleph_0$-categorical; they established a variant of the preservation theorem for primitive positive definability via $\omega$-polymorphisms for structures that are in a certain sense sufficiently saturated. (An $\omega$-polymorphism of a structure $\A$ is a homomorphism from $\A^{\mathbb N}$ to $\A$.)
$\bullet$ The first author showed [@Chen09-Rendezvous Lemma 7.5] that, in finite structures, positive Horn definability coincides with $\Pi_2$ positive Horn definability (see [@mm; @ChenMadelaineMartin08-containment] for a related result). Using the method of the proof, one can infer that Boolean QCSPs with quantifier alternation rank restricted to some even $t\ge 2$ are either $\Pi_t^{\textup{P}}$-complete or in P (cf. [@Chen09-Rendezvous Theorem 7.2]). An open issue is to study $\aleph_0$-categorical QCSPs with bounded alternation rank.
One can ask the following concrete question. Let $\A$ be a $\aleph_0$-categorical structure and $\varphi$ a $\Pi_t$ formula that is preserved by the surjective periomorphisms of $\A$. Is $\varphi$ equivalent to a positive Horn formula that is also $\Pi_t$?
$\bullet$ A related question is posed by Y. Chen and Flum in [@flumchen]. They ask for an alternation rank preserving version of Lyndon’s preservation theorem: is any $\Pi_t$ sentence that is preserved by surjective homomorphisms equivalent to a positive $\Pi_t$ sentence? This is known to be true for $t\le 2$ [@ritter]. By a well-known trick of Lyndon [@lyndon] (see also Fefermann’s survey [@fefer]) a positive answer would follow from a proof of the following: any implication between $\Pi_t$ formulas has a $\Pi_t$ Lyndon-interpolant. The usual argument constructs an interpolant by recursion on a cut-free proof of the given implication. But again for $t>3$ there seems to be no control on the alternation rank of an interpolant constructed in this way.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Manuel Bodirsky and Barnaby Martin made valuable comments on an early version of this paper. The authors also thank Manuel for useful literature pointers.
[^1]: [a]{}The first author was partially supported by the Spanish program “Ramon y Cajal” and MICINN grant TIN2010-20967-C04-02. The first author was also supported by by Spanish Project FORMALISM (TIN2007-66523), by the Basque Government Project S-PE12UN050(SAI12/219), and by the University of the Basque Country under grant UFI11/45.
[^2]: [b]{}The second author thanks the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) for its support through Project P 24654 N25.
[^3]: In fact, Keisler could do assuming only the existence of some cardinal $\kappa\ge\aleph_0$ such that $2^{\kappa}=\kappa^+$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present panoramic [*Spitzer MIPS*]{} 24-$\mu$m observations covering $\sim$9$\times$9Mpc ($25''\times 25''$) fields around two massive clusters, Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03, at $z=0.39$ and $z=0.55$ respectively, reaching a 5-$\sigma$ flux limit of $\sim 200\mu$Jy. Our observations cover a very wide range of environments within these clusters, from high-density regions around the cores out to the turn-around radius. Cross-correlating the mid-infrared catalogs with deep optical and near-infrared imaging of these fields, we investigate the optical/near-infrared colors of the mid-infrared sources. We find excesses of mid-infrared sources with optical/near-infrared colors expected of cluster members in the two clusters and test this selection using spectroscopically confirmed 24$\mu$m members. The much more significant excess is associated with Cl0024+16, whereas MS0451$-$03 has comparatively few mid-infrared sources. The mid-infrared galaxy population in Cl0024+16 appears to be associated with dusty star-forming galaxies (typically redder than the general cluster population by up to $A_V\sim1$–2mags) rather than emission from dusty tori around active galactic nuclei (AGN) in early-type hosts. We compare the star-formation rates derived from the total infrared (8–1000$\mu$m) luminosities for the mid-infrared sources in Cl0024+16 with those estimated from a published H$\alpha$ survey, finding rates $\gs5\times$ than those found from H$\alpha$, indicating significant obscured activity in the cluster population. Compared to previous mid-infrared surveys of clusters from $z\sim0$–0.5, we find evidence for strong evolution of the level of dust-obscured star-formation in dense environments to $z=0.5$, analogous to the rise in fraction of optically-selected star-forming galaxies seen in clusters and the field out to similar redshifts. However, there are clearly significant cluster-to-cluster variations in the populations of mid-infrared sources, probably reflecting differences in the intracluster media and recent dynamical evolution of these systems.'
author:
- |
J. E. Geach, Ian Smail, R. S. Ellis, S. M. Moran, G. P. Smith, T. Treu, J.-P. Kneib,\
A. C. Edge & T. Kodama
title: 'A panoramic mid-infrared survey of two distant clusters'
---
Introduction
============
The galaxy populations within the virialised regions of rich clusters at $z\sim 0$ are characterised by passive elliptical and lenticular (S0) galaxies (Oemler 1974; Dressler 1980). In contrast, 5-Gyrs ago, at $z\sim 0.5$, the galaxy populations in the most massive clusters had larger fractions of star-forming late-type spirals, and a corresponding deficit of luminous S0 galaxies (e.g. Dressler et al. 1997; Smail et al. 1997; Couch et al. 1998; Fasano et al. 2000; Treu et al. 2003). Taken together, these two observations imply that a process (or processes) is transforming many of the star-forming, late-type spirals in these regions into the passive early-type population (specifically S0s) found in local clusters (Poggianti et al. 1999; Moran et al. 2006, in prep).
When considering potential pathways to produce this evolutionary change, we need to bear in mind that the typical luminosities of the star-forming spirals appear to be too low for them to transform into typical S0 galaxies found in local clusters, without the addition of significant numbers of new stars (Poggianti et al. 1999; Kodama & Smail 2001). This problem is exacerbated when we include the fading which is likely to take place after the cessation of star formation in these galaxies. This then leads us to concentrate on mechanisms which are capable of increasing the luminosity of the galaxies – mergers and starbursts. There has been a recent upsurge in interest in the potential for so-called “dry” mergers (mergers between dissipationless stellar systems which don’t result in additional star formation) to influence the evolution of early-type galaxies (van Dokkum et al. 2003; Bell et al. 2003; van Dokkum 2005). However, the dynamically hot environments in rich clusters which are the subject of our study are deleterious to the formation and survival of cold, bound-pairs of early-type galaxies – unless these systems arrive in the cluster as existing bound entities. It is not clear, therefore, that dry mergers can provide an effective route to substantially increase the number of luminous, early-type S0 galaxies within clusters.
Unfortunately, the alternative mechanism for enhancing the luminosity of the bulge component – a starburst – also has strong observational evidence stacked against it. Surveys of star-forming galaxies in clusters using optical or UV star formation indicators have failed to detect galaxies with strongly enhanced star-formation which would have to exist to explain the growth of the bulge components of early-type galaxies in clusters at $z\ls 0.5$–1 (Balogh et al. 1999; Poggianti et al. 1999; Gerken et al. 2004). However, there is growing body of evidence that at least some of the galaxies in distant clusters may be undergoing bursts of star-formation, albeit ones which are heavily shrouded in dust. Smail et al. (1999) used a deep VLA 1.4-GHz radio map to study a small sample of active galaxies within the core of the cluster Cl0939+4713 ($z=0.41$). Combining the radio data with near-infrared and optical morphological information from the [*Hubble Space Telescope (HST)*]{} and ground-based spectroscopy, they found that over half the radio-emitting population in the core are dusty late-type galaxies, presumably undergoing vigorous star formation. However, the spectral classification of these spirals placed them in the post-starburst class, and indeed all the post-starburst galaxies in this small region are radio-emitters. Dust has also been used to explain the unusual spectral properties of another class of galaxies found in distant clusters and the field: e(a) galaxies, which show enhanced Balmer absorption compared to normal star-forming galaxies (Poggianti et al. 1999). Poggianti & Wu (2000) and Poggianti, Bressan & Franceschini (2001) discuss models for these galaxies invoking age-dependent dust obscuration of the younger stellar populations – enabling significant activity to be hidden from view in these systems. If the passive lenticular galaxies found in local clusters, but absent from the equivalent rich environments at higher redshift, are the result of infalling late-type galaxies undergoing dusty-starburst in high-$z$ clusters, then a possible signature would be evolution in the total level of obscured star-formation in clusters out to $z\sim1$.
In principle, mid- and especially far-infrared/submillimeter observations give us a direct probe of the level of obscured activity in distant clusters. In particular, mid-infrared observations with [*Infrared Space Observatory (ISO)*]{}, and more recently [*Spitzer Space Telescope (SST)*]{}, provide sensitive imaging capabilities which can trace dusty star formation in clusters out to $z\sim 1$ and beyond. Metcalfe, Fadda & Biviano (2005) summarise the results from [*ISO*]{} surveys of distant clusters, which have yielded a total of just $\sim
40$ cluster galaxies detected at 15$\mu$m across seven clusters between $z=0.18$–0.56 (Duc et al. 2000, 2004; Fadda et al. 2000; Metcalfe et al. 2003; Coia et al. 2005a,b; Biviano et al. 2004). All these studies suggest that there is an increased level of mid-infrared activity in distant clusters, at levels above that suggested by UV/optical tracers of star formation. Submillimeter observations of more distant clusters have also hinted at possible enhanced activity in these environments (Best 2000; Webb et al. 2005). However, the inhomogeneous mix of coverage and depth in the samples coupled with the modest numbers of sources detected in any individual cluster mean that it has proved difficult to use these data to provide quantitative constraints on the origin and evolution of dust-obscured activity in distant clusters.
The [*SST*]{}’s sensitive mid-infrared imaging capabilities provide an unique opportunity to undertake complete and representative surveys of the obscured, active populations in distant clusters. To search for a population of mid-infrared sources in rich clusters environments, we have therefore used the Multiband Imaging Photometer for [*Spitzer*]{} (MIPS) to detect 24-$\mu$m emission from galaxies in two clusters at $z\sim0.5$ covering a very wide range in environment from $\sim1$Mpc out to the turn-around radius ($\sim5$Mpc) where the clusters merge into the surrounding field. These observations will provide measures of the level of obscured star-formation in these clusters, and so allow us to build up a reliable picture of the evolution of dust-obscured activity in clusters over the past 5Gyrs.
This paper presents a statistical analysis of the 24$\mu$m populations in two $z\sim 0.5$ clusters. A subsequent paper (Geach et al. in prep) will discuss the properties of these sources in more detail using the available spectroscopic and morphological surveys of the clusters (Moran et al. 2006). The paper is organised as follows: we describe our observations and their reduction in §2, analyse these in §3 and discuss our results and present our conclusions in §4 and §5, respectively. Throughout, we adopt a geometry with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ and $H_0 = 70$kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.
Observations & Reduction
========================
The two clusters chosen for this study are unique in having panoramic [*HST*]{} imaging covering $\sim 25'$-diameter fields – extending from the cores out to the turn-around radii of the clusters (Treu et al.2003; Kneib et al. 2003; Moran et al. 2005). These data have been used for weak-lensing analysis of these clusters, yielding 2-D maps of the dark matter distributions on $\sim 5$-Mpc scales in the structures (Kneib et al. 2003). Panoramic studies of the galaxy populations in these clusters also benefit from extensive deep, ground-based optical and near-infrared imaging and spectroscopy (Moran et al. 2006 in prep). Although both clusters are relatively rich, they differ in their X-ray luminosities: Cl0024+16 ($z = 0.39$) has a relatively modest X-ray luminosity, $L_X\sim 3.2\times10^{44}$ergss$^{-1}$ (Treu et al. 2003), while MS0451$-$03 ($z = 0.55$) is some 8$\times$ more luminous. This distinction may lead to differences in the effectiveness of the various processes influencing star formation (Treu et al. 2003), as traced by the distribution of the mid-infrared population. This will be useful in our subsequent detailed study to disentangle the potential mechanisms for triggering and suppressing star formation.
Mid-infrared observations
-------------------------
MIPS 24$\mu$m observations of the fields of Cl0024+16 ($z=0.39$) and MS0451$-$03 ($z=0.55$) were obtained with [*SST*]{} in fixed-cluster offset mode on 2004 December 24–25. The observations of Cl0024+16 are centered on 002635.70, $+$170945 (J2000); while those for MS0451$-$03 are centered on: 045410.80, $-$030057 (J2000). The observations avoided the central $\sim 5{'} \times 5{'}$ of each cluster, which are part of Guaranteed Time Observations ([*SST*]{} Program \#83). For MS0451$-$03 we have acquired these data from the archive, and incorporated them into this work to provide coverage of the central region of the cluster. The observations of the core of Cl0024+16 are not available at the time of writing, however there are existing mid-infrared observations from [*ISOCAM*]{} at 15$\mu$m (Coia et al. 2005), which traces similar emission to that sampled by MIPS (namely emission from polyaromatic hydrocarbons). These allow us to place limits on the mid-infrared population in the central regions of Cl0024+16.
Each field was covered in a $5\times5$ grid (omitting the central pointing) yielding a 24-point mosaic. We adopted two 10-s cycles for our exposures producing a per-AOR pixel exposure of 312.5s, and the total elapsed time for the AOR was 9.78ks. The template AOR was repeated three times to provide redundancy and for the identification of cosmic rays and asteroids (the latter can be common in 24$\mu$m MIPS data). The total exposure time per pixel is 938s, which should achieve our goal of a 5-$\sigma$ detection limit of 200$\mu$Jy at 24$\mu$m.
The basic-calibrated 24$\mu$m data provided by the [*Spitzer*]{} Science Center were first corrected for gradients, bright latents and the “jailbar” effect using calibration frames generated from the data. These were then mosaiked using the [mopex]{} package.[^1] Due to the ‘first frame effect’ (frames with a shorter exposure and a depression in response of up to 15%), the initial frame in each pointing was discarded, which improved flatness in the final mosaic. We implemented the the area-overlap interpolation method in the mosaicking procedure (Makovoz & Khan 2005). The mosaics cover total areas of $\sim$0.21 sq. degrees in both clusters.
[[Fig. 3.]{}– The lower panel shows the cumulative number of probable 24$\mu$m cluster members (brighter than 200$\mu$Jy) as a function of radial separation from their respective cluster centers. Probably cluster members are isolated based on their $(R-K)$–$(B-R)$ colors (see Fig. 2). We correct the distributions for residual field contamination using a similar color-cut on the SWIRE ELAIS N1 survey (Lonsdale et al. 2003, 2004, Surace et al. 2004), giving an estimated field correction of $\sim0.16\pm 0.02$ arcmin$^{-2}$. The estimated numbers of members could also be increased by $\sim 18$% to account for the incompleteness in our color-selection, although we have not done so here. We also plot the cumulative number of H$\alpha$-emitting (EW(H$\alpha$) $>$40Å) cluster members in Cl0024+16 from the survey by Kodama et al. (2004), which exhibits a similar rise to that exhibited by the 24$\mu$m population in this cluster. In contrast, MS0451$-$03 shows little evidence for a strong mid-infrared population. The top panel illustrates the variation in survey area with radius in our two fields, this shows that the slower increase in the cumulative 24$\mu$m counts beyond 5Mpc in Cl0024+16 is purely due to the decline in coverage in the outskirts of our survey. The errors on our observations are the combination of counting statistics and the measured variance in the field number counts. The physical scale assumes an average redshift of $z=0.47$.]{}
Source extraction was performed using [SExtractor]{} version 3.1 (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) with the criteria that a source consists of at least 3 contiguous pixels (each pixel is 2.5${''}$ square) at $\geq
2\sigma$ above the background. We measure 16-${''}$ diameter aperture fluxes, corresponding to $\sim3\times$ FWHM of the PSF (FWHM of $\sim
5''$ at 24$\mu$m). Using a curve-of-growth analysis on bright isolated point sources, and our completeness simulations, we find that 16${''}$ apertures recover $\sim75$% of the total flux and we therefore correct the resulting fluxes by a factor of $1.33\times$ to yield total fluxes. We visually inspect the extracted objects overplotted on the images, and remove sources which appear to be false, e.g. in the slightly noisier regions on the edge of the image.
The flux detection limits and completeness of each mosaic was determined by inserting 10 sets of 10 simulated sources into the mosaics for a range of flux and determining their detection rate and recovered fluxes using identical extraction parameters. The sources used in the simulations were high signal-to-noise composites formed by stacking a large number of real, isolated faint sources. From these simulations we estimate that the 80% completeness limits of our observations are 180$\mu$Jy in Cl0024+16 and 200$\mu$Jy in MS0451$-$03.
The archival mid-infrared data for the central region of MS0451$-$03 (Program \#83), were obtained from the [*Spitzer*]{} archive. The observations were taken on 2004 September 23, centered on 045410.8, $-$030057 (J2000). We use the post–basic-calibrated data, and subject it to the same extraction criteria as described in §2.1. These data are slightly shallower than our mosaic, and we take this into account in our subsequent analysis.
Archival optical & near-infrared imaging
----------------------------------------
We use existing deep optical and near-infrared imaging to obtain colors for the 24$\mu$m sources in these regions. For both clusters we use Subaru SuprimeCam $B$- and $R$-band observations taken for the PISCES survey (Kodama et al. 2005). The Cl0024+16 field was observed on 2002 September 6 under good conditions. The seeing was $\sim0.7$–$1''$ for the $R$- and $\sim1$–$1.3''$ for the $B$-band, with exposure times of 5,280s and 3,600s respectively, reaching a depth of $R\sim27$ (we use Vega-based magnitudes throughout). The observations and data reduction technique are described in Kodama et al. (2004). MS0451$-$03 was observed on 2001 January 21–22, again in good conditions with 1.0$''$ seeing in the $B$-band and 0.8$''$ in the $R$-band. Total exposure times were 7200s in $B$ and 4800s in $R$, again yielding photometry for objects as faint as $R\sim 27$.
Panoramic near-infrared $K$-band imaging of both clusters is also available with WIRC (Wilson et al. 2003) on the Palomar Hale 5.1-m telescope. These data comprise a $3\times3$ mosaic of WIRC pointings, providing a contiguous observed are of $26'\times26'$ centered on each cluster. Full details of the observations and data reduction are published elsewhere (Cl0024+16: Smith et al. 2005; MS0451$-$03: Smith et al. 2006, in prep). Point sources in the final reduced mosaics have a full width half maximum of $0.9''$ and $1.0''$ in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively. The data reach a 5-$\sigma$ point sources detection threshold of $K=19.5$ and $K=20.0$ in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively. The nominal 24$\mu$m coverage of the two clusters is $\sim$0.21degrees$^2$. In the case of MS0451$-$03, the archival GTO data contribute an extra $\sim$29arcmin$^2$. When the optical and near-infrared coverage is taken into account, the total coincident coverage of 24$\mu$m, $B$-, $R$-, $K$-bands is 0.165degrees$^2$ and 0.184degrees$^2$ in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively.
We detect objects and extract photometry from the optical frames by running [SExtractor]{} in two-frame mode such that detections were made in the $R$-band image and measurements made at identical pixel locations in $R$ and $B$ (the frames were previously aligned to good accuracy). We catalog all sources with 3 contiguous pixels (the pixel scale is $0.204''$) at least 2-$\sigma$ above the background, and lay down 2$''$ diameter apertures to measure colors in the $BRK$-band frames.
Analysis & Results
==================
The MIPS observations of our two clusters yield 986 sources in the Cl0024+16 field and 1071 in MS0451$-$03, both with 24$\mu$m flux densities above $S_{\rm 24\mu m}>200\mu$Jy (unless otherwise stated, quoted fluxes are always the corrected 16$''$ aperture values). In the case of MS0451$-$03 the count includes sources in the archival region in the core. We assess the false detection rate by running our algorithm on the inverse of the data, and detect $\sim 20$ sources in each frame, all with fluxes in the range 200–330$\mu$Jy, representing $\sim$2% of the detected sample. Our analysis requires matched optical $R<24$ identifications and so we expect the false rate will be much less than 1%. As we demonstrate below, the achieved source surface density is below 1 object per 40 beams, the classical definition of a confused map (Hogg 2001), and so our maps are not expected to be confused at this depth.
We next use the deep optical and near-infrared imaging of these fields to investigate the photometric properties of mid-infrared sources. The influence of false detections described above is minimised in the main part of our analysis, since we require the mid-infrared sources to have optical and near-infrared counterparts.
Optical properties {#sec:cmr}
------------------
Positional matching of multi-wavelength data sets has been a long standing problem in astronomy, and can be particularly troublesome when there is a large disparity in the resolution and sampling in two datasets. We find that a simple nearest-neighbor match is not adequate to pair mid-infrared sources with optical counterparts – the method can fail to match complicated interacting systems for example. Instead, we apply the technique of de Ruiter, Arp & Willis (1977) who use a Bayesian estimator for the probability, $p({\rm id}\mid r)$, that a nearby source is a true match and not a chance unrelated object. In Appendix A, we briefly outline the key elements of the method, but refer the reader to de Ruiter, Arp & Willis (1977) for a thorough derivation. The result of our matching analysis is a list of probable optical counterparts for the 24$\mu$m sources in our catalogs. We identify 611 and 650 counterparts to 24$\mu$m sources which are brighter than $R=24$ and 200$\mu$Jy in Cl0024$+$16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively. In MS0451$-$03 this includes sources in the archival region.
In Figure 1 we plot the $(B-R)$ versus $R$ color-magnitude diagram for each cluster, comparing the distribution of colors for the mid-infrared sources and their apparent magnitudes with the optical population in these regions. The first thing to note is the broad similarity in the distributions on the color-magnitude plane of the 24$\mu$m sources in the two fields. Looking at the color distributions in more detail, the median $(B-R)$ color of mid-infrared sources at $R<22$ is 1.75 and 1.80 for Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively. The 24-$\mu$m counterparts exhibit a broad peak in $(B-R)$ color, which lies between the peaks of red and blue galaxies (Fig. 1). This association of 24$\mu$m sources with galaxies having transition colors is intriguing. It may simply reflect the fact that these galaxies are dustier examples of the general blue star-forming field population, where dust reddening produces somewhat redder colors. Or it may be evidence that some of these galaxies are part of an evolutionary sequence connecting the blue star-forming population, and the passive types inhabiting the red-sequence.
In Figure 2 we plot the $(R-K)$ versus $(B-R)$ colors of the mid-infrared sources in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 compared to the optically-selected populations in the two fields. We also indicate the expected colors of cluster members with a range of spectral types (King & Ellis 1985). These model colors provide a rough guide to the relative level of current to past star-formation in the galaxies and the reader should note that the influence of dust extinction will move galaxies parallel to this sequence, further complicating any interpretation of the star-formation histories of these galaxies.
Looking at the panel for Cl0024+16 in Figure 2, we see a clear ridge of 24-$\mu$m sources with colors comparable to those expected for cluster galaxies. To confirm this association, we indicate on the plots the locations of spectroscopically confirmed 24$\mu$m cluster members from the surveys of Czoske et al. (2001) and Moran et al.(2006), and our on-going spectroscopic follow-up of our 24$\mu$m sample (Geach et al. in prep). There are 45 confirmed 24$\mu$m members in Cl0024+16 and 7 in MS0451$-$03 and the vast majority of these lie close to the predicted color-color locus for cluster members, and have colors consistent with star-forming galaxies. However a few fall in the region populated by passive, early-type cluster members, as expected due to the likely presence of active galactic nuclei in some of these galaxies. Nevertheless, it is clear that the information from this $(B-R)$–$(R-K)$ color-color plot can be used to crudely isolate likely 24-$\mu$m cluster members to statistically gauge the size of this population in the two clusters.
The ‘transitional’ colors of the majority of 24$\mu$m sources hinted at in the color-histograms in Figure 1, is also reflected in the distribution of points around the spectral classes in Figure 2. The colors of the bluer, probable 24$\mu$m cluster members suggest these are moderately star-forming galaxies (matching the continuum shapes of present-day Sbc/Scd galaxies). However, these could be more actively star-forming systems with additional reddening, $A_V \sim 0$–1, and there are a small number of galaxies with very red colors which suggest very significant reddening, $A_V\sim2$ mags. To select the majority of infrared cluster members, we apply a photometric cut in color-color space around the sequence of known cluster members (Figure 2) and then account for the residual field contamination using a similar color-selection applied to a blank field 24$\mu$m sample. Based on the existing spectroscopic samples of 24$\mu$m sources in the two clusters, we estimate that our color-selection criteria identify 39/45 and 5/7 members in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively, or an average completeness of 85%. We note that the fact that the reddening vector runs approximately parallel to our selection box in Figure 2 means that it should contain a significant fraction of the more reddened sources.
In addition, in this work we are investigating the nature of the star-forming cluster population, so we must be aware of contamination by infrared activity caused by AGN in passive (and also star-forming) galaxies. Therefore we define a sub-region in the color-space around the likely color of cluster E/S0s (Figure 2), and do not include the galaxies within this region in our analysis of the obscured star-forming population.
The 24$\mu$m galaxy population in the MS0451$-$03 field does not exhibit such a pronounced ridge with colors matching those expected for cluster members, as Cl0024+16. Nevertheless, there is a weak overdensity, which is most obvious in a red clump associated with passive, early-type cluster members. This clump is around 0.2mags redder in $(B-R)$ and $(R-K)$ than the equivalent feature in Cl0024+16, as expected from the $k$-correction for passive galaxies between $z=0.39$ and $z=0.55$. Again, the small number of spectroscopically confirmed 24$\mu$m members fall close to the locus expected for the colors of cluster members and we therefore use this color-color selection in the subsequent sections to investigate the properties of this population.
[[Fig. 4.]{}– The infrared luminosity function for Cl0024+16, based on the photometrically-selected cluster members and plotted with and without correction for residual field contamination. The total infrared luminosities are derived by extrapolating the monochromatic MIPS 24$\mu$m flux, assuming the local 15$\mu$m–far-infrared correlation holds at $z\sim0.5$ (see §3.3). The estimated number of 24$\mu$m cluster members in MS0451$-$03 is insufficient to provide a similar plot for that cluster. For comparison, we plot the luminosity function of the 60$\mu$m [*IRAS*]{} Point Source Catalog Redshift (PSC[*z*]{}) survey from Takeuchi et al. (2003), with an arbitrary normalisation. The cluster luminosity function is similar in shape with that of3 local field galaxies, given the large uncertainties.]{}
Counts of mid-infrared sources
------------------------------
To quantify the number of 24$\mu$m sources associated with cluster members we first compare the 24$\mu$m number counts for each cluster to counts from the literature for large area 24-$\mu$m field surveys (e.g. Marleau et al. 2004; Papovich et al. 2004; Chary et al. 2004). The counts in the literature all agree well in the flux density regime covered by our data and we use the model presented in Marleau et al. (2004) to estimate the number of field 24$\mu$m galaxies expected with $S_{\rm
24\mu m}=200$–1000$\mu$Jy in our fields: $dN/dS =
(416\pm3)S^{-2.9\pm0.1}$, which is valid for the range 200–900$\mu$Jy, we extrapolate the bright end to 1000$\mu$Jy. For this comparison we also correct our counts for completeness in the range 200–300$\mu$Jy (our simulations show that our observations are $\sim$100% complete at 300$\mu$Jy).
The predicted numbers of 24$\mu$m sources to our flux limits over the Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 fields are 1280$\pm$160 and 939$\pm$120 respectively, down to 200$\mu$Jy. These should be compared to the observed numbers sources of 1032 and 935, respectively. Based on this comparison we can see that the cluster populations do not represent a significant excess over the large field population across the full survey area and down to the flux limits of our survey. This is not particularly surprising as the survey fields are large and our sensitivity limit is sufficient to detect sources in a large volume out to high-redshifts. Instead, if we restrict the comparison to the central regions of the clusters, where the contrast of the cluster over the background might be largest, we see that at projected radii of $\ls2$Mpc there is a slight excess of mid-infrared sources compared to the field counts in Cl0024+16: $134\pm12$ observed sources compared to $115\pm14$ predicted for the field, suggesting a modest cluster population. While in MS0451$-$03, including the archival data for the core, and we find that within 2Mpc there are $104\pm10$ sources compared to $108\pm13$ predicted by the model – showing no detectable overdensity in this cluster even in the central regions.
The lack of a detectable excess in the raw counts of 24$\mu$m sources in the cluster fields does not rule out a significant cluster population given the large uncertainties in the contribution from field sources. To provide a more sensitive test we can exploit the optical-near-infrared photometry to remove the bulk of the background field contamination and so reduce the uncertainty in the field correction. In Figure 3 we plot the cumulative number of mid-infrared galaxies as a function of clustocentric radius for those galaxies with optical-near-infrared counterparts whose colors lie close to the ridge-lines of cluster members seen in Figure 2 (restricted to those with $R < 24$). These are corrected for residual field contamination by using the optical/near-infrared photometry of mid-infrared sources from the SWIRE ELAIS N1 survey (Lonsdale et al. 2003, 2004; Surace et al. 2004). To achieve this we translate our $(B-R)$–$(R-K)$ selection box in Figure 2 to the equivalent region in $(r-z)$–$(g-r)$ space for the SWIRE sample using model spectral energy distributions (Fig. 2) to transform between the various colors. Extrapolating the number counts of these color-selected sources to our 200$\mu$Jy limit (by fitting a power-law, $dN/dS
\propto S^{-\alpha}$, to the counts) yields an average surface density of mid-infrared field sources with $R<24$ of $0.16\pm 0.02$ arcmin$^{-2}$ and we correct our counts using this. We also make use of the very large SWIRE survey area to estimate the fluctuations in the field correction in the area of each of our radial annuli in Figure 3, by determining the fluctuation in the field counts as a function of survey area. This variance is included in the uncertainty in the field correction used in Figure 3.
By selecting 24$\mu$m sources with optical-near-infrared colors similar to those expected for cluster members, we have substantially reduced the field contamination in our sample. Figure 3 demonstrates a significant 24$\mu$m cluster population in Cl0024+16, with 155$\pm$18 sources across our $25'\times 25'$ field (where the uncertainty includes the effects of clustering on the field correction). As can be seen the excess population is distributed across the whole field, with the numbers continuing to increase to $\sim 5$Mpc where the coverage of our data begins to decline. In contrast, in MS0451$-$03 we find a much weaker excess, 28$\pm$17, which is only marginally significant. Nevertheless, we note that our existing spectroscopic survey of this cluster (Fig. 2) confirms that there are 24-$\mu$m-detected cluster members, but the population appears much less numerous than in Cl0024+16. In both cases, the estimates of the total cluster populations could be increased by $\sim 18$% to account for the incompleteness of our color-selection, although to be conservative we choose not to apply this correction.
While it is clear that there are populations of 24$\mu$m cluster members, we also need to consider lensing of background sources by these massive clusters, which may affect the predicted numbers of cluster members. Lensing has the effect of a boosting of flux and dilating the projected area. To demonstrate this we model the clusters as simple isothermal spheres. In this case a background source will suffer an apparent deflection in radial direction by $\alpha \simeq
20''\sigma_{1000}^2$, where $\sigma_{1000}$ is the cluster velocity dispersion in units of 1000kms$^{-1}$. We adopt $\sigma =
1150$kms$^{-1}$ for Cl0024+16; $\sigma = 1290$kms$^{-1}$ for MS0451$-$03 (Trentham et al. 1998). At a radius $r$, the source-plane area of an annular bin of width d$r$ will be $2\pi(r-\alpha){\rm d}r$, and the flux of a lensed source will be boosted by a factor $r/(r-\alpha)$. We integrate the lensing prediction for our color-selected sample (taking $\sigma=1200$kms$^{-1}$ – though the actual values may be lower, so this should be a conservative estimate) as a function of radius, finding that it could contribute $\ls 20$ sources to our samples, hence in Cl0024+16 the excess signal we see is greater than can be explained by lensing. The situation with MS0451$-$03 is more problematic, although again we note that the spectroscopic identification of a handful of 24$\mu$m cluster members confirms that, as with Cl0024+16, there is a population of mid-infrared sources associated with the cluster.
[[Fig. 5.]{}– A comparison of the star-formation rates derived from H$\alpha$ (Kodama et al. 2004) and total-infrared luminosities for individual H$\alpha$-detected cluster members in Cl0024+16. The ratio SFR\[IR\]/SFR\[H$\alpha$\] provides an estimate of the level of obscuration of the starforming regions within these galaxies. We see a typical offset of a factor of $5\times$ between the infrared and H$\alpha$ estimates (the latter have not been corrected for extinction), although there is a wide-scatter. We also plot data from the literature of similar studies of infrared-luminous field galaxies from Flores et al.(2004), Franceshini et al. (2003) and Doptia et al. (2002) corrected to our cosmology. It appears that the level of obscuration of star-forming infrared cluster galaxies (in Cl0024+16) is similar to that of mid-infrared selected field galaxies at this epoch. We do not plot individual error bars for clarity, but show a representative error bar. Finally, to probe obscuration from faint mid-infrared sources, we stack the 24$\mu$m data for H$\alpha$ emitters which are not detected in the MIPS image yielding a 5$\sigma$ statistical detection. This confirms the general trend seen above our nominal luminosity limit that there appears to be an increase in the level of obscuration (SFR\[IR\]/SFR\[H$\alpha$\]) with infrared luminosity. ]{}
Star formation {#sfrs}
--------------
To calculate the star-formation rates (SFRs) for our mid-infrared detected galaxies, we begin by estimating the total infrared luminosity over the restframe wavelength range 8–1000 $\mu$m. Since we only have MIPS 24$\mu$m photometry, we have to determine the correction factor required to convert our 24$\mu$m luminosities to total infrared luminosities. To achieve this we assume the correlation between 15$\mu$m (corresponding to observed $\sim$24$\mu$m at $z\sim0.5$) and total-infrared luminosity seen for local infrared galaxies (Chary & Elbaz 2001) continues to hold at $z\sim0.5$. We then follow a similar technique to that of Bell et al. (2005) and use the spectral energy distribution (SED) templates from Dale & Helou (2002) to estimate the ratio of the observed-frame 24-$\mu$m luminosity to the 8–1000$\mu$m luminosity. We calculate the ratio of total-infrared to observed 24-$\mu$m luminosities for each SED template, taking the mean value of all the ratios as our correction factor, and the range from the most active to the most quiescent SEDs as a conservative estimate of the systematic uncertainty. The correction factors are $16\pm2$ and $16\pm3$ for Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively. We compare our conversion factors to the relation found by Chary & Elbaz (2001) by calculating the mid-infrared to total infrared ratio with the [*ISOCAM LW3*]{} (15$\mu$m) filter for the Dale & Helou templates at $z=0.1$. The Chary & Elbaz conversion for local LIRGs corresponds to $L_{IR} \sim 11^{+6}_{-4}\times L_{\rm 15\mu m}^{0.998}$, while our estimate gives a prefactor of $7\pm 3$ over the full range of LIRG templates. Thus these two calibrations are consistent, although the reader should note our estimates are roughly 40% fainter than would be given by Chary & Elbaz (2001).
Our 5$\sigma$ 24-$\mu$m flux limit of 200$\mu$Jy corresponds to average total infrared luminosities of $6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ and $12\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 respectively, hence the bulk of the populations we are detecting are Luminous Infrared galaxies (LIRGs) with L$_{IR}\geq
10^{11}$L$_\odot$. These luminosities translate into SFRs of $\sim10$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ and $\sim20 $M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ assuming the far-infrared star-formation calibration given by Kennicutt (1998) with a Salpeter IMF and a mass range of 0.1–100M$_\odot$.
In Figure 4 we plot the mid-infrared luminosity function for the Cl0024+16, based on the color-selected sample out to a radius of 5Mpc. To field correct the luminosity function in Cl0024+16, we integrate the extrapolated power-law fit to the color-selected 24$\mu$m sources in the SWIRE ELAIS N1 field, from §3.2. We use the scatter in the normalisation of $dN/dS$ in independent $25'\times 25'$ regions within the SWIRE field, combined with the counting errors in each bin, to give the uncertainty in the field-correction. This plot demonstrates that the field-corrected luminosity function in Cl0024+16 is similar in form to that seen for 60$\mu$m-selected populations at low-redshift (Takeuchi et al. 2003).
While there are too few sources in MS0451$-$03 to allow us to make an equivalent plot to Figure 4 for that cluster, we can use the Cl0024+16 luminosity function to estimate how many sources we would have detected if we place the Cl0024+16 population at $z=0.55$. Applying a factor to scale for the effective areas of our surveys in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03, we estimate that we would detect $69\pm 21$ galaxies above the luminosity limit, $12\times 10^{10}$L$_\odot$, of the MS0451$-$03 survey. This compares to our estimate of $28 \pm 17$ from our MS0451$-$03 catalog, indicating a roughly $2$–$3\times$ difference in the numbers of mid-infrared sources in the two clusters. This suggests that, although the dearth of mid-infrared sources in MS0451$-$03 may be partly due to sensitivity limitations, there may be a real difference in the mid-infrared populations in the two clusters.
### Mid-infrared versus H$\alpha$ tracers of activity
We can also compare the properties of our mid-infrared selected sample in Cl0024+16 with the H$\alpha$ survey of this cluster by Kodama et al. (2004). Kodama et al. obtained a deep image of the cluster in a narrow-band filter centered on redshifted H$\alpha$. Galaxies with excess emission in this narrow-band filter were identified as cluster members with H$\alpha$ emission. They estimate their sensitivity limit corresponds to a star formation rate of $\sim 1.5$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ – significantly below the estimated SFR limit of our mid-infrared survey, $\sim 10$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$.
To start with, we compare in Figure 3 the cumulative radial profile of the mid-infrared sources with the H$\alpha$-emitting galaxies from Kodama et al. (2004). As can be seen the two tracers show very similar trends, with a steep rise from 1Mpc out to $\sim $5Mpc, beyond which our coverage declines. The reader should also note that the lack of mid-infrared coverage for the core of the cluster will contribute to the steeper drop of the 24$\mu$m counts in the innermost bin in Figure 3. Surprisingly, Figure 3 also shows there are similar numbers of H$\alpha$ emitters and 24$\mu$m-detected members, even though there is a significant difference in the relative sensitivity of the two surveys. We therefore next compare the estimates of the SFR for individual galaxies from H$\alpha$ and the mid-infrared, to relate these two star-formation indicators for confirmed cluster members.
In Figure 5 we compare the star-formation rates for H$\alpha$ narrow-band-selected sources and their 24$\mu$m counterparts[^2]. From this figure, it can be seen that the star formation rates for the mid-infrared-detected members, derived from the H$\alpha$ emission line (but not corrected for extinction), appears to underestimate the SFR from the mid-infrared by factors $\gs 5\times$. Including the standard assumption of 1 magnitude of extinction and correcting for a 30% contribution to the measured fluxes from \[N[ii]{}\] (see Kodama et al. 2004) would reduce this offset to a factor of $2.5\times$. However, such a simplistic correction would miss the fact that the discrepancy in SFRs appears to increases with infrared luminosity, such that the most active systems are also the most obscured.
To test for biases due to our 24$\mu$m sensitivity limit, we stack thumbnail images from the MIPS image of Cl0024+16 for H$\alpha$ emitters from Kodama et al. (2004) which are not individually detected, i.e. $S_{\rm 24\mu m} < 200$$\mu$Jy. We find a $\sim$5-$\sigma$ detection with $S_{\rm 24\mu m} = 57\pm11$$\mu$Jy. In terms of star-formation, this corresponds to $\sim$3M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. We plot this point on Fig. 5, with the corresponding average H$\alpha$ derived SFR for the stack, $\sim$1M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. This point seems to be roughly consistent with the trend seen, that obscuration (i.e. SFR\[IR\]/SFR\[H$\alpha$\]) increases with the level of infrared activity.
We estimate that the correction required to bring the H$\alpha$ derived SFRs in line with the infrared SFRs corresponds to a reddening of $A_V\sim2.5$, slightly larger than the value used to explain the broadband colors of these galaxies on the $(R-K)$–$(B-R)$ color–plane. This reddening estimate will also be affected by the choice of adopted SED when deriving total infrared luminosities, although in this work we have chosen a conversion which represents infrared galaxies of a wide range of activities, and so our estimates are conservative. We also note that there is a factor of 40 range in infrared to H$\alpha$ derived star formation rates within our sample which is larger than expected from our measurement errors and indicates that there may be a wide range of extinction amongst the individual LIRGs – in part probably due to the patchiness of the dust within these galaxies.
We also compare our relation between mid-infrared- and H$\alpha$-derived SFRs to that seen in samples of field galaxies from the literature: a sample of LIRGs in the range $0.2<z<0.7$ from Flores et al. (2004), 15$\mu$m detected [*ISOCAM*]{} sources from the [*Hubble Deep Field South*]{} at ($0.2<z<1.5$) (Franceshini et al. 2003), and [*IRAS*]{} 60$\mu$m warm infrared galaxies from Doptia et al.(2002). The typical level of SFR\[IR\]/SFR\[H$\alpha$\] is similar to H$\alpha$/MIR detected objects in Cl0024+16, suggesting that these cluster galaxies are similar in nature (at least in terms of their mix of star-formation and obscuration) to star-forming LIRGs in the field at similar epochs.
Total cluster star-formation rates
----------------------------------
We now estimate a total star-formation rate for the clusters using the typical SFR of the likely star-forming mid-infrared members. Since we lack observations in the central $\sim1$Mpc in Cl0024+16 due to the unobserved GTO region, we also need to correct for this missing population using the 15$\mu$m [*ISO*]{} observations from Coia et al. (2005).
### Cl0024+16
As shown by the radial number counts presented in Figure 3, the 24$\mu$m members are widely distributed across the clusters out to a projected radius of $\sim$2Mpc (corresponding to $\sim R_{200}$, Carlberg et al. 1997. Note that throughout, we use projected distances) and beyond. To compare the mid-infrared-estimates of the total star formation rates within representative regions of different clusters we therefore adopt a 2Mpc radius for our calculations, which roughly matches the size of the surveyed regions in some of the earlier small-field surveys.
We integrate over the luminosity function in Figure 4 for sources with projected radii $<2$Mpc, correcting for the expected contamination from field galaxies using the SWIRE data for the ELAIS N1 field (see §3.2). To account for the missing sources in the unobserved GTO core region we need to add the SFR in the 15$\mu$m members in this region found by Coia et al. (2005), after converting their 15$\mu$m fluxes to star-formation rates using an identical method to that presented in §3.3.
Our derived total-infrared luminosities are lower than those derived by Coia et al. (2005) by a factor of $\sim$2. This difference can be attributed to the different methods of conversion used. Coia et al.’s method involves extrapolating their observed 15$\mu$m photometry to 15$\mu$m in the rest-frame, using an SED fitted to their optical and mid-infrared photometry. This is then converted to a total infrared luminosity using the empirical conversion of Chary & Elbaz (2001) described above. In contrast our observations correspond to $\sim$15$\mu$m in the rest-frame. Hence some of this offset is due to the differences in conversion from 15$\mu$m luminosity to total infrared emission discussed in §3.3 and the remainder is due to the choice of SED by Coia et al. (2005), which overpredicted the observed 24$\mu$m fluxes. As we have stated earlier, our calculations should yield conservative limits on the SFR. We note that, with our total-infrared calibration, the 5$\sigma$ detection limit of the Coia et al. (2005) [*ISO*]{} observations corresponds to $\sim 3\times 10^{10}$L$_\odot$.
With our conversion, we find three galaxies in the Coia et al. (2005) sample that exceed our luminosity limit of $6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$, and so we can add their SFR to our total within 2Mpc of the core. We thus find a total star-formation rate for the 40 sources within 2Mpc to be $1000\pm210
$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. The error is derived by boot-strap resampling the flux distribution of sources within 2Mpc, and integrating the new luminosity function. The median SFR per galaxy in our sample within 2Mpc is $\sim16 $M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. We note that correcting for the estimated incompleteness in our color-selection of cluster members would increase our estimate of the total SFR by a factor 1.07, which corresponds to a change less than its quoted uncertainty.
For comparison, we also note that the H$\alpha$ observations of Kodama et al. (2004) detect 100 galaxies within a similar region to that discussed here. They find a cumulative SFR of $\sim 470$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$, above their approximate sensitivity limit of SFR of 1.5M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$, or about 4.7M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ per galaxy. Restricting the H$\alpha$ sample to the $>10$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ limit of our mid-infrared survey, we find that the H$\alpha$ survey would yield an integrated SFR of $\sim 220$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. This confirms the effect seen in Figure 4, that although H$\alpha$ and mid-infrared surveys are detecting a similar population, the H$\alpha$ tracer severely underestimates the underlying activity in the most active sources in the cluster: these starbursting systems are producing dust at a more copious rate and therefore optically obscured. In addition, we can state that the mid-infrared survey detects the bulk of the total star-formation activity within this region, requiring only a $\sim$20% correction for the star-formation activity in sources with $1$–$10$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$.
### MS0451$-$03
We have seen that, compared to Cl0024+16, this cluster appears to be deficient in mid-infrared sources (at least down to our luminosity limit). Nevertheless, even a small excess of mid-infrared sources in the cluster could contribute a non-negligible star-formation rate to the overall activity of the cluster. We therefore estimate the total star-formation rate within $\sim$2Mpc using the small number of excess sources identified using our $(R-K)$–$(B-R)$ color–color selection. Applying the same approach as used for Cl0024+16, we find a total star-formation rate within a 2Mpc radius of the cluster center of $200\pm100
$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. The median SFR within 2Mpc is $\sim 35$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ per galaxy (reflecting the brighter luminosity limit in this cluster) .
In §3.3 we estimated the number of mid-infrared sources we would detect if MS0451$-$03 had the same mid-infrared luminosity function to Cl0024+16, taking into account the slightly different areal coverages between the clusters. Similarly, we can estimate the total star-formation rate in MS0451$-$03 if we reached a luminosity limit identical to Cl0024+16. Assuming the faint end of the luminosity function in MS0451$-$03 follows a similar shape to Cl0024+16, we estimate that the total star-formation rate down to $6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ in this cluster is $<460$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. Although the small number of excess sources in MS0451$-$03 can lead to a relatively high star-formation rate (compared to what might be found using an optical tracer for example), there is a clear difference in the population of mid-infrared sources in the two clusters – but what is the physical cause of this?
Although the clusters are of similar mass, and at a similar redshift, they differ strongly in their intra-cluster environments and dynamical status (Treu et al. 2003). Cl0024+16 is dynamically active (Czoske et al. 2001; Kodama et al. 2004) and this may provide the impetus for the triggering of star-formation via mergers and interactions of gas-rich spirals within the cluster – even in the apparently high-density core. The intracluster medium (ICM) of MS0451$-$03 is much hotter and denser (by nearly an order of magnitude) than Cl0024+16, and this will have an impact on the radii that processes such as starvation and ram-pressure stripping operate (Treu et al. 2003). In MS0451$-$03 the hot ICM will be much more effective at starving galaxies of their gas reservoirs at a larger clustocentric radii than in Cl0024+16. The relative dearth of mid-infrared sources in MS0451$-$03 might then suggest that the active regions within the mid-infrared population are comparatively sensitive to these gas removal mechanisms. Unlike Cl0024+16, unfortunately there are no published optical SFR studies of MS0451$-$03 to confirm a wholesale decline in the SFR in this cluster. Nevertheless, the small excess of mid-infrared sources in MS0451$-$03 show that it hosts quite significant star-formation, so it is unclear at this stage exactly what physical processes control the distribution of star-forming galaxies in different types of clusters. We will address the issue in our next paper where we study the properties of the 24$\mu$m cluster members in more detail using the available spectroscopy, dynamics and [*HST*]{} imaging (Geach et al., in prep.; see also Moran et al., in prep.).
Obscured star-formation in clusters out to $z\sim1$
===================================================
At the present-day, virialised regions of the Universe are dominated by passive galaxies: ellipticals and lenticulars, with the main contribution to the global star-formation rate density at $z=0$ coming from late-type spirals in low-density environments. However, at higher redshifts the high-density environments within clusters show increasing numbers of actively star forming galaxies, possibly reflecting a similar increase in the frequency of activity to that seen in the surrounding field. Moreover, it is clear that there is significant hidden star formation in clusters in this redshift range: observations by [*ISO*]{} and now our new [*Spitzer*]{} observations reveal populations of infrared galaxies in clusters at low and intermediate redshift, with SFRs much higher than would be measured using optical tracers such as H$\alpha$ or \[O[ii]{}\]$\lambda$3727, due to the extinction effect of dust.
Given this new information, what is the evolution of the total star-formation rates in massive clusters – i.e. how does the increase in activity in high-density environments at high redshift behave in the mid-infrared? To compare the total mid-infrared derived star-formation rate in clusters from $z=0$–1 we use the total SFR within $\sim$2Mpc and normalize by the best-estimate mass of the cluster (for example, see Kodama et al. 2004). For Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 these are $6.1\times10^{14}M_\odot$ (Kneib et al.2003) and $15\times10^{14}M_\odot$ (La Roque et al. 2003) respectively, where the masses are within 2Mpc of the clusters’ centers.
To build up a history of star-formation in clusters out to $z\sim1$, we compare our results to previous [*ISO*]{} and [*IRAS*]{} studies of the clusters: Perseus (A426), A1689, A370, A2218 and J1888.8CL (Cl0054$-$27), summing the known cluster member’s star formation rates down to a far infrared limit $6\times10^{10}L_\odot$ – the limit of the Cl0024+16 observations. To ensure correct comparison of the rates, if necessary we re-derive the SFRs using our employed calibration from Kennicutt (1998), with a standard Salpeter IMF with a mass range 0.1–100$M_\odot$. For the [*ISO*]{} observations, we also re-derive the far-infrared 8–1000$\mu$m luminosity using the method we present above, using the band-pass of the [*ISO LW3*]{} filter to convert mid to total-infrared. The [*ISO*]{} observations of these clusters are summarized in the review by Metcalfe et al. (2005). Note that the previous [*ISO*]{} and [*IRAS*]{} observations have concentrated on the core regions of clusters (typically within 1Mpc), so we restrict our star-formation integration to within a radius of 2Mpc in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03, and compare to estimates of the total star-formation within the equivalent radius in the other clusters. In the case of MS0451$-$03, we estimate an upper limit to the star-formation rate extrapolated to a luminosity limit of $6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ by using the method described in §3.4.2, assuming the faint end of the luminosity function follows a similar shape to that in Cl0024+16. We estimate that the upper limit to the total star-formation rate down to $6\times 10^{10}$L$_\odot$ in MS0451$-$03 is $\ls460$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$.
[[Fig. 6.]{}– The variation in the mass-normalised star-formation rates in clusters out to $z\sim0.5$. The star formation rates are from the mid-infrared populations within $\sim$2Mpc and these are normalised to the best estimate of the cluster mass, which is derived via lensing estimates, or from the X-ray luminosities. We also plot an evolutionary model for the counts of star-forming ULIRGs from Cowie et al. (2004), normalised to the mean star-formation rate in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 (again we note that these could be increased by $\sim$18% to account for incompleteness in our color-selection of cluster members). The MS0451$-$03 point has an upper limit which corresponds to the extrapolated estimate for the total star-formation down to the luminosity limit in Cl0024+16 ($6\times 10^{10}$L$_\odot$), while the data point shows the cluster’s summed SFR down to the limit of our data ($12\times 10^{10}$L$_\odot$). There is evidence for an increasing rate of activity in more distant clusters, as traced through their mid-infrared populations. However, there is also clear evidence for a wide variation in activity in even massive clusters at a similar epoch. This suggests that the mid-infrared populations are sensitive tracers of environmental changes within the clusters. The errors on the total star-formation rates for Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 are derived from boot-strap resampling of the mid-infrared distribution, whereas for Perseus and A1689 the errors are from counting statistics. Note that there are systematic uncertainties in all of the estimates depending on the specific choice of SED in the conversion from mid-infrared luminosity to star formation rate (the plotted uncertainties also do not take into account of the errors in the cluster mass estimates). Upper limits are equivalent star-formation rates for one detected at our luminosity limit of 6$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_\odot$, (and extrapolated to account for the coverage difference in the survey) in those clusters where no sources were detected above this limit.]{}
At low redshifts, we use the nearby rich cluster Perseus, observed with [*IRAS*]{} (Meusinger et al. 2000). We sum over the known cluster members with L$_{\rm FIR} > 6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$, and convert their luminosities to SFRs, giving a lower limit to the total star-formation rate in the cluster of $>22$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$, over an area equivalent to 10degrees$^2$, which in terms of physical coverage is similar to the 2Mpc radius used in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03. We use the mass estimate of Ettori, De Grandi & Molendi (2002) of $3.1\times10^{14}$M$_\odot$ and extrapolate to 2Mpc to determine the normalised star-formation rate per mass to be $\sim 3
$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$/$10^{14}$M$_\odot$.
Fadda et al (2000) and Duc et al. (2002) observed A1689 ($z=0.18$) at 15$\mu$m with [*ISO*]{} detecting 16 cluster members within 0.5Mpc of the core. With the mid-infrared to total-infrared conversion used in this work, we find two galaxies (detected with the [*LW3*]{} 15$\mu$m filter) above our luminosity limit. In order to estimate the star-formation expected out to a radius of 2Mpc we assume a radial profile for the mid-infrared population similar to that found for Cl0024+16 and extrapolate the star-formation rate from within a radius of 0.5 to 2Mpc. The resulting star-formation rate is $\sim$280M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ within 2Mpc of the core. We use the mass from King et al. (2002), correcting to 2Mpc, yielding a mass-normalized value of $\sim$30M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$/$10^{14} M_\odot$. A2218 is another rich cluster at a similar redshift to A1689, with $z=0.175$, however the mid-infrared activity in this structure is much lower than in A1689. The 15$\mu$m observations of Biviano et al. (2004) found nine members within a similar radius ($\ls0.4$Mpc), but only one of these corresponds to a star-forming galaxy, and the median infrared luminosity is only $6\times10^8$L$_\odot$, or just 0.1M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. A370 is at a similar redshift to Cl0024+16, at $z=0.37$, but also appears deficient in LIRGs. Only one cluster member was detected at 15$\mu$m. We plot these points as upper limits using our luminosity limit, again extrapolating to account for radial coverage out to 2Mpc using the shape of the radial profile of mid-infrared sources in Cl0024+16. We use the cluster masses from Pratt et al. (2005) and Girardi & Mezzetti (2001) for A2218 and A370 respectively, extrapolating to find the mass within 2Mpc. The mass-normalised upper-limits for A2218 is $30$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$/$10^{14}$M$_\odot$ and for A370 is $9$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$/$10^{14}$M$_\odot$.
J1888.16 (Cl0054-27) is at $z=0.56$, and was observed by Duc et al. (2004) using [*ISOCAM*]{} at 15$\mu$m. Six mid-infrared sources were detected which are confirmed cluster members, whilst a further two have redshifts suggesting they are members of infalling groups at a slightly higher redshift. Using the calibration of Chary & Elbaz (2001), Duc et al. find that all of their detected members are LIRGs, with inferred L$_{\rm FIR}>1.3\times10^{11}$L$_\odot$, and with individual SFRs in the range 20–120M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. We re-calibrate the SFR using the method set out in §3.3, and find a conservative lower limit to the total cluster star-formation rate to be $>70
$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. The mass of the cluster is determined by Girardi & Mezzetti (2001), and we extrapolate to 2Mpc, giving a total star formation rate $>7 $M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$/$10^{14}$M$_\odot$.
We present the results in Figure 6, in which we plot the sum of the SFRs within $\sim$2Mpc of the clusters’ cores, normalized using the estimated total mass of the cluster (either based on lensing or X-ray models). There is strong evolution in the star-formation rates in the clusters out to high redshifts, but it is important to note that several clusters seem to have very low-levels of activity, below our luminosity limits. For example Cl0024+16 appears significantly more active than A370, which is at an almost identical redshift. This might be point to differing environmental influences between clusters being the dominant influence on the star-formation histories of in-falling galaxies. Nevertheless, assuming that we have only selected those clusters with significant activity in Figure 6, there still appears to be strong evolution in the sample out to $z\sim0.5$. This observation could simply reflect the increase in number of star-forming galaxies seen in clusters and the field out to this redshift – these obscured systems representing the high luminosity tail of the general ‘blue’ population. The idea that the cluster (obscured) star-formation histories mimic that of the field is supported by the rough consistency with the $(1+z)^7$ trend found by Cowie et al. (2004) for the number of star-forming ULIRG radio sources out to $z\sim1.5$. Kodama et al. (2004) present a similar analysis for the evolution of the H$\alpha$-derived star-formation in clusters out to $z\sim1$. They find relatively strong evolution in the total-SFRs in clusters over this range, $\sim(1+z)^4$, but as in this study, there is considerable scatter in the total star-formations rates between clusters, even after mass-normalisation. This hints that, although there might be a nominal rise in the level of star-formation in clusters out to $z\sim1$, this is mitigated by the fact that individual cluster environments have a strong influence on the star-formation histories of their constituent galaxies. This scatter is due to the complexity of processes operating solely in the dense environments. A detailed study of the sources in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 may elucidate this issue.
Conclusions & Summary
=====================
We have used the MIPS instrument on [*Spitzer*]{} to survey the 24$\mu$m populations of two optically rich clusters at $z\sim0.5$: Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03. The samples are $\sim80$% complete at $200\mu$Jy, corresponding to total (8–1000$\mu$m) infrared luminosities of $6\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ and $12\times10^{10}$L$_\odot$ at $z=0.39$ and $z=0.55$ respectively, equivalent to minimum SFRs of $\sim10$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ and $\sim20$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. We detect a total of 986 and 1018 mid-infrared sources above this flux limit across $\sim25'\times25'$ fields in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03. Our observations probe from around the cores out to the turn-around radius at $\sim5$Mpc where the clusters merge into the field. In MS0451$-$03, we also analyse archival MIPS observations of the central $\sim5'\times5'$ of the cluster, which our observations had to avoid. Similarly in Cl0024+16 we make use of an [*ISO*]{} 15$\mu$m survey from Coia et al. (2005) in the central region to build up a picture of the distribution of mid-infrared sources over the complete range of cluster environments.
We exploit optical-near-infrared colors for the mid-infrared sources to reduce the background field contamination. We find a statistical excess of mid-infrared sources (within $\sim 5$Mpc of the cluster core) at $S_{\rm 24\mu
m} > 200\mu$Jy associated with Cl0024+16: 155$\pm$18. In contrast MS0451$-$03 has a less significant population of mid-infrared sources, $28\pm17$, although we note that there are a small number of confirmed 24$\mu$m members in MS0451$-$03 in our on-going spectroscopic survey of this cluster.
Using our deep optical and near-infrared imaging of both clusters we show that the 24$\mu$m sources in Cl0024+16 are mostly associated with star-forming galaxies, with typically blue $(B-R)$ colors, but which can be dust reddened by up to $A_V\sim2.5$ mags. We also compare the infrared star-formation rate to that derived from an optical narrow-band H$\alpha$ survey of this cluster from Kodama et al. (2004). Typically the H$\alpha$-derived rates underestimate the extinction-free infrared rate by $\gs5\times$, suggesting significant obscuration of the activity in this cluster. We find that the level of obscuration for these individual cluster galaxies is comparable to that found for LIRGs in the field at similar epochs. This suggests that starbursts in clusters are similar (at least in terms of extinction) as those triggered in low-density environments. However the variation in the 24$\mu$m populations of Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03 suggests that the range of triggering and suppression mechanisms in clusters is complex.
We estimate that the total star-formation rate (derived from the infrared) in the central region of Cl0024+16 ($\ls R_{200}$) is $1000\pm210$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. MS0451$-$03 is much poorer in mid-infrared sources, and we derive a total star-formation rate estimate by summing over the small excess of objects, giving a total star-formation rate of $200\pm100$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ within the same physical radius. We note however that our mid-infrared survey can miss some star-formation if a substantial number of lower-luminosity galaxies also exist in these clusters (as shown by the H$\alpha$ survey of Kodama et al. 2004). However, we show that the majority of the activity is dominated by these dusty-starbursts.
Finally, we look at the evolution of the specific star formation rate per cluster with redshift from $z\sim 0$–0.5, using our new estimates for the total star-formation rates in Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03. We compare these to estimates for lower and comparable redshift clusters studied with [*ISO*]{} and [*IRAS*]{}. We find that the high redshift clusters tend to have larger total star-formation rates compared to the more quiescent low-redshift ones, with an evolution similar to that of field LIRGs. However there is considerable scatter in this relation, and the evolution may only apply to the most active clusters. Although it is still unclear exactly what processes govern the star-formation histories of rich clusters, this study has shown that rich environments can sustain significant amounts of hidden star-formation, and that this seems to increase at least out to $z\sim0.5$. This hidden activity may have a profound influence on the life-cycle of galaxies in high-density regions and the formation of the passive galaxy populations, ellipticals and S0s, which inhabit these environments at the present-day. We will investigate these issues in more detail in our next paper where we bring together spectroscopic and morphological information on the 24$\mu$m population in these fields. We are also extending our survey with new panoramic observations of distant clusters with [*Spitzer*]{} Cycle 3 GO time using both MIPS and the IRS.
We thank an anonymous referee, whose comments greatly improved the clarity of this paper, we also thank Bianca Poggianti and Mark Swinbank for useful comments. This study is based on observations made with the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. This work also made use of the [*SST*]{} Archive, which is operated by the [*Spitzer*]{} Science Center. J.E.G. is supported by a UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council studentship; I.R.S. and G.P.S. acknowledge support from the Royal Society.
Matching of mid-infrared and optical catalogs
=============================================
Here we provide a brief description of the technique which we have adopted for identifying the optical counterparts to the mid-infrared sources in our catalog. We have chosen to apply the technique of de Ruitter, Willis & Arp (1977) who use a Bayesian estimator for the probability, $p({\rm id}\mid r)$, to identify whether an optical source in close proximity to a mid-infrared source is likely to be a true match, rather than a chance unrelated object.
First we parameterize the radial distances of sources in terms of a dimensionless variable: $$r = \left( \frac{\Delta\alpha}{\sigma_\alpha}^2 + \frac{\Delta\delta}{\sigma_\delta}^2 \right)^{1/2}$$ where $\Delta\alpha(\delta)$ are the positional offsets of the sources in R.A. and Dec. (in the sense mid-infrared $-$ optical), and $\sigma_{\alpha(\delta)}$ are the uncertainties in the positions (we assume that the optical uncertainties are negligible). A likelihood ratio $LR$ can be constructed representing the probability of finding a genuine match (id) compared to the probability of finding a confusing (c) source within a radius $r$: $$\label{lr}
LR(r) = \frac{p(r \mid {\rm id})}{p(r \mid {\rm c})} = \frac{1}{2\lambda}\exp\left[\frac{r^2}{2}(2\lambda - 1) \right]$$ where $\lambda = \pi\sigma_\alpha\sigma_\delta\Sigma$, with $\Sigma$ representing the surface density of optical sources down to some limit. The physical interpretation of equation \[lr\] is that we are searching for a trade-off between finding a confusing background source, the distribution of which is governed by Poisson statistics; and the probability that the genuine match is located within ${\rm d}r$ of the reference source – this is described by the Rayleigh distribution.
In our case $\lambda \sim 20\Sigma$, and since we know that a cluster exists and the surface density of sources will not be uniform across the frame, we calculate the surface density of $R$-band sources brighter than the nearest-neighbour – $\Sigma(m > m_{\rm NN})$ – in annular bins of width $1'$ centered on the cluster at the radial distance of each mid-infrared source. The final part of the calculation requires us to calculate $p({\rm id}\mid r)$ – [*having found*]{} a source at some radius $r$, what is the probability it is the genuine match? Bayes’ theorem provides a way to estimate this value, but first we require an [*a priori*]{} estimate – namely what fraction $\theta$ of mid-infrared sources have optical counterparts? To estimate $\theta$ we count the number of sources with $LR > 1$, over the frame, denoting these ‘matches’ and compare to the number with $LR < 1$. $\theta$ is insensitive to the choice of likelihood threshold, and is approximately 0.77 for Cl0024+16 and MS0451$-$03. We can then find: $$p({\rm id}\mid r) =\frac{}{} =\frac{ X\,LR(r)}{X\,LR(r) +1}$$ where $X = \theta/1-\theta$. We define a positive match of sources at some cut-off value $L$ of the likelihood ratio, which we optimize to provide the best completeness $C$ and reliability $R$ of the sample: $$C = 1 - \sum_{LR_i < L} p_i({\rm id \mid r}) / N_{\rm id}$$ $$R = 1 - \sum_{LR_i > L} p_i({\rm c \mid r}) / N_{\rm id}$$ with $N_{\rm id} = \sum p({\rm id \mid r})$. We choose a value of $p({\rm id \mid r}) = 0.82$ for positive matches, corresponding to $R =
C \sim 97$ % in both clusters. To improve the matching algorithm, we perform an identical calculation for the next-nearest neighbour to the mid-infrared sources. Thus for each MIPS source we have a matching probability for both its nearest and next-nearest optical neighbours. This allows us to flag possible mergers (where both probabilities exceed our match threshold). If $p_{\rm NNN} > p_{\rm
NN}$ then we chose the next-nearest neighbour as the genuine match.
, 1999, , 527, 54
, 2001, [ASP Conf. Series: Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies]{}, Eds: Funes, S. J. & Corsini, E. M., 649
, 2003, , 343, 367
, 2005,
, 1996, , 117, 393
, 2000, , 317, 720
, 2004, , 425, 33
, 2004, , 428, 409
, 1997, , 478, 462
, 2001, , 556, 562
, 2004, , 154, 80
, 2005, , 430, 59
, 2004, Baltic Astronomy, 13, 638
, 1998, , 497, 118-+
, 2004, , 603, L69-L72
, 2001, , 372, 391
, 2001, ApSSS, 277, 63
, 2002, , 576, 159
, [Arp]{}, H.C., [Willis, A.C.]{}, 1977, , 28, 211
, 1980, , 42, 565
, 1997, , 490, 577-+
, 2002, , 143, 47
, 2000, , 120, 1238
, 2002, , 382, 60
, 2004, [IAU Colloq. 195: Outskirts of Galaxy Clusters: Intense Life in the Suburbs]{}, [Luminous infrared starbursts in a cluster of galaxies]{}
, 2002, , 391, 841
, 2000, , 361, 827
, 2000, , 542, 673
, 2004, , 415, 885
, 2003, , 403, 501
, 2004, , 421, 59
, 2001, , 548, 79
, 2001, , 121, 1207
, 1994, , 435, 22
, 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189
, 1985, , 288, 456
, 2002, , 383, 118
, 2003, , 598, 804
, 2004, , 354, 1103
, 2005, , 57, 309
, 2001, , 326, 637
, 2003, , 583, 559
, 2003, , 115, 897
, 2004, , 154, 54
, 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 132, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. P. L. Shopbell, M. C. Britton, & R. Ebert (San Francisco: ASP)
, 2004, , 154, 66
, 2000, , 363, 933
, 2003, 407, 791
, 2005, Space Science Reviews, 119, 425
2004, Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia: Clusters of Galaxies: Probes of Cosmological Structure and Galaxy Evolution. Eds: Mulchaey, Dressler & Oemler, 296
, 2005, , 634, 977
, 2006, , 641, L97
, 1974, , 194, 1
, [Misselt]{}, K. A., [Morrison]{}, J. E., [Mould]{}, J., [Muzerolle]{}, J., [Neugebauer]{}, G., [Richards]{}, P. L., [Rieke]{}, M. J., [Rigby]{}, J. R., [Su]{}, K. Y. L., [Young]{}, E. T., 2004, , 154, 70
, 1999, , 518, 576
, 2000, , 529, 157
, 2001, , 550, 195
, 2005, , 433, 777
, 1997, 110, 213-+
, 1999, , 525, 609
, 2005, , 620, 78
, 2005, , 622, L9
, 2004, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2255
, 2003, , 587, L89-L92
, 1998,
, 2000, [ASP Conf. Ser. 215: Cosmic Evolution and Galaxy Formation: Structure, Interactions, and Feedback]{}, 255
, 2003, , 591, 53
, 2003, , 592, L53-L57
, 2005, , 130, 2647
, 2005, , 631, 187
, 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 451
, 1998, , 301, 861
[^1]: [mopex]{} is maintained by the [*Spitzer*]{} Science Center: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu
[^2]: The optical star-formation rates are derived from the H$\alpha$ and adjacent \[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda\lambda$6548,6583 emission lines after Kennicutt, Tamblyn & Condon (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'At least 25 per cent of massive stars are ejected from their parent cluster, becoming *runaways* or *exiles*, travelling with often-supersonic space velocities through the interstellar medium (ISM). [Their overpressurised H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions impart kinetic energy and momentum to the ISM, compress and/or evaporate dense clouds, and can constrain properties of both the star and the ISM.]{} Here we present [one-, two-, and (the first)]{} three-dimensional simulations of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around a massive star moving supersonically through a uniform, magnetised ISM, with properties appropriate for the nearby O star $\zeta$ Oph. The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region leaves an expanding overdense shell behind the star and, inside this, an underdense wake that should be filled with hot gas from the shocked stellar wind. The gas column density in the shell is strongly influenced by the ISM magnetic field strength and orientation. [H$\alpha$ emission maps show the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region remains roughly circular, although the star is displaced somewhat from the centre of emission.]{} For our model parameters, the kinetic energy feedback from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is comparable to the mechanical luminosity of the stellar wind, and the momentum feedback rate is $>100\times$ larger than that from the wind and $\approx10\times$ larger than the total momentum input rate available from radiation pressure. Compared to the star’s eventual supernova explosion, the kinetic energy feedback from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region over the star’s main sequence lifetime is $>100\times$ less, but the momentum feedback is up to $4\times$ larger. [H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region dynamics are found to have only a small effect on the ISM conditions that a bow shock close to the star would encounter.]{}'
author:
- |
Jonathan Mackey$^{1}\thanks{email: \texttt{[email protected]}}$, Norbert Langer$^{1}$[^1], Vasilii V. Gvaramadze$^{2,3}$\
$^1$Argelander-Institut für Astronomie, Auf dem Hügel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germany.\
$^2$Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetskij Pr. 13, Moscow 119992, Russia.\
$^{3}$Isaac Newton Institute of Chile, Moscow Branch, Universitetskij Pr. 13, Moscow 119992, Russia.
bibliography:
- '../../../../../documentation\_misc/bibtex/refs.bib'
date: 'Submitted 30 June 2013; Accepted 23 August 2013'
title: 'Dynamics of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around exiled O stars'
---
\[firstpage\]
radiative transfer – methods: numerical – hydrodynamics – H <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions – stars: individual: $\zeta$ Oph – stars: early-type
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
About 25 per cent of massive stars are classified as isolated [@Gie87; @Bla93], meaning they are not currently part of a star cluster or association. A number of recent studies [e.g. @DeWTesPalEA05; @SchRoe08; @GvaBom08; @GvaKniKroEA11; @GvaWeiKroEA12] have shown that all but a handful of nearby O stars are very likely to be either classical runaway stars (with space velocity $v_\star\geq30\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$) or to at least have a significant peculiar velocity directed away from a star cluster that could plausibly have been their birth place. We will refer to all such stars as *exiles*: stars that have been ejected from their place of birth. Nearby stars such as $\zeta$ Oph and $\alpha$ Ori (Betelgeuse) belong in this category; indeed by definition all massive stars closer to us than the nearest region of massive star formation must be exiles.
Bow shocks from these stars have been studied for many years and in some depth; see @VilManGar12 [@MohMacLan12] and references therein for bow shock modelling around cool stars, and e.g. @vMarLanAchEA06 [@ArtHoa06; @ComKap98] and references therein for bow shocks around hot stars. H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around exiled massive stars have received comparatively less attention, probably because at increasingly hypersonic velocities the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region produces ever-weaker shocks whereas the bow shock gets stronger.
[ Analytic and one-dimensional numerical predictions were made by @Ras69 for the shapes and properties of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around moving stars, with the simplifying assumption that recombinations do not occur. More detailed numerical models (including recombinations but no hydrodynamics) by @Thu75 predicted a somewhat cometary shape for the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region with a broad recombination front in the wake behind the star, and noted that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region reaches a steady state in a time shorter than the lifetime of a massive star. An analytic model by @Rag86 showed that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region should become more cometary as the stellar space velocity increases. ]{} @RagNorCanEA97 made the first two-dimensional axisymmetric [radiation-hydrodynamics]{} simulations of an H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around a hypersonically-moving star. The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region shape was found to agree broadly with predictions, being measurably (but not strongly) aspherical for the parameters chosen in the simulation. In addition, the hydrodynamic expansion of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region was found to drive a weak, outward-moving, conical shell of overdense gas trailing behind the star, which could be observable in infrared dust emission. Other research has focused on the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions produced by stars encountering a dense molecular interstellar medium (ISM) [[@TenYorBod79; @MacvBurWooEA91; @ArtHoa06],]{} or stars moving from a dense cloud into lower density ISM at velocities $v_\star\leq12\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ [@FraGarKurEA07], or slowly-moving young stars in proto-star-clusters [[@PetBanKleEA10; @DalBon11]]{}.
@ChiRap96 studied H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around stationary and moving supersoft X-ray sources. They assumed isothermal ionized gas, and also ignored hydrodynamics, but included a non-equilibrium ionization calculation with an approximate treatment of the relative motion between the ISM and the radiation source. They found that recombination-line emission-maps of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions are slightly aspherical for moving stars with $v_\star=30\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, having a sharper upstream edge and more extended downstream edge. This distortion becomes more dramatic with $v_\star=100$ and $300\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. The general features of their results should also be found for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around moving main sequence O stars, although the softer radiation spectrum of O stars means that [ionization fronts (I-fronts)]{} will be much thinner. The distortion they find for $v_\star=100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ is much larger than was found by @RagNorCanEA97, a consequence of the different radiation spectra as well as the very different Strömgren radii of the modelled H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions.
The velocity range between transsonic and hypersonic stellar motion ($10\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}} <v_\star<50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$) has not yet been explored for exiled stars moving through the diffuse ISM. The distribution of stellar space velocities for exiles is, however, weighted strongly towards this range [@EldLanTou11]. In addition, many O stars currently in clusters will become exiles later in life [e.g. because of a binary supernova explosion; @Bla61], so the observed 25 per cent fraction of isolated O stars is a lower limit to the total fraction that become exiles [cf. @EldLanTou11]. It is shown here that in such cases the energy and momentum imparted to the ISM from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region can be comparable to, or larger than, that from stellar winds, at least for moderate-velocity stars such as $\zeta$ Oph with $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ [@GvaLanMac12].
The aims of this work are:
1. to investigate the gas dynamics of an H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region produced by an exiled star moving with supersonic (but not hypersonic) velocities through the warm neutral medium (WNM), taking parameters similar to $\zeta$ Oph as an example case;
2. to predict the effects of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region on the ISM, in terms of kinetic energy and momentum feedback; and
3. to assess the effects of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region gas dynamics on the ISM near the star, to deduce the properties of the ISM that a stellar wind bow shock encounters.
We address these questions by modelling H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions with one-, two-, and three-dimensional (1D, 2D, 3D) magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations including non-equilibrium photoionization. These are the first 3D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around supersonically-moving exiled massive stars, and also the first to include an ISM magnetic field. We make simulated observations to investigate the shape of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, the structure of the shell around it, its emission properties, the effects of an ISM magnetic field, and the stability of the I-front to perturbations. In addition we investigate how the density and velocity of the ISM at the star are changed by the presence of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, and discuss the potential consequences for the stellar wind bow shock (not modelled here). Our motivation is partly to test the analytic model of @GvaLanMac12 for constraining the mass-loss rates of massive stars by simultaneous observation of their H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region and bow shock. This model ignored possible (magneto)hydrodynamic complications, for example the dynamic response of gas to photoionization and density inhomogeneity in the ISM.
Section \[sec:methods\] describes the simulation code and suite of simulations we have run. Section \[sec:1D\] describes 1D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around stars moving with different velocities from sonic to hypersonic, comparing the position of the upstream I-front to analytic predictions. Results from 3D simulations are presented in Section \[sec:3D\], where the general morphology of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions is discussed, as well as the kinetic energy and momentum feedback, and the properties of the ISM near the star. The results are discussed further in Section \[sec:discussion\], and our conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\]. Effects of spatial and temporal numerical resolution are discussed for a range of stellar space velocities in Appendix \[sec:app:res\]. Effects of limited spatial resolution in 3D simulations are studied in Appendix \[sec:2D\] with higher-resolution 2D simulations. [Equations for heating and cooling rates are listed in Appendix \[app:HeatCool\]. ]{}
Numerical methods and simulation setup {#sec:methods}
======================================
We use the radiation-MHD code `pion` [@MacLim10; @MacLim11; @Mac12] for the simulations presented here, solving either the Euler or ideal MHD equations on a uniform rectilinear grid, coupled to a microphysics integrator to solve for the non-equilibrium neutral fraction of hydrogen, $y_n$, and the ionization-dependent heating/cooling rates. Simulations are run on 1D, 2D, and 3D Cartesian grids, with spatial derivatives set to zero for the dimensions not calculated (slab symmetry). The finite-volume integration scheme [(including heating and cooling source terms)]{} is algorithm A3 in @Mac12 [based on @FalKomJoa98] and is second-order-accurate in space and time and dimensionally unsplit. Radiation transfer is solved in the on-the-spot approximation, solving only for direct radiation from point sources with a raytracer that calculates the column density of neutral hydrogen and total gas density from the source to every cell. The radiation flux obeys an inverse-square law regardless of the grid dimensionality. For the one-dimensional simulations we model a line along the star’s direction of motion, passing through the star. In two dimensions this is a plane containing the star and its velocity vector, and in three dimensions the full space is modelled. The motivation for this in 1D is that it allows us to model the flow through the upstream I-front realistically (i.e. with correct boundary conditions).
![ Volumetric heating and cooling rates obtained for photoionized and neutral gas at different hydrogen number densities (labelled, in $\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$), and ionization fractions (set to the equilibrium value for each density). For each curve, when there is net heating or cooling the line is plotted with or without crosses, respectively. The heavy solid black line shows rates for photoionized gas exposed to an ionizing source (labelled H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>), whereas the dot-dashed lines show rates for WNM that is fully shielded from any point sources. \[fig:heatingcooling\] ](fig1.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Microphysics
------------
We are considering a hot star moving through the WNM phase of the ISM with hydrogen number density $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}\approx0.1-3\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$, where there is very little attenuation of the background far-ultraviolet heating radiation (photon energies 6-13.6 eV, hereafter FUV). The molecular fraction is low because of the FUV background, so we ignore molecules altogether. The main coolants are then fine-structure lines from carbon and oxygen, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [e.g. @WolMcKHolEA03]. We assume that ISM dust is everywhere on the simulation domain with standard properties and abundance, allowing us to use thermal physics prescriptions from @WolMcKHolEA03. With these assumptions we only need to consider dust (including PAH), electrons, and atomic H, He, C, and O in the thermal physics. We further assume that He is everywhere singly ionized to the same level as H, and never doubly ionized, and that its abundance is $0.1\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}$. Gas-phase C is everywhere at least singly ionized because of the lack of shielding, setting a minimum electron fraction $ x_e\equiv n_e/\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} \geq 1.5\times10^{-4}$, where $n_e$ is the electron number density, and we take the gas-phase abundance of C from @SofCarGueEA97. With our assumptions about H and He, the electron fraction is then $$x_e = 1.5\times10^{-4} + 1.1(1-y_n) \;.$$
Near the star there is strong photoionizing radiation, and also an elevated FUV radiation field that we model following @HenArtDeCEA09 for the extra FUV heating rate. In photoionized gas there is strong cooling from forbidden-line emission from ionized C and O. We do not include stellar winds so the maximum gas temperature is $T\approx12\,000\,$K.
With these assumptions the rate equation for $y_n$ is $$\dot{y}_n = \alpha_{\mathrm{b}}(1-y_n)x_e\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} -A_{\mathrm{ci}}y_nx_e\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} -1.8\times10^{-17}y_n -A_{\mathrm{pi}}y_n \;.
\label{eqn:yrate}$$ The terms on the right-hand side represent, respectively, radiative recombination, collisional ionization, cosmic ray ionization, and photoionization. Here $\alpha_{\mathrm{b}}$ is the case B recombination coefficient of H [@Hum94], $A_{\mathrm{ci}}$ is the collisional ionization coefficient of H [@Vor97], $1.8\times10^{-17}$ is the cosmic ray ionization rate of H per neutral H atom [e.g. @WolMcKHolEA03], and $A_{\mathrm{pi}}$ is the photoionization rate of H per neutral H atom. For this we use the photon-conserving discrete form [@AbeNorMad99; @MelIliAlvEA06].
For most simulations we use multifrequency radiation, but some one-dimensional test calculations in Section \[sec:1D\] also use monochromatic radiation. The photon-conserving form of $A_{\mathrm{pi}}$ for multifrequency radiation is [@MelIliAlvEA06] $$A_{\mathrm{pi}}y_n = \int_{\nu_{\mathrm{th}}}^{\infty}
\frac{L_\nu \mathrm{e}^{-\tau_\nu}}{h\nu}
\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\Delta\tau_\nu}}{n_{\textsc{h}}V_{\mathrm{shell}}} d\nu \;,
\label{eqn:pion_FVrate}$$ integrated over frequency, $\nu$, from the threshold frequency for H photoionization, $\nu_{\textrm{th}}$, for a given source luminosity $L_\nu$ (with units ergcm$^{-3}$s$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$). Here $\tau_\nu(r)\equiv \int_0^r n_\textsc{h}(r^\prime)y_n(r^\prime) \sigma_\nu dr^\prime$ is the optical depth along a ray connecting a grid zone to the source, integrated from the source to the point where the ray enters the zone ($\sigma_\nu$ is the frequency-dependent photoionization cross-section of H$^0$). The optical depth along the ray section $\Delta s$ within a cell is $\Delta\tau_\nu = n_\textsc{h}y_n \sigma_\nu \Delta s$. The quantity $V_{\mathrm{shell}}=4\pi[(r+\Delta s)^3-r^3]/3$ is the volume of a spherical shell with inner and outer radii corresponding to the intersection of the ray with the grid zone boundaries. Following @FraMel94 the integration over frequency is pre-calculated and tabulated for a wide range of optical depths, here for the simpler case where the opacity of helium is ignored. A blackbody spectrum has been assumed, but in principle a more realistic spectrum could also be used.
To calculate $\tau_\nu$ rays are traced using the short characteristics method with the interpolation scheme proposed in @MelIliAlvEA06. Two raytracing are performed per timestep, one of which uses time-centred values of $n_\textsc{h}$ and $y_n$ to ensure the overall scheme is second-order-accurate in time [@Mac12]. Algorithm A3 in @Mac12 is an explicit finite-volume integration scheme, so the timestep must be limited by the velocity of any I-fronts in the simulation (in addition to the hydrodynamic timestep limit). It has been shown that a sufficient criterion to use with A3 is that the timestep, $\Delta t$, should satisfy $\Delta t \leq 0.25/\dot{y}_n$ [criterion dt02 in @Mac12], and this is used throughout this paper (for further discussion on timestep criteria see Appendix \[sec:app:res\]).
For monochromatic radiation, Eq. (\[eqn:pion\_FVrate\]) reduces to the simpler expression $$A_{\mathrm{pi}}y_n = \frac{Q_0 \mathrm{e}^{-\tau}(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\Delta\tau})}{n_{\textsc{h}}V_{\mathrm{shell}}} \;,
\label{eqn:pion_FVrate_mono}$$ where $Q_0$ is the ionizing photon luminosity, and $\tau$ is measured at the photon frequency which is set to $h\nu=18.6$eV (appropriate for a late O star).
Eq. (\[eqn:yrate\])
is integrated together with the rate equation for the change of internal energy density $E\equiv p_g/(\gamma-1)$ (where $p_g$ is the gas thermal pressure), given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{E}}{\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}}& =
H_{\mathrm{pi}}y_n
+H_{\mathrm{fuv}}
+5\times10^{-28}y_n
+H_{\mathrm{pah}} \nonumber\\
& -A_{\mathrm{ci}}\psi_{\mathrm{H}}y_nx_e\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}
-C_{\mathrm{rr}}x_e(1-y_n)\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}
-C_{\mathrm{ff}}x_e(1-y_n)\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} \nonumber\\
& -C_{\mathrm{cx}}y_nx_e\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}
-C_{\mathrm{nt}}
-C_{\mathrm{m}}x_e(1-y_n)\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} \;,
\label{eqn:energyrate}\end{aligned}$$
[ where the terms correspond to, respectively, photoionization heating with $H_{\mathrm{pi}}$ the heating per neutral H atom; FUV heating from the ionizing star; cosmic ray heating; FUV photoelectric heating from the background radiation field; collisional ionization cooling ($\psi_{\mathrm{H}}$ is the ionization potential of H); recombination cooling; Bremsstrahlung; cooling from collisional excitation of H$^0$; cooling from grains, C$^+$, and O$^0$ in mostly neutral gas; and in hotter photoionized gas the forbidden line emission from photoionized O and C. Most of the equations are taken from @HenArtDeCEA09, @WolMcKHolEA03, and @Hum94; the form of the equations used and references are given in Appendix \[app:HeatCool\]. ]{}
These two equations are coupled in that most of the rates depend on $T$ and $x_e$. They are integrated together using high-order backwards differencing and adaptive substepping to fixed relative and absolute error tolerances with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cvode</span> numerical integration library [@CohHin96]. [It has been demonstrated [@BovGraLatEA13] that high-order integration methods which integrate the energy equation together with the rate equations are significantly better than uncoupled schemes. ]{}
Volumetric heating/cooling rates as a function of $T$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:heatingcooling\] for different gas densities, with and without an ionizing radiation field. The curve for photoionized gas is largely independent of density and distance from the star, except that the equilibrium temperature increases with source attenuation because of spectral hardening. For neutral gas far from any ionizing sources, the heating rate scales with density whereas cooling scales with density squared. This means the equilibrium temperature decreases from about 7000K at $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=0.1\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$ to 55K at $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$. The main coolants at these temperatures are far-infrared fine-structure metal lines. At $T\gtrsim10^4$K, collisional excitation of neutral H becomes dominant in neutral gas, and C and O optical forbidden lines in ionized gas.
Simulation setup
----------------
The simulations here are designed to be relevant for the nearby runaway O9.5V star $\zeta$ Oph [@MarSchHil05], discussed in @GvaLanMac12. A mean number density of $n \approx 1.1 \ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} = 3\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$ was derived for the ISM in its vicinity; here we use a similar value $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=2.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$, or $\rho_0=5.845\times10^{-24} \,\mathrm{g}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. The initial gas pressure is $p_g=3.795\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{dyne}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, corresponding to a temperature of $T=1000\,$K, and the initial H$^+$ fraction $(1-y_n)=0.0021$ is the equilibrium value at this temperature and density. A random adiabatic perturbation with maximum amplitude of 25 per cent in pressure is applied to each cell in multidimensional simulations. A point source of ionizing and FUV photons (hereafter ‘the star’) is placed at the origin, and the ISM flows past this at a velocity of $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, again motivated by the case of $\zeta$ Oph.
The star has an ionizing photon luminosity $Q_0=3.63\times10^{47}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, distributed according to a blackbody spectrum for an effective temperature $T_\star=30\,500\,$K, appropriate for an O9.5V star. In addition it has a FUV photon luminosity $L_{\mathrm{fuv}}=3\times10^{47}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, implemented as in @HenArtDeCEA09; this acts in addition to the background interstellar radiation field, which is assumed to have the standard parameters [taken from @WolMcKHolEA03].
Simulations have been run at a number of different spatial resolutions, with zone-size decreasing by factors of 2 from $\Delta x = 0.32\,$pc to $0.005\,$pc (identified by name as r1 to r7, with r1 having the coarsest resolution). In 3D only r1 and r2 were possible with available computing resources. To estimate resolution effects, models with resolution r3 and r4 were run in 2D (see Appendix \[sec:2D\]), and up to resolution r7 in 1D (see Section \[sec:1D\]). The highest resolutions (r6 and r7) have grid zones that are optically thin to ionizing photons even when fully neutral (the mean free path for a 13.6 eV photon in neutral gas at $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=2.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$ is $\approx 0.021\,$pc, comparable to the zone size for r5). Spatially resolving the I-front in 3D will be difficult to achieve without adaptive spatial resolution (cf. @CanPor11), but the results presented here show this is not necessary to obtain meaningful results, at least for $v_\star<100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$.
For 2D and 3D calculations, the supersonic motion of gas across the grid generates anisotropic numerical diffusivity in grid-aligned flows, and this can produce spurious numerical instability [@Qui94; @SutBicDop03]. If the flow is grid-aligned, the I-front instability is much stronger along the grid-axis and this eventually destroys the solution. A number of corrections were attempted but none completely removes this effect, so the best solution was to rotate the bulk flow by 40$^\circ$ so that the numerical diffusivity in the $x$ and $y$ directions are comparable. The flow velocity is rotated in 3D simulations for the same reason, and is set at 50$^\circ$ to the $z$-axis and 40$^\circ$ to the $x$-axis.
![ 1D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions from runaway stars with space velocities through the ISM, $v_\star$, as indicated, shown after many advection times when the solution is no longer changing. The top panel (a) shows the H$^+$ fraction, $(1-y_n)$, as a function of position relative to the star (in parsecs); (b) shows gas number density; (c) shows gas temperature, and (d) is a zoom-in of the gas temperature at the upstream I-front. The thin black dashed line shows results for a static star with no gas dynamics. \[fig:1Dprofiles\] ](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ 1D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions from runaway stars with space velocities through the ISM, $v_\star$, as indicated, shown after many advection times when the solution is no longer changing. The top panel (a) shows the H$^+$ fraction, $(1-y_n)$, as a function of position relative to the star (in parsecs); (b) shows gas number density; (c) shows gas temperature, and (d) is a zoom-in of the gas temperature at the upstream I-front. The thin black dashed line shows results for a static star with no gas dynamics. \[fig:1Dprofiles\] ](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ 1D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions from runaway stars with space velocities through the ISM, $v_\star$, as indicated, shown after many advection times when the solution is no longer changing. The top panel (a) shows the H$^+$ fraction, $(1-y_n)$, as a function of position relative to the star (in parsecs); (b) shows gas number density; (c) shows gas temperature, and (d) is a zoom-in of the gas temperature at the upstream I-front. The thin black dashed line shows results for a static star with no gas dynamics. \[fig:1Dprofiles\] ](fig2c.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ 1D simulations of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions from runaway stars with space velocities through the ISM, $v_\star$, as indicated, shown after many advection times when the solution is no longer changing. The top panel (a) shows the H$^+$ fraction, $(1-y_n)$, as a function of position relative to the star (in parsecs); (b) shows gas number density; (c) shows gas temperature, and (d) is a zoom-in of the gas temperature at the upstream I-front. The thin black dashed line shows results for a static star with no gas dynamics. \[fig:1Dprofiles\] ](fig2d.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
One-Dimensional simulations {#sec:1D}
===========================
The primary parameter determining the properties of an I-front is its Mach number relative to the isothermal sound speed in photoionized gas $\mathcal{M}\equiv v/c_i$, and this depends only weakly on the stellar radiation field, ISM number density, and ISM metallicity. For this reason, only the star’s space velocity is varied here; the other properties of the star and the ISM are kept constant. Stellar space velocities from 10-200 $\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ have been simulated, specifically $v_{\star} \in \{10,\,20,\,25,\,30,\,40,\,50,\,75,\,100,\,150,\,200\} \,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. The models have been run for spatial resolutions r1 to r7 and for different timestep criteria.
One-dimensional (1D) simulations allow us to model both the upstream I-front and the downstream recombination front, although multidimensional effects (not to mention the shocked stellar wind) are expected to alter the recombination front. As well as studying the physical properties of the fronts, this also allows a very clean test of the numerical error of our solution as a function of spatial and temporal resolution. The simulations relax to a stationary state in all cases where $v_\star$ is greater than Mach 2 in ionized gas. The effects of spatial and temporal resolution on the 1D simulations are discussed in Appendix \[sec:app:res\]; here we note that it is not necessary to spatially resolve the I-front (cell optical depths could be $\tau>1$ without loss of accuracy) at least for $v_\star<100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. It is necessary, however, to use a smaller-than-usual Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) number of $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ for $v_\star<100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, and even smaller for larger $v_\star$. When the I-front is spatially resolved the timestep criterion is not so important.
Profiles of the ISM density, H$^{+}$ fraction $(1-y_n)$, and temperature are shown in Fig. \[fig:1Dprofiles\] for all models with $v_\star\geq25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, with a profile for a static star in a static medium (i.e. the original case considered by @Str39) overplotted for reference. We have not plotted lower velocities where the I-front is D-type because the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expands further than the Strömgren radius $R_{\mathrm{s}}$, and the dense shell that forms remains unstable for many grid advection times (the time for the background flow to cross the grid).
None of the models reaches the Strömgren radius in the upstream direction. A careful look at the plots also shows that the $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ I-front is less advanced than the $v_\star=30\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ I-front, which can be attributed to the higher mean density in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region in the lower velocity model, and also to the formation of a weak shell at the upstream I-front. This is somewhat artificial, in that multidimensional expansion of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region will be more important at lower velocities and will reduce the mean density as ionized gas flows downstream. Nevertheless, it does faithfully reflect the 1D jump conditions for a weak R-type I-front [@MihMih84 chapter 106] according to $$\rho_1/\rho_0=v_0/v_1\approx 1+\mathcal{M}^{-2} \;,
\label{eqn:WeakR}$$ where neutral gas has subscript 0 and ionized subscript 1. This is derived for isothermal gas, but should apply approximately here because far from the I-front gas relaxes to an equilibrium temperature both upstream and downstream.
![ Distance of the upstream I-front from the star as a function of the source velocity, $v_\star$, at an early time $t=100\,$kyr (a), and a late time corresponding to a stationary state for $v_\star\geq25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b). The solid (green) curve is for a monochromatic radiation source, and the dot-dashed (blue) curve for a multifrequency radiation source, both normalised to have the same ionizing photon luminosity by number. The two dotted lines show the analytic solution (see text) for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions with $T=7600\,$K and $6300\,$K, respectively. \[fig:IFpos1D\] ](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Distance of the upstream I-front from the star as a function of the source velocity, $v_\star$, at an early time $t=100\,$kyr (a), and a late time corresponding to a stationary state for $v_\star\geq25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b). The solid (green) curve is for a monochromatic radiation source, and the dot-dashed (blue) curve for a multifrequency radiation source, both normalised to have the same ionizing photon luminosity by number. The two dotted lines show the analytic solution (see text) for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions with $T=7600\,$K and $6300\,$K, respectively. \[fig:IFpos1D\] ](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
At larger velocities the I-front retreats with increasing $v_\star$. To quantify this, the position of the I-front (defined as the furthest upstream grid zone with $y_n<0.5$) is plotted as a function of $v_\star$ in Fig. \[fig:IFpos1D\] for simulations with multifrequency radiation (the default case) and also for models with monochromatic radiation and the same ionizing photon luminosity (by number of photons). The model with monochromatic radiation has a hotter interior part of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, hence a smaller recombination rate and a larger H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region.
The results are compared to an analytic solution obtained by equating $v_\star$ with the velocity of the I-front, then solving for the I-front radius that corresponds to this velocity for a static star. The I-front velocity for a static star with no gas dynamics is [@MelIliAlvEA06] $$v_{\textsc{if}}(t) = \frac{R_s}{3t_r} \frac{\exp(-t/t_r)}{[1-\exp(-t/t_r)]^{2/3}} \;,$$ where $t_r\equiv(\alpha_bn_e)^{-1}$ is the recombination time. The I-front position is $$R_{\textsc{if}}(t) = R_s[1-\exp(-t/t_r)]^{1/3} \;.$$ These two equations can be combined [@RagNorCanEA97], eliminating $t$, to obtain $$\left(\frac{R_{\textsc{if}}}{R_s}\right)^3 +
\frac{3t_rv_{\textsc{if}}}{R_s}\left(\frac{R_{\textsc{if}}}{R_s}\right)^2 -1=0 \;.
\label{eqn:Rif}$$ Following @RagNorCanEA97 we equate $v_{\textsc{if}}$ with $v_\star$ to predict the steady-state I-front position in the upstream direction as a function of $v_\star$. These are the dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:IFpos1D\] labelled ‘Analytic 1/2’. At early times the actual radius of the I-front agrees very well with the analytic expression, but at later times there are differences for $v_\star<50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, with the difference increasing as the velocity decreases because the dynamical response of the gas grows stronger.
The normalisation of the curve depends on $t_r$, which in turn depends on the temperature-dependent recombination rate $\alpha_b$. The monochromatic radiation model has a roughly constant temperature in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, whereas the multifrequency radiation model has a cooler interior and a hotter border because of spectral hardening. This implies a higher recombination rate and therefore a smaller H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. The analytic curves were normalised to a H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region temperature of $T=7600\,$K for monochromatic radiation and $6300\,$K for multifrequency radiation.
These 1D results and their comparison with analytic theory provide the basic understanding of the global asymmetry of moving H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions, which will be confirmed and further explored by multidimensional models in the following sections. They also allow verification and testing of the algorithms in terms of their convergence properties and timestepping requirements (see Appendix \[sec:app:res\]).
Comparison to previous work
---------------------------
An R-type I-front with $v_\star=50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ was modelled by @HenArtWilEA05 as part of a study of steady I-fronts that included advection self-consistently. They found that the supersonic I-front has a strong temperature peak at the I-front that is absent in the static case, and that the location of the I-front is closer to the radiation source by about 5 per cent. The temperature peak in our case is perhaps a bit stronger and increases in amplitude with $v_\star$, but is qualitatively similar. The position of the I-front in our calculations is modified by much more than 5 per cent compared to the static case, although @HenArtWilEA05 use plane-parallel radiation so this cannot be compared directly to our results.
@Ras69 studied H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around moving stars assuming isothermal gas and neglecting recombinations, so agreement with our results is not expected. The best agreement is in the position and properties of the upstream I-front, but the downstream recombination front is of course not captured at all by the @Ras69 calculation. Subsequent calculations including recombination (but without hydrodynamics) were made by @Thu75 for the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around a $v_\star=50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ O star in a diffuse ISM with hydrogen number density $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=0.1\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$. The upstream and downstream I-front radii were predicted to be $R_{\mathrm{up}}=140\,$pc and $R_{\mathrm{dn}}=265\,$pc, respectively, compared to $R_s=190\,$pc. In our case for $v_\star=50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ we find $R_{\mathrm{up}}/R_s=0.85$, significantly larger than the value of 0.74 from @Thu75; this is simply explained by the different values for $t_r$ and $R_s$ in the two calculations. @RagNorCanEA97 calculated $R_{\mathrm{up}}/R_s=0.93$ for an O5 star with $v_\star=100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ and $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=1\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$; this again differs from the values obtained here because of the differing $t_r$ and $R_s$ (we consider an O9.5V star with a much smaller ionizing photon luminosity). The ratio $R_{\mathrm{up}}/R_s$ decreases as the prefactor in the quadratic term of Equation (\[eqn:Rif\]) increases; as long as this is taken into account our results agree well with these previous calculations. The 1D profiles in @ChiRap96 show much broader I-fronts as a consequence of the much harder radiation spectrum they consider, and so they are not (and are not expected to be) comparable to our results.
ID $(N_x,N_y,N_z)$ $\Delta x$ $\mathitbf{B}$-field ($\mu$G)
------- --------------------- ------------ -------------------------------
HD3r1 $(160,\,160,\,160)$ 0.32 $(0,0,0)$
HD3r2 $(320,\,320,\,320)$ 0.16 $(0,0,0)$
BA3r1 $(160,\,160,\,160)$ 0.32 $(7,0,0)$
BA3r2 $(320,\,320,\,320)$ 0.16 $(7,0,0)$
BT3r1 $(160,\,160,\,160)$ 0.32 $(0,7,0)$
BT3r2 $(320,\,320,\,320)$ 0.16 $(0,7,0)$
: Simulation properties for three-dimensional calculations. Columns show, respectively, simulation ID, number of grid zones in each direction, spatial diameter of a grid zone in parsecs, and magnetic field vector in $\mu$G in a reference frame where the motion of the star is along the $x$-axis. Models HD3x are hydrodynamic (no magnetic field), BA3x are MHD simulations with a B-field aligned with the direction of motion, BT3x are MHD with a field transverse (perpendicular) to the direction of motion. The number following the B-field designation, e.g. ‘r2’, represents the resolution. []{data-label="tab:Sims3D"}
3D simulations {#sec:3D}
==============
The 3D simulations run are listed in Table \[tab:Sims3D\]. They consist of a 3D domain with $\{x,y,z\}\in[-32.64,18.56]\,$pc with a Cartesian coordinate system, and with the star at the origin. There are simulations where the ISM magnetic field is aligned with (BA3r1, BA3r2) and perpendicular to (BT3r1, BT3r2) the direction of motion, and simulations with no magnetic field (HD3r1, HD3r2). All MHD models have a field strength $B=7\,\mu$G, corresponding to a plasma parameter $\beta\equiv8\pi p_g/B^2=0.2$ in the neutral ISM, and $\beta=2.7$ in fully-ionized gas at $T=7000\,$K. The neutral medium is therefore magnetically dominated, whereas the ionized gas is gas pressure dominated. Models with a perpendicular field have the field vector in the $x$-$y$ plane. The simulations have inflow boundary conditions on the upstream boundaries, and only-outflow conditions downstream, and it is assumed that the star ‘switches on’ instantly at $t=0$. As a result, the initial evolution is not very meaningful because no stars are born in the WNM. The time for the ISM to advect across the diameter of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region ($\approx20\,$pc) is about 0.75 Myr, so we expect the effects of initial conditions to disappear soon after this time. This is also about the time that gas affected by the star’s radiation first leaves the downstream boundary. A time-stationary state takes $\approx1.5$ Myr to be established.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Observable properties of simulations
------------------------------------
Projections through snapshots from the hydrodynamic models HD3r1 and HD3r2 are plotted in Fig. \[fig:simHD3r12\], where emitted H$\alpha$ intensity is plotted on a linear colour scale, and H <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> column density, $N_{\mathrm{HI}}$, as contours. The projection is such that the bulk flow is in the image plane, so the line-of-sight (LOS) is not parallel to the grid axes; we have subtracted off the undisturbed background $N_{\mathrm{HI}}$ to remove the effect of this varying LOS depth. Some edge effects remain for $x<-20\,$pc from the projected edges of the grid domain. The H$\alpha$ emissivity is taken as $$j = 2.63\times10^{-33} n_e \ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}} (1-y_n) T^{-0.9} \;\;
\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{arcsec}^{-2}$$ by interpolation from the values in table 4.4 of @Ost89. Absorption is not included because the dominant absorption is from neutral gas near the simulation boundaries and this suffers from edge effects associated with the non-orthogonal projections. In any case the full simulation box is optically thin to H$\alpha$ radiation, so absorption is a small correction.
The images show some of the same features of previous axisymmetric models of hypersonic stars [@RagNorCanEA97], notably the almost circular H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region and the tail of overdense gas expanding from its lateral edges. Here, because the Mach number of the flow is much lower, there is noticeable expansion of this overdense shell in a cone shape, and it forms at a smaller angle from the velocity vector of the star. The $N_{\mathrm{HI}}$ contours show the overdense shell, and also the underdense H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region and the wake behind it. Underdensity in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is because the gas is ionized (and so does not show up in H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>) but in the wake where the gas has recombined, the gas is underdense because the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region has displaced an outward-flowing expanding shell.
The left plot with zone-size $\Delta x=0.32\,$pc (r1) has relaxed to a steady state with a stable I-front, but this is only because of the low numerical resolution. The right plot with $\Delta x=0.16\,$pc (r2) shows instability in the I-front, resulting in substructure in both H$\alpha$ emission and $N_{\mathrm{HI}}$. Still higher-resolution 2D simulations in Appendix \[sec:2D\] show that the instability is only marginally resolved with resolution r2. The unstable I-front generates knots of dense gas on small scales; for r2 there are a few of them present in the I-front at any time, and they move slowly away from the symmetry axis around to the sides of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region where they join the expanding shell. This instability was not found by @RagNorCanEA97, probably because our model has a much lower Mach number and the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is in a higher-density environment where shocks are more dissipative. The evolution of these knots is similar to that depicted in @GarFra96 for the expansion of D-type I-fronts. In our case the I-front is moving at a constant velocity that is (coincidentally) close to the limit between R-type and D-type (Mach 2 in ionized gas, @MihMih84). In regions where the I-front is expanding there is no upstream shock, but in overdense regions where it is receding, a radiative shock forms that enhances the density and mass of the overdense clumps. The underdense regions that push neutral gas towards the overdense regions initially resemble the spear-shaped features in previous work [@GarFra96; @FraGarKurEA07; @WhaNor08b] but they soon saturate and develop a bubble shape. The lifetime of the knots is much longer than the length of time a parcel of gas spends in the knot, so while they are formed from dynamical instability they seem to be quite stable structures.
The dense knots are seeds of strong photoevaporation flows that expand conically into the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region when they are near the symmetry axis. The photoevaporation flow would expand spherically for a static ionizing source (cf. the Eagle Nebula pillars; @HesScoSanEA96) but here the supersonic advection drags the photoevaporation flow downstream, resulting in a cone. As the dense knots move off-axis to larger angles on the I-front, the photoevaporation flow is no longer symmetric because one side of the flow tries to expand upstream and fails, leading to the H$\alpha$ arcs seen in Fig. \[fig:simHD3r12\] that trail downstream from the bottom to the centre of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. Features like this should be observable in H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around moving stars if this I-front instability is present, although ISM inhomogeneities may drive similar photoevaporation flows.
The magnitude of the overdensity and underdensity in neutral H (compared to the mean) is $N_{\mathrm{HI}}\approx3-4\times10^{20}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-2}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{HI}}\approx-2\times10^{20}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-2}}$. The undisturbed background gas density provides $N_{\mathrm{HI}}\approx1.8\times10^{20}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-2}}$ through the 24 pc diameter of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, so the contrast is only a factor of 2$-$3. This may be difficult to measure observationally, especially in the Galactic plane where there is strong H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> background emission. It should, however, have similar radial velocity to the mean H$\alpha$ emission, so this could help to identify the conical shell.
The upstream I-front is much sharper than the downstream recombination front because of their different character; the recombination length $\ell_r \approx v_\star t_r$ (recall $t_r=(\alpha_b n_e)^{-1}$ is the recombination time) sets the recombination front thickness; the I-front is very thin in comparison. This is an obvious feature of the H$\alpha$ emissivity plots, and can also be seen in the H$\alpha$ map of $\zeta$ Oph’s H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region [@GvaLanMac12 see also Section \[sec:discussion\]]. In addition the H$\alpha$ emission in our simulations has a clear gradient, being brighter upstream from the star than downstream. This is because the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expands as gas flows downstream, so the recombination rate decreases and the emissivity along with it. This is just as clear in the HD3r2 plot (see right panel of Fig. \[fig:simHD3r12\]) even though the gas is more disturbed.
Equivalent results are shown in Fig. \[fig:simBA3r12\] for the MHD simulations with a magnetic field aligned with the stellar velocity, BA3r1 and BA3r2. In this case the higher resolution model BA3r2 also has a stable I-front and there is no significant difference between the two models. It has been found for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around static stars [@KruStoGar07; @ArtHenMelEA11; @MacLim11] that D-type I-front expansion along field lines is largely stable, whereas expansion perpendicular to field lines is unstable, producing ‘beads’ of dense gas tied to field lines [see also the 2D studies of @Wil02; @Wil07]. Similar results are seen here for R-type I-fronts, although we note that 2D simulations at higher resolution do become unstable even when velocity and magnetic field vectors are aligned (see Appendix \[sec:2D\]). This agrees with the finding [@NewAxf67; @Wil99] that R-type I-fronts should be generically unstable to the shadowing instability for finite density perturbations, suggesting that the stability of BA3r1 and BA3r2 is at least partly a resolution effect.
Another feature of simulations BA3r1 and BA3r2 is that the expanding neutral shell is much less dense than in the hydrodynamic models, because magnetic pressure resists compression and expansion perpendicular to field lines. The fast magnetosonic speed is larger than the sound speed so the effective Mach number of the flow is lower, hence the outward-moving shock makes a larger angle with the direction of gas flow. The fast magnetosonic shock is also less compressive than its hydrodynamical equivalent. Both of these effects mean that the shell is more diffuse and its column density is lower.
Fig. \[fig:simBT3r2\] shows projections through model BT3r2, this time at $t=4.5\,$Myr and from two different projection angles. Both projections are perpendicular to the bulk gas flow as before, but the left plot is projected such that the background magnetic field is along the LOS whereas in the right plot it is vertical and in the image plane. The left plot is very similar to the results in Fig. \[fig:simBA3r12\] for BA3r2, in that the shell column density is low, the angle it makes with the flow velocity vector is quite large, and the upstream I-front is more stable than the hydrodynamic model HD3r2. This relates directly to the magnetic field orientation, which in both cases inhibits gas flow in the image plane. The right-hand plot is much more similar to the hydrodynamic model HD3r2, in that there is instability in the [I-front]{} and a strongly-compressed shell downstream.
The kink in the upstream H$\alpha$ emission in the left-hand plot seems to cross most of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, and its counterpart in the right-hand image shows the kink end-on as a v-shape notch in the upstream I-front. It appears that the 3D I-front instability seen in model HD3r2 has reverted to an almost 2D instability in BT3r2, because of the large-scale ordered magnetic field. It is not clear why the ripple in the I-front would form in this way since its connectivity is across the field lines, not along them. Gas can only flow freely along field lines, so these unstable clumps must preferentially form in a 2D fashion, but it is not clear why they should be connected across the full length of the I-front. Higher resolution simulations are required to investigate if this feature is numerical or physical.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
Shape of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plots of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region radius are shown for the different 3D simulations in Fig. \[fig:HIIregionShape\]. The range of values for the upstream and downstream I-front radius are plotted with error bars, the maximum and minimum I-front radius over its full surface is shown with the blue points, and the mean I-front radius is plotted as the blue crosses. The upstream I-front radius is about 9.5pc in all models (compared to 9.83pc in the 1D simulations), whereas the Strömgren radius is $R_s\approx10.6\,$pc[^2]. The downstream radius is not well-defined because the recombination length is significant, so $y_n=0.5$ is chosen to define the radius. In this case it is about 13.5$-$14pc, so the diameter is 23$-$23.5pc, or 8.5$-$11 per cent larger than $2R_s$. The mean radius calculated from the spherically-averaged ionized volume is about 12 pc in all models ($1.13R_s$). This larger mean radius is expected because the mean density within the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is less than the ISM density. The maximum radius is always in the range of directions $120^\circ<\theta<150^\circ$ (where $\theta$ measures angles from the star’s velocity vector, with the star at the origin), implying that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is flattened in the downstream direction.
Simulations BA3r1 and BA3r2 are basically the same because both are stable and in a steady state at late times. BT3r2 and HD3r2 have I-front instability, so here the upstream I-front has a range of radii: about $8-10$pc for HD3r2 and $8.8-9.8$pc for BT3r2. The maximum and minimum radius also fluctuate because of this instability.
Despite the clear asymmetry in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region radius relative to the star, it is much more spherical in H$\alpha$ emission with respect to its own geometric centre. It it also noteworthy that the star is located downstream of the peak H$\alpha$ intensity, but upstream of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region centre.
![ (a) Time evolution of the mass of gas on the computational domain with $\rho>2\rho_0$ for the 3D simulations, where $\rho_0$ is the background gas density. The vertical line at $t=0.8\,$Myr is the point where disturbed gas begins to leave the domain’s downstream boundaries. (b) Hydrogen number density distribution of the ISM at $t=4\,$Myr in the 3D simulations. The vertical lines correspond to $\rho_0$ and $2\rho_0$. \[fig:Density3D\] ](fig8a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ (a) Time evolution of the mass of gas on the computational domain with $\rho>2\rho_0$ for the 3D simulations, where $\rho_0$ is the background gas density. The vertical line at $t=0.8\,$Myr is the point where disturbed gas begins to leave the domain’s downstream boundaries. (b) Hydrogen number density distribution of the ISM at $t=4\,$Myr in the 3D simulations. The vertical lines correspond to $\rho_0$ and $2\rho_0$. \[fig:Density3D\] ](fig8b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region feedback on the ISM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figs. \[fig:simHD3r12\]-\[fig:simBT3r2\] show that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region has a measurable impact on the ISM that persists once the star has passed. The quantity of compressed gas as a function of time and the density distribution of gas after 4 Myr are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Density3D\] for each of the 3D simulations. Note that only gas still on the simulation domain is counted, so this measures the mass of dense gas generated in the time from when the gas is compressed to when it leaves the simulation domain ($\approx0.8-1\,$Myr). The density distribution is shown in terms of gas mass with a density greater than $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}$. After about 1.5Myr all models approach a stationary state.
Simulations BA3r1 and BA3r2 have the weakest density enhancement with almost no gas compressed to $\rho>2\rho_0$. This is because all of the pressure gradient is across field lines, so magnetic pressure and tension resist gas compression. BT3r1 and BT3r2 have more dense gas because field lines only resist compression in one of the two directions perpendicular to motion, and HD3r1 and HD3r2 have the densest gas because there is no magnetic field to resist gas flows. In HD3r2 there is $100\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ of gas that has been compressed by about a factor of 10, and 2D results show that at higher resolution even stronger compression is obtained (Appendix \[sec:2D\]). The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:Density3D\] demonstrates that the simulations have converged for weak compression, but that the mass of strongly-compressed gas is very resolution-dependent, as would be expected. These results suggest that the passage of massive stars through the ISM could compress WNM gas sufficiently for it to make the transition to cold neutral medium (CNM). They also demonstrate the importance of the ISM magnetic field in determining the compression ratio in these weak radiative shocks. Fig. \[fig:Density3D\](b) also shows that more than half of the gas in the simulation is underdense compared to the undisturbed upstream gas; the star creates an underdense cylindrical volume in the ISM with cross-section of about 10pc radius.
Despite these results, it is not obvious that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region feedback effects are significant compared to those expected from stellar winds. The main stellar feedback mechanism in terms of energetics is photoheating, but this energy is quickly dissipated once the star has passed and the gas has recombined. For static stars the conversion efficiency of ionizing photon luminosity to kinetic energy was found to be $\lesssim 0.1$ per cent [@FreHenYor03] (although they included the ionization energy of H as well as the excess heating energy in this estimate), whereas for stellar winds $\approx 10$ per cent of the input kinetic energy survives dissipative processes and drives motion in the ISM [@WeaMcCCasEA77; @GarMacLan96; @KraFieDieEA13].
![ Kinetic energy (a) and momentum (b) of gas in 3D simulations as a function of time, in the ISM rest frame. During the initial phase ($t\lesssim0.8$ Myr, to the left of the vertical dotted line) no disturbed gas leaves the domain and the kinetic energy and momentum increase monotonically. At later times a stationary state is reached where the energy input is balanced by gas leaving the domain. For comparison, the mechanical luminosity ($4\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{L}_{\odot}}}$) of the wind from the nearby massive star $\zeta$ Oph is shown in (a), and its wind momentum input in (b) (multiplied by 100 so it can be distinguished from the $x$-axis) together with the total radiation momentum output from the star’s radiation (green dot-dashed line, multiplied by 10 to enable comparison with the ISM momentum). \[fig:KEMom3D\] ](fig9a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Kinetic energy (a) and momentum (b) of gas in 3D simulations as a function of time, in the ISM rest frame. During the initial phase ($t\lesssim0.8$ Myr, to the left of the vertical dotted line) no disturbed gas leaves the domain and the kinetic energy and momentum increase monotonically. At later times a stationary state is reached where the energy input is balanced by gas leaving the domain. For comparison, the mechanical luminosity ($4\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{L}_{\odot}}}$) of the wind from the nearby massive star $\zeta$ Oph is shown in (a), and its wind momentum input in (b) (multiplied by 100 so it can be distinguished from the $x$-axis) together with the total radiation momentum output from the star’s radiation (green dot-dashed line, multiplied by 10 to enable comparison with the ISM momentum). \[fig:KEMom3D\] ](fig9b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
### Kinetic energy feedback
The only persistent feedback from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is the part of the photoheating energy that goes into driving kinetic energy in the surroundings, from H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion and I-front instability. To measure this we calculate the total gas momentum and kinetic energy on the simulation domain as a function of time, with the bulk flow subtracted off, plotted in Fig. \[fig:KEMom3D\]. The slope of this function gives the feedback rate at early times (before disturbed gas leaves the downstream boundary), and the stationary state value at late times divided by the grid-crossing time gives another approximate feedback rate. The kinetic energy increases somewhat with spatial resolution because of waves/shocks generated by I-front instability, which is more vigorous at higher resolution. A stronger trend is that the models with aligned magnetic field have lower kinetic energy than those with a transverse field, which in turn lie below the zero field (hydrodynamic) models. This is because the tension of the aligned magnetic field resists H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region dynamical expansion in all directions perpendicular to the direction of motion. The perpendicular field models allow expansion along field lines (i.e. in one of the two perpendicular directions), and hydrodynamic models have no magnetic tension to inhibit expansion.
As a comparison, the kinetic energy plot also shows the mechanical luminosity of the stellar wind driven by $\zeta$ Oph, $L_w = 0.5\dot{M}v_w^2$, using a mass-loss rate of $\dot{M} \approx 2.2\times10^{-8} \,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and wind velocity of $v_w\approx1500\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ [@GvaLanMac12]. With the stellar luminosity and spectrum used here, the mean energy per ionizing photon is 17.2eV, so the mean heating per ionization is 3.6eV. If we consider the kinetic energy of the ISM as a percentage of this heating input power, we obtain an efficiency of conversion from photoheating to kinetic-energy of $\epsilon\approx0.5-1$ per cent. Even with this low efficiency the kinetic energy gained from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is comparable to that from the stellar wind, and in reality is probably larger because much of the wind kinetic energy gets lost through dissipative processes.
### Momentum feedback
Perhaps a truer measure of the feedback is the rate of momentum input to the ISM, because momentum is conserved regardless of the dissipative properties of the gas. Here the resolution dependence is not apparent and the differences between the models are also less pronounced, but a similar dependence on magnetic field orientation is seen. For comparison, we also show the momentum input we would obtain from the wind of $\zeta$ Oph, with parameters given above. Its momentum input rate is multiplied by 100 to show it on the same scale, so evidently it is insignificant compared to the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region’s dynamical expansion. The rate of momentum input from H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion (measured as the slope of the line for $t<0.8\,$Myr) is also about 10 times larger than the total momentum output rate of the radiation from $\zeta$ Oph, $(L/c)t$, plotted as the green dot-dashed line in Fig. \[fig:KEMom3D\] for a luminosity of $L=6.4\times10^4\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{L}_{\odot}}}$ [@HowSmi01 scaled to a distance of 112pc]. Each photon would therefore need to have $\geq10$ scatterings before escaping the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region in order to significantly affect the dynamics presented here. This is unlikely given the low ISM density.
### Comparison to supernova feedback
By both measures (kinetic energy and momentum) the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion has stronger feedback than the stellar wind for an O9.5V star, even though it is moving supersonically through the ISM. This feedback is not very violent, and may not be as easily observed as a stellar wind bow shock, but it is more important in terms of energetics. Compared to the kinetic energy of the eventual supernova explosion of $\zeta$ Oph, $E_{\mathrm{sn}}\approx10^{51}\,$erg, both feedback effects are not very important. If we take the main sequence lifetime of $\zeta$ Oph to be $\tau_{\mathrm{ms}}\approx7\,$Myr then the total kinetic energy imparted to the ISM from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is $\approx3.8\times10^{-3} E_{\mathrm{sn}}$. The momentum input to the ISM is, however, similar to that of a supernova, at $8.8\times10^4\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. If we take the supernova to have $4\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ of ejecta with velocity $5000\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (giving a kinetic energy of $10^{51}\,$erg), then we see that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region imparts about $4\times$ as much momentum to the ISM during the star’s main sequence lifetime.
The large momentum generation of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region can be understood simply with the following argument. The mass flux through the upstream I-front is given by $$F_{\mathrm{m}} = \pi R_{\textsc{hii}}^2 \rho_0 v_\star = 1060 \,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1} \;,$$ where $R_{\textsc{hii}}=12$pc has been used as the mean radius of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. The maximum gas velocity (in the ISM rest frame) for the simulations is typically $v=10-13\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, so over the star’s main sequence lifetime this gives a total gas momentum of about $F_{\mathrm{m}}v\tau_{\mathrm{ms}}=7.4-9.6\times10^{4}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$.
The calculations here have only considered a single stellar mass, ISM density, and stellar space velocity. It is not trivial to estimate how the relative importance of the different feedback processes scale with all of these parameters, particularly stellar mass, but it should be explored in future work.
ISM near the star
-----------------
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Models of bow shocks around hot stars usually assume (for simplicity) that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region does not affect the ISM density or dynamics significantly [e.g. @ComKap98]. This is clearly true in the hypersonic limit, and false in the subsonic limit, but the effects for intermediate $v_\star$ have not so far been explored. We analysed the mean gas properties near the star for all simulation snapshots to investigate their spatial and temporal variations. Two averaging volumes have been used: $r<1.0\,$pc and $r<0.32\,$pc, corresponding to typical bow shock sizes. Within these volumes the mean density $\langle\rho\rangle = (1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_i$, RMS density variance $\sigma = \sqrt{(\langle\rho^2\rangle-\langle\rho\rangle^2)}/\langle\rho\rangle$, and mean velocity (in the star’s rest frame) $\langle v\rangle = (1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N} |v_i|$ of the ISM were calculated. Here $N$ is the number of grid zones in the averaging volume.
Plots of these three quantities as a function of time are shown in Fig. \[fig:NearStar3D\]. At early times ($t<1\,$Myr) the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region undergoes large-scale changes in shape leading to a decrease in density and subsequent increase. This is a strongly damped oscillation driven by the initial out-of-equilibrium state. The low-resolution simulations, HD3r1, BA3r1, and BT3r1, show no later time variation because they have reached a steady state. The higher resolution aligned magnetic field model BA3r2 also reaches a steady state, with values very similar to BA3r1. Models BT3r2 and HD3r2, however, show persistent fluctuations in gas properties near the star, because of the I-front instability and the waves it creates in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. The mean gas density $\langle\rho\rangle$ is $\approx10$ per cent below the ISM mean density because the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region has expanded slightly. The mean value is independent of the averaging volume for low resolution models, indicating that a linear density gradient through the volume is a good approximation. At higher resolution, the temporal fluctuations in $\langle\rho\rangle$ are stronger on smaller scales, as expected if there are isolated planar shocks passing through.
The RMS density variance is larger for a larger averaging volume because there are more cells and so more independent volume elements. For the small averaging volume the density values are strongly correlated because of numerical diffusion. The RMS fluctuations in density are about 1$-$5 per cent for this spatial resolution, although this is expected to rise with higher resolution simulations that have stronger I-front instability (see Appendix \[sec:2D\]).
Interestingly, the velocity flowing past the star is $7.5-10$ per cent smaller than the ISM bulk velocity. This is caused by the I-front jump conditions for an R-type I-front, which predict a small density increase and velocity decrease according to Equation (\[eqn:WeakR\]). The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region temperature is $T_1\approx 6300\,$K, so the isothermal sound speed is about $c_1\approx9\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ giving $\mathcal{M}_1\approx3$, and we expect $\rho_1/\rho_0\approx1.1$ and $v_1/v_0\approx0.9$. The velocity decrease is seen in Fig. \[fig:NearStar3D\] but the density increase is not. Inspection of slices through the simulations shows that at the upstream I-front this density increase is found, but that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion has reduced the density at the position of the star. This multi-dimensional effect was of course not seen in the 1D simulations (see Fig. \[fig:1Dprofiles\]).
These changes to the ISM properties generated by the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region dynamics are relatively small perturbations to the bulk flow properties, and are not expected to disrupt or greatly perturb the stellar wind bow shock that should be present. It remains to be seen, however, what effect an inhomogeneous ISM will have on this picture. In the cloud-zapping regime [@Ber89] where clumps are photoionized by R-type I-fronts, the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region should homogenise the ISM [e.g. @McKvBurLaz84], but if clumps are large enough to trap the I-front then a photoevaporation flow can be set up with velocity up to $v\lesssim30\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, which could strongly affect the bow shock.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
{width="100.00000%"}
Comparison to the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region of $\zeta$ Oph
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nearest example of an H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around an exiled O star is that of $\zeta$ Oph, [Sh2-27]{}. In Fig. \[fig:ZetaOph\] we show the H$\alpha$ image of this H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region originating from the Southern H$\alpha$ Sky Survey Atlas [SHASSA; @GauMcCRosEA01][^3]. A detailed comparison to our simulations is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be pursued in future work; here we note some of the morphological similarities to (and differences from) the simulated H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions. The most striking difference is the clumpy nature of the H$\alpha$ emission in the observational image, most likely related to underlying ISM inhomogeneity and/or foreground patchy extinction. The ridge of strong absorption towards the bottom of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is correlated with a molecular cloud [Complex 4 in @dGeBroTha90], indicating significant extinction due to foreground clouds that may or may not be physically associated with the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. Complex 1(E) from @dGeBroTha90 also provides some extinction around $(l,b)=(5^\circ,23^\circ)$, downstream from and just below the star. Even allowing for patchy extinction, it still seems clear that underlying ISM inhomogeneity is a significant component of the $\zeta$ Oph H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region [cf. @WooHafReyEA05].
Nevertheless, if we consider only the upper half of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region where there is less foreground extinction, there are definite similarities to our simulated H$\alpha$ maps. The arc of the upstream I-front is sharp, whereas the downstream recombination front has a much more gradual decrease in intensity with distance from the star. In addition, the downstream quadrant is generally lower intensity than the upstream quadrant. The distance to the upstream I-front is smaller than that to the downstream recombination front ($R_{\mathrm{up}}/R_{\mathrm{dn}}\approx3/4$), and the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region has its largest radius at about 120$-$150$^\circ$ from the star’s velocity vector. All of these qualitative features are also found in the simulation results.
[The line-of-sight magnetic field through Sh2-27 has been measured using Faraday rotation by @HarMadGae11, and found to be reasonably strong at 6.1$\mu$G (with some uncertainty arising from assumptions about gas clumping and distance). If the field is this strong then the compression factor of the neutral gas shell found in our simulations would be significantly reduced by the magnetic pressure, and an H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> column density map of Sh2-27 would resemble the left panel of Fig. \[fig:simBT3r2\] more than the right panel. If the plane-of-sky magnetic field is much weaker than 6.1$\mu$G, then strongest shell compression is along the line-of-sight, in which case the shell may be observable in position-velocity H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> data. ]{}
In @GvaLanMac12, where the mass-loss rate of $\zeta$ Oph was estimated based on the sizes of its H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region and bow shock, it was assumed that the mean H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region gas density is the same as the mean density at the bow shock, and furthermore that the ISM upstream from the bow shock remains at rest. We have shown in Fig. \[fig:NearStar3D\] that these assumptions are reasonably well justified, in that the ISM density near the star ($\rho_i$) is only about 10 per cent lower than that of the undisturbed ISM ($\rho_0$), and the ISM has been accelerated only slightly in passing through the R-type I-front (to $v_i=2-2.4\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ in the upstream direction). These are both small modifications of the upstream ram pressure in the star’s rest frame, reducing $\rho_i v_i^2$ by about 25 per cent. The bow shock standoff distance, $R_{\mathrm{\textsc{so}}}\equiv \sqrt{\dot{M}v_w/4\pi\rho_iv_i^2}$, is then increased by about 12 per cent. The analytic model in @GvaLanMac12 can therefore be applied with only minor corrections even for the relatively slowly-moving exile $\zeta$ Oph.
ISM inhomogeneity
-----------------
We have not addressed ISM clumping in this work, assuming as a first step that the ISM is smooth. A large clumping factor could affect the @GvaLanMac12 analysis because $R_s$ is determined by recombination which scales with $\rho^2$, whereas $R_{\mathrm{\textsc{so}}}$ is determined by ram pressure which is linear in $\rho$. A very clumpy medium would therefore have a smaller ratio $R_s/R_{\mathrm{\textsc{so}}}$ than the maximal value obtained for a smooth medium. Inspection of the observed H$\alpha$ maps in Fig. \[fig:ZetaOph\] strongly suggests some degree of underlying inhomogeneity in the ISM. This remains a caveat to the @GvaLanMac12 analysis, and will be studied further in future work.
This question has also been approached from another angle by @WooHafReyEA05, who used H$\alpha$, \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] and \[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] emission maps from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around $\zeta$ Oph to constrain the porosity (or equivalently clumpiness) of the ISM through which it is passing. They used a radiative transfer code to predict the emission properties of a static density field consisting of clumps of various sizes and filling factors embedded in a low-density medium. They compared the circularly-averaged predictions to observations, for H$\alpha$ brightness and the \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]/H$\alpha$ and \[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]/H$\alpha$ line ratios, as a function of distance from the star. It was found that some clumping of the ISM was required to explain the spatial distribution of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region surface brightness in these lines, given the modelling assumptions.
Figs. \[fig:simHD3r12\]-\[fig:simBT3r2\] show, however, that circular symmetry is a bad approximation for H$\alpha$ emission because the upstream I-front has very different properties to the downstream recombination front. This should also hold for other emission lines [cf. @HenArtWilEA05]. It would be very interesting to repeat the @WooHafReyEA05 analysis, but with a 2D spatially-resolved comparison using a method such as that proposed by @WooBarErcEA13. Even with this refinement, however, it is not clear that the supersonic relative motion between the star and the ISM can be neglected in the radiative transfer modelling because ionization equilibrium is never attained (although a stationary state is). Supersonic advection compresses the upstream [I-front]{} significantly [@RagNorCanEA97; @HenArtWilEA05] and significantly changes the temperature and ionization structure of the downstream H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region border from an I-front to a recombination front [@NewAxf68; @WilDys96]. No static model will be able to capture the downstream recombination front correctly, or the spatial compression of the upstream I-front. The degree to which this is important should be investigated in future work where we will include more ions in the microphysics network, allowing us to predict line ratios directly.
![ Projected H$\alpha$ surface brightness of simulation HD3r2 at $t=4\,$Myr (using the same linear intensity scale as Fig. \[fig:simHD3r12\]), with 9 contours of equal intensity from 0.1 to 0.9 of the maximum in steps of 0.1. The 50 per cent contour is plotted in white for clarity. As before, the star is moving from left to right, and is indicated by the cross at the origin. \[fig:Ha\_contours\] ](fig12.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Isolated O and B stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud
----------------------------------------------------
Recently @OeyLamKusEA13 presented observations of 14 single-star H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), for each of which the ionizing source is a late O or early B star located at least 28pc from its nearest O or B type neighbour. These were interpreted as candidate static stars that formed in isolation, largely on the basis of a lack of stellar wind bow shock, the circular shape of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, and the approximately central location of the star within the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region.
Regarding the shape of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, we have demonstrated that, at least for $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region remains approximately circular in projected H$\alpha$ emission. The main difference for an exile is that the upstream edge is sharper and has higher surface brightness than the downstream edge (see Fig. \[fig:Ha\_contours\] which shows an H$\alpha$ emission map of simulation HD3r2 overlaid with linearly-spaced contours from 10 to 90 per cent of the peak emission). A number of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions in the @OeyLamKusEA13 sample have similar asymmetries in their H$\alpha$ emission, although we have no way to constrain whether the asymmetries are correlated with their unknown proper motion. Similar results to ours were also obtained by @RagNorCanEA97 for a much higher-velocity exile ($v_\star=100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$) in a somewhat lower-density medium ($n=1\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$). Both of these results show that the shape of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region in H$\alpha$ emission is not a strong indicator of stellar motion unless we are discussing properties at the 10$-$25 per cent level [but see @ChiRap96 for results from much harder-spectrum X-ray sources in a denser medium]. Furthermore there is a well-known degeneracy between H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region asymmetry produced by ISM density gradients and by stellar motion [see @ArtHoa06 for a detailed investigation]. When the likely presence of ISM inhomogeneity is added to this, it may be difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding stellar motion from H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region shapes in H$\alpha$ emission maps. A better probe of stellar motion is probably the neutral shell that forms around the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. For $v_\star\gtrsim20-30\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ there will be no upstream or downstream dense shell, whereas a static star should have a shell of swept-up ISM in nearly all directions.
The offset of the star from the centre of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region depends on how the centre is defined. Identifying the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region border by eye, many of the stars in the @OeyLamKusEA13 sample are offset from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region centre by a similar degree to the star in our simulations. This is a weak statement, however, and should be made more quantitative. From Fig. \[fig:Ha\_contours\] the star is significantly offset downstream from the 90 per cent intensity contour, and significantly offset upstream from the 10 per cent contour, but is very close to the centre of the (almost circular) 50 per cent contour.
The @OeyLamKusEA13 H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region sample is clearly an important dataset for probing the formation process and environment of isolated massive stars, but we argue that further quantitative predictions for the properties of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around moving stars (with a range of spatial velocities) are required before conclusions can be drawn about whether these stars are exiles or formed in situ.
Implications of our results
---------------------------
We have seen that the dynamical response of the ISM to a passing exiled star is that an overdense expanding conical shell is swept up, leaving an underdense wake behind it. Stellar winds are not included in our simulations because the range of scales is too large, but hot shocked-wind material will also gather in the underdense wake behind the star. It is therefore plausible that exiled massive stars create underdense ‘tunnels’ through the ISM which can then be maintained by energy from supernova explosions [cf. @CoxSmi74], since the tunnels always originate at star clusters. The momentum feedback of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion is at least as strong as that of a supernova for the parameters considered here, and will be even stronger for earlier O stars. This suggests that exiled massive stars can make a significant contribution to the dynamics of gas in galaxy disks. Further work quantifying the dependence of this feedback mechanism on stellar mass, ISM density, and metallicity are warranted to deduce its importance at a global level.
An important point, first made by @RagNorCanEA97 and emphasised here, is that the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around exiled stars remain roughly circular, and the star stays near the centre of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region unless it is moving with a really extreme velocity [also for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around X-ray sources; @ChiRap96]. The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region produced by a moving star remains quite spherical because it is always dynamically young, in contrast to the often-complex shapes of old H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around static stars. This is only true for H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions in which the stellar wind bow shock does not absorb a significant fraction of the star’s ionizing photon output. In a dense medium the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region can be trapped by the bow shock [@MacvBurWooEA91; @ArtHoa06] for two reasons: the bow shock standoff distance decreases with increasing density less rapidly ($R_{\mathrm{\textsc{so}}}\propto \rho^{-1/2}$) than the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region radius ($R_s\propto\rho^{-2/3}$), and gas compression in the bow shock increases with density because of the shorter cooling time.
@ConKra12 suggested that runaway massive stars could have contributed significantly to the reionization of the universe because they move out of their small protogalaxies within their main sequence lifetime, and so all of their ionizing radiation escapes their parent galaxy. Dynamical feedback effects from H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions should become much stronger at low metallicity because the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is hotter and less thermal energy is dissipated through radiative cooling. We suggest that, in addition to the process considered by @ConKra12, the exiled stars also created lower-density tunnels from the centres of protogalaxies to their outskirts, increasing the escape fraction of ionizing photons and potentially providing channels through which supernova-enriched gas can more easily escape to the intergalactic medium (IGM). Of course the exiled stars themselves also explode in the IGM, leading to in situ enrichment and the generation of intergalactic shockwaves. @GvaGuaPor09 suggested that high-velocity ($v_\star>200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$) O and B stars ejected from galactic disks could be the ionizing sources of extraplanar H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions observed $\approx0.5-1.5\,$kpc above some galactic disks [e.g. @TueRosElwEA03]. Such stars could travel outside the virial radius of a $10^8\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ galaxy at redshift $z\sim10$ [see @ConKra12]. The small size and lower escape velocities of high redshift galaxies make exiled stars much more important at high redshift than in the local universe.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have studied the dynamics of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around supersonically-moving hot stars with multidimensional MHD simulations including non-equilibrium photoionization. While the response of the ISM to the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is not violent, it is significant and leaves a long-lasting imprint on the ISM once the star has passed. Only one stellar velocity has been considered, $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$, matching the peculiar velocity of the nearby O9.5V star $\zeta$ Oph. We have also considered only one ionizing photon luminosity, again matching observations of this star.
The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion leaves a cone-shaped shell in the wake behind the star, truncated on the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region edge at the angle where the normal velocity of gas through the I-front reaches Mach 2 (with respect to ionized gas). This shell should have column density of a few $\times10^{20}\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$ in neutral H and may be observable with kinematic H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> data [or dust emission; @RagNorCanEA97]. Directly downstream from the star is an underdense wake that should be filled by hot gas from the stellar wind (not modelled here). The gas expansion driven by the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region should make the stellar wind’s wake longer-lived than would be the case without this expansion, because this creates a lower density and pressure environment.
The shocked shell is affected by the presence and orientation of a large-scale ISM magnetic field. Both H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion and shock compression are strongly inhibited perpendicular to magnetic field lines, leading to a less overdense shell with a much lower H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> column density. The larger wavespeeds in a magnetised plasma also give the shell a wider opening angle. The underdense wake, by contrast, is not significantly affected by the ISM magnetic field.
Kinetic energy is generated in the ISM from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region’s expansion at a rate comparable to the mechanical luminosity of the stellar wind from $\zeta$ Oph. When we take into account that (at least for static stars) about 90 per cent of the wind energy is lost to dissipation [e.g. @GarMacLan96], the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion has stronger feedback energetically than the stellar wind. This is also true of the momentum feedback, where the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion generates more than $100\times$ the momentum in the ISM than the stellar wind. The momentum input rate is also about $10\times$ the total radiation momentum from the stellar luminosity. The kinetic energy feedback rate is affected somewhat ($\sim50$ per cent level) by the ISM magnetic field, but momentum feedback is very little affected. Compared to the star’s eventual supernova explosion, the total kinetic energy feedback from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region over the star’s main sequence lifetime is $>100\times$ less, but the momentum feedback is up to $4\times$ larger.
The unstable upstream I-front perturbs gas within the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, but the perturbations have an amplitude of only $\approx 5-10$ per cent near the star and are unlikely to affect the bow shock to any extent (although further simulations are needed to ensure the perturbations do not grow to non-linear amplitudes with higher resolution).
A density gradient is created by the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region expansion, such that the ionized gas is densest near the upstream I-front and decreases downstream. This results in H$\alpha$ emission maps that are brighter upstream from the star than downstream. In addition the upstream I-front is very thin whereas the downstream recombination front is broad, and this is also be reflected in H$\alpha$ emission maps. Similar features can be seen in H$\alpha$ emission from the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region around $\zeta$ Oph. From this we conclude that gas dynamics and non-equilibrium ionization are important ingredients in the observational properties of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions from supersonically-moving exiles. Radiative transfer models that assume ionization equilibrium or ignore the relative motion between the star and the ISM may have only limited applicability to stars such as $\zeta$ Oph.
We have not studied the effects of ISM inhomogeneity and turbulent motions in this work. Rather we have provided a baseline study to see what the dynamics generated purely by the photoionization process are. In future work we will include clumpy and turbulent ISM structure [cf. @MelArtHenEA06; @ArtHenMelEA11] to investigate the degree to which this substructure is destroyed or enhanced by the passage of a hot star.
It does not seem to have been appreciated until now that H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around exiled O stars can be very good laboratories for studying the physics of [I-fronts]{}, in particular their stability. The early R-type expansion of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions around newly formed stars is deeply embedded in molecular clouds and so is difficult to observe, and both the I-front velocity and the stellar radiation spectrum are time-varying. Runaway stars, by contrast, are typically in low-extinction environments and have a constant velocity R-type I-front that (at least in regions of constant ISM density) should relax to a steady state. Some of them, for example $\zeta$ Oph, are also much closer to us than the nearest massive star-forming regions, so we can observe their I-fronts in much more detail and strongly test theoretical predictions and numerical simulations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
JM is funded by a fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft priority program 1573, ‘Physics of the Interstellar Medium’. The authors acknowledge the John von Neumann Institute for Computing for a grant of computing time on the JUROPA supercomputer at Jülich Supercomputing Centre. We thank M.S. Oey for useful comments on a draft version of this paper. JM acknowledges the Nordita program on Photo-Evaporation in Astrophysical Systems (June 2013), which enabled useful discussions about the results obtained in this work. [We thank the referee, Alex Raga, for useful suggestions which improved the presentation of the paper.]{}
Resolution effects in 1D simulations {#sec:app:res}
====================================
![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial and temporal resolutions as indicated, for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a), $50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b), $100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (c), and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (d). The higher resolution models (r3) have been offset vertically by 3000 K for clarity. The dotted line in the lower two curves is the highest resolution simulation (r7) with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$, showing the converged solution. \[fig:1Dcfl\] ](figA1a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial and temporal resolutions as indicated, for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a), $50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b), $100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (c), and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (d). The higher resolution models (r3) have been offset vertically by 3000 K for clarity. The dotted line in the lower two curves is the highest resolution simulation (r7) with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$, showing the converged solution. \[fig:1Dcfl\] ](figA1b.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial and temporal resolutions as indicated, for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a), $50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b), $100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (c), and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (d). The higher resolution models (r3) have been offset vertically by 3000 K for clarity. The dotted line in the lower two curves is the highest resolution simulation (r7) with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$, showing the converged solution. \[fig:1Dcfl\] ](figA1c.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial and temporal resolutions as indicated, for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a), $50\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b), $100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (c), and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (d). The higher resolution models (r3) have been offset vertically by 3000 K for clarity. The dotted line in the lower two curves is the highest resolution simulation (r7) with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$, showing the converged solution. \[fig:1Dcfl\] ](figA1d.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial resolutions as indicated, for $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ with $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a) and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b). The higher resolution models (r5-r7) spatially resolve the I-front and are indistinguishable on this plot. \[fig:1Dres\] ](figA2a.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![ Gas temperature at the upstream I-front for 1D simulations at different spatial resolutions as indicated, for $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ with $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (a) and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (b). The higher resolution models (r5-r7) spatially resolve the I-front and are indistinguishable on this plot. \[fig:1Dres\] ](figA2b.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
![ The position of the I-front (traced by the largest radius such that $y_n>0.5$) for different $v_\star$ and $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}$. For each velocity the two labelled lines (solid and dot-dashed) are for resolutions r1 and r5, and they bracket the unlabelled lines for r2, r3 and r4. Ideally all lines would be vertical, and values for each velocity would lie on top of each other. The finite zone-size means that lines can move horizontally from discreteness error, and a change in slope is from time-integration errors. For large velocities, the different spatial resolutions are separated by more than one grid zone ($\Delta x=0.32\,$pc for r1) for large $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}$. The curves for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ have been offset by $+0.5\,$pc for clarity. \[fig:1D\_Vel\_CFL\] ](figA3.eps){width="42.00000%"}
As discussed in Section \[sec:1D\], a CFL number of $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ was required for the simulations presented in the text. This choice is justified here, by varying the temporal and spatial resolution of the 1D simulations. The problem is that for $\mathcal{M}>2$, the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region structure relaxes to a stationary state with respect to the computational grid (even though gas is continuously recombining and being ionized), so the microphysics timescales go to infinity. In this case the CFL condition is the only active timestep restriction on the simulation. The effects of varying $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}$ on the upstream I-front position are shown in temperature plots for two different spatial resolutions (r1 and r3) in Fig. \[fig:1Dcfl\], for four different values of $v_\star$. The errors increase with $v_\star$ for a given $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}$ and $\Delta x$. The thin dotted line in the higher velocity figures shows the highest resolution model (r7) with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$; in this case the solution has converged, but we have had to spatially resolve the I-front (cf. @CanPor11). Even for $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ the lowest resolution simulations have an incorrect I-front position with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.3$.
Fig. \[fig:1Dres\] shows the gas temperature through the upstream I-front at different spatial resolutions for $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ and $v_\star=25\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (above) and $200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ (below). It shows that the temperature peak is well modelled for $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ for the low velocity model, but for $v_\star=200\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ the solution lags behind the true solution at low spatial resolution. Once the I-front is spatially resolved (with $\Delta \tau \leq 1$ per zone) the solution has converged. The positions of the I-front are plotted for different $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}$ in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Vel\_CFL\], showing that even for $v_\star=100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$ the I-front position is modelled accurately with $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$, but larger velocities are not. It is concluded that $C_{\mathrm{cfl}}=0.1$ provides nearly resolution-independent I-front positions and temperatures, at least for $v_\star<100\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$.
Such constraints were not necessary for the test calculations in @Mac12 that did not include any hydrodynamics. In that case the accuracy of the solution was independent of the I-front velocity, but for a static ISM and for an I-front that was moving rapidly with respect to the grid. It seems that the strong advection requires tight coupling to the microphysics integration to obtain an accurate solution (at least for this algorithm).
Resolution effects in 2D simulations {#sec:2D}
====================================
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
![ Kinetic energy (a) and momentum (b) of gas in 2D simulations as a function of time, in the ISM rest frame. During the initial phase ($t\lesssim0.8$ Myr) no disturbed gas leaves the domain and the momentum increases monotonically. At later times a stationary state is reached where the momentum generated by the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is balanced by gas leaving the domain. \[fig:KEMom2D\] ](figB4a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Kinetic energy (a) and momentum (b) of gas in 2D simulations as a function of time, in the ISM rest frame. During the initial phase ($t\lesssim0.8$ Myr) no disturbed gas leaves the domain and the momentum increases monotonically. At later times a stationary state is reached where the momentum generated by the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is balanced by gas leaving the domain. \[fig:KEMom2D\] ](figB4b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![ Density distribution of the ISM in at $t=4\,$Myr, for 2D simulations. \[fig:Density2D\] ](figB5.eps){width="49.00000%"}
![ The mean density (a), RMS density variance (b), and mean gas velocity (c) as a function of time for a volume within 1.0 pc of the star in 2D simulations. The density is normalised to the mean ISM input density of $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=2.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$, and the velocity to the undisturbed bulk velocity of $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. \[fig:NearStar2D\] ](figB6a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ The mean density (a), RMS density variance (b), and mean gas velocity (c) as a function of time for a volume within 1.0 pc of the star in 2D simulations. The density is normalised to the mean ISM input density of $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=2.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$, and the velocity to the undisturbed bulk velocity of $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. \[fig:NearStar2D\] ](figB6b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ The mean density (a), RMS density variance (b), and mean gas velocity (c) as a function of time for a volume within 1.0 pc of the star in 2D simulations. The density is normalised to the mean ISM input density of $\ensuremath{n_{\textsc{h}}}=2.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}$, and the velocity to the undisturbed bulk velocity of $v_\star=26.5\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. \[fig:NearStar2D\] ](figB6c.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
A suite of 2D simulations have been run to test the effects of grid resolution on the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region feedback effects. They are analogous to the 3D simulations listed in Table \[tab:Sims3D\] but with the same and higher resolutions, and are listed in Table \[tab:Sims2D\]. They consist of a 2D domain with $x,y\in[-32.64,18.56]\,$pc with Cartesian (i.e. infinite slab) geometry. Fig. \[fig:simBX2r2\] shows simulations BT2r2 and BA2r2, having the same resolution and magnetic field configuration as the 3D models BT3r2 and BA3r2 in Section \[sec:3D\]. Hydrogen number density $n_{\textsc{h}}$ is plotted in colour, with contours showing the ion fraction $(1-y_n)$, and solid lines crossing the domain showing the magnetic field orientation (in black). They show most of the same features at BT3r2 and BA3r2. The model with aligned spatial velocity and magnetic field is stable, but the model where they are perpendicular shows some instability, closer to the hydrodynamic result. The lateral expanding shell is more compressive in BT2r2 than BA2r2, and the opening angle of the shell downstream is narrower because the shock velocity is lower. Both models have similar minimum density, although the structure of the downstream wake is different because of the magnetic field orientation.
Results from simulations BT2r3 and BA2r3 are shown in Fig. \[fig:simBX2r3\], showing that with $2\times$ higher resolution both models have unstable I-fronts upstream from the star, and there are many more dense knots than were found in the 3D simulation. Fig. \[fig:simBX2r4\] has still higher resolution models BT2r4 and BA2r4, showing even greater degree of instability in the upstream I-front than BT2r3 and BA2r3, and also stronger compression in clumps and shell. R-type I-fronts have been shown [@NewAxf67; @Wil99] to be unstable to weak density perturbations via a shadowing instability. As long as the magnetic field is not sufficiently strong to make the gas flow entirely one-dimensional, this instability should also be present in magnetised R-type I-fronts. The stability of the simulation BA2r2, and the similar 3D simulations BA3r1 and BA3r2, is at least partly an artifact of the increased stiffness of magnetic field lines at lower resolution.
ID $(N_x,N_y,N_z)$ $\Delta x$ $\mathitbf{B}$-field ($\mu$G)
------- --------------------- ------------ -------------------------------
HD2r1 $(160,\,160,\,1)$ 0.32 $(0,0,0)$
HD2r2 $(320,\,320,\,1)$ 0.16 $(0,0,0)$
HD2r3 $(640,\,640,\,1)$ 0.08 $(0,0,0)$
HD2r4 $(1280,\,1280,\,1)$ 0.04 $(0,0,0)$
BA2r1 $(160,\,160,\,1)$ 0.32 $(7,0,0)$
BA2r2 $(320,\,320,\,1)$ 0.16 $(7,0,0)$
BA2r3 $(640,\,640,\,1)$ 0.08 $(7,0,0)$
BA2r4 $(1280,\,1280,\,1)$ 0.04 $(7,0,0)$
BT2r1 $(160,\,160,\,1)$ 0.32 $(0,7,0)$
BT2r2 $(320,\,320,\,1)$ 0.16 $(0,7,0)$
BT2r3 $(640,\,640,\,1)$ 0.08 $(0,7,0)$
BT2r4 $(1280,\,1280,\,1)$ 0.04 $(0,7,0)$
: Simulation properties for two-dimensional calculations in the $(x,y,0)$ plane. Columns show, respectively, simulation ID, number of grid zones in each direction, spatial diameter of a grid zone in parsecs, magnetic field vector in $\mu$G with respect to the direction of motion of the star. Models HD2x are two-dimensional hydrodynamic (no magnetic field), BA2x are two-dimensional MHD simulations with a B-field aligned with the direction of motion, BT2x are two-dimensional MHD with a field transverse (perpendicular) to the direction of motion. The number following the B-field designation, e.g. ‘r3’, represents the resolution. []{data-label="tab:Sims2D"}
The kinetic energy and momentum in these simulations is plotted in Fig. \[fig:KEMom2D\] in the same way as the 3D results in Fig. \[fig:KEMom3D\]. The absolute values of the results are not normalised physically because the slab-symmetry implies a value per unit depth (here cm$^{-1}$), but they are useful as a resolution study. The results are similar to those from 3D simulations; here the kinetic energy also increases slowly with spatial resolution and is not converging to a maximum value, because the I-front instability gets stronger with higher resolution.
The ISM density distribution function is plotted in Fig. \[fig:Density2D\], where by comparison to Fig. \[fig:Density3D\] we see that the higher resolution 2D simulations have stronger compression than their lower resolution counterparts. We expect a similar trend in 3D, if we could run such high resolution models in 3D.
The properties of the ISM near the star are plotted in Fig. \[fig:NearStar2D\], which again should be compared to the 3D results in Fig. \[fig:NearStar3D\], although symmetry restrictions mean that the results are only indicative. There is a clear trend of increasing spatial and temporal variability with simulation resolution, also obvious from the simulation snapshots. The lowest resolution models are not shown because all relax to a steady state with only small variations near the star. For the next lowest resolution, BA2r2 relaxes to an almost-stationary state, whereas stronger I-front instability in BT2r2 and HD2r2 leads to continuing fluctuations for the duration of the simulation. These fluctuations are stronger again for models with resolutions r3 and r4. Only one averaging volume is plotted ($r<1$ pc) but the trends at smaller volumes are the same as for 3D results.
In 2D the mean density is unchanged near the star after the initial evolutionary phase (differing from 3D), and the mean velocity of gas drops by about 10 per cent (similar to 3D). At high resolution the root-mean-squared (RMS) density fluctuations are also $\approx10$ per cent, and the temporal fluctuations in mean density and velocity are up to 15 per cent. The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region does measurably affect gas properties near the star, but it is still at a level that can be treated as a small perturbation.
From the trends with resolution in the 2D simulations, it is clear that many quantities have not fully converged numerically, so we should be cautious in drawing strong conclusions regarding the compression of gas to high densities and the properties of the ISM near the star. The rate of momentum feedback seems quite robust, being barely changed when the spatial resolution changes by a factor of 8. The kinetic energy input also only changes by about 20 per cent over the same range of resolutions so, while it has not converged, it is not changing dramatically.
Heating and cooling rates for atomic and photoionized gas {#app:HeatCool}
=========================================================
The heating and cooling functions used in the rate equation for energy \[Eq. (\[eqn:energyrate\])\] should comprise the main coolants in WNM and photoionized gas. They are described in more detail here, term by term as they appear in Eq. (\[eqn:energyrate\]). All terms have units ergs$^{-1}$ and should be multiplied by $n_\textsc{h}$ to get volumetric rates.
Heating processes
-----------------
Photoionization heating, $H_{\mathrm{pi}}$ is calculated in a finite-volume way similarly to the photoionization rate $A_{\mathrm{pi}}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:pion\_FVrate\]) (multifrequency) and Eq. (\[eqn:pion\_FVrate\_mono\]) (monochromatic). The multifrequency rate is $$H_{\mathrm{pi}}y_n = \int_{\nu_{\mathrm{th}}}^{\infty}
\frac{L_\nu \mathrm{e}^{-\tau_\nu}(h\nu-h\nu_\mathrm{th})}{h\nu}
\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\Delta\tau_\nu}}{n_{\textsc{h}}V_{\mathrm{shell}}} d\nu \;,
\label{eqn:pheat_FVrate}$$ and the integrals over frequency are again pre-calculated as a function of optical depth following @FraMel94.
FUV heating, $H_{\mathrm{fuv}}$, from the ionizing star is calculated using eq. (A3) from @HenArtDeCEA09: $$H_{\mathrm{fuv}} = \frac{1.9\times10^{-26}Q_\mathrm{fuv} \mathrm{e}^{-\tau_1}}{4\pi r^2 1.2\times10^{7}}
\left[1+6.4\left(\frac{Q_\mathrm{fuv}\mathrm{e}^{-\tau_1}}{4\pi r^2 1.2\times10^{7}n_\textsc{h}}\right) \right]^{-1} \;,$$ where $Q_{\mathrm{fuv}}$ is the FUV photon luminosity of the star in the range 6-13.6eV, and $\tau_1=1.03\times10^{-21} N_\mathrm{H}$ is the dust optical depth ($N_\mathrm{H}$ is the H column density along the ray). Cosmic ray heating is assumed to be $H_\textrm{cr}=5\times10^{-28}n_\textsc{h}y_n$ [@HenArtDeCEA09]. Absorption of the Galactic FUV interstellar radiation field by PAH grains dominates the gas heating in neutral gas far from the star, and is calculated using eqs. (19) and (20) from @WolMcKHolEA03: $$H_\mathrm{pah} = \frac{1.083\times10^{-25}}{1+9.77\times10^{-3}\left(\sqrt{T}/n_e\right)^{0.73}} \;,$$ where we have followed @WolMcKHolEA03 in setting $G_0=1.7$ and $\phi_\textsc{pah}=0.5$ and absorbed these variables into the constant prefactor. The second term in the @WolMcKHolEA03 expression has been ignored because it is unimportant for $T\ll10^4$K.
Cooling processes
-----------------
Collisional ionization cooling is obtained from a fit to the ionization rate [@Vor97], $$A_{\mathrm{ci}}\psi_\mathrm{H}y_n n_e = 6.34\times10^{-19} y_n n_e \frac{T_p^{0.39}}{0.232+T_p} \mathrm{e}^{-T_p} \;,$$ where $T_p\equiv (1.578\times10^5\,\mathrm{K})/T$.
Radiative recombination and bremsstrahlung cooling from H$^+$ are interpolated from the tables for the total cooling coefficient in @Hum94, although an analytic fit would have been significantly more efficient. We assume He is singly ionized when H is ionized, so we also add in a bremsstrahlung cooling term for He$^+$ (its recombination cooling is neglected). These comprise the terms $(C_\mathrm{rr}+C_\mathrm{ff})n_e(1-y_n)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:energyrate\]), but neither term is important in photoionized gas at solar metallicity.
Collisional excitation cooling from H$^0$, $C_{\mathrm{cx}}y_n n_e$, is a strong coolant in partially-ionized gas, and its rate is obtained by interpolating data from table 11 in @RagMelLun97.
Cooling by metals and grains in mostly neutral gas is calculated using eqs. (21), (C1), (C2), and (C3) in @WolMcKHolEA03, being the cooling from PAH grains, C$^+$ collisions with H$^0$, C$^+$ collisions with electrons, and O$^0$ collisions with H$^0$, respectively. These are the main coolants in the diffuse neutral ISM. The PAH term is $$C_\textrm{pah} = 3.02\times10^{-30} T^{0.94} \left(\frac{3.4\sqrt{T}}{n_e}\right)^\beta n_e \;,$$ where $\beta\equiv0.74T^{-0.068}$ and we have used the same values for the parameters $G_0$ and $\phi_\textsc{pah}$ as before. Collisional cooling of C$^+$ with H$^0$ is $$C_\textsc{c\,ii}^\textsc{h} = 3.15\times10^{-27} \mathrm{e}^{-92/T} n_\textsc{h}y_n \;,$$ and with electrons is $$C_\textsc{c\,ii}^\textrm{e} = 1.4\times10^{-23} T^{-0.5} \mathrm{e}^{-92/T} n_e \;.$$ Collisional cooling of O$^0$ with H$^0$ is $$C_\textsc{o\,i}^\textsc{h} = 3.96\times10^{-28} T^{0.4} \mathrm{e}^{-228/T} n_\textsc{h}y_n \;.$$ The term $C_{\mathrm{nt}}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:energyrate\]) is $C_{\mathrm{nt}}=C_\textrm{pah}+ C_\textsc{c\,ii}^\textsc{h}+C_\textsc{c\,ii}^\textrm{e}+C_\textsc{o\,i}^\textsc{h}$.
Cooling in photoionized gas is dominated by emission from O and C ions, which have low-energy forbidden transitions that can be collisionally excited in gas with $T\approx5000-10\,000$K. We use an approximate fit to these emission lines, eq. (A9) from @HenArtDeCEA09, $$C_\mathrm{m}n_e(1-y_n) = 1.42\times10^{-22} n_e(1-y_n) \mathrm{e}^{\left[\frac{-33\,610}{T} -\left(\frac{-2180}{T}\right)^2\right]} \;.$$
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Alexander von Humboldt Professor
[^2]: A temperature-dependent recombination rate is used, and the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region is not isothermal, but for a mean temperature $T\approx6300\,$K we find $R_s\approx 10.6\,$pc.
[^3]: The Southern H-Alpha Sky Survey Atlas (SHASSA) is supported by the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes in the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion system and show by the Fuchsian algorithm that they have in general asymptotically velocity-term dominated singularities. The families of the corresponding solutions depend on the maximum number of arbitrary functions. Although coupling of the dilaton field with the Maxwell and/or the axion fields corresponds to the “potential” which appears in the Hamiltonian of vacuum Bianchi IX spacetimes, our result means that the spacetimes do not become Mixmaster necessarily.'
address: |
\* Department of Physics, Rikkyo University, Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima, Tokyo 171-8501, Japan\
Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Ohokayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan\
Department of Physics, Waseda University, Ohkubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
author:
- 'Makoto Narita[^1], Takashi Torii[^2][^3], and Kengo Maeda[^4]'
title: Asymptotic singular behavior of Gowdy spacetimes in string theory
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The singularity theorem gives us some sufficient conditions for the existence of spacetime singularities (a spacetime with incomplete geodesics) [@HP; @HE]. These conditions fall into four categories : (1) the strong energy condition; (2) the generic condition; (3) the chronology condition and (4) the existence of trapped regions. In addition, after the discovery of the singularity theorem, various generalization by replacing these conditions have been suggested by some authors (see e.g. Refs.[@S; @MIN; @N]). So, although, we have new many variations of the singularity theorem, none of them gives information on the nature of the singularity.
To the best of our knowledge, the first research about the nature of the singularity was done by Belinskii, Khalatnikov and Lifshitz (BKL) [@BKL]. They investigated how the spacetime evolves into the singularity and conjectured that the dynamics of nearby observers would decouple near singularities. (the [*BKL conjecture*]{}.) BKL described a vacuum and spatially homogeneous (mainly Bianchi IX) spacetime singularity as an infinite sequence of Kasner epochs (“oscillatory approach to the singularity”). Independently, Misner showed the same behavior in terms of exponentially growing “potential” terms constructed by the spatial curvature. The spacetime is bounced by the potentials a infinite number of times. Such behavior is called the [*Mixmaster dynamics*]{} [@CM]. Then, BKL further speculated that a generic singularity should be locally behaved like a Mixmaster type. To date, the BKL conjecture has neither been validated nor invalidated [*in general*]{} by rigorous arguments although Ringström has recently have a result which supports the validity of the BKL conjecture, that is, he has shown rigorously that the Bianchi type IX solutions converge to an attractor consisting of the closure of the vacuum type II orbits[@HR].
There is a special case of the BKL conjecture called the [*asymptotically velocity-term dominated*]{} (AVTD) singularity. It is not described by a infinite sequence of Kasner epochs but by only one epoch (i.e., “no oscillatory approach to the singularity”) [@IM; @WE]. In brief, the characteristic feature of the AVTD singular behavior is that all spatial derivative terms of the field equations are negligible sufficiently close to the singularity. Hence, Kasner spacetimes are necessarily (A)VTD. It is possible to make rigorous arguments on the nature of the AVTD singularity since the AVTD solutions are simpler than the Mixmaster solutions in the sense that there is no complicated oscillation. Our interest is to verify BKL conjecture and clarify whether spacetimes is AVTD or not in non-vacuum and/or spatially inhomogeneous cases.
In order to attack the above issue, we will consider Gowdy spacetimes [@G]. They are spatially compact spacetimes which have $U(1)\times U(1)$ symmetry and vanishing twist. Gowdy spacetimes are adopted in various investigations because they are one of the most manageable inhomogeneous spacetimes and can give essential features of inhomogeneity in spite of its simpleness. The behavior near the singularity in Gowdy spacetime have also been discussed in various situations. In the vacuum case, Isenberg and Moncrief have shown that polarized Gowdy spacetimes are AVTD [@IM]. Grubišić and Moncrief [@GM] and Kichenassamy and Rendall [@KR] have shown that non-polarized $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes have AVTD singularities in generic in the sense that the AVTD singular solutions to Einstein’s equations depend on the maximal number of arbitrary functions if the [*low velocity condition*]{} is satisfied. When one of these functions is constant (i.e. non-generic), it was also shown without the low velocity condition that non-polarized $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes are AVTD [@KR]. Using numerical method, Berger, Garfinkle and Moncrief found that non-polarized $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes have AVTD singularities even in the situation that the low velocity condition is broken initially [@BM; @BG; @BB98]. Recently, Garfinkle has shown that $S^{2}\times S^{1}$ Gowdy spacetimes have AVTD singularities numerically [@DG].
AVTD solutions with matter fields present have been found. Such examples include polarized Gowdy spacetimes admitting scalar fields minimally coupled with the Maxwell field [@CCM] and the Einstein-dilaton-axion (EDA) system in polarized Gowdy spacetimes [@JBK]. It has been shown numerically, however, that magnetic Gowdy spacetimes are not AVTD but Mixmaster [@BB98; @WIB]. Hence, it is nontrivial to determine whether the spacetime is Mixmaster or AVTD type. Because of these facts, we shall study the non-vacuum and spatially inhomogeneous case.
There is an another point which needs to be clarified. Belinskii and Khalatnikov have suggested that the existence of massless scalar fields suppresses Mixmaster behavior by examining the Bianchi I spacetimes [@BK]. It is due to the fact that the scalar field is algebraically equivalent to the stiff matter in some cases. Recently, Berger found some confirmation for this suggestion by numerical analysis [@BB00]. In both papers, however, it was suggested that exponential coupling of the scalar field to the Maxwell field restores Mixmaster behavior which was suppressed initially by the scalar field [@BK; @BB00]. It is important to note that such matter fields arises naturally from low energy effective superstring theory [@STW], i.e. the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion (EMDA) system. The EMDA system has been discussed actively in the context of the black hole solutions and singularities, and gives characteristic features different from the Einstein-Maxwell (EM) system [@MTN].
Our purpose in this paper is to explore the nature of singularities in the EMDA system with Gowdy spacetimes on $T^{3}\times {\bf R}$. We make use of the Fuchsian algorithm developed by Kichenassamy and Rendall [@KR]. Although the system treated here is very complicated, the Fuchsian algorithm is powerful enough for the system since this algorithm is independent of non-linearity, number of functions and dimension of space. We will show that there exist families of AVTD singular solutions of the EMDA field equations, which are generic in the sense that they depend on the maximal number of arbitrary functions. Hence, our result shows that exponential coupling of the scalar field to the Maxwell field does not necessarily lead the Mixmaster behavior.
Organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. \[avtd\], an appropriate definition of AVTD is given. In Sec. \[why-emda\], we discuss the importance of studying the EMDA system. Sec. \[emda-gowdy\] is devoted to introducing $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system. Sec. \[Fuchsian algorithm\] presents a brief review of the Fuchsian algorithm. Our main results are given in Sec. \[results\]. Finally, Sec. \[summary\] is a summary.
Asymptotically velocity-term dominated (AVTD) singularity {#avtd}
=========================================================
In this section, we give precise definition of AVTD. In contrast to the Mixmaster singularity which is complicated, the AVTD singularity is called simple or quiescent [@ELS; @IM]. An essential difference between Mixmaster and AVTD singularities is whether spatial curvature terms in Einstein’s equations becomes dominant or not as the system approaches the singularities. As mentioned in the previous section, the “potential” terms constructed by the spatial curvatures grow exponentially in the Mixmaster case. These “potential” terms give rise to a infinite number of reflection and the spacetime will approach an oscillating state, i.e. Mixmaster singularities described as an infinite sequence of Kasner epochs. On the other hand, such a “potential” term does not exist in the AVTD case. Therefore, reflection by the potential does not occur and the spacetime will approach a single Kasner epoch.
Now, let us define AVTD. Suppose that a four-dimensional spacetime $(M,g)$ with the signature $(-+++)$ satisfies Einstein’s equations, $G_{\mu\nu}=T_{\mu\nu}$, where $G_{\mu\nu}\equiv ^{\;(4)}\!\!\! R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}^{\;(4)}\! Rg_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor. For any $3+1$ decomposition, we can obtain the constraint equations, $$^{(3)}\! R-K^{ab}K_{ab}+(tr K)^{2}=2T^{0}_{0},$$ $$^{(3)}\!\nabla_{a}K^{a}_{b}-^{(3)}\!\nabla_{b}(tr K)=-T^{0}_{b},$$ and the evolution equations, $$\partial_{t}h_{ab}=-2NK_{ab}+{\cal L}_{{\bf N}}h_{ab},$$ $$\partial_{t}K^{a}_{b}=N\left[ ^{(3)}\! R^{a}_{b}+(tr K)K^{a}_{b}\right]
-^{(3)}\! \nabla_{b} ^{(3)}\! \nabla^{a}N+
{\cal L}_{{\bf N}}K^{a}_{b}+2N\left[T^{a}_{b}
+\frac{1}{2}h^{a}_{b}(T^{0}_{0}-T^{c}_{c})\right],$$ where $h_{ab}$, $K_{ab}$ and $(tr K)$ are the first and second fundamental form and mean curvature of the $3$-dimensional spacelike hypersurface, respectively. Also, $^{(3)}\! \nabla$, $^{(3)}\! R_{ab}$ and $^{(3)}\!R$ are the spatial covariant derivative, spatial Ricci and scalar curvature, respectively. $N$ and ${\bf N}$ are the lapse function and shift vector. ${\cal L}_{{\bf N}}$ is the Lie derivative along the vector field ${\bf N}$. From the full Einstein equations, we define the velocity term dominated (VTD) equations as follows: $$-K^{ab}K_{ab}+(tr K)^{2}=2\tilde{T}^{0}_{0},$$ $$^{(3)}\! \nabla_{a}K^{a}_{b}-^{(3)}\! \nabla_{b}(tr K)=-\tilde{T}^{0}_{b},$$ $$\partial_{t}h_{ab}=-2NK_{ab},$$ $$\partial_{t}K^{a}_{b}=N\left[(tr K)K^{a}_{b}\right]
+2N\left[\tilde{T}^{a}_{b}
+\frac{1}{2}h^{a}_{b}(\tilde{T}^{0}_{0}-\tilde{T}^{c}_{c})\right],$$ where $\tilde{\bullet}$ is modification of $\bullet$. (Generally, the spatial derivatives are removed.)
In this setting we can give a definition of an AVTD spacetime and its singularity.
\[def-avtd\] A spacetime $(M,g)$ is AVTD if
1. it is a solution to Einstein’s equations;
2. there exists another $(M,\tilde{g})$ and there exists a foliation $i_{t}:\Sigma^{3}\rightarrow M$ such that
1. $(M,\tilde{g})$ obeys the VTD equations relative to $i_{t}$;
2. metric $g$ asymptotically approaches $\tilde{g}$ as $t\rightarrow 0$ in the sense that, for an appropriate norm $\|\bullet\|$ on the space of $3+1$ quantities $\bullet$, for any $\epsilon >0$ there exists $T>0$ such that $\|\bullet - \tilde{\bullet}\|<\epsilon$ for all $t<T$.
Furthermore, a spacetime $(M,g)$ has the AVTD singularity if
1. it contains a spacelike singularity at $t\rightarrow 0$;
2. it is AVTD.
To sum up, a singularity is called AVTD if all spatial curvature and spatial derivative terms in Einstein’s equations can be neglected near the singularity $t\rightarrow 0$. Then, near the AVTD singularity, AVTD solutions can be interpreted as a different spatially homogeneous cosmology at each point in space.
In order to see an example of the AVTD singularity, let us consider vacuum Bianchi I (Kasner) spacetimes. Since these spacetimes are spatially homogeneous, there is no spatial derivative terms. Furthermore, they are spatially flat, i.e. $^{(3)}\! R=0$. Therefore, the singularity is necessarily AVTD. On the other hand, Bianchi IX spacetimes are not AVTD but Mixmaster [@BKL; @CM] since the spatial curvature does not vanish and the “potential” term constructed by the spatial curvature cannot be neglected as approaching to the singularity (See Sec. \[why-emda\]).
Influence of matter fields {#why-emda}
==========================
BKL assumed the vacuum spacetimes originally in the investigation of the singularity. The reason for putting such assumption is illustrated as follows. Consider class A Bianchi spacetimes with the metric $$ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+e^{2\Omega}(e^{2\beta})_{ij}\sigma^{i}\sigma^{j},$$ where $e^{\Omega}$ is the averaged scale factor, $\beta=$ diag$(-2\beta_{+}$, $\beta_{+}+\sqrt{3}\beta_{-}$, $\beta_{+}-\sqrt{3}\beta_{-})$ is a traceless matrix that determines the anisotropy and $d\sigma^{i}={\epsilon^{i}}_{ik}\sigma^{j}\wedge\sigma^{k}$. For simplicity, take $\sigma^{i}=dx^{i}$, i.e. Bianchi I spacetimes. Then, $e^{3\Omega}=t$ and $\Omega^{2}=\beta_{+}^{2}+\beta_{-}^{2}$. The spacetimes have singularities at $\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$. The square of shear $\sigma$ is estimated as $\sigma^{2}\sim
t^{-2}\sim e^{-6\Omega}.
$ Further, consider a perfect fluid whose equation of state is $p=(\gamma -1)\rho$, where $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and the pressure, respectively. The contribution from the shear is more dominant than that of the energy density $\rho\sim e^{-3\Omega\gamma}$ near singularities ($\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$) if $1 \leq \gamma<2$ for natural matters such as a dust ($\gamma=1$) and a radiation ($\gamma=4/3$). Thus, the effect of the matter field is negligible for the behavior of the spacetime near singularities, and we have only to consider the vacuum case. Indeed, the known Bianchi perfect fluid solutions have similar behavior as the vacuum solutions near the singularities [@WE].
We must, however, look more carefully into the influence of the energy density in the case $\gamma =2$, where time dependence of the energy density and shear are contribute equally. The matter with $\gamma=2$ is a stiff matter [@JB], and is not realistic matter in the relativistic sense. However, it is known that a scalar field $\phi$ is algebraically equivalent to a stiff matter if $\nabla\phi$ is timelike [@WE], where $\nabla$ is covariant derivative with respect to $g$. Therefore, the existence of scalar fields will give strong influence on the nature of singularities.
Actually, Belinskii and Khalatnikov found that a massless scalar field can suppress Mixmaster oscillations [@BK]. The result obtained by Belinskii and Khalatnikov is that all of Kasner exponents can be positive in Bianchi I spacetimes if the scalar field exists. Therefore, complicated permutation in the direction of anisotropic contraction toward singularities does not appear. Numerically, Berger confirmed Belinskii and Khalatnikov’s result in Bianchi IX spacetimes and furthermore, she showed that Mixmaster oscillations are suppressed in non-polarized $U(1)$-symmetric and magnetic Gowdy spacetimes which are Mixmaster if there exist no scalar fields [@BB00].
On the contrary, there is a possibility that the existence of exponential potentials of scalar fields drastically changes the behavior of singularities, i.e. the Mixmaster dynamics may come back. Recall the mechanism of the Mixmaster dynamics. The Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{I\! X}$ for Bianchi IX spacetimes [@CM; @BB00] is $$2{\cal H}_{I\! X}=-p_{\Omega}^{2}+p_{+}^{2}+p_{-}^{2}+V(\Omega,\beta_{\pm}),$$ where $p_{\Omega}$ and $p_{\pm}$ are conjugate momenta of $\Omega$ and $\beta_{\pm}$, respectively. The “potential” term $V(\Omega,\beta_{\pm})$ is given by $$V(\Omega,\beta_{\pm})=e^{4\Omega} \left[e^{-8\beta_{+}}+e^{4
\beta_{+}+4\sqrt{3}\beta_{-}}+e^{4\beta_{+}-4\sqrt{3}\beta_{-}}
-2\left(e^{4\beta_{+}}+e^{-2\beta_{+}-2\sqrt{3}\beta_{-}}
+e^{-2\beta_{+}+2\sqrt{3}\beta_{-}}\right) \right].$$ In the Bianchi I spacetimes there is no such “potential” term. It is known that Bianchi IX spacetimes have a singularity as $\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$. If the spacetimes are AVTD, the “potential” term must vanish as $\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$. When $V(\Omega,\beta_{\pm})=0$, we have $\beta_{\pm}=\beta_{\pm}^{0}+v_{\pm}|\Omega |$, $p_{\Omega}=$const. and $p_{\pm}=$const. by varying the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{I\! X}$, where $v_{\pm}\equiv p_{\pm}/|p_{\Omega}|$ and $\beta_{\pm}^{0}$ are constant. The Hamiltonian constraint ${\cal H}_{I\! X}=0$ is $v^{2}_{+}+v^{2}_{-}=1$. Then, $$V\approx e^{-4|\Omega|(1+2\cos\theta)}
+e^{-4|\Omega|(1-\cos\theta-\sqrt{3}\sin\theta)}
+e^{-4|\Omega|(1-\cos\theta+\sqrt{3}\sin\theta)},$$ where we parameterize $v_{+}=\cos\theta$ and $ v_{-}=\sin\theta$. For generic $\theta$ (except for $\theta=0,2\pi/3,4\pi/3$), the term $V$ exponentially grows as $\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$. This is a contradiction to vanish the “potential” term as $\Omega\rightarrow -\infty$. Thus, Bianchi IX spacetimes are not AVTD since the “potential” term becomes dominant near the singularity. As a result, reflections by the potential cause the Mixmaster dynamics.
As we have seen in the above discussion, the essential point is the existence of exponentially growing “potential” terms. Then, Belinskii and Khalatnikov have claimed that a scalar field $\phi$ exponentially coupled with the Maxwell field restores Mixmaster oscillations in homogeneous spacetimes [@BK]. Berger also suggested that if there exists a “potential” $$\label{potential}
V(\phi)
={\cal A}^{2}e^{\alpha\phi}+{\cal B}^{2}e^{-\beta\phi},
\hspace{.5cm}\alpha,\beta>0,$$ where ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ are functions, then Mixmaster oscillations can be retained in both homogeneous and inhomogeneous spacetimes [@BB00].
We wish to explore how “potential” terms such as those in Eq. (\[potential\]) produced by matter fields might change the nature of the approach to the singularity. As a first example we consider matter coupled to the Gowdy spacetime. It has been shown mathematically and numerically that vacuum Gowdy spacetimes are AVTD [@BB98; @GM; @KR]. It is known numerically that certain types of magnetic fields can ruin this behavior [@WIB]. While heuristically one would not expect this to happen for the matter fields we study here, no rigorous demonstration that Gowdy coupled to matter fields including exponential potentials remains AVTD has been possible until now.
It should be noted that this form of potential arises from the low energy effective superstring theory. It contains the dilaton which is non-minimally coupled with the Maxwell and axion field. From the unified theoretical point of view, it is believed that the distinction between gravity and matter fields cannot be maintained near spacetime singularities and the superstring theory is the most promising candidate of such unified theories [@STW]. Also, it is pointed out that the EMD system with a positive cosmological constant has new mechanism forming singularities [@MTN]. Hence, it is important to investigate the behavior around the singularity in the EMDA system.
Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton-Axion system in Gowdy spacetimes on $T^{3}\times R$ {#emda-gowdy}
============================================================================
In this section, we introduce a standard model with additional assumptions. First, we adopt Gowdy spacetimes. Gowdy proposed spatially compact and inhomogeneous spacetimes with the following metric [@G]; $$\label{gowdy-metric}
ds^{2}=e^{\lambda(t,\theta)/2}t^{-1/2}(-dt^{2}+d\theta ^{2})+
R(t,\theta)\left[e^{-Z(t,\theta)}\left(dy+X(t,\theta)dz\right)^{2}
+e^{Z(t,\theta)}dz^{2}\right].$$ Gowdy spacetimes have two twist free spacelike Killing vectors $\partial/\partial y$ and $\partial/\partial z$. The spatial topology of the spacetimes is classified into three types, $T^{3}$, $S^{2}\times S^{1}$ and $S^{3}$. We will consider only the simplest case, $T^{3}$, since the isometry group action has no degenerate orbits and therefore Einstein’s equations have no corresponding singularities [@VM81]. Gowdy spacetimes are called [*polarized*]{} if $X\equiv 0$, and [*non-polarized*]{} if this condition is not meet.
Properties of the metric (\[gowdy-metric\]) depend on whether $\nabla R$ is timelike, spacelike or null. When the metric Eq. (\[gowdy-metric\]) describes a cosmological model, i.e. $\nabla R$ is globally timelike and the spatial topology is $T^{3}$ (periodic in $\theta$), one can take the function $R(t,\theta)=t$ without loss of generality by Gowdy’s corner theorem if the spacetime is vacuum [@G]. This fact be seen from Einstein’s equations, $$\label{G-G=0}
G_{tt}-G_{\theta\theta}=\ddot{R}-R''=0,$$ where dot and prime denote $t$ and $\theta$ derivatives, respectively. Also in the EDA system, Eq. (\[G-G=0\]) holds [@JBK]. In the EM system, Eq. (\[G-G=0\]) is not satisfied generically. However in the case that the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ has only the following components [@PM]; $$F_{ty}=\dot{\omega}, \;\;\;
F_{\theta y}=\omega ', \;\;\;
F_{tz}=\dot{\chi}, \;\;\;
F_{\theta z}=\chi ',$$ Eq. (\[G-G=0\]) is satisfied. This situation does not change even if the dilaton field is exponentially coupled with the Maxwell field. Thus, in the EMDA system, we can put $R(t,\theta)=t$. Hereafter, we will choose this gauge. In this case, Gowdy spacetimes have spacelike singularities at $t=0$ [@G].
The action of the EMDA theory is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action}
S&=&\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left[-\;^{(4)}\!R+e^{-2a\phi}F^{2}
+2\left(\nabla\phi\right)^{2}
+\frac{1}{3}e^{-4a\phi}H^{2}\right] \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{1}{2}t\left[\ddot{\lambda}-\lambda ''+\dot{Z}^{2}-Z'^{2}
+e^{-2Z}\left(\dot{X}^{2}-X'^{2}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&& -2e^{-2a\phi}\left[\left(e^{-Z}X^{2}+e^{Z}\right)
\left(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega '^{2}\right)
+e^{-Z}\left(\dot{\chi}^{2}-\chi '^{2}\right)
-2Xe^{-Z}\left(\dot{\omega}\dot{\chi}-\omega '\chi '\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&& -2t\left(\dot{\phi}^{2}-\phi '^{2}\right)
-\frac{1}{2}e^{4a\phi}t\left(\dot{\kappa}^{2}-\kappa'^{2}\right)
,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi =\phi (t,\theta)$ is the dilaton field, $H=dB\equiv -\frac{1}{2}e^{4a\phi}*d\kappa(t,\theta)$ is the three-index antisymmetric tensor field dual to the axion field $\kappa$, and $a$ is a coupling constant [@STW]. The functions are periodic in $\theta$ ($0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$) because the spatial topology is $T^{3}$. \[However, the spatial compactness is not relevant to our analysis.\] In the case of the effective superstring theory, $a=1$. If we neglect the axion field, $a=\sqrt{3}$ gives Kaluza-Klein theory. If $a=0$, the dilaton and axion fields are decoupled with the gravity.
Note that the metric function $\lambda$ is decoupled with other functions, and that $\lambda$ appears only in the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. This is the primary advantage of Gowdy spacetimes. Now, let us focus on evolution equations. We can calculate the metric function $\lambda$ by evaluating the integral of $\lambda '$ from $0$ to $2\pi$ after obtaining other functions.
Review of the Fuchsian algorithm {#Fuchsian algorithm}
================================
The above system is very complicated and gives rise to highly nonlinear partial differential equations which are nontrivially coupled with the matter fields. We would like to construct AVTD singular solutions of such complicated equations which are parametrized by as many arbitrary functions as possible. In order to do this, we adopt the Fuchsian algorithm developed by Kichenassamy and Rendall [@KR]. One of the advantages of this algorithm is applicable to general (nonlinear and/or singular) partial differential equations (PDEs). Another advantage of the Fuchsian algorithm is applicable to arbitrary spatial dimension. \[Spatial dimension in Gowdy spacetimes is one since these spacetimes have two spacelike Killing vector fields.\] This fact suggests that the Fuchsian algorithm is applicable to spacetimes with fewer or no symmetry [@R; @LA].
In this section, we briefly review the Fuchsian algorithm [@KR; @IK; @K]. Let us consider a PDE system $$\label{f=0}
F\left[u(t,x^{\alpha})\right]=0.$$ Generically, $u$ can have any number of components. Here, we will assume that the PDE is singular with respect to the argument $t$. The Fuchsian algorithm consists of three steps as follows:
[*Step 1*]{} Identify the leading (singular) terms $u_{0}(t,x)$ which are parts of the desired expansion for $u$. This means that the most singular terms cancel each other when $u_{0}(t,x)$ is substituted in Eq. (\[f=0\]).
[*Step 2*]{} Introduce a renormalized unknown function $v(t,x)$, which is given by $$\label{u=a+tv}
u=u_{0}+t^{m}v.$$ If $u_{0}\sim t^{k}$, we should set $m=k+\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon >0$. Thus, $v$ is a regular part of the desired expansion for $u$.
[*Step 3*]{} Obtain a [*Fuchsian system*]{} for $v$ by substituting Eq. (\[u=a+tv\]) in Eq. (\[f=0\]). That is, $$\label{fuchsian_system}
(D+A)v=t^{\epsilon}f(t,x,v,\partial_{x}v),$$ where $D\equiv t\partial _{t}$ and $A$ is a matrix which is independent of $t$ and $\epsilon >0$. $f$ can be assumed to be analytic in all of arguments except $t$ and continuous in $t$. Note that Eq. (\[fuchsian\_system\]) is a ([*singular*]{}) PDE system for the [*regular*]{} function $v$.
Roughly speaking, the Fuchsian algorithm is a transformation from finding singular solutions of the original equations (\[f=0\]) into finding regular solutions of the Fuchsian equations (\[fuchsian\_system\]) which may be singular even if the original equations are regular. Once we have the Fuchsian system, we can show the existence of a unique solution for prescribed singular part $u_{0}$ by the following theorem.
\[fuchsian\_theorem\] Let us consider a system Eq. (\[fuchsian\_system\]), where $A$ is an analytic matrix near $x=0$, such that $\|\sigma^{A}\|\leq C$ for $0<\sigma <1$ [(boundedness condition)]{} and $f$ is analytic in space $x$ and continuous in time $t$. Then the system (\[fuchsian\_system\]) has exactly one solution which is defined near $x=0$ and $t=0$, and which is analytic in space and continuous in time, and tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
Applying the Fuchsian algorithm to our problem of Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system, the procedure is summarized as follows:
1. Solve VTD equations as ordinary differential equations with respect to $t$. Solutions obtained such a way are the leading (singular) terms of the desired formal solutions.
2. Substitute the formal solutions into full field equations. Here, make integral constants arbitrary functions of spatial arguments $x$.
3. Obtain a Fuchsian system for unknown functions and evaluate every eigenvalues of $A$.
4. Apply Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] to the system.
If every eigenvalues of $A$ are non-negative, the boundedness condition in Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] holds. Then, renormalized unknown functions must vanish as $t\rightarrow 0$ by Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\]. Therefore, the only singular terms which are solutions to VTD equations remain and they are solutions to full field equations at $t=0$. Thus, we have AVTD singular solutions. Essentially, the above argument is a singular version of the Cauchy-Kowalevskaya theorem [@LA; @KR].
Asymptotic behavior in Gowdy spacetimes {#results}
=======================================
We are now ready to examine the singularity in the EMDA system. The EMDA system with Gowdy symmetry, however, has six functions ($Z$, $X$, $\omega$, $\chi$, $\phi$, $\kappa$), and it is very complicated to treat all of them at the same time. Hence, we will reduce the system by selecting four functions from them for simplicity. As a selection rule, it is important to leave exponential coupling between the dilaton and other fields since, as mentioned in Sec.\[why-emda\], an essential part of our analysis is whether or not “potential” terms in Einstein’s equations exponentially grow as $t\rightarrow 0$ [@BB98; @BB00]. Therefore, we will consider three cases, which are the non-polarized EMD, the non-polarized EDA and the polarized EMDA.
non-polarized EMD ($\chi =0$, $\kappa =0$) {#sec-emd}
------------------------------------------
First, let us consider the case that the dilaton field is exponentially coupled with the Maxwell field. Varying the action (\[action\]) with respect to ($Z$, $X$, $\omega$, $\chi$), we obtain evolution equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emd-ee-z}
D^{2}Z-t^{2}Z'' + t^{2}e^{-2Z}(\dot{X}^{2}-X'^{2})
+ 2te^{-2a\phi}(e^{-Z}X^{2}-e^{Z})(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega'^{2})=0,
\\
\label{emd-ee-x}
D^{2}X-t^{2}X'' -2t^{2}(\dot{X}\dot{Z}-X'Z')
- 4te^{-2a\phi +Z}X(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega'^{2})=0,
\\
\label{emd-ee-omega}
D^{2}\omega-t^{2}\omega''
-t^{2}\left[ 2a\dot{\phi}+\frac{1}{t}
-\frac{(2\dot{X}-\dot{Z}X)Xe^{-Z}
+\dot{Z}e^{Z}}{e^{-Z}X^{2}+e^{Z}}\right]
\dot{\omega} \hspace{1.1cm}\nonumber \\
+t^{2}\left[ 2a\phi '-\frac{(2X'-Z'X)Xe^{-Z}+Z'e^{Z}}{e^{-Z}X^{2}
+e^{Z}}\right]\omega'=0,
\\
\label{emd-ee-phi}
D^{2}\phi-t^{2}\phi ''
+ate^{-2a\phi}\left(e^{-Z}X^{2}+e^{Z}\right)(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega'^{2})=0.\end{aligned}$$ Following the procedure explained in the previous section, we have VTD equations by dropping spatial derivative terms from Eqs.(\[emd-ee-z\])-(\[emd-ee-phi\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emd-vtd-z}
D^{2}Z+t^{2}e^{-2Z}\dot{X}^{2}
+2te^{-2a\phi}(e^{-Z}X^{2}-e^{Z})\dot{\omega}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{emd-vtd-x}
D^{2}X-2t^{2}\dot{X}\dot{Z}-4te^{-2a\phi +Z}X\dot{\omega}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{emd-vtd-omega}
D^{2}\omega
-t^{2}\left\{ 2a\dot{\phi}+\frac{1}{t}
-\frac{(2\dot{X}-\dot{Z}X)Xe^{-Z}
+\dot{Z}e^{Z}}{e^{-Z}X^{2}+e^{Z}}\right\}
\dot{\omega}
=0,
\\
\label{emd-vtd-phi}
D^{2}\phi+ate^{-2a\phi}(e^{-Z}X^{2}+e^{Z})\dot{\omega}^{2}=0.\end{aligned}$$ According to Definition \[def-avtd\], solutions to these equations are AVTD if they exist and are also solutions to full Einstein’s equations as $t\rightarrow 0$.
Since we expect Kasner-like solutions, $Z\approx Z_{0}\ln t$, $X\approx X_{0}$ and $\phi\approx \phi_{0}\ln t$ are chosen as the leading terms for $Z$, $X$ and $\phi$, respectively. Substituting them into Eq. (\[emd-vtd-omega\]), we have a leading term of $\omega$. Thus, we can construct a family of formal solutions to full Einstein’s equations as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emd-keisiki-z}
Z=Z_{0}(\theta)\ln t+Z_{1}(\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\alpha(t,\theta),
\\
\label{emd-keisiki-x}
X=X_{0}(\theta)+t^{2Z_{0}}\left(X_{1}(\theta)+\beta(t,\theta)\right),
\\
\label{emd-keisiki-omega}
\omega=\omega_{0}(\theta)+t^{Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}+1}\left(\omega _{1}(\theta)
+\gamma(t,\theta)\right),
\\
\label{emd-keisiki-phi}
\phi=\phi _{0}(\theta)\ln t+\phi _{1} (\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\delta(t,\theta),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{0}>0$, $Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}+1>0$, $\epsilon>0$. The first and second inequalities are given by Eqs. (\[emd-vtd-x\]) and (\[emd-vtd-omega\]). $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are renormalized unknown functions. Note that when we put $\alpha =\beta =\gamma =\delta =0$, Eqs. (\[emd-keisiki-z\])-(\[emd-keisiki-phi\]) are exact solutions to VTD equations as $t\rightarrow 0$. Substituting the formal solutions (\[emd-keisiki-z\])-(\[emd-keisiki-phi\]) into full Einstein’s equations (\[emd-ee-z\])-(\[emd-ee-phi\]), we can obtain the following system, $$(D+A)\vec{u}=\vec{f}(t,\theta,\vec{u},\vec{u}'),
\label{fu}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{u} &=&
(\alpha ,\; D\alpha ,\; t\alpha ',\; \beta ,\; D\beta ,\; t\beta ',
\; \gamma ,\; D\gamma ,\;
t\gamma ',\; \delta ,\; D\delta ,\; t\delta')^{T}.
\label{uu}\end{aligned}$$ The matrix $A$ has the $12\times 12$ components, $$A=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
A_{Z} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & A_{X} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & A_{\omega} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & A_{\phi} \\
\end{array}\right),$$ where, $$A_{Z}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
\epsilon^{2} & 2\epsilon & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right)
, \;\;\;\;
A_{X}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 2Z_{0} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right),$$ $$A_{\omega}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}+1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right)
,\;\;\;\;
A_{\phi}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
\epsilon^{2} & 2\epsilon & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right).$$ We can easily verify that eigenvalues of $A$ are $0$, $2Z_{0}$, $Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}+1$ and $\epsilon$, which are non-negative. Then, we conclude that the boundedness condition of Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] holds. Next, we examine the leading parts in components of the vector $\vec{f}$. $$\vec{f}=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
X_{0}'^{2}
e^{-2(Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha)}t^{2-2Z_{0}-\epsilon} +
2X_{0}^{2}\omega_{0}'^{2}
e^{-(2a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\delta)+Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha)}
t^{1-Z_{0}-2a\phi _{0}-\epsilon}+ \cdots \\
t(\alpha+D\alpha)' \\
0 \\
-2X_{0}'(Z_{0}'\ln t+Z_{1}'+t^{\epsilon}\alpha)t^{2-2Z_{0}}
-4X_{0}\omega_{0}'^{2}
e^{-2a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\delta)+Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha}
t^{1-Z_{0}-2a\phi _{0}} + \cdots \\
t(\beta+D\beta)' \\
0 \\
X_{0}^{-2}e^{Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha}
\{\omega_{0}''-[2a(\phi_{0}'\ln t+\phi_{1}'+t^{\epsilon}\delta')+1]\omega_{0}'
\}t^{1-Z_{0}-2a\phi _{0}} + \cdots \\
t(\gamma+D\gamma)' \\
0 \\
aX_{0}^{2}\omega_{0}'^{2}
e^{-(2a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\delta)+Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha)}
t^{1-Z_{0}-2a\phi _{0}-\epsilon} + \cdots \\
t(\delta+D\delta)' \\
\end{array}\right).$$ The dots represent the terms which are lower order with respect to $t$ and are not important for our discussion since the power of these terms is necessarily positive if conditions $Z_{0}>0$ and $Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}+1>0$ hold. Positivity of the power of $t$ in components of the vector $\vec{f}$ gives us sufficient conditions to obtain the AVTD solutions. Finally, we apply Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] to this system and then, we obtain the following theorem.
\[th-nemd\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $X_{i}(\theta)$, $\omega_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic functions and $0<Z_{0}<1$ and $-1<Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}<1$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[emd-ee-z\])-(\[emd-ee-phi\]) in the EMD system, there exists a unique solution with the form (\[emd-keisiki-z\])-(\[emd-keisiki-phi\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
Theorem \[th-nemd\] means that $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes in the EMD system have AVTD singularities in “general” in the sense that the singular solutions have maximal number (i.e. eight) of arbitrary functions ($Z_{0}$, $X_{0}$, $\omega_{0}$, $\phi _{0}$, $Z_{1}$, $X_{1}$, $\omega_{1}$, $\phi _{1}$).
In components of the vector $\vec{f}$, terms $t^{1-Z_{0}-2a\phi _{0}}$ and $t^{2-2Z_{0}}$ give us upper bound for $Z_{0}$ and $Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}$ in Theorem \[th-nemd\]. However, since these terms are always multiplied by $X_{0}'$ and $\omega_{0}'$, the upper bound can be removed if $X_{0}'=0$ and $\omega_{0}'=0$. Hence, we obtain the following corollary:
\[th-nemd’\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $X_{i}(\theta)$, $\omega_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic functions, and assume $0<Z_{0}$, $-1<Z_{0}+2a\phi _{0}$ and $X_{0}'=\omega_{0}'=0$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[emd-ee-z\])-(\[emd-ee-phi\]) in the EMD system, there exists a unique solution with the form (\[emd-keisiki-z\])-(\[emd-keisiki-phi\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
Note that this is a “non-generic” case in the sense that two of arbitrary eight functions are constant in $\theta$.
non-polarized EDA ($\omega =0$, $\chi =0$)
------------------------------------------
Now, we will consider the case that the axion field is exponentially coupled with the dilaton field. In the similar way to Sec.\[sec-emd\], we have evolution equations by varying the action (\[action\]) with respect to $(Z, X, \phi, \kappa)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eda-ee-z}
D^{2}Z-t^{2}Z''+t^{2}e^{-2Z}(\dot{X}^{2}-X'^{2})=0,
\\
\label{eda-ee-x}
D^{2}X-t^{2}X''-2t^{2}(\dot{X}\dot{Z}-X'Z')=0,
\\
\label{eda-ee-phi}
D^{2}\phi-t^{2}\phi ''-\frac{a}{2}t^{2}e^{4a\phi}(\dot{\kappa}^{2}-
\kappa '^{2})=0,
\\
\label{eda-ee-kappa}
D^{2}\kappa-t^{2}\kappa ''+4at^{2}(\dot{\phi}\dot{\kappa}-\phi '\kappa ')=0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that a pair of PDEs for gravity (\[eda-ee-z\]) and (\[eda-ee-x\]) is decoupled with those for scalar fields (\[eda-ee-phi\]) and (\[eda-ee-kappa\]). Furthermore, Eqs. (\[eda-ee-z\]) and (\[eda-ee-x\]) have equivalent form to Eqs. (\[eda-ee-phi\]) and (\[eda-ee-kappa\]) as simultaneous PDEs. These facts are known as “mirror images” in string cosmologies and used to construct new nontrivial solutions [@L].
Dropping the spatial derivative terms from Eqs. (\[eda-ee-z\])-(\[eda-ee-kappa\]), VTD equations are obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eda-vtd-z}
D^{2}Z+t^{2}e^{-2Z}\dot{X}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{eda-vtd-x}
D^{2}X-2t^{2}\dot{X}\dot{Z}=0,
\\
\label{eda-vtd-phi}
D^{2}\phi-\frac{a}{2}t^{2}e^{4a\phi}\dot{\kappa}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{eda-vtd-kappa}
D^{2}\kappa+4at^{2}\dot{\phi}\dot{\kappa}=0.\end{aligned}$$ We can easily solve these equations as $t\rightarrow 0$ and find formal solutions to full Einstein’s equations. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eda-keisiki-z}
Z=Z_{0}(\theta)\ln t+Z_{1}(\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\alpha(t,\theta),
\\
\label{eda-keisiki-x}
X=X_{0}(\theta)+t^{2Z_{0}}(X_{1}(\theta)+\beta(t,\theta)),
\\
\label{eda-keisiki-phi}
\phi=\phi _{0}(\theta)\ln t+\phi _{1}(\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\gamma(t,\theta),
\\
\label{eda-keisiki-kappa}
\kappa=\kappa_{0}(\theta)+t^{-4a\phi _{0}}(\kappa _{1}(\theta)+\delta(t,\theta)),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{0}>0$, $-2a\phi_{0} >0$ and $\epsilon>0$. These restrictions for $Z_{0}$ and $\phi_{0}$ given by Eqs. (\[eda-vtd-x\]) and (\[eda-vtd-kappa\]), respectively.
The system for regular functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ in the EDA system is given by Eqs. (\[fu\]) and (\[uu\]) by replacing the $12 \times 12$ matrix $A$ by $$A=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
A_{Z} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & A_{X} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & A_{\phi} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & A_{\kappa} \\
\end{array}\right),$$ where $$A_{\kappa}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
16a^{2}\phi_{0}^{2} & -4a\phi_{0} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right).$$ Eigenvalues of $A$ are $0$, $2Z_{0},-4a\phi _{0}$ and $\epsilon$, and all of them are non-negative. These facts imply that the boundedness condition in Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] holds. After long calculation, the leading parts in components of the vector $\vec{f}$ is obtained as follows. $$\vec{f}=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0
\\
X_{0}'^{2}e^{-2(Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha)}t^{2-2Z_{0}-\epsilon}+ \cdots
\\
t(\alpha+D\alpha)'
\\
0
\\
\left[X_{0}''-2X_{0}' (Z_{0}'\ln t+Z_{1}'+t^{\epsilon}\alpha')\right]
t^{2-2Z_{0}}+ \cdots
\\
t(\beta+D\beta)'
\\
0
\\
-\frac{a}{2}\kappa_{0}'^{2}e^{4a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\gamma)}
t^{2+4a\phi _{0}-\epsilon} +\cdots
\\
t(\gamma+D\gamma)'
\\
0
\\
\left[\kappa_{0}''+4a\kappa_{0}'(\phi_{0}'\ln t+\phi_{1}'
+t^{\epsilon}\gamma')\right]
t^{2+4a\phi _{0}}+ \cdots
\\
t(\delta+D\delta)'
\\
\end{array}\right).$$ Since the power of $t$ of other terms in $\vec{f}$ is positive under conditions $Z_{0}>0$ and $-2a\phi_{0}>0$, and then they are not needed here. The AVTD behavior requires that the power of the leading parts of $t$ is positive. Thus, we have the following theorem which states that non-polarized Gowdy spacetimes in the EDA system are AVTD in general.
\[th-neda\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $X_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, $\kappa_{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic and $0<Z_{0}<1$ and $0<-2a\phi _{0}<1$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[eda-ee-z\])-(\[eda-ee-kappa\]) in the EDA system, there exists a unique solution of the form (\[eda-keisiki-z\])- (\[eda-keisiki-kappa\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
As seen from the vector $\vec{f}$, the upper bound for $Z_{0}$ and $-\phi_{0}$ in Theorem \[th-neda\] are derived from terms multiplied by $X_{0}'$ and $\kappa_{0}'$. Thus, we obtain the following corollary in the “non-generic” case.
\[th-neda’\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $X_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, $\kappa_{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic, and assume $0<Z_{0}$, $0<-2a\phi _{0}$ and $X_{0}'=\kappa_{0}'=0$, for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[eda-ee-z\])-(\[eda-ee-kappa\]) in the EDA system, there exists a unique solution of the form (\[eda-keisiki-z\])-(\[eda-keisiki-kappa\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
polarized EMDA ($X=0$, $\chi =0$)
---------------------------------
Finally, we will study the case of polarized Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system. As mentioned in Sec. \[why-emda\], the existence of “potential” like Eq. (\[potential\]) might lead to Mixmaster oscillations. Such a potential appears in the EMDA system \[See Eq. \[emda-ee-phi\]\]. On the other hand, it has been shown that vacuum polarized $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes are AVTD [@IM]. Which behavior is realized in the EMDA system, AVTD or Mixmaster?
Varying the action (\[action\]) with respect to four functions $(Z, \omega, \phi, \kappa)$, we have evolution equations as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emda-ee-z}
D^{2}Z-t^{2}Z''-2te^{-2a\phi+Z}(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega'^{2})=0,
\\
\label{emda-ee-omega}
D^{2}\omega+t^{2}\left(\dot{Z}-2a\dot{\phi}-\frac{1}{t}\right)\dot{\omega}
-t^{2}\omega''-t^{2}(-2a\phi '+Z')\omega'=0,
\\
\label{emda-ee-phi}
D^{2}\phi-t^{2}\phi ''+ate^{-2a\phi+Z}(\dot{\omega}^{2}-\omega'^{2})+
\frac{1}{2}at^{2}e^{4a\phi}(\dot{\kappa}^{2}-\kappa '^{2})=0,
\\
\label{emda-ee-kappa}
D^{2}\kappa -t^{2}\kappa ''+4at^{2}(\dot{\kappa}\dot{\phi}-\kappa '\phi ')=0.\end{aligned}$$ Dropping the spatial derivative terms from Eqs. (\[emda-ee-z\])-(\[emda-ee-kappa\]), following VTD equations are obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emda-vtd-z}
D^{2}Z-2te^{-2a\phi+Z}\dot{\omega}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{emda-vtd-omega}
D^{2}\omega+t^{2}\left(\dot{Z}-2a\dot{\phi}-\frac{1}{t}\right)\dot{\omega}=0,
\\
\label{emda-vtd-phi}
D^{2}\phi+ate^{-2a\phi+Z}\dot{\omega}^{2}+
\frac{1}{2}at^{2}e^{4a\phi}\dot{\kappa}^{2}=0,
\\
\label{emda-vtd-kappa}
D^{2}\kappa +4at^{2}\dot{\kappa}\dot{\phi}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the case of the non-polarized EDA system, we can solve these equations as $t\rightarrow 0$. Thus, a family of formal solutions of this system can be obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pmda-keisiki-z}
Z=Z_{0}(\theta)\ln t+Z_{1}(\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\alpha(t,\theta),
\\
\label{pmda-keisiki-omega}
\omega=\omega_{0}(\theta)+t^{2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}+1}(\omega_{1}(\theta)
+\beta(t,\theta)),
\\
\label{pmda-keisiki-phi}
\phi=\phi_{0}(\theta)\ln t+\phi_{1} (\theta)+t^{\epsilon}\gamma(t,\theta),
\\
\label{pmda-keisiki-kappa}
\kappa=\kappa_{0}(\theta)+t^{-4a\phi_{0}}(\kappa_{1}(\theta)+\delta(t,\theta)),\end{aligned}$$ where $2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}+1>0$, $-4a\phi_{0}>0$ and $\epsilon>0$. Eqs. (\[emda-vtd-omega\]) and (\[emda-vtd-kappa\]) restrict the values of $Z_{0}$ and $\phi_{0}$. By substituting Eqs. (\[pmda-keisiki-z\])-(\[pmda-keisiki-kappa\]) into Eqs. (\[emda-ee-z\])-(\[emda-ee-kappa\]), the system in the polarized EMDA system is given by Eqs. (\[fu\]) and (\[uu\]) with $A$ given by $$A=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
A_{Z} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & A_{\omega} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & A_{\phi} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & A_{\kappa} \\
\end{array}\right),$$ where $$A_{\omega}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}+1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right), \;\;\;
A_{\kappa}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -4a\phi_{0} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right).$$ We can easily evaluate the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ as $0$, $2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}+1$, $-4a\phi_{0}$ and $\epsilon$. Since they are all non-negative, the boundedness condition in Theorem \[fuchsian\_theorem\] hold. The leading parts in components of the vector $\vec{f}$ are as follows: $$\vec{f}=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
-2\omega_{0}'^{2}
e^{
-2a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\gamma)+Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha}
t^{1-2a\phi_{0}+Z_{0}-\epsilon} +
\cdots \\
t(\alpha+D\alpha)' \\
0 \\
\{\omega_{0}''
+\omega_{0}'[-2a(\phi_{0}'\ln t+\phi_{1}'
+t^{\epsilon}\gamma ')+Z_{0}'\ln t+Z_{1}'
+t^{\epsilon}\alpha ']\}t^{1-2a\phi_{0}+Z_{0}}
+ \cdots
\\
t(\beta+D\beta)' \\
0 \\
a\omega_{0}'^{2}
e^{-2a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\gamma)+Z_{1}+t^{\epsilon}\alpha}
t^{1-2a\phi_{0}+Z_{0}-\epsilon}
+\frac{a}{2}\kappa_{0}'^{2}
e^{4a(\phi_{1}+t^{\epsilon})}
t^{2+4a\phi_{0}-\epsilon} + \cdots \\
t(\gamma+D\gamma)' \\
0 \\
\left[\kappa_{0}''+4a\kappa_{0}'(\phi_{0}'\ln t +\phi_{1}'
+t^{\epsilon}\gamma ')\right]
t^{2+4a\phi_{0}} +
\cdots \\
t(\delta+D\delta)' \\
\end{array}\right).$$ We do not need other terms since their power is positive under the conditions $2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}+1>0$ and $-4a\phi_{0}>0$. Thus, we have again the theorem which states that polarized Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system are AVTD in general even if there exists a “potential” as Eq. (\[potential\]) in the system. This result is a negative answer of the question in Sec. \[why-emda\].
\[th-pemda\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $\omega_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, $\kappa_{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic, and $-1<2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}<1$ and $-1<2a\phi_{0}<0$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[emda-ee-z\])-(\[emda-ee-kappa\]) in the EMDA system, there exists a unique solution of the form (\[pmda-keisiki-z\])-(\[pmda-keisiki-kappa\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
The leading terms in components of the vector $\vec{f}$ always include factors $\omega_{0}'$ and/or $\kappa_{0}'$. Then, we can be weaken the conditions for $Z_{0}$ and $\phi_{0}$ as similar to the cases of the EMD and the EDA systems if we put $\omega_{0}'=\kappa_{0}'=0$.
\[th-pemda’\] Let $Z_{i}(\theta)$, $\omega_{i}(\theta)$, $\phi _{i}(\theta)$, $\kappa_{i}(\theta)$, where $i=0$, $1$, be real analytic, and assume $\omega_{0}'=\kappa_{0}'=0$, $-1<2a\phi_{0}-Z_{0}$ and $2a\phi_{0}<0$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. Then, for field equations (\[emda-ee-z\])-(\[emda-ee-kappa\]) in the EMDA system, there exists a unique solution of the form (\[pmda-keisiki-z\])- (\[pmda-keisiki-kappa\]), where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ tend to zero as $t\rightarrow 0$. $\Box$
Summary
=======
Theorem \[th-nemd\], \[th-neda\] and \[th-pemda\] state that $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system have AVTD singularities in “general” in the sense that these AVTD singular solutions depend on the maximal number of singular data. In the “non-generic” cases where some functions in the singular data are constant in $\theta$, we have obtained corollary \[th-nemd’\], \[th-neda’\] and \[th-pemda’\]. These results support BKL conjecture, that is, the dynamics of spatially different points effectively are decoupled from each other. However the spacetimes in our system do not show an oscillation of the Mixmaster spacetime near cosmological singularities for some parameter regions. In this sense, our system is a special case.
When we take the matter fields into account, Theorem \[th-pemda\] and corollary \[th-pemda’\] give an answer, “NO”, to the question in Sec. \[why-emda\], i.e. the existence of a “potential” Eq. (\[potential\]) does not necessarily restore the Mixmaster behavior. We must, however, impose another condition on the initial matter field in addition to the low-velocity condition to realize the AVTD behavior by the effect of the “potential”. Thus, we can say that the AVTD behavior is controlled by the “potential”.
We can verify that the Kretschemann invariant $R^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}R_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}$ of all of our AVTD solutions blows up as $t^{-(Z_{0}^{2}+2\phi_{0}^{2}+3)}$. Thus, the AVTD singularity in the EMDA system is the curvature singularity. This supports the validity of the strong cosmic censorship for $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes in the EMDA system since the spacetimes cannot be extended beyond the singularity similar to the vacuum case [@GM; @IM; @VM81; @CIM].
Let us compare our results with those obtained by Grubišić-Moncrief and Kichenassamy-Rendall in the (non-) polarized and vacuum case [@GM; @KR]. The low-velocity condition derived by Grubišić-Moncrief and Kichenassamy-Rendall are equivalent to our condition $0<Z_{0}<1$. If spacetimes are vacuum, then non-polarized $T^{3}$ Gowdy spacetimes are AVTD under this condition. Also, when $X\equiv 0$ (polarized), the spacetimes are AVTD without the low-velocity condition. In any case, our results clearly include Grubišić-Moncrief and Kichenassamy-Rendall’s when the matter fields vanish.
We should mention about some recent works related to our analysis. Weaver, Isenberg and Berger have shown numerically that a Gowdy spacetime in the EM system (a magnetic Gowdy spacetime) has the Mixmaster behavior [@WIB]. The magnetic field they considered couples the metric function $\lambda$ through its amplitude. Our Maxwell fields, however, do not have such character (cf. [@PM]), so Gowdy spacetimes in our EM system are able to show the AVTD behavior. It is expected that if Gowdy spacetimes in the EM system such as Weaver’s model have Mixmaster behavior, they cannot show the AVTD even if we put the dilaton and the axion fields.
Andersson and Rendall have shown by using the Fuchsian algorithm that a generic cosmological spacetime in the Einstein-scalar field system has AVTD property [@AR]. They have imposed the Gaussian coordinate conditions, $g_{00}=-1$ and $g_{0a}=0$ on the spacetime. As it is understood from its definition, AVTD is defined under a coordinate condition. Then, choice of gauge or coordinate conditions is important. Clearly, our gauge conditions (see Sec \[emda-gowdy\]) are different from Andersson-Rendall’s. Furthermore, the equations of matter fields used in Ref. [@AR] are [*linear*]{} PDEs. Contrary, our field equations in the EMDA system are [*nonlinear*]{}. These nonlinear PDEs cannot be came to linear ones. Thus, their and our results can be complements each of the other.
Damour and Henneaux have shown under the Gaussian coordinate conditions that a generic cosmological singularity of low energy effective superstring theory is the Mixmaster [@DH]. Their model is closely related to our model in the sense that it contains the matter fields with exponential potentials. However, there are some different points beside the gauge conditions : (i) the spacetime dimension (it is 11 or 10 in Ref. [@DH]), (ii) an assumption to find formal solutions, and (iii) components of $p$-forms (i.e. Maxwell and axion) fields. It is known that the existence of the Mixmaster behavior strongly depends on the spacetime dimension. Also, the contributions of the $p$-form fields are neglected in the field equations when formal solutions, i.e. VTD solutions, are constructed. Then, these formal solutions are different from ours since the velocity terms of [*any*]{} fields are not neglected in our analysis. Furthermore, thanks to Gowdy symmetry in our analysis, components of $p$-form fields are restricted, that is, the Maxwell field strength can have only four components (see Sec. \[emda-gowdy\]), although there is no such restrictions in Ref. [@DH].
To avoid complicated calculation we focused only on four functions among the six functions ($Z$, $X$, $\omega$, $\chi$, $\phi$ and $\kappa$) in the present paper. For a next step, we would like to investigate the full system where that all of six functions do not vanish. Another subject to consider is asymptotic behavior of $U(1)$-symmetric spacetimes [@VM86] which have only one spacelike Killing vector. Although Einstein’s equations for $U(1)$-symmetric spacetimes are more complicated than those of $T^3$ Gowdy spacetime, the Fuchsian algorithm is applicable to such system since this algorithm is independent on dimension of space. Recently, the Fuchsian algorithm is used for vacuum polarized $U(1)$-symmetric spacetimes [@IK; @LA]. Our interest is to know whether non-polarized $U(1)$-symmetric and generic cosmological spacetimes in the EMDA system are AVTD or not. Although the procedure of the Fuchsian algorithm is routine, finding out plausible formal solutions to VTD equations and obtaining the Fuchsian system are algebraically complicated, and not so easy. Therefore, these subjects are devoted to the future investigation.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
We are grateful to Akio Hosoya, Hideki Ishihara, Hideo Kodama, Kei-ichi Maeda and Shigeaki Yahikozawa for useful discussions. We also thank Michael Ashworth for his careful reading of our manuscript. This work is partially supported by Scientific Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, by the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS (No. 199704162 (T. T.) and No. 199906147 (K. M.)).
[99]{}
[LA]{}Andersson L 1999 [*The global existence problem in general relativity*]{} gr-qc/9911032
Andersson L and Rendall A D 2000 [*Quiescent cosmological singularities*]{} gr-qc/0001047
[JB]{}Barrow J D 1978 Nature [**272**]{} 211
[JBK]{}Barrow J D and Kunze K E 1997 Phys. Rev. [**D56**]{} 741
[BK]{}Belinskii V A and Khalatnikov I M 1973 JETP [**36**]{} 591
[BKL]{}Belinskii V A, and Khalatnikov I M and Lifshitz E M 1982 Adv. Phys. [**31**]{} 639
[BB98]{}Berger B K 1998 [*Numerical Approaches to Spacetime Singularities*]{} Living Reviews in Relativity [**1**]{} 7
[BB00]{}Berger B K 2000 Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{} 023508
[BG]{}Berger B K and Garfinkle D 1998 Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} 4767
[BM]{}Berger B K and Moncrief V 1993 Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{} 4676
[CCM]{}Carmeli M, Charach C and Malin S 1981 Phys. Rep. [**76**]{} 79
[CIM]{}Chruściel P T, Isenberg J and Moncrief V 1990 Class. Quantum Grav. [**7**]{} 1671
[DH]{}Damour T and Henneaux M 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} 920
[ELS]{}Eardley D, Liang E and Sachs R 1972 J. Math. Phys. [**13**]{} 99
[DG]{}Garfinkle D 1999 Phys. Rev. [**D60**]{} 104010
[G]{}Gowdy R H 1974 Ann. Phys. [**83**]{} 203
[GM]{}Grubišić B and Moncrief V 1993 Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} 2371
[HE]{}Hawking S W and Ellis G F R 1973 [*The large scale structure of space-time*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[HP]{}Hawking S W and Penrose R 1970 Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. [**314**]{} 529
[IK]{}Isenberg J and Kichenassamy S 1999 J. Math. Phys. [**40**]{} 340
[IM]{}Isenberg J and Moncrief V 1990 Ann. Phys. [**199**]{} 84
[K]{}Kichenassamy S 1996 [*Nonlinear Wave Equations*]{} (New York: Marcel Dekker)
[KR]{}Kichenassamy S and Rendall A D 1998 Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{} 1339
[L]{}Lidsey J E 1998 Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{} L77
[MIN]{} Maeda K, Ishibashi A and Narita M 1998 Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{} 1637
[MTN]{}Maeda K, Torii T and Narita M 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} 5270
[PM]{}Mansfield P A 1989 dissertation Yale University
[CM]{}Misner C W 1969 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**29**]{} 1071
[VM81]{}Moncrief V 1981 Ann. Phys. [**132**]{} 87
[VM86]{}Moncrief V 1986 Ann. Phys. [**167**]{} 118
[N]{}Narita M 1998 Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} 127501
Ringström H 2000 [*The Bianchi attractor*]{} gr-qc/0006035
[R]{}Rendall A D 1998 [*The structure of singularities in inhomogeneous cosmological models*]{} In Current Topics in Mathematical Cosmology proceedings of International Seminar on Mathematical Cosmology (World Scientific) [S]{}Senovilla J M M 1998 Gen. Rel. Grav. [**30**]{} 701
[STW]{}Shapere A, Trivedi S and Wilczek F 1991 Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A6**]{} 2677
[WE]{}Wainwright J and Ellis G F R 1997 [*Dynamical systems in Cosmology*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[WIB]{}Weaver M, Isenberg J and Berger B K 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} 2984
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: Presently at Research Center for the Early Universe, University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan and Advanced Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Department of Physics, Waseda University, Ohkubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 169-8555, Japan
[^4]: g\[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove that for all ergodic extensions $S_{1}$ of a transformation by a locally compact second countable group $G,$ and for all $G-$extensions $%
S_{2} $ of an aperiodic transformation, there is a relative speedup of $%
S_{1} $ that is relatively isomorphic to $S_{2}$. We apply this result to give necessary and sufficient conditions for two ergodic $n-$point or countable extensions to be related in this way.
address:
- |
Wesleyan University\
Middletown, CT
- |
Oregon State University\
Corvallis, OR
- |
Wesleyan University\
Middletown, CT
author:
- Andrey Babichev
- 'Robert M. Burton'
- Adam Fieldsteel
date: 'December 18, 2011'
title: Speedups of ergodic group extensions
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\left( X,\mathcal{B},\mu \right) $ be a Lebesgue probability space and $%
T:X\rightarrow X$ an ergodic $\mu -$preserving automorphism. By a *speedup* of $T$ we mean an automorphism of $X$ of the form $x\mapsto
T^{p\left( x\right) }\left( x\right) ,$ where $p\ $is a positive integer-valued function on $X.$ We denote such an automorphism by $T^{p}.$ It is natural to ask which automorphisms (up to isomorphism) can be obtained from $T$ in this way. If $p$ is integrable there are significant restrictions on the possible speedups of $T.$ It was proved in [@N], for example, that if $S$ is isomorphic to $T^{p\left( x\right) }$ and $\int
pd\mu <\infty ,$ then the entropies of $S$ and $T$ satisfy $h\left( S\right)
=\left( \int pd\mu \right) h\left( T\right) .$ As another example, from [OW]{} we see that if $S$ is isomorphic to $T^{p\left( x\right) }$ and $\int
pd\mu <\infty ,$ then $T$ is a factor of a finite measure preserving transformation that induces $S.$ Thus, if $S$ is loosely Bernoulli, it can only be expressed as an integrable speedup of $T$ if $T$ is also loosely Bernoulli. However, if $p$ is not required to be integrable, then there are no obstructions to this relation; in [@AOW] the general result was proved that for all ergodic finite measure preserving automorphisms $T$ and all aperiodic finite measure preserving $S,$ there is a speedup of $T$ that is isomorphic to $S.$ In this paper we prove a conditional version of that result in the case of ergodic group extensions, and we give an application of this result to the classification of ergodic finite extensions.
Suppose that $\left( X,\mathcal{B},\mu \right) $ and $T$ are as above, and $%
T $ is a factor of an automorphism $S$ of the space $\left( Y,\mathcal{C}%
,\nu \right) $. Then by a speedup of $S$ *relative to* $T$ we mean a speedup $S^{p}$ where $p$ is measurable with respect to the factor $\left( X,%
\mathcal{B},\mu \right) $. Of particular interest to us it the case where $S$ is a group extension of $T$ by a locally compact second countable group $G.$ We recall some basic definitions:
Let $G$ be a locally compact second countable group with left Haar measure $%
\lambda $, and let $\sigma :X\times \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow G$ be a cocycle for $T.$ That is, $\sigma $ is a measurable function such that for almost all $x\in X$ and all $n,m\in \mathbb{Z}$$$\sigma \left( x,m+n\right) =\sigma \left( T^{n}x,m\right) \sigma \left(
x,n\right) . \label{cocycle condition}$$From $T$ and $\sigma $ we obtain an automorphism $T_{\sigma }$ of $\left(
X\times G,\mu \times \lambda \right) $ such that for all $n\in \mathbb{Z},$ $$\left( T_{\sigma }\right) ^{n}\left( x,g\right) =\left( T^{n}x,\sigma \left(
x,n\right) g\right)$$which has $\left( T,X\right) $ as a factor. We refer to the map $T_{\sigma }$ as a $G-$extension of $T,$ and to $\left( T,X\right) $ as the base factor of the extension$.$ We write $\sigma ^{\left( n\right) }$ for the function $$\sigma ^{\left( n\right) }:x\mapsto \sigma \left( x,n\right)$$and note that $\sigma $ is determined by the function $\sigma ^{\left(
1\right) },$ because of condition (\[cocycle condition\])$.$
Given a cocycle $\sigma $ for $T$ and a measurable function $\alpha
:X\rightarrow G$ we obtain a new cocycle for $T,$ which we denote by $\sigma
^{\alpha }$, by setting$$\sigma ^{\alpha }\left( x,n\right) =\alpha \left( T^{n}x\right) \sigma
\left( x,n\right) \left( \alpha \left( x\right) \right) ^{-1}.$$Thus, given two functions $\alpha ,\beta :X\rightarrow G,$ we have $$\left( \sigma ^{\alpha }\right) ^{\beta }=\sigma ^{\beta \alpha }.$$Two cocycles $\sigma $ and $\sigma ^{\prime }$ for $T$ are said to be cohomologous if there exists a measurable function $\alpha :X\rightarrow G$ such that $\sigma ^{\prime }=\sigma ^{\alpha }.$ In this case we say $\sigma
^{\prime }$ is cohomologous to $\sigma $ by the transfer function $\alpha .$
We say that two $G-$extensions $T_{\sigma }$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime
}}^{\prime }$ on spaces $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ are $G-$isomorphic if there is an isomorphism $\Phi :X\times G\rightarrow X^{\prime }\times G$ between $%
T_{\sigma }$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ of the form $$\Phi \left( x,g\right) =\left( \phi \left( x\right) ,\alpha \left( x\right)
g\right)$$where $\phi :X\rightarrow X^{\prime }$ is an isomorphism between $T$ and $%
T^{\prime }$ and $\alpha :X\rightarrow G$ is a measurable function$.$ This is the case precisely when there is an isomorphism $\phi $ between $T$ and $%
T^{\prime }$ such that the cocycle $\sigma ^{\prime }\phi $ for $T$ is cohomologous to $\sigma $ by the transfer function $\alpha ,$ where $\sigma
^{\prime }\phi $ is given by $$\sigma ^{\prime }\phi \left( x,n\right) =\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi
x,n\right) .$$
Given a $G-$extension $T_{\sigma }$ we consider speedups of $T_{\sigma }$ relative to the base factor $\left( T,X\right) $. Each such relative speedup of $T_{\sigma }$ determines and is determined by a speedup of the factor $T.$ Thus if $\left( T_{\sigma }\right) ^{p}$ is a relative speedup of $T_{\sigma
},$ we have $\left( T_{\sigma }\right) ^{p}=\left( T^{p}\right) _{\sigma
^{\left( p\right) }}$, where $\sigma ^{\left( p\right) }$ is the cocyle for $%
T^{p}$ determined by the values $$\sigma ^{\left( p\right) }\left( x,1\right) =\sigma \left( x,p\left(
x\right) \right) .$$
Our first goal is to prove the following theorem:
\[gp ext unif\]Let $T_{\sigma }$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ be $G-$extensions of $\left( T,X,\mathcal{B},\mu \right) $ and $\left(
T^{\prime },X^{\prime },\mathcal{B}^{\prime },\mu ^{\prime }\right) ,$ where $G$ is a locally compact second countable group. Suppose that $T_{\sigma }$ is ergodic and $T^{\prime }$ is aperiodic. Let $U$ be a neighborhood of $%
e_{G}.$ Then there is a relative speedup of $T_{\sigma }$ which is $G-$isomorphic to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ by a $G-$isomorphism whose transfer function $\alpha $ satisfies $\alpha \left( x\right) \in U$ a.e.
We remark that, as shown by Herman and Zimmer $\left( \text{\cite{H}},\text{%
\cite{Z}}\right) ,$ a locally compact second countable group $G$ admits ergodic $G-$extensions if and only if it is amenable.
Our original proof of this theorem in the case of ergodic $G-$extensions for compact $G$ [@BF] used techniques derived from the restricted orbit equivalence theory of Rudolph and Kammeyer [@R],[@KR1],[@KR2]$,$ (and so ultimately from Ornstein’s isomorphism theorem [@O]). However, as the referee has generously pointed out, a far simpler proof is available using the methods to be found in [@AOW]$,$ which yields a stronger result, and we present that argument here.
We note that theorem \[gp ext unif\] may be viewed as an analogue of the orbit equivalence result for $G-$extensions obtained in [@F], which was also obtained by other methods in [@G]$.$ The point of view which we take here has much in common with that of Golodets and Sinel’shchikov in their paper [@GS], which deals with questions of orbit equivalence. In [@G] a classification of finite extensions up to factor orbit equivalence was given, and after proving theorem \[gp ext unif\] we will adapt the methods of [@G] to give an analogous classification of finite extensions with respect to the speedup relation we have introduced here.
Technical preliminaries
=======================
We use the following terminology. A *Rokhlin tower* $\mathcal{T}$ (or simply* tower*) for an automorphism $T$ on $\left( X,\mathcal{B},\mu
\right) $ is a pairwise disjoint collection $\left\{ A_{i}\right\}
_{i=1}^{h} $ of measurable sets in $X$ such that for each $i,$ $T\left(
A_{i}\right) =A_{i+1}.$ Each $A_{i}\in \mathcal{T}$ is called a *level* of $\mathcal{T}$, $A_{1}$ is the *base*, $h=h\left( \mathcal{T}\right) $ is the *height*, and the common value $\mu \left( A_{i}\right) $ is the *width* $w_{\mathcal{T}}$ of $\mathcal{T}$. We let $\left\vert \mathcal{%
T}\right\vert =\dbigcup_{i=1}^{h}T^{i}A_{1}$ and $\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
\right\vert ^{o}=\dbigcup_{i=1}^{h-1}T^{i}A_{1}$. A *column* of $%
\mathcal{T}$ is a tower of the form $\left\{ T^{i}B\right\} _{i=0}^{h-1}$, where $B$ is a measurable subset of the base of $\mathcal{T}$.
A *castle* for $T$ is a finite collection $\mathcal{C=}\left\{ \mathcal{%
T}_{j}\right\} _{j=1}^{J}$ of towers for $T$ such that $\left\vert \mathcal{T%
}_{j_{1}}\right\vert \cap \left\vert \mathcal{T}_{j_{2}}\right\vert
=\emptyset $ for all $j_{1}\neq j_{2}.$ We let $\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
\right\vert =\dbigcup_{j=1}^{J}\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{j}\right\vert $ and $%
\left\vert \mathcal{C}\right\vert ^{o}=\dbigcup_{j=1}^{J}\left\vert \mathcal{%
T}_{j}\right\vert ^{o}.$ We refer to $X\backslash \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
\right\vert $ as the *residual* set of $\mathcal{C}$. A* level* of $\mathcal{C}$ (respectively a *column* of $\mathcal{C}$) is a level (resp. column) of a tower in $\mathcal{C}$. Thus $\dbigcup \left\{ \mathcal{T%
}:\mathcal{T\in C}\right\} $ is the set of all levels of $\mathcal{C}$, which we denote by $L\left( \mathcal{C}\right) .$
If $\mathcal{T}$ is a tower for $T$ then each finite measurable partition $%
\mathcal{Q}=\left\{ B_{j}\right\} _{j=1}^{J}$ of the base of $\mathcal{T}$ gives rise to a castle $\mathcal{T}_{Q}$ whose towers are the columns of $%
\mathcal{T}$ with bases $B_{j}$. Given a finite partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $%
\left\vert \mathcal{T}\right\vert ,$ we obtain a partition $\mathcal{P}_{%
\mathcal{T}}$ of the base $B$ of $\mathcal{T}$ whose atoms are maximal sets $%
B_{j}$ such that for every $i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,h_{\mathcal{T}}\right\}
,T^{i}B_{j}$ is contained in a single atom of $\mathcal{P}$. That is, $%
\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{T}}$ is the trace of $\bigvee_{i=0}^{h-1}T^{-i}%
\mathcal{P}$ on $B.$ This partition yields a castle $\left( \mathcal{T}%
\right) _{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{T}}}$ as above. We refer to this castle as the castle of $\mathcal{P-}$columns of $\mathcal{T}$. We make similar definitions for castles $\mathcal{C}$ and partitions of $\left\vert \mathcal{%
C}\right\vert $ or of the bases of the towers of $\mathcal{C}$. We let $%
\mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $ denote the partition of $X$ into the levels of $\mathcal{C}$ and the residual set of $\mathcal{C}.$
Given two castles $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ for $T,$ we write $%
\mathcal{C}_{1}\leq \mathcal{C}_{2}$ if $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ can be viewed abstractly as having been obtained from $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ by a cutting and stacking construction, as in [@AOW]$.$ More formally, this means the following: $\left( i\right) $ $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert \subset
\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{2}\right\vert ^{o},$ $\left( ii\right) $ There is a finite partition $Q$ of the bases of the towers of $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ such that each level of the castle $\left( \mathcal{C}_{1}\right) _{Q}$ is a level of $\mathcal{C}_{2},$ and $\left( iii\right) $ for each tower of $%
\left( \mathcal{C}_{1}\right) _{Q}$ there is a tower of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ that contains it. Note that condition $\left( i\right) $ implies that if $%
\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{h_{2}}$ is a tower in $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ and $%
A_{j}$ is a base of a tower of $\left( \mathcal{C}_{1}\right) _{Q}$ of height $h_{1},$ then we must have $j\leq h_{2}-h_{1}.$
We make use of the following lemmas. Lemmas \[little push\] and \[push forward\] are well known, but we include their proofs for the convenience of the reader.
\[little push\] If $T_{\sigma }$ is an ergodic $G-$extension of $\left(
T,X,\mu \right) $, then given sets $A,B\subset X$ of positive measure, and a non-empty open set $U\subset G,$ there are a set $A^{\prime }\subset A$ of positive measure and $n^{\prime }\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $T^{n^{\prime
}}\left( A^{\prime }\right) \subset B$ and for all $x\in A^{\prime },$ $%
\sigma \left( x,n^{\prime }\right) \in U.$
Fix sets $A,B\subset X$ of positive measure, and a non-empty open set $%
U\subset G.$ Choose non-empty open sets $V_{0}$ and $V_{1}$ in $G$ so that $%
e_{G}\in V_{0}$ and $V_{1}V_{0}^{-1}\subset U.$ Since $T_{\sigma }$ is ergodic, for almost every $\left( x,g\right) \in A\times V_{0},$ there are (infinitely many) $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\left( T_{\sigma }\right) ^{n}\left( x,g\right) \in B\times V_{1}.$$Hence there exists some $g_{0}\in V_{0}$ such that for almost all $x\in A,$ there exists $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such that$$\left( T_{\sigma }\right) ^{n}\left( x,g_{0}\right) \in B\times V_{1}.$$For each $n\in \mathbb{N},$ let $A_{n}=\left\{ x\in A:\left( T_{\sigma
}\right) ^{n}\left( x,g_{0}\right) \in B\times V_{1}\right\} .$ Then for some $n^{\prime }\in \mathbb{N}$, $\mu \left( A_{n^{\prime }}\right) >0,$ and so for each $x\in A_{n^{\prime }}$ we have$$\sigma \left( x,n^{\prime }\right) g_{0}\in V_{1}$$so$$\sigma \left( x,n^{\prime }\right) \in V_{1}g_{0}^{-1}\subset U.$$Setting $A^{\prime }=A_{n^{\prime }}$ we have the desired result.
For $A^{\prime }$ $B$ and $n^{\prime }$ satisfying the conclusions of this lemma, we say $\left( A^{\prime },n^{\prime }\right) $ is $\left( B,U\right)
-$good, or simply $A^{\prime }$ is $\left( B,U\right) -$good. We strengthen this lemma to obtain the following lemma.
\[push forward\]If $T_{\sigma }$ is an ergodic $G-$extension of $\left(
T,X,\mu \right) $, then, given $A,B\subset X$ of equal measure and a non-empty open set $U\subset G,$ there is a measurable function $%
p:A\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ such that $T^{p}\upharpoonright A$ is an isomorphism from $A$ to $B$ and, for almost every $x\in A,$ $\sigma \left(
x,p\left( x\right) \right) \in U.$
Fix $A,B\subset X$ of equal measure and non-empty open $U\subset G.$ Fix $%
\varepsilon _{i}\downarrow 0$. Let $$a_{1}=\sup \left\{ \mu \left( A^{\prime }\right) :A^{\prime }\subset A\text{
and }A^{\prime }\text{ is }\left( B,U\right) -\text{good}\right\} .$$
Choose $A_{1}\subset A$ and $n_{1}\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\left(
A_{1},n_{1}\right) $ is $\left( B,U\right) -$good and $\mu \left(
A_{1}\right) >a_{1}-\varepsilon _{1}.$ If $\mu \left( A_{1}\right) =\mu
\left( A\right) ,$ we are done. If $\mu \left( A_{1}\right) <\mu \left(
A\right) $, let $$a_{2}=\sup \left\{ \mu \left( A^{\prime }\right) :A^{\prime }\subset
A\backslash A_{1}\text{ and }A^{\prime }\text{ is }\left( B\backslash \left(
T^{n_{1}}A_{1}\right) ,U\right) -\text{good}\right\}$$and choose $A_{2}\subset A\backslash A_{1}$ and $n_{2}\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\left( A_{2},n_{2}\right) $ is $\left( B\backslash
T^{n_{1}}A_{1},U\right) -$good and $\mu \left( A_{2}\right)
>a_{2}-\varepsilon _{2}.$
Continue in this way to obtain a pairwise disjoint sequence $\left\{
A_{i}\right\} $ and integers $n_{i}\in \mathbb{N}.$ If, for some $k\in
\mathbb{N},$ $\mu \left( \bigcup_{i=1}^{k}A_{i}\right) =\mu \left( A\right)
, $ we are done. Suppose, then that for all $k,$ $\mu \left(
\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}A_{i}\right) <\mu \left( A\right) .$ If in fact $\mu \left(
\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\right) <\mu \left( A\right) ,$ then by Lemma \[little push\] there is a set $A^{\prime }\subset A\backslash \left(
\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\right) $ of positive measure and $n^{\prime
}\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\left( A^{\prime },n^{\prime }\right) $ is $%
\left( B,U\right) -$good$.$ But $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }\mu \left( A_{i}\right)
<\infty $, so $\mu \left( A_{i}\right) \rightarrow 0,$ so $\mu \left(
A_{i}\right) +\varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0,$ so for some $i$$$a_{i}<\mu \left( A_{i}\right) +\varepsilon _{i}<\mu \left( A^{\prime }\right)$$which contradicts the choice of $a_{i}.$ Hence $\mu \left(
\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\right) =\mu \left( A\right) ,$ and we are done in this case as well.
We note that this lemma can easily be strengthened to say that if a measurable function $p_{1}:A\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ is given, then the function $p$ can be chosen so that in addition to the conclusions of the lemma, $p\left( x\right) >p_{1}\left( x\right) $ almost everywhere.
In fact, we will use the following stronger form:
\[push forward function\]If $T_{\sigma }$ is an ergodic $G-$extension of $\left( T,X,\mu \right) $, then given $A$ and $B\subset X$ of equal positive measure, $g:A\rightarrow G$ measurable, $p_{1}:A\rightarrow \mathbb{N},$ measurable, and a neighborhood $U$ of $e_{G},$ there is a measurable $%
p:A\rightarrow \mathbb{N},$ with $p\left( x\right) >p_{1}\left( x\right) $ almost everywhere, such that $T^{p}:A\rightarrow B$ is an isomorphism, and $%
\sigma \left( x,p\left( x\right) \right) g\left( x\right) ^{-1}\in U$ almost everywhere.
Choose a neighborhood $V$ of $e_{G}$ such that $VV^{-1}\subset U.$ Partition $A$ into measurable sets $\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty }$ such that for each $i,$ there is some $g_{i}\in G$ such that $g\left( A_{i}\right)
\subset Vg_{i}$. Applying Lemma \[push forward\], for each $i,$ choose a measurable function $q_{i}:A_{i}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ with $q_{i}>p_{1}$ on $A_{i}$ so that $T^{q_{i}}:A_{i}\rightarrow B$ is an isomorphism and $%
\sigma \left( x,q_{i}\left( x\right) \right) \in Vg_{i},$ almost everywhere in $A_{i},$ and so that the sets $\left\{ T^{q_{i}}A_{i}\right\} _{i}$ are pairwise disjoint. Then for each $x\in A_{i},$ we have $\sigma \left(
x,p\left( x\right) \right) \in Vg_{i}$. But $g\left( x\right) \in Vg_{i},$ so $\sigma \left( x,q_{i}\left( x\right) \right) g\left( x\right) ^{-1}\in
\left( Vg_{i}\right) \left( Vg_{i}\right) ^{-1}=VV^{-1}\subset U.$ Letting $%
p=\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty }p_{i}$ completes the proof$.$
\[castles\]Let $G$ be a locally compact second countable group, and let $%
T_{\sigma }$ be a $G-$extension of the aperiodic automorphism $\left( T,X,%
\mathcal{B},\mu \right) $. Let $\left\{ U_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ be a neighborhood base for $G$ at $e_{G}.$ Then there is a sequence $\left\{
\mathcal{C}_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ of castles, where the towers of $%
\mathcal{C}_{k}$ all have height $h_{k},$ such that:
1. for each $k,$ $\mathcal{C}_{k}\leq \mathcal{C}_{k+1};$
2. $\mu \left( \dbigcup\limits_{k=1}^{\infty }\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{k}\right\vert \right) =1;$
3. $\dbigcup\limits_{k=1}^{\infty }L\left( \mathcal{C}_{k}\right) $ generates $\mathcal{B}$;
4. for each tower $\mathcal{T}$ in $\mathcal{C}_{k}$ with base $A,$ and each pair of levels $T^{i}A$ and $T^{j}A$ in $\mathcal{T}$, where $1\leq
i<j\leq h_{k},$ there is some $g\in G$ so that for all $x\in A$, $\sigma
\left( x,j-i\right) \in U_{k}g.$
Fix a sequence of finite partitions $\mathcal{P}_{k}\uparrow \mathcal{B}$ on $X$ and a sequence $\varepsilon _{k}\downarrow 0$ with $\sum_{k}\varepsilon
_{k}<1.$ Choose a sequence of towers $\mathcal{T}_{k}$ for $T$ with residual sets of measure less than $\varepsilon _{k}$ such that for each $k,$ $\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{k}\right\vert \subset \left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{k+1}\right\vert ^{o}.$ Denote the base of $\mathcal{T}_{k}$ by $B_{k}$ and its height by $h_{k}.$ Choose compact $K_{1}\subset G$ so that if $$B_{1}^{\prime }=\left\{ x\in B_{1}\mid \left( \forall i,j\in \left\{
0,...,h_{1}-1\right\} \right) \sigma \left( T^{i}x,j-i\right) \in
K_{1}\right\}$$then $\mu \left( B_{1}^{\prime }\right) >\left( 1-\varepsilon _{1}\right)
\mu \left( B_{1}\right) .$ Let $\mathcal{T}_{1}^{\prime }$ be the portion of $\mathcal{T}_{1}$ over$B_{1}^{\prime }.$ That is, $\mathcal{T}%
_{1}^{\prime }=\left\{ T_{1}^{i}B_{1}^{\prime }\right\} _{i=0}^{h_{1}-1}$. Partition $K_{1}$ into sets $\left\{ K_{1,i}\right\} _{i=1}^{s_{1}}$ so that for each $i=1,...,s_{1}$ there exists $g_{1,i}\in G$ with $K_{1,i}\subset
U_{1}g_{1,i}$. Let $\mathcal{K}_{1}:G\rightarrow G$ be given by$$\mathcal{K}_{1}\left( g\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
g_{1,i},\text{ if }g\in K_{1,i} \\
e_{G}\text{ if }g\in G\backslash K_{1}%
\end{array}%
\right\} .$$Let $\mathcal{Q}_{1}$ be the partition of $B_{1}^{\prime }$ according to the values of $\left\{ \mathcal{K}_{1}\left( \sigma \left( T^{i}x,j-i\right)
\right) \right\} _{i,j=0}^{h_{1}-1}$ and the values $\left\{ \mathcal{P}%
_{1}\left( T^{i}\left( x\right) \right) \right\} _{i=0}^{h_{1}-1}$. ($%
\mathcal{P}_{1}\left( y\right) $ denotes the partition element containing $y$). We denote the resulting castle $\left( \mathcal{T}_{1}^{\prime }\right) _{%
\mathcal{Q}_{1}}$ by $\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }.$
Next consider $\mathcal{T}_{2}$ with base $B_{2}$ and height $h_{2}.\ $Choose compact $K_{2}\subset G$ so that if $$B_{2}^{\prime }=\left\{ x\in B_{2}\mid \left( \forall i,j\in \left\{
0,...,h_{2}-1\right\} \right) \sigma \left( T^{i}x,j-i\right) \in
K_{2}\right\}$$then $\mu \left( B_{2}^{\prime }\right) >\left( 1-\varepsilon _{2}\right)
\mu \left( B_{2}\right) .$ Let $\mathcal{T}_{2}^{\prime }$ be the the portion of $\mathcal{T}_{2}$ over $B_{2}^{\prime }.$ Partition $K_{2}$ into sets $\left\{ K_{2,i}\right\} _{i=0}^{s_{2}}$ so that for each $%
i=1,...,s_{2} $ there exists $g_{2,i}\in G$ with $K_{2,i}\subset U_{2}g_{2,i}
$. Define $\mathcal{K}_{2}:G\rightarrow G$ analogously to $\mathcal{K}_{1}.$ Let $\mathcal{P}_{2}^{\prime }=\mathcal{P}_{2}\vee \mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }\right) ,$ and let $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$ be the partition of $B_{2}^{\prime }$ according to the values of $$\left\{ \mathcal{K}_{2}\left( \sigma \left( T^{i}x,j-i\right) \right)
\right\} _{i,j=0}^{h_{2}-1}\vee \left\{ \mathcal{P}_{2}^{\prime }\left(
T^{i}\left( x\right) \right) \right\} _{i=0}^{h_{2}-1}.$$ This gives a castle $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime }=\left( \mathcal{T}%
_{2}^{\prime }\right) _{\mathcal{Q}_{2}}.$
Repeating this process produces a sequence of castles $\mathcal{C}%
_{k}^{\prime }$. To obtain condition 1, we restrict each $\mathcal{C}%
_{k}^{\prime }$ to the set $\bigcap_{j=k+1}^{\infty }\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{j}^{\prime }\right\vert .$ That is, for each $k$ and each level $A^{\prime
}$ of $\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\prime },$ we replace $A^{\prime }$ by the set $%
A=A^{\prime }\cap \left( \bigcap_{j=k+1}^{\infty }\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{j}^{\prime }\right\vert \right) .$ The resulting set of levels is a castle $\mathcal{C}_{k}$, and these castles satisfy the conclusions of the lemma.
The main result
===============
We now give the proof of Theorem \[gp ext unif\].
Suppose that $T_{\sigma }$ is an ergodic $G-$extension of $\left( T,X,\mu
\right) $ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ is a $G-$ extension of the aperiodic $\left( T^{\prime },X^{\prime },\mu ^{\prime }\right) $. Fix a neighborhood $U$ of $e_{G},$ which we may assume to be compact. We will obtain the desired relative speedup of $T_{\sigma }$ and the $G-$isomorphism from it to $T_{\sigma }^{\prime }$ as limits of a sequence of partially defined speedups and isomorphisms.
Let $\delta $ be a complete, right-invariant metric on $G$ compatible with the topology of $G$. (We note that, while such a metric must exist, there need not be a complete, two-sided invariant metric compatible with the topology. See [@B].) Fix $\varepsilon >0$ so that $\bar{B}\left(
\varepsilon ,e_{G}\right) ,$ the closed $\delta -$ball of radius $%
\varepsilon $ centered at $e_{G},$ is compact and contained in $U.$ Fix a sequence $\varepsilon _{k}\downarrow 0$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty
}\varepsilon _{k}<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}.$ For each $k$ choose a compact neighborhood $U_{k}$ of $e_{G}$ so that $U_{k}U_{k}^{-1}\subset B\left(
\varepsilon _{k},e_{G}\right) .$ Choose a sequence of castles $\left\{
\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\prime }\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ for $T_{\sigma ^{\prime
}}^{\prime }$ as in Lemma \[castles\] with respect to these $U_{k}.$ Denote the towers and levels of these castles by $\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\prime
}=\left\{ \mathcal{T}_{k,j}^{\prime }\right\} _{j}$ and $\mathcal{T}%
_{k,j}^{\prime }=\left\{ A_{k,j,i}^{\prime }\right\} _{i}.$ In particular, Lemma \[castles\] gives us, for all $i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,h_{k}-1\right\} $ and for all levels $A_{k,j,i}^{\prime }$ in $\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\prime },$ an element $g_{k,j,i}\in G$ so that for all $x^{\prime }\in A_{k,j,1}^{\prime }$, $\sigma ^{\prime }\left( x^{\prime },i\right) \in U_{k}g_{k,j,i}.$
Make a copy $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ of $\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }$ in $X.$ That is, choose pairwise-disjoint sets $A_{1,j,i}\in \mathcal{B}$ corresponding to the levels of $\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }$ such that, for each $j$ and $i,$ $\mu \left( A_{1,j,i}\right) =\mu ^{\prime }\left( A_{1,j,i}^{\prime
}\right) $. Fix $j$ and an isomorphism $\phi _{1,j}:A_{1,j,1}\rightarrow
A_{1,j,1}^{\prime }.$
Applying Lemma \[push forward function\] repeatedly, we obtain functions $%
q_{i}:A_{1,j,1}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ with $q_{i}>q_{i-1}$ so that $%
T^{q_{i}}:A_{1}\rightarrow A_{i}$ isomorphically, and for almost every $x\in
A_{1}$ and every $i,$ $$\sigma \left( x,q_{i}\left( x\right) \right) \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left(
\phi _{1,j}\left( x\right) ,i\right) \right) ^{-1}\in B\left( \varepsilon
_{1},e_{G}\right) . \label{match 1}$$For each $i\in \left[ 1,h_{1}-1\right] ,$ let $p_{i}:A_{i}\rightarrow
\mathbb{N}$ be given by setting $$p_{i}\left( x\right) =q_{i+1}\left( T^{-q_{i}}\left( x\right) \right)
-q_{i}\left( T^{-q_{i}}\left( x\right) \right) .$$Then, letting $p=\bigcup_{i=1}^{h_{1}-1}p_{i},$ we obtain a partially defined speedup $T_{1}:=T^{p}$ of $T,$ defined on $\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{1,j}\right\vert ^{o},$ for which $\mathcal{T}_{1,j}$ is a tower. This construction also yields a partially defined cocyle $\sigma _{1}$ for $%
T_{1}, $ which is defined at $\left( x,n\right) $ whenever $x\in \left\vert
\mathcal{T}_{1,j}\right\vert \cap T_{1}^{-n}\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{1,j}\right\vert .$
Extend $\phi _{1,j}$ to $\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{1,j}\right\vert $ so that on $\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{1,j}\right\vert ^{o}$$$\phi _{1,j}T_{1}\left( x\right) =T^{\prime }\phi _{1,j}\left( x\right) \text{
a.e.}$$In particular, for each $i,$ $\phi _{1,j}\left( A_{1,j,i}\right)
=A_{1,j,i}^{\prime }.$ Define $\alpha _{1,j}:\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{1,j}\right\vert \rightarrow G$ by setting, for each $x\in A_{1,j,i},$ $$\alpha _{1,j}\left( x\right) =\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{1,j}\left(
x\right) ,-i\right) ^{-1}\sigma _{1}\left( x,-i\right) .$$
Repeating this construction on each tower of $\mathcal{C}_{1}$, we set $\phi
_{1}=\bigcup_{j}\phi _{1,j}$ to obtain an isomorphism from $\left\vert
\mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert $ to $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime
}\right\vert $ intertwining $T_{1}$ and $T^{\prime }.$ Similarly, we let $%
\alpha _{1}=\bigcup_{j}\alpha _{1,j}$ and extend $\alpha _{1}$ to $X$ by setting $\mathcal{\alpha }_{1}\left( x\right) =e_{G}$ for $x\in X\backslash
\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert .$ We then see that the map $\left(
x,g\right) \mapsto \left( \phi _{1}\left( x\right) ,\alpha _{1}\left(
x\right) g\right) $ is a $G-$isomorphism from $\left( T_{1}\right) _{\sigma
_{1}}$ to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime },$ insofar as these maps are defined, which is to say on $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert ^{o}.$ In other words, for all $\left( x,n\right) $ in the domain of $\sigma _{1},$ $$\sigma _{1}^{\alpha _{1}}\left( x,n\right) :=\alpha _{1}\left( \left(
T_{1}\right) ^{n}x\right) \sigma _{1}\left( x,n\right) \alpha _{1}\left(
x\right) ^{-1}=\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{1}\left( x\right) ,n\right) .
\label{cobdy 1}$$
We also see that, because of condition $\left( \text{\ref{match 1}}\right) $ and the right-invariance of $\delta ,$ we have for all $x\in X,$ $$\delta \left( \alpha _{1}\left( x\right) ,\varepsilon _{G}\right)
<\varepsilon _{1}.$$
(We note that in the above construction the approximate constancy of $\sigma
^{\prime }$ on the levels of $\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }$ was not used.)
Now we show how to iterate this construction to complete the proof of the theorem. Fix an increasing sequence of finite partitions $\left\{ \mathcal{P}%
_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ of $X$ that generate $\mathcal{B}.$ Choose $%
n_{2}$ so that the partition $\phi _{1}\left( \mathcal{P}_{1}\right) $ is approximated to within $\frac{1}{2}$ (in the partition metric) by the levels of $\mathcal{C}_{n_{2}}^{\prime }.$ The index $n_{2}$ must also be chosen so that $\varepsilon _{n_{2}}$ is small enough to meet an additional condition, which we will describe at the end of the proof. For notational convenience re-index $\mathcal{C}_{n_{2}}^{\prime }$ and refer to it as $\mathcal{C}%
_{2}^{\prime },$ and do the same with $\varepsilon _{n_{2}},$ $U_{n_{2}},$ and so on. Let $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ denote a copy of $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime }$ which is the image of $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime }$ under $\phi _{1}^{-1}.$ That is, for each level $A_{2,j,i}^{\prime }$ of $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime }$ contained in $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }\right\vert ,$ the corresponding level $A_{2,j,i}$ of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ is given by $%
A_{2,j,i}=\phi _{1}^{-1}\left( A_{2,j,i}^{\prime }\right) .$ Additional subsets of $X$ are chosen to serve as $A_{2,j,i}$ when $A_{2,j,i}^{\prime }$ is not contained in $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}^{\prime }\right\vert .$
Our goal is to extend $T_{1}$ to a transformation $T_{2}$ on $\left\vert
\mathcal{C}_{2}\right\vert ^{o}$, so that $T_{2}$ is again a partially defined speedup of $T,$ with an associated cocycle $\sigma _{2}.$ We will also modify $\alpha _{1}$ to a function $\alpha _{2}:X\rightarrow G$ so that on $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{2}\right\vert ,$ $\alpha _{2}$ serves as a transfer function for a $G-$isomorphism between $\left( T_{2}\right)
_{\sigma _{2}}$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }.$
Note that since $U_{2}$ is compact, and there are only finitely many towers in $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime },$ there is a compact set $K$ so that for all $%
\left( x^{\prime },n\right) $ with $x^{\prime }\in \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{2}^{\prime }\right\vert \cap T^{\prime -n}\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{2}^{\prime }\right\vert $, $\sigma ^{\prime }\left( x^{\prime },n\right)
\in K.$ Choose $\xi _{2}\in \left( 0,\varepsilon _{2}\right) $ so that if $%
a,b\in K,$ and $\delta \left( a,a^{\prime }\right) <\xi _{2}$, then $\delta
\left( ba,ba^{\prime }\right) <\varepsilon _{2}.$ (This is possible by invoking the uniform continuity of the group multiplication on $WK,$ where $%
W $ is a compact neighborhood of $e_{G}.)$
Fix a tower $\mathcal{T}_{2,j}$ in $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ and suppose that $%
\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert \cap \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{1}\right\vert \neq \emptyset .$ Let $\phi _{2}:A_{2,j,1}\rightarrow
A_{2,j,1}^{\prime }$ be an isomorphism. For each level $A_{2,j,m}\subset
\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert $ define a function $%
q_{m}:A_{2,j,1}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ so that $T^{q_{m}}:A_{2,j,1}%
\rightarrow A_{2,j,m}$ isomorphically, and for almost all $x\in A_{2,j,1},$ $$\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,m\right) \sigma \left(
x,q_{m}\left( x\right) \right) ^{-1}\in B\left( \xi _{2},e_{G}\right) .$$The $q_{m}$ are chosen so that $q_{m+1}>q_{m}$ and so that, as before, defining $p_{2}$ on each $A_{2,j,m}$ by $$p_{2}\left( x\right) =q_{m+1}\left( T^{-q_{m}}\left( x\right) \right)
-q_{m}\left( T^{-q_{m}}\left( x\right) \right)$$the transformation $T_{2}\left( x\right) =T^{p_{2}}\left( x\right) $ is a speedup of $T$ and agrees with $T_{1}$ on its domain. This can be done by repeated application of Lemma \[push forward function\]$.$ Explicitly, if $%
A_{2,j,1}\not\subset \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert ,$ then by Lemma \[push forward function\] there is a function $q_{1}:A_{2,j,1}\rightarrow
\mathbb{N}$ so that $T^{q_{1}}:A_{2,j,1}\rightarrow A_{2,j,2}$ isomorphically, and for almost all $x\in A_{2,j,1}$$$\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,1\right) \sigma \left(
x,q_{1}\left( x\right) \right) ^{-1}\in B\left( \xi _{2},e_{G}\right) .$$If $A_{2,j,2}$ $\not\subset \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert ,$ then we choose $q_{2}>q_{1}$ on $A_{2,j,1}$ so that $T^{q_{2}}:A_{2,j,1}\rightarrow
A_{2,j,3}$ isomorphically, and for almost all $x\in A_{2,j,1}$$$\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,2\right) \sigma \left(
x,q_{2}\left( x\right) \right) ^{-1}\in B\left( \xi _{2},e_{G}\right) .$$We continue in this way until (unless) we first arrive at a level $%
A_{2,j,m}\subset \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert .$ There $T_{1}$ is already defined, and we let $q_{m+1}=q_{m}+p_{1}.$ We continue this way until we reach the top level $A_{2,j,m+h_{1}-1}$ of this $\mathcal{C}_{1}-$column. If there is another level $A_{2,j,m+h_{1}}$ of $\left\vert \mathcal{T%
}_{2,j}\right\vert ,$ we define $q_{m+h_{1}}$ as before and continue until all levels of $\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert $ have been addressed.
Having defined $T_{2}$ on $\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert ^{o},$ $%
\phi _{2,j}$ is then extendible uniquely to $\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{2,j}\right\vert $ by the requirement that for almost all $x\in \left\vert
\mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert ^{o},$ $$\phi _{2,j}\left( T_{2}x\right) =T^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}x\right) .$$
Let $\sigma _{2}$ denote the cocyle determined by $T_{2}$ and $\sigma ,$ which is defined for pairs $\left( x,n\right) ,$ where $x\in \left\vert
\mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert \cap T_{2}^{-n}\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{2,j}\right\vert .$ We define $\alpha _{2}:\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{2,j}\right\vert \rightarrow G$ in two stages. First, for $x\in
A_{2,j,m}\subset \left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert \cap \left\vert
\mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert $, if $x\in A_{1,j,l+1}$ (that is, $x$ is in the $%
\left( l+1\right) ^{st}$ level of $\mathcal{C}_{1}$), then we let $$\bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) =\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left(
x\right) ,-l\right) ^{-1}\sigma _{2}^{a_{1}}\left( x,-l\right) .$$We set $\bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) =e_{G}$ on $\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{2,j}\right\vert \backslash \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert $. We see that for $x\in \left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert \cap \left\vert
\mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert ,$$$\begin{aligned}
\delta \left( \bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) ,e_{G}\right) &=&\delta \left(
\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,-l\right) ^{-1},\sigma
_{2}^{a_{1}}\left( x,-l\right) ^{-1}\right) \\
&\leq &\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right)
,-l\right) ^{-1},\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{1}\left( x\right) ,-l\right)
\right) \\
&&+\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{1}\left( x\right) ,-l\right)
,\sigma _{2}^{a_{1}}\left( x,-l\right) ^{-1}\right) \\
&=&\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right)
,-l\right) ^{-1},\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{1}\left( x\right) ,-l\right)
\right) \\
&\leq &2\varepsilon _{2}\end{aligned}$$where the last inequality follows from the condition on the near constancy of $\sigma ,$ on the columns of $\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\prime }.$ Thus $\delta
\left( \bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) \alpha \left( x\right) ,\alpha \left(
x\right) \right) =\delta \left( \bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right)
,e_{G}\right) \leq 2\varepsilon _{2}.$ Moreover, on a $\mathcal{C}_{1}-$column contained in $\mathcal{T}_{2,j},$ the map $\left( x,g\right) \mapsto
\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,\bar{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) \alpha
_{1}\left( x\right) g\right) $ is a $G-$isomorphism from $\left(
T_{2}\right) _{\sigma _{2}}$ to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }.$
Now for any $x\in A_{2,j,m+1}\subset \left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert
$ let $$\tilde{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) =\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left(
x\right) ,-m\right) ^{-1}\sigma _{2}^{\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left(
x,-m\right) .$$We see that $\delta \left( \tilde{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) ,e_{G}\right)
<\varepsilon _{2}.$ Indeed, if $x\in \left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert
\backslash \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert ,$ or if $x$ is in $%
\left\vert \mathcal{T}_{2,j}\right\vert $ and in the base of $\mathcal{C}%
_{1},$ then this is immediate from the construction$.$ On the other hand, suppose $x\in \left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert $ but not in the base of $\mathcal{C}_{1}.$ Say $x$ is in $A_{2,j,m+1}$ and in the $\left( l+1\right)
^{st}$ level of $\mathcal{C}_{1}.$ Then we have $$\delta \left( \tilde{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) ,e_{G}\right) =\delta \left(
\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,-m\right) ^{-1},\sigma
_{2}^{\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left( x,-m\right) ^{-1}\right) .$$But$$\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,-m\right) ^{-1}=\sigma
^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,-l\right) ^{-1}\sigma ^{\prime
}\left( T^{\prime -l}\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) \right) ,-m\right)
^{-1}$$and $$\sigma _{2}^{\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left( x,-m\right) ^{-1}=\sigma
_{2}^{\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left( x,-l\right) ^{-1}\sigma _{2}^{\bar{%
\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left( T_{2}^{-l}\left( x\right) ,-m\right) ^{-1}.$$Furthermore, $$\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,-l\right) =\sigma _{2}^{%
\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha _{1}}\left( x,-l\right)$$and $$\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( T^{\prime -l}\left( \phi _{2,j}\left(
x\right) \right) ,-m\right) ^{-1},\sigma _{2}^{\bar{\alpha}_{1}\alpha
_{1}}\left( T_{2}^{-l}\left( x\right) ,-m\right) ^{-1}\right) <\xi _{2}$$so by the choice of $\xi _{2}$ we conclude that $$\delta \left( \tilde{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) ,e_{G}\right) \leq
\varepsilon _{2}.$$
Now set $\alpha _{2}\left( x\right) =\tilde{\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) \bar{%
\alpha}_{1}\left( x\right) \alpha _{1}\left( x\right) $ and observe that $$\delta \left( \alpha _{2}\left( x\right) ,\alpha _{1}\left( x\right) \right)
\leq 3\varepsilon _{2}$$(using the right invariance of $\delta $). The map $\left( x,g\right)
\mapsto \left( \phi _{2,j}\left( x\right) ,\alpha _{2}\left( x\right)
g\right) $ is a $G-$ isomorphism from $\left( T_{2}\right) _{\sigma _{2}}$ to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ on all of $\left\vert \mathcal{T}%
_{2,j}\right\vert .$
Perform this construction on each tower of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ which meets $%
\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{1}\right\vert .$ If $\mathcal{T}_{2,j}$ is a tower of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ that does not meet $\left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{1}\right\vert ,$ then employ the simpler construction that was used in the first stage of the proof to define $T_{2}$ and $\alpha _{2}$ on such a tower. Setting $\alpha _{2}\left( x\right) =e_{G}$ on $X\backslash
\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{2}\right\vert $ completes the second stage of the proof.
This procedure can be repeated indefinitely to produce a sequence of castles $\mathcal{C}_{k}$ in $X$ for partially defined transformations $T_{k}$, where the levels of $\mathcal{C}_{k}$ approximate the partition $\mathcal{P}%
_{k-1}$ to within $\frac{1}{k},$ so that each $T_{k}$ is a speedup of $T$ defined on $\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{k}\right\vert ^{o},$ each $T_{k+1}$ extends $T_{k},$ and the transformation $\bar{T}=\bigcup_{k}T_{k}$ is a speedup of $T$ defined almost everywhere. Let $\bar{\sigma}$ denote the cocycle for $\bar{T}$ that arises from $\sigma $.
The construction also produces a sequence of isomorphisms $\phi
_{k}:\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{k}\right\vert \rightarrow \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{k}^{\prime }\right\vert $ that intertwine $T_{k}$ and $T^{\prime }.$ In addition, it produces a sequence of functions $\alpha _{k}:X\rightarrow G$ so that for each $k,$ $\delta \left( \alpha _{k+1},\alpha _{k}\right) \leq
3\varepsilon _{k+1}$ and so that the map $\left( x,g\right) \mapsto \left(
\phi _{k}x,\alpha _{k}g\right) $ is a $G-$isomorphism between $\left(
T_{k}\right) _{\sigma _{k}}$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ on $%
\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{k}\right\vert .$ Since $\delta $ is complete we see that the sequence $\alpha _{k}$ converges uniformly to a function $\alpha ,$ such that for almost all $x,$ $\delta \left( \alpha \left( x\right)
,e_{g}\right) \leq \varepsilon ,$ and hence $\alpha \left( x\right) \in U.$
In the contruction of the $\phi _{k}$ we observe that each $\phi _{k+1}$ agrees set-wise with $\phi _{k}$ on the levels of $\mathcal{C}_{k}.$ Since the $\sigma -$algebras $\mathcal{B}_{k}$ generated by the levels of $%
\mathcal{C}_{k}$ increase to the full $\sigma -$algebra, the maps $\phi _{k}$ determine an isomorphism $\phi $ between $\bar{T}$ and $T^{\prime }$ which, for each $k,$ agrees set-wise with $\phi _{k}$ on $\mathcal{B}_{k}.$
Now we confirm that the map $\left( x,g\right) \mapsto \left( \phi x,\alpha
\left( x\right) g\right) $ is a $G-$isomorphism from $\bar{T}_{\bar{\sigma}}$ to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }.$ We want to establish that for each $n,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi x,n\right) &=&\alpha \left( \bar{T}^{n}x\right)
\bar{\sigma}\left( x,n\right) \alpha \left( x\right) ^{-1}\text{ a.e.} \\
&=&\bar{\sigma}^{\alpha }\left( x,n\right) .\end{aligned}$$Fix $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\eta >0.$ For almost every $x,$ if $k$ is sufficiently large, then $$\bar{T}^{n}x=T_{k}^{n}x,$$$$\bar{\sigma}\left( x,n\right) =\sigma _{k}\left( x,n\right)$$and $$\delta \left( \alpha \left( x\right) ,\alpha _{k}\left( x\right) \right)
\leq \eta .$$Furthermore, since the points $\phi \left( x\right) $ and $\phi _{k}\left(
x\right) $ are in the same level of $\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\prime },$ the approximate constancy of $\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \cdot ,n\right) $ on such a level gives $$\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi x,n\right) ,\sigma ^{\prime
}\left( \phi _{k}x,n\right) \right) \leq \eta .$$But we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi _{k}x,n\right) &=&\alpha _{k}\left(
T_{k}^{n}x\right) \sigma _{k}\left( x,n\right) \alpha _{k}\left( x\right)
^{-1}\text{ a.e.} \\
&=&\alpha _{k}\left( \bar{T}^{n}x\right) \bar{\sigma}\left( x,n\right)
\alpha _{k}\left( x\right) ^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$We only need to conclude that this value is close to $\bar{\sigma}^{\alpha
}\left( x,n\right) .$
Now we describe the additional condition according to which the subsequence $%
\varepsilon _{n_{2}},$ $\varepsilon _{n_{3}},...$ (relabeled $\varepsilon
_{2},\varepsilon _{3},...$) must be chosen. For each $k\geq 1,$ there is a fixed compact set $K$ containing all the values of $\alpha _{k}$ and all the values of $\sigma _{k}\left( x,t\right) ,$ for $x\in \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{k}\right\vert \cap T_{k}^{-t}\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{k}\right\vert .$ (Recall that all the values of $\alpha _{k}$ lie in $\bar{B}\left(
\varepsilon ,e_{G}\right) ,$ which is compact.) Regardless of how the $%
\varepsilon _{k}$ will be chosen, we will have, for all $k$ and $x,$ $$\delta \left( \alpha _{k}\left( x\right) ,\alpha \left( x\right) \right)
<\sum_{m=k+1}^{\infty }\varepsilon _{m}.$$The additional condition we impose on the $\varepsilon _{k}$ is that this sum is so small as to ensure that for all $x\in \left\vert \mathcal{C}%
_{k}\right\vert \cap T_{k}^{-t}\left\vert \mathcal{C}_{k}\right\vert $, $$\mathcal{\delta }\left( \alpha _{k}\left( T_{k}^{t}x\right) \sigma
_{k}\left( x,t\right) \alpha _{k}\left( x\right) ^{-1},\alpha \left( \bar{T}%
^{t}x\right) \sigma _{k}\left( x,t\right) \alpha \left( x\right)
^{-1}\right) <\frac{1}{k}.$$If this is done, then for the given $n$ and $\eta ,$ arguing with sufficently large $k$, we can conclude that $$\delta \left( \sigma ^{\prime }\left( \phi x,n\right) ,\alpha \left( \bar{T}%
^{n}x\right) \bar{\sigma}\left( x,n\right) \alpha \left( x\right)
^{-1}\right) <\eta +\frac{1}{k}.$$Since $\eta $ is arbitrary, we have the desired equality.
We note that in the case that $G$ is a discrete group, we immediately obtain the following stronger result:
\[discrete gp ext\]Let $T_{\sigma }$ and $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime
} $ be $G-$extensions of $T$ and $T^{\prime },$ where $G$ is a finite or countable group. Suppose that $T_{\sigma }$ is ergodic and $T^{\prime }$ is aperiodic. Then there is a relative speedup of $T_{\sigma }$ which is $G-$isomorphic to $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ by a relative isomorphism whose transfer function $\alpha $ satisfies $\alpha \left( x\right) =e_{G}$ almost everywhere.
Finite and countable extensions
===============================
We now turn to the analysis of speedups of $n-$point extensions. First we introduce a simplification of some of our notation. Given an automorphism $T$ and a cocycle $\sigma $ taking values in a group $G,$ we will denote the $G-$extension $T_{\sigma }$ more simply by the single letter $S$, and in general, $G-$extensions $T_{\sigma ^{\prime }}^{\prime }$ or $\left(
T_{1}\right) _{\sigma _{1}}$ will be denoted $S^{\prime }$ and $S_{1},$ and so on$.$
Now fix an integer $n>1.$ Form the measure space $\left\{ \left[ n\right] ,%
\mathcal{P}\left( \left[ n\right] \right) ,p\right\} $ where $\left[ n\right]
=\left\{ 1,...,n\right\} $, and $p\left( \left\{ i\right\} \right) =\frac{1}{%
n},$ for each $i.$ Making use of the natural action of the symmetric group $%
\mathcal{S}_{n}$ on $\left[ n\right] ,$ each cocycle $\sigma $ for $T$ taking values in $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ determines an automorphism $U$ of $%
\left\{ X\times \left[ n\right] ,\mathcal{B\times C},\mu \times p\right\} $ which has $T$ as a factor. Namely, we have the automorphism $U$ given by $$U^{n}\left( x,i\right) =\left( T^{n}x,\sigma \left( x,n\right) \left(
i\right) \right) .$$
We refer to $U$ as an $n-$point extension of $T.$ (Since we will only consider ergodic $n-$point extensions, we may restrict ourselves to the uniform measure $p$). We will use the same sort of notational convention as above: the $n-$point extensions associated with pairs $\left( T^{\prime
},\sigma ^{\prime }\right) $ and $\left( T_{1},\sigma _{1}\right) $ will be written $U^{\prime }$ and $U_{1},$ and so on.
Given a pair of $n-$point extensions $\,U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ on spaces $%
X_{1}\times \left[ n\right] $ and $X_{2}\times \left[ n\right] ,$ we say $%
U_{1}$ is relatively isomorphic to $U_{2}$ if there is an isomorphism $\Phi $ from $U_{1}$ to $U_{2}$ that preserves the fibers of these extensions. That is, there is an isomorphism of the form $$\left( x,i\right) \mapsto \left( \phi \left( x\right) ,\alpha \left(
x\right) \left( i\right) \right)$$where $\alpha :X_{1}\rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{n}.$ Equivalently, these extensions are relatively isomorphic if there is an isomorphism $\phi $ from $T_{1}$ to $T_{2}$ and a function $\alpha :X_{1}\rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{n}$ such that$$\sigma _{2}\left( \phi x,n\right) =\alpha \left( T_{1}^{n}\left( x\right)
\right) \sigma _{1}\left( x,n\right) \alpha \left( x\right) ^{-1}$$which is exactly the condition that the $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$extensions $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ are $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$isomorphic. We also note that every speedup of $T_{1}$ (or equivalently, every $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$speedup of $%
S_{1}$) corresponds to a speedup of $U_{1}$ relative to $T_{1}.$
Given $n-$point extensions $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$, let us write $%
U_{1}\rightsquigarrow U_{2}$ when there is a speedup of $U_{1}$ relative to $%
T_{1}$ which is relatively isomorphic to $U_{2}.$ This relation is evidently transitive and apparently asymmetric; there is no reason to suppose that $%
U_{1}\rightsquigarrow U_{2}$ implies $U_{2}\rightsquigarrow U_{1}$. In the case of ergodic finite group extensions, however, (as well as for more general locally compact second countable group extensions), we have just seen that it is symmetric, and in fact for each locally compact second countable group $G$ there is only one equivalence class of ergodic $G-$extensions. But, for general ergodic $n-$point extensions, we will see that the relation is indeed asymmetric. This is due to the fact that the associated $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$ extensions, of which the ergodic $n-$point extensions are factors, need not themselves be ergodic. By examining the ergodic components of these $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$ extensions, we will obtain a characterization of this relation in other terms, and we will give an explicit example to illustrate its asymmetry.
Fix an automorphism $T$ and an $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$cocycle $\sigma .$ Let $S$ be the associated $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$ extension of $T.$ We associate to the pair $\left( T,\sigma \right) $ a conjugacy class of subgoups of $\mathcal{S}%
_{n}$ that will be the basis of the characterization. We recall the discussion that can be found in $\left[ G\right] $: Let $C$ be an ergodic component of $S.$ For each $x\in X,$ let $C_{x}=\left\{ \gamma \in \mathcal{S%
}_{n}:\left( x,\gamma \right) \in C\right\} .$ (By the ergodicity of $T,$ $%
\left\vert C_{x}\right\vert \geq 1$ is a constant). Then if $\beta
:X\rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{n}$ is any measurable function such that $\left(
x,\beta \left( x\right) \right) \in C$ almost everywhere, there is a subgroup $G$ of $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ such that the sets $\beta \left( x\right)
^{-1}C_{x}$ are almost all equal to $G.$ Moreover, letting $\alpha \left(
x\right) =\beta \left( x\right) ^{-1},$ and defining a new cocycle by $%
\sigma ^{\prime }\left( x,n\right) =\alpha \left( T^{n}x\right) \sigma
\left( x,n\right) \alpha \left( x\right) ^{-1},$ we get a new $\mathcal{S}%
_{n}-$extension $S^{\prime }$ that is $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$isomorphic to $S.$ The map $$\left( x,\gamma \right) \mapsto \left( x,\alpha \left( x\right) \gamma
\right)$$is an $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$isomorphism from $S$ to $S^{\prime },$ which carries $C$ to $X\times G,$ on which $S^{\prime }$ is ergodic. In summary: $\sigma $ is cohomologous to a $G-$valued cocycle $\sigma ^{\prime }$ yielding an $%
\mathcal{S}_{n}-$extension $S^{\prime }$ that has $X\times G$ as an ergodic component. (In particular, the values of $\sigma ^{\prime }$ lie in $G$). The groups $G$ that fit this description form a conjugacy class of subgroups of $\mathcal{S}_{n}.$ We denote this conjugacy class by $gp\left( T,\sigma
\right) .$
We can easily extend the above discussion to a slightly more general context: Suppose that, for some subgroup $G\subset \mathcal{S}_{n},$ $%
X\times G$ is $S-$invariant, but is not an ergodic component of $S$. Then we can apply the above arguments to an ergodic component of $S$ that is contained in $X\times G,$ and conclude that there is a subgroup $H\subset G$ and a cocycle $\sigma ^{\prime }$ cohomologous to $\sigma $ via a $G-$valued transfer function, so that $X\times H$ is an ergodic component of the $%
\mathcal{S}_{n}-$extension $S^{\prime }$ associated with $\sigma ^{\prime }$.
For brevity, when $X\times G$ is an ergodic component of an $\mathcal{S}%
_{n}- $extension $S,$ we will say that $\sigma $ is $G-$ergodic for $T.$ (This is equivalent to the $G-$interchange property that Gerber introduced in [@G]).
It is clear that $gp\left( T,\sigma \right) $ is an invariant of factor isomorphism. In [@G] Gerber showed that it is a complete invariant for factor orbit equivalence of ergodic $n-$point extensions. In connection with speedups, we now prove:
\[nptext\]Let $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ be ergodic $n-$point extensions of transformations $\left( T_{1},X_{1}\right) $ and $\left( T_{2},X_{2}\right) $ by $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$valued cocycles $\sigma _{1}$ and $\sigma _{2}.$ Then $%
U_{1}\rightsquigarrow U_{2}$ if and only if for some $G_{1}\in gp\left(
T_{1},\sigma _{1}\right) \ $(and hence for every $G_{1}\in gp\left(
T_{1},\sigma _{1}\right) $), there exists $G_{2}\in gp\left( T_{2},\sigma
_{2}\right) $ such that $G_{2}\subset G_{1}.$
Suppose first that for some $G_{1}\in gp\left( T_{1},\sigma _{1}\right) ,\ $there exists $G_{2}\in gp\left( T_{2},\sigma _{2}\right) $ such that $%
G_{2}\subset G_{1}.$ By the above discussion, for each $i=1,2,$ there is a cocycle $\sigma _{i}^{\prime }$ cohomologous to $\sigma _{i},$ so that $%
X_{i}\times G_{i}$ is an ergodic component of $\left( T_{i}\right) _{\sigma
_{i}}$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we may assume from the start that each $\left( T_{i},\sigma _{i}\right) $ has this property.
$S_{1}$ induces an ergodic transformation $\left( S_{1}\right) _{X_{1}\times
G_{2}}$ on $\left( X_{1}\times G_{2}\right) $ and, for each $\left(
x,g_{2}\right) \in X_{1}\times G_{2}$ we let $j=j\left( x,g_{2}\right) $ denote the first return time of $\left( x,g_{2}\right) $ to $X_{1}\times
G_{1}$ under $S_{1}.$ But $j\left( x,g_{2}\right) $ depends only on $x$ since, for all $\left( x,g_{2}\right) \in X_{1}\times G_{2}$ and all $n\in
\mathbb{N}$, $$S_{1}^{n}\left( x,g_{2}\right) \in \left( X_{1}\times G_{2}\right) \iff
\sigma _{1}\left( x,n\right) g_{2}\in G_{2}\iff \sigma _{1}\left( x,n\right)
\in G_{2}$$so that these conditions do not depend on $g_{2}.$ We can then write $%
j\left( x,g_{2}\right) =j\left( x\right) ,\ $and the induced automorphism $$\left( S_{1}\right) _{X_{1}\times G_{2}}=S_{1}^{j}\upharpoonright
_{X_{1}\times G_{2}}$$is an ergodic $G_{2}-$extension of the speedup $T_{1}^{j}$ of $T_{1}.$
Applying Theorem \[gp ext unif\]$,$ we know that there is a $G_{2}-$speedup $\left( S_{1}^{j}\upharpoonright _{X_{1}\times G_{2}}\right) ^{k}$ of $S_{1}^{j}\upharpoonright _{X_{1}\times G_{2}}$ , that is $G_{2}-$isomorphic to $S_{2}\upharpoonright _{X_{2}\times G_{2}}.$ This gives us a speedup $\left( T_{1}^{j}\right) ^{k}=T_{1}^{l}$ of $T_{1}$, and $\left(
S_{1}^{j}\upharpoonright _{X_{1}\times G_{2}}\right)
^{k}=S_{1}^{l}\upharpoonright _{X_{1}\times G_{2}}$is a $G_{2}-$extension of $T_{1}^{l}$.
There is an isomorphism $\phi :X_{1}\rightarrow X_{2}$ and $\alpha
:X_{1}\rightarrow G_{2}$ so that $$T_{1}^{l}\overset{\phi }{\approx }T_{2}\text{ and }\sigma _{2}\phi =\left(
\sigma _{1}^{\left( l\right) }\right) ^{\alpha }. \label{isom}$$
This construction gives us a speedup $U_{1}^{l}$of $U_{1}$ relative to $%
T_{1} $ and conditions $\left( \text{\ref{isom}}\right) $ say that $%
U_{1}^{l} $ is relatively isomorphic to $U_{2}.$
Now suppose that $U_{1}\rightsquigarrow U_{2}.$ Fix $G_{1}\in gp\left(
S_{1}\right) .$ We want to show that there is a subgroup $G_{2}\in sp\left(
S_{2}\right) $ contained in $G_{1}.$ As before, we may assume that $%
X_{1}\times G_{1}$ is an ergodic component of $S_{1}.$ The condition $%
U_{1}\rightsquigarrow U_{2}$ tells us that there is an $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$speedup $S_{1}^{k}$ of $S_{1}$ that is $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$isomorphic to $%
S_{2}.$ Since $X_{1}\times G_{1}$ is invariant for $S_{1},$ it remains so for $S_{1}^{k}.$ Arguing as before, there is a subgroup $G_{2}\subset G_{1}$ and a cocycle $\bar{\sigma}$ for $T_{1}^{k},$ cohomologous to $\sigma
_{1}^{\left( k\right) },$ such that $X_{1}\times G_{2}$ is an ergodic component of $\bar{S},$ where $\bar{S}$ is the $\mathcal{S}_{n}-$extension of $T_{1}^{k}$ given by $\bar{\sigma}.$ But, since $\bar{S}$ is relatively isomorphic to $S_{2},$ we must have $G_{2}\in gp\left( T_{2},\sigma
_{2}\right) .$
As an example, we consider a pair of $3-$point extensions considered by Gerber in [@G]. Let $\left\{ \gamma _{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{6}$ be an enumeration of the symmetric group $\mathcal{S}_{3}$ so that $\left\{ \gamma
_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{3}$ is the alternating group $\mathcal{A}_{3}$. Let $%
\left( T_{1},X_{1}\right) $ be the full $3-$shift, with independent generator $\mathcal{P}=\left\{ P_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{3}$ and $\left(
T_{2},X_{2}\right) $ the full $6-$shift with independent generator $\mathcal{%
Q}=\left\{ Q_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{6}.$ Define a cocycle $\sigma _{1}$ for $%
T_{1}$ by setting $\sigma \left( x,1\right) =\gamma _{i}$ when $x\in P_{i}.$ Define $\sigma _{2}$ for $T_{2}$ by setting $\sigma _{2}\left( x,1\right)
=\gamma _{i}$ when $x\in Q_{i}$. In [@G] Gerber showed that $gp\left(
S_{1}\right) =\left\{ \mathcal{A}_{3}\right\} $ and $gp\left\{ S_{2}\right\}
=\left\{ \mathcal{S}_{3}\right\} $ and that consequently $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ are not factor orbit equivalent. Using Theorem \[nptext\] we can conclude further that there is a factor speedup of $S_{2}$ that is factor isomorphic to $S_{1},$ but there is no factor speedup of $S_{1}$ that is factor isomorphic to $S_{2}.$
As a final application we observe how the classification of extensions changes when we pass to extensions that are as close as possible to the finite case. That is, we consider extensions with countable fibers, and allow only the smallest natural group of permutations on the fibers. Let $p$ denote counting measure on $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{f}$ the group of finitely supported permutations of $\mathbb{N}$. Suppose that $T$ is an automorphism of the Lebesgue probability space $\left( X,B,\mu \right) ,$ and $\sigma $ is an $\mathcal{S}_{f}-$cocycle for $T.$ Then as in the finite case, we obtain a countable extension $U$ of $T$ on $X\times \mathbb{N}$ given by$$U^{n}\left( x,k\right) =\left( T^{n}x,\sigma \left( x,n\right) \left(
k\right) \right) .$$Here we say that two such countable extensions $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ are relatively isomorphic if there is an isomorphism $\phi $ from $T_{1}$ to $%
T_{2}$ and a function $\alpha :X\rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{f}$ such that$$\sigma _{2}\left( \phi x,n\right) =\alpha \left( T_{1}^{n}\left( x\right)
\right) \sigma _{1}\left( x,n\right) \alpha \left( x\right) ^{-1}.$$Since $\mathcal{S}_{f}$ is countable, Theorem \[gp ext unif\] applies, and the analysis of finite extensions which was given above can easily be adapted to this case. Thus, to each ergodic countable extension $U$ of $T$ by an $\mathcal{S}_{f}-$valued cocycle $\sigma $, we associate a conjugacy class $gp\left( T,\sigma \right) $ of subgroups of $\mathcal{S}_{f},$ and the corresponding statement of Theorem \[nptext\] holds.
Given an ergodic $T,$ there is an uncountable family of ergodic countable extensions of $T$, each of which acts on the fibers of the extension by finitely supported permuations of $\mathbb{N}$, and no one of which admits a relative speedup that is relatively isomorphic to another.
We first construct an uncountable family of subgroups of $\mathcal{S}_{f}$ such that $\left( i\right) ,$ each acts transitively on $\mathbb{N},$ and $%
\left( ii\right) ,$ no conjugate of one contains another. Suppose $\mathcal{%
P=}\left\{ A_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ is a partition of $\mathbb{N}$ into two-element sets. Let $$G_{\mathcal{P}}=\left\{ \pi \in \mathcal{S}_{f}:\left( \forall k\right)
\left( \exists j\right) \pi \left( A_{k}\right) =A_{j}\right\} .$$It is clear that $G_{\mathcal{P}}$ acts transitively on $\mathbb{N}$. For $%
\xi \in \mathcal{S}_{f}$ we write $\xi \mathcal{P=}\left\{ \xi A\mid A\in
\mathcal{P}\right\} $ and observe that $\xi G_{\mathcal{P}}\xi ^{-1}=G_{\xi
\mathcal{P}}.$ Hence, if $\mathcal{P}^{\prime }$ is another partition of $%
\mathbb{N}$ into two-element sets and the symmetric difference of $\mathcal{P%
}$ and $\mathcal{P}^{\prime }$ is infinite, then no conjugate of $G_{%
\mathcal{P}}$ can contain $G_{\mathcal{P}^{\prime }}.$ It is easy to construct an uncountable family $\left\{ \mathcal{P}_{i}\right\} _{i\in I}$ of such partitions so that each pair has an infinite symmetric difference. The corresponding family of subgroups $\left\{ G_{\mathcal{P}_{i}}\right\}
_{i\in I}$ satisfies conditions $\left( i\right) $ and $\left( ii\right) $ above.
Each of the groups $G_{\mathcal{P}_{i}}$ is countable and amenable, and hence, by the result of Herman [@H]$,$ for each $G_{P_{i}}$ there is a cocycle $\sigma _{i}$ for $T$ for which the corresponding $G_{\mathcal{P}%
_{i}}-$extension $S_{i}$ is ergodic. But since $G_{\mathcal{P}_{i}}$ acts transitively on $\mathbb{N}$, the corresponding countable extension $U_{i}$ is also ergodic. Indeed, for all sets $A$ and $B$ contained in $X$ of positive measure, and all $l,m\in \mathbb{N},$ if we choose $\pi \in
G_{P_{i}}$ such that $\pi \left( l\right) =m,$ then Lemma $\ref{little push}$ gives an $n^{\prime }\in \mathbb{N}$ and $A^{\prime }\subset A$ with $\mu
\left( A^{\prime }\right) >0$ such that $T^{n^{\prime }}\left( A^{\prime
}\right) \subset B$ and for all $x\in A^{\prime },$ $\sigma \left(
x,n^{\prime }\right) =\pi .$ Condition $\left( ii\right) $ on the groups $G_{%
\mathcal{P}_{i}}$ tells us that for all $i\neq j$ in $I,$ no speedup of $%
U_{i}$ relative to $T$ is relatively isomorphic to $U_{j}.$
[AOW]{} P. Arnoux, D. S. Ornstein, B. Weiss, Cutting and stacking, interval exchanges and geometric models, *Isr. J. Math.*, **50**, nos. 1-2, (1985), 160-168.
A. Babichev, A. Fieldsteel, Speedups of compact group extensions, arXiv:1112.4377
H. Becker, Polish group actions: dichotomies and generalized elementary embeddings, *J.A.M.S.,* **11***, no. 2, (1998), 397-449.*
A. Fieldsteel, Factor orbit equivalence of compact group extensions, *Isr. J. Math.*, **38**, no. 4, (1981), 289-303.
M. Gerber, Factor orbit equivalence of compact group extensions and classification of finite extensions of ergodic automorphisms, *Isr. J. Math.*, **57**, no. 1, (1987), 28-48
V. Ya. Golodets, S. D. Sinel’shchikov, Classification and structure of cocycles of amenable ergodic equivalence relations, *J. Funct. Anal.* **121** (1994), 455-485
M. Herman, Construction de difféomorphismes ergodiques. Unpublished manuscript, 1979.
J. Kammeyer, D.J. Rudolph, Restricted orbit equivalence for ergodic $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ actions, I.*,* *Ergodic Th. Dyn. Sys.*, **17**, no. 5, 1997, 1083–1129.
J. Kammeyer, D.J. Rudolph, *Restricted orbit equivalence for actions of discrete amenable groups*, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, **146**. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
J. Neveu, Une démonstration simplifée et une extension de la formule d’Abramov sur l’entropie des transformations induites, *Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheor. Verw. Geb.* **13** (1969), 135-140
D. S. Ornstein, *Ergodic Theory, Randomness and Dynamical Systems*, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1970.
D. S. Ornstein, B. Weiss, Any flow is an orbit factor of any flow, *Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys.*, (1984), **4**, 105-116
D. J. Rudolph, Restricted orbit equivalence*,* *Mem. A.M.S.*, **323** (1985), 149 pp.
R. Zimmer, Amenable ergodic group actions and an application to Poisson boundaries of random walks, *J. Funct. Anal.* **27** (1978), 350–372.
[^1]: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the anonymous referee, whose contributions enormously improved this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Oscillating fields can make domain patterns change into various types of structures. Numerical simulations show that concentric-ring domain patterns centered at a strong defect are observed under a rapidly oscillating field in some cases. The concentric-ring pattern appears near the threshold of spatially-uniform patterns in high-frequency cases. The threshold is theoretically estimated and the theoretical threshold is in good agreement with numerical one in a high-frequency region. The theoretical analysis gives also good estimations of several characteristics of domain patterns for high-frequencies.'
author:
- Kazue Kudo
title: 'Effects of an oscillating field on magnetic domain patterns: Emergence of concentric-ring patterns surrounding a strong defect'
---
\[sec:intro\] Introduction
==========================
Rapidly oscillating fields cause interesting phenomena in a wide variety of systems. Those phenomena are often discussed in the view of stabilization of an unstable state. One of the simplest examples is the problem of Kapitza’s inverted pendulum, which was generalized by Landau and Lifshitz [@landau]. The key idea is to separate the dynamics into a rapidly oscillating part and a slowly varying part. The method has been applied to various systems, e.g., the classical and quantum dynamics in periodically driven systems [@rahav03; @rahav05], the stabilization of a matter-wave soliton in two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates without an external trap [@saito; @abdullaev; @liu], and magnetic domain patterns traveling at a slow velocity under a rapidly oscillating field [@travel].
Domain patterns are observed in a wide variety of systems, and they show many kinds of structures (see, for example, Refs. [@cross; @seul; @muratov] and references therein). Magnetic domain patterns are one of their good examples. While they usually exhibit a labyrinth structure under zero field, they also show other kinds of structures under an oscillating field. For instance, parallel-stripe and several kinds of lattice structures are observed in experiments and numerical simulations [@miura; @mino; @tsuka]. Moreover, traveling patterns [@travel] and more interesting patterns, e.g., spirals and concentric-ring patterns [@kandaurova; @mino_p], have been observed, depending on the strength and frequency of the field. Spirals and concentric-ring patterns appear under a large-amplitude and high-frequency field in experiments, and the field range where they appear is not wide.
In this paper, we investigate effects of an oscillating field by numerical simulations and theoretical analysis, focusing on the emergence of concentric-ring magnetic domain patterns surrounding a strong defect. Recently, two theoretical methods were proposed to investigate the effects of an oscillating field on pattern formation in ferromagnetic thin films [@travel]. One gives the “time-averaged model” and the other gives the “phase-shifted model”: The former is derived by averaging out rapidly oscillating terms, and the latter includes the delay of the response to the oscillating field. In this paper, the time-averaged model is applied to theoretical analysis, since it is suitable for discussing “stationary” domain patterns which oscillate periodically but are unchanged in terms of a long-time average. The theoretical line of the threshold for nonuniform patterns is derived from the time-averaged model. The theoretical threshold is consistent with the numerically simulated one in a high-frequency region, where a concentric-ring pattern appears around the defect.
In fact, there are several techniques to study domain patterns under a rapidly oscillating field theoretically. Applying a multi-time-scale technique [@michaelis; @kirakosyan], one can obtain more complex equations in a better approximation than the time-averaged model. In other words, the time-averaged model corresponds to the lowest orders of multi-time-scale expansions. In this paper, the time-averaged model is employed since it has a simple form and is efficient enough to discuss the appearance of concentric-ring patterns in a high-frequency region.
The creation of a concentric-ring pattern can have different mechanisms. One of them is boundary conditions, and the strong defect is a kind of boundary condition. The selection of a pattern depends on boundary conditions as well as the field frequency or other parameters [@dong]. For example, in nematic liquid crystals under a rotating magnetic field, it is sometimes observed that the center of concentric rings nucleated by a dust particle moves away from it [@migler]; Faraday experiments of viscous fluid and granular layers in round cells show concentric-ring patterns or spiral patterns [@kiyashko; @bruyn] in some cases. On the other hand, concentric-ring patterns can also appear spontaneously. In fact, spiral patterns as well as concentric-ring patterns appear in the absence of a strong defect under some conditions [@kandaurova; @tuszynski]. However, we will not consider spontaneously created concentric-ring patterns in this paper since those patterns are beyond the scope of this paper.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:simu\], the model of our system is introduced and numerical results, i.e., the phase diagram for concentric-ring patterns and profiles of the domain patterns, are exhibited. In Sec. \[sec:theo\], we discuss the threshold for nonuniform patterns, employing the time-averaged model. Moreover, several characteristics of a domain pattern estimated from the time-averaged model are compared with those from the numerical simulations. The mechanism for the appearance of a concentric-ring pattern is discussed in Sec. \[sec:disc\]. Conclusions are given in Sec. \[sec:conc\].
\[sec:simu\] Numerical simulation
=================================
Our model is a simple two-dimensional model (see Refs. [@travel; @jagla04; @kudo], and references therein). The Hamiltonian of the model consists of four energy terms: Uniaxial anisotropy energy $H_{\rm ani}$, exchange interactions $H_J$, dipolar interactions $H_{\rm di}$, and the interactions with the external field $H_{\rm ex}$. We consider a scalar field $\phi(\bm{r})$, where $\bm{r}=(x,y)$. The anisotropy energy is given by $$H_{\rm ani}=\alpha \int {\rm d}\bm{r} \lambda(\bm{r}) \left(
-\frac{\phi(\bm{r})^2}{2}+\frac{\phi(\bm{r})^4}{4}
\right),
\label{eq:Ha}$$ where $\lambda(\bm{r})$ is employed to express the effect of defects or the roughness of a sample. This term implies that the values $\phi(\bm{r})=\pm 1$ are preferable. The positive and negative values of $\phi(\bm{r})$ correspond to up and down spins, respectively. The exchange and dipolar interactions are described by $$H_J=\beta\int {\rm d}\bm{r} \frac{|\nabla\phi(\bm{r})|^2}{2}
\label{eq:Hj}$$ and $$H_{\rm di}=\gamma\int {\rm d}\bm{r} {\rm d}\bm{r}'
\phi(\bm{r})\phi(\bm{r}') G(\bm{r},\bm{r}'),
\label{eq:Hdi}$$ respectively. Here, $G(\bm{r},\bm{r}')\sim |\bm{r}-\bm{r}'|^{-3}$ at long distances. These two terms are competing interactions: $H_J$ implies that $\phi(\bm{r})$ tends to have the same value as neighbors, while $H_{\rm di}$ implies that $\phi(\bm{r})$ prefers to have the opposite sign to ones at some distances. The interactions with the external field is given by $$H_{\rm ex}=-h(t) \int {\rm d}\bm{r} \phi(\bm{r}).
\label{eq:Hex}$$ Here, we consider a spatially homogeneous and rapidly oscillating field, $$h(t)=h_0\sin\omega t.
\label{eq:h}$$ From Eqs. (\[eq:Ha\])–(\[eq:Hex\]), the dynamical equation of the model is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \phi (\bm{r})}{\partial t}&=&
-\frac{\delta (H_{\rm ani}+H_{J}+H_{\rm di}+{H_{\rm ex}})}
{\delta \phi (\bm{r})} \nonumber\\
&=& \alpha\lambda(\bm{r}) [\phi(\bm{r})-\phi(\bm{r})^3]
+\beta\nabla^2\phi(\bm{r})
-\gamma\int {\rm d}\bm{r}' \phi(\bm{r}') G(\bm{r},\bm{r}')
+h(t).
\label{eq:A-C}\end{aligned}$$
The numerical procedures are almost the same as those of Refs. [@travel; @jagla04; @kudo]. For time evolution, a semi-implicit method is employed: The exact solutions and the second-order Runge-Kutta method are used for the linear and nonlinear terms, respectively. For a better spatial resolution, a pseudo-spectral method is applied. Namely, the time evolutions are calculated for the equation in Fourier space corresponding to Eq. (\[eq:A-C\]), $$\frac{\partial \phi_{\bm{k}}}{\partial t} =\alpha
[(\phi-\phi^3)\lambda ]_{\bm{k}}
-(\beta k^2 +\gamma G_{\bm{k}})\phi_{\bm{k}} + h(t)\delta_{\bm{k}},
\label{eq:a-1}$$ where $[\cdot]$ denotes the convolution sum and $G_{\bm{k}}$ is the Fourier transform of $G({\bm{r}},0)$. Here, we define $G(\bm{r},0)\equiv 1/|\bm{r}|^3$. Then, one has $$G_{\bm{k}}=a_0-a_1 k,$$ where $k=|\bm{k}|$ and $$a_0=2\pi\int_d^{\infty} \frac{{\rm d}r}{r^2}, \quad a_1=2\pi.$$ Here, $d$ is the cutoff length of the dipolar interactions. In the simulations, we set $d=\pi/2$, which results in $a_0=4$.
The effect of a strong defect is incorporated in the anisotropy term, Eq. (\[eq:Ha\]). Here, we put the strong defect at the center, i.e., the origin ($\bm{r}=\bm{0}$), as follows: $$\lambda (\bm{r})= \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
10 & (\bm{r}=\bm{0}).\\
1 & (\bm{r}\neq \bm{0}).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:lambda}$$ This condition implies that the spin at the center will not flip unless the applied field is too strong. The parameters in Eqs. (\[eq:Ha\])–(\[eq:Hdi\]) are given as $\alpha=2$, $\beta=2$, and $\gamma=2\beta/a_1=2/\pi$. The simulations are performed on a $128\times 128$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions.
The concentric-ring patterns simulated by the numerical calculations appear in a limited region of the frequency ($\omega$) and the amplitude ($h_0$) of the external field. Figure \[fig:diagram\] shows the $\omega$-$h_0$ phase diagram for concentric-ring patterns. The solid lines and the dashed line are drawn by using the results of the numerical simulations and theoretical analysis, respectively. The theoretical analysis is explained in Sec. \[sec:theo\]. Concentric-ring patterns are seen only in the region between the upper and lower solid lines. Above the upper solid line, one sees only spatially-homogeneous patterns except for the vicinity of the center. On the contrary, stripes, labyrinth or lattice structures appear below the lower solid line.
![\[fig:diagram\] (Color online) Phase diagram for the concentric-ring patterns surrounding a strong defect at the center. The horizontal and vertical axes are the frequency ($\omega$) and the amplitude ($h_0$) of the external field, respectively. The red solid lines and blue dashed line are obtained from the numerical simulations and theoretical analysis, respectively. The values of $\omega$ and $h_0$ of each snapshot are as follows: (a) $\omega/2\pi=2/3\simeq 0.667$ and $h_0=3.05$, (b) $\omega/2\pi=2/3$ and $h_0=2.8$, (c) $\omega/2\pi=0.1$ and $h_0=1.2$, (d) $\omega/2\pi=0.5$ and $h_0=2.5$, and (e) $\omega/2\pi=0.8$ and $h_0=3.56$.](fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
Actually, it is difficult to find the exact boundaries of the region where concentric-ring patterns appear. One may think that concentric-ring patterns can appear right on the numerical threshold line in a low-frequency region. However, even if a concentric-ring pattern could appear on the threshold, it would be hard to find its exact value. In a low-frequency region, the boundary between spatially-homogeneous patterns and nonuniform patterns (e.g., stripes, labyrinth, and lattice structures) is sharp. In contrast, in a high-frequency region, the boundaries between concentric-ring patterns and other patterns are unclear: They are crossover lines rather than transition ones. Actually, for high frequencies, a few concentric rings around the strong defect coexist with other patterns (i.e., stripes, labyrinth or lattice patterns) in the region near the boundary lines of the concentric-ring-pattern region. In other words, a few concentric rings start to appear at the lower boundary, and the number of rings grows as $h_0$ increases. At the upper boundary, nonuniform patterns disappear except for the vicinity of the strong defect.
The profile of each domain pattern is useful to see the time dependence of the pattern. The profiles corresponding to the snapshots (a) and (b) in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] are shown in Fig. \[fig:prof\]. The profile is a section which includes the center (the defect) and is perpendicular to $x$ axis (the horizontal axis). The profiles show that the pattern is oscillating without deformation except for the vicinity of the center. The amplitudes of the oscillation and that of the pattern (i.e., the difference between the maximum and minimum values of $\phi(\bm{r})$ except for the vicinity of the defect at a certain time) depend on the amplitude and frequency of the field.
![\[fig:prof\] Profiles of the domain patterns corresponding to the snapshots (a) and (b) in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]: (a) $\omega/2\pi=2/3\simeq 0.667$ and $h_0=3.05$, (b) $\omega/2\pi=2/3$ and $h_0=2.8$. The upper and lower thin curves in each figure are the profiles at $t=(n+1/2)T$ and $t=nT$, respectively, where $n$ is an integer and $T=2\pi/\omega$. The middle thick curve is the time-averaged profile. ](fig2.eps){width="6cm"}
\[sec:theo\] Theoretical analysis
=================================
Since a rapidly oscillating field is applied, Kapitza’s idea [@landau] is applicable to the analysis of the pattern formation in this system. In fact, the profiles in Fig. \[fig:prof\] validate the use of the idea. In other words, the results in Fig. \[fig:prof\] justify the fact that the variable $\phi(\bm{r},t)$ in Eq. (\[eq:A-C\]) consists of a spatially homogeneous oscillating term $\phi_0(t)$ and a slowly varying term $\Phi(\bm{r},t)$. In this section, the domain patterns in the absence of a defect are discussed by employing the time-averaged model [@travel]. Namely, $\lambda(\bm{r})$ in Eq. (\[eq:lambda\]) is replaced by unity, i.e., $\lambda(\bm{r})=1$.
First of all, let us consider the spatially homogeneous oscillating solution $\phi_0(t)$ of Eq. (\[eq:A-C\]). Then, one has $$\dot{\phi_0}=\alpha (\phi_0-\phi_0^3)-
\gamma\phi_0\int {\rm d}\bm{r}' |\bm{r}'|^{-3} +h(t).
\label{eq:3_1}$$ Its solution can be approximately written as $$\phi_0=\rho\sin (\omega t +\delta),
\label{eq:form}$$ where $\delta$ is a phase shift which comes from the delay of the response to the field. Substituting Eq. (\[eq:form\]) into Eq. (\[eq:3\_1\]) and omitting high-order harmonics (i.e., $\sin 3\omega t$), one can evaluate $\rho$ and $\delta$. The value of $\rho$ is obtained from the following equations [@travel]: $$\frac{9}{16}\alpha^2 \rho^6
-\frac32\alpha\eta_0 \rho^4 +(\omega^2+\eta_0^2)\rho^2
=h_0^2,
\label{eq:rho}$$ where $\eta_0=\alpha-\gamma a_0$.
Now, we consider the equation for the slowly varying variable $\Phi(\bm{r},t)$ which describes a spatially dependent pattern. Substituting $\phi(\bm{r},t)=\phi_0(t)+\Phi(\bm{r},t)$ into Eq. (\[eq:A-C\]) and averaging out the rapid oscillation, one obtains the time-averaged model $$\frac{\partial\Phi(\bm{r})}{\partial t}
= \left( 1-\frac32\rho^2 \right) \alpha\Phi(\bm{r})
+\beta\nabla^2\Phi(\bm{r}) -\gamma\int {\rm d}
\bm{r}' \frac{\Phi(\bm{r}')}{|\bm{r}-\bm{r}'|^3}
- \alpha\Phi(\bm{r})^3.
\label{eq:t_av}$$
The linear stability of Eq. (\[eq:t\_av\]) leads to the theoretical curve in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] corresponding to the threshold for the existence of nonuniform patterns. Substituting $\Phi(\bm{r})=\sum_{\bm{k}}\exp(i\bm{k}\cdot\bm{r})\Phi_{\bm{k}}$ into Eq. (\[eq:t\_av\]), one has the linear part of the equation written as $$\frac{\partial\Phi_{\bm{k}}}{\partial t}=\eta_{\bm{k}}\Phi_{\bm{k}}.$$ Here, $$\eta_{\bm{k}}=\left( 1-\frac32\rho^2 \right)\alpha
-\beta (k-k_0)^2+\beta k_0^2 -\gamma a_0,
\label{eq:eta}$$ where $k=|\bm{k}|$ and $k_0=a_1\gamma/(2\beta)$. Since $\eta_{\bm{k}}$ has the maximum value at $k=k_0$, the value of $\rho$ for $\eta_{k=k_0}=0$ gives the instability threshold $\rho_c$, $$\rho_c=\left[ \frac{2}{3\alpha}(\alpha+\beta k_0^2-\gamma a_0)
\right]^{1/2}.
\label{eq:rho_c}$$ When $\rho > \rho_c$, $\eta_{\bm{k}}$ is negative for all values of $\bm{k}$. In other words, the homogeneous pattern, i.e., $\Phi(\bm{r})=0$, is stable and no inhomogeneous pattern tends to appear for $\rho > \rho_c$. The threshold curve for nonuniform patterns in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] (the dashed line) is given by Eq. (\[eq:rho\]) with $\rho=\rho_c$.
Now, let us discuss how a nonuniform pattern disappears near the threshold. Taking $\Phi(\bm{r},t)=A\cos k_0x$ which is one of the simplest stable patterns and substituting it into Eq.(\[eq:t\_av\]), we have $$\left[
\left( 1-\frac32\rho^2 \right)\alpha +\beta k_0^2 -\gamma a_0
-\frac34\alpha A^2
\right] A\cos k_0x -\frac{\alpha}{4}A^3\cos 3k_0x =0.$$ Neglecting the higher harmonics (i.e., $\cos 3k_0x$), we obtain $$A=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3\alpha}}\left[
\left( 1-\frac32\rho^2 \right)\alpha +\beta k_0^2
-\gamma a_0 \right]^{1/2}.
\label{eq:A}$$ The amplitude $A$ of the pattern decreases monotonically in terms of $\rho$ and vanishes at $\rho=\rho_c$. Namely, the amplitude of the pattern diminishes near the threshold. This behavior is found in Fig. \[fig:prof\]. The same behavior can be derived for a concentric-ring pattern, which needs more complex calculations.
The validity of the above discussion is examined by comparing numerical results with theoretical estimates. Actually, Fig. \[fig:diagram\] indicates that the theoretical threshold is in good agreement with the numerical one for high frequencies ($\omega/2\pi\gtrsim 0.5$). More quantitative comparisons are given in Table \[table\] for $\omega/2\pi \ge 0.5$. The numerical and theoretical values of $\rho$ and $A$ are compared in it for the data near the threshold. They are obtained from the profiles of domain patterns. Namely, the one-cycle time sequence of the profiles is used in order to estimate them. The theoretical value of $\rho$ is calculated from Eq. (\[eq:rho\]), and that of $A$ is calculated in two ways: The value of $\rho$ in Eq. (\[eq:A\]) is given by (I) the value from simulations and (II) the theoretical value. The values of $A$ estimated from simulations and Theory (I) are in good agreement. Moreover, when the numerical and theoretical values of $\rho$ are close, the value of $A$ from Theory (II) also has a similar value to the corresponding numerical $A$.
---------- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ -------------
$\omega$ $h_0$ Simulation Theory Simulation Theory (I) Theory (II)
0.5 2.30 $\sim$0.51 0.68 $\sim$0.63 0.67 0.20
2.38 0.69 0.70 0 0 0
2.45 0.71 0.72 0 0 0
0.667 3.00 $\sim$0.65 0.69 $\sim$0.33 0.35 0.17
3.05 $\sim$0.69 0.70 $\sim$0.12 0.13 0
3.10 0.70 0.71 0 0 0
0.8 3.55 $\sim$0.67 0.69 $\sim$0.27 0.27 0.17
3.60 $\sim$0.69 0.69 $\sim$0.14 0.13 0.07
3.65 0.70 0.70 0 0 0
1.0 4.35 $\sim$0.66 0.68 $\sim$0.29 0.31 0.22
4.45 $\sim$0.69 0.69 0.11 0.13 0.07
4.55 0.71 0.71 0 0 0
---------- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ -------------
\[sec:disc\] Discussion
=======================
![\[fig:snap\] Domain patterns simulated by using the time-averaged model (\[eq:t\_av\]) without a strong defect: (a) $\rho = 0.69$, and $\rho = 0.5$. The parameters for (a) and (b) correspond to those of Figs. \[fig:diagram\](a) and \[fig:diagram\](b), respectively. ](fig3.eps){width="6cm"}
Now, we consider how concentric-ring patterns appear around a strong defect in this system, employing the time-averaged model. Actually, the time-averaged model (\[eq:t\_av\]) without a strong defect can also produce concentric-ring patterns. If the initial condition is given as $\Phi(\bm{r}=0)=1$ at the center and $\Phi(\bm{r})=-1$ anywhere else, then concentric-ring patterns, as shown in Fig. \[fig:snap\], are demonstrated by the time-averaged model without a strong defect. The values of $\rho$ for Figs. \[fig:snap\](a) and \[fig:snap\](b) are given by $\rho=0.69$ and $\rho=5$, which correspond to those for Figs. \[fig:diagram\](a) and \[fig:diagram\](b), respectively. One sees that Figs. \[fig:snap\](a) and \[fig:diagram\](a) look very similar. They are observed near the threshold for nonuniform patterns, where the time-averaged model is valid. Near the threshold, the linear growth rate $\eta_{\bm{k}}$ given by Eq. (\[eq:eta\]) is very small, which means that the time scale of pattern formation is very slow. In fact, it takes more than 10 times longer time to obtain Fig. \[fig:snap\](a) than Fig. \[fig:snap\](b). If the initial pattern were completely uniform, nonuniform patterns could not appear easily. In other words, the initial condition employed here causes concentric rings on a uniform initial pattern (except for the center) as one of the simplest patterns. This situation is very similar to that of Fig. \[fig:diagram\](a): The strong defect in the original model behaves as a kind of boundary condition in the almost uniform pattern near the threshold. Since the growth rate of the instability is very slow near the threshold, no patterns except for concentric rings can grow for Figs. \[fig:snap\](a) or \[fig:diagram\](a). The growth rate is expected to be relevant to the correlation length, which is related to the number of concentric rings. From analogy with critical phenomena, one can estimate that the correlation length would be proportional to $\eta_{k_0}^{-1/2}$, where $\eta_{k_0}=\eta_{k=k_0}$. Therefore, the correlation length diverges near the threshold, as $\eta_{k_0}\to 0$. This is the mechanism of the emergence of a concentric-ring pattern around a strong defect and also the reason why the boundaries of the concentric-ring-pattern region are unclear in the phase diagram in Fig. \[fig:diagram\].
In contrast, Fig. \[fig:snap\](b) has a few concentric rings, although stripes (or mazes) spread outside the rings. The stripes grow independently from the concentric rings because of rather large $\eta_{\bm{k}}$’s. The difference between Figs. \[fig:snap\](b) and \[fig:diagram\](b) comes out not only because the time-averaged model is invalid far from the threshold, but also because the initial condition employed here is pretty different from the situation for Fig. \[fig:diagram\](b).
The time-averaged model is also invalid for low frequencies. This is evident from Fig. \[fig:diagram\] in which the theoretical threshold line is not consistent with the numerical one for $\omega/2\pi\lesssim 0.5$. The failure of the time-averaged model in a low-frequency region comes from the assumption $\phi(\bm{r},t)=\phi_0+\Phi(\bm{r},t)$. The assumption is valid when the time scales of the rapidly oscillating part and the slowly varying part are well separated. For low frequencies, their separation is not sufficient. If a multi-time-scale technique were applied, a better theoretical threshold line would be obtained.
The concentric-ring patterns shown in this paper are purely numerical results, although they suggest a possible mechanism about the formation of the patterns. Since the characteristics of domain patterns strongly depends on experimental conditions and samples, it is rather hard to compare experimental data with the results obtained in this paper. However, we can suggest that concentric-ring patterns appear in a certain range of the field strength and frequency, which is located above a labyrinth-pattern region. In fact, also in experiments, spirals and concentric rings are often observed near the threshold of nonuniform patterns [@kandaurova; @mino_p], although they are not always centered at a strong defect but often move around. Incidentally, for typical ferromagnetic garnet films, the order of the characteristic domain width is about 10-100 $\mu{\rm m}$ and that of the frequency for lattices, spirals, or concentric rings is about 0.1-100 kH [@kandaurova; @mino_p].
\[sec:conc\] Conclusions
========================
In this paper, effects of an oscillating field have been investigated, and the emergence of concentric-ring patterns surrounding a strong defect has been discussed. The numerical simulations show that the concentric-ring pattern appears in the high-frequency region near the threshold for nonuniform patterns. The simulated profiles of the concentric-ring pattern indicate that the pattern consists of two parts (except for the vicinity of the defect) : A rapidly oscillating spatially homogeneous part and a nonuniform pattern part. This fact assures that the time-averaged model is suitable for the theoretical analysis. The theoretical threshold line is in good agreement with the numerical one in a high-frequency region. When the rapidly oscillating field makes the state close to the threshold, the concentric-ring pattern appears due to the strong defect which is an effective boundary condition.
In conclusion, the validity of the time-averaged model has been demonstrated in the presence of a rapidly oscillating filed. It gives the good estimate of the threshold for nonuniform patterns when the field frequency is high. Moreover, it is revealed that ideal and interesting patterns such as concentric-ring patterns can appear near the threshold, depending on boundary conditions.
The author would like to thank M. Mino for the information about experiments and K. Nakamura for useful comments and discussion.
[99]{} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, *Mechanics* (Pergamon, Oxford, 1960). S. Rahav, I. Gilary, and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 110404 (2003); Phys. Rev. A **68**, 013820 (2003). S. Rahav, E. Geva, and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. E **71**, 036210 (2005). H. Saito and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 040403 (2003). F.K. Abdullaev, J.G. Caputo, R.A. Kraenkel, and B.A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 013605 (2003). C.N. Liu, T. Morishita, and S. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. A **75**, 023604 (2007). K. Kudo and K. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 036201 (2007); AIP Conf. Proc. **1076**, 129 (2008). M. Cross and P.C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. **65**, 851 (1993). M. Seul and D. Andelman, Science **267**, 476 (1995). C.B. Muratov, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 066108 (2002). S. Miura, M. Mino and H. Yamazaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **70**, 2821 (2001). M. Mino, S. Miura, K. Dohi and H. Yamazaki, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **226-230**, 1530 (2001). N. Tsukamoto, H. Fujisaka, and K. Ouchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. **161**, 372 (2006). G.S. Kandaurova, Phys. Usp. **45**, 1051 (2002). M. Mino (private communication). D. Michaelis, F.Kh. Abdullaev, S.A. Darmanyan, and F. Lederer, Phys. Rev. E **71**, 056205 (2005). A.S. Kirakosyan, F.Kh. Abdullaev, and R.M. Galimzyanov, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 094411 (2002). L. Dong, F. Liu, S. Liu, Y. He, and W. Fan, Phys. Rev. E **72**, 046215 (2005). K.B. Migler and R.B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 1485 (1991). S.V. Kiyashko, L.N. Korzinov, M.I. Rabinovich, and L.S. Tsimring, Phys. Rev. E **54**, 5037 (1996). J.R. de Bruyn, B.C. Lewis, M.D. Shattuck, and H.L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. E **63**, 041305 (2001). J.A. Tuszyński, M. Otwinowski, and J.M. Dixon, Phys. Rev. B **44**, 9201 (1991). E. A. Jagla, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 046204 (2004). K. Kudo, M. Mino, and K. Nakamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **76**, 013002 (2007); K. Kudo and K. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 054111 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Felix Godejohann
- 'Alexey V. Scherbakov'
- 'Serhii M. Kukhtaruk'
- 'Alexander N. Poddubny'
- 'Dmytro D. Yaremkevich'
- Mu Wang
- Achim Nadzeyka
- |
\
Dmitri R. Yakovlev
- 'Andrew W. Rushforth'
- 'Andrey V. Akimov'
- Manfred Bayer
bibliography:
- 'bibliography\_SI\_arxiv.bib'
title: |
Supplementary information\
Excitation and detection of coherent magnon polarons in a ferromagnetic nanograting
---
Optical excitation and detection of the acoustic modes in a metallic nanograting
================================================================================
In picosecond ultrasonics, pump-probe experiments are used to excite and detect acoustic modes of a solid in the GHz frequency range. In order to describe such an acoustic system, the main equation of linear elasticity is used (see for example Ref. [@Tucker1972]):
\[eq:wave\_equation\]
where $\rho$ is the mass density, $u_i$ is the displacement field, $r= (x,y,z)^T$, $\sigma_{ij}$ are the stress tensor elements and $\mathcal{F}_i$ is an arbitrary external force density. The stress tensor elements are given by Hooke’s law:
\[eq:stress\]
where $c_{ijkl}$ are the stiffness tensor elements and $\eta_{kl}$ are the strain tensor elements. For a cubic material, it is well known that there are only three different nonzero elements in the stiffness tensor: $c_{xxxx} = c_{11}$, $c_{xxyy} = c_{12}$ and $c_{yzyz} = c_{44}$. For small displacements, the strain tensor elements are derived by
\[eq:strain\]
The external force density, $\mathcal{F}_i$, depends on the thermal stress tensor elements $\sigma_{ij}^\text{th}$ and reads
\[eq:ext\_force\_density\]
As it is mentioned in Methods, the pump light has normal incidence to the backside of the structure, i.e. the GaAs/(Fe,Ga) interface. In this case, only the $\sigma_{zz}^\text{th}$ component of the thermal stress tensor is nonzero, i.e.
\[eq:thermal\_stress\]
where $\beta_\text{G}$ is the Grüneisen parameter, $C_\text{l}$ is the volumetric heat capacity and $T_\text{l}$ is the lattice temperature.
Equations (\[eq:wave\_equation\]) - (\[eq:thermal\_stress\]) form a total set of equations for the phonon system. Let $n= (n_x,n_y,n_z)^T$ be a unit vector normal to the surface, then the boundary condition for the Galfenol-Air interface can be considered as free ($\sigma_{ij} \cdot n_j=0$). Additionally, the normal components of stress have to be continuous at the Galfenol-GaAs interface. Hence, equations (\[eq:wave\_equation\]), (\[eq:ext\_force\_density\]) and (\[eq:thermal\_stress\]) can be explicitly written as
\
\
The amplitude of the optically excited phonon mode is proportional to the overlap integral
\_z V,
where the tilde means similar normalization as it is done in the main text. With respect to the center of the grooves $\frac{\partial \tilde{T}_\text{l}}{\partial z}$ is a symmetric function and, therefore, only phonon modes with symmetric $\tilde{u}_z$ or symmetric $\tilde{\eta}_{zz}$ can be excited. Hereafter, symmetric and antisymmetric is always meant with respect to the center of the grooves.
Our main tool for modeling the phonon properties in the nanograting (NG) is COMSOL Multiphysics$\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$[@COMSOL]. In order to visualize the time dependence of the spatially resolved displacement and strain, we have implemented the two-temperature model for electrons and the lattice into COMSOL[@Anisimon1974; @Tas1994; @Thomsen1986]. Finally, equations (\[eq:wave\_equation\]) - (\[eq:thermal\_stress\]) are solved by using the finite element method with COMSOL.
Using the parameters shown in Table 1, time dependent simulations lead to two main excitable phonon modes with frequencies of $13.1$GHz (QTA) and $15.3$GHz (QLA). However, it is known, that for periodic systems Bragg reflections lead to the formation of symmetric and antisymmetric modes with frequencies close to each other[@Sadhu2010]. An additional eigenfrequency analysis shows antisymmetric modes with $0.1$GHz smaller frequencies for both already mentioned symmetric modes. However, only the antisymmetric counterpart of the QTA mode, QTA$^*$, will be considered. Due to the symmetry of QTA$^*$, it cannot be excited optically. A careful discussion of the time dependent simulations of the (excitable) QTA and QLA modes is given below.
The magnon-phonon interaction is determined by the normalized spatial profiles of $\tilde{\eta}_{zz}$ and $\tilde{\eta}_{xz}$, which are shown in the main text in Fig. 4a. The normalized strain component, $\tilde{\eta}_{zz}$, which is responsible for the excitation is shown for the QTA$^*$ (a), QTA (b), and QLA (c) mode in Fig. S1. By comparing the normalized $\tilde{\eta}_{xx}$ and $\tilde{\eta}_{zz}$ components of the corresponding modes (see Fig. 4a in the main text), one can see similar spatial distributions, but opposite phases.
The interaction between light and matter is described by Maxwell’s equations. If an acoustic wave propagates through a medium, the dielectric permittivity tensor
= \_0 + \^,
and, therefore, the optical properties of the medium are periodically modulated. Here, $\varepsilon_0$ is the dielectric constant of the unperturbed medium and $\hat{\text{I}}$ the unity tensor. The photo-elastic dielectric permittivity tensor, $\varepsilon^\text{PhE}$, of a cubic material reads
where $p_{\alpha \beta}$ are the nonzero complex photoelastic constants. Unfortunately, these constants are not yet known for Galfenol, which is the reason why we used them as fitting parameters.
Let us consider the case of a plain film, where the probe light has normal incidence to the surface. Then, the intensity of the reflected probe pulse, $\Delta I(t)$, for the case of an arbitrary polarization in the $xy$-plane can be described by [@Thomsen1986]
\[eq:intensity\_probe\]
where $r_0 = \frac{k_0-k}{k_0+k}$ is the unperturbed reflection coefficient, $k_0 = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda_0}$ is the wavenumber and $\lambda_0$ is the wavelength of light in vacuum, respectively. The wavenumber of light in the medium is $k = k_0 n$, where $n$ is the refractive index of the medium. The perturbation of reflection, $\delta r_j$, can be written as
\[eq:pertubation\_reflection\]
where $\psi$ is the angle between the probe polarization and the $x$-axis. Moreover, the $\varepsilon_{jz}^\text{PhE}$ components of the dielectric permittivity do not contribute to the reflectivity signal due to normal incidence of the probe light.
Equations (\[eq:intensity\_probe\]) - (\[eq:pertubation\_reflection\]) are obtained by considering a Galfenol/Air interface and a small ratio between the skin depth and the film thickness $h$: $|e^{2ikh}|=0.002 \ll 1$, where the used parameters can be found in Table 1.
If we now consider a nanograting with depth a, the strain components in equation (\[eq:pertubation\_reflection\]) depend on, both the $x$ and $z$ coordinate. For the case of shallow grooves ($a\ll h$) equation (\[eq:pertubation\_reflection\]) can be naively changed by including the average over one period in the x-direction. This results in a new perturbation of reflection
\[eq:new\_pertubation\_reflection\]
By using the Wave Optics module provided by COMSOL, the complete shape of the nanograting (without any approximations) is taken into account. The calculated spectra for $p$-polarized probe light ($\psi=0$) can be found in Fig. S2. The solid black line shows the calculated normalized spectrum for the $\eta_\text{xx}$ component containing both excited modes. Considering an energy density of $12$mJ/cm$^2$ for the pump pulse the calculated amplitude of $\eta_\text{xx}$ is $4.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$. The red (short dashed) line shows the calculated reflectivity spectrum using equation (\[eq:new\_pertubation\_reflection\]). It can be seen, that the lower QTA mode is detected, but the upper QLA mode is not. The blue (short dotted) line shows the calculated spectrum considering the NG. In this case, the QLA mode can be detected, but with a much smaller amplitude than for the QTA mode. Figure S2 is calculated for the following fixed photo elastic constants: $-\varepsilon_0^2 p_{11}=1$, $-\varepsilon_0^2 p_{12}=1.1-1.1i$, and $p_{44} = p_{11}-p_{12}$. Thus, Fig. S2 qualitatively describes the experimental results which is shown in Fig. 1c in the main text. By comparing the calculated spectrum given by equation (\[eq:new\_pertubation\_reflection\]) and the Wave Optics module, one can conclude that equation (\[eq:new\_pertubation\_reflection\]) gives a reasonable approximation for a shallow NG.
![Normalized spectral amplitude of $\eta_{xx}$ (solid black line) at the spatial coordinate ($x= 0$, $z=h-2a$). The reflectivity spectrum shown by the red short dashed line has been calculated by equation (\[eq:new\_pertubation\_reflection\]). The reflectivity spectrum shown by the blue short dotted line has been calculated by the Wave Optics module by taking the shape of the NG into account.](Figure2.pdf)
Magneto-elastic interaction in bulk ferromagnets
================================================
The magneto-elastic interaction for cubic ferromagnets is given by the magneto-elastic free energy
F\_m\^ = b\_1 (\_[xx]{}m\_x\^2 + \_[yy]{}m\_y\^2 + \_[zz]{} m\_z\^2 ) + b\_2 ( \_[xy]{}m\_x m\_y + \_[yz]{}m\_y m\_z + \_[xz]{} m\_x m\_z ), \[eq:magneto\_elastic\_free\_energy\]
where $b_1$ and $b_2$ are the magneto-elastic constants, $m_i= \frac{M_i}{M_s}$ are the components of the magnetization normalized to the saturation magnetization, $M_s$. In order to describe the coupling between spin waves and phonons[@Akhiezer1959] one has to add a magneto-elastic term to the external force density introduced in eq. (\[eq:ext\_force\_density\]):
\_i\^m =
where the magnetic stress tensor, $\sigma_{ij}^m$, is given by the free energy density of a ferromagnet, $F_m^\text{m-el}$, accordingly to [@Tucker1972]
\_[ij]{}\^m = .
In ferromagnetic structures, the precession of magnetization is usually modeled by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation:
= - \_ +
where $\gamma$, $\boldsymbol{B}_\text{eff}$ and $\alpha$ are the gyromagnetic ratio, vacuum permeability, effective magnetic field, and the Gilbert damping parameter, respectively. The effective magnetic field is given by
\_ = - \_m F\_m + D \^2
where $D$ is the exchange stiffness constant, $\nabla_m=(\partial/\partial m_x,\partial/\partial m_y ,\partial/\partial m_z )^T$, and $\nabla^2=\partial^2/\partial x^2 +\partial^2/\partial y^2 +\partial^2/\partial z^2$ . For a cubic bulk material, the free energy density can be written as
F\_m = - + K\_1 (m\_x\^2 m\_y\^2 + m\_y\^2 m\_z\^2 + m\_x\^2 m\_z\^2) + F\_m\^ \[eq:free\_energy\]
where $\boldsymbol{B}$ is an external magnetic field and $K_1$ is the cubic anisotropy coefficient.
Equations (\[eq:wave\_equation\]) - (\[eq:strain\]) and (\[eq:magneto\_elastic\_free\_energy\]) - (\[eq:free\_energy\]) are the main set of nonlinear equations to describe the magneto-elastic interaction. For further analysis, the external magnetic field, $\boldsymbol{B}$, is applied in the $xy$-plane along the \[$110$\]-crystallographic direction. Moreover, the cubic anisotropy term in (\[eq:free\_energy\]) is neglected for the sake of simplicity. In order to derive the dispersion relation for the coupled spin waves with phonons, the main set of equations has to be linearized, so that the zero points of the resulting determinant lead to the dispersion relation
(\^2 - v\_l\^2 k\^2 + i\_0)(\^2 - v\_t\^2 k\^2 + i\_0)(\^2 - S\^2) &-\
S(\^2 - v\_t\^2 k\^2 + i\_0)\_1 k\^2 - S(\^2 - v\_l\^2 k\^2 + i\_0)\_2 k\^2 &- \_1 \_2 k\^4 = 0
where $v_l$ and $v_t$ are the longitudinal (LA) and transversal (TA) sound velocities, $\gamma_0$ is a phenomenological damping constant of the lattice, $S = \gamma B + \gamma D k^2 - i\alpha \omega$ gives the frequency and damping of spin waves in the bulk. The relations between $\overline{\beta}_1 = \gamma M_s b_1^2 / (\rho \mu_0)$ and $\overline{\beta}_2 = \gamma M_s b_2^2 / (8\rho \mu_0)$, where $\mu_0$ is the vacuum permeability, and $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, which are introduced in the main text in equation (1), are defined by: $\beta_1 = \sqrt{\overline{\beta}_1 \omega_r}/v_l \approx 0.88$ GHz, and $\beta_2 = \sqrt{\overline{\beta}_2 \omega_r}/v_t \approx 0.27$ GHz (see Table 1 below). Here $\omega_r$ is the resonance frequency of the uncoupled spin wave-phonon system; it corresponds to crossing points in Fig. 1e in the main text.
A model of three coupled oscillators
====================================
In Ref. [@Verba2018], the authors have shown that for each component of the dynamic magnetization and displacement (strain) the problem of the coupled magnon-phonon system can be reduced to the equations of simple coupled oscillators. Basically, the strength of interaction is given by the overlap integral between the considered phonon and magnon modes. Therefore, we have simplified the magnon-phonon interaction given by the QTA$^*$, QLA and FM modes to a system of three coupled oscillators. We have assumed that there is no interaction between the QTA$^*$ and QLA (phonon) modes. In this case the system of equations is the following:
\_j + \_j a\_j + i \_j a\_j - i \_l K\_[jl]{} a\_l = A\_j (t), \[eq:coupled\_oscillators\]
where index $j$ stands for the considered oscillators QTA$^*$, QLA, and FM. The parameters $\gamma_j$, $\omega_j$, and $A_j$ are the corresponding damping, frequency and excitation amplitude of each oscillator, respectively; $a_j$ are the unknown complex amplitudes of the eigenmodes. For the mentioned system the coupling tensor, $\hat{K}$, reads
=
0 & 0 &\
0 & 0 &\
& & 0\
, \[eq:coupling\_tensor\]
where the parameter $\kappa = \Delta / 2$. The coupling strength, $\kappa$, has been introduced in the main text in equation (1). The introduced parameters $\gamma_j, \omega_j$, $\kappa$ have the dimension of frequency. For the excitation amplitude in equation (\[eq:coupled\_oscillators\]) we have considered $\delta$-excitations, because the pump pulse duration is much shorter than the lifetime of the eigenmodes. Then, equations (\[eq:coupled\_oscillators\]) - (\[eq:coupling\_tensor\]) can be easily solved analytically. The Fourier components, $a_j (\omega)$, read
a\_j () = ,
where, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\text{QTA}^*} (\omega)
&= i A_{\text{QTA}^*} \left[ ( \omega + i \gamma_\text{QLA} - \omega_\text{QLA} )(\omega + i \gamma_\text{FM} - \omega_\text{FM}) - \kappa^2 \right] \\
& + i A_\text{QLA} \kappa^2 - i A_\text{FM} \kappa (\omega + i\gamma_\text{QLA} - \omega_\text{QLA});\\
N_{\text{QLA}} (\omega)
&= iA_\text{QLA} \left[ (\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*}) (\omega + i\gamma_\text{FM} - \omega_\text{FM}) - \kappa^2\right]\\
&+i A_{\text{QTA}^*} \kappa^2 -iA_\text{FM}\kappa(\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*});\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
N_\text{FM}(\omega)
&= iA_\text{FM}(\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*})(\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QLA}} - \omega_{\text{QLA}}) \\
&-i A_{\text{QTA}^*} \kappa (\omega + i \gamma_\text{QLA} - \omega_\text{QLA}) -i A_{\text{QLA}} \kappa (\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*});\\
D(\omega)
&= (\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*})(\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QLA}} - \omega_{\text{QLA}})(\omega + i \gamma_{\text{FM}} - \omega_{\text{FM}}) \\
& - \kappa^2 (\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} - \omega_{\text{QTA}^*}) - \kappa^2 (\omega + i \gamma_{\text{QLA}} - \omega_{\text{QLA}}).\end{aligned}$$ The zero points of $D(\omega)$ indicate the eigenfrequencies of the coupled modes. While the frequencies of the phonon modes, $\omega_{\text{QTA}^*} = 2 \pi \times 13.0$GHz and $\omega_\text{QLA} = 2 \pi \times 14.6$GHz, do not depend on the magnetic field, the FM frequency, $\omega_\text{FM} = 2 \pi (7.12 + \alpha B)$ GHz, linearly depends on the magnetic field ($\alpha = 53$GHz/T). The values correspond to Fig. 2a in the main text.
In order to describe the different manifestations of coupling for the QTA$^*$ and the QLA mode with the FM mode, the excitation amplitudes have to be considered. In general, the excitation amplitudes are complex. Physically, this means that the oscillators can be excited with different phase ratio. Mainly the manifestation of coupling is determined by the ratio of the excitation amplitudes of two coupled oscillators. In Fig. S3 an example is given, where the normalized amplitude $|a_\text{FM}(\omega)|^2$ of the QLA-FM resonance is shown as a function of the relation between the excitation amplitudes, $A_\text{QLA}/A_\text{FM}$. Here, the excitation amplitudes are assumed to be real and the damping parameters are fixed to $\gamma_\text{QLA} = \gamma_\text{FM} = \kappa = 2 \pi \times 0.2$GHz. One can conclude from Fig. S3 that for $A_\text{QLA}/A_\text{FM} < 1$ a well pronounced avoided crossing is observed, whereas for $A_\text{QLA}/A_\text{FM}>1$ the avoided crossing is masked by the driving effect.
In the experiment for the lower resonance an avoided crossing without any driving is observed (see Fig. 2a in the main text). This behavior is the result of two coupled oscillators, where one oscillator is excited (FM mode) and the other oscillator is not excited (QTA\* mode), because of its symmetry (as it is mentioned in the main text). Using a “proof by contradiction”, we will show the validity of the latter statement by discussing the relations of the excitation amplitudes, $A_j/A_\text{FM}$.
Let us assume that the lower resonance corresponds to the FM-QTA coupling (**not** FM-QTA$^*$) and the upper one corresponds to the FM-QLA coupling. Then, we know from Fig. S2, that both acoustic modes have similar excitation amplitudes ($A_\text{QTA}\approx A_\text{FM}$). Therefore, there are three possible relations between the phonon and magnon excitation amplitudes: (I) all modes are equally excited, i.e. $A_\text{QTA}=A_\text{QLA}=A_\text{FM}$, (II) the phonons are excited more strongly than the magnons, i.e. $A_\text{QTA} = A_\text{QLA} > A_\text{FM}$, and (III) the phonons are excited less strongly than the magnons, i.e. $A_\text{QTA} = A_\text{QLA} < A_\text{FM}$.
Here we demonstrate every scenario starting from case (I), i.e. $A_\text{QTA}=A_\text{QLA}=A_\text{FM}$. Fig. S4 shows the square of the absolute value of the FM mode $|a_\text{FM}(\omega)|^2$, where the corresponding set of parameters, Set I, reads: $A_\text{QTA} = 1, A_\text{QLA} = 1, A_\text{FM} = 1$, and $\omega_\text{QTA} = 2 \pi \times 13.1$GHz, $\omega_\text{QLA} = 2 \pi \times 14.6$GHz, $\gamma_{\text{QTA}^*} = \gamma_\text{QLA}=\gamma_\text{FM}=\kappa = 2 \pi \times 0.2$GHz. In Fig. S4, one can see avoided crossings for both resonances without any driving effect. However, this scenario is not observed in the experiment for the upper mode (see Fig. 2a in the main text).
 
Figure S5a shows$|a_\text{FM}(\omega)|^2$ for case (II), i.e. $A_\text{QTA}=A_\text{QLA}>A_\text{FM}$, where the corresponding set of parameters, Set II, is the same as Set I except that $A_\text{QTA}=10$ and $A_\text{QLA}=10$. In Fig. S5a, one can see that both strongly excited phonon modes drive the magnon mode. However, this is not observed in the experiment for the lower mode (see Fig. 2a in the main text).
Now, let us consider case (III), i.e. $A_\text{QTA}=A_\text{QLA}<A_\text{FM}$. This scenario is shown in Fig. S5b, where the corresponding set of parameters, set III, is the same as Set I except that $A_\text{QTA}=0.1$ and $A_\text{QLA}=0.1$. As one can see, this does not describe the experimental results, either. Therefore, there has to be a lower phonon mode with a very small or zero excitation amplitude (for anticrossing) and an upper phonon mode with a large excitation amplitude (for driving) compared to the excitation amplitude of the FM mode. The latter case is true for the QLA mode, as it has been already mentioned. The case of a small excitation amplitude of a phonon mode with a close frequency to the QTA mode is realized by introducing its antisymmetric counterpart, QTA$^*$, with a $0.1$GHz smaller frequency and zero excitation amplitude. This scenario is shown in Fig. 4b in the main text where $A_{\text{QTA}^*}=0$, $A_\text{QLA}=10$ and all other parameters are the same as for Set I. Compared to the experimental results shown in Fig. 2a the mentioned concept gives a good qualitative agreement. Thus, we have shown that the antisymmetric QTA$^*$ mode is crucially important for the explanation of the main experimental results.
Table with used parameters
==========================
Table 1
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
&$\textstyle{c_{11}}$, GPa&$\textstyle{c_{12}}$, GPa&$\textstyle{c_{44}}$, GPa&$\textstyle{\rho}$, $\textstyle{\rm kg/m^3}$& Citation\
$\textstyle{\rm Fe_{0.81}Ga_{0.19}}$&$\textstyle{209^*}$&$\textstyle{141^*}$&$\textstyle{113^*}$&$\textstyle{7800}$&[@Clark2003]\
$\textstyle{\rm GaAs}$&$\textstyle{119}$&$\textstyle{53.8}$&$\textstyle{59.5}$&$\textstyle{5316}$&[@Madelung2004]\
$\textstyle{\rm AlAs}$&$\textstyle{119.9}$&$\textstyle{57.5}$&$\textstyle{56.6}$&$\textstyle{3760}$&[@Madelung2004]\
\
$\textstyle{\lambda_0}$, nm&$\textstyle{n_{\rm GaAs}}$&$\textstyle{n_{\rm FeGa}}$& && Citation\
$\textstyle{1046}$&$\textstyle{3.4805}$&$\textstyle{3.2196+i\cdot4.2740}$&&& [@Ordal1988; @Skauli2003]\
\
$\textstyle{\lambda_0}$, nm&$\textstyle{n_{\rm GaAs}}$&$\textstyle{n_{\rm FeGa}}$&$\textstyle{-\varepsilon_0^2p_{11}}$ &$\textstyle{-\varepsilon_0^2p_{12}}$& Citation\
$\textstyle{760}$&$\textstyle{3.7137+i\cdot0.097862}$&$\textstyle{2.9688+i\cdot3.5337}$&$\textstyle{1^{**}}$&$\textstyle{1.1-i\cdot1.1^{**}}$& [@Ordal1988; @Skauli2003]\
\
$\textstyle{M_s}$, T&$\textstyle{K_1}$, T&$\textstyle{D}$, $\textstyle{\rm T\cdot m^2}$&$\textstyle{b_1}$, T &$\textstyle{b_2}$, T& Citation\
$\textstyle{1.59}$&$\textstyle{0.023^*}$&$\textstyle{2.4\times10^{-17***}}$&$\textstyle{-7.0}$&$\textstyle{-4.7}$& [@Restorff2012; @Gopman2017]\
\
$\textstyle{^*}$parameters were slightly adjusted to describe the experiment ($\textstyle{\approx10\%}$).\
$\textstyle{^{**}}$parameters were fitted to describe the experiment\
$\textstyle{^{***}}$note that $\textstyle{D=2A_{ex}}$ from [@Gopman2017].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Shunsuke Kurima\
Department of Mathematics, Tokyo University of Science\
1-3, Kagurazaka, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8601, Japan\
[[email protected]]{}\
[ In this paper we deal with an abstract problem which includes the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow as an example. Recently, a time discretization of a simultaneous abstract evolution equation applying to some parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems has been studied. This paper focuses on a time discretization of an abstract problem applying to the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow. Also, this paper gives some parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems as examples. ]{}
Introduction {#Sec1}
============
Matsubara–Yokota [@MY2016] have established existence and uniqueness of solutions to the initial-boundary value problem for the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow $$\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + (\gamma-1)\varphi_{t} - \sigma\Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, \infty),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} - c^2 \Delta\varphi
-m^2 \varphi = -c^2 \Delta\theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, \infty),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, \infty),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ by applying the Hille–Yosida theorem and have derived regularity of solutions, where $c>0$, $\sigma>0$, $m \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\gamma>1$ are constants, $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$ ($d \in \mathbb{N}$) is a domain with smooth bounded boundary $\partial\Omega$ and $\theta_{0}$, $\varphi_{0}$, $v_{0}$ are given functions.
The paper [@K4] has proved existence of solutions to the initial valued problem for the simultaneous abstract evolution equation $$\begin{cases}
\dfrac{d\theta}{dt} + \dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{1}\theta = f
& \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[4mm]
L\dfrac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2} + B\dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{2}\varphi
+ \Phi\varphi + {\cal L}\varphi = \theta
& \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[2mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \dfrac{d\varphi}{dt}(0) = v_{0}
\end{cases}$$ by employing a time discretization scheme in reference to [@CF1996; @CK] and has obtained an error estimate for the difference between continuous and discrete solutions. Here $T>0$, $L : H \to H$ is a linear positive selfadjoint operator, $B : D(B) \subset H \to H$, $A_{j} : D(A_{j}) \subset H \to H$ ($j = 1, 2$) are linear maximal monotone selfadjoint operators, $H$ and $V$ are real Hilbert spaces satisfying $V \subset H$, $V_{j}$ ($j=1, 2$) are linear subspaces of $V$ satisfying $D(A_{j}) \subset V_{j}$ ($j=1, 2$), $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$ is a maximal monotone operator, ${\cal L} : H \to H$ is a Lipschitz continuous operator, $f : (0, T) \to H$ and $\theta_{0} \in V_{1}$, $\varphi_{0}, v_{0} \in V_{2}$ are given. Moreover, the paper [@K4] has assumed some conditions in reference to [@CF1996 Section 2] and assumptions in [@CK; @GP2003; @GP2004; @GPS2006; @WGZ2007; @WGZ2007dynamicalBD], and has given some parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems under homogeneous Dirichlet–Dirichlet boundary conditions or homogeneous Dirichlet–Neumann boundary conditions or homogeneous Neumann–Dirichlet boundary conditions or homogeneous Neumann–Neumann boundary conditions as examples.
In this paper we consider the abstract problem $$\tag*{(P)}\label{P}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{d\theta}{dt} + \eta\dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{1}\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[4mm]
L\dfrac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2} + B_{1}\dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{2}\varphi
+ \Phi\varphi + {\cal L}\varphi = B_{2}\theta
& \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[2mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \dfrac{d\varphi}{dt}(0) = v_{0},
\end{cases}$$ where $T>0$, $\eta>0$, $L : H \to H$ is a linear positive selfadjoint operator, $B_{j} : D(B_{j}) \subset H \to H$, $A_{j} : D(A_{j}) \subset H \to H$ ($j = 1, 2$) are linear maximal monotone selfadjoint operators, $D(A_{j}) \subset V$ ($j=1, 2$), $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$ is a maximal monotone operator, ${\cal L} : H \to H$ is a Lipschitz continuous operator, $\theta_{0}, \varphi_{0}, v_{0} \in V$ are given. Moreover, we deal with the problem $$\tag*{(P)$_{n}$}\label{Pn}
\begin{cases}
\delta_{h}\theta_{n} + \eta\delta_{h}\varphi_{n} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1}= 0,
\\ L z_{n+1} + B_{1}v_{n+1} + A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}
+ \Phi\varphi_{n+1} + {\cal L}\varphi_{n+1} = B_{2}\theta_{n+1},
\\ z_{0}=z_{1},\ z_{n+1} = \delta_{h}v_{n},
\\ v_{n+1}=\delta_{h}\varphi_{n}
\end{cases}$$ for $n=0, ..., N-1$, where $h=\frac{T}{N}$, $N \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltah}
\delta_{h}\theta_{n} := \dfrac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}, \
\delta_{h}\varphi_{n} := \dfrac{\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}}{h}, \
\delta_{h}v_{n} := \dfrac{v_{n+1}-v_n}{h}. \end{aligned}$$ Here, putting $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{\theta}_{h}(0) := \theta_{0},\
\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}(t) := \delta_{h}\theta_{n}, \quad
\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(0) := \varphi_{0},\
\frac{d\widehat{\varphi}_{h}}{dt}(t) := \delta_{h}\varphi_{n}, \label{hat1}
\\[3mm]
&\widehat{v}_{h}(0) := v_{0},\
\frac{d\widehat{v}_{h}}{dt}(t) := \delta_{h}v_{n}, \label{hat2}
\\[2mm]
&\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) := \theta_{n+1},\ \overline{z}_{h}(t) := z_{n+1},\
\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t) := \varphi_{n+1},\ \overline{v}_{h}(t) := v_{n+1}
\label{overandunderline} \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (nh, (n+1)h)$, $n=0, ..., N-1$, we can rewrite \[Pn\] as $$\tag*{(P)$_{h}$}\label{Ph}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt} + \eta\dfrac{d\widehat{\varphi}_{h}}{dt}
+ A_{1}\overline{\theta}_{h}= 0
\quad \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[1.5mm]
L\overline{z}_{h} + B_{1}\overline{v}_{h} + A_{2}\overline{\varphi}_{h}
+ \Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h} + {\cal L}\overline{\varphi}_{h}
= B_{2}\overline{\theta}_{h}
\quad \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[0.5mm]
\overline{z}_{h} = \dfrac{d\widehat{v}_{h}}{dt},\
\overline{v}_{h} = \dfrac{d\widehat{\varphi}_{h}}{dt}
\quad \mbox{in}\ (0, T),
\\[1.5mm]
\widehat{\theta}_{h}(0)=\theta_{0},\
\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \widehat{v}_{h}(0)=v_{0}.
\end{cases}$$
We will assume the following conditions (A1)-(A12):
1. $V$ and $H$ are real Hilbert spaces satisfying $V \subset H$ with dense, continuous and compact embedding. Moreover, the inclusions $V \subset H \subset V^{*}$ hold by identifying $H$ with its dual space $H^{*}$, where $V^{*}$ is the dual space of $V$.
2. $L : H \to H$ is a bounded linear operator fulfilling $$(Lw, z)_{H} = (w, Lz)_{H}\ \mbox{for all}\ w, z \in H, \quad
(Lw, w)_{H} \geq c_{L}\|w\|_{H}^2\ \mbox{for all}\ w \in H,$$ where $c_{L} > 0$ is a constant.
3. $A_{j} : D(A_{j}) \subset H \to H$ ($j=1, 2$) are linear maximal monotone selfadjoint operators, where $D(A_{j})$ ($j=1, 2$) are linear subspaces of $H$ and $D(A_{j}) \subset V$ ($j=1, 2$). Moreover, there exist bounded linear monotone operators $A_{j}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ ($j=1, 2$) such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{j}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
= \langle A_{j}^{*}z, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\quad\mbox{for all}\ w, z \in V,
\\
&A_{j}^{*}w = A_{j}w \quad\mbox{for all}\ w \in D(A_{j}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for all $\alpha>0$ and for $j=1, 2$ there exists $\omega_{j, \alpha}>0$ such that $$\langle A_{j}^{*}w, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V} + \alpha\|w\|_{H}^2
\geq \omega_{j, \alpha}\|w\|_{V}^2
\quad \mbox{for all}\ w \in V.$$
4. $B : D(B_{j}) \subset H \to H$ ($j=1, 2$) are linear maximal monotone selfadjoint operators, where $D(B_{j})$ ($j=1, 2$) are linear subspaces of $H$, satisfying $D(A_{1}) \subset D(B_{2})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2}) \neq \emptyset,
\\
&(B_{1}w, A_{2}w)_{H} \geq 0 \quad \mbox{for all}\ w \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2}),
\\
&(B_{2}w, A_{1}w)_{H} \geq 0 \quad \mbox{for all}\ w \in D(A_{1}),
\\
&(B_{1}w, A_{2}z)_{H} = (B_{1}z, A_{2}w)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for all}\ w, z \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the inclusion $D(A_{2}) \subset V$ holds.
5. There exists a constant $C_{A_{1}, B_{2}}>0$ such that $$\|B_{2}\theta\|_{H} \leq C_{A_{1}, B_{2}}(\|A_{1}\theta\|_{H} + \|\theta\|_{H})
\quad \mbox{for all}\ \theta \in D(A_{1}).$$
6. $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$ is a maximal monotone operator satisfying $\Phi(0) = 0$ and $V \subset D(\Phi)$. Moreover, there exist constants $p, q, C_{\Phi} > 0$ such that $$\|\Phi w - \Phi z\|_{H} \leq C_{\Phi}(1 + \|w\|_{V}^p + \|z\|_{V}^{q})\|w-z\|_{V}
\quad \mbox{for all}\ w, z \in V.$$
7. There exists a lower semicontinuous convex function $i : V \to \{x \in \mathbb{R}\ |\ x\geq0 \}$ such that $(\Phi w, w-z)_{H} \geq i(w) - i(z)$ for all $w, z \in V$.
8. $\Phi_{\lambda}(0) = 0$, $(\Phi_{\lambda}w, B_{1}w)_{H} \geq 0$ for all $w \in D(B_{1})$, $(\Phi_{\lambda}w, A_{2}w)_{H} \geq 0$ for all $w \in D(A_{2})$, where $\lambda > 0$ and $\Phi_{\lambda} : H \to H$ is the Yosida approximation of $\Phi$.
9. $B^{*}_{j} : V \to V^{*}$ ($j=1, 2$) are bounded linear monotone operators fulfilling $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle B^{*}_{j}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V} = \langle B^{*}_{j}z, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\quad\mbox{for all}\ w, z \in V,
\\
&B^{*}_{j}w = B_{j}w \quad\mbox{for all}\ w \in D(B_{j}) \cap V.
\end{aligned}$$
10. For all $g \in H$, $a, b, c, d, d' > 0$, $\lambda>0$, if there exists $\varphi_{\lambda} \in V$ such that $$L\varphi_{\lambda} + aB_{1}^{*}\varphi_{\lambda} + bA_{2}^{*}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ c\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda} + d{\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ d'B_{2}(I+hA_{1})^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda}
= g
\quad \mbox{in}\ V^{*},$$ then it follows that $\varphi_{\lambda} \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$ and $$L\varphi_{\lambda} + aB_{1}\varphi_{\lambda} + bA_{2}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ c\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda} + d{\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ d'B_{2}(I+hA_{1})^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda}
= g
\quad \mbox{in}\ H.$$
11. ${\cal L} : H \to H$ is a Lipschitz continuous operator with Lipschitz constant $C_{{\cal L}}>0$.
12. $\theta_{0} \in D(A_{1})$, $A_{1}\theta_{0} \in V$, $\varphi_{0} \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$, $v_{0} \in D(B_{1}) \cap V$.
We set the conditions (A2) and (A3) in reference to [@CF1996 Section 2]. The condition (A10) is equivalent to the elliptic regularity theory under some cases (see Section \[Sec2\]). Moreover, we set the conditions (A6)-(A8) and (A11) by trying to keep typical examples of not only the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow but also some parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems (see Section \[Sec2\]) in reference to assumptions in [@CK; @GP2003; @GP2004; @GPS2006; @WGZ2007; @WGZ2007dynamicalBD].
Owing to -, the reader can check directly the following identities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\widehat{\varphi}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
= \max\{\|\varphi_{0}\|_{V}, \|\overline{\varphi}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}\},
\label{rem1}
\\[6mm]
&\|\widehat{v}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
= \max\{\|v_{0}\|_{V}, \|\overline{v}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}\}, \label{rem2}
\\[6mm]
&\|\widehat{\theta}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
= \max\{\|\theta_{0}\|_{V},
\|\overline{\theta}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}\}, \label{rem3}
\\[5mm]
&\|\overline{\varphi}_h - \widehat{\varphi}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
= h\Bigl\|\frac{d\widehat{\varphi}_h}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
= h\|\overline{v}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)} , \label{rem4}
\\[3mm]
&\|\overline{v}_h - \widehat{v}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
= h\Bigl\|\frac{d\widehat{v}_h}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
= h\|\overline{z}_h\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)} , \label{rem5}
\\[3mm]
&\|\overline{\theta}_h - \widehat{\theta}_h\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2
= \frac{h^2}{3}\Bigl\|\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_h}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2. \label{rem6}\end{aligned}$$
We define solutions of \[P\] as follows.
A pair $(\theta, \varphi)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta \in H^1(0, T; V) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; V) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; D(A_{1})),
\\
&\varphi \in W^{2, \infty}(0, T; H) \cap W^{1, \infty}(0, T; V)
\cap L^2(0, T; D(A_{2})),
\\[1mm]
&\frac{d\varphi}{dt} \in L^2(0, T; D(B_{1})),\ \Phi\varphi \in L^{\infty}(0, T; H) \end{aligned}$$ is called a solution of \[P\] if $(\theta, \varphi)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\dfrac{d\theta}{dt} + \eta\dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{1}\theta = 0
\quad\mbox{in}\ H \quad \mbox{a.e.\ on}\ (0, T), \label{df1}
\\[2mm]
&L\dfrac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2} + B_{1}\dfrac{d\varphi}{dt} + A_{2}\varphi
+ \Phi\varphi + {\cal L}\varphi = B_{2}\theta
\quad\mbox{in}\ H \quad \mbox{a.e.\ on}\ (0, T), \label{df2}
\\
&\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \dfrac{d\varphi}{dt}(0) = v_{0}
\quad\mbox{in}\ H. \label{df3}\end{aligned}$$
Now the main results read as follows.
\[maintheorem1\] Assume that [(A1)-(A12)]{} hold. Then there exists $h_{0} \in (0, 1)$ such that for all $h \in (0, h_{0})$ there exists a unique solution $(\theta_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1})$ of [\[Pn\]]{} satisfying $$\theta_{n+1} \in D(A_{1}),\ \varphi_{n+1} \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})
\quad\mbox{for}\ n=0, ..., N-1.$$
\[maintheorem2\] Assume that [(A1)-(A12)]{} hold. Then there exists a unique solution $(\theta, \varphi)$ of [\[P\]]{}.
\[erroresti\] Let $h_{0}$ be as in Theorem \[maintheorem1\]. Assume that [(A1)-(A12)]{} hold. Then there exist constants $h_{00} \in (0, h_{0})$ and $M=M(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h} - v)\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
+ \|B_{1}^{1/2}(\overline{v}_{h}-v)\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}
+ \|\widehat{\varphi}_{h} - \varphi\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
\\
&+ \|\widehat{\theta}_{h} - \theta\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
+ \|\overline{\theta}_{h} - \theta\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}
\\
&+ \|B_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\theta}_{h} - \theta)\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
+ \int_{0}^{T} (B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)),
A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)))_{H}\,dt
\leq M h^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{00})$, where $v = \frac{d\varphi}{dt}$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec2\] we give the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow and some parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems as examples. In Section \[Sec3\] we derive existence of solutions to \[Pn\]. In Section \[Sec4\] we prove that there exists a solution of \[P\]. In Section \[Sec5\] we establish uniqueness for \[P\]. In Section \[Sec6\] we obtain error estimates between solutions of \[P\] and solutions of \[Ph\].
Examples {#Sec2}
========
In this section we give the following examples.
We can verify that the problem $$\tag*{(P1)}\label{P1}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + (\gamma-1)\varphi_{t} - \sigma\Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} - c^2 \Delta\varphi
-m^2 \varphi = -c^2 \Delta\theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ is an example, where $c>0$, $\sigma>0$, $m \in \mathbb{R}$, $\gamma>1$, $T>0$ are constants and $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$, under the case that $$\theta_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega),
-\Delta\theta_{0} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega),
\varphi_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega),
v_{0} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega).$$ Indeed, putting $$\begin{aligned}
&V:=H_{0}^1(\Omega),\ H:=L^2(\Omega),
\\
&L := I : H \to H,
\\
&A_{1} := - \sigma\Delta : D(A_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{1} := 0 : D(B_{1}):= H \to H,
\\
&A_{2} := - c^2 \Delta : D(A_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{2} := -c^2 \Delta : D(B_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H \end{aligned}$$ and defining the operators $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $B_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $A_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$, ${\cal L}: H \to H$, $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \sigma\int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= 0
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle A_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\Phi z := 0 \quad \mbox{for}\
z \in D(\Phi) := H,
\\[1mm]
&{\cal L}z := -m^2 z \quad \mbox{for}\ z \in H,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V, \end{aligned}$$ we can check that (A1)–(A12) hold. Similarly, we can confirm that the homogeneous Neumann–Neumann problem is an example.
We see that the problem $$\tag*{(P2)}\label{P2}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + (\gamma-1)\varphi_{t} - \sigma\Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} + {\varepsilon}\varphi_{t} - c^2 \Delta\varphi
+ \beta(\varphi) + \pi(\varphi) = -c^2 \Delta\theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ is an example, where $c>0$, $\sigma>0$, ${\varepsilon}\geq0$, $\gamma>1$, $T>0$ are constants and $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$, under the following conditions:
1. $\beta : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a single-valued maximal monotone function and there exists a proper differentiable (lower semicontinuous) convex function $\widehat{\beta} : \mathbb{R} \to [0, +\infty)$ such that $\widehat{\beta}(0) = 0$ and $\beta(r) = \widehat{\beta}\,'(r) = \partial\widehat{\beta}(r)$ for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$, where $\widehat{\beta}\,'$ and $\partial\widehat{\beta}$, respectively, are the differential and subdifferential of $\widehat{\beta}$.
2. $\beta \in C^2(\mathbb{R})$. Moreover, there exists a constant $C_{\beta} > 0$ such that $|\beta''(r)| \leq C_{\beta}(1+|r|)$ for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$.
3. $\pi : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a Lipschitz continuous function.
4. $\theta_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $-\Delta\theta_{0} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $\varphi_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $v_{0} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$.
Indeed, putting $$\begin{aligned}
&V:=H_{0}^1(\Omega),\ H:=L^2(\Omega),
\\
&L := I : H \to H,
\\
&A_{1} := - \sigma\Delta : D(A_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{1} := {\varepsilon}I : D(B_{1}):= H \to H,
\\
&A_{2} := - c^2 \Delta : D(A_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{2} := -c^2 \Delta : D(B_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H \end{aligned}$$ and defining the operators $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $B_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $A_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$, ${\cal L}: H \to H$, $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \sigma\int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= {\varepsilon}(w, z)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle A_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\Phi z := \beta(z) \quad \mbox{for}\
z \in D(\Phi) := \{z \in H\ |\ \beta(z) \in H \},
\\[1mm]
&{\cal L}z := \pi(z) \quad \mbox{for}\ z \in H,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V, \end{aligned}$$ we can confirm that (A1)–(A12) hold in reference to [@K4]. Similarly, we can verify that the homogeneous Neumann–Neumann problem is an example.
We see that the problem $$\tag*{(P3)}\label{P3}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + (\gamma-1)\varphi_{t} - \sigma\Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} -{\varepsilon}\Delta\varphi_{t} - c^2 \Delta\varphi
+ \beta(\varphi) + \pi(\varphi) = -c^2 \Delta\theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ is an example, where $c>0$, $\sigma>0$, ${\varepsilon}\geq0$, $\gamma>1$, $T>0$ are constants and $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$, under the three conditions (H1)-(H3) and the condition
1. $\theta_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $-\Delta\theta_{0} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $\varphi_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$, $v_{0} \in H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$.
Indeed, putting $$\begin{aligned}
&V:=H_{0}^1(\Omega),\ H:=L^2(\Omega),
\\
&L := I : H \to H,
\\
&A_{1} := - \sigma\Delta : D(A_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{1} := -{\varepsilon}\Delta : D(B_{1}):= H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&A_{2} := - c^2 \Delta : D(A_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{2} := -c^2 \Delta : D(B_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H \end{aligned}$$ and defining the operators $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $B_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $A_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$, ${\cal L}: H \to H$, $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \sigma\int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= {\varepsilon}\int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle A_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\Phi z := \beta(z) \quad \mbox{for}\
z \in D(\Phi) := \{z \in H\ |\ \beta(z) \in H \},
\\[1mm]
&{\cal L}z := \pi(z) \quad \mbox{for}\ z \in H,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= c^2 \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V, \end{aligned}$$ we can verify that (A1)–(A12) hold in reference to [@K4]. Similarly, we can check that the homogeneous Neumann–Neumann problem is an example.
The problem $$\tag*{(P4)}\label{P4}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + \varphi_{t} - \Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} + \varphi_{t} - \Delta\varphi
+ \beta(\varphi) + \pi(\varphi) = \theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ is an example, where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$, $T>0$, under the four conditions (H1)-(H4). Indeed, putting $$\begin{aligned}
&V:=H_{0}^1(\Omega),\ H:=L^2(\Omega),
\\
&L := I : H \to H,
\\
&A_{1} := - \Delta : D(A_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{1} := I : D(B_{1}):=H \to H,
\\
&A_{2} := - \Delta : D(A_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{2} := I : D(B_{2}):=H \to H \end{aligned}$$ and defining the operators $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $B_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $A_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$, ${\cal L}: H \to H$, $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= (w, z)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle A_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\Phi z := \beta(z) \quad \mbox{for}\
z \in D(\Phi) := \{z \in H\ |\ \beta(z) \in H \},
\\[1mm]
&{\cal L}z := \pi(z) \quad \mbox{for}\ z \in H,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= (w, z)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V, \end{aligned}$$ we can confirm that (A1)–(A12) hold in reference to [@K4]. Similarly, we can show that the homogeneous Neumann–Neumann problem is an example.
The problem $$\tag*{(P5)}\label{P5}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{t} + \varphi_{t} - \Delta\theta = 0
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\varphi_{tt} - \Delta\varphi_{t} - \Delta\varphi
+ \beta(\varphi) + \pi(\varphi) = \theta
& \mbox{in}\ \Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta = \varphi = 0
& \mbox{on}\ \partial\Omega\times(0, T),
\\[1mm]
\theta(0) = \theta_{0},\ \varphi(0) = \varphi_{0},\ \varphi_{t}(0) = v_{0}
&\mbox{in}\ \Omega
\end{cases}$$ is an example, where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$, $T>0$, under the four conditions (H1)-(H3), (H5). Indeed, putting $$\begin{aligned}
&V:=H_{0}^1(\Omega),\ H:=L^2(\Omega),
\\
&L := I : H \to H,
\\
&A_{1} := - \Delta : D(A_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{1} := - \Delta : D(B_{1}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&A_{2} := - \Delta : D(A_{2}):=H^2(\Omega) \cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\subset H \to H,
\\
&B_{2} := I : D(B_{2}):=H \to H \end{aligned}$$ and defining the operators $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $B_{1}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $A_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$, $\Phi : D(\Phi) \subset H \to H$, ${\cal L}: H \to H$, $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{1}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\langle A_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= \int_{\Omega} \nabla w \cdot \nabla z
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V,
\\[1mm]
&\Phi z := \beta(z) \quad \mbox{for}\
z \in D(\Phi) := \{z \in H\ |\ \beta(z) \in H \},
\\[1mm]
&{\cal L}z := \pi(z) \quad \mbox{for}\ z \in H,
\\[1mm]
&\langle B_{2}^{*}w, z \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
:= (w, z)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for}\ w, z \in V, \end{aligned}$$ we can confirm that (A1)–(A12) hold in reference to [@K4]. Similarly, we can show that the homogeneous Neumann–Neumann problem is an example.
Existence of discrete solutions {#Sec3}
===============================
In this section we will prove Theorem \[maintheorem1\].
\[elliptic2\] There exists $h_{1} \in (0, 1)$ such that $$0< h_1 < \widetilde{h}:=
\Bigl(\frac{c_L}{1+C_{\cal L}+\eta C_{A_1, B_2}}
+\frac{\eta^2 C_{A_1, B_2}^2}{4(1+C_{\cal L}+\eta C_{A_1, B_2})}
\Bigr)^{1/2}
- \frac{\eta C_{A_1, B_2}}{2(1+C_{\cal L}+\eta C_{A_1, B_2})}$$ and for all $g \in H$ and all $h \in (0, h_{1})$ there exists a unique solution $\varphi \in D(B_1) \cap D(A_{2})$ of the equation $$L\varphi + hB_{1}\varphi + h^2 A_{2}\varphi
+ h^2 \Phi\varphi + h^2 {\cal L}\varphi + \eta h^2 B_2 (I+hA_1)^{-1}\varphi = g
\quad \mbox{in}\ H.$$
We define the operator $\Psi : V \to V^{*}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Psi\varphi, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
&:= (L\varphi, w)_{H} + h\langle B_{1}^{*}\varphi, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ h^2\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ h^2(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi, w)_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ h^2({\cal L}\varphi, w)_{H}
+ \eta h^2 (B_2 (I+hA_1)^{-1}\varphi, w)_{H}
\quad \mbox{for}\ \varphi, w \in V. \end{aligned}$$ Then this operator $\Psi : V \to V^*$ is monotone, continuous and coercive for all $h \in (0, \widetilde{h})$. Indeed, since the condition (A5) yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1B2}
\|B_{2}(I+hA_{1})^{-1}\varphi\|_{H}
&\leq C_{A_{1}, B_{2}}(\|(I+hA_{1})^{-1}\varphi\|_{H} + \|A_{1}(I+hA_{1})^{-1}\varphi\|_{H})
\notag \\
&\leq C_{A_{1}, B_{2}}(1+h^{-1})\|\varphi\|_{H}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi \in H$, we derive from (A2), (A3), (A11), the monotonicity of $B_{1}^{*}$ and $\Phi_{\lambda}$, and that $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle \Psi\varphi - \Psi\overline{\varphi},
\varphi-\overline{\varphi} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&= (L(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}), \varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{H}
+ h\langle B_{1}^{*}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}),
\varphi-\overline{\varphi} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ h^2\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}),
\varphi-\overline{\varphi} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ h^2(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi - \Phi_{\lambda}\overline{\varphi},
\varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{H}
+ h^2({\cal L}\varphi - {\cal L}\overline{\varphi}, \varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \eta h^2 (B_2 (I+hA_1)^{-1}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}),
(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}))_{H}
\notag \\
&\geq c_{L}\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
+ \omega_{2, 1}h^2\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{V}^2
- h^2\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
- C_{{\cal L}}h^2\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad- \eta C_{A_1, B_2}(h + h^2) \|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\geq \omega_{2, 1}h^2\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{V}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi, \overline{\varphi} \in V$ and all $h \in (0, \widetilde{h})$. It follows from the boundedness of the operators $L : H \to H$, $B_{1}^* : V \to V^*$, $A_{2}^* : V \to V^*$, the Lipschitz continuity of $\Phi_{\lambda} : H \to H$, the condition (A11), and the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ that there exists a constant $C_{1}=C_{1}(\lambda)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&|\langle \Psi\varphi - \Psi\overline{\varphi}, w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}|
\notag \\
&\leq |(L(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}), w)_{H}|
+ h|\langle B_{1}^{*}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}), w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}|
+ h^2|\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}), w \rangle_{V^{*}, V}|
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ h^2|(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi - \Phi_{\lambda}\overline{\varphi}, w)_{H}|
+ h^2|({\cal L}\varphi - {\cal L}\overline{\varphi}, w)_{H}|
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ \eta h^2 |(B_2 (I+hA_1)^{-1}(\varphi-\overline{\varphi}), w)_{H}|
\notag \\
&\leq C_{1}(1 + h + h^2)\|\varphi-\overline{\varphi}\|_{V}\|w\|_{V}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi, \overline{\varphi} \in V$ and all $h>0$. Moreover, the inequality $\langle \Psi\varphi - {\cal L}0, \varphi \rangle_{V^*, V}
\geq \omega_{2, 1}h^2 \|\varphi\|_{V}^2$ holds for all $\varphi \in V$ and all $h \in (0, \widetilde{h})$. Therefore the operator $\Psi : V \to V^*$ is surjective for all $h \in (0, \widetilde{h})$ (see e.g., [@Barbu p. 37]) and then we see from (A10) that for all $g \in H$ and all $h \in (0, \widetilde{h})$ there exists a unique solution $\varphi_{\lambda} \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$ of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ1}
L\varphi_{\lambda} + hB_{1}\varphi_{\lambda} + h^2A_{2}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ h^2\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda} + h^2{\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}
+ \eta h^2 B_2 (I+hA_1)^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda}
= g \quad \mbox{in}\ H. \end{aligned}$$ Here, multiplying by $\varphi_{\lambda}$ and using the Young inequality, (A11), , we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
&(L\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
+ h(B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
+ h^2 \langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ h^2(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\notag \\
&= (g, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h^2({\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda} - {\cal L}0, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h^2({\cal L}0, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
-\eta h^2 (B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{c_{L}}{2}\|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2c_{L}}\|g\|_{H}^2
+ C_{{\cal L}}h^2\|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\|{\cal L}0\|_{H}^2}{2}h^2
+ \frac{1}{2}h^2\|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \eta C_{A_1, B_2}(h+h^2)\|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2, \end{aligned}$$ whence the conditions (A2) and (A3), the monotonicity of $B_{1}$ and $\Phi_{\lambda}$ imply that there exists $h_{1} \in (0, \min\{1, \widetilde{h}\})$ such that for all $h \in (0, h_{1})$ there exists a constant $C_{2}=C_{2}(h)>0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ2}
\|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{V}^2 \leq C_{2} \end{aligned}$$ for all $\lambda>0$. We have from , (A8), and the Young inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
&h^2\|\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&= (g, \Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- (L\varphi_{\lambda}, \Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h(B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda}, \Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h^2(A_{2}\varphi_{\lambda}, \Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- h^2({\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}, \Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
-\eta h^2 (B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda},
\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{2}{h^2}\|g\|_{H}^2 + \frac{2}{h^2}\|L\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
+ 2 h^2\|{\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
+ 2 \eta^2 C_{A_1, B_2}^2 (1+h)^2 \|\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}h^2\|\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, owing to the boundedness of the operator $L : H \to H$, (A11) and , it holds that for all $h \in (0, h_{1})$ there exists a constant $C_{3}=C_{3}(h)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ3}
\|\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2 \leq C_{3} \end{aligned}$$ for all $\lambda>0$. The equation yields that $$\begin{aligned}
h\|B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2
&= (g, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- (L\varphi_{\lambda}, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h^2(A_{2}\varphi_{\lambda}, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
- h^2(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- h^2({\cal L}\varphi_{\lambda}, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
-\eta h^2 (B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1}\varphi_{\lambda}, B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda})_{H}, \end{aligned}$$ and hence we deduce from the boundedness of the operator $L : H \to H$, (A4), (A8), (A11), , the Young inequality and that for all $h \in (0, h_{1})$ there exists a constant $C_{4}=C_{4}(h)>0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ4}
\|B_1 \varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2 \leq C_{4}(h) \end{aligned}$$ for all $\lambda>0$. We derive from - that for all $h \in (0, h_{1})$ there exists a constant $C_{5}=C_{5}(h)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ5}
\|A_{2}\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{H}^2 \leq C_{5}(h) \end{aligned}$$ for all $\lambda>0$. Hence the inequalities - mean that there exist $\varphi \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$ and $\xi \in H$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ellipweak1}
&\varphi_{\lambda} \to \varphi \quad \mbox{weakly in}\ V, \\
\label{ellipweak1'}
&L\varphi_{\lambda} \to L\varphi \quad \mbox{weakly in}\ H, \\
\label{ellipweak2}
&\Phi_{\lambda}(\varphi_{\lambda}) \to \xi
\quad \mbox{weakly in}\ H, \\
\label{ellipweak3}
&B_{1}\varphi_{\lambda} \to B_{1}\varphi \quad \mbox{weakly in}\ H, \\
\label{ellipweak4}
&A_{2}\varphi_{\lambda} \to A_{2}\varphi
\quad \mbox{weakly in}\ H \end{aligned}$$ as $\lambda = \lambda_{j} \to +0$. Here it follows from , , the compact of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ellipstrong}
\varphi_{\lambda} \to \varphi \quad \mbox{strongly in}\ H\end{aligned}$$ as $\lambda = \lambda_{j} \to +0$. Also, we see from and that $(\Phi_{\lambda}\varphi_{\lambda}, \varphi_{\lambda})_{H}
\to (\xi, \varphi)_{H}$ as $\lambda = \lambda_{j} \to +0$. Thus the inclusion and the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BJ6}
\varphi \in D(\Phi),\ \xi = \Phi\varphi \end{aligned}$$ hold (see e.g., [@Barbu1 Lemma 1.3, p. 42]).
Therefore, thanks to , - and (A11), we can verify that there exists a solution $\varphi \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$ of the equation $$L\varphi + hB_{1}\varphi + h^2 A_{2}\varphi
+ h^2 \Phi\varphi + h^2 {\cal L}\varphi + \eta h^2 B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1}\varphi = g
\quad \mbox{in}\ H.$$ Moreover, the solution $\varphi$ of this problem is unique by (A2), (A3), the monotonicity of $B_{1}$ and $\Phi$, (A11) and .
Let $h_{1}$ be as in Lemma \[elliptic2\] and let $h \in (0, h_{1})$. Then we infer from , the linearity of the operators $A_{1}$, $L$, $B_{1}$, $B_{2}$ and $A_{2}$ that the problem \[Pn\] can be written as $$\tag*{(Q)$_{n}$}\label{Qn}
\begin{cases}
\theta_{n+1} + hA_{1}\theta_{n+1}
= \theta_{n} + \eta(\varphi_{n} - \varphi_{n+1}),
\\[3mm]
L\varphi_{n+1} + hB_{1}\varphi_{n+1} + h^2A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}
+ h^2\Phi\varphi_{n+1} + h^2{\cal L}\varphi_{n+1}
+ \eta h^2 B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1} \varphi_{n+1}
\\
= L\varphi_{n} + hLv_{n} + hB_{1}\varphi_{n}
+ h^2 B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1} (\eta\varphi_{n}+\theta_{n})
\end{cases}$$ and then proving Theorem \[maintheorem1\] is equivalent to show existence and uniqueness of solutions to \[Qn\] for $n=0, ..., N-1$. It suffices to consider the case that $n=0$. Owing to Lemma \[elliptic2\], there exists a unique solution $\varphi_{1} \in D(B_{1}) \cap D(A_{2})$ of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&L\varphi_{1} + hB_{1}\varphi_{1} + h^2A_{2}\varphi_{1}
+ h^2\Phi\varphi_{1} + h^2{\cal L}\varphi_{1}
+ \eta h^2 B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1} \varphi_{1}
\\
&= L\varphi_{0} + hLv_{0} + hB_{1}\varphi_{0}
+ h^2 B_2 (I + h A_1)^{-1} (\eta\varphi_{0}+\theta_{0}). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, putting $\theta_{1}:=(I + hA_{1})^{-1}(\theta_{0}+\eta(\varphi_{0}-\varphi_{1}))$, we can conclude that there exists a unique solution $(\theta_{1}, \varphi_{1})$ of \[Qn\] in the case that $n=0$.
Uniform estimates for \[Ph\] and passage to the limit {#Sec4}
=====================================================
In this section we will derive a priori estimates for \[Ph\] and will show Theorem \[maintheorem2\] by passing to the limit in \[Ph\] as $h\to+0$.
\[lemkuri1\] Let $h_{0}$ be as in Theorem \[maintheorem1\]. Then there exist constants $h_{2} \in (0, h_{0})$ and $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2
+ h\|\overline{z}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|B_{1}^{1/2}\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|\overline{\varphi}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}^2
\\
&+ h\|\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2
+ \|B_{2}^{1/2}\overline{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2
+ h\Bigl\|B_{2}^{1/2}\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$.
We test the second equation in \[Pn\] by $hv_{n+1}$ ($= \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}$) and recall to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a1}
&(L(v_{n+1}-v_{n}), v_{n+1})_{H} + h\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ (\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n})_{H}
+ (\Phi\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&= h(B_{2}\theta_{n+1}, v_{n+1})_{H} - h({\cal L}\varphi_{n+1}, v_{n+1})_{H}
+ h(\varphi_{n+1}, v_{n+1})_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Here it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a2}
&(L(v_{n+1}-v_{n}), v_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&= (L^{1/2}(v_{n+1}-v_{n}), L^{1/2}v_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&=\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(v_{n+1}-v_{n})\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a3}
&\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ (\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n}, \varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}),
\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ The first equation in \[Pn\] yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a3'}
&h(B_{2}\theta_{n+1}, v_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&= \frac{h}{\eta}\Bigl(B_{2}\theta_{n+1},
-\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}-A_{1}\theta_{n+1} \Bigr)_{H}
\notag \\
&=-\frac{1}{2\eta}
\Bigl(\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \|B_{2}^{1/2}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})\|_{H}^2 \Bigr)
\notag \\
&\,\quad -\frac{h}{\eta}(B_{2}\theta_{n+1}, A_{1}\theta_{n+1})_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus it follows from -, (A4), (A7), (A11), the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ and the Young inequality that there exist constants $C_{1}, C_{2} > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a4}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(v_{n+1}-v_{n})\|_{H}^2
+ h\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n+1}, \varphi_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{n}, \varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}),
\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ i(\varphi_{n+1}) - i(\varphi_{n})
\notag \\
& + \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
- \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq h\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ C_{1}h\|\varphi_{n+1}\|_{V}^2 + C_{2}h\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{0})$. Moreover, summing over $n = 0, ..., m-1$ with $1 \leq m \leq N$ leads to the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a7}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|L^{1/2}(v_{n+1}-v_{n})\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{m}, \varphi_{m} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}),
\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ i(\varphi_{m}) + \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{2}^{1/2}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{0}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{0}, \varphi_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{0}\|_{H}^2 + i(\varphi_{0})
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{0}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ C_{1}h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{n+1}\|_{V}^2 + C_{2}T \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{0})$. Here we see from (A3) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a8}
\frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{m}, \varphi_{m} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{m}\|_{H}^2
\geq \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|\varphi_{m}\|_{V}^2 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a9}
&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\langle A_{2}^{*}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}),
\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\geq \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}\|_{V}^2
= \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we derive from - and (A2) that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{c_{L}}{2}-h\right)\|v_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{c_{L}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \left(\frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2} - C_{1}h \right)\|\varphi_{m}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\delta_{h}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}v_{0}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\varphi_{0}, \varphi_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\varphi_{0}\|_{H}^2 + i(\varphi_{0})
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{0}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|v_{j}\|_{H}^2
+ C_{1}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{j}\|_{V}^2 + C_{2}T, \end{aligned}$$ whence there exist constants $h_{2} \in (0, h_{0})$ and $C_{3} = C_{3}(T) > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a12}
&\|v_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \|\varphi_{m}\|_{V}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
+ \|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\delta_{h}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{3}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|v_{j}\|_{H}^2
+ C_{3}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|\varphi_{j}\|_{V}^2 + C_{3}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$. Therefore it follows from the inequality and the discrete Gronwall lemma (see e.g., [@Jerome Prop. 2.2.1]) that there exists a constant $C_{4} = C_{4}(T) > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|v_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \|\varphi_{m}\|_{V}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
+ \|B_{2}^{1/2}\theta_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\delta_{h}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
\leq C_{4}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$ and $m=1,..., N$.
\[lemkuri3\] Let $h_{2}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri1\]. Then there exists a constant $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|z_{1}\|_{H}^2 + h\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \|v_{1}\|_{V}^2 + h^2\|z_{1}\|_{V}^2
+ \langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}), \eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h\in(0, h_{2})$.
The second equation in \[Pn\], the identities $v_{1} = v_{0} + hz_{1}$ and $\varphi_{1} = \varphi_{0} + hv_{1}$ yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco1}
Lz_{1} + B_{1}v_{0} + hB_{1}z_{1} + A_{2}\varphi_{0} + hA_{2}v_{1}
+ \Phi\varphi_{1} + {\cal L}\varphi_{1} = B_{2}\theta_{1}. \end{aligned}$$ Then we test by $z_{1}$ to infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco2}
&\|L^{1/2}z_{1}\|_{H}^2 + (B_{1}v_{0}, z_{1})_{H}
+ h(B_{1}z_{1}, z_{1})_{H} + (A_{2}\varphi_{0}, z_{1})_{H}
+ h(A_{2}v_{1}, z_{1})_{H}
\notag \\
&+ (\Phi\varphi_{1}, z_{1})_{H} + ({\cal L}\varphi_{1}, z_{1})_{H}
= (B_{2}\theta_{1}, z_{1})_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Here we derive from (A3) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco3}
h(A_{2}v_{1}, z_{1})_{H}
&= (A_{2}v_{1}, v_{1} - v_{0})_{H}
= \langle A_{2}^{*}v_{1}, v_{1} - v_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{1}, v_{1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{0}, v_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}(v_{1} - v_{0}), v_{1} - v_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\geq \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{V}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{H}^2
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{0}, v_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|v_{1} - v_{0}\|_{V}^2
- \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1} - v_{0}\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ We see from (A6) and Lemma \[lemkuri1\] that there exists a constant $C_{1} = C_{1}(T) > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco4}
|(\Phi\varphi_{1}, z_{1})_{H}|
\leq C_{\Phi}(1 + \|\varphi_{1}\|_{V}^{p})\|\varphi_{1}\|_{V}\|z_{1}\|_{H}
\leq C_{1}\|z_{1}\|_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Also, the first equation in \[Pn\] and the identity $v_{1}-v_{0}=hz_{1}$ imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco4'}
&\frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}), \eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
- \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{0} + A_{1}\theta_{0}), \eta v_{0} + A_{1}\theta_{0} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta (v_{1}-v_{0}) + A_{1}(\theta_{1}-\theta_{0})),
\eta (v_{1}-v_{0}) + A_{1}(\theta_{1}-\theta_{0}) \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}),
\eta (v_{1}-v_{0}) + A_{1}(\theta_{1}-\theta_{0}) \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&= - (B_{2}\theta_{1}, z_{1})_{H} + (B_{2}\theta_{0}, z_{1})_{H}
- \frac{1}{\eta h}(B_{2}(\theta_{1}-\theta_{0}), A_{1}(\theta_{1}-\theta_{0}))_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence it follows from -, (A2), (A4) and the monotonicity of $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^*$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coco5}
&c_{L}\|z_{1}\|_{H}^2 + h\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{V}^2 + \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\|z_{1}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}), \eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\leq - (B_{1}v_{0}, z_{1})_{H} - (A_{2}\varphi_{0}, z_{1})_{H}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{0}, v_{0} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1} - v_{0}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{1}\|z_{1}\|_{H} - ({\cal L}\varphi_{1}, z_{1})_{H} + (B_{2}\theta_{0}, z_{1})_{H}
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{0} + A_{1}\theta_{0}), \eta v_{0} + A_{1}\theta_{0} \rangle_{V^*, V}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we deduce from , (A11), the Young inequality and Lemma \[lemkuri1\] that Lemma \[lemkuri3\] holds.
\[lemkuri4\] Let $h_{2}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri1\]. Then there exist constants $h_{3} \in (0, h_{2})$ and $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\overline{z}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|B_{1}^{1/2}\overline{z}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}^2
+ h\|\overline{z}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{3})$.
Let $n \in \{1, ..., N-1\}$. Then we have from the second equation in \[Pn\] that $$\begin{aligned}
&L(z_{n+1} - z_{n}) + hB_{1}z_{n+1} + hA_{2}v_{n+1}
+ \Phi\varphi_{n+1} - \Phi\varphi_{n}
+ {\cal L}\varphi_{n+1} - {\cal L}\varphi_{n}
\notag \\
&= B_{2} (\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n}). \end{aligned}$$ Here, since it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&(L(z_{n+1}-z_{n}), z_{n+1})_{H}
=(L^{1/2}(z_{n+1}-z_{n}), L^{1/2}z_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&=\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(z_{n+1} - z_{n})\|_{H}^2, \end{aligned}$$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta1}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(z_{n+1} - z_{n})\|_{H}^2
+ h\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} - v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ (v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} - v_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&= -h\left(\frac{\Phi\varphi_{n+1} - \Phi\varphi_{n}}{h}, z_{n+1} \right)_{H}
- h\left(\frac{{\cal L}\varphi_{n+1} - {\cal L}\varphi_{n}}{h}, z_{n+1} \right)_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + (B_{2}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}), z_{n+1})_{H}
+ h(v_{n+1}, z_{n+1})_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta2}
&\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} - v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ (v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} - v_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n}, v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}(v_{n+1} - v_{n}), v_{n+1} - v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n+1}-v_{n}\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ holds. The condition (A6) and Lemma \[lemkuri1\] mean that there exists a constant $C_{1}=C_{1}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta3}
-h\left(\frac{\Phi\varphi_{n+1} - \Phi\varphi_{n}}{h}, z_{n+1} \right)_{H}
&\leq C_{\Phi}h(1 + \|\varphi_{n+1}\|_{V}^{p} + \|\varphi_{n}\|_{V}^{q})
\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{1}h\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H} \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$. Also, the first equation in \[Pn\] and the identity $v_{n+1}-v_{n}=hz_{n+1}$ yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta3'}
&\frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{n+1} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1}),
\eta v_{n+1} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&- \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{n} + A_{1}\theta_{n}),
\eta v_{n} + A_{1}\theta_{n} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta (v_{n+1}-v_{n}) + A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})),
\eta (v_{n+1}-v_{n}) + A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}) \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{n+1} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1}),
\eta (v_{n+1}-v_{n}) + A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}) \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&= - (B_{2}(\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n}), z_{n+1})_{H}
- \frac{1}{\eta h}(B_{2}(\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n}), A_{1}(\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n}))_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence it follows from -, (A4) and (A11) that there exists a constant $C_{2}=C_{2}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta4}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(z_{n+1} - z_{n})\|_{H}^2
+ h\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n+1}, v_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{n}, v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}(v_{n+1} - v_{n}), v_{n+1} - v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{n+1}-v_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{n+1} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1}),
\eta v_{n+1} + A_{1}\theta_{n+1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&- \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{n} + A_{1}\theta_{n}),
\eta v_{n} + A_{1}\theta_{n} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta (v_{n+1}-v_{n}) + A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})),
\eta (v_{n+1}-v_{n}) + A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}) \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{2}h\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H} \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$. Then we sum over $n=1, ..., \ell-1$ with $2 \leq \ell \leq N$ to derive that $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{\ell}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}\|L^{1/2}(z_{n+1} - z_{n})\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{\ell}, v_{\ell} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}
\langle A_{2}^{*}(v_{n+1} - v_{n}), v_{n+1} - v_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{\ell}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}\|v_{n+1}-v_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{\ell} + A_{1}\theta_{\ell}),
\eta v_{\ell} + A_{1}\theta_{\ell} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{1}, v_{1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}),
\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{2}h\sum_{n=0}^{\ell-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we have from (A2) and (A3) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta6}
&\frac{c_{L}}{2}\|z_{\ell}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|v_{\ell}\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=1}^{\ell-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{\ell} + A_{1}\theta_{\ell}),
\eta v_{\ell} + A_{1}\theta_{\ell} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}z_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}v_{1}, v_{1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v_{1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}
\langle B_{2}^* (\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1}),
\eta v_{1} + A_{1}\theta_{1} \rangle_{V^*, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{2}h\sum_{n=0}^{\ell-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H} \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$ and $\ell = 2, ..., N$. Therefore we infer from , the boundedness of $L$ and $A_{2}^*$, and Lemma \[lemkuri3\] that there exists a constant $C_{3}=C_{3}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta7}
&\frac{c_{L}}{2}\|z_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|v_{m}\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{3} + C_{2}h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|v_{n+1}\|_{V}\|z_{n+1}\|_{H} \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$ and $m=1, ..., N$. Moreover, we see from and the Young inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pasta8}
&\frac{1}{2}(c_{L} - C_{2}h)\|z_{m}\|_{H}^2
+ h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}(\omega_{2, 1} - C_{2}h)\|v_{m}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
\leq C_{3} + \frac{C_{2}}{2}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|v_{j}\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{C_{2}}{2}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|z_{j}\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$ and $m=1, ..., N$. Hence there exist constants $h_{3} \in (0, h_{2})$ and $C_{4}=C_{4}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|z_{m}\|_{H}^2 + h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \|v_{m}\|_{V}^2 + h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{4} + C_{4}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|v_{j}\|_{V}^2
+ C_{4}h\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\|z_{j}\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{3})$ and $m=1, ..., N$. Therefore, owing to the discrete Gronwall lemma (see e.g., [@Jerome Prop. 2.2.1]), there exists a constant $C_{5}=C_{5}(T)>0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\|z_{m}\|_{H}^2 + h\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|B_{1}^{1/2}z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \|v_{m}\|_{V}^2 + h^2\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}\|z_{n+1}\|_{V}^2
\leq C_{5} \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{3})$ and $m=1, ..., N$.
\[lemkuri5\] Let $h_{2}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri1\]. Then there exists a constant $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{2})$.
We can obtain this lemma by (A6) and Lemma \[lemkuri1\].
\[lemkuri2\] Let $h_{3}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri4\]. Then there exist constants $h_{4} \in (0, h_{3})$ and $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|\dfrac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
+ h\Bigl\|\dfrac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2
+ \|\overline{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}^2
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
We multiply the first equation in \[Pn\] by $\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}$ and by $h\theta_{n+1}$, respectively, and use the Young inequality to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hoho1}
&h\left\|\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\right\|_{H}^2
+ \langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ (\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}, \theta_{n+1})_{H}
+ h(A_{1}\theta_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&= -\eta h\left(v_{n+1}, \frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\right)_{H}
-\eta h (v_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \eta^2 h\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}h\left\|\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\right\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}h\|\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Here it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hoho2}
&\langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ (\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}, \theta_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n}, \theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}(\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n}),
\theta_{n+1} - \theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\,\quad + \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we see from , and the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ that there exists a constant $C_{1}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hoho3}
&\frac{1}{2}h\left\|\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\right\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n+1}, \theta_{n+1} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}\theta_{n}, \theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{1}^{*}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}),
\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n} \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \eta^2 h\|v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 + C_{1}h\|\theta_{n+1}\|_{V}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{3})$. Therefore we can prove Lemma \[lemkuri2\] by summing over $n=0, ..., m-1$ with $1 \leq m \leq N$, the condition (A3), Lemma \[lemkuri1\] and the discrete Gronwall lemma (see e.g., [@Jerome Prop. 2.2.1]).
\[lemkuri6\] Let $h_{4}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri2\]. Then there exists a constant $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}\Bigr\|_{L^2(0, T; V)}^2
+ \|A_{1}\overline{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
It follows from the first equation in \[Pn\] that $$\begin{aligned}
&h\Bigl\langle A_{1}^* \frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h},
\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h} \Bigr\rangle_{V^*, V}
+ h\Bigl\|\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\Bigr\|_{H}^2
\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\|A_{1}\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - \frac{1}{2}\|A_{1}\theta_{n}\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|A_{1}(\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n})\|_{H}^2
\\
&= -\eta h\Bigl\langle A_{1}^* \frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h},
v_{n+1} \Bigr\rangle_{V^*, V}
+ h\Bigl\|\frac{\theta_{n+1}-\theta_{n}}{h}\Bigr\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ and then we can prove this lemma by (A3), the boundedness of the operator $A_{1}^{*} : V \to V^*$, the Young inequality, Lemma \[lemkuri4\], summing over $n=0, ..., m-1$ with $1 \leq m \leq N$ and Lemma \[lemkuri2\].
\[lemkuri7\] Let $h_{4}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri2\]. Then there exists a constant $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|B_{2}\overline{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|B_{1}\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
+ \|A_{2}\overline{\varphi}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
The condition (A5), Lemmas \[lemkuri2\] and \[lemkuri6\] mean that there exists a constant $C_{1}=C_{1}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pen0}
\|B_{2}\overline{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; H)}^2 \leq C_{1}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. The second equation in \[Pn\] yields that $$\begin{aligned}
&h\|B_{1}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
= h(B_{1}v_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&=-h(Lz_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
- h(A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
- h(\Phi\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- h({\cal L}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
+ h(B_{2}\theta_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H} \end{aligned}$$ and then we derive from the Young inequality, the boundedness of the operator $L : H \to H$, (A11) and Lemma \[lemkuri1\] that there exists a constant $C_{2}=C_{2}(T)>0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pen1}
h\|B_{1}v_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
&\leq C_{2}h\|z_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 - h(A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
+ C_{2}h\|\Phi\varphi_{n+1}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{2}h\|B_{2}\theta_{n+1}\|_{H}^2 + C_{2}h \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. Here we have from (A4) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pen2}
-h(A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}v_{n+1})_{H}
&= -(A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}\varphi_{n+1}-B_{1}\varphi_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&= - \frac{1}{2}(A_{2}\varphi_{n+1}, B_{1}\varphi_{n+1})_{H}
+ \frac{1}{2}(A_{2}\varphi_{n}, B_{1}\varphi_{n})_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- \frac{1}{2}
(A_{2}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}), B_{1}(\varphi_{n+1}-\varphi_{n}))_{H}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus summing over $n=0, ..., m-1$ with $1 \leq m \leq N$ and using , , Lemmas \[lemkuri4\] and \[lemkuri5\] imply that there exists a constant $C_{3} = C_{3}(T) > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pen3}
\|B_{1}\overline{v}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2 \leq C_{3}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. Moreover, we deduce from the second equation in \[Ph\], , , Lemmas \[lemkuri4\] and \[lemkuri5\], (A11) and Lemma \[lemkuri1\] that there exists a constant $C_{4} = C_{4}(T) > 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\|A_{2}\overline{\varphi}_{h}\|_{L^2(0, T; H)}^2 \leq C_{4}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
\[lemkuri8\] Let $h_{4}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri2\]. Then there exists a constant $C=C(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}\|_{W^{1, \infty}(0, T; V)}
+ \|\widehat{v}_{h}\|_{W^{1, \infty}(0, T; H)}
\notag \\
&+ \|\widehat{v}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
+ \|\widehat{\theta}_{h}\|_{H^1(0, T; V)}
+ \|\widehat{\theta}_{h}\|_{L^{\infty}(0, T; V)}
\leq C \end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
We can check this lemma by -, Lemmas \[lemkuri1\], \[lemkuri4\], \[lemkuri2\] and \[lemkuri6\].
By Lemmas \[lemkuri1\], \[lemkuri4\]-\[lemkuri8\], and -, there exist some functions $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta \in H^1(0, T; V) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; V) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; D(A_{1})),
\\
&\varphi \in L^{\infty}(0, T; V) \cap L^2(0, T; D(A_{2})),
\\
&\xi \in L^{\infty}(0, T; H) \end{aligned}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\varphi}{dt} \in L^{\infty}(0, T; V) \cap L^2(0, T; D(B_{1})),\
\frac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2} \in L^{\infty}(0, T; H) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weak1}
&\widehat{\varphi}_{h} \to \varphi
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ W^{1, \infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\notag
&\overline{v}_{h} \to \frac{d\varphi}{dt}
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak2}
&\widehat{v}_{h} \to \frac{d\varphi}{dt}
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ W^{1, \infty}(0, T; H) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\notag
&\overline{z}_{h} \to \frac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2}
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak3}
&L\overline{z}_{h} \to L\frac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2}
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak4}
&\widehat{\theta}_{h} \to \theta
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ H^1(0, T; V) \cap L^{\infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\notag
&\overline{\varphi}_{h} \to \varphi
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\notag
&\overline{\theta}_{h} \to \theta
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; V),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak5}
&A_{1}\overline{\theta}_{h} \to A_{1}\theta
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak6}
&B_{1}\overline{v}_{h} \to B_{1}\frac{d\varphi}{dt}
\quad \mbox{weakly in}\ L^2(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak7}
&A_{2}\overline{\varphi}_{h} \to A_{2}\varphi
\quad \mbox{weakly in}\ L^2(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak8}
&\Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h} \to \xi
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H),
\\[2.5mm]
\label{weak9}
&B_{2}\overline{\theta}_{h} \to B_{2}\theta
\quad \mbox{weakly$^{*}$ in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H) \end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$. Here, since we infer from Lemma \[lemkuri8\], the compactness of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ and the convergence that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stronghatvarphi}
\widehat{\varphi}_{h} \to \varphi
\quad \mbox{strongly in}\ C([0, T]; H)\end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$ (see e.g., [@Simon Section 8, Corollary 4]), we see from and Lemma \[lemkuri4\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{strongoverlinevarphi}
\overline{\varphi}_{h} \to \varphi
\quad \mbox{strongly in}\ L^{\infty}(0, T; H)\end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$. Hence the convergences and yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{T}(\Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t), \overline{\varphi}_{h}(t))_{H}\,dt
\to \int_{0}^{T}(\xi(t), \varphi(t))_{H}\,dt \end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$ and then it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xiPhivarphi}
\xi = \Phi\varphi \quad\mbox{in}\ H\ \mbox{a.e.\ on}\ (0, T) \end{aligned}$$ (see e.g., [@Barbu1 Lemma 1.3, p. 42]). On the other hand, it follows from Lemma \[lemkuri8\], the compactness of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stronghattheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{h} \to \theta
\quad \mbox{strongly in}\ C([0, T]; H)\end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$. Similarly, we derive from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stronghatv}
\widehat{v}_{h} \to \frac{d\varphi}{dt}
\quad \mbox{strongly in}\ C([0, T]; H)\end{aligned}$$ as $h=h_{j}\to+0$. Therefore, combining , - and (A11), we can verify that there exists a solution of \[P\].
Uniqueness for \[P\] {#Sec5}
====================
This section proves uniqueness of solutions to \[P\].
We let $(\theta, \varphi)$, $(\overline{\theta}, \overline{\varphi})$ be two solutions of \[P\] and put $\widetilde{\theta}:=\theta-\overline{\theta}$, $\widetilde{\varphi}:=\varphi-\overline{\varphi}$. Then the identity , the Young inequality, (A6), (A11), Lemma \[lemkuri1\], the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ and (A2) imply that there exists a constant $C_{1}=C_{1}(T)>0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocoro1}
&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|L^{1/2}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right\|_{H}^2
+ \left(B_{1}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t), \frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\Bigl\|A_{2}^{1/2}\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\Bigr\|_{H}^2
\notag \\[1mm]
&= \left(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t), \frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
- \left(\Phi\varphi(t)-\Phi\overline{\varphi}(t),
\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
- \left({\cal L}\varphi(t)-{\cal L}\overline{\varphi}(t),
\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \left(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t), \frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
+ \frac{C_{\Phi}^2}{2}(1+\|\varphi(t)\|_{V}^{p} + \|\overline{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^{q})^2
\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ \frac{C_{{\cal L}}^2}{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \left\|\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right\|_{H}^2
\notag \\[1.5mm]
&\leq \left(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t), \frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
+ C_{1}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{1}{c_{L}}\left\|L^{1/2}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$. Here we have from the Young inequality, (A2) and the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ that there exists a constant $C_{2}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocoro2}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{H}^2
= \left(\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t), \widetilde{\varphi}(t)\right)_{H}
\leq \frac{1}{2c_{L}}\left\|L^{1/2}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right\|_{H}^2
+ C_{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$. We see from (A3) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocoro3}
&\frac{1}{2}\Bigl\|A_{2}^{1/2}\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\Bigr\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle A_{2}^{*}\widetilde{\varphi}(t),
\widetilde{\varphi}(t) \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H}^2
\geq \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the identity yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocoro4}
\left(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t), \frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right)_{H}
&= \frac{1}{\eta}\left(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t),
- \frac{d\widetilde{\theta}}{dt}(t) - A_{1}\widetilde{\theta}(t) \right)_{H}
\notag \\
&= -\frac{1}{2\eta}\frac{d}{dt}\Bigl\|B_{2}^{1/2}\widetilde{\theta}(t)\Bigr\|_{H}^2
- \frac{1}{\eta}(B_{2}\widetilde{\theta}(t), A_{1}\widetilde{\theta}(t))_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore it follows from - and (A4) that there exists a constant $C_{3}=C_{3}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\left\|L^{1/2}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(t)\right\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}\widetilde{\theta}(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{3}\int_{0}^{t}\left\|L^{1/2}\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}(s)\right\|_{H}^2\,ds
+ C_{3}\int_{0}^{t}\|\widetilde{\varphi}(s)\|_{V}^2\,ds \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$, whence we obtain that $\frac{d\widetilde{\varphi}}{dt}=\widetilde{\varphi}=0$ by the Gronwall lemma and (A2). Then the identity leads to the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocoro5}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\widetilde{\theta}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ (A_{1}\widetilde{\theta}(t), \widetilde{\theta}(t))_{H}
= 0. \end{aligned}$$ Thus it holds that $\widetilde{\theta}=0$.
Error estimates {#Sec6}
===============
In this section we will show Theorem \[erroresti\].
Let $h_{4}$ be as in Lemma \[lemkuri2\]. Then, putting $z:=\frac{dv}{dt}$, we derive from the identity $\frac{d\widehat{v}_{h}}{dt}=\overline{z}_{h}$, the second equation in \[Ph\] and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1}
&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&= (L(\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t)), \widehat{v}_{h}(t)-\overline{v}_{h}(t))_{H}
+ (L(\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&= (L(\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t)), \widehat{v}_{h}(t)-\overline{v}_{h}(t))_{H}
- (B_{1}(\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad - (A_{2}(\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
- (\Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\Phi\varphi(t), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- ({\cal L}\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-{\cal L}\varphi(t),
\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
+ (B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Here the boundedness of the operator $L : H \to H$ implies that there exists a constant $C_{1}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e2}
(L(\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t)), \widehat{v}_{h}(t)-\overline{v}_{h}(t))_{H}
&\leq \|L(\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t))\|_{H}\|\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-\overline{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{1}\|\overline{z}_{h}(t)-z(t)\|_{H}\|\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-\overline{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H} \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. We have from the identities $\overline{v}_{h}=\frac{d\widehat{\varphi}_{h}}{dt}$, $v=\frac{d\varphi}{dt}$ and the boundedness of the operator $A_{2}^* : V \to V^*$ that there exists a constant $C_{2}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e3}
&- (A_{2}(\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&= - \langle A_{2}^{*}(\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)),
\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t) \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
- \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|A_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t))\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{2}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)\|_{V}
\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{V}
- \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|A_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t))\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. We see from (A6), Lemma \[lemkuri1\], the Young inequality and (A2) that there exists a constant $C_{3}=C_{3}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e4}
&- (\Phi\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\Phi\varphi(t), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{\Phi}(1 + \|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)\|_{V}^{p} + \|\varphi(t)\|_{V}^{q})
\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{3}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{C_{3}}{2}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{C_{3}}{2}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{3}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)\|_{V}^2
+ C_{3}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{3}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-\widehat{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{C_{3}}{c_{L}}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. The condition (A11), the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$, the Young inequality and (A2) mean that there exists a constant $C_{4}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e5}
&- ({\cal L}\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-{\cal L}\varphi(t), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq C_{4}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{C_{4}}{2}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \frac{C_{4}}{2}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq C_{4}\|\overline{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)\|_{V}^2
+ C_{4}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad+ C_{4}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-\widehat{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{C_{4}}{c_{L}}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. It follows from the first equation in \[Ph\] and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e6}
&(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)), \overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&= - \frac{1}{\eta}\Bigl(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)),
\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}(t)-\frac{d\theta}{dt}(t)\Bigr)_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- \frac{1}{\eta}(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)),
A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)))_{H}
\notag \\
&= - \frac{1}{\eta}
\Bigl\langle B_{2}^{*}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)),
\frac{d\widehat{\theta}_{h}}{dt}(t)-\frac{d\theta}{dt}(t) \Bigr\rangle_{V^*, V}
- \frac{1}{2\eta}\frac{d}{dt}\|B_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t))\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\,\quad - \frac{1}{\eta}(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)),
A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)))_{H}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence we derive from -, the integration over $(0, t)$, where $t \in [0, T]$, the boundedness of the operator $B_{2}^{*} : V \to V^*$, -, Lemmas \[lemkuri4\] and \[lemkuri6\] that there exists a constant $C_{5}=C_{5}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e7}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|A_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \int_{0}^{t}\|B_{1}^{1/2}(\overline{v}_{h}(s)-v(s))\|_{H}^2\,ds
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{\eta}\int_{0}^{t}(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(s) - \theta(s)),
A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(s) - \theta(s)))_{H}\,ds
\notag \\
&\leq C_{5}h
+ C_{5}\int_{0}^{t}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(s)-\varphi(s)\|_{V}^2\,ds
+ C_{5}\int_{0}^{t}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(s)-v(s))\|_{H}^2\,ds \end{aligned}$$ for all $t \in [0, T]$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. Here the identities $\frac{d\widehat{\varphi}_{h}}{dt}=\overline{v}_{h}$, $\frac{d\varphi}{dt}=v$, the Young inequality, (A2) and the continuity of the embedding $V \hookrightarrow H$ yield that there exists a constant $C_{6}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e8}
&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&= (\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t), \widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-\widehat{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{c_{L}}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t) - v(t))\|_{H}^2
+ C_{6}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t)-\varphi(t)\|_{V}^2 \end{aligned}$$ for a.a. $t \in (0, T)$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$. Thus, integrating over $(0, t)$, where $t \in [0, T]$, we deduce from and (A3) that there exists a constant $C_{7}=C_{7}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e9}
&\frac{1}{2}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{\omega_{2, 1}}{2}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(t) - \varphi(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \int_{0}^{t}\|B_{1}^{1/2}(\overline{v}_{h}(s)-v(s))\|_{H}^2\,ds
\notag \\
&+ \frac{1}{2\eta}\|B_{2}^{1/2}(\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{\eta}\int_{0}^{t}(B_{2}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(s) - \theta(s)),
A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(s) - \theta(s)))_{H}\,ds
\notag \\
&\leq C_{7}h
+ C_{7}\int_{0}^{t}\|\widehat{\varphi}_{h}(s)-\varphi(s)\|_{V}^2\,ds
+ C_{7}\int_{0}^{t}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(s)-v(s))\|_{H}^2\,ds \end{aligned}$$ for all $t \in [0, T]$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
Next the first equation in \[Ph\] and lead to the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e10}
&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&= - \eta(\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t), \widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t))_{H}
- (A_{1}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)),
\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \overline{\theta}_{h}(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\,\quad- \langle A_{1}^{*}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)),
\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t) \rangle_{V^{*}, V}. \end{aligned}$$ Here we use the Young inequality and (A2) to infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e11}
&- (\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t), \widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t))_{H}
\notag \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-\widehat{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \|\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq \|\overline{v}_{h}(t)-\widehat{v}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{c_{L}}\|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(t)-v(t))\|_{H}^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ We have from (A3) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e12}
&- \langle A_{1}^{*}(\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)),
\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t) \rangle_{V^{*}, V}
\notag \\
&\leq -\omega_{1, 1}\|\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{V}^2
+ \|\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{H}^2
\notag \\
&\leq -\omega_{1, 1}\|\overline{\theta}_{h}(t)-\theta(t)\|_{V}^2
+ 2\|\overline{\theta}_{h}(t) - \widehat{\theta}_{h}(t)\|_{H}^2
+ 2\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)\|_{H}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, owing to -, the integration over $(0, t)$, where $t \in [0, T]$, , , Lemmas \[lemkuri4\] and \[lemkuri6\], there exists a constant $C_{8}=C_{8}(T)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e13}
&\frac{1}{2}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(t) - \theta(t)\|_{H}^2
+ \omega_{1, 1}\int_{0}^{t}\|\overline{\theta}_{h}(s) - \theta(s)\|_{V}^2\,ds
\notag \\
&\leq C_{8}h
+ C_{8}\int_{0}^{t} \|L^{1/2}(\widehat{v}_{h}(s)-v(s))\|_{H}^2\,ds
+ C_{8}\int_{0}^{t}\|\widehat{\theta}_{h}(s)-\theta(s)\|_{H}^2\,ds \end{aligned}$$ for all $t \in [0, T]$ and all $h \in (0, h_{4})$.
Therefore we can obtain Theorem \[erroresti\] by combining , and by applying the Gronwall lemma.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author is supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists (No. 18J21006).
[99]{} V. Barbu, “Nonlinear Semigroups and Differential Equations in Banach spaces”, Noordhoff International Publishing, Leyden, 1976.
V. Barbu, “Nonlinear Differential Equations of Monotone Types in Banach Spaces”, Springer, New York, 2010.
P. Colli, A. Favini, [*Time discretization of nonlinear Cauchy problems applying to mixed hyperbolic–parabolic equations*]{}, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. [**19**]{} (1996), 481–494.
P. Colli, S. Kurima, [*Time discretization of a nonlinear phase-field system in general domains*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. [**18**]{} (2019), 3161–3179.
M. Grasselli, V. Pata, [*Existence of a universal attractor for a parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field system*]{}, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. [**13**]{} (2003), 443-459.
M. Grasselli, V. Pata, [*Asymptotic behavior of a parabolic-hyperbolic system*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Anal. [**3**]{} (2004), 849-881.
M. Grasselli, H. Petzeltová, G. Schimperna, [*Convergence to stationary solutions for a parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field system*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. [**5**]{} (2006), 827–838.
J.W. Jerome, “Approximations of Nonlinear Evolution Systems”, Mathematics in Science and Engineering [**164**]{}, Academic Press Inc., Orlando, 1983.
S. Kurima, [*Time discretization of an initial value problem for a simultaneous abstract evolution equation applying to parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field systems*]{}, ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., to appear.
A. Matsubara, T. Yokota, [*Applications of the Hille–Yosida theorem to the linearized equations of coupled sound and heat flow*]{}, AIMS Mathematics [**1**]{} (2016), 165–177.
J. Simon, [*Compact sets in the space $L^p(0, T; B)$*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) [**146**]{} (1987), 65–96.
H. Wu, M. Grasselli, S. Zheng, [*Convergence to equilibrium for a parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field system with Neumann boundary conditions*]{}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. [**17**]{} (2007), 125–153.
H. Wu, M. Grasselli, S. Zheng, [*Convergence to equilibrium for a parabolic-hyperbolic phase-field system with dynamical boundary condition*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**329**]{} (2007), 948-976.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Rainer Picard
title: 'On Well-Posedness for a Piezo-Electromagnetic Coupling Model with Boundary Dynamics.'
---
Introduction.
=============
There is an abundance of applications for piezoelectric materials. Their primary use is in ultrasonic transducers. Typical applications can be found in medical imaging and non-destructive testing of safety critical structures. The well-posedness of corresponding models, which is the focus of this paper, is of interest in the evaluation of respective models and in particular as a basis for inverse problems. A useful summary of the literature that has examined well-posedness issues for a range of boundary conditions can be found in [@akamatsu2002] .
In this paper we will consider a model class discussed in [@zbMATH05929394] and generalize it to a broader class of problems, where for example the operator coefficients could be non-local, e.g. of convolution type, and will not be restricted to just multiplication operators. To be concrete a coefficient operator $\alpha$ may for example be given in the form $$\left(\alpha f\right)\left(x\right)\coloneqq\alpha_{0}\left(x\right)f\left(x\right)+\int_{\Omega}\alpha_{1}\left(x,y\right)f\left(y\right)dy,$$ where $\Omega$ is the underlying spatial domain carrying the material properties described by $\alpha$. Another common way non-locality of coefficients can come into play is via orthogonal projectors entering the coefficient operators, e.g. Helmholtz projectors.
More importantly, there will be *no* constraints on the boundary quality of $\Omega$ so that more complex configurations such as materials with fractal boundaries, which have been considered and even prototyped more recently, see e.g. [@walker2011], come into reach. We shall propose a generalized boundary condition, which in fact takes on the form of an extra equation describing the dynamics on the topological boundary set $\dot{\Omega}$ of the underlying non-empty open set $\Omega$. For computational purposes one would have to assume approximations by domains with better boundary quality such as a Lipschitz boundary in which case classical boundary trace operators can be utilized. To pave the way a discussion of classical boundary trace arguments and our abstract characterization of boundary data spaces is also included.
Since in the general situation we consider here boundary trace theorems are not available, the analysis is based on an alternative characterization of boundary data, which makes no reference to the boundary quality.
Our discussion will be based on the space-time Hilbert space framework developed in [@Pi2009-1], see also [@PDE_DeGruyter], for what we shall call *evo-systems*. After briefly recalling the conceptual building blocks of the theoretical framework in Section \[sec:A-Brief-Summary\] we then establish the classical system of piezo-electro-magnetism with standard homogeneous boundary conditions as such a system (Section \[sec:The-Evo-System-of\]). In Section \[sec:Inhomogeneous-Boundary-Condition\] we initially discuss standard inhomogeneous boundary conditions to introduce the boundary data characterization utilized in our general setting, in particular Subsection \[subsec:Inhomogeneous-Initial-Boundary\]. Then the more complex situation of a Leontovich type boundary condition is explored within this boundary data space framework in Subsections \[subsec:Leontovich-Type-Boundary\]. Rather than implementing this type of boundary constraint into the differential operator domain, as is standard for the classical Dirichlet and Neumann type boundary condition, this mixed type boundary condition is described via additional dynamic equations in the boundary data spaces.
\[sec:A-Brief-Summary\]A Brief Summary of Evo-Systems
=====================================================
The solution theory of the class of so-called *evolutionary* equations (evo-systems for short) introduced in [@Pi2009-1] is based on the fact that the (time) derivative $\partial_{0}$ is, in a suitable setting, a normal operator with a strictly positive real part. Indeed, in the space $H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$, $\nu\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ , of $H$-valued $L^{2,\mathrm{loc}}$-functions ($H$ a Hilbert space with inner product $\left\langle \:\cdot\:|\:\cdot\:\right\rangle _{H}$) equipped with the inner product $\left\langle \:\cdot\:|\:\cdot\:\right\rangle _{\nu,0,H}$ $$\left(\varphi,\psi\right)\mapsto\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\langle \varphi\left(t\right)|\psi\left(t\right)\right\rangle _{H}\;\exp\left(-2\nu t\right)\:dt,$$ we have that $\partial_{0}$ is a normal operator, i.e. commuting with its adjoint on $D\left(\partial_{0}^{2}\right)$, and $${\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\partial_{0}=\nu>0.$$ Throughout, we denote by $\partial_{0}$ this derivative as a derivative with respect to time. Under suitable assumptions the latter property of $\partial_{0}$ can be carried over to problems of the general form
$$\overline{\partial_{0}M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A}\:U=F,\label{eq:evo}$$
where now $A:D\left(A\right)\subseteq H\to H$ is a closed densely defined linear operator and $\left(M\left(z\right)\right)_{z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(r,r\right)}$ ($B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(r,r\right)$ denotes the open ball in $\mathbb{C}$ of radius $r\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ centered at $r\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ ) is a uniformly bounded analytic operator family. The well-posedness of can be based on strict (real) positive definiteness of $\left(\partial_{0}M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A\right)$ and its adjoint for all sufficiently large weight parameters $\nu\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ . The resulting problem class is referred to as *evolutionary equations* to contrast it with classical evolution equations in Hilbert space, which are a special case. For emphasis we shall use the term “evo-system” for problems of this class, since classical evolution equations are sometimes also referred to as “evolutionary”.
In this paper we shall be dealing with a rather special and so also more easily accessible case. We only need to consider the case, where $A$ is skew-selfadjoint and $z\mapsto M\left(z\right)$ is actually a rational (operator-valued) function defined in a neighborhood of the origin.
To recall the solution theory (as described in the last chapter of [@PDE_DeGruyter]) for our somewhat simpler situation the needed requirement is that $M\left(0\right)$ is selfadjoint and that $$\nu M\left(0\right)+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}M^{\prime}\left(0\right)\geq c_{0}>0\mbox{ for all sufficiently large }\nu\in]0,\infty[.\:\label{eq:posdef}$$ Equation (\[eq:posdef\]) is for example satisfied if $M\left(0\right)$ is strictly positive definite on its range and ${\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}M^{\prime}\left(0\right)$ strictly positive definite on the null space of $M\left(0\right)$, which will turn out to be valid in our present application.
Whenever we are not interested in the actual constant $c_{0}\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ we shall write for the strict positive definiteness constraint $${\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}T\geq c_{0}$$ simply $$T\gg0.$$ If we want to state that there is such a constant $c_{0}$ for a whole family of operators $\left(T_{\nu}\right)_{\nu\in I}$, we say that $$T_{\nu}\gg0$$ holds uniformly with respect to $\nu$.
So, the general requirement for the problem class under consideration would be stated as $M\left(0\right)$ selfadjoint and $$\nu M\left(0\right)+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}M^{\prime}\left(0\right)\gg0\label{eq:pos-def11}$$ uniformly for all sufficiently large $\nu\in]0,\infty[$ .
A problem class is called Hadamard well-posed, if we have existence, uniqueness of a solution as well as continuous dependence of the solution on the data. For dynamic problems we also want causal dependence on the data. We shall call the problem class described by an evo-system as well-posed, if there exists a continuous linear solution operator $\mathcal{S}$ (Hadamard-wellposedness), which moreover satisfies the causality condition[^1] $$\chi_{_{]-\infty,a[}}\left(m_{0}\right)\;\mathcal{S}\:\chi_{_{[a,\infty[}}\left(m_{0}\right)=0$$ for all $a\in\mathbb{R}$ (causality).
For sake of reference we record the corresponding well-posedness result for evo-systems.
\[thm:well-posed\]Let $A:D\left(A\right)\subseteq H\to H$ be skew-selfadjoint and $z\mapsto M\left(z\right)$ be a uniformly bounded, linear-operator-valued rational function in a neighborhood of zero such that is satisfied uniformly for all $\nu\in[\nu_{0},\infty[$ , for some $\nu_{0}\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ . Then the evo-system is well-posed.
Thus, we have not only that for every $F\in H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$ there is a unique solution $U\in D\left(\overline{\partial_{0}M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A}\right)$, but also that the solution operator $\overline{\partial_{0}M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A}^{-1}:H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)\to H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$ is a continuous linear mapping, which, moreover, is also causal in the sense that $$\chi_{_{]-\infty,a[}}\left(m_{0}\right)\;\overline{\partial_{0}M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A}^{-1}\:\chi_{_{[a,\infty[}}\left(m_{0}\right)=0$$ for all $a\in\mathbb{R}$.
On occasion, we also want to use some additional regularity observations, which we therefore also introduce here. For this we need some dual spaces. We choose to identify $$\begin{aligned}
H & = & H^{\prime}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right) & = & \left(H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)\right)^{\prime},\end{aligned}$$ and we define $H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$ as the domain of $\partial_{0}$ equipped with the norm induced by the inner product $\left\langle \:\cdot\:|\:\cdot\:\right\rangle _{\nu,1,H}\coloneqq\left\langle \partial_{0}\:\cdot\:|\partial_{0}\:\cdot\:\right\rangle _{\nu,0,H}$ as well as
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right) & := & \left(H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)\right)^{\prime}.\end{aligned}$$
We also shall make use of the Hilbert space $$H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A^{*}\right)^{\prime}\right):=H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A^{*}\right)\right)^{\prime},$$ where we canonically consider $D\left(C\right)$ with a closed operator $C$ as a Hilbert space with respect to the graph inner product. Denoting again by $A$ the continuous extension of $$\begin{aligned}
D\left(A\right)\subseteq H & \to D\left(A^{*}\right)^{\prime}\\
x & \mapsto Ax\end{aligned}$$ we have with this, letting $M_{0}:=M\left(0\right)$, $M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right):=\partial_{0}\left(M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)-M\left(0\right)\right)$, that $$\partial_{0}M_{0}U=F-M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)U-AU\in H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A^{*}\right)^{\prime}\right)$$ and so we read off that $$M_{0}U\in H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A^{*}\right)^{\prime}\right).\label{eq:time-reg}$$ We similarly have $$AU=F-M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)U-M_{0}\partial_{0}U\in H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$$ and so
$$U\in H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A\right)\right).\label{eq:space-reg}$$
Note that for the solution $U$ according to Theorem \[thm:well-posed\] we not only have the regularity statements , , but also that the equation $$\partial_{0}M_{0}U+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)U+AU=F$$ holds in $H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left(A^{*}\right)^{\prime}\right).$ We shall use the latter fact as motivation to drop henceforth the closure bar for equations of the form .
One of the foremost complications in practical applications is that the evo-system structure is frequently obscured. This is mostly the case due to purely formal, i.e. informal, calculations performed under unclear assumptions in the modeling process. To address rigorous ways to produce equations equivalent to evo-systems we recall the following linear algebra terminology.
If continuous, linear Hilbert space bijections $\mathcal{W},\mathcal{V}$ exist such that $$\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{V},$$ then $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are called equivalent. If $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{W}^{*}$ then $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are called congruent. If $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{W}^{-1}$ then $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are called similar. If $\mathcal{V},\mathcal{W}$ are unitary then $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are called unitarily equivalent, unitarily congruent (or unitarily similar), respectively.
\[rem:If-continuous,-linear\]Equivalence in the stated sense preserves Hadamard well-posedness.[^2] For an equivalent equation it may, however, be hard to detect further structural properties, since for example (skew-)selfadjointness gets easily lost in the process.
In contrast, *spatial congruence*, i.e. *$\mathcal{W}$* only acts on the spatial Hilbert space $H$, is, if lifted to the time-dependent case, a structure preserving operation for evo-systems. Indeed, for $\mathcal{W}:H\to X$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}F & = & \mathcal{W}\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A\right)\mathcal{W}^{*}\left(\left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}U\right)\\
& = & \left(\partial_{0}\mathcal{W}M_{0}\mathcal{W}^{*}+\mathcal{W}M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\mathcal{W}^{*}+\mathcal{W}A\mathcal{W}^{*}\right)\left(\left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}U\right)\end{aligned}$$ where now $\mathcal{W}A\mathcal{W}^{*}$ is still skew-selfadjoint and $\mathcal{W}M_{0}\mathcal{W}^{*}$ is still selfadjoint. Assuming that holds, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle U|\nu\mathcal{W}M_{0}\mathcal{W}^{*}U+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\left(\mathcal{W}M_{1}\left(0\right)\mathcal{W}^{*}\right)U\right\rangle _{X} & = & \left\langle \mathcal{W}^{*}U|\left(\nu M_{0}+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\left(M_{1}\left(0\right)\right)\right)\mathcal{W}^{*}U\right\rangle _{H}\\
& \geq & c_{0}\left\langle \mathcal{W}^{*}U|\mathcal{W}^{*}U\right\rangle _{H}\\
& \geq & c_{0}\left\Vert \left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}\right\Vert ^{-2}\left\langle U|U\right\rangle _{X}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle U|U\right\rangle _{X} & = & \left\langle \left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}\mathcal{W}^{*}U|\left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}\mathcal{W}^{*}U\right\rangle _{X}\\
& \leq & \left\Vert \left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}\right\Vert ^{2}\left\langle \mathcal{W}^{*}U|\mathcal{W}^{*}U\right\rangle _{H}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, remains satisfied, i.e. $\left(\partial_{0}\mathcal{W}M_{0}\mathcal{W}^{*}+\mathcal{W}M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\mathcal{W}^{*}+\mathcal{W}A\mathcal{W}^{*}\right)$ is an evo-system operator in $H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},X\right)$, where we originally had an evo-system in $H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},H\right)$.
\[sec:The-Evo-System-of\]The Evo-System of Piezo-Electro-Magnetism
==================================================================
\[subsec:The-Basic-System\]The Basic System
-------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ be an arbitrary non-empty open set. The system of Piezo-Electro-Magnetism in a medium occupying $\Omega$ is a coupled system consisting of the equation of elasticity and Maxwell’s equations. The equation of elasticity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{0}^{2}{\varrho}_{\ast}u-{\operatorname{Div}}T & =F_{0},\label{eq:elasticity}\end{aligned}$$ where $u:\mathbb{R}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{3}$ describes the displacement of the elastic body $\Omega,$ $T:\mathbb{R}\times\Omega\to\mathrm{sym}\left[\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}\right]$ denotes the stress tensor, which is assumed to attain values in the space of symmetric matrices. The function ${\varrho}_{\ast}:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ stands for the density of $\Omega$ and $F_{0}:\mathbb{R}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is an external force term. Maxwell’s equations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{0}B+{\operatorname{curl}}E & =F_{1},\nonumber \\
\partial_{0}D-{\operatorname{curl}}H & =-J_{0}-\sigma E.\label{eq:Maxwell}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $B,D,E,H:\mathbb{R}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{3}$ denote the magnetic flux density, the electric displacement, the electric field and the magnetic field, respectively. The functions $J_{0},F_{1}:\mathbb{R}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{3}$ are given source terms and $\sigma:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}$ denotes the resistance tensor. Of course, all these equations need to be completed by suitably modified material laws, where also the coupling will occur. As it will turn out, the system can be written in the following abstract form $$\begin{array}{r}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -{\operatorname{Div}}& 0 & 0\\
-{\operatorname{Grad}}& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{curl}}\\
0 & 0 & {\operatorname{curl}}& 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)=\\
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
G_{0}\\
-J_{0}\\
F_{1}
\end{array}\right),
\end{array}\label{eq:system}$$ for a suitable bounded operator $M_{0}$ and a uniformly bounded rational operator family $\left(M_{1}\left(z\right)\right)_{z\in U}$, $U$ a neighborhood of zero, on the Hilbert space $H:=L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\oplus\mathrm{sym}\left[L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right]\oplus L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\oplus L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}$. Here, $v:=\partial_{0}u$.
Of course, we also need to impose boundary constraints. To make this precise, we need to properly define the spatial differential operators.
We denote by ${\Circ{C}}_{\infty}(\Omega)$ the space of arbitrarily differentiable functions with compact support in $\Omega.$ Then we define the operator ${\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}$ as the closure of $$\begin{aligned}
{\Circ{C}}_{\infty}(\Omega)^{3}\subseteq L^{2}(\Omega)^{3} & \to L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\\
(\phi_{1},\phi_{2},\phi_{3}) & \mapsto\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -\partial_{3} & \partial_{2}\\
\partial_{3} & 0 & -\partial_{1}\\
-\partial_{2} & \partial_{1} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi_{1}\\
\phi_{2}\\
\phi_{3}
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and ${\operatorname{curl}}:=\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}\right)^{\ast}\supseteq{\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}.$ We also define ${\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}$ and ${\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}$ as the closures of $$\begin{aligned}
{\Circ{C}}_{\infty}(\Omega)^{3}\subseteq L^{2}(\Omega)^{3} & \to\mathrm{sym}\left[L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right]\\
(\phi_{1},\phi_{2},\phi_{3}) & \mapsto\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{j}\phi_{i}+\partial_{i}\phi_{j}\right)_{i,j\in\{1,2,3\}}\end{aligned}$$ and of $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{sym}\left[{\Circ{C}}_{\infty}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right]\subseteq\mathrm{sym}\left[L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right] & \to L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\\
(\phi_{ij})_{i,j\in\{1,2,3\}} & \mapsto\left(\sum_{j=1}^{3}\partial_{j}\phi_{ij}\right)_{i\in\{1,2,3\}},\end{aligned}$$ respectively, and set ${\operatorname{Grad}}:=-\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}\right)^{\ast}$ as well as ${\operatorname{Div}}:=-\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\right)^{\ast}.$ Here $L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}$ has a Hilbert space structure unitarily equivalent to $L^{2}(\Omega)^{9}$. Elements in the domain of the operators marked by a overset circle satisfy an abstract homogeneous boundary condition, which, in case of a sufficiently smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$ (e.g. a Lipschitz boundary), can be written as $$u=0\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega$$ for $u\in D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}})$, $$Tn=0\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega$$ for $T\in D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}),$ where $n$ denotes the exterior unit normal vector field on $\partial\Omega$ and $$E\times n=0\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega,$$ for $E\in D({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}).$
Not to incur unnecessary constraints on the boundary quality we shall, however, use the generalized homogeneous boundary conditions of containment in $D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}),\:D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}),\:D({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}})$, respectively.
For sake of definiteness we shall focus for now on the classical Dirichlet case: $n\times E=0$, $v=0$ on the boundary $\partial\Omega$, i.e. in generalized terms on the system $$\begin{array}{r}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -{\operatorname{Div}}& 0 & 0\\
-{\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{curl}}\\
0 & 0 & {\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)=\\
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
G_{0}\\
-J_{0}\\
F_{1}
\end{array}\right).
\end{array}\label{eq:Dirichlet-evo}$$ We still need to specify the material law of interest.
\[subsec:The-Material-Relations\]The Material Relations of Piezo-Electro-Magnetism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we discuss material relations suggested in [@mindlin1974] and derive the structure of the corresponding operators $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$. Furthermore, we give sufficient conditions on the parameters involved to warrant the solvability condition (\[eq:pos-def11\]).\
The material relations described in [@mindlin1974] are initially given (ignoring for simplicity thermal couplings) in the form (where we write $\mathcal{E}={\operatorname{Grad}}u$ as usual for the strain tensor) $$\begin{aligned}
T & = & C\:\mathcal{E}-eE,\\
D & = & e^{*}\mathcal{E}+{\varepsilon}E,\\
B & = & \mu\,H.\end{aligned}$$ Here $C\in L\left(\mathrm{sym}\left[L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right]\right)$ is the (invertible) elasticity “tensor”[^3], $\varepsilon,\mu\in L\left(L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\right)$ are the permittivity and permeability, respectively, all assumed to be selfadjoint and non-negative. The notation $L\left(X_{0},X_{1}\right)$ is used to denote the Banach space of continuous linear mappings from the Hilbert space $X_{0}$ to the Hilbert space $X_{1}$. In the case $X_{0}=X_{1}$ we write, as done here, more concisely $L\left(X_{0}\right)$. The operator $$e\in L\left(L^{2}(\Omega)^{3},\mathrm{sym}\left[L^{2}(\Omega)^{3\times3}\right]\right)$$ acts as a coupling “parameter”. To adapt the material relations to our framework we solve for $\mathcal{E}$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E} & = & C^{-1}T+C^{-1}eE,\\
D & = & e^{*}C^{-1}T+\left({\varepsilon}+e^{*}C^{-1}e\right)E,\\
B & = & \mu\:H.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we arrive at a material law equation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\varrho}_{*}v\\
\mathcal{E}\\
D\\
B
\end{array}\right) & = & M_{0}\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)+\partial_{0}^{-1}M_{1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{array}{rcl}
M_{0} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
{\varrho}_{*} & 0 & 0 & \quad0\\
0 & C^{-1} & C^{-1}e & \quad0\\
0 & e^{*}C^{-1} & {\varepsilon}+e^{*}C^{-1}e & \quad0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \quad\mu
\end{array}\right),\\
M_{1} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \sigma & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right).
\end{array}\label{eq:m01}$$ Here $\sigma\in L\left(L^{2}(\Omega)^{3}\right)$ represents an additional conductivity coefficient.\
We need to ensure the solvability condition (\[eq:pos-def11\]) with these material relations to obtain our first result.
Assume that ${\varrho}_{\ast},\varepsilon,\mu,C$ are selfadjoint and non-negative. Furthermore, we assume ${\varrho}_{\ast},\mu,C\gg0$ and $\nu{\varepsilon}+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\sigma\gg0$ uniformly for all sufficiently large $\nu\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ . Then, $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ given by satisfy the condition and hence, the corresponding problem of piezo-electro-magnetism is a well-posed evo-system.
Obviously, $M_{0}$ is selfadjoint. Moreover, since ${\varrho}_{\ast},{\varepsilon},\mu\gg0$, the only thing, which is left to show, is that
$$\nu\left(\begin{array}{cc}
C^{-1} & C^{-1}e\\
e^{\ast}C^{-1} & \varepsilon+e^{\ast}C^{-1}e
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & {\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\sigma
\end{array}\right)\gg0$$ for all sufficiently large $\nu.$ By symmetric Gauss steps as congruence transformations we get that the above operator is congruent to $$\nu\left(\begin{array}{cc}
C^{-1} & 0\\
0 & \varepsilon
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & {\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\sigma
\end{array}\right).$$
The latter operator is then strictly positive definite by assumption and so the assertion follows.
\[sec:Inhomogeneous-Boundary-Condition\]Inhomogeneous Boundary Conditions
=========================================================================
Boundary Data Spaces
--------------------
Using that domains of closed, linear Hilbert space operators are themselves in a canonical sense Hilbert spaces with respect to the associated graph inner product we see that with $$\begin{aligned}
D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}) & \subseteq D({\operatorname{Grad}}),\\
D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}) & \subseteq D({\operatorname{Div}}),\\
D({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}) & \subseteq D({\operatorname{curl}}),\end{aligned}$$ we may consider the ortho-complements of the vanishing boundary data spaces $D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}})$, $D({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}})$, $D({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}})$ in the larger Hilbert spaces $D({\operatorname{Grad}})$, $D({\operatorname{Div}})$, $D({\operatorname{curl}})$, respectively. Prescribing boundary data for $D({\operatorname{Grad}})$, $D({\operatorname{Div}})$, $D({\operatorname{curl}})$ can now be done conveniently by choosing elements of these ortho-complements, which are $$N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right),\:N\left(1-{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\right),\:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right),$$ respectively. If $\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}$, $\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}$, $\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}$ denote the canonical isometric, embeddings (i.e. via the identity) of these null spaces into $D({\operatorname{Grad}})$, $D({\operatorname{Div}})$, $D({\operatorname{curl}})$, respectively, then $\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}$, $\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}$, $\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}$ perform the orthogonal projection[^4] onto the respective null spaces. With $$\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}:=\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}{\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}},\;\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}:=\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}},\:\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}:=\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}},$$ we get that these are unitary mappings and $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*} & = & \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}},\\
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*} & = & -\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that in contrast we have for example in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ $${\operatorname{Grad}}^{*}=-{\operatorname{Div}},\:{\operatorname{curl}}^{*}={\operatorname{curl}}.$$ This apparent contrast stems from the different choice of inner product with respect to which the adjoints are constructed. To understand this point let us recall from [@bath49528] the case of $\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)\to N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ (the argument for $\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}$ being analogous). As a closed subspace of the Hilbert space $D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ the inner product of $N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ is the graph inner product of ${\operatorname{curl}}$ and so – indicating inner product by the respective spaces – we have for all $\phi,\psi\in N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)$, i.e. with ${\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\phi=-\phi$ and $\psi=-{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\psi$, indeed that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\phi|\psi\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)} & = & \left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\phi|\psi\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& = & \left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\phi|\psi\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& \coloneqq & \left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\phi|\psi\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\Omega\right)^{3}}+\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\psi\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\Omega\right)^{3}}\\
& = & -\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\phi|{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\psi\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\Omega\right)^{3}}-\left\langle \phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\psi\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\Omega\right)^{3}}\\
& = & -\left\langle \phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\psi\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& = & -\left\langle \phi|\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\psi\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& = & -\left\langle \phi|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\psi\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
\[subsec:Inhomogeneous-Initial-Boundary\]Inhomogeneous Initial Boundary Value Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above boundary space set-up we can for example discuss now inhomogeneous boundary conditions in the sense that we are looking for a solution $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -{\operatorname{Div}}& 0 & 0\\
-{\operatorname{Grad}}& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{curl}}\\
0 & 0 & {\operatorname{curl}}& 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)=\label{eq:inhom-evo}\\
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
G_{0}\\
-J_{0}\\
F_{1}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{array}{rcl}
v-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}} & \in & H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\right)\right)\cap H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\right),\\
E-\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}} & \in & H_{\nu,-1}\left(\mathbb{R},D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}\right)\right)\cap H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\right),
\end{array}\label{eq:inhom-bc}$$ where $$\begin{array}{rcl}
v_{\dot{\Omega}} & \in & H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)\right),\\
E_{\dot{\Omega}} & \in & H_{\nu,1}\left(\mathbb{R},N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)\right),
\end{array}\label{eq:bdata}$$ are given (generalized) boundary data. The solution theory of this problem can be obtained from solving the evo-system $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -{\operatorname{Div}}& 0 & 0\\
-{\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{curl}}\\
0 & 0 & {\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}}\\
T\\
E-\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}}\\
H
\end{array}\right)=\\
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
G_{0}\\
-J_{0}\\
F_{1}
\end{array}\right)-\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}}\\
0\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}}\\
0
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\:v_{\dot{\Omega}}\\
0\\
-\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:E_{\dot{\Omega}}
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}} & =\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}{\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}},\\
& ={\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}v_{\dot{\Omega}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}} & =\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}},\\
& ={\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}E_{\dot{\Omega}}.\end{aligned}$$
A similar approach can be used to implement initial conditions by simply solving the evo-system[^5] $$\begin{array}{r}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A\right)U=\\
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
G_{0}\\
-J_{0}\\
F_{1}
\end{array}\right)-M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\left(\chi_{_{{\left]0,\infty \right[}}}\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{0}\\
T_{0}\\
E_{0}\\
H_{0}
\end{array}\right)\right)+\chi_{_{{\left]0,\infty \right[}}}\otimes A\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{0}\\
T_{0}\\
E_{0}\\
H_{0}
\end{array}\right),
\end{array}$$ where $$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -{\operatorname{Div}}& 0 & 0\\
-{\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{\operatorname{curl}}\\
0 & 0 & {\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}} & 0
\end{array}\right)$$ and $M_{0}\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{0}\\
T_{0}\\
E_{0}\\
H_{0}
\end{array}\right)$ with $\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{0}\\
T_{0}\\
E_{0}\\
H_{0}
\end{array}\right)\in D\left(A\right)$ describe the initial data. The desired solution $\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)$ can now be easily reconstructed from $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
T\\
E\\
H
\end{array}\right)=U+\chi_{_{{\left]0,\infty \right[}}}\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{0}\\
T_{0}\\
E_{0}\\
H_{0}
\end{array}\right).$$ It is for this reason that we have simplified the discussion to vanishing initial data, compare [@PDE_DeGruyter Chapter 6].
\[subsec:Leontovich-Type-Boundary\]Leontovich Type Boundary Conditions as Dynamics on Boundary Data Spaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Translating Particular Model Boundary Conditions
We recall from [@zbMATH05929394] the two boundary conditions:
$$\begin{aligned}
n\times H_{t}-n\times Q^{*}v+E_{t} & =0\text{ on }\partial\Omega,\\
Tn-Q\left(n\times E_{t}\right)+\left(1+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)v & =0\text{ on }\partial\Omega,\end{aligned}$$
where $E_{t},\:H_{t}$ denote the tangential components of $E,\:H$, respectively, and $Q$, $\alpha$ are certain matrix-valued functions.
With $n\times$ replaced by $\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}$, $Tn$ by $\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T$ and $E_{t},\:H_{t}$ replaced by $\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E,\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H$, we get
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H-\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v+\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E & = & 0\\
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T-Q\;\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E+\left(1+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v & = & 0
\end{array}\label{eq:bc}$$
In this now $$\begin{aligned}
Q:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right) & \to & N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)\\
\alpha:N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right) & \to & N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ are boundary operators. This translation yields boundary conditions which are in a form that allows again generalization to arbitrary non-empty open sets for $\Omega$, which is one of our main goals here.
To motivate this translation process we note that for all $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}=\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{0}+\nonumber \\
& +\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{0}\label{eq:curl-BT}\\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{0}-\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{0}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \Phi|{\operatorname{curl}}\:H\right\rangle _{0}-\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\Phi|\:H\right\rangle _{0}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \Phi|n\times H\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|\left(\gamma_{n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|R_{X}\left(\gamma_{n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{X}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi|\left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)^{*}R_{X}\left(\gamma_{n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H & = & \left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)^{*}R_{X}\left(\gamma_{n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\\
R_{X}^{*}\left(\left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H & = & \left(\gamma_{n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H\\
& = & \gamma_{n\times}H\end{aligned}$$
Here $R_{X}:Y\to X$ denotes the associated Riesz mapping and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{-n\times n\times}:D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right) & \to & X\\
\gamma_{n\times}:D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right) & \to & Y\end{aligned}$$ are suitable continuous boundary trace surjections with $X,Y$ being $L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)$-dual Hilbert spaces (we avoid the intricate details here, see e.g. [@zbMATH01866780], for more specifics) and $$N\left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\right)=N\left(\gamma_{n\times}\right)=D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}\right).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right) & \to & X\\
\gamma_{n\times}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right) & \to & Y\end{aligned}$$ are continuous bijections.
Similarly, for all $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}=\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{0}\nonumber \\
& +\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{0}\label{eq:Grad-Div-BT}\\
& =\left\langle \Phi|{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{0}+\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\Phi|\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{0}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \Phi|{\operatorname{Div}}\:T\right\rangle _{0}+\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\Phi|\:T\right\rangle _{0}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \Phi|Tn\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|\left(\gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|R_{{\widetilde}{X}}\left(\gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{{\widetilde}{X}}\nonumber \\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi|\left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)^{*}R_{{\widetilde}{X}}\left(\gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}} & = & \left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)^{*}R_{{\widetilde}{X}}\left(\gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\right)\\
R_{{\widetilde}{X}}^{*}\left(\left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T & = & \left(\gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\\
& = & \gamma_{\,\cdot\:n}T\end{aligned}$$ Here $R_{{\widetilde}{X}}:{\widetilde}{Y}\to{\widetilde}{X}$ denotes the corresponding associated Riesz mapping and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{1}:D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right) & \to & {\widetilde}{X}\\
\gamma_{\cdot\:n}:D\left({\operatorname{Div}}\right) & \to & {\widetilde}{Y}\end{aligned}$$ are suitable continuous boundary trace surjections with ${\widetilde}{X},{\widetilde}{Y}$ being $L^{2}\left(\partial\Omega\right)$-dual Hilbert spaces and $$N\left(\gamma_{1}\right)=D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\right),\:N\left(\gamma_{\cdot\:n}\right)=D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}\right).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}:N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right) & \to & {\widetilde}{X}\\
\gamma_{\cdot\:n}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}:N\left(1-{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\right) & \to & {\widetilde}{Y}\end{aligned}$$ are continuous bijections.
Both instances are showing a close, formal connection, which we have taken as a justification for the proposed generalization for boundary terms.
### An Evo-System Set-Up
We shall, however, implement the boundary constraints not as typical boundary conditions but by appending, in the spirit of abstract ${\operatorname{grad}}-{\operatorname{div}}$ - systems, see [@Picard20164888], the differential equations in $\Omega$ by dynamical equations on the boundary spaces. Hence, we consider a system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\\
E\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right) & =\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{0}\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
G_{0}\\
g_{0}
\end{array}\right)\\
-J_{0}\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
F_{1}\\
f_{1}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*} & 0 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 0 & \quad-\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right)$$ is by construction – as desired – skew-selfadjoint and $M_{0}$, $M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)$ are to be specified later.
To analyze the operator $A$ closer we need to obtain a better understanding of $\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}$ and $\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}$. We first observe that $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\\
0
\end{array}\right)\subseteq\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right),\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}\\
0
\end{array}\right)\subseteq\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right),$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*} & \subseteq\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\\
0
\end{array}\right)^{*}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\operatorname{Div}}& \:0\end{array}\right),\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*} & \subseteq\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\Circ{{\operatorname{curl}}}}\\
0
\end{array}\right)^{*}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\operatorname{curl}}& \:0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for all $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)$ and $\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\in D\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle -{\operatorname{Grad}}\Phi\Big|T\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\tau_{T}\right\rangle & =\left\langle \left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)\Phi\Big|\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \Phi\Big|\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}T\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\Phi\Big|T\right\rangle +\left\langle \Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}T\right\rangle =0$$ for $\Phi\in D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Grad}}}}\right)$ or $T\in D\left({\Circ{{\operatorname{Div}}}}\right)$ we have for $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)$ and $T\in D\left({\operatorname{Div}}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\Phi\Big|T\right\rangle +\left\langle \Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}T\right\rangle =\\
& & =\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}\right)T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle \left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\right)\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}\right)T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\right)\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle \left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\right)\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}\right)T\right\rangle +\\
& & +\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\right)\Phi\Big|\left(1-\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}\right)T\right\rangle \\
& & =\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle \end{aligned}$$ and recalling we calculate with this for all $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)$ and $\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\in D\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}
-{\operatorname{Grad}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\right)\subseteq D\left({\operatorname{Div}}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\tau_{T}\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}=\\
& =\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle ,\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle +\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle ,\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{Grad}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{Div}}\right)}+\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{Grad}}\right)},\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}{\operatorname{Grad}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\right)}+\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}{\operatorname{Div}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)},\\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\tau_{T}=\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{Div}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*}T.$$ Similarly, we find for all $\Phi\in D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ and $\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)\in D\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\right)\subseteq D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\Phi\Big|E\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\tau_{H}\right\rangle & _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}=\left\langle \left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)\Phi\Big|\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \Phi\Big|\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\operatorname{curl}}\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}
\end{array}\right)^{*}\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}H\right\rangle \end{aligned}$$ leading with to
$$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\tau_{H}\right\rangle _{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}=\\
& =-\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle +\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle \\
& =-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle +\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle +\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle +\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle \\
& =-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)}+\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|{\operatorname{curl}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle _{D\left({\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& =-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}+\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\\
& =\left\langle \iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}\Phi\Big|\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\right\rangle _{N\left(1-{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}\end{aligned}$$
and so $$\tau_{H}=\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}H.$$ With this the boundary constraints take the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{H}-\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:Q^{*}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v+\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E & =0,\\
\tau_{T}-Q\;\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E+\left(1+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v & =0,\end{aligned}$$
or
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\tau_{H}\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\;Q^{*}\\
-Q\;\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \left(1+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v
\end{array}\right)=0.$$ We calculate
$$\begin{aligned}
& \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\\
-Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \left(1+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)
\end{array}\right)^{-1}=\\
& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}\\
\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$
and thus obtain equivalently $$\begin{array}{l}
S\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\tau_{H}\\
\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}E\\
\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*}v
\end{array}\right)=0.\end{array}\label{eq:beq}$$ with $S\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)$ given by $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}\\
\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right).$$ We are now ready to formulate the material law operators $$M_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
{\varrho}_{*} & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 0 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
C^{-1} & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
C^{-1}e & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\\
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & {\varepsilon}+e^{*}C^{-1}e & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{*}C^{-1} & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mu & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right) & =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & M_{1,22}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & -M_{1,24}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)\\
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & \sigma & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & M_{1,42}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & M_{1,44}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $$M_{1,44}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 1+\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}
\end{array}\right)$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,42}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right) & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & \left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}Q\;\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}
\end{array}\right)\\
M_{1,24}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right) & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$
$$M_{1,22}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & \left(1+QQ^{*}+\alpha\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right).$$
Assume that ${\varrho}_{\ast},\varepsilon,\mu,C$ are selfadjoint and non-negative, $Q:N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)\to N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)$. Furthermore, we assume ${\varrho}_{\ast},\mu,C\gg0$ and $\nu{\varepsilon}+{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\sigma\gg0$ uniformly for all sufficiently large $\nu\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$. Then, $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)$ satisfy the condition (\[eq:pos-def11\]) and hence, the corresponding problem of piezo-electricity with dynamics on the boundary data space is also a well-posed evo-system.
Obviously, $M_{0}$ is selfadjoint. Moreover, since
$$\nu\left(\begin{array}{cc}
C^{-1} & C^{-1}e\\
e^{\ast}C^{-1} & \varepsilon+e^{\ast}C^{-1}e
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & {\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\sigma
\end{array}\right)\gg0$$ uniformly for all sufficiently large $\nu\in{\left]0,\infty \right[}$ , the assertion follows.
Indeed, noting that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}S\left(0\right)=\\
={\operatorname{\mathfrak{Re}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}\:Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \quad\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}\\
\left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & \left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right),\\
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\overset{\bullet}{1+{\operatorname{curl}}}Q^{*}\left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}Q\overset{\bullet}{{\operatorname{curl}}} & 0\\
0 & \left(1+QQ^{*}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\geq1\end{aligned}$$ the desired result follows from the general result of Theorem \[thm:well-posed\].
1. For simplicity we have assumed that there is no thermal interaction. There is, however, no major obstacle to incorporate such interaction along the lines of [@MMA:MMA3866]. Similarly, more complex boundary constraints of abstract ${\operatorname{grad}}-{\operatorname{div}}$-type could be implemented following the lead of the present framework.
2. Although we have merely generalized a known model system, it is clear from the set-up that more complicated situations are easily incorporated. For example
1. apart from the generalized coefficients we can of course allow inhomogeneous data with no extra provision, since the “boundary conditions” are built into the system as part of the evo-system,
2. the material laws can be even more general as long as requirement remains satisfied.
3. As stated in Remark \[rem:If-continuous,-linear\], equivalence is a common way of obscuring the basic structure of evo-systems. In the above we have in fact encountered such a situation.\
If we may assume that boundary trace mappings are available, another pertinent case is given in our present context by $$\mathcal{W}\left(\partial_{0}M_{0}+M_{1}\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)+A\right)\mathcal{V}\left(\mathcal{V}^{-1}U\right)=\mathcal{W}F$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 0 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & \gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\\
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 1 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & \gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right),\\
\mathcal{V} & = & \mathcal{W}^{*}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 0 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & R_{{\widetilde}{X}}
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\\
0 & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right) & 1 & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\end{array}\right)\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) & \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}\right) & \quad\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & R_{X}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The unknown is $$\mathcal{V}^{-1}U=\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
R_{{\widetilde}{X}}^{*}\left(\left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\\
E\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
R_{X}^{*}\left(\left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{Y}\right)$$ with $$\mathcal{Y}=L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\oplus\left(L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathrm{sym}\left[\mathbb{C}^{3\times3}\right]\right)\oplus{\widetilde}{Y}\right)\oplus L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\oplus\left(L^{2}\left(\Omega,\left[\mathbb{C}^{3}\right]\right)\oplus Y\right)$$ and $\mathcal{W}F\in H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{X}\right)$ with $$\mathcal{X}=L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\oplus\left(L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathrm{sym}\left[\mathbb{C}^{3\times3}\right]\right)\oplus{\widetilde}{X}\right)\oplus L^{2}\left(\Omega,\mathbb{C}^{3}\right)\oplus\left(L^{2}\left(\Omega,\left[\mathbb{C}^{3}\right]\right)\oplus X\right).$$ This is now the corresponding situation utilizing classical boundary trace spaces. To obtain a structure preserving congruence we could instead replace $\mathcal{V}$ by $\mathcal{W}^{*}$ in which case $$\left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{*}U=\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
T\\
\left(\left(\gamma_{1}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\tau_{T}
\end{array}\right)\\
E\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
H\\
\left(\left(\gamma_{-n\times n\times}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\right)^{-1}\right)^{*}\tau_{H}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{X}\right)$$ is now the new unknown.
Summary
=======
We have generalized a piezo-electromagnetism model with Dirichlet type boundary conditions to arbitrary non-empty open sets, as well as to include operator coefficients, indeed to general material laws. The resulting evo-system in a non-empty open set $\Omega$ and on boundary data spaces, which includes inhomogeneous volume and boundary data, has been investigated for evolutionary well-posedness, i.e. Hadamard well-posedness and causality. Based on this the model has been extended to include also a Leontovich type boundary coupling via an additional set of dynamic equations on spaces characterizing boundary data.
[10]{} Well-Posedness of Initial-Boundary Value Problems for Piezoelectric Equations, [*Applicable Analysis,*]{}**81**, 129–141, (2002).
K. [Ammari]{} and S. [Nicaise]{}. , 73(3):125–146, (2011).
A. [Buffa]{}, M. [Costabel]{}, and D. [Sheen]{}. , 276(2):845–867, (2002).
Equations Of High Frequency Vibrations of Thermo-Piezoelectric Crystal Plates, [*Intl. J. Solids& Structures,*]{} 10, 625–637, (1974).
A. J. Mulholland, R. Picard, S. Trostorff, and M. Waurick. On well-posedness for some thermo-piezoelectric coupling models. , , vol. 39(15), pp. 4375–4384, (2016).
R. Picard. , 32(14):1768–1803, (2009).
R. Picard and D. F. McGhee., volume 55 of [*[De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics]{}*]{}., (2011).
R. Picard, St. Seidler, S. Trostorff, and M. Waurick. On abstract grad-div systems. , 260(6):4888 – 4917, (2016).
R. Picard, S. Trostorff, and M. Waurick. On a comprehensive class of linear control problems. , 33(2):257–291, (2016).
Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducers with Fractal Geometry, [*Fractals,*]{} 19(4), 469–479, (2011).
[^1]: Here $\chi_{_{I}}\left(m_{0}\right)$ denotes the temporal cut-off by the characteristic function of $I$ $$\left(\chi_{_{I}}\left(m_{0}\right)f\right)\left(t\right)=\begin{cases}
f\left(t\right) & \text{ for }t\in I\text{,}\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
[^2]: This fact is actually the reason for the choice of the term “equivalence”.
[^3]: Since every linear mapping $F:X\to Y$ can be interpreted as a bilinear functional $\left(\left(x,y\right)\mapsto y\left(Fx\right)\right)\in\left(X\otimes Y^{\prime}\right)^{\prime}$ the term tensor for $C$ is not completely misplaced. It supports, however, a common misunderstanding that $C$ is considered to be a tensor *field*, where it is indeed just a *mapping* between symmetric tensor field. The mapping $C$ can only be considered as a tensor field if we would restrict our attention to multiplicative mappings, i.e. $$\left(C\mathcal{E}\right)\left(x\right)\coloneqq{\widetilde}{C}\left(x\right)\mathcal{E}\left(x\right)\:a.e.$$ for an $L^{\infty}$-function ${\widetilde}{C}$ from $\Omega$ to $L\left(\mathrm{sym}\left[\mathbb{R}^{3\times3}\right]\right)$, which expressly we do not want to limit ourselves to, then $C$ itself could also be *interpreted* as a tensor field $\left(C_{ij}^{\:\;\;kl}\left(x\right)\right)_{i,j,k,l}$ so that $$\left(C\mathcal{E}\right)\left(x\right)=\left(C_{ij}^{\:\;\;kl}\left(x\right)\mathcal{E}_{kl}\left(x\right)\right)_{i,j}.$$ Since $C$ is supposed to map symmetric tensor fields to symmetric tensor fields we must have – in this case – the well-known symmetry relations for the real-valued functions ($g$ denotes the metric tensor) $$C^{ijkl}\left(x\right)\coloneqq\sum_{s,t=1}^{3}g^{is}\left(x\right)g^{jt}\left(x\right)C_{st}^{\:\;\;kl}\left(x\right)\:a.e.\,,\;i,j,k,l=1,2,3,$$ namely that $$C^{ijkl}\left(x\right)=C^{ijlk}\left(x\right)=C^{jikl}\left(x\right)\:a.e.\,,\;i,j,k,l=1,2,3.$$ The also assumed selfadjointness of $C$ clearly results in another set of symmetry relations $$C^{ijkl}\left(x\right)=C^{klij}\left(x\right)\:a.e.\,,\;i,j,k,l=1,2,3,$$ which is like-wise a standard requirement in this context.
[^4]: The more familiar corresponding orthogonal projectors from the projection theorem context are $$P_{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Div}}{\operatorname{Grad}}\right)}=\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Grad}}}^{*},\;P_{N\left(1-{\operatorname{Grad}}{\operatorname{Div}}\right)}=\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{Div}}}^{*},\;P_{N\left(1+{\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{curl}}\right)}=\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}\iota_{{\operatorname{curl}}}^{*}.$$
[^5]: Here $\left(\chi_{_{{\left]0,\infty \right[}}}\otimes U_{0}\right)\::=\chi_{_{{\left]0,\infty \right[}}}\left(t\right)\;U_{0}$ for $t\in\mathbb{R}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a number of new results on one of the most extensively studied topics in computational geometry, orthogonal range searching. All our results are in the standard word RAM model:
1. We present two data structures for 2-d orthogonal range emptiness. The first achieves $O(n\lg\lg n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n)$ query time, assuming that the $n$ given points are in rank space. This improves the previous results by Alstrup, Brodal, and Rauhe (FOCS’00), with $O(n\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n)$ query time, or with $O(n\lg\lg n)$ space and $O(\lg^2\lg n)$ query time. Our second data structure uses $O(n)$ space and answers queries in $O(\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ time. The best previous $O(n)$-space data structure, due to Nekrich (WADS’07), answers queries in $O(\lg n/\lg \lg n)$ time.
2. We give a data structure for 3-d orthogonal range reporting with $O(n\lg^{1+{\varepsilon}} n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n + k)$ query time for points in rank space, for any constant ${\varepsilon}>0$. This improves the previous results by Afshani (ESA’08), Karpinski and Nekrich (COCOON’09), and Chan (SODA’11), with $O(n\lg^3 n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n + k)$ query time, or with $O(n\lg^{1+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and $O(\lg^2\lg n + k)$ query time. Consequently, we obtain improved upper bounds for orthogonal range reporting in all constant dimensions above 3.
Our approach also leads to a new data structure for 2-d orthogonal range minimum queries with $O(n\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n)$ query time for points in rank space.
3. We give a randomized algorithm for 4-d *offline* dominance range reporting/emptiness with running time $O(n{\lg}n)$ plus the output size. This resolves two open problems (both appeared in Preparata and Shamos’ seminal book):
1. given a set of $n$ axis-aligned rectangles in the plane, we can report all $k$ enclosure pairs (i.e., pairs $(r_1,r_2)$ where rectangle $r_1$ completely encloses rectangle $r_2$) in $O(n\lg n + k)$ expected time;
2. given a set of $n$ points in 4-d, we can find all maximal points (points not dominated by any other points) in $O(n\lg n)$ expected time.
The most recent previous development on (a) was reported back in SoCG’95 by Gupta, Janardan, Smid, and Dasgupta, whose main result was an $O([n\lg n + k]\lg\lg n)$ algorithm. The best previous result on (b) was an $O(n\lg n\lg\lg n)$ algorithm due to Gabow, Bentley, and Tarjan—from STOC’84! As a consequence, we also obtain the current-record time bound for the maxima problem in all constant dimensions above 4.
author:
- 'Timothy M. Chan[^1]'
- 'Kasper Green Larsen[^2]'
- 'Mihai Pǎtraşcu[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'ors.bib'
title: 'Orthogonal Range Searching on the RAM, Revisited'
---
Introduction
============
We revisit one of the most fundamental and well-studied classes of problems in computational geometry, orthogonal range searching. The goal of these problems is to preprocess a set of $n$ input points in $d$-dimensional space such that one can efficiently aggregate information about the points contained in an axis-aligned query rectangle or box. The most typical types of information computed include counting the number of points, computing their semigroup or group sum, determining emptiness, and reporting the points in the query range. These problems have been studied extensively for more than three decades, yet many questions have remained unresolved. See e.g. [@arge:indexandrange; @indexmodel; @subramanian:p-range; @afshani:dominance; @firstattempt; @Brodal00h; @McCreight; @Bentley.80; @Chazelle.functional; @Chazelle.filtering.search; @Chazelle.Guibas.fractional.I; @Chazelle.LB.reporting; @Chazelle.Guibas.fractional.II; @Chazelle.LB.II; @chazelle:offlinerangelb; @Lue; @Nekrich.SOCG07; @Makris.IPL98; @Jaja.ISAAC04; @Agarwal.Erickson.survey98; @Agarwal.survey04; @Fredman.LB.semigroup; @Willard.LB; @patrascu08structures; @Nekrich.COCOON] for just a fraction of the vast amount of publications on orthogonal range searching.
Recent papers [@AAL; @AAL2] have made progress on the pointer machine model and I/O model. In this paper, we study orthogonal range searching in the standard word RAM model, which is arguably the most natural and realistic model of computation to consider in internal memory. We obtain the best RAM upper bounds known to date for a number of problems, including: 2-d orthogonal range emptiness, 3-d orthogonal range reporting, and offline 4-d dominance range reporting.
Range Searching Data Structures
-------------------------------
In what follows, when stating data structure results, we assume that all input point sets are in *rank space*, i.e., they have coordinates on the integer grid $[n]^d=\{0,\dots,n-1\}^d$. This assumption is for convenience only: in a $w$-bit word RAM when all coordinates are in $[U]^d$ with $U=2^w$, we can always reduce to the rank-space ($U=n$) case by adding to the query time bound a term proportional to the cost of predecessor search [@mihai_pred], which is e.g. $O(\lg\lg U)$ by van Emde Boas trees [@vEB] or $O({\lg}_w n)$ by fusion trees [@FreWil]. After rank space reduction, all the algorithms mentioned use only RAM operations on integers of $O(\lg n)$ bits. (The predecessor lower bound holds even for range emptiness in 2-d, so the additive predecessor cost in the upper bound is optimal.)
#### Range reporting in 2-d.
The most basic version of orthogonal range searching is perhaps range reporting in 2-d (finding all points inside a query range). Textbook description of range trees [@PreShaBOOK] implies a solution with $O(n\lg n)$ space and $O(\lg n+k)$ query time, where $k$ denotes the output size of the query (i.e., the number of points reported). Surprisingly, the best space–query bound for this basic problem is still open. Chazelle [@Chazelle.functional] gave an $O(n)$-space data structure with $O(\lg n+ k\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ query time, which has been reduced slightly by Nekrich [@Nekrich:linear] to $O(\lg n/ \lg \lg n+ k\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$. (Throughout the paper, ${{\varepsilon}}>0$ denotes an arbitrarily small constant.) Overmars [@overmars] gave a method with $O(n\lg n)$ space and $O(\lg \lg n + k)$ query time. This query time is optimal for $O(n\lg^{O(1)}n)$-space structures in the cell probe model (even for range emptiness in the rank-space case), by reduction from colored predecessor search [@mihai_pred]. Alstrup, Brodal and Rauhe [@Brodal00h] presented two solutions, one achieving $O(n\lg^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and optimal $O(\lg \lg n+k)$ query time, and one with $O(n \lg \lg n)$ space and $O(\lg^2\lg n +k\lg\lg n)$ query time, both improving Chazelle’s earlier data structures [@Chazelle.functional] with the corresponding space bounds. In Section \[sec:2d\], we present two new solutions. Our first solution achieves $O(n\lg\lg n)$ space and $O((1+k)\lg\lg n)$ query time, thus strictly improving Alstrup et al.’s second structure. Secondly, we present an $O(n)$-space data structure with query time $O((1+k)\lg^{{\varepsilon}}n)$, significantly improving the first term of Nekrich’s result.
We can also solve range emptiness in 2-d (testing whether a query rectangle contains any input point) by setting $k=0$. Here, our results are the most attractive, improving on all previous results. For example, our method with $O(n\lg\lg n)$ space has optimal $O(\lg\lg n)$ query time, and simultaneously improves both of Alstrup et al.’s solutions ($O(n\lg^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and $O(\lg \lg n)$ time, or $O(n \lg \lg n)$ space and $O(\lg^2\lg n)$ time).
#### Range reporting in 3-d.
By a standard reduction, Alstrup et al.’s first 2-d result directly implies a data structure for 3-d orthogonal range reporting with space $O(n \lg^{1+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ and query time $O(\lg n+k)$; this improved an already long chain of previous work. Nekrich [@Nekrich.SOCG07] was the first to achieve sublogarithmic query time for 3-d orthogonal range reporting: his data structure has $O(n \lg^4 n)$ space and $O(\lg^2 \lg n+k)$ query time. Afshani [@afshani:dominance] subsequently improved the space to $O(n \lg^3 n)$ while maintaining the same $O(\lg^2 \lg n+k)$ query time. Karpinski and Nekrich [@Nekrich.COCOON] later reduced the space to $O(n \lg^{1+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ at the cost of increasing the query time to $O(\lg^3\lg n+k)$, by borrowing ideas of Alstrup et al. [@Brodal00h]. In these methods by Afshani [@afshani:dominance] and Karpinski and Nekrich [@Nekrich.COCOON], two of the $\lg\lg n$ factors come from orthogonal planar point location. By using the most recent result on orthogonal point location by Chan [@chan_pps], one of the $\lg\lg n$ factors can automatically be eliminated in all of these time bounds. This still leaves the query time of Karpinski and Nekrich’s structure at $O(\lg^2\lg n+k)$, however. In Section \[sec:3d\], we present a new method with $O(n\lg^{1+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ space and optimal $O(\lg\lg n +k)$ query time, simultaneously improving all previous methods that have linear dependence in $k$.[^4]
#### Range reporting in higher dimensions.
By a standard reduction, the previous 3-d results [@afshani:dominance; @Nekrich.COCOON; @chan_pps] imply data structures for $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting with $O(n\lg^d n)$ space and $O(\lg^{d-3}n \lg\lg n + k)$ query time, or $O(n\lg^{d-2+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ space and $O((\lg n/\lg\lg n)^{d-3}\lg^2\lg n +
k)$ query time for $d\ge 4$. Our result implies a $d$-dimensional data structure with $O(n\lg^{d-2+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ space and $O((\lg n/\lg\lg
n)^{d-3}\lg\lg n + k)$ query time. This query bound is the best known among all data structures with $O(n\lg^{O(1)}n)$ space; our space bound is the best known among all data structures with $O(\lg^{O(1)}n+k)$ query time.
The 4-d case is especially nice, as we get $O(n\lg^{2+{{\varepsilon}}}n)$ space and $O(\lg n + k)$ query time. This query time almost matches [Pǎtraşcu]{}’s $\Omega(\lg n/\lg\lg n)$ lower bound [@patrascu08structures] for $O(n\lg^{O(1)}n)$-space structures in the cell probe model for 4-d emptiness.
#### Range minimum in 2-d.
Our 3-d range reporting method can also be modified to give a new result for the 2-d range minimum query problem (see the appendix), with $O(n\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n)$ query time.
Offline Range Searching
-----------------------
Finally, in Section \[sec:offline\], we turn to [*offline*]{} (or [*batched*]{}) versions of orthogonal range searching where all queries are given in advance; the goal is to minimize the total time needed to answer all queries, including preprocessing. Offline problems are important, as efficient algorithms are often obtained through the use of efficient data structures in offline settings. Offline problems also raise new challenges, beyond simply the issue that preprocessing times sometimes get ignored in analysis of data structures in the literature. Interestingly, the complexity of offline problems may be fundamentally different from their online counterparts: examples include predecessor search (where the offline problem is related to integer sorting and can be solved in $O(\sqrt{\lg\lg n})$ expected time per query [@HanTho]), orthogonal 2-d range counting (where recently Chan and [Pǎtraşcu]{} [@ChaPatSODA10] have obtained an offline $O(\sqrt{\lg n})$ bound per query, better than the online $O(\lg n/\lg\lg n)$ bound), and nonorthogonal 2-d point location (where Chan and [Pǎtraşcu]{} [@ChaPatSTOC07] have obtained an offline $2^{O(\sqrt{\lg\lg n})}$ bound, better than the current online $O(\lg n/\lg\lg n)$ or $O(\sqrt{\lg U/\lg\lg U})$ bound [@ChaPatFOCS06]).
#### Offline dominance reporting in 4-d and the rectangle enclosure problem in 2-d.
Our main result on offline range searching is a new algorithm for the offline 4-d dominance reporting problem: given $n$ input points and $n$ query points, report for each query point $q$ all input points that are dominated by $q$. Here, $p=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)$ is [*dominated*]{} by $q=(a_1,\ldots,a_d)$ iff $x_i\le a_i$ for every $i$, i.e., $p$ lies inside the $d$-sided range $(-\infty,a_1]\times\cdots\times (-\infty,a_d]$ (an *orthant*). In other words, given $n$ red points and $n$ blue points, we want to report all pairs $(p,q)$ where the red point $p$ is dominated by the blue point $q$. We give a randomized algorithm that solves this problem in $O(n\lg n + k)$ expected time in 4-d, where $k$ denotes the total output size.
(Note that the best known online data structure for 4-d dominance reporting with $O(\lg n + k)$ query time requires $O(n\lg^{1+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and preprocessing time at least as big, and thus is not applicable here.)
In the literature, offline 4-d dominance reporting is studied under the guise of the 2-d [*rectangle enclosure*]{} problem: given $n$ rectangles in 2-d, report all pairs $(r_1,r_2)$ where rectangle $r_1$ completely encloses rectangle $r_2$. By mapping each rectangle to a point in 4-d, it is easy to see that the problem reduces to offline 4-d dominance reporting (in fact, it is equivalent to dominance reporting in the “monochromatic” case, where we equate the query point set with the input point set). This classical problem has the distinction of being the last problem covered in Preparata and Shamos’ standard textbook [@PreShaBOOK]. In the early 1980s, Vaishnavi and Wood [@VaiWoo] and Lee and Preparata [@LeePre] both gave $O(n\lg^2 n + k)$-time algorithms. The main result of a SoCG’95 paper by Gupta et al. [@GupSCG95] was an $O([n\lg n + k]\lg\lg n)$-time algorithm. An alternative algorithm by Lagogiannis et al. [@LaMaTs] obtained the same time bound. A number of researchers (the earliest seems to be Bentley and Wood [@BenWoo]) raised the question of finding an $O(n\lg n +k)$-time algorithm. Particularly frustrating is the fact that obtaining $O(n\lg n+k)$ time is easy for the similar-sounding [*rectangle intersection*]{} problem (reporting all pairs of intersecting rectangles). Our new randomized algorithm shows that the 2-d rectangle enclosure problem can be solved in $O(n\lg n + k)$ time, finally resolving a 3-decades-old question.
By a standard reduction, our result implies a randomized $O(n\lg^{d-3}n+k)$-time algorithm for offline dominance reporting for any constant dimension $d\ge 4$.
#### Offline dominance emptiness and the maxima problem.
Our algorithm can also solve the offline dominance emptiness problem in $O(n\lg^{d-3} n)$ expected time for any constant $d\ge 4$: here, given $n$ input points and $n$ query points, we want to decide for each query point $q$ whether some input point is dominated by $q$.
A notable application is the [*maxima*]{} problem: given $n$ points, identify all maximal points, i.e., points that are dominated by no other point. Like its cousin, the convex hull problem, this problem plays a fundamental role in computational geometry and is often used as examples to illustrate basic algorithmic techniques. It has many applications and is related to concepts from other fields (e.g., skyline queries in databases and Pareto optimality in economics). The earliest result for dimensions $d\ge 3$ was Kung, Luccio, and Preparata’s $O(n\lg^{d-2}n)$-time algorithm [@KuLuPr; @PreShaBOOK] from 1975. While progress has been made on probabilistic results for random point sets [@BeClLe; @ClaFOCS94; @Gol94], output-sensitive results [@ClaFOCS94; @KirSeiSCG85], and even instance-optimal results [@AfBaCh], the best worst-case result for the maxima problem has remained the one from Gabow, Bentley, and Tarjan’s classic STOC’84 paper [@GaBeTa]. (That paper is well remembered for introducing Cartesian trees.) Gabow et al.’s time bound is $O(n\lg^{d-3} n\lg\lg n)$ for $d\ge 4$. Our (randomized) result implies the first improvement in two and a half decades: $O(n\lg^{d-3}n)$. In particular, we obtain the first $O(n\lg n)$ algorithm for the 4-d maxima problem.
#### Other applications.
Our offline dominance result also leads to the current best results for other standard problems (see the appendix), such as bichromatic $L_\infty$-closest pair and $L_\infty$-minimum spanning tree for $d\ge 4$.
#### Organization.
In the three subsequent sections, we describe our new methods for 2-d orthogonal range reporting, 3-d orthogonal range reporting, and offline 4-d dominance range reporting. These sections are independent of each other and can be read separately. Interestingly, our techniques for 2-d range reporting are not based on Alstrup et al.’s previous grid-based approach [@Brodal00h] but draw on new ideas related to succinct data structures. Our 3-d range reporting structure is based on Alstrup et al.’s approach, but with new twists. Finally, our 4-d offline algorithm involves an unusual (and highly nonobvious) mixture of bit-packing techniques [@ChaPatSODA10] and classical computational geometric tools (Clarkson–Shor-style random sampling).
Range Reporting in 2-d {#sec:2d}
======================
The goal of this section is to prove:
\[thm:2d\] For any $2 \le B \le \lg^{\varepsilon}n$, we can solve 2-d orthogonal range reporting in rank space with: $O(n \cdot B \lg\lg n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg n + k \cdot {\lg}_B \lg n)$ query time; or $O(n \cdot {\lg}_B
\lg n)$ space and $(1+k) \cdot O(B \lg\lg n)$ query time.
At the inflection point of the two trade-offs, we get a data structure with space $O(n \lg\lg n)$ and query time $(1+k) \cdot O(\lg\lg
n)$. At one extreme point, we have space $O(n)$ and query time $(1+k)
\cdot O(\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$. At the other extreme, we have space $O(n
\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ and query time $O(\lg\lg n + k)$, thus matching the bounds of Alstrup et al. Note that all these tradeoffs also apply to emptiness with $k$ set to $0$. This can be seen through a black-box reduction: Assume a reporting data structure with query time $t_1+t_2
k$ is available. Given an emptiness query, run the query algorithm on the reporting data structure using the same query. If the query algorithm terminates within $t_1$ computation steps, we immediately get the answer, otherwise we terminate after $t_1+1$ operations, at which point we know $k>0$ and thus we know the range is nonempty.
We will describe a linear-space reduction from 2-d orthogonal range reporting to the following “ball inheritance” problem, a pointer-chasing-type problem reminiscent of fractional cascading [@Chazelle.Guibas.fractional.I]. Consider a perfect binary tree with $n$ leaves. Also consider $n$ labelled balls, which appear in an ordered list at the root of the tree. We imagine distributing the balls from the root down to the leaves, in ${\lg}n$ steps. In the $i$-th step, a node on level $\lg n-i$ contains a subset of the balls in an ordered list, where the order is the same as the original order at the root. Each ball chooses one of the two children of the node and is “inherited” by that child. The number of balls in each node across a level is the same. That is, on level $i$, each node contains exactly $2^i$ balls, and each leaf contains exactly one ball.
Given the inheritance data described above, the goal is to build a data structure that answers the following type of query: given a node and an index into its list of balls, what leaf does the indicated ball eventually reach? We may imagine each ball as having $\lg n$ copies, one at each node on its root-to-leaf path. Conceptually, each ball stores a pointer to its copy on the level below. The identity of a ball on level $i$ consists of a node at level $i$, and the index of the ball in the node’s list. The goal is, given (the identity of) a ball on some level, to traverse the pointers down to the tail of the list, and report the leaf’s identity.
In Section \[sec:2d-ptr\], we give space/time trade-offs for the problem with results parallel to Theorem \[thm:2d\]. These trade-offs come out naturally given the definition of ball inheritance: our data structure mimicks skip lists on $n$ independent lists with the copies of each ball. In Section \[sec:2d-red\], we give a reduction from 2-dimensional range reporting to this abstract ball-inheritance problem.
Solving the Ball-Inheritance Problem {#sec:2d-ptr}
------------------------------------
This subsection will prove:
\[lem:ballinherit\] For any $2 \le B \le \lg^{\varepsilon}n$, we can solve the ball-inheritance problem with: (1) space $O(n B\lg\lg n)$ and query time $O({\lg}_B \lg
n)$; or (2) space $O(n {\lg}_B \lg n)$ and query time $O(B \lg\lg
n)$.
Using standard techniques, one can represent the pointers on each level of the tree with $O(n)$ bits such that we can traverse a pointer in constant time. This uses the rank problem from succinct data structures: represent a bit vector $A[1{\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}}n]$ using $O(n)$ bits, to answer $\mathrm{rank}(k) = \sum_{i \le k} A[i]$. In fact solutions with very close to $n$ bits of space and constant query time are known [@patrascu08succinct]. For every node, we store a solution to the rank problem among its balls, where “0” denotes a ball going to the left child, and “1” a ball going to the right child. The index of a ball in the right child is $\mathrm{rank}(i)$ evaluated at the parent. The index of ball $i$ in the left child is $i -
\mathrm{rank}(i)$.
This trivial data structure uses $O(n\lg n)$ bits in total, or $O(n)$ words, but has $O(\lg n)$ query time. For faster queries, the query will need to skip many levels at once. We use an easy generalization of rank queries, which we prove in the appendix:
\[lem:succinct\] Consider an array $A[1{\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}}n]$ with elements from some alphabet $\Sigma$. We can construct a data structure of $O(n\lg \Sigma)$ bits which answers in constant time $\mathrm{rank}(k) = $ the number of elements in $A[1 {\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}}k]$ equal to $A[k]$.
In our context, the lemma implies that we can store all pointers from balls at level $i$ to balls at level $i+\Delta$ using $O(n\Delta)$ bits of space. Indeed, each ball can be inherited by $2^\Delta$ descendants of its current node (the alphabet $\Sigma$ will denote this choice of the descendant $\Delta$ levels below). To compute the index of a ball in the list of its node at level $i+\Delta$, we simply have to count how many balls before it at level $i$ go to the same descendant (a rank query).
For intuition of how to use this building block, consider an abstract problem. We need to augment a linked list of $m$ nodes in a manner similar to a skip list. Any node is allowed to store a pointer $\Delta$ nodes ahead, but this has a cost of $\Delta$. The goal is to reach the tail of the list from anywhere in a minimal number of hops, subject to a bound on the total cost of the skip pointers. For any $2
\le B \le m$, we can solve this problem as follows:
Traversal time $O({\lg}_B m)$ with pointer cost $O(m \cdot B
{\lg}_B m)$. Define the level of a node to be the number of trailing zeros when writing the node’s position in base $B$. Each node on level $i$ stores a pointer to the next node on level $i+1$, or to the tail if no such node exists. The cost of a node at level $i$ is $O(B^{i+1})$, which is $O(\frac{m}{B^i} B^{i+1}) = O(mB)$ across a level. The traversal needs to look at $O({\lg}_B m)$ pointers (one per level) before reaching the tail.
Traversal time $O(B {\lg}_B m)$ with pointer cost $O(m \cdot
{\lg}_B m)$. Each node on level $i$ stores a pointer that skips $B^i$ nodes, or to the tail if no such node exists. In other words, each node on level $i$ stores a pointer to the next node on level $i$ or higher (whichever comes first). The cost of a node on level $i$ is $O(B^i)$, so all nodes on level $i$ cost $O(\frac{m}{B^i}
B^i) = O(m)$. The total cost is thus $O(m {\lg}_B m)$. We can reach the tail from anywhere with $O(B {\lg}_B m)$ pointer traversals, since we need at most $B$ nodes on each level, before reaching a node on a higher level.
Returning to the ball-inheritance problem, we will implement the above strategies on the $n$ lists of copies of each ball, using Lemma \[lem:succinct\] to store pointers. We use the first strategy in the regime of fast query time, but higher space (tradeoff (1) in Lemma \[lem:ballinherit\]). Nodes on levels of the tree that are a multiple of $B^i$ store pointers to the next level multiple of $B^{i+1}$. This costs $O(B^{i+1})$ bits per ball, so the total cost is $\sum_i \frac{\lg n}{B^i} \cdot O(B^{i+1}) = O(\lg n \cdot B \cdot
{\lg}_B \lg n)$ bits per ball. This is $O(n B {\lg}_B \lg n)$ words of space. The query time is $O({\lg}_B \lg n)$, since in each step, we jump from a level multiple of $B^i$ to a multiple of $B^{i+1}$. Since the bound is insensitive to polynomial changes in $B$, the trade-off can be rewritten as: space $O(n B \lg\lg n)$ and query time $O({\lg}_B
\lg n)$.
The second strategy gives low space, but slower query, i.e. tradeoff (2) in Lemma \[lem:ballinherit\]. Nodes on levels that are a multiple of $B^i$ store pointers to $B^i$ levels below (or to the leaves, if no such level exists). The cost of such a level is $O(B^i)$ bits per ball, so the total cost is $\sum_i \frac{\lg n}{B^i} \cdot
O(B^i) = O(\lg n \cdot {\lg}_B \lg n)$ bits per ball. This is space $O(n {\lg}_B \lg n)$ words. The query time is $O(B {\lg}_B \lg n)$, since we need to traverse at most $B$ levels that are multiples of $B^i$ before reaching a level multiple of $B^{i+1}$. Thus, we obtain query time $O(B \lg\lg n)$ with space $O(n {\lg}_B \lg n)$.
Solving Range Reporting {#sec:2d-red}
-----------------------
This subsection will show:
\[lem:balltoreport\] If the ball inheritance problem can be solved with space $S$ and query time $\tau$, 2-d range reporting can be solved with space $O(S+n)$ and query time $O\big(\lg\lg n + (1 + k) \cdot \tau \big).$
Consider $n$ points in 2-d rank space; we may assume $n$ to be a power of two. We build a perfect binary tree over the $x$-axis. Each ball will represent a point, and the leaf where the ball ends up corresponds to its $x$ coordinate. The order of balls at the root is the sorted order by $y$ coordinate. We store a structure for this ball inheritance problem. The true identity of the points (their $x$ and $y$ coordinates) are only stored at the leaves, taking linear space. We will now describe additional data structures that allow us to answer range reporting with query time $O(\lg\lg n)$, plus $(O(1)+k)$ ball inheritance queries.
Our first ingredient is a succinct data structure for the range minimum problem (RMQ). Consider an array $A$ of $n$ keys (which can be compared). The query is, given an interval $[i,j]$, report the index of the minimum key among $A[i], \dots, A[j]$. Note that a data structure for this problem does not need to remember the keys. Information theoretically, the answer is determined if we know the Cartesian tree [@GaBeTa] of the input; a tree takes just $2n$ bits to describe. Effective data structures matching this optimal space bound are known. See, for example, [@fischer10rmq], which describes a data structure with $2n + o(n)$ bits of space and $O(1)$ query time.
In each node that is the right child of its parent, we build a succinct RMQ data structure on the points stored in the subtree rooted at that node. In this structure, we use the $y$ rank of the points as indices in the array, and their $x$ coordinates as keys. In each node that is a left child of its parent, we build a range-maximum data structure (equivalently, an RMQ data structure on the mirrored input). Since each data structure takes a number of bits linear in the size of the node, they occupy a total of $O(n\lg n)$ bits, i.e. $O(n)$ words of space.
To report points in the range $[x_1, x_2] \times [y_1, y_2]$, we proceed as follows:
Compute the lowest common ancestor $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1, x_2)$ in the perfect binary tree. This is a constant time operation based on the xor of $x_1$ and $x_2$: the number of zero bits at the end indicates the height of the node, and the rest of the bits indicate the nodes identity. (For instance, we can use an array of $n$ entries to map the $x_1 \oplus x_2$ to the right node.)
We convert $[y_1, y_2]$ into the rank space of points inside the left and right child of $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1, x_2)$. This entails finding the successor $\hat{y}_1$ of $y_1$ among the $y$ values of the points under the two nodes, and the predecessor $\hat{y}_2$ of $y_2$. See below for how this is done.
We descend to the right child of $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1, x_2)$. Using the RMQ data structure, we obtain the index $m$ (the $y$ rank) of the $x$-minimum point in the range $[\hat{y}_1, \hat{y}_2]$. We use the ball-inheritance structure to find the leaf of this point. We retrieve the $x$ coordinate of the point from the leaf, and compare it to $x_2$. If greater, there is no output point in the right node. If smaller, we report this point and recurse in $[\hat{y}_1, m-1]$ and $[m+1, \hat{y}_2]$ to report more points. We finally apply the symmetric algorithm in the left child of $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1, x_2)$, using the range maxima until the points go below $x_1$.
The cost of step 3 is dominated by the queries to the ball-inheritance problem. The number of queries is two if the range is empty, and otherwise at most twice the number of points reported in each child of the $\mathrm{LCA}$.
We now describe how to support step 2 in $O(\tau + \lg\lg n)$ time, with just $O(n)$ space in total. We will use a succinct index for predecessor search. Consider supporting predecessor queries in a sorted array $A[1{\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}}n]$ of $w$-bit integers. If we allow the query to access entries of the array through an oracle, it is possible to obtain a data structure of sublinear size. More precisely, one can build a data structure of $O(n \lg w)$ bits, which supports queries in $O(\lg w)$ time plus oracle access to $O(1)$ entries; see [@grossi09succinct Lemma 3.3]. (This idea is implicit in fusion trees [@fredman93fusion], and dates further back to [@ajtai84hashing].)
We build such a data structure on the list of $y$ coordinates at each node. The oracle access to the original $y$ coordinates is precisely what the ball-inheritance problem supports. Since our points have coordinates of $O(\lg n)$ bits, each data structure uses $O(\lg\lg n)$ bits per point, so the total space is $O(n \lg\lg n)$ words. To reduce the space to linear, we store these predecessor structures only at levels that are a multiple of $\lg\lg n$. From $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1,
x_2)$, we go up to the closest ancestor with a predecessor structure. We run predecessor queries for $y_1$ and $y_2$ at that node, which take $O(\lg\lg n)$ time, plus $O(1)$ queries to the ball-inheritance problem. Then, we translate these predecessors into the rank space of the left and right child of $\mathrm{LCA}(x_1,
x_2)$, by walking down at most $\lg\lg n$ levels in the ball-inheritance problem (with constant time per level). This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:balltoreport\], which combined with Lemma \[lem:ballinherit\] proves Theorem \[thm:2d\].
Range Reporting in 3-d {#sec:3d}
======================
In this section, we present a new data structure for 3-d orthogonal range reporting. We find it more convenient now to ignore the default assumption that points are given in rank space. The special case of dominance (i.e., 3-sided) reporting can already be solved with $O(n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ time by known methods [@afshani:dominance], using the latest result on orthogonal planar point location [@chan_pps]. We will show how to “add sides” without changing the asymptotic query time and without increasing space by too much.
The 3-d 4-Sided Problem
-----------------------
Our method is based on a simple variant of Alstrup, Brodal, and Rauhe’s grid-based method [@Brodal00h]. Instead of a grid of dimension near $\sqrt{n}\times\sqrt{n}$ as used by Alstrup et al.’s and Karpinski and Nekrich’s method [@Nekrich.COCOON], our key idea is to use a grid of dimension near $(n/t)\times t$ for a judiciously chosen parameter $t$.
Specifically, consider the problem of answering range reporting queries for 4-sided boxes in 3-d, i.e., the boxes are bounded in 4 out of the 6 sides where the unbounded sides are from different coordinate axes. W.lo.g., assume that query ranges are unbounded from below in the $y$ and $z$ directions. Suppose that there is a base data structure for solving the 3-d 4-sided problem with $S_0(n)$ space [*in bits*]{} and $Q_0(n,k)$ query time.
#### The data structure.
Fix parameters $t$ and $C$ to be set later. Let $S$ be a set of $n$ points in $[U]^3$. Build a 2-d grid on the $xy$-plane with $n/(Ct)$ rows and $t$ columns, so that each row contains $Ct$ points and each column contains $n/t$ points.[^5] The number of grid cells is $n/C$.
We build a data structure for $S$ as follows:
1. For each of the $t$ columns (in left-to-right order), build a data structure recursively for the points inside the column.
2. For each of the $n/(Ct)$ rows, build a base data structure directly for the points inside the row, with $S_0(Ct)$ space and $Q_0(Ct,k)$ query time. Also build a predecessor search structure for the $n/(Ct)$ horizontal grid lines.
3. For each of the $t$ columns, build a 3-sided reporting data structure [@chan_pps] for the points inside the column, with $O(n/t)$ words of space, or $O((n/t)\lg U)$ bits of space, and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ query time.
4. Let $G$ be the set of at most $n/C$ points formed by taking the $z$-lowest point out of each nonempty grid cell. Build a data structure for $G$ for 4-sided queries using any known method [@chan_pps] with $O((n/C)\lg^{O(1)}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ query time.
5. Finally, for each nonempty grid cell, store the list of all its points sorted in increasing $z$-order.
Note that by unfolding the recursion, we can view our data structure as a degree-$t$ tree ${T}$ where the points in the leaves are arranged in $x$-order and each node stores various auxiliary data structures (items 1–4).
The space usage in bits satisfies the recurrence $$S(n)\ =\ t S(n/t) + (n/(Ct))S_0(Ct) + O(n\lg U + (n/C)\lg^{O(1)}n).$$ For the base case, we have $S(n)=O(S_0(Ct))$ for $n<Ct$. Solving the recurrence gives $$S(n)\ =\ O({\lg}_t n \cdot [(n/(Ct))S_0(Ct) + n\lg U + (n/C)\lg^{O(1)}n])$$ (assuming that $S_0(n)/n$ is nondecreasing). The third term disappears by setting $C=\lg^c n$ for a sufficiently large constant $c$.
#### The query algorithm.
Suppose we are given a query range $q=[x_L,x_R]\times (-\infty,y_0]\times (-\infty,z_0]$ and the $x$-ranks of $x_L$ and $x_R$ w.r.t. the input point set. Let $v$ be the lowest common ancestor of the two leaves of ${T}$ whose $x$-range contain $x_L$ and $x_R$. We can find $v$ by performing a word operation on the two given $x$-ranks (no special LCA data structures are required since ${T}$ is perfectly balanced).
From now on, we work exclusively at node $v$ of the tree. There, $q$ intersects more than one column. Say $x_L$ and $x_R$ are in columns $j_L$ and $j_R$ (which can be identified in $O(1)$ time as we know the $x$-ranks). Say $y_0$ is in row $i$, computable by predecessor search in $O(\lg\lg U)$ time.We can then answer the query as follows:
1. Let $q_T$ be the (“top”) portion of $q$ inside row $i$. Report all points in $q_T$ (which is 4-sided) by the base data structure at row $i$. The cost is $Q_0(Ct,k')$ if $k'$ denotes the number of points in $q_T$.
2. Let $q_L$ and $q_R$ be the portions of $q-q_T$ inside columns $j_L$ and $j_R$ respectively. Report all points in $q_L$ and $q_R$ (which are 3-sided inside columns $j_L$ and $j_R$ respectively) by the 3-sided data structure at columns $j_L$ and $j_R$. The cost is $O(\lg\lg U)$ plus the number of points in $q_L$ and $q_R$.
3. Let $q_I$ be the remaining (“interior”) portion $q-(q_T\cup q_L\cup q_R)$. Find all points of $G$ in $q$ by querying the data structure for $G$. The cost is at most $O(\lg\lg U)$ plus the number of points in $q_I$.
4. For each point $s\in G$ found in step 3, report all points in $s$’s grid cell with $z$-values below $z_0$ by a linear search over the cell’s $z$-sorted list. The cost is linear in the number of points in $q_I$.
The overall query time is thus $Q(n,k)\ =\ Q_0(Ct,k') + O(\lg\lg U + k-k')$ for some $k'\le k$.
#### Bootstrapping.
Assume the availability of a solution with $S_0(n)=O(n\lg U + n\lg^{1+1/\ell}n)$ and $Q_0(n,k)=O(\lg\lg U + k)$ for a constant $\ell$. (For a base case with $\ell\in(0,1]$, we can start with any known method with $O(n\lg^{O(1)}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg U+k)$ query time [@chan_pps].) Setting $t$ with $\lg t=\lg^{\ell/(\ell+1)}n$ then yields $$S(n) \ =\ O((\lg n)/(\lg t) \cdot [n\lg U + n\lg^{1+1/\ell}Ct])
\ =\ O(n\lg U\lg^{1/(\ell+1)}n)$$ and $Q(n,k)= O(\lg\lg U + k)$.
We need one last trick: rank space reduction. Initially, store the $x$-, and $y$-, and $z$-values in sorted arrays, build predecessor search structures for them, and afterwards, replace all values by their ranks. This way, we have reduced $U$ to $n$, and the space (in bits) of the data structure improves to $O(n\lg U + n\lg^{1+1/(\ell+1)}n)$. For a query range $q$, we can initially determine the $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-ranks of $q$’s endpoints in $O(\lg\lg U)$ time [@vEB] before running the query algorithm. Incidentally, this also fulfills the assumption that the $x$-ranks of $q$’s endpoints are given. After the query, we can recover the $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-values of each reported point by looking up the sorted arrays. The query time remains $O(\lg\lg U+k)$ (though the constant factor in the $k$ term increases).
By bootstrapping $\lceil 1/{\varepsilon}\rceil$ times, we finally obtain a solution for the 3-d 4-sided problem with $O(n\lg U + n\lg^{1+{\varepsilon}}n)$ bits of space, i.e., $O(n\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ words of space (by packing), and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ query time.
The 3-d 5-Sided/6-Sided Problem
-------------------------------
We can solve the 3-d 5-sided problem in the same way. W.l.o.g., assume that the ranges are unbounded from below in the $z$ direction. Item 2 now stores 4-sided data structures, and space increases by a ${\lg}^{\varepsilon}n$ factor only as a result. The query algorithm proceeds similarly. We now have an additional bottom portion $q_B$, but $q_T,q_B,q_L,q_R$ are all 4-sided, unless $q$ lies completely inside a column (in which case we only need one query to a base data structure). Our method thus solves the 3-d 5-sided problem with $O(n\lg^{O({\varepsilon})} n)$ words of space and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ query time.
It is known (e.g., see [@Nekrich.SOCG07]) that the $j$-sided problem can be reduced to the $(j-1)$-sided problem by standard binary divide-and-conquer, where the space increases by a logarithmic factor but the query time is unchanged (if it exceeds $\lg\lg$). Thus, we can get the following result for the 3-d general (i.e., 6-sided) problem:
\[thm:3d\] There is a data structure for 3-d orthogonal range reporting with $O(n\lg^{1+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space (in words) and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ query time.
Higher dimensions and applications.
-----------------------------------
It is known that $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting can be reduced to $(d-1)$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting by using a range tree with fan-out $b$, where the space increases by a $b^{O(1)}{\lg}_b n$ factor and the query time increases by a ${\lg}_b n$ factor. By setting $b=\lg^{\varepsilon}n$ (and applying rank space reduction at the beginning), Theorem \[thm:3d\] implies:
There is a data structure for $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting for any constant $d\ge 4$ with $O(n\lg^{d-2+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and $O((\lg n/\lg\lg n)^{d-3}\lg\lg n + k)$ query time.
Our method also works for emptiness queries; the same bounds hold with $k$ set to 0. Here, dominance emptiness structures are sufficient in item 2, and item 4 is unnecessary.
Range minimum queries (finding the point inside a query range with the minimum priority, assuming that each input point is given a priority value) are closely related. For example, the decision version of 2-d range minimum queries (deciding whether the minimum is at most a given value) reduces to 3-d 5-sided emptiness queries. It is no surprise then that we can obtain the same result for 2-d range minimum queries as 3-d 5-sided emptiness. Here, in item 2, we need to replace 3-d 3-sided emptiness structures with 2-d dominance range minimum structures, but 2-d dominance range minimum reduces to point location in the vertical projection of a lower envelope of 3-d orthants. This is an orthogonal 2-d point location problem, which can be solved with $O(n\lg U)$ space in bits and $O(\lg\lg U)$ query time [@chan_pps]. The same analysis thus carries through.
There is a data structure for 2-d range minimum queries with $O(n\lg^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg U)$ query time.
In contrast, modifying Karpinski and Nekrich’s 3-d range emptiness method [@Nekrich.COCOON] yields a data structure for 2-d range minimum queries with $O(n\lg^{O(1)}\lg n)$ space but $O(\lg^2\lg n)$ query time.
Our method can also give an alternative solution to 2-d orthogonal range reporting with $O(n\lg^{\varepsilon}n)$ space and $O(\lg\lg U + k)$ time. This solution is arguably slightly simpler than Alstrup, Brodal, and Rauhe’s original method [@Brodal00h], as their method requires constant-time 1-d range queries as a subroutine, and also requires a more intricate way of handling rank space reduction.
Offline Range Reporting {#sec:offline}
=======================
In this section, we present our $O(n\lg n + k)$ expected time solution for the offline 4-d dominance reporting problem on $n$ query points and $n$ input points, where $k$ denotes the total output size of all $n$ queries. In this section, we fix $w={\varepsilon}{\lg}N$ where $N$ denotes the maximum input size. Any $w$-bit word operation we introduce can be simulated in $O(1)$ time by table lookup, after preprocessing in sublinear time $2^{O(w)}=N^{O({\varepsilon})}$.
Preliminaries
-------------
We begin by describing some key subroutines and tools we need. The first subroutine is an algorithm for a special case of offline 2-d orthogonal point location. Chan and [Pǎtraşcu]{} [@ChaPatSODA10] recently studied the offline 2-d orthogonal range counting problem and obtained a linear-time algorithm for the case when the number of points is smaller than $2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$. From this result, they then obtained an $O(n\sqrt{\lg n})$ algorithm for the general case. We apply their bit-packing technique and show that a similar result holds for orthogonal point location (see the appendix for the proof):
\[lem:offpl\] There is an algorithm for offline 2-d orthogonal point location on $n$ query points and $n$ disjoint axis-aligned rectangles that runs in time $O(n)$ if $n\le 2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$ and the coordinates have been pre-sorted.
The second subroutine is a preliminary method for the offline $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting problem. A straightforward $b$-ary version of the range tree, combined with a trivial method for the 1-d base case, easily gives the following bound, which with the right choice of $b$ will turn out to be crucial in establishing our 4-d result:
\[lem:offstab\] There is an algorithm for offline $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting on $n$ points and $m$ boxes that runs in time $O(n{\lg}^{d-1}_b n+b^{d-1} m {\lg}^{d-1}_b n+k)$, where $b\geq 2$ is a parameter and $k$ is the total output size, if coordinates have been pre-sorted.
The main geometric tool we use is a randomized version of [*shallow cuttings*]{} in 3-d. Let $S$ be a set of $n$ points in 3-d. Pick a random sample $R$ where each point of $S$ is included independently with probability $1/K$ for a fixed parameter $K$. Define the [*staircase polyhedron*]{} ${{\cal P}}(R)$ to be the lower envelope of the orthants $O_s=[x,\infty) \times [y,\infty) \times [z,\infty)$ over all the points $s=(x,y,z)\in R$. Note that the vertices of ${{\cal P}}(R)$ include all the minimal points of $R$ (and possibly extra points not in $R$); this orthogonal polyhedron ${{\cal P}}(R)$ has $O(|R|)$ number of vertices (by Euler’s formula) and can be computed in time $O(|R|\lg|R|)$ by adapting a standard algorithm for 3-d minima [@GaBeTa; @PreShaBOOK] (the time bound can be improved on the RAM). Let ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ denote the cells in the *vertical decomposition* of the region underneath ${{\cal P}}(R)$. The decomposition is defined as follows: take each horizontal face (a polygon) of ${{\cal P}}(R)$ and form a 2-d vertical decomposition of the face by adding $y$-vertical line segments at its vertices; finally, extend each resulting subface (a rectangle) downward to form a cell touching $z=-\infty$. The decomposition ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ has $O(|R|)$ size and can be computed in $O(|R|)$ additional time. For each cell ${\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R)$, we define its *conflict list* $S_{\Delta}$ to consist of all points $s\in S$ with $O_s$ intersecting ${\Delta}$; equivalently, $S_{\Delta}$ consists of all points in $S$ that are dominated by the top-upper-right corner $v_{\Delta}$ of ${\Delta}$. The decomposition ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ and its conflict lists, which together we refer to as a [*randomized shallow cutting*]{} of $S$, satisfy some desirable properties:
\[lem:cut\] For a random sample $R$ of $S$ with ${\mathbb{E}}[|R|]=n/K$,
1. $\max_{{\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R)}|S_{\Delta}| \:=\: O(K\lg N)$ with probability at least $1-1/N$ for any $N\ge n$;
2. ${\mathbb{E}}\left[\sum_{{\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R)}|S_{\Delta}|\right]\:=\: O(n)$;
3. if a query point $q$ dominates exactly $k$ points of $S$, then $q$ is covered by ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ (i.e., lies below ${{\cal P}}(R)$) with probability at least $1-k/K$.
\(a) and (b) follow from the general probabilistic results by Clarkson and Shor [@ClaDCG87; @ClaSho]; (c) is obvious by a union bound: if $q$ is above ${{\cal P}}(R)$, then some point of $S$ dominated by $q$ must be chosen in $R$.
Matoušek [@MatCGTA92] provided a deterministic version of shallow cuttings satisfying similar, slightly stronger properties (without the extra logarithmic factor in (a) and with probability 1 in (c) for $k\le K$). Originally, shallow cuttings were developed for halfspace range reporting and defined in terms of arrangements of planes rather than orthants; the first application to dominance range reporting was proposed by Afshani [@afshani:dominance]. (A similar concept specific to the case of dominance called [*$t$-approximate boundary*]{} had also appeared [@firstattempt; @Nekrich.SOCG07].)
For our offline problem, however, preprocessing cost matters and the above simpler randomized version is more suitable than its deterministic counterpart. Note that it is not advisable to use shallow cuttings in 4-d directly, since the number of vertices in the staircase polyhedron ${{\cal P}}(R)$ can be quadratic in $|R|$ in 4-d.
Offline 3-d Dominance Reporting {#sec:off3d}
-------------------------------
We warm up by illustrating how randomized shallow cuttings can help solve the offline dominance reporting problem in the 3-d case. [The derived solution playes a key role in our 4-d solution.]{} We assume that the given $n$ input points and $n$ query points have been pre-sorted.
#### Algorithm.
We pick a random sample $R$ of the input points, where each point is sampled with probability $1/K$ with $K:=\lg n$. We first compute ${{\cal P}}(R)$ and ${{\cal VD}}(R)$.
We next compute the conflict lists for all the cells of ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ as follows. For each input point $s$, it suffices to identify all cells whose conflict lists include $s$. We first find the cell ${\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R)$ containing $s$; this reduces to a 2-d point location query in the $xy$-projection of ${{\cal VD}}(R)$. The top-upper-right corner $v_{\Delta}$ of ${\Delta}$ gives us an initial vertex that dominates $s$. We observe that all vertices of the polyhedron ${{\cal P}}(R)$ that dominate the point $s$ form a connected subgraph in the graph (the 1-skeleton) induced by the polyhedron. Furthermore, the degree of each node in the graph is at most 3. Thus we can perform a breadth-first search from the initial vertex found to generate all vertices of ${{\cal P}}(R)$ dominating $v$, yielding all conflict lists that include $v$. The total time over all input points $v$, excluding the initial point location queries, is linear in the total size of all conflict lists.
For each query point $q$, we find the cell of ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ containing $q$; this again reduces to a 2-d point location query in the projection of ${{\cal VD}}(R)$. If no cell is found (i.e., $q$ is above ${{\cal P}}(R)$), then we say that $q$ is *bad*; otherwise it is *good*. For each cell ${\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R)$, we run an existing algorithm $A_0$ to solve the offline 3-d dominance reporting subproblem for the input points in the conflict list of ${\Delta}$ and the query points inside ${\Delta}$.
This answers all good queries correctly. To finish, we recursively solve the offline 3-d dominance reporting problem on the bad queries and all the input points, where the roles of queries and input points are now reversed. Note that we also reverse the dominance relation, or equivalently, negate all coordinates. After recursing twice, however, we terminate by switching to a known $O(n\lg n + k)$-time algorithm (e.g., [@LeePre; @PreShaBOOK]).
#### Analysis.
Assume that the offline 2-d point location on $n$ pre-sorted rectangles and query points takes $O(n {Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n))$ time for some non-decreasing function ${Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(\cdot)$. Assume that the initial algorithm $A_0$ for offline 3-d dominance reporting on $n$ pre-sorted input and query points takes $O(nQ_0(n)+k)$ (expected) time for some non-decreasing function $Q_0(\cdot)$. Note that this implies that the running time for $n$ input points and $m$ query points is $O((n+m)Q_0(n)+k)$, by dividing the query points into $\lceil m/n\rceil$ groups of size at most $n$ when $m>n$. Our algorithm spends expected time at most $O((n/K)\lg n)=O(n)$ to compute ${{\cal P}}(R)$ and ${{\cal VD}}(R)$. Performing point locations on the $xy$-projection of ${{\cal VD}}(R)$ (a subdivision of expected size $O(n/K)$) for both the input and query points takes time at most $O(n{Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n))$. Observe here that the input and query points have been pre-sorted, and so the rectangles can also be pre-sorted in linear time. Constructing the conflict lists by the breadth-first searches takes expected time $O(n)$ since they have expected size $O(n)$ by Lemma \[lem:cut\](b). Also by Lemma \[lem:cut\](a), every conflict list has size $O(K\lg n)$ w.h.p.; if this condition is violated, we can afford to switch to a trivial polynomial upper bound on the running time. Since the total expected size of the 3-d dominance reporting subproblems at the cells is $O(n)$, these subproblems can be solved in total expected time $O(nQ_0(O(K\lg n)))
=O(nQ_0(O(\lg^2n)))$ plus the output size.
One technicality arises: by our assumption, the coordinates of the input and query points in each subproblem should be pre-sorted first. For the $x$-coordinates, this can be accomplished by scanning through the global sorted $x$-list, and for each input or query point $s$ in order, appending $s$ to the end of the linked lists for the cells $s$ participates in. The $y$- and $z$-sorted lists can be similarly dealt with. The time required is linear.
By Lemma \[lem:cut\](c), the probability that a query with output size $k_i$ is bad is at most $k_i/K$. Thus, the expected number of bad queries is at most $k/K$ for total output size $k$. After recursing twice, the expected number of queries and input points both decrease to $O(k/K)$. The $O(n\lg n+k)$ algorithm would then finish in expected time $O((k/K)\lg n +k)=O(k)$. We conclude that our algorithm runs in overall expected time $O(n[{Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n)+Q_0(O(\lg^2 n))]+k)$.
For example, we can use ${Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n)=O(\lg\lg n)$ by the point location method from [@chan_pps] (actually in the offline setting, we can just use a plane sweep algorithm with a dynamic van Emde Boas trees), and $Q_0(n)=O(\lg n)$ by a known method for 3-d offline dominance reporting [@GupSCG95]. Then our algorithm would run in expected time $O(n\lg\lg n + k)$. We now show that an even better result is possible when $n$ is small.
#### The case of few points.
First consider the case $n\le w^{O(1)}$. By Lemma \[lem:offpl\], ${Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n)=O(1)$. We can solve 3-d dominance reporting for $O(\lg^2n)=o(w/\lg w)$ points in linear time, since after rank space reduction, the input can be packed into $o(w)$ bits and the answer can deduced from a word operation. Thus, $Q_0(O(\lg^2 n))=O(1)$. We therefore get an $O(n+k)$-time algorithm.
Next consider the case $n\le 2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$. By Lemma \[lem:offpl\], ${Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize\sc pl}}}(n)=O(1)$. Since $\lg^2 n \le w^{O(1)}$, by bootstrapping with the first case, we can set $Q_0(O(\lg^2 n))=O(1)$. We therefore get an $O(n+k)$-time algorithm.
\[thm:off3d\] There is an algorithm for offline 3-d dominance reporting on $n$ input points and $n$ query points that runs in expected time $O(n\lg\lg n + k)$ if the coordinates have been pre-sorted. The time bound improves to $O(n+k)$ if in addition, $n\le 2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$.
Offline 4-d Dominance Reporting {#sec:off4d}
-------------------------------
We are now ready to present our offline 4-d algorithm. Our algorithm follows the same basic approach employed by most data structural upper bounds for orthogonal range searching: we construct a range tree on the input points and solve an offline 3-d problem in each node of the tree. Naively, using the $O(n\lg\lg n+k)$ algorithm from Theorem \[thm:off3d\] would imply only an $O(n\lg n\lg\lg n + k)$ algorithm (which nevertheless is an improvement over previous results). We need several additional ideas to achieve the final $O(n\lg n + k)$ result.
#### Algorithm.
Construct a complete binary tree (range tree) ${T}$ using the input points ordered by their last coordinate as leaves. Associate each query point to the leaf node containing its successor input point w.r.t. the last coordinate, and project all input and query points on to the first three dimensions. Each internal node $u$ in ${T}$ naturally defines an offline 3-d dominance reporting problem, using the query points in the right subtree as queries (the query points of $u$), and the input points in the left subtree as input (the input points of $u$). Clearly the combined output of all these 3-d problems constitutes the output for the 4-d problem.
To speed up the solution of these 3-d problems, our first idea is to use randomized shallow cuttings once again, but this time with a different choice of parameter $K$. Pick a random sample of all the $n$ input points, where each point is included with probability $1/K$ with $K := 2^{\sqrt{w}}$. For each node $u$ in ${T}$, let $R_u$ denote the sample of the input points of $u$. We first compute ${{\cal P}}(R_u)$ and ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$. We next compute the conflict lists for all the cells of ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ as in Section \[sec:off3d\][: namely, we find the cell of ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ containing each input point of $u$ by point location, and then use breadth-first searches to generate the conflict lists in time linear in their total size. ]{} For each query point $q$ of $u$, we find the cell of ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ containing $q$ by point location. If for a query $q$, there is at least one ancestor node where $q$ is a query point and no cell is found, we say that $q$ is *bad*. For each cell ${\Delta}\in{{\cal VD}}(R_u)$, we run the algorithm from Section \[sec:off3d\] to solve the offline 3-d dominance reporting subproblem for the input points of $u$ in the conflict list of ${\Delta}$ and the query points of $u$ inside ${\Delta}$ which are not bad.
This answers all queries that are not bad in any node. To finish, we recursively solve the offline 4-d dominance reporting problem on query points that are bad in at least one node and all the input points, where the roles of queries and input points are now reversed. After recursing twice, we terminate by switching to a known $O(n\lg^2 n +
k)$-time algorithm (e.g., [@LeePre; @PreShaBOOK; @VaiWoo]).
#### Analysis, excluding point location.
Our algorithm spends expected time at most $O((n/K)\lg n)=o(n)$ to compute ${{\cal P}}(R_u)$ and ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ per level of the tree. The breadth-first searches take expected time $O(n)$ per level. By Lemma \[lem:cut\](a), every conflict list has size $O(K\lg n)=2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$ w.h.p.; if this condition is violated at any node, we can afford to switch to a trivial polynomial upper bound on the running time. Since the total expected size of the 3-d dominance reporting subproblems at the cells is $O(n)$, these subproblems can be solved in total expected time $O(n)$ per level, plus the output size, by applying Theorem \[thm:off3d\] in the “few points” case. One technicality arises: the coordinates of the input and query points in each subproblem should be pre-sorted first. As in Section \[sec:off3d\], this can be accomplished by scanning through the global sorted $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-lists in linear time. The total time excluding point location cost is then $O(n)$ per level, i.e., $O(n{\lg}n)$, plus the output size.
By Lemma \[lem:cut\](c), the probability that a query with output size $k_i$ is bad at one or more nodes is at most $k_i/K$. Thus, the expected total number of bad queries at all nodes is at most $k/K$ for total output size $k$. After recursing twice, the expected number of queries and input points both decrease to $O(k/K)$. The $O(n\lg^2
n+k)$ algorithm would then finish in expected time $O((k/K)\lg^2 n
+k)=O(k)$.
#### Point location cost.
At each node $u$, we need to perform point locations on the $xy$-projection of ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ for all input points and query points of $u$. Unfortunately, the current best offline 2-d orthogonal point location algorithm in general requires $O(\lg\lg n)$ time per query, which would result in suboptimal total time $O(n\lg n\lg\lg n)$. We suggest the following key idea: solve all the 2-d point location subproblems collectively, by transforming them into one single 3-d problem!
Specifically, consider point locations for the query points of $u$; locations of the input points of $u$ can be dealt with similarly. The query points for which we must perform a point location in ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ are precisely those in the right subtree of $u$. These queries lie in a consecutive range of leaves, say $\ell_i$ through $\ell_j$, counted from left to right. We now transform each rectangle $r=[x_1,x_2] \times [y_1,y_2]$ in the $xy$-projection of ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ into the 3-d rectangle $r'=[x_1,x_2] \times [y_1,y_2] \times [i,j]$ and collect the set $B$ of all such 3-d boxes over all nodes in ${T}$. Similarly, we transform each query point $q$ to another 3-d query point $q'$. If $q$ has coordinates $(x,y,z)$ and lies in leaf $\ell_i$, we map $q$ to the point $q'=(x,y,i)$. We then collect the set $A$ of all transformed query points, and solve an offline 3-d orthogonal range reporting problem with the points in $A$ and the boxes in $B$. From the output of this offline problem, we can obtain for each query point in $A$ the set of boxes in $B$ that contain it. This gives the answers to all the original 2-d point location queries.
Since the subdivisions ${{\cal VD}}(R_u)$ have total expected size $O(n/K)$ per level of the tree, the expected number of boxes in $B$ is $O((n/K)\lg n)$. On the other hand, the number of points in $A$ is $n$, and the total output size of the 3-d problem is $O(n\lg n)$, since each point in $A$ lies in $O(\lg n)$ boxes in $B$. By applying Lemma \[lem:offstab\] with $b=K^{\varepsilon}$, we can solve the offline 3-d orthogonal range reporting problem in expected time $$O(n{\lg}_b^2 n + b^2 (n/K)\lg n{\lg}_b^2 n + n\lg n)\:=\:
O(n(\lg n/\lg K)^2 + n\lg n)\:=\:O(n\lg n),$$ due to the fortuitous choice of $K=2^{\sqrt{w}}$. We finally conclude
\[thm:off4d\] There is an algorithm for offline 4-d dominance reporting on $n$ input points and $n$ query points that runs in expected time $O(n \lg
n+k)$, where $k$ is the total output size.
Remarks {#sec:offline:rmks}
-------
#### Background on shallow cuttings.
Matoušek [@MatCGTA92] provided a deterministic version of shallow cuttings satisfying similar, slightly stronger properties as in Lemma \[lem:cut\] (without the extra logarithmic factor in (a) and with probability 1 in (c) for $k\le K$). Originally, shallow cuttings were developed for halfspace range reporting and defined in terms of arrangements of planes rather than orthants; the first application to dominance range reporting was proposed by Afshani [@afshani:dominance]. For our offline problem, however, preprocessing cost matters and the above simpler randomized version is more suitable than its deterministic counterpart. Note that it is not advisable to use shallow cuttings in 4-d directly, since the number of vertices in the staircase polyhedron ${{\cal P}}(R)$ can be quadratic in $|R|$ in 4-d.
#### Higher dimensions and applications.
The $d$-dimensional problem reduces to the $(d-1)$-dimensional problem at the expense of a logarithmic factor increase, by standard divide-and-conquer. Theorem \[thm:off4d\] thus implies:
There is an algorithm for offline $d$-dimensional dominance reporting on $n$ input points and $n$ query points that runs in expected time $O(n \lg^{d-3}
n+k)$ for any constant $d\ge 4$, where $k$ is the total output size.
Our method also works for offline dominance emptiness; the same bounds hold with $k$ set to 0. In fact, the algorithms can be slightly simplified: a query point that dominates no input points is good with probability 1 by Lemma \[lem:cut\](c), and so there is no need to recurse on the bad queries.
The problem of reporting enclosure pairs for $d$-dimensional boxes immediately reduces to $(2d)$-dimensional dominance reporting. The $d$-dimensional maxima problem obviously reduces to answering $n$ $d$-dimensional offline dominance emptiness queries.
For a less obvious application, consider the computation of the [*$L_\infty$-minimum spanning tree*]{} of $n$ points. A reduction by Krznaric, Levcopoulos, and Nilsson [@KrLeNi] showed that this problem can be reduced to the [*bichromatic $L_\infty$-closest pair*]{} problem: given $n$ red points and $n$ blue points, find a pair of red and blue points with the smallest $L_\infty$-distance. Their reduction does not increase the asymptotic running time, if it exceeds $n\lg n$. A randomized optimization technique by Chan [@ChaSCG98] showed that the problem can be further reduced to the following decision problem, without increasing the asymptotic expected running time: given $n$ red points and $n$ blue points and a value $r$, decide whether the $L_\infty$-distance is at most $r$. By drawing hypercubes centered at the blue points of side length $2r$, this problem in turn is equivalent to deciding whether some blue hypercube contains some red point. Build a grid of side length $r$. We can assign points and hypercubes to grid cells via hashing in linear expected time. Inside each cell, the blue hypercubes are $d$-sided. So, the problem reduces to a collection of offline dominance emptiness subproblems with linear total size.
The maxima problem, the bichromatic $L_\infty$-closest pair problem, and the $L_\infty$-minimum spanning tree problem in any constant dimension $d\ge 4$ can be solved in $O(n\lg^{d-3}n)$ expected time.
Appendix
========
Succinct Rank Queries (Proof of Lemma \[lem:succinct\])
-------------------------------------------------------
The proof is rather standard. We will store a “checkpoint” once every $\Sigma \lg n$ positions in the array: a record with $\Sigma$ entries (of $\lg n$ bits each) that indicates how many elements of each kind we have prior to that position. Then, for each element in the array, we can simply write $A[i]$ and the number of elements equal to $A[i]$ between the last checkpoint and $i$. This uses $O(\lg
(\Sigma\lg n))$ bits per element, so it fits our space bound if $\Sigma \ge \sqrt{\lg n}$. The query simply adds the counter stored with $A[i]$ and the appropriate counter from the last checkpoint.
If the alphabet is smaller, we employ a 2-level scheme. We store a checkpoint as above every $\Sigma \lg n$ positions. Additionally, every $\Sigma \lg\lg n$ positions, we store a minor checkpoint: a record of $\Sigma \lg (\Sigma \lg n) = O(\Sigma \lg\lg n)$ bits which indicates the number of elements of each kind from the last checkpoint to the minor checkpoint. A query retrieves the appropriate counters from the last checkpoint and the last minor checkpoint, and then must solve the rank problem between the last checkpoint and the query position. Since $\Sigma \lg\lg n \le \sqrt{\lg n} \cdot \lg\lg n$, the array entries between minor checkpoints fit in $O(\sqrt{\lg n} \cdot \lg^2 \lg n)$ bits. Thus, we can simply store the array entries in plain form, and use a precomputed table of space $n^{o(1)}$ to answer rank queries between minor checkpoints in constant time.
Offline 2-d Orthogonal Point Location for Few Points (Proof of Lemma \[lem:offpl\])
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proof follows the bit-packing approach of Chan and [Pǎtraşcu]{} [@ChaPatSODA10]. First scan through the sorted input lists to reduce all coordinates to rank space, that is, every coordinate of a query and rectangle is an integer of value $O(n)$.
We reduce our problem to a number of 1-d disjoint-intervals stabbing problems (given a set of points and disjoint intervals, return for each point the interval containing it if the interval exists). Essentially we construct a segment tree on the rectangles (where we divide according to $x$-coordinates) and solve a 1-d problem in each node: Consider a trie of depth $O(\lg n)$ over the binary alphabet. For each rectangle $r=[x_1,x_2] \times [y_1,y_2]$, let $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ denote the leaves corresponding to the binary representation of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Now consider the two paths from these leaves to their lowest common ancestor. For each node $u$ on the path to $\ell_1$ where $\ell_1$ lies in the left child’s subtree, associate the interval $[y_1,y_2]$ to the right child. For $\ell_2$, do the same, but with the roles of left and right reversed. Observe that the $y$-intervals associated with each node in the trie are disjoint, by the disjointness of the rectangles. Our first task is to compute for each node in the trie, a sorted list of the associated $y$-intervals, where the list has been packed into words to allow $O(w/\lg n)$ consecutive intervals to be stored in one word.
We construct these lists essentially by external-memory radix sorting. We start at the root node where we are given the complete input set $S$ in sorted order of bottom $y$-coordinates. We scan over this list and distribute the rectangles to two sets, $S_\ell$ and $S_r$, one for the left child of the root, and one for the right. These lists are again packed into words. The set $S_\ell$ contains those rectangles $[x_1,x_2] \times [y_1,y_2]$ for which the left child lies on the path from the root to either of the leaves corresponding to the binary representation of $x_1$ or $x_2$. The set $S_r$ is similar. Observe that this can be determined directly from the binary representation of $x_1$ and $x_2$. Furthermore, if $[x_1,x_2]$ completely contains the range of $x$-coordinates stored in the leaves associated with either the left or the right subtree, we append $[y_1,y_2]$ to a list stored for the root of that subtree. These lists are also packed into words. Finally, we recurse on the left and right subtree, using $S_\ell$ and $S_r$ as input respectively.
Since the rectangles in $S$ are given in sorted $y$-order and the $y$-intervals associated with each node are disjoint, this correctly constructs the desired lists. Furthermore, observe that we can handle all $O(w/\lg n)$ rectangles stored in one word in $O(1)$ time using table lookups. Thus we spend $O((n\lg n)/w)$ time on each of $O(\lg n)$ levels of the trie to construct the desired lists; the total time is $O((n\lg^2n)/w)$.
We now associate each query $(x,y)$ to the set of nodes on the path from the root to the leaf corresponding to the binary representation of $x$. Using the same approach as for the rectangles, we obtain a $y$-sorted list of the associated queries in each node of the trie in total time $O((n\lg^2n)/w)$. To finish, we solve the 1-d disjoint-intervals stabbing problem in each node of the trie by scanning the list of associated intervals and the list of associated queries simultaneously (in order of $y$-coordinates). Note that we produce output only when an interval contains a query point. Using table lookups when performing the scan, we may advance at least one word in one of the lists in $O(1+k')$ time, where $k'$ denotes the output size between the queries and the intervals in the two considered words. Over the entire trie, the total output size is $O(n)$ and the total cost is $O((n\lg^2n)/w+n)=O(n)$ for $n\le 2^{O(\sqrt{w})}$.
An Alternative Algorithm for a Special Case of 4-d Offline Dominance Emptiness
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we give an alternative *deterministic* $O(n\lg n)$-time algorithm for a special case of 4-d offline dominance emptiness: given $n$ red points and $n$ blue points, decide whether there exists a red point $p$ and a blue point $q$ such that $p$ is dominated by $q$. The original 4-d offline dominance emptiness problem is stronger: there, we want to know for every blue point $q$ whether there exists a red point dominated by $q$. This special case is sufficient, for example, to solve the bichromatic $L_\infty$-closest pair and the $L_\infty$-minimum spanning tree problem discussed in Section \[sec:offline:rmks\]; however, it is not sufficient to solve the maxima problem. The alternative algorithm has the advantage that it avoids “bit tricks”, though it requires a nontrivial subroutine—an algorithm of Chazelle [@ChaSICOMP92] for intersecting convex polyhedra.
We first consider the problem in 3-d. It has been observed that techniques for halfspace range searching can often be adapted to dominance range searching [@afshani:dominance]. We first point out an explicit way to reduce dominance to halfspace range searching. Surprisingly, this reduction has not appeared before to the authors’ knowledge (although the idea behind the reduction, which is based on an exponentially spaced grid, is commonplace). Specifically, fix a constant $r>3$. Assume that all the points have positive integer coordinates (we can initially sort the coordinates once at the beginning and reduce to rank space). Transform each red point $p=(i,j,k)$ to the point $p^*=(r^i,r^j,r^k)$. Transform each blue point $q=(a,b,c)$ to the halfspace $q^*=\{(x,y,z) : x/r^a + y/r^b + z/r^c \le 3\}$. It is easy to see that $p$ is dominated by $q$ iff $p^*$ lies inside $q^*$: if $i\le a$, $j\le b$, and $k\le c$, then $r^i/r^a+r^j/r^b+r^k/r^c\le 3$, but if $i>a$, $j>b$, or $k>c$, then $r^i/r^a+r^j/r^b+r^k/r^c \ge r > 3$.
Let $P$ be the convex hull of the transformed red points and $Q$ be the intersection of the complements of the transformed blue halfspaces. Then the answer to our red/blue dominance problem is no iff every transformed red point lies in the complement of every transformed blue halfspace, i.e., $P$ lies inside $Q$, i.e., $P\cap Q = P$. Chazelle [@ChaSICOMP92] has given a linear-time algorithm for intersecting two convex polyhedra. Thus, the 3-d problem can be solved in linear time, provided that the polyhedra $P$ and $Q$ are given.
Now, to solve the 4-d problem, we build a binary range tree ${T}$ according to the last coordinate as before and obtain a series of 3-d subproblems of total size $O(n\lg n)$. Observe that we can pre-compute the red convex hulls $P$ at all the nodes of ${T}$ bottom-up in $O(n\lg n)$ time, by repeatedly using Chazelle’s linear-time algorithm for merging two convex hulls (computing the convex hull of two convex polyhedra is dual to intersecting two convex polyhedra). Similarly, we can pre-compute the blue halfspace intersections $Q$ at all the nodes of ${T}$ in $O(n\lg n)$ time, again by repeatedly using Chazelle’s algorithm for intersecting two halfspace intersections. This immediately gives a solution to the 4-d problem with overall running time $O(n\lg n)$.
[*Remarks*]{}: Precision issues seem to arise since the coordinates of the transformed points and halfspaces involve large numbers, but we can simulate any primitive operation on these points and halfspaces by treating $r$ as a symbolic variable that approaches infinity. It would be interesting to see if we can directly merge or intersect staircase polyhedra without going through the transformation and invoking Chazelle’s algorithm. Note that the above approach does not work at all for the offline dominance reporting problem, or for that matter, the offline dominance emptiness problem (in the 3-d subproblem, we do not know the answer for any non-maximal blue query point whose halfspace does not appear on $\partial Q$).
[^1]: This author’s work was supported by an NSERC grant. School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, [email protected]
[^2]: MADALGO, Aarhus University, [email protected]. This author’s work was supported in part by MADALGO—Center for Massive Data Algorithmics, a Center of the Danish National Research Foundation—and in part by a Google Europe Fellowship in Search and Information Retrieval.
[^3]: AT&T Labs, [email protected]
[^4]: As Karpinski and Nekrich [@Nekrich.COCOON] observed, space can be slightly reduced to $O(n\lg n\lg^{O(1)}\lg n)$ if one is willing to give up linear dependence in $k$, with query time $O(\lg^2\lg n + k\lg\lg n)$.
[^5]: Abusing notation slightly, we will not distinguish between a 2-d region (e.g., a row, column, or grid cell) and its lifting in 3-d. For simplicity, we ignore floors and ceilings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A first-principle model is proposed to study the electrostatic properties of a double-gated silicon slab of nano scale in the framework of density functional theory. The applied gate voltage is approximated as a variation of the electrostatic potential on the boundary of the supercell enclosing the system. With the electron density estimated by the real space Green’s functions, efficient multigrid and fast Fourier Poisson solvers are employed to calculate the electrostatic potential from the charge density. In the representation of localized SIESTA linear combination of atomic orbitals, the Kohn-Sham equation is established and solved self-consistently for the wavefunction of the system in the local density approximation. The transmission for ballistic transport across the atomic silicon slab at small bias is calculated. The charge distribution and electrostatic potential profile in the silicon slab versus the gate voltage are then analyzed with the help of the equivalent capacitive model. Quantum confinement and short gate effects are observed and discussed.'
author:
- 'Li-Na Zhao'
- 'Xue-Feng Wang'
- 'Zhen-Hua Yao'
- 'Zhu-Feng Hou'
- Marcus Yee
- Xing Zhou
- 'Shi-Huan Lin'
- 'Teck-Seng Lee'
title: Atomistic modeling of the electrostatic and transport properties of a simplified nanoscale field effect transistor
---
=1.5truecm
Introduction
============
The size of Si based metal-insulator-semiconductor (MIS) devices has been shrunk aggressively to nanoscale nowadays [@roadmap] in design of very large scale integrated circuits. The quantum-mechanical nature of transport becomes inevitably prominent and there are extensive efforts devoted to modeling quantum behaviors in nano-MIS devices based on the effective mass approximation or the empirical tight-binding models. [@S.Datta.1; @J.Crofton; @H.Wu; @A.Rahman; @E.Fuchs; @S.Ahmed; @L.F.Register; @E.Polizzi; @A.Pecchia] Besides the traditional top-down technologies, bottom-up techniques has also been developed to fabricate Si nanostructures such as nanowires for future nanodevices. [@Y.Cui] As a result, the first-principle study on electronic and transport properties of atomic Si systems becomes attractive. [@A.Pecchia1; @J.M.Soler]
Due to the extensive application of Si based field effect transistors, some efforts have been carried out to the first-principle understanding of their behaviors in the past years. Evans et al. [@M.H.Evans] have studied the effect of Si-SiO$_2$ interface roughness on the electron mobility in a Si based MIS structure by describing the roughness by first principles. Based on the above method, Hadjisavvas et al. [@G.Hadjisavvas] have proposed an explanation for electron mobility enhancement in strained MIS field effect transistors (FETs). Fonseca et al. [@Fonseca] and Liu et al. [@L.Liu] have established a two-terminal system of Si-HfO$_2$-Si and Al-SiO$_2$-nSi respectively described by a self-consistent density functional theory (DFT) and studied the transport properties through the HfO$_2$ and SiO$_2$ slab in the framework of the nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF). In this way, they have estimated the leakage current through the ultra-thin oxide barriers of MISFETs as a function of the voltage drop. Landman et al. [@U.Landman] have studied the quantum transport through short Si nanowires passivated by hydrogen atoms and attached between Al electrodes by solving the eigenchannels of the scattering states in the framework of the density functional method with plan wave basis. Similarly, Ng et al. [@Ng] studied the quantum transport through hydrogenated Si nanowires with Li electrodes employing the NEGF-DFT approach integrated in the Atomistix ToolKit (ATK) package. Fernández-Serra et al. [@M.V.Fernandez-Serra] have investigated the effect of doping on electronic quantum transport in Si nanowires by assuming the same material (Si) for electrodes and the device regions. Later on, Markussen et al. [@T.Markussen] have continued the work for longer wires and studied the crossover from ballistic to diffusive transport based on the DFT and a recursive Green’s function approach. Besides the above two-terminal models, three terminal models have also been used for Si systems to take into account the gate effect. Using the NEGF-DFT approach with the help of ATK package, Dai et al. [@Z.X.Dai] have investigated the transport properties of a Si$_4$ cluster sandwiched between two Al electrodes. By assuming a constant potential shift in the molecular region [@J.Taylor.1; @S.H.Ke] when a gate voltage is applied to the third terminal, they have observed charge transfer from the molecular and transconductance oscillation.
The aim of this work is to go further from small three-terminal molecular systems to more realistic multi-terminal MIS devices of nanoscale using the NEGF-DFT approach. However, a rigorous treatment [@S.Datta] of realistic multiterminal systems is computationally too expensive. Fortunately, particle exchange between the gate and the channel is usually very limited as they are separated by the insulator slab and the gate terminal works as a controller of electrostatic potential in the device region. To assure the simulation feasible with the present computation capability while catching the most important characteristics of nano MISFETs, we use a simplified model and focus ourselves on the gate effects on the electrostatic and transport properties under a small source-drain bias (in the linear region). As we know, in a real MIS device, how the gate voltage is distributed into the channel of the device or the electrostatic property of the device as a MIS capacitor is critical in determining the characteristics of the whole device. [@N.Arora] For example, double-gate (DG) structure has been considered as the most promising device geometrical structure for nano MIS devices due to its good electrostatic integrity [@F.G.Pikus; @G.Baccarani]. In our model, we will take the effect of gate voltage distribution into account instead of simply adding a constant shift to the electrostatic potential. The gate voltage that controls the boundary condition and the corresponding variation of potential inside the device is self-consistently determined by Poisson equation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we define the device model and briefly describe the NEGF-DFT formalism and the computation method. In Sec. III, the result for electrostatic properties, charge and potential, are reported and analyzed with the help of density of states (DOS) and transmission spectra. Finally, a brief summary is given in Sec. IV.
model and method
================
Device Model
------------
We consider a prototype DG MISFET as schematically shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The device is made from a Si slab with thickness of nm order in the $x$ direction. The channel ($z$) direction is chosen along Si crystal $[001]$ orientation and the interfaces along $(100)$ which is the preferred direction due to lower interface defect density and higher mobility. H atoms are used to passivate the dangling Si bonds on the surfaces. The H-Si bond length is relaxed and has a value of 1.49 Å while the Si-Si bond length is 2.35 Å. Further on either side of the Si slab a metal gate of variable length along $z$ direction is located a few angstroms away from the H atom sheet, as indicated by the thick solid bars in Fig. \[fig1\](a). Note that here we insert the vacuum slabs, instead of oxide slabs, between the gates and the Si slab as the insulator. This is one of the simplifications introduced in this model in order to reduce the computation load. Since the dielectric constant of vacuum ($\kappa_v=1$) is much lower than that of oxide (e.g. $\kappa_{ox}=3.9$ for SiO$_2$), we expect a lower insulator capacitance (between the gate and the channel) in our model and, hence, a larger gate threshold than that for devices with oxide insulator slabs.
Four different model structures of total length 21.72 Å are studied in this paper and they are denoted as $S_{mn}$ for models with short gate (length $5.43$ Å) and $L_{mn}$ for the model with long gate (in the full central region of length $10.86$ Å). The index $m$ ($n$) is used to distinguish models with different thickness of the Si slab (vacuum slab). The Si slab in the models is $m$ unit-cells thick ($5.43$ and $10.86$ Å for $m=1$ and $2$ respectively). The corresponding vacuum slab thickness is $1.9$ and $2.9$ Å for $n=1$ and $2$ respectively.
Another simplification is to approximate the gate effect with a boundary condition based on the following physical consideration. When we apply a small voltage drop between the Si slab and the metal gates we shift the Fermi energy in the latter by letting the former grounded. Due to the high electron density in metal, the electrostatic potential in the gates will shift in parallel with the gate Fermi energy or the voltage drop. As a result, the role of the metal gates on the channel is to control the electrostatic boundary of the supercell as enclosed by the solid lines in Fig. \[fig1\](a). Understanding this gating mechanism, we can exclude the gate materials from our model system (inside the supercell) while taking its most important effect into account by shifting the boundary condition as further explained in next section.
A third simplification is to use the same material for the source/drain electrodes and the channel. In real MISFET devices, the drain and source electrodes are doped and the contact between the electrodes and the channel adds to the complexity of the system and makes the result difficult to analyze. In this work, we focus on the gating effect in the channel region and it would be more practical to handle a simplified system. This simplification is expected not to affect the conclusion when the bias is low and has been used by other authors. [@M.V.Fernandez-Serra]
After the above simplifications, in our model, the double-gated MISFET is a Si slab with known electrostatic boundary and can be studied by the NEGF-DFT method. The system is composed of a hydrogen passivated Si slab and two vacuum slabs. Along $z$ axis, as separated by the vertical dash lines in Fig. \[fig1\](a), the system is divided into three regions: the left electrode (L) the central region, or the channel region (C), and the right electrode (R). In $z$ direction, the electrostatic potential of a Si slab without gate is used as the boundary condition of the electrostatic potential on the left and right boundaries of the supercell. This implies that the left and right electrodes are assumed semi-infinite. In $y$ direction, the periodic boundary condition is applied to assume an extending system in this direction. In $x$ direction, the boundary is variable depending on the system size and the gate voltage and will be specified in the corresponding context. Furthermore, we assume a uniform Fermi level inside the supercell. This approximation is justified in case of small bias between the source and drain electrodes because the gate voltage induced variation of Fermi energy happens mainly in the vacuum slab and the density of states there is negligible.
(300,240) (0,40)
Theoretical Formalism
---------------------
To analyze the electrostatic and transport properties of the atomic scale MISFET, we utilize density functional theory (DFT), [@P.Hohenberg; @W.Kohn] which converts the many-body system into a single-particle system, and the two-terminal nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) technique [@A.P.Jauho; @S.Datta], which takes care of the coherent transport through the system between the source and the drain electrodes in Landauer picture [@M.Buttiker; @S.Datta; @J.Taylor; @M.Brandbyge; @note]. With standard norm-conserving pseudopotentials [@D.R.Hamann] to describe the effective interaction of the valence and core electrons, we construct a localized SIESTA linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) basis set $\{ \psi_i \}$ [@P.Ordejon] as the representation for expanding the electronic wavefunctions. According to the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem, [@P.Hohenberg] in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the fully interacting electron problem for the ground state can be mapped into a variational problem in terms of a single-particle density $\rho(\bm{r})$. The Kohn-Sham (KS) equation [@W.Kohn] is then established for the atomic system in the representation $\{ \psi_i \}$ with the corresponding KS Hamiltonian operator expressed in matrix form as $H[\rho(\bm{r})]$. In extending systems, we use the supercell technique with the periodic boundary condition to define and solve the KS equation in the whole real space. The dimension of the supercell is chosen larger than the screening length of the KS potential in any direction so the real system is well mimicked by that inside the supercell. In open systems, the wavefunction differs from that in closed system and this is taken care of by using the Green’s function of a semi-infinite lead [@S.Sanvito] as the boundary condition for the Green’s function inside the supercell. With the KS Hamiltonian $H$ we calculate the retarded (advanced) Green’s function (GF) $G^{R(A)} (\varepsilon)$, Keldysh GF $G^< (\varepsilon)$ and retarded (advanced) self-energy $\Sigma^{R(A)} (\varepsilon)$. The density matrix $\rho(\bm{r})$ then reads [@A.P.Jauho; @S.Datta; @B.G.Wang] $$\rho = -\frac{i}{2\pi} \int d \varepsilon G^< (\varepsilon).$$ The final density matrix is self-consistently reached from an initial guess, for which we use the neutral atom density matrix obtained by assuming no interaction between atoms. In the linear response region where the bias between the electrodes is small, the Fisher-Lee relation [@D.S.Fisher] connects the Green’s functions with the transmission coefficients. With the density matrix and the Green’s functions known, the transmission $T(\varepsilon)$ for the quantum transport between the electrodes is then given by [@S.Datta] $$T(\varepsilon) = Tr[\Gamma_L G^R \Gamma_R G^A],$$ where $\Gamma_L$, $\Gamma_R$ are line-width functions of left and right electrodes which indicate the corresponding coupling strength between the electrodes and central region. The linear zero-temperature conductance is determined by the transmission at Fermi energy $$G=(2e^2/h)T(E_{F}).
\label{cond}$$
Computational Method
--------------------
Atomistix ToolKit (ATK) [@Atomistix] for two-probe systems together with a multigrid Poisson solver [@W.L.Briggs; @T.L.Beck] is used to carry out the numerical calculation. We at first apply the periodic boundary condition in the $x$ and $y$ directions and solve the corresponding electron density $\rho_0(x,y,z)$ and electrostatic potential $V_0(x,y,z)$. $V_0(x,y,z)$ on the boundary is denoted as the boundary condition at $V_g=0$. The boundary condition at finite $V_g$ is obtained by shifting $V_0(x,y,z)$ with $V_g$ on the gate but keep the same as $V_0(x,y,z)$ on the electrodes. On each boundary region between a electrode and a gate the potential shift decreases linearly from $V_g$ to zero. The modified boundary condition is then applied to the system to solve $\rho(x,y,z)$ and $V_(x,y,z)$ at arbitrary $V_g$. In the calculation we use the SZP, single $\zeta$ valence $s$ and $p$ orbitals ($s$ orbitals) plus single $\zeta$-polarization $d$ ($p$) orbitals for Si (H), real space SIESTA LCAO basis set [@Atomistix; @P.Ordejon; @J.M.Soler] and the standard nonlocal norm-conserving pseudopotential [@D.R.Hamann] from the database in ATK. The reason why we use the SZP basis set instead of a simpler one is because the result presented in this paper converges for SZP and more complete basis sets. The local density approximation (LDA) with the Perdew-Zunger parametrization [@J.P.Perdew] of the correlation energy for a non spin-polarized homogeneous electron gas [@D.M.Ceperley] is used for the exchange-correlation functional. The mesh cutoff is set to $4348.48$ eV corresponding to a grid size of $0.092$Å$\times
0.092$Å$\times 0.092$Å. The MonckHorst-Pack k-point grid is $(1,1,100)$ along $(x,y,z)$ directions.
Results and Discussions
=======================
To express a physical property $A$ in our microscopic model on the same footing as its counterpart in traditional macroscopic model, we measure it from its value at $V_g=0$ and use its average over the $y$-$z$ range inside the central unit cell ($8.15$ Å $<z< 13.58$ Å), $\langle A \rangle_{y,z}$, in the following analysis. The total net charge $Q$ is the total charge transferred into the supercell when $V_g$ is applied. Note that there may be a shift between $V_g$ in our model and the observed in experiments because i) the real boundary condition at $V_g=0$ may differ from the periodic (bulk) boundary condition used in the calculation, ii) the boundary potential shift when a finite $V_g$ being applied is determined selfconsistently and can vary in different environments, and iii) no workfunction is specified for the gate metal.
Equivalent capacitive circuits are widely used in qualitative analysis of electrostatic properties of MISFETs in the literature. Our system is macroscopically symmetric about the $y$-$z$ (top-down) and $x$-$y$ (left-right) planes and three capacitors, $C_i$, $C_{sz}$ and $C_{sx}$ may be used for this purpose. As shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b), left circuit, $C_i$ accounts qualitatively for the average voltage drop across the insulator slab while $C_{sx}$ for the one across the Si slab in $x$ direction and $C_{sz}$ in $z$ direction. For long channel as usually exists in traditional DG MISFETs, one-dimensional approximation is valid and only $C_{sx}$ is important for the electrostatic analysis. For short devices, however, the boundary at the ends of the channel also plays an important role in determining the potential profile in the center of the channel and the effect of $C_{sz}$ should be taken into account. Because only the linear region is concerned in this paper, we can also use a single capacitor $C_s$ to describe the electrostatic properties of the Si slab with $C_s=C_{sx}
C_{sz}/(C_{sx}+C_{sz})\sim C_{sx}$, as illustrated in the right circuit of Fig. \[fig1\](b). The total net charge in the Si slab reads $$Q=V_gC=(V_g-V_s) C_i=(V_s-V_c) C_{sx}=V_c C_{sz},
\label{eq_q}$$ with the total capacitance $C=[1/C_i+1/C_{sx}+1/C_{sz}]^{-1}$. Here $V_s$ is the surface potential and $V_c$ the central potential of the channel as further specified in Sec.III.B.
(300,180) (0,0)
Charge and Potential Distributions in Real Space
------------------------------------------------
The charge density $\langle \rho\rangle_{y,z}$ distribution along the gate ($x$) direction is shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a) for model $S_{12}$. Similar distribution is observed for other models and is not plotted here. Attracted by the charge in the metal gates, most of the net charges appear near the surface of the Si slab. As a result, as illustrated in Figs. \[fig2\](b) and (c), the electric field concentrates mainly in the vacuum slab where $\langle
V\rangle_{y,z}$ varies rapidly and is weak inside the Si slab where $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ becomes flat. The FET is in its off region at small $V_g$ and $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ shifts with $V_g$ until $V_g$ reaches the threshold voltage where $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ saturates in the center of the Si slab.
An interesting short gate effect is observed when comparing the potential distribution for the short gate model $S_{12}$ and that for the long gate model $L_{12}$. For the short gate model $S_{12}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b), $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ versus $x$ in the vacuum regions ($0<x<2.86$Å or $8.77$Å $<x<11.63$Å) is nonlinear. This is a result of the fact that the length of the gate in model $S_{12}$ is comparable to the thickness of the vacuum slabs in model $S_{12}$. The electric field in the vacuum slabs deviates greatly from along the $x$ direction and the parallel-plate capacitor model fails. For longer gate model $L_{12}$, the fringe effect on the channel region is reduced and the $\langle
V\rangle_{y,z}$ versus $x$ curves in the vacuum slabs become straight as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](c). The short gate effect described above is unique in nanoscale MISFET and does not appear in conventional MISFET since there the insulator slab’s thickness is usually much smaller than its length. We will further discuss its effect on the FET’s performance in Fig. \[fig3\](c) and (d).
(300,180) (0,180)
Total Transferred Charge and Surface Potential
----------------------------------------------
We use the surface just enclosing the H and Si atoms as indicated by the horizontal dashed lines in Fig. \[fig1\](a) or the vertical dashed lines at $2.86$ Å and $8.77$ Å for model $S_{12}$ in Fig. \[fig2\](a) as the surfaces separating the channel and the insulator slab. The averaged value $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ on these surfaces is used as the surface potential $V_s$. The central potential $V_c$ is approximated as the $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ value in the middle of the two gates, i.e. at $x=5.82$ Å in Fig. \[fig2\](a) for model $S_{12}$.
With $V_s$ and $V_c$ known at each $V_g$, we can estimate the capacitance from Eq. (\[eq\_q\]). For traditional MISFETs, usually we have $C_{sx} < C_i$ in the off region and $C_{sx} > C_i$ in the on region. However, the Si slab here is extremely thin and $C_{sx} >
C_i$ in both regions. In addition, the span of the device in the $z$ direction is larger than that in the $x$ direction. This fact leads to $C_{sx} > C_{sz}$ in the off-region and $C_s$ may increase with the Si slab thickness because $C_{sz}$ is proportional to the thickness while $C_{sx}$ is proportional to the inverse of it. In the on region, when a large amount of free charges are created on the surface, $V_c$ is almost pinned due to the screening effect of these free charges.
The total net charge $Q$ versus the gate voltage $V_g$ for model $S_{12}$ is shown by the dashed curve in Fig. \[fig3\](a). At $V_g=0$, the Fermi energy $E_F$ is located in the energy gap of the Si slab. As $V_g$ varies, the relative position of the Fermi level in the energy band shifts accordingly. $C_s$ remains almost constant when the Fermi level is in the energy gap but increases quickly as the Fermi level enters the conduction or the valence band. This sudden increase of $C_s$ happens at the positive and negative threshold points, i.e., near $V_g=13$ V and $-7$ V, respectively. Near these two points, due to the shift of the $C_s/C_i$ ratio, the $V_s$ versus $V_g$ curve also changes its slope as shown by the dashed curve in Fig. \[fig3\](b).
To show the effect of the vacuum-slab thickness on the electrostatic characteristics, we use model $S_{11}$ with a thinner vacuum slab and redo the calculation. $\langle \rho\rangle _{y,z}$ and $\langle
V\rangle _{y,z}$ have similar profiles between the gates as that for model $S_{12}$ but with a larger amplitude at the same gate voltage. In the equivalent capacitive circuit, $C_i$ increases with the shrinking of the vacuum slab, which results in the shift of $Q$ and $V_s$ as shown by the solid curve in Fig. \[fig3\](a) and (b). The $Q$ versus $V_g$ curve of thicker insulator slab model $S_{12}$ has a wider subthreshold region in the $V_g$ axis. One interesting observation is that the threshold surface potentials, the surface potentials at the threshold points, for model $S_{11}$ and $S_{12}$ are very close as indicated by the short bars beside the curves in Fig. \[fig3\](b). This is because the surface potential reflects directly the Fermi level in the energy band of the Si slab. For a system of thicker insulator or smaller $C_i$ it takes a bigger gate voltage difference to shift the Fermi energy from the valence band to the conduction band.
In Fig. \[fig2\] we have shown that the electric field in the insulator slab can deviate from normal to the slab due to the fringe effect in short gate cases. This short gate effect in nano FET reduces the per area capacitance of the insulator slab and results in a larger threshold gate voltage than estimated from parallel capacitance approximation. In Fig. \[fig3\](c) and (d) we plot the $Q$ versus $V_g$ curves and the $V_s$ versus $V_g$ curves respectively for model $S_{12}$ (dashed) and longer gate model $L_{12}$ (dash-dotted). The smaller total capacitance $C$ in model $S_{12}$, due to its half gate length plus the short gate effect in it, results in a less than half net charge $Q$ in the system at any $V_g$ and a much gentler slope of its $Q$ versus $V_g$ curve in Fig. \[fig3\](c). In Fig. \[fig3\](d), we also observe a gentler slope of the $V_s$ versus $V_g$ curve for model $S_{12}$ in the subthreshold region. Combining the relation $V_s/V_g=C_i/(C_i+C_s)$ as expressed in Eq. (\[eq\_q\]), this means a smaller ratio of $C_i/C_s$ and confirms the conclusion drawn from Fig. \[fig2\] that the short gate effect mainly reduces the insulator capacitance.
Up to now, we have seen that both making the insulator slab thinner and suppressing the short gate effect can enhance the insulator capacitance and reduce the threshold gate voltage as illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\](b) and (d). On the other hand, a close comparison of the curves shows that the two changes to the system have opposite effects on the threshold surface potential. The threshold surface potential has a tendency to increase in the former case (the solid bar on the positive $V_g$ side in Fig. \[fig3\](b) is slightly higher than the dashed one) while the threshold surface potential decreases in the latter case. A detailed study shows that the variation of the threshold surface potential is related to the potential distribution inside the Si slab. Given the same surface potential in the subthreshold region, the potential distribution along $x$ changes little when varying the insulator slab thickness but a potential drop appears and broadens in the center of the $\langle V\rangle_{y,z}$ versus $x$ curves when shortening the gate.
In Fig. \[fig3\](e) and (f), we present the dependence of electrostatic characteristics on the Si slab thickness exemplified by model $S_{11}$ and $S_{21}$. Similar to the case of thicker insulator slab as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a) and (b), the $Q$ and $V_s$ versus $V_g$ curves for a system of thicker Si slab also have a wider subthreshold region in the $V_g$ axis. However, this apparent common feature in the two cases has different origins and it is interesting to compare the details of their electrostatic characteristics.
At first, as pointed out earlier in this section, because the Si slab inside the supercell has a dimension in the $z$ direction bigger than that in the $x$ direction, $|C_{sx}| > |C_{sz}|$ and $C_s$ increases with the Si slab thickness in the off-region. In this case, the $Q$ versus $V_g$ curve of thicker Si slab model $S_{21}$ (dotted) in Fig. \[fig3\](e) has a sharper slope in the off-region due to an increased total capacitance $C$, in contrast to the gentler slope of the curve for thicker insulator slab model $S_{12}$ (dashed) in Fig. \[fig3\](a). In addition, the bigger $C_s$ in the thicker Si slab case, in stead of the smaller $C_i$ as in the thicker insulator slab case, results in the gentler slope of the dashed $V_s$ versus $V_g$ curve in Fig. \[fig3\](f).
Secondly, it is well known [@Y.Omura; @P.V.Sushko; @S.Datta.1] that the energy gap of semiconductor materials in nanostructures is enlarged from their bulk value as a result of the quantum confinement effect. The change of the gap depends on the confining potential profile characterized by parameters such as the confining dimension and the potential height. This effect is automatically taken into account by our NEGF-DFT model. As will be illustrated later in Sec.III.C, the thicker Si slab in model $S_{21}$ has a narrower and shifted energy gap compared to that in model $S_{11}$. As a result, the subthreshold region in the $V_s$ axis, i.e. the difference between the surface potentials at the positive and negative threshold points, of model $S_{21}$ ($3.79$ V for the dotted curve in Fig. \[fig3\](f)) is narrower than that of model $S_{11}$ ($3.99$ V for the solid curve). Furthermore, we also observe a shift of the subthreshold region in the $V_s$ and $V_g$ axes when the Si slab thickness varies.
As discussed above and illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\](e) and (f), the thicker Si slab in model $S_{21}$, compared to that in model $S_{11}$, narrows the subthreshold $V_s$ region via the quantum confinement effect on the one hand and reduces $V_s/V_g$ ratio in the off-region due to the specific length-thickness ratio of the Si slabs in the models on the other hand. The observed wider subthreshold $V_g$ region is a result of the competition between these two independent but opposite factors.
In this section, we analyze the electrostatic characteristics of our model nano FET in a way widely employed in the analysis of conventional MISFET. [@N.Arora] Here we want to emphasize that our system (of size 2 nm) is much smaller than any of the conventional MISFETs even the smallest predicted by ITRS in its latest report. [@roadmap] As a result, our model device shows characteristics between molecular electronics and conventional electronics. For example, we observe a large slope of the $Q$ versus $V_g$ curve in the off region in all models which is similar to the result of the Si$_4$ cluster [@Z.X.Dai] but different from that in conventional MISFET where a flat $Q$-$V_g$ dependence is usually found in the off region. In addition, the threshold gate voltage in our systems ($> 5$ V) is much higher than the value usually observed in conventional MISFET ($< 2$ V). This is because the Si slab in our systems is very thin and a vacuum instead of SiO$_2$ slab is used as the insulator slab. The $C_s/C_i$ ratio then becomes much larger in the off region.
(300,180) (0,180)
Transmission and Density of States
----------------------------------
To explore further the origin of the electrostatic properties of nano FETs and the gate effect on transport, we calculate the transmission, which gives the conductance in the linear region via Eq. (\[cond\]), and the density of states (DOS). In Fig. \[fig4\](a), the transmission of an electron propagating along the $z$ direction is calculated at $V_g=0$ for quantum transport between the source and drain electrodes in model $S_{11}$ (solid) and $S_{21}$ (dashed). Because the electron sees a perfect crystal in the $z$ direction, its transmission is $100\%$ for each channel and the transmission versus energy curve tells the number of propagating channels for an electron of the energy. The one-dimensional DOS in $k_z$ direction for model $S_{11}$ (solid) and $S_{21}$ (dashed) is plotted in Fig. \[fig4\](b). The band gap of model $S_{11}$ is wider than that of model $S_{21}$ due to the quantum-confinement effects in nano semiconductor structure [@S.Datta.1]. In addition, most probably due to the change of the surface effect or the ratio between the numbers of the H and Si atoms in the system, a shift of the energy gap is observed when varying the Si slab thickness.
(300,150) (0,180)
The transmission versus electron energy at different gate voltages is plotted in Fig. \[fig5\] for model $S_{11}$. When a negative gate voltage is applied, the energy band in the gate region shifts to higher energy. This shift forms an energy barrier for electrons and a well for holes. As a result, we observe a significant decrease of transmission for electrons near the bottom of the conduction band as shown in Fig. \[fig5\](a). On the contrary, if a positive gate voltage is applied, an energy barrier is formed for the holes in the middle of the device and the propagation of holes near the top of the valence band becomes unfavored. The transmission profile changes quickly with the gate voltage in the subthreshold region and then becomes less sensitive when $V_c$ and $V_s$ saturate at $V_g$ higher than the threshold gate voltage.
summary
=======
In summary, we have proposed an atomistic multi-terminal model for electrostatic simulation of nano MISFETs in the framework of the NEGF-DFT approach and studied the behaviour of devices with Si slabs of one and two unit cells in thickness, with variable insulator (vacuum in this model) thickness, and with different gate length. The subthreshold region in terms of the surface potential reflects the band gap of the Si slabs and the surface potential at the threshold points remains little changed in devices of different insulator thickness. For a device with thicker Si slab, the subthreshold region in surface potential becomes narrower due to the quantum confinement effect while the subthreshold region in gate voltage becomes wider as a result of the competition between the confinement effect and the geometry effect on capacitance. In nano FETs where the gate length is comparable to the insulator thickness, the short gate effect results in a much wider subthreshold region than that observed in conventional MISFETs. This short gate effect can be suppressed by using longer gates to reduce the fringe effect on the electric field in the insulator slab.
In addition, we have calculated the band structure of Si slabs with different thickness. The density of states and the transmission probability of electrons in our nano FET system are then estimated to demonstrate the quantum confinement effect and the gating effect on transport in the linear region. The energy gap widens and shifts to higher energy when the Si slab varies from one to two unit-cells in thickness. The application of a gate voltage introduces energy barriers or wells to the carriers in the transport channel and modifies the performance the nano FETs. A negative gate voltage favors the hole transport between the electrodes while a positive one favors the electron transport.
Limited to the computation capability, our model system is still not fully realistic and is smaller than even the latest feasible MISFETs [@roadmap]. Nevertheless, our model may provide qualitative information about realistic MISFETs and serve as a prototype framework for nano MISFET simulations.
This work has been supported in part by the Economic Development Board (EDB), Singapore, and in part under the joint Research Collaboration Agreement between Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Atomistix Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (AAP). Support from the Nanocluster and Microelectronics Center of NTU is also acknowledged.
[99]{} See, for example, the ITRS website: http://www.itrs.net/.
J. Crofton and P. A. Barnes, J. Appl. Phys. **69**, 7660 (1991).
H. Wu, Y. Zhao, and M. H. White, Solid-State Electron. **50**, 1164 (2006).
A. Rahman and M. S. Lundstrom, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices **49**, 481 (2002).
E. Fuchs, P. Dollfus, G. Le Carval, S. Barraud, D. Villanueva, F. Salvetti, H. Jaouen, and T. Skotnicki, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices **52**, 2280 (2005).
S. Ahmed, C. Ringhofer, and D. Vasileska, J. Computational Electron. **2**, 113 (2003).
L. F. Register and K. Hess, Appl. Phys. Lett. **71** 1222 (1997).
E. Polizzi and S. Datta,Third IEEE Conference on Nanotechnology, **1**, 40 (2003).
S. Datta, [*Quantum Transport*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
A. Pecchia, L. Salamandra, L. Latessa, B. Aradi, T. Frauenheim, and A. Di Carlo, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices **54**, 3159 (2007).
Y. Cui and C. M. Lieber, Science **291**, 851 (2001).
A. Pecchia and A. Di Carlo, Rep. Prog. Phys. **67**, 1497 (2004).
José M. Soler, E. Artacho, J. D. Gale, A. García, J. Junquera, P. Ordejón and D. Sánchez-Portal, J. Phys.: CM **14**, 2745 (2002).
M. H. Evans, X.-G. Zhang, J. D. Joannopoulos, and S. T. Pantelides, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 106802 (2005).
G. Hadjisavvas, L. Tsetseris, and S. T. Pantelides, IEEE Electron Device Lett. [**28**]{}, 1018 (2007).
L. R. C. Fonseca, A. A. Demkov, and A. Knizhnik, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) **239**, 48 (2003).
L. Liu, D. Waldron, V. Timochevski, and H. Guo, Proceedings of 8th Intl. Conf. on Solid-State and IC technology, 1415 (2006).
U. Landman, R. N. Barnett, A. G. Scherbakoy, and P. Avouris, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 1958 (2000).
M-F. Ng, L. Zhou, S-W. Yang, L. Y. Sim, V. B. C. Tan, and P. Wu, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 155435 (2007).
M. V. Fernández-Serra, Ch. Adessi, and X. Blase, Nano Lett. [**6**]{}, 2674 (2006).
T. Markussen, R. Rurali, A. P. Jauho, M. Brandbyge, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 076803 (2007).
Z. X. Dai, X. Q. Shi, X. H. Zheng, and Z. Zeng, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 045411 (2006).
J. Taylor, H. Guo, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 121104(R) (2001).
S. H. Ke, H. U. Baranger, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 113401 (2005).
S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995).
N. Arora, MOSFET Models for VLSI Circuit Simulation (Springer-Verlag Wien, New York, 1993)
F. G. Pikus and K. K. Likharev, Appl. Phys. Lett. **71**, 3661 (1997).
G. Baccarani and S. Reggiani, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices **46** 1656 (1999).
P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. **136**, B864 (1964).
W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. **140**, A1133 (1965).
A. P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 5528 (1994).
M. Büttiker, Y. Imry, R. Landauer, and S. Pinhas, Phys. Rev. B **31**, 6207 (1985).
J. Taylor, Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University (2000), J. Taylor, H. Guo and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 245407 (2001).
M. Brandbyge, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordejón, J. Taylor, and K. Stokbro, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 165401 (2002).
Approaches of the DFT and NEGF combination used in the literature can be different depending on the assumptions, the approximations, and the basis set used in specific cases. In the paper, we specify the approach we used in this work and refer the readers to the related references for detailed analysis and justification of the approach since it has been systematically described elsewhere.
D. R. Hamann, M. Schlüter and C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **43**, 1494 (1979).
P. Ordejón, E. Artacho and José M. Soler, Phys. Rev. B **53**, R10441 (1996).
S. Sanvito, C. J. Lambert, J. H. Jefferson, and A. M. Bratkovsky, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 11936 (1999).
B. G. Wang, J. Wang, and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 398 (1999).
D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 6851 (1981).
Atomistix ToolKit Tutorial and Reference Guide version 2.0.4, Atomistix A/S (www.atomistix.com).
W. L. Briggs, V. E. Henson, S. F. McCormick, [*A Multigrid Tutorial*]{}, 2nd Ed., SIAM, Philadelphia (1999).
T. L. Beck, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 1041 (2000).
J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 5048 (1981).
D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Phys. Rev. Lett. **45**, 566 (1980).
Y. Omura, S. Horiguchi, M. Tabe, and K. Kishi, IEEE Electron Device Lett. **14**, 569 (1993).
P. V. Sushko and A. L. Shluger, Microelectronic Engineering **84**, 2043 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Systematically studying all the [*RXTE*]{}/PCA observations for GRS 1915+105 before November 2010, we have discovered three additional patterns in the relation between Quasi-Periodic Oscillation (QPO) frequency and photon energy, extending earlier outcomes reported by @Qu10. We have confirmed that as QPO frequency increases, the relation evolves from the negative correlation to positive one. The newly discovered patterns provide new constraints on the QPO models.'
author:
- 'Shu-Ping Yan'
- 'Jin-Lu Qu'
- 'Guo-Qiang Ding'
- Peng Han
- 'Li-Ming Song'
- 'Hong-Xing Yin'
- 'Cheng-Min Zhang'
- Shu Zhang
- 'Jian-Min Wang'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'A Systematic Study on Energy Dependence of Quasi-Periodic Oscillation Frequency in GRS 1915+105'
---
Introduction
============
GRS 1915+105, discovered by WATCH instrument on board [*GRANAT*]{} in 1992 [@Castro92] and located in our galaxy at an estimated distance of $9\pm3$ kpc [@Chapuis04], is a low-mass X-ray binary containing a spinning accreting black hole [@Zhang97] of mass about $14\pm4$ M$_{\odot}$ and a K-M III giant star of mass $0.8\pm0.5$ M$_{\odot}$ as the donor [@Harlaftis04; @Greiner01a]. The orbital separation and period of this binary are, respectively, about $108\pm4$ R$_{\odot}$ and 33.5 days [@Greiner01b]. Serving as a famous microquasar, GRS 1915+105 produces superluminal radio jets [@Mirabel94; @Fender99]. It shows various X-ray light curves and complex timing phenomena. Based on the appearance of light curves and color-color diagrams, the behaviors of GRS 1915+105 can be classified into 12 classes. The variability of the source can be further reduced to transitions between three basic states (A, B, and C) [@Belloni00]. Of these 12 classes, class $\chi$ (state) is most commonly observed [@Belloni00]. It shows characteristics exclusively of state C, the state which is steady in the X-rays and lies in a rather hard part of the color-color diagram. It is the state when the low-frequency ($\sim0.5-10$ Hz) QPOs (LFQPOs) are most frequently observed [e.g., @Muno99], providing an idea site for studying LFQPOs.
Much effort has been made for exploring the origins of the LFQPOs of GRS 1915+105. It was found that the QPO frequency was positively correlated with the fluxes of the individual components and spectral total flux [e.g., @Chen97; @Markwardt99; @Muno99; @Trudolyubov99; @Reig00; @Tomsick01]. @Muno01 confirmed that QPO frequency was tightly correlated with the source flux, and, however, they also found that for some observations the QPO frequency was not correlated with the flux. It was found that the QPO amplitude was inversely correlated with the source flux or QPO frequency [e.g., @Muno99; @Reig00; @Trudolyubov99]. @Muno99 and @Rodriguez02a reported that as QPO frequency increased, the temperature of the inner accretion disk increased and the radius of the inner accretion disk decreased. These results indicate that the LFQPO is linked to both the accretion disk and the region where the power law component is produced. However, most of these results are related to models. As a model-independent means, it is meaningful to study the correlations between photon energy and QPO parameters including its amplitude and frequency. Some authors found that the QPO amplitude increased with photon energy and it turned over in high energy bands in some cases [e.g., @Tomsick01; @Rodriguez02b; @Rodriguez04; @Zdziarski05]. @Qu10 studied the LFQPOs of GRS 1915+105 in class $\chi$ state [@Belloni00] and found that as the centroid frequency of QPO increased the correlation between QPO frequency and photon energy evolved from a negative correlation to a positive one.
Nevertheless, systematic studies on the energy dependence of the LFQPO frequency in GRS 1915+105 have never been done. In this work, using all the data of [*RXTE*]{}/PCA of GRS 1915+105 before November 2010, we have investigated the correlation between photon energy and QPO frequency throughout. The data reduction methods are described in §2, the results are presented in §3, while a simple discussion and the conclusion are given in §4.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We analyze all the [*RXTE*]{} observations of GRS 1915+105 before November, 2010, which are listed in Table \[table1\]. These observations are belonged to class $\chi$ state and with abundant LFOPOs (0.5–10 Hz) for evaluating the energy dependence of QPO frequency.
The light curves are extracted from the binned mode and event mode data of [*RXTE*]{}/PCA by using the HEASOFT version 6.7 package. Good time intervals are defined as follows: satellite elevation over the Earth limb $>10^{\circ}$ and offset pointing $<0.02^{\circ}$. In order to acquire the details of the correlations between photon energy and QPO frequency in broadband with enough confidence, only the generic binned configuration data with energy channel number $\geq 4$ and time resolution $\leq 8$ ms are selected. The light curves are extracted with a time resolution of 8 ms in PCA energy bands defined in Table \[table2\]. By running POWSPEC version 1.0 with “normalization = -2" option, the power density spectra (PDS) are produced with the normalization of @Miyamoto92, which gives the periodogram in units of (rms/mean)$^2$/Hz, and corrected for Poisson noise [for details on PDS computation and X-ray PDS normalization practice, see, e.g., @Klis89; @Vaughan03]. The PDS are computated on an interval length of 64 s and Logarithmically rebinned by inputting -1.03 to rebin option. Following @Belloni02, we fit the PDS with a model including several Lorentzians to represent the QPOs, the continuum, and other broad features, respectively. The continuum of PDS can also be fitted with other models, for instance, a power law or a doubly broken power law [@Belloni90]. We have compared the quality of our current fits with that of the model including a power law for PDS continuum and several Lorentzians for other timing features and found that the multi-Lorentzian model fits better. A model consisting of a doubly broken power law plus several Lorentzians gives similar $\chi^2$ values as our multi-Lorentzian fit. As pointed out by @Belloni02, the advantage of the multi-Lorentzian model fit is that it faciliates comparison across source types. Figure \[fig:pds\] shows an example of the five-Lorentzian fits of the PDS. The errors are derived by varying the parameters until $\Delta\chi^2=1$, at 1 $\sigma$ level.
Results
=======
For each observation interval listed in Table \[table1\], we have drawn a diagram that exhibits the relation between QPO frequency and photon energy. We use Least Squares [see, e.g., @Greene02] to estimate the linear correlation of the relations and obtain corresponding correlation coefficients (R), adjusted R-squares (R2) and slopes (k). Despite the complexity of the relations, they show some similar features. We find that it is possible to classify the relations into only six patterns, based on the appearance of the relation and the results of Least Squares fit. For the purpose of reducing the complexity of the amount of available data, we first focus on the relations with distinctive appearance and include them into corresponding patterns (see Table \[table1\]). Figure \[fig:e\_fre\] shows three examples of energy-frequency relation for each pattern. In some cases, the QPO frequency decreases monotonously with energy, and R $<$ -0.8, R2 $>$ 0.6. We call this relation P1. Nevertheless, the relation is sometimes a positive “linear” correlation with R $>$ 0.8, R2 $>$ 0.6, which is referred to as P5. The other three patterns are the different combinations of P1 and P5. For P2, the frequency roughly maintains a constant at low energy and decreases with the energy at high energy. For P3, the relation evolves from a positive correlation (P5) to a negative one (P1) as the energy increases. While for P4, the frequency increases with energy at low energy and then it approximates a constant at high energy. The remaining relations are irregular/indistinct and hard to be included into certain patterns mentioned above. We call them P0. The P1 and P5 were firstly found by @Qu10, while P2, P3, P4 were newly discovered.
The correlation coefficients and adjusted R-squares of each pattern are shown in Figure \[fig:fre\_cor\]. It is clear that P1 and P5 possess significant linear correlation, P3 non-linear correlation, while P2, P4 being mediate. The P0 points scatter among the points of P2, P3 and P4. In the order of P1 $\rightarrow$ P2 $\rightarrow$ P3 $\rightarrow$ P4 $\rightarrow$ P5, the correlation coefficients increase gradually from $\sim$ -1 to $\sim$ 1. This supports our classification as optimal.
Generally, with increasing of the QPO frequency and source intensity, the relation evolves from P1 to P5, via P2, P3 and P4, as demonstrated by Figure \[fig:shape\_fre\_rate\]: the averaged QPO frequencies and intensities of P1 and P2 are obviously lower than those of P3, P4, and P5; the cases when QPO frequency $f\gtrsim 5$ Hz or count rate $\gtrsim 3000$ cts/s/PCU2 only occur in P5 and all the count rates and QPO frequencies of P1 and P2 are, respectively, less than $\sim$2000 cts/s/PCU2 and $\sim$4 Hz.
The relation between QPO frequency and the slope is shown in Figure \[fig:fre\_k\]. Panel (a) of Figure \[fig:fre\_k\] demonstrates the slopes of P1 (k $<$ 0, $f < 3$ Hz) and P5 (k $>$ 0, $f > 2$ Hz). It is clearly that as QPO frequency increases, the relation between QPO frequency and photon energy evolves from the negative correlation (P1) to the positive one (P5). Panel (b) of Figure \[fig:fre\_k\] demonstrates the slopes of all (168) observation intervals listed in Table \[table1\]. The track in panel (b) is similar to that in panel (a), which confirms the evolution from P1 to P5, via P2, P3 and P4. This also suggests that our patterns are representative.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
By systematically analyzing all the [*RXTE*]{}/PCA observations of GRS 1915+105 before November 2010, we have found that there are five typical patterns of the relation between QPO frequency and photon energy: the negative correlation (P1) and the positive one (P5), as well as three combined relations of them (P2, P3 and P4). The P1 and P5 were firstly found by @Qu10 and the intermediate patterns, P2, P3 and P4, were newly discovered in this work. Besides, we have confirmed in large sample the result reported by @Qu10: with increasing of the centroid frequency of QPO, the relation between QPO frequency and photon energy evolves from P1 to P5.
Following @Qu10, we apply several models to the detected patterns between the QPO frequency and photon energy. @Titarchuk00 proposed the global disk model (GDM) to interpret the LFQPOs in X-ray binaries, in which they argued that the disk oscillations were the result of gravitational interaction between the the central compact objects and the disk and the QPO frequency was determined by the mass of the central object. Thus, the QPO frequency determined by the GDM is expected to be independent of the photon energy and therefore, this model can explain those QPOs whose coefficients are zero, as demonstrated in bottom panel of Figure \[fig:fre\_k\]. The radial and orbital oscillation model (ROOM) is a typical model for QPOs [@Nowak93; @Nowak94]. According to this model, the oscillation frequency will vary with the the disk radius or temperature, resulting in that the QPO frequency will vary with the photon energy, because photons with different energies are from different radii. Simply assuming the disk oscillation frequency to be the Keplerian frequency at the inner disk radius, it is natural to explain the relation P5: with decreasing of the inner disk radius, the QPO frequency increases, and meanwhile the photon energy increases, because the temperature at inner disk edge also increases. Fortunately, @Muno99 reported that in this source the QPO parameters were indeed correlated with the disk parameters. Other models such as the drift blob model [DBM; @Bottcher98; @Bottcher99] can also be used to explain the energy dependence of QPO frequency. In the DBM, the blobs drifting inward through an inhomogeneous hot inner disk or corona would cause the QPO frequency to increase with energy. Both the ROOM and DBM can explain the positive correlation between the QPO frequency and photon energy, but they are frustrated by the negative correlation (P1) and other complicated correlations (P2, P3, and P4). There is no model for interpreting all the relations, which perhaps indicates that the QPOs with different relations between the QPO frequency and photon energy result from different mechanisms.
This work presents various patterns of relation between the QPO frequency and photon energy in the famous microquasar GRS 1915+105, indicating that the mechanisms for QPOs are complicated. On the other hands, we extend the investigation on the relations made by @Qu10 and the newly discovered relations provide new clues on QPO models.
The authors thank the anonymous referee for some helpful suggestions and comments. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) On-line Service, provided by NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). This work is partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China (Grant No. 200821164), the Program of the Light in Chinese Western Region (LCWR) (Grant No. LHXZ 200802) provided by Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program 2009CB824800), the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10733010, 11073021, 10325313, 10521001 and 10773017) and the Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scientists (Grant No. 10903005).
[lcrccccrccrccc]{} 10258-01-02-00 & 29/07/96& 9160&1739&Ch1E3& $0.699\pm0.001$& 2.16& $6.9\pm0.4$& &P1& $-0.3\pm0.1$ & 0.65& -0.86& 0.68\
10258-01-03-00a& 06/08/96& 3328&1757&Ch1E3& $1.687\pm0.004$& 3.22& $6.3\pm0.3$& &P2& $-0.7\pm0.4$ & 0.52& -0.76& 0.49\
10258-01-03-00b& 06/08/96& 3360&1771&Ch1E3& $1.329\pm0.003$& 2.08& $9.8\pm0.7$& &P1& $-1.3\pm0.2$ & 0.52& -0.97& 0.92\
10258-01-03-00c& 06/08/96& 3360&1736&Ch1E3& $1.450\pm0.004$& 1.82& $8.5\pm0.5$& &P3& $-0.0\pm0.3$ & 1.55& 0.12&-0.18\
10258-01-04-00a& 14/08/96& 6800&1915&Ch1E3& $2.692\pm0.003$& 1.87& $7.2\pm0.2$& &P0& $-0.4\pm0.3$ & 1.85& -0.56& 0.18\
10258-01-04-00b& 14/08/96& 3408&1971&Ch1E3& $3.129\pm0.007$& 2.14& $6.5\pm0.2$& &P3& $ 0.8\pm0.7$ & 1.90& -0.02&-0.20\
10258-01-05-00a& 20/08/96& 2688&3743&Ch2E3& $6.339\pm0.027$& 1.96& $3.4\pm0.2$& &P5& $41.2\pm10.2$ & 1.81& 0.92& 0.81\
10258-01-05-00b& 20/08/96& 3376&3750&Ch2E3& $6.305\pm0.021$& 2.65& $3.8\pm0.2$& &P5& $93.7\pm9.4$ & 0.47& 0.97& 0.93\
10258-01-06-00a& 29/08/96& 1400&5549&Ch2E3& $7.250\pm0.040$& 1.28& $6.8\pm1.0$& &P5& $36.1\pm5.2$ & 2.10& 0.95& 0.88\
10258-01-06-00b& 29/08/96& 3408&5587&Ch2E3& $7.527\pm0.027$& 1.20& $7.5\pm1.0$& &P5& $17.5\pm3.3$ & 1.71& 0.90& 0.77\
10408-01-22-00 & 11/07/96& 3328&2122&Ch2E3& $3.473\pm0.005$& 0.88&$10.1\pm0.5$& &P0& $ 1.0\pm0.6$ & 0.95& 0.60& 0.20\
10408-01-22-01 & 11/07/96& 3312&2020&Ch2E3& $2.785\pm0.005$& 2.31& $7.1\pm0.2$& &P3& $-0.1\pm0.6$ & 1.09& -0.25&-0.17\
10408-01-22-02a& 11/07/96& 1600&1989&Ch2E3& $2.545\pm0.008$& 2.08& $7.7\pm0.5$& &P0& $ 0.3\pm0.9$ & 0.46& 0.20&-0.20\
10408-01-22-02b& 11/07/96& 820&1954&Ch2E3& $2.507\pm0.008$& 2.08& $8.5\pm0.8$& &P5& $ 1.1\pm1.0$ & 0.05& 0.93& 0.83\
10408-01-22-02c& 11/07/96& 892&1929&Ch2E3& $2.625\pm0.009$& 2.08& $8.2\pm0.6$& &P0& $ 0.5\pm1.1$ & 0.48& 0.27&-0.16\
10408-01-23-00a& 14/07/96& 3167&2109&Ch2E3& $3.499\pm0.006$& 1.90& $7.3\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 1.7\pm0.7$ & 1.71& 0.65& 0.28\
10408-01-23-00b& 14/07/96& 3312&2108&Ch2E3& $3.615\pm0.005$& 1.76& $8.7\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 1.2\pm0.6$ & 1.50& 0.53& 0.10\
10408-01-23-00c& 14/07/96& 3257&2255&Ch2E3& $4.179\pm0.008$& 1.50& $6.3\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 3.0\pm1.0$ & 3.02& 0.49& 0.05\
10408-01-24-00a& 16/07/96& 2447&1949&Ch2E3& $2.238\pm0.006$& 2.36& $8.1\pm0.5$& &P2& $-0.9\pm0.5$ & 2.19& -0.58& 0.17\
10408-01-24-00b& 16/07/96& 3312&1943&Ch2E3& $2.324\pm0.005$& 2.60& $7.2\pm0.3$& &P0& $-0.5\pm0.5$ & 0.53& -0.61& 0.21\
10408-01-24-00c& 16/07/96& 2953&1952&Ch2E3& $2.537\pm0.005$& 2.34& $9.4\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.0\pm0.5$ & 0.35& -0.03&-0.25\
10408-01-24-00d& 16/07/96& 913&1965&Ch2E3& $2.594\pm0.008$& 1.59&$11.0\pm0.8$& &P0& $-0.7\pm0.8$ & 0.57& -0.57& 0.15\
10408-01-25-00 & 19/07/96& 9952&1820&Ch1E3& $1.126\pm0.002$& 3.34& $6.3\pm0.2$& &P1& $-0.6\pm0.2$ & 1.45& -0.86& 0.69\
10408-01-27-00a& 26/07/96& 2336&1783&Ch1E3& $0.645\pm0.002$& 1.43& $7.6\pm0.9$& &P0& $-0.1\pm0.1$ & 0.42& -0.51& 0.11\
10408-01-27-00b& 26/07/96& 3296&1791&Ch1E3& $0.617\pm0.002$& 1.20& $7.3\pm0.6$& &P0& $ 0.1\pm0.2$ & 0.21& 0.57& 0.19\
10408-01-27-00c& 26/07/96& 3296&1769&Ch1E3& $0.629\pm0.002$& 1.23& $6.1\pm0.5$& &P0& $ 0.2\pm0.2$ & 0.26& -0.64& 0.29\
10408-01-28-00a& 03/08/96& 3328&1742&Ch1E3& $0.996\pm0.002$& 1.60& $8.5\pm0.6$& &P1& $-0.3\pm0.2$ & 0.53& -0.84& 0.64\
10408-01-28-00b& 03/08/96& 3328&1744&Ch1E3& $0.965\pm0.004$& 2.14& $8.9\pm0.6$& &P1& $-0.4\pm0.2$ & 0.22& -0.83& 0.62\
10408-01-28-00c& 03/08/96& 3328&1731&Ch1E3& $0.927\pm0.003$& 1.24& $7.8\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.1\pm0.2$ & 0.33& -0.47& 0.07\
10408-01-29-00a& 10/08/96& 2965&1760&Ch1E3& $1.665\pm0.004$& 1.66&$10.1\pm0.6$& &P1& $-0.6\pm0.3$ & 0.33& -0.84& 0.65\
10408-01-29-00b& 10/08/96& 3392&1784&Ch1E3& $1.863\pm0.004$& 2.38& $8.9\pm0.5$& &P0& $ 0.7\pm0.3$ & 0.63& 0.65& 0.30\
10408-01-29-00c& 10/08/96& 3392&1787&Ch1E3& $1.960\pm0.004$& 2.80& $9.4\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.4\pm0.3$ & 0.55& -0.52& 0.13\
10408-01-30-00a& 18/08/96& 1696&2388&Ch1E3& $4.323\pm0.012$& 2.13& $5.8\pm0.3$& &P3& $ 3.8\pm1.4$ & 4.68& 0.31&-0.08\
10408-01-30-00b& 18/08/96& 1696&2588&Ch1E3& $4.792\pm0.011$& 1.36& $7.1\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 3.9\pm1.4$ & 6.32& -0.02&-0.20\
10408-01-30-00c& 18/08/96& 1696&2842&Ch1E3& $5.187\pm0.017$& 1.38& $6.2\pm0.4$& &P0& $ 9.6\pm1.9$ & 2.44& 0.67& 0.33\
10408-01-30-00d& 18/08/96& 1696&2752&Ch1E3& $4.901\pm0.011$& 1.06& $7.7\pm0.7$& &P3& $ 5.6\pm1.3$ & 5.15& 0.37&-0.04\
10408-01-30-00e& 18/08/96& 1688&2986&Ch1E3& $5.427\pm0.015$& 1.00& $8.6\pm0.7$& &P5& $11.9\pm2.0$ & 1.92& 0.85& 0.66\
10408-01-31-00a& 25/08/96& 2319&2327&Ch1E3& $4.096\pm0.006$& 1.15& $9.3\pm0.5$& &P3& $ 1.4\pm0.6$ & 2.83& 0.21&-0.15\
10408-01-31-00b& 25/08/96& 1000&2555&Ch1E3& $4.660\pm0.015$& 1.31& $8.2\pm0.7$& &P3& $ 5.7\pm1.7$ & 3.93& 0.22&-0.14\
10408-01-31-00c& 25/08/96& 1328&2496&Ch1E3& $4.482\pm0.014$& 1.30& $7.2\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 4.0\pm1.4$ & 4.38& 0.31&-0.09\
10408-01-31-00d& 25/08/96& 1000&2323&Ch1E3& $4.154\pm0.014$& 1.32& $8.2\pm0.7$& &P0& $ 4.0\pm1.3$ & 1.25& 0.77& 0.51\
10408-01-31-00e& 25/08/96& 1664&2133&Ch1E3& $3.630\pm0.009$& 1.58& $7.4\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 1.6\pm0.8$ & 2.07& 0.17&-0.17\
10408-01-31-00f& 25/08/96& 1664&2057&Ch1E3& $3.382\pm0.008$& 1.52& $9.7\pm0.5$& &P3& $-0.1\pm0.7$ & 3.09& -0.30&-0.09\
10408-01-32-00a& 31/08/96& 2912&4239&Ch1E3& $6.503\pm0.026$& 2.53& $4.6\pm0.6$& &P5& $61.2\pm4.0$ & 2.33& 0.95& 0.88\
10408-01-32-00b& 31/08/96& 3312&3648&Ch1E3& $5.840\pm0.017$& 2.19& $7.0\pm0.7$& &P5& $42.6\pm3.1$ & 2.65& 0.83& 0.62\
10408-01-32-00c& 31/08/96& 1170&3314&Ch1E3& $5.613\pm0.032$& 1.17& $5.7\pm0.5$& &P0& $25.5\pm4.2$ & 2.31& 0.61& 0.24\
10408-01-33-00a& 07/09/96& 912&3527&Ch1E3& $5.550\pm0.030$& 1.67& $5.2\pm0.6$& &P5& $30.3\pm4.4$ & 1.30& 0.89& 0.74\
10408-01-33-00b& 07/09/96& 2495&3743&Ch1E3& $5.586\pm0.017$& 1.68& $7.4\pm0.8$& &P5& $47.4\pm3.4$ & 2.87& 0.97& 0.93\
10408-01-33-00c& 07/09/96& 1295&3655&Ch1E3& $5.414\pm0.039$& 1.91& $3.8\pm0.4$& &P5& $35.7\pm7.4$ & 0.23& 0.89& 0.75\
10408-01-42-00a& 23/10/96& 3312&3289&Ch1E3& $5.044\pm0.009$& 2.49& $8.2\pm0.4$& &P5& $ 7.4\pm1.3$ & 1.08& 0.97& 0.92\
10408-01-42-00b& 23/10/96& 3312&2921&Ch1E3& $4.690\pm0.009$& 2.45& $7.1\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 7.1\pm1.1$ & 0.73& 0.98& 0.95\
10408-01-43-00a& 23/10/96& 2416&3274&Ch1E3& $5.011\pm0.010$& 2.14& $8.3\pm0.5$& &P5& $ 7.4\pm1.5$ & 2.09& 0.89& 0.75\
10408-01-43-00b& 23/10/96& 2284&3314&Ch1E3& $5.064\pm0.012$& 1.86& $8.1\pm0.4$& &P0& $ 7.3\pm1.5$ & 2.99& 0.77& 0.52\
10408-01-43-00c& 23/10/96& 1980&3302&Ch1E3& $5.121\pm0.013$& 1.90& $7.3\pm0.4$& &P5& $ 6.4\pm1.8$ & 1.44& 0.92& 0.81\
10408-01-43-00d& 23/10/96& 1740&2709&Ch1E3& $4.446\pm0.013$& 1.43& $6.7\pm0.4$& &P0& $ 4.2\pm1.5$ & 0.73& 0.65& 0.30\
20186-03-02-052a&17/09/97& 3031&3096&Ch3E3& $5.381\pm0.019$& 1.63& $7.5\pm0.7$& &P5& $18.8\pm2.6$ & 1.82& 0.87& 0.72\
20186-03-02-052b&17/09/97& 3031&3203&Ch3E3& $5.759\pm0.018$& 2.11& $4.7\pm0.2$& &P5& $35.0\pm2.8$ & 2.27& 0.97& 0.93\
20186-03-02-052c&17/09/97& 3312&2348&Ch3E3& $4.083\pm0.006$& 1.73& $7.9\pm0.3$& &P4& $ 2.6\pm0.6$ & 2.73& 0.69& 0.42\
20186-03-02-052d&17/09/97& 3312&2563&Ch3E3& $4.633\pm0.008$& 1.37& $6.8\pm0.2$& &P4& $ 6.4\pm0.9$ & 3.09& 0.75& 0.52\
20186-03-02-052e&17/09/97& 3312&2802&Ch3E3& $5.153\pm0.011$& 1.52& $7.3\pm0.4$& &P4& $12.4\pm1.3$ & 3.44& 0.87& 0.74\
20186-03-02-060a&18/09/97& 2768&2852&Ch3E3& $5.036\pm0.021$& 2.07& $4.8\pm0.3$& &P5& $16.1\pm2.5$ & 0.79& 0.96& 0.91\
20186-03-02-060b&18/09/97& 9936&4385&Ch3E3& $6.658\pm0.031$& 2.26& $2.4\pm0.1$& &P5& $98.0\pm3.5$ & 1.92& 0.99& 0.97\
20186-03-02-060c&18/09/97& 3312&2679&Ch3E3& $4.788\pm0.011$& 1.34& $5.7\pm0.2$& &P4& $ 9.2\pm1.1$ & 3.99& 0.81& 0.62\
20186-03-02-06a& 18/09/97& 1656&2767&Ch3E3& $5.042\pm0.017$& 1.17& $5.1\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 7.3\pm2.2$ & 0.65& 0.85& 0.70\
20186-03-02-06b& 18/09/97& 1656&2430&Ch3E3& $4.226\pm0.013$& 1.33& $7.1\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 4.3\pm1.1$ & 2.72& 0.62& 0.31\
20186-03-02-06c& 18/09/97& 1600&2255&Ch3E3& $3.810\pm0.008$& 1.13& $8.2\pm0.4$& &P4& $ 1.3\pm0.7$ & 1.69& 0.41& 0.08\
20186-03-02-06d& 18/09/97& 1695&2399&Ch3E3& $4.288\pm0.009$& 1.49& $7.8\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 1.8\pm0.9$ & 1.89& 0.22&-0.06\
20186-03-02-06e& 18/09/97& 1550&2761&Ch3E3& $5.051\pm0.013$& 0.70& $7.3\pm0.5$& &P0& $ 3.0\pm1.7$ & 0.56& 0.75& 0.52\
20186-03-02-06f& 18/09/97& 1569&3648&Ch3E3& $5.930\pm0.050$& 1.35& $2.6\pm0.2$& &P5& $64.0\pm8.6$ & 0.40& 0.97& 0.93\
20402-01-05-00 & 05/12/96& 2048&1421&Ch5E3& $2.825\pm0.004$& 1.89& $6.1\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 1.2\pm0.3$ & 0.34& 0.90& 0.80\
20402-01-06-00a& 11/12/96& 3312&1360&Ch5E3& $3.034\pm0.009$& 1.00& $5.0\pm0.3$& &P4& $ 3.3\pm0.8$ & 0.77& 0.87& 0.73\
20402-01-06-00b& 11/12/96& 3312&1279&Ch5E3& $2.844\pm0.007$& 1.31& $5.6\pm0.3$& &P4& $ 2.1\pm0.6$ & 1.46& 0.77& 0.55\
20402-01-06-00c& 11/12/96& 2780&1211&Ch5E3& $2.568\pm0.007$& 1.42& $5.7\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 1.2\pm0.6$ & 0.08& 0.92& 0.84\
20402-01-07-00 & 19/12/96& 9296&1310&Ch5E3& $3.125\pm0.005$& 1.48& $4.2\pm0.1$& &P4& $ 3.7\pm0.5$ & 2.54& 0.79& 0.58\
20402-01-08-00a& 24/12/96& 2658&1318&Ch5E3& $3.845\pm0.010$& 1.63& $5.1\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 3.1\pm1.3$ & 2.09& 0.33& 0.01\
20402-01-08-00b& 24/12/96& 2834&1325&Ch5E3& $3.927\pm0.010$& 2.27& $5.0\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 6.5\pm1.2$ & 1.36& 0.85& 0.69\
20402-01-08-01 & 25/12/96& 3312&1232&Ch5E3& $3.465\pm0.009$& 1.25& $4.4\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 3.2\pm1.1$ & 1.54& 0.53& 0.21\
20402-01-09-00 & 31/12/96& 7548&1099&Ch5E3& $2.827\pm0.005$& 1.87& $5.1\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 2.0\pm0.5$ & 1.46& 0.67& 0.39\
20402-01-10-00 & 08/01/97& 9804& 993&Ch5E3& $2.920\pm0.005$& 2.22& $4.8\pm0.2$& &P4& $ 3.0\pm0.5$ & 1.84& 0.82& 0.64\
20402-01-11-00 & 14/01/97& 6519& 912&Ch5E3& $2.930\pm0.006$& 1.33& $5.2\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 2.8\pm0.7$ & 0.42& 0.94& 0.87\
20402-01-12-00a& 23/01/97& 5695& 883&Ch5E3& $2.811\pm0.006$& 1.60& $5.3\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 0.9\pm0.7$ & 0.86& 0.49& 0.16\
20402-01-12-00b& 23/01/97& 3755& 894&Ch5E3& $2.790\pm0.007$& 1.50& $6.0\pm0.4$& &P0& $ 0.0\pm0.8$ & 0.91& -0.21&-0.06\
20402-01-13-00 & 29/01/97&10000& 936&Ch5E3& $3.649\pm0.007$& 1.57& $4.0\pm0.1$& &P5& $ 5.0\pm0.9$ & 1.64& 0.89& 0.77\
20402-01-14-00 & 01/02/97& 9394& 910&Ch5E3& $3.577\pm0.007$& 2.58& $4.0\pm0.1$& &P5& $ 5.1\pm0.9$ & 1.46& 0.90& 0.79\
20402-01-15-00 & 09/02/97&10222& 816&Ch5E3& $2.258\pm0.004$& 2.14& $5.9\pm0.2$& &P4& $ 1.0\pm0.4$ & 0.43& 0.82& 0.63\
20402-01-16-00 & 22/02/97& 5951& 803&Ch5E3& $2.991\pm0.007$& 1.49& $5.4\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 2.3\pm0.7$ & 2.59& 0.60& 0.28\
20402-01-20-00 & 17/03/97& 7300& 807&Ch5E3& $3.217\pm0.006$& 1.19& $5.4\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 1.7\pm0.7$ & 0.72& 0.83& 0.65\
20402-01-26-00a& 25/04/97& 2220&1137&Ch5E3& $3.954\pm0.012$& 1.47& $4.9\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 4.4\pm1.6$ & 1.13& 0.70& 0.43\
20402-01-26-00b& 25/04/97& 2884&1188&Ch5E3& $4.279\pm0.011$& 2.19& $4.7\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 7.7\pm1.5$ & 1.52& 0.81& 0.62\
20402-01-26-00c& 25/04/97& 3300&1210&Ch5E3& $4.475\pm0.016$& 1.82& $3.6\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 3.6\pm2.5$ & 0.77& 0.33& 0.01\
20402-01-26-00d& 25/04/97& 3328&1178&Ch5E3& $4.246\pm0.017$& 1.68& $3.5\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 7.2\pm2.3$ & 0.66& 0.75& 0.52\
20402-01-26-00e& 25/04/97& 1964&1163&Ch5E3& $4.391\pm0.014$& 2.08& $4.8\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 4.2\pm2.0$ & 1.77& 0.56& 0.23\
20402-01-48-00a& 29/09/97& 3296&4714&Ch5E3& $7.541\pm0.038$& 1.54& $5.2\pm0.4$& &P5& $43.5\pm4.7$ & 1.99& 0.92& 0.82\
20402-01-48-00b& 29/09/97& 3328&2726&Ch5E3& $4.713\pm0.014$& 1.73& $5.7\pm0.4$& &P4& $ 8.9\pm1.6$ & 3.93& 0.67& 0.39\
20402-01-50-01 & 16/10/97& 4994&1497&Ch5E3& $1.048\pm0.003$& 2.39& $8.2\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.0\pm0.2$ & 0.40& -0.16&-0.08\
20402-01-51-00 & 22/10/97& 9399&1490&Ch5E3& $1.396\pm0.002$& 3.47& $7.8\pm0.2$& &P1& $-0.8\pm0.1$ & 0.71& -0.91& 0.81\
30182-01-01-00 & 08/07/98&11606&1435&Ch3E3& $2.148\pm0.003$& 2.36& $5.7\pm0.2$& &P2& $-0.4\pm0.2$ & 0.97& -0.53& 0.20\
30182-01-02-00a& 09/07/98& 5073&1889&Ch3E3& $3.247\pm0.005$& 1.94& $7.7\pm0.3$& &P3& $-0.1\pm0.4$ & 0.62& -0.17&-0.08\
30182-01-02-00b& 09/07/98& 3359&2069&Ch3E3& $3.541\pm0.006$& 2.23& $7.3\pm0.3$& &P4& $ 1.4\pm0.6$ & 1.95& 0.56& 0.24\
30182-01-02-00c& 09/07/98& 2968&2466&Ch3E3& $3.973\pm0.008$& 2.89& $6.0\pm0.3$& &P4& $ 3.6\pm0.8$ & 1.17& 0.84& 0.67\
30182-01-03-00a& 10/07/98& 3344&3479&Ch3E3& $5.056\pm0.013$& 2.19& $6.4\pm0.3$& &P5& $18.7\pm1.6$ & 0.43& 0.99& 0.98\
30182-01-03-00b& 10/07/98& 2472&3677&Ch3E3& $5.147\pm0.010$& 2.77& $9.3\pm0.6$& &P5& $16.1\pm1.6$ & 0.69& 0.99& 0.97\
30182-01-04-00a& 11/07/98& 1678&2360&Ch3E3& $4.096\pm0.010$& 1.46& $7.0\pm0.5$& &P5& $ 4.6\pm1.0$ & 1.03& 0.85& 0.69\
30182-01-04-00b& 11/07/98& 4166&1933&Ch3E3& $3.400\pm0.006$& 2.18& $7.4\pm0.3$& &P3& $ 0.4\pm0.5$ & 0.98& 0.27&-0.03\
30182-01-04-00c& 11/07/98& 3328&1709&Ch3E3& $2.916\pm0.006$& 2.25& $9.1\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 0.0\pm0.4$ & 1.21& 0.11&-0.10\
30182-01-04-00d& 11/07/98& 3324&1604&Ch3E3& $2.664\pm0.005$& 1.87& $9.0\pm0.4$& &P0& $-0.2\pm0.4$ & 1.55& 0.05&-0.11\
30182-01-04-01a& 12/07/98& 2236&1581&Ch3E3& $2.652\pm0.006$& 1.44& $8.8\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.3\pm0.4$ & 1.09& -0.14&-0.09\
30182-01-04-01b& 12/07/98& 2728&1513&Ch3E3& $2.410\pm0.005$& 1.61& $7.6\pm0.3$& &P0& $-0.8\pm0.4$ & 0.52& -0.71& 0.45\
30182-01-04-01c& 12/07/98& 3340&1605&Ch3E3& $2.725\pm0.006$& 1.70& $7.4\pm0.3$& &P3& $-0.1\pm0.5$ & 0.83& 0.01&-0.11\
30182-01-04-01d& 12/07/98& 3340&2010&Ch3E3& $3.392\pm0.014$& 2.64& $4.3\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 2.9\pm1.2$ & 1.51& 0.48& 0.15\
30182-01-04-01e& 12/07/98& 2400&2665&Ch3E3& $4.215\pm0.010$& 2.74& $6.6\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 6.8\pm1.1$ & 4.76& 0.66& 0.37\
30402-01-09-01 & 10/04/98& 2546&1979&Ch6E3& $2.157\pm0.004$& 2.84& $8.9\pm0.4$& &P0& $-0.3\pm0.3$ & 0.42& -0.53& 0.20\
30402-01-10-00a& 11/04/98& 3312&1970&Ch6E3& $1.595\pm0.003$& 1.76& $8.3\pm0.4$& &P0& $-0.3\pm0.3$ & 1.02& -0.32& 0.00\
30402-01-10-00b& 11/04/98& 6303&1956&Ch6E3& $1.721\pm0.003$& 3.86& $8.6\pm0.3$& &P3& $-0.2\pm0.2$ & 2.25& -0.27&-0.03\
30402-01-11-00a& 20/04/98& 3311&2777&Ch6E3& $5.378\pm0.013$& 1.92& $4.2\pm0.2$& &P5& $16.0\pm2.0$ & 0.77& 0.97& 0.93\
30402-01-11-00b& 20/04/98& 2271&2952&Ch6E3& $5.815\pm0.017$& 1.75& $4.2\pm0.2$& &P4& $22.5\pm2.7$ & 2.23& 0.89& 0.77\
30703-01-16-00 & 28/04/98& 5038&1816&Ch6E3& $1.382\pm0.003$& 2.76& $7.1\pm0.3$& &P0& $-0.0\pm0.2$ & 0.36& -0.01&-0.11\
30703-01-17-00 & 06/05/98& 4584&1739&Ch6E3& $0.925\pm0.002$& 1.00& $8.2\pm0.5$& &P0& $-0.1\pm0.1$ & 0.26& -0.58& 0.27\
30703-01-22-00 & 27/06/98& 3375&1539&Ch6E3& $2.256\pm0.005$& 1.79& $7.5\pm0.3$& &P0& $-1.1\pm0.4$ & 0.68& -0.76& 0.54\
30703-01-25-00a& 23/07/98& 2626&1718&Ch6E3& $3.172\pm0.007$& 1.08& $7.1\pm0.4$& &P4& $ 1.5\pm0.6$ & 0.76& 0.73& 0.48\
30703-01-25-00b& 23/07/98& 2322&2146&Ch6E3& $3.804\pm0.009$& 1.36& $5.7\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 6.2\pm0.9$ & 1.15& 0.92& 0.83\
30703-01-33-00 & 15/09/98& 4917&1400&Ch6E3& $3.293\pm0.007$& 1.07& $4.2\pm0.2$& &P4& $ 4.3\pm0.7$ & 4.21& 0.76& 0.54\
30703-01-41-00 & 26/12/98& 4707&1233&Ch6E3& $2.158\pm0.004$& 1.59& $8.7\pm0.4$& &P5& $ 0.5\pm0.3$ & 0.23& 0.79& 0.58\
40403-01-08-00 & 02/06/99& 9884&1584&Ch6E4& $2.469\pm0.003$& 3.28& $7.7\pm0.2$& &P1& $-1.4\pm0.2$ & 0.92& -0.92& 0.84\
40403-01-09-00 & 08/07/99&13355&1343&Ch6E4& $2.041\pm0.003$& 2.95& $6.6\pm0.2$& &P0& $-0.3\pm0.2$ & 0.97& -0.57& 0.25\
40403-01-11-00 & 28/02/00&13355&2426&Ch6E4& $4.336\pm0.011$& 2.88& $6.3\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 8.0\pm1.5$ & 0.87& 0.83& 0.65\
40703-01-01-00 & 01/01/99& 9731&1281&Ch6E4& $2.265\pm0.003$& 1.84& $7.0\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 0.6\pm0.2$ & 0.24& 0.86& 0.71\
40703-01-02-00 & 08/01/99& 9005&1861&Ch6E4& $3.562\pm0.005$& 2.07& $4.7\pm0.1$& &P4& $ 5.7\pm0.5$ & 3.19& 0.91& 0.80\
40703-01-05-00 & 12/02/99&10129&1592&Ch6E4& $4.194\pm0.005$& 3.17& $4.7\pm0.1$& &P5& $ 6.9\pm0.7$ & 1.72& 0.94& 0.87\
40703-01-09-00 & 28/03/99& 4702&1418&Ch6E4& $2.782\pm0.005$& 1.18& $6.5\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 0.5\pm0.4$ & 0.46& 0.51& 0.17\
40703-01-38-02 & 15/11/99& 2501&5138&Ch6E4& $7.940\pm0.034$& 1.45& $5.2\pm0.5$& &P5& $38.6\pm4.6$ & 2.18& 0.80& 0.60\
50125-01-01-03 & 13/07/00& 2735&1747&Ch3E5& $3.019\pm0.006$& 1.98& $8.3\pm0.4$& &P0& $ 0.7\pm0.4$ & 1.06& 0.44& 0.11\
50125-01-03-00a& 15/07/00& 4348&2077&Ch3E5& $3.547\pm0.007$& 1.77& $5.9\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 1.3\pm0.6$ & 1.50& 0.47& 0.14\
50125-01-03-00b& 15/07/00&10652&1818&Ch3E5& $3.182\pm0.004$& 5.37& $6.5\pm0.2$& &P3& $ 0.4\pm0.3$ & 2.82& 0.22&-0.06\
50703-01-01-00 & 08/03/00& 4755&1314&Ch6E4& $2.345\pm0.007$& 1.34& $4.8\pm0.2$& &P0& $-0.1\pm0.6$ & 0.99& 0.09&-0.10\
50703-01-49-00 & 27/02/01& 5467&1434&Ch6E5& $2.610\pm0.004$& 2.77& $8.1\pm0.3$& &P0& $-0.4\pm0.3$ & 0.53& -0.47& 0.13\
50703-01-55-01 & 17/04/01& 6896&1583&Ch6E5& $2.840\pm0.004$& 2.51& $8.4\pm0.3$& &P0& $-0.6\pm0.3$ & 0.77& -0.70& 0.43\
50703-01-67-00 & 22/07/01& 1806&1243&Ch6E5& $2.182\pm0.005$& 1.57&$10.0\pm0.7$& &P0& $-0.2\pm0.4$ & 0.17& -0.37& 0.04\
60100-01-01-00 & 05/08/01& 3280&1249&Ch6E5& $2.226\pm0.004$& 1.50&$12.2\pm0.6$& &P1& $-0.9\pm0.3$ & 0.70& -0.83& 0.65\
60100-01-02-000a&06/08/01& 2748&1487&Ch6E5& $2.714\pm0.005$& 1.29& $8.3\pm0.4$& &P1& $-1.8\pm0.4$ & 0.47& -0.91& 0.82\
60100-01-02-000b&06/08/01& 2496&1654&Ch6E5& $3.021\pm0.006$& 1.09& $7.2\pm0.4$& &P0& $-1.4\pm0.6$ & 0.87& -0.68& 0.40\
60100-01-02-000c&06/08/01& 2648&1762&Ch6E5& $3.203\pm0.007$& 1.28& $6.6\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 0.2\pm0.7$ & 0.49& 0.25&-0.04\
60100-01-02-000d&06/08/01& 2816&1967&Ch6E5& $3.515\pm0.007$& 1.49& $6.7\pm0.3$& &P0& $ 1.9\pm0.7$ & 2.04& 0.60& 0.28\
60100-01-02-000e&06/08/01& 2964&2178&Ch6E5& $3.839\pm0.008$& 2.40& $6.4\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 4.0\pm0.9$ & 0.62& 0.92& 0.84\
60405-01-03-00 & 05/08/01& 6560&1474&Ch6E5& $2.732\pm0.004$& 1.64& $8.0\pm0.3$& &P1& $-0.9\pm0.3$ & 0.36& -0.88& 0.75\
60701-01-16-00 & 28/02/02& 3068&1820&Ch6E5& $0.377\pm0.002$& 0.75& $7.2\pm0.8$& &P0& $-0.0\pm0.1$ & 0.18& -0.22&-0.06\
60701-01-16-01 & 28/02/02& 3109&1809&Ch6E5& $0.395\pm0.002$& 0.90& $7.6\pm1.2$& &P0& $-0.1\pm0.1$ & 0.37& -0.52& 0.19\
60701-01-23-00 & 22/01/02& 3263&1986&Ch6E5& $2.082\pm0.003$& 3.92&$10.3\pm0.4$& &P0& $-0.5\pm0.3$ & 1.33& -0.52& 0.19\
60701-01-28-00 & 06/03/02& 9680&1744&Ch6E5& $0.466\pm0.001$& 0.99& $7.6\pm0.6$& &P1& $-0.2\pm0.1$ & 0.76& -0.81& 0.63\
60701-01-33-00 & 24/04/02& 3247&1426&Ch6E5& $1.029\pm0.002$& 1.24&$10.1\pm0.8$& &P0& $ 0.0\pm0.1$ & 0.60& 0.01&-0.11\
70702-01-23-00 & 03/10/02& 3231&1931&Ch6E5& $3.453\pm0.005$& 1.48& $9.8\pm0.4$& &P1& $-2.3\pm0.5$ & 1.16& -0.80& 0.60\
70702-01-24-00 & 09/10/02& 3264&1328&Ch6E5& $2.581\pm0.005$& 2.93&$13.2\pm0.7$& &P0& $-0.3\pm0.3$ & 0.89& -0.29&-0.02\
70703-01-01-08 & 01/04/02&10704&1902&Ch3E5& $2.589\pm0.004$& 5.81& $7.5\pm0.2$& &P0& $-0.5\pm0.3$ & 2.75& -0.53& 0.20\
70703-01-01-14 & 29/03/02& 8240&1869&Ch6E5& $2.639\pm0.004$& 5.81& $6.2\pm0.1$& &P0& $-0.4\pm0.3$ & 2.36& 0.24&-0.05\
80127-02-03-00 & 10/04/03&11728&1884&Ch4E5& $1.088\pm0.002$& 2.84& $6.9\pm0.3$& &P2& $-0.5\pm0.1$ & 0.86& -0.85& 0.69\
80701-01-08-00 & 25/10/06& 3216&2375&Ch6E5& $4.648\pm0.012$& 1.45& $6.3\pm0.3$& &P5& $ 8.0\pm1.7$ & 0.43& 0.93& 0.85\
80701-01-26-00 & 28/11/06& 6304&1334&Ch6E5& $2.541\pm0.004$& 2.72&$10.4\pm0.4$& &P4& $ 1.2\pm0.3$ & 1.13& 0.71& 0.45\
80701-01-32-00 & 04/12/06& 1239&1212&Ch6E5& $2.104\pm0.003$& 1.41&$10.3\pm0.4$& &P1& $-0.6\pm0.2$ & 0.41& -0.84& 0.68\
80701-01-51-00 & 09/12/06& 6960&1252&Ch6E5& $2.221\pm0.003$& 2.14& $9.4\pm0.4$& &P3& $ 0.3\pm0.2$ & 1.74& 0.16&-0.08\
80701-01-55-02 & 11/01/07& 5440&1131&Ch6E5& $2.611\pm0.004$& 2.16& $9.2\pm0.4$& &P1& $-2.2\pm0.3$ & 2.28& -0.86& 0.71\
80701-01-56-00 & 18/01/07& 9600&1073&Ch6E5& $2.558\pm0.001$& 2.39&$16.8\pm0.6$& &P0& $ 0.0\pm0.1$ & 0.52& 0.19&-0.07\
80701-01-57-00 & 24/01/07& 9584&1100&Ch6E5& $2.060\pm0.003$& 4.36&$13.8\pm0.5$& &P5& $ 0.7\pm0.2$ & 0.31& 0.91& 0.81\
90105-01-03-01 & 15/05/04& 7152&3023&Ch4E5& $4.936\pm0.009$& 1.93& $5.7\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 6.0\pm1.1$ & 1.74& 0.77& 0.54\
90105-07-01-00 & 12/04/05& 6464&2098&Ch4E5& $4.015\pm0.005$& 1.46& $7.9\pm0.2$& &P0& $ 1.5\pm0.6$ & 1.45& 0.41& 0.08\
90105-07-02-00 & 13/04/05& 6368&2123&Ch4E5& $3.895\pm0.006$& 2.94& $6.8\pm0.2$& &P5& $ 3.0\pm0.6$ & 2.12& 0.84& 0.66\
90701-01-19-00 & 28/07/04& 6416&1200&Ch6E5& $2.117\pm0.002$& 3.06&$13.2\pm0.5$& &P1& $-0.4\pm0.1$ & 0.31& -0.90& 0.79\
91701-01-55-00 & 02/05/07& 9584&1091&Ch6E5& $1.986\pm0.002$& 2.66&$23.7\pm1.0$& &P0& $-0.4\pm0.2$ & 0.90& -0.57& 0.25\
92702-01-09-00 & 04/05/06& 5136&1071&Ch6E5& $3.817\pm0.006$& 1.17& $7.6\pm0.3$& &P0& $-1.9\pm0.7$ & 1.03& -0.70& 0.43\
\[table1\]
[cccccccccccc]{} Ch1E3 & 0-13 & 1.94-5.12 & 3.53& Ch2E3 & 0-13 & 1.94-5.12 & 3.53& Ch3E3 & 0-8 & 1.94-3.35 & 2.65\
&14-18 & 5.12-6.89 & 6.01& & 14-18 & 5.12-6.89 & 6.01& & 9-11 & 3.35-4.41 & 3.88\
&19-25 & 6.89-9.39 & 8.14& & 19-25 & 6.89-9.39 & 8.14& & 12-13 & 4.41-5.12 & 4.77\
&26-35 & 9.39-12.99& 11.19& & 26-35 & 9.39-12.99& 11.19& & 14-15 & 5.12-5.82 & 5.47\
&36-41 & 12.99-15.17& 14.08& & 36-41 & 12.99-15.17& 14.08& & 16-19 & 5.82-7.25 & 6.54\
&42-49 & 15.17-18.09& 16.63& & 42-49 & 15.17-18.09& 16.63& & 20-23 & 7.25-8.68 & 7.97\
&50-58 & 18.09-21.04& 19.57& & & & & & 24-29 & 8.68-10.83& 9.76\
& & & & & & & & & 30-35 & 10.83-12.99& 11.91\
& & & & & & & & & 36-41 & 12.99-15.17& 14.08\
& & & & & & & & & 42-47 & 15.17-17.36& 16.27\
& & & & & & & & & 48-58 & 17.36-21.04& 19.20\
\
Ch3E5 & 0-8 & 2.06-3.68 & 2.87& Ch4E5 & 0-8 & 2.06-3.68 & 2.87& Ch5E3 & 0-8 & 1.94-3.35 & 2.65\
& 9-11 & 3.68-4.90 & 4.29& & 9-11 & 3.68-4.90 & 4.29& & 9-11 & 3.35-4.41 & 3.88\
& 12-13 & 4.90-5.71 & 5.31& & 12-13 & 4.90-5.71 & 5.31& & 12-13 & 4.41-5.12 & 4.77\
& 14-15 & 5.71-6.53 & 6.12& & 14-15 & 5.71-6.53 & 6.12& & 14-15 & 5.12-5.82 & 5.47\
& 16-19 & 6.53-8.17 & 7.35& & 16-19 & 6.53-8.17 & 7.35& & 16-19 & 5.82-7.25 & 6.54\
& 20-23 & 8.17-9.81 & 8.99& & 20-23 & 8.17-9.81 & 8.99& & 20-23 & 7.25-8.68 & 7.97\
& 24-29 & 9.81-12.28& 11.05& & 24-27 & 9.81-11.45& 10.63& & 24-27 & 8.68-10.83& 9.40\
& 30-35 & 12.28-14.76& 13.52& & 28-35 & 11.45-14.76& 13.11& & 28-35 & 10.83-12.99& 11.55\
& 36-41 & 14.76-17.26& 16.01& & 36-39 & 14.76-16.43& 15.60& & 36-41 & 12.99-15.17& 14.08\
& 42-47 & 17.26-19.78& 18.52& & 40-45 & 16.43-18.94& 17.69& & 42-47 & 15.17-17.36& 16.27\
& 48-58 & 19.78-24.00& 21.89& & 46-57 & 18.94-24.00& 21.47& & 48-58 & 17.36-21.04& 19.20\
\
Ch6E3 & 0-8 & 1.94-3.35 & 2.65& Ch6E4 & 0-8 & 2.13-3.79 & 2.96& Ch6E5 & 0-8 & 2.06-3.68 & 2.87\
& 9-11 & 3.35-4.41 & 3.88& & 9-11 & 3.79-5.04 & 4.42& & 9-11 & 3.68-4.90 & 4.29\
& 12-13 & 4.41-5.12 & 4.77& & 12-13 & 5.04-5.88 & 5.46& & 12-13 & 4.90-5.71 & 5.31\
& 14-15 & 5.12-5.82 & 5.47& & 14-15 & 5.88-6.72 & 6.30& & 14-15 & 5.71-6.53 & 6.12\
& 16-19 & 5.82-7.25 & 6.54& & 16-19 & 6.72-8.40 & 7.56& & 16-19 & 6.53-8.17 & 7.35\
& 20-23 & 7.25-8.68 & 7.97& & 20-23 & 8.40-10.09& 9.25& & 20-23 & 8.17-9.81 & 8.99\
& 24-29 & 8.68-10.83& 9.76& & 24-29 & 10.09-12.63& 11.36& & 24-29 & 9.81-12.28& 11.05\
& 30-35 & 10.83-12.99& 11.91& & 30-35 & 12.63-15.19& 13.91& & 30-35 & 12.28-14.76& 13.52\
& 36-39 & 12.99-14.44& 13.72& & 36-39 & 15.19-16.90& 16.05& & 36-39 & 14.76-16.43& 15.60\
& 40-46 & 14.44-17.00& 15.72& & 40-46 & 16.90-19.92& 18.41& & 40-46 & 16.43-19.36& 17.90\
& 47-58 & 17.00-21.04& 19.02& & 47-58 & 19.92-24.70& 22.31& & 47-58 & 19.36-24.00& 21.68\
\[table2\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The interplay of different scattering mechanisms can lead to novel effects in transport. We show theoretically that the interplay of weak impurity and Umklapp scattering in spin-$1/2$ chains leads to a pronounced dip in the magnetic field dependence of the thermal conductivity $\kappa$ at a magnetic field $B \sim T$. In sufficiently clean samples, the reduction of the magnetic contribution to heat transport can easily become larger than $50\%$ and the effect is predicted to exist even in samples with a large exchange coupling, $J \gg B$, where the field-induced magnetization is small. Qualitatively, our theory might explain dips at $B \sim T$ observed in recent heat transport measurements on copper pyrazine dinitrate, but a fully quantitative description is not possible within our model.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel'
- 'Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany'
- 'Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany'
- 'II. Physical Institute, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany'
- 'Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany'
author:
- 'E. Shimshoni'
- 'D. Rasch'
- 'P. Jung'
- 'A. V. Sologubenko'
- 'A. Rosch'
title: Large thermomagnetic effects in weakly disordered Heisenberg chains
---
Some of the most fascinating manifestations of quantum many-body physics in one-dimension (1D) can be found in spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain systems [@review; @giamarchi]. In particular, the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model with antiferromagnetic nearest neighbor exchange interactions is one of the most extensively studied paradigms. It provides a remarkably non–trivial example of an exactly solvable model [@bethe], allowing a detailed analysis of its thermodynamic properties. While integrability is special to this particular model, its low energy properties are generic: they do not differ essentially from low energy properties of other (non integrable) spin chain models, with more general finite range interactions. In essence, these systems support Fermionic elementary excitations – spinons – which carry spin and no charge. Their kinetic energy and interactions are dictated by the exchange couplings in the chain, and their Fermi momentum can in principle be tuned by a magnetic field $B$, which plays the role of a chemical potential.
Thermodynamic properties of low-dimensional spin systems and especially of the Heisenberg model are generally very well understood allowing for a quantitative description of a broad range of experiments. In comparison, the heat and spin transport [@spin-ex; @sologubenko] in spin-systems is considerably more complicated. For example, the heat conductivity $\kappa$ of the one-dimensional Heisenberg model is infinite at finite temperatures as the heat current operator is a conserved quantity for this idealized model. In real materials, the effects of disorder, phonon coupling and spin interactions not captured by the integrable Heisenberg model render the conductivity finite. Nevertheless, it remains often very large [@almost] as long as disorder is weak.
In this paper we study how the strong interactions of the Heisenberg model affect the heat transport in the system in the presence of weak disorder beyond the well known effect that disorder is strongly renormalized by the interactions [@fisher]. Our study is directly motivated by recent experiments [@sologubenko] in the spin-1/2 chain compound copper pyrazine dinitrate Cu(C$_4$H$_4$N$_2$)(NO$_3$)$_2$ (CuPzN) reproduced in Fig. \[figExp\]. In this system a small exchange coupling, $J/k_B
\approx 10.3$K, allows to polarize the system with moderate magnetic fields $B$. While both the spins and the phonons contribute to the heat transport at low temperatures $T$ with similar strength, the field dependence can be used to separate the two effects. The total heat conductivity $\kappa$ can be split into a contribution arising purely from phonons and a magnetic part, $\kappa(B,T)=\kappa_{\rm ph}(T)+\kappa_{\rm mag}(T,B)$. Then, one can use the fact that $\kappa_{\rm ph}(T)$ is practically independent of $B$ to extract $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta
\kappa_{\rm mag}(T,B)&=&\kappa(T,B)-\kappa(T,B=0)\nonumber \\
&=&\kappa_{\rm mag}(T,B)-\kappa_{\rm mag}(T,B=0).\end{aligned}$$ In CuPzN $\Delta
\kappa_{\rm mag}(T,B)$ shows a pronounced dip as a function of magnetic field for small $B$ and $T$. Interestingly, the position of this dip scales linearly with the temperature, $g \mu_B B_{\rm min} \approx 3 k_B T$, pointing to a simple underlying mechanism. A dip in $\kappa_{\rm mag}(B)$ has been observed in numerical simulations [@zotos] of classical spin-chains coupled to phonons but this dip occurs at $B
\sim J$ and does not scale with $T$.
\
Several processes can contribute to $\kappa_{\rm mag}$, the field dependent part of $\kappa$. First, there is a positive contribution from heat transported by the spin-chains. Second, the heat conduction of the phonons is reduced when phonons scatter off spin fluctuations. Third, there is a contribution from spin-phonon drag which is usually positive and can also become very large [@ladder]. The positive sign of $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ in CuPzN suggests that the first and possibly the third mechanism are dominating.
Within a fermionic interpretation of the spin excitations, the magnetic field enters as a chemical potential while $T$ determines the broadening of the Fermi surface. Therefore a likely interpretation of the experiment is that the characteristic dip arises when the Fermi surface moves away from the momentum $k_F=\pi/2a$, corresponding to a half-filled system with lattice spacing $a$. The commensurate filling for $B=0$ is very special as it allows for Umklapp scattering: two spinon excitations can be transferred from the left to the right Fermi surface and the excess momentum $4 k_F = 2 \pi/a$ can be absorbed by the underlying lattice. As this scattering mechanism is only effective in the vicinity of the commensurate point, it is exponentially suppressed for $g \mu_B B >
k_B T$. We will show that besides the Umklapp scattering it is necessary to include the effects of impurities to get structures at $B
\sim T$; in the absence of disorder, the presence of certain approximate conservation laws [@shimshoni03] prohibits a relaxation of the heat current by the leading Umklapp process \[see (\[umklapp\]) below\] alone.
[*Model and methods:*]{} We investigate the one-dimensional Heisenberg model in the presence of a magnetic field $B$ and weakly disordered exchange couplings, $\delta J_i \ll J$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H0}
H&=& - \sum_i (J+\delta J_i) \, {{\bf S}}_i \cdot {{\bf S}}_{i+1}- g \mu_B B \sum_i S_z.\end{aligned}$$ In the following, we will be interested in the limit of small magnetic fields and temperatures, $B,T \ll J$. More precisely, all calculations are done only to leading order in $1/\ln[(T,B)/J]$. The interactions lead to a strong renormalization of disorder [@fisher], but we assume that the temperatures are sufficiently high, such that the renormalized disorder remains weak, $\delta J \ll
\sqrt{J T}$.
For $B,T,\delta J_i \ll J$ one can use the powerful techniques of bosonization to describe the low-energy properties of the system. It is useful to split the effective low-energy Hamiltonian into three pieces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HLL}
H&=&H_{LL}+H_U+H_{dis} \\
H_{LL}&=&v\int \frac{dx}{2 \pi} \left( K
(\partial_x \theta)^2+\frac{1}{K} (\partial_x \phi)^2 \right)\\
H_U &=& \frac{ g}{(2 \pi a)^2} \int dx [e^{i \Delta k x} e^{ i 4
\phi } + h.c.]\label{umklapp}\\
H_D&=&\frac{1}{2 \pi a}\int dx \, \eta(x)[ i e^{ i 2 \phi } + h.c.] \label{dis}\end{aligned}$$ where (using the notation of \[\]) $\partial_x \phi$ denotes fluctuations of the magnetization in the $z$ direction, $\theta$ is the conjugate variable with $[\phi(x),\partial_x \theta(x')]=i \pi \delta(x-x')$, and we use units where $k_B=1, \hbar=1$. For the spin-rotationally invariant Heisenberg model, the velocity and the Luttinger parameters at the low-energy fixed point are given by $v=\frac{\pi}{2} J a$ and $K=1/2$, respectively. The Umklapp term $H_U$ describes the scattering of spinons from one Fermi point to the other. At a finite magnetization, the Fermi momentum $k_F=\frac{\pi}{2 a} (1+2 \langle S_z \rangle)$ deviates from $\pi/2a$ and therefore the excess momentum $\Delta k=4 k_F-\frac{2
\pi}{a}=4 \pi \langle S_z \rangle/a$ cannot be absorbed by the crystalline lattice. For $\Delta k=0$ the Umklapp scattering is a marginally irrelevant operator whose strength decreases logarithmically with $T$ (see below) while for $v \Delta k \gg k_B T$ it is exponentially suppressed in a clean system. The effects of disorder, or more precisely from components of the disorder potential oscillating with momentum $2 k_F$, is described by $H_D$ which models the scattering from one Fermi point to the other with $\eta(x) \sim \delta J(x)$. Here we assume uncorrelated disorder with $\langle \eta(x) \eta(x')\rangle =
D_{dis} \delta(x-x')$.
To calculate the heat conductivity we use the so-called memory matrix formalism [@memory] as in \[\]. Within this approach one calculates a matrix of relaxation rates for a given set of modes. As has been discussed in detail in \[\], in general this method allows to calculate a lower bound to the conductivity. The formalism gives precise results as long as the relevant slow modes are included in the calculation. For the present system, the essential step is to realize [@roschPRL; @shimshoni03] that in the absence of disorder the operator $Q=J_H+v \frac{\Delta k}{4 K} J_s$ is conserved, $[Q,H_{LL}+H_U]=0$. Here, $J_H=v^2 \int
dx\, \partial_x \theta \partial_x \phi$ is the heat current associated with $H_{LL}$ and $J_s=v K \int \partial \theta/\pi$ is the spin-current. This can be seen by realizing that up to the prefactor $v^2$ the heat current can be identified with the momentum operator, the generator of translations. The Umklapp term describes a process where a momentum $\Delta k$ is generated and therefore its commutator with $J_H$ is proportional to $v^2 \Delta
k$. Similarly, the spin current is changed by $-4 v$ as two spinons with velocity $v$ are scattered into states with velocity $-v$. Therefore the linear combination $Q=J_H+v \frac{\Delta k}{4 K}
J_s$ remains unaffected by Umklapp processes. In terms of the original variables, $Q$ can be identified with $J^2 \sum_i {{\bf S}}_i ({{\bf S}}_{i+1} \times
{{\bf S}}_{i+2})$, the heat current operator for $B=0$ which commutes with the integrable Heisenberg model (\[H0\]) in the absence of disorder, $\delta J_i=0$ (when longer range interactions or interchain coupling break integrability, the lifetime of $Q$ nevertheless remains exponentially large in a clean system, see \[\]). We therefore set up the memory matrix formalism in operator space spanned up by the two relevant currents $J_H$ and $J_s$.
The decay rates of the currents are determined [@memory; @shimshoni03] from a $2 \times 2$ matrix $\hat M$ of correlation functions (the ‘memory matrix’), $$\begin{aligned}
M_{ij}=\lim_{\omega \to 0} \frac{{\rm Im} \,
\langle \partial_t J_i ; \partial_t J_j \rangle_{{{\omega}}}}{\omega}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle A ; B \rangle_{\omega}$ denotes a retarded correlation function of $A$ and $B$ evaluated at the real frequency $\omega$ and $J_1=J_H$, $J_2=J_s$ are the two relevant operators. Within the assumptions of our paper, we can treat both Umklapp and disorder perturbatively and therefore it is sufficient to evaluate all expectation values with respect to $H_{LL}$ with $K=1/2$ as the derivative $\partial_t J_i$ are already linear in the perturbations $H_U$ and $H_{\rm dis}$.
The heat conductivity per spin chain is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{\rm mag} \approx \frac{ \chi_{H}^2}{T} \left. \hat M^{-1}\right|_{11}=
\frac{ \chi_{H}^2}{T} \frac{M_{ss}}{M_{ss} M_{HH} -M_{sH}^2} \label{kappa}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_H=\langle J_H;J_H\rangle_{{{\omega}}=0} \approx \frac{\pi v
T^2}{3}$ is the susceptibility of the heat current.
Separating the contributions from Umklapp and disorder, $\hat{M}=\hat{M}_{U}+\hat M_{\rm dis}$, we find using straightforward perturbation theory $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{M}_U&=&\Gamma_U(B,T) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\left(\frac{v \Delta k}{2}\right)^2& -\frac{v \Delta k}{2}\\[1mm]
-\frac{v \Delta k}{2}& 1 \end{array}\right) \label{mu}\\
\Gamma_U &=& -\frac{g(T)^2 v (\Delta k)^2}{8 \pi^2} n_B'(v
\Delta k/2)\label{gu}\\
\hat{M}_{\rm dis}&=&\frac{v \pi D_{\rm dis}}{8 a} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
T & 0\\[1mm]
0 & \frac{2}{\pi^2 T} \end{array}\right) \label{mdis}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_B'(\omega)$ is the derivative of the Bose function, $n_B({{\omega}})=1/(e^{{{\omega}}/T}-1)$. The $T$ dependence of $g(T)\sim \pi v/\ln(J/T)$ (see below) takes into account that the Umklapp scattering is marginally irrelevant with respect to the clean fixed point.
[*Results:*]{} The rather simple equations (\[kappa\]-\[mdis\]) describe the complex interplay of disorder and Umklapp scattering. First, in the absence of disorder, the heat conductivity is infinite [@footnote] as $\hat{M}_U$ has an eigenvalue $0$ reflecting the conservation of $Q$ described above. Second, for vanishing magnetic field, $\Delta k=0$, Umklapp scattering plays no role and one obtains the well-known result $\kappa_{\rm mag}/T \sim T$. The mean free path decreases linearly in $T$ as the disorder is strongly renormalized by the interactions [@fisher]. Third, for finite magnetic field and $T \to 0$, Umklapp scattering is exponentially suppressed, $\Gamma_U \sim e^{-v \Delta k/2 T}$, as the Fermi energy has shifted away from commensurate filling and one finds $\kappa_{\rm mag}(B \gg T)=\kappa_{\rm mag}(B=0)$. Here we have neglected the – formally subleading – effect that the Luttinger liquid parameter $K$ and therefore also the renormalization of the disorder potential depend on $B$.
Upon increasing the magnetic field $B$, the Fermi surface is shifted and $\Delta k$ increases approximately linearly in $B$, $\Delta k \approx 4
\pi \chi B/a$ with [@lukyanov] $\chi\approx g \mu_B/(\pi^2 J)$. As argued above, for $\Delta k=0$ the Umklapp scattering does not influence transport. Therefore, by raising $\Delta
k$ the effect of Umklapp scattering is switched on proportionally to $(\Delta k)^2$. But upon increasing $\Delta k$ further, Umklapp scattering is switched off for $v \Delta k \gg T$ or $B \gg T$. The net result is a pronounced dip in $\kappa_{\rm mag}(B)$, see Fig. \[figScaling\].
In the scaling limit of weak disorder and $1/\ln[(B,T)/J]\ll 1$ the normalized conductivity $\kappa_{\rm mag}(B,T)/\kappa_{\rm mag}(B=0,T)$ is only a function of the scaling variable $h=\mu_B g B/k_B T$ and a dimensionless variable $$\alpha(T) = \frac{D_{\rm dis} v^2}{ (k_B T)^2 g(T)^2 a}
\approx \frac{8 k_B v}{9 \pi \tilde{g}(T)^2 \kappa_{\rm mag}(B=0,T)}\label{alpha}$$ which parameterizes the relative strength of (renormalized) disorder and Umklapp scattering ($\tilde{g}\sim 1/\ln[J/T]$ is defined below). In these variables, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\kappa_{\rm mag}(B,T)}{\kappa_{\rm mag}(0,T)}=
\frac{\pi^3 \alpha(T) - 2 \pi^2 h^2 n_B'(h)}{\pi^3 \alpha(T)-(2 \pi^2+4 h^2) h^2
n_B'(h)}\end{aligned}$$ with $n_B(h)=1/(e^{h}-1)$. As shown in Fig. \[figScaling\], the field dependence of the thermal conductivity is predicted to show a pronounced dip at $B \sim T$. For small $\alpha(T) \ll h^2 n_B'(h)$, i.e. weak disorder and not too strong fields, one finds $$\frac{\kappa_{\rm mag}(B,T)}{\kappa_{\rm mag}(0,T)} \approx \frac{1}{1+2 h^2/\pi^2},\label{kappaAs2}$$ see Fig. \[figScaling\]. This implies a strong reduction of $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ of order $1$ for $\mu_B B \sim k_B T$ as long as the renormalized disorder is sufficiently weak, $\alpha(T) \ll 1$. This is the main result of the paper. For large fields or stronger effective disorder one obtains a small suppression of $\kappa_{\rm mag}$, $$\frac{\kappa_{\rm mag}(B,T)}{\kappa_{\rm mag}(0,T)}\approx 1-\frac{-4 n_B'(h) h^4}{\pi^3
\alpha(T)},$$ giving rise to a minimum at $h\approx 3.8$ of size $0.63/\alpha(T)$.
To allow for a quantitative comparison to the experiment of Ref. \[\], one needs to estimate $\alpha(T)$. For this, both the strength of impurity scattering and the strength of the renormalized Umklapp scattering $g(T)$ have to be determined. Fortunately, for simple Heisenberg chains the latter is known analytically from the Bethe Ansatz. Translating our notations to those used in \[\], we obtain $g(T)=\tilde g(T) \pi^2 J a/2$ and $\tilde g$ is obtained by solving the equation [@lukyanov] $$\frac{1}{\tilde g}+ \frac{\ln(\tilde g)}{2} = \ln\!\left( \frac{e^{1/4+\gamma} \sqrt{\pi/2} J}{T}\right)\label{g}$$ where $\gamma=0.5772...$ is the Euler constant. Within the precision of our calculation, $\tilde{g}\approx 1/\ln(J/T)$, but we use the more precise formula (\[g\]) which includes subleading corrections below. The disorder strength for the sample of CuPzN measured in \[\] can in principle be obtained from $\kappa_{\rm mag}(B=0,T)$. Unfortunately, a large phonon background prohibits a direct measurement of this quantity but a crude estimate, $\kappa_{\rm mag}
\approx 3.5\, T^2$Wm$^{-1}$K$^{-3}$, can be obtained from the behavior of $\kappa$ at large fields (see \[\] for details). Using this estimate, we find for the heat conductivity per spin chain $\kappa_{\rm mag} \approx 2.1\,10^{-18}\, T^2$WmK$^{-3}$. For the four lowest temperatures, $T=0.37, 0.66, 0.96, 1.48$K, shown in Fig.\[figExp\], we obtain from Eq. (\[alpha\]) $\alpha(T)\approx
0.52, 0.12, 0.049, 0.016$, respectively.
These estimates allow a quantitative comparision of theory and experiment. There are two main discrepancies between theory and experiment which can be seen from a direct comparison of Fig. \[figExp\] and Fig. \[figScaling\]. First, there is a discrepancy in the position of the minimum (located at $h\approx 3$ in the experiment and at $h\approx 4$ within the theory) and second, the size of the dip of the order of 10% is much smaller than the predicted reduction of more than 50% – or the estimate for $\alpha$ appears to be almost two orders of magnitude too small. What can be the origin of the clear discrepancy? First, one should note that for the temperatures and magnetic fields shown in Fig. \[figExp\] both subleading effects of order $\ln(B/T)/\ln(J/T)$ or $\ln(\ln( J/T))/\ln(J/T)$ and band-curvature effects (the overall downturn of $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ in large fields) neglected in our calculation can become important. For example, $\tilde{g}^2$ calculated to leading order is for $J/T=30$ a factor 2.5 larger than the value obtained from Eq. (\[g\]).
More importantly, we believe that our model (\[H0\]) does not capture all aspects of the physics in the CuPzN samples correctly. Especially, modeling the disorder by Eq. (\[dis\]) might not be appropriate. This was also the conclusion of Ref. \[\] from an analysis of the heat conductivity at large fields $B\sim 15$T in the quantum critical regime where the magnetization is close to saturation. Indeed, for other types of disorder the matrix (\[mdis\]) will have a different structure which will affect the quantitative predictions while the qualitative picture will remain unmodified. For example, it might be necessary to take the interplay of forward scattering from impurities and interactions into account. Forward scattering affects transport at $B=0$ only very weakly but can reduce the Umklapp dip in $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ considerably as the suppression of $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ at larger fields relies on momentum conservation. A more realistic modeling of disorder should also account for the possibility that defects cut the one-dimensional chains in long pieces[@spin1]. In such a situation, one has also to model how phonons (or weak inter-chain interactions) couple heat into and out off such long chain segments [@sologubenko; @spin1].
[*Conclusions:*]{} Our theoretical calculations show that the heat conductivity of weakly disordered spin chains is very sensitive to moderate magnetic fields $B \sim T$. A pronounced dip in the field dependence of $\kappa$ arises from the shift of the Fermi surface of the spinons induced by the magnetic field. The effect of Umklapp scattering on the heat conductivity turns out to be strongest when the Fermi surface is shifted from the commensurate position at $B=0$ by an amount of the order of its thermal broadening.
It is interesting to note that, according to our theory, this effect should be observable for a wide range of parameters including spin-chains which have – in contrast to CuPzN – large exchange couplings of several hundred Kelvin. Due to the strong $B$ dependence, it should be possible to identify dips in $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ even in the presence of a large phonon background. However, for such systems, the effective disorder has to be sufficiently small, $\alpha(T) \lesssim 10$. To obtain an effective disorder strength of the order of 1 at $B \sim T$, typical fluctuations of the exchange coupling have to be of the order of $B$ (for this crude estimate we used $D_{\rm dis} \sim
(\delta J)^2 a$ and neglected logarithmic renormalizations) $\delta
J/J \lesssim \mu_B B/J $. Furthermore, $\Delta k \sim \mu_B B/(J a)$ is also small for large $J$ and a necessary condition for the quantitative validity of our calculations is that there is no substantial forward scattering on the associate length scale $1/\Delta
k \sim a J/(\mu_B B)$. In systems with large $J$ and strong phonon scattering, one has also to take into account[@shimshoni03] that the sound velocity $c$ is smaller than the spinon-velocity $v$. Therefore it may happen that the position of the dip in $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ moves to lower values, $h \sim c/v$, as the relevant energy scale [@shimshoni03] for phonon-assisted Umklapp scattering is $c \Delta k$ rather than $v \Delta k$.
We gratefully acknowledge discussions with N. Andrei and J. Sirker and financial support of the German–Israeli Foundation and the DFG under SFB 608.
[99]{}
I. Affleck, in [*Fields, Strings and Critical Phenomena, Les Houches, Session XLIX*]{}, edited by E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)
T. Giamarchi, [*[Quantum Physics in one dimensional systems]{}*]{}, Oxford Univ. Press (2004).
H. Bethe, Z. Phys. [**71**]{}, 205 (1931).
A. V. Sologubenko, K. Gianno, H. R. Ott, U. Ammerahl and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2714 (2000); K. Kudo, S. Ishikawa, T. Noji, T. Adachi, Y. Koike, K. Maki, S. Tsuji and K. Kumagai, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**117**]{}, 1689 (1999); A. V. Sologubenko, E.Felder, K. Gianno, H. R. Ott, A. Vietkine and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R6108 (2000); A. V. Sologubenko, K. Gianno, H. R. Ott, A. Vietkine and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 054412 (2001); C. Hess, C. Baumann, U. Ammerahl, B. Büchner, F. Heidrich-Meisner, W. Brenig, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [ **64**]{}, 184305 (2001).
A. V. Sologubenko, K. Berggold, T. Lorenz, A. Rosch, E. Shimshoni, M. D. Phillips and M. M. Turnb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 107201 (2007).
P. Jung, A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. B 76, 245108 (2007), P. Jung, R. W. Helmes, A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 067202 (2006).
C. A. Doty and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 2167 (1992).
A. V. Savin, G. P. Tsironis, and X. Zotos, Phys.Rev. B [**75**]{}, 214305 (2007).
E. Boulat, P. Mehta, N. Andrei, E. Shimshoni, A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 214411 (2007).
E. Shimshoni, N. Andrei, and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 104401 (2003).
R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys. [**33**]{}, 1338 (1960); H. Mori, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**33**]{}, 423 (1965); D. Forster, [*Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Broken Symmetry, and Correlation Functions*]{}, (Benjamin, Massachusetts, 1975); W. Götze and P. Wölfle, Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{}, 1226 (1972).
P. Jung, A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. B 75, 245104 (2007).
A. Rosch, N. Andrei, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1092 (2000).
More precisely, $\kappa_{\rm mag}$ of the clean system is finite but exponentially large if terms which break integrability and higher-order Umklapp processes are taken into account [@roschPRL; @shimshoni03].
S. Lukyanov, Nucl. Phys. B [**522**]{}, 533 (1998).
A. V. Sologubenko, T. Lorenz, J. A. Mydosh, A. Rosch, K. C. Shortsleeves, M. M. Turnbull, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 137202 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The evolution of black-hole binaries in vacuum spacetimes constitutes the two-body problem in general relativity. The solution of this problem in the framework of the Einstein field equations is a substantially more complex exercise than that of the dynamics of two point masses in Newtonian gravity, but it also presents us with a wealth of new exciting physics. Numerical methods are likely the only method to compute the dynamics of black-hole systems in the fully non-linear regime and have been pursued since the 1960s, culminating in dramatic breakthroughs in 2005. Here we review the methodology and the developments that finally gave us a solution of this fundamental problem of Einstein’s theory and discuss the breakthrough’s implication for the wide range of contemporary black-hole physics.'
address:
- '${}^1$ Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom'
- '${}^2$ Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125'
- '${}^3$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA'
author:
- 'Ulrich Sperhake$^{1,2,3}$'
title: The numerical relativity breakthrough for binary black holes
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The interaction of two point masses is probably the simplest and most fundamental dynamical problem one can conceive of in a theory of gravity. This problem is sufficiently simple in Newton’s theory such that it can be solved analytically. In spite of the simplifications, the Newtonian two-body problem describes with high accuracy a wide class of physical systems, ranging from the planetary orbits in the solar system to the motion of the spacecraft that carried humans to the moon in 1969. Observed deviations in the motion of Uranus from the Newtonian predictions led to the prediction of a further planet, Neptune, that was indeed identified in 1846. For a while, a similar explanation was considered for anomalies observed in the perihelion precession of Mercury. The conjectured planet “Vulcan”, however, has never been found and in this case the explanation came in the form of a [*modified theory of gravity*]{}, namely Einstein’s general relativity (GR).
GR differs from Newtonian gravity not only in terms of quantitative predictions but also presents a conceptually totally different description of gravity. Acceleration of objects due to gravitational interaction is no longer the result of a [*force*]{} but due to the curvature of spacetime itself. Mathematically, the spacetime is described in terms of a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ equipped with a metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$ which is determined through Einstein’s field equations $$R_{\alpha \beta} -\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta} R
+ \Lambda g_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\alpha \beta}\,.
\label{eq:Einstein4D}$$ Here, Greek indices range from $0$ to $3$, $R_{\alpha \beta}$ is the Ricci tensor, $R$ the Ricci scalar, $\Lambda$ the cosmological constant and $T_{\alpha \beta}$ the energy momentum tensor. Unless specified otherwise, we will work in units where the gravitational constant and speed of light are unity, $G=1=c$. Much of this work will focus on the case of vacuum and asymptotically flat spacetimes where $\Lambda=0$ and $T_{\alpha \beta}=0$ and the Einstein equations become $R_{\alpha \beta}=0$.
The Ricci tensor $R_{\alpha \beta}$ is a non-linear function of the spacetime metric components $g_{\alpha \beta}$ and their first and second derivatives. The Einstein equations couple space and time in a complex manner to the gravitational sources which is encapsulated in Wheeler’s popular phrase “Matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move”. As we shall discuss in more detail in Sec. \[sec:Einsteinian\], this non-linear coupling of geometry and sources[^1] makes the two-body problem much more complicated in GR but also lends a vast richness of new physics to these seemingly simple systems. Most importantly, we have the following conceptual differences between the Newtonian and the general relativistic case. (i) Sources of finite mass-energy cannot be point-like in GR but inevitably represent extended regions of non-vanishing curvature. The closest approximation to a point-like source in GR is a black hole (BH) and the two-body problem in GR therefore is a BH binary. (ii) The interaction of the two BHs is dissipative as energy and momentum can be radiated away from the binary in the form of gravitational waves (GW) which are subject of large-scale efforts for direct detection. Bound systems therefore eventually result in the merger of the two constituents.
In view of these special features of GR, the BH binary problem is often regarded as a three-stage process: (i) an extended phase of the interaction of two separate BHs, often referred to as the [*inspiral*]{} for bound systems, (ii) the [*merger*]{}, and (iii) the [*ringdown*]{}, a process of damped sinusoidal oscillations as the post-merger remnant sheds all structure beyond mass and angular momentum and settles down into a stationary Kerr BH. Unbound systems do not undergo stage (ii) and (iii) of this process but may still interact in a highly non-linear manner during stage (i). The challenge to accurately model all possible stages of the dynamics of a BH binary then consists in solving Einstein’s vacuum equations $R_{\alpha \beta}=0$, a system of 10 coupled, non-linear second-order partial differential equations (PDEs). This challenge has often been referred to as the [*Holy Grail*]{} of numerical relativity (NR) and how it has eventually been met is the subject of this review.
For understanding the magnitude of this challenge and the particular issues arising in GR, it will be instructive to contrast it with its Newtonian counterpart and we will therefore start in Sec. \[sec:Newtonian\] with a brief review of the Newtonian two-body problem. The GR case is then summarized in Sec. \[sec:Einsteinian\] including a “todo list” of items that specifically arise in solving Einstein’s rather than Newton’s equations. The methodology to address these items is discussed in Sec. \[sec:NR\]. We continue in Sec. \[sec:History\] with an overview of the historical progress of the community which culminated in the 2005 breakthroughs by Pretorius [@Pretorius:2005gq] as well as the [*moving puncture*]{} method of the Brownsville (now Rochester) [@Campanelli:2005dd] and the NASA Goddard [@Baker:2005vv] groups who, quite remarkably, presented two rather different methods to solve the BH binary problem within some months. In Sec. \[sec:Morphology\] we summarize the physical features of the dynamics of BH binary systems and briefly discuss the importance of the GR two-body problem in contemporary physics. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] where we also provide references for further reading.
The Newtonian two-body problem {#sec:Newtonian}
==============================
In the Newtonian two-body problem, we consider two point masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ moving in a background space and time. The two masses are separated by a distance vector $\vec{r} \equiv \vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2$, and we denote by $\vec{F}$ the gravitational force exerted by $m_2$ on $m_1$. By Newton’s laws $m_1$ acts on $m_2$ with $-\vec{F}$ and we have $$\vec{F} = - \frac{Gm_1 m_2}{r^2} \hat{\vec{r}}\,,$$ where $r\equiv |\vec{r}|$ and $\hat{\vec{r}} \equiv \vec{r}/r$ is the unit vector pointing from $m_2$ to $m_1$; cf. Fig. \[fig:Newtonian\]. The equations of motion for the two particles are given by $$m_1 \frac{d^2 \vec{r}_1}{dt^2} = \vec{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
\hat{\vec{r}} = - m_2 \frac{d^2 \vec{r_2}}{dt^2}\,.
\label{eq:Nmotion}$$ These equations are most conveniently solved by introducing the
[*reduced mass*]{} $\mu = m_1 m_2 / (m_1+m_2)$ and rewriting (\[eq:Nmotion\]) as the equation of motion for a single particle of mass $\mu$, $$\mu \frac{d^2 \vec{r}}{dt^2} = \vec{F}\,.$$ Without loss of generality, we choose Cartesian coordinates $x,\,y,\,z$ such that the particles’ motion takes place in the plane $z=0$ and we furthermore introduce polar coordinates $r,\,\theta$ with $x=r\cos \theta$, $y=r\sin \theta$. We thus obtain two constants of motion, the energy $E$ and the angular momentum $L$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
E &=& \frac{1}{2}\mu \left[ \left( \frac{dr}{dt} \right)^2
+ r^2 \left( \frac{d\theta}{dt} \right)^2 \right]
- G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r}\,,
\label{eq:NE} \\[10pt]
L &=& \mu r^2 \frac{d\theta}{dt}\,.
\label{eq:NL}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting $d\theta/dt$ in (\[eq:NE\]) in terms of $L$ through (\[eq:NL\]) and solving the two equations for $dr/dt$ and $d\theta/dt$, respectively, we obtain a differential equation for $r$ regarded now as a function of $\theta$: $$\frac{dr}{d\theta} = \frac{\dot{r}}{\dot{\theta}}
= \frac{\sqrt{2\mu} r^2}{L} \sqrt{E - \frac{L^2}{2\mu r^2}
+ G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r}}\,,
\label{eq:Nfinal}$$ where a “dot” denotes a time derivative $d/dt$. A solution to Eq. (\[eq:Nfinal\]) is given in closed analytic form by $$r = \frac{r_0}{1+\epsilon \cos \theta}\,,~~~~
r_0 = \frac{L^2}{\mu G m_1 m_2}\,,~~~~
\epsilon = \sqrt{1+ \frac{2EL^2}{\mu (Gm_1 m_2)^2}}\,,
\label{eq:Nsol}$$ where the [*semilatus rectum*]{} $r_0$ and the [*eccentricity*]{} $\epsilon$ are determined completely in terms of the constants of motion $E$, $L$.
The solutions to Eq. (\[eq:Nfinal\]) can be classified into the following four types.
[[()]{}]{}[ 1.5cm 0.4cm 0.5ex plus0.2ex minus0.1ex 0ex plus0.2ex]{}
[***Circular orbits***]{} given by $\epsilon =0$ where $E$ takes on its minimal possible value $E_{\rm min}$ and the solutions are circles $r(\theta) = r_0$.
[***Kepler ellipses***]{} given by $0 < \epsilon < 1$ or, equivalently $E_{\min} < E < 0$. In this case, the solution (\[eq:Nsol\]) can be written as $$\frac{(1-\epsilon^2)^2}{r_0^2} \left( x + \frac{\epsilon r_0}
{1-\epsilon^2} \right)^2
+ y^2 \frac{1-\epsilon^2}{r_0^2} = 1\,,$$ which is of the general form $(x-x_0)^2/a^2 + (y-y_0)^2/b^2=1$ for an ellipse centered on $(x_0,y_0)$.
[***Parabola***]{} given by $\epsilon = 1~~\Leftrightarrow~~E=0$ in which case (\[eq:Nsol\]) takes on the form $2r_0 x+ y^2 = r_0^2$.
[***Hyperbolic orbits***]{} given by $\epsilon>1~~\Leftrightarrow~~
E>0$ where the solution (\[eq:Nsol\]) can be written as $-(\epsilon^2-1) x^2 + 2r_0 \epsilon x + y^2= r_0^2$.
The elliptic type of solutions is often extended to include the circular case (1) and we have the three classic cone cross sections of elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic particle curves.
The general relativistic two-body problem {#sec:Einsteinian}
=========================================
We have seen that the Newtonian two-body problem can be formulated as one ordinary differential equation (\[eq:Nfinal\]) for which initial data at $t=0$ need to be specified in the form of the initial position $(r,\theta)$ and the velocity components $\dot{r}$ and $\dot{\theta}$ or, alternatively, as $dr / d\theta$. The free parameters of the system are given by the masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ as well as the constants of motion $E$ and $L$.
In order to illustrate the many fundamental differences that arise in the general relativistic two-body problem, it is helpful to first consider the Einstein equations (\[eq:Einstein4D\]) in a time-space split form. This is conveniently achieved with the canonical “3+1” split of the Einstein equations originally developed by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM) [@Arnowitt:1962hi] and later reformulated by York [@York1979; @York1982]; for a detailed review see [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue]. We consider for this purpose a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ equipped with a spacetime metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$ and assume that there exists a function $t :\mathcal{M} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that satisfies the following two properties. (i) The 1-form $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}}t$ is timelike everywhere, and (ii) the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t$ defined by $t = \mathrm{const}$ are non-intersecting and $\cup_{t\in \mathbb{R}} \Sigma_t = \mathcal{M}$. The resulting sequence of hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t$ is often referred to as a [*foliation*]{} of the spacetime and we denote by $\boldsymbol{n} \equiv -
\boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}}t / ||\boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}}t||$ the future pointing unit normal field
of the $\Sigma_t$. We furthermore define coordinates $x^{\alpha}$ to be [*adapted*]{} to the foliation if $x^0 = t$ and the $x^i$, $i=1, \ldots, 3$, form a coordinate system in each hypersurface $\Sigma_t$.
It turns out convenient to define the [*lapse function*]{} and [*shift vector*]{} by $$\alpha \equiv \frac{1}{|| \boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}} t ||}\,,~~~~~~~~
\beta^{\mu} \equiv (\partial_t)^{\mu} - \alpha n^{\mu}\,.$$ Lapse and shift relate the unit normal direction $\boldsymbol{n}$ to the direction $\boldsymbol{\partial}_t$ of the coordinate time $t$ which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:foliation\]. One straightforwardly shows that $\langle \boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}}t, \alpha \boldsymbol{n}
\rangle = 1$ and, together with $\langle \boldsymbol{\mathsf{d}}t,
\boldsymbol{\partial}_t \rangle = 1$, it follows that the shift vector $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is tangent to $\Sigma_t$. Finally, the lapse function relates proper time $\tau$ as measured by an observer with four-velocity $n^{\alpha}$ to the coordinate time $t$: $\Delta \tau = \alpha\, \Delta t$.
Having decomposed the spacetime into a one-parameter family of spatial hypersurfaces, we next consider projections of tensors. For this purpose, we define the projection operator $\bot^{\alpha}{}_{\mu} \equiv \delta^{\alpha}{}_{\mu} + n^{\alpha}n_{\mu}$ and the projection of an arbitrary tensor $T^{\mu_1 \mu_2 \ldots}{}_{\nu_1 \nu_2 \ldots}$ by $$(\bot T)^{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \ldots}{}_{\beta_1 \beta_2 \ldots}
\equiv
\bot^{\alpha_1}{}_{\mu_1} \bot^{\alpha_2}{}_{\mu_2} \ldots
\bot^{\nu_1}{}_{\beta_1} \bot^{\nu_2}{}_{\beta_2} \ldots
T^{\mu_1 \mu_2 \ldots}{}_{\nu_1 \nu_2 \ldots}\,.$$ In particular, the spatial projection of the metric gives us the [*first fundamental form*]{} or [*spatial metric*]{} $$\gamma_{\alpha \beta} \equiv \bot^{\mu}{}_{\alpha}
\bot^{\nu}{}_{\beta} g_{\mu \nu}
= g_{\alpha \beta} + n_{\alpha} n_{\beta}
= \bot_{\alpha \beta}\,.$$ $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ and $\boldsymbol{\bot}$ thus represent the same tensor and we shall use both symbols depending on whether the emphasis is on the projection operation or the geometry of the spatial slices. It is straightforward to show that the components of the spacetime metric in adapted coordinates are related to the spatial metric, lapse and shift according to $$g_{\alpha \beta} = \left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
-\alpha^2 + \beta_m \beta^m & \beta^j \\
\hline
\beta^i & \gamma_{ij}
\end{array}
\right)
~~~\Leftrightarrow~~~
g^{\alpha \beta} = \left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
-\alpha^{-2} & \alpha^{-2} \beta^j \\
\hline
\alpha^{-2} \beta^i & \gamma^{ij}
- \alpha^{-2} \beta^i \beta^j
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{eq:3+1metric}$$ Here, Latin indices $i,\,j,\,\ldots$ extend from $1$ to $3$ and spatial indices are raised and lowered with the spatial metric $\gamma_{ij}$ and its inverse $\gamma^{ij}$. The spatial metric furthermore defines a unique torsion-free and metric-compatible connection $\Gamma^{i}_{jk} = \frac{1}{2} \gamma^{im}(\partial_j \gamma_{km}
+ \partial_k \gamma_{mj} - \partial_m \gamma_{jk})$ and an associated covariant derivative for arbitrary spatial tensors given by $$D_{\gamma} S^{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \ldots}{}_{\beta_1 \beta_2 \ldots}
= \bot^{\lambda}{}_{\gamma} \bot^{\alpha_1}{}_{\mu_1}
\bot^{\alpha_2}{}_{\mu_2} \ldots \bot^{\nu_1}{}_{\beta_1}
\bot^{\nu_2}{}_{\beta_2} \ldots
\nabla_{\lambda} S^{\mu_1 \mu_2 \ldots}{}_{\nu_1 \nu_2 \ldots}\,.$$ The final ingredient we shall need in the space-time split of the Einstein equations is the [*second fundamental form*]{} or [*extrinsic curvature*]{} $$K_{\alpha \beta} = -\bot \nabla_{\beta} n_{\alpha}\,.
\label{eq:defK}$$ Here, the minus sign is a common convention in NR but the extrinsic curvature is sometimes also defined with a plus sign in the literature. Furthermore, the definition (\[eq:defK\]) implies the relation $K_{\alpha \beta} = -\frac{1}{2}
\mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol{n}} \gamma_{\alpha \beta}$, where $\mathcal{L}$ denotes the Lie derivative. It turns out convenient to also introduce the following projections of the energy momentum tensor $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho = T_{\mu \nu}n^{\mu} n^{\nu}\,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&j_{\alpha} = -\bot^{\nu}{}_{\alpha} T_{\mu \nu}n^{\mu}, \\
& S_{\alpha \beta} = \bot^{\mu}{}_{\alpha} \bot^{\nu}{}_{\beta} T_{\mu \nu}\,,
& S = \gamma^{\mu \nu} S_{\mu \nu}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The space-time split of the Einstein equations $G_{\alpha \beta}
= 8\pi T_{\alpha \beta}$ is then obtained through a lengthy calculation whose details can be found for example in [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue]. This calculation gives six second-order in time evolution equations as well as the Hamiltonian and three momentum constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \gamma_{ij} &=& \beta^m \partial_m \gamma_{ij}
+ \gamma_{mj} \partial_i \beta^m + \gamma_{im}\partial_j \beta^m
- 2\alpha K_{ij}\,,
\label{eq:dtgamma} \\
\partial_t K_{ij} &=& \beta^m \partial_m K_{ij}
+ K_{mj} \partial_i \beta^m + K_{im} \partial_j \beta^m
- D_i D_j \alpha
\nonumber \\
&& + \alpha (\mathcal{R}_{ij} + KK_{ij}
- 2K_{im} K^m{}_j)
+ 4\pi \alpha [(S-\rho) \gamma_{ij} - 2S_{ij}]\,,
\label{eq:dtK} \\
0 &=& \mathcal{R} + K^2 - K^{mn}K_{mn}- 16\pi \rho\,,
\label{eq:Ham}
\\
0 &=& D_i K - D_m K^m{}_i + 8\pi j_i\,.
\label{eq:mom}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathcal{R}_{ij}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ denote the Ricci tensor and scalar associated with $\gamma_{ij}$. Note that we assume here coordinates $(t,\,x^i)$ adapted to the foliation and therefore have replaced spacetime indices $\alpha,\,\beta,\,\ldots$ with spatial indices $i,\,j,\,\ldots\;$. We also see that the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$ allows us to write the second-order-in-time evolution equations as a first-order system. Finally, the constraint equations (\[eq:Ham\]) and (\[eq:mom\]) are preserved under the evolution equations because of the Bianchi identities.
At this point it is worth taking a break to consider our situation in comparison with the Newtonian two-body problem. In place of one ordinary differential equation, we now have a system of coupled PDEs which forms an initial-boundary-value problem (IBVP). This system consists of six second-order in time evolution equations written in Eqs. (\[eq:dtgamma\]), (\[eq:dtK\]) in first-order form as well as four constraints (\[eq:Ham\]), (\[eq:mom\]). Even though the constraints are preserved under the evolution equations in the continuum limit, care needs to be taken that constraint violations due to numerical inaccuracies do not grow out of bounds. Furthermore, the initial data need to satisfy the constraints which requires solving a set of elliptic differential equations. Note that the Einstein equations in ADM form (\[eq:dtgamma\])-(\[eq:mom\]) make no predictions about the lapse function $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta$. Instead, these functions represent the [*diffeomorphism invariance*]{} or [*gauge freedom*]{} of general relativity; they can be freely specified to fix the coordinates but, as it turns out, it is highly non-trivial to find gauge conditions that ensure numerically stable evolutions.
It is instructive to count the number of physical degrees of freedom contained in the system (\[eq:dtgamma\])-(\[eq:mom\]). We have ten components of the Einstein metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$ corresponding to the ten functions $\gamma_{ij}$, $\beta^i$ and $\alpha$ in the ADM formulation. Four of these, the lapse and shift, are freely specifiable and do not contain physical information. The constraints impose four further conditions on the remaining functions $\gamma_{ij}$ that must be satisfied on each hypersurface $\Sigma_t$ and we are left with two gravitational degrees of freedom which correspond to the $+$ and $\times$ GW polarization modes; see e.g. [@Sathyaprakash:2009xs]. The two gravitational degrees of freedom are recovered even more elegantly in the characteristic formulation of the Einstein equations developed by Bondi, Sachs and collaborators [@Bondi:1962px; @Sachs:1962wk]. Here, one chooses at least one coordinate to be null and thus foliates spacetime in terms of light cones. The Einstein equations assume a natural hierarchy of 2 evolution equations, 4 hypersurface equations relating variables inside the hypersurfaces, 3 supplementary and 1 trivial equation; for details see [@Winicour:2005ge] and references therein. Codes based on the characteristic formulation have been applied with great success in the presence of special spacetime symmetries and indeed been the first to model single BH spacetimes with long-term stability [@Gomez:1998uj; @Lehner:1998ti]. In spite of the formalism’s appealing properties, however, characteristic codes have as yet not been successfully generalized to BH binaries because the formation of caustics causes a breakdown of the coordinate system. It remains to be seen whether this obstacle can be overcome in future investigations; for a recent study see [@Babiuc:2013rra].
In the case of a non-vanishing energy momentum tensor $T_{\alpha \beta}$, there may be additional matter degrees of freedom. We also note that BH spacetimes with a BH mass $M$ contain various different length scales, the BH horizon which has a size of[^2] $\mathcal{O}(M)$, the wave length of GW signals, typically of the order $\mathcal{O}(10^2~M)$, and the wave zone of $\mathcal{O}(10^3~M)$ where perturbation theory permits a precise definition of GWs. Finally, we need to specify outer boundary conditions such that there is no ingoing gravitational radiation from infinity.
Bearing in mind all these features of the Einstein equations, we face the following list of tasks to obtain stable, accurate numerical simulations of the binary BH problem in general relativity.
- Formulate the Einstein equations in a manner that admits a [*well-posed*]{} IBVP, i.e. ensures a continuous dependence of the spacetime solution on the initial data.
- Choose numerically suitable gauge conditions.
- Discretize the resulting PDEs for a computer based treatment.
- Specify physically correct boundary conditions that also satisfy the constraints.
- Find a numerical treatment of the singularities inherent in BH spacetimes that avoids the appearance of [*non-assigned numbers*]{}.
- Calculate initial data which satisfy the constraints and represent a realistic snapshot of the initial state of the physical system under consideration.
- Implementation of [*mesh refinement*]{} or similar methods using multiple domains to accurately handle the different length scales and parallelize the resulting algorithms for multi-processor computation.
- Extract physical results in a gauge-invariant manner from the numerical data.
In the next section we will discuss the most important methods which have been developed for handling these tasks and have made possible the NR breakthroughs in solving the binary BH problem in general relativity.
The ingredients of numerical relativity {#sec:NR}
=======================================
The techniques for addressing the above list of tasks have been developed over several decades through an interplay of numerical experiments and theoretical studies carried out by numerous groups and researchers. Many numerical investigations, especially the earlier ones, were performed without a comprehensive understanding of all the difficulties associated with this list of tasks. In hindsight, it is therefore not too surprising that they met with limited success. And yet, as is the nature of scientific exploration, all these attempts taught us valuable lessons and contributed to the gradual assembly of the complete picture we are going to describe in this section. We shall present this more technical description not in chronological order but, for reasons of clarity, topic by topic. A brief historical review of the applications will be given in Sec. \[sec:History\] below.\
Formulations of the Einstein equations
--------------------------------------
Any successful attempt at numerically solving the Einstein equations must be based on a [*well-posed*]{} IBVP, i.e. a computational algorithm that results in a time evolution which depends continuously on the initial data. Given the inevitability of numerical noise present in the form of round-off error in any numerical initial data, algorithms that do not meet this criterion are evidently unsuitable for obtaining reliable results. The well-posedness of a numerical implementation depends on many aspects including the specific formulation of the differential equations, gauge and boundary conditions and the discretization schemes. Here we are concerned with the conditions a formulation of the Einstein equations must satisfy to admit a well-posed IBVP.
The suitability of a formulation is commonly studied in the form of the [*hyperbolicity*]{} properties of the PDEs which are related to the symmetrizeability of the [*principal symbol*]{} (in simple words, the coefficient matrix of the terms containing the highest derivatives) of the system of PDEs. A system is called [*strongly hyperbolic*]{} if the principal symbol has only imaginary eigenvalues and a complete set of linearly independent eigenvectors [@Nagy:2004td]. If the eigenvectors are not linearly independent, the system is called [*weakly hyperbolic*]{}. A system is called [*symmetric hyperbolic*]{} if there exists a conserved, positive energy norm. We skip the technical details here, but the interested reader will find extended discussions in [@Reula:1998ty; @Sarbach:2012pr] and references therein. For us, the most important conclusions are the following. (i) Of the three notions of weak, strong and symmetric hyperbolicity, each is a stronger condition than the previous one; cf. Sec. 3.1.4 in [@Sarbach:2012pr]. (ii) Strong hyperbolicity is a necessary condition for a well-posed IBVP [@Taylor1981; @Taylor1991]. (iii) The ADM evolution equations (\[eq:dtgamma\]), (\[eq:dtK\]) have been shown to be weakly but not strongly hyperbolic for fixed gauge [@Nagy:2004td] and a first-order version of the ADM equations has been shown to be only weakly hyperbolic in [@Kidder:2001tz]. While these studies do not constitute a rigorous proof of the unsuitability of the ADM equations for numerical evolutions, they strongly suggest a search for alternative formulations for which strong hyperbolicity can be established.
Explorations of modifications of the ADM equations or alternative formulations for use in NR already began in the late 1980s, before the full impact of the hyperbolicity properties of the different formulations had been realized. Over the course of the ensuing 25 years, a great variety of different formulations has been developed and implemented in numerical codes; for an overview see for example [@Shinkai:2008yb] and in particular Fig. 4 therein. Here, we shall focus on those two formulations that underlie the numerical relativity breakthroughs of 2005. The Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) formulation [@Nakamura:1987zz; @Shibata:1995we; @Baumgarte:1998te] is directly derived from the ADM equations but works with conformally rescaled variables, a trace split of the extrinsic curvature and promotes the contracted Christoffel symbols to the status of independent variables. Specifically, the BSSN variables $\chi$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, $K$, $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}^i$ are defined by $$\chi = \gamma^{-1/3}\,,~~
\tilde{\gamma}_{i j} = \chi \gamma_{i j}\,,~~
K = \gamma^{m n} K_{m n}\,,~~
\tilde{A}_{i j} = \chi \left( K_{i j} - \frac{1}{3}\gamma_{i j} K \right)\,,
~~
\tilde{\Gamma}^{i} = \tilde{\gamma}^{m n} \tilde{\Gamma}^{i}_{m n}\,,
\label{eq:BSSNvars}$$ where $\gamma \equiv \det \gamma_{ij}$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}^i_{jk}$ are the Christoffel symbols associated with the conformal metric $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$. The BSSN system has also been used with $\chi$ replaced by the variables $\phi = -(\ln\,\chi)/4$ or $W=\sqrt{\chi}$. Inserting the definition (\[eq:BSSNvars\]) into the ADM equations (\[eq:dtgamma\]), (\[eq:dtK\]) and using the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints respectively in the resulting evolution equations for $K$ and $\Gamma^i$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \chi &=& \beta^m \partial_m \chi
+ \frac{2}{3} \chi (\alpha K - \partial_m \beta^m)\,,
\label{eq:BSSNdtchi} \\
\partial_t \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} &=& \beta^m \partial_m
\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}
+ 2\tilde{\gamma}_{m(i} \partial_{j)} \beta^m
- \frac{2}{3}\tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \partial_m \beta^m
- 2\alpha \tilde{A}_{ij}\,,\\
\partial_t K &=& \beta^m \partial_m K
- \chi \tilde{\gamma}^{mn} D_m D_n \alpha
+ \alpha \tilde{A}^{mn}\tilde{A}_{mn}
+ \frac{1}{3}\alpha K^2 \nonumber \\
&& + 4\pi \alpha [S+\rho]\,, \\
\partial_t \tilde{A}_{ij} &=& \beta^m \partial_m \tilde{A}_{ij}
+ 2\tilde{A}_{m(i} \partial_{j)} \beta^m
- \frac{2}{3} \tilde{A}_{ij} \partial_m \beta^m
+ \alpha K\tilde{A}_{ij} \nonumber \\
&& - 2\alpha \tilde{A}_{im} \tilde{A}^m{}_j
+ \chi \left(
\alpha \mathcal{R}_{ij} - D_i D_j \alpha
- 8\pi \alpha S_{ij} \right)^{\rm TF}\,,\\
\partial_t \tilde{\Gamma}^i &=& \beta^m \partial_m
\tilde{\Gamma}^i
+ \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\Gamma}^i \partial_m \beta^m
- \tilde{\Gamma}^m\partial_m \beta^i
+ \tilde{\gamma}^{mn} \partial_m \partial_n \beta^i
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{3}\tilde{\gamma}^{im} \partial_m
\partial_n \beta^n
- \tilde{A}^{im} \left[
3 \alpha \frac{\partial_m \chi}{\chi}
+ 2\partial_m \alpha \right]
+ 2\alpha \tilde{\Gamma}^i_{mn} \tilde{A}^{mn}
\nonumber \\
&& - \frac{4}{3} \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{im} \partial_m K
- 16\pi \alpha j^i\,. \nonumber \\
\label{eq:BSSNdtGamma}\end{aligned}$$ Here, “TF” denotes the tracefree part and $\mathcal{R}_{ij}$ the Ricci tensor associated with the physical three-metric $\gamma_{ij}$. The promotion of auxiliary variables to independent status introduces three additional constraints to the BSSN system given by $$\det \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} = 1\,,~~~~~
\tilde{\gamma}^{mn} \tilde{A}_{mn} = 0\,,~~~~~
\mathcal{G}^i \equiv \tilde{\Gamma}^i - \tilde{\gamma}^{mn}
\tilde{\Gamma}^i_{mn} = 0\,.
\label{eq:auxconstraintsBSSN}$$ In practical applications, it turns out necessary for numerical stability to control these auxiliary constraints in the following manner. (i) Enforce $\tilde{\gamma}^{mn} \tilde{A}_{mn} = 0$ and (ii) either add the constraint $\mathcal{G}^i$ to the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:BSSNdtGamma\]) [@Yo:2002bm] or, alternatively, substitute on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:BSSNdtGamma\]) all $\tilde{\Gamma}^i$ that appear in undifferentiated form by their definition in terms of the metric $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ [@Alcubierre:2000yz].
Empirical studies quickly demonstrated that the BSSN system provides superior numerical stability when compared with the ADM equations (e.g. [@Baumgarte:1998te]) and mathematical studies demonstrated BSSN to provide a strongly hyperbolic formulation of the Einstein equations [@Gundlach:2006tw]. The BSSN formulation is employed in the binary BH breakthroughs by the Brownsville/Rochester and the NASA Goddard groups [@Campanelli:2005dd; @Baker:2005vv].
The other formulation instrumental for the breakthroughs is based on the Einstein equations in [*harmonic gauge*]{} [@Einstein:1916cc] defined by the spacetime coordinates satisfying the condition $\Box x^{\alpha} = -g^{\mu \nu}
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu \nu} = 0$. In this form, the Ricci tensor takes on the form $$R_{\alpha \beta} = -\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu}
\partial_{\nu} g_{\alpha \beta} + \ldots\,,$$ where the dots denote terms containing at most first derivatives of the spacetime metric. In this form, the principal part of the Einstein equations is that of the scalar wave operator and the equations are symmetric hyperbolic. Harmonic coordinates have been used in the first proofs of the local uniqueness of the Cauchy problem in GR [@FouresBruhat:1952zz; @Bruhat1962; @Fischer1972]. A generalization of this particularly appealing form of the Einstein equations to arbitrary gauge is realized by promoting the functions $$H^{\alpha} \equiv \Box x^{\alpha} = -g^{\mu \nu} \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu \nu}\,,
\label{eq:GHGH}$$ to the status of independently evolved variables [@Friedrich1985; @Garfinkle:2001ni]. The resulting system is often referred to as the [*Generalized Harmonic Gauge*]{} (GHG) formulation and considers the generalized set of equations $$R_{\alpha \beta} -\nabla_{(\alpha} \mathcal{C}_{\beta)}
= 8\pi \left( T_{\alpha \beta} - \frac{1}{2}Tg_{\alpha \beta}
\right)\,,
\label{eq:GHG_modEinstein}$$ with the auxiliary constraints $\mathcal{C}^{\alpha} \equiv H^{\alpha} - \Box x^{\alpha}$. A solution to the Einstein equations is obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:GHG\_modEinstein\]) subject to the condition $\mathcal{C}^{\alpha}=0$. In practice, this is conveniently achieved by prescribing initial data for $g_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\partial_t g_{\alpha
\beta}$ and initializing the $H^{\alpha}$ through Eq. (\[eq:GHGH\]). If the initial data furthermore satisfy the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (\[eq:Ham\]), (\[eq:mom\]), this can be shown to imply $\partial_t \mathcal{C}^{\alpha}=0$. The Bianchi identities then ensure that the auxiliary constraint is preserved under time evolution so that $\mathcal{C}^{\alpha}=0$ at all times in the continuum limit. For controlling violations of these constraints at the discretized level in numerical evolutions, Gundlach [*et al.*]{} [@Gundlach:2005eh] suggested the addition of constraint damping terms which turned out crucial in achieving the numerical stability required for binary BH simulations [@Pretorius:2005gq]. With these terms, the generalized Einstein equations (\[eq:GHG\_modEinstein\]) can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
g^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} g_{\alpha \beta} &=&
- 2\partial_{\nu} g_{\mu (\alpha}\,\partial_{\beta)} g^{\mu \nu}
- 2\partial_{(\alpha} H_{\beta)}
+ 2H_{\mu} \Gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}
- 2\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu \alpha} \Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu \beta} \nonumber \\
&& - 8\pi T_{\alpha \beta}
+ 4\pi T g_{\alpha \beta}
- 2\kappa \left[2n_{(\alpha}\mathcal{C}_{\beta)}
- \lambda g_{\alpha \beta} n^{\mu} \mathcal{C}_{\mu} \right]\,.
\label{eq:GHG}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ are user-specified constant parameters which control the constraint damping. The GHG formulation has been used in Pretorius’ breakthrough simulations [@Pretorius:2005gq]; see also [@Pretorius:2004jg].\
Gauge conditions
----------------
In the previous section, we have seen that some of the evolution variables are not determined by the Einstein equations. The lapse function $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ are freely specifiable in the ADM system (\[eq:dtgamma\])-(\[eq:mom\]) or the BSSN equations (\[eq:BSSNdtchi\])-(\[eq:BSSNdtGamma\]) and the $H^{\alpha}$ are undetermined in the GHG formulation (\[eq:GHG\]). Instead, these functions represent the coordinate or gauge freedom of general relativity, and their choice leaves the physical properties of the spacetime invariant. As one might expect from this shared property, the two sets of gauge functions are related; the normal component and spatial projection of the $H^{\alpha}$ can be expressed in terms of the lapse $\alpha$ and shift $\beta^i$ respectively as given in Eqs. (18), (19) of Ref. [@Pretorius:2004jg]. The geometrical meaning of the gauge functions is more intuitively encoded in lapse and shift and most investigations into the numerical properties of different gauge choices have been carried out in terms of these variables.
The simplest choice would appear to be given by $\alpha=1$ and $\beta^i=0$, referred to as [*geodesic slicing with vanishing shift*]{}. The problems of using this gauge in numerical simulations, however, have been demonstrated as early as 1978 by Smarr & York’s [@Smarr:1977uf] time evolutions of the time symmetric slice of the Kruskal-Schwarzschild spacetime. Setting $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=0$, the numerically constructed hypersurfaces encounter the BH singularity after an evolution time $t=\pi~M$; cf. the upper panel of their Fig. 2. This behaviour highlights one key requirement to be met by any numerically suitable set of gauge conditions: The evolution in proper time should be slowed down in regions where the hypersurfaces approach a singularity. This feature is commonly referred to as [*singularity avoiding slicing*]{} and has been suggested first in the form of [*maximal slicing*]{} $K=0$ [@Estabrook:1973ue]. Singularity avoidance is achieved by letting the lapse function vary in space and time such that it drops towards zero in the vicinity of spacetime singularities. For an illustration of this effect, we refer again to Fig. 2 in [@Smarr:1977uf] which contrasts maximal with geodesic slicing. A wider class of singularity avoiding slicings has been studied in the form of the Bona-Mass[ó]{} family [@Bona:1994dr] which includes maximal slicing as a special case; see also [@Alcubierre:2002iq] and, for the case of harmonic coordinates, [@Garfinkle:2001ni]. It has been noticed, however, that due to the different advance in proper time in different regions of the spacetime during the numerical evolution, neighbouring grid points of a computational domain may correspond to increasingly distant points in the spacetime. This phenomenon, often referred to as [*grid*]{} or [*slice stretching*]{}, needs to be cured by a “suitable shifting of grid points” through the use of a non-zero shift vector; see e.g. [@Alcubierre:2002kk].
Geometrically motivated shift conditions were used in the already mentioned work by Smarr & York [@Smarr:1977uf] in the form of the [*minimal distortion gauge*]{}. Considering for example a small sphere on a given hypersurface $\Sigma_t$, it can be shown that the minimal distortion gauge preserves the spherical shape at leading order whereas in general the shape will be sheared into an ellipse. The maximal slicing condition furthermore preserves the volume of the sphere. The numerical implementation of this shift is complicated by the necessity to solve elliptic equations for the $\beta^i$; for details see Sec. 4 and, in particular Eq. (4.11) in [@Smarr:1977uf]. In practice, it is much simpler to evolve the shift in time according to parabolic or hyperbolic differential equations which can be achieved with so-called “driver” conditions [@Balakrishna:1996fe]. Alcubierre [*et al.*]{} [@Alcubierre:2001vm] have obtained such equations for the shift by relating $\partial_t \beta^i$ or $\partial_t^2 \beta^i$ to the elliptic operator obtained from the “Gamma freezing” condition $\partial_t \tilde{\Gamma}^i=0$ where $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is the BSSN variable defined in Eq. (\[eq:BSSNvars\]). They thus arrive at the hyperbolic “$\Gamma$-driver” condition $\partial^2_t \beta^i
= \zeta \partial_t \tilde{\Gamma}^i -\xi \partial_t \beta^i$, where $\zeta$ and $\xi$ are specifiable positive functions. In a similar way, the Bona Mass[ó]{} family replaces the elliptic maximal slicing condition $K=0$ with an “easier to implement” hyperbolic condition $\partial_t \alpha -\alpha^2
f(\alpha) [K-K(t=0)]$ where $f(\alpha)$ is a positive function. By using a specific version of this slicing and $\Gamma$-driver shift, Alcubierre [*et al.*]{} [@Alcubierre:2001vm] managed to extract GWs from the evolution of a distorted BH and drive the coordinates to a frame where the system remains almost static at late times. A specific version of the Bona-Mass[ó]{} family is the so-called “1+log” slicing which sets $f(\alpha)=2/\alpha$ and enabled Alcubierre [*et al.*]{} [@Alcubierre:2002kk] to evolve BH data for long times above $1\,000~M$.
The breakthrough simulations of [@Campanelli:2005dd; @Baker:2005vv] obtained with the BSSN formulation employ variants of the 1+log slicing and the $\Gamma$-driver shift condition given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \alpha &=& \beta^m \partial_m -2\alpha K\,,
\label{eq:dt_alpha} \\
\partial_t \beta^i &=& \beta^m \partial_m \beta^i + \frac{3}{4} B^i\,, \\
\partial_t B^i &=& \beta^m \partial_m B^i + \partial_t
\tilde{\Gamma}^i - \eta B^i\,,
\label{eq:dt_B}\end{aligned}$$ or some minor modification of these equations; cf. [@vanMeter:2006vi]. Here, $\eta$ is a user specified constant or function of the coordinates.
The GHG formulation is motivated by the beneficial properties of the Einstein equations in harmonic gauge, but stable numerical evolutions of binary BH spacetimes have so far required at least some component of the $H^{\alpha}$ to be non-zero. Pretorius [@Pretorius:2005gq] sets $H_i=0$ and evolves the $t$ component according to $$\Box H_t = -\xi_1 \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha^{\eta}}
+ \xi_2 n^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} H_t\,,
\label{eq:GHGgauge}$$ where $\xi_1=19/m$, $\xi_2=2.5/m$, $\eta=5$ and $m$ denotes the mass of one of the two (equal-mass) BHs. This choice prevents the lapse from deviating too much from unity which may have caused instabilities in earlier GHG evolutions [@Pretorius:2007nq]. For some further discussion of gauge choices in the GHG formulation, see e.g. [@Pretorius2006; @Szilagyi:2009qz].\
Boundary conditions and singularity treatment {#sec:BCs}
---------------------------------------------
Astrophysical BHs are commonly modeled as asymptotically flat spacetimes, i.e. the spacetime approaches the Minkowski limit far away from the BH regions of strong curvature. Strictly speaking, this is an approximation to the cosmological spacetimes that describe our universe, but for most practical applications, as for example the modeling of GW signals expected to be observed with laser interferometric detectors, it is sufficient to include cosmological effects in the form of a redshift factor $1+z$ multiplying the source mass. Asymptotically flat spacetimes are of infinite extent and the challenge in numerical relativity is to describe these inside compact computational domains. The most elegant way to achieve this goal is to compactify the spacetime coordinates and cover dimensions of infinite extent with a finite coordinate interval as for example using maps of the type $r\in [0,\infty)~\rightarrow~x\equiv 1/(r+1) \in (0,1]$. Applied to 3+1 splits of the spacetime, however, this often results in an asymptotically infinite blue shifting of gravitational radiation; the wavelength of the radiation asymptotically shrinks to zero as measured in the compactified coordinate and fails to be resolved numerically. Characteristic formulations of the Einstein equations [@Winicour:2005ge], on the other hand, are ideally suited for such a treatment, as the coordinates are constructed in terms of light cones, GW signals have constant phase along the characteristic coordinate curves and no resolution problems arise. Here lies one of the attractive features of characteristic formulations mentioned above in Sec. \[sec:Einsteinian\]. Inside 3+1 formulations, such behaviour can be obtained by slicing the spacetime with hypersurfaces that are spacelike everywhere, but become asymptotically null at infinity. This type of slicing can be obtained for example using [*hyperbolic slicing*]{} $K=\mathrm{const} \ne 0$ and plays an important role in the so-called [*conformal field equations*]{} (see [@Frauendiener:2000mk] and references therein), but has, to our knowledge, not yet been applied successfully to simulate BH binaries.
In practice, most numerical applications model only a finite subset of the total spacetime and impose boundary conditions at large but finite distance from the BHs. Ideally, such boundary conditions satisfy the following three requirements. (i) Ensure well posedness of the IBVP, (ii) compatibility with the Einstein constraint equations, and (iii) a correct representation of the physical boundary conditions, typically minimization of the ingoing gravitational radiation [@Rinne:2006vv]. Such conditions have been studied mostly for the GHG formulation; see [@Babiuc:2006ik; @Rinne:2007ui; @Ruiz:2007hg] and references therein.
Boundary conditions meeting the above criteria have not yet been developed for the BSSN formulation[^3] and numerical applications of the BSSN system therefore resort to an approximation using [*outgoing radiation*]{} or [*Sommerfeld*]{} conditions. The assumption underlying this approach is that the evolution variables $f$ approach a constant background value $f_0$ far away from the strong-field sources and deviations from this value at finite radius $r$ can be written as $f=f_0 + u(t-r) /r^n$ with a positive, integer $n$. The outgoing radiation condition $\partial_t u + \partial_r u=0$ for the radiative deviations then translates into the boundary condition [@Alcubierre:2002kk] $$\partial_t f + n \frac{f-f_0}{r} + \frac{x^i}{r} \partial_i f =0\,,$$ where $x^i$ denote Cartesian coordinates and $r^2= \sum_i (x^i)^2$. These conditions are not without problems: (i) The system is over-determined because the number of conditions imposed exceeds that of the ingoing characteristics; (ii) Sommerfeld conditions are not constraint satisfying, and (iii) the non-exact outgoing nature of these conditions at finite radii may introduce spurious reflections. In spite of these caveats, Sommerfeld conditions turn out to work rather well and robustly in many numerical applications (see e.g. [@Rinne:2007ui]) and are the method of choice for the moving puncture breakthroughs of the Brownsville/RIT and Goddard groups [@Baker:2005vv; @Campanelli:2005dd]. Pretorius [@Pretorius:2005gq], instead, uses a compactified domain and overcomes the problem of under-resolving the blue-shifted radiation by damping the radiation through numerical viscosity and thus effectively emulates no-ingoing-radiation conditions.
A second type of boundary conditions arises in NR applications through the presence of the spacetime singularities. These singularities typically manifest themselves in the form of diverging or vanishing metric components as for example the $g_{rr} = (1-2M/r)^{-1}$ in the Schwarzschild metric in Schwarzschild coordinates. Computer simulations react with non-assigned numbers to the resulting infinities which rapidly swamp the entire computational domain and render the simulation practically useless. One elegant approach to handle this problem employs so-called “puncture” initial data (see Sec. \[sec:Inidata\]) and factors out the singular part of the BH data throughout the time evolution; see e.g. [@Anninos:1995am; @Alcubierre:2002kk] for details of these [*fixed puncture*]{} evolutions. In this approach, the BHs remain at fixed coordinate location throughout the evolution and it appears to be difficult to construct long-term stable coordinate conditions for BH inspiral in this approach; see [@Bruegmann:2003aw] for the most advanced application of this type leading to about one orbit of BH inspiral.
An alternative method to handle singularities which has become popular over the years is the [*BH*]{} or [*singularity excision*]{} technique attributed to Unruh [@Thornburg1987]. By virtue of Penrose’s cosmic censorship conjecture (see e.g. [@Wald1997]), spacetime singularities should be cloaked inside an event horizon such that the spacetime exterior to the horizon is causally disconnected from events inside the horizon. In particular, the exterior spacetime should not be affected by completely removing a finite region around the singularity from the numerical evolution as long as the excised region remains inside the event horizon or, as usually done in practice, is located inside the apparent horizon (AH) [@Thornburg:2006zb] on each hypersurface $\Sigma_t$.
![Illustration of BH excision with one spatial dimension suppressed. Black grid points are updated regularly in time, white points inside the AH (large circle) are excluded from the time evolution and gray points mark the excision boundary and need to be updated in time using sideways differencing operators [@Pretorius:2004jg], extrapolation [@Shoemaker:2003td] or are filled in through regular update with spectral methods [@Scheel:2006gg]. []{data-label="fig:excision"}](fig3.ps){height="180pt"}
This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:excision\] where the large circle represents the AH and the region consisting of the white (empty) small circles is removed from the computational domain whereas black (filled) points are updated regularly. The update in time at a given grid point requires data from neighbouring points to evaluate spatial derivatives, and therefore the excision boundary (gray circles) may require some special treatment. This can be achieved either by sideways differencing operators [@Pretorius:2004jg], extrapolation from data on grid points further out [@Shoemaker:2003td] or calculating the function values from the spectral expansion in spectral codes [@Scheel:2006gg]. The first of these schemes is the method employed in Pretorius’ work [@Pretorius:2005gq]. Rather astonishingly, the moving puncture method [@Campanelli:2005dd; @Baker:2005vv] does not implement an explicit excision scheme but instead uses finite differencing stencils right across the BH singularities. The surprising success of this method has been explored in more depth in [@Hannam:2008sg; @Brown:2009ki; @Dennison:2010wd] and references therein. The singularity of puncture type initial data is a coordinate singularity that contains spatial infinity of the far side of the wormhole geometry compactified into a single point. In moving puncture evolutions, however, these initial data rapidly change from a wormhole to a so-called “trumpet” geometry which is only partially covered by the computational domain because of the discrete structure of the numerical grid; cf. Fig. 1 in [@Brown:2009ki]. The singularity, instead, “falls through the grid” and the moving puncture technique can therefore be interpreted as an indirect excision method provided by the finite grid resolution.\
Discretization and mesh refinement
----------------------------------
Computers operate with finite arrays of numbers or, strictly speaking, with binary numbers that are readily converted into integers in the decimal system (exactly) or floating point numbers (with finite precision, the so-called “round-off error”). In the numerical calculation of solutions to differential equations there thus arises the challenge to describe functions and their derivatives in terms of finite arrays of numbers. This process is commonly referred to as “discretization” and most commonly achieved in computational analysis using one of four methods, (1) finite differencing, (2) spectral methods, (3) finite elements or (4) finite volume methods. The latter two have, to our knowledge, not yet been applied to NR simulations of BH binaries.
Spectral methods operate with an expansion of the physical variables in basis functions and facilitate exceptionally efficient and accurate numerical modeling. In particular, they result in exponential convergence when applied to problems with smooth solutions. This exponential convergence would be spoiled by functions containing singularities as present in BH spacetimes, but this drawback can be overcome by removing the singular points from the computational domain through BH excision. The high accuracy of spectral methods has been brought to fruit in BH binary evolutions with the SpEC code [@Boyle:2007ft; @Lovelace:2011nu] and in the constraint solving for the construction of initial data [@Ansorg:2004ds; @Zilhao:2011yc]; for a review of spectral methods in NR see [@Grandclement:2007sb].
In finite differencing the computational domain consists of one or more discrete [*grids*]{} (cf. Fig. \[fig:excision\]), functions are represented by their values at the grid points and derivatives are approximated through Taylor expansion by differences of the function values on neighbouring grid points. The accuracy of this approximation depends on the number of neighbouring points used and is typically measured in terms of the leading order term of a Taylor expansion in the grid spacing $\Delta x$ between grid points; for an example of the finite differencing expressions thus obtained see for example Sec. 2 in [@Zlochower2005].
The main advantage of finite differencing methods is their comparative simplicity and high robustness in modeling a wide class of extreme BH binary systems with little if any modifications in the methodology; see e.g. [@Lousto:2010ut; @Sperhake:2012me].
As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:Einsteinian\], BH spacetimes involve a wide range of length scales which cannot be efficiently accommodated inside uniform grids and thus require the use of [*mesh refinement*]{}, i.e. a grid resolution that varies in space and time. BH horizons are remarkably rigid objects and typically maintain an approximately spherical shape throughout inspiral and even during the merger phase, so that high accuracy can be achieved by an approach sometimes referred to as “moving boxes”. The computational domain consists of a set of nested boxes centered around the individual BHs immersed inside one or more large boxes containing both BHs. The grid spacing $\Delta x$ increases (typically by a factor $2$) from each box to the next outer one; for a graphical illustration of this method see Fig. \[fig:mesh\_refinement\]. More general shapes of the different [*refinement levels*]{} can be achieved by arranging a larger number of boxes in a “lego-style” manner or by using threshold values on physical variables, as for example the curvature scalar, as a criterion to introduce new grid points. Communication between the different levels of a grid hierarchy is achieved by some form of interpolation, typically between a given level and its two neighbours in the hierarchy. Mesh refinement was introduced to NR by Choptuik’s seminal study on critical collapse in spherical symmetry [@Choptuik:1992jv] and first applied to BHs in three spatial dimensions by Br[ü]{}gmann [@Bruegmann:1996kz]. Mesh refinement of this type has been implemented in Pretorius’ code in the form of the [Pamr/Amrd]{} [@PAMRAMRD] package while the Goddard group has used [Paramesh]{} [@MacNeice2000]. In contrast, the Brownsville/RIT group achieved position dependent resolution through the use of a transformation from standard Cartesian coordinates to so-called “fish-eye” coordinates using logarithms and hyperbolic functions such that the spacing between grid points increases away from the strong curvature region near the origin [@Alcubierre:2002kk; @Baker:2001sf; @Zilhao:2013dta].
Further packages used for mesh refinement include <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bam</span> [@Bruegmann:1996kz], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Had</span> [@HAD], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Samrai</span> [@Samraiweb] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Carpet</span> [@Schnetter:2003rb; @Carpetweb]. The latter is provided as part of the [Cactus]{} [@Goodale2002] and [Einstein Toolkits]{} [@EinsteinToolkit] which are publically available environments used by various NR groups. In spectral applications, a similar method to accommodate vastly different length scales is implemented in the form of subdomains of varying shapes that communicate through matching conditions at the boundary for touching domains or in small regions of overlap; see e.g. [@Pfeiffer:2002wt; @Buchman:2012dw].\
Initial data {#sec:Inidata}
------------
The task in generating initial data in numerical relativity is two-fold. (i) The data must satisfy the Einstein constraint equations (\[eq:Ham\]), (\[eq:mom\]) and (ii) they need to represent a realistic snapshot of the physical system under study. A natural starting point for the construction of initial data is to apply modifications to existing analytic BH solutions. An analytic solution of particular relevance for this purpose is the Schwarzschild solution in isotropic coordinates $$ds^2 = -\left( \frac{2r-M}{2r+M} \right)^2 dt^2
+ \left( 1+ \frac{M}{2r} \right)^4 \left( dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2
+ r^2 \sin^2 \theta\,d\phi^2 \right)\,.
\label{eq:isotropic}$$ Its scope for generalization becomes clear in a systematic approach to solving the Einstein constraints based on the York-Lichnerowicz split [@Lichnerowicz1944; @York:1971hw; @York:1972sj]. This method consists of a conformal transformation of the spatial metric $\gamma_{ij}
= \psi^4 \bar{\gamma}_{ij}$ and a [*conformal traceless split*]{} of the extrinsic curvature $$K_{ij} = A_{ij} + \frac{1}{3} \gamma_{ij} K\,,~~~~~
A^{ij} = \psi^{-10} \bar{A}^{ij}\,,~~~~~
A_{ij} = \psi^{-2} \bar{A}_{ij}\,.
\label{eq:ctsplit}$$ By further decomposing $\bar{A}_{ij}$ into a longitudinal piece plus a transverse traceless part, the momentum constraints simplify considerably [@Cook:2000vr]. Similar simplifications are achieved by using instead of Eq. (\[eq:ctsplit\]) a [*physical transverse traceless split*]{} or the so-called [*thin-sandwich decomposition*]{}; for details see [@York1999; @Cook:2000vr; @Caudill:2006hw] and references therein.
The Hamiltonian and momentum constraints take on a particularly simple form if one further requires that (i) the trace of the extrinsic curvature vanishes $K=0$, (ii) the conformal metric is flat $\bar{\gamma}_{ij} = f_{ij}$ where $f_{ij}$ is the Euclidean metric (not necessarily in Cartesian coordinates), and (iii) the spatial metric is asymptotically flat, $\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \psi = 1$. Then the momentum constraints decouple from the Hamiltonian constraint and form a set of equations for the $\bar{A}_{ij}$. The simplest solution for these equations is the trivial one $\bar{A}_{ij}=0$ in which case the Hamiltonian constraint becomes $\bar{\Delta} \psi=0$, where $\bar{\Delta}$ is the Laplace operator associated with the flat metric $f_{ij}$. This Laplace equation for the conformal factor $\psi$ is solved by the spatial part of the Schwarzschild metric (\[eq:isotropic\]) $\gamma_{ij}=\psi^4
f_{ij}$ with $\psi= 1+M/(2r)$. By linearity of the Laplace equation, we can obtain initial data containing multiple BHs by superposing $N$ solutions of this type according to $\psi = 1 + \sum_{A=1}^N m_A/(2 |\vec{r} - \vec{r}_A|)$, where $m_A$ and $\vec{r}_A$ denote mass and location of the BHs. This solution is known as Brill-Lindquist [@Brill:1963yv] data and represents a snapshot of $N$ BHs at the moment of time symmetry. A similar type of data differing only in the symmetry conditions at the throat of the worm hole(s) has been constructed by Misner [@Misner:1960zz]. Both, Brill-Lindquist and Misner data formed the starting point of many BH evolutions over the previous decades.
Quite remarkably, under the assumption of conformal flatness and $K=0$, the momentum constraints even admit non-vanishing analytic solutions for the extrinsic curvature, the Bowen-York [@Bowen:1980yu] data $$\bar{A}_{ij} = \frac{3}{2r^2} \left[ P_i n_j + P_j n_i - (f_{ij}
- n_i n_j) P^kn_k \right] + \frac{3}{r^3}
\left( \epsilon_{kil} S^l n^k n_j
+ \epsilon_{kjl} S^l n^k n_i \right)\,,
\label{eq:BowenYork}$$ where $r$ is the areal radius associated with the flat metric $f_{ij}$, $n^i$ the unit, outgoing radial vector and $P^i$, $S^i$ are free parameters that correspond to the total linear and angular momentum of the initial hypersurface [@York1980]. The momentum constraints are linear in $\bar{A}_{ij}$, so that multiple solutions of the type (\[eq:BowenYork\]) can be superposed. Equation (\[eq:BowenYork\]) gives the generalization of Brill-Lindquist data for non-zero BH momenta. For generalization of Misner data, one needs to construct inversion-symmetric data of the type (\[eq:BowenYork\]) using the method of images (see Sec. 3.2.1 in [@Cook:2000vr]).
In the conformal-flatness approximation with $K=0$ and non-vanishing Bowen-York extrinsic curvature (\[eq:BowenYork\]), the Hamiltonian constraint becomes $$\bar{\Delta} \psi + \frac{1}{8} K^{mn} K_{mn} \psi^{-7} = 0\,.
\label{eq:CFHam}$$ This elliptic equation is often solved by decomposing the conformal factor into a Brill-Lindquist piece $\psi_{\rm BL} = 1+M/(2r)$ plus a regular contribution $u$. Under such decomposition, the existence and uniqueness of $C^2$ regular solutions $u$ to Eq. (\[eq:CFHam\]) has been proven by Brandt and Br[ü]{}gmann [@Brandt:1997tf] and the data thus constructed are commonly referred to as [*puncture data*]{}. The Schwarzschild solution (\[eq:isotropic\]) in isotropic coordinates is the simplest non-trivial solution of this type, a single BH with zero linear and angular momentum. Alternative to the puncture method, the initial data formalism summarized here has also been applied, in some flavor or other, to the construction of BH excision data; see e.g. [@Pfeiffer:2002wt; @Ansorg:2006gd; @Grandclement:2007sb].
In spite of their popularity in time evolutions, the conformal flatness nature of puncture data results in some restrictions. In particular, the Kerr [@Kerr1963] spacetime describing a single rotating BH does not contain a maximal, conformally flat hypersurface [@Garat2000; @ValienteKroon:2003ux]. Puncture data with non-zero Bowen-York angular momentum $S^i$ therefore not only contain a rotating BH but some further gravitational fields which manifest themselves as pulses of [*spurious radiation*]{} colloquially referred to as “junk radiation”. While this spurious GW pulse is often small, it increases non-linearly with the Bowen-York parameters $P^i$ and $S^i$. In particular, this imposes a practical limit of the initial dimensionless spin parameter of BH configurations of $\approx 0.93$ [@Cook1989; @Dain:2002ee] and has motivated the construction of initial data without the conformal-flatness assumption by either applying most of the puncture formalism to a non-conformally flat background metric [@Krivan:1998td; @Hannam:2006zt] or applying the conformal-thin-sandwich method to a background of superposed Kerr-Schild data [@Lovelace:2008tw; @Lovelace:2010ne].
Puncture data have been the starting point for the majority of BH binary simulations in the past decade and, as suggested by the name, were also used in the moving puncture breakthroughs [@Campanelli:2005dd; @Baker:2005vv]. A conceptually rather different approach was used in Pretorius’ simulations. Instead of using initial data containing BHs, the simulations start with matter in the form of scalar field clouds concentrated and boosted such that they rapidly collapse into a BH with velocity corresponding approximately to a binary configuration in quasi-circular orbit [@Pretorius:2005gq].\
Diagnostics
-----------
The extraction of physical information from a BH binary simulation is typically a diagnostic process that uses the numerically constructed fields but has at most minor impact[^4] on the actual time integration of the fields. Their significance for BH binaries therefore mostly consists in understanding the results rather than solving the two-body problem itself and we shall only briefly summarize here the most important diagnostic quantities but provide references for more details. The diagnostic quantities can be loosely classified into three groups: properties of the global spacetimes, the GW signal and the BH horizons.\
[***Global quantities:***]{} For asymptotically flat spacetimes, the total mass-energy and the linear momentum of a spacetime is given by the ADM mass and momentum [@Arnowitt:1962hi]. If the coordinate system is chosen such that in the limit of infinite separation $r$ from the strong-field sources the spacetime metric deviates from the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ according to $g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + \mathcal{O}(1/r)$, the ADM mass and momentum is given in terms of the ADM variables by the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
M &=& \frac{1}{16\pi} \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}
\oint_{S_r} \delta^{mn}( \partial_n \gamma_{mk}
- \partial_k \gamma_{mn}) \hat{r}^k\,dS\,, \\[10pt]
P_i &=& \frac{1}{8\pi} \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \oint_{S_r}
(K_{mi}-\delta_{mi}K) \hat{r}^m\,dS\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the components $\gamma_{mn}$, $K_{mn}$ are in Cartesian coordinates, $\hat{r}^i=x^i/r$ is the outgoing unit normal to the surface of integration, $S_r$ denotes the 2 sphere of coordinate radius $r$ and $dS$ is the standard surface element of the 2 sphere. Under a more restricted class of gauge conditions (see [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue] for details), one can also calculate the angular momentum of the spacetime from $$J_i = \frac{1}{8\pi} \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}
\oint_{S_r} (K_{jk} - K \gamma_{jk}) \boldsymbol{\xi}_{(i)}^j
\hat{r}k\,dS\,,$$ where the $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{(i)}$ are the Killing vectors associated with the asymptotic rotational symmetry. For an extended discussion of the ADM variables, the reader is referred to Sec. 7 of [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue] and references therein.\
[***Horizons:***]{} Event horizons are a defining criterion of BH spacetimes and mark the boundary between points from which null geodesics can reach infinity and points from which they cannot. Even though numerical algorithms have been developed for the calculation of event horizons in BH spacetimes [@Hughes:1994ea; @Diener:2003jc; @Cohen:2008wa], it is often more convenient to instead calculate the [*apparent horizon*]{} [@Thornburg:2006zb]. An AH is defined as the [*outermost marginally trapped surface*]{} on a spatial slice $\Sigma_t$. This condition can be shown to result in an elliptic equation for the outgoing normal direction $s^i$ of the two-dimensional AH (see e.g. [@Gundlach:1997us]) $$q^{mn} D_m s_n -K +K_{mn} s^m s^n = 0\,,$$ where $q_{mn}$ is the induced 2-metric on the horizon surface. Unlike an event horizon, the AH can be calculated independently from the data on each hypersurface without further knowledge of the spacetime. Under the assumption of cosmic censorship and certain energy conditions, it can furthermore be shown that if a hypersurface $\Sigma_t$ contains an AH, it will coincide or lie within the event horizon’s cross section with $\Sigma_t$ [@Hawking:1973uf; @Wald1984]. The [*irreducible mass*]{} of a BH is directly encoded in the AH surface area by $M_{\rm irr}^2 = 16\pi A_{\rm AH}$ and, combined with the BH spin $S$ gives the total BH mass through $M^2 = M_{\rm irr}^2
+S^2/(4M_{\rm irr}^2)$ [@Christodoulou:1970wf]. This formula also provides an estimate for the dimensionless BH spin $j=S/M^2$ in terms of the AH area and equatorial circumference $2\pi A_{\rm AH}/C_e^2
= 1+\sqrt{1-j^2}$; see e.g. [@Sperhake:2009jz]. The importance of horizons in the analysis of BH spacetimes follows to a large extent from the [*isolated*]{} and [*dynamic horizon*]{} framework developed by Ashtekar and coworkers [@Ashtekar:2004cn].\
[***Gravitational Waves:***]{} Arguably the most fundamental difference between the Newtonian and the general relativistic two-body problem is the dissipative character of the latter; energy and momenta of the binary are not conserved but partly radiated away in the form of GWs. Large-scale international efforts are dedicated to directly detect GWs with ground-based laser interferometric detectors LIGO, VIRGO, GEO600, KAGRA, future space missions of LISA type or pulsar timing arrays [@LIGOweb; @advancedVIRGO; @GEO600web; @KAGRAweb; @ELISAweb; @IPTAweb] and the theoretical prediction of the expected GW signals from astrophysical sources has been one of the main motivations of NR.
The most common approach to calculate GWs in BH simulations is based on the Newman-Penrose formalism [@Newman:1961qr] where the 10 independent components of the Weyl tensor are projected onto a tetrad consisting of one outgoing and one ingoing null vector $\boldsymbol{\ell}$ and $\boldsymbol{k}$ as well as two complex spatial null vectors $\boldsymbol{m}$ and $\bar{\boldsymbol{m}}$. The interpretation of the resulting five complex scalars $\Psi_n$, $n=0,\,\ldots,\,4$ in terms of GWs is based on the work of Bondi, Sachs and Penrose and coworkers [@Bondi:1958aj; @Bondi:1962px; @Sachs:1962wk; @Penrose:1962ij] and application of this formalism in NR requires a careful choice of the tetrad. In particular, the tetrad must correspond to a Bondi frame which can be realized, for example, by choosing a so-called [quasi-Kinnersley]{} tetrad [@Beetle:2004wu; @Zhang:2012ky], i.e. a tetrad that converges to the Kinnersley tetrad [@Kinnersley:1969zza] as the spacetime approaches Petrov type D. A particularly convenient choice is realized in the so-called transverse frame where the outgoing gravitational radiation is encoded in one complex scalar (see e.g. [@Nerozzi:2008ng]) $$\Psi_4 = -C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \ell^{\alpha} \bar{m}^{\beta}
\ell^{\gamma} \bar{m}^{\delta}\,.$$ Even though $\Psi_4$ is well defined at infinity only, it is in practice often extracted at large but finite radii and this procedure generates various potential systematic errors which are discussed in [@Lehner:2007ip]. The effect of these ambiguities is sometimes mitigated by extrapolating results at different finite radii to infinity [@Hinder:2013oqa] which suggests that the errors thus obtained are of the order $\mathcal{O}(\%)$. The Newman-Penrose scalar $\Psi_4$ is commonly decomposed into multipoles $\psi_{lm}$ according to $$\Psi_4(t,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{l,m} \psi_{lm}(t)\, Y^{-2}_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\,,$$ where $Y^{-2}_{lm}$ are spherical harmonics of spin weight $-2$. Often, the radiation is dominated by one or a few multipoles which can then be displayed in the form of functions of time. The Newman-Penrose scalar furthermore provides the energy, linear and angular momentum carried by the GWs which are obtained from straightforward integrals of $\Psi_4$ and its projections onto asymptotic Killing vectors [@Ruiz:2007yx].
Other methods for estimating the gravitational radiation have been applied in NR. (i) Perturbative wave extraction is based on the Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli-Moncrief formalism [@Regge:1957td; @Zerilli:1971wd; @Moncrief:1974am] and constructs master functions from the deviation of the spacetime metric from a Schwarzschild background; see e.g. [@Nagar:2005ea; @Sperhake:2005uf]. (ii) The Landau-Lifshitz pseudo tensor [@Landau:1980] is constructed by mapping the curved, physical spacetime onto an auxiliary flat spacetime with metric $\eta_{\mu \nu}$. This leads to expressions for the radiated energy and momenta; for applications see e.g. [@Lovelace:2009dg]. (iii) In characteristic formulations of the Einstein equations, the Bondi news function [@Bondi:1962px] provides a direct measure of the GW signal which has also been used in 3+1 NR through Cauchy-characteristic extraction [@Reisswig:2009us; @Babiuc:2010ze]. This method provides a particularly accurate extraction since it is performed by construction at infinity; for a comparison with other methods see [@Reisswig:2010cd].
A brief history of black-hole simulations {#sec:History}
=========================================
In this section we will briefly review the main developments in NR leading to the breakthroughs of 2005. It is beyond the scope of this work to present a comprehensive history of the enormous amount of work and publications generated in this field over the last 50 years. Our review should therefore be understood as a potentially biased precis intended to give the reader a rough guideline of NR’s history. The articles quoted in this section contain many further references the reader will find a valuable source for a more thorough account.
The earliest documented effort to generate BH spacetimes by numerically solving Einstein’s equations was done half a century ago by Hahn & Lindquist [@Hahn1964]. It is worth noting that at the time the notion of BHs, horizons and the area theorems were not yet understood. Furthermore, virtually nothing about the delicacies of all the ingredients discussed in the previous section was known at the time. It is thus not too surprising that they could evolve their data for very short times only. And yet, their first steps into uncharted territory demonstrated a genuinely new alternative for the modeling of BHs even if few, at the time, would have predicted what kind of avalanche of numerical explorations had been kicked loose.
Starting in the late 1960s, the problem was reinvestigated in an effort initiated by DeWitt which led to PhD theses by Čade[ž]{}, Smarr and Eppley [@Cadez1971; @Smarr1975; @Eppley1975]. These works implemented the ADM equations in axisymmetry using a specific type of coordinates often referred to as [*Čadež*]{} coordinates and thus evolved head-on collisions starting with Misner data, testing several gauge conditions including maximal slicing, vanishing shift and minimal distortion shift. Their equal-mass head-on collisions predict a GW energy of about $0.1~\%$ of the total mass, albeit with uncertainties of a factor a few; for details see [@Smarr1976; @Smarr:1977uf; @Smarr1979]. This value turned out to be correct within a factor of about 2.
The next burst of efforts took place in the 1990s, much of it as part of the “Binary Black Hole Grand Challenge Project” [@Choptuik:1997]. Earlier studies of this decade still employed axisymmetry and similar techniques as above, but on significantly improved computational architecture. Anninos [*et al.*]{} [@Anninos:1993zj; @Anninos:1994gp; @Anninos:1995vf] extracted the $l=2$ and $l=4$ multipoles of the emitted GW signal, calculated AHs and compared results obtained with different wave extraction methods; they confirmed the earlier estimates for the emitted GW energy within error bars and found good agreement with close-limit [@Price:1994pm] predictions for small initial separations of the BHs; see also [@Baker:1996bt] for collisions of boosted BHs. One of the most memorable results of these axisymmetric BH simulations is the “pair-of-pants” picture obtained when calculating the BH horizons in a merger process; cf. Fig. 10 in [@Matzner:1995ib]. Using a special class of “body fitting” coordinates, Anninos and Brandt [@Anninos:1998wt] performed the first evolutions of unequal-mass BH head-on collisions. By extracting GW modes up to $l=4$, they validated perturbative results in the close and large separation limit. Further axisymmetric studies include initially distorted, rotating BHs and the resulting GW emission [@Brandt:1994ee] and accretion onto rotating BHs [@Brandt:1998cv].
The first fully 3+1 dimensional BH simulations were presented in 1995 by Anninos [*et al.*]{} [@Anninos:1995am] with the so-called “G-code”. This code is based on the ADM formulation, uses Schwarzschild initial data in isotropic coordinates, different types of singularity avoiding slicings and a shift that locks the coordinate radius to the apparent horizon location. It produced numerically stable solutions of a Schwarzschild BH for up to $t \approx 50~M$. The GW signal including BH ringdown obtained with the G-code were found to agree well with those from axisymmetric codes [@Camarda:1997qv; @Camarda:1998wf]. Further development of their 3+1 code enabled the Grand Challenge Alliance to evolve a single BH that moves across the computational domain with $0.1$ times the speed of light for a total time of about $60~M$ [@Cook:1997na]. Around the same time, mesh refinement was first used in 3+1 simulations of a BH by Br[ü]{}gmann [@Bruegmann:1996kz]. The year 1997 saw the release of [Cactus]{} 1.0 [@Cactusweb], a freely available environment for the development of parallel, scalable, high-performance multidimensional component-based code for NR and other numerical applications.
The first binary BH merger in 3+1 NR was simulated by Br[ü]{}gmann [@Bruegmann:1997uc] in grazing collisions using the ADM equations and the fixed puncture technique. The first grazing collisions of BHs using excision were performed with [Agave]{}, a revised version of the Grand Challenge code [@Brandt:2000yp]. As the second millennium drew to a close, however, it was still a general feature of the space-time-split based codes, in axisymmetry or full 3+1, to be limited by numerical instabilities to life times of the order of $\mathcal{O}(100~M)$. This is in sharp contrast to the remarkable stability properties achieved at the same time using characteristic methods which facilitated long-term stable simulations of single distorted, moving or rotating BHs with lifetimes up to $60\,000~M$ [@Lehner:1998ti; @Gomez:1998uj]. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:Einsteinian\], characteristic codes have not yet been generalized successfully to binary BH spacetimes where the formation of caustics and the ensuing breakdown of the null coordinates have so far represented an insurmountable obstacle. A different approach named “Lazarus” [@Baker:2000zh; @Baker:2001sf] was developed around the turn of the millennium in order to maximize the scientific output obtained from 3+1 evolutions as available at the time. In this eclectic approach the relatively short numerical simulations are matched to perturbative calculations once a merger into a single BH has occurred and the spacetime is perturbatively close to a Kerr BH. The preceding inspiral phase, instead, is to be described by PN methods which provide initial data for the numerical computation; for applications of this method see [@Baker:2003ds; @Campanelli:2004zw].
Progress in the stability properties of 3+1 codes accelerated considerably in the early 2000s as a wider range of formulations of the Einstein equations and gauge conditions were used in BH simulations. The first applications of the BSSN formulation focused on GW pulses, including collapse to BHs, and demonstrated significantly better stability properties than the ADM system [@Shibata:1995we; @Baumgarte:1998te; @Alcubierre:1999ex]. Soon afterwards, this observation was confirmed for evolutions of boson stars, neutron stars and BHs [@Alcubierre:2000xu]. Using the BSSN formulation combined with a “$K$-freezing” slicing and Gamma-freezing shift (see their Sec. III for details) and a “simple excision” of a cubic region on whose boundary time derivatives are copied from neighbouring grid points, Alcubierre and Br[ü]{}gmann [@Alcubierre:2000yz] were able to evolve a Schwarzschild BH in ingoing Eddington Finkelstein coordinates over many thousands of $M$ with no signs of instability. These simulations were obtained in 3+1 dimensions with octant symmetry and the stability properties could be generalized to 3+1 grids with no symmetry by using the constraint $\mathcal{G}^i$ of Eq. (\[eq:auxconstraintsBSSN\]) in the evolution equation (\[eq:BSSNdtGamma\]) [@Yo:2002bm; @Alcubierre:2002kk]. Evolutions of distorted BHs with the BSSN system were pushed to a few $100~M$, about twice as long as axisymmetric ADM simulations [@Alcubierre:2001vm]. By evolving Brill-Lindquist data with BSSN, 1+log slicing and variants of the Gamma-freezing shift, combined with the fixed puncture technique (cf. Sec. \[sec:BCs\]), Alcubierre [*et al.*]{} [@Alcubierre:2002kk] extracted GWs from BH collisions in good agreement with earlier axisymmetric ADM simulations but over much extended lifetimes of $\sim 1\,000~M$. BSSN simulations of head-on collisions were extended to include mesh refinement in [@Sperhake:2005uf; @Fiske:2005fx] using the [Carpet]{} [@Carpetweb; @Schnetter:2003rb] and Paramesh [@MacNeice2000] packages, respectively. The first evolution of a quasi-circular BH binary extending over more than one orbital time scale was performed by Br[ü]{}gmann [*et al.*]{} [@Bruegmann:2003aw] in 2003 and explored in more detail in [@Alcubierre:2004hr]. Around the same time BSSN simulations of inspiraling and merging neutron-star binaries were obtained by various groups [@Marronetti:2003hx; @Miller:2003vc; @Shibata:2003ga]. While neutron star spacetimes contain complex matter sources, the spacetime curvature is significantly weaker than for BH binaries and there are no singularities (other than nearly stationary post-merger BHs). Possibly, therein lie the reasons why neutron star inspiral and merger simulations were achieved before their binary BH counterparts. Early 3+1 applications of the GHG formulation focused on the collapse of scalar fields and the approach to the formation of singularities using unigrids as well as mesh refinement [@Garfinkle:2001ni; @Pretorius:2004jg].
In 2005, the jigsaw was finally assembled. The first simulations of BH binaries through inspiral, merger and ringdown were obtained by Pretorius [@Pretorius:2005gq] and a few months later by the Brownsville/Rochester and NASA Goddard groups [@Baker:2005vv; @Campanelli:2005dd]. The new ingredients which finally pushed the BH simulations “over the cliff” can probably be summarized as follows. The GHG formulation was adjusted by the addition of constraint damping terms suggested by Gundlach [*et al.*]{} [@Gundlach:2005eh]; cf. Eq. (\[eq:GHG\]). Furthermore, Pretorius managed to specify conditions for the gauge functions $H^{\alpha}$ that avoided instabilities which had troubled earlier simulations using the GHG system; cf. Eq. (\[eq:GHGgauge\]). His compactification of the spacetime and the damping of signals near spatial infinity through numerical viscosity prevented outer boundary effects to affect the BH region in a significant manner. The main new feature of the moving puncture simulations is encapsulated in the word “moving”. Up to that point, puncture simulations had kept the location of the singularity fixed and factored out the irregular part of the metric analytically. By using gauge conditions as given in Eqs. (\[eq:dt\_alpha\])-(\[eq:dt\_B\]), the Brownsville/Rochester and NASA Goddard groups obtained a description where the punctures could freely move across the grid. They furthermore managed to apply standard finite differencing across the puncture which effectively provided an exceptionally robust type of singularity excision; cf. the discussion in Sec. \[sec:BCs\].
These breakthroughs in simulating BH binaries triggered a veritable phase transition in the field of NR as the community gained unprecedented insight into the dynamics of BH binaries. This is the subject of our next section.
The morphology of black-hole binary inspiral and scattering {#sec:Morphology}
===========================================================
In spite of its dissipative character, the two-body problem in GR leads to classes of orbits similar, though not identical, to their Newtonian counterparts discussed at the end of Sec. \[sec:Newtonian\]. The simplest configuration, and focus of the breakthroughs as well as early follow-up studies, is the quasi-circular inspiral of two non-spinning BHs of equal mass. The quasi-circular case is also of particular relevance for the modeling of GW sources for ground based detectors because GW emission has long since been known to efficiently decrease the orbital eccentricity even at large binary separation [@Peters:1964zz], so that BH binaries are expected to be circularized to high precision by the time they reach the frequency window of the detectors.
![Trajectory (left) and the GW quadrupole (right panel). The trajectory of one BH is shown only; the other BH’s location is obtained through reflection across the origin. The waveform shows the real (black, solid) and imaginary (red, dashed) part of the strain $h_{22}$ obtained from integrating $\psi_{22}$ twice in time. []{data-label="fig:q1"}](fig5a.eps "fig:"){height="150pt"} ![Trajectory (left) and the GW quadrupole (right panel). The trajectory of one BH is shown only; the other BH’s location is obtained through reflection across the origin. The waveform shows the real (black, solid) and imaginary (red, dashed) part of the strain $h_{22}$ obtained from integrating $\psi_{22}$ twice in time. []{data-label="fig:q1"}](fig5b.eps "fig:"){height="150pt"}
The dynamics of the late stages of the quasi-circular inspiral and merger of an equal-mass, non-spinning BH binary are graphically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:q1\]. The left panel shows the trajectory of one BH with that of the other obtained through reflection at the origin. The binary separation decreases through the emission of GWs which is dominated by the quadrupole shown in the form of the GW strain $h$ in the right panel. The strain is a complex function containing the two GW polarization modes and related to the Newman Penrose scalar $\Psi_4$ from which it is calculated by two integrations in time, and it is the quantity of choice used in GW data analysis; see e.g. [@Flanagan:1997sx; @Flanagan:1997kp]. As the binary inspirals, the wave signal increases in amplitude and frequency which reach a maximum around the merger stage followed by the exponentially damped [*ringdown*]{} signal; for details see e.g. [@Buonanno2006; @Berti:2007fi]. Eventually, the spacetime settles down into a stationary Kerr configuration and GW emission ceases. Realistic astrophysical BH binaries start at a much larger separation than shown in Fig. \[fig:q1\] corresponding to a much longer inspiral phase of many thousands of cycles [@Hinder:2013oqa]. The breakthrough simulations studied short inspirals of about one orbit and found that about $3~\%$ of the total mass is radiated in GWs leaving behind a spinning BH with dimensionless spin parameter of $\sim 0.7$. These results have been confirmed with good precision by many follow-up studies, but the earlier inspiral phase not covered in the rather short simulations provides additional energy release in GWs. The most accurate simulation to date is that of Scheel [*et al.*]{} [@Scheel2008] and gives $E_{\rm GW}/M = 0.04838 \pm 0.00002$ for a 16 orbit inspiral and a dimensionless spin $0.68646\pm0.00004$ for the resulting Kerr BH.
For the reasons mentioned above, eccentric binaries have received less attention in the NR studies so far. In fact, a good deal of effort has been spent on measuring the eccentricity in binaries and reducing the residual eccentricity in the initial data as much as possible in order to generate high-precision GW templates for quasi-circular BH systems [@Husa:2007rh; @Walther:2009ng; @Mroue:2010re; @Tichy:2011qa]. Still, binaries with sizable eccentricity have been studied in their own right [@Hinder:2007qu; @Sperhake:2007gu] and also compared with PN predictions [@Hinder:2008kv]. Due to the GW emission, the eccentricity $\epsilon$ is a time dependent function in GR; cf. Eq. (5.13) in [@Peters:1964zz]. For high values of $\epsilon$, the BHs do not complete a single orbit but rather plunge into each other. For mild eccentricities, the periastron advance obtained numerically shows some deviations from post-Newtonian predictions [@Mroue:2010re] but excellent agreement with perturbative calculations [@Tiec:2013twa]. An interesting feature has been found for eccentric binaries when the initial momenta of the BHs are fine-tuned, a [*threshold of immediate merger*]{} where the binary spends some time in near-circular orbits before eventually merging or separating [@Pretorius:2007jn]; see also [@Gold:2009hr; @Gold:2012tk]. In this regime, also identified in geodesic calculations [@Cutler:1994pb; @Glampedakis:2002ya], the number of [*zoom-whirl orbits*]{} exhibits a logarithmic dependence on the deviation of the impact parameter $b=L/P$ ($L$ is the initial orbital angular momentum of the binary and $P$ the momentum of either BH in the centre-of-mass frame) from the threshold of immediate merger $b^*$ [@Pretorius:2007jn; @Sperhake:2009jz]. For a fixed value of the momentum parameter $P$, numerical studies have revealed three possible regimes separated by two special values of the impact parameter, the threshold of immediate merger $b^*$ and the [*scattering threshold*]{} $b_{\rm scat}$: (i) Prompt mergers resulting from a plunge or inspiral for $b<b^*$, (ii) non-prompt mergers where the BHs experience a close encounter, then separate but loose enough energy in GWs to eventually form a bound system and merge for $b^*< b <b_{\rm scat}$, and (iii) scattering configurations for $b>v_{\rm scat}$ where the BHs separate to infinity [@Shibata:2008rq; @Sperhake:2009jz]. Here, the latter two regimes can only be obtained for sufficiently large $P$. We note the similarity between configurations with $b_{\rm scat}$ and parabolic orbits in Newtonian gravity which forms the boundary between bound and unbound configurations. Furthermore, BH collisions at velocities close to the speed of light can generate enormous amounts of gravitational radiation of up to $\sim 50~\%$ of the total centre-of-mass energy [@Sperhake:2012me] making them ideal scenarios to probe GR in its most violent regime.
Unequal mass-ratios $q=m_2/m_1$ (here defined such that $q\le 1$) and/or non-zero BH spins naturally affect the dynamics of the BHs interaction, but as yet there are no indications that the above picture of the different types of orbits is changed in a qualitative manner. For many practical applications, however, spins and unequal masses have vital implications. Unequal mass ratios lead to asymmetric emission of GWs which imparts a recoil or [*kick*]{} on the post-merger remnant BH of up to $175~{\rm km/s}$ [@Gonzalez:2006md; @Baker:2006vn; @Herrmann:2007zz] and specific spin-orientations can lead to so-called [*superkicks*]{} of several thousand km/s [@Gonzalez:2007hi; @Campanelli:2007ew; @Campanelli:2007cga; @Lousto:2011kp]. Spins aligned with the orbital angular momentum cause a so-called [*hang-up*]{} effect extending the late inspiral stage and leading to an increase in GW emission by about a factor of two compared with the non-spinning case [@Campanelli:2006uy; @Lovelace:2011nu]. Signatures of spins and mass ratio furthermore leave specific imprints such as amplitude modulation or relatively enhanced higher-order multipoles, which are important effects in the analysis of observational data of GW detectors and, hence, require extensive modeling combining NR methods with post-Newtonian and/or perturbative techniques; see [@Ajith:2012tt; @Hannam:2013oca; @Hinder:2013oqa; @Taracchini:2013rva; @Damour:2014sva] and references therein.
It is well beyond the scope of this article to discuss all these features and the wide range of applications of NR simulations of BH binaries in detail. Instead, we will refer the interested reader in the next section to various reviews that have appeared over the past decade and provide extended overviews of the many, exciting and sometimes unexpected developments that have been triggered by the 2005 breakthroughs in the modeling of BH binaries in GR.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The 2005 breakthroughs in the modeling of binary BHs mark a phase transition in the field of NR. Even though some very specific BH systems (e.g. head-on collisions) had been modeled successfully before, these were few isolated and idealized examples. In 2005, virtually the entire space of BH binary systems was opened up for accurate, quantitative modeling. The years following 2005 have sometimes been referred to as the “goldrush years of numerical relativity” as the community suddenly had available the tools to study a wealth of phenomena previously subject to speculations rather than precision studies. BH kicks, for example, had been known for decades to result from GW emission with potentially dramatic astrophysical consequences but the magnitude of this effect remained largely shrouded in mystery. The superkicks of thousands of km/s have been one of the most remarkable and unexpected results of post-2005 NR, a fact still in the process of digestion in the interpretation of astrophysical observations [@Komossa:2012cy].
A lot of motivation for the long-term effort of NR came from the modeling of GW sources in support of the ongoing search for direct detection with detectors such as LIGO, VIRGO, GEO600 or KAGRA. Here the impact of the NR breakthroughs is both short and long-term. A wealth of numerical studies has been devoted to exploring the parameter space of BH binaries in the attempt to construct waveform catalogues for use in GW data analysis. The parameter space, however, has at least seven dimensions (mass ratio and three spin parameters for each BH) making a dense coverage in every dimension prohibitively costly from a computational point of view. Instead, numerical as well as analytic studies have looked for systematic dependencies of the GW signals on some of the parameters and thus effectively reduce the parameter space to be explored numerically; see e.g. [@Apostolatos:1994mx; @Brown:2012gs; @Schmidt:2014iyl]. At the same time, the codes have matured considerably in accuracy and efficiency and are now capable of generating large numbers of waveforms [@Hinder:2013oqa; @Mroue:2013xna; @Healy:2014eua]. And yet, a comprehensive modeling of the BH parameter space certainly cannot be done exclusively with NR because the inspiral signal of a BH binary in the sensitivity band of ground (or space based) detectors typically contains many thousands of orbits rather than the $\mathcal{O}(10)$ orbits covered in numerical simulations. Waveform templates are therefore constructed by stitching together post-Newtonian with numerical waveforms as for example in [@Ajith:2012tt] or using [*effective one body*]{} models [@Buonanno:1998gg; @Buonanno:2000ef] and calibrating free parameters by comparison with NR predictions; see e.g. [@Taracchini:2013rva; @Damour:2012ky]. Furthermore, an important class of sources for space based laser interferometers of LISA type are so-called extreme-mass-ratio inspirals with mass ratios down to $\mathcal{O}(10^{-6})$ which the current NR codes cannot handle; the smallest mass ratios achieved to date is $q=1/100$ for a small number of orbits [@Lousto:2010tb]. These as well as intermediate mass ratio inspirals with $q=\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ require modeling through perturbative techniques; see [@Poisson:2011nh; @Barausse:2011dq] and references therein.
In recent years, BH binary codes have been extended to include various forms of matter with particular focus on the identification of electromagnetic counterparts to GW signals. As an example, we note the variation of the Blandford-Znajek effect in the inspiral of two BHs in the presence of a circumbinary disk whose magnetic field is capable of extracting rotational energy from the orbital motion of the binary giving rise to single or dual jets [@Palenzuela:2009hx; @Palenzuela:2010nf]. Other studies address accretion of matter onto BHs, the impact of a recoiling BH on the surrounding disk material, periodic oscillations in the matter due to the binary motion or the tidal disruption of white dwarfs in the field of a BH [@Bode:2011tq; @Alic:2012df; @Farris:2012ux; @Haas:2012bk]; for an overview see also [@Andersson:2013mrx]. Non-vacuum spacetimes also include some classes of alternative theories of gravity. NR simulations of BH binaries have so far focused on scalar-tensor theories of gravity which are conveniently implemented in existing GR codes by merely adding a minimally coupled scalar field in the so-called [*Einstein frame*]{} [@Healy:2011ef; @Berti:2013gfa]. Extension of these studies to a wider class of alternative theories of gravity may be a highly non-trivial task as the hyperbolicity properties of the underlying evolution equations and, thus, their suitability for numerical treatment remain unclear for most theories; for such an investigation into Dynamical Chern-Simons theory see [@Delsate:2014hba].
One of the most remarkable developments of NR in the last $\sim 10$ years is the wide range of applications in areas of physics far outside the more traditional regime of GW and astrophysics. High-energy collisions of BHs may provide valuable inside into the cross section of proton-proton collisions performed at the Large Hadron Collider to probe the possibility of BH formation as conjectured [@Argyres:1998qn; @Banks:1999gd; @Dimopoulos:2001hw] in the so-called TeV gravity scenarios [@Antoniadis:1998ig; @ArkaniHamed:1998rs; @Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf]. The gauge-gravity duality, also often referred to as the Anti de-Sitter/Conformal Field Theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj; @Aharony:1999ti] relates BH spacetimes in asymptotically AdS spacetimes to physical systems in the strongly coupled regime of certain gauge theories. To name but a few examples, this duality has been used to model the thermalization of balls of deconfined plasma in heavy-ion collisions (see [@Chesler:2008hg; @Chesler:2010bi; @Heller:2011ju; @Chesler:2013lia; @Wu:2011yd] and references therein), the optical conductivity of so-called strange metals [@Horowitz:2012gs; @Horowitz:2012ky] or condensed matter systems (see [@Hartnoll:2009sz] for an overview). Numerical studies of BHs and their formation still teaches us unexpected lessons about the fundamental properties of general relativity as for example in Choptuik’s critical collapse study [@Choptuik:1992jv] or the surprising instability observed in the extension of Choptuik’s work to asymptotically AdS spacetimes by Bizo[ń]{} and Rostworowski [@Bizon:2011gg]. Tests of the cosmic censorship conjecture are now possible over a wide range of physical scenarios including high-energy collisions of BHs [@Sperhake:2008ga], BH strings in higher dimensions [@Lehner:2010pn] or BH collisions in asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes [@Zilhao:2012bb]. The numerical simulation of lattices consisting of multiple BHs are being used to model large scale structures in cosmological spacetimes [@Bentivegna:2012ei; @Yoo:2013yea] and NR tools are developed for the modeling of the early universe [@Garrison:2012ex].
This short (and incomplete) summary demonstrates that the breakthroughs of 2005 have opened the door onto a vast garden of opportunities probably well beyond the wildest expectations the NR community has harbored during the 40 year path towards the holy grail. We conclude here with a list of suggestions for further reading on the various topics whose surfaces have been scratched on the preceding pages.
Extended books on the methodology of NR have been written by Alcubierre [@Alcubierre2008], Bona [*et al.*]{} [@Bona2009] as well as Baumgarte and Shapiro [@Baumgarte2010]; we also note Gourgoulhon’s review of the “3+1” formulation of GR [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue] and the comprehensive review by Centrella [*et al.*]{} [@Centrella:2010mx]. An earlier review also covering the techniques for simulating matter is given by Lehner [@Lehner:2001wq]. The field of GW physics and the use of BH binary simulations therein is discussed in various articles [@Hannam:2009rd; @Hinder:2010vn; @Ohme:2011rm; @Pfeiffer:2012pc]. Comparisons of GW signals obtained numerically with those from various semi-analytic calculations are reviewed in [@Tiec:2014lba]. The reader will find overviews of several applications including astrophysics and high-energy physics in [@Pretorius:2007nq; @Sperhake:2011xk]. NR applications outside the more traditional areas of astrophysics and GW physics are the focus of [@Cardoso:2012qm] and in particular the review [@Cardoso:2014uka]. A description of more technical details of BH simulations in asymptotically AdS spacetimes is given in [@Chesler:2013lia]; see also [@Bantilan:2012vu].
If the past $\sim 10$ years of NR have shown anything it is an astounding potential to surprise us with unexpected results and new areas of applications. Aside from the above mentioned articles in the present literature, the reader will undoubtedly be richly rewarded by following online and print journals to remain up to date on the avalanche of results and applications of BH simulations triggered by the milestone of the 2005 breakthroughs.
The author thanks Emanuele Berti, Bernd Br[ü]{}gmann, Vitor Cardoso, Pau Figueras, Jose Gonz[á]{}lez, Leonardo Gualtieri, Mark Hannam, Carlos Herdeiro, David Hilditch, Sascha Husa, Bernard Kelly, Pablo Laguna, Luis Lehner, Christian Ott, Frans Pretorius, Harvey Reall, Christian Reisswig, Erik Schnetter, Deirdre Shoemaker, Ken Smith, Carlos Sopuerta, Helvi Witek, and Miguel Zilh[ã]{}o for many fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the FP7-PEOPLE-2011-CIG CBHEO Grant No. 293412, the FP7-PEOPLE-2011-IRSES NRHEP Grant No. 295189, the STFC Grant Nos. ST/I002006/1 and ST/L000636/1, the Trestles system of the San Diego Supercomputing Centre (SDSC), Stampede of the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) and Kraken of the National Centre for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) through XSEDE Grant No. PHY-090003 by the National Science Foundation, the COSMOS Shared Memory system at DAMTP, University of Cambridge, operated on behalf of the DiRAC HPC Facility and funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital Grant No. ST/J005673/1 and STFC Grant Nos. ST/H008586/1 and ST/K00333X/1, the Centro de Supercomputaci[ó]{}n de Galicia (CESGA) under Grant No. ICTS-2013-249, and the European Union’s FP7 ERC Starting Grant DyBHo-256667.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[100]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} Pretorius F 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{} 121101 gr-qc/0507014
Campanelli M, Lousto C O, Marronetti P and Zlochower Y 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{} 111101 gr-qc/0511048
Baker J G, Centrella J, Choi D I, Koppitz M and van Meter J 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{} 111102 gr-qc/0511103
Arnowitt R, Deser S and Misner C W 1962 The dynamics of general relativity [ *Gravitation an introduction to current research*]{} ed Witten L (John Wiley, New York) pp 227–265 gr-qc/0405109
York Jr J W 1979 Kinematics and dynamics of general relativity [*Sources of [G]{}ravitational [R]{}adiation*]{} ed Smarr L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 83–126
York Jr J W and Piran T 1982 The [I]{}nitial [V]{}alue [P]{}roblem and [B]{}eyond [ *Spacetime and [G]{}eometry*]{} ed Matzner R A and Shepley L C ([University of Texas Press, Austin]{}) pp 147–176
Gourgoulhon E 2007 Gr-qc/0703035
Sathyaprakash B S and Schutz B F 2009 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**12**]{} arXiv:0903.0338 \[gr-qc\] [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-2}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-2})
Bondi H, van der Burg M G J and Metzner A W K 1962 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} [**269**]{} 21–52
Sachs R K 1962 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} [**270**]{} 103–126
Winicour J 2012 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**15**]{} gr-qc/0102085 [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2012-2}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2012-2})
G[ó]{}mez R [*et al.*]{} 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 3915–3918
Lehner L 1998 [*[Gravitational Radiation from Black Hole Spacetimes]{}*]{} Ph.D. thesis [University of Pittsburgh]{}
Babiuc M C, Kreiss H O and Winicour J 2014 [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} 025022 arXiv:1305.7179 \[gr-qc\]
Nagy G, Ortiz O E and Reula O A 2004 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{} 044012 gr-qc/0402123
Reula O A 1998 [*Living Reviews in Relativity*]{} [**1**]{} 3
Sarbach O and Tiglio M 2012 [*Living Reviews in Relativity*]{} [**15**]{} 9 arXiv:1203.6443 \[gr-qc\]
Taylor M E 1981 [*Pseudodifferential operators*]{} (Princetone University Press, Princeton)
Taylor M E 1991 [*Pseudodifferential Operators and Nonlinear PDE (Progress in Mathematics 100)*]{} (Birkh[ä]{}user, boston-Basel-Berlin)
Kidder L E, Scheel M A and Teukolsky S A 2001 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**64**]{} 064017 gr-qc/0105031
Shinkai H a 2009 [*J. Korean Phys. Soc.*]{} [**54**]{} 2513–2528 arXiv:0805.0068 \[gr-qc\]
Nakamura T, Oohara K and Kojima Y 1987 [*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.*]{} [ **90**]{} 1–218
Shibata M and Nakamura T 1995 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**52**]{} 5428–5444
Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{} 024007 gr-qc/9810065
Yo H J, Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 2002 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**66**]{} 084026 gr-qc/0209066
Alcubierre M and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2001 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**63**]{} 104006 gr-qc/0008067
Gundlach C and Mart[í]{}n-Garc[í]{}a J M 2006 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{} 024016 gr-qc/0604035
Einstein A 1916 [*Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.)*]{} [ **1916**]{} 688–696
Four[é]{}s-Bruhat Y 1952 [*Acta Math.*]{} [**88**]{} 141–225
Bruhat Y 1962 The cauchy problem [*Gravitation: [A]{}n [I]{}ntroduction to [C]{}urrent [R]{}esearch*]{} ed Witten L (Wiley, New York)
Fischer A E and Marsden J E 1972 [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**28**]{} 1–38
Friedrich H 1985 [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**100**]{} 525
Garfinkle D 2002 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**65**]{} 044029 gr-qc/0110013
Gundlach C, Calabrese G, Hinder I and Mart[í]{}n-Garc[í]{}a J M 2005 [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**22**]{} 3767–3773
Pretorius F 2005 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**22**]{} 425–452 gr-qc/0407110
Smarr L and York Jr J W 1978 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**17**]{} 2529–2551
Estabrook F, Wahlquist H, Christensen S, DeWitt B, Smarr L [*et al.*]{} 1973 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**7**]{} 2814–2817
Bona C, Massó J, Seidel E and Stela J 1995 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{} 600–603 gr-qc/9412071
Alcubierre M 2003 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**20**]{} 607–624 gr-qc/0210050
Alcubierre M, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Diener P, Koppitz M, Pollney D, Seidel E and Takahashi R 2003 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**67**]{} 084023 gr-qc/0206072
Balakrishna J, Daues G, Seidel E, Suen W M, Tobias M and Wang E 1996 [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**13**]{} L135–142
Alcubierre M, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Pollney D, Seidel E and Takahashi R 2001 [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**64**]{} 061501(R) [AEI]{}-2001-021, gr-qc/0104020
van Meter J R, Baker J G, Koppitz M and Choi D I 2006 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [ **73**]{} 124011 gr-qc/0605030
Pretorius F 2009 [Binary Black Hole Coalescence]{} [*[Physics of Relativistic Objects in Compact Binaries: From Birth to Coalescence]{}*]{} ed Colpi [*et al*]{} M (Springer, New York) arXiv:0710.1338 \[gr-qc\]
Pretorius F 2006 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**23**]{} S529–S552 gr-qc/0602115
Szil[á]{}gyi B, Lindblom L and Scheel M A 2009 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**80**]{} 124010 arXiv:0909.3557 \[gr-qc\]
Frauendiener J 2004 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**7**]{} [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-1}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-1})
Rinne O 2006 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**23**]{} 6275–6300 gr-qc/0606053
Babiuc M C, Kreiss H O and Winicour J 2007 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{} 044002 gr-qc/0612051
Rinne O, Lindblom L and Scheel M A 2007 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} 4053–4078 arXiv:0704.0782 \[gr-qc\]
Ruiz M, Rinne O and Sarbach O 2007 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} 6349–6378 arXiv:0707.2797 \[gr-qc\]
Hilditch D, Bernuzzi S, Thierfelder M, Cao Z, Tichy W and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2013 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**88**]{} 084057 arXiv:1212.2901 \[gr-qc\]
Anninos P, Camarda K, Mass[ó]{} J, Seidel E, Suen W M and Towns J 1995 [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**52**]{} 2059–2082
Br[ü]{}gmann B, Tichy W and Jansen N 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} 211101 gr-qc/0312112
Thornburg J 1987 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**4**]{} 1119–1131
Wald R M 1997 Gr-qc/9710068
Thornburg J 2007 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**10**]{} gr-qc/0512169 [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-3}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-3})
Shoemaker D, Smith K, Sperhake U, Laguna P, Schnetter E and Fiske D 2003 [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**20**]{} 3729–3743 gr-qc/0301111
Scheel M A, Pfeiffer H P, Lindblom L, Kidder L E, Rinne O and Teukolsky S A 2006 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{} 104006 gr-qc/0607056
Hannam M, Husa S, Ohme F, Br[ü]{}gmann B and O’Murchadha N 2008 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{} 064020 arXiv:0804.0628 \[gr-qc\]
Brown J D 2009 [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{} 084042 arXiv0908.3814 \[gr-qc\]
Dennison K A, Wendell J P, Baumgarte T W and Brown J D 2010 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{} 124057 arXiv:1010.5723 \[gr-qc\]
Boyle M, Brown D A, Kidder L E, Mrou[é]{} A H, Pfeiffer H P, Scheel M A, Cook G B and Teukolsky S A 2007 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{} 124038 arXiv:0710.0158 \[gr-qc\]
Lovelace G, Boyle M, Scheel M A and Szil[á]{}gyi B 2012 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 045003 arXiv:1110.2229 \[gr-qc\]
Ansorg M, Br[ü]{}gmann B and Tichy W 2004 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{} 064011 gr-qc/0404056
Zilh[ã]{}o M, Ansorg M, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Herdeiro C, Sperhake U and Witek H 2011 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**84**]{} 084039 arXiv:1109.2149 \[gr-qc\]
Grandcl[é]{}ment P and Novak J 2009 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [ **12**]{} arXiv:0706.2286 \[gr-qc\] [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-1}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-1})
Zlochower Y, Baker J G, Campanelli M and Lousto C O 2005 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**72**]{} 024021 gr-qc/0505055
Lousto C O and Zlochower Y 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{} 041101 arXiv:1009.0292 \[gr-qc\]
Sperhake U, Berti E, Cardoso V and Pretorius F 2013 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**111**]{} 041101 arXiv:1211.6114 \[gr-qc\]
Choptuik M W 1993 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{} 9–12
Br[ü]{}gmann B 1996 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**54**]{} 7361–7372 gr-qc/9608050
[{http://laplace.physics.ubc.ca/Group/Software.html}]({http://laplace.physics.ubc.ca/Group/Software.html})
MacNeice P, Olson K, Mobarry C, de Fainchtein R and Packer C 2000 [*Computer Physics Comm.*]{} [**136**]{} 330
Baker J, Campanelli M and Lousto C O 2002 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**65**]{} 044001 gr-qc/0104063
Zilh[ã]{}o M and Noble S C 2014 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} 065013 arXiv:1309.2960 \[gr-qc\]
[{http://had.liu.edu/}]({http://had.liu.edu/})
[{https://computation.llnl.gov/casc/SAMRAI/}]({https://computation.llnl.gov/casc/SAMRAI/})
Schnetter E, Hawley S H and Hawke I 2004 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**21**]{} 1465–1488 gr-qc/0310042
: [http://www.carpetcode.org/]{}
Goodale T, Allen G, Lanfermann G, Mass[ó]{} J, Radke T, Seidel E and Shalf J 2003 The [C]{}actus [F]{}ramework and [T]{}oolkit: [D]{}esign and [A]{}pplications [ *Vector and [P]{}arallel [P]{}rocessing - [VECPAR’]{}2002, 5th [I]{}nternational [C]{}onference, [L]{}ecture [N]{}otes in [C]{}omputer [S]{}cience*]{} (Berlin: Springer) <http://www.cactuscode.org>
Pfeiffer H P, Kidder L E, Scheel M A and Teukolsky l A 2003 [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**152**]{} 253–273 gr-qc/0202096
Buchman L T, Pfeiffer H P, Scheel M A and Szilagyi B 2012 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**86**]{} 084033 arXiv:1206.3015 \[gr-qc\]
Lichnerowicz A 1944 [*J. Math. Pures et Appl.*]{} [**23**]{} 37–63
York Jr J W 1971 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**26**]{} 1656–1658
York Jr J W 1972 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**28**]{} 1082–1085
Cook G B 2000 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**3**]{} gr-qc/0007085 [{http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2000-5}]({http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2000-5})
York Jr J W 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{} 1350–1353
Caudill M, Cook G B, Grigsby J D and Pfeiffer H P 2006 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{} 064011 gr-qc/0605053
Brill D R and Lindquist R W 1963 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**131**]{} 471–476
Misner C W 1960 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**118**]{} 1110
Bowen J M and York Jr J W 1980 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**21**]{} 2047–2056
York Jr J W 1980 Energy and momentum of the gravitational field [*Essays in General Relativity*]{} ed Tipler F J (Academic, New York) pp 39–58
Brandt S and Br[ü]{}gmann B 1997 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{} 3606–3609 gr-qc/9703066
Ansorg M 2007 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} S1–S14 gr-qc/0612081
Kerr R P 1963 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**11**]{} 237–238
Garat A and Price R H 2000 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**61**]{} 124011 gr-qc/0002013
Valiente Kroon J A 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} 041101 gr-qc/0310048
Cook G B and York Jr J W 1990 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**41**]{} 1077–1085
Dain S, Lousto C O and Takahashi R 2002 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**65**]{} 104038 gr-qc/0201062
Krivan W and Price R H 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**58**]{} 104003
Hannam M D, Husa S, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Gonz[á]{}lez J A and Sperhake U 2007 [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} S15–S24 gr-qc/0612001
Lovelace G, Owen R, Pfeiffer H and Chu T 2008 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{} 084017 arXiv:0805.4192 \[gr-qc\]
Lovelace G, Scheel M A and Szilagyi B 2011 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**83**]{} 024010 arXiv:1010.2777 \[gr-qc\]
Hughes S A, Keeton C R, Walker P, Walsh K T, Shapiro S L [*et al.*]{} 1994 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**49**]{} 4004–4015
Diener P 2003 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**20**]{} 4901–4918 gr-qc/0305039
Cohen M I, Pfeiffer H P and Scheel M A 2009 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [ **26**]{} 035005 ([arXiv:]{})
Gundlach C 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{} 863–875 gr-qc/9707050
Hawking S W and Ellis G F R 1973 [*[The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time]{}*]{} (Cambridge University Press)
Wald R M 1984 [*General [R]{}elativity*]{} (The [U]{}niversity of [C]{}hicago [P]{}ress, [C]{}hicago and [L]{}ondon)
Christodoulou D 1970 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**25**]{} 1596–1597
Sperhake U, Cardoso V, Pretorius F, Berti E, Hinderer T and Yunes N 2009 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} 131102 arXiv:0907.1252 \[gr-qc\]
Ashtekar A and Krishnan B 2004 [*[Living Reviews in Relativity]{}*]{} [**7**]{} gr-qc/0407042 <http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-10>
Newman E T and Penrose R 1962 [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} 566–578
Bondi H, Pirani F A E and Robinson I 1959 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.*]{} [ **A251**]{} 519–533
Penrose R 1963 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**10**]{} 66–68
Beetle C, Bruni M, Burko L M and Nerozzi A 2005 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**72**]{} 024013 gr-qc/0407012
Zhang F, Brink J, Szilagyi B and Lovelace G 2012 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**86**]{} 084020 arXiv:1208.0630 \[gr-qc\]
Kinnersley W 1969 [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{} 1195–1203
Nerozzi A and Elbracht O 2008 ArXiv:0811.1600 \[gr-qc\]
Lehner L and Moreschi O M 2007 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{} 124040 arXiv:0706.1319 \[gr-qc\]
Hinder I [*et al.*]{} 2014 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} 025012 arXiv:1307.5307 \[gr-qc\]
Ruiz M, Takahashi R, Alcubierre M and Nu[ñ]{}ez D 2008 [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**40**]{} 1705–1729 arXiv:0707.4654 \[gr-qc\]
Regge T and Wheeler J A 1957 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**108**]{} 1063–1069
Zerilli F J 1970 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2**]{} 2141–2160
Moncrief V 1974 [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**88**]{} 323–343
Nagar A and Rezzolla L 2005 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**22**]{} R167 gr-qc/0502064
Sperhake U, Kelly B, Laguna P, Smith K L and Schnetter E 2005 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**71**]{} 124042 gr-qc/0503071
Landau L D and Lifshitz E M 1980 [*The Classical Theory of Fields*]{} 4th ed ([*Course of Theoretical Physics*]{} vol 2) (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford)
Lovelace G, Chen Y, Cohen M, Kaplan J, Keppel D, Matthews K D, Nichols D A, Scheel M A and Sperhake U 2010 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{} 064031 arXiv:0907.0869 \[gr-qc\]
Reisswig C, Bishop N T, Pollney D and Szilagyi B 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} 221101 arXiv:0907.2637 \[gr-qc\]
Babiuc M, Szilagyi B, Winicour J and Zlochower Y 2011 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [ **84**]{} 044057 arXiv:1011.4223 \[gr-qc\]
Reisswig C, Ott C D, Sperhake U and Schnetter E 2011 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [ **83**]{} 064008 arXiv:1012.0595 \[gr-qc\]
Hahn S G and Lindquist R W 1964 [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} 304–331
Čadež A 1971 [*Colliding black holes*]{} Ph.D. thesis University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Smarr L 1975 [*The structure of general relativity with a numerical illustration: The collision of two black holes*]{} Ph.D. thesis University of Texas at Austin
Eppley K R 1975 [*The numerical evolution of the collision of two black holes*]{} Ph.D. thesis Princeton University
Smarr L, [Č]{}ade[ž]{} A, DeWitt B and Eppley K 1976 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**14**]{} 2443–2452
Smarr L 1979 Gauge conditions, radiation formulae and the two black hole collision [*Sources of [G]{}ravitational [R]{}adiation*]{} ed Smarr L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 245–274
Choptuik M W 1997 The binary black hole grand challenge project [ *Computational Astrophysics*]{} ([*ASP Conference Series*]{} vol 123) ed Clarke D A and West M J (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific) p 305
Anninos P, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr L and Suen W M 1993 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{} 2851–2854 gr-qc/9309016
Anninos P, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr L and Suen W M 1995 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**52**]{} 2044–2058
Anninos P, Price R H, Pullin J, Seidel E and Suen W M 1995 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**52**]{} 4462–4480 gr-qc/9505042
Price R H and Pullin J 1994 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} 3297–3300 gr-qc/9402039
Baker J G, Abrahams A, Anninos P, Brandt S, Price R, Pullin J and Seidel E 1997 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**55**]{} 829–834 gr-qc/9608064
Matzner R A, Seidel H E, Shapiro S L, Smarr L, Suen W M [*et al.*]{} 1995 [*Science*]{} [**270**]{} 941–947
Anninos P and Brandt S 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{} 508–511 gr-qc/9806031
Brandt S R and Seidel E 1995 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**52**]{} 856–869 gr-qc/9412072
Brandt S, Font J A, Iba[ñ]{}ez J M, Masso J and Seidel E 2000 [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**124**]{} 169–196 gr-qc/9807017
Camarda K and Seidel E 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{} 3204(R) gr-qc/9709075
Camarda K and Seidel E 1999 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{} 064019 gr-qc/9805099
Cook [*et al*]{} G B 1998 [*Phys. Rev. lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 2512–2516 gr-qc/9711078
Br[ü]{}gmann B 1999 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 85–100 gr-qc/9708035
Brandt S, Correll R, G[ó]{}mez R, Huq M, Laguna P, Lehner L, Marronetti P, Matzner R A, Neilsen D, Pullin J, Schnetter E, Shoemaker D and Winicour J 2000 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} 5496–5499 gr-qc/0009047
Baker J, Br[ü]{}gmann B and Campanelli M 2000 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [ **17**]{} L149–L155 gr-qc/0003027
Baker J, Campanelli M, Lousto C O and Takahashi T 2004 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{} 027505
Campanelli M 2005 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**22**]{} S387–S393 astro-ph/0411744
Alcubierre M, Allen G, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Lanfermann G, Seidel E [*et al.*]{} 2000 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**61**]{} 041501 gr-qc/9904013
Alcubierre M, Allen G, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Dramlitsch T, Font J A, Papadopoulos P, Seidel E, Stergioulas N and Takahashi R 2000 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**62**]{} 044034 gr-qc/0003071
Fiske D R, Baker J G, van Meter J R, Choi D I and Centrella J M 2005 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**71**]{} 104036 gr-qc/0503100
Alcubierre M, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Diener P, Guzm[á]{}n F S, Hawke I, Hawley S, Herrmann F, Koppitz M, Pollney D, Seidel E and Thornburg J 2005 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**72**]{} 044004 gr-qc/0411149
Marronetti P, Duez M D, Shapiro S L and Baumgarte T 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} 141101 gr-qc/0312036
Miller M, Gressman P and Suen W M 2004 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{} 064026 gr-qc/0312030
Shibata M, Taniguchi K and Ury[ū]{} K 2003 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{} 084020 gr-qc/0310030
Peters P C 1964 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**136**]{} B1224–B1232
Flanagan E E and Hughes S A 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{} 4535–4565 gr-qc/9701039
Flanagan E E and Hughes S A 1998 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{} 4566–4587 gr-qc/9710129
Buonanno A, Cook G B and Pretorius F 2007 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{} 124018 gr-qc/0610122
Berti E, Cardoso V, Gonz[á]{}lez J A, Sperhake U, Hannam M, Husa S and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2007 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{} 064034 gr-qc/0703053
Scheel M A, Boyle M, Chu T, Kidder L E, Matthews K D and Pfeiffer H P 2009 [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**79**]{} 024003 arXiv:0810.1767 \[gr-qc\]
Husa S, Hannam M, Gonz[á]{}lez J A, Sperhake U and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2008 [ *Phys. Rev.D*]{} [**77**]{} 044037 arXiv:0706.0904 \[gr-qc\]
Walther B, Br[ü]{}gmann B and M[ü]{}ller D 2009 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**79**]{} 124040 arXiv:0901.0993 \[gr-qc\]
Mroue A H, Pfeiffer H P, Kidder L E and Teukolsky S A 2010 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{} 124016 arXiv:1004.4697 \[gr-qc\]
Tichy W and Marronetti P 2011 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**83**]{} 024012 arXiv:1010.2936 \[gr-qc\]
Hinder I, Vaishnav B, Herrmann F, Shoemaker D and Laguna P 2008 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**77**]{} 081502 arXiv:0710.5167 \[gr-qc\]
Sperhake U, Berti E, Cardoso V, Gonz[á]{}lez J A, Br[ü]{}gmann B and Ansorg M 2008 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{} 064069 arXiv:0710.3823 \[gr-qc\]
Hinder I, Herrmann F, Laguna P and Shoemaker D 2010 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [ **82**]{} 024033 arXiv:0806.1037 \[gr-qc\]
Le Tiec A, Buonanno A, Mrou[é]{} A H, Pfeiffer H P, Hemberger D A [ *et al.*]{} 2013 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**88**]{} 124027 arXiv:1309.0541 \[gr-qc\]
Pretorius F and Khurana D 2007 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} S83–S108 gr-qc/0702084
Gold R and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2010 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**27**]{} 084035 arXiv:0911.3862 \[gr-qc\]
Gold R and Br[ü]{}gmann B 2013 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**88**]{} 064051 arXiv:1209.4085 \[gr-qc\]
Cutler C, Kennefick D and Poisson E 1994 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**50**]{} 3816–3835
Glampedakis K and Kennefick D 2002 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**66**]{} 044002 gr-qc/0203086
Shibata M, Okawa H and Yamamoto T 2008 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{} 101501(R) arXiv:0810.4735 \[gr-qc\]
Gonz[á]{}lez J A, Sperhake U, Br[ü]{}gmann B, Hannam M D and Husa S 2007 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 091101 gr-qc/0610154
Baker J G, Centrella J, Choi D I, Koppitz M, van Meter J and Miller M C 2006 [*Astrophys. J*]{} [**653**]{} L93–L96 gr-qc/0603204
Herrmann F, Hinder I, Shoemaker D and Laguna P 2007 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{} S33–S42 gr-qc/0601026
Gonz[á]{}lez J A, Hannam M D, Sperhake U, Br[ü]{}gmann B and Husa S 2007 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 231101 gr-qc/0702052
Campanelli M, Lousto C O, Zlochower Y and Merritt D 2007 [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**659**]{} L5–L8 gr-qc/0701164
Campanelli M, Lousto C O, Zlochower Y and Merritt D 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 231102 gr-qc/0702133
Lousto C O and Zlochower Y 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} 231102 arXiv:1108.2009 \[gr-qc\]
Campanelli M, Lousto C O and Zlochower Y 2006 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{} 041501 gr-qc/0604012
Ajith [*et al*]{} P 2012 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 124001 arXiv:1201.5319 \[gr-qc\]
Hannam [*et al*]{} M 2014 [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**113**]{} 151101 arXiv:1308.3271 \[gr-qc\]
Taracchini [*et al*]{} A 2014 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**89**]{} 061502 arXiv:1311.2544 \[gr-qc\]
Damour T and Nagar A 2014 ArXiv:1406.6913 \[gr-qc\]
Komossa S 2012 [*Adv. Astron.*]{} [**2012**]{} 364973 arXiv:1202.1977 \[astro-ph\]
Apostolatos T A, Cutler C, Sussman G J and Thorne K S 1994 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**49**]{} 6274–6297
Brown D A, Lundgren A and O’Shaughnessy R 2012 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**86**]{} 064020 arXiv:1203.6060 \[gr-qc\]
Schmidt P, Ohme F and Hannam M 2014 ArXiv:1408.1810 \[gr-qc\]
Mrou[é]{} A H [*et al.*]{} 2013 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**111**]{} 241104 arXiv:1304.6077 \[gr-qc\]
Healy J, Laguna P and Shoemaker D 2014 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} 212001 arXiv:1407.5989 \[gr-qc\]
Buonanno A and Damour T 1999 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{} 084006 gr-qc/9811091
Buonanno A and Damour T 2000 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**62**]{} 064015 gr-qc/0001013
Damour T, Nagar A and Bernuzzi S 2013 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**87**]{} 084035 arXiv:1212.4357 \[gr-qc\]
Lousto C O, Nakano H, Zlochower Y and Campanelli M 2010 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{} 211101 arXiv:1001.2316 \[gr-qc\]
Poisson E, Pound A and Vega I 2011 [*Living Rev. Rel.*]{} [**14**]{} 7 arXiv:1102.0529 \[gr-qc\]
Barausse E, Buonanno A and Le Tiec A 2012 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**85**]{} 064010 arXiv:1111.5610 \[gr-qc\]
Palenzuela C, Lehner L and Yoshida S 2010 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**81**]{} 084007 arXiv:0911.3889 \[gr-qc\]
Palenzuela C, Lehner L and Liebling S L 2010 [*Science*]{} [**329**]{} 927 arXiv:1005.1067 \[astro-ph\]
Bode [*at al*]{} T 2012 [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**744**]{} 45 arXiv:1101.4684 \[gr-qc\]
Alic D, M[ö]{}sta P, Rezzolla L, Zanotti O and Jaramillo J L 2012 [ *Astrophys. J.*]{} [**754**]{} 36 arXiv:1204.2226 \[gr-qc\]
Farris B D, Gold R, Paschalidis V, Etienne Z B and Shapiro S L 2012 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{} 221102 arXiv:1207.3354 \[astro-ph\]
Haas R, Shcherbakov R V, Bode T and Laguna P 2012 [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [ **749**]{} 117 arXiv:1201.4389 \[astro-ph\]
Andersson N [*et al.*]{} 2013 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**30**]{} 193002 arXiv:1305.0816 \[gr-qc\]
Healy J, Bode T, Haas R, Pazos E, Laguna P, Shoemaker D M and Yunes N 2011 [ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 232002 arXiv:1112.3928 \[gr-qc\]
Berti E, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Horbatsch M and Sperhake U 2013 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**87**]{} 124020 arXiv:1304.2836 \[gr-qc\]
Delsate T, Hilditch D and Witek H 2014 ArXiv:1407.6727 \[gr-qc\]
Argyres P C, Dimopoulos S and March-Russell J 1998 [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [ **441**]{} 96–104 hep-th/9808138
Banks T and Fischler W 1999 Hep-th/9906038
Dimopoulos S and Landsberg G 2001 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 161602 hep-th/0106295
Antoniadis I, Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S and Dvali G R 1998 [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**436**]{} 257–263 hep-ph/9804398
Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S and Dvali G R 1998 [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**429**]{} 263–272 hep-ph/9803315
Randall L and Sundrum R 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 3370–3373 hep-ph/9905221
Randall L and Sundrum R 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 4690–4693 hep-th/9906064
Maldacena J M 1997 [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**2**]{} 231 hep-th/9711200
Witten E 1998 [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**2**]{} 253–291 hep-th/9802150
Aharony O, Gubser S S, Maldacena J M, Ooguri H and Oz Y 2000 [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**323**]{} 183–386 hep-th/9905111
Chesler P M and Yaffe L G 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} 211601 arXiv:0812.2053 \[hep-th\]
Chesler P M and Yaffe L G 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{} 021601 arXiv:1011.3562 \[hep-th\]
Heller M P, Janik R A and Witaszczyk P 2012 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{} 201602 arXiv:1103.3452 \[hep-th\]
Chesler P M and Yaffe L G 2014 [*JHEP*]{} [**1407**]{} 086 arXiv:1309.1439 \[hep-th\]
Wu B and Romatschke P 2011 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. C*]{} [**22**]{} 1317–1342 arXiv:1108.3715 \[hep-th\]
Horowitz G T, Santos J E and Tong D 2012 [*JHEP*]{} [**1211**]{} 102 arXiv:1209.1098 \[hep-th\]
Horowitz G T, Santos J E and Tong D 2012 [*JHEP*]{} [**1207**]{} 168 arXiv:1204.0519 \[hep-th\]
Hartnoll S A 2009 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**26**]{} 224002 arXiv:0903.3246 \[hep-th\]
Bizo[ń]{} P and Rostworowski A 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} 031102 arXiv:1104.3702 \[gr-qc\]
Sperhake U, Cardoso V, Pretorius F, Berti E and Gonz[á]{}lez J A 2008 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 161101 arXiv:0806.1738 \[gr-qc\]
Lehner L and Pretorius F 2010 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**105**]{} 101102 arXiv:1006.5960 \[hep-th\]
Zilhao M, Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Herdeiro C, Sperhake U and Witek H 2012 [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**85**]{} 104039 arXiv:1204.2019 \[gr-qc\]
Bentivegna E and Korzynski M 2012 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 165007 arXiv:1204.3568 \[gr-qc\]
Yoo C M, Okawa H and Nakao K i 2013 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**111**]{} 161102 arXiv:1306.1389 \[gr-qc\]
Garrison D 2014 [*J. Grav.*]{} [**2014**]{} 407197 arXiv:1207.7097 \[gr-qc\]
Alcubierre M 2008 [*[Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativity]{}*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Bona C, Palenzuela-Luque C and Bona-Casas C 2009 [*[Elements of Numerical Relativity and Relativistic Hydrodynamics]{}*]{} (Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York)
Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 2010 [*[Numerical Relativity]{}*]{} (Cambridge University Press)
Centrella J M, Baker J G, Kelly B J and van Meter J R 2010 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{} 3069 arXiv:1010.5260 \[gr-qc\]
Lehner L 2001 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**18**]{} R25–R86 gr-qc/0106072
Hannam M 2009 [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**26**]{} 114001 arXiv:0901.2931 \[gr-qc\]
Hinder I 2010 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**27**]{} 114004 arXiv:1001.5161 \[gr-qc\]
Ohme F 2012 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 124002 arXiv:1111.3737 \[gr-qc\]
Pfeiffer H P 2012 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 124004 arXiv:1203.5166 \[gr-qc\]
Le Tiec A 2014 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**23**]{} 1430022 arXiv:1408.5505 \[gr-qc\]
Sperhake U, Berti E and Cardoso V 2013 [*Comptes Rendus Physique*]{} [**14**]{} 306–317 arXiv:1107.2819 \[gr-qc\]
Cardoso [*et al*]{} V 2012 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} 244001 arXiv:1201.5118 \[hep-th\]
Cardoso V, Gualtieri L, Herdeiro C and Sperhake U 2014 ArXiv:1409.0014 \[gr-qc\]
Bantilan H, Pretorius F and Gubser S S 2012 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**85**]{} 084038 arXiv:1201.2132 \[hep-th\]
[^1]: In particular the fact that gravity itself represents energy and, thus, a source of gravity, accounts for the richness of vacuum solutions in GR.
[^2]: It is common practice in NR to measure length and time in units of the BH mass $M$ which is readily converted into SI units through the convention $c=1=G$ once a value for the mass has been specified.
[^3]: But see [@Hilditch:2012fp] for investigations using a modification of BSSN commonly referred to as the conformal $Z4$ system.
[^4]: For example, the calculation of an apparent horizon may be used for choosing regions for BH excision or curvature quantities may be used as criteria for mesh refinement.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generalize a special case of a theorem of Proctor on the enumeration of lozenge tilings of a hexagon with a maximal staircase removed, using Kuo’s graphical condensation method. Additionally, we prove a formula for a weighted version of the given region. The result also extends work of Ciucu and Fischer. By applying the factorization theorem of Ciucu, we are also able to generalize a special case of MacMahon’s boxed plane partition formula.'
author:
- |
Ranjan Rohatgi\
Department of Mathematics\
Indiana University\
Bloomington, IN, 47405\
[email protected]\
title: '**Enumeration of lozenge tilings of halved hexagons with a boundary defect**'
---
Introduction
============
The triangular lattice is the tiling of the plane by unit equilateral triangles. Without loss of generality, we assume that the lattice comprises horizontal lines, as well as lines whose angles of incidence to the horizontal lines is either 60 or 120 degrees. A *region* in the triangular lattice is any finite union of these unit triangles and a *lozenge* is any union of two unit triangles which share an edge. A *lozenge tiling* of a region $R$ is any covering of all unit triangles in $R$ by non-overlapping lozenges. It is clear that a region must be have the same number of upward-pointing unit triangles as downward-pointing ones to have any tilings at all, since a lozenge contains one unit triangle of each type. We say that such a region is *balanced*. We can assign to any lozenge that could be used in a tiling a weight, $w$, which is a positive real number. An *unweighted* region has all weights equal to 1.
The weight of a lozenge tiling of $R$ is the product of all the weights of the lozenges used in the tiling. We denote by $M(R)$ the *matching generating function* of the region $R$, which is the sum of the weights of all tilings of $R$. For an unweighted region, the matching generating function simply gives the number of tilings of the region.
MacMahon’s work in [@macmahon] proved that for a hexagon with side-lengths $b,c,d,b,c,d$, the number of lozenge tilings is given by the formula $$\label{macmahonthm}
\frac{H(b)H(c)H(d)H(b+c+d)}{H(b+c)H(b+d)H(c+d)},$$ where we define the hyper factorials $H(n)$ for positive integers $n$ by $$H(n):=0!1!\ldots (n-1)!$$
The simplicity of (\[macmahonthm\]) has inspired many to look for generalizations or similar results. We present ours in the next section.
Statement of Main Results
=========================
We define two regions, $R_{a,k,j,x}$ and $R'_{a,k,j,x}$, the latter of which is a weighted version of the former. The north edge of each region has length $x$, followed by a northeast edge of length $a+2k$, a southeast edge of length $a$, and a south edge of length $x+k$. Finally, we close the regions by connecting the west endpoints of the north and south edges via a zigzag line whose unit edges alternate northwest and northeast. This zigzag line comprises $2a+2k$ unit segments, or $a+k$ “bumps." To balance the region, we remove $k$ consecutive upward-pointing unit triangles from the northeast side, after leaving a gap of $j-1$ unit triangles. It is evident that $j\in\{1,2,\ldots,a+k+1\}$. In the pictures below we’ve removed the forced lozenges due to the “spikes" on the northeast side. This unweighted region is $R_{a,k,j,x}$. If we weight each of the vertical lozenges in the “bumps" by a factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ we have $R'_{a,k,j,x}$. In Figure \[rak\], the lozenges with ovals are the weighted ones.
[.45]{} ![[]{data-label="rak"}](rakjx.eps "fig:"){height="2.5in"}
[.45]{} ![[]{data-label="rak"}](weightrakjx.eps "fig:"){height="2.5in"}
The region $R_{a,k,jx}$ extends previous work in two ways. Setting $k=0$ gives us a symmetric region with no unit triangles removed on the northeast side. In [@proctor], Proctor generalizes this region by extending the northwest side; here we generalize such a region by introducing a boundary defect on the northeast side. In [@ciucufischer13], Ciucu and Fischer enumerate the tilings of a region they denote $R_{x,a,k}$. The region is identical to $R_{a,k,j,x}$ except that the position of the removed triangles on the northeast side is fixed at $j=a+k$.
\[rakjxthmexplicit\] $$\begin{gathered}
M(R_{a,k,j,x})=\left[\prod_{n=1}^a\left(\frac{x+k+n}{k+n}\right)^{f_{a}(n)}\right]\left[\prod_{n=1}^{a-1}\left(\frac{2x+2k+2n+1}{2k+2n+1}\right)^{f_{a-1}(n)}\right]\\
\times\left[\prod_{n=1}^{j-k-1}\left(\frac{k+n}{x+k+n}\right)^{f_{j-k-1}(n)}\right]\left[\prod_{n=1}^{j-k-2}\left(\frac{2k+2n+1}{2x+2k+2n+1}\right)^{f_{j-k-2}(n)}\right]\\
\times\left[\prod_{n=1}^{j-1}\frac{x+n}{2x+n}\right]\left[\prod_{1\leq n\leq m\leq j-1}\frac{2x+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\right]\\
\times\prod_{n=1}^{a-j+k+1}\left[\prod_{m=1}^{j-k}\frac{k+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\prod_{m=j-k+1}^{j-k-1+n}\frac{2k+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $f_a(i)=\frac{a+1}{2}-|\frac{a+1}{2}-i|$.
\[weightedrakjxthmexplicit\] $$\begin{gathered}
M(R'_{a,k,j,x})=\left[\prod_{n=1}^a\left(\frac{2x+2k+2n-1}{2k+2n-1}\right)^{f_{a}(n)}\right]\left[\prod_{n=1}^{a-1}\left(\frac{x+k+n}{k+n}\right)^{f_{a-1}(n)}\right]\\
\times\left[\prod_{n=1}^{j-k-1}\left(\frac{2k+2n-1}{2x+2k+2n-1}\right)^{f_{j-k-1}(n)}\right]\left[\prod_{n=1}^{j-k-2}\left(\frac{k+n}{x+k+n}\right)^{f_{j-k-2}(n)}\right]\\
\times\left[\prod_{1\leq n\leq m\leq j-1}\frac{2x+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\right]\left[\prod_{n=1}^{a-j+k+1}\frac{k+j+n-1}{j+n-1}\right]\\
\times\frac{1}{2^{a+k}}\prod_{n=1}^{a-j+k+1}\left[\prod_{m=1}^{j-k}\frac{k+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\prod_{m=j-k+1}^{j-k-1+n}\frac{2k+n+m-1}{n+m-1}\right],\end{gathered}$$ with $f_a(i)$ as above.
Using , we can also prove a formula for the number of tilings of the region described below.
Consider a hexagon with side-lengths $b, c+2k, c, b+2k, c, c+2k$ (again, starting with the north side). We must remove $2k$ upward-pointing unit triangles to balance the region (or we may remove triangles of both types, but with $2k$ greater upward-pointing ones). We will remove $k$ consecutive unit triangles from the northeast side and the corresponding ones from the northwest side. Denote such a region by $DDH_{b,c,2k,j}$. The index $j$ tells us the precise location of the removed unit triangles, just as in the region $R_{a,k,j,x}$. Figure \[ddh4763\] shows an example of such a region, with $b=4, c=7, k=3,\textrm{ and } j=3$.
![The $k$ removed unit triangles on the northeast and northwest sides leave behind “spikes." In any lozenge tiling of $DDH(b,c,2k,j)$, there is only one way to tile these.[]{data-label="ddh4763"}](ddh4763.eps){height="3.2in"}
Though it can be much more widely applied, Ciucu’s factorization theorem from [@ciucu97] provides a method to enumerate the tilings of a symmetric region on the triangular lattice by computing the matching generating functions of one weighted and one unweighted subregion induced by cutting the region in half. We apply the theorem to $DDH$ regions as in Figure \[factthmapplied\]. This immediately gives the following corollary, which is a generalization of a special case of a result of Lai [@lai]. We have called the $R$- and $R'$-type regions “halved hexagons with boundary defects" since that is exactly the role they play in determining the number of tilings of $DDH$ regions.
![The subregions $R$ and $R'$, after forcing, obtained by applying the factorization theorem to a $DDH$ region with $b$ even (left) and $b$ odd (right).[]{data-label="factthmapplied"}](factthmapplied.eps){height="2in"}
\[mainthm\] $$M(DDH_{b,c,2k,j})=
\begin{cases} 2^{c+k} M(R_{c-1,k,j-1,b/2}) M(R'_{c,k,j,b/2}) & \text{if $b$ is even,} \\
2^{c+k} M(R_{c,k,j,(b-1)/2})M(R'_{c-1,k,j-1,(b+1)/2}) &\text{if $b$ is odd.}
\end{cases}$$
Preliminaries
=============
The *dual graph* of a region $R$ is the graph comprising one vertex for each unit triangle in $R$. Two vertices share an edge in the dual graph if and only if their corresponding unit triangles are edge-adjacent. An edge in the dual graph has weight $w$ precisely if the corresponding lozenge in $R$ also did. For regions on the triangular lattice, we’ve seen that each unit triangle is either pointing upwards or downwards - in particular, there are two types of unit triangles. The resulting graph is now bipartite, and lozenge tilings of a region $R$ are clearly in one-to-one correspondence with perfect matchings of the bipartite dual graph (for a weighted region, the matching generating functions coincide).
In [@ciuculai14], Ciucu and Lai give conditions under which the matching generating function of a bipartite graph is the product of the matching generating function of two induced subgraphs. We extend it slightly.
\[graphsplit\] Let $G=(V_1,V_2,E)$ be a bipartite graph. Assume $H$ is an induced subgraph of $G$ that satisfies the following condition:
(i) (Separating Condition) There are no edges of $G$ connecting a vertex in $V(H)\cap V_1$ and a vertex in $V(G-H)$.
(ii) $|V(H)\cap V_1|\geq|V(H)\cap V_2|$.
Then $$M(G)=M(H)M(G-H).$$
If $|V(H)\cap V_1|=|V(H)\cap V_2|$, then [@ciuculai14] provides the proof. Suppose $|V(H)\cap V_1|>|V(H)\cap V_2|$, in which case $M(H)=0.$ We must show $M(G)=0.$ By the separating condition, there is no edge in $G$ connecting a vertex in $V(H)\cap V_1$ to a vertex in $V(G-H)$. In a perfect matching of $G$, every vertex in $V(H)\cap V_1$ must then be connected to a vertex in $V(H)\cap V_2$, but there are not enough such vertices by assumption. Hence $M(G)=0.$
We say that we *cut* a graph (or region) into subgraphs (or subregions).
Although it is more general, Kuo’s graphical condensation method [@kuo] can be used to count matchings of bipartite graphs. There are several versions; the one we will use is stated below.
\[kuograph\] Let $G=(V_1,V_2,E)$ be a plane bipartite graph with $|V_1|=|V_2|+1,$ and suppose that vertices $t,u,v,\textrm{and }w$ appear cyclically on a face of $G$. If $t,u,v\in V_1$ and $w\in V_2$, then $$\begin{gathered}
M(G-u)M(G-\{t,v,w\})=\\M(G-t)M(G-\{u,v,w\})+M(G-v)M(G-\{t,u,w\}).
\end{gathered}$$
The matching generating function for $R_{a,k,j,x}$, is very closely related to the number of tilings of a hexagon with side-lengths $c,a,b,c,a,b$ with a “maximal staircase" removed. We call such a region $P_{a,b,c}$ (see Figure \[proctor\]). Here is the classical result due to Proctor [@proctor].
\[proctorthm\] For any non-negative integers $a,b,$ and $c$ with $a\leq b$, we have $$M(P_{a,b,c})=\prod_{i=1}^a \left[\prod_{j=1}^{b-a+1}\frac{c+i+j-1}{i+j-1}\prod_{j=b-a+2}^{b-a+i}\frac{2c+i+j-1}{i+j-1}\right],$$ where empty products are taken to be $1$. Further, $M(P_{b+1,b,c})=M(P_{b,b,c}).$
![The region $P_{a,b,c}$ for $a=6,b=9,\textrm{and } c=4.$[]{data-label="proctor"}](proctor.eps){height="2.5in"}
We will make use of the following corollary, in which $a=b$.
For any non-negative integers $a$ and $c$ we have $$M(P_{a,a,c})=\prod_{i=1}^{a}\frac{c+i}{2c+i}\prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq a} \frac{2c+i+j-1}{i+j-1}.$$
The family of regions $R_{a,k,j,x}$ extends the $P_{a,a,c}$ family: it is clear that $R_{a,0,j,x}=P_{a,a,x}.$
The matching generating function for $R'_{a,k,j,x}$ requires a weighted version of . For the region $P'_{a,b,c}$, each lozenge that is part of the “maximal staircase" has weight $\frac{1}{2}$, while the rest are unweighted (see Figure \[proctorweight\]).
![The region $P'_{a,b,c}$ has weighted lozenges along its west side.[]{data-label="proctorweight"}](proctorweight.eps){height="2.5in"}
In [@ck], Ciucu calculated the matching generating function of a family of regions which include these weighted Proctor regions.
For any non-negative integers $a,b,$ and $c$ with $a\leq b$, $$M(P'_{a,b,c})=\frac{M(P_{a,b,c})}{2^a}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^a\frac{2c+b-a+i}{c+b-a+i}.$$ As in the case of , $M(P'_{b+1,b,c})=M(P'_{b,b,c}).$
We end this section with two more definitions. For integers $a,k,$ and $x$ define $$Q_{a,k,x}:=\prod_{i=1}^a (x+k+i)^{f_a(i)} \prod_{i=1}^{a-1} (2x+2k+2i+1)^{f_{a-1}(i)},$$ where empty products are again taken to be $1$. We also define $$Q'_{a,k,x}:=\prod_{i=1}^a(2x+2k+2i-1)^{f_a(i)}\prod_{i=1}^{a-1}(x+k+i)^{f_{a-1}(i)}.$$
Proofs of
==========
We can rewrite as follows.
\[rakjxthm\] For $a,k,\textrm{and } x$ non-negative integers and $j\in\{k,k+1,\ldots,\\a+k+1\}$, $$M(R_{a,k,j,x})=\frac{Q_{a,k,x}}{Q_{a,k,0}}\cdot\frac{Q_{j-k-1,k,0}}{Q_{j-k-1,k,x}}\cdot M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})\cdot M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k}).$$
\[weightedrakjxthm\] For $a,k,\textrm{and } x$ non-negative integers and $j\in\{k,k+1,\ldots,\\a+k+1\}$, $$M(R'_{a,k,j,x})=\frac{Q'_{a,k,x}}{Q'_{a,k,0}}\cdot\frac{Q'_{j-k-1,k,0}}{Q'_{j-k-1,k,x}}\cdot M(P'_{j-1,j-1,x})\cdot M(P'_{a-j+k+1,a,k}).$$
We will prove ; the proof of is similar.
For $k>0$, it is clear that $j$ cannot be greater than $a+k+1$ if we are to remove $k$ triangles from the northeast side. Furthermore, if $j<k$, then implies that $M(R_{a,k,j,x})=0$, where we take the induced subgraph $H$ to be the dual graph of the region above the cut (see Figure \[graphsplitting\]).
![The region $R_{2,4,3,3}$ has no tilings.[]{data-label="graphsplitting"}](graphsplitting.eps){height="2in"}
We begin by proving for $j=k,k+1$. In these two cases, we can apply with a cut made on the south side of the boundary defect, as in Figure \[kkplus1\].
![The cuts when $j=k$ (left) or $j=k+1$ (right).[]{data-label="kkplus1"}](kkplus1.eps){height="2.5in"}
For the $j=k$ case, it is clear that $$M(R_{a,k,k,x})=M(P_{k-1,k-1,x})M(P_{a,a,x+k}).$$ Therefore, we must show that $$\label{jisk}
M(P_{k-1,k-1,x})M(P_{a,a,x+k})=
\frac{Q_{a,k,x}}{Q_{a,k,0}}\cdot\frac{Q_{-1,k,0}}{Q_{-1,k,x}}\cdot M(P_{k-1,k-1,x})\cdot M(P_{a+1,a,k}),$$ where the righthand side is obtained by plugging in $j=k$ into the claimed formula in . We first need a lemma.
\[j12\] For non-negative integers $a,k,\textrm{and } x$,
(i) $$\begin{gathered}
Q_{a+1,k,x}=Q_{a,k,x}\cdot (x+k+\lceil\tfrac{a+2}{2}\rceil)(x+k+\lceil\tfrac{a+4}{2}\rceil)\ldots (x+k+a+1)\\
\times (2x+2k+2\lfloor\tfrac{a+2}{2}\rfloor+1)(2x+2k+2\lfloor\tfrac{a+4}{2}\rfloor+1)\ldots (2x+2k+2a+1) \end{gathered}$$
(ii) $$M(P_{a+1,a+1,x})=M(P_{a,a,x})\cdot \dfrac{x+a+1}{2x+a+1}\cdot \prod_{i=1}^{a+1}\dfrac{2x+a+i}{a +i}$$
is easily verified.
We can simplify (\[jisk\]) by noting that two of the Q polynomials are taken to be 1 since their first index is negative. Further, (as well as the forcing in Figure \[kkplus1\]) shows $M(P_{a+1,a,k})=M(P_{a,a,k}).$
\[jisk2\] For non-negative integers $a,k,$ and $x$, $$M(P_{a,a,x+k})=\frac{Q_{a,k,x}}{Q_{a,k,0}}\cdot M(P_{a,a,k}).$$
We proceed by induction on $a$. The result is clear for $a=0$ as both sides are 1. Assuming it holds for $a$, we divide both sides of the claimed formula in with index $a+1$ by the same result with index $a$. Using , and multiplying the numerator and denominator on the righthand side by $2^{\lfloor \frac{a+2}{2}\rfloor}$, we have simplified the proof to showing that
$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{x+k+a+1}{2x+2x+a+1}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{a+1}\frac{2x+2k+a+i}{a+i}=\\
\frac{(2x+2k+a+2)(2x+2k+a+3)\ldots (2x+2k+2a+2)}{(2k+a+2)(2k+a+3)\ldots (2k+2a+2)}\\
\times\frac{k+a+1}{2k+a+1}\prod_{i=1}^{a+1}\frac{2k+a+i}{a+i}\end{gathered}$$
This is easily checked.
The $j=k+1$ case is nearly identical, with proving that the formula for its number of tilings using matches the claimed formula in . It is important to point that these two cases also prove for $j=1$ and $j=2$ based upon the possible values for $k$, as we will assume $j>2$ from now on.
For $j>k+1$, we apply to a region slightly different from $R_{a,k,j,x}.$ Instead of removing a run of $k$ consecutive upward-facing unit triangles starting at position $j$ from the northeast side, only remove $k-1$ such triangles from position $j+1$. Figure \[rkuo\] shows the locations of $t,u,v,\textrm{and }w,$ all on the outside face of the dual graph. Notice that $w$ is pointing downwards while $t,u,\textrm{and }v$ are pointing upwards.
![Applying Kuo condensation to determine $M(R_{a,k,j,x}),$ with $a=3,k=4,j=6,\textrm{and }x=2$.[]{data-label="rkuo"}](rkuo.eps){height="2in"}
Applying Kuo condensation to such a region gives us a recurrence involving six new regions. They are shown in Figure \[recurrencepic\]. In each subfigure, the triangles corresponding to removed vertices are labelled and any subsequently forced lozenges are shown.
![The regions obtained via Kuo condensation for $M(R_{a,k,j,x})$.[]{data-label="recurrencepic"}](recurrence.eps){height="7in"}
It is evident that $$\begin{aligned}
M(G-u) &= M(R_{a,k,j,x}),\\
M(G-\{t,v,w\}) &=M(R_{a-1,k-1,j-1,x+1}),\\
M(G-t) &=M(R_{a,k-1,j-1,x+1}),\\
M(G-\{u,v,w\}) &=M(R_{a-1,k,j,x}),\\
M(G-v) &=M(R_{a+1,k-1,j+1,x}),\textrm{ and }\\
M(G-\{t,u,w\}) &=M(R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1}).
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, it must be the case that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{recurrence}
M(R_{a,k,j,x})M(R_{a-1,k-1,j-1,x+1})=\\
M(R_{a,k-1,j-1,x+1})M(R_{a-1,k,j,x})+M(R_{a+1,k-1,j+1,x})M(R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1}).
\end{gathered}$$
At this point, we proceed by induction on $a$. We can rewrite (\[recurrence\]) as
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{recurrencerewrite}
M(R_{a+1,k-1,j+1,x})=\\
\dfrac{M(R_{a,k,j,x})M(R_{a-1,k-1,j-1,x+1})-M(R_{a,k-1,j-1,x+1})M(R_{a-1,k,j,x})}{M(R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1})},
\end{gathered}$$
so that the region on the lefthand side has southeast side-length $a+1$, while all those on the right are shorter, ranging from $a-2$ to $a$. Since $j>k+1$, $j-2$ is at least $k$ so that the $j$ index falls into the proper range. In Figure \[cantile\], we break up $R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1}$ into five regions: three parallelograms and two Proctor regions. This shows that $M(R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1})\neq 0$ since the parallelograms each have a unique tiling and proves that the other regions have tilings. If we show that the formula in satisfies (\[recurrence\]) or (\[recurrencerewrite\]) and that the formula holds for $a=0,1,2$, we will have proven the desired result.
![Breaking up $R_{a-2,k,j-2,x+1}$ in this way shows that a tiling exists.[]{data-label="cantile"}](cantile.eps){height="2in"}
We will show that (\[recurrence\]) holds for $a>2, k>0, j>2,$ and $x\geq 0.$ Substituting our claimed formula from into (\[recurrence\]) and rearranging terms, we need to show:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{pluggedinrecurrence}
\left[M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})M(P_{j-2,j-2,x+1})\right]\cdot\left[M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k})M(P_{a-j+k,a-1,k-1})\right]\\
\times\dfrac{\left[Q_{a,k,x}Q_{a-1,k-1,x+1}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k-1,k,0}Q_{j-k-1,k-1,0}\right]}{\left[Q_{a,k,0}
Q_{a-1,k-1,0}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k-1,k,x}Q_{j-k-1,k-1,x+1}\right]}\\
=\left[M(P_{j-2,j-2,x+1})M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})\right]\cdot\left[M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k-1})M(P_{a-j+k,a-1,k})\right]\\
\times \dfrac{\left[Q_{a,k-1,x+1}Q_{a-1,k,x}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k-1,k-1,0}Q_{j-k-1,k,0}\right]}{\left[Q_{a,k-1,0}Q_{a-1,k,
0}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k-1,k-1,x+1}Q_{j-k-1,k,x}\right]}\\
+\left[M(P_{j,j,x})M(P_{j-3,j-3,x+1})\right]\cdot\left[M(P_{a-j+k,a+1,k-1})M(P_{a-j+k+1,a-2,k})\right]\\
\times \dfrac{\left[Q_{a+1,k-1,x}Q_{a-2,k,x+1}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k+1,k-1,0}Q_{j-k-3,k,0}\right]}{\left[Q_{a+1,k-1,0}
Q_{a-2,k,0}\right]\cdot\left[Q_{j-k+1,k-1,x}Q_{j-k-3,k,x+1}\right]},\\
\end{gathered}$$
where $M(P_{a,b,c})$ are given by . We’ve broken up each of the three terms in this equation into six parts: two of the parts are products of matching generating functions of Proctor regions, and the other four parts are products of $Q$ polynomials. We select corresponding parts of the three terms and simplify them. Here we will show only the simplification process for two of the six parts. Combining the results together will prove (\[pluggedinrecurrence\]).
First we consider the parts which are products of matching generating functions of Proctor regions whose first two indices are equal: $$\begin{gathered}
M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})M(P_{j-2,j-2,x+1}), \textrm{ }M(P_{j-2,j-2,x+1})M(P_{j-1,j-1,x}),\\
M(P_{j,j,x})M(P_{j-3,j-3,x+1}).
\end{gathered}$$ Dividing by $M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})M(P_{j-2,j-2,x+1})$ makes the first two products both $1$. For the third, notice that $$\frac{M(P_{j,j,x})}{M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})}=\frac{(x+j)}{(2x+j)}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{j}\frac{2x+j-1+i}{j-1+i}.$$
Applying this twice and simplifying shows that $$\frac{M(P_{j,j,x})M(P_{j-3,j-3,x+1})}{M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})M(P_{j-2,j-2,x +1})}=\frac{(x+j)(2x+2j-1)}{2(2j-3)(2j-1)},$$ so that these products simplify, in order, to $$1,\textrm{ }1,\textrm{ }\frac{(x+j)(2x+2j-1)} {2(2j-3)(2j-1)}.$$
Now we simplify one of the parts consisting of $Q$ polynomials: $$Q_{a,k,x} Q_{a-1,k-1,x+1}, \textrm{ }Q_{a,k-1,x+1} Q_{a-1,k,x}, \textrm{ }Q_{a+1,k-1,x} Q_{a-2,k,x+1}.$$ Let us divide by $Q_{a,k,x} Q_{a-1,k-1,x+1}.$ The second factor is equal to the first. Further $$\dfrac{Q_{a+1,k-1,x}}{Q_{a,k,x}}=\prod_{i=1}^{\lceil\frac{a+1}{2}\rceil} (x+k+i-1)\prod_{i=1}^{\lceil\frac{a}{2}\rceil} (2x+2k+2i-1).$$ We can apply this twice and simplify to get $$1,\textrm{ } 1, \textrm{ }(x+k)(2x+2k+1).$$
Here are the results obtained when simplifying the other four parts.
- Divide each of $$\begin{gathered}
M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k})M(P_{a-j+k,a-1,k-1}),\\
\textrm{ }M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k-1})M(P_{a-j+k,a-1,k}), \\\textrm{and }M(P_{a-j+k,a +1,k-1})M(P_{a-j+k+1,a-2,k})
\end{gathered}$$ by the first product and rearrange factors. These simplify to $$\frac{(3k+2a-j-1)(3k+2a-j)}{(2k+a)(2k+a-1)}, \textrm{ }\frac{(2k+a-j)}{(k+a)},\textrm{ }\frac{(j-k-1)(j-k)}{j(j-1)}.$$
- The three products $$\begin{gathered}
Q_{j-k-1,k,0}Q_{j-k-1,k-1,0}, \textrm{ }Q_{j-k-1,k-1,0}Q_{j-k-1,k,0},\\ \textrm{and }Q_{j-k+1,k-1,0}Q_{j-k-3,k,0}
\end{gathered}$$ simplify to $$1,\textrm{ } 1,\textrm{ } (j-1)j(2j-3)(2j-1)$$ when divided by the first.
- We divide $$[Q_{a,k,0} Q_{a-1,k-1,0}]^{-1},\textrm{ } [Q_{a,k-1,0}Q_{a-1,k,0}]^{-1}, \textrm{ and }[Q_{a+1,k-1,0}Q_{a-2,k,0}]^{-1}$$ each by the middle product, and rearrange some factors. The simplification leads to $$(k+a-\lfloor\frac{a+1}{2}\rfloor)(2k+2a-2\lfloor\frac{a}{2}\rfloor-1), \textrm{ }(k+1)(2k +2a-1), \textrm{ }1.$$
- The final three products, $$\begin{gathered}
[Q_{j-k-1,k,x}Q_{j-k-1,k-1,x+1}]^{-1}, \textrm{ }[Q_{j-k-1,k-1,x+1}Q_{j-k-1,k,x}]^{-1}, \\ \textrm{and }[Q_{j-k+1,k-1,x}Q_{j- k-3,k,x+1}]^{-1}
\end{gathered}$$ can be reduced to $$1, \textrm{ } 1, \textrm{ and } \frac{1}{(x+k)(x+j)(2x+2k+1)(2x+2j-1)}$$ if we divide by the first.
Combining these results (and reducing fractions) simplifies the proof of (\[recurrence\]) to verifying that the following equation holds:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{almost}
\frac{(3k+2a-j-1)(3k+2a-j)}{(2k+a)(2k+a-1)}\cdot (k+a-\lfloor\frac{a+1}{2}\rfloor)(2k+2a-2\lfloor\frac{a}{2}\rfloor -1) \\
= \frac{(2k+a-j)}{(k+a)}\cdot(k+1)(2k+2a-1)+\frac{(j-k-1)(j-k)}{2}.
\end{gathered}$$
It is easy to see that (\[almost\]) is true, showing that the claimed formula from satisfies the recurrence implied by .
We now prove that holds for $a=0,1,2,$ assuming $k>0.$ Based upon the values that $j$ can take, we have three cases:
1. $a=1 \textrm{ and } j=k+2$,
2. $a=2 \textrm{ and } j=k+2$,
3. $a=2 \textrm{ and } j=k+3$.
In each of these three cases we need to show that the formula in holds. In cases (1) and (3) all of the Q polynomials cancel, and $M(P_{a-j+k+1,a,k})=1$ because at least one of the indices is 0. Therefore, we only need to check that the $R$ region and remaining Proctor region in the formula in have the same number of tilings. This is easily accomplished since in each case some lozenges in the $R$ region are forced, making the two regions essentially identical. Case (3) follows by Lemma 4.3(a) in [@ciucufischer13].
Finally, if $k=0$ we remove no unit triangles from the northeast side. For the region to be balanced, it must be the case that this side has length $a$, just as the southeast side does. Thus, we must have $M(R_{a,0,j,x})=M(P_{a,a,x}).$ Substituting the claimed formula from implies that we need to show
$$\label{kzero}
M(P_{a,a,x})=\frac{Q_{a,0,x}}{Q_{a,0,0}}\cdot\frac{Q_{j-1,0,0}}{Q_{j-1,0,x}}\cdot M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})\cdot M(P_{a-j+1,a,0}).$$
It is clear that $M(P_{a-j+1,a,0})=1$. Using with $k=0$ and $a=j-1$, we see that
$$M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})=\frac{Q_{j-1,0,x}}{Q_{j-1,0,0}},$$ as $M(P_{j-1,j-1,0})=1.$ This reduces (\[kzero\]) to $$M(P_{a,a,x})=\frac{Q_{a,0,x}}{Q_{a,0,0}},$$ which is proven again by with $k=0.$ The index $j$ drops out of the lefthand side of (\[kzero\]) entirely after applying to $M(P_{j-1,j-1,x})$. If we think of $M(P_{a,b,c})$ as an expression involving integers $a,b,$ and $c$, (which need not arise from a realizable region $P_{a,b,c}$), then $j$ can take any integer value when $k=0$.
The proof of is similar to that of . is applied identically - the locations of $t,u,v,\textrm{ and } w$ are the same. The resulting recurrence is the same as (\[recurrence\]), with $R$ replaced by $R'$. This only holds because none of the forced lozenges in Figure \[recurrencepic\] are any of those which are weighted by $\frac{1}{2}$ in $R'$. The processes of verifying that the recurrence and base cases hold is analogous to the work done above.
[9]{}
Mihai Ciucu. Enumeration of perfect matchings in graphs with reflexive symmetry. , 77: 67–97, 1997.
Mihai Ciucu and Ilse Fischer. Proof of two conjectures of Ciucu and Krattenthaler on the enumeration of lozenge tilings of hexagons with cut off corners. [[`arXiv:1309.4640`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4640)]{}, 2013.
Mihai Ciucu and Christian Krattenthaler. Enumeration of lozenge tilings of hexagons with cut off corners. , 100: 201–231, 2002.
Mihai Ciucu and Tri Lai. Proof of Blum’s conjecture on hexagonal dungeons. , 125: 273-305, 2014.
Eric H. Kuo. Applications of graphical condensation for enumerating matchings and tilings. , 319(1-3):29–57, 2004.
Tri Lai. Enumeration of lozenge tilings of a hexagon with three holes. [[`arXiv:1502.05780`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05780)]{}, 2015.
Percy A. MacMahon. Memoir on the Theory of Partitions of Numbers. Part V: Partitions in Two-Dimensional Space. , 211:75–110, 1912.
Robert A. Proctor. Odd symplectic groups. , 92(2):307–332, 1988.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A hydrodynamic model involving cooling gas in the stagnation region of a collimated outflow is proposed for the formation of the giant parsec-scale bipolar envelope that surrounds the planetary nebula KjPn 8. Analytical calculations and numerical simulations are presented to evaluate the model. The envelope is considered to consist mainly of environmental gas swept-up by shocks driven by an episodic, collimated, bipolar outflow. In this model, which we call the “free stagnation knot” mechanism, the swept-up ambient gas located in the stagnation region of the bow-shock cools to produce a high density knot. This knot moves along with the bow-shock. When the central outflow ceases, pressurization of the interior of the envelope stops and its expansion slows down. The stagnation knot, however, has sufficient momentum to propagate freely further along the axis, producing a distinct nose at the end of the lobe. The model is found to successfully reproduce the peculiar shape and global kinematics of the giant bipolar envelope of KjPn 8.'
author:
- 'W. Steffen'
- 'J. A. López,'
title: Jets and the shaping of the giant bipolar envelope of the planetary nebula KjPn 8
---
u\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[10\^[\#1]{}]{}
Introduction
============
The planetary nebula KjPn 8 is surrounded by an expanding giant (14[$^{\prime}$]{}$\times$ 4[$^{\prime}$]{}) bipolar envelope which so far is unique in its kind (López [[et al.]{}]{}1995). The physical dimensions of the envelope as measured along the main axis and along the latest secondary outflows have been estimated to be 4.1 $\times$ 1.2 pc, respectively, for a distance of 1 kpc, corresponding to 0.3 pc arcmin$^{-1}$ (López [[et al.]{}]{}1995). This size has to be compared with the diameter of the compact core which is only $\approx$ 4[$^{\prime\prime}$]{} across. Typical PNe have sizes of only a fraction of a parsec.
The main bipolar structure presents a tubular shape in the central region that decreases in radius in a peculiar way at increasing distance from the central source. The expansion speed of this ‘tube’ perpendicular to its main axis is $\approx 40$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} over a large angular extent and $\approx 160$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} along it (López [[et al.]{}]{}1997). In addition to its huge dimensions and peculiar morphology, the bipolar envelope of KjPn 8 presents intriguing ripples across its structure, some of which mark the locations of strongly decreasing radius, culminating in the NE lobe in a narrow nose with a bright knot at the tip. The end of the SW lobe is less well defined but follows a similar pattern.
The morphology of KjPn 8 has been interpreted as the result of the action of a bipolar, rotating episodic jet or BRET (López [[et al.]{}]{}1995). There is strong morphological and kinematical evidence that the ejection direction of the main bipolar outflow has changed with time. There is at least one additional kinematic subsystem to the main envelope which seems to be related to more recent ejections at a projected orientation of $\sim 50^\circ$ with respect to the axis of the main envelope. Observed radial velocities of symmetric emission line knots in these regions are as high as $\pm 220$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. The structure of these secondary bipolar jets suggests a large opening angle of the outflow, of up to $70^\circ$ (López [[et al.]{}]{}1995; López [[et al.]{}]{}1997). Meaburn (1997) has recently derived proper motions of individual knots at the heads of these secondary outflows which combined with a simple bow-shock model yield a distance of $1600\pm230$ pc for KjPn 8. With this new distance the angular dimensions transform into 6.5 $\times$ 1.8 pc.
Vázquez, Kingsburgh & López (1998) have obtained low resolution spectra of the core of KjPn 8 finding it to be a low excitation type I PN. The nebula seems to have been formed from a massive progenitor within a metal-rich environment, in agreement with its location right in the galactic plane. In addition, spectra of some knots and faint regions obtained in the nebular envelope indicate very low electron densities, ranging from 100 to 300cm$^{-3}$. Recently, Huggins [[et al.]{}]{}(1997) and Forveille [[et al.]{}]{}(1998) have detected the presence of a remarkable expanding molecular CO torus in the core of KjPn 8 whose plane is perpendicular to the secondary, high-velocity bipolar outflows.
In this paper we explore a mechanism which we call the “free stagnation knot” to explain the peculiar characteristics of the giant bipolar envelope of KjPn 8. In this model the shocked ambient gas in the stagnation region of the bow-shock of a supersonic jet has sufficient time to cool in the vicinity of the symmetry axis to form a dense massive knot, moving at the advance speed of the bow-shock. After the outflow shuts off, the pressure in the nebula falls and the expansion speed of the existing envelope drops. The newly formed dense knot, however, has sufficient momentum to continue its motion opening a narrow channel along the axis. Analytical calculations and time-dependent hydrodynamical simulations are presented and confronted with the existing observations.
The collimated outflow
======================
An H$\alpha$ mosaic of KjPn8 (López et al. 1995) is presented in the top panel of Figure 1, a blow-up of the north east extreme of the nebula is shown in the bottom panel of this figure.
The extended envelope of KjPn 8 requires that the density of the jet be much smaller than that of the ambient medium, a behaviour similar to that found in extragalactic jets (Norman, Smarr and Winkler, 1985). The velocities involved here are, however, only of the order of a thousand kilometers per second as compared to velocities close to the speed of light in extragalactic jets. Radiative cooling will therefore be important, mainly for the shocked ambient medium. Some aspects of jets with cooling in internal shocks have been simulated numerically by e.g. Blondin, Fryxell and Königl (1990). The creation of elongated envelopes from stellar winds propagating into an inhomogeneous ambient medium has been investigated semi-analytically by Icke (1988) for the case of the radio nebula W50 around the X-ray binary SS433. The dynamics of radiative bow-shocks of continuous adiabatic jets has been investigated by Steffen [[et al.]{}]{}(1997, and references therein). These investigations show that an adiabatic jet results in an overall elongated ellipsoidal or cylindrical shape of the envelope. Due to quasi-periodic vortex-shedding in the bow-shock region, it is common to find large-scale ripples in the envelope superimposed on smaller scale ones which are caused by instabilities. However, the overall shape always has a convex curvature. From the existing studies it is clear that the cone-like structure of the envelope in KjPn 8 cannot be produced with a continuous low-density jet without cooling of the jet itself or a drastic structural anomaly in the bow-shock region.
In order to obtain a baseline for the parameter space for our numerical model of the envelope of KjPn 8 some basic properties of the outflow are estimated assuming a continuous non-radiative jet. The optically emitting envelope of swept-up ISM gas around the cocoon of a supersonic jet propagating into a uniform medium is now considered.
The expansion speed transverse to the axis of the main envelope is $v\u{r} \approx 40$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. The envelope is somewhat asymmetric near the base (see Figure 1). Assuming axial symmetry, a radius $r\u{0}
\approx 0.4$ pc and a length of $l \approx 2$ pc for the distance from NE tip to the core is adopted. The radius for the minor axis of the envelope of 0.4 pc is found by considering the distance from the core to the filament that traces the envelope located directly south of the core , thus avoiding the deformation produced by the high-velocity jets on the envelope, where the radius would amount to 0.6 pc (López [[et al.]{}]{}1995). Considering that the transverse expansion speed has been constant over the life-time of the nebula, its age can be estimated to be $t \sim10^4$ yr. It is, however, likely to be smaller by a factor of two or so, since the expansion speed must have been higher in the initial stages of the expansion.
Using as age $t = 10^4$ yr and a propagation distance $l = 2$ pc we find that the mean advance speed of the bow-shock of the jet is $\sim
200$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. Here we have also assumed that the ejection along the main axis has stopped only recently on this time-scale (i.e. we ignored the apparent recent changes in direction of the ejection). This bow-shock speed is low enough to be in the radiative shock regime, which is consistent with the observation that the NE lobe of the nebula can be observed up to the tip of the bow-shock. The SW lobe, however, does not show a bright tip at its end, possibly indicating that the shocked ISM collected by the bow-shock has not fully cooled yet. This could imply either that the ratio between the density of the jet and ambient medium has been higher here or that the jet itself had a higher speed than in the NE half of the nebula. If the age is smaller than $10^4$ yr, as suggested above, the average advance speed would of course be higher too. As a working value for the advance speed of the outflow we shall therefore adopt $v\u{jh} \approx 400$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}.
The observations suggest that there is variability in the direction of the outflow. Furthermore, the zonal structure of the nebula along the symmetry axis suggests a possible intermittence of the ejection. Note, however, that a similar structure can be produced by vortex-shedding in the bow-shock region or instabilities in the thin shell (e.g. Steffen [[et al.]{}]{}1997).
The detection of the thin envelope near the end of the nebula requires that the mean advance speed of the jet be of the order of a few hundred kilometres per second. It also follows that the true advance speed of the active outflow has to be relatively moderate, about 1000 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}, otherwise the cooling time would be too large to make it observable in [H$\alpha$]{} within the lifetime of the nebula. For instance, at an ambient density of 100 [[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{} and a bow-shock velocity of 1000 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} the cooling time in the stagnation region would be around 40000 yr and for lower densities proportionally higher. Thus, the advance speed has to be considerably less than 1000 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. If the mean advance speed is of the order of 200 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} the outflow cannot have been switched off for a time significantly longer than the time it was on during the duty cycle. Otherwise the true advance speed would have to be too large to provide the observed mean speed with a cooling time short enough for the formation of the cool envelope. The cooling time increases with a high power ($>$3) of the shock velocity, whereas the mean advance speed is roughly proportional to the ratio between the time that the jet is switched on and the full duty-cycle. For the overall dynamics and energetics the possible intermittence will have no large effect on our estimates, therefore we assume a continuous outflow for the global estimates of the nebula. Simulations show, however, that intermittence can have some influence on the overall shape of the envelope. From the segmented structure of the envelope on a scale of roughly 0.5 pc for each segment and an estimated bow-shock advance speed of $\approx$ 400 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}, the duty cycle is around $4\ee{10}$ seconds.
For our estimates of the physical properties of the envelope and the jet we assume a conical shape of the nebula and use the dimensions of the NE lobe. First we estimate the density of the undisturbed medium into which the nebula expands. We use the measured expansion velocity of $v\u{r}=40$[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}, typical mass-loss rates $\dot{M\u{j}}$ between $10^{-8}$ and $10^{-6}~{M_\odot}\r{yr}^{-1}$ (Hutsemékers & Surdej 1989) and wind/jet velocity in the range $1000-3000$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}.
If the kinetic energy of the jet is largely used to accelerate the mass $M$ of the ambient medium into the thin envelope , then we can assume conservation of kinetic energy, i.e. $$\frac{1}{2} \dot{M\u{j}} v\u{j}^2 t = \frac{1}{2} M v\u{r}^2.$$ We assume that the envelope is expanding at a velocity of $v\u{r}=40$[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} over the life-time $t$ of the nebula. This yields the mass of the swept-up ambient medium in the form $$\begin{aligned}
M &=& \dot{M\u{j}} t v\u{j}^2 v\u{r}^{-2} \\
&=& 0.6{M_\odot}\frac{\dot{M\u{j}}}{10^{-7} {M_\odot}~ \r{yr}^{-1}}
\frac{t}{10^4 ~ \r{yr}} \nonumber \\
&& \cdot \left(\frac{v\u{j}}{1000 ~ \r{km~s^{-1}}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{v\u{r}}{40~\r{km~s^{-1}}}\right)^{-2}. \end{aligned}$$ For simplicity we assume a conical outline of the nebula and a uniform ambient medium of number density $n$, which is then calculated from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mass.eq}
n &=& \frac{3}{\pi} \frac{M}{m_\r{p}} l^{-1} r\u{0}^{-2} \\
&=& 80~\r{cm}^{-3} \left(\frac{M}{0.6{M_\odot}}\right)
\left(\frac{l}{2~\r{pc}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{r\u{0}}{0.4~\r{pc}}\right)^{-2},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $m_\r{p}$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom (we assume a pure hydrogen nebula). Since $M$ is the mass of only one side of the envelope, complete envelope will have a mass of roughly $2M$. Via the size scale the density $n$ is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance of KjPn 8. Using the distance of 1600 pc as determined by Meaburn (1997), the density of the ambient would be 330[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}. Since the cooling time are inversely proportional to the density, an accurate determination of the distance to KjPn 8 is important for our model.
The number density $n\u{j}$ of the collimated jet can then be estimated from the ratio $\zeta$ between the jet velocity $v\u{j}$ and the bow-shock speed $v\u{jh}$. From ram-pressure balance at the working surface of a supersonic jet, we have $$\label{nj.eq}
n\u{j} = n (\zeta - 1)^{-2} .$$ For a typical range of wind/jet velocities given above and the roughly estimated advance speed $v\u{jh}=400$[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}, $\zeta$ is in the range 2.5-7.5. This translates into a jet density between about 2 and 35 [[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{} for $n=80$[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}.
The radius of the jet after collimation is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jetrad.eq}
r\u{j} &=& \left(\frac{1}{\pi \r{m_p}} \dot{M}
n\u{j}^{-1} v\u{j}^{-1}\right)^{1/2} \\
&=& 3.5\ee{16}~\r{cm}~
\left(\frac{\dot{M{_{\rm j}}}}{10^{-7}~{M_\odot}\r{yr}^{-1}} \right)^{1/2}
\nonumber \\
&& \left(\frac{n\u{j}}{10~\r{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{v\u{j}}{1000~\r{km~s^{-1}}}\right)^{-1/2} .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Using the range of mass loss, jet velocity and densities estimated above, the radius of the jet after collimation is within approximately one order of magnitude of $3.5\ee{16}~\r{cm}$. This radius is similar to that of the CO molecular ring found by Huggins [[et al.]{}]{}(1997) and Forveille [[et al.]{}]{}(1998). The axis of the ring is aligned with the most recent high velocity jets. The possible relation of this toroid with a similar structure related to the origin of the bipolar large envelope is at present uncertain. However, it is interesting to note that this peculiar situation is not unique among PNe. Another example is found in the multipolar PN NGC 2440 (López et al. 1998) where HST images also reveal a toroidal structure at its core. The plane of this ring is not orthogonal to the axis of the main bipolar structure either. This is a problem in PN evolution that has not been addressed yet in any detail and clearly deserves further investigation. For this analysis we shall simply assume, without further consequences for the models, that a high density equatorial ring has been related to the collimation of the outflow, in a process similar to the one described by Mellema & Frank (1997).
For the formation of an extended envelope from a low-density jet a Mach number $\r{M}>5$ is required (Norman, Smarr and Winkler 1985). A Mach number $\r{M}=10$ yields a temperature of the jet given by $$\begin{aligned}
T\u{j} &=& \frac{\bar{m}}{\gamma k}\frac{v\u{j}^2}{\r{M}^2} \\
&=& 3.6\times10^{5}\r{K} \left(\frac{\r{M}}{10}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{v\u{j}}{1000~\r{km~s^{-1}}}\right)^{2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\gamma=5/3$ and $\bar{m}$ is the mean molecular weight and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant (we assume $\bar{m}=0.5{\r{m_p}}$, ${\r{m_p}}$ is the proton mass). For jet velocities of up to 3000[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} and a Mach number fixed at $\r{M}=10$, this yields a jet temperature of up to a few times $10^6$ K.
A jet of this temperature and velocity is capable of producing a significant amount of thermal X-ray radiation. The highest intensity can be expected to emerge from the hot shocked jet gas in the stagnation region of the active jet. Diffuse emission should be found in the large volume of the still hot cocoon region. The emissivity $\epsilon\u{x}$ from bremsstrahlung can be calculated from (Cox and Tucker, 1969) $$\epsilon\u{x} = 2.3\ee{-27} \left(\frac{n}{1{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{T}{1\rm{K}}\right)^{1/2},
\label{xray.eq}$$ where $T$ and $n$ are the temperature and number density of the emitting gas, respectively. At a pre-shock velocity of 3000[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} the post-shock temperature will be $10^8$K. For an order of magnitude estimate of the expected X-ray emission in the stagnation region let’s assume $n=4n{_{\rm j}}=40$[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{} and an emitting volume $V=4\pi r{_{\rm j}}^3/3 =
4\ee{51}\r{cm}^{-3}$ ($r{_{\rm j}}=1\ee{17}\r{cm}$). This yields a total luminosity $L\u{x}=1.5\ee{32}
\r{erg ~sec}^{-1}$. At a distance of 1 kpc this corresponds to an integrated flux of $1.3\ee{-12} \r{erg ~sec}^{-1}\r{cm}^{-2}$ which would be within reach of the AXAF space telescope. Obviously, X-ray observations of KjPn 8 will be an important test of some aspects of our jet model.
Summary of estimated parameters
-------------------------------
The estimated parameters for the envelope of KjPn 8 and the outflow, which has produced it, are: $$\begin{aligned}
t &\approx& 10^{4}~\r{yr} \nonumber\\
n &\approx& 80~\r{cm}^{-3} \nonumber\\
M &\approx& 0.6~{M_\odot}\nonumber\\
n\u{j} &\approx& 2~-~35~\r{cm}^{-3} \nonumber\\
r\u{j} &\approx& 3.5\ee{15-17}~{\rm cm} \nonumber\\
v\u{j} &\approx& 1000-3000~\r{km~s}^{-1} \nonumber\\
v\u{jh}&\approx& 400~\r{km~s}^{-1} \nonumber\\
T\u{j} &\sim & 10^6 K \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The parameters are not all independent from each other. For instance, the advance speed $v\u{jh}$ of the bow-shock has been estimated from the expansion speed of the envelope and its size (the latter in turn depends on the distance). Keeping the advance speed fixed, while changing the ambient density requires a corresponding change of the jet density or velocity. These changes of the jet parameters have strong implications for the cooling of the jet and thereby on the local radii of the jet and the envelope.
The free stagnation knot model
==============================
We now consider the required time-scales for the formation of the stagnation knot and estimate its basic properties like density and size. A schematic illustration of this mechanism is presented in Figure 2. The top diagram shows the out-flowing jet with the extended expanding envelope of shocked ambient gas. In the stagnation region a dense knot has formed from cooling shocked interstellar gas and propagates along with the bow-shock. After the outflow ceases (bottom) the pressure inside the envelope decreases and becomes more uniform. During this stage the stagnation knot continues to move along the axis and forms a narrow nose to the wide envelope.
For the formation of a dense knot in the stagnation region of the bow-shock, the cooling time of the shocked ambient medium in this region has to be smaller than the age of the outflow.
Taking the average advance speed $v\u{jh}$ of the jet head as the shock speed, the post-shock cooling time in the stagnation region is $$\label{cooltime.eq}
t\u{cl} = 2450~\r{yr} \left(\frac{n}{80~\r{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{v\u{jh}}{400~\r{km s}^{-1}}\right)^{3.26}.$$ Here we have used a cooling function of the form (e.g. Blondin, Fryxell and Königl) $$\label{fcool.eq}
\Lambda (T) = \Lambda_0 T^\alpha$$ with $\Lambda_0 = 1.05 \cdot 10^{-18} {\rm erg\,s}^{-1}$[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{} and $\alpha=-0.63$ at $T > 1.5 \cdot 10^5$K. These values closely describe the cooling in the corresponding temperature regime in the numerical code used for our simulations. The temperature $T$ immediately behind the shock is given by $$\label{shocktemp.eq}
T = \frac{3}{16} \frac{\bar{m}}{k} v\u{jh}^2.$$
The outflow must have lasted and kept its direction for a period longer than this value. Otherwise the gas in the stagnation region might not cool before flowing off into the cocoon. The cooling time $t\u{cl}$ thereby represents a lower limit to the duty cycle of any intermittence of the outflow. The value is however rather uncertain, due to the strong dependence on the advance speed of the bow-shock $v\u{jh}$, which is not well known for KjPn 8. A higher ambient density $n$ would make the process more efficient, reducing the cooling time proportionally. Even within the uncertainty of a factor of two for the bow-shock speed, the stagnation knot should be formed quite early within the estimated age of the nebula ($t<10^4$ yr).
As long as the knot does not brake up and is highly supersonic (as is the case here) it is “free” to continue its motion through the ambient medium until it has swept up roughly as much mass as its own. The distance $d$ which it will reach by then is $$\label{stopknot.eq}
d = \frac{4 n\u{k0}}{3n} r\u{k0},$$ where $n\u{k0}$ and $r\u{k0}$ are the number density and the spherical radius of the knot, respectively. The density is estimated by assuming that the knot is in pressure equilibrium with the surrounding medium in the stagnation region, which has roughly the same thermal pressure as the ram pressure of the jet. For the final temperature of the knot it appears reasonable to assume roughly $T=10^4$ K. The number density of the knot is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{knotdensity.eq}
n\u{k0} &=& n{_{\rm j}}\frac{\bar{m} v{_{\rm j}}^2}{kT} \\
&=& 6\ee{4}~\r{cm}^{-3} \frac{n{_{\rm j}}}{10\r{cm}^{-3}}
\left(\frac{T}{10^4~\r{K}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{v{_{\rm j}}}{1000~\r{km~s}^{-1}}\right)^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{m}$ is the mean atomic mass (assumed to be half a hydrogen atom to account for ionization) and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. Using the values estimated in Section 2 the density in the knot is $n\u{k0} = 4.1\ee{5}$ [[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}. We find an upper limit for its radius by assuming that only ambient gas can cool which is located within a jet radius $r{_{\rm j}}$ of the axis. Any gas further away from the axis will flow into the cocoon. For a knot that has been compressed to the density $n\u{k0}$ it is then found that the spherical radius $r\u{k0}$ is given by $$\label{knotradius.eq}
\pi r{_{\rm j}}^2 v\u{jh} t n > \frac{4\pi}{3} r\u{k0}^3 n\u{k0},$$ where $v\u{jh}$ is the advance speed of the bow-shock and $t$ is the age of the source at the time when the cooling in the stagnation region becomes significant. Using Equation \[nj.eq\] in the approximation of a light jet ($\zeta\gg 1$) and combining it with Equations \[knotdensity.eq\] and \[knotradius.eq\], the upper limit for the radius of the knot is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{knotradlim.eq}
r\u{k0} &<& \left(\frac{3}{4} r{_{\rm j}}^2 \frac{t}{v\u{jh}}
\frac{kT}{m}\right)^\frac{1}{3} \\
&=& 4.6\ee{16}~\r{cm} \cdot \nonumber \\
&& \left[\left(\frac{r{_{\rm j}}}{10^{17}\r{cm}}\right)^2
\frac{t}{10^4~\r{yr}}
\frac{T}{10^4~\r{K}}
\left(\frac{v\u{jh}}{400~\r{km~s}^{-1}}\right)^{-1}
\right]^\frac{1}{3}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Applying the estimates for $n\u{k0}$ and $r\u{k0}$ to Equation \[stopknot.eq\] we find $d{_{\rm s}}=4.6\ee{19}$ cm $=15$ pc, which is interpreted as an upper limit to the distance the stagnation knot can travel. A lower limit for this distance can be estimated by considering the expansion of the knot. As long as the outflow is active, the stagnation knot will be confined by the pressure in the bow-shock region and advance at the bow-shock speed. Once the outflow ceases the pressure will fall, allowing the stagnation knot to increase its radius roughly with its internal sound speed $c\u{s}$. The sound crossing time corresponding to $r\u{k0}=4.6\ee{16}~\r{cm}$ is $t\u{s}=3.8\ee{10}$ s. If the knot moves at $v\u{jh}=400$[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}, then it will travel a distance $d{_{\rm s}}=
1.2\ee{18}$ cm $\approx 0.4$ pc in this time. Assuming that the knot can survive a few times the sound crossing time before it fully disintegrates and stops, then the knot can travel for a distance of the order of 1 parsec (for the typical parameters used in Equation \[knotradlim.eq\]). These values are consistent with the observed distance of 2 parsec between the central source and the tip of the envelope of KjPn 8.
Numerical simulations
=====================
The numerical simulations have been carried out with the adaptive grid hydrodynamic code described by Raga (1994) in axisymmetric and slab-symmetric mode. This code solves the equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation using a flux-vector-splitting scheme (van Leer 1982). The computations were carried out on a 5-level, binary adaptive grid. The maximum grid size was 1025$\times$513 and 513$\times$513 cells in the case of axial and plane symmetries, respectively. The non-equilibrium cooling as described in Biro, Raga and Cantó (1995) has been used. For low temperatures, energy loss from the collisional excitation of \[O I\] and \[O II\] lines and radiative recombination of H have been taken into account. At temperatures higher than $5\ee{4}$K, a parameterised coronal equilibrium cooling rate is used. The collisional ionization of H and excitation of Lyman-alpha are also included in the cooling. The boundary conditions were reflective on the axis and on the left side of the computational domain (except for the inflow condition where the jet is injected). For the top, bottom (in plane symmetry) and right boundaries outflow conditions were applied. The jet is injected with uniform velocity and density over its radius. The [H$\alpha$]{} emissivity has been calculated using radiative recombination (Case B) and collisional excitation following Aller (1984).
The slab-symmetric simulation presented in the next section is used to illustrate the qualitative details of the formation of the stagnation knot while excluding possible singular numerical effects on the axis of the axisymmetric computation. Parameters of the slab-symmetric simulation have been chosen for clarity of illustration of the mechanism of the formation of the stagnation knot, rather than for comparison with KjPn8. For a more detailed comparison with the observations of KjPn8, we use an axisymmetric model, since it provides a more realistic calculation of the off-axis kinematics and the emission of the envelope, as well as for the compression and kinematics of the free stagnation knot.
Results and discussion
----------------------
A series of simulations was performed in which we investigated the effects of varying the densities of the jet and the ISM ($n{_{\rm j}}=0.1-20$[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}; $n\u{ISM}=1-150$[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}), the jet velocity ($v{_{\rm j}}=500-4000$ [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}), its initial radius ($r{_{\rm j}}=0.5-3\ee{17}\r{cm}$), the jet half opening-angle ($0-25^\circ$) and the grid resolution (up to 1025$\times$513 grid points at the lowest level of the adaptive grid). As a final step we studied the effect of jet pulsation on the set of parameters that appeared to fit best the characteristics of KjPn 8. To ensure sufficient resolution over the jet radius, radii smaller than $0.5\ee{17}\r{cm}$ were not investigated.
The tests on the grid showed that at the highest resolution only the quantitative details of the simulations were still somewhat dependent on the resolution, especially those relevant to the cooling of the jet and the stagnation knot. Also, the detailed structure of the instabilities in the cocoon envelope slightly changed with resolution at early times, while it was still confined by the over-pressured cocoon. Increasing the resolution above the 1025$\times$513 used in the simulations shown in this paper would have led to prohibitively high computing times.
The intermittence of the jet on a time-scale of around 1000 yr adds to the quasi-conical shape of the nebula as opposed to a more cylindrical shape obtained for a continuous ejection of the same jet. However, it is not clear from the simulations what exactly determines how the intermittence changes the shape. Relevant quantities could be the on/off ratio or the ratio between the times of the duty-cycle and the quasi-periodic vortex shedding near the head of the jet. The intermittence also emphasizes the division of the envelope into a few sections of different radii separated by rings of higher emissivity. In Section 2 we used this to estimate the duty-cycle of the episodic jet.
In the following, we describe representative simulations with very different jet parameters which all show the formation of the stagnation knot. These include one slab-symmetric run for a detailed demonstration of the formation process. The other two simulations are performed using cylindrical symmetry, one with a fully collimated jet and the other with a large opening angle. The parameters of these runs are listed in Table 1.
\[runs.tab\]
------------------- --------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------
COLLIMATED UNCOLLIMATED SLAB
1/2 opening angle $\theta$ 0 25 5
jet radius $r{_{\rm j}}$ 0.1 0.15 0.075
jet velocity $v{_{\rm j}}$ 3000 4000 1100
jet density $n{_{\rm j}}$ 3 1.25 30
jet temperature $T{_{\rm j}}$ $2\ee{6}$ $2\ee{6}$ $2\ee{5}$
mass loss rate $\dot{M}{_{\rm j}}$ $7.4\ee{-7}$ $7.4\ee{-7}$ $7.7\ee{-7}$
ISM density $n $ 100 25 80
ISM temperature $T $ $10^4$ $10^4$ $10^4$
domain of simul. $12\times1.5$ $10 \times 5$ $3\times1.5$
on/off times 0.3/0.1 —- —-
cut-off time 1.2 3.2 —-
------------------- --------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------
: The parameters of the representative runs showing the stagnation knot with a fully collimated jet, an outflow with a large opening-angle of 25$^\circ$ and a slab-symmetric run with a small opening-angle. Lengths are given in units of $10^{18}$cm and times are in units of $10^{11}$sec. Number densities are given in units of 1[[ cm]{}$^{-3}$]{}, velocities in [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}and temperatures in Kelvin. The mass loss rate is given in solar masses per year.
Figure 3 shows several stages of the formation of the stagnation knot during the slab-symmetric run. The images are grey-scale representations of the density (Fig. 3, Panels a,b and d) and pressure (Figure 3, Panel c) with velocity arrows superimposed. Panels b and c of Figure 3 are density and pressure representations for the same time during the simulation. Only the bow-shock section from the larger full domain of the calculation is shown. Note that the velocity vectors are shown in the reference frame moving along with the bow-shock at speed $v\u{jh}$ as calculated from ram-pressure balance (equivalent to Eq. \[nj.eq\]), i.e. $$\label{vjh.eq}
v\u{jh} = \frac{v{_{\rm j}}}{1+\sqrt{\frac{n}{n{_{\rm j}}}}}.$$ This changes the velocity vectors in the stagnation region to zero length. The validity of this condition can be appreciated in Figure 3, Panel a, where the velocity vectors in the stagnation region effectively have zero-length. Transforming the velocities to this system makes it easier to note the changes imposed by the cooling of the stagnation region. For clarity, vectors corresponding to velocities higher than 300[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} in this frame have been omitted. The longest velocity vectors in the immediate post-shock region of the bow-shock correspond to 0.25$v\u{jh}$ which is approximately 100[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. Initially, the post-shock region of the ISM is roughly uniform in density (t=700 yr, Fig. 3, Panel a). All the velocity vectors point along or diverge from the axis of the jet. At t=1200 yr the regions of highest density begin to cool noticeably and after 60 more years a significant increase in density and a decrease in pressure is seen (Panels b and c, respectively).
The reduction in pressure in the stagnation region causes a dramatic change in the structure of the bow-shock, shaping it concave instead of convex near the axis (Fig. 3, Panel d). In the concave region the swept-up ISM is now refracted towards the stagnation region thereby feeding the newly formed cold knot with fresh material. As can be seen from the short vectors associated with the cold knot, its velocity is very well reproduced by Equation \[vjh.eq\]. Given the reduced pressure, material is being accelerated towards the cold dense plug. This is best seen in Figure 3, Panel d, where both shocked gas from the jet and the ISM converge towards the stagnation knot from both sides. This is indicated by the presence of velocities of the order 100 [${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} in the frame of the stagnation region (as defined by Equation \[vjh.eq\]).
The process observed here is similar to the formation of a nose cone in the case of a jet which is denser than the ambient medium. In that case the condensing material is from the jet which is refracted towards the axis in a concave jet-shock (Raga, Cantó & Cabrit 1998). Note that shortly after cooling the stagnation knot already shows signs of instability and fragmentation, which is important for its future development after the jet ceases and the condensation is set free. As discussed before, the compactness and therefore the degree of fragmentation strongly determines the distance the free stagnation knot can travel.
The formation of a stagnation knot in the axisymmetric run can be observed in Figure 4. The condensation moves outwards at the bow-shock speed, remaining at the boundary of the large-scale nebula. In this simulation the dense knot started to grow after approximately 1250 yr. Despite of the very different jet parameters, the cooling time is similar to the one found in the slab-symmetric simulation, since the advance speed of the bow-shock is approximately the same in both cases. The stagnation knot remains confined until the jet is switched off (at $t=3470$ yr, after a period of intermittence with a duty-cycle of $t=1260$ yr). After this time the knot starts to expand as the pressure in the cocoon drops (Figure 5). The high momentum keeps the knot propagating freely into the ambient medium at the original speed of the bow-shock for some time. Consequently, it starts to speed ahead of the original wide bow-shock, ploughing a narrow channel or ‘nose’ into the ISM. At the same time it increases its radius and flattens into a pancake-shaped slab. Instabilities cause it to form ripples which develop into individual smaller knots, resulting in a break-up of the original stagnation knot. The advance speed of the knot clearly decreases and an extrapolation shows that it would stop after traveling a distance of at most 1.5 pc from the point at which the jet was switched off ($\approx$ 2.5 pc from the source). This value is in good agreement with the estimates in Section 4 and with the position of the observed end of the nebula in KjPn 8.
Figure 6 shows the time evolution of the [H$\alpha$]{} emission from the simulated nebula from $t=2840-9150$ yr as seen from a viewing angle almost perpendicular to the axis. It shows how the stagnation knot is compact at the beginning and then becomes diffuse as the pressure is not maintained by the jet anymore. In the last image the shape of the whole nebula is very similar to the envelope around KjPn 8 (Figure 1). The stagnation knot appears as a flat tip of the narrow nose very much like the observed one. Especially the north eastern lobe of the nebula is very well reproduced by the simulation, with the bright tip at the end associated with the stagnation knot. The surface brightness of the inner bulge of the nebula is higher than in the sections were the axial radius drops markedly. This is also found in the simulation, together with a good reproduction of the ripples caused by instabilities and intermittence of the jet.
After the jet injection ceases the pressure in the cocoon slowly decreases and the expansion of the envelope near the base slows down rather quickly below 50[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. In Figure 7 the position-velocity (pv) diagrams of the H$\alpha$ emissivity are shown (top and right panels). They correspond to the final stage of the time-series in Figure 6. In these diagrams position runs along the white dotted line, which also marks the location of zero expansion velocity. Positions in the pv-diagrams project directly onto the H$\alpha$ image, also shown (lower left). The diagrams represent thin slices through the cylindrical simulation. The “slit” in the top diagram runs along the axis, while the other runs perpendicular to the axis (but looking along it). Only one of the two symmetric sections in the cut through the cylindrical envelope have been shown (exactly as represented by the H$\alpha$ image).
The expansion velocities at a time around 6000 yrs - corresponding to the fifth panel from the top in Figure 6 - are consistent with those measured for KjPn 8. After that, they fall below the observed value of 40[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{} to approximately 25[${\rm\ km\ s}^{-1}$]{}. In the top pv-diagram of Figure 7 the velocity pattern drastically changes at the position where the inner wide envelope ends and the nose caused by the stagnation knot starts. This kinematic signature could be used as a further test performing spectral observations aiming at mapping the velocity field in the the corresponding area of KjPn 8. The currently available observations do not cover this area suitably.
The formation of the stagnation knot may be favoured by the axi-symmetric nature of the simulations. In this symmetry no change in direction of the outflow is allowed by possible jet-instabilities or deflections due to pressure variations in the cocoon. Changes of the flow direction would allow the gas in the stagnation region to flow off into the cocoon. The formation of the stagnation knot is therefore most likely to occur before the first internal reflection shock of the jet forms if the cooling time in the stagnation region is sufficiently short. In fact, even if the bow-shock speed was small enough, in none of the simulations performed a stagnation formed if a reflection shock was present before the stagnation region had time to cool. Instead, the whole bow-shock region would cool, producing a thin shell rather than a substantial axial knot. We attribute this to the shape of the bow-shock, which does not become concave, even after the cooling starts. The reason for this may be that, after the reflection shock, the radial momentum distribution in the jet peaks on the axis. This prevents the formation of a concave working surface.
If the outflow has a substantial opening angle, it is less sensitive to instabilities which temporarily could change its flow direction. In Figure 8 we present a simulation with an outflow which is poorly collimated and does not recollimate. Here the working surface and the stagnation region are larger compared to more collimated jets, resulting in a longer time available for cooling. Bow-shock velocities of flows with high opening angles decrease with increasing size of the shocked region, resulting in smaller cooling times for the shocked ISM. This further favours the formation of a stagnation knot. However, the knot has to form in the early stages of expansion before the bow-shock becomes fully radiative, otherwise only a thin convex shell is formed. Thus, a large finite opening-angle has interesting effects as it can improve the conditions for the formation of a stagnation knot if the jet does not recollimate. This occurs from a half-angle of approximately $20^\circ$ on (Falle 1991, Peter & Eichler 1995). In such a case the shape of the envelope adopts a rather “boxy”structure when viewed from an angle perpendicular to the cylindrical axis (see Figure 8). This structure is similar to those found in some proto-planetary nebulae on a smaller scale, which so far have lacked a natural explanation (Bryce [[et al.]{}]{}1997). Although in the present paper this is not explored further, a similar model might apply to these “boxy” PNe.
The extraordinary nature of the planetary nebula KjPn 8 appears to be linked to its environment. The quantitative conclusions from our model depend on the density of the ISM right before the formation of the nebula. Density variation over the size-scale of the envelope may be responsible for some of the asymmetries found in the giant envelope. For instance, the absence of a bright tip at the end of the SE arm could be related to a strong decrease in density. Sensitive searches of PNe embedded in diffuse clouds in the galactic plane might turn out more similar cases of wind/environment interactions.
Although the main focus of this work has been on the dynamical modeling of the giant envelope of KjPn 8, it is nevertheless of interest to add a note on the possible nature of the progenitor of KjPn 8. The nebula is outstanding among PNe and as such an uncommon origin may be expected. One clue may lie in the ionic abundances of the nebular core derived by Vázquez, Kingsburgh & López (1998). These authors find that KjPn 8 is an extreme type I PN with remarkably high ratios of He/H and Ne/O and similar to those found in He 2-111, another giant bipolar PN with high expansion velocities (Meaburn & Walsh 1989). PNe of type I are produced by massive progenitors and are generally bipolars (Peimbert & Torres-Peimbert 1983; Corradi & Schwarz 1995). Furthermore, Yungelson, Tutukov & Livio (1993) have discussed the type of binary systems that may lead to He rich PN envelopes which also involve massive progenitors that produce CO or ONe white dwarf nuclei. Coalescence of the binary nucleus during the AGB stage and more than one common envelope event and envelope ejection are possible paths in their analysis.
PNe are formed from stars with ZAMS masses $0.8 \lesssim M/M_{\odot}$ $\lesssim 10$, however, most PNe show remnant cores of $\sim 0.6$ M$_{\odot}$, corresponding to progenitors of around 2 - 3 M$_{\odot}$. PNe with high-mass progenitors form spectacular and complex envelopes such as NGC 2440 and NGC 6302; these are bipolar type I PNe with core masses estimated around 0.8 - 0.9 M$_{\odot}$ and must have originated from progenitors of $\sim$ 6 - 7 M$_{\odot}$ (e.g. Pottasch 1983).
Thus, with these considerations, a reasonable possibility, although at this stage necessarily speculative, is to consider that objects like KjPn 8 and He 2-111 may have their origin in extremely massive progenitors, those located in the high-mass tail of the distribution of objects that produce PNe. This type of objects can be expected to be rare for in addition to the intrinsic lower number of available progenitors, their evolution as PNe would be very fast across the H-R diagram.
One further point that is worth mentioning is the presence of the high-velocity jets in KjPn 8 oriented at a substantially different position angle from the main symmetry axis of the main bipolar envelope. This secondary and younger jet system could in principle be interpreted as the result of some sort of rotation of the symmetry axis, as has been done in the case of Fleming 1 (López, Meaburn & Palmer 1993) and numerically simulated by Cliffe et al. (1995). However, as discussed in Section 2 of this paper, the recent discovery of an expanding molecular ring or toroid whose plane is perpendicular to the high-velocity jets and consequently far off-axis from the main bipolar envelope (Forveille et al. 1998), represents now a severe obstacle for that interpretation. The analogous case of NGC 2440 has also been mentioned. In these cases it becomes interesting to consider the possibility of a recurrent envelope ejection after either coalescence of a binary nucleus, additional common envelope event, thermal flash or fast evolution of a secondary component. The resultant symmetry axis of the bipolar outflow and presumably the associated dense toroidal shells may have a different orientation in this occasion due to the dynamical perturbations occurring in the core. Within this picture, the cases where secondary jet systems are related to toroidal structures - which in turn are tilted with respect to the original bipolar envelopes - may possibly be understood. Otherwise the confronting elements are difficult to reconcile within our present limited understanding of PN formation and evolution.
Conclusions
===========
A hydrodynamical model for the formation and evolution of the peculiar, giant, bipolar envelope of the planetary nebula KjPn 8 has been investigated in analytical and numerical form. In this model a dense knot is formed from the shocked interstellar medium in the stagnation region of a supersonic episodic jet if the cooling time is smaller than the dynamical time needed for the shocked ISM to flow off into the cocoon of the jet. During the quiescent phase the knot conserves enough momentum and continues propagating freely, producing a distinct nose and a bright tip at the end of the lobe. From the analytical and numerical calculations it is concluded that the free stagnation knot model successfully reproduces the peculiar shape and kinematics of the giant envelope of the extraordinary planetary nebula KjPn 8.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Alejandro Raga for permission to use and modify his hydrodynamic code CORAL and Jose Luis Gómez for providing the software for the volumetric rendering of the axisymmetric emissivity data of the simulations. WS acknowledges the receipt of a PPARC research associateship and travel support from UNAM-DGAPA grant IN11896 for a visit to the IAUNAM-Ensenada during which part of this research was done. JAL acknowledges financial support from UNAM-DGAPA projects IN11896 and 101495. The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with J. Meaburn, M. Bryce and G. García-Segura. We thank the referee, Adam Frank, of stimulating suggestions that improved the presentation of this work.
Aller L., 1984, Physics of Thermal Gaseous Nebulae. Reidel, Dordrecht, p76 Biro S., Raga A.C., Cantó J., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 557 Blondin J.M, Fryxell B.A., Königl A., 1990, ApJ, 360, 370 Bryce M., Pedlar A., Muxlow T., Thomasson P., Mellema G., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 81 Cliffe J.A., Frank A., Livio M., Jones T.W., 1995, ApJ, 447, L49 Corradi R.L.M., Schwarz H.E., 1995, A&A, 293, 871 Cox D.P., Tucker W.H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1157 Peter W., Eichler D., 1995, ApJ, 438, 244 Falle S.A.E.G., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 581 Forveille T., Huggins P.J., Bachiller R., Cox P., 1998, ApJ, 495, L111 Huggins P.J., Forveille T., Bachiller R., Cox P., 1997, AAS, 191, 1504 Hutsemékers D., Surdej J., 1989, A&A, 219, 237 Icke V., 1988, A&A, 202, 177 López J.A., Meaburn J., Palmer J.R., 1993, ApJ, 415, L135 López J.A., Vázquez R., Rodríguez L.F., 1995, ApJ, 455, L63 López J.A., Meaburn J., Bryce M., Rodríguez L.F., 1997, ApJ, 475, 705 López J.A., Meaburn J., Bryce M., Holloway A.J., 1998, ApJ, 493, 803 Meaburn J., Walsh J.R., 1989, A&A, 223, 277 Meaburn J., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 11 Mellema G., Frank A., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 795 Norman M.L., Smarr L., Winkler K.-H. A., 1985, in [*Numerical Astrophysics*]{}, Centrella J., LeBlanc J., Bowers R., Wilson J.R., eds, Jones and Bartlett Publisher, p88 Peimbert M., Torres-Peimbert S., 1983, in IAU Symp. 103, Planetary Nebulae, ed. R.D. Flower (Dordrecht;Reidel), p 233 Pottasch S.R., 1983, Planetary Nebulae, ASSL vol. 107, Reidel Raga, A.C., 1994, in [*Stellar and Circumstellar Astrophysics*]{}, eds. G. Wallenstein and A. Noriega-Crespo, PASP Conf. Proc., 57, 85 Raga A.C., Cantó J., Cabrit S., 1998, A&A, 332, 714 Steffen W., Gómez J.L., Williams R.J.R., Raga A.C., Pedlar A., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 1032 van Leer, B., 1982, [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{}, 170, 507 Vázquez R., Kingsburgh R.L., López J.A., 1998, MNRAS, 296, 564 Yungelson L.R., Tutukov A.V., Livio M., 1993, ApJ, 418, L135
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We trained a Siamese network with multi-task same/different information on a speech dataset, and found that it was possible to share a network for both tasks without a loss in performance. The first task was to discriminate between two same or different words, and the second was to discriminate between two same or different talkers.'
author:
- |
Gabriel Synnaeve & Emmanuel Dupoux\
LSCP ENS/EHESS/CNRS\
29 rue d’Ulm\
75005, Paris, France\
`[email protected]`\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
Weakly supervised multi-embeddings\
learning of acoustic models
---
Introduction
============
Theoretically, algorithms performing unsupervised or weakly supervised discovery of linguistic structure represent plausible models of language acquisition in the human infant [@vallabha2007unsupervised]. Practically, they can be put to use for low resource languages [@park_unsupervised_2008]. Building on the fact that infant can recognize some words [@bergelson2012] and discriminate between speakers [@johnson2011infant] before they have constructed adult-like phoneme representations, we propose to test a neural network architecture where word and talker identity are used as side information to help learning an acoustic model (phone embedding). Previous work has shown that same-different side information can be used for metric learning [@xing2003], and [@synnaeve2014SLT] demonstrated that it can be used with Deep Neural Network (DNN) architecture for learning phone embeddings. Here, we extend this work using multi-task (word and talker identity) side information. As this paper is a feasibility study, we used gold same-different labels, and leave it to further work to derive them in an unsupervised fashion using spoken term discovery [@spoken_terms_discovery] and talker diarization [@anguera2012speaker].
Model
=====
We used the architure of a Siamese network [@bromley1993signature], as shown in Fig. \[fig:modeltrain\]. It is a duplicated feedforward neural network taking two inputs in parallel. Each of the inputs consists in 11 stacked frames of 40 coefficients log-compressed Mel-filterbanks. Each network contains 3 hidden layers of 500 units with sigmoid activations, and two output embeddings each of 100 dimensions. One of the embeddings is the one in which we compute the similarity between the two inputs according to the same/different “word type” indication, while the other looks at the same/different “speaker” indication. More formally: $$x_A\ \mathrm{and}\ x_B \in \mathbb{R}^{11\times40}\ ;\ y_{A,W},\ y_{A,S},\ y_{B,W}\ \mathrm{and}\ y_{B,S} \in \mathbb{R}^{100}$$ The loss function that we use (for two inputs $x_A$ and $x_B$) is a simple sum of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">coscos$^2$</span> losses in each of the embeddings (see [@synnaeve2014SLT] for a comparison with other loss functions): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(A,B) = \mathcal{L}_{W}(A,B) + \mathcal{L}_{S}(A,B)\end{aligned}$$ with $W \in \{0,1\}$ (different or same word) and $S \in \{0,1\}$ (different or same speaker), both losses are similar (here for speakers): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{S}(A,B) = S\times(1-\cos(y_{A,S}, y_{B,S})) + (1-S)\times(\cos^2(y_{A,S}, y_{B,S}))\end{aligned}$$
Experiments
===========
Dataset
-------
We used about 1/3rd (12 speakers) of the Buckeye corpus[^1], on which we performed a dynamic time-warping (DTW) alignment of pairs of same words, in the features space (filterbanks), exactly as in [@synnaeve2014SLT]. This consisted in doing 76407 pairs of long “same” word (1057 types in total), said 1/4th of the time by the same speakers (we subsampled “same word and different speakers” pairs). During training, we also sample pairs of tokens coming from different words (often called negative sampling), with a ratio of pairs of same/different words of 1:1. This yields about 5M frames for pairs of same words and 4.3M frames for sampled pairs of different words.
{width="0.42\columnwidth"} {width="0.55\columnwidth"}
\[fig:modeltrain\]
Results
-------
We trained the model with Adadelta [@adadelta], a variant of stochastic gradient descent with an adaptive learning rate method correcting the magnitude of the updates using an accumulation of past gradients (on a sliding window) and a local approximation of the Hessian. We used $\rho=0.95$ (hyper-parameter on the momentum) and $\epsilon=10^{-6}$ (precision of the updates), we performed early stopping on a small (10%) held-out development set. We compared three network setups. In the multi-task setup, we use the combined loss function incorporating both the word and the speaker losses. In the single-loss setup, we only use one of the losses (word or speaker), even though the topology of the network remains the same. This means that the weights of only one of the two embeddings is updated, the other remaining in their initial state, thereby implementing a random projection from the last hidden layer. As a control, we also trained a fully supervised DNN using dropout [@srivastava2014dropout]. It has 11 stacked filterbank frames as input, 4 hidden layers of 2400 units, and 46 phones as outputs of the logistic regression (with a 37.9% classification accuracy).
Figure \[fig:modeltrain\] shows the evolution of the cosine similarities for the different conditions, and shows that the training of the speaker task takes more time than the training of the phoneme task, even though the cosine similarities start off less favorably for the former than the latter. In both cases, the difference between the train and the dev sets shows that the network is not really overfitting.
Unsupervised systems do not necessarily discover phoneme-like units. Therefore, evaluating them with a phone error rate may not be appropriate. Similarly, using them as front end for a word recognizer may not be straightforward using standard HMMs. Here, we follow the lead of [@carlin2011rapid] and [@schatz2013] who propose to use instead a *discrimination task*, which makes no assumption about the shape of the coded categories (phone-like, Gaussian, linearly separable, etc.) and does not depend on the training of a classifier or a language model. The ABX discrimination task consists in computing two pairwise distances, between the token pair X and A, and between X and B and deciding which of them is larger. When A and B are tokens of different linguistic categories, and X belongs to the category of either A or B, this metric measures the *degree of separation* of the two categories A and B in the embedding. Here, we use as categories, minimal pairs of triphones of the shape /a/-/t/-/i/ vs /a/-/p/-/i/, where the left and right context phones are kept identical, and the center phone varies. As distance metric, we use the cosine distance along the DTW path. We setup two tasks, on which we will test our two embeddings:
- *phone.talker* is a phoneme discrimination task across speakers. For instance, A=/a/-/p/-/i/, B=/a/-/t/-/i/, both being said by the same speaker, and X is phonetically identical to A or B, but is uttered by a different speaker.
- *talker.phone* is a speaker discrimination task, across phonemes. For instance, both A and B share the same triphone (eg., /a/-/p/-/i/) but are said by different speakers; X is uttered by either the speaker of A or the speaker of B, but has different phonemes (eg., /a/-/t/-/i/).
The two tasks are mirror image of one another regarding the discrimination of the phonemes or of the talkers. In both cases, the context (left and right) phonemes are kept identical. To run this task, we select the set of all eligible ABX triplets of triphones in the dataset, and compute the aggregate ABX score by averaging across context, phoneme and speaker pairs.
{width="0.72\columnwidth"}
\[fig:ABXscores\]
Discussion
----------
The ABX scores for the phoneme and speaker tasks are shown in Fig. \[fig:ABXscores\]. Globally, speaker discrimination seems easier to optimize than phoneme discrimination (even though it starts the other way around when evaluated from the filterbanks). This is probably due to the small number of speaker classes (N=12) compared to the number of phoneme classes (N=48). In addition, the multi-task network gives the best results across the two tasks, compared to single-task networks. Therefore, learning to do two tasks at once using the same network does not incur a decrease in performance, but on the contrary is slightly beneficiary (especially for the talker task). Interestingly the single-task networks behave asymmetrically with respect to the untrained task. Indeed, the performance on phone discrimination is worse for the network that was trained only on the speaker loss, compared to the filterbank performance. This makes sense: if you are trained to ignore phoneme identity, phoneme encoding should be progressively removed from the hidden layers of the network. But vice-versa the performance on speaker discrimination is *better* for the phoneme-loss network compared to the filterbank base performance. This means that in order to determine speaker identity, it is actually useful for the network to code some information about the phonemes. This last result meshes well with the fact that speaker identification depends not so much on raw acoustic features, but on small deformations relative to a background pronunciation distribution (as encoded in *i-vectors*, [@dehak2011front]). Specialization on the task is even more extreme for the fully supervised DNN trained on phone labels: it gives us a higher bound on the *phone accross talkers* task (81.9% correct), and shows degraded *talker accross phones* score (54.8% correct) compared to the filterbank.
{width="0.78\columnwidth"}
\[fig:specificity\]
In order to understand the nature of information encoding in a multi-layer network, it can be useful to inspect the hidden layers in details [@mohamed2012understanding]. Here, we inspected each hidden unit by computing the ratio of between-class to within-class variance in unit activation over the entire corpus (F-test). To compute the phoneme variance ratio, we took the variance of the activation value of the unit across all (between) the phone categories versus within each phone category. We did a similar computation for the speakers categories. Intuitively, a unit with a large phoneme variance ratio is strongly encoding phoneme information; a unit with a small ratio is not very sensitive to that information. Similarly for speaker information. If we split the ratio distribution using the median, this gives rise to a typology of 4 kinds of units according to whether they respond strongly or not to either phone or speaker information. In Figure 3, we can see three phenomena regarding the coding of units in the three hidden layers. First, phone-coding units are predominant in the first layers, and progressively, more and more speaker-coding units appear. Second, the number of doubly-coding units diminishes. Third, the sparsity of the code increases (ie., the number of units not coding anything). Inspection of the task-specific embeddings is interesting, as it reveals an almost pure (and very sparse) coding of speaker identity in the speaker embedding. This is consistent with the high performance of speaker discrimination in this layer. In contrast, inspection of the phone embedding reveals a much less sparse coding and a predominance of doubly-used units. This is consistent with the rather low performance of phoneme discrimination in this layer, and suggests that further layers or more (speaker variability in) training examples would be necessary to “purge” this layer from speaker-specific effects. Finally, inspection of the filterbanks (here coded in shade of red and blue) shows that most of the lower frequency filterbanks are sensitive to phone infrmation (relatively localized in time to the center frames, as we compute it on phonetic annotation), whereas the higher frequency filterbanks are sensitive to speaker information (relatively *not* localized in time).
Conclusion
==========
We have demonstrated that a Siamese network can perform both phoneme and speaker discrimination using only a moderate amount of side information (indication of same/different word or speaker for only $\approx$1000 word types and 12 speakers). Further work is needed to study the effect of the amount of information, and whether the obtained speaker embeddings could replace or complement *i-vectors*. Finally, the phone embedding should be evaluated as a first step in a subsequent word recognizer or language model adapted for this kind of representation.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
This project is funded in part by the European Research Council (ERC-2011-AdG-295810 BOOTPHON), the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL\*), the Fondation de France, the Ecole de Neurosciences de Paris, and the Region Ile de France (DIM cerveau et pensée).
[^1]: <http://buckeyecorpus.osu.edu>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Restoration of macroscopic isotropy has been investigated in $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal conductor networks via exact real space renormalization group transformations. Using some theorems of fixed point theory, it has been shown very rigoroursly that the macroscopic conductivity becomes isotropic for large scales and anisotropy vanishes with a scaling exponent which is computed exactly for arbitrary values of $\bf d$ and decimation numbers $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf 5$.
[**Keywords: Renormalization Group, Fractal, Isotropy, Resistor Network .** ]{}
[**PACs Index: 64.60.AK and 05.50**]{}
author:
- |
M. A. Jafarizadeh$^{a,b,c}$ [^1]\
\
\
$^a$[Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Tabriz University, Tabriz 51664, Iran.]{}\
$^b$[Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Tehran 19395-1795, Iran.]{}\
$^c$[Pure and Applied Science Research Center, Tabriz 51664, Iran.]{}
bibliography:
- 'plain.bib'
title: '**Restoration of Macroscopic Isotropy on $(d+1)$-Simplex Fractal Conductor Networks** '
---
-0.75in
INTRODUCTION
============
Restoration of isotropy in an anisotropic system is of great interest in a variety of disciplines where much attention has been focused on it, particularly on the problem of diffusion in inhomogeneous materials [@Smith; @Lobb; @Haus]. In general, diffusion on lattices can be formulated in terms of an [**AC**]{} electric problem and [**DC**]{} electric response in a percolating structures can be viewed as a very special case of diffusion in disordered medium [@Haus; @Cle; @Derri]. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the restoration of macroscopic isotropy in $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal conductor networks with microscopic anisotropy. In general, deterministic fractal lattices[@Mandel; @Sch; @Gefen; @Jul], as proposed by Kirkpatrick, mimic some properties of percolation clusters in random media and disordered systems[@Gefen], and among fractal objects, the $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal is the simplest one to study various physical problems from random walk [@Jaf; @Jafa; @Jafar; @Jafari] to electrical problem on it[@Ste; @Pak]. Using the exact renormalization technique based on the minimization of total dissipative power ([**TDP**]{}) in these networks, we present a rigorous proof that the conductivity becomes isotropic for large scales, and anisotropy vanishes with a scaling exponent $ \bar{\lambda}$, as $\bf L^{-\bar{\lambda}}$[@Vanni]. We exactly compute $\bar{\lambda}$ for arbitrary values of $\bf d$ and decimation numbers $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf 5$. The contents of this paper is as follows:
Section II presents a brief description of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractals with decimation number $\bf b$ together with an explanation of labelling their subfractal and vertices with the partitions of positive integers[@Andr; @Ham], where this coding plays a very important role throughout the article. In section III we consider the most general network that can be built in a deterministic way, by putting circuit elements on the bonds of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal of a given generation $\bf n$ with decimation number $\bf b$. In order for the self-similarity of the structure to be preserved in the presence of anisotropy at microscopic level, the nature of the circuit elements, namely its resistances, must depend on the orientation of the bonds. It is clear that in $\bf (d+1)$-simplex there are $\bf \frac{d(d+1)}{2}$ different orientations. Then we try to establish recursion equations for the connection resistances which represent the conductivity of these networks, on two successive length scales $\bf L$ and $\bf L^{\prime}=bL$. In general, these recursion relations are very involved. Fortunately, we do not need to have the explicit form of these recurrence equations, for the investigation of the restoration of isotropy. All we need here is the general properties of these maps, which can be obtained through some physical requirements and assumptions. It should be stressed that these circuits are not fictitious, since $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractals are embedible in Euclidean $\bf 2$-dimensions, hence they can be considered as two-dimensional networks, see Fig. [**1**]{}. Section IV is devoted to a very rigorous proof of the uniqueness of the fixed point of the real space renormalization group transformation of the ratios of the connection resistances. Here in this section we show that all flows of the real space renormalization group transformation of the connection resistances, stemming from the finite physical region of connection resistance space, diverges to a direction which makes equal angle with all coordinates axes. The proof is based on some theorems and definitions of fixed point theory of the maps on complete metric spaces with the Hilbert metric. We have quoted the required theorems without presenting their proofs, since this section would be otherwise more mathematical in style. We refer the readers to reference [@Vas] for proofs of all theorems and for more details. Those readers who are only interested in the results of this section can skip it. In section V by minimizing the [**TDP**]{} in isotropic state, we get linear equations for the inner inward flowing currents in terms of input currents with Lagrange multipliers as their coefficients. Then using $\bf S_{(d+1)}$ symmetry group of the $\bf (d+1)$-simplex, we suggest an ansatz for the Lagrange multipliers which leads to determination of the inner flowing currents in terms of the input one for any values of $\bf d$ and decimation number $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf 5$. Section VI contains the main results of the article. Here in this section, by linearising the recurrence relation of the connection resistances near the isotropy state, we calculate power scaling exponent and the scaling exponent of the suppression of the anisotropy, for arbitrary values of $\bf d$ and decimation numbers $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf b=5$, which are in agreement with the results of references [@Cle; @Vanni; @Barl; @watan; @hatto; @hattor] in special cases. Also these results hold true for $\bf (d+1)$-honeycomb fractal conductor network with decimation number $\bf b=2 $, see Fig. [**2**]{}, which is in agreemet with reference [@Pak] for $\bf d=2$ and $\bf b=2$ case. The paper ends with a brief conclusion.
(d+1)-Simplex Fractals
=======================
$\bf (d+1) $-simplex fractal is a generalization of a two dimensional Sierpinski gasket to $\bf d $-dimensions such that its subfractals are $\bf (d+1)$-simplices or $\bf d$-dimensional polyhedra with $\bf S_{(d+1)} $-symmetry. In order to obtain a fractal with decimation number $\bf b $, we choose a $\bf (d +1)$-simplex and divide all the links (that is the lines connecting sites ) into $\bf b $ parts and then draw all possible $\bf d$-dimensional hyperplanes through the links parallel to the transverse $\bf d $-simplices. Next, having omitted every other innerpolyhedra, we repeat this process for the remaining simplices or for the subfractals of next higher generation. This way through $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractals are constructed. In order to calculate the fractal dimension, also to determine the current distribution, it is convenient to label subfractals of generation ($n$+1) in terms of partition of $\bf (b-1)$ into $\bf (d+1)$ positive integers $\bf \lambda_1,\lambda_2,...,\lambda_{d+1}$. Each partition represents a subfractal of generation $\bf n$, and $\bf \lambda$ shows the distance of the corresponding subfractal from $\bf d$-dimensional hyper-planes which construct the $\bf (d+1)$ simplex. On the other hand, each vertex denoted by partition of $\bf b$ into $\bf (d+1)$ non-negative integers $\bf \eta_1,\eta_2,\cdots,\eta_{d+1}$ and obviously the $\bf i$-th vertex of subfractal $\bf (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdots,\lambda_{d+1})$ is denoted by $\bf \eta_j= \lambda_j+\delta_{i,j}$, where $\bf j=1,2,\cdots, d+1$. As an illustrating example we show in Fig. [**3**]{} the method of labelling a Sierpenski gasket with decimation number $\bf b=3$.
Obviously the number of all possible partitions is equal to the distribution of $\bf (b-1)$ objects amongst $\bf (d+1)$ boxes, which is the same as the Bose-Einstein distribution of $\bf (b-1)$ identical bosons in $\bf (d+1)$ quantum states. This is equal to
$$C=\frac{(b+d-1)!}{(b-1)!.d!}.$$
As is well known, the fractal dimension $\bf D_f$ of a self similar object is defined according to [@Mandel] $$NL^D_f=1$$ where $\bf N$ is the number of similar objects, up to translation and rotation, here being equal to the number of subfractals of generation $\bf n$, and $\bf L $ is the scale of subfractal of generation $\bf n$.
Hence
$$N=C^r , L=b^-r$$ Therefore,
$$D_f=\frac{\ln c}{\ln b},$$ or $$D_f=\frac{\ln(\frac{(b+d-1)!}{(b-1)!)}}{\ln b}.$$
Fractal Connection Resistances and their Exact Renormalization Group Transformations
====================================================================================
A two-dimensional anisotropic $\bf (d+1)$-simplex resistor network consists of $\bf (d+1)$ nodes, with $\bf I_i$ denoting the amount of current injected into the network through the node $\bf i$ and $\bf \frac{d(d+1)}{2}$ different resistors (coated with insulator) mutually connecting all the nodes of the network (see Fig (2)).
As usual, total dissipative power [**TDP**]{} in these networks can be written in terms of the resistances and the currents flowing in them. But it is more convenient and also advantageous throughout this article to express [**TDP**]{} in terms of the inward flowing currents $\bf I_i,i=1,2,\cdots,d+1$. In that case, it is clear that [**TDP**]{} is a bilinear function of the input currents with the coefficients which have the dimensions of the resistance.
Hence we call these coefficients, connection resistances denoted by $R_{jk},\; j,k=1,2,\cdots, d+1$. Therefore, [**TDP**]{} of the network assumes the following form $${\bf TDP}(network)=\sum_{j,k=1}^{(d+1)}R_{jk}I_jI_k.$$ It is clear from equation (3-1) that $\bf R_{jk}$ is symmetric with respect to the interchange of indices $\bf i$ and $\bf j $. Also the diagonal elements $\bf R_{jj},j=1,2,\cdots,d+1$ can be eliminated from the expression (3-1), if we use Kirchhoff’s current law for the input currents
$$\sum_{j=1}^{(d+1)}I_j=0.$$
Thus, The expression (3-1) takes the following form
$${\bf TDP}(network)=-\sum_{j\ne k=1}^{(d+1)}R_{jk}I_jI_k=-2\sum_{k>j=1}^{(d+1)}R_{jk}I_jI_k.$$
From positive definiteness of [**TDP**]{} for all arbitrary values of input inward flowing currents consistent with Kichhoff’s current law, it follows that all connection resistances are positive, that is we have:
$$R_{jk}>0 \;\;\;\;\; for\; all\; k>j=1,2,\cdots,d+1.$$ From the form of the [**TDP**]{} given in (3-3), it also follows that there is a bijective map between these sets of the independent connection resistances $\bf \{R_{jk}, k>j=1,2,\cdots,d+1\}$ and $\bf \frac{d(d+1)}{2}$ mutual resistors of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex network. Accordingly, these independent connection resistances can represent the mutual resistors of the network and in the case of an anisotropic network the connection resistances will be different . Consequently, for the investigation of the restoration of macroscopic isotropy in $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal resistor lattices, by real space renomalization group method , we need to know the recursion relations between the connection resistances of a given generation and the connection resistances of one generation below it.
These recursion relations can easily be obtained if we compare the total dissipative power [**TDP**]{} of generation $\bf n$ given in (3-3) with the same quantity, calculated as sum of power of its $\bf (n-1) $th generated subfractals which can be expressed as a function of connection resitances of generation $\bf n-1$, provided that in calculating the power of its subfractals, the inner inward flowing currents are stated in terms of input currents. To determine these currents it is convenient to denote the $\bf j$-th inward flowing current of subfractal corresponding to the partition $\bf \lambda_1,\lambda_2, \cdots, \lambda_{d+1}$ by $\bf I_{\lambda_1,
\lambda_2, \cdots ,\lambda_{d+1} (\lambda_1, \cdots ,\lambda_{j-1}, \lambda_{j}+1, \lambda_{j+1}, \cdots , \lambda_{d+1})}$. Thence $\bf I_j$, the $\bf j$-th inward flowing current of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal, is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
I_{0,0, \cdot\cdot,0, \underbrace{1}_{j-th} ,0, \cdot\cdot, 0}(0,0, \cdot\cdot,0, \underbrace{2}_{j-th},0, \cdot\cdot, 0)=I_j.\end{aligned}$$
To determine the inner inward flowing currents, besides applying Kirchhoff’s current law at each node and subfractal, we have to minimize the total dissipative power of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal of generation $\bf n$, calculated as the sum of the [**TDP**]{} of its subfractals as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hspace{-15mm}\sum_{_{_{_{_{_{_{\hspace{16mm}sum\;over\hspace{1mm} partition \hspace{1mm}of\hspace{1mm} (b-1)}}}}}}}
\hspace{-22mm}\sum_{j,k=1}^{d+1}R_{jk}(n-1)I_{\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{d+1}}
(\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_j+1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1})
I_{\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}
(\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_k+1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}) \nonumber \\
\sum_{sum\;over\hspace{1mm} partition \hspace{1mm} of \hspace{1mm}(b-1)}
-2\mu_{\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}I_{\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_k+1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}) \nonumber \\
\sum_{sum\;over\hspace{1mm}partition\hspace{1mm}of\hspace{1mm}b} \nonumber
-2\nu_{\eta_1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}I_{\eta_,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{k-1},\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(\eta_1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}),
\\ \hspace{-10mm}\end{aligned}$$
where $\bf \mu_{\lambda_1,...,\lambda_{d+1}}$ and $\bf \nu_{\eta_1,...,\eta_{d+1}}$ are lagrange multipliers due to Kirchhoff’s law on each subfractal, and also on each node,respectively. Minimizing the expression (3-4), we get linear equations between inner input flowing currents and lagrange multipliers together with the Kirchhoff’s law for each subfractal and each vertex, respectively. Solving the equations thus obtained we can write all inner inward flowing currents as a linear function in terms of input ones. Substituting the expressions thus obtained for the inner currents in Eq. (3-4), we determine [**TDP**]{} of generation $\bf n$ which is obviously a bilinear function of input currents with coefficients which are in general very involved functions of the connection resistances of the generation $\bf n-1$. Comparing the final result with the expression (3-4), connection resistance of generation $\bf n$ as its coefficient, we get the required transformation between connection resistances of generations $\bf n$ and $\bf n-1$, respectively:
$$R_{jk}(r+1))=f_{jk}(R_{lm}(r)_{m>l}),\;\;\;\;\; k>j=1,2,\cdot\cdot,d+1.$$
Here in this article, we show that the power and the anisotropy suppression exponents can be calculated, without having any knowledge of the explicit form of the functions $\bf f_{jk}$. All we need to know is some general properties of these functions which can be obtained rather easily from some physical requirements and also from dimensional analysis: these functions are homogeneous functions of degree one mapping positive connection resistances of generation $\bf n-1$ into positive connection resistances of generation $\bf n$, that is they form positive homogeneous map of degree one.
All connection resistances are positive; none of them can be negative or zero. The physical reason behind it is that if, for example, the connection resistance $\bf R_{jk}$ becomes negative or if it vanishes, then for inward flowing currents $\bf I_j=-I_k=I$, and $\bf I_l=0$ if $\bf l\neq j\neq k$, we obviously get negative or zero power which is not physical in either cases. Analogously, we can rather easily deduce that none of them can be infinite, since all resistors of the network are finite, otherwise we will have infinite total dissipative power which is not again physical.
Definitely the transformation (3-5) is monotonically increasing, since by increasing the connection resistances at a given generation $\bf n-1$, without changing the input currents, the total dissipative power of generation $\bf n$ will increase, that is the connection resistances of generation $\bf n$ will increase. Naturally, under the action of the point group $\bf S_{(d+1)}$,[@Ham] the connection resistances simply permute among themselves. For example, the exchange of the vertices $\bf j$ and $\bf k$ in $\bf (d+1)$-simplex induces the following transformation among the connection resistances:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
R_{jk} \longrightarrow & R_{kj}&=R_{jk} \nonumber \\
R_{jl} \longrightarrow & R_{lk}&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; for\;\; l\neq j\neq k \nonumber \\
R_{kl} \longrightarrow & R_{lj}&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; for\;\; l\neq j\neq k \nonumber \\
R_{lm} \longrightarrow & R_{lm}&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; for\;\; l\neq m\neq j\neq k.\end{aligned}$$
As an example, we give the explicit form of the transformation for the special case of $\bf d=2$ and $\bf b=2$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
R_{12}(n)=\frac{R_{12}[R_{12}(n-1)+2R_{13}(n-1)+ 2R_{23}(n-1)]}{R_{12}(n-1)+R_{13}(n-1)+ R_{23}(n-1)}, \nonumber \\
R_{13}(n)=\frac{R_{13}[R_{13}(n-1)+2R_{12}(n-1)+ 2R_{23}(n-1)]}{R_{12}(n-1)+R_{13}(n-1)+ R_{23}(n-1)}, \nonumber \\
R_{23}(n)=\frac{R_{12}[R_{23}(n-1)+2R_{12}(n-1)+ 2R_{13}(n-1)]}{R_{12}(n-1)+R_{13}(n-1)+ R_{23}(n-1)}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Fixed Point of Recurrence Equation of ConnectionResistances
============================================================
In this section we present a rigorous proof that the renormalization group transformation of the connection resistances has a unique fixed direction in the space of connection resistances. That is, all of the flows stemming from the finite physical region of connection resistance space converge to infinity at a direction which has the same angle with all coordinates.
For simplicity we denote the connection resitances of generation $\bf n-1$ $\bf R_{jk}(n-1) $ $\bf (k, j=1,2,\cdots, d+1) $, by $\bf X_{\alpha} $ $\bf ( \alpha=1,2,\cdots , \frac{d(d+1)}{2})$ and the connection resistances of generation $\bf n$ $\bf R_{jk}(n)$ $\bf ( k, j=1,2,\cdots, d+1)$, by $\bf X_{\alpha}^{\prime}$ $\bf (\alpha=1,2,\cdots , \frac{d(d+1)}{2})$, respectively. Then the transformations (3-5) can be written as
$$X_{\alpha}^{\prime}=f_{\alpha}(X_{\beta})\;\;\;\; for \;\; \alpha=1,2,\cdots ,
\frac{d(d+1)}{2}.$$
Now we consider $\bf X_{\alpha}> 0 $ $\bf ( \alpha=1,2,\cdots ,\frac{d(d+1)}{2}) $ as coordinates of the interior points of a cone in $\bf \frac{d(d+1)}{2}$ dimensional Euclidean space denoted by $\bf {\large \breve {\cal C}}$. Denoting the cone itself by $\bf {\large {\cal C}} $, the transformation (4-1) can be considered as the map of this cone into itself: $$\nonumber
{\large {\cal C}}\stackrel{F}{ \longrightarrow }{\large {\cal C}},$$ where we have denoted the extension of the map (4-1) over the cone itself by $\bf F$.
From the action of the permutation group $\bf S_{(d+1)}$ on the space of connection resistances (the cone $\bf {\large {\cal C}}$) given in (3-6), it follows that the transformation (4-1) is equivariant with respect to the action of $\bf S_{(d+1)}$, that is we have the following commutative diagram [@Ish]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&{\large {\cal C}}&\stackrel{g}{ \longrightarrow} {\large {\cal C}} \nonumber \\
F &\downarrow& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\downarrow F\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;for\;every\; g\in S_{(d+1)}, \nonumber \\
&{\large {\cal C}}&\stackrel{g}{ \longrightarrow }{\large {\cal C}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
or $$\begin{aligned}
g(F({\large {\cal X}}))=F(g( {\large {\cal X}}))\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;for\;every\; g\in S_{(d+1)}\;\; and
\;\; {\large {\cal X}}\in {\large {\cal C}}.\end{aligned}$$
A cone in Euclidean space has the following properties[@Vas]:
1\. $\bf {\large {\cal C}}$+$\bf {\large {\cal C}} \subset {\large {\cal C}}$
2\. $\bf \lambda {\large {\cal C}} \subset {\large {\cal C}}$ for all $\bf \lambda >0$
3\. $\bf {\large {\cal C}} \bigcap {\large {\cal -C}} ={0} $.\
We denote interior of this cone by $\bf {\large \breve {\cal C}}$. One can define an “order relation” as follows:
$\bf {\large {\cal X}} \geq {\large {\cal Y}}$ if $\bf {\large {\cal X-Y}}\in
{\large {\cal C}}$ and $\bf {\large {\cal X}} > {\large {\cal Y}}$ if $\bf {\large {\cal X-Y}}\in
{\large \breve {\cal C}}$. If one defines the numbers $\bf m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})$ and $\bf M({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})=max_i \frac{x_i}{y_i}\\
M({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})=min_i \frac{x_i}{y_i},\end{aligned}$$
then for any $\bf {\large{\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}} \in {\large \breve {\cal C}}$ the following relation holds $$\begin{aligned}
m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}}){\large {\cal Y}}\leq {\large {\cal X}}\leq
M({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}}){\large {\cal Y}}.\end{aligned}$$ The above relation and also all the other theorems of this section have been proved in reference [@Vas]. Using the numbers defined in (4-4), one can define the Hilbert metric $\bf d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})$ for any $\bf {\large{\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}} \in {\large \breve {\cal C}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})=
\log[\frac{M({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})}
{m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})}]=
\log[ max_{i,j}\frac{x_iy_j}{y_ix_j}],\end{aligned}$$ with the usual property of a pseudometric on $\bf {\large \breve {\cal C}}$ and a metric on $\bf {\large \breve {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1)$, where $\bf S(0,1)$ denotes the set of points of sphere of radius one with the origin as its center. The metric space $\bf {\large \breve {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1)$ is complete under Hilbert metric(4-6). Also, it is straightforward to see that the following assertions about this metric are valid :
1\. For any $\bf {\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}} \in {\large \breve {\cal C}}$ and $\bf a,b\in R $ we have $$d(a{\large {\cal X}},b{\large {\cal X}} )=d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal X}}).$$
2\. $\bf d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal X}})$ =0 if and only if $\bf {\large {\cal X}}=\lambda{\large {\cal X}} $.
3\. For any $\bf {\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}}\in {\large \breve {\cal C}}$ the metric $\bf d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal X}}) $ is finite. A given map of the cone into itself:
$$F: {\large {\cal C}} \longrightarrow {\large {\cal C}}$$ is called positive homogeneous of degree $\bf n$ and monotonically increasing if, for all $\bf {\large {\cal X}}\in {\large {\cal C}} $ and $\bf a>0$, we have $$F(a{\large {\cal X}})=a^nF({\large {\cal X}}),$$ and $${\large {\cal X}}\leq {\large {\cal Y}}\Longrightarrow
F({\large {\cal X}})\leq F({\large {\cal Y}}).$$ According to the arguments given in section [**III**]{}, the transformation (3-5) or (4-1) is monotonically increasing, positive and homogeneous map of degree one.
Using the relation (4-5) one can prove that for a positive homogeneous map of degree one and monotonically increasing map like the transformation (4-1), the following inequality holds: $$m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})T({\large {\cal X}}) \leq
T({\large {\cal X}})\leq.
M({\large {\cal X}}),({\large {\cal Y}})T({\large {\cal Y}}).$$ It is straightforward to get the following inequality from the inequality (4-7) $$m({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}}) \leq
m({\large {\cal TX}},{\large {\cal TY}})\leq
M({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}})\leq
M({\large {\cal TX}},{\large {\cal TY}}).$$ From the above inequality and also from the definition of Hilbert metric (4-6), it follows that for all $\bf {\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}} \in
{\large {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1)$ we have
$$d({\large {\cal TX}},{\large {\cal TY}})\leq
d({\large {\cal X}},{\large {\cal Y}}).$$
Therefore, the transformation (4-1) satisfies the Lipschitz condition and is of contractive type. Thus, according to the Principle of Contraction Mapping Theorem, the contracting mapping (4-1) has a unique fixed point $\bf {\large {\cal X}}_0$ in the complete metric space $\bf ({\large {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1), d)$ (d is the Hilbert metric given in (4-4) and $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}
\overbrace{F(F(\cdots F(F}^{n}
({\large {\cal X}}))\cdots))={\large {\cal X}}_0,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
for\;every\;{\large {\cal X}}\in {\large {\cal C}}.$$ But, because of the equivariant property (4-3)of the transformation (4-1), any fixed point of the point group $\bf S_{(d+1)}$(or the stability point of the point group [@Ish]) will definitely be the fixed point of the transformation (4-1) acting on the space $\bf ({\large {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1))$. Obviously, the direction $\bf X_1=X_2=\cdot=X_{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ is the only fixed point of the permutation group $\bf S_{(d+1)}$ acting on the space $\bf ({\large {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1))$. Hence, because of the uniqueness of the fixed point of the transformation (4-1) on the space $\bf ({\large {\cal C}}\bigcap S(0,1))$, the direction $\bf X_1=X_2=\cdot=X_{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ is the only fixed direction of the connection resistances renormalization group transformation. This direction corresponds to the isotropic $\bf \bf (d+1)$-simplex, which indicates that the macroscopic conductivity becomes isotropic on large scales.
Determination of Inner Inward Flowing Currentsof Subfractals in Isotropic State
================================================================================
In order to determine the inner inward flowing currents in terms of the input currents $\bf I_j$ $\bf (j=1,2,\cdot,d+1)$ in isotropic state, we have to minimize the [**TDP**]{} given in (3-4). But here in isotropic state all connection resistances are the same, hence they can be put equal to one in (3-4), simply by rescaling the lagrange multipliers of current conservations of vertices and subfractals. Now, by minimizing [**TDP**]{}, we get the following equation for $\bf I$ $$I_{\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_j+1,\cdots,\lambda_{d+1})
-\mu_{\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_j,\lambda_{d+1}}-nu_{\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_j+1,\cdots,\lambda_{j+1}}
=0$$ together with the Kirchhoff’s law for each subfractal and each vertex, respectively
$$\sum_{j=1}^{d+1}I_{\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_j,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_j+1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1})=0.$$
$$\sum_{j=1}^{d+1}I_{\eta_1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_j-1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(\eta_1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_j,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1})=0.$$
We assume the following ansatz for the Lagrange multipliers:
$$\mu_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}=\sum_{k=1}^{d+1}a_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_k)I_k$$
$$\nu_{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}\sum_{k=1}^{d+1}b_{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(\eta_k)I_k$$
with $a_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(0)$ and $b_{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(0)$ taken to be zero.
Using the ansatz (5-3a) and (5-3b) in equation (5-1), the inflowing currents can be given in terms of $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ respectively, that is
$$I_{\lambda_1,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\eta_1,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1})=\sum_{k=1}^{d+1}a_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_k)I_k
+\sum_{k=1}^{d+1}b_{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(\eta_k)I_k.$$
Due to the $ \bf S_{(d+1)} $ permutation symmetry of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal, the parameters $\bf a_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}}(\lambda_k)$ and $\bf b_{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}}(\eta_k)$ depend only on the corresponding partition $\bf \{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdot\cdot,\lambda_{d+1}\}$ and $\bf \{\eta_1,\eta_2,\cdot\cdot,\eta_{d+1}\}$, respectively. They do not change under the permutation of $\bf \lambda_i$ or $\eta_i $ within a given partition. From now on, as far as $a$ and $b$ are concerned, only nonzero values are going to be quoted in their partition.
Actually one could write the currents in terms of input ones as in (5-4) by simply using the symmetry of simplex fractal, and the minimization of power is not required. Finally $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ can be determined through the equations (5-2a) and (5-2b). Obviously the number of equations are the same as the number of unknowns, hence the unknowns $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ can be determined uniquely. Here we determine the currents only for $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf 5 $, respectively.
Let us first consider the case where $\bf b=2 $
$$\hspace{-70mm}I_{0,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=I_j$$ $$\hspace{-10mm}I_{0,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=a_1(1)I_J+b_1(1)I_j+b_(1)1I_k$$ Using equation (5-2b) we have
$$\hspace{-17mm}a_1(1)+2b_1(1)=0$$ and from equation (5-2a) we get
$$1+da_1(1)+(d-1)b_1(1)=0.$$ Solving the above equations we get the following result
$$\hspace{-34mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=\frac{(I_k-I_j)}{(d+1)}.$$
Via the the procedure explained above, we can similarly calculate the inner inward flowing currents corresponding to ${\bf b=3,4}$ and ${\bf
b=5}$, where the details of calculation appear in Appendices I, II and III, respectively and below we quote only the results:
I: Inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=3}$
$$\hspace{-52mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$-\frac{2d+5}{(2d+3)(d+1)}I_j+\frac{3}{(2d+3)(d+1)}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}\hspace{-9mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\frac{2d+5}{(2d+3)(d+1)}I_j -\frac{3}{(2d+3)(d+1)}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}\hspace{-9mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\frac{2}{(2d+3)(d+1)}(2I_l-I_j-I_k).$$\
\
II: Inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=4}$
$$\hspace{-65mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$
$$-\frac{8d^3+52d^2+5(25d+21)}{P}I_j+\frac{25d+49}{P}I_k$$
$$\hspace{-50mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$
$$\frac{8d^3+52d^2+125d+105}{P}I_j-\frac{25d+49}{P}I_k$$
$$\hspace{-51mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$
$$-\frac{12d^2+79d+91}{P}(I_j-I_k)$$
$$\hspace{-27mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$
$$-8\frac{d^2+6d+7}{P}I_j-4\frac{3d+7}{P}I_k+2\frac{19d+35}{P}I_l$$
$$\hspace{-13mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\,0)=$$
$$16\frac{d^2+6d+7}{P}I_j-2\frac{13d+21}{P}(I_k+I_l)$$
$$\hspace{-2mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0}(0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th}
,0,\cdot,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0)=$$
$$-4\frac{4d+7}{P}(I_j+I_k+I_l-3I_m)$$
where $ P$ is defined as
$$P=(8d^3+44d^2+81d+49)(d+1).$$\
\
III: Inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=5}$ $$\hspace{-65mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\frac{192d^6+2720d^5+16332d^4+53648d^3+102215d^2+106746d+47255}{Q}I_j$$ $$-3\frac{542d^3+3803d^2+8576d+6275}{Q}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-50mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$-\frac{192d^6+2720d^5+16332d^4+53648d^3+102215d^2+106746d+47255}{Q}$$ $$+3\frac{542d^3+3803d^2+8576d+6275}{Q}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-51mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$\frac{288d^5+4104d^4+24466d^3+70139d^2+94822d+48213}{Q}I_j$$ $$-\frac{600d^4+8602d^3+36869d^2+62290d+36303}{Q}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$2\frac{96d^5+1312d^4+7426d^3+20691d^2+27782d+14261}{Q}I_j$$ $$+2\frac{300d^3+2462d^2+6245d+5043}{Q}I_k$$ $$-2\frac{1326d^3+8947d^2+19483d+13782}{Q}I_l$$ $$\hspace{-50mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$-\frac{288d^5+4104d^4+24466d^3+70139d^2+94822d+48213}{Q}I_j$$ $$-\frac{600d^4+8602d^3+36869d^2+62290d+36303}{Q}I_k$$ $$\hspace{-35mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$2\frac{144d^4+1896d^3+8260d^2+14607d+9059}{Q}I_j$$ $$+\frac{144d^4+1896d^3+8260d^2+14607d+9059}{Q}I_k$$ $$-2\frac{784d^3+5144d^2+10907d+7507}{Q}I_l$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\,0})=$$ $$2\frac{1026d^3+6485d^2+13238d+8739}{Q}(I_k+I_l)$$ $$-4\frac{96d^5+1312d^4+7426d^3+20691d^2+27782d+14261}{Q}I_j$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\,0})=$$ $$2\frac{312d^4+4084d^3+16326d^2+26083d+14489}{Q}I_j$$ $$-2\frac{228d^4+2990d^3+12293d^2+20345d+11774}{Q}I_k$$ $$+\frac{784d^3+5144d^2+10907d+7507}{Q}I_l$$ $$\hspace{-2mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th}
,0,\cdot,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$8\frac{48d^4+596d^3+2389d^2+3899d+2238}{Q}I_j$$ $$+6\frac{152d^3+1062d^2+2361d+1691}{Q}I_k$$ $$+\frac{152d^3+1062d^2+2361d+1691}{Q}I_l$$ $$-2\frac{316d^3+2041d^2+4273d+2908}{Q}I_m$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$-24\frac{48d^4+596d^3+2389d^2+3899d+2238}{Q}I_j$$ $$-\frac{164d^3+979d^2+1912d+1217}{Q}(I_k+I_l+I_m)$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{\scriptsize{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}}
(\scriptsize{ 0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{n-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0})=$$ $$12\frac{96d^3+604d^2+1237d+825}{Q}(I_j+I_k+I_l+I_m-4I_n)$$ where $ Q$ is defined as $$Q=192d^7+2720d^6+16332d^5+53648d^4+103841d^3+118155d^2+72983d+18825.$$
Scaling Exponent of Anisotropy Suppression of$\bf (d+1)$-Simplex Fractal Conductor Network
===========================================================================================
To investigate the abolition of anisotropy and also in order to calculate the scaling exponent of its suppression, we linearize the recursion map (4-1) near the fixed direction (isotropy state) of this map:
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}R_{jk}(n)=R\;\;\;\; for\;\; k>j=1,2,\cdot\cdot,d+1.$$ This leads us to write $$R_{jk}(n)=R+\varepsilon_{jk}(n);\;\;\; for\;\; k>j=1,2,\cdot\cdot,d+1$$ with $\bf \varepsilon_{jk}(n)$ as an infinitesimal deviation of the connection resistances of generation $\bf n$ from the isotropic state, for large values of $\bf n$. Now, all we need to know is the recursion relations between the deviation of connection resistances of the generation $\bf n$ and the infinitesimal deviation of connection resistances of the generation $\bf n-1$, for large values of $\bf n$.
These recursion relations can easily be obtained, if we compare the deviation of [**TDP**]{} from the isotropic state of generation $\bf n$ with the deviation of the same quantity, calculated as the sum of deviation of [**TDP**]{} of its subfractals of generation $\bf n-1$. Clearly the deviation of [**TDP**]{} of generation $\bf n$ can be obtained from the expression (3-3), provided that in (3-3) we replace the connection resistances with the deviation of the connection resistances of generation $\bf n$. Also [**TDP**]{} of generation $\bf n$ is the sum of [**TDP**]{} of subfractals generations $\bf n-1$, where again the latter can be obtained from (3-3), if we replace in (3-3) the input currents with the inner inflowing currents (which have been expressed in terms of input currents in section V) and the connection resistances with the deviation of the generation $\bf n-1$, respectively. Proceeding as above we obtain the recursion relations of the following form for the deviation of connection resistances of generations $\bf n-1$ and $\bf n$ in a $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal conductor network, for large values of $\bf n$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
_{j \neq k}\varepsilon_{jk}(n)=f(d,b)_{j \neq k}\varepsilon_{jk}(n-1)
+g(d,b)(\sum_{l=1 \neq j \neq k}^{d+1}\varepsilon_{jl}(n-1)
+\sum_{l=1 \neq j \neq k}^{d+1}\varepsilon_{lk}(n-1)) \nonumber \\
+g(d,b)(\sum_{l\neq m=1 \neq j \neq k}^{d+1}\varepsilon_{lm}(n-1)).\end{aligned}$$
For a given value of $\bf j \neq k $ we denote $\bf \varepsilon_{jk}(n)$($\varepsilon_{jk}(n-1)$) by $ X(X^{\prime}) $. Next we assume that $\bf \varepsilon_{jl}(n)$($\bf \varepsilon_{jl}(n-1)$ and $\bf \varepsilon_{lk}(n)$ $\bf (\varepsilon_{lk}(n-1))$ with ($\bf l\neq j\neq k $) are all equal which are denoted by $\bf Y$($\bf Y^{\prime}$). Finally we assume that the remaining deviation of connection resistances, that is, $\bf \varepsilon_{lm}(n)$($\bf \varepsilon_{lm}(n-1)$) with ($\bf m\neq l\neq j\neq k$) are all equal which are denoted by $\bf Z(\bf Z^{\prime)}$. Then the recursion relations (6-2) take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hspace{-100mm}\left(\begin{array}{c}X^{\prime}\\Y^{\prime}\\Z^{\prime}\\ \end{array} \right ) = \nonumber\\
\nonumber
\vspace{3mm}
\hspace{-10mm}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\nonumber
f(d,b) & 2(d-1)g(d,b)& (d-2)(d-1)h(d,b) \nonumber \\
g(d,b) & f+g(d-1)+2h(d-2) & g(d-2)+h(d-3)(d-2) \nonumber\\
2h(d,b) & 4g(d,b)+4(d-3)h(d,b) & f(d,b)+2(d-3)g(d,b)+(d-4)(d-3)h(d,b)\end{array} \right )\left(\begin{array}{c}X\\Y\\Z \end{array} \right).\nonumber
\nonumber\\
\hspace{155mm}(6-3)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The following eigen-values are obtained by diagonalizing the $\bf 3\times3$ matrix (6-3) . The eigen-values are quoted in decreasing order as: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lambda_{max}&=&\frac{d^2h(d,b)+d(4g(d,b)-3h(d,b))+2f(d,b)-4g(d,b)+2h(d,b)}{2} \nonumber\\
\lambda_{midle}&=&d(g(d,b)-h(d,b))+f(d,b)-3g(d,b)+2h(d,b) \nonumber\\
\lambda_{min}&=&f(d,b)-2g(d,b)+h(d,b),\end{aligned}$$ where the corresponding eigen-vectors are given as the rows of the following matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\vspace{-30mm}
\left ( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 1
\\ 2(d-1) & d-3 & -2 \\ (d-1)(d-2) &-(d-2)&2 \end{array} \right ). \end{aligned}$$ We see that the eigen-directions do not depend on the decimation number $\bf b$ but rather only on the dimension $\bf d$. This is again due to equivariancy of the map (4-1) with respect to the action of the point group $\bf S_{(d+1)}$ on the space of the connection resistances given in (4-3).
As expected, the maximum eigen-value corresponds to isotropy state, which gives the power scaling exponent of $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal conductor networks [@Ste; @Roux; @Pak; @Jaff]. Therefore, anisotropy vanishes with a scaling exponent which can be obtained in terms of the eigenvalues in the following way: from the recurence relation (3-5) and its linearized form (6-2), it follows that, for large values of $\bf n$ we have $$\lim_{n\longrightarrow \infty}R_{jk}\sim=L_n^{D_2},\;\;\;\;\;\ for\;every\;j\neq k=1,2,\cdot,d+1$$ where $\bf L_n=b^n$, and the power scaling exponent $\bf D_2$ is defined as: $$D_2(d,b)=\frac{\log\lambda_{max}}{\log b}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\longrightarrow \infty}\frac{R_{jk}}{R_{jl}}-1\sim=
L_n^{\bar{\lambda}}\;\;\;\;\;\; for\;every\;j\neq k\neq l=1,2,\cdot,d+1\nonumber\\
\lim_{n\longrightarrow \infty}\frac{R_{jk}}{R_{lm}}-1\sim=L_n^{\bar{\lambda}}\;\;\;\;\;\; for\;every\;j\neq k\neq l\neq m=1,2,\cdot,d+1\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where the scaling exponent of suppression of the anisotropy, $\bf \bar{\lambda}$ , is defined as $$\bar{\lambda}(d,b)=
\frac{\log
\frac{maximum\;eigenvalue}{the\; next \;greatest\; eigenvalue}}
{\log b}=
\frac{\log\frac{\lambda_{max}}{\lambda_{midle}}}{\log b}.$$ In the remaining part of this section we quote the results for $\bf b=2,3,4$ and $\bf 5$, respectively. $\bf I:b=2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
f(d,2)=\frac{5d+3}{(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
g(d,2)=\frac{d-1}{(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
h(d,2)=\frac{-2}{(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
D_2(d,2)=\frac{\log{\frac{d+3}{d+1}}}{\log{2}}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\bar{\lambda}(d,2)=\frac{\log{\frac{d+3}{d+2}}}{\log{2}}\nonumber
\\\end{aligned}$$
$\bf II:b=3 $ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
f(d,3)&=&\frac{(8d^3+88d^2+145d+59)}{2d+3)^2(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
g(d,3)&=&\frac{4d^3+20d^2+d-24}{(2d+3)^2(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
h(d,3)&=&\frac{-(4d^2+24d+25)}{(2d+3)^2(d+1)^2}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
D_2(d,3)&=&\frac{\log\frac{2d^2+9d+19}{(2d+3)(d+1)}}{\log 3}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\bar{\lambda}(d,3)&=&\frac{log\frac{(2d+3)(2d^2+9d+19)}{4d^3+20d^2+41d+31}}{\log3}\nonumber
\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
f(d,4)&=&\frac{128d^7+1792d^6+13936d^5+59116d^4+137757d^3+175421d^2+113267d+28567}
{(8d^4+52d^3+125d^2+130d+49)^2}\nonumber\\
g(d,4)&=&\frac{64d^7+832d^6+4768d^5+13448d^4+16313d^3-701d^2-18501d-11319}
{(8d^4+52d^3+125d^2+130d+49)^2}\nonumber\\
h(d,4)&=&\frac{-(64d^6+896d^5+5664d^4+19096d^3+35061d^2+32970d+12397)}
{(8d^4+52d^3+125d^2+130d+49)^2}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
D_2(d,4)&=&\frac{\log\frac{8d^4+68d^3+253d^2+588d+539}{8d^4+52d^3+125d^2+130d+49}}{\log 4}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\bar{\lambda}(d,4)&=&\frac{\log\frac{8d^4+68d^3+253d^2+588d+539}{8d^4+52d^3+125d^2+130d+49}}{\log 4}\nonumber
\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hspace{-30mm}f(d,5)=\frac{1}{Q^2}(73728d^{13}+2162688d^{12}+29576192d^{11}+258155264d^{10}+1614743456d^9 \nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm} +7530179904d^8+26333589428d^7+68567523880d^6+131200269465d^5 \nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm} +180815964435d^4+173716650934d^3+109891587638d^2+40940417277d \nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm}+6768087791) \nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\hspace{-30mm}g(d,5)=\frac{1}{Q^2}(36864d^{13}+1044480d^{12}+13706752d^{11}+110574336d^{10}+607189008d^9\nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm}+2357625920d^8+6492213656d^7+12314821608d^6+14686625629d^5\nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm}+7431447086d^4-6360742466d^3-13852397352d^2-9571181547d\nonumber\\
-2499415382)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\vspace{-30mm}h(d,5)=\frac{-1}{Q^2}(36864d^{12}+1081344d^{11}+14788096d^{10}+125353216d^9+732200464d^8\nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm}+3083843024d^7+9521524696d^6+21544010108d^5+35237710633d^4\nonumber\\
\vspace{15mm}+40459001364d^3+30870831766d^2+14032614408d+2871299265)\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\vspace{-35mm}D_2(d,5)=\frac{\
log{\frac{192d^7+3104d^6+22348d^5+95720d^4+280525d^3+559419d^2+652155d+320017}
{Q}}}{\log{5}}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\vspace{-35mm}\bar{\lambda}(d,5)=\frac{ \log{\frac{(192d^7+3104d^6+22348d^5
+95720d^4+280525d^3+559419d^2+652155d+320017)Q}
{(d+1)P}}}{\log{5}}\nonumber
\\\end{aligned}$$ with $\bf P$ and $\bf Q$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\vspace{-30mm}P=(36864d^{13}+1044480d^{12}+13706752d^{11}+110574336d^{10}+614600976d^9\nonumber\\
\vspace{30mm}+2499189440d^8+7689210552d^7+18190236812d^6+33121369305d^5\nonumber\\
\vspace{30mm}+45749851193d^4+46378189714d^3+32473949342d^2+13985550557d\nonumber\\
+2781136877)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$Q=(192d^6+2528d^5+13804d^4+39844d^3+63997d^2+54158d+18825)(d+1).$$
It is straightforward to see that these results will also hold true for $\bf (d+1)$-honeycomb fractal conductor network with decimation number $\bf b$, which can be constructed from a given $\bf (d+1)$-simplex fractal conductor network, simply by replacing the resistors in the links with the resistors which connect the center of a subfractal to its vertices, (see Fig. [**2**]{}) where, this has also been shown for $\bf d=2$ and $\bf b=2$ case in reference [@Pak].\
\
\
\
Appendix I: Calculation of currents of ${\bf b=3}$.
Here in this Appendix we give the detail of calculation of inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=3}$
Following the procedure of section IV, for ${\bf b=3}$ we have
$$\hspace{-78mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=I_j$$ $$\hspace{-64mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-39mm} a_2(2)I_j+b_{21}(2)I_j+b_{21}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-49mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-30mm}a_{11}(1)(I_j+I_k)+b_{21}(2)I_j+b_{21}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}a_{11}(1)(I_j+I_k)+b_{111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l).$$ Using equation (5-2a) in subfractal ${\bf (0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)}$, we get
$$\hspace{-52mm}1+d(a_2(2)+b_{21}(2))-b_{21}(1)=0,$$ also using equation (5-2a) in subfractal ${\bf (0,...,0,1_j,0,...,1_k,0,...,0)}$ we get $$\hspace{-29mm}(d+1)a_{11}(1)+b_{21}(1)+b_{21}(2)+(d-2)b_{111}(1)=0,$$ also, for vertices equation (5-2b) gives
$$\begin{aligned}
& &a_2(2)+2b_{21}(2)+a_{11}(1)=0\\
& &a_{11}(1)+2b_{21}(1)=0\\
& &2a_{11}(1)+3b_{111}(1)=0.\end{aligned}$$
By solving the above equations we can determine inner inward flowing currens corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=3}$ which is given in section V.\
\
\
Appendix II: Calculation of currents of ${\bf b=4}$.
Here in this Appendix we give the detail of calculation of inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=4}$
Similarly, following the procedure of section IV, for ${\bf b=4}$ we have
$$\hspace{-81mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=I_j$$ $$\hspace{-65mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-81mm} a_3(3)I_j+b_{31}(3)I_j+b_{31}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-50mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-64mm}a_{21}(2)I_j+a_{21}(1)I_k+b_{31}(3)I_j+b_{31}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-51mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-69mm}a_{21}(2)I_j+a_{21}(1)I_k+b_{22}(2)(I_j+I_k)$$ $$\hspace{-29mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-54mm}a_{21}(2)I_j+a_{21}(1)+b_{211}(2)I_j+b_{211}(1)(I_k+I_l)$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-47mm}a_{111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l)+b_{211}(2)I_j+b_{211}(1)(I_k+I_l)$$ $$\hspace{-2mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0} (0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot,
\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-44mm}a_{111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l)+b_{1111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l+I_m).$$ Now, imposing Kirchhoff’s law on subfractals and vertices, we get the following equations for ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &1+da_3(3)+b_{31}(3)-b_{31}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{21}(2)+b_{31}(3)+b_{22}(2)+(d-1)b_{211}(2)-b_{211}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{21}(2)+b_{31}(1)+b_{22}(2)+(d-2)b_{211}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{111}(2)+b_{211}(2)+(d-3)b_{1111}(1)=0\\
& &a_{21}(1)+2b_{31}(1)=0 \\
& &a_{3}(3)+b_{21}(2)+2b_{31}(3)=0\\
& &a_{21}(2)+a_{21}(1)+2b_{22}(2)=0 \\
& &2a_{21}(2)+a_{111}(1)+3b_{211}(2)=0\\
& &a_{21}(1)+a_{111}(1)+3b_{211}(1)=0 \\
& &3a_{111}(1)+4b_{1111}(1)=0.\end{aligned}$$
By solving the above equations we can determine inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=4}$ which appear in section V.\
\
\
Appendix III: Calculation of currents of ${\bf b=5}$.
Here in this Appendix we give the detail of calculation of inner inward flowing currents corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=5}$
Finally following the procedure of section IV, for ${\bf b=5}$ we have
$$\hspace{-81mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{5}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=I_j$$ $$\hspace{-65mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-81mm} a_4(4)I_j+b_{41}(4)I_j+b_{41}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-50mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{4}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-64mm}a_{31}(3)I_j+a_{31}(1)I_k+b_{41}(4)I_j+b_{41}(1)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-51mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-69mm}a_{31}(3)I_j+a_{31}(1)I_k+b_{32}(3)I_j+b_{32}(3)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-24mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-54mm}a_{31}(3)I_j+a_{31}(1)+b_{311}(3)I_j+b_{311}(1)(I_k+I_l)$$ $$\hspace{-45mm}I_{0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,
\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0}(0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,\cdot\cdot,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-64mm}a_{22}(2)(I_j+I_k)+b_{32}(3)I_j+b_{32}(2)I_k$$ $$\hspace{-25mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,.,0}(0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,.,0,
\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-64mm}a_{22}(2)(I_j+I_k)+b_{221}(2)(I_j+I_k)+b_{221}(1)I_l$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0}(0,.,0,\underbrace{3}_{j-th},0,.,0,
\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-47mm}a_{211}(2)I_j+a_{211}(1)(I_k+I_l)+b_{311}(3)I_j+b_{311}(1)(I_k+I_l)$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0}(0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,
\underbrace{2}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0)=$$ $$\hspace{-47mm}a_{211}(2)I_j+a_{211}(1)(I_k+I_l)+b_{221}(2)(I_j+I_k)+b_{221}(1)I_l$$ $$\hspace{-2mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0} ({0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,\cdot,
\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0})=$$ $$\hspace{-44mm}a_{211}(2)I_j+a_{211}(1)(I_k+I_l)+b_{2111}(2)I_j+b_{2111}(1)(I_k+I_l+I_m)$$
$$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0} ({0,.,0,\underbrace{2}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0})=$$ $$\hspace{-47mm}a_{111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l+I_m)+b_{2111}(2)I_j+b_{2111}(1)(I_k+I_l+I_m)$$ $$\hspace{-15mm}I_{0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0} ({0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{j-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{k-th},0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{l-th},0,.,0,.,0,\underbrace{1}_{m-th},0,.,0\underbrace{1}_{n-th},0,.,0})=$$ $$\hspace{-47mm}a_{111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l+I_m)+b_{11111}(1)(I_j+I_k+I_l+I_m+I_n).$$ Again imposing Kirchhoff’s law on subfractals and vertices, we get the following equations for ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &1+da_4(4)+b_{41}(3)-b_{41}(1)=0 \\
& &(d+1)a_{31}(3)+b_{41}(4)+b_{32}(3)+(d-1)b_{311}(3)-b_{311}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{31}(1)+b_{41}(1)+b_{32}(2)+(d-2)b_{311}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{22}(1)+b_{32}(3)+b_{32}(2)+(d-1)b_{221}(2)-b_{221}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{211}(2)+b_{311}(3)+2b_{221}(2)+(d-2)b_{2111}(2)-b_{2111}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{211}(2)+b_{311}(1)+b_{221}(2)+b_{221}(1)+(d-3)b_{2111}(1)=0\\
& &(d+1)a_{1111}(2)+b_{2111}(2)+3b_{2111}(1)+(d-4)b_{11111}(1)=0\\
& &a_{4}(4)+a_{31}(3)+2b_{41}(4)=0 \\
& &a_{31}(1)+2b_{41}(1)=0\\
& &a_{31}(3)+a_{22}(2)+2b_{32}(3)=0 \\
& &a_{31}(1)+a_{22}(2)+2b_{32}(2)=0\\
& &2a_{31}(3)+a_{211}(2)+3b_{311}(3)=0 \\
& &a_{31}(1)+a_{211}(1)+3b_{311}(1)=0\\
& &a_{22}(2)+a_{211}(2)+a_{211}(1)+3b_{221}(2)=0 \\
& &2a_{211}(1)+3b_{221}(1)=0\\
& &3a_{211}(2)+a_{1111}(1)+4b_{2111}(2)=0 \\
& &2a_{211}(1)+a_{1111}(1)+4b_{2111}(1)=0\\
& &4a_{1111}(1)+5b_{11111}(1)=0.\end{aligned}$$
By solving the above equations we can determine inner inward flowing currens corresponding to decimation number ${\bf b=5}$ which appear in section V.
.
[**Conclusion**]{}\
Here in this work it has been rigorously shown that the macroscopic isotropy will be restored if the corresponding renormalization map between two different scales has properties such as: positivity, homogeneity of first order and most of all monotonically increasing property. Obviously, homogeneity is enough and the order of homogeneity does not play a very important role. It is clear that this can be true in many physical phenomena, where we quote only very few of them here: Diffusion in inhomogeneous media [@Smith; @Haus], elasticity property of rubber or the network of polymer chains[@Bas], conductivity in random resitor network [@Cle] , flux distribution in josephson junction networks[@Grim]. It would be rather interesting to see whether there exist the restoration isotropy which is not due to positive, homogeneous, and monotonically increasing renormalization map of two different scales.
[**[ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]{}**]{}
We wish to thank Dr. S. K. A. Seyed Yagoobi for his careful reading the article and for his constructive comments.
[99]{}
; [*Physical Review Letter [**47**]{} (1981) 1771.*]{}
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce and study some generalizations of regular spaces, which were motivated by studying continuity properties of functions between (regular) topological spaces. In particular, we prove that a first-countable Hausdorff topological space is regular if and only if it does not contain a topological copy of the Gutik hedgehog.'
address: 'Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Universytetska Str., 1, 79000, Lviv, Ukraine'
author:
- 'Taras BANAKH, Bogdan BOKALO'
title: ON SOME FUNCTIONAL GENERALIZATIONS OF THE REGULARITY OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES
---
In this paper we introduce and study some generalizations of regular spaces, which were motivated by continuity properties of functions between (regular) topological spaces. First we introduce the necessary definitions.
A subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ is called [*$\theta$-open*]{} if each point $x\in U$ has a neighborhood $O_x\subset X$ such that $\bar O_x\subset U$. It is clear that each $\theta$-open set is open. Moreover, a topological space is [*regular*]{} if and only if each open subset of $X$ is $\theta$-open.
\[l:t-open\] Let $U$ be a $\theta$-open subset of a topological space $X$ and $V$ be a $\theta$-open subset of $U$. Then $V$ is $\theta$-open in $X$.
For each point $x\in V$, the $\theta$-openness of $U$ in $X$ yields an open neighborhood $U_x\subset X$ such that ${\mathrm{cl}}_X(U_x)\subset U$. The $\theta$-openness of $V$ in $U$ yields an open neughborhood $V_x\subset U$ such that ${\mathrm{cl}}_U(V_x)\subset U$. Now consider the open neighborhood $O_x=V_x\cap U_x$ and observe that ${\mathrm{cl}}_X(O_x)\subset {\mathrm{cl}}_X(V_x)\cap{\mathrm{cl}}_X(U_x)\subset {\mathrm{cl}}_X(V_x)\cap U={\mathrm{cl}}_U(V_x)\subset V$.
For a function $f:X\to Y$ between topological spaces by $C(f)$ we denote the set of continuity points of $f$.
A function $f:X\to Y$ beween topological spaces is called
- [*scatteredly continuous*]{} if for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the set $C(f|A)$ is not empty;
- [*weakly discontinuous*]{} if if for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the set $C(f|A)$ has non-empty interior in $A$;
- [*$\theta$-weakly discontinuous*]{} if if for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the set $C(f|A)$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset of $A$.
So, we have the implications: $$\mbox{$\theta$-weakly discontinuous ${\Rightarrow}$ weakly discontinuous ${\Rightarrow}$ scatteredly continuous}.$$
The first and last implications can be reversed for functions with regular domain and range, respectively.
\[t:trivial\] A function $f:X\to Y$ from a regular topological space $X$ to a topological space $Y$ is weakly discontinuous if and only if it is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
\[t:Bokalo\] A function $f:X\to Y$ from a topological space $X$ to a regular space $Y$ is scatteredly continuous if and only if it is weakly discontinuous.
A proof the Theorem \[t:Bokalo\] can be found in [@AB], [@BM]. More information on various sorts of generalized continuity can be found in [@Ba]–[@Vino].
Motivated by Theorems \[t:trivial\] and \[t:Bokalo\], let us introduce the following definition.
A topological space $X$ is called
- [*$sw$-regular*]{} if any scatteredly continuous function $f:Z\to X$ defined on a topological space $Z$ is weakly discontinuous;
- [*$w\theta$-regular*]{} if any weakly discontinuous function $f:X\to Y$ to any topological space $Y$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
Theorems \[t:trivial\] and \[t:Bokalo\] imply that each regular space is $sw$-regular and $w\theta$-regular.
The following theorem characterizes $w\theta$-regular spaces.
\[t:wt-char\] A topological space $X$ is $w\theta$-regular if and only if for each subspace $A\subset X$, each non-empty open subset $U\subset A$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset of $A$.
To prove the “if” part, assume that for each subspace $A\subset X$, every non-empty open subset $U\subset A$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset of $A$. To show that the space $X$ is $w\theta$-regular, fix any weakly discontinuous map $f:X\to Y$. To show that $f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, take any non-empty subset $A\subset X$. Since $f$ is weakly discontinuous, there exists a non-empty open subset $U\subset A$ such that $f|U$ is continuous. By our assumption, $U$ contains a $\theta$-open subspace $V$ of $A$. Since $f|V$ is continuous, the function $f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
Now we prove the “only if” part. Assume that the space $X$ is $w\theta$-regular. Given any subset $A\subset X$ and a non-empty open subset $U\subset A$, consider the closures $\bar A$ and $\overline{A\setminus U}$ of the sets $A$ and $A\setminus U$ in $X$. Observe that $\tilde U:=\bar A\setminus \overline{A\setminus U}$ is an open set in $\bar A$ with $\tilde U\cap A=U$ and $\tilde U\subset \overline{U}$. Consider the topological sum $Y=\tilde U\oplus (X\setminus \tilde U)$ and observe that the identity map $f:X\to Y$ is weakly discontinuous. The $w\theta$-regularity of the space $X$ ensures that $f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. Consequently, the closure $\bar U$ of $U$ in $\bar A$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset $V\subset\bar U$ such that $f|V$ is continuous. The continuity of $f|V$ ensures that $V\subset \tilde U$. We claim that $V$ is $\theta$-open in $\bar A$. Since $V$ is $\theta$-open in $\bar U$, for any $x\in V$ there exists a neighborhood $O_x$ of $x$ such that $O_x$ is open in $\bar U$ and $O_x\subset \overline{O}_x\subset V\subset\tilde U$. So, $O_x$ is open in $\tilde U$ and hence is open in $\bar A$.
Taking into account that $V$ is a non-empty $\theta$-open subset of $\bar A$, we conclude that $V\cap A\subset \tilde U\cap A=U$ is a non-empty $\theta$-open subset of $A$, contained in the set $U$.
Characterize topological spaces, which are $sw$-regular.
We shall prove that $sw$-regular and $w\theta$-regular spaces are preserved by $\theta$-weak homeomorphisms.
A bijective function $f:X\to Y$ between topological spaces is called a ($\theta$-)[*weak homeomorphism*]{} if both functions $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are ($\theta$-)weakly discontinuous.
We shall need the following proposition describing the continuity properties of compositions of scatteredly continuous, weakly discontinuous and $\theta$-weakly discontinuous functions.
\[p:composition\] Let $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to Z$ be two functions between topological spaces.
1. If $f,g$ are weakly discontinuous, then $g\circ f$ is weakly discontinuous.
2. If $f,g$ are $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, then $g\circ f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
3. If $f$ is weakly discontinuous and $g$ is scatteredly continuous, then $g\circ f$ is scatteredly continuous.
4. If $f$ is scatteredly continuous and $g$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, then $g\circ f$ is scatteredly continuous.
1\. Assume that $f,g$ are weakly discontinuous. To prove that $g\circ f$ is weakly discontinuous, we need to show that for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the set $C(g\circ f|A)$ has non-empty interior in $A$. By the weak discontinuity of $f$, the set $C(f|A)$ contains a non-empty open subset $U\subset A$. By the weak discontinuity of $g$, the set $C(g|f(U))$ contains a non-empty open set $V\subset f(U)$. By the continuity of $f|U$, the set $W=(f|U)^{-1}(V)$ is open in $U$ and hence open in $A$. Since $f(W)\subset V$, the continuity of the restrictions $f|W$ and $g|V$ implies the continuity of the restriction $g\circ f|W$. So, $W\subset C(g\circ f|A)$.
2\. Assume that $f,g$ are $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. To prove that $g\circ f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, we need to show that for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the set $C(g\circ f|A)$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset $W\subset A$. By the $\theta$-weak discontinuity of $f$, the set $C(f|A)$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset $U\subset A$. By the $\theta$-weak discontinuity of $g$, the set $C(g|f(U))$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open set $V\subset f(U)$. By the continuity of $f|U$, the set $W=(f|U)^{-1}(V)$ is $\theta$-open in $U$ and hence $\theta$-open in $A$, by Lemma \[l:t-open\]. Since $f(W)\subset V$, the continuity of the restrictions $f|W$ and $g|V$ implies the continuity of the restriction $g\circ f|W$. Now we see that the set $C(g\circ f|A)$ contains the non-empty $\theta$-open subset $W$ of $A$, witnessing that $g\circ f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
3\. Assume that $f$ is weakly discontinuous and $g$ is scatteredly continuous. To prove that $g\circ f$ is scatteredly continuous, we need to show that for any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ the function $g\circ f|A$ has a continuity point. By the weak discontinuity of $f$, the set $C(f|A)$ contains a non-empty open subset $U\subset A$. By the scattered continuity of $g$, the function $g|f(U)$ has a continuity point $y$. Then any point $x\in U\cap f^{-1}(y)$ is a continuity point of the restriction $g\circ f|A$.
4\. Assume that $f$ is scatteredly continuous and $g$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. Given a non-empty subset $A\subset X$, we need to show that the restriction $g\circ f|A$ has a continuity point. Let $A_0:=A$ and $A_\alpha:=\bigcap_{\beta<\alpha}A_\beta\setminus C(f|A_\beta)$ for any non-zero ordinal $\alpha$. In particular, $A_{\alpha+1}=A_\alpha\setminus C(f|A_\alpha)$ for any ordinal $\alpha$.
Let $\delta$ be the smallest ordinal such that $A_\delta$ is not dense in $A$ and let $W=A\setminus\overline{A}_\delta$. It follows that $W=\bigcup_{\alpha<\delta}W\cap C(f|A_\alpha)$ and each set $W\cap C(f|A_\alpha)$ is dense in $W$ (by the scattered continuity of $f$).
Since the function $g$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, the set $C(g|f(W))$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subset $V\subset f(W)$. Since $W=\bigcup_{\alpha<\delta}W\cap C(f|A_\alpha)$, we can choose the smallest ordinal $\gamma<\delta$ such that $W\cap C(f|A_\gamma)\cap f^{-1}(V)\ne\emptyset$. Choose a point $x\in W\cap C(f|A_\gamma)\cap f^{-1}(V)$. Since the set $V$ is $\theta$-open in $f(W)$, the point $f(x)\in V$ has a closed neighborhood $\bar O_{f(x)}\subset f(W)$ such that $\bar O_{f(x)}\subset V$. By the continuity of the map $f|A_\gamma$ at $x$, there exists an open neighborhood $O_x\subset W$ of $x$ such that $f(O_x\cap A_\gamma)\subset \bar O_{f(x)}\subset V$.
We claim that $\gamma=0$. To derive a contradiction, assume that $\gamma>0$. In this case $W\cap C(f|A_0)\cap f^{-1}(V)=\emptyset$ and hence $x\notin C(f|A_0)=C(f|A)$. By the density of $C(f|A)$ in $A$, there exists a point $z\in O_x\cap C(f|A)$. It follows that $f(z)\in W\setminus V\subset W\setminus \bar O_{f(x)}$. By the continuity of $f|W$ at $z$, there exists an open neighborhood $O_z\subset O_x$ such that $f(O_z)\subset f(W)\setminus \bar O_{f(x)}$. Then $$f(O_z\cap A_\gamma)=f(O_z\cap O_x\cap A_\gamma)\subset f(O_z)\cap f(O_x\cap A_\gamma)\subset (f(W)\setminus\bar O_{f(x)})\cap\bar O_{f(x)}=\emptyset$$ and hence $O_z\cap A_\gamma=\emptyset$, which contradicts the density of $A_\gamma$ in $A$. This contradiction shows that $\gamma=0$ and hence $x\in C(f|A_\gamma)=C(f|A)$ is a continuity point of $f|A$ with $f(O_x)\subset V$. The continuity of the restriction $g|V$ implies that $g\circ f|A$ is continuous at $x$. So, $g\circ f|A$ has a continuity point.
A topological space $X$ is $sw$-regular if there exists a $\theta$-weakly discontinuous bijective function $h:X\to Y$ to an $sw$-regular space $Y$ such that $h^{-1}$ is weakly discontinuous.
To show that $X$ is $sw$-regular, we need to show that each scatteredly continuous function $f:Z\to X$ is weakly discontinuous. By Proposition \[p:composition\](4), the composition $h\circ f:Z\to Y$ is scatteredly continuous. Since $Y$ is $sw$-regular, the function $h\circ f$ is weakly discontinuous. By Proposition \[p:composition\](1), the composition $h^{-1}\circ h\circ f=f$ is weakly discontinuous.
A topological space $X$ is $w\theta$-regular if there exists a $\theta$-weakly discontinuous bijective function $h:X\to Y$ to a $w\theta$-regular space $Y$ such that $h^{-1}$ is weakly discontinuous.
To see that $X$ is $w\theta$-regular, we need to show that each weakly discontinuous function $f:X\to Z$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. By Proposition \[p:composition\](1), the composition $f\circ h^{-1}:Y\to Z$ is weakly discontinuous. Since $Y$ is $w\theta$-regular, the function $f\circ h^{-1}$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. By Proposition \[p:composition\](2), the composition $f\circ h^{-1}\circ h=f$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous.
\[c:homo\] The classes of $sw$-regular and $w\theta$-regular spaces are preserved by $\theta$-weak homeomorphisms.
A topological space $X$ is called ($\theta$-)[*weakly regular*]{} if it is ($\theta$-)weakly homeomorphic to a regular topological space.
\[ex:Bokalo\] Consider the real line ${\mathbb R}$ endowed with the second-countable topology $\tau$ generated by the subbase $$\{{\mathbb Q}\}\cup\{(-\infty,a),(a,+\infty):a\in{\mathbb R}\}.$$ It can be shown that the topological space $X=({\mathbb R},\tau)$ is weakly regular. The identity map ${\mathbb R}\to X$ is scatteredly continuous but not weakly discontinuous, which implies that the space $X$ is not $sw$-regular. On the other hand, the function $\chi:X\to\{0,1\}\subset{\mathbb R}$ defined by $$\chi(x)=\begin{cases}
1&\mbox{if $x\in{\mathbb Q}$};\\
0&\mbox{if $x\in{\mathbb R}\setminus{\mathbb Q}$;}
\end{cases}$$is weakly discontinuous but not $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, witnessing that the space $X$ is not $w\theta$-regular. Theorem \[t:wr=>sw+twr\] implies that the space $X$ is not $\theta$-weakly regular.
Theorem \[t:trivial\], \[t:Bokalo\] and Corollary \[c:homo\] imply:
\[t:wr=>sw+twr\] Each $\theta$-weakly regular space is $sw$-regular and $w\theta$-regular.
\[t:twr\] A topological space $X$ is $\theta$-weakly regular if and only if each non-empty (closed) subspace $A\subset X$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open regular subspace.
First assume that $X$ is $\theta$-weakly regular and fix any $\theta$-weak homeomorphism $h:X\to Y$ to a regular topological space $Y$.
Given any subspace $A\subset X$, we need to find a non-empty $\theta$-open regular subspace $W\subset A$. Since the map $h$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, there exists a non-empty $\theta$-open subset $U\subset A$ such that $h|U$ is continuous. Since $h^{-1}$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous, the non-empty subspace $h(U)$ of $Y$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open subspace $V$ such that $h^{-1}|V$ is continuous. The continuity of the map $h|U$ implies that the set $W:=(h|U)^{-1}(V)$ is $\theta$-open in $U$ and hence $\theta$-open in $A$ (by Lemma \[l:t-open\]). The continuity of maps $h|W$ and $h^{-1}|h(W)$ implies that $h|W:W\to h(W)$ is a homeomorphism. The regularity of the topological space $Y$ implies the regularity of its subspace $h(W)$ and the regularity of the topological copy $W$ of $h(W)$. Therefore, $W$ is a required non-empty $\theta$-open regular subspace of $A$.
Now assume that each non-empty closed subspace $A\subset X$ contains a non-empty $\theta$-open regular subspace. Let $A^\theta$ be the union of all $\theta$-open regular subspaces of $A$. It is clear that the subspace $A^\theta$ is $\theta$-open in $A$ and regular. Let $X_0:=X$ and $X_\alpha=\bigcap_{\beta<\alpha}X_\beta\setminus X_\beta^\theta$ for each ordinal $\alpha$. It follows that for any ordinal $\alpha$ with $X_\alpha\ne\emptyset$ the set $X_{\alpha+1}=X_\alpha\setminus X_\alpha^\theta$ is closed in $X_\alpha$ and has non-empty complement $X_{\alpha+1}\setminus X_\alpha=X_\alpha^\theta$. Consequently, $X_\gamma=\emptyset$ for some $\gamma$ and hence $X=\bigcup_{\alpha<\gamma}X_\gamma^\theta$.
Let $Y:=\bigoplus_{\alpha<\gamma}X_\alpha^\theta$ be the topological sum of the regular spaces $X_\alpha^\theta$ for $\alpha<\gamma$. It is clear that the space $Y$ is regular and the identity map $i:Y\to X$ is continuous. We claim that the identity map $i^{-1}:X\to Y$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. Given any non-empty subset $A\subset X$ find the smallest ordinal $\beta\le\gamma$ such that $A\not\subset X_\beta$. Then $A\subset X_\alpha$ for all $\alpha<\beta$, which implies that $\beta$ is a successor ordinal. Write $\beta=\alpha+1$ for some $\alpha$ and observe that $U=A\cap X_\alpha^\theta=A\cap(X_\alpha\setminus X_{\alpha+1})$ is a non-empty $\theta$-open subspace of $A$ such that $i^{-1}|U$ is continuous. This means that $i^{-1}$ is $\theta$-weakly discontinuous and $i:X\to Y$ is a $\theta$-weak homeomorphism of $X$ onto the regular space $Y$.
By analogy we can prove a characterization of weakly regular spaces.
\[t:wr\] A topological space $X$ is weakly regular if and only if each (closed) subspace $A\subset X$ contains a non-empty open regular subspace.
A topological space $X$ is called
- [*quasi-regular*]{} if each non-empty open subset of $X$ contains the closure of some non-empty open set in $X$;
- [*hereditarily quesi-regular*]{} if each subspace of $X$ is quesi-regular.
Theorem \[t:wt-char\] implies
\[c:wt=>hqr\] Each $w\theta$-regular space is hereditarily quasi-regular.
Theorems \[t:twr\] and \[t:wr=>sw+twr\] imply:
\[cor1\] Each scattered $T_1$-space is $\theta$-weakly regular and hence is $sw$-regular and $w\theta$-regular.
The $T_1$-requirement in Corollary \[cor1\] is essential as shown by the following example.
\[ex\] Consider the connected doubleton $D=\{0,1\}$ endowed with the topology $\big\{\varnothing,\{0\},\{0,1\}\big\}$. It is clear that $D$ is a scattered space. The function $f\colon \mathbb R\to D$ defined by $$f(x)=\begin{cases}
1&\mbox{if $x\in\mathbb Q$};\\
0&\mbox{if $x\notin\mathbb Q$}
\end{cases}$$is scatteredly continuous but not weakly discontinuous as $C(f)=\mathbb Q$ has empty interior in $\mathbb R$. Consequently, $D$ is not $sw$-regular and hence not $\theta$-weakly regular.
The identity map $i:D\to \{0,1\}$ to the discrete doubleton is weakly discontinuous but not $\theta$-weakly discontinuous. This means that $D$ is not $w\theta$-regular.
A topological space $X$ is [*locally regular*]{} if $X$ admits an open cover by regular subspaces.
Theorem \[t:wr\] implies that each locally regular space is weakly regular.
Each locally regular topological space $Y$ is $sw$-regular.
Given a scatteredly continuous map $f:X\to Y$ and a non-empty subset $A\subset X$, we should show that the set $C(f|A)$ has non-empty interior in $A$.
By the scattered continuity of $f$, the map $f|A$ has a continuity point $a\in A$. By our assumption, the point $f(a)$ is contained in an open regular subspace $U\subset Y$. By the continuity of $f$ at $a$, there exists an open neighborhood $O_a\subset A$ of $a$ such that $f(O_a)\subset U$. Since $U$ is regular, the set $C(f|O_a)$ has non-empty interior in $O_a$ and then the set $C(f)\supset C(f|O_a)$ has non-empty interior in $A$.
\[ex:local\] On the real line ${\mathbb R}$ consider the Euclidean topology $\tau_E$ and the topology $\tau$ generated by the subbase $$\tau_E\cup\{W_n:n\in{\omega}\}\mbox{ \ where \ }W_n={\mathbb R}\setminus\left\{\tfrac1{2^k3^m}:m\in{\omega},\;k\ge n\right\}.$$ It can be shown that the space $X=({\mathbb R},\tau)$ is $\theta$-weakly regular but not locally regular.
A topological space $X$ is called [*regular at a point*]{} $x\in X$ if any neighborhoodof $x$ in $X$ contains a closed neighborhood of $x$ in $X$. A topological space $X$ is called [*nowhere regular*]{} if $X$ is not regular at each point $x\in X$.
\[ex:R\] Let $\tau_E$ be the Euclidean topology of the real line and $\tau$ be the topology generated by the subbase $$\{(U\cap{\mathbb Q})\cup\{x\}:x\in U\in\tau_E\}.$$The space $({\mathbb R},\tau)$ is locally regular and hence $sw$-regular. On the other hand, it is nowhere regular, not quasi-regular and not $w\theta$-regular.
Now, we describe the smallest non-regular first-countable Hausdorff space, which is called the Gutik hedgehog. The [*Gutik hedgehog*]{} is the space ${\mathbb N}^{\le 2}={\mathbb N}^0\cup{\mathbb N}^1\cup{\mathbb N}^2$ endowed with the topology generated by the base $$\{\{x\}:x\in {\mathbb N}^2\}\cup\{U_n:n\in{\mathbb N}\}\cup\{U_{n,m}:n,m\in{\mathbb N}\}$$where $$U_n=\{\emptyset\}\cup\{(i,j)\in{\mathbb N}^2:i\ge n\}\mbox{ and }U_{n,m}=\{(n)\}\cup\{(n,j):j\ge m\}\subset {\mathbb N}^1\cup{\mathbb N}^2$$for $n,m\in{\omega}$. Here $\emptyset$ is the unique element of the set ${\mathbb N}^0$. For the first time, the Gutik hedgehog has appeared in the paper [@GP] of Gutik and Pavlyk.
The following properties of the Gutik hedgehog can be derived from its definition.
The Gutik hedgehog is first-countable, scattered and locally regular, but not regular.
Moreover, the following theorem shows that the Gutik hedgehog is the smallest space among non-regular first-countable spaces.
A first-countable Hausdorff space $X$ is not regular if and only if $X$ contains a topological copy of the Gutik hedgehog.
The “if” part follows from the non-regularity of the Gutik hedgehog.
To prove the “only if” part, assume that a first-countable Hausdorff space $X$ is not regular at some point $x$. Then we can find a neighborhood $U_0\subset X$ of $x$ that does not contain the closure of any neighborhood $V$ of $x$. Fix a neighborhood base $\{U_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ at $x$ such that $U_n\subset U_{n-1}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$. Let $k_1=0$, choose any point $x_1\in \overline{U}_{k_1}\setminus U_0$, and using the Hausdorff property of $X$, find a neighborhood $V_1$ of $x_1$ such that $V_1\cap U_{k_2}=\emptyset$ for some number $k_2>k_1$.
Proceeding by induction, we can choose an increasing number sequence $(k_n)_{n\in{\omega}}$ and a sequence $(x_n)_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ of points in $X$ such that for every $n\in{\mathbb N}$, the point $x_n$ belongs to $\overline{U}_{k_n}\setminus U_0$ and has an open neighborhood $V_n$, disjoint with the neighborhood $U_{k_{n+1}}$ of $x$. Observe that for every $i<n$, we have $$x_n\in \overline{U}_{k_n}\subset\overline{U}_{k_i}\subset X\setminus V_i\subset X\setminus\{x_i\},$$ which implies that $x_n\notin\{x_i\}_{i<n}$. Replacing $V_n$ by a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, we can assume that its closure $\overline{V}_n$ does not contain the points $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}$.
Since $X$ is first-countable, for every $n\in{\mathbb N}$ we can choose a sequence $\{x_{n,i}\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ of pairwise distinct points in $V_n\cap U_{k_n}$ that converge to $x_n$. Observe that for any $n<m$ the sets $\overline{U}_{k_{n+1}}\supset\overline{U}_{k_m}\supset\{x_{m,i}\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ and $V_n\supset \{x_{n,i}\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ are disjoint, which implies that the points $x_{n,i}$, $n,i\in{\mathbb N}$, are pairwise disjoint. Consider the subspace $\tilde H:=\{x\}\cup\{x_n:n\in{\mathbb N}\}\cup\{x_{n,i}:n,i\in{\mathbb N}\}$ and observe that the map $h:H\to \tilde H$, defined by $h(\emptyset)=x$, $h(n)=x_n$ and $h(n,m)=x_{n,m}$ for $n,m\in{\mathbb N}$, is a homeomorphism.
Finally let us draw a diagram of all provable implications between various regularity properties. $$\xymatrix{
&\mbox{regular}\ar@{=>}[d]&\\
\mbox{$sw$-regular}&\mbox{$\theta$-weakly regular}\ar@{=>}[l]\ar@{=>}[d]\ar@{=>}[r]&\mbox{$w\theta$-regular}\ar@{=>}[d]\\
\mbox{locally regular}\ar@{=>}[r]\ar@{=>}[u]&\mbox{weakly regular}&\mbox{hereditarily}\atop\mbox{quasi-regular}
}$$
Examples \[ex:Bokalo\], \[ex:local\] and \[ex:R\] show that none of the implications $$\begin{gathered}
\mbox{weakly regular ${\Rightarrow}$ $sw$-regular},\\
\mbox{$\theta$-weakly regular ${\Rightarrow}$ locally regular},\\
\mbox{locally regular ${\Rightarrow}$ $w\theta$-regular}
\end{gathered}$$ holds in general.
Is each $sw$-regular space weakly regular? quasi-regular?
Which properties in the diagram are preserved by products?
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The authors express their sincere thanks to Alex Ravsky for careful reading the paper and many valuable suggestions improving the presentation.
[11]{}
A. V. Arkhangelskii and B. M. Bokalo, [*Tangency of topologies and tangential properties of topological spaces*]{}, Trans. Mosk. Math. Soc. **1993** (1993), 139–163. R. Baire, *Sur les fonctions de variables reelles*, Annali di Mat. (3) [**3**]{} (1899), no. 1, 1–123. DOI: 10.1007/BF02419243 T. Banakh and B. Bokalo, [*On scatteredly continuous maps between topological spaces*]{}, Topology Appl. [**157**]{} (2010), no. 1, 108–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.topol.2009.04.043 T. Banakh and B. Bokalo, [*Weakly discontinuous and resolvable functions between topological spaces*]{}, Hacet. J. Math. Stat. [**46**]{} (2017), no. 1, 103–110. DOI: 10.15672/HJMS.2016.399 T. Banakh, B. Bokalo, and N. Kolos, [*Topological properties preserved by weakly discontinuous maps and weak homeomorphisms*]{}, Topology Appl. [**221**]{} (2017), 91–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.topol.2017.02.036 B. M. Bokalo and N. M. Kolos, [*On operations on some classes of discontinuous functions*]{}, Carpathian Math. Publ. [**3**]{} (2011), no. 2, 36–48.
B. Bokalo and N. Kolos, [*When does $SC_p(X)=\mathbb{R}^X$ hold?*]{}, Topology [**48**]{} (2009), no. 2–4, 178–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.top.2009.11.016 B. Bokalo, O. Malanyuk, On almost continuous mappings (in Ukrainian), Mat. Stud. [**9**]{} (1995), no. 1, 90–93. O. Gutik, K. Pavlyk, [*On pseudocompact topological Brandt $\lambda^0$-extensions of semitopological monoids*]{}, Topological Algebra Appl. [**1**]{} (2013) 60–79.
L. Holá and Z. Piotrowski, [*Set of continuity points of functions with values in generalized metric spaces*]{}, Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. [**42**]{} (2009), 149–160. B. Kirchheim, , Real Anal. Exchange [**18**]{} (1992/93), no. 2, 385–389. V. A. Vinokurov, [*Strong regularizability of discontinuous functions*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**281**]{} (1985), no. 2, 265–269 (Russian).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Detecting H I using redshifted Ly$\alpha$ absorption lines is $\sim$10$^6$ times more sensitive than using the 21cm emission line. We review recent discoveries of H I Ly$\alpha$ absorbers made with the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) which have allowed us a first glimpse at gas in local intergalactic space between us and the “Great Wall”. Despite its mere 2.4m aperture, HST can detect absorbers with column densities as low as those found using Keck at high-$z$ (N$_{\rm HI} \approx 10^{12.5}$ cm$^{-2}$). New results that will be discussed include: the evolution of absorbers with redshift, the location of absorbers relative to galaxies (including the two-point correlation function for absorbers), the metallicity of absorbers far from galaxies, and the discovery of hot $\sim$10$^{5-6}$K (shock-heated?) absorbers. The unique ability of VLA H I observations in discovering the nearest galaxies to these absorbers is stressed.'
author:
- 'John T. Stocke, J. Michael Shull, Steven V. Penton, Brad K. Gibson, Mark L. Giroux, Kevin M. McLin'
title: 'The Local Ly$\alpha$ Forest: H I in Nearby Intergalactic Space'
---
Introduction
============
Unlike virtually all other astronomical objects, Ly$\alpha$ absorbing “clouds” were first discovered at great distances ($z\geq$2) due to cosmological redshifts and the near-UV atmospheric “cutoff”. It has only been with the advent of the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST), with access to the ultraviolet, that nearby examples have been found and studied. One of the major unexpected discoveries made during the first year of HST was that the numerous Ly$\alpha$ absorption lines found at high-$z$ persist, albeit with fewer numbers, into the present epoch (Bahcall et al. 1991, 1993; Morris et al. 1991; and subsequent HST QSO Absorption-Line Key Project papers by Jannuzi et al. 1998 and Weymann et al. 1998). Extrapolations of the steep redshift dependence of the number evolution of the lines seen at early times had predicted that very few low-$z$ Ly$\alpha$ lines would be found. While these absorbers likely account for the majority of all baryons at $z\geq$2, their still substantial numbers at $z$$\sim$0 imply that $\geq$20% of all baryons remain in these clouds locally (Shull, Penton & Stocke 1999a; Penton et al. 2000b; Davé et al. 1998, 2000). Thus, any account of the present-day distribution of baryons must include an accurate census of these clouds, and the mass associated with them, as inferred from their column densities and physical extent. Further, the evolving thermodynamic properties of the intergalactic medium (IGM) are probed using these clouds, as measurements of their doppler widths ($b$) reveal information about their temperatures. Observations of the changing $b$ distribution and metal content of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with time reveal the history of energy and metal injection into the IGM from $z\approx6$ to the present.
Although it is already clear that much or even most of the baryons could be in the local IGM, this number is quite uncertain, depending as it does on two poorly known quantities: (1) [**cloud extent**]{}: Physical extent measurements come only from common absorbers found in close pairs of QSO sightlines and suggest extents of 100-300 $h^{-1}$ kpc, but are difficult to interpret; see Impey (1999). Very large and elongated “clouds” are suggested by cosmological simulations (Cen et al. 1994; Davé et al. 1999), but sightline pairs alone cannot measure “cloud” shapes; (2) [**ionized fraction**]{}: Photoionized models of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers use the local AGN luminosity function (e.g., Shull et al. 1999) or limits on IGM H I cloud H$\alpha$ emission (e.g., Donahue et al. 1995) to estimate the intensity and spectrum of the local IGM ionizing flux. As has been stressed by several authors (Cen & Ostriker 1999; Davé et al. 2000), as many as 30-40% of all baryons could be in a hot, shock-ionized phase, outside galaxy clusters and groups. If so, the ionized fraction of many Ly$\alpha$ absorbers has been underestimated by using photoionization models, and the majority of local baryons are in the IGM, not in galaxies. However, one must take care not to “double count” individual absorbers that are detected both in Ly$\alpha$ and O VI, but only to make sure that an appropriate ionized fraction is used in the accounting.
While the above census is ample reason for studying the local Ly$\alpha$ forest in detail, it is also only at low-$z$ that Ly$\alpha$ absorber locations can be compared accurately with galaxy locations, so that the relationship between these “clouds” and galaxies can be determined. The degree to which absorbers correlate with galaxies has been controversial; Lanzetta et al (1995) and Chen et al. (1998) argue that the absorbers are the very extended halos of galaxies (see also Lin et al. 2000; Linder 2000), while Morris et al. 1993; Stocke et al. 1995; Impey, Petry & Flint 1999; Davé et al. 1999 and Penton et al. 2000b argue that the absorbers are related to galaxies only through their common association with large-scale gaseous filaments.
Results
=======
Surprisingly, and luckily for local IGM research, the modest HST aperture is competitive with the 10m aperture of the Keck Telescope ($+$HIRES spectrograph) in detecting Ly$\alpha$ absorbers because much brighter targets can be observed. Figure 1 shows an HST$+$STIS (Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) far-UV spectrum of the bright BL Lac Object PKS 2005-489, which detects Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with column density, N$_{\rm HI} \geq 10^{12.5}$ cm$^{-2}$, as low as the best Keck HIRES data (e.g., Cowie et al. 1995). For reference to other H I work in this conference, these absorbers have $\sim$10$^6$ times lower column densities than the weakest detections using the 21cm emission line. The results reported here come chiefly from an on-going survey of the local Ly$\alpha$ “forest”, which utlilizes spectra like that shown in Figure 1, and which is being conducted by our group at Colorado, in collaboration with J. van Gorkom (Columbia), C. Carilli and J. Hibbard (NRAO), and R. Weymann and M. Rauch (OCIW). These UV spectra also allow important studies (i.e., metallicities) of high velocity clouds (HVCs) not possible by other methods and which bear critically on the nature of these HVCs (see Gibson et al. contribution to this volume).
All specific results reported here use only the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) portion of our dataset, which includes 15 targets (Penton et al. 2000a,b, 2001). Fifteen additional targets have now been observed using STIS, which will extend the current results significantly. From our GHRS survey the following results have been obtained:
1. Although only 116,000kms$^{-1}$ in pathlength has been observed in our GHRS survey, we have detected 81 ($\geq$4$\sigma$) absorbers at $cz\leq$20,000 kms$^{-1}$, yielding a $dN/dz\sim$200 per unit redshift at N$_{\rm HI}\geq$10$^{13}$cm$^{-2}$ or one “cloud” every 20$h^{-1}_{75}$ Mpc! The 20% baryon fraction quoted above uses this line density, a 100 $h^{-1}_{75}$ kpc spherical cloud extent and the standard 10$^{-23}$ergss$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ local ionizing flux value (Shull et al. 1999). Figure 2 compares line densities as a function of redshift for two column density regimes: (1) N$_{\rm HI}\geq$10$^{14}$cm$^{-2}$ from the Bechtold (1994) high-$z$ compilation and the HST Key Project low-$z$ results of Weymann et al. (1998); and (2) 10$^{13.1}\leq$N$_{\rm HI}\leq$10$^{14}$cm$^{-2}$ from Kim et al. (1997) at high-$z$ and our GHRS survey at $z\leq$0.067. The overall trend in these two different column density regimes appears similar, and has been interpreted using N-body + hydrodynamic simulations (Davé et al. 1999) as follows: (1) At $z\geq$1.6, the expansion of the Universe plus a nearly constant ionizing flux greatly diminishes recombinations (i.e., the clouds are more highly ionized at lower redshift to $z\approx$2), but (2) at $z\leq$1.6, the rapidly falling ionizing flux (due to the diminished luminosities of AGN at $z\leq$1.6) partially offsets the decreasing recombinations, slowing the rapid evolution in $dN/dz$ seen at higher $z$. But, there is some indication of added complications in that the two column density regimes may evolve at different rates in $dN/dz$. At high-$z$, the Kim et al. data may have a shallower slope than the Bechtold data. At low-$z$, Weymann et al. find that their lower column density absorbers have a shallower slope in $dN/dz$ than their higher-N$_{\rm HI}$ absorbers. Spectra now being obtained by Jannuzi et al. in HST Cycles 8 and 9 (PID \#8312 & \#8673) should address this issue by filling-in the missing data near the question marks. It could even be that the lower column density absorbers may actually increase in numbers between $z\sim$1.0 and 0.
2. The absorber $b$-value distribution at $z\sim$0 is similar to that found at high-$z$, with a median $b$-value of 35kms$^{-1}$. No obvious correlation between $b$ and N$_{\rm HI}$ is found. However, when compared to $b$-values obtained from a curve-of-growth (COG) analysis using higher-order Lyman lines (Shull et al. 2000) from spectra obtained with the Far UV Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), Ly$\alpha$ line widths are a factor factor of two higher than the $b$-values inferred from the COG. The FUSE data suggest that local Ly$\alpha$ absorbers contain sizable nonthermal motions arising from cosmological expansion and infall. Measuring the actual $b$-values of these clouds is necessary to determine the IGM “effective equation of state” (Hui & Gnedin 1997; Ricotti, Gnedin & Shull 2000) and thus when heat has been input into the IGM. Higher resolution HST spectra and more FUSE spectroscopy of low-column-density absorbers are now being obtained to measure the $b$-values and clustering (see next item) of these clouds more precisely.
3. The two-point correlation function (TPCF), which measures the clustering of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers, is similar to that found at high-$z$ in that there is a 4$\sigma$ excess power over random at $cz\leq$200 km s$^{-1}$. Impey, Petry & Flint (1999) found a similar result using lower resolution spectra. The absence of significant clustering of these absorbers is strong evidence that Ly$\alpha$ clouds do not arise in galaxy halos, although some investigators (Impey & Bothun 1997; Linder 2000) suggest that this may indicate that low-surface-brightness (LSB) galaxy halos may be reponsible.
4. Using available bright galaxy redshift surveys, we have searched for the nearest known galaxies to these absorbers and have found no close matches among a subset of 45 absorbers in sky regions surveyed down to at least $L^*$. Typical nearest-neighbor distances are several hundred kpc to a few Mpc (median 1 Mpc) for H$_0$=75kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$. Seven of these absorbers lie in well-defined galaxy voids, with no known galaxies within 2-5$h^{-1}_{75}$Mpc. Deep optical and 21cm observations still in progress have failed to locate any galaxies close to these “void” absorbers (McLin et al., this volume).
5. The cumulative distribution of distances to nearest-neighbor galaxies and the correlation of equivalent widths (EW) with impact parameters ($\rho$) found by Penton et al. (2001) are similar to those published previously (Stocke et al. 1995). In the latter case, they are similar to the results found by Tripp, Lu & Savage (1998) and Impey, Petry & Flint (1999). The EW-$\rho$ correlation contains all the salient features (lack of correlation at low-N$_{\rm HI}$) expected from the N-body+hydrodynamic simulations of Davé et al. (1999). Davé et al. interpret this plot as due to large-scale structure filaments; the EW-$\rho$ correlation does [**not**]{} require either a physical or a causal association with individual galaxy halos as proposed by Lanzetta et al. (1995) and Lin et al. (2000). Our TPCF results and discovery of a substantial fraction ($\sim$16%) of all absorbers in voids supports the Davé et al. (1999) interpretation.
6. In one case, the sightline pair 3C273/Q1230$+$011 separated by 0.91$^\circ$ on the sky, we have a preliminary indication that both the 7 absorbers and 9 known galaxies in this vicinity are aligned along a single ($>500\, h^{-1}_{75}$kpc), elongated ($>$3:1) filament at $cz$=1000$-$2000kms$^{-1}$. This preliminary result (Penton et al. 2001) suggests that eventually, perhaps with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) on HST, we will be able to use Ly$\alpha$ absorbers and galaxy survey data (e.g. Sloan Survey) to map out the full extent of large-scale structure filaments in the local Universe.
7. For one case, a close grouping of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers at $cz\approx$ 17,000kms$^{-1}$ in the direction of PKS 2155-304, we have good metallicity limits (Shull et al. 1998) for low column density absorbers that lie far from galaxies. Figure 3 shows the PKS 2155-304 field, overlaid with 21cm emission contours (also at $cz\sim$17,000kms$^{-1}$) from the VLA. Deep optical galaxy survey work (McLin et al. this volume) has failed to find fainter galaxies closer to the absorbers than the H I emitters, reinforcing the importance of the VLA in this program. No metal lines (C IV and Si III) have been detected as yet in the several strong Ly$\alpha$ systems at this redshift, placing upper limits on the metallicity of these clouds of $\la$1% solar.
The metallicity result in \#7 is still preliminary, awaiting better H I column densities and metal-line measurements from new HST (STIS) and FUSE spectra. Also on-going is an attempt to map the extent of metals in the IGM around galaxies using C IV observations for a subset of local, partially saturated absorbers found in our GHRS survey, in conjunction with the available pencil-beam galaxy survey data. Preliminary results suggest that metals have been spread up to $\sim$150$h^{-1}_{75}$kpc from galaxies (Stocke et al.2001, in preparation), in agreement with simulations by Gnedin (1998). However, since we have found at least one absorber that is undetected in C IV, C III and C II but has strong O VI absorption (Tripp et al. 2001, in preparation), any metallicity result based on lower ionization species alone must be viewed with caution. The existence of this one Ly$\alpha$ $+$ O VI absorber is additional evidence for these shock-heated “clouds” (see Tripp contribution to this volume). We note that virtually all O VI absorbers (the Davé et al. “hot-warm” phase) should be detectable in Ly$\alpha$ and present in our GHRS survey. Therefore, it is important not to “double count” absorbers when determining the total baryon content of the local Ly$\alpha$ “forest”.
Finally, the PKS 2155-304 field in Figure 3 underscores the important role to be played by the VLA in this work. Virtually all of the very close ($\rho\leq$200h$^{-1}_{75}$) absorber-galaxy pairs to date are H I-discovered galaxies, including the closest impact parameter in our GHRS sample (100$h^{-1}_{75}$ kpc in the MRK335 sightline; van Gorkom et al. 1996) as well as the close proximity of the Haynes-Giovanelli H I cloud to the 3C273 and Q1230+011 sightlines (Penton et al. 2001). Only H I 21cm observations are unbiased against the discovery of LSB galaxies, which have been suggested to be responsible for some local Ly$\alpha$ absorbers.
The Future
==========
Over the next few years, we expect that our own work, as well as that of others, will increase the accuracy of every result in items \#1-5 above, including a revised value for the local baryon content of the IGM which is probably accurate to 50%. The $dN/dz$ relationship will be known in detail for both the high and low column density absorbers. Future work on items \#6 and \#7 will determine whether Ly$\alpha$ absorbers arise in large-scale structures or in very extended galaxy halos. If the former (which we strongly suspect based upon our own investigations) some local Ly$\alpha$ absorbers will be found which were never “polluted” with metals from the galaxies which co-habit the universal filamentary structure with them.
We acknowledge the financial support at the University of Colorado of grants provided through HST GO programs \#6593, \#8182 and \#8125, and NASA Theory Grant NAG5-7262. We wish to thank our collaborators in this work: Ray Weymann, Jacqueline van Gorkom, Chris Carilli, John Hibbard, Michael Rauch, and Jason Tumlinson.
[Bahcall, J.N. et al. 1991, , 377, L5 Bahcall, J.N. et al. 1993, , 87, 1 Bechtold, J. et al. 1994, , 437, L38 Cen, R. et al. 1994, , 427, L9 Cen, R. & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, , 519, L109 Chen, H.-W. et al. 1998, , 498, 77. Davé, R., Hernquist, L., Katz, N. & Weinberg, D.H. 1999, , 511, 521 Davé, R., et al. 2000, , submitted (astro-ph/0007217) Donahue, M., Aldering, G. & Stocke, J.T. 1995, , 450, L45 Gnedin, N.Y. 1998, , 294, 407. Hu, E.M.i, Kim, T.-S., Cowie, L.L., Songaila, A. & Rauch, M. 1995, , 110, 1526 Hui, L. & Gnedin, N.Y. 1997, , 292, 27. Impey, C.D. 1999, in Structure & Evolution of the IGM from QSO m Absorption Line Studies, ed. P. Petitjean & S. Charlot (Edition Frontiéres: Paris), 173 Impey, C.D. & Bothun, G.D. 1997, , 35, 267 Impey, C.D., Petry, C.E. & Flint, K.P. 1999, , 524, 536 Kim, T.-S., et al. 1997, , 114, 1 Jannuzi, B.T. et al. 1998, ApJS, 118, 1 Lanzetta, K. et al. 1995, , 442, 538 Lin, W.P., Borner, G. & Mo, H.J. 2000, , in press (astro-ph/0006389) Linder, S.M. 2000, , in press (astro-ph/9909194) Morris, S.L., Weymann, R.J., Savage, B.D. & Gilliland, R.L. 1991, , 377, L21 Morris, S.L., et al. 1993, , 419, 524 Penton, S.V., Stocke, J.T. & Shull, J.M. 2001, , submitted Penton, S.V., Stocke, J.T. & Shull, J.M. 2000a, , 130, in press (Sept, 2000) Penton, S.V., Shull, J.M. & Stocke, J.T. 2000b, , 544, in press (Nov 20, 2000) Ricotti, M., Gnedin, N.Y., & Shull, J.M. 2000, , 534, 41 Scott, J., Bechtold, J., Dobrzycyki, A., & Kulkarni, V. 2000, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0004155) Shull, J.M., Penton, S.V. & Stocke, J.T. 1999a, PASA, 16, 1695 Shull, J.M., et al. 1998, , 116, 2094 Shull, J.M., et al. 1999b, , 118, 1450 Shull, J.M., et al. 2000, , 538, L13 Stocke, J.T. et al. 1995, , 451, 24 Tripp, T., Lu, L. & Savage, B.D. 1998, , 508, 200 van Gorkom, J.H. et al. 1996, , 112, 1397 Weymann, R.J. et al. 1998, , 506, 1 ]{}
[**Questions**]{}
[*Linder:*]{} We don’t have a good sense of where all the galaxies are located within the Davé et al. simulation (such as LSB galaxies). Furthermore, an anti-correlation between equivalent width and impact parameter will be seen whether absorbers arise in galaxies or not. Thus, the anti-correlation seen by Davé et al. does not provide compelling evidence that absorbers do not arise in galaxies.
[*Stocke:*]{} It is certainly true that the Davé et al. simulations locate galaxies by a quite simple criterion that may have “missed” LSB galaxies. However, it is striking that both the observations and the simulations show similar slopes in the EW vs. $\rho$ relation as well as similar spreads in the data at both high and low column density. You may need to explain why 16% of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers are found in galaxy voids. We have looked for faint galaxies near these “void” absorbers and not found any. Also, to date, I know of no close association between any low-z Ly$\alpha$ forest cloud and any LSB galaxy, despite sensitive attempts to find them (e.g., Rauch, Morris & Weymann; Impey, Petry & Flint 1999; and our own H I work in collaboration with van Gorkom and Carilli). Because LSB galaxies are fairly abundant in H I, our H I surveys near Ly$\alpha$ absorbers should have found some. So far we have not.
[*Meiksin:*]{} The flattening in $dN/dz$ for the Ly$\alpha$ forest toward low redshift can be accounted for predominantly as an ionization effect: the proximity effect tells us the ionizing background has decreased by an order of magnitude or more from $z=3$ to $z=0$. This decrease is independent of the nature of the ionizing photon sources.
[*Stocke:*]{} I do not take the proximity effect results at $z \approx 0$ as definitive, but you are quite correct that the observational constraints (proximity effect at high $z$ and limits on H$\alpha$ emission from intergalactic H I clouds at $z < 1$) argues for a substantial decrease in ionizing flux, regardless of the sources.
[*Bland-Hawthorn:*]{} What about the possibility of condensation trails as the galaxies move through their environment? You could imagine metal enriched material a megaparsec away from the source.
[**Stocke:**]{} Yes, one could imagine such a thing. But the trick would be to prove that this is what is going on. Indeed, simulations (e.g., Gnedin 1998) show that mergers and winds can move supernovae-enriched gas 100$-$200$h^{-1}$kpc away from their creation site and cluster gas extends several hundreds of kpc from the cluster center. Sensitive searches for metal enriched gas far away from galaxies are difficult and have just begun, so until we find such gas, I am not too concerned about explaining its precise origins.
[*Katz:*]{} In the simulation, the Ly$\alpha$ absorbers come not from galaxies but from structures containing galaxies. The simulations do include supernovae feedback, but it doesn’t produce winds.
[*Stocke:*]{} Thanks, Neal, for that clarifiation. I add only that other simulations (e.g., Gnedin 1998) do show that supernovae winds and galaxy merger events can move gas only about 100$-$200$h^{-1}$kpc from galaxies, but nowhere near as far as the distances we observe Ly$\alpha$ clouds to be due to those galaxies (e.g., the “void” absorbers).
[*Disney:*]{} Is the change in the ionizing flux used to explain the change of $dN/dz$ with $z$ a simulation result, or an observation? How secure is it?
[*Stocke:*]{} Please see my reponse to Avery Meiksin’s question. The proximity effect is a measured quantity, which can be used to infer the mean ionizing background. The error bars are significant ($\sim 50$%), despite large samples of QSO absorbers (Scott et al. 2000). Other estimates of the ionizing intensity, $J_0$ at low redshift are more indirect (Shull et al. 1999), and depend both on QSO luminosity functions and radiative-transfer simulations. I would claim that the nearly two orders of magnitude drop in the ionizing flux from $z \approx 2$ to $z = 0$ is quite secure observationally, although its mean value in the IGM, to say nothing of its dispersion, has not been measured at $z\approx$0 directly.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I present results for the top quark pair total cross section and the top quark transverse momentum distribution at Tevatron and LHC energies. I also present results for single top quark production. All calculations include NNLO corrections from NNLL threshold resummation.'
---
[**Top quark cross sections and differential distributions**]{}
[Nikolaos Kidonakis]{}\
[**TOP-ANTITOP PAIR PRODUCTION**]{}
The leading order processes for top-antitop pair production are $q{\bar q} \rightarrow t {\bar t}$ (dominant at the Tevatron) and $gg \rightarrow t {\bar t}$ (dominant at LHC energies). The QCD corrections for top pair production are significant and receive contributions from soft-gluon corrections which are dominant near threshold. These soft corrections have been resummed through NNLL [@NKttbar], requiring two-loop calculations of the soft anomalous dimensions [@NKttbar; @NK2l]. Approximate NNLO differential-level cross sections, using single-particle inclusive kinematics for partonic threshold, can be derived from the expansion of the resummed cross section.
Figures 1 and 2 show the NNLO approximate cross section [@NKttbar] together with recent data from the corresponding experiments at the Tevatron [@CDFtt; @D0tt] and the LHC [@ATLAStt; @CMStt]. The theoretical prediction agrees well with the measured cross sections. The upper and lower curves indicate the uncertainty from scale variation and pdf errors. It is important to note that the soft-gluon approximation works very well not only for Tevatron but also for LHC energies because partonic threshold is still important. There is only 1% difference between the first-order approximate and exact corrections as shown in Fig. 3, and thus less than 1% difference between NLO approximate and exact cross sections. For our best prediction in Figs. 1 and 2 we added the NNLO approximate corrections to the exact NLO cross section. In all the results presented here we have used the MSTW 2008 NNLO pdf [@MSTW08].
At the Tevatron, we find that the NNLO corrections provide a 7.8% enhancement over NLO. For a top quark mass of 173 GeV, we find $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox}_{t{\bar t}}(m_t=173 \, {\rm GeV}, \, 1.96\,
{\rm TeV})=7.08 {}^{+0.00}_{-0.24} {}^{+0.36}_{-0.27} \; {\rm pb}$$ where the first uncertainty is from scale variation between $m_t/2$ and $2m_t$ and the second is from the MSTW NNLO pdf at 90% C.L. The NNLO approximate corrections reduce the scale dependence greatly over a large range; the separate factorization and renormalization scale dependence has also been calculated in [@NKttbar].
{width="11cm"}
At the LHC at 7 TeV energy, we find $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox}_{t{\bar t}}(m_t=173\, {\rm GeV}, \, 7\,
{\rm TeV})=163 {}^{+7}_{-5} {}^{+9}_{-9} \; {\rm pb},$$ which is an enhancement over NLO of 7.6%.
{width="11cm"}
{width="11cm"}
The top quark transverse momentum distribution at the Tevatron is shown in Fig. 4. The $p_T$ distribution is enhanced by the NNLO corrections but the shape is not significantly affected. Similar results have also been obtained for the LHC [@NKttbar].
{width="11cm"}
In Fig. 5 we show the theoretical cross sections for $t{\bar t}$ production in $p{\bar p}$ and $pp$ collisions as functions of collider energy and corresponding Tevatron [@CDFtt; @D0tt] and LHC [@ATLAStt; @CMStt] data, again noting the agreement between theory and experiment.
{width="11cm"}
[**SINGLE TOP QUARK PRODUCTION**]{}
We continue with single top quark production and start by discussing the $t$-channel processes: $qb \rightarrow q' t$ and ${\bar q} b
\rightarrow {\bar q}' t$. The $t$ channel is numerically the largest at the Tevatron and the LHC. We find for the NNLO approximate cross section [@NKtch] $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, top}_{t-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173 \, {\rm GeV
}, \, 1.96\, {\rm TeV})=1.04 {}^{+0.00}_{-0.02} \pm 0.06 \; {\rm pb},$$ $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, top}_{t-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173 \, {\rm GeV
}, \, 7\, {\rm TeV})=41.7 {}^{+1.6}_{-0.2} \pm 0.8 \; {\rm pb}.$$ The NNLO approximate corrections contribute a 4% increase over NLO at the Tevatron and a 1% decrease at the LHC at 7 TeV.
For $t$-channel antitop production the cross section at the Tevatron is identical to that for top production. However, at the LHC the cross section is different $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, antitop}_{t-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173 \, {\rm
GeV}, \, 7\, {\rm TeV})=22.5 \pm 0.5 {}^{+0.7}_{-0.9} \; {\rm pb}.$$
Figure 6 shows the combined single top plus single antitop $t$-channel cross section as a function of energy together with data from the Tevatron [@D0tch; @CDFtch] and the LHC [@CMStch; @ATLAStch]. Again, the theory is consistent with the measured cross sections.
{width="11cm"}
We continue with $s$-channel single top quark production: $q{\bar q}' \rightarrow {\bar b} t$, which is numerically small at both Tevatron and LHC energies [@NKsch]. For top production we find $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, top}_{s-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173 \, {\rm GeV
}, \, 1.96\, {\rm TeV})=0.523 {}^{+0.001}_{-0.005} {}^{+0.030}_{-0.028} \; {\rm pb},$$ $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, top}_{s-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173\, {\rm GeV
}, \, 7\, {\rm TeV})=3.17 \pm 0.06 {}^{+0.13}_{-0.10} \; {\rm pb}.$$ The NNLO approximate corrections are an enhancement over NLO of 15% at the Tevatron and 13% at the LHC. Figure 7 shows the $s$-channel top cross section as a function of top quark mass at the Tevatron. The antitop cross section at the Tevatron is the same.
{width="10cm"}
For $s$-channel antitop production at the LHC we have $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox,\, antitop}_{s-{\rm channel}}(m_t=173\,
{\rm GeV}, \, 7\, {\rm TeV})=1.42 \pm 0.01 {}^{+0.06}_{-0.07} \; {\rm pb}.$$
Finally, we present results for associated $tW$ production, $bg \rightarrow tW^-$ [@NKtWH]. The cross section for this process is very small at the Tevatron, but significant at the LHC. We find that the NNLO approximate corrections increase the NLO cross section by $\sim 8$% and $$\sigma^{\rm NNLOapprox}_{tW}(m_t=173 \, {\rm GeV}, \, 7\, {\rm TeV})
=7.8 \pm 0.2 {}^{+0.5}_{-0.6} \; {\rm pb}.$$ Figure 8 shows the $tW$ cross section at the LHC at both 7 TeV and 14 TeV energy. We note that the ${\bar t} W$ cross section is the same as that for $tW$ production.
{width="10cm"}
A related process is associated charged Higgs production, $bg \rightarrow tH^-$, where the NNLO approximate corrections increase the NLO cross section by $\sim 15$ to $\sim 20$% [@NKtWH].
[**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**]{}
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY 0855421.
[9]{}
N. Kidonakis, *Phys. Rev. D* **82**, 114030 (2010) \[arXiv:1009.4935 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Kidonakis, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **102**, 232003 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.2561 \[hep-ph\]\].
CDF Collaboration, Conf. Note 9913.
D0 Collaboration, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 192004 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.2779 \[hep-ex\]\]; *Phys. Rev. D* **80**, 071102(R) (2009) \[arXiv:0903.5525 \[hep-ex\]\]; *Phys. Rev. D* **82**, 032002 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4286 \[hep-ex\]\].
ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-040.
CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-11-001.
A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, *Eur. Phys. J. C* **63**, 189 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0002 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Kidonakis, *Phys. Rev. D* **83**, 091503(R) (2011) \[arXiv:1103.2792 \[hep-ph\]\].
D0 Collaboration, *Phys. Lett. B* **682**, 363 (2010) \[arXiv:0907.4259 \[hep-ex\]\].
CDF Collaboration, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 092002 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.0885 \[hep-ex\]\].
CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-10-008.
ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-027.
N. Kidonakis, *Phys. Rev. D* **81**, 054028 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.5034 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Kidonakis, *Phys. Rev. D* **82**, 054018 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.4451 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.